PUBLICATION OF NATIONAL CROP INSURANCE SERVICES PUBLICATION OF NATIONAL CROP INSURANCE ... ·...

• Aug 04 NCIS Layout 7/16/04 2:40 PM Page c

PUBLICATION OF NATIONAL CROP INSURANCE SERVICES ®PUBLICATION OF NATIONAL CROP INSURANCE SERVICES®

VOL. 37, NO. 3 AUGUST 2004

• Aug 04 NCIS Layout 7/16/04 2:40 PM Page d

• Aug 04 NCIS Layout 7/16/04 2:40 PM Page 1

TODAY PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

BUILDING BLOCKS TO SUCCESSIn 2005, the Crop Insurance Industry

will celebrate the 25th Anniversary of the partnership with the federal government in providing crop insurance to farmers across America. In looking forward to celebrating this anniversary, it’s important to begin looking at the success story of our Industry and the role the private insurance companies and this organization have played in creating it.

A big success story, told in just a simple bar chart (on page 5) is premium growth. By Bob Parkerson, These numbers alone tell a tremendous NCIS success story for our Industry and this program. The growth over the last 25 years is one story, but look at in just the last ten years. That growth also speaks volumes. This didn’t occur overnight and it didn’t happen just by chance. It happened because there is a large group of people dedicated to serving the American farmer by providing him with an opportunity to protect his investment. You are part of that group. If you are an agent, an adjuster, a claims supervisor, an underwriter, or the president of a crop insurance company, you are a vital part of the success story we can tell.

We would be remiss if we didn’t also thank the members of Congress who support the important role that risk management plays. Without financial support from the government, program expansion and growth could not have occurred as it has in the last 25 years. The role of Congress, USDA, RMA, trade organizations and the Industry as a whole, working together, have made telling a success story a reality.

For many of you, your role in the Industry reaches outside the confines of your company corporate structure. Many of you are members of a committee within NCIS that deals with broad issues that affect crop insurance. In 1997, the NCIS Board of Directors, under the leadership of John Joyce, created a comprehensive committee structure to focus on broad issues affecting the Industry. The Committees are made up of member company personnel who each have expertise in a specialized area. These committees have proven very successful over the years and one can’t talk about the Industry success without looking at the vital role these committee have played in getting us to where we are today.

There are 11 NCIS standing committees that report and make recommendations to the NCIS Board of Directors. Each committee has its own specific topics to discuss, and has a Board and staff liaison that interact with them. Some of the more visi

ble and active of the 11 committees are listed below:

Program Development Committee – This Committee is responsible for considering each recommendation from the other standing committees and either forwarding those recommendations on to the Board, sending the recommendation back to the committee it came from for further clarification, or sending it on to another committee for review. This Committee meets jointly with the NCIS Board of Directors at the Annual Meeting.

Crop-Hail Actuarial & Statistics Committee - The purpose of the Crop-Hail Actuarial & Statistics Committee is to review and provide industry feedback and input to staff concerning state insurance department filing requirements, NCIS actuarial methodology, statistical reporting and data reporting requirements for crop-hail. The Committee annually reviews the crop-hail actuarial filings prepared by NCIS analytical staff. Each year staff and the Committee prepare and reviews actuarial filings for approximately 20-25 states. These filings are sent to each respective insurance department for their review and approval. The filings consist of loss costs, crop relativity factors, crop classifications and rules. The committee also works with staff in the development of new methods of analysis.

Crop-Hail Policy, Procedure & Loss Adjustment Committee – This Committee reviews a wide range of policy forms, underwriting and loss adjustment recommendations that may arise from regional/state committees, as well as issues that develop through interaction with the Industry. The Committee will solicit the view of other standing committees as appropriate.

MPCI Policy, Procedure and Loss Adjustment Committee – This Committee reviews a wide range of policy forms, underwriting and loss adjustment recommendations that may arise from regional/state committees, as well as issues that develop through interaction with Industry and RMA personnel. The Committee will solicit the view of other standing committees as appropriate.

Technology & Information Processing Committee - The Technology and Information Processing (TIP) Committee is comprised of Information and Technology (IT) professionals from NCIS member companies. Its purpose is to review and advise on automation and technical support of processing data and information between NCIS and its member companies. The Committee is responsible for industry input and analysis of MPCI

continued on page 5

CROP INSURANCE TODAY 1


TODAYCROP INSURANCE

TODAY CROP INSURANCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

On the CoverOn the Cover

NCIS® EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Ben Latham, Chairman

Lanny Remmers, Vice Chairman John Joyce, Second Vice Chairman

NCIS® MANAGEMENT Robert W. Parkerson, President

Thomas P. Zacharias, Executive Vice President Gerald C. Puppe, Vice President P. John Owen, General Counsel

James M. Crist, Controller

Creative Layout and Design by Graphic Arts of Topeka, Kansas

Printed on recycled paper. Printed with Environmentally friendly vegetable oil based inks.

Winner of The Golden ARC Award

VOL. 37, NO. 3 • AUGUST 2004VOL. 37, NO. 3 • AUGUST 2004

Laurie Langstraat, Editor Miranda Malo, Assistant Editor

TODAY IS PROVIDED AS A SERVICE OF NATIONAL CROP INSURANCE SERVICES® TO EDUCATE READERS ABOUT THE RISK MANAGEMENT TOOLS PRODUCERS USE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE.

TODAY is published quarterly–February, May, August, and November by National Crop Insurance Services 8900 Indian Creek Parkway, Suite 600 Overland Park, Kansas 66210

If you move, or if your address is incorrect, please send old address label clipped from recent issue along with your new or corrected address to Laurie Langstraat, Editor, at the above address.

NCIS Website: http://www.ag-risk.org ® Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

More than 100 people attended the NCIS Forage Seed-ing/Production School in Baraboo, WI, June 15-16. It was just one of the many NCIS sponsored schools that are held throughout the spring and summer months. The school gave adjusters and managers the opportunity to become more familiar with the forage policies and loss adjustment procedures. Read what participants had to say about the school on page 16.

PUBLICATION OF NATIONAL CROP INSURANCE SERVICES®PUBLICATION OF NATIONAL CROP INSURANCE SERVICES ®

VOL. 37, NO. 2 MAY 2004

3 It’s All About Understanding 6 Data Mining Works for the Crop

Insurance Industry 12 Growing the Future of Agriculture:

AFA is Expanding 16 As Forage Policies Increase,

So Does Adjusters’ Knowledge

20 2003 Research Results 31 Meet ISU’s New Soybean Extension

Agronomist

8 Why Should I Buy Crop Insurance?

TODAYFEATURES

TODAYRISK MANAGEMENT

TODAYRESEARCH


CROP INSURANCE TODAY

IT’S ALL ABOUTUNDERSTANDING

By Miranda Malo, NCIS Intern

Janet Blethen is always looking out for the best interests of her insureds.

Listening is the key to learning. tion as she can. “If you sit in an office you don’t know what Janet Blethen, a crop insurance agent from Lovelock, NV, the farmer’s going through.”

knows that from experience. Blethen tries to make the insurance process as easy as it “Working as a waitress I would listen to the farmers in the can be for the farmers.

morning talking over coffee,” said Blethen, stating that’s “I drive out to my farmers, they don’t come to me. They where she first heard of crop insurance. don’t have to stop their farming to get papers and come to

Since then, she’s not stopped listening to the farmers. town,” she said. “The farmers can talk to me,” she said, explaining that’s “She’s always been pretty well in tuned with [the farmers],” says

because she tries to learn as much about their specific opera- Jan Michels, the Nevada field representative from The Hartford.



TODAYCROP INSURANCE

Janet Blethen spends lots of time in her truck, but feels it’s definitely worth it.

Blethen’s first experience with the crop insurance industry was doing paper work for crop-hail policies in 1996, when she began working for Hendrix Insurance Agency in Love-lock. A year later she became licensed, and in 1999 she started to get the necessary requirements to sell multiple peril crop insurance.

“Lovelock is a small community and everyone that was selling crop insurance for this community was from out of town,” Blethen said, noting that she wanted the area farmers “to have the opportunity to have a local agent.”

“A guy from RMA asked if I’d be interested in getting certified. The first couple of years I only sold one policy or so,” said Blethen, who wanted to know more about crop insurance before selling it on a wide-scale.

The more she learned, the more she wanted others to learn.

“None of the farmers in this area understood crop insurance, especially multiple peril. I thought the farmers didn’t understand it or they would

4 AUGUST 04

have it,” said Blethen. She started an education program,

and that sparked the interest of many producers.

