Viewing a thread - USDA and PFT

Forums | Classifieds (9) | Skins | Language

You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

USDA and PFT	View previous thread :: View next thread
Forums List -> Market Talk	Message format

SSTO76

Posted 8/22/2017 00:00 (#6202451)
Subject: USDA and PFT

The Foothills of Mount Trashmore ECIL

I'm not picking on either institution but wouldn't using factual yields gleaned from RMA post harvest be a far superior and possibly market stabilizing way of doing business vs all these worthless estimates? That being said, I did take full advantage of the run up in 12 due to such estimates but feel we have gotten to pay the piper in the aftermath of $8 corn.

SoDak Farms

Posted 8/22/2017 01:24 (#6202471 - in reply to #6202451)
Subject: RE: USDA and PFT

EC SoDak

So you can spec variability, minus tornado damage, like this in SW MN:

Edited by SoDak Farms 8/22/2017 01:27

(Screenshot_20170822-012217.png)

Attachments
----------------

Screenshot_20170822-012217.png (175KB - 19 downloads)

1234

Posted 8/22/2017 05:53 (#6202527 - in reply to #6202471)
Subject: RE: Notice that ....

Death comes to us all. Life's but a walking shadow

Notice that the tornado appears to have avoided the wind turbines. Can wind turbines be used as tornado protectors? And does it really matter what the price of corn is if you have wind turbines and oil wells on the property? May that's the answer, use the land for something else.

SoDak Farms

Posted 8/22/2017 06:41 (#6202571 - in reply to #6202527)
Subject: RE: Notice that ....

EC SoDak

You know, you might be into something. Haha

SSTO76

Posted 8/22/2017 13:10 (#6203252 - in reply to #6202471)
Subject: RE: USDA and PFT

The Foothills of Mount Trashmore ECIL

That looked very close to being a multi million dollar weather event!

gthompson97

Posted 8/22/2017 01:25 (#6202473 - in reply to #6202451)
Subject: RE: USDA and PFT

NE ND

Absolutley, but what fun would that be? Both organizations have a false sense that they are actually doing something good, when in reality all they're doing is wasting time and resources. Heaven forbid we actually use REAL data, instead of some made up numbers by some pencil pusher sitting behind a desk.

farmerbroun

Posted 8/22/2017 06:49 (#6202592 - in reply to #6202451)
Subject: RE: USDA and PFT

CBOT is a futures market. He who knows the future wins in poker.

deere9510

Posted 8/22/2017 07:41 (#6202686 - in reply to #6202592)
Subject: RE: USDA and PFT

So Illinois

farmerbroun - 8/22/2017 06:49

CBOT is a futures market. He who knows the future wins in poker.

I used to think that but I don't anymore. In some cases they start trading something we all knew a long time ago.

Dave NWIL

Posted 8/22/2017 06:51 (#6202598 - in reply to #6202451)
Subject: RE: USDA and PFT

It wouln't bother me if both the USDA and PF dropped the Aug "estimates". Wait till there are some viable ears to weigh and then sample.

I'm not sure what that date would be, and could even vary from N to S.

1234

Posted 8/22/2017 06:58 (#6202607 - in reply to #6202451)
Subject: RE: There's plenty to criticize about the PFT

Death comes to us all. Life's but a walking shadow

We all know that the PFT is basically a PR stunt designed to generate interest in Agweb & company but if they are going to go to all the trouble to do it, the least they could do is, do a proper job of routing the tour. They sampled district 9 forty six times, district 6 twenty seven times and district 5 only once. Below is a table showing SD acres harvested for corn grain in 2016 by ag district. It's obvious that they grossly oversampled district 9 and to some extent district 6, undersampled district 5 and completely ignored districts 2 & 3 which have 40% of the crop and some of the dryest crop weather.
I know that SD is a big state but in the time they wasted oversampling district 9 they could have sent a car up north and pulled at least a few samples from districts 2 & 3. It would have added tremendous credence to their results.
My other criticism of these results is that they never include any measure of the variability of the samples. I know this isn't suppose to be a statistical survey but if they had included a high & low or a simple % standard deviation , something that a spreadsheet can kick out easily, it would add a lot to the numbers. It's as if they want to dumb the results down so much to make them simple that they make them worthless.
There is more than enough confusion and misleading information swirling around the market as it is, publishing more misleading information isn't going to help the situation. As a "news organization" they should be trying to clarify the situation not make it worse.

