|
| Full disclosure, I am long CZ12. I was not intending to complain, just trying to point something out on a marketing discussion board I find interesting. I don't think the folks at NASS intentionally set out to do things wrong. They have a methodology and try to stick to it. Just pointing out a flaw I feel they have in the methodology and the error they made in removing a data set they felt didn't fit.
There will be plenty of area's with potential for excellent yields and this crop is nowhere near a disaster. Hitting 166 on the recently published acres will take a fantastic crop on the majority of acres, that I feel is what is unlikely. 157.5 and above on 95.9 would be a great year in most places.
As an aside: I don't pretend to "know" anything. I try to deal in probabilities but even that is dicey at best.
Edited by Bengal Stripes 5/27/2012 15:25
| |
|
Simplistic USDA Statisticians
