Why is the US Dept of Agriculture paying rich farmers to not farm their land.

Farmland isn’t like a machine that can keep going forever, crop after crop after crop. It needs to rest now and then and build up a little fertility, and very often, the crops that are grown after a “green manure” (like a crop of clover) has been grown and plowed in are of higher quality than crops grown on continuously cropped land. However, farmers were paid for crops and production, not fallow land, so they were damaging their land by trying to grow as many crops as possible. When they are paid to let the land rest, they have more of an incentive to let the land recover between crops.

Also, in a purely market economy, a decrease in product is supposed to increase the price for the rest of the remaining product. I’m not sure if this is a valid reason for the farmers to allow the land to lie fallow, though, because they already charge less for some things than it took to grow (thanks to subsidies for staple crops).

The dryland farmers in this area summer fallow every other year, you know that before you take the plow to land. The CRP program has nothing to do with resting the land, it’s design was to take acreage out of production to raise the price of grain, nothing more.

That’s right, it supports crop prices so family farmers can stay in business. I’m not a fan of subsidies, but I feel for the folks trying to make a living on the family farm—that’s a tough way to make a buck.

Nobody is starving because there isn’t enough wheat grown. Hunger is a distribution problem, not a production problem.

Here’s an interesting, short article.

Excerpt: Blanketing the CRP’s 35 million acres—8 percent of U.S. farmland—with industrial-style grain and soy fields won’t likely do much to lower food prices. Again, it’s marginal land, not likely to produce particularly high yields—although farmers will surely try to maximize yields by lashing their lands with chemicals.

I would support family farmers and government programs that help those who need it. CRP does neither, the majority of CRP payments are to corporations, not to family farmers.

While it is true that a lot of CRP land is inferior, the only reason that it was farmed is so that it would qualify for the program. Prior to CRP it was pasture land because there wasn’t anyone in his right mind that would farm it. Is it right to farm inferior land just to be able to receive free money?

A lot of CRP land is right next to productive farmland, does the fenceline somehow determine where the land is most fertile?

How many farmers do you know that drive a vehicle more than a couple of years old and it’s not a Cadillac or Lincoln? They have new tractors and equipment, ATVs, nice houses, money in the bank. Just getting by farmers are no longer in the system, they have since sold out to corporations.

Because starving is a distribution problem rather than a supply problem, you support payments to corporations for doing nothing? Giving to needy in the states would be better than payments for doing nothing.

@jasongarrett, I agree with you except that most farms are not owned by families these days. The vast majority of the acreage belongs to huge corporations that have the resources to buy expensive machinery and irrigation.

This is more efficient from a business/logistic point of view, though a little sad for the small farms that are struggling to turn a profit. Still, the movement towards organic and artisan foods is providing a niche for those farmers to do quite well if they market themselves correctly.

CRP inflates crop prices for all farmers. The vast majority of the acreage may be corporate, but there are still a LOT of small farmers who will never be able to afford a Lincoln.

Starvation and the CRP are unrelated. We can still give food to the hungry even if we subsidize farmers.

Like I said, I’m no fan of government subsidies. Make a valid argument against the CRP and I’ll support it.

Why is not the fact that taxpayer money is paying someone to do nothing not a convincing argument against CRP? Especially, when those farmers that could use the money the most are not in the program?

It sure sounds like you want reasons other than the ones we’ve been giving, or for someone to say, “Heck yeah, you’re absolutely right!” Perhaps, as someone who supports fallow land (the land sure is doing something, even if the farmers planting cover crops aren’t), my value here is somewhat limited. I hope you find the answers you seek. :)

I’m trying to understand why most taxpayers are ok with that program. It has nothing to do with resting (fallow) the land.

It has everything to do with a multi million dollar giveaway to people who do not need it.

If you really want to give money to someone for doing nothing, then I will post my address so you can send it directly to me and eliminate the midddleman.

@pekenoe There are an infinite number of things that the government wastes money on….

For any individual item in question there is someone who is likely to feel it isn’t wasteful for one reason or another.

I think I understand now, maybe… For whatever reason a portion of our population chooses to trust that the government will do what’s right with our money. rotflmao

Your just a huge fool and do not realy understand the entirty of the program. Besides if everyone thought like you America would be as much farmland as need for the people and it would fall as a Communism as the government will pay you for your wheat and distribute it all to the people based on what they do and need. Fallow land allows for population regeneration in a natural habitat, education for children on what the area looked like before human life came through and claimed this land as theirs , as well as Allowing the soil to naturally replenish its nigtogen supplies and quality instead of it being tilled up every year losing fertility even with crop rotation. This maybe a bit hippyish but its from my life expiriences. And maybe you need to quit being a freak idiot have a fantastic day and next time you have a thought like this, dwell on it, then think if its going to help society.