March 20, 2025

Profitability of contrasting organic management systems from 2018-2021 in the Cornell Organic Cropping Systems Experiment

Kristen Loria¹, Allan Pinto Padilla², Jake Allen¹, Christopher Pelzer¹, Sandra Wayman¹, Miguel I. Gómez², Matthew Ryan¹

¹School of Integrative Plant Science, ²Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.

About the Cornell Organic Cropping Systems Experiment

The Cornell Organic Cropping Systems (OCS) experiment was established in 2005 at the Musgrave Research Farm in Aurora, New York to serve as a living laboratory for organic field crop management systems and provide practical insights to farmers. This ongoing long-term experiment compares four management systems along a dual spectrum of external inputs and soil disturbance over a multi-year crop rotation. An advisory board consisting of a dedicated group of organic farmers provides guidance on management decisions. The four systems are compared in terms of several sustainability indicators including yield, profitability, soil health and greenhouse gas emissions.

Both external input and soil disturbance gradients of the four treatment systems range from an extensive approach (low input) aimed at maximizing profitability by reducing costs via efficient resource use, to an intensive approach (high input), aimed at maximizing profitability by maximizing yield. Risk associated with low input management includes reduced crop production from inadequate soil fertility or weed competition, which can lead to decreased returns despite low input costs. Risk associated with high input management include diminishing returns where productivity increases are insufficient to justify additional cost.

The four management systems of OCS are: 1) High Fertility (HF), 2) Low Fertility (LF), 3) Enhanced Weed Management (EWM), and 4) Reduced Tillage (RT). In 2018, the crop rotation was modified from a three-year rotation to a four-year rotation based on advisor input.: This article includes an economic analysis of the complete four-year crop rotation cycle from 2018-2021, which consisted of: 1) triticale / red clover, 2) corn / interseeded cover crop mix, 3) summer annual forage mix / cereal rye cover crop, 4) soybean (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Four-year crop rotation for the OCS phase 2018-2021.

Looking back: key takeaways from past OCS cycles

Caldwell et al. (2014) compared the yields and the profitability during and after the initial phase of organic transition in OCS following two three-year rotation cycles (corn-soybean-winter spelt/red clover) from 2005-2010. The first three years were considered as transitional production years in which crops could not be sold as certified organic, while crops produced from 2008 to 2010 could be sold as such. They used flexible interactive crop budgets to calculate relative net returns based on crop yields, tillage, weed management and fertility practices and, after the three-year transition period, compared relative net returns of organic production with concurrent organic price premiums to Cayuga County yield averages with conventional crop production inputs and prices. With a 30% organic price premium, the relative net return of organic production in all systems except RT was positive. The RT system was excluded from most analyses due to major challenges with experimental ridge-till practices resulting in decreased crop competitiveness. For both corn and soybean phases averaged across entry points, relative net return in the HF system was significantly lower than LF or EWM, due to higher input costs without corresponding higher yields in the HF system. For the spelt phase averaged across entry points, relative net return was higher in HF than LF and EWM (though not significantly so), with increased input cost in the HF system corresponding with a yield increase. The HF system led to higher weed biomass over time than the EWM and LF systems.

Trial design and system differences

The Cornell Organic Cropping Systems experiment uses a split-plot randomized complete block design with four blocks. The main plot treatments are the four management systems, whereas subplot treatments are two crop rotation entry points (A and B) . Entry points A and B represent different phases of the crop rotation. For example, in 2018 entry point A was planted to triticale while entry point B was planted to soybean.

Treatment systems are arranged along a fertility gradient as well as a soil disturbance gradient (Figure 3). For triticale, summer forage, and corn, the HF system had a 50% higher fertilization rate than RT and EWM. LF received fertilizer rates 50% lower than RT and EWM on the same crops. Intermediate fertilizer rates were applied to both EWM and RT. With respect to soil disturbance, EWM received additional weed management operations in several crops, while RT and LF incorporated an organic no-till soybean phase. Overall number of primary tillage events was not substantially different between systems, though mechanical cultivation was reduced in the soybean phase for RT and LF.

Figure 2. Contrasting management approaches in four systems.

Crop yields across management systems

No matter the management system, crop yield is a key component of profitability. Yields across all four years of the cycle comprising five harvested crops are summarized below. Ryelage was only harvested in EWM and HF systems as the cereal rye cover crop was rolled-crimped for no-till soybean in LF and RT systems. Triticale was grown as a grain crop in EWM and HF and taken for forage in the LF and RT systems. Organic no-till practices were implemented in RT and LF systems only, with soybean planted into tilled soil in HF and EWM. In entry point A soybean yields were comparable across systems, but in entry point B organic no-till soybean yields were nearly half of cultivated yields, likely due to dry conditions in the soybean phase in 2018.

Table 1. Mean yields for all harvested crops across four management systems and crop rotation entry point from 2018-2021. Within an entry point, systems sharing a letter were not significantly different (p < 0.05). Means were not compared between entry points. Triticale in RT and LF systems was harvested as forage (lbs DM/ac) while in HF and EWM it was harvested as grain (lbs/ac). Means were not compared.

Net return of management systems

Net return subtracts total variable costs (TVC) of production (inputs + labor + equipment-associated costs) from gross income (crop yield x price). Prices for corn and soybean were obtained from the USDA organic grain report (USDA National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report, February 4, 2022). As commodity price references for triticale grain, cereal rye forage and summer annual forage were unavailable, prices were based those typically fetched for organic forage in NY (MH Martens and P Martens, personal communications, 2022). All operation-related costs were taken from Pennsylvania’s 2022 Custom Machinery Rates (USDA NASS 2023). To correct the absence of an inflation adjustment, crop prices and input costs used in this study were converted to real values using the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI), with 2016 as the reference year.

All values are denominated in U.S. dollars and represent the average annual revenue, production costs, and net return over four years. In the case of crop rotation entry point A, the LF cropping system exhibited the lowest Total Variable Cost (TVC). Conversely, the HF system had the highest TVC, which despite higher grain and forage yields, resulted in lower net return than LF, EWM and RT systems (Figure 4).

Overall, across four years of the crop rotation and in both crop rotation entry points (i.e., temporal replications of the trial) the EWM system maximized net return via intermediate fertility rates and relatively high yields, though the HF system yielded higher in both entry points Net return for RT and LF systems was more variable between crops and entry points, possibly indicating higher weather-related risk associated with those system approaches, i.e. reliance on cover crops for fertility in LF, and use of organic no-till management for LF and RT (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Comparison of net return and components across four systems in entry point A.

In entry point A, LF demonstrated higher net return than both HF and RT despite lower yields due to reduced input costs. Net return in RT narrowly surpassed HF due to lower input costs as well. In entry point B, LF ranked lowest in net return due to low grain yields across the rotation. HF ranked second and RT ranked third, with RT characterized by intermediate to low yields with intermediate input costs.

Figure 5: Comparison of net return and components across four systems in entry point B.

When net return of each management system is summarized by entry point, high variability in profitability was observed across entry points, largely due to yield differences between growing seasons of the same crop. Because management was nearly identical for each crop within each system across entry points, temporal variation in net return can be attributed to yield response from seasonal environmental or climatic factors either directly or in interaction with management. This highlights the complexity of systems experiments given year-to-year variation (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Net return comparison of all four cropping systems and two entry points.

Conclusions

Differences in yield and subsequent net return between systems varied significantly across entry points, making it difficult to draw conclusions on the most profitable system overall. However, the HF system had the lowest net return across entry points, indicating that input levels were likely higher than optimum and yield gains to justify increased inputs were not realized. EWM had the highest net return across entry points, indicating that intermediate levels of fertility combined with additional cultivation passes in the row crop phases and full tillage soybean production “paid off” as a management strategy, with increased labor or fuel costs outweighed by increased yields. Of course, this assumes availability of labor required which may be out of reach for some farms, and can be challenged by finite weather-related windows conducive to field operations.

Variability in net return between entry points was particularly high for the LF and RT systems, largely driven by yield variation in the soybean phase between temporal replications. For entry point B, intermediate corn yields and low organic no-till soybean yields drove low profitability in LF, while relatively high corn yield in RT partially made up for low organic no-till soybean yield. This variation in soybean yield highlights a challenge with an organic no-till management approach that dry conditions can reduce yields to a greater extent compared to a tillage-based approach. However, in an extremely wet year where adequate weed control was not possible, no-till management may pay off.

By accounting for system profitability only, this article does not consider other tradeoffs between systems such as soil health outcomes or greenhouse gas emissions from contrasting management, additional sustainability metrics to evaluate organic production system success.

References

Caldwell, B; Mohler, CL; Ketterings, QM; and DiTommaso, A. (2014). Yields and profitability during and after transition in organic grain cropping systems. Agronomy Journal, 106(3):871–880.

Gianforte, L personal communication. 2022.

Jernigan, A. B., Wickings, K., Mohler, C. L., Caldwell, B. A., Pelzer, C. J., Wayman, S., and Ryan, M. R. (2020). Legacy effects of contrasting organic grain cropping systems on soil health indicators, soil invertebrates, weeds, and crop yield. Agricultural Systems, 177:102719.

USDA National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report, February 4 2022. Agricultural Marketing Service.

Martens, MH personal communication. 2022.

Martens, P personal communication. 2022.

Pennsylvania’s 2022 Machinery Custom Rates. USDA NASS.

For more results from the Cornell Organic Systems Experiment visit the Sustainable Cropping Systems Lab website.

March 10, 2020March 10, 2020

Controlling Herbicide Resistant Weeds in Soybeans: 2019 Trials

Project Leaders: Bryan Brown, NYS IPM Program; Venancio Fernandez, Bayer Crop Sciences; Mike Hunter, Cornell Cooperative Extension; Jeff Miller, Oneida County Cooperative Extension; Mike Stanyard, Cornell Cooperative Extension

Collaborators: Dan Conable, Preferred Quality Grain LLC; Jaime Cummings, NYS IPM Program; Antonio DiTommaso, Cornell University; Quentin Good, Quentin Good Farms; Clinton van Hatten, Flowing Spring Farm; Kathleen Howard, Cornell University; Julie Kikkert, Cornell Cooperative Extension; Chuck Kyle, Preferred Quality Grain LLC; Grace Marshall, NYS IPM Program; Scott Morris, Cornell University; Ali Nafchi, Cornell Cooperative Extension; Jodi Putman, Cornell Cooperative Extension; Joshua Putman, Cornell Cooperative Extension; Emily Reiss, Kreher Family Farms; Matthew Ryan, Cornell University; Lynn Sosnoskie, Cornell University; Ken Wise, NYS IPM Program

Summary:
Herbicide resistant weeds have become a major problem for New York soybean farmers. This project aimed to regain control of these weeds through a mix of chemical, physical, and electrical tactics. From our replicated field trials attempting to control waterhemp in soybeans, the programs that included herbicides from WSSA groups 4, 14, or 15 were most effective, and our only treatment that provided 100% control included all three of those groups. Row cultivation performed well between-rows but missed some in-row weeds. Soybean yields generally reflected the effectiveness of each weed control treatment, with untreated plots incurring a 56% yield loss. Unfortunately, the most effective two-pass treatments were also the most expensive. In a separate demonstration, our informal evaluation of an electric discharge system was successful, with most of the herbicide resistant horseweed (marestail) exhibiting complete necrosis two weeks after application.

