whisper

[kraft-t]

You know Red, alot ofus aren't made that way. We are determined to raise a crop no matter if its a bit late or not. I'd rather have a half crop of  beans versus no crop but I haven't compared the economics either of PP insurance claims versus a half a$$ed crop. So who am I to talk? Most of our land is tiled to really well tiled but there is a need for more and it's a bit silly not to improve it for the next generation. Wifey disagrees!

I also wonder about an investment in irrigation for the most vulnerable soils. Probably a hundred grand would do  the worst parts but I'm not sure we got an adequate water supply.

[kraft-t]

You know  I could have 200 bushel per acre corn on an 80 acre farm with 5 acres drowned out and my eyes would be on the 5 acres all summer long! Just the way I am!

[cornoncorn]

I don't know any farmer proud that they took pp. Most farmers that make practice of insurance farming aren't around long. Your right a farmer spends most of his time trying to improve the few acres in the feild that look bad this so next year they will be more productive. That one poor spot in a perfect field can make a guy have some sleepless nights.

[cornoncorn]

In 2009 we replanted corn in wet spots till the 6th of july and still got 120 bu. A little wet but still better than nothing.

[ag-?]

Crop insurance offered the PP option because of longterm  history has shown that planting late has cost the insurance company money and also has costs farmers money. Why are you beating up farmers that weighed the risk of planting a crop and decided to use crop insurance option of pp which they felt reduced their risk of loosing money which why they paid and bought crop insurance. We talk all the time that farmers have to be good at running farm from a busines point  of staying profitable and managing risk and i believe that is what farmes did this year. Yes its different from past where a farmer had to plant no matter what but times have changed where bottom line has to be protected and that was what crop insurance is for. This year we have seen where planting conditions changed dramatically over the planting season to where field conditions became impossible to plant a crop as season went along. Crop insurance has changed way farmers farm in that we look at planting crop to get  maximum yield potetnial, farm more acres to maximum of equipment, and farm with less diversity to crops and animals. We can argue if this right or wrong but its direction that agriculture has been head last 40 years and even more last 10 to 15 years. This year  farmers may have gotten away with planting late to get decent crop but it still not harvested and yield on late planted crops is still to be determined so final numbers on weather a farmer made money growing a crop is yet to be determined. I am willing to bet alot of late planted crops when it all said and done will not be profitable and may not result in any better position or may even cost the farmer money compared to pp. Like i said it was business decision for farmers weighing the risks and determining which risk they perferred to take.

[hardnox604008]

I think PP coverage is really important.

On decent dirt you almost always have some sort of a crop even in a drought and if it is a general one you get a shot at price and price for next year. With PP a lot of the costs are already sunk and you get nothing.

That's one reason why I think the folks who are saying they won't take crop insrance if it isn't subsidized are being hasty but hey, it's a free country, they can take their own chances.

One of the mega operations that had everybody stirred up over in C IL went broke (in years where it was hard to figure how you hardly could) in part becasue they had back to back really tough springs, a bad fall in between- something that a 20 year history, maybe a 50 year wouldn't have predicted.

I'd also argue that it might be another reason to cap the subsidy per operator- why give somebody the incentive to stretch acreage becasue they can always PP the tail end? I won't overplay that rgument but it might have some validity.

[kraft-t]

That has been one of my thoughts. Does PP rules encourage operators to take on more acres than they can reasonably expect to handle. Or shouldn't i think that way?

[Red Steele]

I would agree that unlimited pp encourages producers to bite off more than they can chew.

Nothing keeps you on your toes like the possibility of losing it all...that is the beauty of capitalism.

Also, last year I re-planted and in some cases re-replanted 100 acres of corn (out of about 800 total) and got 150bushels of corn per acre that I hauled right into an ethanol plant in november for $8 per bushel. THis was planted about june 20th, and this year I did the same thing although on just a few acres, and it is dented tonight as I type. Not the $120,000 of yield like last year, but still corn that the crop insurance agency is never going to have to pay me for.

You CAN plant corn in late June and get decent yields.

I guess this makes up for all those times I kept on trying and didn't have success with late planting drowned out spots.

[Shaggy98]

Evidentially PP is a territorial issue or concern. I have never heard of anyone around my area that turned in a PP claim ever. In my operation, it would be a very last resort, but I understand the reason and purpose of it.