Safety at the Bin

Source: Lisa Pfeifer – OSU Ag Safety and Health Education Coordinator

Approaching harvest makes for a busy time on the farm. Stop and take the time now to inspect on-farm grain handling facilities before the combine heads to the field. Assess the 10 items on our list and make repairs or improvements to deficiencies. OSU Ag Safety & Health wishes you a safe fall harvest.

Sampling for Soybean Cyst Nematode – Fall is the time!

Source:  Anne Dorrance

Harvest is well underway and once the soybeans are off the fields this provides some time to sample soil for the SCN populations.  The SCN Coalition theme for the next few years is What’s your number?  Do you know which fields have SCN and what the current population is sitting at?  If its high, then there is a second number – what is the SCN type?  Which addresses the bigger question can it reproduce on the SCN resistance source PI 88788 or Peking.  All of these numbers can impact management of this root pathogen and future losses.

The situation in Ohio:  We know that the state is now “polluted” with SCN, fortunately most of those fields are at very low levels – which is where they should be kept.

From samples received to date of a statewide survey for Ohio of 50 counties as part of the SCN Coalition sampling, here are the numbers from 378 fields.

Yield losses have been measured as high as 25% with no above ground symptoms in populations of 2,000 and higher.

Summary to date:

  • 60% of the Fields sampled in 2018 and 2019 in Ohio have detectable levels of SCN
  • 15% of these have populations at economically damaging levels – do you know your number?

If your SCN report in the past has come back as:

  1. Not detected: this is not surprising. Remember that SCN sits in pockets and can we quite variable. Continue to monitor your fields.
  2. Trace: May begin to measure some yield loss on susceptible varieties, especially on lighter soils.
  3. Low: Plant SCN resistant varieties or rotate to a non-host crop (corn or wheat).
  4. Moderate: Rotate to a non-host crop and follow with SCN resistant varieties the following year. We have planted susceptible varieties in fields with this level of SCN and have recorded 20 to 50% yield loss.
  5. High: rotate to a non-host crop for two to three years, then sample SCN to determine if populations have declined to a level where soybeans can be planted again.

SCN is picky about what it feeds and reproduces on but it does like a few weed hosts and cover crops as well as soybean. If you have SCN in your fields , it is important to also control winter annuals such as purple deadnettle, but also avoid cover crops such as several of the clover’s, cowpea and common & hairy vetch.

So it is time to sample! We recommend sampling in the fall – because in most cases this is what the population will be in the spring. With the warmer weather this year and hopefully no frozen ground should give ample time to collect and process the samples in plenty of time for spring planting. Processing of samples does cost time and money, so here are a few thoughts on how to sample or how to target your sampling to get the best information for your money.

There is still some free sampling available.  Contact your John at 740-397-0401.

Tar Spot of Corn in Ohio Again this 2019

Source:  Pierce Paul, Felipe Dalla Lana da Silva, OSU Extension

Tar Spot, a new disease of corn caused by the fungus Phyllachora maydis, was reported for the first time in Ohio at the end of the 2018 growing season. At that time, it was found mostly in counties close to the Indiana border, as the disease continued to spread from the middle of country where it was first confirmed in 2015. Over the last few weeks, there have been several new, confirmed report of Tar Spot in Ohio, this time not only in the northwestern corner of the state, but also from a few fields in central and south-central Ohio. As was the case last year, disease onset was late again this year, with the first reports coming in well after R4. However, some of the regions affected last year had more fields affected this year, with much higher levels of disease severity. It could be that Tar Spot is becoming established in some areas of the state due to the fungus overwintering in crop residue from one growing season to another. This is very consistent with the pattern observed in parts of Indiana and Illinois where the disease was first reported. We will continue to keep our eyes out for Tar Spot, as we learn more about it and develop management strategies. You can help by looking for Tar Spot as you walk fields this fall, and please send us samples.

What does it look like? Even though corn is drying down, if Tar Spot is present, you can still detect it on dry, senescent leaves almost as easily as you can on healthy leaves. So, please check your fields to see if this disease is present. “Symptoms of tar spot first appear as oval to irregular bleached to brown lesions on leaves in which raised, black spore-producing structures call stroma are formed… giving the symptomatic areas of the leaf a rough or bumpy feel to the touch… resembling pustules on leaves with rust. Lesions … may coalesce to cause large areas of blighted leaf tissue. Symptoms may also be present on leaf sheaths and husks.” As the name of the disease suggests, symptoms look like the splatter of “tar” on the leaves. In some cases, each black tar-like spot may be surrounded by a necrotic halo, forming what is referred to as “fish-eye” lesions.

What causes Tar Spot and how damaging is it? In the past, the greatest impact of this disease in terms of yield loss were observed when P. maydis-infected plants were co-infected with a second fungus called Monographella maydis. In other words, the damage tended to be much more severe when the two fungi worked together to affect the plant. So far, only the first fungus, P. maydis, has been reported in the US, but based on work done in Illinois, this pathology alone is capable of causing substantial yield reduction on highly susceptible hybrids when conditions are favorable and infections occur early.  

Where did it come from and will it survive and become established? At this point it is still unclear as to how Tar Spot got to the US in the first place and how it continues to spread. The fungus is not known to be seed-borne or infect other plant species, so corn seeds and weeds are unlikely to be the sources of inoculum. However, the fungus can survive and be moved around on fresh and dry plant materials such as leaves and husks. In addition, since spores of the fungus can be carried be wind, it could be blowing in from neighboring states/counties/fields. Although not yet confirmed through survival studies, it appears that the fungus could be overwintering in infected crop stubble between growing seasons.

What should I do if I find Tar Spot? If you see anything that fits the description of, or resembles (Picture) Tar Spot, please inform your state specialist, field specialist, or county extension educator, but most importantly, please send samples to my lab (1680 Madison Ave, Wooster, OH) for confirmation. We will also be using your samples to study the fungus in order to develop effective management strategies.

Read more about Tar Spot of Corn at:

https://cropprotectionnetwork.org/resources/articles/diseases/tar-spot-of-corn

https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/BP/BP-90-W.pdf

 

A Review of Herbicide-Tolerant Soybean Trait Options for 2020

Source: Emily Unglesbee, DTN

Farmers have a range of choices when it comes to herbicide-tolerant soybean technology in 2020 — up to seven different traits.

When selecting seed, remember that disease, insect tolerance and other genetic characteristics should still top your soybean shopping list. But with the growth in herbicide-resistant weeds, weed control is a crucial part of soybean profitability, and herbicide-tolerant traits can be an important tool.

Moreover, the growing web of different herbicide-tolerant crops planted across the country has made it more important than ever to know what is in the variety you are growing — and what’s in your neighbor’s. So here is the latest information on the status and availability of each different trait option, organized by herbicide-tolerant genetic platform:

1. ROUNDUP READY TECHNOLOGY

ROUNDUP READY 1

The original glyphosate-tolerant Roundup Ready trait have been off patent since 2015. Although Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, phased the trait out of its seed stock years ago, the trait is still available from university breeding programs and some smaller, localized seed suppliers. Because the trait is off patent, growers who use RR1 soybeans can save them for seed. Growers interested in finding varieties with the RR1 trait should check with their local universities and state seed associations for information on availability.

ROUNDUP READY 2

After phasing out RR1, Monsanto focused on its glyphosate-tolerant Roundup Ready 2 platform. The trait remains a standalone option for growers in 2020, and will likely continue to be available for a few more years, either from Bayer seed brands and other seed companies that license the trait, albeit in smaller and smaller numbers, said Bayer Soybean Portfolio Lead Ryan Rubischko.

Ultimately, Bayer is shifting its breeding pipeline to the RR2 Xtend platform, said Wes Hays, Bayer germplasm and deployment lead.

RR2 XTEND

Glyphosate and dicamba-tolerant RR2 Xtend soybeans accounted for 60% of the soybeans planted in the U.S. last year, roughly 54 million acres. It’s too early to say if that number will rise in 2020 or — as it is now facing increased competition in the marketplace — stay the same or even decrease, Rubischko noted.

The trait is available in maturity groups ranging from Group 00 through Group 7 from Bayer seed brands and more than 100 licensees, he noted.

Growers who use RR2 Xtend varieties in 2020 should be aware that the corresponding herbicides, XtendiMax, Engenia and FeXapan, face an increasingly complicated number of use restrictions.

In 2018, EPA released a new set of restricted use pesticide (RUP) labels for these herbicides with restrictions on when and how growers can use them. Another herbicide, Tavium, was registered in 2019 for use in the Xtend system, with a similar set of restrictions.

However, after the third consecutive year of off-target dicamba injury reports — including record levels in Illinois and Indiana — some states are taking measures to further restrict dicamba use in 2020. Most recently, Illinois has announced a 24(c) label with a June 20 cutoff date and an 85 degree cutoff for dicamba next year. (See more here: https://www.dtnpf.com/…)

XTENDFLEX

Bayer’s next generation of soybean herbicide-tolerant trait technology is XtendFlex. These soybeans can tolerate over-the-top use of glyphosate, dicamba and glufosinate. The technology was used under stewardship in 2019 in Bayer’s Ground Breakers program, but the company hopes it will be fully commercialized in 2020. The only remaining obstacle to full commercialization is EU import approval of the trait, Rubischko noted.

“We’re hoping for a late spring of 2020 approval of XtendFlex with the EU,” he said. “Given that anticipated timeframe, we could see an introductory launch of XtendFlex for the 2020 season.”

The company has XtendFlex soybeans available in a broad range of maturity groups for 2020, but the timing of that EU approval will determine what volumes are available in what regions, added Hays. Given that these soybeans contain the Roundup Ready, Xtend and Liberty Link traits, growers should have a range of herbicide options to use over the top of them legally in 2020, he added.

Ultimately, the XtendFlex trait is expected to inherit RR2 Xtend’s “throne” as the basis for Bayer’s soybean breeding portfolio in the coming decade. “We’ve shifted breeding efforts from RR2 to the Xtend platform and we’ll start to shift that to XtendFlex in the future,” Hays said.

2. LIBERTY LINK TECHNOLOGY

Continue reading A Review of Herbicide-Tolerant Soybean Trait Options for 2020

Ohio’s proposed hemp rules are out

Source: Peggy Kirk Hall and Ellen Essman, OSU Extension

Ohio’s newly created hemp program is one step further toward getting off the ground.   On October 9, the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) released its anxiously awaited proposal of the rules that will regulate hemp production in Ohio.   ODA seeks public comments on the proposed regulations until October 30, 2019.

There are two parts to the rules package:  one rule for hemp cultivation and another for hemp processing.   Here’s an overview of the components of each rule:

1.  Hemp cultivation

The first rule addresses the “cultivation” of hemp, which means “to plant, water, grow, fertilize, till or havest a plant or crop.”  Cultivating also includes “possessing or storing a plant or crop on a premises whre the plant was cultivated until transported to the first point of sale.”  The proposal lays out the following regulatory process for those who wish to cultivate hemp in Ohio.

Cultivation licenses.  Anyone who wants to grow hemp must receive a hemp cultivation license from the ODA.  Licenses are valid for three years.  To obtain a license, the would-be hemp cultivator must submit an application during the application window, which will be between November 1 and March 31.  The application requires the applicant to provide personal information about the applicant, and if the applicant is a business, information about who is authorized to sign on behalf of the business, who will be primarily responsible for hemp operations and the identity of those having a financial interest greater than ten percent in the entity.    The cultivation license application will also seek information about each location where hemp will be grown, including the GPS coordinates, physical address, number of outdoor acres or indoor square footage, and maps of each field, greenhouse, building or storage facility where hemp will grow or be stored.  Cultivators must pay a license application fee of $100, and once licensed, an additional license fee of $500 for each growing location, which the rule defines as “a contiguous land area or single building in which hemp is grown or planned to be grown.”  All applicants and anyone with a controlling interest in the hemp cultivation business must also submit to a criminal records check by the bureau of criminal identification and investigation.

Land use restrictions.  The proposed rules state that a licensed hemp cultivator shall not:

Continue reading Ohio’s proposed hemp rules are out

Seed Corn Costs: How Do Discounts Work with Seed Company Financing?

Source: Farmdoc, Chad Fiechter and Jennifer Ifft, Cornell University

To manage input costs, many producers take advantage of early pay and other discounts offered by input suppliers. Seed and chemicals often have complex pricing, with a range of pre-pay discounts, volume discounts, rebates and other incentives. On top of that, financing options are almost always available, with their own schedule of discounts and fees. This series addresses the following aspects of seed corn costs: (1) early cash payment and volume discounts (2) discounts under seed company financing options, and (3) the cost of seed company financing relative to traditional financing. In our first article (farmdoc daily October 10, 2019), we created a hypothetical discount schedule based on published discount schedules to show that seed discounts can easily reduce costs by over 20 percent  of the base price with early cash payment and volume discounts. In this article, we use this information to consider how discounts work under seed company financing.

Most seed companies offer financing under a separate discount schedule, which we summarize in Table 1. As we discussed in our previous article, we do not account for base price, but consider only the potential range of prices across an individual company, holding base price constant. Locking in financing early and obtaining a volume discount can lead to discounts from the base price in the range of 15 percent, which offers meaningful cost savings.

Continue reading Seed Corn Costs: How Do Discounts Work with Seed Company Financing?

Frost Damage to Soybeans

Source: Charles Hurburgh, Rebecca Vittetoe, Meaghan Anderson, Iowa State University

Figure 1. Frost-damaged soybeans with shriveled and discolored leaves. Photo courtesy of Rebecca Vittetoe.

Temperatures fell into the low 30’s and upper 20’s in most of Iowa over the weekend of October 11-13.  Because of the very late planting season, some crops were immature enough to be injured by the freezing temperatures. This ICM Blog will address frost damage concerns to soybeans.

Frost normally forms early in the morning, driven by radiation cooling especially on clear cold nights.  The visual impact of the frost damage is most evident the next day (Figure 1).

Temperatures below 32°F can damage soybean leaves, and temperatures below 30°F for an extended time periods can damage the stems, pods, and seeds. A killing freeze is considered to be 28°F for soybeans.

The severity of frost damage to soybeans depends on the following: how low the temperatures dropped, the duration of the cold temperatures, and the growth stage of the soybeans. Soybean fields with at least one mature pod on the main stem of each plant (R7 growth stage) are likely to be minimally affected by frost. Soybean plants with green pods will be more affected by frost. If the frost just damaged soybean leaves, particularly in the upper canopy, pods and seeds will continue to develop with yield minimally affected.

If the frost was more severe and damaged the stems, pods, and seed, the potential for reduced yield and quality is higher. In addition to reduced yield and quality, severely frost-damaged soybeans will dry down more slowly and be more likely to shatter at harvest. Farm moisture meters and older elevator meters will read about 1.5-2% points low until moisture and color have equalized.  The new 150 mhz meters used by many elevators are more accurate.

Handling frost-damaged soybeans

Continue reading Frost Damage to Soybeans

Which Program Paid More Under the 2014 Farm Bill: ARC-CO or PLC?

Source:  Gary Schnitkey, Krista Swanson, Nick Paulson, Jonathan Coppess, Univ. of Illinois; Carl Zulauf, OSU

 

The Farm Service Agency recently released 2018 payment rates for both Agricultural Risk Coverage at the County Level (ARC-CO) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC). With this release, yearly payments for 2014 to 2018 are available so that average payments from ARC-CO and PLC can be compared over the entire length of the 2014 Farm Bill. These comparisons are made in this article across counties for corn, soybeans, and wheat. For corn, ARC-CO paid more than PLC for many counties in the U.S., with notable exceptions in southern Iowa, Missouri, and central Illinois. By default, ARC-CO made higher payments for soybeans because PLC did not make payments. For wheat, most counties had higher PLC payments.

ARC-CO-Minus-PLC Payments

Under the 2014 Farm Bill, farmers and land owners had a one-time decision to choose between Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) commodity title programs for the years from 2014 to 2018. While an individual coverage option was available under ARC, most choose ARC at the County level (ARC-CO).

In this article, we determine whether ARC-CO or PLC made the largest payments across corn, soybeans, and wheat for all U.S. counties with available data. We do this by first calculating average ARC-CO payments and average PLC payments for each county for which complete data exist. These are average payments for the five years from 2014 through 2018. Then, ARC-CO-Minus-PLC payments are calculated for each county. An ARC-CO-minus-PLC payment for a county/crop combination equals the average ARC-CO payment for that county minus average PLC payment for that county. A positive ARC-CO-minus-PLC payment indicates that ARC-CO made larger payments than PLC. A negative value indicates that PLC made a higher average payment.

Several notes about the above calculation:

  • ARC-CO is a county revenue program that makes payments when county revenue is below a guarantee. Every farm in a county receives the same ARC-CO payment per base acre.
  • PLC is a price program that makes payments when the Market Year Average (MYA) price is below the reference price. Each farm in a county has a PLC yield. When the MYA price was below the reference price, the farm’s PLC yield was multiplied by the difference between the MYA price and reference price when arriving at a payment. Farms with higher PLC yields will receive higher payments. Averages presented in this article use the PLC yield equal to the average county yield from 2008 through 2012 multiplied by 90%, a yield updating option under the 2014 Farm Bill.  This procedure results in PLC yields close to the county average.
  • All values are stated on a per base acre basis (payment acres = 85% of base acres). A 6.8% sequester is deducted from all payments.

Continue reading Which Program Paid More Under the 2014 Farm Bill: ARC-CO or PLC?

Stalk Quality Concerns

Source: Peter Thomison, Pierce Paul, OSU Extension

2019 may be an especially challenging year for corn stalk quality in Ohio. Stress conditions increase the potential for stalk rot that often leads to stalk lodging (Fig. 1).  This year persistent rains through June caused unprecedented planting delays. Saturated soils resulted in shallow root systems. Corn plantings in wet soils often resulted in surface and in-furrow compaction further restricting root growth. Since July, limited rainfall in much of the state has stressed corn and marginal root systems have predisposed corn to greater water stress.

Continue reading Stalk Quality Concerns

Managing Corn Harvest this Fall with Variable Corn Conditions

Source:  Jason Hartschuh, Elizabeth Hawkins, James Morris, Will Hamman, OSU Extension

Thanks to the weather we had this year, corn is variable across fields and in some areas we will be harvesting corn at higher moistures than normal. Stalk quality may also be variable by field and amount of stress the plant was under, see the article Stalk Quality Concerns in this weeks CORN Newsletter. This variability and high moisture may require us to look harder at combine settings to keep the valuable grain going into the bin. Each ¾ pound ear per 1/100 of an acre equals 1 bushel of loss per acre. This is one ear per 6, 30 inch rows in 29 feet of length. A pre harvest loss assessment will help with determining if your combine is set properly. Initial settings for different combines can be found in the operator’s manual but here are a few adjustments that can be used to help set all machines. Thanks to the weather we had this year, corn is variable across fields and in some areas we will be harvesting corn at higher moistures than normal. Stalk quality may also be variable by field and amount of stress the plant was under, see the article Stalk Quality Concerns in this weeks CORN Newsletter. This variability and high moisture may require us to look harder at combine settings to keep the valuable grain going into the bin. Each ¾ pound ear per 1/100 of an acre equals 1 bushel of loss per acre. This is one ear per 6, 30 inch rows in 29 feet of length. A pre harvest loss assessment will help with determining if your combine is set properly. Initial settings for different combines can be found in the operator’s manual but here are a few adjustments that can be used to help set all machines.

Corn Head

Continue reading Managing Corn Harvest this Fall with Variable Corn Conditions