|
| Wait a minute. A few years ago, a few guys here got PP for dry conditions. In order to prove their plight, the farmers got the county extension agent to go around to all of the fields and document soil conditions (probed zero moisture). This gave credibility to the decision. It is not 100% guaranteed, but it worked that year. The big advantage to PP over planting the crop is that PP does NOT reduce APH yields. The only drawback that I can see is that you will be well beyond the plant date once you know if the insurance company accepts drought as a reason for PP. You could also throw in documentation for the 10 or 15 day forecast - more hot and dry, I suspect- to give more credibility to your decision, but make sure you have plenty of documentation. If you have several neighbors doing the same thing, your odds will likely improve to collect PP. From the insurance companies' point of view, they should rather pay a PP claim at the lower cost to the company than pay the full indemnity for a complete zero when the crop is planted.
I think you have to ask yourself, If the PP claim is not accepted, are you going to make it financially and what is the next step...summerfallow to wheat in the fall? May need to also look at your wheat APH to make that decision. A decision to pray about. Let us know how it all turns out.
From an also dry northwest Kansas...make it a great Day! | |
|
Another question about insurance,PP, and drought
