CMEG Crop Management Extension Group

Field Crop News

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

August 5, 2008    Vol. 08:22

IN THIS ISSUE:

Weather Outlook — Paul Knight, Pennsylvania State Climatologist

For several days early last week, all the computer guidance (U.S., Canadian and European) pointed to a surge of quite hot air into the eastern portion of the United States for this week. However, as you well know, the hot weather never arrived! Instead, the heat wave swelled over the eastern Rockies and central Plains allowing mounds of cooler air in northern Canada to begin slipping southeastward.

One push of cooler air arrived on Sunday and several more surges are expected in the coming week. Somewhat drier air is expected on Wednesday with seasonably warm readings. The next cold front is expected either late Thursday or more likely Friday. Midday and afternoon showers will become more numerous on Friday as chilly air filters in aloft. There will be showers scattered over the hilly sections on Saturday afternoon. Morning readings during the weekend will drop into the 40’s in the northern mountains and 50’s in most sections except the urban areas which will stay near or above 60. A dry period with slow warming is expected from Sunday through Wednesday (Aug 13), though it is possible that clouds and showers may accompany more humid weather at mid-week. A couple of days of sticky weather are expected late next week before more seasonably cool air arrives by the weekend.

Odds still favor a very warm September and indications point to a drier than average autumn (Sept-Oct-Nov) for the eastern half of the state.

Check out the predicted Growing Degree Days (base 55) for Pennsylvania for the next two weeks.

Late-Summer Harvest Management of Alfalfa—Dr. Marvin Hall

August it the time to start planning your remaining alfalfa harvests to avoid a fall harvest at a bad time for plant survival. When planning your remaining harvests it is important to understand the risks of harvesting during this period.

Basics of Plant Survival: During the fall, winter hardy alfalfa plants develop cold resistance in response to shortening day lengths and cool temperatures. This process, known as hardening, involves reduced herbage production and increased carbohydrate storage in the roots. Carbohydrates are produced in green alfalfa herbage so any harvest during this time will disrupt carbohydrate storage. After cutting, carbohydrates are removed from the root until 6 to 8 inches of herbage is present, then carbohydrates begin to accumulate again. Winter survival of the alfalfa plants and spring regrowth are dependent on adequate carbohydrate storage before cold temperatures kill the herbage in the fall. About 50% of the stored carbohydrates are used during the winter for plant survival. The remaining carbohydrates are available in the spring for initial herbage growth. Cutting alfalfa in the fall may cause plants to regrow and expend some carbohydrates in the process. Subsequent regrowth can be insufficient to restore root carbohydrate levels by the first killing frost which increases the risk of alfalfa winter kill.

Should I Harvest Alfalfa in the Fall? Since harvesting during the hardening period disrupts carbohydrate accumulation in the roots there is increased risk of stand loss associated with fall harvesting. This leads to the traditional recommendation not to harvest alfalfa 4 to 6 weeks before the first killing frost. However, advances in alfalfa breeding and overall alfalfa management allow greater flexibility in fall harvest management than traditionally recommended. Fall harvesting can stress the alfalfa plant and increase the potential for winter injury but management practices and planning (as outlined below) can minimize this potential.

  1. Young stands are less susceptible to winter injury due to fall harvesting than older stands.
  2. Length of harvest interval during the growing season is more important than date of fall harvest in determining alfalfa stand survival. Taking at least one harvest during the growing season at 50% bloom reduces the risk of fall harvest compared to taking all harvests at late bud or first flower.
  3. Maintaining soil fertility levels is extremely important in reducing risks associated with fall harvesting.

Summary: Risks of decreased stand persistence can be minimized through management, use of alfalfa varieties with sufficient levels of disease resistance and winter hardiness, and adequate levels of soil fertility (especially potassium).

Fall Fertilization of Forage Crops—Dr. Doug Beegle

This year many areas of the state have been reporting excellent forage yields. As a result, we can expect that nutrient removal by the crop may be up significantly too. This combined with increasing fertilizer prices, especially for potassium (K) has raised questions about the need for fall fertilization of forage stands.

