CMEG Crop Management Extension Group

Field Crop News

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

August 19, 2008    Vol. 08:24

IN THIS ISSUE:

Weather Outlook — Paul Knight, Pennsylvania State Climatologist

A new push of cooler air from eastern Canada will arrive later Monday night or Tuesday morning. Only a few widely separated showers are expected in the north-central and northeast counties of the state. An active breeze from the north will bring much drier air into the region so that with clear skies and light winds on Tuesday night, temperatures will fall into the 40’s in much of the northern half of the state and there will be a few pockets of 30’s in the north-central and northeast valleys. Dry weather will persist through the end of the week with a steady warming trend. By Friday, readings will be five to ten degrees above normal (daytime readings in the 80’s to low 90’s).

At this time, it seems that Fay will have little direct effect on Pennsylvania’s weather until early next week. It is most likely that Fay will cross south Florida and stall near the north Florida coast for a period at mid-week and then be pushed west or southwest back across Florida and into the eastern Gulf by the end of the week. Eventually, Fay’s moisture will link up with a cold front dropping southward from the Great Lakes early next week. It will not be until next Monday-Wednesday (Aug 25–27) that widespread showers are expected. There is a distinct possibility that parts of the state (especially eastern sections) may receive several inches of rain at that time. More seasonable conditions are likely later next week. A warm and relatively dry September are expected from the Appalachians westward.

Salvaging Severely Hail Damaged Corn — Kevin Fry, Armstrong County Educator

Severe to very severe hail damaged occurred in numerous crops in many areas of the state last week. The corn in question ranges from blister to early dough with lots in the later milk stage. Crop spoilage is a major concern, if the severely damaged corn remains in the field until proper ensiling moisture is reached, mold growth and mycotoxins could be a major concern.

One possibility for the hardest hit and highest risk fields is to harvest early and blend the wet silage with dry material to achieve proper moisture for fermentation. Dry grain has been mixed with wet haylage in the past to reduce moistures, but adding grain does not improve fermentation because starch (main carbohydrate in grain) is not readily fermented. Dry hay is a better fit in this situation, but a common question is how much do you need to add per ton?

First, determine the moisture of the corn silage to be chopped. To do this collect 10 corn stalks and chop them either using your forage harvester or a chipper shredder. Collect and mix the sample after chopping and follow the microwave drying directions listed below or use a Koster tester.

  1. Weigh a paper plate; tare the scale with its weight
  2. Collect a small sample of forage and place it on the plate (50 grams).
  3. Weigh the sample on the plate.
  4. Record this weight as the “Initial Weight.”
  5. Microwave for 90 seconds for the first drying and then 30 seconds for subsequent drying. Feel the sample after each drying period; it should get more brittle after each drying.
  6. After the fourth drying, weigh the sample and record this amount.
  7. Place the sample in the microwave for another 10 to 20 seconds.
  8. Weigh the sample again.
  9. Repeat steps 7 and 8 until the sample weight does not change.
  10. Record this weight as the “Final Weight.”
  11. Calculate dry matter by dividing the initial weight into the final weight and multiplying this result by 100.
  12. %Dry matter = (Final Weight ÷ Initial Weight) × 100

Next estimate the desired moisture content in the silage you would like to store based on recommended corn silage moisture contents by storage structure.

To estimate the amount of dry hay to add or forage to wet corn silage, estimate the dry matter concentration of a potential blend. You can start with an assumption that adding about 20% dry hay (85% dry matter) will lower the corn silage by approximately 10 moisture percentage points.

Dry Hay example: 1 ton (2000 lbs) of 75% moisture corn silage contains 1500 pounds of water and 500 pounds of dry matter.  Adding 20% dry hay (400 lbs) is equivalent to adding 340 pounds of dry matter and 60 pounds of water. Now add the two together: total dry matter = 500 lbs corn silage DM plus 340 lbs hay DM = 840 lbs total dry matter. Total water weight = 1500 lbs corn silage plus 60 lbs from hay = 1560 lbs. The new moisture percentage is 1560 lbs water divided by 2400 lbs = 65% moisture for the corn silage, dry hay blend.

