41 



Mr. POMEROY. We have been in communication with the ASCS 

 director in North Dakota, and it looks Uke today's version is going 

 to produce a more equitable result. 



Mr. Weber. Yes. As a matter of fact, we talked to him on Friday 

 and advised him that this change was being made. 



Mr. POMEROY. I will reserve judgment until we have a chance to 

 study it further, but the first read is a very good one, Mr. Weber; 

 and I commend you for that. 



In your testimony, you speak about the vomitoxin levels you 

 allow for in grain posted for loan collateral. 



Have you looked at what point were those levels set by ASCS? 



Mr. Weber. Well, we set them before FDA had come out with 

 their more recent advisory. We said that we would make 

 nonrecourse loans on any wheat that had four parts or less per mil- 

 lion. 



Now that FDA has changed that to five, we have changed our 

 procedure to follow the five — to follow what FDA has set. 



Mr. Pomeroy. That was the thrust of what I was getting at. I 

 was pleased that FDA did look at standards that were over 10 

 years old in vomitoxin levels and at that point derived largely from 

 Canadian research and looked at available information. And actu- 

 ally the revised standards in 1993 loosened the vomitoxin levels 

 somewhat. 



North Dakota State University, at my request, is conducting 

 studies on what actually the milling impact is on vomitoxin levels, 

 and the results are showing that concentrations are dramatically 

 reduced in the flower produced and vomitoxin tends to concentrate 

 in the by-products. 



I am wondering if you are continuing to look at this information 

 for purposes of possibly considering even higher levels that might 

 be acceptable to you? 



Mr. Weber. We will continue to look at those levels. And if it 

 does suggest that higher levels would be appropriate, we would 

 make the adjustments, yes. 



Mr. Pomeroy. Looks like my time is up. I will have a question 

 on the second round. 



Thank you. 



Mr. Johnson. Mr. English. 



Mr. English. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Weber, as I understand it, livestock are not covered under 

 any of the disaster payments; is that correct? 



Mr. Weber. Under the disaster payments, that is correct. There 

 is the livestock feed program for shortage of feed that can be paid. 

 However, you can't earn disaster payments and livestock feed on, 

 again, the same acreage. 



Mr. English. What I am referring to, though, is the direct loss 

 of livestock. 



Mr. Weber. Direct loss of livestock, no. 



Mr. English. As a result of disaster. OK. We were having that 

 discussion. I didn't think that was the case. 



To follow up a little bit with regard to the line Mr. Pomeroy was 

 talking about on the quality, now, we have never done quality be- 

 fore, have we? 



Mr. Weber. Not on grains. 



