up to 150,000 dead cattle in South Dakota

[RyanChandler]

You keep saying livestock insurance is  'cost prohibitive. ' it's not.  Annual premiums run in the 5-6% range.

 

[Pleasant Grove Farms]

so a plain Jane bred cow is worth from $1800-$2400 depending on her age but we shall use a figure of $2000 is what a cow is worth;
$2000 x .06%= $120/year/cow to insure.
I have 300 bred cows and bred heifers right now, so that would be an annual premium of $36,000 to insure my cows/year.
But I also need to insure those calves too, which in the local salebarn last week a 500 lb. calf was bringing $1000 and a 750 lb. calf was
bringing $1200....
so just to save money, I will insure my calves for only $1000 apiece, even though I market them at 850 lbs. so that would be $60/year, which
we would have them almost that long; so if I had 275 calves from those cows (heifers calve not till next year), then to insure the calves would
be $16,500 per year.
But I also have herd bulls and they are worth probably $5000 apiece and I have 6 of them....so to insure them would be $300/year or $1800.

Grand total would be per year to insure all of my cattle would be $54,300

That is cost prohibitive for me on a yearly basis.....

 

[justintime]

so a plain Jane bred cow is worth from $1800-$2400 depending on her age but we shall use a figure of $2000 is what a cow is worth;
$2000 x .06%= $120/year/cow to insure.
I have 300 bred cows and bred heifers right now, so that would be an annual premium of $36,000 to insure my cows/year.
But I also need to insure those calves too, which in the local salebarn last week a 500 lb. calf was bringing $1000 and a 750 lb. calf was
bringing $1200....
so just to save money, I will insure my calves for only $1000 apiece, even though I market them at 850 lbs. so that would be $60/year, which
we would have them almost that long; so if I had 275 calves from those cows (heifers calve not till next year), then to insure the calves would
be $16,500 per year.
But I also have herd bulls and they are worth probably $5000 apiece and I have 6 of them....so to insure them would be $300/year or $1800.

Grand total would be per year to insure all of my cattle would be $54,300

That is cost prohibitive for me on a yearly basis.....

I agree totally with Pleasant Grove on this one. I used to carry an insurance policy on my cattle, but the premium was more than if I lost 10-12 cows a year. Anytime I had a loss, it was an absolute hassle trying to get the insurance to pay me. For example, I found a cow upside down and dead in a hay feeder one day. She had obviously got pushed and could not get out and bloated and died. My insurance policy said it covered stranding, but the insurance company said this was an act of God, not a stranding. In their opinion, stranding was a case where an animal was stranded on an island with no feed and water. Of course, if you read the small print, acts of God are not covered, but being hit by a falling aircraft, and sinking on a ferry were covered.
In my herd, if I was to carry a comprehensive insurance policy on my cattle, it would cost me over $35,000 a year for the premium.
The only thing I carry insurance on now is a new herd bull and I only carry it until I have some semen collected. Insurance is not a viable option for many producers. A comprehensive insurance policy to cover all risks on a herd bull has a premium of 10% now.

In this debate, I think that the cattle producers who had losses in this horrible storm, may not have had insurance coverage if the insurance gurus deemed this storm to be an act of God. I think these producers deserve to have assistance, but the difference I see from most other national disasters, is that most of these producers would not be standing around and waiting for government assistance. They would be working hard to maintain what they have left and making sure they are ready for winter. There are several places that are taking donations for these people and I hope everyone will consider donating to this cause. I think it is very important for us to support each other when these events occur.

 

[RyanChandler]

so a plain Jane bred cow is worth from $1800-$2400 depending on her age but we shall use a figure of $2000 is what a cow is worth;
$2000 x .06%= $120/year/cow to insure.
I have 300 bred cows and bred heifers right now, so that would be an annual premium of $36,000 to insure my cows/year.
But I also need to insure those calves too, which in the local salebarn last week a 500 lb. calf was bringing $1000 and a 750 lb. calf was
bringing $1200....
so just to save money, I will insure my calves for only $1000 apiece, even though I market them at 850 lbs. so that would be $60/year, which
we would have them almost that long; so if I had 275 calves from those cows (heifers calve not till next year), then to insure the calves would
be $16,500 per year.
But I also have herd bulls and they are worth probably $5000 apiece and I have 6 of them....so to insure them would be $300/year or $1800.

Grand total would be per year to insure all of my cattle would be $54,300

That is cost prohibitive for me on a yearly basis.....

So you're saying you're Net Income on over 300 calves is less than $54,300? 

What you meant to say is that you don't feel comfortable with the profit margins you'd make if you had to assume comprehensive coverage for all your cattle.  That's a choice YOU CHOOSE to make, not one that cost prohibits.   

My break even on my calves is around $600 (that includes all costs including comprehensive coverage on their dam- land is a SEPERATE INVESTMENT and should never be expensed against cattle) - as long as calves sell for $601+, comprehensive coverage is feasible.   

 

[CAB]

X-bar, I feel your comment was a bit callus and poorly timed.
What I really find offensive are comments made by non AG people on some of the news sites and one individual on a blog from Beef Magazine. The low informed populous, makes me wonder where they get their info if they get any at all. Apparently if you raise livestock, cattle in particular, you are rich, heartless, a murderer, and and only feel regret from the money you lost when you lose an animal or animals. Ya that describes everyone I know that raise cattle or livestock. (Sarcasm)

I have a few head of cattle and know how it bothers me when I loose a calf or cow. I can not imagine the gutwrenching feeling that many are feeling as they go survey what is left of their animals, it has to be the worst.

Perhaps poorly timed.  A legitimate question nonetheless.  Some cattlemen do fit that stereotype- without question they are the minority.  That being said, I do think it's the obligation of those of us who treat our animals with the dignity and respect they deserve to expose those that do not- as opposed to kicking despicable practices under the rug in an attempt to save face with the populous.  Despite what you and maybe others feel about the lack of sympathy expressed in my comments, I have as large of a concern for animal welfare as anyone on this board, and the thought of losing my cattle in that fashion is unbearable.  While I don't feel it's the responsibility of the tax payer to absorb their loss -as reasonably priced agreed value insurance policies are/were available- I do commend the efforts of those across the country who are volunteering their time and money to help.

OK this goes back quite awhile ago to a post about gestation crates for sows, and I was going to not ask, but now I am going to ask you. You were strongly against sows being in gestation crates in that thread , but I need to know how many sows have you personally been in charge of, in outside lots with housing, indoor free group pens, and sows in gestation crates? Of those 3 choices after being involved with all 3 over the years, I think that gestation crates may be the most comfortable and humane type of sow housing system. JMO, after 4 to 5 decades of raising hogs. If you haven't raised hogs in these environments you are putting yourself in with all of the misinformed PPL that you refer to.
As far as not helping these hard working ranchers hopefully getting back on their feet, what would you say that we should do with all of them? They are very experienced ranchers, would you rather they need welfare and food stamps? I think they deserve another chance and I applaud this country for helping this type of American.

 

[chambero]

I dont know a single cattle ranching operation in my part of the world that carries livestock insurance.  If you run a significant number of cows, you have enough land to incur significant maintenance/pasture related cost that drives that breakeven way up.  Most commercial operations dont make 5-6% profit - and that doesn't count land purchase in it.

Corporate ag isnt getting into cow/calf business because return on investment for grazing land is not enough.

I think its fine to provide disaster relief for situations like this - but anyone in favor of it shouldn't be signing up for tea party membership any time soon.  Nor griping about the fed govt bailing out the auto or banking industry.  By the wsy -  all of that money got paid back with industry.  In general, helping out business or people trying to work is generally a good thing.

 

[nate53]

I just typed a half page response and then thought what's the point and deleted it! ???

