C.O.R.N. Newsletter 2011-42

Dates Covered: 
December 20, 2011 - January 10, 2012
Editor: 
David Dugan

New Rootworm Bt Trait from Syngenta

A few weeks ago Syngenta announced it has named its next-generation corn rootworm trait, and that it will be called Agrisure Duracade.   This trait is based on Event 5307 and contains the protein eCry3.1Ab.  This gene binds differently in the gut of rootworm insects from previously released Cry proteins for rootworm control such as Agrisure RW (mCry3A).  By combining this new trait with Agrisure RW, products will become available that offer dual modes of action against the highly destructive pest.  It should be noted that this new protein for rootworm is NOT a Vip gene that was released within the past couple of years for second generation control of corn borers.  It is still a Cry protein, but with a different mode of action. 

In Syngenta’s naming system for products, hybrids containing this protein will be called Agrisure Duracade 5xxx, the new trait being considered their 5th series of technologies (3xxx being Viptera hybrids and 4xxx being their new water optimization [drought tolerant) hybrids which are coming in the future).   The first hybrid will be Agrisure Duracade 5222, which will be a trait stack offering multiple genes for both above ground and also below ground insects.  Of note, even though it will be a series “5” product because of the Duracade protein, it will also contain the Vip3A gene for borer control (as mentioned, Vip hybrids are usually part of the 3xxx series). 

Event 5307 is not currently approved for sale or use in the United States, and is not being offered for sale.  When fully deregulated by EPA, it is anticipated that these products will then become available as early as 2014.

Phytophthora Results Have Been Added to 2011 Performance Trial

Resistance to Phytophthora sojae is probably one of the biggest success stories in soybean breeding and development, at one time many lines were very highly susceptible.  For varieties with no resistance there will be 100% loss on the heavy Phytophthora ground in much of the region, which occurred during the late 60’s and again in the late 70’s.  Management has been accomplished by utilizing both single gene mediated resistance as well as partial resistance (also called tolerance in some companies).  A single gene that is effective will give total control, and no root rot loss.  While for partial resistance, some disease does develop.  Partial resistance (also called tolerance or field resistance in the industry) has a range of levels (see Figure 1), from moderately susceptible (scores in this performance trial of 6 to 7); moderately resistant (scores of 4 to 5) and high levels of partial resistance (3).  Note, every company has a different scoring system so it is necessary to get out the magnifying glass and read the very small fine print from every seed company.

Only 124 entries were tested for resistance to Phytophthora sojae, and the results are posted at http://oardc.osu.edu/soy2011.  This test requires seed that has not been treated, and only these entries had extra seed shipped in to evaluate for resistance.  Lines that were not tested have a dash (--) in the cell.  The first test was to assess what Rps gene is present.  This was accomplished through a series of inoculations with different isolates (races) of Phytophthora sojae.  Each of these has a different pathotype or virulence formulae.  The first inoculations are with an isolate designated race 1.  All of the known Rps genes are effective against this isolate.  If a plant is susceptible, then it has no Rps genes, and these were designated as none.

The next isolates we used were race 3 (recognizes 1a); race 4 (recognizes 1a and 1c); race 25 (recognizes 1a, 1b, 1c, 1k); race 7 (1a, 3a, 6, 7); OH1.S.1.1 (1a, 1b, 1k, 3a, 3c, 4, 5, 6, 7).  Using these we can assess what the genes are in each line.  For example, if an entry is resistant to race 3, but susceptible to race 4 and race 25, it has the Rps1c gene.  If an entry was susceptible to all of the isolates, then it has the Rps1a gene.  For the 2011 trials more than 13% of the entries evaluated have a 2 or novel gene stack.  Approximately half of these have the Rps1k & Rps3a combination.  Having 2-genes in a variety gives the plant more of a chance, as not all isolates within a field will be able to cause infection on both genes.    These 2-gene packages combined with partial resistance are the highest levels of resistance now available on the market.  Almost 20% of the entries had no Rps gene or the Rps1a.  Rps1a has not been effective in Ohio for a long time, this pathogen is unusual in some respects as it does not forget or lose virulence in field populations.  However, among this group of entries, almost all have high and moderate levels of partial resistance.  Those with the highest levels of partial resistance will perform very effectively in our soils.  Those who farm the heavy ground should avoid those lines with none or Rps1a, and very low levels of partial resistance (Table 1).

