C.O.R.N. Newsletter: 2014-32
Breadcrumb Menu
-
Pricing Standing Corn for Silage Harvest – 2014
If it’s late summer it’s time to talk about pricing a corn crop standing in the field for corn silage. This is always a challenging question as there are a number of factors that contribute to the final price agreed upon by the buyer and seller that are challenging to quantify.
This corn silage pricing discussion begins with a corn crop standing in the field. The grower’s goal is to recover the cost of producing and harvesting the crop plus a profit margin. Their base price would be the price they could receive for the crop from the grain market less harvesting/drying/storage costs. Hopefully, this would meet their goal of covering production costs and generating a profit. During price negotiations, it should be recognized that harvest risk is also being shifted from the grower to the buyer.
To the grain farmer, the corn crop has value beyond the income from the sale of grain. If the crop is sold as silage, the corn fodder is no longer available as ground cover and/or as a potential source of nutrients and organic matter. This creates an opportunity for the dairy farm to provide nutrients and organic matter back to the corn fields from subsequent manure nutrient applications.
Valuing the standing crop
To look at the value of the corn as silage, we can estimate that a ton of corn silage made from a good corn crop, on average, contains approximately 7.5 bushels of corn (ranging from ~6.7 to 10 bushels).
If corn is worth $3.15 per bushel at harvest, then the standing corn for silage would be worth about $23.63 per ton before the cost of harvesting for grain. If we estimate a grain harvest cost of $76 per acre, or ~$4.22 per ton (combining, hauling, storing and drying of 2 points based on Ohio Farm Custom Rates 2014), then the corn silage is valued at $19.41 per ton. However, since the nutrient and organic matter value that is removed from the field when the whole corn plant is chopped is roughly equivalent to the cost of harvesting the crop as corn grain (offsetting each other), we can use the price of corn times 7.5 bushels as the basis for pricing a standing crop ($23.63 per ton with corn priced at $3.15 per bushel during harvest). This is a starting point, additional adjustments must be made.
Adjusting for dry matter
The values discussed above are for corn silage at 35% dry matter. Prices also have to be adjusted for different dry matter concentrations. If actual dry matter was 30%, then the value is about $20/ton (i.e., 30/35 = 0.85 x $23.63/ton). Corn chopped at more than about 38% DM or less than about 30% DM may not ferment properly and can be a problem. The price for this corn silage should be discounted. For more details, see:http://dairy.osu.edu/bdnews/Volume%2015%20issue%201%20file/Volume%2015%20Issue%201.html#Weiss
Considering feed value
At the 2009 Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference, Normand St-Pierre reviewed the difference between valuing corn silage using a 7 bushels of corn per ton method plus harvest and storage costs and an adjustment for 10% fermentation loss, versus pricing based on the prevailing feed nutrient value (Sesame) pricing method (See
http://tristatedairy.osu.edu/Proceedings%202009/St-Pierre%20paper.pdf). This method values the silage at what its nutrients are worth based on a wider selection of feed prices plus the harvest and storage adjustments. The ratio of the two methods for 2005 to 2008, was 1.27. In other words, the nutrient value of silage to the cow was potentially worth up to 27% more than the value based on the market price for corn.
The SESAME value for Ohio corn silage is available in the most current edition of the Buckeye Dairy News available online at http://dairy.osu.edu. This is the nutrient value for AVERAGE corn silage delivered to the cow, so harvest, storage, moisture, shrink and risk costs must be deducted from the SESAME value. In addition, the SESAME value is based on average Ohio feed costs at a specific point in time. Local markets may give different results.
Other price adjustments and considerations
So, what does this mean in the real world? The 7.5-bushel method is a good starting point. There could be additional feed value to the buyer which has to be balanced against the harvest and fermentation risks that the buyer is assuming.
The last factor affecting the value of standing corn is risk. A farmer purchasing standing corn is assuming risk (Will it ferment properly? Can it be harvested at exactly the right time? What will the final nutrient content be? etc.).
The price for the standing crop should be discounted to recognize these risks. What is the right amount to discount? This is not an easy question and is one of the factors to consider when the buyer and seller are negotiating a final price. Setting the final, fair price for corn silage rests on an understanding of the needs of both the buyer and the seller and negotiating a price that ensures a reasonable profit for both.
Finally, it is critical that both parties agree on price, payment method and timing, crop measurement, restrictions, and similar details before the crop is harvested! Ideally, the agreement should be in writing and signed by both parties. These agreements are especially important when large quantities of crops (and money!) are involved. While this type of contracting may be uncomfortable for some producers, mainly because they aren’t used to conducting business on more than a handshake, it forces the parties to discuss issues up front and can minimize troubling misunderstandings after harvest.
-
Troubleshooting Corn Ear Abnormalities
Fig. 1. Corn ears exhibiting “tip dieback”, S. Charleston, OH 2014.”
