In the summer of 1995, I worked a three month internship at The Warroad Pioneer, which I'm sorry to say has since ceased operation. This was the first professional newspaper that I worked for in my career, and it turned out to be a wonderful experience. I had only worked at Bemidji State University's newspaper for about a year and half before landing the internship. At The Pioneer I gained experience in sports, feature, beat and government reporting. I designed pages, took and developed photographs and was responsible for community relations. The best part is that I remain friends with the owners nearly 30 years later.
July 25, 1995
By Devlyn Brooks
In its lifetime, the Conservation Reserve Program, also known as CRP, has been a hot topic of discussion for many rural areas, Roseau and its surrounding counties included.
The original implementation of the CRP program was to benefit farmers by setting aside poorer crop land, reducing the available product. In return, this would raise marked prices. Instead of making money off their product, the farmer received a payment for leaving his poorer land idle. This is where the conservation aspect entered.
Roseau, Marshall and Kittson counties are also among those areas that have seen the positive and the negative effects of the program.
Most people in the area agree that agriculture-related businesses, such as elevators, seed and fertilizer dealers, and implement dealers, probably suffered some losses at the time when the CRP program was first introduced.
However, it is the general consensus of a few local County Extension agents that after 15 years, these agri-businesses have adjusted to the lesser amount of acreage that is being farmed.
Now, in a time of tight government spending, the CRP program is under close scrutiny. The program is expected to be scaled back in terms of the number of acres allowed in the program, and some fear that the program might be cut altogether.
This could have quite an impact on this area of the state because of the number of acres that are enrolled in CRP. In 1991, Marshall had the largest number of acres enrolled in the program of any Minnesota county. It had 172,541 acres enrolled and received more than $7 million in payments in 1991.
Roseau County also has a lot at stake should Congress cut the CRP program entirley. Roseau County was second in Minnesota, only to Marshall County, in the number of acres enrolled. There were more than 140,500 acres in CRP, and Roseau County received more than $4,300,000 in CRP payments in 1991.
Although Kittson County has quite a bit less enrolled than both of these counties, it still stands to lose a lot. According to Kelly Turgeon, the acting director of the Consolidated Farm Services Agency in Kittson County, there are currently 87,000 acres enrolled in Kittson County.
So, any decrease in CRP program will have an economic impact on this area, but as to how much of an impact there can only be speculation.
Roseau County's Extension Agent Dale Carter said that there have been studies done that conclude that as acres went into the CRP program, and immediately after the program was enacted, there was a net negative effect on rural economies.
He said that it was due to the loss of turnover dollars that agri-businesses rely on. When the area farmers had fewer acres that went into production, less fertilizer, seed and farm machinery was sold.
However, Carter is one who believes that after 15 years, the local agri-businesses have adapted to the fewer acres that are used for production.
"I think our businesses have dealt with that decrease in that flow of dollars," Carter said. "Our communities have downsized to deal with it."
Continuing the program at the current rate would note affect the agri-businesses anymore than they have been affected already, Carter said. However, if the program was cut or scaled back, he said, he just doesn't now at this point what kind of effect a leaner CRP program would have on the county.
He said that he thinks that Roseau County's situation also differs from that of other area counties because there has always been other businesses for people to find work. So, the people who lost their jobs in the agri-businesses had places to go.
Just like in any other situation, Carter said, some people have benefited from the program and others have not.
For instance, he said that some Roseau County farmers have benefited from the rise in rent prices that occurred on farmland due to there being less acres available to plant. And some of the people who were renting the land suffered due to the increase in rent prices. "Some years it definitely hasn't paid for producers to rent," Carter said.
According to Carter, this is more than likely to change. Whether the program is scaled back or left alone, Carter said, he thinks there will be lower payments received for an acre enrolled in CRP.
This same teeter-totter effect as above could happen if a lot of acres were released from the program also, he said. If a large amount of land is made available because of a smaller CRP program, the market prices for renting land would go down, hurting those who owned the land. And helping those who would be looking for land to rent.
Another positive effect that the CRP program has had is on the farm economy. In times when there were low market prices due to crop surpluses, Carter said that if those acres that were CRP would have been in production the market prices would have been terrible.
Turgeon said he has had "more than one farmer" in Kittson County tell him that the CRP program "gave them the opportunity to take some of their less productive land out of use, which enabled them to continued farming."
Carter contends that over the years, "there are some acres that shouldn't have been put into CRP." However, he said, there are probably just as many acres that should be in the program, but were not "because the farming practices weren't what they needed to be to get in."
Carter said the CRP program has been a good problem.
Tom Fugleberg has another perspective on CRP. He works for the Salol Farmers union Co-op Elevator Association.
Fugleberg was with the elevator when the CRP program took effect, and he said that they definitely see lower volumes now compared to before CRP. However, he said, that it is difficult to judge just how much of an effect CRP has had on the elevator because it is not the only reason they are seeing lower volumes. The quality and quantity of products has also been lower due to various other natural reasons.
Another reason it is hard to judge the impact that CRP has had on the elevator is that at the same time the CRP program took effect, there were a lot of acres that came out of grassland seed programs, Fugleberg said.
If the program is cut or moderated, Fugleberg admitted the elevator could be affected. He said better quality land that would come out of CRP would probably be used to grow either grains or oil seed crops, which would benefit the elevator. He could not say how much the elevator would benefit though.
Roland Fredrickson is another person who sees the CRP issue from the agri-business side. He owns Fredrickson Implement Co. in Roseau and has worked there since 1946.
When CRP took affect, he said, it changed his business.
"It certainly changed the equipment requirements of the farmers who took advantage of the program," Fredrickson said. "It didn't make them prospects for a lot of the machines we sold."
Fredrickson said he has talked to farmers who are "apprehensive" about the possible change in the program.
If the program would change, he said, some of the farmers said they hope they can maintain the same level of income by renting the land out. Others may have to sell land because they are getting too old to farm it.
"The national average age of the farmer is getting older," Fredrickson said. "New farmers haven't been getting into the business because of the poor farm economy."
Of course, Fredrickson said farmers who need to expand may benefit from the extra acres that would be available from a reduced CRP program. Larger farms would probably be able to expand by buying up land that comes out of CRP also, he said.
It is agreed by most people involved in agriculture that there would be five basic options for farmers should Congress reduce the CRP program. They are 1) take the land out of CRP and make it productive, 2) rent it out to someone else who wants to farm it, 3) use it for grazing lands for livestock, 4) sell the land outright, and 5) finally, leave the land idle. Each option has its negative consequences and positive consequences.
This is an important year in Congress for the CRP program. Even if the program isn't entirely cut, it is evident that there will be changes made. But no one knows what those changes will be.
It is clear that there is not a simple solution to solving the questions of CRP. Some question its effectiveness, while others praise its benefits. And in the end, it always seems to depend on what side of the fence the person is on.
Comments