CMEG Crop Management Extension Group

Field Crop News

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

March 6, 2007    Vol. 07:03

Last Call to Take the Newsletter Survey!

IN THIS ISSUE:

Dear Field Crop News subscriber:

If you haven’t filled out the evaluation for the Field Crop Newsletter, please take this opportunity to do so. The evaluation is short and will only take a few minutes to complete. Responses are kept confidential and used only in summary form. If you have any questions or concerns contact Marvin Hall, mhh2@psu.edu or 814-863-1019.

Click on link below to find this web-based survey.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=783013256820

Weather Outlook — Paul Knight, Pennsylvania State Climatologist

Punxsutawney Phil seemed to have missed his call for an early spring at least for the next few days! The cold air will be tenacious into Friday as better than half of the Commonwealth receives an inch or two of snow on Wednesday (Laurel Highlands should get 3–6”) which will be followed by a weaker reinforcement of frigid air for Thursday into Friday morning. The chill will moderate to more seasonable readings during the weekend and this should be the story for much of next week (readings within a few degrees below or above normal). Precipitation will be meager with most sections measuring less than 0.50 inches in the next week. Some showers are likely later Saturday or early Sunday and a couple of showers are possible on Tuesday. There are indications that a spell of warm weather is possible late next week, but more likely the week after (March 19–23).

Getting the Most From Your Manure — Kevin Fry, Armstrong County

Fertilizer prices have been rising dramatically lately. If you haven’t checked lately, you might be in for a real shock. And if you haven’t ordered your fertilizer, you may want to before it gets any worse. Rising prices are due to is lack of supply coupled with high demand from increased corn acreage. Now let’s talk about how to save some money, specifically if you have a supply of manure.

First step is to get your manure tested so you know exactly what you’re working with. Manure test kits are available at the extension office. While your there, get the new copy of the 2007 – 2008 Agronomy Guide. The next step is to grab a piece of paper, pen, and calculator, open the Agronomy Guide to the soil fertility management section and begin accounting for all the applied manure nutrients. With the price of fertilizer, you can’t afford not to.

To continue this article, go to:
http://fcn.agronomy.psu.edu/2007/manure_nutrient_calc.pdf

The Potential for Winter Damaged Crops is Here — Ron Hoover, On—Farm Research Coordinator, Crop and Soil Sciences

The warm temperatures during the first days of March did little to thaw the deep frost that had accumulated during February. That subsoil is still a frozen block of ice and in many areas it did not allow melting snow and rain to infiltrate. Low areas pooled surface water and with the return to the deep freeze, ice sheets have been created. These barriers to gas exchange are going to take a toll on small grains and perennial forages. How much damage will occur? Where ice has covered plants for more than a day, complete plant loss is likely in those sections of fields. Some research has suggested that a dense forage stubble extending above the water or ice surface may enable some survival due to gas exchange through the hollow stems. However, as the current deep freeze continues, the likelihood of survival of many of those plants will decrease.

Additional plant loss from frostheaving is likely later this spring where soils are near water saturation levels and daytime high temperatures climb above freezing only to be followed by nighttime lows that return to the 20’s. These freezing/thawing cycles can be especially damaging to alfalfa and other taprooted species. Plants that lack a fibrous root system are more easily “bumperjacked” out of soil, shearing the fine feeder roots in the process, resulting in plant death due to desiccation.

Growers will need to be vigilant in coming weeks as spring thaw and green—up commences. Some contingency planning now may be time well spent. What will you do when you see small sections of a small grain or hay field or pasture that did not make it? Leave it alone and live with it, drill some new forage seed to fill in the damaged areas, spot drill some spring oats where winter grain was killed, or rotate the entire field to another crop ahead of schedule are some of the options. Do those options change as the size of the damaged areas increase? Taking some time now to identify where to buy some additional seed and rent a no—till drill if needed can help simplify our normally hectic spring schedules.

Roller Study News and Update — William Curran and Dwight Lingenfelter, Crop and Soil Sciences

Several faculty, staff, and students in the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences at Penn State have been working with cover crop roller/crimpers for the last two growing seasons. Ruth Mick, a graduate student at Penn State is involved in a new collaborative project and is pleased to announce the first issue of the Roller Study Newsletter, a biannual publication that highlights a cooperative research program between Penn State, the Rodale Institute and three on—farm cooperators. She would be happy to answer any questions or comments you have. She can be reached by phone at 814–863–1303 or via email ram428@psu.edu.

Picking Apart the Differences in Glyphosate Products — William Curran and Dwight Lingenfelter

(This article was adapted from an article written by Bob Hartzler, Iowa State University)

In an effort to differentiate themselves from competing glyphosate products, manufacturers and distributors continue to develop new formulations and/or marketing strategies. Regardless of the marketing claims, only so much can be done in developing new formulations. The three primary things that can be changed in a glyphosate formulation are: 1) the salt included in the formulation; 2) surfactants and other ‘inert’ ingredients; and 3) the concentration of the parent acid placed in the product.

Salt formulations: In order for glyphosate to be effective, it is commonly formulated with a salt ion. See Table 1 for a listing of products and their related salt formulations. http://fcn.agronomy.psu.edu/2007/glyphosate_comparison.pdf So, the question arises: Does the salt used in the formulation significantly impact herbicide performance? The answer: Probably not. The salts used are selected to make sure the formulated product handles well, has reduced viscosity, is compatible with other products that might be included in the spray tank, has a high concentration of active ingredients, and will not cause adverse crop responses.

Formulation adjuvants: While there occasionally may be performance differences between glyphosate products, these differences are more likely to be caused by the differences in surfactants formulated with the product, rather than the salt used in the formulation. University trials have consistently demonstrated similar performance among glyphosate products when equivalent rates are applied and label recommendations for surfactants are followed.

Effective use rates: Selecting the proper rate for the situation and using the appropriate additives are the key considerations in obtaining consistent control with glyphosate products. Several different concentrations of glyphosate are now being marketed, so it is important to adjust rates according to the product used. Glyphosate labels usually state the concentration in two ways: a) lbs per gal of formulated glyphosate and b) lbs per gal of acid equivalent of glyphosate. For example, Roundup Original Max contains 5 lbs per gal of the potassium salt of glyphosate, but only 4 lbs per gal acid equivalent of glyphosate. The first value includes the weight of the salt formulated with glyphosate, whereas the second only measures how much glyphosate is present. Since the salt does not contribute to weed control, the acid equivalent is a more accurate method of expressing concentrations and weed killing ability. See Table 1. http://fcn.agronomy.psu.edu/2007/glyphosate_comparison.pdf

Other considerations when using glyphosate products:
Spray volume: Lower volumes (<15 gallons per acre) are generally better for weed control with glyphosate than higher spray volumes (>20 gpa). In higher spray volumes there is increased potential for hard water antagonism and the dilution effect of the herbicide and surfactants. Be careful with low spray volumes and bigger weeds like Pokeweed where coverage is also very important.

AMS (ammonium sulfate): All glyphosate brands recommend AMS if using hard water as a carrier to reduce the antagonistic effects of the hard water salts. Always add 8.5 to 17 lb AMS (per 100 gallons) to the tank before glyphosate. There is generally no difference in effectiveness between dry and liquid AMS, but make sure to use only spray—grade quality.

Keep in mind that not all water conditioners are alike or effective and AMS is the standard. Proprietary water conditioning products typically contain a number of ingredients, including AMS, surfactants, anti—foaming agents, etc. and although they cost more than straight AMS, they can provide some convenience and ease of handling, assuming they work. University research has shown that not all water conditioners are as effective as AMS at protecting glyphosate performance when hard water is used as the carrier. Differences in performance among conditioners probably are related to how much AMS is found in the product. Spray additives are not regulated, thus manufacturers are not required to provide specific information regarding quantities of AMS or other active ingredients found in the product. Because of this, it is difficult to know exactly how much AMS the water conditioner provides. Before selecting an AMS substitute, be sure the product is a high quality formulation, that a reputable company/firm is backing the product, and that there is documented evidence substantiated the performance claims.

Other adjuvants: Only add other adjuvants to the spray solution if it is recommended on the label. Certain brands of glyphosate require additional surfactants to be added for improved performance, others such as Roundup WeatherMax only recommend the addition of AMS, drift retardants, or colorants/dyes. The use of acidifying agents is not necessary for glyphosate.

Water sources: Glyphosate (and paraquat — Gramoxone) has a high affinity for soil particles. Dirty water from streams or ponds can reduce glyphosate effectiveness. If using water from these sources (or tank—mixing with clay—based herbicides such as atrazine), increase the rate of glyphosate to overcome the antagonism.

Environmental conditions: Any condition (e.g., drought, heat, cold, rainfall, time of day, etc.) that reduces the growth rate of the weeds will likely reduce the activity of glyphosate (and other herbicides). For example, during cold weather, glyphosate will take much longer to kill the plant than during warm, moist conditions.

In summary, the major differences affecting the performance of glyphosate products are the surfactants included in the package rather than the salt formulated with the product. We also do not expect consistent differences among products when used at equivalent rates and when label recommendations for additives are followed.

Corn Growth Stage Resource — Joel Hunter, Crawford County

Collars, nodes, leaves—this presentation, “Corn Growth and Development Related to Herbicide Use” is a good overview for anyone needing a refresher. Go to this site for the presentation handout:

http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/ppt/Growth_&_Dev_&_Herb_2003-HO.pdf

Northeast Pasture Survey on Seeding and Seed Mixtures — Ron Hoover

Researchers at the Northeast Regional Pasture and Watershed Research Laboratory, located at University Park, are conducting a survey of interest to grazers in the region. The survey is online and is easily accessed and completed on your computer. What information is the survey seeking to capture? It is focused on learning about the use of seed mixtures when seeding or renovating pastures. Again, it is a web—based, so the answers to each question are “point and click”, with no paperwork to return. At most, it will take 5 minutes to complete the survey, even less for those who have not re—seeded or renovated any pastures recently. As one will see, personal information is not being sought, so the answers provided by anyone who responds to the survey are anonymous. The direct link to the survey is: www.forages.psu.edu/survey/index.html

2007-2008 Penn State Agronomy Guide Now On—Line — William Curran

The latest Penn State Agronomy Guide is now up and running on—line at http://agguide.agronomy.psu.edu/. The new guide contains crop and soil management information including soil fertility, corn, sorghum, soybean, small grains, and forage management, cover crops, farm budgets, and an organic crop production section. In addition, the latest weed, insect, and disease management guidelines for the major agronomic commodities are provided.

