# CRP's biggest enemy...



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

The emerging ethanol industry will probably be the downfall of the CRP program. With the increased demand on the corn crop for ethanol production corn prices are sky rocketing. This is going to result in a large demand for increasing the number of acres planted to corn and the improving genetics on the existing varieties of corn will not be able to account for the increase in the demand. This will result in many CRP contracts not being renewed for the current contract price being offered because these prices have changed very little since the introduction of the program. CRP dollar/acre prices have not kept up with the increase in land prices and the corresponding increase in cash rent so they will probably not be renewed. It will make more economic sense to farm the land. This could also result in fewer soybean acres which will add to price support for this crop and so putting land into CRP will make even less economic sense. This scenario is not helping cattle, hog and poultry producers either because about 1/2 of all corn grown in the US goes for feed. Also interesting to note that if CRP contracts are not renewed and there would be no CRP to release for haying and cattle producers would lose a good chunk of access to hay because many CRP acres have provided an emergency source of hay for ranchers in dry years when feed shortages have occured. The times they are a changing. Sounds good for the true grain farmer but not good for the hunter or the rancher. I wonder if corn prices go higher and remain high if that might make ethanol a less viable economic alternative energy option. It will be interesting to see where this is going! I'm afraid that CRP is at the bottom of the totem pole. If that is the case then these might be the good old days.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

ADM, Cargill, John Deere, ......


----------



## 58504451 (Jan 6, 2006)

DJ - There's no doubt that the ethanol industry has created a demand for corn. It should be a realization for us that farmed acres are in demand becasue of loss of farmable acres. CRP was never designed as a wildlife based program, you recieved preference for habitat but the basis was taking highly erodable land out of production. It is a rental contract - nothing more. The funding comes from the Ag departments budget. It's always upset me that the wildlife arena provides NO dollars but expects all of the benefits from the program. I'm pulling mine out becasue the rental rate to extend for 15 more years is the same rate as when I put it in 10 years ago. 25 years at the same rate doesn't make any sense. I will have more flexibility out of the program and can manage it better.

I agree that CRP has been very good for wildlife and is needed but economics will determine it's future. I wish the outdoor industry would help keep it economical.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Congress imposes a 45 cent per gal. tariff on foreign ethanol, making foriegn ethanol less competitive against domestic. There by increasing the price of corn and making distorted ag values in all sectors. Corn produces 1.3 gals of ethanol per gal of petro, while foreign sugar cane produces about 8 gals of ethanol per gal of petro consumed. (more sugar) I think they call this wise use. Of your money.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

I don't think ethanol is going to be the long term solution so many think it will be. Another interesting thing about the ethanol plants is the prodigous amounts of water they consume. Last summer I remember reading an article about plants in Minnesota that where having trouble getting enough water to operate.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

58504451
Trite and self serving comments, to say the least. You totally ignore the environmental values of the CRP vs row crops to air, water and soil. While the benefit to wildlife is a plus the intent of CRP was not for wildlife, it was to reduce the surplus of grain being produced and do it in a manner that was more cost affective than subsidy payments. So the funding for this should remain with the Ag department.

I am in agreement that the rent should increase, but if not for over subsidization of ethanol the pressure on cash rent to rise would not be what it is today.

I cannot fault you or anyone for wanting more for the land you own or operate, we all do, but understanding the true subsidy of ethanol and the impact it is having on the environment. Is just being blind to the truth.


----------



## 58504451 (Jan 6, 2006)

Ron,

Let's assume that ethanol from grass cellulose as opposed to corn is the answer which may well be true. The net effect is the same, acres will come of of production, be it wheat, corn or CRP, and produce what is economical for the landowner. Point being if we to keep CRP (which I do) we need to make it an economical alternative. If you would go back and look at the markets, we were paying $5 / bushel for corn with no ethanol influence. I still favor keeping $ in the country instead of sending oversees.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Please explain how a change to switch grass or hemp is the same as corn or soybeans for the environment? Both these are a win for air and water and soil conservation and protection. With it also comes added flood protection with a slowed run off when conditions are in place.

Top it off with reduced need of fertilizer and other chemicals and it is a winning situation over row crops hands down.

Now from the wildlife point of view, switch grass from my understanding should be cut at a min of 6" or higher from the ground. This is ideal nesting height for a lot of species especially the pintail which prefers stubble or short grass areas like pastures.

Removal of the biomass late in the year once it has matured will ensure that nests will not be destroyed and like it or not, it will provide as much winter cover as CRP does after the first snow when the current non native grasses that are planted lay flat to the ground.

So back to what you where saying before, from and economical position I would rather we had 1000 acres of switch grass or hemp year to year than row crops, and the net loss to wildlife would not be nearly as disastrous as row crops. Plus landowners would or should be receiving the same or more for cash rent.

This means that overall CRP acres could be reduced and prices per acre increased for those still in the program with little affect to the environment and to wildlife in general.

I would much rather see that $.45 tariff and the fuel tax suspension be put into biomass programs if you want to continue to support ethanol with tax dollars, vs disaster payments for corn and soybeans over the next 10 years in this state!


----------

