06.01.2014

USA - Crop insurance created a windfall out of a drought

In the wake of the farm belt drought in the summer of 2012, the government-funded crop insurance program paid U.S. farmers as much as $7.8 billion more than they suffered in losses, according to new research by an Iowa State University economist.Farmers lost some of their crop due to the weather, but they were able to sell the rest at much higher prices than usual — think supply and demand. Farm incomes have soared to record levels.The cost of the excess payments ultimately falls on taxpayers. The government pays most of the bills for an insurance plan that doesn't just protect against the usual hazards of farming, but guarantees that producers receive periodic windfalls. Without the subsidies, this type of insurance would be so expensive that no farmer would buy it. With the subsidies, it's a can't-miss deal.Yet rather than fix the crop insurance program, Congress is poised to expand it as Republicans and Democrats near agreement on a five-year farm bill, which will set spending on farm programs and food stamps.Crop insurance isn't a bad idea. Farming is a risky enterprise and farmers need a safety net to protect them from the vagaries of the weather and crop disease. It is in the national interest to promote sound risk management so America's food production can withstand unpredictable events such as the drought of 2012.But Congress doesn't seem interested in focusing crop insurance as a safety net.A type of crop insurance called Revenue Protection overcompensates farmers in bad years because it fails to take into account added revenue that farmers earn when they sell their crops at higher prices prompted by reduced supply, according to the research conducted by Iowa State's Bruce Babcock and commissioned by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group.Farmers suffered losses of about $6.2 billion in the 2012 drought, but insurance paid them $14 billion, according to Bacock's research.If new subsidies being proposed in Congress had been in effect, those payouts would have ballooned by another $6.5 billion. Farmers would have reaped $20.5 billion for losses of $6.2 billion.This is also a good deal for the private insurance companies, many of which are foreign-owned. In recent years they have received an average of $1.3 billion in federal subsidies to sell and service crop insurance. From 2002 to 2012 the companies pocketed about $10 billion in underwriting gains.That money went from government coffers to the likes of Swiss-based ACE Limited and QBE Insurance Australia. Those same companies enjoyed reinsurance at government expense, so that in the occasional bad year such as 2012, they absorbed only part of what would be a severe loss for them. Government covers most of it.In six of the past 12 years, according to Babcock, taxpayers paid more to insurance companies than to farmers for this costly and excessive insurance, which is now poised to be greatly expanded.The last farm bill expired in 2012. Stopgap extensions have since run out. The pressure is on to pass a new bill this month.Senate and House versions of the legislation conflict in several key areas, most notably proposed cuts to food stamps for the poor. House lawmakers want a cut of nearly $40 billion over 10 years in the SNAP feeding program, a savings achieved mainly by tightening qualifications. The Senate has proposed $4 billion in savings over 10 years, achieved by reducing benefits rather than purging the rolls. A compromise is likely, and one conferee recently pegged the prospective cut at $8 billion.There will be some things to like in the farm bill, including reasonable curbs on food stamp growth and an end to direct payments to farmers, a waste of $5 billion a year that should have been eliminated years ago.But a big expansion of crop insurance would be a mistake. It should be a genuine safety net, not a guarantee of good times in bad times.Source - http://articles.chicagotribune.com/

06.01.2014

Israel - Fruit growers to receive NIS 50m. compensation for severe weather in ’92

About 3,000 fruit growers whose crops were damaged in severe storms 22 years ago will receive a total of NIS 50 million in compensation from the government, the Fruit Growers Association announced on Sunday.During the winter of 1991 to 1992, storm conditions were grave enough to be deemed a natural disaster that caused heavy damage to agriculture, the FGA said. The farmers eventually were awarded NIS 180m. in compensation for heavy crop losses, but they argued that this sum did not account for inflation after many years of waiting for the money, according to the association.Claiming that the farmers were entitled to additional compensation, the FGA brought the case to the High Court of Justice, which eventually ruled that the growers would receive the added funds.“A portion of the growers who were hurt are already older people, and we want them to receive the compensation during their lifetimes,” said Fruit Growers Association CEO Itzik Cohen. “The long struggle and success is further proof of the importance of the organization of farmers in a cooperative framework.”Payments of the additional sums to the farmers will take several months to carry out due to the need to locate them and make sure that they receive the correct amounts, the FGA said. The organization asked that farmers be patient until they receive their compensation. Source - http://www.jpost.com/

06.01.2014

Guam - Second round of payments to farmers expected this week

Although an oversight hearing was set for this Friday and has since been postponed, Department of Agriculture director Tita Taitague says this week another batch of payments should be made to island farmers seeking assistance through the agency's Crop Damage Compensation Program."I think it's going to be good week for the farmers, they'll be getting another round of payment and it's a healthy check as I look into it they'll be happy," he said.As of today, 78 farmers have filed claims with less than half of them paid already totaling $135,000. She says the second round of payments this week should be roughly around $400,000. As we reported last year, heavy rains caused a loss in crops to island farmers who in turn filed claims but were lacking proper receipts. When the oversight is rescheduled, Taitague hopes to ask oversight chair Senator Rory Respicio for assistance in updating guidelines in efforts to pay farmers quicker.Source - http://www.kuam.com/

