C.O.R.N. Newsletter: 2024-06
-
Transitioning to Organic Workshop
Organic farming, also known as ecological farming or biological farming, is an agricultural system that uses no synthetic fertilizers or pesticides, but instead uses fertilizers of organic origin such as compost manure, green manure, and bone meal and places emphasis on techniques such as crop rotation and companion planting to control disease and pests.
This has been a relatively hot topic over the last couple of years in the ag industry, with many farmers in the area and around Ohio dipping their toes into the organic system.
Whether you have already tried some form of organic production on your farm, or are considering it, a March 21 workshop being held at the North Central Agricultural Research Station is the perfect place to get many of your questions answered and to learn about the process of switching to organic.
The station is part of the research arm of the Ohio State University’s College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences, and is located just outside of Fremont in Sandusky County.
Experts from OSU Extension and some local producers will be on hand to share their knowledge between 10 am and 2:00 pm in the office building at the research station, at 1165 Gonawein Rd, Fremont, OH.
Eric Richer, OSU Extension farm management specialist, will lead off the discussions with information on what hurdles you should expect to encounter when switching to organic production. Jason Hartschuh, OSU Extension field specialist for dairy and precision livestock, along with Allen Gahler, OSU Extension Educator for Agriculture and Natural Resources in Sandusky County will then lead discussion on options for organic production, as well as share their research results from organic forage production trials conducted in 2023 with funding from the Warner On-farm Research Grant Program for sustainable agriculture.
After lunch, which is include with the $20 registration fee, local producers Kurt Bench from Shared Legacy Farms, and Adam Welly from Wayward Seed Farm will tell their stories about their organic farming operation and community supported agriculture and answer any questions the participants may have about organic production. Flyer with complete information and registration information can be found at Sandusky.osu.edu or you can simply call the Sandusky County Extension office at 419-334-6340 to make your reservation.
-
Topdressing Wheat with Liquid Manure
Wheat fields are firming up across Ohio and spring topdressing with nitrogen fertilizer has started. Livestock producers and commercial manure applicators may be considering applying liquid manure as a top-dress fertilizer for wheat.
The key to applying the correct amount of manure to fertilize wheat is to know the manure’s nitrogen content. Most manure tests reveal total nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen and organic nitrogen amounts. The ammonia nitrogen portion is readily available for plant growth. The organic nitrogen portion takes considerably longer to mineralize and generally will not be available when wheat uptakes the majority of its nitrogen before mid-June.
Most deep-pit swine finishing manure will contain between 30 and 40 pounds of ammonia nitrogen per 1,000 gallons. Finishing buildings with bowl waters and other water conservation systems can result in nitrogen amounts towards the upper end of this range. Finishing buildings with fixed nipple waters and surface water occasionally entering the pit can result in nitrogen amounts towards the lower end of this range. The contents of the ration fed to the pigs can also affect manure nitrogen numbers.
In past years, some farmers have used sow manure to topdress wheat. Just know the nitrogen amount in sow manure will be much lower than swine finishing manure so adjust application rates accordingly.
Dairy manure can also be used to top-dress wheat, but it will not produce a full grain yield compared to commercial fertilizer or swine manure. It will produce suitable growth of the crop for a harvest of wheat silage.
In university research, we have used both manure tankers and drag hoses when topdressing wheat. The concern with manure tankers is soil compaction, especially on heavy soils. The drag hose seemed to work well wherever it was used.
The typical application rate for liquid swine finishing manure on wheat is 4,000 gallons per acre. Wheat removes 0.49 pounds of P2O5 per bushel harvested. When also harvesting the wheat straw, a ton of wheat straw contains between three and four pounds of P2O5. So, a 100 bushel wheat crop with one ton of straw also removed would withdraw about 52 pounds of P2O5 per acre. This is likely about the same amount of P2O5 as 4,000 gallons of swine finishing manure would contain but review your manure test to make this determination.
When applying livestock manure to wheat it’s recommended to follow the NRCS #590 Waste Utilization Standard to minimize potential environmental impacts. This standard includes a 35 foot wide vegetative strip setback from ditches and streams. Applicators in the Western Lake Erie Basin also need to look at the weather forecast to be certain there is not greater than a 50 percent chance of a half-inch of rain in the 24 hours following manure application when surface applying. Print this forecast so you have proof in the event of a surprise rain downpour.
