Optimizing Drying for Hay and Baleage

Triticale field mowed for baleage
Amanda Grev, Pasture & Forage Specialist | agrev@umd.edu
University of Maryland Extension

Along with making corn and soybean planting a challenge, spring rains can make for a challenging forage harvest as well. The faster we can get our hay or baleage dry enough to bale or wrap, the more we can reduce the risk of rain damage and retain a higher quality end product. Follow these guidelines to help optimize drying time during forage harvest this spring.

The Forage Drying Process

Let’s think for a moment about the basic principles behind forage drying. When forage is cut, it is typically around 75 to 85% moisture, but it must be dried down to 40 to 60% moisture for baleage or 14 to 18% moisture for dry hay. During this wilting and drying process, plants continue the natural process of respiration, breaking down stored sugars to create energy and carbon dioxide. The longer it takes the forage to dry, the longer the forage continues to respire in the field. Data suggests that 2 to 8% of the dry matter may be lost due to respiration, resulting in energy losses and an overall reduction in forage quality. This means that a faster drying time will not only get the forage off the field faster but will also lower the amount of dry matter and nutrients lost through respiration.

The drying process happens in several distinct phases; knowing and understanding these phases can help us manage our forage in a way that will maximize drying rates and ensure nutrient retention within the harvested forage.

Phase One: Moisture Loss via Stomatal Openings

The first phase in the drying process is moisture loss from the leaves. This happens through the stomata, which are the openings in the leaf surface that allow for moisture and gas exchange between the leaf and the atmosphere. These stomata are naturally open in daylight and closed in darkness. After a plant is cut, respiration through these stomatal openings continues but gradually declines until the moisture content has fallen below 60%. Rapid drying in this initial phase to lose the first 15 to 20% moisture will reduce loss of starch and sugar and preserve more dry matter and total digestible nutrients in the harvested forage.

Solar radiation is the biggest driver for maximizing drying during this initial phase. This can be accomplished by using a wide swath (at least 60% of the cut area), which will reduce the density of the forage swath and maximize the amount of forage exposed to sunlight. A wider swath will increase the swath temperature, reduce the swath humidity, and keep the stomata open to allow for moisture loss, encouraging rapid and more even drying immediately after cutting. In contrast, narrow swaths will have higher humidity and less drying, allowing respiration to continue and leading to further dry matter and nutrient losses. Wide swaths also help keep the crop off of wet soil more than narrow swaths, since narrow swaths are heavier and tend to settle through the stubble and make contact with the ground.

Research has shown that a wide swath immediately after cutting is the single most important factor in maximizing the initial drying rate and preserving digestible dry matter. To reduce soil moisture, some will cut their hay in a narrow swath and allow the ground to dry before spreading the crop out. However, research indicates that valuable drying time is lost while allowing the ground to dry, so this practice is not recommended. A full width swath will increase the drying surface of the swath by 2.8 times, and moisture reductions from 85 to 60% can be reached in as little as 5 to 7 hours. Baleage from wide swaths has been shown to have lower respiration losses during drying, greater total digestible nutrients, and more lactic and acetic acid, improving forage quality and fermentation.

During this phase, a wide swath is more important than conditioning, as most of the respiration takes place in the leaves. While conditioning is important for drying stems, it has less impact on drying leaves and therefore will have little effect on this initial moisture loss. This means that for baleage, a wide swath may be more important than conditioning.

Phase Two: Stem Moisture Loss

The second phase in the drying process includes moisture loss from the stems in addition to the leaves. Once moisture levels have dropped to the point where plant respiration ceases, the closing of the stomata traps the remaining moisture, slowing further drying. Loss of moisture from the stems is a much slower process because stems have a lower surface to volume ratio, fewer stomata, and a semi-impervious waxy cuticle that minimizes water loss. At this stage, conditioning can help increase the drying rate because it provides openings within the plant’s structure, breaking the waxy cuticle, providing an exit path for moisture, and allowing drying to continue at a faster rate. For maximum effectiveness, be sure the conditioner is adjusted properly. Forage is considered properly conditioned if the stems of legumes are scraped or broken every 2 to 4 inches and less than 5% of the leaves are bruised. In general, roller conditioners are best suited for alfalfa or alfalfa/grass mixtures, while flail conditioners work best for grasses.

Additional Factors

In addition to swath width and conditioning, several other strategies can be used to improve drying time. Be sure to mow forages at the proper height, leaving 2 to 3 inches of residual for alfalfa and 4 inches for cool-season grasses. Not only will this result in improved stand persistence, quicker regrowth, and sooner subsequent cuttings, but the stubble will help to elevate the swath, breaking contact from the ground, reducing moisture wicking from the soil, and promoting better air flow for drying. 

If possible, mow earlier in the day, preferably around mid- to late-morning after the dew has dried off. Although it is true that cutting later in the day can result in greater concentrations of sugars and starches in the forage at the time of cutting, increased respiratory losses overnight and a longer total drying time may offset this potential benefit with afternoon cuttings. Research in high-moisture environments has not found any forage quality advantage with afternoon cutting. Instead, mowing earlier in the day will allow for a full day of drying right away, maximizing exposure to sunlight and resulting in a faster drop in moisture and reduced respiration. 

And finally, be sure to rake or merge forage at the right time and adjust your rake properly. Raking the forage while it is still pliable helps to reduce leaf loss and maintain forage quality; legumes like alfalfa and clover should be raked when the forage is above 40% moisture, and grasses should be raked above 25% moisture. Rakes should be adjusted to minimize soil contact, as soil incorporation into the windrow leads to increased ash contamination. Research has found that for every 1% increase in ash content, there is a 1% decrease in total digestible nutrients. 

In conclusion, mowing at the proper height, using an appropriate and correctly adjusted conditioner, raking at the right time with a properly adjusted rake, and utilizing wide swaths to take advantage of sunlight are key to both faster drying and preserving digestible dry matter. Remember, a wide swath enhances leaf drying while conditioning expedites stem drying; both are needed to make high quality hay. 

Corn Fungicide ROI Calculator

Andrew Kness, Senior Agriculture Agent | akness@umd.edu
University of Maryland Extension, Harford County

The Crop Protection Network has a new corn fungicide return on investment (ROI) calculator: cropprotectionnetwork.org/fungicide-roi-calculator. This can be used to determine estimated ROI for your corn crop and can be used to select if and which products to use. Pre-populated data is used, but you can customize the inputs for your operation. The following is information on the tool from the Crop Protection Network website:

Information on the Corn Fungicide ROI Calculator

The purpose of this calculator is to share results from university uniform corn fungicide trials conducted in the United States and Canada, and allow farmers and others in the agricultural industry to calculate the potential return on investment (ROI) for corn fungicide application across a variety of user-defined factors, which is based on research data included in this calculator. 

The treatment cost, expected benefits, and breakeven probability values shown in the calculator are estimates based on data and not guaranteed values. Also, values are derived from data collected in trials designed to test specific product comparisons, and data are not available for all labeled fungicides on corn. Data are not comprehensive and represent only the treatments tested in these trials.

How were fungicide products selected for inclusion in the calculator?

The Corn Disease Working Group (CDWG) develops annual uniform testing protocols based on feedback from university extension specialists. Trials typically test between five and 10 fungicide products per year, per trial. Products are selected based on availability and market share, and typically represent products available to and used by a majority of farmers. Focus is also placed on newer products where efficacy data might be lacking across the corn production belt of the United States.

How were treatment costs determined?

The CDWG solicits information on fungicide product pricing and application costs from university extension specialists annually. Methods for collecting these costs vary by state or province and year. Specialists may collect pricing information from surveys or direct feedback from university Extension, industry, farmers, and other agricultural personnel. Product and application costs are averaged, and a national mean and median are determined for each product based on submitted data. The treatment costs for each product listed can be changed to tailor the expected benefit estimates to local pricing.

How are expected net benefits/acre calculated?

The expected net benefit is an estimate of ROI when considering several variable factors that can be measured or estimated. These factors include the proportional yield benefit (yield of the treated plots vs. non-treated) for each fungicide across a range of disease levels. This is then combined with total treatment cost (cost of the fungicide plus application cost) and expected commodity sale price per bushel with both parameters fit to a function that estimates the expected net benefit per acre. This function is only a best estimate based on the available data and reported, real-world treatment costs. Unaccountable error and uncertainty exists in the data and actual ROI may occasionally be significantly different from the estimates reported here.

How are expected breakeven probabilities calculated?

Thousands of simulations were performed to estimate the expected ROI of fungicide usage application across a range of inputs used to calculate expected net benefits. The expected breakeven probabilities represent the proportion of total simulations that had an expected net benefit of zero or greater, given a fungicide and set of crop characteristic inputs.

What does disease severity mean?

“Low” indicates simulations made using a final end-of-season disease severity level of 1%. “High” indicates simulations made using end-of-season disease severity level of 5% or above. The levels were chosen based on previous research demonstrating detectable yield loss from disease at 5% or above. You may also choose to explore a different end-of-season severity by ticking the box next to “I’d like to enter a custom disease severity %.” Disease severity levels should be set at what is expected for a particular hybrid in a particular field at the end of the season.

Important notes about data

Currently data available in the calculator are from university uniform corn fungicide trials conducted across 19 states and Ontario, Canada between 2019 and 2022. Primary diseases in this data set were tar spot and southern rust. Diseases, such as gray leaf spot, northern corn leaf blight, and others, were observed at lower frequencies in this dataset.

Disclaimer

This information is only a guide, but is based on multi-year research across multiple locations. Contributors and data managers assume no liability resulting from the use of these estimates. 

References to products in this resource are not intended to be an endorsement to the exclusion of others that may be similar. Individuals using such products assume responsibility for their use in accordance with current directions of the manufacturer. 

Find out More 

The Crop Protection Network (CPN) is a multi-state and international collaboration of university and provincial extension specialists, and public and private professionals who provide unbiased, research-based information to farmers and agricultural personnel. Our goal is to communicate relevant information that will help professionals identify and manage field crop diseases.

Find more crop protection resources at the Crop Protection Network

Acknowledgments

Data compilation:

Maria Oros, Isaac Baumann, and Jason Lo, Data Science Institute, University of Wisconsin-Madison

 

Early-Season Soybean Pests 

Hayden Schug, Agriculture Agent | hschug@umd.edu
University of Maryland Extension, Charles County

As soybean planting gets underway across Maryland, it’s important to watch for early-season pests that can impact stand establishment and ultimately yield potential. 

Seedcorn maggots are a common problem in freshly tilled fields, especially those with high organic matter or recent manure applications. Maggot feeding can destroy the sprouting seed, leading to weak stands or gaps in rows. An insecticide seed treatment containing neonicotinoids (such as thiamethoxam or clothianidin) can protect against seedcorn maggot. Additionally, monitoring soil temperatures and avoiding planting into cool, wet soils can help minimize risk.

Slugs are another concern in no-till and cover-cropped fields. They thrive in moist, heavy residue environments and can cause heavy feeding injury to cotyledons, stems, and young leaves. Good furrow closure at planting is critical, open seed furrows can create a pathway for slugs to reach seeds and seedlings before emergence. Slug baits containing iron phosphate or metaldehyde can be applied if damage is severe, but results are often variable. Managing residue to reduce slug habitat and scouting early are important preventative steps.

Bean leaf beetles may also move into emerging soybeans, feeding on cotyledons and early leaves. While light feeding typically does not justify treatment, heavy populations can reduce stands. Insecticide seed treatments should provide adequate protection, however, if high populations persist, foliar insecticide applications labeled for bean leaf beetle, such as pyrethroids, can be used if defoliation thresholds, 30% for vegetative growth, are met.

Timely scouting is critical. Examine plants as they emerge, especially in fields with a history of early pest issues, cover crops, or heavy residue. Focus on stand counts and visible injury, and determine if replanting or other action is needed based on stand loss and defoliation thresholds. A pest timeline for common soybean insect pests is found in the figure attached.

Screening Palmer Amaranth to Common Postemergence Herbicides

Kurt Vollmer, Weed Management Specialist, University of Maryland Extension
and Mark VanGessel, Weed Management Specialist, University of Delaware

Palmer amaranth continues to be a major concern for farmers on the Eastern Shore. Many populations are already known to be resistant to glyphosate (Roundup) and Group 2 herbicides (e.g., Sandea, Raptor). Additionally, in North Carolina, some populations have developed resistance not only to glyphosate and Group 2 herbicides but also to Liberty and Callisto. 

To investigate if there is a shift in Palmer amaranth response to commonly used herbicides in our region, we collected seed samples from 17 sites across the Eastern Shore. Most of these fields had been planted with soybeans, and seeds were collected in September. After cleaning, the seeds were stored in a refrigerator for three months to improve germination.

We evaluated each population with four herbicides all applied postemergence: Callisto, Reflex, Enlist One (2,4-D), and Liberty. At least five individual plants from each population were treated with each herbicide.

All the populations were susceptible to Enlist One and Liberty at the normal use rate (1 qt/A for each). However, nine of the populations had at least one plant survive when treated with Callisto, and five populations survived a Reflex application.

We are partnering with Penn State University to conduct further analysis to determine if we are seeing Palmer amaranth resistance developing to Callisto or Reflex in our region. 

It is important that Palmer amaranth infested fields get treated with two effective modes of action, applied at full rates. Research has demonstrated that tankmixing two effective modes of action is better for managing resistance than using them in sequence. And do not rely on the same modes of action year after year. Scout fields shortly after application to determine if control was adequate, and if it was not, follow up to avoid Palmer amaranth “escapes” from going to seed.

Review the article from the April 4, 2025 Weekly Crop Update for additional considerations on Palmer amaranth control.

Update on Research for Management of BMR Male Sterile Forage Sorghum

Thomas Kilcer, Field Crops & Soils Educator (retired)
Cornell Cooperative Extension
Figure 1. BMR male sterile forage sorghum trial in NY produced over 30 T/A of 35% DM silage.

We are at the same stage of BMR male sterile sorghum as we were in the early stages of winter triticale work 30 years ago. We can see the huge benefits on farms, but we are trying to develop the best management techniques to optimize the farmer’s success with this crop. Winter triticale forage was 1.5 – 2.0 tons of dry matter when we started. It is now 3.5 to 4 tons dm/A in the north and as high as 6.5 t/dm/A in the south. Harvested at peak nutrition, triticale now has higher milk potential than good alfalfa haylage. Now, we are developing management to bring male sterile BMR sorghum to that level of results and replace corn silage in the dairy diet.

Farmers growing the BMR male sterile sorghum have seen an increase in butterfat as the crop was added to the ration. With the high sugar content of 25 to 30% of DM (corn silage is 1 – 4%), you get all the benefits of extra sugar without the cost. Compared to other sugar sources, this is a steady, slow-release sugar that enhances rather than overwhelms the rumen. Production was as high as corn silage. In last year’s dry conditions, nearly all reported far higher sorghum yields than with the corn silage. Corn seed cost is higher than $180/acre while sorghum is about $25/acre. Sorghum is without the cost and effort of multiple fungicide sprays now required on corn. It is a completely organic way of killing corn root-worms. They hatch out in the sorghum field and, after taking a bite of the root, are dead from prussic acid. It does not get corn tar spot. Sorghum planted in warm soil and narrow rows (7.5 inches) quickly shades the ground to eliminate weed competition. It also intercepts raindrop impact to stop or reduce the erosion common on newly planted corn ground. A benefit we found earlier is that deer love to hide in sorghum and then come out to eat your neighbor’s corn. We have no feedback on the impact of a bear yet.

We see tremendous potential for organic farms. They plant corn silage because that is what farmers are supposed to do. As soon as it emerges, on the nice days, they are out cultivating to stay ahead and beat the weeds. Unfortunately, at that time of year, nice days used for cultivating are lost for the haylage harvest that loses quality literally by the day. For growing sorghum without herbicides, it MUST be planted in warm soils – 65ºF or more. This allows it to jump out of the ground and outgrow the weeds. I have measured foot-tall sorghum growing more than 3 inches a day (21 inches in a week). So sorghum is planted after the haylage harvest, which is now able to be cut on time.

