Debate over what is arguably the country's single most important piece of agricultural legislation is about to get underway in Washington and across the nation, setting up classic battle lines between pressure on global food resources versus the protection of rural environments, including those across Kentucky.

The 2012 Farm Bill will most likely create as much debate as ever in the coming year. A bad economy has both sides of the isle positioning for actions which will likely result in program changes and cuts with far-reaching consequences.

Jon Scholl, President of American Farmland Trust (AFT) summed it up a few weeks ago when, in an AFT press release he said, "Changes in the 2012 Farm Bill appear both likely and may be significant, if not radical. Our country's economic situation will be the most significant driver and agent of change in the Bill."

On the table for what could develop into a contentious debate, fueled in part by the economy, is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and whether it should be modified to allow farmers to more easily put CRP acres back into crop production.

The USDA describes the program, administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA), as a voluntary one, "that encourages agricultural landowners to convert highly erodible cropland or other environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetative cover. Landowners receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to establish long-term conservation practices on eligible farmland."

Put simply, farmers take land out of production, as a conservation move, in exchange for annual payments from the government.

As of the end of 2010, the FSA notes that 31.3 million acres through 738,000 contracts have been enrolled in the CRP. Kentucky recipients rank 25th among their counterparts in all 50 states. Kentucky farmland enrolled in the program has grown from 42,291 acres in 1986 to 382,534 today.

Last December marked a quarter of a century of existence for the program created by the 1985 Farm Bill.

"CRP has a 25-year legacy of successfully protecting the nation's natural resources through voluntary participation," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said at the time. "Although it was designed to address soil erosion, CRP has become one of the standouts in the USDA arsenal of conservation programs by continuing to provide significant economic and environmental benefits beyond its original intent."

Previous requests to make changes have seen limited success, but that history is not preventing a host of agricultural organizations from giving it another try.

In fact, 72 such groups representing national and state agribusiness along with meat, livestock and poultry organizations are asking Congress to remove penalties producers now face in putting CRP land back into production. The reason is partly due to "historically tight supplies of grains and oilseeds," according to a release issued by those organizations. Penalties include the possibility of returning all rental and cost-share payments received for the duration of the CRP contract.

In a letter to lawmakers, the group states, "Increasingly, this challenge of adequacy of grains and oilseeds is not simply a U.S. supply issue. It is a global concern where many nations are trying to provide an affordable food supply (and) finding it difficult to meet basic nutritional needs of their people."

The letter also noted that "providing flexibility in rules governing the CRP is essential if the United States is to respond to market signals and grow adequate grains and oilseeds to provide basic foodstuffs to world consumers."

While land enrolled in the program has traditionally been acreage unsuitable for crop production, Richard Lobb, Director of Communications for the National Chicken Council, one of the groups asking for program concessions, said many productive acres have been placed in the CRP during times when some crops were not very profitable. But with grain prices high and low supplies many farmers are rethinking their strategy.

"Once (producers) sign up, they usually can't get out when market conditions change and it would become more advantageous to crop that land rather than leave it in Conservation Reserve," he said. "What we are urging Congress to do is to allow farmers, more easily, to withdraw land from the CRP so it can be cropped."

Lobb also said that while the organizations respect the original intent of the program, the tight grain supply situation, especially concerning corn, is causing problems and more land needs to be planted in corn and soybeans.

"Our feeling is that stocks are going to be very, very tight. Some people are speculating that we could run out of corn before the new crop comes in which would be a very difficult situation, obviously. And we feel like there needs to be more flexibility to address these things," he said. "It's all well and good to take millions of productive acres out of production when you don't need them, but when you do need them, a farmer should be able to get back into production, if necessary."

Lobb explained that even with changes, there is still going to be a CPR with millions of acres in the program.

"We would just like to ask for our farmers the flexibility to get out of CRP when conditions change and they certainly have changed. Seven dollar corn changes a lot of things," he said. "Land that farmers were willing to send to CRP a couple of years ago, yet is productive land and not fragile land, they should be able to get that out and plant it."

Lobb noted that the program has been tremendously popular since its inception, so much so that limits have been placed on the number of acres the USDA can accept annually.
He added that the issue is controversial within the farming community with many farmers very enthusiastic about it when prices were low.

"We certainly don't want to do any environmental damage but I think everyone knows there is plenty of land in the CRP that is not environmentally critical," said Lobb.
Kent Politsch, chief of Public Affairs with the FSA said in an email reply that "the Conservation Reserve Program, USDA is well-poised to face the continuing challenges that exist when ensuring plentiful food and water supplies while protecting our natural resources. As Congress begins discussions on the 2012 Farm Bill, we welcome the opportunity to work with them to ensure that the best policies are in place to encourage conservation practices that control soil erosion, improve water quality and preserve wildlife habitat."

He also noted that, "Because lands proposed for enrollment in CRP are scored through an 'environmental benefits index,' CRP lands tend to be highly erodible or otherwise marginal. As a result, CRP lands tend to be less productive from an agricultural standpoint than other lands and thus the impact of the program on commodity prices is not that significant."

Besides reducing soil erosion by 400 million tons per year, Politsch pointed out that "CRP has restored more than two million acres of wetlands and provided more than 100,000 stream miles of protective tree and vegetative stream-bank buffers. Populations of many waterfowl and ground nesting birds have significantly rebounded. Thanks to CRP, an additional two million waterfowl per year are added to the fall migrations. CRP also has aided the restoration of salmon, Bobwhite Quail, Sage Grouse and many other forms of wildlife, including threatened and endangered species."

http://www.bizlex.com/Articles-c-2011-05-17-97746.113117-Food-Vs-Land-Major-Farmland-Debate-Getting-Underway.html