The principal nutrients of concern for legume forages are P and K. An alfalfa crop, for example, removes approximately 15# P2O5 and 50# K2O per ton of yield and at a typical yield of 5 ton it will remove/require a total of 75 lbs and 250 lbs, respectively. This removal is built into the soil test recommendations. However, if yields are higher than anticipated when the soil test was run, even if the recommended nutrients have been applied earlier in the year, additional maintenance applications of P and K may need to be made to replace the higher removal. Fall is an excellent time to make this adjustment. In the late summer and fall, K especially becomes a nutrient of agronomic concern. Potash in the plant is largely found in the sap serving as a regulator of numerous metabolic processes. A major benefit of sufficient K in the soil is winter hardiness provided it is available in time for uptake by the crop before dormancy occurs. Thus if soil test levels are in the low optimum or below optimum range, K should be applied in the fall because this should help to improve winter survival for the long term benefit of the stand.

Legumes are not generally considered to be a good place for manure application mainly because the N in the manure is wasted on legumes, which reduces the economic return to the manure application. Also there are concerns with stand injury and the possibility of increased weed pressure. However, if it is necessary to apply manure to legume fields, fall is the best time to do it. This is a way to supply the additional nutrients that might be required, there is less chance of stimulating weeds, and there is good cover in these fields in the fall, over the winter and early spring to minimize nutrient losses to the environment. Usually we give priority to older stands for manure application because they are often more depleted in nutrients and if there are some negative effects from the manure application, there will be less long term impact on a stand that will soon be rotated compared to a new seeding.

Agronomists want to make sure that producers replace the higher removal of K if needed, but not overdo it because alfalfa is a luxury consumer of K. This means that if there is extra K available because soils are already high in K or unnecessary K applications are made, the crop will take it up whether is needs it or not. This can result in unnecessary fertilizer expense, high K levels in the forage, and less K available for future uptake.

If your forage fields have not been soil tested recently, this would be an excellent time to take a sample. Sampling now will indicate whether the higher yields have reduced soil K levels to the point where a fall fertilizer application is necessary. On the other hand, regardless of higher yield, if the soil reserves are still adequate the soil test can help reduce the cost of an unnecessary fertilizer application. Soil test kits from the Penn State Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory are available from all Penn State Cooperative Extension offices.

Winter Wheat and Barley Performance Trials—Dr. Greg Roth

Preliminary results for the winter wheat and barley trials have been posted at the CMEG small grains Web site. Selecting high yielding wheat and barley varieties is the first step in a successful wheat management program. Wheat yields this year were exceptionally high at the Rock Springs location with some varieties exceeding 100 bushels per acre. Timely planting, fall and spring N applications, a mild winter which contributed to a good tillering and some cool conditions during grain fill likely contributed to the high yields.

This trial had a significant level of powdery mildew and we rated the plots for this disease on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the most severe. These ratings will give you some idea of the susceptibility of the lines to powdery mildew under our conditions. Wheat yields at Landisville were also good this year. We have also posted a combined table that allows users to assess performance across both locations.

Winter barley variety performance is also posted on the Web site. There we also saw high yields at Rock Springs this year, despite some lodging due to an early snowstorm. In parts of PA I have had many reports of barley yields in the 100-120 bushel per acre range this year, similar to what we had at Rock Springs. The hulless barleys performed much better at Landisville this year than at Rock Springs. The new hulless line Eve, tended to have lower yields than Doyce at both locations. Performance of some lines like Pennco was slightly lower than in years past. We also noted more lodging in some lines this year than in previous years. Be sure to review data from multiple years and locations before making variety selection decisions.

Winter Canola Performance Trials—Dr. Greg Roth

We have completed our summary of the three winter canola performance tests conducted with commercial and experimental varieties. This is the third year Penn State has worked with winter canola and this year we achieved some of the best yields. I would attribute these good yields to several factors: timely planting in mid September, good stands and a relatively mild winter.

Yield averaged over 60 bushels per acre (3000 pounds) at the Landisville and Montoursville sites. At Rock Springs, the crop lodged as a result of an early May snow storm and this likely reduced yields to a 40 bushel per acre average down from what also might have been a 50-60 bushel per acre crop. We also grew a demonstration field of 5 acres on our Farm Operations property and there we averaged about 50 bushels per acre.

