C.O.R.N. Newsletter: 2017-07
Breadcrumb Menu
-
Some last minute tips to manage diseases before we hit the planters
Author(s): Anne DorranceAs I was digging weeds already out of the garden this weekend and looking at the buds on the trees, it looks more like early May rather than early April. Either way we are getting our seed together for research plots and checking our list of locations to begin for what is already an unusual season. While the rain is keeping us at bay – here are some reminders of last minute checks and to do’s before it turns into those crazy long days.
- Sample for SCN. We’ve always recommended sampling in the fall after a soybean crop. This is primarily due to when SCN populations will be the highest as well as more time in the fall to sample these fields. Fall sampling has not been ideal the last few years. This year it is very unlikely that there was any winter kill of eggs, those that are not protected by the cyst wall. Based on Laura Lindsey and Terry Niblack’s recent survey most of our fields have some SCN and they are below the economic threshold. However, there were also some surprises and we know historically that once populations get super high (>15,000 eggs/cup of soil or 60 cysts) that it is very difficult to get those populations to drop with just crop rotation. Not to mention the consistent loss in yield over time. The top fields to target this spring would be:
- Fields where the yield is consistently 10 to 20 bu off your farm or county average.
- Fields that have been in continuous soybean (>5 years)
- Fields that have a proliferation of winter annuals or cover crops that are also great hosts for SCN (legumes, purple dead nettle, & Sheperds purse)
For a refresher on how to sample for SCN, here is a link to sampling by one of our newly minted Ph.D. students (#8 in the series) https://plantpath.osu.edu/about-us/multimedia
- Check your varieties – what are the disease resistant scores. Most farmers in Ohio know which fields have had diseases, Phytophthora root and stem rot, Sclerotinia stem rot, Frog eye leaf spot and replanting due to seedling diseases. All of these are best managed with resistance. Each company uses a different scoring system.
- 1 to 9 – where 9 is dead and 1 is little to no disease
- 1 to 9 - where 9 is best – top rating and 1 is tons of disease and plants are dead
As you look at these ratings you are going to see that most of the varieties are in the range of 3 to 7 – in the middle. This is because the resistance that we most commonly deploy takes many genes (quantitative) to manage the particular disease and under conditions that are highly favorable for disease development some disease will occur.
A good example is Sclerotinia stem rot – varieties with the highest resistant ratings will develop 6 to 15% incidence under high disease conditions, well below where overall yield loss can occur.
- Do you have a seed treatment? Is it the right package for your conditions? Replanting is costly. From a seed, herbicide and delayed planting perspective. In Ohio, soybean seedling pathogens are very diverse and include the watermolds (Phytophthora and Pythium) as well as true fungi (Fusarium spp. and Rhizoctonia). All of these are very well managed with seed treatments, but there is not one fungicide that will control this plethora of pathogens. The mainstay, metalaxyl/mefenoxam is very good for P. sojae and some Pythium spp, the same is true for ethaboxam. A strobilurin will have efficacy towards some Pythium spp. and some true fungi. Fludioxonil and several other chemistries will manage Rhizoctonia and Fusarium,. The key for today’s seed treatment mix is to be sure you have several fungicides in the package,that will actually mix and work well together.
- Sample for SCN. We’ve always recommended sampling in the fall after a soybean crop. This is primarily due to when SCN populations will be the highest as well as more time in the fall to sample these fields. Fall sampling has not been ideal the last few years. This year it is very unlikely that there was any winter kill of eggs, those that are not protected by the cyst wall. Based on Laura Lindsey and Terry Niblack’s recent survey most of our fields have some SCN and they are below the economic threshold. However, there were also some surprises and we know historically that once populations get super high (>15,000 eggs/cup of soil or 60 cysts) that it is very difficult to get those populations to drop with just crop rotation. Not to mention the consistent loss in yield over time. The top fields to target this spring would be:
-
Managing Frost Injured Alfalfa
Author(s): Mark Sulc,We have recently observed some alfalfa fields with frost damage and received reports of some plant heaving. Alfalfa broke dormancy with the warm weather in late February and early March (see article in C.O.R.N. Newsletter on 7 March), which was followed by hard freezes over several nights in mid-March.
