I gave a ‘Soil Evaluations for Septic Systems’ presentation to the Ohio Environmental Health Association on November 14, 2008. The presentation covered the process of conducting a soil evaluation for a septic system, as well as review of key concepts in soil science which affect household wastewater treatment (such as bulk density, porosity, etc). The presentation is available for download and use here:
November 18, 2008
Powerpoint Presenation on Soil: Investigating Soils
Posted by andykleinschmidt under Powerpoint Presentations | Tags: Ohio Environmental Health Association, septic system, soil, soil compaction, soil density, soil investigation for septic systems, soil investigations |No Comments
November 12, 2008
Organics 101: An Introduction to Organic Crop Production
Posted by andykleinschmidt under organic | Tags: oeffa, Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association, organic, organic certification, organic farming |No Comments
All Ohio grain and horticulture crop farmers who are looking for information on organic crop production are encouraged to attend this workshop. “Organics 101: An Introduction to Organic Crop Production” will present the latest and best recommendations for organic farming. The program will include OSU researchers and organic farmers who together will present the latest and best recommendations for transitioning to organic crop production. Participants will learn about the organic certification standards and the certification process, soil biology, crop rotations and pest management in organic cropping systems. The economics of organic production, sources for approved production inputs, and the marketing of organic crops will also be discussed. University scientists and farmers will lead sessions on these and other topics and will answer questions from farmers considering organic production. For more information and registration information visit http://www.oeffa.org
Location: Ohio Department of Agriculture, 8995 E. Main St., Reynoldsburg, Ohio
Date: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 8:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
November 5, 2008
Marestail Control in Soybeans
Posted by andykleinschmidt under soybeans, weeds | Tags: horseweed, marestail, marestail control |No Comments
This article is devoted to one of the most problematic weeds in soybeans: marestail. Marestail is an upright growing plant and can reach 4 feet if not mowed or controlled. Marestail begins as a basal rosette similar to other winter annuals. Following the rosette stage, Marestail expereinces a stage of rapid vertical growth refered to as ‘bolting’. The leaves are 3 - 4 inches in length, and have widely toothed margings. And the stem of marestail is simple and unbranched, and covered with hair.
In a recent fall weed-scouting project, I noted marestail in nearly 20% of the soybean fields in Van Wert County. For those who are battling this weed already, you know that marestail is difficult to control. Marestail is diffiuclt to control for many reasons. First, marestail has the ability to germinate throughout the year. In fact, marestail is typically classified as both a winter annual and a summer annual because it can germinate in the fall and throughout the summer. Next, marestail is tolerant and in some cases resistant to glyphosate. So an application of glyphosate may have little to no effect on marestail. Last, marestail is a prolific seed producer. Weed scientists have reported seed production up to 200,000 seeds per marestail plant. Yes, that’s per single plant. The seeds are small (typically 2mm) and are dispersed easily by wind and equipment.
In OSU research, the most effective control of marestail in soybeans has occurred from a combination of 2,4-D ester, residual herbicides and either glyphosate or paraquat applied in April, when the marestail is still in the rosette stage or has only an inch or two of stem elongation. But even with this ‘loaded’ herbicide package, expect a few marestail escapes. If marestail populations are heavy, OSU researchers recommend delaying the herbicide application until very late-April or early-May to catch as many emerged marestail plants as possible.
Below is the full podcast on marestail.
October 29, 2008
Fall Maintenance of Turfgrass
Posted by andykleinschmidt under turf | Tags: dandelion control, turf fertilization |No Comments
Dr. John Street, OSU Turf Researcher, wrote an excellent article in the Buckeye Turf notes recently on fall fertilization of turfgrass:
The late-season fertilization strategy is based on applying nitrogen (N) fertilizer in the late fall (mid November to early December period depending on temperature). Ideally, N should be applied just around the time that top growth has significantly stopped or ceased. N applied at this time should extend the greening of the turf longer into the late fall without additional top growth, so timing is critical. Not too early but not too late.
The extended greening results in the turf remaining photosynthetically active for as much as 4-6 weeks longer. The carbohydrate from this still active photosynthesis is translocated downward to support root growth and stolon/rhizome growth or the excess stored as a food reserve for next spring/summer. Spring green-up is usually enhanced resulting in earlier spring greening and additional photosynthesis and food production without the surge growth from a traditional early spring fertilization. REMEMBER - This usually eliminates the need for N fertilization early in the spring where appropriate late fall fertilization has occurred.
