CFAES Give Today
Agronomic Crops Network

Ohio State University Extension


C.O.R.N. Newsletter 2009-23

Dates Covered: 
July 21, 2009 - July 28, 2009
Howard J. Siegrist

Corn Shorter than Normal this Year?

Authors: Peter Thomison

Some Ohio farmers are reporting that corn plants are shorter than normal this year. While I believe slower development of corn due to reduced heat unit accumulation is fairly common across the state, I don’t think “short” corn is widespread but probably localized in certain areas of the state, e.g. east-central Ohio.

What would account for these shorter plants and will “shorter” corn have good yields? The following information, which is adapted from newsletter articles by Dr. Dale Hicks, former corn extension specialist at the University of Minnesota, and Dr. Bob Nielsen, corn extension specialist at Purdue University, addresses these questions.

Why are plants shorter? Periods of cool temperatures in recent weeks are the most likely cause of reduced plant heights. Plants grow in height as cells in the internodes enlarge. When the temperature is low, cells don’t grow as big, so internodes are shorter and the plant is shorter compared with normal for the rest of the growing season. (cold temperatures may increase the rigidity of basal internode cell walls, thus limiting cell expansion and internode elongation.) So plants will never catch up in height. Leaves will also be smaller than normal for the same reason. But the leaves on the corn plant now (the first 6 that develop) slough from the plant as the plant grows. And the next few leaves (7 to 10) are on the bottom of the plant after tasseling and do not contribute significantly to grain development, so leaf size for the leaves on the corn plant now should not affect grain yield. The upper leaves that are growing now in size are the ones that will have the greatest impact on yield.

New leaves are initiated from the growing point with about 3 ½ days between the initiations of each leaf. All of the leaves are initiated while the corn plants are very small. Cool temperatures extend the time interval between leaves. The growing point shifts from initiating leaves to tassel because of the night length which is not affected by the cool weather, so there may be 1 to 2 fewer leaves that develop on corn plants this year due to the cooler temperatures that we have already had. A plant with fewer leaves is another cause of shorter plants.

Will shorter plant heights adversely affect yields? Probably not, unless the short height is dramatic enough to significantly reduce canopy cover and harvest of sunlight (and also allow for greater weed competition.) Some early maturity hybrids are shorter than full season hybrids and yield less, so we associate lower yields with smaller plants. Plant size is the “factory” for producing yield so one might expect higher yield potential from larger, taller plants. However, short plants of a given hybrid should produce yields comparable to taller plants of the same hybrid unless the height difference is caused by nutrient deficiency or moisture stress (too much or too little). With regard to short plants observed this year, the height difference is probably due to shorter internodes rather than a major stress and should not affect yield. In planting date trials, late-April planted corn is often shorter than corn planted in May, but produces higher yields so the shorter corn plants we have should not reduce yield potential. A benefit from shorter plants (vs. taller plants) may be reduced risk of stalk lodging due to the lower center of gravity.

Hicks, D. 2004. Corn Comments. Minnesota Crop News. Available at .

Nielsen, R.L. 2001. Short corn at tasseling. Corny News Network, Purdue Univ. Available at .

Mid-Season Soybean Diseases - It's Time to Scout

Authors: Dennis Mills, Anne Dorrance

Conditions across the state are quite different this year – and those with no rain in the past 10 days have other things to worry about. But for those that have gotten rains, this creates the perfect conditions for soybean diseases to develop. Soybean diseases need the 3 things: a susceptible variety, favorable environment which typically means wet soaking rains and inoculum.

The symptoms of Sclerotinia stem rot also known as white mold are a white cottony growth on the main stem, which girdles the plants and causes premature death. Fields with a previous history of Sclerotinia stem rot, and that have a thick canopy, have received substantial rains over the past week, and have started to flower are prone to infection this year from Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. This is a fungal disease of soybeans, in which the fungus survives in the soil as sclerotia. When wet conditions persist, small mushrooms, apothecia form on the ground and their spores land on aging flowers, from there the infection begins. There is resistance to white mold so if a susceptible variety was planted – for high value soybeans such as seed beans it is time to treat with a fungicide, Topsin M. Last week in a field that had high levels of Sclerotinia stem rot we found apothecia (spore bearing structures). Cool nights and high levels of moisture favor fungal development and subsequent infections of this soybean pathogen.