When checking corn fields prior to and during harvest it’s not uncommon to encounter abnormal corn ears such as those shown above (Fig.1), especially when the crop has experienced stress conditions. Some of these abnormalities affect yield and grain quality adversely. We recently updated “Troubleshooting Abnormal Corn Ears” (available online at http://u.osu.edu/mastercorn/ ) to help corn growers and agricultural professionals diagnose and manage various ear and kernel anomalies and disorders.
Also available is a poster (Fig. 2) highlighting ten abnormal corn ears with distinct symptoms and causes. The purpose of the poster is to help troubleshoot various ear disorders. A reduced 11 x 14 inch version of the poster is available for online at:
Fig. 2. “Abnormal Corn Ears” poster” ACE-1
The OSU College of Food Agric. and Env. Sci. Communications & Technology section (contact information below) has 26 x 33 inch copies of the poster available for distribution. The poster is printed on plasticized coated paper for durability. Poster cost is $11.25 plus shipping. Ask for “Abnormal Corn Ears” poster” ACE-1.
The OSU College of Food Agric. and Env. Sci. Communications & Technology section (contact information below) has 26 x 33 inch copies of the poster available for distribution. The poster is printed on plasticized coated paper for durability. Poster cost is $11.25 plus shipping. Ask for “Abnormal Corn Ears” poster” ACE-1.
The Ohio State University
College of Food Agric. & Env. Sci.
Communications and Technology
Media Distribution
216 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road
Columbus, OH 43210-1044
E-mail: pubs@ag.osu.eduOrder Online: http://estore.osu-extension.org/
Phone 614-292-1607
Fax 614-292-1248 -
The best data of the year is coming in now
Author(s): Anne DorranceI often think that this is the most exciting time of year. The leaves are falling, the fields are turning the golden brown or silvery depending on the variety and we finally learn if we saw an effect from many of our treatments. Did our management strategy work? How much did we push the yield needle? So don’t forget about your own strip trials. The key is the average not the total yield from each treatment. To account for the natural field variation, you need the average of the different strips. Then compare the different treatments to see what the difference is.
As you are going across the field and the yield monitor dips to half or lower – make note of those locations. Those are spots in the field that could indicate soybean cyst nematode, a Phytophthora pocket from poor drainage, where a deer likes to sleep, a ground hog or fox den, to mention just a few of the problems that have occurred in some of my studies over the years. For SCN, plan on sampling this fall to determine what the numbers are. For Phytophthora, choose a variety with higher levels of resistance. I think most of you have a better plan for deer and animals on your farms than I could implement on University property!
The highest yielding varieties will be the ones that could withstand the specific pressures from your field under this year’s cool, wet summer. They may not do as well under a hot dry summer, but it is a start. So take those notes. Fields filled with disease, those varieties should be planted in a different location.. not in Ohio so take good notes. Most importantly, be safe and enjoy the harvest.
-
OARDC Agronomy In-service: March 5 and 6, 2015
Author(s): Pierce PaulThe 2015 OARDC agronomy in-service is scheduled for March 5 and 6, 2015 on the OARDC campus of The Ohio State University in Wooster. Mark your calendars. This in-service, which is offered every other year, is designed to give Extension Educators and Certified Crop Advisors up-to-date and hands-on training on disease, insect, fertility, and general crop management issues facing the corn, wheat, and soybean industries in the state and across the country. This two-day program will be run through the Agronomic Crops Team, with lectures and demonstrations by Extension State Specialists Drs. Pierce Paul, Andy Michel, Anne Dorrance, Laura Lindsey, and Steve Culman. To encourage participation and facilitate hands-on exercises, the number of attendees is usually limited to 35 per day (a total of 70 over the two days), on a first-come, first-serve basis. Registration and program details will be provided in a subsequent newsletter, but for now, mark the dates on your calendars.
-
Burndown herbicides for no-tillage wheat
Author(s): Mark LouxHerbicide options for burndown of existing weeds prior to planting of no-till wheat include glyphosate, Gramoxone, Sharpen, and dicamba. Dicamba labels have the following restriction on preplant applications – “Allow 10 days between application and planting for each 0.25 lb ai/A used”. A rate of 0.5 lb ai/A would therefore need to be applied at least 20 days before planting. We have as usual been receiving questions about the safety and legality of 2,4-D use prior to wheat planting. We do not know of any 2,4-D product labels that support this use of 2,4-D. There is some risk of stand reduction and injury to wheat from applications of 2,4-D too close to the time of wheat planting. Liberty is also not labeled for use as a burndown herbicide in no-till wheat.