In the variety trial, one of the most consistent varieties was Virginia, developed by Virginia State University and marketed by CropPlan Genetics in our area. We evaluated the Dwarf Essex Rapeseed variety, which is commonly grown as a cover crop and found it to produce lower yields than some of the canola varieties in the test. We evaluated the Dwarf Essex with and without a Prosper Insecticide/Fungicide seed treatment and found no effect of the seed treatment in these trials. I would suspect that we would find a more consistent effect of the Prosper treatment in spring canola, where the flea beetle is a more consistent and severe pest.

We also included a winter Dow Nexera Canola line, which is a representative of some of their value added canola lines that contain omega-9 fatty acids. These have mostly been developed as spring lines, but winter lines are now being developed. Of the lines evaluated, the HyClass 107 W and the DKW lines were Roundup Ready, and the Nexara was a Clearfield line. The rest were conventional varieties, including some of the more promising lines from Kansas State that we have grown in the past.

Yields of canola in the 70+ bu range improve the potential profitability picture for canola compared to some other crops. Canola is an excellent feedstock for biofuel and straight vegetable oil fuel applications and we are finding an increasing level of interest in growing canola as an on farm feedstock.

Corn Silage Harvest—Paul H. Craig

Corn Silage Harvest Moisture Timing

Depending on storage structure type corn silage is harvested when whole plant moisture reaches 32 to 45% dry matter. Optimum dry matter content for bunker silos is 32 to 35%; ag bags — 32 to 37%, conventional upright silos — 32 to 37% and oxygen-limiting silos — 40 to 45% dry matter.

As a corn ear matures the sugar in the kernels begin to change to starch. When this occurs, the kernel shrinks at its top and the “dent” forms. At denting if you break an ear in half you will see the milk line of the kernel on the bottom side of the tip half. When the milk line is ¼ of the way down the whole plant, dry matter is approximately 30%. When the milk line is approximately ½ down the kernel, dry matters are approximately 35%.

Proper moisture at harvest is critical and there is a wide variation in the actual moisture of the crop based simply on the milk layer. The most accurate measurement of whole plant dry matter is to conduct moisture testing. Begin by taking a few plants from selected fields at dent stage. Run through some type of chopper or lawn mower and thoroughly mix together. Use a Koster tester or a microwave to determine whole plant dry matter.

This moisture can then be used to predict harvest date. The expected dry down rate for corn silage is 0.5 to 0.6% per day. For example, if your crop tests at 70% moisture and your target harvest moisture is 65% you need an additional dry down of 5%. Dividing by the dry down rate of 0.5 to 0.6% per day indicates that you can expect to be harvesting in 8 to 10 days. Be sure to test the actual moisture content again at and during harvest.

Length of Cut

Recommendations for length of cut for silage vary depending on crop condition. Drier crops should be cut finer to produce smaller particles that minimize air pockets. Use of highly digestible hybrids requires a slightly longer cut to maintain effective fiber. General recommendation is a 3/8 inch theoretical length of cut (TLC) but more mature crops may require a shorter length. For non-processed silage the recommended chop length is 3/8 to ¾ inch TLC. Some farms rely on their nutritionists to fine tune the chop length based on farm specific conditions.

Height of Cut

In recent seasons some producers are cutting silage at a 10 to 20 inch height. This practice reduces silage fiber and lignin percentage and increases starch and energy content. However silage yields are reduced five to ten percent. Higher chopping can also be used to change whole plant moisture contents. By cutting higher, harvest may advance by 3 to 4 days. Higher chopping may be an option if excess forage dry matter is available. However, this will increase the final cost per ton. To balance this trade-off between quality and yield, the decision should be based on an economic assessment.

Processing Silage

At lower whole plant moistures, crop maturity may affect silage quality. Fiber and starch digestion decreases as corn dries down. Processing at harvest may be needed to maximize digestion on more mature crops. The goal of processing is to ensure breakage of the kernel and cob to assist digestion. Processing also can affect fiber length so choppers equipped with a processor typically lengthen their cut to ¾ inch.

