FCN Logo College of Agricultural Sciences Penn State

March 20, 1998 Vol. 98.2

IN THIS ISSUE:

Mark Your Calendar:

Small Grain Clinic - April 23, 1998; 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm. at the Southeast Ag Research and Extension Center, Landisville, PA. Certified Crop Adviser CEUs will be provided.

The clinic will provide hands on experience in scouting, methods for determining pest thresholds, disease identification, staging plants and discussing other management factors such as seeding date effects on growth and development.

Production:

Hay Loss with Large Round Bales Can Be Tremendous

The use of large round balers to reduce the amount of manual labor associated with making hay has been a real help to many farmers. However, without proper precautions the amount of hay that is lost with large round bales can be terribly expensive. When large round hay bales are stored outdoors without some protection from the weather, hay losses can be high. Recent research from Michigan State University indicates that 4 inches of spoiled hay in the outer shell of a 5 ft diameter round bale represents a 25% loss. Table 1 lists the volume and value of the hay lost with various depths of hay spoilage. The 4 ft diameter bales weigh 600 lbs, the 5 ft diameter bales weigh 1000 lbs, and the 6 ft diameter bales weigh 1400 lbs. The value lost per bale represents the loss that occurs when the bale is fed free-choice and the animals reject the spoiled hay. If large round bales that include spoiled hay are mixed in a totally mixed ration and fed to high producing dairy cows, the value lost reported in Table 1 underestimates the actual value lost.

Protecting these bales from the weather during storage will reduce the amount of loss. A permanent structure is an excellent storage option with low maintenance costs, but its initial cost is high. Plastic bale wrap systems have a much lower purchase price, but the plastic wrap material and additional labor costs for handling the bales add to the overall cost of the system. As with any business decision, you can and should identify the costs and benefits of each storage option and calculate how much you can afford to invest in each option.

According to T.M. Harrington and J.R. Black at Michigan State University, a per bale break-even investment can be applied to any scale of operation (Table 2). For instance, consider a farmer who stores 400, 5 ft diameter bales per year. During an average year he expects to have 3 inches of spoiled hay in each bale. The farmer is considering the purchase of a plastic bale wrap system with purchase price of $2200. Is this a wise decision? The answer is yes. He can afford to invest $23.45 per bale for a bale wrap system to eliminate his hay losses. When harvesting 400 bales he can invest as much as (400 bales x $23.45) = $9380 in the wrap system and expect to recover the cost of the investment over the life of the equipment. Similarly, he can afford to invest (400 x $51.00) = $20,400 to purchase or renovate a permanent hay storage structure.

TABLE 1
Volume and value of round bale hay losses (hay @ $60/ton)
Depth of
spoiled hay		 4' diameter 5' diameter 6' diameter
Volume
% lost		 Value
$/bale		 Volume
% lost		 Value
$/bale		 Volume
% lost		 Value
$/bale
2" 16% 2.88 13% 3.90 11% 4.62
3" 24% 4.32 19% 5.70 16% 6.72
4" 31% 5.58 25% 7.50 21% 8.82
5" 37% 6.66 30% 9.00 26% 10.92
6" 44% 7.92 36% 10.80 31% 13.02


TABLE 2
Break even investment for two round bale storage methods ($/bale)
Depth of
spoiled hay		 4' diameter 5' diameter 6' diameter
Wrap Building Wrap Building Wrap Building
2" 7.40 22.80 11.73 33.00 14.46 40.20
3" 16.42 37.20 23.45 51.00 28.14 61.20
4" 24.63 49.80 35.18 69.00 41.82 82.20
5" 31.66 60.60 44.95 84.00 55.50 113.00
6" 39.87 73.20 56.68 102.00 69.19 140.00



Forage Seeder Calibration Saves Money

Farmers who grow corn or soybeans generally know and have checked at what seeding rate they are planting. However, when asked about the rate at which they seed alfalfa they may be a little less certain. In fact, many of those that think they know their alfalfa seeding rate may be off by several pounds.

In a recently study, large differences were found between seeding rates of different varieties of alfalfa when seeded through the same seeder. Coated seed, flowed easier than uncoated seed which resulted in higher seeding rates than was expected (considering the reduction in seed numbers per pound because of the increased seed size associated with seed coating). With uncoated seed, the seeding rates ranged from 14 to 21 lb/acre without changing the settings on the seeder. While this range in seeding rates does surround the normally recommended alfalfa seeding rate (15 -18 lb/acre), the variation can be very expensive. If a farmer thought he was seeding 15 lb/acre, but was actually seeding 20 lb/acre the additional cost per acre for seed would be substantial.

The difference between variety seeding rate was attributed to small differences in seed size and shape. It is a general rule-of-thumb that a pound of alfalfa contains 220,000 seeds but the recent study showed a range from 196,000 to 224,000 seeds per pound. In addition, some seeds were slightly rounder and flowed through the metering device faster than other varieties. Recommended alfalfa seeding rates will normally result in 75 to 90 seeds per square foot. However, the range in seeding rates that was observed resulted in ranges from 70 to 105 seeds per square foot.

Unfortunately, varieties showed no consistent trends in variation. Therefore, seeder calibration is an important consideration when alfalfa varieties are changed. This can be done rapidly by driving the seeder over a tarp spread on the ground, and counting the seeds that are dropped in a couple square foot areas on the tarp. Seeders which drop between 75 and 90 uncoated seeds per square foot are planting at recommended rates. Seeders should also be calibrated annually before starting to seed since slightly worn seed metering devices on the seeder can cause large changes in alfalfa seeding rate.

Marvin Hall



Is Starter Fertilizer Necessary for Corn?

One of the most common questions recently is when do I or don't I need to use a starter fertilizer for corn? Starter fertilizer is usually most effective in cold, wet soils where nutrient release and root growth are slow. These conditions limit the ability of the seedling plant, with it's small root system, to get enough nutrients to get off to a good start. This is especially critical for an immobile nutrient like phosphorus. Starter fertilizer provides the seedling plant with a supply of easily available nutrients until it can establish an adequate root system and the soil conditions improve. Then, if the soil has good fertility, the plant will be able to take care of itself. The starter will have done it's job.

The decision about whether a starter is necessary will depend on two main factors, the fertility level of the soil and the conditions at and immediately following planting. It is recommended that a starter always be used on soils which test low, especially for phosphorus. On soils with optimum to high fertility levels, this decision will depend more on the conditions. If the corn is being planted early in cold, wet conditions, especially if it looks like it will be cold and wet for a while after planting, it is also likely that a starter fertilizer will be beneficial. However, if the corn is planted on soils with optimum or higher fertility, later when the soils are warm and will likely stay warm, the release of nutrients and the growth of the root system will be adequate to meet the needs of the seedling plant and a starter fertilizer will provide little or no benefit. Starter fertilizers rarely provide a benefit on soils that test high or excessive unless the conditions at and immediately following planting are very adverse.

There are several important management considerations for starter fertilizer. The first consideration is the starter fertilizer material. Any good complete fertilizer which contains at least nitrogen and phosphorus will work as a starter fertilizer. Avoid materials containing urea. The physical form of the fertilizer, whether it is a blend, granulated complete fertilizer , or a fluid fertilizer does not make a difference in starter performance. The second consideration is the rate of starter fertilizer. If the fertility level of a soil is good, then only a small amount of starter is required. Usually, 100 pound of starter per acre is more than adequate. At low soil fertility levels the rate can be increased to meet more of the needs of the crop. However, the maximum rate should not exceed a total of 70 pounds of nitrogen plus potash applied per acre. The final consideration is placement. The key to starter fertilizer performance is to place it where it is easily accessible by the limited root system of the seedling plant. Thus it should be placed near to the seed and preferably below the seed for best results.

Doug Beegle



Ten Ways to Lose Money on Corn Production

Here are a few ways corn growers lose money.

