cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Advisor

Re: So, it shoulda been more like 160.

First of all, they didn't follow stated procedure when dealing with an august report.  A huge amount of corn was planted late and in a stage that is prior to blister on ears.  The proper stated procedure state they would use a combination of farmers opinions and a five year average ear weight.  Last years corn crop was far further then this this year in maturity and you could count kernel rows to estimate yield.  They didn't like the results and multiplied trend yield from plant population.  They didn't take into account spring or summer weather conditions in the western corn belt.  The USDA shouldn't wonder why farmers believe they have a cheap food agenda after a report like this.  What is the point in having conditions ratings every week if they don't take them into consideration.  The situation is ridiculous

Frequent Contributor

Re: So, it shoulda been more like 160.

 
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: So, it shoulda been more like 160.

We do not need "official USDA reports". They serve no purpose but their own anymore. Let the private forecasting companies do what they do and be done with it. USDA can report actual production numbers at end of season, etc.
Veteran Advisor

Re: So, it shoulda been more like 160.

I think we would soon regret it, if we gave up the USDA reporting systems.  On the other hand -- why is NASS field data collected on growing crops all summer if it isn't really used until near harvest? -- what is the purpose of the weekly crop condition ratings if they are not really used? -- why are they using "reliability factor" data all the way back to 1980? -- why do we start out with record or trend yields, instead of trended averages? -- if acreage reports are due July 15, when do actual reported acreages factor into the reports? -- since all crop insurance data is available to USDA, is any of that acreage and/or crop damage information used for anything at USDA? -- etc.

Frequent Contributor

Re: So, it shoulda been more like 160.

 
0 Kudos
Frequent Contributor

Re: So, it shoulda been more like 160.

WCMO, you've made my point. TOO MUCH unnecessary "necessary information"
0 Kudos
Honored Advisor

Re: So, it shoulda been more like 160.

FC Stone is more like 160 currently, which is kind of surprising given they`re a big outfit.   I don`t mind USDA/NASS so much as "the trade" gives them godlike respect and when they`re wrong, they pull 300 million bushel one way or another from last year to make the books "balance".  They have the power to do that.  If they`d at least put a disclaimer on their reports that "we are no better than any other report, subject to change and oh yeah our mission is cheap food".

0 Kudos
Frequent Contributor

Re: So, it shoulda been more like 160.

All this makes me think of the line on Tommy Boy when he says I can take a sh!+ in a box and put a guarantee on it if you want but all you have is a guaranteed piece of sh!+
0 Kudos
Honored Advisor

Re: So, it shoulda been more like 160.

BA is right     I been following stones process for several years........ I participate in the process..... 

It is nearly always optimistic......because it is loaded heavier to the larger production areas of the corn belt.  

I was pretty shocked at result being well below usda.........9 bushel......

 

I know who fills out the usda reports locally and FC Stone has better reporting by far here.

 

And I have never seen Stone get defensive over credibility issues......... They really want to know the local expectations.  They want to know and are never trying to make a "top down" presentation.

 

They know better than to rely on a government employee.

 

 

0 Kudos