Field Crop News

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

November 10, 2009    Vol. 09:32

IN THIS ISSUE:

• Chesapeake Bay Activities Could Dramatically Impact Agriculture
• Revisiting Fall Weed Control Again
• Corn Harvest Issues Continue
• Corn Hybrid Silage Trial Data
• On Farm Soybean Growers — Preliminary Results
• Pricing High Moisture Corn

Chesapeake Bay Activities Could Dramatically Impact Agriculture — Douglas Beegle, Penn State Soil Fertility

There has been a lot of activity related to the Chesapeake Bay recently that could have a very significant impact on agriculture in Pennsylvania. The current Chesapeake Bay Agreement had the goal of achieving nutrient and sediment reductions sufficient to remove the Bay from the Clean Water Act list of impaired waters by 2010. While significant progress has been made, this goal will not be met. Consequently, in May the President issued an Executive Order on Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration directing the federal government to lead an interagency, collaborative effort to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay. The purpose of the Executive Order is “to protect and restore the health, heritage, natural resources, and social and economic value of the nation’s largest estuarine ecosystem and the natural sustainability of its watershed.”

That order directed federal agencies to develop reports on the key challenges to protecting and restoring the Bay. In September seven reports, called the “202 reports”, were published addressing the topics listed below. While most of these reports have some connection to agriculture, the 202a report in the list below has the most significant discussion of agriculture’s impact on the Bay.

1. define the next generation of tools and actions to restore water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and describe the changes to be made to regulations, programs, and policies to implement these actions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
2. target resources to better protect the Chesapeake Bay and its tributary waters, including resources under the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, the Clean Water Act, and other laws (U.S. Department of Agriculture)
3. strengthen storm water management practices at Federal facilities and on Federal lands within the Chesapeake Bay watershed and develop storm water best practices guidance (U.S. Department of Defense)
4. assess the impacts of a changing climate on the Chesapeake Bay and develop a strategy for adapting natural resource programs and public infrastructure to the impacts of a changing climate on water quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay watershed (U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Interior)
5. expand public access to waters and open spaces of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries from Federal lands and conserve landscapes and ecosystems of the Chesapeake Bay watershed (U.S. Department of Interior)
6. strengthen scientific support for decision making to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, including expanded environmental research and monitoring and observing systems (U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Interior)
7. develop focused and coordinated habitat and research activities that protect and restore living resources and water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed (U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Interior).

Since the release of these reports, federal government agencies have been directed to use these reports to develop a coordinated strategy to implement the Executive Order. This Draft Strategy for Chesapeake Bay Focused on Federal Action and Accountability was published on November 9, 2009. For agriculture the strategy assumes that mismanagement on farms is the cause of the problems but it does not address the underlying regional nutrient imbalance that is beyond the control of the individual farmer. Consequently, the strategy puts major emphasis on more regulations and more enforcement of regulations requiring management changes on farms to address water quality concerns. For example the strategy proposes to expand who is a CAFO and set stronger standards for permits, including permits for land application of manure. The strategy also emphasizes the role of economic markets for ecosystem services as an innovative way to provide landowners with an incentive to practice sustainable agriculture and forestry. Part of the strategy includes an initiative called “Healthy Water, Thriving Agriculture” which calls for USDA and EPA to work together to align resources to accelerate the adoption of conservation practices in priority watersheds and develop the next generation of conservation planning tools. This strategy has the potential to dramatically change agriculture in Pennsylvania. We all have a stake in the outcome and we need to stay informed and, as appropriate, take an active role in the process as this strategy is developed. This draft strategy is available for public comment until January 8, 2010.

A separate but related on-going activity is the court ordered development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay. The TMDL will establish strict limits on nutrient and sediment loads to the Bay. These limits will be established in 92 sub-watersheds covering the entire Bay watershed. The limits will address all sources of nutrients and sediment from both point and non-point sources. The Bay TMDL is to be completed by December 2010. A draft TMDL and implementation strategy is to be complete by August 2010. Work on the TMDL is already underway within EPA and public meetings on the TMDL are being held now. Upcoming meetings on the TMDL in Pennsylvania are scheduled as follows:

• November 17 — from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Bentleys, 2300 RT. 309, Ashley, PA 18706. (PA-Wilkes Barre area)
• November 18 — from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at Genetti Hotel, 200 West Fourth Street, Williamsport, PA 17701.
• November 19 — from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Toftrees Golf Resort & Conference Center, One Country Club Lane, State College, PA 16803.
• November 23 — from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Franklin and Marshall College, Barshinger Life Sciences and Philosophy Building, Boncheck Lecture Hall, 929 Harrisburg Pike, Lancaster, PA 17603.

