|
|
|
|
September 9, 2022
In This Edition:
|
|
Notes from Pennington
Planting the 2023 winter wheat crop
By Dennis Pennington, MSU wheat systems specialist pennin34@msu.edu
Martin Nagelkirk, retired MSU wheat educator
Dr. Manni Singh
Much of wheat’s yield potential is determined at planting. To attain top yields, timely planting coupled with appropriate seeding practices can be critical for ensuring an even and uniform stand. Portions of this article come from the 2021-2022 precision planting research by Dr. Singh and Dennis Pennington, funded by the Michigan Wheat Program.
Planting preparations
Achieving top yields requires a uniform stand of healthy seedlings. This depends on seeds being dropped as evenly as possible and at a uniform depth. Good seed placement, in turn, requires that fields are appropriately prepped, and planting equipment receive disciplined inspection, necessary adjustments and deliberate calibrations.
Tillage systems
Wheat establishment can be successful under conventional, minimum tillage and no-till systems. Generally speaking, no-till has won favor in recent years. It tends to result in more unevenness in the stand, but it can often provide improved moisture retention and less susceptibility to cold temperature damage.
Tillage, even at a minimal level, can be helpful in distributing and incorporating residue, fertilizer and lime; and creates a more uniform seedbed. Tillage can also be useful when attempting to reduce disease inoculum borne in crop residue (e.g., corn stubble or stalks infected with Fusarium).
Seeding date
Ideally, winter wheat is planted while the soil and air temperatures are still warm, to ensure that seedlings can emerge quickly and in plenty of time to develop a couple of tillers and a strong root system. In a recent study conducted by MSU Extension, yield loss of about 0.6 bu./acre per day occurs when planting after October 1.
While the Hessian fly no longer poses a significant threat to wheat in Michigan, the fly-free-date is still a useful reference (Table 1). The standard fly-free-date is during the first week of September in the northern Lower Peninsula, around mid- September in mid-state areas and approximately the third or fourth week of September for Southern Michigan.
The highest wheat yields are often attained when seedlings emerge within two weeks following the posted fly-free-date, assuming heat unit accumulation is near normal in October and November. When wheat is planted within a few days of the fly-free-date, seeding rates and fall-applied nitrogen rates should be significantly reduced to avoid excessive growth.
The goal is to plant early enough to achieve 2-3 tillers produced prior to the winter vernalization period.
| Table 1: Hessian fly-free-dates for Michigan |
| County |
Sept. |
County |
Sept. |
County |
Sept. |
County |
Sept. |
| Alcona |
6 |
Eaton |
16 |
Lapeer |
15 |
Ogemaw |
10 |
| Allegan |
20 |
Emmett |
4 |
Leelanau |
8 |
Osceola |
10 |
| Alpena |
9 |
Genesee |
17 |
Lenawee |
25 |
Oscoda |
7 |
| Antrim |
4 |
Gladwin |
12 |
Livingston |
16 |
Otsego |
6 |
| Arenac |
13 |
Grand Traverse |
8 |
Macomb |
18 |
Ottawa |
19 |
| Barry |
18 |
Gratiot |
15 |
Manistee |
13 |
Presque Isle |
8 |
| Bay |
14 |
Hillsdale |
19 |
Mason |
13 |
Roscommon |
7 |
| Benzie |
16 |
Huron |
13 |
Mecosta |
12 |
Saginaw |
16 |
| Berrien |
23 |
Ingham |
17 |
Midland |
15 |
Sanilac |
15 |
| Branch |
19 |
Ionia |
16 |
Missaukee |
9 |
St. Clair |
16 |
| Calhoun |
19 |
Iosco |
7 |
Monroe |
21 |
St. Joseph |
23 |
| Cass |
22 |
Isabella |
11 |
Montcalm |
15 |
Shiawassee |
16 |
| Charlevoix |
3 |
Jackson |
16 |
Montmorency |
7 |
Tuscola |
15 |
| Cheboygan |
4 |
Kalamazoo |
20 |
Muskegon |
18 |
Van Buren |
22 |
| Clare |
12 |
Kalkaska |
5 |
Newaygo |
15 |
Washtenaw |
18 |
| Clinton |
17 |
Kent |
18 |
Oakland |
16 |
Wayne |
18 |
| Crawford |
6 |
Lake |
13 |
Oceana |
16 |
Wexford |
9
|
Oftentimes, weather conditions make it difficult to plant wheat on time. How late a wheat crop can be planted is really a question of how much risk a grower is willing to take. If a grower expects to have the crop insured, then the answer is straightforward because Oct. 25 is the last planting date for crop insurance eligibility.
For growers trying to estimate the odds of achieving a reasonable yield, it is important to recognize that the challenge to late-planted wheat is not only the inherent constraints on grain yield, but also its greater susceptibility to winter injury.
Planting wheat on time starts with the previous crop. Soybean fields that are to be planted to wheat in the fall can benefit from management considerations such as optimum planting time and maturity group (MG) selection (Figure 1).
Selection of late-maturity soybean varieties (e.g., 3.0 compared to 2.0 MG around Lansing) before May 15 planting can lead to 5-8 bu./acre increase in soybean yield, while still reaching maturity by late-September. This system would provide greater soybean yields while allowing adequate time for an optimum wheat planting date after soybean harvest.
However, for later soybean plantings (after mid-May), early-maturity varieties can be used without a soybean yield penalty while allowing adequate time for wheat planting.
Figure 1: Impact of planting date and maturity group selection on soybean seed yield (bu/acre, left panel) and date to reach R7 stage (one mature pod on the main stem, right panel). Add 15-20 days to R7 to estimate harvest date. Data is average of four Michigan site-years.
Seeding depth
Attaining a consistent seed depth is important to increase the probability of even emergence. Usually, a planting depth of 1-1.5 inches is enough in heavy soil.
Deeper seed placement may have an advantage when some types of winter stresses occur, but usually this is outweighed by the advantage in more rapid emergence posed by more shallowly placed seed. The exception may be where a coarse soil is very dry. In this case, seed should be planted as deep as possible to reach moist soil.
Seeding rate
The recommendation is to plant between 1.2-2.0 million seeds/acre. Seeding rates on the lower end of the range should be used when planting within a week of the fly-free-date to avoid overly thick stands that can promote disease development and increase the likelihood of lodging the following season.
As the calendar advances, seeding rates should become progressively higher. If planting continues into the second half of October, the seeding rate should be increased to at least 1.6 million seeds/acre.
Table 2 identifies the pounds of seed needed based on the number of seeds per pound and your population target. For example, if seed size is 12,000 seeds per lb. and the target seeding rate is 1.4 million seeds/acre, then 117 lbs. of seed/acre would be needed.
Table 3 is useful for assessing the number of seeds being dropped by each row unit (7.5-inch row spacing) and for evaluating actual seedling density. So, with the 1.4 million target, a 7.5-inch drill would drop about 20 seeds/foot of row and, assuming a 92% emergence rate, lead to an estimated 18.5 wheat seedlings.
Table 2. Relating seed size and target seeding rates
to the number of pounds required per acre |
Seed size (seeds per pound)
|
Target seeding rates (millions of seeds per acre) |
| 1.2 |
1.4 |
1.6 |
1.8 |
2.0 |
2.2 |
| Actual pounds of seed required per acre * |
| 9,000 |
133 |
156 |
178 |
200 |
222 |
244 |
| 10,000 |
120 |
140 |
160 |
180 |
200 |
220 |
| 11,000 |
109 |
127 |
145 |
164 |
182 |
200 |
| 12000 |
100 |
117 |
133 |
150 |
167 |
183 |
| 13,000 |
92 |
108 |
123 |
138 |
154 |
169 |
| 14,000 |
86 |
100 |
114 |
129 |
143 |
157 |
| 15,000 |
80 |
93 |
107 |
120 |
133 |
147 |
| 16,000 |
75 |
88 |
100 |
113 |
125 |
138 |
*Target seeding rate divided by seeds per lb. = required pounds
of seed per acre. |
| Table 3. Relating target seeding rate per acre to seed and seedling numbers (for 7.5-inch row spacing) |
| Seeding rate (millions/ac) |
Seeds per foot of row |
Seedlings* per foot of row |
| 1.2 |
17.2 |
16.2 (94%) |
| 1.4 |
20.1 |
18.5 (92%) |
| 1.6 |
23.0 |
20.7 (90%) |
| 1.8 |
25.8 |
22.7 (88%) |
| 2.0 |
28.7 |
24.7 (86%) |
| 2.2 |
31.6 |
26.5 (84%) |
*Projected number of seedlings based on estimated declining emergence rate as percent.