 

[Pleasant Grove Farms]

(clapping)

Nate, you are most probably the smartest one here!!!

That way the "expert" on the board can't tell you your business!

 

[Show 22]

No problem.  You pointed out the lack of aid "from our president and those in Washington, DC."  Clearly, you feel it is warranted.  Others, have said - "they don't want it."  Perhaps the 'river' puts off some vibe that dictates the moral/political divide in your state.

I am from the East river side of South Dakota, as a high school student who is very involved in agriculture. I feel that you maybe should visit our side of the river before you make assumptions about this side of SoDak.
Instead of slamming us, people east of the river, maybe you should be more concerned about how the Head of PETA had a newspaper piece saying that if the US was vegan, that this would have never happened.

 

[justintime]

I think it is very clear to most people that this event should be considered in the same league as other national disasters. No one could ever be ready for this kind of event and it would be devastating to anyone. The farmers and ranchers probably aren't standing around asking for government aid in this situation, but in my opinion, that does not mean they do not deserve it. I think if it was any other part of society that suffered losses like this from a  totally disasterous " act of God", there would be no debate and there would be compensation flowing from the feds, and no one would question it. It is just the right thing to do. As has been said earlier, this business is hard enough to make ends meet in the best of times. I can imagine there will be some who will have to close down their ranching businesses, some after decades or even generations of producing food for the nation. Anyone who says this is the right thing to happen, is more than a little messed up in their head.

 

[Shorthorns4us]

I guess I do my budgets and farm figures differently: I do include the cost of the dirt those cows are standing on-- it has to be paid for somehow.  The calves are the commodity coming off of that ground and the farm costs have to be covered:  feed, taxes, ins., land.
Just how I do my figures.
EF

 

[RyanChandler]

I think its fine to provide disaster relief for situations like this - but anyone in favor of it  shouldn't be signing up for tea party membership any time soon.  Nor griping about the fed govt bailing out the auto or banking industry. By the wsy -  all of that money got paid back with industry.  In general, helping out business or people trying to work is generally a good thing.

That was my whole point. 

I think it is very clear to most people that this event should be considered in the same league as other national disasters. 

Not how many cattle, but how many individual ranchers were affected in ND? 

There were nearly a half million in NOLA.   

I guess I do my budgets and farm figures differently: I do include the cost of the dirt those cows are standing on-- it has to be paid for somehow.  The calves are the commodity coming off of that ground and the farm costs have to be covered:  feed, taxes, ins., land.
Just how I do my figures.
EF

That just doesn't make much sense to me.  An Expense is an event in which an asset is "used up."   Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see any accountant supporting expensing an asset that results in an increase in Equity- as by definition, that's not an expense.

 

[Pleasant Grove Farms]

We, too, count the land as an "expense" of growing cattle; if you rent the land, then that rent would be counted as an expense;
owned land needs up keep also....I am pretty sure that almost all except one counts the land as an expense against the livestock...
it is expensive to own land....personal property taxes (can you tell they are due Nov. 1?...I keep bringing that up), fencing, spraying
weeds, providing water source for the cattle (annual water taps payments are due Nov. 15....how I hate this time of year...), problem
solving on your property such as adding erosion control, lots of expenses to owning land, it needs to be paid for somehow and so the
cows at our place get that honor.

here is some more descriptive words of the aftermath of the blizzard; truly, no one knows how many cattle were killed in this; you read
anything from 20,000 to 75,000 to 150,000; I really do worry about the mental state of the people as this all plays out; as in any
tragedy, in a short time, those unaffected will forget about it and go on with their lives, but those that are living this live it every day
and will for years; it will haunt them every time there is snow forecast....I just hope they can travel through the valleys OK when it gets
tough mentally for them.

http://dawnwink.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/it-takes-a-ranch-how-to-support-south-dakota-ranchers-affected-by-the-blizzard/

 

[hamburgman]

Xbar you wording on not counting land as an expense confuses me, I might be misreading what you are saying.  Don't you have to do an opportunity cost though to show a true profit vs just sitting around and renting the ground out for instance?