Anne Dorrance Partial Resistance

We were able to test 95 entries for their levels of partial resistance.  We are still testing those with the 2 gene combinations, and those experiments will be completed in January.  In this year’s analysis of the entries for partial resistance, the news is very encouraging.  More than 20% of the lines we evaluated had the highest levels of partial resistance.  This level of resistance is equal to Conrad, which this last year, under heavy disease pressure, yielded as much as the super gene stack in several locations.  There are now more choices for those producers that deal with Phytophthora root rot on an annual basis. (Figure 2).

Anne Dorrance Number of Varieties

 

Table 1.  Summary of resistance gene and partial resistance levels for entries in the 2011 Ohio Soybean Performance trials.

 

 

No. of entries with different levels of Partial Resistance

Rps Gene

No. of entries

3.0-3.9

4.0-5.9

6.0-7.9

8.0-9.0

none

14

1

12

1

0

Rps1a

7

1

5

1

0

Rps1c

49

16

27

5

0

Rps1k

26

3

20

3

0

Rps3a

5

nd

nd

nd

nd

Rps1k & Rps3a

8

nd

nd

nd

nd

2-Gene

8

nd

nd

nd

nd

 ‘nd’ indicates that experiments are still in progress

Properly Applying Manure on Frozen Ground

Livestock producers across Ohio and the Midwest have been unable to apply manure this fall and early winter due to saturated field conditions. Most livestock farmers are really pressed for manure storage room. Waiting for frozen ground to apply manure is likely to be their only available option.

Decisions about spreading manure on frozen and snow covered ground are critical to minimize water quality impacts. Now is not the time to shirk on proper application methods. Constant changes in weather are typical of winters in Ohio which increases the potential for manure to move with surface run-off. Run-off can lead to polluting water resources including streams, waterways, and wells. Not only does this impact water quality but the nutrients are lost and not available for the next year’s crop.

The USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Practice Standard 633, Waste Utilization outlines the Best Management Practice to reduce the potential of manure moving off-site. This Practice Standard will also help producers recycle nutrients more efficiently reducing the need for commercial fertilizer. Although Best Management Practices can help reduce the risk of pollution, one must keep in mind that the potential for manure run-off increases during winter application. This is why winter application of manure is not recommended and should only be done as a last resort.           

When manure is applied on frozen or snow-covered soils, only enough manure should be applied to address storage limitations and only when ALL of the following criteria are met:

·         Application rates are limited to 10 wet tons/acre for solid manure more than 50% moisture and 5 wet tons for manure less than 50% moisture. For liquid manure the application rate is limited to 5,000 gallons/acre.

·         Applications are to be made on land with at least 90% surface residue cover (e.g. good quality hay or pasture field, all corn grain residues remaining after harvest, all wheat residue cover remaining after harvest, well established cover crop).

·         Manure shall not be applied on more than 20 contiguous acres. Each 20 acre block should be separated by a break of at least 200 feet.

·         Utilize fields which are furthest from streams, ditches, waterways, surface inlets, etc. and are least likely to have manure move in a concentrated flow toward and into our water resources.

·         Increase the application setback distance to a minimum of 200 feet from environmentally sensitive areas and areas of concentrated flow such as grassed waterways, surfaced drainage ditches, streams, surface inlets, and water bodies. This distance may need to be greater when local conditions warrant (e.g. – fields with more slope).

·         For ODA permitted facilities and CLMs, setbacks should be 300 feet from wells and residences.