Frogeye leaf spot has been reported in a couple of counties on highly susceptible varieties. Frogeye leaf spot is caused by another fungus, Cercospora sojina and it forms gray lesions surrounded by a deep purple margin. Under high moisture conditions, on the underside of the leaf – in the lesion, the spores, conidia can be seen with a hand lens. Frogeye has become important in the past few years due to widespread planting of a super susceptible cultivar as well as warmer winter temperatures which have allowed this fungus to survive Ohio winters. Frogeye is an interesting disease in that it infects new leaves and older leaves do not become susceptible. This fungus also requires a long period of leaf wetness and it takes 7 to 10 days for symptoms to develop post-infection –The best return on fungicide applications occurred when there was at least one frogeye lesion every 25 to 30’ of row and rains continued throughout the summer.

The risk of soybean rust is still low for Ohio. No soybean rust has been found in all of our sentinel plots and spore traps as well as numerous other fields that we monitor. The soybean rust website ( you will see that rust is present in Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. Texas is experiencing a severe drought.

Fungicide applications for other foliar diseases or other reasons have not been profitable in Ohio. From 2004 to 2008, we evaluated Quadris, Headline, Folicur and Domark applications at the R3 (when a pod is 3/8 inch long in one of the top 4 nodes on the plant) and found that without disease, there was not an economic return. Of the 29 separate on-farm trials only 5 had significantly higher yields than the non-treated. Of the 5 fields only 3 were greater that 4 bu/A. These 3 all had foliar diseases. Using and deploying IPM principles will greatly help ensure that extra costs of applications will not be wasted. These results are similar to other land-grant university studies. See the following summaries and comments from these states and Canada:

Iowa State Integrated Crop Newsletter -

University of Kentucky Pest News -

University of Nebraska Crop Watch Newsletter -

Purdue Pest & Crop Newsletter -

University of Illinois crop/pest Bulletin -

For remainder of website links, you can copy and paste into your URL:

Penn State Field Crop News -

Michigan State Field Crop Advisory Team Alert -

University of Wisconsin Crop Manager -

CropPest Ontario -

Leaf Cupping and Wrinkling in Soybeans

Authors: Robert Mullen, Mark Loux

We have received a number of calls about cupping or wrinkling of soybean leaves, and it seems that this has become an annual issue in much of the Corn Belt. Some of the symptoms are undoubtedly due to drift or volatility of herbicides due to the many windy days this year, but some are undoubtedly due to other problems as well. A number of factors can cause these symptoms, and it can be difficult to pinpoint the exact cause. Some additional information on this issue follows. There is also a fact sheet with color photos available from the University of Wisconsin, “Dicamba Injury to Soybeans”, which can be downloaded from: .

One of the first herbicides to get blamed in many fields is dicamba, which may have been applied in a nearby corn field. Products containing dicamba include Banvel, Clarity, Marksman, Celebrity Plus, Northstar, Status, Yukon, and numerous generic products. Exposure of soybeans to low concentrations of dicamba through drift or volatility, or even dicamba residues in spray tanks may be the culprit in some fields. The potential for volatility varies among these products, but all can drift if applied during windy conditions. However, many of the affected fields seem to be far enough away from treated corn fields, or dicamba was not used in the area, and this possibility can be ruled out. The most typical symptoms from exposure of soybeans to dicamba are puckering of the new leaves that are emerging 7 to 10 days after exposure. This may be accompanied by stunting of the plant. Soybeans may show these symptoms on several trifoliates, and then recover completely. Spray particle drift from Distinct and Status application often causes more severe symptoms than dicamba alone, due to the diflufenzopyr component of Distinct. However, there is little risk of volatilization of diflufenzopyr, while dicamba can volatilize readily depending upon formulation and temperature.

Research indicates that soybean yield is not generally reduced when minor symptoms occur, and yield loss is more likely if soybeans are in the reproductive stage at the time of exposure (although still unlikely unless symptoms are severe). Our research with postemergence soybean herbicides indicates that soybeans can tolerate considerable early-season injury with little or no impact on yield, when rainfall and other environmental conditions are generally favorable for crop growth after the injury has occurred. Yield loss seems to be most likely when herbicides are applied after about the beginning of July, and soybeans are small at the time of application (which might occur from late planting or poor early-season growing conditions). Where this has occurred, soybeans may not recover well enough to attain the size needed for maximum yield potential.