Silage harvest will be just around the corner, will you be ready??

Control Annual Weeds before Seed Set—Dr. Bill Curran

Now is the time to think about controlling summer annual weeds prior to seed set in cropping situations where this is possible. Preventing seed production is important for driving down the weed seed bank and reducing the need for weed control inputs (i.e. herbicides). In particular, it is easy to prevent weed seed production following a cereal grain such as wheat, barley, or oats as well as some vegetable crops such as sweet corn or snap beans. Proper timing of the control practice is essential in preventing seed production.

In 2005 and 2006, we conducted an experiment at Rock Springs looking at giant foxtail seed “rain” (when seed are shed) as influenced by date of emergence. Foxtail emerged from the middle of May to the middle of June in the experiment. In the end, it did not matter the date of emergence with the later emerging grasses flowering at the same time as the earlier plants. With foxtail, this phenomenon is controlled more by day length (short day plants) than temperature. In both years, mature foxtail seeds were not produced until late August and peak seed rain occurred from late September through the month of October.

Other species can be different. For example, in 2006 we included yellow foxtail in the experiment. Yellow foxtail seed rain began in early August and continued into late October. Pigweed species can begin to produce mature seed by mid August, while lambsquarters and ragweed generally do not mature until the month of September.

To prevent seed production, fields can be sprayed with an effective herbicide or mowed once or twice. Glyphosate is particularly effective at stopping grass growth and reproduction. The plant growth regulators (2, 4-D and dicamba) would probably be a better choice for broadleaf weeds. With giant foxtail, even treating the field by mid September would have greatly reduced seed production in our experiment. If seed heads are present, check suspect fields to determine how advanced flowering and seed rain are and time control practices accordingly. Taking the time to prevent seed production this year can make a big difference next year.

Assessment of Soybean Fields for Insect Damage and Treatment—John Rowehl

This article is adapted from Field Crops Pest Management Circulars # 22 & 23, Soybean Insect Defoliation Assessment and Bean Leaf Beetle, Ohio State University

A complex of insect pests attack soybean foliage. This insect pest complex includes (1) the bean leaf beetle, (2) the Mexican bean beetle, (3) the Japanese beetle, (4) grasshoppers, and (5) the green cloverworm. Insect defoliation assessment is based on the collective foliar damage by the entire pest complex at any one time. If a significant problem exists, generally one species is causing the most of the injury. Thus, it is important that the problem pest be identified and determined whether the casual agent is increasing or decreasing in activity. Soybean yield is most sensitive to defoliation during the bloom to pod -fill period so scouting fields now is important.

It is important to apply a control only when field assessments find damage that exceeds economic (or action) thresholds. “Insurance” applications of insecticides are often not effective or economical. Moreover, they usually kill beneficial insects (predators, parasitoids, and pollinators) that are usually abundant in soybean fields and helpful in suppressing other insect pest species, such as aphids or mites. (See article on this topic elsewhere in this issue for further details.)

The following symptoms are characteristic of the individual pests.

Field Symptoms

Bean leaf beetles chew fairly small but clean cut holes in the foliage. Individual holes are seldom not more than ¼ inch in diameter, unless feeding is extensive.

Mexican bean beetles — both adults and larvae — cause a very skeletonized form of injury compared to that of the other defoliating insects.

Japanese beetle adults chew larger holes than the other beetles. In general, Japanese beetle damage is very concentrated in comparison to other insect feeding that is randomly dispersed.

Grasshopper injury is difficult to distinguish from bean leaf beetle or Japanese beetle injury. However, grasshopper injury tends to be more pronounced along the perimeters of fields near grassy alleyways, fence rows, and ditch banks.

Damage assessment is based on estimates of defoliation. To estimate defoliation, the following procedure is recommended:

  1. Pick a trifoliate leaf from the top, middle and low third of 10 randomly selected plants. (It is suggested that one carry a plastic bag for collection of foliage so that damage assessment may be made at one time.)
  2. From each trifoliate discard the most and least damaged leaflets. At this point one should have 30 leaflets upon which the defoliation estimate will be based.
  3. Compare the selected leaflets to the illustration below and record the average level of defoliation.
Representative insect defoliation levels of soybean leaflets.

