Tag: conservation reserve program

Crop Prices Cut Into Conservation

  • Corn production in Colorado. (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA Agricultural Research Service)

With grain prices hitting record highs, a lot
of farmers are removing land from the federal Conservation
Reserve Program. The CRP pays farmers to stop growing
crops on poor land and instead grow trees or grass cover.
That creates habitat for wildlife. The US Department of
Agriculture, which runs the program, says the CRP is still
in good shape. Katherine Glover reports some conservationists
disagree:

Transcript

With grain prices hitting record highs, a lot
of farmers are removing land from the federal Conservation
Reserve Program. The CRP pays farmers to stop growing
crops on poor land and instead grow trees or grass cover.
That creates habitat for wildlife. The US Department of
Agriculture, which runs the program, says the CRP is still
in good shape. Katherine Glover reports some conservationists
disagree:

When the Conservation Reserve Program started in 1985, David Schoenborn was among
the first on board.

He stopped farming some of his land and let natural cover grow. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture paid him. Usually land that wasn’t the best farmland or land that was prone
to erosion was set aside for the program.

Conservationists say CRP has been great for reducing soil erosion, improving water
quality and restoring wildlife habitat.

But this year, for the first time, Schoenborn is letting some of his CRP contracts expire.

“It’s not a bad program, but the payments have to be more to keep them in line with the
rest of the farming economy.”

Corn and other grain prices are at record highs. So a lot of farmers are taking land out of
CRP and plowing it up. The program lost more than two million acres last September.

It could have been much worse. Originally sixteen million acres were set to expire in ’07.
But, in 2006 the USDA offered landowners the option to renew their contracts. About 80
to 85 percent of the land was re-enrolled.

The USDA is focusing its conservation efforts towards environmentally sensitive lands
and critical wildlife habitat.

Perry Aasness is the state director for the USDA Farm Service Agency in Minnesota.

“We’re not enrolling whole fields of land anymore, but there are still conservation
programs which we call the continuous CRP and that primarily focuses on really
targeting buffer strips, waterways, and that sort of thing.”

The targeted programs pay more than the general CRP contracts, making them more
attractive to farmers. Schoenborn, for example, is reenrolling eligible lands in these
targeted programs.

Altogether, the various programs have about 34 million acres enrolled. This is slightly
above the average enrollment for the past ten years, but less than the 39 million acres
authorized by Congress. Aasness says the program is still in good shape.

“I think the overall percentage of land going into production from CRP is pretty
minimal.”

But conservationists have a different perspective. They want to see as much land as
possible enrolled in CRP.

Dave Nomsen is with the conservation group Pheasants Forever:

“Frankly I think the program is more in doubt than it ever has been. It’s great that
farmers are benefiting from record crop prices but it’s making it a real challenge to keep
conservation as part of that agricultural landscape.”

And political pressure is part of that challenge.

The American Bakers Association even asked the government to let CRP contracts expire
early so farmers can plant more grain. This would hopefully lower the price of flour.

But a huge reduction in CRP acres is unlikely. Both Republicans and Democrats support
CRP.

Dave Nomsen with Pheasants Forever says the problem is finding enough money to make
it worth it to farmers.

CRP payments do change over time depending on the market. But Nomsen says they
haven’t kept up.

“It’s been lagging behind by several years. We just don’t have the money to raise it up to
an equal basis, but if we can get those payments high enough the long-term nature of the
contracts, the many, many other benefits of the program will hopefully sell the program
for farmers and landowners.”

Farmer David Schoenborn says payments vary, but generally he gets between 75 and 90
dollars an acre. By planting corn, he thinks he could make at least $400 an acre. But he’d
stay in CRP if payments increased just 30 percent.

That’s not likely. So chances are that more farmers will be putting land that’s set aside
for wildlife back into crops.

For the Environment Report, I’m Katherine Glover.

