Nearly 80 water quality experts met last week in Champaign, Illinois, to discuss the latest in farm drainage water quality. The occasion was the joint annual meeting of the North Central Extension and Research multi-state committee on drainage design and management and the Agricultural Drainage Management Systems Task Force. Illinois’ 10 million acres of tile drainage means it has more tile-drained acres than any other state, thus providing the ideal backdrop for the meeting.

“We’re bringing together the best ‘drainage minds’ in the country,” says University of Illinois assistant professor of water quality, Laura Christianson. “That includes researchers, Extension personnel, and leaders in the drainage industry. It’s a chance for us all to catch up and learn from one another what’s new, what’s working, and what’s not working so well.”

The big topics this year were saturated buffers, controlled drainage, and denitrifying bioreactors, all of which reduce nitrogen loss from tile drains. Controlled drainage additionally reduces the flow of drainage water that moves downstream without negatively influencing crop yields. Researchers from the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences at U of I are actively engaged in answering research questions about these conservation drainage practices, and are working to understand how they can help Illinois producers meet nutrient loss reduction goals.

Producers may be encouraged to hear that some conservation drainage practices are being fast-tracked by agencies that can help interested landowners with financial and technical assistance. Ruth Book, state conservation engineer with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, talked about how NRCS is approaching conservation drainage.

“Normally, NRCS waits until most of the research has been done before establishing official standards for conservation practices,” Book says. “Saturated buffers and denitrifying bioreactors show so much promise that we rolled out our conservation practice standards earlier in the process than usual, while we are still in the learning phase of the development. In this continuous learning process, we have already identified criteria that need to be changed, and have updated our saturated buffer standard accordingly.”

Attendees were also updated by representatives from industry, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and land-grant researchers from 11 states. Five U of I ACES graduate students presented research posters on topics ranging from the use of cover crops to the application of LiDAR imagery for drainage design.

Source: University of Illinois

Precautions
Read the pesticide label before beginning to mix, load, and apply pesticides. Take the following precautions:

• Have detergent or soap and an adequate supply of water available.
• Learn the first aid procedures for the pesticides you are using, and be sure that the right first aid supplies are available.
• Have appropriate spill clean-up materials on hand.
• Make certain that spray equipment is functioning properly. Check hoses, fittings, valves, and tanks on sprayer equipment for leaks or signs of failure. Develop a check list and run through it.
• Be sure that help is available nearby in case there is trouble.
• Use all recommended protective clothing and equipment.
• When working with pesticides, never eat, drink, smoke, or go to the restroom without first washing your hands.
• Never mix or transfer pesticides near a well or other water source. Mix pesticides at different locations in the field. Over time, small quantities spilled in one area may accumulate and cause serious contamination.
• When filling a tank from a water system, leave an air gap between the hose and the tank (Figure 1), or use a backflow prevention device. Do not insert the filler hose into the pesticide mixture. These measures will prevent pesticide from siphoning out of the tank.

Pesticide Spills

Spill response kit

Have a spill response kit handy. Among the useful items are:

• Duct tape or electrician’s tape–for sealing cracks.
• Washer-headed screws–for sealing holes, caulking, or sealant, or to temporarily patch containers and spray tanks.
• Absorbent materials such as kitty litter or sawdust–to absorb spilled liquids.
• Extra hoses and hose clamps.
• Plastic tarps or bags–to hold pesticide and contaminated materials during cleanup.
• A shovel–to form a berm for containing spills and keeping pesticide from running into drainage areas.
• Keep several empty drums or other containers on hand in case a sprayer tank needs to be drained.

Spill clean-up procedure

Follow this procedure if a spill occurs:

1. Stop or sufficiently slow the leak to allow it to be contained.
2. Mark the area to show its location and size. If the spill is not within a pesticide containment area (for example, a mixing/loading pad), contaminated soil generally will need to be removed. Depending upon how much there is, it may need to be stored for testing and later disposal.
3. In a small spill, shoveling the contaminated material into heavy plastic bags may be sufficient. In a large spill, a loader or backhoe may be needed to remove contaminated dirt. Find out beforehand where such equipment is readily available. The sooner the spill is cleaned up, the less soil may need to be removed.

Source: Lee Townsend, University of Kentucky 

A multi-institutional team led by the University of Illinois has proven sugarcane can be genetically engineered to produce oil in its leaves and stems for biodiesel production. Surprisingly, the modified sugarcane plants also produced more sugar, which could be used for ethanol production.

The dual-purpose bioenergy crops are predicted to be more than five times more profitable per acre than soybeans and two times more profitable than corn. More importantly, sugarcane can be grown on marginal land in the Gulf Coast region that does not support good corn or soybean yields.

“Instead of fields of oil pumps, we envision fields of green plants sustainably producing biofuel in perpetuity on our nation’s soil, particularly marginal soil that is not well suited to food production,” says Stephen Long, Gutgsell endowed professor of Plant Biology and Crop Sciences. Long leads the research project Plants Engineered to Replace Oil in Sugarcane and Sweet Sorghum (PETROSS) that has pioneered this work at the Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology at U of I.

“While fuel prices may be considered low today, we can remember paying more than $4 per gallon not long ago,” Long says. “As it can take 10-15 years for this technology to reach farmers’ fields, we need to develop these solutions to ensure our fuel security today and as long as we need liquid fuels into the future.”

Published in Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology, this paper analyzes the project’s first genetically modified sugarcane varieties. Using a juicer, the researchers extracted about 90 percent of the sugar and 60 percent of the oil from the plant; the juice was fermented to produce ethanol and later treated with organic solvents to recover the oil. The team has patented the method used to separate the oil and sugar.

They recovered 0.5 and 0.8 percent oil from two of the modified sugarcane lines, which is 67 percent and 167 percent more oil than unmodified sugarcane, respectively. “The oil composition is comparable to that obtained from other feedstocks like seaweed or algae that are being engineered to produce oil,” says co-author Vijay Singh, director of the Integrated Bioprocessing Research Laboratory at Illinois.

“We expected that as oil production increased, sugar production would decrease, based on our computer models,” Long says. “However, we found that the plant can produce more oil without loss of sugar production, which means our plants may ultimately be even more productive than we originally anticipated.”

To date, PETROSS has engineered sugarcane with 13 percent oil, 8 percent of which is the oil that can be converted into biodiesel. According to the project’s economic analyses, plants with just 5 percent oil would produce an extra 123 gallons of biodiesel per acre than soybeans and 350 more gallons of ethanol per acre than corn.

Currently, the project is seeking commercial investors to achieve 20 percent oil production, the theoretical limit according to the project’s computer models. For more information about opportunities to collaborate or invest in this work, contact Vijay Singh at vsingh@illinois.edu or 217-333-9510.

The PETROSS project and this work are supported by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which funds initial research for high-impact energy technologies to show proof of concept before private-sector investment.

The paper “Evaluation of the quantity and composition of sugars and lipid in the juice and bagasse of lipid producing sugarcane” is published by Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology. Co-authors include: Haibo Huang (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University); Robert A. Moreau (USDA/ARS); Michael J. Powell (USDA/ARS); Zhaoqin Wang (University of Illinois); Baskaran Kannan (University of Florida); Fredy Altpeter (University of Florida), and Aleel K. Grennan (University of Illinois).

Source: University of Illinois

Soybean producers across Michigan identified soybean planting rates as one of the highest-rated topics they wanted to see evaluated by the SMaRT (Soybean Management and Research Technology) program in on-farm replicated trials. When asked if they wanted us to evaluate the effect of higher planting rates or lower planting rates, the producers overwhelmingly voted for low planting rates.

There are two main factors driving the interest in reduced soybean planting rates: seed costs and white mold. Soybean seed is typically the highest variable expense in producing soybeans and reduced planting rates have the potential to reduce yield losses associated with white mold.

https://www.buy-my-house.org/pennsylvania/buy-my-house-fast-pottsville-pa/

To evaluate the effect of low soybean planting rates on yield and income, 11 planting rate trials were conducted in 2015 and 11 more were conducted in 2016. Four target planting rates of 80,000, 100,000, 130,000 and 160,000 seeds per acre were compared in both years. Stand counts were taken to determine actual final plant stands at each location in both years. The complete results from the planting rate trials are available in the “SMaRT 2016 On-farm Research Report.”

The planting rate trials produced mixed results in 2015 at the individual locations. At three sites, the 160,000 planting rate produced the highest yield. However, it also produced the lowest yield at two other locations. The lowest three planting rates each produced the highest yield in three different trials. When all the locations were combined and analyzed klik hier nu, the yield for 80,000 planting rate was 1.8 bushels per acre lower than the 100,000, 130,000 and 160,000 planting rates. However, there was no difference in the yields produced by the highest three planting rates.

The more challenging conditions occurring in 2016 favored the higher planting rates. The 160,000 planting rate beat the 80,000 rate at six locations, the 100,000 rate at four locations and the 130,000 rate at two locations. The 130,000 planting rate beat the 80,000 rate at five sites, the 100,000 rate at two sites and the 160,000 rate at two sites.

When all the 2016 locations were combined and analyzed, the two highest planting rates produced identical yields and they yielded 1.3 bushels per acre higher than the 100,000 rate and 2.7 bushels per acre more than the 80,000 rate. When all 22 sites (2015 and 2016) were combined and analyzed, the highest three planting rates produced similar yields and beat the lowest rate by 1.5 to 2.2 bushels per acre.

Projected market prices ($9.20 per bushel) and conservative seed costs ($60 per 140,000 seeds) were used to determine the income (gross income – seed cost) produced by the four planting rates. The figure below summarizes the average yields and income produced by the four planting rates in 2015 and 2016. In 2015, the lowest two planting rates generated more income per acre than the higher two planting rates. In 2016, the lowest three planting rates were more profitable than the highest planting rate. The highest planting rate was the least profitable in 2015 and 2016.

