April 22, 1997 Vol. 97.2
IN THIS ISSUE:The national office mailed the exam results to the participants during the last week of March. Eighty-six percent of the people taking the test passed the national exam. The national office will begin mailing exam packets in early April to individuals who need to take or retake a CCA exam. The next CCA exam will be held on August 1, 1997 at the PDA building in Harrisburg. The exam registration deadline is June 13, 1997.
To maintain your CCA certification you need to have a minimum of 10 CEUs per year, a minimum of 40 CEUs every two years, with a minimum of 5 CEUs in each of the four categories. The National Advisory Council voted to remove the maximum of 20 CEUs in any one category at its meeting in March.
Elwood Hatley, CCA
Now is the time to GET READY to make hay or haylage this coming summer. Below is a check list of things to consider now so that you'll be ready to "make hay while the sun shines".
Haybine, mower, conditioner: Check to see that all the knife sections and guards are in satisfactory condition. Is the conditioner properly adjusted? An improperly adjusted conditioner can slow hay drying or greatly increase leaf loss. Inspect those belts and chains to ensure that they are in working condition.
Rake: Replace broken or lost teeth and check that it is in working condition.
Chopper: Are the knives and shear bar in good condition? Unsharpened or improperly adjusted knives can slow the chopping process and drastically increase fuel consumption. Inspect the pick-up head to ensure that teeth are not missing. How do the paddles in the blower look? Inspect the belts and chains. Is there sufficient oil in all the gear boxes?
Baler: Is it in good working order? Teeth missing from the pick-up? How was the knotter working when it was last used? Does it need some adjustment or parts replaced? Any problems with the kicker last year when you put the baler away?
Wagons: Good condition? Tires still hold air and pumped up? Are the chains and gear boxes in good working order on the silage wagons?
Blower: Everything in satisfactory condition last year when you finished up? How do the paddles look?
Silo: Will it keep a good seal for another year? Any doors need repaired? The fermentation process will consume about 11% of the silage under ideal conditions. A poorly sealed silo could cause that loss to be much higher. Silo unloader repairs are easier when the silo is empty so give it a good inspection now before you start filling.
Barn: Roof need some holes sealed? How does the hay mow floor and beams look?
Miscellaneous: Elevator, large-round bale spear, and large bale wrapper all in good working condition?
Many problems won't become problems until the equipment is being worked hard, but correcting some potential problems now can make for a much faster start to hay or silage making this spring.
Marvin Hall
Successful soybean production starts with establishing a vigorous stand. Stand establishment involves bringing together several management factors.
Elwood Hatley
The use of seed treatment for disease control in soybeans has not been a common practice in Pennsylvania. Soybeans tend to emerge rapidly when planted in warm moist soils encountered during late May and early June. With the trend for earlier planting, or when planting into cold wet soils, it may be necessary to consider a seed treatment. Cool or wet soils increase emergence time and allow disease organisms more opportunity to attack the seed. Seed treatments typically offer the greatest benefit when the seed and seedling is under stress during the first two weeks after planting. Examples of stress are heavy rains, soil compaction, surface crusting, cool soils, deep planting, reduced seed quality, and dry soils.
The most common seed and seedling diseases are caused by species of the following fungus organisms; Phytophthora, Pythium, Rhizoctonia and Fusarium. Phytophthora and Pythium are prevalent under wet soil conditions and produce a soft rotting of the seed or seedling before or after emergence. This is often referred to as damping-off since it occurs under damp soil conditions. With damping-off, a dark brownish or blackish rot girdles the seedling stems, and the plant dies.
Rhizoctonia and Fusarium occur under drier soil conditions. Rhizoctonia produce reddish lesions along one side of the stem and do not girdle the stem. Plant growth is reduced but death is not common. Dry rotting of the roots can be observed with Fusarium, as well as some reddening of the roots.
Dr. H. W. Kirby, extension plant pathologist at the University of Illinois, provided the following information on seed treatments for soybeans.
This list is not complete and was given for illustrative purposes only. Check with your local dealer to determine what products are available in your area.
| Diseases Controlled | Common Name | Product name of fungicide | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phytophthora | Metalaxyl | Apron | |
| Pythium | Metalaxyl | Apron | |
| Pythium | Oxadixyl | Anchor | Suppresses Phytophthora |
| Rhizoctonia and other seedling blights | PCNB | PCNB | |
| Carboxin | Vitavax | ||
| Captan | Many | ||
| Thiram | Thiram | ||
| Thiabendazole(TBZ) | Many | Controls Phomopsis (pod and stem infections) | |
| Maneb+Captan | Granox P-F-M | ||
| Choroneb+Metalaxyl | No-Flow AD | Controls Phytophthora and Pythium also | |
| TZB+Captan | Many | ||
| Chloroneb | Chloroneb 65W | ||
| Thiram+Carboxin | Many | ||
| Bacillus subtilis | Kodiak | Use with a chemical seed treatment | |
| Other Biologicals | Many |
* From Pest Management and Crop Development Bulletin, University of Illinois, 1996
Nitrogen fixing bacteria, found in inoculant, are sensitive to chemical seed treatments. If a seed treatment is required and an inoculant is being used, apply the seed treatment first and several days in advance of the inoculant if possible. It is best not to use a seed treatment on fields that do not have a history of soybeans. Successful production in these fields requires introduction of a high population of viable nitrogen fixing bacteria. Under these conditions it is best to plant quality seed and delay planting until the soil is warm.
John Ayers, Department of Plant Pathology
Elwood Hatley, CCA
Liberty (glufosinate) herbicide received EPA approval last January for use on Liberty Link corn and soybeans. Although very limited in availability in 1997, several corn hybrids with resistance to glufosinate will be sold by several seed suppliers. According to EPA, Liberty herbicide may be used on crops designated as Liberty Link (sold by several seed companies) as well as Glufosinate Resistant (GR hybrids sold by Dekalb). Liberty may not be used on normal corn (i.e., glufosinate susceptible). Before planting a glufosinate resistant corn hybrid, check with your seed supplier and/or herbicide dealer/distributor. AgrEvo, the manufacturer of Liberty herbicide may not stand behind Liberty performance on non Liberty Link designated corn (i.e., Dekalb GR hybrids).
Now, a few specifics on Liberty. Liberty herbicide adds a new tool for postemergent grass and broadleaf weed control in corn. Liberty or glufosinate is a nonselective herbicide that controls or injures most plants. Corn hybrids resistant to glufosinate were developed through genetic engineering techniques. This is the second introduction in the U.S. of a herbicide resistant transgenic crop (Roundup-Ready soybeans were introduced in 1996). Liberty herbicide is a broadspectrum broadleaf and grass herbicide that controls many problem annual weeds in corn. It will require some additional help on certain perennials (yellow nutsedge, hemp dogbane, etc.) as well as larger annuals (pigweed, crabgrass, etc.), but when used in a planned approach, it provides an excellent opportunity for better weed management.
Liberty may be used on field or silage corn from emergence to 24 inches tall or the V-7 stage, whichever comes first. Liberty is applied at 16 to 28 fl. oz per acre (20 fl. oz average) to actively growing weeds that are generally 2 to 4 inches in height. The addition of ammonium sulfate is recommended to improve Liberty performance. Liberty does not provide residual control, so a residual herbicide or a follow-up cultivation should be considered. Liberty may be applied following the use of any soil applied corn herbicide and may be tank-mixed with most post herbicides labeled for corn (see a product label for complete details). In 1997, the 20 oz Liberty rate will cost about $20 per acre, so include Liberty in a well designed weed management program.
In PSU trials, the best control has been observed when Liberty is applied 4 to 6 weeks after corn planting to weeds less than 6 inches tall. As with previous "total post" programs (i.e. Accent+Banvel), Liberty applied at a single application timing for complete weed control has been less consistent. In Liberty's inaugural year, try a lower cost pre program such as Extrazine, Prowl+atrazine, or your favorite choice followed by Liberty, try a Liberty tank-mixture with atrazine or Banvel, or follow Liberty with a cultivation. This first year is a good opportunity to experience or observe one of the latest introductions in weed management technology.
Every spring, we hear about some great new products being marketed over the phone. The scenario that I hear most often deals with a great new herbicide product that is as good or better than Roundup, Ally, Crossbow, or anything else currently available. The product is usually sold as a brush killer for fence rows or pasture that can provide several years of control for a whole host of woody weed problems. The cost of the product varies, but you can be certain that it's a "good deal". Quite often, the solicitor will not disclose the active ingredient or the actual formulation or concentration. But, the seller has an honest compassionate voice that is capable of luring in even the most conservative consumer. In some cases, the products turns out to be nonselective soil residual herbicides such as prometon or bromacil, which are noncropland herbicides that often normally cost less than this "good deal" is offering. In addition, when applied at high rates, these products will kill not only woody species, but will remove desirable grasses and legumes for several years to come. Also, they can not be used on cropland.
Before you or a client purchase any product via phone solicitation, ask a few simple questions. If you are dealing with a pesticide, does it have an EPA registration number? What is the active ingredient? What is the formulation? May I see a label? All registered pesticides must have this information. If the seller can not supply it, this may not be a legitimate business. These types of questions also pertain to other phone sales products such as soil or foliar fertilizer amendments, biologicals, adjuvants, etc. If the seller can't supply basic information on active ingredient, formulation, concentration, registered use, labels, etc. then it's time to say good bye. Remember, if it's too good to be true, then it probably is.
Bill Curran
Weed control is an essential part of crop production practices. Every year we get questions concerning the best strategies to reduce weed control inputs (i.e., cost and amount). Fine tuning to use lower rates of a herbicide or using a herbicide of higher specific activity will reduce the total amount of chemical applied (chemical load). Chemical load can also be reduced by using fewer herbicides. Legally, it is possible to use lower rates than those specified on the herbicide label. In this case, however, the herbicide manufacturer is not liable for product performance if adequate weed control is not achieved. The following are some options to consider when reducing preemergence herbicide inputs.
Chemical load reductions are possible with: 1) proper herbicide selection (i.e., select herbicides that require low use rates per acre, such as Authority BL, Balance, Basis, Canopy XL, Hornet, Pursuit, etc.); 2) accurate reduced rate selection of chosen herbicides; 3) timely application; and 4) proper field selection (i.e., select fields that have relatively low to moderate annual weed pressure or choose fields in which weed control was good the previous season). Rates for soil applied herbicides vary with soil texture and organic matter content. (The lighter or coarser the soil texture and the lower the organic matter content, the lower the herbicide rate.) Variable rate sprayers may allow rate adjustment for varying soil conditions in a field. Higher rates may be specified for dense weed populations, early preplant application, or less than ideal conditions. In some cases, farmers have already cut their rates of soil applied herbicides, so that there is very little room for further decreases.
Herbicides used in combination often allow use of 50 to 75% of single use rates. Besides reducing the rate of each or some of the component(s), herbicide combinations may reduce crop injury, carryover, or potential for herbicide resistance, and improve or broaden weed control spectrum. Premix herbicide combinations have a fixed ratio of components, so lower rates reduce both components unless you "spike" the premix spray another product. Some examples include, mixing 75% of a normal use rate of a grass herbicide such as Dual, Harness, Frontier, etc. with one pound of atrazine or two pounds of Bladex. Other examples include using reduced rates of Broadstrike+Dual (1.5 pt/acre) plus Bicep II (2.0 pt/acre). Products such as Authority Broadleaf/Canopy XL already contain reduced rates of the two active ingredients (sulfentrazone + chlorimuron). Using products such as these can reduce chemical load.
Reducing the treated area with over-the-row bands or spot treatment can reduce herbicide input. Banded herbicides can control weeds in the row, while cultivation controls weeds between the rows. Band widths must allow effective cultivation. Bands are usually 10 to 14 inches wide. Granular herbicides available for banding are Lasso II, Dual II G, Harness/Surpass 20G, and Ramrod 20G. Spray banding will require a spray unit on the planter increasing weight (saddle tanks) and slowing the planting process. Ridge tillage fits a banded herbicide plus cultivation program.
Weed control costs can be reduced by using a less expensive herbicide which may have greater risks. Atrazine is less expensive than Bladex, but likelihood of carryover is greater. Prowl may be less expensive than Basis, Broadstrike, or Balance, but corn injury can occur and compatibility and staining problems are possible. Treflan costs less than Lasso, but needs double incorporation.
Extra trips over a field cost time, fuel and equipment wear. Split applications may allow reduced rates and be more effective, but require more trips over the field.
As discussed, reducing preemergence weed control inputs can be accomplished in a few ways; however, reducing inputs may have a better fit with postemergence herbicides. See the upcoming newsletter issue for an article on ways to reduce postemergence herbicide inputs.
Bill Curran and Dwight Lingenfelter
Eastern black nightshade(Solanum ptycanthum Dun.) is an annual broadleaf plant that is an increasing weed problem in northeastern field crop production. It will begin germinating in May and continue throughout the growing season. Eastern black nightshade can cause crop yield reductions, but the problems of interfering with harvest and reducing crop quality are probably most important.
Eastern black nightshade is a member of the Nightshade family. Weeds belonging to this family are often incorrectly identified due to the many similarities between species. However, these weeds should be keyed out carefully since the effect of various herbicides on nightshades has been shown to be variable.
Eastern black nightshade is not a major problem in corn, it is not very competitive and can be easily controlled with many currently used corn herbicides. Eastern black nightshade can be effectively controlled or suppressed with many preplant, preemergence, or postemergence herbicides in corn. The triazine herbicides are probably the most widely used class of herbicides in corn and alone or in mixtures offer excellent control of eastern black nightshade. Triazine herbicides used in corn include atrazine, simazine (Princep), cyanazine (Bladex), and an atrazine plus cyanazine premixture (Extrazine II). Although triazines are very effective at controlling nightshade they should never be the only class of herbicides used in a field due to the threat of weeds developing resistance.
Control in soybeans can be more difficult. A combination of an effective herbicide program and early canopy closure can increase eastern black nightshade control in soybeans. Early canopy closure can be achieved through planting in narrow rows or drilled beans. The chloroacetamide herbicides (e.g. Dual, Lasso) will provide some control of eastern black nightshade. For more severe infestations, a pre program that includes sulfentrazone (Authority Broadleaf/Canopy XL) or post control with a diphenyl ether herbicide (e.g. Cobra, Blazer) or Pursuit works well. Apply post treatments when the nightshade is less than 4 inches in height.
Harvest aids are an option in the event of herbicide failure in soybeans. If the eastern black nightshade are still green and have not been frosted, apply 12.8 fl. oz. Gramoxone Extra plus surfactant as a harvest aid. Be sure the soybeans are no longer green before applying a harvest aid. Another option would be to delay harvest for as long as possible to allow more berry drop. Nightshade berries will slowly drop as winter approaches.
Nightshade can at times present a problem for seedling forages such as alfalfa. If nightshade becomes a problem use Pursuit early post or Buctril before daytime temperatures become too warm.
| Corn | Rating | Soybean | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRE | PRE | ||
| Atrazine | 9 | Canopy | 6 |
| Bladex | 9 | Lorox | 7 |
| Dual II/Lasso | 7+ | Pursuit | 8+ |
| Princep | 9 | Scepter | 8+ |
| Sencor/Lexone | N | ||
| Authority BL / Canopy XL | 9 | ||
| POST | POST | ||
| Banvel | 8 | Blazer/Cobra | 8+ |
| Beacon | 7 | Pursuit | 8 |
| Buctril | 9 | Reflex | 8 |
| Tough | 9 | Roundup Ultra | 7+ |
| Liberty | 7+ |
9 = 85 to 95%, 8 = 75 to 84%, 7 = 65 to 74%, 6 = 55 to 64%, N = less than 55%.
E.L. Werner, W.S. Curran, J.O. Yocum, and D.D. Lingenfelter
This complex of insect species (northern and western) are by far the most important and widespread pests of field corn. Therefore, a management program for corn should start by assessing the potential of this pest to be a problem. Because the immature stage of corn rootworm can only survive by feeding on corn rootworm, first year corn fields are not at risk of injury from this pest, except in rare circumstances. The two situations where first year corn may be at risk are: 1) if corn is being planted into an old soybean field that had significant volunteer corn the previous year and rootworm numbers were high in the area, and 2) if corn is planted into a soybean field that was flowering after all the corn in the area was brown silk. These fields can attack high numbers of beetle and have significant egg deposition in late summer. All fields that have been in corn for two or more years are at some risk of developing economic corn rootworm populations. If the fields were scouted late summer during the peak period of beetle activity, then a decision to apply a soil insecticide should be based on economic thresholds values. For first year corn fields that were scouted, 1 beetle per plant or more will justify a soil insecticide at-planting. For fields that had been in corn for two or more years, one and a half beetles per plant or more will justify treatment. Keep in mind, however, that the best and safest control strategy for corn rootworm is rotation to a crop other than corn.
Little effort has gone into managing the European corn borer in Pennsylvania. However, many corn fields routinely lose some yield to this pest. In the past, foliar insecticide applications have not been adequate to protect the crop. In 1996, a new technology, Bt corn hybrids first entered the market. In 1997, a wider number of seed corn companies will market this product. Research has shown that these hybrids provide a high degree of protection against this pest. Each hybrid has slightly different expression of the Bt toxin and some may have a few corn borer larvae in the stem at the end of the growing season. These larvae do not affect grain weight, but may contribute to some ear droppage and stalk breakage. All hybrids provide excellent control of first generation corn borer. Farmers who have a history of European corn borer injury in fields may want to consider planting Bt hybrids. Fields that may gain the biggest advantage from this technology are: 1) fields that are planted earliest in the area, typically in late April, 2) fields that are planted latest in the area, typically mid to late June, and 3) fields where a long season hybrid with stay green characteristics is planted. Because this is a new technology the true economic advantage has not been well documented. Under low pressure of this pest, traditional commercial hybrid may out perform the Bt hybrids. However, when European corn borer pressure is high, the Bt hybrid should in most cases out-perform the traditional breed hybrids.
Adult weevils overwinter in plant-debris in or at the edges of fields, in alfalfa crowns, or in litter some distance from an alfalfa field. Emerging adults, move from their hibernation site into alfalfa fields where they feed as the alfalfa grows. After a few days of feeding, the females become sexually mature and begin laying eggs in the stems of young alfalfa plants where they have chewed a cavity with their mouthparts. Before green young plants are available, some eggs can be deposited in dry litter or dead alfalfa stems. An individual female will lay between 400 and 1,000 eggs during a growing season. The eggs hatch in about four days to three weeks, depending on spring temperatures (see degree day accumulation charts to estimate when significant feeding will occur in your area). Larvae resulting from spring laid eggs, typically cause injury beginning in early to late May.
Although the majority of eggs are laid by females that reach sexual maturity in the spring, a few females reach sexual maturity in late summer or early spring. These females lay eggs in the stems of alfalfa in the fall and the eggs overwinter in the plant (only about 10% of the eggs laid in the fall survive the winter to become larvae). Larvae from these eggs hatch in earlier spring (early to mid April) and remove foliage when the alfalfa plants are still relatively small. In some years, alfalfa plants may show evidence of feeding by larvae that result from overwintering eggs. Although, this injury may appear to be significant, experience has shown that the plants quickly outgrow this injury. Therefore, insecticide applications are of little value at this time. Insecticide applications should only be targeted to the larvae that result from spring laid eggs. Egg hatch of spring eggs requires between 200 and 300 Degree days (Base threshold = 48o F) from January 1.
After hatching, larvae proceed through four instars (substages delineated by molting of the exoskeloton). The first two instars move into the plant buds and cause little injury to the plant. It is during the third and fourth instars that the large majority of feeding and injury occurs from this insect (consume 80% of total diet). Scouting to make a management decision should be targets to when the alfalfa weevil population enters the third instar. This is sometime between early and late May. The time from egg hatch to completion of the larval stage requires about 25 days. After completing the larval stage, the insect spins a loose cocoon and pupates. The cocoon is usually attached to the alfalfa leaves or to debris on the ground. Once the majority of the population has pupated, there is no longer a need to worry about injury from the pest. The insect remains in the pupal stage for about 10 days and then emerges as an adult. The adults emerge, feed on alfalfa for a short period (not an economic problem) and then enters diapause (a resting stage).
The alfalfa weevil is only an economic concern before the first cutting. Although the alfalfa weevil was once the most important pest of alfalfa, it is now only an occasional problem. During the 1970's, the USDA released a number of parasitoids that use the alfalfa weevil as a host. These biological control agents and a fungal pathogen have caused the frequency of economic problems to decrease from 80 to 100% of fields to about 5 to 20% in a given year. When these biological control agents can not do their job, local outbreaks occur. It has been shown that in areas where one or two years of dry conditions have occurred during the period when late instar larvae are feeding, populations will build up and outbreak the following year. Outbreaks are usually due to the fungal pathogen being unable to reproduce and infect the larvae. In outbreaks, rains when the late instars are present, result in an epidemic of the fungal disease that causes the population to crash. Once a population crashes in a field, it is three to five years before another outbreak occurs.
Scouting for alfalfa weevil in northern areas requires that a record of degree days be kept. These degree days use a base threshold of 48¡F and are accumulated from January 1. When 300 degree days have accumulated, scouting should be initiated. To scout a field, all that is needed is a 2 to 3 gallon bucket, a knife, and a measuring device. Walk through the field following a zig-zag pattern or 'U' shaped pattern and collect 30 individual stems along the path, by cutting them off with the knife and placing them upside down in the bucket. Make sure that you do not jiggle the stem while cutting it off. If you do, late instar larvae will fall off and cause an underestimate of the field's alfalfa weevil population. Also, you will need to measure the alfalfa height in the field at several locations and calculate the average height. Once 30 stems are in the bucket, split them into two or three groups and shake them vigorously in the bucket or beat them on the side of the bucket. Once all the stems have been shaken, remove the stems from the bucket and count the number of larvae in the bucket. Compare this number with the economic threshold charts in the publication, "A Pest Management Program for Alfalfa in Pennsylvania." If the number in the sample is greater than the economic threshold, then control is warranted. See the Agronomy Guide for specific products that control alfalfa weevil.
Dennis Calvin
Due to unseasonable low air and soil temperatures and unusually dry soil conditions very slow crop development is occurring this spring. New seedings of forage crops are just emerging, nearly 10 days or more after planting. Oats have emerged sooner, perhaps due to deeper planting depth. The surface of tilled fields this spring have dried out and subsequent crop and weed germination has been delayed. Alfalfa stands were again severely damaged by winter weather. Frost heaving in widespread areas has dramatically thinned stands and forced producers to make unplanned new seeding decisions. Winter heaving is especially noted on fields with low fertility levels of potassium. Stands of winter grains are very variable. Those planted later in the season and those where spring nitrogen application was delayed do not appear very vigorous at this time. Very little contribution from residual nitrogen applied in manures is evident at this time. I have heard increased interest in early preplant applications of weed control materials this spring. Penn State research results do not support application of herbicides more than two weeks prior to planting; lack of residual control can be a problem. More discussion and interest in incorporation of herbicides also. During some of my sprayer tune-up clinics, we have observed misapplication rates of up to 22%, so calibrate those sprayers.
