Risk Management 

Agency

The Risk Management Safety Net:

Market Penetration and Market 

Potential

Analysis of the Federal Crop Insurance Portfolio

September 2017

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

1

I. Introduction

Federal crop insurance is a critical risk management safety net – supporting food security for 

American consumers and economic stability for rural America. In 2016, crop insurance protected 

nearly $101 billion of crops and $533 million of livestock and was offered for nearly 550 unique 

crops and types. This risk management safety net provides agricultural producers with the risk 

protection needed to obtain necessary operating capital and provides protection for rural 

economies by keeping farms operating following challenging years. 

A unique public-private partnership exists to offer Federal crop insurance. The insurance 

products offered are approved by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation but are sold and 

serviced through private insurance companies who are paid administrative and operating subsidy. 

Both the private insurance companies and the Federal government share in the risk on policies, 

and American farmers and ranchers pay a portion of the premium – all parties involved have skin 

in the game. 

The positive impact of Federal crop insurance as a risk management safety net has been apparent 

following severe, widespread weather events that have occurred in recent years. A good example 

of this can be seen by looking at the effect that 2012’s widespread drought conditions across the 

United States had on farms. Eighty-three percent of losses that year, totaling nearly $17.5 billion

in loss payments, were caused by drought conditions. However, because the majority of land was 

covered by Federal crop insurance, no ad-hoc disaster assistance was required. 

Even though large loss payments, like the ones in 2012, do occur, the Federal crop insurance 

program is run at a 0.85 loss ratio. This means that over time, premiums more than cover the 

indemnities paid out, meaning the program is operating in an actuarially sound manner. 

Additionally, the Federal crop insurance program has a very low 2.02 percent statistically

measured improper payment rate as of 2016, less than half of the 4.08 percent from 2012. 

Producers realize the value of Federal crop insurance. Market penetration, measured in this 

paper, indicates that 86 percent of total U.S. acres in 2015 were covered by Federal crop 

insurance for all commodities except hay, livestock, nursery, and pasture, range, and forage. A 

little over 238 million acres were insured in 2015, up over 11 million acres from over 226 million 

in 2011. 

Efforts to improve market penetration for the principal crops have been very successful with 

nearly 89 percent of all acres insured in 2015, up 4 percent, or nearly 8.7 million acres, from 

2011. 

Specialty crop products have been a strong priority since the 1996 Farm Bill, and market 

penetration for fruit and nut crops encompassed 74 percent of their market potential in 2015

while U.S. vegetable crop market penetration was 34 percent in 2015, up slightly from 2011. 

Recent expansion of the Whole-Farm Revenue Protection insurance program, as the first Federal 

crop insurance program to be available in every state and county in the U.S., has provided the 

expansion of the risk management safety net to all commodities on all farms across the U.S. The

expansion of the Pasture, Range, and Forage program and Apiculture program to all 48 
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

2

contiguous states are also good examples of expanded availability of risk management products 

for producers.

The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) and the Risk Management Agency (RMA) work 

closely with stakeholders to provide a world-class Federal crop insurance risk management safety 

net that is delivered to producers through the successful public/private partnership mentioned 

above. RMA recognizes that producers’ production and revenue risks vary over time, so it is 

important for RMA to review and monitor the Federal crop insurance program, consult with 

stakeholders, and be responsive to changes that affect producers’ needs within the risk 

management safety net. 

This Portfolio Analysis provides information about the current book of business and measures of 

market penetration by category of commodity. It identifies commodities or locations where there 

may be a potential need to add to the risk management safety net. This analysis shows both 

market penetration and market potential based on 2015 data -- the most recent year that National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) national-level data are available for the majority of 

commodities. Where possible, summary data from 2016, 2017, and 2018 are included in some 

tables, but these more recent years are not used to calculate market penetration.

The RMA priorities with regard to development of new products is targeted to areas where: (1)

Market potential is available, (2) Data are available for actuarially sound premium rating and 

program underwriting, (3) Growers indicate the need or desire for new risk management products, 

and (4) Any new program will improve the risk management safety net for U.S. agricultural 

producers and ranchers.

II. The Federal Crop Insurance Portfolio Today 

Crop Insurance Book of Business

In 2016, Federal crop insurance provided nearly $101 billion of insurance protection (liability) for 

U.S. agricultural producers across all crops (excluding livestock). This was nearly three times 

higher than the $34.4 billion of crop insurance protection in place in 2000. Premium in 2016

totaled nearly $9.4 billion and crop insurance paid over $3.7 billion of indemnities to producers. 

Favorable weather conditions across the U.S. resulted in a 2016 loss ratio (indemnities compared 

to premium) of 0.40. 

While 2016 was a low loss year, there are years like the 2012 crop year, that pose weather 

challenges that can be devastating to producers if they do not have Federal crop insurance. 

Drought conditions were severe in 2012 across the U.S. and indemnities of nearly $17.5 billion 

were paid to producers. Of that $17.5 billion, 83 percent, or nearly $14.5 billion of the losses were 

caused by the drought conditions. Because crop insurance is highly utilized by producers, ad-hoc 

disaster assistance to agricultural producers was not necessary, even with the large losses that 

were seen across the country.

The following table provides Federal crop insurance information for:

• 2000 as a base comparison year
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

3

• 2011 as the date of the previous Portfolio Analysis

• 2012 as a high loss year

• 2015 as the year used in this Portfolio analysis for the study of market penetration, and,

• 2016 as the most current year with complete data available. 

Federal Crop Insurance: Book of Business for Crops (No Livestock Insurance Included)

Year

Policies 

Earning 

Prem Liability Premium Subsidy Indemnity 

Loss 

Ratio

2000

 

1,323,243 $34,443,753,124 $2,540,163,689 $951,191,720 $2,594,834,319 1.02

2011

 

1,151,986 $114,209,887,185 $11,972,261,003 $7,463,376,557 $10,869,339,618 0.91

2012

 

1,174,007 $117,159,687,972 $11,116,978,988 $6,979,362,775 $17,451,159,529 1.57

2015

 

1,204,619 $102,512,109,284 $9,765,432,103 $6,087,547,525 $6,307,085,111 0.65

2016

 

1,159,146 $100,516,354,943 $9,317,354,439 $5,858,839,862 $3,737,187,815 0.40

Data as of July 17, 2017

The top ten commodities insured in 2015 and 2016 are shown in the following table:

Federal Crop Insurance: Top 10 Crops by Liability, 2015 and 2016

Rank 2015 

Commodity

2015 

Liability

Percent 

of Total 2016 Commodity 2016 Liability

Percent 

of Total

1 Corn $40.3 Billion 39.3% Corn $39.6 Billion 38.6%

2 Soybeans $24.3 Billion 23.7% Soybeans $22.2 Billion 21.6%

3 Wheat $8.4 Billion 8.2% Wheat $6.8 Billion 6.6%

4 Cotton $3.0 Billion 2.9% Almonds $3.6 Billion 3.5%

5 Almonds $2.9 Billion 2.8% Cotton $3.3 Billion 3.3%

6 Rice $1.5 Billion 1.5%

Whole Farm Revenue 

Protection $2.3 Billion 2.3%

7

Nursery 

(FG&C) $1.5 Billion 1.4% Rice $1.7 Billion 1.7%

8 Grapes $1.5 Billion 1.4% Grapes $1.4 Billion 1.4%

9

Orange 

Trees $1.3 Billion 1.2% Pasture, Rangeland, Forage $1.4 Billion 1.4%

10 Apples $1.2 Billion 1.1% Nursery (FG&C) $1.4 Billion 1.3%

ALL OTHERS $16.7 Billion 16.3% ALL OTHERS $16.9 Billion 16.4%
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

4

Producer’s Choices for Their Risk Management Safety Net

The predominant selection of risk management protection continues to be revenue products, with 

over 84 percent of total Federal crop insurance premium paid for individual revenue type policies

in 2016. The following graphic shows the definite market preference for revenue coverage.

The Risk Management Safety Net in Action: Perils That Caused Losses

Over the fifteen year period of 2001-2015, which included two serious drought years in the U.S., 

the following graphic shows the percentage of loss payments that were made for key perils that 

producers face:

Individual Yield

10.72%

Other

4.56%

Individual Revenue

84.25%

Area Yield

0.16%

Area Revenue

0.31%

2016 CROP INSURANCE PREMIUM BY POLICY TYPES
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

5

Every loss year is unique as can be seen in the graphic below showing 2016 loss information by 

peril:

Cold, 6%

Disease/Insects, 

1%

Drought, 45%

Hail, 7%

Other, 7%

Precip/Flood/Storm, 

27%

Price, 7%

2001-2015 INSURED PERILS - SHARE OF 

INDEMNITY

Cold

5% Disease/Insects

2%

Drought

23%

Hail

11%

Other

10%

Precip/Flood/Storm

46%

Price

3%

2016 INSURED PERILS - SHARE OF INDEMNITY
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

6

The Use of Crop Insurance by Coverage Level 

Producers have increased their risk management safety net protection by purchasing higher 

coverage levels for their insurance than they did in past years. There are likely several reasons for 

the increased use of higher coverage levels. Some reasons for increased coverage levels can are 

increased risks of farming, increased costs of crop inputs, requirements from lenders in obtaining 

operating loans, and acknowledgment that ad-hoc disaster programs are unlikely.

Until after year 2000, most the majority of policies were sold at the 60-65 percent coverage level 

range and producers chose coverage levels from 60-75 percent for almost all policies. Today, 

producers select a risk management safety net using mostly the 75 to 85 percent coverage level 

ranges, with 48 percent of policies falling in the 70-75 percent range and 31 percent of policies 

purchased at the 80 to 85 percent coverage levels. The following chart shows the percentage of 

policies sold at each range of coverage levels for specific years during the program. Note that 

CAT level coverage was not available until the mid-90s.

