Making “SENSE” of Sustainable Nitrogen Management

In today’s world it could be easy to think that the idea of “sustainability” is a new concept.  After all, it’s been just in the last couple years that we’ve seen an influx in advertisements and product labels carrying such phrases as “Produced Sustainably” or “Sustainably Sourced”.  But what exactly does sustainability mean?  While the exact definition is often up for debate and may vary between groups, commonly referenced principles of sustainability within agriculture include:

• Maintaining or increasing production using fewer inputs
• Adopting strategies or developing new practices that lessen environmental impact
• Seeking continuous improvement in agricultural productivity across the entire supply chain   

These principles are far from being new concepts to Nebraska’s corn farmers who understand that “sustainability” is more than merely a marketing term.  As stewards of the land, sustainability is a necessity for farmers to meet the increasing food, fiber, and fuel needs of a growing world, while preserving resources for all uses and to be enjoyed by future generations.

While principles of sustainability are not new to farmers, there is always room to improve on what is already being done through new and innovative methods.  This is what researchers at the University of Nebraska – Lincoln (UNL) hope to achieve with Project SENSE.

Project SENSE, or Sensors for Efficient Nitrogen Use and Stewardship of the Environment, is a research project conducted by UNL in partnership with 5 Nebraska Natural Resource Districts (NRDs) and the Nebraska Corn Board.  Project SENSE seeks to increase nitrogen use efficiency in corn production and reduce environmental impact of nitrogen use on groundwater quality by utilizing crop canopy sensors. 

Nitrogen is one of the most important elements for plants, and successful nitrogen management is critically important in optimizing crop yields.  Although nitrogen is naturally found in air and soil, it’s generally in a form that is not directly available to most plants, or not available in the amount that plants need.  Farmers are able to get around this by applying the usable form of nitrogen (nitrate or ammonium) to their fields – an added input expense that doesn’t come without its challenges. 

Two of the biggest challenges a farmer faces are determining the timing of the nitrogen application and the rate to be applied.  Nitrogen applied too early holds the risk of being lost through leaching before the crop takes it up.  Leaching occurs because nitrate is not held well by soil and therefore can be washed below the root zone of plants especially after large rains.  The ideal time to apply nitrogen fertilizer is during the growing season, just before the crop’s maximum demand for nitrogen.  However, waiting too long to apply runs the risk of logistic or weather conditions not allowing application when planned.  In addition, due to nitrogen’s complex behavior of changing between forms and being highly mobile in soil, soil testing for available nitrogen may give a reading that is only valid at the time of testing, leading to application rate recommendations that may be too high or too low for the plant’s needs.    

A key component of Project SENSE is the use of crop canopy sensors to mitigate these challenges.  The sensors are installed on high clearance equipment which allows for application of nitrogen fertilizer during the growing season of corn when nitrogen is most needed and taken up by the plant.  The sensors themselves measure light reflectance off canopy leaves which correlates to the nitrogen status of the crop and is used to generate real-time optimal rates of nitrogen to be applied as the farmer drives through the field.

In terms of sustainability, the ability to apply the optimal amount of nitrogen at the right time clearly has the potential to lessen the environmental impact caused by nitrogen leaching.  However, Project SENSE also demonstrates an often overlooked component of sustainability – economic sustainability.  If a production practice can’t be sustained financially, it won’t be adopted by producers.  The use of sensors to generate the economic optimum rate aims to achieve stable or increased yields while also using less fertilizer, resulting in increased profit.   

In 2015, 17 Nebraska On-Farm Research Network grower sites were implemented as part of the project, and preliminary results are promising.  At each site, the study compared the grower’s normal nitrogen management approach to the Project SENSE nitrogen management approach.  Over all sites combined, Project SENSE resulted in a reduction of nitrogen by 40 lbs/ac compared to the grower’s nitrogen management approach.  Although an average yield loss of 5 bushels per acre was also observed with Project SENSE, the economic savings from the reduced nitrogen application translated to a marginal net return of $7.75 per acre above that achieved using the growers’ standard nitrogen management practices. 

Project SENSE does more than just demonstrate the potential for improved nitrogen use efficiency using sensor-based application, it also challenges farmers to think about nitrogen management differently and encourage the adoption of strategies that are both environmentally and economically beneficial.  In terms of seeking continuous improvement to enhance the sustainability in agriculture production, Project SENSE is one example of how corn checkoff funds are supporting research to meet the challenges faced by Nebraska‘s corn farmers.  

Watch the video below or click here for a 360 experience of Project SENSE from inside the applicator cab...
*Tilt or drag to move around!*

For more on Project SENSE and to see full results, visit Nebraska On-Farm Research Network at http://cropwatch.unl.edu/farmresearch

How to talk about Sustainability

In our culture’s evolving society, more communication avenues are emerging, allowing food-eaters to share about their food and desiring to know how it was raised. The ‘sustainability movement’ amongst consumers has caused a myriad of definitions of the term that farmers and ranchers have been ‘sustaining’ since the beginning of time.

The U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) has been conducting research on consumers’ perceptions of agriculture since 2011 in an effort to earn consumer trust in American food and agriculture. Along with conducting annual research, they aim to ensure the voices of farmers and ranchers are presented in influential conversations about food and agriculture where they can make a positive impact.

Sustainability and Consumer Perceptions

Most recently, USFRA’s research focused specifically about sustainability and consumer perceptions; conducting online interviews, surveying a total of 1,000 consumers. This perception survey provided benchmark results and explored opinions on farming and ranching based on two key types of consumers: general consumers and consumer food connectors. General consumers included: millennials; parents; non-parents; or general consumer population. Consumer food connectors included: educated consumers with a strong interest in politics and government policy; highly-engaged food influencer that others turn to for information about their food; make all household decisions and purchases related to food; or engaged in food advocacy activities.

When it comes to specifically talking about sustainability, USFRA found that terms like, “water, soil, air and habitat” resonate the most with both general consumers and consumer food connectors.

The 2016 Food and Health Survey, conducted by the International Food Information Council Foundation (IFIC), found that consumers consider sustainability more in their decisions to buy food and beverages than just a year ago, and seven in ten consumers think it is important that the food products are produced in a sustainable way. Both USFRA and IFIC’s surveys showed that agriculture’s impact on humans is always top of mind for consumers. They want to improve their health, as well as their families, through access to safe, nutritious food and want to have a positive impact on their local community.

But are consumers equating “producing nutritious, safe and high-quality food” to “sustainability”? Obvious enough, sustainability can mean different things to different people. USFRA found that consumers define sustainability with terms such as: environmentally responsible, integrity, ethical, accountable for actions, trustworthy, supporting local communities and social responsibility.

Even more interesting, half of the consumers polled with USFRA could not state what sustainability meant to them, although they say it is important. It needs to be farmers and ranchers responsibility to define sustainability for them.

Defining What We Do As Sustainable

Farmers and ranchers keep future generations top of mind. We love talking about being a third or fourth-generation farmer while bringing in the fifth generation. Doing more with less is part of being good stewards of the land. We talk about our sustainable practices, but we don’t always convey or define what we are doing is actually sustainability. Consumers, food connectors and media alike are hijacking this concept that food producers have been doing for hundreds of years and making it their own. Much of the language the agriculture industry uses today gives consumers unnecessary anxiety, simply because they don’t understand what it means. We have an opportunity to turn terms and phrases that are perceived as negative, into positives.

For example, when we talk about pesticides, explain that they prevent bugs and other pests from eating crops – that’s sustainable. By taking time to explain the term from our perspective, we will be squelching the negative perception in the food-eaters’ eyes.

Transparency Leads to Sustainability

Based on consumer perceptions, transparency is king when it comes to making food-purchasing decisions. Food connectors find it extremely important to know about where the food was grown or raised where price was the number one importance for general consumers.

To help tell this agriculture-sustainability story, USFRA recommends that farmers and ranchers:

• Keep in mind that sustainability is an inherent part of your business. Keep the future generations top of mind and communicate that doing more with less is part of being good stewards of the land. Sustainability means smart business practices.
• Make sustainability relatable. Communicate that you are making it better for the future versus defining success of the past. Connect your audience to who you are and not just what you do, and associate with shared values.
• Use language that resonates. Water, soil, air and habitat; improving the environment around my farm; limiting impact; improving human health; access to safe and nutritious food; efficient use of land; more with less; using new technologies – equipment and software; making business more profitable through sustainability; sustainable food is affordable food.

More than ever, now is the time to be transparent about what you do. People don’t need a checklist on each “hot issue.” But they do want relevant and true pieces of information about where their food comes from and where it was raised. Take advantage of opportunities to deliver factual information about how food was grown and raised across the supply chain, and share information whether it’s superior or not. Coffee shop conversations, church lunches, social media interactions – all of these venues will make an impact if you start telling your story and most importantly, relating it to sustainability.

Transparency Builds Trust

It’s simple: If you increase transparency, you will increase trust.

A new report from The Center for Food Integrity’s (CFI) proved this in when it comes to consumer trust in food. In CFI's latest research, A Clear View of Transparency and How it Builds Consumer Trust, provides proof that transparency builds trust and identifies the most effective practices for building consumer trust.

“Transparency works,” said Charlie Arnot, CFI CEO in a news release. “We have statistical data to show that increasing transparency in farming, food production and processing will increase consumer trust.”

This year’s research is the culmination of three years of work on the concept of increasing food system transparency. Consumers have been asking for greater transparency and there have been varying attempts to define it. CFI’s research not only defines it, but now provides a clear path to achieve it and address the growing skepticism about food.

An online survey of 2,000 people explored which attributes are most important to consumers when it comes to trust-building transparency – policies, practices, performance or verification.

The 2015 research focused on areas that are important to consumers:

• Impact of Food on Health 
• Food Safety
• Impact on the Environment
• Human/Labor Rights
• Treatment of Animals Raised for Food
• Business Ethics in Food Production

The report highlights the 2015 consumer trust research and some best practices that the food system can use as a guide for increasing transparency. The study also reveals who the public holds most responsible for demonstrating transparency, specific areas where they expect transparency, and precisely where consumers want to access information that is most important to them.

Discover more about what CFI is doing and how this research can help farmers reach consumers at FoodIntegrity.org and BestFoodFacts.org. 