 

[comercialfarmer]

He!!, why not just pack up and call it over.  My gosh, bunch of socialistic programs isn't going to fix a damn thing.  Yes that is a horrible natural disaster.  And yes, people should band together.  Pouring a crap load of tax dollars stolen from everyone else into some inefficient program where 80% of the money is wasted or skimmed off the top is retarded.  Look at Obamacare for a prime example.  A half billion dollar website that doesn't work.  Don't tell it is because of over use because that has been proven wrong.  You want to help them, provide your own time and hand out directly the way it should be done.  I don't want money going to some idiot that doesn't want to help himself.  We just went through some big time tornadoes.  FEMA didn't do crap.  It was the neighbors and people that drove in to help.  Good things are still happening.  If you didn't rob everyone of all the tax money in the name of "good" there would be more to help with. 

And so help me, you are an educated idiot if you think government needs to help someone out of a tight spot every time it happens and they over extend themselves.  It is this retarded thinking that got all this bail out BS going in the first place.  The government forced banks to make bad loans and then allowed them to be bought up and repackaged.  If you make a bad loan, you get the debt just like you get the profit.  If you are going to share debt you have to share profit.  And if you share their profit, then why work? 

You make a bad decision, you need to feel pain.  If you have all your eggs in one basket, that is your decision to pay the consequences. 

Commieberro, show me the funds that have all been paid back.  If you really believe the lies, you are an idiot.  Don't care if that pizzes you off, as I don't have use for someone that is willing to double down on stupid and hurt my children further- and that is what you are promoting.  Spend some time learning a little about finance.  The American tax payer will never be repaid for what has been stolen from them. 

Bad $hit happens.  It always has and always will.  Save money for hard times.  Don't over extend yourself.  If you don't, you can recover. 

My family had 2 years of drought when they first started farming.  Then the price of wheat bottomed out.  Spent many years recovering but the lessons learned where some that won't be forgotten and aren't taught.  Too many bureaucrats on both sides of the isle want to preach relief.  It isn't relief.  It is theft.  If they called it theft, no one would go for it.  It needs to be wrapped up in some nice package called relief.  The more money controlled by the federal government, the more siphoned to crooked family members and friends.  At this point, if you can't see that, you aren't looking or there is no hope for you.

Some may feel that I'm heartless for saying this at this time.  But there is no better time to say it.  It is the non-sense thinking that has got us into this mess and claiming political correctness and trying to stifle speech about it isn't going to help.  And if you think I haven't put my wallet where my mouth is, I can promise you that my private giving would be a mountain compared to what has been given by the top two individuals leading our country into the bottomless pit of debt where headed for. 

This is a disaster that has happened in America's history over and over.  For those that pick themselves up and stick their chest out and take it on whether they stay in the cattle business or not, it will make men out of.  Most out there probably were to begin with.  Others will just be added to the number of beggars and slaves at the feet of the Fed. 

 

[Pleasant Grove Farms]

"commercialfarmer".....

What are you talking about that these ppl have overextended themselves?
The ppl that were totally wiped out and lost all their cows were the ones that only had a 100 or so head of cattle; the ppl with
1,000 head mostly had a good number of survivors.  The ppl with 100 or so head were mostly the young ppl that were starting out;
if they were "over extended", that seems to be a fact of life for young ppl that start out in ranching/farming.....

I do believe in the livestock indemnity program; I believe it has its place in situations such as this.
I also believe in giving of myself as we have pledged a young cow with her fall heifer calf at side for the heifers for South Dakota
project; I have also volunteered to be a resource for locating and buying bred cattle with the $250,000 that has been donated by wonderful,
caring ppl across this great nation that don't have cattle to donate themselves but want an animal bought in their name to give to
these ranchers.

Hopefully, you, as the generous giving person you have described yourself to be have also opened your wallet and join us in our mission to help these young ranchers
recover and go on.

