Pork Check-off Newsletter, Winter 2011, Des Moines, IA) -Home cooking is a catalyst that brings people together, and enthusiastic audiences at Taste of Home cooking schools are discovering delectable new pork recipes that are sure to please any palate.

“The Pork Checkoff is excited to be a national sponsor of Taste of Home’s Cooking Schools, which attract hundreds of participants who like the down-home style of the recipes,” says Dianne Bettin, a pork producer from Truman, Minn., who chairs the Checkoff’s Domestic Marketing committee. “Taste of Home Cooking Schools offer a great avenue to inspire home cooks to use pork, help them feel good about feeding it to their families and teach them how to be successful in cooking it properly.”

This fall, Taste of Home hosted cooking schools in 120 markets across the country. Two pork dishes (including Roast Pork Tenderloin Sliders with Cranberry Sauce and Pickled Onions) were among the 10 recipes demonstrated at each event. With up to 1,000 people attending each show, the Pork® Be inspiredSM message could potentially be shared with up to 120,000 people, says Laurie Bever, director of consumer marketing for the Pork Checkoff.

“The shows create a lot of buzz and cooking excitement,” adds Bever, who notes that attendees received a gift bag including a pork recipe brochure; a cooking show magazine filled with recipes, including 15 pork recipes; a pork cooking chart; and a $1-off coupon for fresh pork. “The great benefit of participating in the Taste of Home Cooking Schools is the ability to engage directly with our consumer target. The people who attend are interested in cooking, look for new ideas and come with a positive attitude to hear more.”

Home cooks think pink
Taste of Home’s Cooking Schools also offered a perfect opportunity to share new cooking guidelines, which show that pork can be consumed safely when cooked to a lower internal temperature of 145 degrees Fahrenheit, followed by a three-minute rest time.

The Pork Checkoff’s consumer research has consistently shown that Americans have a tendency to overcook common cuts of pork, says Mary Kelpinski, executive director of Michigan Pork Producers Association (MPPA), which helped sponsor four Taste of Home cooking schools in Michigan this fall. “It’s been quite interesting to hear the comments that the Taste of Home chefs made during the shows. They hit our key messages about pork’s versatility and the new 145-degree cooking temperature.”

To reinforce these messages, representatives from the MPPA visited with consumers at the Michigan shows and handed out samples of grilled, boneless pork chops, along with pork nutrition information.

This ability to reach consumers one-on-one is invaluable, notes Bettin, who is a Taste of Home field editor. “Taste of Home is a trusted source to promote the safety of our product with the new cooking temperature, and their cooking schools offer an effective way to get great pork recipes in home cooks’ kitchens.”
For more information, contact Laurie Bever, LBever@pork.org, (515) 223-2629.

Properly Applying Manure on Frozen Ground
Authors: Glen Arnold, Jon Rausch, Amanda Meddles, Ext. Prog. Coord. Env. Mgt

Livestock producers across Ohio and the Midwest have been unable to apply manure this fall and early winter due to saturated field conditions. Most livestock farmers are really pressed for manure storage room. Waiting for frozen ground to apply manure is likely to be their only available option.
Decisions about spreading manure on frozen and snow covered ground are critical to minimize water quality impacts. Now is not the time to shirk on proper application methods. Constant changes in weather are typical of winters in Ohio which increases the potential for manure to move with surface run-off. Run-off can lead to polluting water resources including streams, waterways, and wells. Not only does this impact water quality but the nutrients are lost and not available for the next year’s crop.
The USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Practice Standard 633, Waste Utilization outlines the Best Management Practice to reduce the potential of manure moving off-site. This Practice Standard will also help producers recycle nutrients more efficiently reducing the need for commercial fertilizer. Although Best Management Practices can help reduce the risk of pollution, one must keep in mind that the potential for manure run-off increases during winter application. This is why winter application of manure is not recommended and should only be done as a last resort.
When manure is applied on frozen or snow-covered soils, only enough manure should be applied to address storage limitations and only when ALL of the following criteria are met:
·         Application rates are limited to 10 wet tons/acre for solid manure more than 50% moisture and 5 wet tons for manure less than 50% moisture. For liquid manure the application rate is limited to 5,000 gallons/acre.
·         Applications are to be made on land with at least 90% surface residue cover (e.g. good quality hay or pasture field, all corn grain residues remaining after harvest, all wheat residue cover remaining after harvest, well established cover crop).
·         Manure shall not be applied on more than 20 contiguous acres. Each 20 acre block should be separated by a break of at least 200 feet.
·         Utilize fields which are furthest from streams, ditches, waterways, surface inlets, etc. and are least likely to have manure move in a concentrated flow toward and into our water resources.
·         Increase the application setback distance to a minimum of 200 feet from environmentally sensitive areas and areas of concentrated flow such as grassed waterways, surfaced drainage ditches, streams, surface inlets, and water bodies. This distance may need to be greater when local conditions warrant (e.g. – fields with more slope).
·         For ODA permitted facilities and CLMs, setbacks should be 300 feet from wells and residences.
·         Manure applied on frozen or snow covered ground should not exceed the nitrogen need of the next growing crop, or the crop removal rate for P2O5 for the next crop (not to exceed 250 lbs/ac), or the crop K2O needs (not to exceed 500 lbs/ac) or 10 wet tons < 50% moisture; 5 wet tons > 50% moisture; or 5,000 gallons of liquid manure per acre. Application rates are based upon the most limiting of these options.
For fields with slopes greater than 6%, manure should be applied in alternating strips 60 to 200 feet wide generally on the contour, or in the case of contour strips, on alternating strips at rates identified above. Application rates, and cover and set-back requirements also apply.
Winter application should not be part of a manure management plan and it should only be viewed as a last resort. Remember that if manure application during winter is necessary, preplanning to avoid fields where potential run-off could enter water passages will reduce pollution.
Some states have prohibited manure application on frozen or snow-covered ground but it is still an option with very careful management in Ohio. More information on winter manure application can be located through you local SWCD, NRCS, or OSU Extension offices or the USDA-NRCS, Practice Standard 633. Visit http://oema.osu.edu for additional manure management information.

Authors: Glen Arnold, Jon Rausch, Amanda Meddles, Ext. Prog. Coord. Env. Mgt

“Brian,” he said, “we used to use that same type of Bt as an insecticide sprayed right over the top of crops. After we used it for a little while, bugs built up a resistance, and the Bt no longer worked.” Ever since that conversation, I’ve been watching for signs of Bt resistance, and honestly, I didn’t see any problems for the first 10 years we had Bt corn. In the last 3 years, though, we’ve seen issues in certain areas with some Bt rootworm corn.

VT3 Without Insecticide (at left) vs. VT3 With Insecticide (at right)

Please don’t misunderstand. Most Bt products are working just fine, and they’re definitely worth the money. However, we have seen some VT3 corn fail to effectively protect the roots from rootworms, so here’s what I would advise you to do:

1. If you’re not in a heavy rootworm pressure area (i.e. if less than 35% of the acres in your area are planted to corn), you probably don’t have a lot of worries.
2. Use 2 Bt traits for the same insects as much as possible. For example, VT3 has 1 rootworm trait, while SmartStax has 2 rootworm traits. While some bugs may be resistant to 1 trait already, chances are they aren’t yet resistant to 2. While most people were bashing SmartStax last year, the top 3 fields on our farm this year were all SmartStax corns that yielded over 205 bushels per acre… obviously the yield is OK.
3. Use a planting-time insecticide. If you want to plant refuge corn or VT3, I’d strongly consider using a full rate of Aztec or Force. That’s what we do on our farm. Keep in mind that even if your Bt works, bugs still have to take a bite or bites out of your crop to ingest the Bt. Your best liquid insecticide options are Force and Capture, although I still prefer the dry if your planter is set up that way. With SmartStax, to be on the safe side, we’re using a one-third rate (or maybe even a half rate this year) of insecticide. Investing $4 to $8 an acre to protect SmartStax is worth it in my opinion, because we have heavy pressure in our area, known issues in the past, and we’re shooting for very high yields.
4. If you’ve really got a problem, I’d consider spraying post-emerge around tasseling/silking time to control the adult corn rootworm beetles BEFORE they lay their eggs for next year. If the timing is right, you may be able to combine this with a fungicide if you want to. One thing I want you to think about here, too, is this… spraying for soybean aphids reduces corn rootworm pressure. Many corn rootworm beetles lay their eggs in soybean fields. When you rotate back to corn the next year, those eggs hatch and cause problems in your fields. Fortunately, the same products you use to stop aphids will control rootworm beetles.
5. Bugs are a lot like weeds. If you allow their populations to build, you’re in for major issues at some point down the road. Even though it hasn’t always seemed tremendously profitable at the time, we’ve been using insecticide in corn, soybeans, and wheat for many years. Post-emerge, we pull the trigger at fairly low economic thresholds, but this is part of the reason why. I don’t want insects to get ahead of us, increase their populations, and then watch normal insecticide treatments fail in the future simply because of heavy insect pressure.
6. Understand that resistance can happen. You’ve seen it with weeds. You’ve seen it with diseases. We’re now seeing it with a host of different insects around the world, too. Follow the refuge requirements when planting your seed, learn more about the best ways to stop insects on your farm, and most importantly, don’t be afraid to pull the trigger when it comes time to control bugs. Resistance shouldn’t mean non-control or yield loss. It should just mean you need to take extra management steps to achieve success. Good luck!

Nearly 30 years ago a young farm broadcaster was trying to figure why the soybean industry did not warmly accept “gasohol” as the new golden boy of Cornbelt agriculture.  After all soybeans were oil and protein, and did not compete with a motor fuel.  During a broadcast interview an association economist danced around the sensitivity of the issue, but when the recorder was off admitted that soybean meal would be displaced by “by-products” from the alcohol refining process and the value of soybeans would decline.  Let’s fast forward three decades.

At the time of the interview, ethanol was primarily coming from wet corn millingplants and the “by-products”  which have since become co-products were wet corn gluten and corn gluten meal, and their value was reduced the farther they had to be transported because of the high water content and quick rate of spoilage.  With the bulk of ethanol now being produced a dry milling plant, distillers’ dried grains (with solubles) or DDGS are one of the driving forces in the livestock feeding industry.  Have they replaced soybean meal?  To a great extent, USDA economists say DDGS has allowed livestock feeders to substitute them for varying amounts of corn and soybean meal, depending on the animal species and maturity of the animal.

USDA economists Linwood Hoffman and Allen Baker have taken a thorough look at the impact of DDGS on corn and soybean meal in the feed industry.  Among the variables they have to evaluate is the presence of toxins carried from the corn into a concentrated state in the DDGS, the varying quality of the DDGS from one refiner to the next, and the varying prices of corn, DDGS, and soybean meal, vis-à-vis the rate at which DDGS can be included in the ration of the livestock being fed.  Included also are variable moisture content, product availability, and nutrient excesses or deficiencies, which affect how they must be handled and stored, impacting costs to feed buyers.  In rough terms, inclusion of DDGS can be in the range of:

1) Up to 40% for finishing cattle
2) Up to 20% for dairy cattle
3) Up to 30% for grow-finish hogs
4) Up to 15% for laying hens, broilers, and turkeys

Across all of the species of livestock, the potential consumption of DDGS for the past five years has generally been 60 to 63 million metric tons, based on total head being fed the maximum amount for a healthy ration.  However the amount actually fed ranged from 12 million metric tons in 2006/07 to 29 million metric tons in 2010/11.  Based on the market share of livestock consuming DDGS, the amount that if fed per year will vary, say the economists.  Substitution rate began in 2006 with 1 mmt of DDGS substituting for 1.03 mmt of corn and 0.19 mmt of soybean meal.  And in the past year, the rate changed to 1 mmt of DDGS substituting for 0.98 mmt of corn and 0.23 mmt of soybean meal.
The economists say DDGS has achieved a 17.5% share of the feedstuffs market in the US.  And they add, “Most of this increased market share can be attributed to the significant increase in domestic feed consumption of DDGS in recent years. As of 2010/11, DDGS replaced soybean meal as the number two feedstuff fed, and is second only to corn.”

