I got some information today that it looks like the coming Farm bill will be cut by 3 Billion Dollars. Who know's what order of importance congress will put on the part's of the farm bill. For those of you that don't know the farm bill pays for many things from, the school lunch program, to crop subsidies, to the CRP program, among other things. I am pretty sure school lunches won't get cut, so that leaves ag lobby vs. conservation lobby. If you love CRP better pay your Pheasant Forever dues, Quail Forever dues, Ducks Unlimited Dues and any other outdoor conservation group you can think of.
New Farm Bill
- Thread starter Wirehairs
- Start date
birdman652001
New member
if the govt or PF could do something in like raising the cost of land to lease for CRP ground. i mean some of my ground is rented out to farmers and its more than $55.00 per acre like someone posted in another thread that they were getting for CRP program.
if the govt would pay more than say oh, 80 or more for per acre.. we could be in business.
if the govt would pay more than say oh, 80 or more for per acre.. we could be in business.
Downtown Bang!
Member
Here is a link to the stats for the 2010 General Sign-up. It includes total new acres enrolled by state and each states average rental rate (per acre).
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/signup_39_accept_st_offers.pdf
South Dakota's average rental rate is $50. Probably a little less than that West River and a little more than that East River.
Not good. For all the rhetoric from the USDA saying they were going to increase rental rates it didn't really happen. That is why SD ultimately lost acreage when you factor in expiring acres vs. newly enrolled acres. Couple that with the likely scenario that most of the new enrollment acres are West River and outside the good upland base I see SD pheasant numbers declining in the future.
Areas with lower cash rental rates like parts of KS, NE & CO did pretty well in the last sign-up.
As Wirehairs correctly stated the 2012 Farm Bill will be critical. I'd put membership in PF, DU & TRCP at the top of the list. These three organizations do a great job working together in Washington and off setting anti-conservation lobby influences from big ag.
Secondly I'd be prepared to start emailing your representatives after the first of the year and pressuring them to influence the USDA on two points.
1. Approving a 2011 general sign-up to replace expiring acres.
2. Increasing rental rates and making them more competative with other options.
It's just my opinion but long term I'd also reference putting Conservation Program support ahead of the renewable energy boondoggle in the 2012 Farm Bill. The big winners in Wind & Ethanol are GE, Vestas, Archer Daniels Midland, Carghill etc. With conservation programs the money goes directly to the property owners and the soil conservation, water quality and bio-diversity benefits accrue for all taxpayers.
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/signup_39_accept_st_offers.pdf
South Dakota's average rental rate is $50. Probably a little less than that West River and a little more than that East River.
Not good. For all the rhetoric from the USDA saying they were going to increase rental rates it didn't really happen. That is why SD ultimately lost acreage when you factor in expiring acres vs. newly enrolled acres. Couple that with the likely scenario that most of the new enrollment acres are West River and outside the good upland base I see SD pheasant numbers declining in the future.
Areas with lower cash rental rates like parts of KS, NE & CO did pretty well in the last sign-up.
As Wirehairs correctly stated the 2012 Farm Bill will be critical. I'd put membership in PF, DU & TRCP at the top of the list. These three organizations do a great job working together in Washington and off setting anti-conservation lobby influences from big ag.
Secondly I'd be prepared to start emailing your representatives after the first of the year and pressuring them to influence the USDA on two points.
1. Approving a 2011 general sign-up to replace expiring acres.
2. Increasing rental rates and making them more competative with other options.
It's just my opinion but long term I'd also reference putting Conservation Program support ahead of the renewable energy boondoggle in the 2012 Farm Bill. The big winners in Wind & Ethanol are GE, Vestas, Archer Daniels Midland, Carghill etc. With conservation programs the money goes directly to the property owners and the soil conservation, water quality and bio-diversity benefits accrue for all taxpayers.
Solution to rates.
Instead of CRP rent of $50 an acre on the 160 acres, why not pay $50 to $75 on the poor production 20 to 40 acres within the 160. Landowner would be happy and so would all the conservationist!
In essence, have a lot of 20 to 40 acre CRP blocks versus a few 160 acre blocks. Five 20 acre plots would be a lot better than one 160 acre plot. Oh and with this premium program public land access is required, otherwise the standard rate per acre.
Any opinions?
Instead of CRP rent of $50 an acre on the 160 acres, why not pay $50 to $75 on the poor production 20 to 40 acres within the 160. Landowner would be happy and so would all the conservationist!
In essence, have a lot of 20 to 40 acre CRP blocks versus a few 160 acre blocks. Five 20 acre plots would be a lot better than one 160 acre plot. Oh and with this premium program public land access is required, otherwise the standard rate per acre.
Any opinions?
birdman652001
New member
that is what i posted in another thread. you can click on the blue box to transfer to that thread, but this is what i believe i found for 09-10 CRP program.
west river doesnt have that good of a soil compared to east river. Soybean and corn ground very rich and gets GOOD bu per acre. i say like huron, sd to pipestone, mn grow majority beans and corn with wheat rotation. now huron, sd west to the river, WW makes really good crop as to corn. ive found numberous farmers wont grow beans because it doesnt get a good production. now where i work, hardely any CRP ground bc farmers are really scrapping income from crops. two years ago, they had several dry years, last year and this year has been really grateful for them as they made good income on crops. CRP is almost obsolete here or at least what i see from here. and yet there was still good numbers of hunters hunting daily basis at the truck stop hunting in and around blunt, onida, and pierre area.
UGUIDE
Active member
Deacon, that is basically what I have been doing with the CCRP or Continuous CRP programs. Pays better and targets just the marginal acres. excellent wetlands programs too. Almost half my farm is in CCRP and the rest is good farming ground that is rented out. I think and hope this is the future.
Deacon,
That is a good idea way to do CRP from a wildlife habitat standpoint, more edges.
The insane rents some farmers are offering for farmland for cropping does not help the crp program either.... I have not figured out how to sharpen a pencil sharp enough to make what they are paying profitable when I know what the crop input prices are etc.
Also if I am not mistaken the food stamp program is also under the farm bill.
Hard to say what the next farm bill will look like for a long list of reasons.
That is a good idea way to do CRP from a wildlife habitat standpoint, more edges.
The insane rents some farmers are offering for farmland for cropping does not help the crp program either.... I have not figured out how to sharpen a pencil sharp enough to make what they are paying profitable when I know what the crop input prices are etc.
Also if I am not mistaken the food stamp program is also under the farm bill.
Hard to say what the next farm bill will look like for a long list of reasons.
Fenway
Member
There already paying it by subsidizing ethanol, but I can see the end of that coming, even Al Gore said it was a mistake to use corn and soybeans. The market is so flooded that allot of the ethanol is going to Europe, now where paying for Europe's gas nice. So sometime those prices might be OK again.
Heres an interesting paragraph.
"A Duke University study recommended leaving land in conservation reserves instead of plowing it to make corn for ethanol. “Converting set-asides to corn-ethanol production is an inefficient and expensive greenhouse gas mitigation policy that should not be encouraged until ethanol-production technologies improve,” according to the study."
http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/11/al-gore-says-ethanol-subsidies-are-a-mistake/
Downtown Bang!
Member
I think most wildlife professionals would say the big block CRP will be more productive and see much better nesting success. The smaller parcels make the nests much more vulnerable to nest predators etc. The big parcels act as "habitat hubs" and in good nesting years tremendous incubators.
Big block CRP is also a big benefit to prairie grouse populations. If there is too much loss in the bigger parcels we will likely see these numbers suffer also.
Having said that the realist in me says what you described is exactly what must happen in order to keep adequate acres enrolled in the remaining pheasant states. I believe USDA conservation programs are at a critical point and need to rapidly evolve or what biodiversity & environmental buffers we have left in the "heartland" will disappear.
Just look at the Ag states east of the Mississippi River to get a glimpse of what the future may hold. The biggest environmental disaster nobody wants to talk about has taken place over the last 40 years in the farm fields of OH, IN & IL. Short of some epic farm crisis that makes 1985 look like a walk in the park it will never come back either.
I also agree with you above in that we need to incent (not require) property owners to allow more public access. IMO as hunters we also need to be willing to fund this incentive on our own. I have no problem telling a non-hunter they need to step up and support conservation programs because of the environmental benefits to all taxpayers. But I am not comfortable saying they need to subsidize our special interests. We are not entitled to that perk and as a group need to find a way to collectively fund it on ourselves.
1pheas4
Moderator
I may be mistaken but I believe something was like this is in the "open fields" program
I know it's just getting off the ground but does anyone know anything about the details in this program as far as paying land owners more $ for alowing walk in access??? --1pheas4Downtown Bang!
Member
I may be mistaken but I believe something was like this is in the "open fields" program
Open Fields is set up to subsidize existing or in the current case of MN proposed state access programs. The states have to apply and present a business case to the USDA in order to receive funding. As I understand it there is some merit base to the process so the applications deemed to have the most positive impact would get the most $$$.