01-18-2013 08:59 PM
It's not the same everywhere, yet not far South of I-70 (around here) double-crop soybeans after wheat are fully insurable. North of that (around here, at least), double-crop soybeans after wheat is generally not insurable. HOWEVER, if the wheat crop is already failing, and/or freezes or dries out early enough, it won't be pulling any more moisture, AND if the wheat crop is not yet beginning to head when it is destroyed, then soybeans timely planted after that are insurable. Just don't destroy the wheat crop and assume you're okay without first contacting your insurance agent -- somebody needs to look at it (the wheat) before it gets destroyed, whether it is insured or not.
01-19-2013 04:52 AM
Maybe I'm looking at it from a wrong angle, but after you collected an insurance check from an immature failed crop & then immediately seeded another insured crop into the same ground, wouldn't that mean you are farming the system vs. farming the soil? I feel sometimes in our neck of the woods we are taking advantage of the current RMA rules by seeding into dry soils, but as someone said in an earlier post, to dry isn't a good enough reason for a prevent plant claim. I am in the process of implementing a 3 crop rotation, and feel some of my crops seemed doomed before the seed hits the soil, but I have had several successful neighbors that told me the weather is out of our control. All we as producers can do is plan for a normal year and let Mother Nature runs its course.
01-19-2013 05:27 AM
Shaggy, I have a friend that double crops wheat followed by beans in Southern, Iowa. But it is my understanding to that you have to have had double cropped for five years before it is accepted practice in Southern, Iowa; and I think it works in the bottom three tiers of counties in Iowa.
He plants winter wheat, takes it out first week in July, bales the straw for resale, and then immediately plants no til 0 or 00 maturity beans. He says his beans usually average 20 bu. when planted in July. I think it has worked well over the past five years (not last year) because of the extremely wet weather we experienced. In Southern Iowa we have more wet years than dry years.
As indicated at the Land Expo yesterday, the yield prediction was that there would be a 12% reduction in yields (corn) North of I-80 through Minnesota because of continued drouth. South of I-80 they are looking for a 2% increase in yields. I found it very interesting that unlike last year when Elwynn Taylor predicted what the corn yields would be, there was no mention of what the national corn yield might be this year.
I put in over 45,000 feet of tile last year, half in January and we had tile lines running after putting it in the ground. This fall in November and December we had moisture as deep as were were trenching in tile lines, (about five to six feet) but . . . no water, except for about 4,000 feet we installed on some bottom ground to drain some swampland. .
Sooooo . . . the winners may be the Wheat guys, if they get a bit if moisture this Spring, since our subsoil has not turned to powder as it has North of I-80. I think the guys that are going to hit the wall, are those who go to corn this year in Iowa, it takes a lot of water to grow a corn crop.
If 16 inches of rain is needed to just replenish subsoil moisture, we have a long, long way to go. I mean . . . when the Des Moines River has stopped flowing and almost dry, and most of the tributaries are dry or stagnant we are looking at a much smaller crop. Glad Marketeye and all those with no skin in the game like Misinforma are predicting near record corn yields. What a Joke! Adios Amigo. John
01-19-2013 06:54 AM
Quote from Shaggy : Maybe I'm looking at it from a wrong angle, but after you collected an insurance check from an immature failed crop & then immediately seeded another insured crop into the same ground, wouldn't that mean you are farming the system vs. farming the soil ?
Well Shaggy , From my point of view , I think you learning pretty darn quick here ! BUT I had better get a professional opinion from Faust100f on this , John what do you think here ??
Shaggy I will give you another example here .
I talked to a farmer where his DC is insurable , hw cut the wheat and then Dced beans in , guess what , he lost them , they sprouted and then dried up ,then replanted them the first part of Aug. , had to cut them , one field made 3 and the other made 5 bpa.
Well lets see here , the beans in his area are probably insurable around 30 bpa , at 85% that would be what ? around 25.5 then subtract the 3 bpa = 22.5 = at 15 bucks = 337.5 per acre , don't know what kind of seed he used , but lets just say , planting , seed and maybe one spray would be 50 bucks an acre = net of 287.50 an acre plus the 3 bpa = net 332.50 an acre , think he said he had alittle over a hundred acres out , so that would come out to 33,250 ! not bad for a couple days work , huh
Plus the income of the wheat .
He did not do anything wrong here , but as you said , it not about farming any more !
it's all about farming the system -- to me that would not be any fun , if I had to do that , then i would just run for an office in DC , LMAO
01-19-2013 09:52 AM
Central and Western Nebraska have gotten increases in corn yields due to irrigation lately, giving them an improved yield guarantee.
However, much of Western Nebraska is already under water rationing, as I know several people personally, who have gotten notice that unless the reservior re-fills somehow (hard to do with no snowpack) they will be under water rationing.
My thought/question of the day is this:
If you already have notice of water rationing, and plant a crop with water requirements above your allotment, how much will insurance pay you, if your yield loss is due to lack of moisture?
I know quite a few guys waiting on that answer, before they make their final planting decision.
The ones in the areas of lower yields (there are places, where even under irrigation, they only have about a 150-160 BPA 5-year average yield) if they have had decent luck with beans, they are going to plant more of them.
01-19-2013 10:52 AM
..... but it's farmer behavior that determines how much of what gets planted and w/o a crystal ball the argument favors planting after a couple of inches of rain because the argument for/against future moisture can be made both ways at planting time. The psychology of trying and failing as opposed to not trying and then watching your neighbors getting rewarded for not being as cautious favors getting the planters out. We are farmers and that's what we do/have done. We never change.
01-19-2013 01:45 PM
I agree with you completely, that IF we get some nice rains, and IF we get the reservoirs refilled, we then have the potential to plant more corn in Nebraska.
However, there is an assumption that 99+ million acres of corn are going to be planted, and with record, or near record yields, on top of it, with much of the gains coming from West of the mighty MO. I know things can change, but as of right now, I can't see any kind of major gains in corn production out whre I am, or any farther to the West.
If you look at the drought history, 2012 was the driest on record, even the worst of the dust bowl years, was better. Cattle are short feed (keep in mind only Texas has more cows than Nebraska) and every last person I know, who owns cattle, is going to assign more acres to 'cattle feed' than last year, whether it be hay, forage sorghum, or even corn silage.
I don't want to sound disagreeable, but from my perspective, I see less corn production coming from around here, and not more.
01-20-2013 04:40 PM
Palouser your theory is correct. If the rains come most will revert to a very low cost double crop like milo or SF instead of the very expensive corn & beans. It is a survival issue. Most of the time corn or beans are not approved as a normal practice for double crop so they are uninsurable planted behind a claim. Unless something has changed..