Over the past decade, we have heard reports of and observed fields where leaf puckering or cupping was uniform over the entire field. Other fields have shown symptoms only in some areas. In OSU research plots, we have occasionally observed puckering in Roundup Ready soybeans following application of glyphosate. Spider mites and leafhopper have been known to cause cupping and wrinkling of soybean leaves. Many of the fields with puckering were previously treated with a postemergence herbicide other than glyphosate. ALS-inhibiting herbicides seem to be most often used in fields with the symptoms, but other herbicides have also been used. One working theory about these symptoms - when the postemergence herbicide causes injury to the terminal buds on soybeans, apical dominance is altered, and plant hormones are redistributed within the plant. The result is the appearance of injury that is similar to that from plant growth regulator herbicides (dicamba, 2,4-D). New shoots may occur at nodes below the injured zone, the plant may take on more of a bushy appearance, and leaves may be wrinkled and cupped. However, most of the fields have not exhibited the increased "bushiness" that might occur if apical dominance was lost.

While herbicides may be responsible for some of the puckering, cupping, and wrinkling that has been observed, we suspect that environmental conditions and soybean variety may have a significant role. This is based on the observation of uniform cupping in fields where no postemergence herbicide was used. Some varieties may be more likely to show symptoms than others. We have not been able to come up with a good explanation for this phenomenon, but cool weather conditions have been identified as a possible contributing factor ( Soybean puckering has also been observed during periods of rapid growth ( Soybean leaf cupping has not been found to be the result of any nutritional imbalance or deficiency.

The good news is that leaf cupping and wrinkling generally should not affect yields, and soybeans generally compensate well from other herbicide-related problems given enough time and moisture.

For additional information, Penn State University has recently published an article on soybean cupping online at .

Glyphosate and Phosphorus

Authors: Keith Diedrick, Robert Mullen

There was a recent article in the Columbus Dispatch discussing the concerns with glyphosate application, and the risk of phosphorus transport to surface waters specifically in the Lake Erie Basin region of our state (actually they reference a recent publication called TwineLine (Brannan, 2009)). In the TwineLine article, they report that over 1000 metric tons of glyphosate is applied annually in the Lake Erie Basin that potentially represents a threat to water quality in the region. The original publication in TwineLine does report that researchers at Bowling Green State University have discovered that the phosphonate (which is different than phosphate) portion of the glyphosate molecule can be utilized by the blue-green algae found in Lake Erie. Since this issue has been raised as a concern, we thought we would run some calculations to determine the extent of the potential threat.

Allowing for their assumption, that 1,000 metric tons of glyphosate is applied annually, we will determine the amount of actual P applied per acre in the Lake Erie Basin. Let us first discuss how much P is contained in glyphosate. The chemical formula for glyphosate itself is C3H8NO5P, but it is applied in a few different salt formulations (potassium, isopropylamine, or diammonium). Based upon some straightforward math, the P concentration in a glyphosate application is approximately 15% (it does depend upon the actual formulation, but this is close enough for our sake). So of the 1,000 metric tons of glyphosate applied annually, roughly 15% of that is actual P (as phosphonate). Converting 1,000 metric tons to pounds, producers apply 2.2 million pounds of glyphosate every year. That works out to be 330,000 pounds of P (in phosphonate form) applied. That may seem like a lot, but one needs to realize that there are approximately 3.7 million acres that potentially would receive glyphosate application (number of corn/soybean acres in the Lake Erie Basin). (Also realize that the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District releases 365,000 pounds of P every year to Lake Erie (Ohio Phosphorus Task Force, 2007)). Assuming that every acre in the Basin that grows corn and soybeans receives glyphosate (not every acre does, but there are other acres that likely will), it works out to slightly less than 0.1 pounds per acre. This also assumes that all the glyphosate applied is not taken up for the job of killing plants, so this is a worst case scenario. Inclusion of an estimate of the amount of glyphosate actually absorbed would decrease this amount substantially.

