It burned my butt the other day to see that Ducks Unlimited got so much praise for pledging to spend $1.8 million more a year for the next five on conservation in South Dakota over the next five years.

Related: Conservation can be profitable, too

The $9 million pledge represents up to a 40% increase in the organization's spending in the state, said Ducks Unlimited South Dakota manager of conservation programs Steve Donovan, in a report published and broadcast widely in region.

"We're committed to the prairies," he told the Pierre, S.D., Capital Journal.  "Within the last couple of years we've seen such a dramatic loss of wetlands in the region and we said we need to do better."

"Clearly farmers and ranchers are doing a lot for the land, wildlife and wildlife habitat. After all, who is feeding the pheasants, deer, ducks, geese, blackbirds, sparrows and almost every other creature on the land? But they don't getting credit for it. They are taken for granted."

Well, good for Ducks Unlimited. But the group's $1.8 million annually isn't such a big deal.

I figure that in 2014 alone, South Dakota farmers probably spend at least $11 million and North Dakota farmers probably spent at least $25 million on conservation.

That's how much the federal government paid them through Environmental Quality Incentive Program, but EQIP is a cost sharing program. I'm told it typically covers about half the cost of a project.

If you project those figures out over five years, South Dakota farmers will be spending $55 million and North Dakota farmers will be spending $125 million on conservation.

Related: Keep the 2014 Farm Bill's Conservation Compliance Changes in Mind

I bet the farmer total is even higher. It doesn't count money farmers and ranchers take out of their own pockets to plant food plots, covers crops and trees.

Bryan Jorgenson, Ideal, S.D., says his family probably spends $80,000 a year on food plots and cover for pheasants. They operate a hunting lodge as part of their farming and cattle enterprises.

Lyle Perman, Lowry, S.D., said about everything they do on Rock Hills Ranch – except maybe buying bulls -- is about conservation because their livelihood is tied to the health of the rangeland.

Ron Ahlers, Chester, S.D., says farmers who grow high-yield corn in a minimum tillage system should get some credit for conservation spending, too. He's looking into the subject due to its link to next generation biofuel standards. Studies show high yield corn produces so much residue that it actually increases soil organic matter over time, he says.

Related: Non-selective grazing builds up the land

Clearly farmers and ranchers are doing a lot for the land, wildlife and wildlife habitat. After all, who is feeding the pheasants, deer, ducks, geese, blackbirds, sparrows and almost every other creature on the land? But they don't getting credit for it. They are taken for granted.

Somebody should come up with some hard numbers on what farmers spend on conservation. It would get across the idea that conservation isn't just about taking land out of food, fiber and fuel production and creating a sanctuary for animals -- it's about managing working land so you can do it all.