2024 net farm income

[goalieguy847]

But the issue with direct subsidies to farm based on acres seeded is that this money has no risk.

We already have great programs that are subsidies but they have risk to them ( canola growers advance ). Plus they are based on your personal farms success via crop insurance covg levels.

Should a grower in the palliser triangle who avgs 30 bushel wheat receive more or less direct to farm payment, based on seeded acres, than a grower red deer area who avgs 70 bushel wheat?

Plus, the argument that the " extra" money would go back into the economy is a bit foolish. Those acres are already being seeded so having money thrown at the growers that already exist will only increase competition. Let capitalism rule. Its funny how a country that prides itself on capitalism ( usa) gives direct money to their farmers ( socialism).

If you were to give a guy 30 bucks an acre just because he seeded wheat... then would you still provide crop insurance which is subsidized 60% by the feds?
would you lower your insurance levels?

Its easy to say that direct funds would help... and they may to a few. But again... if the few cant make a go of it in their area ... then maybe they arent in the right area. Square peg round hole?
Just because you put a seed in the dirt doesnt make you a good farmer or deserving of any subsidies at all.

Sort of like oil in the ground. You give a flailing junior oil company subsidies because why.... the oil prices are down? They are not efficient?
let them fail if they cant do it.
the oil in the ground isnt worth any more or less based on whos digging it up. Just like my acres arent worth any more or less whether i farm them or rent them out. The end net revenue is what varies on farms based on their operating costs and farm practices; how well the business is run.
Injecting free money into that system only prolongs the inevitable, which in a capitalist world, is failure.

[furrowtickler]

I don’t think you understand when one has multi year below averages . Not talking palliser triangle
Crop insurance is very different when your average drops from say 50 to 30 after 4 out of 5 years below average crops . Has absolutely zero to do with being good or efficient, zero . It’s called missing rains at critical times continuously year after year .
crop insurance yield coverage drops , premiums go way up . And now with crop prices way down from previous years coverage levels are below COP even on the most efficient farms . Maybe you don’t get that ?
yes if you have one bad year after several good ones , yes crop insurance is great cause your premiums are low , coverage is high. But that all falls apart after several below average years .
Many are in that position now in Sask , Alberta may be different.

Regardless, it would be interesting to see the 2024 net farm income of crop producers, I think it would shock several of you and the whole industry to be honest

Again not looking or even remotely indicating more subsidies or anything like that .

[bucket]

But the issue with direct subsidies to farm based on acres seeded is that this money has no risk.

We already have great programs that are subsidies but they have risk to them ( canola growers advance ). Plus they are based on your personal farms success via crop insurance covg levels.

Should a grower in the palliser triangle who avgs 30 bushel wheat receive more or less direct to farm payment, based on seeded acres, than a grower red deer area who avgs 70 bushel wheat?

Plus, the argument that the " extra" money would go back into the economy is a bit foolish. Those acres are already being seeded so having money thrown at the growers that already exist will only increase competition. Let capitalism rule. Its funny how a country that prides itself on capitalism ( usa) gives direct money to their farmers ( socialism).

If you were to give a guy 30 bucks an acre just because he seeded wheat... then would you still provide crop insurance which is subsidized 60% by the feds?
would you lower your insurance levels?

Its easy to say that direct funds would help... and they may to a few. But again... if the few cant make a go of it in their area ... then maybe they arent in the right area. Square peg round hole?
Just because you put a seed in the dirt doesnt make you a good farmer or deserving of any subsidies at all.

Sort of like oil in the ground. You give a flailing junior oil company subsidies because why.... the oil prices are down? They are not efficient?
let them fail if they cant do it.
the oil in the ground isnt worth any more or less based on whos digging it up. Just like my acres arent worth any more or less whether i farm them or rent them out. The end net revenue is what varies on farms based on their operating costs and farm practices; how well the business is run.
Injecting free money into that system only prolongs the inevitable, which in a capitalist world, is failure.

Interesting comments.

So why is the saskatchewan government willing to spend a billion on irrigation while subsidizing existing districts for over a decade now. Guaranteed crops but subsidized.

And why can't those so called capitalists that lobby for irrigation spend their own money to the tune of millions per quarter if it's such a good bet?

They are receiving $40 per acre per year, which probably covers their crop insurance premiums. The engineering costs alone are $222 per acre subsidy on the proposed west side project

The inconsistency in policy is a big problem here.