The question is does this represent a significant threat to water quality? The answer is it depends (like most Extension questions). If glyphosate is applied in such a fashion that the risk of transport is great, e.g. it is applied near a surface water body, than yes it can be a potential threat. Glyphosate applied away from the field edge is unlikely to leach (the exception being preferential flow through macropores) due to its ability to be adsorbed by the soil. It is also unlikely to be transported by runoff (unless it is transported with soil) in large amounts. The overall risk of phosphorus as a potential contaminant from glyphosate applications appears to be relatively small.

Ohio Phosphorus Task Force. 2007. Available at .

Brannan, S. 2009. Rounding Up the Evidence. TwineLine 31(1):11. Available at .

Tissue Sampling and Management Decisions

Authors: Edwin Lentz, Robert Mullen, Keith Diedrick

Tissue testing is a great way to measure and test nutrient management during the growing season. Tissue testing may be a diagnostic tool for verifying visual deficiency symptoms and also a method to compare different soil fertility programs.

The optimum time to measure nutrient levels in a plant is at or just before nutrient demand is high and before the crop starts moving nutrients to and from the leaves. This time is at initial silking in corn (R1) and initial flowering in soybeans (also stage R1). Select the tissue that has the greatest demand for nutrients at this time: the leaf attached to the ear for corn and the uppermost fully-expanded trifoliate in soybeans. Contact the lab for specific instructions on the number of leaves necessary, shipping instructions, and reporting methods. Randomly select leaves from areas that are representative of the field, and send them to a reputable lab that analyzes plant samples. A list of companies that analyze plant samples may be found at the following web address: .

If verifying an area of suspected nutrient deficiency, a sample of nearby healthy-looking tissue and soils for both areas will be helpful for comparison purposes. More insight on the current crop (and growing season) will be gained this way, as well as guide future fertility decisions in subsequent seasons. Lab results may be used to see if specific nutrients are within the sufficient or marginal categories, these categories may be found on page 30 of the Ohio Agronomy Guide or at the following web address: .

During years with weather extremes (too dry or too wet) tissue testing should be used with an understanding that the findings are going to be strongly influenced by the growing season. For example, we have had several reports of K deficiency symptoms in soybeans, some of which in fields with more than sufficient K reported in recent soil tests. If the soil test shows adequate potash levels for crop growth, but the tissue test shows a potassium deficiency – adding more potash to the soil will not correct the problem in the season or necessarily prevent it from occurring next season. Environmental factors may often be the cause of levels below the sufficiently range, such as drought or excess rainfall. In some cases, leaves collected too late may have values below the sufficiency range. If induced by environmental conditions, the deficiency symptom(s) will most likely disappear when adequate growing conditions return.

Spraying Early for Soybean Aphid and the PHI

Authors: Bruce Eisley, Andy Michel, Ron Hammond

We are beginning to hear of growers thinking about including an insecticide for preventive control of soybean aphids into their fungicide or late herbicide applications. We highly advise against this approach. These insecticide sprays can kill off the beneficial insects that might later help to keep a low population of migrating soybean aphids below economic levels. Other states have seen scenarios where early insecticide sprays resulted in much higher aphid populations than expected later in the summer. At best, you will only get a week or two of residual activity from some of the insecticides. At worst, because of the lack of beneficials, you might have to later repeat insecticide applications whereas a timelier, single application would have been sufficient. We highly recommend an IPM approach, only spraying when the economic threshold or action level is reached, which is 250 soybean aphids per plant with a rising population.

We have also had reports of some dealers saying that the PHI, or pre-harvest interval, is the length of residual activity that you can expect from an insecticide. This is TOTALLY wrong! The PHI is the time period from when you put on an insecticide until you can harvest. It has nothing to do with the residual activity against insects. It is the reason why you need to be so careful when choosing insecticides as you get nearer you get to harvest so that you do not have to wait extra time until harvest. To illustrate how erroneous this idea is, permethrin, which is labeled for many soybean defoliators (it is not labeled for soybean aphids but is used to illustrate the problem), has a 60 day PHI on soybeans. However, permethrin, which is sold under various names, only has a few days of residual activity against insects. Permethrin was one of the first pyrethroids developed, and one of its main advantages, or disadvantages, depending on the situation, is its relatively short residual activity. Sixty (60) days is how long you have to wait after you apply permethrin before you can harvest the soybeans. Do not be fooled by someone telling you that the PHI relates to the length of insect control.