|
|
Alternative Planting Strategies for Maximizing Yield Potential in Winter Wheat
By Patrick Copeland, Dennis Pennington, Dr. Manni Singh
Farmers are looking for ways to accelerate planting of winter wheat to reduce weather-related planting delays. Meanwhile, a transition to precision planting in narrow rows may improve yields.
Timely planting of winter wheat is important for achieving maximum yield potential. Significant yield loss occurs when planting is delayed beyond mid-October (Figure 1). Unfortunately, frequent rainfalls in Michigan during the autumn months tend to delay field operations.
The need in many cases to wait until soybeans are harvested before planting wheat adds an additional layer of difficulty. Due to these challenges, area planted to wheat was reduced by 23% in 2021.
Figure 1: Yield results from a recently concluded planting date study in winter wheat at the Michigan State University Mason Farm in Mason, Michigan.
To address this challenge, some farmers are experimenting with an alternative planting method known as broadcast incorporation (Figure 2), which allows them to cover more acres in a shorter amount of time.
Broadcast incorporation consists of broadcasting seed over the soil surface, followed by incorporation using a shallow tillage implement. This allows wheat to be planted at much faster speeds than with a traditional grain drill, as well as providing the potential for wider swaths.
The operation can be further sped up by mounting a spreader on top of the tillage implement in such a way that the seed is broadcasted just ahead of the last gang.
Figure 2: Joker with Gandy air seeder used at one location for single-pass broadcast incorporation.
The biggest concern with broadcast incorporation is that the random distribution of seeds in the soil profile results in a highly variable seed depth.
Figure 3 shows the variability of seeding depths achieved using various planting methods, including broadcast incorporation. Increased variability in seeding depth can result in poor germination and crown development, reduced tillering, and more variable plant development.
Figure 3: Seeding depths measured at one location during the 2021 - 22 growing season for broadcast incorporation (BI), drill, and precision planter (PP) in a planting methods study.
Another planting method that provides for greater control over seed placement is precision planting. Precision planters have become standard for planting crops such as corn and soybeans, due to their ability to provide uniform depth, as well as singulation and precise metering of the seeds.
Small plot research in winter wheat at Michigan State University has shown a benefit of precision planting in narrow rows (e.g., 5 inches, compared to the 7.5 inches that is typical for grain drills).
Along with the previously mentioned benefits of precision planting, narrower rows allow us to achieve something closer to the optimal spatial distribution of uniform spacing around each plant (Figure 4). By reducing the relatively wide space between rows, we increase the relatively small spacing between plants within the row at a given seeding rate.
Figure 4: Differences in seed/plant distribution achieved by a traditional grain drill on 7.5-in. spacing, a precision planter on 5” row spacing, and broadcast incorporation, with an optimal, uniform distribution shown for comparison. All drawings used 1.0 million seeds/acre. Average seed spacing within rows at this population for 7.5” rows would be 0.8”, while for 5” rows it would be 1.3”.
The Michigan State University Cropping Systems Agronomy Lab is currently conducting on-farm trials to evaluate the performance of broadcast incorporation and precision planting, and compare them against a traditional grain drill.
This study, to date, has included 10 different locations over two years. So far, despite a definite increase in depth variability, no yield penalty has been demonstrated to result from the use of broadcast incorporation when compared with a traditional grain drill (Figure 5). This may be the result of a 24-37% increase in the number of effective tillers (i.e., tillers that produce heads with grain) cancelling out any yield penalty resulting from the increased variability in seeding depth.
This increase in the number of tillers likely goes back to the aforementioned optimal plant distribution consisting of uniform spacing all the way around each plant. By randomly distributing the seed over the soil surface, we are able to break away from the row pattern with high density within rows and low density across rows, achieving something that more closely resembles our optimal distribution (Figure 4). This allows plants to make more efficient use of the space available to them, resulting in increased tillering.
There was a concern after the 2020 – 21 growing season that broadcast incorporation may begin to show a yield penalty compared to a grain drill under late planting. However, two late-planted locations (Oct. 20 and Nov. 5) in the 2021 – 22 growing season did not show this to be the case.
Figure 5: Yield results from an ongoing planting methods study being conducted by the Michigan State University Cropping Systems Agronomy lab to compare broadcast incorporation (BI), grain drill, and precision planting (PP).
While there has been no real difference between broadcast incorporation and drill, narrow-row precision planting has shown an 8-11% yield benefit over drill at three out of six site years (Figure 5).
This has not been associated with an increase in the number of tillers and is more likely a result of improved uniformity in seed placement and associated uniform tiller development, leading to increase in kernels per head and/or kernel weight.
Based on what has been observed so far, broadcast incorporation appears to be a viable option for farmers whose priority is getting wheat in the ground as quickly as possible. While there are concerns about the effects of a random distribution of seeds – especially in terms of seeding depth – these effects have failed to show up in field trials during the last two growing seasons.
On the other hand, some farmers may benefit from increased yields by transitioning from traditional wheat planting technologies to precision planting in narrow rows. This method continues to lead other planting methods with the highest yields in our trials over the last four years.
Meanwhile, some questions remain to be answered, such as whether the performance of broadcast incorporation will hold up during more severe winters than we have experienced recently. Trials will be continued in the 2022-2023 season and a detailed interpretation of data will be shared with farmers at project conclusion.
Funding for this project is provided by the Michigan Wheat Program and Project GREEEN.
|
|
Farmland cash rental rates released
By Jonathan Laporte laportej@msu.edu
 The “USDA Farmland Cash Rental Rates” document is a listing of the county rental rates dating from 2011 to the 2022 year. The information was obtained from the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and is based on their survey results from producers.
It is important to remember that land rent prices vary tremendously from county to county. In Michigan, the higher productivity soils tend to command a higher price. This includes tile drained or irrigated areas where specialty crops are grown, such as sugar beets and vegetables.
Other factors can impact the price that farmers are willing and able to pay for land rent. Some of these factors can include field size, access, soil type, soil fertility, previous cropping history, and proximity to their farm operation.
Looking at this report will give you a place to start, but may not reflect the true value of the farmland. To assist in determining what a reasonable rate is for your production area, please click here to see the MSU Extension fact sheet “ Farmland Rent Considerations,” which has been updated to 2022.
Questions on this topic should be directed to Jonathan Laporte at the address above, or another member of the MSU Extension Farm Management Team, which can be found by clicking here.
|
|
Reminder: 2022 MSU Wheat Performance Trials available for review including MI Wheat-funded high management trials
Growers making final planting decisions about their fall winter wheat, should check results of the 2022 Michigan State Wheat Performance Trials. The trials include results on high-management wheat research funded by the Michigan Wheat Program for the past 10 years.
Click here to see the full report or look under the “What’s Hot” column at www.miwheat.org. All Michigan State Wheat Performance Trials from 2013-2022 are found at www.miwheat.org under the Research Results tab and the High Management Results tab.
The 2021-2022 report give results on 125 wheat varieties – including 63 experimental lines – tested in seven sites across Michigan and reviews the side-by-side results in Tuscola and Isabella counties for these varieties under conventional and the high-management approach.
In Tuscola, 15 seed varieties yielded less under high management but the other 110 yielded more. The mean average was 3.0 more bu./acre in Tuscola and 2.1 bu./acre more at the Isabella County site.
While the average gain from high management was low this year, there were six varieties that had greater than 15 bu./acre gain. This is important information to consider when selecting varieties to plant this fall.
High-management wheat plots included an additional 30 lbs./acre of nitrogen (28% nitrogen), 20 lbs/acre of sulfur, as well as Quilt Xcel® fungicide applied at Feekes 9.0, and Prosaro® fungicide at the average flowering date (Feekes 10.5.1) in each location.
Questions about the Variety Trials should be directed to Dennis Pennington at pennin34@msu.edu.
|
|
Looking for a brush-up on wheat production? Browse our Michigan Wheat 101 pub
 From seed to harvest, the Michigan Wheat 101 publication covers best practices for winter wheat production from seeds through straw. Released last spring by the Michigan Wheat Program, Michigan Wheat 101 is a 36-page bulletin co-produced by the wheat check-off and MSU wheat specialist Dennis Pennington, featuring the highlights of research funded by the Michigan Wheat Program over the last decade.
Michigan Wheat 101 includes sections on:
- Seed Variety Selection by Dr. Eric Olson
- Agronomy by Dennis Pennington and Dr. Maninder Singh
- Fertility and Fertilization by Dr. Kurt Steinke
- Lodging Considerations by Dennis Pennington and Martin Nagelkirk
- Weed Management by Dr. Christy Sprague
- Red Clover Cover Crop by Paul Gross
- Disease Management by Dr. Martin Chilvers, Mikaela Breunig, Martin Nagelkirk and Dr. Jan Byrne
- Insect Management by Dr. Chris DiFonzo
- Wheat Harvest by Dennis Pennington
To review the online version, click here. https://miwheat.org/michigan-wheat-101/. If you wish to receive a printed version, please call the Michigan Wheat office’s executive director Jody Pollok-Newsom at 1-888-943-2801 or by email to jody@miwheat.org.
|
|
Governor makes appointments to Michigan Wheat Board
In midsummer, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer made three re-appointments to the nine-member MWP board. All are three-year appointments that expire May 31, 2025.
 Anthony Bohac, of Owosso (District 6), was re-appointed to a second term on the MWP Board. Retired from public education, he is the owner of Bohac Farms, a wheat, soybean and corn farm. He received his BA in Education from Alma College and Master of Secondary Education degree from Central Michigan University.
 Brad Kamprath, of Ida (District 3), was re-appointed to a second term on the Board. He is the co-manager of Kamprath Farms, LLC, a wheat, corn and soybean farm in Monroe County. He holds a certificate in agricultural technologies from Michigan State University.
 Brent Wagner, of Grawn (District 8), was re-appointed to a third and final term on the Board, where he currently serves as vice chairman. He is the owner of Wagner Farms, LLC, a beef cattle and cash crop Centennial Farm in Grand Traverse County. Wagner holds an associate’s degree in automotive technologies from Northwestern Michigan College, and has also served as chair of the Farm Service Agency and the board of the Traverse City Farm Bureau.
“As the Michigan Wheat Program enters our second decade, our Board leadership is top level and brings diverse backgrounds and experiences that will help shape our approaches to improving wheat quality and yields in the Great Lakes State,” said Jody Pollok-Newsom, executive director of the Michigan Wheat Program. “Our Board has the talent to take us into the next decade of growth.”
|
|
Michigan Wheat Program elects 2022-2023 officers at its August research review meeting
The Board of the Michigan Wheat Program re-elected its entire slate of officers at its August meeting.
 Serving as Chairman for a second term will be Jeff Krohn, wheat grower from Owendale (District 7).
Vice Chairman will be Brent Wagner (pictured in previous article) of Wagner Farms in Grawn (District 8).
Treasurer will be Anthony Bohac (pictured in previous article) of Bohac Farms in Owosso (District 6).
And Secretary will be Lyn Uphaus (pictured below), of Uphaus Farms in Manchester (District 4).
