Misguided thoughts on Conservation

[moellermd]

What bothers me is the impression that others unfamiliar with modern day ag practices get when they read stuff on this forum or others about habitat. Nothing against them they are just not familiar with farming just like I am not familiar with car manufacturing. Some here clearly understand the real happenings in Ag and can grasp the whole concept.

The problem is when people read about farmers pulling fences, mowing ditches, spraying weeds, tiling fields baling corn stalks or wheat straw ect and don't understand why the stuff is done they start having a negative impression of farmers and ranchers. These are the guys who really will decide how much habitat there is.

I was a PF banquet last year when some guys at the table next to us started talking about habitat loss and how all the fence-lines were gone and the rest of the sad story. The farmers that I was sitting next to were unimpressed to say the least. Having unrealistic expectations of what producers should do to create pheasant habitat hurts our cause not helps. A lot of what is said on boards like this is not realistic to expect. Complaining about how $6-7 corn is destroying pheasants does not make a lot of brownie points either.

If we get the idea out of our head that it is the big bad boogie man "Big AG" that is creating our problems and acknowledge that it is the average family farmer that is going to solve or make worse our habitat problem we will make progress. Then we can look for realistic solutions, like small chunks of CRP, buffer-strips, living snow fences. Solutions that farmers will accept and not look at us like we are a bunch of out of touch hunters.

 

[1GB]

Buffer strips? Isn't that what fence lines were in many cases before they are ripped out?

The problem is when people read about farmers pulling fences, mowing ditches, spraying weeds, tiling fields baling corn stalks or wheat straw ect and don't understand why the stuff is done they start having a negative impression of farmers and ranchers.

I'd be willing to read more if you can explain the necessity of why some farmers do what they do. Some stuff I understand, but much I guess I don't.

 

[UGUIDE]

If we get the idea out of our head that it is the big bad boogie man "Big AG" that is creating our problems and acknowledge that it is the average family farmer that is going to solve or make worse our habitat problem we will make progress. Then we can look for realistic solutions, like small chunks of CRP, buffer-strips, living snow fences. Solutions that farmers will accept and not look at us like we are a bunch of out of touch hunters.

I think you're exactly right with the solutions part Mike but the fact is the big old boogie man ain't gonna tolerate these seemingly "nice to have" things. They aren't in the "production" equation or conversation.

You don't hear a lot of farmers braggin about how nice the neighbor farmers buffer strips are. Just not in their nature.

I feel that when conservation becomes part of the production conversation, then it will get priority in the field.

 

[moellermd]

Buffer strips? Isn't that what fence lines were in many cases before they are ripped out?

The buffer strips I am refering to is along waterways, sloughs, and other areas vulnerable to run-off. Back in the "good old days" the watershed area would not be fenced off they would let the livestock drink the water, and also crap in it.

I'd be willing to read more if you can explain the necessity of why some farmers do what they do. Some stuff I understand, but much I guess I don't.

I guess I tried in other threads to explain the producers ratinal for things like fence removal, mowing ditches, and the likes.

 

[Wirehairs]

Just some food for thought for all of you. Let's take Iowa where 72% of farmland is cash rented. Did any of you ever stop and think maybe it is the landlord that is to blame and not the farmer? If the landowner is getting $300 per acre cash rent(there are rumors of $500) and decides that he/she can get an extra 5 acres worth of rent by having fence lines removed and farmed or having an old grove bulldozed, what is the farmer supposed to do? If the landlord says he wants it farmed it is going to get farmed. I know of an example here in SD where the landlord said he wanted his tenant to break some pasture and farm it. The tenant said he didn't want to(not a good piece of ground), and the landlord said he would get someone else to do it and then have them farm what the tenant was already farming too. So the tenant broke the pasture and farmed it.

 

[moellermd]

I think you're exactly right with the solutions part Mike but the fact is the big old boogie man ain't gonna tolerate these seemingly "nice to have" things. They aren't in the "production" equation or conversation..

No one is opposing buffer strips they could care less if have 30 yards on each side of a waterway, whoever they are in the first place.

You don't hear a lot of farmers braggin about how nice the neighbor farmers buffer strips are. Just not in their nature.

You do here them talk about the neighbor letting all of his top soil runoff into the ditch.

I feel that when conservation becomes part of the production conversation, then it will get priority in the field.

