Whos dropped out of EQUIP?

[Hoytvectrix]

I agree with the premise. I just like as small a government as possible. Also doesn’t say much about the collective of landowners if we aren’t willing to do what’s right unless the government pays for it.

I generally agree with both of your points. Government is a last resort when either a free market can't solve a problem, or if those landowners doing what they think is "right" has negative downstream effects on others or the environment.

 

[Foggy47]

I don’t use him as my moral compass. But with that said as @356 said I think getting tax breaks would benefit us more in the long run. Look I don’t fault anyone for taking advantage of these programs, I just think they are not needed societally.

I've never applied for a dime of government assistance with my land or projects. Don't make sense to me. Give farmers enough money and they would tile out the Mississippi river and plant soybeans in it.

Maybe I'm just not smart enough to apply for assistance? Hope I never need to be that smart.

 

[Hoytvectrix]

I understand where you're coming from, but I also don't think everyone would destroy their land because the government didn't pay them not to. You don't see this phenomenon with any other kind of property (other than industrial livestock) like homes, commercial buildings, manufacturing, etc. Sure there are exceptions, but they are not the rule. Those who do not properly care for their capital (like land, buildings, and resources) are quickly separated from them.

This is a really good point and definitely brings the conversation around to when and where CSP or EQIP should be used. When people don't know any better (which turns out happens quite often), or when they are incentivized by profit, their incentives and what they think is right changes.

The only problem with not properly caring for something is that it needs to be degraded first. Remediation has to be done after something is screwed up, or the market is always reactionary. I think most people would rather there not be an oil spill to decide which gas station they fill up at. Building codes can be a great way of ensuring a house won't crush a family because a contractor didn't budget properly to protect their margin.

Of course, there are all kinds of laws and bureaucracies that self-promote and become wasteful. But I sidetracked this all to make a point that I don't mind a *voluntary* government enrollment program for people willing to conserve environmental resources.

 

[Foggy47]

I'm pretty sure most of us would agree....that the Federal Government's farm program is for the most part a waste land of tax dollars that are (for the most part) normally swept up by the shrewdest of operators. IMO the government subsidies have gotten way out of proportion to the good they serve(d). Many start out as well intended....but never have a sunset provision.....albeit the goal was achieved decades ago. It sure does not seem fair to the work-a-day guy.....or me.

 

[Mortenson]

80% of the Farm Bill goes to food stamps. Wasn't sure how many knew that.

 

[Brian662]

I agree with the premise. I just like as small a government as possible. Also doesn’t say much about the collective of landowners if we aren’t willing to do what’s right unless the government pays for it.

Everyone reasonably wants small government until that small government comes knocking for their slice of the pie, IMO.

 

[356]

80% of the Farm Bill goes to food stamps. Wasn't sure how many knew that.

Absolutely true. The amount that goes to conservation is minuscule compared to SNAP and school lunch programs.

 

[T-Max]

Crop sharing wouldn't count?

So, I was told no. Now if I were to have it custom planted, custom harvested, etc. that would count. Problem around here is nobody is doing that unless you pay them twice what it should cost, especially on such a small piece.

 

[Mortenson]

So, I was told no. Now if I were to have it custom planted, custom harvested, etc. that would count. Problem around here is nobody is doing that unless you pay them twice what it should cost, especially on such a small piece.

You built a nice planter this year and put in a nice corn crop. Just sayin

 

[T-Max]

Haha! Its part of the reason I did it. If I can plant it, I would have a better chance of getting someone to just harvest it, with corn at least. If I did beans, they probably wouldn't get to it before all of the pods shattered. I have the question out there, and haven't received the answer on if CRP or something else would cover that requirement. I could also plant it to alfalfa and have a 25 acre food plot that never gets cut. If we feed the hay, there is no receipt. I dunno.

 

[BenA]

This is how I see EQIP. I do my taxes every year. I see how much goes to the Feds. They say, you can give it all to us, and we'll do with it as we see fit, or you can have some back to do habitat work, and these are the practices you can choose from.

 

[ksJoe]

Everyone reasonably wants small government until that small government comes knocking for their slice of the pie, IMO.

Unfortuantely that's usually the case.