The soybean industry economist was clairvoyant, at least in knowing ethanol co-products would capture market share.  Whether that has devalued soybeans remains for another study to determine.

Summary:
The growing production of ethanol has resulted in more distillers’ dried grains being produced, and depending on their relative value to corn and soybean meal, DDGS are being fed in increasing volume.  In the past year, the market share of DDGS has overtaken that of soybean meal for the number two feed for the livestock industry.

The agency also plans to be more flexible with states in providing site-specific nutrient-management planning and using local information when working with farmers.

The changes came after the NRCS revised its national conservation practice standard on nutrient management for the first time since 2006. The process took about 18 months as the NRCS gathered input from federal agencies, land-grand universities, consultants, stakeholders in agriculture and other interest groups.

“Out of the 160 or more practice standards we have, this one, by far, engenders the most controversy and interest,” said NRCS chief Dave White during a recent conference call with the media. “I suppose other folks will make value judgments, but we believe this achieves a more scientific approach for real protection of the environment while still maintaining the flexibility producers need to stay in business.”

White says farming technology has continued to evolve in the last several years, and the NRCS will be increasing its focus on encouraging farmers to adopt the “four Rs” concept pushed by The Fertilizer Institute emphasizing proper timing, location, rate and source for fertilizer applications.

For farmers looking to improve their nutrient-application efficiency, the NRCS will be suggesting changes in production systems to no-till, strip-till or some other reduced-tillage system, as well as variable-rate application of fertilizer, soil and tissue sampling, urease inhibitors and drainage-management techniques like bio-reactors and stop gates.

The NRCS will also be emphasizing a “systems approach,” grouping conservation practices in suites and coordinating them on site. The revisions will not require farmers to rewrite their current nutrient-management programs if they’re enrolled in NRCS programs such as EQIP.

“Many farmers are doing three of these practices right, but if we could get them to pick up the last two, it could be a game changer for us.”

The NRCS will also be expanding the use of technical service providers on the local level. Certified crop advisors “could be extremely engaged” in those efforts, White says, with webinars and training planned next year for outside consultants wanting to participate.

“We will be directing planners to work with producers to control water and wind erosion, apply nutrients when crops are likely to take them up, avoid application when there’s a higher risk of nutrient loss to air or water, and improve record keeping,” White says.

Through its 2,800 field offices, the NRCS offers voluntary technical and financial assistance to farmers for planning and implementing on-farm nutrient management plans. Farmers can use this assistance to help meet federal, state, tribal and local environmental regulations.

The agency provided $2.3 billion in financial assistance in the most recent fiscal year for farmers to adopt new technologies, including an extra $80 million in the Upper Mississippi River basin for programs to reduce nutrient losses from farm runoff.

NRCS staff offices will have until Jan. 1, 2013 to comply with erosion, nitrogen and phosphorus criteria for their state’s nutrient management standard.

The revised national standard is released as the NRCS works with “various partners” to address nutrient-management issues in the Upper Mississippi Basin, Chesapeake Bay watershed and the Great Lakes basin.

Losses of nitrogen and phosphorus are the chief problem, the agency says. Nitrogen losses have been attributed to nitrate leaching through the soil to groundwater, and most phosphorus is lost due to erosion because phosphorus attaches itself to displaced soil particles that are transported by runoff to nearby waterways.

White says conservation methods are being adopted more eagerly in regions where regulation, or the fear of it, is strongest, such as states bordering the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Increased attention is also being paid to nutrient losses in the Mississippi River watershed that have led to large “dead zones” in the Gulf of Mexico.

White says the NRCS has been working with outside groups, such as the Iowa Soybean Association and Chesapeake Bay Foundation, to address the problems in those watersheds.

When asked if the changes would go far enough to prevent environmental damage in sensitive areas, White replied that the NRCS’ scope is limited because it’s not a regulatory agency.

“If you’re looking for somebody who wants to regulate agriculture, you’re looking at the wrong guy,” he says. “I feel the incentive approach works best.”

The Fertilizer Institute, which provided input to the NRCS for the past year on the standard revisions, supports the changes.

“Agriculture is being asked to maintain profitable farm economics, while meeting the increased product demands of a growing population and also responding to increased scrutiny of land and resource management, and the 4Rs are key to addressing challenge,” TFI President Ford West said in a written statement.

By John Dobberstein, Managing Editor

www.no-tillfarmer.com

Thanksgiving in space may one day come with all the trimmings
November 21, 2011

Gioia Massa, a former Purdue postdoctoral researcher, measures the length of a sweet potato plant. In the background, other plants are climbing cages that minimize their area requirements, making them a possible crop that could be grown in space. (Photo submitted by Mitchell Laboratory)
Download image
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – Future astronauts spending Thanksgiving in space may not have to forgo one of the most traditional parts of the day’s feast: fresh sweet potatoes.
Cary Mitchell, a Purdue University professor of horticulture, and Gioia Massa, a former postdoctoral researcher at Purdue, developed methods for growing sweet potatoes that reduce the required growing space while not decreasing the amount of food that each plant produces. Their findings were published in the journal Advances in Space Research.
Sweet potato plants have main vines with many shoots that branch out to the sides. Mitchell said it was common for one plant to cover the entire surface of a 15-by-5-foot greenhouse bench.
“Sweet potato is like an invasive plant. It will take over everything,” said Mitchell, who studies the selection of crops that could be grown in space. “That’s not acceptable if you’re going to grow it in space.”
Knowing they needed to contain the plant’s horizontal spread, Mitchell and Massa decided to force it to grow vertically. Using cones or cylindrically shaped wire cages, they trained plants’ main vines to wrap around the structures while removing the space-consuming side shoots.
“It turns out the vines are not really picky about what you do with them,” Massa said. “As long as you leave the main shoot tip alone, you can remove the side shoots and trim them away without any yield loss.”
The main shoot tip, or the end of the main vine, is the only really sensitive part. It sends hormones throughout the plant that stimulate root development, which is important since it is the roots that become the sweet potatoes.
The side shoots, if picked when still young, are tender and can be eaten in salads, improving the plant’s usefulness, Mitchell said.
On Earth, scientists might want to find ways to get crops to take up less area, focusing on only two dimensions. A tall, skinny corn stalk, for instance, takes up little space in a farm field.
In space, however, that third dimension – height – is important because plants may need to be stacked to use all available space. Using a cone or cylinder is what might make sweet potato a viable space crop. Since the area inside the cages is empty, astronauts could put other plants inside and keep them alive with LED lighting.
The sweet potato plants also weren’t particular about lighting or temperature. Mitchell and Massa grew sweet potatoes in greenhouses during different seasons and saw no difference in yield.
“Sweet potato doesn’t seem to care what season it is or what conditions it’s in,” Mitchell said.
Massa said that’s important because many different types of crops may have to be grown in the same rooms in space. Picky plants won’t fare well with other picky plants having temperature or lighting requirements much different from their own.
“We call it a generalized-growth environment,”  Massa said. “We’re finding the optimum, not the maximum.”
Mitchell and Massa said they’d next like to study LED lighting’s effect on sweet potato and other crops. NASA funded their research.

