Laserfiche WebLink
<br />this 8-year period. If we were considering Farm Value to mean farm <br />income, then we would have to account for it and Farm Values would <br />be considerably higher. The CRP affects this analysis in that it <br />artificially lowers yearly farm values. and, therefore, from a total <br />income perspective, the Farm Values presented should be considered <br />as minimum for actual income. <br /> <br />What is shown on the two graphs on the previous page reflects <br />what most people closely associated with agriculture intuitively <br />already must know about cropping patterns in the region. From the <br />previous graphs, it is seen when the wheat crop has been harvested, <br />44% of the WKWM Farm Value is made for the year. Prior to wheat <br />harvest, there is a maximum hail exposure to all crops. At this <br />time wheat is highly susceptible even to small hail damage while <br />the other row crops are in critical, tender stages of development. <br /> <br />NOTE: Before proceeding, we need to point out that all following <br />graphs exclude hay data, from the portrayed values. <br /> <br />Figure 10, shows the yearly changes within the WKWM target <br />area for: (1) Crop Losses, (2) County Participation, and (3) <br />Premiums paid to insure the four row crops. One obvious point <br />should be cleared up first---the distinction between total amount <br />of premiums paid and cost of premiums. Total amount of premiums <br />paid each year depend on the numbers of participating counties each <br />year; the liabilities insured relate largely to crop prospects. <br />Actual premium costs to insure crops aren't wildly variable year- <br />to-year. One interesting point seen in Fig. 10 is that the steep <br />rise in premium costs appear to parallel crop losses all the way <br />from the drought year of 1988 through 1990 continuing with a sharp <br />decline in 1991 then a slight rise in 1992. Comparing these nearly <br />parallel lines to the nearly parallel Farm Values and Liabilities <br />in Fig. 11, we note a bottoming out of Farm values and Crop <br />Liability in 1987 at the same time WKWM county participation was <br />bottoming. So, although county participation was the same in 1989 <br />and 1990 (Fig. 10), Crop Liability increased markedly (Fig. ll), <br />Crop Losses increased (Fig. 10) and Farm Value increased (Fig. 11). <br />This appears to add weight to our thesis that significant crop-hail <br />claim changes from one year to the next can be caused by greater or <br />lesser liability changes in the same direction resulting from <br />growers recognizing when it is in their best interest to opt for <br />insurance. Table 4 on page 26 lists the hail claims attached to the <br />WKWM target areas since it began in 1975. Since crop data only <br />goes back to 1985, we see that from 1985 onward, a clear tendency <br />for yearly numbers of hail claims and total crop loss values to <br />move in the same direction except for 1992. This might not seem <br />surprising to many until we consider that we are looking only at <br />numbers of claims without regard to which crops were damaged, when <br />they were damaged and what the value of the crop was when it became <br />damaged. No statistically significant correlation of numbers of <br />hail claims to crop loss values have been performed. <br /> <br />39 <br />