07-04-2014 02:45 PM
20 yr average a tad above 150 bpa--last 10 yr avg = below 150.
2004-2008 average = 152 bpa
2005-2013 average = 149 bpa -- These are ALL flat to down.
these facts are not visited in the farmdocdaily 172 yield article.
the current and historical Star NOAA sat images are not statistical. They indicate conditions-on balance-are worse than last yr = 158.8 bpa.
I suppose one could hope or not for 172 bpa, and wonder if they are prepared for these levels of production.
One could also ask whether Univ of ILL receives any funding or grant money from any of the big 4 commercial merchants who are currently heavily betting on BELOW 30 yr trendline yields for this year.
Therefore, one would fairly also have to consider whether fear had any place in the motive for producing the article.
07-04-2014 05:09 PM
c-x-1, Of course fear plays a part. How else do you get farmers to sell their crops below the cost of production? There's a whole lot of songs & dances being played out right now.......and NONE OF THEM favor the grain farmer.
Wild yield and acre predictions only speed up this process.
A good thing that comes of this is for those who can wait out all the fearmongering, the more grain that is sold now, increases the chances of much higher prices to come once the final yields are confirmed by the combines.
07-04-2014 05:27 PM
i was just tryin' to stay with the "purely academic - theoretical exercise" atmosphere --of the article. trying to be subtle with the sarcasm....by "playing along"
'cause we all know it was simply an exercise in exploring possibilities.
07-04-2014 06:27 PM
"playing along"...........I've been told that I don't play well with others..........Oh well, I can live with that!
07-04-2014 09:52 PM
07-05-2014 05:35 AM
cx said "One could also ask whether Univ of ILL receives any funding or grant money from any of the big 4 commercial merchants who are currently heavily betting on BELOW 30 yr trendline yields for this year".
Ok, cx, this is quite a statement, where are you finding anything that support it. Who are the big 4 you are referrring too and how are they betting on that outcome? tia
07-05-2014 07:26 AM
Professors at a University will seek "funding" in their quest to be published for their doctorate degrees. Couple years Back listened to one such speaker who was railing against seed coating as the PRIMARY cause of the bee colony decline. Come to find out behind the scenes that One of the "big four" had turned him down for funding so he went to the remaining companies with one of them funding him if he would target the competitions product. Big money.....it's all fair in love and war. Right Ken???
07-05-2014 08:22 AM
Yes there are areas with good crops and other areas with many problems.
As I understand it Ontario will need all you can produce.
Less corn and more soys indicate we will be a net importer next year which should give you a little better basis for your good crop.
I expect storage will not be a problem in the province as a whole even if you fill everything in your area.
Oxford has some good looking crops but parts of Huron, Perth and Middlesex where I have driven have lots of poor crops.
07-05-2014 02:24 PM - edited 07-05-2014 02:28 PM
however many big commercial merchant companies there are (4?). how they are betting is published every week by CFTC - I take the info seriously.
It's my opinion from analysis of COT, price and long term charts whether they would name it betting below or above trendline.
the article implies also - IMO, that we are somehow due for a bin buster. Probability does not work that way. + the 10 and 20 year trendline yield LINE is flat to down.
how do your crops look (condition & development-wise) this yr relative to last yr/same time? thanks
also, the sat images indicate worse crop conditions than last yr across eastern belt and a large chunk of cntrl.