Haylage example: 1 ton (2000 lbs) of 75% moisture corn silage contains 1500 pounds of water and 500 pounds of dry matter. Blending with 1000 lbs of 50% moisture haylage is equivalent to adding 500 pounds of dry matter and 500 pounds of water. Now add the two together: total dry matter = 500 lbs corn silage DM plus 500 lbs haylage DM = 1000 lbs total dry matter. Total water weight = 1500 lbs corn silage plus 500 lbs from haylage = 2000 lbs. The new moisture percentage is 2000 lbs water divided by 3000 lbs = 67% moisture for the corn silage, haylage blend.

Remember, good silage making begins with the correct moisture content and is followed by rapid filling, good packing, and ends with good sealing to eliminate oxygen. Following these guidelines will have a greater impact on silage quality than use of a silage additive. Silage additives cannot replace good silage management. For more information on silage additives, see the following article.

Corn Maturity and Harvest Plans — Kevin Fry, Armstrong County Educator and Greg Roth, Grain Crop Management Specialist

With corn silage harvest looming in the not too distant future, there are some decisions that will need to be made especially regarding the late planted and re-planted corn. The issue of this late planted corn making it to maturity is increasing as we continue to have some days with cooler than normal temperatures. Some farmers are beginning to ask about the likelihood of these fields making it to maturity prior to a killing frost. One way to answer this is to estimate maturity date from the silking date.

A recent Purdue study indicated corn that was planted in late April and early May will reach maturity in approximately 63-65 days after silking. This estimate puts the maturity date in mid September. However, the number of days from silking to maturity increases with later planted corn because growing degree day accumulation decreases dramatically toward late summer and early fall. Corn that was planted in early June will require approximately 67–71 days after silking to reach maturity. This results in corn maturity estimates in mid to late October, dangerously close to the first fall freeze dates. Grain from this late-maturing crop will not dry as quickly in the field because of the cooler temperatures. It will also be at risk for having lower test weight.

Now is a good time to assess corn fields to assist your harvest decisions. Look at the kernel development. Is it in the blister stage (R2) with withered undeveloped kernels, milk stage (R3) with yellow milky kernels and a white cob, dough stage (R4) with yellow doughy kernels and a pink cob, or dent stage (R5)? This site can give you some estimate of the days remaining until maturity under early planting dates and normal conditions.

Compare your estimated maturity dates to the expected frost dates for your area,which can vary from the end of September for the northern tier and as late as early November for portions of Southeastern PA. It might be better to salvage some of these late maturing fields at risk for frost injury for silage, and harvest some of the earlier maturing corn for grain.

Often associated with these decisions is having a good estimate of the potential yield for silage and grain. A popular method for estimating yields is the Yield Component Method. This can be done as early as the roasting ear stage with some reliability depending on the accuracy of your sampling. Crop uniformity greatly influences the accuracy, the less uniform, the greater the number of samples that should be taken.

The procedure is as follows:

  1. At each estimation site, measure off a length of row equal to 1/1000th acre, 17.4 feet for 30 inch rows.
  2. Count and record the number of ears on the plants in the 1/1000th acre of row that are harvestable.
  3. For every fifth ear in the sample row, record the number of complete kernel rows per ear and average the number of kernels per row. Then multiply each ear’s row number by its number of kernels per row to calculate the total number of kernels for each ear.
  4. Calculate the average number of kernels per ear. Example: For five sample ears with 480,500,450,600, and 525 kernels per ear, the average number would be (480+500+450+600+525) divided by 5 = 511.
  5. Estimate the yield for each site by multiplying the ear number by the average number of kernels per ear, then dividing that result by 90 (average number of kernels per bushel of corn).

    Example: Let’s say you counted 30 harvestable ears per 1/1000th of an acre and the average number of kernels per ear is 511. The estimated yield would be (30 x 511) divided by 90 = 170 bu/acre.

