It’s a whole-farm option known as Crop Coverage Plus, and it combines crops into a single insurance calculation, offers up to 90 per cent coverage, and may deliver lower premiums than the familiar crop-by-crop insurance, officials with Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation said.

“It’s program that we see a lot of value in, potentially for a number of farmers, but [we] also recognize that perhaps… it’s not entirely understood in the farming community,” said David Van Deynze, chief product officer at MASC, during a recent webinar hosted by Manitoba Crop Alliance.

WHY IT MATTERS: Crop insurance is an important risk management tool and a whole farm approach may be better for some operations.

How standard crop insurance works

Under standard crop insurance, coverage is based on each crop separately. MASC calculates a “probable yield” using about 10 years of production history, and farmers select coverage levels of 50, 70 or 80 per cent.

If actual yields fall below the selected coverage level, farmers receive a claim payment for that specific crop. That means a farmer could receive a payment on wheat even if canola or soybeans perform well.

READ MORE: Does farm size affect crop insurance risk?

Whole-farm approach changes the calculation

Crop Coverage Plus takes a different approach by combining crops across the farm into one total production value.

Instead of calculating claims crop-by-crop, the program compares the total value of all harvested crops to the farm’s overall insured value. Because strong crops can offset weaker ones, claims are triggered only when total farm production falls below the coverage level.

“If you have a bit of a loss or a poor crop of wheat, for example, and you would normally have a claim on that wheat, but you have a bumper crop on your canola, for example, there’s a potential for your canola to offset any claim that you might have had on your wheat,” Van Deynze said.

But the trade-off is higher protection overall.

“The bonus side of it is the trigger point might be as high as 90 per cent rather than the 80 per cent single crop coverage,” Van Deynze added.

Diversity improves coverage and savings

One key advantage of the program is that farms growing multiple crops often qualify for higher coverage levels and lower premiums.

“The rule of thumb is generally with the more diversity you have in crops, the better off your Crop Coverage Plus is going to be as well as potentially your discount,” Van Deynze said.

MASC uses decades of yield data and statistical analysis to determine how crops perform relative to each other. Crops that don’t always fail at the same time reduce overall risk.

“We calculate a correlation coefficient for each crop combination,” Van Deynze said. “A correlation coefficient is a statistical measure that measures the strength of a relationship between two variables.” vavCrops with lower correlation (meaning they respond differently to weather or other risks) improve the chances of higher coverage or premium discounts.

Examples show potential benefits

A typical 2,000-acre farm seeded entirely to wheat would receive standard 80 per cent coverage, with no premium discount. Adding oats improved the coverage level to 88 per cent, though premiums stayed the same.

But when soybeans were added to the mix, coverage increased to 90 per cent and premiums dropped significantly.

“The offset between these three crops is significant enough that we’re even comfortable offering premium discount beyond that,” Van Deynze said.

In that scenario, the farmer would receive maximum coverage while paying about 14 per cent less in premiums compared to standard insurance.

Program focuses on large losses

The program is designed to provide stronger protection in difficult years affecting the entire farm, rather than frequent smaller payouts on individual crops.

“The thought process is, from a farmer’s perspective, ‘when do I need those indemnities and what level of indemnity do I think I need?’” Van Deynze said. “’Do I need them every time a crop, single crop, suffers? Or am I better off getting more money in situations where my whole farm suffers?’”

READ MORE: Manitoba crop insurance expands wildlife coverage, offers pilot programs

He said MASC aims to balance premiums and payouts over time, regardless of which coverage option farmers choose.

“Our entire goal, whether we’re talking about standard coverage or Crop Coverage Plus, is that we break even. Over time, the amount of premium that we take in is roughly equal to the amount of indemnities that we pay over the long term,” Van Deynze said.

Suited to diverse rotations

The program may be most attractive to farms with diverse crop rotations, including crops with different growing seasons and risk profiles. For example, winter wheat often performs differently from spring-seeded crops because of its earlier harvest and different weather exposure.

“Winter wheat is one of those crops that does react differently than most of our spring-seeded crops,” Van Deynze said. “So it’s a good crop to have within a Crop Coverage Plus calculation, because it does seem to move differently than a lot of crops.”

Ultimately, he encouraged producers to evaluate how the program fits their farm’s crop mix and risk tolerance.

“It’ll depend on the crops that the farmer is growing, to determine what that correlation coefficient is,” he said.

Producers interested in learning how the program applies to their own operation are encouraged to meet with their local MASC office, said Scott Clayton, client services manager at MASC.

If farmers what to better understand how choosing whole farm coverage might affect their premiums, they can use the Crop Coverage Plus calculator on past seasons, he said.

“You can go back and use Crop Coverage Plus calculator to .. determine whether you would have had claims or would not have had claims in any particular year, and what [your] premium savings might have been,” he said.

The post Whole-farm insurance may cut premiums and boost coverage appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The three-year project is currently field testing different mitigation strategies on livestock predation, including GPS tracking technology and game cameras.

Janine Wilmot, wildlife conflict biologist and member of the province’s Livestock and Predation Working Group, noted that the GPS alerts, in particular, give farmers a better chance of actually finding a carcass.

The Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation (MASC) requires a carcass and sufficient evidence that an animal was killed for a successful claim under their wildlife damage compensation program.

“One thing I liked about them being able to track the movement of the livestock is that (the farmers) do receive an alert that indicates that they’re running for some unknown reason or whatever the case may be,” Wilmot said.

Predation claims have been a sticking point in outdoor livestock sectors for years. Farmers have previously expressed frustration over adjuster responsiveness, or lack of option in cases where livestock are taken and no carcass can be found.

Game cameras, however, confirm the presence and type of predators that may be in the area, pilot lead Ray Bittner suggested during a June 21 field day.

Adjusters require enough carcass to establish that an animal was attacked and was alive at the time of the attack, such as signs of a struggle, field day attendees heard. Producers can expect 90 per cent of an animal’s value in those cases.

Where cases are more dubious, such as if a carcass is too eaten to establish life at the time of attack, that coverage drops to 45 per cent of an animal’s value. Skeletons in the field, or lack of a carcass, lead to no payout.

MASC will work off photos, and producers were encouraged to take as many as possible as soon as possible after a loss, attendees were told. Producers were also told to report the claim within 72 hours for the best chance of success.

Even if a farmer can’t get compensation for a loss, Wilmot said, producers may still want to call their local conservation office.

In some cases, such as with a cougar, which is a protected species, kills are not eligible under MASC’s program, she noted, but added that conservation offices would certainly want to know if there are local issues with that kind of animal.

“They’re monitoring what’s occurring on the landscape in their area,” she said. “There are other management actions that can be taken by provincial staff if it’s felt to be warranted for that particular situation, but if they’re not aware of what’s happening on the landscape, they don’t have the ability to even contemplate some of those additional actions.”

The post Technology offers a little more insurance appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

There is special penning, with seven strings of electric wire and predator-resistant gates to keep problem animals out. There are game cameras, able to give producers a better idea of what wildlife is passing through and to send those photos to a smartphone. There are GPS collars, meant to track cattle movements in the pasture, and GPS ear tags, which not only track livestock, but send an alert when rate of movement implies animals are being chased.

There are deadstock composting pens, meant to remove the temptation for predators, and veterinary assessments, based on the idea that healthy animals give less draw for predation.

On the other technological end, there are simple cowbells.

In most of those cases, producers are interested enough to put their names down, and their money up, to put those strategies through their paces.

• [READ MORE] Technology offers a little more insurance

From 2015-19, the Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation reported anywhere from 1,417 and 1,619 cattle and 322 to 502 sheep taken annually by predators like wolves, bears or coyotes. Those numbers do not include cases where a carcass could not be found or producers could otherwise not make an insurance claim.

Why it matters: Predation losses can be hard to recoup, especially when there’s no carcass found.

The pilot project is now in the latter part of its three-year mandate, slated to end in 2023. The pilot seeks to both gauge the scope of predation — a sticking point for years in outdoor livestock sectors — and to locally test potential mitigation strategies used in other regions.

According to presentations to producers in late 2021, producer shares of the bill could range anywhere from $164 for four fox lights (solar-powered flashers meant to distract predators) to $610 for five acres of fladry wire (single-wire electric fence with streamers every 18 inches).

“We’re exiting the setup phase and we’re starting to enter the evaluation phase,” Bittner said. “So producers who received some of these things will start commenting back to us. What worked? What didn’t work? What could be done to make it work better?”

Progress was hindered during the pandemic due to lack of public meetings and difficulties with farm visits, he added. Drought in 2021, with its financial and feed challenges, also curbed participation.

Remaining chances

Most slots with the program have now been filled, Bittner said, although the call is still open for producers interested in fladry wire or fox lights.

The five-acre land base of their fladry wire parcels is tiny compared to most pastures, he acknowledged, but noted that the strategy is suited less for full-season protection, and more for strategic windows during vulnerable stages like calving.

Janine Wilmot, wildlife conflict biologist with the province and member of the Livestock and Predation Working Group — which helped inform the pilot — noted that fladry wire has been used to good effect in predation-heavy areas in the U.S.

“It takes advantage of the wolves’ innate fear of novel situations and novel things on the landscape,” she noted. “These flags flapping in the wind at these regularly spaced intervals, it’s just not something they’re used to encountering.”

