My simple system of counting pods/bean fill can normally get me within 5% of the actual yield. I just go to in the worst and best area of a Soybean field. Then count beans per plant make WAG on stand and use 3000-3300 seed per lb. Works for the information I'm after. So I understand how the USDA's more Robust system can get the numbers they are after. Your in site into both these systems has been informative.

One national number will always be erroneous. What matters is what they think is in the bins at the end of the marketing year and even that varies. Corn is so big and the nation is so huge you cannot put one number on it. Try as we do, we can't do it. This number is lower than expected and the market senses it.

I see the same thing here but don't know why. It will be interesting to see how SDS and its effects are analyzed this winter.

Does the headlands boarder a white rock road? I have seen fields where most of the field is infected, but along the roadway where there is a lot of drift from the stone dust there is no SDS. If you have proper nutrient balance, with lots of available calcium you will see reduced diseases in crops.

Interesting quandary indeed. The headlands were a road when they built the dike and hauled in field dirt from the Loess Hills above Council Bluffs. When the dike was done, the added ripped the soil and added fill dirt on top. So they might have had white rock there at one time that might have an influence. Good catch!

In an email from XB Yang at ISU, he said that the white dust from roadsides how no effect on conferring immunity againt SDS in to soybean plants

Immune response is a very complex phenomenon and one which Don Huber has inadvertently had to come to terms with because of his work with nitrogen fertilization regimes and glyphosate residue mineral chelation potential. See if Don has a comment or two to pass along. I first began to see serious SDS in southern IN in the late 90's. It was invariably associated with fields that had shown a history of manganese flash from a glyphosate application. Because of the ubiquitousness of glyphosate and its now much better understood impact on mineral nutrition to the rhizosphere and hence the plants themselves (esp GM varieties) I am prone to think road dust high in Calcium could have a profound impact of the incidence of SDS. We have a growing list of growers who are routinely passed over on SDS and it is increasingly apparent it has a good deal to deal with enhanced mineral nutrition to the plant esp. early in life. The key to immunity is amino acid production in rhizosphere and plant tissue (Huber et.al.). Anything, including unamended low soil levels, that upsets the available sources of minerals for the creation of the AA's is very apt to be intimately involved. It's analogous to human degenerative diseases, most if not all associated with mineral nutrition or the lack thereof.

Jim I believe you’re on the right track, in fact Dr. Don Huber will be in Osage, IA on the 7th of September, Deer Grove, ILL on the 8th of September, and Stockton, IA on the 10th of September. www.fhrfarms1.com (to get more information). We are testing a product on Keith Schlapkohl farm on the 10th we will cover the effects on Guss’s wilt, and SDS through the use of nutrition, and surface environment change as well. Jeff Littrell

Try to teach that one! It varies so much field to field it is hard to put a handle on it here. I saw Rick's pictures of slime around the root in the rhizosphere but it dried up in the lack of rain and excess heat. There is so much going on in that area it is difficult to figure out what caused what but yes we can make general statements where we can isolate it.

Interesting observations. The literature on nitrogen uptake of nitrogen show that most of the nitrogen that the corn plant takes up is from is from the soil, not the applied N. When we have high rainfall early in the season we can lose much of the nitrogen that is applied through the process of denitrification. Water logged soils also decrease mineralization, when the soils are water logged, but mineralization will increase as the soils dry. From nitrate sample this summer we see that when the corn plants were determining the number of rows and the length of the rows there was plenty of nitrate being released in the upper 24 inches of soil. I believe that good grain fill has more to do with good rainfall and mineralization. Wetting drying cycles are shown to increase mineralization. If a crop is hurt by to much water as we have seen this year in Illinois and Iowa it will never "catch up" but areas not hurt by water should be able to have near normal fill if the soil has a decent potential to mineralize nitrogen.

I see this also. I can't pull enough ears to check where it is and where it isn't, it varies so much to soil type and other factors. The yield monitor results and the study of them will also be interesting. The N deficient corn looked horrible for a time but the ear counts and weights are not that different to say N deficiency early cost a lot of money. It varies greatly but I also see the effect.

My experience with soil N testing has been the most predictive when I take samples in 7 inch increments to 21 inches and then compare to presence of root mass at each plateau (highly subject but well worth the "effort" in my experience. The best example was on 1300 acres of corn in a C/B rotation with poultry liter, some of which was incorporated in the top inch and some not at all. Soil Doctor programmed for 180 bu using .9#N/bu. Average sidedress with the Doctor was 55# which ranged from as low as we could set and still be pumping or 20#/acre up to 160. Actually scaled dry corn yield was 179. In this particular case roots UNIFORMLY abundant at all levels to more than two feet in depth so credited the crop with 100% of N found. BINGO!

Central Illinois Corn harvest is kicking off. Record heating degree days, and untimely and inadequate moisture has forced maturity and caused smaller ears (16 rows of 34 kernals) and thus a 15-25 % lower yield. Good stand of 32K plants per acre, but small ears with small kernals. Avg yield using 90K kernals per bushel = 193 bu/acre. This land normally yields 250-270 bu/acre. Harvest moisture is coming in at 18% today. By the time the heat of 90+ degrees takes a point to a point and a half moisture per day, the corn should be less than 12% moisture in a week, thus destroying the yield even more. Big farmers will be near 10% moisture in 10 days. Even with combines moving round the clock - which is not possible due to hauling the crop to storage, the corn will dry down too quickly. Shrink of 1.28 (U of ILL) per point of moisture. 12% corn shrinks the yield another 38 bu per 1000 dry bu. In other words - the world loses 7 to 8 more bu per acre to dehydration of the corn. It will significantly affect final overall yield. I think this record yield is not going to manifest. Not even close. Any thoughts on this subject will be greatly appreciated.

Doesn't look like there will be any harvest nightmares in Illinois this fall other than trying to get the corn out before it dries down to 10 percent. This is totally opposite than a year ago, other than lines at elevators running long and slow.

I will not trade this year for last years harvest any time. We didn't start on soybeans until 11/1/09 and finished corn 30 some days later. This year at least we will have higher test weight and corn that will store for more than 6 months. We will be in the fields within 3 weeks in Southern MN and we will have time to plant a cover crop! I will take a yield hit every year if I can start harvestng in mid sept!

This whole growing season has been ahead of schedule with the almost record heat all summer across the midwest. I keep reading those early Illinois reports and get itchy to get started. Our earliest was planted in April, in fact almost all of it was and we could shell now. We have hestitated since we don't have a big dryer and the forecast is for good conditions but Michael's post makes us all aware we better be ready and now. I imagine a lot of lime, tile and cover crops will be put in place this fall amongst a lot of tillage.

Good reminder, Daniel. The point is many seeds were infected at germination because most of the major soybean area was saturated at emergence. We had less replanting than I expected this spring but just enough heat to emgerge all these plants that became infected and now show it. It is going to be interesting to see how this disease affects this years crop and how it progresses in the future. The inoculum has spread.

I'm wondering if some of the manganese deficiency we see in these soybeans is attributable to some kind of root problem caused by a fungus that infects the seedling soybeans. I planted a field of RR/STS tolerant soybeans on a field that has shown manganese deficiency for the last 4-5 soybean plantings...(8-12 years). I put a test plot in the middle of the field where I sprayed half a boom width of Glyphosate as a burn down..and half a boom width of Gramoxone as a burn down. There was also metribuzin and 2,4-D ester put on with each burn down application. When I sprayed the field...I put Sychrony, First Rate...and some Arrow (generic Select) on the entire field...and came back and sprayed two of the test strips with foliar applied manganese to see if it would help with the manganese deficiency symptoms....as it looks right now...I can't seen a darn bit of difference in any of the strips. I had hoped that the Gramoxone treated strips with no post emerge glyphosate would not show a deficiency...but they have just as much chlorosis between the veins in the leaf as the rest of the field. Might take a yield check to find anything.

Dave, doubt that you'll see any difference. I tried test strips with manganese last year with post-emergence glyphosate last year and could discern a difference in appearance or in yield. I'm curious, but skeptical of foliar fertilizer applications. I haven't seen the proof in my own fields. But I have seen a yield increase by either eliminating glyphosate altogether, or avoiding late season spraying and tolerating a few weeds. I used to add a little glyphosate if we had to spray for aphids in July and there were a few late weeds or escapes that I wanted to get. But absolutly saw a yield difference from where I sprayed herbicide during blooming to where no herbicide was added. Now I don't spray glyphosate after 2-3rd week in June at the latest.

Sorry, should have proof-read. I meant to say "couldn't discern a difference in appearance or yield.

I farm ten miles north of I-40 in central west TN and the SRW I will plant this fall will follow either no-till cotton or no-till soybeans. I have never been satisfied with my no-till wheat yields following no-till corn. I have always achieved my best stand of no-till wheat following cotton and I attribute that to the paucity of residue after mowing the cotton stalks.

Most of Ohio will be notill wheat into notill soybeans. That is a pretty easy rotation to follow. The grass legume rotation does have advantages but I have planted notill wheat into notill corn, it just takes more nitrogen and disease management. With the four classes of wheat and where they are grown I know this rotation varies greatly across the country.

