Lebanon Crop Management Video

Loading...

27 January 2012

Free Flood Affected Grain Sampling Offered by PDA

If you are concerned with the grain harvested from your fields due to the flooding experienced in September, PDA is offering free sample testing for major contaminents.  Please follew the procedure below  and send to the address at the bottom of this blog.


Grain Sampling Procedures

(These sampling guidelines are adapted from “Practical Procedures For Sampling Grain”, from USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).)

It is recommended that grain sampling and shipping be completed by a PSU County Extension Agent if available. Also, your feed nutrionist may be able to offer support with the collection and shipping of the grain samples.

Sampling is an essential part of the inspection process and is critical to the accuracy of the final grade. If the sample is not representative of the lot, the inspection result will not reflect the true quality of the lot.
Basic Principles of Obtaining a GOOD sample:
• Collect several samples from different areas of the lot.
• Combine these samples to form a single sample.
• Consider the size of the sample needed for analysis.
• Completely mix or blend the final sample.

Tailgate Sampling:
Use a container (a large coffee can will work) to sample grain from a moving stream of grain.  Tailgate sampling will draw a reasonably representative sample, as grain is loaded/unloaded from a combine to a truck/wagon or from a truck/wagon to a bin.
 
To Obtain A GOOD Sample With A Tailgate Sampler:
• Let the grain flow from the carrier (truck, combine, bin) for a few seconds before taking your first sample. Avoid sampling the last few bushels flowing out of the container.
• Hold the sampling device so that it is at one side of the grain stream.
• Pull the tailgate sampler through the grain stream in a continuous motion.
• Empty each sample into a clean, dry container.
• Take a minimum of three samples per carrier. More samples will yield a more representative composite sample.
 

Probe Sampling:
A hand probe is the only effective method of obtaining a representative sample from grain at rest in a truck bin or other container. There are two types of hand probes - a compartmented probe and an open-throat probe. The open-throat probe does not have compartments inside. This feature allows the sample to be poured directly from the probe into a sample container. The open-throat probe tends to draw more grain from the top portion of the lot. Results of the open-throat probe will differ from that of a sample drawn with a compartmented probe. Hand probes come in 5’, 6,’ 8’, 10’, and 12’ lengths. The sample is more representative of the lot if the probe reaches the bottom of the carrier.

To Obtain A GOOD Sample With A Hand Probe:
• Determine the locations in the container to be probed. Avoid sampling in the spout stream.
• With the slots on the probe closed, insert the probe at a slight angle (10 degrees).
• With the slots facing upward, open the probe and move it up and down in two short motions to fill the compartments.  
• Close the probe, withdraw it from the grain and empty the grain onto a canvass or trough that is slightly longer than the probe you are using. If you are using an open-throat probe, pour the grain from the open end of the probe directly into a clean, dry container.
 
While drawing the sample, observe the general condition of the grain and check for objectionable odors, insect infestation, large stones, pieces of metal or glass and any other potentially harmful conditions.

****It is imperative to draw a representative sample and get as accurate of an inspection as possible.  The condition of stored grain can change depending on the conditions of the storage area and the quality factors of the stored grain. ****
Testing Procedures

The Department will offer grain testing, at no charge, to help producers, not covered by crop insurance, who choose to make determinations on grain quality for harvesting and feed potential and assess whether it is likely that any of the listed contaminants are present in flood affected field crops.

Grain samples submitted for testing must meet the following criteria: 

  1. Grain samples should be obtained by collecting a representative 6 - 10 pound sample of the grain from a bin or truck using established procedures (see guidelines above).  Grain should be cleaned and dried. Ideally, samples should represent grain lots of 10,000 bushels or less.
  2. Samples should be submitted to the laboratory in a paper bag, so condensation does not occur, along with the name, address, and telephone number of the grain producer.  The lot of grain that was sampled should also be identified.
  3. Test results should be available to the producer in approximately 7-10 days from receipt of sample, dependent on the findings.  Positive results in any category may require additional testing and increase the turnaround time for analytical results.
  4. Based on the test results, producers can then voluntarily advise the Department of their intentions regarding the use, non-use, incorporation, composting, handling, storage, or other disposition of the grain.

