Current General Sign-up For CRP

[landman]

Off the subject a bit here but is the current CRP program becoming antiquated? Are we getting to the point where at least some of the billions of dollars spent every year on big block CRP needs to be re-allocated in order to acheive lasting long-term goals for habitat and the environment?

I'm thinking along the lines of greater funding for the permanent set-aside of acres in high sensitivity areas. Re-establishment of permanent wetlands. Larger wetland buffers and stream buffers. Permanent idling of ground located in temporary wetlands. Permanent idling of ground in field waterways. Establishment of shelterbelts and woody cover.

I understand well managed big block CRP has benefits especially in regards to nesting cover and in areas where prairie grouse are present. But in areas of the country where extensive crop production is the norm could we acheive the same thing by coupling the above higher cost permanent programs with subsidation of winter wheat plantings and other small grains that create decent nesting cover? Would $20.00 an acre and the inherent soil benefits associated with crop rotation be enough for the average farmer to look at planting less corn & less soybeans?

As landman mentioned above the current program only really appeals to retired farmers, recreational landowners & conservation minded land owners. Long term I see a need to find ways to obtain buy in and participation from production farmers as well.

I realize anytime you try and make sweeping changes to a standing federal program you risk losing it. But it also appears we could be getting a whole lot more wildlife and environemntal benefit from the 32 miilion acres available than is currently the case.

I think that is the direction that CRP is going and it should keep going that way. The duck nesting, wetland, riparian buffer and windbreak CRP's tried to target the best land for enrollment. The USDA added a nice incentive so that more folks would enroll. Despite those incentives we still fall short of the 32 million acres authorized so the General CRP sign-up is designed to fill the gap so we remain at 32 million acres. If the USDA could increase the incentives for the contineous programs there would be more interest but the cost would be higher for the program so therefore a balance between the two becomes the focus. I think we will see changes to the program as time goes on, hopefully for the better.

 

[Prairie Drifter]

Off the subject a bit here but is the current CRP program becoming antiquated? Are we getting to the point where at least some of the billions of dollars spent every year on big block CRP needs to be re-allocated in order to acheive lasting long-term goals for habitat and the environment?

I'm thinking along the lines of greater funding for the permanent set-aside of acres in high sensitivity areas. Re-establishment of permanent wetlands. Larger wetland buffers and stream buffers. Permanent idling of ground located in temporary wetlands. Permanent idling of ground in field waterways. Establishment of shelterbelts and woody cover.

I understand well managed big block CRP has benefits especially in regards to nesting cover and in areas where prairie grouse are present. But in areas of the country where extensive crop production is the norm could we acheive the same thing by coupling the above higher cost permanent programs with subsidation of winter wheat plantings and other small grains that create decent nesting cover? Would $20.00 an acre and the inherent soil benefits associated with crop rotation be enough for the average farmer to look at planting less corn & less soybeans?

As landman mentioned above the current program only really appeals to retired farmers, recreational landowners & conservation minded land owners. Long term I see a need to find ways to obtain buy in and participation from production farmers as well.

I realize anytime you try and make sweeping changes to a standing federal program you risk losing it. But it also appears we could be getting a whole lot more wildlife and environemntal benefit from the 32 miilion acres available than is currently the case.

Downtown, Prairie Grouse are generally obligate species. That means that they are dependant upon the prairie ecosystem for all facets of their life. They do not nest in small grains and, thus, there is a significant need for large tracts of CRP. The current CRP sign-up gives priority points for focus areas where there is a need for additional acres of prairie grouse habitat. Some states may not see CRP enrolled outside of these focus areas because it will take these additional points to qualify in those states. May be too early to tell if that's the case, but those points will be important for many landowners to qualify.

 

[moellermd]

Moeller, keep in mind that the Millborn boys are in the "selling seed for CRP" and might be a little bit optimistically biased towards the general really being competitive or not.

Oh I am sure that they hope a ton gets but into CRP. That is what they told me when looking at my points.

Chris correct me if I am wrong but not all ground is eligible for CCRP but as long as there is a history you can but in a CRP bid. The ground I am referring to is not eligible for CCRP according to the FSA office.

 

[landman]

Chris correct me if I am wrong but not all ground is eligible for CCRP but as long as there is a history you can but in a CRP bid. The ground I am referring to is not eligible for CCRP according to the FSA office.

Yes, as long as the land meets cropping history you can put in a bid. If the land was recently converted to cropland then it probably won't qualify. If the land does not have a lot of environmental benefits such as erosion reduction or water quality improvements then it will receive a low score and be less likely to be accepted. If the interest in this General sign-up is low then the lower scores might have a chance to be accepted. If the interest is high, like in the past, then they will less chance.

