Category: Research

Characterization of phosphorus balances in corn silage fields from eight New York dairies

Agustin J. Olivo1, Laura Klaiber2, Kirsten Workman1,3, Quirine M. Ketterings1

1 Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States; 3William H Miner Agricultural Research Institute, Chazy, NY, United States; 3PRO-DAIRY, Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States

Introduction

              Optimizing phosphorus (P) application in corn silage production systems to align with crop P requirements while sustaining soil test P (STP) levels can help mitigate environmental risks and enhance farm profitability. Nutrient balances (supply minus uptake) can be an effective strategy to monitor P management in fields (Fig. 1). Sustained negative P balances (uptake > supply) can lead to a reduction in STP and negative impacts on crop productivity over time. Conversely, regular nutrient applications beyond crop removal can lead to increases in STP, which may be desirable in the short term to raise low STP, but undesirable if continued once soils reach optimum levels.

A graph with two bars.
Fig. 1. Phosphorus (P) pools considered for P supply and P uptake when calculating field-level P balances.

              Data on P balances from 994 corn silage field observations across eight New York dairies were analyzed to characterize this metric and identify drivers that may point towards opportunities for improved management. Data on manure management practices that affect field P dynamics and nitrogen (N) availability for the crop were also evaluated, as well as the relationship between P balances and STP for four of the farms.

Key findings

Phosphorus balances were low, but with a wide range across farms and fields

              On average, P balances across all fields were low (median of 7 lbs/acre), partially reflecting reductions in P surpluses on NY dairy farms over the last two decades as farm nutrient management has improved. However, there was a wide range across farm averages (-10 to 27 lbs/acre) and individual fields (-48 to 122 lbs/acre) (Fig. 2).

Two bar graphs.
Fig. 2. Relative frequency distribution for phosphorus (P) balances per acre (A), and area-weighted average P balance per acre (B) for Farms 1-8 across all years analyzed in the study.

Manure P supply was the main driver of balances

              Phosphorus supply was a more relevant driver of balances than P removed with harvest. Manure was the main source of P for all farms (Fig. 3), and farm to farm differences explained the largest portion of the variability in P supply. Higher P supply across farms was associated with higher manure application rates (driven partially by farm animal density) and higher manure P content connected to higher P rations.

A bar graph.
Fig. 3. Area-weighted average P supply from fertilizer and manure in Farms 1-8 across all years analyzed in the present study.


Phosphorus was applied at higher rates to fields with adequate STP than to lower STP fields

A b
Fig. 4. Phosphorus (P) supply (A) and P balances per acre (B) for individual observations in the dataset across agronomic soil test P categories in Farms 1, 3, 4 and 5 for all years analyzed in the study. Numbers in the top row represent means for each category. Values with different letters are statistically different.

              Morgan-extracted STP levels varied across farms and fields, with averages of 9, 13, 22 and 22 lbs P/acre for Farms 1, 3, 4 and 5, respectively (the only ones analyzed in the study for Morgan-extracted STP). These values corresponded to sub-optimal (<9 lbs P/acre), optimal (9-19 lbs P/acre), and high (20-39 lbs P/acre) agronomic P levels, according to land-grant university guidelines. Across the entire database, P was applied at higher rates to fields with adequate STP levels, indicating potential opportunities to re-allocate P within farms (Fig. 4).

P-based manure applications could cover a large fraction of crop N requirements

              Under management practices currently implemented by the farms assessed in the study, application of manure at N-based rates to corn would lead to large P balances for all farms, if utilized, due to a mismatch between manure available N to P ratio and corn N to P ratio needs. Similarly, P-based applications would cover only 51% of corn N requirements, on average. Increasing the rate of spring manure injection/incorporation or in-season injection on these farms could cover an average of 66 to 85% of corn N requirements, respectively, illustrating the greater N value of manure when more is incorporated/injected.

Conclusions

Results across the dataset showed low P balances on average, reflecting continued efforts from farms to efficiently manage manure nutrients and limit use of fertilizer P. Farms with large P balances may improve their performance by optimizing diet formulation to lower P excretion, reducing animal density, and/or exporting manure to move excess P off-farm. The data also showed potential opportunities to better allocate P within farms, re-allocating P from high or very high testing fields to P deficient fields. Combining appropriate rates of manure and N fertilizer or implementing manure treatment technologies that conserve N during storage and/or remove P, could help reduce P overapplication with N-based manure use. Similarly, spring or in-season manure incorporation or injection at P-based rates could recover a larger fraction of manure N, enough to cover almost all corn N requirements in some cases.

