As this article suggests, two federal programs may be working against each other and competing South Dakota interests. As the subsidies for ethanol rise, driving up corn prices, land used for corn growth rises while land put into the Conservation Reserve Program decreases. If the Bush administration gets its way, we'll have more corn but fewer pheasants. Our farmers will be happy (maybe), but the hunters and the tourism board will not.
To help meet rising ethanol demand, an agriculture program that pays farmers to set aside land for conservation would be put on hold under President Bush's proposed budget.
While the proposal might help lessen the country's dependence on oil, a pheasant hunting and conservation group was quick to criticize the tradeoff and a state biologist said the loss of the program - which protects some 35 million acres across the country - could put some farmers in a financial bind.
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said his agency would offer no new Conservation Reserve Program enrollments in 2007 and 2008 because in order to boost the country's ethanol output, an increase in corn production is also needed.
There's a lot of pressure to act because "the price of corn is very, very high," putting upward pressure on ethanol prices, Johanns said Monday during a news conference in Washington.
Dave Nomsen, vice president of governmental affairs for Pheasants Forever, said he understands that $4-a-bushel corn is a cause for concern, but he argued that putting to use land that would otherwise be set aside for conservation is not the answer.
"Clearly, we're taking a step backward if all of the sudden we start to produce corn on very marginal acreage," Nomsen said. "Because then you are talking about increased soil erosion, increased water quality problems and diminished wildlife. There's been a balance here that I'm really concerned about right now."
Recent Comments