Month: August 2018

USDA Assistance Available for Repairing Conservation Practices on Maryland Farms

ANNAPOLIS, Md., August 8, 2018 – USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is providing technical and financial assistance to help farmers in Maryland repair failed conservation practices following recent severe storms and flash flooding. Producers in disaster declared counties including Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Caroline, Carroll, Dorchester, Frederick, Howard, Montgomery, Prince George’s, Somerset, Talbot, Washington, Wicomico, and Worcester must sign up for assistance by August 25, 2018.

The funding is available through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program to address water quality concerns due to failure of ag waste systems, stream crossings, and other in-field conservation practices.

NRCS accepts EQIP applications year-round in a continuous signup. But landowners must submit their applications by August 25 to be considered for this disaster repair funding.  Farmers should visit with their local USDA service center to apply.

Forage Performance of Cereal Cover Crops in Maryland 2017-2018 Cereal Forage Study

Dr. Bob Kratochvil – Extension Agronomist
Mr. Louis Thorne – Agricultural Research Technician Supervisor
Dr. Jason Wight – Field Trials Coordinator
Ms. Jessica Whitaker – Student Assistant
Ms. Sonia Agu – Student Assistant
University of Maryland, College Park

mowing a field of tricialeThe majority of dairy farmers are constantly looking for sources of forage to meet their feed needs.  One source that many of this region’s dairy farmers utilize is the fall planting of cereal grains that are green-chop harvested the following spring.  Among the cereal species used for this purpose are rye, triticale, barley, and wheat.   Per the Maryland Cover Crop Program guidelines, cereal grains planted as a cover crop prior to November 5 and suppressed via green-chop in the spring are eligible for the grant payment for participation in the Cover Crop Program.  In addition, per the Nutrient Management Regulations, a fall application of dairy manure is allowed to a field planted to a cereal cover crop.

Planting a cereal cover crop for green chop harvest fits well into the crop rotation used by many dairy farmers.  The scenario that many follow is to plant the cereal cover crop following harvest of corn silage.  Prior to planting the cover crop, an application of manure is made to the field.  The subsequent planting of the cover crop provides incorporation of the manure into the soil.  The fall and spring growth of the cover crop is supplied nutrients from the manure.  At the same time, the cover crop provides protection to the soil from loss of nutrients via leaching and/or erosion.  The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of 18 triticale varieties submitted by participating companies along with select varieties of four cereal species (3 triticale, 3 rye, 1 barley and 1 wheat) for cover crop performance and forage production and quality.

The location for this study was the Central Maryland Research and Education Center – Clarksville Facility.  Four replications for each entry were planted at the field site using a randomized complete block experimental design.  Planting date was October 3, 2017.  The 3.5’ X 18’ plots were planted with a small plot planter with 6-inch spacing between each of the 7-rows.  Each entry’s germination percentage was used to calculate the seeding rate needed to establish 1.5 M seedlings.  Good stands were observed for all entries by late fall.

In order to compare forage quality among the entries that headed over a period of ten days, the timing of the biomass harvest was when each entry reached the late boot stage of development.  Each harvest sample was collected by cutting the plants just above ground level from two center rows of each plot from an area 2.5 feet in length.  Each sample was placed into a cloth bag and dried using a forced air dryer set at 60o C where they remained until sample water content was zero.  Biomass yield is reported as pounds of dry matter production per acre (Table 1).  Each of the dried samples was ground through a 20-mesh screen using a large plant grinder.   All samples were sent to the Cumberland Valley Analytical Laboratory (Waynesboro, PA; http://www.foragelab.com/) for standard forage quality analysis.  Data for all agronomic and forage quality measurements are found in Table 1.  Table 2 identifies the Company/Source and address/phone number for the participants who supplied the cereal varieties tested in this study.