Using a less costly water-soluble source containing a fair portion of urea should help offset or lower the fertilization cost. In fact, the majority of late season fertilization research was done with urea and ammonium nitrate. One pound of N per 1,000 sq. ft. is considered an acceptable rate. Urea alone can be considered. A premium late-season fert on sandy soils could include the addition of IBDU in a Urea/IBDU combination of 35-50% IBDU to lessen potential N leaching losses over the winter. IBDU is relatively temperature independent in N release.
In addition to fall fertilization, consider applying herbicides to your turf if dandelion or other broadleaf weeds are a problem. Early November is not too late to apply, so long as your turf and weeds remain actively growing.
Full podcast on this topic available here:
October 27, 2008
Methane to Electricity
Posted by andykleinschmidt under alternative energy, livestock, technology | Tags: anaerobic, anaerobic digesters, biogas, biogas electricity, greenhouse gases, manure, methane, methane to electricity, methane to energy, renewable energy |[2] Comments
Below is a guest post from Gene McCluer, OSU Extension Hardin County Extension Educator:
As a source of renewable energy, there is much interest in converting manure into methane and the methane into electricity. There are two farms with anaerobic digesters which are currently generating electricity in Ohio. Both farms are selling the power to Buckeye Power, Inc., Ohio’s Electric Cooperative power generation and transmission organization, and then purchasing their electric power from their local cooperative electric distribution system. These pilot projects are at Wenning Poultry in Mercer County and Bridgewater Dairy in Williams County. Here are some key points
1. We know how to generate and collect methane from manure. The process, however, can be upset by various things, such as antibiotics or other medical treatment of the animals, adding other organic material such as food wastes, which have been washed with various cleaners, low temperatures, and many more. When the system is upset, methane generation is reduced and generation is affected. There is a definite need for an operation and management expertise component to these systems.
2. The cost of building an on-farm system is large, but the exact costs are not easy to find. In almost every case we heard about, there was some grant subsidized funds include, as the public has interest in finding new effective ways to generate renewable energy.
3. The farmers in Ohio who are operating the demonstration sites are large operations. One farm has more than 800,000 layers and the other operates a 4,000 head dairy farm. It seems that a large volume of manure generation is necessary, and a steady supply of new manure or other organic wastes needs to be added to the system on a regular basis. It appears that at least 500 cows or 3000 hogs are needed before methane/generation is to be considered.
4. The “biogas” generated is not equal to propane or natural gas. It typically includes about 60% methane, 35% CO2, some water vapor, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide. Methane is the only portion that burns, and some of the other components are quite corrosive to pipes and engines. Preventing the release of “greenhouse gases” can generate carbon credits, which have value.
5. Generating and collecting the biogas from the manure with an anaerobic digester has been shown to reduce the offensive odors of the manure. This alone in some cases has been the justification of building a system, even if the methane is flared off, or burned at the site. That is how big solving a manure odor problem can be in some farm situations.
6. Utilizing the biogas to generate heat may also be an important use of the methane, if there is a need for heat energy on the farm or nearby. Serious digester operators utilize some of the heat to maintain the manure in the anaerobic digester at about 100 deg. F. to maximize the biological generation of biogas.
7. The biogas can power an engine/generator to generate electricity. The electricity can be used on the farm, with the appropriate electric configuration approved by the electric distribution company providing the normal power for the farm. With self generated power, there must be a standby power arrangement with the electric company for when the generator is down for maintenance or other incidental problems in the system occur. This is likely to cause the farm to have a higher electric rate, since the power company still has the expense of installing and maintaining all of the equipment to operate the farm, even though they may not sell power there on a regular basis. I think this may be part of the reason that the two Ohio farms are selling all of their power and purchasing the power from the local electric coop distribution company.
8. Connecting to the grid and selling electricity is not as easy as it sounds. All electric generators that interconnect to the power grid, regardless of size, are required to file an application or self-certification with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to obtain “qualifying facility” status under the Public Utilities Regulator Policies Act (PURPA), and must apply to the local electric utility for interconnection to the lines. If the farm wants to “self-supply” (use the electricity that it generates) and generates more than they use in a year, they must enter into a Power Purchase Agreement with Buckeye Power. If the output of the generation exceeds the usage of the consumers on the local utility’s distribution circuit, or, they connect directly to the transmission system, they must also enter into a Wholesale Market Participation Agreement with the transmission owner and the transmission operator before power can be put on the transmission lines. There are many more permits, agreements, and studies which need to be completed before a farm can generate electricity for the grid.
