Moisture at harvest can influence both the yield and quality of corn silage. In dry and warm growing seasons, especially for early-planted corn, corn silage can be less than 70% moisture in late August. Unfortunately, some dairy producers may be harvesting perennial forages in late August and not getting ready for corn silage harvest. Further compounding this potential problem is that in late August and early September corn silage can dry at 0.5-0.75 points of moisture/day instead of the typical 0.33 points of moisture/day in mid-September. Consequently, in years when corn silage is less than 70% moisture in late August and temperatures remain warm, moisture levels can be into the low 60s or even upper 50s by early to mid-September, which results in ensiling problems. This article discusses how to predict when corn silage is less than 70% moisture and how soon corn silage harvest should commence once moistures are less than 70%.

It is generally assumed that there is about a 45-day period between the tassel/silking date and the time to begin corn silage harvest. For example, in 2004, when drought did not occur and temperatures were near normal in July and August, all hybrids, regardless of maturity group, were harvested at about 67-70 % moisture from 43 to 45 days after the tassel/silking date (Table 1). Obviously, the assumed 45 day interval between silking and the time to begin corn silage harvest would have worked well in 2004. In 2003, the interval was a bit shorter at 40 to 43 days. In 2005, a year with significant drought and high July and August temperatures, all hybrids were at 67-70% moisture only 34 to 35 days after the tassel/silking date (Table 1). Obviously, the use of calendar days after the silking date is not a good predictor of when to begin corn silage harvest in warm and droughty years.

The number of GDD from the tassel/silking date to the silage harvest date may be a better predictor on when to begin corn silage harvest. The 101-105, 106-110, and 111-115 day hybrids required about 850 GDD from the tassel/silking date until silage harvest (67-70% moisture) in 2003, 750 to about 800 GDD in 2004, and 810 to 815 GDD in 2005 (Table1). Predicting corn silage harvest, based on GDD from the tassel/silking date to the silage harvest date, is obviously not perfect because other environmental factors can also influence the development of corn silage. Nevertheless, the use of accumulated GDD from the tassel/silking date is a better guide than the 45-day estimate from silking to corn silage harvest.

If you wish to use accumulated GDD after the tassel/silking date as a guide on when to begin corn silage harvest, we urge you not to use the GDD data from big-city weather stations such as Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Albany, etc. Instead, use weather stations from more rural locations such as Dansville, Batavia, Geneva, Canton, Chazy, etc, because the number of GDD from those weather stations would more accurately mimic the actual GDD accumulated in nearby corn fields. We suggest going out to test for moisture once 750 GDDs have accumulated from the silking date for hybrids in the 101-115 day maturity range.

A horizontal or bunker silo allows dairy farmers to store corn silage at moistures just below 70% with minimum effluent losses. The question then arises, how soon should corn silage harvest commence once silage moisture is just below 70%. We evaluated two corn silage hybrids, 34B23 and TMF108, in 2002 and 2003 to determine if silage yields or quality are compromised when harvesting corn silage at just below 70 vs. 65% moisture, the moisture considered optimum for yield and quality by many agronomists. The 2002 growing season was extremely dry in July and August and the 2003 growing season was dry only during the latter part of August.

Despite differences in weather conditions between growing seasons, most silage quality measurements were consistent across years (Table 2). Starch consistently increased by 3 to 4 percentage units and crude protein decreased by 0.3 to 0.4 percentage units as silage moisture decreased from about 69-70% to 65% moisture. The NDF concentrations decreased in the dry 2002 growing season and the IVTD concentrations decreased in 2003 as silage moisture decreased from 69-70% to 65%. Harvest moisture did not affect NDF digestibility in either year of the study.

Likewise, harvest moisture did not affect silage yield in either year of the study (Table 3). In 2002, milk per ton, a forage quality index that combines NDF, NDF digestibility, starch, crude protein, and ash into a single term, showed a hybrid x harvest moisture index. TMF108, which had a 4 percentage unit increase in starch with no real change in NDF digestibility and crude protein concentrations, had a 242 lb/ton increase as harvest moisture decreased from 69.4 to 64.5%. 34B23, which had a 5 percentage unit increase in starch but a 3 percentage unit decrease in NDF digestibility and a 0.6 percentage unit decrease in crude protein, had similar milk/ton values at both harvest moistures. In 2003, harvest moisture did not affect milk/ton and there was no hybrid x harvest moisture interaction. Harvest moisture did not affect milk/acre in either year of the study mostly because of no significant change in silage yields.