The primary targets for a preplant burndown in wheat are the small, emerged winter annual weeds that can overwinter and have a negative effect on wheat the following spring. This includes marestail (horseweed), chickweed, deadnettle, annual bluegrass, mustards, etc. Herbicide treatments at this time can also have considerable activity on biennials (wild carrot, wild hemlock), dandelion, and Canada thistle, although herbicides are often more effective on these weeds later in the fall. The larger summer annual weeds (ragweeds, marestail larger than rosettes, foxtails, etc) are going to die after the first hard frost, and soybean harvest decimates these weeds to the point that herbicides won’t be effective on them anyway. Where wheat is planted into a fallow situation, it may be necessary to target the large summer annuals with herbicide in order to ensure that they do not interfere with planting or wheat stand establishment.
While glyphosate can adequately control small winter annual weeds, it should be combined with Sharpen or dicamba in fields with a history of marestail problems (or in fields downwind of a neighbor’s marestail nightmare). A mixture of glyphosate and Sharpen may be the better alternative because of the 10-day waiting period for dicamba. Sharpen should provide limited residual control of winter annuals that emerge after herbicide application, and the rate can be increased from 1 to 2 oz/A to improve the length of residual. Gramoxone should also effectively control small seedlings of marestail and other winter annuals. Be sure to use the appropriate adjuvants with any of these, and increase spray volume to 15 to 20 gpa to ensure adequate coverage with Sharpen or Gramoxone.
There are several effective postemergence herbicide treatments for wheat that can be applied in November to control these weeds, in fields where preplant burndown treatments are not used. The most effective postemergence treatments include Huskie or mixtures of dicamba with Peak, tribenuron (Express etc), or a tribenuron/thifensulfuron premix (Harmony Xtra etc). We discourage application of 2,4-D to emerged wheat in the fall due to the risk of injury and yield reduction.
-
Assessing yield losses in corn due to frost
Author(s): Peter ThomisonWith scattered frosts predicted in parts of Ohio tonight, it may be time to consider the impact of frost injury to corn that has not yet achieved kernel “black layer”. Black layer is the stage at which kernel growth ceases and maximum kernel dry weight is achieved (also referred to as “physiological maturity”). According to the USDA/NASS (http://www.nass.usda.gov/) as of Sunday, Sept. 21, 27 percent of Ohio’s corn was mature, compared to 29 percent for last year and 38 percent for the five-year average. Two percent of corn acreage was harvested, one percent behind last year and three percent behind the five-year average.
For those growers with questions on the impact of frost damage on grain yield and maturation, one good source of information is “Handling Corn Damaged by Autumn Frost” NCH-57 by P.R.Carter and O. B. Hesterman available online athttp://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/NCH/NCH-57.html. This publication includes information on the effect of frost on grain development and describes options for handling damaged corn. The following is an excerpt from the publication that addresses effects of frost injury on yield potential and whole plant and kernel moisture.
The effect of frost damage to corn depends on the severity of defoliation, stalk damage, and stage of growth. Tables 1 and 2 provide yield loss and kernel moisture estimates resulting from premature plant death during grainfill. The tables summarize the findings of Minnesota researchers who defoliated plants to simulate frost damage at different kernel development stages.
Table 1: Yield Loss in Corn as a Result of Plant Defoliation at Three Kernel Development Stages.
Kernel Development Stage
Percent Grain Yield Reduction
Soft dough
34-36
Full dent
22-31
Late dent
4-8
Source: Afuakwa, J. J., and R. K. Crookston. 1984. Using the kernel milkline to visually monitor grain maturity in maize. Crop Science 24: 687-691.
Table 2: Whole Plant and Kernel Moisture of Corn at Four Kernel Development Stages.
Kernel Development Stage
Kernel
Whole Plant
Percent Moisture
Soft dough
62
>75
Full dent
55
70
Late dent
40
61
Physiological maturity (Black Layer*)
32
53
* Black Layer-indicates end of kernel growth and maximum kernel dry weight (physiological maturity).
Source: Afuakwa, J. J., and R. K. Crookston. 1984. Using the kernel milkline to visually monitor grain maturity in maize. Crop Science 24: 687-691.
Crop Observation and Recommendation Network
C.O.R.N. Newsletter is a summary of crop observations, related information, and appropriate recommendations for Ohio crop producers and industry. C.O.R.N. Newsletter is produced by the Ohio State University Extension Agronomy Team, state specialists at The Ohio State University and the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC). C.O.R.N. Newsletter questions are directed to Extension and OARDC state specialists and associates at Ohio State.
Contributors
Disclaimer
The information presented here, along with any trade names used, is supplied with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement is made by Ohio State University Extension is implied. Although every attempt is made to produce information that is complete, timely, and accurate, the pesticide user bears responsibility of consulting the pesticide label and adhering to those directions.
CFAES provides research and related educational programs to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis. For more information, visit cfaesdiversity.osu.edu. For an accessible format of this publication, visit cfaes.osu.edu/accessibility.