2009 Year in Review ~ Table of Contents 

WHAT’S NEW? 

2009 ARLINGTON AGRONOMY AND SOILS FIELD DAY  17 
2009 PEST MANAGEMENT UPDATE MEETINGS  146 
2009 WISCONSIN FARM TECHNOLOGY DAYS  94 
AGRONOMY/SOILS FIELD DAY, AUG 27  40 
AMANDA GEVENS JOINS PLANT PATHOLOGY  64 
APPLICATION TECHNIQUES FACT SHEET FOR BOOM SPRAYERS  22 
AUG. 26 FIELD DAY OFFERS UPDATES ON UW’S ORGANIC CROP AND LIVESTOCK RESEARCH   111 
CCA PRE‐TEST TRAINING SESSION   150 
CDTC 2009 WORKSHOPS ANNOUNCED  49 
CONTINUING CUSTOM APPLICATOR TRAINING  6 
CROP DIAGNOSTIC TRAINING CENTER 2009 WORKSHOPS APPROACHING  92 
FROST SEEDING RED CLOVER INTO WINTER WHEAT PUBLICATION  7 
FROST SEEDING RED CLOVER INTO WINTER WHEAT PUBLICATION NOW AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD  13 
GUIDE TO ESTABLISHING AND MANAGING SWITCHGRASS UPDATED  49 
HEALTHY GROWN POTATO CERTIFICATION PROGRAM SIGN UP  13 
INTRODUCING AMBER WEISENBERGER  145 
INTRODUCING MATTHEW DIGMAN  97 
INVASIVE RULE NR40 NOW OFFICIAL IN WISCONSIN  138 
LAST CALL FOR WI CCA OF THE YEAR NOMINEES   6 
MANAGING NUTRIENTS ON WISCONSIN SOILS WORKSHOP  1 
MARSHFIELD AG RESEARCH STATION TO HOST SUMMER FIELD DAY  86 
MATT RUARK, EXTENSION SOIL SCIENTIST   6 
MINNESOTA STRIP‐TILLAGE EXPO  97 
NOVEMBER 6TH WEBINAR: HARVEST, STORAGE, AND FEED MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE 2009 CROP  154 
ORGANIC FARMING CONFERENCE AND ORGANIC UNIVERSITY TO OFFER CEU FOR CERTIFIED CROP ADVISORS  6 
PEST MANAGEMENT UPDATE MEETING REMINDER  150 
PESTICIDE APPLICATIONS AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT: AN UPDATE  129 
PESTICIDE APPLICATIONS AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT: IS A PERMIT REQUIRED?  29 
REMINDER: TRAINING FOR NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLANNERS WORKSHOPS  111 
SOIL QUALITY FIELD DAY  138 
THANK YOU WISCONSIN!   177 
TRAINING FOR NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLANNERS WORKSHOPS  92 
TRAINING SESSIONS FOR TSP’S, CONSULTANTS AND EDUCATORS ON NRCS’ 2009 ORGANIC INITIATIVE  72 
UPCOMING 2009 SOIL, WATER & NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT MEETINGS  150 
 UW PEST MANAGEMENT FIELD DAY  86 
TH
UW PEST MANAGEMENT FIELD DAY – JULY 9   29 
UW‐RIVER FALLS FIELD SCOUT TRAINING  1 
UW‐RIVER FALLS FIELD SCOUT TRAINING CLASS REMINDER  5 
WEBSITE LISTS NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES   177 
WHAT’S ON YOUTUBE? IPM VIDEOS!  145 
WI CCA OF THE YEAR NOMINATIONS REQUESTED  178 
WINTER WHEAT WORKSHOPS 2009 ANNOUNCEMENT  5 
WISCONSIN CROP MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE  5 
WSMB OFFERS FREE SOYBEAN CYST NEMATODE TESTING  22 
WEEDS  

2009 CORN AND SOYBEAN HERBICIDE UPDATES  21 
BE AWARE OF GRAPES AND 2,4‐D DRIFT  31 
COMFREY QUESTIONS  79 
CONTROLLING VOLUNTEER WHEAT IN SUMMER SEEDING ALFALFA  129 
DEFEATING WEEDS IN CORN  7 
DON’T FORGET ABOUT HORSEWEED  47 
FIELD HORSETAIL ID AND MANAGEMENT IN FIELD CORN  50 
FLEXSTAR GT LABELED  30 
GIANT RAGWEED WITH SUSPECTED GLYPHOSATE RESISTANCE  82 
HARVEST AIDS FOR WINTER WHEAT  99 
HERBICIDE PRODUCT CONVERSIONS  15 
PERENNIAL CUCUMBER WATCH  87 
PERPLEXING REPLANT INTERVAL QUESTION  20 
PURPLE DEADNETTLE IN NO‐TILL  42 
READY TO TACKLE LAMBSQUARTERS?  23 
START SCOUTING FOR VOLUNTEER CORN  80 
STILL DON’T THINK YOU NEED INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT?  2 
UPDATED INFORMATION ON USING HERBICIDES TOSUPPRESS SMOOTH BROME  41 
WATERHEMP MANAGEMENT – ADVICE FROM MISSOURI  14 
WISCONSIN IS WINNING THE BATTLE AGAINST GLYPHOSATE‐RESISTANT WEEDS  13 
CROPS 

2009 WINTER WHEAT PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS  127 
2009 WISCONSIN CORN HYBRID PERFORMANCE TRIALS  179 
2009‐2010 DAIRY CATTLE FEEDING ISSUES  160 
ADDING ORGANIC ACIDS TO HIGH MOISTURE CORN  160 
ALFALFA STAND ASSESSMENT, NEW VIDEO !!  30 
ALFALFA WINTER SURVIVAL IN SPRING OF 2009  45 
CALCULATING GRAIN WEIGHT SHRINKAGE IN CORN DUE TO MECHANICAL DRYING  163 
COMBINE CONSIDERATIONS FOR A WET CORN HARVEST  157 
 CONSIDERATIONS FOR ARTIFICIAL DRYING OF SOYBEANS  162 
CONSIDERATIONS FOR SPRAYING FOLIAR FUNGICIDES IN SOYBEAN  103 
CONSIDERATIONS FOR SPRAYING INSECTICIDES FOR SOYBEAN APHID IN SOYBEAN   105 
CONSIDERING FOLIAR FUNGICIDES FOR CORN IN 2009?  88 
CORN HARVEST – MINIMIZING FOREIGN MATERIAL IN THE COMBINE’S GRAIN TANK   175 
CORN PLANT DENSITY FOR MAXIMUM GRAIN AND SILAGE PRODUCTION  24 
DELAYED SOYBEAN EMERGENCE AND COTYLEDON LOSS  71 
DON’T EXCEED MAXIMUMS IN ROUNDUP READY SOYBEAN  98 
FIELD LOSS CALCULATOR                                                                                                                                                                               164,176 
FROST INJURY TO ALFALFA  46 
GRAIN DRYING AND STORAGE PUBLICATIONS  164 
HEALTHY GROWTH CERTIFIED POTATO FARMS DEVELOP ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION STANDARD  93 
HIGH MOISTURE CORN HARVEST AND STORAGE CONSIDERATIONS  158 
HPPD INJURY TO SOYBEANS  99 
MONSANTO AND DOW AGROSCIENCES COMPLETE REGULATORY AUTHORIZATIONS FOR SMARTSTAXTM CORN HYBRIDS                             
108 
NEW ARTICLE ON SOYBEAN SEEDING RATES  30 
NUTRIENT RECOMMENDATION UPDATE FOR PASTURES   183 
OPTIONS FOR HAIL DAMAGED CORN ASSESSED AS A TOTAL LOSS  116 
PREDICTING WHEN SOYBEANS WILL EMERGE  40 
RENEWED INTEREST IN SNAPLAGE DISPLAYED  162 
SAINFOIN NOT RECOMMENDED FOR WISCONSIN  9 
SAMPLING AND MANAGING SOYBEAN CYSTNEMATODE – IT’S RELEVANT  45 
SAMPLING CORN SILAGE FIELDS TO ACCURATELY DETERMINE MOISTURE  130 
SOYBEAN VARIETY SELECTION FOR THE 2010 CROP   182 
SPRING REMOVAL OF NO‐TILL ALFALFA IN WISCONSIN  41 
SWEET CORN TOLERANCE RESULTS FROM 2008  3 
TIME FOR POSTEMERGENCE CORN HERBICIDES  74 
UNDERSTANDING CORN TEST WEIGHT  156 
UNIVERSITY RESPONSE TO PLANT HEALTH LABEL FOR HEADLINE FUNGICIDE  63 
WEIGH RISK OF LEAVING CORN STAND THROUGH WINTER  154 
WHEAT STAND ASSESSMENT, WINTERKILL YIELD LOSS, AND NITROGEN APPLICATION  25 
WHY BIN‐RUN SOYBEANS DON’T PAY  8 
WILL CORN MATURE IN 2009?  119 
WISCONSIN VEGETABLE CROP UPDATE                                                                                               84,87,93,94,98,108,116,132,144 
PLANT DISEASE 

A COOL YEAR  144 
CATTAIL CONTROL IN CORN  61 
CHECK YOUR WHEAT CLOSELY  77 
CONDITIONS FAVORABLE FOR SCLEROTINIA STEM ROT DEVELOPMENT  121 
CONSIDERING FOLIAR FUNGICIDES FOR CORN GRAIN IN 2009? PART 1 OF 2  51 
 CONSIDERING FOLIAR FUNGICIDES FOR CORN IN 2009? PART 2 OF 2  54 
DO I NEED TO SPRAY A FOLIAR FUNGICIDE IN WHEAT IN 2009?  17 
EARLY SEASON ASSESSMENTS FOR SOYBEAN STRESS  78 
HAIL DAMAGED CORN: RISK OF MOLDS AND MYCOTOXINS?  143 
MANAGING LATE BLIGHT IN THE ORGANIC TOMATO CROP FACT SHEET  130 
PLANT DISEASE DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC (PDDC) UPDATE                               28,43,48,55,62,65,81,85,91,93,96,100,106,110,117,122,127 
PULL SOIL SAMPLES FOR SCN  151 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WINTER WHEAT ESTABLISHMENT IN 2009  140 
SPRING SCOUTING IN WINTER WHEAT  63 
STEM CANKER AND CHARCOAL ROT IN SOYBEANS  9 
THE 2009 WISCONSIN CORN CROP  178 
TOMATO LATE BLIGHT IN WISCONSIN  146 
 

FERTILITY AND SOILS 

39TH NORTH CENTRAL EXTENSION‐INDUSTRY SOIL FERTILITY CONFERENCE  151 
CONSIDER SPRING TILLAGE OPTIONS  20 
ECONOMICS OF SOIL TESTING                                                                                                                                                                    164, 176 
MANAGING THE IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION COMPACTION ON CROP LAND  27 
NEW SOIL FUMIGATION SAFETY MEASURES  183 
NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT AND THE NRCS CONSERVATION STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM  151 
PSNT – DOES IT MEAN ANYTHING THIS YEAR?  83 
SOIL TESTING AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING  184 
WISCONSIN’S PRE‐SIDEDRESS SOIL NITRATE TEST  76 
 

INSECTS AND MITES 

ALFALFA WEEVIL  60 
ARMYWORMS IN WHEAT IN NE WISCONSIN  103 
BEAN LEAF BEETLES ‐ IN WI ‐ IN 2009?  49 
BLACK CUTWORM  61 
CORN EARWORM RISK FORECAST, MIDWEST REGION  118 
DO NOT LET WESTERN BEAN CUTWORM CATCH YOU OFF‐GUARD  109 
DRY WEATHER REMINDER FOR SOYBEANS: TWO‐SPOTTED SPIDER MITES  112 
NEW ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION PROGRAM  183 
SOYBEAN APHID BLOG   118 
SOYBEAN APHID DENSITIES ARE LOW, BUT START SCOUTING NOW  95 
SOYBEAN APHIDS STILL SIMMERING…SOME FIELDS AT ECONOMIC THRESHOLD  114 
TROUBLESHOOTING HINTS FOR COMMON EARLY SEASON INSECTS (AND SLUGS) IN CORN  73 
TRUE ARMYWORMS  65 
WESTERN BEAN CUTWORM MOTHS FLYING, SCOUT FIELD AND SWEET CORN  101 
EQUIPMENT 

FORAGE HARVESTER  146 
MANAGING YOUR COMBINE  107 
MONITORING YOUR YIELD MONITOR   151 
 
 Volume 16 Number 1 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- Jan 15, 2009

IPM Field Scout Training Class to be held on the UW-River

What’s inside this issue…
Managing Nutrients on Wisconsin Soils Workshop ......... 1
UW-River Falls Field Scout Training .............................. 1
Still don’t think you need integrated weed
management? .................................................................... 2
Sweet Corn Tolerance Results from 2008 ........................ 3
Falls campus, March 18-19, 2009. Topics covered include, pest
identification and biology, damage symptoms, economic
thresholds and scouting techniques for insects, weeds, plant
pathogens, herbicide injury and nutrient deficiency symptoms
for corn, alfalfa, soybean and wheat. CCA Credits will be
applied for in the areas of pest and nutrient management.
Non-student registration fee is $100/person and covers the
cost of the training and copies of the Field Crop Scout Training
Manual and Ontario Weeds. To register, send a check payable
to UW-Extension to Bryan Jensen, Dept. of Entomology, 1630
Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706. Registration maybe limited
and is available on a first-come, first-served basis. For more
information call Bryan Jensen at (608) 263-4073 or email at
bmjense1@facstaff.wisc.edu

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Managing Nutrients on Wisconsin Soils Rm. 217 Agricultural Sciences Building
Workshop, March 11-12
Matt Ruark, Department of Soil Science
7:45 Registration
The Department of Soil Science, with cooperation from UW- -outside Rm. 217, Agricultural Sciences
Extension, UWEX-Nutrient Management Team, and UWEX- Building
Nutrient & Pest Management Program, is hosting the workshop
“Managing Nutrients on Wisconsin Soils” on March 11th and 8:00 Introduction
12th, 2009. The workshop is an intensive 2-day workshop Bryan Jensen
covering the basic principles of soil fertility and nutrient Integrated Pest Management Program, UW-
management. It is designed for industry and agency personnel Madison
who have not had extensive training in soil fertility. It is also
recommend to anyone who needs a refresher prior to taking the 8:15 Grass and Sedge Weed Identification
course on nutrient management planning. Topics covered Dr. Mike Crotser
include: N, P, and K cycling and management; secondary and Department of Plant and Earth Sciences, UW-
micronutrient management; manure management; soil and River Falls
water interactions; and tillage and nutrient interactions.
9:30 Annual Broadleaf Weed Identification
Registration fees are $200/person. Attendees will receive a Dr. Mike Crotser
binder of all workshop presentation materials and can earn 13
CCA credits. The event will take place at the Crowne Plaza 10:30 Break
Hotel in Madison, WI. Please contact Matt Ruark (608-263-
2889) for further information. mdruark@wisc.edu 10:45 Biennial and Perennial Weed Identification

11:45 Lunch (on your own)

UW-River Falls Field Scout Training, 12:45 Herbicide Mode of Action and Injury
Symptoms
March 18-19
Mike Crotser
Bryan Jensen, IPM Program
2:00 Break
The University of Wisconsin-River Falls, UW-Extension and
the Integrated Pest Management Program will co-sponsor the 2:15 Weed Identification Lab, Greenhouse

Wisconsin Crop Manager 1

 involves using herbicides with different modes of action, using
Dr. Mike Crotser
multiple application timings in the same season, and utilizing
4:00 Dinner on your own cultural practices that enhance the competitiveness of the crop.
The need to diversify weed management programs and protect
5:30 -Soil and Plant Tissue Sampling the value of glyphosate became a consistent message of
-Nutrient Deficiency Symptoms extension weed scientists soon after the adoption Roundup
-Introduction to Nutrient Managment Ready ®crops. To put a fresh spin on this message, we pooled
Scott Sturgul our thoughts to come up with a light-hearted look at this serious
Nutrient and Pest Management Program issue.
8:15 Quiz Warning: the following list contains humor. If not
prepared to consider the lighter-side of weed
8:45 Adjourn management, do not read or read at your own risk.

Extension’s Top 10 reasons

to diversify weed management
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Rm. 217, Agricultural Sciences Building 10. Your crop can reach its full potential

8:00 Introduction to Nutrient Management Planning 9. Weeds won’t know what hit them
Scott Sturgul, NPM Program 8. C'mon, even Monsanto's on board with this
9:15 Break 7. Change is big right now
6. Your ag chem dealer will thank you
9:30 Insect Pests of Corn, Alfalfa, Soybeans and
Wheat 5. ‘Cause it’s mavericky, gosh darn it
Bryan Jensen
4. It will reduce our dependence on Chinese glyphosate,
11:30 Lunch (on your own) swinging the trade balance in our favor
3. Go ahead and try to control lambsquarter post – do you
12:15 Field Crop Insect Lab feel lucky, punk?
Rm. 221 2. I love the smell of Lumax in the morning – smells like
Bryan Jensen victorya
a
1:45 Break Substitute your favorite preemergence herbicide for
Lumax.
1:55 Diseases of Corn, Alfalfa, Wheat and 1. If you do, perhaps your Extension weed specialist will find
Soybeans something else to talk about
Dr. Brian Hudelson
Dept. of Plant Pathology, UW-Madison Glyphosate resistance in several important weeds continues to
spread across the Midwest, and many of these weeds have
3:55 Field Crop Disease Lab resistance to other modes of action as well. Continuing to rely
Rm. 221 on the simplistic systems that dominate the region will result in
Dr. Brian Hudelson further appearance and spread of herbicide resistance.

5:30 Identification Test (optional for non students) IWM provides more consistent weed control, is more effective
at protecting crop yields, and preserves the value of the
herbicides that are essential in today’s production systems.
Prepared by:
Still don’t think you need integrated weed Bob Hartzler, Iowa State University
management? Chris Boerboom, University of Wisconsin
The introduction of Roundup Ready® soybean more than a Jeff Gunsoluls, University of Minnesota
decade ago dramatically changed weed management systems Mark Loux, The Ohio State University
across the Corn Belt. Glyphosate’ s unparalleled effectiveness
allowed a simplification of weed management systems.
Unfortunately, glyphosate resistant weeds are a result of these
systems that rely heavily on glyphosate.
Integrated weed management (IWM) is more durable than the
systems currently used on a high percentage of the acres due to
continual exposure of weeds to different control tactics. IWM

Wisconsin Crop Manager 2

 Table 1. Sweet corn hybrids evaluated for tolerance to Accent Q.
Sweet Corn Tolerance Results from 2008 Hybrids listed according to previous Accent tolerance ratings at 2x
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist rates of application.
In 2008, Mark VanGessel, University of Delaware, Roger Sensitive Sensitive Intermediate Tolerant
Becker, University of Minnesota, and Ed Peachey, Oregon State Argent GSS 1477 Captivate Ambrosia
University and I collaborated again to evaluate sweet corn Basin R GSS 2914 Chase Bliss
hybrid tolerance to herbicides. In 2008, the herbicides tested Celestial Hollywood Early Gold Challenger
were Accent Q, Status, and the experimental herbicide Kixor. Coho How Sweet It Incredible Enterprise
In this article, I am only summarizing our results for Accent Q, Is
which is expected to be labeled in 2009. The other herbicides Colombus Merit Lancaster HM 2390
are not currently labeled for use on sweet corn. Devotion Mystique Overland Legacy
DMC 21-84 Punch Passion Prime Plus
Dupont is launching Accent Q in 2009, which is a new DMC 21-85 SS Jubilee Providence Rocker
formulation of Accent that contains the safener isoxadifen. This (S?) Plus
safener is also in the herbicides Laudis, Option, and Status and Dynamo Suregold Sentinel Sugar Buns
functions by increasing the rate that a corn plant can metabolize GH 2042 Turbo Temptation
specific herbicides. As a consequence, the degree of injury is
reduced under stressful conditions or when marginal tolerance On average, sweet corn hybrids had 50% less stunting when
exits. sprayed with Accent Q compared to Accent at 7 days after
We know that sweet corn hybrids differ in their natural treatment (Table 2). (By 14 days after treatment, sweet corn
tolerance to Accent and that stressful weather conditions can typically starts to recover so the 7 day rating usually shows the
further increase the risk of injury. Much of the natural greatest difference in injury). The safening effect of Accent Q
difference in tolerance is controlled by a single gene, which is also appeared to be effective at most locations (Table 3).
labeled NSF1. When a hybrid inherits a sensitive version of Average stunting was reduced at Delaware, Oregon, and
this gene from each inbred parent, the hybrid will be highly Wisconsin. Accent did not cause significant stunting to most
sensitive to Accent and will be killed. The hybrid Merit is a hybrids at Minnesota, but safening was observed in individual
highly sensitive hybrid that we use as sensitive check in our hybrid comparisons (data not shown). Chlorosis was also
trials. noticeably reduced at Delaware and Wisconsin (Table 3) and is
illustrated with photos of Punch (Figures 1 and 2). It should be
If a hybrid inherits a tolerant version of the gene from each noted that even though the safener isoxadifen increased the
parent, the hybrid usually has a good level of tolerance. If the tolerance of these hybrids to Accent, the highly sensitive hybrid
hybrid has a both a tolerant and sensitive version, the hybrid Merit was still killed by Accent Q (Figure 3). Apparently
may be injured by Accent to some degree. Because of the because Merit lacks even one functional version of the NSF1
variation in tolerance among sweet corn hybrids, Accent has gene, the safener cannot trigger this gene to become more active
only been recommended on certain hybrids that are known to in metabolizing Accent. Fortunately, only a few of these highly
have acceptable levels of tolerance. sensitive hybrids exist and most are not grown commercially.
The development of Accent Q may increase the opportunity of The safening effect of Accent Q occurred across all trial
using Accent on sweet corn if the safener is effective. locations and with most hybrids at the elevated rates tested
Therefore, we wanted to determine if Accent Q increased the (Table 4). This demonstrates a level of consistency for the
tolerance of hybrids compared to Accent. To increase the safening effect. Although some of the more sensitive hybrids
potential of observing a safening effect with Accent Q, we may have unacceptable injury under certain weather conditions
selected 20 hybrids previously rated as sensitive, 9 hybrids rated or when over applied (e.g. overlaps), more hybrids should have
as intermediate, and 10 hybrids rated as tolerant (Table 1). acceptable tolerance to Accent Q than Accent. This reduced
These 39 hybrids were planted in single rows in trials in each of risk of injury should expand the options for using Accent Q for
our four states. At the V3-growth stage, Accent and Accent Q postemergence grass weed control in sweet corn.
were applied to their respective plots with a nontreated check Table 2. Average stunting of sweet corn hybrids across four locations
plot in between so injury could easily be rated. The Accent was within each tolerance group at 7 days after treatment with Accent and
applied at 1.09 oz/a with 1% crop oil concentrate and 2 lb/a Accent Q. The range among the hybrids is listed in parentheses. Merit
ammonium sulfate. The Accent Q rate was 1.5 oz/a, which had had 48 to 49% stunting for both herbicides and is excluded from the
the same amount of Accent (1.09 oz/a) plus 0.41 oz/a of range.
isoxadifen. This rate of Accent is higher than normal to Stunting (%)
increase the potential of obtaining injury. The anticipated
Hybrid tolerance Accent Accent Q
standard rate of Accent Q is 0.9 oz/a, which would contain 0.66 group
oz/a of Accent.
Sensitive 15 (4-22) 8 (3-16)
Intermediate 9 (5-16) 5 (0-9)
Tolerant 7 (2-16) 4 (0-9)
Grand average 12 6

Wisconsin Crop Manager 3

Table 3. Average stunting and chlorosis of 39 sweet corn hybrids at 7
days after treatment with Accent and Accent Q.
Stunting (%) Chlorosis (%)
Location Accent Accent Q Accent Accent Q
Delaware 19 9 15 5
Minnesota 2 1 1 0
Oregon 7 0 - -
Wisconsin 18 11 10 4

Table 4. Sweet corn hybrid stunting to Accent and Accent Q at 7 days

after treatment when averaged across locations and sorted previous
tolerance rating.
Stunting (%) Stunting (%)
Sensitive Accent Accent Inter- Accent Accent Q
Q mediate
Argent 20 5 Captivate 11 6
Figure 1. Punch sweet corn hybrid treated with 1.09
Basin R 12 4 Chase 5 0 oz/a Accent shows stunting and chlorosis at 7 days
Celestial 15 6 Early Gold 16 8 after treatment.
Coho 9 4 Incredible 7 3
Colombus 14 6 Lancaster 7 4
Devotion 11 4 Overland 10 9
DMC 21- Passion
84 8 3 10 8
DMC 21- Providence
85 9 4 10 3
Dynamo 22 16 Sentinel 10 3
GH 2042 14 9
GSS 1477 12 3 Tolerant Accent Accent Q
GSS 2914 10 9 Ambrosia 6 3
Hollywood 13 6 Bliss 10 9
How Challenger
Sweet It Is 14 8 16 5
Merit 49 48 Enterprise 8 5
Mystique 20 8 HM 2390 6 3
Punch 13 8 Legacy 8 3 Figure 2. Punch sweet corn hybrid treated with 1.5
SS Jubilee Prime Plus
Plus 21 13 5 3
oz/a Accent Q has less stunting and minimal
Suregold 9 3 Rocker 2 4 chlorosis at 7 days after treatment.
Turbo 11 0 Sugar Buns 4 0
Temptation 9 4

Figure 3. Merit sweet corn hybrid treated with 1.5

oz/a Accent Q at 7 days after treatment. This highly
sensitive hybrid is still killed with Accent Q.
„„„„„„„„

Wisconsin Crop Manager 4

 Volume 16 Number 2 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager
Annoucements…
UW-River Falls Field Scout Training Class reminder ..... 5
Wisconsin Crop Management Conference
Proceedings Now Available Online ................................. 5
Winter Wheat Workshops 2009 announcement ............... 5
Last Call for WI CCA of the Year Nominees .................. 6
Matt Ruark, Extension Soil Scientist ............................... 6
Continuing Custom Applicator Training.......................... 6
Organic Farming Conference and Organic University
to offer CEU for Certified Crop Advisors. ....................... 6
Frost seeding red clover into winter wheat publication ... 7
Weeds
Defeating Weeds in Corn ................................................. 7
Crops
Why Bin-Run Soybeans Don’t Pay.................................. 8
Sainfoin Not Recommended for Wisconsin ..................... 9
Plant disease
Stem canker and charcoal rot in soybeans ....................... 9
Wisconsin Crop Manager
--- Feb 12, 2009
UW-River Falls Field Scout Training Class
reminder
Bryan Jensen, IPM Program
The University of Wisconsin-River Falls, UW-Extension and
the Integrated Pest Management Program will co-sponsor the
IPM Field Scout Training Class to be held on the UW-River
Falls campus, March 18-19, 2009. Topics covered include, pest
identification and biology, damage symptoms, economic
thresholds and scouting techniques for insects, weeds, plant
pathogens, herbicide injury and nutrient deficiency symptoms
for corn, alfalfa, soybean and wheat. CCA Credits will be
applied for in the areas of pest and nutrient management.
Non-student registration fee is $100/person and covers the
cost of the training and copies of the Field Crop Scout Training
Manual and Ontario Weeds. To register, send a check payable
to UW-Extension to Bryan Jensen, Dept. of Entomology, 1630
Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706. Registration maybe limited
and is available on a first-come, first-served basis.For more
information call Bryan Jensen at (608) 263-4073 or email at
bmjense1@facstaff.wisc.edu
Wisconsin Crop Management Conference
Proceedings Now Available Online
Carrie Laboski, Extension Soils Scientist
If you missed the 2009 Wisconsin Crop Management
Conference (WCMC) this year, or couldn't attend all the
presentations that you wanted to, the online proceedings and
presentations are your chance to catch up. Proceedings and
presentations from the 2009 WCMC are now available online
at: http://www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/wcmc/
You can also download the proceddings compiled into a 180
page PDF file (4mb) here >>>
http://www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/wfapmc/2009/2009_
WCMC_Proceedings.pdf
What is Feekes 9?
Winter Wheat Workshops 2009 announcement
Paul Esker, Extension Plant Pathologist
Have you ever wondered what is the difference between the
Feekes 8 and Feekes 9 growth stage? Or, have you ever asked
what that reddish-orange stripe is on the flag leaf and whether
this could reduce wheat yield? If you feel that you could either
5
improve or use a refresher of your diagnostic skills for wheat,
there are three winter wheat workshops that will be offered in
early March 2009 at Janesville, Fond du Lac, and Waldo, WI.
These workshops are designed to improve your overall
understanding and management of winter wheat in
Wisconsin and include the following topics:
• Winter Wheat Growth Staging and Nitrogen and
Herbicide Management, taught by Shawn Conley,
UWEX and UW-Madison Small Grains Specialist
• Disease Diagnostics and Foliar Fungicides and the
Effects of Bin Run Seed and Fungicide Seed
Treatments, taught by Paul Esker, UWEX and UW-
Extension Plant Pathologist
• Insect Diagnostics, taught by Eileen Cullen, UWEX
and UW-Madison Entomologist.
Continuing education credit is being requested in the areas of
Crop and Pest Management. The workshop fee is $15 and
includes the cost of lunch.
If you have questions regarding these workshops, please
contact Paul at 608-890-1999 or pde@plantpath.wisc.edu.
Flyer to print >>> Click here
Last Call for WI CCA of the Year Nominees
Bryan Jensen
The deadline for submitting nominees for the Wisconsin
CCA of the Year Award is March 31, 2009. We all know there
are many well respected CCA’s that would be consider
excellent candidates. Why not show them your appreciation and
nominate one (or two!). Besides the recognition of a job well
done the Wisconsin CCA Board has allocated $1,500 for the
2009 WI CCA of the Year recipient and will give $500 to the
person who submitted the successful nomination.
The 2009 recipient will automatically be nominated by the
Wisconsin CCA board for the ICCA of the Year award (with a
little extra information from you). For more information on the
nomination criteria and tips, please review Nomination Critera:
Wisconsin CCA of the Year Award, 2009.
Please give Bryan Jensen a call (608-263-4073) or email
(bmjense1@facstaff.wisc.edu) if you have questions.
Check my October 2008 WCM article for links to
download and print the nomination forms. Click this
link to see the original article.
Matt Ruark, Extension Soil Scientist
We would like to introduce Dr. Matt Ruark, as the new
Assistant Professor of Nutrient Management and Extension Soil
Scientist. Dr. Ruark started in September of 2008 and has
already participated in many events such as the Wisconsin Crop
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Management Conference, the 2008 Soil, Water, and Nutrient
Management Meetings, and the Northern Ag Safari.
Dr. Ruark earned is BS and MS from the University of
Minnesota (1999, 2002) and his PhD from Purdue University
(2006). His previous research has focused on nitrogen,
phosphorus, and carbon cycling and losses from agricultural
systems. He has been involved with a wide range of research
projects from sugar beet production systems in southern
Minnesota, to corn and soybean systems in Indiana, to rice
production systems in northern California.
Dr. Ruark is developing many new research and extension
projects related to nutrient management of grain, potato and
vegetable, organic, and biofuel production systems. Feel free to
contact Dr. Ruark anytime with questions or comments.
(mdruark@wisc.edu).
Continuing Custom Applicator Training
Richard Proost, UW Nutrient and Pest Management Program
Building upon the successful Custom Applicator Training,
the Wisconsin Crop Production Association and the UW
Nutrient and Pest Management program are proud to offer an
intermediate level training for the custom applicator. Topics
covered include Using GPS Technology for Pesticide
Application, Putting GPS technology to work, Keys to
Servicing Pesticide Complaints, Pesticides for Managing
Agricultural Pests, and Small Group Exercises on Pest
Management Recommendations.
The course will be held in two locations. Both training
sessions will cover the same material. The first session will be
offered at the Eau Claire County Exposition Center on February
25th. The second session will be offered at the West Madison
Research Station on February 27th. Registration starts at 9:00
a.m., with the class starting at 9:30 a.m. at both locations. Cost
to attend is $100 for WCPA members, $125 for non- members.
Space is limited at each location. For registration information
contact the WI Crop Production Association at (608) 249-4070.
Organic Farming Conference and Organic
University to offer CEU for Certified Crop
Advisors.
Kevin Shelley, UWEX Nutrient and Pest Management Program
Certified Crop Advisors (CCA) certified through the
American Society of Agronomy currently working in organic
crop production, and those interested exploring approaches to
organic production, can obtain continuing education units
(CEU’s) at this year’s Organic Farming Conference and
Organic University. The two events, conducted by the
Wisconsin-based Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education
Service (MOSES), will be held February 26-28, 2009 at the
La Crosse Center in La Crosse, WI. A total of 104 CEU’s
have been assigned in the areas of Crop Management (65.0),
Pest Management (3.5), Soil and Water Management (8.0),
Nutrient Management (11.5), and Professional Development
(16.0).
6
 The Organic Farming Conference (February 27, 28) is billed
as the foremost educational and networking event in the organic
farming community in the United States and attracts more than
2,400 attendees. The conference emphasizes “practical
workshops designed to help beginning, transitional, and
experienced organic farmers.” Workshops are led by
experienced practitioners as well as researchers and educators
from several Midwest universities. There is also a pre-
conference Organic University, February 26, which offers
intensive day-long sessions on specific topics in organic
agriculture. There is also a trade show featuring 140 exhibitors
from resource groups, certification agencies, buyers, processors,
cooperatives and suppliers in the organic industry. The
University of Wisconsin’s Center for Integrated Agricultural
Systems is a long-time sponsor and collaborator for this event.
Although a relatively small percentage of the U.S. food
supply, sales of organic food products have grown 20 percent
per-year for the 15 years preceding 2008. Organic farming in
Wisconsin grew 90 percent from 2002 to 2007. The 2007 US
Ag Census lists sales of organically produced commodities in
Wisconsin valued at $80,630,000. Wisconsin ranks second in
the United States for number of organic farms. It is among the
top five states for organic corn, soybeans, oats, barley and rye,
and is first in organic dairy operations and organically raised
livestock.1
For more information on the Upper Midwest Organic
Farming Conference and the Organic University, see the
MOSES website at http://www.mosesorganic.org/. Or,
contact MOSES at P.O. Box 339, Spring Valley, WI.
54767. Phone: 715-772-3153. For a listing of CEU assignments
for specific conference sessions, see the ASA event calendar at
https://www.agronomy.org/calendar/.
1
Organic Agriculture in Wisconsin, 2007 Status Report,
Organic Dairy Production, February 2008: UW Center for
Integrated Agricultural Systems; Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection; UW Center for
Dairy Profitability.
Frost seeding red clover into winter wheat
publication
Kevin B. Shelley, Outreach Educator, UW-NPM
A new publication entitled “Frost seeding red clover into
winter wheat” will soon be available from the University of
Wisconsin Extension Nutrient and Pest Management
Program. This four-page publication covers all aspects of using
red clover as a green manure crop to supply nitrogen for corn
including management of the wheat crop, the frost seeding
process, management of clover biomass and nitrogen
fertilization for corn including appropriate nitrogen crediting.
The information provided is primarily based on research
conducted from 1991 to 2008 at a variety of Wisconsin
locations as well as producer experiences.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Defeating Weeds in Corn
Chris Boerboom, UW Extension Weed Scientist
Corn hybrids that sport glyphosate-resistance have become
the norm in Wisconsin, which creates different opportunities for
weed management. Weeds in glyphosate-resistant hybrids can
be sprayed with glyphosate in one or two passes postemergence,
with a program of glyphosate premixed or tank mixed with
another herbicide, or with a preemergence or residual herbicide,
which is followed by glyphosate. Each program can work
extremely well to control weeds in the right situation.
Remember, the goal of weed management is to maximize
corn yield potential. Killing weeds is just a necessary step to
achieve that goal. Of course, the critical part in reaching the
goal of yield protection is killing the weeds on time, which
leads to two interesting observations about weed management
in Wisconsin.
First, we have learned that many corn fields in Wisconsin
that are sprayed postemergence may not be sprayed on
time. Numerous research studies have shown that corn yield is
lost when weeds are sprayed after they exceed 4-inches. If
killing weeds before 4-inches is the target, are we hitting this
target? The answer doesn’t look good. In 30 surveyed corn
fields that were sprayed postemergence in 2008, over 75% of
the fields had an average weed height of 4 inches or greater
when they were sprayed. The average weed height was 6 inches
tall, which means some were even worse. This all points to the
potential for yield loss. The yield loss predictions, based on the
heights of the common weeds in the fields (lambsquarters,
grasses, and velvetleaf), suggests an average yield loss of
6.5%. With 150 bu/a and $4 corn, this would equal a $39 per
acre profit loss.
Second, Carrie Laboski and I conducted weed competition
studies that show weeds can be incredibly competitive with corn
for nitrogen. We measured nitrogen uptake by weeds and corn
yields when weeds were controlled at a 4-inch height and at a
12-inch height. These two timings were separated by only 8
days, basically an inch of weed growth a day. In the different 2
years of the study, the 12-inch tall weeds had pulled 25 and 67
lb of nitrogen per acre from the soil by the time they were
controlled. This nitrogen was no longer available for corn
growth. As a consequence, corn yield was cut an average of 12
and 18 bu/a in the 2 years when weeds were killed at 12 inches
tall compared to when weeds were controlled at 4 inches. The
most interesting part of the study was that we could regain this
yield when high rates of nitrogen were applied. However, with
the high cost of nitrogen, effective weed control is certainly
more cost effective than over applying nitrogen just to feed the
weeds.
Both of these studies highlight the need for timely weed
management to protect corn yields. There are several options
for achieving this goal and defeating weeds in glyphosate-
resistant corn. A preemergence or residual herbicide greatly
increases the window for postemergence applications of
glyphosate. These preemergence herbicides can often be applied
at half rates when followed by glyphosate. We have
demonstrated this with several different herbicide programs in
field experiments. Herbicides that fit this program are SureStart
7
or reduced rates of Lumax, Camix, and the atrazine premixtures
(e.g. Bicep Lite, Harness Xtra, Keystone, G-Max Lite, etc.).
Glyphosate can also be applied early before weed
competition occurs. Corn growers just need to understand the
risk of not getting all of their corn fields sprayed on time if
spraying total postemergence programs. Early applications
increase the chance that later flushes of weeds might need a
second application. To avoid retreating with glyphosate or the
temptation to spray later (to get by with one application),
residual herbicides (mentioned above) can be tank mixed with
glyphosate or a glyphosate premix that includes a residual
component like Halex can be used.
In either case, weeds can be effectively managed in
glyphosate-resistant corn. We just need a plan a program that
controls weeds from the start or gets it done on time. Corn is too
valuable to lose 5 or 10 bu/a to weed competition.
Larger weeds in corn (top photo) were killed with glyphosate
and provided excellent weed control and an excellent “looking”
corn crop (same plot in right photo). However, corn yield was
lost. Is this satisfactory?
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Why Bin-Run Soybeans Don’t Pay
Shawn P. Conley, State Soybean and Wheat Extension
Specialist
Dramatic increases in soybean seed costs for 2009 (25 to
109%) have many growers rethinking their soybean seed
options. The most drastic alternative being floated in the coffee
shops is brown bagging or planting “saved” soybean seed.
Before a grower considers this option we must revisit the legal
issues and agronomic considerations associated with this
practice.
First we will address the legal issues surrounding planting
saved seed. In Wisconsin alone 90% of the soybean crop
planted in 2008 was herbicide tolerant (USDA –ERS, 2008).
Herbicide tolerant varieties are classified as patented varieties
or possess patented genes. “If the variety is patented or has a
patented gene, no seed may be saved for planting purposes and
no farmer seed sales are permitted” (Spears and Randy Weisz,
2004). Remember as a grower you agree to this statement when
you accept delivery (legal statements are on the invoice and/or
on the tags attached to seed containers). It is likely given the
economic climate we are under that field monitoring procedures
will be ramped up in 2009 to “catch” growers that plant
patented varieties. It is also apparent that those growers that are
caught will be prosecuted and fined to the legal extent of the
law to discourage other growers from attempting this practice.
The remaining 10% of the soybean crop planted in Wisconsin
that was not identified as herbicide tolerant will likely fall under
the umbrella of either a patented variety (please see above for
legal disclaimer) or under the 1994 Plant Variety Protection Act
(PVPA) and Title V. “Under this act, a grower may save seed
of a protected variety for planting purposes. However, the
amount of seed a grower can legally save is limited to the
amount needed to plant his or her own holdings. Holdings are
land owned, rented, or leased. If farm plans change that saved
seed may be sold. The total of the amount planted and the
amount sold, however, cannot exceed the quantity of seed
needed to plant back on the farmer’s own holdings” (Spears
and Randy Weisz, 2004).
If a grower has established the legal right to plant saved seed
we must next address the agronomic considerations associated
with planting saved seed. Essentially the “saved” soybean seed
will be genetically identical to that they purchased. Therefore
yield losses associated with saved seed will likely be due to
seed quality issues related to harvest timing, storage conditions,
and handling procedures. In a perfect world a grower would
plan in advance which fields they intended to harvest for seed
and implement the appropriate procedures to insure maximum
seed quality (i.e. early harvest, proper dry down procedures and
storage temperatures, etc.). Most growers that are considering
planting saved seed in 2009 likely did not plan this activity in
advance; therefore significant reductions in seed quality can be
expected.
Most of the data related to planting saved seed was collected
in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Significant advances in seed
technology have been developed since this time so the yield
differences listed below will likely be greater today. In North
Carolina, Dunphy and Ferguson (1991) provided data on 204
8
saved vs. professional grown seed comparisons (16 locations, 6 $100/acre. For good establishment and growth sainfoin must be
years, 35 varieties). Dunphy and Ferguson found a 1.9 bushel inoculated with a special rhizobium just before planting.
advantage to certified seed over saved seed. In this paper
Sainfoin does not tolerate competition well during
Dunphy also sites Wisconsin data that indicated a 2.2 bushel
establishment. The vigor of the plants is decreased by clipping
advantage to certified over saved seed.
during the seedling year so sainfoin should not be harvested in
One strategy that growers may employ to improve the quality the seeding year. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria have been short-lived
of their saved seed is to have the seed custom cleaned or or ineffective so that nitrogen fertilization may be required.
conditioned. Remember “it may be a violation to custom clean
or condition seed of protected varieties” (Spears and Randy
Weisz, 2004). Seed conditioning encompasses many operations
including the application of seed treatments and inoculants. If
you offer these services make sure you certain you know the
origin of the seed you are working with. If suspect you are
cleaning or conditioning RR® seed keep in mind there is an
ImmunoStrip that can quickly verify the presence of this trait.
Custom cleaners and conditioning operations can further protect
themselves through signed waivers.
Given the legal risks associated with planting saved seed
coupled with the expected yield loss linked with this practice
and the likelihood that most growers did not plan on saving seed
I would strongly discourage growers from this practice in the
2009 growing season.
Literature cited:
Dunphy, J. and J. Ferguson. 1991. Field performance of farmer-
saved and professionally-grown soybean seed lots. Proceedings
of the American Seed Trade Association Annual Meeting.
Spears, J. and R. Weisz. 2004. Understanding Seed Laws and
Regulations. In: Small Grains Production Guide. North Carolina
State University Cooperative Extension publication AG-580.
USDA-ERS. 2008. Adoption of genetically engineered crops in Sainfoin begins growth in the spring about the same time as
the U.S., soybean varieties. alfalfa, but flowers one to two weeks earlier. First cutting hay
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/biotechcrops/ExtentofAdop yields have exceeded those of alfalfa in Montana, but alfalfa
tionTable3.htm (webpage viewed and cited 12/24/08). yields are greater in subsequent cuttings. Since regrowth is very
poor, it is best suited to taking one clipping at about the half- to
full-bloom stage.

Sainfoin Not Recommended for Wisconsin
Dan Undersander
Sainfoin (Onobrychis vicifolia) is deep-rooted and very
drought-resistant. It yields best on high pH, deep, well-drained
soils, and will not withstand wet soils or high water tables. It is
not as winterhardy as some cultivars of alfalfa. Sainfoin is short
lived where root and crown rots are a problem.
Sainfoin has 6 to 14 pairs of pinnate, alternate leaves that are
oblong. Sainfoin has pale pink flowers as shown in the photo. It
grows taller than alfalfa and its stem is hollow. Although very
coarse, the forage is highly nutritious. It is not known to cause
bloat. Because the plant is rich in tannins, proteins tend to
bypass the rumen and be absorbed in the abomasum. It is
highly palatable to both sheep and cattle, being preferred over
alfalfa. It is relished by deer. Sainfoin may be grazed or used for
hay, either alone or in mixtures with grasses.
The "seed" used to establish this crop is actually a pod which
contains a single seed. Even without the pod, the true seed is
large; there are only 28,000 seeds per pound. The recommended
seeding rate is 30 to 40 lbs/acre so seed cost will be about
It is not attacked by alfalfa weevil or potato leaf hopper.
New varieties of sainfoin have been released in Montana with
improved yield, however these varieties have not been tested in
Wisconsin. The lack of yield in the seeding year, adaption to
high pH, low tolerance of wet soils, and, susceptibility to crown
rot causing short stand life indicate that this species is not likely
to be useful in Wisconsin.
You may download this Sainfoil info as a one page handout
(PDF) in the WCM downloads page, or by clicking here >>>
Sainfoil handout
Take advantage of a stressful situation: Stem
canker and charcoal rot in soybeans
Teresa Hughes, Paul Esker, and Shawn Conley, Departments of
Plant Pathology and Agronomy, University of Wisconsin-
Madison
The 2008 growing season was one of extremes. Heavy rains
early in the year led to flooded field conditions and anxiety
about diseases caused by Pythium and Phytophthora. Then the

Wisconsin Crop Manager 9

rains stopped, fields dried out, and drought-like conditions
occurred throughout much of the state. In spite of these dry
conditions, by early August reports started coming in to county
extension offices and the University of Wisconsin of soybean
fields with symptoms similar to Phytophthora root rot (PRR).
Because many of these fields were planted to varieties
containing the Rps 1k gene, serious concern arose over the
breakdown of resistance to PRR conferred by this gene.
Figure 1. Symptoms observed in Wisconsin fields during the
2008 growing season. A, open areas interspersed with
symptomatic plants. B, Dark patches within fields contain
symptomatic plants. C, Petiole and leaf retention at harvest.
From mid-August to early October fields were sampled
throughout Wisconsin where soybean varieties containing the
Rps 1k gene were expressing symptoms characteristic of
Wisconsin Crop Manager
PRR. Although efforts were made to isolate and observed
Phytopthtora sojae, the cause of PRR, P. sojae was neither
observed or isolates from any of our samples. Instead, isolates
of Diaporthe phaseolorum var. caulivora (DPC), D.
phaseolorum var. sojae (DPS), and Macrophomina phaseolina
were obtained. Northern stem canker and pod and stem blight
are diseases caused by DPC and DPS, respectively. M.
phaseolina is the fungus responsible for the disease charcoal
rot.
Figure 2. A, Classic symptoms of Phytophthora root rot. B,
Symptoms observed in Wisconsin fields in 2008.
Based on both field observations and data obtained from
collected plants, the symptoms observed in soybean fields
across Wisconsin do not appear to be the result of infection by
P. sojae or the breakdown of the Rps 1k gene. Alternatively,
infection by DPC, DPS, and M. phaseolina are believed to be
the cause of these symptoms with northern stem canker and
charcoal rot the diseases that developed.
Northern stem canker was a significant disease of soybeans
during the 1950’s but was brought under control by the use of
resistant soybean varieties. Since 2003, incidence of stem
canker has been increasing throughout the state. Although the
exact reason(s) are unknown, changes in the genetics of
soybean varieties, cultural practices, the pathogen, and/or
environment may be responsible for the re-emergence of stem
canker. Symptoms of stem canker are usually seen around the
time of flowering beginning as a reddish-brown lesion on the
lower stem near the base of petioles. As the lesion expands, it
can become dark-brown to black and may girdle the stem. Stem
tissue bordering the lesion remains green until the plant
prematurely dies or matures. Foliar symptoms include necrosis
and chlorosis of the leave around the veins, wilting, and leaf and
petiole retention after plant death. These symptoms can easily
be mistaken for PRR although stem canker does not cause a root
rot. Infection of a soybean plant by DPC occurs early in the
season however, symptoms do not typically appear until the
plant undergoes stress. Thus, symptoms can develop from
flowering until maturity and DPC can be isolated from healthy-
looking tissues.
10
Figure 3. Symptoms of stem canker. A, Reddish-brown lesion
surrounded by green tissue. B, Absence of root rot. C, Striations
in tissues just below the outer tissues.It is unclear whether this
symptom is caused by DPC, DPS, or both.
Charcoal rot is a disease often seen in states to our south.
Although M. phaseolina is found throughout Wisconsin,
environmental conditions have not typically favored disease
development. Symptoms of charcoal rot are generally observed
around flowering and are similar to those seen with stem
canker. M. phaseolina, like DPC, also infect soybean plants
early, with symptoms remaining unobserved until plants are
under stress. For charcoal rot, disease development occurs when
plants are water stressed during hot and dry periods. As disease
develops, charcoal rot can be distinguished from stem canker by
the appearance of tiny, black, “grains” in stem and root tissues
called microsclerotia. Infection by M. phaseolina was noted in
soybeans grown throughout Wisconsin but disease development
was most abundant in sandy and well-drained soils.
Figure 4. Charcoal rot of soybean. A, Microsclerotia inside
stem tissue. B, Tattering of stem tissue by Macrophomina
phaseolina with microsclerotia underneath. C, Microsclerotia
just below the outer stem tissue.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Both DPC and M. phaseolina are seedborne and can survive
in soybean residue. The microsclerotia of M. phaseolina can
also survive in the soil outside of host tissue between seasons.
Management of stem canker and charcoal rot is best when using
a multi-tactical approach. Planting seeds from plants grown in
areas free of these diseases, reducing plant stress by maintaining
soil fertility and water, managing crop residue, and rotating with
corn, wheat, or oats, can minimize disease incidence. For
soybean varieties adapted to Wisconsin, resistance to stem
canker and charcoal rot are unknown. For seed companies
who provide ratings for stem canker, it is important to note
that these rating are for southern stem canker (D.
phaseolorum var. meridionalis) and not for northern stem
canker. Although the two diseases are similar, resistance to
one does not automatically signify resistance to the other.
From both field and sample data, the Rps 1k gene is still
effective against PRR. Of the soybean varieties sampled during
2008, those with Rps 1k and a high field tolerance rating or
varieties with multiple Rps genes (1k, 6) expressed minimal
symptoms of stem canker. Soybeans collected from fields with
a high sand content were susceptible to charcoal rot regardless
of the presence of an Rps genes. In selecting varieties to combat
these diseases, use variety performance information from
previous years. For information related to soybean variety
selection please see the 2008 Wisconsin Soybean Variety Test
results.
http://soybean.uwex.edu/soytrials/printable/documents/2008WI
SoybeanReport.pdf
Within the fields sampled in 2008, plants were noted in all
stages of disease development from early symptom
development to plant death, suggesting infection was occurring
throughout the season. Also, plants were observed that had
succumbed to disease prior to flowering. Both DPC and M.
phaseolina take advantage of soybeans in stressed
environments. Recognizing and sampling plants during the first
signs of stress will provide invaluable information as to how
these fungi exploit stressed conditions and the process of
disease development. During the 2009 season, we suggest
scouting your fields early (V3-V4) and reporting initial signs of
stress to your local county agent.
For more information see:
University of Wisconsin Soybean Plant Health Website at
www.plantpath.wisc.edu/soyhealth/
Esker, P., Grau, C., Hudelson, B., Conley, S., and Ballweg,
M. Soybean stem canker in 2007. Wisconsin Crop Manager,
Vol. 14, Number 31, Pages 168-169.
Esker, P., Conley, S., Gaska, J., and Hughes. T. 2008. Charcoal
rot – A disease of drought stressed environments. Wisconsin
Soy Sentinel, Vol 5, Page 16.
„„„„„„„„
11
 Jan 12, 2009

Sainfoin Not Recommended for Wisconsin

Dan Undersander

Sainfoin (Onobrychis vicifolia) is deep-rooted and very drought-resistant. It yields best on high
pH, deep, well-drained soils, and will not withstand wet soils or high water tables. It is not as
winterhardy as some cultivars of alfalfa. Sainfoin is short lived where root and crown rots are a
problem.
Sainfoin has 6 to 14 pairs of pinnate, alternate leaves that are oblong. Sainfoin has pale pink
flowers as shown in the photo. It grows taller than alfalfa and its stem is hollow. Although very
coarse, the forage is highly nutritious. It is not known to cause bloat. Because the plant is rich in
tannins, proteins tend to bypass the rumen and be absorbed in the abomasum. It is highly palatable
to both sheep and cattle, being preferred over alfalfa. It is relished by deer. Sainfoin may be grazed
or used for hay, either alone or in mixtures
with grasses.
The "seed" used to establish this
crop is actually a pod which contains a
single seed. Even without the pod, the true
seed is large; there are only 28,000 seeds
per pound. The recommended seeding rate
is 30 to 40 lbs/acre so seed cost will be
about $100/acre. For good establishment
and growth sainfoin must be inoculated
with a special rhizobium just before
planting.
Sainfoin does not tolerate
competition well during establishment.
The vigor of the plants is decreased by
clipping during the seedling year so
sainfoin should not be harvested in the
seeding year. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria
have been short-lived or ineffective so that
nitrogen fertilization may be required.
Sainfoin begins growth in the
spring about the same time as alfalfa, but
flowers one to two weeks earlier. First
cutting hay yields have exceeded those of alfalfa in Montana, but alfalfa yields are greater in
subsequent cuttings. Since regrowth is very poor, it is best suited to taking one clipping at about the
half- to full-bloom stage.
It is not attacked by alfalfa weevil or potato leaf hopper.
New varieties of sainfoin have been released in Montana with improved yield, however
these varieties have not been tested in Wisconsin. The lack of yield in the seeding year, adaption to
high pH, low tolerance of wet soils, and, susceptibility to crown rot causing short stand life indicate
that this species is not likely to be useful in Wisconsin.
 Volume 16 Number 3 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager
Annoucements…
Healthy Grown Potato Certification
program Sign Up ............................................................ 12
Frost Seeding Red Clover into
Winter Wheat publication
now available for download ........................................... 12
Weeds
Wisconsin is winning the battle against
glyphosate-resistant weeds ............................................. 12
Waterhemp Management – Advice from Missouri ........ 13
Herbicide Product Conversions ..................................... 14
Healthy Grown Potato Certification Program
Sign Up
The 2009 Healthy Grown/Protected Harvest potato
certification season is ready to begin. Healthy Grown fresh
market potatoes are certified and sold as an environmentally
responsible produce option, and have been available since
2001. Currently, about 10% of Wisconsin’s fresh market
potatoes are certified under the program. For more information
about the program, visit www.healthygrown.com.
To be eligible for the program in 2009, you must get your
application into Protected Harvest by March 1, 2009. The latest
version of the Healthy Grown Ecological Potato Standard and is
available from Dr. Deana Knuteson at dknuteson@wisc.edu
or 608.265.9798. Please contact Deana if you have any
questions about the program or certification procedures. For
information on the application materials, please contact Dan
Sonke at Protected Harvest/SureHarvest at 831-477-7797 or
dsonke@protectedharvest.com with any questions.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
--- March 12, 2009
Frost Seeding Red Clover into
Winter Wheat publication now available
for download
Kevin B. Shelley, UW Nutrient and Pest Management Program
Direct link to file >>> Frost Seeding Red Clover file
A new publication entitled Frost Seeding Red Clover in
Winter Wheat is now available from the University of
Wisconsin Extension Nutrient and Pest Management
Program. This four-page publication describes the practice of
frost seeding (over-seeding in early spring) medium red clover
into winter wheat that was planted the previous fall.
The publication’s objective is to help farmers evaluate the
economic potential of using red clover as a green manure cover
crop, providing biologically fixed nitrogen to the following
year’s corn crop. This is in addition to the soil quality, soil
conservation and weed suppression benefits likely to accrue.
The publication emphasizes recommended practices for
managing the red clover for maximum yield of creditable
nitrogen while allowing for optimum wheat production. This
includes clover seeding rates and the “art” of frost seeding,
weed management in both wheat and the following clover
stand, and successful termination of the clover before
corn. Estimating the optimum nitrogen fertilizer rate for the
following corn crop is also covered. Measuring the practice’s
value is described relative to clover biomass production, the
cost of clover seed and the price of nitrogen fertilizer.
The information provided is based on data collected from a
combination of research station trials and on-farm experience in
Wisconsin from 1991 to 2008.
Wisconsin is winning the battle against
glyphosate-resistant weeds
A press release by Chris Boerboom and Paul Mitchell, UWEX
The best way to win a battle is to not fight the battle in the
first place. This is certainly the case with herbicide resistant
weeds. If weeds don't become resistant, growers can keep using
existing herbicides to control them. Most recently, glyphosate-
resistant weeds have been at the top of the list of concerns.
Roundup Ready crops were launched in 1996 and the first
report of a glyphosate-resistant weed in the U.S. was horseweed
(or marestail) in the year 2000.
12
 Chris Boerboom, UW-Extension weed scientist, says
“Across the Midwest, we saw the potential of resistance if
growers were only going to use glyphosate in corn and
soybeans without using other herbicides or practices to break up
the cycle.”
Because of this risk, UW-Extension hosted a Glyphosate
Resistance Roundtable in 2003 for Wisconsin's agricultural
groups to discuss the risk of glyphosate resistance and comment
if continued education was needed. With this meeting,
Wisconsin's major commodity, consulting, and retail
associations became national leaders and endorsed a Glyphosate
Stewardship White Paper, which supported practices to avoid
developing resistance.
During the past five years, no cases of glyphosate-resistant
weeds have been documented in Wisconsin while most other
Midwest states have reported one or more glyphosate-resistant
weeds such as giant ragweed, common ragweed, waterhemp or
horseweed.
“We've spent a lot of time with Wisconsin corn and soybean
growers discussing resistance and practices to reduce the risk of
glyphosate-resistant weeds,” says Boerboom. “I think most of
our growers and their advisers are doing a relatively good job
using diverse weed management programs.”
What might set Wisconsin apart? An important practice to
slow or avoid the development of resistance is to reduce the
number of times glyphosate is used, which can be done by
rotating herbicide modes of action. It could be using
conventional herbicides in corn and then using glyphosate in
soybeans or it could be using a preemergence herbicide
followed by glyphosate in the same season.
As it turns out, Wisconsin corn and soybean growers may be
national leaders in the practice of using multiple herbicides or
rotating herbicides. Paul Mitchell, UW-Extension agricultural
economist, notes, “We just completed a national survey of corn,
soybean, and cotton growers on their weed management
practices and found Wisconsin growers were unique. Growers
in Wisconsin were more likely to rotate herbicides than corn
and soybean growers in any other state, which is likely a major
reason we have not had glyphosate-resistant weeds in
Wisconsin yet.”
Mitchell and Boerboom hope that growers and the agriculture
industry in Wisconsin remain leaders in glyphosate stewardship
and leave the glyphosate-resistant weed battles to other states.
However, they both agree that glyphosate-resistant weeds will
eventually show up in Wisconsin and growers will have to
spend more to control them. Mitchell and Boerboom hope to
delay that day as long as possible.
Waterhemp Management – Advice from
Missouri
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist
My weed science colleagues at the University of Missouri
have many years of experience in managing waterhemp,
including waterhemp biotypes that are glyphosate, ALS-, and
PPO-inhibitor resistant. This winter they published a new
Wisconsin Crop Manager
bulletin focused on waterhemp management in corn and
soybean titled Management of Glyhosate-Resistant Waterhemp
in Corn and Soybean, bulletin IPM1030
(http://extension.missouri.edu/explorepdf/agguides/pests/
ipm1030.pdf). A few remarks from this bulletin are certainly
worth considering for those in Wisconsin who also have
waterhemp in their fields.
Key waterhemp facts
• Seedling ID: looks like pigweed, but with NO
hairs and shiny leaves.
• Mature ID: seedheads are soft and narrow vs
pigweeds with thick bristly seedheads.
• Produce about 250,000 seeds per plant (only on
female plants; no seeds on male plants).
• Can emerge after residual herbicides degrade or
after postemergence herbicides are applied.
• Late season escapes lead to continued
waterhemp populations.
• Resistance documented to atrazine, glyphosate,
ALS herbicides (i.e. Harmony, Pursuit, Raptor),
and PPO herbicides (i.e. Blazer, Cobra,
Flexstar).
• The level of glyphosate resistance in the first
confirmed resistant plants was 19 times greater
than susceptible waterhemp.
Waterhemp management in corn
The Missouri weed scientists note many non-glyphosate
herbicides are available to control glyphosate resistant
waterhemp including preemergence and postemergence
products. Preemergence herbicides include the grass herbicides
(i.e. Dual, Harness/Surpass, Outlook, etc.), their atrazine
premixes (i.e. Bicep Lite, Keystone LA, G-Max Lite, etc), and
mesotrione products (i.e. Camix, Lumax). Post herbicides
include atrazine, dicamba-based products (i.e. Banvel, Clarity,
Status, etc.), HPPD herbicides (Callisto, Impact, Laudis), and
Ignite. Of course, post treatments must be applied at the correct
waterhemp size to be effective.
Waterhemp management in soybean
Preemergence herbicides are key in managing glyphosate-
resistant waterhemp in soybean and are more effective than
postemergence PPO-inhibiting herbicides. In populations that
are glyphosate, ALS, and PPO resistant, they state “there are
essentially no postemergence tank mix options for
control”. Row cultivation is the only option to control resistant
waterhemp plants that escape treatment. Ignite is an option in
LibertyLink soybeans, but the best program is still a
preemergence herbicide followed by Ignite before waterhemp
exceeds 4 inches.
13
The following table lists the soybean herbicides with excellent make these types of conversions and the information that you
or good ratings from the bulletin. need.

Preemergence Postemergence First, if you are interested in knowing the general

herbicides herbicides composition of some of the common corn and soybean
herbicide premixtures, there are two handy tables in the Pest
Authority Assist Excellent Cobra/Phoenix Good/Excellent
Management in Wisconsin Field Crops bulletin, A3646. In the
AuthorityFirst/ Excellent Flexstar Good/Excellent 2009 edition, check out these tables.
Sonic
Rate equivalents of corn herbicide premixes – page 53
Authority MTZ Excellent Ultra Blazer Good/Excellent
Rate equivalents for soybean herbicide premixes – page 120
Boundary Excellent Ignite Good
While the rate you are using might differ from the rates listed
Prefix Excellent
in these tables, they will give you a good understanding of the
Dual II Magnum Good/Excellent ratio of the components. For instance, 2.4 oz of Gangster is
Enlite Good equivalent to 2 oz of Valor and 0.4 oz of FirstRate.
Outlook Good However, the information in these tables does not answer the
original question of how much Pursuit and Prowl H2O to mix to
Gangster Good
equal 2.5 pt/a Pursuit Plus. For these types of questions, we
Valor SX Good need to deconstruct the original herbicide down to its active
ingredients and then reconstruct it into the herbicides of
While we do not have any confirmed glyphosate-resistant interest. I will use an example to show how this is done.
waterhemp in Wisconsin, we should maintain a diversity of Step 1. Find amount of Pursuit in 2.5 pt/a Pursuit Plus
herbicide use to prevent its development. Using alternate
herbicides in corn fields with waterhemp is one • Check Pursuit Plus label (or Table 1a, p. 227 in A3646
strategy. Another strategy to consider is the use of bulletin) to find concentration of imazethapyr, which is 0.2
preemergence herbicides in soybean fields that have a history of lb/gal.
waterhemp. • Convert Pursuit Plus use rate to gallon rate >>>
Figure 1: Pigweed seedhead left; waterhemp seedheads right. 2.5 pt/a Pursuit Plus ÷ 8 pt/gal = 0.3125 gal Pursuit Plus/a
• Determine amount of active ingredient in use rate (this is the
deconstruction) >>>
0.3125 gal/a × 0.2 lb imazethapyr/gal = 0.0625 lb
imazethapyr/a
• Check Pursuit label (or Table 1a, p.227 in A3646) to find
concentration of imazethapyr, which is 2 lb/gal to convert
back to Pursuit (start reconstructing).
• Determine gallons of Pursuit needed to provide a 0.0625 lb
rate of imazethapyr. >>>
0.0625 lb imazethapyr/a ÷ 2 lb imazethapyr/gal = 0.03125
gal Pursuit/a
• Convert gallons of Pursuit to ounces. >>>
0.03125 gal/a × 128 oz/gal = 4 oz/a of Pursuit

Herbicide Product Conversions
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist
I received a couple good questions about herbicide rate
conversions lately. One example was calculating how much
Pursuit and Prowl H2O should be mixed to equal the Pursuit
Plus (which is no longer being manufactured). Unless a person
deals with these types of calculations frequently, they may be a
challenge. With this article, I will demonstrate how you can
Step 2. Repeat to find amount of Prowl H2O in 2.5 pt/a Pursuit Plus (I’ll
just do the calculations using the same steps as above).
• 2.5 pt/a Pursuit Plus ÷ 8 pt/gal = 0.3125 gal Pursuit Plus/a
• 0.3125 gal/a × 2.7 lb pendimethalin/gal = 0.8438 lb
pendimethalin/a
• 0.8438 lb pendimethalin/a ÷ 3.8 lb pendimethalin/gal = 0.222
gal Prowl H2O/a
• 0.222 gal/a × 8 pt/gal = 1.78 pt/a of Prowl H2O
The answer is 2.5 pt/a Pursuit Plus = 4 oz/a Pursuit + 1.8 pt/a Prowl
H2O.

Wisconsin Crop Manager 14

Similar calculations can be used to determine the rate equivalents of
other products or to convert from one formulation to another. For
example, how much of Nufarm’s 2,4-D LV6 would it take to equal a 1
pt/a rate of Nufarm’s 2,4-D LV4?
1 pt/a LV4 ÷ 8 pt/gal = 0.125 gal LV4/a
0.125 gal LV4/a × 3.84 lb 2,4-D/gal (in the LV4) = 0.48 lb 2,4-D/a
0.48 lb 2,4-D/a ÷ 5.5 lb 2,4-D/gal (in the LV6) = 0.0873 gal/a LV6
0.0873 gal/a × 8 pt/gal = 0.7 pt/a of LV6

For a practice problem, calculate the amount of Touchdown

Total that would be equivalent to the glyphosate rate in 4 pt/a of
Halex GT. For hints, Halex GT has 2.09 lb glyphosate/gal and
Touchdown Total has 4.17 lb glyphosate/gal. Is the correct
amount?
a. 22 oz/a Touchdown Total
b. 24 oz/a Touchdown Total
c. 32 oz/a Touchdown Total
d. 36 oz/a Touchdown Total
e. I need more practice, but I can always come
back and follow these examples.

„„„„„„„„

Wisconsin Crop Manager 15

 Volume 16 Number 4 ---
Annoucements…
2009 Arlington Agronomy and Soils Field Day ............ 16
Plant disease
Do I Need to Spray a Foliar Fungicide in
Wheat in 2009? ............................................................... 16
2009 Arlington Agronomy and Soils Field
Day will be held Aug 27th
Shawn P. Conley, State Soybean and Small Grains Specialist
The 2009 Agronomy and Soils Field Day will be held on
Thursday, August 27th at the Arlington Agricultural Research
Station. The underlying theme of this event will be dealing
with “Stress”. UW researchers in the areas of Agronomy, Soil
Science, Ag Economics, Plant Pathology, Entomology, and
Biological Systems Engineering will be present to discuss their
research findings in this area.
The complete agenda for this meeting will be finalized and
posted in early May. We hope to see you all there.
University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- March 26, 2009
Do I Need to Spray a Foliar Fungicide in
Wheat in 2009?
Paul Esker, Karen Lackermann, John Gaska, and Shawn
Conley, Extension Plant Pathologist, Graduate Research
Assistant, Senior Research Specialist, and State Soybean and
Small Grains Specialist
During the winter meeting season, we received many
questions regarding current thresholds for considering spraying
a foliar fungicide on winter wheat. While we do not currently
have specific spray thresholds from data obtained in Wisconsin,
we can integrate current knowledge and recommendations for
soft red winter wheat from neighboring states with information
that we developed in Wisconsin Crop Manager articles during
2008 to help determine if a foliar fungicide is needed.
The key point that you should start with, and always
remember, is that the decision process for foliar fungicides
starts with knowing the variety of wheat planted in the fall. Ask
yourself the following questions, “Does my wheat variety have
any disease resistance, and if so, for which specific diseases?”
and “Do I know the rating for that resistance?” This information
can be obtained from company literature as well from data
published in the 2007-08 Wisconsin Winter Wheat
Performance Tests.
With that information in hand, the second key point is that
you need to be committed to scouting the wheat field
throughout the growing season, preferably on a weekly
basis. As we have previously written, we recommend scouting
10 randomly selected spots in the field and recording which
diseases are present and the incidence (number of plants
infected) and severity (what percentage of the leaf area is
infected) of each disease on 10 main stems at each of those 10
locations (total of 100 stems assessed).
When assessing for diseases, we emphasize the following
growth stages (Figure 1): (i) jointing (Feekes 4-5 or Zadoks 30),
(ii) second detectable node (Feekes 7 or Zadoks 32), (iv) flag
emergence into early boot (Feekes 8-10 or Zadoks 39-45), and
(v) flowering (Feekes 10.51). The decisions to treat or not treat
at each growth stage will be based on the leaf assessed, the
disease, and the level of that disease. These estimates are all
used as a guide to determine the risk of the flag leaf becoming
infected, since this leaf is the primary one that determines final
yield. Anything that significantly reduces green leaf area will
likely impact yield.
Currently, the three diseases that we have the greatest
knowledge of thresholds for foliar fungicides are powdery
mildew, wheat leaf rust, and Septoria leaf blotch.
Wisconsin Crop Manager 16
 Table 2 shows a summary of current thresholds based on full table is available at:
growth stage, leaf assessed, and incidence and/or severity http://www.uwex.edu/ces/croppathology/wheat/documen
levels. ts/2009WheatFungicideTable.pdf.
Based on data from 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, the average
Table 2.a Current thresholds for powdery mildew, wheat yield response we have documented from controlling powdery
leaf rust, and Septoria leaf blotch by growth stage, leaf mildew on a susceptible variety is approximately a 7-10 bu/a
assessed b, and incidence and/or severity. increase with fungicide applications applied at the flag leaf
emergence growth stage, however, this has not been consistent
in all trials.
Growth Wheat leaf Septoria leaf
Powdery mildew
stage rust blotch
Jointing Check the Fungicide not Fungicide not Table 1. Yield (bu/a) needed to cover the cost of a
(Feekes uppermost leaf – recommended recommended foliar fungicide application at different wheat
4-5) threshold of 10 market prices.
pustules per leaf Additional yield (bu/a) needed
(average) to cover the cost of a fungicide
application for different wheat
Second Check the Check any Check the market prices
visible node uppermost leaf – leaf – uppermost leaf Application Product
(Feekes 7) threshold of 5 threshold of 1 – threshold of cost Cost
pustules per leaf pustule 25% of leaves ($/acre) ($/acre) $3.00/bu $5.00/bu $7.00/bu
(average) (average) assessed with 6 15 7.0 4.2 3.0
expanding 8 15 7.7 4.6 3.3
blotches 10 15 8.3 5.0 3.6
Flag leaf Check from flag- Check from Check from 12 15 9.0 5.4 3.9
emergence 2 upward – flag-3 upward flag-2 upward –
(Feekes 8) threshold for flag- – threshold is threshold is Useful References:
2 is 5 pustules 1 pustule per 25% of leaves
per leaf leaf (average) with blotches Wisconsin Crop Manager articles regarding winter wheat
(average) production and disease management:
Flag leaf Check from flag- Check from Check from
through 1 upward – flag-2 upward flag-2 upward – 1. Foliar Fungicides for Winter Wheat in 2008, 10 April
flowering threshold for flag- – threshold is threshold is 2008
(Feekes 1 is 5 pustules 1 pustule per 25% of leaves
2. Identifying Wheat Diseases Controlled by Foliar
8 - 10.51) per leaf leaf (average) with blotches
Fungicides, 10 April 2008
(average)
3. Flag Leaf Emergence and Foliar Fungicides in Winter
Wheat, 29 May 2008
a Adapted from Hershman, D. E. 1995. Foliar Fungicide Use in Wheat, PPFS-
Online Resources to use during 2009 to stay up to date
AG-SG-5 and Weisz, R. and Melton, T. 2004. Small Grain Production Guide,
North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service, 9/04-3M-JMG
on wheat production and management in Wisconsin:
(Revised) AG-580.
ƒ Field Crops Plant Pathology:
b Definitions of leaves: flag = the last leaf that is visible at Feekes 8 (Zadoks http://www.uwex.edu/ces/croppathology
37); flag-1 = penultimate leaf just before the flag leaf; flag-2 = leaf that is two ƒ CoolBean.info: http://coolbean.info
leaves below the flag leaf; flag-3 = leaf that is three leaves below the flag leaf.
ƒ The Soy Report Blog:
http://thesoyreport.blogspot.com
ƒ USDA Cereal Rust Laboratory – Reports and
In terms of the leaf area infected for powdery mildew and Bulletins:
wheat leaf rust, these thresholds correspond to 5-10% for
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=9
powdery mildew and 1-3% for wheat leaf rust, respectively.
757
Economically, the decision to make a foliar fungicide ƒ Fusarium Head Blight Prediction Center:
application is dependent on crop yield potential, commodity http://www.wheatscab.psu.edu/
prices, pesticide cost including application, and crop yield loss
caused by wheel track damage. An adequate yield potential for
soft red winter wheat would be in the 55-65 bu/a range. The
goal when considering yield and economics is that you want to
cover the total cost of the fungicide application. In Table 1, we Photos illustrating important growth stages to
provide a condensed version of the number of bushels/a needed assess for foliar and flowering diseases of winter
to cover the cost of a fungicide application plus product. The

Wisconsin Crop Manager 17

wheat and the recommended leaf or leaves to
assess.

„„„„„„„„

Wisconsin Crop Manager 18

 Volume 16 Number 5 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager
Fertility and Soils
Consider Spring Tillage Options ................................... 19
Weeds
Perplexing Replant Interval Question............................. 19
2009 Corn and Soybean Herbicide Updates ................... 20
Consider Spring Tillage Options
Dick Wolkowski, Tom Cox, and Jim Leverich, Departments of
Soil Science and Agricultural and Applied Economics, and
UW-Extension
A recent drive from Madison to Baldwin via I-94 revealed
that no more than 10% of the cropland visible from the
Interstate had received fall tillage. Reasons may be numerous
and include later harvest due to slower maturity in 2008, the
early onset of winter, or a reluctance of growers to invest in
tillage when diesel fuel prices were $4 per gallon. Many
growers are now faced with the decision of tillage or no-tillage;
or if tillage will be done how much will be needed. This
decision is likely very specific to a particular farming operation
and factors such as whether manure has or will be applied, crop
rotation, soil type, and if the planter can function in high residue
will need to be considered. The final decision should be based
on past experience and the expectation that return can be
maximized by lowering the cost of production per bushel.
Historically no-till is practiced on less than 15 % of
Wisconsin’s corn acres and this practice presents the greatest
challenge to producers. A planter that is designed to work in
heavy residue is a must and the operator must recognize that
slower ground speed is necessary, along with more down
pressure to obtain a uniform stand and seeding depth. Growers
that would like to increase the chance of success with a reduced
tillage system and lower their cost of production might start by
no-till planting corn into fragile residue situations found
following soybean or alfalfa. Also no-till seeding of soybean
into corn stubble has been shown to be very successful and is
Wisconsin Crop Manager
--- April 2, 2009
practiced on 40 % of soybean acres nation-wide according to
the Conservation Technology Information Center.
A recent summary of a ten year tillage/rotation research study
at the Arlington Agricultural Research Station that included fall
chisel, fall strip-tillage, and no-till offered the following
observations. Compared to chisel plowing the cost of
production per bushel in continuous corn was lower 7 of 10
years in strip-tillage and 5 of 10 years in no-till. The similar
comparison for first-year corn after soybean was 9 of 10 years
for strip-tillage and 7 of 10 years for no-till. Where soybean
was grown after corn the comparison was favorable 7 of 10
years for strip-tillage and 8 of 10 years for no-till when
compared to chisel. More information on this evaluation is
available in a Wisconsin Crop Management Conference
Proceedings paper prepared by the authors, which can be
downloaded from www.soils.wisc.edu/extension.
In summary, growers should carefully consider the need to
perform full-width tillage in 2009. Some might want to use the
opportunity to make a comparison between standard tillage and
alternative practices. Start with situations, such as first-year
corn, where the opportunity to succeed with no-till or another
reduced tillage system is the greatest and refine tillage
management over time.
Perplexing Replant Interval Question
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist
Interpreting label statements about rotational intervals can
range from clear to fuzzy. Clear statements often cover our
major crops such as “Do not plant potatoes for 26 months.”
However, some rotational situations do not seem to be
addressed by a label. Here’s one example based on a question
from this winter that you might encounter.
Herbicide applied to corn: Keystone LA
Next planting: Wild flowers and prairie grasses
The question is “What is the replant interval?
As you might suspect, “Wildflowers and prairie grasses” are
not listed in the Keystone LA label’s section on rotational
intervals.
Before discussing the answer, there are two points to
remember about the purpose of rotational intervals. One
purpose is to ensure that adequate time has passed for any
herbicide residues to degrade so the next crop is not damaged
by carryover. The second purpose is to ensure that herbicide
residues have degraded to levels so low that the next crop will
19
not take up the herbicide and result in illegal residues in the
harvested crop. The term for the legal level of a pesticide
residue that is permitted in food by EPA is called the
“tolerance”. This meaning of tolerance should not to be
confused with discussions on the level of safety that a crop has
to a herbicide (i.e. the corn has tolerance to Accent and is not
injured).
In this unusual case, I visited with Dave Fredrickson,
Wisconsin DATCP, for an interpretation. Dave pointed out a
key point in this case. Tolerances are established to protect
food crops from illegal residues. The wild flowers and prairie
grasses will not be harvested as a crop so that “food” concern
does not exist in this case. The other issue is whether or not the
Keystone LA will carryover to damage these prairie plants. The
DATCP and EPA do not really enforce rotational issues related
to risk of crop damage, but crop damage is certainly a concern
for the farmer or land owner or herbicide manufacturer.
In the case of wild flowers and prairie grasses, the seed is
often high priced so a mistake could be costly. With Keystone
LA as the example, the atrazine component would probably be
the greatest carryover concern. The label states sorghum (an
atrazine tolerant crop) and soybean can be planted the spring
after Keystone LA was applied and lists many broadleaf and
grass crops that can be planted after 15 months. Using this as
guidance, I would recommend waiting at least 15 months before
planting either wild flowers or prairie grasses in this case. Of
course, each herbicide and plant combination will differ in
terms of risks. If you are confronted with question about a non-
food crop rotation that is not covered by the label, you can use
this information to help make a decision.
2009 Corn and Soybean Herbicide Updates
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist
The list of new herbicides or rate changes for 2009 is
relatively short and there are no new ingredients or modes of
action to report for Wisconsin.
• Accent Q and Steadfast Q have been labeled for 2009
and limited quantities should be available. The “Q” in
both names designates the addition of the safener
isoxadifen to the formulation. This safener increases the
rate that corn metabolizes these herbicides, which
reduces the risk of injury. Accent Q rates range from
0.45 to 1.8 oz/a, but the standard use rate would be 0.9
oz/a, which equals 0.67 oz/a of the original Accent.
Steadfast Q is labeled for use at 1.5 oz/a, which equals
0.75 oz/a of the original Steadfast.
• Balance Flexx and Corvus are new, but both contain
isoxaflutole and are not registered for use in Wisconsin.
• Ignite 280 is the new formulation of glufosinate. It is a
more concentrated version of Liberty. Consequently,
only 22 oz/a of Ignite is needed to apply the same
amount of glufosinate as 32 oz/a of Liberty. Speaking of
Ignite, LibertyLink soybeans are available in 2009.
LibertyLink soybeans can be treated with one or two
Wisconsin Crop Manager
applications of 22 oz/a Ignite after emergence but before
bloom. We had excellent results in 2008 trials with a
single application of Ignite after reduced rates of several
preemergence herbicides so the program can be very
effective. However, if growers are switching from
Roundup Ready soybeans to LibertyLink soybeans, they
need to remember that glyphosate (Roundup) is a
translocating herbicide while glufosinate (Ignite) is a
contact herbicide. This means that application timing is
much more critical with Ignite than with glyphosate.
Most weeds should be treated with Ignite in the 3 to 4
inch stage (some weeds are listed at 6 inches on the
label). Check the label for the maximum heights for the
different weed species.
• Impact has a new supplemental label that allows rotation
to processing snap beans after 9 months when a 0.5 oz/a
rate is used in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota.
• SureStart has two new supplemental labels. The first
label allows use on non-herbicide resistant corn. The
second label allows higher rates of SureStart, which will
provide longer residual control. The initial use rates of
1.5 to 2 pt/a provided the equivalent of about half rates of
Surpass and Hornet for early season weed control in
glyphosate (Roundup) or glufosinate (Ignite) resistant
corn. The new rates are 1.5 to 2 pt/a on coarse soils and
1.5 to 3 pt/a on medium and fine soils. A 3 pt/a rate
would provide the equivalent of 1.75 pt/a of Surpass and
about 4 oz/a of Hornet.
• Tackle has just been labeled and is a premix of
glyphosate and imazethapyr from Cheminova for
glyphosate-resistant soybeans. I will report the use rates
and ratio of these ingredients when the label is posted to
cdms.net. You will recognize that these are the same
ingredients that are in Extreme.
• Vida is pyraflufen and has been labeled by Gowan for
use in the Midwest. The same ingredient was previously
labeled as ET by Nichino. Vida can be used as a
burndown treatment to control broadleaf weeds prior to
corn, soybeans or wheat or as a postemergence treatment
in these same crops. Many weeds, up to 4 inches tall, are
listed on the label for control such as wild buckwheat,
chickweed, lambsquarters, nightshade, pigweed,
common and giant ragweed, smartweed, velvetleaf and
waterhemp. Vida is a PPO inhibitor and it has
postemergence contact action so early timing will be
important. Burndown rates go up to 2 oz/a (1 oz/a before
wheat) and can be mixed with 2,4-D or glyphosate. Crop
oil or surfactant will increase burndown activity. Field
and seed corn (not sweet corn) can be treated with up to
0.75 oz/a at the V1 to V2 stage; soybeans can be treated
with up to 0.75 oz/a through V2; and up to 1 oz/a can be
used in winter wheat before flag leaf. Do not use crop
oil with postemergence applications to corn or soybeans;
speckling of crop leaves is still possible. It also has short
residual activity so any crop can be replanted after 30
days. We do not have much trial experience with Vida in
these crops.
„„„„„„„„
20
 Volume 16 Number 6 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- April 9, 2009

For more information on SCN testing and management

What’s new! practices to help reduce the losses from this pest, please contact:
Shawn Conley: spconley@wisc.edu; 608-262-7975
WSMB Offers Free Soybean Cyst
Nematode Testing ......................................................... 21
Application techniques Fact Sheet for boom
Application techniques Fact Sheet for
boom sprayers ................................................................ 21 sprayers
Roger Flashinski, Pesticide Applicator Training Program
Weeds A new fact sheet, Field Pesticide Application Techniques in
Wisconsin, provides guidance to applicators on tips and
Ready to Tackle Lambsquarters? ................................... 22 recommended practices when spraying cropland with boom
sprayers. Although it’s written with emphasis towards the
Crops commercial applicator, it covers spraying situations that every
applicator, private or commercial, will face: making the opening
Corn plant density for maximum grain and rounds, spraying into corners, the importance of pattern and swath
silage production ............................................................ 23 overlap, spraying around waterways, and spraying irregular
shaped fields. The fact sheet’s primary audience is for beginning
and inexperienced applicators who are just learning how to spray.
The seven page fact sheet contains numerous illustrations and
diagrams. It is authored by Chris Boerboom, UW-Extension
WSMB Offers Free Soybean Cyst Nematode Weed Scientist, and Roger Flashinski, UW-Extension Pesticide
Testing Applicator Training program, is available for download in PDF
Shawn Conley, Paul Esker, and John Gaska format from http://ipcm.wisc.edu/pat (click on the
Downloads tab).
The UW-Madison Agronomy Department, in cooperation with
the Wisconsin Soybean Marketing Board, is again offering free
soybean cyst nematode (SCN) soil testing for Wisconsin growers.
This program is intended for growers to sample several of their
fields in order to identify if SCN is present and at what levels.
Growers will be responsible for collecting soil from fields
suspected to have SCN and then sending the sample to the SCN
testing laboratory for analysis. They will receive a lab report back
with the SCN egg count and a brochure to help plan future
rotations and other cultural practices to lower SCN infestation if
they exist.
We have a limited number of these free kits available and will
furnish them on a first come - first served basis at up to four per
farm. Crop consultants, advisors, and crop input retailers are
encouraged to request kits for their client’s farms. Each kit has a
bag and a prepaid mailer for one soil sample, which should
represent about 10-15 acres. Both the postage and lab fees are
prepaid. Anytime before, during, or right after the growing season
are great times to collect soil samples for routine soil fertility
analysis and for SCN monitoring.
Soil sample test kits are available now and can be requested
from Colleen Smith at clsmith8@wisc.edu or at 608-262-7702.

Wisconsin Crop Manager 21

 postemergence glyphosate treatment (22 oz/a), but control
Ready to Tackle Lambsquarters? increased to 81% after the glyphosate + 2,4-D burndown
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist treatment and 99% after the burndown treatment that
The common lambsquarters season is almost here. Are you included the residual herbicide Gangster.
ready? It may seem odd to discuss the growing season as a 3. Following the residual herbicide, the researchers were able
lambsquarters season, but most if not all fields in Wisconsin have to delay the postemergence glyphosate treatments by 10 to
common lambsquarters. So, everyone will deal with 14 days while maintaining this high level of control. In
lambsquarters, one way or another. Figure 2, this is highlighted as a mid-post timing. The other
Common lambsquarters control in Roundup Ready soybeans postemergence treatments started with an early
seems to be a common concern for many growers, agronomists, postemergence timing. This added time for application has
and consultants. Control has been good in some years and implications for protecting soybean yield against early
inconsistent in other years. Some reasons suggested for season weed competition.
inconsistent lambsquarters control include spraying larger plants 4. These tough lambsquarters (fields with previous histories
(which happens in WI) or using low glyphosate rates, stem boring of reduced control) were 4 to 8 inches tall when they were
insects, rain after glyphosate applications, and even dusty plants. sprayed without a burndown treatment or after the
Lambsquarters with variable sensitivity to glyphosate have also glyphosate + 2,4-D treatment. In these fields and with
been noted by many researchers although there are no reported lambsquarters this tall, lambsquarters were controlled
cases of lambsquarters with higher levels of glyphosate- better when the higher rate of glyphosate was used
resistance.
When planning your management of
lambsquarters for this season, a review of a
recent research study from Indiana and Ohio
might be useful. This study was conducted at
four farms with histories of lambsquarters
with reduced glyphosate control. Three of the
five on-farm trials were conducted under no-
till and the other two were managed with
chisel-till. The management options tested
were 1) skipping a burndown, 2) using
glyphosate + 2,4-D as a burndown, and 3)
using glyphosate + 2,4-D plus Gangster as the
burndown. The glyphosate rate was 22 oz/a
of WeatherMax and the Gangster rate was at
2.4 oz/a. These treatments were followed
with one or two postemergence passes of 22
or 44 oz/a of WeatherMax.
Key results
1. A residual herbicide added to the
burndown treatment reduced the
number and size of the lambsquarters
when the first postemergence
glyphosate treatment was sprayed
(Figure 1). The lambsquarters density
was reduced by over 85% and the
remaining seedlings were all less than
3 inches tall when they were sprayed
postemergence. These smaller
lambsquarters should be easier to
control when sprayed postemergence
with glyphosate.
2. Any burndown treatment increased the
level of lambsquarters control provided
by an early postemergence treatment of
glyphosate compared to when the
burndown treatment was skipped
(Figure 2). When the burndown
treatment was skipped, lambsquarters
control was only 66% after the early

Wisconsin Crop Manager 22

 compared to the standard rate (83 vs 61% with no between various measures and plant density was estimated using
burndown and 90 vs 81% when following glyphosate + regression models at 20 000, 26 000, 32 000, 38 000, 44 000, and
2,4-D burndown; Figure 2). However, a higher rate of 50 000 plants per acre.
glyphosate was not needed when following the residual
Maximum grain yield was measured at 38 000 plants/A. The
herbicide. Control was 99 and 98% with either the
relationship increased to a maximum and then decreased as plant
standard or higher glyphosate rate.
density changed. In agronomic research, it is very difficult to
5. Two applications of a standard glyphosate rate (22 + 22 measure grain yield differences less that 5%. So, grain yields
oz/a) provided similar control to a single higher rate (44 within 5% of the maximum grain yield were measured at plant
oz/a) except when a residual herbicide was used (Figure 2). density above 28 000 plants/A.
Following the residual herbicide, a single glyphosate
Maximum forage yield was measured at 44 000 plants/A and
application was as effective as two glyphosate applications
was within 5% of the maximum when plant densities were above
(99 vs 100%). An early 44 oz/a glyphosate application
30 000 plants/A. Forage quality as measured by Milk per Ton
followed by a later 22 oz/a glyphosate application was
decreased linearly from a maximum at 20 000 plants/A, but was
needed to obtain control equal to the control when the
within 5% of the maximum across the range of plant densities
residual herbicide was followed with a single
measured. Maximum Milk per Acre was measured at 41 000
postemergence glyphosate application (95 and 97% control
plants/A and was within 5% of the maximum at 28 000 plants/A.
with 44 oz/a followed by 22 oz/a with no burndown or
These results are a good example of the trade-off that exists
after the glyphosate + 2,4-D burndown, respectively; data
between forage yield and quality, i.e. the plant density that
not shown in figure).
maximizes Milk per Acre is intermediate between plant densities
Hopefully, these results highlight a couple important that maximize forage yield and Milk per Ton.
considerations when managing common lambsquarters, especially
Plant densities that maximize grain and forage yield are higher
the need to use a burndown treatment and the value of a
than currently recommended plant densities. These results
preemergence residual herbicide in the system. Remember, this
indicate that the plant density that maximizes forage production is
study was conducted on “tough” lambsquarters, but we may be
about 3000 plants/A higher than the plant density for maximizing
facing similar lambsquarters in some of our Wisconsin fields too.
grain yield. The economic optimum plant density is lower than
Source: Westhoven and others. 2008. Management of the plant density required to maximize grain or forage yield. The
glyphosate-tolerant common lambsquarters (Chenopodium economic optimum plant density is likely different between farms
album) in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Technology and fields within farms.
22:628-634.
Adjusting plant density is probably one of the best ways to
move off current yield levels. Begin by planting a field to what
you think is the optimum plant density and at two or three places
Corn plant density for maximum grain and (rounds) in the field, increase your population by 10%. For
silage production example, if you currently plant at 30 000 plants/A, do so for the
majority of your field, but in two or three rounds increase the
Joe Lauer, UW Corn Agronomist
population to 33 000 plants/A. Measure yield at the end of the
The plant density that maximizes corn grain and silage yield season and during the season watch for "runt" plants, tillering,
has been increasing through time. The economic optimum plant prolific versus ear bareness on plants, big versus small ears, ear
density is a function of corn yield and quality responses, seed tip "nose-back" and plant lodging. Adjust the field accordingly
cost, and grain or silage price. The economic plant density is the following year. „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „
lower than the plant density that
maximizes yield.
Plots were established at the UW-ARS
at Arlington from 2000 to 2008. These
plots were 8 rows wide by 25 feet long.
Four rows were harvested for silage and
the remaining 4 rows were harvested later
for grain. The target plant densities varied
by year and ranged from 14 000 to 56 000
plants/A. Adapted, high-performing
hybrids were selected using results from
the UW Corn Trials and varied for relative
maturity (full- and shorter-season). Milk
per Ton and Milk per Acre were estimated
using Milk2006. The treatment (hybrid x
plant density) mean that maximized the
measure within a year was set to 100%.
The results in Figure 1 were summarized
across all hybrids and the relationship

Wisconsin Crop Manager 23

 Volume 16 Number 7 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- April 16, 2009

Wheat Stand Assessment, Winterkill Yield

In this Issue…
loss, and Nitrogen Application
Shawn P. Conley and John Gaska
Crops
Most winterkill that growers experienced in 2008 was related to
Wheat Stand Assessment, Winterkill prolonged ice sheets that limited plant respiration and ultimately
Yield loss, and Nitrogen Application ............................ 24 lead to plant death. In 2009, Wisconsin wheat growers are again
dealing with winterkill; however the culprit this year appears to
be death by exposure (lack of snow cover). As you drive around
Fertility and Soils the countryside and survey the wheat crop, distinct patterns begin
to emerge. In general the wheat that is nearest the tree lines and
Managing the Impact of Construction held the snow the longest appears to be in the best shape, whereas
Compaction on Crop Land ............................................. 26 those areas that were most exposed to cold, driving winds appear
to be in the toughest condition. We also see a dramatic impact of
Plant disease planting date (early wheat looks better than late planted) and
variety on winterkill (Image 1).
Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update .......... 27
Many growers have been slow to pull the trigger on nitrogen
applications due to the slow green-up we have experienced,
however the warm weather forecast for this weekend should make
winterkill decisions and N recommendations much easier as we
progress into next week. As you scout, remember brown, dried
leaves evident in
some fields do not
necessarily indicate
winter injury, and
green leaves are
not a sure sign that
the crop has
survived either.
(Image 2) The only
way to properly
assess the
condition of
individual plants is
to examine the
crown for the
development of
new white roots. If
the crown appears
white and healthy,
and new roots are
developing, the
plant is probably in
good condition.
(cont. page 25)

Image 1. Planting date and variety impact on winterkill.

Wisconsin Crop Manager 24

 Nitrogen applications to wheat should be made in early spring
at Feekes GS3 to GS5 (green-up to pre-joint). Applying N on
slightly frozen ground in mid to late April in southern WI
minimizes wheel traffic problems and meets the early season N
needs of wheat, however off-site movement of N can occur.
Spring N management decisions are often difficult for growers
when winter wheat stands are thin at green-up. The common
questions are:
• What will this stand yield?
• How much N should I invest into this poor looking wheat
stand?
• And finally, should I even keep this crop?

Image 2. Brown leaves don’t necessarily mean wheat has not

survived.
A valuable point to remember this spring is that in wheat,
nitrogen serves two important functions. Nitrogen fertilizer may
be used to manipulate the population (increase tiller number) as
well as supply the nutritional needs of the crop to produce protein
(Maowski et al. 1999; Soon and Clayton, 2002; Vaughan et al.
1990; Weisz et al. 2001). Therefore, wheat tiller number is an
important indicator of nitrogen application timing. Research
indicates that if tiller (stem) number is greater than 70 per square
foot, it may be beneficial to delay nitrogen application until just
prior to jointing (Scharf et al., 1993). The advantage of a delayed
nitrogen application is an increase in nitrogen use efficiency and a
potential yield increase, however if tiller number is less than 70
per square foot, it is recommended to apply nitrogen at green-up
in order to increase the effective plant population.
Nitrogen is a key component to producing good wheat yields;
however, applying too much N fertilizer can have detrimental
effects on yield. Excessive N fertilization encourages excess
vegetative growth, which increases the possibility of lodging,
making harvest more difficult and also increases disease potential
due to a dense canopy. With the current high price of N fertilizer
and very good wheat prices, some growers are wondering if 70 lb
N/a for soil with 2.0 to 9.9% organic matter is still valid (Laboski
et al., 2008). To answer this question, data collected over the past
12 years in southern Wisconsin was re-evaluated using current
wheat and N fertilizer prices following the maximum return to N A good assessment of live plants is an essential first step. We
(MRTN) approach we use for corn N recommendations. The recommend a minimum of 12-15 live plants per sq ft as a
amount of N needed for wheat is strongly related to preplant soil cutoff. It will usually not be economical to keep a wheat crop
nitrate levels (PPNT). PPNT for wheat is determined on 0-1' and with less plant density than this. Use Table 1 as a guide when
1-2' soil samples taken in late summer prior to planting wheat in counting plants in various row widths. When counting, be sure to
the fall. If the PPNT is < 50 lb NO3-N/a, then the MRTN rate is distinguish between whole plants and tillers. These
70 lb N/a (with a profitable range of 65 to 80 lb N/a) which recommendations are for plants per square foot. Whole fields do
matches our recommendations for soils with 2 to 9.9% organic not have to be abandoned if one area is low in stand. Before you
matter. If the PPNT is between 50 and 100 lb NO3-N/a, then the tear up a poor stand of wheat, be sure to calculate the input costs
MRTN rate is 45 lb N/a. And if the PPNT is > 100 lb NO3-N/a, you have in the existing wheat crop, the costs of establishing
then the MRTN is 0 lb N/a (no N is needed). In these studies, if another crop in relation to the expected yields of either crop, and
wheat followed soybean, then the MRTN rate was about 20 lb/a lastly, current crop prices. Net profits from wheat are competitive
less. If PPNT soil samples were not collected last year, then it with soybean and corn when you add in the return for the straw
would be appropriate to use 70 lb N/a on soils with 2.0-9.9%. and the rotation benefits.
Also remember to take any N credits for manure applications or
forage legumes if appropriate.

Wisconsin Crop Manager 25

 In 2008, we initiated a set of experiments to further quantify the
impact of winter kill on grain yield and nitrogen needs for
Wisconsin growers (Figures 1 and 2). Preliminary data suggests
that at our Arlington site, 60 pounds of nitrogen was optimal for
maximum yield regardless of the percent winterkill, whereas at
Chilton a yield response to nitrogen was noted in some of our
winterkill treatments. The value of this response is directly related
to the cost of N applied. This research is being funded by the
Wisconsin Fertilizer Research Program in 2009 and 2010.
Figure 1. Effect of Winterkill and Spring Nitrogen Rate on Soft
Red Winter Wheat Yield at Arlington, WI in 2008.
Figure 2. Effect of Winterkill and Spring Nitrogen Rate on Soft
Red Winter Wheat Yield at Chilton, WI in 2008.
References:
Bundy, L. G. and T. W. Andraski. 2004. Diagnostic tests for site-
specific nitrogen recommendations for winter wheat. Agron. J.
96:608-614.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Laboski, C.A.M., J.B. Peters, and L.G. Bundy. 2006. Nutrient
application guidelines for field, vegetable, and fruit crops in
Wisconsin. A2809. University of Wisconsin-Extension, Madison,
WI.
Makowski, D., D. Wallach, and JM. Meynard. 1999. Models of
yield, grain protein, and residual mineral nitrogen responses to
applied nitrogen for winter wheat. Agron. J. 91:377-385.
Scharf, P.C., M.M. Alley, and Y.Z. Lei. 1993. Spring nitrogen on
winter wheat: I. Farmer-field validation of tissue test-based rate
recommendations. Agron. J. 85:1181-1186.
Soon, Y.K. and G.W. Clayton. 2002. Eight years of crop rotation
and tillage effects on crop production and N fertilizer use. Can. J.
Soil Sci. 82:165-172.
Vaughan, B., D.G Westfall, and K.A. Barbarick. 1990. Nitrogen
rate and timing effects on winter wheat grain yield, grain protein,
and economics. J. Prod. Ag. 3:324-328.
Weisz, R., C.R. Crozier, and R.W. Heiniger. 2001. Optimizing
nitrogen application timing in no-till soft red winter
wheat. Agron. J. 93:435-442.
Managing the Impact of Construction
Compaction on Crop Land
Dick Wolkowski, Extension Soil Scientist
In the last several months I have received numerous queries
about soil compaction caused by the construction of pipelines,
high voltage transmission lines, highways, and wind turbines.
Producers are concerned that compaction from heavy equipment
will negatively affect soil quality factors such as bulk density,
porosity, aggregation, and drainage; causing yield reduction that
may persist for several years. While the effect will vary by soil
type, soil moisture content, and vehicle load; soil compaction has
been shown to have negative impact on yield in almost all
situations. Where the soil has been aggressively disturbed, as it
will be when a pipeline is buried, the effects can be long-lasting.
Examples of compaction effects on crop yield collected from
various research studies are shown in Table 1 (next page).
Compaction has the effect of re-arranging the soil aggregates to
form a denser, less porous soil. Severe compaction will destroy
these aggregates further reducing porosity. The denser soil has
fewer large pores to conduct water, so increased runoff and
ponding in depressions are common symptoms of compaction.
The smaller pores hold water tighter resulting in a Awetter@ soil
that dries more slowly. Soil gas exchange is slowed and oxygen
can become limiting to roots. The soil strength increases,
requiring more power for tillage and impeding root growth.
These problems are made worse when the soil is near field
capacity as the water acts as a lubricant between soil particles.
The problem is also worsened as the clay content of the soil
increases.
It has been estimated that over 70 percent of the compaction
effect occurs in the first pass across the field. The heavier the
equipment, the more severe the effect. Factors such as increased
tire size, proper inflation pressure, and the addition of tracks,
duals, or tandem axles can offset some of the effect, but in many
26
cases with very heavy equipment there will be a
limited reduction in compaction. Table 1. Effect of soil compaction on crop yield in several Wisconsin studies.

A treatment that is often suggested to alleviate

compaction is deep tillage, more commonly Compaction load
known as subsoiling. If done use a subsoiler County Crop Units Minimal Moderate Heavy
with L-shaped legs (e.g. para-plow) that lifts the
soil with minimal surface disturbance.
Subsoiling will loosen the soil, but it will not re- Manitowoc Corn bu/a 120 103 69
create structure or the biopores from roots and Grant Corn bu/a 106 101 91
earthworm activity. These redevelop over time Winnebago Corn bu/a 156 152 142
once the site is returned to crop production.
Columbia Corn bu/a 156 -- 112
Natural forces, such as wetting/drying,
freezing/thawing, and biological activity will Columbia Alfalfa ton/a 3.7 -- 3.3
take many years to restore a severely compacted Waushara Potato cwt/a 458 -- 440
soil. A study conducted in western Minnesota
demonstrated that the compaction caused by Note: Not all differences at any specific site were statistically significant at p=0.05.
covered wagons in the 1880’s could still be
detected over a century later.
It is recommended that producers have a clear agreement with
The best advice for managing compaction is to avoid contractors before construction begins. The agreement should
compaction. When possible stay off wet soils, operate with outline construction particulars, and describe compensation for
lighter loads, confine traffic to existing lanes, and use tracked crop loss and responsibility for mitigating impacts. Producers
vehicles when possible. These recommendations are easily should keep records of discussions with representatives of the
disregarded in the construction process. Producers should construction companies. According to State Statutes the
attempt to estimate a fair price to compensate for the yield loss WDATCP is required to prepare an Agricultural Impact
from compaction based on the area affected, commodity prices, Statement when the potential for the exercise of eminent domain
and other inconveniences. A yield reduction estimate of 12 to powers would result in the acquisition of more than five acres.
25 % is not unreasonable. Some situation may lend themselves These documents often contain the practices that the company
to comparing yield in affected and un-affected areas. Be sure will use to manage post-construction compaction.
to average multiple paired yield measurements to account for
natural field variability. „„„„„„„„

UW-Extension/Madison Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update

Brian Hudelson, Ann Joy, Amy Gibbs, and Brooke Weber, Plant Disease Diagnostics Clinic
The PDDC receives samples of many plant samples from around the state. The following diseases/disorders have
been identified at the PDDC since January 1, 2009:

PLANT/SAMPLE DISEASE/DISORDER PATHOGEN COUNTY

TYPE

FRUITS
Apple Phomopsis Canker Phomopsis sp. Walworth
SOILS
Alfalfa Soil Aphanomyes Seedling Aphanomyces euteiches race 2 Jefferson
Blight/Root Rot
Alfalfa Soil Phytophthora Seedling Phytophthora medicaginis Jefferson
Blight/Root Rot
VEGETABLES
Carrot Black Rot Alternaria radacina Dane

Fusarium Dry Rot Fusarium sp. Dane

Tomato Root Rot Pythium sp. Waushara

Salt Injury None (High soluble salts in soil) Dane

For additional information on plant diseases and their control, visit the PDDC website at pddc.wisc.edu.

Wisconsin Crop Manager 27

 Volume 16 Number 8 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager
What's new!
UW Pest Management Field Day – July 9th .................. 28
Pesticide Applications and the Clean Water Act:
Is a Permit Required? ..................................................... 28
Crops
Alfalfa stand assessment, New video !! ......................... 29
New article on soybean seeding rates ............................ 29
Weeds
Flexstar GT labeled ........................................................ 29
Be Aware of Grapes and 2,4-D Drift ............................. 30
UW Pest Management Field Day – July 9th
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist
Please mark your calendars for our annual UW Pest
Management Field Day on Thursday, July 9th at the Arlington
Agricultural Research Station. We will start with coffee at 8 am
at the Public Events Building and plot tours will start at 8:30
am.
After spending the morning in the field, a lunch will be
served at noon. Faculty and staff from Agronomy and
Horticulture (weed science), Entomology, and Plant Pathology
provide information on field trials and updates.
More details to come after we get our experiments planted
over the next few weeks.
Pesticide Applications and the Clean Water
Act: Is a Permit Required?
Roger Flashinski, Pesticide Applicator Training Program
Several recent news releases on this issue, and the resulting
flurry of emails, are asking whether pesticide applicators will
Wisconsin Crop Manager
--- April 23, 2009
need a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit under the Clean Water Act (CWA)? From
final rules, through court appeals, and a reinterpretation of the
findings are now saying: Yes, but not yet. Here's the scoop.
Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972,
EPA has not required a NPDES permit when applying
pesticides registered under FIFRA directly to, over, or near
waters of the United States when legally applied to control pests
at those sites. On November 27, 2006, EPA issued a final rule
clarifying two specific circumstances in which a CWA permit is
not required: 1) the application of pesticides directly to water to
control pests; and 2) the application of pesticides to control
pests that are present over or near water, where a portion of the
pesticides will unavoidably be deposited to the water. The rule
became effective on January 26, 2007.
On January 7, 2009 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
determined that EPA's final rule was not a reasonable
interpretation of the CWA and, therefore, vacated the rule.
Reversing EPA’s November 2006 Aquatics Pesticides rule, the
biological pesticide applications and all chemical
pesticide applications that leave a residue in water when such
applications are made to, over, or near waters of the U.S. Parties
had until April 9, 2009 to seek rehearing.
On April 9, 2009, the Department of Justice (DOJ) chose not
to seek rehearing on an opinion issued by the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals. DOJ instead filed a motion for stay (delay) of
the Court's mandate until April 9, 2011 to provide EPA time to
develop, propose, and issue a final NPDES permitting process.
Time is also needed to provide outreach and education to
pesticide applicators which includes local government entities
that spray to and over waters to control mosquitoes, farmers
who apply pesticides to eradicate aquatic pests, foresters who
aerially spray over waters to prevent outbreaks of timber pests,
and the U.S. Coast Guard which sprays to kill insects that
interfere with the maintenance of navigation devices.
Because neither the EPA nor the state departments of
agriculture currently have the resources to process and issue
individual permits for the thousands of applicators affected by
this Court’s decision, EPA proposes to issue general NPDES
permits which will address a large number of similarly situated
dischargers in lieu of issuing individual permits to each
discharger. Without such permitting authority, significant
disruptions to the regulated community will likely occur.
EPA has, therefore, requested the Court to use its power and
delay this action until April 9, 2011 to allow EPA and
authorized permitting authorities sufficient time to develop and
issue Clean Water Act permits for pesticide applications.
28
 In related activity, CropLife America (and numerous other
agricultural organizations) did petition the Court for rehearing.
They argued that the Court’s decision ignored the definition in
the Clean Water Act of “point source”, and they requested that
the full Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals review a three-judge
panel’s January decision vacating EPA’s final rule for
pesticides. Thus, the Court must decide whether to rehear the
case, issue the stay per EPA’s request, or let their decision stand
as is. The only further option for appeal is to the Supreme
Court. So, stay tuned.
Alfalfa stand assessment, New video !!
In this seven minute video Dr. Dan Undersander, UWEX
forage agronomist from the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Agronomy department, visits an alfalfa field and demonstrates
steps you can take to help answer this question. Is this stand
good enough to keep?
Click here >>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jujW3-FE4zE
Be sure to click on the "HQ" button just below the
video to see the clearest picture. If you have comments on the
video, you can contact Dan Undersander (content) or Roger
Schmidt (technical production).
For more in-depth stand assessment information, including
how to use stem count to estimate current yield potential, please
see UWEX publication A3620 here >>>
http://learningstore.uwex.edu/pdf/A3620.pdf
This video was produced by the UW Integrated Pest
Management program. Look for more of these timely topics
later in the season. They will be posted to the UWEX channel
on Youtube.com. UWEX has several education videos on
Youtube.com that are free to view anytime.
http://www.youtube.com/user/uwcoopextension
New article on soybean seeding rates
Given the dramatic increase in soybean seed prices, growers
will likely consider decreasing their seeding rates in 2009.
Shawn Conley and John Gaska from the UW-Madison
Agronomy department have published a short document on the
Wisconsin Crop Manager
subject. It is titled, Factors to Consider When Lowering
Soybean Seeding Rates in 2009, and can be found at this link.
Click here >>> http://www.coolbean.info
This article is also attached to the end of this WCM issue, so
scroll down to read it here.
Flexstar GT labeled
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist
Syngenta has registered Flexstar GT for postemergence weed
control in Roundup Ready soybeans. Flexstar GT is a premix of
the ingredient in Flexstar (fomesafen) and glyphosate. One use
of this premix is to control glyphosate-resistant weeds such as
common and giant ragweed and waterhemp. However, to
control glyphosate-resistant biotypes, Flexstar GT needs to be
applied at an early stage of growth for the Flexstar component
to be effective. For resistant weeds, this is often a 2 inch
maximum height. Flexstar GT could also be used as a strategy
to lessen the risk of resistance as it contains two modes of
action. To capitalize on the two modes of action, early
postemergence applications also need to be made. Spraying
large weeds with Flexstar GT may provide effect control, but
defeats the purpose of having the second mode of action if the
weeds are too large to be controlled by Flexstar. One advantage
of an early postemergence application is that Flexstar has some
residual activity if activated by rain. The timing of Flexstar GT
should be driven by weed size, but applications cannot be made
within 45 days of harvest.
The Flexstar GT rate is limited to 3 pt/a in central and
northern Wisconsin (north of Hwy 18 west of Madison and I-94
east of Madison) in alternate years. Check the label for the
northern counties that are included. In the central sands, Adams,
Marquette, Portage, Waupaca, Washara, and Wood counties are
excluded. South of this line, 3.75 pt/a can be used. At these
rates, Flexstar GT would provide these equivalent amounts of
Flexstar and glyphosate.
Flexstar Equivalent (3 lb/gal generic
Flexstar Glyphosate
GT to formulation )
3 pt/a = 1 pt/a + 1 lb ae/a (42 oz/a)
3.75 pt/a = 1.3 pt/a + 1.23 lb ae/a (53 oz/a)
Many of the Flexstar GT use directions are similar to the
Flexstar label. Remember that Flexstar is a contact herbicide
and through spray coverage is important. Spray volumes of 15-
20 gpa and flat fan nozzles are recommended and air-induction
nozzles should not be used. Flexstar GT has an adjuvant system,
but ammonium sulfate can be added as with most glyphosate
products. Soybean, dry beans, and snap beans can be replanted
at anytime, but small grains should not be planted for 4 months
and corn (field, seed and sweet) and peas should not be planted
for 10 months. Alfalfa and other crops should not be planted for
18 months.
29
 Figure 2. “Fingering” symptomology appearing along the
Be Aware of Grapes and 2,4-D Drift margin of a grape leaf along with leaf distortion.
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist
The potential for herbicide drift is an issue every good
applicator monitors and manages by using the best that
equipment technology and drift reducing agents can
offer. However, some herbicides and crops create challenges
that are extremely difficult to manage. One example is grapes
and 2,4-D. This is a concern in certain regions of Wisconsin
because grape vineyards are either an established or expanding
crop. The potential sources of 2,4-D can be from 2,4-D used in
burndown applications to field crops, 2,4-D applications to
pastures, or even 2,4-D applications to lawns. The 2,4-D can
move either as spray particles in wind or as vapors. With spray
particles, the direction is dictated by the wind, which can be
predicted. However, vapor movement is more difficult to
predict as vapors may move in different directions as air
currents change during the many hours after the 2,4-D
application. Figure 3. Minor “fingering” symptomology appearing along the
Grapes are naturally highly sensitive to 2,4-D and the margin of a grape leaf.
symptoms depend on the dose. The symptoms will be expressed
on the new growth where new leaves are developing (figure
1). The most frequent symptoms are probably the “fingering”
that develops along the leaf margin (figures 2 and 3). Higher
doses can cause more severe damage and stunting.

Figure 1. 2,4-D symptoms on grapes appear on new growth.

Photo credits: J. Colquhoun

Grapes are a high value crop and every effort should be taken
to reduce the risk of causing injury. The first key step is to know
the location of vineyards in the region where 2,4-D is being
used. Second, if burndown applications need to be made near a
vineyard, alternate products should be used such as straight
glyphosate, paraquat, or other tank mix partners to replace 2,4-
D. The question of an appropriate setback distance for 2,4-D
also needs to be considered. There are no fixed guidelines
provided on labels or restrictions provided by state or federal
agencies. The “safe” setback distance will depend on wind
direction and speed, air temperature, topography, acres treated,
application equipment, etc. A mile setback may be appropriate
in certain situations. In other cases, this distance could be
reduced. An applicator will have to use their best judgment, but
be aware of the potential for injury and the associated liability.


Wisconsin Crop Manager 30

 Cool Bean Advisor
U N I V E R S I T Y O F W I S C O N S I N A G R O N O M Y, S O Y B E A N R E S E A R C H , U N I V E R S I T Y O F W I S C O N S I N - E X T E N S I O N

Factors to Consider When Lowering Soybean Seeding Rates in 2009

Shawn P. Conley, State Soybean and Wheat Extension Specialist
John Gaska, Outreach Specialist
University of Wisconsin, Madison

Soybean seed prices have risen dramatically in 2009. In Wisconsin alone, seed prices have increased
anywhere from 25 to 109%. Given the number of rebates, seed treatments, and programs available
through seed and chemical companies, it is often difficult to get at the true cost that growers pay for
seed. To try and capture this “true” cost, we sampled grower and dealer clientele that participated in the
2009 Agronomy Update Meetings (N=126). Results from this survey indicated that seed prices for the
2009 crop ranged from under $35.00 to over $60.00 per bag for seed (Figure 1). A majority (62%) of
those surveyed indicated that they paid between $40.00 and $50.00 per bag.

Figure 1. Average price paid for soybean seed in Wisconsin for the 2009 crop. Data collected from
clientele survey during 2009 Agronomy Update Meetings (N=126).

 
Given this dramatic increase in soybean seed prices, growers will likely consider decreasing their
seeding rates in 2009. The extent of this reduction may be dramatic in some cases compared to the
current seeding rates used in Wisconsin. In a grower survey conducted with cooperation and support
from the Wisconsin Soybean Marketing Board (WSMB) we found that a majority (38%) of Wisconsin
growers’ plant between 200,000 and 224, 000 seeds per acre in rows spaced ≤ 10 inches. Those growers
that plant in rows spaced 11 to 19 inches or ≥ 20 inches primarily plant at 175,000 to 199,000 seeds per

www.coolbean.info
acre (Table 1). A key facet to remember as growers contemplate dropping their seeding rate is they
need to plant enough seed to achieve a minimum stand of 100,000 to 120,000 plants per acre.

To successfully achieve our target density we must first make sure our equipment is well maintained and
calibrated. At $15.00 to $20.00 per bag, many of us didn’t take the time to properly calibrate, however at
$40.00 to $50.00 per bag, it is well worth the time and money to make sure our equipment is in proper
working order. For information on drill calibration please see Grain Drill Metering Systems and the Need for
Calibration.

Table 1. Soybean seeding rates and rows spacings in Wisconsin in 2007.

------------------------------Seeding rate (1,000) -------------------------------
Row < 125 ≥ 125 - ≥ 150 - ≥ 175 - ≥ 200 - ≥ 225
149 174 199 224
----------------------------------% Respondents---------------------------------- % Total
≤ 10 7 4 4 29 38 17 46
11 - 19 4 5 20 50 20 2 37
≥ 20 0 12 39 46 4 0 17
% Total 5 6 16 40 25 9 N = 153
 
Once we have determined that our equipment is working properly we must next consider seed quality.
Unlike the problems we ran into in 2008, soybean seed quality in 2009 should not cause growers any
concern, though it is still important to take the time to read the tag and check the germ to ensure a proper
seeding rate. In a normal year, we assume 90% of the live soybean seed we plant will emerge.

Therefore to estimate our final stand density, we conduct the following calculation:

(Seeding rate) x (% germ) x (% expected emergence) = estimated final stand

Example 1: (180,000) x (0.94) x (0.90) = 152,280

Example 2: (180,000) x (0.80) x (0.90) = 129,600

In Example 1, a grower drills 180,000 seeds per acre of 94% germ seed, and assumes 90% emergence.
The estimated soybean stand will be = 152,280 plants/acre. If a grower planted 80% germ seed, the
estimated soybean stand would be = 129,600 plants/acre (Example 2) Under most environmental
conditions 129,000 plants/acre would produce 100% yield potential, however if we do not achieve our
assumed 90% emergence rate due to poor early season growing conditions, we rapidly approach lower
stands where yield loss may occur.

A significant change we have seen over the last five years is the dramatic increase in seed treatments
available to growers. Given the high value of establishing a soybean crop today, seed treatments are
being marketed as “insurance” to growers. If you choose to use a seed treatment, it is important to
remember to select products that have efficacy on the pest complex that is present on your farm.
Selecting a product that insures you against a pest that you do not have is like buying flood insurance for
a house that sits on the top of a mountain. It may be cheap, but unnecessary.

www.coolbean.info
To evaluate the need for seed treatments in Wisconsin, we initiated a 9 location study (432 plots) in
2008. The results presented below are just from one year so no specific recommendations can be given,
however we can begin to build a database for the cost/benefit justification of using seed treatments in
Wisconsin. Averaged across all locations and varieties, we did not see a benefit from using either
ApronMaxx® or CruiserMaxx® (Table 2). Analysis of the data however indicated a significant variety
by seed treatment interaction suggesting that in some varieties, use of seed treatments significantly
increased yield. We will continue to collect data in order to develop a decision matrix from which seed
treatments decisions can be made.

Table 2. Evaluation of seed treatments across nine locations in Wisconsin in 2008.

Seed Statistical Plant Protein
Variety Treatment Yield Significance Population Protein Oil plus Oil
bu/a x1000 % % lb/A
Asgrow AG 1403 55.4 B 132 33.2 18.9 1732
FS HiSOY HS 2025 58.1 A 122 32.7 19.5 1819
Kaltenberg KB 177RR 55.5 B 111 32.4 19.8 1740
Kaltenberg KB 194RR 54.4 B 117 33.0 19.7 1724
ApronMaxx 55.9 A 123 32.8 19.5 1754
CruiserMaxx 56.1 A 121 32.8 19.5 1762
UTC 55.6 A 117 32.9 19.4 1746
Asgrow AG 1403 ApronMaxx 54.4 CDE 131 33.3 18.9 1705
Asgrow AG 1403 CruiserMaxx 55.4 BCDE 130 33.1 18.9 1730
Asgrow AG 1403 UTC 56.3 ABCD 134 33.2 18.9 1761
FS HiSOY HS 2025 ApronMaxx 58.4 A 126 32.7 19.4 1828
FS HiSOY HS 2025 CruiserMaxx 57.6 A 119 32.5 19.5 1801
FS HiSOY HS 2025 UTC 58.4 AB 121 32.7 19.4 1830
Kaltenberg KB 177RR ApronMaxx 55.5 BCDE 115 32.4 19.9 1740
Kaltenberg KB 177RR CruiserMaxx 56.4 ABC 113 32.4 19.8 1771
Kaltenberg KB 177RR UTC 54.5 DE 106 32.5 19.8 1709
Kaltenberg KB 194RR ApronMaxx 55.1 BCD 121 32.8 19.8 1741
Kaltenberg KB 194RR CruiserMaxx 55.1 BCD 121 32.9 19.8 1746
Kaltenberg KB 194RR UTC 53.1 E 108 33.2 19.6 1684

Probability %
Variety (V) 1.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.4
Seed Treatment (S) 77.0 14.7 17.6 30.3 81.4
V*S 0.3 25.8 10.8 46.4 0.4

LSD 5%
Variety (V) 2.3 8 0.3 0.2 70
Seed Treatment (S) ns ns ns ns ns
V*S 2.6 ns ns ns 82

* Mixed Model analysis with random factors: location block(location) location*variety location*seed treatment.
Different letters following yields indicate statistically different yields
 
Lastly, as we begin the planting process, we must remember to re-evaluate our soybean seeding depth.
The University of Wisconsin, Madison recommends a seeding depth range or 0.75 to 1.25 inches for
soybean. Based on our WSMB survey data, only 30% of Wisconsin growers planted in this optimal
www.coolbean.info
range (Table 3). Fifty-nine percent of growers seeded between 1.25 and 2.0 inches and 9% seeded at ≥
2.0 inches. Deeper planting depths were likely relevant 10 years ago given later planting (i.e. warmer
soil temperatures and dry soil conditions) and cheaper seed; however in today’s economic environment,
planting at the proper seeding depth can reduce some of the risk.

Table 3. Percentage of growers planting their soybean at various depth ranges in Wisconsin.
< 0.75 inches 0.75 ≥ x < 1.25 inches 1.25 ≥ x < 2.0 inches ≥ 2.0 inches

2% 30% 59% 9%

www.coolbean.info
 Cool Bean Advisor
U N I V E R S I T Y O F W I S C O N S I N A G R O N O M Y, S O Y B E A N R E S E A R C H , U N I V E R S I T Y O F W I S C O N S I N - E X T E N S I O N

Factors to Consider When Lowering Soybean Seeding Rates in 2009

Shawn P. Conley, State Soybean and Wheat Extension Specialist
John Gaska, Outreach Specialist
University of Wisconsin, Madison

Soybean seed prices have risen dramatically in 2009. In Wisconsin alone, seed prices have increased
anywhere from 25 to 109%. Given the number of rebates, seed treatments, and programs available
through seed and chemical companies, it is often difficult to get at the true cost that growers pay for
seed. To try and capture this “true” cost, we sampled grower and dealer clientele that participated in the
2009 Agronomy Update Meetings (N=126). Results from this survey indicated that seed prices for the
2009 crop ranged from under $35.00 to over $60.00 per bag for seed (Figure 1). A majority (62%) of
those surveyed indicated that they paid between $40.00 and $50.00 per bag.

Figure 1. Average price paid for soybean seed in Wisconsin for the 2009 crop. Data collected from
clientele survey during 2009 Agronomy Update Meetings (N=126).

 
Given this dramatic increase in soybean seed prices, growers will likely consider decreasing their
seeding rates in 2009. The extent of this reduction may be dramatic in some cases compared to the
current seeding rates used in Wisconsin. In a grower survey conducted with cooperation and support
from the Wisconsin Soybean Marketing Board (WSMB) we found that a majority (38%) of Wisconsin
growers’ plant between 200,000 and 224, 000 seeds per acre in rows spaced ≤ 10 inches. Those growers
that plant in rows spaced 11 to 19 inches or ≥ 20 inches primarily plant at 175,000 to 199,000 seeds per

www.coolbean.info
acre (Table 1). A key facet to remember as growers contemplate dropping their seeding rate is they
need to plant enough seed to achieve a minimum stand of 100,000 to 120,000 plants per acre.

To successfully achieve our target density we must first make sure our equipment is well maintained and
calibrated. At $15.00 to $20.00 per bag, many of us didn’t take the time to properly calibrate, however at
$40.00 to $50.00 per bag, it is well worth the time and money to make sure our equipment is in proper
working order. For information on drill calibration please see Grain Drill Metering Systems and the Need for
Calibration.

Table 1. Soybean seeding rates and rows spacings in Wisconsin in 2007.

------------------------------Seeding rate (1,000) -------------------------------
Row < 125 ≥ 125 - ≥ 150 - ≥ 175 - ≥ 200 - ≥ 225
149 174 199 224
----------------------------------% Respondents---------------------------------- % Total
≤ 10 7 4 4 29 38 17 46
11 - 19 4 5 20 50 20 2 37
≥ 20 0 12 39 46 4 0 17
% Total 5 6 16 40 25 9 N = 153
 
Once we have determined that our equipment is working properly we must next consider seed quality.
Unlike the problems we ran into in 2008, soybean seed quality in 2009 should not cause growers any
concern, though it is still important to take the time to read the tag and check the germ to ensure a proper
seeding rate. In a normal year, we assume 90% of the live soybean seed we plant will emerge.

Therefore to estimate our final stand density, we conduct the following calculation:

(Seeding rate) x (% germ) x (% expected emergence) = estimated final stand

Example 1: (180,000) x (0.94) x (0.90) = 152,280

Example 2: (180,000) x (0.80) x (0.90) = 129,600

In Example 1, a grower drills 180,000 seeds per acre of 94% germ seed, and assumes 90% emergence.
The estimated soybean stand will be = 152,280 plants/acre. If a grower planted 80% germ seed, the
estimated soybean stand would be = 129,600 plants/acre (Example 2) Under most environmental
conditions 129,000 plants/acre would produce 100% yield potential, however if we do not achieve our
assumed 90% emergence rate due to poor early season growing conditions, we rapidly approach lower
stands where yield loss may occur.

A significant change we have seen over the last five years is the dramatic increase in seed treatments
available to growers. Given the high value of establishing a soybean crop today, seed treatments are
being marketed as “insurance” to growers. If you choose to use a seed treatment, it is important to
remember to select products that have efficacy on the pest complex that is present on your farm.
Selecting a product that insures you against a pest that you do not have is like buying flood insurance for
a house that sits on the top of a mountain. It may be cheap, but unnecessary.

www.coolbean.info
To evaluate the need for seed treatments in Wisconsin, we initiated a 9 location study (432 plots) in
2008. The results presented below are just from one year so no specific recommendations can be given,
however we can begin to build a database for the cost/benefit justification of using seed treatments in
Wisconsin. Averaged across all locations and varieties, we did not see a benefit from using either
ApronMaxx® or CruiserMaxx® (Table 2). Analysis of the data however indicated a significant variety
by seed treatment interaction suggesting that in some varieties, use of seed treatments significantly
increased yield. We will continue to collect data in order to develop a decision matrix from which seed
treatments decisions can be made.

Table 2. Evaluation of seed treatments across nine locations in Wisconsin in 2008.

Seed Statistical Plant Protein
Variety Treatment Yield Significance Population Protein Oil plus Oil
bu/a x1000 % % lb/A
Asgrow AG 1403 55.4 B 132 33.2 18.9 1732
FS HiSOY HS 2025 58.1 A 122 32.7 19.5 1819
Kaltenberg KB 177RR 55.5 B 111 32.4 19.8 1740
Kaltenberg KB 194RR 54.4 B 117 33.0 19.7 1724
ApronMaxx 55.9 A 123 32.8 19.5 1754
CruiserMaxx 56.1 A 121 32.8 19.5 1762
UTC 55.6 A 117 32.9 19.4 1746
Asgrow AG 1403 ApronMaxx 54.4 CDE 131 33.3 18.9 1705
Asgrow AG 1403 CruiserMaxx 55.4 BCDE 130 33.1 18.9 1730
Asgrow AG 1403 UTC 56.3 ABCD 134 33.2 18.9 1761
FS HiSOY HS 2025 ApronMaxx 58.4 A 126 32.7 19.4 1828
FS HiSOY HS 2025 CruiserMaxx 57.6 A 119 32.5 19.5 1801
FS HiSOY HS 2025 UTC 58.4 AB 121 32.7 19.4 1830
Kaltenberg KB 177RR ApronMaxx 55.5 BCDE 115 32.4 19.9 1740
Kaltenberg KB 177RR CruiserMaxx 56.4 ABC 113 32.4 19.8 1771
Kaltenberg KB 177RR UTC 54.5 DE 106 32.5 19.8 1709
Kaltenberg KB 194RR ApronMaxx 55.1 BCD 121 32.8 19.8 1741
Kaltenberg KB 194RR CruiserMaxx 55.1 BCD 121 32.9 19.8 1746
Kaltenberg KB 194RR UTC 53.1 E 108 33.2 19.6 1684

Probability %
Variety (V) 1.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.4
Seed Treatment (S) 77.0 14.7 17.6 30.3 81.4
V*S 0.3 25.8 10.8 46.4 0.4

LSD 5%
Variety (V) 2.3 8 0.3 0.2 70
Seed Treatment (S) ns ns ns ns ns
V*S 2.6 ns ns ns 82

* Mixed Model analysis with random factors: location block(location) location*variety location*seed treatment.
Different letters following yields indicate statistically different yields
 
Lastly, as we begin the planting process, we must remember to re-evaluate our soybean seeding depth.
The University of Wisconsin, Madison recommends a seeding depth range or 0.75 to 1.25 inches for
soybean. Based on our WSMB survey data, only 30% of Wisconsin growers planted in this optimal
www.coolbean.info
range (Table 3). Fifty-nine percent of growers seeded between 1.25 and 2.0 inches and 9% seeded at ≥
2.0 inches. Deeper planting depths were likely relevant 10 years ago given later planting (i.e. warmer
soil temperatures and dry soil conditions) and cheaper seed; however in today’s economic environment,
planting at the proper seeding depth can reduce some of the risk.

Table 3. Percentage of growers planting their soybean at various depth ranges in Wisconsin.
< 0.75 inches 0.75 ≥ x < 1.25 inches 1.25 ≥ x < 2.0 inches ≥ 2.0 inches

2% 30% 59% 9%

www.coolbean.info
 Volume 16 Number 9 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- April 30, 2009

dramatically different. The main drivers for this change are

earlier planting dates, decreased seeding rates, and increased
What's new! seed costs. In a recent grower survey (2008) conducted with
cooperation and support from the Wisconsin Soybean
Agronomy/Soils Field Day, Aug 27 ............................. 31 Marketing Board (WSMB), we found that 40% of Wisconsn
growers are planting one week earlier and 27% are are a full
Crops two weeks earlier today than they were ten years ago (Table
Predicting When Soybeans Will Emerge ...................... 31 1). In terms of calendar date, 38% of all growers started
planting soybean by May 7th and 81% by May 15th (Table 2).
Spring Removal of No-till Alfalfa in Wisconsin ........... 32 These fundamental changes have considerably altered the
Weeds environment in which soybean seed is placed.
Updated information on using herbicides to Table 1.Wisconsin planting date shift over the last decade (N = 169).
suppress smooth brome................................................ 32
Planting date shift Percent of growers
Purple Deadnettle in No-till ......................................... 33 One week earlier 40%
Plant Disease Two weeks earlier 27%
Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic Update ...................... 34 Three weeks earlier 4%
Later by one week 1%
No change 28%

Table 2.Average start date for soybean planting in Wisconsin based on

UW Agronomy/Soils Field Day, Aug 27 individual farm data (N =149).

Tours and Exhibits of Current Crops and Soils Research

Planting Date (% Start)
Thursday, August 27, 2009, Arlington Agricultural Research
Acreage Before May 1 – May 8 – May 16 – After
Station
May 1st May 7 May 15 May 22 May 22
Click here to view the flyer >>> 2009_AGRONOMY.pdf < 100 6 27 39 24 5
Tours depart from the Public Events Facility at 8:30am, ≥ 100 8 36 47 9 0
10:30am, and 1:00pm. For more information contact the Dept.
Average 7 31 43 17 3
of Agronomy 608/262-1390 or the Dept. of Soil Science
608/262-0485.
In the event of rain, presentations will be held inside. Sponsored
by the UW-Madison College of Agricultural and Life Sciences As growers drop fewer soybean seeds earlier every year,
and the UW Cooperative Extension. (Certified Crop replant questions may become even more common. Before
Advisors: 6.5 CEU credits requested ) making any decisions to replant a field due to poor emergence,
we must first understand the minimum GDU’s required to make
such a call. To try to understand the relationship of GDU’s and
soybean emergence, we intiated an experiment to characterize
the effect of seed size on soybean emergence and yield, while
Predicting When Soybeans Will Emerge also measuring GDU’s needed for emergence.
Shawn P. Conley, State Soybean and Wheat Extension
Specialist, John Gaska, Outreach Specialist, UW-Madison In this experiment, we selected 7 high yielding, glyphosate
tolerant soybean varieties and separated the seed from those
Ten years ago, very few people outside of academia were varieties into three distinct seed sizes by passing conditioned
concerned about the number of growing degree units (GDU) seed over three seive sizes. Each variety was then grouped by an
required for soybean emergence. Today however, things are arbitrary small, medium, and large seed size label (Figure 1).

Wisconsin Crop Manager 31

All seed was treated with ApronMaxx® fungicide prior to
planting to minimize the risk of disease incidence. The
experiment was planted at two locations in 2008: the Arlington
Agricultral Research Station on 15 inch rows on May 8th, and in
Fond du Lac County on May 9th (data not shown). At planting,
Tidbit temperature probes were placed at the seeding depth of 1
inch to monitor soil temperature through emergence. Plots at
Arlington were monitored daily for emergence.
Regression analysis of one of the varieties, DSR-2600/RR,
indicated that 50% emergence occurred at 130 GDU’s (range
130 to 140) and 90% emergence occurred at 155 GDU’s (range
134 to 178) (Figure 1). Similar results were noted with the other
varieties. This experiment will be conducted again in 2009 to
further develop and define soybean emergence patterns in
Wisconsin.
While we do not have enough information yet to develop
clear GDU based replant decisions, the preliminary data will
hopefully provide growers and agronomists a ballpark from
which decisions can be made in 2009. In addition to replant
decisions growers and agronomists can use this information to
predict when to apply (or not apply) pre-emergent and post-
emergent herbicides to avoid crop injury. Lastly, given the
calendar date as related to replanting soybeans, growers can
make more informed decisions about what RM varieties to
plant.
Spring Removal of No-till Alfalfa in
Wisconsin
Mark Renz,Extension Weed Scientist,University of Wisconsin-
Madison
I have been getting several questions on the best options for
spring removal of alfalfa in no till fields. While fall applications
have been shown to be most effective, logistical reasons
inevitably occur which require spring removal in some
fields. Many of the same herbicides used in the fall are also
effective in the spring and are listed in table 1 along with rate
ranges and plant-back restrictions for field corn. Note that the
expectation should be for reduced control compared to fall
timings, but results will vary considerably based on the stage of
development of the alfalfa and temperature after application. As
a rule of thumb, the longer one waits to spray a field, the better
the control should be as plants will have more leaf area, will
translocated more herbicide
to the crown/root, and the Table 1: Effectiveness of herbicides at removing alfalfa
temperature will be warmer
Active ingredient
so more herbicide will be
absorbed into the plant. glyphosate1
Few studies have looked 2,4-D
at spring timings, but one
dicamba
from Michigan State found
spring applications of 2,4-D 2,4-D + dicamba
or dicamba provided 83% clopyralid
and 94% control one month
after treatment, respectively.
If roundup ready alfalfa is 1 Note that product labels vary in the amount of glyphosate that they recommend for removal of alfalfa, with
trying to be eliminated, some listing a maximum rate of 0.75 lbs ae/A. Others may allow for greater than 1.5 lbs ae/A, but will not allow
obviously glyphosate should the forage to be harvested or grazed. Please read the label carefully before application.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
be avoided from the tank-mix. Many studies throughout the
United States have shown the effectiveness of other herbicides
(specifically the ones listed in table 1) at removing
alfalfa. Future management plans for the fields should also be
taken into consideration, as these could prevent any yield loss
from alfalfa even if plants are not all killed by the early season
treatments.
Updated information on using herbicides to
suppress smooth brome
Mark Renz,Extension Weed Scientist, University of Wisconsin-
Madison
As many of you know, the nesting season that restricts
management activities in fields enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) is fast approaching. Most contracts
restrict large-scale management beginning on May 15th through
August 1st without prior approval from the Farm Service
Agency (FSA). The majority of management in enrolled fields
revolves around the new requirements for mid-contract
management of these fields. In brief, new regulations require
periodic management (every 5-6 years) of cool season grass
fields to suppress the grasses and increase plant
diversity. Management options recommended by the Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) include burning,
disking, and herbicide applications. The optimal timing for
burning has passed in most areas in Wisconsin as many of these
grasses are already green and several inches tall, but herbicide
applications and disking could still be applied before the
restriction timing. Research conducted in 2008 evaluated the
effectiveness of various herbicide treatments and compared
them to disked and untreated areas. First year results were
presented at Wisconsin’s Crop Production Conference. A copy
of the proceedings paper can be found at:
http://www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/wfapmc/2009/pap/R
enz_1.pdf . A brief description of the experiments and initial
results are summarized on the next page.
(continued on next page)
Field corn plant-back
Example product Rate range
restriction
Many 0.75-1.5 lbs ae/A 0 days
Many 2-4 pt/a 7-14 days
Banvel, Clarity 1-2 pt/a 0 days
Weedmaster 2-4 pt/a 10 days per pint/A
Stinger 6-12 fl oz/a 0 days
32
 Experiments were Table 1. Percent control and cover of smooth brome and other cool season grasses after spring treatments.
conducted in Greene
New Glarus Dodge New Glarus Dodge
and Dodge county, Treatment Active ingredient
97 DAT^ 77 DAT 127 DAT 106 DAT
Wisconsin to
evaluate the product/A lbs/A % control % cover
effectiveness of Fusilade (12 fl oz) 2 fluazifop (0.19) 48 91* 71 14
glyphosate
(Roundup), Fusilade (16 fl oz) 2 fluazifop (0.25) 53 90* 76 5*
sethoxydim (Poast) Fusilade (24 fl oz) 2 Fluazifop(0.38) 58* 83* 66 5*
and fluazifop Poast plus (12 fl oz) 2 sethoxydim (0.10) 42 36 89 32
(Fusilade) in Poast plus (24 fl oz) 2 sethoxydim (0.19) 37 45 84 45
suppressing smooth
brome dominated Poast plus (36 fl oz) 2 sethoxydim (0.29) 38 17 85 16*
stands compared to Roundup Weathermax (14 fl oz) 3 glyphosate (0.5 ae) 75* 88* 33* 9*
tillage and untreated Roundup Weathermax (22 fl oz) 3 glyphosate (0.75 ae) 80* 89* 26* 13*
plots (see Table 1 for Roundup Weathermax (28 fl oz) 3 glyphosate (1.0 ae) 85* 94* 22* 22*
rates). Herbicides and
tillage were applied Untreated control 28 5 87 32
in the spring on disking 43 60* 62 20*
4/29/08 and 5/12/08
2 included 1% crop oil concentrate and 2.5 lbs/A of ammonium sulfate
at each site
3 included 10 lbs/A of ammonium sulfate
respectively. While
all methods were * indicates value is significantly different than untreated controls (p<0.05) within the column
^ DAT=Days After Treatment
effective in
establishing a more
diverse plant
community, the use of glyphosate was more effective at
suppressing populations than other treatments. While disking
suppressed smooth brome, results did not persist throughout the
year as cover was only significantly reduced at the Dodge
county site (38% 106 DAT). No rate response was seen with
glyphosate applications at each site in 2008, future observations
will determine if this trend continues in future years.

Purple Deadnettle in No-till

Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist
Purple deadnettle is not a common weed for Wisconsin, but it
might be one weed to be familiar with. These pictures were sent
from Iowa County, where it was not controlled well with
glyphosate in the past. Purple deadnettle also shows up in
herbarium records from Dane, Sheboygan, and Walworth
counties. Typically, I associate this winter annual weed with
states to our south such as Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and
Tennessee. If you have driven through these states in the spring
and noticed “purple” fields, you were probably looking at
purple deadnettle.
Identification: Purple deadnettle (Lamium purpureum L.)
is a winter annual and has the characteristic square stem and
opposite leaves of the mint family. The plants are branched at
the base with stems that can grow over 12 inches tall. As seen in
the left photo, lower leaves have a longer petiole (leave stalk)
while upper leaves still have a short petiole. The leaves are
triangular to heart shaped with a toothed margin as shown in the
right photo. Upper leaves are often tinged with purple and the
plants also have purplish flowers.

Wisconsin Crop Manager 33

 UW-Extension/Madison Plant Disease
Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update
Brian Hudelson, Ann Joy, Amy Gibbs, and Brooke Weber,
Plant Disease Diagnostics Clinic
The PDDC receives samples of many plant samples from
around the state. The following diseases/disorders have been
identified at the PDDC since April 15, 2009:
PLANT/SAMPLE DISEASE/ PATHOGEN COUNTY
TYPE DISORDER
VEGETABLES
Tomato Bacterial Clavibacter Dane
Canker michiganensis
subsp.
michiganensis

For additional information on plant diseases and their control,

visit the PDDC website at pddc.wisc.edu.

Purple deadnettle looks quite similar to henbit, another winter

annual weed. Henbit is also in the mint family with a square
stem and opposite leaves and has a similar type of
growth. However, the key differences that you can use to
separate these two weeds are that the upper leaves of henbit lack
a petiole. The henbit leaves appear to clasp the stem while 
deadnettle leaves have a short petiole. Purple deadnettle leaves
also have the red or purple coloring and more triangular shaped
leaves while henbit leaves are generally green and round.
Management: Both purple deadnettle and henbit are winter
annuals with relatively shallow root systems. As such, we
shouldn’t expect them to be problems in tilled fields. However,
they can be a problem in winter wheat fields and in particular
no-till fields. In no-till fields, glyphosate or 2,4-D alone are not
reported to be consistent in controlling purple deadnettle. There
is some discrepancy about the consistency of the combination of
glyphosate plus 2,4-D, but this should increase control over
either herbicide alone. Treatments that include atrazine or
atrazine premixtures are generally rated high in corn. In
soybeans, AuthorityFirst/Sonic/Valor plus glyphosate plus
2,4-D are treatments that generally get good but not excellent
control ratings

Wisconsin Crop Manager 34

 AGRONOMY/SOILS FIELD DAY
Tours and Exhibits of Current Crops and Soils Research
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Arlington Agricultural Research Station

Tours depart from the Public Events Facility at

8:30am, 10:30am, and 1:00pm

Lunch and refreshments available

Tour A: Crop Management Tour B: Pest Management

• Managing corn to maximize ethanol/biofuel potential
(Joe Lauer)
• Alternative forage crops (Dan Undersander)
• Impacts of recent climate change on Wisconsin corn and
soybean yield trends (Chris Kucharik)
• Soybean response to plant stress (Shawn Conley)
Tour C: Soil Science
• Summary of the Arlington 10 year tillage/rotation study
(Dick Wolkowski)
• Nitrogen availability from treated manure (Carrie Laboski)
• Opportunities for biofuel crop production (Matt Ruark /
Randy Jackson)
• Update on runoff monitoring of single-use watersheds at
pioneer farm 2006-2009 (Chris Baxter)
• Soil-borne diseases in soybean (Paul Esker)
• PRE weed management: a soybean bailout package?
(Chris Boerboom)
• Increasing winter-kill for perennial weeds: can we
take advantage of our cold winters? (Mark Renz)
• Benefits of increasing grazing height on weed
suppression in grass based grazing systems (Marie
Schmidt)
“Special Topic” (Afternoon only) 1:00pm
Harvesting perennial grasses and legumes for biomass
Kevin Shinners, Biological Systems Engineering, UW
Madison

LUNCHEON SPEAKER @ 12:15pm

“Tax consequences of financial distress”
Phil Harris; Agricultural & Applied Economics, UW-Madison

SPECIAL SESSION @ 1:00-2:30pm

“Harvesting perennial grasses and legumes for biomass”
Kevin Shinners; Biological Systems Engineering, UW-Madison

In the special session we will demonstrate novel harvesting strategies for biomass feedstocks such as
switchgrass and alfalfa – including separate harvest of alfalfa leaves and stems.

The Arlington Research Station is located on Hwy. 51, about 5 miles south of Arlington and 15 miles
north of Madison. Watch for Field Day signs.
For more information contact the Dept. of Agronomy 608/262-1390
or the Dept. of Soil Science 608/262-0485.

In the event of rain, presentations will be held inside.

Sponsored by the UW-Madison College of Agricultural and Life Sciences
and the UW Cooperative Extension

{Certified Crop Advisors: 6.5 CEU credits requested}

 Volume 16 Number 10 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager
Crops
Alfalfa winter survival in spring of 2009 ...................... 35
Sampling and Managing Soybean Cyst
Nematode – It’s Relevant............................................. 35
Frost Injury to Alfalfa .................................................. 36
Weeds
Don’t Forget about Horseweed .................................... 37
Plant Disease
Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic Update ...................... 38
Alfalfa winter survival in spring of 2009
Dan Undersander, UWEX Forage Agronomist
Alfalfa stands have come through the winter in varying
conditions depending on previous management and the locally
occurring weather conditions this past winter. Generally
survival was good but significant loss has occurred in central
Illinois (due to heaving), Southwestern Wisconsin and
Northeastern Iowa and Quebec. Most of the kill was a
combination of snow melting to form ice and either the ice itself
or lack of snow insulation during periods of cold caused injury
and kill.
Winterkill and injury was generally worse where a late fall
cutting had been taken. While late fall cutting is generally a
recommended practice with more winterhardy varieties, it does
increase risk of winterkill and this past winter is an example of
that. Many cooperatives report much less fertilizer sold last
fall. To the extent that potassium was not replaced, this would
have increased winterkill.
Some northern sites are still seeing some small plants just
beginning to grow in fields. If plants have healthy crowns, these
small plants likely represent death of buds formed last
fall. These injured plants will yield slightly less on first cutting
(because they have to regrow new buds) but the plants should
grown and contribute to the stand for the remainder of the
season.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
--- May 7, 2009
Many fields have suffered alfalfa loss in low spots as is
common. However, where the dead spots exceed 30% of the
land area, replanting should be considered. Alfalfa cannot be
replanted into the spots due to autotoxicity. Recommendations
would be red clover (6 lb/a), 50/50 mixture of Italian and
perennial ryegrass (10 lbs of mixture/acre) or orchardgrass (8
lb/a) or tall fescue (12 lb/a). The latter two will yield slightly
less this year but will survive and yield next year.
The problem with interseeding is that the drying rate of the
interseeded species is different than alfalfa. Thus, when making
haylage or hay (especially) some portions of the field will dry
differently than other portions. This often leads either to high
alfalfa leaf loss or to moldy spots in hay. Fields with large dead
areas (more than 25%) should be targeted for turn down.
Sampling and Managing Soybean Cyst
Nematode – It’s Relevant
Paul Esker and Shawn Conley, Extension Field Crops Plant
Pathologist and State Soybean and Small Grains Specialist
As we move into planting for the 2009 growing season, this is
a perfect time to remind growers of the importance of soil
sampling and testing for the presence and population of
Soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines; SCN) in fields.
Why relevant? During the 2008 Pest Management Update
program, a clicker question was posed to participants if they had
soil sampled and tested for SCN, the number one pest problem
in soybean (Wrather and Koenning 2009). What do you think
the results were? In southern Wisconsin, the percentage of
people who indicated they had soil sample and tested for SCN
approached 60%, but as we moved further north, this percentage
was closer to 30% (Figure 1, next page). These numbers were
disappointing, as we feel all growers should have their fields
sampled and tested, especially since there is a free testing
program sponsored by the Wisconsin Soybean Marketing
Board.
Why is soil sampling for SCN so important? If SCN is
found in your field, this does not imply that you cannot grow
soybean, rather, this information is important to guide the
decision making process for selecting a soybean variety
resistant to SCN. Currently, there are different sources of
resistance available, with those derived from PI 88788, Peking,
or Hartwig (Cyst-X) in commercial varieties. At present, the
majority of commercial varieties carry the PI 88788 source of
resistance.
35
Figure 1. Percentage of survey participants during the 2008
Pest Management Update program who indicated they had
soil sampled and testing for Soybean cyst nematode.
system. When examining the different sources of resistance, in
general, final SCN egg levels were kept to levels similar to the
initial populations. These observations were also noted for cysts
and juveniles (data not shown).
Table 1. Initial SCN egg countsZ, final SCN egg counts, and grain
yield (adjusted to 13%) for long strip trails established at East
Troy and Muscoda, WI, in 2008.

East Troy, WI Muscoda, WI

Source of
resistance Pi Pf Yield Pi Pf Yield
Susceptible 8.40 10.03 43.4 2.00 5.06 37.2
88788 8.34 7.96 41.9 2.25 4.67 36.9
Peking 8.62 8.66 51.9 3.55 2.29 32.8
Hartwig 8.53 8.05 48.4 3.37 1.18 32.9

P-value 0.3841 <0.0001 0.0086 0.5753 0.0055 0.6930

LSD NSD 0.305 4.42 NSD 1.665 NSD

Furthermore, in an effort to improve our understanding of
both the performance of soybean varieties carrying different
sources of resistance and how these different sources of
resistance affect SCN populations, new studies were established
in 2008 at East Troy and Muscoda, WI. These Wisconsin trials
were a part of a multistate project, funded by the North Central
Soybean Research Program that has as its goals to improve the
management and awareness of SCN and demonstrate the effects
of SCN resistance on field populations during a single cropping
season.
In these trials, long, replicated strip trials were established. At
East Troy, strips measured 30 feet wide by 350 feet long (row
spacing = 30”), while at Muscoda, strips measured 30 feet wide
by 175 long (row spacing = 15”). Four sources of resistance
were planted: susceptible check, 88788, Peking, and
Hartwig. Soil samples were obtained just after planting at both
locations (Pi), as well as just prior to harvest (Pf). Yield data
were obtained at the end of the season. Observations were also
made throughout the growing season for other factors that might
influence yield, including insects, diseases, and abiotic
stressors. At East Troy, little was noted, as conditions were
favorable for production. At Muscoda, late season dry weather
really hampered soybean productivity, and we also noted
Charcoal rot (Esker et al. 2008).
What was learned? In general, the SCN egg population at
our East Troy location was higher than at Muscoda. As such,
each location was analyzed separately. There was no evidence
that Pi levels of SCN were any different across the varieties at
either location (P < 0.10) (Table 1). However, Pf egg counts
were different depending on the source of
resistance. Specifically, SCN egg populations increased the
most on the susceptible variety. Also interesting was that at
Muscoda even though yields were not different from one
another, the SCN population increased throughout the season on
the susceptible check and on the PI 88788 source of
resistance. This is important because there are numerous
interactions occurring between different soilborne organisms
including SCN and it is important to manage the whole
ZSCN egg count data were analyzed as a log(y+1) and are presented
in the table as the least squares mean estimate count in log(y+1).
Looking ahead to 2009. In our first year of long strip trials,
we found that when SCN is the dominant organism to manage,
the use of resistance is a necessity. Even in situations where
other factors decreased yield, the use of resistance was found to
keep SCN egg populations lower than in the susceptible check
and this would have implications for when soybean was planted
again in that field. We cannot emphasize enough the need to
take advantage of the free testing program, funded through the
Soybean Checkoff, in order to determine if you have SCN in
your field. To obtain a free soil sample test kit please contact
Colleen Smith at clsmith8@wisc.edu or at 608-262-7702.
For further information on SCN and results from different
trials:
Soybean Variety Testing Program: http://coolbean.info
Soyhealth: http://www.plantpath.wisc.edu/soyhealth
References:
Esker, P., Conely, S., Gaska, J., and Hughes, T. 2008. Charcoal
rot – a disease of drought stressed environments. Wisconsin Soy
Sentinel, Vol. 5, Issue 3, Page 16.
Wrather, A., and Koenning, S. 2009. Effects of diseases on
soybean yields in the United States 1996 to 2007. Plant Health
Progress doi:10.1094/PHP-2009-0401-01-RS.
Frost Injury to Alfalfa
Dan Undersander and Brian Hudelson
We are seeing some frost injury to alfalfa leaves. It appears as
the misshapen leaf tips shown in the circles of the picture
below. Frost can damage leaves in early stages of development
and then damage becomes visible as the leaves mature. The
frost injury is now becoming apparent. Usually only one or two
sets of leaves are affected Note that leaves on the stem above
the misshapen leaves (which developed later) look normal. This
frost damage will have little to no affect on the alfalfa.

Wisconsin Crop Manager 36

 There is also some brown leaf spot on some of the leaves in
the picture below. This, too, will likely be insignificant. If the
leaf spot become more prevalent on the plant, it could be an
indication of phoma and crown rot.
Picture 2, below, shows a slightly later stage where the next
set of leaves have emerged since the frost damage occurred and
do not show the wrinkling damage of the layer of leaves below.
If you have questions, please contact Brian Hudelson at the
Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic
(http://www.plantpath.wisc.edu/pddc/index.html).
Don’t Forget about Horseweed
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist
I was visiting a no-till field yesterday and noticed a good
stand of spring-germinated horseweed (marestail) (photo 1).
Although this spring has been cool and some weeds are growing
slower than typical, this is one winter annual weed that needs
timely management and shouldn’t be ignored. Horseweed is a
bit unusual for a winter annual. Many winter annuals mature
early in the spring/summer and their competition is limited. For
Wisconsin Crop Manager
example, the shepherd’s purse right next to this horseweed was
already flowering and will mature and die in early June even if
it is not controlled. However, this horseweed will continue to be
competitive with soybeans through the whole summer (photo2).
Horseweed is controlled in most no-till fields with the
burndown treatment. However, I know some people plan on
“delayed” burndowns in no-till soybean fields. The “delay” is to
combine the burndown treatment with the postemergence
glyphosate treatment. This certainly saves an application, but
there is a risk with horseweed. By the time this “delayed”
application is made, the horseweed is likely to be much larger
and more difficult to control. The standard recommendation for
seedling and rosette horseweed control is glyphosate plus 2,4-D
ester. As horseweed stems start to elongate, they become more
difficult to control. Horseweed that is 4-6 inches tall can be still
be controlled, but the glyphosate rate should be increased to 1 lb
ae/a (48 oz of a 3 lb/gal formulation) along with 2,4-D. After
horseweed exceeds 6 inches tall, it becomes difficult to control
and the glyphosate rate should be increased to 1.5 lb ae/a.
Obviously, 2,4-D can only be used preplant in soybeans. This
means that larger horseweed targeted with “delayed” glyphosate
will be relying on only glyphosate for control in the soybeans.
The resulting horseweed control may not be at a satisfactory
level. 2,4-D has a second benefit in this situration. In addition to
improving the consistency of horseweed control, 2,4-D adds a
second mode of action that should delay the development of
glyphosate-resistant horseweed. A key limitation with 2,4-D is
that it must be applied 7 days before planting soybeans. If this
interval is not available between the burndown treatment and
soybean planting, Gramoxone plus Sencor is effective on the
seedling and rosette stage. Herbicides with the ingredients of
Classic (chlorimuron) or FirstRate (cloransulam) are also
options to use with glyphosate. While ALS-resistant horseweed
exists in other states, I am not aware of any in Wisconsin at this
time that would make chlorimuron or cloransulam inefffective.
Photo 1. Horseweed seedlings in no-till.
37
 Photo 2. Mature horseweed plant.

UW-Extension/Madison Plant Disease

Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update
Brian Hudelson, Ann Joy, Amy Gibbs, and Brooke Weber,
Plant Disease Diagnostics Clinic
The PDDC receives samples of many plant PLANT/SAMPLE DISEASE/ PATHOGEN COUNTY
samples from around the state. The TYPE DISORDER
following diseases/disorders have been SOILS
identified at the PDDC since April 22, Soybean Soil Soybean Cyst Heterodera glycines Rock, Trempealeau
2009 >>> VEGETABLES
For additional information on plant Potato Fusarium Dry Rot Fusarium sambucinum Portage
diseases and their control, visit the PDDC
website at pddc.wisc.edu. Hollow Heart None (Physiological) Portage


Wisconsin Crop Manager 38

 Volume 16 Number 11 ---
What's new!
CDTC 2009 workshops announced ...............................39
Guide to establishing and managing
switchgrass updated......................................................39
Insects
Bean Leaf Beetles - in WI - in 2009? ............................39
Weeds
Field Horsetail ID and Management in Field Corn ........40
Plant Disease
Considering Foliar Fungicides for Corn Grain in 2009?
Part 1 of 2 ....................................................................41
Considering Foliar Fungicides for Corn in 2009?
Part 2 of 2 ....................................................................44
Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic Update .......................45
Crop Diagnostic Training Center 2009
workshops announced
Download the two page worksop flyer and registration form
>>> CDTC 2009 brochure
Crop & Pest Management Workshop
A multi-disciplinary and in-depth workshop covering
agronomic concerns ranging from identification of crop and pest
production problems to management options within production
systems.
Registration Fee: $50
(2 tiered fee: $50 by 7/18/09; $60 after 7/18/09
July 28, 2009, Arlington Ag Research Station
CCA CEU’s: 1.5 Nutrient Management, 1.5 Crop Management,
4.5 Pest Management
Diagnostic Troubleshooting Workshop
This Workshop gives you the opportunity to fine tune your
crop diagnostic skills in a fun and interactive setting. Small
University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- May 14, 2009
groups will rotate through field problems with UW Specialists
role playing as farmers.
Registration Fee: $50
(2 tiered fee: $50 by 8/8/09; $60 after 8/8/09)
August 18, 2009, Arlington Ag Research Station
CCA CEU’s: to be determined
Guide to establishing and managing
switchgrass updated
Mark Renz, Dan Undersander and Mike Casler, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Agronomy Department
The current guide titled "Establishing and Managing
Switchgrass" has been updated. Recent additions include the
latest weed management and establishment information from
trials conducted throughout Wisconsin as well as yield estimates
from seven locations throughout Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa,
and Illinois.
The fact sheet can be downloaded here >>>
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/pubs/switchgrass.pdf
Bean Leaf Beetles - in WI - in 2009?
Bryan Jensen, IPM Program
Here is what we think is going to happen in the spring of
2009. An overwintering bean leaf beetle mortality models
suggests a second year of high mortality (>50%) of the
overwintering adults. For more information on your specific
area, please review DATCP Entomologist Krista Hamilton’s
article in the May 8 edition of the Wisconsin Pest Bulletin
(http://pestbulletin.wi.gov/index.jsp).
Also bean leaf beetle numbers were relatively low, statewide,
in 2008. High mortality of a low overwintering population
would suggest a low probability of economic defoliation on
seedling soybeans this spring. Especially when economic
thresholds are relatively high (see Pest Management in WI Field
Crops-2009, page 124, http://learningstore.uwex.edu/Pest-
Management-in-Wisconsin-Field-Crops2009-
P155C35.aspx).
The other factor to consider is transmission of bean pod
mottle virus (PBMV). DATCP typically runs a PBMV survey
on overwintering adults collected from alfalfa and it will be
good to see those results. However the good news is that
incidence of PBMV has been low in 2008.
Wisconsin Crop Manager 39
 What does this mean for 2009? Although the early indications Photo 2. Sterile shoots of field horsetail emerging.
are for a light overwintering population, there is still a need to
spot check early emerging soybean fields. Overwintered adults
initially feed on perennial legumes, like alfalfa and other
clovers, before migrating to (and sometimes concentrating) in
early emerging soybeans. Identify those early planted fields in
your area and make a point to scout them soon after emergence.
This approach can give confidence in and verify
predictions……or give you time to react if predictions are
wrong.

Field Horsetail ID and Management in Field

Corn
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist
Field horsetail (Equisetum arvense) is a unique, native
perennial weed. The plant is unique because it grows brown
fertile shoots early in the spring that produce spores, not seeds
(photo 1). As the fertile shoots begin to withering, sterile shoots
with the familiar whorled branches emerge and grow (photo
2). These shoots are the plants often identified as “miniature
pine trees” and grow from 6 to 24 inches tall (photo 3). While
these shoots are seen above ground, a deep underground system
of rhizomes and tubers allow horsetail to spread and persist
from year to year. The rhizome growth is greatest in the summer
and the tubers develop in the late summer and fall. It is unlikely
that the spores result in the generation of many new plants or
contribute to the spread of horsetail. Most spread is from
creeping rhizomes or when rhizomes are moved with tillage
equipment. Photo 3. Branched shoots of field horsetail.

Photo 1. Fertile shoots of field horsetail.

Field horsetail and scouring rush (Equisetum hyemale) are

often confused. These weeds are cousins and are similar, but
scouring rush grows much taller, has thicker stems, and does not
have fine branches (photo 4). The shoots of scouring rush are
like “stove pipes” and can be pulled apart at the joints. Another
difference with scouring rush is that it does not have the
separate growth stages of fertile and sterile shoots of field
horsetail; the green scouring rush shoots can be tipped with a
cone of spores.

Wisconsin Crop Manager 40

Photo 4. Green shoots of scouring rush growing in a
mixture with the brown, fertile shoots of field horsetail
(photo credit J. Polenske).
Several important aspects are known about field horsetail’s
biology. Typically, it is found more frequently in wet or more
acidic soils. It is more productive in full sunlight and its growth
is significantly suppressed by the shade of taller plants. In
general, higher nitrogen fertility favors other crops to help shade
out horsetail. Based on these characteristics, a competitive field
crop should help to suppress field horsetail. This is likely why it
is more common to find the highest densities of horsetail in
disturbed areas along the margins of fields where it receives
more sunlight. Wisconsin growers are also seeing field horsetail
increase in no-till systems because tillage is not damaging its
network of rhizomes and tubers. Furthermore, burndown
herbicides typically applied in no-till corn such as glyphosate
and 2,4-D are not effective in controlling horsetail.
Our current control recommendations are based on research
from colleagues in Ontario who recommend using flumetsulam
(active ingredient in Python and one of the ingredients in
Hornet) in burndown applications or a postemergence tank mix
of ALS plus growth regulator herbicides (e.g. comparable to
Steadfast plus Status) in corn. I conducted a preliminary
experiment with Python as a burndown treatment in Wisconsin
and control was adequate, but some managers have not been
satisfied with the performance when they tried this program.
With the support of the Wisconsin Corn Promotion Board, we
are testing several burndown and postemergence herbicide
treatments for their control of field horsetail this year. To date,
one of our biggest surprises is the slow emergence and growth
of field horsetail with the cool spring. We even struggled to find
Wisconsin Crop Manager
a one known patch of field horsetail because it was so slow in
emerging. Although the field horsetail is not as tall as we hoped
and has not yet branched, we are applying the burndown
treatments now because the fields need to be planted with
corn. This will likely limit the amount of herbicide uptake by
the shoots, but we hope some treatments are still effective. We
will provide more information on the results of these trials at
our meetings this fall
Considering Foliar Fungicides for Corn Grain
in 2009?
Part I : A Look at the Results of On-Farm
Fungicide Trials from 2007 and 2008
Paul Esker1, Mike Ballweg2, Greg Blonde3, Joe Bollman4, Jerry
Clark5, Dave Fischer6, Carla Hargrave7, Bill Halfman8, Steve
Huntzicker9, and Bryan Jensen10
High corn market prices and production shifts have generated
considerable interest in the use of foliar fungicides as a means
of enhancing corn yield. Because sufficient data does not exist
in Wisconsin to support the use of foliar fungicides in corn, staff
at the University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Service
and UW College of Agricultural and Life Sciences initiated a
coordinated effort to generate data from replicated on-farm
large strip and small plot trials in 2007 and 2008 (and
continuing in 2009). Further information regarding our on-farm
foliar fungicide program can be found here.
( http://www.uwex.edu/ces/croppathology/On-
FarmFoliarFungicideTrials.cfm )
Comparisons of Small Plot and On-Farm Trials
Both small plot and on-farm strip trials have advantages and
disadvantages. Some advantages of small plot research include
the ability to control variables such as soil type/texture,
drainage, soil compaction and pest interactions. It also allows
the researcher to evaluate several different treatments in a small
area. However, we often receive the question that results from
small plot trials do not represent the situation in grower
production fields. Therefore, conducting large scale on-farm
research helps to examine the situation when the previously
mentioned variables are not singled out. It is this combination of
approaches that are important for improving the research
process.
In this article, we will focus on results from our on-farm corn
grain foliar fungicide trials (both large strip and small plot). We
will discuss the methods used in 2008 studies (identical
methods were also used in 2007), discuss results from the 2007
and 2008 studies individually, and also from a combined year
analysis, and look ahead to questions relevant for corn disease
management in 2009.
41
 In subsequent articles, we will discuss our on-farm corn
silage trials and also our small plot research studies conducted
on University Research Stations.
On-Farm Trials and Methods in 2008
Large scale, on-farm strip trials. Large on-farm strip trials
were conducted in Chippewa (2), Dane (3), Green Lake (3),
Jefferson, La Crosse (3), Monroe, Ozaukee, Sheboygan (2),
Washington and Waupaca counties (Figure 1). Plots were
maintained using the individual grower’s production practices
and each plot was replicated 2-4 times. QuiltÒ(2007 only),
and/or HeadlineÒ (2007 and 2008) were applied using labeled
rates at each location and were applied using ground application
equipment at the VT (2007) or R1 (2008) stage of corn
development. Foliar disease ratings (% severity) were made
prior to the application and also during early September to
determine final disease levels. The incidence of stalk rot and
stalk lodging was made in each plot at black layer using a stalk
nudge test (early October).
Small scale research plots. On-farm small scale research
trials were conducted during the 2008 growing season in La
Crosse, Monroe, Pepin, and Trempeleau Counties (6 trials)
using HeadlineÒ (6 ounces per acre), StrategoÒ (10 ounces per
acre) and QuiltÒ (14 ounces per acre), all applied at the R1
growth stage.
Figure 1. Locations (counties) where on-farm foliar
fungicide trials were conducted in 2007 and 2008. These
locations include on-farm small plot and large strip trials.
Results from On-Farm Trials
Summary of 2007 Results. Five of the eleven fields in the
2007 on-farm trials included more than one fungicide. As a
result, there were 17 fungicide comparisons with the untreated
check. In only one of the eleven locations (9%) (Dane County)
was there noted a yield increase of 6.4 bushels per acre with
foliar fungicide application that was also statistically significant
Wisconsin Crop Manager
(P < 0.10). Furthermore, in this trial, grain moisture was higher
(0.9% increase) in plots treated with a foliar
fungicide. Therefore, the increase in yield would not have been
enough to pay for the fungicide, application costs and additional
drying costs based on 2007 market values of $4.00/bu corn,
$6.00/a application costs, $20/a fungicide costs, and a drying
cost of 5 cents/bushel for a yield of 161 bu/a. In this field trial,
the average disease severity was 17% in the untreated check,
compared to 7% in the fungicide treated plots.
Another major question we receive when discussing foliar
fungicides for corn is if an application will increase grain
moisture. In the 2007 on-farm trials, grain moisture was also
inconsistently affected with the application of a foliar
fungicide. In four trials, significantly higher grain moisture
levels at harvest were found for those plots that received a foliar
fungicide. The differences in grain moisture in those trials were
1.0%, 0.9%, 0.7% and 0.5%, respectively.
Also, the incidence of stalk lodging was inconsistently
affected with the application of a foliar fungicide. Of the
seventeen possible product comparisons, 5 significantly reduced
the percentage lodging, while in the other 13 comparisons, there
was no evidence of an effect of foliar fungicides.
Summary of 2008 Results for Large Strip Trials. In seven of
the nine trials, there was no evidence of a statistical yield
advantage with the use of HeadlineÒ. In two trials in Green
Lake County, however, a statistical yield advantage was found
(24 and 5.6 bushel per acre). In the trial that had a 24 bushel
increase with the fungicide treatment, the disease severity level
in the untreated check was 15% and included the following
diseases: common rust, eyespot and Northern corn leaf
blight. In the field trial where a 5.6 bushel advantage was found,
the disease severity was 8% in the untreated check and included
common rust, eyespot and Northern corn leaf blight.
The results
For either grain moisture or stalk lodging, there was no
evidence of a statistical difference for either measure in any of
the nine trials.
Summary of Results for 2008 Small Plot Trials. In the on-
farm, small plot research trials, there was no evidence of a
statistical yield advantage with the use of a foliar fungicide in
the six trial counties, nor was there evidence of a difference
among the different fungicide products (HeadlineÒ, QuiltÒ,
StrategoÒ). There was also no evidence of a difference in grain
moisture among treatments.
Combined Analysis, 2007-2008 On-Farm Large Strip Trials.
A major goal for our on-farm foliar fungicide trial program is to
improve our ability to make recommendations on a larger
scale. To help accomplish this goal, we conducted a combined
year analysis for the on-farm, large strip trials. Based on that
analysis, there is no evidence of a statistical difference (P <
0.10) in grain yield or grain moisture across the trials. While
there was marginal evidence of a small increase in grain yield
(3-4 bu/a) with the application of a foliar fungicide, this would
42
require corn to be in the $6-9/bu range to cover the cost of an Recommendations for Use of Foliar Fungicides on
application and product. From this analysis, there has been no Corn in 2009
evidence that grain moisture has been affected by the
application of a foliar fungicide. For the incidence of stalk Results of these trials indicated that there were no consistent
lodging, there has been a reduction of approximately 10% (P = statistical yield benefit and an occasional negative impact on
0.0041) with application of HeadlineÒ (19.8%) or QuiltÒ moisture when a foliar fungicide was applied on a trial by trial
(20.7%), compared to the untreated check (29.4%). basis. In the combined analysis, significantly higher stalk
More importantly, these analyses have shown that the highest lodging was observed in the untreated plots at several locations;
source of variation in trials is at the farm scale, indicating that however, this did not translate into a yield reduction and more
other factors (e.g., hybrid resistance, soil type, farm work is needed to quantify the economic return for a reduction
management practices) may influence yield response. in stalk rot incidence.
Ultimately, the best management tactic for reducing the risk
of corn diseases is the use of an IPM strategy that starts with
Economic Considerations for Using a Foliar
hybrid selection for resistance to specific corn diseases. In
Fungicide addition, growers considering other factors like crop rotation
and residue management as part of the management program.
Currently, it is being estimated that the cost of spraying a The best results to date (both within Wisconsin and across the
foliar fungicide in 2009 will be in the $25-30 per acre range region) for use of foliar fungicides is when disease severity has
(application cost plus fungicide product cost). With the current been greater than > 5%. Furthermore, timely field scouting and
corn commodity prices quite variable and hovering in the $3 to an assessment of environmental conditions (relative humidity,
$4 per bushel range, Table 1 is provided to show the necessary leaf wetness and temperature) are necessary to determine if the
return in bushels per acre needed to cover the cost of foliar need for a fungicide is warranted.
fungicides at different application and fungicide costs as well as
different corn commodity prices.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the growers for use of their
Table 1: Estimates on the number of bushels needed to fields, equipment and time. We would also like to thank the
cover the cost of a foliar fungicide application at different agronomists and custom applicators who assisted with field
combinations of application and fungicide cost as well as timing and operations. We also thank support of BASF,
different corn market values. Syngenta, and Bayer CropScience for donation of product for
these trials. Funding for our 2009 On-Farm Foliar Fungicide
Application Fungicide Corn market value ($/bu) program is supported by the Wisconsin Corn Promotion Board.
Cost Cost 2 4 6
6 10 8.0 4.0 2.7 Useful References
6 15 10.5 5.3 3.5
6 20 13.0 6.5 4.3 Field Crops Plant Pathology, UW-Madison and UW-Extension,
6 25 15.5 7.8 5.2 http://www.uwex.edu/ces/croppathology
8 10 9.0 4.5 3.0 Wisconsin Crop Manager, University of Wisconsin Integrated
8 15 11.5 5.8 3.8 Pest and Crop Management, http://ipcm.wisc.edu/wcm
8 20 14.0 7.0 4.7 Summaries of Foliar Fungicide Trials in Wisconsin, Presented
8 25 16.5 8.3 5.5 at the 2009 Wisconsin Crop Management Conference,
Proceedings Available at
10 10 10.0 5.0 3.3
http://www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/wfapmc
10 15 12.5 6.3 4.2
Summaries of the Wisconsin Corn Hybrid Performance Trials,
10 20 15.0 7.5 5.0 http://corn.agronomy.wisc.edu
10 25 17.5 8.8 5.8
-------
12 10 11.0 5.5 3.7 1
Extension Plant Pathologist, UW-Madison and UWEX, 2
12 15 13.5 6.8 4.5 UWEX – Sheboygan County, 3 UWEX – Waupaca County, 4
12 20 16.0 8.0 5.3 UWEX – Columbia County, 5 UWEX – Chippewa County, 6
12 25 18.5 9.3 6.2 UWEX – Dane County, 7 UWEX – Green Lake County, 8
UWEX – Monroe County, 9 UWEX – La Crosse County, 10 UW
– Integrated Pest Management Program

Wisconsin Crop Manager 43


Considering Foliar Fungicides for Corn in
2009? - Part 2
A Look at the Results of On-Farm Fungicide
Trials from 2007 and 2008 for Corn Silage
Paul Esker1, Greg Blonde2, Bryan Jensen3, Jerry Clark4, Matt
Hanson5, Joe Bollman6, Tom Anderson7, Bill Halfman8, and
Nick Schneider9
Much like how we have spent the past few years trying to
understand if foliar fungicides are effective in corn grain
production, we have received numerous questions regarding
their use for corn silage. When on-farm foliar fungicides trials
commenced in 2007 in Wisconsin for corn grain, Greg Blonde
(UW-Extension – Waupaca County) established our first on-
farm corn silage foliar fungicide trial. In that trial, there was a
6% reduction in premature plant death, but there was no other
statistical evidence of an effect of foliar fungicide application,
although there were trend results for measures such as dry
matter tons (increased), Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) (lower
percentage), milk per acre (increased), and stalk lodging
(reduced). However, given that there were no conclusive results
from that trial, further on-farm testing was proposed for 2008.
Overall, the goal of this project was to determine if there is an
effect of applying a foliar fungicide on corn silage yield and
quality via on-farm foliar fungicide trials for corn silage. This
project had two primary objectives: (i) to determine the effect of
foliar fungicides on corn silage yield and quality through on-
farm demonstration and research plots, and (ii) to disseminate
new information regarding the effect of foliar fungicides on
silage corn to growers in Wisconsin and surrounding states.
Materials and Methods:
A combination of on-farm small plot and large strip trials
were used in 2008 (Figure 1).
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Figure 1. Counties where on-farm (small plot and large
strip) foliar fungicide trials for corn silage in Wisconsin
were conducted during 2008.
In 2008, large strip trials were conducted in Chippewa,
Dodge, Jefferson (two trials), Shawano, Waupaca, and
Winnebago counties using the host grower’s production
practices (tillage, hybrids, etc.) and replicated a minimum of
two times (hybrid information in Table 1). Hybrids ranged in
relative maturity from 93 to 112 days and in general, had good
to excellent root and stalk strength ratings and a medium range
disease package (i.e., ratings from 4-6, depending on hybrid and
company) for diseases like gray leaf spot (Cercospora zeae-
maydis), common rust (Puccinia sorghi), or anthracnose stalk
rot (Colletotrichum graminicola). Fungicides were applied
within the range of the current label rates for Headline® (6-12
ounces per acre) at the R1 stage (silking) of corn development.
Small plot foliar fungicide trials were conducted in Monroe
County. In that trial, a combination of products was tested,
including Headline® (6 ounces per acre), Stratego® (10 ounces
per acre) and Quilt® (14 ounces per acre), applied at the R1
growth stage.
Table 1. Corn hybrids in the on-farm large strip
trials.
County Hybrid
Chippewa Croplan DS93 RR
Dodge Pioneer 33T57
Jefferson #1 Mycogen F697
Jefferson #2 Pioneer 34A89
Shawano Pioneer 37Y17
Waupaca Pioneer 35A29
Winnebago Golden Harvest H-8535
For all trials (large strip and small plot), foliar diseases were
assessed in the majority of plots prior to application and again
in early September by estimating the % foliage disease from the
time the trial was initiated until senescence. A stalk nudge test
was conducted in early October by pushing 30 consecutive corn
plants to a 45 degree angle and recording the number of lodged
plants. A plant was considered lodged if it bent prior to reaching
a 45 degree angle or if it was lodged prior to this test and
anthracnose symptoms were present.
Forage quality was obtained by testing unfermented, frozen,
fresh samples from each plot at the Marshfield Forage Testing
Laboratory. This approach was used since not all trial
participants and county agents were able to have access to food
savers in order to obtain a fermented sample. Forage quality
was calculated using the Milk2006 Corn Silage program,
following the same NIR equation as that used for the University
of Wisconsin Corn Agronomy corn silage variety trial program.
Two statistical analyses were conducted for trial data. For
individual trials, an analysis of variance was conducted with the
level of significance set to 10%. Mean comparisons for
44
individual trials were conducted using Duncan’s multiple range
test. The second analysis was a combined analysis of all trial
data (large strip trials) that was done using linear mixed model
methodology. In this analysis, the level of significance was set
to 10% and mean comparisons were based on Fisher’s Protected
LSD. Furthermore, sources of variation were compared by
examining the covariance parameter estimates. From
exploratory analyses, it was found that there were three sources
of variation: county, farm*treatment*county, and the residual
error.
Results:
In 2008, disease levels were found to be very low across
Wisconsin and the on-farm trial locations (< 5% severity). The
primary diseases noted included common rust, anthracnose leaf
blight and stalk rot, Northern corn leaf blight, Northern corn
leaf spot. Stalk lodging ranged from 3% to 25% across the
trials, but there were no obvious differences within individual
trials between the untreated control and fungicide treated
plots. From statistical analyses, there was no evidence of an
effect of foliar fungicides on reducing the level of these
different diseases.
Large strip trials: Individual trial results can be found by
clicking here. Replication varied from 2 to 4 across the trials
and results on a trial-by-trial basis were inconsistent in that
there were no common measures that had similar results across
the trials (see combined analysis for further information). In
only one of the trials (14%), Chippewa County, was an increase
in the milk per acre index (22% increase) observed when a
foliar fungicide was applied that was also statistically
significant.
Small plot trials: In 2008, the small plot trials were affected
by environmental conditions and as such, there were no results
to report.
Combined State Level Analysis: The combined data analyses
found that the highest source of variation was observed at the
county scale across the different measures. One interpretation
for this result in terms of management recommendations is that
it becomes more difficult to make a “blanket” recommendation
across a larger geographical area.
From the statistical analyses, there was no evidence of an
effect of foliar fungicide treatment on the following
components: (i) dry matter (tons), (ii) dry matter (%), (iii) silage
moisture (%), (iv) crude protein (% DM), (v) neutral detergent
fiber, (vi) NDFD (% NDF), (vii) starch, (viii) ash, (ix) fat (%
DM), and (x) milk per ton. While there were some trend results
(0.20 > P > 0.10) for wet yield (5-6% higher in the Headline
treated plots and varying across locations), and milk per acre
(8% higher in the Headline treated plots), results were not
conclusive and require further testing. As evidence, there was
wide variation across the trial locations for these different
measures.
Concluding Remarks:
Since these trials commenced in 2007 we have observed only
one trial where there has been either a higher milk per ton or
Wisconsin Crop Manager
milk per acre index (Chippewa County in 2008) with the
application of a foliar fungicide that was statistically
significant.
Furthermore, when we examined the data across trials, the
only consistent measure that was found at a trend result was for
milk per acre. Based on discussions with researches in Dairy
Science at UW-Madison, we are also working to understand the
trend result for milk per acre index and also determine if the
calculation is being confounded by silage moisture.
Furthermore, our analyses found that the highest source of
variation occurred at the farm (county) scale, meaning that the
ability to make a single, wide scale recommendation is difficult
as individual grower production practices (for example, corn
hybrid, hybrid resistance, soil type, tillage, weed and insect
management) can all influence silage quality and yield. This
further emphasizes that the use of an integrated management
program is the most appropriate approach. Lastly, disease
pressure in 2008 in Wisconsin was generally low.
Acknowledgements:
We thank all of our grower cooperators for participating in
this trial. We thank the Midwest Forage Association for
providing funding for this project as well as UW-Extension
Team Forage. We also thank BASF, Syngenta, and Bayer
CropScience for providing fungicide product for these trials.
-----------------------------------------------------
1
Extension Plant Pathologist, UW-Madison and UWEX,
2
UWEX-Waupaca County, 3Integrated Pest Management
Program, 4UWEX – Chippewa County, 5UWEX – Dodge
County, 6UWEX – Columbia County, 7UWEX – Shawano
County, 8UWEX – Monroe County, 9UWEX – Winnebago
County
UW-Extension/Madison Plant Disease
Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update
Brian Hudelson, Ann Joy, Amy Gibbs, and Brooke Weber,
Plant Disease Diagnostics Clinic
The PDDC receives samples of many plant samples from
around the state. The following diseases/disorders have been
identified at the PDDC since May 6, 2009:
PLANT/ DISEASE/ PATHOGEN COUNTY
SAMPLE DISORDER
TYPE
VEGETABLES
Tomato Bacterial Clavibacter Waukesha
Canker michiganensis
subsp.
michiganensis
For additional information on plant diseases and their control,
visit the PDDC website at pddc.wisc.edu.

45
 Establishing and Managing Switchgrass
Mark Renz, Dan Undersander, and Mike Casler

Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) is a vigorous warm season, native perennial grass adapted to
Wisconsin and planted for many purposes including livestock grazing, wildlife cover, and as a
biofuel crop. Switchgrass begins growth in late spring and continues through the summer if
moisture is available. It grows 3 to 6 feet in small to large sodded clumps that spread slowly
from numerous scaly creeping rhizomes. The leaves have a bluish cast and can attain a length of
2 feet. At the junction of the leaf blade and leaf sheath the ligule is a dense ring or cup of hairs
on the upper leaf surface. The panicles are pyramid shaped with many purplish spikelets. Under
native conditions it is usually found along creeks, streams and protected areas, but establishment
and productivity has been best in fields with loam to sandy loam soils.

Switchgrass in June Four Months’ Growth in October

VARIETIES/ECOTYPES

Switchgrass varieties/ecotypes vary widely in their adaptation to environmental conditions.

Cold winters, hot summers, and day length are the most important of these environmental
factors, all of which vary according to latitude. Because of this, switchgrass varieties/ecotypes
should be moved no more than one hardiness zone from their origin. Sunburst originates within
hardiness zone 4 and Cave-in-Rock originates within hardiness zone 5. Both are well adapted to
the north central USA, with excellent tolerance to cold winters and relatively high biomass yield.
Three year yield averages for common varieties adapted to the north central United States across
several locations are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Average yield (Tons/acre) of switchgrass varieties across the north central United
States. Yield data are a three year average taken during the second through fourth year after
planting.

Switchgrass Ames DeKalb Lancaster Arlington Marshfield Spooner Rosemount

variety IA IL WI WI WI WI MN
Blackwell 3.04 4.16 4.02 3.35 4.23 4.54 5.57
Cave-in-Rock 2.56 4.37 4.54 3.54 4.45 4.39 5.57
Pathfinder 2.56 3.81 3.89 2.91 4.13 4.33 5.45
Sunburst 2.87 3.67 4.28 3.51 4.57 4.74 5.38

ESTABLISHMENT

Switchgrass has relatively small seed averaging approximately 370,000 seeds per pound. The
suggested seeding rate is 6 to 7 pounds of pure live seed when close drilled (8 inches or less
between rows) or broadcasted. Switchgrass should be planted in the spring after soil temperature
is above 60o F. Planting is recommended on a firm, well prepared seedbed at a depth of 1/2 to
3/4 inch. Cultipacking after planting helps establish good contact with soil and speeds
germination. No-till planting of switchgrass has also been successful in Wisconsin. If possible
plant after no-till soybeans as no-till corn fields have rougher terrain that can make harvesting of
biomass difficult. Switchgrass is slow to establish and many of the resources collected in the
establishment years are used to develop an extensive root system. Due to this, switchgrass
should not be grazed or cut during the seeding year unless weed density is high or growth is
exceptional.

WEED MANAGEMENT

Several management methods can be utilized for managing weeds while establishing
switchgrass. Selection of the most appropriate method is based on the weed species present and
the appropriate density. In general, sites with extensive perennial grass infestations (e.g.
quackgrass) should be avoided as they are difficult to manage while establishing switchgrass. If
possible, reduce the weed populations as much as possible before planting. This can be done
with repeated cultivations and/or burndown herbicide applications before planting switchgrass.
Growing roundup ready corn or soybeans year(s) prior to establishment of switchgrass is also
effective in reducing weed populations, especially perennial weeds.

Annual broadleaf weeds are common in the establishment year and if populations are dense,
establishment can be reduced. These weeds can be controlled with timely mowing and/or the
use of a labeled broadleaf herbicide (see Table 2). If mowing, leave at least 6 inches of stubble.
If a broadleaf herbicide is used, wait until switchgrass plants have at least 3-4 leaves (or are 3-4
inches tall) before application to avoid injury. Weedy grasses can also be troublesome as they
are much more difficult to control without injuring switchgrass seedlings. Research has
evaluated the effectiveness of Certainty, Drive, Journey, and Pursuit on grasses as well as
broadleaf weeds and the potential for injury to switchgrass seedlings. While these herbicides are
registered for applications at various times, best results have been seen with pre-emergent
applications. Post-emergent timings do provide weed suppression, but are not recommended to
be applied until 3-4 leaves are present. This delay in application has resulted in reduced
establishment and productivity compared to pre-emergent applications. Injury has been observed
with Certainty, Journey, and Pursuit, but switchgrass seedlings outgrew this injury (see Table 2).
Please note that Journey can only be applied pre-emergent and atrazine is not registered for use
in switchgrass in Wisconsin. Once fields are established it is not expected that additional weed
management will be necessary.

Table 2. Herbicides for use in establishing switchgrass

Active
Herbicides ingredient Rate product/A Timing Cost/A
Broadleaf and grass control
Certainty# Sulfosulfuron 0.75-2.0 oz/a PRE or POST 3-4 leaf* $50-135
#
Drive Quinclorac 0.5-1.0 lbs/A PRE or POST 3-4 leaf* $35-75
glyphosate +
Journey@ imazapic 5.4-10.7 fl oz/A PRE $6-11
Pursuit Imazethapyr 2-4 oz + 32 oz PRE or POST 3-4 leaf* $10-20
Broadleaf control
2,4-D 2,4-D 1-4 pints/A POST 3-4 leaf $2-8
Ally/Escort metsulfuron 0.1 oz/A POST 3-4 leaf* $2-3
Many Dicamba 0.5-1.0 pt/A POST 3-4 leaf $5-10
@
Plateau imazapic 2-4 fl oz/A POST 3-4 leaf $5-10
Weedmaster 2,4-D + Dicamba 1-2 pints/A POST 3-4 leaf $4-8
* If post-emergent, addition of a surfactant will improve results, please consult the label.
#
labeled for use in establishing native grasses in specific situations, please consult the label for
additional information.
@
Products containing imazapic have shown significant injury that on occasion has resulted in
extensive switchgrass mortality at specific locations. Use caution with products containing
these active ingredients in switchgrass fields.

SWITCHGRASS USES

BIOFUEL

Switchgrass is being promoted for several uses as a biofuel in Wisconsin. Uses include burning
for electricity, production of cellulosic ethanol, and heating of homes and businesses. For
biofuel production, fields are recommended to be harvested once per year in the late summer -
winter. Harvesting two-three weeks after the first frost will allow the plant to recycle nutrients
and likely reduce future fertilization as well as drying costs.

GRAZING

Switchgrass is an excellent food source for livestock, and is especially palatable before plants
flower, but its quality and palability decline rapidly as it approaches heading. Fields can begin
being grazed when plants are 10 to 12 inches tall, and should be grazed down to 4 inches within
two weeks. Then livestock should be removed and the pasture allowed to recover. Graze
regrowth to no shorter than 8 inches. The final grazing should be on or before August 15th in
southern Wisconsin and August 1st in the central and northern part of the state. If haying, cut at
the boot stage leaving 3 to 4 inches of stubble. While switchgrass is a good forage for livestock,
its persistence decreases with overgrazing, similar to other warm season pasture grasses,
therefore fields must be managed carefully.

WILDLIFE/CONSERVATION

Switchgrass provides excellent habitat for

wildlife when used exclusively or in
combination with other plant species. The
vertical growth habit of switchgrass provides
beneficial cover for many upland birds that
allows for quality nesting sites and protection
from predators. Switchgrass is also used
extensively as grass filter strips for erosion
control, flood management, and reduction of
nutrient loading of waterways.

Growing switchgrass can also help restore the

original tallgrass prairie, one of our more
endangered ecosystems. The Chicago Climate
Exchange is currently paying farmers to grow
prairies like switchgrass because they take
carbon from the air and store it in the soil.
Restoring prairies can also reduce runoff and reduce floods.

For more information, contact UW Extension Weed Scientist Mark Renz, mrenz@wisc.edu.

This factsheet was produced by UW Extension in cooperation with Southwest Badger Resource Conservation
& Development Council, Inc., USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service, and Better Environmental
Solutions. Photos by Steve Bertjens and Brett Hulsey. Copyright 2009, UW Extension.
 Volume 16 Number 12 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- May 21, 2009

could have noticed the tiny pinhole feeding of young larvae and
avoided the defoliation of the mature larvae by possible taking
Insects an early harvest.
Alfalfa Weevil ................................................................ 46 To get a feel for what may be happening in your area, spot
check alfalfa fields for weevil damage in areas that warm up
Black Cutworm ............................................................... 47 quicker (eg. south facing slopes, sandy areas, etc.). Look for
Weeds tiny pinhole feeding in the upper leaves. Sometimes you may
have to separate the folded leaflets to observe early damage and
Cattail Control in Corn ................................................... 47 larvae. Young larvae tend to be more of a slate color than the
Plant Disease lime green color of more mature larvae. But all instars will have
a black head. Don’t be confused is you notice very large larvae
Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic Update ........................ 48 which appear to alfalfa weevil. If they have a tan head they are
clover leaf weevil and rarely cause significant damage in
Wisconsin.
Photo 1: Alfalfa Weevil instars will have a black head.
Alfalfa Weevil
Bryan Jensen, IPM Program
Sometimes the occasional pests are the hardest to manage.
Not because they are more complex or cause more damage, but
because we forget to anticipate and are surprised by their
damage. Alfalfa Weevil is certainly one of those pests.
Statewide, alfalfa weevil populations have been low if
compared to populations encountered in the 1970’s and early
80’s. However, over the last two years we have received more
damage reports than usual. I don’t know if this is a trend that
will continues in 2009 or not, but each year we get reports of
someone, somewhere, in the state that had unexpected economic
damage. One of the underlying factors for this unexpected
damage is “failure to anticipate”. We are all busy and spring is
arguably the busiest time of the year. We are focused on
immediate problems and don’t always take time to look for
those occasional pests.
Southern Wisconsin has now accumulated 300 weevil degree The economic threshold for first crop alfalfa is when 40% or
days (or soon will have) which is when eggs are starting to more of the stems have leaf feeding. If a field is within 7-10
hatch and scouting is recommended. days of harvest an early cut will likely control alfalfa weevil. If
Please keep in mind that egg hatch will occur over a period of an insecticide application is needed don’t forget to look at the
time and that early instars will do little feeding compared to harvest restrictions when choosing a product. Some labels
mature larvae. Therefore, incidence and severity of damage is require a 14-21 day harvest interval. Fields which have
likely to increase over time. I bring this up because it is significant first crop damage should be scouted soon after
common to hear statements like “Weevils must have moved in second crop regrowth develops to determine if there is a risk of
over the weekend” as people refer to a noticeable change in damage from surviving larvae.
damage if viewed from a distance. Well, that doesn’t happen.
Weevil larvae are not very mobile and do not move from field
to field. What does happen is the rate of defoliation increases as
larvae grow and damage rapidly becomes apparent. Timely
scouting would have identified those fields much sooner. You

Wisconsin Crop Manager 46

 • Cattails reproduce by seed and tubers, but rapid
Cattail Control in Corn spread is through wind-borne seed.
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist
• Cattails can produce 20,000 to 700,000 seeds per
Last year’s wet summer brought a new weed to many corn flowering “spike”.
fields this year – cattail. Controlling this new weed will be a
challenge in some cases. Obviously, cattail will establish in wet • Cattail seed readily germinates to start new seedlings
or flooded portions of fields. If these areas dry enough for or seed can persist in the soil for long periods of time
tillage, through tillage will probably be the best first step in if conditions are not proper for germination.
effective control. Tillage should disrupt the cattail tubers and
help with drying the soil, especially if the cattail are not well
established. However, if the cattail is in a no-till
field, it will be more difficult to control with
Photo 1. A 2-year old (?) patch of cattail established in a corn field.
herbicides. Few herbicides are labeled for cattail
control, especially corn herbicides. Cattail is
listed on most glyphosate labels. For instance,
the Roundup PowerMax label recommends that
2 to 3.3 qt/a is applied at the early heading stage
of growth. This timing increases the amount of
glyphosate translocated to the tubers and
increases control, similar to the practice with
many other perennial weeds. Unfortunately, the
maximum rate of PowerMax that can be used in
corn with the Roundup Ready 2 trait is 32 oz/a
(or 48 oz/a of a 3 lb ae/gal formulation). Also,
the cattail will need to be sprayed before the
heading stage. Despite these shortcomings,
glyphosate may be one of the most effective
options to suppress in no-till corn. I would recommend using
the highest labeled rate and delay the application as long as Photo 2. Close-up of cattail (8-16 inches tall) in mid-May in a corn field.
reasonable. As a tank mix partner, dicamba may increase the
activity of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant corn (see
conventional corn comments for more information).
In Liberty Link corn, I don’t have experience, but I doubt that
Ignite will be effective in Liberty Link corn because Ignite is
primarily a contact (non-translocating) herbicide.
In conventional corn, the best suppression options might
include dicamba-based herbicides (e.g. Banvel, Clarity,
Status). Initially, you might wonder if this “broadleaf” herbicide
would work on this “grass-like” plant. It is true that cattail is a
monocot and not a dicot plant. However, cattail is in the
Typhaceae (cattail) family, not the grass family. Just as Permit
is a broadleaf herbicide, is not active on grasses, but highly
effective on the monocot, yellow nutsedge. Dicamba is active
on cattail. Again, the low labeled rates allowed and early timing
of dicamba applications will likely limit the amount of control
achieved. Others have suggested that dicamba activity might be
increased if tank mixed with an ALS-inhibiting herbicide (such
as Steadfast), but this is speculation. 2,4-D is not rated to be as
effective as dicamba or glyphosate. Black Cutworm
Growers will have to wait to control cattail in areas of fields Bryan Jensen, IPM Program
with standing water (photos 1 and 2). If these potholes dry
during the summer, a high rate of glyphosate could be applied at WDATCP staff recently reported “light to moderate” black
the proper stage mentioned above. cutworm pheromone trap catches and suggested that cutting of
seedling corn could occur by late May in southern
Cattail facts Wisconsin. States to our south have also published reports with
some catches being described as “intense”. Pheromone traps are
• Broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia) is a native plant,
an excellent way of monitoring black cutworm migration. Using
but narrowleaf cattail was introduced. Both
degree day estimates from the first significant capture we can
narrowleaf cattail and the hybrid of these two cattails
also predict initial cutting activity. In Wisconsin, we have had
are considered unwanted invasive weeds.

Wisconsin Crop Manager 47

cool nights which may affect (reduce?) trap catches but the
message is clear that it is time to start scouting emerging
corn. Black cutworms prefer to lay eggs in weedy areas, low
lying fields and/or in fields with soybean residue. Early instars
cause shot-hole feeding in leaves and late instars can cut small
corn plants at or below ground level. Late instars may be unable
to cut larger corn plants and instead will burrow into the corn
plot at, or near the growing point to feed. Above ground
symptoms are often described as “dead heart” or “wilted
whorl”.
Treatment is suggested if there is more than 5% damaged
plants. It would also be a good idea to locate several larvae and
determine the average instar for each field. Consult page 63 of
A3646, Pest Management is Wisconsin Field Crops-2009
(http://learningstore.uwex.edu/Pest-Management-in-Wisconsin-
Field-Crops2009-P155C37.aspx) for a head capsule gauge and
instructions. The main point is to consider preventable yield
loss. Cutworms in the later stages of larval development will be
pupating soon and are unlikely to cause significant economic
loss when compared to the cost of insecticide and application
fees. Which is why it is important to scout early and catch
problems before it is too late.
Of special concern in 2009 are the late plantings. Late planted
corn can have significantly more injury because emergence is
better timed with the spring migration. Any spring weed
growth, especially winter annuals, that occurs before or after
tillage can also increase a field’s attractiveness to egg laying
females.

UW-Extension/Madison Plant Disease

Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update
Brian Hudelson, Ann Joy, Amy Gibbs, and Brooke Weber,
Plant Disease Diagnostics Clinic
The PDDC receives samples of many plant samples from
around the state. The following diseases/disorders have been
identified at the PDDC since May 6, 2009:

PLANT/ SAMPLE DISEASE/ PATHOGEN COUNTY

TYPE DISORDER
VEGETABLES
Tomato Bacterial Clavibacter Waukesha
Canker michiganensis subsp.
michiganensis

For additional information on plant diseases and their control,

visit the PDDC website at pddc.wisc.edu.
„„„„„„„„

Wisconsin Crop Manager 48

 Volume 16 Number 13 ---
Crops
University Response to Plant Health Label for Headline
Fungicide ........................................................................ 49
Plant Disease
Spring Scouting in Winter Wheat .................................. 49
Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic Update ........................ 51
What’s New
Amanda Gevens Joins Plant Pathology .......................... 50
Insects
True Armyworms ........................................................... 51
Spring Scouting in Winter Wheat - video
A new video has been posted online. Dr. Paul Esker, UWEX
Plant Pathologist talks about spring scouting in winter wheat
fields for common plant diseases. This 8 minute video is hosted
on the UWEX Youtube channel. For best video quality, click on
the "HQ" high quality button just below the video. This is the
second video in our IPM series for field crop management. In
the video, Paul refers to a crop pathology website where further
info on plant disease can be found. That website is
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/croppathology
This is the link to the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKh9UKGKfMU
University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- May 28, 2009
University Response to Plant Health Label
for Headline® Fungicide
Paul Esker - Extension Plant Pathologist
During the past winter, BASF was granted a supplemental
Plant Health label for Headline® fungicide. In Wisconsin, the
following crops are currently labeled: barley, corn, edible
legumes, oats, oilseed crops, rye, and soybean. To date, there
have numerous fungicide trials conducted at the University of
Wisconsin in field crops like corn and soybean as well as winter
wheat over the past few years, including trials that examine
multiple active ingredients, different application timings,
different crop rotations, and differences in genetics. These trials
have included small plot research, small plot efficacy, and on-
farm small plot and long strip trials. We have summarized
results from these trials in the Wisconsin Crop Manager (Esker
et al. 2009a; Esker et al. 2009c), the Proceedings of the
Wisconsin Crop Management Conference (or Proceedings of
the Wisconsin Fertilizer, Aglime, and Pest Management
Conference) (Esker and Conley 2009; Esker et al. 2009b; Esker
et al. 2009d; Esker et al. 2008; Grau et al. 2008) and various
winter meetings. To date, the results from our trials have not
shown a consistent response for use of foliar fungicides, except
when the level of disease (i.e., higher severity) has warranted
the application of a fungicide. Because of the lack of a
consistent response it is difficult to predict the management
conditions that will likely provide an economic response for
many crops, especially corn and soybean.
Specifically, the supplemental label indicates that improved
plant health benefits from the application of Headline® may
include:
• Host plant tolerance to yield-robbing environmental
stresses like drought, heat, cold temperatures, and
ozone damage
• Improved plant utilization of nitrogen
• Increased tolerance to bacterial and viral infections
• More specifically, for small grains, claims of
improved straw strength and better harvestability
• In corn, improved stalk strength and better
harvestability; induced tolerance to stalk diseases;
better tolerance to hail; more uniform seed size
In response, 46 University research and extension specialists
submitted a letter to EPA regarding the concern for the
supplemental label. The letter is available for viewing at:
Wisconsin Crop Manager 49
http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/final%20-
epa%20letter2-13%20.pdf. Also, an excellent discussion of this
issue is available in the Kentucky Pest News from February 24,
2009
(http://www.uky.edu/Ag/kpn/kpn_09/pn_090224.html#Corn).
In particular, the primary theme of the letter is the concern over
the broad statements made regarding the application of
fungicides and the perceived benefit. Fungicides can have a
physiological effect on plants, however, the main concern is that
this label will be justification for the widespread use of foliar
fungicides for reasons other than disease control and that this
will increase the risk for earlier selection for resistance for some
pathogens. Overall, I want to emphasize that the use of an IPM
framework for disease management in field crops is most
appropriate. Decisions should always begin with hybrid or
variety selection and the use of an active scouting program is
warranted before making any decision to apply a foliar
fungicide. Applications should be made following the label
recommendations and in a sound manner.
Acknowledgements: I thank Chris Boerboom, Joe Lauer,
Shawn Conley, and Bryan Jensen for their review, comments,
and support of this article.
References:
Esker, P., M. Ballweg, G. Blonde, J. Bollman, J. Clark, D.
Fischer, C. Hargrave, B. Halfman, S. Huntzicker, and B. Jensen.
2009a. Considering foliar fungicides for corn grain in 2009?
Part I: A look at the results of on-farm fungicide trials from
2007 and 2008. Wisconsin Crop Manager, Vol. 16, Number 11,
Pages 41-43.
Esker, P., M. Ballweg, G. Blonde, J. Bollman, J. Clark, D.
Fischer, C. Hargrave, S. Huntzicker, and B. Jensen. 2009b.
Summary of the 2008 strip trials for foliar fungicide use on
corn. Proc. of the 2009 Wisconsin Crop Management
Conference, Vol. 48, Pages 51-55.
Esker, P., G. Blonde, B. Jensen, J. Clark, M. Hanson, J.
Bollman, T. Anderson, B. Halfman, and N. Schneider. 2009c.
Considering foliar fungicides for corn in 2009? Part II: A look
at results of on-farm fungicide trials from 2007 and 2008 for
corn silage. Wisconsin Crop Manager, Vol. 16, Number 11,
Pages 44-45.
Esker, P., B. Halfman, and B. Jensen. 2009d. Management
decisions for foliar fungicides in corn. Proc. of the 2009
Wisconsin Crop Management Conference, Vol. 48, Pages 47-
50.
Esker, P., and S. Conley. 2009. Integrated management for
wheat diseases. Proc. of the 2009 Wisconsin Crop Management
Conference, Vol. 48, Pages 43-46.
Esker, P., C. Grau, and B. Jensen. 2008. Foliar fungicides for
corn. Proc. Of the 2008 Wisconsin, Fertlizer, Aglime & Pest
Management Conference, Vol. 47, Pages 57-59.
Grau, C., P. Esker, M. Ballweg, J. Clark, D. Fischer, C.
Hargrave, B. Halfman, S. Huntzicker, and B. Jensen. 2008.
University of Wisconsin’s Corn Foliar Fungicide Trials Results.
Proc. Of the 2008 Wisconsin, Fertlizer, Aglime & Pest
Management Conference, Vol. 47, Pages 60-66.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Amanda Gevens Joins Plant Pathology
Paul Esker and Amanda Gevens, Plant Pathology
Please join me in welcoming the newest member of the
Department of Plant Pathology, Amanda Gevens. Dr. Gevens
officially begins her duties on July 1 as the Extension Potato
and Vegetable Plant Pathologist. Amanda has prepared the
following statement about herself and future plans. She also
provides her contact information and welcomes your emails and
phone calls. Please take the opportunity to introduce yourself to
Amanda when the opportunity presents itself.
Statement by Amanda Gevens
I grew up working on a pumpkin and vegetable farm on the
eastern end of Long Island, New York. Upon graduating from
high school, I attended Muhlenberg College in PA and majored
in biology. For three summers during my undergraduate
studies, I was employed by Mr. Dale Moyer (potato and
vegetable specialist at the time) of Cornell Cooperative
Extension (CCE) in Suffolk County, NY. I served as a field
scout and research assistant for vegetable crops such as sweet
corn, cabbage, tomatoes, and potatoes. My experience at CCE-
Suffolk was pivotal in directing my academic and career plans
for years to follow.
In 1999, I began my graduate studies at Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN under Dr. Ralph Nicholson, Department of
Botany and Plant Pathology. The title of my MS thesis is: The
function and composition of conidial extracellular matrix
material and an investigation of the interaction of Bipolaris
maydis with Sorghum bicolor followed by phytoalexin
biosynthesis. After completing my M.S. degree it was my desire
to return to field-based, applied plant pathology research.
I joined Dr. Mary Hausbeck’s program in the department of
plant pathology at Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
in 2002. In 2005, I completed my Ph.D which was entitled:
Documenting and characterizing Phytophthora capsici from
irrigation water and snap beans in Michigan, and screening for
fruit resistance to P. capsici in cucurbits. In Michigan I had
many wonderful opportunities to work with many vegetable
diseases and interact with extension and industry personnel.
50
 After a short post-doc in the lab of Dr. Mary Hausbeck, I
assumed extension and responsibilities in agronomic and
Photo 1: True Armyworm Larva
vegetable crop pathology at the University of Florida in
Gainesville in 2007. I have greatly enjoyed my time in Florida
working in the areas of pathogen identification, biology, and
management. Many of my current collaborations in vegetable
research will follow me to Wisconsin.
As the new potato and vegetable extension plant pathologist
at UW-Madison, I intend to generate and disseminate disease
identification and management information that is timely and
important to the potato and vegetable growers and allied
industries in the state of Wisconsin. I am excited to become
part of an excellent vegetable team and to continue in the
successful and big footsteps of Dr. Walt Stevenson.
I am married to Dr. Stephen Jordan, also a plant pathologist,
and we have a son, Jack, who may have already gained more
exposure to plant pathology than any 2-year-old should! UW-Extension/Madison Plant Disease
I am pleased and excited to have been given the opportunity Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update
to join the plant pathology department at UW-Madison. I look
forward to collaborations and interactions with growers,
extension and university faculty, students, and allied Brian Hudelson, Ann Joy, Amy Gibbs, and Brooke Weber,
agricultural industries in the state of Wisconsin. I will start on Plant Disease Diagnostics Clinic
July 1, 2009 and welcome your emails, phone calls, and
inquiries. The PDDC receives samples of many plant samples from
Contact information: around the state. The following diseases/disorders have been
identified at the PDDC since May 20, 2009:
Dr. Amanda J. Gevens
Assistant Prof. & Extension Plant Pathologist
University of Wisconsin PLANT/ DISEASE/ PATHOGEN COUNTY
Department of Plant Pathology SAMPLE DISORDER
1630 Linden Dr., Rm. 689 TYPE
Madison, WI 53706-3072 FORAGE
CROPS
Office Phone: 608-890-3072 Alfalfa Pesticide Injury None Dane
Fax: 608-263-2626
Email: gevens@wisc.edu Potassium None Dane
Deficiency
Phoma Dane
Tarspot medicaginis
True Armyworms FRUIT
CROPS
Peach Peach Leaf Curl Taphrina Jefferson
Bryan Jensen, IPM Program deformans
True Armyworm is yet another insect to keep on your radar
over the next few weeks. There hasn’t been any report of For additional information on plant diseases and their control,
damage in Wisconsin or to the states to our south but the visit the PDDC website at pddc.wisc.edu.
WDATCP has reported sporadic, low intensity flights in their
„„„„„„„„
blacklight trap network. However, corn is emerging at a fast
pace and it would be worthwhile to spot-check those corn fields
that have the greatest potential for damage.
The spring migration pattern of true armyworm is much the
same as black cutworm adults. However, you can’t necessarily
draw damage comparisons on one based on what happened with
the other. Likely armyworm damage scenarios may include
lush grassy weed growth in emerging corn fields and especially
corn that is no-tilled in alfalfa or a grass cover crop like rye.
Armyworms are certainly a potential problem in spring or fall
planted small grains. Be sure to spot check some of these
fields.

Wisconsin Crop Manager 51

 US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticide Programs
BIOPESTICIDE REGISTRATION ACTION DOCUMENT

February 13 2009

Letter from Universities regarding

the strobilurin, pyraclostrobin (Headline),
supplemental label
Mr. John Bazuin
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Registration Division
Fungicide Branch, Team 22

February 13, 2009

Dear Mr. Bazuin,

We are writing to express our concerns about the supplemental label recently issued for “Plant Health” for the strobilurin,
pyraclostrobin (Headline). One concern is that this action will open the floodgates for manufacturers of similar products to
follow suit, resulting in many more labels of the same sort. As plant pathologists, agronomists, and IPM managers, we work
diligently to encourage responsible stewardship of the land, by promoting integrated pest management, including the use of
fungicides when necessary to control disease. We are aware that fungicides can have physiological effects on plants.
However, the supplemental label contains broad statements such as “… plant health benefits may include improved host plant
tolerance to yield-robbing environmental stresses, such as drought, heat, cold temperatures, and ozone damage”, and “Headline
can improve plant utilization of nitrogen and can increase tolerance to bacterial and viral infections. These benefits often
translate to healthier plants producing greater yields at harvest, especially under stressful conditions.”. Expanding the label for
a fungicide to include such broad-sweeping claims invites increased, widespread use of this product to supposedly ameliorate
the effects of a multitude of conditions caused by the weather. Furthermore, while the specific claims such as “better tolerance
to hail”, “improved tolerance to frost”, and improved tolerance to other environmental stresses may be supported by some
limited number of controlled studies in some crops, the publicly available data at our disposal does not instill confidence in the
use of Headline for these purposes. The use of a fungicide for growth regulating properties is a serious blow to IPM principles
and almost guarantees earlier selection for resistance in certain pathogen populations to a valuable class of fungicides.
According to the Fungicide Resistance Action Committee (FRAC) as of December 2008, there is now documented field
resistance to strobilurins in thirty two species of fungi comprising twenty one genera, including Alternaria. spp., Botrytis
cinerea, those that cause powdery and downy mildews, anthracnose, and others. There are also non-target effects of fungicides
(including strobilurins) to consider such as suppression of beneficial fungi in many cropping systems. Aphid flares have been
documented in potatoes treated with fungicides, due to disruption of entomopathogenic fungi that help to keep aphid
populations in check. Spider mite outbreaks have resulted from fungicide use to control rust in soybeans, contributing to yield
losses.
Additionally, there are specific claims on the label such as improved stalk strength in corn and straw strength in wheat, and
improvements in seed quality in soybeans. Stalk strength in corn can be improved when foliar diseases are managed. But there
is no evidence that stalk strength will be improved generally, and when disease pressure is low. We have not seen publicly
available data that demonstrate many of these effects. In fact, there is a published scientific report (Wrather et al. 2004. Plant
Disease 88:721-723) that treatment of soybean with a strobilurin (azoxystrobin in this study) can actually result in lower
quality seed compared to untreated plants). Data supporting claims of enhanced seed quality in soybean when Headline has
been applied have not been properly substantiated. In addition, there are numerous published research reports where
application of Headline to soybean prior to the onset of drought conditions DID NOT result in improved yields. Likewise, the
large majority of publically available university-managed tests conducted under stressful conditions show no statistically
significant improvement in yield in the absence of significant levels of foliar disease.
We understand that the EPA (except for specific classes of products such as antimicrobials) does not routinely require
manufacturers to submit efficacy data for their products. However, “the label is the law”. Growers are unlikely to realize that
efficacy data were not submitted for this supplemental label, and may view the label as endorsement and approval of the claims
made on the label. This will very likely result in the use of Headline for protection against a host of crop stresses in fields
where disease pressure is very low or non-existent. The environmental and biological impact of these uses in the absence of a
disease threat may be considerable. This is especially worrisome when one considers that corn, soybean and wheat are grown
on 220 million acres in the United States and that fungicides are now routinely applied on 25-30% of those acres. We sincerely
hope that the EPA will consider a secondary review of this label, as the claims for this product far exceed those made for
similar products.

Sincerely,

Diane Brown-Rytlewski Paul Vincelli

Extension Outreach Specialist, Field Crops Extension Professor and Provost’s Distinguished Service
Department of Plant Pathology Professor
Michigan State University Department of Plant Pathology
University of Kentucky
 Don Hershman
Tom Allen Extension Plant Pathologist
Assistant Extension/Research Professor Department of Plant Pathology
Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology University of Kentucky
Mississippi State University
Charla Hollingsworth
Gary C. Bergstrom Extension Plant Pathologist
Professor UM Northwest Research &Outreach Center and
Department of Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe Biology Department of Plant Pathology
Cornell University University of Minnesota

Carl Bradley Bob Hunger

Assistant Professor of Plant Pathology / Extension Professor of Plant Pathology &
Specialist Extension Wheat Pathologist
Department of Crop Sciences Noble Research Center
University of Illinois Oklahoma State University

John Damicone Thomas Isakeit

Professor and Extension Specialist Associate Professor and Extension Plant Pathologist
Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology
Oklahoma State University Texas A&M University

Erick De Wolf Doug Jardine

Extension Plant Pathologist Professor
Department of Plant Pathology Department of Plant Pathology
Kansas State University Kansas State University

Anne Dorrance Bryan Jensen

Associate Professor IPM Manager
Department of Plant Pathology Integrated Pest and Crop Management
The Ohio State University/OARDC University of Wisconsin

C. Richard Edwards Paul Jepson

Emeritus Professor Professor, Environmental and Molecular Toxicology &
Department of Entomology Director, Integrated Plant Protection Center
Purdue University Oregon State University
 
Roger Elmore Doug Johnson
Professor and Corn Agronomist Extension Professor of Entomology and
Department of Agronomy Integrated Pest Management Coordinator
Iowa State University University of Kentucky

Paul Esker Steven B. Johnson

Assistant Professor Crops Specialist and Extension Professor
Department of Plant Pathology University of Maine Cooperative Extension
University of Wisconsin
Chad Lee
Ron French Associate Extension Professor, Grain Crops
Extension Grain and Vegetable Pathologist University of Kentucky
Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology
Texas A&M University Jonathan Lundgren
Research Entomologist
Arvydas Grybauskas North Central Agricultural Research Laboratory
Associate Professor and Extension Plant Pathologist USDA-ARS
Plant Science and Landscape Architecture
University of Maryland Ian MacRae
Assoc. Professor, State IPM Coordinator
Marvin Harris Dept. of Entomology, University of Minnesota
Professor Northwest Research & Outreach Center
Department of Entomology
Texas A&M University
Marcia McMullen Alison Robertson
Professor/Extension Plant Pathologist Extension Field Crops Pathologist
Department of Plant Pathology Department of Plant Pathology
North Dakota State University Iowa State University

Tom Royer
Daren Mueller Professor and IPM Coordinator
Extension Program Specialist Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology
Department of Plant Pathology Oklahoma State University
Iowa State University
Gregory Shaner
Lawrence E. Osborne Professor Emeritus
Assistant Prof./Extension Plant Pathologist Department of Botany and Plant Pathology
Department of Plant Pathology Purdue University
South Dakota State University
Erik L. Stromberg
Pierce A. Paul Professor and Extension Plant Pathologist
Assistant Professor Agronomic Crops
Department of Plant Pathology Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed
The Ohio State University/OARDC Science
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Guy B. Padgett
Professor Greg Walker
Northeast Research Station Associate Professor of Entomology
Louisiana State University College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences
University of California Riverside
Palle Pedersen
Assistant Professor Stephen Wegulo
Soybean Extension Agronomist Assistant Professor/Extension Plant Pathologist
Department of Agronomy Department of Plant Pathology
Iowa State University University of Nebraska

Steve Rideout Kiersten Wise

Assistant Professor of Plant Pathology/Extension Assistant Professor of Plant Pathology
Specialist Extension Specialist for Field Crop Diseases
Virginia Tech - Eastern Shore Department of Botany and Plant Pathology
Purdue University

CC: Ms. Cynthia Giles-Parker, EPA OPPT Registration Division Fungicide Branch Section Chief
Mr. Tony Kish, EPA OPPT Registration Division Fungicide Branch Product Manager, Team 22
ADDENDUM
To Mr. John Bazuin
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Registration Division
Fungicide Branch, Team 22

CC: Ms. Cynthia Giles-Parker, EPA OPPT Registration Division Fungicide Branch Section Chief
Mr. Tony Kish, EPA OPPT Registration Division Fungicide Branch Product Manager, Team 22

February 20, 2009

Additional signatures for the letter sent February 13, 2009 regarding the “plant health” supplemental label
for pyraclostrobin. We wish to add our support for the letter addressing concerns about the “plant health”
supplemental label.

Sandra Sardanelli
Maryland IPM Program Coordinator
Entomology Department
University of Maryland

Natalie P. Goldberg
Extension Plant Pathologist and Interim Department Head
NM State IPM Coordinator
Extension Plant Sciences
College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Science
New Mexico State University

Dr. Norman C. Leppla

Professor & Program Director, IPM Florida
University of Florida
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Department of Entomology and Nematology

Erick Larson, Ph.D.

Grain Crops Agronomist
Mississippi State University

Thomas Chase
Associate Professor
Plant Science Department
South Dakota State University

Christina DiFonzo
Professor
Department of Entomology
Michigan State University
 Volume 16 Number 14 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- June 4, 2009

the unifoliates may appear bleached. Once photosynthesis

Crops begins this symptom quickly dissipates. (Image 4).

Delayed Soybean Emergence and Cotyledon Loss ........ 52

Time for Postemergence Corn Herbicides ..................... 55 Image 1: Swollen hypocotyl.

What’s New
Training Sessions for TSP’s, consultants and educators
on NRCS’ 2009 Organic Intiative .................................. 53
Insects
Troubleshooting Hints for Common Early Season
Insects (and slugs) in Corn ............................................. 54

Delayed Soybean Emergence and Cotyledon

Loss

Shawn P. Conley, State Soybean and Wheat Extension

Specialist
Image 2: Broken hypocotyl and plant death
John Gaska, Outreach Specialist
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Differing weather patterns across the state of Wisconsin this
spring have left some growers extremely pleased with their
soybean stands while others find themselves at various degrees
of displeasure or disgust. In a previous WCM article, I
discussed Predicting When Soybeans Will Emerge. The model
described in that article does not take into account the physics
behind soybean emergence in compacted or crusted soil
environments. Soybean emergence in tough environments like
these can lead to low or variable stands, cotyledon loss, plant
injury, or plant death.
To facilitate emergence in compacted or crusted
environments, the soybean hypocotyl will swell to increase the
force against the soil surface (Image 1). The force is sometimes
too great and the hypocotyl snaps and the plant dies (Image 2).
Other times, one or both cotyledons are broken off during
emergence; however the unifoliate (and thus the apical growing Given the significant variability in soybean emergence we are
point) remains intact (Image 3). If a plant loses one cotyledon, currently experiencing, the logical question that will arise is
yield loss would be negligible. However if both cotyledons are “Will this variability in soybean emergence lead to yield loss?”.
lost, a yield loss of 2 to 7% is possible. In 2009, I have also It has been well documented by many corn agronomists that
noted several fields where the soybean has leafed out under the varibility in corn emergence can cause yield loss (Please see
soil surface prior to emergence. When these plants do emerge, Trouble with Doubles, Gaps and Peepers by Joe Lauer). Yield
loss caused by variable soybean emergence however has not

Wisconsin Crop Manager 52

been quantified in soybean, though anecdotal reports and
testimonials may indicate otherwise. Stands that are below a
threshold of 100,000 plants per acre at harvest will lead to
decreased yield.
One way to mitigate stand loss due to crusted soils is to use a
rotary hoe to breakup the crust as soybean are emerging. We
have successfully used this implement for many years with very
positive results. A small amount of damage to an existing stand
of soybeans will occur when using a rotatoy hoe, however the
benefits from breaking up the crust and allowing the soybeans
to emerge will far outweigh the damage. Set the hoe to only
breakup enough soil to allow the plants to emerge. Rotaty
hoeing can be delayed or eliminated if significant rain (usually
over ¾”) is in the forcast when soybean seedlings are struggling
to emerge. Planning appropriate tillage ahead of time can
reduce the need for rotary hoeing and insure a good stand of
soybeans. This includes not working the soil when it is too wet,
using no-tillage systems, and not overworking the soil so that
the structure remains intact. Most crusting and compaction
problems arise from excessive tillage at the wrong time.
Image 3: Cotyledon loss due to crusted soil.
Image 4: Soybean plant that had leafed out under the soil
surface prior to emergence
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Training sessions for TSP’s, consultants and
educators on NRCS’ 2009 Organic Initiative
Kevin Shelley, UW Nutrient and Pest Management Program
1-800-994-5853
The 2008 Farm Bill is providing new opportunities for
certified organic farms and farmers interested in transitioning to
organic certification. A special sign-up for conservation
incentive payments through the USDA NRCS Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is currently underway,
through June 12. This 2009 Organic Initiative will provide
$1.2 million in conservation incentive payments for Wisconsin
farms. Farms currently certified organic and under transition to
organic can receive bonus payment rates for adoption of six
core conservation practices, including: Conservation Crop
Rotation; Nutrient Management; Pest Management, Cover
Crop, Forage Harvest Management, and; Prescribed Grazing.
There is also a new EQIP practice in Wisconsin, Organic
Transition (in addition to forestry and on-farm energy
planning), which requires development of an organic transition
plan (OTP). The OTP is a “conservation activity plan” which
also addresses any soil, water and other natural resource
protection needs identified for the farm operation. The first
state signup for Organic Transition assistance ended May 29,
and received a reportedly small sign-up. More sign-up
opportunities are expected in the future.
For more information on the 2009 Organic Initiative and
Organic Transition programs, contact your county’s NRCS
District Conservation office, or go to the Wisconsin NRCS
website www.wi.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip.html).
In effort to facilitate success with these programs, five
training sessions are being developed for current and
prospective Technical Service Providers as well as conservation
planning professionals and educators working with transitioning
and certified organic farmers. Two sessions will provide an
introduction to organic farming systems, organic certification
requirements, and writing or evaluating organic transition plans.
The other three will focus on NRCS requirements for
conservation planning, resource assessment and writing
conservation activity plans associated with the Organic
Transition practice. These training sessions are offered by the
UWEX Conservation Professional Development and Training
Program, USDA SARE, and Northeast Wisconsin Technical
College, with assistance from the Midwest Organic and
Sustainable Education Services (MOSES) and the UW Nutrient
and Pest Management Program.
Wisconsin Organic Initiative and EQIP Training Sessions,
2009:
Introduction to Organic Systems
Northeast WI Technical College course offering #47-090-
499, for information, contact Valerie Dantoin Adamski @
(920)498-5568, valerie.dantoin@nwtc.edu ; or to register
(920)498-5444.
53
 June 30, Platteville (SW Wisconsin) area farm (class
#53783).
July 15, Seymour, WI (class # 53784)
These sessions will provide an introduction to organic
farming systems, steps necessary for transition and certification,
educational and informational resources available and NRCS
requirements for organic transition plans.
Writing Conservation Activity Plans and Organic
Transition Plans
For more information see http://conservation-
training.wisc.edu or contact Kevin Erb @ (920)391-4652,
Kevin.erb@ces.uwex.edu .
June 17, UW Platteville Pioneer Farm
August 6, Wausau area (TBD)
September 22, location TBD
These sessions focus more on NRCS conservation standards
and technical references, conservation planning and resource
assessments, as well as requirements for organic transition
plans, the USDA Organic Transition Program, and planner
certification requirements.
Troubleshooting Hints for Common Early
Season Insects (and slugs) in Corn
Bryan Jensen, IPM Program
Troubleshooting calls on seedling corn are likely to be
starting if they haven’t already. Once you have narrowed the
cause down to insect there are still a number of choices you will
need to make for an accurate diagnosis. Troubleshooting would
be much easier if all we dealt with was classic, text book
symptoms but that is rarely the case. Of course finding the
insect will make the diagnosis easier. If not, here are some
helpful hints.
Poor emergence is likely a result of either seedcorn maggot or
wireworm feeding. Seedcorn maggots have a very short
generation time and may not be present when you arrive in the
field. However, there are a few other hints which can help.
Adult flight periods are short and damage maybe confined to a
small number of planting dates and more severe when
germination and emergence is slow. Also, livestock or green
manures may attract more adults into fields to lay eggs and
increase the likelihood of damage. Leaf injury (small holes) is
possible but infrequent and is usually limited to the first leaf.
Wireworms may also be a cause of poor emergence. If fields
are scouted early, larvae can be found feeding on the seed or in
the base of the corn plant below ground. Larvae are somewhat
mobile and you may not find them on every damaged plant so
dig up a number of damaged seeds or plants. Field history will
also be a help with wireworm diagnosis. Damage is often more
severe in corn after small grains, pastures or other forage crops.
Above ground symptoms include dead/dying plants and holes in
the leaves but these symptoms are not exclusive to wireworm
feeding but rather to any insect which feeds on the base of the
corn plant. To confirm, dig up a number of corn plants and/or
Wisconsin Crop Manager
seeds and try to find the culprit. If none are present, rely on
field histories and crop rotations to confirm.
When above ground symptoms are evident (holes in leaves,
wilted whorl, dying plants) the first order of business would be
of course to find the insect. For help with identification go to
the IPM Field Crops Scouting Manual which can be found on
this website by clicking on publications and searching for the
title. Insects are mobile and may not be found on every
damaged plant so be sure do inspect a number of injured
seedlings. Dig around the roots, look underground for feeding
signs or an entrance hole, split the stalk, look for an above
ground entrance hole and under crop residue. If you find
nothing, it indicates that the insect you are looking for is very
cryptic (slugs or billbugs) or is not present and therefore control
measures are not necessary. However it is always a good idea
to give the farmer a possible diagnosis so they know what didn’t
cause the damage and so they can better prepare for next season.
These subtle hints can help.
Stalk borer damage is usually found next to fence rows,
grassy waterways or other patches of perennial weeds,
especially quackgrass and wirestem muhly. Initially you will
notice small feeding scars in the whorl when larvae are small
and beginning their migration to corn. Eventually they will
move farther down into the whorl or burrow into the stalk above
ground level. These symptoms will appear as larger holes in the
leaves, wilted whorl or dying plants.
Hopvine borer injury is often confined to the same field areas
as stalk borer and often their populations can be mixed.
Hopvine borer damage corn by tunneling into the plant below
ground level. Above ground symptoms are dead/dying plants
without holes in the leaves.
White grub damage to corn roots can lead to loss of vigor or
if they tunnel into the base of the corn plant symptoms similar
to hopvine borer. Although white grub damage may be in
pockets within a field it is usually not confined to fencerows
and waterways like hopvine borer.
Billbugs are an occasional insect pest on corn and are very
difficult to find. Rarely do they cause economic damage but the
concern for this article is damage confused with insect pests of
greater economic concern. Billbug feeding is concentrated
along field edges and often in association w/ perennial grasses
and yellow nutsedge. The adult weevil will chew a hole into the
above ground stem leaving a feeding scar which results in
leaves with holes that tend to be oblong. Rarely will you get
dead or dying plants.
Slugs are a pest favored by cool wet weather, crop residue
and/or weed growth. Slugs feed nocturnally and are difficult to
find during daylight hours. Fortunately their damage is unique.
Look for narrow longitudinal feeding scars running the length
of the leaf. Initially the cuticle will remain intact leaving a
window pane effect but will later drop out leaving an opening.
Another telltale sign of slug feeding is the slime trail left during
the previous nights feeding expedition.
54
 Time for Postemergence Corn Herbicides

Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist

In driving through the state this last week, most corn fields
look like they have a preemergence program that has controlled
early season weeds well. However, there are some corn fields
with modest densities of weeds emerging. These fields will
soon reach the time when postemergence herbicides need to be
applied to protect corn yields. In terms of yield protection,
remember that it is better to err on the early side when it comes
to weed control. It may be tempting to delay an herbicide
application until all the weeds are up so they can all be killed.
Unfortunately, they will have competed with corn for too long
and have cut into yield by this time. An early herbicide
application before weeds are 4 inches tall or the corn is about at
the V3 stage will remove weeds before they inflict much
damage. Even though some weeds might emerge after this
timing (if a non-residual herbicide was used), the yield loss
from their competition for the whole rest of the season will be
far less than allowing early weeds to compete.
If later herbicide applications need to be made to control
problem weeds or in rescue situations, be sure to make the
applications before the maximum labeled growth stages to avoid
corn injury or illegal residues in the harvested corn.
Common corn herbicides that can be applied postemergence
and their labeled growth stages.

The chart can be found on the following page (Pg. 56)

In the chart, “V” refers to “V-stage”, which describes the

number of leaf collars on a corn plant. The leaf collar is region
where the leaf blade joins the leaf sheath, which wraps around
the stalk.
„„„„„„„„

Wisconsin Crop Manager 55

Herbicide Corn stage
Accent 0-20" or V6; to 36" or V10 with drop nozzles
Atrazine 0-12"
Basagran no restriction
Basis 0-V2
Beacon 4-20" or V6; to tasseling with drop nozzles
Buctril 4 leaf to before tasseling
Cadet V2 to 48”
Callisto 0-30" or V8
Celebrity Plus 4-24" or V6
Dicamba (Clarity, etc.) 0-8" or 5 leaf; to 36" with drop nozzles
Glyphosate (Roundup, etc.) 0-30" or V8; to 48” with drop nozzles on RR2 hybrids
Halex GT 0-30” or V8
Hornet WDG 0-20” or V6; 20-36" with drop nozzles if harvested for grain
Impact emergence to 45 days before harvest
Laudis 0-V8
Ignite 0-24" or V7; 24-36" with drop nozzles
Marksman 0-8" or 5 leaf
NorthStar 4-20" or V2 -V6; to 36" with drop nozzles
Option V1-V6; to V7 with drop nozzles
Permit 0-36"
Priority 0-V8
Resolve Q 0-V6 or 20”
Shotgun 0-8"; to 12" with drop nozzles
Status 4-36” or V2 to V10
Steadfast 0-20" or V6
Stinger 0-24"
Stout 0-16” or V5
Unity V1-V5 or 16”
Yukon 0-36"
2,4-D 0-8"; to before tasseling with drop nozzles
Herbicides listed below can be applied postemergence for soil residual herbicide activity.
They do not provide postemergence control of grass weeds.
Bicep Lite II Magnum 0-5”
Camix 0-30" or V8
Dual II Magnum 0-40"
G-Max Lite 0-12"
Harness, Surpass, etc. 0-11"
Harness Xtra, Keystone LA 0-11”
Lumax 0-12"
Outlook 0-12"
Prowl 0-30" or V8
SureStart 0-11”

Wisconsin Crop Manager 56

 Volume 16 Number 15 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager
Soils and Fertility
Wisconsin’s Pre-sidedress Soil Nitrate Test.................. 57
Plant disease
Check Your Wheat Closely.......................................... 58
Early Season Assessments for Soybean Stress .............. 59
Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update .......... 62
Weeds
Comfrey Questions ...................................................... 60
Start Scouting for Volunteer Corn ................................ 61
Wisconsin’s Pre-sidedress Soil Nitrate Test
Scott Sturgul, Nutrient & Pest Management (NPM) Program
The large amount of rain some portions of the state have
received in the spring of 2009 may have some corn growers
wondering about the nitrogen (N) status of their fields. Is the N
from earlier fertilizer applications still there? Are the manure-N
or legume-N credits really available to this year’s corn crop?
A diagnostic tool that can answer these questions is the pre-
sidedress soil nitrate test (PSNT). The PSNT is a soil test
available to Wisconsin corn growers for improving the
efficiency of their N fertilizer applications. Not to be confused
with routine soil tests, soil N testing allows N fertilizer
application rates to be adjusted for field-specific conditions that
influence corn N need.
The PSNT is most useful for confirming legume and manure
N credits and providing site-specific estimates of soil N
availability. The test is particularly important when information
is not available to assess these credits using standard techniques,
such as when previous manure application rate and/or nutrient
content are unknown or when the stand density of a previous
alfalfa (or other legume forage) crop is unknown. Another
situation where the PSNT is of particular value is when
abnormal weather conditions occur that may impact N
mineralization rates (cool weather) or loss of N (excessive
rainfall).
Wisconsin Crop Manager
--- June 11, 2009
Soil samples for the PSNT are taken after planting when corn
is 6 to 12 inches tall. At this stage of the growing season most
of the conversion of organic N sources to plant-available forms
of N has usually occurred. PSNT soil samples are collected to a
depth of 1 foot at a sampling density of 15 soil cores per 20
acres. Cores are mixed to obtain a 1-cup composite subsample
for submitting to the soil testing laboratory. PSNT samples need
to be kept cool until taken to the lab. If samples are to be stored
for more than two days, they need to be either air-dried or
frozen to prevent changes in nitrate content during storage. The
PSNT is not recommended on sands and loamy sands.
Because of the rapid growth of corn at this point in the
growing season, it is imperative that PSNT soil sampling, lab
analysis, and supplemental sidedress N applications (if needed)
be completed within one to two weeks.
Results of the PSNT are interpreted using a critical value of
21 ppm nitrate-N. Fields testing above 21 ppm N are not likely
to respond to additional N. Fields with PSNT values below 21
ppm N probably will benefit from additional N. The amount of
N to apply to these fields is determined by subtracting the PSNT
N credit (Table 1) from your target N application rate.
Table 1. Nitrogen credits for corn based on PSNT results.
Soil yield potential 1
Very high/high Medium/low
PSNT value Nitrogen credit
- - ppm N - - - - - lb N/a - - -
> 21 - - - No Additional N is Needed - - -
18-20 100 80
15-17 60 80
13-14 35 40
11-12 10 40
< 10 0 0
1Soil yield potential ratings are assigned to each soil series found in
Wisconsin. Soil-specific ratings can be found in UWEX publication A2809
Nutrient application guidelines for field, vegetable and fruit crops.
Other considerations when using the PSNT:
1. Corn following alfalfa - Abnormally cool spring weather
can delay the release of N from legume residues. If a PSNT
result for corn following alfalfa is less than 21 ppm nitrate-
N, apply no more than 40 lb/a of supplemental N.
57
2. Corn following soybean - The PSNT does not work well in
assessing the N contribution from a previous soybean crop
and should not be used for this purpose.
The NPM Program has recently printed a pocket-sized card
that discusses the PSNT and the interpretation of test results.
The card be downloaded / viewed by clicking on the link below.
Free hard copies are available from the NPM Program by e-
mailing npm@hort.wisc.edu or calling 608-265-2660.
To download / view the card, click here:
PSNT card
Check Your Wheat Closely
Paul Esker and Shawn Conley, Extension Field Crops Plant
Pathologist and State Soybean and Small Grain Specialist
Winter wheat is rapidly advancing around the state, based
both on our observations as well as from various reports from
across the state. We have received some questions and
comments that growers are considering the application of foliar
fungicides but that the plants are at flowering. It is very
important that you closely examine the growth stage if
considering the application of a foliar fungicide. For example,
when we examined the winter wheat variety trial at Lancaster
on 3 June 2009, wheat ranged from Feekes 10.4 (heads
approximately 3/4 emerged) to Feekes 10.5.1 (anthesis) (Figure
1). These assessments are critical because many of the
fungicides that are commonly used for control of foliar
diseases in winter wheat, including Headline, Quilt,
Quadris, and Stratego, for example, are labeled only until
the Feekes 10.5 (full head emergence). Applications made
after this growth stage are considered off-label.
Figure 1. Wheat head at flowering. This image was obtained on
3 June at the Lancaster ARS Winter Wheat Variety Trial. Image
courtesy of Karen Lackermann.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Furthermore, pay particular attention to the severity of the
different wheat diseases and on which leaf symptoms are
observed. As we have recently discussed in the Soyreport blog
and in the Wisconsin Crop Manager, the decision to consider a
foliar fungicide at this point in the growing season for diseases
like powdery mildew, septoria leaf blotch, and wheat leaf rust
should be focused on the upper leaves. Also, make sure that you
properly identify diseases, as we have seen some virus
symptoms like Barley Yellow Dward Virus in plots (Figure 2).
Foliar fungicides are not effective against viruses.
Fusarium head blight update:
As we move into flowering, remember that this is the critical
period for infection by the pathogen that caused Fusarium head
blight. From the initial phase of flowering to the end of
flowering takes approximately seven days. Based on recent
weather conditions and the Fusarium head blight
prediction center , the current for Fusarium head blight
(as of June 3) is low across the state in Wisconsin.
We have also received some questions as to the current
situation around the U.S. Our situation in Wisconsin is much
better than other parts of the country, as the severity of
Fusarium head blight further south, starting in southern Illinois
and running into Arkansas and Kentucky, in particular, is high
and there are concerns regarding the risk of high DON
contamination.
Figure 2. Symptom of Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus. Image
couresty of Karen Lackermann.
58
 Figure 1. Field photo (top) showing plants that are under stress
Early Season Assessments for Soybean due to biotic factors (here, Rhizoctonia) and general evidence
Stress for a root rot of soybean.
Paul Esker and Shawn Conley,Field Crops Extension Plant
Pathologist and State Soybean and Small Grains Specialist
In 2008, we spent a great deal of time during the latter portion
of the growing season visiting soybean fields that were under
extreme stress. Specifically, we fielded many questions if the
Rps1k gene conferring Phytophthora resistance was breaking
down and also numerous questions regarding what we need to
do to improve soybean yield in Wisconsin. From our sampling
effort in 2008, we identified multiple pathogens including those
that cause stem canker and charcoal rot as well as multiple
species of Fusarium. This information was summarized over the
winter in multiple sources and we recommend consulting those
for a reminder and information regarding of our observations
(see references).
What we learned from last year, and a key point we
emphasized during the winter meeting season was that many of
these stresses may have started much earlier in the growing
season, or were induced when plants were stressed by other
abiotic or biotic factors. This hypothesis was further backed up
with statements by growers and consultants that went, “Well,
the plant looked stressed around V3 or V4, but I thought it
would grow out of it.”
With soybean now moving into the early vegetative growth
states, we want to emphasize that scouting fields earlier in 2009,
when soybean is from the second trifoliate (V2) to the fourth
trifoliate (V4), can help to determine if plants that are under
stress are due to biotic organisms (some discussed below) or
other factors, including environmental. While conditions this
spring have been different from what we saw in 2008, taking the
time to sample now is very critical to determine what may be
one of the causes of soybean stress that could affect yield at the
end of the growing season.
What pathogens might we be looking for? During this
period of vegetative growth, it is important to assess fields for
the effects of diseases caused by Phytophthora, Pythium, Figure 2. Images of Fusarium root rot and Pythium dampling-
Fusarium, and Rhizoctonia. These organisms have overlapping off.
characteristics but can be differentiated based on symptomology
(see Integrated Crop Management News from Iowa State
University. All can cause a lesion on the stem as well as a root
rot, however, Pythium normally occurs in the cool, wet soils,
while the other three organisms are more common in warmer,
wet soils. Phytophthora, Pythium, and Rhizoctonia can all cause
a seed rot (Figures 1-3), but that is less common for Fusarium.
For any samples that appear suspect, these can be submitted
to the Plant Disease and Diagnostic Clinic for confirmation.

Wisconsin Crop Manager 59


Figure 3. Images of Rhizoctonia and Phytophthora.
are turned back into fields. Comfrey is most likely spread by
tillage since root fragments can readily produce new
shoots. Despite the showy flowers, comfrey seldom produces
seed.
Comfrey is difficult to control with herbicides. However,
Jerry Doll, Emeritus UW weed scientist studied comfrey control
from 2001 to 2003 and he found that an integrated management
program can be successful. Jerry Doll’s recipe for success is
repeated here.

“Comfrey can be conquered. The formula for success

is to 1) plan to use a no-till system and glyphosate
resistant crops for two seasons, 2) plant comfrey-
infested fields last to delay the burndown application
of glyphosate as long as possible, 3) apply a low rate
of a soil-active herbicide with the burndown
treatment, 4) plant 3 days after applying the
burndown treatment, 5) apply 0.75 lb ae/a of
glyphosate when comfrey is well into the flowering
stage (probably mid to late June) and 6) consider
preharvest glyphosate applications if necessary.”

If you are interested in more details on other herbicide

options and trial results, an abstract of Jerry Doll’s research is
available at this site:
http://www.ncwss.org/proceed/2004/proc04/abstracts/17
8.pdf

Figure 1. Flowering comfrey shoots arising from thick

taproots. These plants are close to 2 feet tall.
References:

1. Hughes, T., P. Esker, and S. Conley. 2009. Taking

advantage of a stressful situation: stem canker and
charcoal rot in soybeans. Wisconsin Crop Manager,
Vol. 16, Number 2, Pages 9-11.
2. Hughes, T., P. Esker, and S. Conley. 2009. Did the
Rps 1k gene fail in Wisconsin in 2008? Wisconsin Soy
Sentinel, Spring 2009, Vol. 6, Issue 1, Pages 12-13.
3. Esker, P., S. Conley, J. Gaska, and T. Hughes.
Charcoal rot – a disease of drought stressed
environments. Wisconsin Soy Sentinel, Winter 2008,
Vol. 5, Issue 4, Page 16.

Image Sources: P. Esker (UW-Madison); C. Grau (UW-

Madison); American Phytopathological Society Image
Galley; Iowa State University; University of Nebraska

Comfrey Questions
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist
I’ve received a couple calls this summer asking for
identification of a leafy green perennial with a large taproot
(Figure 1.) The weed is comfrey and it is a very persistent,
difficult to control weed. It had been planted in gardens in the
past and was occasionally used as forage. Consequently, it
appears in fields around Wisconsin, perhaps as old farmsteads

Wisconsin Crop Manager 60

 Examples of herbicides for volunteer glyphosate-resistant corn
Start Scouting for Volunteer Corn control in soybean.
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist
The increasing adoption of glyphosate-resistant corn (e.g. RR, Volunteer
GT) increases the potential for volunteer corn problems in Herbicide Rate/acre Adjuvants
corn height
soybean when glyphosate is used for weed control. After all, the
Add 1 pt/a crop oil plus 2.5
resistance trait is inherited and is passed from one generation to 0-12 inches 4 oz
lb/a AMS
the next. If you remember your biology or genetics course, a
heterozygous corn hybrid (F1) is made when resistance is Add 2.5 lb/a AMS if loaded
Arrow glyphosate;
inherited from one inbred parent and the other parent is a
12-24 inches 6 oz 0.25% surfactant or 1 pt/a
conventional inbred. When this F1 hybrid is grown in a crop oil if non-loaded
production field, all the plants are resistant, but the resistant trait glyphosate
is only carried in half of the corn plant’s pollen and in half of
0-12 inches 4 oz Add 0.125% surfactant if
the ovules (eggs). The F2 seed that is harvested will be a mix of
Assure II or 12-18 inches 5 oz loaded glyphosate; 0.25%
resistant seed and conventional seed. The ratio should be three Targa surfactant if non-loaded
resistant seeds for each conventional seed. If any of this corn or 18-30 inches 8 oz glyphosate
ears fall to the ground and becomes volunteer corn, most will be
Add 0.25% crop oil even
resistant. The volunteer corn that was sprayed with glyphosate 0-12 inches 4 oz
with loaded glyphosate
in Figure 1 shows this segregation. Six plants are resistant and 2 Fusion
plants were killed by the glyphosate, a perfect 3:1 ratio. Clearly, Add 0.25-0.5% surfactant
12-24 inches 6 oz
or 0.5-1% crop oil
volunteer corn where 75% of plants have resistance is too much
to ignore. Add 0.25% crop oil even
0-12 inches 4 oz
Fusilade with loaded glyphosate
DX Add 0.25-0.5% surfactant
12-24 inches 6 oz
Figure 1. Volunteer corn in soybeans that has segregated for the or 0.5-1% crop oil
glyphosate resistant trait. 0-12 inches 6 oz Add AMS if loaded
12-24 inches 9 oz glyphosate;
SelectMax
0.25% surfactant + AMS if
24-36 inches 12 oz non-loaded glyphosate

The question of whether volunteer corn needs to be controlled

Fortunately, good volunteer corn control options exist in
glyphosate-resistant soybean. Most postemergence grass
herbicides (ACCase inhibitors) are very effective in controlling
volunteer corn. The notable exception is that Poast Plus can be
less effective. These herbicides can be tank mixed with
glyphosate, but the adjuvant requirements may be greater than
the typical ammonium sulfate (AMS) added with glyphosate
and may depend if a glyphosate formulation is “loaded”
(requires no additional surfactant) or “non-loaded” (surfactant is
required).
depends both on the competition from the corn and the potential
for dockage because of corn in the harvested soybeans. Based
on previous studies, soybean yield loss from volunteer corn is
probably in the neighborhood of 1% yield loss for every 75 to
100 “clumps” of corn per acre. This is a fairly low
density. Preventing a 1% yield loss will probably pay for the
cost of a grass herbicide to kill the corn.
Of course, a grass herbicide is not needed unless the previous
year’s corn hybrid was a RR or GT hybrid. Therefore, a key for
success is record keeping and tracking hybrids and fields. If
glyphosate-resistant volunteer corn is present in a field, a
second question is when to apply the grass herbicide – with the
first glyphosate application or with the second application if two
are planned. I would be inclined to add the grass herbicide to
the first application for the reason that the corn will be easier to
kill with lower rates and to remove the corn so it competes less
with the soybeans. The risk is that not all of the volunteer corn
has emerged. However, the late corn is probably not going to be
as damaging to soybean yields as the earlier corn and late corn
is also less likely to produce mature seed. I can see arguments
on both sides in terms of timing.
Volunteer glyphosate-resistant corn in this year’s RR or GT
corn cannot be controlled other than with cultivation. If this
year’s corn has LibertyLink (LL) resistance or is a LL stack,
Ignite can be used to control or suppress volunteer glyphosate-
resistant corn. Ignite may not kill all of the volunteer corn if it is
too large, but it should severely stunt it. Similarly, volunteer LL

Wisconsin Crop Manager 61

corn can be controlled with glyphosate. However, if last year’s
corn was a RR/LL stack, there are no herbicide control options.

UW-Extension/Madison Plant Disease

Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update
Brian Hudelson, Ann Joy, Amy Gibbs, and Brooke Weber,
Plant Disease Diagnostics Clinic

The PDDC receives samples of many plant samples from

around the state. The following diseases/disorders have
been identified at the PDDC since June 3, 2009;

PLANT/ SAMPLE DISEASE/ PATHOGEN COUNTY

TYPE DISORDER
FRUIT CROPS
Peach Peach Leaf Curl Taphrina deformans Dane
VEGETABLES
Tomato Fusarium Wilt Fusarium oxysporum Vernon

Sunburn None Dane

For additional information on plant diseases and their

control, visit the PDDC website at pddc.wisc.edu.



Wisconsin Crop Manager 62

 Volume 16 Number 16 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- June 18, 2009

Weeds The seeds from each plant were kept separate, were cold
treated to break their dormancy, and were planted in the
Giant Ragweed with Suspected Glyphosate Resistance . 63 greenhouse. Many seedlings grew and were sprayed with 1.5 lb
Fertility and Soil ae/a glyphosate. All of the plants were damaged by the
glyphosate, but some survived, especially seedlings from a
PSNT – does it mean anything this year? ....................... 64 couple parent plants. Unfortunately, the giant ragweed seed
collected from Arlington that was to be used as a sensitive
Crops check did not grow. Therefore, I did not have sensitive plants to
Wisconsin Vegetable Crop Update, 2009-1 ................... 65 determine how well the glyphosate worked in the greenhouse.
It seemed that the seedlings from some parent plants were more
Plant Disease tolerant to the glyphosate than others. This test did not confirm
Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update........... 66 resistance.
Because this test was not conclusive, a field test was
conducted this spring in the field immediately adjacent to the
2008 field. Glyphosate was sprayed at 0.75, 1.5, 2.25, and 3.0
lb ae/a (equivalent to 1 qt/a to 1 gal/a of a generic) in 10 by 30 ft
Giant Ragweed with Suspected Glyphosate plots with four replications. Most giant ragweed were 6 to 8
Resistance inches tall when sprayed. Two weeks after spraying, all plants
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist were dead except for some plants in a 50 by 30 ft area. The
standard 0.75 lb/a glyphosate rate killed all the ragweed except
for plants in this area (Figure 1). However, many plants
Biotypes of nine weed species have been documented as survived 0.75 lb/a in this area (Figure 2) and a few plants
glyphosate resistance in the U.S. However, glyphosate-resistant survived rates up to 3.0 lb/a (Figure 3) at 2 weeks after
weeds have not been OFFICIALLY confirmed in Wisconsin. spraying. We are monitoring the fate of these plants, but
This article reports on a giant ragweed population that is being several appear to be growing.
investigated for potential glyphosate-resistance. Note that
glyphosate-resistance is not new in giant ragweed as six other Figure 1. Giant ragweed was controlled at 2 weeks after being
states in the Midwest have already reported giant ragweed with sprayed with 0.75 lb ae/a glyphosate in most areas of the trial.
glyphosate resistance. What is important in this case is 1) this
serves as a reminder that the threat of glyphosate resistance is
real in Wisconsin (it’s not always going to be someone else’s
problem); 2) diverse weed management programs are warranted
to reduce risk of resistance; and 3) when poor weed control
occurs, resistance should be considered along with other causes
of performance problems.
This field was reported in 2008 when a small number of giant
ragweed plants survived two applications of glyphosate in
soybean. The first application contained 1.1 lb ae/a glyphosate
and the second contained 1.15 lb ae/a. (1.1 lb/a = 1.5 qt/a of
generic or 33 oz/a of PowerMax). Several plants that survived
were between the soybean rows suggesting that poor spray
interception was not a problem. Some plants regrew from lower
nodes on the stem after being sprayed whereas others were
stunted and then the main shoot continued to grow. These
symptoms showed the plants were sprayed and did not emerge
after the application. Seeds were collected from several of the
plants for greenhouse testing.

Wisconsin Crop Manager 63

Figure 2. Giant ragweed with suspected glyphosate was
damaged but not controlled at 2 weeks after being sprayed with
0.75 lb ae/a glyphosate in one area of the trial.
Figure 3. A few giant ragweed with suspected glyphosate were
severely damaged but not killed at 2 weeks after being sprayed
with 3.0 lb ae/a glyphosate in one plot of the trial.
At this time, I can only conclude that these giant ragweed are
suspected of being glyphosate resistant because I did not
officially compare them to a sensitive giant ragweed population.
I know that they were sprayed (no spray skips and they didn’t
emerge after spraying); weather conditions were favorable,
weed size was not excessive, and the glyphosate was effective
on a majority of the ragweed plants.
One point that these photos illustrate with glyphosate resistant
plants (if confirmed) is that glyphosate resistant weeds have a
lower level of resistance than most other cases of resistance. For
instance, triazine or ALS resistant weeds are almost immune to
injury from the herbicide because of the high level of resistance,
but glyphosate resistant weeds are often damaged and then
regrow. This creates the problem that glyphosate resistance is
harder to distinguish from other causes of poor glyphosate
Wisconsin Crop Manager
performance. Causes of poor control or escapes include spray
skips, low rates, too large of weeds, weeds under the canopy,
weeds emerged after spray application, rainfall too soon after
application, dusty leaves, spraying early or late in the day, etc.
You can review factors that affect glyphosate performance in at
the Glyphosate, Weeds and Crops website
http://www.glyphosateweedscrops.org/ Look for the
“Understanding Glyphosate to Increase Performance” bulletin
(click Available to open the bulletin list). If resistance is
suspected, you will also want to search for evidence of
resistance. Some standard features of herbicide resistant weeds
are:
A single weed species escaped controlled, but this weed
should have been controlled by the herbicide. A few cases exist
where more than one herbicide resistant weed species exists in a
field, but this is unlikely when resistance is first discovered.
Rule out weeds that have natural tolerance to glyphosate such as
yellow nutsedge or field horsetail.
• Dead weeds mixed with live weeds which indicate
the herbicide was applied to the escaping weeds.
• The field has a history of repeated use of the same
herbicide mode of action (check spray records for
herbicide history).
• Poor performance was noted in the same area in
previous years or resistance exists in the local area.
• No known application errors, weather conditions, or
large weed size to explain the lack of control.
If you strongly suspect glyphosate resistance and are seeking
management options OR if you are seeking management
options to diversify your program, please see the bulletins on
giant ragweed, waterhemp, horseweed, and common
lambsquarters on the Glyphosate, Weeds and Crops website
http://www.glyphosateweedscrops.org/ Click Available to
open the bulletin list. The management recommendations are at
the end of each bulletin.
PSNT – does it mean anything this year?
Carrie Laboski, Extension Soil Scientist
Over the past week I’ve received a few inquiries regarding
the validity of the pre-sidedress nitrate test (PSNT) for corn this
year considering the cool weather this spring. This is a very
valid question for many in Wisconsin. To answer it, we’ll look
at research results and weather summaries.
The accuracy of the PSNT to predict N credits was assessed
using data from 101 corn N rate response studies conducted
throughout Wisconsin from 1989-1999. These data showed that
on 59 % of the sites the PSNT underpredicted N credits from
manure and legumes when the average May-June air
temperature was more than 1°F below normal. Underpredicting
N credits means that using the PSNT in this situation would
have resulted in more N fertilizer being applied than was
needed. The underprediction of N credits in cool springs is a
result of slow early season N mineralization prior to PSNT
sampling, followed by a typical flush of N mineralization once
64
 Table 1. Air temperature departure from normal for selected Wisconsin cities.

Average air
temperature
Average weekly air temperature departure from normal* for the week departure from
City ending normal
10-May 17-May 25-May 31-May 7-Jun 14-Jun 3-May − 14 Jun
Eau Claire 4 -3 4 -3 -6 -8 -2.0
Green Bay 5 -4 2 -5 -7 -7 -2.7
La Crosse 3 -4 3 -4 -5 -8 -2.5
Madison 5 -1 4 -2 -5 -3 -0.3
Milwaukee 7 0 5 -3 -7 -6 -0.7

* Normal based on 1971-2000 data.

Source: Wisconsin Crop Progress
(http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Wisconsin/Publications/Crop_Progress_&_Condition/index.asp)

the soil warms up, ultimately resulting in more N being

available for the crop than the PSNT predicted. It should be
Wisconsin Vegetable Crop Update, 2009-1 
noted that when the average May-June air temperature was Alvin J. Bussan, Potato and Vegetable Cropping Systems
more than 1°F below normal, the PSNT accurately predicted N Specialist, UW-Madison, Department of Horticulture
credits on 37% of the sites and over predicted N credits on 4 %
of the sites.
Vegetable Crop Update newsletter issue one is out! This
So the question now is: How cold has it been? Using the marks the first newsletter of the 2009 year. Weekly updates
departure from normal of the weekly average air temperature should be available as disease, insect, weed, fertility, and crop
data published in the Wisconsin Crop Progress report we can progress changes.
see that it has been a cool spring. Table 1 shows the weekly
departures for five cities in Wisconsin and the average of those Upcoming events include:
departures from May through June. Air temperatures in May Friday, July 17, 2009 – Lelah Starks Foundation Seed Farm
and June in Central and Northern Wisconsin are more than 2°F Tour, Rhinelander
below normal, while portions of Southern Wisconsin are
nearing the 1°F below normal threshold. Thursday, August 6, 2009 – Potato Field Day, Hancock Ag
Research Station
Thus for Central and Northern Wisconsin we can expect that
the PSNT results will be low and result in a low N credit. In Friday, August 7, 2009 – Langlade Co. Potato Field Day,
these locations, a better N credit may be obtained this year by Antigo
using book value N credits for manure and legumes. For more
The first issue has been posted on the IPCM web site on a
information on book value N credits, consult your local County
new page titled appropriately : The Vegetable Crop Update
Extension Agent and/or Chapter 9 in Nutrient application
page. Look for a new menu item under "WCM-News" to find
guidelines for field, vegetable, and fruit crops in Wisconsin
this page, or click here :
(UWEX publication A2809;
http://ipcm.wisc.edu/WCMNews/VegCropUpdate/tabid/115/De
http://learningstore.uwex.edu/Nutrient-Application-Guidelines-
fault.aspx
for-Field-Vegetable-and-Fruit-Crops-in-Wisconsin-
P185C0.aspx ).
Based on past research and the current spring’s weather, the
PSNT should perform adequately in Southern Wisconsin. If
there is concern about the PSNT underpredicting N credits in
Southern Wisconsin, then delaying PSNT sampling by a week
or two, compared to normal, will allow more time for the soil
bacteria to mineralize N and potentially reduce the risk of the
PSNT underpredicting N credits.

Wisconsin Crop Manager 65

UW-Extension/Madison Plant Disease
Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update
Brian Hudelson, Ann Joy, Amy Gibbs, and Brooke Weber,
Plant Disease Diagnostics Clinic

The PDDC receives samples of many plant samples from

around the state. The following diseases/disorders have been
identified at the PDDC since June 10, 2009
PLANT/SAMPLE DISEASE/DISORDER PATHOGEN COUNTY
TYPE
FRUIT CROPS
Apple Phomopsis Canker Phomopsis sp. Richland

Sphaeropsis Canker Sphaeropsis sp. Richland

Peach Bacterial Canker Pseudomonas sp. Dane

Cytospora Canker Cytospora sp. Dane

Phomopsis Canker Phomopsis sp. Dane

Plum Plum Pockets Taphrina communis Green
SOILS
Alfalfa Soil Aphanomyces Seedling Blight Aphanomyces euteiches race 2 Fond du Lac,
Goodhue (MN)
VEGETABLES
Cucurbits Growth Regulator Herbicide None Dane
(Miscellaneous) Damage

For additional information on plant diseases and their

control, visit the PDDC website at pddc.wisc.edu.
„„„„„„„„

Wisconsin Crop Manager 66

 Volume 16 Number 17 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- June 25, 2009

What’s New The tour will end at the corn and soybean herbicide
demo area for people who wish to view these plots. The bus
UW Pest Management Field Day ............................................. 67
will shuttle people back to the Public Events Building until
Marshfield Ag Research Station to host Summer Field Day .... 67 lunch. You are also invited to return to any of the other trials
Crops
viewed during the tour at this time.

Wisconsin Vegetable Crop Update, 2009-2.............................. 68 12:00 Lunch ($10) Public Events Building
Considering Foliar Fungicides for Corn in 2009? .................... 69 Afternoon
Weeds Tour vegetable and IR-4 experiments with Dan Heider
and Russ Groves at the Horticulture Farm.
Perennial Cucumber Watch ...................................................... 68
Plant Disease
Tour any of the field experiments and demonstrations
listed in the Field Day Booklet or visit with UW faculty and
Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update ..................... 72 staff about specific trials.
CCA Credits: 2.5 hours requested
Directions: The Arlington Research Station is located about
UW Pest Management Field Day 20 miles north of Madison. From the south, exit I-90 onto US
Thursday, July 9, 2009 51. The station (and sign) is on the west side of US 51. From
the north, exit I-90 onto Hwy 60; drive east to Arlington and
Arlington Agricultural Research Station south on US 51. The Public Events Building and parking is at
You are invited to our fifth annual Pest Management Field the south end of the station’s complex.
Day, which features an array of information from our UW
Weed Science, Entomology, and Plant Pathology research
projects. It’s also a great opportunity to visit with these
researchers and each other about current management issues.
We hope that you can attend. Please spread the word regarding
the Field Day to your co-workers.
Schedule of Events
8:00 Coffee Public Events Building
8:30 Load tour bus
Weed management: Visit field experiments that
highlight developments with new and existing field corn, sweet
corn, soybean, and switchgrass herbicides and other weed
management practices. Weed management information will be
presented by Chris Boerboom, Mark Renz, and Dave
Stoltenberg.
Marshfield Ag Research Station to host
Disease management: Paul Esker, field crop plant Summer Field Day
pathologist, will show case trials with early season corn and
soybean diseases and discuss their identification and Mike Bertram, Acting Superintendent Marshfield Ag Research
management. Station

Insect management: Eileen Cullen, field crop entomologist,

will highlight aphid resistant soybeans and threshold research Marshfield Ag Research Station, UW-Extension, and the
along with 2009 field crop updates on other insect pests. Central Wisconsin Forage Council are sponsoring a Summer
11:30 Formal tour ends Field Day at the Marshfield Ag Research Station on

Wisconsin Crop Manager 67

Wednesday, July 1, starting at 10:15 a.m. Continuing education
units (CEU’s) will be available for Certified Crop Advisors. Perennial Cucumber Watch
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist
Morning Session:
The Value of Grass/Legume Mixtures, Dan Undersander UW
I was contacted to assist with the identification of this
Agronomy
perennial vine (Fig. 1), which is infesting a corn field. The
Managing Corn to Maximize Ethanol/Biofuel Potential, Joe vines have tendrils, hairy leaves and stems, and the vines arise
Lauer, UW-Agronomy from tubers (Fig. 2). The UW Herbarium has tentatively
identified the weed as Cucumis melo, which was domesticated
Current Soybean Management Research, Shawn Conley,
as cantaloupe. Wild types of this plant are generally tropical or
UW-Agronomy
sub-tropical, but this patch was found north of Hwy 18 off
Afternoon Session: County K in Grant County. Even though it has been in the 90s
this week, I don’t think we can classify Grant County as sub-
First Steps in Understanding N Availability from Treated
tropical. Therefore, I’m interested in hearing if you have seen
Manure, Carrie Laboski, UW-Soil Science
this plant. It would not be confused with burcucumber or wild
Using Alternative Nutrient Sources, Dick Wolkowski, UW- cucumber because of its heart-shaped leaves and its growth
Soil Science from tubers (Fig. 3).
Effects of Spontaneous Heating on the Quality of Hays Stored Figure 1. Cucumis melo vines climbing up corn plants. Note
in Large Bales, Wayne Coblentz, US Dairy Forage Research the heart-shaped leaves, which differ from the lobed or maple-
Center, Marshfield leaf shapes of burcucumber or wild cucumber.
This event is free and open to the public. Lunch will be
available for a nominal charge. Snacks and beverages will be
sponsored by the Central Wisconsin Forage Council, a Midwest
Forage Association Affiliate. Specialists will be available to
answer questions.
The Marshfield Agriculture Research Station “South Farm” is
located at 2611 East 29th St. (formerly 8396 Yellowstone Drive)
just off of County Hwy A. For more information call 715-387-
2523, Ext. 101
A flyer/itinerary is available here:
http://ipcm.wisc.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=4y6KRiliWqI%
3d&tabid=114&mid=669

Wisconsin Vegetable Crop Update, 2009-2 

Alvin J. Bussan, Potato and Vegetable Cropping Systems
Specialist, UW-Madison, Department of Horticulture

Figure 2. Vines were able to emerge from tubers, which were

Vegetable Crop Update newsletter issue two is out! This several inches deep.
marks the second newsletter of the 2009 year. Weekly updates
should be available as disease, insect, weed, fertility, and crop
progress changes.
Upcoming events include:
Friday, July 17, 2009 – Lelah Starks Foundation Seed Farm
Tour, Rhinelander
Thursday, August 6, 2009 – Potato Field Day, Hancock Ag
Research Station
Friday, August 7, 2009 – Langlade Co. Potato Field Day,
Antigo
The second issue has been posted on the IPCM web site on a
new page titled appropriately : The Vegetable Crop Update
page. Look for a new menu item under "WCM-News" to find
this page, or click here:
http://ipcm.wisc.edu/WCMNews/VegCropUpdate/tabid/115/De
fault.aspx

Wisconsin Crop Manager 68

Figure 3. Tubers ranged in size from 1.5 to over 3 inches long.
One confusing item yet to be resolved with this weed is that
references for Cucumis melo list it as an annual, which is what
cantaloupe and muskmelon are. However, this plant is clearly
perennial. Please let me know if you have seen this plant so we
can determine if this is an isolated infestation or not.
Considering Foliar Fungicides for Corn in
2009?
A Look at the Results of University Trials in
Wisconsin and the North Central Region
Paul Esker and Joe Lauer, Extension Plant Pathologist and
Extension Corn Agronomist
We continue to receive questions regarding the cost-effective
use of foliar fungicides in corn. Continuing with the previous
two articles in the Wisconsin Crop Manager that focused on
results from on-farm foliar fungicide trials for corn grain and
corn silage, in this article, we would like to address some of the
questions that have been raised over the past winter meeting
season regarding the use of foliar fungicides for corn. These
questions have been about the perceived need for foliar
fungicides, field plot layout and design, the number of
observations (i.e., sample size), the question of an increase in
yield in the absence of disease (i.e., plant health), and the role of
IPM for corn disease management. All of these questions have
relevance and need to be addressed, as well as misconceptions
regarding the data coming from our small plot trials, in
particular.
Background.
To begin, sound corn production must follow an IPM
framework. In addition, understanding the risk of yield loss in
corn production is critical since there are numerous variables
that must be considered. Consult the 2009 Wisconsin Corn
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Conferences presentation, specifically for the “top ten”
agronomic and economic consequences of corn management
decisions in Wisconsin, to understand how different variables
may affect yield. When you examine this list closely, all of
these variables are components that can affect the likelihood of
corn disease development, a topic discussed throughout the
winter meeting season. For an example of that discussion,
please consult the following presentation.
One question that has been discussed over the winter meeting
season has been the role of “open” versus “closed” plots and
whether these create unique microenvironments. Likewise, there
continues to be questions about small plots versus long strip
trials and whether small plot data are meaningful at the farm
scale. In all of our trials, except Hancock, alleyways measured
two to four feet between replicate blocks. It is unlikely that
alleys of this size cause failure of foliar fungicide treatments. At
Hancock, we did have 10 foot alleyways between replicate
blocks; however, our plot dimensions were 8 rows wide and 50
feet long (approximately double the size of corn efficacy trial
plots). Also, we did not note any difference in the level
(severity) of corn diseases when scouting in these plots, whether
in the middle of the plot or at the end.
A Look at Trial Results.
In 2008, the Field Crops Plant Pathology program conducted
foliar fungicide trials at multiple locations (not including the on-
farm trials around the state), including, Arlington, Hancock, and
Lancaster. These studies included general efficacy trials as well
as trials focused on the effect of previous crop history and
fungicide timing on corn disease development and yield (Esker
et al. 2009). The UW Corn Agronomy group has conducted
research related to corn response to foliar fungicides and a
summary of the 2008 trials are available in the “Gold Book” at
http://corn.agronomy.wisc.edu/Research/Default.aspx One
study that was conducted in 2008 and 2007 was a foliar
fungicide trial in a corn-soybean-wheat long term rotation block
that examined the effect of corn hybrid and fungicide on corn
yield.
Field Crops Plant Pathology Efficacy Trials. In our trials
conducted at Arlington and Lancaster, the hybrid Pioneer
37Y14 was used. This hybrid has the following disease ratings
(1 = poor; 9 = outstanding): northern corn leaf blight (6),
anthracnose stalk rot (4), Gibberella ear rot (5), eyespot (6), and
common rust (4). Plots measured 4 rows by 50 feet long and
were planted at a density of 33,000 plants per acre.
At Lancaster, yield ranged from 124 bushels per acre (Quilt)
to 157 bushels per acre (Evito at 2 ounces per acre), but there
was no evidence of differences among the treatments (P = 0.88)
(Lauer 2002). Furthermore, there was no evidence of an effect
of foliar fungicide on either grain moisture (P = 0.58) (Range:
18.6 to 19.8%) or test weight (P =0.86) (Range: 56.5 to 57.2
pounds per bushel). In Figure 1, raw data are shown using a
stripchart; plot yields were quite variable and centered around
the mean yield for the trial of 135 bu/a. Disease severity prior to
fungicide application was low (< 1%, common rust); post-
application, there was no evidence of any differences in disease
severity for common rust, eyespot, anthracnose leaf blight, or
incidence of stalk rot (based on a push test).
69
Figure 1. Stripchart showing all raw data, by replicate and treatment, for corn foliar
fungicide efficacy trials conducted at the Lancaster ARS (Lancaster, WI). Each At Arlington, results were similar to
symbol represents the plot yield for each plot. The mean yield for the trial was 135 Lancaster in that there was no evidence of an
bu/a and is shown by the hortizontal line. All compounds were applied at R1 at their effect of treatment, as mean yield ranged
recommended or desired rate for the study. from 176 (experimental) to 194 (Evito at 3
ounces per acre) (P = 0.90), grain moisture (P
= 0.63) (Range: 22.3 to 23.6%), and test
weight (P = 0.50) (Range: 52.2 to 55.9
pounds per bushel). In Figure 2, raw data are
shown using a stripchart; plot yields were
quite variable and centered around the mean
yield for the trial of 185 bu/a. Disease
severity prior to fungicide application was
low (< 1%, common rust); post-application,
there was no evidence any treatment
differences for disease severity of common
rust, eyespot, anthracnose leaf blight, or the
incidence of stalk rot (based on push test).
Incidence of stalk rot at Arlington was lower
than at Lancaster.
Role of Previous Crop History and Foliar
Fungicides. Based on results from the
regional trials in 2007, another study was
established in 2008 at the Arlington and
Hancock ARS to examine the effect of
previous crop history and fungicide
application timing on disease development
and yield. In these trials, the previous crop at
Arlington was either corn or soybean, while
at Hancock, the previous crop was either
Figure 2. Stripchart showing raw data, by replicate and treatment, for corn foliar corn or potato. The fungicide treatments
fungicide efficacy trials conducted at the Arlington ARS (Arlington, WI). The mean were: (i) untreated check, (ii) Stratego at 10
yield for the trial was 185 bu/a and is shown with the horizontal line. For comparison, ounces per acre at V12, (iii) Stratego at 10
the mean yield for the WICST trials for continuous from 2000 to 2006 was 187 bu/a. ounces per acre at VT-R1, and (iv) Stratego
All compounds were applied at R1 at their recommended or desired rate. at 10 ounces per acre at R2. Corn hybrids
were DeKalb (DKC) 57-79 at Arlington and
DKC46-28 at Hancock, both planted to
33,000 per acre (Table 1). Overall disease
severity was low throughout this study (< 1%
severity of common rust on the ear leaf). A
summary of the yield results is presented in
Table 2. There was no evidence of an effect
of foliar fungicides on corn yield at either
location. We hypothesize that the lower
yields in our previous crop soybean at
Arlington were in part due to nitrogen loss
from the early season flooding rains.
(See Tables 1 and 2 on following page)

Corn/Soybean/Wheat Rotation Study –

Foliar Fungicides for Corn. This trial was
conducted at Arlington in long-term rotation
plots. A preliminary study was conducted on
one hybrid in 2007. The treatments were
rotation (corn-corn, corn-soybean, corn-
soybean-wheat, corn-wheat-soybean), hybrid
(DKC57-79 and DKC54-49 (Table 1)), and
fungicide (untreated check, Headline,
Quadris, and Quilt). One of the objectives of

Wisconsin Crop Manager 70

Table 1. Disease ratings for DKC57-79, DKC46-28, and DKC54-49 for foliar fungal diseases that were observed in Wisconsin in 2008.Z
Hybrid NCLBY GLS Eyespot Common ALB ASR
rust
DKC57-79 3X 6 3 4 3 3
DKC46-28 3 5 2 3 3 5
DKC54-49 3 5 3 4 3 6
Z
DKC57-79 and DKC46-28 were used in previous crop-foliar fungicide trials at Arlington and Hancock, WI, respectively, while
DKC57-79 and DKC54-49 were used in the corn/soybean/wheat long term rotation study at Arlington, WI.
Y
NCLB = Northern corn leaf blight; GLS = gray leaf spot; ALB = anthracnose leaf blight; ASR = anthracnose stalk rot.
X
Disease ratings ranged from 1-9, where 1-2 = Excellent, 3-4 = Very Good, 5-6 = Good, 7-8 = Fair, and 9 = Poor.

Table 2. Summary of yield and grain moisture for trials conducted at the Arlington and Hancock ARS to examine the effect of previous
crop history and fungicide timing on disease development and yield.
Location: Arlington Location: Hancock
Previous: corn Previous: soybeanZ Previous: corn Previous: potato
Treatment Yield Moisture Yield Moisture Yield Moisture Yield Moisture
(bu/A) (%) (bu/A) (%) (bu/A) (%) (bu/A) (%)
Untreated 223 26.5 176 22.8 220 18.9 234 19.4

Stratego (V12) 217 27.0 178 22.4 218 19.0 233 18.8

Stratego (VT- 223 27.1 172 22.6 213 19.9 223 21.1
R1)
Stratego (R2) 225 27.4 187 22.9 212 19.7 243 19.9

P-value 0.85 0.80 0..70 0..87 0..91 0.52 0.58 0..13

LSDY NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD
Z
In the previous crop soybean, the fourth replication was lower in yield than all other replicate observations, however, this has
been kept in the analysis initially.
Y
LSD stands for the least significant different. NSD stands for not statistically different and implies there is no evidence that
there is an effect of treatment (e.g., effect of foliar fungicide application).

interest was to determine if differences in anthracnose

stalk rot rating may affect the yield response, as Figure 3. Corn yield response to fungicide application in 2008 at Arlington, WI,
DKC57-79 has a “very good” stalk rot rating, while stratified by fungicide treatment and rotation.
DKC54-49 “good to fair” rating. Plots measured 10
feet by 60 feet. Fungicide applications were made at
VT.
Results from this study indicated a three-way
interaction among the three treatments listed above.
Yield response was quite variable ranging from 164
bu/a to 219 bu/a. A summary of the grain yield by
treatment combination is presented in Figure 3.
Furthermore, to determine if there was a single key
effect for the three-way interactions, we examined the
grower return ($/acre). Grower return ranged from
$523 to $745/A.
Some key points from these results include that in
the top ten grower returns, there were none from a
corn-following-corn rotation and that each fungicide
treatment was observed at least two times. In the
bottom ten grower returns, eight of those ten were
from corn-following-corn rotations and, except for
Quadris, the other two fungicide treatments were
observed three times.
Wisconsin Crop Manager 71
 In all of the top ten returns, yield was greater than 200 bu/a References:
(mean yield = 214 bu/a), while in the bottom ten returns, yield
Esker, P., Halfman, B., and Jensen, B. 2009. Management
never was above 200 bu/a (mean yield = 183 bu/a). These
decisions for foliar fungicides in corn. Proceedings of the 2009
results indicate that predicting when a foliar fungicide will be
Wisconsin Crop Management Conference, Vol. 48: 47-50.
cost-effective is difficult. Consideration of additional factors
like rotation and genetics is a must for understanding how to
improve corn yield.
Lauer, J. 2002. Methods for calculating corn yield. Agronomy
Regional University Trials. Similar to the 2007 growing Advice. Available on at
season, Extension Plant Pathologists provided data for a http://corn.agronomy.wisc.edu/AA/A033.aspx
regional summary on foliar fungicides of corn. Compiled by
Shaner, G. 2008. Regional Corn Fungicide Trials – 2008.
Greg Shaner, Purdue University, there were 68 trials compiled
Presented at the 2008 Corn Disease Management Working
from 13 states and Ontario (Shaner 2008). Specifically, the
Group Meeting, Chicago, IL.
results of these combined trials illustrated the efficacy of a foliar
fungicide for disease control. In the 2008 trials, a mean yield
response of greater than 8 bushels per acre was observed in
trials where the untreated check had at least a disease severity UW-Extension/Madison Plant Disease
greater than 5% on the ear leaf in late season assessments. This Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update
may provide a potential threshold for considering the
application of a foliar fungicide, however, further research is Brian Hudelson, Ann Joy, Amy Gibbs, and Brooke Weber,
necessary. As such, this is not the current recommended disease Plant Disease Diagnostics Clinic
severity threshold for making a foliar fungicide application.
Also, it should be noted that the number of comparisons (i.e., The PDDC receives samples of many plant samples from
the number of trials comparing the untreated check with the around the state. The following diseases/disorders have been
foliar fungicide treatment) where this response was observed identified at the PDDC since June 17, 2009:
was only 34% of the comparisons. In the majority of trials, there
was no need for a foliar fungicide application.
To examine the results from the regional PLANT/ DISEASE/ PATHOGEN COUNTY
summary, please check here. SAMPLE DISORDER
Overall – Looking Ahead to 2009. TYPE

To date, we have conducted research on foliar FORAGES

fungicides for corn grain and corn silage, and Alfalfa Root Rot Aphanomyces euteiches, Jefferson
using both small plot and large strip methods. Pythium sp., Rhizoctonia
Results from our foliar fungicide trials have not sp..
shown a consistent benefit from using foliar
fungicides. We will continue to conduct both FRUIT CROPS
our small plot (University trials and on-farm)
Apple Fire Blight Erwinia amylovra Crawford
and large strip (on-farm) foliar fungicide trials
in 2009 as it helps to improve our ability to
make the most appropriate management Tubercularis Tubercularia sp. Crawford
recommendations for producers. (Nectria) Canker
Corn production is a combination of factors Raspberry Root/Crown Rot Pythium sp., Fusarium sp., Waukesha
that begins with hybrid selection. Furthermore, Cylindrocarpon sp.
there has been a tremendous amount of research
to understand how factors like date of planting,
pest control (insect, weed, disease), plant Phomopsis sp.
Waukesha
density, rotation, soil fertility, harvest timing,
tillage, and row spacing all affect corn yield. In For additional information on plant diseases and their control,
terms of foliar fungicides, in the trials where disease severity visit the PDDC website at pddc.wisc.edu.
has been higher (> 5% on the ear leaf), response has been
„„„„„„„„
higher; however, the vast majority of trials across the Corn Belt
have had disease severity less than 5%. With foliar fungicide
prices in the $25-30/a range for 2009 (product cost plus
application cost) and the lack of consistent results from using
foliar fungicides across trials and locations, foliar fungicides
should not be used on corn unless disease resistance of the
hybrid was susceptible.

Wisconsin Crop Manager 72

 Volume 16 Number 18 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager
What’s New
Training for Nutrient Management Planners
Workshops ...................................................................... 73
Crop Diagnostic Training Center 2009 Workshops
Approaching ................................................................... 73
Crops
Healthy Growth Certified Potato Farms Develop
Ecological Restoration Standard .................................... 74
Wisconsin Vegetable Crop Update, 2009-3 ................... 74
Plant Disease
Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic Update (PDDC) .......... 74
Training for Nutrient Management Planners
Workshops
Scott Sturgul, NPM Program
Two workshops designed for current and potential nutrient
management plan writers in Wisconsin will be offered in late
summer and early fall. The intent of these two-day workshops is
to provide in-depth training on the preparation of quality
nutrient management plans. The program is designed for
production agronomists and county-based conservation staff
involved in nutrient management programs. Others are welcome
to attend as well. Participants will work in small groups to
prepare a functional plan for a real Wisconsin farm. The
workshops will be held on August 31 and September 1, 2009 at
the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Madison on September 28 and 29,
2009 at the Stoney Creek Inn in Wausau.
The 2009 Training for Nutrient Management Planners
Workshops are revised versions of similar programs offered in
2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005. Updated topics include: 1) Current
federal and state program requirements. 2) Introduction to new
nutrient management planning tools. 3) Overview of the SNAP-
Plus nutrient management planning software program.
Enrollment in each workshop is limited to 80 participants.
Advance registration for the workshop is required and the
registration fee is $200 per person. The registration deadlines
are August 21, 2009 for the Madison workshop and September
18, 2009 for the Wausau workshop. Wisconsin Certified Crop
Advisors (CCAs) will receive a $50.00 discount on the
Wisconsin Crop Manager
--- July 2, 2009
registration fee courtesy of the Wisconsin CCA Board. A link to
the brochure that contains an agenda and registration
information is: http://tinyurl.com/loturb.
The TNMP workshops are a joint effort of the University of
Wisconsin-Extension, UW-Madison Department of Soil
Science, Discovery Farms Program, Nutrient and Pest
Management Program, the Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, and the USDA-Natural
Resources Conservation Service.
For more information about the workshop or to request
registration materials, contact Scott Sturgul at 608-262-7486,
ssturgul@wisc.edu. To register for the workshop, contact Carol
Duffy at 608-262-0485, cjduffy@wisc.edu.
Crop Diagnostic Training Center 2009
Workshops Approaching
Download the two page workshop flyer and registration form
>>> CDTC 2009 brochure
Crop & Pest Management Workshop
A multi-disciplinary and in-depth workshop covering
agronomic concerns ranging from identification of crop and pest
production problems to management options within production
systems.
Registration Fee: $50 (2 tiered fee: $50 by 7/18/09; $60 after
7/18/09
Date: July 28, 2009
Location: Arlington Ag Research Station
CCA CEU’s: 1.5 Nutrient Management, 1.5 Crop Management,
4.5 Pest Management
Diagnostic Troubleshooting Workshop
This Workshop gives you the opportunity to fine tune your
crop diagnostic skills in a fun and interactive setting. Small
groups will rotate through field problems with UW Specialists
role playing as farmers.
Registration Fee: $50 (2 tiered fee: $50 by 8/8/09; $60 after
8/8/09)
Date: August 18, 2009
Location: Arlington Ag Research Station
CCA CEU’s: to be determined
73
 page. Look for a new menu item under "WCM-News" to find
Healthy Grown Certified Potato Farms this page, or click here >>>
Develop Ecological Restoration Standard http://ipcm.wisc.edu/WCMNews/VegCropUpdate/tabid/11
Deana Knuteson, NPM Program, UW-Madison 5/Default.aspx

UW-Extension/Madison Plant Disease

The Healthy Grown eco-label program has added a natural Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update
community standard to restore non-agricultural lands and
privately owned farmlands. In 2007, the new ecosystem Brian Hudelson, Ann Joy, Amy Gibbs, and Brooke Weber,
conservation section to the standards called the Natural Plant Disease Diagnostics Clinic
Community Standard was unveiled. To obtain certification,
each farm develops a grower plan for managing selected natural The PDDC receives samples of many plant samples from
areas and documenting activities. During the 2008 growing around the state. The following diseases/disorders have been
season, over 400 acres were restored due to this standard. This identified at the PDDC since June 24, 2009:
growing season should see expansion to the acres in the
program, and to ensure credibility, growers are asked to
PLANT DISEASE PATHOGEN COUNTY
maintain records to promote proper execution of thier their
individual farm plans. /SAMPLE /DISORDER
TYPE
FIELD
The standard consists of targets identified in the Central
CROPS
Wisconsin regional plan that protect specific habitats (oak
savanna, river bottom forest, prairie, oak/pine barrens, sedge Corn Eyespot Aureobasidium Dane
meadows, and Karner blue butterfly areas). Growers must zeae
perform restoration activities on prioritized lands on their
farms. These activities (such as cutting, burning, planting of Wheat Powdery Mildew Oidium sp. Green
native species, and/or controlling invasive species) will FRUIT
ensure the protection of the ecosystem targets, enhancing the CROPS
biodiversity within the growers landscapes and ultimately
for the entire region. The protections of these areas are Apple Black Rot Sphaeropsis sp. Dane
audited by verifying specific activities done by growers on
their individual farms.
For additional information on plant diseases and their control,
visit the PDDC website at pddc.wisc.edu.
For more information about the program, contact Deana „„„„„„„„
Knuteson at dknuteson@wisc.edu or 608-265-9798. For
specific ecological and conservation questions, contact Alison
Duff (ecosystem coordinator at the International Crane
Foundation) at alison@savingcranes.org or 608-356-9462 ext.
157.

Wisconsin Vegetable Crop Update, 2009-3

Alvin J. Bussan, Potato and Vegetable Cropping Systems
Specialist, UW-Madison, Department of Horticulture
Vegetable Crop Update newsletter issue three is
out! This marks the third newsletter of the 2009 year. Weekly
updates should be available as disease, insect, weed, fertility,
and crop progress changes.
Upcoming events include:
Friday, July 17, 2009 – Lelah Starks Foundation Seed Farm
Tour, Rhinelander
Thursday, August 6, 2009 – Potato Field Day, Hancock Ag
Research Station
Friday, August 7, 2009 – Langlade Co. Potato Field Day,
Antigo
The third issue has been posted on the IPCM web site on a
new page titled appropriately: The Vegetable Crop Update

Wisconsin Crop Manager 74

 Volume 16 Number 19
What’s New
2009 Wisconsin Farm Technology Days........................ 75
Crops
Wisconsin Vegetable Crop Update, 2009-4 ................... 75
Insects and Mites
Soybean Aphid Densities are Low, But Start Scouting
Now ................................................................................ 76
Plant Disease
Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic Update ........................ 77
2009 Wisconsin Farm Technology Days
Dodge County • July 21-23, 2009
Admission: $5 (12 and under free)
Tuesday and Wednesday, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.
Thursday, 9 a.m. - 4 p.m.
Crave Brothers Farm • Waterloo, Wisconsin
The 2009 Wisconsin Farm Technology Days will be held at
Crave Brothers Farm located in southern Dodge County.
George, Charles, Tom, and Mark Crave, along with their
--- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- July 9, 2009
families, will host the event on July 21-23, 2009, in Waterloo,
Wisconsin.
Wisconsin Farm Technology Days, Wisconsin’s premier
agricultural technology exposition, is the state’s largest outdoor
agricultural show. The annual three-day event showcases the
latest technology in production agriculture to approximately
80,000 visitors through:
Farm tours of Crave Brothers Farm featuring a modern dairy
with high producing Holstein herd, Crave Brothers Classics
Farmstead cheese factory crafting specialty award winning
cheeses, and an automated manure digestion system that
collects valuable biogas from manure to generate electricity
while reducing odors
Field demonstrations of the latest in mowing, raking,
merging, harvesting, baling, and transport equipment manure
system application and management
More than 600 commercial exhibitors with the latest products
and service offerings
University of Wisconsin presents practical applications of
recent research and educational programs in livestock
production, milk quality, weed control, forage handling and
storage, home landscaping and gardening
The show is presented in partnership with the Wisconsin
Farm Technology Days, Inc., UW-Extension, and teaming with
a host county. Dodge County serves as coordinator of the 2009
show with the cooperation of an executive committee and
countless volunteers and event sponsors.
More information available at: http://www.dodgefarmtech.com/
Wisconsin Vegetable Crop Update, 2009-4
Alvin J. Bussan, Potato and Vegetable Cropping Systems
Specialist, UW-Madison, Department of Horticulture
Vegetable Crop Update newsletter issue four is
out! This marks the fourth newsletter of the 2009 year.
Weekly updates should be available as disease, insect, weed,
fertility, and crop progress changes.
Upcoming events include:
Friday, July 17, 2009 – Lelah Starks Foundation Seed Farm
Tour, Rhinelander
Thursday, August 6, 2009 – Potato Field Day, Hancock Ag
Research Station
Wisconsin Crop Manager 75
 Friday, August 7, 2009 – Langlade Co. Potato Field Day,
Antigo
Tue – Wed, August 11-12, 2009 – Sweet Corn Hybrid and
Snap Bean Demonstration Tour, Hancock
The fourth issue has been posted on the IPCM web site on a
new page titled appropriately: The Vegetable Crop Update
page. Look for a new menu item under "WCM-News" to find
this page, or click here >>>
http://ipcm.wisc.edu/WCMNews/VegCropUpdate/tabid/11
5/Default.aspx
Soybean Aphid Densities are Low, But Start
Scouting Now
Eileen Cullen, Extension Entomologist
Wisconsin soybeans have yet to see economic soybean aphid
densities. Statewide, field averages continue to be well below
the economic threshold of 250 aphids/plant. However, soybean
aphids are present in fields and the time to begin scouting is
now.
Growers and consultants should begin monitoring soybean
fields for soybean aphid, and many have been scouting for a
couple of weeks now. Regular field scouting will be important
from late vegetative/beginning bloom, all the way through the
R5 growth stage as seeds develop in the pods.
Check 20-30 plants per field, from 80% of the field to obtain
a representative sample. Examine the entire plant, particularly
new growth at the top of plants. Use the economic threshold of
250 aphids/plant (field average). Regular field visits are
required to determine if soybean aphid populations are
increasing.
Soybean Aphid Scouting and Management Resources for 2009
• UW Soybean Plant Health website for information
on 2009 Soybean Aphid Management. Includes
scouting, economic threshold and insecticide
management information-
www.plantpath.wisc.edu/soyhealth/aphids/aphid_ma
nagement.htm
• Soybean Aphid ipmPIPE
http://sba.ipmpipe.org
• Soybean Aphid Biological Control
Provides new information on soybean aphid
predators and parasitoids in Wisconsin and the North
Central States
http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/sabc/
• Wisconsin Pest Bulletin, WI DATCP
http://pestbulletin.wi.gov/
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Soybean aphid densities are also very low in my program’s
conventional and organic research plots at Arlington, WI where
we are averaging less than 20 aphids per plant. In our counts,
we find the occasional ant-tended plant with 100-200+ aphids,
but overall plot averages are typically 10 aphids/plant or lower.
However, our research plots are about 50% infested so there is a
very low soybean aphid density fairly well distributed in our
plots, which could lead to economic populations in the coming
weeks.
Krista Hamilton, WI DATCP Pest Survey and WI Pest
Bulletin http://pestbulletin.wi.gov/ reported last week’s state
survey of 61 Wisconsin soybean fields in the V1-V5 growth
stage. WDATCP surveys in Columbia, Dane, Green, and Rock
counties found 1-18 aphids/plant on 5-60% of plants in the
fields checked. In Grant, Iowa, Lafayette and Sauk counties,
densities ranged from 3-163 aphids/plant on 25-70% of plants.
Moderately infested soybean fields may develop economic
populations within the next two weeks. In the central counties
of Adams, Fond du Lac and Marquette, densities varied from 2-
11 aphids per infested plant on 5-38% of plants. No aphids were
detected in 61% of the fields appraised in the southern half of
the state.
I am also providing soybean aphid scouting report updates for
Wisconsin at the online pest tracking system, ipmPIPE – the
Integrated Pest Management - Pest Information Platform for
Extension and Education http://sba.ipmpipe.org . The ipmPIPE
is a good place to get a quick state and regional look at soybean
aphid densities and Extension commentary on soybean aphid
management recommendations. The ipmPIPE data should be
used as ‘sentinel’ plots to help you gauge changing soybean
aphid conditions throughout Wisconsin. Always conduct local
and on-farm field scouting before you decide to treat a soybean
field for soybean aphid. Regional mapping data should be used
for general sentinel purposes only.
Thank you to UW Extension County Agricultural Agents and
the WI DATCP Pest Survey who are all contributing weekly
soybean aphid scouting information to our Wisconsin map on
the ipmPIPE.
76
UW-Extension/Madison Plant Disease
Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update
Brian Hudelson, Ann Joy, Amy Gibbs, and Brooke Weber,
Plant Disease Diagnostics Clinic

The PDDC receives samples of many plant samples from

around the state. The following diseases/disorders have been
identified at the PDDC since July 1, 2009:

PLANT/SAMPLE DISEASE/ PATHOGEN COUNTY

TYPE
DISORDER
FIELD CROPS
Corn Anthracnose Colletotrichum Columbia
graminicola
Yellow Leaf Blight Columbia
Phyllosticta maydis
Soybean Growth Regulator None Marinette
Herbicide Damage
FORAGE CROPS
Alfalfa Aphanomyes Aphanomyces euteiches Fond du Lac
Seedling Blight/Root
Rot
FRUIT CROPS
Apple Black Rot Sphaeropsis sp. McHenry
(IL)
Grape Growth Regulator None Dane
Herbicide Damage
VEGETABLES
Tomato (‘Shanty’) Bacterial Canker Clavibacter michiganensis Green Lake
subsp. michiganensis

For additional information on plant diseases and their control,

visit the PDDC website at pddc.wisc.edu.
„„„„„„„„

Wisconsin Crop Manager 77

 Volume 16 Number 20 ---
What's new!
Minnesota Strip-tillage Expo .......................................... 78
Introducing Matthew Digman ........................................ 78
Crops
Wisconsin Vegetable Crop Update ................................. 79
Don’t Exceed Maximums in Roundup Ready Soybean
........................................................................................ 79
HPPD Injury to Soybeans ............................................... 80
Weeds
Harvest Aids for Winter Wheat ...................................... 80
Plant Disease
Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic Update ........................ 81
Minnesota Strip-tillage Expo
Dick Wolkowski, Extension Soil Scientist
If you are looking for more information about strip-tillage and
don’t mind a bit of a drive consider attending the Minnesota
Strip-tillage Expo that will be held at the Southwest Research
and Outreach Center near Lamberton on Tuesday, August 11th.
The event will run, rain or shine, from 9:00 to 4:00, with
registration starting at 8:30. Entry to the Expo is free with
lunch and refreshments available on the grounds for a fee.
Field demonstrations by major manufacturers of strip-tillage
equipment will run from 9:00 to 11:00 and again at 1:00 to 3:00.
Educational presentations by University researchers and
Extension Educators on strip-tillage fertilizer management,
economics, and management essentials will run from 10:00 to
12:00 and 2:00 to 4:00. Field tours of strip-tillage research and
demonstration plots will run from 11:00 to 12:00 and 3:00 to
4:00. From 12:15 to 1:00, a farmer panel of producers currently
using strip-tillage will discuss their experiences and share tips
with attendees. A flier for the event can be downloaded from
the calendar at the UW Soil Science Extension Website:
(http://www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/upcoming/current/2009_S
trip_Till_Expo.pdf).
Strip-tillage addresses common concerns of conservation
tillage management related to soil warm-up in the spring and
University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- July 16, 2009
seed zone soil management. This system clears residue and tills
the soil in the plant row while maintaining high residue levels
overall. Recent research conducted at the UW has demonstrated
that strip-tillage can lower the cost of production in row crop
systems, increasing return per acre. The "Strip-tillage Expo" is
a great opportunity to learn more about strip tillage and current
research results, to compare what system might work best for
you, and to learn from others currently practicing strip-tillage to
help fine-tune your management practices.
Introducing Matthew Digman
As the new UW-Extension Machinery Systems Specialist, I’d
like to take this opportunity to introduce myself and my career
in agriculture. My first experiences in agriculture came from my
family’s dairy farm in Mount Hope, WI. There I learned the
responsibilities, rewards and challenges involved in an
agricultural vocation. My early interest in agricultural
equipment led me to pursue a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical
Engineering at the Milwaukee School of Engineering. For two
summers, I held an internship with Knight Manufacturing
Corporation, a moderate size manufacturer of agricultural
equipment for the dairy and livestock industry, located in
Brodhead, WI.
In May 2003, I graduated from MSOE and returned to Kuhn
Knight as a full-time design engineer. My efforts at Kuhn
Knight resulted in a new product-line, known as the Pro-Push
manure spreader, which was introduced to the market in 2004.
During this project, I developed and implemented solutions to
field issues, oversaw production of prototypes, and worked to
develop new models of this product.
Wisconsin Crop Manager 78
 In early 2004, I accepted a research assistantship at the
University of Wisconsin – Madison under the direction of Dr.
Kevin Shinners. Our research included the investigation of near
infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) to meet the challenge
of predicting moisture in real time on the forage harvester.
I began my Ph.D. work in 2006 at the United States Dairy
Forage Research Center (USDA-ARS). My work investigated
on-farm storage and chemical treatment as a method of
preservation and pretreatment of biomass. By developing in-
storage pretreatments at ambient temperature and pressure with
prolonged reaction times, we hope to lower pretreatment costs
and provide a better return for farmers.
As I start working at the University of Wisconsin – Madison I
plan to begin my research and extension work in the area of
forage production. To date, I have served on the board of the
Wisconsin custom operators. I have also begun an applied
research program investigating precision agriculture
technologies in forage harvesting, including machine guidance
(auto steering), moisture sensing and systems modeling. I also
plan to gather data to better understand the costs related to
forage harvesting through the collection of both fuel usage and
repair and maintenance data for various forage related
operations. I would welcome collaboration from anyone
interested in these areas.
Challenging as it may be, I look forward to translating
published research into a form that is applicable to everyday,
on-farm production. Additionally, I look forward to solving
agricultural problems by working closely with extension faculty
as well as through research that directly relates to farmers’ day-
to-day needs.
Sincerely,
Matthew
Matthew Digman
Assistant Professor
Biological Systems Engineering
University of Wisconsin – Madison
460 Henry Mall
Madison, WI 53706
Ph. 608/616-0007
Wisconsin Vegetable Crop Update, 2009-5
and 2009-6
Alvin J. Bussan, Potato and Vegetable Cropping Systems
Specialist, UW-Madison, Department of Horticulture
Vegetable Crop Update newsletter issue five and
issue six is out! Weekly updates should be available as
disease, insect, weed, fertility, and crop progress changes.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Upcoming events include:
Friday, July 17, 2009 – Lelah Starks Foundation Seed Farm
Tour, Rhinelander
Thursday, August 6, 2009 – Potato Field Day, Hancock Ag
Research Station
Friday, August 7, 2009 – Langlade Co. Potato Field Day,
Antigo
Tue – Wed, August 11-12, 2009 – Sweet Corn Hybrid and
Snap Bean Demonstration Tour, Hancock
Monday, August 20, 2009 – Grower Field Walk, Norman
Miller Farm, Pardeeville, WI
Both issues have been posted on the IPCM web site on a new
page titled appropriately: The Vegetable Crop Update page.
Look for a new menu item under "WCM-News" to find this
page, or click here >>>
http://ipcm.wisc.edu/WCMNews/VegCropUpdate/tabid/11
5/Default.aspx
Don’t Exceed Maximums in Roundup Ready
Soybean
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist
As some of the second applications of glyphosate that are
being made, it might be time to review a couple maximums with
glyphosate.
Glyphosate labels specify that glyphosate can be applied to
soybeans through the flowering stage, which is equal to the R2
growth stage. The next growth stage is R3, which begins when
one of the four top nodes with a fully developed leaf has a 3/16
inch long pod. Applications made to soybeans in the R3 stage
would be considered off-label applications. Hopefully, weeds
have been controlled prior to this stage. Adding glyphosate
with late season insecticide or fungicide treatments would also
be off-label if made after the R2 stage.
With second or even third applications of glyphosate to
soybeans, we must also be aware of the maximum rates of
glyphosate that can be applied in-season. The maximum rate
for a single application in-season is 1.5 lb ae/a and the
maximum for the total of all in-season applications is 2.25 lb
ae/a. If we use a generic glyphosate (3 lb glyphosate/gallon) as
an example, a maximum of 2 qt/a can be applied at one time and
a total of 3 qt/a can be applied in-season. This could be applied
as three 1 qt/a treatments or as a 2 qt/a plus a 1 qt/a application.
If the example was a PowerMax or WeatherMax formulation
(4.5 lb glyphosate/gallon), the maximum for a single application
is 44 oz/a and the in-season total is 64 oz/a. For formulations
with other concentrations, these maximums are listed on the
glyphosate label. When dealing with certain tough weeds, the
potential exists that these maximums could be exceeded if care
is not taken, but a little planning will ensure the label is
followed.
79
HPPD Injury to Soybeans
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist
Just a quick reminder that the HPPD-inhibiting herbicides
(Callisto, Impact, and Laudis) have postemergence activity on
soybeans. Consequently, relatively small amounts of tank
contamination can cause visible injury to soybeans (Fig. 1). As
these are pigment inhibiting (or bleaching) herbicides,
symptoms may range from minor chlorosis to bleaching. Often
the chlorosis is interveinal and greater towards the leaf margin.
With higher rates, necrotic tissue may occur around the leaf
margin. Leaves that develop after the time of the contaminated
application will show the greatest injury.
Figure 1. Soybeans injured by a spray contaminated with a
HPPD inhibiting herbicide such as Callisto, Impact or Laudis.
Certain nutrient deficiencies such as potassium or manganese
deficiencies may mimic the symptoms of HPPD tank
contamination, but these few key features will likely provide
simple clues to distinguish between the two.
1. Chlorosis appears within several days after a herbicide
application.
2. Callisto, Impact, or Laudis were applied by the sprayer
prior to when the soybean field was sprayed.
3. The chlorosis has a pattern consistent with the spray
application. Injury may appear or be more severe in areas
where the boom was first charging, in streaks where the boom
overlapped, and in overlaps in the headlands or in point rows.
The degree of spray tank contamination will determine the
severity of soybean injury. Predicting the final impact on the
soybean yield will therefore depend on the severity of injury
and how favorable the rest of the growing season is. In most
cases, I would expect the soybeans to recover from most of this
injury, but some areas with overlaps may suffer some yield loss.
Fortunately, these areas should be a smaller portion of the field
in most cases.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Harvest Aids for Winter Wheat
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist
I have received a couple calls concerning options to control
large weeds in winter wheat fields to aid in harvest. First,
Gramoxone or paraquat is not labeled as a harvest aid in wheat
or other small grains. Options for harvest aid herbicides in
winter wheat include glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba.
Glyphosate can be applied to wheat and feed barley (no other
small grains) to control grasses and suppress broadleaf weeds.
Wheat must be in the hard dough stage (30% or less grain
moisture) before treatment and wheat harvest must be delayed
at least 7 days after application. Only 0.75 lb ae/a of glyphosate
may be applied preharvest, which is equivalent to 32 oz/a of
most generic glyphosate formulations, 22 oz/a of PowerMax
and WeatherMax, and 24 oz/a of Touchdown Total as
examples. It is not recommended to apply glyphosate preharvest
to seed wheat because it may reduce seed germination.
2.4-D ester should be more effective as a preharvest treatment
than 2.4-D amine, but overall control of broadleaf weeds may
be limited. Wheat must be in the hard dough stage before the
application. Check the label of the 2,4-D product for allowable
rates. Most labels have a maximum of 1 pt/a, but at least one
lists a maximum of 2 pt/a. Most labels require a 14 day interval
between application and harvest.
Clarity (not other dicamba formulations) can be applied at 8
oz/a for broadleaf weed suppression. Wheat must be in the hard
dough stage and the green color must be gone from the nodes in
the stem. Wait 7 days before harvest after application.
As you can see, these preharvest herbicide options are rather
limited. Consequently, it may be wise to consider these
questions before making a preharvest herbicide application to
winter wheat.
1. Does the increased harvest efficiency outweigh the
expense of the herbicide, application, and lost grain
from sprayer tracks?
2. If the weeds are mainly in patches, is there enough
wheat in the weed patch to justify the expense of
spraying the weeds and combining or would it be
more logical to combine around the patches. This
may be the case with weeds in areas where the wheat
suffered winter damage or with large weeds like
giant ragweed.
3. Will the herbicide provide enough control to
desiccate the weeds before harvest? Often the
herbicide label may not allow a high rate to control
the large, mature weeds found in wheat fields.
80
 UW-Extension/Madison Plant Disease
Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update
Brian Hudelson, Ann Joy, Amy Gibbs, and Brooke Weber,
Plant Disease Diagnostics Clinic

The PDDC receives samples of many plant samples from

around the state. The following diseases/disorders have been
identified at the PDDC since July 8, 2009:

PLANT/ DISEASE/ PATHOGEN COUNTY

SAMPLE DISORDER
TYPE
FORAGE CROPS
Alfalfa Aphanomyes Seedling Aphanomyces euteiches Washington
Blight/Root Rot

Crown Rot
Fusarium sp., Pythium sp. Calumet,
Washington
FRUIT CROPS
Cherry Brown Rot Monilia laxa Dane

Powdery Mildew Podosphaera sp. Dane

Cranberry Root Rot Pythium sp. Wood
Pear Phomopsis Canker Phomopsis sp. Dane

Sphaeropsis Canker Sphaeropsis sp. Dane

Plum Anthracnose Colletotrichum sp. Iowas
Strawberry Root/Crown Rot Pythium sp., Rhizoctonia sp. Bayfield
VEGETABLES
Rhubarb Root/Crown Rot Colletotrichum sp., Pythium Waukesha
sp.
Tomato Growth Regulator Herbicide None Green Lake
Damage

Walnut Toxicity
None Iowa

For additional information on plant diseases and their control,

visit the PDDC website at pddc.wisc.edu.
„„„„„„„„

Wisconsin Crop Manager 81

 Volume 16 Number 21 ---
Insects and Mites
Western Bean Cutworm Moths Flying, Scout Field and Sweet
Corn .......................................................................................... 82
Armyworms in Wheat in NE Wisconsin .................................. 84
Crops
Considerations for Spraying Foliar Fungicides in Soybean ...... 84
Considerations for Spraying Insecticides for Soybean Aphid in
Soybean .................................................................................... 86
Plant Disease
Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update ..................... 87
Western Bean Cutworm Moths Flying, Scout
Field and Sweet Corn
Eileen Cullen, Extension Entomologist, UW Madison
Entomology Department
Key Points
• Western bean cutworm (WBC) moth flight is
underway in Wisconsin.
• Pheromone trap network is recording WBC moth
emergence, peak flight and cumulative catch at 131
sites across 25 Wisconsin counties for 2009.
• In field and sweet corn, pheromone traps (a.k.a.
“milk jug traps”) and degree-day accumulations
(Base 50F) help time scouting activities.
• WI DATCP Wisconsin Pest Bulletin reported high
moth trap capture counts for the period of July 12-16
of 17 moths near Montello in Marquette County and
35 moths in the black light trap near Grand Marsh in
Adams County. http://pestbulletin.wi.gov/
• Close inspection of field and sweet corn should
begin in the week ahead to determine the percentage
of plants infested with egg masses and small larvae.
• Start scouting at 1,320 DD (Base 50F).
Approximately 25% WBC moth emergence.
• Continue scouting 7-10 days after peak emergence.
Peak emergence expected at 1,422 DD (Base 50F).
Pheromone trap catch also monitors peak flight.
University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- July 23, 2009
• WBC moths are most attracted to corn just before
tasseling, so scout fields in this growth stage first.
• Eggs are deposited primarily on the upper surface of
the flag leaf, while the larvae can be found in the
developing tassel and on the plant migrating toward
developing ears.
• Treatment is justified when 8% of plants are infested
(4% for processing sweet corn), and should be
applied at 90-95% tassel emergence.
WBC is a late season corn ear pest. WBC has one generation
per year, with six or seven larval stages, and overwinters as a
full-grown larva, inside a soil chamber. Spring development
begins when temperatures exceed 50°F. Larvae pupate in May
and moths begin to emerge from soil chambers in early July.
Multiple WBC larvae can infest one ear and cause yield loss
and impact quality of grain (damaged, decaying kernels,
secondary pathogen infection).
Thank you to Krista Hamilton and WI DATCP Pest Survey,
along with UW-Extension county agricultural agents, and
cooperating crop consultants for establishing the most extensive
WBC pheromone trapping network in WI yet, with 131 traps
across 25 counties. Pheromone traps use a WBC pheromone
lure to attract male WBC moths. Traps have been operating
since July 1 and monitored weekly. This trapping effort is
recording moth emergence, peak moth flight, and flight decline
which usually occurs in early to mid-August.
Pheromone trap captures and/or Degree Days are essential for
timing field scouting. WBC numbers (economic threshold) and
treatment decision must be made before WBC larvae enter ears.
Therefore economic threshold is based on percentage of plants
with egg masses and/or small larvae. Economic thresholds are
8% infestation for field corn, 4% for processing sweet corn.
Begin scouting once WBC degree-day accumulations reach
1,320 DD, Base 50F, (25% moth emergence), or when the first
moths are detected in a pheromone trap in your area. In
southwestern and southern WI, begin scouting in the week
ahead.
Examine 20 consecutive corn plants at five locations in the
field to obtain a representative field sample. Check the upper
three or four leaves of each sampled plant for presence of WBC
egg masses and small larvae. Scout field corn hybrids or
processing sweet corn varieties in different stages of
development separately. Foliar insecticide treatment is justified
Wisconsin Crop Manager 82
when 8% of sampled plants have egg masses and/or small
larvae for field corn, and 4% for processing sweet corn.
Figure 1. Western bean cutworm egg mass. Photo: Marlin E.
Rice.
Figure 2. Eggs are laid on the upper leaf surface, on the upper
part of the plant. Eggs are round are cream colored, then turn
purple approximately 24 hours prior to hatch. First instar, small
WBC larvae pictured here. Photo: Marlin E. Rice.
In field is planted to a Bt corn hybrid with WBC resistance,
remember to scout the non-Bt refuge. In the event of heavy
WBC moth flights, Bt corn WBC protected corn can sustain
some feeding damage to ears, so it is a good idea to check Bt
corn fields occasionally and make sure damage does not exceed
8% eggs and/or larvae threshold.
Half the season’s WBC moth population will emerge at 1,422
degree-days (Base 50F), known as peak flight. Continue
scouting fields for 7-10 days after peak flight to detect eggs and
larvae.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Twenty five percent moth emergence is expected in southern
and central Wisconsin by July 20-27, following the
accumulation of 1,320 degree days (base 50°F). Field scouting
for egg masses and small larvae should begin at this time, and
control decisions made shortly after peak flight is documented.
This event usually occurs during the final week of July or first
week of August in Wisconsin.
Remember degree-days accumulate at slightly different rates,
depending on how cold or hot our temperatures are, and your
part of the state. Central and northern locations tend to reach
DD accumulations after southern parts of WI. However, there
are local variations and microclimate considerations, so check
DD accumulations from a weather station or daily weather
reports for your area.
Information on insect degree-day accumulations and how to
calculate can be found at our Field and Forage Crop
Entomology website, authored by Sarah Schramm, Cullen Lab.
http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/cullenlab/insects/degreedays.h
tml
WBC is also being captured in pheromone traps east of WI in
Ohio, throughout MI, and all the way to Pennsylvania (although
at low numbers in PA to date). Wisconsin’s trap catch is still
relatively low as of July 22nd compared to IN. The number of
moths in traps does not tell us economic threshold in a field,
field scouting is needed to determine that. Heavy flights
generally translate to more feeding damage. However,
Wisconsin had significant moth flight and corn ear feeding
damage in 2008 in southwest, south central, central and
northeast WI locations.
The take home message of this article is to be prepared and
proactive, and begin scouting field and sweet corn now, at the
appropriate time as described above. Later this summer, in
August and early September, if large WBC larvae are found in
ears, it will be too late to control.
2009 Resources for Western Bean Cutworm Management in
Field and Sweet Corn
Western Bean Cutworm: A Pest of Field and Sweet Corn
UW Extension Publication A3856
This 4-page color fact sheet explains WBC appearance, life
cycle, corn scouting protocols, economic thresholds, and
management options including: biological and natural controls,
chemical control, and the importance of insect resistance
management when using Bt corn hybrids for WBC
management. Download the PDF from:
http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/cullenlab/extension/ext_pub
s.html
Western Bean Cutworm Links
Compilation of all WBC resources on Cullen website,
prepared by Sarah Schramm, Associate Research Specialist
http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/cullenlab/insects/info/wbc.h
tml
83
 Webcast …. Western Bean Cutworm Management in Field & mature leaves but show no signs of head clipping field revisits
Sweet Corn for Wisconsin are important and can help ease the anxiety. In corn, the
threshold is to treat if larvae are less than ¾ inch and you have
January 2009, A 38 minute webinar presentation by Dr.
and average of 2 on 25% of the plants or 1 larvae on 75% of
Eileen Cullen
plants.
http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/cullenlab/insects/info/wbc.h
tml#Webcasts Considerations for Spraying Foliar
How to Calculate Insect Degree Days Fungicides in Soybean
Paul Esker and Shawn Conley, Extension Field Crops Plant
Information on insect degree-day accumulations and how to
Pathologist and State Soybean and Small Grains Specialist
calculate can be found at our Field and Forage Crop
Entomology website, authored by Sarah Schramm, Cullen Lab.
http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/cullenlab/insects/degreeday As the soybean crop moves into the R3, or early pod
s.html development, growth stage, we have received numerous calls
regarding the use of foliar fungicides and insecticide tank-mix
Armyworms in Wheat in NE Wisconsin partners (a.k.a. plant health programs). Outside of a few areas
where we have received reports of Septoria leaf spot (Figure 1),
Bryan Jensen, IPM Program incidence of early season foliar diseases of soybean has been
low. Furthermore weather conditions have not been conducive
in most areas of Wisconsin for disease development to occur.
Many thanks to Jeff Polenske and his colleagues of Polenske Therefore, the use of foliar fungicides would not be advised for
Agronomic Consulting, for alerting us to the potential for soybean at this time.
armyworm injury in the northeast part of the state. Currently
they are finding significant numbers of large armyworm larvae
in wheat. Very little head clipping at this time but harvest is still Figure 1. Septoria leaf (brown) spot (Septoria glycines) of
a ways off. Let’s take some time to review armyworm habits. soybean. (Photo credit: C. Grau, UW-Madison)
Hopefully this will help you with scouting and making control
recommendations.
Armyworm larvae feed primarily on grasses, whether they are
weeds or cultivated crops. Now is a good time to check corn,
pastures and all small grains regardless of crop stage. Adults
seek areas of dense cover to lay eggs. For that reason,
concentrating scouting efforts around weed escapes can be a
good place to start. Also, in small grains armyworm damage
may be more severe in lodged areas.
How much longer will they be feeding? That is very difficult,
if not impossible to answer on a statewide basis. Adults migrate
to the state each year and time of arrival (and intensity) is
variable. We have seen significant armyworm active from late
June to early August. Locally, it is easier to answer. Although
length is not a true indication of instar (stage between molts),
length can be used to get a relative estimate of age, particularly
the time left to feed. Armyworms have 6 instar stages and the
final instar can measure between 15/16 and 1 5/16 inch. Again,
these are relative size estimate but it is helpful when
formulating recommendations. For instance if most of your
populations is less than ¾ inch you can be certain they will be To support our non-recommendation we first site the July 14
feeding for a much longer period of time. U.S. Drought Monitor map that indicates that the northern 2/3
of the state has moved into the abnormally dry to severe drought
Armyworms are nocturnal feeders. Look for signs of leaf
stage (Figure 2). This was very evident to us in our travels to
feeding and, especially in small grains, look at the soil surface
both the northwest and northeastern portions of the state where
for larvae. The economic threshold for small grains is a
we saw many soybean (and corn) fields rolling early in the day
minimum of 3/sq. ft. However, after physiological maturity leaf
in spite of the lack of hot weather.
feeding is not the primary cause of concern. Head clipping is.
Armyworms may continue to feed on matured leaves or leaves
of other grasses within the field, migrate out of the field to
another hosts or to feed on the stem below the head causing it to
fall to the ground. This head clipping is unpredictable and it is
not a foregone conclusion that larvae will switch to clipping
heads as the plant matures. When larvae continue to feed on

Wisconsin Crop Manager 84

Figure 2. U.S. drought monitor conditions through July 14, 2009. As indicated in the Table, drought conditions increased by 15% of the
state area from July 7. (Source: http://drought.unl.edu/dm)

Figure 3. Leaf wetness sensors for Chilton (top) and Lancaster (bottom) for June 19 to July 19.

Next we examined our set of weather stations at Arlington,
Chilton, Janesville, and Lancaster. At these locations we have
seen stark differences in the amount of rainfall in the past month
(June 19 to July 19), ranging from 0.5 inches at Chilton to
approximately 2.3 inches at Lancaster. This is important when
we consider that most pathogens of soybean that cause foliar
disease require leaf wetness in order to cause the initial
infection. For all of our weather stations, we have mounted two
leaf wetness sensors, one at 30” and the other at 48” to
mimic different crop canopy heights. An increased risk of
infection occurs as the number of hours of leaf wetness
during the overnight period increases. To compare and
contrast conditions around the state, Figure 3 shows the
percentage leaf wetness from Chilton and Lancaster,
respectively for June 19 to July 19. Conditions at Chilton
have been much less favorable for infection, as evident by

Wisconsin Crop Manager 85

increased periods of drying especially during the overnight
period. Even at Lancaster where there has been a greater
frequency of rain, we see intermittent periods of leaf drying
overnight. While the overall rainfall total has been good, the
frequency of rains has been patchy.
The last point to address is the blind (no scouting) addition of
insecticides to the fungicide application. We want to emphasize
this is not a good idea, since natural enemies of soybean aphid,
including beneficial fungi are keeping soybean aphid
populations in check at the moment and the blind application of
a fungicide/insecticide tank-mix would remove both the
beneficial insects and fungi This could require an additional
application of insecticides later in the growing season. If
soybean aphid population have reached threshold (250 aphids
per plant) and numbers are rising then an insecticide application
is warranted. Please see Dr. Eileen Cullen’s Crop Manager
article regarding soybean aphid.
In conclusion, conditions in Wisconsin do not warrant the
application of a foliar fungicide for soybean. Active scouting
and identification of foliar diseases of soybean are important
before considering if a foliar fungicide is necessary. A new
Visual Quick Guide – Common soybean diseases in Wisconsin
is now available through UW-Extension publications and can be
used to help in diagnosing foliar diseases in soybean fields as
the season progresses.
Considerations for Spraying Insecticides for
Soybean Aphid in Soybean
Eileen Cullen, Extension Entomologist, UW-Madison
Entomology Department
Soybean aphid population densities continue to be low to
moderate. I have received reports of only a few soybean fields
treated for economic threshold populations (250 aphids/plant
average throughout the field) in the last week. Other than that
population densities remain low to moderate, or nonexistent,
and below threshold.
Please refer to the July 9th WCM newsletter article for
information on soybean aphid economic threshold and how you
can track soybean aphid population densities online for
Wisconsin
http://ipcm.wisc.edu/WCMNews/tabid/53/EntryId/764/Soybe
an-Aphid-Densities-are-Low-But-Start-Scouting-Now.aspx.
Today’s article addresses the topic of tank mixing insecticide
for soybean aphid with fungicides at R3 soybean growth stage,
or a bit earlier this season the same conversation was circulating
regarding insecticide with 2nd pass Roundup (glyphosate)
herbicide application in soybeans.
While convenient, insecticide tank mixing in the absence of
soybean aphid, or at soybean aphid populations below economic
threshold, is not recommended. Most phone calls and field visits
over the last two weeks growers, Certified Crop Consultants,
UW Extension county agents and others have mentioned
promotions for tank mixing an insecticide with a fungicide to
provide “long residual” insecticide effect (3 weeks or more) on
soybean plants in the event soybean aphid populations build to
Wisconsin Crop Manager
economic threshold or colonize in greater numbers in the weeks
ahead.
Optimal application times for fungicides, herbicides and
insecticides rarely coincide with each other. Tank mixes would
be justified if plant pathogen and insect densities simultaneously
reach economic levels at optimal plant growth stages for
economic yield return, but this is not typically the case. Please
see Dr. Shawn Conley and Dr. Paul Esker’s companion article
on the tank mix topic regarding foliar fungicides in soybeans
in this issue of the WCM newsletter. The key to economic yield
protection for soybean aphid management is timing treatment at
economic threshold population to prevent aphids from reaching
the economic injury level and conserve natural enemies in the
field (predators and parasitoids) for as long as possible.
Moreover, university entomology field research at UW
Madison and throughout the North Central region, has found no
economic yield return to treating soybean aphid below the
economic threshold of 250 aphids/plant.
For a full discussion of that topic, please visit my previous
WCM article link:
Soybean Aphid Update for Late August 2008
http://ipcm.wisc.edu/WCMNews/tabid/53/EntryId/624/Soybe
an-Aphid-Update-for-Late-August-2008.aspx In the article link,
under Frequently Asked Questions, please scroll down to
Question 5. “The price of beans needs to be factored into the
threshold. Do higher bean prices mean we lower the economic
threshold below 250 aphids/plant?” The economic threshold
has not changed, and is not lowered. Please check out the link
above for a refresher on those details.
So, we know it is not economically profitable, or advisable, to
tank mix an insecticide in the absence of soybean aphid
pressure, or at population densities below economic threshold.
What are other parts of the tank mix, insecticide “residual”
equation?
The concept of preventative soybean aphid treatment without
field scouting data, or at aphid numbers below economic
threshold, in order to obtain residual control for “incoming”
pests for a pre-defined period (for example, 21 days) is not a
valid IPM approach.
UW Extension and grower and Certified Crop Consultant
concern is justified as unnecessary insecticide tank mixes are
likely to increase the number of insecticide applications needed
over the season. When natural enemies are eliminated
prematurely, this creates an “enemy free” space in which
soybean aphids can colonize and quickly rebound to high
numbers, requiring insecticide treatment. Repeated applications
within each growing season increase selection pressure for
insect resistance development. Treatment cost is another factor
to consider.
In addition to pyrethroid and organophosphate insecticide
products, premix foliar insecticides are available that combine a
nicotinoid active ingredient such as imidacloprid or
thiamethoxam with a pyrethroid. Keep in mind, while we
categorize nicotinoids as systemic insecticides when applied as
seed treatments and through the early vegetative soybean
growth stages, when the soybean plant is actively growing and
86
nictotinoids are applied foliar in season, they are translaminar monitoring of treatment efficacy against the pest and impact on
and active in the foliage to which they are applied. As new predators and parasitoids are based on field scouting data in an
growth and new leaves develop on the plant, foliar applied economically profitable and environmentally sound IPM
nicotinoids are not systemic to all plant parts to the degree that program.
it would provide complete residual control to new growth and
Additional Resources:
incoming aphids a month after application. The bottom line is
that any of the registered insecticides will be effective against Avoid a tank tri-mix on soybean
soybean aphid, as long as they are optimally timed to economic
threshold populations, based on solid field scouting data. Why it’s not a good idea to tank mix fungicide, herbicide and
insecticide
I’ve been asked to review some insecticide label definitions in
this article as well, especially as it pertains to the terms http://www.planthealth.info/rust_mgmnt.htm
insecticide Preharvest Interval (PHI) and Residual. Download the PDF:
http://www.planthealth.info/pdf_docs/trimix_05.pdf
REI: All pesticide products used in the production of
agricultural plants have a prescribed-time re-entry interval (REI)
for worker protection. REI is stated in hours on the label, UW-Extension/Madison Plant Disease
usually 48-hour, 24-hour or 12-hour depending on the product Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update
signal word. For the most part, entry into treated areas during Brian Hudelson, Ann Joy, Amy Gibbs, and Brooke Weber,
the prescribed time REI is not allowed. Plant Disease Diagnostics Clinic
PHI: The preharvest interval is the elapsed time between a The PDDC receives samples of many plant samples from
pesticide application and harvest of the crop. The PHI is around the state. The following diseases/disorders have been
defined explicitly in days. PHI on an insecticide label is where identified at the PDDC since July 15, 2009:
we typically see 21, 30 or in some
cases a fewer or greater number of PLANT/ DISEASE/ PATHOGEN COUNTY
days. PHI depends on the specific
pesticide label you are following, and SAMPLE DISORDER
the crop to which it was applied. TYPE
Residual: Foliar insecticide residual
FIELD CROPS
activity is essentially the period Soybean Root Rot Fusarium sp., Columbia
following treatment and initial
Soybean Cyst Pythium sp. Monroe
mortality of the insect population
present at application during which Nematode Heterodera glycines
insect suppression continues to be FRUIT CROPS
effective to a relative degree. Residual Grape (Concord) Growth Regulator None Green
activity is different from contact or Herbicide
systemic activity, rather this is the
residual effect of insecticide on treated
Damage
surfaces encountered by surviving or Strawberry Root/Crown Rot Fusarium sp., Barron,
newly arrived insects after treatment. Pythium sp., Clark
Typically, in insecticide efficacy trials Rhizoctonia sp.
a pre-treatment count is taken,
VEGETABLES
experimental treatments applied, and
post-treatment insect counts are Garlic Root Rot Fusarium sp. Barron
compared to the untreated check plots Tomato Bacterial Canker Clavibacter Crawford
4, 7, and 14 days after treatment (DAT) michiganensis
and up to 21 or 28 DAT. Residual subsp.
activity can vary and several inter-
related factors are involved (e.g.,
michiganensis
insecticide active ingredient, Growth Regulator None Columbia
formulation, temperature, UV light Herbicide
intensity, susceptibility of insect
treated, pre-treatment population Damage
density, percent control achieved, to Septoria Leaf Septoria lycopersici Crawford
name a few). Insecticide labels do not
typically post “residual” activity
Spot
information.
Residual activity should be distinguished from well defined, For additional information on plant diseases and their control,
(and label law) PHI’s stated on labels in days. An insecticide visit the PDDC website at pddc.wisc.edu.
treatment decision, application timing and post treatment
„„„„„„„„

Wisconsin Crop Manager 87

 Volume 16 Number 22 ---
Equipment
Managing your combine ........................................................... 88
Crops
Wisconsin Vegetable Crop Update, 2009-7 .............................. 89
Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences Complete Regulatory
Authorizations for SmartStaxTM Corn Hybrids
.................................................................................................. 89
Insects and Mites
Do Not Let Western Bean Cutworm Catch You Off-Gaurd ..... 90
Plant Disease
Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update ..................... 91
Managing your combine
Matthew Digman, Biological Systems Engineering, University
of Wisconsin - Madison
If this is your first wheat harvest or if you are a veteran
farmer, you’ll find it profitable to take a closer look at how you
are managing your combine. There are five basic functions of
your combine: cutting and feeding, threshing, separating,
cleaning, and handling. Let’s see how to optimize settings for
each of these systems to minimize grain loss and damage while
maximizing productivity.
The first system, cutting and feeding, necessitates a look at
your grain header. The goal should be to harvest just enough
straw in each pass, cutting the plant a little below the head, so
the grain feeds evenly into the combine. This will maximize
capacity and, therefore, the harvesting efficiency of the
combine, ensuring timely harvest of the crop. The primary
reason for minimizing straw in the combine is to maximize the
machine’s capacity to collect grain rather than straw. By cutting
less straw, you allow your machine to cover more acres in less
time. Your combine, however, may have plenty of capacity, and
you might benefit from harvesting grain and windrowing straw
in a single pass if you plan to bale straw afterwards. In this case,
the suggestions here are still valid, but managing your grain
losses will be more challenging.
Let’s get back to the header. The reel’s job is to position the
head of the wheat just behind the cutterbar so that when the
plant is cut it falls gently onto the platform. To obtain this goal,
the outside tip of the reel must be moving slightly faster than the
University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- July 30, 2009
ground speed of the combine. Check in your operator’s manual
for suggested ground and reel speeds. Dull sickle knives and
improper clearance between the sickle and guard not only cause
greater shatter losses but also reduce capacity. So, checking the
condition of the sickle and replacing it, if necessary, will
minimize shatter loss without limiting ground speed.
Now the grain and straw are moving along the feeder-house
to either the cylinder or rotor and concave. The rotor/cylinder
adjustment is the next line of defense against grain loss. Proper
clearance and speed will ensure maximum threshing while
minimizing grain damage. Your operator’s manual will outline
specific settings for your machine for wheat. On conventional
machines, be sure to check concave clearance on either side of
the cylinder to ensure adjustment is even across the cylinder. It
is also prudent to physically measure this clearance, as wear and
maladjustment can lead to erroneous indicator readouts. In
general, your goal will be to operate the machine with minimal
rotor/cylinder speed and maximum concave clearance while still
threshing the grain. Under-threshing will mean trouble for
downstream separation and cleaning processes while over-
threshing will lead to grain damage. A good indicator of over-
threshing is excess size-reduction of the straw. Be sure to also
look for damaged grain on the ground rather than in the grain
tank as the grain’s small size will cause it to be blown over the
cleaning shoe.
Now that the grain has been threshed, we need to separate it
from the straw. In a conventional combine this is accomplished
through the straw walker while rotary combines rely on the
centrifugal force generated by the rotor. Over loading either
machine limits its ability to separate the grain. Conventional
combines are particularly sensitive to overloading as the straw
walkers become overwhelmed with straw.
Next, we are on to cleaning. The cleaning system consists of
the fan, the top chaffer sieve where the gross cleaning occurs,
and the shoe sieve where final cleaning is done. Losses in the
cleaning shoe can occur from several factors, one of which is
the over-threshing mentioned in the previous section. Small
pieces of over-threshed straw can fall onto the chaffer sieve and
overload it, preventing grain from falling onto the shoe sieve
and consequently blocking air flow.
Another loss factor involves the chaffer openings and the
airflow that ensure straw is passed over while grain falls to the
shoe sieve. Once again, your operator’s manual should specify
both fan and opening settings for wheat. It is important to note
that openings for both the chaffer and shoe sieve are measured
perpendicular to the louvers. Airflow that is too high and/or
openings that are too small can cause a lot of material to end up
Wisconsin Crop Manager 88
in tailings, which limits combine capacity, or can cause grain to
be ejected from the rear of the combine and be lost. Airflow that
is too low and/or chaffer openings that are too large can
overwhelm the shoe sieve, resulting in grain loss. Airflow is
affected by changing chaffer openings, so the two should be
adjusted together.
Finally, we are ready to adjust the shoe sieve. Sieve openings
should be such that grain can fall through, but the straw cannot.
If you see straw in the grain tank, the sieve is open too far, or if
you recall from above, you may have an over-threshing
situation. On the other hand, it is important to make sure the
openings are large enough so that grain can fall through and
isn’t being recycled as tailings.
Crop conditions change throughout the day and from field to
field, so it’s important to periodically check combine
performance. Grain losses can occur from the shattering of
standing grain and the shattering at the header, in addition to the
losses associated with threshing, separating and cleaning. Loss
assessments can easily be made before harvest, after cutting
with the header, and after threshing, separating and cleaning.
The first two losses, pre-harvest and header, can be estimated
using a quick rule of thumb: twenty wheat kernels in one square
foot of ground means one bushel per acre loss. So, if you can
fashion a one-foot square or if you can estimate a foot with your
size 13 boots, you can get a pretty good idea of your grain loss.
Also, be sure to take the measurements in a few places in case
you unluckily set your square in an area that’s not representative
of the rest of the field.
Estimating your threshing, separating, and cleaning losses is a
bit more challenging. First, you have to subtract out your field
and header losses (unless you are just looking for a total loss
value). Second, you have to consider that your combine may be
consolidating up to a 35-foot swath into a narrow area,
depending on how you’re managing your straw. If your machine
is spreading the straw the full width of the combine then you
can use the previous rule of thumb. Otherwise, a group at
Kansas State provides us a correction factor. They suggest that
for machines without a spreader you’d look for 80 kernels per
square foot; for a set up with a bat type spreader, 65 kernels;
and for a chaff spreader, 25 kernels. This assumes a header to
separator width ratio of 4:1. Rotary combines may push this
ratio to 5:1 or higher. Under this scenario your loss counts
would increase to 100, 80 and 30 for no spreader, bat spreader
and chaff spreader, respectively. When using these adjustment
factors be sure to take your loss measurements in the area where
the straw was spread.
Harvesting losses (remember to subtract pre-harvest or field
losses) of about two percent of total grain yield are acceptable,
but all loss programs must be weighed against their timeliness
costs. Continual machine adjustment and slowing harvest rate to
ensure every last grain ends up in the grain tank can be
detrimental if test weight is decreasing. Lost test weight is only
the beginning of lost revenue. The crop becoming too dry can
lead to shattering while standing or at the header. Furthermore,
rehydration of grain can result in grain damage. For more
information or resources, please visit the University of
Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Team Grain website at
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/ag/teams/grains.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Wisconsin Vegetable Crop Update, 2009-7
Alvin J. Bussan, Potato and Vegetable Cropping Systems
Specialist, UW-Madison, Department of Horticulture
Vegetable Crop Update newsletter issue seven is out! This
marks the seventh newsletter of the 2009 year. Weekly updates
should be available as disease, insect, weed, fertility, and crop
progress changes.
Upcoming events include:
Thursday, August 6, 2009 – Potato Field Day, Hancock Ag
Research Station
Friday, August 7, 2009 – Langlade Co. Potato Field Day,
Antigo
Tue – Wed, August 11-12, 2009 – Sweet Corn Hybrid and
Snap Bean Demonstration Tour, Hancock
The seventh issue has been posted on the IPCM web site on a
new page titled appropriately: The Vegetable Crop Update
page. Look for a new menu item under "WCM-News" to find
this page, or click here >>>
http://ipcm.wisc.edu/WCMNews/VegCropUpdate/tabid/115/De
fault.aspx
Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences Complete
Regulatory Authorizations for SmartStaxTM
Corn Hybrids
Eileen Cullen, Extension Entomologist
Monsanto and DowAgroSciences, in a cross-licensing
agreement, announced on July 20 that they have received
registration approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and a regulatory authorization from the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to commercialize
SmartStaxTM corn hybrids in 2010. The hybrids will express
the following insecticidal proteins: Cry3Bb1 (event
MON88017), Cry34/35Ab1 (event DAS-59122-7), Cry1F
(event TC 1507), and Cry1A.105+Cry2Ab2 (event
MON89034).
In addition to targeting corn rootworms and the lepidopteran
complex, SmartStaxTM hybrids will provide herbicide
tolerance to glyphosate and glufosinate. The US EPA and CFIA
approvals will enable producers in the US Corn Belt and
Canada who use the hybrids to reduce refuge size from 20% to
5%. Cotton Belt producers will be able to reduce their refuges
from 50% to 20%. In a joint news release, the companies
indicated they intend to introduce SmartStaxTM hybrids across
3 to 4 million acres in 2010.
Extension entomologists learned about the new regulatory
authorizations, at the time of the July 20 press release. Some
take home points for now are summarized below.
• The U.S. EPA approval took into account data on the
“pyramid” strategy of a transgenic crop producing 2
different Bt toxins targeting the same pest. For
example, in the SmartStaxTM case, Cry3Bb1 and
89
 Cry34/35Ab1 both target corn rootworms, while
Cry1F and Cry1A.105+Cry2Ab2 both target the
lepidopteran pest complex. Multiple modes of action
for corn rootworm and multiple modes of action for
the lepidopteran pest complex are a factor in reduced
structured refuge size and long-term durability of
corn Bt insect trait technologies. This “pyramid”
strategy is based on the concept that selection for
resistance to 1 toxin does not cause cross-resistance
to the other toxin (e.g., because the Bt toxins bind to
different larval midgut target
sites).
• A “stacked” trait is not necessarily a “pyramided”
trait. For example, currently reginstered Bt corn
hybrids with a single Bt corn rootworm trait, a single
Bt lepidopteran trait, and a herbicide tolerance trait
are commonly referred to as “stacked trait” hybrids.
• Refuge reduction from 20% to 5% is not authorized
for existing single trait Bt corn hybrids or those
stacked trait hybrids that combine single traits for
corn rootworms and Lepidoptera (see bullet point
above).
• SmartStaxTM regulatory approval for 2010, with its
reduced refuge from 20% to 5% is not “refuge in the
bag” Optimum AcreMax 1 or Optimum AcreMax 2.
Pioneer Hi-Bred International has sought approval
for seed blends and refuge reduction, but this, to the
best of my and my North Central Region Extension
Entomologist colleagues’ knowledge and
communications with government and industry, is
still pending EPA approval and has not been
approved at this time.
Do Not Let Western Bean Cutworm Catch
You Off-Guard
Eileen Cullen, Extension Entomologist
Wisconsin looks to be in for our highest Western Bean
Cutworm pressure yet. Don’t let WBC larvae in field and
processing sweet corn ears catch you off guard in August and
September. Scouting now is critical to determine field
infestation and prevent populations from reaching economic
injury level. Economic (treatment) thresholds of 8% infestation
for field corn, and 4% infestation for processing sweet corn, are
set to prevent densities from reaching the economic injury level.
Please refer to last week’s Wisconsin Crop Manger article
titled Western Bean Cutworm Moths Flying, Scout Field and
Sweet Corn for full information on managing this late season
corn ear pest. In addition to the article, several links are
provided to the UW Entomology educational package on
managing this pest (UW Extension fact sheet, pheromone
trapping, economic thresholds for field and sweet corn,
webinars, photo galleries, plus a primer on using insect degree
days to predict emergence and egg laying for WBC). All of
these resources are web based and available for free download.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Andy Barta, Agronomist with Rio Creek Feed Mill,
reported 7/28, that Western Bean Cutworm (WBC) moth
pheromone trap captures are high in Northern Door County
(all north of Sturgeon Bay). Andy is hearing from three
different farmers about high trap captures (one farmer stated he
is catching about 40 moths per day this past week). Another
large grower in that area scouted and found about 10% of plants
in fields monitored with white to purplish colored egg masses.
That is above the 8% treatment threshold for field corn and the
grower is planning to spray next week as small larvae hatch.
Areas in and around Door County had economic populations of
WBC larvae in corn ears last year in 2008. Based on moth
flight trap numbers and egg masses scouting thus far, I expect
heavy pressure in the area again in 2009.
Bill Halfman, UW Extension Monroe County, reported this
morning heavy WBC moth captures in his blacklight trap. Bill
counted 165 moths/week on 7/23, and 73 moths/week 7/29.
Neither blacklight nor pheromone trap captures tell you
threshold numbers in a field (scouting will give that
information, see article link above). However, these heavy moth
flight detections certainly indicate we are potentially in for a
heavy WBC larval population in the coming 1-2 weeks,
depending on your location in the state and degree-day
accumulations.
Processing company agronomists have reported to me this
week from the Central Sands area higher moth flights than this
time last year, and they too are finding WBC egg masses in later
planted fields. Processing sweet corn WBC management
should take into account sweet corn planting date, and WBC
moth emergence degree days. The earliest planted sweet corn
(April) will be harvested in the coming 7-10 days, while the
later planted acreage is closer to pre-tassel and row tassel
stages. WBC moths prefer to lay eggs on late whorl stage corn
through early tassel. Many sweet corn processors and growers
run a 2nd generation European Corn Borer (and Corn Earworm)
trapping and insecticide management spray program. Keep in
mind the degree-days (DD) for WBC and 2nd generation ECB
moth emergence and egg-laying are slightly off-set from each
other. WBC moths and eggs are first. Approximately 25% of
WBC moths have emerged (and egg-laying has begun) after
1,320 DD (base 50F). Second generation ECB moths emerge at
1400 DD (base 50F) and first eggs at 1450 (base 50F).
Thank you to Andy Barta, Bill Halfman, and processors for
your reports. All field corn and processing sweet corn growers
in Wisconsin should be alert and scouting for WBC now. Foliar
insecticides effectively suppress WBC small larvae, but only if
applied before larvae enter the ear. If you are growing WBC
protected Bt corn hybrids (currently the Herculex I or Herculex
XTRA traits), remember to check non-Bt refuges.
90
UW-Extension/Madison Plant Disease
Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update
Brian Hudelson, Ann Joy, Amy Gibbs, and Brooke Weber,
Plant Disease Diagnostics Clinic
The PDDC receives samples of many plant samples from
around the state. The following diseases/disorders have been
identified at the PDDC since July 22, 2009:

PLANT/SAMPLE DISEASE/DISORDER PATHOGEN COUNTY

TYPE
FIELD CROPS
Corn (Seed) Yellow Leaf Blight Phyllosticta maydis Dane
Corn (Unidentified) Eyespot Aureobasidium zeae Iowas

Yellow Leaf Blight Phyllosticta maydis Iowa

Soybean Root Rot Fusarium sp., Phytophthora Columbia,
sojae, Rhizoctonia sp. Jefferson,
Trempeauleau

Soybean Cyst Nematode Brown

Heterodera glycines
Wheat Black Stem Rust Puccinia graminis Jefferson
FRUIT CROPS
Apple Cedar-Apple Rust Gymnosporangium sp. Dane
Grape (Concord) Anthracnose Sphaceloma ampelinum Brown

Downy Mildew Plasmopara viticola Sheboygan

Guignardia Leaf Spot/ Guignardia bidwellii Sheboygan

Black Rot
Plum Bacterial Canker Pseudomonas syringae Outagamie
Raspberry Raspberry Leaf Spot Cylindrosporium rubi Dane

Root/Crown Rot Phytophthora sp., Pythium sp. Dane

Strawberry Root/Crown Rot Cylindrocarpon sp., Fusarium Brown, Clark
sp., Phomopsis sp., Pythium sp.,
Rhizoctonia sp.
VEGETABLES
Beet Cercospora Leaf Spot Cercospora beticola Waushara
Cabbage Growth Regulator Herbicide None Chippewa
Damage
Onion Purple Blotch Alternaria porri Dane
Tomato Growth Regulator Herbicide None Jefferson
Damage

For additional information on plant diseases and their

control, visit the PDDC website at pddc.wisc.edu.
„„„„„„„„

Wisconsin Crop Manager 91

 Volume 16 Number 23 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager
What's new!
Reminder: Training for Nutrient Management Planners
Workshops ..................................................................... 92
Aug. 26 Field Day Offers Updates on UW’s Organic
Crop and Livestock Research ........................................ 92
Insects and Mites
Dry Weather Reminder for Soybeans: Two-spotted
Spider Mites ................................................................... 93
Soybean Aphids Still Simmering…Some Fields at
Economic Threshold ...................................................... 95
Crops
Options for Hail Damaged Corn Assessed as a Total
Loss ................................................................................ 97
Vegetable Crop Update, 2009-8 ..................................... 97
Plant Disease
Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic Update ........................ 98
Reminder: Training for Nutrient Management
Planners Workshops
Scott Sturgul, NPM Program
Two workshops designed for current and potential nutrient
management plan writers in Wisconsin are being held on
August 31 - September 1 in Madison and September 28 - 29 in
Wausau. The intent of these two-day workshops is to provide
in-depth training on the preparation of quality nutrient
management plans. Participants will prepare a functional plan
for a real Wisconsin farm.
Advance registration is required and the registration fee is
$200 per person. Wisconsin CCAs will receive a $50.00
discount. A brochure containing an agenda and registration
information can be found in the July 2, 2009 issue of the
Wisconsin Crop Manager and can also be found at
http://www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/upcoming/current/T
NMP_2009.pdf.
Please note the registration deadlines of August 21 for the
Madison workshop and September 18 for the Wausau
workshop.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
--- August 6, 2009
For more information about the workshops, contact Scott
Sturgul at 608-262-7486, ssturgul@wisc.edu. To register for
the workshops, contact Carol Duffy at 608-262-0485,
cjduffy@wisc.edu.
AUG. 26 FIELD DAY OFFERS UPDATES ON
UW’S ORGANIC CROP AND LIVESTOCK
RESEARCH
UW-Madison researchers and cooperating farmers will
present the latest in organic crop and livestock research at the
university’s third annual Organic Field Day on August 26 at the
Arlington Agricultural Research Station. The event will run
from 9:30 a.m.—3 p.m. at the Arlington Agricultural Research
Station. The program will cover a wide variety of topics of
interest to organic growers, including no-till production, fertility
management, insect management and economics.
“We are extremely excited about this year’s field day,” said
Erin Silva, organic research scientist in the UW-Madison’s
Agronomy department. “There are relevant, applicable research
findings to share from both new and continuing projects. And
this year we’re adding presentations on livestock research to
broaden our discussion of the entire organic production
system.”
The event begins at 9:30 a.m. at the public events building.
The first field tours will leave from there at 10 a.m. to offer
updates on ongoing projects and a first look at new ones.
Among the tour presentations:
No-till soybean production using rolled/crimped rye
No-till corn production using rolled/crimped hairy vetch
Field and laboratory studies designed to identify and define
mechanisms in the interaction between soil fertility, crop plant
mineral nutrition and insect response
Management of seed corn maggot using organic production
practices
The latest economic analysis of the Wisconsin Integrated
Cropping Systems trial
Sweet corn variety trials
Management for organic sweet corn, green beans and
potatoes.
In addition to the field tours, this year’s event will include
tent sessions on livestock management. Dairy science professor
Pam Ruegg will discuss her research project on organic dairy
herd health. Jim Munsch, beef farmer from southwest
92
Wisconsin, will describe research on organic pastures being throughout field), to support your treat or no treat decision.
conducted on his farm in cooperation with UW researchers. Information on weather and natural controls (fungal agents) is
UW-Madison grazing specialist Rhonda Gildersleeve will speak also provided below.
on estimating pasture dry matter intake. Gary Oates, a
Figure 1. Example of advanced economic twospotted spider
researcher in the Department of Agronomy, will talk about
mite damage, Fond du Lac County 2007. Note soybean leaf
managed intensive grazing.
stippling and leaf bronzing in this field from 2007. Photo: Mike
Lunch will be available for $10. Over the lunch hour, Rankin, UW Extension Fond du Lac County, Agriculture Agent
participants will have time to view poster summaries of research
projects and take a look at various pieces of field equipment.
If you plan to attend, please register in advance by contacting
Erin Silva at 608-890-1503 or by sending an email
(emsilva@wisc.edu). While registration is not required, it’s
appreciated.
2.5 hours of CCA credits are requested.
The Arlington Agricultural Research Station is about five
miles south of Arlington and 15 miles north of Madison on U.S.
Highway 51 in Columbia County. Exit Interstate 90-94 at Wis.
Highway 60 or exit U.S. Highway 51 at Badger Road.

Dry Weather Reminder for Soybeans: Two-

spotted Spider Mites
Eileen Cullen, Extension Entomologist
Due to lack of substantial rain in many counties throughout
Wisconsin, soybean fields are once again hosting, or capable of
hosting, economic populations of two-spotted spider mites.
There is a strong connection between drought stressed
soybeans and spider mite activity. The following four points are
taken from Ostlie and Potter (2009): 1) Drought stress
accelerates spider mite movement to soybeans from surrounding
permanent vegetation and alfalfa as it dries down or is cut. 2)
Drought stress improves the food quality of soybean for spider
mites. 3) Drought also diminishes or stops activity of spider
mite fungal pathogens that normally suppress spider mite
populations. 4) Hot temperatures speed up spider mite
reproductive rate so that predatory mites and insects cannot
keep up. In 2009, we have had a ‘cool’ drought, which may be
dampening spider mite reproductive rate so far. Drought
coupled with hot temperatures in the mid-90s would increase
spider mite problems further.
Don Genrich, UW Extension Agriculture Agent, Adams
County, reported that several soybean fields in the Arkdale area
of Adams County were treated for spider mites August
3rd. Bryce Larson, UW Extension Agriculture Agent, Calumet
County, reported a conversation with a Sheboygan County
farmer during the recently concluded Farm Technology Days of
economic spider mite populations on his farm. August 4th, Tom
Novak (CCA, Total Crop Management) and Gregg Kerr, (CCA,
Kerr Agronomics) reported spider mites in soybeans from
Jefferson County and western Wisconsin, respectively.
Because spider mites are so tiny, scouting and treatment
thresholds are not based on number of mites per plant. Instead,
confirm presence of live mites in the field and judge the degree
of leaf stippling (symptoms from spider mite feeding), as well
as field pattern of feeding damage in the field (field edges vs.
Soybean Damage Symptoms
Spider mites insert mouthparts into leaf cells. Contents of the
individual, living cells are extracted resulting in many small
white or yellow spots, called “stippling”. Another good word
for the leaf symptoms would be “speckling”. From a distance,
affected fields are apparent by leaf yellowing. Often infestations
start at field edges, but can also be seen within fields on knolls
(drier soil) and can be patchy in distribution within the field.
With increased mite injury leaves become yellow, bronzed,
brown, and may eventually drop off the plant. Apparently
healthy plants within the field can have live mites. Spider mites
disperse within and between fields by climbing to the top of
plants and spinning silk strands that, when caught on breezes,
allow mites to drift to new host plants.
Scout fields now to make sure you are not overlooking spider
mite colonies in the field. It is easy to attribute leaf yellowing to
drought and miss a two-spotted spider mite population because
the mites are so small. Careful field inspection is required, but
fairly easy to detect once you look at plants closely.
Figure 2. Chlorotic stippling of soybean from twspotted spider
mite injury (Photo: T. Klubertanz).

Wisconsin Crop Manager 93

Confirm presence of live mites in the field
Two-spotted spider mite adults are tiny (<0.002 inch),
yellow-green with eight legs and dark spots on either side of
their oval bodies. Eggs are round and white to light yellow and
laid on the underside of leaves. Two-spotted spider mites in
northern states overwinter as adult females in sheltered field
margin areas. In most years, with adequate rainfall and a fungal
pathogen as a primary natural control, outbreaks do not
occur. In the absence of these checks, spider mites reproduce
quickly with several overlapping generations during an outbreak
(eggs, nymphs and adults found together on infested plants).
Eggs hatch in 2 to 4 days; nymphs develop in 2 to 4 days; and
adults can live up to 21 days with better survival in hot, dry
environments. Depending on temperatures, generations are
completed in 4 to 14 days, with the fastest developmental rates
above 91°F.
A hand lens is necessary to clearly see two-spotted spider
mites and eggs. Use a 10X magnification hand lens to confirm
presence of live mites. Adults, with dark spots on the body, can
also be detected by tapping soybean plants over a clipboard onto
a white sheet of paper. Dislodged spider mites can be seen as
tiny brown/black specks moving on the paper. Monitor fields
along edges, and importantly, within fields. Examine upper,
middle and lower canopy leaves for stippling. As spider mite
populations increase you may also find webbing on the
undersides of leaves in infested field areas.
Figure 3. Two-spotted spider mite adults on underside of a
soybean leaf
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Figure 4. Two-spotted spider mite eggs on underside of a
soybean leaf (Photo: Peter Sonnentag, UW Madison,
Entomology)
Treatment Decision Guidelines
No numerical economic threshold has been developed for
two-spotted spider mites in soybeans, largely because it is not
practical to count individual spider mites at the commercial
field level.
Spider mite populations often start along field edges, and spot
or field edge treatments may be an option. However, before spot
treatments are applied, thorough monitoring of the entire field is
recommended. If mite injury is evident in the field interior, the
potential for economic populations within 1-2 weeks should be
recognized. A whole field treatment may be justified based on
the guidelines below.
If mite presence is verified, it’s time to progress into the field.
Move at least 100 feet into the field before making your first
stop. Walk a “U” pattern checking at least 2 plants at each 20
locations. You can assess mite damage using the following
scale:
0 – No spider mites or injury observed.
1 – Minor stippling on lower leaves, no premature yellowing
observed
2 – Stippling common on lower leaves, small areas or scattered
plants with yellowing
3 – Heavy stippling on lower leaves with some stippling
progressing into middle canopy. Mites present in middle
canopy with scattered colonies in upper canopy. Lower leaf
yellowing common. Small areas with lower leaf loss. (Spray
Threshold)
4 – Lower leaf yellowing readily apparent. Leaf drop common.
Stippling, webbing and mites common in middle canopy. Mites
and minor stippling present in upper canopy. (Economic Loss)
5 – Lower leaf loss common, yellowing or browning moving up
plant into middle canopy, stippling and distortion of upper
leaves common. Mites present in high levels in middle and
lower canopy.
Full Pod (R4) and Beginning Seed (R5) stages are critical in
determining soybean yield. Spider mite feeding reduces
94
photosynthetic area and accentuates drought stress. The result
is reduced pod set, seed number, and seed size. Only a 10-15%
reduction in effective leaf area, yield losses will justify an
insecticide / miticide application. Unfortunately it’s not easy to
estimate a 15% reduction in effective leaf area. The treatment
guideline scale above is used to help guide treatment decisions.
Edge treatments are not generally effective since mites are
usually spreading throughout the field before any visual
symptoms are noted. Treatment is recommended only if damage
and mites are detected throughout the field. Use the previous
scale as a guide; treat when injury progresses to a rating of 3.
Check fields every 4-5 days if drought persists since damaging
infestations can develop quickly.
Weather conditions and natural controls
Following additional August rainfall, relatively cooler
temperatures and high humidity can foster the most effective
twospotted spider mite natural enemy - a fungal pathogen,
Neozygites floridana, that attacks all stages of mites and is host-
specific to spider mites. During early infection stages, mites
have a discolored, waxy or cloudy appearance and mite death
occurs within 1 to 3 days of infection. The picture below shows
a healthy TSM on the right vs. a TSM with fungal infection on
the left.
Production of infective spores depends on environmental
conditions which must be cooler than 85°F and with at least
90% relative humidity. At least 12-24 hours of such conditions
are believed necessary for extensive spread of the disease, and
TSM populations may decline rapidly in response to fungal
disease activity.
Figure 5. Twospotted spider mite adults (Photo: T. Klubertanz).
(Right, healthy normal yellow-green color; Left, infected with
fungal disease, discolored)
Do not assume rain will eliminate mite populations. Heavy
rains eliminate stress on the plant, but you need to make sure
spider mite problems do not continue to persist and impact
yield.
Scout now and through R5 for spider mites, their signs, and
damage. If soybean aphids reach economic threshold density
(250 aphids/plant) in a soybean field with spider mites also
Wisconsin Crop Manager
present, choose an insecticide also labeled as a miticide for
twospotted spider mite control. The organophosphate
insecticide active ingredients chlorpyrifos and dimethoate are
two such products.
References and Related Links
Ostlie, K. and B. Potter. 2009. Managing Two-Spotted Spider
Mites on Soybeans and Corn in Minnesota. Just for Growers,
MN Soybean Production.
http://www.soybeans.umn.edu/crop/insects/spider_mites.
htm
Cullen, E. 2006. Spider mites: A to Z. pp. 130-133. In
Proceedings 2006 Wisconsin Fertilizer, Aglime, and Pest
Management Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
WI.
http://www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/wfapmc/2006/index.
php
DiFonzo, C. 2005. You might have mites. Field Crop
Advisory Team Alert, 20(14): July 28, 2005. Michigan State
University, WWW document.
http://www.ipm.msu.edu/CAT05_fld/FC07-28-05.htm#4
Hammond, R., and B. Eisley. 2005. Twospotted spider mites.
Crop Observation and Recommendation Network (C.O.R.N.)
Newsletter. July 18, 2005 - July 26.
http://corn.osu.edu/index.php?setissueID=93
Klubertanz, T.H. 1994. Twospotted spider mite. p. 92-95. In
L.G. Higley and D.J. Boethel (ed.)
Handbook of soybean insect pests. Entomol. Soc. Am.,
Lanham, MD.
Soybean Aphids Still Simmering … Some
Fields at Economic Threshold
Eileen Cullen, Extension Entomologist
Soybean aphids have simmered at low densities throughout
the 2009 soybean growing season in Wisconsin and the North
Central region. This week, some fields in western and southern
Wisconsin are being reported at economic threshold of 250
aphids/plant.
The map (Figure 1) from ipmPIPE http://sba.ipmpipe.org
shows aphid densities in Wisconsin sentinel fields through early
August. These field reports are collected by UW Extension
County Agriculture Agents and the WI DATCP Pest Survey
from commercial soybean fields in Wisconsin to give you an
overview of statewide aphid activity. Additionally, I have
received calls this week from the field. Thank you to Dave
West, CCA; Greg Kerr, CCA, Kerr Agronomics; Tom Novak,
CCA, Total Crop Management; and Jim Fanta, CCA, NMC2; for
their reports from the LaCrosse; Eau Claire-River Falls;
Jefferson County; and Dodge County areas, respectively.
95
Figure 1. ipmPIPE map of Wisconsin soybean aphid densities soybean aphid and/or spider mites. Higher
through August 1st.Source: http://sba.ipmpipe.org insecticide spray volumes (20 gpa) and higher
pressure (e.g., 30-35 psi, depending on nozzle type)
help move the insecticide down into the canopy.

• Dave West and Jim Fanta are reporting from the

LaCrosse and Dodge County that their acreage
scouted is similar to the ipmPIPE sentinel fields, still
below threshold. A few scattered plants with high
numbers, but field averages far below threshold and
not economically justified to treat. Both Jim Fanta
and Tom Novak reported parasitized or “diseased”
soybean aphids very noticeable in fields below
economic threshold. Please see photos in this article
for a primer on the different types of aphid mummies
and diseased aphids you may encounter in the field.
Aphid mummies provide evidence of biological
control by parasitoids (tiny wasps) in the field.

Figure 2. Soybean aphid mummy. Parasitized by Lysiphlebus

The following updates are offered for the remainder of the testaceipes , a native parasitic wasp. Photo: Dan
soybean aphid field scouting period, through R5 growth stage: Mahr,UW Entomology

• Statewide, soybean aphid densities remain below

economic threshold of 250 aphids/plant (Fig. 1). UW
Extension and WI DATCP weekly counts range
from a few aphids per plant to 20 or 50 aphids per
plant. However, continue to scout fields through R5
soybean growth stage. A lot can happen with
soybean aphid during August. In 2008 we saw
numbers increase most during August, particularly
on later planted fields.
• Economic threshold field averages (250 aphids per
plant) are being reported this week. Gregg Kerr
confirmed treatable populations near River Falls
(Pierce County), and Colfax (Dunn County). Tom
Novak has had a few Jefferson County fields reach
threshold. And WI DATCP identified 3 fields at
economic threshold densities in the Dodge and Figure 3. Soybean aphid mummy. Parasitized by Aphelinus
Columbia county areas. All of these reports stressed albipodus , an introduced parasitic wasp. Photo: Dan Mahr, UW
the variability from field to field and need to scout. Entomology
• Two-spotted spider mites are a factor in drought
stressed fields as well as drier areas of farms in
regions not as heavily drought stressed. If soybean
aphids have reached economic threshold and spider
mites are present in the same field, choose an
insecticide with the active ingredients chlorpyrifos
or dimethoate. Theses active ingredients are labeled
for spider mite control, whereas most pyrethroids are
not. For a full account of current two-spotted spider
mite activity in WI and scouting and management
recommendations, please see the article Dry Weather
Reminder for Soybeans: Two-Spotted Spider Mites
in this issue of the Wisconsin Crop Manager.
• Canopy deposition in soybeans at this time of year is
critical for good coverage and efficacy if treating for

Wisconsin Crop Manager 96

Figure 4. Soybean aphid mummy. Parasitized by Binodoxys
communis , an introduced parasitic wasp. Photo: Dan Mahr,
UW Entomology
http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/sabc/importation_project_exo
tic.htm
Figure 5. Paecilomyces lilacinus, one example of a fungal
pathogen that infects soybean aphids. Foliar fungicides applied
to soybean are detrimental to this group of aphid natural
enemies and unnecessary fungicide applications should be
avoided to preserve these beneficial fungi. Photo: Bill
Stoneman.
• Spraying below economic threshold is not advisable.
University research from the North Central Region,
including Wisconsin, shows no economic return to
treating below threshold. This practice also increases
selection pressure for insect resistance to insecticide
active ingredients over the long term, and
prematurely disrupts natural enemy suppression of
soybean aphid (predators, parasitoids,
entomopathogenic fungi). Please see the July 23rd
issue of the Wisconsin Crop Manager
Considerations for Spraying Insecticides for
Soybean Aphid in Soybeans.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Options for hail damaged corn assessed as a
total loss
Dan Undersander, Joe Lauer, and Shawn Conley, Agronomists,
University of Wisconsin
Hail in late July severely damaged much corn in
Wisconsin. Some fields will be assessed as total losses. Corn
that was broken off at the ear will not continue to grow. What
options remain for those planning on silage?
• If the crop was insured, check with insurance
adjuster to ensure that any action does not cause a
greater loss in payment than the value of forage
produced.
• Consider the value of the nutrients if the crop is
simply disked down.
• Harvest the remaining forage for silage as the whole
plant moisture dries down. Make sure the forage to
be ensiled is at the proper moisture. The lower stalk
and leaves will ferment if harvested at 60 to 70%
(moisture depending on storage type) and produce a
low quality silage adequate for heifers and dry cows.
• A common question is: what can be planted to
produce more tonnage yet this year? Frankly the
options are few this late in the season.
o Absolutely do not plant sorghum-
sudangrass or sudangrass. This is a warm
season annual that will grow only very little
when the average daily temperature falls
below 80o F. Since little growth will occur
in September, the result will be low yield.
o Corn planted August 1 can be expected to
yield about 0.7 to 2.8 t/a dry matter in
Southern Wisconsin. These yields were
achieved in 2006 and 2005 when a killing
frost hit on October 12 and October 26.
o Oats planted during the first two weeks of
August can be expected to yield 1 to 2 t/a
dry matter in Southern Wisconsin and less
as one moves north.
o Other small grains will yield less because
they will not head this year.
o Some acres may be prepared for winter
wheat production.
Wisconsin Vegetable Crop Update, 2009-8
Alvin J. Bussan, Potato and Vegetable Cropping Systems
Specialist, UW-Madison, Department of Horticulture
Vegetable Crop Update newsletter issue eight is out! This
marks the eighth newsletter of the 2009 year. Weekly updates
should be available as disease, insect, weed, fertility, and crop
progress changes.
97
 Upcoming events include:
Thursday, August 6, 2009 – Potato Field Day, Hancock Ag
Research Station
Friday, August 7, 2009 – Langlade Co. Potato Field Day,
Antigo
Tue – Wed, August 11-12, 2009 – Sweet Corn Hybrid and
Snap Bean Demonstration Tour, Hancock
The eighth issue has been posted on the IPCM web site on a
new page titled appropriately : The Vegetable Crop Update
page. Look for a new menu item under "WCM-News" to find
this page, or click here >>>
http://ipcm.wisc.edu/WCMNews/VegCropUpdate/tabid/115/De
fault.aspx

UW-Extension/Madison Plant Disease

Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update
Brian Hudelson, Ann Joy, Amy Gibbs, and Brooke Weber,
Plant Disease Diagnostics Clinic
The PDDC receives samples of many plant samples from
around the state. The following diseases/disorders have been
identified at the PDDC since July 29, 2009:

PLANT/SAMPLE DISEASE/DISORDER PATHOGEN COUNTY

TYPE
FRUIT CROPS
Apple Growth Regulator None Dane
Herbicide Damage
Cranberry Red Shoot Exobasidium perrene Sauk
Grape Guignardia Leaf Spot/ Guignardia bidwellii Marathon
Black Rot
VEGETABLES
Cucumber Bacterial Wilt Erwinia tracheiphila Dane
Onion Slippery Skin Burkholderia gladioli pv. Dane
alliicola
Pea Near Wilt Fusarium oxysporum Waushara

Root Rot Aphanomyces euteiches, Waushara

Pythium sp.
Tomato Late Blight Phytophthora infestans Dane
Walnut Toxicity None Dane, Rock
For additional information on plant diseases and their control,
visit the PDDC website at pddc.wisc.edu.
„„„„„„„„

Wisconsin Crop Manager 98

 Volume 16 Number 24 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- August 13, 2009

Figure 1. Corn earworm moth. Photo: Eric Birschbach, CCA,

AgSite Crop Consulting
Insects and Mites

Corn Earworm Risk Forecast, Midwest Region ............. 99

Soybean aphid blog ........................................................ 99
Crops
Will Corn Mature in 2009? .......................................... 100
Plant Disease
Conditions Favorable for Sclerotinia Stem Rot
Development ............................................................... 102
Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic Update ...................... 103

Corn Earworm Risk Forecast, Midwest

Region
Eileen Cullen, Extension Entomologist
For the upper Midwest Region, we currently have "Moderate
Risk" of significant Corn Earworm flights northward. Corn
earworm migrates on weather fronts from southern/southeastern
regions of the U.S. to the Midwest Region during late summer.
Corn earworm information, digital images, and management
recommendations are available at my program website (Field
and Forage Crop Entomology):
http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/cullenlab/insects/info/
cew.html#Info
UWEX Publication A3655 The Corn Earworm provides
identification, life cycle, corn ear damage, scouting and
integrated pest management control options. A link to the
UWEX fact sheet is available at
http://learningstore.uwex.edu/pdf/A3655.pdf
Soybean aphid blog
Dave Hogg
Soybean fields with suboptimal potassium levels are at
greater risk of soybean aphid population increase and yield loss.
Following the 2000 discovery of the soybean aphid in
Wisconsin, entomologists and agronomists noticed that soybean
aphid infestations seemed to be more severe in K deficient
soybeans. [The attached photo of a soybean field in Grant
County (taken by John Wedberg in August, 2000) illustrates
this. The yellow beans on the left were literally dripping with
soybean aphids and were presumed to be K deficient, whereas
the healthy beans on the right had few aphids and were thought
to have adequate K. The demarcation line follows the field
contour.]

Wisconsin Crop Manager 99

Figure. 1 Soybean field in Grant County
Subsequent research has proved this observation to be correct,
plus we now have a better understanding of why this
occurs. What happens is that low K actually makes soybean
more nutritious for soybean aphids, promoting higher aphid
reproduction and leading to more rapid aphid population
increase. To give an idea of how this might work, under field
conditions in a K deficient field an aphid infestation can
increase from 10 per plant to 230 per plant in 10 days; in a field
with adequate K, that same population would increase from 10
to 150 aphids per plant. Further research suggests that K
deficient beans have a greater percentage of asparagine in the
plant phloem where the aphids are feeding. Asparagine is
known to be an important amino acid for aphid nutrition.
Finally, we think the yellowing of K deficient soybean leaves
may preferentially attract migrating soybean aphids, placing K
deficient fields at a further disadvantage. The color yellow has
been shown to be highly attractive to a number of aphids.
Bottom line, maintaining adequate K levels in soybean goes a
long way toward managing soybean aphid.
Will Corn Mature in 2009?
Joe Lauer, Corn Agronomist
Record cool temperatures have occurred this July and farmers
are getting concerned about whether the corn crop will mature.
Figure 1 shows the typical relative maturity zones for full-
season corn grown in Wisconsin when planted prior to May 15.
Growing degree unit accumulation ranges from 2900 GDUs in
the south to 1700 GDUs in the north with relative maturities
ranging from 115 to < 80 days RM.
The normal (1978 to 2008) GDU accumulation at Arlington
from May 1 to August 6 is 1596 GDUs (Table 1). This year it is
only 1264 GDUs. Daily GDU accumulation ranges from 0 to 36
GDUs per day with an average in early August of 23 GDUs per
day. Thus, we are 2-weeks behind normal. Fewer GDUs have
accumulated at Arlington than at Marshfield located 100 miles
north (Table 2).
Once corn silks it takes about 55 to 60 days to achieve
maturity - R6 black layer (Ritchie et al., 1993).
Development during grain filling is influenced by
temperature, but not as much as during the vegetative
Wisconsin Crop Manager
leaf emergence stages. Instead the number of days
between pollination and a killing frost influence the time
to maturity. So if an average killing frost occurs October
1, then subtracting 55 to 60 days means that the crop
must be silking by August 2-7. Silage harvest usually
begins around 50% kernel milk which is 42 to 47 days
after silking, so silking must occur by August 15-20; but
remember that the timing of silage harvest is dependent
upon achieving the proper moisture for the storage
structure.
A common question being asked right now is, “If we
have a normal (or cooler or warmer) season from this
point forward, will we have enough time to get the corn
crop mature?” Tables 1 and 2 show projected GDU
accumulation for Arlington and Marshfield from August 6
to the normal killing frost date for these locations. In
general, both locations are behind, but Arlington more so
than Marshfield. At Arlington, only with a late killing
frost date AND a warmer than normal fall can we
begin to approach enough GDU accumulation to
mature a full-season 105 d RM (2500 GDU) hybrid.
All other scenarios project to a killing frost before
the crop matures. But remember that the number
of days has more influence on whether the crop
matures, so noting the silking date and the order
with which your fields silk will help you determine
whether a field will mature and the field harvest
order that may occur in the fall. At Marshfield, a
cooler than normal grain filling period and/or an earlier
than normal killing frost will be the scenarios that will not
accumulate enough GDUs to mature a full-season 90 d
RM (2200 GDU) hybrid.
Management options
1. Note silking dates to project calendar days to
when a field will mature. Note order that field
silk to plan the harvest queue. It will take
approximately 42 to 47 days to get to 50%
kernel milk, and 55 to 60 days to get to black
layer.
2. Consider selling a greater proportion of your
corn acres as silage or high moisture corn.
3. Consider locking in a price for drying fuel.
4. Taking the dock for shrink at the elevator.
5. Fine-tune your dryer so that over- or
underdrying does not occur. Over-heating the
grain in the dryer or filling the bin too fast for
drying to occur will increase costs and decrease
grain quality reducing profitability.
6. Hire and train the skilled labor that will be
required to monitor dryers, fans, augers, and
other equipment during the drying process.
7. Consider some field drying if moisture levels are
high, but do not let corn stand in the field too
100
 long or snow may increase harvest
losses due to ear droppage and stalk
breakage from snow and ice.
Literature Cited
Ritchie, S.W., J.J. Hanway, and G.O. Benson,
(eds.)
1993. How a corn plant develops, pp. 1-21
pp.
ed. Iowa State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv., Ames.

*For addition figures regarding the

Weather Summary for UW ARS for both
Arlington and Marshfield please visit the
WCM downloads page where the PDF
article can be found or follow this link
http://tinyurl.com/r3kgtu*

Wisconsin Crop Manager 101


Conditions Favorable for Sclerotinia Stem
Rot Development
Paul Esker, Extension Field Crops Plant Pathologist
In assessments made yesterday (11 August 2009) at a trial at
the West Madison Agricultural Research Station, we noted
symptoms associated with Sclerotinia stem rot (SSR), caused by
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Figure 1). The level of incidence was
still low in those plots. In spite of the dry weather during the
early summer period in many parts of the state, the amount of
dew has been high, thus increasing the risk for SSR. The critical
period for infection was during flowering. Seasonal risk of SSR
is a function of weather, early canopy closure, a field history of
SSR, and soybean variety.
Figure 1. Symptoms of SSR, including the fluffy white
mycelium.
Why have conditions been more favorable for SSR? As
reported by NOAA, July temperatures were either the coldest,
or in the top ten coldest months for the majority of the states in
the region (Figure 2). The growth of the fungus is favorable by
temperatures < 85ºC. Moisture conditions favorable for SSR
development, especially during the flowering to early pod
development period, can include normal to above normal
rainfall, high soil moisture (field capacity or higher), and/or
prolonged periods of fog and leaf wetness during the morning.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Figure 2. July 2009 air temperatures for the continental
United States. In Wisconsin, this was the second coldest July on
record (Source: NOAA).
In attempting to put things in perspective, the current weather
situation reminds Dr. Craig Grau of conditions similar to 1992,
when SSR was widely prevalent throughout the North Central
Region. Additionally, there have also been increased reports of
SSR throughout the North Central Region (for example, see
Ohio C.O.R.N. Newsletter for August 10-17).
In 2009, we established new trials at the Arlington,
Marshfield, and West Madison Agricultural Research Stations
to improve our understanding of the efficacy of different foliar
fungicides for control of SSR, including some potential new
active ingredients, as well as the use of the biocontrol agent
Coniothyrium minitans. In particular, our interest in C. minitans
is to understand how well the organism establishes in the soil.
Results from these different trials will be reported in later
articles for Wisconsin Crop Manager and during winter
meetings.
For further information about SSR,
http://www.plantpath.wisc.edu/soyhealth/cause.htm.
For an overview of managing for SSR based on field history:
http://www.plantpath.wisc.edu/soyhealth/wmmgmttab.ht
m.
102
UW-Extension/Madison Plant Disease
Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update
Brian Hudelson, Ann Joy, Amy Gibbs, and Brooke Weber,
Plant Disease Diagnostics Clinic
The PDDC receives samples of many plant samples from
around the state. The following diseases/disorders have been
identified at the PDDC since August 5, 2009:

PLANT/ DISEASE/DISORDER PATHOGEN COUNTY

SAMPLE
TYPE
FIELD CROPS
Soybeans Brown Spot Septoria glycines Sauk
Growth Regulator None Buffalo
Herbicide Damage
Root/Crown Rot Fusarium sp., Pythium sp. Monroe, Sauk
FRUIT CROPS
Grape Guignardia Leaf Spot/ Guignardia bidwellii Dodge
Black Rot
VEGETABLES
Beet Root Rot Fusarium sp., Pythium sp., St. Croix
Rhizoctonia sp.
Cucumber Cucumber Mosaic Cucumber Mosaic Virus Fond du Lac
Tobacco Mosaic Tobacco Mosaic Virus Fond du Lac
Eggplant Verticillium Wilt Verticillium sp. Racine, Vernon
Onion White Rot Sclerotinia cepivorum Dickinson (MI)
Tomato Bacterial Canker Clavibacter michiganensis Grant
subsp. michiganensis
Growth Regulator None Dane
Herbicide Damage
Late Blight Phytophthora infestans Dane
Septoria Leaf Spot Septoria lycopersici Clark
Tobacco Mosaic Tobacco Mosaic Virus Iowa
Tomato Spotted Wilt Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus Iowa
Walnut Toxicity None Grant
For additional information on plant diseases and their control,
visit the PDDC website at pddc.wisc.edu.
„„„„„„„„

Wisconsin Crop Manager 103

August 2009
Will Corn Mature in 2009?
Joe Lauer, Corn Agronomist
Record cool temperatures have occurred this July and
farmers are getting concerned about whether the corn
crop will mature. Figure 1 shows the typical relative
maturity zones for full-season corn grown in Wisconsin
when planted prior to May 15. Growing degree unit
accumulation ranges from 2900 GDUs in the south to
1700 GDUs in the north with relative maturities ranging
from 115 to < 80 days RM.
The normal (1978 to 2008) GDU accumulation at
Arlington from May 1 to August 6 is 1596 GDUs
(Table 1). This year it is only 1264 GDUs. Daily GDU
accumulation ranges from 0 to 36 GDUs per day with
an average in early August of 23 GDUs per day. Thus,
we are 2-weeks behind normal. Fewer GDUs have
accumulated at Arlington than at Marshfield located
100 miles north (Table 2).
Once corn silks it takes about 55 to 60 days to achieve
maturity - R6 black layer (Ritchie et al., 1993).
Development during grain filling is influenced by
temperature, but not as much as during the vegetative
leaf emergence stages. Instead the number of days
between pollination and a killing frost influence the
time to maturity. So if an average killing frost occurs
October 1, then subtracting 55 to 60 days means that the
crop must be silking by August 2-7. Silage harvest
usually begins around 50% kernel milk which is 42 to
47 days after silking, so silking must occur by August
15-20; but remember that the timing of silage harvest is
dependent upon achieving the proper moisture for the
storage structure.
A common question being asked right now is, “If we
have a normal (or cooler or warmer) season from this
point forward, will we have enough time to get the corn
crop mature?” Tables 1 and 2 show projected GDU
accumulation for Arlington and Marshfield from
August 6 to the normal killing frost date for these
locations. In general, both locations are behind, but
Arlington more so than Marshfield. At Arlington, only
with a late killing frost date AND a warmer than
University of Wisconsin-Extension United States Department of Agriculture Wisconsin Counties Cooperating and Providing Equal Opportunities
in Employment and Programming.
Field Crops 28.491-69
normal fall can we begin to approach enough GDU
accumulation to mature a full-season 105 d RM
(2500 GDU) hybrid. All other scenarios project to a
killing frost before the crop matures. But remember
that the number of days has more influence on
whether the crop matures, so noting the silking date
and the order with which your fields silk will help
you determine whether a field will mature and the
field harvest order that may occur in the fall. At
Marshfield, a cooler than normal grain filling period
and/or an earlier than normal killing frost will be the
scenarios that will not accumulate enough GDUs to
mature a full-season 90 d RM (2200 GDU) hybrid.
Management options
1) Note silking dates to project calendar days to
when a field will mature. Note order that field
silk to plan the harvest queue. It will take
approximately 42 to 47 days to get to 50%
kernel milk, and 55 to 60 days to get to black
layer.
2) Consider selling a greater proportion of your
corn acres as silage or high moisture corn.
3) Consider locking in a price for drying fuel.
4) Taking the dock for shrink at the elevator.
5) Fine-tune your dryer so that over- or under-
drying does not occur. Over-heating the grain in
the dryer or filling the bin too fast for drying to
occur will increase costs and decrease grain
quality reducing profitability.
6) Hire and train the skilled labor that will be
required to monitor dryers, fans, augers, and
other equipment during the drying process.
7) Consider some field drying if moisture levels
are high, but do not let corn stand in the field
too long or snow may increase harvest losses
due to ear droppage and stalk breakage from
snow and ice.
Literature Cited
Ritchie, S.W., J.J. Hanway, and G.O. Benson, (eds.)
1993. How a corn plant develops, pp. 1-21 pp.
ed. Iowa State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv., Ames.
 Figure 1. Relative maturity zones (days; GDUs) for full-season corn hybrids planted before May 15.

Table 1. Projected Growing Degree Unit (GDU)† accumulation after August 6, 2009 at Arlington, WI. Current GDU accumulation
from May 1 to August 6 = 1264 GDUs (Normal‡ = 1596 GDUs). Weather data obtained from Bill Bland (AWON, UW-Soils) and the
Midwest Region Climatological Center.
Frost date Normal GDU Projected GDU accumulation if temperatures after August 6 are:
Tmin < 30 F accumulation from May 1 Normal One std§ Cooler One std Warmer
One std earlier than
2458 2127 1946 2308
normal = September 28
Normal = October 11 2563 2232 2051 2413
One std later than
2631 2299 2118 2480
normal = October 24
†
GDUs = [(Tmax + Tmin)/2] - Tbase, where corn grows between 50 and 86 F. Tmax = maximum daily temperature (upper limit =
86 F), Tmin = minimum daily temperature (lower limit = 50 F). Tbase = base/threshold temperature for corn growth (50 F). Daily
range = 0 to 36 GDUs
‡
Normal = average and standard deviation of previous 30 years (1979-2008).
§
Std = standard deviation

Table 2. Projected Growing Degree Unit (GDU)† accumulation after August 6, 2009 at Marshfield, WI. Current GDU accumulation
from May 1 to August 6 = 1302 GDUs (Normal‡ = 1522 GDUs). Weather data obtained from Mike Bertram (Marshfield ARS), Bill
Bland (AWON, UW-Soils) and the Midwest Region Climatological Center.
Frost date Normal GDU Projected GDU accumulation if temperatures after August 6 are:
Tmin < 30 F accumulation from May 1 Normal One std§ Cooler One std Warmer
One std earlier than
2288 2068 1864 2272
normal = September 26
Normal = October 7 2373 2153 1949 2357
One std later than
2427 2207 2003 2411
normal = October 17
†
GDUs = [(Tmax + Tmin)/2] - Tbase, where corn grows between 50 and 86 F. Tmax = maximum daily temperature (upper limit =
86 F), Tmin = minimum daily temperature (lower limit = 50 F). Tbase = base/threshold temperature for corn growth (50 F). Daily
range = 0 to 36 GDUs
‡
Normal = average and standard deviation of previous 30 years (1979-2008).
§
Std = standard deviation

page 2
 2009 Weather Summary for UW ARS - Arlington, WI
Precipitation
40 4
Bold Line = 30-yr Average
Cummulative (inches)

30 3

Daily (inches)
20 2

10 1

Daily

0 0
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Daily Temperatures
100
Bold Line = 30-yr Average
Maximums
80
Degrees (F)

60

40

Freeze line
20

Minimums
0
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Growing Degree Units (modified - base= 50, max = 86)

Bold Line = 30-yr Average for each planting date
January 1 3500 35
April 15
May 1 3000 30
800 V12 stage May 15
Cummulative (GDUs)
GDU Accumulation

June 1
2500 25
June 15
Daily (GDUs)

V9 stage
600 July 1
2000 20
V6 stage
400 1500 15

V3 stage 1000 10
200
VE stage 500 5

0 0 0
April 10 April 24 May 8 May 22 June 5 June 19 July 3 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Source: Weather data obtained from Bill Bland (AWON, UW-Soils) and the Midwest Region Climatological Center.
 2009 Weather Summary for UW ARS - Marshfield, WI
Precipitation
40 4
Bold Line = 30-yr Average
Cummulative (inches)

30 3

Daily (inches)
20 2

10 1

Daily

0 0
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Daily Temperatures
100
Bold Line = 30-yr Average
Maximums
80
Degrees (F)

60

40

Freeze line
20

Minimums
0
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Growing Degree Units (modified - base= 50, max = 86)

Bold Line = 30-yr Average for each planting date
January 1 3500 35
April 15
May 1 3000 30
800 V12 stage
May 15
Cummulative (GDUs)
GDU Accumulation

June 1 2500 25
June 15
Daily (GDUs)

V9 stage
600 July 1
2000 20
V6 stage
400 1500 15

V3 stage 1000 10
200
VE stage 500 5

0 0 0
April 10 April 24 May 8 May 22 June 5 June 19 July 3 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Source: Mike Bertram (Marshfield ARS), Bill Bland (AWON, UW-Soils) and the Midwest Region Climatological Center.
 Volume 16 Number 25 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- August 20, 2009

Crops growers and is included along with yield data from these sites.

2009 Winter Wheat Performance Test Results ............. 104
Plant Disease
Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic Update ...................... 104
2009 Winter Wheat Performance Test Results
Shawn Conley, Paul Esker, Mark Martinka, John Gaska, and
Karen Lackerman
Our disease assessments of the winter wheat variety trials
indicated that Septoria leaf blotch and wheat leaf rust were the
two most predominant diseases. Other diseases observed in
2009 included powdery mildew, Fusarium head blight, wheat
stripe rust, wheat stem rust, and Stagnospora glume blotch,
although this varied by location and period of the growing
season. There were reports at harvest that some fields had head
scab levels testing higher than 2.0 ppm for DON, leading to
grain dockage.
Results of this test will be available at www.coolbean.info
no later than 5 PM. CST on August 19, 2009.

UW-Extension/Madison Plant Disease

Wisconsin saw a 10% decline in winter wheat acres planted
(300,000) in the 2008-2009 growing season. The estimated Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update
yield for the 2009 crop is 63 bu per acre, down 7 percent from Brian Hudelson, Ann Joy, Amy Gibbs, and Brooke Weber,
last year. The decline in winter wheat acres was caused by two Plant Disease Diagnostics Clinic
factors: delayed corn and soybean harvest due to delayed crop
maturity and high nitrogen input prices. The wheat crop that
was established in a timely manner looked very good to The PDDC receives samples of many plant samples from
excellent going into winter dormancy, however environmental around the state. The following diseases/disorders have been
conditions in February (lack of snow cover and driving arctic identified at the PDDC since August 12, 2009:
winds) led to significant winter
injury at our Arlington and Chilton PLANT/ DISEASE/ PATHOGEN COUNTY
sites. Spring growing conditions SAMPLE DISORDER
were mostly favorable across the TYPE
state though cooler than normal
temperatures in May, June, and FIELD CROPS
July delayed crop maturity, these Soybeans Downy Mildew Peronospora manshurica Dodge
temperatures also extended the
grain fill period for winter wheat. VEGETABLES
Winter wheat yields were Cucumber Fruit Rot Phytophthora capsici Portage
variable across our testing
locations due to variable rainfall Melon (Unidentified) Root/Crown Rot Pythium sp. Vernon
events, winterkill, and disease Potato Stem Canker Rhizoctonia solani Racine
pressure. Wheat yields at the
Lancaster and Janesville locations Cucumber Cucumber Mosaic Cucumber Mosaic Virus Sauk
averaged 77 and 62 bu per acre,
respectively. Wheat yield at Tobacco Mosaic Tobacco Mosaic Virus Sauk
Janesville was reduced due to
delayed planting and late leaf rust Tomato Bacterial Speck Pseudomonas syringae Langlade
infection. Adjusted wheat yields at pv. tomato
Arlington and Chilton averaged 78
and 77 bu per acre, respectively Phytophthora infestans
and were affected by extensive Late Blight Columbia,
winterkill. Winterkill data is Rock, Sauk,
extremely important to Wisconsin Walworth

Wisconsin Crop Manager 104

 For additional information on plant diseases and their control,
visit the PDDC website at pddc.wisc.edu.
„„„„„„„„

Wisconsin Crop Manager 105

 Volume 16 Number 26 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- August 27, 2009

What’s New
Pesticide Applications and the Clean Water Act: An
Update ......................................................................... 106
Weeds
Controlling volunteer wheat in summer seeding alfalfa
..................................................................................... 106
Plant Disease
Managing Late Blight In the Organic Tomato Crop Fact
Sheet ............................................................................ 107
Crops
Sampling Corn Silage Fields to Accurately Determine
Moisture ....................................................................... 107
Wisconsin Vegetable Crop Update, 2009-10 ............... 109
Pesticide Applications and the Clean Water
Act: An Update
Roger Flashinski, Pesticide Applicator Training Program
uses. The ultimate definition of “waters of the U.S.” will be a
factor in the scope of the 6th Circuit Court ruling.
The agricultural coalition will have 90 days to decide whether
to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Controlling volunteer wheat in summer
seeding alfalfa
Mark Renz, Extension Weed Scientist
Large infestations of volunteer wheat have been documented
to reduce first cut alfalfa yields by 80% the following spring
(Ott et al. 1989) and reduce alfalfa stands the following
spring. Research was conducted at the University of Wisconsin
Lancaster research station to better understand if volunteer what
can reduce the density of late summer planted alfalfa the
following spring and if controlling these plants in the fall will
prevent these reductions in alfalfa densities the following
spring.
Picture 1. Competition from volunteer wheat on summer
seeded alfalfa.

In the April 23 WCM newsletter, I indicated that the Sixth

Circuit Court ruled that a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the Clean Water Act
(CWA) is required for all biological pesticide applications and
all chemical pesticide applications that leave a residue in water
when such applications are made to, over, or near waters of the
United States. In essence, the Court reversed EPA’s Aquatics
Pesticides rule which said such permits were not required when
applying pesticides registered under FIFRA.
I also stated that EPA was not going to challenge the Court’s
decision but, rather, requested – and received – a 2-year delay of
the Court's mandate until April 9, 2011 to provide EPA time to
develop, propose, and issue a final NPDES permitting process
for pesticide applications. In related activity, a coalition of
agriculture organizations did petition the Court for rehearing.
However, on August 3, the Sixth Circuit Court denied the
petition for rehearing.
For this experiment, alfalfa (variety Golden Harvest 6417)
EPA estimates 500 pesticide active ingredients, 3,700 was no-till drilled into fields of wheat stubble at 13 lbs/A on
products, 365,000 applicators, and 5.6 million applications will 8/18/2008. Volunteer wheat densities were counted in the fall in
be subject to the ruling. It will cover uses of mosquito all plots and ranged between 12 and 49 plants /ft2 Densities
larvicides, mosquito adulticides, aquatic herbicides, weed were variable at this site, allowing us to evaluate reductions in
control in irrigation systems, ditch bank weed control, wide-area establishment across a range of densities (see picture 1 for an
insecticide programs (land and aquatic), piscicides, and other example of the competition). On 9/19/08 Poast (sethoxydim)

Wisconsin Crop Manager 106

 was applied at 1.5 pt/A along with 1qt/A COC and 2 qt/A 28%
N to control the volunteer wheat in ½ of the plots. At the time of
application the wheat was mostly 6-7 inches tall, but several
new flushes of seedlings wheat were also visible. The alfalfa
had 4-5 trifoliate leaves and was 4-5 inches tall.
Results found that while fall alfalfa densities were typical for
a summer seeding (24 plants /ft2) spring alfalfa density was
reduced twice as much in the untreated plots compared to
treated plots (see table 1). We are currently trying to determine
if volunteer wheat’s ability to prevent the establishment of
alfalfa is density dependant. Detailed analyses will hopefully
determine if any volunteer wheat density threshold exists, above
which we would recommend treatment.
Table 1. Response of alfalfa density and yield from volunteer wheat
Variable Untreated Poast P-value
Fall alfalfa density 24 24
(plants/ft2)
Spring alfalfa density 14 19
(plants/ft2)
Loss in density alfalfa 10 5 0.008
fall-spring (plants/ft2)
Yield tons/A 2.28 1.61
Yield from plots taken in the spring of 2009 showed plots
were higher yielding if the volunteer wheat was not controlled,
but forage quality was undoubtedly reduced in untreated plots
from the higher percentage of wheat and timing of when it was
harvested (see Picture 2). Currently we are analyzing the forage
quality and percent alfalfa and wheat in plots and expect to also
have results this fall.
Picture 2. Forage differences the following spring between
treated and untreated plots.
These data from this experiment suggest that volunteer wheat
should be controlled if high quality forage is desired the
following spring. If volunteer wheat is left uncontrolled, while
higher yielding plots will be present the following spring, we
Wisconsin Crop Manager
would expect these alfalfa stands to be less productive in future
years than treated fields due to reduced alfalfa densities (from
19 – 14 plants /ft2 in treated and untreated plots respectively).
Other factors besides volunteer wheat density could also
determine alfalfa establishment and survival. For example the
fall of 2008 was very dry at this location, and limited soil
moisture likely was another factor that reduced establishment.
Regardless our results from this experiment suggest wheat
densities that ranged between 12 and 49 plants /ft2 can reduce
spring alfalfa density in Wisconsin. This experiment will be
repeated in the fall of 2009 to better understand how different
environmental conditions affect this relationship.
REFERENCE:
Ott. P.B., J.B. Dawson, and A.P. Appleby.
1989 Volunteer Wheat (Triticum aestivum) in
Newly Seeded Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.).
Weed Technology 3:375-380.
ns
Managing Late Blight in the
0.003 Organic Tomato Crop Fact Sheet
Amanda J. Gevens, Extension Plant Pathologist
Late blight is a potentially destructive disease
0.001 of tomatoes (and potatoes) caused by the fungal-
like organism, Phytophthora infestans. This
pathogen is referred to as a ‘water mold’ since it thrives under
wet conditions. All tomato plantparts can become infected by
late blight, with leaf lesions beginning as pale green or olive
green areas that quickly enlarge to become brown-black, water-
soaked, and oily in appearance (Figure 1).
*To Continue Reading this Fact sheet please visit
the WCM Downloads Page or follow this link
http://tinyurl.com/nqlmd2*
Sampling Corn Silage Fields to Accurately
Determine Moisture
Joe Lauer, Corn Agronomist
Corn must be ensiled at the proper moisture to get
fermentation for preservation. But, determining when to harvest
corn at the right whole plant moisture is difficult. Each storage
structure properly ensiles at slightly different moisture
optimums. Harvesting corn too wet for the storage structure will
result in reduced yield, souring and seepage of the ensilage, and
low intake by dairy cows. Harvesting too dry reduces yield, can
cause mold to develop, and lowers digestibility, protein and
vitamins A and E. The objective of this paper is to review field
sampling procedures for accurately timing corn silage harvest.
Determining field harvest order and initial plant sampling
The first step is to note the order in which you planted your
fields. Next note silking dates of the field to project calendar
days to when a field will mature. Once corn silks,
approximately 55 to 60 days is required to achieve maturity at
R6 or the “black layer” stage (Ritchie et al., 1993).
107
Development during grain filling is influenced by temperature,
but not as much as during the vegetative leaf emergence stages.
Instead the number of days between pollination and a killing
frost influence the time to maturity. So if an average killing
frost occurs October 1, then subtracting 55 to 60 days means
that the crop must be silking by August 2-7. Silage harvest
usually begins around 50% kernel milk which is 42 to 47 days
after silking, so silking must occur by August 15-20; but
remember that the timing of silage harvest is dependent upon
achieving the proper moisture for the storage structure (Table
1). By noting the order that fields silk it will help plan the
harvest queue of your fields and scheduling of custom choppers.
The next plant indicator that determines the order of fields to
The next plant indicator that determines the order of fields to
Wisconsin Crop Manager
The next plant indicator that determines the order of fields to
harvest is movement of the kernel milkline. Once kernel
milkline begins to move, measure moisture of fields intended to
be harvested for silage (Table 1). To better time the initial
sampling date begin when kernel milk reaches the appropriate
“trigger” for the storage structure. You will likely be too wet,
but you will have an indication of how quickly drydown is
occurring when the next sampling date takes place.
Sampling a field for whole plant moisture
Ideally the field to be harvested is uniform in development,
but the reality is that uniformity is rarely
achieved. Separate uneven fields into
representative groups. Figure 1
describes the moisture drydown patterns
of two locations in the same field. Knoll
areas were as much as 20% units
different from swale areas. Heavy
rainfall events rehydrated knoll areas to
within 6% units.
Sample two or more locations for
each representative group in the field.
Over time, sample the same locations –
trying to determine the rate of drydown. Scott Hendrickson
(Manitowoc county agent) measured whole-plant moisture over
time at three sites in the county by always returning to the
same location in the field (Figure 2). Depending upon year
the average drydown rate ranged from 0.4 to 0.7 percent per
day.
Procedure for measuring plant moisture
1. Sample 3 to 5 plants in a row that are well bordered
and representative.
2. Put in plastic bag,
3. Keep plants cool,
4. Chop as quickly as possible,
5. Measure moisture using NIR spectroscopy and/or
by drying using a, Koster oven, microwave, or
convection oven (Peters, 2000).
Predicting silage harvest date
Use 0.5% per day during September to predict the date
when a field will be ready for the storage structure. If
weather is warm and dry, use a faster rate of drydown (1999
and 2000 in Figure 2). If weather is cool and wet, use a
slower rate of drydown (1996 and 2001 in Figure 2). We are
most interested in the rate of corn silage drydown.
Wisconsin county agents have been accumulating corn
silage drydown information since 1996. Results from county
“Drydown Days” can be checked at the website
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/ag/silagedrydown/ which
averages and predicts area harvest dates.
108
Managing county corn silage “Drydown Days”
• Objective: To assist farmers for timing corn silage
harvest for their storage structures.
• Schedule first “Drydown Day” date for when corn is at
the R5 stage.
o Best if weekly Drydown Days are scheduled.
o Sample corn in field from same site. Avoid
border effects. Allows for trackingdrydown
rate of change.
o If only one Drydown Day is scheduled, then
use silage drydown rate of 0.5% per day from
date of measurement.
• Equipment:
o Brush chipper with self-sharpening blade
(rather than hammer style)
o Moisture determination method: NIR, Koster,
Microwave, Oven
• Arrange for people to help!
*The PDF file of this article can be found on the
WCM Downloads Page*

Wisconsin Vegetable Crop Update, 2009-10

Alvin J. Bussan, Potato and Vegetable Cropping Systems
Specialist, UW-Madison, Department of Horticulture

Vegetable Crop Update newsletter issue ten is out! This

marks the tenth newsletter of the 2009 year. Weekly updates
should be available as disease, insect, weed, fertility, and crop
progress changes.
The tenth issue has been poseted on the IPCM web site on a
new page titled appropriately: The Vegetable Crop Update
page. Look for a new menu item under "WCM-News to find
this page or click here >>>
http://ipcm.wisc.edu/WCMNews/VegCropUpdate/tabid/115/De
fault.aspx

„„„„„„„„

Wisconsin Crop Manager 109

 Managing Late Blight in the Organic Tomato Crop

Amanda J. Gevens
Extension Plant Pathologist, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Phone: (608) 890-3072, Email: gevens@wisc.edu
Some of the information in this fact sheet was provided by Dr. Ruth Genger, University of Wisconsin Plant
Pathology, Dr. Dennis Halterman, University of Wisconsin Plant Pathology, Mr. Adrian Barta, Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture, and Dr. Margaret Tuttle McGrath, Cornell University Plant Pathology.

Disease Description & Status of Disease in WI: Late blight is a potentially destructive disease
of tomatoes (and potatoes) caused by the fungal-like organism, Phytophthora infestans. This
pathogen is referred to as a ‘water mold’ since it thrives under wet conditions. All tomato plant
parts can become infected by late blight, with leaf lesions beginning as pale green or olive green
areas that quickly enlarge to become brown-black, water-soaked, and oily in appearance (Figure
1). Lesions on leaves can also produce pathogen sporulation which looks like white-gray fuzzy
growth (Figure 2). Stems can also exhibit dark brown to black lesions with sporulation (Figure
1). Fruit symptoms begin small, but quickly develop into golden to chocolate brown firm lesions
or spots (Figure 2). The time from first infection to lesion development and sporulation can be
as fast as 7 days, depending upon the weather. In Wisconsin, late blight has not been identified
on tomatoes or potatoes since 2002. As of today, August 18, 2009, we have confirmed reports of
tomato late blight in 8 counties: Lafayette, Green, Rock, Walworth, Dane, Sauk, Columbia, and
Portage. Most reports have come in from home gardeners with fewer than 12 plants in a
backyard garden. However, in the past week, we have been getting reports of late blight from
growers with larger acreages of tomatoes in the state. To date, we have not found late blight on
potatoes in Wisconsin. However, a laboratory test with the late blight pathogen collected from a
tomato plant in Dane County on late July 2009 indicated that it can infect potato foliage. We
also know that this strain of Phytophthora infestans is type US#14 which is known to be
aggressive on potato, of the mating type A2, and resistant to the conventional fungicide
metalaxyl.

top of leaf bottom of leaf

A B

C D
Figure 1. Symptoms of late blight on tomato leaves and stems.
 A B C
Figure 2. Symptoms of tomato late blight on tomato leaves and fruit. A. Late blight lesion on tomato leaf. Note
brown, water-soaked lesion with white pathogen sporulation (Photo credit: Joe Bollman, UW Extension Columbia
Co.). B. Brown, firm, late blight lesions on ‘Roma’ tomato fruits (Photo credit: Dorothy Krause, Marlborough
Park Community Gardens, Dane Co.). C. Close up of brown, firm, late blight lesion on green tomato fruit.

Figure 3. Confirmed reports of tomato late blight

in Wisconsin. Counties colored red represent
counties with confirmed reports of tomato late
blight as of August 18, 2009.

Management: Once late blight has moved into an area, it is critical that tomato plants be
protected from infection. Although there are several fungicides that are approved for organic use
to control tomato late blight, only coppers are most effective if applied before initial infection
and applied repeatedly. Copper products must be present on new foliage in order to have a
protective, disease-slowing effect, so repeat sprays are necessary. Little disease control can be
had when copper applications are made only after disease onset. A recent study compared
copper and non-copper containing organic-approved fungicides (such as Sonata, Serenade, and
Oxidate) for late blight control on potato. Results from replicated trials showed that the best
organic-approved fungicide for potato late blight control was copper (Dorn, et al. 2007. Control
of late blight in organic potato production: evaluation of copper-free preparations under field,
growth chamber, and laboratory conditions. Eur. Journal of Plant Pathology 119:217-240).
OMRI-approved copper products are listed below.

Copper product (OMRI approved) Manufacturer

Britz Copper Sulfur 15-25 Dust Britz Fertilizers, Inc.
Champ WG NuFarm Americas, Inc.
COC WP Albaugh, Inc.
Concern® Copper Soap Fungicide Woodstream Corp.
CSC Copper Sulfur Dust Fungicide Martin Operating Partnership, L.P.
Cueva Fungicide Concentrate W Neudorff GmbH KG
Cueva Fungicide Ready-To-Use W Neudorff GmbH KG
Lilly Miller® Cueva™ Copper Soap Fungicide Ready-To-Use Lilly Miller Brands
Nordox® 75 WG Nordox AS
Nu Cop® 50 WP Albaugh, Inc.
PHT Copper Sulfur Dust J.R. Simplot Company
Ready-To-Use Worry Free® Brand Copper Soap Fungicide Lilly Miller Brands
Basic Copper 53 Albaugh, Inc.
Copper Sulfate Crystals Chem One, Ltd.
Quimag Quimicos Aguila Copper Sulfate Crystal Fabrica de Sulfato El Aguila, S.A. de C.V.
Frequently asked questions

Where did this late blight come from?

Based on symptoms, timing of appearance of symptoms, and spread of this disease in WI, it is
likely that inoculum (source of spores for late blight infection) entered the state on air that had
moved into WI from other nearby states with reports of late blight on tomato and potato. The
late blight pathogen produces a lot of spores on infected plants and spores can move in air up to
40 miles.

Where can I find more information on tomato late blight symptoms and management?
http://www.extension.org/article/18351
http://www.extension.org/article/18361
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/lateblight.html
http://www.plantpath.wisc.edu/wivegdis/

How do I destroy and/or dispose of my late blight-infected tomato plants?

There are several methods of destroying infected plants: 1) pull up plants, bag, and put out for
general trash disposal. This method is OK for a few plants; 2) infected plants can be buried but
be sure to avoid creating a warm, sheltered environment which would keep the plant tissue and
pathogen alive for extended periods of time beneath the surface of the soil (such as a deep
compost pile). The goal is to kill the plants: once the plants are dead, the pathogen cannot
survive. Do not bury a large pile of plants in one hole, rather, make a shallow trench away from
production areas and lay plants and debris in, then cover; 3) plants can be flame-killed with a
propane or other torch; and 4) infected plants can be pulled and placed in a small pile covered
over with a dark colored plastic tarp and left in the sun. This will create heat in the pile from the
sun beating on the plastic tarp and plants will die within a few days.

Are tomato fruits from late blight infected tomato plants safe to eat?
Healthy-appearing fruit from late-blight-infected tomato plants are safe for human consumption.
If they have been infected, but aren't yet showing symptoms, they won't keep in storage. There
are some concerns about canning infected fruit because bacteria can enter late-blight infected
fruit and impact quality. Further information can be found at:
http://foodsafety.psu.edu/LateBlight.htm

How fast will late blight infected tomato plants die?

This depends upon how many points of infection the plant received, the cultivar (some cultivars
are more susceptible than others), the history of use of protectant fungicides (such as copper),
and on the weather. Hot, dry, sunny weather typically holds back late blight; whereas cool,
rainy, overcast weather will cause late blight to progress rapidly killing the plant in 7 to 10 days.

I have tomato late blight in my garden – will I get it next year if I plant tomatoes again?
The tomato late blight pathogen, Phytophthora infestans, cannot survive outside of infected plant
tissue and the current strain of the pathogen cannot produce overwintering spores (oospores) on
its own. For this reason, it is critical to kill infected plant material. Infected potato tubers can
serve as a source of inoculum in a following year, however, to date, late blight has not been
identified on potatoes in WI.
August 2009 Field Crops 28.47 - 72
Sampling Corn Silage Fields to Accurately Determine Moisture
Joe Lauer, Corn Agronomist

Corn must be ensiled at the proper moisture to get kernel milkline begins to move, measure moisture of
fermentation for preservation. But, determining when to fields intended to be harvested for silage (Table 1). To
harvest corn at the right whole plant moisture is better time the initial sampling date begin when kernel
difficult. Each storage structure properly ensiles at milk reaches the appropriate “trigger” for the storage
slightly different moisture optimums. Harvesting corn structure. You will likely be too wet, but you will have
too wet for the storage structure will result in reduced an indication of how quickly drydown is occurring
yield, souring and seepage of the ensilage, and low when the next sampling date takes place.
intake by dairy cows. Harvesting too dry reduces yield,
Sampling a field for whole plant moisture
can cause mold to develop, and lowers digestibility,
protein and vitamins A and E. The objective of this Ideally the field to be harvested is uniform in
paper is to review field sampling procedures for development, but the reality is that uniformity is rarely
accurately timing corn silage harvest. achieved. Separate uneven fields into representative
groups. Figure 1 describes the moisture drydown
Determining field harvest order and initial plant
patterns of two locations in the same field. Knoll areas
sampling
were as much as 20% units different from swale areas.
The first step is to note the order in which you
planted your fields. Next note silking dates of the field
to project calendar days to when a field will mature.
Once corn silks, approximately 55 to 60 days is
required to achieve maturity at R6 or the “black layer”
stage (Ritchie et al., 1993). Development during grain
filling is influenced by temperature, but not as much as
during the vegetative leaf emergence stages. Instead the
number of days between pollination and a killing frost
influence the time to maturity. So if an average killing
frost occurs October 1, then subtracting 55 to 60 days
means that the crop must be silking by August 2-7.
Silage harvest usually begins around 50% kernel milk
which is 42 to 47 days after silking, so silking must Figure 1. Forage moisture of corn growing on a knoll and
occur by August 15-20; but remember that the timing of a swale at Arlington during 2003
silage harvest is dependent upon achieving the proper
moisture for the storage structure (Table 1). By noting Heavy rainfall events rehydrated knoll areas to within
the order that fields silk it will help plan the harvest 6% units.
queue of your fields and scheduling of custom
choppers.
Table 1. Kernel milk stage “Triggers” for timing silage harvest
The next plant indicator Silo Structure Ideal Moisture Content Kernel Milk Stage “Trigger”
that determines the order of % %
fields to harvest is movement Horizontal bunker 70 to 65 80
of the kernel milkline. Once Bag 70 to 60 80
Upright concrete stave 65 to 60 60
Upright oxygen limiting 50 to 60 40
“Trigger": kernel milk stage to begin checking silage moisture.

University of Wisconsin – Extension  United States Department of Agriculture  Wisconsin Counties Cooperating
Providing Equal Opportunities in Employment and Programming
 Sample two or more locations for
each representative group in the field.
Over time, sample the same locations –
trying to determine the rate of drydown.
Scott Hendrickson (Manitowoc county
agent) measured whole-plant moisture
over time at three sites in the county by
always returning to the same location in
the field (Figure 2). Depending upon
year the average drydown rate ranged
from 0.4 to 0.7 percent per day.
Procedure for measuring plant
moisture
1. Sample 3 to 5 plants in a row that are
well bordered and representative.
2. Put in plastic bag,
3. Keep plants cool, Figure 2. Corn silage drydown during harvest (Hendrickson, Manitowoc
4. Chop as quickly as possible, County, WI)
5. Measure moisture using NIR
spectroscopy and/or by drying using a, Koster oven, Literature Cited
microwave, or convection oven (Peters, 2000).
Peters, J. 2000. On-Farm Moisture Testing of Corn
Predicting silage harvest date Silage [Online]. Available at
Use 0.5% per day during September to predict the http://www.uwex.edu/ces/crops/uwforage/CSMoistur
date when a field will be ready for the storage structure. e.pdf (verified 21 August 2009). Focus on Forages,
If weather is warm and dry, use a faster rate of drydown UW-Madison.
(1999 and 2000 in Figure 2). If weather is cool and wet, Ritchie, S.W., J.J. Hanway, and G.O. Benson, (eds.)
use a slower rate of drydown (1996 and 2001 in Figure 1993. How a corn plant develops, pp. 1-21 pp. ed.
2). We are most interested in the rate of corn silage Iowa State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv., Ames.
drydown. Wisconsin county agents have been
accumulating corn silage drydown information since
1996. Results from county “Drydown Days” can be
checked at the website
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/ag/silagedrydown/ which
averages and predicts area harvest dates.

Managing county corn silage “Drydown Days”

 Objective: To assist farmers for timing corn silage harvest for their storage structures.
 Schedule first “Drydown Day” date for when corn is at the R5 stage.
 Best if weekly Drydown Days are scheduled.
 Sample corn in field from same site. Avoid border effects. Allows for tracking
drydown rate of change.
 If only one Drydown Day is scheduled, then use silage drydown rate of 0.5% per
day from date of measurement.
 Equipment:
 Brush chipper with self-sharpening blade (rather than hammer style)
 Moisture determination method: NIR, Koster, Microwave, Oven
 Arrange for people to help!

page 2
 Volume 16 Number 27 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager
What’s New
Soil Quality Field Day .........................................110
Invasive rule NR40 now official in Wisconsin.....110
Crops
Recommendations for Winter Wheat
Establishment in 2009 ..........................................112
Hail Damaged Corn: Risk of Molds and
Mycotoxins? .........................................................115
A Cool Year ..........................................................116
Wisconsin Vegetable Crop Update, 2009-11 .......116
Soil Quality Field Day
Karen Talarczyk, Nutrient and Pest Management Program
Rock County UW-Extension and the UW Nutrient and Pest
Management Program will be holding a soil quality field day
Wednesday September 16 in Janesville.
The morning session will include presentations on soil
organic matter, effect of tillage on soil quality including nutrient
stratification in no-till systems, nitrogen availability from cover
crops, manures, and composts and cover crops for soil quality.
The afternoon field session will include a demonstration of soil
quality characteristics using soil pits to compare no-till with
conventional tillage. Other demonstrations will include cover
crops after wheat including red clover and “tillage” radish.
The field day will be held from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the
Rock County Farm, Hwy 14 (a quarter mile East of Hwy 51).
The cost of the program is $10.00 which includes lunch and
materials. Four hours of CEUs have been requested.
Preregistration is requested to aid meal planning. For more
information and to register, please contact the Rock County
UW-Extension Office, (608) 757-5696.
Invasive rule NR40 now official in Wisconsin
Mark Renz, Extension Weed Scientist, University of
Wisconsin-Madison
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Invasive
species law (NR40) is now official as of September 1st. This
rule established a classification and regulatory system for
Wisconsin Crop Manager
--- September 3, 2009
invasive species restricting actions such as sales, transportation,
planting, or releasing listed species to the wild without a permit.
The rule classified species as prohibited or restricted species,
they are defined below.
Prohibited species are not yet in the state or only exist as
small populations, but have the potential to cause significant
damage if they are allowed to spread and become established. It
is illegal for people to transport, import, possess,transfer, sell
and introduce these species without a permit. Landowners will
be expected to control prohibited species found on their
property.
Restricted species are invasive species that are already too
widespread to expect statewide eradicated. For this
classification it is illegal for people to transport, import,
transfer, sell and introduce these species, but people may
possess plants.
DNR has pledged to work cooperatively with local units of
government, businesses, and landowners to educate people on
how to identify these species (specifically weeds), develop
practices to prevent spread, and assist in finding funding to
control prohibited populations. This rule does give DNR staff
the right to inspect property for prohibited species and control
these species (with landowner permission or a judicial
inspection warrant). If the prohibited species is not controlled
upon order, DNR or its designee may control it and recover
expenses it incurs. After several conversations with DNR staff I
am convinced that their intent is to use this rule as an
educational tool and not for regulation. Educational materials
and resources are currently being made by DNR staff and will
be available throughout the winter to educate citizens about the
rule.
While none of these plants classified by the rule have any
direct agronomic value as a crop, producers will need to ensure
that they are not transporting viable propagules (seeds or
perennial tissue that can resprout) of Uprohibited and restricted
speciesU as this is illegal (unless a permit is obtained). While
the rule exempts people who incidentally or unknowingly
transport, possess, transfer or introduce a listed invasive species,
knowledgeable producers must demonstrate that they took
reasonable precautions to prevent movement of listed species.
An example of this situation would be haying a field filled with
listed plants like spotted knapweed or Canada thistle and
transporting the bales to another location off farm. Producers
can transport plant tissue of these species, but they must be
incapable of reproducing/propagating. So harvesting these fields
before any viable seeds are produced would be considered an
adequate practice to prevent spread by DNR as the producer
110
 Prohibited plant species (27):
took steps to prevent movement of propagules of known listed Common name Scientific name
plants. More guidance and information on how to interpret this Australian swamp crop Crassula helmsii
rule will be extended this fall and winter as interpretations of Brazilian waterweed Egeria densa
the rule occur.
Brittle waternymph Najas minor
To see additional information about NR40, go to Chinese yam Dioscorea oppositifolia
Uhttp://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/classification/U European frog-bit Hydrocharis morsus-ranae
Tables below list prohibited (27), restricted (34), and Fanwort, Carolina Fanwort Cabomba caroliniana
prohibited/restricted (12) plant species listed in NR40. Giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum
Giant knotweed Polygonum sachalinense
Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata
Restricted plant species (34)
Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica
Common name Scientific name Japanese stilt grass Microstegium vimineum
Autumn olive Elaeagnus umbellata Kudzu Pueraria lobata
Bells honeysuckle Lonicera x bella Mile-a-minute vine Polygonum perfoliatum
Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Oxygen-weed, African
Cattail hybrid Typha x glauca elodea Lagarosiphon major
Common buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica Pale swallow-wort Vincetoxicum rossicum
Dipsacus fullonum subsp. Parrot feather Myriophyllum aquaticum
Common teasel sylvestris Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium
Creeping bellflower Campanula rapunculoides Porcelain berry Ampelopsis brevipedunculata
Curly-leaf pondweed Potamogeton crispus Princess tree Paulownia tomentosa
Cut-leaved teasel Dipsacus laciniatus Sawtooth oak Quercus acutissima
Cypress spurge Euphorbia cyparissias Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius
Dame's rocket Hesperis matronalis Sericea lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata
Eurasian water milfoil Myriophyllum spicatum Spreading hedge parsley Torilis arvensis
Flowering rush Butomus umbellatus Water chestnut Trapa natans
Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata Wineberry Rubus phoenicolasius
Glossy buckthorn (CV) Frangula alnus Yellow floating heart Nymphoides peltata
Helleborine orchid Epipactis helleborine Yellow star thistle Centaurea solstitialis
Hemp nettle, brittlestem
hemp nettle Galeopsis tetrahit Prohibited/restricted plants (12):
Hound's tongue Cynoglossum officinal
Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum
Scientific
Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula Common name name
Morrow's honeysuckle Lonicera morrowii Amur honeysuckle Lonicera maackii
Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora Black swallow-wort Vincetoxicum nigrum
Musk thistle Carduus nutans Celandine Chelidonium majus
Narrow-leaf cattail Typha angustifolia European marsh thistle Cirsium palustre
Oriental bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus Hairy willow herb Epilobium hirsutum
Phragmites, Common reed Phragmites australis Hill mustard Bunias orientalis
Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides Japanese hedge-parsley Torilis japonica
Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Japanese hops Humulus japonicus
Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Lyme grass or sand ryegrass Leymus arenarius
Spotted knapweed Centurea biebersteinii, c. stoebe Poison hemlock Conium maculatum
Tansy (CV) Tanacetum vulgare Tall or Reed manna grass Glyceria maxima
Tartarian honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica Wild chervil Anthriscus sylvestris
Tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima
Wild parnsip Pastinaca sativa

[1] Prohibited/restricted species are ones that have large populations in a portion of the state, but are uncommon elsewhere. These
plants are listed as restricted in the areas where the plant is common, but prohibited elsewhere in the state. The rule provides
specific geographic references that define the where the classification changes (e.g county, highway).

Wisconsin Crop Manager 111


Recommendations for Winter Wheat
Establishment in 2009
Shawn Conley, State Soybean and Small Grains Specialist, Paul
Esker, Extension Field Crops Plant Pathologist, John Gaska,
Outreach Specialist
Winter wheat establishment recommendations:
1. Plant new seed (don’t plant saved seed).
2. A fungicide seed treatment is recommended for
winter wheat.
3. Wheat should be planted 1 inch deep.
4. The targeted fall stand for wheat planted from
September 15th to October 1st is between 30 and 35
plants per square foot (1,300,000 and 1,500,000
seeds per acre).
5. The optimal seeding rate for wheat planted after
October 1st should be incrementally increased as
planting date is delayed to compensate for reduced
fall tillering.
6. If saved seed is planted, increase seeding rate to
compensate for reduced plant vigor.
period, the crop insurance guarantee is reduced to 60% of the
original guarantee.
Special notes regarding the 2010 crop
Winter wheat coverage is not available in all Wisconsin
counties.
Air seeded (flown on by airplane) wheat is not insurable and
no premium is charged.
The final day to turn in a 2009 winter wheat claim is October
31st.
The 2010 wheat APH price has been set at $5.20. The 2009
price was $7.35.
The 2010 wheat CRC price discoveryon CBOT will be
determined as follows:
• The Base price tracks from August 15, 2009 -
September 14, 2009
o The Base Price was $8.58 in 2009.
• The Harvest price tracks from July 15, 2010 –
August 14, 2010
o The Harvest Price was $5.17 for 2009.

Seeding Depth • There is a 200% maximum difference between the

Base and Harvest Prices with no downside limit.
Wheat should be planted ~1.0 inch deep depending upon soil
moisture conditions. Wheat planted less than 0.5 inches deep *Tables 1 and 2 are on the following page.*
may result in uneven germination due to seed exposure or dry Crop Rotation:
soil conditions. Shallow planted wheat is also more susceptible
to soil heaving. Wheat planted more than 1.5 inches deep may Yield data from our long term rotation experiment located at
result in death due to pre-mature leaf opening or poor tiller Arlington, WI indicated that wheat grain yield was greatest
development and winter survival. Uniform seed placement and when following soybean (Table 3) (Lauer and Gaska, 2003-
seeding depth are important in promoting crop health in the 2006, unpublished). Yield of second year wheat (2003 column)
fall. was similar to wheat yields following corn for grain or silage.
Third (2004), fourth (2005), and fifth (2006) year continuous
Seeding rate and planting date wheat yields were dramatically lower than the other rotational
The targeted fall stand for wheat planted from September 15th systems. Our data suggests that growers should plant wheat
to October 1st is between 30 and 35 plants per square foot. To after soybean first, then corn, and lastly wheat.
achieve this goal, the seeding rate for soft red winter wheat is
between 1,300,000 and 1,500,000 seeds per acre (Table Table 3. Winter wheat grain yield following winter wheat,
1). Depending upon varietal seed size, this equates to a range of soybean, corn for grain, and corn silage.
between 74 and 119 pounds of seed per acre (Table 2). Given Rotation 2003 2004 2005 2006 Average
the late maturity of Wisconsin’s soybean and corn crop, a -------------Winter wheat grain yield bu a-1----
significant number of Wisconsin’s winter wheat acres will ---------
likely be planted late in 2009. The optimal seeding rate for Continuous 47.0 41.8 45.0 47.5
wheat planted after October 1st should be incrementally Wheat 56.31
increased as planting date is delayed to compensate for reduced Corn-Soybean- 51.0 71.8 74.0 65.8
fall tillering (Table 1). The late planting season will also affect Wheat 66.3
crop insurance coverage. Please contact your crop insurance for Soybean-Corn 42.02 51.1 66.0 53.7
specific planting date questions for your county. (grain)-Wheat 55.7
Winter wheat and crop insurance (Information courtesy of Soybean-Corn 51.0 62.0 69.9 60.2
Michele Austin, Director –Insurance Services; Badgerland (silage)-Wheat 57.7
1
Financial) 2003 marked the second year of the continuous wheat rotation
treatment
The Wisconsin winter wheat final planting date varies by 2
Poor stand establishment in the 2004 Soybean-Corn (grain)-
county, ranging from September 30th to October 10th. If the Wheat rotation affected wheat yield.
wheat is seeded after the county’s final plant date (late planting
period) the crop insurance guarantee is reduced by 1% per day
for the first 10 days. If wheat is seeded after the late planting

Wisconsin Crop Manager 112

Table 1. Wisconsin seeding rate recommendations based on planting date

Wisconsin Winter Wheat Seeding Rate Recommendations

Seeds/acre Seeds/sq ft Row Width
Million 6 7 7.5
Plants per foot row
0.4 9.2 5 5 6
0.5 11.5 6 7 7
0.6 13.8 7 8 9
0.7 16.1 8 9 10
0.8 18.4 9 11 11
0.9 20.7 10 12 13 Seeding Rate for Sept 1 to Sept 15
1.0 23.0 11 13 14
1.1 25.3 13 15 16
1.2 27.5 14 16 17
1.3 29.8 15 17 19
1.4 32.1 16 19 20 Seeding Rate for Sept 15 to Oct. 1
1.5 34.4 17 20 22
1.6 36.7 18 21 23
1.7 39.0 20 23 24
1.8 41.3 21 24 26
1.9 43.6 22 25 27 Seeding Rate for Oct. 1 to Oct 10
2.0 45.9 23 27 29
2.1 48.2 24 28 30
2.2 50.5 25 29 32
2.3 52.8 26 31 33
2.4 55.1 28 32 34
2.5 57.4 29 33 36

Table 2. Seed size and seeding rate conversion table.

Seeds per acre (x 1 million)

Seeds/lb 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Pounds of seed/acre
10000 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
11000 91 109 127 145 164 182 200
12000 83 100 117 133 „ 150
„„„„„ „„
167 183
13000 77 92 108 123 138 154 169
14000 71 86 100 114 129 143 157
15000 67 80 93 107 120 133 147
16000 63 75 88 100 113 125 138
17000 59 71 82 94 106 118 129

Wisconsin Crop Manager 113

 If growers choose to plant second year wheat several
management factors should be considered to reduce risk. First
plant a different wheat variety in that second year that possesses
a strong disease package. Under no circumstances should
growers consider planting bin-run seed in second year
wheat. By planting a different variety with strong disease
resistance characteristics you can reduce the likelihood of early
disease pressure and significant yield loss. Growers should also
consider using a seed treatment in wheat following wheat. Be
aware that seed treatments are not a cure all for all common
diseases in continuous wheat systems (e.g. take-all). Growers
should also consider increasing their seeding rate to 1.8 to 2.0
million seeds per acre in wheat following wheat systems. This
will aid in stand establishment and increase the likelihood of a
uniform stand going into the winter. Lastly, if using a no-till
system, planting into a seedbed that is free of living volunteer
wheat is important in reducing the incidence of Barley Yellow
Dwarf Virus. Growers should consider a herbicide application
to any living volunteer wheat prior to planting to prevent a
“green bridge” for the aphids that vector this virus.
Plant New Seed in 2009
• To maximize wheat yields in 2010, it is imperative
that growers plant certified or private
(professionally prepared) seed that is true to
variety, clean, and has a high germination
percentage (>85%).
The main reason to avoid planting bin-run seed in 2009 is
Fusarium Head Blight (FHB), also known as scab. Scab
incidence and severity was not as severe in the 08/09 crop as it
was in the 07/08 crop, however the presence of scab was noted
at all of our variety trial locations in 2009.
Kernels from heads infected with scab may be shriveled or
shrunken and lightweight. Some kernels may have a pink to red
discoloration (Image 1). Others may be bleached or white in
color. Black point or kernel smudge was also noted across the
state and may be caused by a number of different fungi
including species of Alternaria, Fusarium, and
Helminthosporium. Affected kernels appear black-pointed. The
embryo end of the seed is discolored with a darkened pericarp
and may be shriveled. The fungi that cause black point or scab
of wheat seed may survive in or on the seed, thus affecting
germination and contributing to seedling blight problems if seed
is planted. Fungicide seed treatment and the use of quality seed
will help reduce seedling blight due to infected seed but will not
protect against subsequent head blight. Planting good quality,
disease-free seed is an effective means of preventing problems
from these seedborne pathogens.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Image 1. Scabby and Tombstone Kernels (Photo courtesy of
Laura Sweets)
If growers absolutely need to plant saved seed due to
availability or other economic considerations, the following
steps should be taken to increase the likelihood of establishing a
legal and good wheat crop.
The first step is to determine if you can legally plant the
wheat seed you saved. Today many private wheat varieties now
come with statements, which buyers sign at the time of
purchase, stating that they understand they are not authorized to
use the harvested grain for seed. Most currently used public
winter wheat varieties are Plant Variety Protected (PVP) and
though you may replant them on your own land you, do not
have the right to trade/sell seed of those varieties to others for
planting.
Once you have determined if you can legally plant the seed
you saved, the next step is to clean the wheat seed. It is
important that wheat seed be cleaned to remove small and
damaged seeds and to eliminate weed seeds. Removing small
and damaged seeds will not only aid in crop establishment, but
will also provide a more uniform wheat seedling stand.
Removing small and damaged seeds will also increase the
thousand-kernel weight (TKW), which serves as a measure of
seed quality. Wheat seed with TKW values greater than 30
grams tend to have increased fall tiller number and seedling
vigor.
The next step is to perform a germination test. Germination
tests can either be completed at home or by sending a sample to
the Wisconsin Improvement Association. A home test can be
performed by counting out 4 sets of 100 seeds and placing each
of them in a damp paper towel. Place the paper towel into a
plastic bag to conserve moisture and store in a warm location
out of direct sunlight. After five days count the number of
germinated seeds that have both an intact root and shoot. This
will give the grower an estimate of % germination. It is
important to choose random seeds throughout the entire seed lot
and conduct at least 4 - 100 seed counts. If germination is below
85% it is important to increase the seeding rate to compensate;
however, I would caution growers from seeding any wheat with
a germination test below 80%.
The last step is to assess the need for a fungicide seed
treatment. A number of fungicides are labeled for use as seed
treatment fungicides on winter wheat and are listed in the Pest
114
Management for Wisconsin Field Crops 2009 (UW-Extension
A3646). These seed treatment fungicides protect germinating
seed and young seedlings from seedborne and soilborne
pathogens. Seed treatment fungicides will not improve
germination of seed that has been injured by environmental
factors and will not resurrect dead seed. Seed treatment
fungicides applied this fall will not protect against FHB
infection next summer. If seed with black point or scab must be
used for planting, a seed treatment fungicide should be
considered.
Hail Damaged Corn – Risk of Molds and
Mycotoxins?
Paul Esker, Joe Lauer, and Dan Undersander Extension Plant
Pathology, Extension Corn Agronomist, and Extension Forage
Agronomist UW-Madison and UW-Extension
In late July, there was a significant hail event in Wisconsin,
primarily located in the southwestern portion of the state (Fig.
1). At that time, the corn crop was at approximately the R1
(silking) growth stage, but ranging from pre-VT (pre-tasseling)
to R1. The hail event led to extensive bruising on the ear, husks,
and stalks, however, the severity of the hail event varied from
field to field. While some fields had finished pollinating, with
bruising on ears, others had not yet started the pollination
process and ears were unaffected.
Since that time we have received numerous questions
regarding the risk of mold and/or mycotoxin development in
fields damaged by hail. The simplest answer is that we cannot
predict that either mold growth or mycotoxin development will
occur in these fields since there are numerous factors that must
be considered. Also, the occurrence of field molds does not
necessarily mean that there will be mycotoxin development.
However, monitoring of fields and sampling and testing for
specific mycotoxins can improve understanding of the risk of
contamination.
Fig. 1. Hail damage that occurred in late July 2009 in research
plots at the Lancaster Agricultural Research Station.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Corn for Grain or Silage? Concern for possible mycotoxin
development increases the longer corn remains in the field. The
highest risk for mycotoxin contamination would be in corn for
grain, followed by high moisture corn, and lastly corn for silage.
Additionally, increased risk for stalk rots is likely for heavily
bruised plants.
What to Look For? Walking hail affected fields at the
Lancaster ARS on 31 August, there was some early evidence of
ear rots, including Fusarium or Gibberella ear rot. Fusarium ear
rot typically begins where kernels have been damaged and will
be white to pink or salmon-colored in appearance (Robertson
and Munkvold 2009). Gibberella ear rot is different in that it is
typically not associated with damaged kernels and will be a pink
mold that starts at the tip of an ear. It should be noted that the
field where these observations were made has had a history of
Gibberella. Aspergillus ear rot is also associated with damaged
kernels and will have powdery olive green appearance. As a
reminder, evidence of the mold on the ear does not mean that
there is mycotoxin present.
Mycotoxins: Currently, there are 400-500 known
mycotoxins, which are produced by fungi. Production of
mycotoxins can occur in both the field and in storage, although
it is thought that most contamination occurs in the field (Payne
1999). When mycotoxin contamination can occur is also
dependent on the type of mycotoxin. While most aflatoxin
contamination would occur in the field, mycotoxins produced
by Penicillium would occur in silage, especially if fermentation
is poor.
Mycotoxin development is highly dependent on the
environment, factors that may cause wounding on the plant, or
can occur when resource demand is high or resources are
limiting. Three key environmental components for mycoxtoxin
contamination are temperatures above freezing, moisture above
20%, and oxygen are required (Gotlieb 2004). In storage, the
risk of mycotoxin contamination can be reduced with proper
drying or ensiling conditions, however, there is a risk of
contamination occurring at the end of silage use, where the
original infection occurred in the field (Richard et al. 2007).
• Fusarium mycotoxins: These mycotoxins
include deoxynivalenol (DON; produced by several
species of Fusarium, including F. graminearum),
zearalenone (F. graminearum), and fumonisin B1
and T-2 (multiple species of Fusarium). Of these
mycotoxins, DON is the most common. In silage,
DON does not appear to have a significant effect,
however, in grain, production of DON is favored by
grain moisture of 21% or more and temperatures
from 21-29ºC. It is thought that rumen
microorganisms are also able to degrade DON to
less toxic form.
• Aflatoxin: This toxin is produced by two
species, Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus.
Aflatoxin is globally very important, since it is listed
as a carcinogen for humans. However, development
of aflatoxin is typically favored by hot and dry
conditions.
• Penicillium mycotoxins: In silage, P.
115
 roqueforti is a common fungus. This organism is a (http://www.extension.iastate.edu/CropNews/2009/0818r
saprophyte that grows well in low oxygen and acidic obertsonmunkovld.htm, Accessed 30 August 2009).
environments. There are multiple toxins produced by
P. roqueforti, including, PR toxin, roquefortin C, A Cool Year
patulin, and mycophenolic acid. While the effect of
Joe Lauer
these toxins on dairy cattle is not well known, proper
harvest timing and ensiling can reduce the risk of I don’t need to tell you how cool it has been this year. We are
toxin development. all feeling it.
Recommendations: Continue to monitor hail-affected fields Attached are weather summaries for Arlington and
closely. Harvesting on the early side of the optimum moisture Marshfield. Marshfield is ahead of Arlington for GDU
range may help reduce the risk for mold and/or mycotoxin accumulation by 61 GDUs. At Arlington we normally
development. Corn grown for grain would normally be accumulate 2081 GDUs between May 1 and August 31. This
harvested between 25% to 20 % moisture. For corn grown for year, for the same period, only 1756 GDUs have accumulated.
silage, we recommend using silage drydown days to help
We still have September to “average” out the year.
estimate harvest timing. The proper harvest moisture for the
storage structure varies (i.e. bunker = 70% to 65% while To view the weather summaries please visit the article titled
concrete stave = 65% to 60%), but ensiling on the wetter side of "Will Corn Mature in 2009?" on the WCM Downloads
these ranges can reduce the risk of mycotoxin development. Webpage.
This is in part because the anaerobic conditions and low pH
should arrest development of the fungi that require an aerobic Wisconsin Vegetable Crop Update, 2009-11
environment.
Vegetable Crop Update newletter issue eleven is out! This
Sampling for mycotoxins in corn silage should occur just marks the eleventh newletter of the 2009 year. Weekly updates
prior to ensiling, while sampling corn for grain can be done should be available as disease, insect, weed, fertilty, and crop
prior to harvest by collecting ears at random throughout the progress changes.
field. It is recommended to sample at least 25 ears (Robertson
The eleventh issue has been posted on the IPCM web site on
and Munkvold 2009) since that will provide a better estimate of
a new page titled appropriately : The Vegetable Crop Update
the entire field.
page. Look for a new menu item under "WCM-News" to find
Laboratories that test for mycotoxins are listed in A3646, Pest this page, or click here >>>
Management in Wisconsin Field Crops and this is available at: http://ipcm.wisc.edu/WCMNews/VegCropUpdate/tabid/115/De
http://learningstore.uwex.edu/Pest-Management-in- fault.aspx
Wisconsin-Field-Crops2009-P155C37.aspx
Useful Resources
Gotlieb, A. 2004. Mycotoxins in silage: A silent loss in profits.
(http://www.uvm.edu/pss/vtcrops/?Page=articles/Mycoto
xins.html, Accessed 1 September 2009).
Kuldau, G. A. Managing mycotoxins in Northeast silages.
(http://128.118.11.160/dairynutrition/documents/kuldau.p
df, Accessed 30 August 2009).
Payne, G.A. 1999. Mycotoxins and mycotoxicoses. Pages 47-49
in: D.G. White (Ed.) Compendium of Corn Diseases, Third
Edition. APS Press, St. Paul, MN.
Rankin, M., and Grau, C. 2002. Agronomic considerations for
molds and mycotoxins in corn silage. Focus on Forage 4(1): 1-
4.
(http://www.uwex.edu/ces/crops/uwforage/Mycotoxins.ht
m, Accessed 30 August 2009).
Richard, E., Heutte, N., Sage, L., Pottier, D., Bouchart, V.,
Lebailly, P., and Garon, D. 2007. Toxigenic fungi and
mycotoxins in mature corn silage. Food and Chemical
Toxicology 45: 24020-2425.
Robertson, A., and Munkvold, G. 2009. Risk of mycotoxins
associated with hail damaged corn. Integrated Crop
Management News, Iowa State University – University
Extension

Wisconsin Crop Manager 116

 Volume 16 Number 28 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager
What’s New
What’s on YouTube? IPM videos! .............................. 117
Introducing Amber Weisenberger ................................ 117
2009 Pest Management Update Meetings ................... 118
Plant Disease
Tomato Late Blight in Wisconsin................................. 118
Equipment
Forage Harvester .......................................................... 118
What's on YouTube? IPM videos!
UWEX Plant pathologist Paul Esker has a new video, White
mold in soybeans, hosted on the UWEX youtube channel.
Here is the link to view this short 11 minute video. Remember
to click on the "HQ" red button under the video for best quality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdc7ac60R0M
Other recently posted videos also can be viewed on YouTube.
Here is a partial list.
"Field Corn, Mature Growth Stages Defined'' How do you
tell what growth stage your field corn is at? And why is it a
good management practice to know? In this video, Joe Lauer of
UW-Madison's Agronomy department shows you how and why
on mature field corn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7tYwLjtodM
"Field Corn, Early Growth Stages Defined" How do you
tell what growth stage your early season field corn is at? And
Wisconsin Crop Manager
--- September 17, 2009
why is it a good management practice to know? In this video,
Chris Boerboom of UW-Madison's Agronomy department
shows you how and why on very young field corn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzfQ8M2A0XA
"Scouting Alfalfa for Potato Leafhopper" Use scouting to
determine if your freshly cut alfalfa has reached the economic
threshold for potato leafhopper. Bryan Jensen of UW-Madison
Integrated Pest Management shows you how.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oQWwZVW2OI
Introducing Amber Weisenberger
Hello! I am pleased to introduce myself to the readers of The
Wisconsin Crop Manager. My name is Amber Weisenberger
and I recently started as the Regional Nutrient Management
Outreach Specialist for Southwestern Wisconsin. My new
position is a joint appointment between UW-Discovery Farms,
the UW-Platteville Pioneer Farm and the Nutrient and Pest
Management Program of UW-Madison. I will be working with
county agriculture offices, technical colleges, and UW-
Extension personnel from Southwestern Wisconsin to help
farmers with all aspects of preparing and writing nutrient
management plans.
I grew up in Trempealeau County, Wisconsin on my family’s
dairy farm. I attended UW-Madison and received my
Bachelor’s degree in Soil Science in 2007. I worked with UW-
Discovery Farms as a summer intern and eventually as the
Communications and Website Coordinator while I pursued my
Bachelor’s degree. I recently finished my Master’s degree in
Soil Physics at UW-Madison with Dr. Birl Lowery. Our
research focused on groundwater levels in Central Wisconsin as
affected by land use changes over the past several decades.
The past year has been a busy one for me, along with
finishing my Master’s degree and starting a new job, I am also
busy preparing for our October wedding (Everyone send good
weather thoughts our way!). Even though I haven’t had much
spare time lately, I like to travel, spend time outdoors, bake, and
be with friends and family during free time.
I am excited to be back working with producers and others in
the state on nutrient management issues. I’m hoping to get
settled in and hit the ground running as soon as possible. I am
available to assist you in setting up or maintaining nutrient
management efforts in your area. Please don’t hesitate to give
me a call (not sure of number yet) or shoot me an email
(amweisenberg@wisc.edu) if you have a question or just want
to chat. I hope to hear from you soon!
117
 confirmed reports of late blight on potatoes (Dane, Columbia,
2009 Pest Management Update Meetings Portage, and Marathon). Growers must continue to be on high
Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist alert with inoculum available in the heart of commercial potato
We are pleased to announce the schedule and topics for the production. This late blight strain has been identified as US#14
2009 Pest Management Update Meetings. See the attachment to which is an A2 mating type, resistant to metalaxyl, and can be
this article for the schedule. Please check the dates and locations highly virulent on potato. Please contact your county agent, the
and reserve a date on your calendar. Registration details are plant disease diagnostic clinic, or myself with concerns or
listed at the top of the schedule. Please pre-register with the suspicious samples.
host agent as they have to make the meal reservations. Most
agents have added an additional “walk-in” fee for those who
have not pre-registered.
Although we have only recently received a decent dose of
summer-like temperatures and crops are still lagging behind in
maturity, insects, weeds and diseases came through the cool
summer just fine. Consequently, we will have many topics and
issues to discuss as we review this year and forecast for next
year. The speakers at the meetings will be Chris Boerboom and
Mark Renz, weed scientists, Eileen Cullen and Bryan Jensen,
field crop entomologists, and Paul Esker, field crop plant
pathologist. We hope to see you this fall at the meetings and
hope these warm days continue to aid with the coming harvest
in the mean time.
2009 Pest Management Topics will include:Weed
Management: 1) herbicide updates; 2) field horsetail control in
corn; 3) resistance – you be the judge; 4) summary of pre
herbicide performance in soybeans; 5) Boerboom’s Top 10; 6)
fall perennial weed control with herbicides; 7) volunteer wheat
Will the late blight pathogen overwinter? Phytophthora
effects on alfalfa establishment; 8) weed suppression in
infestans US#14 is an A2 mating type. Currently, WI does not
pastures; and 9) NR 40, what ag professionals need to know.
have the mating pair (A1) that is needed in order for persistent,
Disease Management: 1) white mold in 2009; 2) hail damage cold-tolerant, overwintering spores, or oospores to be
and fungicides for corn; 3) anthracnose of corn; and 4) wheat formed. In this scenario, the late blight pathogen needs to have
diseases in 2008/09 and management for 2009/10. living plant material available to it to remain viable. This is
what we call an obligate parasite - the late blight pathogen is
Insect Management: 1) managing soybean aphid and spider
obligated to have living tomato (or potato) plant parts in order
mites in late season (R4-R5) soybean; 2) soybean host plant
to survive. By destroying infected plants, we are eliminating the
resistance for soybean aphid; 3) corn insect pests: WI
pathogen. The hearty winter frost will also serve to kill infected
distribution and control updates (corn rootworm and corn ear
plants and late blight. So, based on our current WI disease
pest complex); and 4) corn insect Bt traits - new registration
scenario, it is unlikely that late blight will overwinter in our soil.
updates for 2010.
*The schedule is attached at the end of this issue of the Forage Harvester
The Wisconsin Crop Manager* Matthew Digman, Assistant Professor and Machinery
Systems Extension Specialist 
Tomato Late Blight in Wisconsin
A properly adjusted forage harvester can save fuel and
A.J. Gevens, Department of Plant Pathology, UW-Madison increase the realizable milk per ton of your corn silage.
Dr. Amanda Gevens, Extension Potato and Vegetable Plant Before getting into the details of forage harvesters, I’d like to
Pathologist, UW-Madison Department of Plant Pathology, visits point out a bit of historical trivia. As some of you may know,
a tomato field to give a visual report on the disease, its the feed-rolls, cylindrical cutterhead and blower found in
symptoms and its management. You can watch the new 11 today’s modern forage harvester were pioneered at the Fox
minute video here. River Tractor Company in Appleton, WI. Thus, Wisconsinites
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhMr5kqCa2c should take particular pride when ensuring their harvesters are
properly set-up for fall harvest.
Tomato late blight has now been confirmed in 19 WI
counties. Reports have come from home gardens, small farms, The first place to check for proper adjustment on your forage
and larger farms (both organic and conventional). In all cases, harvester is the feedrolls. The feedrolls have two primary
symptoms have included large water-soaked, dark brown functions. First, they compress the crop into a uniform mat to
lesions with sporulation on foliage. Lesions quickly expanded to ensure precise cutting. Second, they meter the crop into the
blight entire leaflets, stems, and fruits. Late blight inoculum has cutterhead to produce a uniform length of cut. Increasing the
been widely dispersed aerially in WI. To date, we have four rotational speed of the feedrolls results in more material

Wisconsin Crop Manager 118

entering the cutterhead before being cut. Consequently, the
outcome is a longer length of cut. Conversely, decreasing the
speed of the feedrolls results in a shorter length of cut. On most
pull-type harvesters, this adjustment usually results from
changing the sprocket(s) that drives the feedrolls. Your desired
length of cut is based on many factors, such as silo type,
moisture content, and effective fiber needs of your ration.
Common lengths of cut for whole-plant corn silage are 3/8-inch
for harvesters without a kernel processor and 3/4-inch when a
kernel processor is used.
It is important to understand the difference between the length
of cut setting, what engineers call theoretical length of cut
(TLC) and actual particle size of the chopped material. Average
particle size of whole-plant corn silage is often quite close to
the TLC because the crop can be fed uniformly into the
cutterhead. The average particle-size of haylage is often quite a
bit longer than the TLC because the crop enters the cutterhead
in a random, mixed fashion.
Now, on to the cutterhead. The helical shape of the cutterhead
evens both the crop flow and the power requirement, cutting the
crop from one side to the other against the shear bar (stationary
knife), like scissors. As with a pair of scissors, if either the
knives or the shear bar is dull, or the clearance between the two
is too large, power requirements increase and the cut becomes
less uniform.
Consequently, keeping the cutterhead’s knives sharp is an
important piece of the harvesting puzzle. There are typically
two types of knife sharpening systems – those where the knives
are sharpened one at a time and those where the knives are
ground as a group by rotating the cutterhead and dragging a
stone across the knives. Knives sharpened individually allow
the knife bevel angle to be precisely maintained, but sharpening
can be tedious and care must be taken to grind each knife by the
same amount to maintain uniform clearance with the shear bar.
It is more common on modern forage harvesters to grind all the
knives at once by rotating the cutterhead. Some machines
sharpen the knives by reversing the direction of the rotation of
the cutterhead. This helps maintain the proper bevel angle of
the knives. Each system has its advantages and specific
sharpening procedure. See your operator’s manual for your
machine’s design.
When it comes to cutting, it is often overlooked that the shear
bar is doing a lot more work than an individual knife. If your
harvester has a 12-knife cutterhead, the shear bar is doing 12
times the work of an individual knife. So, it is important that it,
too, remains sharp (square) and undamaged. Some shear bars
will have designated wear surfaces, usually coated or hardened,
while others will consist of a uniform bar of high-strength steel.
There will be greater wear on the end of the shear bar where the
crop tends to get squeezed or pushed by the helix angle of the
knives. Depending on the design of your harvester, a worn
shear-bar can be swapped end for end, flipped, or both. Some
forage harvesters have different shear bars for haylage and corn
silage chopping. The haylage shear bar is a little more ductile
in the middle so that it can withstand impacts from stones
entering the cutterhead without shattering the shear bar. Corn
silage shear bars are hardened throughout for longer life.
Consult your owner’s manual to determine what type of shear
bar you have and how to configure it for a new cutting edge.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
One of the most important adjustments you can make is the
clearance between the knives and shear bar. Have you ever
tried to use scissors, grass clippers or hedge shears with poorly
adjusted blade clearance? Frustrating, wasn’t it? Now apply
that experience to the cutterhead and shear bar. Not only does
too much clearance waste power and slow your harvest, but it
will also produce long, ragged material in your feed. The shear
bar should be adjusted at least after each knife sharpening, but
should be periodically checked as knives wear between
sharpening. So again consult your owner’s manual to make this
adjustment.
Moving on from the process of maintaining your cutterhead,
let’s take a look at the kernel processor. Corn fed into an
ethanol refinery is finely ground to maximize the surface area
available to the enzymes used to degrade the starch into
fermentable sugars. Likewise, corn grain fed in corn silage
requires that same level of processing to ensure the energy is
realized by the rumen microorganisms before passing through
the cow. In the past, and in some cases today, corn silage is
finely chopped to 3/8-inch to maximize kernel damage and,
therefore, energy available in the animal’s diet. More recently,
the kernel processor has been employed to realize the nutritional
benefits of a longer effective fiber while ensuring the energy
from the grain in corn silage is available. Nutritionists tell us
that merely nicking the kernel is not enough for today’s high
producing dairy cow. It is important to break up each kernel
and make sure there are virtually no undamaged kernels in the
feed.
Proper kernel processor roll gap ensures each kernel of corn
is cracked, increasing the energy potential and, therefore, milk
realized per ton of corn silage. The kernel processor cracks corn
kernels by passing the chopped crop through a pair of serrated,
differential speed rolls. The roll gap of your kernel processor
needs to be set so that 90% (9 out of 10) of the kernels in a
handful of corn silage are damaged. Typically, the roll gap
should be between 0.08-0.12 inches. Greater than this and
kernels will be pass undamaged. Too tight and harvester
capacity will be reduced. A feeler gauge will come in handy for
this adjustment. It is also important to check that the rolls have a
uniform gap from side-to-side. When compared to 3/8-inch cut
length without a processor, research has shown that a harvester
set up with a 3/4-inch length of cut and a kernel processor can
ensure more damaged kernels with similar power requirements.
You can learn more about assessing kernel damage and kernel
processing by visiting the team forage website at
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/crops/teamforage .
The blower (crop accelerator) is the second most energy
intensive process in forage harvesting, after cutting, amounting
to 30 to 40% of the total energy. Properly adjusting each paddle
minimizes the energy lost when conveying forage. The old rule
of thumb is that the blower should pick up a nickel but leave
behind a dime. That might be a good place to start, but be sure
to check your operator’s manual for your particular machine.
Also check the blower band (wear plate) for wear or damage
before heading to the field. Changing a band or wear plate in the
middle of harvest can cost time and money. Some harvesters
allow a simple adjustment to slow the blower speed in corn
silage, which is easier to blow than haylage. Slowing the
blower will save fuel and increase capacity.
119
 If we take the time to check over our harvesters and properly
adjust the various parts of the machines, we can save both time
and money throughout the whole process. While I can guarantee
that these adjustments are needed and will help, the one thing I
can’t guarantee is good harvesting weather. Best of luck in the
fields!
„„„„„„„„

Wisconsin Crop Manager 120

 2009 Wisconsin Pest Management Update Meetings

The schedule for the Wisconsin Pest Management Update meetings series is listed below. Presentations will include pest management and
biology information for Wisconsin field crops. Speakers will include Eileen Cullen or Bryan Jensen, entomologists, Paul Esker, plant
pathologist, Mark Renz and Chris Boerboom, weed scientists.

All meetings start with registration and coffee at 9:30 a.m. Presentations start promptly at 10 a.m. and we will conclude by 3 p.m. Four
hours of Certified Crop Advisor CEU credits in pest management are requested for each session. The $30 registration fee per participant
includes a noon meal and information packet. Extra packets of materials can be purchased for $15 each.
Make your reservations with the host agent one week prior to the scheduled meeting date.
DATE LOCATION HOST AGENT
Ted Bay
Belmont Grant County Extension
Monday
Baymont Inn P.O. Box 31
November 9
North of Hwy 151 at exit 26 Lancaster, WI 53813-0031
(608) 723-2125
Matt Lippert
Marshfield
Wood County Extension
Thursday Marshfield Ag Research Station
P.O. Box 8095
November 10 1 mile north of Hwy 10 on Hwy 13 (old Cty A), east on A, then
Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54495-8095
immediate right onto Yellowstone Drive
715-421-8440
Jerry Clark
Chippewa Falls
Chippewa County Extension
Wednesday Eagles Club (2588 Hallie Road)
711 N. Bridge Street
November 11 Business Hwy 53 south of Hwy 29 between Eau Claire and Chippewa
Chippewa Falls, WI 54729
Falls (across from Farm & Fleet)
(715) 726-7950
Bill Halfman
Sparta Monroe County Extension
Tuesday
Jake’s Northwoods 14345 County Hwy B
November 12
Northeast edge of Sparta on Hwy 21 Sparta, WI 54656
(608) 269-8722
Mark Hagedorn
Green Bay
Ag & Extension Service Center
Friday Rock Garden (Comfort Suites Hotel)
1150 Bellevue St
November 13 Hwy 41, take Hwy 29 (Shawano) exit, east to
Green Bay, WI 54302
frontage road and north one block
(920) 391-4612
Arlington Joe Bollman
Columbia County Extension
Monday Public Events Building
P.O. Box 567
November 16 Turn west at sign for Ag Research Station on Hwy 51, about 2 Portage, WI 53901-0567
miles north of DeForest (608) 742-9682
Mike Rankin
Fond du Lac Fond du Lac County Extension
Tuesday Rm 113 University Center, UW-Fond du Lac 227 Admin/Extension Bldg.
November 17 Hwy 41, exit east on Hwy 23 for 3 miles, north on University 400 University Dr.
Drive, continue right when entering campus Fond du Lac, WI 54935
(920) 929-3170
Jim Stute
Janesville Rock County Extension
Wednesday
Best Western 51 S. Main Street
November 18 Janesville, WI 53545-3978
Hwy 26 just north of I-90 at Janesville
(608) 757-5696

Wisconsin Crop Manager 121

 Volume 16 Number 29 --- University of Wisconsin Crop Manager --- October 15, 2009

What’s New Registration is on a first-come, first-served basis. The fee is

Upcoming 2009 Soil, Water & Nutrient Management $150/person which covers the cost of instruction, lunches,
Meetings ....................................................................... 122 handouts and other costs associated with the course. Because
handouts must be ordered and/or printed in advance, registration
CCA Pre-Test Training Session .................................... 122 by December 1, 2009 will be appreciated. Registrations after
Pest Management Update Meeting Reminder............... 122 the December 1 will be subject to materials on hand and we
cannot guarantee all handouts will be available. To register,
Fertility & Soil make checks payable to WPCA (sorry credit cards cannot be
Nutrient Management and the NRCS Conservation accepted). Include your name, company affiliation, address,
Stewardship Program .................................................... 123 daytime phone number and email address. Send registration
information and check to Bryan Jensen, Dept. of Entomology,
39th North Central Extension-Industry Soil Fertility 1630 Linden Dr., Madison, WI 53706. For more information
Conference .................................................................... 123 please contact Bryan Jensen at (608) 263-4073, email
bmjense1@facstaff.wisc.edu To view a copy of the schedule
Equipment and additional information please see this informational
Monitoring Your Yield Monitor ................................... 123 brochure.
Plant Disease Pest Management Update Meeting Reminder
Pull Soil Samples for SCN............................................ 123 Chris Boerboom, Extension Weed Scientist
Please remember to register for the Pest Management Update
meetings coming in November. The full schedule, meeting
locations, and directions were announced in the September issue
Upcoming 2009 Soil, Water, & Nutrient of the newsletter, but here is a quick recap. Please register 1
Management Meetings week before the meeting with the county agent listed below.
The Department of Soil Science will offer Soil, Water, and
Nutrient Management Meetings at Date Location Contact Phone
eight locations in 2009. These meetings combine the former Nov. 9 Belmont Ted Bay 608-723-2125
Soil & Water Management and
Fertilizer Dealer Meetings into one 4-hour session (10 am to Nov. 10 Marshfield Matt Lippert 715-421-8440
Noon/1 to 3 pm). Matt Ruark, Dick Nov. 11 Chippewa Falls Jerry Clark 715-726-7950
Wolkowski, Carrie Laboski, Fred Madison, Dennis Frame, Paul
Kivlin, and Sue Porter will present Nov. 12 Sparta Bill Halfman 608-269-8722
current soil & water management and soil fertility information. Nov. 13 Green Bay Mark Hagedorn 920-391-4612
To read more, click here to view more. Nov. 16 Arlington Joe Bollman 608-742-9682
Nov. 17 Fond du Lac Mike Rankin 920-929-3170
CCA Pre-Test Training Session –
Nov. 18 Janesville Jim Stute 608-757-5696
December 15-16, 2009
Bryan Jensen, IPM Program
Please note a couple changes to the traditional schedule so
The CCA Pre-Test Training Session, sponsored by UW- you show up at the right location or on the right date. The
Extension, Wisconsin Crop Production Association and the UW Platteville meeting site has been moved to Belmont. Also, the
IPM Program will be offered at the Madison Crowne Plaza on traditional order of the Sparta and Marshfield meetings has been
December 15-16, 2009. This training session is designed to flipped in the week. The Marshfield meeting will be on Tuesday
help participants understand the Wisconsin CCA performance and the Sparta meeting will be on Thursday.
objectives and to assist with preparation for the state CCA
exam. It is NOT a crash course designed to cover specific A recap of many topics to be covered is listed below. We
information necessary to pass the exam. hope to see you next month.

Wisconsin Crop Manager 122

 Weed Management: 1) herbicide updates; 2) field horsetail
control in corn; 3) resistance – you be the judge; 4) summary of
pre herbicide performance in soybeans; 5) Boerboom’s Top 10;
6) fall perennial weed control with herbicides; 7) volunteer
wheat effects on alfalfa establishment; 8) weed suppression in
pastures; and 9) NR 40, what ag professionals need to know.
Disease Management: 1) white mold in 2009; 2) hail damage
and fungicides for corn; 3) anthracnose of corn; and 4) wheat
diseases in 2008/09 and management for 2009/10.
Insect Management: 1) managing soybean aphid and spider
mites in late season (R4-R5) soybean; 2) soybean host plant
resistance for soybean aphid; 3) corn insect pests: WI
distribution and control updates (corn rootworm and corn ear
pest complex); and 4) corn insect Bt traits - new registration
updates for 2010.
Nutrient Management and the NRCS
Conservation Stewardship Program
Matt Ruark, Department of Soil Science
The sign-up for the NRCS Conservation Stewardship
Program (CSP) will continue through September 30th, 2009.
Applications received after September 30th will be considered
for funding in 2010. Through this volunteer program, farmers
must agree to maintain existing conservation practices and to do
more conservation practices during the five years of the
contract. The contract payment will be determined after an
evaluation of all current practices, as well as enhancements. The
national average CSP payment will be $18 per acre. Certain
improvements to nutrient management practices related to
nitrogen and phosphorus applications are valued under this
system. Valued practices include:
Use of plant tissue tests or the presidedress soil nitrate test
(PSNT) for determination of N applications
Improving the timing of N fertilizer application, including
split applications
• Use of controlled/slow-release N fertilizer
• Subsurface placement of P fertilizer
• Use of cover crops (both grasses and legumes)
• Use of precision application technology
More information on the benefits of these management
practices can be found in Nutrient Application Guidelines for
Field, Vegetable and Fruit Crops in Wisconsin (A2809), on our
Soils Extension website (www.soils.wisc.edu/extension), or by
contacting Matt Ruark (mdruark@wisc.edu, 608-263-
2889). Detailed information on the NRCS program can
be obtained by contacting your local NRCS office or at the
following websites:
Conservation Stewardship Program
(http://www.wi.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp/cstp.html)
2009 Enhancement Activity Job Sheets
Wisconsin Crop Manager
(http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/new_csp/2009_jobsheet
s.html)
39th North Central Extension-Industry Soil
Fertility Conference November 18 - 19
Carrie Laboski, UW Extension Soil Scientist
The North Central Extension-Industry Soil Fertility
Conference has a long history of providing educational updates
on hot topics and emerging soil fertility research. This year’s
program will continue this tradition. A few of the topics on the
agenda include: Long Term Phosphorus Studies and How They
Effect Recommendation Philosophies; Micronutrients; Fertilizer
Manufacturing; and Dealing with Sulfur Deficiencies in Crop
Production: The Iowa Experience. The full agenda along with
registration information can be found at:
http://www.ipni.net/nc2009 CCA credits will be available.
Location:
Holiday Inn Airport
6111 Fleur Drive
Des Moines, Iowa 50321
Phone: (515) 287-2400
Monitoring your yield monitor
Matthew Digman, Assistant Professor, Biological Systems
Engineering
Yield monitors have become more common on combines in
the last decade. The primary goal of these devices is to help the
producer monitor variability occurring in his or her fields.
Utilizing GPS, this data can be saved spatially and downloaded
to the producer’s computer to build an almanac that may be
used to better understand how field inputs affect yield
variability over a variety of growing years and, consequently,
conditions (e.g. wet years, dry years). Producers have also used
this technology to conduct on-farm trials assessing economic
return of various hybrids or management inputs.
The combine automates yield monitoring by gathering data
from various sensors, including speed, position, header height
and width, mass-flow and moisture. Each of these sensors
contributes an essential piece of data necessary to the
production of an accurate yield map.
The first piece of information needed is the area harvested.
Various machines solve this problem differently, but generally
the yield monitor knows that the harvest has commenced by
first verifying the separator is on and then if the header height is
in the harvest position. This brings us to the first important
adjustment. Different operators and varying harvest conditions
require positioning the header higher or lower. The operator
must inform the yield monitoring system when the header is at
the harvesting height so it can determine if the machine is
harvesting or making another maneuver (e.g. headland turn).
The header position assigned to harvesting works in conjunction
with the activated separator, like an on/off switch for the yield
monitor. The value is usually set through the monitor itself and
123
can be represented as a percent of height or angle measured
between the header attachment point and the ground.
Now that the yield monitor knows that the operator is serious
about harvesting (separator on, header down) the monitor must
know the width being gathered into the combine. Surprisingly,
most machines have not automated this process. Therefore, the
operator must enter the number of rows being harvested or, in
the case of a cutting platform, width of the header used (e.g.
feet).
Harvest width combined with forward travel speed allows the
combine to calculate area harvested per unit time, usually
represented as acres per hour. For example, a 6-row (15ft) corn
head, fully utilized, traveling at 5 miles/hour would result in an
area productivity of about 9 acres/hour (5 MPH multiplied by
15ft and divided by 8.25 to convert the units). For those using
GPS there is no need for speed calibration; however, those
using a speed pickup or doppler-shift system need to calibrate
their speed sensor. Once again, the procedure varies by
machine, but in general it requires traveling a known, measured
distance under field conditions (proper header attached, half-
tank of grain). This distance is used in conjunction with the
sensor’s output to correct its calibration.
With area covered precisely known, we just need to measure
the amount of grain harvested for that area. This could be done
by simply weighing the grain, but engineers have had difficulty
coming up with cost-effective, on-board weighing systems. So
this task is accomplished indirectly with a mass-flow sensor.
Various mass-flow sensors have been tried throughout the past,
but today two types are being utilized. The first type of sensor
measures the height of the grain as each paddle of the clean
grain elevator pass by. Using this height, the volume of grain is
estimated and, in-conjunction with a density (mass of grain per
volume) assumption, the weight of the grain is estimated. The
density is calculated by adding the volumes up in the last
calibration load you ran. So the weight you entered from the
scale ticket divided by the cumulative volume from each paddle
gives the sensor a density reading of weight per volume. With
this calibration, as each paddle passes the sensor, the volume is
measured and the weight is estimated using your last calibration
data.
This can be accurate if the relationship between weight and
volume are constant, but unfortunately, as in most biological
products, nothing stays the same for too long. Changes in corn
variety, moisture content and individual kernel density can lead
to measurement error. It is recommended that a calibration load
be entered every 2-3 weeks, or more often, if there are
noticeable changes in crop condition.
Another, more common type of mass-flow sensor uses an
impact-plate to measure the force of the grain as it is ejected
from the clean grain elevator into the bubble-up auger. The idea
is to add up the force over time to determine the accumulated
weight. This, too, is an indirect measurement of weight
requiring calibration to ensure proper function. Before
considering calibration, it is prudent to inspect not only the
sensor for wear but also the clean grain elevator paddles. Bent
or broken paddles could result in grain falling before being
thrown against the impact plate. Also, worn paddles may not
cause the grain to follow the top of the conveyer to the impact
Wisconsin Crop Manager
plate, resulting in low readings. Some machines allow for an
adjustment of paddle height at the top of the clean grain elevator
to give the operator an opportunity to fine-tune how the grain
impacts the sensor.
The impact-plate sensors usually use a non-linear relationship
to relate sensor output to grain weight. What this means is that
the sensor output isn’t directly proportional to grain weight. For
example if the two were linearly related, then an output of 1 volt
(V) would be 5 lbs of grain; 2V, 10 lbs; 3V, 15 lbs; etc.
However, due to friction and grain falling off the paddles at
high flow-rates, a non-linear calibration is necessary. So, in our
previous example, 1V would be 3.5 lbs; 2V, 10lbs and 3V could
be 25 lbs. What this means for the operator is that multiple
calibration loads are necessary to ensure yields collected at very
high and very low mass-flow rates are accurate.
Calibration load recommendations vary depending on
manufacturer. Some may have the operator find a consistently
yielding, level area of the field, harvesting at an average rate
while others have the operator harvest at varying rates
throughout the calibration period. Those using non-linear
calibrations may require the operator to harvest more than one
calibration load, each time varying the harvest rate. Most
operators’ manuals provide step-by-step instructions. It is
important to follow the instructions specified by your operator’s
manual. This process may seem involved, but most machines
allow the operator to continue harvesting until the calibration
load weigh ticket returns so harvesting is not impeded by a
calibration update.
If you already weigh all of the loads from the field, you still
need to calibrate the mass-flow sensor as the yield map won’t
accurately account for the highs and lows, even after being
corrected with actual loads. Again, this is a result of the sensor’s
non-linearity.
The final piece of the yield map data is moisture. Grain yields
must be corrected for moisture, otherwise wetter, heavier grain
will skew the yields higher while drier, lighter grain will appear
to decrease yield. The moisture sensor’s calibration also needs
periodic adjustment as conditions change. This process usually
includes taking a few representative samples from the grain tank
to the elevator for analysis; the values from the elevator are then
used to update the combine’s calibration.
Although time investment may seem significant, calibrating
your monitor is necessary to ensure accurate yield maps and
subsequent management decisions. For more grain production
related information please visit the University of Wisconsin –
Extension Team Grain website at:
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/ag/teams/grains/
The Fall is a Good Time to Pull Soil Samples
for SCN
Shawn Conley, WI State Soybean and Wheat Extension
Specialist
The UW Agronomy Department, in cooperation with the
Wisconsin Soybean Marketing Board, is again offering free
SCN testing for Wisconsin growers. This program is intended
for growers to sample up to three of their fields in order to
identify if SCN is present and at what levels. Growers will be
124
responsible for collecting soil from fields suspected to have
SCN and then sending the sample to the SCN testing laboratory.
They will receive a lab report back with the SCN egg count and
a brochure to help plan future rotations and other cultural
practices to lower the level of infestation.
We have a limited number of these free kits available and will
furnish them on a first come - first served basis. Each kit has a
bag and a prepaid mailer for one soil sample which should
represent about 10-15 acres. Both the postage and lab fees are
prepaid. Before or right after harvest are great times to collect
soil samples for routine soil fertility analysis and for SCN
monitoring.
Soil sample test kits are available now and can be requested
from Colleen Smith at clsmith8@wisc.edu or at 608-262-7702.
„„„„„„„„

Wisconsin Crop Manager 125

 Volume 16 Number 30 - - - Special Harvest Issue ---
What’s New
November 6th Webinar: Harvest, Storage, and Feed
Management Considerations for the 2009 Crop .......... 126
Crops
Weigh Risk of Leaving Corn Stand Through Winter....126
Understanding Corn Test Weight..................................128
Combine Considerations for a Wet Corn Harvest .........129
High Moisture Corn Harvest and Storage
Considerations...............................................................130
Adding Organic Acids to High Moisture Corn .............132
2009-2010 Dairy Cattle Feeding Issues ........................132
Renewed Interest in Snaplage Displayed ......................134
Considerations for Artificial Drying of Soybeans.........134
Calculating Grain Weight Shrinkage in Corn due to
Mechanical Drying........................................................135
Grain Drying and Storage Publications.........................136
Field Loss Calculator ....................................................136
Fertility & Soil
Economics of Soil Testing ............................................136
November 6th Webinar! Harvest,
Storage, and Feed Management
Considerations for the 2009 Crop
University of Wisconsin-Extension will be offering a special
webinar Friday November 6th, 2009, 8:00am – 10:00am CST.
Please check with your local county UW Extension office for
locations offering the program. The program will be offered
locally at participating county extension offices. Grain crop
production specialists from UW Madison and UW-Extension
will be speakers on key issues related to the 2009 harvest
season.
This webinar will highlight key management decisions related
to harvesting, storing, and feeding the 2009 crop. In addition, it
will provide an opportunity to ask questions that have
substantial economic impact on farm profitability.
This program is designed for: livestock nutritionists, crop
consultants, feed dealers, farm supply agronomists and
producers.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
University of Wisconsin Crop Manager - - November 2, 2009
Agenda and Press Release are forthcoming, and will be
posted to the WCM newsletter shortly. In the meantime, please
save the morning of Friday November 6th for this important
program, and contact your local UW Extension County Office
for details. A directory of UW-Extension County Offices is
available at: http://www.uwex.edu/ces/dir/
Title: Harvest, Storage, and Feed Management Considerations
for the 2009 Crop
Date: Friday, November 6, 2009
Time: 8:00 AM - 10:00 AM CST
Weigh Risk of Leaving Corn Stand Through
Winter
Nick Schneider, Winnebago County Agriculture Agent
Joe Lauer, UW Corn Agronomist
The October 26, 2009 Wisconsin Crop Progress Report from
the Wisconsin Field Office of the National Agriculture Statistics
Service stated only 9% of the Wisconsin corn crop has been
harvested, far less than the 5-year average of 37%. Moisture
spot checks are indicating very wet grain with unfavorable
drying weather in the near-term forecast. Even if grain moisture
was dry enough for harvest, saturated soils will likely cause
further delays. This situation has caused some corn growers to
consider leaving corn stand in the field until spring. Lauer
(2004) examined the amount of yield loss during winter months
at the University of Wisconsin Arlington Research Station in
2000-2001 (Table 1).
Many factors influence the decision to harvest yet this fall or
delay until spring. Some factors can be assessed now, such as
stalk strength, ear health, insect damage, and shank attachment.
A crop that has weak plant integrity now is at greatest risk of
crop losses if harvest is delayed. Fields with good stalk strength
and a soundly attached ear might be good candidate fields for
delaying harvest; however, crop health only has one direction to
go…down. Beyond plant integrity, factors such as wildlife
damage and weather will play a major role in ear retention the
following spring. For example, in 2000, a year with heavy
snow cover, the percentage yield loss was much greater than in
2001, a year with little snow cover (Table 2).
If a corn grower is seriously considering leaving corn stand
through winter, the most important question that needs to be
answered is, “Will the revenue lost by winter crop damage be
less than the cost of drying this fall?” If the value of corn loss
over winter from ear drop, fungus, or animal feeding is more
than the drying bill would have been if harvested this fall, then
126
 it doesn’t make sense to leave corn stand until spring. Table 3
identifies the breakeven point for total drying cost per bushel
the grower would want to pay this fall compared to harvesting
in spring. The table provides a total drying cost compared to a
5% to 40% winter yield loss at prices ranging from $3.00 to
$4.25 per bushel. As corn price increases, the producer can
tolerate paying a greater price for drying. Additionally, as the
percentage of yield loss through winter increases, the producer
also can justify paying a greater drying cost. For example, if
this winter has heavy snowfall, similar to 2000, with a 38%
yield loss by April harvest, the producer would be able to pay
just over $1.31 /bu for drying corn worth $3.75 /bu (2009 price)
to generate the same amount of revenue. If conditions are more
like the winter of 2001 with only a 10% yield loss and a price of
$3.75 /bu, then the grower keeps more revenue by letting the
corn stand in the field if drying costs are more than $0.38 /bu.
If in an average year 25% of corn yield is lost over winter, at
$3.75 /bu, the grower can pay up to $0.94 /bu for drying and
breakeven with field loss. For growers that view field drying as
a secondary form of storage; thereby reducing storage fees, then
the total of drying and storage costs should be combined and
compared to the percent yield loss through winter.
Rather than leaving the crop stand in the field until the
following spring, which can create problems preparing for the
next crop, the grower might consider harvesting sometime in
mid-winter. Data from the Arlington Research Station gathered
over five winters found mid-May planted corn had the
following grain moistures: December=22%, January=22%,
February=18%, March=16%, and April=10%. Drying
continues through winter but at a slower rate than fall.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to predict in October if
there will be heavy snowfall or ice sheeting come January so the
decision largely becomes a matter of risk management. The
2009 corn crop was one of the most expensive corn crops ever
grown and the financial losses from a large yield decline could
be large. Once the grain is harvested, dried, and securely stored
the harvest risk largely has been managed.
Corn crop insurance in Wisconsin ends at the earliest of: (1)
total crop destruction, (2) harvest, (3) final adjustment for a
loss, (4) December 10, 2009 for grain or (5) abandonment of the
crop (USDA 2009). With the December 10th deadline,
insurance does not extend to crop losses when harvested the
following year. If the grower feels they have no other choice
but to leave the crop in the field, they should contact their
insurance agent prior to the deadline to discuss options.
Corn already sold for delivery through a forward contract
also increases price risk if the field fails to hold yield and the
grain is short of the contracted delivery amount. Another
increased risk is the potential for more pest management
problems such as more volunteer corn in the following crop.
Deciding when to harvest this wet crop will be a tough decision,
largely depending on weather factors outside of the grower’s
control. In times of great volatility, the decision that best
manages risk is the most sensible.
References:
Lauer, Joe. 2004. Some Pros and Cons of Letting Corn Stand in

Table 1. Grain yield (bu/A) change of corn left standing in the field through winter at Arlington, WI.
Harvest Month
Year Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
2000 204 206 113 86 83 72 127
2001 220 208 208 200 181 205 199
Mean 212 206 165 145 134 145 162

Table 2. Percent yield loss of corn left standing in the field through winter at Arlington, WI.
Harvest Month
Year Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
2000 No Loss 45% 58% 59% 65% 38%
2001 5% 5% 9% 18% 7% 10%
Mean 3% 22% 32% 37% 32% 24%

Table 3. Breakeven point between total drying cost versus field loss during winter field drying.
Percent Yield Loss Through Winter
Corn Price ($/bu) 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Breakeven Drying Cost ($/bu)
$3.00 $0.15 $0.30 $0.45 $0.60 $0.75 $0.90 $1.05 $1.20
$3.25 $0.16 $0.33 $0.49 $0.65 $0.81 $0.98 $1.14 $1.30
$3.50 $0.18 $0.35 $0.53 $0.70 $0.88 $1.05 $1.23 $1.40
$3.75 $0.19 $0.38 $0.56 $0.75 $0.94 $1.13 $1.31 $1.50
$4.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20 $1.40 $1.60
$4.25 $0.21 $0.43 $0.64 $0.85 $1.06 $1.28 $1.49 $1.70
Wisconsin Crop Manager 127
the Field Through Winter. Wisconsin Crop Manager. Perhaps the most important relationship to understand is
http://corn.agronomy.wisc.edu/WCM/W160.aspx between grain moisture and TW. As kernel moisture decreases,
grain TW increases. Why? The reason is two-fold: as grain
USDA Risk Management Agency. 2009. Commodity Insurance
dries it also shrinks allowing for more kernels to "pack" into a
Fact Sheet, Corn, Wisconsin.
volume bushel (think of it as the equivalent of cramming
http://www.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/fields/rma/mn_rso/
defensive linemen into a phone booth versus cornerbacks).
Additionally, dry corn is naturally more slippery, or slick, which
Understanding Corn Test Weight tends to allow for better packing. In 2009, it's certain that corn
Mike Rankin, Crops and Soils Agent, UW Extension-Fond du will come off the field wetter than most years. Expect lower
Lac County TW's from the moisture factor alone.
Corn test weight (TW) is an often discussed topic of Exactly how much TW increases after it has dried is
conversation among corn growers. The topic moves to the somewhat variable. Factors such as hybrid, mechanical
forefront in years when corn has been stressed at some point condition of the grain, and drying temperature come into play.
during the grain filling period or when the growing season is Grain with a high percentage of damaged kernels will increase
ended by frost before physiological maturity is reached. In less than high quality grain. Grain dried at temperatures in
many cases, the concept of test weight is misunderstood. excess of 180 degrees will also have less of an increase. Table
Test weight is a volumetric measurement. An official bushel 1 shows the "average expected" increase in TW as corn grain
measures 1.244 cubic feet. To measure TW, we usually take the dries to 15 percent.
weight of some smaller unit of measure and make a conversion. Table 1. Increase in test weight during drying
The official minimum allowable TW for U.S. No. 1 yellow corn
is 56 lbs. per bushel, while No. 2 corn is 54 lbs. per bushel. It's for mature corn harvested between 18 and 28
unknown how this all started hundreds of years ago, but perhaps percent kernel moisture
it was easier and more fair to sell things based on volume
(length x width x height), something a person could see, instead Harvest Moisture Increase in Test
of weight. Today, of course, corn is sold by weight and often in
56-pound blocks that we, for some reason, still call a bushel.
Content Weight
Because weight is contingent on moisture content, grain buyers % lbs/bu
base their price on a "standard" moisture of (usually) 15 or 15.5 18 1.5
percent. 20 2.0
Test weight and yield... 22 2.5
Sometimes high TW is associated with high grain yield and
24 3.0
low TW is associated with low grain yield. In fact, there is a 26 3.5
poor relationship between TW and yield. The same TW can 28 4.0
exist across a wide range of yield environments and genetics. Other major factors influencing final TW are plant stresses
Similarly, there can be a wide range of TW values across the caused by diseases, insects, soil fertility and/or environmental
same high or low yielding environment. That said, high TW conditions (e.g. drought, hail, and premature frost). In other
corn can result in a grower being paid for more "bushels." For words, anything that impacts the movement of nutrients to the
example, there are more bushels (those 56 lb. blocks) of 58 lb. kernel during grain fill or degrades the integrity of the kernel
TW corn in a truck or bin (e.g. ear rots and molds) once it
than the same truck or bin is filled will lower grain TW's.
with 54 lb. TW corn.
Test weight and immature
Factors influencing test corn...
weight...
What happens when corn
Many factors influence doesn't quite make it to
the measured TW of corn. physiological maturity (black
The physical characteristics layer) before frost puts an end to
of the kernel certainly come the growing season? University
into play. These include of Minnesota researches
such things as size, density, conducted such a study several
shape, and "slickness" of years ago. They collected
the outer kernel layer. immature ears and dried them at
Hybrid differences exist for either 80 or 120 degrees. The
TW, but a high-yielding results are presented in Figure 1
hybrid may not necessarily (KM=kernel moisture).
be a high TW hybrid, and
Kernels that were in the soft
vice-versa.
dough to early dent stages
actually decreased in TW after

Wisconsin Crop Manager 128

drying. Immature corn that was well dented to mature (~52-53
lbs/bu initial TW), but with high moisture content, all
approached 56 lb/bu TW's after drying.
In years when corn maturity is challenged, we can expect low
TWs off the field simply because of moisture. Test weight after
drying will increase, but the magnitude of the increase will
depend on initial kernel moisture and overall grain quality.
Generally speaking, the research suggests that feeding low TW
corn (fed pound for pound) results in similar animal
performance as high TW corn, however, the bin or silo may
empty a bit more quickly.
References:
Hicks, Dale. 2004. Corn Test Weight Changes During Drying.
Minnesota Crop News.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/cropenews/2004/04MNCN
29.htm
Nafziger, Emerson. 2003. Test Weight and Yield: A
Connection? The Bulletin, Univ. of Illinois Extension.
http://ipm.illinois.edu/bulletin/pastpest/articles/200323h.ht
ml
Nielsen, R.L. 2009. Test Weight Issues in Corn. Corny News
Network. Purdue University Dept. of Agronomy.
http://www.agry.purdue.edu/Ext/corn/news/timeless/Test
Weight.html
Combine Considerations for a Wet Corn
Harvest
Matthew Digman, Assistant Professor and Machinery
Systems Extension Specialist, UW - Madison
Adjusted properly, your combine can handle corn between 20
and 30% moisture. However, as moistures exceed 30%, your
work will be a balancing act between leaving unthreshed grain
in the field and grain damage. Here are a few tips to help guide
you along in this wet harvest season.
Ground Speed
The first consideration when it comes to harvesting wet corn
is ground speed. Be sure to select a ground speed that does not
overload your machine as the engine must be able to maintain
its rated engine speed to keep separator and cleaning shoe at full
speed. Adjust your hydrostatic transmission to maintain the
engine near rated speed under varying crop conditions.
Header
The usual advice for minimizing trash input into the combine
by operating the header as high as possible is even more critical
in these wet conditions. Introducing tough, wet leaf and stalk
material into the combine reduces its effectiveness to thresh and
separate the grain. Wet stalks and leaves absorb threshing
energy that would normally be used to separate grain from cobs.
Additionally, this wet mat of material can overwhelm the
separator, trapping both threshed and unthreshed grain.
Consequently, you may need to consider operating the stripper
(deck) plates wider to minimize leaf and stalk material entering
Wisconsin Crop Manager
the combine. However, be careful to avoid shelling the butt end
of the ear with the stripper plates too wide.
Concave
Before changing concave clearance, first make sure it is level
side-to-side (conventional combine) or front-to-back (rotary
combine) so that the adjustment is uniform. Your operator’s
manual will provide details for this process, but it normally
involves adjusting the right and left or fore and aft sides of the
concave to ensure they are uniformly spaced from the cylinder
or rotor. This will ensure that in-cab adjustments are accurate
across the width or length of the concave. A poorly leveled
concave could damage grain on the high side while under-
threshing grain on the low side. Consequently, it would be
impossible to balance between grain loss and damage.
Your operator’s manual will give you starting clearances for
your particular machine, but generally you’ll need to set your
concave approximately to the diameter of a shelled cob. A
properly adjusted concave will break up some cob, but
excessive broken cob is an indicator that the concave is set too
close to the cylinder or rotor. Too many broken cobs can lead to
high levels of cob in the clean grain tank or can overwhelm the
cleaning shoe.
Cylinder or Rotor Speed
After the concave is adjusted properly, adjust the cylinder or
rotor speed to maximize threshing in wet grain, but make sure
you balance this adjustment with grain damage. If grain damage
becomes excessive, slow the cylinder or rotor. Do not increase
the concave clearance. Concave spacing has very little effect on
grain damage in corn.
Cleaning Shoe
Always begin harvesting with the chaffer and sieve openings
to the maximum specification in your operator’s manual.
Closing down the sieve will produce clean corn in the grain
tank, but it will also increase tailings returned for rethreshing,
which can increase grain damage. If there is too much cob in
the grain tank, first try increasing airflow, then close the top
chaffer sieve a little and finally the lower shoe sieve a little. Wet
crop residue will require higher air speed compared to a dry
crop.
Repair
As with any harvest conditions, a poorly maintained combine
will lead to higher grain losses and increased grain damage.
Typically you’ll need to increase cylinder or rotor speed to
compensate for worn parts. On a conventional combine, check
the concave for wear and look for rounded edges on the
crossbars. On a rotary combine, check the threshing elements
for worn and rounded edges. Replace concaves and rasp bars if
wear exceeds the tolerances stated by the manufacturer. Please
consult your operator’s manual or your local dealer for
allowable wear tolerances.
If you’ve been using the chromed rasp bars to take advantage
of its wear properties, you may consider switching back to a
hardened rasp bars as the “ever-sharp” edges of the chromed
rasp bar may be too aggressive on this season’s soft kernel.
129
 Depending on your machine, there may be additional parts to
improve threshing performance in wet crops. For example,
some manufacturer’s recommend rear concave inserts to
improve threshing while others offer round bar concaves and
separating grates to prevent crop hairpinning. Consult your
operator’s manual and/or your local dealer to determine what
options are available for your combine.
For more information on this year’s harvest including over-
winter standability, storage options and drying costs, visit us at
the University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Team Grain
website at http://www.uwex.edu/ces/ag/teams/grains.
References
Allis-Chalmers. 1980. Operator’s Manual: N5, N6 and N7.
Milwaukee, WI
John Deere. 2006. Recommendations for harvesting field corn,
popcorn, soybeans peas and edible beans - STS Combines.
Solution Number 44539. Moline, IL
John Deere. 2009. Operator’s Manual: 9570 STS. Moline, IL
John Deere. 2003. Operator’s Manual: 9660 CTS. Moline, IL
New Holland. 2009. Operator’s Manual: CR9060, CR9070 and
CR9080. New Holland, PA.
High Moisture Corn Harvest and Storage
Considerations
Mike Rankin, Crops and Soils Agent, UW Extension – Fond du
Lac Co.
Even the best plans to ensile high moisture corn at the proper
moisture level are sometimes thwarted by weather and time
constraints. These types of situations prompt the question,
"What can I get away with?" Here are some factors and
suggestions to consider when making decisions regarding the
harvest and storage of high moisture corn.
Moisture
Consider the type of silo first. High moisture corn can be
stored in conventional, oxygen-limiting, bunker, or bag silos.
Recommended moisture levels for these silo types are presented
in Table 1.
In years when crop maturity has lagged behind normal or
frost puts an early halt to the growing season, corn may be wet
(or dry slowly) and maximum moisture percentage to preserve
corn becomes a primary issue. For corn stored above 40%
moisture, an undesirable fermentation may take place and yeast
may proliferate along with high ethanol levels. Animal
acceptance may be poor with this type of fermentation.
Additionally, harvesting high moisture shelled corn above 32%
kernel moisture for oxygen limiting silos equipped to handle
high moisture shelled corn may result in unloading problems.
Processing
Most high moisture corn is processed (rolled or ground)
before going into the storage unit. The two exceptions to this
rule are shelled corn being stored in an oxygen limiting unit and
corn that is excessively wet (near 35% kernel moisture). Take
Wisconsin Crop Manager
care not to over process corn that is over the desired moisture
level. It is easy to get excessively fine high-moisture corn that
may result in rumen acidosis, fat test depression, off-feed
problems or an increased incidence of displaced abomasums.
As the corn approaches optimum moisture content, increase the
degree of processing.
Harvest Recommendations
Check corn kernel moisture from different fields and
determine if the grain can be removed from the cob (shelled
corn). Harvesting high moisture corn as shelled corn as
compared to snaplage or high moisture ear corn may reduce
mycotoxin risk. Harvest corn nearest to optimum moisture
contents first and place at the bottom or back of storage
structures. Corn with higher than desirable moisture levels may
more of a problem at feed-out during the warm months and is
best to put on the top or front of the silo for winter feeding.
Very wet corn may be prone to aerobic instability (heating)
upon removal from the silo. Plan to feed higher risk (wet or
moldy) high moisture corns during the coldest months to
facilitate slow removal rates if needed.
Corn with significant mold on the kernels and cob is best
harvested and stored as high moisture shelled corn (rather than
ear corn). Some producers have taken moldy corn and dried it
down to storable moisture while screening off the fines. Where
drying is not an option, propionic acid is recommended. The
propionic acid will not lessen any problems from the mold, but
will likely prevent mold problems from getting worse.
If high moisture corn is stored in bags, locate bags away from
trees, long grass, and keep snow removed from around the bags.
For best results, remove bagged high moisture corn during
cooler months. Punctures, rips, or tears in the summer can
cause rapid and expansive spoilage.
Preservation
High moisture corn offers some unique preservation
challenges compared to corn silage because it ferments more
slowly and less extensively while containing high levels of
starch, which promotes aerobic deterioration. Any aid to hasten
fermentation, use up available oxygen, and inhibit yeast growth
(once exposed to oxygen) is beneficial in the ensiling process.
Several options are currently available to producers. Here's a
quick rundown of each:
Standard bacterial inoculants
High moisture corn inoculants have been available for many
years. These primarily produce lactic acid during the
fermentation process (homofermentative) and increase the speed
of fermentation, while reducing dry matter loss. They MAY
also increase animal performance. Choose an inoculant that has
been specifically developed for ensiling high moisture corn.
Specific strains of bacteria may not grow well on all crops and
across a wide range of moisture contents. Thus, a corn silage
inoculant may or may not work well under the drier conditions
of high moisture corn. Most standard high moisture corn
inoculants were developed to improve fermentation. For this
reason, aerobic stability during and after feed-out may not be
significantly improved. In fact, some standard lactic acid
130
producing bacterial inoculants may actually improve wet corn) of L. buchneri have higher concentrations of acetic
fermentation but decrease aerobic stability (heating at feedout). acid and lower levels of lactic acid than untreated silages.
With all inoculants, it is important to follow the manufacturer’s
The beneficial impact of L. buchneri appears to be related to
application rates. Typical rates are between 100,000 and
the production of acetic acid. Although the precise mechanism
500,000 colony forming units (cfu) per gram of high moisture
has not yet been determined, it is likely that aerobic stability is
corn.
improved because acetic acid inhibits growth of specific species
Lactobacillus buchneri of yeast that are responsible for heating upon exposure to
oxygen. As a result, the temperature of fermented feed
Lactobacillus buchneri is a unique bacterial inoculant that has
inoculated with L. buchneri does not readily rise upon exposure
been developed to improve aerobic stability of silages and high
to air and tends to remain similar to ambient temperature for
moisture corn by reducing the growth of yeasts. The net result
several days, even in warm weather. Using L. buchneri often
is grains inoculated with L. buchneri are more resistant to
results in a slightly higher dry matter loss during fermentation
heating when exposed to air as compared to untreated silages.
compared to standard homofermentative bacterial inoculants.
L. buchneri was originally isolated from naturally occurring
aerobically stable silages. It is a heterofermentative bacteria
that produces both lactic and acetic acid during fermentation.
L. buchneri is a well-researched, highly effective inoculant to
Silages treated with an effective dose (600,000 CFU/gram of
use for high moisture corn preservation in all storage units.
Use of L. buchneri improves aerobic stability
Table 1. High Moisture Corn Storage in Conventional, Bunker, and this is important if high moisture corn
Bag, and Oxygen Limiting Silos removal rates need to be reduced because of
mycotoxins or excessively degradable starch.

Conventional Top Unloading Silos, Bunkers, and Silo Bags Propionic acid
Preserving high moisture corn with
Corn Kernel Moisture, %
propionic acid or propionic acid mixtures
Minimum Desired Maximum (propionic, acetic, benzoic) has been a
Ear Corn 26 32-36 40 proven effective practice for many years.
Shelled Corn 26 28-32 36 However, it is more costly than simply using
a standard inoculant and requires specialized
equipment to apply. There are several
situations where the use of propionic acid to
Bottom Unloading Oxygen Limiting Silos reduce pH and preserve corn makes good
sense. In years past, some producers have
Corn Kernel Moisture, % successfully used concrete or wood
floors/bins to store high moisture corn. In this
Minimum Desired Maximum case, it’s a must that corn be treated with
Ear corn-rolled* 26 28-32 36 propionic acid. Applying propionic acid at
Shelled corn 24 26-28 32 the proper rate reduces the pH of preserved
corn to about 4.0 and inhibits the growth of
*OL Silo with Forage Unloader harmful microorganisms. The cost of
treatment is usually comparable to that of on-
farm drying.
Table 2. Recommended application rates of propionic acid to preserve high
The proper
moisture corn application rate
depends on two
Corn moisture % Lbs. propionic acid to apply per 1000 lbs. wet corn1 factors: 1) the
--------------------Months corn to be stored--------------------- moisture content of
the grain, and 2) the
6 9 12 intended length of
20 3.3 - 5.0 4.0 - 6.0 5.0 – 7.5 storage (Table 2).
Rates are based on
25 5.0 - 6.5 6.0 - 8.5 7.5 – 10.0 pounds of actual
30 6.5 - 8.5 8.5 - 11.0 10.0 – 12.5 acid. It's most
economical to treat
35-40 8.5 - 10.5 11.0 - 14.0 12.5 – 15.0 corn with acid when
1 kernel moisture is
Use lower rate for well-mixed corn and higher rate if acid and grain cannot be well-
mixed. near 30 percent. It
typically takes 10 to

Wisconsin Crop Manager 131

20 lbs. of actual acid to fully preserve a ton of high moisture
corn.
Another situation where acid may prove beneficial is when an
upright silo is being filled but not fed from for an extended
period of time. In this case, producers often only apply acid to
corn that will fill the last 5 to 10 feet at the top of the silo. It is
at the top where spoilage is most likely to occur as a result of
oxygen infiltrating the grain. Again, determine rates based on
length of storage and moisture.
Feedout
Be careful to plan for variable removal rate from the silo. A
removal rate of 3 to 4 inches per day is typically required to
prevent heating during feeding in warmer weather. However, if
the high moisture corn contains mycotoxins or is wet with
rapidly degradable starch, which may induce acidosis, the
removal rate may need to be reduced to augment the addition of
clean dry corn to the diet. Treating the bottom third to half the
silo of high moisture corn with L. buchneri or propionic acid
(12-15 lb/ton) may be desirable to insure flexible removal rates
and maintain quality during warm weather feeding.
© 2009 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin
System, doing business as the Division of Cooperative
Extension of the University of Wisconsin-Extension
Adding Organic Acids to High Moisture Corn
Patrick Hoffman and Irv Possin
Introduction
In situations where fermentation of high moisture corn
(HMC) is in jeopardy, treatment with organic acids can prevent
heating and mold growth. Organic acids can also be used to
preserve HMC when adequate storage space is not available.
Animals fed HMC treated with organic acids perform similar to
animals fed untreated HMC.
When should high moisture corn be treated with organic
acids?
If high moisture corn is harvested and stored under
recommended conditions, there is no need to treat with organic
acids. If, however, conditions exist that jeopardize HMC
fermentation, use of organic acids is highly recommended.
Fermentation of HMC can be poor for several reasons
including:
• moisture content of corn is too low (<26%)
• corn is put into a poor storage unit
• feed removal from storage unit is too slow
• there is a history of chronic heating or molding
• HMC is moved to another storage structure.
What kind of organic acid should be used?
Organic acids come in two basic forms: pure acid or buffered
acids. Pure acids include propionic acid, acetic acid, citric acid,
and benzoic acid. Buffered organic acids include calcium and
Wisconsin Crop Manager
sodium salts of propionic, acetic, citric, and benzoic acids.
Organic acids can also be buffered with ammonia, resulting in
the ammonium salts of propionic and acetic acids. Buffered
organic acids come in dry or liquid formulations. Buffered
organic acids are safer to handle and less caustic to machinery.
When choosing an organic acid, select a product that is
predominately made up of propionic acid and has a high percent
of active ingredient. In general, liquid products are preferred
because they can be applied more evenly.
What organic acid application rate should be used?
There are two philosophies of organic acid application for
HMC preservation. The first philosophy is that of full
preservation. To effectively preserve HMC for one year, 10 to
20 lbs (active ingredient) of organic acids are required per ton
of HMC.
A second philosophy is to apply organic acids at low rates of
2 to 5 lbs (active ingredient) per ton of HMC. These low
application rates of organic acids are intended to aid in aerobic
stability of HMC at feedout. The theory of this practice is to
control yeast populations at feedout time. Normal HMC
fermentation results in the production of lactic acid. At feedout,
some yeast species can assimilate (eat) lactic acid and cause
HMC to heat and mold. Yeast cannot assimilate propionic
acid. Therefore, low application rates of propionic acid
stabilize HMC at feedout by controlling buildup of yeast
populations. It should be remembered, however, that low
application rates of organic acids do not provide full
preservation and high quality HMC is still dependent on normal
fermentation. Therefore, when using low organic acid rates, it is
advised to use an inoculant (specifically developed for HMC) at
ensiling time to help insure adequate fermentation of the HMC.
Does organic acid treated corn affect animal performance?
Studies comparing normally fermented HMC to organic acid
treated HMC show no differences in palatability, intake, or
animal performance.
© University of Wisconsin Board of Regents, 2000
2009-2010 Dairy Cattle Feeding Issues with
High-Moisture Corn, Snaplage and Dry
Shelled Corn
Paul Esker, Randy Shaver, Jim Leverich, Mike Ballweg, Pat
Hoffman and Mike Rankin - University of Wisconsin
Extension
Cooler than normal summer growing conditions
coupled with a killing frost in early October is causing high-
moisture (HM) and dry corn to be harvested at higher than
normal moisture contents. Dairy cattle feeding issues that may
132
arise during feed-out of wet HM corn include: reduced starch
content, fast rate and high extent of ruminal starch digestion,
and mold/mycotoxins. Some of these same issues may also arise
with feeding corn harvested for dry shelled corn that had been
exposed to a killing frost prior to reaching physiological
maturity.
High-moisture corn is most commonly combine-
harvested as shelled or ear corn. This year there will likely be
more snaplage harvested and fed, because harvesting as
snaplage allows for greater kernel moisture at harvest using
silage choppers equipped with a snapper head and an on-board
kernel processor to hasten the harvest. Snaplage contains
kernels and cob and varying amounts of husk and ear shank.
Therefore, one can expect the neutral detergent fiber (NDF)
content to be higher and the starch content to be lower for
snaplage than HM ear corn. Furthermore, the concentrations of
NDF and starch in snaplage can be highly variable. Dairy cattle
feeding issues that may arise during feed-out of snaplage
include: variable starch, NDF, energy and dry matter (DM)
concentrations, fast rate and high extent of ruminal starch
digestion, and mold/mycotoxins.Starch, NDF and DM
Concentrations
The normal starch content of shelled corn in the Midwest is
68% to 70% (DM basis). Corn that went through a killing frost
prior to reaching the black-layer stage or physiological maturity
may contain less starch and possibly energy. Snaplage hybrid
test plot data from southeastern MN showed that starch, NDF
and DM concentrations ranged from 55% to 64%, 14% to 22%
and 53% to 67%, respectively (Mahanna, 2008). Commercial
feed testing laboratories routinely analyze HM corn, dry shelled
corn and snaplage for starch and NDF concentrations and can
estimate the energy value of corn from its nutrient composition
using summative energy equations; this should be done during
feed-out. Knowing the starch and NDF content and energy
value of corn will allow dairy cattle nutritionists to adjust the
feeding rate of the corn accordingly during ration formulation.
Depending on the other ingredients in the ration, the quality of
the snaplage, the nutrient composition of the ration and the level
of milk production of the dairy herd, there may be a need to
supplement dry ground shelled corn along with the snaplage to
meet the dietary energy requirement. It will also be important to
determine and monitor the DM content of the HM corn and
snaplage frequently on the farm so that the as-fed feeding rates
can be adjusted accordingly and the desired amounts of DM fed.
Ruminal Starch Digestion
Corn that is harvested with more than 32% kernel moisture
and preserved as HM corn can have a fast rate and high extent
of ruminal starch digestion, especially if processed finely.
Current research suggests that the rate of starch digestion for
HM corn will increase as the length of storage time increases,
which means that the rate and extent of ruminal starch digestion
for HM corn may be higher the following spring or summer
relative to the fall feeding period. Depending on the other
ingredients in the ration and the nutrient composition of the
ration, a fast rate and high extent of ruminal starch digestion
could result in reduced ruminal pH and fiber digestion and a
depression in milk fat test. A coarse roll (2500-3000 micron
mean particle size) is all that is needed for processing of wet
HM corn. Sometimes though the normal corn harvest and
Wisconsin Crop Manager
storage processes, moving corn through combine, augers, roller
mill, and silo blower and un-loader, can cause wet HM corn to
become too fine. The particle size of HM corn should be
determined at commercial feed testing laboratories using
sieving procedures. For wet HM corn a mean particle size less
than 1,500 microns may be cause for concern in some feeding
situations. If animal performance issues arise from the feeding
of wet - fine HM corn then the following options may be
considered by dairy cattle nutritionists: reduce the amount of
corn fed, partially replace the wet - fine HM corn with dry -
coarser dry shelled corn, reduce the dietary starch content by
partially replacing the wet - fine HM corn with high digestible
byproduct fiber sources, and (or) increase the amount of buffer
being fed.
A coarse roll is all that is needed for processing of snaplage to
break the kernels. If animal performance issues arise from the
feeding of snaplage which has had the kernels processed too
finely then the following options may be considered by dairy
cattle nutritionists: partially replace the snaplage with dry -
coarser shelled corn, and (or) increase the amount of buffer
being fed.
Mold/Mycotoxins
The risk for mycotoxin contamination in HM corn or dry
shelled corn first requires proper identification of the different
ear. Scouting should occur as soon as possible to identify the
type of ear mold and extent of the disease in the field. Based on
various reports from around the state, the primary ear molds
include Diplodia, Fusarium, Gibberella, and Penicillium.
Conditions have been less favorable for the development of
Aspergillus. In terms of mycotoxins, there is a lower risk of
mycotoxin contamination in ears that have Diplodia or
Penicillium, compared with Fusarium and Gibberella.
Symptoms of Diplodia ear rot include a heavy or thick white
mass of mold, where the kernels almost appeared “glued” to the
husk. These symptoms will most often be observed at the base
of ear. Infections of Diplodia occurred during the tasseling to
early silking period. Fusarium ear rots can be caused by
different species of Fusarium and symptoms will vary greatly
depending on hybrid and environment. Typically, symptoms are
whitish to pink and can also cause a “starburst” appearance on
the kernel. Infected kernels are usually scattered throughout the
ear. Gibberella ear rot symptoms also appear reddish in
appearance, but infected kernels are more likely to be found
starting from the tip of the ear. Lastly, Penicillium ear rot is
characterized by a powdery green or blue green mold on and
between kernels. Areas where damaged has occurred on an ear
often show the initial symptoms.
Mycotoxin development is highly dependent on the
environment, factors that may cause wounding on the plant, or
can occur when resource demand is high or resources are
limiting. Temperatures above freezing, moisture above 20%,
and oxygen are key factors for mycotoxin contamination. The
longer corn remains in the field, the higher the risk for
mycotoxin development. Grain that is damaged in the field
should not be mixed with good grain. Proper drying ensiling
conditions can help reduce the risk of contamination, however,
it is important to monitor grain bins throughout the winter
period since can be contamination that occurs towards the end
133
of silage use when an infection occurred in the field. It is
recommended to test HM corn or dry shelled grain for
mycotoxins from any field where there was evidence of ear Renewed interest in snaplage displayed
molds before feeding to animals (Table 1). Bill Mahanna
Fusarium mycotoxins: These mycotoxins include It is my impression that there was a resurgence of interest
deoxynivalenol (DON; produced by several species of among dairy producers and nutritionists in harvesting high-
Fusarium, including F. graminearum), zearalenone (F. moisture corn as snaplage this past fall. This is partly due to
graminearum), and fumonisin B1 and T-2 (multiple species of snaplage being heavily promoted by custom cutters who were
Fusarium). Of these mycotoxins, DON is the most common. In eager to secure more business for their forage harvesting crews
silage, DON does not appear to have a significant effect, and partly due to the increasing cost of harvesting with a
however, in grain, production of DON is favored by grain combine and processing at the bunker. Recent studies have also
moisture of 21% or more and temperatures from 21-29ºC. It is confirmed that if harvested at the proper kernel moisture,
thought that rumen microorganisms are also able to degrade snaplage can have an extremely high feeding value if harvested,
DON to less toxic form. processed and stored correctly.
Penicillium mycotoxins: In silage, P. roqueforti is a To continue reading this article click here.
common fungus. This organism is a saprophyte that grows well
in low oxygen and acidic environments. There are multiple
Considerations for Artificial Drying of
toxins produced by P. roqueforti, including, PR toxin,
roquefortin C, patulin, and mycophenolic acid. While the effect Soybeans
of these toxins on dairy cattle is not well known, proper harvest Bill Halfman, Greg Andrews and Bob Cropp, Extension Ag.
timing and ensiling can reduce the risk of toxin development. Agents
Table 1. Directory of mycotoxin laboratories. Labs may offer This fall’s weather may create situations where some growers
qualitative and/or quantitative analysis of different mycotoxins. will be tempted to artificially dry their soybeans. It is not a
We recommend that individuals contact laboratories directly to good situation when growers need to consider artificial drying
find out how best to prepare a sample for submission, prices and of soybeans. It presents several challenges in order to keep the
services offered, and other additional details that may be soybeans at an acceptable quality level to avoid dockage.
required to conduct a proper test. For further information, please Growers will have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages
consult A3646-Pest Management in Wisconsin Field Crops. for their own operation to determine what is best for their
situation.
Covance Laboratories Midwest Laboratories Veterinary Diagnostic Labs Soybeans can be
3305 Kinsman Boulevard 13611 B Street Iowa State University harvested without too
much damage up to
Madison, WI 53707 Omaha, NE 68144 1600 South 16th Street about 18% moisture.
(608) 241-4471 (402) 334-7770 Ames, IA 50011 If soybeans are
harvested at a
(515) 294-1950 moisture content
much above 13%,
Centralia Animal Disease Romer Labs, Inc. Veterinary Medical Diagnostic
artificial drying is
Laboratory Attn: Analytical Services Laboratory necessary.
Illinois Department of 1301 Stylemaster Drive 1600 East Rollins There is not much
published research on
Agriculture Union, MO 63084-1156 Columbia, MO 65211
soybean drying. Most
9732 Shattuc Road (636) 583-8600 (573) 882-6811 of our drying
recommendations are
Centralia, IL 62801-5858
based on limited
(618) 532-6701 experience or are
extrapolated from
Dairyland Laboratories Veterinary Diagnostic Woodson-Tenent Laboratories corn drying
217 East Main Street Laboratory 3507 Delaware Avenue recommendations. In
most cases, dryers
Arcadia, WI 54612 North Dakota State University P.O. Box 1292 that were designed for
(608) 323-2123 174 Van ES Hall Des Moines, IA 50313 corn can be adapted
for use with soybeans.
Fargo, ND 58105 (515) 265-1461 Bill Wilke,
(701) 231-8307 University of
Minnesota Crop
Storage and Handling
Specialist, offers the

Wisconsin Crop Manager 134

following information on artificial drying of soybeans.
Natural-air drying
Using unheated air to dry soybeans usually works well, but it
is a slow process (two to six weeks, depending on initial
moisture, airflow, and weather). Bins used for natural-air drying
should have full-perforated floors and fairly large drying fans.
Fan power requirements depend on desired airflow and depth of
beans. For example, delivery of 1.0 cfm/bu (cubic feet of air per
minute per bushel of beans in the bin) through an 18-ft depth of
soybeans would require about 0.6 hp (horsepower) per 1000
bushels of beans in the bin, while delivery of 1.5 cfm/bu
through 18 ft of beans would take about 1.6 hp/1000 bu.
Management of natural-air soybean dryers is similar to that
for natural-air corn dryers, except that soybean moisture values
need to be about two percentage points lower than those
recommended for corn. In southern Wisconsin, use an airflow
of 1 cfm/bu to dry 17 to 18% moisture beans, 0.75 cfm/bu for
15 to 17% moisture beans, and 0.5 cfm/bu for 13 to 15%
moisture beans. In northern Wisconsin, higher airflow is needed
since fewer days are available for drying in the fall. In northern
areas, use 1.0 cfm/bu to dry soybeans that are 16% moisture or
less, 1.25 cfm/bu for 17% moisture beans, and 1.5 cfm/bu for
18% moisture beans. See Natural-Air Corn Drying in the Upper
Midwest, BU-6577, available from the UofM Distribution
Center or Natural-Air/Low-Temperature Crop Drying, EB-35,
from the NDSU Distribution Center for information on
equipping and managing natural-air dryers.
Because natural-air drying is a slow process, it will be
difficult to use one bin to dry both beans and corn in the same
year. Don't plan on having the beans dry before corn harvest
unless the soybeans are only slightly wetter than 13%, or unless
you use a shallow drying depth.
Low-temperature drying
Early in the fall, especially in years with warm, dry weather,
it is possible to dry soybeans to less than 13% moisture with no
supplemental heat. (See previous section on natural-air drying.)
However, late in the fall, or in years with cool, damp weather,
soybeans might not dry to 13% and it might be helpful to add a
small amount of supplemental heat to the air in natural-air
dryers. Do not heat the air more than 3 to 5 degrees F, though,
or you will over dry the beans and you might cause an increase
in splitting. Research has shown that exposing soybeans to
relative humidity values of less than 40% can cause excessive
splitting. For every 20 degrees F that you heat air, you cut its
relative humidity approximately in half, so it doesn't take very
much heat to produce relative humidity values less than 40%.
Some alternatives to adding supplemental heat to natural-air
drying bins include:
• Turning off the fan when weather gets cold in the
fall, keeping beans cold during winter, and resuming
drying when average temperatures climb above
freezing in the spring.
• Installing bigger fans so that you can finish drying
earlier in the fall when weather is better.
Wisconsin Crop Manager
• Using manual or automatic control to turn off the fan
during periods of high humidity. Fan control will
increase the amount of time required for drying, but
it will result in drier beans.
High-temperature drying
Soybeans can be dried in a high temperature dryer, but the
plenum temperature needs to be limited to minimize damage to
the beans. Many kinds of gas-fired corn dryers can be used to
dry soybeans, but be careful. Refer to the manufacturer’s
recommendations for maximum drying temperature. Typically
the maximum drying temperature for non-food soybeans is
about 130 degrees. Even at that temperature some skins and
beans will be cracked. Soybeans split easily if they are dried
too fast or are handled roughly. Set the drying air temperature
lower than you would for corn and avoid dryers that recirculate
the crop during drying. Column-type dryers can often be
operated at 120 to 140 F without causing too much soybean
damage, although some trial and error might be required to set
dryers properly. Examine beans leaving the dryer carefully and
reduce the temperature if you're getting too many splits. If the
soybeans will be saved for seed, keep drying temperatures under
110 F to avoid killing the embryo.
Don't forget that crops dried in gas-fired dryers must be
cooled within a day or so to remove dryer heat. This can be
done in the dryer or in aerated storage bins. Stored beans should
be aerated again later in the fall to cool them to 20 to 30 F for
winter storage.
Immature, frosted, or green-colored beans
In years when frost kills soybean plants before the seeds are
fully mature, make sure you remove as much chaff and green
plant material as possible before binning the beans. Immature
beans can be stored without significant molding, but
concentrations of green chaff can lead to heating in storage.
Although it is commonly stated that green soybeans will
eventually turn yellow in storage, the color change observed in
a U of Minnesota laboratory study was minimal. It might still be
worthwhile to store green soybeans for a few months after
harvest though, to avoid the high discounts that are applied in
years when large quantities of green beans are delivered during
harvest. Just make sure that any green beans going into storage
are clean, evenly distributed throughout the bin, and cooled as
soon as possible after harvest.
Calculating Grain Weight Shrinkage in Corn
Due to Mechanical Drying
O. R. Hicks and H. A. Cloud, University of Minnesota
Following harvest, a corn grower must usually decide
whether to sell wet corn "as is" at a mositure discounted market
price or mechanically dry the grain (on-farm or by custom
drying) al a total cost the grower hopes is less than the moisture
discount. One of the expenses involved in mechanically drying
grain is the "cost" of the weight loss that occurs during the
drying process. This weight loss by drying is referred to as
"shrink" and is expressed as a percentage of the original
quantity before it is dried. Growers must calculate shrinkage in
order to accurately determine the total cost of mechanical
drying. (For more information on determining the profitability
135
of on·farm drying see NCH-21 "Economics of On· Farm Corn
Drying. ")
To Continue Reading, click here.
Grain Drying and Storage Publications
Brian Holmes, Biological Systems Engineering
Need information on grain drying and storage? Visit the link
below to find offerings by MidWest Plan Service.
http://www.mwps.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=c_Categ
ories.viewCategory&catID=715
Field Loss Calculator
least once every four years. Using a standard rate of $7.00 for
routine soil analysis (which includes pH, P, K, and organic
matter), this averages out to $0.35 per acre per year. All
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection Certified Laboratories are required to provide
fertilizer recommendations based on University of Wisconsin
guidelines along with the soil test values. (Note: actual cost of
soil test may be slightly higher depending on the lab and if
shipping costs are incurred)
MISCONCEPTION #2: Maintenance applications of P and K
are appropriate in all situations.
FACT: Soils testing in the "Very Low" and "Low" range for
P and K require additional inputs beyond removal rates to
optimize yield.
FACT: Soils testing in the "High" and "Excessive" range for
P and K require less than removal rates to optimize yield.
In either case, money is lost from either reduced yields or
over-application of P and K. When soil tests indicate the soil is
in the very low to low category, this suggests that there is a high
likelihood that yields will increase due to application of
fertilizer. However, it also indicates that the subsequent crops
would benefit from building the "fertility" of the soil through
additional P and K inputs over time.
For more information on soil testing, please visit our website
www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/soilsampling.php
„„„„„„„„

This MS Excel spreadsheet allows producers to calculate the

influence of harvesting today versus allowing the crop to stand
in the field and harvesting later. It accounts for higher drying
costs versus grain losses during field drying. It allows the user
to account for elevator discounts and grain shrink.
*Click here to go to the WCM Downloads Page and then
click on Field Loss Calculator to go to the MS Excel 2007
Version*
Note: This spreadsheet is saved using MS Excel 2007. To
install a converter for earlier versions of Excel click here.
MS Excel 2003 version

The Economics of Soil Testing

Matt Ruark, Department of Soil Science
Soil testing is the only tool we have to evaluate pH,
phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) status of the soil. Knowing
this information allows growers to make economically optimum
applications of lime and phosphorus and potash fertilizer. In
these times of economic uncertainty, managing input costs is an
important component of farm sustainability. Many growers
have opted to cut costs by eliminating soil testing as part of their
management program. This is not a recommended strategy.
There are two main misconceptions about soil testing:
MISCONCEPTION #1: Soil testing is expensive.
FACT: Routine soil testing costs about $0.35 per acre.
University of Wisconsin soil testing recommendations are to
collect one composite sample per five acres and to soil test at

Wisconsin Crop Manager 136

 Understanding Corn Test Weight
Mike Rankin
Crops and Soils Agent
UW Extension-Fond du Lac Co. October, 2009

Corn test weight (TW) is an often discussed topic of conversation among corn growers. The
topic moves to the forefront in years when corn has been stressed at some point during the grain
filling period or when the growing season is ended by frost before physiological maturity is reached.
In many cases, the concept of test weight is misunderstood.