Related Links

Corn Ethanol: More Water Pollution

  • Corn requires more fossil fuel-based nitrogen fertilizer than many other crops. Tanks of pressurized anhydrous ammonia fixes nitrogen in the soil, but heavy rains can wash nitrogen into waterways. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Government-funded programs that pay for
conservation on farmland have done a lot to
improve the environment over the past twenty
years. The federal government has paid farmers
to take some cropland and set it aside to protect
waterways and wildlife habitat. In the second of
our two-part series on ethanol, Julie Grant reports
that some of that conservation is being stalled:

Transcript

Government-funded programs that pay for
conservation on farmland have done a lot to
improve the environment over the past twenty
years. The federal government has paid farmers
to take some cropland and set it aside to protect
waterways and wildlife habitat. In the second of
our two-part series on ethanol, Julie Grant reports
that some of that conservation is being stalled:


A good hard rain can wash a lot of valuable soil off a farm field.
John Wallbrown grows corn and soybeans on his farm. He says losing
soil is just like losing money. The soil carries with it all the
nutrients he’s put in the fields to help the crops grow, things such as
nitrogen and phosphorous. Wallbrown says he’s put in a good number of
grass waterways through the fields to help filter the water and hold on
to that soil:


“And so when you put in a grass waterway, it dramatically reduces the
amount of erosion. And it is just better for the water supply, better
for our crop. We’re keeping our soil in our field as opposed to it
getting put away.”


What Wallbrown calls nutrients in the field are considered pollution
once they wash into rivers and lakes. So Wallbrown says planting grass
near waterways is good for everyone. Except it means he’s got to use
land that otherwise could be growing crops, and that’s a loss of
income.


Wallbrown has gotten various government assistance to offset those
losses. The largest program, is called the Conservation Reserve Program, known as the
CRP for short.


John Johnson is with the US Department of Agriculture. He says when
you add up all the farms like John Wallbrown’s around the country, the
CRP is making a huge difference in reducing agricultural runoff into
waterways:


“Over 450 million tons of topsoil annually are prevented from eroding
because of CRP. We’ve got lots of really good benchmarks and measurements of
success of CRP, in both water quality, soil erosion and wildlife
habitat.”


But that set-aside land is in demand these days. There’s been a huge
call for bio-fuels to help reduce American dependence on foreign oil.
Bio-fuels are made from crops such as soybeans and corn, especially
corn. So Johnson says the government has decided to stop enrolling
new farmland into the conservation program:


“The overriding concern was that there is a need for a larger supply of
corn and soybeans and wheat production right now, so given the need for
that production, let’s just take a pause right now from enrolling large
acreage of additional farmland into the CRP.”


Corn is used to make ethanol, a fuel that’s now commonly blended with
gasoline. That’s caused corn prices to nearly double so farmers say
they’re planting 12 million acres more corn this year than last year.
That’s the most corn grown in the US in more than 50 years.


Ralph Grossi, director of the American Farmland Trust, says corn needs a
lot more nitrogen fertilizer than other crops. And when it rains,
nitrogen moves quickly from the fields to the waterways. That’s
especially true when grass strips don’t filter the runoff.


Grossi says that nitrogen drains into creeks and rivers from 36 states
into the Mississippi River and eventually to the Gulf of Mexico. There
it causes huge algae blooms that then die, sink, and the decaying
matter causes low oxygen in the water called hypoxia. That’s why the
Corn Belt has been blamed for creating a huge dead zone in the Gulf of
Mexico each year:


“If you increase corn production and don’t add the conservation practices
it will add nutrients and exacerbate problems in the gulf with hypoxia.
But it’s not just in the gulf, it’s problems for every local water
district that has to purify water for drinking and other urban
purposes. As they have to contend with more nutrients, that increases
their costs of cleaning the water.”


Grossi says the best place to clean the water is at the source. He
says that’s why the government must continue to help farmers pay for
grass waterways and buffer strips – those things prevent farm nutrients
from getting into the water in the first place. He says the need for
grass waters is even greater now that so much farmland is being planted
in corn to meet the demand for more ethanol.


For the Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Ethanol Boom Could Threaten Fragile Land

The federal government is pushing the production of ethanol to help reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Charlie Schlenker reports the expected boom in ethanol production may have a mixed environmental effect:

Transcript

The federal government is pushing the production of ethanol to help reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Charlie Schlenker reports the expected boom in ethanol production may have a mixed environmental effect:


As the demand to produce more ethanol takes up more corn, agriculture experts predict prices will rise. Illinois State University Ecology Professor Roger Anderson says that will create an incentive for farmers to abandon the Conservation Reserve Program. The CRP pays farmers to keep environmentally fragile land out of production.


“They’re talking about expanding corn production for example, for ethanol by eight to ten million acres, and the only place they’re going to get it is to take this land out of CRP. And there will be a lot of pressure to do this.”