-
OSU Deoxynivalenol, DON, Resistance Screening Program-2024
This past year, with support from Ohio Corn and Wheat through the Corn Check Off, we established a pilot corn deoxynivalenol (DON) hybrid susceptibility screening trial. The objective of this project was to identify hybrids with partial genetic resistance to DON. Use these results with caution because this is our first year of data. This trial was conducted at three locations across the state that represent different production regions: Apple Creek, Bucyrus, and South Charleston. While we had three different environments, the fact that the hybrids vary in maturity means that there is a chance that the weather was not conducive to ear infection and DON production by the fungus Fusarium graminearum during each individual hybrid pollination window. All locations had natural infection across all maturity groups, but to help increase the change of Gibberella ear rot (GER) development, and consequently, DON contamination of grain, we also inoculated plots at Bucyrus and Apple Creek. Since average DON contamination was not significantly different between inoculated and naturally infected plots at these two locations, the results are summarized, and hybrids are compared, by location. With a relative maturity spread of 18 RM, the pollination window at all 3 sites was 3 weeks from the time the first silks emerged until only brown silks were found.
We have been researching several management strategies to reduce grain contamination with this mycotoxin, but less emphasis has been placed on genetic resistance. Results from our previous work with a very small number of hybrids showed that partially resistant hybrids with naturally and consistently lower DON levels are easier to keep low than those that were highly susceptible. A total of 80 hybrids from 8 seed companies were included as part of this screening. While this is only a small subset of the hybrids that are planted in Ohio, the results below not only show the importance of hybrid selection but also can be used to help you begin to select hybrids with natural partial resistance to DON, or at the very minimum, avoid highly susceptible hybrids. With one year of data, we cannot guarantee that the hybrids with low DON this year will always have low DON across all environments. The only thing we can guarantee is that the high-DON hybrids are susceptible. This is an excellent place to start.
The weather conditions at all locations in 2023 deviated from normal. All locations had below-average rainfall, temperature, and growing degree days. The only time of year that was above average at all locations was the month of August when 0.98-4.87 more inches of rain than the 10-year average fell. The full weather date for the growing season is summarized in Tables 2 through 4 below with full monthly data available at: Ohio Corn Performance Test (osu.edu). Weather conditions during pollination are critical with infection occurring while silks are still wet and relative humidity is >80% with temperatures between 59°F and 86°F.
Table 1 below summarizes the DON ppm as an average across locations and at each location. DON levels values with an asterisk (*) are not statistically different from the lowest average DON level. The variability among some of the hybrids with high DON levels led to high coefficient of variation and LSD, especially at Bucyrus. A total of 13 hybrids had average DON below 1 ppm (range 0 to 2.4) and 28 hybrids had average DON below 2 ppm (range 0 to 4.1) at all locations. A total of 43 hybrids had average DON below 3 ppm at all 3 locations, but the range of DON for these hybrids was 0-6.5 ppm across all plots at these locations.
Plots were managed for high yield at all locations. At Bucyrus and South Charleston, tar spot was found at low levels in the fields just before tassel. Being overly cautious about damage to the plots, a fungicide was applied at both locations. At Bucyrus, Miravis Neo was applied at tassel emergence. In some of other previous trials, Miravis Neo reduced average DON levels when applied between tassel and green silk. This application may have helped lower DON levels in some of the hybrids that may have had higher natural levels of the toxin if not treated with the fungicide. At South Charleston, Veltyma, a fungicide not known to be effective against DON, was applied. This location also experienced a windstorm just before tassel which resulted in severe goose-necking during the pollination window.
See full hybrid trial report here.
(Table 1) – DON contamination of 80 hybrids averaged across locations and across plots at each location.
