Field Crop News

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

March 24, 2009    Vol. 09:04

IN THIS ISSUE:

• Weather Outlook
• Depth and Contact Crucial in Forage Establishment
• Consider Air Temperature and Other Environmental Conditions When Making Burndown Applications
• Late Spring Small Grain Herbicides and Nitrogen Fertilizer Carriers
• Corn and Sorghum Management Research Update
• Doing an On–Farm Test
• Pennsylvania Odor Management Program
• Cost of Production has Never Been so Significant to Long Term Viability
• Snapshot of Grain Crop Production Costs
• Timothy Mites 2009

Weather Outlook — Paul Knight, Pennsylvania State Climatologist

After a parched first three months of 2009, this will change in the short—term. The very dry air over the state will be steadily pushed away by an increasingly moist and milder air flow from the south. Clouds on Wednesday will announce the first installment of showers which will dampen the majority of the state during Wednesday evening and night. A more substantial period of rain is likely starting late morning on Thursday and ending by midnight with around a half inch expected in the eastern portions. A dry, mild period is likely until midday Saturday when more showers and probably embedded thunderstorms will develop and bring between 0.50 and 1.50 inches to much of the state (especially the east). Cooler and drier air will return on Sunday with clouds and sprinkles or flurries in the northwest. Generally cooler weather is expected next week with an opportunity for showers on Tuesday and perhaps late Thursday or Friday.

Odds favor a cooler and wetter than average April, though most of this may be realized during the first half of the month. It may be that the warmest weather of the upcoming summer will like a bookend, occurring in June and September with near or below normal temperatures expected in July and August.

Check out the predicted Growing Degree Days (base 55) for Pennsylvania for the next two weeks at: http://climate.met.psu.edu/data/regional_gdd.php

Depth and Contact Crucial in Forage Establishment — Marvin Hall, Penn State Forage Specialist

More failures in establishing forages are the result of improper seeding depth than any other cause! If seeding depth isn’t correct then you might as well not bother to plant. Forage seeds have a very small supply of stored energy to support the seedling until it emerges and begin making its own energy. Seeds placed too deep are not likely to emerge. Optimum seeding depth varies with soil type (sandy, clay, or loam), soil moisture, time of seeding, and firmness of seedbed but generally is not more than 3/8 inch deep. A rule-of-thumb is that “5-10% of the forages seeds planted should be on the surface after seeding”.

Ensuring that seeds are placed at the proper depth requires a firm seedbed. It is extremely difficult to accurately regulate seeding depth if the soil is soft and fluffy. Here is a rule-of-thumb regarding soil firmness “On properly firmed soil, an adult’s footprint should not be deeper than ½ inch”. Forage seeds should be covered with enough soil to provide moist conditions for germination but not so deep that the shoot cannot reach the surface.

Forage seeds need to absorb at least their own weight in water before germination begins. Unless the forage seed has been planted in saturated soils, the water generally moves into the seed from surrounding soil. Adequate seed-to-soil contact ensures maximum water movement into the seed in the shortest time. Field situations (cloddy or loose soil) that do not promote good seed-to-soil contact generally result in extended germination periods and sporadic emergence. The use of press wheels on a grain drill or culti-packing after seeding can improve seed-to-soil contact.

Consider Air Temperature and Other Environmental Conditions When Making Burndown Applications — Bill Curran, Penn State Weed Science

With the dry spring weather we are experiencing, some farmers and applicators are considering entering fields and spraying perhaps earlier than normal. Remember that the activity of all foliar applied herbicides is dependent on air temperature as well as other variables. If you are trying to kill a cover crop or even winter annual weeds, susceptibility of the target species and environmental conditions (temperature, moisture, sunlight, etc.) play a role in the effectiveness of the treatment.