Samples should be submitted to the attention of: Michael Hydock, Chief; Division of Lab Section, Bureau of Food Safety, 2301 North Cameron Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110

20 January 2012

Penn State Crops Conference and Ag Compliance Meeting Feb 9 Lebanon Expo Center

The objective of this program is to provide detailed crop management information. 
Pesticide Compliance credits, nutrient management credits, CCA credits, Manure Hauler Credits, Certified Grassland management Credits have all been applied for at this time. 
 You will have the final choice of 6 breakouts per half hour to ensure you gain useful information. 
A special session on AG LAW will be provided particularly useful to the Township Supervisors.
A Forage and Grain Contest will be offered so please plan to bring your items with a recent analysis to the event.

See you all then!!
Del

Registration Instructions:
Registra
State’s Cvent Online Event Registra
1. Go on our website:Conference Registration
􀆟on for this class must be done through Penn􀆟on.
2. Click on
3. Scroll down to
4. Click on
Events on the upper le􀅌 hand side,January 2012 Events,Crops Conference Lebanon PA
5. This will take you directly to the link to register
through
Cvent
6. Follow the instruc
􀆟ons
To register by phone or if you need assistance
to register, please call Cvent's toll free phone
number:
 Call this nmber to Register 1-877-489-1398
Walk Ins are welcome!

Session 1 | 10:00 AM - 10:30 AM | Topics
A Category
Ph.D. & John Bray
| What’s New for Weed Control in 2012 | William Curran,
B Core
| Adjuvant Selection & Use | Jeff Graybill
C
Biofuels and Energy Crops | Gregory Roth, Ph.D.
D
Cover Crop Options for Small Dairy Farms | John Rowehl
E
Grain Marketing and RSF Management | John Berry
F
PA One Stop Farm Mapping Training | Rick Day
G
Ross Pieffer, Director of Ag Law Office
The Legal framework for Farm regulations in the Chesapeake Bay |
Session 2 | 10:40 AM - 11:10 AM | Topics
A Category
| 2011 Disease and Fungicide Update, Alyssa Collins, Ph.D.
B Core
| Farm Family Exposure | Jeff Graybill
C
Potassium Management | Douglas Beegle, Ph.D.
D
Forage Quality: What Is It and How Can You Change It? | Andrew Frankenfield
E
Nutrient Management and Manure Update | Lynette Gelsinger
F
PA One Stop Farm Mapping Training | Rick Day
G
Managing Mosquitos and Ticks Using Pesticides | Phil Hall
Session 3 | 11:40 AM - 12:10 PM | Topics
A Category
| Designing Cost Effective Weed Programs | John Bray
B Core
Manure for Farms without Poultry | Douglas Beegle, Ph.D.
| Recycling and PDA Updates | Bill RidenC Managing Poultry
D
Alternative Grain Cropping Strategies | Gregory Roth, Ph.D.
E
Grain Marketing and RSF Management | John Berry
F
PA One Stop Farm Mapping Training | Rick Day
G
Ross Pieffer, Director of Ag Law Office
Exhibitor / Sponsor
The Legal framework for Farm regulations in the Chesapeake Bay |
Session 6 | 2:00 PM - 2:30 PM | Topics
A Category
Tooker
| Stinkbugs and Other Pests to expect in 2012 | John
B Core
| Pesticide Fate in Environment | Bill Riden
C
Adaptive Nitrogen Management for Corn | Douglas Beegle, Ph.D.
D
Managing Forages When Hay is $200+ Per Ton | Andrew Frankenfield
E
Nutrient Management and Manure Update | Lynette Gelsinger
F
PA One Stop Farm Mapping Training | Rick Day
G
Managing Mosquitos and Ticks Using Pesticides | Phil Hall
Session 7 | 2:30 PM - 3:00 PM | Topics
A Category
| Designing Cost Effective Weed Programs | John Bray
B Core
| Recycling and PDA Updates | Bill Riden
C
Cover Crops and Nutrient Management | Douglas Beegle, Ph.D.
D
Crop Management PA Soybean Management Update | Del Voight
E
Cover Crop Options for Small Dairy Farms | John Rowehl
F
PA One Stop Farm Mapping Training | Rick Rick Day3:00 PM | Announcements & Adjourn