Estimating silage yields from these grain yields can be tricky, since the amount of grain in the silage can vary depending on maturity, crop stress and other factors. A rough estimate for typical corn yields would be to divide the grain yield estimate by 6.5 to 7 bushels/ton to obtain a rough estimate of the silage yield potential.

Armed with this information you should be able to make a decision on how many of those late planted corn fields you should let go to maturity or harvest them for silage.

Soybean Leaf Cupping — Bill Curran, Weed Science

Normally this article should have appeared in mid July, but there have been several reports of soybean leaf cupping in the last few weeks. This happens every summer, but what is somewhat unusual this season is the lateness of this phenomenon. In some locations, symptoms just showed up in the last two weeks and appear to be getting worse. In the past, these plant growth regulator-like symptoms (PGR) were undoubtedly due to drift or volatility of herbicides, but some could be due to other problems as well. Dicamba, the active ingredient in Banvel, Clarity, Sterling, Distinct, Status, etc. and a number of premix products is often targeted as the culprit, but other PGR herbicides (2,4-D and clopyralid) can also produce similar symptoms. While herbicides may be responsible for some of the puckering, cupping, and wrinkling that has been observed, insect and/or disease pests, environmental conditions and soybean variety may have a role. This is often based on the observation of uniform cupping in fields with no postemergence herbicides being used and no nearby treated corn fields. Nonherbicide causes of leaf cupping include aphid or spider mite feeding and several viral diseases (bean pod mottle, soybean mosaic, and tobacco streak). In addition, one theory suggests that the soybean plant is expressing a physiological response to adverse growing conditions. Soybeans enter into a phase of very rapid growth and development during high temperature periods. Some speculate that adverse environmental conditions during this phase of growth may disrupt the hormonal balance within the plant. However, data are lacking in the literature to support this theory. The good news is that when leaf cupping and crinkling occurs during vegetative development (as it usually does), it generally does not affect yield, and soybeans compensate given enough time and moisture. However, when it occurs later during pod fill, the potential impact on yield could be significant. The University of Wisconsin has a nice fact sheet with color photos titled “Dicamba Injury to Soybeans”, that discusses the various causes of this injury.

Pricing Standing Corn for Silage — Tim Beck, Paul Craig, & Ken Griswold

Every year in August, we hear the same question from farmers, nutritionists, and FSA loan officers, “How much is standing corn worth for corn silage?” There are number of different formulas available in the literature for determining the value of standing corn for silage. These formulas range from simple to very complex and all have numerous assumptions depending on who developed the formula, an economist, an agronomist, or a nutritionist. We have decided to keep to the simpler side and rely on simple market economics. There are also two perspectives to consider when pricing standing corn for silage, the seller’s (i.e. the person growing the corn) and the buyer’s (i.e. the farmer needing to fill his silo). For this analysis, we are assuming that all corn chopped to make silage will be harvested at the same moisture (i.e. 65%) and will have the same feeding value coming out of the silo.

Before we discuss pricing, there are some major distinctions that need to be defined. Standing corn is not corn silage! Standing corn is the corn as it stands in the field waiting to be harvested. Once the standing corn is harvested, it becomes chopped corn. Chopped corn then has to be transported to and placed in a storage facility (e.g. upright silo, bunker silo, plastic bag, or pile). Chopped corn becomes corn silage only after undergoing full fermentation while in storage. During storage, fermentation and spoilage reduce the amount of material than can be fed to cows, and this reduction is called shrink. Corn harvest, transport of chopped corn, filling of a silo, storage in a silo, and shrink during storage all have an associated cost. Therefore, the price of standing corn has to be less than the price of corn silage!

Now, let’s figure out how to price standing corn for silage given market economics. First, consider the seller’s perspective. The table below has been provided to more clearly describe the pricing process. A corn grower has two options; sell the standing corn for grain or for silage. To sell corn for grain, the seller must deliver the corn to a local market for a contracted gross price per bushel; this represents the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) price plus basis. The basis in Southeastern PA can range from $0.25 to $0.40 per bushel. To deliver the corn to market, the standing corn must be harvested, transported, dried, often stored, and then, transported to the market. So, the net value of the standing corn being sold for grain equals the gross price per bushel minus the cost of harvest, transport, drying, and storage. In order for a corn grower to sell his standing corn for silage, the corn grower must receive a price equal to or above the net value of the standing corn if it were sold for grain.

Table 1. Strategies for pricing standing corn for silage based on the seller’s or buyer’s perspective.
Grower’s Perspective Buyer’s Perspective
(to Net the same amount from selling Standing Corn as if harvesting Shelled Corn) Per Acre Per Bushel (to Pay the same as buying corn silage from a silo) Buy Standing Corn Per Ton
Grower’s Gross Income (bu × price) $880.00 $5.50 Price of corn silage from silo (includes delivery charge) $55.00
Harvest cost per acre ($40/acre) - $40.00 $0.25 Harvest cost ($10/Ton) - $10.00
Grain Hauling (field to mill $0.25/bushel) - $40.00 $0.25 Storage Cost ($2/Ton) - $2.00
Drying Charge ($0.60/bushel) - $96.00 $0.60 Dry Matter Loss (20%) - $11.00
Chopped corn price, breakeven with shelled corn net - $704.00 $4.40    
Potential chopped corn yield (Tons/acre) 25.00      
Price per Ton of Chopped Corn needed to equal Shelled Corn Net - $28.16   Price per Ton of Chopped Corn needed to equal Corn Silage Price - $32.00

Here is an example of how the seller might determine the net value of his standing corn. See the table below for a clear description. The local price per bushel for September corn on August 7th was $5.50 per bushel, based on the CBOT price of $5.22 plus $0.28 for basis. If average yields in Lancaster County are 160 bu per acre, then the corn grower might expect to generate approximately $880 in gross revenue per acre. Estimated costs for harvest, transport and storage, and drying are $40/acre, $0.25 per bushel, and $0.60 per bushel, respectively. Therefore, estimated net value of the standing corn per acre is $704. If average yields for chopped corn are 25 tons per acre, then the corn grower would need to sell the standing corn for $28.16 per ton of chopped corn to receive the same net revenue per acre. A seller must also consider the risks of market fluctuation and potential field losses from the end of silage harvest to the corn delivery date.

Now, let’s consider the buyer’s perspective. Again, refer to the table below for a description of the pricing process. A dairy farmer needing to buy corn silage has two options: buy standing corn at harvest or corn silage from a silo as needed. The market price for corn silage at 35% dry matter (DM) coming from a silo has ranged from $53–55 per ton for the past three months regardless of the CBOT price for corn. Those market prices takes into account the value of the corn, harvest costs, storage costs, and shrink. Harvest costs are ranging from $7 to $10 per ton depending on the equipment used and distance from field to silo. Storage costs range from $1 to $3 per ton depending the type of storage structure (e.g. bunker, upright, or bag). Shrink during storage typically ranges from 10–20%. To determine the net value of standing corn for corn silage, the buyer must subtract the harvest, storage and shrink costs from the market price of corn silage.

For example, a buyer determines that he can have corn chopped, hauled and put in his silo for $10 per ton, his storage costs are $2 per ton of chopped corn, and his expected shrink during fermentation and storage is 20%. If the current market price of corn silage is $55 per ton, then the cost of shrink would equal $11 per ton ($55 x 0.2). Therefore, in order for a buyer to purchase standing corn for silage, the buyer must pay a price equal to or below $32 per ton of chopped corn, which is the net value of the standing corn for silage.

Given the current regional market for corn and corn silage, it would seem fair to allow the seller and the buyer of standing corn to begin negotiations based on their potential revenue and expenses, respectively.

Authors: Tim Beck, Senior Extension Educator, Dairy Financial Management. Paul Craig, Senior Extension Educator, Agronomy. Ken Griswold, Extension Educator, Dairy, Penn State Cooperative Extension

The Late Season Corn Stalk Nitrate Test — Doug Beegle, Soil Fertility Specialist

The educational video for the late season corn stalk nitrate test can be accessed at http://cmeg.psu.edu/video/stalk_test/stalk_test.cfm.

Nitrogen (N) management is one of the most difficult decisions in corn production because of the many factors that influence N behavior including: materials, timing, weather, etc. This is especially true when manure is part of the system. Standard recommendations try to account for many of these variables and early in-season tests such as the Pre-sidedress Soil Nitrate Test (PSNT) and Chlorophyll Meter test are very helpful in reducing the uncertainty in N recommendations. While we can never totally eliminate this uncertainty, with experience we can minimize it. A key to improving N management over time is having reliable feedback on how well your N management is working. Good yields and dark green plants are certainly good indicators of adequate N but they do not tell us if we have too much N, which can be a problem especially with manure. Also, some visual symptoms of N deficiency late in the season may not always indicate a yield loss.

The Late Season Corn Stalk Nitrate Test has been shown in research at a number of locations, including across PA, to be a reliable end of season indicator of crop N status. It provides a good assessment of whether the crop had the right amount of N or too much N or whether it ran out of gas. This information combined with records of N management can be very useful for making future management decisions.

To do this test, 8-inch long sections of corn stalk (subsequently cut into two inch long segments) are taken starting 6 inches above the ground. Pruning shears usually work well for taking these samples. Stalk sampling can be done anytime between about the ¼ milkline stage of the grain, which is just before silage harvest and up to 3 weeks after the grain forms a blacklayer. If possible, dry the samples immediately or send them to the lab as soon as possible after collection. If there is more than a day between sampling and sending, refrigerate (don’t freeze) the samples until you can send them. Keep the samples in paper (not plastic) bags. While you could test all fields, testing a few representative fields will probably be adequate to provide a good assessment of your N program. Detailed instructions and submission forms can be found at http://www.aasl.psu.edu/Corn_stalk_nitrate.html.

This test is available through the Penn State Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory (AASL). The cost of this test is $10. Additional information is available on the AASL Web site. Results of this test provide a good assessment of the adequacy of the nitrogen management in a field and can be very helpful in adjusting management in the future.

Crop Insurance Changes for Producers — Farm Bill*

Crop insurance has stand alone legislative authority. However the farm bill amended the authorizing law. Several other program changes have also been announced and are included below. The changes that are expected to impact producers follow:

  1. For 2008, insurances providers have new authority to allow producers more flexibility on the record keeping requirements for farm stored production, when a claim is anticipated, provided that producers obtain such authority before harvesting begins, through their crop insurance agent. Similar flexibility is also provided for APH records.
  2. A new Dairy Gross Margins (LGM) insurance program is now available. The plan provides protection against a loss of gross margins (milk value minus feed cost). An indemnity is paid when actual gross margin is less than the projected gross margin (insurance guarantee). The first enrollment period for the months of October 2008 through July 2009 is expected to end @ 9:00 A.M., August 28, 2008. Additional enrollment opportunities are expected each month.
  3. New 2009 price change limits for crop revenue coverage (CRC) and Group Risk Income Protection (GRIP). The new changes set the harvest price by following the board of trade price up to as much as double the early preliminary price. There is no longer any downward price change limit for either insurance plan. Current CRC price change limits are $1.50 for corn, $2.00 for wheat and $3.00 for soybeans.
  4. Crop insurance is required on all available crops to be eligible for disaster payments provided for in the farm bill (NAP required from FSA if crop ins. is not available on some of your crops). For 2008 crop year, if some of your crops are not enrolled and you want to maintain eligibility, a waiver is available at county FSA office but must be completed by 9/16/08. For 2009 and future years, you must have all crops enrolled in crop insurance or NAP. The enrollment deadline for fall seeded small grains and perennial crops is in the fall of 2008 for the 2009 crop year protection. Again, these crops must be enrolled in crop insurance for you to be eligible for disaster payments next year. Remember that the crop insurance indemnities and disaster payments are each larger if you insure at higher levels of coverage.
  5. Catastrophic insurance (CAT) fees will increase to $300 per crop per county beginning with, small grain, forage and fruit crops with a September 30, 2008 or later enrollment deadline. New NAP fees are $250 per crop per county-note to exceed $750 per county or $1,875 per producer.
  6. Requires developing coverage or coverage improvements for:
    1. Crops organically grown, dedicated to energy, adjusted gross revenue for beginning farmers, skip row cropping practices, grain sorghum price elections, malting barley quality, poultry, loss of bees and aquaculture;
    2. Detail actuarial and administrative options to address declining APH yields and declining and variable yields of perennial crops; and
    3. Pilot programs in sesame, camelina, grass seed, additional benefits for enterprise and whole farm insurance unit options.
  7. Reduce the federal subsidy 4 to 6 percentage points for area coverage plans (reduction varies by coverage level (will remain at 59% to 44% for revenue protection and 59% to 51% for yield protection for 70% to 90% levels of coverage respectively).
  8. Measurement of farm stored commodities
    1. Allows producers, at their own expense to have FSA make such determinations for claim, and
    2. Allows producer to defer claims up to 4 months to allow grain in bins to settle.
  9. Resolution of claims disputes — allow producers to use both informal agency appeals and mediation to seek resolution (eliminate need to choose one or the other).
  10. Special emphasis of risk management education to beginning, legal immigrants and socially disadvantage farmers, those planning to retire and using transition strategies to help new farmers get started, and established farmers seeking to shift production and marketing practices to pursue new markets.
  11. Coverage not available on non-cropland — first 5 years on native sod.
  12. Maintain basic insurance units for tobacco producers.
  13. Beginning in 2012, premium payment deadline will be 6 weeks earlier (changed from October 1 to August 15 so that premiums are reflected in earlier federal government fiscal year).

* Items 1-3 are administrative changes announced for 2008 and 2009; remaining items are required by Farm Bill Law.

Crop Insurance Deadline Plays a Role in Farm Bill Disaster Programs — Jason Vance, Farm Progress Publications

According to Jan Eliassen, a consultant that specializes in risk management education, says that what farmers do in the short-term when it comes to crop insurance can have a huge impact on next year.

“Any producer who wants to eligible for disaster assistance on his 2009 crops; corn, soybeans, whatever you grow next year; you must have crop insurance coverage on all your insurable acres on your fall planted crops,” says Eliassen.

Most fall crops such as winter wheat, rye and barley have a crop insurance deadline of Sept. 30, which is fast approaching. If producers do not have crop insurance on all fall planted acres they will not be eligible for disaster aid under the Farm Bill's Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program, known as SURE, on any crops next year.

“The more crop insurance coverage you have, the more your SURE guarantee will be,” Eliassen says. “They’re basically trying to create incentives for people to buy higher levels of crop insurance coverage.”

In the event of a disaster, the amount of crop insurance will determine how much a producer is eligible for under SURE. According to Eliassen, a disaster declaration of your county or a contiguous county will automatically make you eligible for the program.

“It can also be any farm where during the calendar year the total loss of production on that farm because of weather is greater than 50% of normal production on the farm,” Eliassen says. “So there’s a lot at stake and I’m just hoping producers all over the country get the fact that this September 30 deadline has a huge bearing on your eligibility for disaster assistance next year.”

Basically, any insurable crop must be insured and any uninsurable crop needs to have coverage under the Non-Insured Assistance Program through the Farm Service Agency.

“The rules have not yet been published, so there are some gray areas out there,” Eliassen says. “If you get to one of those gray areas that’s not covered; is it an insurable crop or should I get NAP coverage on that, at that point you need to contact your local FSA office and ask them for help.”

Contributors: Department of Crop & Soil Science: Marvin Hall, Ron Hoover, Bill Curran, and Greg Roth. Extension Educators: John Rowehl (York), Kevin Fry (Armstrong), Mark Madden (Sullivan), Jonathan Rotz (Cumberland).

Editor: Kevin Fry

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.