Research decisions made
Also at its August 30-31 meeting, the Michigan Wheat Program board heard final reports by researchers on the 2021-2022 projects funded by the check-off.
The final written reports will be officially filed with executive director Jody Pollok-Newsom by December 31 and will be published on the Michigan Wheat website shortly thereafter.
|
|
Michigan Wheat Program Board funds research for next year
One of the hardest and most exciting responsibilities of being a board member is the two-day research meeting held late August every year.
Every 20-30 minutes there is a new presenter providing an update on the work they did that was funded last year, and also their request for the upcoming season.
“The hardest part of funding research is the very tight turn around time,” said Jeff Krohn, board Chairman. “Researchers are harvesting their plots and need to have run at least some preliminary data analysis to show an overview of their results, so the board can make a decision as to whether or not to fund their project again for the next year.”
“Just as we are planning for planting as soon as harvest is over, Researchers are planning for the right planting spot to get land at the location for the next summer field day and to get their seed and inputs t be ready to plant in September. We have tried different things in the past, but it’s best to just commit to a long two days and get through all the proposals, so we can really focus on funding the best-of-the-best.”
This year there was a budget of $450,00 to fund research and requests came in totalling just under $650,000. At the end of the day, most of the projects were funded and in one case, the board directed the researcher to rework the proposal and focus on the first part of the project to further home in on parts two and three.
Funded projects ranged from nutrient management to weed and pest control to disease management to freezing effects on wheat to strategic planting and canopy cover to new variety development and high management of variety trials to diagnostics.
|
|
Master Farmer nominations due now!
 By Jennifer Kiel, editor, Michigan Farmer a Farm Progress publication
Just about every farmer or affiliate in the ag industry knows another farmer who is doing a bang-up job … and has been for years.
They take care of the land, they are good stewards of the environment, they’re profitable and they help others in some way — whether that’s being a good neighbor or acting as a mentor, or maybe that includes serving in a commodity leadership position, local government, community activities or their church.
Chances are, you’re already picturing this person in your head. That’s exactly who I’m looking for when I talk about Master Farmers.
Everyone knows farmers get little recognition and take on more risk than most would consider sane, which is why I love this award. It finally puts a spotlight on the good farmers bring to this world, and the outstanding job they do feeding it.
The prestigious Master Farmer award is bestowed on individuals who have established how to farm more effectively, efficiently, environmentally and economically.
Please consider nominating a Master Farmer now, as the deadline is approaching. It’s easier than you think, especially if there are multiple people involved pulling it together. Keep in mind, this doesn’t have to be a surprise, but I will admit it’s kind of fun when it is.
First, click here for the link to the online application. Download it, fill it out and send it in, complete with letters of support, by Oct. 15.
For more information or to have an application sent to you, email me at Jennifer.Kiel@farmprogress.com. This is also where you will send the completed application and letters, or you can mail it to me at Jennifer Kiel, 710 W. Park St., St. Johns, MI 48879.
Please make every effort to fill out the nomination completely, but it’s not a deal breaker if you can’t answer every question. The most compelling part of the nomination is the letters of support. They should build a case for why this farmer belongs in this elite group, which consistently demonstrates outstanding farm management, innovation, conservation and leadership. The award also takes into consideration growth of the operation and the future direction.
In Michigan, there are three Master Farmers named each year. In Ohio, there are two. I’m not real sure why they are different, other than these two programs were started by two different people. It’s a matter of history, so I’m sticking with it.
Last year’s winners in Michigan were William (Bill) Hunt of Davison, Dennis Gardner of Yale and Greg McCarthy of Edmore.
|
|
Calendar of events
 If you are planning a meeting that provides information on wheat, please let us know so we can include it in future editions of this Wheat Wisdom e-newsletter. Drop an email to jody@miwheat.org!
Feb. 22, 2023 – Michigan Wheat Program Annual Winter Grower Meeting, Saginaw Valley Research & Extension Center, Frankenmuth
June 14, 2023 – Michigan Wheat Program Annual Summer Field Day, MSU Plant Pathology Research Center, Lansing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