“We taught them what was in the policies. They started understanding it and started buying it,” she said.

At her first meeting in 2001 she only had three or four farmers attend, but that didn’t deter her. That year she had 27 people sign up for multiple peril crop insurance.

“She’s getting better turn-outs all the time,” said Michels, describing Blethen’s grower meeting success. “A lot of it’s word of mouth.”

“I think she’s very helpful with everybody she does business with. She’s gone out of her way to help people,” said Mike Phillips, farm manager for Nevada Nile Ranch. The Ranch purchases crop insurance on over 4,300 acres of alfalfa.

“She’s very energetic. If she doesn’t know an answer she’ll get it and get right back to you—she’s real good that way,” he said.

Over the past couple of years crop insurance has proved to be an essential risk-management tool in the four-county area that Blethen sells policies in.

“The producers that have crop insurance have stayed in business,” she says, commenting that drought has hit the crops the hardest the past couple of years.

“We’ve received about 15 percent of the normal amount of rain [the past couple of years]. Crop insurance has really helped a lot of farmers,” said Phillips.

“I feel like I’ve helped them out. You always hope they keep the crop insurance in the good years, too,” Blethen said.

Blethen, who is one of only about a dozen crop insurance agents licensed to sell in Nevada, faces unique challenges because of her geographic location.

“When Janet comes up (to Napa, ID, for training) she has different crops, different sales closing dates. She doesn’t have anyone to talk to,” said Michels, contrasting that to agents who sell in more highly-insured areas.

Not to mention she has to drive to get to those conferences and meetings.

“When Janet has to get her education requirements she drives up. It’s a commitment on her part to drive six hours for a five or six hour class,” says Michels.

Blethen travels to Idaho at least twice a year, but finds it worth her time.

“I feel if I’m going to explain something to someone I want to know it,” she said.

Blethen no longer works for an agency, as she went on her own this year. She currently writes for The Hartford in four counties in Nevada, but is looking to expand her business. She is licensed for the entire state of Nevada, and is working to get licensed

TODAY to sell in eastern California.


CROP INSURANCETODAYcontinued from page 1

and crop-hail data quality processing issues. The Committee also facilitates communication between RMA and industry on processing and program issues. The TIP Committee has monthly conference calls along with at least one formal meeting per year. On occasion, the Committee will schedule a meeting to coincide with the RMA IT Manager meeting.

Training Committee – The Training Committee provides company input into the training activities of the association and review of training ideas and materials consistent with Board direction regarding both loss adjustment and underwriting training.

Public Relations & Education Committee – The charge of this Committee is to provide company input into the public relations and education activities of the association and provide periodic review of ideas and materials consistent with Board direction. The goal of this Committee is to position the Industry to be the key source of crop insurance information for agricultural editors and broadcasters, and help NCIS position itself to support member company efforts to educate and inform producers about the value of crop insurance as part of their risk management plan.

The other standing committees include: MPCI Actuarial & Statistics Committee; Audit Committee; Nominating Committee; and, Litigation Committee. These Committees meeting schedule varies depending on the issues that arise.

In addition to the standing committees, 18 regional/state crop insurance committees help NCIS keep in close touch with local developments in agriculture and insurance throughout the U.S. Each Committee can make specific recommendations for agricultural research projects for the betterment of loss adjustment procedures. They are also very active in sponsoring loss adjuster schools and field days to adequately

train the Industry’s loss adjustment work force. These committees comprise employees of member companies who work in the respective states or areas. They meet periodically and make recommendations to the standing committees based on the specific needs in their areas.

The basic fundamentals of bringing

together the right people at the right time has proven to be an effective and successful way to handle issues that affect our Industry. NCIS and its member companies will continue to press forward in working with USDA, Congress, producers, and you to continue to build this Industry and make each year better than the last. TODAY

Insurance

Full lines coverage including MPCI Crop Insurance

*This policy is offered and underwritten by : American International Group,Inc.(AIG)

AIG is the largest insurance company in the world, with an AM Best rating of AAA(Superior) with over 20 years of

Errors And Omission experience.

*This policy is marketed by: American Insurance Services,LLC.

The personnel at American Insurance Services have over35 years of experience in all lines of insurance.

Insurance knowledge of American Insurance Services, you have the best

1-800-769-6015

Errors and Omission

For Your Agency

With the financial strength and stability of AIG and the experience and

Errors and Omission policy available today:

To learn more about the features of this policy or to obtain a quote for your Agency, please call.



6 AUGUST 04

This is the first in a series of articles on Data Mining.

Dynamics of evolving U.S. crop

ables and technologies that have

tailored, or adjustments made to existing projects, to minimize risk for both

Insurance Corporation (FCIC). The Agriculture Risk Protection Act

ance to become the ultimate form of risk management for American farmers. In addition to program expansion and increasing risk management education,

ment Agency (RMA) with improving

lation. The Center for Agribusiness Excellence (CAE) was formed to assist RMA in this effort by using data mining and data warehousing technologies.

State Stephenville, TX, was awarded a USDA research grant in December 2000 to create CAE. The initial focus was identifying the most economically important sources of moral hazard, fraud, waste and abuse. The private sector had benefited from both data mining and warehousing for years and CAE was to provide the facilities and staff to make full use of these technolo

gies in detecting problem areas in crop insurance.

Upon winning a competitive bid to continue work with RMA in 2002, Congress had already attributed $161 million in claims savings for the CAE investment.

evolved into 1) provide information, tools and analysis; 2) analyze program components that contribute to moral hazard, waste, fraud and abuse; 3) develop strategies to manage program components; and, 4) evaluate the impact of factors external to the risk compliance area and the influence these factors may have on future efforts.

The CAE database contains information for insured growers, insurance agents and claim loss adjusters from 1991 through 2003. In this data mining process, over 800 million records are

stock and financial information. In addition to the ability to locate a single record, the automated system can identify anomalies associated with claims,

and Link Analysis are the most common data mining projects for CAE. Pattern recognition is the identification of an individual whose behavior suggests of program waste, fraud or

through time of patterns suggestive of underlying program flaws. A pattern of collusion that ties two identifiers together is link analysis.

the annual Spot Check List. This list detects anomalous behavior (behavior that deviated from the norm in several aspects) nationwide by using numerous scenarios. For example, fourteen data mining scenarios were used to flag

scenarios range from identifying

colluded to undermine the integrity of the U.S. crop insurance program. The

by RMA and/or the Farm Service Agency (FSA) to further prioritize and allocate investigative resources. These lists do not indicate that those identified have committed fraudulent acts, but rather may be worthy of further investigation because of anomalous

Reports generated by CAE are used by RMA for spot checks, enforcement

are generated in large part by RMA request. In addition, CAE is required to

have served as RMA data checks.

D MINING WORKS CROP

INSURANCE I

production have ushered in new vari

affected the crop insurance industry. New policies and products have been

the producer and the Federal Crop

of 2000 (ARPA) positioned crop insur

ARPA tasked USDA and Risk Manage

program integrity, compliance and regu

Tarleton University,

Today the goals of CAE have

used to analyze crop, production, live

producers, agents, and/or adjusters. Pattern Recognition, Trend Analysis

abuse. Trend analysis is the analysis

The most recognized CAE product is

anomalous producers in 2004. The

producers with multi-year losses to identifying producers that may have

list of anomalous producers can be used

behavior.

of program integrity, developing more sound insurance products, and evaluating program use. Products and reports

create original products, some of which

TODAY CROP INSURANCE

ATA FOR THE

NDUSTRY By Jill Halfmann, Senior Research Associate, Center for Business Excellence, Tarleton State University


TODAY

CROP INSURANCETODAY

Service & Protection Through hail, wind, drought – Farmers Crop Insurance Alliance stays the course. We stand behind you every step of the way with our quality products and superior service. You can count on the dedicated, knowledgeable and hard-working Farmers Crop

Insurance Alliance staff and adjusters to meet your crop insurance needs.

Over 100 Years of Combined Experience At Farmers Crop Insurance Alliance, our name has changed but our commitment to the agricultural community remains! We will provide the quality service, certified education and training, competitive rates and compensation, and the quick, accurate & fair claims service you've come to know and expect.

Today, Tomorrow, The Future In an industry of uncertainty and continual change – one thing remains constant. Farmers Crop Insurance Alliance will be a source for your crop insurance needs today, tomorrow and in the future. We will continue to improve and streamline our internal processes as we incorporate leading-edge technologies to grow for your success and ours.

www.fcianet.com

Furthermore, data mining efforts through CAE form an integral part of the Appendix IV (formerly Manual 14) of the new Standard Reinsurance Agreement. RMA and insurance companies will rely heavily on future CAE reports to help focus compliance

companies have welcomed this new capability and plan to employ this highly cost efficient technology wherever possible.

Crop insurance will continue to change with advances in U.S. crop

ness Excellence, by using data mining and data warehouse technologies, plans to continue providing the technologies needed for program assessment.

7

efforts more effectively. Insurance production. The Center for Agribusi


TODAY


TODAY RISK MANAGEMENT

WHY SHOULD I BUYCROP INSURANCE?

“...it makes good economic sense!”

By Dr. Laurence M. Crane, NCIS

Insurance is a simple concept, yet a complex subject. The concept of joining together to provide affordable protection against staggering economic loss is simple; understanding the large number of insurance plans, products, and competing options to choose from is complex. Thus it is sometimes easy to become confused, discouraged, or worse—to do nothing at all. This article outlines the basic principles of insurance and highlights some of the popular misconceptions of crop insurance that lead to poor decisions and/or inaction.

By definition insurance is the means of protecting against unexpected loss. Everyone has insurance; either you buy insurance from an insurance company, or you insure yourself. When you self-insure there are no premiums to pay, but in the

event of a loss you pay the full amount. In other words, with self-insurance you have a policy with a 100 percent deductible. The easy answer then to, “Why should I buy crop insurance?” is: It is better than the alternative. The more complete answer would be that in most cases it makes good economic sense.

To understand why buying crop insurance makes good economic sense and is prudent risk management, one needs to understand the basic principles of insurance.

Principles of Insurance

Pooling of Risks Insurance is the pooling or combin

ing of enough small unpredictable risks so that the losses over time for the combined group become statistically predictable. The basis of any insurance is the “law of large numbers.” This basic law of mathematics means that as the number of exposures or participants increases, or as the size of the pool increases, the average results become more stable. Hence, what is a risky, uncertain, and burdensome possibility for an individual becomes in the combined pool a measurable, relatively

constant, and manageable event that can be statistically estimated.

By paying a proportionate share of the loss for the group as a whole, it is possible for an individual to avoid a loss that, if borne alone, potentially could cause major financial problems or complete business failure. The relatively small premium paid by the individual is considered the expense of avoiding the full adverse effects of the particular risk being insured.

Insurable Risks Unfortunately, not all risks are insur

able. To be insurable, objects must be important enough to cause economic hardship to the insured if they are damaged and of sufficient number and quality to allow a reasonably close calculation of probable loss. Also, the potential loss must be accidental and unintentional, and, when an adverse event occurs, the amount of the loss must be capable of being determined and measured.

Economic hardship. What is a serious loss to one person may not be serious to another. A basic principle of purchasing insurance is that the most economic use of insurance premiums is to protect against the most serious loss first, i.e., those losses that cause the greatest business interruptions because one cannot

8 AUGUST 04


RISK MANAGEMENTTODAY

absorb them out of current income or savings. For this reason, most insurance policies have deductible amounts to avoid the expense of small claims. This enables the cost conscious individual to purchase coverage for just the most severe events. Smaller losses can often be handled more cost effectively by the insured, rather than by the insurer.

Sufficient number and quality. To predict probable loss through the law of large numbers, it is essential that a large number of similar, though not necessarily identical, units be exposed to the same peril. The units must be of sufficient number and quality to allow a reasonably close calculation of the probable loss. Generally, the more data—geographical and historical—the more reliable the estimated loss potential and the more actuarially sound the rate structure.

Accidental and unintentional. Although some losses are expected for the combined group (pool), specific individual losses should be unexpected. There must be some uncertainty surrounding the occurrence, size, or timing of the loss, otherwise there would be no risk. There must also be little or no moral hazard. That is, the risk must generally be accidental in nature and the availability of insurance coverage should not reduce the incentive of the insured to prevent the loss, or induce the insured to cause the loss to occur in an effort to fraudulently collect the indemnity payment.

Determined and measured. The loss must be definite in time and place, and must be capable of being measured with reasonable accuracy. Loss procedures need to be established that determine if a loss occurred and its size before an insurer can safely assume the burden of risk. That is, for a loss to be insurable it also must be difficult to counterfeit so that the true cause can be determined and the true extent of loss can be measured. If this isn’t done, the insurer could be exposed to phantom claims that would undermine program stability.

Popular Misunderstandings

Crop insurance is a popular risk management tool with farmers and agricultural policy makers. Over 217 million net acres were insured in 2003, and it is estimated that even more acres are covered this year. Congress has made crop insurance a major component of the safety net for farmers and continues to appropriate funds to subsidize farmer premiums. Education on crop insurance and risk management has been a major focus of the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES). In spite of all this, there are still some producers who don’t buy crop insurance. Sometimes this is a wise economic decision; other times it is due to common misunderstandings about insurance and/or a lack of understanding economics. Consider the three following common misconceptions about crop insurance.

Misconception 1: “Insurance is a Bad Investment.”

Sometimes insureds will say, “Insurance is a bad investment. I have been buying crop insurance for years and haven’t collected a single payment.” Insurance is not an investment with an associated expected return. However, crop insurance is particularly important from a financial standpoint. It enhances borrowing capacity because it can be assigned to a lender as loan collateral. It opens the door to marketing opportunities that would otherwise be unavailable by providing the means to replace bushels lost to an insurable cause, thus allowing a producer the ability to guarantee bushels as part of an aggressive marketing plan.

Crop insurance is a way of transferring the actual loss to another party in exchange for a fixed premium in advance of the occurrence of loss. Looked at



TODAYRISK MANAGEMENT

another way, individuals who purchase automobile insurance and insureds who buy fire insurance on their homes understand that they don’t want to collect. They view their insurance as protection against potential loss, not an investment earning an expected return.

Insurance is not purchased to recover losses per se, but is a method of eliminating the uncertainty for an individual as to whether or not a loss will occur that he must completely absorb. Thus, insurance performs its chief function during the period before any potential loss. Insurance has been described as the distribution of losses of the unfortunate few among the fortunate many. The insured has the security of knowing that should he be one of the unfortunate few individuals in the pool who suffer a loss, he will be reimbursed out of the premiums paid by the fortunate many who suffered no loss.

Finally the principle of indemnity means that a person may not collect more than his actual loss in the event of damage caused by an insured peril. This means that even if the coverage purchased is in excess of the value of the crop, the insured cannot make a profit by collecting more than his actual loss if the crop is damaged.

Misconception 2: “Crop Insurance Costs Too Much.”

The cost of any insurance product is reflective of the size and uncertainty of the underlying risk. As discussed above, there are numerous factors that can affect the predictability and cost of any given uncertain event. The price of crop insurance is based on the historical damages of the units being insured in the same county.

Congress has recognized that crop insurance is a very useful tool in managing risk, but due to the risky nature of production agriculture the full cost of

10 AUGUST 04

providing insurance is not a trivial expense. Consequently Congress has appropriated sufficient funds to subsidize the cost of buying crop insurance. In fact, the recent ARPA legislation significantly increased the subsidy to farmers. Moreover, a growing number of states provide an additional state funded premium subsidy to entice their producers to purchase crop insurance. The bottom line is this: crop insurance is widely recognized as an effective tool in managing crop production risks and is becoming more affordable.

Misconception 3: “The Coverage I Need is not Available.”

This is becoming less of an issue all the time. Not only did congress authorize increased subsidies for farmer premiums,

they also authorized increased coverage levels for some crops, and appropriated adequate funds to research and develop additional insurance products covering previously uninsurable crops. Moreover, private companies also offer many other crop insurance products to cover specific perils. Over time the offerings of crop insurance have significantly increased and all indications are that this will continue in the future.

Insurance is one commodity that must be purchased before it is needed. Once the hailstorm starts, it is too late to buy hail insurance. However, it is never too late to learn about crop insurance products and take advantage of this risk management opportunity. Contacting a local agent is the best place to go to learn more about why using crop insurance makes good economic sense. TODAY


12 AUGUST 04

CROP INSURANCE

Agriculture Future of America is in the business of growing people.

The non-profit organization has a vision of being “a catalyst in the preparation of a new generation of agriculture leaders.” They try to accomplish this through a threefold focus: leadership, internship, and scholarship.

not Leadership

held in Kansas City each Novem

their past leadership experience to

“focused at a college-age audience. It’s not the traditional leadership development,”

’s CEO and President, Russ

combination of personal and professional growth.

ence gives students the chance to network, discuss current agricultural issues, talk with industry professionals,

The conference hosts an opportunity fair where students meet employers face

to face and can learn about their perspective careers or search for internships.

Hands-on Experience

“The internship process is extremely important. Obviously to get some work experience, but equally important is the exploration of ” said

different types and sizes to provide the delegates with many different internship options both geographically and

Anneke Gustafson, an agricultural economics major at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, is interning with AgriLogic, a diversified agricultural consulting company in Overland Park, KS.

“It was completely through ” said Gustafson, explaining

that she got the internship by

“ence. I probably wouldn’t have done an internship otherwise,” she said, noting that it’s not a graduation requirement from her department.

“From the student perspective the internship becomes the most

valuable part of their experience,” said

often make hiring decisions based on work or internship experience.

Dollars for Scholars Gustafson, like many students, was

community scholarship program. “

where we leverage dollar for dollar what a local community raises to provide a scholarship for students. That has been a successful process for us, and one that we want to keep growing. That’s our basic

G FA :

IS EBy Miranda Malo, NCIS Intern

TODAY

Teaching Leaders,

The AFA Leaders Conference,

ber, is designed to help students tie

careers in the food and fiber industry. The AFA conference is strategically

said AFAWeathers. The conference is a unique

The four-day, high intensity confer

and grow personally and professionally.

opportunity,Weathers.

AFA partners with businesses of all

disciplinarily.

AFA,

attending the opportunity fair. I think it is a really good experi

Weathers, explaining that employers

first introduced to AFA through a

AFA has the scholarship model

ROWING THE UTURE OF GRICULTURE

AFA XPANDING


CROP INSURANCE

identification tool for students into the program,” said Jake

“I was very happy that [my community] took the opportunity to sponsor a scholarship,” said Gustafson. It was worth the investment that her hometown community of Mead, NE, made, she said.

matches that with another $2,500. Students receive a total of $4,200 in the form on a $3,200 academic scholarship and their $1,000 conference registration fee. The remaining $800 is used for scholarship promotion at a local level and administrative costs.

“ ’re investing that much in the students to provide incentive to students who maybe otherwise wouldn’t consider agriculture to

would love for this scholarship to provide an incentive to bring [students] into agriculture so that they can be exposed to the opportuni

” said “We’re trying to provide a

means for students to pursue a degree in agriculture.”

Currently there are eight states in which community scholarships are offered: Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois.

“that we have to match and leverage scholarships, so we have tried to develop a strategy that will allow us to expand the community scholarship program and move into states where we don’t currently [have scholarships],”

That strategy is using state coalitions to help find other identities that have a

“tions and foundation interests in those

Anneke Gustafson is an agricultural economics major interning at AgriLogic in Overland Park, KS.

Miranda Malo, NCIS summer intern, talks to David Meylor at the NCIS Forage

part of her internship with NCIS.

13

TODAY

introducing

Worcester, program manager for AFA.

A community raises $2,500, and AFA

We feel like we

consider it. We

ties that are here in the industry,Worcester.

Growing the Scholarship Program

We have a finite number of dollars

Worcester said.

stake in what AFA is accomplishing. We will target businesses, associa Production & Seeding School in Wisconsin. Miranda attended the school as



states have a more state-wide or regional focus, but have interest in developing human capital in the agriculture arena to provide the leverage dollars,” said

Being Challenged The state coalitions have been set

up in response to a $100,000 challenge grant funded by Monsanto. It will provide matching funds of up to $25,000 in Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

The state coalitions are comprised of industry leaders, and headed up by the state’tor of agriculture.

“successful as the people involved,” said Carl Casale, executive vice president of North America and Latin America North for Monsanto. “Students, educators, mentors, employers and others

CROP INSURANCE

day conference.

The Crop Insurance

’America in its mission.

■ Annually providing a summer internship to a college student interested in agricultural communications.

■ magazine, which has spurred a handful of agencies to start community scholarship programs.

■ Since 2000, NCIS has provided financial support towards funding scholarships and the annual leadership conference.

■

National Crop Insurance Service’interns hired, the increased awareness of the Crop Insurance Industry among college students, and a stronger tie to the future of the agricultural sector as a whole.

14 AUGUST 04

Worcester.

s secretary, commissioner, or direc

The mission of AFA is only as

TODAY

The AFA leaders conference gives students a chance to interact with others passionate about the agriculture industry. This shows students compiling their goals for the four

Industry Supports AFA The Crop Insurance Industry, like others, is dependent on future agricultural

leaders. That s why, since 1998, the Industry has supported Agriculture Future of

National Crop Insurance Services has backed AFA in the following ways:

Publicizing AFA in the Crop Insurance Today

Each year NCIS attends the AFA Opportunity Fair, giving students the chance to learn about this Industry.

s partnership with AFA has seen both direct and indirect benefits, through the


CROP INSURANCE

15

with a vested interest in the future of agriculture benefit from the leadership training, scholarships, and work experience offered to our future industry leaders through this organization.”

of directors for the past three years, and feels strongly about Monsanto’s involvement in the program.

“Monsanto is committed to investing in the future of agriculture— whether it’s through the next generation of industry leaders or new tools for growers on the farm,” he said.

Investors See Benefits

Monsanto, are seeing a return on their investments.

“

vision and mission have seen that that’s ’re now to the point where

we’re providing human capital into to agriculture, back into rural America,”

Around 60 percent of the students

program and have graduated college are back in rural America.

“That’s a fantastic, powerful statistic, and yet another reason why the regional-type companies want to be involved,” “Many young people don’t realize the opportunities that are in rural America. We’re looking to these partners to help us expose students to those opportunities.”

ships they are not just looking for financial support.

“The partners who have taken full advantage are those that are contribut

ing in the scholarship area, are involved in the leader development area, and definitely are involved in the internship area,”

The new partnerships seem like a win-win situation.

“Students are going to see the benefits through increased opportunities to be identified and brought into the process, and more students will be

wouldn’t have known about us, would-n’t have been invited into the process, and wouldn’t have found a way to conference—ence,”

And for the businesses and organizations?

“They’re going to see that this is an effort that’s worth the investment— that we’re building human capital that’ ” he said.

TODAY


Casale has served on the AFA board

With nearly eight years under its belt, many AFA sponsors, including

We believe that those who have bought into our efforts and the AFA

true. We

said Worcester.

that have gone through the AFA

said Worcester.

As AFA establishes new partner

said Worcester.

exposed to AFA that maybe otherwise

into the AFA experi said Worcester.

s valuable to the industry,TODAY


How do you adjust a crop that is harvested two, three, even four times a year?

In June more than 100 people from eight states learned the answer at the

Baraboo, WI. “ ’s

a time-consuming crop,” said David

Services (RCIS) and a member of the NCIS Regional/State Committee. “I hope [the school participants] realized forage

’s a ”

of the morning teaching the attendees just that.

“ask,” he told his audience, explaining that forage can be harvested and fed

“ ’re dealing with soft records.”

a process that was helpful to adjusters and managers alike.

“Going through the problems helped me understand the adjusting process,”

for Great American Insurance

16 AUGUST 04

CROP INSURANCE

By Miranda Malo, NCIS Intern

School attendees go to the fields to practice what they’ve learned.

SO DOES

AS FORAGE

Forage Seeding/Production School in

This is an ongoing type of policy. It

Meylor, Rural Community Insurance

Illinois/Wisconsin

production is not like other crops. Itmulti-visit policy.

On day one of the school, Meylor, who served as an instructor, spent most

You have to know what questions to

relatively quickly. You

The group worked problems together,

said Thad Stauffer, a claims supervisor

Company. This information will be helpful to Stauffer, who is in charge of

TODAY


CROP INSURANCE

compliance, when he has to audit forage

“For someone who considered themselves a novice (in forage) the problems walked you from beginning to end,” he said.

The school attendees had a wide

tion and forage seeding policies. “We’ve only got somewhere in the

” said

RCIS in eastern Nebraska. “I’ve never really worked it before.”

The number of policies in his area is increasing and Fasse will likely have to train adjusters in the future.

“The people that taught the school did a great job. Now you have that feeling you could go out and work a claim,” he said.

Fasse and Stauffer agreed that it helped to have experienced people to consult with.

