|
Grabill, Indiana | It strikes me as disingenuous for the Pro Farmer Scouts to use a three year average as a comparison for the 2013 crop. By using the three year average where one-third of the crops was far below "normal" you make the '13 crop look much better than it really is in reality. Using the five year average would be a better and more accurate benchmark.
The yield estimate for Indiana this year is 167.36. The three-year average for Indiana in 2012 was 155.84 while the three-year average in 2013 is 141.14, this is a 9.4% reduction because 2012 was such a bad year.
When you compare this year's estimate to these averages you get an 18.6% increase in yield estimate compared to the 2012 three-year average while comparing to the 2012 three year average you only have an 8.2% improvement in yield comparison. We still have the potential for a great crop in Indiana, but how big in comparison can be debated depending on which numbers you us.
I know that a headline of "Indiana would raise almost 19% more corn" is a sexier, more bearish one but it doesn't tell the correct story.
Here is another example that skews the reality. The Nebraska estimate is 154.93, up 7 bushels from this year's three-year average but DOWN 2.01 bushels from last year's three-year average.
Just my thoughts for the evening.
Jim
Edited by Iowa Quality Hay 8/20/2013 20:23
| |
|
Pro Farmer Playing with the numbers?