The University of Illinois conducted a field study back in 2002 that compared glyphosate, paraquat (Gramoxone), and paraquat plus metribuzin (Sencor) for their performance under challenging spring conditions. The herbicides were applied at six different timings in the spring based on daytime high air temperatures ranging from 47 F to 87 F. Common chickweed and henbit were present in the study. Overall, temperature had no effect on chickweed control with glyphosate or with paraquat plus metribuzin and both provided 90% control or better regardless of air temperature. However, control increased from about 70% at 47 F to about 90% at 75 F with the paraquat alone treatment. In contrast, henbit control was less than 80% with all herbicides until applications were made when daytime high air temperatures were above 75 F. In fact, control with glyphosate and paraquat was less than 50% at temperatures up to 75 F. The paraquat plus metribuzin treatment was somewhat better providing close to 80% control at 75 F. This study is a nice example of how not only temperature plays a role in foliar herbicide activity, but also target species and how a soil residual herbicide like metribuzin (or atrazine) can increase effectiveness, especially with a product like paraquat. Temperature had little influence on common chickweed control with glyphosate; however, application temperature significantly affected glyphosate activity on henbit. Also consider herbicide rates, overcast conditions at application, adding AMS and other appropriate adjuvants to the spray tank, tip selection and gallonage for better spray coverage, etc. when making spring applications under less than ideal conditions.

Late Spring Small Grain Herbicides and Nitrogen Fertilizer Carriers — Dwight Lingenfelter, Penn State Weed Science

Herbicide selection for broadleaf weeds in winter wheat past Feeke’s Stage 6:
Once wheat has passed Feeke’s Stage 6, the risk of herbicide injury from 2,4-D, MCPA, Banvel/Clarity, or Curtail increases and application of these herbicides is not recommended. In this situation, the remaining herbicide options for broadleaf weed control are Harmony Extra, Harmony GT, TNT Broadleaf, Unity, Buctril, Stinger and Starane. Harmony Extra, Harmony GT, TNT Broadleaf, and Unity can be applied to wheat until the flag leaf is visible (before Feeke’s Stage 8). Buctril, Huskie, Stinger and Starane can be applied to wheat up to boot stage (before Feeke’s Stage 9). See Figure 2.5–1 in the Penn State Agronomy Guide for more details about small grain growth stages and herbicides.

Each spring there are questions about the risks associated with 2,4-D or MCPA application to wheat past Feeke’s Stage 6. Wheat tolerance of 2,4-D is highest between Feeke’s stages 3 and 6 and is lowest in Feeke’s Stages 9 and 10. Between stages 6 and 9, sensitivity to 2,4-D gradually increases as wheat growth stage advances. Thus, the risk of injury increases as wheat growth stage advances between stages 6 and 9. Severe injury is highly probable when 2,4-D is applied at Feeke’s stages 9 and 10.

It is recommended that application of 2,4-D to wheat be made after wheat has reached Feeke’s stage 3 but prior to Feeke’s stage 6. If growers choose to apply 2,4-D at later stages, they need to understand the associated risk. This risk can be minimized by applying the amine form of 2,4-D or reducing the rate of a 2,4-D ester. A much better alternative on wheat past Feeke’s stage 6 is to use another broadleaf herbicide with a wider application window that is effective on the weeds present in the field.

Herbicide carrier selection:
Liquid urea-ammonium nitrate fertilizer (UAN) is a common carrier for herbicides in wheat. The most common herbicide to be used in this manner is 2,4-;D ester (2,4-D amine is difficult to mix in UAN). Application of herbicide in liquid nitrogen can cause leaf burn from the nitrogen, especially under hot, humid conditions. This risk increases with later wheat growth stages because more leaf area is exposed to the treatment and recovery time is shorter. In addition, the use of surfactant (required with herbicides such as Harmony Extra) greatly increases leaf burn potential. Research at Michigan State Univ. has demonstrated that excessive leaf burn from high nitrogen rates combined with surfactant can reduce wheat yield. To minimize this risk:

• Do not apply more than 20 lbs of nitrogen per acre in the form of UAN when using a surfactant with herbicide.
• Do not apply more than 40 lbs of nitrogen per acre in the form of UAN when no surfactant is used.
• Avoid high-temperature, high-humidity days. Late afternoon applications carry less risk of leaf burn.