Conclusion
Dairy producers do not compromise corn silage yield or quality in most years by harvesting corn silage at just below 70 instead of 65% moisture. We recommend that dairy producers who use bunker silos begin corn silage harvest at about 68% harvest moisture, which will increase starch levels a bit and reduce any potential effluent losses from the bunker compared with 69-70% moistures. In most years, corn silage hybrids in the 101-115 day range planted by early May should be close to 68% moisture about 800 GDD after silking. If dairy producers have access to accurate weather data that represents their region, they should begin testing their corn silage for moisture at about 750 GDD after silking.

Two New Tools Available for Using a Cover Crop
Thomas Björkman, Horticultural Sciences Department, Cornell University

New Electronic Decision Tool
New York growers have a new tool available to make it easy to select a cover crop. It’s challenging to keep track of which cover crops are good for various situations. Even growers who want to try a new cover crop find they don’t have time to research them when the opportunity to use one arises. This new decision tool will speed that process. If a grower has an idea of why they need a cover crop and a particular window in the rotation, they should be able to enter those goals and come away with growing instructions in less than five minutes.

This tool was developed with the help of many colleagues with cover crop expertise using funding from the New York Farm Viability Institute. The tool is designed to complement the new Cornell Soil Health Test, so that growers whose prescription is to use a cover crop can fill that prescription easily. The tool uses information growers are most likely to have in hand. Usually, they have a particular management objective, whether from the soil health test or their own observations. There is usually also a time during the season when there is an opportunity to put a cover crop between cash crops.

The first step of using this tool is to enter one or more of the three criteria: management goal, planting time, and duration. Clicking “Search” quickly brings up the main candidates and some key information to help choose. These searches are fast enough that it’s easy to tweak the criteria and search again to see what other options come up.

The second step looks at the candidate cover crops to see whether they are compatible with the existing rotation, whether the price is appropriate, whether the necessary equipment is on the farm, and similar deciding factors. Simply clicking on the name of the cover crop brings up the production instructions.

The third step is to review the production instructions. Most run about a page and include where to buy seed, how to plant, when to terminate the crop and how. It also has some of the tricks passed on by experienced hands. A click on the cover crop name on this page brings up a PDF file that can be printed out. We have made the instructions as complete as we can, so that each step can be carried out reliably by any reasonably experienced farmer. To keep the instruction to the point, they contain neither general information nor research results. There are other publications that provide such information, in particular the new Third Edition of “Managing Cover Crops Profitably.”

As an example, a grower might be interested in reducing surface hardness in a field to be harvested in mid-August. The search turns up two hits, Forage Turnip and Hairy Vetch. Since this field had cabbage in it the previous year, the turnips are rejected because that’s too soon to plant another crucifer. Hairy Vetch will not only help with surface hardness, but will also fix nitrogen and suppress spring weeds. Going to the instructions, the page describes
1) the key factors in land preparation (break compaction, have adequate P and K)
2) the seeding rates of hairy vetch and an oats or rye nurse crop to reduce root rot pressure
3) the late August through September planting window
4) the termination by mowing or incorporating in late May when the vetch flowers

Not every combination of management goal and time results in a hit. The cover crops included in the tool are only those that are readily available and relatively inexpensive. Nevertheless, there are cover crops available for any time of the year. There are those that are best raised for a year or so, to those that are done in just over a month. A substantial number of management goals are included. Some, such as increasing organic matter, can be met by many cover crops, others, like suppressing verticillium, are met only by one cover crop. The tool will be expanded as current research projects yield more results. The online decision tool can be accessed at http://tinyurl.com/NYccTool. This is a shortcut to the relevant page on the Cornell vegetable cover crop site.

Buckwheat Cover Crop Handbook
Buckwheat has been used to suppress weeds on Northeastern farms for 400 years. The practice had been used here for a century and a half by the time George Washington and Thomas Jefferson corresponded with each other about how well it worked on their farms. It still works.

On modern farms we have different tools, a different market, and different economic constraints; so buckwheat will be useful in different situations. To provide the information that modern growers need, a team at Cornell led by horticulturist Thomas Björkman and weed scientists Robin Bellinder and Russ Hahn developed a new handbook for using buckwheat as a cover crop in the Northeast.

In this handbook we describe situations where buckwheat has high value on 21^st century farms because it controls weeds economically and in a way that adds significantly to the other weed control practices that are available. The four situations described are: Bringing new land into production, establishing summer forage, cover after early vegetables, and preparation for strawberries.

This handbook is based on extensive grower surveys, gathering knowledge held by successful growers, material printed in obscure old extension and farm publications, as well as original research to answer new questions. The instructions have been tested by cooperating farmers to make sure they work.

To keep the brochure short, we have included only what growers need to do and why. The substantial research and testing that went into determining the right procedures is not included, but there is a lot of experience behind every recommendation.

