April 3, 2008
In this issue
§ Insects to watch in 2008 - Part I - Winter cutworm
§ New soybean aphid research update features MSU host plant resistance work
§ Improving weed control in no-till Roundup Ready soybean
§ Mark your calendars: MSU Weed Tour and Crop Diagnostic Day dates are set
§ Weed control challenges for sugar beets in 2008
§ Roundup Ready alfalfa update
§ Adapting to the new corn nitrogen recommendations
§ Threat of ice sheeting to winter wheat
§ Commodity market situation
§ Department of Homeland Security plans I-9 audits in 2008
§ Regional reports
§ Weather
Next issue April 17
Christina DiFonzo, Entomology
Last season was exciting (for an entomologist) because of
the discovery of three new potential field crop insect pests in
Last fall, northern
Noctua pronuba is one of the most common Noctuid
moths in
Although
N. pronuba moths are somewhat common, a N. pronuba larval
outbreak was not something we anticipated in 2007. Prior to that time,
homeowners typically reported caterpillars to
the MSU Diagnostic Clinic or MSU Extension offices as a curiosity. This is
because of N. pronuba’s unusual ability to remain active under very cold
conditions, even crawling on the snow in winter (thus Howard’s name “winter
cutworm”).
In early
October 2007, Norm Myers, an MSU Extension county director from
In November, a grower from Posen clocked the cutworms at eight inches per minute crossing his road. Some alfalfa and small grain fields were treated, using armyworm thresholds as a guide.
Caterpillars also consumed lawns and crawled around homes in large numbers. On October 23, a distraught homeowner emailed Howard: “… my home, garage and pole barn are being invaded by caterpillars. They are in the grass by the thousands. I feel like I'm in a "B" movie.”
Things took a strange turn when reports of sick pets came in
the following month. On November 12, Mary Dunckel,
Mary’s observations
were confirmed by a few days later by Jerry Lindquist: “A black lab in the
Reports of cutworm infestation and feeding continued into December. Even in January and February, caterpillars emerged on warm days on the snow.
Will this outbreak carry over into this spring? We aren’t
sure. Thus far, Howard and I have not received calls about waves of
caterpillars marching across fields, but it’s still early. As the temperature
warms and alfalfa, wheat and lawns green up, I expect to see increased activity
in northern
As far as management, since this
is the first widespread report of economic crop damage in the
Based on what we know about the life cycle, I
am making an educated guess that caterpillars will pupate in early May, so that
corn and soybean planted in northern counties will not be at risk of damage.
However, observations on caterpillar numbers, movement and damage are welcome
to myself or Howard to increase our understanding of this insect.
Chris DiFonzo: difonzo@msu.edu
Howard Russell: bugman@msu.edu
Howard
and I wish to thank MSU Extension educators Ben Bartlett, Jim Breinling,
Mary Dunckel, Duke Elsner, Jerry Lindquist, Norm Myers, Jill O’Donnel and Sheri
Pollington who kept track of winter cutworm last fall and sent us such
entertaining reading material.
Winter cutworm, Noctua
pronuba: First report of economic damage in
Bulletin developed by Howard Russell and Chris DiFonzo in fall 2007. Available at the CAT Alert web site at: http://www.ipm.msu.edu/cat08field/pdf/4-03noctua.pdf
TV reports from Channel 9/10 News,
Caterpillars of
Christina DiFonzo, Entomology
The North Central Soybean Research Program (NCSRP) recently
produced a new Soybean Aphid Research Update. The update was created based on
interviews with soybean entomologists and plant breeders from across the
http://www.planthealth.info/pdf_docs/sba_update08.pdf
Joe Armstrong and Christy Sprague, Crop and Soil Sciences
No-till soybean production in
One way to give your soybean crop an early advantage is to make burndown herbicide applications before or near the time of planting. In MSU trials, preplant burndown applications of glyphosate + 2,4-D ester1, made at least seven days prior to planting, provided excellent control of most weeds present prior to planting. Burndown applications of glyphosate that were delayed until soybeans were at the VC (unifoliate) to V2 (2 trifoliates) growth stages resulted in an average yield loss of 8.3 bushels/acre (Table 1). Waiting until soybeans were at the V3 to V5 growth stages resulted in a 9.2 bushel/acre loss. In addition to protecting yield by reducing early-season weed competition, starting the growing season with a clean field will also eliminate several winter annual weeds that may potentially serve as hosts for destructive insects and soybean cyst nematode.
|
Application time |
Yield |
|
|
________ bu/A ________ |
|
7 d prior to plantinga |
56.7 |
|
VC to V2 soybeanb |
48.4 |
|
V3 to V5 soybean |
47.5 |
|
Untreated |
36.6 |
a Roundup WeatherMax (22 fl oz/A) + 2,4-D ester (1
pt/A) + AMS (17 lb/100 gal) was applied.
b Roundup
WeatherMax (22 fl oz/A) + AMS (17 lb/100 gal) was applied after soybean
emergence.
Though postemergence application timings for glyphosate are generally flexible in terms of weed height, making the application when weeds are an appropriate size remains a major factor for ensuring satisfactory control. Beyond starting the growing season with a clean field, including a herbicide with residual activity with your burndown application will reduce in-season weed growth and extend early-season weed control. Residual herbicides can improve control and reduce the growth of problematic weeds, such as horseweed (marestail), common ragweed, giant ragweed and common lambsquarters. As a result of reduced weed growth, the time needed between a burndown herbicide application and a postemergence glyphosate treatment may be extended. This is especially important when weather conditions may prevent timely postemergence applications. There are several different residual herbicides that can be included with a burndown application. For a complete listing of soybean herbicides with residual weed control, consult Table 2F in the MSU Extension publication E-0434 “Weed Control Guide for Field Crops.”
There is no added application expense when a residual herbicide is included in a burndown herbicide application. Depending on market prices, weed pressure and herbicide cost the extra expense of adding a residual herbicide to a burndown application may pay for itself with as little as a 1 bushel per acre increase in yield. In fact, the economic returns from the addition of any of six different residual herbicides that we examined over two years at three locations were not different from a burndown application of glyphosate + 2,4-D ester alone. This was true regardless of soybean commodity prices from $5 to $15 per bushel. When choosing residual herbicides, the decision should be based on the types of weeds that are in the field and weed pressures to maximize economic return.
One of the most important benefits of including a residual
herbicide in a weed control program is the opportunity to use herbicides with
additional modes of action besides glyphosate. While glyphosate continues to
provide excellent control of most weeds, the spread of glyphosate-resistant
weeds throughout
1 2,4-D ester at 1 pt/A must be applied at least seven days prior to planting soybean.
Christy Sprague, Crop and Soil Sciences
Before you schedule your vacation this summer make sure to get these two dates on your calendar. The 2008 MSU Weed Tour will be held on Wednesday, July 2 and the sixth annual MSU Crop Diagnostic School will be held on Friday, July 18. These field days offer you the latest information in weed management and other crop protection and crop management strategies. Stay tuned to future CAT Alerts for details and registration forms for each of these events.
Christy Sprague, Crop and Soil Sciences
After a long wait,
§ Keep good records of which fields are planted to the different sugar beet varieties. Because most growers will likely have both Roundup Ready and conventional sugar beet varieties on their farms this year, fields should be clearly marked so there are no mistakes in herbicide applications. There can’t be a worse feeling than spraying glyphosate (Roundup) on a field that does not contain the Roundup Ready trait. This occurrence was common when Roundup Ready soybean, corn, and cotton were first commercialized. One small mistake can cost several thousands of dollars, so it is important to check, double check and triple check that you are in the correct field before spraying glyphosate.
§ Make sure the sprayer is properly cleaned out when switching from spraying glyphosate in Roundup Ready sugar beets to conventional herbicides (micro-rates or standard splits) in non-Roundup Ready sugar beets. Without proper cleanout, glyphosate solutions or residues left in the tank will lead to tank-contamination that can cause death to sugar beets in non-Roundup Ready (conventional) sugar beet fields.
§ Be timely with herbicide applications. One of the biggest differences in conventional weed control programs compared with Roundup Ready weed control systems is that conventional herbicides generally need to be sprayed when the weeds are less than 0.5-inch tall and glyphosate in Roundup Ready sugar beets can be applied when weeds are much larger. Keeping track of weed sizes by scouting both Roundup Ready and conventional sugar beet fields is extremely important.
§ Plant Roundup Ready sugar beets in a weed-free seedbed.
§ The first glyphosate application should be made when weeds are 2-inches tall. Subsequent applications should be made before additional weed flushes exceed 4-inches tall. Two to four applications will be needed for season-long weed control.
