AgriStability again

Commodity Marketing

Tools

AgriStability again

Jun 16, 2019 | 07:27 1 See proposals to revamp AgriStability or replace it with a new program.
Own farm experience has been mostly good with ability to maintain contribution margins.
Did not like having to repay after getting better grades and yields than first reported in year end inventories but agree it was necessary to maintain program integrity.
Let’s not be too hasty in throwing out a program that, at least for this farm, had value. Reply With Quote
farmaholic's Avatar Jun 16, 2019 | 07:36 2 Maybe better than an across the board acreage payment where some that desperately need more get short changed and those that need none get some.

I still think the program had merit but was gutted. It has to be really bad to collect anything and the trigger is so low that when there is a possibility to collect, it isn't much! Reply With Quote

  • farmaholic's Avatar Jun 16, 2019 | 07:56 3 Isn't the payment only 70% of 70% of your reference margin?

    Do if the reference margin is 100K, they only start triggering a payment at 70K and only pay 70% of the shortfall.

    So if you had a complete wipe out and the reference margin was 100K....you would receive 49K? Reply With Quote
    Jun 16, 2019 | 08:01 4 Its garbage. Not bankable, not responsive, too diluted based on past margins and too easy to manipulate with a good accountant. You need a program in the current year, enhanced crop insurance of some type that deals with the situation that you are in right now considering all factors, inputs, markets weather.

    You need something where you can pay a premium to guarantee a positive margin.
    Last edited by jazz; Jun 16, 2019 at 08:11.
    Reply With Quote
    ajl
    Jun 16, 2019 | 08:05 5 Happy agri stab was gutted. If you have multiple years of poor weather than you don't have reference margins. Doesn't work for STO because of complexity. Others can get off farms jobs too. Don't need to pay taxes to fill competitors pockets. Would much rather see a revenue based crop insurance program. That way all can benefit regardless of farm size. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jun 16, 2019 | 08:16 6
    Quote Originally Posted by farmaholic View Post
    Isn't the payment only 70% of 70% of your reference margin?

    Do if the reference margin is 100K, they only start triggering a payment at 70K and only pay 70% of the shortfall.

    So if you had a complete wipe out and the reference margin was 100K....you would receive 49K?
    And to get a payment you have to be insured by crop insurance at high coverage levels so what are your chances of getting more than crop insurance? It was built for the lentil producing area where staggering prices gave you a high margin that may end up giving you a payment if prices come down or if you do like many that have enough money to buy inputs for 2 years and put half in the shed then collect becaue your costs went up. Most corrupt incompetent program ever designed it’s a crop insurance audit that you hand to crop insurance. Why was it no good also to wait for the wheat board payment for a year especially in hard times and it’s ok to wait for this for a year or more and at least the wheat board you never had to pay back. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jun 16, 2019 | 08:29 7 A revenue based crop insurance program, what a novel idea. When our current MLA was running for the first time 6 years ago we had a meeting at the neighbors and he asked me what I would like to see from the government. My response was a insurance program based on individual revenue and to fix the **** up that our current premier created with his water drainage act, neither one has happened. The reason we will never have an individual based revenue program is because crop insurance is stuck in our socialist past, everyone must work within the same program. Newsflash, not every operation is the same or can it be. There is no appetite from the provincial government to make a better program because right now it is a money maker for them, remember insurance companies don't lose money, private or government run. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • farmaholic's Avatar Jun 16, 2019 | 08:40 8 Go with GARS.

    I know there's flaws in Agristability. Late response, small coverage, tied to crap insurance....another ****ed up program. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jun 16, 2019 | 08:46 9
    Quote Originally Posted by farmaholic View Post
    Go with GARS.

