Is It Time to Reconsider AgriStability?
For years, AgriStability has carried a reputation among many Saskatchewan producers: it's complicated, it's broken, and it doesn't work for my farm.
For some producers, that assessment may have been earned through past experience. But with significant changes to the program, a rapidly changing agricultural risk environment, and $402 million paid to Saskatchewan producers in the most recent program year, perhaps it's time to ask an important question:
Is 2026 the Year to Re-Evaluate AgriStability?
One factor deserving particular attention is the level of coverage currently available through the program. SCIC's most recent reporting indicates Saskatchewan producers are entering this period with historically high reference margins, reflecting several years of strong farm profitability. Since reference margins are the foundation of AgriStability coverage, higher reference margins generally mean greater potential protection.
At the same time, producers are facing increasing uncertainty from excess moisture, delayed harvest, trade disruptions, tariffs, counter-tariffs, and rising input costs. The combination of historically high coverage and elevated risk creates a compelling reason to take a fresh look at the program.
Last year, AgriStability delivered approximately $402 million in payments to Saskatchewan producers. By comparison, Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation reported roughly $438 million in Crop Insurance indemnities during the same period.
Those numbers challenge the perception that AgriStability provides little meaningful support. A program that delivers more than $400 million cannot simply be dismissed as irrelevant.
Yet participation remains relatively low. Many producers made the decision to opt out years ago, based on past experiences or the program's longstanding reputation. However, those decisions may have been made when both farm economics and AgriStability coverage looked very different than they do today.
Over the past five years, governments have made several significant improvements to the program. The Reference Margin Limitation was removed, the compensation rate increased from 70 per cent to 80 per cent, and targeted changes were made to better support livestock operations and improve producer understanding of coverage.
No single change transformed the program overnight. But collectively, these changes have improved the program's ability to respond when producers face significant margin declines.
Just as importantly, the nature of risk in agriculture is evolving.
Historically, producers often thought about risk primarily through the lens of production challenges such as drought, excess moisture, frost, or hail. Those risks remain. But today’s producers face a growing list of threats that are not strictly production-related.
Trade disputes can affect market access overnight. Tariffs and counter-tariffs can increase production costs. Fertilizer, fuel, equipment, and replacement part prices can surge because of geopolitical events or government policy decisions entirely outside a producer's control.
In 2026 alone, Saskatchewan producers have navigated delayed seeding, excess moisture concerns, harvest challenges, trade uncertainty, tariff disputes, and major increases in key input costs. At the same time, historically strong reference margins mean many farms may have access to higher levels of AgriStability protection than they would have had in previous years.
Those risks matter because they affect profit margins, not just production.
And that is where AgriStability is different.
Crop Insurance remains an essential risk-management tool, but it is designed primarily to address production losses. AgriRecovery is intended to respond to extraordinary disaster situations. Neither program is designed to comprehensively address the combination of margin pressures created by rising costs, falling revenues, trade uncertainty, and market disruptions.
AgriStability is the Business Risk Management program specifically intended to address significant declines in farm margins.
That distinction becomes increasingly important as agriculture faces more risks originating outside the farm gate.
One example is fertilizer. In 2026, urea prices surged while fuel costs remained volatile. These are major farm expenses that directly impact profitability. If input costs rise sharply without a corresponding increase in commodity prices, margins shrink. For many operations, those types of risks may prove every bit as significant as a weather event.
This is not an argument that AgriStability is perfect. It isn't. Industry continues to advocate for improvements, and concerns remain around diversification, beginning-farmer participation, administrative complexity, and other program details.
APAS continues to advocate for further improvements through its Next Policy Framework Task Force and ongoing Business Risk Management discussions. Industry continues to call for changes that would better reward farm diversification, improve support for livestock operations, and reduce barriers for beginning farmers. Concerns remain around the treatment of home-grown feed costs, eligibility requirements that can limit access for new entrants, and negative reference margin provisions that often affect smaller and beginning farms first during difficult years. Work remains to be done, including continuing to modernize how programs are delivered to producers. However, it is equally important to recognize the substantial changes that have already been made and the meaningful support the program is now delivering.
"With elevated risks, historically high reference margins, and significant recent payouts, producers owe it to themselves to take another look at AgriStability before October 1," says APAS President Bill Prybylski.
The combination of meaningful program improvements, historically high reference margins, elevated input costs, trade and tariff uncertainty, and $402 million in recent Saskatchewan payouts suggests many producers may benefit from reassessing their participation decision.
The question is no longer whether AgriStability had flaws in the past.
The question is whether producers are still evaluating today's program based on yesterday's reputation.
For producers who opted out years ago because they believed AgriStability didn't work for their operation, 2026 may be an appropriate time to take a fresh look.
After all, AgriStability paid approximately $402 million to Saskatchewan producers last year.
It paid zero to non-participants.
With late participation available until October 1, producers still have time to decide whether this year's risks justify another look at the program.
