Purdue: Pest&Crop Newsletter
March 12, 2010
Welcome to a new year of the Pest&Crop Newsletter! Here is the link Issue 1.
July 31, 2007 Agronomy
Rainfall during the past two weeks has helped many drought stressed corn fields.
However, some areas have still only received trace amounts of rain. In upcoming weeks, corn growers with drought damaged fields may want to predict grain yields prior to harvest in order to help with marketing and harvest plans.
Two procedures which are widely used for estimating corn grain yields prior to harvest are the YIELD COMPONENT METHOD (also referred to as the “slide rule” or corn yield calculator) and the EAR WEIGHT METHOD. Each method will often produce yield estimates that are within 20 bu/ac of actual yield. Such estimates can be helpful for general planning purposes.
THE YIELD COMPONENT METHOD was developed by the Agricultural Engineering Department at the University of Illinois. The principal advantage to this method is that it can be used as early as the milk stage of kernel development, a stage many Ohio corn fields have probably achieved. The yield component method involves use of a numerical constant for kernel weight which is figured into an equation in order to calculate grain yield. This numerical constant is sometimes referred to as a “fudge factor” since it is based on a predetermined average kernel weight. Since weight per kernel will vary depending on hybrid and environment, the yield component method should be used only to estimate relative grain yields, i.e. “ballpark” grain yields.
When below normal rainfall occurs during grain fill (resulting in low kernel weights), the yield component method will OVERESTIMATE yields. In a year with good grain fill conditions (resulting in high kernel weights) the method will underestimate grain yields.
Example: You are evaluating a field with 30 inch rows. You counted 24 ears (per 17’ 5" = row section). Sampling every fifth ear resulted in an average row number of 16 and an average number of kernels per row of 30. The estimated yield for that site in the field would be (24 × 16 × 30) divided by 90, which equals 128 bu/acre.
THE EAR WEIGHT METHOD can only be used after the grain is physiologically mature (black layer), which occurs at about 30 35% grain moisture. Since this method is based on actual ear weight, it should be somewhat more accurate than the yield component method above. However, there still is a fudge factor in the formula to account for average shellout percentage.
Sample several sites in the field. At each site, measure off a length of row equal to 1/1000th acre. Count the number of harvestable ears in the 1/1000th acre.
Weigh every fifth ear and calculate the average ear weight (pounds) for the site. Hand shell the same ears, mix the grain well, and determine an average percent grain moisture with a portable moisture tester.
Calculate estimated grain yield as follows:
Example: You are evaluating a field with 30 inch rows. You counted 24 ears (per 17 ft. 5 in. section). Sampling every fifth ear resulted in an average ear weight of 1/2 pound. The average grain moisture was 30 percent. Estimated yield would be [(24 × 0.5) / ((1.411 × 30) + 46.2)] x 1,000, which equals 135 bu/acre.
Because it can be used at a relatively early stage of kernel development, the Yield Component Method may be of greater assistance to farmers trying to make a decision about whether to harvest their corn for grain or silage. Since drought stress conditions in some fields may result in poorly filled small ears, there may be mechanical difficulties with sheller or picker efficiency that need to be considered. When droughts occur, it’s often cheaper to buy corn for grain than to buy hay for roughage (because of likely forage deficits). Therefore, there may be greater benefit in harvesting fields with marginal corn grain yield potential for silage.
March 12, 2010
Welcome to a new year of the Pest&Crop Newsletter! Here is the link Issue 1.
March 11, 2010
ANAHIEM, Calif. (DTN) — While a few companies will shoulder the brunt of criticism in upcoming discussions on the competitive climate — or lack of one — in agriculture, the reputation for all of agriculture may be at stake.
March 11, 2010
Editor’s Note: Dan Davidson provides insight into what farmers might do this spring to deal with wet soil conditions. The information was provided specifically to AgProfessional so that readers can talk with customers about alternative field work that might be necessary this spring and to allow consultants and ag retailers to determine recommendations for fertilizer programs fitting into a farmer’s unusual spring workload.
March 11, 2010
Click here to follow the link to ISU’s website
March 11, 2010
We’ve published new articles for the MSU Field CAT Alert newsletter.