Reply
Honored Advisor
Posts: 15,199
Registered: ‎05-13-2010
0

So, it shoulda been more like 160.

It sounds like USDA used ear weights and went higher than the 5 year average weights.  They used .344 instead of .325 which would`ve been a more believable 162 or so....amatures!   But like Blacksand, I also find 12 around ears and I`m kind of in a garden spot, last I saw 12 around puny ears was when we picked with a 2MH picker mounted on a M Farmall   They`re talking about this on Agtalk

https://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=724662&mid=6180933#M6180933  

 

 

Look at this

 

image.png

Esteemed Advisor
Posts: 2,496
Registered: ‎04-29-2011
0

Re: So, it shoulda been more like 160.

[ Edited ]

They predicted the ear weight.   There is no way in heck with the weather many have had and are having they could honestly think that the ear weights would be higher than the 5 year average.  Unless of course they took into account the lower populations due to the wet and cold conditions right after planting.   Which I highly doubt.

 

Highlighted
Senior Advisor
Posts: 2,466
Registered: ‎10-17-2012
0

Re: So, it shoulda been more like 160.

RT-1 -- It don't have anything to do with - what ear weight really is - it was just the number they needed to make there figures come out .  Remember - they start at the top and work down from there - it was the simplest place to make it happen : ))

Esteemed Advisor
Posts: 2,496
Registered: ‎04-29-2011

Re: So, it shoulda been more like 160.

A lot of truth in that.

Senior Advisor
Posts: 1,069
Registered: ‎05-20-2010
0

Re: So, it shoulda been more like 160.

So, how many ears per acre did they use?

Senior Advisor
Posts: 1,069
Registered: ‎05-20-2010
0

Re: So, it shoulda been more like 160.

fdd180816_fig1.jpg

I brought this in BA to show that the ear weight number is just about what it had to be based upon the past. It is not close to record high and is under 5 of the years in the data. Just no way they could take it much lower this early in the season, especially with no one in a terrible drought. I agree it will be too high when it over, but for this report, what else could they do?

 

On the number of ears, they used the 5th highest on record, so basically they didn't use the record yield years of 16, 14, 09.

 

The real error it seems to me will be in the harvested acreage number. They did change a thing for the June despite massive flooding in the east, and grazing dryland in the west. 

 

Veteran Contributor
Posts: 129
Registered: ‎06-08-2010
0

Re: So, it shoulda been more like 160.

Well, looking at the chart I see that they used the highest ear wt. ever and at 28,000 plus, the 4th highest ear count ever.  Pretty impressive, they got Nebr. 5 bushel higher in corn yield than last year.  Pretty soon, Iowa and Illinois won't matter. LOL.

Contributor
Posts: 15
Registered: ‎04-04-2011
0

Re: So, it shoulda been more like 160.

That's what I thought, too.

Until I noticed this was a 2016 chart.

Senior Advisor
Posts: 1,069
Registered: ‎05-20-2010
0

Re: So, it shoulda been more like 160.

Yeah, I couldn't get a new chart. .344 is this years number, well below last years.

Honored Advisor
Posts: 15,199
Registered: ‎05-13-2010
0

Re: So, it shoulda been more like 160.

Okay, let`s say the average ear is "15x35" 525 kernels and 90,000 in a bushel or a .33 ear.   And the population is 27,500, well that comes out to 160.42 bpa, to me at this point in time is believable.   My population is 30,000, but with all the stuff you hear about in other places...............  The Poor Farmer Tour is going to bring out the surprises on the ear size end of the equation.    Others have compared this year to 2011 and I think when`s all said and done we might be headed in that direction.