This could also have a major impact on agriculture in Pennsylvania. As with the strategy to implement Bay Executive Order, we need to stay informed and, as appropriate, take an active role in the process as this TMDL and implementation strategy is developed.

Revisiting Fall Weed Control Again — Bill Curran, Weed Science

Winter annual weeds have become more prevalent over the last several years in Pennsylvania. These have mostly been limited to the southeast and south central portions of the state where winter wheat and barley are grown, but we are starting to see some of these weeds move into the central and western regions as well. These winter annuals include common chickweed, purple deadnettle, henbit, horseweed or marestail, a number of mustards, and some winter annual grasses such as ryegrass and downy brome. As a general rule, winter annuals emerge between late August and early November although depending on the year, some spring emergence can also occur. Winter annuals can be competitive in winter grains like wheat and barley, but also at planting time in no-till corn and soybeans. In addition to winter annuals, simple perennials like dandelion are also quite common in many of our no-till fields (see Image 1). Simple perennials are typically easier to manage than creeping perennials like Canada thistle, since they do not have underground vegetative structures that help spread the plants.

Fall is the best time to control dandelions, while both fall and early spring are the good times to control winter annuals. In the fall, foliar applied herbicides can be effective as long as the plants are green and appear healthy. For best activity, apply herbicides when daytime temperatures are above 50 F and night time temperatures are above 40 F for several days during application time. In fallow fields, a combination of glyphosate plus 2,4-D ester is fairly effective for control of most winter annual weeds and dandelion. Application of 2,4-D alone controls many winter annual weeds, but 2,4-D will not control chickweed and is less effective on dandelion than when in tank mixture with other herbicides. As we move into late November, foliar herbicide effectiveness decreases and the inclusion of a residual herbicide may be desirable in corn or soybean rotations. If you include a residual herbicide, research over the last 5 or 6 years has shown that any chlorimuron-containing product (Canopy EX, DF, etc.) is at the top of the list for soybeans and simazine is one of the better products for corn. Other products that have had some success include Valor for soybeans and Basis for corn. In general, 2,4-D should be tank-mixed with any residual product.

In a dandelion control study at Rock Springs a few years ago, we compared glyphosate alone vs. glyphosate + Canopy EX. We made applications from Oct. 1 to Nov. 15 about 15 days apart. In our evaluations the following May, glyphosate alone ranged from 89% with the Oct. 1 application down to 80% with the November 15 timing. The combination treatment ranged from 97% with the early October treatment down to 91% with the latest timing showing the benefits of the residual herbicide. Remember that residual herbicides will also lock you into either corn or soybeans, depending on the product.

Corn Harvest Issues Continue — Greg Roth, Grain Crop Management

Our cool weather and wet fall have slowed corn harvest here and in many other states. According to USDA reports, about 51% of our crop is harvested compared to an average of about 76%. Good weather this week should get corn harvest moving. Here are a few considerations to think about as we ponder some corn harvest decisions.

Many folks are seeing mold symptoms on corn. Ear mold species can make a difference in the potential for mycotoxins. Alternaria, a black sooty mold is common in wet corn crops, but does not have potential for mycotoxins. Diplodia, a white fuzzy growth across the ear is also common this year. Diplodia is also not associated with mycotoxins. Fusarium molds can produce mycotoxins and are causing some problems in the Midwest. These are often white or pink colored molds. We reviewed these in a previous article in the Field Crop News on October 6. For more details and pictures, follow the link. One of the labs I discussed the issue with this week indicated they had not been finding lots of mycotoxins in corn samples, so that is encouraging.

How much will corn dry down during the rest of the season? In a recent article in the Ohio State CORN newsletter, my colleague Peter Thomison at Ohio State stated…“Corn will normally dry approximately ¼–½% per day by late October to early November. By mid-to-late November, dry down rates usually drop to about 0–¼% per day and after Thanksgiving drying rates are usually negligible. Estimating dry down rates can also be considered in terms of growing degree days (GDDs). Generally, it takes 30 GDDs to lower grain moisture each point from 30% down to 25%. Drying from 25–20% requires about 45 GDDs per point of moisture. So our prospects for further drying are decreasing as we move into mid November.

There is also the option of letting corn stand into or through the winter. This is not ideal and is a function of the potential for yield losses. Losses are probably greatest in locations with potential for wildlife damage and fields with stalk rot or lodging issues. University of Wisconsin has studied overwintering losses in corn and found they can vary depending on the winter. With high levels of losses, it pays to bite the bullet and harvest the crop and spend money to dry it. To estimate the tradeoff between potential losses and drying costs, check out the University of Wisconsin’s new Field Loss Calculator for Field Drying Corn.

This might also be a year to consider marketing options for selling wet corn. Grain buyers around the state have different drying and shrink schedules, so be sure to consider the actual net value of wet grain income before deciding on a marketing option.

Finally, I recently did an analysis of economic value of corn hybrids as a function of their maturity in our hybrid testing program. Generally there was little yield advantage to the later hybrids in each of our zones. When we plugged in the drying costs and estimated an economic value, the earlier hybrids in our tests generally came out on top. Several of my contacts in the seed industry confirmed that they have some very high yielding hybrids in the 100 to 105 day range that many growers are looking at now because of the increased drying and shrink charges that we are seeing in some areas. So as you make hybrid decisions for next year, consider some of these hybrids and their benefits as part of your lineup.

Corn Hybrid Silage Trial Data — Greg Roth, Grain Crop Management

We have released our 2009 corn hybrid silage evaluation program results from this year conducted in conjunction with the Professional Dairy Managers of Pennsylvania (PDMP). They are available at our corn and soybean Web site. We evaluated a total of 123 hybrids at 8 locations across the state. Yields were very high, averaging over 30 tons for our zone 4 hybrids, 29.7 tons for the zone 3 Bt rootworm hybrids, 25.6 tons for our zone 2 tests and 29.0 tons for our zone 1, 101–105 day hybrids. In our 110–115 day trials, I’ve tracked several forage quality traits over the last eight years. This year our NDF levels were relatively low at 38.3, with above average NDFD levels at 53.9 % and the lowest lignin levels at 3.1% we have had since we started the program. We had several BMRs entered in the program and they had characteristically lower yields but much higher NDFD levels than conventional hybrids as expected. When using the trials for hybrid selection purposes, it is important to rely mostly on the multi-location data, and combine our information with industry ratings of agronomic traits to ensure the best placement of hybrids on the farm. These data are also available on the PDMP Web site, where hybrids can be sorted based on several user entered traits of interest and customized plots can be generated to interpret the data.

On Farm Soybean Growers — Preliminary Results — Del Voight, Penn State Crop and Soil Sciences

Soybean Population Trial

This past season the PA Soybean Board funded the creation of the PA Soybean Growers Network. This network is designed to provide replicated on farm research to determine the best practices that achieve higher yields and higher profits. In addition it serves to validate small plot research and industry claims. This year was an organizational year however the group of producers did manage to compare two planting rates of soybeans. A low rate of a seed drop of 140,000 plants per acre and a high seed drop of 170,000 plants per acre were established on six farms in PA. The preliminary results are represented below. The final stand listed at the top of the chart represents a seed drop to final stand loss of about 20%. The overall yield would tend to reflect the nature of soybeans being responsive to lower populations. Once the statistics are determined a more detailed summary will be available later this year.

Pricing High Moisture Corn — Kevin Fry, Penn State Extension, Armstrong County

Now is the time of year when there are frequently calls on how to determine a price for high moisture corn. The key to this process is to convert the wet corn to a dry bushel equivalent. To convert high moisture corn to its dry equivalent use table 1.4-13 in The Agronomy Guide. The easiest way to illustrate will be to work through an example. First you will need to know the % moisture of the corn. In our example we will use 28% moisture. From the table in The Agronomy Guide it will take 65.72 pounds of 28% moisture corn to equal one dry bushel of corn. For those of you that may not have an Agronomy Guide there is a formula that can be used also.

47.32 / (100 − % moisture)/100 = Bushel wet weight

Example: 47.32 / (100−28)/100 = Bushel wet weight 47.32 / 0.72 = 65.72

This is telling you that 65.72 pounds of 28% corn is equal to 56 lbs. of 15.5% corn (1 bushel).

If you don’t like formulas, here is the web link to a chart for easy reference. The chart gives you a price per ton of high moisture shelled corn by using the % moisture in the left column and the price per bushel of corn across the top.

Contributors: Extension Educators: Kevin Fry (Armstrong), Del Voight (Lebanon), and Susan Alexander (Jefferson), Joel Hunter (Crawford), Mena Hautau (Berks). State Specialists: Ron Hoover, Bill Curran, Dwight Lingenfelter, Greg Roth, and Doug Beegle.

Editor: Tom Murphy, Lycoming County

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.