Edited by 1234 8/22/2017 08:05

(SD corn A s har d-page-001.jpg)

Attachments
----------------

SD corn A s har d-page-001.jpg (42KB - 21 downloads)

thekcirp

Posted 8/22/2017 07:13 (#6202623 - in reply to #6202607)
Subject: Which districts are which?

NEMO

I only count eight total.

1234

Posted 8/22/2017 08:03 (#6202749 - in reply to #6202623)
Subject: RE: They don't grow much corn in the western counties so

Death comes to us all. Life's but a walking shadow

they lump it all into "other counties"
In those big rectangular states in the west the ag districts are number from the upper left corner across & down. Generally there are nine, 1,2, 3 across the top left to right, 4,5, 6 across the center, and 7,8, 9 across the bottom of the state map, District 5 is in the center with six on the right.

mconzemius

Posted 8/22/2017 07:16 (#6202630 - in reply to #6202607)
Subject: RE: There's plenty to criticize about the PFT

WC MN

Absolutely agree with you. There probably would be a correlation between a wider standard deviation and lower actual yields for that state. It would be nice if they saved all the info and entered it in a spreadsheet for this reason to check past years to actual.

Illinois Steve

Posted 8/22/2017 07:21 (#6202641 - in reply to #6202607)
Subject: RE: There's plenty to criticize about the PFT

North Central Illinois

By the same token there are some very high yielding counties in Illinois that the tour never makes it into either.

vulcan900

Posted 8/22/2017 08:55 (#6202837 - in reply to #6202641)
Subject: RE: There's plenty to criticize about the PFT

There isn't room for post's like that in this forum. This is only for bullish posts and conspiracy theory posts. If you aren't careful they will run you out of this forum like they did with TARA.

Indrtfmr

Posted 8/22/2017 09:00 (#6202842 - in reply to #6202641)
Subject: RE: There's plenty to criticize about the PFT

NW in.

It always comes down to how many good areas compared to how many bad areas.

wsnhmr

Posted 8/22/2017 09:16 (#6202888 - in reply to #6202842)
Subject: RE: There's plenty to criticize about the PFT

College ag students and weigh wagons would be the way to determine yields, in real time

gthompson97

Posted 8/22/2017 09:06 (#6202861 - in reply to #6202641)
Subject: RE: There's plenty to criticize about the PFT

NE ND

So are you agreeing that the tour is not representative of all areas and is a waste of time?

Deere6

Posted 8/22/2017 09:11 (#6202875 - in reply to #6202861)
Subject: RE: There's plenty to criticize about the PFT

I think the thing we can take away is the trend from one year to the next. I think "they" and most realize that trying to sample fields and get a good guess on yields is nearly impossible across 90 million acres. The safest thing to do is not vary too far from USDA unless there is clear evidence that USDA is way off. Btw 5bpa is not way off, how many can guess their own yields within 5bpa the day they harvest?

gthompson97

Posted 8/22/2017 09:35 (#6202926 - in reply to #6202875)
Subject: RE: There's plenty to criticize about the PFT

NE ND

How do we know the usda is even close? We have no way of confirming if they are or not. If these tours are going to stay close by the usda number, why are they even out there other than for some feel-good time?

If the USDA is so good at determine yields, why do we even need to report to RMA? They should be able to figure out everyone yield the way they do now on smaller replicated scales.

AVP_Matt

Posted 8/22/2017 07:58 (#6202736 - in reply to #6202607)
Subject: RE: There's plenty to criticize about the PFT

Hennepin, IL

1234 - 8/22/2017 06:58

As a "news organization" they should be trying to clarify the situation not make it worse.

Try to find a news organization that wants to simply clarify the situation anymore.

Oliver1

Posted 8/22/2017 08:29 (#6202796 - in reply to #6202607)
Subject: RE: There's plenty to criticize about the PFT

Alton, Ia

1234 - 8/22/2017 05:58

We all know that the PFT is basically a PR stunt.

Bingo!

