So I ask again

[Mizzou_Tiger]

Biggest whiff the USDA has ever made between August numbers and January numbers

They might very well take the title this year

[ECIN]

I have no idea MT how far off they wil be - But will agree that I think they have missed many points on this crop - but I can show you some pictures I took yesterday in our N test plot - just to ge a idea of what might or might not be out there - In this plot - its a rate and timing plot - where we applied the full rate on some rep's at V-3 - all reps recieved some N at V-3 -- the next was suppose to be at V bet rain held it off till V-7 and the last pass was suppose to be at V15 but went on at R-1 , Sorry here - but felt that you needed some back ground on what your about to see here .

top picture was the full rate at V-3 - they average 16 round X 30 long

These pic.s are of the 50 units at V-3 - plus 150 units at V-9 = 14 round X 39 long

Pictures of the kernels are not as clear - but in person - the full rate kernels are a lot smaller than the higher second pass at V-9 - my pint after all this - is this  where the usda is missing the point - figure these numbers using - say 80,000 - 85,000 and then 90,000 - this maked a big difference in yield numbers .

I will say that the full rate N will be closer to 90,000 may be more - they are small

HAve a good one - everybody

[timetippingpt]

You didn't tell us how many ears Ken!  On the edge of my seat. From the looks of the leaves and of the ground and the kernals it very well could take 92000 this year btw...not that IN matters. So, ear count? I'm guessing 28.5 for a field average. So, you are guessing this good spot in the field at 160ish?

[ECIN]

Time - I agree with the 92 - That was my point in that post - the loss of N is a bigger story thatn some are thinking - To be honest here - I did not do a pop count yeserday - the last one I did some time ago - the pop was at 35- This was just to show where a problem may be with the numbers game - This field will not average , like the the ones shown - I will try and post up some of the the corn only shoulder high in this same plot - the  problem here - is I had surgery on my elbow 4 weeks agon and it's been a problem child -  It had a come apart over the weekend and head to the Doctor ------------ AGAIN today - I have been on the DL for the last month -with orders no to go in any fields - sheds - shop anything on the farm - and that has slowed down any in field work - as talking pics or counts

Here is aother problem - there's not much talk about - I have never seen so much stalk rot starting o the plants .

top picture is of the full rate applied at V-3 = run out of juice

[tOTALED]

green ears on that far along  stock is  never a good thing

[Mizzou_Tiger]

Going from 75000 which was common last year and actually small to 85000 this year which could be big

Takes us from 171 to 151 just like that

Absolutely zero change in ears or kernel counts. Just a simple shift to smaller kernels

And mind you. 85000 is still good. There will be a lot of 100000 out there.

As for N. Didn't matter what you did over here. It was all about O2 in the soil. Well drained forgiving soil that could breath quicker looks better. Everything else is of equal junk.

And for that matter it's all dead. Very few fields with color left. Plant has died even in the good dirt. About 2 weeks too early

[Blacksandfarmer]

I just want to know why USDA only subtracts 900,000 unplanted acres, when FSA says we reported 4.5 million unplanted acres between corn and soybeans? That's a big deal! I think the farmer is owed an explanation!

[ECIN]

Sandy asked : just want to know why USDA only subtracts 900,000 unplanted acres, when FSA says we reported 4.5 million unplanted acres between corn and soybeans

Well Sandy - NOT be'n' a smart a-- here - but to answer your question -  Because they can - its that simple -

[BA Deere]

What the gurus on with Tyne Morgan say is "not every farmer is in the program, so they don`t certify acres with FSA...and they aren`t sure that some farmers didn`t just keep planting beans on what is thought to be prevent plant".   Well I know, there is alot of problems with that, for one don`t you have to certify with FSA to be eligible for crop insurance?   if that is the case, I can`t believe that any significant acres yield-wise, don`t get certified.    Bottomline, they`re jacking with us.

[WCMO]

BA -- No, don't think you have to report/certify your acres with FSA to be eligible for non-FSA crop insurance.  For crop insurance, you only have to certify that you are in compliance with a conservation plan (AD-1026 form at FSA, I think).  The crop insurance people do like it when everyone reports their acres to FSA, since that makes it much more simple to obtain maps of your fields, and verify your crops, acres, shares and locations.  Yet, "liking it" does not mean that it is "required".  FSA programs do likely require that you report/certify your acres at FSA.

And, yes, I think they're "jacking with us" too.  USDA has multiple sources of information -- NASS surveys, FSA reported acres, and crop insurance acres via FCIC, which is also part of USDA.  USDA has a problem with actually using all the information they already collect, at least with any resemblence of timeliness.