Observations in one field indicate that freeze damage was worse in pure alfalfa stands than alfalfa mixed with grasses. There is a wide range of plant response to the freeze from dead stems (~5% of stems in pure stands) to very little injury and normal growth (~65% of stems). The remaining stems have dead leaves with somewhat normal growing points, or growing points where the leaves are curled up and not unrolling properly, or growing points with no new leaves but that are not brown. The growing point of other stems just does not seem normal.
Time and weather conditions through April and into May will tell how much this damage will affect the first cutting. We don’t expect to see permanent damage to established, healthy alfalfa stands from this late freeze, but stands that were weak at the end of 2016 will likely recover more slowly.
Back in 2007 we had a strong spring frost that occurred in late April that caused severe damage, killing the growing stems that were 4-7 inches tall at the time. Some stems recovered, but the more severely injured stems died back and new ones had to be initiated from the crown. Our alfalfa experiments on the Western Branch Research Station near South Charleston that year showed variable injury and recovery. An experiment with soil pH of 6.4 was more severely injured than nearby experiments with soil pH of 6.8 to 7.0. The more severely damaged experiment yielded a half ton per acre less in the first cutting, but as the growing season progressed it improved and reached yields similar to the experiments that suffered less injury.
Frost injury to new spring growth puts a strong stress on plants. Alfalfa plants in early spring are at a low energy reserve status. Most of the stored energy reserves have been used to survive the winter and to initiate new growth with the early warm temperatures.
Stands that were healthy and vigorous going into the winter last fall should recover just fine, especially those with good soil pH and fertility, good surface and internal drainage, and that were not cut in the mid-fall period last year. Stands that were in a less than ideal condition going into the winter will probably suffer more injury and recover more slowly, because their energy status is lower. Keep a close eye on fields in that condition during the next two weeks.
Where injury appears severe, dig up some taproots of alfalfa and split them lengthwise. If the inner root tissue is soft, spongy, and possibly discolored, then those plants will or already have died. In contrast, healthy root tissue will be firm and white. If topgrowth is frosted, but roots are healthy, then the plant should recover in time.
If fertility levels are below optimum, make corrective applications as soon as soils are firm and dry enough to support traffic. Weakened spring growth might result in more winter annual invasion, so keep an early watch for weed development. Winter annuals are difficult to control in the spring, but options exist to slow them down if applied early enough. Also, keep checking fields for alfalfa weevil feeding as spring progresses, especially in fields that were frost-damaged. You might want to consider a lower action threshold in fields with weaker alfalfa growth. For more information on alfalfa weevil see http://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/ENT-32.
In fields showing more frost damage now, be sure to delay the first harvest by a week to give the plants more time to recover energy reserves for initiating regrowth. This especially includes fields that were cut last fall, or that were severely injured by potato leafhopper last summer.
Photo Credit: Jeff Stachler
-
Wetness Could Delay Early Planting
Author(s): Ryan FliehmanThe weather for the first part of the year has been mild to say the least with average temperatures running well above normal. The very mild February continued into March and similar trends are expected for the next several months when addressing temperatures. While most enjoy the warmer than normal temperatures for the winter and spring, if the trend continues into the summer months as the models are leaning we may change our opinion. Precipitation, mainly in the form of rain, was above normal for the past month and this trend is also expected to continue into April, or at least for the next couple of weeks. Looking at these conditions in relation to the Ag Industry, the temperatures to this point for spring will aid in raising the soil temperatures for planting, but the moisture could lead to delays in getting early seed in the ground.
Examining the monthly outlook guidance, a drying trend is noted as we move into May along with temperatures at or above normal. Last freeze dates appear to be following normal trends for the region. May looks to be more favorable with normal or slightly below normal rainfall expected with continued near or above normal temperatures. Moving into the summer months the climate models are hinting at temperatures that remain above normal with precipitation regimes leaning towards normal or slightly below normal conditions. So overall the temperatures are expected to be supportive, but rainfall will be the factor to watch moving forward.