The guide is also available in hardcopy through most county extension offices or through the College of Agricultural Sciences Publication Distribution Center at:

Publications Distribution Center
College of Agricultural Sciences
The Pennsylvania State University
112 Agricultural Administration Building
University Park, Pa 16802–2602

Phone: 814–865–6713 Fax: 814–863–5560
Email: Agpubsdist@Psu.Edu

2007 Risk Management Planning/Crop Insurance Deadline — Gene Gantz RMA/USDA, Contributed by Andrew Frankenfield, Montgomery County

Corn and soybean crops are expected to have the highest value in a decade. Production and marketing risk also are very high. 2007 would be a terrible time to experience a yield or price disaster...without adequate protection!

Crop insurance and crop marketing tools are a good combination to manage the risks associated with producing and marketing crops with potentially record values. USDA has announced aggressive price elections for APH yield coverage crop insurance (up to $3.50 per bu. on corn and $7.00 for soybeans). This coverage works best for producers desiring to cover variable input costs, in the event of low yield/quality. It does NOT provide revenue protection.

Crop Revenue Coverage (CRC) provides revenue protection against low yields, low prices or low yields with higher prices. With CRC, the price used to convert APH based yield guarantees to CRC revenue guarantees are the average daily closing prices for the months of Feb. or Oct. (which ever is higher) of the harvest time contract (Corn—Dec., soybeans—Nov.) on the Chicago Board of Trade. Production is valued at the average price for Oct. Many producers find that CRC works best as a foundation to reduce the risk of pre—harvest pricing (for an amount similar to the bushels on which your CRC revenue guarantee is based), to be in a good position to replace bushels lost that are needed for livestock feed (with the crop insurance indemnity) and to minimize the loss of revenue in the event of a disaster.

The Feb. average prices for corn and soybeans, on which CRC protection is initially based, will be announced by USDA during the first few days of March. It’s suggested that you contact your crop insurance agent immediately after this announcement to review the different protection options available and to finalize your decisions for 2007. Be sure to get a printed quote for the options that you select to protect your valuable 2007 crops. THE DEADLINE FOR CROP INSURANCE DECISIONS IS MARCH 15th! Contact a crop insurance agent for details.

The increased amount of crop insurance protection that is available to protect your high crop values will cost somewhat more than lower coverages of the past. But it still only costs a modest amount per bushel of yield. And, it may be the only risk management tool that assures your crop revenue when a severe disaster occurs.

Reminder to Report Your 2006 Crop Yields It’s time to report your 2006 crop yields to your crop insurance agent and the FSA county office. For crop insurance, remember to add pack factors (which increase the bushels) in your calculations of farm—stored grain. Also remember that written records are required to back up the numbers that you report. Both pack factor charts and a detailed acceptable record keeping system, that meets RMA/USDA standards, are available at the website: cropins.aers.psu.edu.

Contributors: Dept. Crop & Soil Science: William Curran, Ronald Hoover, Dwight Lingenfelter, Extension Educators: Andrew Frankenfield (Montgomery), Kevin Fry (Armstrong), Mena Hautau (Berks), Joel Hunter (Crawford), Thomas Murphy (Lycoming).

Editor: Mena Hautau

Upcoming Events

Real time pest and heat unit activity: http://agsci.psu.edu/news/spotlight/pa-pipe

Calendar of Events: http://www.events.psu.edu/cgi-bin/cal/webevent.cgi?cmd=opencal&cal=cal209&

Readers can subscribe electronically to this newsletter at the Field Crop News Web site.

If you have problems subscribing or wish to cancel your subscription, please contact Lisa Crytser by e-mail at lac8@psu.edu or by phone at 814-865-2543.

Information presented above and where trade names are used, they are supplied with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by Penn State Extension is implied.

This publication is available in alternative media upon request.

The Pennsylvania State University is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to programs, facilities, admission, and employment without regard to personal characteristics not related to ability, performance, or qualifications as determined by University policy or by state or federal authorities. It is the policy of the University to maintain an academic and work environment free of discrimination, including harassment. The Pennsylvania State University prohibits discrimination and harassment against any person because of age, ancestry, color, disability or handicap, national origin, race, religious creed, sex, sexual orientation, or veteran status. Discrimination or harassment against faculty, staff, or students will not be tolerated at The Pennsylvania State University. Direct all inquiries regarding the nondiscrimination policy to the Affirmative Action Director, The Pennsylvania State University, 328 Boucke Building, University Park, PA 16802-5901, Tel 814-865-4700/V, 814-863-1150/TTY.