Not one western MP or MLA standing up for farmers and the failed farm programs

[the big wheel]

Drought ridden areas crop insurance is a bigger disaster itself than the weather, with a little rain no claims which is good but no coverage and great big premium paying for other areas that had bumper crops the last 5 years. Agristability will maybe only pay for the same areas where 5 years of bumper crops and now a price dive they may collect but no one else that needs the funding critically will get a dime. Employees at crop insurance and agristability still getting their full pay admin to a program so flawed that it supports the loss of land and takeover by other farms rather than supports who its supposed to. And yet not one MP or sask MLA has the balls or brains to speak up. Blowing money on irrigation for a few friends is so disrespectful to say the least while you have an absolute bull shit program.

[furrowtickler]

Absolutely 100 percent correct

[GALAXIE500]

In the areas where there has been continual drought , we have had durum premiums that are crowding $20 +- dollars per acre , and of course coverage that is in the 20 +- BPA range. Once you pay the bill , there is a hell of a dent in the old wallet if you are willing to max your coverage. Not happy with the bill , but in a year where you have a complete blowout ( 2023) at least we got paid something , not no kings ransom however.

Now this year the crop insurance prices are a bit higher than what we are getting paid at the elevators , so we all know what next years coverage will look like.

I think there should be 100 % coverage for our yield instead of this 80% BS that we get fed all of the time. If you want 100% coverage , you pay the premium accordingly.
They always have a 20% buffer that doesn't do me any good , but it benefits crop insurance huge.

Just my opinions, and I would rather combine a 35 bushel crop , than try to market a 16 bushel crop which is our overall average for this year. Last year it was 6 !

[bucket]

A billion dollars for 90000 acres equals 50 million in interest every year.

A complete crop failure on those 90000 dryland acres might cost 45 million occasionally.

but they could reduce premiums for every farmer with that billion dollars and end up with better program.

[LEP]

Are you finally getting rain Galaxy500?

Atleast some fall rain would give some hope for next year.

[GALAXIE500]

Actually we got an inch of rain yesterday!! Sure helps for fall grazing. and everything else.

[rastafarian]

All the predicted storms seem to go up along the Alberta/Sask border - missed it again with only 1/10 here. Probably the roughest year in the fields with all the cracks

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Here's an unpopular opinion.
When we have a year or more of unfavorable weather, I always ask myself, what if this is the new normal? For how many years or decades should we expect the taxpayers to bail us out from bad weather or bad prices or failed business model? All that would do is postpone the inevitable adaptation to the new normal. Even if the new normal is extreme volatility. Eventually the taxpayer will run out of money or will to support a black hole, will we be prepared for that?
Have we just finished an era of unprecedented precipitation and favorable growing conditions and are now returning to a more average period in the semi-arid prairies?
is there a reason why previous generations thought they only had enough moisture to do half and half cropping in many parts of the prairies?
Have we adopted a high input business model during a period of relatively good prices and good weather?
What if poor growing conditions and poor prices are the rule and not the exception, and the high inputs, high rent continuous cropping model is not a viable business model?

How long would it take us to recognize that and adapt both with and without the crutch of taxpayer support?

[furrowtickler]

Here's an unpopular opinion.
When we have a year or more of unfavorable weather, I always ask myself, what if this is the new normal? For how many years or decades should we expect the taxpayers to bail us out from bad weather or bad prices or failed business model? All that would do is postpone the inevitable adaptation to the new normal. Even if the new normal is extreme volatility. Eventually the taxpayer will run out of money or will to support a black hole, will we be prepared for that?
Have we just finished an era of unprecedented precipitation and favorable growing conditions and are now returning to a more average period in the semi-arid prairies?
is there a reason why previous generations thought they only had enough moisture to do half and half cropping in many parts of the prairies?
Have we adopted a high input business model during a period of relatively good prices and good weather?
What if poor growing conditions and poor prices are the rule and not the exception, and the high inputs, high rent continuous cropping model is not a viable business model?

How long would it take us to recognize that and adapt both with and without the crutch of taxpayer support?

Some good points but there is the other side of the situation where one pays into insurance programs for years , sometimes a decade or longer . The premiums go into the government’s general coffers to be used for those same tax payers

most here will not collect a dime from crop insurance this year with yeilds at lower bus / ac coverage yet end up losing money on 50% of their acres due to these lower commodity prices

most wheat off here , most area just outside coverage levels and need over $9 to get to break even. Some high cost producers need more .
Canola as well , most averages are around 30-35 with the very odd 40 . Puts 90% out of crop insurance claim here because of yield drag the past 4 years .

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Furrow, I Sympathize with the situation.
But is that a revenue problem or an expense problem?

What if those yields are closer to normal, it is our expectations which were unreasonable based on a period of anomalous weather?

While I fully acknowledge that Canada does not set world crop prices, any type of revenue insurance certainly does not send the required market signal to producers in times of surplus supply. It has the exact opposite effect. I don't see how government assistance can make that situation any better in the long run.