Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Staggering Corn Production Possible -- Nothing About The Bakken

Check out this graph: looks like oil production in the Bakken.

Corn yields.

So, just after WWII: about 50 bushels/acre.

Then in the 80's: maybe 100 bushels/acre.

In 2000: 140 acres/acre.

Now this story, sent to me by Don: 12-inch rows, hybrids --> 300+ bushels/acre
Narrow-row corn just got narrower. Stine Seed Company planted and harvested 2,500 acres of 12-in.-row corn in central Iowa last year. A hybrid designed for high density production yielded 320 to 330 bu./acre on the cropland.
“(The fields) were up where we had a little extra rain and a little extra nitrogen on it,” reports Harry Stine, president, Stine Seed. “Most of our other yields were much lower with a farm average of 145 bu./acre (mostly 22½-in. rows).”
The trend to 20- and 15-in.-row corn has been around for years. But interest in even narrower rows such as 12 in. has increased as growers seek the elusive 300 bu./acre yield mark.
Absolutely incredible. So, now we have a third "hockey stick" graph to talk about: a) corn yield in the US; b) Bakken crude oil production; and, c) global warming.

Okay, two out of three ain't bad.

According to wiki:
As of 2007, corn became the state's largest crop produced, although only 2% of U.S. production. The Corn Belt extends to North Dakota, but is situated more on the edge of the region instead if in its center. Corn yields are high in the southeast part of the state and smaller in other parts of the state. Most of the cereal grains are grown for livestock feed.

6 comments:

  1. 1. Corn for fuel advocates say that crops increased by more than the amount used for fuel, as of a few years ago. Probably right, but I haven't checked.

    2. This is why the "you can't make more farm land" argument is flawed. If yields go from 50 to 300, haven't you virtually increased land by 6 times? Sort of, but better. More efficient to get the crop from less land.

    3. So this is why crop land prices are down. Opps. Not quite. Maybe why they are up? But, big gas wells drop gas lease values. Why not farms? Exports. And CBR wins again. Crops By Rail.

    anon 1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great observations: thank you. Crops by rail.

      The export debate: it will be interesting to follow. It looks like the domestic plastic industry / the domestic steel industry / domestic manufacturing industry will join forces with .... to try to stop exports as much as possible.

      Delete
  2. Magnum Hunter has a press release on their capital plans etc. if anyone is interested. No big surprises.

    anon 1

    ReplyDelete
  3. Link here:

    http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?ResLibraryID=60302&BzID=1969&Nav=0&LangID=1&s=0&Category=1848

    Notes on Eagle Ford and Williston Basin. In Williston, drilling times continue to improved -- 38 days, well-to-well. Drilling costs down.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 320 to 330 bushels to a acre? Sure sounds impressive. Where is all the moisture going to come from to obtain that kind of yield? More aquifer depletion from irrigation?

    The fertilizer manufacturers will be very busy keeping the nutrient levels up in the soil. Then all the energy and water to cook the corn into ethanol. All the while the third world hungry are told this food is being used for "so called" better things than for them.

    It never stops does it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It could be a wash (no pun intended). More farmland taken out of production; higher yield on land left in production --> about the same amount of production overall. Same amount of water being used.

      From another site, water intensive crops: Rice, cotton, alfalfa, apples, pecans, melons, corn (you want ethanol, it's gonna cost you), peppers, potatoes, watermelon, peanuts. When I look at that list, I see water problems in the deep south, Texas, and California. North Dakota, not so much.

      Delete