Strategic Research Survey

In an effort to be more strategic in prioritizing the research funded by the Nebraska Corn Checkoff Program, the Nebraska Corn Board is asking for your assistance in identifying the issues that hold the most importance to Nebraska farmers.

As the first step in focusing research funding, the Board would like to ensure that no issues impacting your profitability have been overlooked – including opportunities for increasing demand.  Please take a moment to complete this anonymous survey by selecting the level of importance each issue has in terms of value to your farm and your profitability over the next 10 years.  The survey is only 11 questions and we expect it will take no more than 5 minutes to complete.

While our first priority is to hear from farmers, we welcome feedback from others with valuable input (e.g. crop consultants, extension educators, etc.).  To participate, please click on the following link:  

Nebraska Corn Board Research Strategy Survey

This survey will be open through Wednesday, September 30. The Nebraska Corn Board appreciates your assistance in helping us capture the greatest value from your checkoff investment in research.

“Local” trends in food, feed & fuel

The USDA really wants American consumers to buy local foods… but what do they mean by local?

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has made promoting locally grown and produced foods one of his top priorities since taking the helm of the department in 2009, dubbing it a pillar of rebuilding the rural economy. He’s mobilized staff, spent millions and rolled out new programs, all in the name of pushing local.

It’s worked: The number of farmers markets have more than doubled in the past decade. School districts are rushing to set up farm-to-school programs. Consumers are clamoring for locally produced products, ranking that in some surveys as a more important quality for their food than it being organic or grass fed.

The Economic Research Service (ERS) has done some research on local food systems. While there is no consensus about how to define "local food systems" in terms of the geographic distance between production and consumption, defining "local" based on marketing arrangements—such as farmers selling directly to consumers at regional farmers' markets or to schools—is well recognized.

ERS research on local food systems:

• explores alternative definitions of local foods,
• estimates market size and reach,
• describes characteristics of local consumers and producers,
• examines the economic and health impacts of local food systems, and
• studies how food environment factors—such as store/restaurant proximity, food prices, food and nutrition assistance programs, and community characteristics—interact to influence food choices and diet quality.

ERS recently hosted a webinar that provided an overview of Trends in U.S. Local and Regional Food Systems: A Report to Congress.

But how are conventional farmers viewing this moving trend to push “local” for their commodities? Most farmers in Nebraska take their crop to an elevator, livestock feedyard or ethanol plant. They can market their grain “locally”, but is this the same as labeling their crop and the end product as local? Here is what we can say about Nebraska corn:

 

Local food

Some of the corn that is grown in Nebraska is used right here in the state to make corn chips, tortillas and other corn-based products from food-grade corn. But much of it is shipped to another state which makes it a “domestic export”. California is the largest market for Nebraska corn, taking about 145 million bushels of Nebraska corn mostly for livestock and poultry last year (to make food!). Foreign sales make up about 6 percent of corn usage, with Mexico (via rail) being a top market.

So while some food products may be made out of state, yet with Nebraska corn, we think that is still pretty local!

Local feed

In Nebraska, livestock production is the engine that powers the state’s economy. It is a more than $7.5 billion industry that is fundamental to the well-being of Nebraska – and contributes in some way to the financial health of every Nebraskan. We’d say that is pretty local!

About 16 percent of the Nebraska’s corn crop is fed to livestock within Nebraska, with the bulk of that (more than 70 percent) going to beef cattle. See complete breakdown

In total, though, about 40 percent of the corn grown in Nebraska is fed to livestock somewhere in the United States or around the world. One-third of every bushel used in ethanol production (local fuel) comes back as distillers grain, an outstanding feed ingredient. Nebraska is the #1 feeding state in the nation with more than 5,000 feedyards willing to work with cow-calf producers interested in retaining ownership or partnering on their feeder cattle. They offer competitive feeding rations from the quality feedstuffs available in the state.

Local fuel

Over the last three decades, ethanol made from corn has become an important fuel in Nebraska and across the country. Biofuels like corn-based ethanol directly replace petroleum-based fuels – and they’re renewable. Ethanol is better for the environment, helps keep fuel dollars here at home and it supports rural communities because that’s where most ethanol is produced.

Nebraska ethanol plants have a capacity of more than 2.0 billion gallons – making Nebraska the second-largest ethanol producing state in the country.  They use about 700 million bushels of corn annually – and directly provide and support thousands of jobs. Since ethanol is made only from the starch in a kernel of corn, these corn ethanol plants also produce more than 6 million tons of distillers grains, a nutritious livestock feed from the remaining parts of the kernel, including protein and fat.

______________

So you see, the term “local” is subjective to each person, yet we hope that you remember all of the great products made from Nebraska corn and consider them “local” next time you are buying food, feed and fuel!

GM cattle could cure Ebola

Maybe the bad stigma of genetic modification will turn around if it will, in fact, save human lives?!

Well now there is that opportunity. On a farm outside Sioux Falls, South Dakota, a herd of cloned, genetically engineered cattle are busy incubating antibodies against the Ebola virus.

The hope that researchers have is that the cattle will produce gallons of blood plasma that could be used to treat people with the deadly virus, which has infected more than 21,000 people in West Africa and killed 8,500 of them.

In the NBC News article, president and CEO of SAb Biotherapeutics, the company that developed the cattle, Eddie Sullivan said that the catte produce very high levels of human antibody.

GM Cattle

The cattle have been genetically engineered with human DNA so that their bodies don't produce cattle antibodies but human antibodies. They're cloned to make a herd of genetically identical, part-human animals.

Then they are vaccinated against various deadly diseases such as Ebola. Their bodies produce antibodies in response to these vaccines, and the hope is these antibodies can be used to treat people with the diseases.

So why are they using cattle to fight Ebola?

Cattle make the project larger-scale. Each month, around 30 to 60 liters of plasma are collected per animal. That translates into something between 500 to 1,000 human doses per month per animal.
 
Read more here.

Podcast:Highlights of 2014

 In this podcast, Tim Scheer, chairman of the Nebraska Corn Board and farmer from St. Paul, Nebraska, reflects on a few of highlights of Nebraska Corn Board's activity throughout 2014.  From encouraging some 6,000 Nebraska farmers and ethanol advocates to submit comments to the EPA on their proposed changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard, to supporting the development of the "Raising Nebraska" exhibit at the Nebraska State Fair, to funding a new Presidential Chair faculty position at University of Nebraska-Lincoln that will focus on corn research, 2014 has been quite an eventful year for the Nebraska Corn Industry!

Now, click here to listen to the podcast.

Podcasts are also available on iTunes! Click here to subscribe.

Water: Making every drop count

Nebraska’s diverse landscape progresses from lush, fertile crop ground in the east to the temperate Sandhills in the west. This change in scenery is attributed in large part to differences in the amount of rainfall and the water available to grow a variety of crops. Thanks to innovative agricultural practices, Nebraska corn and soybean farmers are making every drop of water count.

Since rainfall varies so much across the state, many farmers depend on irrigation during the summer months to help supplement moisture deficiencies. To help put the variation into perspective, the amount of rainfall changes more from Omaha to Scottsbluff than it does from Washington D.C. to Omaha.

Water for Food

Three quarters of the planet is covered by water; but less than one percent of the water on earth is available for human use. Water is critically important to farmers and ranchers. In fact, 70 percent of the water available to humans worldwide is used to produce food. Nebraska farmers irrigate nearly 8.5 million acres, more than any other state in the country. And new tools are allowing farmers to use water more efficiently, ensuring clean water for future generations.

“We know that many consumers have questions about the water it takes to grow crops like corn and soybeans,” said Drew Guiney, consumer relations specialist for the Nebraska Soybean Board. “We want people to know that farmers need water, but they’re also dedicated to continuing to improve their practices to ensure a clean, plentiful supply for generations to come.”

 

Smart Water

The purpose of irrigation is to supplement rainfall as needed. Many farmers are now adopting technologies that allow them to use less water. By pulling local weather data and installing water sensors in their fields, farmers can know not only when it’s time to irrigate, but also exactly how much water should be applied. Sustainable technologies like these are helping farmers produce more grain while using fewer resources and helping to keep the water supply clean and plentiful for you and your family.

Some of these technologies include the SoyWater and CornWater Irrigation Management Tools released by University of Nebraska-Lincoln. These programs are online, real-time decision support tools that help farmers determine when to irrigate fields in Nebraska. Both programs were developed with the help of the Nebraska Soybean Board and the Nebraska Corn Board.

To make irrigation recommendations, these tools evaluate several situations in the real-time, such as available soil water at different soil depths and possible water stress based on up-to-date weather data. Other factors include user-input crop information (including date of planting, hybrid maturity, plant population), and basic soil properties (including soil texture, soil water status at planting time, soil rooting depth, and soil surface residue coverage rate).

“Just as farmers adopted the use of pivots and sub-surface drip versus flood irrigation to increase efficiencies, they are now taking the next steps in conservation tillage, water mark sensors, and online decision support tools to continue in their quest to maximize the amount of yield per drop”, stated Kelly Brunkhorst, executive director for the Nebraska Corn Board.  “Farmers see this adoption of technology as just a step in their sustainability of producing corn and soybeans for food, feed, fuel and fiber.”

Brazil Research Focused on Ethanol Efficiency

Nebraska Corn Board member Dennis Gengenbach of Smithfield, Nebraska, submits this post from the current fact-finding mission to Brazil:

Ethanol production in Brazil is significantly different from what we have in Nebraska.

The trip to the Brazilian Bioethanol & Science Laboratory was a learning experience. In the past, sugarcane was burned to remove the sharp leaves and leave the stalks behind, which contain the sugar. Because of environmental concerns, the Brazilian government banned burning and forced the growers to manually remove the leaves and cut the stems off to harvest the sugarcane—a monumental, labor-intensive process.

Mechanical equipment is being used in some areas; however, only one row of sugarcane is harvested at a time. One of the projects being conducted at the lab will develop a machine to accomplish the sugarcane harvest more than one row at a time.

After learning about the genomics and harvesting process, it was a fascinating experience to see sugarcane planting in the field. They have to till the dirt to prepare the soil. Without tilling the soil is too hard and the sugarcane root won’t be able to grow and nutrients can’t reach the plant.

They till about one meter or three feet down. It is also common practice to cover the sugarcane stalk that is planted in the ground (which becomes the plant) by hand with dirt. During planting, ash, lime, and phosphorus are applied. This is the only time nutrients are given to the plant. Although there may be a more efficient process of planting sugarcane, much of the work is done by hand.

