New FarmBill

I think there are a number of different CREP programs across the country. One that I am familiar with in my area is CREP for the Upper Arkansas. It is a program aimed at reduction of the Ogallaha aquifer draw down by seeking qualified irrigators that will convert their irrigated acres to grass for a 14 year period and surrender their water rights FOREVER. The funds from it come from both the federal government and the state of Kansas(from monies received from a lawsuit with Colorado on water flowing in the Arkansas River). The target acreage is a narrow band along the Arkansas River from the Colorado State line to Great Bend, I believe.
 
Petry,

It may indeed be a pipe dream to expect goverment to efficiently handle managing the land correctly. I'd agree with that. Maybe we need to get local agencies involved, or set up new local conservation entities. PH, DU, etc... could get involved. I realize the cost would be higher initially to buy, but the results would be worth it. And once the land is purchased, you no longer have to pay rental costs. If we had started purchasing and managing lands 20 years ago, we would already be part way there. My basic point is doing what we currently do is a great big waste of money. It's not a conservation program. It's a vote buying program. For once, it would be nice to do the smart thing.
 
Tilkut said:
Petry,

It may indeed be a pipe dream to expect goverment to efficiently handle managing the land correctly. I'd agree with that. Maybe we need to get local agencies involved, or set up new local conservation entities. PH, DU, etc... could get involved. I realize the cost would be higher initially to buy, but the results would be worth it. And once the land is purchased, you no longer have to pay rental costs. If we had started purchasing and managing lands 20 years ago, we would already be part way there. My basic point is doing what we currently do is a great big waste of money. It's not a conservation program. It's a vote buying program. For once, it would be nice to do the smart thing.
Click to expand...

lol again I think you are off base. Ok say we own the crp acres. Do you understand how much a state employee costs in pay, healthcare and pension? Not to mention equipment.

Do you expect the nonprofits to provide free labor for all those acres?

my point is a 15yr crp contract is much much cheaper than buying even on a 20-25 yr am plus labor cost and all management costs

Then on top of that is it best that the govt own another 20-40 million acres? They lose tax revenue also on those acres from us tax payers... that's 10-20 bucks per acre in my area
 
Sorry. CRP is a temporary program. You can pay and pay and pay. One day it's plowed under and all the benefits are gone. You have zilch for your efforts. I understand purchasing lands costs more up front. Management wise I would like to see accounts set up to pay the costs of local management. I know it costs money, but I would rather have a small PERMANENT piece well managed, than larger plots that come and go. Just think if we had started this 25 years ago, instead of wasting rental payments on land that is now back in corn.
 
CRP is not primarily a pheasant production program. It was a land idling, grain inventory reduction program.

True, there can be great conservation results from it, but that isn't the purpose of the program.

Initially it was to take soils that were highly vulnerable to erosion and keep them in "reserve" for future needs. Now, it's pretty much a water quality program.

There are programs that allow for 30 year or permanent conservation easements. Some farmers would do well to consider these. Capital gains will be an issue for these programs, unless there is a step up in basis.
 
Crossing shot said:
Trump proposes to cut the agriculture budget 20%. What would be the consequences?
Click to expand...

The ag budget is two thirds food stamps, he could cut there and not change what you are concerned about. We are all going to feel some pain if we are going to get back to financial stability.
 
Whats clean water worth? Ag producers assume clean water is a commodity and can be paid for.

CRP is the equalizer on many fronts of which one is cleaning up the mess big AG does not want to pay for in the production of food whether we eat it or we ship it over seas.

Apparently bees and butterflies and other things of value are in peril as well and CRP has a solution for them. Start adding these things up and CRP looks like a heck of a deal.
 
General Mills is taking the Honey Nut Bee off the box to call attention to the plight of the bee. As soon as I see a box with the missing bee, I will switch my cereal to Honey Nut Cheerios. The votes that matter most are the ones done with the pocketbook.
 
I agree with alot of the comments being made. To purchase erodible land and take it out if production, we would get the same type of land idling result we currently get with CRP, along with more benefits for bees and butterflies. But it would be permanent, and control would be local, with public access for hunting, hiking, bike trails, fishing, etc....do we get that now with CRP?

Public dollars should be spent to benefit most of the public. Without the permanency or access I am looking for, that just isn't happening.
 
Tilkut said:
Sorry. CRP is a temporary program. You can pay and pay and pay. One day it's plowed under and all the benefits are gone. You have zilch for your efforts. I understand purchasing lands costs more up front. Management wise I would like to see accounts set up to pay the costs of local management. I know it costs money, but I would rather have a small PERMANENT piece well managed, than larger plots that come and go. Just think if we had started this 25 years ago, instead of wasting rental payments on land that is now back in corn.
Click to expand...

