NEWS
745
of 1173
News
13.06.2017

USA - SD farmers worry about crops as drought conditions continue[:ru]SD farmers worry about crops as drought conditions continue

Dry conditions in South Dakota have prompted Governor Dennis Daugaard to activate the State Drought Task Force and farmers across the state can't get a break from the sunshine. It started out good for lifelong Miller farmer JD Wangsness. This year had the makings of a good one with calving and getting crops in the ground. But then, promise dried out. JD Wangsness, a farmer said, "This is the worst I have seen a spring, as far as coming out of winter into spring. The lack of moisture, the duration of time it has been since we've had moisture." The amount of rain at this point in the year pales in comparison to years past. Wangsness said, "I would say we're about half to a third of what we normally have for rain in the spring." Hand County currently sits in a moderate level drought. Further north, it's even worse. At this stage in the season, Wangsness knows he's already losing yield on his crop. Wangsness said, "If it starts to rain, I don't think we would come up with as good of crop as we normally would. I think the damage has already been done. But until we get some rain, it's just sitting there not doing a lot." Lakes around his property run thin and grass conditions create feeding concerns for his cattle. Wangsness said, "I know a lot of producers are selling pairs right now....there's a lot moving, it's going to be detrimental on their cash flows and things like that. Plus, you lose your factories so it's not the best thing to be doing." Going forward, the only thing farmers like Wangsness can do, is hope for a little help from mother nature. Wangsness said, "Get in touch with your crop insurance guy. Just plan for the worst and hope for the best." Meanwhile, the drought-like conditions could also dampen the high hopes many had for the pheasant population. "Pheasant Forever" says if lack of rain ends up stunting the growth of grasses, predators can more easily find eggs and baby chicks. Source - http://www.ktiv.com

13.06.2017

USA - Crop insurance on the chopping block - again

Federal crop insurance payments long have been a target for budget cutters. But the proposed reductions in the Trump administration’s 2018 budget exceed what came previously. A few Midwest lawmakers contend the cuts have little, if any, chance of becoming law this time around. But some groups say this could be an area of concern when a new farm bill is written next year. The Trump administration’s blueprint calls for $29 billion in cuts to crop insurance over the next 10 years. The government currently subsidizes, on average, 62 percent of premium payments. The bulk of the cuts — $16 billion — would come from limiting the size of premium subsidies to $40,000. That would affect relatively few farmers, the administration says. However, another $11 billion in cuts comes from jettisoning the subsidy for a widely used insurance option that helps farmers hedge their risk. The Harvest Price Option lets farmers insure their crops based on the higher of the price at harvest or at planting. Farmers note this type of insurance allows them to make better decisions and takes some of the risk off the table. The administration says farmers can find other ways to hedge risk — or they can do it without a subsidy. The proposed cuts come at a difficult time in rural America. The U.S. Agriculture Department projected in February that net income would fall 8.7 percent this year, about half what it was at record highs in 2013. Cuts in crop insurance would exacerbate those pressures. “This would continue to tighten the situation in agriculture-driven rural communities,” said Chad Hart, an Iowa State University extension economist. Hart notes the Obama administration also proposed cutting subsidies. But these would be steeper, such as for the Harvest Price Option. Critics of the program applauded the Trump administration’s proposal. They say the subsidies are too generous and the government shoulders too much of the risk for farmers. In 2016, payments to Iowa farmers from crop insurance amounted to $54 million, according to federal data. Farmers paid $280 million in premiums, which doesn’t include the government’s share. For the drought year of 2012, government payments to farmers exceeded $2 billion in Iowa. Producers paid $382 million in premiums that year. In Illinois, payments amounted to $91 million in 2016 on producer premiums of $272 million. In 2012, the government paid $3.5 billion to farmers on premiums of $333 million. Midwest lawmakers don’t give the proposed cuts much chance in Congress. Iowa’s Sen. Chuck Grassley, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said most presidential budgets are dead on arrival. Rep. Cheri Bustos, D-Ill., a member of the House Agriculture Committee, also gave the cuts little chance. Still, she said that with lower prices and income projections, “this is not a fight we should have to be taking on.” She said the proposal sends a “terrible message” to rural America. “I describe this as the first volley in what will be several rounds of negotiations,” ISU’s Hart said. “This is the beginning of the policy process.” Even if crop insurance subsidies aren’t at risk of substantial cuts for this budget year, the Trump administration proposal comes just a year before expiration of the current farm bill. Next year, a multiyear farm bill will reauthorize programs, and targets will be set for spending. Crop insurance subsidies are a large target in a fiscal environment in which the White House is pushing for increases in military spending and countering it with nondefense cuts. That could present some risk to programs such as crop insurance, some analysts say. “There will be a number of budgetary pressures as we go into the 2018 farm bill that are of concern,” said Dave Miller, director of research and commodities services at the Iowa Farm Bureau. Source - http://www.thegazette.com