Full citation

This article is summarized from our peer-reviewed publication: Olivo A.J., L. Klaiber, K. Workman, and Q.M. Ketterings (2024). Characterization of phosphorus balances in corn silage fields from eight New York dairies. Agronomy Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.21710.

Acknowledgements

We thank farmers and their certified crop advisors who shared farm data. This research was funded by a USDA-NIFA grant, funding from the Northern New York Agricultural Development Program (NNYADP), and contributions from the New York Corn Growers Association (NYCGA) managed by the New York Farm Viability Institute (NYFVI), and the Department of Animal Science, Cornell University. For questions about these results, contact Quirine M. Ketterings at qmk2@cornell.edu, and/or visit the Cornell Nutrient Management Spear Program website at: http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Corn Stunt: A New Disease and a New Insect Vector for New York State

Gary C. Bergstrom

School of Integrative Plant Science, Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe Biology Section, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

Printer-friendly .pdf version.

The presence of the corn stunt spiroplasma was confirmed in corn fields in four non-contiguous New York Counties (Erie, Jefferson, Monroe, and Yates) in October 2024.  The causal agent of corn stunt, Spiroplasma kunkelii, belongs to a specialized class of bacteria known as mollicutes which also includes phytoplasmas. Spiroplasma cells lack walls, and they have a short, spiral shape. They live an obligate lifestyle, i.e., they survive and reproduce only in living leafhopper hosts and in the phloem sieve elements of specific plant hosts. The pathogen that causes corn stunt is transmitted by the corn leafhopper, Dalbulus maidis, also not documented previously in New York (Figure 1). That status changed this October as individuals of D. maidis were caught on a yellow sticky trap in Jefferson County. One captured leafhopper was confirmed by molecular tests to be infected by S. kunkelii. This is the first documentation of the corn leafhopper and of S. kunkelii in both corn leaves and corn leafhoppers in New York.

Figure 1. Corn leafhopper
Figure 1. Corn leafhopper, Dalbulus maidis, the insect vector of corn stunt spiroplasma, is characterized by two prominent dark dots between its eyes and a deeply imbedded V-pattern on its upper thorax. Photo courtesy of Dr. Ashleigh Faris, Oklahoma State University.

How is the spiroplasma transmitted and spread?

The corn leafhopper, D. maidis, can acquire spiroplasma through its probing mouthparts in less than an hour of feeding in phloem tissues of infected corn plants, but it can take up to two weeks of spiroplasma replication in the leafhopper’s body before the insect can then transmit the spiroplasma into the phloem of healthy corn plants. Symptoms don’t generally appear until about a month after plants have been infected. The most severe symptoms are the result of infection at early corn growth stages (from VE to V8). An infected leafhopper can transmit spiroplasma to many nearby plants and can also be blown by air currents and deposited into distant corn fields.

Where did the leafhopper and spiroplasma in New York come from?

Corn stunt is a disease complex first described nearly 80 years ago in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Spiroplasma kunkelii is the principal pathogen causing corn stunt. However, other pathogens, either alone or in combination, also can cause corn stunt; these pathogens include the maize bushy stunt phytoplasma, the maize rayado fino virus, and the maize striate mosaic virus. Leaf samples from New York have been archived for later testing for these additional pathogens. Over past decades, there have been observations of corn stunt symptoms in several southern and eastern states but epidemics of corn stunt with well documented isolation of S. kunkelii have been primarily in Texas, Florida, and California. In recent years, corn stunt has occurred as a yield-reducing disease primarily in Mexico, Central and South America, particularly in Argentina and Brazil. The principal vector, the corn leafhopper, can be transported long distances by air currents and carries the pathogen within it. While there is no direct proof, it is very likely that long-distance atmospheric transport of the corn leafhopper into the Midwest and Northeast in 2024 was aided by storm systems that moved north from southern states.

What are the symptoms of corn stunt?

