Category: Crop Production

Days to Emergence and Early Corn and Soybean Plant Populations Under Conventional and Organic Cropping Systems

Bill Cox, Eric Sandsted, and Phil Atkins
Soil and Crop Sciences Section, Horticulture Section, NY State Seed Improvement Project – Plant Breeding and Genetics Section; School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University

We initiated a 3-year study at the Aurora Research Farm in 2015 comparing the corn, soybean, and wheat/red clover rotation under conventional and organic cropping systems during the 3-year transition period (2015-2017) from a conventional to an organic cropping system. We used three entry points or previous crops to initiate the study: 1) small grain, 2) grain corn, and 3) soybean experimental areas in 2014. Two of the many objectives of the study are to determine the best previous crop and the best crop to plant in the first year of the transition from conventional to organic cropping systems. Both cropping systems are being compared under recommended and high inputs (high seeding and N rates, and fungicide under high input in conventional; high seeding and N rates and seed treatment under high input in organic).

We planted corn and soybean on May 23 after mold-plowing on May 22 and culti-mulching the experimental areas on the morning of planting. We planted the treated GMO corn hybrid, P96AMXT, in the conventional plots; and the isoline, untreated non-GMO, P9675, in the organic cropping systems at two seeding rates, ~30,000 and 35,000 kernels/acre. In the organic cropping system, we also treated P9675 in the seed hopper with Sabrex, an organic seed treatment with Tricoderma strains in the high input treatment. We used a White Air Seeder to plant both hybrids.

We also used the White Air Seeder to plant the treated GMO soybean variety, P22T41R2, and the non-treated non-GMO, 92Y21, at two seeding rates, ~150,000 and 200,000 seeds/acre. As with corn, we treated 92Y21 in the seed hopper with the organic seed treatment, Sabrex, in the high input treatment (high seeding rate). Unlike corn, however, we used different row spacing in the two cropping systems with the typical 15” row spacing in the conventional cropping system and the typical 30” row spacing (for cultivation of weeds) in the organic cropping system. Consequently, in comparing days to emergence and the early plant populations of the two crops under two cropping systems, the soybean comparison is not as robust as the corn comparison because of the different row spacing and genetics between soybean varieties in the two cropping systems.

Weather conditions were warm and dry for the first 7 days after planting. Corn emergence (50% of the plants emerged) varied between conventional and organic cropping systems but not between inputs within a cropping system (Sabrex in the high input organic cropping system). For all three entry points (previous crop), corn emergence in the conventional cropping system occurred earlier in the conventional cropping system, including 1 day earlier in the small grain entry point (Table 1).

Cox - Table 1

Weed densities were very low following all previous crops but some weeds were observed in the “white thread’ stage (just germinating below the soil surface) following grain corn so we estimated early plant populations in all treatments on June 4th in the corn entry point before tine weeding in the organic cropping system on June 5th. Most but not all of the corn was up so these plant populations are preliminary. We will estimate plant populations again after the last cultivation in the organic cropping system and again just before harvest. Nevertheless, corn plant populations in the conventional vs. organic cropping system were ~1000 plants/acre higher at the recommended seeding rate (~30,000 kernels/acre) and more than 3000 plants/acre higher at the higher seeding rate (Table 10. The hybrid, P9675, had ~85% early emergence with or without Sabrex. Again, these are preliminary counts but more corn plants got out of the ground faster in the conventional compared with the organic cropping system. It is not clear whether the GMO traits (Bt root worm, etc.) or seed treatment (fungicide and insecticide) contributed to the differences.

In contrast, soybean emergence was consistently 1 day earlier in the organic vs. the conventional cropping system for all three entry points (Table 2). We took early stand counts for all three entry points on June 4 because we planned to tine weed all the soybean plots on June 5 (but only tine-weeded the organic soybeans in the grain corn plots). The variety, P96Y21, in the organic cropping system had greater plant populations compared with P22T41R2, when following grain corn and soybeans but not following a small grain. It is not clear why there was a difference between the two cropping systems when following soybeans and grain corn but not thesmall grain. Likewise, it is not completely clear why P92Y21 emerged earlier than P22T41R2 but P92Y21 did have a higher field emergence score (8 on the Pioneer 1-10 scale) compared with P22T41R2 (7 score). The varieties were also planted in different row spacing in the conventional (P22T41R2 in 15 inch rows) and organic cropping system (P92Y21 in 30 inch rows), which may have allowed the organic soybean treatment to “work together” in the thickly planted row to emerge quickly. As in corn, Sabrex seed treatment in the organic cropping system did not hasten days to emergence nor significantly affect % early stand establishment. Again, these are preliminary plant population estimates but more soybean plants got out of the ground faster in the organic compared with the conventional cropping system when grain corn and soybeans were the entry points in the transition to organic cropping systems.

Cox - Table 2

In conclusion, corn emerged earlier in conventional compared with the organic cropping system. About 1000 more plants/acre in the conventional vs the organic cropping system were estimated 12 days after planting when grain corn was the entry point or previous crop in 2014. We will estimate corn populations again after the last cultivation in the organic cropping system and again just before harvest. It is not clear if the early emergence and higher early plant populations were associated with the GMO trait (Bt rootworm) or seed treatment (fungicide and insecticide).

In contrast, soybean emergence was more rapid in the organic compared with the conventional cropping system at all three entry points, perhaps because the variety (96Y75) had a higher field emergence score compared with P22T41R2. Likewise, early plant populations before tine weeding were higher in the organic cropping system compared with the conventional cropping system in the soybean and grain corn entry points but not in the small grain entry point. Again, these are preliminary estimates and we will estimate soybean populations just before the first cultivation and again just before harvest.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Winter Cereals as Double Crops in Corn Rotations on New York Dairy Farms

Quirine M. Ketterings1, Shona Ort1, Sheryl N. Swink1, Greg Godwin1, Tom Kilcer1, Jeff Miller2, Bill Verbeten3, and Karl J. Czymmek4

1Nutrient Management Spear Program, Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 2Cornell Cooperative Extension of Oneida County, 3Northwest New York Dairy, Livestock, and Field Crops Extension Team, 4PRODAIRY, Cornell University

Double Crops in Corn Rotations

Weather extremes in 2012 and 2013 impacted corn silage and hay yields for many dairy farms in New York, prompting a growing interest in double cropping of winter cereals for harvest as high quality forage in the spring. In 2012‒2014, forage yields were measured on farms for cereal rye and triticale to document yield potentials and expected yields for these winter forages grown in corn-cereal rotations in New York. We also interviewed 30 New York farm managers who grew winter cereals as double crops with corn silage in 2013 to learn from their experiences.

Yield Averages and Ranges

The study included 19 cereal rye fields and 44 triticale fields. Averaged over the three years, cereal rye yielded 1.62 tons DM/acre (nineteen fields) with an average minimum yield of 0.99 tons DM/acre and maximum of 2.40 tons DM/acre (Table 1; Figure 1). The average triticale yield over the 3-year period amounted to 2.18 tons DM/acre (44 fields) with an average minimum yield of 1.06 tons DM/acre and maximum of 3.46 tons DM/acre (Table 1; Figure 1). No side-by-side comparisons were done between the two species so we cannot conclude if one species yielded higher than the other in any of the years. But, the results show that yields exceeding 1 ton DM/acre are common (Figure 1); 71% of all fields exceeded 1.5 tons DM/acre. Determining the factors that enable higher yields (3 to 4 tons DM/acre) on some fields (Figure 1) will be essential to increase farmer adoption of double cropping with small grain cereal crops.

Ketterings - Table 1

Fig. 1. Distribution of yields of 19 cereal rye and 44 triticale fields harvested as forage in May of 2012-2014 in New York.
Fig. 1. Distribution of yields of 19 cereal rye and 44 triticale fields harvested as forage in May of 2012-2014 in New York.

Farmer Survey

Of all farm tillable acres among the 30 farms, 3768 acres (8%) were double cropped with a winter cereal harvested as forage in May. For 14 (47%) of the 30 farmers in the survey, 2013 was the first year of growing double crops on the farm. Nine farmers (30%) had 2‒4 years of experience. Three farmers (10%) had 5‒7 years of experience while four farmers (13%) had implemented double cropping for more than 10 years. Of all farmers in the survey, 25 (83%) had tried triticale as a double crop while 14 (47%) had experience with cereal rye. Seeding rates ranged from 60 to 185 lbs seed/acre for triticale and from 60 to 150 lbs seed/acre for cereal rye. Fields were established with drills (57%) or broadcast-seeded (43%), and 37% received manure in rates ranging from 2,500 to 12,000 gallons of manure/acre. Fertilizer was used at green-up by 79% of the farmers. The most commonly applied fertilizers were urea or urea mixed with ammonium sulfate (48% of the farmers). Ten farmers (34%) used liquid urea ammonium nitrate with or without ammonium thiosulfate; the remaining farmers did not identify the source of N they used. Nitrogen application rates varied from zero (21% of all farms) to 40‒50 lbs N/acre (21%), 50‒70 lbs N/acre (29%), 70‒80 lbs N/acre (18%), and a high of 80‒105 lbs N/acre (11% of the farms). The average application rate for those farmers who applied N was 66 lbs N/acre with a median of 60 lbs N/acre. The wide range in N application rates might reflect, among others, the lack of knowledge about and guidance for N management for these winter cereals grown as forage crops in corn rotations. Herbicide was applied to the double crops grown as forage in 2013 by only three of the 29 farmers (10%) who responded to this question. None of the farmers indicated use of fungicides or insecticides for the winter cereals. This is not surprising as harvest takes place prior to the onset of common diseases and pests for winter cereals in the Northeast.

Farmer Motivation for Double Crop

Sixteen farmers (53%) listed the desire to increase the forage production on a limited crop area as the main reason for seeding winter cereals. Ten (33%) indicated they had seeded double crops to address a feed shortage (emergency feed). Increased farm profits and higher quality feed were listed as reasons for including double crops by five (17%) and four (13%) of the farmers, respectively. Of all farmers, 25 farmers (83%) planned to continue to grow winter cereals as a forage crop in the future, with an additional five farmers (17%) who said they might consider it. In total, sixteen farmers (53%) planned to increase the acreage planted to double crops in the coming year, while another seven (23%) said they may do so but were not sure yet.

Challenges and Information Needs

The biggest challenge with the double crop rotation identified by the farmers was getting a double crop seeded in time in the fall (Table 2), consistent with the short period between corn silage harvest and first frost. In addition, nine farmers (32%) pointed to the potential for delay in corn planting following double crop harvest. Five farmers (18%) identified labor and time involved as a constraint, while four farmers (14%) pointed to weather challenges during harvest time of the double crops (too wet in spring to get equipment on fields). Many farmers identified the impact of the double crop on the following crop as the most important aspect of double cropping that they needed to learn more about. They wanted to know more about the impact of nutrient uptake and removal by the double crop harvest on fertilizer needs of the crop seeded after double crop harvest. This was followed by questions about economics and forage quality (milk production potential of the winter cereals), and harvest methods.

Ketterings - Table 2

Conclusions

Yields averaged 1.62 and 2.18 tons DM/acre for cereal rye and triticale, respectively, and 71% of all fields exceeded 1.5 tons DM/acre. Surveyed farmers planted, on average, 8% of their tillable acres to winter cereal with the intent to harvest as forage. Triticale was the most frequently used (70%), typically seeded with a drill (57%). Manure was applied to 37% of the fields. Fertilizer N was applied at dormancy break by 79% of the farmers, with a median application rate of 60 lbs N/acre. The biggest challenge with the double-crop rotation, identified by the farmers, was timely seeding of the double crop in the fall. Despite challenges encountered and questions about the impact of harvest of the winter cereal on the main crop, 83% of the surveyed farmers planned to continue to grow double crops. This study shows New York farmers successfully implemented corn-winter cereal double cropping practices, benefitting agricultural environmental management and per acre forage production. Economic analyses need to be conducted to evaluate what yield level is needed for a positive economic return on investment.

Additional Resource

Ketterings, Q.M., S. Ort, S.N. Swink, G. Godwin, T. Kilcer, J. Miller, W. Verbeten, and K.J. Czymmek (2014). Winter cereals as double crops in corn rotations on New York dairy farms. Journal of Agricultural Science –DOI: 10.5539/jas.v7n2p18.

Acknowledgments

Funding sources included the Northern New York Agriculture Development Program (NNYADP), a USDA-NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant, and Federal Formula Funds. We thank Cornell Cooperative Extension field crop educators Paul Cerosaletti, Janice Degni, Dale Dewing, Kevin Ganoe, Mike Hunter, Jeff Miller, and Ashley Pierce; crop consultants Pete Barney, Eric Bever, Jeremy Langner, Joe Lawrence, and Jeff Williard; Soil and Water Conservation District staff Jonathan Barter, Steve Lorraine, and Aaron Ristow; and Natural Resources Conservation Service staff Paul Salon and Martin Van Der Grinten for their collaboration. We thank the many participating farmers for hosting trials and completing the surveys and Lars Demander, Sanjay Gami, Diego Gris, Gordana Jacimovski, and Emma Long of the Nutrient Management Spear Program at Cornell University for help with field data collection and sample processing. For questions about these results contact Quirine M. Ketterings at 607-255-3061 or qmk2@cornell.edu, and/or visit the Cornell Nutrient Management Spear Program website at: http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Adapt-N Boosts Profits and Cuts N Losses in Three Years of On-Farm Trials in New York and Iowa

Bianca Moebius-Clune, Margaret Ball, Harold van Es, Jeff Melkonian – School of Integrative Plant Science, Soil and Crop Sciences Section – Cornell University

Adapt-N is an on-line tool that provides location-specific, weather-adjusted nitrogen (N) recommendations for corn. At sidedress time, critical early-season weather that strongly influences actual N needs is incorporated into the recommendation. To accomplish this, the tool uses 1) a simulation model that was developed and calibrated through field research over several decades, 2) high resolution 2.5 x 2.5 mile daily temperature and precipitation information, and 3) soil and crop management information entered via a web interface on any internet-capable device. Adapt-N’s cloud-based environment (central data server, high security, and accessibility through desktop, laptop and mobile devices, future embedding in other farm software) offers a user-friendly experience.

We conducted a total of 104 strip trials in 2011, 2012, and 2013 in New York and Iowa (Figure 1) to beta test Adapt-N for its ability to improve recommendations for corn N need at sidedress time. Yield data and simulated losses across trials show that the Adapt-N tool significantly increased grower profits, while decreasing N inputs and environmental losses, as summarized in this article. In 2014, Adapt-N was commercialized through a public-private partnership between Cornell University and Agronomic Technology Corporation (ATC, see http://www.adapt-n.com/).  The partnership aims to sustain and broaden the tool’s availability, customer service, usability, and integration with existing farm management technologies, while allowing for continued research and development at Cornell University.

Methods

We completed 67 replicated strip trials in New York (14 in 2011; 42 in 2012; 11 in 2013) and 37 trials in Iowa (9 in 2011; 19 in 2012; 9 in 2013) on commercial and research farms throughout each state (Figure 1. One 2012 trial in Minnesota is included with the Iowa trials).

3yearsfig1
Figure 1. Map of 2011-2013 trial locations (map courtesy of batchgeo.com)

Sidedress treatments involved at least two rates of nitrogen, a conventional “Grower-N” rate based on current grower practice (G) and an “Adapt-N” recommended rate (A).  An Adapt-N simulation was run for each field just prior to sidedressing to determine the optimum weather-adjusted N rate.

Table 1. Agronomic, economic and environmental assessment of model performance in 2012. Values are average differences resulting from Adapt-N use (Adapt-N minus Grower-N treatment) such that a negative number shows a decrease due to Adapt-N, a positive number shows an increase due to Adapt-N.
Table 1. Agronomic, economic and environmental assessment of model performance in 2012. Values are average differences resulting from Adapt-N use (Adapt-N minus Grower-N treatment) such that a negative number shows a decrease due to Adapt-N, a positive number shows an increase due to Adapt-N. *Simulated N leaching losses and N total losses do not include 2011 IA trials – data not available.

Yields were measured by weigh wagon, yield monitor, or in a few cases by representative sampling (two 20 ft x 2 row sections per strip). Partial profit differences between the Adapt-N and Grower-N practices were estimated using prices of $0.50/lb N, $5/bu grain, $50/T silage, and $8/ac operational savings if sidedress was avoided in either the Adapt-N or Grower treatment. Yields were used as measured, regardless of statistical significance, since the statistical power to detect treatment effects for a single experiment is inherently low.

Total N losses to the environment (atmosphere and water) and N leaching losses were simulated by Adapt-N for each N treatment, through the end of each growing season. End dates for N loss simulation were October 30, 2011 (NY trials only), December 15, 2012, and December 31, 2013. More detailed descriptions of each year’s methods and results were provided in previous WCU articles (Moebius-Clune et al., 2012, 2013, and 2014).

Agronomic and Economic Comparison

Adapt-N rates resulted in average N input reductions of 52 lbs/ac in NY, 29 lbs/ac in IA, and 44 lbs/ac overall (Table 1). Profit gains from the use of Adapt-N were considerable.  Profits increased in 81% of all NY trials, in 70% of all IA trials, and in 77% overall when growers followed Adapt-N recommendations (Figure 2). Profit gains of $30/ac on average ($37/ac in NY, $17/ac in IA) were obtained most frequently due to reductions in N inputs, without significant yield loss: +1 bu/ac on average across all trials. Most collaborating growers were already using progressive N management including sidedressing, so that benefits achieved in these trials can be considered to be a conservative estimate of potential benefits of using Adapt-N. Benefits will be higher for growers who currently use few N best management practices.

Figure 2. Proportion of trials with profit gains (dark green) or losses (light green) as a result of using the Adapt-N recommendation compared to current grower N management in 2011-2013 trials. With appropriate use of the most up-to-date version of Adapt-N, success rates can be further improved.
Figure 2. Proportion of trials with profit gains (dark green) or losses (light green) as a result of using the Adapt-N recommendation compared to current grower N management in 2011-2013 trials. With appropriate use of the most up-to-date version of Adapt-N, success rates can be further improved.

Decreased N rates: Adapt-N recommended a lower N rate than grower practice in 84% of trials, by 60 lbs/ac on average (Table 1). Such recommendations occurred after a normal or dry spring, when N from spring mineralization or early fertilizer applications remains available to the crop. Yield losses were generally minor, averaging -2 bu/ac across trials with N reductions, and leading to profit gains in 79% of cases – on average $23/ac (Table 1, Figures 2 and 3). This implies that a grower is about four times more likely to achieve increased profit from a reduced Adapt-N rate than from their current higher rate. This statistic includes all trials over three years, although model improvements have been made each year based on trial information, such that actual probabilities of increased profit with reduced N inputs are likely further improved for future years.

Increased N rates: Even larger profit gains of $65/ac on average were achieved when Adapt-N recommended increasing N inputs over the grower’s current practice in 16% of trials. Consequent average yield increases of 17 bu/ac across these trials were achieved for an average additional 38lb/ac fertilizer application (Table 1). Such higher recommendations occurred primarily in 2013 ($94/ac profit on average in NY 2013 trials), and in select locations in other years, after a wet spring. Needs for additional N were correctly identified in 65% of these cases, resulting in significant yield and profit increases. In 35% of cases, on the other hand, the additional N was not needed. In almost all of these cases, unpredictable post-sidedress drought decreased yield potential below the expected yield that was used for the recommendation at the time the sidedress rate decision had to be made (Moebius-Clune et al., 2013).

Profit loss when under-fertilizing (from reduced yields) is generally larger than when over-fertilizing (from unnecessary fertilizer application). Thus lower recommendations to account for potential future yield-limiting events cannot be justified for economical sidedress recommendations. By contrast, pre-sidedress weather events affecting yield potential and N availability are known, and Adapt-N can effectively manage this risk. Therefore, the chances of over-recommending N inputs are somewhat higher than those of under-recommending, further decreasing risk of profit loss.  For illustration, overall, profit gains greater than $50/ac occurred in 29 cases, while losses greater than $50/ac were determined in only 2 cases (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Results from each trial (n = 104) are vertically aligned. Bars show difference between Adapt-N and Grower treatments (A-G) such that negative numbers (orange) show decrease due to Adapt-N, and positive numbers (green) show increase due to Adapt-N.
Figure 3. Results from each trial (n = 104) are vertically aligned. Bars show difference between Adapt-N and Grower treatments (A-G) such that negative numbers (orange) show decrease due to Adapt-N, and positive numbers (green) show increase due to Adapt-N.

Environmental Benefits

Adapt-N reduced N rates in 84% of cases, by 60 lbs N/ac on average, resulting in simulated reductions in total N losses to the environment by the end of the growing season of 34 lbs/ac, and leaching losses by 10 lbs N/ac (Table 1). Further losses of residual excess N generally occur over the winter and spring months when crop uptake ceases, soil water is recharged, and saturation or near-saturation occur, particularly in the Northeast. Thus the simulated reductions are a low estimate of actual environmental loss reductions, which are likely closer to the difference in applied N. In 16% of trials, where Adapt-N increased N rates, by 38 lbs/ac on average, total N losses increased on average by only 16 lbs/ac, and leaching losses by 3 lbs/ac. Further over-winter losses in these cases are lower, because much of the additional applied N was taken up by the crop to produce the increased yield, and thus would not be lost.

Lessons for Expert Use of Adapt-N from three years in the field

Growers can decrease risk of N deficiency, environmental losses, and yield losses, and increase profit margins.  To optimize Adapt-N use, we recommend the following:

  • Plan to apply the majority of fertilizer nitrogen at sidedress time instead of prior to or at planting. If manure is applied prior to planting or when enhanced efficiency products are used, aim for conservative rates.
  • Monitor the field’s N status and account for early season weather impacts on N availability by using Adapt-N’s daily updates.
  • Supply input information on soil and crop management that is representative of each management unit (e.g. test soil and manure based on representative samples, keep good records of operations, estimate expected yield as the second-highest out of 5 years of accurate yield information).  For each management unit, measure soil organic matter at least every 3 years, ideally to a 12” depth.
  • If appropriate, adapt input information at the time of sidedressing to account for seasonal influences, such as decreased yield potentials or shallow rooting depths from extreme wet conditions.
  • Use the most recent Adapt-N recommendation available on sidedress day. Apply sidedress N between V6 and V12, depending on N and equipment availability. Generally, later sidedressing with high-clearance applicators allows for more accurate recommendations.  Variable rate applicators can be used to adjust Adapt-N simulations for management units in fields.
  • Use Adapt-N scenario simulations after the growing season to learn more about how weather and management influence N availability.
  • In the long term, manage for healthy soils and use Adapt-N to account for N contributions from high organic matter levels and deep root zones.

Conclusions

Three consecutive growing seasons involving 104 on-farm strip trials demonstrate that Adapt-N is an effective tool for N management in corn systems, with average profit gains of at least $30/ac.  With model improvements and increased expert use of the tool, we estimate that profit gains over current grower practices can be expected in at least four out of five cases. Adapt-N generally correctly identified cases when either decreased or increased N was needed to maintain yields. The tool also provides a strong incentive to shift N applications to sidedress time when weather impacts can be accounted for in the model. By using Adapt-N, growers can contribute to solving persistent problems with greenhouse gas emissions, groundwater pollution, and hypoxia in our estuaries, while increasing profits in both wet and dry years.

For more information: Recorded webinars, a manual, and other Adapt-N training materials are available at http://adapt-n.cals.cornell.edu/. The Adapt-N tool is accessible through any device with internet access, now from the team’s commercial partner, Agronomic Technology Corporation, at http://www.adapt-n.com/ (cost is about $1-3/ac, depending on area covered). Adapt-N users can elect to receive email and/or cell phone alerts providing daily updates on N recommendations and soil N and water status for each management unit in Adapt-N.

Acknowledgements:  This work was supported by funding from the NY Farm Viability Institute, the USDA-NRCS Conservation Innovation Program, the International Plant Nutrition Institute, McKnight Foundation, Walton Family Foundation, USDA-NIFA, MGT Envirotec, and USDA-SARE.  We are grateful for the cooperation in field activities from Keith Severson, Kevin Ganoe, Sandra Menasha, Joe Lawrence, Anita Deming, Harry Fefee, Kitty O’Neil, Mike Hunter, and Brent Buchanan of Cornell Cooperative Extension, Bob Schindelbeck of the Cornell Section of Soil and Crop Sciences, Mike Davis at the Willsboro Research Farm, Dave DeGolyer, Dave Shearing and Jason Post at Western NY Crop Management Association, Eric Bever and Mike Contessa at Champlain Valley Agronomics, Eric Young at Miner Institute, and Peg Cook at Cook’s Consulting in New York, and from Shannon Gomes, Hal Tucker, Michael McNeil, and Frank Moore at MGT Envirotec. We also are thankful for the cooperation of the many farmers who implemented these trials on their farms.

References

Moebius-Clune, B.N., M. Ball, H. van Es, J. Melkonian. 2014. Adapt-N Responds to Weather, Increases Grower Profits in 2013 Strip Trials. What’s Cropping Up? 24:3.

Moebius-Clune, B., M. Carlson, H. van Es, and J. Melkonian. 2013. Adapt-N Increased Grower Profits and Decreased Nitrogen Inputs in 2012 Strip Trials. What’s Cropping Up?

Moebius-Clune, B., H. van Es, and J. Melkonian. 2012. Adapt-N Increased Grower Profits and Decreased Environmental N Losses in 2011 Strip Trials. What’s Cropping Up? 22.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Northern Stem Canker: A New Challenge for New York Soybean Producers

Jaime A. Cummings and Gary C. Bergstrom – School of Integrative Plant Science, Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe Biology Section – Cornell University

Figure 1. Canker on stem, and inter-veinal discoloration of leaves above the canker caused by northern stem canker. Photo by Jaime Cummings.
Figure 1. Canker on stem, and inter-veinal discoloration of leaves above the canker caused by northern stem canker. Photo by Jaime Cummings.

As part of 2014 research projects supported by the New York Soybean Check-off Program and the Northern New York Agricultural Development Program, participating Cornell Cooperative Extension Educators have been scouting soybean production fields, recording observations on diseases, and sending plant samples to the Field Crop Pathology Laboratory at Cornell University for positive diagnosis of disease problems.  A serious disease called ‘northern stem canker’ was confirmed for the first time in New York soybean fields.  It showed up in samples from soybean fields in Jefferson, Livingston, Niagara, Ontario, Orleans, Seneca, and Wayne Counties collected by CCE Educators Mike Hunter, Mike Stanyard and Bill Verbeten.  The disease was diagnosed at Cornell based on characteristic symptoms and the laboratory isolation of the causal fungus and confirmation of a portion of its DNA sequence.  Soybeans are also being scouted in other areas of New York in 2014, but so far this disease has not been detected outside of the seven counties mentioned above.

Northern stem canker (NSC) is caused by the fungus Diaporthe phaseolorum var. caulivora and differs from a related fungus, Diaporthe phaseolorum var. meridionalis, that causes southern stem canker throughout the southern U.S.  NSC occurs in most Midwestern states and in Ontario, but this is, to our knowledge, the first confirmation in New York or the northeastern U.S.  Reported yield losses in the Midwest have ranged from minor to in excess of 50%, so the presence of the pathogen is considered a significant factor for soybean production. Yield loss is often a function of the relative susceptibility of varieties that are planted; varieties vary from susceptible to resistant.  If NSC becomes more prevalent in New York, selection of resistant varieties may become more important for New York producers.

Figure 2. Internal and external stem symptoms caused by northern stem canker. Photo by Jaime Cummings.
Figure 2. Internal and external stem symptoms caused by northern stem canker. Photo by Jaime Cummings.

The foliar symptoms of NSC are similar to those of other soilborne diseases that restrict the movement of water and nutrients to the leaves.  So NSC can be confused with brown stem rot and sudden death syndrome, all of which result first in yellowing and then browning of leaf tissues between the veins during pod-filling stages.  What is distinctive about NSC is the stem lesions called cankers that form near nodes and often girdle the stem, resulting in wilting and necrosis above the canker (Figure 1).  Dead leaves remain attached to the plant and turn blackish.  Cankers often have a reddish margin and gray center (Figures 1 & 2).  Symptoms in the interior stem initiate as a slight browning at the nodes and then may progress to complete browning and deterioration of the pith, while the roots remain symptomless (Figure 2). Necrotic stem symptoms may be confused with those caused by white mold or Phytophthora stem rot.

Infection by the fungus occurs early in the season, from spores splashed by rain from the soil to the stems; rainfall and warm temperatures favor epidemics. Because infection occurs at early stages (around the three leaf stage) of the crop, foliar fungicides applied during flowering and pod-filling stages will not be effective in suppressing NSC.

The fungus survives on soy residues in the field for many years, and produces its infective spores on these residues. Some research suggests that other legume crops such as alfalfa and a number of weed species can harbor the fungus between soybean crops though the importance of these associations is not well established. Deep plowing of infected soybean residues and multiple year rotations with corn or small grains may reduce the potential of NSC in a subsequent soybean crop. The pathogen can also survive in and be transmitted by infected seed, such that fungicidal seed treatment can reduce the chances for introducing the pathogen into new fields.

The most important thing that a New York soybean producer can do at this time is to learn to recognize the symptoms of NSC and other soilborne diseases and to get a diagnosis of problems that they observe in their fields.  If NSC or other soilborne diseases are confirmed, producers should talk to their seed supplier and order soybean varieties with appropriate levels of resistance for the soilborne diseases observed on their farm.

Acknowledgements: This research received financial support from the New York Soybean Check-off Research Program, the Northern New York Agricultural Development Program, and Cornell University Hatch Project NYC153473.

 

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Wheat Value Almost Triples in New York Over the Last 25 Years While Oat and Dry Bean Values Stagnate Because of Plummeting Acreage

Bill Cox, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University

The value of wheat exceeded $50M In NY in 2013, in part because of a record 68 bushel/acre State average yield.
The value of wheat exceeded $50M In NY in 2013, in part because of a record 68 bushel/acre State average yield.

Wheat has been a major crop in NY since the late 18th century. In fact, NY along with Pennsylvania and Ohio were the major wheat producing states in the USA in 1850. The acreage of wheat in NY declined steadily in the late 1800s and early 1900s while increasing in the Plains States. By 1915, Kansas, North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota were the leading wheat producing states. Wheat acreage in these states and the USA, however, has decreased by almost 25% over the last 20 years. In contrast, wheat acreage in NY has remained relatively stable over the same period. Let’s examine the acreage and value of wheat and two other small grains, oats and barley, along with dry beans in NY over the last 25 years to see why the acreage of NY wheat has remained relatively stable.

Annual wheat acreage in NY over 5-year periods during the last 25 years has hovered between ~110,000 and ~135,000 (Fig.1). In contrast, annual oat acreage has plummeted from ~125,000 during the 1989-1993 period to ~40,000 in the 2009-2013 period. Likewise, annual dry bean acreage in NY has plummeted from ~35,000 to ~10,000 during the past 25 years.

Fig.1. 5-year averages of annual dry bean, wheat, oat, and barley acres planted in NY over the last 25 years.

Certainly, a major reason for the ~70% decrease in both oat and dry bean acreage over the last 25 years has been the adoption of soybean by NY crop producers. All three crops are summer annuals so oat and dry beans along with other summer annuals, including potatoes, processed vegetables, and some fresh market vegetables, have ceded acreage to soybean. Wheat on the other hand, is a winter annual and can fit into the rotation after soybean harvest, if fall conditions are conducive for soybean harvest by October 25th.

Another reason for the stability of wheat acreage over the last 25 years is that wheat yields have continued to increase, whereas oat, dry bean, and barely yields have stagnated during this period (Fig.2). The average annual wheat yield has increased from 49 bushels/acre during 1989-1993 to 64 bushels/acre during 2009-2013. In contrast, annual oat yield has fluctuated between 61 and 65 bushels/acre and barley yield has remained stagnant at ~50 bushels/acre during the last 25 years. Wheat yield has increased by 30% over the last 25 years because leading growers on high-yielding soils continue to grow the crop, these growers have adopted more intensive management systems, and Cornell still has an active wheat breeding program.

Fig.2. 5-year averages of annual dry bean, wheat, oat, and barley yields in NY over the last 25 years (all units are in bushels/acre except for dry beans, which are reported in 1,000 weights/10).

In contrast, leading growers on high-yielding soils have abandoned oats, barley, and dry beans for soybean, growers manage the three crops similarly in 2014 to how they managed them in 1989, and Cornell no longer has an active oat and barley breeding program. Barley yields, however, may increase in the next 10-year period, given the mandate by NY State for the use of 90% locally-sourced ingredients by 2024, if growers wish to receive a Farm Brewery License.

Wheat straw adds significant profit to wheat growers in NY.
Wheat straw adds significant profit to wheat growers in NY.

The stable wheat acreage, coupled with the 30% yield increase and the more than doubling of wheat market prices over the last 25 years (~$3.10 during 1989-1993 to ~$6.60/bushel during 2009-2013), has increased the annual value of wheat from ~$15M during 1989-1993 to over $40M during 2009-2013 (Fig.3). In fact, the value of wheat in NY exceeded $50M in 2013, making its annual value similar to some high-value fresh market vegetables, such as onions and tomatoes. Furthermore, only estimating the value of the grain significantly under-estimates the value of wheat in NY because most growers also bale and market wheat straw.

Fig. 3. 5-year averages of the annual value of dry bean, wheat, oat, and barley in NY over the last 25 years.

Indeed, the value of straw has averaged over $150/ton in NY over the last 5 years, adding an additional $20M in value to the crop. Consequently, another reason why wheat acreage has remained stable in NY, whereas acreage has decreased by 25% in the USA, is the demand of wheat straw by the dairy industry. Wheat is no longer the leading crop in NY as it was in the 1800s, but wheat continues to play an important role in the NY agricultural economy as a cash crop, a rotation crop, and supplier of coveted straw to the dairy industry.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

New York Corn Production During the Last 25 Years

Bill Cox, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University

Grain corn in NY from 2009-2013 had an average annual value of $440M, greater than the entire annual value of all fresh market vegetables or the total fruit crop in NY during this same period.
Grain corn in NY from 2009-2013 had an average annual value of $440M, greater than the entire annual value of all fresh market vegetables or the total fruit crop in NY during this same period.

Corn is by far the most important crop produced in the USA in both acreage and value. NY growers typically plant ~1,150,000 acres annually, making NY the 17th leading state in the USA in corn acres. NY is unique, however, in that planted corn acreage fluctuates between an approximate 50:50 ratio of grain corn and corn silage. Consequently, NY has historically been a leading corn silage producing state. Indeed, NY dairy producers planted approximately 500,000 acres in 2012 and 2013, making NY the 2nd leading state in the USA in corn silage acres. The NY Crop Reporting Service typically focuses on how NY agricultural commodities rank nationally so the importance of corn silage is highlighted but the importance of corn grain is often overlooked. This article will focus on the acreage and value of corn produced for grain and for silage over the last 25 years to emphasize the importance of both to the NY agricultural economy.

Total annual NY corn acreage averaged ~1,150,000 during the 1989-1993 and 1994-1998 time periods (Fig.1). Total NY corn acreage, however, dipped ~1% during the 1999-2003 and 2004-2008 time periods, averaging ~1,050,000 annually. The lower total corn acreage from 1999-2008 can be attributed mostly to the marked decline in corn grain acres during that 10-year period. Annual corn grain acreage averaged ~600,000 from 1989-1998 but dipped to ~510,000 from 1999-2008. The decrease in corn acres from 1994-1998 to 1999-2003 corresponded, as expected, with the decreased market price for grain corn (~$3.00/bushel to ~$2.55/bushel, respectively in NY).

Fig.1. 5-year averages of annual total and grain corn acres and corn silage acres planted in NY over the last 25 years.

Annual NY corn silage acreage, however, remained steady from 1989-2003 averaging ~540,000 during this period. In fact, annual corn silage acreage actually exceeded corn grain acres during the 1999-2003 period (~535,000 vs.495,000 acres, respectively). Milk prices remained similar during the 1994-1998 and 1999-2003 periods (~$14/ and ~$13.85/cwt, respectively), which probably contributed to stable corn silage acreage during this period.  Annual corn grain acreage (~525,000), however, once again exceeded corn silage acreage (~480,000) during the 2004-2008 time period.

Planting grain corn with a new 20” corn planter in 2013, one of the many new planters purchased in the last few years by corn growers, greatly stimulating the agricultural equipment industry in upstate NY.
Planting grain corn with a new 20” corn planter in 2013, one of the many new planters purchased in the last few years by corn growers, greatly stimulating the agricultural equipment industry in upstate NY.

Corn grain prices rebounded during this period (~$3.50/bushel), especially in 2007, prompting more growers, even dairy producers, to plant corn for grain, which partially explains the ~10% decrease in annual NY corn silage acres during 2004-2008. The decrease in corn silage acres during the 2004-2008 period, however, is somewhat surprising because milk prices increased to $17/cwt during this 5-year period.

The annual value of corn silage produced in NY was consistently greater than that of grain corn from 1989 through 2008 (Fig.2). Annual corn silage value in NY showed a strong linear increase during this period, an average increased value of ~$20M during each 5-year period (~$185M during 1989-1993 to ~$260M during 2004-2008). In contrast, the annual value of grain corn in NY fluctuated during this 20-year period (an average value of ~$150M from 1989-1993, to ~$190M from 1994-1998, decreased to only $~130M from 1999-2003, but rebounded to ~$250M from 2004-2008).

Fig.2. 5-year averages of the annual value of the total corn crop, grain corn, and corn silage crop in NY over the last 25 years.

The ratio of acreage and value of both crops, however, have changed dramatically in the last 5 years (Fig. 1 and 2). Annual corn grain acres increased greatly in NY (and in the USA) to an average of ~635,000 during 2009-2013. Obviously, the market price for corn (~$5.75/bushel) was the overwhelming factor in increased NY corn grain acreage during this period. The increase in acres and prices, coupled with relatively high yields, resulted in a dramatic increase in the annual grain corn value in this recent 5-year period (~$440M from 2009-2013). Corn silage acreage remained steady (~475,000) during the 2009-2013 period, despite the increase in average milk prices from ~$17 to ~$18.50/cwt. Nevertheless, the annual value of corn silage, driven by the increase in grain corn and subsequently corn silage prices, increased the annual value of corn silage to ~$375M during the most recent 5-year period.

Milk prices are close to record highs (but will probably fluctuate over the next 5 years); whereas corn prices are at their lowest since 2009. So it will be interesting to see how the ratio of corn silage to grain corn acreage will play out over the next 5 years in NY. In the meantime, let us celebrate the positive impact that grain corn has had on the NY agricultural economy in the last 5 years. Indeed, the average value of grain corn exceeded the average value of the entire fresh market vegetable industry or the total fruit industry from 2009-2013 (Fig.3).

Fig.3. 5-year averages of the annual value of the all fresh market vegetables, all fruit (includes apples, grapes, tart and sweet cherries, peaches, pears, blueberries, strawberries, and raspberries), grain corn, and corn silage crop in NY over the last 25 years.

Not only has the crop value increased dramatically, but the increased acreage and value has spurred new industries (ethanol and grain storage industries) and stimulated other upstate NY industries (trucking, increased sales of seed and other agricultural inputs, increased sales of agricultural equipment including the purchase of hundreds  of new planters and corn combines, etc.). Obviously, the grain corn industry has had a tremendous, yet unacknowledged, value-added effect on the upstate NY economy. In conclusion, isn’t it time to report the value of our crops on a NY state basis instead of on a national basis? Instead of highlighting that NY is the 5th leading tart cherry state ($2.85M value), 4th leading pear state ($2.35M value), 8th leading strawberry state ($6.88M value), 4th leading sweet corn state ($68.4M), 4th leading fresh market snap bean state ($33.4M) but 21st corn grain state ($688M) in 2012, wouldn’t it be far more informative to say that NY grain corn was the 2nd leading agricultural commodity in NY in 2012?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email