Producers are always interested in biomass production.  Notable entries for biomass production were BCT15513 (Seed-link, Inc.) and Mercer EXP508 (Eddie Mercer Agri-Services, Inc.).  Cover crop performance is measured by amount of biomass produced and the concentration of nitrogen in the biomass.  These two factors were used to estimate nitrogen uptake (Table 1).   The top two entries for cover crop performance were Cover Crop Rye and the triticale variety, Mercer EXP508 (Table 1).  The only entry to have nitrogen uptake that was significantly less than the mean for the study was the triticale variety, TriCal 813 (37 lb N/a).  This is due to its production of only 2379 lb/a biomass and a low crude protein content (9.8%).

A number of forage quality characteristics for these cereals was measured (Table 1).  The descriptions of the various quality characteristic are described in the footnotes at the bottom of Table 1.  The characteristic that perhaps best captures the overall forage quality performance is Relative Feed Value (RFV).  A RFV of 100 is defined as the forage value that full bloom alfalfa would have.  The barley variety, Nomini, and the triticale variety, TriCal Exp 917 (TriCal Superior Forage) had the best RFV (107).

Though, none of these greenchop cereal forages are considered to be adequate as a stand-alone feed for a dairy operation, they can supply a source of forage used in a total mixed ration (TMR) at the time of year when feed supply may be running short.  When this forage benefit is added to the environmental benefit that is gained, planting winter cereal cover crops on a dairy farm can be a win-win decision.

 

 

Table 1.  Performance of 26 cereal varieties tested for biomass production and forage quality at the Central Maryland Research and Education Center Clarksville Farm during 2017-2018.

Variety Company/Source Species Dry Matter Yield

(lb/a

0% Moisture)

 Height

(in)

 Head

Date

(Days

after April 30)

 Nitrogen

Removal

(lb/a)1

 Crude Protein

%2

 Rumen

Degradable

Protein3

%

 Acid

Detergent Fiber

%4

 Neutral Detergent Fiber

%5

 Total Digestible Nutrients

%6

 Relative Feed

Value7
Arcia Eddie Mercer Agri-Services Inc. Triticale 4145 49 7* 69 10.6 7.1 33.2* 57.9 63.0* 102
BCT15509 Seed-link Inc. Triticale 4068 49 11 74* 11.1 7.4 34.4 57.8 62.1 100
BCT15513 Seed-link Inc. Triticale 5603* 57* 12 93* 10.2 7.0 37.1 61.7 59.8 91
BCT17001 Seed-link Inc. Triticale 4989* 54 9 87* 10.8 7.5 36.4 59.3 61.5 96
BCT17002 Seed-link Inc. Triticale 3531 56 10 63 11.1 7.5 34.4 58.8 61.2 99
BCT17003 Seed-link Inc. Triticale 4337 54 14 78* 10.9 7.8 39.9 64.8 59.1 83
Brasseto FP Genetics (Canada) Rye 3492 55 6* 63 11.3 7.8 36.6 60.5 62.0 93
Cover Crop Rye Variety Not Stated Rye 4874* 61* 5* 97* 12.2* 8.4* 34.5 58.0 62.1 100
Danko Polish Plant Breeding Institute Rye 3608 63* 6* 68 11.9* 8.1* 33.9 57.9 62.8* 100
HiOctane Seedway Triticale 4030 54 8 70 10.6 7.1 36.0 60.9 60.4 93
HyOctane Seed-link Inc. Triticale 4414 50 10 78* 10.9 7.4 35.3 59.4 61.7 96
Louisa University of Maryland Wheat 3838 48 11 63 10.2 6.7 32.9* 55.9* 63.0* 105*
Mercer EXP508 Eddie Mercer Agri-Services Inc. Triticale 5411* 54 8 97* 11.1 7.5 35.5 58.8 61.9 97
NCT 10318 North Carolina State Univ. Triticale 4452* 52 6* 77* 10.7 7.1 33.5* 56.3* 63.4* 104*
NCT 10888 North Carolina State Univ. Triticale 4951* 50 7* 92* 11.7* 7.9 34.2 56.5* 63.3* 103*
NCT 15928 North Carolina State Univ. Triticale 4222 55 11 74* 11.0 7.4 33.8 55.7* 63.4* 105*
Nomini Virginia Tech Barley 2840 49 7* 56 12.5* 8.7* 32.2* 55.5* 63.6* 107*
Traction Seed-link Inc. Triticale 4337 46 9 72 10.4 6.9 35.4 59.8 62.0 95
Trical 141 TriCal Superior Forage Triticale 3761 56 9 63 10.6 7.1 40.4 65.4 58.3 82
Trical 813 TriCal Superior Forage Triticale 2379 56 12 37 9.8 6.7 38.5 61.4 60.2 90
Trical Exp 08TF01 TriCal Superior Forage Triticale 4452* 56 12 72 10.0 6.8 39.7 65.4 58.3 82
Trical Exp 30113 TriCal Superior Forage Triticale 4414 59* 9 74* 10.5 7.0 36.9 60.4 61.0 93
Trical Exp 917 TriCal Superior Forage Triticale 4452* 47 9 74* 10.3 6.8 32.6* 55.5* 63.8* 107*
Trical Flex 719 TriCal Superior Forage Triticale 4721* 49 11 75* 9.9 7.0 40.7 64.5 58.2 83
Trical Gainer 154 TriCal Superior Forage Triticale 3953 49 8 67 10.5 7.2 34.0 57.2* 63.0* 102
Trical Surge TriCal Superior Forage Triticale 4337 53 10 72 10.4 7.0 38.0 62.5 59.7 89
Mean 4216 53 9 73 10.8 7.3 35.8 59.5 61.5 96
Probability > F 0.233 0.04 0.0012 0.51 0.05 0.28 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
LSD(0.20) 1164 6.1 2.6 24 0.95 0.72 1.48 1.82 1.07 4.3

* Indicates the entry was statistically comparable to the best performing variety (in bold) for the measured variable.

1Nitrogen uptake (lb/acre) for each entry was estimated by multiplying the lb DM/a X % nitrogen contained in the DM.  The percent nitrogen for each entry was calculated by dividing crude protein by the conversion factor 6.25,  the average nitrogen content for protein.

2Crude Protein %: represents total nitrogen content of the forage; higher protein is usually associated with better feed quality.

3Rumen Degradable Protein: portion of crude protein that microbes can either digest or degrade to ammonia and amino acids in the rumen.

4Acid Detergent Fiber: represents the least digestible fiber portion of forage; the lower the ADF value the greater the digestibility; an ADF <35% is considered good quality.

5Neutral Detergent Fiber: insoluble fraction of forage used to estimate the total fiber constituents of a feedstock; NDF has a negative correlation with dry matter intake and is used to estimate dry matter consumption; as NDF decreases animals will consume more forage; for grass forages NDF <50% is considered good quality and >60% is considered low quality.

6Total Digestible Nutrients: measure of the energy value of the forage.

7Relative Feed Value: indicates how well an animal will eat and digest a forage if it is fed as the only source of energy; full bloom alfalfa has an RFV of 100.

8Elite triticale breeding lines obtained from North Carolina State University for local testing by University of Maryland.  These are not available for purchase.

 

 

 

Table 2. The company/source for the 26 cereal varieties that were tested in the 2017-2018 Cereal Forage Quality study conducted at Central Maryland Research and Education Center-Clarksville Farm.

Company/Source Address Contact Phone Number Entries
Eddie Mercer Agri-Services Inc. 6900 Linganore Road

Frederick, MD 21701

 Tom Mullineaux 410 409-7538 Arcia; Mercer EXP508; Nomini
Seed-link, Inc. 208 S. David St.

Lindsay, Ontario

K9V 5Z4

Canada

 Peter E. Bonis 705-324-0544 BCT15509; BCT15513; BCT17001; BCT17002; BCT17003; HyOctane; Traction
Seedway 5901 Veracruz Rd.

Emmaus, PA 18099

 Jerry Davis 717-363-0103 HiOctane
TriCal Superior Forage 2355 Rice Pike

Union, KY 41091

 Bill Smith 859-802-2288 TriCal 141; TriCal 813; TriCal Exp 08TF01; TriCal Exp 30113; TriCal Exp 917; TriCal Flex 719; TriCal Gainer 154; TriCal Surge
FP Genetics 426 McDonald Street

Regina, SK

S4N 6E1

Canada

 877-791-1045 Brasseto
Polish Plant Breeding Institute Danko Hodowla Roślin Sp. z o.o.

Choryń 27

64-000 Kościan

Poland

 +48 65 513 48 13 Danko
University of Maryland 4291 FIELDHOUSE DR

2121 Plant Sciences Building

College Park, MD 20742

 Jason Wight 301 405 4558 Louisa

 

Save The Date: 2018 MD Crop Insurance Workshop

September 13

Bowie, MD

 

The Maryland Crop Insurance Workshop provides an opportunity to hear from experts on current issues related to the federal crop insurance program and federal farm policy. The plans for this year’s Maryland Crop Insurance Workshop are being finalized with expert speakers to discuss insights into current issues impacting risk management issues in the Mid-Atlantic.

This event is free to attend. Stay tuned for more details as we finalize speakers.

Maryland Receives Federal Crop Disaster Designation for Eleven Counties due to Widespread Crop Losses Resulting from Excessive Rain

Maryland Department of Agriculture

corn in field
Poor stand of corn due to wet soil conditions.

In response to Governor Larry Hogan’s letter requesting federal relief for Maryland farmers affected by this spring’s excessive rainfall, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue has granted disaster designation for widespread crop losses in 11 counties.

“Our administration is committed to helping our hard-working farmers who were severely affected by record rainfall and widespread flooding, in most cases losing entire crops,” said Governor Hogan. “This funding will provide much-needed assistance and relief to Maryland’s farmers and bolster our vital agricultural sector, and we are pleased that our federal partners have granted our request.”

This designation allows farm operators in the four primary counties of Dorchester, Frederick, Somerset, and Wicomico plus seven contiguous counties—Caroline, Carroll, Howard, Montgomery, Talbot, Washington, and Worcester—to be considered for assistance from the USDA Farm Service Agency, provided eligibility requirements are met. The designation also includes two counties in Pennsylvania (Adams, Franklin), two counties in Virginia (Accomack, Loudon) and Sussex County in Delaware. Farmers must have purchased crop insurance on eligible crops to quality for USDA disaster assistance programs.

This assistance includes USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) emergency loans. Farmers in eligible counties have eight months from the date of a Secretarial disaster declaration to apply for emergency loan assistance. FSA will consider each emergency loan application on its own merits, taking into account the extent of production losses, security available, and repayment ability.

Fall Nutrient Application Rules

MDA logo

Maryland Department of Agriculture

Now that summer is in full swing, it’s not too soon to look ahead to Maryland’s fall nutrient application dates which run from September 10 through December 15. Here are the rules:

  • Farmers are required to plant cover crops on fallow fields where organic nutrient sources have been applied in the fall. The planting deadline is November 15. Organic nutrient sources may be applied between November 16 and December 15 to cover crops and other vegetative cover that have been previously planted.
  • A fall application of an organic nutrient source (not poultry litter) may be made to an existing crop, a crop to be planted during the fall, or a crop to be planted the following spring before June 1 following crop fertility recommendations provided in the Maryland Nutrient Management Manual. If imported organic sources are used, a Fall Soil Nitrate Test (FSNT) must be taken in advance to determine if additional nitrogen is warranted for a commodity small grain crop.
  • Poultry litter may be applied in the fall for an existing crop or crop to be planted in the fall. If the crop to be planted will be harvested as a small grain crop for commodity purposes, a FSNT must be taken to determine if it is eligible to receive nitrogen.
  • A fall application of a chemical fertilizer may be made to an existing crop or crop to be planted during this time period based on crop fertility recommendations provided in the Maryland Nutrient Management Manual.
  • REMEMBER…nutrient applications are prohibited during the fall application period when the soil is saturated, when the ground is covered with snow greater than one inch, or when the ground is hard-frozen greater than two inches. For more information, contact MDA’s Nutrient Management Program at 410-841-5959.

Fixing Soybean’s Need For Nitrogen

Article from the American Society of Agronomy

Soybean is rich in protein, which is great for the humans and animals eating it. But this high protein content comes at a cost.

To make protein, soybean plants need a lot of nitrogen. The plants get some of the nitrogen they need by working with specialized bacteria in the soil. These bacteria live in root nodules. They pull nitrogen from the atmosphere and convert it to a form the plants can use.

soybean roots with nodules
A soybean root with nodules. These nodules house bacteria that “fix,” or extract, nitrogen from the atmosphere for the plant’s use. Photo credit Luiz G. Moretti.

But this process–biological nitrogen fixation–may not provide all the nitrogen soybean crops need. Farmers may have to apply nitrogen fertilizer as well.

A new study, however, shows it’s possible to increase the number of soybean root nodules—and the bacteria that live there–to increase crop yields. This could remove the need to apply additional nitrogen fertilizers.

“That opens the possibility of achieving higher yields of soybean based exclusively on biological fixation,” says Mariangela Hungria, a researcher at Embrapa Soja, Brazil.

Hungria, lead author of the study, and her colleagues coated soybean seeds with the bacteria (the usual method used by growers). They supplied additional bacteria by spraying it on the plants during other stages of growth. Soybean plants that received the additional spray inoculation developed more root nodules. And more nodules led to higher yields.

In fact, adding bacteria to seeds increased yields by 27% and 28%. Spraying bacteria on the soy fields during growth pushed up yields even further.

The increase in root nodules after additional spray inoculation surprised Hungria and her colleagues. Previous research indicated that each nodule makes it more difficult for soybean plants to develop subsequent ones. But in this study, soybean plants were able to form new nodules when researchers provided more bacteria.

“To discover that nodules aren’t regulated as strictly as previously thought is an important finding,” says Hungria. “The limitation happens particularly at the beginning of soybean growth when the first nodules appear.” After that initial stage, more nodule growth is possible.

More biological nitrogen fixation, and less nitrogen through fertilizer, can also increase sustainability. First, it reduces carbon emissions. Nitrogen fertilizers are usually produced using fossil fuels. “For every pound of nitrogen fertilizer manufactured, at least 10 pounds of carbon dioxide may be released,” Hungria states.

The second improvement in sustainability is on the field. Excess nitrogen fertilizers from the field can flow into bodies of water. Too much in an aquatic ecosystem can cause algal blooms. These deplete the water of oxygen and lead to “dead zones” devoid of life. Biological fixation using bacteria, however, means more of the nitrogen is used by the crop.

Less fertilizer use also has an economic impact. Nitrogen fertilizer costs can add up quickly, both for farmers and for countries. Brazil imports about 70% of the nitrogen fertilizers used in the country.

Several farms in Brazil began using the study’s strategy in October 2016 (the summer crop in Brazil). Initial results have been promising, says Hungria. The higher soybean yields seen in the study are sustained on these larger scales.

Hungria thinks these results will extend beyond Brazil as well. “But they have to be verified because the genetic background of soybean is different in each country,” she says. Collaborations with Kansas State University, to verify if the results can be extended to the U.S., have just started.

Inoculating soybeans with rhizobia
Inoculating–adding helpful bacteria to soybean seeds–usually occurs at sowing time. However, in this study, soybean crops at various stages of growth were also inoculated by spraying the plants with bacteria. Photo credit Luiz G. Moretti.

Researching bacteria and nitrogen fixation may just be the beginning. “I think microorganisms can be the ‘stars’ of a new era of agriculture, in which we consider not only food security but also sustainability,” she says.

Read more about Hungria’s research in Agronomy Journal. The research in Brazil was funded by Universidade Estadual Paulista, Fundação Agrisus, Embrapa, and Total Biotecnologia.

 

Breakfast on the Farm Wrap-Up

Matt Morris, Agriculture Extension Agent
University of Maryland Extension, Frederick County

visitors walking through freestall barn
Visitors walk through a freestall barn at Teabow Farms.

