|
| So, does this make sense.
You take USDA's August projections and leave all acres and state yields alone, expect for IA and IL. Now take those to states and figure this. Half the acres in each state will average what they did in 2009, and half will yield 20% less, making both of them 10% less than 2009. Take that reduction from last years yield against the acres for 2010 and you get about 450M reduction.
That is leaving all other states alone, including some states that claim they have a nice state average coming (IN and MN).
Now, is this a real possibility. I ask this for one reason, I have basically heard NOONE say they are BETTER than 2009. Good, but not there. And I think we all can agree that IL and IA both have areas that will be 20% lower (200 year in and out avg going 160 this year).
Remember, I am using averages from last year and reducing based on comments and observations seen this year compared to last. That is a national yield of 159.4 give or take.
Lets hear it, do all the other states think they will hold the advertised USDA August number.
O and for some perspective from here, 80's and 160's that were never planted, corn that will be sub 100 on 230 avg ground. Probably be 120-140ish around with most years being 200-220. There are some 160's around here that you can see through the field to the other end due to such a thin spindly stand. Too wet to rip up, replant, or go to beans after it was planted in April.
Edited by Mizzou Tiger 9/1/2010 21:15
| |
|
Perspective, MAYBE
