|
|
|
Search Tip
Control "F"
Type in Key Word(s)
Hit Enter
| Spotlight......Tim Harrigan |
February, 2000 |
Build Crop Comfort into Your Cropping Program
Dairy producers are well aware of the value and importance of "cow comfort." Cow comfort refers to a comfortable environment which will minimize stress on the animal. A high measure of cow comfort reduces stress and allows animal’s genetic potential to be expressed in higher milk production. Planning for cow comfort involves evaluating all aspects of the animal environment--free stall and feed bunk design, bedding, barn ventilation, cow grouping and social behavior to name a few--with an eye toward reducing stress. Crop producers can also benefit by finding ways to provide "crop comfort."
Providing crop comfort involves evaluating and modifying the crop environment in an effort to minimize stress and allow the genetic potential of the seed to be expressed in crop yield and quality. Selecting a crop rotation that facilitates weed, insect and disease control and adding organic matter to improve soil tilth contributes to crop comfort. Tillage that alleviates soil compaction also contributes to crop comfort. A challenge for the crop producer is in selecting and evaluating which aspects of the cropping system should be changed in order to improve crop comfort. Yields are a measure of crop comfort but the connection between end-of-season yields and such things as the quality of the seedbed can be difficult to sort out. In what other ways can we measure crop comfort?
In evaluating tillage and planting systems for a sugar beet crop, the rate of seedling emergence was an indicator of crop comfort. We compared emergence in a fall moldboard plowed seedbed that was leveled in the fall and 1) not worked in the spring (stale seedbed), 2) worked in the spring with a single, shallow pass, to 3) a standard system of fall plowing and spring leveling with a field cultivator and a Triple-K seedbed tillage tool.
Table 1. Sugar beet emergence compared across tillage systems, 1999.
|
Plants per 100 ft row |
|||
|
May 10 |
May 17 |
May 28 |
|
|
Stale seedbed |
148 |
168 |
177 |
|
Single, shallow pass |
111 |
142 |
159 |
|
Field cultivate, level and firm |
56 |
100 |
154 |
When seedling emergence was used as a measure of the quality of the seed environment, the untilled, stale seedbed clearly provided the greatest crop comfort and improved early emergence and growth. Seventy-five percent of the seeds had emerged within two weeks of planting. In the standard seedbed less than 30% had emerged in that time. The stale seedbed provided firm, moist soil; freeze/thaw cycling alleviated seedbed compaction; and there were no wheel tracks. Reducing seedbed tillage improved crop comfort. The challenge for growers is to evaluate their farming system and find ways to build crop comfort into all aspects of their cropping program.
SELECTING A COOLING METHOD FOR VEGETABLE QUALITY
Vegetable quality is generally at a peak at harvest, and decreases from packing to the final consumer. Vegetable producers should establish conditions and procedures that help maximize the quality of harvested produce. Vegetables are living organisms that undergo physiological and pathological processes even after harvest respiration continues, water losses occur, and decay and rot may develop.
Room Cooling is common for Michigan vegetables. Vegetables, either packed in cartons or in bulk boxes, are placed in a cold room and will cool as air circulates around the room. Room cooling is generally the slowest way to cool perishable vegetables.
Forced-Air Cooling includes a variety of methods for forcing more cold air through the packaged vegetables, rapidly reducing temperatures. An advantage is that the vegetables do not get wet; a disadvantage is the extra handling required.
Hydro-Cooling
uses cold water, either sprayed over the vegetables or with the vegetables immersed. Water increases the rate of cooling relative to air because of the higher amount of energy that can be absorbed. A disadvantage is that the vegetables are wet, aggravating decay potential.Ice-Cooling uses solid ice or liquid-slush placed in the carton with the vegetables to provide low temperatures during transport and storage. It is limited to a few commodities that have traditionally been cooled with this method including broccoli and cut-flowers.
Vacuum-Cooling uses special equipment to put the produce in a low-pressure environment. The low pressure reduces the rate of water loss by the produce is increased by the low pressure, and the vegetables cool as the water evaporates. Vacuum cooling is expensive, and should be reserved for leafy green vegetables.