Buddy Man

Posted 8/22/2017 11:48 (#6203139 - in reply to #6202607)
Subject: RE: There's plenty to criticize about the PFT

Dawn, Missouri

North central the driest. Southeast the the most rain. Much variation in rainfall. Great land but not enough rain in the Miller - Highmore area down to Huron.

fatan sassy

Posted 8/22/2017 08:30 (#6202800 - in reply to #6202451)
Subject: RE: USDA and PFT

northern edge of north central Missouri

SSTO76 - 8/22/2017 00:00

I'm not picking on either institution but wouldn't using factual yields gleaned from RMA post harvest be a far superior and possibly market stabilizing way of doing business vs all these worthless estimates? That being said, I did take full advantage of the run up in 12 due to such estimates but feel we have gotten to pay the piper in the aftermath of $8 corn.

Totally agree and it is available. For producers it would be much better. Problem is, governments goal is to keep cheapest prices possible for as long as possible and they have the power to accomplish that goal. Disappointing to me more farmers don't voice opposition to pure guesses as to crop size by usda so far in advance.

w1891

Posted 8/22/2017 09:08 (#6202867 - in reply to #6202451)
Subject: RE: USDA and PFT

S Illinois

And what makes RMA data superior? Don't they have something like a 3-5% tolerance when reporting yields before changes need to be made. At the small 3% error, it would mean their yield last year could have been anywhere between 169.4 bu and 179.8 bu for corn and for beans 50.5 and 53.7. Estimating yields this early may not be productive, but I am not sure that crop insurance yields are exactly the best either.

RMA https://www.rma.usda.gov/handbooks/18000/2016/16_18010.pdf
Page 285 has the RMA tolerance information.

gthompson97

Posted 8/22/2017 09:15 (#6202886 - in reply to #6202867)
Subject: RE: USDA and PFT

NE ND

It's concrete data and not some stab in the dark based off of previous stabs in the dark and growing conditions that are obviously pointless.

fatan sassy

Posted 8/22/2017 09:23 (#6202904 - in reply to #6202886)
Subject: RE: USDA and PFT

northern edge of north central Missouri

But at least it is known information rather than a guess. Agree its not 100% accurate and not necessary

w1891

Posted 8/22/2017 09:27 (#6202910 - in reply to #6202886)
Subject: RE: USDA and PFT

S Illinois

Its not concrete data though. It is farmers estimating how much they grew. The only checks on the crop insurance reporting system is the fear of either an audit or reporting yields that are extreme that throw ups red flags for that previously mentioned audit. Even then there is a reporting tolerance that we would hang the USDA for. No other checks on the system exist. We are trying to apply an exactness to data that is impossible to reach. We have such large reactions due a bushel change in yield when we all we are talking about is 0.6% difference. Elimination of yield estimates in early reports may be worthwhile but don't make crop insurance the gold standard when it comes to yield reporting.

fatan sassy

Posted 8/22/2017 09:33 (#6202920 - in reply to #6202910)
Subject: RE: USDA and PFT

northern edge of north central Missouri

I'm fine with not using crop insurance for the gold standard. How can one defend using USDA made up numbers. Point is, at least post harvest truth can be known

fatan sassy

Posted 8/22/2017 09:40 (#6202930 - in reply to #6202920)
Subject: RE: USDA and PFT

northern edge of north central Missouri

Forget 2017. They win! No way do they have a clue what 2018 crops will yield but betcha they they will have their #s all calculated before the planters roll. Lol. Usda reports are not good for producers IMO

gthompson97

Posted 8/22/2017 23:11 (#6204575 - in reply to #6202930)
Subject: RE: USDA and PFT

NE ND

Don't you think for one second they don't already have an idea what number they are printing next spring!

gthompson97

Posted 8/22/2017 15:29 (#6203436 - in reply to #6202910)
Subject: RE: USDA and PFT

NE ND

It won't get more concrete than what farmers report for crop insurance. I'm fairly positive that 97% of farmers report accurately, or as accurate as possible with MEASURED bushels, ie bin measurements or scale tickets. Sure there are going to be a few misrepresentations, but at least we have a solid baseline to go off of, not just taking a stab in the dark with essentially zero way to find if it's even close.

Indrtfmr

Posted 8/22/2017 16:11 (#6203512 - in reply to #6203436)
Subject: RE: USDA and PFT

NW in.

In 2012 I talked to one of the large crop insurance agents in the county and his RMA yeild was 25 bu less than nass estimate. Nass is a joke.

Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete cookies)