Interest might be low this time around because crops have been good the last two or three years, commodity prices are better and cash rents have increased dramatically while CRP rents have not kept pace. For these reasons this might be a good year to enroll some CRP that would not otherwise get accepted. That's the situation today, which could be much different in a few years.

 

[moellermd]

Interest might be low this time around because crops have been good the last two or three years, commodity prices are better and cash rents have increased dramatically while CRP rents have not kept pace.

My partents are looking at putting in an 80. They currently crop share with the tenant. In order to get the same money as what the CRP bid was they would have to average $3.80 corn and $10.00 beans over the next 10 years. To me that is fairly competitive. From what I have seen the better crop ground in SESD seems to be fairly competitve in rental rates. Will it be towards the end of the contract who knows.

 

[landman]

My partents are looking at putting in an 80. They currently crop share with the tenant. In order to get the same money as what the CRP bid was they would have to average $3.80 corn and $10.00 beans over the next 10 years. To me that is fairly competitive. From what I have seen the better crop ground in SESD seems to be fairly competitve in rental rates. Will it be towards the end of the contract who knows.

The rental rates are greatly influenced by the FSA County Committee, who are elected. If the members of the commitee are against conservation or wildlife then rental rates will be lower than average. Each year the County Committee submits a recommendation to the USDA for the rental rate for their county. If the requests are low then the rents will be low.

 

[UGUIDE]

Chris correct me if I am wrong but not all ground is eligible for CCRP but as long as there is a history you can but in a CRP bid. The ground I am referring to is not eligible for CCRP according to the FSA office.

Mike, that is correct. One program kinda works like general but pays like CCRP and that is CP38. Are there any acres of 38 left? Supposed to be at 38,000 for fiscal year 2010.

I think you put in a block of cover and minimum is 20 acres and max is? but you can put anywhere. If it is any good or competitive it is probably out.

 

[FCSpringer]

FCS, rent numbers are regional. Guys in western Sd are happy to get $30/acre CRP payments.

It is too early to tell on General. PF will be source for updates. Interest appears high at least in some areas.

http://www.pheasantblog.org/dnomsen/crp-interest-solid-but-we-need-more-donuts/

Well your right. The guy getting 180 is near the metro. There was another gentelman we talked to this weekend and he lives near me. He is signed in for 100. Both on the same program.

 

[Downtown Bang!]

Downtown, Prairie Grouse are generally obligate species. That means that they are dependant upon the prairie ecosystem for all facets of their life. They do not nest in small grains and, thus, there is a significant need for large tracts of CRP. The current CRP sign-up gives priority points for focus areas where there is a need for additional acres of prairie grouse habitat. Some states may not see CRP enrolled outside of these focus areas because it will take these additional points to qualify in those states. May be too early to tell if that's the case, but those points will be important for many landowners to qualify.

I guess I didn't do a good job communicating my thoughts. I'm very supportive of big block CRP in areas with populations of native Prairie Grouse. It makes great sense in Eastern Montana, Western Dakota's, Nebraska Sandhills, North Central Kansas etc. etc. Not only good sense but also a good "buy" economically because of the relatively low crop rental rates.

In the remaining "farmland wildlife belt" where intensive farming is practiced (MN, IA, Eastern SD, Eastern NE) I'm not convinced it's long-term practical. Production farmers are not interested in idling huge tracts. The expense of competative rental rates on huge tracts is already bordering on cost prohibitive. IMO if creative alternatives are not worked out these areas will quickly lose any remaining diversity and become monoculture crop deserts just like every farm state east of the Mississippi River did in the 1980's.

 

[UGUIDE]

I guess I didn't do a good job communicating my thoughts. I'm very supportive of big block CRP in areas with populations of native Prairie Grouse. It makes great sense in Eastern Montana, Western Dakota's, Nebraska Sandhills, North Central Kansas etc. etc. Not only good sense but also a good "buy" economically because of the relatively low crop rental rates.

In the remaining "farmland wildlife belt" where intensive farming is practiced (MN, IA, Eastern SD, Eastern NE) I'm not convinced it's long-term practical. Production farmers are not interested in idling huge tracts. The expense of competative rental rates on huge tracts is already bordering on cost prohibitive. IMO if creative alternatives are not worked out these areas will quickly lose any remaining diversity and become monoculture crop deserts just like every farm state east of the Mississippi River did in the 1980's.

Maybe the general acres will go where they have most value like west river SD where it is more competitive. I think the problems for the corn belt will precede solutions (aka Gulf Dead Zone = Mississippi Water Shed Solution= CCRP + EQUIP + Cellulosic Ethanol + conservation cropping systems +??)