Percent of Policies by Coverage Level

(Excludes Area-based Programs)

Coverage 

Level 1990 2000 2011 2015 2016

CAT N/A 24% 7% 4% 4%

50% to 55% 6% 5% 7% 5% 5%

60% to 65% 68% 42% 20% 13% 12%

70% to 75% 26% 25% 49% 47% 48%

80% to 85% 0% 4% 18% 31% 31%

Real Growth of Federal Crop Insurance: Removing Price Variation

To look at the amount of real growth in the Federal crop insurance program without the effect of 

price changes, the following chart shows liability normalized to average commodity prices that 

occurred between 2002-2006 for the major commodities, including barley, corn, cotton, rice, 

sorghum, soybeans, and wheat. The chart shows actual Federal crop insurance liability and 

normalized liability, illustrating that when the effects of price changes are removed, Federal crop 

insurance program coverage has steadily grown.
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

7

Federal Crop Insurance Growth Shown with the Effects of Price Changes 

Removed

Liability Normalized** for 2005-2015

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Actual 

Liability $44.3 $49.9 $67.3 $89.9 $79.5 $78.1 $114.2 $117.1 $123.8 $109.9 $100.3

Normalized 

Liability $45.2 $48.7 $50.3 $52.1 $54.0 $55.2 $58.4 $62.7 $66.2 $68.2 $68.7

Normalized Wheat $3.8 $4.0 $4.2 $5.3 $4.1 $4.1 $5.0 $4.3 $4.7 $4.6 $4.6

Liability for Rice $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.5 $0.6 $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $0.9 $0.9

Individual 

Crops Cotton $2.5 $2.9 $2.0 $1.8 $1.9 $2.3 $3.3 $2.9 $2.6 $2.9 $2.5

Corn $14.8 $16.5 $19.4 $17.5 $18.9 $19.6 $21.2 $23.3 $24.8 $23.6 $23.9

Sorghum $0.4 $0.4 $0.5 $0.5 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.5 $0.5 $0.6

Soybeans $9.2 $10.1 $8.2 $9.7 $10.6 $10.9 $10.7 $11.5 $12.1 $13.6 $13.9

Barley $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.3

Other $13.8 $14.3 $15.4 $16.8 $17.4 $17.0 $17.1 $19.6 $20.7 $21.9 $21.9

*Amounts for all crops are in $ billions.

**Normalized Liability reflects the liability if commodity prices were at their 2002-2006 average values. Thus, 'real' growth in the

 program is due to increases in producer choices of higher coverage levels and amounts of acres or products insured.

Book of Business for Livestock Insurance

Authorization for the FCIC to provide livestock insurance was first put into place with the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000. 

Market potential for livestock is limited at this time because expenses for livestock insurance programs are statutorily limited in the 

Act to $20 million per Fiscal Year. Livestock insurance expenses include premium subsidy paid on behalf of producers, and the 

administrative and operating subsidy paid on behalf of producers to insurance companies for selling and servicing the products. The 
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

8

$20 million expense capacity limitation is divided amongst the various livestock plans of insurance that are offered to provide equal 

opportunity to producers for the various types of livestock. In 2015, livestock expense limitations pertained to Livestock Risk 

Protection (LRP), Livestock Gross Margin (LGM), and the portion expenses attributed to insurance liability from animal and animal 

products for Whole-Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) insurance. The table below shows the use of livestock expenses since 2010:

Insurance 

Product 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

WFRP/AGR/

AGR-L $ 34,362 $ 27,903 $ 39,688 $ 28,639 $ 28,975 $ 411,013 $ 2,759,608 

LRP Feeder 

Cattle $ 1,077,701 $ 1,832,857 $ 1,473,919 $ 1,327,360 $ 2,902,341 $ 2,398,240 $ 2,352,417 

LRP Fed Cattle $ 162,755 $ 222,279 $ 154,428 $ 120,860 $ 268,902 $ 361,909 $ 471,374 

LRP Lamb $ 345,691 $ 1,304,964 $ 1,933,299 $ 241,342 $ 830,271 $ 33,737 $ 130,717 

LRP Swine $ 123,512 $ 192,529 $ 73,894 $ 15,718 $ 49,129 $ 21,688 $ 30,810 

LGM Cattle $ 9,561 $ 10,254 $ 629 $ 2,230 $ 12,871 $ 2,686 $ 14,193 

LGM Swine $ 210,429 $ 183,792 $ 141,075 $ 264,569 $ 229,531 $ 180,155 $ 206,862 

LGM Dairy 

Cattle $ 210,663 $ 16,221,200 $ 15,621,636 $ 9,899,027 $ 10,464,406 $ 13,045,223 $ 4,287,581 

Total $2,174,674 $19,995,778 $19,438,568 $11,899,745 $14,786,426 $16,454,651 $10,253,562

LGM Dairy insurance first became available in 2008. In 2011, the program was expanded from the previous 31 states to all 48 

contiguous states and subsidy began to be provided for LGM Dairy. LGM Dairy sales have been halted at times due to reaching the 

allocated underwriting capacity. The 2014 Agricultural Act (Farm Bill) provided for the creation of the Margin Protection Plan 

(MPP), as a farm program for dairy. Producers are not allowed to participate in both the LGM Dairy and MPP at the same time and 

there are rules that once producers enroll in MPP, they are committed until the end of the MPP program which is the end of 2018. 

MPP first became available at the end of 2015, which can be seen in the LGM-Dairy expense capacity use in the table above. 
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

9

Livestock insurance under Federal crop insurance was first allowed in accordance with the

Agricultural Risk Protection Act (Farm Bill) in 2000. The following table shows livestock 

coverage under the LGM and LRP insurance plans from the time of inception in 2003. Livestock 

covered under the WFRP plan of insurance is not included in these totals, but is not a large 

amount. 

Livestock Insurance Experience: All Years of Availability

Year Liability Total 

Premium Subsidy Indemnity Loss Ratio

2003 $23,115,438 $1,269,031 $93,693 $328,318 0.26

2004 $278,567,984 $9,400,247 $824,788 $7,266,584 0.77

2005 $155,412,863 $5,067,399 $288,840 $1,838,726 0.36

2006 $189,529,859 $4,927,801 $302,033 $2,887,094 0.59

2007 $109,511,064 $3,205,044 $165,476 $2,332,570 0.73

2008 $244,497,751 $7,619,444 $642,351 $9,757,765 1.28

2009 $107,860,581 $4,157,358 $367,084 $8,434,371 2.03

2010 $185,784,534 $6,229,575 $563,496 $2,108,614 0.34

2011 $1,066,786,768 $34,128,241 $11,790,010 $4,281,695 0.13

2012 $1,149,803,366 $29,832,330 $10,165,447 $38,362,113 1.29

2013 $939,067,419 $23,704,903 $8,724,213 $22,692,904 0.96

2014 $1,040,593,521 $22,787,933 $6,606,344 $10,506,914 0.46

2015 $1,293,621,279 $32,825,201 $11,420,344 $25,416,770 0.77

2016* $533,568,817 $16,023,201 $4,183,245 $20,616,501 1.29

2017* $564,036,925 $18,185,470 $4,436,357 $1,780,770 0.10

*2016 and 2017 are incomplete. Data as of July 11, 2017.

Program Growth: Crops and Crop/Type Programs Insured

The Federal crop insurance program has seen significant growth in both the crops and crop types 

covered and insured since 2000. The number of crops insured increased 10 percent from 2000 to 

2017, to a total of 123 insurable crops. From the chart below, you can see some slight decreases 

in the number of crops. However, there was no real decrease in offerings. The reason for this 

‘decrease’ is a restructuring initiative that has moved some crops to a more general category such 

as naval oranges being moved to a crop category called oranges with a type of navel. This 

initiative is the Acreage and Crop Reporting Streamlining Initiative, which is targeted to

streamline producer reporting for Federal crop insurance purposes and participation in other 

USDA programs.

The number of insurable crop/type combinations for individual commodities, at 551 in 2017, 

increased nearly 70 percent from 2000. WFRP insurance also became available in 2015;

expanding in 2016 to become the first Federal crop insurance program to be made available 

nationwide in all states and counties. For farms meeting eligibility requirements1

, WFRP covers 

 1 An insurance liability (coverage) limit of $8.5 million currently exists.
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

10

revenue from all commodities on the farm, including certified organic and specialty crop 

commodities. The following table shows the growth of individual insurance program offers by 

year since 2000 and includes all crops and livestock.

Federal Crop Insurance: Number of Crops and Types 

Insured*

Year Crops 

Insured

Types 

Insured

Total 

Crop/Types 

Insured

2000 112 254 325

2001 114 266 340

2002 117 283 358

2003 120 300 376

2004 120 318 393

2005 120 328 402

2006 119 345 418

2007 124 344 427

2008 126 358 440

2009 128 354 438

2010 128 399 482

2011 132 409 488

2012 131 427 507

2013 129 425 517

2014 124 454 542

2015 123 457 543

2016 126 460 547

2017 123 473 551

*Includes all crops and livestock. Excludes Whole-Farm 

 Revenue Protection

Overview of Program Performance 

The Act requires the Federal crop insurance program to operate in an actuarially sound manner, 

with premium rates sufficient to cover anticipated losses plus a reasonable reserve. An industry 

standard measure of performance in insurance, the loss ratio 

is total indemnity divided by total premium. It is used to 

measure the overall performance of the crop insurance 

program. This represents the amount of indemnity paid per 

dollar of premium collected. For example, a loss ratio of 

0.90 means that for every dollar of premium collected, 

90 cents was paid in indemnities. The table to the right 

Period

Average Loss 

Ratio

5-Year (2012-2016) 0.91

10-Year (2007-2016) 0.80

15-Year (2002-2016) 0.83

20-Year (1997-2016) 0.85
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

11

provides average loss ratios for the crop insurance program over recent periods of time, ranging 

from a low of 0.80 (over the last 10 years) to a high of 0.91 (over the last 5 years). 

The chart below includes annual loss ratios from 1997 to 2016. As shown, the loss ratio varies 

from year to year, primarily driven by lack of moisture or excess moisture. These weather 

extremes can be widespread when they occur, as was the case with the 2012 drought when 

significant crop damage resulted in a loss ratio in excess of 1.0. In other years, such as 2016, loss 

events are isolated, resulting in a loss ratio well below 1.0. Given the annual variation in loss 

ratios, program stability and actuarial soundness is measured based on the historical average. The 

20 year average loss ratio for the crop insurance program is 0.85, representing a financially stable 

and actuarially sound insurance program as required by the Federal Crop Insurance Act. 

The chart below includes annual loss ratios from 1997 to 2016, with a 20 year average of 0.85 

representing a financially stable and actuarially sound insurance program as required by the 

Federal Crop Insurance Act. 

Federal Crop Insurance’s Improper Payment Rate

The government provides a statistical measure of the amount of improper payments made for 

government programs as a quality measurement to assure the prudent use of taxpayer dollars. 

The Risk Management Agency has been diligent in identifying areas that needed additional 

internal controls to prevent improper payments, resulting in a statistically measured improper 

payment rate of 2.02 percent in 2016, less than half of the 4.08 percent from 2012. 

20 Year Average: 

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Loss Ratio

Federal Crop Insurance Program Loss Ratio by Year

Federal Crop Insurance: Improper Payment Rate

Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Improper 

Payment 

Rate

4.08% 5.23% 5.58% 2.20% 2.02%
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

12

III. Increased Organic Insurance Offers

Organic agricultural products are an important part of the agricultural sector today, and RMA has 

worked steadily to provide organic insurance offers and prices to provide an effective risk 

management safety net for organic producers. To offer organic prices, accurate and sustainable 

data must be available. Lack of data is the biggest limitation to providing distinct organic prices, 

and one way that RMA has addressed this issue has been to fund USDA National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (NASS) surveys for several years targeted to obtain organic crop price 

information. 

