I was unable to enroll land into CRP unless it had been cropped. The rules have changed incrementally over the decades. Different soil types are paid at different rates... YMMV.The issue isn't which crop they are raising nor it's need for fertilizer. The issue is that a lot of this land has never been tilled and never should have been. They are tilling up hills and valleys that are natural water run offs. Once planted, the water will generally run along the rows, which concentrates the power of the flowing water.
Both of my parents were raised on farms. They and their parents knew about contour farming, terrace rows, and how to reduce topsoil erosion. I'm also certified in construction type storm water erosion control and live down not all that far from the dead zone. If they were to reduce the mandated percent to 5% or less instead of 10%, the incentive to plant marginal land would disappear. As to today's farmers part of the problem seems to be part time farmers who plant a single crop that is handled by just themselves and heavy machinery. They actually spend the majority of their time at a day job to stay afloat down here. Compared to Iowa most of our land is marginal land.The issue isn't which crop they are raising nor it's need for fertilizer. The issue is that a lot of this land has never been tilled and never should have been. They are tilling up hills and valleys that are natural water run offs. Once planted, the water will generally run along the rows, which concentrates the power of the flowing water.
I grew up in Iowa and Nebraska. My Uncle and Grandfather farmed the small family farms. Grandad tilled probably 60 acres of his 125. My uncle tilled probably 100 of his 125. My cousins are now farming that same land, plus a lot more. I think together they have about 600 acres and till about 500 of that. I saw the demise of the small family farm into the corporate farm where they took out the houses, outbuildings, trees, fences, and feedyards and then put that all under the plow. Many places in central Iowa are now planted from ditch to ditch in full sections (640 acres or 1 square mile). They created black snow and many of the issues that became your dead zone.Both of my parents were raised on farms. They and their parents knew about contour farming, terrace rows, and how to reduce topsoil erosion. I'm also certified in construction type storm water erosion control and live down not all that far from the dead zone. If they were to reduce the mandated percent to 5% or less instead of 10%, the incentive to plant marginal land would disappear. As to today's farmers part of the problem seems to be part time farmers who plant a single crop that is handled by just themselves and heavy machinery. They actually spend the majority of their time at a day job to stay afloat down here. Compared to Iowa most of our land is marginal land.
Pat, this (ethanol) too, shall pass when the next president gets into office and the oil companies are selling more and more refined products overseas. But we have a new 'deal" to take up our time (and our hard earned dollars): "Obamacare" and its imminent failure. The only one that wins in this new game is the insurance companies.It is such a shock to hear that the one country that supposedly believes in "free markets" bases its entire agricultural policy around politically motivated subsidies. It is more of a pity that a country with enough education and communication can destroy markets, soil, aquifers and the future by playing some massive market interference with farm subsidies.
I guess when you can let your entire economy be driven by pure fictitious and fabricated speculative transactions, and completely abandon the work and values that created all of the wealth in the first place, it sort of makes sense.
That has nothing to do with soil conservation or even agriculture itself. That is out of profound respect for the health damage done by tobacco. THAT is health care - what medicine practices is SICK care.Added comment: The Canadian government does the same thing. I spend a lot of time west of Toronto and know of a few farmers up there that have been paid not to plant to tobacco.
What I was told was that the Canadian government subsidized the tobacco to the point that it was much higher on the market than any other source. They determined that it was in the farmers best interest to pay them not to plant. At least the communication to the level of the guy on the tractor had no indications that this was being done as a humanitarian effort.That has nothing to do with soil conservation or even agriculture itself. That is out of profound respect for the health damage done by tobacco. THAT is health care - what medicine practices is SICK care.
The programme was called the "Tobacco Transition Programme" and was not payment to grow, but payment to sell off their quota (was supply managed) and assist to grow alternative crops. Not just for Canadian health policy reasons, but in concert with an international treaty based on health benefits of reducing that drug use. Unfortunately, was abused by some tobacco growers who took the money but back doored the deal and continued to grow.What I was told was that the Canadian government subsidized the tobacco to the point that it was much higher on the market than any other source. They determined that it was in the farmers best interest to pay them not to plant. At least the communication to the level of the guy on the tractor had no indications that this was being done as a humanitarian effort.