AMES, Iowa – Agriculture’s contribution to carbon footprinting and greenhouse gasses is pointed out in headlines from the Wall Street Journal to Successful Farming. But 12 Midwest universities are collaborating to host a virtual conference that rewrites the headlines and suggests that agriculture can clean the planet. In a collaborative effort the universities are offering “Growing the Bioeconomy: Solutions for Sustainability” on Dec. 1, 2009 to share how that might be done.

“This conference will be a day filled with presenters offering solutions for sustainability,” said Paul Brown, Iowa State University Extension Agriculture & Natural Resources Assistant Director and conference chairperson. “Keynote speaker James Lovelock is one of the world’s most renowned thinkers on global environmental science. In his message, Dr. Lovelock calls upon farmers to convert agricultural residues to biochar for incorporation into the soil as the solution to global climate change.”

Lovelock’s presentation will be delivered via live feed to all participants. The morning plenary session will also include presentations by Johannes Lehmann, associate professor of soil fertility management and soil biogeochemistry at Cornell University and Matt Liebman, Wallace Chair for sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University. Lehmann will discuss the combined benefit of biochar for carbon sequestration and improved soil fertility. Liebman will present research findings on integrating conservation with biofuel feedstock production.

“This is the seventh year Iowa State University has hosted a bioeconomy conference, but the first time ISU has collaborated with 11 other universities to simultaneously hold the conference,” said Brown. “Last year ISU conference participants came from 23 states and for the past few years other state universities have organized conferences with a biobased theme – it just made sense to form an alliance and work together instead of competing and repeating efforts.”

From Wyoming to Ohio and Minnesota to Kansas, universities will co-host conference sites and share content through high-speed communication systems. Participants have the option of attending a state sponsored site, signing on as a corporate location or logging into the conference from anyplace in the world. Iowa State University is managing the conference registration and virtual conference technology. Specific information about participation options and conference registration are available at http://www.bioeconomyconference.org/registration.

Conference co-hosts University of Nebraska (UN), Michigan State University (MSU), North Dakota State University (NDSU) and Purdue University are organizing and e-hosting the afternoon concurrent sessions. The session begins at 1 p.m. and offers two tracks – net greenhouse gas emission from biofuel systems, hosted by UN; and non-traditional feedstocks, hosted by MSU.  The second concurrent session begins at 3:30 and covers topics related to advances and breakthroughs in biofuels, hosted by NDSU; and bioenergy economic and policy issues, hosted by Purdue. All tracks have four speakers; speaker and topic details are available athttp://www.bioeconomyconference.org/speakers/session.htm.

In addition to previously mentioned institutions, conference partners include Kansas State University, Ohio State University, South Dakota State University, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri, University of Wisconsin, University of Wyoming, North Central bioeconomy Consortium, and North Central Sun Grant Initiative. Additional conference information is available at http://www.bioeconomyconference.org/ .

From USDA-ARS website on biochar:

When biomass, such as crop residue and wood wastes, are heated in the absence of oxygen in a process known as pyrolysis, the biomass is transformed into a liquid known as bio-oil and a solid known as biochar. Bio-oil is a greenhouse gas neutral renewable energy product that has the potential to replace some petroleum products. Biochar is a type of charcoal. Biochar can be burned as a substitute for coal, but using biochar as a soil amendment may have many benefits for the environment. One of those potential environmental benefits is an improvement in soil quality. Application of biochar to soils reduces the density of soils and this makes the soils a better medium for plant growth.

Biochar amendments add plant nutrients to soils and increase the capacity of soils to retain both plant nutrients and water. These improvements in soil quality can increase crop yields. However, the quality of the biochar is very important. While some types of biochar increase crop yields, other types of biochar can reduce crop yields. This [information] will help farmers and land managers who are considering applying biochar to their fields avoid problems associated with putting the wrong type of biochar on their fields.

Full podcast here:

(Podcast taken from text provided by The Economist, 8/27/09 and University of Florida Extension Chemically Speaking http://pested.ifas.ufl.edu/newsletters/2009-10/biochar.htm).

Reblogged from the November 10, 2009 OSU CORN Newsletter

As you continue to harvest crops, plan on getting your fertilizer down this fall prior to frozen ground setting in or plan on waiting until spring after the thaw. Considering the number of acres that did not receive phosphorus or potassium last year with the prices we were facing, some of you may be in a situation where soil test indicates that you should make the application this year. If that describes your situation there is still time to make your applications this fall. The reason we would rather see applications made this fall is because we do not want to make applications on frozen ground. Applications made to fields with any appreciable slope can result in significant fertilizer losses. Not only do these losses represent an environmental concern, but they also represent an economic loss for your operation. Remember, if you soil test levels are still above our current critical levels (60 pounds per acre phosphorus, and 175-300 pounds of potassium, depending on soil CEC) then your risk of yield loss is small. Thus, you still do not have to make an application for next summer’s crops.