Background and justification:
In the past few years, herbicide resistant weeds have become a large problem for New York soybean farmers (Figure 1). Horseweed that is likely resistant to glyphosate (WSSA 9) and ALS inhibitor (WSSA 2) herbicides has spread through much of the state. Herbicide resistant waterhemp, which was initially found in a few isolated cases where farms had purchased contaminated inputs or equipment from other states, has now been observed in 12 counties. Waterhemp is more competitive than horseweed and based on our initial greenhouse spray chamber trials, it is likely resistant to glyphosate, ALS inhibitors, and photosystem II inhibitors (WSSA 5). In Seneca County NY, waterhemp was reported to have caused 50% yield loss in a field where the farmer had attempted to control it with several different herbicide applications.

Control of weeds that have exhibited herbicide resistance in other states has been improved by adding more herbicide sites of action, or WSSA groups, to the spray mixes – especially if more than one effective herbicide group is used – such as synthetic auxins (WSSA 4), PPO Inhibitors (WSSA 14), or long chain fatty acid inhibitors (WSSA 15). There has also been an increased emphasis on residual herbicide applications to decrease the burden on the post-emergence applications. Furthermore, due to the extended emergence period of waterhemp, residual chemistries are recommended additions to post-emergence applications.

Beyond the diversification of herbicides, non-chemical tactics are also necessary. Horseweed and waterhemp emerge from very small seeds and are susceptible to physical control through tillage/cultivation or suppression by cover crop residue. Due to the short longevity of both species’ seeds in soil, weed seedbank manipulation, sanitation, and practices that limit seed dispersal are also effective. In response to herbicide resistant weeds, one tactic that has been gaining in popularity in the last few years is the use of electrical discharge systems, which involve a front-mounted rod charged by a PTO-powered generator that is driven over the crop to electrocute weeds that escaped earlier controls.

In an attempt to regain control of these herbicide-resistant weeds in New York, we evaluated several strategies that integrated chemical, physical, and electrical tactics.

Objectives:
Objective 1. Evaluate the effectiveness of several different programs for controlling waterhemp in soybeans.

Objective 2. Evaluate the potential for an electrical discharge system to control weeds that survived prior chemical control efforts in soybeans.

Weeds in soybean field — Figure 1. Waterhemp competing with soybeans at a farm in Seneca County, NY.

Procedures:
Objective 1.

Two trial sites were established. Site A was in Seneca County, NY on a field of Odessa silt loam soil where waterhemp had survived various herbicide applications and produced seed in 2018. In 2019, the ground was prepared for planting with a field cultivator on May 22, and planted with soybeans (Channel 2119R2X, maturity group 2.1) on May 24. Pre-emergence applications were made on May 27. Post-emergence treatments were applied on July 8. All treatments are listed in Table 1. For fertilizer, muriate of potash (0-0-60, 125 lbs K₂O/A) was applied prior to tillage and urea nitrogen (46-0-0, 100 lbs N/A) was broadcast on July 12.

Site B was in Oneida County, NY on a field of Conesus silt loam soil where a large patch of waterhemp had escaped herbicide applications and was hand removed the previous year. In 2019, soybeans (Asgrow 19×8, maturity group 1.9) were planted no-till on May 22 immediately followed by pre-emergence applications. Post-emergence treatments were applied July 5. All treatments listed in Table 1 except for treatments 4 and 8 were implemented at Site B. For fertility, muriate of potash (0-0-60, 120 lbs K₂O/A) was applied prior to planting and starter fertilizer added 20 lbs N/A, 60 lbs P₂O₅/A, and 20 lbs K₂O/A.

Plots were 25’ long and 10’ wide. Each treatment was replicated four times per site in a randomized complete block design. Spraying was conducted using a backpack CO₂ sprayer with a 10’ boom. Spray volume was 20 gal/A applied at 40 psi. Row cultivation was achieved using a Double Wheel Hoe (Hoss Tools) with two staggered 6” sweeps (12” effective width). Two passes were made per row so that 24” of the 30” rows were cultivated.

Weed control was assessed in mid-August by collecting all aboveground weed biomass within a 2 ft² quadrat. The quadrat was used four times per plot, placed randomly in the two middle rows of each plot. Weeds were placed in paper bags and dried at 113 degrees F for 7 days, then weighed. Control was calculated by subtracting the biomass of each treated plot from biomass of the untreated plots, dividing by the biomass of the untreated plots, and multiplying by 100. All waterhemp was manually removed immediately after the weed control assessments in order to prevent it from producing seeds.

Soybean yield was measured in mid-October by hand harvesting the pods from 10-row-feet of a middle row of each plot. Beans were separated from pods and collected using an Almaco thresher, then weighed. Yield loss in the treatments with single herbicide sites of action was determined by comparison to the more extensive treatments (Treatments 6-13). Yield loss of Treatment 11 was determined by comparison to the other extensive treatments. To provide an economic basis for comparison of each treatment, costs were estimated based on personal communications with several local custom applicators.

Objective 2.

In 2019, a 20-foot-wide electrical discharge system (“Weed Zapper ANNIHILATOR 8R30,” Old School Manufacturing LLC) was used in Cato, NY on August 1 in a soybean (R1) field with several different weed species that had survived an earlier herbicide application and were protruding up to 2’ above the crop canopy. The tractor was operated at 3 mph with 1000 rpm PTO speed, allowing the electrical discharge system to generate about 500 volts and up to 200 amps of alternating current electricity. Weed mortality was not evident on the day of implementation, therefore we returned on August 13 to informally assess control.

Results and discussion:
Weed control was greatest for the two-pass treatments (Table 2) and for the treatments that included more than one herbicide from WSSA groups other than 2, 5, and 9. One exception was that the addition of Warrant to the tank mix of Roundup and XtendiMax may have caused a slight antagonistic effect on waterhemp control.