When we first started working with sorghum, the seeding rate suggested by seed sales was 10 to 15 lbs. or more per acre. At that rate the population was over 160,000 seeds/acre. In 30-inch rows, that is nearly a solid stand in the row. It had major lodging before harvest as a result. Most companies are now suggesting about 60-80,000 seeds/acre. In a 30-inch row that is still too tight, there is significant lodging. A corn planter with Milo plates and the drawbar offset 7.5 inches will plant very accurate 15-inch rows by doubling back and driving on the same tire tracks. This will allow you to double the space between the plants in the row at the same population, and greatly improve lodging resistance. Planting at 7.5-inch rows is ideal and gave us the highest yield without lodging. The plants were more uniformly spaced in the field. Unfortunately, drills are a controlled dump and do a horrible job of uniformly spacing the seeds. Adding insult to injury, the accordion tubes on most drills catch the seed and then dump it in clumps, negating the row spacing advantage. Air drills, properly set up, have been found to have the potential for very accurate seed placement.

Our research here at the University of Tennessee was targeted to determine the optimum row width and plant population for male sterile BMR sorghum. The staff worked very hard to get a replicated trial of three row widths (7.5, 15, and 30 inches) at populations of 30,000, 60,000, 90,000, 120,000, and 150,000 seeds/acre. It came up and grew nice until early July. Then, a wicked line of thunderstorms rolled through with high winds, downpours, and heavy hail. My house lost 10 panes of glass in the front from the golf-ball-sized hail. A friend nearby got softball-sized hail that destroyed the side of her house and all the windows on that side.

The worst was the many hundred acres nearby of fresh tomatoes under plastic that were just sizing the fruit. All were destroyed. My sorghum trial still had the 30,000 and 60,000 plant populations standing, the rest was flattened. Those rows that stood lasted until September, when Hurricane Helene finished completely flattening the stand. Yes, even researchers are hammered by bad weather.

Fortunately, Jodi Letham, the regional Cornell Agronomist for Western NY, had an identical trial with 15-inch and 7.5-inch rows planted with an air drill near Geneseo, NY. It stood perfectly at all populations and yielded up to 30 tons of 35% DM silage/acre in a drought year. The advantage of the 7.5-inch row width showed in the yields of over 60,000 plants/acre were 25 to 30 tons/acre of silage. Interestingly, the NDFd30 peaked at about 60,000 harvested plants/acre to maximize the feed value. This is starting to support our hypothesis that increasing stalk diameter by controlling population and row width will increase the digestible component of the forage. This is preliminary, and more work needs to be done in this area.

We are also looking at some outside-the-box alternatives. One is to use a naturally occurring plant growth regulator, ethephon (not legal – research only). This concept is to use a normal BMR sorghum but eliminate the fertile seed so the sugars stay in the plant cells like a male sterile BMR would. This would eliminate the problem of outside pollen blowing into the field, as seen in some of our research. The trial went great, except we did not use a high enough rate and had a full seed set on all treatments. That is why we research so you will not have to make mistakes. As one farmer said with a smile, “we knew you were a professional screw up, but thank you so we don’t make the same mistakes.”

We are presently going to test seed treatments to accelerate germination and emergence. This gives the plant a running start on the weeds, which is critical for the organic farms switching to this from corn silage. We will repeat the row/population trial and the ethephon trial.

Maryland Regional Crop Reports: April 2025

Western Maryland

Weather has been different in 2025 for sure here in Washington County. We had some of the lowest temperatures for some years and the longest sustained cold spell in recent memory. Hopefully this will help break some insect and disease cycles. Additionally, the snow was good ground water recharge although not as much as we would have liked. Then came the dry weather. The later part of winter and early spring has been unseasonably dry if we can even use that phrase anymore. Recent showers and projected precipitation has raised our hopes again for a good crop year, even if the only activity to date has been fertilizer and manure application. Planters are being tuned up and farmers are practicing their patience waiting for soil temperatures to raise.—Jeff Semler, Washington Co.

Central Maryland

Temperatures have been all over the place. It was 80 degrees a few weekends ago, and this morning it was 29 degrees. Temperatures are predicted to be a bit more spring-like over the next week and a half. Recent rains have made small grains and cover crops look better. We are still in a drought. Nitrogen and herbicide applications have gone out on wheat and barley. In eastern Montgomery County, wheat is at Feekes 5 (leaf strongly erected).—Kelly Nichols, Montgomery Co.

