As the days get shorter and the evenings brisk, the harvest season is just about finished. Still, some late-planted corn and double-crop soybeans are standing, but they will soon fall to the combine. Wheat, barley, triticale, and other cover crops have enjoyed the recent showers, and carpets of green now cover once barren harvested fields. Once the final tally is made, I suspect we will have had an average year, whatever that is. We have seen some good yields, and we have seen fields where the only reason the combine traverses the field is for a crop insurance calculation. As with every year before, most will put another log on the fire, sip some coffee, and pray for a better year in 2026. Farmers are the most optimistic lot on earth. Enjoy the holidays with family and friends. We will see you next season.—Jeff Semler, Washington Co.
Central Maryland
Corn and soybean harvest is complete. Sorghum harvest is almost complete. Some cover crops and small grains have been planted. We have gotten some rain this past week (up to half an inch); however, most of the region is still in a moderate drought.—Kelly Nichols, Montgomery Co.
Northern Maryland
Harvest ‘25 is all but finished; only a few acres of corn and some double crop soybeans remain. Corn yields were very strong despite some fairly significant disease pressure. Some instances of plants falling apart and lodging, but overall it was a big crop and a smooth harvest. Full season soybeans did not fare as well, likely due to the very dry August; however, double crop beans are yielding very well as they received September rain. Cover crop and small grain establishment looks very good, setting us up for great yield potential going into 2026.—Andy Kness, Harford Co.
Upper & Mid Shore
Corn and soybean harvests are just about wrapped up across the region, and most growers are reporting good to excellent yields. Wheat and cover crops planted this fall are off to a solid start, with decent moisture helping them establish well. The rains should help them put on enough root mass to overwinter effectively. Overall, this season treated us much better than last year, and hopefully we keep moving in the right direction heading into next year. All we can do now is hope.—Dwayne Joseph, Kent Co.
Lower Eastern Shore
Grain harvest is finishing earlier than typical, largely due to the dry weather this fall. Corn is approximately 90% harvested, and soybean 70%. Corn and soybean yields are average to below average, likely due to the droughts over the summer. Cover crops have been planted and are coming up nicely. Wheat has also been planted and off to a good start.—Sarah Hirsh, Somerset Co.
Southern Maryland
Most corn is off and farmers are working on finishing double crop bean harvest. Cover crop is in and looks good. Here is a recap of the 2025 season here in Southern Maryland. The area finally received a cold winter with a number of days in the single digits in January of 2025. Spring arrived with very good initial planting conditions. Rains slowed planting progress as we moved into May. Some areas never dried out, making for late planted corn and beans. We ended up with a split planting season- some early planted crops and many late. Striped rust on wheat made an appearance in late May. The wheat crop came off fast this year with excellent yields and good quality, though prices limited profitability. The region experienced a string of high temperatures towards the end of June and into July that stressed crops. Fortunately, the heat came with rain showers in time for pollination. Both beans and corn looked good entering the dog days of summer in late July. However as often is the case, the rains stopped with minimal precipitation throughout August and the first weeks of September. We received rains again in time for the County fair, but unfortunately much damage had already been done. Corn fared better than beans with reported yield at or above average. Beans made a lot of pods but just didn’t have the water to fill out. Double crop beans may out yield full season beans this year. The region had a good hay and pasture growth this year, with many opportunities to make good quality hay. On the vegetable front, the year turned out decent. Tomatoes struggled the most with the heat and intermittent rains causing issues with fruit set and quality resulting and very limited tomato stock in July and August. Peppers, watermelons, sweet corn, and other crops fared better. The cooler fall resulted in good catch up yields on most vegetable crops. The region had a phenomenal pumpkin season with great yields and quality.—Ben Beale, St. Mary’s Co.
Dale Johnson, Farm Business Management Specialist | dmj@umd.edu
University of Maryland Extension
Corn
This month’s 2025/26 U.S. corn outlook is for increases in supply, exports, and ending stocks. Total supply is 144 million bushels higher as larger beginning stocks are partially offset by lower production. Beginning stocks are 207 million bushels higher based on the September 30 Grain Stocks report. Corn production is forecast at 16.8 billion bushels, down 62 million from September on a 0.7-bushel reduction in yield to 186.0 bushels per acre. Harvested area for grain is unchanged at 90.0 million acres. Total use is up 100 million bushels reflecting a higher export forecast. Exports are raised 100 million bushels to 3.1 billion reflecting shipments to date. Inspection data imply exports set a monthly record during September and again in October. With supply rising more than use, corn ending stocks are up 44 million bushels to 2.154 billion. The season-average corn price received by producers is raised 10 cents to $4.00 per bushel.
Soybeans
Soybean production is forecast at 4.3 billion bushels, down 48 million, on lower yields. The soybean yield is projected down 0.5 bushels to 53.0 bushels per acre. Soybean supplies are projected to be 61 million bushels lower than the September forecast, due to lower beginning stocks from the September 30 Grain Stocks report and reduced production. U.S. soybean exports are forecast at 1.64 billion bushels, down 50 million from the previous forecast due to lower supplies and higher exports by Brazil and Argentina. In September, Argentina temporarily reduced export taxes leading to an influx of export registrations during the peak U.S. export season. Further, since the last report, the U.S. entered a trade deal with China, which led to higher U.S. prices and narrowed the price spread between U.S. and other major exporters. While U.S. soybean exports are expected to rise to China for the rest of the marketing year, these higher shipments could be offset by reductions to other markets where the United States no longer holds a large price discount compared to other exporters. U.S. soybean crush is unchanged and ending stocks are forecast down marginally. The U.S. season average soybean price for 2025/26 is raised $0.50 to $10.50 per bushel.
Wheat
The outlook for 2025/26 U.S. wheat this month is for larger supplies and higher ending stocks, with no change to use. Supplies are raised on greater production, up 58 million bushels to 1,985 million, on a record all wheat yield based on the September 30 Small Grains Summary. The season-average farm price is lowered $0.10 per bushel to $5.00 as larger global supplies reduce price expectations for the remainder of the marketing year.
Sarah Hirsh, Agriculture Agent | shirsh@umd.edu, Haley Sater, Dwayne Joseph, Shannon Dill, and Jennifer Rhodes
University of Maryland Extension
Cover crops can provide various benefits, such as building soil organic matter, scavenging nutrients, or controlling pests such as weeds. Maryland already leads the nation in having the highest percent of farmland practicing cover cropping (USDA ERS). The Maryland Department of Agriculture’s (MDA) cost share program recorded over 450,000 acres of cover crops during the 2023–2024 season. However, since cover crops are not a primary source of farm income, we tend to spend less time planning and managing them when compared to cash crops. Cover crops may be perceived as a one-size-fits-all bridge between the cash crops, with the same cover crop used regardless of other system factors. However, all cover crops are not equal, and different cover crops can be used for different purposes. Cover crops will be more beneficial if we tailor them to achieve a primary purpose or goal, and to fit best within the cash crop rotation. In addition, we need to be realistic about how the cover crop is likely to perform, given restraints such as the length of growing season, and the capabilities of the farm operation to manage the cover crop. Cover crop planning can greatly increase the benefits that cover crops provide, making the overall farming system more productive, sustainable and profitable.
Project partners (University of Maryland Extension, Future Harvest, Million Acre Challenge, Sustainable Chesapeake, Maryland Department of Agriculture, and Colorado State Institute for Research in the Social Sciences) worked with farmers on the Eastern Shore of Maryland to plan and implement site-specific, purposeful cover crops. We recruited and planned cover crops with 12 farmers in year one, 21 farmers in year two, and 17 farmers in year three. The farms included all nine counties on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Farmers participated from one to three years of the project. We developed a cover crop planning protocol, during which farmers identified the top needs of the field that can be addressed through cover cropping, identified and/or created gaps in the cash crop rotation to fit cover crops, and critically evaluated the limitations of cover crops. We encouraged farmers to consider these three factors together when planning cover crops, since they are inter-related (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Framework for cover crop planning, emphasizing cover cropping goals, cropping system rotation, and limitations.
For example, cover crop selection and management would vary based on the length of the growing season and the subsequent cash crop. For example, a legume cover crop would be more valuable to a subsequent corn crop than a subsequent soybean crop. The crop rotation may also need to be modified to allow for a long enough cover crop growing season to accomplish a particular goal (Figure 2). See the published factsheet: https://extension.umd.edu/resource/cover-crop-planning-fs-2024-0743/ for more details.
Figure 2. Example of planning document in which a farmer participant, BR, identified cover crop windows within the cash crop rotation.
The collaborating farmers planted and managed the cover crops on 32 fields totaling 1,286 acres in year one, 58 fields totaling 2,197 acres in year two, and 40 fields totaling 2,123 acres in year three. Participating farmers received cost-share payments from the project to implement cover crops.
Farmers primary purposes for cover crops included building organic matter, contributing nitrogen, controlling weeds and other pests, and eliminating black plastic. To measure the success of the cover crop achieving the intended goals we measured cover crop biomass in fall and spring, and spring cover crop %C, %N, and C/N ratio.
In Figure 2, Farmer BR selected a warm/cool season cover crop mix to follow a wheat cash crop, ahead of a corn cash crop. The mix containing grasses, legumes, and forbs was drilled in July 2023. Fall cover crop biomass collected on 12/21/23 was 1,001 lb/acre. Spring biomass collected on 4/17/24 was 2,788 lb/acre. The spring biomass had a C/N ratio of 15/1, and contained 80 lb N/acre.
Figure 3. Farmer BR’s warm/cool season cover crop mix, following wheat and ahead of corn. Image: Caroline Kuchta.
Across 69 farms, after fall growth, cover crop biomass ranged from 28 to 2887 lb/acre averaging 521 lb/acre. Across 83 farms, following spring growth, cover crop biomass ranged from 156 to 8659 lb/acre and averaged 2213 lb/acre. Across 56 farms, nitrogen in the spring biomass was 2 to 124 lb N/acre and averaged 37 lb/acre. Cover cropping on 5,280 enrolled acres resulted in a reduction of 46,771 pounds of N, 98 pounds of P, and 81,453 pounds of sediment entering waterways, according to the Field Doc model. The number of spring cover crop growing days correlated to increased cover crop biomass (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Cover crop biomass vs. spring termination date for 83 enrolled fields. March 1 was used as the first termination date since Maryland farmers enrolled in the state incentive program are allowed to terminate cover crops beginning March 1.
The cover crop C/N ratio (n=56) was 26.3 for grass and/or brassica cover crops, 22.5 for cover crop mixed species that included a legume, and 11.9 for monoculture legume cover crops (Figure 5). When biomass C/N ratios are below 20/1, generally the decomposing material will provide N available for plant uptake; however, when biomass C/N ratios are above 20/1, the N in the decomposing material tends not to be immediately available for plant uptake.
In addition, we measured cover crop success through surveying and interviewing farmers to determine their experience and satisfaction with the cover crop. According to survey results, 82% of cover crop trial farmers indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied about their cover crop planning meeting with Extension. In addition, 82% of cover crop trial farmers were interested in enrolling in the program again. Sixty-nine percent of cover crop trial farmers were interested in utilizing free Extension cover crop planning consulting services, even if it did not involve cost-share for implementing planned cover crops.
Despite all farmers engaging in the cover crop planning process, cover crop biomass and N contribution greatly varied across operations. We learned through assessing cover crop biomass and through our communications with farmers that in order to increase cover crop biomass and functionality it is important to extend the cover crop growing season and manage cover crops to create an even stand across the field. It was also important to adjust the cover crop management according to external factors and actively manage cover crops. This may involve tactics such as re-seeding cover crops, extending the cover crop season later than anticipated, or applying selective herbicides to cover crops.
This research was supported by National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant Improving Soil Health and Water Quality through Purposeful, Site-Specific Cover Crop Planning and Management (Award #72368) and USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service grant Rethinking cover crops: How purposeful cover crop planning and management can address site-specific agronomic goals (Award #21094840).
Amanda Grev, Pasture and Forage Specialist | agrev@umd.edu and Jeff Semler, Principal Agriculture Agent
University of Maryland Extension
It is well known that cover crops can provide many benefits in terms of soil health and nutrient retention, but in addition to this, winter forages can also serve as a high yielding and high quality forage crop for feeding livestock. Winter forages like triticale have been found to yield 2 to 6 tons of dry matter per acre and can produce forage with 180+ RFQ (relative forage quality) and 17 to 20% CP (crude protein). As a result, triticale silage has become a popular forage choice for many dairy producers to increase forage supply.
Given this, triticale has the potential to be not only a high quality forage but also a good source of protein for livestock, potentially even a more economical alternative compared to other feed ingredients such as soybean meal for meeting ration protein needs.
To produce this high yielding, high quality forage, good management is essential. The yield potential for winter forages is largely based on planting date and fall nitrogen availability; these two critical factors determine the number of fall tillers, which sets the yield potential for the following spring. To support these higher yields while maintaining high forage protein concentrations, winter forages require adequate nitrogen and sulfur fertility. Previous research evaluating nitrogen fertility rates for triticale found that providing additional spring nitrogen was not only successful, but economically advantageous as a means to increase forage protein content and offset soybean meal costs.
With that, the objectives of this study were 1) to investigate the effect of increasing nitrogen (N) fertility rates with and without sulfur (S) on triticale yield and quality, 2) to evaluate production implications when incorporating the forage into dairy cow diets, and 3) to assess the economics of this strategy as a means to meet ration protein needs. This was accomplished via an initial field trial to assess soil nutrient status, forage quality, and forage yield of triticale under varying nitrogen and sulfur fertility treatments, followed by a feeding study to assess dairy cow milk production and performance when fed the resulting forage, and finally an economic analysis to assess the effectiveness of the system.
Methods
Field trials were completed during the winters of 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023. In September of each year, triticale was established in replicated fields at both the Central (Clarksville) and Western (Keedysville) Maryland Research and Education Centers. Fertility treatments included increasing levels of nitrogen with and without the addition of sulfur and are depicted in Table 1. Fertility treatments were applied in March of each year, and soil nitrate samples were collected before and after fertilizer application to test for potential losses due to nitrate leaching. Triticale plots were harvested when forage reached the boot stage in late April. At both locations, plots were harvested mechanically using a forage harvester (Figure 1). Harvested forage was weighed for yield determination and subsamples were taken for forage quality analysis.
Figure 1. Harvesting triticale forage plots in Keedysville, MD on April 26, 2021.
In the fall of 2020 and 2021, triticale was also established in three 5-acre fields at the Clarksville location to provide forage for two feeding studies. The NLOW, NMED, and NHIGH fertility treatments were applied to these fields in March of 2021 and 2022 and the resulting forage was chopped and ensiled using ag bags in late April of each year. With this forage, two feeding studies were completed using Holstein dairy cows at the University of Maryland dairy in Clarksville. Each feeding study was set up as a replicated study design with 28 lactating cows and 4 dietary treatments. Cows were housed in a freestall barn equipped with a Calan door system to allow for individual animal feeding and intake measurements. The standard (ALF) diet contained 60% forage (48% corn silage, 22% alfalfa silage) and 40% concentrate (DM-basis). The LOW, MED, and HIGH diets were formulated by replacing alfalfa silage with NLOW, NMED, or NHIGH triticale silage at a rate of 18-20% of diet DM (Table 2). Cows were randomly assigned to treatments and were fed their respective diet for 21 days before rotating to another treatment; this rotation continued until all cows consumed each dietary treatment. Feed intake, bodyweight, milk production, and milk components were measured throughout each feeding study.
Table 2. Dietary treatments used for dairy feeding studies.
Results
Some preliminary results from the first two field seasons (2020-2021 and 2021-2022) and first feeding study (2021) are presented here. In 2021, forage yields for the fertility treatments that included nitrogen were similar but were increased compared to the CON and SUL control treatments (Figure 2). This pattern held true at each location, with yields averaging 2.0 T/A at Clarksville and 2.7 T/A at Keedysville. In 2022, there were no differences in forage yield across any of the different fertility treatments at either location (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Forage yield for triticale forage plots in Clarksville (CMREC) and Keedysville (WMREC) harvested in April 2021 (top) and April 2022 (bottom). Treatments within the same location without a common letter are significantly different (α=0.05).
In 2021 at both locations, forage crude protein (CP) concentrations were lowest for the CON and SUL treatments (average 8.7% CP) and increased with increasing fertility, with the NHIGH and NSHIGH treatments containing the greatest amount of protein (average 18% CP; Figure 3 & 4). In 2022, forage CP concentrations did not differ across treatments at either location, averaging 10% CP in Clarksville and 15% CP in Keedysville. Across all fertility treatments in both years, the addition of sulfur did not further increase forage CP concentrations, likely because fields were not limiting in sulfur prior to this experiment.
Figure 3. Forage crude protein content for triticale forage plots in Clarksville (CMREC) and Keedysville (WMREC) harvested in April 2021. Treatments within the same location without a common letter are significantly different (α=0.05).
Figure 4. Forage crude protein content for triticale forage plots in Clarksville (CMREC) and Keedysville (WMREC) harvested in April 2022. Treatments within the same location without a common letter are significantly different (α=0.05).
Neutral detergent fiber concentrations did not differ between fertility treatments at either location in either year, averaging 51% across all locations and treatments in 2021 and 50% across all locations and treatments in 2022. Similarly, total digestible nutrients did not differ between fertility treatments at either location in either year, averaging 65% across all locations and treatments in 2021 and 66% across all locations and treatments in 2022. At both locations, nitrate concentrations in soil samples taken both pre- and post-fertilizer application remained minimal, indicating no additional nitrogen losses due to leaching.
Feeding study results for 2021 found no difference in feed intake or milk production across any of the dietary treatments (Figure 5). Across all treatments, feed intake averaged 51 lb DM per day and milk yields averaged 73 lb per day. Milk components were also similar across dietary treatments, with no differences in milk fat or milk protein concentrations.
Figure 5. Dry matter intake (left) and milk yield (right) for dairy cows consuming the control (ALF) or triticale (LOW, MED, HIGH) dietary treatments in a 2021 feeding study. No significant differences (α=0.05).
Take Home & Conclusions
Overall, these preliminary results indicate that additional nitrogen fertility in the spring does not produce a consistent yield gain for triticale forage. This was not unexpected; as mentioned earlier, it has been shown that spring yield potential is largely set based on planting date and fertility management in the fall. However, results did show that additional spring nitrogen fertility can influence forage protein, with forage protein concentrations in 2021 increasing from 9 to 18% as additional nitrogen fertilizer was applied. Additionally, low soil nitrate-N concentrations both pre- and post-fertilizer application indicate that there were no leaching losses and that this additional nitrogen was taken up by the triticale forage.
Results from this study also indicate that triticale forage can be used as an alternative to alfalfa silage without affecting milk production or components. Increasing the protein content of triticale silage through nitrogen fertilization did reduce the amount of soybean meal required to maintain dietary crude protein concentrations.
Future Plans
Moving forward, an economic analysis comparing the cost of meeting ration protein needs through increased soil fertility (i.e. increased triticale protein concentrations) versus through traditional sources such as soybean meal or alfalfa will also be completed. Future studies may compare these triticale fertility treatments against a triticale-annual ryegrass and/or triticale-legume combination.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the assistance provided by the staff at both the Clarksville Dairy Farm and the Western Maryland Research and Education Center in support of this study. This study was partially funded by the Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station Competitive Grants Program.
Hannah Burchard | hburchar@umd.edu; Fabiana de Freitas Cardoso, Assistant Professor and Dairy Extension Specialist Department of Animal and Avian Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park | Cardosof@umd.edu and Jeff Semler, Principal Agriculture Agent, University of Maryland Extension, Washington County | jsemler@umd.edu
Whole plant corn silage (WPCS) is the most common forage used in diets for dairy cows worldwide with it typically making up 40-60% of the forage DM in the diet. Whole-plant corn silage normally has a relatively high energy content; however, energy availability depends on its quality. Short stature corn is a relatively new variety of corn that is speculated to have increased standability, be less of a lodging risk, and have potential for tighter seeding density. This study aimed to assess the physical properties of short stature corn, compared to conventional corn, at the time of harvest and evaluate the effects of organic acids on the nutritional quality and fermentation profile of the two corn varieties.
Research was conducted at the Center of Maryland Research and Education Center (Figure 1). Short stature (STC) and conventional corn (CC) plots were planted and harvested. Mini silos (1,000 g) were prepared at harvest using two corn types (STC, CC), two treatments (water control; CON vs. organic acids; ORG), and six storage times (0, 7, 15, 30, 60, 120 d), with five replicates (Figure 2). Both varieties were harvested at 32–35% DM. ORG treatment consisted of a commercial blend of propionic and acetic acid diluted in water; CON received water only. Silos were stored for designated durations and analyzed for particle size, fermentation end products, microbial counts, and nutrient composition.
Figure 2. Mini silos (1000g) packaged on day 0.
The Penn State Box method is an essential tool for evaluating the particle size of dairy rations, a critical factor in balancing rations to meet cows’ nutritional needs. The process begins by collecting a representative sample (TMR from the feed bunk or corn silage at harvest). The particle size distribution was similar for conventional and short stature corn, indicating short stature can provide similar fiber components as conventional corn. It is essential to maintain particle size distribution, as observed with short stature corn compared to conventional corn, as particle size influences ration formulation based on physically effective fiber. It ensures proper fermentation once chopped corn is packed into a silo.
Additionally, at harvest, the DM was 32% and 34% for conventional and short stature corn, respectively. For individual components, the distribution for conventional and short stature corn (respectively) was 15% and 14% on the 19mm sieves, 58% and 56% on the 8mm sieves, 15% and 17% on the 4mm sieves, and 13% for both in the pan (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Penn State box results from analyzing freshly chopped short stature corn (500g) and conventional corn (500g).
For fermentation profile, total acids percent are greater for organic acid treated corn for both varieties as compared to water (control group) for both varieties (Figure 4). The greater percentage of total acids in the organic acid treated group is likely due to the application of the commercial blend. However, lactic acid was found to be in the greatest proportion compared to acetic acid, which is the desired result for promoting quality fermentation and protecting against yeasts and molds. Based on the fermentation profile and nutritional analysis, the composition of short-stature corn, along with the application of organic acids, lends to increased nutrition and fermentation quality of silage compared to conventional corn silage.
Figure 4. Total Acids, % DM two-way interaction (P < 0.01) of variety x treatment for CC (conventional corn) and STC (short stature corn) with the addition of CON (water) and ORG (organic acids).
Animal Performance
Short stature corn silage will be included in the diet as the main forage to evaluate its effect on cow`s performance in future studies conducted by the Cardoso Lab at the University of Maryland, College Park. This will be the final component to help determine short stature corn’s potential as an effective, high-quality forage.
Benefit
If short stature corn is proven to be comparable with conventional corn, no new equipment is needed to start using the new variety. Management practices can be kept the same, lending to sustainability.
Acknowledgements
Special appreciation is extended to the University of Maryland, the Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Maryland Extension, the Central Maryland Research and Education Center (CMREC) Dairy Farm, and the Washington County Extension Office for their support and assistance with this project.
Kurt Vollmer, Weed Management Extension Specialist | kvollmer@umd.edu
University of Maryland Extension
In 2025, studies were conducted to explore the effectiveness of mixing different herbicides for controlling weeds in herbicide-tolerant (E3) soybean. Studies focused on two main factors: applying the herbicides at different times and using a combination of products that have both foliar and residual activity.
Using a mix of herbicides with different sites-of-action can help control a wider range of weed species. It’s a more reliable strategy than simply rotating herbicides year after year. By targeting multiple biological processes, the likelihood of a weed developing resistance to one specific herbicide is greatly reduced. However, it’s important to remember that some herbicides are great for immediate weed control, but herbicides with residual activity are often needed to ensure weeds don’t come back later in the season.
The study was conducted at the Wye Research and Education Center, as well as a grower’s field in Cordova, MD. Treatments evaluated both conventional and organic herbicides to see how well mixing different products worked when applied to emerged weeds (Table 1). Conventional treatments included Reflex and Enlist One, either alone or mixed together or with Dual Magnum. Organic treatments included Axxe and Homeplate, either on their own or in combination. A non-chemical method, flame-weeding, was also included.
Table 1. Postemergence weed control treatments.
Treatment(s) a
Rate
Timing b
Reflex
1.5 pt
EPOST or MPOST
Enlist One
2 pt
EPOST or MPOST
Reflex + Enlist One
1.5 pt + 2 pt
EPOST or MPOST
Reflex + Dual
1.5 pt + 1.5 pt
EPOST or MPOST
Enlist One + Dual Magnum
2pt + 1.5 pt
EPOST or MPOST
Reflex + Enlist + Dual Magnum
1.5 pt + 2 pt + 1.5 pt
EPOST or MPOST
Axxe
13% v/v
EPOST or MPOST
Homeplate
6% v/v
EPOST or MPOST
Axxe + Homeplate
13% v/v + 6% v/v
EPOST or MPOST
Flame-weeding
N/A
EPOST or MPOST
a Treatments containing Reflex, Enlist One, or Dual Magnum included Scanner at 0.25% v/v. Treatments containing Axxe or Homeplate included Oroboost at 0.25% v/v.
b Treatments were applied early-postemergence (EPOST) when weeds were approximately 3 inches tall or mid-postemergence (MPOST) one week later at the Wye site. Only one postemergence application occurred at the Cordova site.
Wye Results
The timing of spraying did not change how well weeds were controlled 34 days after early postemergence applications. This is probably because the two spray dates were only a week apart. Overall, herbicide programs that included Enlist gave better control of lambsquarters, morningglory, and smooth pigweed than the other treatments (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Broadleaf weed control at the Wye Research and Education Center 34 days after early post applications. Means for the same species followed by the same letter are not significantly different (α = 0.05).
Even though they are not labeled for grass control, the conventional herbicides still controlled 85% to 92% of grasses like large crabgrass, giant foxtail, and fall panicum. The organic herbicides controlled 62% to 68% of these grasses.
Axxe, Axxe + Homeplate, and flame-weeding sometimes worked as well as conventional herbicides, but their results were inconsistent. In some plots they gave complete weed control, and in others they gave none (Figure 2). Organic herbicides kill weeds by burning the plant tissue, and they don’t work as well on bigger, more mature plants. Even though the goal was to spray when weeds were only 3 inches tall, some larger weeds were present, which likely made the organic herbicides less effective.
Figure 2. Wye REC: Side-by-side plots show A) conventional weed control treatments (Reflex, Enlist and Dual) compared with B) organic treatments (Axxe + Homeplate) 34 days after early post-applications. Images: Jadon Cook, University of Maryland.
Cordova Results
Palmer amaranth was the main weed at the Cordova location (Figure 3). Seven days after applications (DAA), the Reflex + Enlist treatments gave the best control followed by Enlist alone and Enlist + Dual (Figure 4).
Figure 3. Cordova: Aerial view shows weed control plots where Palmer amaranth became the dominant species when left uncontrolled. Image: K. Vollmer, Univ. of Maryland.Figure 4. Palmer amaranth control in Cordova 7 and 21 days after postemergence applications. Means for the same date followed by the same letter are not significantly different (α = 0.05).
Similar results were observed 21 DAA. Treatments containing Reflex and Enlist controlled 99–100% of the Palmer amaranth. In fact, almost no Palmer plants were found in these plots at either rating date. The number of plants in the Reflex + Dual treatment also did not change between rating dates (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Palmer amaranth density in Cordova, MD 7 and 21 days after postemergence applications. Means for the same date followed by the same letter are not significantly different (α = 0.05).
Mixing herbicides that work in different ways is an important step to slow down weed resistance and get better weed control. It may cost more at first, but it can save money and trouble later. Using Reflex together with Enlist gave very good control of Palmer amaranth. Reflex and Dual Magnum also leave a soil “barrier” that keeps new weeds from sprouting. Even one Palmer amaranth plant that survives can quickly become hard to manage. Spray programs that stop weeds now and keep new ones from coming up later can save money and give better control than having to make several passes using only one type of herbicide each time.
Acknowledgements: We would like to acknowledge the Maryland Soybean board for funding this research; summer interns, Elise Lankford and Shelby Gustafson; as well as the Agronomy crew at the Wye REC, and our on farm cooperator.
The 2025 corn hybrid trials results are available for download online at https://psla.umd.edu/extension/md-crops/ or click the button below. The fee-based performance trials are critical to provide Maryland farmers with unbiased yield performance data across the broad geographic diversity of Maryland. The relative yield tables in both of these reports are extremely valuable for farmers to select varieties that perform well across the state. The varieties with relative yield greater than 100, meaning above the average yield at that location, across all the test locations are highlighted in these tables and would be considered resilient varieties that are likely to yield well in different conditions. For more information on interpreting variety trials results, see the UMD Factsheet authored by Andy Kness and Nicole Fiorellino at this link https://go.umd.edu/interpretingtrials. We are grateful for the continued funding provided by Maryland Grain Producers Utilization Board and Maryland Soybean Board for these variety trials.
The University of Maryland Extension has announced its slate of winter crop production meetings for the 2025/2026 winter season. Meetings will cover the latest research and regulatory updates in various cropping systems to make your operation more efficient and profitable while you earn pesticide, nutrient management, and CCA continuing education credits. Learn more at https://go.umd.edu/CPM.
The University of Maryland Extension, along with state and local partners, is excited to introduce the Maryland Agriculture Reporting Tool (MART). This free, secure online platform is designed to simplify recordkeeping, improve decision-making, and help Maryland farm producers meet both state and federal reporting requirements. MART can be accessed at https://mdagreporting.org/.
Traditionally, many small- to medium-sized farm producers have depended on paper forms or Excel spreadsheets to track crops, nutrient applications, and harvest data across multiple farms. This method can be tedious and time-consuming—especially when calculating totals or preparing compliance reports. MART offers a streamlined, secure alternative that consolidates all this information in one place.
What MART Offers
Spatially Enabled Farm Profiles: After creating a farm profile, users can visualize and manage farm fields spatially. This allows easy tracking of acreage, crop types, harvest amounts, and nutrient applications.
Secure Accounts: Each account is password-protected and role-based, enabling producers and managers to collaborate securely.
Automated Totals and Dashboards: MART automatically calculates totals at the farm and operation levels, displaying them in user-friendly dashboards and charts to support long-term decision-making.
Report-Ready Tables: Data is formatted to align with Maryland’s Annual Implementation Report (AIR), making compliance quicker and simpler.
MART was initially designed for grain crop producers and tailored to their reporting needs. However, the development team is exploring the possibility of expanding to include additional commodities and production systems in the future. By improving how data is recorded and visualized, MART can save time, reduce errors, and help farmers make data-driven decisions about their operations. It also supports agencies and conservation partners with accurate, timely information they can use to assist farmers with short- and long-term planning.
Partnership
MART is a collaborative partnership between these state and local partners: University of Maryland Extension, Rural Maryland Council, Rural Maryland Prosperity Investment Fund, Eastern Shore Regional GIS cooperative, Mid-Shore Regional Council, Tri-County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore, Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland, Tri-County Council for Western Maryland, and the Upper Shore Regional Council.
Visit https://mdagreporting.org/ to explore MART or contact the University of Maryland Extension – Talbot County for more information about training sessions and upcoming features.
Crop reports are for conditions up to October 1, 2025.
Western Maryland
September has remained mostly dry. We have had between 1 and 2 inches of rain, depending on where you are in the county. While the rain was a morale booster, it provided only minimal relief from the extended dry period dating back to early August. Corn silage harvest is finished. Combines are rolling and harvesting corn and early soybeans. There are no solid yield numbers yet, other than better than expected. Cover crops, Triticale, and winter cereal grains are going in the ground behind the combines now that there is a little moisture in the top inches of soil. As conventional wisdom states, it won’t grow in the bag. Until next month, I wish you soaking showers and happy harvests.—Jeff Semler, Washington Co.
Central Maryland
Corn harvest is underway and soybeans are quickly drying down. Some small grains have been planted and emerged; however, a majority of cover crop planting will be delayed until the rest of the crops come off and we get more moisture.—Kelly Nichols, Montgomery Co.
Northern Maryland
A few September rain showers have brought some much needed rain. Corn harvest has been full throttle for approximately two weeks now, early reports indicate average to below-average yields. We were one or two good rains in August away from a very strong corn crop. Soybeans have yet to be cut but many are concerned about soybean yields. Some double crop soybeans are just starting to turn but most are still green—perhaps the September rains packed a few bushels onto the double crops. Small grains will be going into the ground very soon.—Andy Kness, Harford Co.
Upper & Mid Shore
No report this month.
Lower Eastern Shore
Harvest started earlier than normal this year due to the dry weather. Most early-planted corn has already been harvested. There were some issues with corn stalks rotting and lodging with the wind. Late-planted corn is still green in the region. Early soybeans are ready to harvest, and drying down quickly. Farmers are preparing fields for winter wheat planting, which will begin mid-October. Cover crops are being aerial seeded into standing crops. There have not been reports of significant pest pressures.—Sarah Hirsh, Somerset Co.
Southern Maryland
The region has received widespread rainfall during September. Conditions have been favorable for corn harvest with a good portion of the crop now off and in the bins. Reports of good to very good corn yields are coming in, though there are some spots with poorer yields on sandy ground or later planted corn. Bean harvest is just getting underway. Double crop beans are still working hard to fill pods and finally have some moisture to help them along. Cover crop is going in now.—Ben Beale, St. Mary’s Co.
