Category: Crop Production

J.H. Cherney, D.J.R. Cherney, and P.R. Peterson, Cornell University

Fall harvest management is one of the factors affecting the ability of alfalfa to overwinter successfully. Other factors include the age of the stand, the winter hardiness and disease ratings of the cultivar, the length of cutting intervals throughout the season, soil pH, soil K level, soil drainage, and whether growth is left to catch snow. Once we have planted a stand of alfalfa or alfalfa-grass, the primary two persistence factors we can control are soil K level and fall cutting management.

Good Old Days
For a number of decades, the policy for alfalfa fall harvest was to insist on a no-cut fall rest period of 4-6 weeks before the first killing frost. This critical fall period allowed root reserves to be replenished and minimized the chances that cutting management would negatively impact overwintering. Adequate time to replenish root reserves was considered 10% bloom by some researchers, while others assumed that 8-10” of top growth in the fall assured maximum root reserve storage, prior to the first killing frost. It also left significant alfalfa residue to facilitate insulating snow catch.

What is a “Killing Frost”?
The temperature at which alfalfa essentially stops all growth is somewhere between 24 and 28^o F. Sheaffer (MN) suggested the first killing frost was 28^o F, Tesar (MI) considered it 26.6^o F (-3^o C), while Undersander (WI) considered a killing frost as 4 or more hours at 24^o F. Other studies have used 25^o F as the definition of first killing frost. This can greatly impact the date of “first killing frost”. In Ithaca, NY for example, the latest “first killing frost” date for 30 years of weather data occurred Nov. 5 at 28^o F vs. Dec. 10 at 25^o F. When accumulating Growing Degree Days (GDD) until first killing frost, a low temperature such as 25^o F is not reasonable, as all alfalfa varieties with appropriate winter hardiness ratings for the region would have gone dormant well before Dec. 10.

Fall Alfalfa Harvest Management, 1980’s
During the 1980’s, numerous studies in Canada and the northern USA investigated alfalfa fall harvest management. Research in southern Saskatchewan found that a third cut between Aug. 25 and Sep. 20 reduced spring yields, compared to an Oct. 1 cut. McKenzie et al. (1980) determined that a second cut from Aug. to mid-Sep. consistently reduced future yields in central Alberta, but not in northern Alberta. In Minnesota, Marten (1980) concluded that a third harvest anytime in September would not reduce persistence, assuming it was a winter hardy variety on well-drained soils high in K, and there was consistent snow cover. In Michigan, Tesar (1981) also concluded that a third cut in September or early October was not harmful.

Tesar and Yager (1985) suggested that a third cut in September in the northern USA was not harmful as long as there was adequate time for replenishment of carbohydrate reserves between the second and third cuttings. Sheaffer et al. (1986) concluded that fall cutting does increase the risk of long-term stand loss, but that fall cutting will provide short-term higher yields and high quality. They also concluded that length of harvest interval and number of harvests during the growing season were as important as the final harvest date.

Root Reserves Assessed with GDD
The first attempt to quantify carbohydrate reserves between second and third cuttings of alfalfa based on GDD occurred in Canada. Research in Quebec by Belanger et al. showed that it may be acceptable to cut during the critical fall rest period in September, as long as there was an interval of approximately 500 GDD (base 5^o C) between the fall harvest and the previous harvest. For forage crops in the USA, GDD are calculated using base41, with heat units accumulated above a daily average of 41^o F (5^o C). These do not generate the same number of GDD units, 500 GDD base₅ C is equal to 900 GDD base₄₁ F.

Current NY Guidelines
The sum of the above research results caused NY fall alfalfa harvest recommendations to change about 20 years ago to “Allow a rest period of 6 to 7 weeks between the last two cuts”. A similar recommendation in PA of “At least 45 days between the last two cuts” was also adopted. This recommendation has not changed in NY for the past 20 years. Keep in mind that any cutting management options during the critical fall rest period must involve healthy stands of better adapted winter hardy varieties with multiple pest resistance.

Application of the 500 GDD Criteria
A comparison of the Quebec 500 GDD base₅ C rest period can be made with the currently recommended “6-7 week rest period”. By selecting the years with the least and most GDD accumulated during August and September, a range in days for the rest period can be calculated, based on a 500 GDD interval between the last two cuts (Fig. 1 & 2). If cutting on Sep. 1, the 500 GDD interval prior to Sep. 1 is about 5 weeks (Table 1). If cutting Sep. 30, the 500 GDD interval prior to Sep. 30 is 6 to 7 weeks. The rate of decline in GDD units per day in the fall is similar for central and northern NY (Fig. 3 & 4; Table 1).

All X- and Y-axis date combinations below the shaded boxes in Fig. 1 and 2 identify the rest period interval that will result in 500 GDD before the September cut with high confidence. These date combinations resulted in 500 GDD for all 30 years of weather data. All X- and Y-axis date combinations above the shaded box in Fig. 1 and 2 will be very unlikely to accumulate 500 GDD, as this never happened in 30 years. For example, in Ithaca (Fig. 1) if alfalfa is cut on Aug. 2, it is Sept. 12 before you are out of the rest period shaded zone. Using the 500 GDD concept, our current 6-7 week rest period is appropriate for cutting at the end of September, but could be reduced to approximately a 5 week rest period if cutting Sep. 1. For rest periods based on GDD, the later it is in the season, the longer it will take to accumulate 500 GDD (Fig. 3 & 4).

Applying the 500 GDD Interval to the Critical Fall Rest Period before 1st Frost
It has been suggested to apply the Quebec research to the period preceding 1st frost, and help define a “no-cut” time interval prior to 1st frost. The assumptions are that we need 500 GDD (base5 C) for alfalfa to build up root reserves. A second assumption is that it is safe to cut alfalfa if there are less than 200 GDD (base5 C) remaining before the first killing frost, as there would be insufficient regrowth to use up enough storage carbohydrates to negatively affect alfalfa persistence. We are presenting this system as an example, even though we were not able to find any evidence in the scientific literature concerning the 200 GDD assumption. A similar example of this concept can be found in Michigan literature (http://www.agweather.geo.msu.edu/agwx/articles/article-09.html), although GDD base₄₁ were used for this example incorrectly. Using the 500/200 GDD criteria, we can approximate the odds that fall mowing will not cause winter injury.

Approximate probabilities of either accumulating over 500 GDD (base₅ C) or accumulating less than 200 GDD (base₅ C), with long-term weather data (30 consecutive years) can be calculated if alfalfa is cut on a particular date in the fall at a particular site (Fig. 5 & 6). Four dates can be determined to approximate 0 and 100% chances of either more than 500 GDD after fall cutting, or less than 200 GDD after fall cutting. For this exercise, we are assuming that the first occurrence of 28^o F is a “killing frost”. A killing frost in Watertown occurs on average 9 days earlier than in Ithaca (Table 1).

Four dates, (a,b,c,d, Fig. 5 & 6) are identified by calculating the following:
a. Year with earliest killing frost date: subtract 500 GDD base₅ C (from Sep. 20, 1993).
b. Year with latest killing frost date: subtract 200 GDD base₅ C (from Oct. 28, 2001).
c. Year with latest killing frost date: subtract 500 GDD base₅ C (from Oct. 28, 2001).
d. Year with earliest killing frost date: subtract 200 GDD base₅ C (from Sep. 20, 1993).

For long term weather data, these dates correspond to:
a. Latest calendar date resulting in >500 GDD base₅ C after fall cutting.
b. Earliest calendar date resulting in <200 GDD base₅ C after fall cutting.
c. Earliest calendar date resulting in <500 GDD base₅ C after fall cutting.
d. Latest calendar date resulting in >200 GDD base₅ C after fall cutting.

To simplify the display, we then assume a linear relationship between 0% and 100% chances that fall cutting will not cause winter injury. Statistical probabilities could be calculated individually for each day, but the results would not provide clear guidelines. The rate of GDD accumulation into the fall gradually decreases and is not perfectly linear (Fig. 3 & 4), but for practical purposes a linear display suffices. Cutting on Aug. 31, Sep. 1, or Sep. 2, the odds of either accumulating >500 GDD or accumulating <200 GDD in Watertown, NY are approximately zero. Using this system, the date that would maximize the chances of winter injury due to cutting is Sep. 1 in Watertown, and Sep. 6 in Ithaca.

Comparing the Systems
Compare Fig. 4 (interval to 1st frost) to Fig. 2 (interval between last two cuts). If alfalfa was mowed on July 25, and then mowed again on Sep. 1 in Watertown, the chances of winter injury due to cutting are near zero for Fig. 2 (with 500 GDD accumulated between the last two cuts all 30 years). So under one system (Fig. 4), Sep. 1 would be the worst date to cut alfalfa in Watertown, while under the other system (Fig. 2), Sep. 1 can be a very safe date to cut alfalfa.

It is possible that both systems are reasonable. Allowing a 500 GDD interval before a Sep. 1 cut would make a Sep. 1 cut relatively safe. On the other hand, not allowing 500 GDD before a Sep. 1 cut might make this the worst possible time to cut an alfalfa stand. Keep in mind that winter damage to alfalfa is an accumulation of insults. A weakened stand will be considerably more susceptible to damage from intensive harvest management, as well as mowing during the critical fall rest period.

Reasons to be more Conservative in NY vs. the Midwest
There are several issues more specific to the Northeast/New England, which will likely have an impact on the chances of fall cutting affecting long-term alfalfa persistence. The basic requirement for any cutting of alfalfa during the critical fall period is that near ideal conditions exist. That is, you have a healthy, very winter hardy variety with high soil K, good soil drainage, and good snow cover over the winter. Good soil drainage in NY is often not the case, and consistent snow cover is never guaranteed. In northern NY there is also the possibility of alfalfa snout beetle and/or brown root rot damage, which could greatly affect the consequences of cutting during the fall period.

Reasons to be less Conservative in NY vs. the Midwest
Another NY-specific issue is that of species mixtures. Most alfalfa in the Midwest is sown in pure stands, over 85% of alfalfa sown in NY is in mixture with perennial grasses. For mixed stands with alfalfa, growers may be somewhat less risk averse than with pure stands, when it comes to the chances that fall cutting will result in shortened persistence of the alfalfa component. Loosing alfalfa more quickly from a mixed stand is not quite as catastrophic as loosing alfalfa in a pure stand. With the availability of Round-up Ready alfalfa, the frequency of pure alfalfa stands in the Midwest is likely to increase. Because NY has few prime alfalfa soils, it is less likely that RR-alfalfa will greatly increase the proportion of pure alfalfa stands in NY.

Conclusions
Our historical understanding of alfalfa root reserves provides evidence for maintaining a Critical Fall Rest Period for alfalfa. Applying the 500 GDD criteria to the Critical Fall Rest Period, however, results in an average rest period before 1st killing frost exceeding 7 weeks. Past research data provide evidence that a sufficient rest interval between the last two cuts allows us to take the last cut during the critical rest period. There does not appear to be evidence to change our basic logic for fall harvest of alfalfa. Some fine tuning of the rest interval between the last two cuts can be made using Fig. 1 and 2. The above suggestions are for healthy stands. If a stand is not healthy, a more conservative harvest management may increase the chances of stand survival.