13.06.2017

USA - New tobacco varieties could reduce levels of black shank disease

University of Georgia Cooperative Extension research trials of new tobacco varieties could help farmers reduce the level of black shank disease in their fields to 15 percent, according to Tony Barnes, Agriculture and Natural Resources Extension agent in Atkinson County, Georgia. If the research proves successful, Georgia tobacco farmers who plant these new varieties could save as much as $1,463 per acre as compared to farmers who grow varieties impacted by black shank disease. “We are seeing success in some of the newer varieties, but in a severe year, it doesn’t matter what the variety is, black shank will eat it up,” Barnes said. “We are getting better responses from these varieties, though.” Black shank is a fungus that turns the tobacco plant yellow as it slowly wilts and dies. The disease spreads through the field and to other fields through water and equipment. Chemical treatment programs must be applied to ensure older tobacco varieties withstand the disease, which can wipe out a crop under the right conditions, according to Barnes. UGA scientist Paul Bertrand, who studies tobacco diseases on the UGA Tifton campus, recommends growers plant varieties like CC-143, NC-925, NC-938, CC-1063 or GL-925 in fields with a history of black shank disease. “A farmer generally makes about $4,180 per acre. If the farmer takes a 50 percent loss due to black shank, which is not uncommon with some of our older varieties, the financial return is reduced to $2,090 per acre. That is just not profitable after input costs are calculated,” Barnes said. UGA Extension’s research goal is to reduce the loss from black shank disease to 15 percent. Farmers can sustainably produce tobacco with low levels of black shank disease, Barnes said. The weather plays a role in treatment applications in severe years. Since black shank moves upward through the tobacco plant, chemical applications must be made to the base of the roots. The roots must then absorb the treatment before it leaches out. If it rains, farmers can’t get into the field to apply the treatments, leaving their plants vulnerable. “There are varieties that are not resistant, but the growers like them because of how they grow and cook out. However, if they plant those varieties in a field that is infected with black shank, they’re probably going to lose a lot of their crop,” Barnes said. Barnes advises growers to stay out of fields with a history of black shank disease for at least two years, but preferably for four to six years. Additionally, UGA Extension experts advise growers to clean their tractors, equipment and trucks before moving from one field to another field to avoid spreading the fungus. In 2015, Atkinson County farmers cultivated 582 acres of tobacco. The county ranked ninth in Georgia for tobacco production, with a farm gate value of more than $2.4 million. Source - http://www.tiftongazette.com

12.06.2017

USA - Many farmers face new crop insurance option, with early deadline

Corn, soybean, wheat and rice growers in much of the country now have a new option for crop insurance, a Margin Protection (MP) product to cover the difference between county revenue levels and the select local operating costs. The MP policies can be coupled with conventional Revenue Protection (RP) insurance, which covers an individual farm’s revenue, and could provide indemnities when an RP policy doesn’t. MP policies also can be coupled with Yield Protection (YP) insurance. The MP insurance, which was authorized by the 2014 farm bill and launched on a limited basis in 2016, will be expanded significantly for 2018. But corn, soybean and spring wheat farmers don’t have much time to make a decision for MP coverage next year, since the signup deadline for 2018 coverage is Sept. 30. MP policies can insure up to 95 percent of the margin. MP insurance, developed by Montana-based Watts and Associates, has some potential drawbacks by comparison to RP, one of them being that MP insurance is based on county revenue and input costs, rather than individual revenue and costs. Individual crops can differ significantly from a county’s. Subsidy rates for area insurance also will be lower, and the early signup deadline will require farmers to make decisions much earlier than they have to with RP policies. “Historically, farmers have been reluctant to embrace area products, especially after the introduction of enterprise insurance in the 2008 farm bill,” said Carl Zulauf, an economist at Ohio State University. Still, he thinks the ability of farmers to protect production cost margins, even at the county level, will attract interest from growers. Zulauf also said that many “farmers have long wanted a return to the farm programs of the 1970s, which included adjusted target prices. This desire will likely cause lots of farmers to at least look at margin insurance, even if it is at the county level,” he said.“There may be creative ways to combine area insurance with existing individual farm insurance products that will be uncovered as farmers and insurance agents think about and obtain experiences with the area margin insurance contract,” Zulauf said. Sam Willett, senior director of public policy for the National Corn Growers Association, said that ability to couple MP and RP could be attractive growers once they learn about MP insurance. “I would predict that there is going to be a lot of interest (in MP insurance) but it will probably have to be built over time,” he said. MP insurance would help “eliminate some uncertainty on your costs.” Some 211 MP policies were sold in 2016, the first year the product was available, and $163,841 in indemnities were paid, according to the Risk Management Agency. So far, only 98 policies are reported sold for 2017. In North Dakota, where MP has been available to some wheat growers starting last year, 36 policies sold for 2017, down from 58 in 2016. (A spokeswoman for RMA said the 2017 numbers could change as companies finish submitting data.) The North Dakota Grain Growers Association, which helped design the MP policy, has been getting a lot of positive feedback from wheat growers, and participation is expected to increase with the product's expansion, said Dan Wogsland, the group’s executive director. "While the early sales closing date has been somewhat problematic, the real need for the product's participation is better insurance agent and farmer education,” he said. But Willett agreed that the September deadline could be a deterrent. The policies were made available in Iowa for 2017 but the insurance was made available so close to the deadline that there was only limited interest, he said. The sales closing date is earlier than usual because of the coverage for input costs. The coverage must attach prior to the purchase of inputs for it to be useful, said Alex Offerdahl, crop insurance division head for Watts and Associates. The date could be moved in coming years but probably won’t change much, he said. The Sept. 30 date “offers an unintended but useful benefit: farmers are able to lock in coverage much earlier, protecting against the vagaries of the market over about 13 months, rather than they traditional seven or so,” he said. He said sales of MP policies have been lower than expected so far, but he still expects demand to grow over time. "It is worth noting that sales in the first several years for revenue crop insurance products started slow too. They are now over 90 percent of policies for major crops now. Adoption will take time, but the coverage MP offers is too valuable for growers and agents to ignore," he said. The insurance can be purchased for coverage levels ranging from 70 percent to 95 percent. Premium subsidies are higher at the lower levels of coverage. For 2018, MP insurance will be available in select counties in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. For wheat, the insurance can be purchased in select counties in Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Rice coverage will be available in Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas. Sales deadlines for rice will be Jan. 31 in some areas and Feb. 28 in others. The input costs that figure into the margin calculations differ by crop, and only inputs that are considered subject to price changes – fuel, fertilizer and interest – figure into whether an indemnity is paid. For corn, those inputs are diesel, interest, diammonium phosphate, urea and potash. For soybeans: diesel, interest, diammonium phosphate and potash. For rice: diesel, interest, urea, diammonium phosphate and potash. For wheat: diesel, interest, urea, monoammonium phosphate and potash. Other inputs, including seed, chemicals and machinery operating costs affect the amount of insurance but don’t directly determine whether policy holders receive an indemnity. Source - https://www.agri-pulse.com

12.06.2017

UK - Grape growers urged to focus on quality after frost damage

"Growers need to focus on maximising grape and wine quality after a difficult start to the year, with late frosts damaging yields in some areas." This is the message from Fruit Focus, an event which is hoping to help British wine producers maximise quality after a turbulent start to the year after a severe frost in Spring. NFU chief horticulture adviser, Hayley Campbell-Gibbons said: “The biggest concern is outdoor fruit production – such as apple and pear orchards, and blackcurrants. Production is ahead of schedule in many parts of the country, which means trees are in full flower and very vulnerable to night frosts. A severe frost could significantly impact British fruit production.” This year, the UKVA forum will be focusing on yield, quality and profitability, which is especially topical given the difficult year many producers have had. “There has been a lot of talk about yield recently, especially after the spring frosts,” says Jo Cowderoy, general secretary at the UKVA, who will be chairing the forum. “This year it will be important to focus on quality, in order to maximise profitability, something that Fruit Focus is really going to help growers home in on.” Source - http://www.freshplaza.com

12.06.2017

India - One rupee crop insurance was test transfer

In connection with the controversy over disbursal of crop insurance amounting to to as less as one rupee to the accounts of farmers who had lost their crop last year, the state government has clarified that the said credit was made only for testing the system. The transfer of Re 1 to accounts of farmers had stirred a controversy, with a section of the media and the opposition creating a furore. The government said that the settlement subsidy relating to crop loss has to be done through direct benefit transfer to bank accounts of farmers that are linked to Aadhar numbers of the beneficiaries. Accordingly, steps are being taken to transfer the amount of input subsidies to the bank accounts of beneficiaries directly by using software. It said that that till June 6, 2017, Rs 1,459.1 crore was disbursed to 21.90 lac accounts of farmers by way of direct transfer. Still, there are about 1,82,000 accounts of beneficiary farmers whose accounts are not linked to Aadhar. Therefore, as a test check, one rupee each was transferred to their accounts through National Payment Corporation of India. Steps are being taken to credit differential amounts wherever such test credits have been successful, it has clarified. Source - http://www.daijiworld.com

12.06.2017

Greek cherry volume hit by bad weather

The Greek cherry sector has been hit hard with heavy rains in the last couple of weeks. At the end of April, Greek cherry growers also had to deal with low temperatures. According to George Kallitsis of Protofanousi Fruits SA, this has led to severe drops in volume. “A lot of fruit has been destroyed. Most farmers that are located at an altitude of 700 meters above sea level saw crop damage ranging from 30% to 100%.” Although this has affected the quality of the last couple of weeks, the quality of the current supplies of cherries are good. “We’re producing several varieties of cherries, such as Satin, Larian, Georgia, Early Star, Big Star, Lapins and the Greek variety Bakirtzeika. Next week, we’re going to start the production of Kordia and Regina cherries.” The European market for cherries is seeing more competition. The volumes from Spain are increasing, whereas Turkish cherries are in a league of their own. “Turkey is the preferred origin of most German supermarket chains. We’re trying to change that.” Protofanousi Fruits has been making use of a new sorting machine. The machine has proven his worth with regards to shifting all damaged cherries due to the weather conditions of the last month. “We managed to separate all damaged fruit and ended up with 70% to 80% of the total of volume. The machine also provides us with options to sort by colour or size, which allows for new packaging formats. And the machine is fast. It has an output of 10 tons per hour and we can work with fruit one day after the harvest.” All in all, George expects the season to improve. “After a couple of weeks, prizes are going to go up. We’ve been informed that Northern European countries have been hit hard by the weather as well. This means that there won’t be a lot of cherries available in July. This season will see very good prices, though unfortunately we won’t have the volumes to truly capitalize on this.” Source - http://www.freshplaza.com

12.06.2017

USA - Proposed cuts spark crop insurance debate

Federal crop insurance payments have long been a target for budget cutters, but the proposed reductions in the Trump administration's 2018 budget exceed what came previously. Midwest lawmakers say they don't think the cuts have much, if any, chance of becoming law. But some groups say this will be a place to watch when a new farm bill is written next year. The Trump administration's blueprint calls for $29 billion in cuts to crop insurance over the next 10 years. Currently, the government subsidizes, on average, 62 percent of premium payments. The bulk of the cuts, $16 billion, would come from limiting the size of premium subsidies to $40,000. That would affect relatively few farmers, the administration says. However, another $11 billion in cuts comes from jettisoning the subsidy for a widely used insurance option that helps farmers hedge their risk. The Harvest Price Option lets farmers insure their crops based on the higher of the price at harvest or at planting. Farmers say this type of insurance allows them to make better decisions and takes some of the risk off the table. The administration says farmers can find other ways to hedge risk, or they can do it without a subsidy. The proposed cuts come at a time when things are more difficult in rural America. The Agriculture Department projected in February that net income would fall 8.7 percent this year, to about half what it was at record highs in 2013. Cuts in crop insurance would exacerbate those pressures. "This would continue to tighten the situation in agriculture-driven rural communities," said Chad Hart, an Iowa State University extension economist. Hart notes that the Obama administration also proposed cutting subsidies. But these would be steeper, such as for the Harvest Price Option. "These would be some larger cuts," he said. Critics of the program applauded the Trump administration's proposal. They say the subsidies are too generous and the government shoulders too much of the risk for farmers. In 2016, payments to Iowa farmers from crop insurance amounted to $54 million, according to federal data. Farmers paid $280 million in premiums, which doesn't include the government's share. But for the drought year of 2012, government payments to farmers exceeded $2 billion in Iowa. Producers paid $382 million in premiums that year. In Illinois, payments amounted to $91 million in 2016 on producer premiums of $272 million. In 2012, the government paid $3.5 billion to farmers on premiums of $333 million. Midwest lawmakers don't give the proposed cuts much chance in Congress. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said most presidential budgets are dead on arrival. Source - http://siouxcityjournal.com