(Article adapted from Jim Kells, David Hillger and Kathrin Schirmacher at Michigan State Univ., Crop & Soil Sciences)

Corn and Sorghum Management Research Update — Greg Roth, Grain Crop Management Specialist

Recently I spent some time reviewing several studies published in Agronomy Journal that have some practical implications for crop management in Pennsylvania. I selected a few for summary in this week’s Field Crop News.

A recent study in Kansas and Nebraska compared returns from grain sorghum and corn trials at various grain sorghum prices that ranged from 70% to 117% of the prevailing corn price. Historically grain sorghum has averaged 87% of the corn price in this location. In these tests, corn average 126 bu/acre and grain sorghum averaged 110 bu/acre. When corn yields averaged less than 102 bu/acre, grain sorghum yields averaged higher than corn. At the typical grain sorghum price of 87% of corn, grain sorghum provided higher returns when corn yields were less than 105 bu/acre. When grain sorghum prices were 70% of corn, then corn was more profitable in environments when corn yields were greater than 70 bu/acre. These results are similar to what we might expect in South-central PA, where I concluded from some previous studies that sorghum could be viable alternative on low yielding soils where there was a market for the grain.

Another interesting study evaluated the impacts of stover removal, manure and rye cover crops on soil carbon in Michigan. Soil carbon is often considered a limiting factor in stover removal. In this study, the authors grew no-till corn silage-soybean-corn silage with and without a rye cover crop and with and without beef feedlot manure or compost applied annually at roughly 10 tons per acre. The rye cover crop did not affect the soil organic carbon or the particulate organic carbon in the soil, but the manure and compost treatments both caused an increased in the soil organic carbon in the 0–2 inch layer and the particulate organic carbon in the 0–10 inch layer. In the third year of the study, the rye plus compost treatment had higher corn silage yields that several of the other treatments. The authors concluded that the effects of stover removal can be overcome with the application of manure or compost. They also concluded that greenhouse gas emissions were significantly reduced with the manure and compost system. These results seem to validate some of the soil changes we observe on dairies with the no-till corn/rye/manure systems that appear to have significant impacts on soil quality.

A third study from Iowa State quantified the impacts of moving from a typical soybean corn to a soybean/triticale (silage)-double crop corn rotation. Over a two year period, the sole crop corn averaged 8.1 tons of dry matter and the triticale/corn rotation averaged 10.1 or 25% more biomass. Nutrient removal was much higher in the double crop system and residual soil nitrate levels were lower there as well. This study suggests that intensive double crop rotations could result in increased biomass production and less nitrate leaching. I evaluated a similar soybean/barley/double crop corn rotation here in Pennsylvania and found grain production to be increased by 19% compared to the typical corn/soybean rotations.

Reviewing these articles in the literature helps provide some basis for our management under slightly different conditions.I feel the results of these studies are applicable to some areas of our state and found them quite interesting. These were published in the Nov/Dec edition of Agronomy Journal.

Doing an On—Farm Test — John Rowehl, York County Extension

Many farmers like to conduct tests of hybrids, varieties, crop protection chemicals or other crop inputs on their own fields. Done, correctly, this is a good thing to do. If not done the right way, results may be misleading.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that you want to remove as many confounding factors from any test you do on your farm. A common mistake is making a comparison between one year and another or between one field and another with different soils, soil fertility, different crop history, etc. Doing a side-by-side comparison is the best approach to take. This removes influences of time, planting and harvesting conditions, cropping history and weather changes. Try to use a field with soils as uniform as possible. But variations in soil type and soil fertility exist in even the best fields and must be taken into consideration. Anyone who has seen a yield map or had grid soil sampling has seen this.

There are two different approaches to dealing with this. One popular way, particularly in hybrid testing is to use a multiple check system in which a “tester” hybrid is planted every third or fourth strip. This check is used to adjust the yields of the other hybrids to compensate for changes in the field. The other way and preferred method of crop scientists is to replicate the treatments several times in the field. By not doing one of these things there is a good chance that the results you see are due to the differences in the field rather than differences in the product or practice itself. Look at the following example of two hybrids that were once part of an on-farm test. The yields shown are from each replication. Look at any single replication and ask yourself what conclusion you would come to if only one side-by-side test had been done. Then look at another replication and ask yourself the same question.

Hybrid	Bu/A
	Rep 1	Rep 2	Rep 3
The average of these two hybrids can be found at the end of this article.
A	173	208	186
B	181	186	203

In some areas several farmers work together to do the same comparisons on several farms in the area. The advantage of this is that it reduces the number of replications needed on any one farm.

Make the width of each treatment as narrow as possible so that the variation in soil change is as small as possible. Likewise, keep the number of things you are trying to compare to a minimum for the same reason. Try to use a field that is at least several hundred feet long to help dilute the effects of extra good or poor spots in the field or from the effect of a planter or spreader not operating normally at the end or beginning of a field as it starts up.

If you are interested in doing a test of your own feel free to contact one of the agronomy agents if you want to bounce some ideas off of us.
Hybrid A = 189 bu/ac
Hybrid B = 190 bu/ac

Pennsylvania Odor Management Program — Johan Berger, Section Chief, PDA Nutrient & Odor Management Programs

The Facility Odor Management regulations under Act 38 of 2005 became effective on February 27, 2009. Under these regulations, certain agricultural operations will be required to develop and implement an odor management plan (OMP). Only CAOs or CAFOs with new animal housing or manure storage facility construction, or construction related to expanded portions of existing facilities will be regulated. In both cases, this only applies to construction started after the effective date of the regulations. Just as the Nutrient Management Program accepts voluntary participation from non-regulated animal agricultural operations, the Odor Management Program will also accept non-regulated animal agricultural operations as participating Volunteer Agricultural Operations (VAOs). An OMP will address the potential for impacts from the offsite migration of odors from these planned operations.

Questions concerning the Odor Management Program may be directed to Karl Dymond, Odor Management Program Coordinator, State Conservation Commission: (570) 836-2181 ext. 3030; kdymond@state.pa.us. Also, planning resources, including the OSI, are available on the Commission’s Web site in the Odor Management Program section.

If you are a commercial nutrient management specialist and did not receive notification, or you have questions on certification, please contact Michael Aucoin at 717-772-5218 or maucoin@state.pa.us.

Cost of Production has Never Been so Significant to Long Term Viability — John Berry, Lehigh County Extension

Just looking at price possibilities to date for December, 2009 corn harvest we quickly see a $3.50 swing in prices offered since the contracts have been available. As we continue to experience volatile grain markets it is important to understand the costs structures we operate from in our farm business. Let’s first explore the Alternative Definitions of Production Costs —

Economic Costs

Cost attributed to all resources, including purchased inputs, equity capital, and operator/family labor and management. Longer run concept than financial and cash breakeven prices. Considers alternatives available for consuming our resources.

Financial Costs

Cost attributed to all resources, except equity capital and operator/family labor and management. Longer run concept than cash breakeven price.

Cash Expenditures

Only cash expenditures are considered, including principal and interest on term debt and personal withdrawals. Depreciation and interest on equity are excluded. Is a shortrun (this year) concept. Business continuity is dependent on meeting cash obligations in a timely manner.

There are at least two methods for determining your cost of production-

1. Allocate whole-farm costs to an enterprise; using cost allocation criteria. If full cost of production is desired, it is necessary to allocate costs associated with inputs used in more than one enterprise.
2. Develop a Schedule of Field Operations and Associated Costs. Estimate the per acre cost of each field operation used to produce an individual crop. Requires detailed information — especially machinery costs.

Some believe we can improve our marketing efficiency because we know our individual cost of production by;

• Providing a pricing objective through the discovery of earnings and cash flow breakeven prices.
• Determining the portion of the crop that must be sold at a particular price to insure meeting earnings goal and cash commitments.
• Determining the portion of the crop that can be left unpriced (“gambled on”) once minimum earnings and cash flow commitments have been realized.
• Understanding the earnings and cash flow implications of selling the crop at a particular price.
• Reducing the role of hope and emotion in the marketing decision.

If we talked this afternoon about farming, could you tell me break-even per bushel cost for the 2009 crops you expect to harvest? Good Luck this spring!