Organic Commodities Within the Book of Business

Organic commodity insurance has also increased over time. The following tables show the top 10 

crops with the largest amounts of organic liability for 2011 and 2015.

2011 Top 10 Organic Crops by Liability 2015 Top 10 Organic Crops by Liability

Organic Crop Acres 

Insured Liability Organic Crop Acres Insured Liability

Corn 112,736 $101,156,262 Corn 178,608 $125,967,968

Soybeans 80,173 $42,899,018 Apples 12,895 $88,078,837

Apples 13,476 $40,753,378 Soybeans 91,235 $37,773,463

Wheat 223,247 $36,583,286 Wheat 255,731 $36,917,391

Grapes 10,614 $17,295,077 Grapes 11,564 $32,491,143

Blueberries 2,551 $12,946,228 Almonds 6,181 $31,442,273

Citrus Fruit/Tree 7,145 $11,137,609 Rice 41,560 $26,703,206

Cherries 1,731 $11,077,431 Tobacco 6,374 $25,504,386

Tomatoes 4,665 $10,512,704 Tomatoes 8,455 $24,559,440

Tobacco 4,036 $10,471,945 Blueberries 2,765 $22,225,320

The number of Federal crop insurance programs providing organic prices have increased yearly 

for the last several years. As reported in RMA’s 2017 Annual Organic Report to Congress, for 

the 2018 crop year, RMA will offer premium organic price elections for 79 of the 98 crops that were 

identified as having potential for the development of an organic price election, up from 57 crops from 

2017.

Growth of Availability of Organic Prices for Insurance

Each year distinct organic prices have been added or expanded to more commodities as shown 

below:

Before 2014: Premium organic price elections existed for avocados (California), corn, cotton 

(non-ELS), fresh stonefruit (freestone peaches, nectarines, and plums in California), 

processing tomatoes (California) and soybeans. 

2014 Crop Year: Distinct organic price elections were added for almonds (California), fresh 

apples (Idaho, Oregon, and Washington), blueberries (all types in California; Early to Late 

Highbush type in Oregon, and Washington), Concord variety grapes (Oregon and 
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

13

Washington), mint (peppermint), oats, pears (Oregon and Washington) and additional 

stonefruit (fresh apricots in California; all fresh stonefruit in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington). 

2015 Crop Year: Added distinct organic price elections for corn silage, figs, flax, grain 

sorghum, hybrid corn seed, hybrid sorghum seed, millet, popcorn, silage sorghum, and 

walnuts. 

2016 Crop Year: Added for barley, burley tobacco, cabbage, cigar binder tobacco, 

cranberries, cultivated wild rice, dry air tobacco, dry peas, flue cured tobacco, forage 

production (alfalfa in select states), fresh market sweet corn, hybrid sweet corn seed, 

Maryland tobacco, onions (fresh onions in select states), pinto beans, potatoes, processing 

clingstone peaches, rice, rye, safflower, sugarcane, sunflower, table grapes, and wheat. 

2017 Crop Year: Organic prices were added in Arizona and California for grapefruit, lemons, 

mandarins, oranges, and tangelos. Grapefruit tree organic prices were added for Florida. New 

organic price elections were also added for: banana, banana tree, coffee, coffee tree, extralong staple cotton, fresh market beans, fresh market tomatoes, papaya, papaya tree, peaches, 

pistachios, and prunes. In addition, an organic price election was added for the cottonseed 

endorsement. 

2018 Crop Year: Added organic price elections for macadamia nuts, early and midseason 

oranges, late oranges, Rio Red and Star Ruby grapefruit, Ruby Red grapefruit, all other 

grapefruit, avocado trees, and orange trees. Plans also include adding organic price elections 

for pasture, rangeland and forage.

What’s Next for Organic Insurance?

Following the 2018 additions, Federal crop insurance will offer premium organic price elections 

for 79 of the 982 crops that were researched as possible candidates for organic prices. 

These 79 crops are the total number of crops for which RMA annually produces a distinct organic 

price election to provide premium organic price coverage. RMA annually reports to Congress on 

the progress of developing organic price elections, and these reports are available on the RMA 

website at www.rma.usda.gov.

The chart below shows the growth of organic price availability in the Federal crop insurance 

program out of the 98 crops determined possible. 

 2 The total of 98 crops is based on the distinct number of crops listed in RMA’s online Actuarial 

Information Browser. (Crops with Actual Revenue History (ARH) plans of insurance, WFRP, 

nursery, clams, livestock policies, 508(h) submissions other than the cottonseed endorsement, and 

crop policies that require a marketing contract are not included in the total.)
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

14

RMA will continue to explore opportunities to obtain organic price data so that insurance offers 

protecting the risks faced by organic producers can be strengthened with organic prices.

IV. Market Penetration of Federal Crop Insurance-All Insured Crops

Market penetration of Federal crop insurance is an important performance measure used to gauge 

the use and importance of the Federal crop insurance risk management safety net, to identify areas 

where market potential exists, and where the risk management safety net could be strengthened or 

expanded. Market penetration is measured by comparing the insured acres to the U.S. total acres 

(or other units, if acres are not applicable). Identification of market potential is helpful in the 

determination of future priorities for product development, maintenance, and improvements to the 

Federal crop insurance program making the most efficient and beneficial use of resources. This 

Portfolio Analysis, updated from the previous analysis with data through 2011, uses data through 

2015 which is the latest year that U.S. data estimates are available for some commodities.

Nationwide Measures of Market Penetration

Market penetration totaled 86 percent of U.S. acres in 2015 for all commodities except hay, 

livestock, nursery, and pasture, range, and forage. This is up 3 percent from 2011, and up 13 

percent compared to 2000. A little over 238.million acres were insured in 2015, up over 11 

million acres from over 226 million in 2011, and up more than 37 million acres from 2000. The 

increase in market penetration occurred primarily for principal crops, fruits and nuts, and 

vegetable acres. 

The year 2015 is the latest shown in this analysis of market penetration since U.S. total acres 

provided by NASS are not yet available for all 2016 crops. The following table shows market 

penetration by crop category and in total for 1990 through 2015:

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

CROP YEAR

PERCENT OF INSURED CROPS WITH UNIQUE ORGANIC 

PRICE ELECTIONS

Crops Assessed for Organic Coverage

Organic Specific Price Elections
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

15

Crop Values and Market Penetration by Acres (excludes livestock/nursery/pasture-range-forage)

Crop Category Item 1990 2000 2011 2014 2015

Principle Crops*** NASS Acres* 246,527,700 253,140,800 253,835,155 258,002,360 252,143,910

RMA Acres 94,420,238 187,793,518 214,602,614 219,843,840 223,290,361

Market Penetration 38% 74% 85% 85% 89%

Other Field Crops NASS Acres* 11,421,300 15,454,200 11,799,727 15,882,869 17,309,927

(except Hay) RMA Acres** 378,054 9,167,445 8,227,024 9,647,757 10,836,272

Market Penetration 3% 59% 70% 61% 63%

Fruits and Nuts NASS Acres 3,501,570 4,100,300 4,037,690 4,285,999 4,285,075

RMA Acres 607,297 3,002,739 2,938,322 3,184,154 3,159,933

Market Penetration 17% 73% 73% 74% 74%

Vegetables NASS Acres 2,821,910 3,726,910 2,846,570 2,766,090 2,751,820

RMA Acres 441,138 1,072,964 921,358 992,964 949,045

Market Penetration 16% 29% 32% 36% 34%

Total (excluding 

hay/livestock/nursery/PRF)

NASS Acres* 264,272,480 276,422,210 272,519,142 280,937,318 276,490,732

RMA Acres** 95,846,727 201,036,666 226,689,318 233,668,715 238,235,611

Market Penetration 36% 73% 83% 83% 86%

*NASS acres were adjusted upwards if RMA insured acres were higher. 

**Includes crops reported in NASS Crop Production publication

***Principal crops are barley, corn, cotton (including ELS cotton), grain sorghum, peanuts, potatoes, rice, soybeans, tobacco, and wheat. 

Note: Hay was removed from the totals and is listed separately because acreages are so large that it obscures the amounts of the other field crops. 
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

16

V. Market Penetration of Principal Crops Near 89 Percent

Efforts to improve market penetration for the principal crops have been very successful with

nearly 89 percent of all acres insured in 2015, up 4 percent, or nearly 8.7 million acres, from

2011 and up 15 percent, or nearly 35.5 million acres, from 2000. These increases were in barley, 

grain sorghum, peanuts, rice, soybean, and tobacco acres. Insured acres increased more than U.S. 

expansion of crop acres in most cases. The following table shows the changes in NASS and 

insured acres for the principal crops.

Acreage Changes 2015 Compared to 2011 

Crop*

Change in 

NASS 

Acres 

2015/2011

Change in 

Insured 

Acres 

2015/2011

 Principle Crops

BARLEY 27% 27%

CORN -5% 0%

COTTON -39% -36%

GRAIN SORGHUM 53% 57%

PEANUTS 43% 54%

POTATOES -5% -5%

RICE -3% 16%

SOYBEANS 9% 17%

TOBACCO -1% 2%

WHEAT -4% -2%

Many changes to the Federal crop insurance program have been made since 2000, including 

improvements to existing insurance products, increased availability of products and new kinds of 

revenue coverage. Some of the new types of products include the new Margin Protection, the 

Supplemental Coverage Option, and the Stacked Income Protection program. Some of the 

changes to existing programs include more organic practice and price availability, the ability to 

insure contracted prices, trend yield adjustment, and the ability to exclude yields that are 

exceptionally low from the historic crop yield averages. 

Early in the history of the Federal crop insurance program, the majority of efforts to improve 

market penetration were focused on these principal crops because they are widely grown in the 

U.S. In the mid 1990’s, public policy was directed successfully to encourage participation in 

Federal crop insurance to avoid the need for ad-hoc disaster assistance. Market penetration of the 

principal crops is shown in the table below:
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

17

Federal Crop Insurance: 2015 Market Penetration of Principal Crops

Crop* 2015 Insured 

Acres

US 

Acres/NASS

Market 

Penetration

Principle Crops

BARLEY 2,638,639 3,627,600 73%

CORN 78,398,858 88,019,000 89%

COTTON 8,822,182 8,739,000 100%

GRAIN SORGHUM 6,782,173 8,459,000 80%

PEANUTS 1,501,860 1,630,000 92%

POTATOES 844,082 1,066,660 79%

RICE 2,647,376 2,625,000 100%

SOYBEANS 74,539,510 82,650,000 90%

TOBACCO 305,616 328,650 93%

WHEAT 46,810,065 54,999,000 85%

Total Principle Crops 223,290,361 252,143,910 89%

*Prevented Planting acres removed from RMA totals. If NASS planted acreage not 

available or less than RMA by state, then RMA acreage was used to replace NASS 

planted acres.

