Farmers and crop consultants are encouraged to complete this survey
This survey is intended to estimate the impact of pests on soybeans and currently used management strategies. Your perspective is valuable in making these estimates as accurate as possible. Your responses will be kept confidential and only aggregated responses for the state will be published. You can find last year’s estimates at https://midsouthentomologist.org.msstate.edu/Volume17/Vol-17-1_TOC.html.
Shannon Dill, Principal Agriculture Agent | sdill@umd.edu University of Maryland Extension, Talbot County
Extension services in Maryland and Delaware will be collecting custom survey rates this fall. We need your assistance securing up-to-date information about farm custom work rates, machinery rental rates, and hired labor costs. Custom rates are used widely by farmers across the states, so we need the best information available.
Please respond even if you know only a few rates. We want information on actual rates, either what you PAID TO HIRE work or what you CHARGED TO PERFORM custom work. Custom Rates should include all ownership costs of implement & tractor (if needed), operator labor, fuel, and lube. Reported rates will be summarized in the Custom Rate Survey to show a range and averages for the states. NO individual names or rates will be published in the Custom Rate Survey.
The results will be available at local Extension Offices and will be available online at https://extension.umd.edu/grainmarketing. We hope this publication will benefit you as a custom farm operator. Thank you for your cooperation in this effort.
The survey can be completed online at: https://go.umd.edu/customrate2025 or to get a blank survey call the Talbot County Extension office at 410-822-1244. Please complete the survey by December 31, 2024.
Harvest is winding down. Corn yields were all over the place, and while it doesn’t look pretty, mycotoxin levels have been low to existent. Soybeans, too, have been disappointing. Even with good yields, quality and reject levels are highly variable. Wheat and Barley are going into the ground; the only thing missing is the much-needed precipitation. Yes, we are dry out here again. The rains of September allowed us to feel comfortable, but our comfort levels have been dropping. The La Nina predicted this winter does give us hope for above-average precipitation. Until March 2025, wishing you warm holidays and a wet winter.—Jeff Semler, Washington Co.
Central Maryland
No report this month.
Northern Maryland
The headline story for this fall has been the drought. We have not had any measurable rain since October 2, with the exception of about 0.25-0.5” that fell about a week ago. The dry weather has made for a dangerous harvest, especially in soybeans—I know of at least 5 close calls with combine fires in our region, including one major fire causing a total loss. Yields are highly variable across the region, largely depending on soil type and pockets that received more rain than others. In general, corn yields started off very poor but have picked up and are not nearly as disappointing as many expected. Soybean yields are all over the map and many double crop soybeans may out-yield full season beans this year. Low soil moisture has lead to slow small grain and cover crop establishment.—Andy Kness, Harford Co.
Upper and Mid Shore
Corn and soybean harvests are all but complete, with both crops having struggled under this season’s dry conditions, resulting in below-average yields across the region. The lack of rain also hasn’t made things easy for the wheat and cover crops planted this fall. Thankfully, the warmer-than-usual temperatures may have allowed these crops to put on some extra growth before winter sets in. With some much-needed rainfall this past weekend, they should now be better prepared to face the colder months ahead. As always, farmers are at the mercy of the weather, and after this season’s challenges, everyone is hopeful for more favorable conditions next year.—Dwayne Joseph, Kent Co.
Lower Shore
We had several weeks of drought, and conditions are very dry and dusty. The drought allowed for harvest to finish earlier than typical. Corn harvest is done. Soybean harvest is approximately 80% complete, even for double cropped soybean. Wheat is being planted. The dry weather has led to poor germination and establishment of cover crops. We had a 1” rain a few days ago, which should help establish cover crops that are still being drilled following soybean harvest. Corn and soybean yields are below average on unirrigated land, due to the dry weather earlier in the growing season. This is a year that irrigation definitely paid off, even with low commodity prices.—Sarah Hirsh, Somerset Co.
Andrew Kness, Senior Agriculture Agent | akness@umd.edu and Nicole Fiorellino, Assistant Professor & Extension Agronomist University of Maryland
Figure 1. Aerial photo of soybean maturity groups 1.5-3.0 showing different rates of senescence on September 4, 2024. Photo: A. Kness.
In recent years, many growers have expressed interest in and experimented with early maturing soybean maturity groups. The concept is appealing to some growers because it allows for an early harvest and earlier establishment of cover crops and/or small grains. However, there are a lot of questions related to how these early maturity groups can perform in our climate at our latitude and little data exists from our region to reference. With funding from the Maryland Soybean Board, we evaluated the agronomic characteristics of early maturity soybeans grown in a Maryland climate for their potential integration into Maryland grain rotations.
Soybean varieties ranging from maturity group (MG) 1.5-3.0 from two seed suppliers (Hubner and Pioneer) were planted on May 30, 2024 at the Wye Research and Education Center. All MG 1.5 and MG 2.0 Hubner brand plots were harvested on September 24 with remaining plots harvested on October 7th. Wheat was planted in the plots harvested at the first timing on October 10th and planted in the second harvest timing plots on October 23rd.
Mixed model analysis of variance was used to analyze the yield data, including brand (Hubner or Pioneer), maturity group, and interaction of the two. Significant effect of maturity group only (P=0.0008) with means separation by Tukey’s HSD (Figure 2).
Yields for all MGs were very strong; ranging from 55 bu/ac to nearly 70 bu/ac. Maturity group 3.0 yielded significantly more than MG 2 and 1.5 and similar to MG 2.5. Maturity groups 1.5 and 2.0 yielded similarly to each other.
Figure 2. Average soybean yield by maturity group from 2024 trials.
This is only the first year of this study and we will conduct this research again in 2025. These preliminary data shows encouraging results and potential for early MG soybeans, which could offer some added benefits to establishing an early cover crop or a timelier planting of a subsequent wheat crop. Earlier cover crop establishment would have an environmental benefit in that more nutrients could be captured and saved for the next crop. Earlier establishment of wheat or other small grains, would also allow for more fall tiller development, which have the potential to contribute to more yield in the spring. We will see how the planting dates affect wheat yield in these plots next summer.
We would like to thank the Maryland Soybean Board for sponsoring this research, Hubner Seed for donating seed, and the farm crew at Wye Research and Education Center for supporting this project.
Sarah Hirsh, Agriculture Agent | shirsh@umd.edu; Haley Sater, Agriculture Agent; and Jon Moyle, Extension Poultry Specialist University of Maryland Extension
Giant miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus) is a perennial warm season grass known for its high biomass yield and adaptability to various growing conditions. This species of miscanthus is a sterile hybrid typically propagated by rhizomes. It can grow up to 12 feet tall with roots 8 feet deep. Giant miscanthus reaches its full biomass yield potential in the third growing season, where it can yield 10 to 15 tons per acre (Heaton et al., 2010). Giant miscanthus is used in Maryland as a bedding material in poultry houses. It can also be used as a biomass crop for fiber-based products, a bioenergy crop, and has environmental uses including erosion control, carbon sequestration, and as a buffer against nutrient runoff.
Figure 1. Giant miscanthus growing on land affected by severe deer damage, saltwater intrusion, and waterlogging.
The University of Maryland Extension performed a three-year research trial growing giant miscanthus on marginal land facing severe deer pressure, saltwater intrusion and waterlogging (Figure 1).
Figure 2. Giant miscanthus plot yields (+/- standard error) after first and second years of growth.
We found that giant miscanthus successfully grew with only a slight yield reduction. In the 10-acre field where the experiment was conducted, 20 one-meter square plots were harvested to calculate biomass yield. Yield on average in year one was 2.8 tons dry biomass per acre and yield on average in year two was 4.8 tons per acre (Figure 2). Average first- and second-year yields on prime land for growing miscanthus would be 3 tons per acre and 5-6 tons per acre, respectively. Giant miscanthus does not reach its full biomass yield potential until the third growing season, where it can ideally yield between 7-12 tons per acre (Kalmbach, et al., 2020).
In the 20 one-meter square plots where yield was taken, levels of sodium (Na) in the field ranged from 57-510 ppm Na, with an average of 174 ppm Na. This level of Na would cause stress that would result in yield loss to corn or soybean. A normal range of Na in Delmarva row-crop land is 5-40 ppm (Delmarva Saltwater Intrusion, University of Delaware, 2024). Higher concentrations of Na correlated somewhat with miscanthus biomass yield, more so in the second year than in the first year (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Correlation between giant miscanthus plot yields and soil sodium levels.
Figure 4. Giant miscanthus growing in year-round waterlogged part of field; Soil moisture data collection from plot two.
The entire study field stayed waterlogged during the winter months. The duration of waterlogging was observed to affect giant miscanthus growth and yield potential. Areas of the field where the soil stayed saturated throughout the winter and summer months had dramatically reduced giant miscanthus growth compared to areas of the field where the soil stayed saturated in the winter months but only intermittently during the summer months. In the year-round waterlogged parts of the field, giant miscanthus had shorter stand height, weaker stems and experienced lodging (Figure 4). The miscanthus grew equally well in the parts of the field that were intermittently flooded in the summer compared to the driest parts of the field (based on soil moisture sensor data; Figure 4).
The field had heavy deer pressure based on edge-of-field wildlife camera photos and observed deer tracks and paths in the field (Figure 5). However, no deer browsing of giant miscanthus was observed in the field.
Figure 5. Deer image from Bushnell wildlife camera (left) and deer tracks within field (right). Photos by H. Sater.
Research conducted on Maryland farms has demonstrated that giant miscanthus is a versatile and resilient crop that can be grown on marginal land where other traditional agronomic crops can no longer be profitably grown. Its ability to withstand deer damage, saltwater intrusion and waterlogging make it a valuable option for farmers in Maryland looking to diversify their crops and improve the sustainability of their operations. However, access to equipment and markets may be barriers to farmers growing giant miscanthus, and we do not recommend this crop prior to addressing these factors.
Heaton, E., Moore, K., Salas-Fernandez, M., Hartzler, B. Liebman, M. and Barnhart, S. (2010). Giant Miscanthus for Biomass Production. Iowa State Fact Sheet. AG201. https://store.extension.iastate.edu/product/12611
Kalmbach, B., Toor, G., & Ruppert, D. (2020). Soil Fertility Recommendations-Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium Requirements of Miscanthus (EB-443).
Shannon Dill, Principal Agriculture Agent | sdill@umd.edu Nicole Fiorellino, Assistant Professor & Extension Agronomist and Kelly Hamby, Associate Professor and Extension Entomologist University of Maryland
What is TAPS?
The Testing Ag Performance Solutions (TAPS) program was developed by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (https://taps.unl.edu/) as a zero-risk opportunity for farmers to gain experience with novel agronomic practices that are executed at a University research center, structured similarly to a yield competition. Over the last 8 years, the program has expanded across multiple states and cropping systems. Teams of farmers compete to see who can manage their “farm” to achieve the best overall profitability, input use efficiency, and yield for a given crop. Options include agronomic (variety selection, fertility, irrigation), pest management, and economic (crop insurance, forward contracting) decisions.
Why develop a UMD-TAPS program?
On-farm trials provide valuable opportunities for farmers and Extension personnel to work together to try alternatives and determine whether they work for an operation. However, the practices that can be examined may be limited by the available land and equipment. If practices do not work as expected there may also be lost yield or other financial costs to the operation. TAPS enables participants to try practices that they might not otherwise have access to, for example irrigation, or to try practices that might otherwise be too risky. In-season management decisions kept confidential, with all choices and awards presented at an end-of-season banquet to facilitate peer learning. The program is flexible from year to year, and in Maryland, we want participants to steer the management practices that are included in the competition.
2024 UMD-TAPS pilot
In 2024, we piloted this program with Extension faculty serving as participants and began with irrigated soybeans. The trial was executed at the Wye Research and Education Center, and each participant selected management options that were executed on replicated, randomized small plots. Participants receive a “menu” of both pre-plant and in-season management options to select. For the first year, we provided seven soybean varieties with maturity groups ranging from 3.2 to 4.8. Participants selected seeding rates of 80,000, 100,000, or 120,000 seeds per acre and chose irrigated or dryland. We also monitored slugs and provided slug bait options. A variety of crop insurance plans were offered and participants could forward contract at any point in the season by listing the CBOT closing price for the date. Unsold bushels received market price on the day of harvest at Mountaire and participants could determine the day that they wanted to harvest. We are currently in the process of calculating overall profitability, input use efficiency, and yield to determine winners.
