Stripe Rust Observed in Madison County Wheat

Retired commercial agriculture Extension educator Robert Bellm observed stripe rust yesterday in several wheat fields in Madison County (Figure).

Robert Bellm - Madison County 2016Figure. Stripe rust in winter wheat, Madison County, IL, April 20, 2016 (photo credit: Robert Bellm).

Rust pathogens are obligate parasites, meaning that they need a living host in order to survive. Wind and rain systems from further south bring spores to our area. This is why rust sightings in states to the South can help us in Illinois anticipate its arrival. Wet leaves and temperatures below 70 °F favor disease development.

Stripe rust is caused by the fungus Puccinia striiformis. Symptoms of stripe rust begin as chlorotic stripes on the leaf. As lesions develop, the fungus produces spores that can cause secondary infections. These spores, which are yellow to orange in color, develop under the leaf epidermis and swell the leaf tissue into a pustule (blister) which breaks open to reveal the spores (Figure).

Several fungicides are registered for stripe rust management, but the most effective time to apply fungicides is between last leaf emergence and complete head emergence. Applications that occur later are not likely to provide adequate protection. Additionally, caution must be exercised when selecting fungicide active ingredients as fungicides in the strobilurin class can only be applied up to complete heading (Feekes 10.5).

Additional Resources

Fungicide Efficacy for Control of Wheat Diseases – A fact sheet authored by Purdue Extension Plant Pathologist Dr. Kiersten Wise.

Physiological Feekes Growth Stages in Winter Wheat – A diagram and listing of growth stages adapted by Oklahoma State University from an article written in 1954 by E.C. Large.

Management of Wheat Diseases in Illinois – An interactive online course containing content developed by former University of Illinois Extension Plant Pathologist Dr. Carl Bradley. The course content begins with head scab management, but beginning with section 1.28 (accessed through the menu on the left-hand side) covers other wheat diseases including stripe rust.


Spring Nitrogen Management for Corn

Even though the price of nitrogen fertilizer has dropped some in the past year, the lower price of corn means that decisions about N management need to be made carefully, with an eye towards maximizing the return to this critically important input.

The return of dry weather over the past week and the forecast for the coming week has lessened the concern about N loss, though we still need to consider the possibility that some fall-applied anhydrous ammonia might have moved out of the upper part of the soil. If rainfall amounts are average or below-average in the next weeks, some N that has moved down but is still in the soil might still be available to the crop later on.

How much N does the crop need?

The first question on N management is rate – how much N will the crop need, and then, how much of it needs to come from the fertilizer we apply? The generally-accepted rule of thumb is that the crop will take up a total of about 1 pound of N for each bushel of yield. We’ve found a similar number in a few studies we’ve done. We normally expect to find the maximum amount of N in plants at maturity, but depending on how the season ends, plant N might peak a few weeks before maturity.

If we expect yield of 200 bushels per acre and accept that the crop will take up 200 lb. of N, does that mean we will need to apply at least 200 lb. of N? Unless we’re growing the crop hydroponically without soil, or in some growth medium without organic matter, the answer is no. All naturally-developed soils have some organic matter, and many of our more productive soils in Illinois have 3 to 5% organic matter. An acre of soil a foot deep weighs about 4 million pounds, so a soil with 3.5% organic matter in the top foot has about 140,000 lb. of organic matter. About 5% of soil organic matter is N, so this soil would have about 7,000 lb. of organic N in the top foot.

The N in soil organic matter is a tremendously valuable resource, but predicting how much of it will become available to the corn crop each year is not easy. The general rule of thumb is that about 2% of it becomes available, which in our example would be 140 lb. of N per acre. The amount released can range from 1 to 3% per year, depending on soil temperature and moisture, and perhaps to some extent on what microbes are present. And not all of the released N may be available to the crop. Some N is released late in the season after the crop stops taking up N, or into parts of the soil where roots are no longer active. Some released N can also be lost to leaching or denitrification if soils stay wet.

Corn yields without N fertilizer can provide as estimate of how much N the soil provides. In the long-running rotation x N rate trial in place at our Monmouth research center, yields of corn following corn without N fertilizer (treatments stay in the same plots so these haven’t had N for 34 years) between 1983 and 2015 averaged 77, with a range of 25 to 116 bushels per acre. For corn following soybean, the average was 144 bushels per acre, and the range was 91 to 228. Soybean residue doesn’t tie up N, so yield for corn following soybean probably measures N availability better than corn after corn. In that case the soil is providing about 140 lb. N per acre per year, which in that soil is roughly 2% of organic N per year.

How much N needs to come from fertilizer?

A great deal of new data were recently assembled and some older data were removed in order to help update the database used by the N rate calculator http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/soilfertility/nrate.aspx to calculate the N rate expected to provide the maximum return to N (MRTN). A preliminary look at the numbers shows that the MRTN will not change a great deal as a result of adding the new data; our very large Illinois database means that it doesn’t change very fast as new data are added. For corn following soybean in central Illinois, the middle of the MRTN range is around 170 lb. N per acre. It’s similar to that for southern Illinois, and about 20 lb. less than that in northern Illinois. For corn following corn, the MRTN is about 200 lb. N/acre in all of Illinois.

Across hundreds of trials there is surprisingly little correlation between optimum N rate and yield; we have seen trials where 150 lb. of N or less have produced yields above 250 bushels per acre, and some where it took 225 lb. of N to produce yields of 150 bushels per acre. The only reasonable explanation for such a wide range is that the soil sometimes supplies more N than usual, and that sometimes there is either loss of N (from fertilizer N or organic N or both) or some of the N in the soil is unavailable due to such factors as poor root systems or dry soils that keep water from moving to the roots carrying N with it.

Form and timing

While we can precisely control the amount of fertilizer N we apply, its availability is affected by weather, soil, and crop growth, so is also somewhat unpredictable. Form, timing, and placement of N fertilizer all can affect availability, usually in ways that we can understand. For example, ammonium stays on soil exchange sites so moves little in the soil while nitrate can move easily with water. But if it doesn’t rain much, nitrate stays in the soil just fine. So knowing the basics of how different fertilizer materials behave can only take us so far; what really happens to N in the soil is heavily dependent on weather, and our predictions regarding N form and timing are little better than our ability to predict weather.

Although predictions of how fertilizer management affects N availability may not be great, we do think that research over a range of sites and years will help us manage better. We started a fairly large study in 2014, sponsored by the Nutrient Research & Education Council (with funds from the Illinois fertilizer checkoff) to look at the effect of N form, timing, and placement on corn yield. Table 1 shows yields averaged over three sites and two years, 2014 and 2015.

Table 1 Apr 15-16

Yields averaged across treatments were between 213 and 230 at all sites except DeKalb in 2015, which had cool, wet weather and averaged 185 bushels per acre. The 150-lb N rate was chosen to be less that the rate needed to produce the maximum yields, making yield more sensitive to N availability from each treatment. Rainfall between mid-May and late June was somewhat above average at all three sites in 2014 and well above average at all three sites in 2015. So we think that in all of these trials, especially in 2015, the potential for N loss was greater than normal.

Averaged across sites, yields ranged from 208 to 219, or by only 11 bushels per acre. Yield ranges within individual sites were generally larger than this, but individual treatment effects weren’t very consistent over sites, so the overall averages are in a relatively narrow range. The inconsistency among sites shows up in the statistical analysis – the more the rank among treatments changed among sites, the lower the chances of seeing statistical differences, and the larger the difference has to be before we can say it’s due to treatment instead of just to chance.

Even with the variability across sites, there were some treatments that gave higher yields than other treatments. Surprisingly, the two treatments that produced the highest yield (219 bushels per acre) were dry forms: urea with Agrotain® and SuperU®. Both of these contain urease inhibitor and SuperU contains a nitrification inhibitor as well. But statistically, these treatments did not produce higher yields than the check (UAN injected at planting), and in fact none of the first six treatments listed after the check yielded statistically less than the dry treatments or the check. These included delaying all of the N until sidedress time (V5) and split applications with 100 lb UAN at planting and 50 lb applied as UAN at V5 or V9, or urea + Agrotain broadcast at V5. Waiting until V9 to broadcast urea + Agrotain yielded slightly less than the best treatments. Ammonia (NH3) applied early also yielded among the best treatments, but only if it had N-Serve; without N-Serve it yielded a few bushels less.

Only two treatments yielded significantly less than the check – UAN either surface-banded at planting or UAN with Agrotain broadcast at planting. Neither of these is typical; we included them to see how well preserved the N in UAN might be if all applied without injection at planting.

