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:

One of the unique things about agriculture is that most ag producers are also their own chief executive officer and chief financial officer.  As agriculture becomes more and more complex, farm and ranch managers need to understand and communicate in the financial world.  The Center for Farm Financial Management has created a new online workshop series to help ag producers (and anyone who works with them) understand and use common financial statements and measures.  Our new website, Interpreting Financial Statements and Measures (IFSaM), is intended to teach producers the basics of interpreting the 4 major financial statements and the 21 financial measures recommended by the Farm Financial Standards Council.

IFSaM is a series of online videos that producers can work through at their own pace.  Each session provides benchmarks, based on actual farms, that producers can use to evaluate their own financial position and their financial performance.  Case farm examples are used to bring the data to life.  There are also optional “test your knowledge” quizzes at the end of each session.  In total, there is over 2 ½ hours of information.  Best of all, it’s free.

This series was created with funding from the North Central Risk Management Education Center.  IFSaM is located at http://ifsam.cffm.umn.edu/

• The science that is available to determine which housing systems are most desirable for laying hens, gestating sows and veal calves in the United States has not led to firm conclusions. No single system has scientifically been identified to be clearly superior to all others in regard to animal welfare because the welfare issues are different in different systems.

• There is no scientific consensus on which welfare criteria are most important. For instance, an animal behaviorist might focus on whether animals can express a wide range of normal behaviors, whereas a veterinarian might prioritize animal health, while a producer might emphasize animal production and reproduction as indicators of welfare. The truth is all of these factors interact to help define welfare, so no single indicator will explicitly define optimal animal welfare.

.

• Welfare tradeoffs exist for all conventional and alternative production systems. For example, in conventional sow gestation stalls, freedom of movement, and freedom to express most normal social behaviors are compromised, but individual animal monitoring and feeding are promoted, as are sow and caretaker safety, which can be jeopardized when aggression occurs in unrestrained animals. Likewise, in group housing, animals’ abilities to experience additional normal social interactions and express a greater behavioral repertoire must be weighed against the risks associated with sows having greater access to each other, which include increased risk of injury and competition for resources such as space and feed.

• Alternatives to standard housing systems need to be further researched. The risks and benefits of alternative housing systems to animal and human welfare must be well understood and adequately tested across the U.S. with animals of the genetic lines we typically use for production purposes.

• The welfare of animals in alternative systems needs to be at least as good as it is in standard systems before mandating the change in systems.

• The costs of shifting to alternative production systems on a much larger scale are currently unclear and need to be validated by a broader data set than that obtained from analysis of niche markets. In addition, impacts of alternative production systems on consumers’ access to high quality, safe food must be understood.

• Given there is no scientific consensus on which systems are ‘best’, those chosen for use reflect the knowledge, values and priorities of the people charged with making such decisions. Those individuals have a duty to ensure the values and concerns of all stakeholders, including members of the public, are duly considered. Consumer demand will play a role in how animals are cared for in food animal production operations.

• Quality of animal care and level of well-being are not dictated by the size or type of food animal production system. Indications are that animals can do well or poorly in any system. Design of facilities is important, as is the safe and judicious use of any tools or devices used in production systems, but training of workers and proper management are also key influences on animal state of being. In addition, attitudes and beliefs of caretakers influence how they interact with animals. Thus, it is essential to develop and implement animal caretaker training programs, and foster high ethical standards in caretakers.

• Existing commodity Quality Assurance Programs are of high quality in relation to food safety and food quality issues. As the Quality Assurance Programs continue to evolve, additional emphasis is being placed on education of caretakers about how their daily interactions with animals impact animal care and well-being.

• In many cases, best management practices are in place in food producing animal operations. Responsible members of the animal science and industry communities must, however, continue to seek to improve animal care.

.

Materials Developed by:

Dr. Candace C. Croney, Animal Welfare Scientist, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University

Dr. Naomi A. Botheras, Animal Welfare Extension Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

.

Materials Reviewed by:

Dr. Steven J. Moeller, Swine Extension Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

.

Fall brings wonderful colors, the smell of harvest in the air, and the not so great annual invasion of multi-colored lady beetles. Generally in late-September through October the Multi-Colored Asian Lady Beetle begins to seek out shelter where they will spend the winter hibernating. They prefer cavities that stay cool dry and offer concealment. In there native range of Asia the adult beetle seeks out cavities in cliff faces. In Ohio, the multi-colored Asian Lady Beetle adults seeks overwintering sites oriented toward light colored conspicuous objects such as light colored buildings especially on south and southwest sides of walls warmed by the sun.

