|
| Good question joel, and I'm not sure if there is a good answer.
The answer is probably multi faceted. On one hand I believe that crop insurance has allowed some farmers to become less reliant on good farming practices and more reliant on the government safety net. I also believe that there have been many acres put into row crop production that should never be tilled, whether for production purposes or conservation purposes. With insurance that land makes cropping a profitable alternative.
On the flip side, we need to look at food demands ten or twenty years from now. With growing populations, what will the food demands be domestically and internationally? How much more land will need to be put into crop production in marginal and 'high risk' acres. If our food needs increase by 15% in twenty years, and people like tmland from below have no safety net, he will not row crop in semi arid regions. Which as we know only increases demand for crops in the corn belt and thus probably increases prices of the commodities needed.
Not really any answers here, mainly thinking from the top of my head.
But in my opinion, we need to slightly decrease government subsidies to crop insurances and make the maximum level of insurance at 70% or even 65%. This would make it more of a disaster relief plan. I know a lot of guys will not like this, but oh well. | |
|
Has anyone else seen this crop insurance article ?
