- 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
09-21-2017 10:20 PM
Well yield monitors are good enough for crop insurance. But, we need to put reports from the combine in perspective, every year probably has 1/100th of an acre that will go 300, somewhere in the cornbelt. No one was claiming to entire field was going 300, I think Joe said "220-240".
I know we`d all like to hear that yields are coming in 50bu less than last year and and Joe`s yield monitor was "180", but it is what it is, I don`t want the optimistic or pessimistic, I want the realistic and then go from there with the variables of marketing that I can control.
It probably is hard to find a farmer with less than trend yields to give reports from the combine, so it`s only going to be those swinging for the bleachers on yield and nice machinery that will volunteer for the job
But I salute anyone gracious enough to share this with us, it tells us that the yield is indeed there in places and it`s not in others, probably 0 to 250 in many fields. But thinking that higher than APH will be rare this year probably won`t be the case for everyone.
09-22-2017 01:19 AM
09-22-2017 06:33 AM
I'll take a few arrows over this post, oh well.....
The response this post has received is exactly why there is no balance on this site. Anyone saying anything good about yields is visited by a couple of MOAB's.
Of course for eagleEYE to claim he is posting neutral data is also kind of offensive. There have been 2 videos, both in the garden spots of the midwest. Why isn't he in NE Iowa where the fields are running 180 that have 201 APH's, and made 240 last year?
Everything said about yield monitors is accurate, BUT that doesn't make this fellows happy result invalid. Not much good to come for the bragging farmer in that his rents will go up for next year, and derision from the neighbors. If you get 220 bu corn, you DON'T have a cashflow problem! (Pretty sure the neighbors monitors will all top out north of 300 after this report)
We calibrate our yield monitors a little differently. We want them to show 3% below actual yields. Nothing worse than a landowner who rides in the cab and sees 60 on the monitor and it actually weighs 57. Of course, a typical pass for us yesterday showed yields going from 18 to 75 on that setting. Too much water is not good for yields, but in the sweat spots, the Beck genetics are certainly better.Field average just as we expected, around 60 (on a field with an APH for beans of 62 fwiw and about 7% below last year's equivalent-going to make NASS a little wrong).
So since I am reporting a 60....let the shelling begin....you don't really know what cave I am in anyway....
09-22-2017 07:19 AM - edited 09-22-2017 07:20 AM
Well........Ole Mike did ask the question, "what say you?".......at the end of his post. I guess he got what he wanted.
I still contend that for a site that professes "successful farming" , some of what I read here astounds me.
09-22-2017 07:48 AM
I'm sure there's some 300bu corn out there.
Anybody who takes that as information for making marketing decisions deserves what they get.
I didn't see the intent as such.
09-22-2017 07:58 AM
Last time there was a really big tip from early yield results was way back in '03 in beans- '95 in corn being the other. There are a few others of lesser variance but they're not as common as you might think.
Anyway, I was watching this and other sites raptly and the reports seemed to be supporting my inclinations. Then one of our best, departed regulars came on to report that he'd just been to a field day and the new green combine that was being shown off by the dealer was cutting 60 bu beans.
He came back a week or so later and said, never mind, they had it set for a 20 ft head instead of 30.
09-22-2017 08:01 AM
Congrats to all those who see some good yields!
Personally, I don't have a yield monitor, and likely never will at this point. Like I've said before, I expect my yields to be above my average, not my best. I'll know the averages soon enough.
09-22-2017 08:31 AM
BTW, the two huge variance years that I mentioned were both due to very widespread pest problems that the data collection system didn't/couldn't account for- GLS in corn in '95 and soy aphids in beans in '03.
Nothing like that out there that I'm aware of and I'm not expecting a huge variance to final. Am expecting a lower final, particularly in soys. Might not if a widespread rain had arrived as late as a few days past the 9/1 data cutoff, but it didn't.