USA - As barns collapse across Minnesota, farmers lose livestock, income and sleep

18.03.2019 300 views
Dairy farmers in Minnesota have seen an unprecedented number of barn collapses due to several back- to-back winter storms. On a damp windy March day, when spring seems like a million miles away, sixth-generation dairy farmer Laura Alberts described her heifer barn in southeastern Minnesota. “Each pen held about eight or nine calves,” she said. Not anymore. A few days ago, the weight of snow made even heavier by recent rains became too much, and the barn roof caved in. Amazingly, the Alberts family didn’t lose a single calf. “Nobody was impaled or pinned or stuck,” Alberts said. “They were just wondering what happened.” The family moved 125 animals to two different sites, one the Alberts’ own and the other a neighbor’s. Alberts said the barn is a total loss, but she and her family members are still waiting to hear how much insurance money they’ll get to rebuild. Yet under the circumstances, Alberts feels lucky. Several of her neighbors lost livestock. In Chatfield, about 40 miles southeast, one family hastily sold off their entire herd of 450 cows after their barn collapsed a few weeks ago, ending a multi-generational business. “Just having something this big and this stress-inducing has been pretty hard on people,” said Lucas Sjostrom, executive director of the Minnesota Milk Producers Association. His organization tracks barn collapses and counts at least 45 across the state. Historically, there are only one or two in a typical winter. Sjostrom said several factors are contributing to the problem, from the excess volume and weight of the snow this year, to the advanced age of many barns, to building designs that are open and airy to promote ventilation.
Most of the collapses have involved milking barns. Sjostrom said those farmers face an immediate challenge because their surviving cows need to be milked at least twice a day or the animal’s health will decline quickly. “It may mean the end of their life if something doesn’t happen fast,” he said. Sjostrom’s staff has been working to help farmers find temporary homes for their cows. Down the road from the Alberts farm, Jason Reber lost six milk cows when a barn he was renting collapsed. He expects to put down eight more due to injuries, which could amount to a $14,000 loss. And he still needs to find shelter for the remaining cows. “The pens are full, and no one around has any buildings,” he said. Reber said this year’s winter has been especially hard on an industry that’s already struggling. Farmers have endured low milk prices for a few years, while labor, feed and fertilizer costs have gone up. “We’re the last ones to make a buck. You either keep at it, scale down or get out,” he said. The Minnesota Senate unanimously passed legislation Thursday to help farmers repair buildings damaged by heavy snow. The bill expands a disaster recovery loan program to cover damage related to winter weather. The Milk Producers Association has asked state lawmakers to approve at least $30 million in assistance for farmers to offset costs during a tough time. The group also plans to consult with farm experts and insurance companies in the next few months to think about how they can prevent future barn collapses. For Laura Alberts, the loss of her barn is a reminder of how just risky farming can be — and she struggles with how to explain this reality to her farm-crazy 8-year-old son. “My little guy, Jake, he introduces himself as a seventh-generation dairy farmer,” she said. “These kids, they think they already own it. And you want them to feel that way, but at the same time, I’m like, ‘Buddy, I hope so.’” With a cold rain starting to pick up, Mike and Jude Brogan’s stand in the doorway of their farmhouse remarking on yet more water falling on their farm. Last weekend, there was already enough water weight to collapse their barn and they lost two steer calves. The couple said neighbors and relatives came right over to help them get the remaining 23 calves out of the barn. Jude said the situation would be unbearable without a close-knit community to help. “It’s all for one and one for all,” she said. “We all have to live together, and nobody gets through life without some bad stuff happening. You have to hold each other up.” But even with that support, the Brogans are still deciding whether it’s worth it to rebuild. Source - https://www.albertleatribune.com
21.10.2025

Uzbekistan Launches National Project to Insure Horticultural Farmers with Support from International Partners

Representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture of Uzbekistan held a working meeting with members of the Insurance Development Forum (IDF) to discuss the implementation stages and prospects of the project “Agricultural Insurance for Horticultural Farmers in Uzbekistan.”

