Bob Goodman, Mary Miller, Diego Gimenez, Bettie Milam, Kathryn Flynn, and Troy Best

During the past decade, landowners idled more than 36 million acres of cropland nationwide through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) with the goal of removing highly erodible cropland from production. The first CRP contracts on this land expired in 1995 and, although most accepted a one-year extension, landowners must now decide what to do with that land. An AAES study explored the options being considered by landowners in Alabama's Black Belt region.

The CRP was enacted by the 1985 Farm Bill and allowed landowners to receive annual payments for 10-year contracts to remove land from crop production and convert it to a conserving use. Nationwide surveys have indicated that landowners plan to return more than one-half of the CRP land to row-crop production. Only about 40% of the acreage would remain in grass or trees.

Pine trees were planted on a much larger percentage of the CRP cropland in Alabama than nationally. Upon expiration of CRP contracts, virtually all this land will remain in timber production into the foreseeable future. However, about one-half, or 271,000 acres of Alabama's CRP land entered the program in permanent grass cover, and more than one-half of these grass acres are located in the Black Belt region.

Researchers from the AAES teamed with extension specialists and personnel of the Natural Resource Conservation Service to initiate a project designed to develop recommendations for environmentally sound multiple-use options for returning CRP grass acres in the Black Belt.

The project began in the summer of 1995 with a survey to determine current inclinations and intentions of CRP contract holders for use of their program grasslands, to outline their conceptions of the land's economic potential for the near future, and to estimate their capacity to implement these plans within a reasonable range of their cost estimates. Simultaneously, a preliminary survey of the present condition of herbaceous vegetation on land with CRP grass contracts was conducted to provide some indication of the land's potential for alternative uses and preliminary estimates for conversion costs.

Five CRP contract holders in each of five Black Belt counties were interviewed between July and October 1995. During the interviews, a short production history of the contract was established. Landowners were then asked several questions about their plans for CRP grassland, including their opinions regarding plans for similar land in the area and local rent estimates for various classes of cropland.

Preliminary analysis of interviews with landowners in the Alabama Black Belt indicated that a large proportion of current CRP contracts will remain in permanent vegetative cover well into the future (see the table). Most landowners planned to lease hunting rights at rates of $4-8 per acre. Several indicated interest in renting land for beef production and knew local farmers who would be interested in renting their land for this purpose. Others were interested in establishment of marketable pasture or hay land, but did not know of interested farmers in the area.

Only one farmer-landowner indicated the possibility that CRP grassland might return to row-crop production. Many landowners commented that the land had already been out of row-crop production for one or two years prior to initiation of the CRP program and that they did not plan crop production on their land in the future. Reasons for this were centered on conservation of the land, with row cropping seen as damaging to the fragile prairie soils of the area.

During the preliminary survey of CRP landowners, a wide range of existing vegetative status was discovered. Existing vegetation appeared adequate for erosion control on all CRP acreage surveyed. Much of the acreage showed the production potential of highly erodible land under well-managed beef cattle grazing systems. Production potential was greatest on CRP contracts held by farmerlandowners. On farmer-held CRP contracts, not only was the amount of forage more satisfactory, but fences, holding pens, and other necessary cattlehandling facilities had been maintained in working condition.

Fifty percent of the landowners had planted food plots primarily for deer or quail. Amount spent on food plots was $35-100 per acre. Almost all of the landowners reported an increase in the number of deer and coyotes, and a decrease in quail. These findings are in keeping with general trends in the Southeast and are not considered an aspect of the CRP land-management
practices.

Fifty percent of the landowners had considered establishing a hunting club or leasing land for hunting, including one owner who currently leases land to a hunting club. Whether interested in hunting leases or not, 44% of the landowners had no opinion of the management cost or income expected from hunting leases. All the owners who had considered a hunting lease had planned primarily for quail hunting.

Most landowners expected to spend $100 or less per acre to establish and maintain a hunting club or lease. If land was leased to a hunting club, landowners anticipated the club would assume expenses for land management necessary to maintain the wildlife desired. Amount of expected income from leasing land for quail hunting was $150 to $1,000 per person per day; 44% expected to receive $10 or less per acre. Expenses and income from hunting leases and clubs are dependent on several factors such as facilities provided, condition of land and game, and rates in neighboring areas.

Several outlets for this project are planned. First, a handbook that contains information for use in evaluation and implementation of options is being developed. Second, a more in-depth analysis of the survey, including detailed estimates of option costs and returns, will be available. Finally,
county and area meetings are planned to provide a forum for discussion with researchers, extension specialists, and technical assistance agency personnel. Industry representatives will be invited to these meetings to present information related to options discussed.

Goodman is an Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Miller is an Assistant Professor of Agronomy and Soils, Gimenez is an Associate Professor of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Flynn is an Assistant Professor of Forestry, Milam is a Graduate Student, and Best is an Associate Professor of Zoology and Wildlife Science.