Another issue that producers are bring up is our current phosphorus and potassium recommendations and critical levels. Since at least some producers avoided applications of phosphorus and potassium last year and the crop season was as successful as it has been, growers question if our recommendations are too high. The Tri-State Fertilizer Recommendations are designed to ensure that phosphorus and potassium are not limiting production based upon soil test. A soil test value below the critical does not guarantee a yield loss, so those fields with low tests that performed well may have been those instances where enough phosphorus and potassium was made available (due to chance and weather) to allow for a relatively high yield. Additionally, since no fertilizer was supplemented, we do not know how much yield could have been made with an application (some yield may have been lost, but we have no way of measuring it without non-limiting control treatments replicated in the same field). Operating on low soil test levels is a risky venture, especially with potassium. We have documented yield losses of 35% and 50% on soils with below-critical phosphorus and potassium, respectively. You may be able to produce great yields on soils with low soil test levels, but the one time you do not will be a year you will remember.

The November 10 AgChat on Twitter brought about an interesting conversation based on the question: “Do we talk slaughter? What are good starters, how much do they really want to know & where do they get info?” This is a great question to which my answer was “I say ‘yes’, all part of transparency. I wouldn’t necessarily be advertising it, but if asked, yes.” But there were many other opinions and suggestions on how to approach the issue of animal slaughter/processing. A suggestion was made that a video may be helpful to explain the process. To that end, Truffle Media suggested the below video.

Acknowledgement: Thanks to Truffle Media for permission to embed this video.

Further information: If you’d like to know more, I suggest following @iTweetMeat on twitter.

.

Since we’ve had some nice weather for November I thought I would chat a bit this morning about turfgrass management.  If you are contemplating one final lawn mowing, try to resist the urge to set the mower down and scalp your lawn for the final mowing. Older publications may have recommended mowing low late in the fall and again in the spring for Midwest lawns. But recent research has there are not many advantages to this practice.  Agronomically, mowing turf low should be avoided because photosynthesis is very high during the fall even with cool temperatures.  The higher the photosynthesis, the more energy a grass plant have for next spring, and the healthier a grass plant.

Another good tip for turfgrass management is to consider a November application of turfgrass fertilizer. Fertilizer stimulates increased photosynthesis and some of the extra energy derived from fertilizer goes into turfgrass plant storage. Next spring, these storage products are used for green-up of the turfgrass plant, and more importantly, for turfgrass root growth. Though you might think that fertilizer applied early next spring would do the equivalent as November-applied fertilizer, just the opposite occurs. A spring application of fertilizer will never compensate for a missed application in November.

Full podcast here:

The following article is written by my colleague Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Tuscarawas County:

Have you ever been to the grocery store or the gas station and had the clerk talk on their cell phone or text a message while trying to take care of you? It has happened to me and you’ve probably had it happen to you or maybe witnessed it happen to someone else. Have you seen your employees do this?  If so, have you considered the potential negative impacts on productivity?

The use of cell phones has multiplied faster than we can imagine. It seems as though everyone has one (or as my seven-year-old son believes, needs one) and many feel this urge to talk on it continuously. Talking on a cell phone or sending text messages while on the clock is costly to the employer and can potentially be dangerous.

Many employees think they can multi-task, but the ability to do so is compromised when they are talking to their friend, wife, husband, girlfriend, etc., about what they did the night before or what they are planning for the weekend. A 2005 research study conducted by Hewlett-Packard and the Institute of Psychiatry at the University of London “found excessive use of technology reduced workers’ intelligence.  Those distracted by incoming email and phone calls saw a 10-point fall in their IQ – more than twice that found in studies of the impact of smoking marijuana.”  In another study, researchers at the University of California at Irvine monitored interruptions among workers.  “They found that workers took an average of twenty-five minutes to recover from interruptions such as phone calls or answering email and return to their original task.”  The job of milking cows is one that requires strict attention to detail. Forgetting to check for mastitis, dip teats, or having milk from a treated cow enter the tank can cost the farm thousands. Other jobs like operating a skid loader, hauling wagons on roadways, or driving a combine through a corn field are important jobs that can cause injury or death if the operator is talking or sending text messages.