Site A did not have complete soybean canopy closure, which likely reduced the effectiveness of most treatments. Additionally, much of the waterhemp present in the post-emergence applications was likely larger than the suggested maximum height of 4”.

Although waterhemp was abundant at Site B in 2018, hand removal efforts prevented most of the weed seed production and very little waterhemp emerged for the trial in 2019. Therefore, waterhemp control is not shown for Site B. Conversely, few weeds other than waterhemp were present at Site A.

Soybean yield at Site A generally reflected effectiveness of waterhemp control. Yield losses would likely have been greater if the waterhemp had not been removed in mid-August. We found yield losses in Treatments 1, 2, 3, and 5 of 56%, 26%, 34%, and 20% respectively. Yields at Site B were less effected, reflecting less weed competition. Crop injury was visible from Cobra, with yield losses of 12% and 17% at Site A and Site B, respectively. Yield loss would likely have been greater in most treatments if waterhemp had not been manually removed in mid-August to prevent seed production.

The total cost for the materials and application of the more extensive treatments was generally more expensive (Table 2). But given that uncontrolled waterhemp could result in a loss of $300/A, more expensive weed control programs are justified. Even the most expensive treatment ($75/A) may make economic sense due to the short-lived seeds of waterhemp. That treatment provided 100% control of waterhemp, preventing the return of waterhemp seeds to the soil, thereby allowing the depletion of most of the waterhemp seedbank in four years (Mark Loux, personal communication) and return to less expensive control programs. Nonetheless, additional treatments will be investigated in 2020 to attempt to achieve 100% control with less cost.

Objective 2.

The electrical discharge system was very effective in controlling the contacted horseweed (marestail). Complete necrosis was observed for most treated plants. Some plants had green leaves near their base, but no new growth or lateral branching was observed. Common ragweed was also very effectively controlled. Annual sowthistle was mostly controlled, but green leaves persisted on about 25% of the plant. The highest branches of bull thistle (a biennial) exhibited complete necrosis, but lower branches that were untouched by the weed zapper remained unharmed.

It was evident that our August 1 application of the electrical discharge system was earlier than optimal because most of the horseweed had not yet exceeded the height of the crop canopy and was not contacted by the electrified rod. Therefore, to maximize the weed control from a single pass, scouting should be used to delay the application as late as possible, but before the weeds initiate seed production – likely mid- to late-August for most New York farms. For interested farmers, custom application of the electrical discharge system is available through Preferred Quality Grain LLC of Cato, NY.

Project location(s):
Central and western New York.

Samples of resources developed:
Online articles:
Brown, B., DiTommaso, A., Howard, K., Hunter, M., Miller, J., Morris, S., Putman, J., Sikkema, P., Stanyard, M. Waterhemp Herbicide Resistance Tests: Preliminary Results. Cornell Field Crops Blog. May 15, 2019. https://blogs.cornell.edu/ccefieldcropnews/2019/05/15/waterhemp-herbicide-resistance-tests-preliminary-results/

Video:
Marshall, G., Brown, B. Waterhemp Control in Soybeans: 2019 Trials. NYSIPM. December 20, 2019. Accessed December 28, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSAmMn2P7Wc

Marshall, G., Brown, B. Weed Zapper Demo 2019. NYSIPM. October 1, 2019. Accessed December 28, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVB33hB8Nes

Acknowledgements:
Thank you to the New York Farm Viability Institute for supporting this project.

Disclaimer: Read pesticide labels prior to use. The information contained here is not a substitute for a pesticide label. Trade names used herein are for convenience only; no endorsement of products is intended, nor is criticism of unnamed products implied. Laws and labels change. It is your responsibility to use pesticides legally. Always consult with your local Cooperative Extension office for legal and recommended practices and products. cce.cornell.edu/localoffices

March 10, 2020March 10, 2020

Effective Waterhemp Control Programs and Compatibility with Interseeding in Corn: 2019 Trials

Collaborators: Derek Conway, Conway Farms; Jaime Cummings, NYS IPM Program; Quentin Good, Quentin Good Farms; Antonio DiTommaso, Cornell University; Michael Durant, Lewis County Soil and Water Conservation District; Kathleen Howard, Cornell University; Grace Marshall, NYS IPM Program; Scott Morris, Cornell University; Ali Nafchi, Cornell Cooperative Extension; Jodi Putman, Cornell Cooperative Extension; Joshua Putman, Cornell Cooperative Extension; Matthew Ryan, Cornell University; Lynn Sosnoskie, Cornell University; Ken Wise, NYS IPM Program

Summary:
Herbicide resistant waterhemp has spread into New York and caused yield losses for corn farmers. This project aimed to find ways to regain control of this weed in corn and determine the compatibility of more extensive herbicide programs with interseeded annual ryegrass. Our field trial included several treatments that effectively controlled waterhemp. One of the most effective treatments was an integrated program utilizing a reduced rate herbicide, row cultivation, and interseeding. This treatment was slightly more expensive than the other two-pass treatments but the cost may be offset by the benefits of cover cropping. Of the several residual herbicides that were compatible with interseeded annual ryegrass, Callisto provided the most effective control of waterhemp.

weed growing under corn — Figure 1. Waterhemp competing with corn at a farm in Seneca County, NY.

Background and justification:
In the past few years, herbicide resistant waterhemp has expanded into New York and is now present in 12 counties at the time of this publication. Corn farmers have reported yield losses of 20% due to this weed (Figure 1), even after herbicide applications. Our greenhouse spray chamber tests of waterhemp from three different locations in New York indicate that it is likely resistant to herbicides from WSSA groups 2, 5, and 9 (ALS inhibitors, photosystem II inhibitors, and EPSPS inhibitors, respectively). Effective control programs in other states have relied on herbicides from other groups as well as additional physical or cultural tactics. Pre-emergence applications of residual herbicides are often recommended in order to reduce both the burden placed on post-emergence applications.

