|
South Central Iowa | I thought the discrepancies were interesting between Farmer’s Business Network’s Progress as of 5/21 and USDA’s as of May 19. Large storm systems came through the whole of the Midwest on Saturday and through Tuesday/Wednesday night, so little meaningful progress was had between the separate release dates and they should show similar degrees of progress. The USDA crop progress reports are based on the observation of FSA personnel in all the counties they are present, which is most everyone in the corn belt. The FBN data is from reports of personal progress by member subscribers; the current survey has approximately 3,000 producers covering 9.7 million acres of corn, slightly over 10% of the corn acreage. Neither would be considered truly scientific, USDA is just lots of observational data from employees, some qualified, some not, on their drive to work or through discussion with producers they know; the FBN survey is of members who likely don’t match the “typical” farmer, it appears their average producer has over 3,000 acres of corn and one would think the users are younger than typical with greater focus on marketing, technology, and probably possessing newer machinery than average. It’s two different ways to arrive at what should be a similar number. I’d think the sample size is large enough in both to be pretty representative, even if it’s not scientific and randomized.
So what are the biggest discrepancies? The most important is Illinois. FBN has Illinois progress at 44% while USDA has it at 24%. That is a large difference for the second most important corn growing state. The Dakotas stand out as well. North Dakota is 71% complete in the FBN poll while only 42% in the USDA report, and South Dakota is 32% vs 19% in the same, respectively. Also in the Northern Belt, FBN had greater progress in Minnesota than USDA with 74% against 56%. Other significant departures were Missouri, 78% vs 62%, Kansas, 77% vs 61%, Michigan, 42% vs 19%, Wisconsin, 48% vs 35%, Nebraska, 81% vs 70%, & Iowa 80% vs 70%. FBN is pretty on with USDA for Ohio and Indiana. Texas was marginally higher on the USDA report with 92% completion against 89%, but that is the only one I noticed. There are several states that are not shared between the two tables which were posted.
That’s a lot of numbers, I might have missed one. My big take away is FBN is showing significantly more progress than USDA. It also skews higher on every state in the Corn Belt. These reports should show similar progress if both methodologies are sound or the data entered is correct. My personal opinion is the progress that farmer’s are claiming might be greater than it actually is; even anonymous responses can be biased by pride. It might also be that FBN is not representative at this point. On the other hand, USDA uses the opinions of FSA employees, and we are unaware of the qualifications of these individuals. It can be hard to tell at times whether a field has been planted when anhydrous applicators and tillage equipment had been used, or if weed cover is thick.
I am surprised at the amount of discrepancy. What are your thoughts? How would you improve the survey results?
I have thought that a survey of DSM’s and Ag retail managers would be more accurate, somewhat blending USDA and FBN’s approaches. But large operators often are the equivalent of full service co-operatives themselves; that is a large percentage of acreage that retail managers would not be aware of progress on.
Credit users SoDak Farms and ruralHusker for the tables.
Edited by Conan the Farmer 5/22/2019 16:29
 (E112F385-09C2-4D3E-9422-09A961BD49A0 (full).jpeg)
 (4CF49E18-8ABC-4C34-876A-744EDCD50662 (full).jpeg)
Attachments
----------------
 E112F385-09C2-4D3E-9422-09A961BD49A0 (full).jpeg (126KB - 59 downloads)
4CF49E18-8ABC-4C34-876A-744EDCD50662 (full).jpeg (241KB - 63 downloads)
| |
|
Planting Discrepancies: FBN & USDA