Beginning in 2015 we included treatments with 100 lb. UAN injected at planting and the additional 50 lb. applied as UAN at tasseling time. We applied these as a surface band (dribbled) either in the row middle or into the row. The in-row application yielded more than the mid-row application, but the in-row application did not produce significantly higher yield than the check (UAN injected at planting.)

Conclusions

While we saw some small differences among treatments included in this study, commonly-used timing and forms of N all produced similar yields, even under what we would consider high-loss conditions. This was at an N rate of only 150 lb. N per acre; the higher N rates used by most producers should have provided enough N to the lower-yielding treatments to bring them even closer to the higher yields produced by the better treatments. In fact, the N rate trials included at each site showed that 170 lb. of N per acre, applied as UAN injected at planting, increased yields by an average of 5 bushels per acre compared to 150 lb. of N.

While we would have expected larger differences among yields from these treatments, these results that show that both the risk of N loss and the benefit from delaying some of the N or using inhibitors may be a little less than we’ve thought. Getting data from another year or two will help paint the picture more fully, but these results give some reason to be confident that the N management systems in common use all have good potential to provide the crop with N. Adding costs by changing N management, for example by making another trip over the field to apply late N, may not provide a positive return compared to applying all of the N in one or two earlier trips.

It rained on Easter (March 27) this year, which according to the old adage means rain for the next seven Sundays after that. The warm, dry, sunny day most of us enjoyed on April 17 tells us that won’t happen this year; in fact, the dry pattern that has now been in place for more than a week may persist, even though these is some rain in the forecast. I mention this only as a reminder that some of the N management systems that have been promoted, including late applications of surface-applied N, can mean reduced or delayed availability of fertilizer N to the crop under below-normal rainfall periods. The weather could change, of course, but this is one of the risks, along with increased costs, that increasing the complexity of N management can sometimes bring.


Is Fall-Applied Nitrogen Still Present?

The pattern of warmer and wetter than usual weather this past winter has changed some in the past two months, but hopes for a warm, dry, early spring have faded as well. Concerns remain about how much fall-applied N might have been lost and about whether and how this should change how we manage N this spring.

Most Illinois producers waited until soil temperatures had dropped to 50 degrees or less before applying anhydrous ammonia last fall. Soil temperatures dropped a little slower than normal during November, though, and in a mid-December warm period, soil temperatures approached or exceeded 50 degrees for a few days in much of central and northern Illinois. December rainfall was well above normal, with about 4 inches falling over most of the state right after Christmas. January brought lower temperatures, but tile lines continued to run much of the winter, and above-normal temperatures returned in February and March.

Dan Schaefer of the Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Association and we in our Nutrient Research & Education Council-funded N tracking research project have been doing some soil sampling this past winter and early spring to see if we can measure how much of the N applied as fertilizer last fall might be gone as a result of the winter conditions. By “gone” I mean no longer found in the top two feet of soil, which is the depth to which we typically sample.

A set of eight fields in Vermilion County that Dan sampled in December, January, and February showed little change in soil N between December and February, though there was some loss of nitrate-N (NO3) between the January and February samples (Figure 1.)  The percentage of recovered N that was in the ammonium form (NH4+) – the form that’s safe from immediate loss due to its binding with negative charges in the soil – actually went up some, which is explained by the loss of nitrate. Samples like these show a fair amount of variability so we can’t make strong statements, but we can’t conclude based on these numbers that a lot of N was lost over the winter.

 

Figure 1. Nitrogen recovered from the top two feet of soil sampled in December, January, and February,  averaged over eight fields in Vermilion County, Illinois. These fields received an average of 163 lb of N as NH3 applied with N-Serve the second week of November 2015.

Figure 1. Nitrogen recovered from the top two feet of soil sampled in December, January, and February, averaged over eight fields in Vermilion County, Illinois. These fields received an average of 163 lb of N as NH3 applied with N-Serve the second week of November 2015.

Samples that we took after November application (of 200 lb of N), in January at Urbana, and in late February at the Urbana and Monmouth research sites showed a considerable drop in soil N at the late February sampling time (Figure 2.) Samples taken after application showed that most of N that was applied was present in the November and (at Urbana) early January sample times, and that some three-quarters of the N was present as ammonium. By late February, however, the amount of N recovered (after subtracting the N recovered from zero-N plots) was about one-third lower than the amount recovered earlier at Monmouth and less than half the amount recovered earlier at Urbana. At neither location did using N-Serve affect the amount of N recovered nor the percentage of recovered N that was in the ammonium form.

Figure 2. Soil N recovery from N-tracking sites at Urbana and Monmouth, Illinois. Nitrogen was applied as NH3 at  200 lb N/acre in November at the first sample date. The late February samples were from treatments with and without N-Serve.

Figure 2. Soil N recovery from N-tracking sites at Urbana and Monmouth, Illinois. Nitrogen was applied as NH3 at 200 lb N/acre in November at the first sample date. The late February samples were from treatments with and without N-Serve.

In a set of fields that Dan Schaefer sampled in Champaign County in early January and again in mid-March, total N recovered did not change much, but only 40% of the N was present as ammonium in March, down from 60% in January (Figure 3.) The fact that some of the ammonium converted to nitrate over this period means that more of the N is now susceptible to loss; the good news is that it is still present in the top two feet of soil.

Figure 3. Soil N recovered averaged over eight Champaign County fields where about 180 lb of N as NH3 was applied in the second week of November, 2015. Seven of the fields had N-Serve applied with the NH3.

Figure 3. Soil N recovered averaged over eight Champaign County fields where about 180 lb of N as NH3 was applied in the second week of November, 2015. Seven of the fields had N-Serve applied with the NH3.

The field included in the averages in Figure 3 that did not receive N-Serve was paired with one that did, allowing us to see if N-Serve affected the amount or form of N recovered. Averaged over the two fields, about the same amount of N was recovered in March as was recovered in January. But in January, the field with N-Serve had 70% of its recovered N as ammonium, compared to 53% ammonium in the N recovered from the field without N-Serve. At the mid-March sampling, the field with N-Serve had 73% of the recovered N as ammonium, while only 39% of the N in the field without N-Serve was in the ammonium form. We need to be cautious because this is from only a few samples, but if these reflect reality then the nitrapyrin did here exactly what it was supposed to do: keep ammonium from converting to nitrate to reduce the amount of N subject to loss. Whether or not that will make a difference in how much N is available to the corn crop depends entirely on what sort of weather, soil, and crop conditions we have up to the time N uptake starts.

We see in the above that sampling soil for recoverable N this past winter gave a mixture of results, ranging from disappearance of more than half of the N from the top two feet of soil to only small changes over time. Adding to the picture is the report that surface waters in some places have reported nitrate levels somewhat higher than normal for this time of year; we would expect this to be coming from tile lines, but some of it could be from N left over at the end of the 2015 season. The percentages of soil N present as ammonium seem to be on the low side of expectations, which could mean considerable potential for loss if the weather is wetter than normal in April and May.

We have little previous experience looking at soil N from fall to spring, so there’s no reason to panic at this point, or to order more fertilizer N to replace what might have disappeared. Our best strategy now is to assume that most of the N we applied last fall is still in the soil, to get the crop planted as conditions allow, and to both monitor the crop and to stay tuned as we continue to monitor soil N up to the time that the crop is taking up N rapidly. The warm and dry spring we hoped for could still materialize, and with it would come low N-loss conditions as well as early uptake of N by a rapidly-developing crop. If the opposite happens, we will still have time to manage N for good yields while minimizing further loss.


Early Registration Open for Bi-State Crop Advantage Conferences

Picture1

 

This January Extension Specialists from both Iowa State University and the University of Illinois will present some of the latest research-based information on crop production and management issues at two Bi-State Crop Advantage Conferences:

January 8 in Burlington, IA and January 29 in Moline, IL.

Certified Crop Advisers can earn up to 6 hours of CEU credit. Re-certification credit is also offered to Iowa private pesticide applicators. Advance registration, no later than one week before the conference, is $50 per person. Late and on-site registration is $60.

 

Click here to view the January 8, 2016, Burlington, IA conference agenda.
Click here to register for the January 8, 2016, Burlington, IA conference.

Click here to view the January 29, Moline, IL conference agenda.
Click here to register for the January 29, Moline, IL conference.


2016 Crop Management Conferences Registration Open

Registration is open for the 2016 Crop Management Conferences. These regional conferences provide a forum for discussion and interaction between participants and university researchers and are designed to address a wide array of topics pertinent to crop production in Illinois: crop management, pest management, nutrient management, soil and water management.

Certified Crop Advisers can earn up to 8 hours of continuing education credit. Advance registration, no later than one week before each conference, is $100 per person. Late and on-site registration is $120. Dates and locations along with links to location-specific agendas and online registration are listed below.

Conference topics include:

  • El Niño, Wet Springs & Timely Side-Dressing N – Dr. Jim Angel, State Climatologist, Illinois State Water Survey
  • Taking ‘Em By Surprise: Building a Resilient Herbicide Program – Dr. Aaron Hager, Extension Weed Scientist, Department of Crop Sciences
  • Can We Better Manage Corn N? – Dr. Emerson Nafziger, Extension Cropping Systems Specialist, Department of Crop Sciences
  • Field N Loss: Lessons from the Lake Springfield Watershed – Lowell Gentry, Senior Research Specialist, Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Sciences
  • Old Nemeses & New Foes: A Day in the Life of the Plant Clinic – Dr. Suzanne Bissonnette, Plant Clinic Director & interim Extension Agriculture & Natural Resources Program Leader, Department of Crop Sciences    
  • Choose Your Own Adventure: 10 Ways to Reduce Nitrate Loss in Tile Drainage – Dr. Laura Christianson, Assistant Professor of Water Quality, Department of Crop Sciences
  • Green Stem Disorder: Answers or Just More Questions? – Michelle Pawlowski, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Crop Sciences
  • What Can Insect Surveys from 2015 Tell Us Going into 2016? – Dr. Nick Tinsley, Post Doctoral Researcher & Instructor, Department of Crop Sciences

January 20: Mt. Vernon – Krieger/Holiday Inn Convention Center. Click here to view the Mt. Vernon agenda. Click here to register for the Mt. Vernon location. For more information, contact Angie Peltier: (309) 734-1098, apeltier@illinois.edu.

January 27: Springfield – Northfield Inn Conference Center. Click here to view the Springfield agenda. Click here to register for the Springfield location. For more information, contact Angie Peltier: (309) 734-1098, apeltier@illinois.edu.

February 3:  Champaign – i-Hotel and Conference Center. Click here to view the Champaign agenda. Click here to register for the Champaign location. For more information, contact Dennis Bowman: (217) 244-0851, ndbowman@illinois.edu.

February 10: Malta – Kishwaukee College Conference Center. Click here to view the Malta agenda. Click here to register for the Malta location. For more information, contact Russ Higgins: (815) 274-1343, rahiggin@illinois.edu.

Mail-in registrations must arrive one week before each conference in order to take advantage of the advance registration discount. To download the mail-in registration form, click here.


Save the Date: Regional Illinois Crop Management Conferences

The dates and locations for the 2016 regional Crop Management Conferences are as follows:

 

       January 20: Mt. Vernon – Krieger/Holiday Inn Convention Center.

       January 27: Springfield – Northfield Inn Conference Center.

       February 3:  Champaign – i-Hotel and Conference Center.

       February 10: Malta – Kishwaukee College Conference Center.

 

These conferences provide a forum for discussion and interaction between participants and university researchers and are designed to address a wide array of topics pertinent to crop production in Illinois: crop management, pest management, nutrient management, soil and water management.

At each location, conferences will be held from 8 AM to 5 PM, with a 1 hour break for lunch. Those that have attended in years past will recognize this as a major schedule change. Unfortunately, with the dwindling number of crop sciences faculty with extension responsibilities, we are unable to continue to offer 13 hours of education over 2 days.

Certified Crop Advisers can still earn up to 8 hours of continuing education credit.

Advanced registration, no later than one week before each conference, will cost $100 per person. Late and on-site registration will cost $120.

Stay tuned to the Bulletin for details regarding speakers and topics and for registration details.


Ewing Demonstration Center Fall Cover Crop Field Day – Nov. 3

Join us for our Fall Cover Crop Field Day at the University of Illinois Extension Ewing Demonstration Center on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. Included in the afternoon field day will be a discussion of the on-going cover crop research, including a tour of the annual cover crop variety trial with over 20 differ-ent cover crop plots. New this year is an evaluation of the performance of 3 new clover varieties in southern Illinois ahead of corn. The Ewing Demonstration Center is located about 20 miles south of Mt. Vernon at 16132 N. Ewing Rd; Ewing, IL 62836, on the north edge of the village of Ewing, north of the Ewing Grade School on north Ewing Road. Watch for signs.