§ Glyphosate should be applied at a minimum rate of 0.75 lb ae/A (i.e., 22 fl oz/A Roundup WeatherMax or Roundup PowerMax). Higher rates up to 1.1 lb ae/A (32 fl oz/A Roundup WeatherMax or PowerMax) can be applied to harder-to-control weeds prior to 8-leaf sugar beet.
§ Ammonium sulfate (AMS) at 17 lb/100 gal should always be added to maximize glyphosate performance.
§ Maximum in crop glyphosate application rates include two applications prior to 8-leaf sugar beets totaling 1.9 lb ae/A and two applications after the 8-leaf stage until 30 days prior to harvest totaling 1.5 lb ae/A.
§ Dual Magnum or Outlook can be tank-mixed with later glyphosate applications to provide residual control of late-emerging grasses and pigweed. Sugar beets should have at least 4-true leaves.
Roundup Ready sugar beets will be an excellent weed control
asset to
Wesley Everman, Crop and Soil Sciences
As most of you know, in late 2006 the Center for Food Safety and others filed a suit against the USDA claiming deficiencies in the environmental assessment process used by USDA/APHIS for deregulating Roundup Ready alfalfa. This lead to a ruling that the USDA environmental assessment should have included a “hard look” at the potential impact of Roundup Ready alfalfa on the development of glyphosate resistant weeds and on the economic environment, including potential economic impact on organic alfalfa producers. The ruling required USDA/APHIS to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and stopped any new sale or planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa after April 1, 2007, pending the completion of the EIS and a new deregulation decision by the agency. The food/feed safety of Roundup Ready Alfalfa was not questioned by the judge and the continued harvest of existing Roundup Ready alfalfa hay and seed has been allowed.
Following the issuance of the permanent injunction and a July 12, 2008, USDA/APHIS administrative order, the National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance (NAFA) submitted a Petition for Reconsideration to APHIS to request additional options and greater flexibility in its interpretation of the Court’s requirement for the handling of Roundup Ready alfalfa. This lead to an USDA/APHIS issued supplemental Administrative Order on Roundup Ready Alfalfa on December 18, 2007, that enabled labeling by lot, rather than by bale. USDA/APHIS stewardship requirements for harvest, labeling and movement of Roundup Ready alfalfa hay and seed can be found at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/alfalfa.shtml.
During their preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), USDA/APHIS solicited feedback from alfalfa producers with a 30-day public comment period on the Notice of Intent to conduct an EIS announced January 7, 2007. The notice identifies potential issues and alternatives that will be studied in the EIS. The public comment period is up and the agency will be considering all comments received before the deadline of February 6, 2008. Please click here to view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically.
Roundup Ready alfalfa cannot be planted until APHIS completes the EIS, which is projected to be in 18-24 months, or mid-late 2009. Additionally, Roundup Ready alfalfa seed cannot be purchased or sold until the EIS is completed, and any planting under permit will be limited to support pending research and development needs necessary prior to any anticipated re-launch.
According to www.roundupreadyalfalfa.com, if APHIS deregulates Roundup Ready alfalfa, seed will be available for Roundup Ready alfalfa varieties sold prior to the injunction.
Darryl Warncke, Crop and Soil Sciences
The change from recommending nitrogen (N) based on expected yield to recommending N based on economic return is quite significant. To adapt to this change will take time and some on-farm N rate evaluation by farmers to become comfortable with these new recommendations. In making this change, farmers may want to use the higher recommended amount in the “Maximum Return to N (MRTN)” range in Table 1. For example, if the five-year running average year is 170 bushels per acre, the previous crop was corn and the N:corn price ratio is near 0.10 ($0.50/ lb N and $5.00/ bu corn), then the recommended N rate is 150 lbs N/acre. The upper range value is 165 lb N/acre. If soybean is the previous crop, the upper range value is 130 lb N/acre.
Soil Previous
N : Corn Price
Ratio
Productivity1 Crop 0.10 0.15 0.20
Suggested
N Rate – lbs N/acre
Rate Range2 Rate Range2 Rate Range2
Medium/low Corn 130 115-145 120 105-135 110 95-125
High/Very High Corn 150 135-165 135 120-150 120 105-135
Medium/low Soybean 100 85-115 90 75-105 80 65- 95
High/Very High Soybean 115 100-130 105 90-120 95 80-110
1Low: Average yield = < 120 bu/a; Medium: Average Yield = 121 to 150 bu/a
High: Average yield = 151 to 180 bu/a; Very High = over 181 bu/a
where average yield is the 5-year running average (disregard unusual
highs and lows)
2 Range approximates ± $1.00 of the Maximum Return To N (MRTN) rate.
To determine the MRTN rate from Table 1, you need to know: 1) the productive capacity of the soil, 2) the previous crop, and 3) the N:corn price ratio. The N:corn price ratio is the cost of N ($/lb) divided by the expected corn selling price ($/bu). For example, if the price of N is $0.50/lb ($820/ton anhydrous ammonia) and corn is $5.00/bu the N:corn price ratio is 0.10 (0.50/5). If the price of N is $0.65/lb ($600/ton urea) and corn is $5.00/bu, then the N:corn price ratio is 0.13 (0.65/5).
If the previous crop is something other than corn or soybean, use the recommendations associated with soybeans. Any crop other than corn as the previous crop will usually result in some N benefit similar to soybean. When the previous crop is alfalfa or clover, then some additional N credit can be taken based on percent stand. For established alfalfa the additional N credit will be approximately equal to percent stand. For clovers, the additional N credit will be about 0.5 x percent stand.
Diane Brown-Rytlewski, Plant Pathology
The difference between what will potentially be paid for food grade wheat versus wheat that can only be used for feed is much higher this year than in past years, prompting growers to look at ways that they can maximize both quality and yield, including the use of fungicides. Wheat growers need to pay particular attention to grain quality this year. Because of strong grain prices, grain grading will likely be stricter and discount schedules are likely to be much more severe. Higher discounts could potentially preclude growers receiving top dollar for their grain and the intensified scrutiny in grading may threaten a grower's ability to meet the standards stated in his forward contract. Additionally, growers who contracted wheat at a lower price than the current market are having some concerns about how to produce enough food grade wheat to fill contracts without having to invest more money than necessary. Higher yields would be welcome to offset lower prices received for the portion of wheat that was contracted. It becomes tempting to look at fungicides as a magic bullet to accomplish these aims, but it’s important to remember that fungicides can only protect the yield potential that is there, and that there will be much more of a yield and quality response if disease is present.
Data collected from 10 years of university-based Uniform
Fungicide Trials were analyzed to rate the overall and relative efficacy of
several triazole-based fungicides against FHB and DON2. Based on
percent control, all fungicides led to a reduction in FHB and DON relative to
the untreated check. The study can be found in the proceedings of the 2007
National Fusarium Head Blight Forum: http://www.scabusa.org/pdfs/forum07_proc_mgmt.pdf
In the analysis, the most effective product currently
registered in
Whether a fungicide application is economical depends on
several factors. At the national U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative (USWBSI)
meeting I attended last fall, one of the featured speakers, economist Felicia
Wu (
Some of her points are listed here.
§
When they are applied, but not needed. Prediction models can help reduce the
uncertainty of determining whether or not scab is likely to occur – the
§ When they are applied too early or too late, allowing the disease to develop, and DON (vomitoxin) to accumulate.
§
When they are applied correctly, but their
efficacy isn’t sufficient to substantially reduce economic loss under heavy
disease pressure. The highest fungicide efficacy levels to date have been 50-60
percent reduction in FHB and 30-40 percent reduction in DON. In years with heavy disease pressure, the
disease can overwhelm the treatments.
§ When they can’t be applied at all due to rain or persistent wind.
§
Growers must aim for the lowest (feasible)
fungicide costs. Unless there is heavy
disease pressure early on, applying an effective fungicide at flowering to
provide protection against scab is frequently sufficient to control foliar
diseases as well. Knowing the level of resistance your wheat variety has to a
particular disease, and scouting the field from flag leaf to the boot stage to
determine the level of disease(s) present could result in significant savings
compared with an unnecessary application of fungicide.
§ An
analysis of projected yield without scab, market price, losses to yield, test
weight, fusarium damaged kernels, and DON discounts due to scab resulted in a
cost due to scab of $41.60/A (the analysis was done using price levels less
than current market prices). The level of DON (vomitoxin) levels within
delivered grain is an important quality consideration, especially in white
wheats where discounts begin at lower ppm DON than in red wheats. At current
wheat prices, the investment for an application of fungicide for fusarium head
blight is warranted, if there is a risk of high DON levels.
§
Under the same scenario, a grower applying
fungicide obtained a net benefit between $0.20-$9.20/A depending on the cost of
fungicide and the level of control, using “average” crop reduction and control
costs.
In
the next edition of the Field CAT Alert, we will look at partial budgets for
fungicide use in wheat to control head scab and progress made on models for
predicting scab and DON levels.
References
1 Felicia Wu, 2007. Economic
Perspectives of Wheat Growers Confronting FHB & DON. Fusarium Focus,
volume 8, issue 1. http://www.scabusa.org/pdfs/fus-focus_03-08_newsletter.pdf
2 Pierce Paul, Patrick Lipps, Don Hershman, Marcia
McMullen,
Martin Nagelkirk, MSU Extension,
Throughout much of the state, there has been concern over the layer of ice (ice sheeting) that blanketed some of this year’s wheat crop, particularly during early March. Ice sheeting can threaten wheat’s survival by limiting oxygen and, therefore, limiting respiration. It causes the build up of potentially toxic levels of carbon dioxide, ethylene and methanol. Flooding also limits oxygen, so the adverse affect of flooding and ice sheeting can be cumulative.
Despite the significant threat, the resiliency of wheat is often underestimated. This year’s crop probably can survive a few weeks under ice as most fields of wheat went into the winter in good condition. In addition, the crop had the advantage of being in a deep dormancy during early March.
Another factor that can provide relief is old crop residue that interrupts the ice sheet. Also, any fractures or porosity within the ice may allow sufficient gas exchange. For this reason, attempts to mechanically break up the ice sheets can sometimes be helpful.
As with other causes of winter injury, there is no easy way to accurately predict the extent of crop damage. However, it is possible to gain an indication by collecting whole plant samples from suspected damaged areas. After being indoors for several days, healthy plants should exhibit signs of new shoot and root growth emanating from the crown.
By the time this newsletter is published, green-up of wheat will presumably be underway and evidence of winterkill may begin to become apparent. However, a full and reasonably accurate assessment is usually not possible until there is significant new spring growth.
Bruce MacKellar, Dennis Stein and Roger Betz, MSUE educators
2008 has already shown significant volatility in the commodity markets. A fallout of this market has been the hesitance or inability of grain merchandisers to continue to forward contract grains. Rapidly advancing markets in January and February have forced many grain purchasers to continually shell out large sums of dollars to meet margin demands on their brokerage accounts servicing forward contracted grains at the CBOT. This means that many producers who want to lock in grain prices will have to work with brokerage firms directly. This may be out of the comfort zone for many producers.
Hedging is the purchase or sale of a futures contract as a temporary substitute for a cash market transaction to be made at a later date. Usually it involves opposite positions in the cash grain market and futures market at the same time. The cash market position refers to the farm’s commitment to deliver grain to the market during the contract month. As long as producers are working with a true hedge situation, producing a crop to offset their position in the futures market, the cost of marketing their grain this way should be limited to brokerage fees and potentially the interest cost of borrowing money to maintain the required balance of margin money on their accounts. On a corn contract, you can expect to have $2,000 on deposit when you open an account. The standard grain futures contract is for 5,000 bushels. Mini-sized contracts that cover 1,000 bushels are available for smaller producers. Keep in mind that it may cost nearly as much in brokerage fees to work with mini-contracts as it does to work with the traditional contract.
Margin calls are sometimes hard to understand for producers not involved in the futures market. The margin refers to the amount of “earnest money” that is required to be on deposit for the trading account. This is usually 10 percent of the value of the contract. With the price of commodities rapidly increasing, producers or elevators that hedged or positioned themselves with sold futures contracts at well below the current market value must post enough money in their accounts to meet the increase in value, or the exchange will be obligated to close your position and require payment in full for the contract. Margin accounts must maintain the correct balance at the end of each trading session, so having adequate money at the brokerage to service this requirement is of the utmost importance. This may mean that producers may have to obtain a line of credit to service these requirements in order to hedge their crop.
In order to use the futures market to provide a true hedge, you have to be able to produce the amount of grain that is contracted in the futures market. The value of the grain, (board price plus basis [usually negative] at your deliver point) is the offset to futures position. The same kind of production risk that you would have with a forward contract will be in place with your futures contract. This tool can be used to lock in the futures position for a portion of the crop, but should not be used to market all of your expected production. In addition, the basis portion of the crop price is still at risk because you do not know for sure what basis will be at the time of delivery. Some elevators will allow you to lock in the basis. With the sold future position and a locked in basis, you have the same net result as a forward contract except that you need to have the cash available to handle the margin account. You may end up having income or expenses from your margin account. Limiting sales to 40-50 percent of your average crop can help make sure that you can meet your financial obligations. Crop insurance or irrigation can help mitigate some of these risks.
Southwest region farm management educator Roger Betz reminds us that the key ingredient in making good marketing decisions is to have an understanding of your needed revenues per acre to meet cash flow demands and to maintain financial net worth. At today’s prices, most producers can meet the economic cost of production. However, it is important to recognize that cost of production, cash flow and maintaining net worth are three very different values. With knowledge and understanding of these values for your farm, good marketing decisions can be made in this volatile pricing situation.
Hedging with a futures contract is
not the only tool available for helping to price grains. MSU southeast regional
farm management educator Dennis Stein suggests some producers may want to
consider the use of a PUT option. By using a PUT option to insure a minimum
price, you can set a floor price for a given number of bushels of grain. An option
is a contract between two parties that conveys to the buyer the right, but not
the obligation, to buy (in the case of a call) or sell (in the case of a PUT) a
specific commodity at a specific price within a specific time period for a
premium. The premium, which is the cost, is made up of a combination of the
market’s price movement risk and a time value. When you buy a PUT option, you
pay the premium (like car insurance) with every hope that you will never
need to collect on the policy, in this case, that the price of the grain stays
above the PUT options strike price. The premium cost is a fixed amount that you
invest to have your position in the market and to cover the price risk.
If you have not used this
marketing tool in the past now may be the time to learn more about this market
risk management tool. As a rule of thumb, options are best used in times where
you are not able to determine the direction that the commodity market is taking
and wish to protect against a major negative move in the market. Options tend
to be a poor choice if prices do not change much.
Vera Bitsch, Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has posted a
revised I-9 form on its website for employers to use with new employees (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-9.pdf).
To order forms, call toll-free at 1-800-870-3676. For forms and information on
immigration laws, regulations and procedures, call the
Audits can take a number of different forms and be done by mail or in person. For a mail audit, employers will need to send in their I-9 forms to the ICE office. Certified mail and return receipt requests are the recommended way to mail original I-9 forms. Employers should also make copies of the original I-9 forms to keep on file for the duration of the audit. During the audit, each employee for whom an I-9 form is submitted will be subjected to a full background check and each form is carefully evaluated. Civil monetary penalties are $375 to $3,200 for the first violation; $3,200 to $11,000 for the second violation; and $4,300 to $16,000 for subsequent violations on a per-alien basis. Fraudulent I-9 forms constitute a felony and are likely to be prosecuted. When the need arises to correct an I-9 form, employers should use a single line strikethrough, initial it, if necessary attach an explanation, and also attach an additional I-9 form with the correct data. White-out and similar alterations to I-9 forms are strongly discouraged.
Different from a random audit, the typical worksite
enforcement targets specific individuals, e.g., fugitives or criminal aliens,
or looks for evidence in a crime, and is based on prior information. A common
reason for worksite enforcement in
When the Immigration Reform and Control Act was created in 1986 a concern for resulting unfair employment practices led to founding the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) as part of the U.S. Department of Justice. In a 1990 report, widespread employment discrimination against citizens and legal workers, against persons who appear foreign, and against persons with a foreign accent were indeed found. With increased enforcement, an increase in discriminatory practices is expected. The OSC operates a hotline for employers, which may be contacted, even anonymously, at 1-800-255-8155.
This article serves educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For more information go to www.msu.edu/user/bitsch, under “News” click on “Department of Homeland Security Plans I-9 Audits 2008” or click on “Agricultural Labor Issues in Michigan” for a list of available newsletters.
Ned Birkey
We have finally had some spring-like temperatures. We have had record snowfall amounts this winter and also above normal rainfall amounts. It will take several days of nice, sunny days to dry things out for general field work, though the forecast seems to call for rain just about every other day. Ten years ago, we were planting corn and soybeans on March 31. Soil temperatures have not yet reached 40 degrees, though the forecast of warmer days ahead should see soil temperature rise.
Alfalfa has just started greening up. There was a lot of heaving this winter here and on the roads.
Corn acreage is expected to be down in this area partly because of the high fertilizer and seed prices. Some farmers contracted fertilizer last year and some dealers are not quoting prices at this time because of uncertain supplies. Those with on-farm fertilizer storage have a real advantage.
Soybeans are still in the bag and acreage should be higher this year. We are not forecast to have soybean aphid problems this summer.
Oat and barley interest is up slightly.
Wheat is just
greening up and there are scattered fields in which top dressing nitrogen has
been applied. Most fields went into winter with very good stands. There are
many fields where water has been ponding, so there may be some fields torn up
and put into corn or soybeans. The Nabisco Flour Mill in
Farmers have had early spring weather for the past several years in which to get started planting. This year both the Tigers and the farmers here are off to a much slower start.
Bruce MacKellar
Late season snowfall (some totals over 13 inches) over Easter weekend, March 21-23 and late last week has kept fieldwork on hold in most of the southwest region. A quick look at soil temperatures at the Mendon MAWN Station this morning show that they ranged from 41ºF (on April 1) down to 32 ºF (pre-dawn on April 2). If there is a silver lining to these cold temperatures it may be that winter annual weed growth has been remarkably low at this point. Soil moisture and surface water resource levels look very good this spring, so we should be starting out the season with very favorable subsoil moisture reserves throughout the southwest region.
Wheat is greening up despite the late start and recent cold weather. The plants, although not quite as green as we might normally see, are looking healthy with good evidence of tiller development.
Alfalfa fields, although they look brown, are beginning to break dormancy in the Centreville area. We should begin to see greening up of many alfalfa fields with the expected mild conditions over the upcoming weekend. For those producers who were planning on applying a dormant weed control treatment to alfalfa, I would encourage you to look carefully at the plants’ crowns before applying these herbicides.
Asiatic garden beetles, a new invasive species pest
discovered causing damage to corn in Southwest Michigan and Northern Indiana
last summer, continues to be a concern in
Fred Springborn and Rodger Peacock
Very minimal activity so
far this spring. Wheat is still
dormant as is alfalfa. Soil
temperatures are rising but are still averaging 40ºF or less.
The 1.5 to 2 inches of rain
we have received this week has kept field work nearly impossible. Everybody is
waiting on drier soils and a little warm-up before charging ahead. Crop acreage
and mix is still being debated, increased costs of everything has farmers
concerned.
Paul Gross
Weather
The region received over an inch of rain early in the week. The rain and warmer weather has melted all the snow left in fields and woodlots. We have been fortunate that the large amounts of snow that fell this winter melted slowly. Due to the limited amounts of frost in fields most water soaked in to replenish groundwater supplies. The cold overnight temperatures over the last few weeks have allowed nitrogen applications to wheat fields.
At this point in the growing season, almost everything is still dormant. It appears that the winter wheat has come through winter in good shape. Some fields are just starting to green up. We will be scouting fields as the weather warms up for any potential problems.
Current activities include getting equipment ready for spring planting. Now would be a good time to get the sprayer out and give it a tune up. This is an often neglected piece of equipment that if not properly calibrated and tuned up can cost farmers huge amounts of money. Losses can occur because of poor pest control and over application of pesticides. Input costs are high. Having planters, drills, fertilizer spreaders and sprayers properly set will insure precision planting and applications.
Jeff
Andresen
Agricultural Meteorology
Geography
Weather News
Jeff Andresen, Geography
An upper air troughing pattern across the central and
eastern
In the short term, an area of low pressure is forecast to
move across the
Current medium‑range forecast guidance suggests more
mid-continent troughing for the first two weeks of April, with a continued
active storm track through the
As of the first week of April, seasonal growing degree day totals (since March 1) are lagging at least one calendar week behind the climatological normals, which is not a surprise given the recent cooler than normal weather pattern.
Forecast guidance for the next few weeks suggests more of
the same upper air pattern across the Midwest, which would lead to normal to
below normal mean temperatures and normal to above normal precipitation totals
in Michigan. With the stronger sun of the season, the majority of any
precipitation that occurs will likely be the form of rain. An active storm
track across the Midwest would also suggest the potential for severe weather
outbreaks, most of which will remain in areas to our south, but could reach
into southern portion of the
In the longer term, outlooks are largely dependent on the
longevity of a La Nina event currently in place across the equatorial Pacific
region. For the April through June period, mean temperatures and precipitation
totals in
On the other hand, drought was a serious problem across many
sections of