Currently working in southern and

claims representative, Meylor has 15 years of experience with forage policies. In addition to his expertise, ten adjusters served as plot leaders and helped field questions at the school.

“” said

When the school moved outside on day two, the plot leaders became teachers. At a local alfalfa field they had the

participants take turns adjusting. From there the group moved to the USDA Forage Research Center where they estimated that had been harvested and stored in variety of ways.

“It’s hard to get your hands on this,” Meylor commented. He said it’s a challenge “making sure you get all the

”

tion in chopper boxes, harvesters, bunker silos, silage bags and bales, and completed a scenario on “Farmer Max.”

The two-day school had high reviews.

“My goal was to get a general knowl” Stauffer said,

affirming that his goal was met. “This

Measuring forage production can be tricky because there are so many different ways to harvest and store the crop.

ADJUSTERS’ KNOWLEDGE

POLICIES INCREASE,

17

TODAY

seeding or production claims.

range of experience with forage produc

neighborhood of 30 or 40 policies,Troy Fasse, area claims representative for

northeastern Wisconsin as an area

You could definitely tell the plot leaders understood the policies,Stauffer.

production

production.

The participants calculated produc

edge of the forage policy,



CROP INSURANCE

school is probably one of the best orga

and knowledge of material wasn’t over our heads.”

marks for his presentation on forage

that ail the crop. But more importantly than what

participants said about the school is what they learned from it.

“The biggest challenge is just staying

from the start,” Meylor said. Stauffer admits that he doesn’t know

all the answers when it comes to forage policies, but after attending the school, “I can tell you where to get the answers,” he said.

Forage crop policies are on the increase

Since its inception in 1996, the forage program has expanded into 25 different states.

been sold, which is an increase of almost 5,700 over 2003. More than 60 percent of the increase came from Nebraska and South Dakota.

“It’s partly to do with the fact that the farmers have figured out it’s available,”Rural Community Insurance Services area claims representative in eastern Nebraska. He also gives credit to a couple of agents that have been more aggressive in selling the policies.

More and more farmers are beginning to see the value in insuring forage. “It’s just like any other crop. ” Fasse said.

Participants worked through a scenario that puts together many different loss adjustment techniques.

18 AUGUST 04

TODAY

nized and put together. The presentation

Many participants gave Dr. Under-sander, extension forage agronomist from the University of Wisconsin, high

production and the diseases and pests

on top of it. You have to be on top of it

This year 23,388 forage production policies have

said Troy Fasse, a

Last year, the increased sales brought the sum of industry-insured acres to more than three million for forage production and 1.9 million for forage seeding. Forage production liabilities in 2003 totaled $260 million, with the majority of them being in five states: California, Minnesota, Montana, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

Sometimes the farmers need that security,

TODAY


AVAILABLE NOWAVAILABLE NOWCall 1-800-951-6247 and ask for Donna to order yourCall 1-800-951-6247 and ask for Donna to order yourcopies today, or order online at www.ag-risk.org.copies today, or order online at www.ag-risk.org.

PRIMERPRIMER (English) $1.50 each + Shipping This Crop Insurance and Risk Management PRIMER is

intended as an elementary introduction to crop insurance and agricultural risk management. This 65 page publication was created from existing educational materials, and edited with the risk management needs of those who have not previously participated in the crop insurance program in mind. Small, limited resource, and socially disadvantaged farmers should find this material on basic risk management principles and crop insurance particularly useful.

For your spanishFor your spanish speaking customersspeaking customers

Each four page fact sheet focuses on a different aspect of risk: Risk Overview; Production Risk; Marketing Risk; Financial Risk; Human Resources and Legal Risk; and, a Crop Insurance Overview.

2004 Guide to Crop Insurance in Spanish (6 pg)

40¢ each + Shipping

6 Spanish fact sheets $1.50 per set + Shipping


TODAY RESEARCH

RESEARCH RESULTS2003

By Dr. Mark Zarnstorff, NCIS

Each year NCIS sponsors research projects on a variety of crops. The purpose of the research varies, but it could be to study new crops, study changes in crop varieties/practices, verify accuracy of loss charts and procedures, or develop improved loss instructions. All research projects are conducted for a period of at least three consecutive years. If for some reason results are not obtained for one or more years, the research project can be extended. University experiment stations and agricultural colleges conduct this research, often at more than one location across the

The alfalfa research in Powell, WY, will determine the impact defoliation has on alfalfa seed production.

United States. The results of the Alfalfa Seed— 2003 research program are summarized below. It is important that Wyoming these results are not used exclusively. Alfalfa has been utilized as the The results from 2003 must be premium forage here in the United combined with the results or either States for over 100 years. The producprevious years’ research or research tion of alfalfa seed has become very in subsequent years. concentrated in the northwestern and

20 AUGUST 04


western U.S. where it can be grown under low disease and insect pest intensities. However, these areas are still susceptible to crop damaging hailstorms. We currently do not have loss adjustment instructions for this developing crop.

This research was developed to determine the potential ability of alfalfa grown for seed production to recover from simulated hail damage. This research was done at the University of Wyoming Research and Extension Center located in Powell, WY. The treatments were applied with a gasoline powered string grass trimmer to remove 0, 33, 66, and 90 percent of the above ground biomass. The defoliation levels were pre-calibrated by harvesting whole plants and cutting them into one-inch segments, then weighing them to determine the height/weight relationship. The treatments were then applied by cutting the plants at the prescribed height with the grass trimmer. These treatments were applied at the late bud and full bloom stages of plant development.

The removal of alfalfa biomass at either late bud or full bloom resulted in tremendous reduction in seed yield. The 33 percent defoliation treatment at late bud and full bloom resulted in similar levels of seed loss—56 and 59 percent, respectively. Similar levels of loss were observed with the 66 percent defoliation treatments—89 percent loss for the treatments applied at late bud and 80 percent for the treatment applied at full bloom. The 90 percent defoliation treatment applied at the late bud stage resulted in a loss of 66 percent while the same 90 percent defoliation resulted in 96 percent loss for the full bloom stage treatment.

Apples—Washington While hailstorms do not occur

frequently in a given year in the Pacific

Northwest, they can occur almost any place throughout its tree fruit growing regions. When hailstorms do occur, they can cause severe damage to the fruit. Hail damage to tree fruits not only reduces yield by directly macerating, or tearing the fruit, but also by damaging the appearance, and therefore the marketability, of the fruit.

Within the past 19 years the majority of apple growers have been trying a variety of innovative cultural practices, such as high-density plantings, utilizing a variety of training systems. This has been done in an effort to maximize the return on their investment. Insurers and growers are particularly interested in the relative propensity of the new training systems to hail damage, due to the extreme variability in tree canopy configurations.

Fugi apples grown on three training systems (three-wire trellis, v-trellis, and free-standing tree) were treated with simulated hail six weeks prior to harvest. The simulated hail applied was 21 pounds of ice applied over the same volume of tree. The majority of damage during this trial was in the form of bruises to the surface of the fruit. It was determined that the three-wire trellis system had a loss of 28 percent, the v-trellis system a loss of 16 percent, and the free standing system a loss of six percent.

Canola—North Dakota

Dormant (frost) seeding of canola is the practice of planting “spring” canola in the fall, immediately before “freeze-up.” The crop will then germinate earlier than is possible with spring planting. This reduces and spreads out some of the workload in the spring. Previous research of this practice in Canada and North Dakota, however, has shown that

RESEARCH TODAY

there is considerable risk of poor stand establishment.

The objectives of this trial were to compare the yield of dormant-seeded canola at various densities to that of a normal stand of spring seeded canola. Plant densities were established by seeding an incremental range of seeding rates in the fall from 600,000 to 1,800,000 live seeds per acre. The fall seeding date was November 7. Spring plots were seeded, later than normal, on May 30, due to a rainy spring, at the normal seeding rate of 600,000 live seeds per acre (14 seeds per square foot). Two varieties were used to determine the influence of seed size on establishment of the canola.

The spring seeded stands were lower than anticipated, but were still considered acceptable stands. Fall seeding rates of approximately 1.6 million seeds were needed to obtain the same plant stand from the spring seeded treatment. Spring seeding resulted in lower yields than anticipated due to the late seeding date. Fall seeding rates had a continual increase in plant stands which resulted in an increase in yield throughout the range tested. All of the fall seeded treatments had greater yields than the spring seeded treatment.

Chile Peppers— Colorado

There are many environmental factors, including crusting, windstorms, pests, hail, and disease, that may reduce chile pepper stands. It is not clear how the yield and market quality of chile peppers may be impacted by these changes in plant stand.

A long green chile variety (NuMex Joe E. Parker) was seeded into 30-inch rows and thinned to a uniform stand with six inches between plants. Plants were then removed to result in reduc-



TODAYRESEARCH

tions of 25, 50, and 75 percent of the stand. These reductions were done at two different stages of plant development (full flowering and developing pods). Yields were not affected from the early stand reduction until 75 percent of the plants were removed, resulting in a 38 percent loss. Stand reductions at the later stage of plant development resulted in greater levels of loss for all of the stand reduction treatments; 30, 44, and 70 percent loss for the 25, 50, and 75 percent stand reduction treatments, respectively.

Chile Peppers— New Mexico

This is the third year of a trial looking at the impact of stand reduction on two different growth types of chile peppers: Cayenne, a slow growing,

more compact bush type pepper, and Sonora, a faster growing, more robust large bush, dual purpose (green and red) chile pepper. Plants were direct seeded and thinned to the standard (for the area) stand of a plant every seven to ten inches in the early vegetative stages. Stand reduction treatments of 0, 50, and 75 percent were imposed at R-1 (limb initiation) and R-3 (flower and pod initiation). Cayenne peppers had lower yields compared with the Sonora variety. The stand reduction of cayenne peppers at R-1 resulted in losses of 31 and 41 percent for the 50 and 75 percent treatments, respectively. The same treatment applied at R-3 resulted in losses of 26 and 52 percent for the 50 and 75 percent treatments. The early stand reduction on the Sonora variety

resulted in losses of 11 and 36 percent for the 50 and 75 percent treatments. Those same treatments at R-3 resulted in losses of 13 and 45 percent.

Corn (HO)—Illinois This study evaluated how simulated

hail damage affects the yield of a high-oil Topcross corn hybrid. In addition, because premiums are paid for oil content in high-oil corn, effects of defoliation on oil and protein contents were measured.

Treatments consisted of stand reduction of 0, 25, 50, and 75 percent when the corn was at the V-7 (NCIS) stage of development. Plots were over-seeded at 36,000 plants per acre (ppa) and arbitrarily thinned at the V-4 stage to 32,000 ppa. The plots were thinned in a computer generated method so that no difference could be determined between pollinator or grain parent at time of thinning.

The reduction in stand resulted in reduction of yield of 11, 32, and 56 percent for the 25, 50, and 75 percent stand reduction treatments, respectively. Grain oil content was reduced under the greatest stand reduction treatment by approximately 10 percent. As expected protein content also increased with decreasing yields.

Corn—Early Damage—Illinois

Early damage on corn has not been considered to be a major problem when it occurs before V-7 stage (hail method). Recently there has been considerable concern that this may not be accurate, that there may be damage that occurs that results in a loss. Research was conducted to see the influence of damage done at V3, V5, and V7 (collar method) where every

Chile peppers are being studied in Las Cruces, NM, to determine the impact fourth plant (25 percent of plants) had that stand reduction has on production. all leaf area removed above the grow

22 AUGUST 04


RESEARCH TODAY

At the Kearney Research Center in California, Steve Vasquez and Donnie Katayama use the hail machine to apply simulated hail to grapes.

ing point, all plants had leaf area removed above the growing point, every fourth plant “clubbed” from above with a 30-inch length of 2X2, all plants “clubbed,” and every fourth plant removed. The clubbing treatment was done such that the plants were broken down near the soil surface, but the growing point was not normally damaged. Cutting off all of the plants at the V3 stage resulted in a high loss (75 percent loss). Reasons for this are not clear, but may be related to weather just after V3. The plants simply failed to grow back well after this treatment. Cutting off all of the plants at V5 had minimal effect (six percent loss), but doing so at V7 resulted in 26 percent loss. The removal of 25 percent of the plants resulted in 13 percent loss for the three growth stages.

Corn—Defoliation— Illinois

This study tested the effects of different degrees and times of defoliation on four corn isolines, including a conventional hybrid and its Bt, Roundup Ready (RR) and Bt + RR genetically modified counterparts. This trial was also conducted in Nebraska.

The treatments consisted of four hybrids: a conventional, a YieldGard Corn Borer (YGCB), a Roundup Ready (RR), and a YGCB + RR. Defoliation treatments were imposed at silking (R-1) and at kernel milk stage (R-3). The four defoliation levels consisted of none, one-third, two-thirds, and the entire removal of each leaf blade of plants in all four rows of each subplot.

The four hybrids produced the same

yield and responded the same to defoliation, applied at either stage R1 or stage R3. The defoliation timing resulted in significant differences. There was little difference between the response of the corn to light or moderate defoliation; however, there was a 100 percent loss for the 100 percent defoliation at R1 and 67 percent for the same treatment at R3.

Corn—Defoliation— Nebraska

The experiment in Nebraska responded very much the same as that conducted in Illinois. The four hybrids produced the same yield and responded the same to defoliation, applied at either stage R1 or stage R3. The defoliation timing was what resulted in significant differences. The response of the corn to light or moderate defoliation produced little response; however, there was a 100 percent loss for the 100 percent defoliation at R1 and 67 percent for the same treatment at R3.

Grapes—California Grapevine yields can be reduced

significantly by inclement weather, such as hail, during bud-break. Newly emerging shoots and flower clusters can be easily knocked off or damaged severely enough that they will break later in the season. Thompson Seedless and other table or raisin grape varieties tend to be less fruitful at secondary buds and can result in severe crop loss due to hail.

This research was conducted to determine the affect of simulated hail, using a hail machine, on Thompson Seedless grapes when the shoots were approximately four to six inches and 15 to 16 inches long, as well as an untreated check (UTC).

The early hail treatment resulted in 26 percent lower cluster counts as



TODAYRESEARCH

compared with the UTC, as well as lower total weight from the vine, a loss of 17 percent. The late, “close,” treatment had 51 percent fewer clusters and 51 percent lower total weight.

Guar—Texas Guar is a summer annual legume

that is adapted to the sandy soils found throughout the semi-arid areas of Texas and Oklahoma. Guar produces a bean about half the size of a soybean. The endosperm of the bean contains galactomannan gum, an industrial gum used for petrochemical applications, cosmetics, and a host of other industrial uses. It can be used as a thickening agent in ice cream, instant puddings, and other manufactured food items.

This trial is an attempt to determine the influence of simulated hail on the performance of guar. The guar was damaged at two times (six and 12 weeks after emergence (WAE)) by removing 0, 33, 66, and 90 percent of the above ground bio-mass by using a string trimmer. The defoliation treatments six WAE tended to result in similar yields for the check, 33, and 66 percent levels. There was not a significant decrease, for the six WAE treatments, until you removed approximately 90 percent of the foliage. Treatments applied 12 WAE significantly decreased yield for all of the defoliation treatments.

Peanuts—Texas Peanuts are a major food crop grown

in the southern regions of the U.S. Previously peanuts have not been studied to determine the impact of simulated hail on the plants ability to overcome damage due to defoliation or stand reduction. This trial was initiated to determine the influence of various levels of defoliation (0, 33, 66, and 99 percent) at two growth stages (beginning bloom and full bloom) on the

production of peanuts. Simulated hail was applied by the use of a “string trimmer” at the desired growth stages.

Defoliation at the early stage of growth (beginning bloom) resulted in only slight differences at the highest rate (nine percent loss at 99 percent defoliation). Defoliation at full bloom resulted in higher losses, but only at the 66 percent (14 percent loss) and 99 percent (47 percent loss) treatments.

Peppermint— Oregon

This trial looked at the influence of simulated hail on peppermint grown for oil. The trial studied two timings (six weeks and two weeks prior to harvest) and four levels of severity of damage (0, 33, 66, and 100 percent). The actual treatment dates for this year were 37 and 17 days prior to actual harvest of the field. The earlier the damage occurs and the less severe the damage, the more time there is for

peppermint to recover. There were statistical differences in oil yield and biomass harvested between the untreated control and all damaged plots. However, biomass was reduced to a greater degree than oil yield. This is indicated by the increase in oil per biomass by 10 to 19 percent for the three damage treatments 35 days prior to harvest. From visual observation it would appear that this is the result of increased numbers of leaves on the new growth following the simulated hail damage.

The most significant factor one should consider when evaluating a reduction in oil yield is the time between the damage event and harvest. The longer one can postpone harvest, the more time the crop has to recover. However, the later in the season the damage occurs the more weather limitations there are to providing adequate time for the crop to recover. It appears that biomass follow-

Researchers in Madras, OR, are studying the affects that defoliation has on mint.