Anderson says planting corn on CRP acreage could increase erosion and reduce habitat diversity for wildlife, but an Agriculture Department Economist doubts there will be much pressure on CRP acreage.


For the Environment Report, I’m Charlie Schlenker.

Related Links

Government Expands Farm Preservation Program

For almost 20 years, the federal government has paid farmers to convert some of their land to natural habitat for plants and animals. The Conservation Reserve Program is designed to protect the creeks and rivers that border farms. This year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is expanding the program to take on an additional two million acres, including 132,000 acres in Illinois. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

For almost 20 years, the Federal Government has paid farmers to convert some of their land to
natural habitat for plants and animals. The Conservation Reserve Program is designed to protect
the creeks and rivers that border farms. This year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is
expanding the program to take on an additional 2 million acres, including 132,000 acres in
Illinois. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:


Ted Gilles farms about a thousand acres along the Spoon River in Central Illinois. But the land
closest to the river doesn’t look much like a farm at all. This land was once planted with rows of
corn and soybeans and contained an area for his cattle to graze. Now it has rolling hills with
trees, and an assortment of prairie grasses.


“This here is probably, it’s not in flower now, but this is what they call the grey-headed
coneflower, which is a yellow one. There’s some blooming up there if you see that yellow one
there.”


Gilles is proud to show off the 300 acres of his land that is in the Conservation Reserve
Program. Before it was converted to a natural prairie, the soil, herbicides, and fertilizer from
Gilles’ farm would flow nearly uninhibited into the Spoon River, down to the Illinois, and
eventually to the Mississippi River. Now this land acts as a buffer and a filter. Gilles says he sets
aside time every day to visit his natural preserve.


“Like yesterday morning, I probably saw twenty pheasants in this half a mile, out along the edges,
catching grasshoppers. It’s really nice. It makes you think it’s really worth for it for doing all
this.”


It’s situations like Gilles’ that led to the U.S. Department of Agriculture adding to the
Conservation Reserve Program this year. Paul Gutierrez is the Assistant Deputy Administrator
for Farm Programs at the USDA. He says the CRP is meeting the goals of finding a voluntary
way to get farmers to protect land that is at risk. Guiterrez says the biggest obstacle to getting
farmers to act in a more environmentally friendly manner is finances. He says that’s why CRP
works.


“They still have their mortgage payments out there. They still have operating costs, property
taxes, and if they can look at a way to look at these lands that may not be as well-suited for
farming, and a way to partner up and save the environment, then they are definitely going to look
to help the environment out while still being able to feed their families.”


Environmental groups are generally supportive of the program, but they caution it might not
always be the right way to help rivers and streams. Ken Midkiff is the Director of the Clean
Water Campaign for the Sierra Club. He says while the Sierra Club supports the CRP, they
would like to see something that lasts longer. Midkiff says the program’s biggest weakness is
that farmers only have to protect the land for ten years.


“There’s nothing that prevents a farmer from resigning. But basically the Conservation Reserve
Program is for a set period of time. These are marginal lands, lands that aren’t very productive
for typical corn and soybeans. So we would like to see those set aside for longer periods of time.”


Midkiff says in terms of protecting bodies of water, ten years is barely enough time to undo the
damage that can happen in just one or two years. He also worries that if crop prices go up,
farmers will be quick to pull up native prairie grasses and replant crops.


(sound of nature)


Ted Gilles says low crop prices did get him into the program, and may be why he stays. He is
also a fan of seeing more acres brought into the CRP.


“I think that’s great. I really think that’s the way it should be. I think we have an abundance of
grain and the prices is low. So why not helping everybody by doing it this way, you know?”


Gilles also says he has come to love this portion of his farm, and crop prices would have to be
very high for him to give up on his flowers and pheasants.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Related Links

GOVERNMENT EXPANDS FARM PRESERVATION PROGRAM (Short Version)

The federal government is expanding a program to take farmland out of production and temporarily convert it to conservation areas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

The Federal Government is expanding a program to take farmland out of production and
temporarily convert it to conservation areas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl
reports:


The Conservation Reserve Program is designed to protect rivers and streams by paying farmers to
create buffers between farm fields and the bodies of water. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
is adding two million acres to the project this year.

Fred Guttierez is with the USDA. He says the program works because it’s voluntary.


“We look at it as a way to partner up with the private land owners to take those marginal lands
out of production and to really benefit the environment by doing that.”


