During the past two decades, Illinois corn and soybean farmer Rodney Weinzierl’s conservation practices led to fewer crop insurance payments to his family and lower loss ratios.
The third-generation farmer from Stanford said he believes practices such as no-till and cover crops have reduced risk on farms, specifically by making soil more resilient to drought and excess rainfall.
The federal crop insurance program, Weinzierl said, is designed to operate at a loss ratio of 1.0, meaning for every dollar premium paid in, $1 is paid out as an indemnity payment.
“Over the past 26 years, my farm has only received 20% of what I should have received at a loss ratio of 1.0, and most farms in Illinois are in similar predicaments,” said Weinzierl, who testified during the U.S. House Ag Committee’s hearing on the farm economy Feb. 11.
Weinzierl, who is executive director of the IL Corn Growers Association and IL Corn Marketing Board, added if crop insurance rates were re-evaluated, particularly in the Midwest, “we could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in savings. I would encourage those savings to be used to improve crop insurance and support other farm bill titles.”
Many of the hearing’s themes — trade, timely reauthorization of a farm bill, tariffs, labor and market access — were similar to the previous week’s Senate Ag Committee ag economy hearing.
With a witness panel comprised of Weinzierl; Ryan Talley, a specialty crop farmer from California; Alisha Schwertner, a cotton and cattle farmer from Texas; and John Newton, executive head of Terrain, the asks from farm country haven’t veered much from last year, although with the trade deficit widening and new tariffs being announced, uncertainty looms for farmers.
Access to new markets, labor reform, a Proposition 12 fix and quick reauthorization of a farm bill with Title One enhancements continue to be top priorities for farmers.
“I think it’s important for folks to understand that with crop insurance, farmers have very large deductibles that they take, oftentimes in excess of a 15 or 20% deductible on crop insurance,” Newton said. “So, at times, farmers are taking very, very deep losses before crop insurance ever triggers an indemnity to the grower. And so, Title One programs have always laid on top of crop insurance and offered a cushion in the event of a low price or low revenue environment like we find ourselves in today.
“I think it’s important for farmers to have options for risk management tools; the more tools in the toolbox, they can customize the risk management strategies that they need.”
Committee member Mary Miller, an Illinois Republican from Oakland, asked Weinzierl what Congress can do to ensure the Risk Management Agency is able to balance the calls from producers to make crop insurance cheaper while still maintaining enough premium in the risk pool to help cover losses from catastrophic events.
“All we’re asking is, if we’re making these practices, if we’re becoming less risky, somehow reflecting that in the rates that we pay,” he answered. Weinzierl also said that he does not utilize any federal funding to implement conservation practices.
Committee member Eric Sorensen, an Illinois Democrat from Moline, said he’s heard from many farmers who have said the federal crop insurance program needs adjustments.
“My focus remains the same. We must move quickly to pass a five-year bipartisan farm bill that supports fair premiums for our farmers, prioritizes smart farming practices, protects SNAP, opens up new global markets and expands and boosts our crop insurance,” he said.
House Ag Committee members tussled over the impacts of potential retaliatory tariffs and a pause in some Inflation Reduction Act funding, including for climate-smart and energy programs through USDA.
Committee ranking member Angie Craig, D-Minnesota, said additional uncertainty has been injected into the farm economy conversation the past three weeks: “Consider grant dollars to farmers appropriated by Congress and already under contract with USDA have been frozen. Trade wars with our largest trading partners and largest export markets have been threatened. Food grown in America is rotting at a warehouse in Texas. We all know, just like before that trade wars will inevitably lead to retaliatory tariffs on American farmers. We know that cutting off foreign food assistance programs also cuts off a major market and farm income.”
Committee member Mike Bost, an Illinois Republican from Murphysboro, later countered the challenges that exist in agriculture didn’t develop during the new administration.
“It’s based on the fact that one, we need to get a farm bill passed,” Bost said, adding trade policy the past four years has hurt farmers. “And our worst-case scenario, if you really study this issue, has been China, who actually plays games with the industry.”
Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, R-Pennsylvania, added he’ll be keeping a “vigilant watch” over the administration’s actions with tariffs, which he believes will give President Donald Trump leverage to negotiate with foreign nations on trade.
“And where U.S. agriculture gets caught in a crossfire, I’ll be the first to speak up on behalf of our producers,” he said.
This story was distributed through a cooperative project between Illinois Farm Bureau and the Illinois Press Association. For more food and farming news, visit FarmWeekNow.com.