Paul H. Craig
Dauphin County
What stimulated the idea?
First, as a result of an Agronomic Survey I conducted in March of 1995, farmers in SW PA indicated a significant interest in improving their management practices in forage production, both hay and pasture.
Second, after observing the purchasing habits of buyers at the SW PA Hay Auction for 5 years and witnessing that when forage analyses were used, buyers paid more money for quality hay, it was obvious that sellers and buyers couldn't adequately visually evaluate the feed value of haystuffs.
Third, when confronted with a challenge to make the county fair more educational for the agricultural community, one often has trouble generating ideas that can solicit participation of farmers that do not show livestock or enter some agronomic exhibits. When I was a fair manager, many of my efforts were to produce ideas that would be educational and entertaining to the public and the agricultural communities.
To better analyze the potential for farmers to participate at a fair, one might ask the following question:
Why do farmers attend or not attend a fair?
Most fairs have competitive classes in hay, silage, etc., but the farmer participants many times are few. The farmer brings in the hay and leaves it to be judged by someone else. What does the farmer learn? Many times a forage analysis is not utilized to allow the producer to associate the visual appearance of the hay to its actual quality as a livestock feed.
Therefore the idea developed that ask the following question: Why not have a time at the fair when farmers participate in a judging contest as a competitor and actually be the judges of hay samples?
What a great way to punctuate the value of foraging testing. Farmers could visually evaluate hays produced in their own county, where they can associate the effect of local weather and management practices as related to the quality of the hay being evaluated. Their physical evaluation would then be compared to the value determined by the forage analysis. Comparisons of nutritional value and economic value would be made to drive home the point of quality management practices. This could, in time, help improve the production and marketability of locally produced hay. Participation at the fair might be significant to helping farmers be better at managing their hay forage crops. Additional incentives were offered, free alfalfa seed, to entice farmers to participate.
After completing the activity at the Fayette County Fair where 21 participants competed, it was decided to also use the concept as a part of the winter agronomy meetings. The contest was conducted at four different county agronomy meetings, Fayette, Greene, Washington and Westmoreland.
What were the procedures?
There were two classes of field cured hay comprised of four samples of first cutting and five samples of second cutting legume-grass mixtures. In total there were a total of 141 farmers participate.
What was the analysis (dry matter basis) of the samples?
| First Cutting | ||||||
| Crude Prot. % | Dig.Prot. % | ADF % | NDF % | NE/Lact | RFV | |
| 1st Place | 15.8 | 10.8 | 37.8 | 52.4 | .61 | 105.6 |
| 2nd Place | 12.6 | 8.8 | 39.2 | 59.6 | .60 | 91.2 |
| 3rd Place | 7.7 | 5.5 | 42.3 | 64.3 | .56 | 80.9 |
| 4th Place | 9.3 | 6.5 | 43.5 | 66.6 | .55 | 76.8 |
| Second Cutting | ||||||
| 1st Place | 18.8 | 12.8 | 30.7 | 45.4 | .70 | 133.3 |
| 2nd Place | 16.3 | 11.4 | 31.1 | 48.4 | .69 | 123.4 |
| 3rd Place | 16.4 | 11.3 | 35.5 | 48.1 | .64 | 118.4 |
| 4th Place | 16.7 | 11.4 | 35.3 | 49.6 | .64 | 115.0 |
| 5th Place | 10.3 | 7.4 | 37.3 | 55.9 | .62 | 99.5 |
What were the results?
Without keeping an exact record of placings, the second class was an easier visual pick because of the percentage and guessable quality of alfalfa in the samples. As a result about 30 percent of the farmers picked at least one or both of the top pair in the class.
The catch was the 3rd sample which was mostly grass harvested at a relatively young age. Most of the farmers placed it down in the class because it was grass.
Donald C. Fretts
Fayette County
William S. Curran
Associate Professor Weed Science
email: wsc2@psu.edu
Website Address: http://fcn.agronomy.psu.edu/