|
Central Kansas | I sold some of my corn acres to a local feedlot for silage. Because I did not plant spoecically for silage I stated that I should be compensated based on grain yield. They agreed to compensate in that manner. We left strips in field for crop insurance and to quantify yield for payment. In one field the harvested strips yielded 204, 207 and 211.
I have yield data for last six or seven years. I exported the data from a corn harvest year into a ASCI text file. I took the yield column and divided it by the average yield of the field into another column. I consider this normalizing. Then I took the average of one of the harvested strips (207) and plugged it into another column and multiplied that column by the normalized column. Then I recomputed the average of the field. This time the yield come out two bushels better than the average I had entered. I thought it should have gone the other way. This is irrigated corn, center pivot, and I thought that the strips did not represent the entire field especially turnrows and ends. I am trying to be fair to myself, landlords and feedlots.
The last time I sold silage we used a crop consultant analysis which turned out be 180 bu/A. We left strips for crop insurance and they ended up making 220 bu/A. Some how I felt cheated even though I ageed to the process. This time I wanted to determine value more scientifically. I will adjust the harvest price of corn to reflect the fact that I did not have the harvest expense.
I have never taken statistics but used to think of myself as a good math student. Is what I am trying to do on the right track or am I barking up the wrong tree? Should I be using a mean medium instead of the average in the spreadsheet.
I hope this makes sense to someone. Thanks for your input.
| |
|
using my yield map for silage compensation