There are several factors that contributed to the success of the reduced planting rates in these trials. The varieties planted in all the trials had the medium bush to bush type growth habit. This enabled the plants to produce robust branches at the lower planting rates (see photo). The second reason the lower planting rates may have performed so well was that complete seed treatments were applied in all but three of the locations.

I want to be clear that Michigan State University Extension does not recommend reducing planting rates to 80,000 or 100,000 seeds per acre. However, the data clearly shows that some very low plant stands can produce excellent yields. Producers can use this information when making replant decisions. Producers can also compare their planting rates to the rates evaluated in the trials to see if they have an opportunity to increase farm income by reducing planting rates in 2017.

Source: Michigan State University 

Unusually warm, dry weather in the past month has led some growers to get a jump on fieldwork. While there is nothing wrong with getting fields in shape early, University of Illinois crop sciences professor Emerson Nafziger says that planting well ahead of normal is unlikely to result in higher yields.

“We know that some corn and possibly some soybeans were planted as early as February this year,” Nafziger says. “While there were reports in 2016 of higher yields from early- compared to late-planted crops, ‘the earlier the better’ typically doesn’t work well when it comes to planting corn or soybeans. Yields are usually no higher for crops planted in March or early April compared to those planted in late April or early May, so there’s little reward for taking the risk of very early planting.”

The primary cause of stand loss in both crops is heavy rainfall soon after planting; Nafziger says stand problems due to wet soils are as common with May planting as with April planting. The danger of frost damage, which was once a major reason to delay planting, is not as significant for either crop these days, but it is higher with very early planting.

Planting very early also affects insurability and, if the crop needs to be replanted, can increase production costs. For corn, the earliest insurable dates for planting are April 10, April 5, and April 1 for northern, central, and southern Illinois, and for soybean they are April 24, April 20, and April 15.

Nafziger’s recent research shows that, on a percentage basis, yield penalties from delayed planting are almost identical for corn and soybean. That is a departure from earlier findings that showed corn yield declined faster than soybean yields as a result of planting delays through May.

“Our long-held idea of planting corn first and then starting to plant soybean requires rethinking and possible adjustment,” Nafziger says. “One approach is that those with more than one planter might start planting both crops at the same time rather than finishing corn first. If planting is delayed past mid-May, though, then planting corn becomes a higher priority because corn yield declines more quickly than soybean yield when planting is very late. Of course, we hope that we can get both crops planted by early May so they can get off to a good start.”

Visit the Bulletin for more details and help in making planting decisions.

Source: University of Illinois

One of the most common problems homeowners have with their lawns is that they do not know what kind of grass is in it.

“If it’s still light tan now, more than likely it’s zoysiagrass. If it’s green, it’s probably tall fescue with some Kentucky bluegrass,” says University of Missouri Extension turf pathologist Lee Miller.

Even if you do not know the exact species, do not dismay. There are two easy, inexpensive ways to improve lawns even when the grass content is unknown, Miller says.

First, mow correctly. Sharpen or change your blade now. In most cases, raise the mower height to as high as it will go, especially for yards with tall fescue or Kentucky bluegrass. “At taller heights, mowing as often as once a week may be necessary to keep up with growth in the flurry of spring,” Miller says.

Most homeowners mow their grass too short. Higher mower height allows better root growth and gives your grass a competitive edge. Most importantly, taller grass reduces the amount of sunlight that hits the ground. This thwarts weed growth. “Mow high to make your turfgrass the trees of your lawn,” he says.

Second, irrigate judiciously. In this case, less is often more. Many homeowners who irrigate their lawns do so improperly.

“Irrigation timers are not ‘set it and forget it’ devices,” Miller says. “You’re not cooking turkey for Thanksgiving dinner. Sprinklers should be adjusted according to precipitation events.”

A survey by Kansas State University showed that less than 83 percent of homeowners adjust their sprinkler time. “In reality, deep and infrequent irrigation makes for deeper root systems. More importantly, turf diseases love overly irrigated lawns,” he says.

Miller suggests that homeowners water their lawns early in the morning, from 4 to 8 a.m. “Watering at dusk lowers the disco ball,” he says. “Evening irrigation creates a wet leaf, and dew perpetuates it, keeping leaves wet for 12-13 hours or more.” This gives disease all night to create havoc.

“Start off this spring by remembering to mow high and keep the water low,” he says.

Source: University of Missouri

Wall Street Journal writer Justin Lahart reported last week that, “The first impact of President Donald Trump’s changes to U.S. immigration policy will fall on businesses that grow, process or sell food. Recent history shows that labor shortages could drive up prices and labor costs, and hurt profits.

“What is known so far is generally anecdotal and regional. But the impact of a nationwide hit to the supply of workers could be large. Food price increases, which have been low, would boost already accelerating inflation.”

More specifically on Trump administration immigration policies, the Journal article explained that, “Mr. Trump last month introduced sweeping changes to U.S. immigration policy, broadening the number of undocumented immigrants subject to immediate deportation, calling for hiring more Border Patrol and immigration enforcement officers, and ordering that construction begin on a border wall.

“People spooked by the rules are staying home, whether they live in the U.S. or abroad. The number of people apprehended illegally crossing the border from Mexico fell sharply last month from January, and there are reports of undocumented immigrants reluctant to go to work for fear of getting caught.”

Mr. Lahart noted that, “As of 2014, there were 8 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. labor force, according to Pew Research Center estimates. Construction firms, restaurants and hotels hire many of those workers.

Meanwhile, Natalie Kitroeff and Geoffrey Mohan reported on the front page of Sunday’s Los Angeles Times that, “[Arnulfo Solorio, who has been recruiting farmworkers for the Napa Valley] is one of a growing number of agricultural businessmen who say they face an urgent shortage of workers. The flow of labor began drying up when President Obama tightened the border. Now President Trump is promising to deport more people, raid more companies and build a wall on the southern border.”

Sunday’s article noted that, “Farmers are being forced to make difficult choices about whether to abandon some of the state’s hallmark fruits and vegetables, move operations abroad, import workers under a special visa or replace them altogether with machines.”

Kitroeff and Mohan pointed out that, “But the raises and new perks have not tempted native-born Americans to leave their day jobs for the fields. Nine in 10 agriculture workers in California are still foreign born, and more than half are undocumented, according to a federal survey.”

The Los Angeles Times article added that, “‘You don’t need a deep analysis to understand why farm work wouldn’t be attractive to young Americans,’ says [Philip Martin, an economist at UC Davis and one of the country’s leading experts on agriculture].

“If farmers upped the average wage to, say, $25 an hour, people born here might think twice. But that’s a pipe dream, many argue.

Also on Sunday, Barbara Soderlin reported on the front page of the Money section in the Omaha World-Herald that, “[Daniels Produce farm manger Kelly Jackson] worries a crackdown on illegal immigration could create a flood of employers applying to use the [seasonal H2-A visa program for agricultural workers] and make it less likely her application will be processed on time. (Employers using the H2-A visas file the initial applications on behalf of their seasonal workers.) She’s also concerned by Trump’s recent comments about prioritizing visas for highly skilled workers, wondering if that might mean fewer farm laborers allowed into the country.”

Ms. Soderlin pointed out that, “More likely than raising wages might be replacing workers with technology. Costco’s plant managers say they are cutting down on labor needs by investing in robotic de-boning equipment. Plainview, Nebraska, dairy Demerath Farms this month started using robotic milking systems, saying the shift let it expand its herd without hiring more people.

“A third possibility is that producers will cut back on production, which might mean fewer jobs, said Eric Thompson, University of Nebraska-Lincoln economist.”

And earlier this month, Rick Barrett reported on the front page of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that, “Donald Trump won big in Wisconsin farm country, but now large dairy farms that rely on immigrant labor are threatened by the president’s hardline stance on undocumented workers.”

The article stated that, “By some estimates, up to about 80% of the hired help on large Wisconsin dairy operations is immigrant labor — with a large percentage of those workers being undocumented.”

Mr. Barrett noted that, “Dairy farmers say they get almost ‘zero response‘ from native-born job applicants, even when the pay is comparable with nearby factories.

“They say it’s difficult to find reliable help, even in areas where people were born and raised on farms.”

And administration policy considerations are not just impacting the agricultural portion of rural America.

Miriam Jordan reported in Sunday’s New York Times that, “Small-town America relies on a steady flow of doctors from around the world to deliver babies, treat heart ailments and address its residents’ medical needs. But a recent, little-publicized decision by the government to alter the timetable for some visa applications is likely to delay the arrival of new foreign doctors, and is causing concern in the places that depend on them.”

The article noted that, “While the Trump administration is fighting, in the courts of justice and public opinion, for its temporary travel ban affecting six countries, the slowdown in the rural doctor pipeline shows how even a small, relatively uncontroversial change can ripple throughout the country.”

Ms. Jordan explained that, “The procedural change regards temporary visas for skilled workers, known as H-1B visas. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services recently announced that it would temporarily suspend a ‘premium processing’ option by which employers could pay an extra $1,225 to have H-1B applications approved in as little as two weeks, rather than several months.”

“About 25 percent of all physicians practicing or training in the United States are foreign, but in some inner cities and most rural areas, that share is significantly higher,” the article said.

Source: Keith Good, University of Illinois

Change is never easy. But when it comes to adopting new agricultural practices, some farmers are easier to convince than others.

A group of researchers at the University of Illinois wanted to know which farmers are most likely to adopt multifunctional perennial cropping systems—trees, shrubs, or grasses that simultaneously benefit the environment and generate high-value products that can be harvested for a profit.

“We surveyed farmers in the Upper Sangamon River Watershed in Illinois to learn their attitudes about growing MPCs on marginal land. We then looked at their demographic data to classify people into different categories related to their adoption potential,” says University of Illinois agroecologist Sarah Taylor Lovell.

