- 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
4 weeks ago - last edited 4 weeks ago
As you all know the NASS county yield has become a pretty important feature of the farm safety net program (insurance and ARC). You also know that they released county yields on Friday for 2016 and finalized 2015. In our small part of the world, the numbers continue to become more and more suspect.
For 2016 for one of the counties we farm in, we did a little research with fellow farmers and crop ins types, surveyed at least 50% of the area, and all the commercial farmers who would have higher yields, not one farm averaged what NASS reported as the county average yield. While this is good a year with no payments anyway, and it raises the guarantee for next year, it is still problematic. In drought years they over-estimate as well, in 2013 by 25%, reducing payments by huge sums in a year when you need it.
No answers on how to fix it, when discussing it with NASS directors, they claim they have to average across counties for consistency and to get a state number that makes sense. Sense to who? :-)
(they also never measure flooded out acres but that is a separate issue.)
4 weeks ago
So many of us (especially in this county) fudge our yields higher thinking like on crop insurance we`ll raise our guarantee, but on this stupid farm bill...who knew? we shoulda been a little more modest, then we`d be getting big checks like the surrounding counties. It seems there can be a lot of variation east to west within a county, just ask the Bigshots on the western side of this county with their flat, black half section fields if they`d trade with the poor eastsiders.
4 weeks ago
they claim they have to average across counties for consistency
Well Time - They had to make up for the poor dirt here in Shelby County - lol
What they said should not come as a surprise - As they have a set number to work with and adjust as they go to ------- " Make " there numbers work - That is why - To me , that any USDA number are nothing but a joke as to what is or may be - They draw the line in the sand and that's it- We can talk till were all blue in the face as to what we see - do - and yield - it don't make any difference -
Now -they are even putting out numbers for S.A. ! I read not long ago - that Argie put out numbers on beans down - yet the USDA's numbers were higher ! Glad they know more than the country that is raising the crop !
4 weeks ago
Just wondering if anyone has been audited by the USDA since proving yields with the latest farm bill? I know that the FSA offices took what yield data that farmers brought in to do the figuring for the new farm program back about three years ago. They threatened at the time that some farmers would be spot checked to make sure their numbers were legit. I have not heard of one farmer in my area that has had this happen to them.
4 weeks ago
No sense discussing it.......... this thread contains the evidence needed.....
USDA manipulates the data to gain an expected(desired)outcome. "To make the numbers come out right".
And those filling out the surveys manipulate the data to gain an expected(desired)outcome.
And if the CBOT manipulates the data by expressing the outcome expected by those who trade most often....... CBOT is probably the cleanest game of the three.
So here in the SW the Cubs are favored today with Anderson warming up. Maybe the only game around that isn't fixed.
3 weeks ago - last edited 3 weeks ago
Seems I read one time, or heard at a NASS presentation, that the production numbers reported from farms are all rolled upward to county, state, then national. Then the secret room determines the national number which may or may not match the actual reported number. Then from the national number, they decide what each state would be (again, not necessarily the actual reported) to end up with that determined national number, and then they do the same process for each county (so the counties end up adding up to the determined state number). So, definitely not a simple tally, and not necessarily what was actually reported by county.
3 weeks ago
All of the points made are valid. And that is why we do not participate in their voluntary surveys. Heck , if they want the information, it is available from our crop insurance agent, where we buy our government subsidized policy. They ought to be able to get enough actual yield and production info without even contacting us individually. I do not see why they do not get the info that way and just do away with the dang surveys. Are not the majority of acres insured?
3 weeks ago
The burner in this subject for me was when I was told that if noone in a county reports, there will be no payment for that county no matter where the numbers are.
They are not going to actually use the information at crop insurance or what we provide on the survey, and block your participation if you don't answer the surveys......
That is the way it sounds to me....... bureaucratic arrogance...... Is going to have the same future as candidate arrogance eventually.