cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Bugeye
Senior Contributor

Re: the new anizasi

Along the same lines as peak corn, check out peak phospherous. Pretty hard to hit higher yields if there's not enough phos to go around.
0 Kudos
Hobbyfarmer
Honored Advisor

Re: the new anizasi

Nope. With an above average weather year all can have a breakout Above Normal yield event. Also depends on crop % mix.
0 Kudos
Hobbyfarmer
Honored Advisor

Re: the new anizasi

Great pt Bug SA takes tremendous amounts of fert to get and keep their poor washed/leached out soils producing.
0 Kudos
bigrock4076903
Frequent Contributor

Re: the new anizasi

and thats why so much investment money is going into hard resources - land, water, mines, etc..........................long term nothing else will matter.

 

water, fertilizer and good dirt.

 

 

0 Kudos
c-x-1
Veteran Advisor

Re: the new anizasi

Shaggy, also, just sayin' it's all about probabilities.........and correct me if i'm wrong, believe that's what MT means, too.

 

heck, anything is possible. as Hobby says, could have a freak - better than average weather year, but BIG PICTURE, seems like some capitulation is going on - all factors considered.

0 Kudos
Mizzou_Tiger
Senior Advisor

Re: the new anizasi

define above normal..........way I figure it, average is 145 for the last 13 crop years..........so above normal would be what..........150..........

 

97M X 91% X 150 is...............13.24B..............far cry from the 15B all the experts were just sure we would punch last year.......

0 Kudos
sw363535
Honored Advisor

Re: the new anizasi

Buckfarmer, I totally agree. good observations

 

Bugeye------- One of my partners came home from a crops research forum meeting this week and was also talking about the phosphorus issue.

0 Kudos
ECIN
Senior Advisor

Re: the new anizasi

Ole MT has been talking PC since I have got on here -- lol So I will be the PIA here ,  Trend yield sure hasn't followed the Data line , that's for sure , but here's my question here , what has really changed the line ? Yes we have added some marginal ground , but what about the  weather ? I just saying here IF we would have had  normal weather , would we be ?   just below the data line -- on the data line OR above the line ?

 

I guess where Im headed with this is we may have peaked at corn for this time frame , but if the weather was to straighten out , then the corn yields would go up , we may have hit a road block for now , but not peak corn , yet .

 

I know , I know , MT --- I'm  FOS -- lol

0 Kudos
hardnox604008
Advisor

Re: the new anizasi

Perhaps.

 

And just perhaps, the scientific community really isn't engaged in a massive conspiracy against Real Americans and there is some credence to the notion of more or less permanent man made climate change. As I said, perhaps.

 

But anyhoo, a human can live pretty well on a daily intake of say,  a pound of grain, a few ounces of legumes, maybe an ounce of vegoil, maybe a few ounces of animal protein to make some use grass and waste such as milling byproducts, off grade grain etc. and a buttload of veggies out of the victory garden. Everybody would be healthier, too.

 

That would take, very liberally, maybe 10 bushels of grain or the land equivalent per person per year. For 315 million people in the USA at an average of 50 BPA it would require 60+ million acres.  We currently plant and harvest, what, about 300 million, all crops?

 

My inspiration for those calculations was inspired by a more mundane experience than yours- I was driving I-65 from Lafayette to Chicago at 70 mph and creating a public nuisance with everybody piled up behind me. I got to thinking about the following- a car's maximum fuel economy is somewhere between 55 and 65 mph- it depends on gearing, aerodynamics etc. but not much above that as the basic property of wind resistance in immutable- it is a cubed function as velocity increases.

 

So sure, we could cut our fuel use another 10% and oil imports another 20 if we chose to limit speeds to 55. But my conclusion was that that particular form of waste is actually necessary to keep our suffering GDP up- whether it is pure waste or not and regardless of the externalities associated with national security, the trade deficit and the environment. For better or worse, we don't want to take that 2% hit on GDP or whatever.

 

Go the other way p I-69 to Fort Wayne and you'll see massive construction projects on each of the major hospitals- one on the south, one on the north side.  Somebody is going to pay off those bonds. OF COURSE we could deliver better health care for 60% of the current cost- a lot of the developed world does. But what are we going to do when we have a situaion where 15% of the economy is health care and you lop off 5% of "GDP" ?

 

Point being, same thing for our current agricultural system. Huge waste, unhealthy and probably unsustainable but we are addicted to it or at least fearful of the costs of transition to something more sustainable.

 

 

0 Kudos
Mizzou_Tiger
Senior Advisor

Re: the new anizasi

peak corn is about total production..........in the balance of other crops, weather, production practices, soils, etc..........

 

we could do 180 nat avg.........but it will be on 75M planted acres..........which is a 12.3B crop..........

0 Kudos