On November 27, 2019, the Risk Management Agency (RMA) published Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) for the cropping practices of “following another crop” and “not following another crop”, which are used to determine insurability of a crop following another crop that meets the conditions specified in the Special Provisions. https://www.rma.usda.gov/News-Room/Frequently-Asked-Questions/2019-Corn-Harvest-in-the-Upper-Midwest-Great-Plains-States.
RMA provides the definition of “double crop” and producing two or more crops for harvest on the same acreage in the same crop year. RMA states that “following another crop” is defined as a crop planted following another crop and “not following another crop” is defined as a crop that is planted not following another crop. RMA states that double crop and “following another crop” cannot be used interchangeably. “Following another crop” is used to determine eligibility of a crop and a crop could be designated as “following another crop” without being considered double cropping. RMA provides the example of a fall planted wheat crop that is damaged by freeze prior to heading and an appraisal was made on the damage wheat and the acreage was released to be planted to soybeans. The soybeans would be considered as “not following another crop’ because the wheat had not reached the heading stage but in a subsequent year, the appraised acreage of wheat lost due to an insurable cause of loss would be an acceptable record for determining double cropping. RMA states that “following another crop” and “not following another crop” can qualify for double cropping provided the producer has a history in accordance with section 15(h) of the common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions (Basic Provisions).
RMA states that in counties where there are acreage of soybeans “following another crop” and acreage of soybeans “not following another crop” all soybean acreage must be insured. RMA states that if there are soybeans that meets the definition of “following another crop”, and all other policy requirements are met, the “following another crop” soybeans must be insured under the policy in the county. RMA states the producer only has a choice to not insure a crop or practice that meets the insurability requirements of the policy is when the first crop suffers an insurable loss and the producer elects to receive 100 percent of the indemnity on the first insured crop and chooses not to insure a second insurable crop on the same acreage in accordance with section 15(e) of the Basic Provisions.
RMA states in a county where the “following another crop” practice is insurable for the current year, the “following another crop” soybeans are insurable in the current year even if the producer has no production records for the practice as long as the soybeans meets the definition of “following another crop” in the Special Provisions.
RMA states that in a county where “following another crop” is available, and the producer plants wheat that is harvested and then plants soybeans, it does not matter whether the first crop, wheat, was damaged or not. If the soybeans qualify for insurance under “following another crop” and the producer chooses to insure the soybeans, then they are insurable.
RMA states that if a second crop is planted and insured but the producer does not have a history of double cropping the producer cannot receive 100 percent of the indemnity on the first crop. RMA states that the producer can only receive 35 percent of the indemnity on the first crop unless the second crop does not have a loss, whereby the producer can receive the other 65 percent of the indemnity. Insurability under “following another crop” is irrelevant.
RMA states that if the irrigated practice has been divided into an irrigated “following another crop” and “not following another crop” the producer is requited to establish separate databases for the “following another crop” and “not following another crop” acreage in accordance with the Crop Insurance Handbook.
RMA states that in counties where there is an option to have enterprise units by irrigated and non-irrigated practices, the producer cannot elect to have enterprise units by “following another crop” and “not following another crop” and by irrigated practice. The producer must select one or the other if available in the county.
RMA states that “following another crop” and “not following another crop” units must separately qualify for enterprise units.
RMA states that where there is an irrigated practice producers may elect one enterprise or optional unit for all “following another crop” and “not following another crop” or separate enterprise units for both but if enterprise units or optional units ate elected for “following another crop” and “not following another crop”, enterprise units and optional units by irrigated practice is not allowed.
RMA states that elections for enterprise units structures must be made by the earliest sales closing date on the application or policy change form. Optional units by irrigated practice of “following another crop” and “not following another crop” are determined at acreage reporting time if the production report contains the prior year’s production on the basis of optional units for the current crop year.
RMA states that enterprise units by “following another crop” and “not following another crop” are available under the High-Risk Alternate Coverage Endorsement when allowed by the applicable policy and actuarial documents.
ANALYSIS – RMA’s explanations regarding the interaction between “following another crop” and double cropping is confusing. The example uses planted wheat failing before heading and subsequently planted soybeans and suggests that in subsequent years this can be used as an acceptable record for determining double cropped acreage. This suggests that a crop following a failed crop qualifies as double cropping and that is not correct. The example should have been premised on a history of planting soybeans after wheat has been harvested because the producer has to show a history of planting and harvesting wheat and planting and harvesting soybeans on the same acreage in the same crop year to show a history of double cropping. While this may have been implied, given the confusion regarding double cropping and “following another crop” and “not following another crop”, this requirement should have been made more clear or the reference to acceptable records for double cropping removed.
All statements made are opinions of the author and are not intended to provide legal opinions or legal advice.