  1. Never check the planting depth. Seeds get planted too shallow or too deep, stands are reduced by 20%, yields by 10%, $30/acre lost.
  2. Don't account for manure or crop rotation N credits. Entire crop gets about 50lb/A too much N, $10/acre wasted.
  3. Assume the insecticide boxes are calibrated from last year. Inadvertently you apply 25% more product per acre than necessary, $4/acre wasted.
  4. Plant all full season hybrids that yield well but don't dry down. Drying a 150 bu/A crop 4 more points at $0.04/point/bu costs an additional $24/acre.
  5. Plant hybrids you have no performance data on or experience with on significant acreage, or plant all acreage to a single hybrid. You get a surprise on hybrid performance, yields are reduced by 10 bu/A or $30/acre.
  6. Use a high P starter fertilizer on a soil testing excessive for P. No response to fertilizer investment, $10/acre lost.
  7. Use a soil insecticide on corn following soybeans. No rootworms to control, cutworms and other pests don't show, $13/acre wasted.
  8. Practice recreational tillage by plowing fields that could be easily no-tilled. Labor, equipment, and fuel cost $20/acre.
  9. Use 100 units of N where you need 150. Crop runs out of N late in season, yields reduced by 10 bu/acre, $30 acre lost, but you saved $10. Out $20/acre.
  10. Have complete faith in your pre-emergent herbicide program and don't check for escapes 2-3 weeks after planting. Weather fails to cooperate and herbicide performance is less than ideal. Weeds reduce yields 10 bu/A before you apply rescue treatment in early June, $30/acre lost.

Unfortunately these scenarios will be repeated again this year on many fields. Try not to make them with your crop.

Greg Roth



Soybean for Silage

I have had several requests for information on the recently released forage soybean varieties. These are varieties that were released by USDA. There are three varieties; Donegal, Derry and Tyrone. None of these varieties will be available for commercial production this year. USDA is in the process of determining which company of companies to release the seed to for further seed increase and market development.

If anyone is interested in growing soybean for silage they can use grain varieties. These will not get the vegetative growth of the silage types but perform very well. When choosing a variety for silage choose one that is 1 to 1.5 maturity group later then when planted for grain. For example, if a grower is growing a Group III for grain he should select a variety between Group IV and V for silage. Other management practices would be the same as those for grain production. Caution: check the herbicide labels for materials that are cleared for feeding treated forage to livestock. Very few of the newer soybean herbicides have this clearance.

Elwood Hatley

Pest Management:

Herbicide Resistant Crops: Their Fit in the Northeast (Part 1)

The following is the first of a three part series on herbicide resistant crops. This article includes a discussion on herbicide resistant crops as well as options for herbicide resistant corn. Future articles will deal with herbicide resistant soybean varieties and the economics of using herbicide resistant crops.

Introduction

Weed management has changed drastically over the past 50 years. In most cases, the reliance on chemical weed control has reduced the use of cultivation, tillage, and cultural weed control tactics. Herbicides are effective, easy to use, and are used frequently for weed control in most agronomic crops. Until the early 1990s, herbicides have been selected and developed for weed control in crops that would naturally tolerate their use. However, more recently, through advanced plant breeding techniques, crops are being developed to resist certain herbicides that they normally would not.

A number of techniques are used to develop herbicide resistant crops (HRCs). Herbicide resistance in crops can be obtained through the selection of naturally occurring traits in plants or through cell culture which is then incorporated into crop varieties and hybrids through traditional breeding techniques. Examples of this type of herbicide resistance include IMI and SR corn hybrids and STS soybean varieties. Genetic engineering or biotechnology is another means of introducing herbicide resistance into crop plants. This process involves transferring a gene with a specific trait from one organism to another (i.e., transgenic). Transferred genetic traits are then incorporated into crop varieties using standard breeding techniques. For example, Roundup Ready crops were developed by using a special "high-tech" particle gun that implanted a specific bacterial gene—one that has tolerance to glyphosate (Roundup) into crop plants.

In general, HRCs are similar to "normal" crop varieties, except they contain a herbicide resistant trait. In some cases, the incorporation of this trait may negatively influence other agronomic characteristics of the crop such as yield, maturity, disease resistance, and standability. For this reason, several years and numerous genetic backcrossing to plants with desirable characteristics is necessary to produce a hybrid or variety with all of the necessary agronomic traits. Because of the high cost of development, the overall cost of the seed with herbicide resistant traits is often higher. When selecting a particular variety, remember to consider all agronomic characteristics including the herbicide resistant trait and take into account the overall cost of the total program. (The economics of using HRCs will be discussed in more detail in a later article.) In certain situations, a traditional weed management program may be more cost effective.

Currently, there are numerous HRCs being marketed and developed—from atrazine-resistant canola to Buctril-resistant cotton to Roundup-resistant lettuce. Each year the number of herbicide resistant crops will likely increase. However, only ones that are relevant to northeastern agronomic cropping systems will be discussed in this publication.

