Guests - If You want access to member only forums on FM. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on Fishing Minnesota.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
grab the net

CRP Loss

89 posts in this topic

How many CRP fields you have run across that have been worked up since last hunting season. I am not judging any farmers decision here, just intrested in what everyone is seeing. In the area I hunted last week, I saw a total of approximately 3 full sections, (1900 plus acres) that had been worked. I was told that the County I was hunting in would lose approximately 50% of the CRP by next fall. I hope they are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kandiyohi county; I live bout 15 mi.out of Willmar,I'd guess I've seen bout 2-3 hundred acres just in the last few weeks gettin worked,I havent gone out of my way lookin!! frown.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, Get your birds this year the gravy train is over. Where I hunt in SD the Farmer took 2 sections out this Oct. Next Oct 1st 3 sections will be plowed under. He will have hardly any huntable land left. We may not make the trip next year. As only drainage type of area and very scant fence lines will be left. He had no choice but to try to farm it as it cannot be re enrolled. He wanted this marginal land to stay in the program as he saw the erosion and wildlife benefits.

Property taxes don't pay themselves.

Mwal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government is running low on funds for the CRP program, so land that was up for re-enrollment is being reduced to the bare minimum. We were forced to take out half of our CRP that was up, even though we argued that it is better for the slough if we left the whole thing in. Didn't matter.

Land prices are skyrocketing - $4350 per acre asking price in our area, and higher in others. Anything that isn't being funded to remain idle will have to be farmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call your Senator and say:

#1 pass the farm bill and get the $$ back in the system.

#2 Re-think ethanol subsidization.

The loss of CRP is the direct effect of a boom in corn production. This boom is the result of market speculation linked to the tax-fund-fueled expansion of ethanol capacity and the possibility of future consumption.

In other words, farmers are getting a premium for their corn, because futures markets are projecting profits from ethanol. The fire is fueled by the removal risk from the marketplace for farmers by federal subsidies for corn and for ethanol producers and speculators by federal and state subsidies for ethanol production and plant construction.

Why would farmers not grow corn? Federal subsidies assure that growing it will pay no matter what and if the ethanol gravy train comes in corn production might pay a ton.

This is all exacerbated by the need for a new farm bill, i.e fresh conservation money to keep acres in CRP. The house bill is mediocre and Senator Harkin is having a heck of a time getting a proper conservation title in the Senate version without passing 'round the pork to his southern colleagues.

As an aside, I am personally pro-ethanol, but until we figure out how to (1) produce it efficiently, (2) with cellulose [prairie-grasses, scrub brush and left over farm matter] and (3) limit water use in the process, we are robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where the premium price is paid for corn. Today's price in Glenwood is $3.60/bu and that's up from what it has been. Yes, the price has about doubled from what it was a couple years ago but don't forget, it is now just getting back up to about where it was previous to that. Basically, it's about typical of the prices I recall for the past 15 years I've been farming. Granted, I'm not a corn farmer but I haven't seen any significant rise in prices. Beans and until recently wheat until its price plummeted have shown significant increase in value this year, but I'm sure that will be short-lived like wheat was.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FrankGWP-

Just a couple points in response to your post.

-The ethanol subsidization has nothing to do with CRP funding. It is more like a tax break - same as oil companies get.

-The loss of CRP is not a direct effect of the "boom" in corn prices. Most guys will plant corn on corn instead of having a crop rotation with soybeans. When the gov't says they will not pay you for the full amount of acres in CRP, and tell you which ones should be removed, there is no point in leaving the CRP there.

-Farmers are not really getting a premium for their corn. The local corn plant is paying the same amount per bushel of corn as our local elevator. The higher corn price is following the rise in bean and wheat prices. One commodity can bring others up with it.

-Minnesota is the only state that has a high ethanol production system. Both Illinios and Iowa produce more corn than we do, but do not have as many ethanol plants. Our state is not the one setting the mood for buying or selling on the Board of Trade.

-The cost of doing business has also dramatically risen. The cost of fuel, land, machinery, and seed have risen at a much greater rate than the price we get for our crop. Right now, a new combine (which only gets used about two to three weeks per year) costs over $250,000. My house isn't worth that!

-At this time, corn is the most profitable crop to grow. When I married my farmer hubby 19 years ago, soybeans were the most valuable, and most farmers planted more beans than corn. From what I have seen, the value of crops tends to cycle. Who knows, wheat may be the next big thing again!

-It gets a little old hearing the same thing about subsidies, and how the farmers are really raking in the cash from program payments. In order to really guarantee that we can cover the cost of our inputs every year, we buy crop insurance. There is not government payment that will make sure we get paid no matter what. They offer low interest loans, but no outright payments if you have a crop failure.

-As far as the farm bill, the general farm organizations like the House version of the bill, and are encouraging the Senate to follow their lead.

-I am glad that you are pro-ethanol. Most farmers see the industry as new, and know that there will be better methods of making the end product. We also know that whatever it is made out of, it has to be a better alternative to OPEC deciding how many barrels of oil to pump.

I appologize for the length of this. I get pretty fired up talking about my industry! smirk.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fishingchicks.

While CRP and ethanol run through different programs. Let's set a few things straight.

Farmers make more money through corn thus are letting CRP contracts expire or exiting early if possible. Farmers put land in CRP 5 - 15 years ago because it made better economic sense at that point in time.

US government should STOP all ethanol subsidies and then pay fair and competitive value for CRP acres.

World hunger programs cannot get enough food to feed starving people.

Ag companies (equipment, chemicals, wholesellers, etc) are all lobbying hard against this. They make money on every acre planted and every bushel moved.

Ethanol being subsidized fuels the problem. Tariffs on Brazilian and South African ethanol is another HIDDEN subsidy. If US is free trade and ethanol is our fuel savior why the 50 cents tariff...

Save a penny at the pump - pay double for meat, cereal, and dairy.

Quote:

-Minnesota is the only state that has a high ethanol production system. Both Illinios and Iowa produce more corn than we do, but do not have as many ethanol plants. Our state is not the one setting the mood for buying or selling on the Board of Trade.


Finally lets tackle this quote:

State Current Ethanol Capacity Planned Expansions

Iowa 1827 1794

Illinois 883 291

Minnesota 612 442.5

South Dakota 608 425

Iowa State University web site

I know the table will not show right but Iowa is far ahead in current and planned ethanol production. Sodak right with MN and for the time being Illinois is ahead of MN too.

One plant in IL produces the equivalent of 1/2 the MN production of ethanol.

Maybe more ethanol plants in MN, but capacity and need for corn is less. Iowa produces three times the ethanol as MN!!

When a society must burn its food as fuel they are doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

State Current Ethanol Capacity Planned Expansions


Key word....Planned. That is not data on actual production, not that it matters. Rarely do people believe the truth when it comes to ethanol. They believe what they read in the Star Tribune.

I know a thing or 2 about this, I'm management in one of the 4 major players in the industry. Looking ahead at the market I can tell you ethanol producers are in for a tough road the next 2 years. The boom is over and only the serious players will survive. Construction has stopped or been postponed in many areas, expansions have been ceased, and production facilities have tightened their belts. Give it a couple years and things will reverse, corn price will go back into the cellar, people will be squaking about burning forign oil, gas will still be expensive, and poor countries will still be starving. If this worries you grow a garden.

Name the one thing that hasn't really gone up in price much in the last 5 years. Insurance? Asprin? Beer? Cars?? Nope, it's corn. Loss of CRP is a business decision. Farmers should be allowed to do as they wish with their lands. If it makes good business sense to plant corn on CRP then they will make that decision on their own.

Blame ethanol if it makes you feel better, but at least realize it's here to stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you boilerguy, Always appreciate your perspective on this one. Mine is from an IPM/production ag perspective in SC MN. In addition, due to some of our connections, we provide information that touches the lives of hundreds of farmers across the country and in some foreign countries through the national ag media over the course of a growing season. Corn acreage for '08 is expected to be down substantially over '07 for several of the reasons mentioned by fishinchicks, not the least of which is the expense per acre of raising it and the yield butt kicking many of the "newbies" to corn on corn took this past season. Suddenly $10 soybeans look pretty appealing. '09 intentions? If I knew the answer to that, I'd be sipping a gin and tonic on my private Caribbean island and dictating this to my voluptuous secretary. Too many market forces and too many intangibles at play. Most of the CRP acres that have come out so far have not been planted to corn but rather to wheat due to the location of the expiring contracts. I agree, corn market prices can and will likely tank somtime in the not too distant future. I remember the last "New Plateau" speeches all too well. Was 10 years and a lot of LDP and counter cyclical payments (tax dollars) before prices recovered. I am a conservation minded sort however. We have CREP acres which can't be touched. If we as a society want CRP acres we'd better speak up and be willing to ante up for them or expect to pay the consequences if we aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with current vs expansion. By the way - the numbers I quote are not Strib. They are Iowa State University numbers.

My real role in life centers around crude, UNL, ethanol, distillates ........

ADM makes a whole lot of ethanol in IA and IL.

Be interesting to see if the smaller co-ops survive or get gobbled up by the big guys at fire sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about $17 durum??????????

Northern ND farmers must be excited?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Be interesting to see if the smaller co-ops survive or get gobbled up by the big guys at fire sales.


Yes, it will be. My gut tells me that established facilities with some cash will survive. The new kids on the block will be making Horned Trout Lager when it's all said and done. But that is a discussion for a different fourm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crazy, isn't it brittman? Back in the mid-70's, durum prices hit $7 and people in the Durum Triangle thought they had struck gold. The cash market on durum is $17 - $18 of course because there's none to be had. The contracts I've heard of for next year are only in the $8.50 range. Smile when you say "only" but it will take at least that to pry acres away from hard red spring wheat or soybeans. Doesn't yield as well as HRSW and has potentially more issues with scab. Much more hard red winter wheat planted this fall in both Dakota's with some here in MN, particularly in the Valley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Minnesota we look to see some moderate CRP loss, South Dakota and Iowa will see dramatic losses. Iowa alone could lose almost 128,000 acres of CRP now as the look to become row crop to keep up with ethanol needs and with no CRP in 2008 they could loose another 350 to 400 square miles of CRP.

South Dakota now that October 1st is here will lose 300,000 acres this year alone.

CRP acres are not even full, but only the the USDA can issue an enrollment. The farm bill, in my opinion has to keep the acreage available to keep our numbers viable for pheasant/quail populations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethanol plants can be turned into breweries??? WOOOOHOOOO grin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

-At this time, corn is the most profitable crop to grow. When I married my farmer hubby 19 years ago, soybeans were the most valuable, and most farmers planted more beans than corn. From what I have seen, the value of crops tends to cycle. Who knows, wheat may be the next big thing again!

-It gets a little old hearing the same thing about subsidies, and how the farmers are really raking in the cash from program payments. In order to really guarantee that we can cover the cost of our inputs every year, we buy crop insurance. There is not government payment that will make sure we get paid no matter what. They offer low interest loans, but no outright payments if you have a crop failure.

-As far as the farm bill, the general farm organizations like the House version of the bill, and are encouraging the Senate to follow their lead.

-I am glad that you are pro-ethanol. Most farmers see the industry as new, and know that there will be better methods of making the end product. We also know that whatever it is made out of, it has to be a better alternative to OPEC deciding how many barrels of oil to pump.


The purpose of my post was not to step on toes. I am pro farmer...but in the interest of full disclosure I am more pro-bird.

My point is two fold:

(1) Corn prices are a driving factor behind CRP loss. Corn prices are up and the futures market based on ethanol speculation which is/was driven by federal and state funding is a huge reason. Accordingly, farmers are planting more corn. That is how capitalism works. I think it is in everyone's best interest to think about the investment we as a society are making with our funding decisions and whether those investments are best supporting our interests. For me that means an emphasis on bird habitat. I am willing to support a dollar for dollar exchange from cropland to habitat. I want to ensure that public funding goes to support grasslands and wetlands to so that the bird population - way of life and that of my children - stays in tact.

(2) Addressing subsidies: I would like people to reflect on how policy decisions address risk in agriculture markets. This is a complex topic and there are no easy answers. But suppressing farm risks makes a huge impact on everyone of us for weather we base the impact on roosters in the bag, steak on the table or the development of third world nations(and intern the affects that their stability might have on our lives). Again, I don't have the answer but I encourage people to think about it.

Finally, I spent the last six months chin deep in the farm bill. As an upland bird hunter/conservationist the House Bill is mediocre, a C+ at best. Hopefully the senate bill will be better. Farmers did OK - as long as the farmers in question grow soy, corn or cotton. Trinkets were handed out to everyone else in comparison. If anyone would like to discuss this topic more robustly I would be happy to post on a separate thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I will say on this topic is this, the "good old days" for pheasants is right now and don't for an instant think things like ethanol, corn prices and CRP don't all interact in making the loss of the good ol days for pheasants a reality, its a complicated intertwined problem that we can't straighten out here that's for sure! Just enjoy the birds and the grasslands while we have them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe the good old days are now. In fact since CRP who here has observed higher pheasant populations? Its my observation that CRP spreads out the birds during summer and Fall and thats about it. IMO Hunters got duped into supporting CRP.

Once theres snow that CRP field is worthless. At what time of year is cover at its least. That would be winter, a field covered in snow isn't winter cover. Cattail sloughs, fence rows, or some little nook that off in corner thats just to hard to plow is winter cover. What more birds, leave more cover standing to go wild. The good old days were decades ago before farming became much more efficient. At one time it was Minnesota that boosted the #1 state for pheasant numbers. Whats happened? Fence row to fence row farming, every scrap of land is now utilized. CRP is a band-aid on a gaping wound. Want the good old days back, you'll have to convince the large corporate farms to get sloppy and leave some untouched buffers to go back wild.

I'm not anti farmer but its my opinion that all landowners should be willful conservationists and not squeeze all they can out of the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

I don't believe the good old days are now. In fact since CRP who here has observed higher pheasant populations? Its my observation that CRP spreads out the birds during summer and Fall and thats about it. IMO Hunters got duped into supporting CRP.

Once theres snow that CRP field is worthless. At what time of year is cover at its least. That would be winter, a field covered in snow isn't winter cover. Cattail sloughs, fence rows, or some little nook that off in corner thats just to hard to plow is winter cover. What more birds, leave more cover standing to go wild. The good old days were decades ago before farming became much more efficient. At one time it was Minnesota that boosted the #1 state for pheasant numbers. Whats happened? Fence row to fence row farming, every scrap of land is now utilized. CRP is a band-aid on a gaping wound. Want the good old days back, you'll have to convince the large corporate farms to get sloppy and leave some untouched buffers to go back wild.

I'm not anti farmer but its my opinion that all landowners should be willful conservationists and not squeeze all they can out of the land.


First off - buffer strips are great! Buffer strips and support for conservation focused farming practices are one of Senator Harkin's top priorities.

Second - CRP is for nesting. That is its benefit. It can be hunted and that is great, but it is not my favorite stuff to hunt.

Your comments on the harms of ditch to ditch farming and corporate interests influencing conservation decisions are thought provoking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't doubt it was better a long time ago, but since I've been hunting, which started before CRP, I can't think of anything that has done more in our area to improve habitat than CRP. And I totally disagree that big grasslands don't provide winter cover, my 56 acres of CRP holds birds all winter. In fact the worst winter we've had since we owned that piece was 96 or 97 (I don't remember) and we fed pheasants in there to help them and there were dozens of birds in there all winter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Just enjoy the birds and the grasslands while we have them!


I agree with Lawdog that we are in a period of "good old days" as far as bird populations are concerned. But do not be fooled into thinking that this was an accident. PF, DU, the Nature Conservancy and similar organizations working in partnership with publicly funded programs such as the conservation title of the Federal Farm Bill and Federal Duck Stamp revenues played a HUGE if not dominating role in our current "good old days."

Accordingly, I recoil at the above sentiment. I do not want to explain to my children that the grasslands went away because I was too busy enjoying them for myself to ensure their existence for them. I could use many colorful adjectives to express my reaction to this way of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surface...Not sure if I am reading this right or not???? CRP and the native prairie grasses that encompass those grounds are exactly the victor in our pheasant numbers growing! This nesting cover is by far the most dramatic improvement to the good ole days you speak of... That is when the "buffer strips" were actually 160 acres or better of beautiful big bluestem and switchgrass, clovers and hundreds of native flowers and berries, chokecherries, all the benefit to nest in. If you needed cover, hit the dogwood, the honeysuckle, the eastern red cedars, the cattails and willow thickets. I hear stories of men starting at one side of a mile section and groups of 30 or more just walking across the section to shoot birds... Why, because of HABITAT!!!

And as for the winter knocking your cover down, sure some will, but you need to have cover solutions encompassed in your plot as well, be it a grove of tree's, ground cover like the species I spoke of above or more. Not just for human cover, but also the cover from elements of nature and those big soaring birds that think those critters taste just as good as I do!

My eyes love nothing better to see a quarter section stand of switchgrass with beautiful thatches of Bluestem tucked throughout!!! Pure beauty, and it's residents taste good too!

I will now step down from my CRP soapbox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only pheasants!! Just when I started to see meadow larks,bob o links,Which have been void in their natural areas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Mike89
      2 people on the north end of Osakis now
    • fishersofmen
      Yeah next week looks good for getting out. Hopefully the snow totals stay on the low side but at least its gonna be the light powder variety.
    • Neighbor_guy
      3" on west hunter in Zimmerman 15yds from shore.  Lakes talking a lot today. Keep in mind the lake is only 8' deep   A dozen trucks/cars at Baxter last evening when I drove by  
    • CJH
      Thanks for the update.  Good news!!     Be safe everyone!
    • CJH
      Thanks guys.  So just to recap so far, Nils and KDrill require adapters, which add $30 or so, but you can use them w/out the drill plate if you want to.  How about Strikemasters do they need an adapter?     Also, just wondering if there is any legit reason to pay $100 more for the K Drill over the Nils?  Seems to me they are about the same weight (ballpark) and both cut pretty fast.     Thanks again for the info fellas!!