·         Manure applied on frozen or snow covered ground should not exceed the nitrogen need of the next growing crop, or the crop removal rate for P2O5 for the next crop (not to exceed 250 lbs/ac), or the crop K2O needs (not to exceed 500 lbs/ac) or 10 wet tons < 50% moisture; 5 wet tons > 50% moisture; or 5,000 gallons of liquid manure per acre. Application rates are based upon the most limiting of these options.

For fields with slopes greater than 6%, manure should be applied in alternating strips 60 to 200 feet wide generally on the contour, or in the case of contour strips, on alternating strips at rates identified above. Application rates, and cover and set-back requirements also apply.

Winter application should not be part of a manure management plan and it should only be viewed as a last resort. Remember that if manure application during winter is necessary, preplanning to avoid fields where potential run-off could enter water passages will reduce pollution.

Some states have prohibited manure application on frozen or snow-covered ground but it is still an option with very careful management in Ohio. More information on winter manure application can be located through you local SWCD, NRCS, or OSU Extension offices or the USDA-NRCS, Practice Standard 633. Visit http://oema.osu.edu for additional manure management information.

 

Transgenic Products Evaluated in the 2011 Ohio Corn Performance Test

There were 11 transgenic (GMO) seed technologies or products evaluated in the 2011 Ohio Corn Performance Test (OCPT) (Table 1). More than 90% of the hybrid entries in the 2011 OCPT contained transgenic traits for Bt insect resistance and/or herbicide tolerance (Table 1). Nearly 80% of the entries contained three or more transgenic traits providing protection for both above ground (e.g. European corn borer) and/or below ground (e.g. rootworm) insects, in addition to glyphosate and/or glufosinate herbicide tolerance. Many of these contained multiple Bt toxins for both corn borer and rootworm (SmartStax, Genuity VT Double Pro, Genuity VT Triple Pro, Optimum AcreMax, and Agrisure 3122) which allow a reduced refuge requirement.

Some of the transgenic products shown in Table 1 provide suppression of other economically important insects in Ohio (e.g. black cutworm, corn earworm). For more details on insects controlled, or suppressed by various Bt toxins, in addition to events associated with transgenic traits, refuge requirements, etc. consult the “Handy Bt Trait Table” available online at http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/cullenlab/extension/xtras/PDFs/Handy_Bt_Trait_Table.pdf

According to the USDA-Economic Research Service (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/biotechcrops/ ) in 2011, 74% of Ohio’s corn acreage was planted to GMO (transgenic corn hybrids (37% of total acreage planted to stacked trait hybrids, 13% to herbicide tolerant hybrids, and 24% to some type of Bt hybrid). The acreage of corn planted to non-transgenic hybrids (26%) was greater in Ohio than any other major corn producing state in the US in 2011. Of the 248 hybrid entries in the 2011 OCPT, 20 were non-transgenic (non-GMO).

2011 Ohio Corn Performance Test results are now available online at:

http://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/corntrials/

Hybrids can be sorted by yield, brand, and transgenic traits online. 

Table 1. Transgenic products evaluated in the 2011 Ohio Corn Performance Test

 

Product

Major Insect Targets1

Herbicide Tolerance2

# of

 Hybrids

Non-GMO (non-transgenic, Clearfield)

 

 

20

Roundup Ready

 

RR

1

Agrisure GT

 

GT

3

Genuity VT Double PRO (VT2P)

ECB

RR

9

YieldGard VT Triple (VT3)

ECB, RW

RR

24

Genuity VT Triple Pro (VT3P)

ECB, RW

RR

73

Herculex 1 Roundup Ready

ECB

RR, LL

20

Herculex Xtra Roundup Ready

ECB, RW

RR, LL

25

Agrisure 3000GT

ECB, RW

GT, LL

37

Agrisure VIP3111

ECB, RW

GT, LL

4

Optimum AcreMax1

ECB, RW

GT, LL

4

Genuity SmartStax

ECB, RW

GT, LL

27

Total Hybrid Entries

 

