I think most will agree that during the ramp of of the CRP program in the late 1980's thru 2008 or so the mid west pheasant population exploded and then quickly halved when significant acres were eliminated. It seems to have stabilized and improved a bit in the past few years . . . but now I wonder if we're approaching a huge inflection point. With the reality of DOGE I can't help but believe the next soon to occur farm bill is going to be "something completely different" than the variations in the past 30 years. Though I hope it ain't so, I just can't believe that the current trend is going to maintain paying farmers to do any type of "conservation", let alone get paid to not produce. My gut says CRP is going to be gutted and the pheasant population, like in the decades between the 1960's soil bank program and CRP, will fall from the sky faster and harder than a direct hit with #5 copper coated shot. On the other hand, maybe tariffs will collapse demand and the heavily subsidized crop insurance will be eliminated, ending years of marginal land farming. I don't know, but Pheasants Forever and Ducks Unlimited, upland hunters main political protectors, ain't saying a thing, I've gone thru their websites and news releases . . . nada comments. So what do you think . . . is their a freight train a coming?
DOGE, Farm Bill & CRP
- Thread starter parkerman
- Start date
Alaskan swamp collies
Well-known member
Yes
This site is a breath of fresh air in a smog filled social media environment. We all should take care to keep partisan politics from creeping into our messages.
To the topic: I am starting two new projects this year, using CRP and an EQUIP. I have a family member with the USDA. If the programs survive in one shape or another the staff to administer them may be missing.
Farm bills seem to get extended without changes these days, maybe a new bill will be written that eliminates the conservation programs, or maybe the funding will be cut, time will tell.
The birds will not survive without the habitat. Pay operations will thrive, maybe it’s time to think about that route. Kinda nice retirement job for an old farmer/sportsman.
Edit: I have not been reimbursed for any money spent on these projects because they haven’t been completed, hopefully that won’t be an issue.
Red Ryder
Member
Its come and gone, only thing now is to pick up whats left and start over.
Swampstink
Member
If you want to see Fed wildlife Personnel treated like dirt and FED lands maybe put on sale.
Red Ryder
Member
We all should take care to keep partisan politics from creeping into our messages.
carptom1
Well-known member
Always a voice of reason… some of us appreciate it
BRITTMAN
Well-known member
If they end CRP, then end price support subsidies too. Maybe the only thing the USDA supports is crop insurance ... and that could possibly go all private too.
Or create a system where only small to mid-size farms are protected through these programs ... program phases out once a certain number of acres are enrolled. Create a system of audits and checks so that large corporate farms cannot run shell companies to enhance subsidy payments.
Or create a system where only small to mid-size farms are protected through these programs ... program phases out once a certain number of acres are enrolled. Create a system of audits and checks so that large corporate farms cannot run shell companies to enhance subsidy payments.
AtTheMurph
Well-known member
Price supports also support the destruction of habitat. If farmers know they won't lose their azz planting some marginal ground, they will farm it. But if they have to shell out big for seed and fertilizer and fuel, they will think twice and many won't take the risk.
Get rid of govt crop insurance as well. It incentivizes the same thing. If you want insurance, the insurers will sell it to you at a price that makes sense.
What happened in FLA with wind insurance is an example. Govt jumped into the market, people built homes in hurricane alley like crazy and paid way below the risk rates for insurance. Now that the govt insurers are all belly up, the true costs of insuring those homes is being realized. My house in FLA used to cost $6500/yr to insure (wind, flood and homeowners). After the state sponsored insurer collapsed, the the new premiums are $26,000/yr. That makes far more sense to me.
Get rid of govt crop insurance as well. It incentivizes the same thing. If you want insurance, the insurers will sell it to you at a price that makes sense.
What happened in FLA with wind insurance is an example. Govt jumped into the market, people built homes in hurricane alley like crazy and paid way below the risk rates for insurance. Now that the govt insurers are all belly up, the true costs of insuring those homes is being realized. My house in FLA used to cost $6500/yr to insure (wind, flood and homeowners). After the state sponsored insurer collapsed, the the new premiums are $26,000/yr. That makes far more sense to me.
Swampstink
Member
So what I am hearing in this thread is if the AG industry operated in a real free market we( bird Hunters) would generally benefit? That's a heavy lift here or anywhere ie; Canada s very subsidized .
BRITTMAN
Well-known member
Protect the small, mid-size and family farms. Large corporate and foreign owned farms should not be subsidized.
CRP is supposed to provide primarily two benefits
> remove land from production ... albeit it is usually lower productive land that is removed ... that said total "corn" harvested in theory decreases with less acres planted ... thereby improving prices ... this in turn lowers subsidies paid out.
> protect the environment by taking out land prone to erosion (wind, water, etc) and create habitat for wildlife
Added benefits
> provides landowners and farmers a base income in years of severe drought, flooding, hail, etc... that destroy their crops
> provides additional grass in emergency haying situations to help cattle ranchers regionally in drought situations
CRP is supposed to provide primarily two benefits
> remove land from production ... albeit it is usually lower productive land that is removed ... that said total "corn" harvested in theory decreases with less acres planted ... thereby improving prices ... this in turn lowers subsidies paid out.
> protect the environment by taking out land prone to erosion (wind, water, etc) and create habitat for wildlife
Added benefits
> provides landowners and farmers a base income in years of severe drought, flooding, hail, etc... that destroy their crops
> provides additional grass in emergency haying situations to help cattle ranchers regionally in drought situations
That1uncle1776
Well-known member
Fleetwood mac. But excellent point
We're too far down the "Big Ag" road to stop the diminishing of the small to medium size farm operations...UNLESS they can survive near urban areas where there is viable off-farm income to give the farm family affordable health insurance and a meaningful addition to defray family living costs. And in most of South Dakota-Nebraska etc. that I've been in, those "urban areas" are hard to find. Crop insurance or no, if direct costs for 250 bu./acre corn are approaching$650/$700/acre, and land costs are $250/acre cash rent (these land costs are just example costs; rent and farm mortgage payments are all over the place!) you have $1,000/acre total costs....and 250 bushel yields X $4/bu. corn equals $1,000 so it's breakeven again. And who knows what yields and prices really will be if there is a widespread drought? Sure, corn could be $5/bu. but yields could be 125 bu. and THAT math just ain't going to work! And that doesn't count the cost of machinery replacement/depreciation. If you think food prices are high NOW, just cut the ag subsidies.
As a former ag banker, my sympathies are solidly behind the farmer. Farmers grow the food that feeds us all. As much as I love it, bird hunting is a "want" and a privilege. Food is a MUST. DOGE hasn't eliminated CRP, Equip, etc. yet. But I agree we need to watch closely to monitor upcoming events.
As a former ag banker, my sympathies are solidly behind the farmer. Farmers grow the food that feeds us all. As much as I love it, bird hunting is a "want" and a privilege. Food is a MUST. DOGE hasn't eliminated CRP, Equip, etc. yet. But I agree we need to watch closely to monitor upcoming events.
AtTheMurph
Well-known member
All the costs you see are because of govt action screwing up the "free market". Land prices are too high. Crop prices are too high. Fertilizer, seeds, etc are too high/
Govt subsidies make all of them TOO damn high.
And I am a land owner and lease to farmers who pay rent that is too high for what they grow. Our entire "free market system", is nothing of the sort. It is all controlled and bastardized and ruined.
The government does NOT control the price of fertilizer, seed, insecticide, parts and repairs. Ag suppliers and vendors do to a large extent. Many issues influence all of that. The market is supposed to rely on supply and demand and the mythical "perfect competition"; ie, a homogenous product (#2 yellow shell corn), perfect market knowledge by buyers and sellers, neither side under duress to buy or sell, etc. but a lot of extraneous stuff influences the market to negate free market operation: foreign growers and their subsidized ag policies and markets, relentless advances in technology, weather, and yes, some government policies or lack thereof, consumer tastes and undoubtedly other issues.
When dumb farmers pay too much for cash or share rent and inputs at the wrong time, they go broke. Been there, dealt with that. And neither you nor I are going to change that. All we can do is make the best decisions we can with the best information we have at the time. But again, ag subsidies help keep food production possible. SOMEONE has to produce what we eat, and neither you nor I are doing that.
When dumb farmers pay too much for cash or share rent and inputs at the wrong time, they go broke. Been there, dealt with that. And neither you nor I are going to change that. All we can do is make the best decisions we can with the best information we have at the time. But again, ag subsidies help keep food production possible. SOMEONE has to produce what we eat, and neither you nor I are doing that.
Complicated issue with no easy answers. Without the government programs there would be a huge reset, and it would be painful for many. Programs of one sort or another have been in place since the dust bowls of the early 1900s, can’t just yank them away.
I don’t think land would go unfarmed, the price would have to adjust that is certain but the land would be farmed. The unknown is how ownership would change. Maybe two possible ways for it to go.
More younger farmers on smaller farms able to get their foot in the door with hugely reduced land costs ? Maybe, but the income from farms might not be enough to support a family.
Maybe the large will get larger and outside corporate money would buy land to diversify asset holdings and rent out to farmers, the medium sized farm owner would be gone.
My family was able to buy the home place because the government told insurance companies they had to reduce their land holdings they acquired in the depression. That is overly simplified but is the gist of it according to family lore.
My grandfather lost his farm and became a share crop farmer on a very large farm, for that time around here. The landowners were a wealthy family from Philadelphia that did very well during the depression, I don’t know the particulars but I understand some did. According to mother they told grandad to forget the crop share a few years during the worst of it. They came out once a year to stay in a cabin on the farm, two car loads full. They were treated like royalty by grandad, he always said they were the nicest folks he’d ever been around.
Anyway, he farmed that place for nearly 40 years and when he retired he had saved enough to buy a farm next door and build a house by himself with the help of a friend. Then a new barn, a new chicken house and corn crib in a couple years he was working harder than he did before retirement. But, it was his own place and he was happy.
I never knew the phrase “May you live in interesting times.” was actually used as a curse. Certainly the case today.
Gotta go, the wife thinks she needs sweet corn planted before I put the planter away.
I don’t think land would go unfarmed, the price would have to adjust that is certain but the land would be farmed. The unknown is how ownership would change. Maybe two possible ways for it to go.
More younger farmers on smaller farms able to get their foot in the door with hugely reduced land costs ? Maybe, but the income from farms might not be enough to support a family.
Maybe the large will get larger and outside corporate money would buy land to diversify asset holdings and rent out to farmers, the medium sized farm owner would be gone.
My family was able to buy the home place because the government told insurance companies they had to reduce their land holdings they acquired in the depression. That is overly simplified but is the gist of it according to family lore.
My grandfather lost his farm and became a share crop farmer on a very large farm, for that time around here. The landowners were a wealthy family from Philadelphia that did very well during the depression, I don’t know the particulars but I understand some did. According to mother they told grandad to forget the crop share a few years during the worst of it. They came out once a year to stay in a cabin on the farm, two car loads full. They were treated like royalty by grandad, he always said they were the nicest folks he’d ever been around.
Anyway, he farmed that place for nearly 40 years and when he retired he had saved enough to buy a farm next door and build a house by himself with the help of a friend. Then a new barn, a new chicken house and corn crib in a couple years he was working harder than he did before retirement. But, it was his own place and he was happy.
I never knew the phrase “May you live in interesting times.” was actually used as a curse. Certainly the case today.
Gotta go, the wife thinks she needs sweet corn planted before I put the planter away.