12.06.2017

USA - Most of the peach crop ruined by weather

Georgia’s unpredictable weather earlier this year has left many peach farmers in a tough predicament, losing most of their crop. State Representative Robert Dickey knows peaches as a fourth generation grower on his family farm. He says this season is unlike any other he can remember. “We knew we were going to be short because of the lack of chill,” Dickey said. “Then when the freeze hit in late March, it was a double whammy for us, so this year, the peaches are far and few between.” He says the wild weather wiped out about 75 percent of his crop on his thousand-acre farm. “The trees do have some fruit on them. A lot of blocks have zero, and some have a pretty good crop,” Dickey said. “Instead of having 700 pieces of fruit, maybe have 100 pieces of fruit.” The peaches that survived and are picked will cost you more. “Prices have been up this year. It’s just one of the natural things, supply and demand with agriculture crops so they might be a little pricier,” Dickey said. He says there are plenty of peaches to enjoy in Georgia, but others across the country might not get a chance for a juicy Georgia peach this summer. “We're not able to ship whole lot across the country this year,” Dickey said. “The quality has been great, the sweetness, and taste is wonderful this year, but for out-of-state buyers, it’s not going to be a lot of Georgia peaches across the country.” He says there have been years of total loss, but he's thankful this wasn’t one of them. “Were harvesting fruit every day and taking what the Lord gives on these trees,” Dickey said.  “Some will get marketable, some will be too small to even be able to sell. We’re taking every day one day at a time.” Dickey says grocery stores might have to supplement their peach inventory with California peaches. He says if you want Georgia peaches, their packing house is open seven days a week. Source - http://www.13wmaz.com

09.06.2017

USA - Severe drought declared in portions of North Dakota

Drought conditions intensified across North Dakota throughout the week. Portions of central and southern North Dakota, including most of Morton County, have moved into severe drought, with 87 percent of the state in moderate drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. Temperatures could reach into the upper 90s, marking near-record heat, on Friday and 30-mph winds will continue the dryout, according to the National Weather Service. There are slight chances for severe thunderstorms, mostly to the north, throughout the weekend and into Monday. So agriculture producers are weighing their options. Oliver County Extension Agent Rick Schmidt said the hay crop is predicted to be at a quarter of the average. “Even that seems like a stretch,” he said. “There’s just nothing there.” And pastures are expected to be completely out of grass by July 1 unless conditions change. Schmidt said he doesn’t want to cause panic, because a few rains could turn things around a bit, but, without some moisture, a lot of Oliver County’s crop is about a week or so away from "total disaster." Cool season grasses will reach their max growth by June 30 and any rain after that won’t make a difference. For a lot of early planted crops, yields aren't expected to meet past county averages even if it rains. “If corn is supposed to be knee high by July 4th and we’ve only got two inches, we’ve got a long way to go,” Schmidt said, though he encourages producers not to give up on their corn yet because it tends to be hardier. For those that planted soybeans, Schmidt said he’s hearing from a number producers that the crop isn’t even coming up. “It’s just not coming out of the ground,”said Schmidt, adding that, with hopes of at least having something for the cows to eat, some are looking for re-planting options — millet or sorghum sudan grass that can be grown later in the season. Replanting is a gamble and would lead to penalties on insurance payments if rain doesn’t come in the late season to make it grow. But Oliver County is unique, in that 80 percent of producers raise both crops and cattle. Those with cattle will be more likely to double down, trying to get at least something off the dry land, according to Schmidt. Source - http://bismarcktribune.com

09.06.2017

USA - Marshall sees crop insurance as core risk-management tool

Freshman Kansas First District Congressman Roger Marshall plans to do his part on the House Agriculture Committee to preserve the crop insurance program because it helps grain producers as a risk management tool. Rep. Marshall plans to closely work with Chairman Mike Conaway, R-TX, as well as his counterpart in the Senate, Pat Roberts, R-KS, to keep crop insurance in the budget, and both chairmen have strongly supported retaining it. Crop insurance is a $10 billion a year budget item. Some of the money is used to support crop insurance companies for delivering and underwriting subsidies for farmer premiums. President Donald Trump has proposed a 36 percent cut over a decade in the federal subsidized crop insurance program and a premium cap of $40,000. Americans spend less on food per capita than any other country, Marshall said. Crop insurance is integral to delivering food at a reasonable cost, he said. Without crop insurance, Marshall believes it will significantly increase farmers’ risk and they are the ones who pay a significant cost of insurance, Marshall said. “People don’t realize how risky farming is,” he said. Crop insurance helps shoulder some of the production risk and that is good for consumers. He frames it in the context of thinking of a single mother with several kids and having a stable cost for food is necessary for her to make her budget work. “That’s the person who will get hit hard,” he said. Farm spending is a $100 billion a year budget. Eighty percent goes to nutrition programs, most notably the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Getting recipients jobs will help reduce the cost of food stamps, Marshall said, and he thinks steps Trump has taken are helping improve job opportunities. Marshall believes food programs can continue to be used in a humanitarian way. He believes the Dole-McGovern humanitarian aid component of the farm bill that provides international food aid is effective and said the program has bipartisan support. Humanitarian food efforts also need to be supported within the U.S. As lawmakers work to put together a 2018 farm bill, Trump proposes cutting 15 to 20 percent in all budgets except for defense, Marshall said. Trade Trump has found a path to get beef exported to China, and the U.S. is on target to deliver beef in mid-July—a victory for producers, who have not had access to the China market for a decade. Paths to Japan, Taiwan and Cuba appear to be opening for U.S. agriculture products, Marshall said, adding he made a campaign pledge to do all he can to help secure markets for Kansas commodities both here and abroad. Farmers and ranchers have an advocate with Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, Marshall said. “Since Secretary Perdue was confirmed I have seen a big change in the stance of the administration,” he said. Perdue understands the importance of Mexico and Canada to U.S. agriculture. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has also changed the administration’s rhetoric. Marshall has visited with officials in Mexico who prefer U.S. farm commodities for their quality and the cost of transportation. Since he started in January Marshall has also seen challenges in agriculture, most notably the March wildfire that swept through Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, and he could see firsthand how the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Farm Service Agency officials were able to respond. The relationship he has developed with Conaway and former Chairman Frank Lucas, of Oklahoma, helped farmers and ranchers get federal relief. Source - http://www.hpj.com