Yield Issues with HRCs

HRCs would not be practical or useful if their yields are not comparable to normal crops. As previously mentioned, the addition of herbicide resistant traits in crops has the potential to negatively impact other desirable crop characteristics, the most important of which may be yield. Reduction in yield can be attributed to various factors associated with the breeding process. Depending on the situation, HRCs could have reduced yields due to yield drag or yield lag. Yield drag is the inability of the herbicide resistant crop to produce yields comparable to similar hybrids ("sister-lines") that do not contain the herbicide resistant trait. The resistant trait reduces the overall fitness of the crop and breeding techniques generally do not produce an equivalent yield potential. An example of this occurred with triazine-resistant canola varieties grown mostly in Canada. Even today, few farmers grow this type of canola because of the associated yield penalty.

Yield lag, however, is a relatively short-term concern. Yield lag results from insufficient backcrossing or insertion of the resistant trait into less desirable lines (i.e., non-elite). (Backcrossing refers to the repeated cross of the genetically engineered or modified individual with an elite line.) The HRC is only as good as the parent into which the resistant trait was inserted. Backcrossing at least five times is necessary to remove additional and undesirable genetic traits that were associated with the non-elite line. During the first backcross procedure, only about 50% of the desirable characteristics of the elite line, including yield, are recovered. The second backcross recovers about 75% of the desirable traits, the third, about 85%, the forth, about 90%, and the fifth or sixth backcross recovers greater than 95% of the traits of the elite line. Some initial lines of IMI corn hybrids had lower yield due to yield lag; more recently their yields have equaled that of their counterparts. Recently there have been reports of some herbicide-resistant soybean varieties having slightly reduced yields as compared to other comparable soybean varieties. Most likely these lower yields are the result of insufficient backcrossing or the insertion of the herbicide-resistant gene into non-elite soybean lines. In their haste to supply herbicide-resistant soybean varieties to the market, seed companies may have taken shortcuts. In most cases, any problem with lower yields will be eliminated as new varieties are introduced to the market.

Another possible reason for experiencing lower yields, especially in Roundup Ready and STS soybean systems is that farmers may have unrealistic expectations about potential levels of weed control with a herbicide such as Roundup Ultra. They plant HRCs in fields that have heavy weed pressure, contain difficult to control weed species, or rely on a single application for their total weed management program. In this case, reduced yields may not be due to crop genetics, but to weed competition.

Therefore, when choosing a crop for a particular area consider all of its agronomic characteristics including yield potential and herbicide resistance traits. Also, do not expect HRCs to be the solution to all of your weed problems.

Concerns with HRCs

Corn and soybeans are currently the only agronomic crops with herbicide resistant characteristics grown in the Northeast. Other herbicide resistant crops such as alfalfa and small grains are being developed. Despite the positive aspects of HRCs, a few concerns exist with their use. These include: (a) drift to nearby susceptible vegetation; (b) misapplication to normal crops; (c) increased selection for resistant weed species or shifts in weed populations; (d) herbicide resistant crops themselves becoming weedy and difficult to control (i.e., volunteer); (e) illegal use of bin run seed; (f) negative public reaction to genetic engineering; and (g) commodity marketability issues. HRCs require greater management to prevent such problems as misapplication and weed resistance or population shifts.

CORN

The herbicide resistant corn hybrids that are available for use in Pennsylvania and the Northeast include IMI corn, Poast Protected/SR corn, Liberty Link/GR corn, and Roundup Ready corn.

IMI (IR/IT) corn

IMI corn hybrids were the first herbicide resistant crops to be introduced in the Northeast. They were developed by selecting resistant or more tolerant corn germ plasm to imidazolinone herbicides (e.g., Pursuit). These hybrids were initially introduced to help manage herbicide carryover from Pursuit, Scepter, and Canopy applied in the previous soybean crop and to allow postemergence application of Pursuit and Pursuit-containing products in corn. Some IMI corn hybrids also have tolerance to some of the sulfonylurea herbicides. (Sulfonylurea and sulfonamide herbicides act at the same site as the imidazolinones, however, slight differences in the level of resistance exist, so corn tolerance may vary.) Some IMI hybrids are tolerant to Accent, Beacon, Exceed, Permit, and Broadstrike/Python products and are used to reduce injury potential from these products when applied alone or in combination with organophosphate (OP) insecticides.

IMI corn hybrids have not been used widely in Pennsylvania, especially in combination with Pursuit containing products (Contour or Resolve) as a primary weed management program. American Cyanamid has introduced a new product called Lightning which is a combination of Pursuit (imazethapyr) plus Contain (imazapyr). This herbicide provides broad spectrum annual weed control in IMI corn. Lightning provides good control of several common annual broadleaves and grasses including pigweed, smartweed, velvetleaf, cocklebur, giant foxtail, seedling johnsongrass, and shattercane. Our limited experience with Lightning suggests that this can be an effective herbicide product for early post (from the spike stage to 12 inch tall corn) control of annual weeds in IMI corn. Include a non-ALS inhibitor herbicide such as Banvel/Clarity in the spray mixture to increase the control spectrum and also reduce the potential for resistant weed problems. Lightning has a relatively long soil residual which can enhance the potential for ALS-resistant weed populations and can also limit crop rotational options.

Until recently, IMI corn was mostly used as an insurance measure against Pursuit, Scepter, or Squadron carryover injury or for additional protection when applying ALS-inhibitor type herbicides (e.g., Broadstrike+Dual, Python, Accent, Exceed) in corn. A number of IMI corn hybrids are available and these have produced yields comparable to other good corn hybrids. IMI corn is worth the slightly higher cost if corn injury due to ALS-herbicide carryover or from a post applied ALS-corn herbicide is a concern.

Poast Protected or SR (sethoxydim resistant) corn

Poast-resistant corn hybrids were developed using traditional breeding techniques to allow over-the-top applications of Poast (sethoxydim) herbicide products. This system can provide control of annual and some perennial grasses in a planned postemergence program or help manage escaped grasses if preemergence measures have failed. Poast products only control grass species and have no effect on broadleaves. Tank-mixing with broadleaf herbicides is necessary for broad spectrum weed control.

Poast Protected/SR corn hybrids are relatively new and limited quantities have been used in the Northeast. Other corn producing areas have had good success with these new hybrids. Poast provides good control of most annual grass species including foxtails, panicum, barnyardgrass, crabgrass, and shattercane. (Poast controls crabgrass better and may be a less expensive alternative to Accent.) It also suppresses johnsongrass, wirestem muhly, and quackgrass. Research suggests that split applications of Poast provide more consistent control of wirestem muhly and johnsongrass than a single application.

Poast can be used in combination with Banvel/Clarity, Marksman (atrazine + Banvel (dicamba)), or Laddok (atrazine + Basagran (bentazon)) as a total post program. When tank-mixing with Banvel/Clarity or Marksman use 1-2 qt UAN or 1-2 lb of ammonium sulfate per acre. Do NOT add crop oil concentrate (COC) or methylated seed oil (MSO) as severe crop injury may occur. Poast herbicides do not control yellow nutsedge, therefore, consider additional control strategies for nutsedge when designing total post programs containing Poast. There are no restrictions on the use of Poast in combination with insecticides in Poast Protected/SR corn hybrids. Over-the-top applications of Poast herbicides may be made in SR corn until corn pollination occurs. Be aware that post-grass herbicides (e.g., Poast, Fusilade, Select, Assure II) will not control volunteer Poast Protected corn in soybeans.

Several seed companies have corn hybrids that contain the SR trait, however, yield data for Poast Protected corn is still limited. Most likely, Poast Protected corn hybrids will be only used on selected fields with heavy grass pressure. Since other technologies are rapidly progressing (e.g., Roundup Ready), seed companies are likely to be selective as to where they invest their resources. The number of SR corn hybrids may be limited in the future.

Liberty Link or GR (glufosinate-resistant) corn

Liberty Link/GR corn is genetically engineered to allow over-the-top applications of Liberty (glufosinate) herbicide. This program can provide broad-spectrum control of annual broadleaves and grasses in corn. Sequential applications or tank mixtures generally will be required for broad spectrum weed control.

Liberty Link/GR corn varieties are new to the market, so few farmers have experience with this technology in Pennsylvania. Liberty herbicide is an effective product for the control of small annual broadleaves and grasses. Liberty application timing is critical for effective control. Control of weeds such as barnyardgrass, fall panicum, johnsongrass, pigweed, velvetleaf, and nightshade may be a problem because of excessive size or lack of sensitivity. Also, Liberty does not provide long-term control of perennials. To increase the weed control spectrum and improve consistency, Liberty should be tank-mixed or applied as a sequential treatment. A typical program would consist of a traditional preemergence herbicide (e.g., Bicep II) followed by Liberty. Another program could consist of an early postemergence application of Liberty tank-mixed with a residual herbicide (e.g., Marksman, Bicep II). Do NOT tank mix Liberty with Sencor/Lexone or Basis. Liberty can be applied to glufosinate-resistant corn from emergence until corn is 24 inches tall or seven developed collars have formed (V-7 stage), which ever comes first. Liberty provides another herbicide option for resistance management since it is not an ALS-inhibitor type herbicide.

Liberty is recommended at 16 oz to 28 oz/acre, with 20 oz/acre rate being a typical application rate. Penn State research has shown that the higher Liberty rate (28 oz/acre) provides better control of most susceptible weed species. However, at the current price, the 28 oz/acre rate is generally not economically feasible in most situations.

Roundup Ready corn

Roundup Ready corn was developed using the genetic engineering techniques described earlier. It allows postemergence applications of Roundup Ultra (glyphosate) directly to corn. This system should provide broad-spectrum annual and perennial weed control in corn.

Roundup Ready corn hybrids will be commercially introduced by DeKalb in 1998. Although seed availability will be initially limited (_1 million acres worth nationwide), the number and availability of Roundup Ready corn hybrids will continue to increase in future years. This year, only two or three hybrids will be suitable for Pennsylvania, with maturity ratings of 100 to 110 days. Check with your local DeKalb retailer for additional information on these hybrids. As a weed control system, Roundup Ready corn program recommendations are different from Roundup Ready soybeans. Due to wide corn rows, a single application of Roundup generally will not provide season-long control because of slow crop canopy closure and subsequent weed emergence. A typical herbicide program will include a residual herbicide in addition to Roundup. For example, apply Harness Xtra pre, followed by Roundup Ultra post. Another option is to apply a tank-mix of Roundup Ultra plus a residual herbicide such as Harness Xtra as an early post treatment. (In time, other residual herbicides such as Bicep II, Guardsman, or Surpass 100 will likely be labeled.) Until more information is available, the full soil residual herbicide rate should be used prior to or with Roundup; however, 1/2 or 2/3 rates of either or all products may successfully be used depending on weed spectrum, severity, and soil type. Keep in mind that Roundup Ultra will not control volunteer Roundup Ready soybeans in Roundup Ready corn and vice versa. Additional control techniques may be necessary to manage this problem.

Roundup Ready corn will allow timely post applications of Roundup Ultra to control certain weeds. Roundup will be especially useful for controlling perennial weeds in crop. Roundup Ready corn hybrids generally will cost more than normal hybrids due to an initial seed premium and a technology fee. Depending on which herbicide program is used, the final input costs could be similar or slightly more than a traditional herbicide program. Currently no university yield data is available for these corn hybrids, and as with any hybrid, yield and overall agronomic traits (i.e., disease resistance, maturity, standability, etc.) are necessary considerations in hybrid selection. In future years, public yield trials should include Roundup Ready corn hybrids as well as other herbicide resistant crops.

Dwight Lingenfelter, Bill Curran, and Jayson Harper



PSU Herbicide Selector Available on the Web

The PSU Herbicide Selector software developed at Ohio State University and has been modified for use in Pennsylvania is now available free via our website. The objective of the PSU Herbicide Selector is to aid in the selection of suitable corn and soybean herbicide programs for specific weed problems. The Selector provides herbicide options for and information about selected weed species as well as herbicide and application pricing information.

This program was developed for use on IBM or IBM compatible computers and will run in Windows 95 or Windows NT. To download a copy of the PSU Herbicide Selector visit the following web site and follow the instructions:

http://www.agronomy.psu.edu/weeds/herbselect.htm



Weed Management Handbooks Available

There are a limited supply of PSU Weed Management Handbooks available. These handbooks are currently used in our annual weed school meetings and contain numerous weed science related resources from Penn State and other universities and the private sector. Each binder contains publications, fact sheets, and other materials on aspects primarily associated with agronomic weed management including weed ID, scouting, and non chemical control tactics; principles of chemical weed control; herbicide application technologies; problem weed management; and safe use of pesticides. Each handbook is $20.00 which also includes a copy of the 1998 Penn State Field Crop Weed Control Guide. To order copies of the Handbook and Weed Control Guide contact Bill Curran at (814) 863-1014; email: wsc2@psu.edu or Dwight Lingenfelter at (814) 865-2242; email: DXL18@psu.edu.



Quick Notes - Updates

Dwight Lingenfelter and Bill Curran


Precision Vision:

Penn State Welcomes David Wagner

As an introduction, this is a new column, written by a new faculty member, at least new to Penn State. I'm David Wagner, and my title is Extension Specialist for Precision Agriculture. I grew up in Venango County, Pennsylvania, and spent the last 20 years of my life in Colorado, and another five years in Alaska, Europe, Africa and India. Alaska does seem like a different continent. My Ph.D. degree is from Colorado State University, I graduated in 1994, in Agricultural Engineering, and my research interests are in geographic information systems, global positioning systems and satellite and aerial photography remote sensing systems. In forthcoming columns, I'll be talking about these areas as they relate to precision agriculture.

Why the name PRECISION VISION? Because Penn State is committed to becoming the foremost leader in university research and extension in precision agriculture. Our commitment is to helping Pennsylvania farmers and producers, large and small, stay abreast of the newest technologies in this new area of "precision agriculture". I will be writing more about precision agriculture in the next columns.



It's Sprayer Tune-up Time

It's Springtime, and a new season for growth. Spraying time is just around the corner, and the farm sprayers have been sitting in the shed (hopefully) or out in the snow and rain for most of the winter. I don't know many people that get machinery ready before the last minute. I have a buddy that hyperventilates if he doesn't get his work ready at least a month before the deadline. You know, the person who files his income tax the day after he gets his W2 forms in January! He, I think, is the exception. For the rest of us regulars, it's usually the day before we decide to spray, that we pull the rig out, and start checking it out. Maybe the nozzles were checked and calibrated back in 94, when Don Daum came down to the County and did a spray calibration training.

If you producers are going to be using custom applicators, your problems are simplified. But, the farm spray rigs can either save you some money or cost you some money this year, depending on how you approach that rig. With the cost of chemicals going up, could be a lot of money hanging on that rig being clean, calibrated and ready to go.

Here's some tips on cleaning taken from our fact sheet Sprayer Cleaning, B-72, available from Ag and Bio Engineering.

  1. Sprayers need to be cleaned to prevent corrosion, to prevent cross-contamination of pesticides, and to prevent crop injury. Trace amounts of one pesticide can react with another or carry over to the next spraying, causing damage, especially with herbicides. Long exposures with even small amounts of some pesticides can damage sprayer components, including stainless steel tips and fiberglass tanks.
  2. No cleaning method is 100 percent foolproof. If you want to spray crops that are very susceptible to herbicide injury, such as vegetables, fruits, or ornamentals, it is recommended that two sprayers be used--one for herbicides only and one for all other pesticides.
  3. Always try to end the day with an empty tank; mix only what is needed for today's jobs. Always flush with clean water and drain even if you plan to apply the same material the next day. Also rinse the outside of the sprayer. The use of surfactants with pesticides, when compatible with your needs, will provide some cleaning action in the sprayer.
  4. Whenever you change pesticides or prior to storage, sprayers should be given a thorough cleaning with a cleaning solution.
  5. First flush with water, then add the cleaning solution to the tank and thoroughly agitate before flushing. Always flush with clean water to remove cleaning solution.
  6. Remove nozzle tips and screens; clean them in strong detergent solution or kerosene, using a soft brush such as an old toothbrush. Do not create damage by using a wire, knife, or other hard objects that might scratch the orifice or puncture the screen.
  7. Follow safety precautions during cleaning the same as for applications. Use respirator, rubber gloves, or other protective gear as may be directed by label instructions.

The whole fact sheet is on the Ag and Bio Engineering web site in pdf format. You can download the free Adobe Reader software available at the web site, and then use the Adobe Reader to view and print the Fact Sheet.

Go to http://www.age.psu.edu/dept/extension/index.html using your internet browser. At the above web site address look under Machinery and Tractor systems for all of our available fact sheets on spraying technology. Or send an email to Marsha Hull at mxh16@psu.edu and request the fact sheet to be sent to you by mail.

David Wagner

William S. Curran
Associate Professor Weed Science
email: wsc2@psu.edu

Back to:

Website Address: http://fcn.agronomy.psu.edu/