If I am correct these "estimates" are based on county averages. What a document like this does not show are instances where farms have claims on some of the "units" and not others. For example in my home county I had large localize unit claims because of flooding in creek bottoms. Yet the county average was well above average. So figuring payments for revenue products using county averages may considerably understate the actual county payout over time for revenue products or as Paul Harvey says "the rest of the story".

I'm not trying to discredit what Rob is showing about GRIP possibly being a good choice for some people but simply trying to point out that some of these examples may not be representing what has "actually" been paid out versus "theoretically" what might have been paid out using county averages instead of actual production numbers on all the available county individual crop units.

I applaud Rob for bringing light to a program that most agents have little knowledge about and tend to steer their customers away from because of the company mantra. Since it is a lower profit product for insurance companies, they do not promote it. Insurance is a service business and when less service is needed they are not going to like it because it pays less. It is a shame it is unceremoniously rat holed by most agents. On the other hand Rob is a salesman nonetheless, and this is his "wedge" to get in the door to sell a product that otherwise no one would consider buying from someone "not local" so he "could" have a vested interest in overstating the benefits of the program. Not saying that he does, he may just be a committed salesperson and farmer that believes strongly in his product and therefore tends to get excited about something he believes in like we all do at times. Nothing wrong with showing some enthusiasm in something we believe in.

Everybody needs to assess their own financial position and the risk they are able and desire to take and choose accordingly. GRIP is going to put a farm at higher financial risk than a revenue product like CRC or RA. Risk and labor are pretty much what we get paid for so if you can stand the added risk GRIP might be a better financial choice but it is important not to bet the farms existence on it. Risk is not at all a bad thing - it is what we get paid for - putting capital at risk - it is what capitalism is all about. We just need to keep it at manageable levels. Each individual farm has to decide what a suitable level is for them.

John