Spraying Soybean with Insecticides During the Flowering Stages

Authors: Bruce Eisley, Andy Michel, Ron Hammond

Growers and custom applicators should be aware of the need to protect bees when spraying soybeans for insect pests during the flowering stages. Remember that most insecticides have a caution statement on their label about spraying around bees and blooming crops. The typical statement is: “This product is highly toxic to bees exposed to direct treatment or residues on blooming crops or weeds. Do not apply this product or allow it to drift to blooming crops or weeds if bees are actively visiting the treatment area”.

The Ohio Department of Agriculture addresses this concern under Regulatory Divisions & Programs, Plant Industry Division, Pesticide Regulations, Law and Statues, Plant Industry 901:5.

901:5-11-02 restrictions

(B) No person shall:

(15) Apply or cause to be applied any pesticide that is required to carry a special warning on its label indicating that it is toxic to honey bees, over an area of one-half acre or more in which the crop-plant is in flower unless the owner or caretaker of any apiary located within one-half mile of the treatment site has been notified by the person no less than twenty-four hours in advance of the intended treatment; provided the apiary is registered and identified as required by section ( 909.02 of the Revised Code of Ohio, and that the apiary has been posted with the name and telephone number of the owner or responsible caretaker.

(16) Apply pesticides which are hazardous to honey bees at times when pollinating insects are actively working in the target area; however, application of calyx sprays on fruits and other similar applications may be made.

We continue to advise that growers and applicators maintain good communications with bee keepers near their fields to prevent and limit unintended problems. A listing of registered apiaries can be obtained from the Ohio Department of Agriculture. The website is . The list can be requested via e-mail to the address at: .

Below are some specific recommendations for environmental and pesticide factors that will lessen the potential for injury to bees.

1) Drift of pesticide not only can injury non-target plants but bees or other insects located within the canopy of non-target plants. Follow all precautions related to drift such as wind speed, direction identifying risk potential of neighboring crops. Recently we have seen more fields with filter strips or other conservation areas along borders. Plants in these border areas may be in bloom and harboring foraging bees. Drift or spray overlay has the potential to cause injury to bees and should be considered in pesticide applications.

2) Timing of application can limit bee injury. Applications in the evening or early morning are generally best. Bees are less active at these times of the day. Other times when the blooms are less attractive and lower bee activity are acceptable as well.

3) Formulations of pesticides will make an impact on toxicity. Dust and wettable powders are more toxic than emulsifiable concentrates. Ultra low volume applications versus a regular application are generally more toxic. No repellents can be added to tank mixes that will keep bees away from treated areas.

4) Toxicity of pesticides can differ. Most pesticide have been tested with bees in laboratory settings. Keep in mind there can be differences in field results versus laboratory results due to environmental factors as well as the sensitivity difference in populations of bees. Because any sprays going on at this time will be done to soybeans in the flowering stages, R1-R2, remember the caution needed to protect bees.

Insect Silk Clipping in Corn

Authors: Bruce Eisley, Andy Michel, Ron Hammond

With corn silks emerging, we expect to begin seeing silk clipping by corn rootworm and Japanese beetle adults. Rescue treatment for rootworm beetle silk clipping is warranted if 5 or more rootworm beetles are found per silk mass, 75% of the plants have silked, and silk clipping to 1/4 inch or less is observed. For more information on corn rootworm, see our new fact sheet on rootworms at . For Japanese beetles, rescue treatment is warranted if there are 3 or more beetles per silk mass and pollination has not occurred. See and for a list of insecticides for corn rootworm and Japanese beetle adults, respectively.

Western Bean Cutworm Catches Still on the Rise

Authors: Bruce Eisley, Ron Hammond, Andy Michel

A short update on the WBC situation. We already have surpassed our total count from last year. We are up to 162 with about 3-4 more weeks to go. An updated map can be found on our website at: . As more of our corn reaches the tassel stage, scouting for eggs and larvae will be very critical this week.