Bill Cox, Phil Atkins and Geoff Reeves, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University

March 2012 was the warmest March on record across much of the USA (13 degrees above normal for most of NY). Surprisingly, a couple of growers in NY planted limited corn acreage during the week of March 19^th when daytime temperatures averaged about 75 degrees. Farmer testimony indicated satisfactory emergence for the March-planted corn. Many other growers, however, elected to wait until the next warm spell, which occurred during the week of April 15^th when daytime temperatures averaged about 70 degrees. Farmer testimonies, however, were somewhat mixed for the corn planted during this week with some replanting reported, especially in poorly drained areas of a field. We planted two studies that week: our corn silage hybrid trial with 82 entries on April 20^th at the Aurora Research Farm in Cayuga County and a 10-acre seeding rate study on April 18^th just northwest of Auburn in Cayuga County.

Weather conditions (daily weather is recorded the morning after at 8:00 AM so the April 20^th data at Aurora is recorded as April 21^st data when the high temperature was 78) for the first 10 days after planting at Aurora changed drastically (Table 1).  At Aurora, the high temperature the day after planting was 54 and then only 2 days above 50 degrees were recorded over the next 8 days (64 on April 26^th, reported as April 27^th data, and 53 on April 29^th, reported as April 30^th data). More importantly, only 24 hours after planting, Aurora received a cold 0.6 inches of rain followed by 0.86 inches of precipitation in the form of a 5-inch snow storm 48 hours after planting. Another 0.20 inches of precipitation occurred the following day, 72 days after planting, when the high temperature was only 36 degrees. Also, note that low temperatures dipped down to 26 degrees for two nights about a week after planting. Obviously, weather conditions were conducive for imibitional chilling damage during the initiation of the emergence process, cold stress during the emergence process, and drowning out of corn seeds shortly after planting in poorly-drained areas of a field.

When averaged across the 82 hybrids entered in the study, the stand establishment rate (number of established plants in 2 rows of the 20 foot plot length at the V4 stage/86 seeds in each seed packet planted) averaged 85.4% (Table 2). Stand establishment averaged from about 84 to about 89% for the 12 seed companies that entered hybrids.  Of the 82 hybrids entered in the study, only six hybrids had stand establishment rates of less than 80% on this drained Lima silt loam soil. Obviously, most modern hybrids can withstand the rigors of cold and wet weather conditions, even 5 inches of snow, shortly after planting (Fig.1 and 2).

At the field-scale study where soil conditions are more variable, we counted the number of established corn plants at the V5 stage along the entire length of one row (~800 feet) at each seeding rate for the two hybrids (9807HR from Pioneer and DKC49-94 from DEKALB) evaluated in this study. When averaged across hybrids and seeding rates, stand establishment rate averaged 84.6%. Stand establishment varied from about 83 to 87% between hybrids and from about 84 to 87% across seeding rates (Table 3). This site did experience two warm days (highs of 74 and 76, Table 1) 2 days after planting so conditions were not quite as harsh. On the other hand, low temperatures dipped down to 24 degrees for two nights and 26 degrees another night about 10 days after planting. In addition, this site received about 4 inches of snow a few days after planting. So the 84% stand establishment rate on this production field was quite satisfactory given the conditions. I will add that in a 50 by 100 foot low spot in the third replication of the study no corn emerged (not accounted for in the data because it was a seeding rate study ) so certainly the excessively wet conditions after planting had a major impact on stand establishment rates.

So, what does the stand establishment data from 2012 tell us? First, most if not all modern hybrids have excellent cold tolerance and perhaps tolerance to imbitional chilling (an elusive phenomenon that I am not sure that I have ever observed). On the other hand, modern hybrids have limited tolerance to flooded soil conditions shortly after planting as observed in the field-scale study. So obviously, soil drainage conditions should be a major factor when considering early planting dates (an early planting date lengthens the time that corn is in the vulnerable period to flooded soil conditions, from planting to about the V5 stage). Another factor to consider is planting depth. We only plant at about a 1.5 inch depth in April, especially when cool and wet conditions are forecasted for the immediate future. Many growers mentioned that their planting depth was at the 2-inch soil depth when planting the week of April 15^th, which may have contributed to poor stand establishment reported by some farmers in some poorly drained areas of a field or on heavy soils.

What happens if soil conditions are dry in mid-April next year and soil conditions are once again ideal for planting? I will again recommend to begin planting anytime after April 10-15, provided your location does not experience late spring killing frosts (< 28 degrees after May 15^th or so) and your soils are well-drained and do not readily flood. In other words, I recommend to plant fields with good drainage that are not in frost pockets anytime after April 10-15^that a soil depth of about 1.5-1.75 inches. I wouldn’t plant much deeper in April unless you are looking for moisture.

Bill Cox, John Orlowski, and Phil Atkins, Department of Crop & Soil Sciences, Cornell University

Soybean acreage continues to expand in New York with many first-time growers now planting the crop. Many new growers plant soybeans with a corn planter instead of a grain drill, which has been the almost exclusive planter for soybeans in NY over the last 30 years. Also, some experienced soybean growers, who no longer plant wheat, have switched to a corn planter to save on equipment costs. In addition, some growers are purchasing new row crop planters with inter-units allowing for corn planting in 30-inch rows and soybean planting in 15-inch rows. With that in mind, we conducted field-scale row spacing by seeding rate studies in 2010 and 2011 on farms in Cayuga and Livingston Counties to evaluate soybeans planted with a drill in 7.5 inch rows vs. planting with a row crop planter in 30-inch or 15-inch rows. The Cayuga County farm was a no-till site and the Livingston County farm was a chisel tillage site. The growers performed all management practices and we took numerous measurements, of which early stand counts and yield (with a Weigh Wagon) will be presented here.

Early stand establishment at Cayuga Co. averaged about 72% (107,287 plants/150,000 average seeding rate) for the drilled soybeans in 7.5 inch rows (Table 1). In contrast, early stand establishment averaged about 83% in 30-inch rows at Cayuga Co. Likewise, drilled soybean in 7.5 inch rows had much lower stand establishment at the Livingston Co. site.  Drilled soybeans in 7.5 inch rows averaged 69% early stand establishment (103,645/150,000) compared to about 81% in 30 inch rows at the chisel tillage site. Apparently, under actual grower practices, stand establishment is much better in 30-inch rows when planted with a corn planter compared with drilled beans in 7.5 inch rows.

Poorer stand establishment for drilled beans may partially explain the yield data from these field-scale studies. Previous small-plot research at the Aurora Research Farm in the mid-1990s and in the late 2000s indicated that drilled beans yielded anywhere from 7 to 15% greater than 30-inch beans planted with a corn planter. In these field-scale studies, however, row spacing did not affect soybeans at the no-till Aurora site. At the chisel tillage site, drilled beans yielded only about 4% greater than beans in 30-inch rows, if planted at 170,000 seeds/acre (Table 1). Some wheel traffic damage from post-emergence pesticide applications may also have damaged the drilled soybeans more than the 30-inch soybeans, which could have reduced any yield advantage for drilled or narrow row soybean.

Conclusion
Row spacing had much less of an impact on soybean yield than expected in these field-scale studies. At a no-till site, row spacing did not affect yield. At a chisel tillage site, drilled soybean planted at 170,000 seeds/acre yielded about 4% more than 30-inch soybean at 130,000 seeds/acre. Apparently, growers can plant soybeans in 30-inch rows without much of a yield loss, especially in years or fields where yields are in the 50-65 bushel/acre range. At sites or in years where growth is slow and yields are low, the yield advantage for drilled soybeans may be greater than reported in this study.

John Orlowski, Bill Cox, Wayne Knoblauch, and Phil Atkins, Department of Crop & Soil Sciences, Cornell University

Soybean acreage has more than doubled in NY over the last decade. In 2000, NY growers planted about 135,000 acres of soybeans, but planted about 280,000 acres in both 2010 and 2011. More importantly, total annual value of soybeans has averaged about $145 million over the last 2 years, almost 40% of the value of all commercial vegetable crops in NY, indicating that soybeans are no longer a minor crop. Increased acreage comes from a combination of long-time growers planting more acres and new growers adding soybeans to their rotation.  Some new growers are from regions in NY where wheat is not in the rotation. Consequently, these new growers, who do not own a grain drill, are seeding soybeans with a standard row crop planter (30 inch rows).  An obvious question is should these new growers purchase a grain drill or continue to seed soybeans with a corn planter in 30-inch rows?

We conducted field scale studies in 2010 and 2011 on cooperator farms in Central (Cayuga County) and Western New York (Livingston County) in order to investigate the effect of row spacing on soybean yield using actual grower management practices.  The cooperating farmers performed all field operations including tillage, planting, chemical application and harvest. We used a Weigh Wagon to record yield and also took other measurements including stand counts, weed counts, lodging, plant height, disease incidence, and moisture at harvest.  The Cayuga Co. farm was planted no-till in both years while the Livingston Co. farm was chisel plowed in both 2010 and 2011.

Economic analysis was conducted for costs associated with purchasing a grain drill appropriate for planting 300 acres (15 ft. drill-list price $20,000), 600 acres (20 ft. drill-list price $25,500) and 1200 acres (30 ft. drill-list price $46,000) of soybeans.  The results are reported in real 2012 dollars, based on the average soybean price of $11.50/ bushel and seed cost of $52/ bag (150,000 seeds) in 2010 and 2011.

Cayuga Co.
As reported in the previous article, there were no differences in yield among the three row spacing’s. Consequently the grower at this location, who practices a corn-soybean-wheat rotation, can use either a no-till grain drill or row crop planter to plant soybean into high-residue corn conditions. If the grower switches to an exclusive corn-soybean rotation, the grower can continue to use the grain drill but not purchase a new drill once it requires replacement. Instead, the grower should only maintain a row crop planter without inter-units and plant corn and soybean in 30-inch rows.

Livingston Co.
At this location we did see differences in yield.  The drilled (7.5 in) soybeans at the recommended seeding rate of 170,000 seeds/acre showed a 2.4 bushel/acre or about a 4% yield advantage compared to 30-inch rows at a seeding rate of 130,000 seeds/acre (64.1 vs. 61.7 bushels/acre).  For this farm that already owns a grain drill, the relative profit of drilling soybeans in 7.5 inch rows at the higher seeding rate compared to planting in 30 inch rows at the lower seeding rate would be a function of the market price received for the harvested soybean crop minus the seed cost associated with the higher seeding rate.  So, if the grower paid an average price of $55/bag for seed and marketed the crop at $11.50/bushel in the 2010 and 2011 growing seasons, the farmer at this site would have realized an increase in net farm profitability of about $13.30/acre by planting with a grain drill (Table 1). If seed costs increase and prices received for the crop decrease in the future, profit will shrink (Table 1).

For farms that do not own a grain drill, should they purchase one if there is a 2.4 bushel/acre yield advantage?  We considered the annual fixed costs of owning a grain drill, including depreciation, interest, shelter and insurance. Likewise, we considered the annual variable costs of ownership, including repair costs, harvest and hauling costs and the cost of the extra seed (40,000/150,000 x $52/bag =$13.87/acre) needed to drill soybeans at 170,000 seeds/acre compared with 130,000 seeds/acre when planted with a corn planter.   The breakeven point for purchasing a grain drill to seed soybeans based on prices and costs in 2010 and 2011 and a 2.4 bushel/acre yield advantage is around 300 acres.  The grower would realize an increase in net farm profitability by purchasing a grain drill if planting 600 or 1200 acres of soybeans (Table 2). As expected the more soybean acres planted, the greater the increase in net farm profitability.

Conclusion
Our economic analyses indicate, given 2010 and 2011 seed costs and market prices and a 2.4 bushel/acre yield advantage for drilled beans, growers who own a grain drill would have reaped a profit of about $13-14/acre if seeding soybeans with a grain drill. For growers who don’t own a grain drill, buying a grain drill would be profitable at 2010 and 2011 prices, if planting more than 300 acres of soybeans.  On farms with less soybean acreage or no yield advantage, buying a grain drill does not provide an economic advantage. The net farm profitability, however, will vary significantly when the yield advantage for drilled soybeans, the price of soybean seed, and the price received by the farmer for their crop vary.

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

The value of field crops has increased greatly in New York over the last 5 years led by the dramatic increase in the value of grain corn (Fig. 1). The acreage of grain corn has increased significantly, averaging about 600,000 acres from 2007-2011 compared with about 470,000 acres from 2002-2006 (NYS Ag Statistics, 2011). In addition, corn yields have averaged about 138 bushels/acre from 2007-2011 compared with about 119 bushels/acre from 2002-2006. Consequently, the value of corn for grain has averaged about $400 million from 2007-2011, slightly higher than the $385 million value of vegetable production (fresh market and processing together) in New York during the same period (NYS Ag Statistics, 2011).

Additionally, the value of corn silage production averaged about $300 million from 2007-2011, slightly less than the $330 million value of fruit production during the same period (NYS Ag Statistics, 2011). Therefore, because of the dramatic increase in the value of both the grain corn and silage crops, the corn crop had an average value similar to the fruit and vegetable crop values combined from 2007-2011.

The value of soybean has also increased over the last 5 years although at a much lower value than corn (Fig.1). The acreage of soybean has increased significantly, averaging about 245,000 acres from 2007-2011 compared with 170,000 acres from 2002-2006 (NYS Ag Statistics, 2011). As with corn, the average soybean yield also increased, averaging 44 bushels/acre from 2007-2011 compared with 39 bushels/acre from 2002-2006 (NYS Ag Statistics, 2011). Consequently, the value of soybeans averaged about $120 million from 2007-2011 compared with $40 million from 2002-2006 (Fig.1).

In contrast to corn and soybean, wheat acreage has stayed relatively constant, averaging about 115,000 acres from 2007-2011, similar to acreage from 2002-2006 (NYS Ag Statistics, 2011). The average yield, however, increased to 61 bushels/acre from 2007-2011 compared with 56 bushels/acre from 2002-2006. Consequently, the wheat crop had an average value of $35 million from 2007-2011 compared with about $18 million from 2002-2006 (Fig.1). Although the value of wheat straw cannot be quantified, it likely adds an additional $15 million in value to the crop.

Conclusion
The value of total field crop production has increased dramatically over the last 5 years, averaging about $1 billion in 2010 and 2011, about 40% of the value of milk production in New York State (NYS Ag Statistics, 2011). Although field crops have traditionally occupied more than 90% of the crop acreage in New York, field crops have been generally seen as solely providing support to the dairy industry. The dramatic increase in the value of corn, soybean, and wheat over the last 5 years, however, should change the traditional perception of New York field crops. For example, New York traditionally has been a feed grain (corn, soybean, oats, and barley) deficit State feeding about 2 million tons annually but producing only about 1.85 million tons annually from 2002-2006 (NYS Ag Statistics, 2011). Subsequently, feed grain from the Midwest or Canada has traditionally been shipped in to support the feed demand of dairy industry. In contrast, recent feed grain production in New York averaged about 2.7 million tons annually, whereas about 1.9 million tons have been fed annually in New York from 2007-2011. New York is now a feed surplus State and field crops are now marketed to other buyers as well as to the dairy industry.

If this trend continues, NY field crops should be viewed not as an industry that solely supports the dairy industry but rather as a stand-alone industry that provides support to the dairy industry.