Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: Goodbye 2019-20 Season

  1. #11

    Default

    CRP is the backbone of pheasant production, especially new CRP. I understand that there is a new signup going on now, albeit at lower rates. I also understand that commodity prices, mainly corn and soybeans are down significantly. Are the rates and new rules generous enough to get farmers to enroll land or is the program just lip service?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Hamlin, Texas
    Posts
    34

    Default

    I realize this is the Kansas forum, but I wanted to share my experience from earlier this week with the new CRP program. I live in the rolling plains of northwest Texas, and the following is what transpired.

    I made inquiry with our county USDA/FSA office about enrolling 272 acres of cultivated ground into the new CRP program. My county USDA/FSA office informed me that only 108 acres out of the 272 was eligible to even apply for consideration for CRP, due to soil type. They said the 108 acres scored 96 points on their 400 point scoring system, so it was going to be a long shot that it would even be approved/accepted.

    If it did get approved/accepted, the annual payment would be $20.85/acre/year on a 10 year contract. We lease the farming on all 272 acres to a guy for over $30.00/acre/year. I told USDA/FSA we wouldn’t be pursuing things any further.

    I had high hopes for the new CRP program, as we were wanting to add more quail habitat and get this land out of cultivation to stop the wind and water erosion that’s pretty severe on the place. I was also hoping the new CRP program would be financially beneficial to farmers and landowners while also increasing pheasant and quail habitat in all of the primary upland bird hunting states like Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. However, my experience tells me that while it all looks and sounds good, there’s just not a lot to the program to make it doable for most people.

    Maybe my experience isn’t typical, but it is what it is. I’d sure like to hear from anyone else that has made inquiry about the new CRP program and find out what their experience(s) have been.

  3. #13

    Default

    Kind of like I thought. Economics 101 would show that enrolling land in CRP would be money losing. Throw in whatever pittance the state pays for allowing public access and the landowner can afford an oil change on their 15 year old pickup. Until the landowner can show a bottom line we won't be seeing more CRP. Until we see more CRP we won't be seeing more birds.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Kansas
    Posts
    4,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KSBrittman View Post
    I think a bright spot / opportunity might be in tall wheat stubble habitat cut with a stripper head and not sprayed to late summer .

    My best hunt of the year came from a weedy Wheat felid me and hunting partner harvested 6 Quail and 8 roosters by 11:30 last Monday of the season . Best hunt since the 2009 :
    Wheat stubble used to be the best hunting and with all the cornfields bare dirt now they are good again.
    - From the office of Colt, Stoeger, Browning & Savage
    - Kansas: Big Cock Country

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    South Central, KS
    Posts
    603

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lbills View Post
    I realize this is the Kansas forum, but I wanted to share my experience from earlier this week with the new CRP program. I live in the rolling plains of northwest Texas, and the following is what transpired.

    I made inquiry with our county USDA/FSA office about enrolling 272 acres of cultivated ground into the new CRP program. My county USDA/FSA office informed me that only 108 acres out of the 272 was eligible to even apply for consideration for CRP, due to soil type. They said the 108 acres scored 96 points on their 400 point scoring system, so it was going to be a long shot that it would even be approved/accepted.

    If it did get approved/accepted, the annual payment would be $20.85/acre/year on a 10 year contract. We lease the farming on all 272 acres to a guy for over $30.00/acre/year. I told USDA/FSA we wouldn’t be pursuing things any further.

    I had high hopes for the new CRP program, as we were wanting to add more quail habitat and get this land out of cultivation to stop the wind and water erosion that’s pretty severe on the place. I was also hoping the new CRP program would be financially beneficial to farmers and landowners while also increasing pheasant and quail habitat in all of the primary upland bird hunting states like Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. However, my experience tells me that while it all looks and sounds good, there’s just not a lot to the program to make it doable for most people.

    Maybe my experience isn’t typical, but it is what it is. I’d sure like to hear from anyone else that has made inquiry about the new CRP program and find out what their experience(s) have been.

    This is basically the same feedback I received from a farmer who has let me hunt since I met him while I was in college back around 01 -- he's been generous to let me hunt since then -- anyways I had mentioned how I read about them expanding the CRP acres in the new farm bill - he had already checked into it and relayed basically the same thing you are saying - a chunk of land he wanted to enroll (that was in the old program previously and since expired) would not be eligible after they reviewed it, and other parts he wanted to enroll would get some ridiculous low dollar amount payment where it wasnt even worth it.


    Sounds like on this small sample size the CRP increase is all lip service and was probably slanted towards some large landowner or a corporate landowner who paid off an elected official and lobbyists to write the bill to their liking/benefit.

    I've no hope that the CRP acres will increase at all in KS and will likely continue to decrease - the state had written about the amount of acres set to expire and that it WAS Not GOOD -- we should be worried if they are bringing it up and see the writing on the wall.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Mid Missouri
    Posts
    796

    Default

    I just went through the same thing. I have 120 acres to enroll. And my father in law has another 220 acres of pasture that he was wanting to put in as well. I was told that the soil was too acidic to enroll in the plan. So we went a different route with the conservation department. They are doing a pasture restoration program where they are converting fescue to warm season grass. Once again we did not qualify per the soil test....So here's the long and the short of it. If the soil is rich enough to produce a good yield without fertilizing the crap out of it, they will enroll it in the program. So basically they want to convert the good, high yield, ground. I don't think its a political thing. I think in the past, the program enrolled marginal ground or set aside ground. I think the target for them now is the good producing crop ground. The money they are offering for it is almost too good to be true and as the saying goes, it was. I think the target region at least around here is going to be the northern one third of Missouri, Iowa, and Nebraska. If our soil here didn't qualify I highly doubt that any land in Kansas will qualify. So I have a hard time believing that any crp will be added in Kansas. I am still converting my land over to habitat but its going to cost me a lot more and I wont be getting a yearly stipend either for my efforts. The pasture restoration project was in a recent issue of Missouri Conservationist. They left out some serious details.
    Some people talk about it, some people live it!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Colony, Ks
    Posts
    643

    Default

    Pasture won't qualify for CRP because it doesn't have a farming history which it has to have. The CRP acres will be maxed out. It's not paying as much, but it still pays more than lower quality ground will cash rent for. Plus you don't have to deal with tenants and the government's checks won't bounce. I just bought a quarter of farm ground in Ness County. The CRP rate is about the same as cash renting it. I am going to cash rent it because a good friend of mine farms the quarter next to it. We are however going to put a pollinator plot it, and I am going to plant cedars and plums in a waterway that runs across it.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    South Central, KS
    Posts
    603

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PheasantWhisperer View Post
    I just went through the same thing. I have 120 acres to enroll. And my father in law has another 220 acres of pasture that he was wanting to put in as well. I was told that the soil was too acidic to enroll in the plan. So we went a different route with the conservation department. They are doing a pasture restoration program where they are converting fescue to warm season grass. Once again we did not qualify per the soil test....So here's the long and the short of it. If the soil is rich enough to produce a good yield without fertilizing the crap out of it, they will enroll it in the program. So basically they want to convert the good, high yield, ground. I don't think its a political thing. I think in the past, the program enrolled marginal ground or set aside ground. I think the target for them now is the good producing crop ground. The money they are offering for it is almost too good to be true and as the saying goes, it was. I think the target region at least around here is going to be the northern one third of Missouri, Iowa, and Nebraska. If our soil here didn't qualify I highly doubt that any land in Kansas will qualify. So I have a hard time believing that any crp will be added in Kansas. I am still converting my land over to habitat but its going to cost me a lot more and I wont be getting a yearly stipend either for my efforts. The pasture restoration project was in a recent issue of Missouri Conservationist. They left out some serious details.

    I'm pretty positive like all things govt if you follow the money whomever wrote this into the farmbill likely wrote it a specific way to benefit a corporation or a select few. That or it was unintentional which I highly doubt. Putting high quality land back into CRP defeats the purpose of the program to begin with IMO. It will take another environmental disaster that blows dirt over Washington DC like black Sunday did to get anyone's attention - that or another widespread drought or water crisis like the one experienced 2011-2012 across much of the breadbasket though I think most of the Nation or farmers in KS for that matter learned many lessons from that time. It took one of the largest wildfires in modern history to educate extreme South Central KS the benefit of not letting invasive western red cedars to grow on properties like weeds - Manhattan KS will someday burn to the ground or parts of it will for their sins and allowing the scourge to grow near the town with no interference.

    I explored some more new areas (to me) this year than in the past - I like the desert like areas the most and hate where it can get "muddy" - anyways these new to me areas are part of the Ogallala aquifer - I saw many many abandoned circles. Large swaths of land from Texas to Mexico to Nebraska will need to go back to pasture again once they suck all the water out of the aquifer - it appears based on what I've seen since living in SW KS more wells are being abandoned (**I saw numerous reports by major media and online about wells running dry and it not being economically viable to keep them going due to the depth of the water) - my favorite place to hunt the ground water level in a river is about 40 ft down if that tells you anything - looking at historical photos the water source likely ran a quarter mile wide or more at times. Old platt maps I believe had a mile wide easement or was so told.

    Not enrolling CRP corners at the edge of irrigation is one of the biggest crimes if the govt is turning those down.


    Mike *Fsentkilr -- Maybe Ness county is different or the cash prices are different there - the farmer I have a relationship with in Edwards county quoted me the prices and the CRP rates he could get for some of his parcels weren't close to cash rent nor anywhere close to making it economically viable to enroll - as well as he had land they completely rejected that was enrolled under the old program that paid more. ***His summary to me - he operates at a scale large enough I'm 110% confident he understands the program and very well what he relayed to me.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Colony, Ks
    Posts
    643

    Default

    Click on the link then go to Kansas then the county. It shows the old rates and new. Edwards county is a dollar lower and Ness is 7 higher. Continuous pays more than general signup. Also you bid General in so nobody will know if they are in or not until the bids are accepted. You can get more points by lowering your rate, or doing enhancements like food plots, interseeding wildflowers. planting trees ect. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-an...atistics/index
    Last edited by fsentkilr; 02-10-2020 at 05:36 PM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Kansas
    Posts
    4,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fsentkilr View Post
    I just bought a quarter of farm ground in Ness County [and] going to put a pollinator plot it, and I am going to plant cedars and plums in a waterway that runs across it.
    Thank you for investing in habitat!
    - From the office of Colt, Stoeger, Browning & Savage
    - Kansas: Big Cock Country

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •