- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

##
Re: 150 nat avg may not cut it........

In reply to what 'the chief' posted -

*My rep sent out letter to customers that he expects to use 120,000 kernels per bushel instead of 90,000 in population count. Looks pretty sad.*

Ok Fellas, I have a theory and need some help.

As I understand the 90,000 population count is for 'average' corn whatever that is. So if we divide the 90,000 by 56 lbs/bu we get 1607 kernals per lb. I rounded off the 1607 to 1600 and divided that by 16 oz/lb. That gives us 100 kernals/oz.

Am I right so far?

So if I do the 17 ft 5 in measurement for a 1000th of an acre in 30 in rows and select my ears for sampling I think I should be able to hand shell out and weigh one oz of shelled corn and then count the kernals to find out how many make up one oz.

If I reverse the procedure I should be able to come up with a correct kernal count per bushel in my field.

Example - Lets say I have 30 stalks in the 17 ft 5 in that have a measureable ear. I was taught to hand pick every 5th ear, disregard the shortest and longest and then use an average of the remaining ears to get rows of kernals and kernal length.

So if I'm doing this right, 30 stalks in the 17 ft 5 in x 16 rows around x 38 kernal length per ear in my sample should give me a fighure of 18240. If I divide this by 90 I get 202.6 bu/a. But now it gets interesting. If I come up with 110 kernals per oz after weighing out one oz and counting the kernals by hand I now divide the 18240 by 110 and get 165.8 bpa. Quite a difference.

The nice thing about this theory, and it is just a theory at this time, is that each farmer can determine what kernal count to use by sampling his own fields.

Ok fellas I have my thick skin on. Let me have it. If sampling is important to you Is this theory crazy or does it have some merit?

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

##
Re: 150 nat avg may not cut it........

**Ok Fellas, I messed up. Refer to the previous posting and make the following correction.**

**110 kernals per oz x 16 oz/lb = 1760 kernals/lb**

**1760 kernals/lb x 56 lbs/bu = 98560**

**So I theoretically I would use 98.5 instead of 90 to get my accurate kernal count per bushel for my field.**

**Again from above 18240 divided by 98.5 = 185.1 bu/a; still quite a difference from 202.6**

**Okay, it's late tonight but let me have it - Will this work? Thx in advance for your replies.**

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

##
Re: 150 nat avg may not cut it........

I'll give you an A for effort and your methodology should get you in the ballpark, but your small sample size will doom your efforts to be precise.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

##
Re: 150 nat avg may not cut it........

You may also need to account for moisture content.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

##
Re: 150 nat avg may not cut it........

After extensive scouting we think we are looking at 160-180 bpa here in E. central Iowa, although it looks much better from the road.(This will be 20-40 less than 2010) We were very close to having a huge crop, still won't complain. Good luck to all!

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

##
Re: 150 nat avg may not cut it........

where it is good it is so good, I am oenciling in

161

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

##
Re: 150 nat avg may not cut it........

Artie, seriously fella are you trying to make a complete fool out of yourself just to be contrainan? Thought you would have learned from your buddy Tara/Rat last year with his call for 170 and his nonsense about how high temps where actually good for corn production. Higher temps this year, much more dryness nationwide this year equals less corn yield than last to anyone with a hint of knowledge and yet you call 161?

Can you say delusional Artie?

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

##
Re: 150 nat avg may not cut it........

You notice Artifice is oenciling (penciling) in 161......that oenciling (penciling) better have an eraser on it.......

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

##
Re: 150 nat avg may not cut it........

Artifice, ye of few words--misspelled though they may be, please enlighten us on where in the world it is "so good."

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

##
Re: 150 nat avg may not cut it........

@justinbarnes710 wrote:It would be nice to hear from somebody with good crops... it can't all be bad.

Central Ohio really doesn't look too bad after a terrible start at planting. I would project near average for this area.

I guess good growing conditions aren't much of a headline.

So maybe I can show you a 'good' crop. Probably not excellent but should make average.

The only drag from here is the corn that was planted late. Late being first week of June.

An early frost could change everything.

Now there are poor areas around but I walked into my field at home today and randomly pulled 6 cobs in a row.

I chose 2 sets.

The one on the left was planted May 12 and the one on the right was planted May 22.

They are 2 different varieties since I was just switching seed when it rained me out on the 12th.

Lenght of cobs are 20-24 cm in case you can not read the ruler.

This picture shows the depth of kernal with a loonie in the centre and a penny to the left.

Kernal measures 1 cm deep.