Your idea has no solution. You continue to disregard the fact that we can't manage what we have but you want more and to own it.
 
I am in total agreement that we should not do what we currently do. Let's go through an example. We spend $1,800,000,000. On CRP. Lets figure what ever we do, 1/2 the spending will be to set up an account to fund LOCAL management. Let's just say PH for now. I will estimate that Iowa ( largest crp state ) receives approx. 5% of the total. That gives us 90,000,000 to spend annually, $ 45,000,000 of which will be set aside to fund management. So we have $ 45,000,000 for land purchase. If we take $ 5,000 per acre as an example, that enables us to purchase 9,000 acres. But that is 9,000 annually. If we would have done this 20 years ago, we would currently have an additional 180,000 acres of recreational land available to tax payers. And our management fund would be Up to $ 900,000,000. Figure 3% return on the management money, we would have $ 27,000,000 annually to fund management. Let me know if my math is incorrect, but i would much rather have 180,000 public acres backed by $27,000,000 annually for local management, than what we have now.
 
Tilkut said:
I am in total agreement that we should not do what we currently do. Let's go through an example. We spend $1,800,000,000. On CRP. Lets figure what ever we do, 1/2 the spending will be to set up an account to fund LOCAL management. Let's just say PH for now. I will estimate that Iowa ( largest crp state ) receives approx. 5% of the total. That gives us 90,000,000 to spend annually, $ 45,000,000 of which will be set aside to fund management. So we have $ 45,000,000 for land purchase. If we take $ 5,000 per acre as an example, that enables us to purchase 9,000 acres. But that is 9,000 annually. If we would have done this 20 years ago, we would currently have an additional 180,000 acres of recreational land available to tax payers. And our management fund would be Up to $ 900,000,000. Figure 3% return on the management money, we would have $ 27,000,000 annually to fund management. Let me know if my math is incorrect, but i would much rather have 180,000 public acres backed by $27,000,000 annually for local management, than what we have now.
Click to expand...
But who's paying for management while you get to 900 mill? I think you are under estimating management costs greatly and you costs rise each year you add more acres reducing your available $$ to acquire. Also where you gonna buy 9,000 acres in Iowa for 5,000/ac. Also do you realize you got at least $300/ac upfront cost to plant the seed. That's if you don't need to fix tile or dirt work or cut trees or junk brush, etc etc . Who's equipment are you using? You need more bigger equip with more acres. On top of this you have removed taxes on 180,000 acres or did you not take that out of your costs?


Then also do you want the govt to become a land Barron? There are laws against that also.
 
Just put in 22 acres of crp and I got well over $350/ac in planting costs.

Seed $6500
Mowing 600
Disk. 400
Potash. 800 (with app)

8300/22= 377/ac.

Pollinator habitat done exactly to pf and nrcs guidelines
 
Well if I have half the $ 90,000,000 each year for management, that gives me
$ 45,000,000 to manage the 9,000 acres the first year. Comes out to $ 5,000 per acre. I realize costs will be higher up front, but i think I could manage. Even if my costs aren't exact, the point is the same. I dont think the current system is effective, or the best way to allocate scarce resources for the most benefit to the tax paying public. Permanent, public, locally managed lands would be much better. But I realize some benefit from the current system, and will not want to change.
 
Bees and butterfly's aren't short of flowers.

All the hay I cut last summer didn't have a dozen butterflys in it.
 
Tilkut said:
Well if I have half the $ 90,000,000 each year for management, that gives me
$ 45,000,000 to manage the 9,000 acres the first year. Comes out to $ 5,000 per acre. I realize costs will be higher up front, but i think I could manage. Even if my costs aren't exact, the point is the same. I dont think the current system is effective, or the best way to allocate scarce resources for the most benefit to the tax paying public. Permanent, public, locally managed lands would be much better. But I realize some benefit from the current system, and will not want to change.
Click to expand...

Tilkut, there is a place for permanent but it is not a replacement for CRP. there's at least 43 different CRP programs of 10 and 15 contracts. Longer is not always better.

Permanent loses funding over time and the ground begins to look like pubic lands (state/federal) real quick in that they get stale and produce little wildlife.

To keep lands procudctive it takes continual funding.
 
Please note I do not want to do the "same old", " same old". I agree management in the past has not been good. That is why HALF the money spent would be on management, and those in charge would be some type of local conservation agency, etc..... Please take note of the dollars listed in my example.
If you dont think $ 5,000 per acre is enough, we could make it 2/3 of the formula. That would give us 5994 acres a year, with $ 9,999 for land management. Would $ 9,999 per acre not be enough? Still a better long term result than current formula, for the majority of taxpayers, and wildlife. I dont think the majority of the benefits from dollars spent on CRP go to either the people who pay for the program ( taxpayers) or wildlife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top