OK. I’m just checking, because lots of people here on FR assume that we still are operating under the FDR-era systems of quotas. We’re not. The CRP program is the only program left that “pays farmers to not farm” and that program isn’t hugely supported by farmers - the biggest political support for that program comes from hunting and conservation groups who want farmers to set aside “critical habitat” grounds on their farms - eg, “potholes” on the prairie for ducks, or land with erosion issues or land surrounding lakes, rivers, streams, etc.
CRP doesn’t pay farmers to “stop growing crops.” CRP pays farmers to not use the land. If it was pasture, you can’t hay the pasture under CRP - you’re supposed to leave the land fallow for wildlife. In the 2008 Farm Bill, a farmer can now graze CRP ground for 60 days per year, but that’s it.
CRP isn’t a huge win for the farmer unless he has some hugely unproductive land or commodity prices are in the absolute toilet. In the 2002 Farm Bill, CRP was paying (on average) a bit less than $50/acre.
Here’s some hunting groups that are big supporters of CRP:
http://www.ultimatepheasanthunting.com/info/crp/
http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=6294
Farmers have had to contend with these wildlife and environmental organizations since the 80’s on how to run their own lands. As a result, farmers are in the CRP, because the pittance received for CRP payments is cheaper than dealing with these groups in court when they decide to sue you for impacting wildlife habitat.
Here’s Ducks Unlimited wailing about acres coming out of CRP and going into production, which is what I presume you want to see happen:
http://www.ducks.org/news-media/news/6317/du-says-crp-losses-astounding
I said they paid farmers to not grow.
I didn't say it payed farmers to “stop growing crops”, but that it paid farmers to not grow, to keep the prices artificially higher.
So shouldn't coal be cheap in Newcastle?
All: thanks for the information, makes me appreciate my carnitas more.