Thread: U.S. Issues 2013 Farm Bill
View Single Post
Old 01-29-2014, 10:38 PM   #55
Buehler445 Buehler445 is offline
Supporter
 
Buehler445's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Scott City KS
Casino cash: $2147483647
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonestChieffan View Post
I can't believe sodbuster was so limited. Kansas and Missouri native grass and pasture land can qualify for full payment crop insurance and that is bullshit. But Grain guys have the power in Mo, Ks and Oklahoma so greed pays off again.
Meh, there isn't much native grass around here, unless it is terrible ground and it is staying. Unless they're counting CRP as native (which would be mindboggling) I don't see it being many acres. There has been a lot of CRP coming out.

There has been a little work done, around here anyway about breakout techniques. And, around here, there has been some really good success notilling into native grass and achieving average to slightly above average yields for comparable soils. It takes money to do it right, most notably in herbicide and fertilizer, but as long as there isn't a bunch of dirt work to be done, it isn't difficult to project average yields over native grass. Some of it has to do with higher organic matter and soil structure to facilitate water infiltration, but if managed properly, native grass can yield as well as or better than comparable soils. Around here anyway.

Now if you're going to plow under 20% slopes on shallow soils, yeah, that isn't appropriate.

And as far as I know, there a 640 acre limit per operator limit on transferring APH data, so at any given time, there shouldn't be massive exposure on grassland anyway. If you add more than 640 acres any given year, you have to take the T-Yield on it all. For farmers that farm good soils and do it well, that is significant. Unless some other insurance guys can find better loopholes than mine can, that's how I see it. Around here anyway.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HonestChieffan View Post
Not sure what was cut in conservation. Looks like Crop Insurance and programs will involve a mandatory conservation component. I hear you on the limits deal makes zero sense but politics spins the high dollars and you and I know limits will just mean you break up the names and acres.
Hopefully they cut out some redundancy and some of the dumbass programs. Your link talked about reducing the number of conservation programs. I don't have much experience in the conservation range, but I know what they are pushing now will not work in low rainfall environments.

And yeah, Art Barnaby proposed that limits on MPCI will just yield more legal entities back in like 2011. But the whole principle of the thing is just mind ****ing boggling. Punishing big operators that that spend the money on good farming practices and techniques because they farm more than 500 acres is mindbogglingly retarded. The guys that would fall under the (proposed) limites are the guys that are still running their Dad's 4020 and haven't changed anything about their operations since dad either. They're the guys that wash the ditches full of topsoil and blow them away when it dries out. I know there will be workaround, but son of a bitch, the whole premise is asinine.
Posts: 21,170
Buehler445 is obviously part of the inner Circle.Buehler445 is obviously part of the inner Circle.Buehler445 is obviously part of the inner Circle.Buehler445 is obviously part of the inner Circle.Buehler445 is obviously part of the inner Circle.Buehler445 is obviously part of the inner Circle.Buehler445 is obviously part of the inner Circle.Buehler445 is obviously part of the inner Circle.Buehler445 is obviously part of the inner Circle.Buehler445 is obviously part of the inner Circle.Buehler445 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote