|
One way grass roots member input works
Mark Nelson
At
Kansas Farm Bureau, we pride ourselves on our
tradition of “grassroots” member input and
leadership. That was never more evident than in how
we developed our response to the Risk Management
Agency (RMA) regarding the insurability of
continuous
cropped, non-irrigated acres in western Kansas. For
more background on this issue and our initial
response to RMA, see our webpage at,
http://www.kfb.org/commodities/WesternKSDryLandCropIns.htm
To best position our organizations’
input to RMA, Kansas Farm Bureau leaders and staff
organized two face-to-face opportunities this past
February 25, for discussion and input, along with
soliciting input via the KFB website. Linda
Franklin and Craig Cooper, 10th District
Board member and Administrator, organized a session
in Goodland, Jim Sipes and Kori Davis, 9th
District Board member and Administrator organized a
session in Ulysses. Nearly 100 concerned Kansas
Farm Bureau members from the impacted areas attended
and offered input.
At
the sessions, members were asked to break up into
smaller groups, discuss the issues, review possible
alternatives and surface their ideas and preferred
solutions. We also asked them to complete an
informal survey of cropping rotations and cultural
practices employed on their farms.
Ideas and Possible Solutions
A possible solution that RMA is
considering is to not provide crop insurance
coverage for summer crops following another summer
crop in counties where rainfall is perceived as
limited. This alternative was clearly not favored.
We asked members to rate each of six different
alternative solutions plus any others they might
come up with, using a one to indicate their most
favored solution and an X for any alternatives that
were not acceptable. To create a numerical score,
all Xs were given a score of six.
Again, the idea of not insuring
summer crops following another summer crop was
deemed totally unacceptable, receiving an overall
average score from both locations and the web-based
surveys of 5.9 and individual average scores of 6.0
at both the Goodland and Ulysses meetings.
The most preferred solution of
members (overall score of 1.9) was the concept of a
dual APH by rotation, or providing coverage but at a
different premium rate and APH yield for acres on
which a summer crop (corn, grain sorghum, soybeans,
sunflowers or cotton) were grown after wheat or
fallow than on acres planted after a summer crop was
grown the previous crop year. This is similar to
how coverage is provided for continuous cropped
wheat in counties that allow both continuous and
summer fallow practice coverage. It was also the
most preferred solution at the individual Goodland
(2.0) and Ulysses (1.5) meetings.
The second most preferred solution
was a dual APH by production practice (score of
2.4). An example would be providing coverage but at
a different premium rate and APH yield for acres on
which reduced tillage (i.e moisture saving
practices) were utilized versus acres that were
conventionally tilled. While this solution was seen
as possibly more cumbersome to manage, members felt
that no-till
practices, improved no-till equipment and newer,
safer and more flexible crop chemicals were key
factors impacting yield differences within a crop
year and should be considered in any crop insurance
solution.
It was the second most preferred solution at both
Goodland (2.7) and Ulysses (2.0).
Another solution that members rated highly was
simply better enforcement of moral hazard
(overall score of 2.5).
While no one favors additional regulations, the
concept of placing greater emphasis on education,
and enforcement against those who intentionally
abuse the system was an often discussed issue.
Two
other potential solutions that were discussed but
not preferred were:
a)
Allowing coverage by written
agreement only. This is similar to how coverage is
provided for continuous cropping wheat in counties
with summer fallow practice coverage only (score of
5.1); and
b)
Establishing criteria under which
coverage would be available such as requiring four
years of history of growing the crop on acres on
which corn, grain sorghum, soybeans, sunflowers or
cotton were planted the previous crop year before
insurance would be available (score of 4.3).
Crop
Rotation Survey
This was not a large, random or
statistically sound survey. We simply asked the
members present (and those that responded to our
online survey) to share information regarding the
crop rotations and tillage practices they employ.
In all, we received a total of 54 surveys.
Question (1): What’s Your Primary
Dryland Crop Rotation?
Goodland Ulysses Web
Wheat-Fallow
34% 38% 12%
Wheat-Summer Crop-Fallow
34% 38% 50%
Wheat-SC-SC-Fallow
16% 24% 13%
Continuous Cropping
16% 0% 25%
Question (2a): What’s Your First
Summer Crop Choice Following Wheat or Fallow?