11 January 2012

FW: Field Crop Newsletter 12:01

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/11/2012

In This Issue:

                              

A.     Weather Outlook

B.      PSU Extension Hosts 15 Crops Conferences

C.      Professional Crop Producers Conference

D.     Rootworm Resistance to Bt Corn

E.      Winter Grain Marketing

F.       Grain Marketing Webinar Series

G.     Newer Herbicides for Agronomic Weed Control

H.     Soybean Workshops a Big Success

I.        PA Soybean Contest Showcases Top Producers

J.        Manure Management Plan Workbook

K.     Upcoming Events

 

To see this and previous editions of the Field Crop News online, visit our homepage at http://fcn.agronomy.psu.edu

 

 

 

02 January 2012

Resistance to Bt corn varieties discovered in western corn rootworm populations in the Midwest



John Tooker, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist

Penn State Extension

Department of Entomology

Penn State University



Varieties of corn that have been genetically modified to be resistant to some caterpillar or beetle species are valuable assets for insect pest management.  Many growers across the United States depend on these ‘Bt corn’ varieties to control serious pests, particularly European corn borer and western corn rootworm, which can be quite challenging to control with typical insecticide applications.  It is vital to realize, however, that continued utility of Bt hybrids depends on proper stewardship of the technology.  This point has been driven home recently with the announcement that researchers at Iowa State University have detected field-evolved resistance by western corn rootworm to the Cry3Bb1 toxin expressed in some transgenic varieties.  The study is publicly available online (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022629) and was lead by Dr. Aaron Gassmann, who collected adult western corn rootworms from damaged fields that had been under continuous corn production.  Dr. Gassmann and his team found that the larvae of the field-collected beetles were able to survive far better on corn hybrids expressing the Cry3Bb1 protein than larvae from control beetles.

While some of the circumstances leading to this evolution of resistance remain to be determined, it appears that all the fields involved were in continuous corn production for at least four years and had used the same Bt toxin each of the years.  Specifically, most of the fields had been continuously planted with YieldGard rootworm varieties that expressed the Cry3Bb1 toxin.   Additionally, it seems that a lack of refuge acreage may have contributed to the problem.  Refuge acreage is required of growers who are using Bt hybrids and is vital to maintaining populations of beetles that are susceptible to Bt toxins; these susceptible beetles would then be available to mate with any resistant individuals emerging from Bt fields, delaying the evolution of resistance. Importantly, while Dr. Gassmann’s work was conducted in Iowa, the fields he studied are not isolated incidents; indeed, similar apparent resistance has been discovered in nearby states, including parts of Illinois, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Nebraska.

So what is the relevance of this issue for Pennsylvania?  Thus far, we have not heard any reports of failures of Bt hybrids in the Commonwealth, and this, of course, is good and will allow us to learn from the Midwestern experiences.  In Pennsylvania, corn rootworms do not pose the same threat that they do in the Midwest.  Here, many growers routinely rotate corn with soybeans and other crops, and this rotation prevents establishment of corn rootworm population and renders unnecessary transgenic varieties of corn targeting rootworms.  Nevertheless, like the Midwestern fields, some Pennsylvania farmers have continuous corn acreage where rootworm-active Bt varieties may be appropriate, and I urge these growers to use the documentation of Bt resistance in the Midwest as a caution signal and re-consider their rootworm management strategy for the next field season.  First, consider rotating fields that have been in corn for more than a few years.  Second, if you cannot rotate, and want to continue using rootworm-active Bt hybrids, ensure that you fully comply with refuge requirements.  Planting of refuges is required to help prevent the evolution of resistance and not complying simply threatens the viability of the technology.  Third, consider switching to a Bt hybrid expressing a different corn rootworm-active protein than the one you have been using, including possibly stacked hybrids with more than more protein active against rootworms.  This will provide a different mode of action for the field and delay of the possibility of resistance evolution.  Finally, consider applying a soil insecticide at planting, the way corn rootworms were controlled prior to the introduction of rootworm Bt events.  Any of these approaches will help break the path toward resistance development.  The bottom line is that relying on one tactic for too long is a prescription for evolution resistance—change up your approach to stay one step ahead of this important pest.