Farmers in Khula will need to think twice about how they cover their crops in the coming years.
Farmers in Khulas will need a lot more than a few years of drought to begin to get insurance coverage for the crop insurance program that farmers have relied on for decades.
According to a new study by the Agricultural Policy Institute of the University of California, the Khula drought has significantly altered the insurance landscape.
The study analyzed data from more than 100 farmers in the Khulas region.
The results were published online in Agriculture Technology Management.
The Khula crop insurance policy is one of the most complex in the country.
The policy covers a wide variety of crops, including sorghum, millet, sorghums, rice, and other grains.
It is designed to protect farmers from crop damage from drought.
But the Khulans are a rural area with a high proportion of farmers who are farmers themselves.
The number of farmers in Khulas was about 1.5 million in 2014.
The new study found that in the last decade, the percentage of farmers living in a household with an agricultural or horticultural business decreased from about 12 percent to about 4 percent.
The researchers found that there were also fewer farmers with farms than in previous years.
That may be because the number of people who were farmers in previous decades increased, which may be one of its reasons for the decrease.
“There is more risk of crop loss in the years when the crops are in drought,” said Michael Schaller, a research associate in the University at Buffalo’s College of Agricultural and Life Sciences.
“The new study demonstrates that a high percentage of the population lives in a rural environment that is more susceptible to crop loss, and that this is also one of those areas where there are a lot of farmers without agricultural or other experience in crop insurance,” Schallers told ABC News.
“I think that could be a concern for farmers in rural areas as they try to get coverage for their crops and find out how they can pay for it.”
Farmers with other crops in their families, such as tomatoes and grapes, are also at greater risk.
“They are more likely to suffer losses from drought than people who have other crops or have other jobs,” said Schall.
The more people who live in a farming household, the more vulnerable they are.
Schaller and other researchers studied how crop insurance rates would change with different factors.
For example, if there were fewer farmers who were farming their own crops, they would likely see their insurance premiums increase.
They also examined how farmers would fare in a worst-case scenario where there was a drought and crop insurance was not available.
“I think the farmers who have been the most exposed to drought in the past may see their premiums go up in the worst case scenario,” Schaler said.
Farm insurance policies were established in the early 1990s and were designed to help farmers cover losses during crop damage.
It has grown to cover the majority of crop losses and cover a large portion of the cost of crop insurance.
In 2019, the average farmer had about $1.5 billion in insurance.
But in 2019, a third of all farmers in Africa had a policy.
The report found that the number one factor that farmers were looking for in the coverage offered by crop insurance programs is “firmness.”
It found that farmers with a policy would expect coverage to be good for the life of the policy.
But it also found that “fees, the cost per crop, are an important consideration for farmers.”
Schallers research is the first of its kind to examine insurance rates for different types of crops.
The report is the result of the Agricultural Research Institute’s study of a nationwide crop insurance database.
The database covers a range of crops from sorghumes to wheat, sorbets to sorghams, and sorghat.
Schalls team also studied a national database for insurance policies for various types of grains.
The group found that grain insurance premiums were among the lowest in the United States.
In 2018, farmers in Michigan and Ohio had the lowest insurance premiums in the nation.
Schallert said farmers in these states were looking to pay less than they do for crop insurance, because they did not have to pay the high premiums they would have paid in previous crop years.
The new findings from the study will inform farmers’ decision making in the future, Schallerman said.
“What is the best option for them?
Is it a better option for the insurer to have them pay more for a better product, or is it the right option for farmers who do have a good product?”
Schallert told ABC that the research does not mean that farmers will be abandoning the insurance industry.
But, “if they have to make a tough choice to pay more, that’s a choice that they’re going to have to have,” he said.