Ethanol boom could limit hunting prospects
More cornfields mean less grass for pheasants

By Ben Shouse
bshouse@argusleader.com
September 1, 2007

South Dakota's best-in-the-nation pheasant population is set for its best year since 1963, but uncertainty about a key federal farm program makes it impossible to predict the future of the official state bird.

A brood survey by the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks shows 7.8 birds per mile. Last year's survey showed 6.36 birds per mile. The 10-year average is 4.7 birds per mile.

But about 18 percent of the 1.55 million acres of Conservation Reserve Program land in the state probably will be plowed next spring. The program pays farmers who set aside land for grass, which is ideal cover for pheasant nests.

About the same number of CRP acres could drop out from 2008 to 2010, and biologists say that could send pheasant numbers into a major decline.

"It's amazing to me to think that we may be seeing the most pheasants we'll ever see in my lifetime," said Ben Bigalke, a biologist with the nonprofit Pheasants Forever in Huron.

The high price of corn and the low payments offered by CRP are the main reasons for the program's acreage decline, farmers and officials say. Uncertainty in prices, government policy and the ethanol industry means that trend could go either way in the coming years.

"There are so many factors that are driving this train right now, that any one of those factors could swing things one way or another," said Bill Smith of the GF&P in Pierre.

Ron Gorder farms near Estelline, and his family has 400 acres in CRP set to expire in 2008.

"If they went back in, it would have to be financially feasible to do so, and right now it's not, because cash rents are going up, grain prices are going up. We can make more off it by farming it than by putting it in CRP," Gorder said.

Most crops provide no nesting cover for pheasants, though the birds often feed in cornfields in the fall. Tony Leif, a GF&P biologist, says an 18 percent decline would lead to fewer nests and a proportionate decline in pheasants.

The state could lose another 280,000 acres of CRP from 2008 to 2010, according to Smith. That number could go up if farmers choose not to re-enroll, or it could go down if the Bush administration decides to sign up more farmers or raise its payments.

Gorder says a lot of erodible CRP acres belong in the program, but that some should come out for the time being.

"I think short-term, it needs to go back into grain production because of the need for the corn. A lot of it's going into ethanol production," he said.

But in the long term, it's possible - perhaps not likely - that ethanol could become a boon to pheasants if it can be made with a mix of prairie plants.

"I don't think that all of a sudden we'll have half as many pheasants as we did this year," said Bigalke of Pheasants Forever. "Four or five years down the road, if we're growing cellulosic ethanol with diverse stands of native grass and forbs, we will have more pheasants than we have now."

I think it is going to be interesting to see what happens with the CRP program. I find it hard to believe that all of the CRP lands will go into corn production just because corn prices are going up primarily because of the ethonal prouction.

You need to keep in mind that most of these CRP lands were put into native grasses because they were typically the lesser producing lands to begin with and mainy of these acres a dryland without the potential for irrigation. Which brings another factor .. water. The recent decrease of available irrigation water will also have an influence, and with the recent droughts it doesn't look like there is going to be a surplus anytime in the near future. Also, these farmers are going to have a 'guaranteed' pay check if left in CRP. Who knows what will happen from year to year when dealing with mother nature. Not to mention, the increased overhead required these days to get ahead in the farming industry. I'm sure there will be a certain number of CRP acres ripped in the coming years, but it may not be as significant as some may think, especially if the Bush Administration increases the dollar amount paid per acre left in CRP.

I guess only time will tell. It's hope it works in favor of the pheasants.

My eyes aren't as well as they once were. Did you say "in favor of the pheasants" or "peasants"?


swk

I also find it hard to believe all CRP is going to be plowed up. I also agree with what graybird says.

People have been questioning CRP's future since its creation in the 1985 with the Food Security Act. Every Farm Bill they get worried because CRP is an expensive program to fund, administer, and maintain. To qualify for CRP the land must be Highly Erodible Land (HEL) by wind and have some other qualification set by the current farm bill. HEL can be junk land that should have never been broken up or it could be very productive. Some of the requirements seem to have been arbitrarily selected by Congress and Senate members back during the creation of CRP. I won't get into that because I have forgotten most of the rules and ranking of CRP. Some states set ranking so that only native species can be planted which is great especially in the Tall Grass prairie ecosystems.

Here in Montana and in good portions of the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Colorado most (nearly all) CRP is in introduced species such as Crested Wheatgrass and Smooth brome mixed with Alfalfa. This mix is nearly worthless for dense nesting cover for all upland birds, especially for a non-native species like Pheasants. The plant species did what they were intended. They grew. The original intent of the program was to reduce wind erosion and to indirectly raise crop prices. It kind of worked.

I have been reading the current propaganda from a few of the Conservation Groups. Most of their information is correct on what will happen IF that land is plowed again. The problem is that is costs a lot of money to plow grassland up and bring it back into production. You can figure a two year yield lag after break out. Once they break that land farmers must then follow a specific tillage system in order to meet the Soil Loss Tolerance (T) and Residue cover. If they don't they can lose their Gov't payments until they are back in compliance. What a person also doesn't think of is that if CRP doesn't make the cut and crop prices dive or if high amounts of erosion occur is that CRP will be back in one form or another.

I know that wildlife is almost always the determining factor of new CRP contracts as well as developing "declining" habitats. I think that this next farm bill you will see a better CRP (or some form of it) as a wildlife/declining habitats program for the USDA as well as the kick start for the everpresent "Carbon Sequestration" issue. That is where the money will be. Large polluting companies will purchase these "Carbon Credits" for the term of the CRP contract. Thus helping to resolve the cost of administering and maintaining the program itself.

If you have any feelings about USDA Farm Bill issues contact your local Representative(s) to voice your concerns. NOTE ABOUT REPRESENTATIVES: Emails are ok. Letters are better. Faxes are the best because they will get read that day and their are few security issues they must pass.

One glimmering hope here is that a lot of researchers are finding that switchgrass is a better source of ethanol than corn. Corn takes 1700 gallons of water and somewhere around 2 gallons of fuel for every gallon produced. Switchgrass requires no water and uses less than half of the fuel required by corn. If you want you can look it up in Field and Stream from couple of months ago. I am actually considering getting my grandfather's place to get on the band wagon. It is mostly in CRP now and is loaded with Huns and muleys.