Snapshot of Grain Crop Production Costs — Del Voight, Interim Grain Crop Specialist

The following table details an estimated return to management comparing four cropping scenarios for grain crops. With any economic view there are assumptions. For this scenario, I assumed that the grower purchased all products from commercial fertilizer sources as listed below, utilized all custom farm activities and received market prices listed on the board for May payout. Excel Spreadsheets area available for use by visiting http://cornandsoybeans.psu.edu/. For the wheat example I added in the straw yield since a market is available and as such used as 2 ton/acre straw yield at $150.00/ton income. It appears that a wheat/double crop soybean system will return the most income per acre followed by soybeans and finally corn. Keep in mind that manure and other management practices can be utilized and growers are urged to conduct their own economic budgets and marketing schemes to ensure profitability.

Crop	Cost per Bushel	Net Return to Management	Target Yield	Break Even Yield	May CBOT Price
Wheat	$4.24	$162.00	80	65	$5.44
Corn	$3.99	$0.58	150	150	$4.00
Soybeans	$9.12	$79.51	60	56.8	$9.62
DC Soy	$7.46	$63.91	30	23.29	$9.62

Urea	Map (Price per Ton Estimated)	Potash
$375.00	$580.00	$850.00

Timothy Mites 2009 — Paul H. Craig, Dauphin County Extension

Recently a few questions have been raised regarding the condition of the Timothy hay crop and predictions of Cereal Rust mites on the 2009 crop. Experience of hay producers and agronomists across many states have still not been able to answer all of the issues related to managing this pest. Monitoring of infestations in recent years has indicated that like most other insect pests, populations and crop injury varies by location. A program of observation of stands and use of a 20X hand lens can greatly assist Timothy hay producers to monitor mite infestation levels.

The mite is active in many fields across South Central PA at this time. However population levels will be low and the mites only found in the most protected areas of the young tillers. As temperatures and sunlight levels increase populations will rapidly increase and will be more readily observed on leaf surfaces when looking through the hand lens.

Field signs of higher levels of mite infestations are observed later this spring. Wrapped leaves (like drought stress) are one sign. An off-green color of the stand or the fact that the stand is just not growing are other noted signs. Fields with a history of damage should be looked at closely. Mite populations can rapidly increase so frequent observations are necessary.

Most producers apply 3 pts/acre of SevinXLR Plus in late April with good success. This application window allows a 30 day pre-harvest interval. When applied with 25 gals/acre of carrier for coverage of leave surfaces, good controls have resulted. In 2007 and 2008 growers in many areas noted significant damage and mite levels in early April. In these cases earlier applications were made to these fields and mite control lasted through first cutting. Cereal Rust mites are not a problem in Timothy after harvest.

Perhaps it is just a few weeks too early to be applying controls for mites. Frequently growers will try to do a one shot, herbicide, UAN and SevinXLR application. This may actually be either too late for optimum weed control or UAN application or too early for mites. In addition, some producers have noted a burning of the Timothy when these tank mixes have been applied. Mixing order is important too. If diluting UAN with water and adding Sevin, add water first; then Sevin slowly, then add UAN and then 2,4-D if desired. If using straight UAN add some UAN to tank, make a slurry of Sevin in a bucket with water, add to tank. Fill tank half full with UAN and agitate, then add 2,4-D if desired, and then fill the remainder of the tank.

For addition information I would refer you to the following Web site: http://www.ento.psu.edu/extension/factsheets/cerealrust.htm

Contributors: County Educators: Mark Madden (Sullivan), Mena Hautau (Berks), Kevin Fry (Armstrong), John Rowehl (York), Susan Alexander (Jefferson), Paul Craig (Dauphin), Joel Hunter (Crawford), Del Voight (Lebanon). Department of Crop and Soil Sciences: Greg Roth, Doug Beegle, Sjoerd Duiker, Marvin Hall, and Bill Curran.

Editor: Andrew Frankenfield, (Montgomery)

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&

If you have any questions or would like to suggest a topic, please contact your local Extension Educator.

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.