However, residual herbicides can sometimes cause injury to succeeding crops. Cover crops interseeded into a corn crop are at particular risk of injury. Interseeding has grown in popularity as a way to include a winter cover crop, which can benefit soil health, reduce erosion, and provide weed suppressive residue. Interseeding typically occurs at corn growth stage V5 rather than waiting until after corn harvest, when it is oftentimes too late. Several prominent New York farmers have bought or built their own interseeders. Additionally, the Lewis County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Genesee River Coalition of Conservation Districts each have interseeders available for custom application.

Objectives:
Objective 1. Evaluate the effectiveness of several different programs in controlling waterhemp in corn.

Objective 2. Assess the compatibility of residual herbicides with an interseeded cover crop.

Procedures:
Objective 1.
The trial site was in Seneca County, NY on a field of Odessa silt loam soil where waterhemp had survived various herbicide applications and produced seed in 2018. In 2019, the ground was prepared for planting with a field cultivator on June 4, and planted on June 7. Pre-emergence applications were made after planting on June 7. Cultivation and interseeding occurred on July 12, while the other post-emergence treatments were applied on July 15. All treatments are listed in Table 1. For fertilizer, muriate of potash (0-0-60, 125 lbs K₂O/A) was applied prior to tillage and urea nitrogen (46-0-0, 100 lbs N/A) was broadcast on July 12.

Plots were 25’ long and 10’ wide. Each treatment was replicated four times in a randomized complete block design. Spraying was conducted using a backpack CO₂ sprayer with a 10’ boom. Spray volume was 20 gal/A applied at 40 psi. Row cultivation was achieved using a Double Wheel Hoe (Hoss Tools) with two staggered 6” sweeps (12” effective width). Two passes were made per row so that 24” of the 30” rows were cultivated. For Objective 1, interseeding was established by hand broadcasting annual ryegrass (Mercury Brand, “Ribeye”) at 20 lb/A.

Weed control was assessed on August 15 by collecting all aboveground weed biomass within a 2 ft² quadrat. The quadrat was used four times per plot, placed randomly in the two middle rows of each plot. Weeds were placed in paper bags and dried at 113 degrees F for 7 days, then weighed. Control was calculated by subtracting the biomass of each treated plot from biomass of the untreated plots, dividing by the biomass of the untreated plots, and multiplying by 100. Waterhemp was the dominant species present in this trial. Other species did not provide enough data for comparison. All waterhemp was manually removed immediately after the weed control assessments in order to prevent it from producing seeds.

Corn grain yield was measured by first harvesting and weighing all ears in 10’ of a middle row of each plot on October 25. Weights were then adjusted based on the ratio of total ear weight to grain weight and then adjusted to 15.5% moisture based on subsamples that were completely dried (25 days at 113 degrees F). To provide an economic basis for comparison of each treatment, costs were estimated based on personal communications with several local custom applicators.

Objective 2.
This objective was conducted in Lewis County, NY on a field that did not contain any waterhemp. The field (Homer silt loam soil) was tilled June 9 and planted with silage corn (Pioneer, 95 day) on June 10 with 3 gal/A starter fertilizer (7-21-7). Pre-emergence herbicides were applied on June 12 and post-emergence on July 8. All treatments are listed in Table 2. Interseeding was conducted on July 10 using a 15’ interseeder (Interseeder Technologies) with three drills between each corn row operating at 0.5” depth. Annual ryegrass (Mercury Brand, “Ribeye”) was interseeded at 20 lb/A.

Weed control of the pre-emergence herbicides was evaluated on July 7 by visually estimating the percentage of the ground covered by the most prevalent species or categories – common lambsquarters, velvetleaf, other broadleaf species, and monocot species. This was done using the same quadrat system described above and control was calculated in a similar manner.

Performance of the annual ryegrass was assessed on September 20 by collecting the aboveground biomass using the quadrat system and drying samples at 113 degrees F for 7 days before weighing. Although there would have been more cover crop biomass later in the fall, silage harvest would likely have altered the results.

Results and discussion:

Objective 1.
Waterhemp control was most effective in treatments that utilized herbicides from WSSA groups other than 2, 5, or 9, or treatments that integrated non-chemical tactics. The pre-emergence-only and two-pass treatments were more effective than the post-emergence-only treatments. It was unexpected that the treatment with a reduced rate of Callisto followed by row cultivation and interseeding would control 100% of the waterhemp since most in-row weeds would have been uncontrolled by cultivation and the competition from the interseeded annual ryegrass would have been minimal.

Both the untreated control and the treatment of ResolveQ yielded 10% less than the treatments with more than one herbicide or tactic. Yield loss would likely have been greater in most treatments if waterhemp had not been manually removed in mid-August to prevent seed production. From personal communications with NY corn farmers who have waterhemp in their fields, a 20% yield loss can be expected in fields with poor control.

The two-pass programs were the most expensive, but were also the only treatments to offer 100% control of waterhemp. Several one-pass treatments offered 99% control with less expense, but the remaining 1% of uncontrolled waterhemp could likely produce enough seed to perpetuate the population.

Objective 2.
Early-season weed control was most effective for treatments containing Acuron or Callisto (Table 4) even though reduced rates were used. Weed control for the other treatments varied by weed species, which reflects their more common use in mixtures. Dual II Magnum and Warrant performed somewhat similarly, which was expected because they are both in WSSA group 15.

Annual ryegrass biomass of the grower standard (Treatment 2) was similar to several of the treatments containing residual herbicides (Table 4). Treatments with pre-emergence applications of Dual II Magnum, Sharpen, and Acuron affected annual ryegrass biomass, although the injury from Sharpen may have been confounded by the addition of ResolveQ in the post-emergence application. More injury to annual ryegrass was expected from Atrazine, but a heavy rain may have lessened its effect. A rainfall gage at the field showed that in the four weeks between the pre-emergence applications and the interseeding, the field received nearly 4” of rain, with 2” on June 20. Likewise, the post-emergence use of row cultivation in Treatment 10 may have lessened the effect of Acuron on annual ryegrass. Overall, Callisto stood out as the residual product that did not injure the annual ryegrass but also controlled waterhemp effectively in Objective 1.

Project location(s):
Northern, western, and central New York.

Video:
Marshall, G., Brown, B. Waterhemp Control in Corn: 2019 Trials. NYSIPM. December 20, 2019. Accessed December 28, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NQ6S39uQ-8&t=17s

Acknowledgements:
Thank you to the New York Farm Viability Institute for supporting this project.

August 12, 2019August 12, 2019

What’s Cropping Up? Volume 29 Number 3 – July/August 2019

The full version of What’s Cropping Up? Volume 29 No. 3 is available as a downloadable PDF and on issuu. Individual articles are available below:

August 9, 2019August 9, 2019

Organic compared to Conventional Crop Rotations lost $ during the Transition but made more $ in the 2 years after the Transition and in the total 4 Years of the Study

Bill Cox, John Hanchar, Eric Sandsted, and Mark Sorrells

2016 July corn, soybeans, and wheat — The organic corn-soybean-wheat/red clover rotation was the most profitable rotation from 2015 to 2018.

We conducted a 4-year study at the Aurora Research Farm from 2015 to 2018 to compare different sequences of the corn, soybean, and wheat/red clover rotation in conventional and organic cropping systems under recommended and high input management. Unfortunately, we were unable to plant wheat after soybean in the fall of 2016 because green stem in soybean, compounded with very wet conditions in October and early November, delayed soybean harvest until November 9, too late for wheat planting. Consequently, corn followed soybean as well as wheat/red cover in 2017 so we compared two sequences of the corn-soybean-wheat/red clover rotation with a corn-soybean rotation (Table 1). Please refer to previous What’s Cropping Up? articles from 2015 to 2018 for the various inputs for each crop for each year within each cropping system (https://scs.cals.cornell.edu/extension-outreach/whats-cropping-up/). Also, you can refer to Table 2 for a general overview of the management inputs for each crop within cropping systems across years. This article will first discuss the economics of the three crops in Year 3 or 4 of the study. We will then discuss the economics of the three rotations during the 36-month transition period (Year 1 and 2 of the study), the 2-year period after the transition (when the organic premium is in place), and the total 4 years of the study.

Tables 3-6 show the revenue, selected costs, and returns above selected costs for corn in 2017, soybean in 2017, and wheat in 2018. The selected costs differed slightly for each crop across years because of changes in input prices (for example fertilizer and fuel prices change somewhat from year to year). The differences in selected costs between cropping systems for each crop, however, are consistent across years so Tables 3-6 are very representative of selected costs of each crop. On the other hand, revenue and returns for each crop differed significantly across years mostly because of different yields (for example, organic corn averaged ~115 bushels/acre in 2015 but ~185 bushels/acre in 2017), but also because commodity prices varied somewhat across years. So use Tables 3-6 as references in the discussion on selected costs for each crop but not for the revenue and returns for each crop in each year. We didn’t include the 2018 soybean economics data, however, because the differences in revenue and returns between organic and conventional systems were similar as were comparisons between rotations, and the costs did not vary by more than $6/acre for each treatment.

Organic compared with conventional corn with recommended inputs had ~$15/acre lower selected costs following wheat/red clover (C3 vs. C1 comparison, Table 3) but ~$275/acre higher selected costs following soybean (C3 vs. C7 comparison, Table 3). With high inputs, organic compared with conventional corn had ~$120/acre higher selected costs following wheat/red clover (C4 vs. C2 comparison, Table 4) and ~$365/acre higher selected costs following soybean (C8 vs. C6 comparison, Table 4). As expected, organic compared with conventional corn had lower seed costs because the organic hybrid did not receive a seed treatment and did not have GM traits (Tables 3 and 4). Organic compared with conventional corn had higher fertilizer costs because of the much greater cost for composted poultry manure relative to conventional starter and N fertilizer. The fertilizer and selected costs were much greater for organic corn following soybean (C7 and C8, Tables 3 and 4) compared with following wheat/red clover (C3 and C4) because of the greater N requirement for corn when following soybean. Organic compared with conventional corn also had higher labor, repair and maintenance, and fuel and lubricant costs because of the 4-time use of labor and equipment for mechanical weed control in organic corn (rotary hoe 1x and cultivation 3x) compared with the 1-time use of labor and equipment in conventional corn (herbicide application). Organic compared with conventional corn also had greater fixed costs because of greater wear and tear with the 4-time use of tractors and equipment compared to 1-time use of tractors and equipment for weed control purposes.

