By Lisa Holm, Minnesota Farmers Union
Farmers are facing another difficult stretch of high production costs, low commodity prices and tightening margins. As policymakers consider how to strengthen the farm safety net, the National Farmers Union (NFU) released a proposal in May 2026 advocating for a new federal program called the Inventory Management Soil Enhancement Tool (IMSET).
IMSET is intended to provide farmers with a flexible, voluntary tool to help manage financial risk during periods of low commodity prices. Under the proposal, producers could enroll up to 20% of their qualifying cropland in a one-year conservation contract to plant cover crops or grasslands instead of a cash crop. The goal of this tool would be to give farmers another option when planting every acre may not make economic sense, while at the same time improving soil health and reducing erosion.
In addition to providing producers with greater flexibility, IMSET aims to temporarily reduce planted acreage during periods of oversupply, which in turn would help to strengthen commodity prices. By supporting stronger market prices, the program could also reduce federal outlay on commodity support programs such as Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC), complementing the already existing farm safety net.
To better understand how a program like IMSET might fit into real-world farming decisions, Minnesota Farmers Union spoke with several row-crop farmers from across the state. We asked how they evaluate the profitability of their operation, why they continue farming lower-return ground and whether a voluntary one-year program could be useful in years when the economics of planting are not adding up.
Farmers think about profitability differently and often know which acres are not paying their way.
Farmers evaluate profitability in different ways. Some track costs and yields field by field, while others look first at the overall farm budget or compare profitability across crops. One farmer described evaluating profitability primarily by crop rather than individual field, noting that corn, for example, can be significantly more expensive to plant than other crops.
The tools farmers use to identify lower-performing acres also vary. Some rely on yield monitors, field maps and detailed financial records. Others rely primarily on years of experience and observations of how crops respond under different conditions.
Regardless of their method, farmers generally know where their challenging acres are. Those acres may have poor drainage or challenging soil characteristics. They may face heavy wildlife pressure or just be small, irregularly shaped fields that are inefficient to farm. When commodity prices are strong, these acres may still contribute financially to the operation. But when input costs remain high and crop prices fall, they can pull down the profitability of the entire farm.
However, that does not mean farmers can altogether decide to stop planting those acres so easily. Farm operations are built around existing land arrangements, crop rotations, crop insurance requirements and long-term relationships with landowners. For farmers who rent land, the least productive field may be tied to other acres they cannot afford to lose.
As one Swift County farmer explained, “I rent two fields for my acres, and it’s either both or none. If you give one up, you give up the other.”
Other farmers pointed to the challenges of disrupting established rotations and production systems. For livestock producers, taking acres out of annual crop production can also create longer-term consequences.
Even if it’s a financial risk, as one Stearns County dairy farmer explained, “If I don’t plant one year then it’s going to be two years before I can get any income from those acres.”
For those reasons, farmers may continue planting acres they expect to perform poorly because the alternative creates additional financial, operational or land-tenure risks. These realities are why farmers said a voluntary, one-year option could be useful if the payment is meaningful enough to make the economics work.
A More Proactive Farm Safety Net
In recent years, farmers have received assistance through a range of market and disaster programs as they have navigated low prices, drought, flooding and other challenges.
A farmer from Big Stone County said those payments have provided important support but have not addressed the underlying problem of weak commodity markets.
“We’ve gotten decent checks from the different programs,” the farmer said. “That wasn’t going to make up for how the market has dropped, but it was a good shot in the arm.”
Another farmer said that, for the past two years, government payments have been necessary simply to approach break-even—not because of a crop failure, but because corn prices have been too low in comparison to production costs.
A central question behind the NFU policy proposal is whether policy can be more proactive in responding earlier to these market conditions rather than waiting until farmers experience substantial losses and Congress responds with another round of ad hoc assistance.
A predictable, voluntary one-year program could give farmers a guaranteed source of income for acres that are unlikely to cover their costs while potentially reducing overall production during periods of oversupply.
Farmers also raised important questions about how enrollment would be distributed across farms, regions and crops, and how many acres would need to be enrolled to meaningfully influence commodity markets. They pointed out that these details will be critical to the program’s design and effectiveness.
Pairing Farm Economics With Conservation
Farmers interviewed also saw an opportunity to use temporarily idled acres to improve soil health and deliver conservation benefits. However, they emphasized that this hinges on the design of the program.
An option to take acres out of production for one-year could allow farmers to break weed cycles and improve soil conditions before returning the land to production. Farmers suggested options including planting oats with a diverse cover crop mix or allowing managed grazing, which can be difficult to incorporate into some traditional conservation programs.
Several emphasized the importance of keeping living roots in the soil and avoiding repeated tillage that could undermine the program’s conservation goals.
“If we set aside acres, what would we do to keep the soil healthy?” a farmer from Olmsted County asked. The farmer emphasized the need for clear conservation criteria, saying, “We’re not going to plow it. Put a cover crop on—something along those lines.”
Others suggested connecting the proposed program with existing cover crop and soil health programs or allowing farmers to combine funding sources when appropriate. Cost-share assistance through local Soil and Water Conservation Districts or other programs could help farmers establish more meaningful and potential long-term conservation practices on enrolled acres.
Farmers also emphasized flexibility. A successful program would allow farmers to implement conservation practices that make sense for their soils, climate and operation. In other words, not a one-size-fits all approach.
There is great potential for this program to give farmers a practical alternative for acres that are unlikely to cover their costs in a tough market year while keeping living cover on the land and reducing soil loss. Research by Brandes et al. (2016) found that when crop prices fall and production costs remain high, the number of unprofitable acres can expand substantially, including within otherwise productive fields. Their work suggests that alternative land uses during these periods can create opportunities to improve both profitability and environmental outcomes.
Taking the Right Acres Out of Production
One of the most important design questions raised by farmers was which acres a program should prioritize.
“Too many of the programs pay big money for the good land, which you should probably leave in production, and the marginal lands you’d like to take out, they don’t pay anything for,” one farmer from Rice County said.
From that farmer’s perspective, the greatest opportunity for this program is in targeting acres that are both economically marginal and environmentally sensitive, such as lower-producing ground near waterways.
“If you want to do something for the environment, you have to take the right lands,” the farmer said.
At the same time, farmers noted that limiting eligibility too narrowly could reduce participation and undermine the program’s ability to influence overall production. If the broader goal is to help stabilize commodity markets, policymakers must balance conservation priorities with enrolling enough acres to have a meaningful supply-management effect.
Learning From the Past
Farmers also pointed to lessons from previous acreage reduction programs, including the short lived Payment-in-Kind (PIK) program used during the 1980s farm crisis.
Farmers remembered PIK as providing meaningful support during a time of crisis and helping address commodity oversupply. But they also recalled unintended consequences, including serious weed problems on some idled acres and concerns about how program benefits were distributed.
A modern program could build on those lessons by incorporating stronger soil health standards, greater flexibility and more equitable access. Farmers emphasized the importance of considering payment or acreage caps so that program funding does not become concentrated among the largest operations.
They also stressed the need for a program that farmers of different sizes can realistically access and use. The effectiveness of any new tool will depend not only on how much it pays, but also on how easily farmers can navigate the program and whether its requirements reflect the realities of operating a farm.
Ultimately, the farmers interviewed expressed the need for having another option available during difficult market conditions, while acknowledging that many variables would shape whether they participated. Payment rates, land ownership and rental agreements, conservation requirements, crop insurance rules, eligible acres and the overall structure of the program would all matter.
In years when margins are tight, there was strong interest from farmers in a potential voluntary one-year conserving-use program as an alternative to planting acres they already expect to lose money on. It could provide more predictable income, reduce risk and create opportunities to improve the land before bringing those acres back into production.
As farmers face a tumultuous farm economy marked by high production costs and low commodity prices, the experiences of previous farm crises also point to the value of acting before conditions deteriorate further and more farms and farmers are lost. A modern, flexible approach would provide farmers with another option for navigating difficult markets while supporting the long-term resilience of their farms and land.
As one farmer from Stearns County put it, “It never hurts to have another tool in your box.”