    I know there's flaws in Agristability. Late response, small coverage, tied to crap insurance....another ****ed up program.
    GARS is made for the giant boys and its foreign bank backed and scrutinizes your financials to death to disqualify you if you don't meet their moving targets. It could crash in a single season. I am not socialist but a program like that needs to be govt administered. Reply With Quote
    Jun 16, 2019 | 09:22 10
    Quote Originally Posted by jazz View Post
    GARS is made for the giant boys and its foreign bank backed and scrutinizes your financials to death to disqualify you if you don't meet their moving targets. It could crash in a single season. I am not socialist but a program like that needs to be govt administered.
    It will be when GARS hits the wall.....it will be getting a government handout sooner than primary producers...... Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jun 16, 2019 | 10:03 11 Agristability isn't meant for guys that keep their herds and farms at the same size.....it can't work for them....it's for large farms that are growing where they have to recalculate margins every year....


    It's a stupid program compared to the US where a farmer knows his options prior to planting a crop...and can get the info in his local town and talk to someone that understands the area.....

    27 billion to the US farmer and a disaster program in the works. ...


    What's happening in Canada ....plastic straw ban.... Reply With Quote

  • Jun 16, 2019 | 10:13 12 The CAIS of 2004 worked the best. I worked at the program for twelve years. A margin reactive payment works, and has been a good tool in our boxes in the past - just not much good since it was harpooned. Reply With Quote
    Jun 16, 2019 | 10:37 13
    Quote Originally Posted by sumdumguy View Post
    The CAIS of 2004 worked the best. I worked at the program for twelve years. A margin reactive payment works, and has been a good tool in our boxes in the past - just not much good since it was harpooned.
    There wasn't a premium to pay back then?????? Reply With Quote
    Jun 16, 2019 | 10:54 14 The problem with support programs is that instead of farmers using them to prop up gross revenue, they sometimes use the funds for a downpayment on more dirt. Then the govt becomes an accomplice in the price of land rising.

    what CAIS found out if there was an operation actively trying to avoid taxes that yr, prebuying, depreciation, deferments, it made them look like they were under margin so they got a big payout for nothing and proceeded to buy out the guys who were shaky.

    That's part of the reason the govt now shies away from adhoc pmts.
    Last edited by jazz; Jun 16, 2019 at 10:58.
    Reply With Quote
    Jun 16, 2019 | 11:00 15 Something right at the end of harvest it’s calculated it’s done move on. This bulls hit of adjusting as everything moves is retarted.
    And then there are the crooks manipulating the books fudging expenses.
    Fix up crop insurance get rid of 10 year yields or pick your top 5 for guarantee the idea is to see what your capeable of growing but it’s turned into something punishing you for years like this one with drought for 10 years your punished for the year of drought stays in your average.

    Also on drought or flood years don’t make someone harvest a 10 bushel crop write off at zero conserve moisture keep the field clean move on.

    There will be no program until you have support politically. The sask party and the ndp do not want to support farmers pure and simple. We re here to subsidize the oil industry. If we do get some program watch the pst go to 10 percent. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jun 16, 2019 | 11:05 16 10 year yields on crop insurance is stupid when your support payments are based on 3 of 5 Olympic average....

    It's simple ...either you suppport agriculture or you don't. ...but then I don't think my taxes should go to public high speed trains in large cities if that's where we are going..... Reply With Quote
    Jun 16, 2019 | 12:07 17 crop insurance don 't cut it in a big part of this province we are paying up to 15% premium for mediocre coverage. not everybody farms on the hwy 2 coridor Reply With Quote
    Jun 16, 2019 | 12:08 18 The Agrstability program as it exists now is not bankable and is unlikely to pay out unless you are in in dire straits. If they could bring back the original program back before Ritz and Harper gutted it I would enroll. Right now with SCiC at 80% there is no chance of collecting unless grain prices drop drastically. We need a program that covers us for drop in grain prices, commodity specific. Would like it to be based olympic based on 5 or 10 years. A note on SCIC insurance, long time yields are not based on 10 years, I’ve been farming for 40 years and my averages are based since I started farming. Half the adjusters that work for SCIC are not aware that averages are not based on 10 years.
    Last edited by Sodbuster; Jun 16, 2019 at 12:13.
    Reply With Quote
    Jun 16, 2019 | 12:20 19
    Quote Originally Posted by Sodbuster View Post
    The Agrstability program as it exists now is not bankable and is unlikely to pay out unless you are in in dire straits. If they could bring back the original program back before Ritz and Harper gutted it I would enroll. Right now with SCiC at 80% there is no chance of collecting unless grain prices drop drastically. We need a program that covers us for drop in grain prices, commodity specific. Would like it to be based olympic based on 5 or 10 years. A note on SCIC insurance, long time yields are not based on 10 years, I’ve been farming for 40 years and my averages are based since I started farming. Half the adjusters that work for SCIC are not aware that averages are not based on 10 years.