Using statistical clustering techniques, the team discovered that survey respondents fell into six categories. The “educated networkers” and “young innovators” were most likely to adopt MPCs. On the other end of the spectrum, survey respondents classified as “money motivated” and “hands-off” were least likely to adopt the new cropping systems.

The goal of categorizing farmers was to tailor strategies for each group, given their general attitudes. “If they’re very unlikely to adopt at all, we probably wouldn’t spend a lot of time worrying about those groups,” Lovell explains.

However, Lovell thinks some low-likelihood adopters could be swayed. “One of the groups—the one we called “money motivated”—was really connected with GPS in their yield monitoring, so we thought we could target that. We could review high-resolution maps of their farms to point out the areas that are unproductive for corn and soybeans. We’d try to make the case that alternative perennial systems could bring in profits,” Lovell says.

High-likelihood adopters were motivated by environmental concerns, and were especially interested in converting marginal land to bioenergy crop, hay, or nut production systems. “Farmers were probably most familiar with bioenergy grasses and hay,” Lovell explains. But it was important to them that an existing market was in place for MPCs products.

Another major factor was land tenancy. Considering that most MPC crops don’t mature for years after planting, rental contracts would need to account for the long-term investment.

“The person leasing the land might be really interested in agroforestry or perennial cropping systems,” Lovell says. “The lease arrangement has to be long enough that the farmer will get back their investment in that period. For example, some of the nut crops take a long time to mature. But if you integrate some of the fruit shrubs, they’ll become productive in maybe 3-4 years. You could get an earlier return on investment in those cases.”

Lovell’s graduate students—housed in the crop sciences department at U of I—are now following up with several of the farmers who were interested in MPCs and offering custom designs to establish the new cropping systems on their land.

“That was part of the overall goal for this study. We wondered if the barrier to adoption is a lack of information about design options and the economic potential,” Lovell says. “If we overcome that barrier by developing good planting plans, projecting the market economics, and providing them with that information, will that help them implement the change?”

Stay tuned. 

Source: University of Illinois

Wednesday’s (March 8, 2017) windstorm caused widespread damage to trees across Michigan. The storm was unusual in several respects. Unlike our typical spring or summer storms, which move in and out quickly, Wednesday’s storm brought sustained winds in excess of 40 mph that persisted for most of the daylight hours. The storm affected almost the entire state, whereas thunderstorms usually result in a line of damage. The sustained, high winds resulted in innumerable power outages and damaged houses and cars. The vast majority of the storm-related damage was associated with downed trees and limbs.

Evergreen conifers, in particular, seemed to bear the brunt of the storm. Many spruce and pine trees were up-rooted as a result of the sustained force of the day-long winds. Deciduous trees were severely impacted as well, but damage would have been even worse had those trees be in leaf.

Since the storm, TV and newspaper reports have shown homeowners cleaning up storm debris. In working around downed and damaged trees, it is critical homeowners use extreme caution. A 20-foot long oak log that is 14 inches in diameter weighs over half a ton. Limbs and logs can pivot unexpectedly and it is often difficult to predict which way they will move. If you are a homeowner or someone who advises homeowners, there are several good resources on the web to assist with the process of assessing storm damage to trees after a storm.

The National Arbor Day Foundation has a storm recovery website that provides practical tips for dealing with storm-damaged trees. The website also includes resources for media including press releases and images that are useful for educating the public on steps to take during storm recovery.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources also has useful storm recovery information on their storm-damaged trees repair and replacement checklist website.

Michigan State University Extension advises homeowners with damaged trees to keep these points in mind:

• Stay at least 25 feet away from any downed power lines and contact local authorities to report downed lines.
• Damaged trees and hanging tree limbs are extremely dangerous. Trees that are damaged in storms often have decay or other hidden defects and can drop without warning. Walk around—not under—damaged trees and limbs.
• If you are unsure if you can safely remove a limb or damaged tree, always err on the side of caution and contact a professional arborist or tree service company.
• Be wary of “door-knockers” —individuals that descend into storm-ravaged areas and offer to perform tree clean-up or removal. Reputable, professional tree service companies rarely, if ever, solicit business door-to-door. Working around damaged trees is dangerous work that requires professional training and equipment. Look for arborists that are insured and certified by the International Society of Arboriculture.

Source: Bert Cregg, Michigan State University 

Individuals working with insecticides must take important steps to prevent exposure to themselves and others. This includes reading the label, wearing proper personal protective equipment (PPE), exercising caution when mixing and applying insecticides, disposing of used PPE, and laundering potentially contaminated clothing.

Handling Contaminated Clothing
Although safety precautions are used to prevent clothing from becoming contaminated, there is still the risk of clothing having some insecticide residues present. For this reason, it is important to handle the clothing worn during an application as if it is definitely contaminated. In instances where insecticides were spilled onto clothes, remove them, and throw them away immediately. Although proper laundering can wash out small amounts of insecticide residue, laundering clothes with larger amounts may result in contamination of the washing machine, yourself, and others.

