Field Crop News

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

December 9, 2008    Vol. 08:34

IN THIS ISSUE:

• Weather Outlook
• Feed Value of Transgenic Corn
• Leguminous Cover Crops—Results 2008
• Crop Market Outlook
• Upcoming Events

Weather Outlook — Paul Knight, Pennsylvania State Climatologist

Very mild weather to start on Wednesday will steadily yield to colder air moving from northwest to southeast so that during the evening, cooler air will reach Philadelphia. Rain will changeover to snow in the northwest quarter of the state with 1–2 inches likely. Rain showers may temporarily end as freezing rain or sleet in the central sections (from the Laurel Highlands to the Poconos). A disturbance trailing on the end of the cold front should threaten the central sections of the Commonwealth with freezing rain and sleet on Thursday. It is expected that a relatively narrow zone of snow (about 50 miles wide) will occur on the western flank of the wintry precipitation with 2–6 inches possible. All indications point to just rain east of Lancaster to Philadelphia.

Rather chilly (though not nearly as cold as recent days) will return for Friday and early Saturday and this will be followed by a pronounced warming trend which should persist into next Tuesday with daytime readings reaching near 60 in the southeast and 40’s to low 50’s elsewhere. This pattern should give way to a see-saw regime for at least a week with shallow cold air returning at the middle of next week and that being overrun by mild, moist air producing patches of ice late in the week. Odds still favor several pushes of very cold air with possible snowfall as the cold air departs during the last 10 days of December and the first week of January.

Expect above average temperatures to dominate much of January and February with only a few intrusions of bitter chill and wintry precipitation. Repetitive cold air is likely with above average snowfall in March.

Feed Value of Transgenic Corn—Greg Roth, Grain Crop Management

I received several questions recently on the feed quality of transgenic corn, especially rootworm resistant corn and glyphosate tolerant corn. Many farms with high producing herds are using these hybrids but it pays to review some of the research that has been done on this topic. A number of feeding trials have been conducted to assess these traits and their effect on forage quality and milk production. In our own studies, we have mostly evaluated the forage quality and have not been able to document any significant differences due to the presence of these transgenic traits.

A number of feeding trials have concluded that the transgenic and conventional versions of Bt, glyphosate tolerant and Bt rootworm resistant corns are nutritionally equivalent to conventional hybrids. A Purdue University study, for example, conducted by Doinkin et al. published in 2003 in the Journal of Dairy Science evaluated milk production, forage quality traits and rumen degradability of Bt and glyphosate tolerant corn and found no effects on milk production when the both the transgenic grain and silage were used in the dairy rations compared to a control using both conventional grain and silage.

Another example is a University of Nebraska study conducted by Grant et al. and published in Dairy Science in 2003 evaluated dry matter intake and milk production due to the presence of one of the Bt rootworm (Mon863) or one of the glyphosate tolerant genes (nk603). They found no effect due to the Bt rootworm trait on milk production or dry matter intake. They did find lower milk yields in this study with the glyphosate tolerant hybrids, but attributed this to the higher dry matter content of the Roundup Ready hybrid at ensiling rather than the gene. Sometimes differences in dry matter content in the field can lead to reduced animal performance and this could be interpreted as an effect from the gene.

The overwhelming majority of studies on transgenic corn have shown nutritional equivalency and no effect of the transgenes on feed quality and animal performance. I suspect most differences observed between conventional and transgenic hybrids are due to differences in management or due to differences in dry matter content as observed in the Grant study cited above.

Leguminous Cover Crops—2008 Results — Sjoerd Duiker, Soil Management Specialist and Ron Hoover, On-Farm Research Coordinator

Research on leguminous cover crops continues as interest grows to use cover crops for erosion control, soil quality improvement, mulch production to aid in weed control, nutrient cycling and nitrogen ‘fertilizer’ for the next crop. Our research at Rock Springs (Centre County) and Landisville (Lancaster County) has zoomed in on the legumes that show the greatest potential as cover crops: hairy vetch, crimson clover, and red clover. One thing we are learning is the importance of establishment date: based on our research we’re recommending hairy vetch and crimson clover be established by mid-August, September 1, and September 15 in northern, central, and southern locations in Pennsylvania, respectively. Those of us working in high altitudes or on north-facing slopes need to knock some two weeks off the recommended planting deadlines.

