|
| in a perfect world crp would be a "donation" that a farmer could make out of his own operation, if a portion of a farm wasn`t profitable, the farmer would seed it down and plant trees. in iowa anyway that isn`t the case with many on a quest to farm 50,000 acres. old building sites with a grove are bulldozed multiple $10`s of thousands spent per acre in clearing to reclaim 1 acres that`s maybe worth $8,000. old oak trees that have taken decades to grow are sold off for $69 each. i`m guilty of some of this myself, so everyone has to float their own boat.
i guess my thought is, we are going to probably spend $100`s of billions to bail out farmers, regardless how many rail against it. those +$100s billions aren`t solving the below cost of production problem, only adding to the over production. seems to me, if we shave the burdensome supply though a crp along with a ban on imported grain, we could at least improve getting our own house in order. brazil apparently is making money where their prices are, every year they clear another 4% of land. china apparently has skin in the brazil game, so even if we undercut south america on price, we are basically their second choice supplier. this has been the direction for years, brazil has been groomed for many years.
i get it that some "don`t want to compete with the government renting farms" some regions this is a bigger bugaboo than others. but in my area when corn was $7 and thought to be there in perpetuity , there was crp contracts being bought out, past monies repaid to farm it again a few years before the contract was due. so, i don`t see the government as some kind of boondoggle for absentee land owners. the big guys farming 50,000 acres will gladly pick up any excess acres not making it into the crp. absent the crp there wouldn`t be some "land glut" making rents go cheap. imo | |
|
a case for expanding crp