24 AUGUST 04


ing damage does not have to fully recover to get the same yield as undamaged mint, as indicated by increased oil per biomass in damaged plots.

Potatoes—Idaho New potato varieties are continuing

to be developed that mature earlier than the standard Russet Burbank variety. These varieties appear to behave more like “red” potatoes than the later maturing Russet Burbank types. This trial was initiated to determine the bulking rates of two newer varieties— Norkotah and Shepody.

Shepody potatoes tended to more marketable potatoes than do Norkotah, but tended to fill the tubers a little later in the season than Norkotah. The Shepody potatoes tended to have a higher specific gravity than the Norkotah. The growing season for both varieties were similar—around 100 days. Both of these varieties are approximately 20 to 30 days earlier than the traditional Russet Burbank.

Potatoes—North Dakota

This trial is a duplicate of the trial conducted in Idaho, but under North Dakota growing conditions. Fresh weight measurements indicate that Shepody produced more shoots during the growing season and tuber fresh weight during the growing season was greater for Shepody than Russet Norkotah. However final grade and yield indicated that Russet Norkotah produced more 4-6 oz., 6-12 oz., and marketable tubers in comparison to Shepody.

Rice—Arkansas Recent questions have been raised

concerning the effects of hail injury to rice at seedling growth stages. The hail injury was simulated by removing the

above ground biomass back to the soil surface at four different levels (0, 33, 66, and 100 percent). The treatments were applied at either the two-leaf or the four to five-leaf stage of rice growth of four different rice cultivars, Bengal, Cocodrie, Francis, and Wells. Rice in this study exhibited a relatively strong ability to recover from simulated hail injury at this growth stage. The largest dry matter was removed from Francis and Cocodrie. Bengal produced fewer tillers than the other three cultivars, regardless of defoliation timing. However, Cocodrie produced the lowest overall grain yield of the four cultivars.

As expected, dry matter removal increased with increased defoliation rates. Grain yields were not significantly reduced by increased defoliation rates, but a trend for reduced yields was observed, particularly following 100 percent defoliation. Defoliation did not affect Cocodrie or Francis grain yields. However, a trend for reduced yields was observed for Bengal at 100 percent defoliation two weeks after emergence and Wells at 100 percent defoliation four weeks after emergence.

Soybeans—Indiana Two studies were initiated in Indi

ana in 2003 on soybeans. The first study was a trial to determine the effects of node removal at various vegetative times of plant growth. Current charts and procedures require that once 65 percent of the nodes on the soybean plant are removed we must defer the claim until later. This research is an attempt to determine the impact of node cutoffs in the vegetative stages up to 100 percent of the nodes being removed.

Soybeans were planted at the Purdue Agronomy Center at approximately 160,000 pure live seed per acre,

RESEARCH TODAY

and then hand thinned to a population of 135,000 plants per acre at the V-1 stage. Plants were then clipped at the V3 or the V6 stage to remove 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 or 100 percent of the nodes above the cotyledonary node. Data collected included grain yield, grain moisture, plant height, lodging, oil and protein content. The soybean plants were able to overcome much of the damage inflicted, especially with the damage coming early at the V3 stage. Losses were 43 percent for the 80 percent of the nodes removed treatment for the V3 stage. Removal of 100 percent of the nodes resulted in 90 percent loss, also at the V3 stage. Once the plants were in the V6 stage, their ability to recover was lessened. The losses were 57 and 96 percent for the 80 and 100 percent node removal treatments.

The second trial determined the effect of stand reduction during various growth stages on the productivity of the soybean stand. The plots were treated the same as for the cut-off trial—seeded at approximately 160,000 pure live seed and then hand thinned to a stand of 135,000 plants per acre at the V1 stage. Stand reductions were then performed at the V3, V6, R1, and R3.5 stages of crop growth. Stand reduction of 25, 50, and 75 percent resulted in losses of four, 19, and 38 percent averaged over the four growth stages. The greatest amount of loss occurred at the R3.5 stage with losses of 12, 30, and 56 percent for the 25, 50, and 75 percent reduction treatments, respectively.

Soybeans—Iowa This study was a second location of

the trial studying the soybean resource utilization and yield responses to node removal during vegetative and reproductive growth. This study was



TODAYRESEARCH

Representatives from crop insurance companies helped cut off the soybean plants at different stages of production to assist in the research being done in Ames, IA.

conducted at the Iowa State University Agronomy Research Farm near Boone, IA. Growth stages where nodes were removed were V3, R1, and R3. The levels of node removal were the same as at Purdue University—0, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 percent.

Regression analysis of yield versus percent node removal was significant for the three node removal stages. The quadratic regression model gave the best fit for node removal at V3 and R3 where as the cubic regression model gave the best fit for node removal at R3. No differences were found among the 60 to 100 percent node removal at V3. Averaged across treatment, the greatest yield loss occurred when node removal was done in the reproductive stages. Small differences were found between the R1 and the R3 treatment. This is because the shorter plant has a reduced capacity to capture solar radia

26 AUGUST 04

tion and it limits the plant’s ability to utilize resources efficiently.

Soybeans— Nebraska

This study was conducted at the South Central Agricultural Laboratory near Clay Center, NE. The study was a second location of the stand reduction trial that was also conducted in Indiana. This study was seeded into 30-inch rows at approximately 160,000 pure live seed per acre, and thinned down to 130,000 plants per acre at V1. The stand reduction treatments were the same as described for the trial in Purdue University—0, 25, 50, and 75 percent reductions at V3, V6, R1, and R3.5.

Yield declined linearly with increasing stand reduction for all growth stages when stand reduction occurred. Yield

declined linearly at V3 but either with a quadratic or a cubic function at V6 and the R stages as stand reduction increased. The data shows that V3 yield reductions with stand reduction differ from the V6 and R stages, and that V6 and the R stages are similar. Losses for the V3 stage were six, 13, and 14 percent for the 25, 50, and 75 percent stand reduction treatments, respectively. Losses for the V6 and R stages averaged 8, 20, and 42 percent for those same 25, 50, and 75 percent stand reduction treatments, respectively.

Soybeans—North Dakota

The development of earlier maturing soybeans (Group O and OO) has expanded the area of production into much of North Dakota and northern Minnesota. These new, earlier-matur-ing soybeans may respond differently to hail damage than the Group I, II, III, and IV varieties grown in majority of the soybean growing area. This trial was developed to determine the effects of defoliation during the reproductive stages on the productivity of soybeans. Defoliation was performed at stages R1 and R-4 with 0, 33, 66, and 100 percent defoliation occurring. A Roundup Ready variety with a Group OO rating was used. Defoliation of 33, 66, and 100 percent at R1 resulted in nine, seven, and 37 percent loss, respectively. The same levels of defoliation applied at R4 resulted in 13, 18, and 57 percent loss.

Tobacco—Kentucky Burley tobacco is an important cash

crop in several south central states with an estimated 2003 farm value of $543 million. Kentucky and Tennessee are the leading state producers with approximately 85 percent of the total production. The large leaves on the growing and maturing plants are


RESEARCH TODAY

Danny Marsh, area supervisor for RCIS, and George Dunken, researcher from the University of Kentucky, are adjusting Burley tobacco to see

how closely those yields match the actual yields.

subject to severe damage by sporadic hailstorms during the summer months. This trial was developed to validate current loss adjustment procedures with the development of newer varieties.

Plots of NC3 burley tobacco were grown at the University of Kentucky Spindletop Research Farm. Simulated hail was applied at two stages (one week after topping and three weeks after topping) at three tractor speeds with a tractor pulled “hail machine” to approximate different levels of intensity. Approximately two weeks after the second treatment, four central Kentucky adjusters evaluated the plots using current adjusting procedures. The plants subsequently harvested in mid-September and were cured until early December. The leaves were “stripped” from the plants to obtain actual plot yield, which were used to

compare the appraised versus actual damage amounts. The use of increasing tractor speeds adequately produced different levels of damage. The current adjusting procedures consistently overestimated the actual yield loss. This trial will be continued to determine some of the reasons for this difference.