As of right now it is one month after the first ever Maryland “Breakfast on the Farm” event that took place at Teabow farms in Walkersville, MD on June 30th. In case you missed it, this was a free, educational event that invited the public onto a working dairy farm where they had a breakfast followed by a self-guided walking tour of the farm. It was a program designed to get people on a farm and see how their food is actually being produced. With all the misinformation force-fed to people through social media and outspoken activists, we wanted to show them what was really happening. Nothing was hidden (except some new paint on a few buildings plus some sweeping and mowing here and there) so what the public saw was what truly occurs day-to-day.

Our intention was to give away 1200 free tickets, which we did easily, but we ended up having just shy of 700 visitors. The heat probably didn’t help attendance, but for a brutally humid 96 degree day I think we did pretty well! What surprised me the most was that I didn’t hear one person complain about the heat. Another thing the heat did for us was showcase why a freestall barn is the ultimate in cow comfort. When walking into the barn the temperature dropped substantially. Between the fans, the shade, and the misters it was definitely a great reprieve from the summer sun. The cows were obviously enjoying it too. I told several visitors that if someone were to open a gate, not one animal would have walked outside! Even as a diehard grazer I would have loved to put my beef cattle in that barn on a day like that.

We also had all the different types of agriculture in Maryland represented from pork to produce to soybeans. The Frederick and Catoctin Soil Conservation district had a display explaining the conservation practices farmers have been doing to preserve water quality and MDA was there to explain what the big blue pit of manure was for. The Extension office in Carroll County brought an excellent display on GMO’s which surprisingly resulted in no heated arguments! There were a lot more displays there as well and they all made a difference in educating the visitors.

The other thing that made this day such a success was all the hard work put in by everyone involved. We couldn’t have done this without them. Our volunteers did an excellent job that day and I heard many people compliment how knowledgeable and organized the volunteers were. There were so many moving parts to this program that there isn’t enough space to mention everyone who deserves thanks. However, I do want to thank the Stup family for agreeing to put this on. This required an incredible amount of work on their part and they went above and beyond to make this day a success. Opening up your farm to the public can be a challenging proposition, but they had no hesitation. Everyone knew it was something we needed to do to show that farmers are doing their best to produce a safe product.

What was probably the most satisfying part of this was the visitor who came up and thanked a group of us for putting this on. She said before her visit she had worried about the safety of the food she was feeding her children, but after having taken the tour and meeting the family she felt good about the food she was buying. That one compliment made it all worth it. During these unprecedented times the dairy industry is facing, it was good to see some positive headlines about Breakfast on the Farm.

Look for Breakfast on the Farm to become an annual event. The plan is to eventually move it around the state and showcase all different types of agriculture that we have here in Maryland. I just hope we can keep it at a dairy farm in Frederick County a few more times before we go elsewhere.

 

 

Meet Maryland’s New Agronomist

Nicole Fiorellino, Extension Agronomist
University of Maryland, College Park

UMD Extension Agronomist, Nicole Fiorellino

“I started as the new Extension Agronomist in the Plant Science and Landscape Architecture department on July 2. I have grown up through the Land Grant University system, completing my B.S. in Anim

al Science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ. I moved to Maryland in 2008 and received my M.S. in Animal and Avian Science and my Ph.D. in Environmental Science and Technology from University of Maryland. All of my academic advisors, including my undergraduate advisor, had research and extension appointments so I have extensive training in sharing pertinent research results with the agricultural community. I currently reside in Kent County with my husband, who has worked on his family’s dairy farm and owned a custom harvesting business. I am extremely fortunate that working alongside my husband, who has given me the opportunity to experience agriculture from the perspective of a producer. I know this experience has influenced how I interact with the agricultural community and my approach to research.