Comparison of Produce Effects and Costs for Common Cooling Methods – Cooling methods vary based on availability and traditional use. Selection of the best type of cooler for a particular operation depends on several considerations include the mix of commodities handled, the length of the cooling season, and the need (or desire) for fast cooling.
|
Forced-Air |
Hydro |
Ice |
Vacuum |
Room |
|
|
Typical cooling time (hr) |
1-10 |
0.1-1 |
0.1-0.3 |
0.3-2 |
20-100 |
|
Water loss (%) |
0.1-2 |
0-0.5 |
No data |
2-4 |
0.1-2 |
|
Water contact |
no |
yes |
yes, unless bagged |
no |
no |
|
Potential for decay contamination |
low |
high |
low |
none |
low |
|
Capital cost |
low |
low |
high |
medium |
low |
|
Energy cost |
low |
medium |
medium |
high |
low |
|
Water-resistant packaging needed |
no |
yes |
yes |
no |
no |
|
Portable |
sometimes |
rarely done |
common |
common |
no |
|
Feasibility of in-line cooling |
rarely done |
yes |
rarely done |
common |
no |
Additional articles in this series will examine several of these cooling options in more detail. The information presented above have been adapted from Commercial Cooling of Fruits, Vegetables and Flowers, Publication 21567, University of California-Davis, available from Communications Services-Publications 800-994-8849.
Roger Brook
ON THE ROAD TO PRECISION AGRICULTURE
Michigan Precision Agriculture Research – NCR-180 is a committee of researchers from land grant university experiment stations who are working in precision agriculture. Committee members prepare annual research summaries, which are presented and discussed at a meeting in January. Below are abstracts of Michigan research presented to the group in January. Research reports for Michigan and other states can be found at: http://precision.agri.umn.edu/ncr180_Pawg/research/research.html
Intervention N and Irrigation Management Strategies for Corn. - F.J. Pierce and M. Elwadie.
This project, funded by the Corn Marketing Program of Michigan, will determine if corn managed with variable rate N fertilizer based on plant chlorophyll content and variable irrigation based on remotely sensed plant stress are more or less efficient then current fertilizer and irrigation practices. Specific objectives include (i) comparing prescription (at planting) and PSNT (Pre-sidedressed N test) based N management strategies with intervention N management strategies based on N stress in plants determined from chlorophyll measurements and (ii) comparing irrigation strategies based on need and scheduling with irrigation based on remote sensing spectral indices indicative of water stress in corn. Two field studies were conducted in 1999, one at the Kellogg Biological Station (KBS) and the other at the MSU campus research farm. At KBS, four N treatments were evaluated under no irrigation, MSU irrigation scheduling, and a sensor based irrigation regime. Irrigation water was applied using a trickle irrigation system. N treatments included no N applied, N applied at planting, N applied based on a PSNT test, and N applied when leaf chlorophyll indicated an N deficiency in corn. At MSU, N management strategies were evaluated under rainfed conditions and included the N treatments at KBS plus three additional N treatments including N applied based on Iowa State University’s PSNT recommendations, N applied when leaf chlorophyll indicated an N deficiency in corn using 90 Lbs of N with no further applications, and N applied at planting and any time N deficiency in corn was detected via the leaf chlorophyll content. At KBS, PSNT and sensor based N strategies applied less fertilizer N with no loss in corn yield with or without irrigation. At MSU, yields were lower in treatments where N applications were delayed because of dry soil conditions after N appl. The experiment will be repeated in 2000.
Site Specific Management of Nitrogen. - Natalie Rector, Neil Miller, Innovative Farmers of SC Michigan.
