CRP

In a class of mine today we learned about the Conservation Reserve Program. I am not talking any politics just wondering how many on here take part. I was going to post this then saw JD Sellers post. Again dont want politics but learned alot about why the program was started. Anybody here take part? Trying to do a little research for my class and get some starting points. Thanks all.

I looked at it about 12 years ago but decided against it.

1. Don't like the government in my business.

2. The land is here for us to use wisely. That being done there really is no need for CRP.

3. The cost to get out of it should you change your mind at a leter date.

Every one I know in the area who are enrolled are in it because of the money. When they signed up they would get more per year than for cash rent. For some it's a good deal. Just not for me.

Rick

I really like your second point. If used wisely there wouldn't be
a need. But we all know that we aren't all wise hahaha.
Thanks for you input! I do appreciate it.

There wasn't a need for it in the first place, IHMO- when it was instituted, commodity prices were low, and too much land was being farmed, keeping the prices low. The CRP really had little to do with conservation, and much more to do with taking land out of production to limit commodity supplies, so prices would go up. Sure, you had to take your most erosion-prone land out, but lots of perfectly good, usable land was removed as well.

With 8 dollar corn and 12 dollar soybeans, lots of those guys are having second thought, I'll bet. . .

To add to your education, research the Soil Bank program of the 1950's.

CRP is just another type of farm welfare program.

depends on which parts of CRP you are talking about.i participate in the part that "rents" a strip usually 50' along the river and streams that feed into the river. it does provide a grassed area that slows any erosion from running soil into the river. good stewardship, and the rent, is the carrot. the club is that without the CRP strip, you can't spread manure within 200' of the waterway. corn doesn't grow so well without fertilizer.
i'm ok with it, but not the part of CRP that takes whole farms out of production.

CRP did start as a land-idling program in the mid1980s. They even offered a bonus for one year for corn base acres to be taken out of production and put in the program.

However, the program has shifted and within the last decade and has become much more of a conservation program. In fact, there are now likely around 6-7 million acres in the CRP that could be brought back into row-crop production without causing environmental damage. In other words, there are still more than 20 million acres in it that ARE environmentally sensitive (highly erodible, etc.).

The maximum acreage allowed in the program was reduced with the 2008 Farm Bill as a cost-saving measure. And the acreage level will be reduced again in the new bill -- again to save costs.

But it is a popular program. In the last 3 general signups (competitive bid type, not the continuous signup where you can enroll any time), around 50-60% of the land accepted in for a new 10-15 year contract were acres that had already been in the program. And the average rental payment under those general signup acres is MUCH lower than going cash rents -- nationwide average is around $50 per acre. Now you tell me where you can rent CROP land for that??!!

It has made a difference in some areas relative to creating more wildlife habitat.

Lot of the folks in it are elderly that just don't want to mess with either operating it themselves or dealing with renters, etc. Steady guaranteed income.

I don't think it was entirely based on Agriculture or farmer's needs. In some instances I know of land was purchased for hunting or other recreational purposes and the CRP program was used to subsidize the cost of carrying the land. And again we deal with what really is sustainable agriculture? Some of the land idled under CRP to prevent erosion can be productive in uses other than row cropping or small grains allowing the land to produce food and not be degraded by erosion. I am a firm believer that world hunger as we know it is an economic problem, we have the capability to feed the world, but the world doesn't have the ability to pay for enough food for everyone. One of the precepts of economics is that market forces drive markets to greater efficiencies and when governments intervene to check market forces they introduce market inefficiencies that drive prices up to reward inefficient producers. CRP being one of them.

How so? The government rents your land to do with it what it wants to. If they didn't rent it anyone else could.

(quoted from post at 11:24:50 10/10/12) CRP did start as a land-idling program in the mid1980s. They even offered a bonus for one year for corn base acres to be taken out of production and put in the program.

However, the program has shifted and within the last decade and has become much more of a conservation program. In fact, there are now likely around 6-7 million acres in the CRP that could be brought back into row-crop production without causing environmental damage. In other words, there are still more than 20 million acres in it that ARE environmentally sensitive (highly erodible, etc.).