The electrical component adds yet another layer of deterrent, she added.

It is, however, time contingent, as predators get used to seeing those flapping flags. Wilmot reiterated the point on its use for strategic windows.

From the field

The Ethelbert community pasture is no stranger to predators, and is one of the sites signed up with the pilot.

There, the problems are mostly with timber wolves and the occasional black bear, according to pasture manager Warren Jacobson. He says the pasture has seen up to 35 to 40 kills in a grazing season, during some of the most active years in his memory.

“You get bad years and better years. There’s always predation,” he said.

Select cattle on the north end of the pasture were to be fit with GPS collars under the predation pilot as of the third week of June. In addition to that, the community pasture now features a deadstock composting pen. Jacobson added that he has independently run game cameras on the property for years.

“I think the collars would be a good idea because we have so much brush pasture. It might help to see where the cattle are travelling or how quickly they’re being pushed from one end of the field to the other,” he said.

The composting pen was not arduous to set up, he added, noting that getting deadstock to the pen will be the larger issue, given the rough landscape.

Timeline

Not all installations under the pilot were complete as of the end of June, but Bittner estimates many test sites will see some evaluation by fall 2022.

“We’ve gone through some really productive discussions trying to understand all the complexities and nuances of the issue,” Wilmot said of the working group. “It’s not a very straightforward issue. And it’s been a problem for centuries. It’s not a problem that we’re probably going to solve in the foreseeable future.”

Also associated with the pilot, Bittner pointed producers to the Manitoba Problem Predator Removal Program, which taps an assigned trapper from the Manitoba Trappers Association to actively remove a problem predator following a predation loss claim. Costs for the program are paid by the provincial government.

The post Predation project set to bear results appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The new deadlines (see below) reflect farmers’ access to improved soybean varieties, MASC said in a news release.

News of extended crop insurance deadlines comes in a year when many producers have been unable to get into their fields as of mid-May.

“MASC is not considering seeding deadline extensions for other crops at this time,” the release said.

Farmers in Area 1 have until June 8 to plant soybeans and be eligible for full crop insurance coverage. The previous deadline was June 6.

Area 1 farmers have until June 13 to seed soybeans with a 20 per cent reduction in crop insurance coverage. The old deadline was June 11.

In Areas 2 and 3, the new seeding deadline to qualify for full coverage is June 4 — five days longer than the old May 30 deadline.

Area 2 farmers have until June 9 to plant soybeans with a 20 per cent reduction in crop insurance coverage.

The soybean seeding deadlines in Area 4 are uncharged at May 30, with no option for reduced coverage past that date.

The announcement came just three days after David Van Deynze, Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation’s (MASC) chief product officer, said in an interview that there were no immediate plans to extend seeding date deadlines.

However, he didn’t close the door to the possibility, saying at the time that, “We are looking at them to make sure they are still relevant and accurate from an agronomic perspective, but we’re not looking at it from a ‘how wet is it outside?’ perspective.”

The new, extended deadlines are not expected to materially change the risk to the AgriInsurance program and therefore premiums won’t change, according to the May 20 release.

“These changes were made in consultation with Manitoba Pulse and Soybean Growers after a review of available data and agronomic considerations such as growing season length and the use of varieties that are more adapted to Manitoba conditions since the seeding deadlines were last considered,” the release said.

The finish line

The final spring seeding deadline for many major crops in Manitoba is June 20. AgriInsurance contract holders who are unable to seed by June 20 due to wet conditions are eligible for Excess Moisture Insurance (EMI).

The last time the Manitoba government extended crop insurance seeding dates was 2004, despite several major floods and delayed seeding since then.

Social media posts showed a bit of seeding underway in Manitoba last week in the wake of a wet, cool spring, but more rain ahead of the Victoria Day long weekend forced farmers from their fields.

Meanwhile, hundreds of acres were still under water in the Red River Valley May 20.

Manitoba Agriculture reported that, as of the second week of May, seeding was just four per cent complete compared to 44 per cent the same time last year and a five-year average of 50 per cent.

That’s a big worry to farmers as yields decline the longer seeding is delayed.

In the meantime, the dates to have certain crops such as canola, soybeans and grain corn seeded to be covered by crop insurance grows nearer.

While it can’t help but add to farmers’ stress, Manitoba Canola Growers Association president Chuck Fossay told CBC Radio May 19 that farmers know they are at the mercy of the weather.

“Farmers are used to these extremes,” he said. “It starts to get a little wearing as we get close to seeding deadlines for crop insurance but we will rally on. It’s not the first time that we’ve had late spring and wet fields and we’ve always managed to get a crop in, in the past.”