Planting winter wheat on cotton makes a lot of sense where it is grown. And with the increase in cotton acres, that will increase potential for that to happen. Cotton farmers that increased acres are being rewarded!

No-till wheat, Ed, makes me nervous for the cause of vomitoxin accumulations. Not much question that the problem is linked to glyphosate residues in soil. Typical preferential rooting in no-till finds wheat rooting in the worst possible places for keeping the plant healthy... root channels feature increased pathogen concentrations, highest glyphosate and AMPA loads, lowest mineral availability, lowest level of beneficial mychorrizal fungi and bacteria. Curse-Buster to the rescue, Ed. Will soon publish the test results of glyphosate/AMPA residue tests performed less than 30 days after application to haycrop forage sod killed in late September with one quart. You've already guessed... ND!!

Did the study mention that pressure aeration creates heat, with friction of the blades and air, the motor(in axial flow fans), and pressurization itself generates heat. Whilst suction aeration does the opposite creating a low pressure vacuum under the grain mass which will lower the temp of the air, and you also don't have any of the motor heat pushed into the bin. It would be a shame if all these Ph'ds didn't think of something as simple as that. BTW, due to widespread mold issues that many of us had this summer in stored corn, is there a greater chance for mold in subsequent years in those bins?

Craig - you make a very good point and heat is good when you are drying grain but bad when it promotes insect growth. At least in the USDA press release they never mentioned how pressure creates heat which creates a better environment for bugs.

Dan I think I saw anything about Fuss,s wilt which seem to be very high ? Jeff littrell

Jeff - for diseases in corn I saw a little grey leaf spot and northern corn leaf blight in southwest Iowa but nothing else anywhere else and no Goss's Wilt which is now more common. The general consensus for the western tour is that the corn was pretty clean and that is what I found.

First sentence, you are so much better connected now and you have worked hard to build that connection! SDS infected roots here in our wet May so what you see is what you get. I don't see it spreading in my earliest beans. It will take some yield but it shows me I pushed that variety to the limit in my case. Iowa sounds different, just total saturation. Still there are differences. I am wondering if SDS is reminding us of anything that causes root compaction or disease just from our management practices. Some want to blame glyphosate totally for these root diseases and lack of uptake of nutrients but as usual, it is a compilation of problems that cause the symptoms which reduces the yield. I will be comparing non GMO yields and use of glyphosate to RR yields.

SDS will be devastating for some farmers for sure because whole fields will be infected. However beans maturing quickly and already in R6 or R6.5 so even with foliage and plants dying there are beans in the pods so it won't be a total loss and those fields can be harvested early.

There is a place for ear corn. The seed corn industry and the people who value ear corn at the feeding level like we see in Pennsylvania and a few other sparse areas but it isn't the norm. I miss ear corn but I don't either.

Here's your best way to harvest corn if you want to collect and sell cobs. Pick it in the ear, and have a portable threshing machine mounted on a semi trailer(how about a older 7720 or such machine who's drive train is shot). have the clean grain augered into grain trailers or carts, and the cobs conveyed onto a pile, and...viola. Wouldn't be able to make those fancy yield maps though. If I had a serious market for cobs in my area, I'd certainly give it some thought. Might even be able to lease the dump trailers from a seed corn producer, they are certainly done with their harvest by then.

THERE ARE SOME OLD NEW IDEA TWO ROW PICKERS FOR COBS THE PICKER GRINDER THAT DOES THE SAME AS THE COMBINE ABOVE. ONLY THIS UNIT WILL COST 2 TO 3 THOUSAND DALLORS AND WITH A SMALL FLEET OF GRAVITY WAGONS YOUR GOOD TO GO. ONLY REAL PROBLEM IS IT DOES 2 ROWS AT A TIME. BUT HOW MANY ACRES ARE YOU DOING.

Scouting has been really difficult this year Daniel. Really wild growing conditions and resulting crop conditions and trying to stay human to evaluate them. The young bucks have a leg up on us but we have the knowledge and experience and hopefully the wisdom! The only thing I lost was a lot of top end yield these last 60 days and without the showers it would have been more. I sure learned a lot but not sure how I will use the learning.

Grab the spade or the backhoe, Ed, and start to examine those root... without bias. ALWAYS remember that root is closely associated with or highly predictive of capillary water movement upward through the soil to the root mass. Equal to "lack" of water is the lack of CO2 released from the soil rhizosphere. In fact carbon may prove to trump H2O as the limiter esp. in the no-till environment without slow-soaker rain events.