Environmental groups are generally supportive of the program, but say it doesn’t go far enough.
Farmers can convert conservation areas back to farming after ten years in the program.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Related Links

FARMERS CONCERNED ABOUT NEW FARM BILL (Part 2)

This fall, Congress is expected to debate how much to spend on a new farm bill, and there may be sharp disagreement over what programs should be funded. Traditionally, the money has been used to supplement farmers’ income. But now, environmental groups are increasingly demanding, and getting more money for conservation programs. In the second of a two-part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Gunderson reports that many farmers are concerned about organizations with no agricultural background shaping farm policy:

Transcript

This fall, Congress is expected to debate how much to spend on a new farm bill, and there may be sharp disagreement over what programs should be funded.
Traditionally, the money has been used to supplement farmers’ incomes. But now, environmental groups are increasingly demanding, and getting more money for conservation programs. In the second of a two-part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Gunderson reports that many farmers are concerned
about organizations with no agricultural background shaping farm policy:


As the fall harvest winds down, Ken Lougheed has more time to catch up on the farm bill debate. He’s not happy about the possibility of more government imposed conservation programs.


“Farmers have been very good stewards of the land for years. We have to live in the same communities, we have to drink the same water, breathe the same air. We’re probably more aware of what’s going on than a lot of environmental groups are.”


Lougheed farms several hundred acres on the Minnesota North Dakota border near Fargo. He says he’s seen what happens when environmentalists help write farm legislation. He points to a wetland protection program known as “Swampbuster” as an example of well-intentioned but intrusive government. Lougheed says a bureaucrat who’s never set foot on his farm decides where wetlands are located. And with that decision, parts of his land are taken away from farming. Lougheed says that makes him feel helpless, and angry.


“We need to have more common sense in these issues. Because it’s nonsense, there’s no common sense involved in it and we need to have more common sense.”


Lougheed says he’s never actually talked to an environmentalist, but he’d welcome the chance to seek common ground on conservation issues. But if the current farm bill discussion is any indication, that common ground may be difficult to find. Environmental groups want to shift funding from traditional farm commodity programs to conservation. Most farm groups staunchly oppose that idea, arguing new conservation initiatives should have new funding. There’s also disagreement over which conservation programs to fund. The House favors expanding the Conservation Reserve Program that pays farmers to take environmentally sensitive land out of production. But in the Senate, Ag Committee Chair Tom Harkin of Iowa is pushing the Conservation Security Act. That legislation would pay farmers to incorporate as yet undefined stewardship practices into their farm operation. Farmers fear that would, as one put it, let the environmentalists run the farm. Minnesota Seventh District Congressman, Collin Peterson, sits on the House Ag Committee and knows the middle ground on this issue can be hazardous. He’s been criticized by some of his farm constituents for voting in favor of expanded conservation programs, and painted as anti-environment by some environmental groups.


“You get those two groups on the extremes, in a lot of cases clashing, and the people in the middle are just keeping their heads down.”


Peterson says the fear some farmers have of environmentalists is well founded. He says environmental groups have a variety of political viewpoints, ranging from moderate to extreme; but he believes most have little real understanding of agriculture.


“They sit in their ivory tower and say, well, you guys are getting all that money. We’re paying you all that money, then we’re gonna have our way. The biggest problem is these groups are based in the urban areas. It’s not their fault, they just don’t understand. ”


But Peterson says farm interests must learn to compromise with environmentalists. That’s because farm state lawmakers no longer have the political clout to pass a farm bill without votes from urban members. And those urban members often represent environmental positions. But Peterson says, like abortion and gun control, environmental discussions often can’t get past ideology.


“The problem I have is you’re not even debating what the real issue is. They’re out there on their ideological extremes and they’re raising money and getting people stirred up and we never have the debate about the middle where we could get something done and make things better for people.”


At least some farm organizations say they are willing to compromise.
Minnesota Farm Bureau President Al Christopherson says it’s clear the days of farm groups writing the farm bill are over. They need support from environmental interests to pass legislation. But he says most farmers would be happy just to have Congress decide on conservation priorities and stick to them.


“Farmers have a very difficult time adapting to them if A; they’re not understood, B; they don’t make sense, and C; there’s a whole lot of shouting in the wings about what we ought to be doing.”


Christopherson says the cacophony will only get louder and the confusion greater as a dwindling farm population continues to lose political clout in Washington, and other interests vie for a piece of the agriculture budget.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Dan Gunderson.