CRP

Help Support Steer Planet:

Dusty

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,097
As of Jan 1, 2008 there were 34.6 million acres in the CRP program.  Why our government won't let these acres out of the CRP is beyond me.  At a conservative 125 bu/acre yield, these acres would produce an extra 4.33 billion bushels of corn.  Thats the ethanol consumption right there.....  Why don't they talk about this on CNN?
 

Sundy

Active member
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
41
The government does not want to set back conservation any more. There has been a large number of acres taken out already and ripped up for row crops. We must not only consider the present, but the future. You must also consider that a majority of the ground in CRP, currently, is not very fertile or is highly erodible. Therefore, it needs to be and remain in CRP. People did not put all of their good ground in CRP.
 

red

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
7,850
Location
LaRue, Ohio
in some areas where there has been a severe shortage of hay they've allowed farmers to bale CPR gound. BUT you have to jump through hoops to get approval & woe to the person the just goes ahead without approval!
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
this is a good point dusty, we have acres in crp so we can grow johnson grass.  politicians excel at creating artificial shortages to keep them in office so they can save us from ourselves.  they have so little faith in markets, they wouldn't know one if it hit them in the face, ie removing the gas tax which some were in favor of before the were against it, because they only work if in a vaccum, ie if one city or state does it, but the rest don't.  if farmers were allowed to figure out what crops they could plant that would make a profit, they might do so.  oops, that's a decsion not made by the state, can't have that.

our ground is fertile and good ground, it was a hassle to get it farmed, it's a hassle to comply with govt regs for maintaining the pasture according to govt regs.  we won't enroll in it next time, just rent it out for pasture.  i might add that the ground is next to the stream that the government changed course of and MADE it more erodible, not only that, but the culvert in the driveway is a wetland.  did i mention the government is a little to invasive into our property?

add to that, the beavers on the property, we can't trap/kill ourselves, we have to have fish and game come in and save them.

perhaps CRP has outlived it's utility.  if you can't make 150 bushel corn on it, then you shouldn't do it because it's economically unsound.  that will keep it out of use.  but subsidize it, and you can't undo it.  the free market is just so insidious.
 

Dusty

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,097
I realize people did not put good ground in CRP.  Thats why I used 125 bu/acre yield instead of 185.  All of the acres in CRP used to be farmed at one time, they can be farmed again.  With no-till nowadays a lot of the erosion can be avoided.  We wouldn't even necessarily have to raise corn on CRP ground.  We could raise alfalfa, wheat out west, or put into grazing ground.  The bottom line is that these acres need to go into production instead of just sitting there.  The CRP program was started because of over-production.  Now we need those acres back.
 

kanshow

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,660
Location
Kansas
There is CRP being released every year so it could be up to the individual if they wish to reenroll or take it out of grass.  If the later is the case, there could be conservation plan issues that might need to be addressed to stay in compliance with USDA rules.  I know in the counties I worked in, there was a lot of really horrible ground (50 bu or less corn) that went in and it needs to stay in.    But  there was also good ground that got in too.... 
 

Sundy

Active member
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
41
I do by no means enjoy high gas prices, but please understand the following-
Please note: Source (http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/NMEP10.pdf)

"The Conservation Reserve program (CRP) was authorized and
funded by the 1985 farm bill. The CRP has removed millions of acres
of highly erodible farmland nationally from row crop production,
thereby reducing soil erosion, increasing wildlife habitat, and improving
the quality of ground and surface waters. The CRP is a voluntary
program that offers annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to
establish a long-term cover on eligible land."

The original intent was not to reduce surplus. Please feel free to view the above website for more fact  based information. I also did a summer internship with an NRCS office.
 

Dusty

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,097
Lets just think about this for a minute...
For one thing I don't think a person can call anything the government says "fact based."  The government is not going to come out and say the CRP program was a made to reduce grain supply and therefore improve the economics of farming by basically paying the landowner to do nothing with his land.  1985 was the heart of the farm credit crisis and it's a lot more polictally acceptable to call it a Conservation Program than a glorified welfare check for the farmer and a supply side economics strategy.  Trust me, government can say whatever they want, CRP was brought in to reduce the grain supply. 
Now it's time to let those acres out of the program and get them back into sometype of productive use.  If it's too rough for row crop, put it into pasture then.  Last time I checked an properly managed pasture doesn't have too much erosion happening.

The biggest single reason that the CRP hasn't been cut loose is the influence of the wildlife groups like Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever etc.  These groups are so anti-farming it's not even funny.  They worry about having a few birds to shoot, while the farmer is worried about higher priced cash rent, higher pasture rent if he can find it all, and higher priced hay to feed his cows.  A lot of these problems could be solved as well as eliminating some money out of the federal budget if they would just put a bullet in the CRP program.  There is not a single landowner that would be hurt financially if they let people opt out early penalty free and the government didn't renew any ten year contracts.
 

Show Dad

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
5,127
Location
1 AU from a G2 yellow dwarf star
Government payments to farmers is about control. For some assistance the government will tell the farmer how to farm. No different than with medicare and government healthcare telling doctors and hospitals how to care for the sick.

For some security some freedom is lost.
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
i just quit our RCD out of disgust with the board, and NRCS for pushing the organic agenda.  after the national soil survey was done, the NRCS needed to maintain employment levels, instead of say, reducing the department by 50%, they found a new mission.  plus, with all the soil science majors in the pipeline, how could they maintain that program as well.  Our NRCS office, does very little but dole out money for fencing, water piping projects and similar projects but of course imposes restrictions, tracks your property with GPS, logs it in the public record so anti farming lobbyiests can post the freeloaters in the local paper.

So, the original goal was to do a soil survey, now, it's to push the environmental agenda so you can't remove noxious weeds from your own property in watershed areas, and the government won't do it either, without a massive input of capital and personnel, and lifetime benefits for employees.  you can't believe the number of people and time it takes to remove arundo from creek banks.

there truly is no government program that can be termed out.

the NRCS constantly has to deal with, and rationalize how to spend money to support existing personnel levels, and in our case, actually increase it.  they are usually staffed, in california, by enviro's and for the most part, ranchers and farmers don't like dealing with them as they don't trust them.  in our neck of the woods, the ranchers don't like the hobby farmers and large acreage pretend farmers, ie 1-40 acre parcels, as these are responsible for erosion, excess pesticide use, usually off label, weeds, etc.  but since the ranchers are the obvious violators of global warming and every other special interest group, they are an easy target.

there, got my grump on for the day!
 

Sundy

Active member
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
41
The source cited above was not "government" based. The source was Iowa State University Extension, therefore please take it all as you will, but as for me there is not enough time in one to day worry about something like this. Although I am glad that some people have concern for the future economy, I just feel the alternatives and consequences need to be considered before any decisions are made. Agriculture is very trendy and if you study the history of agriculture you will see that it has had its ups and downs since its start after the colonial period ended.
 

Dusty

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,097
Iowa State University Extension is a government ogranization.  It is funded by the government.  Yes agriculture is very trendy, but one trend that has been upwards since after the colonies is that America has increased it's ag production.  We need these acres of wasted land to do that.  I can understand why one would not want to worry about it now, but when it costs $600 a year to keep a cow around we will have wished someone would have worried about it.
 
Top