Before we condemn this beetle as a complete nuisance, keep in mind that the Asian Lady Beetle is an important predator that consumes large numbers of aphids and scale insects on trees, shrubs and agriculture crops through out the spring and summer months. However, their choice of an overwintering location (generally people’s homes) leaves much to be desired. People often express concern and aggravation with these nuisance insects. The beetle will periodically invade living spaces in response to the warm interior temperatures. On warm sunny days they may move about and fly within the home.

When Asian lady beetles are disturbed they defend themselves by exuding a yellow-orange fluid. This fluid has a foul odor and can permanently stain walls, drapes, carpet and clothing. Refrain from crushing or swatting to minimize the release of this fluid. Asian Lady Beetles can bite but generally are not aggressive. Theses “nips” or “pinches” do not usually break the skin. They do not carry disease nor do they have any toxin associated with their mouthparts.

The best management recommendation is to prevent the beetles for entering the home or building. Outdoors check for and seal all obvious cracks and spaces where beetles can gain access. Check attic screens for holes, caulk wherever a utility pipe, telephone or cable enters the siding and make sure the weather seal on doors and windows is tight.

Chemical treatments can provide protection to help prevent pest entry. The pesticide typically is applied to outside walls and siding, as well as around eaves, attic vents, roof overhangs, and doors and windows. Pre-test a small area to ensure that the chemical treatment does not cause staining or discoloration. If using a pesticide, Ohio State University Extension researchers recommend using a pyrethroid insecticide product. Examples of pyrethroid active ingredients include: bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, etc.

Inside the home the use of a vacuum is the best defense. In small numbers, you may find the use or sticky tape helpful with capturing the flying beetle. Vacuuming is the most efficient and rapid technique. Be sure to empty the sweeper bag or receptacle immediately as the odor from the beetle can be quite unpleasant. Ohio State University’s official FactSheet on Multi-Colored Asian Lady Beetles is available at http://ohioline.osu.edu/hse-fact/1030.html

The following is condensed from the October 6, 2009 OSU CORN newsletter written by Dr. Mark Loux on marestail control.

The goal of a marestail management program is to ensure that the combination of fall and spring burndown and residual herbicides results in a weed-free seedbed at the time of soybean emergence, and little to no emergence of marestail between soybean emergence and crop canopy closure. Even the most effective marestail management programs can fail to completely achieve this, but they often keep the populations low enough in the soybeans that they are not problematic.

Marestail plants that emerge in late summer or fall are easily controlled with a fall herbicide treatment. However, it’s essential to realize that a fall herbicide treatment is not likely to accomplish everything that’s needed in an effective marestail management program.

In those marestail-infested fields requiring a fall herbicide treatment for management of other winter annual annual weeds or dandelion, it is essential not to apply all of the residual herbicide in the fall. This also applies to those fields that are typically so wet that soybeans cannot be planted until mid to late May. In this situation, the goal of a fall residual herbicide treatment might be just to ensure that marestail are not too large when burndown herbicides are finally applied in May. Regardless of the type of herbicides applied in fall, an effective rate of a residual herbicide should still be applied in the spring, to maximize control of marestail that emerges in May and June. We suggest one of the following approaches [for marestail control]:

1. Apply a combination of glyphosate and 2,4-D in the fall, followed by application of residual herbicide in the spring prior to soybean emergence. At the time of soybean planting, the field is likely to be infested with marestail that emerged earlier in spring, so include effective burndown herbicides (2,4-D, Gramoxone, glyphosate, or Ignite or some combination as appropriate based on herbicide resistance, plant size and time until soybean planting) to control emerged plants.

2. Apply 2,4-D with Canopy DF or EX at fairly low rates (e.g. 1 oz of EX or 2 oz of DF) in the fall, followed by application of residual herbicide in the spring (with burndown herbicides if the residual from fall does not hold marestail through planting). It is possible to follow the fall Canopy application with a spring application of a chlorimuron-containing herbicide, as long as the total does not exceed the maximum labeled rate of chlorimuron for the soil type.

3. In ALS-resistant populations where Canopy will fail to provide any residual control of marestail, it may be possible to substitute a combination of 2,4-D with metribuzin in the fall. This combination should control most emerged winter annuals, but can be weak on dandelion. Follow with application of residual herbicide in the spring (with burndown herbicides if the residual from fall does not hold marestail through planting).

Full podcast here: