March 2, 2012
The CRP’s Chain of Ecological Events
Every five years, the United States Congress must decide the fate of the Farm Bill, a set of federal laws that govern food and agriculture programs (Johnson). The Farm Bill currently in place, which dates back to 2008, must be either renewed or extended by December of this year, so its relative benefits and detriments are high on politicians’ minds (Kuipers). Those in support of the program view the bill as an assurance that our country has consistent access to “the most abundant, safest, and most affordable food supplies in the world” (Johnson). Those who criticize the bill, on the other hand, find supporting its programs to be ineffective uses of taxpayer money. After learning more about the Farm Bill’s Conservation Reserve Program of 1985, however, critics may change their minds.
Conservation Reserve Program
The continued existence of many species of wildlife in the U.S., especially various types of ground-nesting birds, depends on the Conservation Reserve Program. The idea behind this program is fairly simple: in order to conserve water, replenish soils, and provide open space for wildlife, the federal government agrees to pay landowners — mainly farmers — sums of money to set aside acres of their land where grasses can grow or natural habitats can be restored (Kuipers). This program has almost certainly contributed to the recent boost in the abundance of individuals in particular species. For example, from 1984 to 2000 in South Dakota, the number of pheasants increased from 3.2 million individuals to 8.3 million (Kuipers). Recently, however, the CRP has been in jeopardy of not only losing finances and support from the U.S. Congress, but farmers are also less interested in participating due to the increased value of corn and other crops (Kuipers).
Pheasant
Because of the swelled prices of corn, farmers are deciding against receiving a CRP check and instead choosing to convert their set aside acres to agricultural fields. In 2011, the Plains States including Colorado, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Oklahoma to name a few, removed 800,000 acres from the CRP. With this decrease in land available to wildlife, the animal populations that increased with the implementation of the CRP will not likely remain stable (Kuipers). One can only hope that the pheasants, sharptail grouses, mules, whitetail deer, and ducks can maintain resilience through the upcoming decisions regarding the Farm Bill and Conservation Reserve Program.
Increased prices of corn have led to many acres of land removed from Conservation Reserve Program
A great deal of the wildlife in the Great Plains will probably suffer due to the loss of CRP land. Moreover, increased prices of corn and farmers’ decisions to turn down federal funds for this conservation program have stretched to affect agriculture in California, as well. The Central Valley grows two-thirds of the world’s almonds, which are water-intensive and high-maintenance crops. Besides requiring tons of plentiful fertilizers, almonds need insect pollinators for successful fertilization (Charles). For this reason, beekeepers ship approximately 1.6 million beehives from the Midwest to the Central Valley of California each year. Bees spend several weeks enjoying the almonds’ blossoms to their own delight and the delight of California farmers. After these few short weeks, however, the bees no longer have viable food sources, and therefore, beekeeper must return them to areas in rural, northern United States where they can dine on plentiful, pesticide-free wildflowers (Charles).
Bee pollinating almond blossom
These paradises of wildflowers help to sustain bee populations, and unfortunately, farmers are deciding to convert acres and acres of these natural areas, which largely exist due to federal CRP funds, into profitable croplands. To tie together the relationships discussed, the Conservation Reserve Program of the Farm Bill led to the preservation of habitats ideal for bees, and farmers of the Central Valley critically need these bees to pollinate their almond crops. However, as CRP land acreage decreases due to the current prices of corn and possible future alterations of the Farm Bill, bee populations will suffer, and therefore, almond crop abundance will also likely experience drops. The importance of a program such as the Conservation Reserve Program may not seem blatantly obvious, but it certainly has a positive impact on people all over the country.
This post was authored by Adelaide Rowe ’13 who is majoring in Environmental Studies (BS).
References
1. Charles, Dan. “Why California Almonds Need North Dakota Flowers (And A Few Billion Bees).” National Public Radio. 14 Feb. 2012. Web. 28 Feb. 2012.
2. Johnson, Renee. “What Is the “Farm Bill”?” Washington: Congressional Research Service. 3 Jan. 2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2012.
3. Kuipers, Dean. “Farm Conservation Program ‘Under the Gun.’” Los Angeles Times. 9 Jan. 2012. Web. 28 Feb. 2012.
It is unfortunate that the price of corn and other monoculture crops have risen to such an extent that farmers are now turning down government subsidies. Due to the fact that the government is under the Locke-ian social contract to provide for its citizens, the environment tends to take a back seat because the environment cannot vote in representatives.
The solution to this problem, I think, is to establish more land trusts and more conservation areas. However, government funding for conservation areas tends to be quite scarce, so I think the best solution would be to look to the private sector and to non-profits to personally purchase the land or move the land into a land trust to conserve the land for the natural flora and fauna.
To me it seems that the decrease in support for the Conservation Reserve Program might be more due to politics than economics. The main reason why farmers are losing interest in the program is because planting corn is more lucrative than getting paid by the government to preserve acres of their land. But, the government subsidizes corn, so either way the government is paying for the land. Why not pay for the preservation of natural lands which will lead to the preservation of essential species and will ensure the survival of honeybees which are so essential to agriculture around the country instead of subsidizing a crop with little nutritional value and which is mostly used for animal feed and cereals. I think the solution is to make the people more aware of the benefits of the CRP so there can be a push to stop the powerful corporations/special interests behind the subsidies for corn.
I am all for land preservation and protecting the ecosystems of the resorted farmlands, however there is an even more looming problem at hand- our food source. The United States currently only has a limited amount of space to grow its food for export as well as domestic use. The main concern with climate change is that these farmlands will eventually be useable due to the rising heat temperature in the growing season, no matter what conservation measures are being used- its just plain hotter. Crop lands will be forced northward where the soils are not nearly as fertile and suitable for our staple crops and we will be forced to genetically alter our food in order for them to grow with less water, nutrients and sunlight. Until we are able to do that, impending climate change will have a dramatic effect on the way and where we grow our food. Although there are farming measures to conserve the soil and increase crop yields using less land, the rising temperatures will negate these conservation practices because it will just be too hot for them to grow optimally. Therefore, with that knowledge, it may be wise to not renew the CRP and instead begin to start researching ways to grow food in northern climates and slowly return the current farmland back into their natural habitats all together.
I agree that it is unfortunate that the increase in prices of corn and other monoculture crops has caused the decrease in land available for wildlife. According to the United States Farm Subsidy Database, corn subsidies totaled to roughly $77 billion over the past fifteen years. However, the good news is that although subsidies increased in the late 1990s, the past five years or so have shown a large decrease in corn subsidies. Hopefully this means that less corn is being grown, which could leave potential to gain wildlife habitat back, but only if certain land trusts were established. But another positive thing that the decrease in corn subsidies could possibly mean is that those dollars are being used elsewhere for subsidies. In an ideal world – that money would go towards saving the species whose homes were ruined when the land was cleared for agricultural use. I know things are much more complicated than my proposed solution, but maybe there is a way to incorporate my idea into the bigger scheme of things.
source:
http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn
This is one of those instances that I see government as stepping into places that it shouldn’t. Look at the paradox that is created, the government subsidizes corn, which helps the surge in corn prices, which undermines the governments incentive program to conserve farmland. I do not understand actions such as these and it upsets me to think of the general waste of resource that result because of it. The role of the government was never to maintain the entire economy and influence it in certain directions. That is the specific role of the market and the individuals that partake in it. When we allow our government to continuously bite off more than it was ever meant to, we get illogical practices like what we see here. I also find it interesting that farmers are paid to not produce, and while I understand the reasoning, I don’t understand how it isn’t simply cheaper to buy the land from them. I haven’t done enough research and I hope there is a logical answer to that question, but from what I have seen I wouldn’t be surprised if there is not.
Truly a great blog very informative, interesting, and thought provoking. I feel a bit embarrassed because I had no idea that the Farm Bill included a Conservation Reserve Program, and that the two were heavily intertwined. Essentially making the farm bill not simply a matter of the United States growing it’s own food but also a matter of environmental importance and biodiversity.
I am not surprised however, that farmers are electing to get out from under the CRP to grow corn (the corn with dollar husk was brilliant by the way). Not only does this show that the subsidies on corn are negatively impacting the environment, but also threatening our food supply, and the future of U.S. agriculture. I really just don’t get it, well I do get it, but it is so frustrating to see illogical things like this happen everyday. I do not understand how the farmers, politicians, and voters cannot see that all of these systems are interconnected and by converting farm land to corn crops either by going away from the CRP or independently is going to do any good for the future of agriculture, the environment, and ironically the farmers lively hood.