As the owner you understand the negatives associated with allowing employees to talk on cell phones or send text messages when they are supposed to be working. So what can you do to correct problem employees? The best way to handle the situation is to have a written employee handbook that specifically addresses this issue. Some employers simply state that using a cell phone during working hours is grounds for instant termination, while others provide guidelines for their use, for example during breaks or at specified locations. When employees violate these policies, there needs to be a disciplinary procedure in place. For example, the first violation is a verbal warning, the second a written warning, and the third is an automatic termination. For some employers, hourly employees who violate the policy are sent home without pay for the remainder of their shift.

Because many of us have become so attached to our cell phones, it wouldn’t be surprising for employees to resist your attempts at restricting their use during work hours. Explain to employees that personal safety and productivity are concerns as for restricting their use during work hours.  If your policy allows for their use during breaks, explain to employees that messages can be checked at those times and calls returned.  In some instances it may be reasonable for employees to carry personal cell phones to communicate with one another when they need help.  Examples might include finding a down cow, assisting with a breakdown, or knowing when the next wagon will be to the field when harvesting.  Although an added expense another option to allow employees to communicate is for the farm to provide radios.

The age of social media can be frustrating to employers, but with some planning and written policies it can be managed. It’s hard to believe we survived all these years without the communication technology available today.

The below news release was prepared by Iowa State University:

Agriculture’s contribution to carbon footprinting and greenhouse gasses is pointed out in headlines from the Wall Street Journal to Successful Farming. But 12 Midwest universities are collaborating to host a virtual conference that rewrites the headlines and suggests that agriculture can clean the planet. In a collaborative effort the universities are offering “Growing the Bioeconomy: Solutions for Sustainability” on Dec. 1, 2009 to share how that might be done.

“This conference will be a day filled with presenters offering solutions for sustainability,” said Paul Brown, Iowa State University Extension Agriculture & Natural Resources Assistant Director and conference chairperson. “Keynote speaker James Lovelock is one of the world’s most renowned thinkers on global environmental science. In his message, Dr. Lovelock calls upon farmers to convert agricultural residues to biochar for incorporation into the soil as the solution to global climate change.”

Lovelock’s presentation will be delivered via live feed to all participants. The morning plenary session will also include presentations by Johannes Lehmann, associate professor of soil fertility management and soil biogeochemistry at Cornell University and Matt Liebman, Wallace Chair for sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University. Lehmann will discuss the combined benefit of biochar for carbon sequestration and improved soil fertility. Liebman will present research findings on integrating conservation with biofuel feedstock production.

“This is the seventh year Iowa State University has hosted a bioeconomy conference, but the first time ISU has collaborated with 11 other universities to simultaneously hold the conference,” said Brown. “Last year ISU conference participants came from 23 states and for the past few years other state universities have organized conferences with a biobased theme – it just made sense to form an alliance and work together instead of competing and repeating efforts.”

From Wyoming to Ohio and Minnesota to Kansas, universities will co-host conference sites and share content through high-speed communication systems. Participants have the option of attending a state sponsored site, signing on as a corporate location or logging into the conference from anyplace in the world. Iowa State University is managing the conference registration and virtual conference technology. Specific information about participation options and conference registration are available at http://www.bioeconomyconference.org/registration

Conference co-hosts University of Nebraska (UN), Michigan State University (MSU), North Dakota State University (NDSU) and Purdue University are organizing and e-hosting the afternoon concurrent sessions. The session begins at 1 p.m. and offers two tracks – net greenhouse gas emission from biofuel systems, hosted by UN; and non-traditional feedstocks, hosted by MSU.  The second concurrent session begins at 3:30 and covers topics related to advances and breakthroughs in biofuels, hosted by NDSU; and bioenergy economic and policy issues, hosted by Purdue. All tracks have four speakers; speaker and topic details are available at http://www.bioeconomyconference.org/speakers/session.htm

In addition to previously mentioned institutions, conference partners include Kansas State University, Ohio State University, South Dakota State University, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri, University of Wisconsin, University of Wyoming, North Central bioeconomy Consortium, and North Central Sun Grant Initiative. Additional conference information is available at http://www.bioeconomyconference.org/

This article was written by Barry Ward, Production Business Management, OSU Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics:

Budgeting helps guide you through your decision making process as you attempt to commit resources to the most profitable enterprises on the farm. Crops or Livestock? Corn, Soybeans, or Wheat? We can begin to answer these questions with well thought out budgets that include all revenue and costs. Without some form of budgeting and some method to track your enterprises’ progress you’ll have difficulty determining your most profitable enterprise(s) and if you’ve met your goals for the farm.

Budgeting is often described as “penciling it out” before committing resources to a plan. Ohio State University Extension has had a long history of developing “Enterprise Budgets” that can be used as a starting point for producers in their budgeting process.