Residue distribution is critical when no-tilling any crop, and cover crops are no exemption to this rule to achieve good establishment. It could be argued that because many of our cover crops start from small seeds that should be shallow-planted, residue distribution and planting depth control must be monitored closely. Remember that a marginal cover crop will give poor returns. In our research, we have more success with red clover when it is established before the summer. We’re talking primarily broadcast seeding in standing wheat or barley in February-March. Red clover seed can also be mixed with liquid fertilizer and applied as a top-dress application (remove screens in sprayer lines and assure continued and vigorous mixing). Over the past two years, we have had very good success with crimson clover at Landisville. At Rock Springs, on the other hand, we had excellent results with hairy vetch during 2006/07, but this past year our cover crops were not as successful in Rock Springs due to poor residue distribution noted above, which resulted in poor cover crop establishment and poor early spring growth. Poor growth resulted in poor nitrogen production and the subsequent corn crop showed it. In Landisville, where red clover seed (15 lbs/ac) was broadcast onto the snow during early spring 2007 into winter barley, a significant corn yield increase was realized in 2008 at all nitrogen fertilizer rates (up to 160 lbs/ac N).

An on-farm trial in Columbia County began with September 4, 2007 no-till plantings of red clover (9 lbs/ac) and hairy vetch (25 lbs/ac) into wheat stubble. The red clover established poorly and those plots were abandoned. The hairy vetch fared much better and resulted in an average stand. The entire field received 40 lbs/ac N applied with the burndown herbicide and another 20 lbs/ac N with the starter. The corn was no-till planted. Three treatments were replicated three times into field-length strips. The treatments and their November 2008 corn yields were:

1. NO hairy vetch (wheat stubble fallow) PLUS sidedress 90 lbs/ac N = 149.1 bu/ac,
2. hairy vetch ONLY (no sidedressed N) = 161.5 bu/ac, and
3. hairy vetch PLUS sidedress 90 lbs/ac N = 178.5 bu/ac.

The yields were all significantly different from one another. Comparing treatments 1 and 2, the hairy vetch was “worth” at least the equivalent of 90 to 100 pounds of fertilizer N. And, when comparing treatments 2 and 3, there was clearly a benefit from supplying more than the early 60 pounds N, but this crop could not use the full 90 sidedressed pounds.

Although we always like to focus on our successes with cover crops, we also have to admit that every so often the cover crop does not do well, and we do not reap its benefits. Many times, we can judge the value of the cover crop by observing the stand and biomass accumulation in the spring at time of termination. In a literature review the nitrogen fertilizer replacement value of hairy vetch supplied from 0 to 150 lbs N/A to following corn. In eighty percent of the trials it was more than 50 lbs/ac N. Less work has been done on crimson clover and red clover, but in the few trials that were reviewed their value was generally less than that of hairy vetch. In Landisville in 2008, however, the overall yield increase (averaged over all N-fertilizer rates) was 29 bu/A for corn after red clover broadcast into barley, and 46 bu/A for corn after crimson clover established in early September. These successes with the clovers therefore need further examination.

Crop Market Outlook — Chad Hart, Grain Markets Specialist, Iowa State University

The delays in planting led to delays in crop development and conclude with delays in harvesting. As of Nov. 23, 86 percent of Iowa’s corn was harvested, roughly 12 percent behind normal. The harvesting backlog, in combination with higher fertilizer prices, has fall fertilizer application behind as well. Normally, over half of fall fertilizer applications are done by this point in the year. Currently, we are at 32 percent. The delays of the 2008 crop are slowing the prep work for the 2009 crop.

Prices in the crop markets have dropped dramatically over the past five months, in combination with declines in energy prices and stock indexes. Concerns about the U.S. and world economies are being reflected in reduced demand for many products, including agricultural products. As corn and soybean prices rose earlier this year, we could point to strong export demand, growing biofuel demand, and significant feed demand. Now, all three of those demand sectors have shown signs of weakness.

Export demand has backed off with the strengthening of U.S. dollar versus many of the world’s currencies and the resurgence of alternative feed grains, especially feed wheat. Feed demand for corn in the U.S. is projected to decline by 700 million bushels as the livestock industry continues through its consolidation. And the biofuel industries have seen lower fuel demand and prices over the past several months and continue to face tight operating margins.

The decline in prices comes at a time when farmers are also facing the prospects of higher input costs. Fertilizer and fuel costs have led the way, but the costs for seed, equipment, and land have also been on the rise. Preliminary estimates for 2009 production costs show breakeven prices above $4 per bushel for corn and near $10 per bushel for soybeans. Figures 1 and 2 display Iowa average corn and soybean prices and estimated production costs from Iowa State University Extension.

The rise in crop prices and the subsequent rise in production costs we are experiencing now is somewhat like what happened in the early 1970s. Prices rose and stayed higher than the historical average. Costs rose to offset within a couple of years. With prices at or below projected costs, producers need to watch their bottom lines, know their own breakeven prices, and take advantages of marketing opportunities that cover their costs when they are available.

Factors indicate price strengthening for 2009 crops

While demand and prices are down, there are reasons to think prices will strengthen for the 2009 crops. One of the key factors is the continued growth of the biofuel industry. In 2009, the Renewable Fuels Standard calls for 11.1 billion gallons of renewable fuels. Biodiesel is to make up at least 500 million gallons of that target and corn-based ethanol could be used for 10.5 billion gallons of the standard. Figure 3 show the Renewable Fuels Standard for the next 3 years and translates the conventional biofuels portion into potential corn demand via ethanol.

Over the next few crop years, ethanol will continue to require more corn. And the standard may be providing some support for crop prices even today. Over the past couple of years, corn and soybean prices have tracked with crude oil prices. But within the past couple of months, that linkage has weakened as crude oil price has dropped more quickly than crop prices. During the last half of October, crude oil prices continued to slide as corn and soybean prices somewhat stabilized. One possible reason for the change in the relationship between oil and crop prices is the standard and the need to maintain biofuel and crop prices at a level where the standard will be met.

Many of the factors influencing crop prices today will continue to affect crop prices throughout the 2008 and 2009 marketing years. The condition of the general economy will be a major driving factor. Corn and soybean stocks remain tight in the U.S., leaving us with little cushion in case of production shortfalls. The biofuel industry continues to build out and the livestock industry could continue its consolidation. Agriculture has expanded to meet food, feed, and fuel demand.  In doing that, agriculture has also taken on the volatility that comes with the energy sector. And we are seeing that volatility in our crop prices, input costs, and land values.

Chad Hart is a grain markets specialist and an assistant professor of economics with research and outreach responsibilities in grain and bioenergy crop marketing. This article is reproduced here with permission of the author and first appeared in Integrated Crop Management News, a publication of Iowa State University Extension.

Upcoming Events

• No-Till Roundtable with the No-Till Alliance, December 17, 2008
• PA Farm Show, January 10-17, 2009
• Southeast Regional Transition to No-Till School, January 13, 15, 22, 2009
• National No-Till Conference, January 14-17, 2009, Indianapolis, IN. Contact the PA No-Till Alliance for bus information
• PA Lime and Fertilizer Conference, January 20-21, 2009
• Southeast PA Crops Conferences, January 27-29, 2009

Contributors: County Educators: Joel Hunter (Crawford), Mark Madden (Sullivan), Mena Hautau (Berks), Grant Troop (Lebanon), Paul Craig (Dauphin), Jonathan Rotz (Cumberland) and Dave Messersmith (Wayne). Department of Crop and Soil Sciences: Greg Roth, Sjoerd Duiker, and Ron Hoover. Paul Knight, PA State Climatologist..

Editor: Dave Messersmith, Wayne County Educator

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.

Crop Management Extension Group (CMEG)
Penn State | College of Agricultural Sciences | Penn State Cooperative Extension
Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology | Crop and Soil Sciences | Entomology | Plant Pathology

Copyright Information | Site Administrator | Privacy & Legal Statements
© Copyright 2010, The Pennsylvania State University.