[furrowtickler]

Hopefully this year some areas can start to build their averages up and not use any crop insurance so premiums can start to get reasonable again and net income can stop being below zero .
Many areas that are hurting are typically higher production zones that have had simply very bad luck. Some can’t comprehend that and want to point fingers at efficiency or this or that . It’s not for the most part at all

[furrowtickler]

Even the most efficient and well run farms in many areas are struggling.
COP is very high even on the most modest farms now

[goalieguy847]

But there is what... a 7 yr lag on the avg that goes into your historical yield data. So 1 yr would drop off from 7 yrs ago... and this past yr would be thrown on. Plus, yield avgs are cushioned to 70% so if you have a yield avg from that yr that is below 70% of normal it would be " cushioned" to 70% in order to NOT have your yield avgs drop too quickly. Do you not understand this? ( see i can be condescending too)

If you say, get a crop insurance payout 5 out of 6 yrs.... then your avg SHOULD go down...because you arent avging what you used to. An avg is a moving target that needs to change with your own yields...otherwise everyone would just have the county/ area avg and that would be that. " oh that guy grows 60 bushel peas and you farm some sand and have only ever avgd 30.... lets all just use the area avg of 45.... EVERY year"

Nah. It cant work like that. Same reason why growing canola on canola on canola on canola on canola shouldnt be insured beyond say... yr 2 or 3. Your farms subsidized protection needs to be based on your specific farms moving avg otherwise whats the point of keeping score.

I fully understand that rain makes grain. I feel like at this point everyone understands that plants need water.

But if you miss rains. And miss rains. And miss rains..every yr.. and keep.plugging in the same thing.... then at what point does insurance need to match those lower yield avgs.

If my house burns down....then i rebuild...it burns... same thing evrry 2 or 3 years.... shouldnt the pooled insurance NOT cover my losses ?

Crop insurance works because it is based on your own farms avg...not someone elses. It works BECAUSE of timely rains either coming, on average every yr, or not.


We all need to remember that farming is a 7 month spin at the roulette wheel. We all get our turn to win and we alllllllll get our turn to lose.
Insurance is fair because we all work with the same estimated $ value for each individual crop.
cant cost of production oats? Well.maybe they arent a fit on your farm. FARMING CANT BE A GUARANTEE.


plus... if you are pencilling in a crop that is BELOW your cost of production even with full insurance payout ( 100% disaster yr) .. then why are you growing that crop?

Insurance shouldnt be a bail out. There has to be pain for taking on risk otherwise everyone would do it and nobody would keep rainy day funds. "Agricultural welfare" is what we may as well have.

"Please govt please help me help me. But dont get overly involved or tell me what i can/ cant do on my own farm"

This isnt china. People need to fail and people need to win.

Plus, the biggest issue with direct payments to farm is how do you decide who gets what? Flat rate per acre for canola regardless of what your yield avg is?

Do the math.

60 bushel canola @15$ = 900 gross/ ac

20 bushel canola @ 15 = 300$ gross

So that 40$/ ac is 4.5% of gross revenue compared to the other guy receiving 13% of his expected gross revenue?
seems silly. I would be angry if i were the grower with yhe higher avg because a piss poor yr would hurt me more, in terms of gross dollars, than it would the 20 bushel grower. But who needs more help?

At some point total govt intervention needs to be held in check otherwise capitalism fails and we all wind up working for the govt. Look at europe. The UK gets what.... a direct farm.payment of 80 ish$/ ac? And look at the incredible control the govt has over the farms there.

No thanks.
Let capitalism take and give where it needs to.
you want the govt stepping in and looking at your books and wondering why some farms run 200$/ plus per acre in equipment costs.... and others run 50?


Im fairly certain we dont want that... or being told what we can grow and where we can grow it.

[fcr]

Well said goalieguy . As my late father in law who was a business owner would say, if your farm isn’t profitable then quit and let someone’s else farm it , and stop whining for govt handouts.

[blackpowder]

Have not seen the numbers for Sask in 2024
Also would like to see the breakdown of livestock , mixed and crop farms
my guess is that crop production net income was very dismal

My agstab comment was not to start a debate. Merely to suggest that you may be correct.
I suggested to a cow guy lately that he'd better look in to it. His turn will come.

[TSIPP]

Don’t remind us, we had plenty of turns….
agstab wasn’t worth a shit…

[AlbertaFarmer5]

We aren't competing against US farmers and their subsidies. Us farmers are competing against each other for acres. Which is why land prices are well into the five digits and rent is often 500 plus.

We are competing against the low cost producers of the world, who set the world price. South America and fsu set the world price that the US follows.