-
True Armyworm Moth Count Running High
Author(s): Andy Michel, Kelley TilmonLast week, the University of Kentucky reported high true armyworm moth counts (see: https://kentuckypestnews.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/beware-of-true-armyworms-mild-winter-provides-conditions-for-potential-injuries-in-small-grains/). The mild winter likely contributed to the higher and earlier catches this year. These moths migrate northward, so if our southern neighbor is reporting high catches, these moths are also very likely flying into Ohio. After migrating and establishing, armyworms begin to lay eggs in grasses, including wheat fields and cover crop fields (that may have corn planted soon). Larvae feed for about 3 weeks before pupating. Right now, it is still too early to take any management action—eggs probably have not even been laid, let alone hatched. However, the high trap counts so far suggest that armyworms are a pest to watch out for later in the growing season. Watch for future updates in the CORN newsletter as we gear up towards planting.
-
Too Early to Plant…Take Soybean Production Survey and Receive $40
Author(s): Laura LindseyTo participate in this research, please see the online survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ohiosoybean
I am continuing a second year of a State‐Wide Project aimed at generating some baseline producer data on current soybean management practices in Ohio’s production systems. This project is funded by the Ohio Soybean Council and the North Central Soybean Research Program (NCSRP). The project goal is to identify the key factors that preclude the state’s soybean producers from obtaining yields that should be potentially possible on their respective individual farms. The term used for the difference between what yield is possible on your farm each year and what you yield you actually achieve is called a “Yield Gap”.
We are therefore asking Crop Producers in Ohio to provide us with yield and other agronomic data specific to their soybean production fields. With that data, we could then conduct an in‐depth analysis of what on‐farm factors might be causing a Yield Gap on producer farms. We intend to provide annual reports to all crop producers informing them of what factors we may have identified that, based on our analysis of the data collected from farms, are likely limiting you from achieving soybean yields closer to yield potential that is likely possible on your farms!
Specifically, we are requesting yield and other data specific to four 2016 fields of soybean that YOU grew on your farm. If you cannot recall or do not have data for any given cell on the Survey Form, leave them blank.
We look forward to receiving your data. Keep in mind that all data submissions will be kept strictly confidential. At the end of the survey, you will be asked for your name, email, and mailing address. This entry is optional, but will be used to email preliminary results and mail a check ($10/field) for your time and help filling out the survey.A summary of production practices documented in 2015 can be found here: http://stepupsoy.osu.edu/node/70
-
EPA Denies Petition to Ban Pesticide Chlorpyrifos
Author(s): Kelley Tilmon, Andy MichelThis week U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has denied a petition to ban the agricultural pesticide chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyrifos has been under review for a number of months. Chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate, is the active ingredient in Lorsban and other products, and is labeled for use against a number of insect and mite pests in various field crops. The recent decision means that it will continue to be available for these uses. As with all pesticides, OSU Extension encourages applicators to exercise proper handling and application procedures to protect workers and non-workers alike from exposure. More information about pesticide safety can be found at http://pested.osu.edu/
-
Now is the Time to Check Your Nozzles
Author(s): Erdal OzkanThis is the time of the year you must complete shopping for nozzles because the spraying season is just around the corner. Although nozzles are some of the least expensive components of a sprayer, they hold a high value in their ability to influence sprayer performance. First, nozzles meter the desired amount of liquid sprayed per acre. Second, nozzles help us spray the liquid uniformly over the width of the sprayer boom. Third, nozzles influence droplet size, affecting both target coverage and spray drift risk. For these key reasons, you need to make sure your sprayer is equipped with the right kind and size of nozzles, and they are still performing within the acceptable range of performance they delivered when they were new.
