By Jeff Holmquist
The current federal crop insurance program needs adjustments and expanded coverages for forage producers dealing with yield and/or forage-quality losses during a growing season.
That’s the consensus of many attending USDA listening sessions aimed at finding ways to improve crop insurance for forage producers.
Only about 10% of U.S. alfalfa acreage is enrolled in the current crop insurance program, called the actual production history (APH) plan.
A final report on the sessions will be made to USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) by mid-November. RMA intends to review findings and recommend changes to insurance coverage for alfalfa and alfalfa-grass growers.
The listening sessions were held during harvest season, so attendance was limited at many locations, points out Beth Nelson, president of the National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance (NAFA).
“But I still think we got some valuable input,” she says. “The hope from NAFA’s perspective is to get a better safety net for alfalfa, because it is a major crop and is the only major crop that doesn’t have multiple tools in its risk-management basket. What we have is one fairly poor APH program right now.”
Regional differences must be considered when changes are made, Nelson says. Wisconsin growers, for example, are interested in winterkill coverage while West Coast producers are more concerned about quality-degradation and drought coverage.
Of the 15-20 people attending the Kentucky session, some were in favor of an enhanced forage insurance program while others didn’t see a need for changes, says Tom Keene, hay-marketing specialist with University of Kentucky Extension.
Most did agree that any program fix will likely be very complicated.
“You’re not going to be able to take something that’s been done before and model it off that. It’s going to have to be something totally different,” Keene says.
Once program parameters are determined and coverage is implemented, enforcement will probably be the challenge. Determining the level of loss that has occurred on a specific farm or in a particular region could be a huge task, he says.
An improved forage insurance program will help younger farmers get started in the business, says Clayton Geralds, a Hart County, KY, grower and National Hay Association board member.
“Some of the lending institutions won’t lend operating money unless you have crop insurance,” he explains.
The Kentucky session included a discussion about a possible insurance program that would cover an overall loss in revenue, Geralds adds.
“It was interesting. So the loss could come from lower yields, reduced quality or lower prices. Whatever the reason, that’s the loss. No one talked about what the premiums would be, but that was an approach I never thought about.”
“The listening session was a good starting point,” believes Myron Ellis, a Mercer County, KY, grower. “It’s definitely something that’s needed. They need to keep us on an even playing field with grain producers, so we’re not having to worry about a crop failure and not being able to pay rent.”
Alfalfa growers are simply hoping to attain “a comfort zone if the weather doesn’t cooperate,” he says.
Those who sat through the Kansas session had questions about how producers will verify a yield or quality-based loss and how a value will be determined for that loss. So says Jennifer Carr, a Kansas State Extension agent and executive secretary of the Kansas Forage and Grassland Council.
“But there was not a real consensus about what should be done, or how to write it if something is done,” she says.
Click here to see more...