 

[BTDT]

I have actually thought about this situation quite a bit. I have argued with myself on how to resolve the "situation". And since I do not know how to "quote" show up so I can comment, I will just comment....

I do not think it is the responsibility of the government to "save" its citizens from disasters, either man made or "acts of God".  I also do not believe it is the governments responsibility to "care for" citizens who can not care for themselves. If you want to have 8 kids, you better be able to feed and house them. You want to create a business that fails, you better have a plan B.  If you live close to the Gulf, (BELOW sea level) and a hurricane takes your house, then you better have the monetary reserves to rebuild.  You decide to build a home on a mountain side that collapses from a rock slide, better have enough money to relocate.

That being said, at the moment, my tax money is being used to feed "welfare babies", pad the pockets of politicians family members who "work" for the politician, disability payments to people who can set up a tree stand, climb into said tree stand, shoot a deer, then drag that deer with a 4 wheeler that they loaded into the back of their jacked up truck, rebuild a town that is BELOW sea level right next to the gulf, put out fires to protect multi million dollar homes that were built in "nature", build bridges that no one uses, investigate why fruit flies multiply so fast, research why smiling makes people happy, build HUGE gold and marble trimmed buildings for lobbying groups in DC, big parties in exotic places for "meetings" for gov't workers, video's from gov't offices making fun of the people they are collecting money from, to pay for health insurance for those that can afford but have chosen not to have health insurance and those that can not afford health insurance due to personal habits THEY have chosen to par take in......
So why the hell can my money NOT be used to help the very people who are responsible for feeding the WORLD?  I generally do not support subsidy programs due to the fact they usually go to people who do not deserve them (Ted Turner, numerous politicians who have yet to set foot on the "farm land") as well as people who are listed as "managers" who can not point to their "farm" on a plat map.  But, again, if my tax dollars can go to them, why not innocent people who normally take care of their own, work to right wrongs, and have never had their hand out for "free help", why not?  Why the hell not?

I would also add, they will probably need mental health professionals, as I know if I witnessed PILES of dead cows I would need some help sorting my brain out. While worrying about repopulating dead cow herds, we also need to focus on saving those ranchers who might decide tomorrow is just too much to face.  Lets focus on saving the PEOPLE, as well as the cows.

 

[aj]

"In all its fury...the blizzard 1888." compiled by w h O'gara. Decent book. It changed the attitude of the way cattle were handled back then.

 

[Pleasant Grove Farms]

BTDT

The mental health professionals have been there and continue to be;
The small towns in the affected areas are hosting rancher meals with mental
health professionals present in an attempt to encourage those affected to lean
on each other and open up to those trained to assist with PTSD. But my worry
is for the long haul; you don't get over this in a month or a year and that's why I believe so strongly in thte Heifers for South Dakota program so that these people each day have a reason to get up and begin a new day with hope. Each animal that is a gift to those ppl reminds them that someone is confident in them and that they deserve animals to care for. Money is needed also but an animal will heal the heart. 

 

[RyanChandler]

We, too, count the land as an "expense" of growing cattle; if you rent the land, then that rent would be counted as an expense;
owned land needs up keep also....I am pretty sure that almost all except one counts the land as an expense against the livestock...

And I am pretty sure only one of us has any Acct experience.  YOU CANNOT EXPENSE AN ASSET THAT DOESN'T DEPRECIATE.  The simplest definition of an expense is: a cost that is tax deductible.  The principle portion of a mortgage is not tax deductible.  Rent on the other hand IS tax deductible and does qualify as an expense. 

Over- extended / Over- leveraged: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/overleveraged.asp

Xbar you wording on not counting land as an expense confuses me, I might be misreading what you are saying.  Don't you have to do an opportunity cost though to show a true profit vs just sitting around and renting the ground out for instance?

No, opportunity cost is not needed to calculate Net Income nor does it have any relevance in any of the financial statements.