|
South Central Iowa | I don't subscribe, so I am no help. But some hints to reconstructing their formula:
1) Chip says they use 5 years of pod count data to translate to bushels.
2) Each state has its own pod/bushel number; so Nebraska has a different ratio than Indiana, etc.
3) It was implied that their ratio was adjusted with the final USDA number, but I am uncertain if it is just the January number or if they include any subsequent changes.
4) They use the USDA data to fill in the missing data and make a national yield estimate.
5) Chip mentioned that in their ratios, some states will have a 2.xx while others will have a 2.xx. It was like they were saying beans per pod. This may be a layer that we could not figure out. I used bushels per pod in my example below and based off their last year formula. I think it would be close enough because their translation to some sort of beans/pod sounds like a way for them to fudge data.
I know with the formula they went in with last year, we would drop national yield under 47. It may be worse than my 46.7 if you break out by state. I half-assed it with the simple average because in the end, it just doesn't matter. We have to have acknowledgement by the powers that for the lower yield to matter in the near-term. If they insist on continuing with this fantasy yield of theirs and prices stay sub $10; we will find a very tight supply situation come next August.
Their trend line yield set them up for this failure. They increased 1.3 bpa from 46.7 last year to 48.0 this year. That is a 2.78% annualized growth rate. In 20 years, that would suggest our trend line will be 83.1 bpa. That is very sound statistics and definitely provable because 20 years ago our trend line was 27.7, just as the model suggests.... Oh wait, I guess it was 38.5 in 1997. SMDH
Good Luck! | |
|
Does anyone have access to Profarmer state level pod counts.