06.01.2014

USA - Florida growers not expecting damage to citrus from freeze

Florida's citrus industry isn't expecting any damage to crops from a deep freeze afflicting much of the continental U.S.Temperatures are expected to dip into the 30s in parts of Florida on Tuesday. But Florida Citrus Mutual spokesman Andrew Meadows said temperatures must be at 28 degrees or lower four hours straight for fruit to freeze badly.Some pockets of low-lying areas could get that cold, but not any large swaths of land.Meadows said he is optimistic the citrus crop will stand up well to the colder temps.A "polar vortex" is expected to bring below-zero temperatures to much of the U.S. starting Sunday. In Florida, the drop won't be as steep, but some counties are opening cold weather shelters for residents who need a warm place to stay.Source - http://www.wftv.com/

06.01.2014

Wheat Extends Rally as Cold Weather Threatens U.S. Crop Outlook

Wheat climbed for a second day after tumbling to the lowest level in 19 months on concern freezing weather may damage crops in the U.S., the world’s top exporter.The contract for delivery in March advanced as much as 0.8 percent to $6.105 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade, before trading at $6.095 at 2:43 p.m. in Singapore. Futures slumped to $5.95 on Jan. 2, the lowest level since May 2012.The coldest air in almost 20 years is sweeping over the central U.S. toward the East Coast, threatening to topple temperature records, ignite energy demand and damage Great Plains winter wheat. Hard-freeze warnings and watches, which are alerts for farmers, stretch from Texas to central Florida. As much as 20 percent of winter wheat in the Great Plains may be damaged by the freeze, according to MDA Weather Services in Bethesda, Maryland.Supporting the wheat market today appears to be “fears that horrendous cold weather forecast in the U.S. could result in some winter-kill,” said Luke Mathews, a commodity strategist at Commonwealth Bank of Australia. “Whether that damage is significant or not, only time will tell.”U.S. winter-wheat acreage climbed to the highest in six years as improved soil moisture and high crop-insurance guarantees encouraged farmers to boost sowings. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is scheduled to release its estimates on plantings and inventories on Jan. 10.Wheat stockpiles are estimated to have dropped to 1.417 billion bushels on Dec. 1 from 1.854 billion on Sept. 1. Corn and soybean inventories are expected to increase, the survey showed.Corn for March delivery advanced 0.6 percent to $4.26 a bushel. Soybeans for March delivery added 0.1 percent to $12.73 a bushel.Source - http://www.bloomberg.com/

06.01.2014

India - Jayalalithaa criticises Centre’s crop insurance scheme

Criticising strongly the Union government for launching the National Crop Insurance Programme (NCIP), Chief Minister Jayalalithaa has stated that the “abrupt and sudden” decision of the Centre without “proper consultation” with stakeholders, especially States, came as a “rude shock” to farmers.In her letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Sunday, the Chief Minister pointed out that her government was helping farmers in the State by extending a subsidy of 45 per cent to 50 per cent on the premium payable. Besides, it was absorbing 50 per cent of the crop loss compensation to be shared with the Union government. As a result of the efforts of the State government, the number of farmers covered under the existing agriculture insurance scheme went up from 1.01 lakh farmers in 2000-2001 to 9.76 lakh farmers in 2012-2013.She argued that the introduction of the NCIP would increase the burden of premium on the farmers of Tamil Nadu manifold. Under the old scheme, the stipulated premium level was 2 per cent to 3.5 per cent of the sum insured, depending on the season and crop. Due to the State government’s assistance, the farmers would have to pay only one per cent to 1.75% of the sum insured. Now, this would go up to 3.75 per cent to 4.8 per cent. “With such high premia, I really doubt whether farmers will come forward to insure their crops and mitigate their risks,” she said.Ms. Jayalalithaa suggested that the additional premium over and above 2 per cent of the sum insured under the NCIP be borne equally by the State Government and the Government of India without passing on the burden to the farmers. Seeking Dr. Singh's personal intervention in the matter, she called for a “speedy decision” on her suggestion.Source - http://www.thehindu.com/