The United States is much more advanced in farming practices and is continuously looking for ways to improve these practices. Although Brazil is advancing, it is at a much slower pace.

Tomorrow we are off to the largest sugarcane mill in Brazil. They harvest 800 million tons per year.

PHOTO ABOVE: Dennis Gengenbach of the Nebraska Corn Board (left) talks with representatives from the Bioethanol Science & Technology Laboratory in Brazil.

Attack of the Killer Tomatoes: A GMO story

Before genetic modification, the alkaloid levels in that tomato on your BLT could have killed you. And instead of corn on the cob, you’d be eating a handful of birdseed.

Genetic management and selective breeding have been used for centuries (Gregor Mendel and Luther Burbank, anyone?). Today, we’re just doing it better.

As farmers and ranchers work to meet the daunting challenge of feeding an exploding global population, they continue to grow more with less – less water, less land, less fertilizer and pesticides, and less impact on the environment.

Currently, genetically modified (GM) crops—also referred to as “biotechnology”—are an important part of a farmer’s portfolio. But they are not an end-all solution.

“The research we do is not an either-or proposition; it’s a continuum,” said Dr. Sally A. Mackenzie, the Ralph and Alice Raikes Professor in the department of agronomy and horticulture in biological sciences at the University of Nebraska—Lincoln. “We’re not able to predict what biotechnology will give us. It’s a tool in an increasingly robust toolbox.”

Genetic modification

Dr. Mackenzie says that genetic modification simply refers to human intervention to create a different genetic combination to create a desired outcome.

“We’re using transgenes to create gene combinations that result in diversity and enhanced performance. The outcomes rely on the genes themselves and how they are expressed within the plants.” This same concept is being used in animal research and in human health research for cancer and other diseases
.
Researchers are focused on helping plants overcome stresses, challenges and inhibitors that keep them from achieving their full genetic potential. Epigenetics is one emerging technology that involves temporarily adding a transgene to a plant and then removing it—while leaving the effects of that transgene intact within the plant. This can lead to more vigorous plants, more biomass and more production.

“With epigenetics, what you eat is not transgenic, but transgene technologies were used to affect the performance of the plant,” Dr. Mackenzie said.

“There has not been a single documented case of a food allergy or human health situation due to crop biotechnology.”

Researchers are also looking at the microbes the plants live with, which dramatically impact the way a plant uses water and nitrogen, and interacts with pathogens. This approach doesn’t change the genetic complexion of the plant, but instead strives to better understand and manage the environment around the plant to optimize its performance.

“GM foods unsafe” is a scare tactic.

Dr. Mackenzie says that assertions that GM foods are unsafe is a distortion of the truth— and in many cases, is a scare tactic used by special interest groups to gain financial support and media attention. “There has not been a single documented case of a food allergy or human health situation due to crop biotechnology,” Dr. Mackenzie added. “It has never been unsafe or unhealthful. When we see distortions of the truth, the first place we should look is at who is benefitting from this misinformation.”

When asked about concerns about insects and weeds becoming resistant to GM crops, she asserts that this concern cannot be placed at the doorstep of biotechnology.

“There is nothing about GM technology that causes weeds to become tolerant to herbicides, just as there is nothing inherent in our medical system that makes us more resistant to antibiotics,” she said. “Just as any doctor needs to be responsible in prescribing medications, farmers need to be careful stewards of their crops—regardless if they are growing GM or non-GM varieties.”

Dr. Mackenzie said that genetics have long been part of agriculture. For example, the original corn was much like birdseed—and the alkaloid levels in the original tomato would be fatal to humans. Ruby red grapefruit is sweeter because gamma radiation was used to mutate the genes to express themselves in that manner.

This is what feeds us.

“Carrots, wheat, corn—Mother Nature never meant for us to eat any of them. Plants resist being eaten,” Dr. Mackenzie said. “All the crops we eat are essentially manmade through conventional breeding. This is what feeds us. Today we’re more precise and we can better manage change thanks to advancements in knowledge and technology.”

“Transgene plants will be part of our future; they must be, “ Dr. Mackenzie said. “Our problems are so challenging, so daunting that we don’t have the luxury to depend on alternatives that are less sustainable or less productive.

“If we’re going to meet global food demand over the next 30 years, we need to pull out all the stops. This is our generation’s equivalent of the putting a man on the moon.”

View Dr. Mackenzie’s presentation as part of the UNL Heuermann Lecture Series.

2013: A new year, a fresh outlook

By Kelly Brunkhorst, director of research for the Nebraska Corn Board
As printed in the Midwest Producer

As we move into 2013, there unfortunately is a lingering issue from 2012 that will not let go: the drought.

Although the latest U.S. Drought Monitor indicates an easing of the drought in portions of the eastern Corn Belt, it seems to be gaining a greater hold on the western Corn Belt. Nearly 99 percent of High Plains is in at least one category of drought, with 26 percent rated as exceptional, the highest drought intensity rating. Additionally, we are heading into the time of year when these areas don't gain much moisture going into the spring months.

Soil moisture conditions in the High Plains remain below normal, as the 2012 year crops had to use this moisture because of the lack of rainfall.

In addition, the current winter wheat crop has shown a steady decline in crop condition ratings, with the percent of crop rated good or excellent at the lowest point since 1985, according to the National Ag Statistics Service. Many farmers wonder how well the crop will endure an average winter.

The drought certainly doesn't provide the best background looking ahead to 2013, but included below are some thoughts in a few area.

Acres/Production
Because all major crops having tight stocks ratios, the competition between different crops for planted acres will again be difficult as we leap into 2013. Over the past five years, corn and soybeans have gained 12.4 million acres, and these two crops will lead the battle for acres into spring planting. Yet with a lingering drought, farmers have to balance questions on soil moisture conditions, water availability, input costs, potential revenue and crop insurance. Add to this that industry consultants have started talk of up to 25 percent of the winter wheat acres could be abandoned.

If soil moisture conditions remain low, irrigation and rainfall will be even more important in 2013, not only in quantity, but also timing.

Domestic Demand
Not only has the drought affected this past year's crop production and the winter wheat outlook, but it has had an effect on domestic demand, specifically from the livestock sector.

With the drought in the second year in parts of the Southern Plains and having a strong hold on the High Plains, the loss of forage and dry pasture conditions have led beef producers to begin or continue culling cows, reducing the overall herd size. For dairy, swine and poultry producers, the higher costs of feedstuffs has also reduced herd sizes.

The biofuels industry has also seen continued tight margins from higher feedstock costs and lower prices for their products. This has led to longer maintenance shutdowns and idling of several plants across the country, reducing the demand of grains within the biofuels sector, but also reducing the output of distillers grains, an excellent feed ingredient for the livestock industry.

Exports
This year's drought has also had an impact of the domestic and international movement of grains through the U.S. waterways. Specifically, the low water levels in the Mississippi River has caused repeated restrictions and dredging to keep navigation open to barge traffic. Most recently, the lower releases of water from Gavin's Point Dam is reducing water levels around St. Louis, causing rock pinnacles to restrict traffic. Longer term, this could continue to restrict movement of U.S. commodities down the Mississippi River, backing up grains into the Midwest in early 2013, with the hope that snowmelt and spring rains will increase water levels.

There are positives out there! This past year, three free trade agreements became law that removed some tariffs and restrictions immediately within Columbia, South Korea and Panama for grains and value added products such as beef and pork. Other tariffs will be reduced over time. These agreements allow U.S. exports to compete more evenly in these countries with competitors that had agreements in place prior to the U.S.

Major export destinations such as China have shown no slowdown in their demand for grains and oilseeds, especially U.S. soybeans. This past year, China's imports of U.S. soybeans were equivalent to the production off of two-thirds of the acres harvested.

With the reduction in supply, corn exports have been down. The industry looks for exports to return providing production returns to more normal levels in 2013. Smaller exports from the U.S. has led to increased competition from countries across the globe, especially Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Europe and the Ukraine.

Corn chips – no crunch, bigger yields

Corn kernels with a 'chip' removed. Newer methods
require even smaller slices of the seed corn.

By analyzing a sliver – chip – of a corn seed, plant researchers can discover if it has the right genetics and yield potential before it ever goes on to the next phase of research.

Automated tools remove the chip, which while tiny, is big enough for researchers to analyze for the right genetic markers. If tests on the chip show it has potential, the seed moves forward and is planted in the next phase of research.

Removing a chip does not damage the corn kernel’s ability to grow but it saves considerable research time by eliminating seeds from the program without having to plant, grow and harvest the next generation.

With this sort of enhanced molecular breeding, the odds of finding the right combination of higher yield genes is one in five, compared with two in one trillion in conventional breeding!

Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois Corn Visit Texas Customers

By Kelly Brunkhorst, Director of Research for the Nebraska Corn Board

Growers from the corn boards of Nebraska, Iowa and Illinois recently traveled to Texas to visit with customers and see firsthand the effects of the recent drought. Meetings with associations such as the Texas Cattle Feeders Association and Texas Corn Growers Association provided a great overview of the lingering effects that the 2011 drought has had on cattle numbers and corn production, along with issues that they are addressing on behalf of there membership.

Texas has always been an important customer to these three states due to their large cattle on feed numbers and corn demand that relies on out of state imports. In fact, if the corn produced in the panhandle area of Texas was used consecutively and not spread throughout the year, it would only last 2-3 months. We were able to visit with companies that import corn such as Gavilon and Sunray Coop and those that market distillers grains like Quality Distillers Grain, out of Hereford, TX to those end users such as Cactus Feeders.

Additionally with the drought situation we were able to meet with the North Plains Groundwater Conservation District that is tasked with monitoring and conserving ground water.

So following our meetings what were our take home points. Well no doubt, this area and the demand that it creates are an important market that we want to keep due to the strong use of corn in livestock and ethanol. The Midwest has a great infrastructure that is able to rail corn from the many elevators into this area and having this consistent supply is important to these customers. But the drought has had an impact. Corn production was down by 50-60 percent, many cows were culled, with some sent to the northern pastures of Nebraska since the grass never produced the forage that they need. This has created tight supplies of feeder cattle that will last a while.

But the area continues to be proactive and look to the future. The groundwater district is looking at research into what they call a 200-12 project. The goal is to produce 200 bushel per acre corn on just 12 inches of groundwater through conservation tillage, precision water application and other conservation practices. Research is also being done by cattle producers of maintaining cows and replacement heifers in lots versus range to build the herd back up. This all continues to provide opportunities and demand for corn whether it is as a kernel or in the form of distillers grains.

It was amazing to see the difference across two parts of this great nation this past year. On one hand we see the lingering effects of flooding along the Missouri River and on the opposite, the severe drought in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and other states.

Thanks to bigger yields, irrigated corn is more energy efficient

Irrigated corn in Nebraska is highly efficient in the use of energy, water and fertilizer, as the increase in yields more than offset the energy costs of inputs, according to researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

The research paper "High-yield maize with large net energy yield and small global warming intensity," was published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. You can view the abstract and view the entire paper here.

The paper was co-authored by Ken Cassman, a UNL agronomist, and Patricio Grassini, a UNL research professor in agronomy and horticulture.

As noted in North Platte Bulletin (click here for the article), the research shows that modern, irrigated, high-input agriculture, even though it uses more fossil fuels than rainfed systems, also produces much higher crop yields. The perception of irrigated agriculture as "energy wasteful" fails to take into account crop-management changes in recent decades that have increased yields without more fertilizer or irrigation, Cassman said in the paper.

"In fact, we found that irrigated corn had substantially larger net energy yield and less greenhouse gas emissions per unit of grain produced than corn from rainfed systems with much smaller input levels and lower yields," Grassini told the paper.

Research findings are based on several years' field data collected from a large number of commercial production fields in Nebraska.

In the Wisconsin Ag Connection (click here), Grassini said that it's important to assess energy efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of cropping systems on a yield basis, not a land-area basis. For example, it may be possible to achieve a large decrease in GHG emissions in the three Nebraska counties included in the study by converting irrigated cropland into rainfed-only agriculture, but to make up for the estimated 50 percent decrease in grain yield would require an additional 308,000 acres of rainfed corn production.

"Thus, it is penny-wise and pound foolish to convert irrigated agriculture back to dryland production for the sake of reducing greenhouse gas emissions," Grassini told the publication.

"At some point, in a world with limited resources and confronted with emerging challenges such as climate change and limited supplies of fresh water, understanding how all of the world's agriculture performs in terms of net energy yield, greenhouse gas emissions intensity and water and nitrogen productivity is going to be important," Cassman said. "This paper sets standards on how you can do that using real-world farm data."

Yet progress can still be made – as farmers continuously adopt improved management practices, adopt advanced irrigation systems, take advantage of conservation tillage practices, utilize improved hybrids and fine-tune applications of nitrogen fertilizer and irrigation water. (It's sustaining innovation!)

---------
Cassman, if you recall, published some research in 2009 that examined modern production methods for corn and ethanol – and the results were impressive. One of the best points of that work (see the links below) was that between 10 and 19 gallons of ethanol are produced for each gallon of petroleum used in the entire corn to ethanol production life cycle.

Some have a hard time grasping this – especially after doing a Google search and coming up with some very (very!) dated work by Pimentel that continues, despite being out of date and inaccurate by today's standard, to be repeated by the anti-ethanol crowd.

• University report slams corn ethanol myths
• Ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions, oil use

Growing more with less, someone else sharing your story

It’s always great when we see others out there sharing the importance of agriculture, and in this instance – helping to tell our Sustaining Innovation message that Nebraska farmers are growing more corn using less resources!

Recently the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a report on fertilizer use and prices for corn across the US. This report is the result of the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) jointly conducted in 2010 by the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) and USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). ARMS data used to be collected annually for corn, but has been collected less frequently since 2001.The last ARMS data for corn prior to 2010 was in 2005. This information, coupled with data on crop production in Nebraska from the Nebraska State Agricultural Statistic Service, provides an opportunity to explore how efficiently Nebraska farmers are using nitrogen (N) fertilizer for corn production.

Figure 1 illustrates the average N rate for corn in Nebraska as reported in ARMS data. This illustrates that the average rate of N fertilizer has remained basically unchanged for the past 40 years – around 140 lb N/acre. At the same time, corn production has seen a steady, linear increase in Nebraska over the same period (Figure 2).



When these two datasets are combined, the resulting trend in nitrogen use efficiency, expressed as pounds of N fertilizer applied to produce a bushel of corn, is illustrated in Figure 3.


In 2010, this value was 0.84 lb fertilizer N per bushel of corn. This compares to an average value of 1.5 to 1.6 lb fertilizer N per bushel of corn in the 1970s – about twice the N fertilizer currently used per bushel. This data does not indicate that a bushel of corn requires only 0.84 lb N. There are other sources of N besides fertilizer available to the crop – mineralized soil organic matter, residual nitrate from previous fertilization, legume and manure credits, for example – which contribute to the total N need for a corn crop of 1.1 – 1.2 lb N/bu. This data does indicate that Nebraska farmers are using nitrogen fertilizer much more efficiently now than they were 30-40 years ago.
 
They accomplish this using a wide range of practices – accounting for all sources of N available to the crop besides N fertilizer, as indicated above, as well as efficiency-boosting practices such as sidedressing, fertigation, use of nitrification and urease inhibitors, use of slow release formulations, setting realistic yield goals, and efficient irrigation management.

University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) guidelines on fertilizer use are available in the publication Fertilizer Suggestions for Corn (EC 117). Specific recommendations for fields using soil test information and cropping history can be calculated using the web resource SoilTest Nebraska (soiltest.unl.edu). Since 2005, UNL has provided economic adjustments to N fertilizer recommendations based on the relationship of crop and fertilizer N prices.


Figure 4 illustrates trends in the ratio of corn to N price over the past 50 years. The peak in this relationship occurred in the 1970’s, when fertilizer was quite inexpensive compared to the price of corn. In 2010, even though fertilizer prices seemed high, the value of the crop – on average – was even higher, resulting in a price ratio of 17:1. To avoid either deficient or excessive rates of N application, the price ratio range in UNL N recommendations for corn is confined between 4:1 and 10:1. To optimize profit, producers will want to use economic factors specific to their own situation; in general 2011 N rates should have been slightly higher than in recent years.

References: Richard B. Ferguson, UNL Extension Soils Specialist and UNL CropWatch

Nebraska dairy cows love Nebraska corn

What better way to celebrate June being Dairy Month than by having a nice, cold glass of milk! Thanks to the many hard working and dedicated dairy farmers and families, we are able to get our nutrition from a number of dairy products, including milks, cheeses, yogurts, and much more!

Here in Nebraska, there are 230 dairy farms that are producing milk for consumers located in the state, U.S., and around the world! On average, a dairy cow can produce 6.4 gallons of milk a day, which ends up being 2,325 gallons in a typical year.

Now, there are a lot of things that attribute to this large output of milk, such as Nebraska’s resources. These resources include feed, land, water, labor, and most of all, Nebraska’s quality of life. When looking at feed, Nebraska has an abundant supply of high quality feed: corn!

Another abundant feed source from Nebraska being used in the dairy industry is the corn-ethanol co-product, distillers grains. On average, a dairy cow can consume roughly five or more pounds of dried distillers grains a day.

The Nebraska Corn Board has partnered with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to complete research on feeding dairy cows dried distillers grains and how it affects milk production. According to the research, dried distillers grains does not have a negative impact on milk production as long as the dairy cows are being fed a balanced diet. One benefit of distillers grains is that it provides dairy cows the necessary fiber. This fiber helps the cows have a better digestive system, which in turn helps keep the animal healthy.

Check out this video to learn more about Nebraska dairies and how Nebraska corn is helping provide these nutritious milk products.


Find more about feeding dairy cows corn coproducts here.

Read similar posts on feeding distillers grains here.

Cooking pork is cooler than ever

When you order a pork chop from a nice restaurant, they don’t ask how you want it cooked.

But that has changed as pork producers across the nation are welcoming the news that the USDA has officially lowered the recommended cooking temperature for pork to 145 degrees Fahrenheit, followed by a three-minute rest time before you cut it. This means pork will now be held to the same standard as the other red meats: beef, veal and lamb.

How did this come about? The new recommendation evolved from a 2007 Pork Checkoff-funded research project conducted by Ohio State University to measure consumer eating preferences. As part of that project the university researchers tested how various end-cooking temperatures affected eating preferences. But the researchers needed to know if temperatures below 160 degrees would be safe if that turned out to be consumers' preference.

That question resulted in a Checkoff-funded research project to conduct a risk assessment to evaluate any food-safety implications of cooking temperatures within a range of 145-160 degrees Fahrenheit.

The risk assessment found that cooking pork to an internal temperature of 145 degrees was equivalent to cooking pork to 160 degrees. Checkoff-funded research conducted by Texas A&M supports the fact that meat temperature continues to rise after being removed from the heat and the reality that "resting time" between cooking and eating is at least that long. Therefore, USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) agreed that the cooking temperature for pork could be lowered.

"Our consumer research has consistently shown that Americans have a tendency to overcook common cuts of pork, resulting in a less-than-optimal eating experience," said Dianne Bettin, a pork producer from Truman, Minn., and chair of the Checkoff's Domestic Marketing Committee. "The new guidelines will help consumers enjoy pork at its most flavorful, juicy - and safe - temperature."

The revised recommendation applies to pork whole-muscle cuts, such as loin, chops and roasts. Ground pork, like all ground meat, should be cooked to 160 degrees Fahrenheit. Regardless of cut or cooking method, both the USDA and National Pork Board recommend using a digital cooking thermometer to ensure an accurate final temperature.

"It's great news that home cooks can now feel confident to enjoy medium-rare pork, like they do with other meats," said Guy Fieri, a chef, restaurateur and host of several food-focused television programs. "Pork cooked to this temperature will be juicy and tender. The foodservice industry has been following this pork cooking standard for nearly 10 years."

The new recommendation reflects advances in both food safety and nutritional content of pork in recent years. On average, most common cuts of pork are 16 percent leaner than 20 years ago, and saturated fat has dropped 27 percent. In fact, pork tenderloin is now as lean as the leanest type of chicken - a skinless chicken breast.

Additional information about cooking pork, including recipes, is available at PorkBeInspired.com, or Facebook.com/PorkBeInspired.