IMO, I'd like to see EQIP eliminated. I bought land 3-4 years ago, so these programs are somewhat new to me. I've applied for waterway construction / erosion repair help. If it ever gets approved, I'll look at the terms and see if its worth the trouble. But I'd be very happy to see the program gone, even if it costs me $. A couple years ago I paid $4k for the farmer who works the land to cut me in on his dozer rental to do some repairs. If they chip in, I may do bigger projects, but overall I'm going to do what needs done and I'd rather have smaller gov. even if it costs me.

Crop insurance I'm more mixed in my opinion. It works out much like a subsidy (which I dislike), but I'm concerned what would happen if it was eliminated. The first couple years with my land, the wheat was a total loss and the insurance didn't even fully cover the fertalizer bill. The last year we made some, so the crops are slightly profitable for the 3 years if we include the insurance. Without the insurance, we'd be way down.
The farmer working it is worse off because he has more expenses (time, seed, herbicide, fuel). Even with crop insurance he's probably lost money working my land the last 3 years. Our arrangement is I pay 40% of the fertializer bill and get 40% of the gross. He covers all else. If crop insurance subsidies didn't exist, it would not drive me out because my property is fairly small and I bought to play with, not as investment. But I'd worry about the fate of the independent farmers, such as the guy who farms my land.

The consulting services the gov. agencies provide I'm a huge fan of. I've had NRCS people out to talk about my erosion problems. And I've had a forester out to talk about trees & habitat deveopment. In both cases, it was an hour or two of the gov. employee's time. I was grilling them with questions. Basically, they were educating me so I can be succesful. The cost to the taxpayers for that was minimal - just that little bit of time from the agents, and it is very impactful. Helping me avoid costly failures in my attempt to help the land has a great ROI for the taxpayers.

 

[Brian662]

Unfortuantely that's usually the case.

IMO, I'd like to see EQIP eliminated. I bought land 3-4 years ago, so these programs are somewhat new to me. I've applied for waterway construction / erosion repair help. If it ever gets approved, I'll look at the terms and see if its worth the trouble. But I'd be very happy to see the program gone, even if it costs me $. A couple years ago I paid $4k for the farmer who works the land to cut me in on his dozer rental to do some repairs. If they chip in, I may do bigger projects, but overall I'm going to do what needs done and I'd rather have smaller gov. even if it costs me.

Crop insurance I'm more mixed in my opinion. It works out much like a subsidy (which I dislike), but I'm concerned what would happen if it was eliminated. The first couple years with my land, the wheat was a total loss and the insurance didn't even fully cover the fertalizer bill. The last year we made some, so the crops are slightly profitable for the 3 years if we include the insurance. Without the insurance, we'd be way down.
The farmer working it is worse off because he has more expenses (time, seed, herbicide, fuel). Even with crop insurance he's probably lost money working my land the last 3 years. Our arrangement is I pay 40% of the fertializer bill and get 40% of the gross. He covers all else. If crop insurance subsidies didn't exist, it would not drive me out because my property is fairly small and I bought to play with, not as investment. But I'd worry about the fate of the independent farmers, such as the guy who farms my land.

The consulting services the gov. agencies provide I'm a huge fan of. I've had NRCS people out to talk about my erosion problems. And I've had a forester out to talk about trees & habitat deveopment. In both cases, it was an hour or two of the gov. employee's time. I was grilling them with questions. Basically, they were educating me so I can be succesful. The cost to the taxpayers for that was minimal - just that little bit of time from the agents, and it is very impactful. Helping me avoid costly failures in my attempt to help the land has a great ROI for the taxpayers.

All good stuff and I agree on all of it.

I'm sure you can imagine that other's experience with EQIP is different from yours and they also probably have different opinions than you on crop insurance and NRCS workers.

 

[buckdeer1]

I didn't have any issues with what is Kansas EQUIP but NRCS CRP is so bad that I probably will never try to enroll again.I was in about every program that was available in my area and even tested tree tubes for them to help get cost share.Stayed in the full 20 years and used it for alot of projects.They wouldn't let me re enroll when my 20 year contracts expired except for a wetland.That was only after I appealed the refusal due to too much johnson grass on inspection.I found 1 patch about 15ftx15ft.So they came back and inspected again and what the first guy thought was JG was switch. So I signed papers for contract then was informed I had to plant forbs.Problem with that is that forbs get choked out with the NWSG and switch.The area also floods so needless to say there wasn't much reason to spend more every 2 years than what I was getting paid.I then canceled contract and had to pay 130.00 for 3 days in program.