Organic compared with conventional corn with recommended inputs had ~$70/acre greater revenue when following wheat/red clover in 2017 (C3 vs C1 comparison, Table 3) and similar revenue when following soybean (C7 vs. C5 comparison, Table 3) in the absence of an organic premium. All prohibited inputs (synthetic fertilizer, GM crops, pesticides, etc.), however, had been applied to the three fields in our study by June of 2014, more than 36 months prior to corn harvest in 2017, so organic corn would have been eligible for the organic premium. We will thus use organic prices for 2017 corn and soybean crops grown under organic management in this study. Organic compared with conventional corn with recommended inputs had ~$830/acre greater revenue following wheat/red clover and ~$685/acre greater revenue when following soybean in the presence of the organic premium (Table 3). Likewise, organic compared with conventional corn with high inputs had ~$990/acre greater revenue when following wheat/red clover (C4 vs. C2 comparison, Table 4) and ~$780/acre greater revenue following soybean (C8 vs. C6 comparison, Table 4). Please keep in mind that organic corn yields averaged ~185 bushels/acre; whereas conventional corn yields averaged ~175 bushels/acre in 2017. In 2015, however, organic compared with conventional corn had much lower revenue because of ~35% lower yields and the organic premium was not in place (first year of the transition). Likewise, in 2016, organic corn had lower revenue because of 7% lower yields, similar or higher selected costs, and no organic premium (2^nd year of the transition). So please use Tables 3 and 4 as representative of selected costs but not of revenue and returns above selected costs.

Organic compared with conventional soybean had ~$20/acre higher selected costs with recommended inputs (S3 vs. S1 comparison, Table 5) but ~$5/acre lower selected costs with high inputs (S4 vs. S2 comparison, Table 5). Organic compared with conventional soybean had lower variable costs because of lower seed and other crop input costs, despite higher labor, repair and maintenance, and fuel and lubricant costs (Table 5). As with organic corn, organic compared with conventional soybean had higher fixed costs because of more wear and tear on the machinery with 5 trips (1x rotary hoeing and 4x cultivations) compared to 1 trip over the field (herbicide application) with recommended inputs or 2 trips over the field (herbicide and fungicide applications) with high inputs .

Organic compared with conventional soybean had ~$55/acre lower revenue with recommended inputs (S3 vs. S1 comparison, Table 5) or with high inputs (S4 vs. S2 comparison, Table 5) in 2017 because of ~8% lower yield in the absence of an organic premium (Table 5). In the presence of an organic premium, organic compared with conventional soybean had ~$370/acre greater revenue with recommended or high inputs. Unlike corn that had inconsistent yield differences between organic and conventional corn across years, organic and conventional soybean yield differences did not vary much (similar yields in 2015 and 2016; ~8% lower in 2017; and ~11% lower in 2018). Because of the small differences in yield and selected costs, organic and conventional soybean had similar returns above selected costs in 2015 and 2016 and higher returns in 2017 and 2018. Organic soybean with recommended and high inputs had similar returns in 2017 (S4 vs. S3 comparison) as well as in 2015 and 2016 but somewhat higher returns in 2018.

In 2018, organic compared with conventional wheat had ~$160/acre greater selected costs with recommended inputs (W3 vs. W1 comparison, Table 6) and ~$190/acre greater costs with high inputs (W4 vs. W2 comparison, Table 6). Organic compared with conventional wheat had lower seed costs (same variety but no seed-applied pesticide), but much higher fertilizer costs, associated with the use of composted chicken manure, which costs almost 13x the cost of the ammonium nitrate (33-0-0) used on conventional wheat. Organic compared with conventional wheat with recommended inputs in 2018 had ~$205/acre greater revenue because the yields were similar and organic wheat received the organic price premium. Also, organic compared with conventional wheat with high inputs had ~$255/acre greater revenue because of ~7% higher yields and the presence of an organic premium.

Organic compared with conventional wheat with recommended inputs (W3 vs. W1 comparison, Table 6) had ~$45/acre higher return in 2018, despite the ~$160/acre higher selected costs. Obviously the increased revenue, associated with the organic premium, offset the higher selected costs, associated with the use of composted chicken manure. Likewise, organic compared with conventional wheat with high inputs had ~$65/acre higher returns above selected costs (W4 vs. W2 comparison, Table 6). Despite the higher revenue of organic wheat with high vs. recommended inputs, organic wheat with recommended inputs had ~$75/acre higher returns (W3 vs. W4 comparison) because the added revenue from the ~7% yield increase did not offset the higher selected costs, associated mostly with the higher rates of composted manure. Organic compared with conventional wheat, however, had lower returns in 2016 because yields were ~7% lower, selected costs were higher, and the organic premium was not in place (2^nd year of transition).

Table 7 shows the costs, revenue, and returns above selected costs of the red clover-corn, corn-soybean, and soybean-wheat/red clover rotations during the transition period, the first 2 years (2015 and 2016) of the study. (A value in Table 7 equals the sum of the 2015 and 2016 values for that treatment). As explained in previous news articles, we planted red clover alone in the early summer of 2015 and plowed it under in the spring of 2016 to see if a green manure crop would provide agronomic and economic benefits to subsequent organic crops in the rotation. The 2-year organic compared with conventional rotations generally had higher selected costs, especially with high input management, mostly because of the very high costs for the composted manure applied to corn and wheat. Revenue was similar as were returns between conventional ($152/acre) and organic ($179/acre) red clover-corn rotations with recommended inputs. Most conventional growers, however, would not plant a green manure crop so a comparison of the organic red clover-corn rotation vs. the conventional corn-soybean rotation with recommended inputs is more appropriate. In this comparison, the organic red clover-corn rotation had ~$455/acre lower returns, similar to the comparison between the conventional vs. organic corn-soybean rotation. The organic compared with the conventional soybean-wheat/red clover rotation with recommended inputs had ~$220/acre lower returns, which proved to be the most economical organic rotation in this study during the transition years. Many conventional growers, however, use high inputs on soybean (200,000 seeds/acre, fungicide/insecticide seed treatment, and foliar fungicide application) and even more so on wheat (high seeding rate, seed treatment, fall herbicide application, split-N application, and foliar fungicide application). A comparison of the organic soybean-wheat/red clover rotation with recommended inputs vs. the conventional soybean-wheat/red clover rotation with high inputs shows only ~$95/acre lower returns during the first 2 years of the transition. All rotations in conventional and organic cropping systems with recommended vs. high inputs had greater returns, except for the conventional corn-soybean rotation, which had similar returns.

