Peanut Update

The below info is provided by Dr. Scott Montford, Dr. Wesley Porter, Dr. Bob Kemerait, Dr. Glen Harris, Dr. Nathan Smith, and Dr. Scott Tubbs.

Peanut Update (Scott Montfort)

Based on the National Ag Statistics Service, we are roughly 90% planted. Scattered showers have help provide some much needed moisture in some areas with others remaining dry. There are some poor stands as a result of dry conditions and declining seed quality. With seed quality potentially declining, save some of your seed. Place the seed in a paper bag and keep in a cool place. A sample of seed can help diagnose stand issues if problems arise.

There have also been stand issues in some irrigated fields across the state where growers planted into hot dry soil and then watered them up. This can sometime shock peanut seed in these situations causing inconsistent and/or poor germination.

We are going to continue to observe problems as growers try to finish planting their last few acres. All we can hope for the rains to continue.

Fine Tuning Peanut Irrigation (Wesley Porter)

Adapted from the Peanut Grower Article by John Leidner

Peanuts require about 23 inches of water during the growing season to make a good crop. Water requirements for peanuts are low up until the eighth or ninth week of growth, when water use reaches about one inch per week.

About 78% of the water is needed from weeks 10 through 17 of a typical 20-week growing season. Peanut water use peaks during the fruiting peanut growth stage. This takes place about the 14th week of the growing season. At that time, the plant can use up to 2.1 inches of water per week or 0.3 inches of water per day.

In the Southeast, the probability of receiving 20 to 25 inches of rainfall evenly distributed during the growing season is quite low. This means that non-irrigated peanuts will rarely achieve their full yield potential.

I have focused much of my research on peanuts on irrigation scheduling techniques.  A University of Georgia-developed Smart Sensor Array system proved to be the best method for scheduling peanut irrigation in Porter’s test. This system was developed by researchers Dr. George Vellidis and Calvin Perry. It used a total of about 22 inches of water in Porter’s test, including 9.4 inches of irrigation water.  This water helped to produce peanut yields of 6,052 pounds per acre for Porter.  For the Smart Sensor Array, we loaded up the plots with soil moisture sensors. We placed the sensors at depths of four, eight and 16 inches in the soil.  We used a weighted average of these three sensor depths to determine when to irrigate the peanuts.

The other irrigation scheduling methods included the Smartfield™ SmartCrop© system that relies on temperature measurements taken from the plant canopy. The next was the University of Georgia’s Easy Pan system. The Easy Pan is a low-cost system that calls for irrigation when the water in a washtub pan reaches certain levels. This system is an adaptation of other pan evaporation irrigation scheduling methods. The University of Georgia’s checkbook method of irrigation scheduling was also included in the test. The checkbook method is fairly easy to use and involves using rain gauges to keep up with rainfall amounts, while also using addition and subtraction of available water, depending on the stage of crop growth and the plant’s water use at each stage of growth. The final scheduling method in was the University of Florida’s Peanut Farm system. This method offers irrigation advice online. It relies on data from local weather stations along with estimates for peanut maturity in offering irrigation scheduling recommendations.

These methods were tested on four peanut varieties, including the widely grown Georgia-06G. The highest yields came from the University of Georgia’s Smart Sensor Array system. The Easy Pan system produced the next highest yields. The University of Florida’s Peanut Farm system tended to under-apply irrigation, while the University of Georgia’s Checkbook method tended to over-apply water to the peanuts.

The over-application of irrigation using the Checkbook recommendation may have actually reduced yields in these plots. Based on this test, I have worked with the developer of the University of Florida Peanut Farm system Dr. Diane Rowland, to fine-tune the system for 2015 to become more precise in producing high yields.

Overall, any of the scheduling methods should produce better yields than irrigating randomly.  For farmers who use no scientific irrigation scheduling method, I suggest starting with a fairly simple and low-cost system such as the Checkbook, Easy Pan, or PeanutFarm systems before investing in the more expensive system such as the Smart Sensor Array or other sensor-based irrigation scheduling systems.

Checklist for June: A critical month for disease management in the peanut crop (Kemerait)

For many peanut growers, fungicide applications for the management of leaf spot and soilborne diseases begin in the month of June.  As with disease management for all crops, initiating fungicide applications before disease becomes established is critical for the overall success of the program.  Given that the majority of the peanut acreage in Georgia is planted in late April and throughout the month of May, important fungicide applications to consider in June include the following.

 1. Where white mold (southern stem rot) is expected to be a problem, e.g., where peanuts are planted behind peanuts or where soil conditions have been unusually warm early in the season, growers may want to consider an early emergence BANDED application of Proline or Abound fungicides.  Such are generally made somewhere between three and five weeks after planting.  While these banded applications are needed in every field, they have been proven effective in both reducing severity of white mold season-long and also in significantly improving yields.  NOTE FOR 2015:  Weather conditions this far in 2015 have not been unusually warm so as to send a “red flag” for early season white mold control; however there have been some indications that the disease may be aggressive this year.  For example, outbreaks of white mold were observed in sugar beets and wheat earlier this year in Tifton and lately on onions in east Georgia.

2. Until recently, conditions have not been favorable for leaf spot diseases on peanut as the weather has been dry for most growers.  Rainfall over the past 10 days has creates conditions now more favorable for leaf spot; however since the crop is still young, growers still have ample time to protect their crop.  Application of fungicides for management of leaf spot diseases typically begins somewhere between 28 and 45 days after planting, depending on the fungicide program being deployed and the use of Peanut Rx fungicide programs.  Perhaps the most important concern this year with regards to leaf spot and peanuts is the availability of chlorothalonil.  To follow up on early information, below are options growers may wish to consider for 2015 if they are unable to get the chlorothalonil that they need.

Peanuts and the short supply of Bravo/cholothalonil: What to do??

A. Replace 1.5 pt/A chlorothalonil with 15 fl oz/A Elast

B. Replace 1.5 pt/A chlorothalonil with 10 fl oz/A Topsin/thiophanate methyl, but ONLY one time!

C. Replace 1.5 pt/A chlorothanil with 7.0 fl oz/A Stratego (concern about resistance management…)

D. Replace 1.5 pt/A chlorothalonil with 3.5 fl oz/A Absolute (concern about resistance management…)

E. Replace 1.5 pt/A chlorothalonil with 5.5 fl oz/A Alto (better to mix 1.0 pt/A chlorothalonil with 5.5 fl oz/A Alto, or at least SOME chlorothalonil with the Alto!)

F. Replace 1.5 pt/A chlorothalonil with 5.5 fl oz/A Alto + 5 fl oz/A Topsin/thiophanate methyl

G. Extend chlorothalonil with 1.0 pt/A chlorothalonil with 1.0 pt/A Kocide

H. Extend chlorothalonil with 1.0 pt/A chlorothalonil with 5.0 fl oz/A Topsin/thiophanate methyl

I. Extend chlorothalonil with 1.0 pt/A chlorothalonil with 2.0 fl oz/A propiconazole.

3. Management of white mold (southern stem rot) and Rhizoctonia limb rot historically begins approximately 60 days after planting; however as mentioned above, management programs may begin now as early as three weeks after planting.  Mixing tebuconazole (7.2 fl oz/A) with a leaf spot spray at approximately 42 days after planting (typically with 1.0 pt/A chlorothalonil and where other triazole fungicide programs are not used later) is an inexpensive and effective way to manage both leaf spot and white mold.  The new Priaxor program from BASF also begins (for all disease control) approximately 45 days after planting.  Use of generic tebuconazole products is very popular among growers because of the reduced cost of such programs.  Tebuconazole remains an important fungicide in our arsenal to fight diseases in the peanut fields.  However, growers should remember that programs including Abound, Artisan, Convoy, Fontelis, Provost, and Priaxor may be more effective and increase profits for the grower, especially when conditions are favorable for development of white mold.

4. Please remember that the Peanut Rx risk management tool is available for free on the APP Store (search “Peanut Rx”) and GOOGLE Play (search “UGA Peanut Rx”).

5. Peanuts and ELATUS: the label on Elatus fungicide from Syngenta is delayed and likely will not be here in time for the 2015 growing season.

Replanting a Poor Stand (Tubbs)

In 2014, my graduate student and I wrapped up multiple research trials studying the effects of poor plant stands on yield, and the most effective methods of replanting peanut when a poor plant stand occurs.  There were some mixed results, but this is a condensed version of some of the major take-home points:

Replanting did not improve yield over leaving an initially poor plant stand alone as often as I would have anticipated.  Overall, only when plant stands were as low as 1 plant per foot of row did replanting improve yield at a point that it would be economically viable to justify the cost of replanting (because of the additional cost of seed and fuel/labor/equipment expenses to move across the field again).  Although, some of the individual year data did show the potential for yield improvement when plant stands were 2 plants per foot of row or less.  Hence, if plant stands are at least 2.5 plants per foot of row (whether twin row or single row; strip-till or conventional tillage; and the stands are relatively uniform without large gaps in the field), the chances of gaining a return on the investment of replanting a field is very low.

The method of replanting the field does matter as well – there were essentially no circumstances where burning down the original stand of peanuts with herbicide and starting over with a complete replanting of peanut was worthwhile.  Any instances where replanting showed the potential for a benefit, it was when the originally poor plant stand was left in the field and peanut was replanted by offsetting the planter a couple inches to the side of the original row and placing supplemental seed in the ground.  Additional experiments are being conducted to determine the effect of less uniform plant stands with varying gap sizes within the row, and also the timing of determining optimum maturity when the original plant stand and a replanted plant stand are growing together in the field.

One thing that was clear in our data was that if the decision to replant a field was made, that decision needed to occur within 2-3 weeks after the original planting date.  Waiting until 4 weeks after the original planting was unsuccessful in gaining an advantage over leaving the original plant stand alone.

The More Things Change (Glen Harris)

The more they stay the same!  When we switched from growing small-seeded Georgia Green to large-seeded Georgia 06G we really thought we would need to increase our gypsum or calcium recommendations.  But after years of research we concluded that the recommendations didn’t need to change.  You can still use a pegging soil sample ( 3 inches deep, next to the peanut row soon after emergence) and if you have at least 500 lb/a of soil test calcium AND if your calcium to potassium ratio is 3:1 or better, than you don’t need to apply gypsum.  If you do not meet EITHER of these requirements then you need to apply 1000 lb/a gypsum at early bloom.  Also, all peanuts grown for seed should automatically receive this gypsum application regardless of soil test calcium levels.

There are a number  of different gypsum or landplaster fertilizers currently available. Chemically they are all calcium sulfate and the good news is that we have tested these too and they are all comparable as far as providing calcium to the pegging zone of a peanut.  Probably the most commonly one used now is technically called Flue Gas Desulfurized or FGD gypsum and is a byproduct of scrbbing sulfur gas out of smokestacks at coal burning power plants.  I call this “smokestack” gypsum although a lot of growers refer to it as “synethetic” gypsum.  There is also the old ‘wet bulk” phosphogypsum(a by-product of the phosphorous fertilizer production) and the naturally mined USG 500 among others.

The lime method can also be used to provide calcium to the pegging zone of peanut but a few things : 1) this method soul really only be used when you also need a soil pH adjustment, otherwise use gypsum if you need calcium, 2) both dolomitic or calcitic lime can be used.  Some people think you HAVE to use calcitic but this is not true, and 3) the lime method does not work as well as gypsum under dryland conditions during years of normal rainfall.  We have good replicated field data to support this too.

We have also been testing putting calcium chloride though the pivot at peak pod fill (60-90 days after planting).  This method has a fit when you are on the borderline of needing some calcium. The benefits are you can apply this yourself and you do not have to run over the vines.  One disadvantage compared to gypsum or lime is that this method with not build your soil test calcium levels basically at all.

Farm Bill Update and Prevented Planting Questions (Nathan Smith)

FSA recently held training for State Staff on ARCPLC enrollment.   Producers are required to enroll annually in the ARCPLC program to be eligible to receive payments.   The enrollment period is expected to begin mid-June.  Enrollment for 2014 and 2015 ARCPLC will take place during this signup period.  Producers will need to complete and sign form CCC-861 (ARC-CO and PLC) or CCC-862 (ARC-IC).   Also, acreage certification (FSA-578), called cropland certification, is due to the FSA office on July 15.

New Reconstitution Rules

A new twist on ARC-County elections will affect payments depending on the county and farm’s irrigation history.  For ARC-CO only, counties that meet the HIP (historical irrigation percentage) criteria have irrigated and non-irrigated ARC-CO benchmarks, guarantees, and payments.  The HIP criteria for a specific covered commodity in a county are at least 25% of the acres of the crop were irrigated and 25% of the acres were non-irrigated for the time period 2009-2012.  HIP eligible counties can trigger an ARC-CO payment for one practice or both depending on the county yield each year.  The farm level HIP factor is calculated same as the county, the irrigated and non-irrigated history of the covered commodity on the farm from 2009 to 2012.  The farm level HIP factor will be used to determine the ARC-CO payment for a farm when a payment triggers for the irrigated or non-irrigated practice or both.

The real concern with the establishment of a HIP for a farm is related to reconstitutions.  The rule recently written requires the HIP for each common crop to be the same on all parent farms looking to be combined.  In other words, farms with HIP-eligible common crops must have the same HIP factor in order to be combined in a reconstitution.  This will effectively prevent combining farms through reconstitution unless they are all irrigated or all non-irrigated.   Remember, to be able to combine farms, the same ARCPLC elections had to be made on the covered crops.  The HIP rule will likely prevent most farm combinations that were planned.

Prevented and Failed Planting and Generic Acres

A question that has come up a couple times on prevented planting is “will prevented planting acreage be attributed to generic base?”  In short, the answer is no according to Farm Service Agency.  A covered commodity, such as peanuts, has to be planted in order to be attributed to generic base.  The final planting date for peanuts was June 5 for most counties in Georgia.  The late planting period runs either 10 or 15 days after the final planting date where coverage is reduced 1% per day until June 15.

Failed planting acres of a covered commodity, however, does count and will be attributed to generic base on a farm with generic base.   Below is an update of prevented and failed planting info from 2014 Peanut Pointers article.

Final Planting Date (FPD)

The Final Planting Date is the last date a producer may plant and the acreage be eligible for full crop insurance coverage (receive the 100% of Production Guarantee or Revenue Guarantee). The producer is not required to plant after the FPD but may do so at reduced coverage of 1% per day through the late planting period.

Georgia Final Planting Date

Late Planting Period (LPP). If the producer so elects, planting may continue during the late planting period at reduced coverage of 1% per day. Planting may continue even after the late planting period and coverage will be at the Prevented Planting guarantee (50% of the full season guarantee for cotton and peanuts and 60% of the full season guarantee for grain sorghum and soybeans).

Georgia Late Planting Period

Farmers can still plant peanuts and cotton after June 15, but the guarantee drops to 50 percent for peanuts and cotton. If the producer is unable to plant by the final planting date, the producer may file for prevented planting” and must do so within 72 hours after the Final Planting Date. If the producer is unable to plant during the Late Planting Period, again the producer must file for “prevented planting” within 72 hours of the late planting deadline. Filing for prevented planting requires documentation on the part of the producer.