Figure 1. Representative insect defoliation levels of soybean leaflets.

The action thresholds for determining the need for a rescue treatment varies with the stage of soybean development. Following are the recommended action thresholds:

Soybean Development Action Threshold
Pre-bloom (i.e. vegetative stages) 30%
Bloom to Pod-fill 15%
Pod-fill to maturity (unless pod feeding observed) 25%

Bean Leaf Beetle and Pod Damage Assessment

When pod set occurs, Bean Leaf Beetle adults will feed on both the foliage and the succulent pods — especially the pods in the upper canopy. As soybean foliage begins to turn dry and discolor in late August or early September, pod feeding may intensify as the pods become more succulent than the foliage.

Pod injury caused by BLB enables infection of the developing bean seeds by micro-organisms leading to moldy beans that (1) may exhibit incomplete development, (2) stick to the pod and are lost during harvest, or (3) appear in the final harvest causing dockage at the time of sale.

Recognition of stages of pod injury is necessary to determine if BLB pod feeding has just begun or peaked. Fresh BLB pod injury initially appears green. After a couple days the scars appear white. Old BLB scars on the pod appear dry and brown. The relative number of fresh vs. old scars provides an indication of whether BLB pod feeding activity is currently an increasing problem.

As the level of pod injury increases, the probability for multiple feeding scars increases and the potential for infection also increase. (See http://ohioline.osu.edu/icm-fact/fc-23.html)

If defoliation exceeds the action threshold at a given stage of soybean development, then a rescue treatment may be warranted if the pest causing the injury is present and vulnerable to treatment. The following link will take you to the Penn State Agronomy Guide, Soybean Pest Management section for specifics on control materials. http://agguide.agronomy.psu.edu/pm/sec4/sec43a.cfm

“Insurance” Insecticide Treatments — Dr. John Tooker

When growers are planning to apply fungicides or herbicides this time of year, there can be a temptation to include an insecticide in the tank mix as a preventative treatment against any insect pests that might be in the fields. Folks should be aware that such ‘insurance’ sprays have largely not been evaluated and their economic value might be minimal, particularly in soybeans. Soybeans can withstand a surprising amount of defoliation before yield is significantly reduced. Similarly soybean aphids have to be abundant (greater than 250 aphids per plant) before yield reduction is detected.

Economically sound integrated pest management (IPM) practices are based on applying control treatments only when necessary. This means scouting for insect-pest species and their damage and applying a control when damage thresholds are exceeded. Insurance sprays in the absence of good scouting information can waste money and actually lead to bigger problems. First, most insecticides approved for soybeans generally speaking have broad spectrum activity and will kill insect predators (e.g., spiders, bugs, beetles) and parasitoids (wasps and flies) as well as pest species. If these natural enemies are killed, populations of the pest species that they can control (e.g., aphids, mites, thrips) can grow and become problems themselves. Second, insurance sprays can be particularly hard on pollinators present in soybean fields. While soybeans can self-pollinate, many bees, butterflies, moths, and flies among others can be found visiting soybean flowers. Given the well-publicized troubles that honey bees are enduring and national declines in pollinator diversity and abundance, avoiding unjustified applications of insecticides can only help these valuable insects.

Western Bean Cutworm — Dr. John Tooker

A new insect pest threatens Pennsylvania corn fields. Western bean cutworm (WBC; Noctuidae: Striacosta albicosta) has historically been a pest of dry beans and corn in the Great Plains; however, for some unidentified reason it has been moving eastward. In 2000, it was detected in northwestern Iowa and by 2004 had reached southeastern Iowa and threatened the western edge of Illinois. It was detected in Indiana in 2005 and Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio in 2006. By now it has moved farther east and adults have been trapped in central Ohio (Wayne Co.; < 90 miles from the Pennsylvania border). Adults can be monitored with pheromone and light traps and they look similar to other noctuid moths (see this Iowa State Web page for a comparison of similar looking species). There is some thought that this species is moving eastward into areas where European corn borer populations have been drastically reduced, but this remains to be determined.

