HEAT DOME in the northwest. coming soon

[sw363535]

When does the extreme heat in Washington State and Canada move into the corn belt?????

[Hobbyfarmer]

Local weather this morning shows heat through Monday along with smoke from Canada.

Tuesday/Wed big rain event to cover much of the droughty areas.

[sdholloway56]

Extended maps aren't showing that.

It'll probably continue to nibble at the edge and flake some heat off occasionally.

[sdholloway56]

I'm prepared for the next round of rains to be inconclusive, like the last one.

[roarintiger1]

USDA needs to plan for the worst and then report better than expected…….after crops are harvested.

Predicting the best and then lowering expectations has always seemed backwards to me.

It certainly doesn’t benefit the farmers.

[sdholloway56]

10-16 day ensembles pull it farther back west than it has been in some time.

But still dicey for the NW 20% and probably mixed for the next 20%.

[Hobbyfarmer]

Another 4 or 5 days of 90-100+ temps will get much of the crop past much of a point of resuscitation into anything but a half *****ed insurance claim with rain after the fact.

[sw363535]

At some point we need to go back to the "promise of Genetic modification claims on Capital hill and assess the realities of that.  Monsanto made those claims in support of Green energy politics.  Usda has been off the rails with extreme yield predictions ever since.  Gmo and tech had great promise and we seem to oscillate in a love hate relationship.  Did someone at the time, show the promise of "weather" control??  

Scientific research is all about understanding the details of our world.  I am not sure where we are on that journey.  Probably far closer to the beginning of that understanding than the end of it.

Technology thinks they have reached the end every time they figure out how to do something new.

The real issue is the cost/benefit ratio.--- each time.

Agriculture needs to assess the promises and the costs of advancements like Genetic modification... One thing is obvious the political costs drive down the benefits value..... IMO

I agree roaring ...... any prognostication of yield should never be higher than an average of historic reality.... But usda has a 25 + year history of false data they rely on ..... so where is reality

For ethanol growth alone we projected acres and yields that had to expand mostly in fringe expansion.  Yet we claimed increased yields through all those years...... Cannot be true........ Add more marginal land and your overall average never goes up.

But then how can we review anything with inaccurate data saved....     

[sdholloway56]

Trend has merely continued to rise as it has for a century.

Variability somewhat less.

[sw363535]

Sd that is the same mistake that usda makes--- thinking years are comparable.... they're not.

Pre hybridization of corn seed is not comparable to what we generated by crossbreeding.  

Pre commercial fertilizer corn is not comparable to the crops raised as fertilizer use improved

Pre irrigation corn on a national basis is not comparable to the national crops raised prior to irrigation ramp up in the 1950-60s midwest and 1940's desert west farming.  Or the Northwest prior to control of the Columbia River.

It is the scam that Monsanto was using on illiterate politicians......claiming national production improvements on their technology in seed modification when in fact most of that gain was coming from water management improvements that exploded all through the 1960's through today(including Tiling for excess water management).  And equipment and cultivation practice improvements.

But the point is 1962 is not comparable or compatable with 2002, or any other year unless you can control the inputs.  And we are always changing the variables.  There is no such thing as a trend in corn yield.   What there is is improvements in resources and that is why I think we must evaluate everything for economic benefit.  We have the ability to raise 25 billion bushels of corn per year if we apply the resources.  But why would we if demand for corn stays at 13 billion.  It would be the stupidest thing we could do, to waste resources like that.  Or take demand to 6 billion bushels by stopping all feeding of livestock(that would take real idiots to do and we would have illegals carrying T-bones on their backs across the Rio Grande instead of our children drugs.)

From an economic analysis view I doubt that the last 10 years can compare to the 1920's for economic return on investment for crops.