10-04-2010 10:57 AM
Just looking back the past 10 years, the USDA lowered the corn yield from August to September in 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2008. But in the October report of those years, the corn yield was only lowered again in 2000. In 2001, 2003, and 2008 the yield was raised. Crop conditions increased during September of those years, which may explain the increase in yield. In 2000, crop conditions fell by 3% Good/Excellent. This year conditions have fallen 4% in September. Yield drop from September to October in 2000 was about 1.5%. Comparison to the this year may have the October yield on Friday's report near 160.
In soybeans, the pattern has been that a yield increase in the September report equals a steady to higher yield in October. At least in the last 10 years.
10-04-2010 01:42 PM
I tend to feel it's all about cash usage or demand function.
When anything gets non current ( does not move volume ) that tends to cut future volume needed too ( cash buyer folks over time simply move on to more achievable goals ).
Also figure yield is in the actual 152 / 154 range. Not that yield matters, because there are lots of other products out there.
"Off wheat " perhaps replaced 300 million + bu of corn here in the SW in early June.
Looks like a record Milo crop now is good for perhaps another 200 million + bu of corn replacement now ongoing.
Alot of wheat planted so all background cattle will likely have graze out rather than some lot backgrounding.
Little things add up.
With plenty of cost effective feed on hand everyone is likely wondering if "off wheat" in 011 will be $1 cheaper than corn like it was late May / early June or if things will be higher.
Either way, wheat is 10% better than corn for feed purposes so at par to corn is generally a conversion bargain.
10-05-2010 05:45 AM
My BS meter pegged on your statement about milo.....we grow less than 400 myn bushels per year in the US and feed 110-125 myn of that......kind of hard to increase feed consumption by 200 myn bushels...
10-06-2010 10:01 AM
Normally, I would agree with you Ray. However, I took a trip across Kansas on Hwy. 36 and was shocked by the amount of milo planted. I've never understood why guys continue to grow the stuff. If you have 100 bushel milo, you would have had 140-150 bushel corn. Milo sells for 92-93% of the price. There's not that much difference in the cost to grow it as milo hasn't kept up with the times in terms of what chemicals can be applied to keep down weed pressure. For some reason, milo acres has made a big comeback in the Western states.
10-06-2010 01:13 PM
So let's just say the sake of argument that we are talking about increasing feed usage for Milo from 110 myn that is in the grid to 200 myn bushels, not even the 200 myn increase that rightone mentioned in his message.
And let's say the yield really is 100 bpa, not the 73 average in the Sept report...
so, 90 myn increase divided by 100 bpa, means the acreage must increase by 900,000.....and the grid say 6.0 myn planted...
Sooo, are you telling me the govt is off 15% in their Milo planting number???
10-06-2010 01:49 PM
I don't know how far they are off or even if they are off. I'm just saying I've seen a lot more milo acres than normal this year. Plus, the 100 bushel yield was just a number I was throwing out there. From the milo I have seen, I'm guessing it is closer to 125+ bushel milo as the dryland corn in those areas is going 160+. Not to mention, we're just not exporting much milo now. The shipment pace on sorghum is down 30+ percent from a year ago. One would assume we will domestically use the difference for feed.