Attached is the summary for the September World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) that was published on September 12. Corn harvested acre estimate was unchanged but yield estimate was adjusted down 1.3 bushel per acre to 168. Other estimate adjustments were insignificant.
Soybean harvested acres estimate was unchanged but yield estimate was adjusted down 0.6 bushels per acre. Beginning stock estimate was adjusted down and ending stocks estimate was down a significant 115 million bushel which significantly decreased the stocks-to-use ration from 18.8% to 15.9% which gave a bump to market prices. Today, Friday 13, China announced exemptions for soybean and pork tariffs which should further help our situation.
Hosted by the Agriculture Law Education Initiative (ALEI), the Agriculture and Environmental Conferencewill bring agricultural, environmental, and legal professionals together to discuss timely and relevant legal issues that farmers face on a daily basis. Topics at the November 14 conference include: land use and liability for urban farmers; developing issues in agricultural and environmental law; diversifying uses on farms with conservationeasements; local and state roles in siting approval of solar energy facilities; and maintaining neighbor relations when legal issues arise. Nutrient Management Continuing Learning Education Credits are available for those attending!
Instead of a keynote speaker, this year’s conference will feature a keynote panel on the emerging opportunities for farmers and aquaculture growers in ecosystem trading markets. The panel will feature experts in water, air, and soil quality trading systems to explain the current state of these opportunities and how producers can prepare themselves to participate, including: Pipa Elias, Director, North America Agriculture Program, The Nature Conservancy; Dr. Lisa Wainger, Research Professor, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Suzanne Dorsey, Assistant Secretary, Maryland Department of Environment’s Assistant Secretary, and Matthew Clagett, Assistant Attorney General, Maryland Department of Environment. This panel, like others at the conference, is an opportunity to spark conversations between different stakeholders about how best to protect agriculture and natural resources in Maryland.
The ALEI team has worked to ensure the conference evokes a lively discussion and advances the dialogue about the natural resource protection laws affecting Maryland’s farmers. The conference is geared toward members of the agriculture community, including farmers, agricultural and environmental attorneys, regulators, agriculture professionals, environmental associations, and elected officials. Students may attend for free if they bring a valid student identification card.
The conference will be held on Thursday, November 14, 2019 from 8 am – 3 pm at the Crowne Plaza Annapolis, 173 Jennifer Rd, Annapolis, MD 21401. Registration opens at 7:30 am.
Paul Goeringer, Extension Legal Specialist University of Maryland
The article is not a substitute for legal advice.
The 2018 Farm Bill allows for more growers to grow industrial hemp. A farmer looking to add industrial hemp on fields creates the possibility of conflicts between neighboring landowners. The neighbors may not understand that industrial hemp is now legal to grow or other concerns. Industrial hemp is now a legal commodity and growers would potentially fall under Maryland’s right-to-farm (RTF) law. Industrial hemp growers would be eligible for the nuisance defense in the RTF law.
Right-to-Farm Law Overview
RTF laws generally provide a qualifying agricultural operation a defense to a nuisance action brought by a neighbor. To fall under the RTF law, the farm must have been in operation for at least one year. This requirement does not mean growing hemp for one year but established for at least one year before claiming the defense. Maryland requires that the operation complies with existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations and that the operation not be conducted negligently. The operation must be an “agricultural operation” involved in either on-farm production, harvesting, or marketing of an agricultural product grown, raised, or cultivated by the grower, or be involved in the processing of an agricultural product (§ 5-403(a)(2)).
The law does not define an “agricultural product” in the state’s right-to-farm law, and the Maryland Court of Appeals has not addressed this issue. When interpreting “agricultural product” for the first time, a Maryland court would begin with the ordinary, everyday meaning of the language in the statute (Jackson, 2015). Definitions found online typically define agricultural product broadly to include most products grown on a farm for commercial purposes. Hemp seems to fit comfortably within that broad definition, but we would need a court to answer this question definitively.
Hemp and the Right-to-Farm Law
Assuming hemp does fit within the state’s RTF law, what does this mean for someone growing hemp in Maryland? The RTF law would provide a defense to a nuisance claim that could be brought by a neighboring landowner. The hemp grower would be able to prevent claims of nuisance brought by a neighbor, as long as the grower is meeting the other requirements in the right-to-farm law.
For example, Stacy is producing hemp legally and her neighbor, Charlie, learns Stacy is growing hemp. If Stacy produces the hemp in line with any potential permits, federal, state, or local laws and meets the other requirements in the right-to-farm law. Stacy should be able to use the RTF defense against Charlie’s potential nuisance claim.
Conclusion
As we see more growers in the state start looking at industrial hemp as a new commodity to grow, we may see potential conflicts. Maryland’s right-to-farm law may provide a defense to nuisance claims brought by neighbors. To learn more about how Maryland’s RTF law operates, see (https://go.umd.edu/RTFMD).
Reports are for crop conditions up to September 4, 2019
Western Maryland
Corn silage harvest has begun. Corn is drying down; be sure to keep an eye on the moisture. Soybeans have not yet begun to dry down; most are still filling pods. Total rainfall over the past month has been approximately 2-4 inches across the county, with most of that coming in a few thunderstorms. Temperatures have dropped into the upper 70s and lower 80s; this will continue into the next couple of weeks. —Kelly Nichols
Northern Maryland
August has been hot and dry for most of Northern MD; although several isolated storms did bring some rain to many parts of the region; however, very spotty. The weather has been nice for making hay and silage. The lack of moisture in some areas has likely taken some of our top-end yields—but still, crops look good and a big corn harvest is anticipated for much of the region; which should be in full swing in about two weeks. Full season soybeans look good and are starting to turn; some of the latest planted double-crop beans have struggled to put on much growth during this hot, dry spell. —Andy Kness
Upper & Mid Eastern Shore
Corn harvest is in full swing. Yields are not at record levels, but very good overall and well above 10 year average – the lines at the granaries are forming. Early full season beans will be ready soon and look good. The later full season beans suffered from drought in some areas. Double crop beans greatly needed the recent rains. I am optimistic that bean yields will be very good this year. I am not sure the aerial applicators have slept much in the past month. They went from spraying podworms to spreading cover crop seed from day break to dark. Hay quality has been excellent and recent rains are helping fall growth. Palmer Amaranth has really showed up above beans in the past couple weeks. Many fields that were assumed clean, still have a plant here and there. The dicamba beans are really helping to control Palmer and has proven to be a good tool. However, precautions need to be taken to prevent off site movement. —Jim Lewis
Lower Eastern Shore
Most corn is approaching maturity at dent to black layer stages. In the fields that are mature, many farmers have stopped shelling due to high moisture content, and very little corn has been harvested to-date. Yield reports range from good to poor to bad, depending on location and the amount of rain received. Soybean crops are on average R6 stage. Some short season soybean fields are starting to dry down. There have been several reports of nematode damage in soybean fields. The hot, humid weather has led to reports of increased disease pressure in vegetable crops. Herbicide resistant ragweed, marestail, and Palmer Amaranth are problematic in the region, and care should be taken to thoroughly clean equipment during harvest to avoid contamination of other fields. Cover crops have been aerial seeded on many fields. —Sarah Hirsh
Southern Maryland
Dry conditions have continued for most of the region. Corn harvest began two weeks ago and is well underway with an early maturing crop. Yields are variable, with most farms reporting a decent crop overall. Soybeans have suffered over the last month due to limited rainfall. We are finding podworms in many fields throughout the area well above threshold levels. If you haven’t already scouted fields for worm activity, I encourage you to do so soon. As was the case last year, Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS) is now evident, with patches showing up mainly in full season beans. With the drier weather, Palmer Amaranth and common ragweed are readily evident. Cool season grasses are dormant now with very limited regrowth. —Ben Beale
1,2Cara Peterson, 2Steven Mirsky, 1Kate Tully, 1,2Victoria Ackroyd 1Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland 2United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville
The mid-Atlantic region has the highest percentage of arable acreage in cover crops in the United States, with some reports placing Maryland and Delaware as the two states with the highest percentage of total cropland planted with cover crops (Wade et al., 2015; Hamilton et al., 2017). However, the majority of producers in the region are only using grass cover crops, since legumes require earlier planting dates in order to over-winter (Mirsky et al., 2011; Clark, 2012). Farmers in this region have success with legume cover crops when planting them after wheat harvest or frost-seeding in the spring. However, most mid-Atlantic crop rotations include double-crop soybeans planted after wheat, which limits opportunities for establishing a legume cover crop. Low legume adoption is particularly problematic as farmers could use this cover crop before corn to maximize the opportunity for nitrogen fixation benefits.