09.06.2017

India - As coverage for govt's crop insurance scheme rises, so do losses for industry

The crop insurance scheme or the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) has led to a rise in loss ratios for the insurance companies. While a large proportion of the industry’s new premiums have been contributed by crop insurance, so have the losses. This fiscal, too, while the coverage has been increased, losses are expected to continue. This scheme aims at supporting sustainable production in agriculture sector by way of providing financial support to farmers suffering crop loss/damage arising out of unforeseen events, stabilising the income of farmers to ensure their continuance in farming and also ensuring flow of credit to the agriculture sector. Approved in 2016, PMFBY has said that there will be a uniform premium of 2 percent to be paid by farmers for all Kharif crops and 1.5 percent for all Rabi crops. In case of annual commercial and horticultural crops, the premium to be paid by farmers will be only 5 percent. The balance will be paid by the government. Especially for the public general insurance companies, the crop insurance losses which were hovering around 80 percent went up to 100 percent by the end of the last financial year (FY17). A senior public general insurance executive said that while there has not been a major natural catastrophe in the previous fiscal, smaller claims have added up. Loss ratios refer to the premiums collected versus claims paid. Hence, if loss ratio is at 100 percent, for every Rs 100 of premium collected, the same amount is remitted as claims. In the scheme, there is no upper limit on government subsidy. Even if balance premium is 90 percent it will be borne by the government. From FY18, PMFBY has received an additional impetus with the government allocating Rs 9000 crore for the scheme. In 2016-17, they were allocated Rs 5,500 crore. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in his budget speech said that the coverage under the scheme will be increased to 50 percent of cropped area in 2018-19. The coverage of this scheme will be increased from 30 percent of cropped area in 2016-17 to 40 percent in 2017-18 and 50 percent in 2018-19. Further, the budget provision of Rs 5,500 crore for PMFBY in budget estimate for 2016-17 was increased to Rs 13,240 crore in the revised estimate for 2016-17 to settle the arrear claims. “While the monsoons were more or less normal in FY17, we are getting mixed signals for FY18. If there is either deficit or surplus of rainfall, crops will be hit directly impacting our books,” said the head of crop insurance in a mid-size general insurer. It is estimated that the sum insured under this Yojana has more than doubled from Rs 69,000 crore during kharif or summer sowing season in 2015 to Rs 1.5 lakh crore in 2016. Source - http://www.moneycontrol.com

