Navigate to « Main | Agricultural Policy | Crop Production | Extension Updates | Farm Business Economics | Farm Family | Livestock Production | Marketing »
November 17, 2009
How High Will Corn Yields Go?
If your spring planting was not delayed, and if the corn had matured before cold temperatures stopped that process, and if wet weather had not jeopardized your harvest, what would your corn have yielded? Most farmers in the Cornbelt would have been generally happy with 2009 yields, if they would have occurred in a normal weather year. That may cause some of your minds to wander this winter wondering what the prospects are for trends in corn yields.
USDA economist Paul Heisey has also been wondering about prospective corn yields and what technology can produce. His article in USDA’s electronic magazine Amber Waves points to the need for investment in research to boost corn yields to the levels that will meet demand. From his vantage point at USDA, Heisey looks at food security, bioenergy production, and climate change dynamics that will determine the need for potential yield increases. And he says yields will support crop prices and influence food security.
The issue of yields and prices came to a head in 2008 when the need for corn to produce ethanol was seen by the consumer as pushing up food prices and was seen by the livestock producer as a negative toward his profitability. Both would have been insignificant blips with a larger corn yield to supply all levels of demand. Some economists are also looking at the change in climate as a threat to sufficient corn production if weather variations continue to increase. That is why Heisey is urging more corn yield research funding.
The USDA economist points to the 180 bushel goal for national corn yields by 2016 being promoted by the National Corn Growers, and he says that is doable. But he says it would required a 6 bushel increase in the national yield annually to reach the 300 bushel yield that some in the industry are targeting for 2030. He calls that “unprecedented.” Corn yields have moved higher since commercial hybrids were introduced in 1930, and bolstered by commercial fertilizers. But as fertilizer use has declined, yields have continued upward, due to genetic improvements, nitrogen application, and population increases.
“Is there a ceiling on corn yield?” Heisey rhetorically asks. There currently is no indication of that as technological improvements have shown. Seed corn with multiple genetic traits have increased yields, and Heisey says that will continue with the addition of other traits that increase photosynthesis, and withstand drought challenges or changing levels of gasses in the atmosphere. He says long growing seasons would increase yields, but higher temperatures, less rain, and uncertain pest issues would tend to reduce yields.
Heisey says the yield trend line has moved toward a steeper angle. Looking at Illinois corn yield records, he says there was a 1 bushel per acre average increase annually from 1940 to 1957, when the trend shifted to 1.7 bushels per year from 1960 onward, until the 2016 goal was reached that would see a 2 to 3.5 bushel per acre increase annually. The economist looked at results from the NCGA corn yield contest that documents 360-370 bushel yields with intense management strategies; and noted the practices may not be profitable in commercial farming. He says current research seems to be reducing the gap between those contest yields and commercially profitable yields. Heisey says the application of science to agriculture has lead to impressive gains without any sign of deceleration with the result being robust yield growth in the foreseeable future.
Summary:
Corn yield trends have been steadily rising, possibly at an increasing level in recent years, but where will they top out? That is not possible to say under the current scenario of science being applied to corn breeding. That is resulting in fewer pests to retard yields and increased inputs to enhance yields. While reaching an industry goal of 300 bushels per acre by 2030 may be attained, it will require impressive gains in yields.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:16 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
November 3, 2009
Harvest Delays Mount, Crop Quality Declines, And USDA Alerts Farmers About Crop Insurance Issues.
Late October weather was not much different from mid October weather, subsequently very little progress was made last week toward completion of corn and soybean harvest in the Cornbelt. With the majority of crops remaining in the field, along with expected quality deterioration, many farmers may be calling their crop insurance agent in coming days to find out what happens if the crop is still in the field and the coverage has ended.
USDA’s Crop Progress report Monday afternoon indicated that 94% of the corn crop is mature, compared to the 99% average for the past five years, but only 25% of the crop had been harvested as of November 1. And that is well behind the 71% average for 2004 to 2008.
Within the Cornbelt, ND has only 2% of its crop harvested, but only 60% of it is mature. MI is 10% harvested, SD and MN are at 12%, and WI is at 13%. NE and IA are 18% harvested, IL is 19%, but IN and OH are in the mid-20% range. During the past week, no state advanced its harvest more than 7%, and most were only in the 3% and 6% range, except for the fact ND made no progress at all in harvesting corn.
Soybean harvest, nationally, advanced only from 44% last week to 51% this week, but most of that was in the southern soybean belt. Across the Cornbelt, harvest progress ranges from 29% in WI and 35% in IL to as much as 69% in NE and 82% in OH. Other Cornbelt states fall in the middle. Substantial harvest progress of 10% in the Dakotas, 11% in IN and 12% in MN. However, only 2% progress was made in IL and 4% in WI.
As the weather-weary fall wears on, crop quality continues to deteriorate. While 18% of the corn remained in the excellent category, the amount of corn rated as good faded from 51% last week to 49% this week with more acreage pushed into the fair and poor ratings. For soybeans, 15% of the crop remained in the excellent category, but the amount of acreage rated as good dropped from 50% last week to 48% this week with acreage being shoved into the poor and very poor ratings.
Although the deadline is 5 weeks away for the end of the insurance period for Cornbelt row crops, such as corn and soybeans, many farmers are fearing they may push hard against that deadline unless there is more opportunity for crops to dry out, for soils to dry out, and for harvesting equipment to get another chance to do its work. USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) Monday released a statement advising farmers what to expect with their crop insurance policy if crops are not out of the field by the December 10 end of their insurance policy. RMA says, “The most important action you can do is to contact your crop insurance agent to report a loss, indicating your harvest is delayed because of adverse weather, which is an insured cause of loss.” But RMA says normal harvest practices must be carried out if possible. Interestingly, RMA says the cost of drying wet crops is not covered.
When December 10 arrives, and crops are still in the field, RMA indicates, “you may request additional time to harvest beyond the calendar date for the End Of Insurance Period (EOIP), from your crop insurance company.” USDA says its procedures allow crop insurance companies to authorize farmers to additional time to harvest, so any claims can be settled on the basis of harvested production.
You would qualify for extra time to harvest when 1) you give a timely notice of the problem to your agent, 2) your crop insurance company documents that the delay was due to an insured cause of loss, and 3) you can demonstrate that harvest was not possible due to insured causes, and 4) your delay in harvesting was not because you did have enough manpower and equipment to complete harvest by the December 10 deadline.
RMA is careful to say that just because you are given additional time to harvest does not mean the coverage period is being extended past December 10. It says you are being given extra time to harvest to determine the extent of any loss. If you lose some of the corn due to lodging or beans due to shatter loss, that would be covered, but if any of your crop is lost because of something you could have avoided, then that would be deducted from your indemnity check.
The Risk Management Agency urges you to document your field conditions and the action you are taking, and adds that you must make every effort to harvest your crop during the extended period. If you still do not get the crop harvested during the extended period, RMA says the crop is uninsurable.
Summary:
Very little harvest progress was made for either corn or soybeans during the past week in the Cornbelt due to inclement weather. More progress was made in harvesting soybeans than corn, however the majority of both crops remain in the field as of November 1. The extended harvest may well push against the December 10 end of the crop insurance period for corn and soybeans in the Cornbelt, and the USDA has alerted farmers to notify their crop insurance agent about their harvest progress so a potential extension can be made to harvest the crops beyond the deadline. USDA is not extending the deadline, but is allowing extra time to determine what the potential loss may be for insured crops.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 8:23 PM | Comments (2) | Permalink
November 2, 2009
I Have All Of This Wet Grain And I Need Help!
Farming is usually fun. But flooded fields, deteriorating crops, and the potential for substantial quality discounts have combined to take the fun out of farming. You are lying awake at night concerned when you can return to the combine cab, whether your dryer is doing the job, and how much field loss you can sustain before profitability disappears. We can’t do much about the weather and your bottom line, but let’s tackle the issue of grain quality.
You probably have many questions you would like to ask regarding grain drying procedures, shrink, test weights, and many other issues related to grain storage and whether the 2009 crop can be stored without quality deterioration. Helping answer those questions is Charles Hurburgh, grain quality specialist at Iowa State University. His recent newsletter will probably address many of the issues you already have.
1) Should fans be shut off during rainy weather to avoid pumping humid air into the grain? Hurburgh says keep the air moving, especially if you are using heat, because you do not have an unlimited amount of time and space to dry grain, and when you return to the field, you will need space to store wet grain that needs to be dried. If you are not using heat, keeping the fans going will depend on the moisture level of the grain. If corn is below 17% and beans are below 15%, the fans can be shut off if the outside air is below 50ºF. If the moisture is higher than those levels or the air temperature is warmer, then the fans should be kept running. He says, “Grain picks up moisture from the air at about one-fourth the rate at which it dries so rewetting over short periods is not usually an issue.”
2) If corn moisture is higher than the upper 20% range and the dryer cannot keep up with the demand on it, what options are there? Hurburgh says don’t count on much more drying in the field, and if ears are pointed up, some kernels may begin to sprout. He says natural air and low temperature drying will still work, but that is a slow process, and natural air will not finish drying this fall. Hurburgh says there is a solution, but it requires a lot of management, time, and labor. He suggests heated air drying for batches, then shifting it to a cooling bin, while another batch is transferred to the dryer bin. He says dry corn down to 24%, cool it, hold it at steady moisture with natural air, then redry it to below 20% moisture, and use natural air to finish the job.
3) What is the impact of low test weights for corn? Kernels did not fill completely with the lack of maturity of the corn crop, and test weights of dry corn are in the 52 lb range and the loss of weight per acre is about 5%. He says low test weight corn spoils faster, breaks more, and there will be storage issues next spring and summer. He says the problem should not be a concern to ethanol refiners, but livestock feeders should test for mycotoxins and should expect lower protein levels.
4) Soybean moisture levels are too high for storage, so how should they be dried? Hurburgh says beans will probably not dry much more in the field than they have at this point, and 15% moisture soybeans handle about like 17% moisture corn. He says natural air drying is best for soybeans, and November air should be able to dry them to 13.5%, which is sufficient for winter storage. If heated air is used, set a target for 14% moisture and hold with aeration or whatever is acceptable to the market. He says elevators are drying corn and are not set up to drying a second crop simultaneously. And he says if elevators have a few wet beans, they are blended with dry beans, if they have sufficient quantities. Hurburgh says crushers cannot handle wet beans because they will not split correctly and the hulls are hard to remove.
5) Why are elevators charging more for drying and increasing shrink levels? Hurburgh says elevators are not set up for drying beans, and that is best left to on-farm systems. Elevators attempt to calculate shrink by determining the remaining dry bushels after moisture is removed, and the lot of grain can be identified for settlement. Drying grain to the market acceptance level of 15% for corn and 13% for soybeans removes 1.18% percentage points for moisture for corn and 1.15% for soybeans. If the elevator is charging a 1.4% shrink factor, they are capturing 0.22% for a handling allowance, and that increases for each percent of moisture removed. Hurburgh says scientific tests have shown that grain elevators lose about 1% in storage and handling, and that loss is about 0.5% for on-farm storage beyond moisture removal. He says problems arise when discounts are levied for shrink, and it should be used for weight only since farmers need to know exact bushels delivered for production records. Hurburgh says drying costs charged by the elevator need to cover the variable costs of operating the dryer, plus the fixed costs return to the dryer investment. Farm dryers will have lower variable costs, but the fixed costs must be calculated as well, and that may equate what is charged by the elevator.
Summary:
Corn and soybeans may not dry much more in the field than they already have dried, and when the crops are stored on the farm, then care must be taken to avoid spoilage because of moisture levels that are too high for storage. Wet soybeans should not be dried with heat if possible, but outside air should maintain them through the winter. Corn will need heat to help remove moisture, but batch drying may be the only alternative for many farmers. Remove moisture in stages, hold with air flow, and then return to a drying bin for more heat as space is available. The inability of the crop to fully mature may result in lower test weights for corn, and that means breakage and potential storage problems. Commercial storage may result in shrinkage being applied to settlement sheets, which is an attempt to determine both water loss and handling loss.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:34 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
October 26, 2009
Answers For Your Fall Fertility Questions
Some Cornbelt cornfields received the full complement of nitrogen this year, others may not have received any. And some farmers who normally apply one form of nitrogen, may have been forced by the weather and soil conditions to turn to one or more alternatives. While experimentation is always good, forced experimentation is not pleasant, and some of your yield may have been lost because of weather interruption of your fertility program. So what do you do this fall, given a late harvest, potentially wet soils, and a narrow window of application?
To begin on a positive note, you’ll be paying considerably less for nitrogen this fall than you did last year. High-fives everyone! Now, back to reality.
Nitrogen application this year is like any year; hold back until temperatures are below 50ºF, or apply it below 60ºF with the help of an inhibitor to ensure against nitrification. That is one of the primary messages from IL fertility specialist Fabian Fernandez in a recent newsletter. He says some forms of N are more susceptible to loss than others, and ammonium can either stay in colder soils, or be converted to a nitrate by soil organisms active in warmer soils. Even if applied properly in the fall, do not apply N if there is a potential for early spring leaching as sandy soils warm up prior to planting. He recommends getting a soil thermometer and taking regular readings at the 4 inch levels at the warmest part of the day.
Anhydrous ammonia is the preferred source of N because it will quickly react with soil moisture and remain in the ammonium form, either with the help of products such as N-Serve, or because cool soil temperatures retard bacterial activity. Fernandez reminds farmers to avoid volatilization loss by ensuring the soil closes behind the applicator knife and the ammonia is inserted deep enough to ensure the ammonia gas does not escape.
The stability of anhydrous ammonia is not present with other forms of N which are in nitrate form, such as ammonium nitrate or urea ammonium nitrate (UAN). Since they are nitrates, they are more susceptible to leaching and environmental loss and should not be applied in the fall. Fernandez says the lower efficiency of urea is due to the greater risk of nitrate loss before the corn is ready to use it.
Urea that is coated with polymer, which is also known as slow release or PCU are designed to retard that loss of nitrate. Fernandez says the jury is still out on the success of the product when used in the fall. At issue is the thickness of the polymer coating, its integrity, and handling issues, all of which are important for stability, but then you also want it to degrade at the right time so the corn can use the nitrogen.
There has been some renewed interest in the use of manure, poultry litter, and other organic fertilizers to provide N, as well as P & K. Fernandez says their application should be incorporated to avoid loss by volatilization. He says the N will be in an ammonium form that will quickly convert to a nitrate and be loss to leaching if soil temperatures are warm enough. But he says don’t apply manure to frozen soils, either, and be careful against an overapplication of phosphorus. That means, have your soil test results handy, and know the analysis of the manure.
So, how much do you apply? Just because it is cheaper this year does not mean you should apply more than last year. Use the N rate calculator to determine the rate that will return the most profit per pound of N. Since the calculator does not account for any carryover N, think about how much may already be in the soil. High yields will have taken out more. Low yields will have taken out less, but in the case of the latter, the wet 2009 spring may have consumed N before the crop began growing, so there may not be any excess. But remember, it is not necessary to make your entire N application before winter sets in.
And when do you apply it? Fernandez says the best time to apply N is in the spring when the corn needs it and there is little chance for it to leach or denitrify. He says if a full rate pre-plant application is not an option, apply a portion this fall, and the balance as a side dress application. You may, (or may not) have more time in the fall to apply nitrogen, and sometimes there are price considerations.
Summary:
Wait until soil temperatures at the 4-inch depth are below 50°F, or below 60°F if you are using a nitrification inhibitor. Do not apply N, or N with a nitrification inhibitor, if soils are prone to leaching. Use a nitrification inhibitor with anhydrous ammonia applications. Do not apply urea or nitrate-containing fertilizers in the fall. If using animal manure, make sure it is incorporated into the soil, and follow the time of application guidelines discussed for commercial N management. Apply the appropriate rate, taking into account leftover N when applicable, and consider applying only a portion of the total N needed in the fall and the rest in the spring. Consider the risks and benefits of fall N application. If fall application is appropriate, follow the recommendations here to help increase the efficiency.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 10:10 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
October 20, 2009
So, Your Test Weight Is Light Along With Your Check!
You pull onto the scales at the local elevator, a probe takes a sample and you head to the corn dump pit to unload. While you are anxious to return to the field for another load, the elevator office staff records the moisture and grades your corn with a light test weight, which is less than the 54 lbs per bushel for #2 yellow corn. You knew you had some diplodia fungus in the field, and its damage to the kernels just pulled the profitability rug out from under your corn crop. Why is test weight so important?
Purdue’s Corn King, agronomist Bob Nielsen, says test weight is one of the 10 favorite discussion topics anytime farmers gather with a coffee mug in their hand, particularly on a rainy day during harvest season. His comments on test weight will help many producers understand the significance of what the grain elevator staff is trying to determine when it weighs and measures a sample of your corn.
The definition of #2 yellow corn requires that a volumetric bushel be 54 lbs. in weight. The 56 lbs that most farmers cite is for #1 yellow corn, which is the grade that usually originates on a Cornbelt farm in the fall. And Nielsen adds that US corn is marketed on the basis of a 56 lb. bushel regardless of test weight. Of course the elevator need not take an entire bushel to weigh, but will take a smaller sample that will be measured by its electronic moisture tester. Nielsen says, “These test weight estimates are reasonably accurate but are not accepted for official grain trading purposes.” While US grain standards include test weight, the moisture content has been removed, however the standard dry bushel cannot have moisture more than 15.5% or the buyer will impose a discount.
Test weight may be on the ticket, but it will show up primarily on the settlement sheet, because payment will be on the basis of 56 lb. corn. If kernel damage from diplodia or any other problem reduces the test weight, that 1,000 bushel truckload of corn quickly became 929 bushels of corn, since the test weight was 52 lbs. per bushel and not 56. Regardless of the volume of grain in the truck, its net weight will be divided by 56 lbs. for sale purposes. If your corn was more dense than the 56 lb. bushel standard, and a volumetric bushel weighed 60 lbs. then you would be paid for 1071 bushels, although the load was only 1,000 bushels by volume.
The density of the kernel is a function of many factors, one of which is the hybrid, but yield does not appear on that list of factors. And one hybrid can have one test weight in one field and a different test weight in another field. And it will vary from year to year as well, but its yield will not correlate with test weight, says Neilsen.
The test weight is an important factor for processors, since they will benefit from high test weight corn and their starch or oil output will be less efficient from a low test weigh corn. At least that is the conventional wisdom, whether or not research supports it, says Neilsen. One significant factor is that the quality of the lower test weight corn may be due to other factors that caused the reduction in test weight.
So, why did your corn this year have a low test weight? Neilsen says there were six potential causes of lower test weights for 2009 corn.
1) The wetter the corn, the lower the test weight. Corn weighs more than water, so dry corn weighs more than wet corn, and as corn dried in the field or the dryer it shrank, and picked up weight allowing more kernels to squeeze into that bushel volume. Therefore, when your wetter corn was tested at the scale house, it was destined to have a lower test weight.
2) Drought stress in a few spots around the Cornbelt this year.
3) Gray leaf spot and northern corn leaf blight.
4) Cooler than normal September temperatures that interfered with starch production in the kernel.
5) The early October freeze and frost which damaged immature kernels and halted the grain filling process.
6) Widespread damage from diplodia and other fungal ear rots, which deteriorated the quality of the kernel content desired by ethanol refiners, cattle feeders, and other end users.
Summary:
Test weight is an indicator of the density of the corn kernel and low test weights for many truckloads of corn in 2009 have resulted in farmers being paid less than they expected when delivering a truckload of corn. The same volume that may have measured 1,000 bushels in 2008 may have only measured 925 bushels in 2009 because of environmental factors that interfered with kernel development. Those may have included fungal issues, the early frost damage on immature corn, and the fact that wetter corn was being delivered, since wetter corn weighs less than dry corn.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:29 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
October 19, 2009
Manage Your Crop Carefully As It Entered Storage.
The challenges of the growing season have certainly returned in the form of challenges to the harvest season. Delayed crop maturity; narrow harvest windows; and long lines at elevators which close in the afternoon to dry down the grain they receive in the morning. Farm-stored grain will be a challenge for many producers to keep it in condition, particularly with a heavy dose of mold present in the field, and light test weights due to a pre-mature termination of the growing season. Grain storage management will be a priority for nearly every farmer this fall.
There will be a solution to the issues, and that is the checks that are written for propane and electricity at your bin site. While those are not user friendly, there will be few alternatives according to grain management specialist Charles Hurburgh at Iowa State University. In a recent newsletter he says, “This would not be a good year to take chances that wetter corn will keep and can be absorbed in the spring/summer.” Hurburgh, an ag engineer, and agronomist Roger Elmore urge farmers to consider the shelf life of the grain, which is a function of the moisture and temperature of the grain. Their chart of maximum shelf life ranges from 150 month shelf life for corn at 13% moisture and 40ºF temperature to a 27 day shelf life for corn that is 18% moisture and has a storage temperature of 80ºF. If you have corn at that temperature and 24% moisture, it may go out of condition while you are eating lunch.
Hurburgh says temperature can be held constant with aeration, and unaerated grain will shorten its own shelf life as it gives off heat and moisture as it spoils. Corn with lower tests weights, such as that which has been impacted by diplodia or other fungi, will spoil about twice as fast as corn with higher test weights. And Hurburgh says shelf life will be used up the longer the corn is held in the bin at high moisture before being dried. He says the shelf life of grain will be determined by everything that is done to the grain from the point of harvest.
• Fines and cracked kernels will spoil faster, so check combine settings.
• Grain that starts to heat has used up its shelf life.
• Cool grain quickly and minimize variations between the field and the dryer.
• Aerate wet corn immediately, since overnight storage in a truck can impact the shelf life.
Three phases of aeration are recommended by Hurburgh:
1) Lower temperature by steps: low 40’s in Oct., high 30’s in Nov., and 28-35º in Dec.
2) Maintain temperature with intermittent aeration, 28-35º in Jan. & Feb.
3) Keep grain cold in the spring, seal fans, and ventilate headspace intermittently.
4) Do not store wet corn in bunkers or flat storage where airflow is restricted.
If your harvest progress exceeds your ability to haul corn to the elevator, Hurburgh suggests a phased approach to drying, despite the extra labor involved. He says dry to 17-19% moisture, then finish your drying after harvest is complete. If you are storing for any length of time, keep the corn with the heaviest test weight for the longer haul, and move your lighter test weight corn out as soon as possible. Hurburgh reminds farmers to not mix corn from two harvests because the old crop may have mold that will spread with the help of the warmer and wetter new crop. He also recommends removal of the center core and use a temperature probe every two weeks.
Summary:
Grain storage will be a significant challenge, because of the potential for mold in the harvested grain, and the fact that short harvest windows are forcing a lot of wet grain to be harvested and put into the bin. Grain needs to be aerated and temperature gradually reduced over the next two months to bring the grain temperature down to where it can be held into the spring without spoilage. Wet grain needs to be dried, but with high moisture grain being harvested, a two phase approach may allow some initial drying to retard spoilage, with final drying after harvest is complete.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
October 7, 2009
Is Your Yield Monitor Really Monitoring Your Yield?
Last year your corn was heavy, and test weights were 56 pounds and up. This year your corn has patches of diplodia fungus in the field and fluffy corn may be a good description of some of it. Will your yield monitor be able to adjust itself for the difference and give you a reliable reading of bushel yield? (Grimace) Probably not.
You have been relying on a yield monitor for field mapping, reports to landowners, and keeping your lender apprised of your financial prospects. But has that piece of equipment been providing a service or a disservice? Ag engineer Matt Digman at the University of Wisconsin suggests you monitor your yield monitor. His latest newsletter says your yield monitor depends on many sensors on the combine but needs to ensure that all of them are giving it the best information possible. If the brain in the system is misinterpreting what it is being told, it will not be able to make its calculations properly and give you reliable information.
Digman says there are specific steps that must be taken by you and the yield monitor to ensure it is accurate:
1. Determine the area that has been harvested. Each brand may have a different way of doing it, but it needs to know when the combine is actually operating. That is done with a sensor that indicates the header is at harvest height and the separator is operating.
2. The monitor needs to know the width of the swath you are taking or number of rows being harvested. You will need to tell it the number of rows or width of your header.
3. The width combined with the speed of the combine allows the yield monitor to calculate the area harvested within a given amount of time, which is usually reported in acres per hour. A linked GPS system will automatically calibrate speed. The yield monitor will use the area harvested combined with the grain sensor to correct its calibration.
4. When the monitor has computed the area harvested, it needs to know how much grain has been taken into the combine. Digman says development of a reliable weighing system has eluded ag engineers, so the task depends on sensors that detect the flow of a mass of grain entering the combine. Sensors that detect the volume of grain in the clean grain elevator will store that information until you can enter the aggregate weight of grain from an elevator scale ticket. At that point the yield monitor has a good indication of the density of the grain (either heavy or light test weight), and can compute its estimated yield.
If the density of the corn is uniform throughout the field the yield monitor will provide a perfect indication of the yield. But if patches of diplodia-damaged fluffy corn are harvested, there will be a variation in the accuracy of the unit. Digman recommends a recalibration of the unit every 2-3 weeks or more often if crop quality changes.
Another technology used by yield monitors requires an impact plate that the grain hits as it moves from the clean grain elevator into the combine tank. The accumulated force on the impact plate keeps a running calculation of the yield. The impact plate will not only wear over time and provide varying reliability, but will also need regular recalibration depending on grain quality. The impact plate creates a small current that increases in voltage as the total weight of the grain increases as it hits the plate. Digman says, “What this means for the operator is that multiple calibration loads are necessary to ensure yields collected at very high and very low mass-flow rates are accurate.”
Yield monitors vary too widely in how they are calibrated to be discussed here, but Digman says follow the instructions closely to ensure you have an accurate yield calculation as is possible for that unit.
What about moisture of the grain, since it determines number of bushels? Digman says yields must be corrected for moisture, since grain that is wet and heavy will give you a false hope of high yields.
Summary:
Yield monitors can be valuable tools in your information technology process, however they have to be calibrated to the density of the grain, the area being harvested, and the moisture of the grain to give an accurate report of your yield. Different manufacturers will rely upon sensors in different locations in the combine, but all have to be working properly to each other to ensure accuracy. The calibration process may be complex for some units, but it must be accomplished regularly to ensure that yield reports will accurate describe the changing condition of the grain being harvested.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:38 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
October 6, 2009
Corn Stalks: Will You Shred Them Or Use Their Value?
You are harvesting corn, because that is what the market wants and a price is offered for it. However, the grain only amounts to 50% of the weight of the dry material in your field. Are you leaving something in the field that may have value? So far the nearest ethanol plant is not yet accepting biomass feedstock, so what is the value of that pile of dry corn stalks in the field and how can you benefit from it?
For many farmers whose fall to-do list includes chopping corn stalks, the ideas of Paul Jasa may sound like heresy, but the University of Nebraska ag engineer offers some ideas of managing corn residue to resolve some problems you may have. He says the good yields and increased volume of plant material above the soil may have created concerns about what to do with your bumper crop of corn stover, and how it will control your planting schedule next spring.
The cornhead on your combine may be one of the keys to the problem, and it will become a good partner if it can process the corn stalks by leaving them on the ground and reducing the amount of material that runs through your combine. That could be a problem for no-till farmers, but consider Jasa’s idea of leaving as much as possible of the stalk standing upright, and that reduces the amount of material between the rows that planters have to cut through next spring. Jasa is an advocate of knife to knife or tapered snapping rolls, which he says are more aggressive in lacerating and crushing stalks; and with running the combine header about a foot off the ground to leave standing stalks. While those standing stalks will deteriorate from the exposure to weather and microbes, they will also hold the rest of the residue between the rows to reduce soil erosion and preserve moisture in the spring. However, with stronger stalks that resist growing season disease and insect pressure, their winter deterioration becomes important and using the combine to jump-start that process is important.
Cornstalks that are 12-18 inches tall, left to overwinter in the field, will keep residue in place, catch snowfall, and reduce wind erosion. Jasa said air movement is enhanced down to the surface of the soil to encourage microbial breakdown of the stover, compared to matted or flat residue left with stalk choppers. However, he says the upright stalks that remain standing in the spring may get caught on planting equipment.
To clean up corn and prevent problems with volunteer corn next year, Jasa suggests grazing stalks or mechanically removing some residue, but not every year. If alternating strips of residue are removed, they should be as wide as your planter, to allow for early controlled planting next spring where the soil has warmed early.
The residue left in the field should be treated as a valuable commodity because it protects against erosion, and saves 3-5 in. of water over the year. The residue also is a valuable source of fertilizer, with each ton contributing 17 lbs of N, 4 lbs. of P, and 50 lbs. of K, and if the stover is removed, those elements need to be replaced.
The use of a cover crop will retain humidity in the crop canopy and continue the effort of residue breakdown. They will also help dry out poorly drained soils and aid to spring warm up. But Jasa says control the cover crop or it will dry out the soil and created unwanted residue.
By not using a stalk shredder, Jasa says the corn stalk is not as flattened and that will keep the opportunity for more uniform deterioration in the spring, since air and moisture can circulate.
Summary:
Some out of the box thinking about handling corn stalks may offer some new solutions to old problems. Shredding stalks will create a dense mat that will deteriorate more slowly than corn stover that allows air, water, and microbial activity. However, allowing stalks to stand will keep the biomass porous while it prevent soil erosion and retains moisture. The key to its success is the use of proper snapping rolls on a combine that will crush stalks to allow them to stand 12-18 tall, yet deteriorate over the winter to not interfere with planting progress.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:59 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
September 23, 2009
Harvest Should Be Well Underway, But We Remain Behind The Calendar Throughout The Cornbelt.
Crops are abundant and harvest is well underway in part of the Cornbelt, but in some spots, crops could be better, and in others harvest is a long way away. While many row crop producers tried to find profitability in a year of high input costs and low commodity prices, other challenges of delayed maturity are jeopardizing crop quality and pushing harvest well into the fall.
USDA’s Weekly Weather and Crop Bulletin indicates slow maturing crops in some areas, but brisk harvest activity in others.
ILLINOIS: Only 13% of the Illinois corn crop is mature, compared to 69% on average for this time of year. 62% of it is in good to excellent condition, but 36% is poor to fair. Usually 82% of the soybeans would be turning yellow at this point in the fall, but currently only 54% are turning yellow. 60% of the Illinois soybean crop is rated good to excellent. Winter wheat planting is barely recordable because of the delays in soybeans coming out the field.
INDIANA: Only 14% of the Indiana corn is mature, compared to the five year average of 57%. While 62% of it is rated good to excellent, 35% is rated fair to poor. Only 72% of the corn is dented at this time. 40% of the soybeans are shedding leaves compared to 66% for the five year average. 59% are rated good to excellent. A few of the earliest planted corn and soybean fields have been harvested with widely varying yields being reported. Only 1% of the wheat has been planted.
IOWA: The story is different in Iowa with 22% of the corn at maturity, but still short of the 55% for the 5 year average. 75% of it is in good to excellent condition. Half of the soybeans are shedding leaves, compared to the 64% average for this time of year. 71% of the beans are rated good to excellent. The sun filled days and average nighttime temperatures were exactly what crops needed as corn and soybeans still lag behind the five-year average for most crop progress stages. A few producers have started harvesting soybeans planted on light sandy soils. Topsoil moisture is 31% short and shifting to the dry side. The lack of adequate precipitation caused range and pasture conditions to deteriorate in several districts.
KANSAS: Harvest is underway with 8% of the corn harvested, which is still behind the 28% harvested for the 5 year average. While dry weather has helped with harvest, cool temperatures have been the rule over most of the state slowing down progress in the Kansas cotton crop. 2% of the winter wheat has emerged which is on schedule.
MICHIGAN: Corn still about 2 weeks behind normal, but advancing. Thus far, amicable temperatures helped to advance crop, but crop still needs time to mature. Some drying of crop has begun due to lack of moisture this summer. Corn for silage harvest is underway at 14% complete. Soybeans are drying down, and 65% are turning color. Southeast, general growth stages ranged from R6 to R7. Issues related to white mold, Sudden Death Syndrome, and soybean cyst nematode were present. Continued mild conditions continued advancement of crops. However, lack of significant moisture has many areas at or near drought. Wheat planting continued.
MINNESOTA: 38% of the corn silage crop has been cut, 20% less than the average. 85% of the soybeans are turning yellow, just 6% behind the five year average. Nearly all of the oates have been harvested. The weather has turned dry, and 35% of the topsoil is rated short of moisture. Last week’s warm, dry weather allowed small grain producers to bring this year’s harvest closer to completion. Average temperatures ranged from 4 to 15 degrees above normal throughout the state. No reporting stations recorded any measurable precipitation. As of Sunday, rainfall amounts were one-half to over 3 inches below normal over the past four weeks.
MISSOURI: Although there is no report on the Missouri corn and soybean crops, topsoil moisture is generally adequate and pastures are 70% rated good to excellent. Temperatures have been on average.
NEBRASKA: Nebraska corn is 79% good to excellent, with irrigated corn slightly better and dryland corn 74% good to excellent. 15% of it is mature, compared to the 44% average. The soybean crop is 80% good to excellent, with 89% turning color and 1% harvested compared to the 4% average. The first fields of soybeans have been harvested. Seed corn, high moisture corn, and silage were being harvested. Topsoil and subsoil moisture are generally adequate.
NORTH DAKOTA: Corn for silage is 17% chopped, compared to the 52% average for this time of year. 66% of the soybeans are turning color, compared to the 90% average for the past 5 years. Most other crops are also behind schedule for maturity, but most are in good to excellent condition. Durum wheat is 68% harvested, which is 20% behind schedule. Small grain harvest and late season crop progress made great strides last week as temperatures were well above normal and dry weather prevailed. The clear, dry weather allowed producers to stay active in the fields harvesting.
OHIO: 14% of the corn is mature, compared to the 39% average, and 74% is in good to excellent condition. 52% of the soybean leaves are dropping, compared to the 64% five year average. 8% of the soybeans are mature, compared to the 23% average and 1% has been harvested. Soil moisture is 30% short and 77% of pastures are fair to good.
SOUTH DAKOTA: Corn harvest has not yet begun, although it usually has by this time; although 38% of the silage corn has been cut. 11% of the soybeans are mature, but none has yet been harvested. 12% of the winter wheat has emerged, which is ahead of schedule. Topsoil moisture is 88% short to adequate.
WISCONSIN: 10% of the corn is mature, but unharvested. However, 34% remains undented. 12% of the silage crop has been cut. 72% of the soybeans are turning color and one-third of those are dropping leaves. Another week of sunshine and above normal temperatures accelerated maturity of corn and soybeans. The lack of rain has dried out many fields across the state, and growers were hoping for some moisture to give crops and pastures a boost as well as aid germination of winter wheat and rye. Topsoil is 51% short of moisture.
Summary:
Corn and soybean harvest is just getting underway across the Cornbelt, well behind schedule in all states, however recent weather has been warmer and dry, enhancing maturity in most states. Crop reporters indicate that a growing number of areas are becoming dry in the topsoil and subsoil.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:02 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
September 15, 2009
When Will Your Fertilizer Be Applied This Fall?
With your crop still several weeks from being ready to harvest, and the onset of frost and cold weather coming in less time than that, your priority is on getting your barely mature crop out of the field and into the bin. The last thing you are thinking about is fall fertilizer application.
Your farming plate is full enough as it is without adding fertility issues right now. However, this is the time of year when crop nutrient issues are addressed, and there is always the possibility that a very late fall will allow a timely harvest as well as fall fertilizer application and tillage. With that potential, it would not be inappropriate to make some plans about building fertility for your 2010 crop. Iowa State fertility specialists John Sawyer and Antonio Mallarino use their recent newsletter to provide some issues for consideration.
Soil sampling. Your need for P and K is generally guided by the result of a soil sample, as well as determining how much, if any, lime is needed based on soil pH. However, with crops growing in a field it is difficult to collect soil samples. It also takes time to get them analyzed, get the fertilizer delivered and spread while the soil is still tillable. Certainly, those issues can be schedule for the spring, but based on the past several years you may not have the chance to get any fertilizer spread. And the agronomists say it is a good practice to collect soil samples in the same season that potash needs are addressed.
Soil samples should represent no more than 10 acres each unless there is very little soil type variation in the field. Many Cornbelt fields are rife with different soil types. The agronomists say composite grid samples should represent areas smaller than 3 to 4 acres and having multiple test results per field helps determine uniform application rates and aids the effort to have site-specific application rates for fertilizer, lime and manure. Fertility recommendations are based on samples taken in the top six inches of the soil and cores should be taken at a consistent depth. They recommend 10-12 cores per sample with uniform blending before the sample is sent to the lab for testing.
P & K application. Among the reasons to apply P & K in the fall is typically the availability of time, unlike the potential issues which farmers will face this year. The soil would probably be dry and the fertilizer could be applied before tillage. The nutrients would not be locked into the soil before their use in the spring, and even a two year application could be made. With rainfall usually less in the fall, there is little worry about loss of nutrients to leaching or erosion. And rain will help P incorporation into the soil. The only downside is the amount of nitrogen applied when P is applied in the form of DAP or MAP, and the ammonium form of the nitrogen will allow higher amounts of nitrates to be formed and lost to the environment.
N application. While nitrogen can be applied successfully in the fall, it has several requirements that are key to that success. Soil temperatures have to be under 50º to prevent the conversion of the ammonium to nitrate. If soils are warmer, then a nitrification inhibitor is required to slow that conversion rate. Many farmers will apply anhydrous ammonia in the fall under those conditions and have nearly all of it available to boost corn growth the following spring. Other N fertilizers, such as urea and UAN will nitrify too quickly and should not be fall applied. Coated urea can be used if managed properly.
Manure application. Manure is a good nutrient source but because of variable N, P, and K content, handling and rate of application can be challenges that reduce its success rate. While the maximum rate of application for one nutrient will limit the application of the other two, those others will have to be bolstered by a commercial fertilizer. The agronomists say that giving priority to the amount of N in the manure means that manure will best be applied in the fall after soils cool, and that will not affect P and K availability. With the potential for N loss, the manure N should be injected or immediately incorporated to reduce loss with surface application. Additionally, the manure form of P should also be managed to prevent runoff, and also prevent excessive application that results in a high P index rating.
Summary:
With the lateness of the 2009 crop, fall fertilizer application may not get made by many farmers, although fall may be the best time to do so because of drier soils, chance for good incorporation, and usually the spring fieldwork is already rushed. Assessing fertility your fertility requirement begins with a soil sample, and sufficient numbers need to be taken to adequately analyze the need for P and K and lime. P & K can be applied every two years because of their stability in the soil, unlike nitrogen. With less rainfall in the fall, fall-applied P has less of a chance to leach out or run off and will be incorporated. However, with the use of DAP or MAP, there may be nitrogen that is also applied, and if the soil is too warm, it converts to nitrates and is lost to the following crop. N application can be successful in the fall if soils are cool or a nitrification inhibitor is used. Manure is also a good nutrient source, but phosphorous may reach its maximum before other nutrients reach adequate levels.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 1:06 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
September 14, 2009
Crop Forecasts Can Be Computed With Weather Statistics And Crop Conditions
The old adage holds that “big crops get bigger;” and we must have a big crop because the production forecasts from USDA continue to grow. While many Cornbelt farmers may contest that projection, there is some corroborating evidence that USDA’s estimates may be on track. The NASS statisticians complete their objective field surveys with actual measurements of crops. At the same time, economists at the University of Illinois, joined by a meteorologist, have developed a model that makes crop size prediction in a completely different manner. What have they found?
Throughout the course of the summer, University of Illinois ag economists Scott Irwin and Darrel Good, along with meteorologist Mike Tannura have been refining their 2009 crop size estimates based on several factors. Their Final Yield Forecast makes use of a crop weather model that estimates the impact of technology (trend), state average monthly weather variables, and portion of the crop planted late on state average yield. Their latest update includes August precipitation and temperatures to project yields in Illinois, Iowa, and Indiana.
The forecasters repeat the fact that July was the coldest month in their long term sample and August was at the low end of their historical records, two factors that may reduce the ability of their model to accurately predict the impact of temperatures on yield. So far the track record has credibility. It predicted 97% of the variation in corn yields and 92% of the bean yields over 1986 to 2008. The Illinois forecasters used the USDA September crop report’s acreage update for 80.007 million acres of corn and 76.767 million acres of soybeans.
The economists report their forecasts based on the crop weather model are “substantially higher” than last month, based on the assumption of average August weather and “marginally lower” than the forecast based on the assumption of good August weather. They attribute that development to the positive impact of August precipitation and temperature on yield prospects.
Based on the September 6th report that 69% of the corn crop was in good to excellent condition, the US corn yield forecasts range from 158.8 to 170.2 bushels per acre. That puts total production between 12.705 billion bushels and 13.621 billion bushels. The average is a 164.5 bushel per acre average yield that provides a 13.163 billion bushel crop. Friday’s USDA forecast projected a 161.9 bushel crop and a 12.955 billion bushel production. Based on the September 6th report that 68% of the soybean crop was in good to excellent condition, the US soybean yield forecasts range from 44.6 to 45.2 bushels per acre with production ranging from 3.422 billion acres to 3.466 billion bushels. The average is a 44.9 bushel yield that produces a 3.444 billion bushel crop. USDA forecasts a 42.3 bushel per acre yield average with production estimated at 3.245 billion bushels.
For Illinois, the crop model projects a 178 bushel yield on corn and 48.9 bushel yield for soybeans. For Indiana the crop model projects a 170.6 bushel yield on corn and 47.4 bushel yield for soybeans. For Iowa the crop model projects a 201 bushel yield on corn and 50 bushel yield for soybeans.
Summary:
Actual field examinations by USDA statisticians have forecast a larger corn and soybean crop than was expected in August, and a crop weather model developed at the University of Illinois has corroborated that estimate. Illinois is expected to have a 178 corn yield and 44.9 bushel soybean yield. Iowa is expected to have a 201 bushel corn yield and 50 bushel soybean yield and Indiana is expected to have a 170.6 corn yield and 47.4 soybean yield. Nationally, the Illinois crop weather model projects a 164.5 bushel corn yield with production at 13.163 billion bushels. For soybeans the crop weather model projects a 44.9 bushel yield with a 3.245 billion bushel crop.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:10 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
July 15, 2009
Gray Leaf Spot: Does Your Corn Have It, Or Are You Lucky?
Are there brownish gray elongated lesions on your corn leaves? If you are not sure, have you seen any crop dusters flying in your neighborhood, spraying your neighbor’s cornfields? If you are still not sure, it may be time to pay a scouting visit to your corn to ensure it is healthy and working hard to produce a girthy ear.
One of the problems that may be appearing in your cornfield is the frequently found fungus known as gray leaf spot. Depending on your weather, the problem could extend from very light to very severe. While gray leaf spot appears periodically, it usually does not appear quite this early in the season, says Tamra Jackson, Plant Pathologist at the University of Nebraska. In her latest newsletter Jackson warns there are indications for “the potential for a severe gray leaf spot epidemic in 2009 if conducive conditions persist. Foliar fungicide applications will likely be required in many high risk fields.”
Gray leaf spot is caused by a fungus that lives over the winter in corn stalks and other infected crops and then appears as the proper climatic conditions develop. Its spores are produced in the crop residue and as rain hits the ground the spores splash up to the new plants and infect the lower leaves of a corn stalk. If humidity exceeds 90% within the corn canopy or if rain or irrigation water is present, the spores will germinate and infect the corn plant. Gray leaf spot does well in temperatures from 70 to 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
Once the spores have infected the plant, they produce lesions and those produce other spores that spread further on corn leaves and stalks with a 14-28 day reproduction cycle that will continue as long as environmental factors are conducive to its growth. Your concern is the fact that the lesions reduce the photosynthetic capacity of the corn leaf and that is translated into a reduction of grain, which Jackson says can approach 50%.
Corn hybrids carry varying degrees of resistance, and while some will be quite resistant to GLS, others can be devastated by the fungus. Genetic resistance fights the fungus by limiting lesion development on the leaves and retards its spread on the plant. If your hybrids are not highly resistant to gray leaf spot, your alternative would be the application of a fungicide that will retard the spread of the fungus. Much of your decision on whether to spray for gray leaf spot will depend on how far the lesions have spread. Jackson says that since the leaves above the ear contributed 70% to its development, those are more important than lower leaves. If the upper part of the canopy is infected at this early stage of crop development, then the decision is easier to make.
If you are about the pull the trigger on having your fields sprayed, ensure that you have gray leaf spot compared to other fungi that may be present, but may not damage a crop as severely. Spraying should be a priority for the fields with the greatest severity of infection, followed by the susceptibility of the corn hybrid. If your weather conditions have been conducive to fungal growth and reproduction, scout for problems that you may have, before you spend the $25-30 per acre for the fungicide and its application cost. At current prices of corn, that will cost 6-7 bushels.
Unfortunately, fungicides deteriorate within three weeks and lose their potency to protect against lesion development and spore reproduction. Since GLS is appearing so early in the season, there may be a necessity for more than one application of a fungicide for sufficient protection to get the crop through the grain fill stage of development.
For more information:
Ohio factsheet
Kansas State factsheet
Purdue factsheet
Illinois research report on fungicides
Summary:
Depending on weather conditions and susceptibility of hybrids, gray leaf spot could be taking a toll on corn yields. Since this is unusually early in the growing season, it gives more time for the upper leaves to be infected, which are the workhorses for putting grain on the ear. Scouting for GLS should be conducted to ensure that is the fungus that might be present, and to have a fungicide applied as needed.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 2:03 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
July 8, 2009
What Is Your Glyphosate IQ; And By The Way, How Are You Using It?
Roundup. Glyphosate. We can’t seem to live without the chemistry, but we may soon find that although it has changed our approach to weed control, we may have to find a new approach. While some weed species and some scattered weed patches have become immune to the toxicity of glyphosate, weed specialists in a half dozen states coordinated their efforts in a Benchmark Study on Glyphosate Resistance Management. Here’s what they found….
Twelve hundred glyphosate users in IA, IL, IN, MS, NC, and NE were surveyed by researchers to find out exactly how they used glyphosate and the timing of the applications. The dominant use was a burndown application ahead of cotton and soybeans. Between 54% and 63% of farmers used one or two glyphosate applications as a post emergent weed control in either continuous corn or corn and soybean rotations. Up to 62% of Roundup Ready soybeans received a double application, but no more than 42% of Roundup Ready corn received a double application. Only 16% used a non-glyphosate herbicide in Roundup Ready beans. 40% of Roundup Ready cotton received as many as three applications.
In addition to the findings of the telephone survey, researchers created 150 test plots of 25 acres each. The farmer was to use his current herbicide program on half of the plot and the university researchers managed the other half of the plot with a program designed to reduce the potential for glyphosate resistance, and rotate alternative herbicides as needed. The jury is still out on the long term field study.
Of the changes that glyphosate has brought to agriculture, one of the more significant is its impact on tillage practices. The tillage research study found that glyphosate was the reason that the number of no-till increased from 25% to 41%, the number of farmers using reduced tillage increased from 38% to 41%, and 92% of farmers using no-till prior to glyphosate have remained with no-till. Of the farmers using conventional tillage, 25% shifted to no-till and 31% shifted to reduced tillage after adopting glyphosate.
Awareness of the potential herbicide resistance with glyphosate may seem to be widespread, but researchers found that not to be the case in another study. About 30% to 40% of farmers were aware of glyphosate resistant weeds in their state, but no more than 30% believed glyphosate resistance was a serious agronomic issue. While as many as 19% reported some resistance on their farm, no more than 65% had taken any action to minimize the resistance.
The Benchmark Study found that as many as 66% of farmers thought weed pressure declined after switching to glyphosate, but as many as 50% thought it remained the same and some indicated weed pressure increased when all tillage systems were considered.
Most weed species, except for morningglory and pigweed species, present before the introduction of Roundup Ready crops continue to be problematic weeds, but to a reduced degree after adopting Roundup Ready cropping systems.
Summary:
The Benchmark Study on glyphosate found the culture of fighting weeds on the farm had changed, and in some cases there was heavy dependence on glyphosate with little use of alternative herbicides. Glyphosate had allowed many farmers to move their tillage practices away from conventional systems and toward no-till. Awareness of potential glyphosate resistant weeds has gaps, and some farmers believe their weed pressure had not declined after switching to glyphosate.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:39 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
July 7, 2009
PSSST! The Marriage Between Corn Farmers And Nitrogen Is Really A Triangle Affair.
The Cornbelt is just about to celebrate its golden wedding anniversary with nitrogen, and the love affair has not waned. When nitrogen application came into widespread use about 1960, corn yields substantially increased, but like any marriage, farmers are still trying to figure out what makes their nitrogen partner tick, and fertility researchers at Land Grant Universities are still fully employed trying to help out. What have the marriage counselors found out? Will this marriage last? Has this relationship been faithful?
The quick answer is a recommendation to plan on nitrogen application for a long time to come. There are a lot of years left in this marriage. But the issues at hand focus on the wide variability of yield despite steady nitrogen application and will any of those new nitrogen technologies provide any help by increasing yields?
The issue of yield variability is addressed by University of Illinois researchers who looked at the success of the new philosophy of using the price of corn and the price of nitrogen to dictate the amount to be applied, since many farmers were applying more nitrogen than can be economically justified. Their research over 10 years looked at both c-c and c-s rotations to help find the actual crop need for nitrogen. Even using the optimum N rate, yield differences varied from 5 to 78 bushels for corn following beans, and from 12 to 85 bushels for corn following corn.
The researchers found some geographical differences in their data and reported, “The relationship between economically optimal N rates (EONR) values and the yield at EONR among individual sites from this experiment was surprisingly strong in southern Illinois,” where soils are generally lighter than in the balance of the state, and in central Illinois research plots. However, there were no such relationships found in northern Illinois where soils are similar to central Illinois. And they concluded, “Because the variability over years is due mostly to weather and not to soils or other predictable factors, it will remain difficult to predict N needs even if such a relationship holds up; as we saw in 2008, yields can be much higher than normal in a given year, regardless of how the crop is managed.”
Controlling nitrogen costs were difficult in the last season, causing many farmers to look at alternative methods of getting nitrogen to their corn. University of Illinois fertility researchers evaluated 9 different urea products, finding they require a higher level of management to prevent N loss and lower nitrogen use efficiency (NUE). Part of the reason is the 50% efficiency level that corn has in using nitrogen, allowing the rest to volatilize, leach, denitrify, and otherwise become unavailable for use. The alternatives, tested on both conventional and no-till, included:
1) Liquid urea-ammonium nitrate (UAN) sidedress injected,
2) Urea surface broadcast,
3) UAN surface broadcast,
4) Urea + agrotain© (Agrotain International) surface broadcast,
5) UAN + agrotain surface broadcast,
6) UAN + agrotainplus© (agrotain plus a nitrification inhibitor, Agrotain Intl.) surface broadcast,
7) UAN + 10% v/v CaTs© (calcium thiosulfate, Tessenderlo Kerley) surface broadcast,
8) SuperU© (urea with agrotain and a nitrification inhibitor, Agrotain Intl.) surface broadcast,
9) ESN©® (a polymer coated urea, Agrium US, Inc.) surface broadcast.
The researchers reported the tillage fields had significant responses to increasing N rates, economic optimum N rates, yields, and nitrogen use efficiencies; they could evaluate each product based on pounds of nitrogen per bushel of yield. Generally, the dry urea had a lower efficiency than the liquid urea in conventional tillage. In the no-till fields the urea (only) had a poor efficiency, but the other dry products had a significantly lower efficiency than the urea or the liquid products. And they concluded, “It appears that many of the N sources in this study may provide significant improvements in N use efficiency, especially during wet years. These differences appear to more important with no-till than with conventional tillage systems.”
Summary:
A series of research projects, designed to help increase the efficiency of nitrogen application on corn, appears to point to weather being a determining factor, both for impacting yield response to nitrogen, and for enhancing the availability of various urea products across tillage systems.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:48 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
June 30, 2009
Are You In Control Of Weeds, Or Are They Controlling You?
Weeds! Until someone invents a purpose for them, we still have to fight them. If not, your beans will be starved for nutrients and moisture and have a dismal future. With plenty of rainfall this spring, the weed crop has taken over many fields and wet soils have delayed timely efforts to control them.
If the weather breaks, or if you are farming in the perfect world, Ohio State University weed specialist Mark Loux says once you have applied a post emergent herbicide, wait about 10 days, and scout your fields. In his latest newsletter Loux says at that time you will be able to determine what weeds were controlled, and which ones were either not controlled or will need a second herbicide application. He says do not always wait three weeks after the first application, because the weeds that escaped the first dose will be harder to control with a second dose.
Loux says the decision to make a second application is usually done with the help of a windshield and a speedometer reading 50 miles per hour, because that is when the weeds can be seen watching you above the canopy. Loux says the general belief is that many weeds which escaped an initial herbicide application can be controlled when a second is sprayed three weeks after the first. This allows enough time for recovery and limited regrowth. While some farmers think weeds will remain hidden below the canopy, Loux says that has not been a problem for researchers, whose spray droplets have found the weeds when small sizes make them easier to control. Consider also the timing, since new weeds are not likely to emerge after early July.
Your first application probably caught weeds that were reasonably small and had a fatal impact on them. Loux says the exception to the herbicide application three weeks later is when there was little or no impact the first time through the field because of resistance, and if that is the case, respray immediately. An early scouting after an initial application will indicate if the desired impact was achieved. He says research with glyphosate on giant ragweed has shown some to have resistance, and if that is your problem, an immediate respray with an alternative herbicide is warranted before they get too far out of control. If ragweed has been impacted by the glyphosate, but is still growing, a second application with glyphosate three weeks later will reach newly grown plant tissues.
Loux says a second application of the same herbicide will not always control weeds that escaped the first application. For ragweed with glyphosate resistance, he says an alternative may be required, such as FirstRate, Classic, Flexstar, or Cobra/Phoenix (although FirstRate or Classic can be used only if the population is known to still be sensitive to ALS inhibitors). He also says an oil-based adjuvant may be required to optimize the activity, since the surfactant in the glyphosate may be ineffective. Use the highest glyphosate rate possible or tank mix it with an alternative if in doubt about its effectiveness.
When glyphosate is tank mixed with an alternative, either in the first or second application, choose the alternative based on its potential impact on the weeds you have seen on your initial scouting of the field. Keep in mind that tank mixing glyphosate and a second herbicide may cause some minor leaf burn on soybeans, but there is little potential for yield loss. The greatest potential for yield loss will occur with late planted soybeans which could not grow out of the injury due to an extended dry period following the herbicide application.
Summary:
Following an initial post emergent herbicide application on soybeans, scout for its impact on weeds ten days later. That will guide your decisions on what to apply at a three week timetable following the first application. The second application may require the use of an alternative herbicide or a tank mix with glyposate and a crop oil adjuvant, if there are resistant weeds to an initial spray of just glyphosate.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 2:37 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
June 25, 2009
Soybean Aphids: Have You Found Any Yet?
Most soybeans in the Cornbelt have been planted and have emerged, but the early soybeans that have blooms may also have minute visitors that seem to be problematic in odd-numbered years. Since this is 2009, it must be time for soybean aphids, and if you raising soybeans across the northern part of the Cornbelt, they may have made themselves right at home in your fields. So what do you do now?
Soybean aphids currently are being found on very young soybeans in Iowa, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio, as well as in southern Canada. They may well be infesting fields in the northern tiers of Indiana and Illinois, as well as in the southern part of Minnesota, where they have been found in years past.
PLEASE NOTE: THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD START SPRAYING!
Thank you, now that your attention has returned to the page, we can focus on the problem and discuss steps for assessment and potential response.
Iowa State entomologist Erin Hodgson writes in the current issue of the Integrated Crop Management News that a colleague who has monitored early season activities of soybean aphids found that 70% of the soybeans in his northern Iowa research plots were infested with an average of 5.5 aphids per plant earlier in the week. The noteworthy aspect is the unusually early timing of their arrival, and the difficulty that entomologists are going to have in predicting the extent of the infestation and making response recommendations to soybean growers.
Your first line of defense are the multi-colored Asian lady beetles, and other insects that prey on soybean aphids. Hodgson says they are very good at finding aphids in low densities, which currently is the case. If you find a few aphids here and there during your soybean scouting, your immediate response to spray is the wrong response, since it will also destroy the beneficial insects that just may keep your problem under control without undue expense.
Your second line of defense is the heat and humidity, since that fosters growth of a particular fungus that infests aphids. Hodgson says the daytime humidity is right, but evenings are not cool enough for the fungus to produce spores and spread.
Your third line of defense is the possibility that aphid populations will rapidly increase and when they do, they grow wings and fly away, with the populations rapidly diminishing. While this is a strange event, it may mean the aphids may not reach proportions that will create yield damage.
Remember that the economic threshold is 250 soybean aphids per plant, and when that trigger point is reached it signals the time to arrange for a rescue spray. That population may not devastate soybean fields, but finding that many aphids per plant buys you enough time to spray as the aphid population rises to the real point of economic damage.
Hodgson says aphids do not do well in hot, dry conditions, which is one reason their impact area is generally across the northern part of the Cornbelt. He says daily temperature and humidity have to be optimal for aphid reproduction. He also says, “Fields that are sprayed before bloom may require a second insecticide application if aphids rebound or if the field is reinfested. It is important to keep scouting for aphids through seed set even if treated with an insecticide earlier that season.”
If you are scouting soybeans for aphids, Hodgson recommends scouting every field on a regular basis so you can get a good record of how fast the aphid populations are increasing. He says take a close look at 20 to 50 plants. If aphid numbers are minimal and not increasing, then you may be able to save money and increase your profitability.
Entomologist Tracy Baute of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture suggests the more advanced a soybean field is in the growth stage, the more likely aphids have found them. But says aphids will be on the newest trifoliates starting to emerge.
Summary:
Soybeans in the northern part of the Cornbelt may be the target of soybean aphids, since notable aphid populations have appeared unusually early in the growing season. Entomologists are quick to recommend against immediately spraying them in fear of also killing predatory insects that could control the aphid population without the need for spray. Aphid populations can also be kept in check by fungus, as well as high temperatures.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:16 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
June 24, 2009
Are You Doing Everything Possible to Prevent Glyphosate And Other Herbicide Resistance In Your Weed Crop?
Slowly they change. Ever so slowly. Year by year. Field by field. Weed by weed. Until suddenly your herbicide is nothing more than a warm summer mist that refreshes the weeds you wanted to kill. You’ve read magazine article about weeds becoming resistant to one or more herbicides, and now you have found it to be true on your farm. Short of sharpening Dad’s weed hook, what should be done?
Whether weed resistance is reality or a cold sweat nightmare for you, there is a variety of Best Management Practices (BMP) that can be adopted to delay the inevitable or totally avert the possibility of your farm being the talk of the neighborhood. Those BMP’s were identified by ag economists George Frisvold of the University of Arizona, Terrance Hurley of the University of Minnesota, and Paul Mitchell of the University of Wisconsin, who looked at corn, soybean, and cotton production practices that might provide a key to successful weed control. Their research involved a survey of 1,205 producers, who used a total of 10 different weed control practices. Those practices were:
1. Scouting fields before herbicide applications
2. Scouting fields after herbicide applications
3. Start with a clean field, using either a burndown herbicide application or tillage
4. Controlling weeds early when they are relatively small
5. Controlling weed escapes and preventing weeds from setting seeds
6. Cleaning equipment before moving from field to field to minimize spread of weed seed
7. Using new commercial seed as free from weed seed as possible
8. Using multiple herbicides with different modes of action
9. Using tillage to supplement herbicide applications
10. Using the recommended application rate from the herbicide label
This list should be nothing new to most farmers, who have used most or all of the practices at various times. The critical issue is the fact that over 80% of corn and cotton acres and over 90% of soybean acres are planted to varieties that are resistant to glyphosate, and the evolution of weeds that are also resistant to glyphosate are threatening the sustainability of the transgenic technology. Farmers are urged to adopt a variety of practices to prevent resistance, but what is really happening?
To determine common practices, four hundred growers of each of the three commodities were surveyed, and questions were asked of those with more than 250 acres of the specific crop. The researchers found that 6 of the BMP’s were always practiced by at least 71% of farmers, but three were never practiced by a significant number of farmers. Those three were 1) cleaning equipment between fields, 2) rotating herbicide mode of action, and 3) using supplemental tillage. It should be noted that 49% of corn growers used multiple herbicides with different modes of action either often or always.
At least 90% of producers adopted five or more of the various practices. The economists also found that the number of BMP’s that were adopted:
• increased with a grower’s level of education
• increased for growers with expected yields greater than the county average yield
• was lower in counties with more variable yields
• was lower in crop reporting districts reporting more resistance problems.
The economists suggest, “These results suggest that yield risk is an important factor discouraging BMP adoption and that there may be some form of “good manager” effect at work, where growers with higher yields (or at least higher expected yields) than their neighbors tend to adopt more BMPs more frequently.”
Summary:
The growth in the number of weed species and population groups that are becoming resistant to one or more herbicides is a function of the weed control practices that are used by corn, soybean, and cotton farmers who plant 80% to 90% of their crops with varieties that are glyphosate resistant. However, among 10 clearly defined weed management practices, six of them have been thoroughly adopted by more than 70% of farmers, yet three of the practices have very minimal rates of adoption. Those with lower rates of adoption could be promoted by educators to increase the number of practices that are used to slow the growing weed resistance to various herbicides.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:23 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
June 22, 2009
Supplemental Nitrogen: How Do You Avoid Wasting Money Where It Is Not Needed?
Across the Eastern Cornbelt about all of the corn that is going to be planted has been planted. Corn specialists, such as Bob Nielsen at Purdue, are recommending that corn planters be parked because of the doubt that exists for the economic and agronomic viability of any unplanted corn. But even though getting corn planted has been a major challenge for thousands of farmers, what about the issue of nitrogen?
The late harvest of 2008 caused many farmers to run out of time before they could get any fall plow down nitrogen on their 2009 cornfields, then came the wet spring this year that prevented spring nitrogen application for many farmers. In the meantime, the value of the nitrogen was lost to millions of acres of corn because it dissipated while corn planters were kept out of the field by incessant rain. So, what is the solution? MO Extension agronomist Peter Scharf says the solution is sensor-guided sidedressing. In a nutshell, nitrogen is applied between corn rows with the appropriate volume determined by a tractor mounted sensor which determines the color of the corn leaves. If an area of the field has sufficient nitrogen the leaves will be a deeper green and the controller reduces the volume flowing to the applicator. A corn grower will save money by not applying nitrogen where there is a sufficient amount.
Scharf says University of Missouri experiments last year found that corn that was side dressed with nitrogen out yielded that with pre-plant nitrogen application by 44 bu. per acre. And he says with the warm soils and continuous rainfall, much of the pre-plant nitrogen for the 2009 corn crop may have leached out. With soil and ponding variations in a given field, Scharf says the nitrogen available to the new crop could be widely variable and late planted corn may not be capable of rapid uptake until July, with additional losses of nitrogen expected.
Scharf reports on field trials in a variety of areas with different types of nitrogen used, but noting great variations in corn color attributed to nitrogen availability. He says cooperators are impressed to see the flow of nitrogen reduced when the sensors tell the controller that sufficient nitrogen exists, and the flow increased when the applicator moves into an area where the corn is more yellow than dark green. Scharf says the process is not good for adding just 30 additional pounds per acre, but is very good at determining whether the area of the field needs “a little, a medium amount or a lot.”
One issue that Scharf says needs to be addressed is the need for high variations in pressure, both for liquid nitrogen and anhydrous ammonia. But he says new nozzle technology has allowed a four-fold pressure increase. Without that, your equipment may only allow a doubling of the pressure between the bottom and top rates of application. He says changing the rate for a dry application only requires speeding up the delivery belt and spinners.
The optimum rate of nitrogen application is based on green reference points in the corn, but those can be highly variable themselves. Scharf says one problem occurred in the sensors detecting a specific need late one day in a field and a different need for nitrogen the next morning, although there was little difference in the corn. He says that problem could have been solved with a recalibration of the equipment the second day, which would have accounted for the heavy dew that threw off the sensors from where they should have been. He says the problem can be resolved with frequent recalibrations.
Scharf says a constant field standard can be set with a heavy application of nitrogen across the direction of the rows before the field is planted. At that point the equipment has a top end to for constant recalibration every time the equipment passes over the strip.
Another issue is how many of the sensors are needed, which can be a significant cost. Scharf says he believes three reaches the point of diminishing returns, although some suppliers sell them in packages of four and six. His newsletter article addresses several different suppliers of the technology and his viewpoints on their values.
Summary:
Delayed corn planting also allowed preplant forms of nitrogen to dissipate, leaving some fields with wide variations in their need for supplemental nitrogen applications. One potential solution is tractor-mounted sensors which detected the greenness of the corn which reveals whether it has sufficient nitrogen or needs additional side-dress application. Such a process may require a capital outlay for the sensors and the controller, however may result in significant savings in not having to apply nitrogen where sufficient supplies already exist.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:44 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
June 18, 2009
Making Crop Management Decisions After A Severe Storm
Your corn is up and doing well, good to excellent, you think. But suddenly one of those increasingly frequent storms sweeps through the county and combination of heavy rain, high winds, and hail leave your crop shredded, down, temporarily submerged, and in fair to poor condition at best. Here it is June 18, and what do you do now?
Those types of severe storms washed through Nebraska and Iowa, and the University of Nebraska offers a series of factors in the June 12th issue of Crop Watch to consider the next step.
• Severe flooding may have created gullies in fields which will have to be smoothed before replanting, if that is the choice. Sweep tillage may keep residue in place, but requirements for moving soil will destroy the residue and leave the soil susceptible to more erosion.
• While hail damage to corn may look bad, its seriousness depends on the maturity of the plant. The degree of potential injury increases as the plant approaches silking, then after that stage the potential for injury gradually declines.
1. Up to the 5 leaf stage the growing point of the corn is below the soil, and the early loss of 5 leaves will mean little to the 19 to 21 leaves that will share the burden of producing an ear.
2. Hail damage from the V8 to V11 stage will affect row numbers, but kernels per row will not be determined until V17.
3. From the tassel stage to maturity, no more leaves will develop and the tassel will not be replaced. The 6 to 8 leaves above the ear are the most important for its development.
• When considering replanting due to poor stands, corn planted in early June will have a 50% yield loss compared to typical timing. It may be better to keep an existing stand with a 50% stand loss than consider replanting.
• If the corn is herbicide tolerant, that will help manage weed competition in a reduced stand. With delayed plant growth, insect problems can increase in non-Bt hybrids. And hail damaged corn is also more susceptible to diseases.
• If the damaged crop was glyphosate tolerant, beware of potential problems with volunteer corn in a new crop. Conventional corn can be easily controlled if the field is replanted to glyphosate tolerant soybeans.
• Both soybeans and sorghum can be planted later than corn without the yield loss, but check your previously applied herbicide labels to ensure against unanticipated problems.
• If corn is replanted, destroy the damaged stand so it does not steal water and nutrients from the new corn. Tillage is preferable over mowing, which will not kill the old crop. Chemical control may be the best option, but glyphosate tolerant corn will be a problem.
1. Select Max is effective but very slow acting, and will require a 6 day interval before replanting.
2. Glufosinate or paraquat will not delay planting, but effectiveness is questionable.
• Replant options may be restricted if a pre-emergent herbicide has been used.
1. Corn can be replanted, and a shorter season hybrid may be the best choice.
2. Soybeans can be planted, unless atrazine is in the field.
3. Sorghum provides more flexibility, and is adaptable to common corn herbicides.
4. Consult the table for replanting intervals if common herbicides are used.
• If soybeans were damaged and replanting is planned, the expected yield loss from the replanted soybeans must be compared to the anticipated yield loss from the original beans. Replanting requires additional cash for inputs and there will be a yield penalty.
• Leaving a poor stand of soybeans may require added costs for weed control.
• A general guideline is to leave a field alone if plant populations are greater than 50,000 plants per acre, the stand is uniform, and the field can be kept weed free.
• Emerged soybeans will recover unless the plant is destroyed below the first node, where buds can produce new leafing branches.
• If soybeans must be replanted:
1. Narrow row spacing and higher seeding rates will more quickly close the canopy and suppress weeds.
2. Early maturing beans will flower early but not grow very tall. Taller plants should be planted to maximize yield potential.
3. Do not plant early varieties that have not been adapted to your zone.
Summary:
Mid-season storms can create nightmarish management decisions regarding replanting, since the decision has to involve alternative crops, field preparations, weed control challenges, and how to destroy the damaged crop. If decisions are made to replant, many fields may have to be treated differently than the original crop due to the lateness in the season.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:31 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
June 10, 2009
Your Corn Is Making Money, Today.
Some late planted corn in Central Illinois is just emerging from previously saturated soils, while some early planted corn in Iowa may soon be tasseled. Throughout the Cornbelt, the rest of the corn is somewhere in between, and that is when money is being made.
Early in its life corn may look poor, with bad color, uneven stands, and slow growth in cool soil and air temperatures. But then the outlook changes, in what Purdue agronomist Bob Nielsen compares it to a transformation from an ugly duckling to a beautiful swan. His reminder refreshes everyone’s memory about the growth stages of the corn plant, “Almost overnight, the crop has taken off like a rocket. The color of the leaves turns a dark, almost-blue green and they develop a distinct shine.”
Nielsen says in the first five weeks of the corn plant’s growth, it is creating all of its leaves within the plant and developing nodal roots while leaves are expanding visibly from the V2 to V6 stages. Nodal root development is important, says Nielsen, “Damage or stress to the first few sets of developing nodal roots during the time period V1 to V5 can severely stunt or delay a corn plant’s development. Damage to the first few sets of nodal roots forces the young seedling to continue its dependence on kernel reserves longer than is optimum.”
When your corn reaches the 5 to 6 leaf stage, the growing point in the top of the stalk turns into the final leaf, and the plant switches from a vegetative stage to a reproductive stage with the internal formation of the ears and the tassel. At that point, ear size is determined. Nielsen says,” Severe plant stress during ear formation may limit the potential ear size, and thus grain yield potential, before pollination has even occurred. Optimum growing conditions set the stage for maximum ear size potential and exceptional grain yields at harvest time.”
When the plant reaches the 5th or 6th visible leaf collar, internally it is creating ear shoots at each of 8 to 10 stalk nodes. Each of those are only a fraction of an inch long, but are identifiable, and are the longest at the lower nodes. When the corn plant begins internal development of the tassel, Nielsen says the uppermost ear shoots are given priority for development and they are the ones that become ears. “Development of the upper ears is favored over the lower ones partly because of hormonal “checks and balances” and partly because of the proximity of the upper ear to the actively photosynthesizing leaves of the upper canopy.”
If your corn is in the 5 to 6 leaf stage, Nielsen says kernel rows are being determined from the base to the tip and that process will be completed by the V8 stage. He says 750 to 1,000 potential kernels develop on each ear shoot, but only 400 to 600 will be harvestable. Nielsen calculates, “For a 16-row ear, one kernel per row is equal to about five bushels per acre (for average populations).” And he says the weather does not have much to do with the number of rows, “Row number is determined strongly by plant genetics and less so by environment. This means that row number for any given hybrid will be quite similar from year to year, regardless of growing conditions.” Exceptions are hail damage, prior to the V8 growth stage, as well as some herbicide injury. However, Nielsen says kernel number in the row is strongly affected by environmental stress, and good growing conditions encourage higher numbers.
Environmental stress prior to the V5 stage will likely not have an impact on yield, unless the plant is weakened. However, severe stress from V5 (knee-high) to V12 (shoulder-high) will interfere with kernel rows and row length. Nielsen says, “While such early stress can be important, recognize that severe stress that occurs shortly before to shortly after pollination has a far greater potential to reduce yield per day of stress.”
Summary:
Throughout the Cornbelt, the number of kernel rows and potential number of kernels are being determined now in corn plants. Ear size is a function of genetics for number of rows, and environment for number of kernels that are eventually harvested. While environmental stress can weaken a plant before the V5 or knee high stage, it is more important to kernel development after that point and prior to the V12 or shoulder high stage.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:31 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
May 27, 2009
Ethanol: On Beyond Corn
Is there a future for farmers in the ethanol industry beyond corn? It was the agricultural community that gave birth to “gasohol” 25 years ago, and corn farmers throughout the Midwest took part in ethanol promotion activities at service stations, county fairs, and anywhere a reporter might get interested in their pitch for a new market for corn. But with the federal biofuels mandate corn-based ethanol to 15 billion gallons, is there a future economic opportunity that agriculture can harvest?
The Federal Energy Independence and Security Act implements a growing market for corn based ethanol until the 15 billion gallon limit is reached in 2012, in an effort to preserve sufficient corn quantities for other market needs. Beyond that, cellulosic ethanol is expected to grow beyond the 30 billion gallon total biofuel supply in 2022. But where do farmers fit into that overall plan?
Agricultural economist Tom Capehart of the Congressional Research Service examined Congressional policy issues involving cellulosic biofuels and says they must overcome three challenges:
1) First, cellulosic feedstocks must be available in large volumes when needed by refineries.
2) Second, the cost of converting cellulose to ethanol or other biofuels must be reduced to a level to make it competitive with gasoline and corn-starch ethanol.
3) Third, the marketing, distribution, and vehicle infrastructure must absorb the increasing volumes of renewable fuel, including cellulosic fuel mandated by the RFS.
Obviously, farmers must carve out their niche in the first challenge, if there is to be one. Capehart notes there are doubters who are “questioning whether the United States could ever produce and manage sufficient feedstocks of starches, sugars, vegetable oils, or even cellulose to permit biofuel production to meaningfully offset petroleum imports.” To many biofuel communities in the Cornbelt, “the gauntlet has been thrown down.”
Ethanol will likely be produced from a variety of cellulose sources, according to Capehart, including municipal solid waste, construction debris, and residues from the logging, lumber, and paper industries. Not much for farmers in those areas. However, other potential cellulose sources include crop residues, such as corn stalks and wheat straw, as well as perennial grasses, such as switchgrass and miscanthus. But farmers wanting to cultivate the latter will run into a challenge the CRS economist describes as, “Cellulosic feedstocks may have some environmental drawbacks. Some crops suggested for biomass are invasive species when planted in non-native environments.”
The prairie grass issue might be resolved if your ancestors could testify that they burned off switchgrass in Cornbelt states when they began the farmsteads you now operate. It was the dense, itchy stuff that pioneers fought every day as their covered wagons traveled westward. But to grow switchgrass that might be profitable, it may require several years to reach its full yield potential. Capehart quotes University of Tennessee statistics that indicate the top yield potential is two tons per acre in the first year and seven tons after the third year, which would produce up to 1,000 gallons of ethanol. An alternative is the Asian grass miscanthus, which can produce 2.5 times the amount of ethanol that corn currently produces, which is estimated at 1,100 gallons per acre. Researchers at South Dakota State and the University of Minnesota have both looked at other native prairie grass mixtures that seem promising for ethanol production, without the criticism of being “a non-native specie.”
Farmers who have baled wheat or oat straw have harvested and stored biomass for years, so there is nothing new there. Cornstalks are another issue, and Capehart suggests the need for a single machine that can harvest corn for grain and stalks for biomass in one pass through the field. And protective storage for corn stover will be a significant process and investment, which will have to borne by farmers. But imagine that an enterprising group of investors plans to build a cellulosic ethanol plant in your neighborhood and recruits you to produce the feedstock for it.
• It will produce 10-20 million gallons of ethanol per year
• It will operate 24/7 and will need 700 tons per day.
• If the plant wants corn stover, it will cost $39 to $46 per ton to transport it 30 miles.
• If the plant wants switchgrass, it will cost $57 to $63 per ton to transport it 30 miles.
CRS economist Capehart notes that harvesting corn stalks will not reduce food output, but growing grasses would displace food crops on cropland. Farmers considering such a new crop would have to calculate the multi-year commitment that would be required. The initial start-up years would have equipment investment along with a lower level of revenue for grass production. However, planting grasses will required a commitment from landowners, should such production occur on rented land, and that would mean multi-year leases.
Summary:
With US energy policy moving toward biofuels, and a limit on how much corn can be used for ethanol production, farmers will not be shut out of the market. Options are available for substantial involvement in supplying feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol producers. Those include both production of grasses, as well as harvesting of corn stalks. Farmers will have to work out marketing agreements that would compensate them for additional equipment outlays, storage and transportation costs, and early revenue losses in the case of grass production.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 1:48 AM | Comments (2) | Permalink
May 26, 2009
Replant Decision Making: Keep It Or Replant It?
Throughout much of the Midwest, most of the corn is planted, even in Illinois where nearly a week of good weather allowed many farmers to advance well beyond the state’s 10% planted mark confirmed last week. However, continued wet weather has saturated soils and allowed ponds to drown many corn seedlings. In a year when input costs may outstrip commodity sales, most farmers cannot be satisfied with a mediocre stand in the corn field. How do you rationally decide whether to replant, and not waste scarce resources?
Replant decisions are not easy. Are you tearing up field that might have a decent yield just to take a chance that a replanted crop might yield a few more bushels? IL Extension crop specialist Doug Gucker used his newsletter to point out how minimal the population had to be to justify replanting. He says, “If the corn was planted in late April to early May, then the corn stand would need to be less than 13,000 plants per acre to justify replanting.” While his seed and machinery expense are unknown, it is obvious that it would take a very poor stand to warrant the planting expense, plus the yield decline expected from corn that had a month less to grow and mature.
Gucker points to the Illinois Agronomy Handbook for a decision aid that requires you to know the current population, the potential yield for the field, input costs and market value. Such web-based decision aids can make your choice much easier, if they agree with your gut feelings. However, if your gut feeling disagrees with the calculation, then an uneasy choice has to be made.
The University of Nebraska Weekly Cropwatch features a replant guide in its May 22 edition. Crop Specialist Bob Klein and Extension Engineer Paul Jasa give credit to Iowa State University for a couple tables they provide that can assist in the decision. But the NE specialists make the point that “Getting a uniform stand at the right population is an important part of getting a good yield.” The telling part of the Iowa State table is that a planting date between May 26 and June 1 will only provide a 90% yield potential based on a final population of 28-32,000.
Seedling uniformity is a key assessment that you have to make before making any replant decision. Klein and Jasa at Nebraska say, “Research has shown that if one out of six plants is delayed by two leaf stages, yields can be reduced by 4%. If one out of six plants is delayed by four leaf stages, yields can be reduced by more than 8%.” And they remind you to contact your crop insurer, Farm Service Agency, or any others with an interest in your crop before replanting.
Agronomist Roger Elmore at Iowa State University says there are two instances when there is a need to replant. The first is non-uniform emergence, as noted by Klein, and Elmore’s worksheet for lack of uniformity helps you estimate your yield loss, but you have to determine an average for the late plants and an average for the earlier corn plants.
The second situation for replanting needs to be made when populations are significantly less than desired. Elmore’s checklist helps you determine the best course of action. But he warns that replanting may only yield marginal results in a number of situations, such as when one row has not emerged when others have, or when there is a less than two week difference in emergence. In that case he says replanting might only increase the yield by 5% and that would not pay the cost.
At Purdue, corn specialist Bob Nielsen provides much of the same information, but does quite a bit more “virtual hand-holding” to walk you through the steps in making a decision. His methods are quite helpful, and he also raises other issues, such as “patching in” versus complete replanting. He says resist that temptation if your surviving plants are at the two leaf stage or more because they will out-compete the later planted corn. He also suggests that if you replant with an earlier maturing hybrid, it may not meet all of the quality requirements for full season corn if you have contracted for a premium price. And Nielsen says there will be stresses on your late planted corn due to its effort to pollinate in the heat of the summer, and it will be perfectly timed for corn rootworm beetles to feast on its silks and tassels.
Summary:
The decision to replant corn is difficult, given the cost. However, the major issue is whether you are taking a chance to plant a lesser yielding crop than what you may have destroyed. The decision has to be made on the basis of either lack of uniformity of emergence or fewer plants per acre that are viable. Several decision aids are available, however, they are required accurate information on costs and good information on the potential yield of both the old crop and the replanted crop.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:39 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
May 13, 2009
What Is That Fungus Growing In Your Wheat?
If you are growing wheat, one of the recent phone calls you may have made was to an Extension specialist to ask what was wrong with your wheat. Small grains specialists are reporting frequent inquiries about diseases and what can be done about them. Scout your wheat, make notes, and let’s visit about what you’ve found and what you can do about it.
You have undoubtedly noticed that the cool, wet spring has been the “perfect storm” for fungus to thrive in wheat. And depending on the stage of growth, you may have different fungal problems.
In her May 5 newsletter, Laura Sweets at the University of Missouri reports increasing problems with Septoria leaf blotch and barley yellow dwarf virus, both of which have been helped with light rains, high humidity, and overcast skies. She is urging wheat growers to scout their fields to determine what fungal problems exist and the severity of them. It will also be helpful to be familiar with Feekes growth stages because many fungicides have limitations on when they can be applied in relation to the stage of growth of the crop. Label restrictions may prohibit application within 30 days of harvest, which would dictate the use of certain fungicides in the southern parts of the Midwest.
Sweets uses her April 28 newsletter to describe Fusarium head blight or scab, which is a premature bleaching of a portion of the head, with pink or orange mold growth at the base of the head. Sweets says the scab is not going to be prevented, but fungicides may be able to control the extent of the damage. One of the concerns is the fact Fusarium produces mycotoxins, which means the wheat cannot be fed to non-ruminant animals.
For a thorough discussion of numerous wheat fungal problems, and fungicides that will help control problems, Sweets provides that in her April 21 newsletter.
The agronomists at Ohio State have been watching the progression of wheat diseases northward as the crop develops, which is between jointing at stage 6 and flag leaf emergence at stage 8 in their part of the Midwest. Their recommendation for fungicide application is to first be aware of whether your wheat varieties are susceptible to fungal problems. Then check your field for diseases and determine the yield potential for the field.
In their latest newsletter the OSU agronomists say when the level of disease is high on the top two leaves, a fungicide application would be beneficial. In their part of the Midwest, they point to stagonospora leaf and glume blotch, powdery mildew, and leaf rust as the fungi that will have the greatest impact on yield. But they say rust is usually not detected until after flowering and that is too late to impact yield. Their observation is “The growth stage of the wheat crop when disease develops influences the impact on yield and timing of fungicide application. The earlier the growth stage, the greater the potential to impact yield.”
The OSU recommendation is for Tilt or PropiMax on powdery mildew, and if your have stagonospora leaf blotch or rust, good control is provided by Tilt, PropiMax, Quadris, Quilt, Stratego, and Headline. Use 20 gal water/A with ground equipment and 5 gal water/A if applying by airplane. Using less water will lower effectiveness. Check labels for application timing restrictions.
Illinois agronomist Carl Bradley reports in his newsletter there is a medium to high risk for fusarium in Southern Illinois, Southern Indiana, Southern Missouri, and throughout much of Kentucky. He says, “Only triazole-type fungicides (Folicur, Prosaro, Caramba, and others) should be applied for control of scab. It is important to follow manufacturer's instructions regarding rates, timing, and spray volume. Products that contain a strobilurin-type fungicide (Headline, Quadris, Quilt, Stratego, Twinline, and others) should never be applied for control of scab. Strobilurin fungicides applied at heading or flowering can actually increase the deoxynivalenol (DON) contamination in grain.” Bradley also provides results of the effectiveness of several fungicides.
Summary:
Fungal problems may be or become rampant in many Midwestern wheat fields because of the damp, cool weather conditions. Wheat growers should scout fields, determine the type and extent of fungal problems they have, and use effective fungicides for control. However, the stage of growth of the wheat may limit the kinds that are used, and agronomists say it is important to identify what fungi are present before any application is made due to the potential for adverse reactions.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:23 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
May 11, 2009
Why Is My Corn Not Emerging Like I Think It Should?
Adverse weather has kept many corn planters in the shed in the central and eastern parts of the Cornbelt, and drawing many parallels to the spring of 2008, there are concerns about the development of the new corn crop as it tries to climb out of wet, and sometimes cool soils. But there are a variety of other challenges, some preventable, facing corn seedlings, and if they fail, it will show up when you cross the elevator scales at harvest.
Your seed salesman has sold you on the vigor that his seedlings have, the stuff that helps them get up and out of the ground. That may be, but there are hazards that await young corn plants, and some of those can be prevented with a change in farming practices. Purdue corn king Bob Nielsen knows that you and your pocketknife have been working hard in the field to check on germination, seedling vigor, emergence, and root development. And if you are finding problems, he knows why.
Germination begins with the seed absorbing water equal to 30% of its weight and that triggers enzymes causing cells to divide and grow. Having sufficient moisture is key to the success, but if the seed is faced with alternating wet and dry periods, its energy required to germinate may be spent before the mission is accomplished. The first spike is the radicle root coming from the tip of the kernel within 2-3 days in warm, moist soil. Cooler and drier soils may delay that by a week or two. The second spike is the coleoptile, which comes from the embryo side of the kernel soon after. At optimum conditions those will happen on the same day, but Nielsen says days or weeks may pass between the emergence of the two from the kernel because of adversity, “When excessively cold and/or wet soils delay germination and/or emergence, the kernel and young seedling are subjected to lengthier exposure to damaging factors such as soil-borne seed diseases, insect feeding and injury from pre-plant or pre-emergent herbicides and carryover herbicides from a previous crop.”
Emergence of the corn plant depends on the coleoptile reaching the surface of the soil, then its internal leaves breaking out of the protective tissue. Emergence requires 100 to 120 Growing Degree Days, which may require 5 to 7 calendar days under optimum conditions. But if the soil is cold, it may take several weeks for emergence. Since exposure to light filtering through the surface of the soil is key to successful emergence and leaf development, there are some controllable issues:
1) Cloddy seedbeds, dry seedbeds, and open slots in no-till planting can expose the seed to light at levels lower than desirable, causing the coleoptile to leaf out under ground.
2) Herbicide injury provides a stressful environment, and that is indicated by a corkscrew coleoptile, or leaves emerging where they should not.
3) A crusty surface, planter furrow compaction, and dense soil can physically restrict the coleoptile penetration of the surface. That causes it to rupture, form a corkscrew shape, or push the leaves out the side.
4) If the coleoptile is subjected to soil temperatures under 50F or wide swings in temperatures, the coleoptile can also form a cornscrew shape or rupture to push leaves out of its side.
Root development includes both the fibrous roots for moisture uptake and the nodal roots for strength and nutrients. Nodal roots can become stunted from soils that is too dry, too wet, or too cold, as well as from insect or herbicide damage, or from soil compaction from either the planter or tillage issues. The seminal roots that first appear can be damaged by cold temperatures, or salt injury from starter fertilizer that is too close to the kernel. Stress to the first few nodal roots can severely stunt the development of the corn plant, and if kernel reserves are nearing depletion, seedling death is not uncommon. Those stresses include salt injury from fertilizer, seedling diseases, herbicide injury, insect damage, compaction from the planter or tillage, and soils that are either too wet or too dry.
Summary:
Although seed corn is generally vigorous and wants to germinate, emerge from the soil, and create a new corn plant, there are numerous hazards that potentially challenge that process. Environmental challenges include soils that are too cold, too dry, or too wet. Physical challenges that include crusty soil, cloddy soil that allows too much light to reach the seedling too early, or soil that is compacted from either planter or tillage issues. Chemical challenges include herbicide carryover from a prior crop and salts from starter fertilizer too close to the seed. Many of the challenges can be eliminated or controlled to provide a better environment for the seedling.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:48 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
May 4, 2009
Soybeans: Plant 'Em If You Got 'Em.
While the farm gate readily acknowledges that you are probably not finished planting corn, and some of you have not been able to get near a cornfield, some farmers in drier parts of the Cornbelt may be wondering if it is too early to plant soybeans. Whether you have finished with corn, never planned on planting any, or have begun the switch from corn to beans, there are some legitimate questions on timing for optimum soybean yields. As the kids in the rear car seat continually ask, “Are we there yet?”
For many Cornbelt farmers, 2009 has become a carbon copy of 2008. Some folks have retrieved last year’s reports to land owners, and used the copy and paste functions on the computer. Soggy fields and incessant storm fronts have prevented much headway on planting, but for those soybean growers who are ready to put seed beans in the ground, Extension agronomists Vince Davis and Emerson Nafziger at the University of Illinois says we are not past the date when yields begin to significantly decline, but we are in that part of the calendar that is not too early to plant soybeans. Their newsletter focuses on when soybeans should be planted to maximize yield, and that date certainly progresses from south to north in the Cornbelt.
Davis and Nafziger report some of their colleagues have reached some noteworthy conclusions:
1) A survey of 24 sites around the Midwest found that yields were relatively stable over planting dates during May, but after May 30, yields declined about one-half bushel per day if the field had high-yielding tendencies.
2) Iowa State agronomists tallied 62 bu. averages from late April, 60 bu. averages from early May, 56.7 bu. averages from late May, and 46.7 bu. averages from early June. That calculates to be a 0.15 bu. daily penalty from late April to early May, a 0.28 bu. daily penalty from early May to late May, and a 0.86 bu. daily penalty from late May to early June. At today’s prices, delaying from late April to early June would be a $160 loss per acre. They recommend that southern Iowa farmers begin planting April 25, and northern Iowa farmers begin on May 1.
3) Purdue researchers reported similar results in Indiana, but said, “The highest and most stable yields were from planting in the first to second week of May, and yields decreased at a rate of 0.5 bushels per day for planting after May 10.”
4) Research conducted by agronomists on high yielding fields in northern Illinois was parallel to the Indiana recommendations. It would also be similar to the recommendations for northern Iowa farmers. Illinois researchers working in southern Illinois, comparing favorably with southern Indiana and central Missouri, found an increasingly larger rate of yield decline as the date advanced toward June. Yields dropped 0.10 bu. per day from May 10 to 20, 0.26 bu. per day from May 20 to 30, 0.42 bu. per day from June 1-10, and 0.59 bu. per day from June 10 to 20.
Davis and Nafziger at Illinois recommend that you begin planting soybeans as soon as soil conditions allow it, and your yields will increase “by large amounts” compared to waiting until June to plant. They also note, “The earlier soybeans are planted, the more yield will also be influenced by proper seed selection and management. Choose varieties with good SDS and SCN resistance, and soybean seed treatments will also be of greater value.”
Addressing the subject of a plateau in soybean yields being reached over the past five years, the agronomists say weather has played a significant role in planting delays from 2004 to 2008, and only 50% of beans were planted by mid-May and only 80% by late May, indicating that yields may have been larger if the crop had been planted sooner. Davis and Nafziger say, “To improve yields in Illinois, we must plant soybeans in a more timely way (early to mid-May). To accomplish that, we need a change in the weather.” But their thoughts will probably apply to most of the Cornbelt.
Summary:
Cornbelt researchers have determined soybean yields gradually decline after a late April planting date, but the rate of yield loss grows at an increasing rate per day from late April until early June. Their recommendations for planting begin in late April for the southern and central parts of the Cornbelt, and about May 1 for the northern part of the Cornbelt, given that soil conditions allow it, which has not generally been the case in the past several years. They also recommend using disease resistant seeds and seed treatments for early planted seed.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:23 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
April 21, 2009
Premium Grain Prices Have Shifted From Specialty Grains to Organic Grains
A decade ago Cornbelt farmers were signing production contracts to get an extra dime on a bushel of specialty corn, or an extra 50-cents for food grade soybeans. When corn was $2 and beans were $5, that extra 10% of value meant a lot. When the octane kicked in on the markets in 2007, very few specialty crops were grown because premium was not worth the hassle, and there was money to be made on basic commodity crops. With that glow dimmed, premium prices are becoming more attractive, particularly those offered for organic crops.
Organic production has grown exponentially in the past two decades, but still is only at the 4 million acre point. Organic producers suffered ridicule from neighbors for many years, but after continued profitability, their legions are increasing, along with their production. USDA reports 3,411 certified organic producers in Cornbelt states, including 905 in Wisconsin, and over 143,000 organic acres in North Dakota.
USDA’s latest report on organic farming says there are organic operations in every state, with 1.7 million acres of organic cropland. There may be no surprise the center of organic gravity is in California with over 2,000 organic farms and nearly a quarter million organic acres. USDA says there would be more interest, but the greatest obstacle is high management cost, risks of taking on a new venture, limited awareness, lack of marketing infrastructure and inability to capture marketing economies. But those producers who have shifted to organic production have done so to achieve what many farmers have tried, including lowering input costs, capturing high value markets, and boosting farm income.
The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 set the federal standard, but USDA’s rules were not adopted until 2002, which bolstered certification programs and provided rules that farmers and buyers needed. Those regulations require organic growers to be certified if they have more than $5,000 in annual sales. And there are 53 different certification programs, including 19 different state programs that implement the rules and keep everyone on track.
If you doubt the potential profitability of organic production, consider price that were paid for organic grains, well before the highs for commodity grains in summer of 2008. Upper Midwest prices in 2007 ranged from:
1) $6.48 to $9.09 for feed grade wheat.
2) $6.31 to $11.26 for feed grade corn.
3) $14.59 to $17.00 for food grade soybeans
4) $13.36 to $17.43 for feed grade soybeans
April 9 organic grain prices were:
1) yellow feed corn $6.50 to $8.25
2) food grade soybeans $19.50 to $21
3) feed grade soybeans $17 to $19
4) feed grade HRW wheat $7 to $8
You may not be able to tell organic crops from conventional crops unless your neighbor admits to producing them, however there were 7,245 acres of organic corn in Illinois, over 11 thousand in Nebraska, and more than 20 thousand acres in each Iowa and Minnesota when USDA last reported state acreage in 2005.
USDA’s package of information on organic production would be helpful in researching opportunities as well as development of a business plan. The latest USDA market news report indicates sales of new crop feed grade soybeans are being reported from $16.00 to $18.00 per bushel. New crop food grade soybean contracts are from $19.00 to $24.00 per bushel. It is expected that fewer organic acres will be planted this year, compared to last year.
Organic crop production is not something you are going to decide today to implement for the current crop year, however, it is something that will take some thinking and planning time and that may become available as many Cornbelt farmers head to the fields in coming days.
Summary:
Organic crop production takes time and effort, however, organic acreage is growing steadily, and the number of organic producers is increasing annually. While prices for organic grains are at a premium to commodity level products, planning and work is required to achieve those prices. At a time when commodity prices have settled down, organic premiums are offering the potential for increased farm income.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
April 13, 2009
Planning For Successful Weed Control In Corn And Beans
All of your equipment is ready to head to the field. Your seed has been delivered and is ready for the planter. While you wait for soils to dry out, you are beginning to think about weed issues. You want to try some of that new stuff, but suddenly you wonder if it will mix with the other herbicide you already have. Oh, and what about application of 2,4-D, with that sense of urgency to get seed in the ground? Rather than an expensive “ooops” on your part, let’s get some help from the folks who know.
In addition to being mechanics and engineers, most farmers have a good handle on practical chemistry. But it is hard to keep up with what organic chemical will mix with another organic chemical and still kill weeds, but not the crop. If confusion reigns in your crop protection storehouse, we’ll sort out the important issues, first with 2,4-D, if you are trying to clean up a no-till field. Mark Loux at Ohio State University helps out in the latest C.O. R.N. newsletter.
Loux says 2,4-D will help with burndown of many large or tough winter weeds, and can also be added to glyphosate to control weeds that are becoming glyphosate resistant, as well as building ALS resistance. That is a tough assignment for soybean fields, unless the field is weed free at time of planting. Loux has several suggestions with regard to 2,4-D:
1) 2,4-D can be used preplant for beans and corn, but follow label directions to avoid crop injury.
2) Because of different manufacturers, labels will be different as a result of different formulations that allow a wide range of application to corn. However, 2,4-D application at planting may injure corn in some soils and when applied with certain herbicides.
3) Prior to soybean planting, 2,4-D can be used for burndown, but Loux recommends only the use of 2,4-D low volatility ester rather than an amine, which can leach into the seed zone. And 2,4-D ester needs at least a 7-day head start on planting.
4) If 2,4-D ester was used in a pre-plant application ahead of soybeans, the soil should not be tilled, unless it was a very early spring application and it has degraded.
5) If 2,4-D is applied to wheat, Loux says make sure it is prior to the boot stage, and if the wheat has jointed, use an amine formulation instead of an ester.
Aaron Hager at the University of Illinois turns his attention toward glyphosate, and what can or cannot be tank mixed with it. His newsletter indicates that the ability of glyphosate to be a stand alone herbicide will continue to decline for management of weeds in soybeans, and tank mix partners will be needed to manage those challenges.
He says sometimes a glyphosate tank mix will be good and sometimes it will not. For those advantageous times:
1) To fight glyphosate resistant volunteer corn in glyphosate resistant soybeans, Hager consistent control can be achieved with tank mixing certain ALS or ACCase-inhibiting herbicides with the glyphosate. The latter includes herbicides with the active ingredients of: clethodim, quizalofop, fluazifop, and sethoxydim.
2) To fight challenging broadleaves in glyphosate resistant soybeans, Hager suggests early application to small weeds, a sequential application 10-14 days later, or one application with a tank mix of herbicides containing: cloransulam, chlorimuron, 2,4-DB, fomesafen, lactofen, acifluorfen, dicamba, or 2,4-D.
3) For enhanced control of glyphosate resistant weeds, Hager says there has been success in tank-mixing glyphosate with Flexstar or Cobra/Phoenix, followed by a sequential application of glyphosate 3 weeks later.
4) But if waterhemp is the problem weed, Hager does not recommend using glyphosate as the primary herbicide for the entire field, and hoping to burn the waterhemp. He says if the patch of waterhemp is sensitive to PPO inhibitors, use that first, followed by glyphosate, but don’t tank mix the two for the first spray.
5) With waterhemp becoming resistant to PPO inhibitors also, a tank mix of glyphosate and a PPO inhibitor would not improve control of that patch of waterhemp over glyphosate alone.
Summary:
2,4-D remains a primary weapon in the crop protectant arsenal, however, careful timing of application and selection of either an ester or an amine formulation will be needed to protect a soybean crop and not damage it. Timing of the application, as well as reading label directions, will ensure its ability to protect corn. With the increased use of glyphosate for both corn and soybean protection, there will be an increasing opportunity for weed resistance and the necessity for tank mixes with PPO or ALS inhibiting herbicides. However, for farmers with waterhemp that is resistant to glyphosate, timing of application and careful selection of a tankmix partner will be critical to avoid expanding its resistance.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:53 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
April 2, 2009
Any Cornbelt Farmer Who Has Been In The Field Should Consider Himself Lucky.
Sporadic sunny, dry days have allowed some Cornbelt farmers to catch up on anhydrous ammonia application, something that was rained, snowed, and frozen out last fall. However, soils are still plenty moist in many regions, and fertilizer application equipment is tip-toeing around wet spots. Few planters have begun rolling even in the southern reaches of the Cornbelt due to moisture and cool soil temperature. We’ll survey the Midwest for the first report of the season.
USDA released its state weather and crop bulletin for all states on March 31, indicating plenty of moisture in the Midwest.
ILLINOIS: Temperatures during the month of March averaged 2.5 degrees above normal across the state and precipitation averaged an inch above normal. Heavy rain and wet snow fell on many parts of the state over the weekend, causing delays in fertilizer application. Topsoil moisture was rated 50% adequate and 50% surplus. Winter wheat conditions stood at 67% good to excellent.
INDIANA: The state temperature for March averaged 3.4 degrees above normal. Precipitation in northern areas averaged 200% of normal causing flooding in low-lying areas while precipitation in central and southern areas averaged only 70% of normal. The winter wheat crop has begun to break dormancy and is reported to be in mostly good condition. Many operators were applying pre-plant anhydrous ammonia on intended corn acreage.
IOWA: Soil moisture availability rated 3% short, 65% adequate, and 32% surplus. However, saturated fields have limited activities in areas, as farmers must wait for fields to dry out. Farmers are anxious to get into their fields and get fertilizer applied and planting underway.
KANSAS: There were 20 days suitable for field work in March. Topsoil moisture 7% very short, 28% short, 50% adequate, and 15% surplus. Subsoil moisture 6% very short, 23% short, 64% adequate, and 7% surplus. 13% of the wheat has jointed, compared to 10% last year, and 20% for the 5-yr avg. Wheat condition was rated 79% fair to good.
MICHIGAN: March precipitation varied from 0.78 inches in western Upper Peninsula to 2.84 inches in southwest Lower Peninsula. Although a few areas remained under snow, above normal temperatures for the month ushered in spring. Early assessments revealed wheat wintered well with little to no winterkill.
MINNESOTA: March temperatures averaged about normal, but ranged from -30 degrees to a high of 69 degrees. Precipitation averaged from 0.89 inches below normal southeastern Minnesota to 2.35 inches above normal in north central Minnesota. Rain and melting snow, in addition to frozen or saturated soil, caused overland and river flooding in the Red River valley and in a few other parts of the state.
MISSOURI: March was warmer than normal and precipitation slightly above average at 3.75 inches.
NEBRASKA: March temperatures averaged near normal. Precipitation was below normal with most areas receiving less than 1 inch of moisture. At the end of March snow depth was limited to the Panhandle and the North Central region with one to two inches in those areas. Soil temperatures were above freezing across the entire state. Fieldwork was mostly limited to fertilizer applications and seedbed preparations. Wheat conditions were 68% good to excellent, above last year’s condition of 50% good or excellent.
NORTH DAKOTA: Average snow depth was 8.1 inches on with pasture and range remaining dormant. Hay and forage supplies were rated 84% short to adequate. Colder than normal temperatures and above normal precipitation were experienced throughout most of the state during March. Severe winter weather and flooding struck; and the entire state of North Dakota was declared a disaster area on March 24, with 34 of 53 counties designated to receive aid. Adverse weather delayed fieldwork and grain movement, and strained calving conditions and livestock feed supplies.
OHIO: The March average was 2.5 degrees above normal. Precipitation for the state averaged 0.31 inches below normal. Winter wheat conditions ranged between very good to poor. Before winter the plants achieved good growth, and were topped with snow cover for much of winter. There are some flooded acres that have been lost for the season.
SOUTH DAKOTA: Topsoil moisture is 99% adequate to surplus and subsoil moisture is 92% adequate to surplus. Winter wheat snow cover was 65% poor, and 23% is breaking dormancy. Range and pasture is 54% good to excellent. South Dakota agriculture was hit with extremes of major winter storms and in some places a week of above-average temperatures. Crop producers are expressing concerns about winterkill in winter wheat and alfalfa and excessive soil moisture in some areas.
WISCONSIN: Snow cover for the winter was limited to the northern-most part of the state. March precipitation was highest in the south-central part of the state, with 5 to 6 inches.
Summary:
Not unexpectedly, fieldwork has been quite limited due to wet soils throughout much of the southern two-thirds of the Cornbelt with snow cover in the northern third. Concerns were expressed in many states about the vitality of the wheat crop, either suffering from winterkill or flooding.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:02 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
April 1, 2009
Farmers Have Spoken, And What They Say Makes Sense.
Tuesday’s USDA Prospective Plantings report is the second most anticipated report issued annually by the National Agricultural Statistics Service. The foremost report is the August First Crop Report, and in second place is the planting intentions report, which Tuesday indicated that total planting acreage in the US would drop 7.8 million from last year. Cornbelt farmers were happy to see acreage and stocks numbers that were friendly to both the corn and soybean markets. So let’s dig into the details.
USDA issued two primary reports on Tuesday, the Prospective Plantings Report and the quarterly Grain Stocks Report for March 1.
Corn acreage is projected at 84.986 million acres, down 1% from 2008. However, it would be the third largest corn acreage since 1949. Acreage cutbacks occurred in states with marginal production, possibly because of lower prices and higher production costs. However, farmers in major corn producing states found a few more acres to possibly plant corn, to nearly make up for the loss.
Soybean acreage is projected at 76.024 million acres, up from the 75.7 million in 2008, but well under the 80 million expected by the market. If all intended acres are planted, it would be the largest soybean acreage on record.
Corn stocks were estimated at 6.96 billion bushels, up 1% from year ago levels, with disappearance the past three months at 3.12 billion bushels, down 300 million bushels from last year. Soybean stocks were estimated at 1.30 billion bushels, down 9% from year ago levels, and disappearance at 974 million bushels up 5% from last year.
The market liked the reports, with May corn climbing 18.5¢ to $4.0475, and Dec corn rising 17.5¢ to close at $4.1475. May soybeans rose 47.5¢ to $9.52 and Nov beans climbed 50¢ to $8.92.
At the University of Illinois, Marketing Specialist Darrel Good said a trend yield for corn, matched against intended acreage would provide 11.862 billion bushels, causing a large decline in stocks by the end of the marketing year for the new crop. He expects both ethanol and exports to become larger consumers of new crop corn. Also, he says the trend yield for soybeans matched against the intended acreage would yield a crop of 3.12 billion bushels. While that would be larger than the 2008 crop, he says increased consumption would lead to smaller stocks by the end of the marketing year for the new crop.
Good says the combination of acreage and stocks are supportive of prices, with acreage for all crops being less than expected, and particularly for beans and wheat. Additionally, the March 1 stocks were less than what the market expected.
At the University of Missouri, Marketing Specialist Melvin Brees says, “The tight soybean supplies and small increase in intended acres appear to be bullish news for soybean prices. Some analysts are also calling the reports neutral to bullish for corn with strong corn use and a small decrease in expected corn acreage. In spite of concerns over high production costs, recent new crop bids have continued to offer a small profit edge for corn and it appears that most producers are not making changes to their acreage mix. Weather now becomes a major factor with concerns about wet conditions, lack of field work progress and worries about planting delays that could change planting intentions.”
Darrel Good agrees with the Brees’ thought that changes could still occur before planting, “Prices may show a modest response to these reports, but the market will also begin to anticipate how actual plantings may differ from intentions. In addition, financial, currency, and energy markets will continue to have an influence on crop prices as those markets influence over all demand prospects.”
Summary:
The intentions of US farmers are to plant nearly 8 million fewer acres this year, possibly because of lower prices, higher input costs, and the overall reduction in profitability. Their response to USDA’s survey earlier in March about planting intentions surprised the market and many observers with fewer soybean and wheat acreage than expected. Corn acreage in the heart of the Cornbelt will rise slightly, but marginal production areas will not be planting nearly as much this year. Grain stocks are also lower than market expectations, indicating strong export and ethanol use in past months. Heavy future use will also keep stocks at a minimum, drawing down both corn and soybean supplies.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:37 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
February 11, 2009
If Creating New Corn Revenue, Try Creative Weed Control
If falling commodity prices have pushed you toward producing non-GMO corn under contract, you may have some additional production choices to make in cultivating a weed-free corn crop. Your non-transgenic seed will not be glyphosate resistant, so brushing up on alternative weed control programs will be your priority, and our service for you today.
With the help of Ohio State University weed specialist Mark Loux we’ll focus on pre-emergent and post emergent weed control outlined in Vol. 3 of the C.O.R.N. newsletter from OSU agronomists. He says recent advances make PRE and POST weed control for non-GMO corn about as economical as glyphosate on commodity GT corn. Loux divides the strategy into Pre-emergent, Pre- and Post-emergent, and Post-emergent, which he says any can provide effective weed control, depending on your typical crop of weeds.
Pre-emergent strategies can be effective where weed pressure is low to moderate, and generally void of perennials or late germinating weeds. And Loux warns that a pre-emergent herbicide program depends on rain within a week after application, or your post-emergent program may become more expensive.
The Pre and Post strategy provides the most consistent control of weeds that emerge throughout the season such as ragweed, waterhemp, annual grasses and other perennials. He says it works better than the other choices in fields that have very heavy weed pressure. Loux rhetorically asks, “Am I better off spending money on a broad-spectrum total PRE program, or spending the same amount or a little more on a PRE + POST program that can provide more consistent control of the weeds that I am dealing with?” He says the keys to success include:
1) Use a PRE herbicide treatment that includes a true “grass” herbicide, and use a rate equal to at least 75% of a normal full-season PRE rate.
2) Use a POST herbicide treatment with activity on both grass and broadleaf weeds.
3) Apply the POST treatment when corn is not more than 12 to 14 inches tall, or before weeds exceed about 3 inches in height. Where the PRE herbicides have controlled weeds well, so that none are evident in 14-inch corn, it is possible to delay POST applications. However, corn is competitive with weeds once it reaches a size of about 20 inches tall, and POST herbicides should be applied before this size.
The total Post-emergent program may not protect yields quite as well as the Pre- and Post-, and it is less effective in fields with perennials and late emerging weeds. Loux says success depends on:
1) It is essential that weeds are no more than 1 to 2 inches tall at the time of POST herbicide application, to ensure that they are not a yield-limiting factor.
2) Include broad-spectrum residual herbicides, and take a similar approach with rates as indicated above the PRE + POST program. Reducing rates too much or failing to use a broad-spectrum approach can result in weed problems later in the season.
3) Make sure that the herbicides applied will effectively control the weeds present in the field.
Summary:
The need for creative weed control need not scare you away from growing non-GMO corn as a potential new profit center. While conventional wisdom may say glyphosate applied to glyphosate tolerant corn will produce revenue, the cost for conventional herbicides can be as economical if used judiciously. Such herbicide programs would be either a pre-emergent program, a post-emergent program, or one that combines the two.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:51 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
February 2, 2009
Are You Looking At Nitrogen Alternatives?
Whether you are using a sharp pencil or an Excel spreadsheet to work on crop budgets for 2009, it is nearly impossible to pencil in much of a profit if any. The killer has been fertilizer costs, and although everyone is having to pay premium prices to move the high priced product out of the pipeline before the lesser priced fertilizer is available, that still won’t convert red ink to black. But you’ve have recently heard some talk about using lower priced urea to supply nitrogen to corn. Does that make any sense?
Urea and UAN typically are more pricey than anhydrous ammonia, per pound of N, but prices have recently converged, and with some application advantages to urea, there may be some benefits. Purdue agronomist Jim Camberato balanced the pluses and minuses for urea in a new fact sheet. He says urea will be attractive to many farmers who did not get a chance to apply anhydrous last fall, and application this spring can be done in short order. But he says it is not quite as good a source of nitrogen as anhydrous ammonia, and he says urea is comparable to UAN, if the urea is incorporated into the soil.
1) If urea is applied to the surface of the soil, the ammonia will evaporate and is lost, which means 60% of your nitrogen is gone. A more typical loss will be 30%, which is still more than UAN, since UAN has only half of the nitrogen content as urea. Camberato says that degree of lost nitrogen can mean corn yield will be reduced 16 to 21 bushels per acre. And he says where the ammonia is evaporating, the pH of the soil will be raised significantly causing another detriment to good fertility.
2) Urea left on the soil surface is going to perform better if banded than broadcast. The more concentrated application will work deeper into the soil before runoff. Camberato says Ohio researchers found a 9 bushel increase when corn was banded with UAN rather than broadcast, and 5-6 more bushels in Illinois research.
3) To reduce the transition of urea to ammonia and delaying its evaporation, Camberato suggests the use of an inhibitor, such as Agrotain. He says Illinois research found a 19 bushel per acre improvement with an inhibitor used in UAN broadcast applications.
4) Elimination of the evaporation problem can be achieved with incorporation 1-2 inches into the soil. Rain and irrigation will help achieve the same results, as long as the urea has not converted to ammonia and it has not evaporated. Warm temperatures will necessitate a quick incorporation, but cool temperatures will retard the urea conversion.
5) Urea will convert to nitrate quicker than anhydrous ammonia, which makes it a poorer substitute and more susceptible to leaching, says Camberato. He says there was a 15 bushel lower yield with urea when it was applied prior to planting in a comparison with anhydrous ammonia.
6) Urea is a neutral molecule, so it is not attracted to soil molecules and will leach as water percolates through the soil. Although that reduces the ammonia evaporation, the amount of nitrogen remaining in the root zone depends on the amount still in urea form.
7) An alternative to the uncontrolled degradation of urea is a polymer coating, that will slowly dissolve with moisture, but requires moisture for release of the nitrogen. It is less susceptible to ammonia evaporation because of the lower impact on soil pH.
Summary:
Urea is an alternative to anhydrous ammonia, when comparing the cost of the nitrogen. It may provide ease of application, but it will also yield up its nitrogen to evaporation and leaching more than will anhydrous ammonia. Methods of application may provide some alternatives for limiting the downside problems of urea.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:09 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
January 27, 2009
Will You Plant More Or Less Corn This Year? And Will Your Answer Depend On Soybean Prices?
Somewhere a farmer, or maybe several, has taken a big washer and written “corn” on one side and “beans” on the other. He has flipped it a time or two to help decide whether to plant corn or soybeans this year. While that would be a low cost decision aid, it may not give the best answer. There are other ways to think through the process, and we’ll do that today.
Every farmer this spring has been trying to work out the best revenue per acre, and because of fertilizer costs, unknown crop insurance costs and guarantees, and the uncertainty in the commodity market, the exercise has been a real challenge. Some farmers who regularly rotate corn and soybeans, or those who applied nitrogen in the fall, may already have had their decision made for them. But for those with a decision to make, ag economists Bruce Babcock and Lihong Lu McPhail at Iowa State University say a simple calculation can be used to aid your decision.
Writing in the Winter edition of the Iowa Ag Review they say the jump to 93.5 million acres of corn in 2007 came at the expense of soybeans, with all Cornbelt states except South Dakota planting more corn than beans. But the tide turned in 2008 with a near reversal of the trend and an increase of 11 million acres of beans and 7.5 million fewer acres of corn.
The economists say farmers must be induced to plant adequate corn acreage in 2009 to meet ethanol demand; and corn prices must rise relative to the price of beans. If it does not, then less 2009 corn will be planted following 2008 corn. Babcock says your decision is, “simply the difference in expected return this year from planting corn after corn versus corn after soybeans minus the forgone benefits of planting corn after soybeans the following year. Because these forgone benefits exist in the future, they need to be discounted to today’s dollars.” His calculation is graphed in the article, but he says most farmers don’t worry about the following year crop until harvest, and stop their analysis about May 20 when it becomes too late to plant corn.
The Iowa State economists say from 2001 to 2006 there was no incentive to plant corn after corn because the revenue from a corn-soybean rotation would always exceed that of a corn-corn rotation. However, they acknowledged that access to abundant hog manure might be an incentive. In January of 2007, the market switched to give a preference to a corn-corn rotation, but disappeared three months later. In early 2008, the incentives favored a corn-soybean rotation until early March, but the market feared an inadequate supply of corn and created the incentive to plant corn after corn.
For 2009, the economists say the incentives for a corn-soybean rotation began stronger than either 2007 or 2008, but following the January 12 USDA report the incentives for a corn-soybean rotation have strengthened, compared to a corn-corn rotation. They currently calculate a $100 per acre advantage for a corn-soybean rotation.
Based on those economics, Babcock and McPhail question whether corn acreage will exceed 80 million acres in 2009, which is what the current demand estimates require. They believe the corn market will begin strengthening relative to soybean prices before planting. They do not estimate whether corn prices will rise or soybean prices will weaken.
Summary:
Your 2009 cropping decision should be made on whether there are more revenue opportunities from a corn-soybean rotation or a corn-corn rotation. Based on daily market changes, those values can and have changed about this time of year, when the market senses that farmers will not plant enough of one crop to supply the demand. Currently, the preference is for a corn-soybean rotation to provide more revenue, but that may not provide enough corn to meet expected demand. While a shift could be spurred by rising corn prices, it could also be spurred by falling soybean prices.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:54 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
December 24, 2008
A Corn Growing Enigma Has Possibly Been Solved.
Immature ears of corn may be popular at restaurant salad bars, but not in your cornfield at harvest time. And beginning in the 2007 crop year, many farmers who frequently found them were becoming as pickled as the salad ingredient. Yield and revenue certainly go down as the number of immature ears increases. An explanation for the problem has been found, and your corn growing practices may need to change to prevent the problem on your farm.
You can’t credit the CSI Miami folks for solving the riddle, but the pat on the back goes to Purdue corn specialist Bob Nielsen, who has found the answer to—what agronomists call--arrested ear development. He says it is quite different from the periodic problem of blunt ears or “beer can” ears, and his report on the problem attributes the halt in ear maturity to the application of herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides with certain additives in the spray, at the time the length of the ear is being determined within the corn plant.
Nielsen and his Purdue colleagues attempted to reproduce the problem. “Three fungicides, one insecticide (I), a commercial non-ionic surfactant (NIS), crop oil concentrate (COC), glyphosate (GLY), ammonium sulfate (AMS), and 2,4-D were applied in various combinations over the canopy of corn on July 18th, at approximately the V14 stage of leaf development (approximately 5 ft tall and 1 - 2 weeks prior to tasseling).” Nielsen says at that stage of plant development, ear size determination was essentially complete, silks were beginning to elongate, and the tips of the ear shoots were visible in the leaf axis in most plants. Nielsen reported that five days after the spray application, it was apparent the surfactant had penetrated to the ear shoot and the upper end of the young cob had begun to dissolve.
Neither the fungicides themselves or with an insecticide caused any problems, but when a crop oil concentrate or non-ionic surfactant was added, problems grew from 3% to 35%. Adding glyphosate increased the problem to 60%. With the growing popularity of a fungicide application to corn as a preventative measure, Nielsen says there were no problems with arrested ear development in conjunction with the practice, but he says there were fewer kernels per ear with those treatments.
The use of foliar herbicides with a spray additive resulted in some severely arrested ears. Problems up to 40% resulted from glyphosate plus 2,4-D; a non-ionic surfactant alone; a crop oil concentrate alone, or ammonium sulfate alone. One of the problems was a shorter cob length, but the glyphosate and ammonium sulfate treatment also curtailed kernel numbers as well.
Nielsen says the bottom line is the knowledge that certain combinations of foliar pesticides and spray additives, when applied at the V-14 leaf stage, have the potential to stop development of the ear of corn, and suspend it in a state of frozen animation.
Summary:
Cornbelt farmers who have been baffled over the increasing number of immature ears of corn at harvest time, may have an answer about the cause of “arrested ear development.” The application of various pesticides, blended with tank mix additives, such as crop oil concentrates and non-ionic surfactants, and applied at the stage of ear development when length is determined may be the cause of the problem. Although more research has to be done, corn growers would be advised to adjust one of the variables to avoid the problem in the future.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:06 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
December 15, 2008
Soybean Aphids: Are You In The Majority When It Comes To Management Practices?
Alright students, please close your books and notes, it is quiz time. We’ll see how much you have learned about protecting your soybeans from soybean aphids, and whether you are really using integrated pest management practices. The other classes in Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin have already taken this test, and they did fairly well, so let’s see if you can score as high as they have.
Soybean aphids were first identified in 2003 and became an instant pest by infesting over 42 million acres of soybeans. By draining the sap from soybeans and their ability for explosive rates of reproduction, they are identified as one of the greatest threats to the soybean industry say Minnesota economists Kent Olson and Thaddee Badibanga and entomologist Christine DeFonzo. Their study of farmers’ anti-aphid practices during crop years 2004 through 2007 found most had a good working knowledge of aphid management. They surveyed farmers in MI, MN, IA, and WI who reported soybean production on 88% to 96% of farmers with average acreage between 500 and 600.
Most farmers are aware that aphid populations typically have been the greatest in odd-numbered years. And the researchers found that the number of farmers spraying and the number of acres sprayed were the greatest in 2005 and 2007.
• 2004—13% of farmers sprayed and 50% of acres treated.
• 2005—84% of farmers sprayed and 87% of acres treated
• 2006—35% of farmers sprayed and 81% of acres treated
• 2007—89% of farmers sprayed and 43% of acres treated.
Between 81% and 91% of farmers (depending on year) said once a field is treated, aphids could repopulate and still cause yield damage, which is true. Only 5% said it could not happen. The number of farmers who know how aphids damage soybeans is generally in the 70% range. The incorrect answers were chewing holes in leaves (11%), pod feeding (1-3%) and root damage (1%).
One of the key indicators of good pest management practices was the 70%+ who said the frequency for aphid treatment depended on aphid counts, weather conditions, and plant stage. Only a small percentage indicated the automatic need for multiple treatments.
On the other hand, there is much less agreement on the timing for the greatest aphid damage. In 2007, 35% said it can occur anytime, 32% said early flowering stage, 11% said early vegetative through early pod set, and 10% said when seeds are filing. Likewise, at least 66% of farmers knew that 250 aphids per plant was the lowest average density to trigger spraying. Seven to 18% would look for only 100 aphids.
The researchers were pleased with the awareness of the 250 aphid per plant threshold, and said, “This is the current economic threshold accepted by the majority of soybean extension entomologists in the Midwest. The use of a threshold approach to soybean aphid management is further supported by the percentage of farmers (over 80%) who said scouting reports were very important for making a decision to treat for aphids. Just over half the farmers said plant growth stage was also very important, perhaps reflecting growers’ past experiences with increasing aphid populations at the R1-R3 stages.”
Summary:
Soybean aphids have become an important threat to successful soybean production, and farmers have indicated their widespread use of accepted integrated pest management practices for soybean aphid control, in an effort to keep aphids from becoming resistant to specific insecticides. Frequency of spraying and amount of acres sprayed have varied with the presence of the pest, which, until 2008, had been reaching high populations in odd numbered years and low populations in even numbered years. The vast majority of farmers indicated spraying decisions would be keyed from the need to spray, rather than spraying to prevent aphids.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:38 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
December 10, 2008
With Such Horrible Weather, Why Did Corn Do So Well This Year?
When spring soils remained cold and wet, and never seemed to warm up and dry out, what were your expectations for the 2008 corn crop? When Mother Nature never was able to get the faucet turned off, what were your expectations for the 2008 corn crop? When the weather finally began to cooperate about the time you would normally begin harvesting, what were your expectations for the 2008 corn crop? It’s time to pull up a chair by the kitchen stove and revisit a year that has left everyone scratching their head.
When your bags of seed corn had been sitting in the machine shed gathering dust and bird droppings until mid-May, would you have bet the farm that 2008 would have provided one of its highest yields? Probably not, but that is what happened for many Cornbelt farms. Iowa State agronomists Roger Elmore and Lori Abendroth report the third best yield on record, but some frustrated farmers still are trying to harvest the last 6% of the crop. In their analysis of 2008 they say the year certainly started with low expectations.
In Iowa, as has been the case across most of the Cornbelt, corn planting has gotten progressively earlier each year, and most planters head to the field 2 weeks earlier than they did 30 years ago. Curiously, 2008 saw corn planting begin about the time it did in the 1970’s and did not finish until the first of July, in part because of the need to replant 11% of the acreage. Elmore and Abendroth recommend having corn planted by May 10th in Iowa, but only half of the state was planted by May 15th. A result of the late planting and significant replanting was the fact that farmers intended to plant 13.3 million acres, but will only be harvesting 12.5 million. That loss is second only to the 1993 flood year when acreage was reduced 8.3%.
But once the corn was in the ground, heat units remained well behind the average and statewide for Iowa, there was an average of 125 degree day departure from normal between May 1 and October 16th. While long term records don’t exist for silking, the Iowa State agronomists report 2008 was the slowest compared to the past few years, and 50% of the corn was silking 15 days past the two prior years. That told them to expect a late harvest, and true to form it was not until November 5th when 50% of the corn had been harvested. Despite the late planting, silking, and harvest, the average yield of 172 bushels per acre is 4 bushels above the trend line.
So why was there such a diamond in the rough? Elmore and Abendroth used a computer model of how weather affects corn, beginning with the late planting date, and inserted all of the weather data for the past 22 years. Not used were diseases, insects, weeds, soil compaction, hail, lodging, and non-weather factors. They found that 2008 had the second highest potential yield, and followed only 1999. The computer model calculated weekly yield potential, “Because late season weather was conducive to higher yields, the projected yields continued to move upward from what was predicted earlier in the season,” they said. In other words, the key to the 2008 success was the late season weather. Although silking was late, temperatures were cooler and rainfall compared to the best of years. That allowed slow crop development, and a long period for grain to fill, fortunately without a killing frost.
Summary:
2008 corn yields turned out better than anyone would have expected given the start on the year that was cool and wet. However the late planting meant corn silked later in the summer and with the help of cooler temperatures and ideal rains, corn matured slowly and thoroughly despite the late date on the calendar. An early frost would have brought the process to a halt, but without that factor, corn was maturing and drying well past the time that corn has usually been harvested in most recent years.
That is what Roger Elmore and Lori Abendroth at Iowa State think. Maybe you have more to add to the discussion. Pull up a keyboard and tell us!
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:32 AM | Comments (3) | Permalink
December 3, 2008
Selecting Corn Hybrids May Be Easier Than You Think, If You Have A Logical Method.
Have you ordered all of your seed corn yet? Some farmers had it booked in August, when the district seed manager said supplies would be low of “the hot new hybrid,” regardless if that new hybrid appropriate for that farm. Other farmers reordered their best yielding hybrid from 2008, hoping for a repeat on 2008 weather and similar yields. And others awaited yield trial data that indicates all of the moles and warts to avoid. If your 2009 seed corn is not yet set in stone, here is how to pick a winner….
Your seed selection today will have a great impact on your revenue a year from now. Agronomist Peter Thomison at Ohio State University says the continuous improvement in genetics has added 0.7% to 2.6% annual increases in corn yield, and he says if you want to compete with your neighbors (increasing profitability and building equity) then new hybrids must be integrated into your operation regularly.
In the Dec. 1 C.O.R.N. newsletter Thomison says pick hybrids that are suited to your farming operation. That includes your soil type, tillage practice, neighborhood pests, and whether you need such things as early vigor, quick drydown, or suitability for silage. All of those issues should be determined before you look at potential candidates for planting, then work through the selection process, step by step.
Step 1. Maturity rating is of foremost importance. How far north or south are you in the Cornbelt, and what is the maximum growing season length that can be reasonably expected? Thomison says your corn should reach the black layer stage 1-2 weeks before the average date for the first killing frost. Look at the growing degree day requirements (which were probably not met in 2008) and determine whether you want field drydown or whether you want to pay for propane. Thomison says it is interesting to note that, “the average yields of hybrids entries in the early maturity test were similar to those in the late maturity test but that the average grain moisture of hybrid entries in the early test was 1.5% to 3.5% lower than those in the full season test.” (at OSU).
Step 2. Yield is the next test, and that does not mean the top yield on your farm this year, but the best yield over a wide range of locations, all of which provided a different performance challenge. Thomison says just because it is a triple or quad stack of anti-pest traits does not equal the best yield, “Just as was the case for conventional (non-traited) hybrids in the past, there is considerable variation in yield potential for hybrids with transgenic traits.” He says the OSU tests discovered that traited hybrids produced both the highest and lowest yields, and several non-GMO hybrids produced parallel yields. But he says where rootworms and corn borers are expected to be a problem; the Bt traits may mitigate the impact of the stress.
Step 3. Standability is next on the check list, and should be an important characteristic if soils are prone to stalk rots, or if the corn will have to dry on its own next fall. 2008 fall weather cannot be anticipated every year, but hybrids that were standing at harvest time in Indiana and Ohio this year will have high ratings for standability. Thomison says hybrids with good standability will included resistance to stalk rots and leaf blights; they will probably be shorter height, and will have a high potential for the stalk to stay green longer.
Step 4. Fungal and disease resistance are next in importance. The ability to resist stalk rots, ear rots, blights, and other foliar diseases will be reported on the yield performance data. Many seed dealers will have local information about past problems in the region that certain hybrids are or are not prone to suffer from. Data for only one or two years may be the most that is available, since hybrids are rotated out of the inventory rather quickly and new hybrids do not have a proven history.
Cornbelt farmers can use the Extension data provided by Land Grant University researchers throughout the region. Links to state information are available here.
Summary:
Your choice of a corn hybrid for 2009 will determine your income, so a methodical approach should be taken to select seed that is most appropriate for your farm and its environmental conditions. Develop a checklist of attributes, then prioritize them by maturity rating, yield, standability, and disease resistance. A great impact on performance will be weather conditions, but this year’s top yielding hybrids may not perform well if 2009 weather is different, which it will likely be.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:55 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
December 2, 2008
How Serious Is Your SCN Problem? Or Do You Know?
Do you have a plan to manage your problems with Soybean Cyst Nematode? Or is that an EGO (eyes glaze over) issue with you, since it is a common topic in every farm magazine and on every winter meeting agenda? Before you read that magazine issue or attend the winter agronomy seminar, put your plan in action. You know where it begins, and we begin there today.
Your SCN management plan begins with a soil sample to determine the extent of your problem. And before the soil freezes, walk your fields and obtain your samples. Greg Tylka at Iowa State University says, “The key to profitable long-term soybean production in SCN-infested fields is to prevent SCN population densities (numbers) from increasing.” He is concerned about the future because the primary soybean gene responsible for resistance, and bred into numerous varieties, is showing weakness in being able to resist the SCN impact. That means more SCN populations in more fields around the Cornbelt, and subsequent reductions in soybean yields.
Tylka says your soybean field could have a 30% yield loss from SCN before soybeans are noticeably stressed. If there is adequate or excess moisture, SCN will probably not be a concern to many producers, but in a drought year, the stress level rises and the yield declines.
The areas of a field to focus samples should be in a “high risk” area. He defines those as “the area near the field entryway (where soil from other fields may be introduced), along fence lines (where wind-blown soil from other fields may accumulate), in low spots and areas that have flooded (and had soil introduced from other fields), and in areas of the field where soil pH is 7.0 or greater. Low-yielding areas of the field and areas where weed infestations are difficult to control are other places where SCN are highly likely to be found.” When sampling high risk sectors, at least 5-10 cores should be collected from each area, to assure that SCN cysts or eggs are not missed.
While sampling high risk areas is important, sampling throughout the general field is also important, but when combining cores into a composite sample, use cores from no more than 20 acres. In other words, an 80 acre field would be divided into four 20 acre sections, and four composite samples would be sent to a lab for testing from that 80 acre field.
Tylka’s suggestion is to compare soil samples from this year against soil sample results from years past. If you don’t have that information, development of a management plan to take a soil test for SCN every third or fourth soybean crop would be the place to start. One of the issues involved is knowing where the soil was sampled, so development of a map is a key step. And he says keep a similar process of collecting samples:
1) Take the sample at the same time of year
2) More samples in a smaller area gives more accurate data
3) Take the sample in the top 8 inches of the soil
4) Samples taken in soybean stubble should be taken in the soybean row.
5) Samples can be taken in the row of a non-host crop, but best taken after tillage.
6) Sampling a 10-20 acre field requires 15-20 cores in a zigzag pattern.
7) Take 1-2 cores from every grid cell, and combine with others over 20 acres.
Analysis depends on how the test results are given, whether eggs, juveniles, or cysts and the volume of the soil tested. Distill similar results from a prior year to prevent an apples and oranges comparison.
Summary:
Soybean cyst nematode continues to diminish yields, usually without being noticeable, and for many farmers, what is out of sight is out of mind. But SCN populations that are on the increase will show up primarily in years of less rainfall, and this is all happening at a time when the primary soybean resistance genes are losing their some of their effectiveness. Soil tests for SCN are high recommended in the fall, so seed with resistance can be purchased, to reduce the populations.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:34 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
November 24, 2008
Soybean Profitability: Evaluating Different Seed And Herbicide Technology Costs
Corn production costs exceed the prices being offered by the market, and they continue to fade. You have applied anhydrous ammonia to some of your corn acreage for next year, but not all of it and you are beginning to wonder if soybeans may offer more profitability than corn. Should you increase your expected bean acres? Should you upgrade your soybean management program?
If fertilizer and energy costs are consuming a large part of your corn production budget, and soybeans offer a reasonable profit alternative, it may be time to focus on some of the new technology available in soybeans and how to fit the puzzle pieces together. With the help of weed specialist Mark Loux at Ohio State, we’ll brush up on soybean seed and herbicide alternatives and costs in the Nov. 18 C.O.R.N. newsletter. And Loux says it is time well spent in evaluating the costs of the four soybean and herbicide systems available to you in 2009.
Your first consideration is seed cost. With the industry trending toward selling a 140,000 seed unit, instead of a 50# bag of seed beans, the comparisons will be made on that quantity of seed, and a 200,000 per acre seeding rate. Loux says prices will vary along with seeding rate, so adjust your budget if your seeding rate is more or less.
• Non-GMO seed will average $24 per bag and $34 per acre.
• Liberty Link seed will average $34 per bag and $49 per acre.
• Roundup Ready seed will average $37 per bag and $53 per acre.
• Roundup Ready 2Y seed will average $55 per bag and $78 per acre.
Regardless of your seed and herbicide system, Loux is using a pre-plant program that is common for all. It includes either glyphosate or paraquat burndown, 2,4-D ester, and a residual herbicide. His calculated cost is $34.25 for non-GMO beans (residual herbicide rates for non-GMO beans are higher), and $31.25 for the others which includes application costs.
The post emergent herbicide program will vary for each system:
1. Non-GMO: broadleaf and grass control plus MSO plus AMS in first application ($36.75), followed by a second application of a broadleaf control with COC for total of $57.75/Acre.
2. Liberty Link: herbicide with AMS in first and second applications for total of $33.50/Acre.
3. Roundup Ready: herbicide plus AMS in first and second applications for total of $38.50/Acre.
4. Roundup Ready 2Y: herbicide plus AMS in first and second applications for total of $38.50/Acre.
Loux makes assumptions that yields are 50 bushels per acre, and soybean prices are $9 per bushel, except for a $10.40 premium price for non-GMO beans. Based on those calculations, gross revenue will be $450 per acre, except the non-GMO beans will gross $520.
If all other production costs are equal, including fertility, machinery, labor, fuel, then the only variable expenses for the four different systems would be the seed and herbicide costs. For non-GMO beans with a $520 gross, net revenue is $415 with one post emergent application and $394 with two. The least profitable system is the RoundupReady 2 Yield beans with a $450 gross and a $319 net for one post emergent application and $302 for two applications. Yield variations would certainly mean different revenue projections.
Loux says weed management is more difficult in non-GMO beans, and they should not be planted in the weediest fields. A glyphosate system may provide more ease of control. Weeds with glyphosate resistance may require a heavier application than proposed in this example.
Summary:
If you are concerned about profitability in 2009, one focus might be on different soybean systems with newer technologies. However, seed costs can become significant, offsetting lower herbicide costs. Producers should look at the net revenue per acre from the different systems, just as they evaluate different revenue per acre from either corn or soybeans.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:18 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
October 29, 2008
P & K: Can You Save Money Without Them Or Will You Hurt Yields?
Have you noticed the price of nitrogen coming down? Possibly. Have you noticed the price of phosphorus and potassium coming down? Probably not. Global demand and currency exchange rates are the primary dynamics in the fertilizer market, and if you have to apply P & K this fall or next spring, you will be judicious in writing a check to your fertilizer dealer.
Some of your neighbors may have said they are not going to apply any fertilizer and save the money. You may have a similar attitude, or are still undecided. If so, let’s take a quick glance at some alternatives.
Agronomists Jim Camberato and Brad Joern at Purdue suggest your decision about 2009 fertilizer application may best be made with the help of a soil test. In their recent fact sheet they suggest, “Using soil test results, P and K can be allocated to fields and portions of fields where crops are most likely to respond to fertilizer applications and omitted from areas where soil test P and K levels are already sufficient for supporting optimum crop yields.” In other words, put it where you need it and forget it where you don’t need it.
Below a critical level on a soil test, there is a good chance of getting a yield response to a P & K application. For P that level is 30 lbs per acre for corn and soybeans, and 50 lbs per acre for wheat and alfalfa. For K that level depends on the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil.
Above a certain level on a soil test, there is a good chance of not getting much of a yield response, and that is the maintenance limit. For P the required maintenance level is the amount of phosphate removed by the crop. For K the required maintenance level is the amount of potash removed by the crop, plus an additional 20 lbs per acre that may leach out or be locked in soil and unavailable for the crop.
The Purdue agronomists recommend keeping your fields at the maintenance level or slightly above, but say higher applications are not required to support optimum yields. If your soil test indicates high levels of P & K, then additions can be eliminated for at least a couple years to offset the current high prices.
So what if you skip an application for the 2009 crop? How fast will P & K levels drop? The fertility specialists say P levels decrease 2 lb. per acre for each 20 lbs. of phosphate removed by the crop. Changes in K levels are determined by the CEC. High CEC soils change more slowly than low CEC soils. You can also estimate the speed of nutrient depletion based on the crop yield.
• 0.37 lbs of phosphate is removed per bushel of corn.
• 0.27 lbs of potash is removed per bushel of corn.
• 0.80 lbs of phosphate is removed per bushel of soybeans.
• 1.40 lbs of potash is removed per bushel of soybeans.
Camberato and Joern agree with some farmers than now is a great time to save on fertilizer costs, if soil tests are above maintenance levels and not needed to support optimum yields. They say if your soil is testing between the critical and maintenance levels, P & K are needed, but apply only the amount that would be needed to reach optimum yield levels. A lack of application may not decrease yields in 2009, but a deferral will only work to your advantage if P & K prices fall ahead of the 2010 crop. If your soil test indicates nutrient levels are under the critical level, then the loss of yield is a greater value than the cost of the fertilizer.
Summary:
Yes, it may be possible to defer a P & K application this year to save on operating costs, but only if current levels are in the maintenance territory on a soil test. Without a soil test it will be impossible to know if the lack of an application is saving money or allowing the crop to produce a yield of less than optimum levels.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:54 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
October 27, 2008
I May Have Moldy Corn. Now What?
It was too wet. It was too cold. It was too dry. Then Hurricane Ike washed through droughty corn. Delayed maturity threw drydown schedules in the garbage. Despite the fact that some farmers forward contracted corn for nearly $8 per bushel, the quality of the crop may result in dockage that will not allow settlement prices anywhere near those historic marks. The challenge du jour will be to identify the problems, manage them, and understand why crop quality deteriorated this year.
Many farmers have reported molds in their corn fields. If you have it, you are not alone, but it needs to be identified before it can be managed in on-farm storage. If you take it to the elevator, don’t be surprised if it is found in the moisture sample.
Iowa State agronomist Roger Elmore, plant pathologist Alison Robertson, and grain quality specialist Charles Hurburgh look at the mold problem in a new fact sheet on quality issues.
The specialists say the cool, wet fall favored the development of fusarium, which will form a white or pink mold on moist corn. Their production of toxins, including vomitoxin, zearalenone, and fumonisin, can create serious health issues for humans and livestock. While corn harvest is continuing to move rapidly, their recommendation is to harvest moldy corn first, to halt production of the mycotoxins and dry the corn as soon as possible.
Diplodia ear rot has been common as well, but while it will not produce mycotoxins, it will rapidly deteriorate the quality of the grain if left in the field longer than necessary.
For infected corn, dry to a moisture level under 15%, and cool to a temperature less than 45 degrees, which should curtail mold growth and mycotoxin development. If you have mold-damaged corn, do not plan to hold it beyond the winter.
It may be tempting to blend moldy grain with high quality grain, but that will only cause the mold to infect a larger quantity. Even harvesting should be arranged to avoid moldy corn, which could be found around ponded areas or in parts of the field where corn plants were more immature, or on the ground. Samples should be left in the field for crop insurance adjustors to examine.
Before feeding moldy corn to livestock, beware they will be sensitive to the toxins, which could be fatal, and in the case of dairy cows, their milk will carry the toxins. If the moldy corn is sent to an ethanol refinery, the DDGS will have a toxin content 3-4 times that of the original corn. For more information on handling moldy corn and what can be done with it, consult Iowa State’s publication about aflatoxins in corn.
For corn that escaped molds in the field, measures should be taken once it is in storage to prevent mold growth and the future development of mycotoxins. Hurburgh and Elmore’s fact sheet on grain storage management acknowledges that more wet corn will be held this year because of the expense of drying. They recommend weekly checks to see if the temperature of the grain is rising. They also say wet corn should have twice the amount of air moving through it as dry corn.
If you have more wet corn than drying capacity, the specialists recommend drying to 17-18% moisture and cool in the storage bin, which will result in 16% moisture corn. Or the corn can be dried to 20% moisture, cooled in the bin, but it should not be held into the spring. Another recommendation is to remove the center core, where fines build up and increase the potential for mold growth.
The Iowa State specialists also report in a new fact sheet on test weight and moisture that the lack of good drying weather in late October may mean the corn will naturally dry to no more than 17-18%. They expect the high cost of energy will cause many farmers to hold corn at higher moistures over the winter, hoping for better drying opportunities in the spring.
Another problem is a lower test weight which results from a long, cool growing season with high grain moisture. The lower test weight means less protein and more starch. Food processors will be impacted and may impose a dock. Ethanol refiners will not be affected by the lower test weight, unless they are guaranteeing the quality of the DDGS they produce.
Your planting date and hybrid selection may also impact the test weight, say the specialists, “Early planting dates, higher N rates or less N loss, lower plant populations, and years with better growing conditions all contribute to higher test weights. Loss of N from extreme rainfall may be a contributing factor to lower test weight this year.” They add that low test weight corn should not be stored into warm weather and should be dried below 15% moisture.
Summary:
A challenging year to grow corn has also resulted in a crop with quality challenges. There have been numerous reports of mold, which not only produce mycotoxins that jeopardize livestock feeding, but also jeopardize its storability past the winter months. Corn with mold should be dried and cooled to levels below normal, should be checked for toxins, and should not be kept into the spring when outside air temperatures rise. The 2008 growing season has also created conditions to promote low test weight on corn, which means its content has more starch and less protein.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:25 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
October 15, 2008
Taking A Glimpse At The Future Of Fertilizer
Corn just isn’t corn without a good shot of nitrogen, primarily in the form of anhydrous ammonia. But high costs of nitrogen that mandate the need for efficient use, as well as the prospect for stronger environmental regulations, may give a jumpstart to looking at alternative forms of nitrogen application on corn, sorghum, and wheat.
Earlier this year you may have been forced to buy or commit to anhydrous ammonia for the 2009 corn crop. As the dollar fell in value, the price of nitrogen climbed. Now, with the dollar increasing in strength, the price of nitrogen is falling. Regardless of where you may have locked in a price, you probably are going to apply it with the greatest efficiency possible. It is sort of like spreading gold dust across your fields.
Agronomists and fertility specialists at the University of Missouri and University of Wisconsin have been testing increased efficiency fertilizers, to determine productivity, profitability, crop quality and environmental impacts across the Cornbelt. Their focus was on the management of the new technology offered by polymer-coated urea (PCU). The polymer coating will degrade at varying rates once spread on the ground and exposed to the elements. The supply or release of fertilizer coordinated with plant demand should optimize fertilizer-use efficiency. (Details)
The researchers found average yields from research in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin for anhydrous ammonia and urea plus a nitrification inhibitor was similar to the PCU controlled release fertilizer. Corn yields ranged from -12 to +22 bushels per acre comparing anhydrous ammonia with PCU. Other tests ranged from -16 to +9 bushels per acre comparing urea plus an inhibitor with the PCU. The researchers reported, “Variability in response to enhanced-efficiency fertilizer sources has been related to rainfall timing following fertilizer application, rainfall amounts, rainfall frequency, fertilizer incorporation, and soil texture.” Corn yields increased 13 bushels per acre if the PCU was incorporated.
Urea management on no-till fields can be difficult due to the volatilization loss. However, when the urea was coated with the polymer and knife injected, yields were comparable, even with heavy rains that would have limited the volatilization loss.
Included in some of the other findings about polymer coated urea (PCU):
1) Fall applications of PCU and anhydrous yielded 17 and 20 bu/acre greater than urea, respectively; while fall applied PCU yielded 11 bu/acre greater than urea in northern Iowa.
2) No difference among N sources was detected when urea, PCU, and anhydrous were applied pre-plant.
3) Deep placement of fall applied PCU increased yield 16 bu/acre more than deep banded urea, 28 bu/acre greater than broadcast applied PCU, and 8 bu/acre greater than ammonia plus N-serve in 2005.
At the bottom line is the fact a polymer coated urea will be more costly than conventional fertilizers, however some Conservation Security Programs within NRCS may provide some funding to offset costs. EQIP and CSP programs could provide $7-10 per acre for using an efficiency product such as PCU. Retailers may have only limited supplies due to costs and storage issues, however, the methamphetamine problems with anhydrous ammonia may restrict its handling. Polymer coated fertilizers have a consistent analysis and a decreased need and time for sidedressing efforts.
Summary:
Increased costs of nitrogen as well as need for better management of nutrients may increase the potential for using polymer coated urea as an alternative. Consistent in quality and more benign on the soil surface because of its coating, PCU has been shown to produce equivalent yields in corn that had been treated with anhydrous ammonia. PCU is going to be more expensive because of the added manufacturing, however its application efficiency and potential to draw NRCS cost-share funds, may result in greater acceptance.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:39 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
October 9, 2008
Will Your Crops Still Be Immature When Frost Comes?
Despite the calendar, freezing temperatures have generally stayed well north of the Cornbelt. However, crop-killing temperatures are now in the western sections of the Dakotas, and expected into Nebraska beginning this weekend. While weather services do not indicate colder than normal temperatures for the next two weeks, farmers with immature crops may want to determine whether they will be put in a bin or silo.
Late planted corn, either fields or ponds, may still be in the milk stage and far from maturity. Iowa State agronomists Stephen Barnhart and Roger Elmore suggest that farmers determine how their corn crop will develop by normal frost time. Even if it is harvested wet and has to be dried, it will be more valuable as grain than as silage. If the crop is to be harvested as silage, the optimum harvest time will be several days before plant maturity when nutrients are at their peak. So the key is to know just how mature the crop is.
1) The milk line moves from the dent to the point of the kernel, and when it reaches that point, the black layer forms indicating no further kernel development and the start of drydown.
2) When the milk line has traveled two-thirds of its route, the corn plant has the highest value as silage, in terms of moisture, total digestible nutrients, and dry matter yield.
3) If frost occurs during the target milk line period, whole plant moisture content should be appropriate for ensiling.
4) If there is too much milk in the kernel when chopped for silage, moisture will be too high and fermentation will be incomplete. The Iowa State specialists recommend having a lab test the moisture in a sample of immature corn.
Soybeans can similarly be harvested as silage, if frost kills the plant and the beans fail to mature normally. Iowa State agronomists Stephen Barnhart and Palle Pederson say soybeans should be in the R-5 stage or later by now, but if only at R-5, a killing frost will reduce the yield by 75% and cause quality problems that will result in substantial dockage if harvested as grain. Beans must reach an R-6 stage to escape that problem, but are not really mature until R-7 when pods at the top of the plant are brown and pods are multicolored through the rest of the bean plant.
The agronomists say the decision to harvest as grain or forage is if the transition has been made from R-5 to R-6. If the shift has not been made, then the R-5 bean plant is better off as silage. They say at that stage the plant is similar in feed value to alfalfa or red clover. The leaves and pods will be digestible, but the stem will be less digestible. Beyond the R-6 stage, leaf value will be lost.
If the soybeans are being treated as dry hay, the stems will take longer to dry; and leaves will become brittle and be lost in the field. A conditioner can help with the drying, but a flail conditioner will create more leaf loss. Frost will cause leaves to die and drop quickly. If the beans are baled, inside storage is recommended because there will be high nutrient content lost outside.
If the beans are harvested as silage, the target moisture content is 60-65%, so drying time has to be carefully monitored. Dry soybeans will be difficult to pack, and wet soybeans will undergo abnormal fermentation. And the agronomists warn that before soybeans are used for forage, herbicide labels should be checked to determine the appropriate feeding limitations.
Summary:
Late maturing crops may soon clash with frost, leaving decisions on whether to harvest corn and soybeans as grain or as silage. The decision on corn is the maturity of the kernel, and if mature, it can be dried in bins. If the corn is still immature and milky, then the plant may have optimum nutrient content for silage. Soybeans can also be ensiled, or baled as hay, depending on whether the bean plant has made the transition from the R-5 to R-6 stage.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:05 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
October 6, 2008
How Are You Spending Your Fertilizer Dollar?
Before you make that final decision on what to do about your fertility program this fall, let’s talk fertilizer one more time. Yes, the price is high. Yes, the price will go higher. Although you think you have made your final decision, that final decision needs to be based on all possible information from credible sources. So, let’s talk fertilizer one more time.
Some of this information may be repetitive. Some may be old news. But if there is one thing that is mentioned that may help you improve your fertility management program or improve your profitability, then a quick review had some value.
Visit with your dealer to find out why fertilizer prices are the way they are. You will hear about global demand, loss of retail marketing channels, and new financial structures for fertilizer suppliers.
A simple soil test can save money by identifying un-needed nutrients, as well as increase profits by identifying nutrients that need boosting. Here is a guide to soil testing.
If your soil test indicates the need for P & K, Extension fertility specialists John Sawyer and Antonio Mallarino at Iowa State say to apply P & K where the chance of yield increase is large and the yield increase will at least pay for the applied nutrient. If the soil tests show P & K are in the high to very high category, then enough may be “banked” that can be used next season. Withholding fertilizer may be an option you are considering, however the Extension Specialists say a soil test is the only way to know if that will work.
Apply the nutrient needs for both corn and soybeans prior to planting 2009 corn, unless rates for nutrients will drop prior to the planting of 2010 soybeans. A major reason is to keep the cost of application as low as can be.
Limestone will keep pH in balance and ensure your other nutrients will perform at optimum levels. Your soil pH should be at 6.5, and keep in mind that soybeans are more sensitive to soil acidity than corn, but in continuous corn, constant applications of N will increase soil acidity.
Sawyer and Mallarino also provide nitrogen recommendations and say there are not many opportunities to eliminate N when prices are high. They mention the use of manure and say there is not enough to go around for everyone. “If N fertilizer is in short supply or purchases have to be limited, it is better to apply some N to all fields than to skip fields (other than corn after alfalfa) as the largest yield gains come from the first increments of applied N.”
The corn nitrogen rate calculator will help you compare specific prices of corn and the specific price of anhydrous ammonia. The rates are the same regardless of when it is applied, and will provide a maximum return to nitrogen. The Iowa State fertility researchers say “Typically best efficiency is obtained with spring or split spring/sidedress application. Having plant-available N in the root zone is important for good early corn growth, and especially for corn following corn.
To retain nitrogen in the soil where it will be available to the 2009 crop, Extension fertility specialist Fabian Fernandez at the University of Illinois recommends the use of a nitrification inhibitor if the soil temperature exceeds 50 degrees Fahrenheit. “To avoid volatilization losses during application, make sure the soil is neither too wet nor too dry to secure adequate closure of the soil behind the applicator knife. Also, it is important to apply at the proper depth; for fine-textured soils, 6 to 8 inches is sufficient to keep NH3 gas from escaping the soil.”
If you have many stalks in the field from continuous corn operations, Fernandez says there is no great benefit for fall application of nitrogen to increase microbial activity against cellulose-laden residue.
With high prices, Fernandez says it is critical to have every pound of fertilizer going to corn yield, and he agrees with his Iowa State colleagues that spring side dress applications are more effective than fall because of the potential loss over the winter.
Summary:
High prices for fertilizer have challenged crop profitability, but it is almost impossible to grow high yielding corn without a good fertility program. To increase the efficiency of your fertilizer dollar, a soil test will indicate whether nutrients are needed or can be banked for a future year. Lime will keep pH in balance, and may be needed behind continuous corn, because of the high acidity rates left by nitrogen. When applying fall nitrogen, observe all of the recommendations about soil temperatures and the use of a nitrification inhibitor.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:20 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
October 2, 2008
Do You Know What Is Lurking In The Depths Of Your Cornfield?
This “Goldilocks” of a growing season, where it was too wet, too dry, too cold, too hot, and not “just right” really anywhere, many farmers will find further evidence in the form of ear and stalk rots in their corn. If you had an unusual growing season there is an increased chance of some type of fungus that really liked the environment in your field.
The presence of ear rots means the potential for mycotoxins that may produce fumonisin or aflatoxin which will have limited use in the market place and can cause problems that could create liability issues. Not wanting that, your need is to scout cornfields to see if there are fungal issues that can be isolated. Extension specialists have reported a significant number of incidents of ear and stalk rots, and Cornbelt farmers should take a serious look at their fields.
Plant pathologist Alison Robertson at Iowa State University suggests stripping back the husks on at least 100 plants scattered through each corn field. She says, “If more than 10% of the ears have significant mold that is greater than 25% of the ear, the corn should be harvested in a timely manner and dried to below 15% moisture as quickly as possible to prevent further mold growth and, in some cases, mycotoxin accumulation.” Her fact sheet on ear rots says it is important to recognize ear rots, but also keep in mind that the presence of a fungus on an ear of corn may or may not mean that mycotoxins are present, but if they are, they can be managed.
Plant pathologist Laura Sweets at the University of Missouri says little can be done to protect corn from being infected with fungi. In her fact sheet, she also stresses management of the grain, “Adjust harvest equipment for minimum kernel damage and maximum cleaning. Before storing grain, clean bins thoroughly to remove dirt, dust and any grain left in or around bins. Thoroughly clean grain going into storage to remove chaff, other foreign material and cracked or broken kernels. Dry grain to 15% moisture as quickly as possible and monitor grain on a regular basis throughout storage life to insure moisture and temperature are maintained at correct levels. Protect grain from insects.”
Robertson at Iowa State says do not store moldy grain, but sell it, or feed it after testing for mycotoxins. A qualified laboratory can test the grain to determine if a mycotoxin is present, how much is present, and that will help you and a veterinarian determine whether and how much can be fed to livestock. Keep in mind also that different species and different ages of animals have different degrees of sensitivity to mycotoxins. What cannot be fed to dairy cattle, may be a candidate for a feedlot. Sweets says mycotoxins can remain in the grain long after the mold has died.
Fusarium: white to pink cottony mold, can produce fumonisin
Diplodia: dense white mold, does not produce mycotoxins. Diplodia ear rot is favored
by wet weather just after silking and is more severe when corn is planted following corn.
Gibberella: white to pink mold, can produce vomitoxin
Cladosporium: gray to black or dark green mold
Aspergillus: gray, green powdery mold, can produce aflatoxin
Penicillium: clumps of blue-green mold that have invaded the kernel. Also called blue-eye mold since it has discolored the embryo.
Robertson says stalk rots should also be assessed this year by checking at least 100 plants throughout a field. If more than 15% are rotted, schedule that field for the earliest possible harvest to reduce problems from lodging.
In her stalk rot fact sheet, Sweets says many types of stress may have initiated the problem and allowed the fungus to enter. Management of the problem begins with selection of hybrids have that have good stalk strength and are not prone to lodging. Other factors that can cause stalk rot issues are population density, improper fertility, and stress during pollination and grain fill.
Summary:
If you have a fungal problem in your corn fields that has deteriorated stalk integrity and caused ear rots, you are not alone. Multiple fungi are being reported throughout the Cornbelt, some capable of causing mycotoxins that can reduce the value of the corn because of toxicity to livestock. Nothing can be done for the grain at this time, other than to harvest it as quickly as possible to retard fungal growth. If problems are detected, have the grain checked by a laboratory to determine what can be done with it, if it cannot be stored or fed to livestock.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:09 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
September 25, 2008
Will You Be Harvesting Wet Corn?
USDA’s Monday afternoon crop progress report indicated 5% of US corn had been harvested compared to 20% last year and 14% for the five year average. Additionally, only 33% of the US corn crop was mature as of Sept. 21, compared to 76% last year and 63% for the five year average. While the crop is still laboring to get to the black layer point of maturity, frost threats are being made for the upper reaches of the Cornbelt where corn maturity is only in the teens in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. That will force many farmers to push harvest faster than they would like, and that means extra headaches in harvesting and storing an immature and wet crop.
For some farmers the only choice will be silage. In the northern tier of the Cornbelt substantial acreage has yet to dent; and Ken Hellevang, ag engineer at North Dakota State University says, “Yield potential for corn frozen during the milk stage is low. Ears are difficult to pick and shell, kernel tips may stay on the cobs and grain will be very chaffy.” And he adds, green chopping and ensiling may be the only reasonable options. Hellevang’s Tips for Harvesting Late-Maturing Corn offers numerous checklist items for farmers whose late corn is still green in the wake of cold temperatures.
Silage:
• Harvest at 60% to 70% moisture with cut length about one-half inch.
• Store in a bunker or horizontal silo with a crowned center and slope of 1:6 or 1:8 and covered with 6 mil. plastic. If the temperature reaches 120 degrees after four days, too much air is getting under the plastic.
Field drying:
• If corn is frozen in the dough stage, test weights will be in the 40 lb. range, and although it will eventually dry, Hellevang says field drying will take an additional week.
• Frozen wet corn is more susceptible to molds if the frost is followed by warm weather, and mold growth will only stop with ensiling the corn or drying it in a bin.
• Even a warm day with a breeze will not take out more than three-quarters of a point of moisture from mature corn per day. As temperatures cool, drying rates slow.
High moisture corn:
• If using silos or bags where outside air is excluded, corn should be 25% to 30% moisture, and any air gaps should be sealed to prevent storage loss.
• If wet grain is placed in silos, it will exert more pressure on the walls, so additional support will be needed, and the silo must not be completely filled.
Bin drying:
• Natural drying in the field should be allowed for as long as possible, but as weather gets colder and drying rates diminish, then field losses will increase.
• Corn over 21% moisture should not be dried with only natural air and low temperature to minimize spoilage. Hellevang recommends adding heat to reduce the moisture content and an airflow rate of 1.25 cubic feet per minute per bushel to reduce drying time.
• Shelled corn can be stored up to 25% moisture if aeration is used and temperatures are below 30 degrees.
• Grain dryers will be used long and hard and should be in good working condition before turning them on for the first time.
• The maximum allowable drying temperature should be used to increase its capacity and attain energy efficiency. High temperature drying will reduce test weight and increase susceptibility for breakage.
Dryeration:
• Dryeration will increase dryer capacity by 50% to 75%, reduce energy use by 25%, and can remove 2% or more moisture.
• Dryeration requires close monitoring, and is labor intensive with required transfers from bin to bin.
Drying costs
• Save on energy costs and corn quality by using the maximum drying temperature of 200 degrees, which will remove water with less energy than lower temperature.
• At $2 propane, you will spend about $53 to remove 10 percentage points of moisture from 120 bushels of corn.
• For corn at 56 pound test weight, drying it from 25% to 15% moisture will remove 7.5 pounds of water.
Moisture measurement
• Shrink is a factor that will need to be calculated, and is a 1.1834 % in weight decrease for each percent of moisture removed.
• Moisture meters will not provide a good reading on corn coming from a high temperature dryer because of the heat and may give a readying 2% lower than true.
• To get a true moisture reading, cool the sample to room temperature before taking the reading.
• Corn test weight rises about one-quarter pound for each point of moisture removed during high temperature drying, but there will be little increase on immature or frost damaged corn.
Kernel damage
• With aggressive shelling, more fines will be produced from kernel cracking and the presence of immature corn.
• Fines will spoil faster and cause more storage problems, particularly as they pile up in the center core of a bin.
Summary:
The potential for a late harvest because of immature corn will create harvest, drying, and storage problems for many farmers. Because there has been favorable fall weather the past several years, refresh yourself on combine settings for high moisture corn, along with extra preparation for having to dry a large crop. Kernels may be damaged in the process, and extra expense will be incurred because of the additional energy needs.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:57 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
September 22, 2008
Wheat: Will It Be A Profitable Crop This Year?
Wheat prices were in the mid-teens earlier this year, but the bloom has certainly faded, and they are now less than half of that price. But as plans are made to plant winter wheat, what are your plans for profitability? Profits were quite available when wheat was at $15, but is $7 wheat a crop that will provide positive revenue or will be you be in the red?
Domestic and global wheat production had been challenged the past several years, and with increased demand for wheat flour, plus demand for acreage to plant corn and soybeans, wheat prices naturally worked higher. Economists Alan May, Jack Davis, and Matthew Diersen of South Dakota State University examine wheat production and profitability in their latest newsletter. They say consumption outpaced production in 2007, leading to a small carryover into 2008 that gave rise to the historic price climb. With increased acreage and yield produced in the US this year, production surpassed 2007 by 19%. USDA’s latest estimates are for the carryout to grow from a 30 year low to a healthy 574 million bushels. While that carryover is comparable to the surplus stocks in 2003 to 2005, prices were then in the $3 to $4 range, compared to current prices at $6.50+.
Price uncertainty, combined with market volatility, will face producers as they buy seed, fertilizer, crop protectants, and pay rising cash rent. The South Dakota economists say despite larger wheat supplies, those supplies will be tight enough to support prices above $6 for the balance of this year. Beyond that time frame, prices will be influenced by US planted acreage and global production expected in 2009. With the slowdown in world economic growth dampening demand and a higher dollar curtailing some exports, the economists believe we may be at a turning point for longer term price pressure in 2009. That means production costs need to be under control and a marketing plan should be implemented along with a revenue insurance package.
The South Dakota team is forecasting an $18 per acre drop in the return to labor and management compared to 2008. Total production costs are expected to rise from $217 in 2008 to $309 next year, with 70% of the increase due to fertilizer price. Consequently, they are recommending soil tests to determine fertilizer needs more accurately. Based on a 50 bu. yield and a $7.50 market price, gross revenue would be $375 per acre. With production costs estimated at $309, they project a return to labor and management of $65.85 per acre.
To protect that revenue, crop insurance is recommended and the sign-up deadline for many producers is the end of the month. The South Dakota economists report preferences for CRC and RA policies were about evenly split. However, price movement limitations by CRC policies may have caught some producers without adequate coverage on forward contracts last year. For 2009, there is a cap being placed on Revenue Assurance policies, so both RA and CRC will be capped at double the base price. That means there could still be hedging losses for producers even with the revenue insurance contracts.
The economists recommend addressing the issue with a “covered sale.” That begins with a cash contract or a hedge, then buying a well out of the money call option, just below the upper level of the potential revenue insurance indemnity coverage. That call option should be obtained at a minimal premium price, and would give the owner of the option additional price coverage should the market climb higher. The value of the option would increase and its sale would add revenue to the selling price for the wheat.
Summary:
Wheat prices have dropped more than 50% from the higher values seen for the 2008 crop, and with higher production costs, producers growing winter wheat will have some serious budget challenges to ensure profitability. Among the recommendations are soil tests to more accurately determine fertilizer needs and the use of revenue insurance and a synthetic put option to manage price risk.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:53 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
September 8, 2008
Do You Need To Save Money On Fertilizer in 2009?
What will you have to pay for fertilizer for your 2009 crop? It may be close to $1,000 per ton for nitrogen, if not more. You may have already had to pre-pay, just to get on the list. If you have not discussed fertilizer with you supplier, take a dose of calm-down medicine before you make that call, because it won’t be pretty. Some folks are seriously considering skipping fertilizer next year to save on input costs. The best prescription is rational thinking, and that’s what you’ll get today.
Prioritize your fertilizer application says Extension fertility specialist Fabian Fernandez at the University of Illinois. “When considering the nutritional needs of a crop, the goal should be to obtain the greatest return on investment by focusing on inputs that will result in the greatest profit.” At a time of high prices, not every input can be maximized, so Fernandez says the weakest link in the chain determines your course of action. For example, adding more P will not help if the crop yield is limited by K. And to find out where that weak link is, he highly recommends soil testing and the use of the corn N rate calculator. Fernandez also stresses the need for a balanced soil pH, since nutrients perform best in that situation. And he says if fertility issues are overwhelming; determine which of your crop alternatives would do best in that field given the soil test.
Consider the 2008 growing season says Fernandez to determine what nutrients you have left and plan to use what is available. With some lower yields, fewer nutrients were removed by the crop. But with all of the rain nitrogen will probably not be one of those left over for next year. Fernandez recommends that with the variability in yields in a field, and the variability of left over nutrients, one of the efficiencies for 2009 may be variable rate application. He says watch your yield monitor, and with its maps you can calculate the potential variations.
1) Corn removes .43 lbs of phosphate and .28 lbs of potash per bushel of yield.
2) Soybeans remove .85 lbs of phosphate and 1.3 lbs of potash per bushel of yield.
Soil sampling was mentioned earlier and Fernandez wants you to know that soil tests are not perfect. He says the crop is removing nutrients at a different temperature and moisture than when the test was performed, plants are drawing nutrients from greater depths than the sample, and lab precision will vary. Nevertheless, soil tests give a reasonable picture of reality; and your sampling technique can make that picture more clear or more out of focus.
1) Taking too few samples is a common mistake and shortcuts may produce unreliable results. But if you are trying to get a uniform fertilizer rate, whole field sampling will be different from zone sampling, as it is with conservation tillage and banded fertilizer.
2) Many fertilizer recommendations are made based on a seven inch depth of samples, but with no-till fields, mixing of lime and fertilizer will be different than a field that has been tilled with a moldboard plow. Shallow samples will lead to under application.
3) Sample locations should be repeated each time the soil is tested, and both GPS units and measuring wheels can be helpful in going back to the same place each time.
4) Soil tests should be taken on 4-year intervals to ensure optimum fertility, but for hay and silage, tests should be taken on 2 year intervals because greater amounts of nutrients are being removed. Late summer or fall will give the best tests, particularly for potash
Summary:
Skyrocketing costs for fertilizer will necessitate increased efficiency of application for 2009, and there are many actions farm operators can take. The use of soil sampling to determine the least nutrient, which is the most restrictive for yield, will pay results. The use of variable rate application will provide efficiency in addressing nutrient deficiencies in various zones of a field. The use of a yield monitor to calculate nutrient removal is another tool for estimating fertility needs. With production problems in 2008, not as many nutrients (except nitrogen) may have been removed because of reduced yields.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:41 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
September 1, 2008
Biotechnology: Another Step In A Long Journey.
Agriculture seems to be a work in progress that began 15,000 years ago and will be much different tomorrow than it is today. When the Ice Age survivors had trouble finding food, they intentionally began planting seeds and cultivating cereal grains. When wild animals were too scarce to hunt, domesticated animal provided meat. We’ve come a long way, but there may be a long way to go yet, and biotechnology may be one of the beasts of burden to get us there.
Intentional manipulation of genes through biotechnology has opened up health and agriculture to significant advances in solving problems. For agriculture, it provides the opportunity to expand food production in quantity and quality, as well as making food plants more adaptive to less fertile regions of the world. Thinking about all of that, Iowa State University economist GianCarlo Moschini looks in his rear view mirror, as well as through the windshield to see where we are driving biotechnology. His analysis says biotechnology faces numerous challenges from European-based opponents responsible for “unprecedented regulatory activism.”
Moschini calls agronomic traits the first generation of biotechnology, and says the second generation will have quality attributes such as improved nutritional benefits, plant-made pharmaceuticals and industrial products, as well as biomedical products from animals. Beginning with Roundup Ready soybeans and Bt genes to control corn borers, farmers are using multi-level stacked traits to solve problems, including drought. He says the US and Canadian wheat industries blocked biotech wheat because of anticipated foreign customer rejection, and biotech rice has been similarly slowed, both due to the fact they are human foods, compared to corn and beans that are primarily livestock feeds.
Future biotech traits, which will address nutritional issues, are known as functional foods and will improve health benefits. Included are vegetable oils with improved fatty acid profiles, staple crops with improved protein, mineral, and vitamin content, Golden Rice that contains additional vitamin A, and biomass crops better suited for biofuel production. Meanwhile, opponents have expressed concerns about allergens, environmental harm, ethical considerations, and corporate control of patents. But Moschini says at this point “all of the earlier serious concerns appeared to have been dispelled, at least to the satisfaction of scientists.” He says a strong scientific consensus is emerging that biotechnology itself poses no inherent risk for human health. Additionally, research over the past decade has indicated that biotechnology has not caused any environmental harm. Instead, many Bt crops have resulted in reduced used of pesticides.
The current adaptation of biotechnology is significant:
1) Biotech crops are being produced on 274 million acres (US, Brazil, Argentina.)
2) 51% of soybeans, 31% of corn, 13% of cotton are biotech varieties.
3) 91% of US soybean acreage is biotech, along with 73% of corn and 87% of cotton.
4) By comparison, in Europe only 264,000 acres have biotech crops, with only 1 biotech corn hybrid being grown in 1 country, which is 1% of production.
The concentration of biotech seed and chemical industries and their control of proprietary technology are cited by Moschini as a common source of concern, but he says if private money is used to fund the research, then the privatization of the technology may be inevitable. He says benefits to the research are shared by farmers, consumers, and the biotech companies, with a positive environmental benefit being part of the outcome.
Moschini says the European regulatory environment is holding back advancements in biotechnology, and that stems from skepticism of science, trade protectionism, and protecting European companies that make pesticides. He says there are risks with biotech products and risks with rejecting biotech products, but the real question should be which provides more benefits and less risks. In the midst of the debate is the fact US farmers are producing multiple biotech corn hybrids and European regulators have prohibited their use. Moschini says14 of 24 traits or stacked traits approved for US production have neither European food nor feed approval, and he says that contributes to higher food and feed prices and a loss of competitiveness to the European livestock industry.
Summary:
Biotechnology has provided farmers with improved production opportunities while reducing the use of pesticides, and holds increased future potential for pharmaceuticals and biomedical needs. However, lack of European acceptance has not been based on science, but on trade protectionism, and that has been detrimental to European farmers.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:34 PM | Comments (0) | Permalink
August 19, 2008
Climate Change: What Should You Expect In The Future?
Climate change has been, and may always be, a controversial topic. Whether you think humankind is contributing to climate change or not, change has occurred over time. Your Cornbelt farm was covered by a massive glacier 15,000 years ago, and the climate has warmed up since then. How fast and far the climate may change is anyone’s guess, but if the current trend continues, how will Cornbelt agriculture change?
Climate change has stirred considerable debate, so a group of formidable economists and natural science researchers from Purdue University gathered to analyze the potential change on Indiana agriculture. But it does not take much to extrapolate their findings to make them applicable to the entire Cornbelt. The Purdue analysis was initially developed for presentation to Congress, and the Purdue researchers are quick to say the Cornbelt will remain the best area in the US for corn and soybean production under all likely climate scenarios. However, they identified a collection of changes in the climate that can be anticipated in coming years:
1) Increased temperature will lengthen the growing season, and increase crop productivity, but will create more heat stress on livestock.
2) Precipitation will change to create wetter winters and drier summers, with more drought-like conditions that will require drought tolerant crops, since irrigation may not be able to compensate. The Purdue team postulates that farmers may opt for crops that need shorter growing seasons to avoid seasonal weather extremes.
3) Crop diseases and insects will be more successful in over-wintering, and better crop genetics are needed to avoid those stresses in the midst of weather stress.
4) Extreme rainfall and weather events will lead to greater soil erosion and runoff which will create problems with sediment, nutrient, chemical, and pathogen loads on waterways.
5) Perennial crops, including tree crops and fruits may become more challenged in their survival in weather extremes.
6) Technology, focused on climate change, will have to keep pace.
Planting dates could become one of the more prominent changes under the scenarios studied by Purdue. The researchers concluded that soil moisture will be a controlling issue for planting dates, and by 2050, planting will be about one week earlier than it is now and two weeks earlier by 2100, using current seed technology. Crop maturity will also be marked by parallel advances. The Purdue staff also noted other research which indicated crops will not mind changes in the mean growing season temperatures and heat accumulation, but would be sensitive to temperature extremes.
Agricultural pests and beneficial insects will play an important role in the climate change. The increased plant stress from heat and moisture will lead to reduced resistance to pests with greater crop loss expected. While some pests will decline in numbers, other pests will increase if they are invasive species from warmer climates. Among those cited, Japanese beetle populations will decline, but soybean aphids, armyworms, and earworms will all increase in numbers.
Summary:
Climate change over the next 100 years is expected to be marked with wetter conditions in cold weather and hotter and drier conditions in the summer. Crops will have to respond to the weather extremes, with the help of genetic modification, but they will also have to resist a wide range of insects and pestilence expected to accompany the warmer summer weather. Researchers have also identified numerous other issues to expect, including changes in soil and water, impact on livestock, and requirements for crop genetics.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:27 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
August 7, 2008
Why Has So Little Been Said About Soybean Rust This Year?
Here’s a question for you. Why is it you have heard very little about Asian soybean rust this year? Knock on wood; we don’t want to hear much about it, but with all the rain in the Cornbelt, that was supposed to be the precursor to our soybean crop being ravaged by rust. Are we missing something?
Asian soybean rust has been a threat for the last five seasons since a few spores blew ashore with hurricane force. Soybean pathologists were prepared and the sentinel system was created along with lines of communication to keep everyone informed. Although rust has been found in many Cornbelt states, its arrival apparently has been too late to do any damage. Experts said wait for a year that is unusually wet, and we have certainly had that this year.
Your first point of consultation should be the official Asian soybean rust website. It will provide an update when necessary about the latest findings, which shows active rust areas in Texas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. So soybean rust is alive and well, but apparently thriving in the south where it usually remains during the major part of the growing season.
But therein lies the rub. The Cornbelt growing season has been modified this year with delays from spring coolness and early summer excessive rains. Soybean maturity is behind last year and all of the years since soybean rust arrived in the US. Monday’s USDA crop progress report indicated 78% of the soybeans in the 18 major production states were blooming, compared to 90% last year and 88% for the five year average. Also, only 37% of the soybeans were setting pods, compared to 64% last year and 58% for the five year average.
With the soybean crop behind typical development, will that mean a greater potential for damage from soybean rust this year when it makes it typical late season dash toward the Cornbelt? There is no answer for that, however, Iowa State plant pathologist Daren Mueller says rust is moving northward much slower than it has for the past several years. Asian rust needs moisture to survive, and while the Cornbelt has had plenty of that, the opposite has been the case in the Gulf Coast states where rust has been restricted in its movement. Mueller points to the latest Drought Monitor map which shows the Gulf Coast in either moderate drought or abnormally dry. However the latest map pre-dated Hurricane Dolly and Tropical Storm Edouard which brought rain to Central Texas where some of the driest areas are located.
Mueller’s latest analysis indicates the chance of Asian rust moving into the Cornbelt soon appears to be low. He says late planted soybeans in Iowa are on track to reach the full seed stage in mid-September, and currently he is not overly concerned.
Anne Dorrance at Ohio State isn’t that concerned either. She and her colleagues remind farmers in their current newsletter that no soybean rust pustules have been found in the Midwest. They are monitoring traps that have collected spores for the past three years. The Ohio State researchers say the spores that have arrived in the past have been either killed by drying out in the atmosphere while enroute or succumbed to ultraviolet light rays. They acknowledge all of the rain this year in June and July, but say the past several weeks the drier weather pattern has not been conducive to any rust spores that might have arrived.
The Ohio State specialists say they are not recommending any fungicide applications be made at this time to manage soybean rust. They say early soybeans are “out of the woods,” at this point, but later planted beans still are at risk of rust damage.
Summary:
Despite wet Cornbelt weather, Asian soybean rust has been a non-factor this year, but there is still quite a bit of time required by soybeans to reach the point of maturity when rust will not be able to damage yields. Dry weather has prevented its movement out of the Gulf Coast states, but soybean producers with late planted soybeans should monitor authoritative sources for any alerts to implement their fungicide action plan.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:28 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
August 5, 2008
Is That Really A Cactus Growing Along Your Fencerow?
Global warming or not, you may have cactus growing on your Cornbelt farm, and it may become a sticky issue to deal with, literally and figuratively. The pricklypear cactus has become an invasive specie of sorts, making its way from the desert southwest to pastures and fencerows of the Midwest. And you may prefer to wrestle a grizzly bear than a pricklypear.
Pricklypear is difficult to control say Purdue weed specialists Glenn Nice and Bill Johnson, who add that there are many types of pricklypear in New Mexico and California, but the ones in your neighborhood are probably the Eastern pricklypear, brittle pricklypear, twistspine pricklypear, or plains pricklypear. Nice and Johnson say some have become hybrids and identification could be tricky. Their fact sheet has quite a few ideas of what to do and what not to do in an effort to solve your sticky problem.
If you have a pricklypear somewhere it is probably in a pasture or waste area and may be thriving in drier soils. Bees will pollinate them and seeds will be spread by birds and mammals. Advocates for the pricklypear will tell you that it will help with burns, diarrhea, asthma, diabetes and obesity, but you probably will let them have all they want as long as you get rid of it on your place. On your property it is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Many farmers will have an initial plan to mow it, and then realize the unintended consequence was just the opposite of what they wanted to achieve. Mowing a pricklypear will chop it into many pieces, spread them, and many of them will root and grow into a large patch. Not a good idea.
Nice and Johnson say using a pick and shovel to get roots out of the ground and collect as many of the leaves or cladodes should be your objective. Burning them is an alternative, but depending on the size and the specie, burning may or may not be successful. Research in Texas indicated 68% to 81% mortality from burning, but insects, rodents, and disease all contributed to the demise of some of them. Prescribed burning over several years has also provided some control.
If you uncap some 2, 4-D and plan to control a patch of pricklypear, you will be wasting your time, money, and effort. It is not effective. The herbicide picloram, which is the active ingredient in Tordon, has demonstrated 75% effectiveness in controlling plains pricklypear over a three year period, during the blooming phase. However, picloram is suspect for problems with groundwater and persistence in the soil, and on sandy soil that is a problem.
Johnson and Nice report that triclopyr, which is found in Crossbow and Garlon, had some effectiveness in treating pricklypear in an Australian study, where it is an invasive specie. However, there is no Cornbelt research which corroborates that report. Regarding the Australians, where pricklypear was introduced to produce dye, and eventually infested about 30 million acres, researchers found that a small parasitic insect helped with the control.
Summary:
Throughout history, pricklypear cactus may have been valuable at times, but today it is a pest and in pastures, waste areas, and sandy soils it can be difficult to control. Chemical controls have little effectiveness with single applications, and continued applications over several years may be required. Mowing will only spread the problem, but the only sure solution seems to be digging and burning.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:34 AM | Comments (2) | Permalink
July 31, 2008
Soybean Aphids: You Have Diligently Counted Them, But How Do You Know When To Spray?
Admittedly, there is considerable confusion in determining the threshold levels of insects prior to spraying a crop. Is it 3 or 5 Japanese beetles per ear, or was that corn rootworm beetles, or was that something else? And by the way, does that threshold still apply if the crop value has increased threefold? Entomologists are doing as much number crunching as bug counting, and the answers are not always easily determined as some farmers may think. In the meantime, let’s listen in on their conversation about pest control thresholds.
The bug gurus at Iowa State University, Jon Tollefson, Matt O’Neal, and Marlin Edwards say soybean aphids may be the next pest that draws your attention, and their numbers on soybean plants can be Biblical in proportion. Since counting tens of thousands is not feasible, even for folks with a lot of time on their hands, their latest newsletter provides some guidelines to help with the task of deciding whether to spray. They want you to learn and use three levels of consideration:
1) Damage Boundary is the earliest stage, in which insects can be measured to determine whether there is yield loss. While five aphids on a soybean will not have an impact, five Japanese beetles on a silking ear of corn will have a major impact. The entomologists say there is no reason to spend any money on pest control if numbers are not present to begin any level of yield loss. The fewer the bugs the less chance of any economic return for your efforts.
2) Economic Injury Level is a significant threshold, and is the number of insects required for the value of the lost yield to equal the cost of control. In other words, if the chemical and custom application cost $30 per acre, then the bugs have to cause a two bushel per acre loss in beans, if beans are worth $15.
3) Economic Threshold is the decision point according to the Iowa State entomologists, and that is the number of insects required for pest control to be applied to keep pest populations from reaching the Economic Injury Level.
Prior to the rise in market values for soybeans, the soybean aphid Economic Injury Level threshold had been 654 aphids per plant, plus or minus 95 per plant, cost of control ranging from $8.65 to $21 per acre with a yield between 30 and 60 bushels per acre, and soybeans valued between $5.50 and $6.50 per bushel.
With $15 soybeans, that soybean aphid Economic Injury Level threshold drops to 452 aphids per plant, which are 200 fewer to count. Since the initial discovery of soybean aphids in 2000, entomologists have recommended a spray threshold of 250 per plant. But 250 aphids are also below the damage boundary in a new experimental protocol for the pest, meaning their presence at that level should not cause economic injury.
Research during the 2004 and 2006 aphid outbreaks indicated that populations rarely exceeded 250 per plant, and yield damage could not be quantified when fields were sprayed. Currently, aphids exist in soybeans at relatively low populations, but there is no guarantee they will multiply to treatable thresholds. That is why the Iowa State researchers are recommending use of the 250 Economic Threshold.
Along with the consideration of a new yardstick for making pest control decisions is the question about preventative spraying. Specialists say that only leads to the opportunity for resistance to be developed and for a resurgence of the aphids, should the preventative insecticide kill all of the natural predators.
Summary:
Soybean aphid populations should be on the radar of all soybean producers, since small numbers of aphids have been found in numerous locations. Spraying decisions should be based on existence of a number of aphids that could multiply into levels that will have an economic impact on the yield. There may always be enough aphids to count, but not always enough aphids to warrant a spray application.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:20 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
July 7, 2008
Foliar Corn Fungicides: Are You Spraying Because You Need To, Or Think You Need To?
Your corn was planted late and has weathered the spring storms, but those delays will challenge the yield. But you have nothing to worry about because you plan to spray your corn with a foliar fungicide and another 25 bushels per acre will magically appear. Foliar fungicides have become a popular use of money and time the past several years, but is there any profitability in it?
The profitability question is quickly answered “no” by University of Illinois plant pathologist Carl Bradley in his July 3 newsletter. “Data summaries from both university and commercial sources all agree on this point--that foliar fungicides did not provide a benefit on corn every single time they were applied in 2007.” Will your field be one that did benefit, or will you field be one that did not benefit? Instead of a dice roll, Bradley suggests answering the question, “Under what circumstances a foliar fungicide applied to corn will be profitable?”
You can always spray a fungicide whether the corn needs it or not, and other than a guaranteed expense, there may have been a remote chance that you did the right thing. But what are those risk factors that you might want to consider, just in case you want to improve your management ability?
1) Since many corn pathogens survive in corn debris, planting corn after corn, and especially in no-till, will increase the chance that you made the right decision to spray. In other words, rotation and tillage are important.
2) If your planting date was late, your corn is more susceptible to gray leaf spot, so a late planting date is a high risk. So the calendar is important
3) Some hybrids carry susceptibility to such pathogens as gray leaf spot, and unless you are planting corn that has a high tolerance, spraying a foliar fungicide without knowing could be the right thing to do. But knowing your seed is the important factor.
4) Thorough scouting will give you an advantage because many pathogens begin to show up before tasseling. Fungicide applications are not recommended on resistant hybrids. For susceptible hybrids, location of the pathogen and its timing will be the determinant for spray.
5) Just like corn, foliar diseases like humidity and moisture also, and the greatest yield increases occurred in areas with high rainfall during recent university fungicide tests.
Bradley’s Iowa State colleague Alison Robertson says in a July 3 fact sheet that common rust is the first to appear, but it has not yet been seen. Next is gray leaf spot and northern corn leaf blight which appear at the end of July with hot and humid conditions. Robertson notes the timing could be critical because the delayed corn crop will just be starting to fill at that point, “Research has shown that the earlier in the grain-fill process that disease develops, the greater the impact on grain yield. This year, because tasseling and silking are delayed, grain filling will occur in late July through August, and may coincide with increased disease pressure.” She says with the more valuable crop, the use of a fungicide to protect every bushel may be appealing, but she tells corn growers to consider Bradley’s checklist.
Bradley and his colleagues at many Cornbelt universities and in Canada last year tested various foliar fungicide treatments. He says, “Results from university trials conducted in 2007 in 12 different states and Ontario indicated that hybrids with a "fair to poor" rating for gray leaf spot resistance had a 6 bu/A increase when a foliar fungicide was applied, compared to a 4 bu/A increase when a foliar fungicide was applied to hybrids with a "good to excellent" rating for gray leaf spot resistance.”
An important point made by Nebraska plant pathologist Tamra Jackson can be found in the latest Nebraska Crop Watch. She says most fungicides provide only 14-21 days of protection and in recent years, the appearance of fungal problems have spread throughout July and August. That means corn growers typically using foliar fungicides may need to schedule a second application. She also says it is going to take a two to three bushel response to pay for the cost of the spray.
When hail strikes, lesions are created on the corn stalk and on leaves that may provide an opening for pathogens. However, a simulated hailstorm, followed by the application of a variety of fungicides resulted in data that the fungicides did not significantly improve yield compared to the untreated check. The “hail” reduced the yield, but the fungicides did not help the yield recover.
If some of your neighbors insist a foliar fungicide makes the corn look healthier and yield more, Bradley says they are seeing the “greening” effect of some of the active ingredients in the fungicides. It does not automatically add yield to the plants, says Bradley after testing for that specific effect. He says fungicides are designed to kill pathogens, and that is the reason for their application, not a cosmetic reason. He says they will help increase production and profits, if use for their designed purpose.
Summary:
Fungal problems can reduce corn yields substantially, but can be expensive. There has been an increasing trend toward foliar fungicide applications, whether or not any pathogen has been detected in a corn field, with producers claiming that the yield was boosted as a result. While no research can confirm any yield increase due to a foliar fungicide, plant pathologists are saying that farmers whose corn is susceptible to fungal problems, may have reason for applications.
Have you applied a foliar fungicide hoping to increase yield, and if so, what happened? Are you concerned that corn pathogens may become immune to fungicides if they are over used?
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:41 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
July 3, 2008
Making Big Bucks From Specialty Corn And Paying Big Bucks For Contaminating A Neighbor's Corn
Very little of the corn in the Cornbelt has begun the pollination process, but when it does, we’ll be reminded how far and wide corn pollen can travel. One of your neighbor’s tassels will pollinate your corn, whether you want it to or not; and as higher value crops are produced, you won’t want his pollen anywhere near your silks. You insured your yield this year and your Bt performance, but how about insuring against genetic contamination from one field to another?
Corn is one of those crops that can carry the genetics of a new pharmaceutical, and high yielding corn can produce an antibody, enzyme, or vaccine in both quantity and quality, and it is conveniently stored in the corn kernel. Pharmaceutical maize (corn) is being tested in hundreds of plots, some in non-descript locations around the Cornbelt, says a collection of economists and agronomists from Iowa State University and North Dakota State, who analyzed the potential for insuring against unwanted genetic contamination. Such contamination is primarily the result of the weather, and when either severe weather strikes or when contamination tolerances are extremely low, serious losses can occur. The issue is pollen movement, and with recent interest in identity preserved crops, pollen movement has been the focus of increased study. Most of that is targeted toward normal weather, but if a tornado made a direct hit on a field of pharmaceutical maize at pollination time, what would the loss be?
The researchers say the antibodies are going to be safe if inadvertently digested, but the federal research rules that specify zero tolerance implies zero probability of cross-contamination. Economic harm would seem to come with either a weather related mixing of pollen or a co-mingling of grain during the handling and shipping phases following harvest. The researchers set out to calculate a fair value of an insurance policy that pays for the destruction of any nearby corn that might have been contaminated above a specified tolerance level. Insurance premiums would be determined and the risk can be compared against benefits.
Their analysis puts one pollen grain through a variety of tests, including wind parameters, fluid dynamics, climatology, and econometric models that can track millions of pollen grains under all possible conditions. All of that is done to determine the insurance policy premium. But another issue is who should foot the bill for the insurance, the owner of the pharmaceutical corn, or the owner of the commodity corn that became contaminated.
Many farmers know that offsetting the planting dates to offset pollination would be an option for reducing the potential for cross pollination. However, even with coordination of pollination over distances, there may still be a 1% contamination even with a 28 day delay in pollination. Within USDA requirements for contamination, the researchers calculated that a tolerance level of one in one thousand would be exceeded 24 times in ten thousand instances if a 40 acre field was one half mile downwind from the source of the contamination. At three quarters of a mile, the probability of exceeding that tolerance level was zero. But any type of a storm cloud can create havoc.
While contamination chances cannot be eliminated, the contaminated corn could be blended to reach an acceptable level of contamination, which would be less costly than destroying the crop. The researchers used the example of 150 bushel per acre corn, valued at $3 per bushel, which would mean a loss of $18,000 with destruction of a 40 acre field. If the contamination was spread over a half mile, seven fields would have to be destroyed, and nine within three-quarters of a mile. The researchers developed five scenarios, ranging from $486,000 to cover all fields contaminated within a mile of the pharmaceutical field, down to the point of no loss; and they add that legal damages are a possibility, “The recipients of unwanted pollen appear to have the right (under the law of stray animals) to collect damages associated with drift, but they have not yet pursued this right via the legal system.”
Summary:
As genetic manipulation advances in corn to the point of creating pharmaceuticals, it creates the potential of contaminating commodity corn produced in nearby fields, particularly when the weather becomes severe. It is possible to calculate the change of contamination, or at least the chance that contamination will exceed specific tolerance levels. One of the unanswered issues however, is who should pay for insurance which would either cover the liability of contamination from a pharmaceutical field, or protection of a commodity corn from being contaminated.
Who should buy the insurance policy and who is really taking the risk?
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:16 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
June 30, 2008
Rev Your "N-gine" And Shift Your Corn Into Gear
Some corn has shifted up into road gear, and it looks pretty good. Other corn fields are stuck in idle as the days of summer are now getting shorter. In some years corn has reached pollination by this point, but this year much of it is less than waist high and not ready to show silks and tassels, and may still look yellow because all of the expensive nitrogen you applied last fall has disappeared. If you have more ducks and white caps in your field than corn plants, there may not be much hope; but if there is a chance to help it along, let’s see what can be done.
The 2008 corn crop throughout the Cornbelt is uneven, growth rates vary widely, and the lack of nutrients have resulted in yellowing and stunted growth, says Iowa State University agronomist John Sawyer. He has produced a pair of fact sheets on Yellow Corn, Wet Soils, and N Loss.
In the first of the series, Sawyer says the initial problems of corn resulted from wet soils, and not so much the lack of nitrogen, since N requirements are low in young corn. But he said crop rotation had a significant role in the performance of corn this year. Sawyer said corn following beans outperformed corn following corn, even when nitrogen had been applied at a 240 lb/A rate.
But what was the reason for the yellow color? Sawyer says his analysis is that nitrogen was either lost from the fall application or has moved deeper into the soil and not yet become available to the corn roots. He says there has been a more positive reaction to the spring application, but only time will tell about the impact of the heavy rains on total nitrogen available for the corn.
What can be done now? Sidedress, says Sawyer, and inject it to root depth, not put it on top of the soil hoping for rain. He says the corn needs the nitrogen more than the moisture. He adds that corn will soon be in its rapid growth phase and will need the nitrogen.
In the second fact sheet of the series, Sawyer says corn on higher ground will respond to the nitrogen quicker than corn on low ground, where wet soils suppressed the response. But after the soils drain, all of the corn will show a positive response, however the response it better to the spring applied nitrogen, even at the lower rates of application.
Sawyer’s research was directed at depth of nitrogen injection, and he found that in low areas, the corn responded better to the more shallow depth of injection and on the higher ground the corn responded better to the deeper injection.
Find Purdue’s fact sheet on estimating nitrogen loss.
Find Illinois’ fact sheet on deciding whether to apply more nitrogen.
Summary:
If you are trying to grow corn, and it does not want to cooperate this year, nitrogen may be one of the barricades to success. Fall applied nitrogen may have been lost or corn roots may not have found it yet. Spring nitrogen, applied in the root zone, may get a good response. The nitrogen issue is also complicated by whether corn followed corn or soybeans.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:14 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
June 19, 2008
You've Had All The Excess Rain You Can Stand, But What About Your Grandson's Farm?
Weather seems to have been on your mind lately. In fact it has been on the minds of most every Cornbelt farmer who delayed planting because of cold, wet soils, and now is fighting ponds and levee breaks. The spring weather has been relatively fearsome with frequent storms, tornadoes, and torrential downpours. Are we looking at the weather of tomorrow?
No one knows more than a farmer that the vagaries of the weather generate risk and can bring a successful farming operator to his knees. Climate change may well be upon us, since weather seems to have become more variable, and exhibited extremes more than it has in the past century. Global Climate Models that are created from a variety of inputs such as conservation of mass and water, momentum, energy, and ocean dynamics can point to potential weather and climate expectations, says Gerald North of Texas A & M in the Spring 2008 issue of Choices.
North says many other dynamics are considered in developing climate models, which can predict future weather patterns. Those include changes in the content of greenhouse gases, volcanic dust in the atmosphere, and the changing brightness of the sun. Meteorologists will change the variables and that changes others, such as increasing and decreasing the water vapor content of the atmosphere. That is manifest in ice and snow cover, as well as cloud densities. He says the weather prediction models all agree that if carbon dioxide levels double, global temperatures would increase by more than 5 degrees F. At current levels, that would occur in 140 years, but when other greenhouse gases are doubled, the temperature increase would occur in 70 years.
North says there are a number of predictions from the international global climate models:
1) There is more warming toward the poles than in the tropical areas.
2) Precipitation would increase with more water vapor in the atmosphere, but less than expected.
3) Most of the increases in precipitation are in the middle latitudes, such as the northern tier of the US, with more precipitation north of the Gulf of Mexico and less to the west of it.
4) Mountain snow packs will shrink and reduce river flows, and snows will melt earlier on high plains ranges.
For the Cornbelt 50 years from now, temperatures would be 4-6 degrees warmer in the winter, 2-8 degrees warmer in the spring, 3-7 degrees warmer in the summer, and 3-8 degrees warmer in the fall. 50 years into the future, the Cornbelt can also expect winter precipitation that varies 10% either way from the present, spring precipitation that ranges from 5% less to 15% more, summer precipitation that ranges from 20% less to 10% more than the present, and fall precipitation that ranges from 30% less to 5% more.
North also says the various weather models predict:
1) There are likely to be more heat waves with more mid-latitude drying in summer and an increased risk of prolonged droughts (and their consequences, fires, etc.).
2) Precipitation in the United States will be mixed, with more rain in the east and much drier in the southwest.
3) Most models suggest that the multi-year swings of wet and dry periods will be more pronounced than those of today’s climate.
4) Sea level will rise a foot or two under the conservative assumptions that melting of the big ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica does not accelerate catastrophically.
Summary:
More violent weather, more rain, and warmer temperatures will be the forecast for the Cornbelt in 50 years, if global climate models are correct in their predictions. Numerous dynamics are fed into global climate models which indicate increasing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will move warmer temperatures north, but provide quantities of precipitation across most of the Cornbelt.
A question for you: What should seed companies be doing today to prepare for expected changes in the weather? Or do you place any stock in the predictions?
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:04 AM | Comments (3) | Permalink
June 9, 2008
How Do You Make That Agronomic Decision About Replanting?
If your crops are underwater, there is little you can do. You are probably looking for all of the information you can get, in an effort to make plans, in case re-re-re-planting is in your future. Some of the information here has been previously provided, but nevertheless, let’s do a re-run on replanting.
Purdue agronomist Bob Nielsen provides a summary of the impacts of floodwaters on young corn plants. He covers issue, such as time underwater, temperatures, impact on soil, post flood vigor, and potential diseases after flooding.
The June 2 issue of Iowa State’s Integrated Crop Management News is primarily focused on flooding issues. Addressed are replant options and getting rid of the damaged crop, saturated soils, impact of flooding on soybeans, and soybean replant decisions.
Missouri agronomist Laura Sweets addresses seed decay and seedling blight in the May 30 issue of the Integrated Pest and Crop Management newsletter.
Ohio State University agronomist Peter Thomison provides an overview of ponding impacts in a newsletter for the Crop Observation and Recommendation Network.
Purdue’s Neilsen offers an updated factsheet on the Effects of Flooding or Ponding on Young Corn. It provides similar suggestions previously cited, along with several related references.
Peter Thomison at Ohio State University, writing in the current C.O.R. N. newsletter, offers several thoughts about patching in corn, where the stand is less than satisfactory. He covers timing relative to the first planting, replanting where emergence is uneven, and cultivation challenges.
University of Illinois fertility specialist Fabian Fernandez, writing about nitrogen application challenges, suggests that questions should be answered whether nitrogen is really going to help a crop with a mediocre yield potential. He also addresses the impact of nitrogen in flooded soils.
Replanting decisions are accompanied by a need to decide on what to do about insecticides. University of Illinois entomologist Kevin Steffey addresses maximum rates and the possibility of switching insecticides, in his May 23rd newsletter.
While replanting decisions in June are similar to decisions of late planted corn, University of Illinois agronomist Emerson Nafziger addresses issues of delayed planting in a May 23rd issue of his newsletter.
Storms that covered Nebraska several years ago caused a flurry of articles in the Crop Watch newsletter about assessing crop stands, switching corn hybrids, and replanting decisions with herbicides in mind.
Summary:
Flooded fields throughout the Cornbelt have caused many considerations about replanting and all of the fertility, herbicides, and insecticide issues that accompany replant decisions. Numerous research-based factsheets and newsletters are available for consultation that will provide answers to most questions.
The question I have is: How much of your crop are you having to replant?
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:13 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
June 5, 2008
Corn, Weeds, And Your Post-Emergent Herbicide Needs.
Plenty of moisture and warmer temperatures not only speed up crop development but also weed development. Look at them grow! Short of pulling them out by hand, develop a plan to aggressively eradicate your weeds before they become too much competition for your crop to overcome. Let’s create an early post emergence weed control program for corn.
In most years, May would have been the litmus test for residual herbicides, but the cool weather this year held back both crop and weed development. But a change in the weather the past few days will be an even stronger test to see how much residual weed control you really have, and what you need to do to respond with flexibility. Mark Loux of Ohio State University writes in the June 2nd issue of the Crop Observation and Recommendation Network newsletter that many summer annual weeds have reached the 2 to 4 inch stage where pre-emergent herbicides were not used.
1) If you have relied upon a total post-emergent weed control program, those herbicides should be applied while weeds are in the 2-3 inch level to prevent crop competition. If your weeds are already at the 6 inch level, crop yields might have already declined by as much as 6%, and it increases with taller weeds. Loux says many grasses and summer annual weeds grow at the same rate as the crop.
2) If you had applied a broad spectrum pre-emergent herbicide that had been activated with sufficient rain, then weed development will probably be retarded substantially and your post emergent program is not as critically needed at this time. That will be to your advantage with controlling later germinating weeds, and instead of applying a post emergent herbicide by the V3-V4 corn stage, it can be delayed, but should be applied before corn reaches 18-20 inches in height. That is the point that corn will out-compete weeds that are just emerging.
3) If your pre-emergent herbicide program ran into trouble from lack of rain, the timing of a post-emergent program is more difficult to estimate. There may be a dense carpet of weeds that are in the 3-4 inch stage, and your post emergent weed control needs to be applied to avert yield loss. If the pre-emergent herbicide worked a little bit, then the post emergent application can be delayed.
4) Since timing of a herbicide application should be based on weed size, not necessarily yield loss, your mindset needs to be on the weeds and not the end result this fall. But one of the challenges you have is that grasses are more difficult to control than broadleaves with a typical post-emergent herbicide when they are more than 4 inches tall. Loux recommends a post emergent herbicide that is better suited for grasses that are taller. But he says the challenge is “for those growers evaluating options where pre-emergent herbicides have not been completely effective, the real question may be whether to apply when grasses are less than 2 inches tall in order to reduce costs, or apply when grasses are about 4 inches tall to try to improve control of late-emerging weeds.”
5) In a year with marginal response of a pre-emergent herbicide makes it seem like an easy decision to have planted a Liberty Link or Roundup Ready corn. While the post-emergent application timing has less flexibility, the use of Liberty does allow better control of larger giant foxtail, but glyphosate controls grasses over 6 inches. But both glyphosate and Liberty should still be applied when weeds are 4 inches tall to prevent yield loss, whether you are using a total post emergent program or your pre-emergent herbicide failed.
6) Loux says your corn plant will be going through a critical phase 25-40 days after planting, and that weeds should not be competing with the corn during that time to avoid yield loss. So a post emergent herbicide application at 20-25 days after planting should minimize the competition, but should also have a residual impact to cover 2-4 more weeks.
7) Fields with a problem with giant ragweed will have a new flush of growth in mid-June, which is at the end of the critical growth period for corn, and needs to be covered by your residual herbicide. Loux suggests adding a residual herbicide to a broad spectrum herbicide to cover as long of a period as possible.
8) Loux also shares your concern about the rising price of glyphosate, and says it becomes possible to apply alternatives for the same price that avoid the problems with glyphosate resistance and also provide a longer residual control. But he says that may also require the addition of atrazine and that means application before the corn is 12 inches tall, but grass is less than 2 inches tall.
Summary:
Weed control may well be a challenge this year because the cool temperatures retarded both crop and weed development and pre-emergent herbicide applications may have been compromised by either insufficient or too much moisture. Timing of post emergent applications is critical because it needs to be before weeds get too tall, it needs to be before corn enters its 25-40 day growth period, and the post emergent product needs to contain enough residual control for late developing weeds.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:32 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
May 29, 2008
My Corn Is Cold And Wet And May Need To Be Replanted. Can You Help?
There are three kinds of farmers. Those who have their corn planted and growing vigorously. Those whose corn is planted, but is in a sorry state because of being drowned out. And those who have not been able to plant. If you are in the latter two groups, this blog’s for you!
Farmers some where in the Cornbelt are lucky every year and their corn is planted on time and takes off. But farmers who have been unable to plant or need to replant are in a special group that is unusually large this year. Facing a June 5th crop insurance deadline to get corn planted, many farmers need some sunshine and warm winds to dry fields enough to make headway. And farmers who are challenged with the possible need to replant have some serious decisions to make.
We’ll provide a number of resources for you, but begin with the thoughts of Ohio State agronomist Peter Thomison in the latest C.O.R.N. newsletter. He says first and foremost, “Replant decisions in corn should be based on strong evidence that the returns to replanting will not only cover replant costs but also net enough to make it worth the effort.”
Assess the current damage much like you begin estimating yield in late July. Mark off 1/1000 of an acre, which is 17 feet, 5 inches in 30 inch rows, count the number of viable corn plants and multiply by 1000. If you are planting 20 inch rows, the distance is 26 feet, 2 inches. That gives the estimated population which can be compared with your intended population. The more times you gather that number randomly around the field the more accurate it will be.
Next comes your decision whether to replant, and University of Illinois Crop Production Specialist Emerson Nafziger has developed a decision aid which calculates your gain or loss from replanting, based on input costs, dates for replanting, and market value of the corn.
Another significant issue is row gaps, which Thomison says can reduce yield beyond an even distribution of kernels. He says gaps 4-6 feet can reduce yield by 5%, and gaps that are 1-3 feet will reduce the yield by 2%. Additionally, corn stressed with cool temperatures and excess water may only be in the 1-2 leaf stage despite being planted 4-5 weeks ago. Nafziger, in his recent newsletter at the University of Illinois, says, “This slow growth is not a good thing, but compared to a more favorable spring, such as the one we had a year ago, it means that replanted corn will not start out as far behind early-planted corn as it often would. So in relative terms, replanting is "favored" this year.”
The decision to replant requires a decision on pest control as well. Thomison says post-emergent herbicides are recommended in replant situations along with cultivation. For insect controls, the maximum labeled rate for a chemical at the initial planting will prevent your use of that same chemical for the replanting. And he reminds farmers that late planting dates are usually linked to corn borer damage, and that can be prevented with the use of Bt hybrids. And he adds, “In OSU studies conducted in 2004 and 2005, short season (104 day or less) Bt hybrids planted after the first week of June consistently out-yielded their non-Bt counterparts and usually produced yields comparable to commonly grown hybrid maturities (108 day or greater).”
As the cost of replanting rises, the potential profitability drops. And Thomison says, “If after considering all the factors there is still doubt as to whether or not a field should be replanted, you will perhaps be correct more often if the field is left as is.”
If you need some more hand holding as you make replant decisions, look to Purdue agronomist Bob Nielsen. Right hand. Left hand.
Summary:
Replanting decisions are tough decisions, but many farmers are having to make them because of poor emergence in cold wet soil conditions. Decisions need to be made by evaluating the viability of the crop that is trying to grow in the field, and in some cases it will produce a minimal crop. Some agronomists are also suggesting the slow start may warrant replanting in an effort to plant a crop that will get off to a good start. Herbicide decisions have to be made and that may force a post emerge herbicide, and insecticide decisions may require some corn borer protection. Plenty of research has been conducted on replanting, and help is available for the asking.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:55 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
May 7, 2008
What Is Stealing Your Nitrogen And Starving Your Corn?
Your decisions for use of Roundup Ready or Liberty Link corn have already been made. It is either in your field, or in your machine shed awaiting a brief ride in a planter box. But your decisions for a post emergent weed control system in corn may have brought some unexpected consequences. You don’t like surprises, so let’s take a look at what to expect this year in those corn fields.
The formula is simple. Plant a seed corn that has the genetics to resist glyphosate or glufosinate. Apply your side dress nitrogen. Spray the field with the proper herbicide for the corn. Pat your self on the back for your management decisions. Pocket a bit less money next fall.
Everything is in your plan except the last step and that is one that is becoming an issue for many farmers using a Roundup or Liberty Link weed control system. Not that the seed and chemical are more expensive, but the issue with the nitrogen is growing larger. Several Cornbelt agronomists are pointing out the problem, and Mark Loux at Ohio State is the latest in the C.O.R.N. newsletter reiterates the challenge of annual grasses in corn soaking up the nitrogen before the crop gets a chance to utilize it.
Loux and Purdue colleagues all expect expansion of Roundup and Liberty Link systems, which means most farmers are moving away from soil applied herbicides such as atrazine to eliminate the grass before it begins interfering with the corn crop. The pre-plant herbicides left the fields clean for an early start for the corn, and when the anhydrous ammonia applicator worked through the fields a couple weeks later, the rows were still fairly clean. That will not be the case where the glyphosate and glufosinate systems are implemented. Fields will have a broad spectrum of weeds using the same nutrients that corn will need, including the expensive nitrogen that will be applied. Researchers are uncertain just how much nitrogen will be siphoned off by a health crop of weeds and grasses, and work is being done to quantify the exact loss and determine the impact on corn yield.
The research that Loux and colleagues describes focuses just on the impact of grass, since the researchers eliminated the broadleaf weeds and allowed the grass to grow through the time that side-dress nitrogen was applied. The results indicated the grass accumulated a substantial amount of nitrogen. When the grass was 12 inches tall, it had consumed 50 to 63 lbs of nitrogen per acre in a 1999 study and 16 to 32 lbs in a 2000 study. The researchers found that when the grass was removed at a 9 inch height or more, the corn yield was reduced and the corn had accumulated less nitrogen compared to corn in fields free of any grass or weed competition.
The researchers had several recommendations for farmers who will be using a Roundup or Liberty Link weed control system:
1) When grass emerges with corn, and if the density reaches 30 plants per square foot, the grass should be controlled before it reaches the 6 inch height.
2) The best opportunity for utilizing side-dress nitrogen to recover yield due to early-season weed interference probably involves injection of the N into the soil after postemergence herbicides are applied.
3) To minimize the influence of grass weeds on N accumulation and corn yield, use residual herbicides either by themselves or in a tank mix with glyphosate or glufosinate.
4) Expect a potential 6% corn yield reduction if weeds and grasses are not controlled before reaching a 6 inch height.
5) Consider a late season nitrogen application to replace the nitrogen consumed by any weeds that were not controlled early.
Summary:
Just because nitrogen is applied to boost your corn yield does not mean that other weeds and grasses present in the field are not allowed to use it. If it is there, the non-corn plants will use it and that reduces the amount of nitrogen available to the corn. The problems created by the shift from a soil applied herbicide to a post emergent herbicide in the Roundup and Liberty Link programs will mean weeds and grasses will be present when side-dress nitrogen is applied in several weeks. Yield loss in corn may be significant unless the grasses are controlled in a timely manner.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:27 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
April 29, 2008
Will Your Nitrogen Application Be Wasted Or Will Your Crop Be Starved?
You have probably decided on your cropping pattern and crop rotation for the year, but some of those follow up issues need some attention. Such as fertility and nitrogen issues. With the high cost, your decision needs to either pay in more yield or save unneeded expense. The fact that many producers have opted out of a 50-50 corn and soybean rotation means more problems to solve.
Scott Murrell Northcentral Director of the International Plant Nutrient Institute at West Lafayette, IN, says many nitrogen issues arise when switching between a corn-corn rotation and a corn-soybean rotation. His presentation at the 2008 University of Illinois Crop Protection Technology Conference indicated several factors to consider:
1) Agronomists in most Cornbelt states use a constant figure of 30 to 45 lbs of nitrogen per acre left from the prior year soybean crop. Other states use a credit of one-half pound to one pound per bushel of yield. And without a prior soybean crop the credit is lost.
2) Since soybeans scavenge nitrogen from the soil, the absence of a soybean crop means a corn-corn rotation will have some residual nitrogen to use, and the drier the year the more that is present. A soil test can confirm the amount and save money on over application.
3) University research indicates a corn-corn rotation will yield less than a corn-soybean rotation with similar management. And if yields have decreased, nitrogen rates will need to be adjusted downward if yield is used as the factor to determine application rates.
4) Tests can be conducted on the corn crop to determine nitrogen use, such as a chlorophyll meter to test for nutrition problems, and a stalk nitrate test at the end of the season to assess appropriateness of the nitrogen rates used.
Shifting rotations can also impact soil pH levels, since nitrogen has a long term acidifying effect on the soil. (The initial reaction is alkaline, but eventually switches.)
1) In nitrification, ammonium-N converts to nitrate-N, and the source of the ammonium, which is usually anhydrous ammonia, is more acidic.
2) The leaching of nitrates leaves more acidic cations in the surface of the soil.
3) The volatilization of anhydrous ammonia creates an acid.
Murrell says the soil will determine whether acidification will occur when rotational shifts are made. Some Iowa tests found no change after 23 and 48 years. Nebraska tests found a change after 14 years. So the lesson is to closely monitor soil pH after shifts are made in rotations. Another consideration is the balance of other soil nutrients. Murrell says, “A CC sequence removes more phosphorus (P), magnesium (Mg), and sulfur (S) than a CS sequence but less N and potassium (K). Just how large such differences are depends on the yield levels of each crop.”
Summary:
With soybeans supplying nitrogen and corn using nitrogen, Cornbelt farmers who are shifting cropping patterns due to market prices need to monitor nitrogen more closely than in their normal cropping pattern. Shifts in the amount of nitrogen used will possibly chance the soil pH and change the balance of other soil nutrients. However, the major factor is to avoid an over-application of nitrogen that is unneeded, or to ensure enough nitrogen is being applied to maintain optimum economic yields.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:37 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
April 28, 2008
Sinks, Cycles, and Laughing Gas
The Cornbelt is ready for Mother Nature to warm up and dry out in the short term so corn can be planted. But in the long term, warming up and drying out would not be your preferred forecast. The idea of global warming has become a lightning rod issue that has polarized many people, including some in agriculture. Whether you believe that mankind is responsible for rising temperatures or they are part of a periodic change in climate is your own decision. But any change in the climate will have an impact on agriculture and that is where we are going today.
For millions of years the Earth has been warming up, then cooling off, then warming up again. The average cycle fluctuates about 18-22 degrees Fahrenheit, which typically happens over thousands of years and is not noticeable without scientific data. A collector of that is Eugene Takle, meteorology researcher at Iowa State University. He and ag economist Don Hofstrand have created a series of report in the Ag Decision Maker.
In the February newsletter they report global warming over the past 15,000 years and expect a gradual decline over the next 70-80,000 years and they say carbon dioxide and methane concentrations go up and down with the temperature. Based on the concentrations of those gases as found where nature collects them, temperatures had been declining over the past 1,000 years, but began a rapid climb upward about 100 years ago. Solar sunspot activity has contributed to warming and volcanic activity has contributed to cooling; but concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have added to the warming since 1960. Takle and Hofstrand say, “By themselves the natural factors do not account for the rise in global temperatures since 1960. Only when they are combined with the (human origins) of greenhouse gases and sulfate does the model predict relatively accurately the actual temperature levels. This leads us to believe that (human origin) factors have a significant role in the recent increase in global temperature.”
Takle and Hofstrand say in the March newsletter that warmer global temperatures “will have a profound impact on global agriculture.” But they are unsure of the impact on the Midwest. Their focus is on role of greenhouse gases, which include carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and water vapor being the most prevalent. Recalling your high school science class on the carbon cycle, keep in mind that it fluctuates over time from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to carbon locked in the ground from growing plants that absorb it. As the plant dies, microbes break it down, combine the carbon with oxygen and it is returned to the atmosphere. The use of coal and oil for energy production also returns carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Each of the greenhouse gases stays in the atmosphere varying amounts of time and also has a varying ability to warm the atmosphere. Takle says levels of the gases in the atmosphere are increasing, and he believes the atmosphere contains more carbon dioxide than at any time in the past 420,000 years. If the current trend continues, which began at 310 parts per million in 1960, the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere will be about 950 parts per million by the end of this century. Based on its ability to cause higher temperatures, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise as well. Takle estimates it will rise as much as 4 degrees by 2030, and as much as 18 degrees over the next 100 years. But he says the increase will not be distributed evenly around the Earth, and the warming tends to be concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere, interspersed with ocean regions that cooled somewhat.
The April newsletter says the electric power industry creates over 33% of greenhouse gas emissions, followed by 28% for transportation, 19% for industry, and 8% for agriculture. But how does agriculture emit greenhouse gas? Takle and Hofstrand point to several sources:
1) Nitrous oxide makes up about 60% of the greenhouse gases originating from agricultural sources. And you probably are thinking, “Where does laughing gas used by my dentist originate on my farm?” Nitrous oxide is produced by soil microbes which break down nitrogen fertilizers into a form usable by your corn crop. While nitrogen is required for profitable corn production, more efficient management of application practices can reduce the nitrous oxide that is emitted into the atmosphere.
2) Methane is produced as part of the normal digestive process of livestock. Microbes ferment the feed and methane is released in the rumen of cattle. Iowa State says generally, lower quality feed and higher feed intake lead to higher methane emissions.
3) Methane is also produced during the decomposition of manure in lagoons, tanks, or pits where there is no oxygen present. On a field, the manure will decompose with oxygen and methane is not produced. With improved application technology, manure can be spread on fields with reduced methane production. Or the alternative is to capture the methane produced by manure pits, and burned as an energy source.
4) The use of diesel fuel and gasoline in tractors, combines, trucks, and other farm power equipment burns fossil fuel, and releases carbon. An increased reliance on alternative fuels will reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
5) The flooding of rice paddies restricts underwater decomposition to the anaerobic system described in the section on manure. That decomposition at the bottom of a flooded rice paddy will produce methane.
A carbon sink is the storage of carbon in another form. Underground coal veins and crude oil deposits are carbon sinks formed when plant material was buried, and the decomposition did not allow carbon to be emitted into the air. Carbon sinks can be formed with the development of forests, since the wood in the tree contains carbon. Burning the wood or letting it decompose puts the carbon back in the air, but using the wood for building material converts the carbon into the structure for a home.
A different carbon sink is the organic matter in the topsoil created from prairie grasses. Conventional tillage allows the carbon to oxidize and be released into the air. However, increased conservation tillage has allowed equilibrium to be reached between release of carbon and depositing the carbon from crop residue. This practice allows farmers to obtain payments from carbon credits that are sold to emitters of carbon such as power plants.
Summary:
The release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases has the potential to increase the atmospheric temperature over time. While agriculture is a relatively low emitter of greenhouse gases, there are a number of practices that can be undertaken to reduce those emissions, and even convert agriculture into a carbon storage industry which could generate revenue for farms.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:43 AM | Comments (2) | Permalink
April 22, 2008
Treat Your Seed Beans Like Grandma's Crystal
When you fill your planter this spring with seed beans, will you be planting a $12-$15 crop, or will you be burying seed, never to be seen again? That is a frightful thought, given the investment you are making in planting soybeans, and particularly if you have your crop booked at the premium prices being offered earlier this year. But this is the year that soybeans could face a serious production challenge.
A few years back movie goers were entertained, thrilled, and terrified by “The Perfect Storm.” That is the label being applied to the 2008 soybean crop by agronomist Palle Pedersen and plant pathologist Alison Robertson of Iowa State University. Their concern: soybean seedling disease. Your concern: soybean seedling disease, also.
The whole issue really begins last year in soybean seed production fields managed by many different seed companies. Environmental issues reduced the vitality of the seed coat, and through the conditioning process over the winter, seed beans are not in the best of shape. The Iowa State specialists warn that the lower quality seed results from a variety of factors that all converged on 2008:
1) Increased demand for seed beans because of more acres to be planted.
2) Fewer quality seeds because of increased rejection of seed last fall.
3) High prevalence of seedborne fungal infections
4) Lower germination rate due to the thin seed coat cracking during conditioning.
They are quick to say that if the germination rate is low due to fungus, that can be addressed with a seed treatment. The damaged seed coat cannot be glued back together.
The diseases your soybean crop faces are the common ones that you see every year:
1) Phytophthora, Pythium, Rhizoctonia, and Fusarium all come from the soil.
2) Phytophthora and Pythium like wet soils.
3) Rhizoctonia and Fusarium like dry soils.
4) Pythium likes cool soils
5) Phytophthora likes warm soils.
6) Rhizoctonia likes warmer, still, soils.
Iowa State specialists say if the germination is less than 90%, then the seeding rate needs to be adjust upward to compensate. Unfortunately, the amount of adjustment is difficult to gauge because of all of the other factors, such as the soil borne diseases.
Since you have booked your beans for a premium price, you have a larger margin in your production costs possibly, so you might consider a fungicide seed treatment. But what should be used? They all do a job, but are not all equal, and do not fight the same fungal problems:
1) If you have Pythium and Phytophthora, then use metalaxyl or mefenoxam.
2) If you have Fusarium, Phomopsis or Rhuzoctonia, then use azoxystrobin, captan, carboxin, fludioxonil, PCNB, thiram or thiabendazaole.
3) If you don’t know what fungal problems you have had in the past, use a combination treatment.
Pederson and Robertson want you remember, “Fungicide seed treatments will not improve germination of seed that has poor quality and lower germination as a result of mechanical damage because of a thin seed coat, cracked seed coat and other physiological factors.” They are unaware of any data that shows germination rates are lowered as a result of pre-treatment, but warn that fragile seed can be further damaged during treatment.
Finally, they offer a checklist that will help you work toward success:
1) Get a good stand and avoid having to replant, since that lowers yield potential.
2) Know the condition of the seed, particularly the germination of your seed lot.
3) Be patient and do not plant into cold, wet soils.
4) Consider a fungicide seed treatment and avoid “the perfect storm.”
Summary:
There is an increased risk to the vigor of the soybean crop because of poor seed coats that might have been damaged, as well as the increased chance for soil borne fungal diseases. Knowing the fungus that has been in your soybean field in the past will help choose a fungicide seed treatment, which is recommended, due to the fragile nature of the seed.
Be patient in planting, and avoid cold wet soils, which may foster fungal problems.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:29 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
April 17, 2008
Is The Rest Of The Cornbelt Still In The Machine Shed With You?
How are the ponds in your field? Are you wet or dry, or is that a silly question. USDA began the week with the first weekly crop update, but it did not say much because of the moisture throughout the Cornbelt that has kept most farmers out of the field. From a bird’s eye view, we’ll tour the Cornbelt and check on soil moisture and get a crop report.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service keeps track of progress throughout the growing season.
ILLINOIS: Not much was accomplished last week, since the state averaged about one hour suitable for any fieldwork. Topsoil moisture is 72% surplus. Oat planting is 13%, but the 5 year average is 60% by this time. 87% of the winter wheat is fair to good. Wet fields, flooding, and above average rainfall has been the norm so far.
INDIANA: Only 6 hours reported suitable for fieldwork last week for a statewide average, with 74% of the topsoil having surplus moisture. 82% of the winter wheat is fair to good. Some nitrogen has been applied to wheat where possible, but some producers have used aerial equipment.
IOWA: Last week provided less than a half day suitable for fieldwork across Iowa. Topsoil moisture is 53% surplus and 47% adequate, with 62% of the subsoil having adequate moisture. 55% of fertilizer applications are complete, but windy, wet conditions have kept producers out of the fields. Rural roads are becoming a problem for grain trucks because of poor weather and surface conditions.
KANSAS: Farmers had 2.2 days suitable for fieldwork last week, because of drier soils, which are reported 66% adequate moisture and only 24% surplus. 23% of the wheat is jointed, compared to 75% last year, and 72% of it is in fair to good condition. So far very little of the wheat has not suffered any wind or freeze damage. Some corn planting has begun. 92% of the oats are planted and 73% of the pasture is fair to good condition, with forage supplies rated 79% adequate.
MICHIGAN: 1 day was suitable for fieldwork in the past week, since 65% of the topsoil has surplus moisture. Subsoil moisture is 98% adequate to surplus. The weather has been overly wet and cool and saturated fields have hindered any field operations. Pasture conditions are 70% fair to good, but soggy.
MINNESOTA: Only a couple hours were suitable for fieldwork last week. Topsoil moisture is rated 63% adequate and 31% surplus, with the subsoil moisture about the same. 2% of corn ground and 1% of bean has been worked, which is about average. A 10+ inch snow has set fieldwork back a bit, with 30 inches in some northern locations last Friday.
MISSOURI: Nearly a day was suitable for fieldwork last week, in part because of cold, rainy conditions and soil moisture that is 54% surplus and 46% adequate. Tillage is 16% complete compared to a 54% five year average. Pastures are 68% fair to good. The only progress being made in fieldwork is in western MO, but southeastern MO reports flooding conditions that have destroyed wheat.
NEBRASKA: A strong 2 days were available for fieldwork last week due to drier soils than the eastern Cornbelt. 65% of the soil reportedly has adequate moisture and only 20% has surplus moisture. The subsoil is a bit drier. 38% of the oats have been planted; and 86% of the wheat is fair to good. The past week brought some heavy rains and up to a foot of snow in some locations. But cold soils have prevented planting, germination, and good plant growth. Livestock conditions are generally good.
NORTH DAKOTA: Over 60% of the state reports soil moisture that is more than 60% short, and about the same for subsoil moisture. This has kept pasture in dormancy, but forage supplies remain adequate. 3% of the durum wheat has been planted, which is about average. Planting activity has been slowed by dry soil in the western part of the state and snow cover in the eastern part of the state. Livestock conditions were reported as being satisfactory.
OHIO: About 2 days were available for field work, despite wet soils that have 64% surplus moisture. Some oat planting has occurred, but most of the state is too wet for fieldwork and tillage. Some of the wheat has been top-dressed, and alfalfa has been seeded. Only 7% of the oats have been planted, compared to a 21% five year average. 6% of the wheat is jointed, on track with last year. 71% of the pastures are fair to good and livestock are satisfactory.
SOUTH DAKOTA: Less than a full day was suitable for fieldwork last week, due to a major winter storm, which left heavy snows, complicating calving and lambing last week.. 71% of the topsoil has adequate moisture, and 19% is in a surplus condition. 72% of the winter wheat has broken dormancy, slightly behind the average. Spring seeded barley and wheat have yet to emerge. About 80% of the pasture is in fair to good condition.
WISCONSIN: Soils are wet in Wisconsin with 48% having surplus moisture and the rest has adequate moisture, but no fieldwork was underway last week due to continued snow, rain, and muddy conditions. A few oats are in the ground, but not enough to reach 1% for the state.
HAWAII: (Just for comparison purposes) There were 7 days available for fieldwork, soil moisture is adequate, and all crops are in perfect condition, but field work will be coming to a halt due to volcanic emissions and smoke that have necessitated evacuation.
Summary:
Cornbelt agriculture has a slow start this spring because of cold, wet soils, above normal rains, and some snow cover. Not enough corn has been planted to move the scale. In the northern Cornbelt spring seeded small grains have not emerged, while in the southern stretch, wheat has begun to joint. Apparently, the 2008 growing season will begin with a plentiful supply of topsoil and subsoil moisture.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:55 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
April 15, 2008
Soyeans: Raising Their Value To Producers And Consumers
What special traits are contained in your bags of seed beans? Glyphosate resistance, probably, but what about consumer-oriented traits that have the potential to raise their market value? Being Roundup Ready may help with production expense, but profitability is increased more with added market value. Whether you are growing a special traited bean this year or in the future, let’s explore what the options may be.
Most of the options deal with the chemistry of the soybean oil, as plant breeders have manipulated genes to make soybean oil more appealing to health conscious consumers. But there are also improvements in the chemistry of soybean meal for livestock producers wanting a better nutritional balance for livestock rations. At the 2008 University of Illinois Crop Protection Technology Conference, Vice president Dennis Byron, of Pioneer Hi-Bred Crop Product Development Department, outlined some of the improvements that will provide additional profits.
Low Linolenic Soybeans
The typical 6% linolenic acid content in soybeans is what creates undesirable rancid odors, reduces shelf life, and requires hydrogenization to overcome those characteristics. By hydrogenizing soybean oil the problems are solved, but trans-fats are created and they have become lightening rods for criticism. The genetic manipulation to reduce the content of linolenic acid down to the 1-3% range has averted the need for hydrogenization and the creation of trans-fats. In 2007 about 1.5 million acres of soybeans were low linolenic, and that is expected to increase to 2 million in 2008. Premiums for producers are estimated at 60¢ per bushel.
Higher Oleic Soybeans
Oleic acid is a sister to linolenic, but it is a desirable component, therefore soybean breeders have increased the oleic content. It provides more flavor stability, and its quality will remain stable during extensive use in commercial food fryers, where high heat breaks down other cooking oils. Typically present varieties have about 20% oleic acid, but for 2009 some seed beans will be released by Iowa State that will have 50% oleic acid content. Additionally, their linolenic acid content will be about 1%. Byron said Pioneer is manipulating the genetics so the oleic acid content can reach 80%, as is Monsanto, with some seed available in 2009. Premiums have not been established.
Low Saturated Fat Soybeans
Although soybeans have only 7% saturated fat, that is twice the level of canola oil, and causes soybean oil to lose market share with the new food labeling laws that require identification of saturated fat content. Iowa State and Pioneer produced a low saturated fat soybean about 12 years ago and was distributed to schools to create healthier meals for children. The demand was limited and the seed is no longer in production. However, about 2010, soybean varieties will be available that will have the optimum combination of fatty acid content.
Omega-3 soybeans
The current popularity of foods with Omega-3 fatty acids result from its ability to fight inflammation and provide cardio-protective benefits. Other than fish oil, soybeans are one of the few sources of Omega-3. Monsanto is developing soybean varieties with increased Omega-3 content, and seed is expected to be available about 2012.
Soybean Meal
In addition to the protein content, soybean meal is about 25% carbohydrate that is not digestible by most livestock and poultry. Researchers are developing varieties with a digestible carbohydrate that will result in more usable energy for livestock. Other meal researchers are addressing the problem of phosphorus that is not digestible and creates problems in spreading livestock waste. The effort is directed at making the phosphorous in the meal digestible. The soybeans with these improvements are expected to be available about 2010.
Additionally, efforts are underway to improve the amino acid structure, to raise the sulfur content in methionine and cysteine and make the product more nutritional for livestock and poultry. The research is expected to produce seed beans for 2012.
Summary:
Consumer demand for soybean oil that will provide a wide variety of desirable traits is pushing soybean breeders to provide seed that will be available in the next 3 to 5 years. Those traits will be in demand by certain markets that will be willing to pay a premium for the identity preserved soybeans. Those include shifts in the blend of fatty acids in soybean oil that will make it healthier, more stable, and will contain fewer objectionable qualities. Additionally, researchers are manipulating the genetics of soybeans to adjust the components of soybean meal to make it more digestible for livestock and produce less phosphorus that can create environmental problems.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:06 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
April 10, 2008
These Five Points At Planting Mean High-Fives At Harvest.
It is late May. After a wet spring you have finally mudded in more than 1,500 acres of corn; some for yourself, some under a cropshare lease, and some for a custom farming client. As you clean up the planter to put it away, you notice a problem with one of the major settings. This is not a minor “Oooops!” This is a major “Oh _ _ _ _!”
Peter Thomison of Ohio State reminds us that mistakes during planting season are usually irreversible and the impact is probably a diminished yield potential. In the latest Crop Observation and Recommendation Network newsletter the OSU agronomist makes a number of checklist suggestions to ensure you avoid mistakes in getting your corn crop off to a good start.
1) Tillage. Thomison’s suggestion is to limit tillage to only the necessities and only when the soil conditions will cooperate. Secondary tillage should be limited to only preparation of an adequate seedbed, since it can create yield-reducing compaction. Fracturing compacted layers is sometimes necessary, but limit that activity to the fall.
2) Timetable. Know the optimum planting window for your region (probably sometime from mid April to mid May) and shoot for that target. Early planting in wet soil cut yields, just as late planting will. Thomison says, “If growers have the equipment capability to plant more than half of their corn acres prior to the optimum planting date, then this should allow planting all the corn acres prior to the calendar date when corn yields begin to decline quickly.” Typically the two to three weeks in the optimal planting period will contain one day out of three that fieldwork can reasonably progress. And Thomison says the calendar date is more reliable than soil temperature for planting decisions.
3) Seed depth. Corn seedlings like frost about as much as your spouse’s tomato plants. But you can’t cover up your corn with sheets and blankets. At this time of year when the soil is moist and the evaporative rate is low, planting depth should be no more than 1.5 inches. Later on, when the soil is more dry, push the seed down to the moisture, but no more than 2 inches deep. Care should be taken to ensure the seed is not so shallow that nodal roots will not properly form and that the seedling does not suffer from a soil-applied herbicide. The impact of irregular planting depths will be obvious when corn is sold next fall.
4) Seeding rate. What will your population be this year? 28,000? 35,000? 42,000? Higher rates should be reserved for fields with high yield potential, as determined by fertility and water holding capacity. Cutting the seeding rate to save on seed cost typically reduces revenue more than cost is saved. If planting into cold soil, some seeds will not properly germinate, so boost the seeding rate above the desired population.
5) Calculate your expected population. Thomison says unless you have a good stand of volunteer corn, your population will probably be less than your seeding rate. That is the target germination rate for seed corn, and the final population is determined by planting date, tillage practices, pest problems, chemical injury, planter performance, and seed quality. With those reducing the final population up to 15%, consider a seeding rate 10-15% above the desired population.
Summary:
Mistakes at planting time will be reflected in lower yields at harvest, so develop a checklist to ensure you have made every effort to achieve maximum yields. That includes soil conditions, planting date, planting depth, seeding rate calculations and seeding rate flexibility per field. Your seed corn needs a good start in life, and the care that is given in the next few weeks will pay off on the settlement sheet.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:28 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
April 9, 2008
How Will You Protect Your Soybean Crop, And Is That The Best Plan?
In 2008 you will have bugs in your beans. At this time it is too early to tell which ones, and it is too early to determine whether they will create damage that surpasses an economic threshold for a rescue treatment. But you will have bugs in your beans, so do you think now about how to respond or do you wait until your yield begins to fade?
In the 40 years prior to 2000, insect outbreaks that threatened soybeans were few an far between. Certainly memorable is the drought year of 1988 that brought two spotted spider mites to your attention. But for the most part there were few problems, and even then they were quite isolated. And during the latter years of that era, most producers learned that a spray should be something in response to a problem, not something that was applied to prevent a problem.
Since then, soybean entomology has become a dynamic discipline. You have heard about insects transmitting diseases, a new soybean aphid was discovered, and new insecticides have been developed that have changed your perspectives. University of Illinois entomologist Kevin Steffey says those may have focused your attention, but they have not necessarily lead to higher soybean yields. However, commercial product suppliers have caused producers to think that spending money on preventative products will result in improved yields. As you might expect, Steffey is not big on that philosophy. He warns against unintended consequences of pest resistance resulting from overuse of crop protectants, when you opt for the short term cost/benefit ratio that might be easily calculated.
While it may only take 1-2 bushels per acre of higher yield to pay for a pesticide or fungicide, Steffey says the entire cost of soybean production is increasing for 2008 and will cost you in the vicinity of $220 per acre, not counting land costs. That might put beans above $8 to breakeven, so spending more money on production costs will put them even higher.
But he’s concerned about the development of resistance, such as:
1) Putting a neonicotinoid treatment on soybean seeds may control an insect, but continued use will result in resistance development.
2) Controlling weeds with glyphosate is convenient, but it has an undesirable fungicidal impact on some insects.
3) Insecticide sprays may be used to control threats from insects, but repeated use creates resistance problems.
4) Use of fungicides to control a soybean disease is reasonable, but it may also kill a pathogen that had been suppressing the populations of other insects.
Insect management guidelines are a work in progress, particularly with increasing soybean yields and higher soybean values that have changed the dynamics of determining when a treatment should be used based on leaf defoliation. That has changed from amount of loss to the amount of leaf that remains to intercept light. But there are no decision aids yet to make that estimation.
In the near future, soybean resistance to insects will play a significant role in maximizing yield. This is particularly true for beans resistant to soybean aphids. Steffey says several varieties have been developed and should soon be commercialized. Another variety will have a Bt gene that makes soybeans resistant to Lepidoptera insects, but Steffey says that has not been a treat to Midwestern soybeans.
Generally, recent pests have been bean leaf beetles, Japanese beetles, soybean aphids, and spider mites, but there may be a shift occurring that some of those will recede in importance and new insects, such as the whitefly will come to prominence. So far, the species that have been seen have not caused economic damage. But Steffey says other species found in the South may cause damage in the Midwest as they have in southern states. And he says the recurrence of old pests or emergence of new pests may happen if good management principles are disregarded.
Summary:
Soybean producers should carefully consider the use of any crop protectant in an effort to reduce the potential for development of insect resistance. Preventative sprays are the first to reconsider, particularly since soybean production costs are already high. The use of leaf defoliation as an threshold for spray is changing along with higher yields and higher values, and new decision aids have not yet been developed and tested. New pests may appear at anytime, and old pests may recur, particularly if they become resistant to the overuse of chemical protectants.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:39 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
April 8, 2008
How Much SCN Tax Will You Be Paying This Year?
You are planting more soybeans this year for revenue purposes, but just like sharing some of that revenue with the IRS, you’ll be paying a share of your income to the SCN tax. The SCN tax is widely collected from Cornbelt farmers, and only 26% of Iowa Farmers and 18% of Illinois farmers are exempt from the SCN tax. And for those who have to pay it, the tax rate can be as high as 40% without any indication that you have ever paid the tax.
Of course, the loss of revenue from soybeans is not from an SCN tax, but from Soybean Cyst Nematodes which do deduct revenue, without providing any type of tax deduction. Your job as a producer is to maximize your soybean productivity by managing SCN says Iowa State plant pathologist Greg Tylka in his presentation at the 2008 University of Illinois Crop Protection Technology Conference, “For all practical purposes, SCN can never be eliminated from a field once it is present. However, there are things that can be done to manage the nematode in order to maximize soybean yields and minimize reproduction of the nematode.”
Tylka says you have 3 ways to keep money in your pocket, instead of letting SCN rob your bank account.
1) SCN resistant soybean varieties are one alternative, but even they will suffer a 10% yield loss. (That is still better than 30% losses.) And one of the benefits may be in their suppression of SCN reproduction. Tylka offered several test plot examples in which resistant varieties outyielded susceptible varieties by 15 bushels or more; however the number of SCN eggs in soil samples were ten to twelve times greater in the susceptible varieties.
2) A second alternative in SCN management is the use of varieties that have genetics from PI88788, which is the granddaddy for resistant soybean varieties. But, sadly, an increasing number of SCN populations tested around the Cornbelt have shown the ability to reproduce on the PI88788 legacy varieties. For example, 34% of Illinois SCN populations had greater than 10% reproduction. 60% of Missouri populations had greater than 10% reproduction. And a similar story comes from Iowa, but Tylka says, “Most of the resistant varieties usually yielded greater than the susceptible varieties at these locations.”
3) Thirdly, Tylka says SCN management includes the consideration of non-host crops, including corn, small grains, and some other legumes. Their use can cut SCN population as much as 50% in the first year after soybeans. However, the rate of population decline diminishes in successive years.
Summary:
Soybean cyst nematode can have a debilitating impact on soybean yield where producers have not been concerned about obtaining SCN soil tests and taking measures to plant either resistant varieties or non-host crops. While nearly every soybean variety, resistant or not, will allow some degree of SCN reproduction, the resistant varieties will suppress SCN reproduction as much as ten fold. Producers who use good SCN management will rotate resistant varieties with non-host crops.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:20 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
April 7, 2008
Before Heading To The Field, Take A Swing With A Baseball Bat.
You are chomping at the bit and pawing the ground like an impatient stallion. Normally a good part of your corn is in and up, and here you are biding your time, waiting for windy, warm sunshine to dry out your fields. Everything is greased, fueled, and checked out, except your poly water tank on the truck. Poly water tank? Why does that need to be checked? It just sits there! Oh, but there is a lot to learn about poly water tanks.
Pop it in the truck or on a trailer, tie it down and you have instant water in the field for pesticide and fertilizer applications. Handy thing. Should last forever. But it won’t and you need to have it on your spring checklist along with your son’s baseball bat. And we’ll use that in a little bit.
Fred Whitford coordinates the pesticide programs at Purdue and knows how poly tanks can crack like an egg. His presentation at the University of Illinois Crop Protection Technology Conference taught many producers how to select a poly tank, how to ensure it will not rupture, and how to test tanks to make sure they are up for another season. After all, you don’t want to see 500 gallons of chemical gushing out where there is no shut-off valve. The clean up cost may be even greater than the loss of the liquid!
The poly tank may hold a specific number of gallons, but it also has a specific gravity rating and that means it is also limited in how much weight it can contain. A tank that is only rated for water has a 1.0 specific gravity rating, meaning it cannot hold a liquid that weighs any more than the 8.334 pounds that water weighs. Your tank probably has a number that is somewhere between 1.0 and 1.9. If it is 1.5, that means it can safely hold a liquid that is one and a half times the weight of water, or about 12.5 pounds per gallon. As an example, if you haul a liquid fertilizer, it may weigh 10 to 12 pounds per gallon, so your poly tank should have at least a 1.5 specific gravity rating. In other words, know the rating on your tank and know the weight of the liquid that it contains.
Tanks come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and if the tank is used outside of its warranty, then any failure will not be covered. Tanks are designed to flex in places, both inward and outward, but if the weight of the liquid is too much for the flex point, the tank will rupture. When buying a poly tank, compare tanks of the same specific gravity and same style and dimension. Cheaper does not always mean the best deal.
It is impossible to say how long a tank will last, not when it should be taken out of service. Whitford says the only certainty is that at some point the tank will fail. Longevity is determined by the specific gravity of the contained liquids, frequency of filing, exposure to sunlight, amount of transportation, and the reactivity of the liquid. There is a good chance you’ll be filling your tank soon, and this is a good time for an inspection of its soundness.
1) Using a water soluble black marker, rub the marker over a 6 inch square section anyplace where it is exposed to sunlight, then rub off the ink with a paper towel, and any ink that is left has penetrated into the surface where there are cracks. Such cracks indicate radiation damage and the more cracks indicate the potential for failure.
2) Hit the tank with a baseball bat where the cracking has occurred. A healthy tank will let the bat bounce off. A sick tank may split open at that point of impact. But it is better for you to create the hole in an empty tank than for the tank to crack open under internal pressure in the field.
Summary:
Poly tanks can be a handy tool during the farming season, but have to be maintained. The tank should not be stressed by filling it with liquid with a specific gravity beyond the tanks rating. It should be recognized that sunlight can deteriorate a tank over time, creating stress cracks that might allow the tank to rupture at an inopportune moment. Poly tanks should be regularly inspected for the cracks, and replaced if cracks are found that might allow a failure of the tank’s integrity.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:45 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
April 3, 2008
Managing Waterhemp With A Devious Nature
As you think ahead a few weeks, and make your herbicide plans, you remember that nagging patch of waterhemp that just won’t go away. You have tried to control it (kill it) with a seemingly toxic shower of glyphosate, but the waterhemp just keeps growing. At some point you have to realize there is a need to manage it (live with it as best you can.) So how do you manage waterhemp that is resistant to glyphosate? (Glad you asked!)
The number of acres of corn and soybeans treated with glyphosate increases annually. And that trend is paralleled with the trend of weeds that are resistant to glyphosate, both in number of species, and in number of patches within that specie. That is not rocket science. And neither is the assembly of a plan to manage waterhemp that is glyphosate resistant. It is offered by weed specialist Aaron Hager at the University of Illinois.
Hager’s plan is based on the need to control waterhemp in Roundup Ready soybeans. He says if you know what types of herbicides your pesky waterhemp will resist, then post-emergent herbicide selection and utilization can be made before planting. Hager knows your waterhemp may be resistant to an ALS-inhibiting herbicide. In addition to your glyphosate resistant waterhemp, there is also waterhemp that is resistant to PPO inhibiting herbicides. He anticipates the near-term discovery of waterhemp that is resistant to both glyphosate and PPO inhibitors, which he says is a “worst case scenario.” That means there are no post emergent herbicides that will kill waterhemp. But there is something that could be done to help your problem and that is any practice that will hasten crop development and early canopy development. Hager’s recommendations are:
1) Apply a full rate (according to label guidelines for soil type and organic matter content) of a soil-residual herbicide no sooner than 7 days before planting or no later than 3 days after planting. This may work to curtail germination of waterhemp seeds, and a full rate will last longer to catch some of the late germinating waterhemp seeds. Any time you can delay waterhemp growth and maturity means the less competition for your soybeans. To minimize potential injury to soybeans, make your application no later than 3 days after planting.
2) The initial postemergence application of glyphosate (alone at 0.75 to 1.0 pound acid equivalent per acre) must be made when waterhemp is 3 to 5 inches tall. Since there is limited data on waterhemp control with a glyphosate and PPO tankmix, and few answers regarding additives, the recommendation is for a singular application. Resistant waterhemp will not be controlled at more than 50% efficiency with the labeled in-crop application rate or maximum labeled rate. However, if resistant waterhemp are under 5 inches, they are sensitive to the 0.75 pound a.e. rate. Closely monitor waterhemp that survive that application rate at that size.
3) Fields must be scouted 7 days after the initial glyphosate application to determine treatment effectiveness. Resistant waterhemp will continue to grow following treatment, but susceptible waterhemp will have wilted in that time period. However, at the end of the growing season it is impossible to tell the difference between waterhemp that germinated after the glyphosate was applied and the waterhemp that resisted the glyphosate.
4) If waterhemp control is inadequate and retreatment is necessary, consider applying a PPO-inhibiting herbicide (lactofen, fomesafen, or acifluorfen) at a full labeled rate (with recommended additives) as soon as possible. PPO inhibiting herbicides are the only recourse for glyphosate resistant waterhemp. By this time, the waterhemp may be 8 to 12 inches tall.
5) Rescout the treated field within 10 to 14 days to determine effectiveness of the PPO-inhibiting herbicide treatment. If scouting reveals that plants treated with a second herbicide application might survive, implement whatever tactics are available or feasible to rogue these surviving plants from the field before they reach a reproductive growth stage. The PPO resistance gene in waterhemp is transmitted by pollen, so it is important to physically eliminate plants before flowering. That same mode of transmittal is not known regarding glyphosate resistance. Since female waterhemp plants can produce in excess of one million seeds, running them through a combine is counterproductive, needless to say.
Summary:
The widespread use of glyphosate has allowed an increase in the number of waterhemp plants that are resistant, and because their ability to multiply is of Biblical proportion, it is important to manage them at their most sensitive stage. That stage is the 3-5 inch mark, with first a glyphosate application, then soon after with a PPO-inhibitor, if needed. Survivors should be physically removed from the field. An integrated system of herbicides and scouting is needed for management of glyphosate resistant waterhemp.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:03 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
April 1, 2008
Beans, Beans, And More Beans
When USDA picked your brain at the first of March about 2008 planting intentions, you were thinking you would probably plant more soybeans. Prices were about two and a half times the price of corn, and as a matter of fact you could not remember when soybean prices were that high. Beans, beans and more beans all came to fruition Monday.
11.162 million acres more beans than 2007 popped up in the Prospective Plantings Report issued by USDA. That was an 18% increase in soybean acreage, all the while 2008 expected corn acreage dropped by 8% from last year, representing 7.586 million fewer acres. Both estimates shifted more than the market expected.
The USDA report indicated there will be a strong demand for the corn being produced this year. “Expected acreage is down from last year in most states as favorable prices for other crops, high input costs for corn, and crop rotation considerations are motivating some farmers to plant fewer acres to corn. Despite the decrease, corn acreage is expected to remain at historically high levels as the corn price outlook remains strong due in part to the continued expansion in ethanol production.”
University of Illinois Marketing Specialist Darrel Good said corn acreage will be down one million acres in Iowa, 800,000 in Indiana, and 600,000 acres in Illinois. Based on a 78 million acre harvest and a 155 bu optimistic yield, production would slightly exceed 12 billion bushels in 2008. He says 2008 consumption will be 750 million bushels more than that, and 2009 use will surely increase.
In his recent newsletter, Good says we won’t have enough corn to satisfy all of the demand if the planting intentions come to fruition, “It appears that intended acreage of corn is not sufficient to supply the projected rate of consumption and implies that corn prices will have to increase to slow consumption and/or producers will have to plant more acreage than intended.” But right now, the intentions are to plant less across the Cornbelt, says USDA, “Corn farmers in the 10 major corn producing States (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin) intend to plant 66.6 million acres, down 8 percent from the 72.0 million acres planted last year.”
The huge addition of soybean acres and reduction of corn acres was also of concern to University of Missouri Marketing Specialist Melvin Brees, who says in his newsletter the situation could still get worse, “These reports suggest negative news for soybean prices and, although expected corn acreage is still relatively large, they raise concerns about whether corn supplies will be adequate to sustain growing demand. Increasing input costs, production risks and marketing risks, along with high soybean prices, have evidently influenced the acreage shift away from corn. While the actual planted acreage often changes from the early March planting intentions, the possibility of wet weather delays may limit producer opportunities to add to corn acreage.”
The high market prices for soybeans enticed thousands of producers to plant more beans this year, and they responded with intentions to plant 74.793 million acres. Just like the widespread decision to plant less corn, there were similar thoughts in all states about the need to plant more beans, says USDA, “The largest increases are expected in Iowa and Nebraska, up 1.25 million acres and 1.20 million acres from 2007, respectively. Increases of at least 800,000 acres are also expected in Indiana, Minnesota, and South Dakota. If realized, the planted acreage in Kansas, New York, and Pennsylvania will be the largest on record. Growers in the 11 major soybean producing States (Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, and South Dakota) intend to plant 60.0 million acres, up 16 percent from last year.”
At the University of Illinois, Extensions’ Darrel Good says soybean supplies should be able to meet the demand, “If 74.8 million acres are planted, harvested acreage might be near 73.8 million. With a national average yield near 42.5 bushels, the 2008 crop would total about 3.14 billion bushels, 115 million more than the level of consumption expected during the current marketing year. Current price relationships suggest that actual planted acreage of soybeans in 2008 should fall short of intentions.”
Since the survey was taken by USDA in early March, the bean market has lost $3 and the report was met with a 70 cent limit down move on Monday. Continued weakness in the bean market may turn some acres back to corn by the time planting time rolls around.
Summary:
It was anticipated that more soybean acres will be planted this year, as a result of high soybean prices over the winter, however, USDA forecast planting intentions 18% more than last year for beans, and 8% fewer corn acres than last year. Both exceeded market expectations. If realized, corn production may not meet expected consumption in the coming year, and soybean production will be barely enough. However, prices of corn and soybeans could change as a result of the report and the acreage change may not be actually as radical as forecast.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:54 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
March 31, 2008
Are You Getting The Biggest Bang From Your Nitrogen Buck?
If you have winced while writing out a check for your anhydrous ammonia requirements, you will probably be quite interested in using it efficiently, and getting the most for your money. Nitrogen prices are high, and yes, corn prices are high also to provide payback. But no one wants to waste the liquid gold in the white tanks.
Corn prices may have peaked for the time being, but nitrogen prices show no indication of weakening. Your goal should be to apply just enough nitrogen to maximize your yield. While that may seem to have an easy answer, it is one of the most impossible questions in all of agriculture to answer. If you ask, “How much nitrogen should I apply?”; the most honest answer is, “Well, that’s hard to say.” In his recent newsletter, University of Illinois Crop Production Specialist Emerson Nafziger outlines the reasons why your question can’t be answered, but provides some guidance to work through the challenge.
First start with some of the facts that are known, to help put the challenge in context:
• At maturity, corn will have 0.7 lbs. of N in a bushel of grain, about 0.3 lbs. of N in the stalks for each bushel, so a 200 bushel crop will account for 200 lbs. of N per acre.
• There is little correlation between yield and the amount of N that is applied, since efficiency of use can depend upon the amount taken up by the crop, placement, N loss, soil moisture and root growth.
• The organic matter in the soil is a good source of N, but is unpredictable because of microbial breakdown, and that depends on soil conditions, such as moisture and temperature.
• Nitrogen fertilizer needs to make up the shortfall, and since the shortfall is nearly impossible to quantify, the fertilizer requirements remain a question mark. Fertilizer trials have demonstrated that optimum yields can be produced with fertilizer applications ranging from 50 to 250 lbs of nitrogen per ace.
Finding the optimum rate has changed in the past few years, and research shows that it depends on the price of the nitrogen and the price of the corn, instead of the highest yield per acre in terms of bushels. The ratio of prices has remained surprisingly steady at 10 to l. $2 corn and 20¢ nitrogen. $5 corn and 50¢ nitrogen. However, additional research data added each year tends to refine the recommendations, and based on your current cost of nitrogen and what you have 2008 corn booked for at the elevator, it is highly recommended that you utilize an on-line decision aid calculator.
Decision aid calculator for IA, IL, MN, and WI
Decision aid calculator for NE
Decision aid calculator for OH
The calculators may suggest a range of nitrogen application or a midpoint of a range, which provide some flexibility. The recommendations also take into consideration the nitrogen needs of corn following corn versus corn following soybeans. As you make your decision, considerations that may also play into your decision include:
• Application close to the time of use by the corn plant will decrease nitrogen loss.
• Plants take up nitrate, and efforts to keep nitrogen in ammonium form are often unnecessary in the spring if there is a short time between application and use.
• Corn roots are designed to absorb nitrogen, leaves are not. Leaf health is determined more by nitrogen supplied to the roots than to the leaves.
• Corn plants can suffer root burns and death if the nitrogen is applied in the row or too close to the roots, particularly if the soil is dry; so it is recommended that nitrogen be applied between the rows instead of under.
• Urea can deteriorate rapidly, and nitrogen will be lost, if it is applied on a warm, dry surface or if there is excessive crop residue. Incorporation is needed to place the urea where it can be used by the crop, if rain is not forthcoming. Compare the cost of the incorporation to the cost of a urease inhibitor.
Summary:
Nitrogen cost is high, but its contribution to a high value corn crop is priceless. The unfortunate part is not knowing exactly how much nitrogen to apply. Numerous issue impact the optimum application rate, including soil conditions, organic matter, placement, etc. On-line decision aids are available to assist in making a reasonable decision. Good agronomic practices will also assist in efficient use of your resources devoted to nitrogen application.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:41 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
March 27, 2008
Economic Injury Levels: Where Are They In High Value Corn And Soybeans?
With the higher prices you have booked for 2008 corn and soybeans, what will be the basis for your decision on any type of pestilence that might arise this year? You might have Asian rust decimating soybean leaves. You might have Japanese beetles eating your corn silks. And if you know what your price risk is, does that increase or decrease your threshold level for a rescue treatment. Let’s recalibrate your sights as you aim at the bug in the bull’s eye.
Entomologists Mike Gray and Kevin Steffey at the University of Illinois have offered a couple thoughts that may help you profitably adjust your plans to cultivate and protect a truly valuable crop. In their latest newsletter Gray and Steffey consider when a rescue treatment is “needed.” Usually the answer has to do with economics, and whether there will be a return on the investment made in the insecticide or will the value of the yield offset the cost of the control. You have probably used those concepts in the past to determine when it is time to climb on the sprayer.
The specialists say, “In simple terms, the economic injury level is the point (of injury or insects) at which the value of expected crop loss equals the cost of control.” There is no rocket science here, but one issue that needs some clarification is the threshold or insect population density which causes you to pull the trigger. They quote a theory that “the economic injury level equals the cost of control, divided by the market value of the crop, the injury units per insect, the damage per injury unit, and the proportional reduction in insect injury.
While you are wondering what numbers to plug into that formula, Gray and Steffey say, “The question of whether economic thresholds for making insect control decisions will be lower in 2008 refers directly to the market value of the crop. Most people know that as the value of the crop increases, economic thresholds decrease.” In other words, if you pulled the trigger when four Japanese beetles were found eating the silk on $2.50 corn, you will be spraying a field of $5 corn much quicker. But is the number two beetles or three beetles?
Gray and Steffey share your lament that the answer does not come easy. Just because the price of soybeans has doubled from $6 to $12, that does not mean it only takes half the number of soybean aphids to warrant a rescue treatment. In their terms, “the relationship is not linear.” The entomologists admit they do not have an exact formula for economic thresholds that will accommodate the new commodity prices; and they say lowering the range is not a light decision, but will take several years to confirm. And to complicate the calculation will be changes in yield, plant populations, and input costs, all of which necessitate further adjustment.
The entire concept of calculating economic thresholds is designed to manage crop production with the greatest intelligence and management of risk. That applies also to managing your corn rootworm, corn borer, and weed problem, with the use of triple stacked genetic hybrids. While the bag of seed is higher in cost, the corn at the end of the year has a higher value this year. A recent Gray and Steffey commentary on Bt hybrids underscores the need for the prescribed refuges on 20% of adjacent acreage despite the temptation to plant all of your corn acreage to the premium seed. The threat to the viability of the Bt genetics is increased by the absence of the refuge, but the viability of the Bt hybrids is retained with a refuge. Two outcomes that are possible with the lack of prescribed refuges are regulations and the lack of efficacy in the Bt hybrid in controlling corn rootworm and corn borers. The loss of effectiveness will result in increased production costs and reduced profitability in future years.
Summary:
The higher prices you will be getting for corn and soybeans this year mean the crop is more valuable per acre, and with the higher value is a lower threshold for applying a rescue treatment in the event of pestilence. But the question is, what is that new threshold? Entomologists say just because the value of your corn and beans is twice as much, does not mean the threshold is cut in half. 2008 economic threshold ranges will be less than prior years, but the exact parameters will need research and testing.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:15 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
March 20, 2008
Double Crop Soybeans Could Payoff If The Risk Is Managed
Are you a bit greedy, and are you thinking about planting double crop soybeans into your wheat? Certainly, two high value crops in one year will help pay the cash rent, but make sure you take care of both crops, or you may create significant problems and not have any crop. Oooops!
First, the risks. You will have a significant chance at increasing the disease pressure for both crops. You are also negating the weed, disease, and insect control opportunities received from a typical crop rotation. Those are the primary warnings of Ohio State University agronomist Jim Beuerlein, who offers a roadmap toward doublecropping.
Beuerlein also warns there are two requirements for a profitable double crop:
1) Adequate time for the second crop to mature.
2) Adequate water for the second crop to mature.
Time and water, water and time. That is the bottom line to profitability. But Beuerlein also notes that because soybean maturity is determined by the length of the day, it is particularly suited for a second crop since it will begin growing when the days are the longest. But the water factor at that point is also important, and Beuerlein says the top three inches of soil cannot be dry when beans are planted into wheat. That will slow down the germination and retard any root growth that starts. He says the best soil for double cropping are ones with good water holding capacity and are considered “good corn soils.”
Your wheat crop needs to be harvested as early as possible. If you have planted a full season wheat, don’t go to the expense of buying soybean seed. If you are going to be successful in doublecropping, your wheat crop should be an early to mid-season wheat variety, and what is more, you are going to harvest it early. Beuerlein suggests cutting the wheat when moisture starts to dip below 20%, in order to get it off the field and let the sun hit the soybeans. That means you will probably have drying costs associated with the wheat. By letting it field dry below 14% moisture, you have saved drying money but you have also lost a couple weeks that the soybeans need.
Watch the June temperature, which will be integral for rapid maturity and dry down of the wheat. If that is not happening, reconsider your double crop plans. In addition to the short season wheat, you also need a short season soybean variety. That will improve your chances of the beans maturing before the first frost next fall. Beurlein says,” Ohio studies have shown that early planting and July-August rainfall have a much greater impact on double crop soybean yield than does variety.”
Your wheat straw must be managed to avoid problems for the soybeans. They need to get up and out, and if you can clip the straw and bale it, that provides additional income. If you are not baling the straw, chop it and spread it so that a no-till drill can plant through it. At that time, soil moisture is imperative. Beuerlein says July and August rain usually will not replace what the second crop is capturing, and the double crop beans need a head start provided by the moist soil at planting. He says, “An important rule of thumb to consider is: “If June is dry, don’t try to double crop.” Increased nitrogen application for the small grain produces more vegetation, which increases soil moisture use. Because wheat uses moisture from the upper 8 to 12 inches of soil, growers should be aware of the moisture remaining below that depth.”
The Ohio State agronomist is highly recommending that the double crop beans be planted with a no-till drill, and ideally planted the same day the wheat is harvested. He recommends a narrow row of 7.5 inches, with a planting rate at least 250,000 per acre to obtain sufficient leaf canopy and yield. He recommends that rate because the beans will be short and will need to create a canopy as soon as possible.
Weed control is necessary, but Beuerline says it is not difficult. Weeds surviving the wheat harvest should be knocked down with glyphosate or grammoxone. The use of Roundup Ready beans may already be in your plan to control post-emergent issues. Earlier, when the wheat reaches the hard dough stage Beuerlein says a 2,4-D amine application can be used to control some weeds that might be a problem for the soybeans that follow the wheat.
Summary:
Double crop soybeans will provide added cash flow, but will require sufficient time to grow and sufficient water to grow. An early departure of the wheat, helped by an early maturity and an early harvest, will allow soybeans to be planted the same day. However, there must be sufficient moisture, and if the time is still in June, there would be time available for soybean growth and maturity before the onset of frost. The beans should be drilled in narrow rows with a high population to achieve a canopy as early as possible.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:31 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
March 5, 2008
Glyphosate Will Cost HOW Much? What's The Alternative?
If you have worked on crop budgets for 2008, you probably already know that Roundup and its glyphosate brothers have increased in price substantially. (High demand and insufficient supply have been the reasons given.) If this poses an opportunity to consider an alternative weed control plan, it may be the time to take action to prevent or further delay any glyphosate resistance on your farm. (Did the light bulb just flash on?)
You are sharing your soil, moisture, and nutrients with weeds, which are unwelcome and uneconomical. But a single weed control program in your soybeans for the past 15 years and in your corn for the past 3-5 has given many of those weeds the opportunity to develop glyphosate resistance. Prevention (or management) of that resistance is a significant challenge says Bob Hartzler of Iowa State University, but he has developed a plan to help. Developing your own plan may not really be feasible, given all of the variables, the time involved, and the fact that if your plan fails, you have a real problem!
One of Hartzler’s colleague, Dave Stoltenberg at Wisconsin, calculated that before glyphosate was used in a field, one in 10 billion individual plants in a weed specie would have resistance to it. As you know a weed management system using only glyphosate had a higher risk of creating resistance than other weed management systems. But it all depends on the specific weed specie:
1) Annual rotation away from glyphosate was equal to the use of metolachlor in managing GR risk in lambsquarters.
2) In pigweed, rotation of herbicide chemistries resulted in five times greater risk of GR than the use of metolachlor.
Weed specialists in Australia who worked with Roundup Ready cotton “found the effectiveness of adding a pre-emergence herbicide to a glyphosate based system varied among weed species based on the weeds sensitivity to the herbicide.”
A Monsanto scientist working to predict glyphosate resistance found “Rotating away from glyphosate every third year was slightly more effective (~2 to 8 years) than including an alternative herbicide in delaying the onset of resistance in two different weed species.”
The bottom line, says Hartzler, is that glyphosate resistance is a real threat. And he says, “For most farmers, the resistance management tactics most likely to be incorporated into weed management systems are either herbicide rotation or inclusion of alternative modes of action.” But he says the success depends on the weed specie how it is controlled by the alternative herbicide used. While other herbicides will not have the weed control success of glyphosate, their success depends on whether the labeled rate was used in the post emergence phase of spraying.
Summary:
Glyphosate resistance is a threat if Cornbelt dependency on glyphosate continues at its current high level. That problem can be prevented or delayed if an alternative weed control program is used, which would include either alternating years or adding an alternative herbicide at the full labeled rate to the glyphosate.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:07 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
February 20, 2008
Crop Yields: Do They Result From Seed Genetics Or The Weather Or Something Else?
If your crop yields are accelerating more each year, is it because you are paying your seed dealer, or paying the preacher? In other words, if you are experiencing yield improvements at a higher rate than ten years ago, is that change due to the technology in the seed bag or the fact that Cornbelt weather has been more favorable? Or is there any yield acceleration at all?
Crop weather specialist Mike Tannura at the University of Illinois was joined by agricultural economics colleagues in looking at the yield trends and the weather in Illinois, Iowa, and Indiana, all of which have similar crop production practices, similar weather, and produce about 50% of the corn crop. Their analysis looks at the widespread perception that trendline yields have accelerated since the mid-1990’s, compared to the longer trendline yield from 1960 to 2007. They looked at precipitation both pre-season and growing season, as well as temperature, and utilized some of the longtime efforts of Iowa State weather specialist Louis Thompson.
Since 1996 they found that the trendline for corn yields changed very little in the three states and at most .2 bu. which was described as statistically insignificant, after adjusting for the weather. They characterized the weather as fairly benign for corn development since the mid-1990’s. Similar to the yield jump from single cross hybrids in the 1930’s and the reliance upon nitrogen fertilizer in the 1950’s, many folks in agriculture attribute yield increases to improved seed technology. That would include triple stack corn which has only been yield tested for 1 year, and the speculation that Bt corn genetics also improve its use of nitrogen.
(Along the way, the researchers found, “Unfavorable weather reduced yields by a much larger amount than favorable weather increased yields. For example, 2 inches higher than average July precipitation in Illinois increased corn yields 6 bushels per acre, while 2 inches less than average reduced yields 16 bushels per acre.” They also found that, “Corn yields increased at the fastest rate in Iowa and Illinois, with annual increases of 2.1 and 2.0 bushels per year, respectively. Trend yield increases in Indiana were slightly lower at 1.7 bushels per year.”)
Their statistical analysis indicated both that seed technology and weather really did not fully explain any yield improvement in recent years. However, they measured about a 1 bushel per acre increase attributable to the change to single cross corn, and a 1.7 bushel per acre increase attributable to nitrogen use. They were intrigued that biotech seeds may also result in a yield increase over the period of 2008 to 2030, but one that is closer to 225 bushels per acre instead of 300 bushels per acre. But leaving a question mark in their minds was whether cyclical weather patterns may also at work as Dr. Thompson had suggested.
The Tannura, Irwin, and Good analysis was part of more lengthy research which focuses on the relationship of crop yields and crop weather statistics that will be of concern if there are increases in global temperatures.
Tannura and colleagues note that analysis of weather impacts on crops can be difficult, given the fact that 4 inches of rain in a month could be spread over several showers, or could be just one gullywasher. They looked at weather studies back to 1914, which determined July rainfall was the most important for corn, and another in 1920 which said temperature played an important role. Following up on Thompson’s statistics which spanned 1930 to 1962, Tannura’s group explored the potential for yield acceleration since 1960 and including the new biotech period.
Tannura says, “The states of Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa were chosen for the present study because they represented 43% to 45% of U.S. corn and soybean production from 2000 through 2006. These states also have similar climate and planting dates. Consideration was given to including Minnesota and Nebraska since they often rank in the top five corn and soybean producing states. However, Minnesota was excluded because its northern climate is more susceptible to damaging early- and late-season frosts that may not be detected by monthly weather observations. Nebraska was excluded because a high proportion of its crops are irrigated, which skews weather-yield relationships.” Among the findings are:
1) Indiana is the wettest during the pre-season, which is defined as total precipitation from September through April.
2) Illinois is drier by a small amount.
3) However, Iowa averages approximately 6.00” to 8.00” less during the pre-season period. This is primarily due to considerably drier weather during the winter.
4) Precipitation during June in Illinois and Iowa both averaged around 4.00”, which was slightly drier than in May.
5) However, Iowa averaged 0.50” more precipitation than in Illinois or Indiana, which was slightly wetter than in May.
6) A review of the median also shows Iowa was the wettest during June. At the extremes, Illinois and Indiana have been much drier than Iowa in June with minimum values of 1.05” and 0.74”, respectively.
7) Illinois was the warmest of the three states throughout the growing season from May through August, while Iowa was always the coolest.
8) The month of May was the coolest with average temperatures around 62°F to 63°F, while July was the hottest with averages around 74°F to 75°F.
Regarding yields, corn yields climbed quickest in Iowa at 1.9 bu. per year, with Illinois and India at 1.7 bu. Soybean yields increased by 0.5 bu. in Iowa and Indiana, with Illinois at 0.4 bu. “Yields from 1960 through 2006 were adjusted to the level of technology available in 2006. Iowa averaged the highest de-trended corn yield, 159.1 bushels per acre, followed by Illinois at 155 bushels per acre and Indiana at 149.6 bushels per acre, respectively.” Tannura’s group also reports, “Monthly precipitation and temperatures during sensitive periods of crop development were stable across the sample period. Although precipitation and temperature observations showed large year-to-year variability, a clear trend was not detected. The lack of a trend and earlier evidence of low month-to-month correlations support the view that monthly temperatures and precipitation from 1960 through 2006 were random. Finally, the fact that an upward trend in temperatures was not observed in Illinois, Indiana, or Iowa is not necessarily inconsistent with global warming, because the local effects of global warming on climate and weather are poorly understood.”
Summary:
The perception that trend yields have accelerated in the past decade could be due to benign weather that was not recognized, or due to an improvement in seed genetics, or due to weather patterns that cycle through with beneficial effects and a year to year decrease in yield variation. Precipitation, temperature, and time can explain the increasing yield curve, but trend yield forecasts based on technology may lead to poor yield forecasts.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:29 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
January 17, 2008
Weed Control May Be A Bit Easier This Year.
You have bumped up your marketing plan. You have stepped up your seed selection. You have climbed up with a new planter. So it is time to go the next step with new weed control program with some of the 2008 chemistry that will be available in the Cornbelt. Grab a pencil to make some notes on weed control programs to discuss with your supplier.
The Extension weed specialists have been busy evaluating a host of new products and thanks to the staff at Purdue and their weed science update, we have some ideas that might solve some of your problem weed spots this spring.
A new burndown product for either corn or bean fields is Rage D-Tech from FMC, which is a premix of Aim and 2,4-D that has activity on broadleaves such as lambsquarters, marestail and ragweed.
A new product for weed control in corn is Halex GT that is a mix of glyphosate, Dual magnum, and Callisto. Syngenta is marketing it for an early post emergent production for glyphosate resistant corn that will have some residual control for grasses and broadleaves. It will control 2-4 inch weeds, or larger ones with a blend of atrazine.
Laudis is a new corn herbicide from Bayer CropSciences to be used in either Roundup or Liberty Link systems, and works on weeds similar to Callisto, but has more activity on grasses. It can be tank mixed with atrazine, Liberty or glyphosate and Purdue says it has fair activity on grasses, and excellent activity on broadleaves, such as giant ragweed, lambsquarters and velvetleaf; particularly when under 6 inches.
Resolve from DuPont is a tank mix partner with glyphosate for Roundup Ready corn, and can provide some residual control. It comes in several forms and can be used preplant or postemerge to corn up to 12 inches tall. Controlled grasses include barnyard grass and foxtail, as well as broadleaves such as henbit, chickweed, and shepherds purse.
Require is another DuPont premix containing dicamba, and is a postemergent herbicide for use in a Roundup Ready system for corn needing residual weed control.
Select Max from Valent was developed to help with glyphosate tolerant corn, where replanting was necessary, but herbicides had more than a 30 day interval requirement. Select Max can be applied 7 days before replanting damaged corn.
For your soybeans, FMC’s Authority MTZ and Authority Assist provide good to excellent pre-emergent help with pigweed, lambsquarters, smartweeds, morning glory and black nightshade. MTZ is a premix of Authority and Sencor to help with ragweed control. Assist is a premix of Authority and Pursuit to help with giant foxtail and shattercane.
Canopy EX from DuPont is a premix of Classic and Express and was designed for fall applications prior to soybean planting, but now can be applied up to 7 days prior. It provides burndown on annual bluegrass, chickweed, henbit and other winter annuals. Add 2,4-D to help with wild garlic, lambsquarters, and marestail.
Envive from DuPont is a premix of Valor, Classic, and Harmony GT for burndown use with residual control prior to soybean planting. It controls nightshade, lambsquarters, pigweeds, emerging marestail, ragweed, and waterhemp, as well as suppression of some grasses like foxtail.
Prefix from Syngenta combines Dual II magnum and Reflex and provides early season grass control, as well as ragweed, jimsonweed, pigweed, marestail and waterhemp. One of its ingredients is sensitive to the amount of organic matter, and rates of application may vary from farm to farm.
Summary:
Chemical companies have been busy working to blend popular and successful herbicides to better help farmers control difficult weeds, and be more applicable to areas where specific weed problems exist. Once you create a list of your weed problems, there possibly will be a new chemical that is tailored for your operation’s rotation and weed control needs. Questions can be addressed to university weed specialists through your local Extension offices.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:24 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
January 16, 2008
Take A Guess: What Is The Relationship Between Ethanol Production And Fertilizer Use?
The secret is out. The jig is up. You have been using more fertilizer to produce corn since the ethanol industry’s growth as a dominant market force in the Cornbelt. Now we know where all of that fertilizer has been going. You have been growing more acres and more corn on those acres to take advantage of the corn prices. But the bottom line is that all of the fertilizer you have applied may not have been used up.
Other than land cost, the biggest expense you’ll have this spring in producing a corn crop will be the cost of nitrogen; and the added cost of potash and phosphate will be on top of that. We won’t get into the nitty gritty of crop budgets, but look at the relationship in the growth of fertilizer use and the growth of ethanol production in the Cornbelt. USDA economists have linked the two trends in Assessing Economic and Environmental Impacts of Ethanol Production on Fertilizer Use in Corn Production.
The Economic Research Service team found that in 2005 and 2006 88 pounds of excess nitrogen and 33 pounds of excess phosphorus per acre were applied in the Cornbelt compared to the 1996 and 1997 excess rate of 39 pounds of nitrogen and 21 pounds of phosphorus per acre. Their statistics were based on actual content of fertilizer use and not tons of various forms of fertilizer. They found that farmers spend 60% more on fertilizer in 2006 than in 1989. (Of course, unit prices rose considerably during that time.) The researchers also noted wide variations in practices within states, such as the 32% increased use of fertilizer on Texas cotton ground, versus the 86% rise in fertilizer use on California cotton. Within the Cornbelt fertilizer use has been stable in Iowa and Minnesota, but varies in Kansas and Nebraska.
During the same period, ethanol production grew substantially, fostered by rising federal targets for production and use. Most of the ethanol is produced in the Cornbelt, in proximity to the primary feedstock of corn, observe the economists. They singled out Illinois and Iowa saying increased use and prices of fertilizer were apparent, compared to adjusted prices that were flat for the balance of the Cornbelt. However, they reported increased fertilizer application rates in the Central and Eastern Cornbelt, at the same time as increases in ethanol production were noted. And that region was putting on fertilizer at a rate that was triple the acceleration compared to the Cornbelt as a whole, and at a rate that was twice the acceleration of just the Western Cornbelt.
In general, their survey of fertilizer prices and use suggested a continuous increase in the influence on fertilizer prices of nitrogen and potassium, which they say indicates more being applied with greater effectiveness. As an aside the researchers say Iowa farmers had better fertilizer management practices than their counterparts in South Dakota. Farmers in the Western Cornbelt were seen to have been shifting to more corn production from other crops, but applying increased amounts of fertilizer as they did so.
The economists note that the USDA predicts 30% of the corn crop will be refined into ethanol in the 2009-2010 market year, and expanded acres means more fertilizer use with a likely greater introduction of more nutrients into the environment, due to excess application.
Summary:
Increased chances to produce and sell corn to the ethanol market have pushed farmers to apply increased amounts of fertilizer, to boost production. At the same time ethanol production is going up, so is the use of fertilizer in the Cornbelt. With increased use comes the chance that increasingly larger amounts will not be used by corn plants and will become excess nutrients that enter the environment..
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:26 AM | Comments (2) | Permalink
December 31, 2007
Specialty Corn May Not Always Like The Way You Grow It
Not far from your farm is a company that buys specialty corn, and you have made good profits from the premiums paid over the past several years. You have signed a contract for growing more next year, and have ordered seed for the type of corn desired by the plant. It is time to settle in for a long winter’s nap, but suddenly you are awakened by a nightmare that the fertility monster is about to eat your premium.
Quickly you hop out of bed, turn on your computer and begin to scour resources about the fertility needs of specialty corn. A few minutes later your spouse flips on the light in your office and asks what you are looking at on the Internet at 2 a.m. Your story about searching for the fertility needs of specialty corn may be far enough out of the box to be believable! But just so you’ll get a good night’s sleep, let’s say your concern is justified, so let’s talk about the solutions.
Even though commodity prices have nearly doubled in the past two years, the demand for specialty corn still exists. Ethanol plants may pay premium prices for hybrids that have highly extractable starch (HES). Also food companies need hard endosperm corn (HEC) for dry grind into corn meal and corn flour and regularly offer premiums for contract delivery. The irony is that HES is high starch and low protein and HEC is low starch and high protein. High amounts of nitrogen fertilizer will increase protein levels and decrease starch levels, and you may be trying to increase corn yield with high amounts of anhydrous ammonia, but deteriorating the quality of the corn you are trying to deliver.
Another agronomic issue is plant population. High population decreases protein and increases the starch yield. There may be other agronomic issues that you can control to help achieve your high protein or high starch goal, whatever it might be. Issues such as the previous crop could have an impact, particularly if it was soybeans that may have added to the nitrogen content of the soil. The bottom line should be to manage your specialty corn crop in a way that it helps your bottom line, and not hurt it.
Agronomists at the University of Illinois conducted a wide range of research on nitrogen rates and plant populations to determine impact on the trait content of various kinds of corn. The experiments were conducted at several test plots, with various nitrogen rates, planting dates, and plant populations. Soil tests were taken and grain samples were analyzed for protein, starch, oil and extractable starch. The hybrids tested were common hybrids, known for their desirable traits for extractable starch, hard endosperm, and being nutridense (ND).
Yield. Your priority is yield, since a 10 cent premium will not make up for a 10 per cent reduction in yield. And there was a large difference in yield, determined largely by location of the test plot and its environmental conditions. On average the HEC and the Yellow Corn control were the highest yielding at 224 bu./A, followed by the HES hybrid at 212 bu., and the ND at 192 bu.
Nitrogen response. Nitrogen increased yield at all sides, but there were variations in magnitude and maximum yield achieved. The largest response (107 bu./A) was in continuous corn in one plot, but rotated corn (following soybeans) provided the largest nitrogen response across all plots.
Rotation. The continuous corn yielded 194 bu./A, compared to the corn after soybeans at 208 bu./A. “Interestingly, the same maximum yield was achieved by both rotations, but continuous corn required 222 lb N/A to reach it compared to only 146 lb N/A for rotated corn.”
Population. The effect of plant population was of much smaller magnitude than that of fertilizer. The largest response was only 13 bu./A, and there was no difference in yield response to population when compared to continuous or rotated corn.
Grain composition. The highest protein concentration was obtained with the HEC hybrid (8.4%), and the HES hybrid had the lowest protein concentration (7.3%). The HES hybrid had the highest starch and extractable starch concentrations (73.8% and 68.3%) and the ND hybrid the lowest (72% and 63.1%). However, the ND hybrid produced grain with the highest oil concentration (5.5%) and the HES hybrid the lowest oil concentration (3.9%).
Protein. Protein increased with the increase in nitrogen applications, on average 1.3%. Grain protein concentration of unfertilized continuous corn (6.2%) was lower than in rotated corn, but both reached 8.2% protein with high rates of nitrogen. Protein levels were reduced with higher plant populations, and declined the most between 28,000 and 36,000.
Extractable starch. Extractable starch decreased with greater levels of nitrogen, as much as 1.7%. That occurred between the unfertilized corn and the highest rate of N, but there was still a 1% drop in starch content when the nitrogen rate was increased from 100 lbs/A to 200 lbs/A. By increasing the plant population, the amount of extractable starch increased as much as 0.9% when plant populations were increased from 28,000 to 40,000.
Corn oil. Both increased plant population and nitrogen reduced the amount of oil concentration, particularly in the ND hybrid, but the magnitude was smaller than for protein or starch.
Bottom line:
1) Grain protein concentration is maximized with management practices that increase N availability.
2) Soybean as a previous crop should be preferred over corn, the plant population should be maintained as low as possible without affecting grain yield, and N fertilizer should be applied at a slightly higher rate than the optimal N rate for grain yield.
3) Conversely, extractable starch can be maximized by management practices that limit N availability.
4) In order to maximize grain extractable starch concentration, continuous corn is preferable over rotated corn, plant population should be increased and over fertilization of N should be avoided.
Summary:
Farmers who are utilizing production contracts to gain premiums for specialty corn, specifically for high protein or high starch, have the opportunity to make agronomic decisions that will maximize the starch and protein content of the grain. However, those decisions may be counter to typical decisions or maximizing yield, such as nitrogen application and plant population.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:51 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
December 26, 2007
Will You Have Some Weeds Next Spring Which Are Glyphosate Resistant?
You gave your corn and soybean fields a good shower of Roundup earlier this year, but during harvest you found some healthy weeds that refused to cooperate with your herbicide program. Your combine did a great job of spreading the seed, and that weed patch will be waiting for you next year with reinforcements. You think, “Why does this have to happen to me?!?”
Roundup is supposed to kill everything but your corn and beans. That’s what the label says, but weed scientists are keeping close track of numerous patches of various kinds of weeds in the Cornbelt that resist a glyphosate shower. How that happens was explained by weed specialist Bob Hartzler recently in a research report presented at the Iowa State Integrated Crop Management Conference. And what he said in his presentation will not only help you understand how weeds resist glyphosate, but what you can do to prevent that headache.
Glyphosate was used for 20 years before weeds developed any resistance, and during that time is provided a high level of effectiveness, application flexibility, a large margin of crop safety, and safety for applicators and the environment. Glyphosate was successful because it would disrupt the weeds metabolic process, could not be metabolized by the weed, and was efficiently sent to the growing point in the weed. Glyphosate locks onto an enzyme known as EPSPS and disables it. EPSPS is involved in the pathway in the weed that carries growth regulators and many other chemicals, amino acids, and organic chemicals needed to survive. Weeds that are resistant to a chemical are able to metabolize and break it down, before it reaches the target site. That is why corn can survive atrazine and soybeans survive a spray of pursuit.
Roundup Ready soybeans introduced in 1996 contained the EPSPS enzyme, but it was modified by a gene from a bacterium that was insensitive to glyphosate. Roundup Ready corn contains a gene from a resistant variety of corn and the new version of EPSPS works fine.
Shortly after Roundup Ready soybeans were introduced, an Australian weed, known as rigid ryegrass was found to be resistant of the process that disables EPSPS in the weed. Then in 2000, some horseweeds in Delaware were found to be surviving glyphosate from year to year. Since then, 12 weed species have been identified as resistant to glyphosate. Some of the weeds have a mechanism that is resistant to glyphosate and several have multiple mechanisms. Weed scientists have found the resistant horseweeds to only have resistance at a specific time, and when glyphosate was applied at the two leaf stage it could be controlled. However, when the rosette stage appeared, so did the resistance. The plant may have sent the glyphosate chemical to an area where it was of no harm, or it could have produced more EPSPS, or it could have increased it branching. It is believed that the horseweed did not allow the glyphosate to migrate out of the leaves, and the leaves died, but not the rest of the plant. At the two leaf stage, the plant could not achieve that process.
In Italian ryegrass, one resistant patch demonstrated the same process as the horseweed, with 80% of the glyphosate remaining in the leaf, but in another resistant patch, only 51% remained in the leaf, indicating it had found a different way to survive. In that case one of the 425 amino acids that comprise the EPSPS enzyme was restructured after the glyphosate spray which allowed it to survive, and that escape mechanism has been found in other resistant weeds. In the past two years resistance has been found in other Cornbelt weeds, such as waterhemp, giant and common ragweed, and common lambsquarters. Their resistance mechanism has not yet been confirmed.
Weed scientists are still trying to find out why certain weeds have developed resistance to glyphosate, but anticipate different mechanisms to be found. Hartzler says, “Glyphosate resistance is different from previous herbicide resistance issues faced in the Midwest due to both the multiple resistance mechanisms and the relative level of resistance. The use of correct glyphosate rates has been promoted as the critical factor in managing glyphosate resistance. Since most (resistant weeds) possess a relatively low resistance level, use of rates that allow significant numbers of weed escapes undoubtedly would enhance the rate that resistance evolves within a weed population.” But he says those weeds with resistance have a high resistance level and using the labeled rate will only create more weeds that have resistance. And control of those weeds will require alternate strategies, with limited reliance on glyphosate.
Summary:
Glyphosate resistance is now a fact of life for some Cornbelt farmers who have weed patches that cannot be controlled with an application of labeled rates of Roundup. Those weeds have developed one of several mechanisms that allows them to escape the impact of glyphosate, and possibly it may have more than one mechanism of resistance. Weed scientists expect more weed species to develop resistance, more resistant weed patches to appear, and more challenges to farmers who have to find alternative management strategies.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:43 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
December 20, 2007
What is the Real Reason You Use Roundup? It May Not Be What You Think!
You may think you know why you plant Roundup Ready soybeans, but do you really know why? You may say that weed control is easier, but would your subconscious agree? Lie down on the couch and tell the Doctor what you really think.
Obviously, most farmers like the concept of Roundup Ready soybeans. USDA’s planted acreage surveys each spring have indicated nine out of ten acres of soybeans are glyphosate tolerant. But do plant that type of seed just to avoid walking your bean rows? The real value in Roundup Ready beans was the objective of research by Olha Sydorovych and Michele Marra of North Carolina State University. http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/pdf_view.pl?paperid=29022&ftype=.pdf The researchers say the widespread use of pesticides over the past several decades has resulted in concerns about threats to human health and environmental impacts and they say regulatory agencies are on the alert. With the cost of monitoring substantial, the researchers wanted to identify the positive impact that pesticide systems provide. Their investigation looked at the degree of pesticide safety, intensity, and duration of exposure, and estimated the impact of Roundup Ready soybeans on the welfare of the US farmer.
Assuming that farmers have a more accurate knowledge of pesticide risks to humans and the environment, since they not only apply pesticides, but are also exposed to their negative facets. One of their findings was that Roundup Ready soybean use results in the substitution of a single broad spectrum herbicide favorable to the environment instead of a variety of other herbicides which might vary in their environmental impact. “If one considers herbicide relative toxicity information in addition to the information on the application volume and the number of applications, RR soybeans show an improvement in the environmental “footprint” brought about by their adoption, which should have an impact on the welfare of farmers.” The North Carolina State economists believed that farmers are concerned about herbicide impacts on their own health, their family and employees’ health, and the impact on soil and water, including fishing, hunting, swimming, and other recreational activities.
Among their findings are that farmers were willing to pay up to $10 per acre per year to avoid high risk to chronic human health, and willing to pay $3.35 per acre per year to avoid a high risk of surface water pollution. They say the adoption of Roundup Ready soybeans, on average, resulted in an on-farm herbicide risk reduction in all risk categories. Adoption of the Roundup Ready system reduced the financial risk down to 50¢ per acre per year for acute human risk reduction, 93¢ per acre per year for chronic human risk reduction, and 33¢ per acre per year for surface water risk reduction. The researchers say, “In our analysis, the farmer associated positive values with reduced herbicide risk to human health, as well as with reduced risk of surface water pollution. Because RR soybean adoption, on average, results in on-farm reduction in these risks, we expect some positive impact on the welfare of the farmers. The aggregate impact on the welfare of U.S. soybean farmers was estimated to have been a little over $90 million in 2001 alone.”
Summary:
While the overt reason for using Roundup Ready technology is the use of one herbicide to control all weeds without harm to the soybean crop, there apparently are covert reasons for using Roundup. Those include a desire to use a pesticide that has a low risk of creating acute or chronic health problems in humans, and a low risk of causing surface water contamination. For those benefits, farmers have established financial values and those values are more than covered by the Roundup technology.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:41 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
December 13, 2007
What Would You Pay For A Trustworthy, Long Term Weather Forecast?
You have just watched the latest weather forecast on TV presented by the blow-dry weather reader, and you say to yourself, “I wish I could depend on what he says.” You have learned where some of the weather maps are located on the Internet, and you may even have a weather service on your cell phone. But you lack long term weather forecasts that will allow you to adjust your cropping pattern for different crops, or even just select more drought-resistant hybrids. How important is that to you, and what would you pay for having that knowledge? No sales pitch is being made here, so……
The western Cornbelt was a magnet for hip waders this year. The eastern Cornbelt was parched during most of the growing season. There is an increasing prospect for a La Nina arriving, but remind me, does that mean wet or dry? It is part of the dynamic cycle of surface water temperatures in the Pacific along the Equator, and the cycle can either mean wet or dry seasons for the Cornbelt, impacting crop production and commodity prices. The grain traders may already be spending a lot of money on long range forecasts to improve their profits, but what about the producer where the grain meets the ground?
Ohio State economists Brent Sohngen, Ted Napier, and Mark Tucker interviewed 936 farmers about the use of weather information, their desire for improved information, and how much they would pay for it. The survey was taken in 2001, and the study was published in 2003, but the findings are important because of the current weather dynamics and the extraordinary investment farmers are making in land and inputs for the 2008 crop.
The researchers say one El Nino cycle could have a financial impact on the US that might range from $1.5 to $6.5 billion, and the value of a perfect forecast for an El Nino cycle could be as large as $323 million just for agriculture. Adoption of practices to prepare for such a weather cycle depends upon farmer perceptions of the accuracy of the forecast. While farmers have marketing tools such as forward contracts, and production tools such as crop insurance, the Ohio State economists say weather information could substitute for such risk management devices, or help them make better decisions.
What is a long term forecast in your mind? To the researchers it is 6 to 9 months in advance of important production decisions, such as seed selection and crop insurance decisions. Some of you may already have a subscription weather service, so the Ohio State researchers considered either an initial subscription, or upgrading to a more expensive service. And the decision to adopt an improved forecast and pay for it is all based on an underlying profit motive.
The survey found that weather ranked behind market prices and input costs as the most important risk factor they face. And they were asked “If you could access weather information in which you could place 75 – 100 percent confidence of predicting monthly temperature and precipitation for your farm 6 – 9 months in advance, would you use such weather information to make crop production decisions?” They found that 47% would use such reliable forecasts if they were available:
1) Income does not have a significant effect on the probability of adopting improved weather forecasts.
2) More educated farmers are more likely to adopt the information, while older farmers are less likely to adopt it.
3) Farmers who have adopted long-term weather information for a larger number of farm decisions today are more likely to adopt the improved weather data we offer them.
4) Greater losses from drought likewise increase the probability of adopting the improved weather information, whereas the use of insurance and genetically modified seeds to reduce susceptibility to droughts does not seem to influence the adoption decision.
5) Average yield and variance in the yields for the county where the farmer is located do not have significant effects on the adoption decision. (Survey was taken in Ohio.)
Of the 219 farmers who would adopt the improved weather forecasts for 6-9 months out, the researchers asked how much they would pay for that service. The willingness to pay for improved weather information averaged about $105 per year, but the most frequently mentioned fee that would be acceptable was about $75. (Keep in mind that these are 2001 dollars, and today’s averages would be slightly more by inflation, and possibly larger still because of higher production costs.)
Summary:
About half of Cornbelt farmers would purchase improved weather forecasts for which they could be 75-100% sure of the weather 6 to 9 months away, all in an effort to make better production decisions. The results of a survey taken 6 years ago found that the average farmer who would subscribe would not pay much more than $75 for the information, even though it might accurately predict an El Nino that could cause up to $6.5 billion in damages to the US.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:28 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
November 21, 2007
A Final Status Report On Harvest And Soil Moisture.
USDA’s last weekly crop report for the season indicated that in many Cornbelt states there were still combines in the field, and drought was a concern for many producers. With little time before the ground freezes, some farmers will enter the spring with dry soil in many areas.
Farmers in the Upper Midwest can see the light at the end of the tunnel, if they are not already in the office working on records, marketing, and taxes. The final weekly crop condition report has been compiled by USDA with the help of hundreds of volunteer crop reporters.
ILLINOIS: Topsoil moisture was 52% in the short category and only 46% adequate. Fall harvest and seeding of winter wheat is virtually complete statewide. Field work is generally focused on nutrient application and fall tillage. The Illinois Ag Statistics Service also reported, “Rising input costs top the concerns of many farmers as winter approaches as well as the depleted soil moisture levels in many areas of the state.”
INDIANA: Topsoil moisture is over 60% adequate to surplus but the subsoil moisture is drier, and 56% is in the short categories. Corn is 96% harvested, soybeans are 99% harvested and 100% of the winter wheat is planted Farmers were busy during the week applying anhydrous ammonia, spreading fertilizer and lime, moving grain to market, and doing fall tillage.
IOWA: Topsoil moisture is 88% adequate to surplus and the subsoil moisture is 95% adequate to surplus following excessive rains that delayed harvest. Corn is 93% harvested and soybeans are 99% harvested. The northern half of the state is wrapping up harvest, in full swing with fall tillage and fertilizer application. The southern half is focused on harvest and is taking advantage of the dry days to finish.
KANSAS: Topsoil moisture is 47% short and 53% adequate. Subsoil moisture is 41% short and 59% adequate. Winter wheat is 4% pastured. Hay and forage supplies are 87% adequate and stock water supplies for Kansas are 81% adequate.
MICHIGAN: Topsoil moisture is 78% adequate and subsoil moisture is 65% adequate. The unharvested corn is rated 16% very poor, 18% poor, 32% fair, 28% good, and 6% excellent. Corn harvest has progressed and is completed some areas; with soybean harvest completed in many areas. Winter wheat emergence continued to be good and at a pace ahead of normal.
MISSOURI: Topsoil moisture is 50% short and 49% adequate. Fall tillage is 64% complete. Pasture conditions range from 45% poor and very poor to 20% good to excellent. Row crop harvest, wheat seeding, fall tillage are all running at or ahead of average progress. Some problems with wheat emergence were reported in the northeast due to dryness. Concern about low ponds and streams spread into central areas. Some
producers in the south-central region have sold cattle in response to very poor pastures, with others contemplating the same course of action.
NEBRASKA: Topsoil moisture is 34% short to very short and 65% adequate. Subsoil moisture is 38% short to very short and 61% adequate. Corn is 92% harvested and soybeans are 98% harvested. Winter wheat conditions are 63% good to excellent.