This field day is also held in conjunction with a Soil Health/Cover Crop Field Day held on the evening of the evening of the 3rd and the 4th of November at the Terry N. Taylor Farm, 101 South St. Geff, Il. This program is sponosored by the Wayne County Soil & Water Conservation District. Please contact them to register and for more information about this portion of the event at (618) 842-7602 ext 3.

The field day is free and open to anyone interested and lunch will be provided. For additional information, contact Nathan Johanning at 618-687-1727 or njohann@illinois.edu or Marc Lamczyk at 618-439-3178 or lamczyk@illinois.edu.


University of Illinois Retirement and New Career

On October 31, 2015, I will retire from the University of Illinois and on November 9, 2015, begin a new career with Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri as Sustainable Agricultural Systems Lead. So, my actual retirement will be short-lived. In this new Regulatory Policy & Scientific Affairs position, I will have responsibilities for advancing important sustainability initiatives and advanced agricultural technology platforms. This position will require close collaboration across multiple teams including Monsanto’s Regulatory, Government, Technology Development, and Corporate Engagement functions.

It has been an honor to devote my academic career at the University of Illinois to the residents of Illinois, the students on this campus, extension clientele, colleagues, and the agricultural stakeholders across the globe. I will retain professor emeritus standing and look forward to continuing relationships on this campus and other universities that have been built over the decades. I will forever look back fondly on the many extension roads traveled with my colleagues in an effort to serve clientele and stakeholders across this great state. I offer my thanks to the University of Illinois for providing me this wonderful opportunity.

Mike Gray, Professor and Extension Entomologist


Online courses target weed & crop management

Each year the University of Illinois Extension’s regional Crop Management Conferences offer hours of research-based education to farmers, Certified Crop Advisors, and other agricultural professionals. Interactive online courses were developed from 2015 conference presentations by University of Illinois Department of Crop Science faculty:

  • New (and old) Tools for Delaying and Coping with Herbicide Resistance – Dr. Adam Davis, USDA Weed Ecologist
  • Confirming Herbicide Resistance – Dr. Aaron Hager, Extension Weed Scientist
  • Corn & Soybean Agronomy: Will What Worked in 2014 Work in 2015? – Dr. Emerson Nafziger, Extension Agronomist

These and 14 other courses covering soil and water management, integrated pest management, and crop management topics are open for public viewing free of charge on the University of Illinois Extension CCA webpage.

Descriptions of each course are listed below course titles on the main webpage (Figure).

To view a course, click on the course title, then click on the words “Begin Course” under the green box located on the right side of the page (Figure). Certified Crop Advisors interested in earning continuing education units (CEUs) must register, log in, pay a small fee, view each slide in its entirety and complete a short quiz (Figure).

If you have difficulty accessing this content, please contact Angie Peltier: apeltier@illinois.edu, (309) 734-1098.


Making Input Decisions for Corn Rootworms in 2016 – Check out New Webcast

Producers throughout the Corn Belt are in the midst of harvest operations. However, it’s not too soon to begin evaluating the value of corn rootworm inputs for 2015 and their potential value for the 2016 growing season. Earlier this month, the Plant Management Network posted a new webcast titled Estimation of Efficacy Functions for Products Used to Manage Corn Rootworm Larval Injury. The webcast was created by Dr. Nicholas Tinsley, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois. The foundation for this webcast was field research conducted over many years and published by scientists from the University of Nebraska, University of Wisconsin, and the University of Illinois.

Tinsley, N.A., P.D. Mitchell, R.J. Wright, L.J. Meinke, R.E. Estes, and M.E. Gray (in press). Estimation of efficacy functions for products used to manage corn rootworm larval injury. Journal of Applied Entomology

During the webcast, Nick Tinsley takes viewers through a logical step by step process in assessing the potential value of inputs (insecticidal seed treatments, planting-time soil insecticides, and Bt hybrids) designed to limit economic losses caused by corn rootworm larval damage. I encourage anyone who is ready to begin making these decisions for 2016 to view this short webcast. It could be time very well spent.

Mike Gray, Professor and Extension Entomologist