09.06.2017

USA - USDA triticale crop insurance program coming

Lind, Wash., farmer James Wahl recently decided to grow triticale instead of wheat, so he’s interested in a federal crop insurance program for the crop, which is a cross between durum wheat and rye. “It would take some of the stress of the risk out of it for us,” Wahl said. The USDA Risk Management Agency will offer a pilot crop insurance program in several counties in Idaho, Oregon and Washington. The program will be publicly released in the next month. The sales closing date will be Sept. 30. The program will cover yield for both fall-planted and spring-planted triticale grown for grain, not for forage or a cover crop, said Ben Thiel, director of the agency’s Spokane regional office. Interested growers will need to contact their crop insurance agent, Thiel said. “Certain select growers have been trying (triticale) out and I think have found favorable results,” he said. “It seems to be well-adapted for this area, and has good rotational purposes. (A crop insurance program) has been asked about and desired for some time.” Some private insurance programs are also available, said Howard Nelson, manager of member and special services with Central Washington Grain Growers in Wilbur, Wash. The company doubled its acreage this year. CWG prices triticale at $105 per ton. The cost of production is close to the cost of production for wheat, Nelson said. “It’s hard to gauge what growers are thinking in today’s price environment,” he said. “They’re looking for the crop that will return a profit. It just depends on what they feel is the best crop for a particular field.” Nelson advises farmers to make sure they have storage and marketing set up for triticale. “It’s an easy crop to grow,” he said. “Really the last piece of getting triticale re-established as a crop was the crop insurance piece. From this point on, it’s just another cropping option for growers in the area.” Wahl said affordable crop insurance would give him peace of mind raising triticale. It could open the door for farmers working with banks that don’t allow them to raise a crop without insurance, he said. Wahl expects to sell most of his triticale at local elevators, holding back 50 tons for value-added and malting purposes. Source - http://www.capitalpress.com

09.06.2017

Taiwan to expand agricultural disaster insurance scheme

Taiwan’s Council of Agriculture (COA) has announced plans to expand its disaster insurance programme for the agricultural sector to include rice and bananas, suggesting a need for greater reinsurance capacity and the potential for the capital markets to play a role in the future. The COA introduced a disaster insurance scheme for farmers that grow pears, mangos, and sugar-apples in 2016. So far, the programme has rolled out 164 insurance policies to pear farmers, 92 insurance policies to sugar-apple farmers, and six insurance policies to mango farmers, according to Hsu Wei-wen, Bureau of Agriculture Finance Director. Now, the COA has announced plans to expand the scheme to include rice by September 2017, and bananas at some point in 2018. Alongside the inclusion of rice, reports cite the scheme will also include certain aquaculture solutions as a grouper, and six types of greenhouse facilities will be included by the end of 2017. As the scheme expands to include more crops and reaches a greater volume of farmers it will require greater reinsurance capacity to support its members and to ensure efficient and affordable risk transfer. There’s also potential for capital markets capacity and features and to play a role in schemes such as this, with parametric of weather-index triggers being highly suitable to such schemes as they expand, ultimately requiring deeper pools of capital supported by innovative and effective risk transfer mechanisms. In vulnerable, typically poorer parts of the world the impact of adverse weather on crop production can be extremely detrimental to social and economic growth and stability, and insurance provides farmers with a means to carry on in the event of a disaster. If a disaster does impact crop yields and triggers an insurance policy, parametric structured solutions offer rapid-payout post-event when compared with more traditional type solutions that require comprehensive loss assessment, that can take months to assess. Catastrophe bonds and other forms of insurance-linked securities (ILS) are a good fit for disaster insurance schemes and can provide a diversified and efficient source of reinsurance capacity. And as schemes like this expand the ability for the capital markets to play a role becomes ever more apparent. According to Hsu Wei-wen, the output of Taiwan’s agricultural sector is roughly US$16.61 billion (NT$500 billion) a year, while natural disaster losses amount to roughly US$360 million (NT$10.7 billion). Reports from the region explain that the Kaohsiung and Pingtung governments have called on the COA to provide insurance solutions for all categories of aquaculture for damage caused by intense rainfall and typhoons. Although the COA reportedly responding that it would be unable to do this for such farmers until sometime in 2018. Source - http://www.artemis.bm

09.06.2017

Uganda - Govt introduces agriculture insurance scheme

Introduction of an agriculture insurance scheme is one of the key priorities in the next financial year, finance minister, Matia Kasaija has announced. The scheme is used in many countries to cushion farmers from calamities such as drought or floods and ensure that they have resources to produce during next season. Under the scheme, farmers contribute a small premium of about 2% of their output and the insurer is sure to step in when harvest is bad. Ugandan farmers have experienced two consecutive bad seasons characterized by drought and attacks by the fall armyworms, both of which have affected crop production and food prices. Kasaija said the new scheme would be rolled out across the country and that government will subsidize agriculture insurance premiums for both small and large scale farmers. In recent weeks, government has embarked on registration of farmers across the country as part of measures to guide planning for the sector. Besides the insurance, government will in the next year start construction of five irrigation schemes include Mubuku II (480 hectares) in Kasese, Doho II (1,178 hectares) in Butaleja, Wadelai (1,000 hectares) in Nebbi, Tochi (500 hectares) in Oyam and Ngenge (880 hectares) in Kween. Designs for more irrigation schemes are due to be completed in the Acomai River system in Bukedea and the Atari River system in Kween and Bulambuli districts, the minister stated in his budget speech. All nine Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institutes will run solar-powered water irrigation systems which will also be rolled out across the country, the minister pledged. Support the establishment of post-harvest handling storage by the private sector, together with cooperatives at parish-level; Government also seeks to expand water irrigation infrastructure on major lakes and rivers and to strengthen security of land tenure by formalizing land ownership and household acquisition of titles. Source - http://www.newvision.co.ug