Last year, seeding was 99 per cent completed by the second week of June, and the same applied for the five-year average.

“Farmers are struggling to get a crop in, there’s no doubt about that, but that doesn’t change when it’s too late to seed some crops,” Van Deynze said. “Just because they are later starting doesn’t automatically mean they’re going to have an open fall.

“The part we struggle with is that our seeding deadlines are based on agronomic and yield data in the first place and, second, they are already, in our minds, quite generous in that they are probably later than they should be,” he also said.

Insured farmers unable to seed by the deadline are generally eligible for a $50-an-acre payment under Excess Moisture Insurance (EMI) (see sidebar).

Back in time

Manitoba’s 1997 ‘Flood of the Century’ and the 2011 flood may provide some insights to this spring, but with caveats. Like this year, a huge dump of snow in April 1997 contributed to the Red River flooding thousands of acres of farmland between Emerson and Winnipeg. That flood, however, started and ended sooner than this year.

In a news release on June 6, 1997, the Manitoba government estimated just 200,000 of Manitoba’s 10 million acres had yet to be seeded. Officials estimated only 10,000 to 25,000 acres would go unseeded.

“Despite the fact over 600,000 acres of prime Manitoba farmland were under water at the height of the flood, the favourable weather in the past few weeks gives us the confidence most producers will be able to get their crops in before the deadline,” then-agriculture minister Harry Enns said at the time.

The key was “favourable weather.”

Despite delayed seeding, Manitoba crop yields in the flood year exceeded the previous three-year average.

In 2011, meanwhile, which saw substantial flooding in the Assiniboine River Basin, a record three million insured acres went unseeded due to excess moisture, resulting in EMI payouts of $162.3 million.

That year, average yields for many crops were below the previous three-year average.

While we don’t know now when most of this year’s crop will be seeded, it may end up going in later than in 1997. The rest of the 2022 growing season, likewise, is unknown, although fingers province-wide are crossed for ideal growing conditions and an extended fall.

Crop insurance seeding deadlines were extended in 1997, during the ‘Flood of the Century,’ but at that time the deadline for seeding wheat was June 15. That year it was extended to June 20 and made permanent a few years later.

In 2004, the last time Manitoba saw extended MASC deadlines, the spring was wet and cold, like in 2022. In a May 31, 2004, news release, then-agriculture minister Rosann Wowchuk announced a five-day seeding deadline extension, except for crops with a June 20 deadline. Then, like now, that already long deadline covered cereals and flax.

As of May 31, 2004, an estimated 75 per cent of Manitoba’s crop had been seeded.

Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation (AgriInvest) seeding deadlines

• All classes of wheat, oats, barley and flax: June 20
• Argentine Canola:
• Area 1: June 15, reduced coverage, June 20 
• Area 2: June 10, reduced coverage, June 20
• Soybeans:
• Area 1, June 8, reduced coverage, June 13
• Area 2, June 4, reduced coverage, June 9
• Area 3: June 4, reduced coverage, June 9
• Area 4: May 30,  no reduced coverage
• Grain Corn:
• Area 1: June 6, reduced coverage, June 11
• Area 2: May 30, reduced coverage, June 4
• Area 3: May 30, reduced coverage, June 4
• Area 4: May 30, Reduced coverage, June 4

NOTE: Where coverage is reduced, the reduction is 20 per cent.

Excess Moisture Insurance

Excess Moisture Insurance (EMI) compensates farmers who can’t seed their crops before June 20 due to excessively wet conditions. 

EMI deductible is five per cent of the total acres available for seeding.

The Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation (MASC) adjusts the deductible according to the farmer’s recent EMI claim history.

The reduced deductible option allows farmers to buy-down their deductible to five per cent

The basic payout is $50 an acre, but farmers can buy coverage of $75 or $100 an acre.

Rented land had to be added to a farmer’s AgriInsurance contract by March 31, 2022 to be eligible for EMI coverage in 2022. Rented land added after March 31 will continue to be eligible for AgriInsurance for seeded crops and hail insurance, but not EMI.

The deadline for making changes to 2022 EMI options was Nov. 30, 2021. 

Land purchased on or before June 30 of the crop year is eligible for EMI.

A full list of crop deadlines can be found at the MASC website.

The post Crop insurance soybean seeding deadlines extended appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The change wasn’t prompted by this year’s delay in seeding due to wet weather, but because the data supports it, Manitoba Pulse and Soybean Growers executive director Daryl Domitruk said.

“The seeding dates (for soybeans) were set a long time ago,” Domitruk said. “What’s clearly evident, and what sets soybeans apart maybe from some other crops, is that the varieties are greatly improved because we were in that early stage of adoption so there has been a lot of investment from companies to improve the varieties and particularly the early maturing varieties. 

“It was time to look at those seeding dates anyway. We had data from crop insurance, but we had also conducted a study between 2014 and 2017 that gave us some good information as well. So when we combine everything together with our variety trials — and we take detailed maturity notes at our 12 regional variety trails every year — it was clear that it was time to look at these seeding dates and that’s what crop insurance did.”

The Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation (MASC) extended deadlines give the soybean sector a bit of breathing room, Manitoba Seed Growers’ Association (MSGA) executive director Jennifer Seward said.

“MSGA is pleased that MASC has considered the rotational benefits of the crop as well as the significant advancements in variety development over the past 10 to15 years,” Seward said. “With this extension, MASC recognizes the flexibility that short season varieties provide to Manitoba producers and we strongly encourage producers to review their maturities and ask your seed retailer for options.”

The change brings some equity to soybeans, Domitruk added, “but at the same time respecting the fact that soybeans are a heat-loving crop, more so than the other major crops,” he said. 

He noted that the deadlines still do not extend far into June, which he says the data supports.

“We can’t go on forever making soybeans (mature) earlier and earlier. There is a limit and after that the date won’t change anymore unless the climate changes substantially,” he said.

The post New soybean seeding deadline welcomed appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Despite wet weather delaying planting this year, 2022 is unlikely to see a repeat.

“We’re not contemplating, at this point, any changes to our seeding deadlines,” said David Van Deynze, Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation’s (MASC) chief product officer. “We are looking at them to make sure they are still relevant and accurate from an agronomic perspective, but we’re not looking at it from a ‘how wet is it outside?’ perspective.”

Social media posts show a bit of seeding underway in Manitoba in the wake of a wet, cool spring, but with more rain in the forecast and hundreds of acres still under water in the Red River Valley, planting will be further delayed.

That’s a big worry to farmers, with declining yield potential the longer seeding is postponed.

In the meantime, the date to have certain crops such as canola, soybeans and grain corn seeded, in order to be covered by crop insurance, grows nearer. 

The deadline for seeding cereals and flax is June 20.

History

Like this year, the spring of 2004 was wet and cold. On May 31, 2004, a news release from then-agriculture-minister Rosann Wowchuk announced a five-day seeding deadline extension, except for crops with a June 20 deadline. Then, like now, that late threshold covered cereals and flax.

At that time in 2004, an estimated 75 per cent of Manitoba’s crop had been seeded.

Seeding deadlines were also extended in 1997, during the Flood of the Century. At that time, however, the deadline for seeding wheat was June 15. That year it was extended to June 20.

Manitoba Agriculture data show as of the second week of May only four per cent of Manitoba’s crop had been seeded, compared to 44 per cent during the same week last year and the five year average of 50 per cent.

Seeding was 99 per cent completed by the second week of June last year and the same percentage holds for the five year average.

“Farmers are struggling to get a crop in, there’s no doubt about that, but that doesn’t change when it’s too late to seed some crops,” Van Deynze said. “Just because they are later starting doesn’t automatically mean they’re going to have an open fall…The part we struggle with is that our seeding deadlines are based on agronomic and yield data in the first place and, second, they are already, in our minds, quite generous in that they are probably later than they should be.”

Excess Moisture Insurance

Insured farmers unable to seed by the deadline are generally eligible for a $50-per-acre payment under MASC’s Excess Moisture Insurance (EMI). 

In 2011, a record three million insured acres went unseeded due to excess moisture, resulting in payouts of $162.3 million.

That year, average yields for many crops were below the previous three-year average, unlike 1997, when main crops yielded similarly to the previous three years.

*Update(s): Corrections to percentages of historical seeding progress were made. Plus, the graphic below previously indicated the ‘Area 2 Reduced coverage’ date for canola was June 20.

The post No crop insurance seeding deadline extensions planned: MASC appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Recent overhauls of Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation’s (MASC) organic crop insurance programs have led to “significantly larger payouts” while adding more crops to the program,” said COTA in its 2021 ‘State of Organics’ report, released this February.

“However, the program charges a premium for coverage of organic crops and pays out at very low yields,” it added.

COTA gave Manitoba organic crop insurance three out of five stars.

Organic farmers often don’t have the same support systems as conventional growers.

Manitoba’s organic crop insurance scored ahead of Ontario, B.C. and Atlantic Canada, but fell behind Saskatchewan and Quebec.

Saskatchewan scored high for premiums and coverage that reflects current market and production information, which has resulted in insured prices increasing and average premium rates decreasing which the report says better aligns the insurance program with current organic risks.

Manitoba also got three stars for its organic regulation and enforcement.