Data as of March 23, 2017

VI. Market Penetration of Other Field Crops

Market Penetration for Other Field Crops

Market penetration of ‘other field crops’ was 63 percent in 2015, down 7 percent from 2011 in 

spite of a 32 percent increase in insured acres from a little over 8.2 million acres covered in 

2011, to over 10.8 million in 2015. The percentage decrease of other field crops resulted from an

increase in NASS reported acres for the majority of the ‘other field crops. Federal crop insurance 

acreage increased significantly, but not to the extent that U.S. total acres increased. 

One notable change was that canola planted acres in 2015, as reported by NASS, were at a record 

high of nearly 1.8 million acres. Compared to 2011, the total planted acreage was up 66 percent

while Federal crop insured acres for canola in 2015 were up 17 percent.

Two other large acreage changes in 2015 compared to 2011 occurred in dry beans and dry peas. 

In 2015, NASS reported dry bean acreage was up 45 percent and dry pea acreage was up 61 

percent from 2011. Insured acreage for dry beans increased 42 percent and dry peas increased 65 

percent for that same period, attributed to a new Revenue Protection insurance program made 

available to dry bean and pea producers in 2013 and that has proven to be a popular risk 

management product. 
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

18

The following table shows the level of market penetration for ‘other field crops’, excluding hay:

Federal Crop Insurance: 2015 Market Penetration of Other Field Crops

Crop 2015 Insured 

Acres US Acres/NASS* Market Penetration

Other Field Crops

ALFALFA SEED 32,381 89,218 36%

BUCKWHEAT 11,960 33,678 36%

CANOLA 1,718,996 1,777,000 97%

COFFEE 4,019 6,900 58%

CULTIVATED WILD RICE 25,685 47,333 54%

DRY BEANS 1,382,006 1,764,700 78%

DRY PEAS 1,717,931 1,670,000 99%

FLAX 425,533 463,000 92%

FORAGE PRODUCTION 2,716,256 54,447,000 5%

FORAGE SEEDING 214,762 1,155,758 19%

GRASS SEED 31,209 268,149 12%

HYBRID CORN SEED 271,522

HYBRID SORGHUM SEED 35,977

MILLET 363,665 445,000 82%

MINT 19,821 96,129 21%

MUSTARD 22,991 44,000 52%

OATS 538,745 3,089,800 17%

POPCORN 217,727 218,461 99%

RYE 45,166 1,584,000 3%

SAFFLOWER 121,867 170,200 72%

SESAME 68,156 17,501 99%

SILAGE SORGHUM 63,132 306,000 21%

SUGAR BEETS 1,039,169 1,159,800 90%

SUGARCANE 760,348 887,300 86%

SUNFLOWERS 1,696,766 1,859,100 91%

SWEET POTATOES 6,738 156,900 4%

Total Hay/Forage 4,707,661 54,447,000 9%

Total Other Field Crops w/ NASS 

Data in Crop Production Report 

(Excluding Hay)

10,528,773 17,309,927 61%

*NASS Number adjusted if RMA was greater. Notes: Market Penetration capped at 99% if insured 

acres greater than NASS estimate. Hay includes coverage under pasture/range/forage for hay and 

acreage under annual forage.

Data as of March 23, 2017
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

19

VII. Market Penetration for Fruits/Nuts and Vegetables

Market Penetration of Fruits and Nuts

Specialty crop products have been a strong priority since the 1996 Farm Bill, and market 

penetration for fruit and nut crops encompassed 74 percent of their market potential in 2015. 

Fairly substantial changes in acreage occurred between 2011 and 2015 in fruit and nut crops. The 

most significant change was that acreage in grapes more than doubled across the U.S., with nearly 

1 million acres added, while insured acres increased slightly. Acres in almonds increased by 17 

percent, up 130,000 acres, with a nearly equal increase of 16 percent in insured acres. Walnut 

acres, similar to that of almonds, rose by 55,000 acres in 2015, up 22 percent from 2011, while 

insured acres rose 19 percent.

U.S. acres in cherries increased by 51 percent with insured acres also rising by 41 percent from 

2011 to 2015. Acres grown for oranges decreased by 7 percent in 2015 compared to 2011, with 

insured acres decreasing 11 percent. 

Fruit and nut market penetration is shown in the following table:
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

20

Federal Crop Insurance: 2015 Market Penetration of Fruit and Nuts

Crop

2015 

Insured 

Acres

US Acres/NASS Market 

Penetration

Fruits and Nuts

ALMONDS 737,313 890,000 83%

PECANS (Trees) 156,867 N/A N/A

PRUNES 43,945 47,000 94%

ORANGES 497,889 575,900 86%

GRAPEFRUIT 62,698 67,300 93%

CRANBERRIES 32,560 40,900 80%

MACADAMIA NUTS 11,948 16,000 75%

BLUEBERRIES 68,822 89,820 77%

LEMONS 43,015 55,300 78%

CHERRIES 88,744 127,880 69%

PLUMS 13,740 17,800 77%

APPLES 239,181 315,880 76%

TANGELOS/MANDARINS 48,981 66,400 74%

GRAPES 662,961 1,022,700 65%

PEACHES 67,959 142,790 48%

FRESH NECTARINES 15,276 20,200 76%

FIGS 4,103 6,800 60%

OLIVES 26,250 36,000 73%

AVOCADOS 36,964 59,280 62%

PEARS 33,209 48,940 68%

FRESH & PROC APRICOTS 6,373 9,620 66%

PISTACHIOS 105,640 233,000 45%

WALNUTS 153,567 300,000 51%

STRAWBERRIES 1,378 58,950 2%

BANANA 199 830 24%

PAPAYA 351 1,500 23%

Total Insured Fruits & Nuts 3,159,933 4,250,790 74%

Data as of March 23, 2017
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

21

Market Penetration for Vegetables

U.S. vegetable market penetration was 34 percent in 2015, up slightly from 2011. 

Historically, vegetable producers have not indicated specific interest in individual crop insurance 

programs and at times have communicated preference for no development of a specific program. 

However, there has been interest in the Whole-Farm Revenue Protection insurance that began in 

2015 and recently it appears there may be some interest in expanding the opportunities for 

vegetable insurance. 

While the number of NASS vegetable estimates are limited, only two categories showed U.S. 

acreage increases from 2011 to 2015, green peas, increasing 12 percent, and tomatoes increasing 

15 percent. Insured acres for green peas increased 14 percent while tomato acreage insured 

increased 13 percent. The U.S. acres for fresh market beans decreased 26 percent, however 

insured acres increased 68 percent, likely due to increased usage of the Fresh Market Bean policy 

which was new in 2011. Onion acreage across the U.S. also decreased 7 percent in 2015 

compared to 2011, however insured acres increased 11 percent for that same time period.

Vegetable crop market penetration is shown in the following table:

Federal Crop Insurance: Market Penetration for Vegetables, 2015

Crop

2015 

Insured 

Acres

US 

Acres/NASS

Market 

Penetration

Vegetable Crops

CABBAGE 13,501 59,530 23%

CHILE PEPPERS 1,921 19,400 10%

FRESH MARKET BEANS 4,531 77,680 6%

FRESH MARKET SWEET CORN 42,990 242,090 18%

FRESH MARKET TOMATOES 38,980 95,200 41%

GREEN PEAS 138,512 181,200 76%

ONIONS 102,887 144,600 71%

PEPPERS 6,591 41,900 16%

PROCESSING BEANS 94,222 164,870 57%

PUMPKINS 8,001 N/A N/A

SWEET CORN 208,933 325,100 64%

TOMATOES 295,977 314,300 94%

Total Vegetables 949,045 1,665,870 57%

Data as of March 23, 2017
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

22

VIII. Market Penetration for Hay, Livestock, Nursery, and Pasture/Range/Forage

Market Penetration for Hay, Pasture-Range-Forage, and Livestock 

Hay, nursery, livestock, and pasture, range, and forage are all large commodities grown across the 

U.S. While the majority of field crops have good participation in the crop insurance program, 

market penetration for hay crops has been only 8-9 percent for the last several years, although this 

is up from the 3 percent in 2000 and 1 percent in 1990. 

Additional risk management protection has recently become available for hay producers with the 

new Annual Forage (AF) Insurance product, which began with the 2014 crop year and covers 

annual hay. The Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage (PRF) program, which provides protection for 

perennial hay was expanded to an additional 19 states beginning with the 2016 crop year. With 

the release of the AF program and the expansion of the PRF program, market penetration is 

expected to increase for hay in the future. Additionally, early market indicators are that hay 

growers are also choosing to use the new WFRP insurance to insure hay. Based on the large 

market potential for hay shown in the table below, research on how to expand the risk 

management safety net for hay producers is a priority that RMA has identified and is currently 

pursuing through work with stakeholders.
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

23

Federal Crop Insurance: Hay Market Penetration

Crop 

Category 1990 2000 2011 2015 2016

Hay* NASS Hay Value $11,138,492,000 $11,179,702,000 $18,251,166,000 16,548,834,000 15,625,517,000

NASS Acres 61,557,000 59,854,000 55,653,000 54,447,000 53,461,000

RMA Acres 379,104 2,004,567 4,641,842 4,707,661 4,402,609

Market Penetration 1% 3% 8% 9% 8%

*Includes hay covered under Forage Production, Annual Forage, and Pasture/ Rangeland/ Forage.

Data as of March 23, 2017

Pasture, Rangeland and Forage coverage is now available across the lower 48 states. The PRF product uses a Rainfall Index to insure 

against a decline in an index value that is based on the long-term historical average precipitation for the same area of land and time 

period.

Federal Crop Insurance: Pasture-Rangeland Market Penetration for 2015

Crop Summed 2015 

Acres US Acres/NASS Market Penetration Data Source

PASTURE,RANGELAND,FORAGE 

(no hay included) 52,981,101 741,000,000 7% ERS-Major uses of 

land-2007

Data as of April 3, 2017

Livestock insurance was first authorized to be offered as a pilot program in 2000, as compared to crop commodities that began as 

early as the 1930’s. The two livestock products currently available are Livestock Gross Margin (LGM) which provides coverage for 

the margin between the value of the livestock and feed costs, and Livestock Risk Protection (LRP) which provides protection against a 

decline in price. Livestock is also covered under the WFRP product, but very limited participation was seen until 2016 when the 

WFRP policy eligibility limit for livestock was modified to a straight $1 million. Because of this, WFRP livestock insurance coverage 

will be reported in future analyses. The following table shows 2015 livestock market penetration:
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

24

Federal Crop Insurance: Livestock Insurance Market Penetration for 2015*

Livestock

2015 Total 

Insured

Head/CWT 

Milk

2015 NASS 

Total 

Head/CWT

Market 

Penetration Source for U.S. Numbers

Cattle (head) 232,192 29,204,200 1%

NASS Livestock Slaughter 2015 

Jan-Dec Summary (Sum of 

Cattle on Feed, Heifers, Bulls, 

Steers, Calves (excluding 

breeding stock))

Dairy (cwt) 48,721,339 2,086,330,000 2% NASS Milk Production, report 

dated January 2017

Lamb (head) 4,063 2,223,500 Less than 1% NASS Livestock Slaughter 2015 

Jan-Dec Summary

Swine (head) 157,311 115,425,200 Less than 1% NASS Livestock Slaughter 2015 

Jan-Dec Summary

*Livestock are subject to a statutory expense funding limitation of $20 million

Data as of April 3, 2017

Livestock market penetration is very low and is expected to remain low due to the legislated 

funding cap for expenses related to livestock sales. Expenses for livestock insurance programs are 

statutorily limited in the Act to $20 million per Fiscal Year. Livestock insurance expenses 

include premium subsidy paid on behalf of producers, and the administrative and operating 

subsidy paid on behalf of producers to insurance companies for selling and servicing the products. 

The funding for expenses related to underwriting the various livestock insurance products is 

allocated across all livestock insurance products, and managed throughout the year to spread the 

allocations between products to assure that producers of all the insurable species have 

opportunities to purchase insurance and that the funds are fully utilized for the Fiscal Year. Given 

this funding limitation on expenses, Federal crop insurance will be unable to capture a significant

portion of the market for livestock. 

Market Penetration for Products Measured By Farm Revenue or Commodity Value

Some Federal crop insurance programs are based on expected revenue or value of the 

commodities and not measured by acres or number of head. The following table shows the 2015

market penetration for these crops. This was the first year for the new WFRP product which was

offered in 45 states and sold in 33 states with an average per policy insurance coverage of just 

under $550,000. In 2016 WFRP became the first Federal crop insurance policy to be offered 

nationwide in every state and county. 

The Apiculture program, providing coverage for an index measuring lack of rainfall compared to 

historic rainfall as a proxy to measure vegetation necessary for honey production, continues to 

have strong participation with 35 percent of the total market covered, up 32 percent from the 3 
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

25

percent covered in 2011. This program was expanded from being available in 30 states in 2017 to 

providing risk management protection for bees and honey in the contiguous 48 states beginning 

with the 2018 crop year. 

Federal Crop Insurance: Insurance Market Penetration for Other Products, 2015

Liability

Liability 

Adjusted to 

100% (Full 

Value)

U.S. Value Market 

Penetration Data Source

WHOLE FARM 

REVENUE 

PROTECTION 

$ 1,147,880,915 $ 1,515,087,792 $ 439,694,943,000 Less than 1%

ERS Gross Farm 

Income-US Farm 

Financial Indicators 

2011-2017F

APICULTURE $ 101,171,101 $ 112,558,780 $ 326,081,000 35% NASS 2015 Honey 

value-March 2015

CLAMS $ 17,272,460 $ 27,269,224 $ 206,299,000 13%

2013 Value taken 

from Fisheries of 

the United States, 

2014 - NOAA

NURSERY 

(FG&C) $ 1,462,389,137 $ 2,801,528,331 $ 13,789,048,000 20%

Census 2012-

Horticultural Crops 

as of 2014

OYSTERS N/A N/A N/A N/A

Program 

Suspended for 

2014

RAISINS $ 243,622,763 $ 376,397,680 $ 696,796,000 54%

NASS Non-Citrus 

Fruits & Nuts July 

2016

RMA data as of April 3, 2017

IX. Influencing Change: How New Products Are Developed and the Stakeholder’s Voice

New products or product improvements are developed either by RMA directly, sometimes 

through the contracting process, or by private entities who submit new products to the Federal 

Crop Insurance Corporation. 

Influencing Changes to Availability of Federal Crop Insurance

Producers, insurance companies, and others may contact RMA’s Regional Offices or 

Headquarters to request expansion of products or to discuss the need for coverage of a 

commodity. RMA welcomes requests and communication with stakeholders. Requesters should 

be aware of the actuarial soundness requirements of Federal crop insurance and the fact that 

sound underwriting must be possible for the crop policy prior to any expansion being approved. 
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

26

Actuarial Soundness is Required by Law for Federal Crop Insurance Products

Federal crop insurance is required by the Federal Crop Insurance Act to be actuarially sound, 

which means that, like any private market insurance, the premium dollar amounts will cover the 

loss amounts paid over time. Crop insurance is delivered by private insurance companies who are 

paid administrative and operating subsidy to sell and service crop insurance to all producers 

nationwide, regardless of the size of the operation. These private insurance companies share the 

risk of the crop insurance with the government and buy reinsurance in private markets to cover 

the risk that their company retains, the same as all insurance companies do for private market 

insurance. 

Lack of Data Can Prevent Development of New Products

Generally, data from a credible source representing both historical yields and prices must be 

available for a series of years to support the premium rating of an insurance product. 

Occasionally, data from a similar crop with similar risks may be used to determine a premium rate 

for a new product. In addition to data required to establish a premium rate, historical price data 

must also be available to value the commodity. These data must be available not only for 

development of the insurance product, but also for future years after a new product is put into 

place so it can be adequately maintained and remain current and viable for future changing 

conditions of risk. Adequate and credible data is one of the biggest barriers to the creation of new 

crop insurance products. 

RMA Developed Products

RMA continually communicates with producers, producer groups, crop insurance companies, and 

other stakeholders to identify emerging issues and needs to maintain and improve Federal crop 

insurance products. This communication helps RMA to determine the need for new products or 

revisions to existing products. RMA conducts feasibility studies to determine if new products are 

possible to develop, and works with the farm and ranch industry to develop products, or direct 

development through the use of contracts in reaching solutions to the issues identified.

As stakeholders request insurance for commodities that are not currently insured, RMA often 

contracts for data gathering or feasibility evaluations to determine if it is possible to provide 

insurance for the commodity. Exhibit 1 shows the list of commodities that have been evaluated 

and the status of the work completed. For example, RMA recently evaluated the feasibility of an 

insurance program for Vegetable Seeds and Garlic. There was little producer interest in the 

vegetable seed policy. The garlic study identified an issue where producers may not always have 

an insurable interest, which precludes offering insurance, so no further product development is 

being pursued at this time. 

Privately Developed Products

The Act allows private entities to submit new products or additions/improvements to existing

products for consideration by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Board of Directors (Board).

Over the years, many innovative products have been created by private submitters including the 

most popular Federal crop insurance product, Revenue Protection. Examples of some other 
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

27

successful privately developed products are the livestock price and margin policies, trend yield, 

and hybrid seed corn revenue. Private submitters can submit either a Concept Proposal or a fully 

developed product. If a Concept Proposal is the choice of the private submitter, once Board 

approval is received, the private submitter must develop a fully developed product. Advance 

research and development funds are available for private submitters who start with a Concept 

Proposal. All private product submissions are required to go through a rigorous review process as 

they are considered for approval. 

There have been 59 new private products submitted since 1995. Of the 59 new products:

• 10 were innovative new insurance products like Revenue Protection, Margin coverage, 

Livestock Gross Revenue, or Livestock Risk Protection;

• 28 were new individual crop programs added to insurance plans. Examples of these crop 

programs are cottonseed, olive coverage, and camelina coverage; 

• 9 were new types/practices or processes, including specialty type corn and soybeans and 

trend yield

• 6 were price related such as the Hybrid seed Price Endorsement and Adjusted Gross 

Revenue-Lite expansion; and,

• 6 were other types of submissions such as the High Risk Land Exclusion and Trend 

Adjustment.

The Board has also reviewed 47 modifications to those new products that included expansion, 

changes to actuarial methods, modifications to policies, or expanded kinds of coverage. 

X. Low Hanging Fruit: Another Method to Increase Market Share of Existing Programs

Expansion and placement of insurance products in states and counties to increase the availability 

of coverage for producers is a critical task that requires ongoing, routine regular review. Growing 

areas for commodities may change over time because of changing consumer preferences affecting

market demand, price changes and values of commodities, climate conditions, or agronomic,

varietal changes stemming from new research and industry development, or other factors. New 

commodities are continually emerging and the risk management safety net must pay attention to 

these changes and adjust to provide the necessary risk management protection for U.S. producers. 

Placement and Availability of Federal Crop Insurance

New crop insurance products and programs are initially piloted in areas identified as appropriate 

for testing and always as approved by the Board. Pilot areas may also be expanded with Board 

approval. Once a new product or program has been adequately tested and the Board determines 

the program should be made permanent, the crop insurance product may be expanded to any 

additional appropriate areas within the U.S. Expansion is generally made to growing areas where 

RMA is aware the crop exists, there is some history or experience of the crops performance, and 

where there is demand for the product.

Many, but not all, policies contain provisions that allow for a ‘written agreement’, which is the 

ability for an insurance company to write an insurance policy for a crop in a county where the 
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

28

crop program is not specifically available. While written agreements can provide flexibility in the 

risk management safety net for producers, many producers may not always be aware of their 

existence. It is important that producers know they can ask for written agreements and that they 

work with their crop insurance agent. If a program is not available in their county, producers can 

notify their RMA Regional Office to request program expansion and assist in providing the 

needed data for such expansion effort.

Market Potential

RMA compared state level NASS information to the state availability for all Federal crop 

insurance crop programs to determine if there were states with potential for product expansion. 

The crops and areas that showed the most market potential is shown in Exhibit 2. This Exhibit 

shows commodities that have significant uninsured acres in the various states, and also shows 

both insured and NASS acres and identifies where insurance is currently available. In cases 

where insured acres are present but there is no insurance program in the county, this represents 

written agreements that have been approved to insure the crop in those states. 

Utilizing existing policies to expand availability into other additional states is a ‘low-hanging 

fruit’ method to increase market penetration since generally limited product development is 

required and data are already likely to be available. While this is a good way to identify potential 

expansion areas, additional research is required for these identified crops and states to determine 

if:

• The applicable crop policy would be appropriate and effective in these potential 

expansion areas for the unique risks faced by producers in the production of the 

commodity. Production practices in each expansion area must be researched to assure 

that the policy and procedures are appropriate for the specific crop and location. The crop

must be measurable at the beginning of insurance and losses must be identifiable and 

measurable.

• Actuarial and underwriting information, including data for premium rates, price elections, 

planting dates, etc., can be appropriately determined for the crop and area. 