03.01.2014

US - Revenue insurance – a certainty in an otherwise unknown farm bill

As of the first week of December 2013, Congress has made little visible progress toward reconciling two different visions of the farm bill.The Senate passed a traditional all-encompassing farm bill while the House chose to split the farm and nutrition legislation into two different bills in order to impose significant cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, often referred to by its older name: food stamps) separate from must-pass farm legislation.But one thing is certain: the current crop/revenue insurance program will continue to be viewed as agriculture’s primary safety net.Providing support for this sense of inevitability, Thomas Zacharias, president of National Crop Insurance Services (NCIS), and Keith Collins, retired chief economist of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and an economic and policy advisor to NCIS, wrote an article for Choices: The magazine of food, farm, and resource issues, a publication of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, titled “Ten considerations regarding the role of crop insurance in the agricultural safety net.” As they write, “in this article we offer a within-the-industry perspective on the [crop insurance] program status and key issues.”Zacharias and Collins pose their considerations in the form of 10 questions, many of which we believe provide a rationale, more for farm policy in general, than for crop insurance in particular. Their first question: “Is there a public interest in a resilient, financially sustainable and competitive industry that produces the nation’s food and is subject to natural disasters and other shocks?”The public definitely has a vested interest in supporting U.S. agriculture’s ability to provide a reliable supply of food. It’s the throwing “other shocks” in with “natural disasters” part that we question, since multiple years of devastatingly low prices presumably would be just an “other shock.”Crop insurance is well suited to deal with the natural disasters like drought, flood, and untimely heat during critical periods of crop development, as well as late and early frosts. In fact, crop insurance is far superior to the ad hoc disaster payments that Congress used to use to compensate farmers for the financial losses caused by such events. With crop insurance, protection does not depend on the timing of Congressional action or the extent of the disaster. Rather it provides immediate compensation as well as protection even if the disaster is confined to a small area and it tends to not make payments to farmers who are geographically included but happened to realize no losses.The reason crop insurance is an appropriate tool to deal with those types of agricultural losses – that is losses resulting from drought, flood, heat, and other adverse weather events – has to do with the nature of these events. They tend to be relatively geographically random and insurance works best when the risks are random.That is why standard property insurance policies exclude flood coverage. Flood damage is not randomly distributed. It generally occurs to properties in shoreline and flood plain areas and providing coverage would make property insurance policies prohibitively expensive, especially for people living on high ground.That is all fine and good when crop insurance only insures against crop failures, which in itself is not problem free, but when crop insurance becomes crop revenue insurance, the price component of the insured revenue affects all production simultaneously, not just a random portion. And historically, there is a distinct tendency for extended periods of low prices, so low-price years tend to follow one another – non-randomness across years as well as production units.And while during those extended periods of low prices the public has an interest in agricultural policies that enable farmers to remain on the farm, it is during those times that revenue insurance is of least value. Even with good yields revenue insurance could cover a declining portion of non-land production costs when prices are low for several years.By including revenue as a part of the design of the crop insurance program, the public ends up providing farmers with significant benefits during high-price times (like the last few years), even providing guarantees above the total cost of production, while failing to provide a safety net when farmers need help the most.Zacharias and Collins admit as much when they write, “… the risk of multi-year price declines is not well accommodated in the current crop insurance program.To us farm legislation should help farmers when they need it and stay out of the way when they don’t. Target price/deficiency payment programs provide one way to meter help to crop farmers based on the degree of price and income problems.This can be expensive since a deficiency payment program does not use the power of the market to move price toward its theoretical cost-based long-run equilibrium. Rather, when prices are below the target price, it makes a payment on most-to-all of the crop’s production. It would be much cheaper and less disequilibrating domestically and internationally to divert a small share of production and allow the market to work.Farmers need protection against random disasters that reduce yield and traditional crop insurance can provide that protection. But yield-based crop insurance needs to be coupled with a program that can adequately deal with systemic price risk.Such a program could be a market-driven inventory system (MDIS) that would take a fraction of production off of the market when prices are low, thus raising prices and stabilizing farm income. The cost of the program would only include the portion of the crop taken off the market instead of providing an indemnity for every bushel, pound, or bale that is produced as would happen under a target price program.Rather than seeing crop insurance as the “primary component of the farm safety net,” it makes more sense to us to use crop insurance where it works best, insuring crops against random events, and using an inventory management program like MDIS to handle the systemic risk.That way both farmers and the public get the best of both worlds at minimal cost: ensuring the public of a reliable supply of food at reasonable prices, while addressing farmers’ random (yield) and systemic (price) risks.Source - http://www.minnesotafarmguide.com/

03.01.2014

Data is the commodity: detail on weather, soil, yields helps farmers grow smarter