Test weight is volumetric measurement. An official bushel measures 1.244 cubic feet. To
measure TW, we usually take the weight of some smaller unit of measure and make a conversion.
The official minimum allowable TW for U.S. No. 1 yellow corn is 56 lbs. per bushel, while No. 2 corn is
54 lbs. per bushel. It's unknown how this all started hundreds of years ago, but perhaps it was easier
and more fair to sell things based on volume (length x width x height), something a person could see,
instead of weight. Today, of course, corn is sold by weight and often in 56-pound blocks that we, for
some reason, still call a bushel. Because weight is contingent on moisture content, grain buyers base
their price on a "standard" moisture of (usually) 15 or 15.5 percent.

Test weight and yield... 

Sometimes high TW is associated with high grain yield and low TW is associated with low grain
yield. In fact, there is a poor relationship between TW and yield. The same TW can exist across a
wide range of yield environments and genetics. Similarly, there can be a wide range of TW values
across the same high or low yielding environment. That said, high TW corn can result in a grower
being paid for more "bushels." For example, there are more bushels (those 56 lb. blocks) of 58 lb.
TW corn in a truck or bin than the same truck or bin with 54 lb. TW corn.

Factors influencing test weight... 

Many factors influence the measured TW of corn. The physical characteristics of the kernel
certainly come into play. These include such things as size, density, shape, and "slickness" of the
outer kernel layer. Hybrid differences exist for TW, but a high-yielding hybrid may not necessarily be
a high TW hybrid, and vice-versa.

Perhaps the most important relationship to understand is between grain moisture and TW. As
kernel moisture decreases, grain TW increases. Why? The reason is two-fold: as grain dries it also
shrinks allowing for more kernels to "pack" into a volume bushel (think of it as the equivalent of
cramming defensive linemen into a phone booth versus cornerbacks). Additionally, dry corn is
naturally more slippery, or slick, which tends to allow for better packing. In 2009, it's certain that corn
will come off the field wetter than most years. Expect lower TW's from the moisture factor alone.

Exactly how much TW increases after it has dried is somewhat variable. Factors such as hybrid,
mechanical condition of the grain, and drying temperature come into play. Grain with a high
percentage of damaged kernels will increase less than high quality grain. Grain dried at temperatures
in excess of 180 degrees will also have less of an increase. Table 1 shows the "average expected"
increase in TW as corn grain dries to 15 percent.

1
 Table 1. Increase in test weight during drying
for mature corn harvested between 18 and 28
percent kernel moisture

Harvest Moisture Increase in Test

Content Weight
% lbs/bu
18 1.5
20 2.0
22 2.5
24 3.0
26 3.5
28 4.0

Other major factors influencing final TW are plant stresses caused by diseases, insects, soil
fertility and/or environmental conditions (e.g. drought, hail, and premature frost). In other words,
anything that impacts the movement of nutrients to the kernel during grain fill or degrades the integrity
of the kernel (e.g. ear rots and molds) once it is filled will lower grain TW's.

Test weight and immature corn...
What happens when corn doesn't quite make it to physiological maturity (black layer) before frost
puts an end to the growing season? University of Minnesota researches conducted such a study
several years ago. They collected immature ears and dried them at either 80 or 120 degrees. The
results are presented in Figure 1 (KM=kernel moisture).

Figure 1. Wet and dry test weights for grain harvested at

soft dough through mature kernel stages and dried to
15.5% moisture at 80 or 120 degrees (Hicks, 2004)

2
 Kernels that were in the soft dough to early dent stages actually decreased in TW after drying.
Immature corn that was well dented to mature (~52-53 lbs/bu initial TW), but with high moisture
content, all approached 56 lb/bu TW's after drying.

In years when corn maturity is challenged, we can expect low TWs off the field simply because of
moisture. Test weight after drying will increase, but the magnitude of the increase will depend on
initial kernel moisture and overall grain quality. Generally speaking, the research suggests that
feeding low TW corn (fed pound for pound) results in similar animal performance as high TW corn,
however, the bin or silo may empty a bit more quickly.

References: 

Hicks, Dale. 2004. Corn Test Weight Changes During Drying. Minnesota Crop News.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/cropenews/2004/04MNCN29.htm

Nafziger, Emerson. 2003. Test Weight and Yield: A Connection? The Bulletin, Univ. of Illinois
Extension. http://ipm.illinois.edu/bulletin/pastpest/articles/200323h.html

Nielsen, R.L. 2009. Test Weight Issues in Corn. Corny News Network. Purdue University Dept. of
Agronomy. http://www.agry.purdue.edu/Ext/corn/news/timeless/TestWeight.html

© 2009 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, doing business as the Division of
Cooperative Extension of the University of Wisconsin-Extension.

3
Feedstuffs, December 8, 2008
Renewed interest in
snaplage displayed
I
T is my impression that there was
a resurgence of interest among
dairy producers and nutritionists
in harvesting high-moisture corn as
snaplage this past fall.
This is partly due to snaplage being
heavily promoted by custom cutters who
were eager to secure more business for
their forage harvesting crews and partly
due to the increasing cost of harvesting
with a combine and processing at the
bunker.
Recent studies have also confirmed
that if harvested at the proper kernel
moisture, snaplage can have an
extremely high feeding value if harvested,
processed and stored correctly.
Pros and cons
Perhaps a place to start is defining
snaplage versus high-moisture ear corn
(or earlage).
My definition of snaplage is corn
harvested by a silage chopper equipped
with a snapper head and processed by
the chopper’s kernel processor. Snaplage
contains kernels, cob and varying
amounts of husk and ear shank (non-
grain components, often termed “trash”).
What I term high-moisture ear corn is
corn that has been picked or combined
(modified to save varying amounts of
the cob) and then processed through a
tub grinder or roller mill at the storage
structure.
Some of the advantages of snaplage
include: (1) earlier harvest that fits
well between corn silage and dry grain,
(2) yields that are 10-15% higher per
acre compared to dry grain harvest,
(3) potential cost savings compared to
harvesting corn and processing at the
storage structure, (4) higher ruminal
starch availability compared to dry corn
and (5) an additional source of fairly
*Bill Mahanna (Ph.D., Dipl. ACAN) is a col-
laborative faculty member at Iowa State
University and a board-certified nutritionist
for Pioneer Hi-Bred based in Johnston, Iowa.
To expedite answers to questions concern-
ing this article, or to submit ideas for future
articles, please direct inquiries to Feedstuffs,
Bottom Line of Nutrition, 12400 Whitewater
Dr., Suite 160, Minnetonka, Minn. 55343, or
e-mail comments@feedstuffs.com.
© 2008 Feedstuffs. Reprinted with permission from Vol. 80, No. 50, December 8, 2008.
Feedstuffs Reprint
Bottom Line
with
BILL MAHANNA*
digestible fiber if harvested in a timely
manner (assuming cobs and trash are not
sorted out at the feed bunk).
Some of the disadvantages of snaplage
are: (1) fermentation and feed-out losses,
(2) the potential for the corn crop to get
overly dry, which affects digestibility
and palatability, (3) a higher inventory
carrying cost and (4) less consistency
than dry grain because of changing
starch digestibility over time in storage.
Harvest moisture
Most nutritionists I talk to who have
experience feeding snaplage agree on
one key point: It is best to err on the
wet side when putting up snaplage.
When the crop gets too dry (e.g., kernel
moistures greater than 25%), problems
start to mount in terms of digestibility,
palatability, inadequate kernel damage
and instability in the feed bunk.
To capture the most starch per acre,
harvest should not begin until the kernels
have reached the black-layer stage
and are physiologically mature, which
means kernel moistures of 34-36% for
most hybrids. I find it best to discuss
kernel moisture when making harvest
recommendations because most growers
own a kernel moisture tester, and the final
product can have a varying amount of
trash, which affects moisture levels.
The cob carries in more moisture than
the kernel, with the traditional thumb
rule being that the final mix will be
about five percentage units wetter than
the kernel (based on ear being about
20% cob). This may cause producers to
harvest drier than desired with hybrids
that may contain only 10-15% cob. This
is another reason for specifying kernel
moistures when making harvest maturity
recommendations.
As an example of typical yields and
nutritional content, Table 1 shows the
results of a 2008 hybrid plot harvested as
snaplage in southeastern Minnesota.
Targeting kernel moisture levels of
28% or greater generally results in a
product that seems to work best in
most rations. Nutritionists will need
to be cognizant of the fact that starch
digestibility in snaplage will increase
over time (about two percentage units
per month) in this wetter corn, which is
especially important if transitioning from
feeding drier high-moisture corn. The
higher kernel moisture also serves as a
proxy to help ensure more desirable cob
digestibility.
Value of cob, trash
Snaplage energy values can vary from one
operation to another due to differences
in the amount of trash the feed contains.
Wetter, greener hybrids usually have a
higher trash content, which can dilute the
feed and lower the energy content.
Research from the University of Idaho
Cooperative Extension Service indicates
that trash can range from 1% to 22% in
samples of snaplage taken from hybrid
plots harvested the same day using the
same harvest equipment. Variation in
trash can also occur in the same hybrid
depending upon the time of day and how
the snapper head is adjusted (Kezar,
2001).
Table 2 shows how the snaplage acid
detergent fiber (ADF) content can be used
to approximate the amount of trash in
the mix (Kezar, 2001). Table 3 provides
a relative perspective of the nutritional
content of snaplage harvested on three
different dairies in 2008.
In a recent field study (Soderlund et
al., 2006) designed to evaluate the yield
and nutritional content of four hybrids
harvested at four different maturities,
it was demonstrated (Table 4) that
cob digestibility declines by nearly
20% from harvest period 1 to harvest
period 4. Husk and shank also declined
somewhat with increasing ear maturity
but remained relatively high across all
harvest periods.
Maintaining cob digestibility is yet
another reason for targeting snaplage
harvest at kernel moistures exceeding
28%.
For those new to snaplage, it is not
a particularly attractive product when
you pick up a handful and notice all the
“stringy” husks. It is definitely more
difficult to get husks in snaplage chopped
as finely as in corn silage, primarily
2 Feedstuffs, December 8, 2008
Reprint

because when there are only ears feeding

into the chopper, there is space between 1. Analyses from 2008 snaplage hybrid test plot, southeastern
the ears, and they are not held tightly Minnesota
against a thicker crop mat or against the Moisture, Tons/acre, Crude NDF, Starch,
shear bar. Also, with the snapper head, Hybrid % 100% dry matter protein, % % %
there is no way to control which direction A 33.7 6.6 9.3 13.6 63.6
the ears enter the cutter head. B 33.3 6.5 8.8 16.4 62.2
Obtaining a desired chop length is C 39.4 5.8 8.6 17.1 59.5
easier with silage because of the thicker D 37.1 6.3 9.1 16.0 61.5
crop mat, and with silage, nearly all of E 39.7 5.7 8.6 17.9 58.9
the ears enter the feed rolls with the F 44.5 5.3 9.3 20.6 55.8
stalk perpendicular to the shear bar G 46.2 5.5 8.8 22.2 55.4
(Zumbach, 2008). H 47.2 5.9 9.3 21.3 54.6
There are ways the forage chopper can
be modified to reduce the husk particle 2. Relationship of trash content to grain, cob
size, including: (1) the chopping length
on the chopper can be set as short as
and ADF content in snaplage
possible to slow down the feed rolls, % trash % grain % cob % ADF
(2) on some choppers, a different drum 0 85.0 15.0 9.7
5 80.4 14.6 11.1
bottom can be used with a key stock
10 76.5 13.5 12.6
welded every 2 in. perpendicular to the
15 72.3 12.7 14.0
knives to help cut/tear the feed going 20 68.0 12.0 15.4
through the machine and (3) a recutter
screen can be added behind the knife Source: University of Idaho Cooperative Extension Service, as reported in Kezar, 2001.
drum before it enters the processor.
This does more of the same cutting or
tearing of the crop before it enters the 3. Percent in vitro dry matter disappearance by harvest period
processor; however, it slows down crop Component Sept. 13 Sept. 20 Sept. 28 Oct. 4
flow (Zumbach, 2008). Cob 67.57 55.77 56.23 48.21
Husk/shank 77.09 74.23 68.94 71.29
Whole ear 84.36 84.13 84.26 83.98
Kernel damage Whole ear moisture percentage 51.6 46.2 37.7 29.5

Nutritionists have learned to pay close Source: Soderlund et al., 2006.

attention to the particle size of grain
in dry-ground corn or high-moisture
shelled corn with typical goals of 800- 4. Example of three snaplage samples from 2008 harvest
1,000 microns and with a small standard Sample A Sample B Sample C
deviation to avoid excessive fines or large (Iowa) (New York) (Vermont)
particles. However, I have observed that Moisture, % 39.2 46.3 41.1
not as much attention is paid to the grain Crude protein, % 6.8 6.8 8.0
ADF, % 11.4 12.9 7.6
particle size of snaplage, likely because
Neutral detergent fiber, % 21.9 25.9 18.1
it is difficult to interpret data from the Fat, % 3.2 3.5 3.9
typical 12- to 14-sieve particle size lab Ash, % 1.7 1.7 1.62
analysis given the confounding effect cob Non-fiber carbohydrates, % 65.9 63.4 69.2
and trash have on the final results. Starch, % 55.8 57.5 64.0
It may be advisable for nutritionists to Net energy of lactation, Mcal/lb. 0.86 0.85 0.88
begin maintaining a database of snaplage
particle size from samples run through
the corn silage kernel damage test that is
available from several commercial labs. is harvested at recommended kernel the anaerobic environment that will help
This way, the amount of starch passing moistures exceeding 28%, fermentation improve both fermentation and feed-out
the 4.75 mm screen can become a relative can be completed in about two to three stability (Soderlund, 2008).
target, just as it is when comparing weeks. That is actually faster than A common recommendation today is
processing in different corn silages. straight high-moisture shelled corn to wait about 60 days (if possible) before
In addition to setting the chop length because there are extra sugars brought in
as short as possible, be sure the chopper with the cob. If the crop gets away from feeding corn silage. While corn silage or
processor has fine-tooth rolls (five to you (e.g., less than 25% kernel moisture), snaplage can successfully be fed sooner,
seven teeth per inch — some processors it can take as long as two months to waiting may be preferred for both of
are not this fine) and is set at 2-3 mm complete the snaplage fermentation these crops because of the dynamic
with a 30-40% differential (this can be set process. changes in volatile fatty acid profiles, pH
much higher with snaplage than silage) to Inoculation with products specifically and starch digestibility during these first
maximize kernel shearing/damage. designed for high-moisture corn can two months.
be very helpful, and those containing When transitioning from old-crop high-
Lactobacillus buchneri can be beneficial moisture corn or snaplage to new-crop
Fermentation for maintaining freshness and palatability
if feeding snaplage during the spring and snaplage, ration adjustments may need to
The moisture level of the grain in
snaplage helps determine both the length summer months. be made because of the reduced ruminal
of the fermentation process and the Producers should also target snaplage starch digestibility in the short-fermented
relative changes in starch digestibility bunker densities in the range of 30 lb. new-crop corn.
over time in storage. When snaplage of dry matter per cubic foot to provide

The Bottom Line
Snaplage is a feedstuff that is
experiencing renewed interest because of
its relative ease of harvest along with its
high feed quality if harvested and stored
at correct moistures.
Most nutritionists like to err on the wet
side when harvesting snaplage, targeting
kernel moistures exceeding 28%, which
will typically result in snaplage exceeding
34% moisture. These moisture targets will
Reprint
help ensure high cob digestibility and
high ruminal starch digestibility (that
will increase over time in storage). Just
as with corn silage, attention should be
given to the chopper/snapper head setup,
including length of chop and processor
type and settings.
References
Kezar, W.W. 2001. Pioneer Nutritional Insights
Feedstuffs, December 8, 2008
3
— High-moisture ear corn. Available by
request from wes.kezar@pioneer.com.
Soderlund, S.D. 2007. Personal communi-
cation.
Soderlund, S.D., J. Uhrig, B. Curran and L.
Nuzback. 2006. Pioneer Nutritional Insights
— Influence of maturity on the yield and
nutritional quality of four Pioneer hybrids har-
vested as high-moisture ear corn. Available by
request from steve.soderlund@pioneer.com.
Zumbach, J. 2008. Krone-North America.
Personal communication.
 MARKETING & UTILIZATION
Calculating Grain Weight Shrinkage in Corn
Due to Mechanical Drying
o. R. Hicks and H. A. Cloud, University of Minn esota
Reviewers
G. Campbell, Universiry 01 Wisconsin
B. McKenzie, PurdLle University
Following harvest, a corn grower must usually
decide wh ethe r to sell wet corn "a s is" at a
mO t sture ~jscou nted market price or mechanically
dry the grain (on-farm or by custom drying) al a total
cost the grower hopes is less than th e moisture
discount. One of the expenses involved in mechani ·
cally drying grain is the "cost" of the weight loss that
occurs during the drying process. This weight loss
by drying is referred to as "shrink" and is express ed
as a percentage of the origin al qua ntity before it is
dried. Growers must calculate shrinkage in order to
accurately determine Ihe 10tal cost of mechanical
dryi ng. (For more information on determining the
profitability of on·farm drying. see NCH-21 "Econom-
ics of On· Farm Corn Drying. ")
Grain buyers use a number of different pro-
cedures 10 calculate how much grain they will actu-
ally have atier the grain they buy is dried. The calcu-
lation process is called "pencil shrink," Although
pencil shrink is a somewhat complicated process ,
corn growers can maximize the net sale by under-
standing pencil shrink and evaluating the sale alter-
natives by obtaining more Ihan one price quote when
se lling their grain.
There is no standard method for pencil shrink.
This publication describes several popular pencil
shrink methods, provides examples of their calcula·
tions. and discusses the use of shrinkage as a basis
for evaluating custom drying and grain sale alterna-
tives.
Calculating the Components of Shrink
Water Shrink
By fat, the major ponion of weight toss by drying
is the weight of the water fhal is removed, A good
way to understand the basic concept of shrink is to
'JUR DUE UN IVER SIT COOP ERATI VE :: TEN SION SERVICE · WEST LAFAYETT , INDIANA
NCH·61
R. Nielsen. Purdue University
8. Wisn er, Iowa State University
consider the id eal situation where a\l of the weigh t
loss is water. Tot al wat er shrink is calculat ed by
dividing the weight of water lost du ring dryi ng by the
lotal initial grain weight. The result is then multiplied
by 100 and expressed as a percentage .
Our first example involve s 1,000 lb. of com at
25% moisture. H the grain is 25% water, it will
contain 250 lb. of wat er and 75 0 lb. of dry malter.
How much sh rinkage occurs , due to water loss
alone, if the 1,000 lb. of grai n is dried to 15.5% mois-
ture? We can calculate it.
The dried corn still contains 750 lb. 01 dry malter .
but now the dry matter is 84.5% (100% minus
15.5%) of the total weight. Therefore , the total
weight of the dried grain is 750 lb. di vided by 0.845 ,
or 887.57 lb.
After dryi ng, the grain co ntai ns 137.57 lb. o f wale r
(887.57 lb. minus 750 lb. ). Therefore , 112.43 lb. 01
water was removed during drying (250 lb. minus
137.57 lb.) Now that the weight of water lost has
been calculated, the tot al water shrink percent age in
our example can be calculat ed by dividing 11 2.43 (lb ..
of water removed) by 1,000 (tota l initial grain weight)
and mulliplyi ng th e result by 100. Th e total waler
shrink is 11.24%.
Tot~1 Water Shrink = (lb. w ater removed divided by I
original weigh t) times 100
'" ( 11 2.4311 ,000) x 100", 11.24%
The grain was dried from 25% to 15.5%- a moisture
reduction 01 9.5 percentage poi nts with an 11.24%
loss of the original weight. The "water shrink lactor"
is calculated by dividing the percentage weight loss
by the percentage moi sture reduction. In this case ,
11.24% divided by 9.5% gives a water shrink factor
of 1.18% weight loss for each point of mo isture
removed.
 The water shrink factor is a co nstant for a final
moisture conte nt. As in above , the water shrink is
, .18% for each point of moisture removed when the
final moistu re content is 15.5%. However, the wat er
shrink factor wi ll change as the desi red fina l moi sture
content changes . Table 1 gives the water shrink fac-
tors tor a number of final moisture co ntents . For
other fin al moist ure contents , the water shrink factor
may be calculated by the fo rmula:
Water Shrink Faclor ~ 100 divided by (100 minus
percent final moisture)
Table 1.Water shrink factors for drying shelled corn to
various moisture levels.
Final moisture content Water shrink factor
(%) (% shrink per point)
15.5 1. 183
15 1. 176
14 1.163
13 1. 149
12 1. 136
11 1. 126
to 1.11 1
1.099
9
8 1.087
o 1.000
Now, leI's use the water shrink factor to calculate
the amount of water shrink when corn is dried from
25°1., to 12% moisture. a removal of 13 percentage
points of water. Th e formula for calculating tot al
water shrink using the waler shrink factor is:
Total Water Shrink =(percentage points removed)
times (waler shrink factor)
The water shrink factor for 12% final moisture is
1.136% (100 divided by 88). Multiplying 13 by 1.136
equals 14 .77"/" loss in weight due to the water
removed during drying of 25% moisture corn 10 12%
moisture.
Handling Loss
Remember that. although most of the weigh! loss
during drying is water, a small portion is dry mailer.
This loss is ollen called "invisible shrink." but we
prefer to call it "handling loss." Some of the handling
loss is due 10 loss of volatile compounds such as
oils, mechanical losses from broken kerne ls and
foreign material , and possibly also due to respiration
at Ihe seed itself. Handling loss will normally be lar
less than that due to water.
The actual amount of handling loss will depend
on the initial physical quality of the corn, the method
of drying, and the handling processes during drying.
Research at Iowa State University determined that
on-farm handli ng losses ranged from 0.22 to 1.71 % .
Losses from commercial drying systems ranged from
0.64 to 1.33%. The 3·year on-farm average was
0.82% compared to 0.88% for the commercial
facilities .
2
Methods of Calculating Total Shrink
Shrink factors used by grain buye rs account for
bolh water shrink and handling los s. Grai n buyers
typically use drying tables or a constant shrink factor
10 pencil shrink the grain they buy,
Method 1: Drying Tables
Grain drying tables include water sh rink and a
constanl handling loss, usually 0.5% of the initial
weigh t of the grai n (see Table 4 in NCH-21). Using
thi s method , the fo rmu la fo r calculating tolal shrink
is:
Total Shrink = (total water shnnk) plus
(handling loss)
If we were to dry shelled corn from 25% to 15.5%
moisture (a removal of 9 .S percentage points) , the
tot al water shrink would be 9. 5 multiplied by 1.183
(from Table 1). or 11 .24% of the original grain
weight . Add 10 this the 0.5% handling loss for a tota l
shrink of 11 .74%. Thu s, il 1,000 lb. of 25% moisture
com were dried to 15.5% moisture, the lot al weight
loss due to waler and dry matte r removal would be
117.4 lb. (1 ,000 multiplied by 0.1174). The resulting
weight of the dried grain would equal 882.6 lb.
(1,000 minus 117 4) using th is shrink method.
Method 2: Constant Shrink Factor
Another pencil shrink method uses a constan t
shrink factor that is multiplied by each percentage •
point of moisture removed. Typic al constant shrink
factors range from 1.2 to 1.5% per pOint. Using this
method, the tormula for calculating tota l shrink is:
TOlal Sh rin k =(constant shnnk factor) umes
(points of moisture removed)
Total shrink calcul ated by this method contains
the same value for water shrink as Method 1. The
assumed handling loss in Method 2, however. will
vary depending on the valu e of Ihe constant shrink
(actor and initial moisture co ntent 01 th e grain.
For example, usi ng a constan t shrink factor of
1.3% per point ot mo isture removed. Ihe lotal shrink
10f drying 1,000 lb. of 25% moisture corn to 15.5%
moisture would equa l 12.35% (9.5 percentage points
multiplied by 1.3). compared to 11 .74% calculated by
Met hod 1. Th e wate r shrink remains the same and
would be 11.24% , as shown in the previous example .
The handli ng loss would be 1. 11% (Iot al shri nk of
12.35% minus waler shrink of 11.24%) . which is
greater than the 0.5% used in Method 1.
As the co nstant shri nk factor is increased, Ihe
assumed handling loss increases. Table 2 provides
handling loss val ues for various co nslant shrink fac-
tors based on 15.5% fina l co rn grain moisture . The
handli ng loss is calcul ated by subtracting the wate r
shrink from the tolal shrink . So me of these valu es
are much less and oth ers are much greater than the •
actual handling losses measured in research . _ -
The average handling losses were less than 1.0%
in the Iowa State research . Sellers can use Table 2
 Table 2. Handling for various shrink factors based on 15.5% final corn moisture.
Inilial Shrink factor (% per point)
molslure
confent 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50
(%) ----------------Handllng loss (%)---------------
32 0.27 1.10 1. 92 2.75 3.57 4.40 5.22
30 0.24 0.97 1.69 2.42 3.14 3.87 4.59
28 0.21 0.83 1.46 2.08 2.71 3.33 3.96
26 0.17 0.70 1.22 I. 75 2.27 2.80 3.32
24 0. 14 0.57 0.99 1.42 1. 84 2.27 2.69
22 0.1 1 0.43 0.76 1.08 1.41 1.73 2.06
20 0.07 0.30 0.52 0.75 0.97 1.20 .42
18 0.04 0. 17 0.29 0.42 0.54 0.67 0.79

Table 3. Inllial corn weights required to give 56 pounds of dry shelled corn aHer shrinking wet shelled corn
to 15.5% moisture lor various Initial moisture lellels and shrink factors.
Initial Shrink factor (% per point)
moisture
of grain 1.18 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50
(%) ----------------Ib. of wet corn-------------------
32 69.59 69 .83 70.55 71.29 72.05 72.82 73 .61 74.42
30 67.60 67.80 68..40 69. 01 69.63 70.26 70. 91 7 1.57
28 65. 72 65.88 66.37 66.87 67 .37 67.88 68.40 68.92
26 63.95 64.07 64.46 64. 85 65.25 65.65 66.06 66.47
24 62.26 62 .36 62.66 62 .96 63 .26 63.56 63.87 64.18
22 60.67 60.74 60.95 61 .17 61.39 61.61 61.83 62.05
20 59.15 59.20 59 .34 59.48 59 .62 59.77 59.91 60.05
18 57.71 57.73 57 .81 57.88 57.96 58.03 58.11 58.1 8
16 56.33 56.34 56.35 56.37 56.38 56.39 56.4 1 56.42
15.5 56.00 56.00 56.00 56 .00 56.00 56.00 56.00 56.00

to determine if the shrink fac to r the buye r is usi ng
assesses a "reasonable " hand li ng loss (1.0% or
less). For example, if the seller has 28% corn , a
shrink factor of 1.25 includes a handling lo ss of
0.83%, which is reasonabl e from the seller's point of
view. However. a shrink factor of 1.3% assesses a
1.46% handling loss. which is substantially greater
than a normal expected handling loss.
Evaluating Custom Drying Alternatives
When custom drying, growers should se ek more
than one estimate of cost of drying and choose the
one that returns the greatest number of bushels . The
number of bushels after drying c an be det ermined by
using Tables 3, 4, or 5 if the final moisture content is
, 5.5, 14, or 13%. respect ively . If another final mois-
ture content is used. the number of dry bushels can
be determined with the following formula.
NO. ot dry bu. =/( 100 minus 10lat shrink) divided
by 100)] times (No. of wet bu.)
For exa mple , consider again '1,000 lb . of corn at
26% moisture and two drying quotes. The first quote
includes shrinking to 15.5% moistu re using a shrink
factor of 1.4% per pain!. The total shrink is 14.7%
(10.5 points removed times 1.4%). The number of
wet bushels is 17.86 (1,000 lb. divided by 56 Ib./bu.).
Using the formula above, the number of dry bushels
remaining is 15.23. Dividing the original weight by
the wet bushel equivalent from Table 3 gives the
sa me result (1.000 divided by 65.65) . Th e total
shrinkage loss in this example is 2.63 bu. (17.86
minus 15.23).
Th e second quote include s shrinki ng the grain to
13% moisture. but only use s a shrink facto r of 1.2%
per point. The total shri nk is 15.6% (13 points
removed times 1.2%). Th e number of wet bushels is
the same as above, 17.86. The numbe r at dry
bush els remaining would' be 15.07, a shrinkage loss
of 2.79 bu . Thus, even though the second quole
involved a smaller shrink factor, Ihe lower final mois-
lure content resulted in a greate r shrinkage toss than
the (irsi quote.
Evaluatin g Grain Sale Alternatives
When selli ng wet corn, se llers should evaluate
their sale alte rnatives by comparing not only per
bushel price quotes, but also shrink factors and final
moisture contents if the grain buyer is pencil shrink-
ing the purchase. It is important for th e seil er to
determine the assumed handling losses that each
buyer is using for pencil shrinking the grain . It the
ha ndling loss is greater than 1% , then the loss is
greater than the average loss reported from on-farm
and commercial surveys .
For example. consider that a grower has' 00 .000
lb. of 20% corn for sale. Buyer #1 quotes a price of
$2.50 per dry bu., uses a constant shrink factor of
1.25, and shrinks grain to a final moisture content of

3
 Table 4. Initial corn weights required to give 56 pounds 01 dry shelled corn after shrinking wei shelled corn
to 14% moisture for various Initial moisture levels and shrink factors.
Initial Shrink factor (% per poin t)
moislure
01 grain 1.16 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 , .50
(%) - --·---- - -------·---Ib. of wet corn-·----------- ----------- --
32 70. 82 71,43 72.26 73. 11 73.98 74 .87 75.78 76 .71
30 68.80 69.31 70.00 70.71 71.43 72.1 6 72.92 73.68
28 66.89 67.31 67.88 68.46 69.05 69.65 70.26 70.89
26 65.08 65.42 65.88 66.35 66.83 67.31 67.80 69.29
24 63.37 63.64 64.00 64.37 64.74 65 .12 65 .50 65.88
22 61.74 61.95 62.22 62.50 62.78 63.06 63.35 63.6 4
20 60.20 60.34 60.54 60.74 60.94 61.14 61.34 61.54
18 58.73 58.82 58.95 59.07 59.20 59.32 59.45 59.57
16 57.33 57.38 57 .44 57.49 57.55 57.61 57 .67 57.73
14 56.00 56.00 56.00 56.00 56.00 56.00 56.00 56.00

Table 5. Initial corn weights required to gIve 56 pounds of dry shelled corn after Shrinking wei shelled corn
to 13% moisture for various initial moIsture levels and shrink factors.
Initial Shrink lactor (% per point)
moisture
of grain 1.15 1.20 1.25 1_30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50
(%) -----------------Ib. 01 wet corn------- - - - -··--·
32 71.65 72.54 73.44 74.37 75.32 76.29 77.29 78.32
30 69.60 70.35 71.11 71.89 72.68 73.49 74. 32 75.17
28 67.67 68.29 68.92 69.57 70.22 70.89 71 .57 72.26
26 65.84 66.35 66.87 67.39 67. 92 68.46 69.01 69.57
24 64. 11 64.52 64.93 65.34 65.77 66.19 66.63 67.07
22 62.46 62.78 63. 10 63. 42 63.75 94..Q.7 64 .40 64.74
20 60.90 61.14 61.37 61.61 61.84 62.08 62.33 62.57
18 59.41 59.57 59.73 59.8 9 60.05 60.22 60.38 60.54
16 58.00 58.09 58.18 58.27 58.36 58.46 58 .55 58.64

•
14 56.65 56.68 56.71 56.74 56.77 56.80 56.82 56.85
13 56.00 56.00 56.00 56.00 56.00 56.00 56.00 56.00

14% . From Tabl e 4, the wet bushel equivale nt is
found 10 be 60 .54 bu. Dividing the 100,.000 lb. by
60.5 4 g ives 165 1 8 dry bush els of corn. Multiplying
the 1651.8 bu. by the quoted price of $2.50 per bu.
results in a net sale of $4,129.50.
Buyer 112 quotes a price of $2.55 per dry bu.,
us es a lable wilh 0.5% constant handling loss, and
sh rinks g rai n to 13% moisture. Water shrink per poi nt
moisture loss is 1.149 (from Table '). Total water
shrink would therefore be 8.04% (7 points removed
times 1.149). Total shrink would be 8.54% (8.04%
plus 0.5% handling loss). The original 100,000 lb. of
wet corn is equal 10 1,785.7 bu. The number of dry
bu shels remaining would equal 1,633.2 (using lor-
mula above). Multiplying HIe 1633.2 bu. by the
quoled price of $2.55 per bu. results in a net sale of
$4,164.66.
The quote from Buyer #2 is Ihe better sale alter-
native, assuming the cost for delivering grain is
equal.
Summary
Gram weight shrinkage due to mech anical drying
includes weight loss du e to removal of both water
and dry matter. Waler shrink is by far the major com-
ponent of total sh ri nkage and th e easiest to calcu-
late. Calculated dry matter losses lend 10 be variable
due 10 different pencil shrink procedures used within
the grain industry. In ord er 10 accurately compare
custom drying quotes or grain sale alternatives, the
corn grower should delermine the shrinkage costs
associated wilh each and choose the alternative
which eilher returns the great est number of dry
bushels or greatest nel sal e.

A publicati on o f the National Corn Hand book Project

NEW 6191 (SM) I

Cooperabve Extension work in Agriculture and Home Economics, state of Indiana, Purdue Univ-erslty, and U.S. Departm en t 01 Agriculture
cooperating; H. A. Wadsworth, Director, West Lalayette, IN. Issued in furtherance 01 the acts 01 May 8 and June 30, 19 \ 4. The Cooperauve l
Extension Service of Purdue University is ilJ1 affirmative action/equal opportunity Inslitu1ion.
 Volume 16 Number 31 - - - University of Wisconsin Crop Manager
Crops
Corn Harvest – Minimizing Foreign Material in the
Combine’s Grain Tank ................................................. 137
Field Loss Calculator .................................................... 138
Fertility & Soil
The Economics of Soil Testing..................................... 138
Corn Harvest - Minimizing Foreign Material in
the Combine’s Grain Tank
Matthew Digman, Assistant Professor and Machinery Systems
Extension Specialist, UW - Madison
Reports from the field are that corn grain is being docked and
in some cases rejected due to large amounts of broken corn and
foreign material (BCFM). The U.S. standard for No. 2 yellow
corn is less than 3% BCFM. Foreign material and grain fines
rob grain bin capacity because they occupy space that was
intended for grain. Additionally, airflow can be restricted by
pockets of foreign material and fines, causing hot spots,
damaging grain and possibly leading to fire. Here are a couple
of tips to follow if you are finding a large amount of foreign
material in your clean grain tank.
Ground Speed
Be sure to select a ground speed that does not overload your
machine as the engine must be able to maintain its rated engine
speed to keep separator and cleaning shoe at full speed. Adjust
your speed with the hydrostatic transmission to maintain the
engine near rated speed under varying crop conditions.
Header
The usual advice for minimizing trash input into the combine
by operating the header as high as possible is even more critical
in these wet conditions. Introducing tough, wet leaf and stalk
material into the combine reduces its effectiveness to thresh,
separate and clean the grain.
Concave Clearance
Your operator’s manual will specify clearances for your
particular machine, but generally you’ll need to set your
concave approximately to the diameter of a shelled cob. A
properly adjusted concave will break up some cob, but
excessive broken cob is an indicator that the concave is set too
close to the cylinder or rotor. Too many broken cobs can lead to
Wisconsin Crop Manager
- - November 12, 2009
high levels of cob in the clean grain tank and/or can overwhelm
the cleaning shoe.
Cylinder or Rotor Speed
After the concave is adjusted properly, adjust the cylinder or
rotor speed to maximize threshing, but make sure you balance
this adjustment with grain damage. If grain damage becomes
excessive, slow the cylinder or rotor. Do not increase the
concave clearance. Concave spacing has very little effect on
grain damage in corn.
Cleaning Shoe
Always begin harvesting with the chaffer and sieve openings
to the maximum specification for corn in your operator’s
manual. Closing down the sieve will produce clean corn in the
grain tank, but it will also increase tailings returned for
rethreshing, which can increase grain damage. If there is too
much cob in the grain tank, first try increasing airflow, then
close the top chaffer sieve a little and finally the lower shoe
sieve a little. Wet crop residue will require higher air speed
compared to a dry crop.
Monitoring Conditions
With the recent spell of favorable weather, crop conditions
are begining to change. Be sure to check your grain tank
throughout the day, when switching fields or varieties and as
weather conditions change.
For more information on this year’s harvest please visit us at
the new University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Team
Grain website at http://fyi.uwex.edu/grain/.
References
Allis-Chalmers. 1980. Operator’s Manual: N5, N6 and N7.
Milwaukee, WI
John Deere. 2003. Operator’s Manual: 9660 CTS. Moline, IL
John Deere. 2006. Recommendations for harvesting field corn,
popcorn, soybeans peas and edible beans - STS Combines.
Solution Number 44539. Moline, IL
John Deere. 2009. Operator’s Manual: 9570 STS. Moline, IL
New Holland. 2009. Operator’s Manual: CR9060, CR9070 and
CR9080. New Holland, PA.
USDA-GIPSA. 1996. United States Standards for Corn.
Washington, D.C.
137
 FACT: Soils testing in the "High" and "Excessive" range for
Field Loss Calculator P and K require less than removal rates to optimize yield.
In either case, money is lost from either reduced yields or
over-application of P and K. When soil tests indicate the soil is
in the very low to low category, this suggests that there is a high
likelihood that yields will increase due to application of
fertilizer. However, it also indicates that the subsequent crops
would benefit from building the "fertility" of the soil through
additional P and K inputs over time.
For more information on soil testing, please visit our website
www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/soilsampling.php
„„„„„„„„

This MS Excel spreadsheet allows producers to calculate the

influence of harvesting today versus allowing the crop to stand
in the field and harvesting later. It accounts for higher drying
costs versus grain losses during field drying. It allows the user
to account for elevator discounts and grain shrink.
*Click here to go to the WCM Downloads Page and then
click on Field Loss Calculator to go to the MS Excel 2007
Version*
Note: This spreadsheet is saved using MS Excel 2007. To
install a converter for earlier versions of Excel click here.
MS Excel 2003 version

The Economics of Soil Testing

Matt Ruark, Department of Soil Science
Soil testing is the only tool we have to evaluate pH,
phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) status of the soil. Knowing
this information allows growers to make economically optimum
applications of lime and phosphorus and potash fertilizer. In
these times of economic uncertainty, managing input costs is an
important component of farm sustainability. Many growers
have opted to cut costs by eliminating soil testing as part of their
management program. This is not a recommended strategy.
There are two main misconceptions about soil testing:
MISCONCEPTION #1: Soil testing is expensive.
FACT: Routine soil testing costs about $0.35 per acre.
University of Wisconsin soil testing recommendations are to
collect one composite sample per five acres and to soil test at
least once every four years. Using a standard rate of $7.00 for
routine soil analysis (which includes pH, P, K, and organic
matter), this averages out to $0.35 per acre per year. All
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection Certified Laboratories are required to provide
fertilizer recommendations based on University of Wisconsin
guidelines along with the soil test values. (Note: actual cost of
soil test may be slightly higher depending on the lab and if
shipping costs are incurred)
MISCONCEPTION #2: Maintenance applications of P and K
are appropriate in all situations.
FACT: Soils testing in the "Very Low" and "Low" range for
P and K require additional inputs beyond removal rates to
optimize yield.

Wisconsin Crop Manager 138

 Volume 16 Number 32 - - - University of Wisconsin Crop Manager
What’s New
Thank You Wisconsin! ................................................. 139
Website Lists Nutrient Management Training
Opportunities ................................................................ 139
WI CCA of the Year Nominations Requested .............. 140
Plant Disease
The 2009 Wisconsin Corn Crop ................................... 140
Crops
2009 Wisconsin Corn Hybrid Performance Trials ....... 141
Soybean Variety Selection for the 2010 Crop .............. 144
Nutrient Recommendation Update for Pastures ........... 145
Insects and Mites
New Endangered Species Protection Program ............. 145
Fertility & Soil
New Soil Fumigation Safety Measures ........................ 145
Soil Testing and Nutrient Management Planning ......... 146
Thank You Wisconsin!
Chris Boerboom, UW Extension Weed Scientist
If you haven’t heard, I’m leaving the University of Wisconsin
to become Extension assistant director and program leader of ag
and natural resources at NDSU. Yes, that’s North Dakota as in
Fargo. And I’m going to find out how cold it really gets starting
in January. I think the cold and snow is mostly rumor, but time
will tell.
I’m very grateful to all the colleagues, ag-professionals, and
growers in Wisconsin that I’ve had the opportunity to work with
over the past 16 years. Wisconsin has a great ag industry and it
is a great place for an extension weed scientist. Thinking back
on my weed science career, I’m almost starting to feel
old. Many who might read this probably don’t know the joys of
“walking beans”. If not, it relates to a sharp hoe, probably about
4 rows of soybeans at a time, and it got much easier after the
invention of Basagran. I didn’t know at the time that walking
soybeans would be my start to weed science.
Jumping ahead to Wisconsin, the last 16 years have been
quite interesting with the evolution of new technologies and
challenges. We’ve lost herbicides like Bladex, hoped for
herbicides like Balance, found the fit with some new herbicides
Wisconsin Crop Manager
- - December 10, 2009
(Raptor, Lumax, Laudis, etc.) and outgrew others (Scorpion III,
Lightning, etc.). Along the way, a few even presented some
surprises, often to our dismay. The evolution of weed questions
has also been interesting. The weed question for my first couple
years was “How can I kill velvetleaf?” Of course, when one
weed is managed, another weed is set to take its place. The
weed complaint for the next several years was crabgrass and
woolly cupgrass. Now, we seem to be moving into a giant
ragweed era, not to mention the persistent lambsquarters.
These 16 years were also the Roundup Ready years, first with
experimental testing of Roundup Ready soybeans and then the
introduction of Roundup Ready corn and now Optimum GAT
corn and soybeans. This makes me feel old again to think that
some younger applicators and growers have never sprayed
anything but glyphosate on soybeans.
If we reflect on Roundup Ready crops, a discussion of
another “evolution” is also in order. Of course, weeds will try to
evolve to become herbicide resistant and glyphosate resistance
is now knocking on Wisconsin’s door step. In the summer of
2003, we held a Glyphosate Resistance Roundtable to ask
Wisconsin’s ag industry leaders the question “Should we
continue to spend our time discussing the threat of glyphosate
resistant weeds?” The response was an overwhelming “Yes”. In
the subsequent years, I have certainly tried to provide education
on glyphosate resistance and glyphosate stewardship. It’s hard
to measure when something doesn’t happen, but I believe that
you and the rest of Wisconsin growers have held the tide against
resistance well.
I wish you the best in future years for we know there will be
many new questions to be answered, new technologies to
evaluate and adapt, and new restrictions to comply with, all
while remaining profitable. Thank you again Wisconsin, for the
great opportunities and memories.
Website lists Nutrient Management Training
Opportunities
Sue Porter, WDATCP
UW-Madison’s Dept. of Soil Science and the Wis. Dept. of
Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection (WDATCP) have
added a new feature to the SNAP-Plus nutrient management
(NM) software website. You can now find listings of various
NM training opportunities across Wisconsin. These training
workshops are offered to farmers, agri-business employees,
county-based conservation staff, etc. The workshop topics range
from training on the SNAP-Plus program to introductory
presentations on NM planning.
139
 To view the offerings, go to http://www.snapplus.net/ and
click on the “Training Opportunities” tab on the left side of the
SNAP-Plus homepage. Be sure to check this website often as
additional NM training workshops will be added throughout the
upcoming months.
You are also encouraged to use this website to promote any
planned NM training events that you may be offering. Please
send the program details (where, when, what, and who) to Sue
Porter at sue.porter@wisconsin.gov or call 608-244-4605. With
your help, we hope this website will provide a comprehensive
list to help more NM planners and farmers get the training they
need. Thank you for your help.
WI CCA of the Year nominations requested
Nominees are being requested for the WI CCA of the Year
Award. Deadline for application submission is March 1,
2010. Electronic applications are preferred, however,
applications may be faxed or mailed to Bryan Jensen, Dept. of
Entomology, 1630 Linden Dr., Madison, WI 53706, Fax: 608-
262-3322, bmjense1@facstaff.wisc.edu. Unsuccessful
applications will not automatically be reconsidered the
following year.
The award will be given on an annual basis, and awarded at
the CCA Luncheon prior to the start of the Wisconsin Crop
Management Conference. The winner of this Award will be
automatically nominated by the Wisconsin CCA Board for the
International Certified Crop Adviser of the Year Award, which
will be awarded at the American Society of Agronomy (ASA)
Annual Meeting. The official nomination form consists of 5
questions and must be completed in full for the Committee to
review. Two letters of reference are also required. An
individual may only receive the award once.
As a nominator (and especially as a successful nominator)
you will get something that money can not buy. You’ll get that
special feeling knowing that you took the time to nominate a
friend and colleague for a job well done. You will also send
the message to your friend that their job performance is
recognized and appreciated. I know and understand that we are
all busy, but please take a few hours to complete the nomination
criteria. After all, doesn’t a great CCA deserve it! If you won’t
do it, then who will?
Please click on the following links for the 2010 Nomination
Form and 2010 Nomination Criteria and Tips.
Please call Bryan Jensen (608-263-4073) if you have
questions.
The 2009 Wisconsin Corn Crop - High
Moisture Corn, Aerobic Stability, Feed
Additives and Mycotoxins - Common
Questions
Patrick Hoffman, Randy Shaver and Paul Esker, University of
Wisconsin-Extension Dairy Science Department, Department of
Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Wisconsin Crop Manager
The complete 10 page article can be viewed or downloaded as
a PDF file on the WCM download page, or follow this direct
link...
http://ipcm.wisc.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=MCncgORLTU
4%3d&tabid=114&mid=669&forcedownload=true
Find the answers to these questions in this article:
• Will field molds continue to grow after ensiling and
produce mycotoxins?
• The surface of the high moisture corn is heating. Does
this imply the field molds are growing and producing
mycotoxins?
• Will ensiling or organic acid addition kill field molds
in storage or detoxify the mycotoxins?
• What mycotoxins are present in high moisture corn?
• Will mold spore counts or mold identification provide
adequate information about mycotoxin potential in a
feed?
• Can a black light be used to screen for mycotoxins?
• What are the critical levels of a given mycotoxin that
effect milk production, reproduction or animal health?
• A mycotoxin test was submitted and mycotoxin Y was
found in HMSC at x ppb (or ppm). What is the course
of action?
• A mycotoxin test was submitted and mycotoxins
Y,X,Z were found in HMSC at x ppb (or ppm). What
is the course of action?
• A mycotoxin test was submitted and mycotoxin Y was
found in HMSC at x ppb (or ppm). Which commercial
mycotoxin binder (adsorbent) should be used?
• Can generic bentonite be feed to adsorb mycotoxins?
• A high moisture corn was tested and found to have 1.0
ppm of vomitoxin (DON) and no other Fusarium
toxins. Is this a concern?
• Are there additional nutritional strategies that should
be considered when mycotoxins are present in the diet?
• Is the word adsorb (absorb) misspelled throughout this
document?
140
 higher than normal in all trials. Yields in the UW hybrid trials
2009 WISCONSIN CORN HYBRID were average to above average at most sites.
PERFORMANCE TRIALS
GRAIN AND SILAGE CULTURAL PRACTICES
The seedbed at each location was prepared by either
conventional or conservation tillage methods. Seed treatments
of hybrids entered into the trials are described in Table 3.
Fertilizer was applied as recommended by soil tests. Herbicides
were applied for weed control and supplemented with
cultivation when necessary. Corn rootworm insecticide was
applied when the previous crop was corn. Information for each
location is summarized in Table 5.
PLANTING
A precision vacuum corn planter was used at all locations,
except Spooner. Two-row plots, twenty-five foot long, were
planted at all locations. Plot were not hand-thinned. Each hybrid
Joe Lauer, Kent Kohn, and Thierno Diallo was grown in at least three separate plots (replicates) at each
location to account for field variability.
PDF Format
Excel Format HARVESTING
The University of Wisconsin Extension-Madison and College Grain: Two-row plots were harvested with a self-propelled
of Agricultural and Life Sciences conduct a corn evaluation corn combine. Lodged plants and/or broken stalks were
program, in cooperation with the Wisconsin Crop Improvement counted, plot grain weights and moisture contents were
Association. The purpose of this program is to provide unbiased measured and yields were calculated and adjusted to 15.5%
performance comparisons of hybrid seed corn available in moisture. Test weight was measured on each plot.
Wisconsin . These trials evaluate corn hybrids for both grain
and silage production performance. Silage: Whole-plant (silage) plots were harvested using a
tractor driven, three-point mounted one-row chopper. One row
In 2009, grain and silage performance trials were planted at was analyzed for whole plant yield and quality. Plot weight and
fourteen locations in four production zones. Both seed moisture content were measured, and yields were adjusted to
companies and university researchers submitted hybrids. tons dry matter / acre. A sub-sample was collected and analyzed
Companies with hybrids included in the 2009 trials are listed in using near infra-red spectroscopy.
Table 1. Specific hybrids and where they were
tested are shown in Table 2. In the back of the
report, hybrids previously tested over the past
three years are listed (Table 24). At most
locations trials were divided into early and late
maturity trials, based on the hybrid Relative
Maturities provided by the companies. The
specific Relative Maturities separating early
and late trials are listed below.
GROWING CONDITIONS FOR 2009
Seasonal precipitation and temperature at
the trial sites are shown in Table 4. Spring
planting was delayed due to cool and wet
planting conditions. Over the entire growing
season precipitation was average, but growing
degree days were significantly less than
normal. In many areas of the state, it was one
of the coolest growing seasons ever recorded.
Plant stands in the trials were excellent.
Drought was experienced during June and July
in northern Wisconsin. Little insect or disease
pressure was observed in most trials. Due to
the cool growing season, plants stayed green
late into the harvest season, so standability was excellent,
Beautiful weather in early September and an average killing
frost date helped the crop mature. Wet conditions during
October caused molds to develop. Harvest grain moisture was

Wisconsin Crop Manager 141

 The Wisconsin Relative
Maturity rating system for grain
and silage (GRM and SRM)
compares harvest moisture of a
grain or silage hybrid to the
average moisture of company
ratings using linear regression.
Each hybrid is rated within the
trial and averaged over all trials
in a zone. Maturity ratings
(Company, GRM and SRM)
can be found in Table 2.
GRAIN PERFORMANCE
INDEX
Three factors—yield,
moisture, and standability—are
of primary importance in
evaluating and selecting corn
hybrids. A performance index
(P.I.), which combines these
factors in one number, was
calculated for multi-location
averages for grain trials. This
performance index evaluates
yield, moisture, and lodged
stalks at a 50 (yield): 35
(moisture): 15 (lodged stalks)
ratio.
The performance index was
**In order to follow the “Table” links, please follow the links from this webpage: computed by converting the yield,
http://tinyurl.com/ylhvt7o** dry matter, and upright stalk values
of each hybrid to a percentage of the test average. Then the
performance index for each hybrid that appears in the tables was
PRESENTATION OF DATA calculated as follows:
Yield results for individual location trials and for Performance Index (P.I.) = [(Yield x 0.50) + (Dry matter x
multi-location averages are listed in Tables 6 through 23. 0.35) + (Upright stalks x 0.15)] / 100
Within each trial, hybrids are ranked by moisture, averaged over
all trials conducted in that zone during 2009. Yield data for both SILAGE PERFORMANCE INDEX
2008 and 2009 are provided if the hybrid was entered Corn silage quality was analyzed using near infra-red
previously in the 2008 trials. A two-year average for yield is spectroscopy equations derived from previous work. Plot
calculated using location means as replications. New in 2009, samples were dried, ground, and analyzed for crude protein
was a nearest neighbor analysis of variance for all trials as (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF),
described by Yang et al. (2004, Crop Science 44:49-55) and in vitro cell wall digestibility (NDFD), in vitro digestibility
Smith and Casler (2004, Crop Science 44:56-62). A hybrid (IVD), and starch. Spectral groups and outliers were checked
index (Table 2) lists relative maturity ratings, specialty traits, using wet chemistry analysis.
seed treatments and production zones tested for each hybrid.
The MILK2006 silage performance indices, milk per ton and
RELATIVE MATURITY milk per acre, were calculated using an adaptation by Randy
Seed companies use different methods and standards to Shaver (UW-Madison Dairy Science Department) of the
classify or rate the maturity of corn hybrids. To provide corn MILK91 model (Undersander, Howard and Shaver; Journal
producers a “standard” maturity comparison for the hybrids Production Agriculture 6:231-235). In MILK2006, the energy
evaluated, the average grain or silage moisture of all hybrids content of corn silage was estimated using a modification of a
rated by the company relative maturity rating system are shown published summative energy equation (Weiss and co-workers,
in each table as shaded rows. In these Wisconsin results tables, 1992; Animal Feed Science Technology 39:95-110). In the
hybrids with lower moisture than a particular relative maturity modified summative equation, CP, fat, NDF, starch, and sugar
average are likely to be earlier than that relative maturity, while plus organic acid fractions were included along with their
those with higher grain moisture are most likely later in corresponding total-tract digestibility coefficients for estimating
relative maturity. Company relative maturity ratings are the energy content of corn silage. Whole-plant dry matter
rounded to 5-day increments. content was normalized to 35% for all hybrids. The sample lab

Wisconsin Crop Manager 142

measure of NDFD was used for the NDF digestibility
coefficient. Digestibility coefficients used for the CP, fat, and
sugar plus organic acid fractions were constants. Dry matter
intake was estimated using NDF and NDFD content assuming a
1350 lb. cow consuming a 30% NDF diet. Using National
Research Council (NRC, 2001) energy requirements, the intake
of energy from corn silage was converted to expected milk per
ton. Milk per acre was calculated using milk per ton and dry
matter yield per acre estimates.
LEAST SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE
Variations in yield and other characteristics occur because of
variations in soil and growing conditions that lower the
precision of the results. Statistical analysis makes it possible to
determine, with known probabilities of error, whether a
difference is real or whether it might have occurred by chance.
Use the appropriate LSD (least significant difference) value at
the bottom of the tables to determine true differences.
Least significant differences (LSD’s) at the 10% level of
probability are shown. Where the difference between two
selected hybrids within a column is equal to or greater than the
LSD value at the bottom of the column, you can be sure in nine
out of ten chances that there is a real difference between the two
hybrid averages. If the difference is less than the LSD value, the
difference may still be real, but the experiment has produced no
evidence of real differences. Hybrids that were not significantly
lower in performance than the highest hybrid in a particular test
are indicated with an asterisk (*).
HOW TO USE THESE RESULTS TO SELECT
TOP-PERFORMING HYBRIDS
The results can be used to provide producers with an
independent, objective evaluation of performance of unfamiliar
hybrids, promoted by seed company sales representatives,
compared to competitive hybrids.
Below are suggested steps to follow for selecting
top-performing hybrids for next year using these trial results:
1. Use multi-location average data in shaded areas.
Consider single location results with extreme
caution.
2. Begin with trials in the zone(s) nearest you.
3. Compare hybrids with similar maturities within a
trial. You will need to divide most trials into at least
two and sometimes three groups with similar
average harvest moisture—within about 2% range in
moisture.
4. Make a list of 5 to 10 hybrids with highest 2009
Performance Index within each maturity group
within a trial.
5. Evaluate consistency of performance of the
hybrids on your list over years and other zones.
a. Scan 2008 results. Be wary of any hybrids
on your list that had a 2008 Performance
Index of 100 or lower. Choose two or three
of the remaining hybrids that have
Wisconsin Crop Manager
relatively high Performance Indexes for
both 2008 and 2009.
b. Check to see if the hybrids you have chosen
were entered in other zones. (For
example, some hybrids entered in the
Southern Zone Trials, Tables 6 and 7, are
also entered in the South Central Zone
Trials, Tables 8 and 9).
c. Be wary of any hybrids with a Performance
Index of 100 or lower for 2008 or 2009 in
any other zones.
6. Repeat this procedure with about three maturity
groups to select top-performing hybrids with a range
in maturity, to spread weather risks and harvest time.
7. Observe relative performance of the hybrids you
have chosen based on these trial results in several
other reliable, unbiased trials and be wary of any
with inconsistent performance.
8. You might consider including the hybrids you have
chosen in your own test plot, primarily to evaluate
the way hybrids stand after maturity, dry-down rate,
grain quality, or ease of combine-shelling or picking.
9. Remember that you don’t know what weather
conditions (rainfall, temperature) will be like next
year. Therefore, the most reliable way to choose
hybrids with greatest chance to perform best next
year on your farm is to consider performance in
2008 and 2009 over a wide range of locations and
climatic conditions.
You are taking a tremendous gamble if you make hybrid
selection decisions based on 2009 yield comparisons in only
one or two local test plots.
OBTAINING DATA ELECTRONICALLY
This report is available on the internet at
http://corn.agronomy.wisc.edu. Hybrid performance for the last
10 years can be summarized using SELECT at the above
internet address. This book can be downloaded over the internet
in Microsoft Excel and Acrobat PDF formats.
About the authors: Joe Lauer is a professor of agronomy and
also holds an appointment with University of Wisconsin-
Extension. Kent Kohn is the corn program manager in
agronomy and Thierno Diallo is an assistant research specialist
in agronomy.
This publication is available from your Wisconsin County
Extension office or from the Department of Agronomy, 1575
Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706 . Phone (608) 262-1390.
University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension,
in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
Wisconsin counties, publishes this information to further the
purpose of the May 8 and June 30, 1914 Acts of Congress; and
provides equal opportunities and affirmative action in
employment and programming.
References to transgenic traits in this publication are for your
convenience and are not an endorsement or criticism of one trait
143
over other similar traits. Every attempt was made to ensure (conventional) to the mid-$70’s (RR2Y®) on a per bag basis.
accuracy of traits in the hybrids tested. You are responsible for Such a huge discrepancy in price has growers struggling over
using traits according to the current label directions of seed their 2010 variety selection decision. Since 2003, we have seen
companies. Follow directions exactly to protect the environment a divergence in yield potential between conventional and
and people from misuse. Failure to do so violates the law. Roundup Ready (RR) ® soybean varieties in our trials. To
further characterize these yield differences and test the yield
If you need this material in an alternative format, contact
potential of LL® soybean, we added several high yielding RR®
Cooperative Extension Publications at (608) 262-2655 or the
and LL® soybean varieties as checks into our conventional
UWEX Affirmative Action office. This publication is available
trials in 2009. This information will provide growers with an
free from your Wisconsin county Extension office or from the
accurate yield comparison among LL®, RR®, and conventional
Department of Agronomy, 1575 Linden Dr., Madison,
soybean varieties to aid in their decision process. Our RR®
Wisconsin 53706. Phone (608) 262-1390
trials also had several RR2Y® varieties entered in 2009 to allow
for this new trait comparison.
Soybean Variety Selection for the 2010 Crop:
More Important than Ever To aid in the decision making process, we would also
recommend using Dr. Joe Lauer’s Crop Seed Price Calculator
Shawn Conley, State Soybean and Small Grains Specialist
(http://corn.agronomy.wisc.edu/Season/DSS.aspx). This tool
Paul Esker, Extension Field Crops Plant Pathologist, University allows growers to directly compare varieties based on yield
of Wisconsin, Madison potential and seed price.
Variety selection is the most important factor in maximizing Image 1. White mold incidence at <5%
grain yield and profitability in both corn and soybean. The
difficult year we experienced in 2009 coupled with the launch
of Roundup Ready 2 Yield® (RR2Y) soybean and increased
interest in LibertyLink® (LL) and conventional soybean
varieties makes the selection decision even more important.
When selecting a soybean variety remember you can never
have too much information. When we were students we were
taught to compare grain yields over years and locations before a
seed purchasing decision was made. In today’s competitive
environment however the life span of a soybean variety is often
limited to 2-3 years. To make the best variety decision today,
collect yield data from several sources including the 2009
University of Wisconsin Soybean Variety Performance Test
results found at (http://www.coolbean.info) as well as from
several seed company representatives. Compare yields from a
wide range of locations and environments. A common mistake
that we often make is only looking at local data (your farm,
neighbor, county, etc.). Though interesting, local data will only
tell you how well that soybean variety performed in a narrow
area last year. Comparing variety performance over many Image 2. White mold incidence at >70%
different environments will offer growers that best “predictive
ability” for next year’s environment.
Once you have selected a group of high yielding soybean
varieties, choose those that have the disease resistance/tolerance
characteristics that meet your specific field needs. In Wisconsin,
soybean cyst nematode (SCN), brown stem rot, and white mold
are considered the largest annual concerns. The Wisconsin
Soybean Variety Test Program conducts variety trials targeted
specifically at SCN and white mold. We also take extensive
field notes at all of our locations to quantify the incidence
(percentage of plants infected) of white mold and brown stem
rot among the varieties entered. In 2009, our White Mold
Variety Test showed a wide range of differences in
susceptibility of entered varieties. Incidence levels in our trials
ranged from <5% to 100% infection (Please see images 1 and 2
below).
Lastly, seed price will be a large driver of seed sales in 2010.
Preliminary quotes on base seed price (quoted prices before
discounts and programs) have ranged from the high $30’s

Wisconsin Crop Manager 144


Nutrient Recommendation Update for
Pastures
Rhonda Gildersleeve & Carrie Laboski
As nitrogen prices have fluctuated over the past several
growing seasons, Wisconsin producers have expressed more
interest in use of forage legume species such as red and white
clovers in pasture mixtures to provide nitrogen and improve
pasture forage quality during the grazing season. Historically,
pasture crop nutrient recommendations have assumed grasses
were the predominate species, even in mixed pasture situations.
With increased use of legumes in pastures, fertilizer needs may
change, particularly in the case of lime requirement, because
most forage legumes have a higher optimum target pH.
To address the changing needs of grazers, the University of
Wisconsin Soil Testing labs recently added a new pasture crop
category for legume-grass pasture mixtures containing 30% or
more legumes. This new pasture crop category has a target pH
of 6.3 to support a larger percentage of legumes in the stand. In
addition, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium recommendations
reflect the nutrient needs of mixed pastures containing increased
legume content.
Soil test interpretations and nutrient recommendations
continue to be available for the three previously existing pasture
crop categories:
• Unimproved pastures (Kentucky bluegrass and
quackgrass),
• Managed pastures (bromegrass, fescue,
orchardgrass, ryegrass, and timothy), and
• Legume-grass pastures with <30% legumes
As with other crops, general soil sampling guidelines for
pastures suggest that 10 soil cores, taken at a 6 - 8 inch depth
from a five-acre area, should be composited to form one
representative sample. For more information on soil sampling or
soil sample submission, please visit the UW Soil Testing Labs
website http://uwlab.soils.wisc.edu or contact your County
Cooperative Extension Office for assistance.
New endangered species protection program
®
In the future, users of Intrepid 2F insecticide in Wisconsin
will need to consult a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) website before using the product.
A new label for Intrepid® will direct users to access an EPA
website (or call a toll-free number) to determine whether the
intended application site is within an area that may affect the
Karner blue butterfly—a federally-listed endangered species—
before using the product. This will be the first use of the EPA’s
“Bulletins Live!” website, which is intended to help protect
endangered species from certain pesticides. In the case of
Intrepid®, the bulletin actually eases some earlier use
restrictions on the product. However, the restrictions vary
depending upon where in the state a user wants to apply the
product and what crop the application is intended for.
Wisconsin counties affected by the bulletin for Intrepid®
include: Adams, Burnett, Chippewa, Clark, Door, Eau Claire,
Wisconsin Crop Manager
Green Lake, Jackson, Juneau, Marquette, Monroe, Polk,
Portage, Waupaca, Waushara, and Wood.
Note that there will be a period of several years during which
products with the current label are gradually replaced with the
new Intrepid 2F® label that directs users to obtain a bulletin. As
always, pesticide users should follow the instructions on the
label of the product they are using.
Also note that other pesticide products in the future may
direct users to the “Bulletins Live!” website before the product
can be applied.
For more information about the Bulletin Live! program, go
to: http://www.epa.gov/espp/bulletins.htm
For more information about how this may affect Wisconsin’s
pesticide users, contact:
Steve Tomasko
Pesticide Applicator Training Program (PAT)
University of Wisconsin-Madison
(608) 265-4315
stomasko@wisc.edu
New Soil Fumigation Safety Measures
Beginning with the 2010 growing season, people using soil
fumigants will have to abide by stronger restrictions and
mitigation measures to protect pesticide handlers, reentry
workers, and bystanders from risks, especially inhalation risks,
resulting from exposure to these pesticides. In Wisconsin, most
soil fumigants are used in potatoes, tree nurseries, tobacco and
other high-value crops.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) instituted
the new measures after a review of all soil fumigants. The new
mitigation measures include:
• Additional worker protection measures,
• Fumigant management plans,
• Registrants’ stewardship and training programs,
• Mandatory good agricultural practices,
• Buffer zones and buffer posting, and
• Emergency preparedness and response measures.
Some measures will take effect in 2010, others in 2011. All
changes will be noted on the pesticide label. And, as always,
applicators must follow label regulations explicitly.
One other notable change is that all soil fumigants will now
be classified as restricted-use pesticides (RUPs). This includes
metam sodium and dazomet, which previously were not
classified as RUPs. This means that any applicator in Wisconsin
who wishes to use soil fumigants will need to become certified
in a base category and the subcategory of “Soil Fumigation”
before they can apply them.
145
 More information on the new risk mitigation measures is
available at:
www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/soil_fumigants/

Or contact:
Steve Tomasko
Pesticide Applicator Training Program (PAT)
University of Wisconsin-Madison
(608) 265-4315
stomasko@wisc.edu

Soil Testing and Nutrient Management

Planning
Karen Talarczyk
Fall 2009’s extended corn harvest season due to challenging
weather conditions and wet corn has cut into the “spare” time
farmers have for other committed obligations. One of these
activities is completing soil testing of their cropland fields.
Standard soil tests- organic matter, pH, phosphorus and
potassium have taken a sabbatical on some farms for as long as
twenty years. The reasons are numerous. However, interests in
program continuation in Farmland Preservation/Working Lands
Initiative, participation in state grant opportunities, interest in
future impending regulations, or just to improve conservation
and nutrient management knowledge has inspired some farmers
to apply for a required 590 Nutrient Management Plan. The
basis of these plans are soil tests that will indicate current field
fertility levels. The interest is high, and the time challenges are
equally high. In early fall, farmers visited county land
conservation offices for updated farm maps. Soil bags and
probes were attained, and soil tests were completed on alfalfa
fields. Some have been able to soil sample some of their corn
fields before the past week when cold weather and partially
frozen soils became a factor. With blizzard warnings on the
weather horizons, will the nutrient management plan efforts
need to be aborted for winter 2010? No. Landowners can attend
the winter training sessions focusing on nitrogen, phosphorus,
and potassium management. Annual livestock manure
estimations can be calculated and manure spreaders calibrated.
Manure spreading strategies can be discussed and implemented.
The training that may have to wait until mid-summer 2010 is
SNAP+ computer training. This is the point when current soil
tests, those not over four years old, for all farm fields would
need to be entered into the nutrient management plan. This is a
workable solution and counties have been willing in the past to
accommodate this training time change. Nutrient management
planning will continue in spite of the small challenges.

„„„„„„„

Wisconsin Crop Manager 146