08-27-2013 07:12 AM - edited 08-27-2013 01:43 PM
At the close:
The Sep. corn futures settled 16 cents lower at $4.99 per bushel. The Dec. corn futures contract is trading 14 cents lower at $4.86. The Sep. soybean futures contract finished 13 cents lower at $14.14, new-crop Nov. soybeans settled 19 cents lower at $13.70. Dec. wheat futures closed 3 cents lower at $6.63 per bushel. The Dec. soymeal futures finished $6.30 per short ton lower at $430.40. The Dec. soyoil futures closed $0.36 lower at $44.52.
In the outside markets, the NYMEX crude oil is $3.08 per barrel higher, the dollar is lower and the Dow Jones Industrials are 144 points lower.
The Sep. corn futures are 9 cents lower at $5.06 per bushel. The Dec. corn futures contract is trading 5 cents lower at $4.95. The Sep. soybean futures contract is trading 4 cents higher at $14.31, new-crop Nov. soybeans are trading 1 cent higher at $13.90. Dec. wheat futures are trading 1 cent higher at $6.67 per bushel. The Dec. soymeal futures are trading $1.50 per short ton higher at $438.20. The Dec. soyoil futures are trading $0.06 lower at $44.82.
In the outside markets, the NYMEX crude oil is $0.04 per barrel higher, the dollar is lower and the Dow Jones Industrials are 116 points lower.
Meanwhile, the new weather forecasts have hot/dry in them, for the Midwest, through August 31st. One analyst sizes up today's trading action like this:
"The traders priced in the week's hot weather Sunday/Monday then slight gains overnight on lower crop ratings.
"But, funds look to sell rallies on three issues this week. One, month-end profit-taking allows bonuses to be taken if profits are taken before the month ends. Two, funds will not leave money sitting on the table ahead of a three-day holiday and three, there's a chance for rain when we return from the holiday," he says.
At the open:
The Sep. corn futures are 1 cent higher at $5.17 per bushel. The Dec. corn futures contract is trading 1 cent higher at $5.01. The Sep. soybean futures contract is trading 1 cent lower at $14.27, new-crop Nov. soybeans are trading 1 cent lower at $13.88. Dec. wheat futures are trading 2 cents lower at $6.64 per bushel. The Dec. soymeal futures are trading $2.40 per short ton lower at $434.30. The Dec. soyoil futures are trading $0.10 higher at $44.98.
In the outside markets, the NYMEX crude oil is $0.04 per barrel higher, the dollar is higher and the Dow Jones Industrials are 116 points lower.
Early calls: Corn is seen 1-2 cents lower (old-crop), soybeans 4-5 cents lower (old-crop), and wheat 1-2 cents lower. Meanwhile, new-crop corn 1-2 cents lower and soybeans are seen 5-7 cents lower.
Overnight grain, soybean markets=Trading lower.
Crude Oil=$0.04 per barrel higher.
Wall Street=Seen lower, as Syria and debt concerns weigh on the market.
World Markets=Asia/Pacific stocks were lower, Europe stocks lower.
More in a minute,
08-27-2013 10:41 AM
Interesting crop insurance information released Tuesday. I thought you all might like to see it:
Extreme weather forced the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) to pay out a record-breaking $17.3 billion in crop losses last year, much of which could have been prevented using water-smart strategies, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. Payments made to farmers during the 2012 growing season to cover losses from drought, heat and hot wind alone accounted for 80 percent of all farm losses, with many Upper Midwest and Great Plains states hit hardest.
With extreme weather conditions such as drought expected to become more common, record-breaking insurance payouts will likely continue to increase. However, widespread adoption of crop-loss prevention methods that build soil health and improve water management on farms can limit these losses. From 2001 to 2010, crop losses averaged just $4.1 billion a year, making the 2012 record-breaking FCIP payouts even more staggering.
“The Federal Crop Insurance Program has failed farmers and taxpayers by ignoring water challenges,” said Claire O’Connor, NRDC Agricultural Water Policy Analyst. “The program was designed to be a safety net, not a subsidy for increasingly risky practices and less sustainable food production. We need to empower farmers to invest in low risk, water-smart practices that are proven to reduce crop losses.”
NRDC’s study, Soil Matters: How the Federal Crop Insurance Program should be reformed, includes a new interactive crop loss and weather map at www.nrdc.org/water/your-soil-matters detailing crop losses county-by-county in all 50 states in 2012, when more than 80 percent of agricultural lands nationwide suffered drought.