Average DON (ppm)
Brand
Hybrid
RM
All Location Average
Bucyrus
South Charleston
Apple Creek
Dekalb
DKC55-54RIB
105
2.61
1.03*
0.65*
5.18
Dekalb
DKC56-15RIB
106
19.70
30.85
0.62*
18.10
Dekalb
DKC62-70RIB
112
1.66*
1.99*
2.27*
1.02*
Dekalb
DKC62-89RIB
112
9.11
10.55
2.05*
11.20
Golden Harvest
G97B68-DV
97
0.51*
0.63*
0*
0.64*
Golden Harvest
G98B99-AA
98
2.45*
2.36*
0.88*
3.33
Golden Harvest
G99E68-D
99
1.38*
0.77*
0.76*
2.3*
Golden Harvest
G00A97-AA
100
0.8*
0.83*
0.58*
0.89*
Golden Harvest
G01B63-AA
101
8.13
9.43
0.3*
10.75
Golden Harvest
G02K39-D
102
0.6*
0.57*
0.39*
0.74*
Golden Harvest
G03B19-AA
103
0.88*
0.38*
0.8*
1.42*
Golden Harvest
G06A27-D
106
1.49*
1.18*
0.4*
2.35*
Golden Harvest
G08B38-AA
108
0.96*
1.01*
0.86*
0.95*
Golden Harvest
G10L16-DV
110
0.89*
1.17*
0.65*
0.75*
Golden Harvest
G10B61-AA
110
1.14*
0.11*
1.16*
2.15*
Golden Harvest
G11V76-AA
111
1.59*
0.79*
0.65*
2.85
Golden Harvest
G12S75-D
112
0.92*
0.24*
1.45*
1.34*
Golden Harvest
G13B17-AA
113
0.39*
0.01*
0.76*
0.58*
Golden Harvest
G13D55-V
113
0.58*
0.05*
0.05*
1.38*
Golden Harvest
G14B32-DV
114
0.24*
0.09*
0*
0.52*
LG Seeds
LG51C62VT2RIB
101
0.42*
0.07*
0.55*
0.7*
LG Seeds
LG52C42RR
102
1.23*
0.38*
0.49*
2.45*
LG Seeds
LG58C48VT2RIB
108
9.53
10.30
2.5*
12.28
LG Seeds
LG59C72VT2RIB
109
3.06
2.8*
2.3*
3.70
LG Seeds
LG64C43VT2RIB
114
3.80
2.98*
0.5*
6.28
Check
Hybrid B
109
0.97*
1.28*
0.03*
1.14*
Check
Hybrid A
113
10.54
7.48
0.63*
18.55
NK
NK0295-AA
102
5.77
8.75
0*
5.68
NK
NK0367-AA
103
2.05*
2.57*
2*
1.55*
NK
NK0835-AA
108
0.85*
0.67*
0.75*
1.09*
NK
NK0877-V
108
2.57
2.2*
1.19*
3.63
NK
NK0922-V
109
0.89*
0.78*
0.06*
1.42*
NK
NK1082-DV
110
0.22*
0.12*
0.03*
0.41*
NK
NK1040-AA
110
2.43*
1.33*
1.72*
3.88
NK
NK1188-AA
111
3.87
1.94*
3.73
5.88
NK
NK1239-D
112
0.78*
0.06*
1.95*
0.91*
NK
NK1480-DV
114
0.13*
0*
0*
0.33*
PC SEED
PC 3305
105
0.93*
0.89*
0.32*
1.28*
PC SEED
PC 8408
108
6.30
9.00
2.35*
5.58
PC SEED
PC 5511
111
5.74
5.93
5.20
5.83
PC SEED
PC 4212
112
8.19
2.83*
2.17*
16.58
PC SEED
PC 6313
113
2.76
0.37*
0.84*
6.13
PC SEED
PC 5514
114
2.97
3.88*
1.77*
2.67*
PC SEED
PC 6616
116
6.28
5.33
1.15*
9.80
Pioneer
P0075AM
100
1.79*
0.97*
1.39*
2.8*
Pioneer
P04511AM
104
1.37*
1.5*
1.02*
1.42*
Pioneer
P0487Q
104
6.74
7.60
0.14*
9.18
Pioneer
P05757AM
105
7.41
11.35
0.82*
6.78
Pioneer
P0720AM
107
3.73
6.03
0.55*
3.03
Pioneer
P0859AM
108
3.02
2.07*
1.15*
4.90
Pioneer
P10811AM
110
2.72
2.09*
1.75*
3.83
Pioneer
P1136AM
111
1.58*
1.42*
0.98*
2.05*
Revere
Revere 0297 SSX
102
1.46*
0.66*
0.1*
2.95
Revere
Revere 0518 VT2P
105
0.67*
0.02*
0.06*
1.63*
Revere
Revere 0707 DGVT2P
107
12.55
11.80
2.15*
18.50
Revere
Revere 0918 VT2P
109
0.38*
0.3*
0.49*
0.41*
Revere
Revere 1307 TC
113
0.52*
0.11*
0*
1.2*
Revere
Revere 1577 VT2P
115
4.60
2.37*
2.70
7.78
Revere
Revere 1627 TC
116
2.48
1.74*
0*
4.45
Seed Genetics Direct
Direct 0101-DV
101
0.44*
0.4*
0.03*
0.67*
Seed Genetics Direct
