|
Hennepin, IL | Not arguing, just saying it's something to keep in the back of your mind. As far as CRP and buffer strips and whatnot, if the total crop production acres never changed, the individual crop acres shouldn't be affected by it. So that rules that out. 555 has a point about PP, if that acreage report figures an average amount of PP, the low number coming from OH, IN, IL, and probably average number coming from IA can offset higher numbers from the dakotas, MN, WI, and MI. Now if those states end up with average numbers, we're looking at a low PP number overall. Now for switching crops, which would have been good alternatives? I'll give you spring wheat, winter wheat was already set. I wonder with the talk of dry out west, how much winter wheat was changed to beans? Or if the moisture forced their hand to ride the wheat stand out. There was talk about sorghum taking acres, which is possible, but I cant imagine that would make much dent. Theres been talk of oats and other forages in Iowa, and I'd imagine theres some truth to that in a lot of livestock areas. No idea what kind of dent that would make.
I guess my point is we should stay aware of where those acres could be moving to. The more I think about it, I'm thinking the March report was understated on 1 or both corn and beans. Gut feeling, even if that is the case, is corn stays roughly the same but they print 91ish or better on beans. | |
|
Acres poll