The table below is a summary of some of the strongest possibilities for further research as 

potential expansion areas to increase market penetration.
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

29

Low Hanging Fruit: Market Potential to be Explored

Crop Market Potential Locations for Possible Expansion

Apples Iowa

Avocados Hawaii

Barley Illinois

Blueberries Indiana, Arkansas, New York

Cabbage Arizona, Colorado, New Jersey, California

Canola California, Colorado, Delaware, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota

Cherries Pennsylvania

Chile Peppers Texas, California

Cucumbers Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida

Dry Peas Kansas, Wisconsin

Fresh Market Sweet Corn North Carolina, Iowa, California, Washington, Ohio, Michigan, 

Oregon, Illinois, Indiana, Texas, Wisconsin, Delaware

Fresh Market Tomatoes North Carolina, Ohio, New Jersey, Michigan, New York, Texas, 

Indiana

Mint Michigan

Onions North Dakota, Wisconsin

Pears New York, Michigan

Peppers South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, New 

Jersey, California

Popcorn Louisiana, Arkansas

Potatoes Arkansas, Illinois

Rye Kansas, North Carolina, Minnesota, Georgia

Silage Sorghum South Dakota, Arizona, Louisiana, Illinois, Nebraska, Arkansas, 

Missouri, Mississippi, Georgia

Soybeans Montana, Massachusetts

Strawberries Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Washington, New York, 

North Carolina, Oregon, Florida

Sugarcane Hawaii

Sunflowers New Mexico

Sweet Potatoes Texas, New Jersey, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, California, 

Mississippi, North Carolina

Based on 2015 NASS and Federal Crop Insurance data. 
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

30

XI. Conclusions

Federal crop insurance is a key risk management safety net for producers, providing protection for 

86 percent of total U.S. crop acreage in 2015. Risk protection was provided across the U.S. for

89 percent of principal crop acres, a substantial portion of the acres of other field crops, at 63 

percent, and 74 percent of fruit and nut crops. The program is operating at a solid 0.85 long 

term loss ratio which means that premium amounts more than cover losses over time and that the 

Federal crop insurance program meets the actuarial requirements of a well-functioning insurance 

program.

However, there is still room for additional market penetration for the Federal crop insurance risk 

management safety net. One area that the Risk Management Agency is exploring is additional 

risk management products for vegetables, since market penetration is only 34 percent at this time. 

There also continues to be room for growth of market penetration in the other field crops, and 

fruits and nuts categories. 

Opportunities for the expansion of existing federal crop insurance policies to additional states 

exists for many commodities, as evidenced by comparison by state of Federal crop insurance 

program availability to U.S. acreage of crops reported by NASS suggests that opportunities. The 

next steps to be taken will be to research the crops identified in this paper for each location to see 

if specific existing crop policies and procedures are applicable and would be effective for the 

respective crops in the new states. This research will determine if actuarial information, including 

price data, are appropriate, if producers are interested in having a risk management program 

available, and will identify specific counties that should be included. 

RMA continues to communicate with stakeholders to identify new commodities or expansion of 

existing commodities that need risk management protection. RMA will also continue to work 

with stakeholders and monitor existing plans of insurance to identify issues or modifications 

needed, or whether new types of coverage should be added for the ever-changing agricultural 

landscape. 

Opportunities to insure livestock are available through Federal crop insurance and there is 

considerable nationwide market potential to provide unique or innovative risk management 

products for livestock ranchers and producers. However, very little market penetration will be 

achieved while the legislated limitation on available funding for livestock insurance expenses is in 

place. RMA will continue its efforts to find and develop solutions to enhance risk protection for 

forage and hay producers, adding to or enhancing those programs already available.

The portfolio of Federal crop insurance products is revisited on a regular basis to evaluate the 

availability and importance of Federal crop insurance products to producers throughout the U.S,

and to determine areas of market potential. Continued exploration into new types of products best 

fitting producer’s risk management needs, working with private submitters to shepherd new and 

innovative products through the approval process and implementation, and improving existing 

products and their availability are all important aspects to providing a world-class risk 

management safety net to U.S. agricultural producers, promote stability in rural communities, and 

assure a robust food supply across the U.S. 
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

31

XII. Comments or Requests for the Next Portfolio Analysis

RMA plans to continue to offer snapshots of the Federal crop insurance program on a regular 

basis. If you would like to provide comments or input into the content of the next Portfolio 

Analysis, please e-mail leiann.nelson@rma.usda.gov.
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

32

Exhibit 1. Risk Management Agency Research: Exploring Feasibility for Expanding Crop Insurance

Crop Previous 

Studies

Feasibility 

Recommendation Insurance Product

2016 Crop Value 

(1,000's) From Data 

Source

Data Source/Notes

Amaranth Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Anise Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Artichokes Feasibility Yes Growers Preferred No 

Development $69,119 NASS Crop Values 2016 

Summary - February 2017

Asparagus Fresh Market 

and Processing Feasibility Yes Growers Preferred No 

Development $74,991 NASS Crop Values 2016 

Summary - February 2017

Bees Feasibility No Insurance Program in Place 

(Apiculture)

Beets Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Biomass Sorghum/Sweet 

Sorghum Feasibility No Lack of producer interest

Blackberries Feasibility to be explored in 

future

$38,036 (2015 

Value)

2016 Value N/A NASS Crop 

Values 2016 Summary -

February 2017

Bok Choy Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Boysenberries Feasibility to be explored in 

future $2,743 (2015 value)

2016 Value N/A NASS Crop 

Values 2016 Summary -

February 2017

Broccoli, fresh and 

processing Feasibility Yes Growers Preferred No 

Development $851,391 NASS Crop Values 2016 

Summary - February 2017
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

33

Crop Previous 

Studies

Feasibility 

Recommendation Insurance Product

2016 Crop Value 

(1,000's) From Data 

Source

Data Source/Notes

Brussel Sprouts Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Bulbs, Corms, Tubers Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Cantaloupe Feasibility to be explored in 

future $450,079 NASS Crop Values 2016 Summary - February 2017

Carrots, fresh and 

processing Feasibility Yes

Growers Preferred No 

Development, St. Paul RO 

recently express interest in 

developing a carrot 

program in WI and MN 

RMA is currently working 

with them to explore the 

possibility of insuring 

carrots in that area. 

$818,183 NASS Crop Values 2016 

Summary - February 2017

Catastrophic Disease 

Event

Feasibility No

Lack of producer interest, 

unavailable data, challenges 

in determining insurable 

interest

Catfish Margin

Feasibility No

Insufficient data and 

potential to distort catfish 

market

Cauliflower, fresh and 

processing Feasibility Yes Growers Preferred No 

Development $389,496 NASS Crop Values 2016 

Summary - February 2017

Celery, fresh and 

processing Feasibility Yes Growers Preferred No Development

$358,632 (Fresh 

Only)

NASS Crop Values 2016 

Summary - February 2017

Chayote/Mirliton Feasibility to be explored in 

future
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

34

Crop Previous 

Studies

Feasibility 

Recommendation Insurance Product

2016 Crop Value 

(1,000's) From Data 

Source

Data Source/Notes

Chickens Feasibility No Not Feasible at this time

Chicory/Radicchio Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Chinese Cabbage Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Chives Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Christmas Trees Feasibility No Not Feasible at this time

Cilantro Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Collards (Greens) Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Crambe Terminated-declining 

production in pilot area

Crenshaw Melons Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Crop Residue (Corn, 

Soybeans, Wheat) Feasibility No Not feasible at this time

Crustaceans 

(Crayfish/Shrimp)

Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Cucumbers, for pickles 

and fresh

508 (h) Insurance Product in 

place $345,670 NASS Crop Values 2016 Summary - February 2017

Daikon Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Dates Feasibility to be explored in 

future $68,016 (2015 value)

2016 Value N/ANASS Crop 

Values 2016 Summary -

February 2017
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

35

Crop Previous 

Studies

Feasibility 

Recommendation Insurance Product

2016 Crop Value 

(1,000's) From Data 

Source

Data Source/Notes

Eggplant Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Escarole / Endive Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Finfish Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Flowers Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Garlic Feasibility No Not feasible at this time $268,665 NASS Crop Values 2016 

Summary - February 2017

Ginger Root Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Ginseng Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Gourds Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Greens (human 

consumption)

Feasibility to be explored in 

future Excludes spinach

Guavas Feasibility Yes Not enough producer 

support N/A NASS Crop Values 2016 

Summary - February 2017

Guayule Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Hay Industry 

Needs Study Yes Feasible-Working on 

program design. $15.6 billion Crop Values Annual Summary, 

February 2017-All Hay

Hazelnuts Feasibility to be explored in 

future $86,800 (2015 value)

2016 value N/A NASS Crop 

Values 2016 Summary -

February 2017
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

36

Crop Previous 

Studies

Feasibility 

Recommendation Insurance Product

2016 Crop Value 

(1,000's) From Data 

Source

Data Source/Notes

Herbs Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Excludes native spearmint, 

scotch spearmint, & 

peppermint types

Honeydew Melons Feasibility to be explored in 

future $67,584 NASS Crop Values 2016 Summary - February 2017

Hops Feasibility to be explored in 

future $498,420 NASS Crop Values 2016 

Summary - February 2017

Horseradish Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Jojoba Feasibility No Not feasible at this time

Kale Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Kiwi Fruit Feasibility to be explored in 

future $30,893 (2015 value)

2016 Value N/A NASS Crop 

Values 2016 Summary -

February 2017

Kochia (Prostrata) Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Kumquats Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Leeks Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Lettuce Feasibility Yes Currently under 

Consideration $2,880,973 NASS Crop Values 2016 

Summary - February 2017

Livestock - Aquaculture 

(Baitfish) Feasibility No Not feasible at this time

Livestock - Aquaculture 

(Catfish) Feasibility No Not feasible at this time
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

37

Crop Previous 

Studies

Feasibility 

Recommendation Insurance Product

2016 Crop Value 

(1,000's) From Data 

Source

Data Source/Notes

Livestock - Aquaculture 

(Salmon) Feasibility No Not feasible at this time

Livestock - Aquaculture 

(Trout) Feasibility No Not feasible at this time

Livestock: Poultry 

(Turkeys, Chickens, Eggs) Feasibility No Not feasible at this time

Livestock: Poultry 

Business Interruption

Feasibility No

Lack of producer interest, 

unavailable data, challenges 

in determining insurable 

interest

Loganberries (OR) Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Longan Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Lotus Root Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Mangos Feasibility Yes Not enough producer 

support

Maple Syrup Feasibility No Not feasible at this time $125,890 (2015 

value)

2016 value N/A NASS Crop 

Values 2016 Summary -

February 2017

Meadowfoam Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Mollusk Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Includes mussels, abalone, & 

bay scallops

Mushrooms Feasibility to be explored in 

future $1,190,672 NASS Crop Values 2016 

Summary - February 2017
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

38

Crop Previous 

Studies

Feasibility 

Recommendation Insurance Product

2016 Crop Value 

(1,000's) From Data 

Source

Data Source/Notes

Okra Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Parsnip Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Persimmons Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Pineapples Feasibility No Not feasible at this time

Pomegranates Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Radishes Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Rapini Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Raspberries Currently under 

Development 580,924 (2015 value)

2016 Value N/A NASS Crop 

Values 2016 Summary -

February 2017

Rhubarb Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Shallots Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Sod Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Speltz Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Spinach, fresh 

