gas and corn price 1961

[Sir Loin]

Somn,
Re:

You may want to get your eyes checked as there is only one number in the report 60.5 million acres of wheat planted.

Just had that done last week, so I don't think that is where the problem is. But thanks for caring.

Seriously now, if you go back and reread all the post someone was quoting an old "WINTER" wheat # ( 47.1) (which has been updated to 45.1 million acres and someone else was using 60.5 million acres. Both of which are correct, but they are not the same thing, that is why the numbers don't match.
It's no big deal as long as it don't cause a big argument. I was just bringing it to their attention.

No runs, no hits, no errors.
SL

 

[somn]

Somn,
Re:

You may want to get your eyes checked as there is only one number in the report 60.5 million acres of wheat planted.

Just had that done last week, so I don't think that is where the problem is. But thanks for caring.

Seriously now, if you go back and reread all the post someone was quoting an old "WINTER" wheat # ( 47.1) (which has been updated to 45.1 million acres and someone else was using 60.5 million acres. Both of which are correct, but they are not the same thing, that is why the numbers don't match.
It's no big deal as long as it don't cause a big argument. I was just bringing it to their attention.

No runs, no hits, no errors.
SL

I guess you will need to show me where any one quoted the 47.1 million acres as being specific to WINTER wheat. Then you will need to show me where USDA ever updated any acres from 47.1 to 45.1 million acres.

 

[Sir Loin]

OK, no problem.

Somn.
Re:

I guess you will need to show me where any one quoted the 47.1 million acres as being specific to WINTER wheat.

Page 1.
by mnmtranching on Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:55 am

Last marketing season total US Wheat acres harvested dropped to 47.1 million acres.

And you yourself questioned that figure in your very next post. I agree, the 47.1 is a "winter" wheat number not a "total US Wheat".

Re:

Then you will need to show me where USDA ever updated any acres from 47.1 to 45.1 million acres.

OK by somn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:58 am

The 2007 winter wheat planted area, at 45.1 million acres,

OK?
I don't have any problem. I was just pointing out that mnmtranching's made a misquote, or his source was wrong.
???????????


SL

 

[shorty]

Grain prices are the highest they've ever been along with fuel , fertilzer and all our other input costs , if history repeats itself (and it will) grain prices will come down , not to the lows we have seen in the past, but they will drop . That's when it going to be scary , because you know the input costs won't drop. They very seldom do.

 

[somn]

OK, no problem.

Somn.
Re:

I guess you will need to show me where any one quoted the 47.1 million acres as being specific to WINTER wheat.

Page 1.
by mnmtranching on Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:55 am

Last marketing season total US Wheat acres harvested dropped to 47.1 million acres.

And you yourself questioned that figure in your very next post. I agree, the 47.1 is a "winter" wheat number not a "total US Wheat".

Re:

Then you will need to show me where USDA ever updated any acres from 47.1 to 45.1 million acres.

OK by somn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:58 am

The 2007 winter wheat planted area, at 45.1 million acres,

OK?
I don't have any problem. I was just pointing out that mnmtranching's made a misquote, or his source was wrong.
???????????


SL

Where does mnmtranching ever specify that the 47.1 million acres was ever specifically WINTER wheat. He stated total US wheat production for the last marketing season was 47.1 million acres.

Now you still have not showed me where the USDA ever updated the acres for winter wheat from 47.1 million acres to 45.1 million acres.

 

[Sir Loin]

Somn,
Boy I sure hope you have a good reason for all this because we sure have totally hijacked mwj's topic.

Re:

Where does mnmtranching ever specify that the 47.1 million acres was ever specifically WINTER wheat.

He doesn't, but logic should tell you that is what he is stating as total wheat planted is 60.5 million, and the only other thing the USDA reports is winter wheat.

Re:

Now you still have not showed me where the USDA ever updated the acres for winter wheat from 47.1 million acres to 45.1 million acres.

Again, it just logic.
If mnmtranching is correct when he reports 47.1 and the USDA report is correct at 45.1, and they are reporting the same thing, and only the USDA can make a change, isn't it logical that the USDA updated their figures? After all these numbers are only estimates and it's not uncommon for a government agency to update figures, they do it all the time. Take a look at how they report the GDP.
SL.

 

[somn]

Somn, If mnmtranching is correct when he reports 47.1 and the USDA report is correct at 45.1, and they are reporting the same thing

You are not really trying to tell me that these 2 figures are the same considering the difference between the 2 figures is a larger land mass than the states of Delaware and Rhode Island combined.

isn't it logical that the USDA updated their figures? After all these numbers are only estimates
SL.

So please show me where the USDA changed it from 47.1 to 45.1. It is currently reported for the 2007 crop year at 45.1 million acres for planted winter wheat. You stated that the figure had been updated from 47.1 to 45.1 all I'm asking is for you to show me the update.

 

[somn]

Sir Loin regardless what the 47.1 million acres is supposed to represent clearly it isn't correct for anything reported in wheat. However it doesn't change the most important fact wheat acres have increased over the last three years. Corn acres did not take away from wheat acres. Supply of wheat is short on account of higher usage of wheat. Wheat has never been the feedstock for any ethanol plant I have seen running.

 

[Sir Loin]

Somn,
You are repeating yourself again. I already answered those questions.
Is there something else I can help you with? If not :wave:
SL

 

[somn]

Somn,
You are repeating yourself again. I already answered those questions.
Is there something else I can help you with? If not :wave:
SL

Why do you blame ethanol for the high cost of wheat you said wheat farmers were chasing corn money and planted corn clearly they didn't as wheat acres went up. But yet I'm guessing you still blame ethanol right?

 

[Sir Loin]

Somn.
As I said before, go get the bushels/tons harvested figures for the last 3 consecutive year's harvested and I will explain it to you. url please.
SL

 

[somn]

Somn.
As I said before, go get the bushels/tons harvested figures for the last 3 consecutive year's harvested and I will explain it to you. url please.
SL

So because of the fact that the average yield per acre for wheat is down you think that is also ethanol's fault. Surely you aren't trying to tell me ethanol can change the weather and growing conditions for wheat production are you?

 

[somn]

How do you explain the historic high price of wheat since it is not used in ethanol

Because the supply of wheat went down because US farmers planted (ethanol) corn to maximize their profits instead of planting wheat.
It's simple supply side economics. When the supply goes down the price goes up.
SL

Here you tell me more corn was planted and less wheat. So after providing you with USDA acreage reports showing increased wheat acres now you want to blame it on lower production of wheat on more acres and that to is a result of ethanol.

 

[somn]

Somn.
As I said before, go get the bushels/tons harvested figures for the last 3 consecutive year's harvested and I will explain it to you. url please.
SL

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/na ... 1-2007.pdf

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/na ... 1-2006.pdf

Explain away.

 

[mwj]

Sir loin you never did get back to me on that cheap corn in Brazil you were thinking about. They use no corn to speak of in there ethanol so they have ''feed corn'' prices. By the way why do you think corn was over a dollar in 61. Grown men were working for a little over a buck an hour. Figures out to over $7 a bushel in todays prices.

 

[Sir Loin]

Somn,
OK, it's a poor source, but it will do.
Now look I don't have a whole lot of time to spend on this so instead of giving you a course in economics and the commodity's market, and use a lot of words you wouldn't understand (like weighted factors and weighted variables), I'm going to give it to you in KISS ( Keep It Simple Stupid) form. No insult intended.
Ok corn first.
Corn planted:
2005 = 33.0
2006 = 31.7
2007 = 37.8

Corn Harvested
2005 = 30.3
2006 = 28.7
2007 = 34.8

by Sir Loin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:10 am

And might I suggest you look into yield numbers instead of planted numbers as a lot of "planted" wheat is used for hay and pasture especially in times of drought and not all years have the same yield per acre.

Do you now agree my statement is true?
Your turn!
SL

 

[somn]

Somn,
OK, it's a poor source, but it will do.
Now look I don't have a whole lot of time to spend on this so instead of giving you a course in economics and the commodity's market, and use a lot of words you wouldn't understand (like weighted factors and weighted variables), I'm going to give it to you in KISS ( Keep It Simple Stupid) form. No insult intended.
Ok corn first.
Corn planted:
2005 = 33.0
2006 = 31.7
2007 = 37.8

Corn Harvested
2005 = 30.3
2006 = 28.7
2007 = 34.8

by Sir Loin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:10 am

And might I suggest you look into yield numbers instead of planted numbers as a lot of "planted" wheat is used for hay and pasture especially in times of drought and not all years have the same yield per acre.

Do you now agree my statement is true?
Your turn!
SL

No I do not agree with you. You wanted me to show you actual production numbers in bushels for wheat for the last three consecutive years which I provided to you. Now you are back to talking acres again. What do you want to talk about bushels or acres. I have already proven to you with documentation that wheat acres have increased over the last three years not decreased like you stated. Worse yet you provide figures for what appears by reading what you have typed you are now talking corn. Try to stay on track. I provided you with wheat production in bushels for the last three consecutive years just like you asked explain that first then we can move on to corn.

 

[Sir Loin]

Somn,
OK, it's a poor source, but it will co.
Now look I don't have a whole lot of time to spend on this so instead of giving you a course in economics and the commodity's market, and use a lot of words you wouldn't understand (like weighted actors and weighted variables), I'm going to give it to you in KISS ( Keep It Simple Stupid) form. No insult intended.
Ok WHEAT first.
WHEAT planted:
2005 = 23.1
2006 = 16.4
2007 = 18.2

WHEAT Harvested
2005 = 13.6
2006 = 12.5
2007 = 14.5

by Sir Loin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:10 am

And might I suggest you look into yield numbers instead of planted numbers as a lot of "planted" wheat is used for hay and pasture especially in times of drought and not all years have the same yield per acre.

Do you now agree my statement is true?
SL

 

[somn]

Somn,
OK, it's a poor source, but it will do.

I'm not sure how much better source can be found will someone need to read it to you before it will be acceptable to you.

Page 19 of both documents clearly shows total wheat production for years 2005 2006 and 2007. Maybe you could get someone to read it to you.

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/na ... 1-2006.pdf

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/na ... 1-2007.pdf

2005 total wheat yield 42 bu per acre
2006 total wheat yield 38.7 bu per acre
2007 total wheat yield 40.5 bu per acre.

Please explain away.

 

[somn]

Somn,
OK, it's a poor source, but it will co.
Now look I don't have a whole lot of time to spend on this so instead of giving you a course in economics and the commodity's market, and use a lot of words you wouldn't understand (like weighted actors and weighted variables), I'm going to give it to you in KISS ( Keep It Simple Stupid) form. No insult intended.
Ok WHEAT first.
WHEAT planted:
2005 = 23.1
2006 = 16.4
2007 = 18.2

WHEAT Harvested
2005 = 13.6
2006 = 12.5
2007 = 14.5

by Sir Loin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:10 am

And might I suggest you look into yield numbers instead of planted numbers as a lot of "planted" wheat is used for hay and pasture especially in times of drought and not all years have the same yield per acre.

Do you now agree my statement is true?
SL

Where do you come up with these numbers. They are still acres you wanted bushels try to stay on course.