- 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
a week ago
The University of Illinois put out a paper saying don't get to thinking that adding what we'd call lower yield soybean acres will reduce the national yield. Not that you would do \that, and besides, you only market your own crop,anyway, right?
"The relatively small 2017 adjustments to national average soybean trend projections when considering the acreage shifts associated 2017 planting intentions indicates the use of national trend yield analysis is still the most practical method for forming expectations."
a week ago
It is TIME for yields to regress to the mean in my opinion. Any statistical study that ignores that is just a static analysis of a choatic system, which produces errors, some of very high magnitude.
Suggested reading "The Improbability Principle" by David Hand
a week ago
That is something that I wouldn`t doubt. Soybeans like to be abused and yield more on crappy land sometimes, beans don`t appreciate good land like corn does. I think that`s partly why those with ice cream soils prefer to raise corn, even though they "lose more" doing it.
Seems to me the usda job preserving prognostications on probability, being the only accepted source of potential truth, already ignore the excessive deviation from trend fantasized in 2016. The leap into the 52 bushel range had to ignore trend to hold onto price controlling carry levels ( note the abnormal leap on the Illinois charts in 2016) and keep us from discussing why seed is in short supply.
Soybeans are a good stress year crop. Yet 2016, according to usda, was not a stress year. So corn set records and "who would have guessed"? Soybeans were projected with phenomenal yields.
With the pain on corn balance sheets we(whoever we are?) expect higher levels of bean acres this year. And we are talking about it. But usda did not say that on its monthly scandle sheet. Not even close.... What I see locally is not in line with usda. And I have to assume it is being talked about because what illinois is seeing something different as well. What is happening to the south and east of me is not in line with usda....... Well see that is going in a direction that is just hard to research so lets go back to usda.
I been reviewing the last report. It was characteristically uneventful. this organization tends to never venture out on that limb. Like their jobs depended on not taking risks.
It does not predict a shift to soybeans. Maybe a rumor, but not a shift. Yet in 2016 we had a second strong yield increase yield figured in. Look at illinois chart One would think that, along with corn cash flow problems (in half the acres grown where the son doesnt shine in regard to basis), that the unprecidented skyrocketing of yield in the last 4 years would influence a shift in acres......... well it doesn't..... bother me. I understand the quality of the data or lack there of ... "the nature of the beast".
I tend to think the yield increase of the last 4 years, in light of corn yields in the same time period, is probably bogus. If we had raced from 40 by to 52+ in the last three years acres would be SHIFTing. Especially in light of the a collapse of corn prices over the same three years.
Well its just numbers based on something we all disagree on. So who cares...
Besides we all see the picture upside down anyway....... it isn't production that matters....... Maybe, we need to control grain sales for 2017 so most of the bushels are acquired in the harvest market...
Well then maybe the acres are going to shift dramatically.
Your right, the new market environment is that boring...............