&processing Feasibility Yes Growers Preferred No 

Development $292,583 NASS Crop Values 2016 

Summary - February 2017

Squash, fresh only, 

processing N/A

Terminated-problem with 

program design $163,717 NASS Crop Values 2016 Summary - February 2017
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

39

Crop Previous 

Studies

Feasibility 

Recommendation Insurance Product

2016 Crop Value 

(1,000's) From Data 

Source

Data Source/Notes

Sunn Hemp Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Sweet Corn Seed (Hybrid) Pilot Program in place 

starting 2016

Sweet Potatoes 508(h) Insurance Product in 

place $705,690 NASS Crop Values 2016 Summary - February 2017

Sweet Sorghum/Biomass 

Sorghum Feasibility No Not feasible at this time

Swine Catastrophic 

Disease Feasibility No

Insufficient data and 

producer interest

Taro Feasibility to be explored in 

future $2,312 NASS Crop Values 2016 

Summary - February 2017

Teff Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Tomatillos Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Triticale Feasibility (2 

Studies)

No-No price data 

available

508(h) program in place 

starting 2018-price data 

became available

Turnips (not grazing) Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Vegetable/Flower Seed Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Watercress Feasibility to be explored in 

future

Watermelon

Insurance Product 

Terminated-poor 

performance

$579,011 NASS Crop Values 2016 

Summary - February 2017
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

40

Crop Previous

Studies

Feasibility 

Recommendation Insurance Product

2016 Crop Value 

(1,000's) From Data 

Source

Data Source/Notes

Woody Biomass Feasibility No Not feasible at this time
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

41

Exhibit 2. Low Hanging Fruit: Potential Expansion Areas for Existing Programs

Apples

Apples: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres-2015

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Washington 133,097 148,000 Yes 90%

New York 32,388 40,000 Yes 81%

Michigan 27,486 33,000 Yes 83%

Pennsylvania 12,797 20,000 Yes 64%

California 5,800 14,000 Yes 41%

Virginia 5,673 10,200 Yes 56%

North Carolina 4,649 6,000 Yes 77%

Oregon 2,421 5,000 Yes 48%

Idaho 1,524 2,300 Yes 66%

West Virginia 1,320 4,400 Yes 30%

Ohio 1,177 3,400 Yes 35%

Massachusetts 1,143 3,000 Yes 38%

Vermont 1,143 1,700 Yes 67%

Maine 1,115 2,700 Yes 41%

Wisconsin 1,015 4,000 Yes 25%

Connecticut 905 1,800 Yes 50%

Maryland 893 1,800 Yes 50%

Missouri 745 1,100 Yes 68%

New 

Hampshire 583 1,300 Yes 45%

Indiana 529 1,300 Yes 41%

Illinois 519 1,700 Yes 31%

Colorado 491 Yes

Minnesota 421 2,600 Yes 16%

Utah 393 1,200 Yes 33%

New Jersey 326 1,800 Yes 18%

Arizona 261 Yes

Georgia 150 Yes

South Carolina 74 Yes

Rhode Island 70 230 Yes 30%

Tennessee 50 650 Yes 8%

New Mexico 19 Yes

Iowa 4 900 0%

OTHER 0 1,800 0%
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

42

Avocados

Avocados: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres2015

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

California 34,728 52,000 Yes 67%

Florida 2,236 6,800 Yes 33%

Hawaii 0 480 0%

Barley

Barley: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres-2015

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

North Dakota 983,619 1,120,000 Yes 88%

Montana 725,528 990,000 Yes 73%

Idaho 436,540 610,000 Yes 72%

Minnesota 102,589 135,000 Yes 76%

Washington 72,331 115,000 Yes 63%

Colorado 64,186 65,000 Yes 99%

Wyoming 58,351 100,000 Yes 58%

Oregon 27,535 49,000 Yes 56%

California 23,664 80,000 Yes 30%

Texas 18,040 Yes

South Dakota 15,231 37,000 Yes 41%

Virginia 12,655 46,000 Yes 28%

Maryland 12,187 50,000 Yes 24%

Maine 11,498 13,000 Yes 88%

Delaware 11,447 32,000 Yes 36%

Arizona 10,637 17,000 Yes 63%

Pennsylvania 7,807 55,000 Yes 14%

North 

Carolina 6,028 19,000 Yes 32%

Wisconsin 5,113 28,000 Yes 18%

Kansas 4,455 13,000 Yes 34%

Oklahoma 4,386 Yes

Alaska 4,376 4,600 Yes 95%

Utah 4,110 27,000 Yes 15%

Kentucky 3,036 Yes

Nebraska 2,865 Yes
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

43

Barley, continued

State

2015

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Michigan 2,413 11,000 Yes 22%

Tennessee 2,351 Yes

New Mexico 1,759 Yes

New Jersey 827 Yes

South 

Carolina 639 Yes

New York 625 11,000 Yes 6%

Illinois 434

West Virginia 383 Yes

Nevada 307 Yes

Iowa 283 Yes

Missouri 227 Yes

Indiana 77 Yes

Ohio 75 Yes

Vermont 25 Yes
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

44

Blueberries

Blueberries: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres2015

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Maine 15,702 Yes

Michigan 12,884 19,400 Yes 66%

Georgia 12,363 17,200 Yes 72%

North Carolina 7,128 8,000 Yes 89%

New Jersey 6,624 9,100 Yes 73%

Washington 4,310 11,000 Yes 39%

California 3,834 5,700 Yes 67%

Oregon 2,793 10,000 Yes 28%

Florida 2,711 5,500 Yes 49%

Mississippi 362 1,600 Yes 23%

Louisiana 97

Alabama 7 410 Yes 2%

Virginia 7

South Carolina Yes

Indiana 0 630 0%

Arkansas 0 280 0%

New York 0 1,000 0%
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

45

Cabbage

Cabbage: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres-2015

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

New York 3,532 8,300 Yes 67%

Florida 3,307 8,900 Yes 33%

Georgia 1,779 4,900 Yes 0%

Michigan 1,316 3,400 Yes 89%

Texas 1,209 6,100 Yes 73%

North Carolina 1,098 2,600 Yes 39%

Wisconsin 904 Yes 67%

Pennsylvania 185 930 Yes 28%

Ohio 144 1,300 Yes 49%

Oregon 20 Yes 23%

Virginia 7 Yes

Alaska Yes

Washington Yes

Arizona 0 2,600 2%

Colorado 0 1,500

OTHER 0 3,400

New Jersey 0 1,800

California 0 13,800 0%

Canola

Canola had a large acreage increase shown by NASS estimates so RMA additionally reviewed FSA 

acreage numbers. There has already been some expansion of canola crop insurance availability that 

occurred after 2015 for Federal crop insurance. Expansion areas were Illinois, Indiana, and Virginia

(shaded green in the table below). Additional research is needed to explore county availability 

within all states where the canola Federal crop insurance program is available to determine if

expansion to additional counties may be needed given the large increase in acreage and the fact that 

there was not a corresponding increase in insured acres.
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

46

Canola: Comparison Between Insured Acres, U.S. Acres, and FSA Acres (2015) and Insurance Availability

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 NASS 

Acres

2015 FSA 

Planted 

Acres

Insurance 

Available 

2015 CY

Insurance 

Available 

2017 CY

Percent of 

NASS Acres 

Insured 

2015

Percent of 

FSA Acres 

Insured 

2015*

Alabama 5,388 7,138 Yes Yes 75%

Arizona 4 No No 0%

California 930 No No 0%

Colorado 80 1,978 No No 4%

Delaware 2,319 No No 0%

Georgia 3,864 11,792 Yes Yes 33%

Idaho 20,718 28,000 26,011 Yes Yes 74% 80%

Illinois 93 415 No Yes 22%

Indiana 444 1,934 No Yes 23%

Iowa 24 42 No No 57%

Kansas 44,781 46,745 Yes Yes 96%

Kentucky 11,050 14,270 Yes Yes 77%

Maine 403 No No 0%

Maryland 153 No No 0%

Michigan 184 No No 0%

Minnesota 21,268 23,000 21,249 Yes Yes 92% 100%

Missouri 59 221 No No 27%

Montana 62,287 82,000 76,239 Yes Yes 76% 82%

Nebraska 690 5 No No 100%

North 

Carolina 9,958 21,486 Yes Yes 46%

North Dakota 1,394,141 1,410,000 1,378,014 Yes Yes 99% 100%

Ohio 219 222 No No 99%

Oklahoma 103,531 140,000 108,626 Yes Yes 74% 95%

Oregon 1,047 4,300 1,606 Yes Yes 24% 65%

Pennsylvania 77 No No 0%

South 

Carolina 5,015 6,206 Yes Yes 81%

South Dakota 293 1,472 No No 20%

Tennessee 4,691 6,540 Yes Yes 72%

Texas 9,019 10,944 Yes Yes 82%

Utah 149 No No 0%

Virginia 200 698 No Yes 29%

Washington 20,165 37,000 29,373 Yes Yes 55% 69%
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

47

Canola, continued:

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 NASS 

Acres

2015 FSA 

Planted 

Acres

Insurance 

Available 

2015 CY

Insurance 

Available 

2017 CY

Percent of 

NASS Acres 

Insured 

2015

Percent of 

FSA Acres 

Insured 

2015*

OTHER 52,700

TOTALS 1,719,025 1,777,000 1,777,535

*Capped at 

100%.