21.10.2025

Ethiopia - Pastoralists in Borana say livestock insurance failed them after drought losses

The pastoralist communities who purchased livestock insurance to safeguard their herds despite making payments have not received compensation for losses, saying, “The insurance we bought has not paid us.” Zonal and Oromia officials, however, maintain that payouts were implemented.

21.10.2025

USDA announces changes to livestock insurance programs for 2026, subsequent years

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Risk Management Agency approved changes to improve insurance coverage for American livestock producers. These updates will take effect for the Livestock Risk Protection, Livestock Gross Margin, and Dairy Revenue Protection insurance programs beginning with the 2026 crop year.

21.10.2025

Low awareness, product gaps limit livestock insurance coverage in India

Livestock insurance remains an underutilised safety net for India’s rural households, despite its potential to protect millions of small and marginal farmers from unexpected losses. Limited awareness, low customisation, and rising climate risks continue to expose rural livelihoods to shocks.

21.10.2025

Canada - Beef farmers want fair shake for livestock price insurance

The government cost shares funding for crop insurance; beef producers say livestock insurance options should get the same treatment.Livestock producers face a fundamental inequality when it comes to business risk management (BRM) programs in Canada — but industry groups are proposing a fix.One of the starkest differences is in government-based insurance programs. Crop producers enjoy coverage that’s typically subject to a 60/40 government/producer split, with provincial and federal governments picking up the largest part of the tab.Organizations such as the Canadian Cattle Association are calling on the feds and provinces to share the cost of pricey livestock price insurance (LPI) premiums with beef producers along the same lines, says Tyler Fulton, president of the CCA, who also serves as co-chair of the association’s foreign trade committee.That would bring some equivalency to these BRM programs, says Fulton. Crop insurance covers yield loss, the biggest risk for crop growers. Meanwhile, downward market shifts — which LPI insures by allowing cattle producers to set a minimum price floor — present the greatest risk for those farmers.Much of the new interest in LPI is in response to the threat of US tariffs, he says. Many LPI policy holders intend to use it as a tool to manage them should livestock and meat ever be targeted.“By virtue of the fact that we sell 50 per cent to export of what we produce here in Canada, we are very reliant on the export markets to help determine our price,” says Fulton.“And so when we see the tariff threats of 25 per cent it represents probably one of the biggest risks that we could experience, bar none. It’s just very significant because the U.S. represents such a large market for Canadian beef and live cattle.”An LPI cost-share agreement would also be a relative bargain compared to the government’s cost of supporting crop insurance premiums, he says. Crop insurance requires several billion dollars in government support while a similar model of support for LPI would be closer to $150 million to $200 million, said Fulton.Although he says the federal government is coming around to the idea of LPI cost-sharing, it has previously cited trade risk and prohibitive cost as reasons to not participate.Fulton doesn’t think those arguments hold water in an environment already brimming with trade risk from U.S. tariffs, especially with many beef producers still priced out of the LPI market.“It’s really frustrating that we can’t effectively cover the risk because the government says that it’s too risky in this environment.”Ultimately, beef and crop production are related but separate ag sectors with their own specific needs, says Fulton, and a perceived “one size fits all” philosophy driving government-funded BRMs isn’t cutting it.”I think that we need to move to a model that is more industry-specific. It’s really difficult, if not impossible, to design a safety net program or a risk management program that works well for all sectors of agriculture.”Brian English, a beef producer from Rivers, Man. who runs a cow-calf, feeder and backgrounding operation at nearby Bradwardine, took out an LPI for the first time this year. He also highlights the government’s treatment of crop growers compared to beef producers.“Why shouldn’t we get the same benefits as these guys that are putting in thousands of acres of cropland?” he said. “We should be on equal footing as them. The federal and provincial governments should do the same funding schedule for livestock price insurance as they do for crop insurance now.”English took out an LPI policy this year in response to the threat of U.S. tariffs.