LSP Proposes New Forage Acreage
Base for Federal Farm Program

"It's time we started recognizing the soil savings and other environmental benefits forage crops can provide," said Dave Serfling, a Preston area farmer and member of the Land Stewardship Project's Federal Farm Policy Committee. "During the past two years, my part of southern Minnesota has experienced some of the worst erosion rates ever, and that's because forages are disappearing from the land. Recognizing those farmers that protected their land with forages while there were great incentives to plant program crops like corn and soybeans makes wise use of limited government funds."

The House and Senate Farm Bills currently being considered both enact a process for farmers to update their program acreage bases and yields. This information is used to calculate how much a farmer's Agricultural Market Transition Act (AMTA) payment is. The last time bases and yields were updated was 1983. The process of base and yield updating is expected to take place sometime this year and will be based on plantings from 1998 to 2001. This means that landholders who planted soybeans, corn, rice, wheat or cotton on land that had formerly been in pasture or hay will receive increased AMTA payments.

The Land Stewardship Project's proposal (see resolution below) would make forage plantings eligible for AMTA payments, thus removing penalties on farmers who chose to keep their land in a system that protects the soil. The new forage acreage base (FAB) would not require extra funding because the money would be transferred from subsidies that already exist by tightening payment limitations. It would not be based on forage yields or tied to loan rates. The FAB would be tied to historical cropping activities.

"In fact, a forage acreage base would be very important for forage growers to remain competitive because payments just for the increased soybean acres we've seen since 1998 could cost an estimated additional one and half billion dollars a year," said Serfling. "Contrast that to the Conservation Security Program recently passed by the Senate, which is projected to give farmers $500 million annually for conservation results."

A FAB would not provide incentives for overproduction of forages since it is not tied to present or future production of hay and pasture.

The Land Stewardship Project is a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to fostering an ethic of stewardship for farmland, promoting sustainable agriculture, and developing sustainable communities. For more information on the Land Stewardship Project's efforts to make Federal farm policy more environmentally sound and equitable, call 612-722-6377.

-30-

Forage Acreage Base (FAB) Resolution
Drafted Feb. 20, 2002, by the Land Stewardship Project
Federal Farm Policy Committee

WHEREAS: Forage based crops do not receive any government subsidies, but have documented long term environmental benefits; and

WHEREAS: All program crops and soybeans will have the opportunity to have their bases and yields updated under both proposed farm bills for calculation of future counter-cyclical and AMTA (now called "fixed decoupled payments" in the House Farm Bill and "direct payments" in the Senate bill) payments;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED: That a forage base will also be calculated for each farmer who chooses. This base will include the average number of acres in perennial and annual forages on cropland during the four crop years 1998-2001. Pasture on noncropland would be excluded; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: A payment will be made on these forage base acres that is equal to 75 percent of the average new AMTA and counter-cyclical payment per program crop acre in that county that year. This results in a payment that will not distort the market and will not give incentives for overproduction, but merely recognizes that acres have been protected by forages, producing environmental benefits.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That this proposal is revenue neutral. The total USDA outlay for counter-cyclical payments and the new AMTA payments should not be increased by the inclusion of a forage acreage base, but rather would merely be distributed equitably.