AGI 3104PWE
104
1.74*
0.23*
2.5*
2.88
Seed Genetics Direct
Direct 9107-3010
107
0.37*
0.6*
0.4*
0.13*
Seed Genetics Direct
Direct 2107-V
107
1.06*
0.42*
0*
2.23*
Seed Genetics Direct
AGI 4107PWE
107
2.98
3.77*
1.82*
2.78*
Seed Genetics Direct
Direct 2109-D
109
0.39*
0.38*
0.33*
0.44*
Seed Genetics Direct
Direct 4109-AA
109
0.96*
0.44*
0.32*
1.8*
Seed Genetics Direct
Direct 3109
109
1.97*
0.23*
0.33*
4.53
Seed Genetics Direct
Direct 0110-3110
110
1.84*
2.37*
1.22*
1.61*
Seed Genetics Direct
Direct 3111-D
111
0.78*
0.31*
0.39*
1.45*
Seed Genetics Direct
AGI 4111PWE
111
1.77*
1.16*
1.15*
2.68*
Seed Genetics Direct
Direct 2111-AA
111
2.92
0.85*
0.77*
6.08
Seed Genetics Direct
Direct 4112-AA
112
0.41*
0.08*
0.21*
0.86*
Seed Genetics Direct
Direct 2112-AA
112
3.73
3.02*
5.05
3.78
Seed Genetics Direct
Direct 2113-3110
113
1.34*
0.55*
0.55*
2.53*
Seed Genetics Direct
AGI 3113PWE
113
4.94
4.83
2.64*
6.20
Seed Genetics Direct
AGI 3114PWE
114
2.61
1.49*
1.08*
4.50
Seed Genetics Direct
AGI 4114PWE
114
18.81
20.68
7.00
22.85
Seed Genetics Direct
Direct 8115-3110
115
2.46
1.3*
5.10
2.29*
Seed Genetics Direct
AGI 4115PWE
115
9.30
13.15
2.90
8.65
Seed Genetics Direct
Direct 8116-3110
116
1.89*
0.52*
1.05*
3.68
Mean
3.15
3.03
1.19
4.24
LSD 0.1
2.32
4.62
2.67
2.85
CV
99.75
130.60
134.68
57.49
Numbers with an asterisk (*) are not significantly different from the lowest DON level at the location
Weather data Planting to Harvest
(Table 2) Bucyrus weather data
Planting date: May 19th Harvest date: November 16th
Temperature
Departure from Average
GDD
Relative Humidity
Rain
Fall
Departure from average
High
Low
Mean
10yr
30yr
Average
10yr
30yr
July
90.2
50.8
71.2
-1.7
-1.5
657
81.5
5.38
.68
1.33
August
89.2
44.2
67.6
-3.5
-3.4
550
83.3
7.11
3.82
3.72
April-September
88.5
38.3
63.6
-1.7
-1.0
2681
72.6
22.0
-2.7
-1.9
April-October
88.4
35.7
62.1
-1.8
-0.9
2864
73.4
25.3
-3.3
-2.0
(Table 3) Apple Creek
Planting date: May 26th Harvest date: December 13th
Temperature
Departure from Average
GDD
Relative Humidity
Rain Fall
Departure from Average
High
Low
Mean
10yr
30yr
Average
10yr
30yr
July
89.6
53.0
71.7
-0.5
-0.1
673
76
3.92
-1.05
-0.63
August
85.4
48.6
67.7
-2.9
-2.7
548
81
8.11
4.87
4.39
April-September
86.5
41.4
63.1
-1.5
-0.8
2595
72.1
20.8
-4.8
-4.5
April-October
86.2
38.9
61.8
-1.3
-0.4
2792
72.8
24.0
-5.2
-4.8
(Table 4) South Charleston
Planting date: May 23rd Harvest date: November 20th
Temperature
Departure from Average
GDD
Relative Humidity
Rain Fall
Departure from Average
High
Low
Mean
10yr
30yr
Average
10yr
30yr
July
89.6
53.5
72.6
-0.9
-0.5
698
81
5.62
0.21
0.71
August
90.5
48.5
69.8
-2.1
-2.0
613
81
4.30
0.93
1.05
April-September
87.9
41.0
64.6
-1.8
-0.9
2837
74.2
20.5
-5.70
-4.80
April-October
88.0
38.6
63.1
-1.7
-0.7
3058
74.6
23.2
-6.30
-5.00
Thank you to the Ohio Corn Performance Trial and the Paul lab for the management of these plots.
