Sep 18, 2014
Home| Tools| Events| Blogs| Discussions Sign UpLogin

September 2013 Archive for PFA Pioneer Blog

RSS By: Chip Flory, Pro Farmer

This is a private blog for Pioneer.

CRP enrollments headed lower

Sep 27, 2013

Pro Farmer Extra

- From the Editors of Pro Farmer newsletter -

September 27, 2013

CRP acreage enrollment headed lower

At the end of August, 26.876 million acres were in the CRP, including 21.395 million acres enrolled via general signups and another 5.481 million acres enrolled via continuous signup efforts.

USDA data shows that contracts on 3,299,907 acres will mature as of Sept. 30, but data shows that new contracts will kick in on 1,369,369 acres of those maturing acres. That should mean that 1,930,538 acres currently in CRP would be able to be brought back into production for the 2014 growing season. In addition, under signup 45 there were contracts awarded on 314,661 acres that were not currently in CRP which would bring the net acres exiting the program as of Sept. 30 down to 1,615,877 acres.

Recall that under the signup 45 held earlier this year, more than 81 percent of the 1,684,030 acres enrolled via that effort are acres that were under contracts which expire Sept. 30.

Under signup 45, the percentage of acres offered for a new contract that were under a CRP contract that matures Sept. 30 was 41 percent. On a state-by-state basis, that varied from 12 percent in South Dakota to 71 percent in Washington state.

In the heart of the Corn Belt, only 36 percent of maturing Illinois CRP acres landed a new contract with 20 percent in Indiana and 21 percent in Iowa. Only 16 percent of the maturing acres in Minnesota qualified for a new contract. By contrast, Texas – with the largest number of total CRP acres – saw 66 percent of the maturing acres get new contracts that start Oct. 1 with 57 percent of maturing acres in Kansas.



Follow Pro Farmer Editor Chip Flory on Twitter: @ChipFlory

To see more of what Pro Farmer has to offer, be sure to visit

Block out the noice around the farm bill

Sep 20, 2013

Pro Farmer Extra

- From the Editors of Pro Farmer newsletter -

September 20, 2013

Block out all the ‘noise’ around farm bill

Pro Farmer Washington Consultant Jim Wiesemeyer did what he does best in several “Inside Washington Today” columns on last week — he cut through all the noise of the farm bill drama and bottom lined upcoming action.

  • Efforts by a commodity group to eliminate a key price loss coverage program in the House bill will fail and is largely being dismissed by key lawmakers as background noise.
  • There will be a safety net choice in an eventual farm bill – between revenue and price-loss coverage.
  • Key unknown is whether lawmakers can agree on a food stamp funding cut figure. We believe they can.
  • The House approval of the nutrition bill ups the odds for a new farm bill, but an extension still cannot be ruled out.
    Efforts to include dairy supply management language in the new bill will likely fail.

House Republicans earlier this week passed a nutrition bill with $39 billion in cuts (over 10 years) to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP — formerly food stamps). House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) expects the Senate to reappoint conferees and for formal farm bill negotiations to start in October.



Follow Pro Farmer Editor Chip Flory on Twitter: @ChipFlory

To see more of what Pro Farmer has to offer, be sure to visit

Gasoline tossed on crop insurance debate

Sep 13, 2013

Pro Farmer Extra

- From the Editors of Pro Farmer newsletter -

September 6, 2013

The following is the feature item from this week's Pro Farmer newsletter. With the farmbill debate ready to ramp up again, it's important to be up to speed with the opposition to some of the key farm bill issues... and crop insurance is certaintly critical to the safety net portion of the farm bill.

Gasoline tossed on the crop insurance debate

The crop insurance system — from farmers who buy it to the companies that sell it — was cast in a very negative light in a series of reports by Bloomberg News last week. The series comes as lawmakers prepare to step up consideration of a new farm bill. It addressed many issues crop insurance opponents will use in an effort to reduce funding for the program. That’s the reason we’re bringing the series to your attention.

The real facts — go figure

The series focuses on payouts for 2012 crop revenue losses and sets the tone early by saying, “Taxpayers are helping farmers pay their bills even as farm income this year is expected to top $120 billion, its highest inflation-adjusted mark since 1973, according to the USDA’s Economic Research Service.”
We alerted months ago as the 2012 crop loss claims neared record levels that program opponents would use 2012 as their “reason” to cut funding. Payouts under the program in 2012 reached $17.4 billion with a loss ratio of 1.57 — $1.57 paid in indemnities for every $1 paid in premiums. But 2012 was the first year since 2002 the program saw a loss ratio of 1.0 or greater.