Corn stunt symptoms present similarly to other stresses in corn, including drought, soil compaction, and phosphorous deficiency. Leaf blades and sheathes can show white or yellow stripes (loss of chlorophyl) or red or purple streaks (anthocyanin pigments) and plants may show premature senescence (but without stalk rot) (Figure 2). Corn stunt varies from several common stressors in that plants can show significant stunting and ear abnormalities such as poorly filled ears, no ears or multiple ears at the same node. Symptoms may appear in patches within a field or across larger portions of a field.

red streaked corn leaves infected with corn stunt
Figure 2. Corn plants testing positive for corn stunt spiroplasma showed stunting, leaf reddening, and abnormal ears in (A) Erie County and (B) Jefferson County, New York near the end of the 2024 growing season.

How was corn stunt detected in New York?

From conference calls with my field crop pathology counterparts in southern and corn belt states this summer, I became aware that, in association with stunted and discolored corn plants, corn stunt and corn leafhopper were being observed further north of their usual ranges in 2024. Yet, I thought that New York was at a sufficiently northern latitude to avoid these problems. I credit a very observant agronomy specialist, Rafaela Aguiar with Kreher Family Farms, for noticing unusual symptoms in field corn in Erie County in late summer. Rafaela, a native of Brazil and with previous agronomic experience in South America, thought the symptoms resembled corn stunt which she had seen in South America. Though I was skeptical, it turned out that Rafaela was correct. We initially collected samples of symptomatic plants (Figure 2A) from three Erie County fields and sent them to the Diagnostic Lab at Oklahoma State University. Two of the three fields came back as strongly positive for the corn stunt spiroplasma. In a race against corn harvest and frost, samples were then collected from corn in other counties where similar symptoms had been reported. Samples from Jefferson, Monroe, and Yates Counties were also positive (Figure 2B). I suggest that, given more time for scouting in October, corn stunt may have been diagnosed in many more corn fields in New York this year.

What does this mean for future corn production in New York?

Documentation of the pathogen and its insect vector in New York in 2024 demonstrated that corn stunt could occur in New York in future growing seasons. And if spiroplasma-infected corn leafhoppers arrive at earlier corn growth stages, significant yield losses could result.  Then again, the atmospheric pathways that carried corn leafhoppers to New York in 2024 might not be repeated for several years. Many presume that the corn leafhopper will not overwinter as far north as New York, but, with climate change, that may be proven incorrect.  There is much that we don’t know. Cornell University, Cornell Cooperative Extension, and the New York State Integrated Pest Management Program have committed to participate in a Corn Stunt Working Group of plant pathologists and entomologists in states affected by corn stunt and corn leafhopper. One aim of the group is to deploy a common protocol to monitor the corn leafhopper during the 2025 growing season. Also, the Cornell Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic is gearing up to offer a molecular test for corn stunt spiroplasma in 2025.

How will the corn stunt disease complex be managed?

Awareness and accurate diagnosis of corn stunt and regional monitoring for corn leafhopper are necessary first steps in managing this complex. Based on limited observations in 2024, it appears that corn stunt could cause significant yield reductions under New York corn growing conditions. Plant breeding is the long-term solution to prevent corn yield losses. Hybrids with moderate resistance to the spiroplasma and / or the leafhopper have been deployed in Latin American countries to manage the corn stunt complex. International companies that sell seed in the U.S. as well as Latin America are aware of which germplasms are most promising for incorporation into hybrids for northern temperate areas such as ours. I do not expect much choice of resistance in northern hybrids in 2025. Management of corn leafhopper populations with insecticides at corn vegetative stages to reduce corn stunt deserves further investigation. My principal advice to New York growers in 2025 is to plant corn at the earliest recommended date to avoid arrival of leafhoppers at the most vulnerable plant stages for infection by spiroplasma.

Acknowledgements:

I gratefully acknowledge agronomist Rafaela Aguiar of Kreher Family Farms for her keen observation of corn stunt symptoms and her continuing cooperation. Colleagues Michael Stanyard (Cornell Cooperative Extension Northwest New York Dairy, Livestock, and Field Crops Program) and Michael Hunter (New York State Integrated Pest Management Program) were instrumental in collecting corn leaf samples and leafhoppers from additional sites in New York. Identification of corn leafhopper and corn stunt spiroplasma would not have been possible without the expert help of colleagues at Oklahoma State University including professors Maira Duffeck and Ashleigh Faris, and diagnostician Jennifer Olson.

References:

Faris, A.M. and M. Duffeck. 2024. Corn leafhopper leads to corn stunt disease across Oklahoma – August 12, 2024. Oklahoma State University Extension News, EPP23-17.

Klaudt, J. 2004. Corn leafhoppers carrying corn stunt make first-time appearance in Kansas. Kansas State University Research and Extension News Release – October 16, 2024.

Redinbaugh, M.G. 2016. Diseases caused by mollicutes. Pages 16-19 in: Compendium of Corn Diseases (Fourth Edition), ed. G.P. Munkvold and D.G. White. APS Press, St. Paul, MN.

 

 

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

New York state, regional and county level nitrogen and phosphorus balances for harvested cropland

Olivia Godber1, Kirsten Workman1,2, Kristan Reed3, and Quirine Ketterings1

1Nutrient Management Spear Program, 2PRODAIRY, 3Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

Introduction

              New York (NY) state is one of five states that collectively produce more than 50% of the annual milk supply within the United States. The local environment allows farmers to integrate crop and livestock systems, facilitating cycling of manure nutrients back to cropland. Thus, dairy farming provides NY with benefits, opportunities, and challenges in terms of environmental sustainability and climate resiliency. Improved balancing of crop needs for nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) with supply from manure is key for a circular agricultural economy. The objectives of this study were to calculate and evaluate (1) regional and county level N and P balances of harvested cropland; and (2) the contribution of manure to a circular agricultural economy for NY. 

              Nutrient balances were calculated for 2017 (most recent USDA Census of Agriculture year at the time) as the difference in nutrient inputs through purchased fertilizer and recoverable manure, and nutrients removed in harvested crops. Atmospheric N deposition, legume N fixation, and manure nutrient losses during collection, transfer, storage, and treatment were also estimated.

Key Findings!

              The 2017 NY State P balance was 9 lbs P/acre. The N balance was between 35 and 85 lbs N/acre, depending on the proportion of legume cropland assumed to have received manure (Figure 1). 

2 bar graphs with a key.
Figure 1: Breakdown of the inputs and crop removal of (A) phosphorus (P), and (B) nitrogen (N) at the New York state level in 2017. Estimated N losses of manure N during storage through volatilization and denitrification are identified.

              For P balances at the regional level, a small range of 5 to 10 lbs P/acre was seen (Figure 2). Chemung County was the only county with a negative balance (-3 lbs P/acre).

Image of New York State sectioned off by region. Each region has a corresponding small bar graph indicating phosphorus input and crop phosphorus uptake. A few counties in gray are excluded.
Figure 2: Breakdown of phosphorus (P) inputs and crop P uptake at the regional level, and P balance at county and regional level for New York in 2017; counties in gray were excluded.

              For N balances at the regional level, a small range of N balances from 17 to 41 lbs N/acre was seen (Figure 3A) when balances were calculated assuming that manure and purchased fertilizer N were applied to all cropland, and no N fixation occurred. Under the assumption that no manure or purchased N fertilizer was applied to legume cropland, and additional N inputs were included as a result of N fixation on legume cropland, a higher but still small range in N balances from 60 to 94 lbs N/acre was seen (Figure 3B). Under both assumptions the balances were calculated before storage and application losses of N.

              Redistribution and application of manure to meet P-removal on only the non-legume cropland left a surplus of 3 lbs P/acre at the NY state level. Applying surplus manure to legume and non-legume cropland resulted in a slight, state-level, P deficit. In both scenarios, the large N deficit that cannot be met through legume N fixation alone indicates N fertilizer is required to meet crop needs under the reported yield and manure supply conditions. These results show NY’s ability to capitalize on the value of manure.

Two maps of the state of New York, sectioned off by region, with excluded counties colored in gray. Each map has small bar graphs corresponding with each region indicating the nitrogen input and crop uptake of nitrogen of the region. The map on top includes manure and purchased nitrogen being applied to all cropland, whereas the one on the bottom refers to non-legume cropland only. The maps are each purple.
Figure 3: Breakdown of nitrogen (N) inputs and crop N uptake at the regional level, and N balance at county and regional level for New York in 2017, assuming manure and purchased N was applied to (A) all cropland (assumes no legume N fixation) versus (B) non-legume cropland only (assumes legumes received N through fixation). Counties in gray were excluded.

              Manure has value to cropland beyond N and P and consideration of these factors at the field level, in combination with field management history and soil test results, could help to prioritize where manure should be applied, and where purchased N and P inputs are required. Development and adoption of advanced manure treatment, storage, and application practices, with consideration of how livestock feeding practices can influence manure characteristics, could all help to further improve the value of manure, improve balances, and increase circularity and sustainability of the agricultural sector in NY.

Next Steps?

              As updated manure excretion rates and the amount of nutrients lost during storage and application of manure become available, combined with an expected continuation in the upward trend of both cow numbers and milk production for NY, it will be important to continue assessments of nutrient balances and animal densities, and explore manure treatment options to allow for transport of manure nutrient throughout NY to avoid creating nutrient “hotspots” within the state. With the recent release of the 2022 USDA Census of Agriculture data, we aim to evaluate these scenarios in more detail for the 2022 state balances.

Full Citation

              This article is summarized from our peer-reviewed publication: Godber O.F., Workman K., Reed K., and Ketterings Q.M. (2024) New York state, regional and county level nitrogen and phosphorus balances for harvested cropland. Frontiers in Sustainability 5:1352296. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainability/articles/10.3389/frsus.2024.1352296/full.

Acknowledgements

              This research is funded primarily by a gift from Chobani, in addition to Federal Formula Funds and grants from the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSAGM) and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC). For questions about these results, contact Quirine M. Ketterings at qmk2@cornell.edu, and/or visit the Cornell Nutrient Management Spear Program website at: http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Manure Can Offset Nitrogen Fertilizer Needs and Increase Corn Silage Yield – Value of Manure Project 2023 Update

Juan Carlos Ramos Tanchez1, Kirsten Workman1,2, Allen Wilder3, Janice Degni4, Paul Cerosaletti4, Dale Dewing4, and Quirine M. Ketterings1

Cornell University Nutrient Management Spear Program1, PRO-DAIRY2, Miner Agricultural Research Institute3, and Cornell Cooperative Extension4

Introduction

              Manure contains all seventeen nutrients a plant needs, making it a tremendously valuable nutrient source for crop production. Applying manure to fields can also build soil organic matter, enhance nutrient cycling, reduce reliance on commercial fertilizer, and improve overall soil health and climate resilience. The Value of Manure Project of the New York On-Farm Research Partnership is funded by the New York Farm Viability Institute (NYFVI) and the Northern New York Agricultural Development Program (NNYADP). This statewide project evaluates nitrogen (N) and yield benefits of various manure sources and application methods to corn silage and corn grain crops. Eight trials were conducted in 2023, adding to three trials established in 2022. Here we summarize the findings of the trials conducted in 2023.

What we did in 2023

              Trials were implemented within commercially farmed corn fields in western (2 trials), northern (2 trials), central (3 trials), and southeastern (1 trial) New York. Each trial had three strips that received manure and three that did not, for a total of six strips per trial (Figure 1a). One trial (Trial B) received manure in spring of 2022. For this trial we tested carryover benefits into the 2nd year (2023). For all other trials, manure was applied in spring 2023 before planting corn. Manure source and application method varied across sites (Table 1).

Images of the manure plots for the study. Entire study area 1,200 ft by 120 ft, each study plot 200 ft by 120 ft.
Figure 1. Layout of a 2023 Value of Manure study plot. Three strips received manure before planting corn (1a). At the V4-V6 stage each of the six strips received six different inorganic N sidedress rates (1b).

              Strips were 1200-1800 ft long and 35-120 ft wide for all but one site, where strips were 300 ft long 35 ft wide. When corn was at the V4-V6 stage, each strip was divided into six sub-strips (Figure 1b) and subplots were sidedressed at a rate ranging from 0 up to 300 pounds N/acre. Sidedress rates were trial-specific, based on the expected N requirement of each field. For each trial, we measured manure nutrient composition, general soil fertility, Pre-Sidedress Nitrate Test (PSNT), Corn Stalk Nitrate Test (CSNT), yield, and forage quality.

Table describing the soil type, manure type, and manure application rate of the different trials in spring of 2023.
*Note: manure was applied in spring of 2022 in farm B, and we tested its carryover value for 2023.

              Soil test phosphorus (P) of the trials was classified as optimum (between 9 and 19 pounds P/acre), high, or very high (Table 2). Soil potassium (K) was optimum or very high for six of the trials while trials A and G tested medium in K. Magnesium soil test values were high (> 101 pounds Mg/acre) or very high. Soil test zinc (Zn) was medium for trials A and G (between 0.5 and 1.0 pounds Zn/acre) and high for all other trials. Manganese and iron were in the normal category (< 49 pounds Fe/acre, < 99 pounds Mn/acre).

Table describing the results of the Cornell Morgan test.
SOM = soil organic matter, P = phosphorus, K = potassium, Ca = calcium, Mg = magnesium, Zn = zinc, Mn = manganese, Fe = iron, Al = aluminum.

What we have found so far

              Similar to what we found in 2022, trials differed in their responses to manure and inorganic N (Figure 2). Trials D and E did not respond to manure or N sidedress application likely due to past N credits providing enough N to the crop. In trials A, B, C, G, and H, yield increased due to both manure and sidedress N application. Yields increased in manured plots beyond what could be obtained with fertilizer N by 0.3 to 4.6 tons/acre, and 5 to 21 bushels/acre (Table 3). In trials A and G, the ones with medium K and Zn classification, manure applications increased yield to such elevated levels (4.6 tons/acre for trial A and 21 bushels/acre for trial G), that it also increased the crop’s need for fertilizer N (in other words, the required sidedress N rate also increased). In both trials, manure application shifted soil K levels from medium to optimum and increased K content in silage, suggesting K was yield limiting at these locations.

Figure describing the MERN of different trials.
Figure 2. Most Economic Rate of Nitrogen (MERN) in eight trials. Orange text boxes are the MERN and yield at MERN for manured plots; gray text boxes are MERN and yield at the MERN for no manure plots. Corn silage yields are in tons/acre at 35% dry matter (DM), and corn grain yields are in bushels/acre at 84.5% DM.

Table describing the MERN for manure and no-manure plots.

              The PSNT levels of the manured plots were higher than their no-manure counterparts for all trials where liquid or digested manure was applied, showing that manure supplied crop available N to the soil (Table 4). In contrast, for farm A the PSNT-N was 15 ppm where compost had been applied versus 20 ppm without compost application, likely due to the high carbon content compared to N content of the compost used in that site. (Table 4). The impact of manure applications was also reflected in CSNT levels (Table 4). For trials D and E, CSNT levels of the plots that did not receive manure or sidedress fertilizer N were optimal or excessive, consistent with the lack of a yield response to N for those two sites. Similarly, for site F, the marginal classification suggested that limited (very little) to no N was needed, consistent with the lack of a manure-induced yield response and minimal fertilizer N response at that site. For the five trials where a crop response to N was determined (trials A, B, C, G, H), the CSNT’s of the zero N plots were low, accurately reflecting the need for additional N. For four trials, the CSNTs where manure but no N fertilizer was applied, were low (trials A, B, and G) or marginal (trial H), consistent with the response to sidedress N in the manured strips. For trials C, D, and E, the CSNTs were excessive in the manure strips without N fertilizer addition, consistent with the lack of a response to sidedress N (MERN = 0 pounds N/acre, Table 3). For trial F, the CSNT of the manured plots without sidedress N application was optimal. This trial showed a small response in yield to the addition of just over 30 pounds N/acre (Table 3).

Table describing the results of the Pre-Sidedress Nitrate Test.
*Note: Farm A applied compost that impacted PSNTs and had a very wet growing season (15 inches of rainfall higher than the 10-year average).

Conclusions and Implications (and Invitation)

              In 2023 we documented “yield bumps” resulting from manure application beyond what could be obtained with fertilizer only in five of the eight trial, consistent with observations for two of the three trials in 2022. For the sites with optimal or high fertility status, this yield increase shows that manure is not just supplying nutrients, but also benefits yield beyond nutrient contributions. The PSNT and CSNT results consistently reflected where N was needed and allowed for documentation of the N contributions of the various manure sources.
              The Value of Manure Project will continue in 2024. We will be testing additional manure types and manure application methods in various soil types and weather conditions. Join us in the Value of Manure Project in 2024 and obtain valuable insights about the use of manure in your farm! If you are interested in joining the project, contact Juan Carlos Ramos at jr2343@cornell.edu.

Additional resources

            The NMSP Value of Manure Project website and on-farm field trial protocols are accessible at: http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/NYOnFarmResearchPartnership/Value_of_Manure.html (project website),  http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/NYOnFarmResearchPartnership/Protocols/NMSP_Value_of_Manure_Protocol2024.pdf (protocol). Value of Manure phone app: https://valueofmanure-nmsp.glideapp.io/. For the 2022 project results: https://blogs.cornell.edu/whatscroppingup/2023/02/15/manure-can-offset-nitrogen-fertilizer-needs-and-increase-corn-silage-yield-value-of-manure-project-2022-update/.

Acknowledgments

              We thank the farms participating in the project for their help in establishing and maintaining each trial location, and for providing valuable feedback on the findings. For questions about this project, 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

Creating a New York Soybean Yield Database

Julianna Lee1, Manuel Marcaida III1, Jodi Letham2, and Quirine Ketterings1
1Cornell University Nutrient Management Spear Program and 2Cornell Cooperative Extension Northwest New York Dairy, Livestock and Field Crops

Soybeans acres and yield

Soybeans are an important crop for New York with a total land base of 325,000 acres harvested in 2022. Average yields are reported each year by the United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) in New York’s Agricultural Overview. Their records these past 14 years show a range in yield from a low of 41 bu/acre in 2016 to a high of 53 bu/acre in 2021, averaging 46.5 bu/acres at 87% dry matter. While state averages are reported yearly, there is little documentation of yield per soil type. In the past three years, we have worked with soybean growers to collect soybean yield monitor data and determine the first soil type specific yield records. This project was started because knowing soil- and field-specific yield potentials for soybean can help farmers make better informed crop management and resource allocation decisions, including fertilizer and manure use decisions.

What’s Included in the Soybean Database so Far?

Whole-farm soybean yield monitor data, shared by farmers in central and western New York, were cleaned using Yield Editor prior to overlaying of soil types as classified by the Web Soil Survey. To generate soil type-specific yield distributions, analyses were limited to soil types with yield data for at least: (1) 3 acres of total area within an individual field; (2) 150 acres total across all fields and farms; and (3) in three different farms. These qualifiers resulted in a database (to date) of 9,653 acres of yield data collected across 13 farms in New York with information for 14 soil types. Of the total acres, about 90% was from 2017-2021 (with data going back to 2009). Density plots were generated to determine yield distributions per soil type. Varietal differences were not considered in the analysis.

What Did we Find?

The calculated area weighted average yield for New York was 56 bu/acre with a standard deviation of 14 bu/acre. This average is considerably higher than the 46.5 bu/acre reported in New York’s Agricultural Overview for the same time period. Soil type specific means ranged from 40 bu/acre (Lakemont) to 66 bu/acre (Conesus) but yield distributions showed large ranges (from low to high) for all 14 soil types (Figure 1). For some soil types, the density plots showed multiple peaks which may reflect farm-to-farm, field-to-field, variety, management, as well as weather differences. Except for 2014, the mean yield based on farmer data exceeded state averages reported in New York’s Agricultural Overview.

What’s Next?

Knowing soil- and field-specific yield potentials for soybean can help a farmer make crop management and resource allocation decisions, including use and rate of fertilizer and manure. With more farmers sharing their soybean yield data, this summary will become more representative for the state and additional soil types for which too few acres of yield data are available currently, may be included in future years. We invite New York soybean growers to share they yield data with us to build on this data summary. Farmers who share data obtain their farm-specific yield report. This includes an annual update that summarized their cleaned yield data, a multiyear report once three years are collected, and yield stability-based zone maps for all fields with at least three years of soybean yield data.

Graph of soybean yield density plots by soil type.
Figure 1. Soybean yield density plots based on the different soil types from the cleaned soybean yield monitor database from 2009 to 2021.

Acknowledgments

We thank the farmers who shared their yield monitor data with us. This project is sponsored by the New York Corn and Soybean Association and USDA-NIFA Federal Formula Funds. We thank Abraham Hauser and Anika Kolanu for help with cleaning and processing yield monitor data. For questions about this project, 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

Homegrown Feed for Dairy Farms in New York

Olivia Godber1, Mart Ros1, Agustin Olivo1, Kristan Reed2, Mike van Amburgh2, Kirsten Workman1,3, and Quirine Ketterings1

1Nutrient Management Spear Program, 2Department of Animal Science, 3PRODAIRY, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

Introduction

Between 2017 and 2019, 110 New York dairy farms completed their whole farm nutrient mass balance assessment. Of the feed fed to the animals on the farms, almost 70% was homegrown, which means it was produced on the land-base operated by the farm itself (Figure 1a). Almost all this homegrown feed was forages such as corn silage, alfalfa, and grass. The farms averaged 0.56 mature cows per acre (weighted by tillable acres). How does this compare to average values in the United States and why is this important?

Comparison with Dairies in New York and Nationally

The share of homegrown feed for the New York farms was considerably high than typically reported across the US. The number of mature cows per acre was higher across the US (Figure 1b), while farmers in the assessment spent considerably less on feed costs per unit of milk produced than reported for the US (Figure 1c).

graphical representation of study results
Figure 1: (a) The share of homegrown feed on New York dairy farms participating in the 2017-2019 nutrient mass balance assessment (histogram); (b) the average number of mature cows per acre of cropland on dairy farms in the US (boxplot) and on New York dairy farms (blue diamond) according to the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture, and the average number of mature cows per tillable acre for New York dairy farms participating in the 2017-2019 nutrient mass balances (green diamond); (c) the average amount spent on purchased feed per ton of milk sold for US dairy farms (boxplot) and New York dairy farms (blue diamond) according to the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture.

Importance of Optimizing Homegrown Forage Production

The more feed that is homegrown, the greater the opportunity for the farm to: • Reduce feed imports and fluctuation in associated costs; • Control and adjust for changes in forage quality; • Reduce the need for synthetic fertilizer by enhancing nutrient recycling on the farm through manure application to the land base; • Maintain/improve soil test phosphorus levels; • Improve soil health, crop production and climate resiliency with use of manure; • Enhance carbon sequestration; • Avoid costs associated with manure export off the farm; • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with fertilizer production and transport of feed; • Implement practices that promote biodiversity on the farm-base through crop rotation and management.For most dairy farms, feed purchases are the largest annual expense, so growing forages on the farm’s land base reduces the costs of feed. However, there are also other reasons why optimizing homegrown feed is key.

    • Reducing the amount of feed that needs to be imported helps to avoid the carbon and energy footprint that imported feeds have (production elsewhere plus transport to the farm).
    • By minimizing feed imports, farms are also minimizing the risk of feed price fluctuations and economic uncertainty.
    • Farmers that grow feed have greater control over the quality of that feed. They can select what crops are needed and in which quantities to meet the needs of their animals.
    • Farmers can, to a certain extent, alter crop management practices as needed, and optimize nutrient use, thereby reducing nutrient losses to the environment.
    • By increasing nutrient recycling with the use of manure on the farm itself, farms are reducing their reliance on fertilizer use. This results in a smaller environmental footprint for feed production. Optimizing the use of manure over synthetic fertilizer can also help with managing volatile fertilizer prices and with the farm’s overall economic sustainability.
    • Farms with insufficient land base will need to export manure. By optimizing feed production and animal density, a farm can reap the benefits of using manure, thereby avoiding extra expenses incurred with manure export (if feasible at all) and avoiding carbon emissions associated with the transport of manure beyond the farm boundaries.

Acknowledgements

We thank the farmers, farm advisors and past and current NMSP team members who worked on the whole farm NMB project with us over the past 15+ years. This research is funded primarily by a gift from Chobani, in addition to Federal Formula Funds, and grants from the Northern New York Agriculture Development Program (NNYADP), Northeast Region Sustainable Agriculture and Education (NESARE), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC). For questions, contact Quirine M. Ketterings (qmk2@cornell.edu) or visit the Cornell Nutrient Management Spear Program website at: http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email