    Would you have to be Knopfler or would being any of the backline work? Reply With Quote
    Jun 16, 2019 | 12:22 20
    Quote Originally Posted by Sodbuster View Post
    The Agrstability program as it exists now is not bankable and is unlikely to pay out unless you are in in dire straits. If they could bring back the original program back before Ritz and Harper gutted it I would enroll. Right now with SCiC at 80% there is no chance of collecting unless grain prices drop drastically. We need a program that covers us for drop in grain prices, commodity specific. Would like it to be based olympic based on 5 or 10 years. A note on SCIC insurance, long time yields are not based on 10 years, I’ve been farming for 40 years and my averages are based since I started farming. Half the adjusters that work for SCIC are not aware that averages are not based on 10 years.
    Yup because as your yields increase and with rotations it takes many years to increase the average unless you are in canola snow canola areas....their formula doesn't reflect today's farming....

    Every quarter of land should have a gross revenue value...if it isn't hit due to weather or trade irritants....you should get help...

    It's very annoying for scic to know you fertilized but it doesn't matter for coverage....and one scic manager told me if I ended up in claim where my neighbors were not they would consider my fertilizer program ....who would float fertilizer with no rain coming? Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jun 16, 2019 | 13:09 21 What ever it is has to be done in the fall not next year. Otherwise all interest charges have to be zero on everything ag until the program is calculated. The problem with the old program cais was high interest ate up any program payments they made. So really all they were insuring was the input and equipment and mortgage companies. Would never happen because could you imagine the crying from companies? They’d have to actually share some risk.

    Beef up crap insurance. Pay in fall
    Have a price guarantee for disaster drop in price pays you dec 31 on your guarantee no matter what you grow if market drops beyond a certain percentage from spring crop insurance guarantee. All done move on to net year. Reply With Quote
    Jun 16, 2019 | 13:15 22 Bucket, if I can remember correctly, there was a small sign-up premium, can’t remember exactly how much but I could dig and find out. Grain farners were getting good value for their premium back then. And the program did respond when the bottom fell out of grain and cattle prices which is what it was set up to do. Gotta say, I wish those same programs were back. 👍 Reply With Quote
    Jun 16, 2019 | 14:05 23
    Quote Originally Posted by sumdumguy View Post
    Bucket, if I can remember correctly, there was a small sign-up premium, can’t remember exactly how much but I could dig and find out. Grain farners were getting good value for their premium back then. And the program did respond when the bottom fell out of grain and cattle prices which is what it was set up to do. Gotta say, I wish those same programs were back. 👍
    Well you can thank Yerry Ritz for ****ing up some sort of support programs....

    And the new group are no better..... Reply With Quote
    Jun 16, 2019 | 19:16 24 Trouble I see with a guaranteed gross revenue idea is that the leeches that drain us know what the market will bear. We are kidding ourselves I we think they won’t stick their suckers deeper, and suck harder knowing we have a guaranteed gross.

    This includes greedy landlords. There are guys areound who wanted a cut of the too wet to seed dollars, expected it, and in some cases got it. I know some guys lost land over this issue. Landlord wanted their cut, tenant said no, I don’t think so, and got kicked out.