Soybean Defoliators

Authors: Bruce Eisley, Andy Michel, Ron Hammond

We need to remind growers of the various defoliators that are making their presence known in soybeans, including Japanese beetle adults, first generation bean leaf beetle adults, Mexican bean beetle adults, green cloverworm larvae, and grasshoppers. In terms of defoliation, it would be unusual for any of the above mentioned insects alone to cause significant defoliation throughout a field. However, a complex of two or more might cause defoliation levels to rise above threshold levels. Remember you need to sample from numerous locations in the field to get a good idea of what is happening across the entire field. For fields with large populations of Japanese beetles, remember that these beetles will congregate; finding one Japanese beetle means you will usually find a lot of them in the same area. Thus, at least for this insect, you need to make an extra effort to sample from numerous locations in the field to get a better idea of what is happening across the whole field. Remember not to sample field edges; you need to get out into the field. Growers are advised to initiate scouting procedures over the next few weeks to prevent defoliation from reaching the 15-20% defoliation threshold during the reproductive growth stages, R1-R5. A list of labeled insecticides for control of all these soybean defoliators is available at .

2009 Field Crops Day

Authors: Alan Sundermeier

The 2009 Field Crops Day will be held July 30 at the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center's Northwest Agricultural Research Station near Hoytville, Ohio.

The field day, free and open to the public, will run from 9-11:30 a.m.

Featured topics and speakers include:

* "Production Economics: Budgeting Tools for Managing Input Costs and Determining Cash Rental Rates," Barry Ward, OSU Extension agricultural economist.

* "Field Crop Insect Concerns for 2009," Ron Hammond, OARDC and OSU Extension entomologist.

* "New Seed Technologies in Corn Production," Peter Thomison, OARDC and OSU Extension agronomist.

* "Nitrogen Management - Environmentally Stable Nitrogen," Ed Lentz, OSU Extension agriculture and natural resources educator.

For more information, contact Matt Davis at 419-257-2060 or .

The Northwest Agricultural Research Station is located 2.5 miles northeast of Hoytville at the corner of Oil Center and Range Line roads.

The Field Crops Day is sponsored by and .

2009 Central Ohio Agronomy Field Day

Authors: Howard Siegrist

The July 30, 2009 Central Ohio Agronomy Field Day offers an opportunity to assess the safety of poly tanks that are frequently used on farms and to transport liquid fertilizers and spray solutions. Not all poly tanks are created equal. There is a rating scale that determines the acceptable use of poly tanks and shuttles.

Fred Whitford of Purdue University will help you determine “Is your poly tank about to burst??” His demonstrations will help you evaluate tanks in use at home and confirm the safest ways to secure transport tanks on trailers and trucks.

OSU specialists in plant pathology and insect management will share “How regulators will verify your refuge in biotech crops?” In addition, Ron Hammond and Dennis Mills of OSU Extension will present status reports on soybean aphids, potato leafhopper, and prospects of stalk rots in corn, frogeye in soybeans, and track the movement of Western bean cutworm and the Variant Western bean rootworm.

In addition, stored grain insect identification and managing invasive non-cropland vegetation will be reviewed.

The program affords the opportunity to get three hours of private pesticide applicator recertification in core, grains, forages, non-cropland and stored grain or commercial license credit for one hour core and one hour of agronomic pests. The cost for the pesticide credit recertification is $15.00 per person.

The 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. program will be held at the David Miller Farm, 10750 Millersport Road, (located immediately south of Millersport in Fairfield County). Registration begins at 5:00 p.m. The only cost for the program is for pesticide credits. A meal will be provided. You must be present at 5:30 p.m. to secure full pesticide credits. Certified crop advisor credits will be offered for three hours of pest management.

The program is being sponsored by OSU Extension offices in Fairfield, Licking, Pickaway and Perry counties. Additional information is available from any of the above listed offices or on the web at:

Archive Issue Contributors: 

State Specialists: Anne Dorrance, Dennis Mills (Plant Pathology), Ron Hammond, Andy Michel, Bruce Eisley (Entomology), Peter Thomison, Mark Loux (Horticulture and Crop Sciences), Robert Mullen, Keith Diedrick (Soil Fertility). Extension Educators and Associates: Roger Bender (Shelby), Mike Gastier (Huron), Wes Haun (Logan), Jonah Johnson (Clark), Mark Koenig (Sandusky), Greg LaBarge (Fulton), Ed Lentz (Seneca), Les Ober (Geauga), Steve Prochaska (Crawford), Howard Siegrist (Licking), Alan Sundermeier (Wood), and Harold Watters (Champaign).

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.