I guess what do you feel is a conservation practice that could be universally applied that isn't?

 

[moellermd]

Just some food for thought for all of you. Let's take Iowa where 72% of farmland is cash rented. Did any of you ever stop and think maybe it is the landlord that is to blame and not the farmer? If the landowner is getting $300 per acre cash rent(there are rumors of $500) and decides that he/she can get an extra 5 acres worth of rent by having fence lines removed and farmed or having an old grove bulldozed, what is the farmer supposed to do? If the landlord says he wants it farmed it is going to get farmed. I know of an example here in SD where the landlord said he wanted his tenant to break some pasture and farm it. The tenant said he didn't want to(not a good piece of ground), and the landlord said he would get someone else to do it and then have them farm what the tenant was already farming too. So the tenant broke the pasture and farmed it.

The other side of that equation is that if I am paying $500 an acre, which some guys in my county are, then I have to use the most aggressive yield making methods that I can. So yes there is some landlord issues also. I would contend a landlord is less connected to the land and its sustainability.

 

[oldandnew]

Just some food for thought for all of you. Let's take Iowa where 72% of farmland is cash rented. Did any of you ever stop and think maybe it is the landlord that is to blame and not the farmer? If the landowner is getting $300 per acre cash rent(there are rumors of $500) and decides that he/she can get an extra 5 acres worth of rent by having fence lines removed and farmed or having an old grove bulldozed, what is the farmer supposed to do? If the landlord says he wants it farmed it is going to get farmed. I know of an example here in SD where the landlord said he wanted his tenant to break some pasture and farm it. The tenant said he didn't want to(not a good piece of ground), and the landlord said he would get someone else to do it and then have them farm what the tenant was already farming too. So the tenant broke the pasture and farmed it.

I'd like to see a citation for 72% of Iowa farm ground being cash rented. I sincerely doubt that figure. I'm sure your aware that many operations own the land, in one entity then cash rent the ground from themselves, at a price that is not related to any arms length transaction. There are a myriad of tax advantages to this, but distorts the cash rent numbers. It is particularily prevelant in Iowa. By the way, ISU, listed avg rent for the state in 2011 @ 216.00 per acre, thats a 30.00 jump in one year.

 

[Wirehairs]

http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com...&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc31d5e6e301334aa5e1420edc

It’s an abnormality,” agrees Jerry Warner, chief management officer for Omaha-based Farmers National Company. Because it was on the edge of town, it had potential for commercial development, he adds, but good cropland in Iowa is routinely selling for $8,000 to $10,000 now and is certainly up at least 20% in the last year.

What amazes Warner, however, is that both cash rents and land values in Iowa have been outdistancing Illinois the past few years. About 72% of the farmland in Iowa is cash rented now, higher than Illinois and much higher than Nebraska’s prime irrigated corn ground.

 

[oldandnew]

http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com...&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc31d5e6e301334aa5e1420edc

It’s an abnormality,” agrees Jerry Warner, chief management officer for Omaha-based Farmers National Company. Because it was on the edge of town, it had potential for commercial development, he adds, but good cropland in Iowa is routinely selling for $8,000 to $10,000 now and is certainly up at least 20% in the last year.

What amazes Warner, however, is that both cash rents and land values in Iowa have been outdistancing Illinois the past few years. About 72% of the farmland in Iowa is cash rented now, higher than Illinois and much higher than Nebraska’s prime irrigated corn ground.

I found the following, www.agrisk.umn.edu/cache/ARL02666.pdf. Indicates that in excess of 50% of Iowa ground is rented, with 70% of the ground rented being on a cash basis. I'm terrible with cutting and pasteing these links, but hope this works, more in line with expectations. If you are buying at these levels, you'll need all the luck in the world. If your the seller, laugh all the way to the bank. I have one customer that held absentee ground in Lyon County, sold 160@ all tillable, for $1,000,000. Original cost 500.00 per acre. Sold this asset that he rented to a cousin for around 24,000.00 per year cash rent. Used the money to completely deleverage his Kansas home place. So from a business decisionhe gained $1,000,000 today, in exchange for the possible income of $24000. per year. How many years does it take to get a million at $24000 per year? Especially since he still paid the taxes and the value of cash vs. decay of the cash value over time? Don't have to be a rocket scientist to decide which side of the fence to be on this one. Funny thing is, since I urged him to sell it, I still here about how he maybe have kept it! Such is farmer mentality. I'll make a friendly wager with anyone, and I have offered this deal to him, that he will be able to buy it, or substantially the same, back for less money, within the next 10 years. Any takers?