If you were happy with your nozzles last year, and if you are not switching to a new pesticide, all you need to do this spring before the spraying season is to check the flow rate of each nozzle to make sure the nozzles are not worn out. You will need to compare the flow rate of your nozzles with the flow rate of new nozzles of the same type and size at the same pressure. You can find information on the flow rate of new nozzles in nozzle catalogs or company web sites. A deviation of 10% between flow rates of your nozzles and the new nozzles is considered as acceptable. If the difference is greater than 10% of the new nozzle flow rate, it is time to get rid of the old nozzles and replace them with new nozzles.
Whether you are using the nozzles you already have on the boom, or getting new nozzles, there are some new issues you will need to consider before the start of the sprayer season. Typically, we take into account many important factors including: sprayer operation parameters (such as application rate, spray pressure, travel speed); application type (broadcast, band, directed, air assisted); target crop (field crops, vegetables, vineyard, shrubs and trees, etc.); and spray drift risk.
Are you aware of specific nozzle “requirements” on Labels?
In the past, the labels on chemicals gave some vague and general statements when referring to application equipment. For example, we used to see (it is still the same for many chemicals) on labels statements such as: “use spray equipment to provide thorough coverage of the canopy”. There was no help with explaining what “thorough coverage” is, and how to achieve it. Then, we saw labels giving us more specific recommendations on nozzles; such as: “use nozzles that provide medium spray quality”, or “do not use nozzles that produce droplets in coarse or larger spray qualities”. Most recently, the labels of the most talked-about 2,4-D or Dicamba herbicides include very specific requirements on which nozzle or nozzles must be used when spraying these products. For example one of these products requires using only ONE type and size of nozzle. Simple interpretation of this requirement is that you would be violating the label if you use any other type or size of nozzle. So, it is your responsibility to comply with the label recommendation.
Why are specific nozzles required by manufacturers of 2,4-D and Dicamba Herbicides?
Although manufacturers of these products claim that the new formulations containing 2,4-D or Dicamba are more resistant to drift of these active materials due to high volatility characteristics of similar products used decades ago, they are still extremely concerned about the physical drift of these products in droplets. Therefore, since these products are systemic in nature, they should work even when large size droplets are used during spraying. With this in mind, the manufacturers of these products have decided on recommending specific nozzles that produce droplets that are in the category of “Extra Coarse”, or “Ultra Coarse”. Physical drift of such large droplets will likely reduce the risk for drift to minimum. Although there are many nozzles that can provide these desired droplet size classes at certain pressures, at this point you are advised to choose exactly the nozzles identified on their labels.
Act now if you will be switching to new nozzles.
If you are going to use one of the new 2,4-D or Dicamba herbicides this year, it is very likely that you do not have on the boom the specific nozzles required by the manufacturers of these herbicides. That means, you will need to purchase the recommended nozzles and put them on the boom. Since many growers would want to do that, there may be short-term shortages of these nozzles in stores from which you purchase nozzles. So, act now and get the nozzles you need before experiencing potential problems with availability of these nozzles.
Keep several types of nozzles on the boom
It is very likely that you will be using your sprayers to spray a variety of pesticides during the growing season. Remember that one specific type of nozzle will not be best for all applications. For this reason, it is best to have several types and sizes of nozzles on the boom so that you can switch to the “best” nozzle choice for a given spraying job. As shown in the pictures below, there are various types of sprayer components and setups you can buy to configure your boom so the new set up allows you to easily switch from one nozzle to another instantly.
Some final thoughts
Nozzles are typically the least costly items on a sprayer, but they play a key role in the final outcome from a spraying job: achieving maximum efficacy from the pesticide applied while reducing the off-target (drift) movement of pesticides to minimum. Pesticides work well if the rates on labels are achieved during application. This can be achieved only if the right nozzle type and the proper size of the nozzles are on the sprayer, and the sprayer is operated properly.
Although the Apps and tables in catalogs may expedite the nozzle size selection process, it is best to understand the process and the math nozzle manufacturers use to generate the values listed in tables, and to generate nozzle recommendations in their Apps. A new Ohio State University Extension Publication, entitled “Selecting the Best Nozzle for the Job” gives step-by-step guidelines for selecting the most appropriate spray nozzle for a given application situation. The publication is available online at following web site: http://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/fabe-528.
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.