Breaking down the series —
Bloomberg News pulled no punches in the series, starting with these agenda-setting headlines:

Sept. 9: “Taxpayers Turn U.S. Farmers Into Fat Cats With Subsidies”

Sept. 10: “Crop Insurers’ $14 Billion Some See as Money Laundering”

Sept. 11: “Fraud Stealing $100 Million Shows Flaws in U.S. Crop Insurance”

Fat cats —

In the first installment, Bloomberg delivered these assessments of crop insurance:

  • “Federal crop insurance encourages farmers to gamble on risky plantings in a program that has been marred by fraud and that illustrates why government spending is so difficult to control.”
  • “The [crop insurance] arrangement is a good deal for everyone but taxpayers.”


In a few cases, less-productive ground was brought into production with the security of crop insurance “backing” the decision. However, unless a farmer is committing fraud, this problem is self-correcting. Declining APH yields eventually reduce coverage.

Saying the program is “a good deal for everyone but taxpayers” is a stretch. One of the reasons U.S. consumers spend less of their annual incomes on food than any other country in the world is because of food security, and crop insurance plays an important role in food security.

Food expenditures as a percent of disposable personal income in the U.S. fell under 10% for the first time in 2000 and bottomed in 2008 at just 9.5%, according to USDA’s ERS. In 2011, consumers spent just 9.8% of personal income on food (at home and away from home).

We’re not saying farm policy (past and present) is the only reason U.S. consumers enjoy “cheap” (and safe) food. Ultimately, the U.S. enjoys a relatively cheap, abundant and safe food supply because of the production capacity of the country and professional drive of farmers.

We’ve always said consumers will either pay for food individually (higher cost) or collectively (lower cost through supporting agriculture with tax dollars). Remove supports for crop insurance now and consumers may end up paying more later in the form of higher-priced foods as risk escalates for farmers.

Money Laundering —

This installment details how high-profit companies and investors (like Hank Greenberg who headed up AIG) have been attracted to the crop insurance industry “that in most years all but guarantees profits for insurers.”
The series’ only quote from crop insurance guru Bruce Babcock, ag economist at Iowa State University, was used to support the “profit-guarantee.” Babcock was quoted saying, “Even in a pretty bad year, the companies make money.”

At a rally on Capitol Hill Sept. 12, Representatives Tom Petri (R-Wis.) and Ron Kind (D-Wis.) asked lawmakers to re-examine farm spending for the next five years and to revamp crop insurance.

“We’re asking these crop insurance companies to put a little bit of their skin in the game too, so it’s not all on the taxpayer back,” Kind said. At the rally, Kind said the existing crop insurance program guarantees companies a 14% profit, forces the adoption of little risk and covers administrative and operating expenses. “There’s not a business in the world that wouldn’t sign up for that offer, so why are we doing that in [the] crop insurance program of the farm bill,” asks Kind.

Fraud —

Sure there’s fraud in crop insurance — there is in all types of insurance. The series details the well documented events (in 2005) of admitted fraud in North Carolina. Fortunately, it also provides details of steps taken by the Risk Management Agency to identify fraudulent and questionable claims the past two years.

Supporters of crop insurance are pushing back

Tom Zacharias, president of National Crop Insurance Services, the main lobby for crop insurers, says the Bloomberg series showed “obvious bias” against the program. He says crop insurance “forces farmers to manage risk before, not after it happens, which saves taxpayers money.”

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack said the crop insurance program was a vital part of U.S. farm policy and has come in for “unfair criticism” as the farm bill is debated. Vilsack says, “Those who report on it don’t understand it and its importance to the food supply.”



Follow Pro Farmer Editor Chip Flory on Twitter: @ChipFlory

To see more of what Pro Farmer has to offer, be sure to visit

The Great RFS Debate!

Sep 06, 2013

Pro Farmer Extra

- From the Editors of Pro Farmer newsletter -

September 6, 2013

EPA sends proposed 2014 RFS volume reqs to OMB

EPA sent its proposed Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volume mandates to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review on Aug. 30. EPA is required to issue the final standard by Nov. 30, but the agency has missed the deadline in recent years. The RFS mandates 18.15 billion gallons of renewable fuels be blended into the fuel supply in 2014, up from the 16.55 billion gallons required in 2013. The 2014 requirement includes 3.75 billion gallons of advanced biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel. But in an Aug. 15 announcement, EPA said it is willing to reduce the 2014 blending mandate to avoid reaching the ethanol blend wall.

The great RFS debate!

Two of the most passionate voices in the industry, Bob Dinneen of the Renewable Fuels Association and Colin Woodall of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, will face off on live radio in a Renewable Fuels Standard debate on AgriTalk. The broadcast from the House Agriculture Committee hearing room starts at 10:06 a.m. CT, Sept. 12. Visit to find your local radio affiliate or listen to the live web stream.



Follow Pro Farmer Editor Chip Flory on Twitter: @ChipFlory

To see more of what Pro Farmer has to offer, be sure to visit

Log In or Sign Up to comment


The Home Page of Agriculture
© 2014 Farm Journal, Inc. All Rights Reserved|Web site design and development by|Site Map|Privacy Policy|Terms & Conditions