The goal of the project is to determine what data is important for determining variable rates of N; if variable rates of N are profitable; and if variable rates of N can decrease total N for corn production, thus leaving less potential N to reach the groundwater in our sandy loam area of Michigan. Twenty on-farm research plots have been implemented to test both the spatial relationship of flat rates of N across field situations and variable rates of N. These are randomized and replicated plots that encompass field size situations. They are located on five different farms, two fields per farm and two trials per field (flat rate and variable rate). Electrical conductivity measurements and elevation data have been used to define field management zones. The fields were then soil sampled utilizing these zones to help define areas. One infrared imagery fly over was taken of each field in August. Several N strategies have been implemented: 1) whole field management based on yield goals with one N rate; 2) site specific management based on yield goals with a variable rate of N applied based on a variable yield goal and past yield performance; 3)site specific management of variable rates of N based on PSNT soil tests; 4) site specific management using variable N rates based on yield goal potential and PSNT. All of the variable rate plots were sidedressed with 28% by one custom applicator. Yields were collected with the farmer's combine/yield monitor system in the fall of 1999. These plots are planned to be repeated for a total of three years.
Roger Brook
Site-specific Management Guidelines
- http://www.farmresearch.com/SSMG/
- Varying the application rates of plant nutrients and other crop inputs across variable fields makes good agronomic sense. A reasonable strategy must be used to guide application.
- Grid soil sampling for P and K has improved the accuracy of fertilizer application, although greater accuracy can be attained by considering additional site characteristics.
- A "management zone" is a sub-region of a field that expresses a relatively homogeneous combination of yield-limiting factors where a single rate of a crop input is appropriate.
- Spatial information helpful in defining management zones should be quantitative, densely or continuously sampled, stable over time, and directly related to crop yield.
- The basis for accurate and profitable application of crop inputs will continue to be a clear understanding of the agronomic factors that directly affect crop growth and yield.
SSMG-5 Developing Management Zones to Target Nitrogen Applications
- D.W. Franzen and N.R. KitchenWhether the goal is to determine the level of soil nitrogen (N) or the soil yield potential, management zones for N fertilizer management can be constructed using a variety of tools, including topography, aerial photographs, satellite imagery, soil electrical conductivity sensors, yield maps, and intensive soil survey data. Viewing satellite images and/or aerial photos that are relatively inexpensive and comparing them with landscape features would be a good place to start.
Zones can be constructed and managed for N using a fraction of the soil samples required to reveal the same zones through grid sampling. Zone sampling results in lower sampling costs for variable-rate fertilizer application and allows precision farming to be much more practical for producers of commodity crops.
Roger Brook
SURFING THE WEB
The Farmer’s Guide to Smart Seed Choices
The biotech revolution has brought unprecedented benefits to
agriculture. SeedSmart is dedicated to totally changing the way seed is bought
and sold. The site provides a suite of online tools that allow you to quiz
university variety trials. You can compare varieties side-by-side or just get a
list of "top contenders".
Weed Identification Aids
A commercial source, but still useful ...
Roger Brook
Abstracted from the Agri-Surfer newsletter http://www.agrisurfer.com
Neither I nor Michigan State University
endorse the information contained in these web sites.
ACCIDENT CLIPS AND SAFETY TIPS
Electric Shock Prevented with G.F.C.I.

Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (GFCI) are electrical devices designed to protect people from electrocution when using plug-in cord-connected portable electrical equipment, especially in wet or damp locations. GFCIs prevent electrocution by quickly disconnecting the electrical current if the flow of electricity is "leaking" out of the wires due to bad insulation, nicks, cuts or cracks. The GFCI "trips" if you, become a path to ground or if the electric current finds it’s way to the ground. More details are found in the February’s "Safety News".
SAFETY TIP: A GFCI operates by measuring the current (current is expressed in amperes) flowing in the two wires (the white and black wire) to the receptacle or equipment it protects.
A GFCI does not depend on or use a "ground wire" (the bare copper or green wire). Pushing the "test" button simulates a leakage (a very small difference in the current between the white and black wire) that is just above the trip setting of the GFCI.
If the current in the two wires differs by more than 6/1000 of an ampere, the GFCI shuts off power in a fraction of a second. This explains why an older farm house or building wired with just a two wire system (no ground wire) can still take advantage of using GFCI's.
About Farm & Orchard Accidents
What changes a person’s ability to think more objectively about risk?
Those who have survived a "close call" or injury often remember the "significant emotional event"and adjust their risk taking assessments. We can learn from our own mistakes and from others.
Sending me farm injury news clippings and reports will increase the Michigan farm safety data accuracy. The information is also used to identify high-risk work activities and warn others about current farm operation hazards. Please keep sending farm safety information to my office.
Howard Doss
Farmer Gets Arm Caught in Roller Mill
On January 24, 2000, according to a Lapeer County MSUE news clip, a forty-year-old farmer — and high school freshman basketball coach — reached down with his left arm to pick something up, when his right coat sleeve was grabbed by the roller mill he was operating pulling his forearm into the machine.
The farmer’s injuries included skin and muscle damage, limited use of three fingers, and broken bones resulting in muscle and skin grafting. Limitations on the muscles in his forearm are too early to predict.
SAFETY TIP: Loose clothing including draw-strings on jackets and sweatshirts, and frayed coat sleeves can get caught in moving parts. Even long hair on workers can become entangled in moving parts like exposed chains, belts and augers. Your farm operation needs a "safe work" policy that clearly indicates a ban of workers —including family members— wearing loose or frayed clothing. Make appropriate clothing to wear when working a policy on your farm. A safe work policy should be a part of your overall farm safety plan.
Howard Doss
FARM SAFETY
PRESENTATION CHALLENGE
Phil Kaatz of Lapeer developed a 15 slide PowerPoint presentation on farm safety for a local livestock producer meeting on February 11, 2000. You can view Phil’s presentation via e-mail; request the presentation by e-mailing me at : doss@msue.msu.edu
Challenge yourself by making your own farm safety presentation from past and/or current SAFETY NEWS fact sheets. Phil’s presentation was created from SAFETY NEWS facts other sources. He produced a quick, to-the-point presentation concerning farm safety by focusing on important issues for local producers.
Keep the presentation simple and to-the-point. An hour investment of your time can make this happen and keep safety management issues in the forefront.
If I receive ten PowerPoint or overhead farm safety presentations developed for this year’s meetings, I will award the top three authors with personal protective equipment (PPE) items to use at future educational meetings.
Howard Doss
MSU MANURE
MANAGEMENT UPDATE
The Manure Management AoE Task Force is organizing a full-day symposium on Research on Manure Management at Michigan State University. This symposium, intended specifically for MSU Faculty and Staff, will be held Thursday, April 6, 2000, at the Marriott Hotel in East Lansing. Lunch will be provided.
The purpose of the symposium is to acquaint MSU personnel with on-going research at Michigan State University dealing with the many broad aspects of animal manure and to promote discussion and further cooperation amongst those involved with the subject. Presentations will be by MSU Faculty and Staff and are intended to represent all aspects of manure management research presently underway at Michigan State University.
Please reserve the date on your calendar and plan to attend this update opportunity.
Bill Bickert
![]()
Agricultural
Engineering Extension Faculty
William G. Bickert. Livestock
Facilities and Environment.
Roger C. Brook. Handling, Storage and Drying of Agricultural Products;
Computer Applications in Agriculture.
Howard J. Doss. Safety Leader for Michigan Cooperative Extension Service;
Agricultural Safety Specialist.
Daniel E. Guyer. Post-Harvest Storage and Handling and Value-Added Processes
for Fruit and Vegetables; Machine Vision and Pattern Recognition.
Timothy M. Harrigan. Forage and Field Crop Power and Machinery. Ag Expo
Chairman.
Richard L. Ledebuhr. Fruit and Vegetable Mechanization. Chemical application
equipment.
Theodore L. Loudon. On-Site Wastewater Treatment; Agricultural Water Quality
Impacts; Irrigation; Drainage; Livestock Waste.
Howard L. Person. Livestock Facilities; Environmental Control; Management Of
Manure and Organic Residues.
Robert D. von Bernuth. Irrigation and Water Management; Coordinator, Animal
Waste Management Programs.
Nancy Aitcheson -
Plan Service Secretary, Co-Editor
William Bickert - Extension Agricultural Engineer, Co-Editor