|
West central IL | Appreciate the thoughtful reply! I’m not good with the quote feature so I’ll have to reply less elegantly.
To the point about expenses, you’re absolutely right. I do realize the cost to grow a lower aph crop is less. It would be interesting to hash out the exact differences but that would take us off into the weeds. I do acknowledge it’s less for sure, but I think you can acknowledge it’s not a 1:1 trade off either. In other words, including all expenses including machinery, it doesn’t cost 1/2 as much to grow 125 bu corn vs 250 bu corn.
I definitely misspoke saying your gross is higher with the lower yield goal. I was trying to acknowledge your net would be higher because of the lower yield goal (less input expense).
You’re correct about basis too depending on your proximity to certain locations, but it’s not as awful in some of the net surplus areas as you think. I can get 6 easy loads a day to an end user that is always positive basis. It’s not great currently at +5 but it’s often 20c+.
Yes I realize there’s subsidies for other crops and would advocate for those to stop also.
The overall point to my post was to extrapolate out why subsidies lead to marginal ground getting planted. If my example of 125 aph ground didn’t demonstrate that inevitability then you could sub in 100aph ground and $3 corn and it shows it even more so.
Overall I do greatly appreciate your reply and it showed my simple calculations didn’t show the entire picture.
| |
|
Does anyone have statistics on how many farmers actually want disaster payments and subsidies?