Cherries

Cherries: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres2015

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Washington 32,924 37,100 Yes 89%

California 28,011 33,000 Yes 85%

Michigan 18,360 34,900 Yes 53%

Oregon 5,332 13,650 Yes 39%

Utah 2,184 3,400 Yes 64%

Wisconsin 1,173 1,700 Yes 69%

New York 532 2,300 Yes 23%

Montana 213 680 Yes 31%

Idaho 15 650 Yes 2%

Pennsylvania 0 500 0%

Chile Peppers

Chile Peppers: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres2015

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

New Mexico 1,138 8,300 Yes 14%

Arizona 783 1,600 Yes 49%

Texas 0 3,000 0%

California 0 6,500 0%
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

48

Cucumbers

Cucumbers: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres2015

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Michigan 19,187 30,000 Yes 64%

Indiana 4,338 Yes

Texas 2,656 4,150 Yes 64%

Delaware 2,308 Yes

Maryland 1,500 Yes

North Carolina 732 Yes

Illinois Yes

Ohio 0 5,000 0%

Wisconsin 0 5,600 0%

Florida 0 18,280 0%

OTHER 0 24,430 0%

Dry Peas

Dry Peas: Comparison Between Insured acres & U.S. Acres2015

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Montana 774,357 845,000 Yes 92%

North Dakota 536,684 550,000 Yes 98%

Washington 208,304 165,000 Yes 126%

Idaho 131,129 97,000 Yes 135%

Nebraska 32,465 Yes

South Dakota 25,153 Yes

Oregon 4,402 13,000 Yes 34%

Kansas 2,441

Wyoming 923 Yes

Colorado 828 Yes

Minnesota 715 Yes

Wisconsin 530
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

49

Fresh Market Sweet Corn

Fresh Market Sweet Corn: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres2015

State 2015 Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Florida 18,561 41,500 Yes 45%

Georgia 13,141 26,500 Yes 50%

New York 3,620 18,100 Yes 20%

Colorado 2,574 3,500 Yes 74%

Pennsylvania 1,437 10,300 Yes 14%

Connecticut 933 3,900 Yes 24%

Massachusetts 514 3,400 Yes 15%

New Jersey 482 6,000 Yes 8%

Alabama 400 1,200 Yes 33%

North Carolina 294 5,100 6%

Rhode Island 237 Yes

New Hampshire 217 1,400 Yes 16%

Iowa 191

Maine 143 1,500 Yes 10%

Vermont 133 Yes

Maryland 96 3,700 Yes 3%

West Virginia 10

Nebraska 7

Virginia 0 3,000 Yes 0%

California 0 30,000 0%

Washington 0 25,500 0%

Ohio 0 15,500 0%

Michigan 0 9,500 0%

Oregon 0 7,000 0%

Illinois 0 6,600 0%

Indiana 0 5,500 0%

Texas 0 4,400 0%

Wisconsin 0 3,900 0%

Delaware 0 3,700 0%

OTHER 0 1,390 0%
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

50

Fresh Market Tomatoes

Fresh Market Tomatoes: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres2015

State 2015 Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Florida 22,696 33,000 Yes 69%

California 8,413 30,900 Yes 27%

Georgia 2,412 2,900 Yes 83%

Virginia 1,292 2,200 Yes 59%

South Carolina 1,266 3,300 Yes 38%

Tennessee 1,224 3,500 Yes 35%

North Carolina 792 3,500 23%

Arkansas 668 900 Yes 74%

Pennsylvania 129 2,300 Yes 6%

Alabama 55 1,200 Yes 5%

Maryland 32 Yes

Illinois 1

Ohio 0 3,700 0%

New Jersey 0 3,000 0%

Michigan 0 2,700 0%

New York 0 2,500 0%

Texas 0 1,100 0%

Indiana 0 800 0%

Mint

Mint: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Washington 8,023 30,500 Yes 26%

Idaho 4,802 16,500 Yes 29%

Indiana 4,132 13,500 Yes 31%

Oregon 1,009 23,500 Yes 4%

Wisconsin 925 Yes

Michigan 523

California 407 2,000 Yes 20%

OTHER 0 5,100 0%
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

51

Onions

Onions: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Washington 21,181 22,000 Yes 96%

California 17,874 45,800 Yes 39%

Texas 15,771 10,700 Yes 147%

Oregon 12,839 19,000 Yes 68%

Georgia 12,076 12,300 Yes 98%

New York 8,243 7,800 Yes 106%

Idaho 3,658 8,000 Yes 46%

Colorado 3,022 3,800 Yes 80%

Nevada 2,964 Yes

Michigan 1,630 2,500 Yes 65%

New Mexico 1,383 5,200 Yes 27%

North Dakota 1,113

Utah 522 Yes

Wisconsin 268 1,600 17%

Kansas 215 Yes

Minnesota 128

Arizona Yes

OTHER 0 5,200 0%

Pears

Pears: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Washington 14,545 20,800 Yes 70%

Oregon 10,014 14,600 Yes 69%

California 8,489 11,100 Yes 76%

Pennsylvania 96 800 Yes 12%

New York 47 1,000 5%

Arizona 10

Connecticut 4

North Carolina 3

Massachusetts 1

Michigan 0 640 0%
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

52

Peppers

Peppers: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Florida 6,053 12,400 Yes 49%

South Carolina 458

North Carolina 69 2,300 3%

Georgia 11 3,900 0%

Michigan 0 1,500 0%

Ohio 0 2,600 0%

New Jersey 0 2,600 0%

California 0 19,500 0%

Popcorn

Popcorn: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Nebraska 71,017 Yes

Indiana 68,333 Yes

Illinois 22,578 Yes

Ohio 18,976 Yes

Missouri 16,107 Yes

Iowa 5,632 Yes

Kentucky 5,200 Yes

South Dakota 3,718 Yes

Colorado 2,337 Yes

Michigan 2,052 Yes

Tennessee 697 Yes

Louisiana 662

Arkansas 418

Alabama Yes

Minnesota Yes

Wisconsin Yes
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

53

Potatoes

Potatoes: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Idaho 269,385 323,000 Yes 83%

Washington 97,407 170,000 Yes 57%

North Dakota 78,093 82,000 Yes 95%

Colorado 60,610 57,700 Yes 105%

Maine 50,308 51,000 Yes 99%

Wisconsin 46,209 63,000 Yes 73%

Minnesota 38,942 41,000 Yes 95%

Michigan 31,994 46,000 Yes 70%

Oregon 29,974 39,000 Yes 77%

Florida 23,954 30,000 Yes 80%

California 20,894 35,400 Yes 59%

Texas 17,965 20,000 Yes 90%

North Carolina 11,934 13,500 Yes 88%

Nebraska 10,592 15,500 Yes 68%

New York 9,007 15,000 Yes 60%

Missouri 7,635 8,500 Yes 90%

Montana 7,042 11,000 Yes 64%

New Mexico 5,523 Yes

Virginia 4,103 5,000 Yes 82%

Pennsylvania 3,671 5,400 Yes 68%

Arizona 3,321 3,600 Yes 92%

Kansas 2,818 3,800 Yes 74%

Massachusetts 2,614 3,600 Yes 73%

Maryland 2,326 2,400 Yes 97%

Nevada 1,824 Yes

Oklahoma 1,011 Yes

Delaware 857 Yes

Alabama 847 Yes

Wyoming 720 Yes

Indiana 536 Yes

Iowa 495 Yes

Arkansas 432

New Jersey 326 Yes

Illinois 288 7,500 4%

Ohio 263 1,300 Yes 20%

Rhode Island 132 600 Yes 22%

West Virginia 20

Connecticut 10 Yes

Alaska 0 560 Yes 0%

South Dakota Yes
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

54

Potatoes, continued

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

OTHER 0 11,300 0%

Rye

Rye: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Ares

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Oklahoma 19,320 250,000 Yes 8%

North Dakota 16,860 Yes

South Dakota 4,279 Yes

Texas 1,255 Yes

South Carolina 1,068 Yes

Kansas 961

Nebraska 554 Yes

North Carolina 253

Minnesota 218

Virginia 150

Iowa 125

New Jersey 123

Georgia 0 210,000 0%

OTHER 0 1,124,000 0%
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

55

Silage Sorghum

Silage Sorghum: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Texas 36,593 70,000 Yes 52%

Kansas 20,891 105,000 Yes 20%

New Mexico 2,879 29,000 Yes 10%

Colorado 2,593 10,000 Yes 26%

Oklahoma 176 15,000 Yes 1%

South Dakota 0 18,000 0%

Arizona 0 20,000 0%

Louisiana 0 1,000 0%

Illinois 0 2,000 0%

Nebraska 0 10,000 0%

Arkansas 0 2,000 0%

Missouri 0 10,000 0%

Mississippi 0 2,000 0%

Georgia 0 12,000 0%
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

56

Soybeans

Soybeans: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Iowa 9,335,142 9,850,000 Yes 95%

Illinois 8,391,957 9,800,000 Yes 86%

Minnesota 7,316,758 7,600,000 Yes 96%

North Dakota 5,702,882 5,750,000 Yes 99%

South Dakota 5,020,383 5,150,000 Yes 97%

Nebraska 4,989,680 5,300,000 Yes 94%

Missouri 4,860,302 4,550,000 Yes 107%

Indiana 4,482,485 5,550,000 Yes 81%

Ohio 3,825,715 4,750,000 Yes 81%

Kansas 3,245,990 3,900,000 Yes 83%

Arkansas 2,630,118 3,200,000 Yes 82%

Mississippi 2,199,899 2,300,000 Yes 96%

North Carolina 1,615,211 1,820,000 Yes 89%

Kentucky 1,607,372 1,840,000 Yes 87%

Michigan 1,563,957 2,030,000 Yes 77%

Wisconsin 1,497,442 1,880,000 Yes 80%

Tennessee 1,454,419 1,750,000 Yes 83%

Louisiana 1,413,041 1,430,000 Yes 99%

Virginia 551,298 630,000 Yes 88%

Alabama 432,222 500,000 Yes 86%

South Carolina 424,685 475,000 Yes 89%

Maryland 411,781 520,000 Yes 79%

Pennsylvania 360,559 580,000 Yes 62%

Oklahoma 311,048 395,000 Yes 79%

Georgia 251,755 325,000 Yes 77%

New York 229,054 305,000 Yes 75%

Delaware 138,583 175,000 Yes 79%

Texas 132,076 130,000 Yes 102%

New Jersey 83,586 105,000 Yes 80%

Florida 24,669 33,000 Yes 75%

West Virginia 18,340 27,000 Yes 68%

Colorado 12,000 Yes

Vermont 3,205 Yes

Montana 1,500

Massachusetts 221

Wyoming 103

Washington 49 Yes

Connecticut 23

Oregon Yes
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

57

Strawberries

Strawberries: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

California 1,378 40,500 Yes 3%

Ohio 0 600 0%

Pennsylvania 0 650 0%

Wisconsin 0 790 0%

Michigan 0 800 0%

Washington 0 950 0%

New York 0 960 0%

North Carolina 0 1,200 0%

Oregon 0 1,500 0%

Florida 0 11,000 0%

Sugarcane

Sugarcane: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Florida 402,495 398,000 Yes 101%

Louisiana 323,166 385,000 Yes 84%

Texas 34,687 35,200 Yes 99%

Hawaii 0 12,900 0%
The Risk Management Safety Net: Market Penetration and Market Potential September 2017

58

Sunflowers

Sunflowers: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. Acres

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

North Dakota 716,192 Yes

South Dakota 610,342 Yes

Minnesota 92,838 Yes

Texas 85,882 Yes

Colorado 71,839 Yes

Kansas 59,838 Yes

Nebraska 45,383 Yes

Wyoming 9,611 Yes

Oklahoma 2,699 Yes

New Mexico 1,001

Montana 980 Yes

Michigan 161

Sweet Potatoes

Sweet Potatoes: Comparison Between Insured Acres & U.S. 

Acres

State

2015 

Insured 

Acres

2015 

NASS 

Acres

Insurance 

Available

Percent 

Insured

Louisiana 6,738 10,000 Yes 67%

Texas 0 1,000 0%

New Jersey 0 1,200 0%

Alabama 0 2,600 0%

Arkansas 0 4,000 0%

Florida 0 5,600 0%

California 0 18,500 0%

Mississippi 0 27,000 0%

North Carolina 0 87,000 0%