|
NE IOWA/ SE SD | Yes, I agree. But you have to view it as they stated it. They curved the final number due to comparing "analog" years 2004 and 2005 (when the scout data was considerably under the final yields of Iowa and Illinois). I disagreed from the get go with calling those analog years because of precip. amounts and the average temps this summer throughout the midwest, and the speedy drydown.
It is easy to say they just wanted to come close to USDA at the time (i said it once or twice), but I would hope everyone can make their own judgments and analysis as to how they came to those numbers. I hope it does shake up Profarmer and make them rethink the way they come up with a final number.
| |
|
Did I hear right