Figure 1. (Top) A typical mid-Atlantic crop rotation, with double-crop soybeans in the field at the pivotal points for establishing a successful legume cover crop. (Bottom) Proposed crop rotation scheme for interseeding a cover crop between 30-inch soybeans. The cover crop over-winters and is terminated before corn planting in the spring.
Some farmers interseed cover crops into growing cash crops to overcome this timing challenge. Current options for planting cover crops into standing corn and soybean include both aerial broadcasting via airplane and adapted high-boy sprayers. However, these two techniques often result in poor establishment due to low seed-to-soil contact and seed predation by rodents and birds (Hively et al., 2001; Baker and Griffis, 2009; Wilson et al., 2013).
Figure 2. Interseeding cover crops with three planting units between 30-inch soybean rows.
To address the issue of planting cover crops into standing cash crops, our mid-Atlantic team ran numerous trials of an InterSeeder grain drill (InterSeeder Technologies, LLC; Fig. 2). Engineered by the Pennsylvania State University, this drill plants three rows of cover crops between 30-inch rows of standing cash crops. Field trials of this InterSeeder have been conducted in corn, as well as full-season soybeans, at various sites in the region with mixed results (Curran et al., 2018; Wallace et al. 2017). In Maryland, interseeding into full-season corn was moderately successful, whereas cover crops did not perform well in full season beans. However, exploratory research in Maryland identified wide-row double crop soybeans as a viable option for interseeding. The success of seeding grass-legume mixtures into 30-inch double-crop soybeans has led to an expanded on-station research program.
New Field Trials. Field trials with five different interseeded cover crop treatments were conducted to determine the optimal legume cover crop species to interseed in mixture with cereal rye and if interseeding a cover crop mixture affected wide-row double crop soybean yields. The five different cover crop treatments included: cereal rye alone, cereal rye independently mixed with four different legumes (hairy vetch, crimson clover, red clover, and winter pea), and a no cover crop control (Table 1).
Double-crop soybeans planted in June were then interseeded with the cover crop treatments in early September 2017 and late August 2018. The double-crop soybeans were harvested in November for 2017 and later in 2018 (December) due to wet field conditions. The interseeded cover crop treatments grew throughout the winter and were terminated with herbicides in April 2017 and 2018 before planting corn.
In an ideal interseeding scenario, the cover crop is planted as the double-crop soybeans are beginning to reach full canopy in early September. That way, the cover crops only have to survive a few weeks under the low light conditions of a soybean canopy until leaf drop. Once the soybean canopy is gone, the cover crops continue to grow but do not interfere with soybean harvest.
Insights from Interseeding Trials
Cereal rye + crimson clover produced the highest average cover crop biomass. The cereal rye + crimson clover fall 2017 seeding produced an average of 4,980 lbs per acre of biomass while the 2018 seeding produced 3,950 lbs per acre by the spring of 2019. Cereal rye + hairy vetch and cereal rye + winter pea reached similar levels of biomass in two out of the three field sites where the cover crops survived under the soybean canopy.
Interseeding did not decrease yield. There was no pattern of soybean yield differences between the 30-inch wide row double-crop soybeans that had or hadn’t been interseeded. Likewise, there were very minimal differences in soybean yields between the cover crop treatments.
Interseeding did not affect soybean grain quality. Green cover crop plant material was not found in any soybean grain subsampling. Moisture levels remained consistent, with very slight variance across the field as expected in a normal cropping system.
Row orientation matters. Out of the five trial sites, two of the cover crop plantings did not survive under the soybean canopy. Interestingly, the three field sites with strong cover crop survival rates had rows oriented in roughly the same direction: East-West or Southeast-Northwest. The two field sites where the cover crops sprouted but did not survive under the soybean canopy in the fall were on a perpendicular row orientation of Northeast-Southwest.
Row Spacing Considerations. The InterSeeder requires a 30-inch row spacing, while most double-crop soybean fields are planted in narrower rows of 15 inches or less. To account for the differing production practices, these field trials also included simple yield comparisons of 30- and 15-inch row double-crop soybeans. In the row spacing (15- vs 30-inches) trial, results were mixed. There was a yield penalty for wide row spacing in 2017, but not in 2018.
While the benefits of narrow row spacing have been well documented in full season beans, less is known about the potential advantages in double crop soybeans. We speculate that optimal production years enhance the effect of row spacing. For example, 2017 was a better soybean year compared to 2018 across the mid-Atlantic region. Higher levels of precipitation in 2018 than 2017 could have damaged yields. Previous research indicates that in lower yield years or for late-planted soybeans, the benefit of planting in 15 inch rows over 30 inch rows is lost (Alessi and Power, 1982; Hodges et al., 1983; Boquet, 1990; Weaver et al., 1990, Oplinger et al., 1992; Pederson and Lauer, 2003, Whaley et al., 2015).
Future Research. Nitrogen content analysis of the interseeded cover crop biomass is currently underway. Next, the research team will analyze how the following year’s corn crop responded to the interseeded cover crop mixtures.
References
Alessi, J., and J.F. Power. 1982. Effects of plant and row spacing on dryland soybean yield and water-use efficiency. Agronomy Journal 74:851–854. D.o.i.:10.2134/agronj1982.00021962007400050019x
Baker, J. M., and T. J. Griffis. 2009. Evaluating the potential use of winter cover crops in corn-soybean systems for sustainable co-production of food and fuel. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 149(12), 2120–2132. D.o.i.:10.1016 j.agrformet.2009.05.017
Boquet, D. J. 1990. Plant population density and row spacing effects on soybean at post-optimal planting dates. Agronomy. J.: 59–64. D.o.i:10.2134/agronj2009.0219.
Clark, A. (Ed.). 2012. Managing cover crops profitably (Third ed.). College Park, MD: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education.
Curran, W.S., R.J. Hoover, S.B. Mirsky, G.W. Roth, M.R. Ryan, V.J. Ackroyd, J.M. Wallace, M.A. Dempsey and C.J. Pelzer. 2018. Evaluation of cover crops drill interseeded into corn across the mid-Atlantic region. Agronomy Journal 110, 435–443. D.o.i.:10.2134/agronj2017.07.0395
Fisher, K. A., B. Momen,, and R.J. Kratochvil. 2011. Is broadcasting seed an effective winter cover crop planting method? Agronomy Journal, 103(2), 472–478. D.o.i.:10.2134/agronj2010.0318
Hively, W.D. and W.J. Cox. 2001. Interseeding cover crops into soybean and subsequent corn yields. Agronomy. J. 93:308-313. D.o.i.:10.2134/agronj2001.932308x
Hodges, H.F., F.D. Whisler, N.W. Buehrig, R.E. Coast, J. Mcmillian, N.C. Edwards, and C. Hovermale. 1984. The Effect of Planting Date Row Spacing and Variety on Soybean Yield in Mississippi (Bulletin 912). Report prepared for the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station.
Hamilton, A. V., D.A. Mortensen and M.K. Allen. 2017. The state of the cover crop nation and how to set realistic future goals for the popular conservation practice. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 72(5), 111-115A. DOI: 10.2489/jswc.72.5.111A
Mirsky, S.B., W.S. Curran, D.A. Mortensen, D.L. Shumway, and M.R. Ryan. 2011. Timing of cover crop management effects on weed suppression in no-till planted soybean using a roller-crimper. Weed Science 59:380–389
Oplinger, E.S. and B.D. Philbrook. 1992. Soybean planting date, row width, and seeding rate response in three tillage systems. Journal of Production Agriculture. 5: 94-99. DOI:10.2134/jpa1992.0094
Pedersen, P. and J.G. Lauer. 2004. Soybean growth and development response to rotation sequence and tillage system. Agronomy Journal 96(4), 1005–1012. D.o.i.:10.2134/agronj2004.1005
Wade, T., R. Claassen and S. Wallander. 2015. Conservation-Practice Adoption Rates Vary Widely by Crop and Region, EIB-147, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44027/56332_eib147.pdf?v=42403
Wallace, J.M., W. S. Curran, S. B. Mirsky, M.R. Ryan. 2017. Tolerance of interseeded annual ryegrass and red clover cover crops to residual herbicides in mid-Atlantic corn cropping systems,” Weed Technology, 31(5), 641-650.
Weaver, D.B., R.L. Akridge, and C.A. Thomas, C.A. 1991. Growth habit, planting date, and row-spacing effects on late-planted soybean. Crop Science (31) 805-810
Whaley, C., J. Adkins and P. Sylvester. 2015. Final report to Delaware soybean board: Evaluating the response of full season and double-cropped soybeans in narrow and wide rows to various soil moisture levels.
Wilson, M. L., J.M. Baker, and D.L. Allan. 2013. Factors affecting successful establishment of aerially seeded winter rye. Agronomy Journal, 105(6), 1868–1877.
Morgan N. Thompson & William O. Lamp University of Maryland, Department of Entomology
Nitrogen is a critical nutrient for forage crop growth and quality. Typically, farmers need to apply additional nitrogen fertilizers to meet the nitrogen demand of crops. Nitrogen-fixing crops, however, do not require nitrogen fertilizer inputs, providing their own nitrogen supply through symbiotic interactions with soil microbes (rhizobia). Rhizobia induce the formation of root nodules in nitrogen-fixing crops, predominantly legumes, and extract inert nitrogen gas from the atmosphere to produce ammonium. In exchange for ammonium, legumes provide the rhizobia carbohydrates to fuel the microbe’s metabolism. Alfalfa is a leguminous forage crop that relies on symbiotic interactions with rhizobia to obtain nitrogen. As a perennial crop, alfalfa stands can last from 3-7 years and typically require no nitrogen fertilizer inputs, making alfalfa a sustainable and high-quality option for forage growers.
Pest pressure can decrease the economic viability of an alfalfa harvest. One particularly devastating pest of alfalfa in Maryland is the potato leafhopper (Empoasca fabae). Potato leafhoppers migrate northward from the southern United States every spring, making the timing of management in the northeast very difficult. Additionally, potato leafhoppers can utilize many alternative host plants, some of which are also of agroeconomic value, such as soybeans and several other fruit and vegetable crops, and leafhoppers can reproduce multiple times during the growing season. To protect alfalfa from potato leafhopper damage (termed ‘hopperburn’), insecticides are often the only option for growers. As a perennial crop, serious pest pressure in one growing season could impact nitrogen fixation in subsequent growing seasons, further accelerating economic losses for growers.
Figure 1. Amount of fixed nitrogen in alfalfa stems and leaves. * represents significant differences between treatments. No Nitrate = No Nitrogen Fertilizer, Moderate Nitrate = Nitrogen Fertilizer Applied; E. fabae- = No Leafhopper Pressure, E. fabae+ = Leafhopper Pressure.
Therefore, in recent field and greenhouse experiments, we sought to determine the effect of potato leafhopper pest pressure on nitrogen fixation in alfalfa. We predicted pest pressure would negatively impact plant growth and carbohydrate production, resulting in reduced nitrogen fixation by rhizobia and uptake of fixed nitrogen by alfalfa. We also predicted losses in nitrogen content of alfalfa due to pest pressure could be offset by nitrogen fertilizer applications. To test our predictions in a field setting, we planted four combinations of small plots: 1) Fixing Cultivar + Nitrogen Fertilizer, 2) Non-Fixing Cultivar + Nitrogen Fertilizer, 3) Fixing Cultivar No Nitrogen Fertilizer, and 4) Non-Fixing Cultivar No Nitrogen Fertilizer. Fixing and non-fixing alfalfa cultivars were utilized to compare plants reliant on both nitrogen fixation and soil nitrogen with plants completely reliant on soil nitrogen. We split each plot in half, applying cages with leafhoppers to one side and cages without leafhoppers to the other. We analyzed the amount of fixed nitrogen in aboveground plant tissue. Results from the field experiment contradicted our predictions, showing nitrogen fertilizer did not increase aboveground nitrogen content of alfalfa under pest pressure. Nitrogen fertilizer (Moderate Nitrate) also decreased aboveground fixed nitrogen content in plants with and without pest pressure (Fig. 1). Unfertilized plants (No Nitrate), in contrast, showed significantly increased amounts of fixed nitrogen content when under pest pressure (Fig. 1). These results contradicted our predictions and suggest alfalfa interactions with rhizobia play a role in helping plants withstand pest damage.