The handbook is designed to fit in a pocket, with a cover that can handle life in the barn or the truck, because that is where users will want the information that’s in it. The specific instructions for the four main scenarios are also provided on individual water-resistant cards that can be kept in a place that’s convenient for checking the next step during the season. Hard copies are available from our online bookstore for $2.50 to cover postage and handling. https://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/store/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=41 Electronic versions (PDF and HTML) of the Handbook are available as part of a new website on using cover crops in vegetable production. http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/faculty/bjorkman/covercrops/buckwheatbrochure.html

Topdress N Rate Studies on Soft White Winter Wheat in 2007 and 2008.
Bill Cox¹, Phil Atkins¹, and Quirine Ketterings², Department of Crop & Soil Sciences¹, Department of Animal Sciences², Cornell University

Wheat yields were exceptionally high in 2008, despite sprouting problems in some areas. Nevertheless, prices were high even for sprouted or feed wheat this year, making wheat quite profitable for most growers in 2008. With the wheat harvest still fresh in our minds and N fertilizer prices so high, we thought that it would be a good idea to share with you the results of the last 2 years of our N topdressing studies at the Aurora Research Farm on soft white winter wheat.

We planted soft white winter wheat (Caledonia in the 2006-2007 growing season and Jensen in 2007-2008) on 27 September in 2006 and on 15 September in 2007 on a Honeoye silt loam soil at about a 2 bu/acre seeding rate. A starter fertilizer, 6-24-24, was applied at about 200 lbs/acre. On April 12, 2007 and April 10, 2008, the soft white winter wheat received a topdressing of ammonium nitrate at total N rates of 0, 20, 40, 60, and 80 lbs N/acre, replicated 6 times. Three days after the topdressing in 2007, the experimental site received 19 inches of snow (2.1 inches of precipitation) with some of the snow remaining on the soil for the next 4 days. May and June of 2007 were exceptionally dry so overall cumulative precipitation from April through June was more than 3 inches below normal (Table 1). Likewise, the 2008 spring was dry, about 3 inches below normal, with all three months receiving below normal precipitation. April was moderately cool and May was moderately warm in 2007, whereas April was exceptionally warm and May exceptionally cool in 2008. In both years, June was quite warm. Overall, average temperature and cumulative precipitation for the 3-month period between the 2007 and 2008 growing seasons were quite similar.

Despite the similar spring conditions between growing seasons, grain yields were higher in 2008 at the lower N rates. In 2007, grain yields showed a linear response to N rates with yields still increasing significantly at the 80 lb/acre N rate (Table 2). In 2008, grain yields showed a linear plateau response with yields leveling out at the 40 lb/acre N rate (Table 2). A possible explanation for the different responses to N rates across years may be that more denitrification losses of the fertilizer N occurred in 2007 because of the 19-inch (2.1 inches of precipitation) snow storm that occurred only 4 days after application. Another possible explanation is that there was more N mineralization of the native organic matter in the soil in April of 2008 because of the exceedingly warm temperatures, which would have provided more N during the stem elongation period in May, the most critical time for N uptake in wheat. More N mineralization would also help explain why yields were so much greater at the lower N rates in 2008 vs. 2007. A third possible explanation may be that although two soft white winter varieties were used from the Cornell plant breeding program, the different varieties could have had a differential response to N. When averaged across the growing seasons, a linear plateau response was also observed but now with yields leveling off (statistically) at the 60 lb/acre N rate, the high range of the recommended rate for wheat in NY.

We only harvested the straw in 2008 but the results were somewhat surprising. We once again observed a linear-plateau response to N but the straw yields leveled out at the 20 lb/acre instead of the 40 lb/acre N rate for grain yields (Table 2). We were under the impression that the straw yield compared with grain yield would show more of a response to N. Interestingly, we also observed that straw yields showed less of a response to seeding rates than grain yields in another study (What’s Cropping Up, Vol.17, No.3, p.1-2), again contrary to what we expected. In the N rate studies of 2007 and 2008, test weights were maximized at the 20 lb N/acre rate and grain moisture did not respond to N rates (data not shown).

We will continue this study next year but we will evaluate N rates on soft red in addition to soft white winter wheat varieties. We do not expect soft red to respond differently than soft white winter wheat varieties. We do expect both soft white and soft red winter wheat varieties to respond differently across growing seasons, however, as this study demonstrated.

What's Cropping Up? is a bimonthly newsletter distributed by the Crop and Soil Sciences Department at Cornell University.  The purpose of the newsletter is to provide timely information on field crop production and environmental issues as it relates to New York agriculture.  Articles are regularly contributed by the following departments at Cornell University: Crop and Soil Sciences, Plant Breeding, Plant Pathology, and Entomology. To receive a hard copy, send your name and address to Larissa Smith, 237 Emerson Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 or lls14@cornell.edu.