9. There is a significant equipment requirement needed to interconnect the generator to the electric power grid. Most of this equipment either measures the amount sold to the power company or to synchronize the electric voltage, frequency, and phase with the line it is being connected to. Other switchgear equipment is required to make sure that the generated power does not compromise the safety of either the people on the farm, other coop customers, or the power company line crew who may need to work on the electric system that is connected to the farm.
This is not to discourage any operations who have the capacity or interest in providing renewable energy, but to help find the answers to their questions about how to do it. An interested farm should contact their electric coop or their electric distribution company to visit with electrical engineers who work in the area of electric generation and transmission for more precise details of the requirements. Either Don Leis, Senior Power Deliver Engineer with Buckeye Power (614-846-5757) or Richard Hiatt, with the Rural Electricity Resource Council in Wilmington (937-383-0001) may be able to help those who are exploring the idea of methane production and electric generation.
October 22, 2008
Country of Origin Labeling
Posted by andykleinschmidt under livestock | Tags: Agricultural Marketing Service, AMS, beef, COOL, country of origin labeling, food labeling, USDA |No Comments
The United States Department of Agriculture has announced that the implementation of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL), began on September 30, 2008. COOL became law in the 2002 Farm Bill but implementation has been delayed twice by Congress.
COOL is a provision in the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills that require retailers to notify their customers of the country of origin of beef (including veal), lamb, pork, chicken, goat, wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, perishable agricultural commodities, peanuts, pecans, ginseng, and macadamia nuts.
Essentially, COOL is a marketing program which ensures that consumers receive one piece of information about covered commodities: the country of origin. It cannot be construed as a food safety issue because it makes no changes in who can supply commodities or the requirement for supplying commodities in the marketplace. All food products offered to U.S. consumers have already passed existing food safety standards. COOL is administered by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) arm of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) because it is a marketing program; food safety issues are handled by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) or the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) along with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
COOL will provide information to consumers regarding the origin of meat covered commodities. This is beneficial from a consumer standpoint. However, COOL excludes valuable products such as food service products (restaurants) and processed products. These exclusions represent a major portion of the retail market and will change the competitiveness of meat industries.
Listen to my podcast about COOL here:
October 8, 2008
Now Available: 2009 Corn, Soybean and Wheat Crop Budgets
Posted by andykleinschmidt under Crop Enterprise Budgets, farm management | Tags: corn budget, crop budgets, enterprise budgets, farm budgets, ohio farm budgets, OSU farm budgets, soybean budget |No Comments
Budgeting helps guide farmers through the decision making process to commit resources to the most profitable enterprises on the farm. Crops or Livestock? Corn, Soybeans, or Wheat? We can begin to answer these questions with well thought out budgets that include all revenue and costs. Without some form of budgeting and some method to track your enterprises’ progress you’ll have difficulty determining your most profitable enterprise(s) and if you’ve met your goals for the farm.
Budgeting is often described as “penciling it out” before committing resources to a plan. Ohio State University Extension has had a long history of developing “Enterprise Budgets” that can be used as a starting point for producers in their budgeting process.
Newly updated Enterprise Budgets for 2009 have been completed and posted to the Farm Management Website of the Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics. Updated Enterprise Budgets can be viewed and downloaded from the following website:
http://aede.osu.edu/Programs/FarmManagement/Budgets/
Enterprise Budgets updated so far for 2009 include: Corn-Conservation Tillage; Soybeans-No-Till (Roundup Ready); Wheat-Conservation Tillage, (Grain & Straw).
Our enterprise budgets are compiled on downloadable Excel Spreadsheets that contain macros for ease of use. Users can input their own production and price levels to calculate their own numbers. These Enterprise Budgets have a new look with color coded cells that will enable users to plug in numbers to easily calculate bottoms lines for different scenarios. Detailed footnotes are included to help explain methodologies used to obtain the budget numbers. Starting this year we will be updating these Enterprise Budgets periodically during the year is large changes occur in price or costs. Budgets will include a date in the upper right hand corner of the front page indicating when the last update occurred.
In addition to the newly release 2009 budgets, all of the 2008 Enterprise Budgets are available in Excel and PDF format on the OSU Farm Management Budget Website (http://aede.osu.edu/Programs/FarmManagement/Budgets/): these budgets include: corn, sobyeans, wheat, alfalfa hay, grass hay, corn silage, sweet corn (retail and wholesale), popcorn, steer, heifer, cow-calf, ewe and lamb, and dairy cow.