We also examined leafhopper-alfalfa interactions in a greenhouse setting. Here, we analyzed the response of two different cultivars of alfalfa: leafhopper-susceptible (Pioneer 55V50) and leafhopper-resistant (Pioneer 55H94). Nitrogen fertilizer treatments were applied to both cultivars, as well as cages with or without leafhoppers. Results indicate that additional nitrogen fertilizer did not increase the percent nitrogen of plants under pest pressure, regardless of the cultivar (Table 1).
Overall, we conclude leafhopper pest pressure decreases total nitrogen content of alfalfa across all four cultivars tested in both field and greenhouse settings. Amending soils with additional nitrogen fertilizer did not offset losses to leafhopper pressure and we do not recommend this as a management strategy to growers. In our field experiment, however, we found evidence that leafhopper pressure enhances aboveground fixed nitrogen content of alfalfa grown in soils without additional nitrogen. Rhizobia may play an unexamined role in the response of alfalfa to leafhopper pressure. Broader implications of our results highlight how pest damage may increase nitrogen fixation, which may benefit farmers interested in utilizing nitrogen-fixing cover crops.
Acknowledgements: Many thanks to the Western Maryland Research and Education Center staff and greenhouse staff at the University of Maryland aiding in the execution of these experiments, as well as members of the Lamp Lab. This study was funded by Northeastern Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (Award Number GNE18-187-32231) and the Hatch Project MD-ENTM-1802.
Table 1. Systemic (shoots, crowns, roots) percent nitrogen content of susceptible and resistant alfalfa cultivars in the greenhouse. No Nitrogen Added = No Nitrogen Fertilizer, Nitrogen Added = Nitrogen Fertilizer Applied; Healthy = No Leafhopper Pressure, Injured = Leafhopper Pressure.
Alyssa Koehler, Extension Field Crops Pathologist University of Delaware
We are entering that time of year to begin scouting for stalk rots in corn. Stalk rot signs and symptoms do not appear until later in the season. After pollination, the ear becomes the major sink of sugars produced by the plant. If a stress event occurs, plants will divert or remobilize sugars from the stalk and roots to meet the needs of the developing ear. Often the pathogens that cause stalk rots are opportunistic and take advantage of plants that have been weakened by potential stress events (drought, flooding, hail, insect damage, foliar disease damage). It is also possible to have multiple stalk rot organisms in the same plant.
Yield losses occur when stalks become brittle and lodge close to harvest. Stalk rots can also result in premature plant senescence and reduced grain fill. When plants are a few weeks from physiological maturity (kernel black layer), stalk rots can be scouted by walking the field in a W pattern and randomly checking stalks with either the pinch or push test (aim to check 10-20 plants for every 10-20 acres). For the pinch test, pinch the stalk between the lowest two internodes to see if it can withstand the pressure, if the stalk collapses, it fails. To complete a push test, push the stalk 30 degrees from vertical (around 8 inches) and see how many spring back to upright or lodge. In cases where more than 10% of plants fail the test, you may want to consider harvesting at higher moisture and drying grain after harvest to avoid yield loss due to lodging.
Since stalk rots are linked to stress, the best management strategies are to reduce stress by planting optimal stand populations, irrigating when possible, managing insect pests and foliar diseases, and using a balanced nutritional program. Planting hybrids with some level of foliar disease resistance can also help to reduce plant stress and encourage strong stalk development.
Andrew Kness, Agriculture Agent University of Maryland Extension, Harford County
Compared to the 2018 wheat crop, 2019 was a much better year for Fusarium head blight (FHB, also known as head scab). Growing quality wheat in Maryland starts with proper variety selection. As you look ahead to the 2020 wheat crop, select wheat varieties that have good FHB ratings. There are no varieties with complete resistance to head scab; only varying degrees of susceptibility. Nevertheless, planting a somewhat resistant variety will go a long way in managing FHB and keeping vomitoxin levels (DON) lower in your grain compared to a susceptible variety.