On a rainy late November morning, farmer Robert Jones flipped open his iPad, and in seconds, he knew how much rain had sprinkled over newly harvested corn fields the night before.A bright green rectangle identified as the family’s Fredericksburg field had received .11 of an inch. Eight miles away, at Byrnesville, just .03 had fallen. Jones flipped a beefy index finger down the screen, seeing other fields and their numbers — .04, .06 and .10 of an inch.In the coming weeks as he and his brother, Mark Jones, prepare for the 2014 season, they’ll receive a blizzard of data from a San Francisco technology company working to transform farming — and crop insurance — by digitally harnessing vast amounts of detail on local weather, soil conditions, and yield histories on individual fields.The data will help Jones Farms decide when to plant, how densely to sow seed, how much nitrogen to fertilize with and when to spray for pests to boost the annual harvest.The Joneses and a few large Kentucky farmers who have signed on with The Climate Corp. describe the arrival of “Big Data” as a common-sense tool that helps them farm smarter and minimize the risks posed by devastating shifts in weather.Robert Jones, who lives in Palmyra, Ind., said he’s never been one to shy from trying something new. “My father always told me: ‘Never be the first. For damn sure, don’t be the last.’”The Joneses are second generation farmers who tend 5,000 acres of corn and a bit of wheat with their sons in Harrison and Washington counties. They began buying weather insurance four years ago from The Climate Corp., a company that boasts of creating policies individualized for corn, wheat and soybean farmers, based in part onprocessing 50 terabytes of weather information daily using records on crops grown on 29 million fields across the country, combined with reams of data on precipitation and soil.Though the family had bought federal crop insurance for decades, and still do, they felt the need for more protection after going all in on planting corn each year, rather than rotating crops, Jones said.“We felt naked in our risk management,” he said.Climate Corp. runs 10 trillion data points of weather conditions, soil and crop data to write its policies on each field, said George Bercaw, a crop insurance consultant with Climate.“Farmers are pulled in so many directions. They have to be a part-time agronomist, part-time weather forecaster, part-time mechanic, part-time chemist. We’re trying to give them sound information so they be more focused on producing a crop,” Bercaw said.The Joneses said their experience with Climate insurance led them to try its new Big Data product, which includes high-resolution satellite imagery of each field to track conditions on the ground and the health of the crop through the growing season. The cost: $15 an acre or $75,000. But Jones estimated they could average $104 more per acre or $500,000 in increased profits overall, if it works as advertised.Farmers traditionally have kept records on rainfall amounts, planting dates, the seed varieties they sowed and nutrients used each season to help plan for the next year. That meant “pretty generalized assumptions…there was more of a guessing game” about how make improvements, said Chris Jones, 29, Robert’s son and a junior partner in the business.Payneville, Ky. farmer Derrick Pike also has purchased Climate’s insurance and its new software for his family’s 2,000-acre corn and soybean business in Meade and Breckinridge counties because “it seemed like it would be a good fit for us.”He added: “It’s going to give us detail on the most opportune time to be in the fields” to start planting. “I think it’s going to be a big help to us.”The use of data to help producers decide what to plant and how to deploy their manpower and equipment is only going to increase, predicted John Fulton, an Auburn University associate professor of biosystems engineering and an authority on precision agriculture technologies.Commodities prices are going level off, so that means farmers are going to “look for ways to maintain profitability,” Fulton said in a phone interview.Climate Corp., which was bought by agribusiness giant Monsanto this fall for nearly $1 billion, isn’t the only company getting into the data business in agriculture, Fulton said, because many large seed, tractor and fertilizer manufacturers also recognize that they can offer data with their products to help producers boost profits.“If you’re going to stay in this business…that level of information is going to become more important as we go forward,” Fulton said.Source - http://www.courier-journal.com/

03.01.2014

US - Direct Payments to End, but Farm-Bill Policy Questioned

When lawmakers unveil a bipartisan compromise on a new five-year farm bill this month, they likely will trumpet a major change in policy: ending the long-established and much-maligned system of direct payments to farmers.Abolishing the unpopular program, in which payments have been made regardless of crop prices—and sometimes even to people who grow nothing—is a rare point of accord among Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate. The idea, lawmakers say, is to require farmers to put more "skin in the game" in shouldering the risks associated with agriculture.But the emerging compromise, which would replace direct payments with beefed-up crop insurance and other protections for farmers, has already triggered criticism from outside groups who say it won't radically reduce the amount of risk the federal government assumes in the agriculture industry."It's moonshine by another name," said Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, an organization that opposes the subsidies because of environmental and other concerns. "We're replacing a discredited subsidy with a soon-to-be discredited subsidy."These concerns have largely been overshadowed so far by the louder and more partisan debate over other provisions in the bill, particularly funding for food stamps, where there is opposition from both ends of the political spectrum.Negotiators say they are trying to modernize the system by balancing the needs of farmers with the interests of taxpayers. "With direct payments farmers get a check, but with crop insurance farmers get a bill, and that change will save taxpayers billions of dollars," said Ben Becker, Democratic spokesman for the Senate Agriculture Committee. But the early concerns illustrate the challenges lawmakers will face as they try to build support for any new program of subsidies.The new bill is expected to be built around a new kind of farm support system, including strengthened crop insurance, a new supplemental program to help with out-of-pocket losses not covered by insurance, and additional assistance to farmers when their revenue or crop prices drop below a certain level.The approach marks a shift in policy away from the direct-payment regime, which has its roots in the 1996 farm bill. The almost $5 billion the government doles out each year, regardless of crop prices or rising farm incomes, has become one of the most vilified aspects of farm policy—especially after a year when the Agriculture Department says farm income likely hit its highest level in four decades.The new assembly of support programs is expected to save tens of billions of dollars, though new cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office haven't been publicly released.Mr. Faber and others question whether the new suite of programs will transfer enough risk to farmers and say it could end up being more expensive if more farmers than expected enroll in the new crop-insurance programs or prices fall for a sustained period.Under the current crop-insurance program, which is projected to cost taxpayers $84 billion over 10 years, the federal government subsidized nearly 63% of the average premium in 2012. With the new supplemental crop insurance, which would help cover out-of-pocket losses, the U.S. would subsidize 65% of premiums.Private companies sell the plans, but the government reimburses them for some administrative and operating costs.Some economists believe the high subsidies give farmers an incentive to enroll in the cushiest plans, though they caution it is hard to predict how many farmers will sign up for new programs. "If the federal government is still picking up close to 70% of your insurance, that still isolates the farmer from a lot of risk," said Christine Harbin Hanson, federal affairs manager at Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group working in an unusual alliance with both right-leaning and environmental associations to try to overhaul agriculture policy.Interest groups are also watching how the negotiators deal with other protections for farmers. Some lawmakers had hoped to calculate payments for certain subsidies based on the actual number of acres a farmer planted in a given year.But industry groups and trade experts worried that could motivate some farmers to plant more of certain crops to take advantage of the subsidies, driving down prices and potentially triggering a trade dispute that could hurt U.S. exports. In the new bill, lawmakers are expected to tie payments to an updated measure of a farm's historic plantings.Whether these changes will shift the financial burden away from the taxpayer will depend on a number of factors, experts say. Early estimates are that the new approach will save billions of dollars. But the new system would be more sensitive to market-price swings, weather, how many farmers sign up and details of how the programs are structured in the final bill."We know how much money we're going to save from getting rid of direct payments," said Andrew Novakovic, an agricultural economics professor at Cornell University. "But we don't how much money we're going to spend."Source - http://online.wsj.com/

