Prediction is not n exact science

[kraft-t]

First one should know what is the motivation for the presentation. I think it is an analytical attempt to inform all facets of agriculture. Whether it be the production enterprise, processing enterprise or commercial marketing enterprise. Thus they have to use current data along with presumed production by assuming historical weather patterns and predictable farmer behavior. Will they respond to $13 beans or %7 corn and will the weather allow them to do that?

One thing they can be sure of is that we won't get a poor crop due to lack of trying. I am somewhat amazed at the production levels produced by farmer. Sometime in very difficult circumstances. Another thing that government knows is that their are problem areas every year, year in and year out. But the averages speak for themselves in that we produce good crops most years and often bin busters.

I would seldom bet on a bad crop nationwide as most often we geter done in spite of all the negativism we hear to the contrary. Perhaps the USDA is over confident because they know us and know what we are capable of and they sure aren't going to bet against us.

[Palouser]

There is no question that future planting assumptions are predictions and not fact. Weather being the biggest obstacle to anyone's seeding plans. But I think we all understand that. On the other hand, what is the overall accuracy of these predictions. Right now it seems that corn intenetions are likely to be fullfilled even though I have had my doubts. But I don't pay that much attention to intentions in terms of marketing. I'm still homing in on inventorieas and regional and global conditions.

If the USDA is not the consistently best source for data then one has to find another source that's better. So far I don't know another source for the general outlook or measurement. I'm open to suggestions - but a history of consistensy is the issue. Otherwise I don't think it makes sense to be too hard on the USDA.

[Palouser]

There is no question that future planting assumptions are predictions and not fact. Weather being the biggest obstacle to anyone's seeding plans. But I think we all understand that. On the other hand, what is the overall accuracy of these predictions. Right now it seems that corn intenetions are likely to be fullfilled even though I have had my doubts. But I don't pay that much attention to intentions in terms of marketing. I'm still homing in on inventorieas and regional and global conditions.

If the USDA is not the consistently best source for data then one has to find another source that's better. So far I don't know another source for the general outlook or measurement. I'm open to suggestions - but a history of consistency is the issue. Otherwise I don't think it makes sense to be too hard on the USDA.

[sw363535]

Thanks for the exchange of thought, and reading.  Back to Giolucas opening post-------------I am still searching for a reason to share personal data. ------ usda's history of sharing data, the targeted audits, the continual redefining of entities, unstable function of poa's, rewriting rules after signup, instructing personnel not to "help" producers make decisions, ----------my years on the local board gave me a gut full of reasons for the larger producers( or any producer) not to share anything.  

USDA has spent several years placing the interests of the environmental and sporting groups, legal threats, and politics  ahead of their producers(and their data).  There are lots of reasons not to answer the surveys.  

[roarintiger1]

Most farmers really don't care how accurate the USDA is.  What most are upset about is the wild reaction the CBOT has to every report that the USDA puts out.  What most folks want is an orderly market to be able to market grain decently.....not flying by the seat of their pants which is how these markets have become after a USDA report.

[timetippingpt]

Palouser is dead on accurate in this thread. No one could of said it better.

I would even go so far as to point out that the USDA has been very accurate for most of the time. IF you understand how they do the surveys, and you have an open mind, you can anticipate where their process may be vulnerable.

The fact the fund managers are ridiculously poor traders, and thus cause corn to collapse 50cents before and rally 5o cents after despite no meaningful change in the numbers, is not USDA's fault. They can't regulate stupid.

It is my understanding that a) we are required by law to answer the requests and b) the USDA process allows for and compensates for potential producer errors in submission, intentional or otherwise.