Writer:  Brian Wallheimer, 765-496-2050, bwallhei@purdue.edu

Corn prices. Lack of bullish fundamental news allowed the market to fade lower, taking outthe psychologically important $6 mark, and then coming within 10¢ of the October lows, whichremains a key support level for the market. Bulls continue to hope that low prices will spurinternational buying interest, but it has not occurred, not even from China which typically buysbelow the $6 mark. In fact, export demand accounts for less than 10% of total demand.Export sales for the week were under 14 million bushels, but because of early season sales,shipments reached a marketing year high. Domestic demand remains high, helped by astrong ethanol market. Tight pipeline supplies reflect lack of farmer selling, and have resultedin old crop spreads remaining tight, but spreading out for the Dec 2011 vs. Dec 2012 spread.Field work is essentially complete, except Ohio farmers have 30% of their crop still in the field.1) Dec 11 corn closed at $5.825, down 6.25¢ for the day and down 27.75¢ for the week.2) Dec 12 corn closed at $5.355, down 6.75¢ for the day and down 23.5¢ for the week.
Soybean prices. With the crop in the bin and farmers waiting for a selling opportunity, pricescontinue to weaken and may soon be in the $10 range, thanks to the seemingly parallel trackwith the Wall Street equities markets. Fundamental news has escaped the soybean traders,except for weather reports from South America which are bearish. Rains have moved throughsoybean production areas and remain in the forecast for Argentina and Brazil. China remainsthe primary export customer, and with increasing profitability for the Chinese crushing industrymore beans may be exported. Currently, the slow pace threatens to miss 2011 projections.1) Jan 12 beans closed at $11.065, down 16¢ for the day and down 41.5¢ for the week.2) Nov 12 beans closed at $11.195, down 19¢ for the day and down 62¢ for the week.
Wheat prices. Despite dry weather throughout US production areas, prices continue to fade.KCBT made new lows for the year and futures in both Chicago and MPLS are not far away.Some of the weakness was attributed to elevators unloading long positions after farmers wereunable to deliver previously committed volumes. Weekly export numbers remain strong.1) Dec 11 wheat closed at $5.745, down 4.75¢ for the day and down 23.75¢ for the week2) Jul 12 wheat closed at $6.1775, down 7.5¢ for the day and down 28.25¢ for the week.
Corn futures have faded, but the basis is strong which IA St. economist Steven Johnson sayscan be a help in marketing. He says it may not get much stronger for several more months,but should not be pressured because domestic buyers need corn. He suggests using a hedgeto arrive contract and calculate the cost to roll it forward vs. spot cash pricing.
Soybean futures are also low, but the basis is not as strong as is the corn basis, saysJohnson. He says there is some carry in the market, but not enough to pay for storage, andboth the weak basis and carry reflect weak demand. Johnson says the January to July spreadhad been only a nickel in September, but has now widened out to about 26¢.
If you have beans to sell, MI St. marketing specialist Jim Hilker says, “On the one hand,$11 isn’t a bad soybean price, on the other hand, it is a dollar lower than a month ago. Whilethe market isn’t paying much for storage, if your opportunity cost is the savings account rateinterest, and your soybeans are already in the bin, and you have already priced a bunch,should we be in a hurry to price more?” For pork producers, he says it is a good time to buy.
Pork producers may have their most profitable year in 2012, of any since corn prices beganto climb in 2007. Purdue economist Chris Hurt is forecasting a $17 per head profit, which isthe best since 2006 and corn averaged $2.30 per bu. Hurt says there are reasons to believethat corn and bean meal prices may be settling, both in levels and in volatility, “Pork producersdo not quickly forget $7 & $8 corn prices and should be cautious in quickly expanding herds.”
Do you still have cash rent to negotiate? With soft commodity prices and increased inputcosts, high cash rents can devastate an operator with negative profitability. IA St. economistshave created a series of cash rent determination formulas, based on your own statistics. Enteryour own data in a spreadsheet and the totals are used to calculate various cash rent rates.
Farmers with “smartphones” can obtain an “app” that will calculate your optimum nitrogenrate, based on your general soil type, corn prices and nitrogen cost. The “app” is available forAndroid phones says IL Extension crop specialist Dennis Bowman who developed thetechnology, based on the Iowa State University model for Maximum Return to Nitrogen .
Soybean aphids are no longer getting “a free ride” because they are unnoticed, says Purdueentomologist Christian Krupke, “Everyone is ready for them.” A potential threat occurred thissummer when weather conditions moderated and soybean fields in the upper Midwest were atthreshold levels and were treated. Krupke says scouting is an important step, especiallylooking for aphids on buckthorn near soybeans before they move into bean fields.
If your seed order for 2012 includes crops that are resistant to 2,4-D, Purdue agronomistswant you to watch for potential problems with either moisture or nutrient uptake. They havefound the 2,4-D you will apply could have unintended consequences. It will take care ofgrasses and broadleaves because it affects the auxins in the plants that control growth. Butthey say a protein in a plant regulates the auxins and could also be affected in the crops thatare treated with 2,4-D. The result would be insufficient growth of root hairs needed formoisture and nutrient absorption. Researchers say more water and nutrients may be needed.
If ruts and compaction reduce yield, how do you evaluate the cost of tillage to smooth overthe ruts and reduce compaction? Penn St. soil specialist Sjoerd Duiker says one disk/chiselpass may cost $15/A, but that might prevent a 2.5% yield loss that really costs $30/A if corn isyielding 200 bu./A. and the corn is worth $6/bu. Eliminating ruts can increase crop revenue.
It is planting time in South America, and www.cropspotters.com provides an update:1) Mato Grosso is 94% complete with soybean planting and ahead of the recent rate.2) Parana is 85% finished with beans, with Brazil nationally about 70% completed.3) Argentine soybean planting is 37% complete with the expected acreage, 2% over 2011.4) Argentine corn planting is 62% finished with the acreage expected to be planted.5) Brazilian ag exports are $79+ bil. for the first 10 months of 2011, with $21 bil. in beans.
Ten Congressmen whose districts border the Missouri River have asked their colleagues onthe House Appropriations Committee to raise the priority of flood control projects to prevent arepeat of the flooding during the 2011 crop year. They contend that the Army Corps ofEngineers is spending more money on environmental issues than on flood prevention.
If you have flood-damaged fields, IA St. Ag Engineer Shawn Shouse has a repair plan:1) Before any work is done, call for help finding underground utility lines to avoid.2) Use an aerial map to help evaluate damage and chart a course of action.3) If underground fuel tanks or pesticide containers need removal, alert environmental offices.4) Consult environmental and fire officials before burning trees, and debris, and burying ash.5) Thin layers of plant material could be plowed under, but not returned to the river.6) Thin sand deposits can be incorporated into the soil, but distribute deeper sand elsewhere.7) Wetland records need to be consulted before spreading sand. It cannot go into the river.8 Deeply eroded land may not be repairable and selective abandonment may be justified.9) Soil with prolonged inundation will have similar characteristics as compacted soil.10) Document all work, in case insurance or financial assistance is available.
Bankruptcy trustees for MF Global have told investors that claims can be filed by Jan. 31 toseek restoration of their accounts, but the money yet to be distributed will mean a 40%shortfall. The Oct. 31 bankruptcy of the large commodity clearing house impacted manyfarmers and elevators who hedged their grain sales, but not all funds were segregated.
President Gary Niemeyer of the National Corn Growers says he’s disappointed in the failureof the “Supercommittee” to complete its deficit reduction work, but supportive of theleadership of the House and Senate Ag Committees to work so hard on trying to create a newFarm Bill to plug into the deficit reduction process. But Sen. Pat Roberts was one of the fourand he criticized his colleagues for making the process so secretive, and said he had little todo with any of it. He called for a return to “normal order” in developing new farm policy.
Cornbelt Update is a weekly publication by S2LS Ag Communications and Consulting.Republication or distribution is prohibited without prior permission. Subscription feeis $65 per year. Address subscription requests to: StuAgNews@aol.com © 2011Get your daily update of valuable farming information at: www.farmgateblog.com .