“Trump had put on the tariffs for two-and-a-half days (and) we heard the horror stories of the cattle crossing the line getting $1,000 tariffs on each animal. And then (the U.S.) stopped that for a brief period of time and there was a chance that it was going to come back on right away.”LPI has historically been a hard sell to beef producers due to policy cost. Fulton estimates a high rate of $50-$60 per calf for a calf policy (the program has three cattle policies available: calf, feeder and fed) on a 10-year margin.However, thanks to high prices in all cattle categories in recent years, margins are much better today. That offers extra incentive to take out an LPI policy because beef producers will have more to lose once the bull market (in investment terms) goes bearish, he says.“$50 to $60 in today’s market is not as significant. It’s not as big a barrier, but it’s still a large barrier when talking about an individual animal (and) having to pay $50 or $60 just to be able to cover it.“If you get 60 per cent of the cost of your insurance policy covered, it really changes the motivation and the desire to actually cover off that risk because you’re not using up a bunch of your profit margin just to insure it.”Beef cattle graze in a pasture in Saskatchewan. Photo: Michael RobinOther LPI changes neededFulton would also like to see a widening of LPI’s application window. Although applications for feeder and fed policies are accepted year-round, calf policies are only available from February to June each year. However, risk exposure continues long past June.“So for most of the year the tool is not accessible.” English has a technology-based suggestion for improving the program. He says the application website needs to be more user-friendly for cell phone users and especially those who live in areas with limited internet bandwidth.“It’s just a little daunting the first time that you’re (applying) … It’s kind of clunky. It’s not iPhone friendly and I do everything on my phone.“We put all our records of our cattle on our phone, check on our weather. Everyone uses their phones more than a laptop and so I think if they made it so that it was a little easier to use on your phone, it’d be that much easier also.”Balanced outcomesThere could be some positive tradeoffs with other government BRMs if a cost-share arrangement for LPI is developed, says Fulton. For example, AgriStability payments wouldn’t trigger as easily if beef producers already had coverage through LPI.(AgriStability is a federal-provincial-territorial program meant to protect farmers from extreme market price declines that threaten the viability of their farms.)“Let’s say a 20 per cent tariff is implemented by President Trump and our prices here in Canada drop by 15 to 20 per cent. That would likely trigger a payment in AgriStability normally,” explains Fulton.“But if we had coverage with livestock price insurance, for those that had a policy it would result in a payment through livestock price insurance and therefore would not result in a drop in your farm income and consequently you wouldn’t need to trigger an AgriStability claim.”It’s a scenario Canadian crop producers already enjoy, he says.“Because people have crop insurance, they can experience a 40 per cent hit in their yield (and) they get a payment through their crop insurance policy. They don’t make an AgriStability claim because they’re already covered off through their insurance.”Government willing to talkThe beef industry is slowly but surely catching the ear of government on cost-shared LPI policies. Fulton says both the federal Conservative and Liberal parties — motivated in part by U.S. tariff threats — were interested in providing better risk management tools to farmers prior to the federal election.“This represents a cattle industry-developed program that works really well and so when we started to get exposed to the tariff issues, it really changed the conversation. It just made it very obvious that there was a deficiency here and they identified that.”Fulton has spoken with new federal Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Heath MacDonald and hopes to meet with him soon to address the uncertainty and risk the industry is facing. He’s counting on the Prince Edward Island-dwelling MacDonald having an understanding of LPI, given Maritime producers have been eligible since last year.Countervail fearsAn attendee of Manitoba Ag’s Navigating Livestock Price Insurance webinar on May 8 asked if cost-shared premiums would trigger countervail action from the U.S. The answer is “unequivocally no,” says Fulton.“The industry is not at all concerned about a countervail duty related to livestock price insurance cost-shared premiums,” he says.“Our American counterparts have a very similar program that is cost-shared and it is really structured similarly to their crop insurance program, and so they’re addressing what they’ve identified to be a gap in risk management tools offered for farmers and inequity for livestock operations.”Source - Manitoba Cooperator