Feeding calves?

[Steve]

The mandatory auto insurance is the same for everybody because you could be the other guy.

[cowman]

Steve: No. There is no other guy in crop insurance! Only me.

[TOM4CWB]

Cowman,

The other guy is actually the government, as when a weather disaster happens everyone goes running to them for compensation!!!

I hope a crop insurance program that comes closer to true cost of production can be created, as costs are higher each year therefore our risk is rising.

Younger and debt ridden farmers need crop insurance to control risk where farms that are close to debt free can self insure.

[cowman]

TOM: So, are you getting rich on the governments' compensation this year? Did they set aside a lot of money in the budget to deal with the drought? Well so much for that idea!
The best way to get a real system in place is get the government out of the business. Let the private insurers take it over. You'll get your full coverage. Of course it will cost more for premiums but it will be real insurance not some half baked subsidy.

[TOM4CWB]

Cowman,

No one ever said life would be fair, but...

If we look at NISA, Crop Insurance, and AIDA we are much better off than if the government invested nothing in our industry.

These programs even with their flaws are better at stabelising production, which all of us need to maintain critical mass and the value added industries that can afford to pay premiums for our products.

Being thankful however does not mean that we cannot do better, or should do better and create more effective and efficient government programs.

Cowman, would you not agree that our country and farms are in much better shape than our neighbours in the Africa,the Middle East, Asia, or South America?

Are we not better off than over 2/3rds of the rest of the world?

[TOM4CWB]

Crop Insurance: Ummmm? Crop insurance. The old GRIP program was likely the best insurance plan farmers could of had but it made government realize that they could not afford to farm either. Administration was a night mare and payments were made to to large of areas some of which did not reguire the assistants. Payments should have been made more regional where the need was necessary instead of Western Canada wide. Farmers should of had to produce cost of production receipts to qualify for their expected return payment. But farmers farmed the system and government paid out where it was not necessary. Grip was history due to lack of knowing input cost per individual farmer. Crop Insurance could have a much better coverage if proof of input cost were required for optium coverage. Crop insurance is a necessity in this day of high input cost. Our present crop insurance was put in place in the day when input cost did not play as big a roll in production. The Kernal.

[TOM4CWB]

Kernel,

I have found that in a normal year I can insure my price for about half the cost the GRIP program when it operated.

What many forget is that insurance does cost money, and the GRIP insured values were declineing just like crop insurance coverages are.

This is why the "floating averages" being used were making the program useless. I am really happy we did escape this program as farmers were again trying to farm the program instead of farming for what the market wants us to produce?

The better the signal, and the faster that marketing signal can change, then this signal allows my farm to react and grow what is needed, and isn't that where we should be want to be headed?

[cowman]

TOM: You're comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare our country with the third world. I don't think we're there quite yet! Compare us to western Europe and the U.S. and it's a whole new ball game! Then how does our system stack up?

[ianben]

I believe there are two sides in both your crop insurance and our subsidies.

The farmer and the public.

Governments insure a cheap food supply by useing taxpayers money to keep us struggling on. A bonus is the poor pay less for food than the rich.

Like all insurance if you don't see a risk why pay the premium.

This is where I think most governments are at today.
Food is plentyful and cheap so why pay insurance.

Canada's smaller population means it can never subsidize like the US or EU
But lower land prices etc balance out a bit. I think costs/tonne are very similar.

We don't need to compere with other countries. We need to compare with our fellow countrymen. We must have a similar standard of living or it just is not sustainable.
Over here we are slipping behind fast it can't go on for ever.
Higher government premiums; higher food prices,or very few farmers

I saw a stat which stated average Canadian pays his food bill by 7Feb and the farmers part by 8Jan dont know UK equivilant but looks like your standard of living beats ours.

Would they notice if it took them 2days longer and increased you incomes by 20%.

Rgards Ian

[TOM4CWB]

Ian,

I agree with your statements, and believe a switch is occuring when we will be paid to be stewarts of the land rather than producers of food.

This of course means that they (the governments) will tell us what and how to do this if they are paying us.

We become serfs, have no ownership rights, other than to be farmers.

It is hard to convince my sons to become involved in the future farm, when the spirit of our industry is clearly giving these signals.

Change is hard.

Life is not fair, but no-one promised it would be.

Are we willing to pay the Price to our freedoms these changes require?