 

248

1 ECB – European corn borer; RW – rootworm

2 RR – Roundup Ready; GT – glyphosate tolerant; LL – glusofinate tolerant

 

Reference

Chris DiFonzo and Cullen,Eileen. 2011. Handy Bt Trait Table. Wisconsin Crop Manager University of Wisconsin. Available at URL: http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/cullenlab/extension/xtras/PDFs/Handy_Bt_Trait_Table.pdf (updated Oct. 2011)

2011 Tobacco Market Much Better Than 2010

The wet year of 2011 has been a challenge for farmers throughout Ohio.  Everyone from grain farmers who struggled to get the crop planted and eventually harvested, to cattle producers who struggled to get hay made in a timely fashion.  Tobacco farmers struggled with getting the crop in the ground and harvested, too.  However, 2011 has proved to be a much better year for curing the crop in the barns.  The dry fall of 2010 caused the crop to be of very poor quality, causing much of the crop to be turned away when delivered to the market.  The yield in 2011 suffered some due to the excessive rainfall, but the quality has made the crop desirable to the buyers.

 

Agronomic Meetings in January

A variety of Agronomic Meetings will be held across the state January through March. Below is a sampling of some of the events and you will want to check back as we update the calendar over the next week at https://agcrops.osu.edu/calendar.

January 5
OABA & OSU Crop Production Conference
Fawcett Center on OSU Columbus Campus

January 9
West Ohio Agronomy Day-Daytime Session
St. Michael’s Hall in Ft. Loramie, OH

January 9
West Ohio Agronomy Day-Evening Session
St. Michael’s Hall in Ft. Loramie, OH

January 18
Certified Crop Adviser (CCA) Exam Training Session
Shelby County Extension Office, 810 Fair Road, Sidney, OH

January 26
Corn/Soybean Day
Founder’s Hall at Sauder Village 22611 St. Rt. 2 Archbold, Ohio

January 31
Ohio Pesticide Commercial Applicator Recertification Conferences 2012
Kalahari Conference Center and Resort, Sandusky, Ohio
Recertification opportunity for Ohio Commercial license holders.

West Ohio Agronomy Day January 9th

The January 9, 2012 West Ohio Agronomy Day program will be conducted in the recently remodeled and spacious St. Michael's Hall in Ft. Loramie. The program offers multiple speakers and subjects targeting the information needs of farmers and Certified Crop Advisers.

-          Ag Engineer Dr. Scott Shearer on precision ag for guidance and auto shutoffs

-           Purdue's Dr. Fred Whitford, “The Impact of Water Quality on Pesticide Performance”

-          USDA-NRCS's George Derringer digging into soil health

-          OSU Entomologist Dr. Andy Michel for insect control guidelines

-          Jon Rausch OSU Extension - the 4 R's of fertilization and storage guidelines for manure

-          Extension Agronomist Harold Watters - dealing with the toughest weed populations

-          Justin Petrosino, M.S. CCA – will offer disease control solutions from seed selection to in-season management

-          Choosing an aerial applicator – Agriflite’s pilot Ray Cunningham

-          Brother Nick Renner to update the audience on Grand Lake St. Marys

-          Grain marketers from Cargill and Trupointe Cooperative during both the daytime and evening programs will talk grain pricing

If you just want to come for the information, pre-register by January 5 for $5, January 6 and after for $10, all to be paid at the door on January 9.  Email watters.35@osu.edu or call 937.484.1526 to register. The program starts at 8:30 a.m. for the all day session, or 5:30 p.m. for the evening. Click here for the agenda: https://agcrops.osu.edu/links/2012ShelbyAgronomyDaySchedule.pdf/view.

Registration for private pesticide re-certification credits can be obtained by going on-line at http://pested.osu.edu to either register with a credit card, or download the registration form to pay by check, before December 31, 2011 ($35).

Archive Issue Contributors: 
Archive Issue Authors: 

About the C.O.R.N. Newsletter

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.