(note: percentages don’t add up to 100% due to the
use of multiple crop rotations within a farm)
Goodland Ulysses Web
Corn
91% 8% 50%
Grain Sorghum
21% 75% 50%
Oil-Type Sunflower
21% 0% 0%
Confection Sunflower
9% 0% 0%
Forages
0% 8% 0%
Question (2b): What’s Your Second
Summer Crop Choice Following Wheat or Fallow?
(note: percentages don’t add up to 100% due to the
use of multiple crop rotations within a farm)
Goodland Ulysses Web
Corn
3% 33% 38%
Grain Sorghum
24% 8% 25%
Oil-Type Sunflower
12% 8% 0%
Confection Sunflower
3% 0% 0%
Forages
3% 0% 0%
Millet
0% 8% 0%
Wheat
3% 0% 0%
Soybeans
0% 0% 25%
Question (3a): What’s Your First
Summer Crop Choice Following a Summer Crop?
(note: percentages don’t add up to 100% due to the
use of multiple crop rotations within a farm)
Goodland Ulysses Web
Corn
90% 0% 0%
Grain Sorghum
29% 25% 67%
Oil-Type Sunflower
33% 25% 0%
Millet
0% 13% 0%
Soybeans
5% 0% 33%
Question (3b): What’s Your Second
Summer Crop Choice Following a Summer Crop?
(note: percentages don’t add up to 100% due to the
use of multiple crop rotations within a farm)
Goodland Ulysses Web
Corn
10% 13% 17%
Grain Sorghum
24% 0% 17%
Oil-Type Sunflower
19% 0% 50%
Confection Sunflower
5% 0% 0%
Forages
0% 0% 0%
Millet
0% 0% 0%
Wheat
5% 0% 0%
Soybeans
0% 0% 17%
Question (4): Do You Employ No-Till
Practices? (If Yes, How Long in Years?)
Reported as the percentage answering YES, with the
average number of years.
Goodland Ulysses
Web
90%
(13 years) 75% (9 years) 100% (10
years)
Question (5): Do You Use Cover Crops?
Reported as the percentage answering
YES
Goodland Ulysses
Web
12%
11% 13%
Question (6a): What Is Your Primary
Tillage Practice By Crop? – GOODLAND
No-Till Min-Till
Strip-Till Conventional
Wheat
55% 38%
0% 8%
Corn
68% 5%
26% 0%
Grain Sorghum
76% 10%
14% 0%
Oil-Type Sunflower
75% 15%
5% 5%
Confection Sunflower
69% 15%
8% 8%
Forages
43% 29%
0% 29%
Soybeans
71% 14%
14% 0%
Question (6b): What Is Your Primary
Tillage Practice By Crop? – ULYSSES
No-Till Min-Till
Strip-Till Conventional
Wheat
42% 33%
0% 25%
Corn
43% 29%
14% 14%
Grain Sorghum
60% 30%
0% 10%
Oil-Type Sunflower
80% 20%
0% 0%
Confection Sunflower
100% 0%
0% 0%
Soybeans
100% 0%
0% 0%
Question (6c): What Is Your Primary
Tillage Practice By Crop? – WEB SURVEYS
No-Till Min-Till
Strip-Till Conventional
Wheat
63% 38%
0% 0%
Corn
100% 0%
0% 0%
Grain Sorghum
100% 0%
0% 0%
Oil-Type Sunflower
100%
0% 0% 0%
Soybeans
100% 0%
0% 0%
Forages
100% 0%
0% 0%
Peas
100% 0%
0% 0%
At
the time of this writing, issues regarding the
insurability of non-irrigated, continuously cropped
summer crops in western Kansas are far from
settled. I’d like to thank all of our members that
have provided leadership and input to our efforts to
date and I assure you, we will continue to monitor
the situation and respond appropriately.
As
always, Kansas Farm Bureau begins and ends with our
farmer and rancher members. We begin with issues
surfaced by members and end with policies and
actions that:
·
Enhance the Business and Profession
of Farming
·
Increase Members’ Net Income
·
Provide Superior Value in the
Marketplace, and
·
Improve the Quality of Life in Kansas
|
