Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Buffer Strips - Habitat and Water

An interesting graphic I received in an email today. Water quality is as hot of a topic in this state as the deer population and big bucks are in this forum. There are some connections to the two. This map shows the decrease in CRP buffer strips in the DSM watershed. Almost 11,000 acres lost since 2017, just in these 15 counties. Even if they're just program minimum strips and nothing else (which most contracts are much more), that's 11k acres of habitat connections, travel corridors, fawning habitat. I've found some of my best sheds in buffer strips...


image.png
 
Unfortunately, with the current reduced CRP rental rates you can’t blame guys for taking out ground in CRP programs. They need sign up incentives, cost share and rental payments more in line with actual rental rates like they had in 2016. There was a lot of acres enrolled then and many of those contracts will be expiring in 2026. Sure wish they would prioritize conservation programs more than they are but who knows when congress will get anything done farm related.
 
IMHO Crp within 120’ of open water should pay 2x the average county rental rate.
Agree. Some of the best dirt on a HEL farm has washed from the hilltops down to the creek banks. A farmer is supposed to farm the clay nobs but not the fertile ground along the bottoms? Lot of that area might not have the steepest HEL in the state though.
 
The nitrates in the water are bad but we don’t even fully understand the damage some of these chemicals are doing to our water quality.

When you plant corn 3’ from the water there’s going to be chemicals sprayed in that water. Anyone that says otherwise doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
 
The nitrates in the water are bad but we don’t even fully understand the damage some of these chemicals are doing to our water quality.

When you plant corn 3’ from the water there’s going to be chemicals sprayed in that water. Anyone that says otherwise doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

I think it is safe to say we live with 100% of what we put on or in our crops. It's in our water, in our air, and in our soil. Weather that be herbicides, insecticides, Neonicotinoids, fertilizers...... Im no expert but we live with all of it!
 
Unfortunately, with the current reduced CRP rental rates you can’t blame guys for taking out ground in CRP programs. They need sign up incentives, cost share and rental payments more in line with actual rental rates like they had in 2016. There was a lot of acres enrolled then and many of those contracts will be expiring in 2026. Sure wish they would prioritize conservation programs more than they are but who knows when congress will get anything done farm related.
The cost share piece of it is becoming a big deal. I deal with it all the time and I can tell you it catches people off guard, and they are really turned off by CRP when they learn they are going to have to pay out of pocket 100% for XYZ.
 
The cost share piece of it is becoming a big deal. I deal with it all the time and I can tell you it catches people off guard, and they are really turned off by CRP when they learn they are going to have to pay out of pocket 100% for XYZ.
Yep. It is a far cry from 2016 general sign up when there was $100/acre sign up incentive, 90% cost share and rental payment was 120% of the cash rent.
 
Last edited:
The cost share piece of it is becoming a big deal. I deal with it all the time and I can tell you it catches people off guard, and they are really turned off by CRP when they learn they are going to have to pay out of pocket 100% for XYZ.
Talk to their local PF chapter! A lot of chapters will cover the extra cost of establishment.
 
Ahh that makes sense, I see now you said 100%. I would think a lot of PF chapters might still help with mid contract maintenance too. I know our chapter struggles to find local projects to support and would consider it. We don't get a lot of "asks" anymore from locals.
 
Unfortunately, with the current reduced CRP rental rates you can’t blame guys for taking out ground in CRP programs. They need sign up incentives, cost share and rental payments more in line with actual rental rates like they had in 2016. There was a lot of acres enrolled then and many of those contracts will be expiring in 2026. Sure wish they would prioritize conservation programs more than they are but who knows when congress will get anything done farm related.
I struggle a bit with operators who lean on that excuse. This is just my thought process around that line of thinking:

We just enrolled 20% of our farm in 2025 above the rental rate. I understand it is a variable amount based on county rental rates, environmental risk etc.
All operators accept market risk with their commodity, CRP is a tool to add to the risk management arsenal.
We enrolled the lesser ground and by doing so we were able to bump our rent on the rest of the acres. Not huge but it adds up.
IMO, we are our own worst enemy in that we pay folks to farm poor ground through other support payments.
And to be honest, you do not have to over-pay good people to do the right thing. Everyone can read into that as they wish.
 
Some of the best deer habitat I’ve ever seen is a CRP contract ( like a riparian buffer) that has volunteer cedars and shingle oaks popping up in it .

I found 6 sheds in one of those pockets of cover in Union County . The deer sign was insane.
 
I struggle a bit with operators who lean on that excuse. This is just my thought process around that line of thinking:

We just enrolled 20% of our farm in 2025 above the rental rate. I understand it is a variable amount based on county rental rates, environmental risk etc.
All operators accept market risk with their commodity, CRP is a tool to add to the risk management arsenal.
We enrolled the lesser ground and by doing so we were able to bump our rent on the rest of the acres. Not huge but it adds up.
IMO, we are our own worst enemy in that we pay folks to farm poor ground through other support payments.
And to be honest, you do not have to over-pay good people to do the right thing. Everyone can read into that as they wish.
Just to clarify, I am now referring to all CRP not just buffer strips. Because you said you enrolled 20% of your poor ground which I am going to assume you’re not referring to bottom ground that is normally adjacent to creeks or rivers. I agree 100% with what you are saying, but you have to remember that some of Iowa’s worst ground is still more productive than a large percentage of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Minnesota and several other States (obviously not referring to these States best ground and obviously excluding some river bottom tillable, or ground under pivot).

So do we tell all those people to just quit trying to produce grain so we don’t have to have support payments? I guess they try to level the playing field regarding support payments based on proven yields and county averages, but what can they do differently other than increase the rental payments, increase cost share payments and offer sign up incentives for conservation programs like they did in 2016. That’s how they enticed so many to enroll their farms back then. Most people I know, that aren’t hunting fanatics, will take their acres out of CRP with payment running in many cases $50+ an acre below cash rent payments. Once the 15% reduction went on CRP payment and cost share was dropped to 50% and they got rid of sign up incentives far more ground has been taken out when the contract expires versus renewed or new ground being enrolled in CRP.

Guys that are pushing for one buck limits should be focusing their time on how to get CRP payments up so we could add 150,000-200,000 acres of CRP across Iowa’s landscape. That would do way more for our deer herds trophy potential than going to a one buck limit.
 
Guys that are pushing for one buck limits should be focusing their time on how to get CRP payments up so we could add 150,000-200,000 acres of CRP across Iowa’s landscape. That would do way more for our deer herds trophy potential than going to a one buck limit.
If it had all been contiguous, we lost a strip of CRP that would have been 8 miles wide along I80 from the Mississippi River to the Missouri River when contracts expired. Think about that a second. All the wildlife, not just deer, plus water quality.
 
The nitrates in the water are bad but we don’t even fully understand the damage some of these chemicals are doing to our water quality.

When you plant corn 3’ from the water there’s going to be chemicals sprayed in that water. Anyone that says otherwise doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
While I haven't hunted this way in quite a few years now, I used to make a point of doing 1 or 2 float trips down a small or mid-sized river each fall. We were mainly interested in bagging ducks, geese, pheasants, etc, not deer, although we commonly saw deer and turkey, and plenty of other things on those trips. But, back to the topic here...two things that I saw, somewhat frequently, that concerned me regarding water quality even back then...

1. Crops planted so close to the river bank that literally there were roots of the corn plants growing horizontally out of the vertical dirt high banks and into space. It was apparent that the crop had had been planted in the Spring a few months earlier so close to the edge of the river that the bank sloughed off/eroded over the Summer to where the corn plant roots were now dangling in midair. What? The "buffer strip" employed by those farmers appeared to be measured in inches, not feed or yards!

2, Similarly, it was not uncommon to see a drain tile sticking out of those vertical, dirt banks running directly into the river. One time in particular, the tile was still running in what would be considered a drought...or at least very dry conditions.

My opinion, which I sense would make many farmers howl, is that why are we subsidizing, or even directly paying, them to not pollute our water? Why aren't they obligated to "keep" their pollutants on their own land? If I was running something harmful into the storm drain in front of my house, I should expect to be made to manage that runoff and/or pay the penalty for the damage it causes downstream, right?

Make it make sense. But how about we flip the script and hold farmers accountable for their runoff and over spray, etc, Yes, their costs will go up and we should consequently expect to pay a little more for the grains, produce, etc, that they supply, but it would be far less expensive IMO to "solve" the problem at the source and obligate the producer to manage his own self.
 
Make it make sense. But how about we flip the script and hold farmers accountable for their runoff and over spray, etc, Yes, their costs will go up and we should consequently expect to pay a little more for the grains, produce, etc, that they supply, but it would be far less expensive IMO to "solve" the problem at the source and obligate the producer to manage his own self.
The individual farmer's only control over grain prices is when he chooses to sell into the market. Not saying they shouldn't be held accountable in some fashion.

One DNR employee I know calls field tile the "hypodermic injecting poison into our rivers" and probably isn't far off with that assessment. Biofilter systems could help but the adoption of those practices is time, labor and money intensive.
 
Top Bottom