Western bean cutworm completes a single generation per year. Adult moths fly in mid-summer and females lay eggs on the upper surfaces of corn leaves. As a late-season corn pest, WBC larvae feed on tassels and developing kernels and can cause severe damage. Control can be a challenge because larvae spend considerable time inside the husk. Herculex I and Herculex XTRA lines of corn appear to offer protection against this pest species so growers will have some options when it arrives. To track the population as it approaches Pennsylvania in 2009, we plan on initiating a trapping program across the state.

PA Water Quality Action Packet for Agriculture — Dr. Sjoerd Duiker

All Pennsylvania farmers involved in tillage and/or manure use are subject to water quality regulations and must conform to the PA Clean Streams Law chapter 102 (erosion and sediment pollution control) and Chapter 91 (manure management). These regulations require farmers to have a plan to protect both surface and groundwater quality. The reality is, however, that many farmers don’t have an erosion and sediment control plan or a manure management plan. To help farmers without these plans, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection released the “Pennsylvania Water Quality Action Packet for Agriculture: A Self Assessment and Planning Tool for Water Quality Protection under the PA Clean Streams Law”. This tool walks farmers through a process that enables self-identification of the potential for pollutants to leave the farm. The packet provides information that ties regulations to practices. The Action Packet guides farmers through a process to achieve compliance if they don’t already have a conservation and/or nutrient management plan. Although not a guarantee for compliance, completing thispacket will demonstrate intent and efforts to accomplish compliance which are important considerations if violations do occur. In the erosion and sediment control section, the farmer is asked 9 questions about crop fields, streamside pastures, farmstead area, farm lanes/walkways/forest lanes, channel outlets, and maintenance of BMPs. In the Manure Management section, the farmer is asked 7 questions about manure storage, heavy use area protection controls, manure application and record keeping, surface and roof water, wellhead and groundwater control, and maintenance of existent manure management BMPs. If applicable, the farmer is asked to explain in a plan how erosion and sediment control and manure management requirements are met. All agronomy extension educators should be aware of this packet and are asked to encourage its use. Copies of the Self-Assessment Packet can be obtained from your local Conservation District.

Crops, Soils and Conservation at Ag Progress Days

The crops, soils, and conservation exhibits will again be located together at the traditional location for the crops and soils exhibits at the end of 5th Street at Ag Progress Days. The Penn State Crop Management Extension Group (CMEG) will be hosting several Penn State Department exhibits, exhibits from allied organizations such as the Pennsylvania Corn Growers Association, the Pennsylvania Forage and Grassland Council, and the Pennsylvania No-till Alliance. In addition the many agencies and organizations that support agriculture and natural resources conservation such as NRCS, USDA’s Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and the Pennsylvania Game Commission will have exhibits at this location.

Specialists and county educators from CMEG will be on hand to answer questions and discuss crop production issues. Stop in to talk to representatives of these many supporting organization and agencies. See exhibits of no-till equipment. Check out the best hay in the state at the Pennsylvania Hay Show. Visit the A-Maze-in-Corn or just stop in to say hi.

Penn State’s Ag Progress Days is held at the Russell E. Larson Agricultural Research Center at Rock Springs, nine miles southwest of State College on Route 45. Hours are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Aug. 19; 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Aug. 20; and 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Aug. 21. Admission and parking are free. For more information, visit the Ag Progress Days Web site.

Contributors: County Educators: Jeff Graybill, (Lancaster County), Mark Madden, (Sullivan County), Joel Hunter, (Crawford County), John Rowehl (York County, Kevin Fry (Armstrong County), Penn State Department of Crop and Soil Sciences: Dwight Lingenfelter, Sjoerd Duiker, Doug Beegle, Marvin Hall, Greg Roth, Ron Hoover and Penn State Department of Entomology: John Tucker.

Editor: Paul H. Craig, Dauphin County

Upcoming Events

Real time pest and heat unit activity: http://psu.zedxinc.com/cgi-bin/site.cgi?location=2&user=psu#

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.