 

[Wirehairs]

I will take Farmers National figures on land rent from 2011 vs a university publication from 2005.
When did your client sell at your urging? At auction today that 160 could bring closer to $2,000,000. Also how much capital gains tax did he have to pay or did he do a 1031 exchange on ground in Kansas?

 

[SDJIM]

I'm sorry but I don't like the tone of this thread, so I will stay out of it.

 

[Wirehairs]

Oh c'mon Jim! You are one of the landowners that care about your hobby and enjoyment more than money. If there were more landowners like you we wouldn't have to talk about farm practices.

 

[jaytee]

Looks to me like there are lots of opportunities for education here. Maybe if these landowners knew how diminished the yields would be on these marginal pieces of ground they might have a different view. Sooner or later these land values will bust and things might get back to normal, which in my view cant come soon enough. 2 dollar corn and 2 grand per acre farmland might do wonders.

 

[moellermd]

2 dollar corn and 2 grand per acre farmland might do wonders.

Wonders for what? Cheaper corn is not going to change how ground is farmed to a great extent. Yes there will be less tiling but I do not think that there is a piece of ground left that needs to be tiled after the last few years. CRP payment rates are based on local rental rates so that will go down also. I do not think that wishing for lower crop prices will help our cause. I am open to listening to how it would if someone is willing to explain it.

 

[SDJIM]

Oh c'mon Jim! You are one of the landowners that care about your hobby and enjoyment more than money. If there were more landowners like you we wouldn't have to talk about farm practices.

OK ya got me there, just don't expect any great insites from me as if it's one thing I'm not, is real smart about farming. I'm a real rookie as far as how all of this works.

I look at what I have to do just for a few acres of CRP and then look at the operation that my farmers run and know its over my head.

I'm happy with where I am now but sometimes I wish I had some real pratical knowledge of running an operation.

 

[jeffstally]

I drove through the entire state of Illinois on Monday north the south. There were only 2 spots that looked even somewhat birdy to me that I noticed. One was about a 5 acre piece near a freeway overpass and the other looked like an 80 acre parcel surrounded by corn.

From what I saw, the state is a wildlife wasteland. The corn was planted starting about a foot from the interstate fence line and on the highway side of the fence it was mowed right up to the fence. If you ran a weed whacker down the fence, a mouse would have nowhere to hide.

God help us that care about wildlife if this is the future of our rural areas.

 

[UGUIDE]

I guess what do you feel is a conservation practice that could be universally applied that isn't?

Conservation practice minimums should be tied to federal funding like DCP, crop insurance and any other USDA subsidies.

 

[Downtown Bang!]

Honestly, I see just as much hypersensitivity from those on this board who earn a living in agriculture as I do uninformed attacks on farmers or uninformed negative comments about farmers. It happens but most of the "non-ag" regulars on here understand it is the system that is flawed and producers are only acting in their best interest within the context of the system.

Case in point is the issues with the term "Big Ag". Almost no one with a lick of common sense who uses that term on this board is referring to a farmer.

What farmers were instrumental in applying political leverage and getting the ethanol subsidy extended last year? Some group got it done and I seriously doubt those people who did have ever have sat on a tractor in their life and guarantee you they didn't do it to be charitable and save the family farm. They did it because they make a lot of money off of the production farmer.

The same logic applies to every other production based farm subsidy or incentive that has been rolled out in the last 40+ years. I suspect a lot of farmers probably supported them too but not a single one of them ever got done in Washington without the political clout of Big Ag. Monsanto, Cargill, ADM etc. etc. can't make the next quarters numbers and the next years growth expectations unless the american farmer is producing at a constantly increasing capacity. Forget romantic ideas about inexpensive food for americans or "feeding the world" that simple fact is what really defines the fundamentals of the current system.

 

[carptom1]

Conservation practice minimums should be tied to federal funding like DCP, crop insurance and any other USDA subsidies.

What a great idea. The only problem is nobody in washington would be able to agree what " minimum" is.