Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Scott Irwin Profile picture
@ScottIrwinUI
Aug 19, 2020 • 10 tweets • 3 min read • Read on X
1. I am intentionally going to propose a controversial hypothesis in this thread. My hypothesis is that #pftour20 is more valuable now than in the past due to the change last year in USDA yield estimation methodology. My point is not related to wind damage. That is separate.
2. Recall that USDA last year dropped the objective yield survey from the Aug corn and soybean crop report. I have been worried about this decision ever since it was announced. The justification for dropping the objective yield survey for Aug was never really provided by USDA.
3. I presume that the USDA had grounds for believing that the objective yield survey did not add that much information early in the corn and soybean yield forecast season. I am certainly not opposed to cost saving if accuracy is not sacrificed.
4. The key in my mind is found in a #FDD I wrote with DG back in August 2016 called "Opening up the Black Box." farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2016/08/openin…
5. In short, the secret sauce to USDA yield forecast accuracy in the past was twofold: i) two independent forecast indicators, and ii) offsetting bias adjustments for the two indicators (at least in Aug). Objective yield survey tended to be too high, farm operator too low.
6. Starting last year the USDA dropped the objective yield survey for Aug. They seem to signal that a satellite indicator is at least partially substituting but their messaging on this is very confusing. In any event, I am skeptical that a satellite indicator is as accurate.
7. I do note that dropping the objective indicator did not seem to hurt USDA Aug corn and soybean yield forecast accuracy in 2019. But maybe they just got lucky. It is hard for me to believe you can throw out such important information and not lose accuracy in the longer run.
8. So, back to my hypothesis. If USDA Aug forecast accuracy is compromised due to dropping the objective yield survey, then field level yield estimation like the PFT actually should be more valuable. Interesting to hear reaction to this hypothesis.
9. Think of it this way. The #pftour20 is now the first systematic objective yield estimation of the season for corn and soybeans. USDA used to do this but now they don't.
10. Lots of criticism of #pftour yield information, and I have contributed my share of that in the past. But conditions have now changed. Last but not least, note that USDA continues to do objective yield survey for Sep corn and soybean crop report.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Scott Irwin

Scott Irwin Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ScottIrwinUI

Scott Irwin Profile picture
Mar 20
1. I guess today is the day to talk about corn yields. Just received an email from @aaea announcing a new Choices article "A Slowdown in US Crop Yield Growth" by David Boussios. Here is the link: choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazi…
2. The author of the Choices article argues: "The statistical evidence of a productivity slowdown in crop yield growth builds each year. The linear yield growth trends since 2013 for corn, soybeans, and wheat are all statistically lower than one starting in 1988. Models, forecasts, market participants, and policy makers should consider that yields in the future will probably be lower than forecasted by the USDA and that extrapolating trends into the future without revision is problematic."
3. This argument is especially interesting because I have seen similar arguments in the grain trade in the last few years. We can all agree that the US average corn yield has been relatively flat since around 2013. That is obvious looking at a chart of corn yields. But one has to be extremely careful in then leaping to the conclusion that productivity growth in corn yields has also slowed. The reason is that runs of poor or good weather can mask the true underlying trend in small samples of years.
Read 7 tweets
Scott Irwin Profile picture
Nov 1, 2023
1. Recommended Reading for the Day: Fascinating new FDD from my colleagues on the farmdoc team, led by Carl Zulauf. Long-term look at real crop prices. farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2023/10/the-po…
2. It has long been a staple of economic thinking that real (inflation adjusted) commodity prices have a strong tendency to decline over time. Probably the most famous example of in this regard is the bet about real commodity prices between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich in 1980. See the details here:
3. Carl and team put together the data for a USDA index of real crop prices going back to 1912. This is the chart shown below. Lots of interesting history here, but the 30 year period of stable real crop prices that began around 1990 is unmistakable. The question is whether this is a pause in a very long run downward trend or something new.
Image
Read 8 tweets
Scott Irwin Profile picture
Sep 28, 2023
1. Excited to announce that the band is back together! Actually, talked Darrel Good into coming out of retirement to work on this FDD: "The New Era of Crop Prices: A 15-Year Review." farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2023/09/the-ne…
2. When crop prices started to take off in 2006-07, a huge question was whether this was just another spike like we had seen so many other times, or was this the beginning of a permanent jump in the level of average prices, like in 1973. Image
3. For some reason (temporary insanity?), Darrel and I decided to stick our necks out and predict that a new era in crop prices was afoot AND make specific predictions for the average price and trading range in the new era. As this chart shows, we did not have much data to go on.
Image
Read 8 tweets
Scott Irwin Profile picture
Jun 1, 2023
1. Ok, I have hopefully convinced you that the RIN cliff scenario is a logical possibility. Now what are the chances of it actually happening? The first step is to estimate QM in the graph below. Turns out the proposed RVOs released by EPA last December are the place to start. Image
2. We can use the proposed RVOs to come up with a defensible estimate of the maximum demand for biomass-based diesel (BBD) for 2023, 2024, and 2025. We can do this because we know mandates are and will be binding. Image
3. I will leave the details of the computations to the article. Suffice it to say that under the EPA's preliminary rulemaking, the max amount of BBD needed is about 4BG each year. That is national demand for sum of RD and BD. Image
Read 11 tweets
Scott Irwin Profile picture
Jun 1, 2023
1. Ok, had to take a brief pause for the cause (a meeting). Anyway, diving into the heart of the RIN cliff idea in this thread based on our latest FDD. farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2023/05/is-the…
2. Here is how RIN pricing works when BBD production is equal to the mandated quantity. In this case, looking at an example of D4 biodiesel RIN pricing on May 4, 2023. Predicted D4 RIN price is $1.61 and actual on this date is $1.58. Pretty close. Everything A OK. Image
3. But what if for some exogenous reason, biomass-based diesel (BBD) production is pushed past the RFS mandate? This is the RIN cliff scenario. New market equilibrium is given by intersection of demand w/tax credit and fixed QRC supply of BDD. Red line becomes supply curve. Image
Read 8 tweets
Scott Irwin Profile picture
Jun 1, 2023
1. Our latest FDD on the renewable diesel boom is titled "Is the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard in Danger of Going Over a RIN Cliff?" That should get your attention this morning. It is going to take me several twitter threads to go through the highlights.

farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2023/05/is-the…
2. In this thread, I am going to go through the first part of our analysis. Start with the very basics of binding and non-binding RFS mandates. In a standard supply/demand framework, here is a binding mandate. Image
3. A binding mandate "binds" in economic terms because the mandate volume exceeds the competitive market equilibrium quanitity. To get the higher than equilibrium Q produced, producers have to be offered a higher price and consumers a lower price. Image
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(