-
Using Drones for Spray Application - Adoption Trends in US and Worldwide
Traditionally, aerial pesticide spraying worldwide has been done using conventional fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters with a pilot onboard. However, this is changing fast. Small, remotely piloted aircraft are being used to apply pesticides around the world, especially in East Asia (mainly China, Japan, and South Korea). For example, about 2,800 unmanned helicopters were registered as of March 2016 in Japan, spraying more than a third of the country’s rice fields. Although rice is the main crop treated with spray drones in Japan, use of drones to treat other crops such as wheat, oats, soybean, and other crops has been steadily increasing. According to one report, 30% of pesticide spraying in South Korea is done using drones.
Korea and Japan have used drones for years—mainly the single-rotor, remote-controlled helicopter. Their use of multi-rotor drones is much more recent in contrast to China who have experienced the most significant increase in use of multi-rotor drones for spraying pesticides. The first multi-rotor spray drone in China was manufactured in 2009. In 2016, 200 companies manufactured and sold over 169 different models of multi-rotor spray drones with total sales exceeding 10,000 units that year. China drone manufacturers continue to introduce one or two new models of their own annually, often with significant upgrades. Currently, China is by far the greatest user of small, multi-rotor drones. In 2020, China sprayed 64 million acres using small drone application technology. The next year (2021), acreage of cropland sprayed by drones increased to 153 million acres. Their drone crop spraying includes not only insecticides and fungicides, but also herbicides and defoliants. Although China’s spray drone use started in 2015, usage of drones to spray pesticides in all other countries as of 2024 only equals a small percentage of China’s current spray drone use. According to data from the country’s National Agro-Tech Extension and Service Center (NATESC), China had about 4,000 crop-protection drones in 2016. In 2021, more than 120,000 drones were used to spray pesticides on over 175.5 million acres of farmland across the country, and there were over 200,000 agricultural-drone pilots.
Using drones for spraying pesticides is attractive for many countries around the world mainly for five reasons: (1) The topography or soil conditions do not allow the use of traditional ground sprayers or conventional agricultural aircraft, (2) airplanes and helicopters are not available or are too expensive to use. (3) drones more efficiently spray small, irregular-shaped fields which are the norm in most countries, (4) spray drones significantly reduce the risk of applicators being contaminated by the pesticides (backpack sprayers, which pose significant health risk to their users, are the most preferred spray equipment in many countries), and 5) lack of stringent regulations to operate spray drones.
In contrast, drone spraying is in its infancy in the United States because many of the reasons for adoption of drones in other countries don’t apply to US agriculture. We have large fields which makes use of sprayers with huge booms reaching 120 ft in length economically feasible. For example, the average area of agricultural land per farm entity in Japan is less than one-sixtieth of the average farm in the USA. The terrain in where agriculture is practiced in the USA is relatively flat conducive to using conventional manned aircraft or ground sprayers with large booms. However, the interest in using drones to spray pesticides is steadily increasing. According to the data provided by a leading company in the USA providing spray drone services, the number of acres they sprayed with drones increased from only 1,000 in year 2019 to near 200,000 acres in 2023. Ohio is ranked #2 among the top 10 States (slightly behind Iowa) in acres sprayed by this leading spray drone company. Major reasons for this increase include: 1) more frequent occurrence of wet grounds in the spring which prohibits operating traditional large ground spray equipment, 2) reduction in the number of conventional manned aircraft making the timely application of pesticides more difficult when ground conditions require aerial application, 3) recent technological advancements in spray drone designs are allowing operators cover larger areas per hour of operation, 4) FAA is approving exemption requests (such as maximum payload capacity, and night spraying) coming from drone operators at a much faster pace, and 5) cost of using spray drones compared to ground spraying is becoming extremely competitive and even lower in some areas.
A newly-revised OSU Fact Sheet (FABE-540) entitled “Drones for Spraying Pesticides—Opportunities and Challenges” expands on why spray drones may be the choice for aerial spraying, the challenges that reduce their usage by pesticide applicators, recent developments in spray drones, operating characteristics of spray drones, and best spraying practices when using drones. This publication is available free of charge from Ohio State University Extension at https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/fabe-540
-
You Are Invited to Participate! Innovation and Technology in Agriculture Survey
We are looking to understand your perspectives on innovation, technology, and data in agriculture. Your responses will help us to direct our research activities towards areas that are more likely to help you. We’re interested in your viewpoints on drones, nutrient management, and how you manage your data. Your participation in this research will help us learn how you think about technologies that can improve your farming operations. It should take 5 - 10 minutes to complete. Your participation is voluntary. Click <here> to take the survey.
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 an accessible format of this publication, visit cfaes.osu.edu/accessibility.