Wheat—Illinois This study was initiated to deter

mine whether yield loss is proportional to the number of heads removed in winter wheat, and whether or not the timing of the head loss affects this. It was conducted at the University of Illinois Crop Sciences Research and Education Center near Urbana, IL. Treatments consisted of the removal of 0, 33, 66, and 100 percent of the heads at three stages; late boot, heading, and flowering. Counts showed about 137, 113, and 113 tillers/heads per square

foot at the boot, heading, and flowering stages, respectively. Partial head removal was done by fastening light wooden laths on both sides of the row at the appropriate height, then cutting 1.5-inch segments with a razor blade, with one and two segments cut for each 4.5-inch section of row for the one third and two-thirds removal treatments, respectively. We used a hedge clipping shears to remove all heads in that treatment.

Cutting off one third of the heads at boot or heading reduced yield to a similar degree, by about 16 percent, while the same treatment applied at flowering reduced yield by 22 percent. This represents compensation of about one-half at the two earlier stages (33 percent head loss but only 16 percent yield loss), and of about two thirds (33 versus 22 percent) at flowering, reflecting the reduced ability to form additional productive tillers. In contrast, losses from cutting two thirds of the heads were 30, 48, and 53 percent at the boot, heading, and flowering stages, respectively. These fit the pattern for the treatments at boot and at flowering (67 percent head loss produced 30 and 52 percent yield loss), but for some reason not when heads were removed at heading.

Wheat—Kansas This study was to determine

whether yield loss is proportional to the number of heads removed in winter wheat, and whether or not the timing of the head loss affects this. This trial is a second location utilizing a different class of wheat (Hard Red Winter Wheat) for the trial that was conducted in Illinois. This trial was conducted at the Southwest Research and Extension Center near Garden City, KS.

Head removal of the primary tillers was accompanied by the resulting



TODAYRESEARCH

Eric Eriksmoesn, researcher in Hettinger, ND, and his son, Sam, are creating high hangers in this winter wheat field.

delayed development of secondary tillers. Head removal with tiller replacement was less damaging this year than typical, due to extended cool moist conditions during late May & June. The nemesis of delayed heading and grain filling in the Central Great Plains is commonly the increasingly higher temperatures that accompany delayed heading and grain filling. Wheat remains a cool season crop that routinely truncates seed set and seed size under hot conditions. Cutting off the heads at boot and early heading resulted in similar losses of four, 23, and 48 percent for the 33, 66, and 100 percent treatments, respectively. Removal of the heads at flowering resulted in greater losses—26, 53, and 81 percent for the 33, 66, and 100 percent treatments, respectively.

Wheat—North Dakota

This study was conducted near Mandan, N.D. to determine the influ

ence of “high hangers” of Ransom winter wheat on grain components (1,000 kernel weights, percent of dropped heads, and yield). High hangers were created by kinking over 10, 25 and 50 percent of the stems approximately two inches below the head. Treatments were kinked at the heading, milk, soft dough and hard dough stage. Comparisons were made with the control (non-kinked) heads. Dropped heads were counted from the five-foot length of row converted to a percentage of dropped heads. Significantly more heads fell off of stems that were kinked at heading and in the hard dough stage than at any other stage, although these differences were not reflected in grain yield. Heads kinked at heading may have been exposed to a longer period of wind action causing more kinked heads to fall off. The straw strength of Roughrider, another type of winter wheat tested, tended to be quite weak compared to other varieties used in

this study and tended to be more brittle when heads were kinked at the hard dough stage. There was no significant difference between timing of kinked heads for 1,000 kernel weight. There was a trend for yield to increase as the timing of kinked heads drew closer to plant maturity, although these differences were not statistically significant.

Wheat—North Dakota

This trial was an attempt to show the influence of cutting height and percentage of “non-recoverable” heads on the percent loss of wheat. Wheat plant stems were bent over 180 degrees so that the vertical stem height was approximately 18 inches. Treatments applied were 0, 33, 66, and 100 percent of the stems broken over. Cutting heights of four to six, 10 to12, and 16 to18 inches were a second part of the treatments applied. Level of broken stems affected yield, even at the lowest stubble height since some of the wheat heads were below the combine’s header sickle. Yield reductions at the lowest stubble height averaged 20 percent for the 33, 66, and 100 percent broken over stem treatments compared to the control. As stubble height increased yield reductions became greater as level of broken stems increased. Yield reductions at the intermediate stubble height were 27, 54, and 74 percent for 33, 66, and 100 percent broken stem treatments, respectively, compared to the control. Yield reductions at the highest stubble height were 36, 67, and 94 percent for 33, 66, and 100 percent broken stem treatments, respectively, compared to

TODAY the control.

28 AUGUST 04



CROP INSURANCETODAY


RESEARCH TODAY

MEET ISU’S NEWSOYBEAN EXTENSION

AGRONOMISTBy Kelly Mescher, Iowa Soybean Review

Palle Pedersen has been immersed in agriculture since he was able to walk. So he fit right in when he was hired as the new soybean extension agronomist at Iowa State University (ISU).

Born into a farming family near Koge, Denmark, Pedersen grew up planting crops and doing fieldwork. By the age of 15, he was helping out on one of the largest farms in Denmark—2,800 acres.

Pedersen said his major goals as the soybean extension agronomist are to raise yield capacity and solve the unknown interactions between pathogens, insects and yield.

“I will also be doing extensive research across the state to get a better understanding of the environmental differences, because Iowa is so diverse,” Pedersen said.

Palle Pedersen

The first few months will be spent doing background research, Pedersen said, talking to people and finding out the major problems soybean producers face here in Iowa. He will work with the departments of plant pathology, ag engineering, entomology, and agronomy to discern his answers.

His time will be split between extension work and research. Pedersen’s extension work includes educating growers, crop agents and crop consultants across the state, and research will include examining soybean limitations in the corn and soybean rotation, and developing alternative production systems. He would like to help producers “get a handle on all production costs so we are more sustainable. It’s also very important to find a niche market (specialty beans) as a way for farmers to increase economic stability.”

“I’m looking forward to working at Iowa State for many reasons,” Pedersen said. “It’s the ag school in the United States. It will be a pleasure to work with some of the best researchers in the nation. I will have a lot of good collabo-



TODAYRESEARCH

This group of Crop Insurance Industry representatives helped Palle and his research team remove plant growth from the soybean plots in Iowa. Palle is in the back left in the red shirt.

ration at ISU and around Iowa. The Iowa Soybean Promotion Board and Association are also very active, which is a plus.”

Although soybean producers face problems, there are many positive aspects of farming, Pedersen said. “Low grain prices and competition is tough, but being able to produce high quality products and spend so much time outside are the benefits. Not many have that opportunity. They should be proud of what they’re doing.”

The Iowa Soybean Promotion Board (ISPB) has provided encouragement and support to ISU in filling this position. Jim Legvold, ISPB director on the production technology committee and producer from Vincent, Iowa, sat in on a presentation Pedersen gave during the interview

process. “He just blew us away,” Legvold said. “His ability to comprehend the needs of the Iowa soybean farmers and the immense knowledge he had acquired in just a short amount of time was incredible. Palle brings some unique assets—his education and his Danish origin.”

Pedersen’s expansive educational background includes a bachelor’s degree and masters degree in ag science at the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University in Copenhagen, Denmark, a masters in ag economics at Wye College, University of London, England, and a doctorate degree in agronomy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Editor’s Note: This article was reprinted with permission from the Iowa Soybean Association.

Dr. Palle Pedersen has been working with NCIS and the Iowa State Committee to tackle one of the issues concerning Soybean Loss Adjustment. That issue is the plant/node cut-off portion of the loss adjustment procedures. The current charts show the amount of loss up to when 60 to 65 percent of the nodes are cut off the soybean plants. The research is to determine if there is a good enough relationship between higher amounts of damage—more than 65 percent of the nodes cut off—and overall loss. The research focuses on three stages of crop growth—V1 to V3, V4 to V6, and R3, as well as 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 percent of the nodes cut-off above the cotyledonary node. This research has also involved the hands on help of many different crop insurance company employees to help with the removal of the

TODAY plant growth.

32 AUGUST 04

• Aug 04 NCIS Layout 7/16/04 2:39 PM Page b

PRSRT. STD. U.S. POSTAGE

PAID Permit No. 656

LIBERTY, MO 64068

8900 Indian Creek Parkway, Suite 600 Overland Park, Kansas 66210

PUBLICATION OF NATIONAL CROP INSURANCE SERVICES PUBLICATION OF NATIONAL CROP INSURANCE ... ·...

Documents

Transcript of PUBLICATION OF NATIONAL CROP INSURANCE SERVICES PUBLICATION OF NATIONAL CROP INSURANCE ... ·...