cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

Re: USDA?

BA I do not see any conspiracy by USDA but if I did think the way you are talking would they not have been better to say area planted was going to be low and then the price would rise and then more would be planted and eventually with more planted the price would come down. Forecasting all those acres only pushed prices down sooner and made more people consider planting something else.

0 Kudos
Honored Advisor

Re: USDA?

Hey Canuck, didn`t that 166bu/95mil  come out in March/April ...the $450 rent was signed and first half paid, NH3 put on last fall, Dekalb ordered ect there was no reverse at that time. If you`re fearfull at that point, you`ll lock in $4.80 cash or whatever, thinking "it`ll have a 3 in front of it this fall".  By putting high yields and high acres out there USDA was telling endusers "go hand to mouth! lower prices are just around the corner".  I`ll probably regret bringing this up again but there was a unconfirmed story of the administration actually telling the Chinese to "cancel your corn orders, it`ll be cheaper this fall"  Now I don`t know if that happened and I don`t know what the prices will be this fall but there may be some hopping mad Chinese if events turn out the way it looks they could Smiley Very Happy  

0 Kudos
Honored Advisor

Re: USDA?

BA Deere,   Finally.......somebody that gets it!    If you were here right now I'd give you a high five for your posts!   That 166/95 million acre guess was simply that....... a guess.  But it has kept the price of corn lower than it maybe should've been. With this dry weather now, there may be a few folks that will be left short of a full load on their corn needs.

0 Kudos
Senior Advisor

Re: USDA? NAH!

Everyone knows that Ray J has bought off the USDA and they issue those bogus reports so that Ray and cargill can profit from it.

 

I wonder who you think is sending the order down to falsify figures in the USDA reports. Is that Vilsack's job or Biden or Obama himself. You talk as though the usda is simply some monolithic concern that is wholey obsessed with keeping grains prices low.

 

You sure have a vivid imagination in all things political. Paranoid one might say. Just because you paranoid that doesn't mean they are bot out to "get" you.

 

 

0 Kudos
Honored Advisor

Re: USDA? NAH!

Coming into planting short on moisture and the USDA predicts 166 yield which would be a record yield from all the states...conspiracy?.....Nah they`re just friggen idiots.  Smiley Happy

0 Kudos
Veteran Contributor

Re: USDA? NAH!

Going into spring we were a little on the dry side but nothing alarming.  Generally if we have a dry spring we raise a pretty good crop.  It is when you go into spring with saturated soils and it continues to rain that we stand a good chance of a below average year.  I think 166 was a little on the high side but I really don't know what you guys wanted.  Should the USDA assume a below trend yield when a single seed hasn't been planted yet?  When I make plans I usually start out planning on average or above average and adjust as necessary when the season unfolds.

0 Kudos
Honored Advisor

Re: USDA? NAH!

Well, in USDA`s 2011 spring yield projection they started with "162" and it got backed off to what, 145 by harvest?  So USDA pulls "166" out of their hat this year hoping that a blind hog gets lucky and finds a accorn.  The thing is last yr there was 90 mil acres this yr it`s 95 mil/96mil acres, well to get 5 mil more acres it has to come from "fringe areas" and corn on corn which typically aren`t above trend acres...oh I know "Herman Warsaw and Francis Childs had C-on-C" but they weren`t average growers.  K-State thought USDA should`ve plugged in 159 to start with and that would`ve made more sense,  I mean 166 on 5 mil more fringe acres?  IMO, the low hanging fruits have been picked on rising trendline yields.    Better weed control, larger equpiment for more timely work, producers more willing to fertilize adequately, improved drainage all those things are being done to the best of everyone`s ability for the past 5 years and we`ve kind of seen trend yields flatten for reasons above just "weather".  So, we can`t just take for granted increasing projected yields by "2.4 bushels" each year.  I don`t know why the USDA was overly exuberant in projecting yields this year, but cheap corn will help the economy and as Watergate`s Deep Throat said "follow the money". In full disclosure, I haven`t contracted any corn and I do want the price to go up Smiley Happy

0 Kudos
Senior Contributor

Re: USDA? NAH!

So what's the latest report prediction for the corn yield. If USDA admits a problem brewing I doubt they will recognize it as much of a problem. If they reduce their number to 163 all will still be well with their demand and carryover numbers. If they drop to 159 look for reductions in demand to help preserve a comfortable carryover.

0 Kudos
Honored Advisor

Re: USDA? NAH!

The way it is now with (166 and 95 mil acres) the ending stock was predicted to be 1.880 billion bushel extremely burdensome and gives some goof balls the license to spout "2 billion bushel carry over!!! 2 billion bushel carry over!!!", which drops heavy piano right on top of the corn market.  Had the USDA been sensible and used K-State`s "159" on 89 million harvested acres the carryover projection would be 1.257 billion bushel, that is still 250 million bushels over the "1 billion bushel comfort level". That wouldn`t have cast such a pall over the market.  The thing is, if this heat doom gets legs the closer to harvest USDA will have to slice big chunks off their prediction which will catch many endusers with their pants down, thus causing wilder swings in the market. http://www.agmanager.info/marketing/outlook/newletters/Corn.asp

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: USDA? NAH!

Reread this thread and try again to tell me why I am wrong when I say--------------USDA should not be in the business of predicting.  Only reporting what they actually know and observe.  

 

0 Kudos