My research program will focus on performing producer-centered and producer-driven research with the goal of keeping Maryland farms productive. I will explore research questions that will help make Maryland farms more resilient and able to adapt to the ever-changing agricultural climate. However, I also want to explore research questions that farmers find personally relevant and important. I welcome research ideas from Extension agents and producers alike based on experiences they have had on their farms. While I am looking forward to maintaining much of the Agronomy Research program that Dr. Bob Kratochvil has successfully developed, I am also excited to branch into other areas of research that interest me, namely further exploring the adoption of precision agriculture technologies in our area. I firmly believe that collaboration is the key to success, especially as research funding seems to continue to decrease. I am excited to continue collaborations with researchers in the Delmarva Region. I also look forward to meeting with all of the county Agriculture Agents to learn more about the issues that affect farmers in their counties and how we can work together to address these issues. My email address is nfiorell@umd.edu and you can find me either at the Wye Research and Education Center at the Headquarters or on campus in the Research Greenhouse. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me, especially if you are inviting me to visit your county.”

 

Guess the Pest! Week #19

Guess The Pest Logo

 

 

 

 

 

Bill Cissel, Extension Agent – Integrated Pest Management, University of Delaware; bcissel@udel.edu

Test your pest management knowledge by clicking on the GUESS THE PEST logo and submitting your best guess. For the 2018 season, we will have an “end of season” raffle for a $100.00 gift card. Each week, one lucky winner will also be selected for a prize and have their name entered not once but five times into the end of season raffle.

This week, one lucky participant will also win A Farmer’s Guide To Corn Diseases ($29.95 value).

You can’t win if you don’t play!

What caused this damage?

Guess the Pest! Week #18 Answer: Western Bean Cutworm

Guess The Pest Logo

 

 

 

 

 

Bill Cissel, Extension Agent – Integrated Pest Management, University of Delaware; bcissel@udel.edu

Congratulations Bob Leiby for correctly identifying the moth as a western bean cutworm and for being selected to be entered into the end of season raffle for $100 not once but five times. Everyone else who guessed correctly will also have their name entered into the raffle. Click on the Guess the Pest logo to participate in this week’s Guess the Pest challenge!

Guess the Pest Week #18 Answer: Western Bean Cutworm
by Bill Cissel, Extension Agent, Integrated Pest Management and David Owens, Extension Entomologist

The western bean cutworm (WBC) is native to the western United States where it is considered a pest of corn and dry beans. Despite the name, they actually do not “cut” plants. Western bean cutworm are univoltine, meaning they have a single generation per year and overwinter as pre-pupa. In the spring, they pupate and adult moths emerge in early June. Female moths will lay eggs throughout July and August on both wild and cultivated plants. Field corn in the whorl stage prior to pollination is a preferred oviposition site. Eggs are typically laid on the upper leaf surface near the whorl in masses of 20-200 eggs which take approximatley 7 days to hatch. Larvae undergoe six instars before burrowing into the soil to pupate. Since the early 2000s, WBC has spread, causing economic damage as far east as NY, MI, OH, WI, and Ontario. Studies conducted in Nebraska and Iowa suggest an infestation averaging one larva per ear can cause yield losses reaching as high as 4 bu/A. Larvae bore through the side of the ear and open the ear up to mycotoxin-causing fungal colonization. Most Bt traits do not adequatley control this pest.

We first detected WBC in Delware in 2011 after capturing a few moths in a pheromone trap in New Castle Coutny. We captured 14 moths in 2012 and have not trapped for this pest since 2012 until 2018. This year, we have been monitoring 10 pheromone traps located throughout the state and have captured four moths to date. We will continue to monitor for this pest throughout the growing season but at this point, it appears that WBC populations remain low for us in Delaware. By comparison, states where western bean cutworm causes signficant injury to corn catch dozens of moths per week in a single trap.

2012 Western Bean Cutworm Trap Summary: http://s3.amazonaws.com/udextension/ag/files/2012/06/2011WesternBeanCutwormTrapSummary.pdf

2013 Western Bean Cutworm Trap Summary: http://s3.amazonaws.com/udextension/ag/files/2012/06/2012-Western-Bean-Cutworm-Trap-Summary2.pdf

Here is a link to a Fact Sheet from Purdue University with more detailed information on the identification, biology, and damage of the Western Bean Cutworm: https://extension.entm.purdue.edu/fieldcropsipm/insects/western-bean-cutworm.php

Fun Entomology Fact: It is not unusual to find an ear infested with multiple western bean cutworm larvae because they are not canabalistic like corn earworms.