To aid in your selection of wheat varieties, the University of Maryland screens several wheat varieties for their resistance to Fusarium graminearim, the causal agent of FHB. The results from the 2019 trials can be found here.
Additional considerations for FHB management include:
Planting behind soybeans rather than corn or other small grains. The FHB pathogen survives on residue of corn, wheat, barley, oats, and other grasses; however, it does not persist on soybean residue.
If planting into corn residue, consider tillage if it is an option for your farm. Sizing and burying corn residue will accelerate its decomposition and reduce the FHB pathogen survival.
Fungicides in spring 2020. Please note that fall fungicide applications do not have any effect on managing FHB. More information will be covered concerning fungicide recommendations in the spring, or read this article from earlier this year.
The Mid-Atlantic Crop Management School offers a 2 1/2 day format with a variety of breakout sessions. Individuals needing training in soil and water, nutrient management, crop management and pest management can create their own schedule by choosing from 5 program options offered each hour. Emphasis is placed on new and advanced information with group discussion and interaction encouraged.
You are encouraged to register as soon as possible in order to enroll for the sessions of your choice. Maximum capacity is 300 attendees.
Kelly Nichols, Agriculture Agent Associate University of Maryland Extension, Frederick County
This summer, we have gotten a few calls about Palmer amaranth and waterhemp, two pigweed species that are unfortunately becoming more common. These two pigweeds are difficult to control, mostly due to their herbicide resistance and fast growth (especially in hot weather). Often, these pigweeds are not noticed until they are seen growing up over the crop canopy, especially in soybeans. By then, it is too late to control them.
Figure 1. Palmer Amaranth
As we head into harvest, if you have Palmer or waterhemp – or want to make sure you don’t have them – scout your fields to be certain. Know how to identify Palmer (Figure 1) and waterhemp (Figure 2). The main characteristic is that these two troublesome pigweeds are completely hairless. Redroot and smooth pigweed, our most common pigweed species, have hairs on the stems and leaves. Another characteristic of Palmer is that the petiole (the little stem that attaches the leaf blade to the main stem) is longer than the leaf blade itself. (Note: Spiny amaranth, or spiny pigweed, is another pigweed that is common in pastures. It also does not have hairs; however, it will have spines on the stem. Palmer and waterhemp do not have these spines).
While you are scouting, pull out the Palmer or waterhemp plants (as many as you can). Palmer and waterhemp can produce hundreds of thousands of seeds per plant. At this point in the season, this is the best way to reduce the number of seeds that could germinate next year. Consider taking a paper bag with you to put the plants in, as smaller plants can re-root. Take the plants out of the field and bury or burn them.
Harvest infested fields last. The biggest concern with harvesting infested fields is the spread of the seeds – not only throughout the currently infested field, but also to other fields and possibly other farms. If there is only a small section of the field that is infested, consider not harvesting that section to avoid spreading the seeds. If you are not running the combine, be in communication with the person who is to ensure that Palmer or waterhemp seeds are not brought onto your farm and/or spread around your fields. If the infested harvested crop is to be fed to livestock, the processes of grinding, roasting, and ensiling can destroy weed seeds and prevent the seeds from being spread in the manure.
After harvest (or in between fields if necessary), clean out the combine. Pigweed seeds are tiny (about the size of a pencil point), and it is difficult to perfectly clean out a combine. However, cleaning can still reduce the number of weed seeds in the combine. Use compressed air and start at the front of the combine, working up to the grain tank and auger, and then to the back. Running straw through the combine can also help to clean it out. Research from the University of Delaware has shown that using compressed air in combination with running straw through the combine can potentially reduce the number of weed seeds in the combine by thousands.
Figure 2. Waterhemp
For next year, consider using these strategies to control Palmer and waterhemp: plant a cover crop to provide weed suppression in the spring; rotate to corn for more effective herbicide options (compared to soybeans) or a perennial forage; use the full recommended labeled rate; use residual herbicides in both the pre- and post-emergence applications, as Palmer and waterhemp seeds can germinate throughout the growing season; use multiple effective modes of action; and rotate modes of action. More information on Palmer and waterhemp, as well as herbicide resistance weed management, can be found at www.integratedweedmanagement.org, a website run by Extension Weed Specialists from across the U.S.