2025 UMD-TAPS and beyond
In 2025, we hope to run the competition with farmer participants and will be advertising over the winter. We have built a strong partnership with the National TAPS collaborators and will use their portal in 2025 to facilitate easier communication with participants. Moving forward, we also hope to expand to additional research and education centers and possibly include a separate corn competition. We look forward to hosting field days where participants and others can come visit their replicated plots. We look forward to incorporating other ideas from our participants. If you are interested in participating in TAPS in 2025 or learning more about it, please add your contact information to this form.
TAPS Presentation at Mid-Atlantic Crop School
We are excited to have the creators of the TAPS program from UNL presenting about the TAPS program at Mid-Atlantic Crop Management School in Ocean City next week. If you are already registered for the event, we hope you will consider attending this talk.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank John Draper, Tom Eason, and Reagan Milby at the Wye Research and Education Center for their assistance managing the plots and irrigation, Arthur Young, Shea Ill, Maria Cramer, and Em Kohanski from the Hamby lab for monitoring slugs, and Gene Hahn, Louis Thorne, and Audrey Sultenfuss from the Fiorellino lab for assistance managing and harvesting plots. We appreciate the funding provided by the Maryland Soybean Board.
Emily Zobel, Senior Agriculture Agent Associate | ezobel@umd.edu Dwayne Joseph, Agriculture Agent; and Haley Sater, Agriculture Agent University of Maryland Extension
Figure 1. Photo of a stink bug on a sweep net. Photo by N. Krambeck.
There is emerging concern among growers on the Eastern Shore of Maryland that our warmer winters and longer cover crop growing season may allow several stink bug species to overwinter and utilize cover crops for shelter and food. These stink bugs could then move into soybean fields after cover crop termination, potentially causing feeding injury and damping off damage to soybean seedlings. Fall-planted cover crops offer many benefits to soil health and the environment, so a survey was conducted during the 2024 growing season to investigate whether cover crops provide a suitable overwintering habitat for stink bugs.
Species of phytophagous stink bugs that are known economic pests of soybean include the brown stink bug, Euschistus servus (Say), green stink bug, Acrosternum hilare (Say), and the brown marmorated stink bug (Halyomorpha halys). Stink bugs use their piercing-sucking mouthparts to feed on the foliage and pods of soybeans, causing discolored, shriveled beans, reducing both the yield and quality of the crop.
Stink bugs typically overwinter as adults in protected areas such as fence rows, grassy field borders, under stones, or tree bark. Most species have one generation per year. They become active during the first warm spring days, typically in April. Females usually start depositing eggs in June. Nymphs hatch from these eggs and pass through five instars before becoming adults, with approximately five weeks elapsing between hatching and adult emergence. Adult stink bugs generally reach their highest population levels in September, when they can become an economic problem for soybeans.
To determine if stink bugs use late-season cover crops as overwintering habitat, 37 cover crop fields were sampled on the Eastern Shore of Maryland between mid-April and mid-May. The majority of fields surveyed were planted in a wheat-only cover crop. Densities of adults and nymphs were determined by taking ten sweeps with a standard sweep net at five to ten areas across each field. Fourteen fields were sampled twice before the cover crop was terminated. The other fields were sampled once due to weather constraints before terminating the cover crop. Eight fields were sampled again in June when soybean plants were 6-12 inches high.
Ninety-nine stink bugs were counted across the 51 scouting times, averaging 1.94 stink bugs per field per scouting date. 94% of the species counted were adult native brown stink bugs. The majority of stink bugs (79%) were counted during the last week of April and the first week of May. Along with stink bugs, 225 ladybird beetle adults and larvae were counted. Fifteen stink bugs were found during the scouting of soybean seedlings in June. The low number of stink bugs found in 2024 in spring cover crops suggests they are not overwintered in cover crops, and adding an insecticide to cover crop burndown spray is unnecessary to control them.
We want to thank all the farmers who allowed us to sample their fields. If you are interested in participating in this study in 2025, please contact Emily Zobel at ezobel@umd.edu or (410) 228-8800. The Maryland Soybean Board provided financial support for this project (project # 80333).