Northern Maryland

The theme for this winter has been cold and dry. We did get a few significant snow storms, but we are still very dry—recent rains are contributing to some good topsoil moisture at the moment. Hay and pastures look very good. Small grains did not tiller very much in the fall but have greened up and look decent and the second shot of nitrogen will be going on in the next week or so. Temperatures have dropped back into the 30s and 40s this week and soil temperatures are still running about 5 degrees cooler than normal. In a normal year there would be planters hitting the fields in the next few days for a few early plant fields, but not this year—we are still a couple of weeks from that.—Andy Kness, Harford Co.

Upper & Mid Shore

No report this month.

Lower Eastern Shore

Spring has sprung but the ground is still cold and wet. Farmers have been able to get into the fields to apply manure, and most manure application is done. Some fields are being tilled. The first spray of spring nitrogen is being applied to wheat. Cover crops are still growing on the majority of fields, although termination has begun. Corn and soybean planting has not started due to wet and cold soil conditions.—Sarah Hirsh, Somerset Co.

Southern Maryland

Farmers are preparing for planting. Everyone is busy spreading litter/manure, applying herbicides and completing field operations before planting commences. The region received some much-needed rains over the last two weeks with more anticipated this weekend. Field temperatures are still a little cool for planting with the cold front moving through this week driving temperatures lower. I suspect most planters will hit the field next week when temperatures warm again. Burndown of annual ryegrass continue to be a challenge.  Small grain crops are at jointing stage. Most of the second N applications are being made now. Alfalfa fields are a but earlier than normal with first cutting coming up soon. Alfalfa weevil is active. Hay fields have greened up nicely. We have struggled with fall planted cool season grasses across the region. Stands did not establish due to the dry fall and annual weeds are plentiful without the competition.—Ben Beale, St. Mary’s Co.

*Regions (counties):
Western: Garrett, Allegany, Washington. Central: Frederick, Montgomery, Howard. Northern: Harford, Baltimore, Carroll. Upper & Mid Shore: Cecil, Kent, Caroline, Queen Anne, Talbot. Lower Shore: Dorchester, Somerset, Wicomico. Southern: St. Mary’s, Anne Arundel, Charles, Calvert, Prince George’s

April 2025 Grain Market Report

Dale Johnson, Farm Management Specialist | dmj@umd.edu
University of Maryland Extension

Corn

This month’s 2024/25 U.S. corn outlook is for greater exports, reduced feed and residual use, and smaller ending stocks. Feed and residual use is cut 25 million bushels to 5.75 billion based on disappearance during the December-February quarter as indicated in the March 31 Grain Stocks report. Exports are raised 100 million bushels reflecting the pace of sales and shipments to date and relatively competitive U.S. prices. With no other use changes, ending stocks are down 75 million bushels from last month to 1.5 billion. The season-average corn price received by producers is unchanged at $4.35 per bushel. 

Soybeans

The outlook for U.S. soybean supply and use for 2024/25 includes higher imports and crush, and lower ending stocks. Soybean crush is raised 10 million bushels to 4.42 billion on higher soybean meal domestic use and soybean oil exports. Soybean oil exports are increased based on export commitments. Soybean oil for biofuel is lowered based on pace to date. However, stronger use is forecast for the last part of the marketing year due to tariffs impacting imports of other biofuel feedstocks, like used cooking oil. With soybean exports unchanged and imports increased slightly, soybean ending stocks are lowered 5 million bushels to 375 million.

Wheat

This month’s supply and demand outlook for 2024/25 U.S. wheat is for larger supplies, slightly smaller domestic use, reduced exports, and increased ending stocks. Supplies are raised on higher projected imports, up 10 million bushels to 150 million, with increases for Hard Red Spring (HRS), Durum, White, and Hard Red Winter (HRW). At this level, imports would be the largest since 2017/18. Domestic consumption is forecast 2 million bushels lower on reduced seed use, based primarily on the March NASS Prospective Plantings report. Feed and residual use is unchanged at 120 million bushels, but there are offsetting by-class revisions based on the March 31 NASS Grain Stocks report. Exports are lowered 15 million bushels to 820 million with reductions to HRS and HRW. Projected 2024/25 ending stocks are raised 27 million bushels to 846 million, 22 percent above the previous year. The season average farm price is unchanged at $5.50 per bushel. 

University of Maryland Extension Looking to Scout Your Late Season Cover Crops! 

Emily Zobel, Senior Agriculture Agent Associate | ezobel@umd.edu
University of Maryland Extension, Dorchester County

University of Maryland Extension is in its second year of a Maryland Soybean Board-funded research project investigating what insects may be using late-season cover crops as overwintering habitats and what that means for the following cash crop. We are looking for cover crop fields to scout on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, which will not be terminated until the end of April or May. If you have a field/fields you’d like us to scout or for more information, please contact Emily Zobel by email at ezobel@umd.edu or by phone at (410) 228-8800. Thank you to the Maryland Soybean Board for funding this research project.

University of Maryland Researchers Encourage Farmers to Participate in TAPS program

Researchers at the University of Maryland are inviting growers across the state to participate in their University of Maryland – Testing Ag Performance Solutions (UMD-TAPS) program this year. The program is supported by the Maryland Soybean Board and will run throughout the summer.

Piloted at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, the TAPS program provides farmers with a zero-risk opportunity to advance their agricultural management skills and knowledge. It serves as a growing season contest and research framework, designed to uncover how producers’ management decisions drive crop yields, farm profitability, and input-use efficiency.

Growers must make decisions about variety selection, fertility, pest management, and irrigation and their management decisions will be executed in small plots at the Wye Research and Education Center. Decisions made by all participants will be executed in one field, in a true head-to-head competition. The goal is to identify which suite of management decisions will become the most profitable, efficient, and highest yielding.

Researchers at the Maryland Agricultural Experimentation Station (MAES) WYE Research and Education Center will lead the program and gather data on each plot to share with farmers.

When the season ends, growers will participate in an awards dinner where they will gain access to valuable data sets to help them enhance their agricultural operations.

The irrigated corn competition is limited to 20 teams and the irrigated soybean competition is limited to 15 teams. Due to limited availability, researchers urge teams to sign up as soon as possible.

Interested applicants can sign up by following this link: bit.ly/UMDTAPS25. For any questions, please reach out to Dr. Nicole Fiorellino at nfiorell@umd.edu.

ESA and The Pesticide Strategies

ESA and The Pesticide Strategies

What Do All of Us Need To Know?

What:       Pesticide labeling is changing to incorporate protections for Endangered and Threatened species.  Only recently have labeled herbicides addressed ESA, but as additional herbicides are labeled and existing herbicides are re-registered, these changes will be more common. This meeting will address how these changes will impact pesticide applications and discuss what needs to be considered when selecting specific pesticides.

Date:   March 13, Thursday

Where:       Where: Maryland Department of Agriculture

                    50 Harry S Truman ParkwayAnnapolis, MD 21401

Organizers:   Niranjana Krishnan, Univ Maryland, Entomologist

            Bill Chism, WSSA, Chair of ESA Committee

            Kurt Vollmer, Univ. Maryland, Weed Scientist       

            Mark VanGessel, Univ Delaware, Weed Scientist

Time:  9:00 to 1:00 pm, meeting includes lunch

Objectives

i.Provide background on ESA

ii.How end users will use “the strategies” when making pesticides decisions

iii.Improve the training materials for a wider audience.

Topics:   

OrderTopicTime
1Background on ESA9:00
2Herbicide Strategy9:20
3Insecticide Strategy (draft) – what differs from Herbicide strategy9:35
4National Marine Fisheries Service – points are different and will this change?9:50
5State Regulators, DE & MD10:00
6Spray drift and calculations10:20
Break10:45
7Runoff/Erosion Mitigation calculations and calculator11:00
8Bulletins Live! Two go through an example11:25
9Example calculations from their own fields and report on the experience11:40
10Lunch12:20
11What can we do to improve the training?12:50

Credits are available for Delaware and Maryland pesticide applicator credits (MD: 8 credits),

Certified Crop Advisor credits (1.5 Soil and Water Management; 1 Integrated Pest Management) and NAICC (4.5 CEU credits).

In order to achieve Objective iii (improving training materials) we will be recording the presentations

Please Register

THERE IS NO COST, but we ask that you pre-register at: https://forms.gle/hZU2pFxmEnh6i7EA9