08.06.2017

USA - What the proposed 20% cut in farm subsidies mean for your grocery bill

Farm groups and Farm Belt politicians have vigorously complained about the effects of the Trump administration’s proposed $4.8 billion in annual cuts to the $23 billion in subsidies currently given to farmers. They argue the cuts will hurt agricultural production, raise food prices and make ordinary households worse off. The reality, perhaps surprisingly, is that there would be little impact. Only 2% of all farm households fall below the federal poverty line, according to the Agriculture Department, and none of these small farms would be affected by the cuts. Given the support of Farm Belt voters for Donald Trump, the cuts, at least in some form, have a real chance of becoming law. Concern about farm subsidies crosses party lines, and critics came close to passing cuts in the 2014 farm bill. This time, the biggest proposed savings would come through a two-part cut that would shrink the $8.5-billion-a-year crop insurance subsidy program by a third. The Trump administration wants a cap of $40,000 per individual farm for government subsidies used to buy crop insurance premiums. These cuts would only affect farms with market sales for crops in excess of $750,000. Currently the government pays an average of 62% of all premiums for crop insurance coverage, with no limits on how big an individual farm subsidy can be. In 2011, according to the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, more than 20 farms received over $1 million in such subsidies, and most crop insurance subsidies flowed to very large corporate farms. The White House’s Office of Management and Budget estimates that the $40,000 cap would reduce annual government spending by $1.7 billion, or about 15% of current crop-insurance subsidies. The second cut ends the current subsidies for a “Cadillac” insurance policy known as the Harvest Price Option. The HPO guarantees that farmers with crop losses be paid at the higher harvest price. That is often much higher than farmers expected when they planted the crop. Canceling subsidies for this platinum-plated policy is estimated to save $1.1 billion a year, or another 13%. All these subsidies disproportionately benefit big farms. In addition, farm households reporting adjusted gross incomes over $500,000 to the IRS would become ineligible for several subsidy programs. Those programs include the new price and revenue subsidy programs for crops like corn and wheat introduced by the 2014 farm bill as well as any crop insurance subsidies. OMB estimates this initiative will reduce annual subsidy outlays on the shallow loss and crop insurance programs by an additional $1 billion. Finally, it would set new or higher fees for services provided by the federal government (mainly to livestock producers) as well as make minor changes in some conservation programs that together are estimated to save about $1 billion a year. To understand why the above cuts in subsidies are unlikely to have any effect on agricultural production, some context is needed. Currently, U.S. farmers earn about $400 billion a year from sales of their crops, fruits, vegetables and livestock products, and get an additional $23 billion in government subsidies. A $4 billion or $5 billion reduction in those subsidies represents only a 1% decline in farm revenue, and is therefore unlikely to have any substantial effect on agricultural production. Given that the Trump budget cuts would have very modest effects on crop and livestock production, their effects on the prices of agricultural commodities are also likely to be very small. In fact, U.S. farmers sell most of their crops in markets where prices are largely determined by global supply and demand. For example, in most years, the U.S. produces about 30% of the world’s corn supply and 8% of world wheat production. However, in both cases, very small changes in U.S. output would have even smaller proportional impacts on world production, on the prices processors pay, and on what food farmers receive for their crops. Further, even if the Trump budget cuts were to increase market prices for crops and livestock, the effects on prices paid by consumers for their groceries would be modest. The reason: most of the costs of putting food on supermarket shelves come from transportation, processing, and marketing expenditures. For example, payments to farmers for wheat account only for about 6% of the cost of a loaf of bread. Even relatively large increases in wheat prices would translate into modest increases in the price of a loaf of bread. So hypothetically, even if the Trump agricultural subsidy cuts were to increase agricultural commodity prices (which they wouldn’t), the effects on the food bills of U.S. consumers would be very modest. What would the Trump budget cuts achieve? They would save taxpayers about $48 billion over the next 10 years and reduce U.S. farm-sector revenue by about 1%, scarcely an event that would cause the sector to collapse. It would have negligible effects on food prices and food security. Moreover, the impacts of the proposed cuts would be concentrated among the largest corporate farm operations and would have no impacts on the rural working poor and low-income farmers. Source - https://www.aei.org

745
of 1173