NORTH DAKOTA: Topsoil moisture is 41% short to very short and 49% adequate, with subsoil moisture 54% short to very short and 45% adequate. Stockwater supplies are 75% adequate. Dry conditions allowed producers to make good harvest progress on corn and sunflowers during this past week. Reporters noted that producers were concerned about rainfall to replenish soil moisture supplies for winter wheat and next year’s crops.
OHIO: Topsoil moisture is 67% adequate to surplus, and late season rains have interrupted harvest. Corn is 89% harvested for grain. Winter wheat conditions are 87% good to excellent. Other field activities included fall tillage on corn and soybean fields, and fertilizer application. Throughout most of the state producers report local elevators are filled to capacity with grain, which has delayed corn unloading.
SOUTH DAKOTA: Topsoil moisture is 84% adequate to surplus. Subsoil moisture is 80% adequate to surplus. Feed supplies are 86% adequate; stock water supplies are 70% adequate; and cattle conditions are 88% good to excellent.
WISCONSIN: Topsoil moisture is 83% adequate to surplus. Corn is 83% harvested, and soybeans are 96% harvested. Fall tillage is 53% complete. Harvest activities were in full swing again last week with soybean harvest beginning to wrap up, and corn harvest was still running ahead of normal.
Summary:
Cornbelt agriculture is nearing the expected end of the season, with only a small percent of the corn and soybean crop still in the field, and most of the fall tillage and fertilizer application nearing completion. Except for the soggy conditions that besieged Iowa and Ohio farmers, much of the Cornbelt has varying topsoil and subsoil moisture conditions which raise concerns about starting the 2008 growing season with adequate moisture.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:04 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
November 13, 2007
With a $1 Billion Freeze And A Devastating Drought In 2007, What Will 2008 Weather Bring?
Everyday you listen to the weather forecast. Your family wants to know how to dress appropriately. You want to know how your revenue stream will be impacted. Knowing what the weather will be can make a considerable difference in your management of risk and the way you operate your farm. Most of the Cornbelt had a challenging year, so let’s take a look at what to expect turning into 2008.
Late last month Brad Rippey briefed the US House Agriculture Committee. Rippey is a meteorologist for USDA’s World Agricultural Outlook Board which estimates world supply and demand statistics as outlined in Monday’s posting on the farm gate. Noting that it had been 20 years since the 1988 drought that stretched coast to coast, Rippey said there had been many regional droughts that have impacted crop production.
At the outset of 2007, the drought in the Central US was suddenly washed away with flooding, which hurt the winter wheat. And in the Southeast the record warmth in March helped plant the crop early, only to be hit by record cold in April that hurt wheat, corn, fruit, specialty, and nursery crops. Freeze damage extended throughout the Ohio Valley westward into the Great Plains. Rippey said the April freeze will be the first such freeze outside of the nation’s citrus belt to reach the billion dollar damage benchmark. Coming out of the freeze, the drought in the Southeast intensified.
Rippey said, “The US corn crop for the most part experienced good weather during the 2007 growing season.” Adding that yields will be a record high for corn, he noted soybean yields will be lower than 2006, but said the smaller crop is not totally blamed on the weather. “While the eradication of drought in the Central and Southern Plains resulted in generally improved wheat yields, rains were excessive in some areas.”
For the winter and spring, Rippey told Congress that drought conditions have lingered across the Southeast and much of the west, causing concerns about water supplies approaching the 2008 cropping season. As an example, Rippey said the reservoirs in California are only at two-thirds of typical storage capacity.
The recent development of a La Nina has a significant implication for US weather according to Rippey. A La Nina is a cooling of the Equatorial surface waters in the Pacific, which disrupts the Jet Stream across the southern states, resulting in drier than normal weather from autumn into spring. He says with the existing drought, the lack of moisture could be serious for winter wheat in the Southeast. But he said extending the drought, which began in 2006 in the Southeast all the way into 2008, would lead to summer crops being planted in dust. While the Southeast’s contribution to wheat is minimal, is produces 25% of the cotton and 66% of the peanuts.
Rippey said soil moisture is favorable in the Southern Plains and the winter wheat should be well established. But the National Weather Service has issued a drought warning for western Oklahoma through January. Another La Nina impact will be warmer and wetter weather in the Ohio Valley and the Northwest. He’s expecting a lack of persistent frigid weather which will ease the stress on livestock and result in some disease and pest issues in 2008. But the accompanying moisture in the Ohio value would help small grains and ease drought conditions. Rippey said the impact of La Nina will diminish in the spring months, and the latest March to May outlook calls for the wet conditions to subside in the Ohio valley.
Summary:
The April freeze earlier this year may have caused as much as $1 billion damage; but it came in the middle of a drought in the Southeastern US which continues to persist, and without some winter moisture relief, the Southeastern wheat, cotton, and peanut crops could be in jeopardy. A La Nina will keep the Ohio Valley warmer and wetter than usual this winter, but it should diminish during the spring months.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:39 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
November 7, 2007
Corn Production Needs Extra Evaluation Because Of Nitrogen Costs
Beans or corn? Corn or beans? Which will dominate your 2008 cropping plan? If revenue per acre is relatively equal, will Asian rust tip the scales toward corn? Or will rising nitrogen prices tip the scales toward soybeans? The spread of rust may be harder to predict than nitrogen prices, since you know they are going up.
During the past 7 cropping seasons the composite price of fertilizer climbed 113%, and during that time, the price of ammonia rose 130% from $227 to $523 per ton says USDA economist Wen-Yuan Huang in the November issue of Amber Waves. Higher prices are due to increasing demand, and USDA says with global demand up 14% since 2000, US imports of nitrogen will be more costly. It has to be imported because the US supply is declining due to higher costs for the natural gas used to make ammonia. Ammonia production has declined 44% since 2000, while imports have increased 115%. That balance, says USDA, will make corn growers more vulnerable to changes in global supplies of nitrogen and the natural gas market.
This is happening at the same time corn production increased to keep up with the demand for ethanol, and with the demand for additional nitrogen, it will greatly impact the cost of corn production says Iowa State ag economist Don Hofstrand in the November issue of Ag Decision Maker.
Hofstrand says natural gas contributes 80% of the cost of producing ammonia, and ammonia prices have closely paralleled natural gas prices since 2000. Since then the number of ammonia plants declined from 40 to 25 and production capacity declined from 20 to 13 million tons per year. To make up for the shortfall imports increased and in 2005 represented 80% of the ammonia used in the US.
Prices of natural gas and crude oil usually parallel each other and petroleum costs are well known to everyone. Additionally, supplies of natural gas are located in the same nations with large oil reserves. Hofstrand says our attempt to become more energy independent with ethanol may link us tighter to the Mideast if natural gas demand increases for nitrogen fertilizer production. Alternatives include the Caribbean island of Trinidad and Tobago, as well as Venezuela, but production capacity is not well developed there.
Until then, Iowa State’s Hofstrand says the cost of ammonia will be an element of uncertainty to corn production. USDA says the current US ammonia industry is to make and deliver the product as needed to minimize the cost of holding inventory, and any unexpected problem will result in a shortage of supply and higher prices. USDA says the US has 3 million tons of unused ammonia production capacity, but it is uneconomical produce even at current prices, and it would take higher ammonia prices to bring it into production.
Summary:
Farmers making cropping plans for 2008 should balance revenues with production costs, but the cost of nitrogen for corn production is difficult to estimate. Increased domestic and global demand will raise the price of ammonia and its feedstock natural gas. Ammonia prices are expected to rise into next spring, possibly to the point of bringing some idled plants into production. Nevertheless, corn growers should expect higher costs for nitrogen
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:12 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
November 6, 2007
Second Year Corn? Third Year Corn?
The combine is in the machine shed. Fall tillage is about finished where you’re planning corn for 2008, but you are not quite done with anhydrous ammonia application. You have worked in some flexibility for switching acreage between corn and soybeans, depending on the price structure over the winter. While most of the decisions are rather cut and dried based on costs and prices, some of your decisions have a lot of gray area because of problems with corn after corn after corn……
The debate is interesting and fun to listen to. University agronomists have numbers to prove there is a yield drag on corn following corn. Farmers have numbers to prove there is no yield drag on corn following corn. There may still be some uncertainty where you line up, so let’s explore some of the risks and work on ways to reduce the potential problems. Corn King Bob Nielsen at Purdue and several colleagues including plant pathologists Bill Johnson and Greg Shaner, along with entomologist Christian Krupke have compiled a how-to guide on mitigating the risks of corn following corn.
Nielsen observes there has been a large amount of fall tillage, which means 2008 corn acres, and with the increased corn acreage in 2007, many farmers will be shifting to a continuous corn cropping system, and he says from an agronomic perspective, such a system is “fraught with hazards.”
1) Nitrogen fertility issues. Optimum rates are 30-50 lbs per acre higher for corn following corn than for corn following soybeans, but yields may be 7-10% lower. He says with higher N prices, corn budgets must be adjusted upward and compared to alternatives. He says sidedressing will require more time and that means height issues will occur. Nielsen says high clearance applicators can be used to lengthen the application window.
2) P & K fertility issues. Corn removes more phosphorus and less potassium than soybeans. Nielsen and colleagues say second year corn will have a negligible effect on P & K fertility levels, but over a number of years, P & K levels need to be monitored and adjusted as needed.
3) Stand establishment issues. Continuous corn produces a build up of stalks and rootballs, which create problems in getting a good stand. Seed placement, germination, and emergence can all be problems and that exposes seed to insects and diseases. Select hybrids with superior seedling vigor and bury the stalk residue where possible. Use row cleaners on no-till planters. Don’t plant too early where soil temperatures are not optimal. Starter nitrogen fertilizers and soil applied insecticides may help.
4) Disease management. Corn residue harbors diseases such as gray leaf spot and northern corn leaf blight, and second year corn can be susceptible. If your hybrid is susceptible, then consider a foliar fungicide, however don’t expect a yield increase unless the fungus is present and the chemical is successful in neutralizing it. Consider burying the stalk residue where possible.
5) Insect management. Corn rootworm is spreading throughout the Cornbelt and should be addressed where it has a history. Where excessive residue exists, seedlings will take longer to emerge and rootworms can overtake slowly emerging seedlings. Excessive residue and winter annual weeds can also attract moths that will lay eggs for cutworms and armyworms. Over large areas with continuous corn, corn borer moths will have more opportunities to lay eggs that will survive. To address the problems, the judicious use of soil applied insecticides or transgenic hybrids are options. Fields should be scouted to justify the use of rescue treatments.
6) Hybrid selection. Hybrids should be chosen that demonstrate consistent performance across multiple environments, including soils and weather. Most Land Grant Universities have websites with variety performance information. Once you have chosen candidates for your operation, look for hybrids that have disease resistance, stalk strength, stalk and root health, seedling vigor, and overall stress tolerance.
7) Weed management. Continuous corn limits the weed control options compared to corn/soybean rotation, and that means some broadleaves and grasses may become problems. Soil applied herbicides should be used at full rates, and post emergent herbicides should be applied before weeds are more than 6 inches tall. A combination of the two will give the best overall performance.
8) Glyphosate resistance. With the increasing populations of weeds that have resistance to glyphosate, alternating weed control programs should be considered in continuous corn. Tillage and soil applied herbicides have also been shown to be valuable alternatives.
9) Harvest season issues. With more acreage, harvest is extended and increases the demands on machinery, transportation, drying and storage. As the unharvested crop remains in the field, losses will increase and disease will become a problem. To overcome the challenges, choose hybrids that have good stalk strength and plant health. Harvest priorities should be given to fields that are rapidly deteriorating in quality.
10) Bottom line. The decisions to switch from a corn/soybean rotation to continuous corn should be made with care and attention to economics and agronomics. The agronomic risks of second year corn can sometimes outweigh the economic benefits.
Summary:
With higher commodity prices and increased market volatility, many producers will make cropping decisions well beyond the typical Cornbelt rotations. If continuous corn is one of those decisions, it will be accompanied by numerous agronomic challenges that must be addressed, such as fertility, insect, weed and disease management, hybrid selection and harvest challenges. While there are economic advantages that may be gained with an increase in corn acreage, it will require higher production costs and more intense management.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:17 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
October 29, 2007
Take This Test On Your Knowledge About Controlling Soybean Aphids
When scouting soybeans, what is your reaction to the discovery of a colony of soybean aphids? Do you watch and wait? Do you immediately spray the spot or the entire field? Do you know what the recommendations are for threshold levels of aphids that begin to cause economic damage? Instead of putting you on the spot, we’ll find out how your neighbors answered those questions.
Aphids invaded soybean fields early in this century and some years have made a pest of themselves and other years have remained scarce. They seem to be more prevalent in the northern parts of the Cornbelt than in the southern reaches, so a survey team from Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan questioned hundreds of soybean farmers in those states to determine their attitudes about controlling soybean aphids with chemical sprays or more natural means, and what the trends indicated from 2004 to 2006. Their analysis indicates producers generally initiate pest control measures based on aphid counts, weather, and plant stages.
In 2004, 13% of farmers treated for aphids and sprayed 50% of their acreage. The following year, 84% sprayed, and 87% of the acreage was treated. In 2006, 35% of farmers sprayed for aphids, and 81% of the acreage was treated. Most farmers had learned about aphids and even in 2004, 81% were aware that once a field was sprayed, soybean aphids could repopulate and cause economic damage. Three out of four farmers were aware that aphids removed sap from soybeans, but the other 25% gave a broad variety of answers of how aphids damage a plant.
Over 75% were aware that profitable treatment frequency depended on aphid counts, weather, and plant stage. The balance believed treatment should be scheduled depending on the month. Less frequent was producer awareness of when soybean plants could be damaged by aphids, the responses were scattered throughout the entire growth range of the soybean plant.
Two-thirds of farmers used 250 aphids per plant as the threshold for treatment, but others provided answers as low as 3 per plant. Scouting reports were considered a valuable tool in decision making and 84% used them for that in 2004, but by 2006, that number had risen to 94%. 54% said plant growth stages were important in the decision, but other decisions to spray were based on the availability of custom applicators and whether neighbors were spraying. Half of the farmers indicated they had adopted most university recommendations for integrated pest management, which includes the use of natural predators to assist in the reduction of aphid pressure on soybeans.
Summary:
Although soybean aphids is a relatively new invasive pest in the Cornbelt, farmers who raise soybeans have quickly learned his potential for damage and are demonstrating growth in their decision-making on how and when to treat any problem fields. While 50% indicated they followed most university IPM recommendations, there were still quite a few farmers whose decisions to spray or not to spray were based on a wide variety of other factors.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:27 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
October 25, 2007
Unharvested Crops May Be Deteriorating Rapidly In Quality
60% of the corn crop had been harvested by last weekend, along with 75% of the soybeans. That may be well and good for this point in the year, but consider the fact that 40% of the corn remains in the field along with 25% of the soybeans, and the western and northern sectors of the Cornbelt report continuing rain, water standing in the field, and muddy harvest conditions. That does not bode well for crop quality.
The crop in the field represents 5.3 billion bushels of corn and 650 million bushels of soybeans when you apply those harvest estimates to the size of the crop USDA projects for the 2007 harvest. Some of those bushels are in good shape and are coming out of the field a bit slow because not every farmer can harvest120 acres a day with the equipment he has. But many of those bushels are in varying degrees of peril because of the weather. Iowa is one of those spots where agronomists are expressing concerns about the quality of the crop.
USDA said 18% of the unharvested Iowa crop is either moderately or heavily lodged. And the agronomists at Iowa State say there is little more that is discouraging than to have the crop go down in fields which are too wet to harvest, “Flooded corn will not likely stand for much longer, which will predispose the ears to an increased chance of mold infections.” Upright ears are receptacles for water and grain in a warm most husk will begin to germinate.
The Iowa State Plant Diagnostic Clinic reports samples of stalks that have changed color and are coated with a blackish soot. Specialists diagnosed it as a common decay fungus found on dead organic matter, as well as a second fungus which is feeding on the stalks and will likely increase stalk degradation.
The high moisture conditions will favor fungi that cause ear and stalk rots, and cause mycotoxin contamination. The specialists urge farmers to harvest the corn as quickly as possible because the longer it stays in the field the greater the chance of toxin production, such as vomitoxin and fumonisin. They suggest combines be set to minimize kernel damage, since damaged kernels enhance contamination. The grain should be dried to less than 15% moisture and cooled to less than 45 degrees as quickly as possible to reduce toxin production. If there are potential mycotoxin problems, crop insurance agents should be alerted. Beware that any adjustments must be made on standing corn and cannot be made if it is in the bin.
Elevator managers have already found mold damage exceeding 5%, compared to 2% in normal years. Such damage reduces storage life. Field damaged corn should not be mixed with good grain, which includes leaving corn standing in ponded areas or where it had been on the ground or frost damaged. It should be stored separately and managed closely. Iowa State specialists say field damaged corn will not store beyond winter months, and should be kept 1-2 percentage points drier than normal grain.
If you have been able to harvest damaged grain and are drying and cooling it in a bin, an end user such as an ethanol plant will likely be rather strict on grading since it reduces the quality of its products. Disputed results can be sent to USDA as an appeal, but that takes additional time and expense. Toxins can triple and quadruple in content in distillers dried grains, and ethanol plants are reportedly running tests on corn that is particularly low in test weight.
If good grain has been mixed with grain that has germinated, pre-cleaning can eliminate much of the problem and raise the value of the good grain. Similarly, kernels high in mold content can be removed with the help of air separation, but the Iowa State specialists say that may not reduce the mycotoxin levels to a safe point.
Mycotoxins are dangerous to livestock, particularly dairy cattle, so any damaged grain should be tested before being fed to livestock. Having out of condition corn is one issue, but a sick herd of livestock is another. And fumonisin has been found in many of the higher rainfall areas.
Popcorn and other food grade corn should be treated seriously, but with the higher value of those crops, cleaning is an affordable exercise that is recommended.
Summary:
Thousands of farmers around the Cornbelt share a common concern about deterioration of their crops which are still standing in wet fields which harvest has been halted by wet and muddy conditions. Corn that is exposed to wet conditions is susceptible to various molds and mycotoxins that will reduce the value of the grain to both ethanol plants and livestock feeders. The crop should be harvested as quickly as possible, with additional moisture and temperature management, but damaged grain should not be mixed with high quality grain. Procedures are available to screen out kernels that are preparing to germinate or are moldy and that will raise the value of the grain.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:33 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
October 16, 2007
Optimum Fertility Means Optimum Revenue
With current grain prices, a yield that might have been 10 bushels more per acre would generate considerable additional revenue; and slight fertility adjustments could make that happen. What does your latest soil test show, and by the way, how old is it? This is the time to take a new soil test, and you have many bushels of reasons to do it.
Your combine yield monitor might have been showing higher numbers, if your fertility had been at optimum levels for Phosphorous and Potassium, as well as Nitrogen. While your expense sheet might wince at varying prices for achieving top fertility levels, your income sheet would have benefited, say Iowa State agronomists Antonio Mallarino and John Sawyer. With the recent changes in crop and fertilizer prices, the agronomists urge farmers to examine the relationship between the two.
Among their recommendations in a recent newsletter are higher soil-test K levels for all crops, and update default yield levels for calculating P and K rates needed to maintain desirable soil test levels. Among their concerns are the increasing corn and soybean yields are removing P and K faster than many farmers are replacing it, if farmers are using standard recommendations for fertility levels. After speaking with farmers, the Iowa State agronomists are finding that to be true, and most producers are not paying attention to potential soybean response to P and K, if the nutrients are only being applied prior to a corn crop. They say there is no difference between annual or bi-annual application of fertilizer, as long as the appropriate amount is being applied. Their research shows that P and K application for the optimum soil test indicates higher maintenance rates than were common 5-6 years ago.
If farming a particular tract next year is uncertain, or your bank account cannot afford a large fertility expense, the Iowa State agronomists offer an alternative. “Due to a low proven probability of crop response in soils testing "Optimum," a reduced fertilizer rate (even as low as a starter rate) might be appropriate for a tenant with uncertain land tenure or a producer having a cash flow issue. On the other hand, producers with certain land tenure for two or more years into the future can minimize yield and economic losses by applying recommended maintenance rates.” At the same time, variable rate application can help improve yield, if there are significant differences in soil tests within a single field. The concept is parallel to the more recent push by Cornbelt agronomists to apply nitrogen at levels that pay back with a “return to nitrogen.”
Speaking of nitrogen, if your harvest ended early and there is daylight to spare, some farmers may be pushing the soil temperature envelope to apply nitrogen early and head to the shed before the end of October. University of Illinois agronomist Fabian Fernandez says nitrogen is one of your more expensive inputs, as well as one that can pose environmental problems. He urges judicious management of nitrogen with both of those issues in mind.
In a recent newsletter article about fall nitrogen application, Fernandez says it is critical to wait until the soil temperature at the 4 inch levels is below 50 degrees, and can be maintained below that level. If nitrogen must be applied at a higher temperature, that temperature must not exceed 60 degrees and the nitrogen must be applied with a nitrification inhibitor. That should not be news to anyone, but is offered as a reminder.
As a refresher, ammonium is a stable form of nitrogen that is readily absorbed into the soil. Above 50 degrees, ammonium converts to nitrate, which can be lost through denitrification and leaching that allows it to be picked up by the flow of groundwater and field tiles. So your first consideration should be the form of nitrogen you apply as determined by the temperature of the soil. If the choice is either ammonium nitrate or urea ammonium nitrate (UAN) the nitrate molecule is already in a form that can be lost through denitrification and leaching. So neither would be appropriate forms of nitrogen above 50 degrees.
Anhydrous ammonia quickly locks into the soil moisture and is converted to ammonium for stability. Urea converts first to ammonia, then to ammonium, and can be used in the fall, but there is a greater risk of conversion to a nitrate and being lost before it is used by a crop.
If the nitrogen is being applied above 60 degrees, a nitrification inhibitor needs to be applied, which interferes with the activity of the bacteria that are catalysts in nitrification process, consequently the nitrogen will be available for a longer period of time.
Summary:
Following harvest, 2008 fertility concerns may be one of your priorities. Nitrogen application should wait for cooler soil temperatures or it will convert to a nitrate that is lost for use by spring crops but will create water quality problems. Consider the various forms of nitrogen that are available and select one that will not be hampered by soil temperatures. On the issues of phosphorus and potassium, ensure that your crops are receiving an optimum amount for both corn and soybeans, since the latter has not always been the case in recent years. With high value crops, optimum fertility levels can mean the addition of revenue.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:55 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
October 3, 2007
Which Is More Profitable In Managing Corn Rootworm: Insecticide Or Bt Seed?
You’ve been hypnotized by your combine yield monitor. You have been frustrated with wagons and trucks not being able to keep up with the volume of corn passing through your combine hopper. And you have wondered aloud if you could produce that much corn every year, if you had perennial success against corn rootworm. Yes, this is the time of year that verifies your rootworm management prowess. Green or red? Chevy or Ford? Paper or plastic? Insecticide or Bt?
Corn rootworms will consume $1 billion worth of corn each year, but that may be a conservative number based on current market prices. Nevertheless, a team of economists and entomologists have quantified the economic benefits of using insecticides versus Bt corn in fighting problems with corn rootworms. You might not think there is much of a debate, but the lack of uniform data over the Cornbelt makes it difficult to quantify the values of each of the two management choices.
Their analysis, Value of Soil Insecticide and Bt Corn for Controlling Western Corn Rootworm is based on product costs, corn prices, and yields prior to the 2007 crop. However, it identifies the benefits that will help most Cornbelt farmers make their future management decisions, particularly for more traditional corn and soybean rotations.
The researchers used data from first year corn susceptible to damage from either western corn rootworm or northern corn rootworm and the variant that prefers soybeans for egg-laying that puts larvae into a corn root buffet the following spring. More than one-third of IL and IN farmers use insecticide on first year corn for that reason. An increasing number of farmers are using Bt corn, creating a debate on the merits of each.
The relevant economic values include:
• $2.50 corn price (2004 marketing year)
• $318 per acre non-land crop production budget
• $16-18 per acre cost for soil insecticides.
• $20 per acre cost for Bt corn (above conventional costs)
• 160 bushel per acre average yield
Using those values in the research, the economists and entomologists estimated damage from the rootworms at $37 to $48 per acre (160 bu, $2.50 corn). They calculated a benefit of $2.50 to $7.00 per acre if Bt seed corn was used, but a net loss of $0.50 to $3.50 per acre if a soil insecticide was used. But there were also several asterisks:
• Losses from lodging were not included in the results, but could increase the value of both management options.
• The benefit of reduced insecticide exposure to the operator and the environment was not calculated.
• There have been erratic performances of Bt seeds in controlling corn rootworms.
Summary:
Management options for controlling corn rootworms include the use of Bt corn or the use of a soil insecticide. Researchers have calculated a benefit of $2.50 to $7.00 per acre if Bt seed corn was used, but a net loss of $0.50 to $3.50 per acre if a soil insecticide was used.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:57 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
August 16, 2007
The 2007 Crop Has Been A Dream For Some And A Nightmare For Others
At the middle of August most of the corn in the Cornbelt is in the dough stage, and with the help of 90 and 100 degree days, much of it is close to the blacklayer and the drydown phase. Soybeans are fully podded, but pods are not fully filled yet, and more moisture is needed or the “bloom” will come off the yield in many regions. Let’s take a crop check around the Cornbelt and see how crops have progressed and the moisture status.
The National Agriculture Statistics Service tabulates everything in agriculture, from mint and gravenstien apples in Michigan to windmill maintenance in New Mexico, and every week this complete report is available in capsule form from each state.
ILLINOIS: Topsoil moisture has fallen to the 57% short to very short range. Crops are ahead of schedule, with 40% of the corn dented, compared to 31% last year, and 4% is already mature. 2% of the soybeans are turning yellow, ahead of last year and the five-year average. “Dry, hot conditions throughout Illinois continued to place strain on field crops this past week. Scattered showers in parts of the state provided little relief from the extremely high temperatures received across the state. Topsoil moisture conditions continued to deteriorate and average temperatures were over 8 degrees above normal this past week.”
INDIANA: Topsoil moisture is 71% short to very short. And the subsoil moisture is even drier. 73% of the corn is in the dough stage, compared to 55% for the five year average. 57% is in the fair or less category for condition. 78% of the beans are setting pods ahead of the 66% for the five year average. However, 57% are in the fair to poor condition category. Livestock were reported under stress, with 100+ temperatures last week in southern counties. “Many central and southern areas continue to suffer from the intense heat and declining soil moisture. Farmers continue to spray soybeans to control aphids and spider mites.”
IOWA: With more rain, 80% of soils have adequate to surplus moisture, and 65% of subsoil moisture is also adequate. Only 52% of the corn is in the dough stage, 64% is in the good to excellent category. 89% of the beans are setting pods and 71% are good to excellent. “Select areas saw damaging winds. The week concluded with above normal temperatures and high humidity, causing stress to livestock and pastures. Spraying for soybean aphids continues, as population counts are high. A small number of counties are experiencing soybean sudden death syndrome.”
KANSAS: Topsoil moisture is about evenly split between adequate and short, but over 60% of the subsoil has adequate to surplus moisture. Kansas livestock producers report 86% of their stock has adequate feed grains, and 81% has adequate hay supplies.
MICHIGAN: 70% of the topsoil is short of adequate moisture, and 83% of the subsoil is short of moisture as well. The corn maturity is on track for Michigan, but that means 90+% is just now silking. “As of August 7, drought conditions from National Drought Mitigation Center (www.drought.unl.edu/dm), classified virtually all of State from abnormally dry to extreme drought.” Some recent showers were insufficient, but did relieve some stress. Corn condition continued to vary depending on amount of rainfall received. Scattered showers limited in other areas and drier areas continued to show considerable amounts of firing of lower leaves. Soybeans continued setting and filling pods. Spider mites continued to be present.”
MINNESOTA:. Topsoil moisture is 78% short of adequate. While nearly all of the corn has progressed into the milk stage, 3% of the soybeans are already turning yellow. Pastures are dry as well with 71% in the poor to very poor category. “Minnesota's crop conditions edged upward as scattered showers moved through the state during the past week. Although statewide topsoil moisture supplies were rated mostly short or very short, some drought areas of central Minnesota received an inch or more of needed rain. 90% of the small grain crop has been harvested, and soybean producers are currently fighting aphids and spider mites.
MISSOURI: It is dry in Missouri as well, with 84% of the topsoil in the short or very short moisture category. The southern two-thirds of the state experienced little to no relief from dryness and very hot temperatures. “Row crop and pasture conditions deteriorated considerably. There were reports of corn blown over by high winds during thunderstorms in the northwest. Reporters indicate that corn in the driest areas continues to mature rapidly. Double-crop soybeans are short and struggling to grow. Single-crop soybeans are filling pods slowly in many areas; the driest areas are seeing parts of fields wilt. Reports of producers feeding hay are common in most districts. Livestock water shortages are still isolated, although concern is mounting in several areas.”
NEBRASKA: Topsoil moisture is better than most Cornbelt states with a 64% adequate rating and 6% surplus. 60% of the subsoil also has adequate moisture. Corn is 78% good to excellent, with 77% in the dough stage and well ahead of the five year average. Soybeans are 73% good to excellent with 81% setting pods. The sorghum crop is 82% good to excellent and 3% is turning color.
NORTH DAKOTA:. Topsoil moisture is rated 33% short and 54% adequate, with subsoil moisture in the same condition. 25% of the durum wheat has been harvested, but only 39% of the soybeans are fully podded and that is well behind the 70% of last year, but right on the five year average. 68% are in good to excellent condition.
Stockwater supplies are 75% adequate, and pasture conditions are 80% fair to good.
OHIO: Topsoil moisture is 54% in the short to very short category. But crops are maturing rapidly with 96% of the soybeans setting pods and 67% of the corn in the dough stage. That is ahead of schedule for both beans and corn due to dryness. Corn condition are rated 61% fair or worse, and soybeans are 57% fair or worse with aphids breaking out. 85% of pastures range from fair to very poor conditions.
SOUTH DAKOTA: Topsoil moisture is equally split between adequate and short, with subsoil dryness more prevalent. Small grains are all ripe with 80%+ harvested. Corn is entering the pollination stage, but 5% of the soybeans are already dropping leaves.
Livestock feed supplies are rated 77% adequate, and stockwater supplies are 59% adequate. “For the second week in a row, much of the state received rainfall. Corn and soybeans benefited from the moisture, but more is still needed. Small grain harvest is nearing complete as some producers begin preparations for the row crop harvest.”
WISCONSIN: Topsoil moisture is 63% short to very short and only 33% rate as adequate. 39% of the corn is in the dough stage with 58% in the fair to very poor category. 82% of the beans are setting pods, and 54% of the crop is rated fair to very poor. Pasture conditions are 81% fair to very poor due to shortage of rain and abundance of heat.
Summary:
Some parts of the Cornbelt have been garden spots for much of the growing season, and for other parts there has been less moisture and more heat than found in a desert. As a result of the heat, many crops have maturing more rapidly than usual and there will likely be an early start to harvest in many regions of the Cornbelt. Some of those areas will need temporary grain storage based on the good crop conditions, but other areas will have unused storage due to droughty conditions.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:48 AM | Comments (2) | Permalink
August 15, 2007
Have You Noticed The Wheat Market Recently, And What Did That Do For You?
With the wheat market hotter than the fairgrounds in August, is your interest increasing in producing wheat for 2008 harvest? The wheat market is fired up because of poor overseas crops and the fear that corn or soybeans will eat into wheat acreage next spring. So what is new in wheat production that you should know?
Don’t know what to budget for production costs? Illinois economists Gary Schnitkey and Dale Lattz have prepared crop budgets which will help guide your estimation of production costs. A national resource asks for your state to help you find a crop budget.
Don’t know what varieties to plant? That is not a problem if you can identify your state on the map of the North Central Crop Evaluation Committee. Choose your state and it will take you to a report on yield performance for the popular varieties planted in your state, as well as other agronomic factors for those varieties. You will wonder whether to select a low test weight certified seed for your area, or whether to select a high test weight seed not for your area. Kansas State agronomist Jim Shroyer says go with what is adapted to your area.
Don’t know about wheat performance in a corn and soybean rotation? If you grew corn this year, there may be a benefit to wheat next year which will consume some of the unused nitrogen you applied this year, says Illinois agronomist Steve Ebelhar, particularly if you have had droughty conditions. Review his fertility information. And Kansas State agronomist Dale Leikam recommends a soil test before planting wheat.
Don’t have a grain drill? That may be beneficial says Ohio State agronomist Jim Beuerline. He says wide rows planted by a planter can produce 99 to 105% of the yield planted with a drill. “We have evaluated wheat varieties in 15-inch rows for several years and have learned that some varieties will produce about as much yield in 15-inch rows as in narrow rows.”
Don’t really know enough about the wheat market? USDA’s monthly Wheat Outlook released Tuesday indicates US production and carryover are both down, foreign production is also down, and US exports will be up. The season average price should be $5.10 to $5.70 per bushel.
Don’t know what pests to prepare for and scout for? That really depends on your state, so select your state from a list of crop production and pest management newsletters, offered by the Integrated Pest Management Center.
Summary:
If the price of wheat has tempted you to plant some this fall, there will be many preparations required, ranging from crop budgets and pest management, to seed selection and planting requirements. Numerous resources are available to jump start a desire for planting wheat this fall for 2008 harvest.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:15 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
July 31, 2007
How Close Can You Estimate Soybean Yields?
We have all tried to estimate soybean yields; and in doing so, engaged in a hair pulling exercise. (I’ve just tried a little too often.) But as USDA’s crop enumerators are currently measuring soybean yields in your neighborhood, their process is based on pod weight and pod count in a set area. That’s different than either the pods and nodes formula or the wild guess formula that may be popular in your county. But with soybean yields so hard to estimate on August 1, USDA last week revealed some important statistics.
The Soybean Objective Yield Survey for 1992-2006 was released by the National Agricultural Statistics Service to explain its process, ahead of this year’s crop estimates season. Currently, 11 states are in the survey, although Arkansas has been in and out, and recent additions are Kansas, and the Dakotas. Seven core states (IA, IL, IN, MO, MN, NE, and OH) that have been surveyed for the past 15 years accounted for 71% of the 2006 crop.
USDA says its enumerators follow these procedures:
1. Enumerators will randomly select two independently located plots, each containing two parallel 3.5-foot sections of row located within a soybean field. (18 square feet.)
2. Counts, measurements, and observations of plant characteristics are made within these plots during the monthly survey periods.
3. Just before harvest, both units are hand harvested by an enumerator and weighed and a sample of pods is sent to a NASS laboratory where moisture content and pod weight are measured.
4. A final gross yield is computed from the number of pods, average weight per pod, and row space width, and that yield is measured as bushels of soybeans per acre at 12.5% moisture.
5. Harvest loss is measured in separate units located near the monthly yield plots.
6. State statistics are produced from the objective data, and regional estimates are made from the state’s harvested acreage.
USDA says in the past 15 years has resulted in changes in pod numbers and row widths. In the 7 major states, production was 46% higher in 2006 than in 1992, because of a 16% higher yield and more acres. For that period the average annual increase was .36 bushels per acre. Harvested acres went up 26%.
The pod count has increased over the 15 years similar to yields. For the 7 major states the pod count has climbed 21% to 1,791 per 18 square feet. The highest was in 2005 with 1,851 pods. Different states have different pod counts. IL leads all with an average of 1,780 over the 15 year period. MO is next with 1,704, and MN has the least with 1,483 per 18 square feet.
The pod weight has declined over the past 15 years, and the average of 0.296 grams per pod is 4% less than what it was in 1992. The low point of the period was in 2003 when drought hampered seed development. If that year is taken out of the average, there has been a slight increase over the 15 year period, but it is less than 1%.
Row widths, as expected have decreased over the past 15 years, and stood at 18.5 inches in 2006. That is 19% under the 1992 average. During the same time, pod count increased in the 18 square feet, since there were more soybean plants. In 2006, 44% of the samples had a row width between 10 and 18.5 inches, compared to only 10% of the samples in 1992.
Summary:
The USDA process of estimating soybean yields is more scientific than most farmer efforts, primarily because of the need for accurate scales and the ability to reconcile for moisture. Enumerators have found in the past 15 years, in the major producing states, that row widths have fallen, pod counts have increased, but pod weights have changed little.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:47 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
July 12, 2007
Three Out Of Four Acres Of US Corn And Soybeans Are Genetically Enhanced. What Is Your Rate Of Use?
Are you behind the curve or ahead of the curve when it comes to planting biotech crops? Or are you one of those farmers who wants the benefits of the technology, but are in a marketing area that limits what you can plant because of export market restrictions? When the ag statisticians were preparing for USDA’s planted acreage report, they also randomly asked if the corn or soybean crop in the surveyed field was planted with a biotech seed. You may or may not be surprised at the results.
Unless you are growing non-genetically modified beans for a specialty market and a premium price, there is a good chance you are raising soybeans with a herbicide tolerance. Most of those will be Roundup Ready or glyphosate tolerant beans, but the USDA refers to them as GE or genetically enhanced soybeans. Such GE beans are produced on 91% of the soybean acreage in the US, according to the 2007 NASS survey. That has grown from 54% in 2000 when the first such data was collected, but as expected the rate of increase has slowed in recent years.
Some Cornbelt states have planted more than 90% of their soybean acreage with GE beans. They include IN and IA at 94%, NE at 96% and SD at 97%. And ND at 92% has come a long way from the 22% level in 2000. IL, OH, MI, and WI are still in the upper 80% range. Outside of the Cornbelt, MS is at 96%, AR is at 92%, and other soybean producing states that are grouped together are at 86%. Curiously, AR has leveled off at 92% for the past 4 years, and MS has been at 96% for the past three.
Herbicide tolerant soybeans are the primary variety of GE soybeans, but USDA does draw a distinction between herbicide tolerant and all GE soybeans. Even though the survey is separated, for all practical purposes the statistics in each survey are identical. The corn survey results are more expanded, since the NASS statisticians reported they had to ask more questions about corn hybrids. “Randomly selected farmers across the United States were asked if they planted corn that, through biotechnology, is resistant to herbicides, insects, or both. Conventionally bred herbicide-tolerant varieties were excluded. Stacked gene varieties include those containing GE traits for both herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance (Bt).”
The aggregated corn report on all GE hybrids indicates 73% of the US corn acreage has been planted with some type of biotech corn. With that hint of increased yield potential from the biotech hybrids, USDA’s Supply Demand report for July, being released later this morning (July 12) may reflect the results of the biotech seed report.
As in soybeans, SD is leading the pack by planting biotech corn with 93% of its acreage. It is followed by ND at 88%, MN at 85%, and KS at 82% biotech corn acreage. IL and IA are in the 70% range, IN is at 59% and OH at 41%.
For biotech corn that has only insect resistance, the national average is 21% but MO, NE, KS, MN and ND are the only states well above that level. IA is at 22%, IL, WI, and MI at 19%, and a collection of smaller corn producing states are at 20%.
For biotech corn with only herbicide resistance, the overall national average of 24% is a bit higher. ND and TX lead with 37% use, followed by KS, MN, SD, and the lesser corn producing states all in excess of 30% of their acreage in herbicide tolerant corn. The larger producing states of IL, IA, and IN are only in the 15 to 19% range, along with WI at 19%. OH, which has insect resistant corn on only 9% of its acres, only devotes 12% of its acres to herbicide resistant corn.
The widespread availability of stacked gene hybrids has only been in the past two years, but the popularity of such biotech corn is evident with its rapid claim on acreage. Nationally, it is at 28%, with SD at 43% acreage, then IL and IA at 40% and 37% acreage respectively. As an indication of the popularity of stacked gene hybrids, 7 of the 13 surveyed states recorded a doubling of acreage from 2006 to 2007.
Summary:
Biotech crops have become common across the Cornbelt, both herbicide resistant soybeans and corn with a variety of insect and herbicide resistance. The rate of adoption of herbicide resistant soybeans is slowing as the market matures. However, the rate of adoption of genetically enhanced corn is accelerating. Nevertheless, three out of four acres of corn and soybeans in the US are genetically enhanced. While that trait may have been sold to farmers as one that either saves the cost of labor or cost of spray, a primary benefit may be increased protection for the crop that allows it to produce a better yield.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:06 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
June 25, 2007
How Do We Produce Enough Corn And Soybeans To Meet The Demand?
Corn growers have been excited about ethanol for 20 years. Soybean growers have been excited about biodiesel for the past 10 years. Now that the excitement has become contagious and spread to Congress, automakers, environmental advocates, and the motoring public, agriculture is now faced with producing biofuels (along with food and all of those other things made from corn and beans.) Is it time to say Hooray! Or is it time to say Oooops!
Let’s think about this challenge for a bit says Kenneth G. Cassman, Director of the
Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. His presentation at the University of Illinois conference which addressed the renewable fuels and livestock feed challenge, was one of several which raised numerous issues that will impact every Cornbelt farmer. Cassman characterized the challenge as having “To meet energy and food needs of a rapidly growing and wealthier human population while avoiding global climate change caused by reliance on fossil fuels and irreparable destruction of natural resources.” Obviously this is a challenge that will not be resolved tomorrow or with some executive order. It will have impact on everyone’s livelihood, culture, economy, and way of life.
Cassman says the whole issue has come to a head quite suddenly. Among the reasons were increased demand for petroleum from India and China, the Congressional mandate for ethanol use and President Bush’s proposal for cellulosic ethanol research, as well as the tremendous amount of investment in ethanol and biodiesel production plants. He says current goals for ethanol production are 12 billion gallons by 2010 and 15 billion gallons by 2015. To meet that goal ethanol will require 34% of the US corn crop in 2010 and 46% of the corn crop in 2015, even with a 10% increase in acreage and trendline yield increases.
But, Cassman rhetorically asks, “If you lived in New York City, why would you pay taxes to su