During the first 2 years after the transition (2017 and 2018) in this study, selected costs were once again mostly higher in the organic compared with the conventional rotations, especially with high input management (Table 8, a value in the table equals the sum of the 2017 and 2018 values for that treatment). Again, the higher costs for composted manure on organic corn and wheat compared to synthetic fertilizer contributed to the higher costs. The organic compared with the conventional cropping system in all three rotations had much greater revenue because of similar to greater corn and wheat yields or slightly lower soybean yields, coupled with the organic premiums. So despite the mostly higher selected costs for organic compared with the conventional rotations, higher costs did not offset the higher revenue, resulting in much higher returns above selected costs for the organic rotations (Table 8). When averaged across input treatments, organic compared with the conventional cropping system had ~$410/acre higher returns in the red clover-corn-soybean-wheat/red clover rotation, ~$720/acre higher in the corn-soybean rotation, and ~$1200/acre higher in the soybean-wheat/red clover-corn-soybean rotation. When averaged across input treatments in the organic rotation, the organic soybean-wheat/red clover-corn-soybean rotation had ~$435/acre higher returns than the organic corn-soybean rotation and ~$930/acre higher returns than the organic red clover-corn-soybean-wheat/red clover rotation. Similar to the transition period, the soybean-wheat/red clover-corn-soybean rotation was the most economical organic rotation during the first 2 years after the transition.

The organic compared with the conventional cropping system had much higher total selected costs in all 4-year crop rotations, which was more than offset by the much greater revenue in all 4-year crop rotations (Table 9). When averaged across input treatments, the organic compared with the conventional cropping system had ~$270/acre higher returns above selected costs in the red clover-corn-soybean-wheat/red clover rotation, ~$200/acre higher returns in the corn-soybean rotation, and ~$955/acre higher returns in the soybean-wheat/red clover-corn-soybean rotation. When averaged across input treatments in the organic rotation, the organic soybean-wheat/red clover-corn-soybean had ~$470/acre higher returns than the organic corn-soybean rotation and ~$1030/acre higher returns than the organic red clover-corn-soybean-wheat/red clover rotation. Obviously, planting a green manure crop was the least profitable organic rotation to select. Despite the lower returns for organic wheat compared with organic soybean or organic corn, the inclusion of wheat/red clover in the organic rotation was far more profitable than just the corn-soybean rotation over the 4-year period. In contrast, the corn-soybean rotation was most profitable for the conventional cropping system.

In the organic cropping system, recommended input compared with high input management had $412/acre higher returns above selected costs in the red clover-corn-soybean-wheat/red clover rotation and $169/acre higher returns in the corn-soybean and soybean-wheat/red clover-corn-soybean rotation. Consequently, the results clearly suggest that organic cropping systems, regardless of rotation, did not respond to high input management in this study. Many organic growers have been advised to use higher than recommended seeding rates with the goal of improved weed control. In our study, we saw statistically fewer weeds with high input management in corn, soybean and wheat but differences were so small that it had no effect on crop yield in this environment. Based on the returns above selected costs in our study, the use of higher seeding and N rates is not justified in the first 4 years of organic soybean-wheat/red clover-corn-soybean rotation on silt loam soils in central New York.

Conclusions

Field crop producers who transition to organic corn, soybean, and wheat production can generate greater returns above selected costs than conventional field crop producers after 4 years under the environmental conditions of this study, if they can successfully manage the cash-flow challenges during the transition period. To help manage the cash-flow challenges, transitioning growers should not apply prohibited inputs in their last conventional crop after late spring/early summer so the 36-month transition period can be accomplished in two growing seasons. Given the growing conditions during this study and the economic analyses reported here, transitioning growers should not use a green manure crop in the first year of transition but rather plant soybean. Soybean does not require N fertilizer, a major constraint to organic corn and wheat production, so growers should begin their transition in a field where soybean is the intended crop. In addition, soybean with the use of aggressive cultivation is also competitive with weeds, the other major constraint to organic field crop production.

Based on the economic results of this study, field crop producers should include winter wheat as the second crop in the transition after soybean. Organic growers may be able to no-till wheat after soybean harvest, if few winter perennial weeds are observed in the soybean crop. Growers should also frost-seed red clover into standing wheat in early spring, a typical practice for many conventional wheat growers.

Economic analyses of this study suggests that field crop producers, who transition to an organic cropping system, should plant corn in the 3^rd year, or the first year when crops are eligible for the organic premium. Organic corn typically has a higher premium when compared with premiums for organic soybean and organic wheat. Corn should follow wheat with interseeded red clover, which provides considerable slow-release N to the subsequent corn crop. In addition, the wheat/red clover crops can disrupt weed cycles, as evidenced by the much lower weed densities in organic corn in the soybean-wheat/red clover-corn-soybean rotation compared with the corn-soybean rotation in 2017. In the 4^th year of the study, field crop producers should begin the soybean-wheat/red clover-corn-soybean rotation again by planting soybean.

Based on the economic results of this study, field crop producers should use current recommended inputs for conventional crops and not use elevated seeding rates to improve weed control or use higher N rates to provide more available soil N to corn and wheat. Although the organic compared to the conventional cropping system generated greater returns above selected costs in this study, we recognize that commodity prices, farm size, individual/personal beliefs, and other factors influence a grower’s decision on whether to transition to an organic cropping system. Furthermore, we recognize that the growing conditions and soils were unique to this study so results could differ for different years or locations in New York.

December 4, 2018

What’s Cropping Up? Volume 28, Number 5 – November/December 2018

The full version of What’s Cropping Up? Volume 28 No. 5 is available as a downloadable PDF and on issuu. Individual articles are available below:

Category: Organic Field Crop Production