|
Iowa | Really hard to say. There are areas that are flat out bad, and areas that took it really well. Ive got guys looking at turning corn under and throwing beans out there as they figure the corn won’t make much at all (if they can get it done) Just depends on who’s water you take and how far upstream you take water from. I see areas that are worse than 93, but some of these have come back ok. Get the water out and let 4 ft of black dirt with 5+% organic matter work for you, and you can still have a decent crop. Corn 160-180 ish, beans could be 53-60 is where I’m thinking on my stuff, but my area took it REALLY well compared to most. Keep in mind a lot of the ground in Nw ia has 10 year aph of 200+ and 60+, so this would be well below average. If I go 10 miles west, north, or east, my expectations would be significantly lower. A lot of these counties have some of the best yield stability in the state— that is in extreme years they have the least departure from “normal”. So that would meen as you get to glacial till those yield regressions would be much higher, probably upwards to 50%. Small area in the big picture as it’s basically hwy 10 and north in ia- not sure how far into mn it goes. However this effects some of the highest yielding counties in state - Lyon, Sioux, Osceola, O’Brien, northern Cherokee, are some pretty heavy hitters in the bpa department. The area I cover, make a square from spencer to hull and straight north to state line and most acres are going to have a significant departure from normal, with 20-30% probably in poor to very poor. I’d guess to the east (not my area) is worse. Iowa ain’t gonna do 190 with those areas hit. So quick and dirty math - 4 of 100(99) counties, say 25% poor, that’s 1% of the state production right there.
Edited by timis 7/10/2018 12:56
| |
|
Minnesota and northern Iowa farmers
