CRP: Land In or Land Out?

By Jane Fyksen, Crops Editor
Thursday, March 15, 2007 12:16 PM CDT

While the USDA announced last week landowners' intentions to re-enroll and extend contracts in the Conservation Reserve Program, there's also considerable interest in pulling land out of CRP early to take advantage of the corn ethanol boom.

If you're in the latter camp, Eau Claire County Farm Service Agency (FSA) director Andy Bourget urges caution.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns announced last week new results of the recent opportunity given to CRP participants to re-enroll or extend their contracts, which are set to expire between 2007 and 2010. An estimated 23.2 million acres out of 27.8 million acres of eligible CRP contracts are expected to be re-enrolled. An estimated 4.6 million acres in CRP contracts will exit the long-term conservation program between 2007 and 2010. Of the 4.6 million acres, approximately 1.4 million acres are located in major corn-producing states.

"The percentage of landowners choosing to remain in CRP is consistent with what we have seen in the past - despite speculation that re-enrollment would drop significantly due to high corn prices," says Johanns. "We are closely monitoring interest in CRP re-enrollment, planting projections and demand for commodities to determine the most appropriate future actions in administering the Conservation Reserve Program."

The 4.6 million-acre estimate includes all general sign-up expiring contracts that were not extended or re-enrolled under last year's offer. It does not include acres under expiring continuous sign-up contracts, which will be eligible to be re-enrolled during the final contract year.

Last year, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) contacted more than 317,000 CRP participants with contracts to determine their interest in continuing in CRP. FSA, which implements CRP, divided the group into 2007 expirations and 2008-2010 expirations. The 2007 expirations included 15.7 million eligible acres out of 16 million total expiring acres. The 2008-2010 expirations included 12.1 million eligible acres out of 12.5 total expiring acres.

Last spring, FSA asked CRP participants with contracts set to expire in 2007 to confirm their interest in re-enrolling or extending by paying a compliance fee. A recent review of the data shows CRP participants have paid the fee on 89 percent of the acreage, or 13.9 million acres of the 15.7 million acres set to expire in 2007. Of the 13.9 million acres, landowners decided to extend or re-enroll 13.1 million acres in CRP contracts so far.

Before approving re-enrolled or extended contracts, FSA must ensure that the required cover is maintained and that other contract provisions are met. In addition, participants must demonstrate show that they meet eligibility requirements for the new enrollment period. In the case of re-enrollments, updated rental rates will apply.

Then last summer, CRP participants with contracts expiring in 2008 through 2010 were asked to express their interest in re-enrolling or extending. To date, these contract-holders have paid the compliance fee covering 83 percent of the acreage, or 10.1 million acres of the 12.1 million acres set to expire.

Tables showing state and county acreage for which the fee has been paid for 2008 through 2010-expiring contracts are available at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov. Updated tables based on the latest fee payment data for 2007-expiring contracts are also available at the same site. Acres with compliance fee payments do not represent final approval to stay in the program. Final figures of producers who sign contracts may vary

FSA has estimated a revised schedule of contract expirations, based on compliance fee payments and data on contracts accepted for re-enrollment and extension. It can be found in the Monthly Summaries (page 16 of the January 2007 Monthly Summary) posted on the "CRP Statistics" webpage at http://www.fsa.usda.gov. Also included in the summaries is a state table (page 15 of the January 2007 Monthly Summary) showing acres of 2007-expiring contracts that have been approved for re-enrollment or extension and recorded in the CRP contract database. FSA will update the estimates as CRP participants make their final decisions known.

USDA does not plan to conduct a general sign-up for Fiscal Year 2007 or 2008. However, continuous sign-up of high-priority buffers, wetlands and other initiatives, as well as Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), will continue.

Bourget says expectations are that CRP will probably be included in the new Farm Bill.

Bourget, speaking last week in Eau Claire at one of the Heart of the Farm conferences around the state targeting farmwomen, warned about the lure of withdrawing land from CRP early to cash in on strong corn prices, courtesy of the ethanol boom.

You have to pay back all benefits (annual CRP income) from the start of the contract, with interest, as well as any cost-sharing dollars for cover establishment - again with interest. There are also liquidating damages, which are 25 percent of your rental payment. Let's say it's $50 an acre, the liquidating damages in this case would be $12.50 an acre.

The same paybacks and penalties apply when CRP land is sold and the new owner doesn't pick up the contract.

Currently in Wisconsin there are more than 600,000 acres enrolled in CRP. The contracts for about 44 percent may expire in 2007 and 2008. As noted, given rising demand for corn, it's likely at least a portion of these acres will go into corn production, says Laura Ward Good in UW-Madison's department of soil science. If these highly erodible lands are converted to corn, will this lead to disastrous soil loss, or are there ways to manage corn on former CRP ground that'll keep the soil quality and conservation gains from CRP from being totally lost?

To answer those questions, Good used Snap-Plus software to look at soil loss with different corn rotation and tillage combinations on 11 steep fields from counties with significant CRP acreages. She also calculated estimated soil loss from established perennial grass hay compared with 10 different corn rotation and tillage combinations.

Those averages are: Grass hay, 0.1 ton per acre per year; corn grain no-till, 0.5 ton; corn grain strip-till, 1.3 tons; corn for grain no-till with half stalks baled, 1.9 tons; corn/corn/soybeans no-till, 2.3 tons; corn for grain field cultivation, 3.7 tons; corn grain chisel plow, 7 tons; corn silage no-till, 13 tons; corn silage followed by a small grain cover crop, 4.7 tons, corn silage field cultivation, 24 tons, corn silage chisel plow, 28 tons.

Good says that while estimated soil loss for grass hay was minimal for all sites (0.1 tons per acre on average), soil loss for the corn rotations ranged from two to "hundreds of times greater than for grass hay."

"No-till and strip-tilled corn for grain, however, had estimated soil loss values below the NRCS standard for tolerable soil loss at all sites," she remarks. But most of the fields couldn't meet "T" with even a one-pass tillage system (corn for grain and field cultivation). None could meet "T" if corn silage was grown without a cover crop.

"Fields with gentler slopes are expected to lose less soil under the same rotations but when the Snap-Plus analysis was run with the same soils with slopes averaging 9 percent (versus 12 to 16 percent slopes in the analysis above), soil losses were still well above 'T' for the corn silage rotations," she states.

Good says Snap-Plus also contains a field runoff phosphorus (P) loss indicator, the P Index and a soil quality indicator, the Soil Conditioning Index (SCI). P Index trends closely mirrored those for soil loss, as most of the runoff phosphorus lost from these fields (in the absence of unincorporated fertilizer and manure P applications) is expected to be attached to eroded sediment.

The SCI is a comparatively new index used by NRCS to help determine the effect of a management system on soil organic matter. It takes into account crop biomass additions and removals, field operations and erosion. If the SCI is positive, organic matter is increasing with the rotation. The reverse if it's negative. Good says grass hay has the highest SCI values, followed by no-till and strip-till corn for grain, "indicating that corn for grain systems with minimal tillage and residue removal will lead to continued accumulation of soil organic matter in a field, but not at the same rate as for CRP."

Good notes that chisel-plowed and corn silage rotations without a cover crop had negative SCI values; these rotations deplete existing soil organic mater.

Good says converting CRP from permanent grasslands to corn will "certainly increase sediment and phosphorus loads in runoff from these areas."

However, implementing management practices that minimize tillage and retain a significant amount of crop residue on the surface will reduce adverse impacts to soil and water resources. Harvesting corn silage will lead to soil losses way higher than tolerable soil loss.

Good says Snap-Plus is public-domain software that can be used by growers at http://www.snapplus.net. It includes the RUSLE2soil loss calculation software. The field level information it requires is readily available to growers, and Good says, with it, growers can assess potential sediment and phosphorus losses resulting from management changes on their own land and alternative practices to minimize those losses. They can also assess the environmental consequences of pulling land from CRP early and planting corn.

CRP is America's largest private-lands conservation program, with more than 36 million acres enrolled. Under CRP, farmers plant grasses and trees in crop fields and along streams to stop soil and nutrients from washing into waterways. They also provide habitat for wildlife.

Over its 20-year history, CRP has amassed a wealth of benefits for the U.S. conservation efforts at an average cost of less than $49 per acre annually. Through January this year, CRP has restored two million acres of wetlands and two million acres of buffers. CRP effectively reduces soil erosion across the U.S. by 454 million tons each year.

Bourget notes that a lot of CRP participants in Wisconsin last year did "chain saw cleanup" to get back into compliance, which is maintaining approved cover. A considerable number had let sumac and other brush grow up on their CRP pasture.

Weeds on CRP land may be worse than normal this year in northwest Wisconsin because of last year's drought in some areas. The same holds true in parts of North Dakota, which also suffered drought, according to Richard Zollinger, North Dakota State University weed specialist.

He says growers are doing more to control weeds, according to recent surveys. Historically, only 2 percent to 3 percent of CRP acres were treated with herbicides to control weeds. However, in the most recent survey taken in 2004, that figure increased to more than 10 percent. The most widely used herbicides were 2,4-D and Tordon, but use of Curtail for Canada thistle control has increased.

"Most herbicides that control broadleaf weeds in CRP also will kill or severely injury the legume component of the CRP stand," Zollinger says. "The Natural Resources Conservation Service's policy on noxious weed control allows spot spraying of noxious weed at the expense of preserving the legume. Controlling noxious weed is a priority over maintaining legumes in the mix. Always review your CRP weed control program with your local USDA Service Center before making any herbicide applications."

Here are suggestions for controlling some weeds likely to be a problem in CRP:

Field bindweed and Canada thistle: Tordon at 1 to 2 quarts per acre provides the best long-term control, but may be cost prohibitive. Tordon at 1 to 2 pints per acre, plus 2,4-D at 1 quart per acre, is more economical, but only controls weeds for one season. Retreatment is required every year and it may take 3 to 4 years to reduce the size of established patches. Banvel at 1 to 2 quarts per acre control established plants for one year. 2,4-D is less expensive and effective than Tordon or Banvel and will suppress only top growth.

 

Comments »

---

Comment on this story

Comments will be approved within 48 hours

Name:

Email: (optional)

Comments:

Image Verification: (Case sensitive)