Newly updated Enterprise Budgets for 2010 have been completed and posted to the Farm Management Website of the Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics. Updated Enterprise Budgets can be viewed and downloaded from the following website:

http://aede.osu.edu/Programs/FarmManagement/Budgets/

Enterprise Budgets updated so far for 2010 include: Corn-Conservation Tillage; Soybeans-No-Till (Roundup Ready); Wheat-Conservation Tillage, (Grain & Straw).

Our enterprise budgets are compiled on downloadable Excel Spreadsheets that contain macros for ease of use. Users can input their own production and price levels to calculate their own numbers. These Enterprise Budgets have a new look with color coded cells that will enable users to plug in numbers to easily calculate bottoms lines for different scenarios. Detailed footnotes are included to help explain methodologies used to obtain the budget numbers. Starting this year we will be updating these Enterprise Budgets periodically during the year is large changes occur in price or costs. Budgets will include a date in the upper right hand corner of the front page indicating when the last update occurred.

The following article was sourced from material developed by Gene McCluer, OSU Extension; Purdue University Professor Richard Stroshine; and the October 12, 2009 CORN Newsletter.

Farmers across Ohio are finding mold on corn in some fields this year. Both Diplodia and Gibberella molds have been reported, and they may cause challenges in grain handling and storage this year.  The cool, wet weather over the past month has prolonged conditions favorable for ear mold growth. At this point in the season, producers should scout remaining fields of corn and take note of areas and hybrids with ear rot problems. If Gibberella is present and the crop is insured, contact your insurance provider before harvesting the field to determine if adjustments are needed.

Generally, it is fairly easy to tell ear rots apart based on the color of the fungal growth on the ear, how the mold develops, and how the moldy kernels are distributed on the ear:

• With Gibberella ear rot, a pinkish mold starting at the tip and progressing toward the base of the ear is very typical of this disease.
• Fusarium ear rot also causes pinkish discoloration of infected kernels, however, with Fusarium ear rot the pink moldy kernels are usually scattered all over the ear. As the disease develops, the infected kernels may become tan or brown or have white streaks.
• Diplodia on the other hand causes a thick white mold to grow on the ear, usually starting from the base and progressing toward the tip. As the disease develops, the entire husk becomes bleached, covered with whitish-gray mold, and glued to the kernels.

There are no mycotoxins known to be associated with Diplodia ear mold, but there is a big concern with Gibberella ear mold. It can produce high levels of the mycotoxin DON (also known as vomitoxin). Early reports indicate that levels in corn grain range from 0.2 to 8 ppm, of this mycotoxin, and that can be a concern if grain is to be used for livestock feed. Zearalenone, also produced by this ear rot fungus, has estrogenic properties, which lead to infertility, abortion, or other livestock breeding problems. As little as 1 to 5 ppm zearalenone in a feed ration may produce an estrogenic effect in swine.

Purdue University professor, Richard Stroshine a said that if farmers try to operate like they normally do during harvest this year, the mold could cause some major problems during the storage of this year’s crop. Stroshine offers tips and advice for farmers in the Eastern Cornbelt who are dealing with Diplodia, Gibberella and other corn ear rots. Farmers who have moldy corn should remove as much of the fine material or broken pieces of corn as possible before storage. Use the combine’s full capabilities to help get rid of the fine material, and utilize high capacity screen cleaners as the corn enters the grain handling system. If fines aren’t removed from the grain, they will reduce airflow (primarily in the center of the bin) and promote the growth of mold within the grain. Proper aeration will help maintain even grain temperatures throughout the grain mass. Plan to dry the grain down to 14 to 14.5 percent moisture, but realize it’s not going to store as well as it has in previous years.

Even though it may slow down harvest, Stroshine recommends drying corn to below 15 percent moisture as soon as possible to help prevent any further mold issues.

Farmers may want to mix the corn with high levels of mold with their good corn, but Stroshine suggests segregating the good corn from the bad for storage. It should be handled separately, then if needed, the producer can blend it later to meet the marketing standards.

For more information on corn ear molds, see the OSU/OARDC Plant Pathology website at:

http://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/ohiofieldcropdisease/corn/corn2.htm

Also see the Purdue website about Gibberella ear mold at:

http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/others/2009/Gibberella-1002.pdf

SUMMARY

Gibberella ear rot:

• Pinkish mold starting at the tip and progressing toward the base of the ear
• mycotoxins a concern

Fusarium ear rot:

• Pinkish or tan moldy kernels scattered on the ear.

Diplodia ear rot:

• White mold growth starting at the base and moving up the ear
• Husk glued to kernels
• Lightweight ears
• no mycotoxins

Full podcast: