Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
I’m surprised we don’t see more alfalfa in parts of Iowa …Same up here in Minnesota?
Slick
Well-Known Member
Easy solution.....3% blanket reduction in all budget categories. Still leaves programs in place but each takes a hair cut. If that is not enough then increase the % again later.
luv2hunt1469
Member
Right, wrong, or otherwise we were lied to about this. When asked if he would be implementing project 2025, he said he has nothing to do with it or knows nothing about it. I voted and supported him, but am not a fan of being straight up lied to….. I know, it’s par for the course with politicians, guess I was hoping he was different. I’m a proponent of all things conservation and feel we could eliminate all the bush league aid we give foreign countries while keeping/enhancing most domestic programs.
Windlooker
Well-Known Member
CRP has been hiding beneath the “habitat”, “conservation”, “wildlife benefits” labels for years. It’s an inflated program that does little of the above. Looks good on paper though. As I said above I was in crp for 20 years and got out. Absolute joke with clueless government officials at fsa telling me what to do on my land. It won’t go away, too many people getting a free check every year, but it needs serious adjustments.
Last edited:
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
Cutting CRP was part of Project 2025 ? Didn’t know that ?
trophybluf@borderlandnet.
Member
Project 2025 is the far-right playbook for American authoritarianism
The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism's analysist shows how Project 2025's plan is to insert authoritarianism and Christian nationalism into US government.
globalextremism.org
Is Project 2025 extreme or a lot of common sense? The liberal media makes it sound like it's evil. Take a couple minutes and see where you stand?
Lucky 13
Member
Here is the section from Project 2025 that covers the AG topics
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
This could get interesting? What happens if they allow former easements to be farmed ? WRP, US Fish & Wildlife ?
Those farms would double in value immediately? Not saying I support that . I own one, and I bet it would easily double in price in 24 hours .
I guess we will see . I support CRP and some wetland easements. Some of it its definitely overkill !
Those farms would double in value immediately? Not saying I support that . I own one, and I bet it would easily double in price in 24 hours .
I guess we will see . I support CRP and some wetland easements. Some of it its definitely overkill !
JNRBRONC
Well-Known Member
I looked at a SE IA parcel for sale last week that I thought was interestingly priced at around S3,400/acre, then saw it had just been placed in WRP. Solid nope from me, but maybe if that gets lifted, it's a steal?
luv2hunt1469
Member
It was specifically listed as a program that needed to be eliminated…..
Iowa
New Member
I agree , I think there should be a bigger emphasis for anything within 120’ of water and less emphasis on whole fields of crp. Our water gets so much chemical and fertilizer in it it’s scary.
Rjack
Well-Known Member
Below is the text I pulled from that link. We all likely have differing views on the definition of "concrete environmental harm", but there seems to be general agreement on this site that paying people to not farm good, flat ground is a bit overboard. If we end up with a reduced CRP program, I think that is a good outcome.
"Champion the elimination of the Conservation Reserve Program. Farmers should not be paid in such a sweeping way not to farm their land. If there is a desire to ensure that extremely sensitive land is not farmed, this should be addressed through targeted efforts that are clearly connected to addressing a specific and concrete environmental harm. The USDA should work with Congress to eliminate this overbroad program."
"Champion the elimination of the Conservation Reserve Program. Farmers should not be paid in such a sweeping way not to farm their land. If there is a desire to ensure that extremely sensitive land is not farmed, this should be addressed through targeted efforts that are clearly connected to addressing a specific and concrete environmental harm. The USDA should work with Congress to eliminate this overbroad program."
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
I might be naive but it will take House & Senate members from ND, SD, Minnesota, Iowa, Montana, Texas, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming & Kansas to eliminate CRP ??
Highly doubt it…
South Dakota you would think would be a guaranteed No …
Colorado has 2.45 million acres of CRP.
Will Iowa House/Senate members vote to get rid of CRP , $400 million dollars coming in ??
Minnesota has about $150 million coming in from CRP, and they just voted to expand the CREP program in Minnesota on January 14, 2025.
Highly doubt it…
South Dakota you would think would be a guaranteed No …
Colorado has 2.45 million acres of CRP.
Will Iowa House/Senate members vote to get rid of CRP , $400 million dollars coming in ??
Minnesota has about $150 million coming in from CRP, and they just voted to expand the CREP program in Minnesota on January 14, 2025.
"Court Intervention:
The only way to potentially extinguish a conservation easement is through a court of law, which is a difficult and unlikely process."
I have seen many lawyers take a stab at them an have yet to see anyone succeed.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
I agree with you . It would have to be signed off on by the government. No way to fight it in court !
Muddyrem
Active Member
It’s foolish to think that farmers would automatically put those acres back into row crop production………..
There’s lots of acres over the last 10-15 years that have been destroyed just to farm just to then put into CRP. Those acres need to go back to net O profit land. 90csr2 dirt in northern Iowa needs to be farmed. 10 csr2 e slopes that were once pasture and timber, need to go back to that. It’s always the bad eggs that ruin it for all.
Muddyrem
Active Member
Bingo!!!
I think there’s a huge opportunity for small grains as well. But yet again, no infrastructure to support those crops to be moved across the state. We’ve got rail systems and great roads that make getting across Iowa for the most part pretty easy. All it’s going to take is for someone to take the risk and start dealing with these commodities and there will be a long list of guys willing to diversify their operation. I know of a handful just with the ones I work with.
So with this assumption you would be suggesting that all of the poor producing soils that have been cleaned up just to farm and put into CRP which is not the case. I work in it every day and right now there is plenty of demand to farm those acres. The counties I work in have less CRP acreage than they did 10 years ago. Higher farm profits have driven disposable income available to clean up unproductive ground which then leads to more profit in the environment we have been in. You also have to keep in mind that there are lots of CRP acres in small grain areas too and GRP in grass areas. Commodity markets will be impacted if CRP is eliminated and down goes cash rents.
One factor a lot of people miss is the lack of teeth shown by NRCS. They should be holding these producers to the fire with HEL compliance as they have to be in compliance to receive crop insurance subsidies.
One of the main reasons NRCS has no teeth in compliance, is if called out on soil loss, the overwhelming majority of appeals are won by the land owner. Besides the fact that most of the soils in Iowa can loose 10 tons per acre per year and still be in compliance.