The Budgets are complied by Barry Ward, Assistant Professor Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, Ohio State University.
Full podcast available here:
October 1, 2008
Weed Control in Winter Wheat - Fall is the BEST Time
Posted by andykleinschmidt under weeds, wheat | Tags: dandelion control, fall herbicide application, glyphosate, winter annual weed control, winter wheat |No Comments
Mark Loux, Ohio State University Weed Specialist, wrote an excellent article in the CORN Newsletter on weed control in winter wheat. I encourage you to read the entire article, but I’ll give you Dr. Loux’s summary points:
- apply glyphosate at 0.75 lb active ingredient/acre prior to planting wheat or immediately after wheat is planted
- if timing/manpower does not allow for applying glyphosate prior to wheat emergence, plan for a early- to mid-November application of herbicide in emerged wheat (best: Express at 0.33 oz/acre plus dicamba at 4 oz product/acre)
- fall herbicide applications in wheat are more effective than spring applications of herbicide in winter wheat
Listen to an excerpted version of the article in my podcast below
September 25, 2008
End of Season Weed Survey
Posted by andykleinschmidt under soybeans, weeds | Tags: foxtail, lambsquarter, marestail, pigweed, ragweed, roundup ready, soybeans, weed survey, weeds |No Comments
On Tuesday, September 23, 2008 I spent the better part of the day conducting a comprehensive weed survey in Van Wert County. Why, you ask, would I drive 180 miles within a one county area to look at weeds? The answer is simple: to better serve my local clientele’s needs. By knowing what weeds are problematic to area farmers, I can better plan winter meetings, etc. At the end of the day, I scouted 80 randomly selected soybean fields. This project is actually part of a larger project in Ohio, and I am just one participant. I sent my data to Mark Loux for his assessment, but I thought I’d share with you my results.
I surveyed summer annual weeds only, and did not look for winter annual weeds. Also, I limited my survey to soybean fields only. Basically, this saved time for me; by looking only for summer annuals in soybean fields I did not have to walk into a field and I could make my observations from the edge of the field. Please note that my observations are qualitative and subject to my interpretation. I was asked to score the weed infestation on the following scale: 1=Occasional (A plant of the species as an occasional individual plant), 2=Large patches (A patch(s) of 8 or more plants of individual species scattered in field), or 3=Widespread (Numerous patches or individual plants of the species across the field).
Rankings (from most often to least often weed found in soybeans)
#1 Marestail- I found this weed in nearly 20% of the soybean fields I randomly selected. This weed has become prevelant in Van Wert County and is very difficult to control. This weed seems to be more abundant in southern Van Wert County. The average infestation was 1.8 (on a scale of 1-3, see above for explanation of scale).
#2 Volunteer corn - My guess is that I was seeing volunteer Roundup Ready corn, but I have no way of knowing that for sure. Average infestation of 1.1.
#3 Common ragweed - No surprise here. Common ragweed is found in nearly every soybean field, but is usually easily controlled by glyphosate. These escapes were probably due to a too early application of glyphosate. Average infestation of 1.7.
#4 Giant ragweed - Fortunately, this weed does not flourish throuhout Van Wert County and seems to be isolated to certain fields. Like Marestail, this weed ranks at the top of the list with regards to difficulty of control. Average infestation 1.0.
#5 Foxtail - I was surprised to see foxtail make it on the list. Foxtail is easily controlled by glyphosate and/or selective grass herbicides. Also, the infestation was high with an average score of 2.5.
#6 Lambsquarters - Lambsquarter becomes very difficult to control when the weather turns dry and hot, and that is exactly what happened during August. Average infestation of 1.0.
#7 Pigweed - I was also surprised to see pigweed on the list. It is not normally a weed that I’ll find in a field this late in the season. Usually this weed does well along field edges but not in the field. Average infestation 1.0.
There were other weeds I noted, but not in enough frequency or infestation to make the list. Velvetleaf, cocklebur and smartweed were noted in one or two soybean field edges. Bear in my that this survey is done for soybeans only (since soybean acres outnumber corn acres nearly 2:1 in Van Wert County). Had I stepped into some corn fields I probably would have found more velvetleaf and cocklebur. In my experience these weeds can become prevalent in corn fields in Van Wert County.
Let me know if you have a different observation or wish to augment my observations.