Prior to laundering contaminated clothing first read the product label to determine if there are any special instructions or limitations. Potentially contaminated clothing should be removed prior to entering the home in an area that can be easily cleaned to decontaminate it. When handling contaminated clothing, wear chemical resistant gloves that are rated as highly resistant to the insecticide that was applied (Insecticide safety: what gloves are right for the job?). Lightly contaminated clothes should be laundered immediately, and only with other potentially contaminated clothing. If clothes are not washed immediately the potential to remove insecticide residuals is diminished. If contaminated clothing must be stored do so outside of the house in a sealed plastic garbage bag or plastic storage bin. Do not was these clothes with the rest of the household laundry.

Washing & Laundering
Wash the clothes in the maximum amount of hot water using a highly concentrated or heavy-duty detergent. Once the clothes are washed DO NOT place them into the dryer. Even after washing there may still be insecticide residues present in the fibers of the clothes. The heat from the dryer will remove the residue but the dryer will then be contaminated. After washing, the clothes should be line dried. Before washing any other clothes, it is important to run the washing machine for a second cycle on empty with detergent. This will remove any remaining insecticide residues.

Source: Adam J. Varenhorst, South Dakota State University 

I’ve seen more fields with harvest ruts this year than I usually do. There were several weather-related factors that contributed to this situation. The wet spring led to planting delays, delaying crop maturity. However, the biggest factor was the green stems that were prevalent throughout much of Michigan. The green stems were a physiological response to the dry weather we experienced in June and most of July, and the abundant rain occurring in August and September. The stems also stayed green for an extended period of time because a killing frost didn’t occur until late November.

Producers don’t like harvesting soybeans with green stems as it is more difficult, slow and plugging the cylinder or rotors in the combine is a possibility. Producers that waited for the green stems to dry down missed out on some ideal harvest conditions and ended up harvesting some of their fields when the soil was too wet. As a result, harvest equipment left ruts in these fields. In some cases, the ruts are more than 6 inches deep and in others, they are less than 2 inches deep. Most of the harvest ruts I’ve seen are confined to localized areas within fields. However, in a few cases, deep ruts created by every pass of the combine can be seen (see photo). All ruts deeper than your projected planting depth must be leveled prior to planting for planters and drills to perform properly.

When repairing ruts this spring, the objectives are to fill and level the ruts just enough to facilitate planting operations without causing further soil compaction. Loosening the soil at the bottom of or below the ruts should not be attempted because the tillage tools will need to be operated at greater depths and into soil that is probably too wet. This increases the risk of further soil smearing or compaction to occur. Root growth and crop yields will be reduced in the repaired areas.

Michigan State University Extension recommends secondary tillage implements such as disks, field cultivators, soil finishers and vertical tillage for repairing ruts 2-4 inches deep. For ruts deeper than 4 inches, a chisel plow may be necessary. Always operate the implements as shallow as possible to fill and level the ruts. Multiple passes may be required to achieve the desired degree of leveling.

Perform tillage operations when the soil at or just above the operating depth is dry enough to prevent soil smearing and compaction. Iowa State University agricultural engineer Mark Hanna recommends the following methods for assessing soil moisture conditions:

• Collect a handful of soil from an area between ruts and 2 inches above the operating depth of the tillage tool and form it into a ball. Then throw the ball of soil as if throwing a runner out at first base. If the ball stays mostly intact until it hits the ground, the soil is too wet to till.
• Take a similar soil sample in your hand and squeeze the soil in your fist and use your thumb and forefinger to form a ribbon of soil. If the ribbon extends beyond 2-3 inches before breaking off, the soil is too wet to till.

Remember, your objectives with spring rut repairs are to fill and level the ruts without causing further soil compaction. Attempting to loosen the soil below the ruts increases the potential for further soil smearing and compaction to occur.

Source: Mike Staton, Michigan State University Extension 

As the season warms up, many gardeners begin looking forward to their first rhubarb harvests. Although it was first cultivated in central Asia more than 2,000 years ago for its medicinal properties, rhubarb is best known today as an ingredient in our early-summer pies.

Rhubarb forms thick red, pink, or green stalks—or petioles—with large, extravagant green leaves. It grows best where plants will receive full sun in fertile, well-drained soils that have good organic matter.

“Plant rhubarb in the early spring while plants are dormant,” says University of Illinois Extension horticulture educator Jennifer Fishburn. “Avoid harvesting the plants the first year, and only lightly harvest for 1 to 2 weeks during the second year. Full harvest may begin the third or fourth year depending on the plant size. At that point, you can go on to harvest for 8 to 10 weeks.”

Rhubarb’s sour, tart, tangy flavor is sometimes described as mouth-puckering. Fishburn says that most people find it necessary to sweeten rhubarb with sugar, honey, or fruit juice to minimize the tartness. Rhubarb is often combined with strawberries, especially in pies.

“The flavor depends on the cultivar,” Fishburn notes. “Reliable red-stalked cultivars include: Canada Red, Cherry Red, Crimson Red, MacDonald, Ruby, and Valentine. Victoria is a reliable green-stalked cultivar. Generally, the deeper red the stalk, the more flavorful. Medium-size stalks are generally more tender than large ones.”

Fishburn says to harvest 10- to 15-inch stalks by snapping them, rather than cutting them off. “Grab a stalk down where it emerges from the ground, and pull up and slightly to one side. Harvest only one-third of the stalks from a plant at one time. Immediately after harvesting, cut off and discard the leaves. If purchasing rhubarb, look for flat, crisp stalks, and leave any curled or limp ones behind.”

Rhubarb leaves should never be eaten. They contain oxalic acid, a toxin that can cause poisoning when large quantities of raw or cooked leaves are ingested.

Rhubarb can be stored in the refrigerator for two to four weeks, if the refrigerator is set between 32 to 36 degrees Fahrenheit and at 95 percent relative humidity. For best results, Fishburn says, store unwashed stalks in perforated plastic bags in the crisper drawer.

“Rhubarb is 95 percent water, and one cup of diced rhubarb contains about 26 calories, 2 grams dietary fiber, and 351 milligrams of potassium. Due to its acidic nature, avoid cooking rhubarb in reactive metal pots such as aluminum, iron, and copper,” Fishburn says.

Rhubarb can be prepared and served many different ways – pies, tarts, breads, cobblers, cakes, jams, sauces, puddings, and salads.

For more information on growing and using rhubarb, visit the University of Illinois Extension Watch Your Garden Grow website at http://extension.illinois.edu/veggies/rhubarb.cfm.

Source: University of Illinois

A semiautonomous robot may soon be roaming agricultural fields gathering and transmitting real-time data about the growth and development of crops, information that crop breeders – and eventually farmers – can use to identify the genetic traits in plants likely to produce the greatest yields.

A team of scientists from the Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology at the University of Illinois is developing the robot in partnership with researchers from Cornell University and Signetron Inc.

Inspired by the autonomous rovers used to search collapsed buildings and other dangerous environments, the agricultural robot is propelled on continuous tracks, or miniature tank treads, which enable it to navigate through dry or muddy fields. Researchers guide it using GPS and a laptop computer.

Traveling between the crop rows, the robot uses hyperspectral, high-definition and thermal cameras, weather monitors and pulsed laser scanners to capture phenotypic information – such as the stem diameter, height and leaf area of each plant – and assess environmental conditions, such as the temperature and moisture content of the soil.

The robot stores the data in its onboard computer and transmits it in real time to the grower’s computer. Scientists use the data to create a 3-D reconstruction of each plant, develop predictive models for the plant’s growth and development, and estimate the biomass yield for each plant and the entire plot.

“Immediate access to the data is very important for crop breeders in the U.S.,” said U. of I. agricultural and biological engineering professor Girish Chowdhary. “It’s very important for them to see and visualize the data. If the data are available to the breeder quickly, then they can make actionable decisions” that enhance production.

Although the researchers currently are using the robot to assess fields of energy sorghum, a crop used in biofuel production, they say the robot would perform equally well with other tall-growing row crops such as corn and wheat, and possibly with soybeans before the plant canopy closes.

The robot is a “game changer” for both crop scientists and farmers, automating the labor-intensive phenotyping processes of farming and crop development, said Stephen P. Long, the director of the project. Long is the Gutgsell Endowed University Professor of Crop Sciences and Plant Biology at Illinois.

“For producers, it’s going to accelerate the rate at which we can improve the genetic material. We can now select material much more rapidly and select many more plants as well, so we can eventually deliver to the farmer a far more productive bioenergy crop,” Long said.

“One of the big advances of the last few years is that we can now determine the complete DNA blueprint of each plant. But how do we use that? What we need is to be able to describe a plant as it grows. You could do that perhaps with an army of people, but now the robot can do all of that for you. We can combine the phenotypic information about how the plant’s performing with the genetic blueprint and identify the combination of genes we need to get the best plant possible,” Long said.

Chowdhary, whose research focus is field robotics, is modifying the robot’s current design to reduce its width so it can maneuver more easily between crop rows. He also plans to install a sensor system for detecting and avoiding obstacles.

To reduce the production costs associated with the robot’s current metal and track construction, Chowdhary’s team is exploring the feasibility of producing some of the components via 3-D printing.

“We are targeting a cost to the breeder of $5,000 to $10,000, which means we will have to get the manufacturing cost significantly below that,” Chowdhary said. “An agricultural robot that costs just $5,000 is a totally new concept. Agricultural equipment today typically costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Bringing the cost of our robot below $5,000 will be in itself a significant achievement for our team.”

Unlike the robots used in factories, agricultural robots must be weather resistant, Chowdary said. The underlying technologies – the algorithms, the mechanical design and the human-robot interaction devices that provide robustness – are useful in many other industries, including defense, surveillance and scientific exploration.

The team expects to have a prototype built within two years and begin manufacturing thereafter, with the goal of having the robot on the market by 2021.

The robot project is funded with a $3.1 million grant from the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy’s Transportation Energy Resources from Renewable Agriculture program, a unit within the U.S. Dept. of Energy.

