- Agriculture.com Community
- Announcements & Forum Help
- Farm Business
- Young & Beginning Farmers
- Cattle Talk
- Crop Talk
- Hog Talk
- Machinery Talk
- Machinery Marketplace
- Shops, buildings and bins
- Ask the SF Engineman!
- Computers & more
- Precision Agriculture
- People & Rural Life
- Ag Forum
- Women In Ag
- Agriculture.com Blogs
- Your Farm in the Future
- Women in Ag: Lisa Foust Prater
- Women in Ag: Brenda Frketich
- Women in Ag: Anne Miller
- Women in Ag: Jennifer Dewey
- Women in Ag: Talkin' Turkey with Lara Durben
- Women in Ag: Heather Lifsey Barnes
07-17-2017 06:31 PM
So "farmer held grain" is divined basically like a contractor that pinches a ribbon of soil and proclaims it to be "50% clay"?
I suppose if USDA announces that the final yield of a corn crop was 170 bushel and "60% of it is accounted for in commercials ....then by golly, it must be that those rascally farmers are holding "40%", by process of elimination.
07-17-2017 08:32 PM - edited 07-18-2017 12:10 PM
Like I said earlier........USDA predicted yield, times USDA predicted acres, minus what has gone across the scales equals what's left in farmer's bins.
The word predict will get scrutinized yet again......in 3...2...1
07-18-2017 11:33 AM
It is not how it is intended that matters.
It is how it is read and used by those in the know that defines the term.
How the numbers are derived is quite a different thing than how the numbers are used.
07-18-2017 12:22 PM
Jim you really need to get over it. The USDA just used a potential or PREDICTED yield of 170.7. Moronic, but it is what they used for this year's crop yield. Call it anything you want...but it is a predicted yield based upon some pretty pathetic statistics. Apparently no one with even a remote knowledge of Chaotic systems math is involved with this stuff in DC. (IF they did, they would only offer ranges of yeilds based upon statistical bands produced by the models)
The trade uses this number to justify the price they are willing to pay at this moment in time. Pick any word you want to use, heck, the definition of marriage has been changed, let's change this definition to prediction since that is exactly what they know that data will be used for. :-) Modern culture changes definitions all the time...global warming became climate change when the data didn't support the warming during a solar flare cycle low point. :-)
07-18-2017 09:34 PM
This is pretty funny. All the fancy words don't change a simple fact. USDA uses a formula that is well publicized to derive and publish a number that is specifically defined.
You don't like it so you argue about it. Who's problem is that? Not USDA's problem.
If the trade is misusing USDA's number and you know it, can I assume you are all trading your info and making a killing? It should be like taking candy from a baby.
07-19-2017 08:26 AM
Frankly Jim we have made millions over the years investing, or adjusting our inventory priced position, counter to their simplistic statistics. We've done pretty well taking money from the smartest and fastest computers in the world as well, algo's are inherently stupid after all.
If their numbers are formulaic that are well known and all above board, why did they go to such great lengths defending them this past week? Because even they KNOW they are wrong and not statistically valid. Using an invalidated formulaic approach in this day and age is a little bit like bleeding someone to treat a viral infection...jmo
Anyone who is one of our Peer's is pretty well aware of our approach to news, regardless of source, and regardless of it being fake or not. Most news has always been fake after all, through all of history
07-19-2017 09:10 AM
Reminds me of our opening presentation point at the Peer Meeting 2 years ago. In the story of David and Goliath, who was the underdog and who was favored to win? Obviously NOT the small child David right?
Well, if you know anything about the technology of the time, actually David would be favored to win easily. Big armored slow moving target for a kid that has been killing lions and jackals with a sling shot and rocks. The algo traders are today's Goliath, even the regulators refuse to touch them. A well educated and capitalized farmer can easily fulfill the role of David, but not if you are an MT always bullish kind of guy. You have to reach some emotional clarity, and act with deeper knowledge than Goliath. Obviously, you have to hit him from a distance, right when he thinks he is in charge... :-)