The maximum acreage allowed in the program was reduced with the 2008 Farm Bill as a cost-saving measure. And the acreage level will be reduced again in the new bill -- again to save costs.

But it is a popular program. In the last 3 general signups (competitive bid type, not the continuous signup where you can enroll any time), around 50-60% of the land accepted in for a new 10-15 year contract were acres that had already been in the program. And the average rental payment under those general signup acres is MUCH lower than going cash rents -- nationwide average is around $50 per acre. Now you tell me where you can rent CROP land for that??!!

It has made a difference in some areas relative to creating more wildlife habitat.

Lot of the folks in it are elderly that just don't want to mess with either operating it themselves or dealing with renters, etc. Steady guaranteed income.

Click to expand...

But here a guy I know is get 50 an acre CRP and cash rent is about 45.

Rick

you mean the farmer welfare program --it is a debacle with ZERO benefits and costs billions--i will debate anyone anytime as to the benefis --here we call them welfare whores who destroy the land

That's the way I see it. It's renting it to the government for wildlife habitat. Apparently taxpayers are in to that kind of thing.
Only thing that ticks me off a little is that originally it was only highly erodable land. When the neighbor signed up in one of the first rounds,they only took the hillsides around the outside of the bulk of his tilable land. About three years later,they changed the requirement and took all the rest.

Have to say there are some benefits... The strips that are in place for soil erosion are beneficial. You may not see it as such but there are benefits. But I believe lots of people abuse the system.

they have always paid less then cash rent. BUT i'm looking at a spinoff program called "CREP".
it pays better and allows you to idle up to 7acres in sensative spots of your land. you can have as many 7acre plots as you want but they can't touch each other. BUT it's all on hold until a new farm bill comes into place.

I have participated in CRP, having inherited land that my mother put into the program. This is the last year for our lease. We've sold the land and the new owner is putting it back into production.

CRP was and is primarily a price support program, with conservation a secondary goal. The idea is that if you're going to take land out of production, it makes sense to take out the least productive land, ground that maybe should never have been tilled in the first place. As the federal budget gets tighter and commodity prices rise, it's inevitable that land will be taken out of CRP.

For those who call it "farm welfare", I won't disagree. The same can be said for the rest of the farm program, although some parts are more egregious than others. The only thing I will say in defense of CRP is that like all other government programs it is intended to achieve certain goals and may not necessarily be the most efficient way of doing it. It certainly has reduced crop production and I think it's fair to say it has had a positive effect on soil erosion. Whether those benefits outweigh the cost of the program is for others to decide.

In my neck of the woods CRP land is going back into production. More money can be made farming it. I have land in CRP filter strips along the drainage ditch. The GVT is paying me $240/A for land that normally would cash rent for $400/A. So much for the 'welfare program'!!! Jim

Opinions are just that, opinions, so pay little attention to the attacks of welfare, etc. Those opinions have no value. I bought a farm several years ago that had been farmed to death. It was weed infested and eroding. I wanted to build it up so I enrolled it in CRP and sowed Sericea Lespedeza and Fescue to build soil and prevent erosion. When it came out of the program I left the waterways sowed down and used no till for crops. Let me tell you that the CRP changed that farm into a productive, conservation wise farm. I could not have afforded to idle that farm without the CRP program that paid me yearly. Others may call it welfare, which I couldn't care less what they think, but I call it taking care of your investment which is wise farming.

One of the biggest benefits was how much dredging the Corp of Engineers did not have to do on the Missouri and Mississippi rivers.

That's the way we are learning it. It's to help farms regrow. You take it out for 10 years to replenish the soils then put that back in service and take another part out of service.

The CRP was a part of the 1988 farm bill called The Food Security Act as you have probably learned. In it's first years it was aimed at retiring land considered erodible and not suitable for continuous row-cropping. At least here in Iowa it worked fairly well, removing some poor land from production and adding some wildlife habitat. It was also partly aimed at propping up a difficult farm economy as others have said, but it wasn't much of a production control as most of the first land enrolled was not the most productive anyway. Later on CRP was expanded to include wetlands(WRP), border strips, etc. that did take some better land out of row-crop. In 1988, I worked with a couple of the land owners I farmed for in getting some field areas into CRP and it definitely added to the local pheasant population as well as improved my bottom line by eliminating some of the least productive acres. With corn/soybean/land prices what they currently are, many acres are coming back out into row-crop and I think that trend will continue.

one(?) thing I will say, you cant really go there without debating the politics of the thing,theres two sides to everything. those who LIKE it,if you checked,would most likely be those who OWN land,and are in a age group who either remember the dust bowl years,or lived it. Those who DONT like it,again if you checked,are most likely those who rent farm land and are upset because they percieve it as in some convuluted way as taking money out of their pocket. just one thing crp has done out of many ,is slow sheet erosion,which costs EVERY farmer money every year wheather they know it or not. Remember guys the dusts storms of the thities wasnt caused by water erosion,it wasnt caused by outdated farming practices( farmers then used the best equipment and practices they could just like now) it was caused 100% by a thing called sheet erosion. when you disc or plow a field your opening it up to this,each and every time,wheather you know it or understand it or not.Highly erodable land,DOES NOT MEAN land that can wash away only.It means also land where due to the lack of rainfall,nutrients,whatever land is left bare for a extended period.Just like happens EVERY YEAR in the US when a GOOD FARMER dusts his wheat or whatever and HOPES for rain. sheet erosion is the number one reason for loss of topsoil worldwide. Guys who argue against crp on the simple concept that land COULD raise crops are missing the point entirely of the crp program. Notill goes a long way to address this problem but its not a 100% cure. Theres many many really good farmers who have tried it who have went back to full till simply because of reduced yeilds means less money at the end of the year.Those folks IN MY OPINION have no right at all to argue that it takes good land out of production. Maximum profit is very very often the worst thing possible for the land itself. In fact,around here,most of the acres that go into crp WERE leased out for a number of years to farmers wanting to maximize profits. When these fields were no longer bringing in the profits they want or the inputs became such that they couldnt get those profits they simply walked away ( a real major asset if you lease farm ground,you CAN walk away from it) and left a landowner,often absent, or retired from farming himself due to health or age holding the bag. He could simply let it lay,and let sheet erosion take its course,or he can put in crp, which in the majority of cases is the best option for stewardship of the land BAR NO OTHERS!. Heres a little tip for those folks here who lease out land to local farmers, next time your lease comes up put a clause in your contract that says that the leasing farmer must plant that acreage to grass before he walks away. see how many of those renting farmers agree to this.bet youll not find many, regardless if they are good stewards of your land or not.WHY? cant maximize profits that way and grass is not cheap. so you see there is pros and cons.some folks it helps some it hurts.its not for everyone ,but it never was intended to be. but in a way it does benifit everyone,with improved air quality,water quality etc. thats what its supposed to do. folks who dont believe it does help, like i say, doesnt remember the time when folks were dying for no other reason than their lungs were full of dust.

Jack - you are exactly right, for where you and I are located. A good portion of land in OK, KS, Eastern Co, Western Ne, deserves to be in CRP. Not that other states don't have land as well, but people need to remember that years ago, when every one had a quarter, the most of it was farmed is those days. A good portion was not fit for farming but had to be anyway. Some of that land needed to go back to grass. And I'm talking about thousands and thousands of acres. Most of the land in Ia, IL, In, and such is better on the poor ground, than a lot of the best ground in the areas at the top of my note. Just saying it depends on where you are at. Trouble is, the Gov couldn't just limit it to the states it needed to be in or the masses would have cried foul.

When CRP first came out, a neighbor had just bought 480 acres of land. Put it in CRP for ten years and it paid off the loan. Then the gov made a rule that you had to own the land for three years. I don't know if that is still in effect or not. By the way that guy ended up giving the land to his wife in a divorce. He lives in an apartment in town on social security.