Vilsack to Attend Pheasant Fest

In Iowa, really would not matter with $7 corn and $15 beans. CRP is coming out fast. Can drive around central Iowa and the only grass is hay or public.
 
Your point is spot on. So is the solution IMO.

Double the payment on CRP and cut back the acres and make the acres much more targeted and strategic. None of this take a whole filed out of production. Buffer all the waterways and any erodible piece on the farm.

Better yet, tie these measures to federal crop insurance.
 
UGUIDE said:
Your point is spot on. So is the solution IMO.

Double the payment on CRP and cut back the acres and make the acres much more targeted and strategic. None of this take a whole filed out of production. Buffer all the waterways and any erodible piece on the farm.

Better yet, tie these measures to federal crop insurance.
Click to expand...

Two thumbs up on those ideas!!!!!!!!
 
I think this would be a good start. This adminestration is not going to do that. The days of the government carring about wildlife is over, I am afraid. The only ones to help are going to be local groups. Even the national groups have more on their agenda than helping the upland sports men and women. Case in point, canada wild rye is deadly on dogs, but guess what PF and local governments are planting? If you don't believe it go to meanseed.org and read the case studies. Most public ground is covered with it. Iowa did ok the releasing of pen raised phesants. Small victory. We spend more on bike trails than public habitat. Iowa ranks, I believe, 49th in the amout of publicly held land. Rhode Island is ahead of us.
 
Vilsack is the Main speaker at the Sat night banquet at PF Fest. We'll see what he has to say.

One other rumor I heard is they are raising CRP rental rates by 40%. Not sure if that is all counties or all states or just a county by county thing.
 
UGUIDE said:
Would be amazing if he had any kind of new CRP announcements. No hints of any such thing as of yet.

If there are going to be any big conservation announcements it will be at this event.

http://pheasantsforever.org/page/1/PressReleaseViewer.jsp?pressReleaseId=119204
Click to expand...

Announcement made and there will be CRP opening up for this year,General Sign up opens 20 MAY, also a review of rent amounts to "keep CRP competitive"and continueous CRP thru 2013.

Good new indeed:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
I think going forward that the key to any federal program is for it to be income neutral to income positive for landowners. It should focus on land that is marginally profitable or being farmed at a loss. The only way to appreciably evaluate the land for this is to do GPS harvest evaluation on croplands and do a balance sheet of costs versus inputs. Any land that is only marginally profitable or being farmed at a loss should be eligible for continuous CRP through one program or another. Enrollment would be financially positive to the operator and provide a stable income for future years while saving valuable natural and input resources that are now being wasted. Somewhere the feds need to make evaluating cropland productivity a requirement. It would be of great interest to the insurance companies as they wouldn't be paying for losses that are "built in".
 
UGUIDE said:
Vilsack is the Main speaker at the Sat night banquet at PF Fest. We'll see what he has to say.

One other rumor I heard is they are raising CRP rental rates by 40%. Not sure if that is all counties or all states or just a county by county thing.
Click to expand...

I did not re-enroll my acres that were paying $43/A when the offer was at $31/A.

Interesting, $31 x 1.40 = $43/A
 
SDJIM said:
Announcement made and there will be CRP opening up for this year,General Sign up opens 20 MAY, also a review of rent amounts to "keep CRP competitive"and continueous CRP thru 2013.

Good new indeed:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to the release?
 
Prairie Drifter said:
I think going forward that the key to any federal program is for it to be income neutral to income positive for landowners. It should focus on land that is marginally profitable or being farmed at a loss. The only way to appreciably evaluate the land for this is to do GPS harvest evaluation on croplands and do a balance sheet of costs versus inputs. Any land that is only marginally profitable or being farmed at a loss should be eligible for continuous CRP through one program or another. Enrollment would be financially positive to the operator and provide a stable income for future years while saving valuable natural and input resources that are now being wasted. Somewhere the feds need to make evaluating cropland productivity a requirement. It would be of great interest to the insurance companies as they wouldn't be paying for losses that are "built in".
Click to expand...

It is entirely possible given our current level of disfunction that this concept makes way too much sense.

Just going completely pie in the sky here but what if we also attempted to measure other costs not accounted for in the profit/loss balance sheet like soil erosion losses and then strategically targeted economically competative conservation programs for those areas as well?
 
M. R. Byrd said:
I did not re-enroll my acres that were paying $43/A when the offer was at $31/A.

Interesting, $31 x 1.40 = $43/A
Click to expand...

I did learn that some places went down. That surely won't work.

Also heard there would be some new releases of CCRP acres like 33, 38, 37. Where when we do not have details on.

Also heard rumor reason for no new issues of CRP was government system software had a bug in it and was being worked on.

Vilsack mainly announced new General CRP sign up in May. More details here.....

http://pheasantsforever.org/page/1/PressReleaseViewer.jsp?pressReleaseId=119211


Good to meet you all like FCS, Dakotazeb, Goldenboy and others. I am shot. Being exhibitor wears you out and you can't walk around and look at cool stuff.
 
Prairie Drifter said:
I think going forward that the key to any federal program is for it to be income neutral to income positive for landowners. It should focus on land that is marginally profitable or being farmed at a loss. The only way to appreciably evaluate the land for this is to do GPS harvest evaluation on croplands and do a balance sheet of costs versus inputs. Any land that is only marginally profitable or being farmed at a loss should be eligible for continuous CRP through one program or another. Enrollment would be financially positive to the operator and provide a stable income for future years while saving valuable natural and input resources that are now being wasted. Somewhere the feds need to make evaluating cropland productivity a requirement. It would be of great interest to the insurance companies as they wouldn't be paying for losses that are "built in".
Click to expand...

Right on PD. I agree 150%.

Interesting comments related to CRP announcement on an AG forum brought to my attention from a UGUIDE hunter that farms in Ohio.

You will see snippets of ignorance and opps for education but also that most farmers can agree that "CRP makes sense" when applied to right area at right time.

http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=367644&mid=2905219#M2905219
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top