The report highlighted Manitoba’s new producer checkoff regulation, which came into effect in August. It also mentions that Manitoba has had the Organic Agricultural Products Act since 2013. This aligned it with the federal definition of ‘organic.’

This puts Manitoba ahead of Saskatchewan, Yukon, Ontario and Newfoundland. However, Manitoba scored behind B.C., Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Among B.C.’s accomplishments include regular meetings between the minister of agriculture, food and fisheries and the organic sector to understand needs and concerns. The term ‘organic’ has been a protected label in B.C. since 2018, which producers may use if they hold organic certification through the B.C. Certified Organic Program or the Canadian Organic Regime.

Manitoba scored poorly in production and market supports.

The report noted that, “Manitoba has an enviable export trade program second only to the Saskatchewan Trade and Export Partnership (STEP).”

Manitoba Agriculture works directly with organic buyers and sellers to facilitate sales, the report said. However, the Manitoba government has “significantly” reduced its investment in organic-specific activities since 2017.

In terms of production supports, COTA noted several Manitoba Organic Alliance (MOA) initiatives including a ramp-up of its producer extension program, and its recently launched grazing exchange.

“There would be little organic-specific programming in the province without Manitoba Organic Alliance actively pursuing funding and providing co-ordination and oversight,” the report says.

COTA scores Manitoba one star in data collection — the province doesn’t collect stats on organic production or sales.

The report also grades Manitoba government staff resources dedicated to organic needs as “sufficient.”

COTA issued Canada-wide recommendations for the organic sector. These include significant upgrades in the collection of organic data.

“In Canada, data is not even available to verify an operator’s organic compliance much less to evaluate opportunities, risk or trends within the marketplace,” it said.

To that end, COTA called for greater data collection on organic through Statistics Canada and other initiatives to increase and improve data collection.

COTA also called for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to establish a national organic transition program to help farmers move from conventional to organic production.

Only three per cent of domestic farmland is certified organic despite the economic promise of organics, and the sustainability benefits, COTA said.

The report also recommended a new Canada organic program that would oversee all parts of the value chain; expansion and realignment of organic standards; more market development, processing and distribution infrastructure; and enhancement of organic business risk management tools.

The post Manitoba middle of pack in organic regulation, crop insurance appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

MASC reported $48.3 million in forage program indemnities for 2021, over five times higher than the previous year. MASC reported $9.2 million in indemnities in 2020.

Why it matters: Higher forage insurance claim numbers should come as no surprise after 2021’s drought. But even by those expectations, the numbers are high.

David Van Deynze, chief product officer with MASC, said the corporation’s forage programs can absorb the financial hit, despite the high payouts.

“I think they’re bigger than anything we’ve seen before, that’s for sure, but as much as we don’t like to see poor yields and that sort of thing around, we’re sure happy that the program is responding in years when people are seeing such tough yields,” he said.

MASC generally looks at financial viability of “the program as a whole” rather than assessing the smaller programs built around specific crop types, he added.

MASC had significant funds in reserve going into the 2021 season, he said. Those reserves “definitely did take a hit” after 2021, “but we’re still coming into 2022 in a pretty good financial position,” Van Deynze said.

Those types of high payouts do impact premiums, he acknowledged, but “there’s no real danger of the forage program not responding, I would say, to the way that everyone would expect it to.”

MASC reported $4.8 million in premiums paid into forage programs last year.

Tyler Fulton, president of the Manitoba Beef Producers (MBP), noted his own surprise at the 2021 numbers, despite anticipation that forage claims would be high.

Payouts in 2021 included $8.4 million from the hay disaster benefit, triggered for the third time since the program was introduced in 2014. It was the highest payout recorded by the program. In 2018 and 2019, producers received $3.2 million and $5.2 million through the hay disaster benefit, respectively.

The program is designed to cover the extra cost of hay and feed transportation during extraordinarily difficult years and automatically triggers when at least 20 per cent of insured producers see less than half of their normal long-term hay yield. Producers then receive an extra $44 for every tonne they fall short of their normal yield.

Last year, almost 60 per cent of insured forage growers fell short of that 50 per cent yield threshold, according to MASC.

Growing conditions during the first cut were so poor, in fact, that MASC triggered the hay disaster benefit in late summer, a decision typically made the following January after the full hay season can be assessed.

“We knew early on, like everyone else, that hay was going to be in lots of trouble — and was in lots of trouble — in 2021,” Van Deynze said. “We were getting that feedback from our clients. We were getting that feedback as we sent adjusters to look at fields and all of those things.

“That decision was made early and there’s no doubt that it was the right decision because the yields were a challenge for all farmers,” he added.

Uptake

Those claim totals come with well over half of Manitoba’s estimated forage acres still uninsured.

Forage insurance uptake has been a consistent topic of conversation for years, including after another dry growing season in 2019 put pressure on Manitoba’s feed situation. At that time, the province pointed to the need to increase the poor uptake of forage insurance programs, which had hovered around a quarter or less of all forage acres through the decade before.

Producers saw the first changes from the resulting forage insurance review last year. Among the changes, MASC introduced yield cushioning to minimize the impact of disaster years on a producer’s coverage, bolstered transportation allowances and introduced an IPI for corn silage.

According to MASC data, roughly 30 per cent of forage acres were insured in Manitoba last year. The corporation has shown increasing uptake since 2018, although the increase ramped up in 2021, which the industry tied somewhat to changes, but also to the anticipation of a hard year coming into spring 2021.

The increase is “not huge leaps and bounds by any stretch, but trending in the right direction,” Van Deynze said. “We hope that continues. Again, after another tough year, we hope that producers continue to see the value in our program and, for those who haven’t participated in it, hopefully they’ll look at it and say, yeah it may be the time to get signed up.”

Fulton, meanwhile, says he expects uptake to increase again this year, although he noted that many producers still feel that the administrative burden of forage insurance is a barrier.

“I’m hoping that we’ve hit a bit of a tipping point,” he said.

“It’s never going to be for everyone, but I think that those programs have proven themselves here over the last two or three years and I’m hopeful that the uptake will continue to grow,” he added.

The post MASC puts hard numbers to sky-high forage claim season appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation (MASC) has added or expanded two programs geared towards producers diversifying their annual forage.

Why it matters: Two new or expanded forage insurance options will be on offer this year for producers looking to mix it up when it comes to their greenfeed.

Producers will now be able to insure polycrops planted for later grazing or forage harvest, should the mix fail to establish.

“Prior to 2022, we didn’t have any insurance available for them at all,” said David Van Deynze, chief product officer with MASC. “If they did that practice, they did it entirely on their own. This new polycrop establishment insurance provides a guarantee that once they plant these polycrop blends, at least enough of the different plant species will grow that they’re going to have some sort of a reasonable crop.”

The addition fills an ask from groups like the Manitoba Beef Producers (MBP), who have previously argued that insurance offerings must be adapted to work with emerging farm practices.

It had been a repeated topic when MASC and MBP met to discuss the beef sector’s insurance needs in recent years, the producer’s group has said.

Among the previous hurdles, MASC previously argued that developing insurance for blended crops was complex due to the number of species involved.

Van Deynze says the corporation eventually overcame that hurdle by turning to a land coverage based metric for the program rather than differentiating coverage by species. Under the new program, coverage will kick in for fields with less than 75 per cent ground cover.

“We don’t know what species they’re planting and there’s an infinite number of mixes and stuff like that,” he said. “The guarantee is basically, if you plant it, something will grow to the point where it looks like a crop.”

He described the program as a good starting point when it comes to designing insurance products for polycrops.

A second change will expand MASC’s definition of insurable greenfeed.

“We’re very strict on what crops can be in the mix for greenfeed,” Van Deynze said. “Greenfeed is oats, barley, mixed grain, wheat, rye, field peas, triticale, millet, sorghum or sudan grass, and by letter of our contract, if you threw in just a sprinkling of turnips or something like that, we would say that’s not greenfeed anymore. You can’t insure it as greenfeed.”

That policy became an issue for farmers looking at multi-species mixes, he noted.

Practices like multi-species blends have gained more attention in recent years as conversations around regenerative agriculture and soil health gain traction, both of which push practices that increase field biodiversity.

The expanded program now allows up to 20 per cent of a seed mix to be made up of “non-traditional” greenfeed crops.

“Farmers, what they do is they learn over time what grows really well on their farm. It might be a little bit of vetch or a little bit of whatever. And so if they say, ‘Man, that grows good on my farm. I want to have a little bit of that in my greenfeed land,’ now they have a little bit more flexibility in terms of what they can grow as greenfeed and still get greenfeed insurance from us,” Van Deynze said.

While MASC says the timing of the new programs was coincidental, and that they were in development prior to the 2021 drought, MBP president Tyler Fulton says both programs come at a good time for the industry following both last year’s extremely poor growing conditions, and the several years of dry seasons previous.

“I think it’s going to make a big difference,” he said.

More producers found themselves leaning on annual forage last year thanks to the severe impacts of drought on perennial hay, as well as a wealth of marginal greenfeed crops originally planted for grain but which, thanks to drought stress, fell to the feed market. That reliance will more than likely repeat, Fulton said, especially as hay stands struggle to recover from what has now been several years of cumulative damage from lack of moisture, and some of those fields may well need to be switched over to annuals in the near term.