    Want to see chemical price increases? Get a gross revenue plan. Reply With Quote

  • Jun 16, 2019 | 20:32 25
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheepwheat View Post
    Trouble I see with a guaranteed gross revenue idea is that the leeches that drain us know what the market will bear. We are kidding ourselves I we think they won’t stick their suckers deeper, and suck harder knowing we have a guaranteed gross.

    This includes greedy landlords. There are guys areound who wanted a cut of the too wet to seed dollars, expected it, and in some cases got it. I know some guys lost land over this issue. Landlord wanted their cut, tenant said no, I don’t think so, and got kicked out.

    Want to see chemical price increases? Get a gross revenue plan.
    So sell for peanuts? When you have the cash you have options. When you don’t have cash nothing you can do about anything. Outsiders are still offering high values. This is about keeping family farms competitive and on the farm.

    Should be stricter laws on patents and price fixing but your conservatives got rid of most of the protection for farmers then anyone has.

    Your in a different world on your scale selling sheep to pay your inputs. That’s not the case for majority of others. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • farmaholic's Avatar Jun 16, 2019 | 20:49 26 Who in there right mind would take this kind of risk? Maybe the fact there are insurance programs for what we do indicates the risk is too stoopid.

    Inputs aren't always priced relative to how profitable you are on your farm, I think they may follow a farm sector profitability trend but what happens on the Slum of the Ghetto doesn't matter if it's contrary to the big picture.

    Canola seed is a perfect example of non-discretionary pricing, growing canola in a typically dry area probably isn't as lucrative as growing it in a tradionally high moisture high yeild area, yet seed costs are the same.

    If you didn't grow enough to cover expenses...that's your problem! Now how do you want to mitigate/reduce that risk?
    Another case of "wouldn't it be nice if it didn't matter!" Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • farmaholic's Avatar Jun 16, 2019 | 20:55 27 Ok hopalong, just don't lob the shit grenade into the crowd and run. Or are you fishing for opinions to submit to some committee?

    Someone post a drought map after this weekend's rain data can be included Before and after for comparison. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jun 16, 2019 | 23:04 28 What a bunch of socialists, get rid of them all. It just distorts everything as risk is a good deterrent to keep things in check. Tax payer funded farm welfare programs for guaranteed income are just plain wrong. Reply With Quote
    SASKFARMER's Avatar Jun 17, 2019 | 05:26 29 I personally would like a decent improved crop insurance program and cancel all the other bullshit programs.

    Like I stated many times.

    When we were wiped out in 2002 with a very early August frost. I got a check in 2003 that did help the wipeout of 2002. Lots of guys decided to pack it in back then.

    2004 comes along and nails our area again but this time the frost was worse and yield was down plus shitty grades.

    2012 had to write two checks for well over a Hundred thousand because of an audit that my accountant said we got screwed in. You can't beat city hall. Since then pay the fee and don't give a shit. Haven't collected ever.

    Its Gov officials paying out funds and make up rules, farmers can't win.

    So have good improved crop insurance would be my bet.

    All are equal it's based on your yields (Don't wipe out the 80s drought if you're not wiping out the 2000s flood years).

    It's not socialist its a really easy system for a really easy problem. Let the BTOs do the others and see how long the program lasts.

    Keep spending we will pay you if you have a wreck is a bullshit system. Let's see the checks boys from what was promised and what you actually got. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jun 17, 2019 | 06:54 30
    Quote Originally Posted by tweety View Post
    What a bunch of socialists, get rid of them all. It just distorts everything as risk is a good deterrent to keep things in check. Tax payer funded farm welfare programs for guaranteed income are just plain wrong.
    What do you call 40 million to EVRAZ?

    110 million to AGT?

    3.9 billion to supply management???

    5 million to Morris Industries???

    How much wasn't reported during the GTH to landlords????

    150 million to graincos for insurance from EDC...to protect their sales...none of that is coming to primary producers....

    Cut out the rest of the welfare to other industries and lower taxes and then it makes sense.... Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like