Kurt Vollmer, Extension Weed Management Specialist | kvollmer@umd.edu University of Maryland Extension
Research was conducted at the Wye Research and Education Center to evaluate herbicide tank mixes for postemergence weed control in herbicide-tolerant soybean. As herbicide-resistant weeds continue to drive weed management decisions, options are needed to not only provide effective weed control, but also preserve the value of available herbicides.
Figure 1. Example probabilities of developing resistance when using Herbicide A, Herbicide B, and Herbicides A and B. Using two different herbicide groups decreases the probability that a weed will become resistant to both herbicide groups.
Tank mixing multiple, effective herbicide groups is one tactic that can be used to impede herbicide resistance. By including multiple, effective herbicide groups when making an application, there is a lower probability that a weed species will develop resistance to all herbicides used (Fig. 1). Furthermore, tank-mixing different herbicide groups can have a synergistic effect, where the combined effect of two or more groups is greater than the effects of each herbicide alone. For example, previous research has shown Enlist One + Liberty to be more effective in controlling as common ragweed and Palmer amaranth, compared to each individual herbicide.
Furthermore, including a residual herbicide in the tank when making a postemergence application may be necessary for full-season control of certain weeds, such as Palmer amaranth. Including herbicides with both foliar and residual activity, such as fomesafen (Reflex), in tank with other effective herbicides can help to preserve the utility of these herbicides.
This research examined the effectiveness of tank mixing of herbicides with foliar (2,4-D, fomesafen) and residual (fomesafen, S-metolachlor) for early and late postemergence weed control in soybean. Plots (10 ft. x 25 ft.) were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4 replicates. Herbicide treatments consisted of applying Reflex (fomesafen), Reflex + Dual Magnum (S-metolachlor), Reflex + Enlist One (2,4-D) or a three way mix of Reflex + Dual + Enlist One (Table 1). The entire study area received 1 pt/A Dual Magnum within 24 hours of soybean planting Enlist E3 soybeans on June 4, 2024. Early postemergence (EPOST) applications were made 2 weeks after planting and late postemergence (LPOST) applications 4 weeks after planting.
Table 1. Postemergence herbicide treatments for resistant weed mitigation and control in soybean.
Herbicide(s)
Rate
Timinga
Reflex
1.5 pt
EPOST or LPOST
Reflex + Dual
1.5 pt + 1.5 pt
EPOST or LPOST
Reflex + Enlist
1.5 pt + 2 pt
EPOST or LPOST
Reflex + Enlist + Dual
1.5 pt + 2 pt + 1.5 pt
EPOST or LPOST
a Herbicide treatments were applied early postemergence (EPOST) 2 weeks after planting or late postemergence (LPOST) 4 weeks after planting soybeans on June 4, 2024.
Broadleaf Weed Control
Application timing did not affect common lambsquarters or morningglory control. Reflex + Enlist or Reflex + Enlist + Dual controlled common lambsquarters better compared to Reflex alone, and morningglory species better than Reflex or Reflex + Dual (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Control of common lambsquarters and morningglory species 7 weeks after soybean planting. Bars of the same color with the same letter are not significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD (α = 0.05).
Giant Foxtail Control
Applications made EPOST provided better control compared to applications made LPOST (Fig. 2), but giant foxtail control varied from 38% to 78%, with no significant differences among herbicide treatments (Fig. 3). It should be noted that Enlist One does not control grasses. Both Dual Magnum and Reflex can provide some grass activity, but only if applied PRE. Better foxtail control with EPOST treatments could be attributed to overlapping residual control with these treatments. Overlapping herbicides is a tactic that involves sequential applications of herbicides with soil-residual activity to lengthen herbicidal activity before the first herbicide dissipates. As Dual Magnum was included in both PRE and POST applications, the EPOST applications likely provided better overlapping residual control due a shorter application window between the PRE and POST applications (2 weeks for EPOST and 4 weeks for LPOST).
Figure 3. Giant foxtail control following early and late postemergence applications 7 weeks after soybean planting. Bars of the same color with the same letter are not significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD (α = 0.05).
This research highlights the value of adding multiple herbicide groups to the tank at the time of POST applications (Fig. 4). While additional work is needed to confirm the results of this study, the following factors should be considered when deciding which herbicides to include in the tank:
The types of weeds are prevalent in the field. Should the spray program focus primarily on broadleaf weeds, grasses, or both?
The emergence period for the weeds being controlled. Will a single POST application negate the need for additional treatment, or should an herbicide with residual activity be included?
Each herbicide must be effective alone on the target weed. Including multiple herbicides will not be as effective if a weed already has significant resistance to one of the herbicides in the mix.
Figure 4. Weed control with early postemergence applications of a) Reflex + Dual and b) Reflex + Enlist + Dual 7 weeks after planting. Photo credit: Logan Bledsoe.
Acknowledgements
Support for this project was made possible by funding from the Maryland Soybean Board as well as technical support from Jadon Cook, Logan Bledsoe, Sam Denherder, and the University of Maryland Wye Research and Education Center.
Commercial products are mentioned in this article solely for the purpose of providing specific information. Mention of a product does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of products. Reference to commercial products or trade names is made with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by University of Maryland Extension is implied.
Reprinted from University of Maryland fact sheet (FS-845): Nottingham, J. Richard. (2008). Preventing Combine Fires (FS-845). University of Maryland Extension. go.umd.edu/FS-845.
Dry field conditions that are ideal for a successful fall harvest also bring the danger of combine fires. Dry crop residue provides the tinder, and a small spark or heat source is all that is necessary for a combine fire to start. Combine fires can lead not only to lost time but substantial property damage and even injury or loss of life.
Keep Your Equipment Clean
What can you do to lessen your risk of a combine fire? First and foremost, prevention is essential. Remember the old saying, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Cleanliness and maintenance are essential for combine fire prevention. Use a pressure washer or a compressed air blowgun to thoroughly clean and remove dust, dirt, grease, and crop residues from your equipment. Many farmers also find a hand-held leaf blower useful for cleaning equipment in the field. Not only will you have eliminated the “tinder” from which a fire can start, but you will have equipment that will run cooler and more efficiently. Regardless of how busy you may be, take the time to keep your equipment clean.
Pay Special Attention to Routine Maintenance
Check lubricant levels often, and grease fittings regularly. Fix leaking oil, fuel, or hydraulic lines promptly. Check belts for proper tension and wear to reduce friction. Carefully check bearings for excessive heat- overheated bearings are a major cause of combine fires. Pay particular attention to the exhaust system, checking for leaks, damage, or an accumulation of crop residue. High heat or a spark from the exhaust can easily ignite dry crop residue. Take a close look at the wiring system, checking for exposed wiring or insulation deterioration. Remember, a blown fuse indicates an electrical problem-never replace a blown fuse with a new fuse of higher amperage.
Special Precautions for Refueling
When refueling becomes necessary, always shut off the engine and let the equipment cool for 15 minutes before you refuel. Extinguish all sources of flame and smoking materials before refueling. If fuel spills on the engine, wipe off any excess and allow the fumes to dissipate. Never store flammable liquids in glass or non approved containers. The few minutes that you spend safely refueling are insignificant compared to the property damage or injury that can be caused by a fire.
What If, Despite Our Best Efforts at Prevention, a Fire Does Occur?
Being prepared can prevent substantial loss. Experts recommend that at least one fully charged 10-lb ABC fire extinguisher be carried on all equipment. Better yet, carry two: one in the cab and one where it can be reached from the ground. The cost of fire extinguishers is insignificant when compared with the cost of your equipment. Remember that any partial discharge from an extinguisher requires it to be recharged. Visually check your extinguishers monthly, looking for cracks in the hose and inspecting the gauge to see if the extinguisher is fully charged. Have a professional fire extinguisher company inspect your fire extinguishers annually. Carry your cell phone or 2- way radio with you at all times so you can summon help. If a fire does occur, CALL 911 FIRST, and then attempt to extinguish the fire by pulling the pin on the fire extinguisher and squeezing the handles together. Aim the nozzle at the base of the fire and sweep from side to side. Remember P.A.S.S., which stands for Pull, Aim, Squeeze, Sweep.
By exercising proper fire prevention and preparedness and keeping your equipment well maintained and clean, you can help ensure a safe harvest season.
References
National Ag Safety Database Preventing Farm Equipment Fires Nebraska Forest Service, Lincoln, NE. http://www.cdc.gove/nasd/