The report finds that American farms, particularly in the Upper Midwest and Great Plains, were primarily impacted by three major forms of extreme weather in 2012: drought, heat and hot wind, all of which are expected to increase in the future. The top ten states with the largest overall crop insurance payouts due to drought, heat and hot wind were:
· Illinois: 98% of all crop losses were caused by drought, heat and hot wind, costing $3,011,443,799
· Iowa: 97% of losses, costing $1,924,444,160
· Indiana: 97% of losses, costing $1,130,302,660
· Kentucky: 96% of losses, costing $454,380,256
· Missouri: 95% of losses, costing $1,098,310,111
· Wisconsin: 94% of losses, costing $372,479,370
· South Dakota: 93% of losses, costing $1,029,780,352
· Kansas: 93% of losses, costing $1,273,662,944
· Nebraska: 92% of losses, costing $1,427,738,976
· Texas: 75% of losses, costing $974,548,606
Soil Matters’ analysis reveals the key causes of the staggering crop insurance payouts by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Risk Management Agency (RMA), and examines the systemic flaws in RMA’s program, which fails to account for risky farming practices that create extreme weather vulnerabilities and ignores the risk-reducing value of healthy soil. The report outlines solutions for a crop insurance reform pilot plan that would build soil health to help climate-proof American farms, and would reduce government and taxpayer costs by encouraging farmers to become more resistant to weather-related risks. The pilot, which would not require legislation, would offer reduced premium rates to farmers who adopt proven soil-building management practices that sustain productive crop yields and result in greater water infiltration, less farm runoff and reduced flooding.
“Farmers can apply their own skills to build healthy soil, reduce the worst effects of climate change, and rein in the skyrocketing costs of this program,” said Gabe Brown, Great Plains farmer and soil champion. “Healthy soil is one of the most effective and time-tested insurance policies we have.”
These best management practices include cover cropping, conservation tillage and improved irrigation scheduling:
· Cover crops: crops grown with the specific purpose of building soil health and increasing biodiversity on farms focused on growing major commodity crops. Farmers who used cover crops in 2012 averaged higher yields than farmers who did not, according to one recent USDA survey. The yield benefit from cover crops was most pronounced in the areas hardest hit by the drought, demonstrating the importance of cover crops to drought-proofing fields.
· No-till farming: a soil moisture management method when farmers plant directly into the stubble from the previous year’s crops, rather than plowing up this residue. The protective stubble serves as mulch that retains soil moisture, suppresses weeds and increases a field’s capacity to grow high-yield crops. In 2010, corn farmers who used no-till were 30% less likely to file a crop insurance claim than conventional tilling corn farmers.
· Improved irrigation scheduling: a simple altering of often fixed irrigation times, whereby farmers apply adaptive irrigating schedules based on frequent examinations of soil health. This improved efficiency could help farmers avoid some supply constraints that cause losses during dry years; in 2012, irrigation supply failures accounted for more than $14.7 million in indemnity payments.
Over 282 million acres of cropland - making up at least 70 percent of the nation’s total cropland - are insured under the Federal Crop Insurance Program, a public-private partnership between the RMA and 18 private insurance companies. The FCIP is the most expensive farm subsidy program, and serves as the primary risk management tool for farmers to prepare for potential crop loss, including from weather-related risks.
08-27-2013 10:59 AM
I'm feeling a little inferior here as an Iowan.
We are only #2 on that list. (we are so used to being numero unno)
What about this year the losses are going to be astronomical for the EXACT opposite reason.
What are they going to propose do to us about that?
I'll bet we climb back into that # 1 position this year. Just don't want to be first runner up looser.
08-27-2013 07:52 PM
CROP INSURANCE HAS MANY PROBLEMS ONE WHICH IS THE PREVENTED PLANTING I dont think its right to pay one farmer for prevented planting when all the neighbors have their corn planted ........do you suppose its prevented farmer pete farmed far too many acres for him to realistickly handle maybe if he didnt think he had to farm half the country he could get his crop in on time.......and the rate its paid is rediculous to give you 60% of your guarantee or if you plant soybeans on the ground you get 35%..... and then you dont have any rules about cover crops to protect the land some say its county by county rules hog wash when they can tell you how many trips you can make for tillage before planting but not control prevented planting HOG WASH next year we will pay more for the insurance thats a given fact and i am ready all i want is a crop to market when i want to not based on when the government says they will price the loss SOME PEOPLE MAY FARM FOR THE INSURANCE ME I WANT THE CROP
08-27-2013 08:39 PM - edited 08-27-2013 10:53 PM
Appears to me that the NRDC info is a bunch of skewed BS. It's obvious in an extreme drought year, the likes of which most of us have never before seen, that 95%+ of the losses were due to something related to the drought. My opologies to Ms. O'Connor, as I'm sure she means well, yet growing up on a farm doesn't necessarily make one an expert in these matters, nor does being an attorney, nor does working in Santa Monica, nor does the job/title she holds, etc. My guess is that the NRDC wants more influence, more money, more people, etc., plus a few headline articles don't hurt anything. As for building soil health, water management strategies, etc., we're all for it, so no problem. As we get good yields, our insurance premium cost per bushel probably declines -- and as we get poor yields, our insurance premium cost per bushel probably increases -- so there is already a built-in incentive to do things to assist in conservation, soil health, and production strategies, including water management.
P.S. If they want to pay for doing the things we're already doing, or should be, that's fine, yet it's very poor use of taxpayer dollars.