The TERRA-Mobile Energy-crop Phenotyping Platform robot is among the innovative energy technologies being showcased at the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, being held Feb. 27-March 1 in Washington, D.C.

Source: University of Illinois

The unseasonably warm and dry weather this February has prompted some corn growers to begin applying ammonia, according to University of Illinois crop sciences professor Emerson Nafziger.

“While we don’t often have the option to apply this early due to frozen or wet soils, late February and early March is an acceptable time to apply ammonia, as long as we do it carefully,” Nafziger says. “Compared to fall application, late winter application introduces nitrogen a little closer to the time the crop will need it, so it’s slightly safer. Still, a warm, wet spring will mean a lot of nitrate present when plant uptake kicks in. So using a nitrification inhibitor with ammonia applied now makes sense.”

After application, ammonia converts to ammonium, which attaches to negative charges on soil and organic matter, and does not move in the soil. When soils warm up, bacteria begin to convert ammonium to nitrate, which can hitch a ride with water moving through the soil. In this way, nitrate can end up in tile lines and out of the field. This is why it is important to keep nitrogen in its ammonium form as long as possible.

Nafziger says that soil samples taken after ammonia application last fall are showing that soil nitrogen levels held up well through late January. With little rainfall in February, he expects that is still the case.

“Late January samples showed that a little more than half of the nitrogen we recovered following fall application was in the nitrate form, and that this percentage was a little lower where we used an inhibitor. There is less nitrate now than we found a year ago following warm, wet weather at the end of 2015. Nitrogen should stay in the soil as long as the soils stay cool and the weather does not turn unusually wet.

“Some producers prefer to wait to apply ammonia until closer to the time the crop will need it. Having dry soils now increases the chances of having soils dry enough to allow application later,” Nafziger says. “Fertilizer materials that contain nitrate, like UAN solution or urea, should not be applied this early; their application should be close to or after planting. Applying nitrogen close to the time the crop needs it is one of the best ways to limit the potential for loss of nitrogen.”

For more information on this topic, visit Nafziger’s Bulletin post.

Source: University of Illinois

It’s safe to say that most of us have experienced a visit to the doctor. We may go to the doctor to get treated for a health condition, to manage a chronic health condition, or to get a yearly physical. Some of us have experienced a surgery or hospitalization. Interaction with the Healthcare system is a common human experience—we need it and use it to stay healthy. Yet, sometimes navigating the system can be a challenge.

Healthcare System Changes
Our Healthcare system has undergone some big changes over the years and certainly does not look like it did in the past. For example, in the 1930’s and 40’s, there is a good chance that a doctor made a house call to provide treatment to a sick patient in his or her home. Medical care looks quite different these days, doesn’t it? Today, we typically make an appointment to go into our doctor’s office when we come down with a cold or the flu.

Other changes:

• Payment methods
• Insurance programs and plans
• Increase in medical specialties
• Healthcare organization

All of these changes can be overwhelming. They can leave us feeling disoriented and confused. But there is good news –we can use the powerful tools of knowledge and communication to navigate our Healthcare system.

Knowledge Equals Power
When we learn about our healthcare system, we are empowering ourselves to work with our system in order to move towards our healthiest self. But we do not need to study all of the small details of our Healthcare system in order to feel more confident navigating it –understanding the basics is what is important.

Each one of us has had our own experiences with medical care. We have unique health concerns, and different questions about the Healthcare system as a result. Perhaps you have recently enrolled in a new insurance plan and have questions about how that changes the way you pay for a doctor’s visit. Maybe you help to care for a loved one and have questions about how to juggle their multiple health conditions and doctor’s appointments. Take a minute today to think about the one or two largest questions you have about our Healthcare system. Then, start to explore and learn!

Here are some ideas for how to get started:

• Identify one or two questions you have about your medical care
• Consult reliable resources (i.e. health insurance providers, medical providers, health information. See “Additional Resources” below)
• Visit with close friends who have a similar health concern

Shared Decision Making
As patients we know more because of the internet. We no longer accept the practice of strictly listening to our doctor and following their advice. This, of course, does not mean that we no longer need our medical providers! Our doctors, nurses, and other medical providers have specific skills and knowledge that come from their extensive training. They can help us make sense of the vast amount of medical information available. But we expect to take part in the decision-making process.

The transition from doctor-knows-best to shared-decision making is difficult. Learning as much as we can before seeing our medical providers is the key to communicating effectively with them. While overwhelming at times, this change is positive and exciting. We can achieve a lot of ownership over our health!

Communication is Key
It seems as though communication is key for most things in life, doesn’t it? We need it to maintain successful friendships and relationships and to manage projects at work. Navigating our medical system is no different. We need to communicate effectively with our medical providers in order to work towards optimal health.

SDSU Extension is here to help enhance your experience navigating the modern healthcare system. This article is the first in a series that will cover specific topics related to navigating the Healthcare system we have now through gaining knowledge and communicating effectively with your Healthcare providers.

Source: Lauren Pierce, South Dakota State University, iGrow