Ohio State University release — As corn harvest nears completion, moldy ear problems have been reported in Northwest Ohio, especially in certain corn hybrids planted late after June 1. The moldy ears have been attributed to Diplodia and Gibberella fungal infection (Figure 1).

Vomitoxins (associated with Gibberalla) have been found in some of the later planted, wetter corn (>25%). The few preliminary reports received to date suggest that vomitoxin levels are lower and vomitoxin problems far more limited in scope than in 2009.

Figure 1. Moldy ears from a 2011 NW Ohio corn field that was associated which tested positive of vomitoxins (Source: Glen Arnold, OSU Extension)

This is largely because, compared to 2009, conditions this year were relatively dry during the first few weeks after pollination, which restricted the development of Gibberella ear rot.

Although some level of infection may have occurred at silking, conditions during early grain-fill were in general not favorable for widespread ear rot development and mycotoxin contamination, except in some of the later planted fields. As was the case in 2009, molds have often been associated with upright ears (Figure 2).

Ears that remain erect after physiological maturity (black layer development) are more likely to have ear molds because they trap water, especially at the base of the ear. These ears may also be affected by opportunistic saprophytic organisms taking advantage of the moist, nutritious environment at the base of the ear.

Figure 2. Droopy and erect ears in OSU Defiance County 2011 test plot. Only 15% of the ears were erect at harvest but nearly all were moldy whereas no mold was visible in the droopy ears (Source: Bruce Clevenger, OSU Extension)

These saprophytes are usually not associated with vomitoxin production, so not all moldy ears will be contaminated. It is important to first identify the ear mold you are dealing with in order to determine whether you will have a problem with mycotoxins.

There are several factors that determine whether a corn ear remains erect or “droops” (points downward) following physiological maturity. Ears of corn normally remain erect until sometime after physiological maturity has occurred (black layer development), after which the ear shanks eventually collapse and the ears droop (Nielsen, 2011).

However ears may droop in drought-stressed fields that have not yet reached physiological maturity. A loss of turgidity in the ear shank due to water stress, possibly combined with some cannibalization of carbohydrates in the ear shank may eventually cause the ear shank to collapses, resulting in ear drooping. In certain hybrids, ears remain upright following physiological maturity (or remain erect for a longer duration) which can be related to a shorter ear shank.

According to some seed company agronomists, prior to the development of Bt hybrids, corn breeders tried to reduce ear drop due to European corn borer damage by shortening ear shanks. Much of that germplasm has continued to be used in more recent hybrids.

These agronomists acknowledge the concerns that upright ears are slower to dry or more prone to ear molds and indicate that companies are looking for more droopy shanks to help protect ears from water damage. However they contend that there are other genetic components to these traits and that the effects of upright ears on fungal infections may not be as pronounced as is widely thought.

In addition to genetic differences among hybrids, environmental conditions and cultural practices may affect ear orientation during the drydown period prior to harvest. In a 2010 OSU field study that compared 16 hybrids varying in maturity from 101 to 118 days relative maturity at two locations, differential responses to plant population for % ear erectness (at maturity) were observed.

At S. Charleston, growing conditions were favorable and yields averaged 235 bu/A. At Hoytville, yields averaged 134 bu/A due to drought stress. At S. Charleston, % erect ears decreased as plant population increased – 93%, 74% and 49% at 18,000, 30,000, and 43,000 plants/A, respectively. At Hoytville, % erect ears remain basically unchanged with increase in plant populations (ranging from 88% to 86%). These results suggest that factors other than hybrid genetics can determine if an ear is in an erect or droopy position at harvest.

By Peter Thomison, Pierce Paul, Bruce Clevenger and Glen Arnold, Ohio State University

You can also watch some other videos available from the site. Plus if you are a traditionalist and like a cartoon first, you can watch the always entertaining “Farm Guy”. So pop some corn and pull up a chair for hours, er…minutes of entertainment. And Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.