Fulton pointed in particular to the expanded definition for greenfeed, noting that an increasing number of beef producers are adopting the regenerative ag practices that include multi-species mixes as part of their tool box.

“They’re putting in multiple varieties in the blend because it’s better for the soil. It’s more productive. We just know that it works, so it’s good to get some acknowledgment from MASC that these practices are happening,” Fulton said.

Likewise, he argued, the addition of polycrops establishment insurance lessens the risk for producers looking to experiment with the practice.

Producers have until June 25 to insure forage polycrops and June 30 to designate a field as greenfeed.

The post Multi-species forage gets insurance safety net appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“This has really changed our ability to be insured quite significantly,” said Jeff Veenstra who farms northeast of Winnipeg.

On January 25, the province announced it would reduce the minimum required acres for vegetable acreage loss insurance to half an acre from three.

Vegetable acreage loss insurance allows growers to get coverage for total loss of crops due to “natural perils,” says Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation’s (MASC) website.

Thirteen crops are eligible, including cabbage, sweet corn, onions and winter squash. A minimum of half an acre of one type must be grown to be eligible for insurance.

It’s “definitely a good first step,” said Justin Girard. “We’re pretty happy to see this happen.”

Girard is a director on the board of Direct Farm Manitoba, which represents small-scale, direct-marketing farmers along with farmers’ markets. He also farms near Elie, Manitoba.

Direct Farm Manitoba has advocated for business risk management programs (BRMs) for its members for several years. Many of their farmer members don’t have the scale to qualify for conventional crop insurance despite growing commercial crops.

The reduction of the acreage requirement won’t help all members, but it will help “a few,” said Girard.

Veenstra, who owns Wild Earth Farms with wife Janna, said they’ve had their winter squash crop insured previously. Now they’ll be able to cover more crops, including carrots, cabbage and broccoli.

“It’s not necessarily going to change how we farm, but it’s going to change the way that we feel going into the season,” he said.

It may also give them the confidence to expand if needed, knowing at least some of their costs will be covered, said Veenstra.

He added that with their diverse array of crops, they always expect loss in a year. Diversity has, to a degree, helped cover shortfalls.

Acreage loss insurance is not a perfect solution.

“The current system doesn’t really reflect our input costs,” Veenstra said.

Since they don’t use conventional pesticides, herbicides and fungicides but rely on manual weed management, input costs are much higher, he said.

Because they direct market, they also get a higher payout per acre, he added.

Veenstra said he’d appreciate the option for higher coverage and said he’d be willing to pay higher premiums to get it.

“I’m not asking for a special treatment; I just want to have adequate coverage for what we are doing,” Veenstra said.

The requirement that crops be adequately irrigated may disqualify Martin Hnatiuk who farms near East St. Paul. Hnatiuk said they’re able to irrigate about two acres out of over 20 acres he farms.

“That clause, you know, kind of shuts us down,” he said.

He added he’s been farming for about 30 years, only installed irrigation less than a decade ago, and has generally done fine.

With acres of sweet corn, pumpkins, cabbage and potatoes, they’ve usually been able to rely on rainfall. The site has no access to water. In a pinch they’ve brought a water tank and watered — which took days, Hnatiuk said.

He questioned why the insurance wouldn’t cover drought loss.

Vegetable crops generally require more water than field crops like wheat, said David Van Deynze, MASC’s chief product officer. As high-value crops that are generally on smaller acreages (compared to grain and oilseed crops), growers can generally justify the expense of irrigation.

Drought should not be a likely reason for total crop loss, he said. Some cases, like 2021’s severe drought, may be an exception.

Van Deynze explained that vegetable acreage loss insurance was initially designed to exclude non-commercial growers, which is why it had the three-acre minimum requirement.

“Listening to and working with Direct Farm Manitoba over the last couple of years, you know, it helped us realize that hey, there’s a lot of commercial vegetable growers who have less than three acres of (any single) crop,” he said.

“We do think it’s opened the door for a number of new producers to at least qualify for insurance,” he said.

Direct Farm Manitoba will continue to work on more BRMs for its members.

“We’re going to have to continue to work together to figure out how to update the BRMs to better reflect what’s happening in our communities and to better reflect the growing consumer demand for particular products and particular services from our sector,” Girard said.

Producers are growing diverse crops and using different methods because of consumer demand, he added. Despite their ability to find creative solutions, they want the same protection for natural perils that are out of their control.

BRMs may help farms to grow, Girard said. Some may be overdiversified because of lack of insurance, which can cause challenges for the farm.

Van Deynze said MASC is working with Direct Farm Manitoba to find a solution, but no new programs are imminent.

The post Acreage requirement drop for veggie insurance first step for small-scale farmers appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.