03.01.2014

Gaza’s strawberry crop damaged by storm

The Ministry of Agriculture estimated Gaza’s agricultural losses during the four-day storm, which occurred Dec. 12-14, to be about $7.7 million in direct preliminary losses, of which more than $5.5 million were in the vegetables sector, with the rest in livestock.Strawberry production in particular is expected to be hit hard by the winter storms. Gaza farmers started cultivating strawberries in 1968 on limited areas and began exporting to foreign markets in the late 1970s. The area under cultivation grew over the years until it reached its peak in 2005, when 2,500 dunums (618 acres) were cultivated. The area shrank when restrictions were imposed on exporting the crop after Hamas won in the 2006 parliamentary elections. Ahmad al-Shafei, the head of the Gaza Agricultural Cooperative, said that about 500 tons of strawberries were expected to be exported to the European market, but the crop was affected by the storm and the estimate is now 200 tons for the entire export period, which will last for about three months.The total storm damage to the strawberry crop in the Gaza Strip exceeded 20%, according to the strawberry exporters association, but the damage to profits may amount to more than 40% given that the storm came during the export period, when most profits are made.Source -al-monitor.com

03.01.2014

US - Farm Service Agency to waive some late fees

Georgia State USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) Acting State Executive Director (SED) David Laster, announced that “late-filed” fees will be waived for crops that had a Nov. 15, 2013, acreage reporting deadline if these crops are reported no later than Jan. 15, 2014.Crops with the Nov. 15, 2013, reporting date will be assessed the “late-filed” fee if reported after the Jan. 15, 2014, “waiver date.”Crops under this waiver include perennial improved grasses intended for grazing or haying. It shall be noted the Risk Management Agency (RMA) did not grant a “reporting” waiver on the Pasture, Range, and Forage Land (PRF) insurance program, so producers need to consult their crop insurance agent if they had PRF coverage and have not yet reported their 2014 grazing grass crop(s).“In order to comply with FSA program eligibility requirements, all producers are encouraged to visit their local FSA office to file an accurate crop certification report by the applicable deadline," said Acting SED Laster.The following 2014 acreage reporting dates are applicable for the entire state of Georgia:• Nov. 15, 2013: PRF, perennial forage, and apiculture.• Jan. 15, 2014: Apples, all fall-seeded small grains, Blueberries, Canola, and Peaches.• March 15, 2014: Cabbage (planted 10/1 - 2/20), Onions, (planted 10/21 - 2/1), and Pecans.• May 15, 2014: Flue-cured tobacco, Fresh Market Sweet Corn (planted 8/26 - 5/15), Fresh Market Tomatoes (planted 8/16 - 4/5).• July 15, 2014: Corn, Cotton, Grain Sorghum, Peanuts, Soybeans, and all others crops not shown with a specific reporting date.• Aug. 15, 2014: Fresh Market Tomatoes (planted 7/1 - 8/15).• Sept. 15, 2014: Fresh Market Sweet Corn (planted 7/15 - 8/25).• Oct. 15, 2014: Cabbage (planted 7/16 - 9/30).The following exceptions apply to the above acreage reporting dates:• If the crop has not been planted by the above acreage reporting date, then the acreage must be reported no later than 15 calendar days after planting is completed.• If a producer acquires additional acreage after the above acreage reporting date, then the acreage must be reported no later than 30 calendars days after purchase or acquiring the lease. Appropriate documentation must be provided to the county office.• If a perennial forage crop is reported with the intended use of “cover only,” “green manure,” “left standing,” or “seed” then the acreage must be reported by July 15th.According to Acting SED Laster, Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) policy holders should note that the acreage reporting date for NAP covered crops is the earlier of the dates listed above or 15 calendar days before grazing or harvesting of the NAP-covered crop begins.For questions regarding crop certification and crop loss reports, please contact your local FSA office.Source - FSA

03.01.2014

India - Ground frost hits potato, tomato crops in Punjab, Haryana

With cold wave sweeping across North India, ground frost has caused damage to potato and tomato crops in certain parts of Punjab and Haryana, which may adversely impact yield of vegetable crops, experts said today. However, freezing weather conditions remained favourable for wheat crop with farm experts saying it will boost its productivity. Freezing weather conditions have been prevailing in Punjab and Haryana with minimum temperature remaining below normal by several notches. Meteorological department has again issued warning of ground frost in next two days. "Potato crop in certain parts of potato growing belt in Punjab has got damaged because of ground frost which occurred various areas in northern region. It will certainly impact crop's yield," Punjab Horticulture Director L S Brar told PTI. "At this point of time, normally yield of crop goes up but now frost has eliminated this possibility," he said. Potato growers pointed out that about 10-15 per cent of potato crop sown in the state was affected due to ground frost. "The impact of frost has been visible on seed potato crop which covers the major portion of the sowing at this stage," said Jalandhar based leading potato grower Sukhjit Singh Bhatti. "We expect there will be a loss of about 10-15 per cent in overall yield of potato crop," he said. Punjab grows potato at 84,000 hectares of area with over 60 per cent being covered by seed potato crop and overall output of 21 lakh tonnes. Ground frost has taken a toll on tomato crop in neighbouring state Haryana with crop being completely damaged in certain tracts of land. "Yes, ground frost has hit tomato crop in some areas of Haryana, including Mewat and Karnal," a senior official of Haryana Horticulture Department said here. "In Mewat alone, 400 acres of land under tomato was badly affected by ground frost," the official said, adding that farmers were complaining of crop getting damaged because of ground frost. About 20,000 hectares of land is under tomato crop in Haryana. However, chilling weather conditions remain favourable for wheat crop with experts saying that it would have a positive impact on overall yield of the crop. "Current weather conditions are good for wheat crop. It will help the crop in development of grain", said Indu Sharma, Project Director, Karnal based Directorate of Wheat Research. However, Sharma said a spell of rain at this stage in rain fed areas including hilly areas in North India was necessary for wheat crop.Source - http://www.business-standard.com/

30.12.2013

India - Monsoon in 2013 Sets Ground for Record Grain Production

The agriculture sector bounced back in 2013 after a drought year as the country is set to harvest record foodgrain production of 260 million tonnes because of good monsoons and achieve 5 per cent growth.Passage of the landmark food security law in Parliament and the decontrol of sugar sector were two major highlights of the year. However, the recommendation of the Supreme Court appointed committee to put a moratorium on the field trials of GM food crops was seen as a big setback.The year began on a good note with government announcing in Budget a Rs 1.25 lakh crore increase in farm credit target to Rs 7 lakh crore - 22 per cent hike in the Agriculture Ministry's fund allocation for this fiscal. A sum of Rs 500 crore was provided for crop diversification in states like Punjab and Haryana, which are facing stagnation in crop yield.Then came a slight disappointment when government released the production data of last year showing decline in foodgrains output because of drought in several states.Silver lining was that the foodgrains production fell by just 1.5 per cent to 255.36 million tonnes in 2012-13 crop year ended June from previous year's record 259.29 million tonne.However, good monsoon this year turned things around for the farm sector, providing relief to the government which is banking on farm sector for revival of overall economic growth.Foodgrains output in Kharif (summer sown) season is higher than last year and the bountiful rains have raised hopes that production of rabi (winter sown) crops too would be better."Thanks to very good monsoon, we are likely to have record fruits and vegetables production at 268 million tonne this year (2013-14) higher than foodgrains production of 260 million tonne. For the first time, fruits and veggies output is going to cross grain output," Commission for Agriculture Costs and Prices (CACP) Chairman Ashok Gulati said.Gulati noted that agriculture growth is likely to be over 5 per cent in 2013-14 from mere 1.9 per cent last year.Despite estimates of record horticulture production, the prices of vegetables like onions, potatoes and tomatoes went through the roof as excess and prolonged rains damaged crops, delayed harvesting and disrupted supply chain.Though rates have eased now, skyrocketing prices did have a bearing on consumers as well as the Congress Party which lost assembly elections in four states.Enthused by sowing data, soil moisture condition and full reservoirs, Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar recently said: "This year, in fact, we will break the last times record. I am confident if nature continues to be cooperative, we will break last time's record."With overflowing grain in FCI godowns and estimates of a bumper production in the current 2013-14 crop year, the UPA government fulfilled its election promise of giving a legal right over highly subsidised foodgrains when in September the Parliament passed the National Food Security Law.Under the law, 82 crore people would get 5kg of foodgrains per month at Rs 1-3 per kg costing the central exchequer about Rs 1,25,000 crore annually as food subsidy, which was even questioned by the World Trade Organisation (WTO).But India managed to convince global leaders at WTO meet about the importance of this food law. After hard negotiation, WTO agreed to allow countries to provide subsidy on staple food crops without any threat of punitive action.Notwithstanding the success at WTO, the government would have to focus on raising farm production and productivity for successful implementation of food law as emphasised by Pawar.He warned that the world’s largest social welfare scheme should be 'enshrined' on strong domestic production and not on imported grains.Given this context, Pawar consistently pitched for adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops in India, even as the Supreme Court-appointed panel had in July recommended moratorium on field trials for GM food crops in the country.However, one member of the committee - R S Paroda, former DG of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, submitted a separate report opposing the moratorium. A final decision on this issue is expected only next year.Although there are concerns for sustaining crop production, CACP chief Gulati feels that India's agriculture is on a "safe wicket" for next five years as terms of trade have changed in favour of agriculture with private investment in the sector rising.Source - http://news.outlookindia.com/

30.12.2013

US - Drones increasingly are being used in agriculture

Idaho farmer Robert Blair isn't waiting around for federal aviation officials to work out rules for drones. He and a friend built their own, outfitting it with cameras and using it to monitor his 1,500 acres.Under 10 pounds and 5 feet long nose to tail, the aircraft is the size of a turkey and Blair uses it to get a birds-eye view of his cows and fields of wheat, peas, barley and alfalfa."It's a great tool to collect information to make better decisions, and we're just scratching the surface of what it can do for farmers," said Blair, who lives in Kendrick, Idaho, roughly 275 miles north of Boise.While Americans are abuzz about Amazon's plans to use self-guided drones to deliver packages, most future unmanned aircraft may operate far from population centers.Experts point to agriculture as the most promising commercial market for drones because the technology is a perfect fit for large-scale farms and vast rural areas where privacy and safety issues are less of a concern.Already, farmers, researchers and companies are developing unmanned aircraft systems equipped with cameras and other sensors to survey crops, monitor for disease or precision-spray pesticides and fertilizers.And the possibilities are endless: Flying gizmos could be used to ward off birds from fields, pollinate trees, do snow surveys to forecast water supply, monitor irrigation, or plant and harvest crops.The technology could revolutionize agriculture, farmers say, by boosting crop health, improving field management practices, reducing costs and increasing yields.So far, drones have been used mainly by the military. Interest is booming in finding other uses for them, but the possibilities are limited because of regulations on the use of airspace and privacy concerns.Blair's drone, built in 2008, isn't breaking the law, because his aircraft is essentially a model airplane -- allowed by the FAA as long as it's flown below 400 feet, far from populated areas and no one is compensated for the flight.Blair said the UAV gives him a complete, aerial view of his crops. He said he also uses it to gather historical data on his crops -- which can help validate crop loss or animal damage when applying for government programs such as crop insurance.Source - http://www.theeagle.com/

27.12.2013

USA - 2014 Crop Insurance

When Nebraska and Kansas farmers looked out their kitchen windows in the late summer of 2012, they saw withering fields that harkened back to the Dust Bowl years. The majority of both states were experiencing extreme or exceptional drought, a condition that would not change for most farmers through harvest in the High Plains.And while many farmers cringed as they watched their hard work and investment wilt in the fields, the vast majority of them did not worry that this drought would put their farms on the auction block. That is because 86 percent of planted cropland was protected by crop insurance policies.In the not-too-distant past, such agricultural calamities would have triggered widespread fear on the farms and in rural towns where bankruptcies and economic devastation was barreling down the tracks like an out of control train. With nowhere to turn, rural America had to plead with their congressional delegations for help, which would come in the form of an ad hoc disaster bill.This is not a hypothetical scenario. Since 1989, the tab for 42 of these emergency disaster bills for agriculture cost U.S. taxpayers $70 billion. The financial aid from this legislation, while appreciated, often took years to reach the devastated farmers. After a string of these costly bills, Congress moved to incentivize farmers to purchase crop insurance. From that point on, when disaster struck, farmers would turn to their crop insurance agents, not taxpayers, for recovery.Fast forward to the 2012 crop year. Nebraska and Kansas farmers together had spent over half a billion of their own dollars purchasing crop insurance premiums just in case disaster struck. And when it did, crop insurance indemnities were in the hands of the farmers who suffered losses in weeks, not months or years.Nothing is quite as loud as success. And the decision to make crop insurance the primary risk management tool has been an unequivocal success for farmers, taxpayers and rural America. For farmers, who will wave farewell to direct payments and other commodity support programs when this farm bill passes, it allows them to purchase a risk management policy tailored specifically for their needs and risk tolerance. Taxpayers benefit because they are no longer on the hook for the whole tab when disaster strikes.In fact, since 2000, farmers have spent $38 billion nationally purchasing crop insurance policies, ensuring that they had "skin" in the risk management game. As Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow pointed out, when a farmer signs up for crop insurance, "the farmer gets a bill, not a check."As for the health of rural America, when farmers catch a cold, the rural economy catches pneumonia. That is because farmers are enormous consumers, investing huge amounts of capital directly into the communities where they live, purchasing fuel, machinery, feed, fertilizer and other durable goods, as well as hiring workers.Anyone questioning the effectiveness of crop insurance need only look at how well farmers bounced back from the worst drought in decades. The 2013 growing season was one of the best ever, producing the largest corn crop the nation has ever seen. And all of this while total federal spending on farm programs has trended down.Like other highly successful policies, crop insurance has its detractors. The very same groups who during the 2012 drought were saying that farmers were "praying for drought, not praying for rain," are now calling for means testing.Means testing would force many large or highly successful farmers - who also tend to be the least risky - out of the risk pool. And when the lower risk policyholders leave the risk pool, those left, the smaller, younger farmers who also tend to be the riskiest, will see their premiums go up. In short, means testing is the new poison pill being used by those wishing to kill any form of farm program or assistance to rural America.While the popularity of crop insurance continues to grow, with 90 percent of planted cropland having the protection of crop insurance in 2013, this year is different. This summer when farmers looked over their crops and saw bountiful fields full of golden grains, they knew they would be selling an abundant harvest and not collecting an indemnity check, which brought a smile to many faces. The plentiful harvest and the satisfaction of feeding others is, after all, what farming is all about.Source - http://www.midwestproducer.com/

27.12.2013

Harvest time for citrus is based on several factors: Words to Grow By

Homeowners with citrus trees often question the proper time to initiate harvest of the fruit. The answer is complicated and based on several factors. Obviously “no fruit is ready before its time.” But what time is that?Citrus, with the exception of lemon, ripens no further after picking. All citrus will store well in refrigeration, but quality will not improve past the level at harvest.Variety of citrus is probably the highest priority to consider. Satsumas tend to ripen before navel oranges, which ripen before grapefruit. Usually ripening happens at a specific time of year, but may vary by as much as several weeks depending on condition of tree, drought, early temperature variances or weather conditions. Be aware of past history as a beginning point, but be prepared to be flexible. Select one fruit on a weekly interval to better judge results.Color: Deep-green-colored fruit are sour. As fruit nears ripening, skin color lightens to a pale green color and breaks into yellowing. In South Louisiana, skin color can be dark green, change to yellow and convert back to greenish if a long warm period follows the early color change. Fruit color from out to in; top to bottom and sunny to shady. No tree has fruit ripened equally, so proper selection is necessary for success.Taste preference: Some growers like the first tangy bite of satsumas. Others wait till deep yellow skin indicates a syrupy sweetness. Satsumas are found locally in five major varieties. The old standards "Owari" and "Brown Select" produce quality fruit that ripens in early November and lasts till after December. However, varieties with early-maturing fruit starting in early September have skin that stays greenish but yields fruit that is sweet. These varieties, such as "Armstrong," "Louisiana Early" and "Early St. Ann," will peak in flavor but quickly become diluted in taste quality within weeks. In this instance, once fruit reaches desirable taste, regardless of color; harvest and put it in refrigeration. Otherwise, harvest and share with neighbors, because quality will decrease.The storage of fruit on a tree maintains a tree’s vigor in a period when the tree would be better served by being allowed to halt its growth through a pre-conditioning or slowdown. Trees should be completely stripped of fruit prior to January of each year. This allows trees to prepare for the traditionally coldest periods, and trees will maintain a sufficient energy level for next year’s blossom production. Keeping fruit late on trees has proven to lessen next year’s crop.Problem areas: Usually fruit that has stayed and developed on trees until now will continue and mature. Two exceptions to this are fruit splitting from excess water absorption or insect attack. If fruit has split vertically, then it indicates the fruit absorbed water quicker than the skin could, so a split occurs. This is often seen in satsuma and navel orange trees. Secondly, if plant bugs attack satsumas and stick their beaks into a fruit section, the fruit often turns yellow and drops. If one tree has many dropped fruit or several are bright yellow while most are green, then look for the large brown leaf-footed bug as the culprit. Spray malathion as directed or call your county agent’s office for more specific directions.Remember, citrus ripens differently by variety, location on tree, tree health and weather conditions. But follow a few rules and enjoy the best tasting fruit found anywhere.Here is a schedule of *normal citrus harvest periods:Satsumas•Early St. Ann – late August to mid September•Louisiana Early – late August to mid September•Armstrong – mid September to early October•Brown Select – mid October to mid December•Owari – early November to mid JanuaryOranges•Navel Orange – mid November to late December•Blood Orange – early December to early January•Louisiana or Hamlin Sweet Orange – mid November to January•Other seeded Oranges – mid November to January•Valencia – mid March to AprilOther•Grapefruit – mid December to January•Kumquats – late November to January•Pumelo – early November to late December•Mandarins – mid October to mid November*Normal indicates average dates categorized over a number of years. Begin sampling or scout looks of fruit two weeks prior to indicated date. This will take into account weather, stress or other factors that alter normal maturity dates.Source - http://blog.nola.com/