Cooperative Extension Service Breckinridge County 1377 S. Hwy 261 Hardinsburg, KY 40143 (270) 756-2182 Fax: (270) 756-9016 https://breckinridge.ca.uky.edu

Breckinridge County AG Newsletter

Agent’s Corner

As the year continues to roll on into spring, I have been remembering

back about the number of farmers that I have become to know through

my 25 years here. I heard recently that a local farmer was no longer go-

ing to be ‘hog’ farmer. Now I will be the first to admit that hog farming

is one of the toughest professions there is. Across the state, at one time,

hogs were leaving finishing floors at a -$ 40 to -$ 60/head loss; I cannot

imagine staying in at that rate for very long. Farmers stay in for the

good and bad times. You can’t talk them out of it; believe me, I have

tried. But as many of us have been told throughout our farming lives,

‘don’t start something you can’t finish’.

If someone is new to farming they may not understand that concept, but

with the market highs and lows, a farmer will finally break even. I have

worked with families in trying to work out minor details on succession

planning. It’s not easy; it’s a passion of so many farming families to

pass down the tradition, the heritage, the land, the buildings, the shear

love of the land and lifestyle. Take the time with your family to discuss

the possibilities of passing down the farm. Don’t pass down the hassle

and worry of what is going to be done with the heritage that you all have

worked so hard in accumulating.

Sincerely,

Carol M. Hinton Extension Agent For Agricultural/Natural Resources EducationBreckinridge County

INSIDE THIS ISSUE Page

Agent’s Corner 1

Reducing the Impact of 2018 Soybean Seed Quality on the 2019 Soybean Crop

2-3

CAIP Cost-Share Program Infor-mational Meetings

3

CAIP Program 4

Economists’ Viewpoints Sur-rounding the Hemp Boom

5-7

Adult Health Bulletin 8-9

Pond Management Meeting 10

Poultry Meeting 11

Woodlands Webinar Series 11

Novel Tall Fescue Renovation Workshop

12

Beef, Eggs & AG Issue Break-fast

13

Spring 2019 KY Grazing School 14-15

Recycling Program 16

Almanac Tidbits for March 16

Mark your calendars 16

Like us on Facebook

2

REDUCING THE IMPACT OF 2018 SOYBEAN SEED QUALITY ON THE 2019 SOYBEAN CROP

BY: Dr. Carrie Knott— Extension Grain Crops Specialist

Figure 1. Soybean harvest in January 2019 in Fulton County, KY.

Unfortunately some Kentucky producers are still ‘battling’ the 2018 soybean harvest (Figure 1). The fact that several thousand acres of unharvested soybean still remain in Kentucky in February emphasizes the tremendous challenge for harvest of the 2018 soybean crop. This has had a real impact on the quality of those soybeans (Figure 2). As early as the first week of October, reports that there were some major prob-lems with pathogens in Kentucky’s soybeans were being made. In most cases, the diseases were Phomopsis seed decay and purple seed stain. These diseases were favored by the repeated, frequent rains that occurred after the soybean crop was physiologically mature (Growth Stage R7; about 60% grain moisture), but be-fore the crop could be harvested due to lots of rain and saturated soil conditions. Drs. Carl Bradley and Kiersten Wise, University of Kentucky plant pathologists, along with Dr. Daren Mueller of Iowa State Uni-versity and Drs. Damon Smith and Shawn Conley of University of Wisconsin -Madison, wrote a very in-formative blog with much more specific details on those pathogens and potential management considera-tions for those pathogens: Soybean Seed Quality Considerations for 2019.

Figure 2. Soybean seed harvested in Central Kentucky in early October. Near impossible harvest conditions were not isolated to Kentucky. Many of the regions that produce ‘seed beans’, the soybeans that were produced in 2018 and will be sold to farmers to produce the 2019 crop, also had similar challenges. Seed companies will certainly clean the soybean seed extensively so that only the highest possible quality product will be sold in 2019. However, seed quality problems may still persist and require additional efforts to effectively manage in 2019.

3

One concern is that soybean seed germination may be reduced due to the presence of pathogens (see Soy-bean Seed Quality Considerations for 2019) and/or the repeated, frequent rains that occurred after the soy-bean reached physiological maturity. There are no ‘rescues’ for low germination rates but understanding that in 2019 seeding rates will probably need to be increased to compensate for lower -than-normal germi-nation rates will ensure that plant populations and ultimately, final yield are not impacted.

A second and much more concerning problem for the 2019 soybean crop is seed vigor. Seed vigor is a measure of the ability of seeds to produce normal seedlings in stressful conditions. This differs from seed germination, which is how many seeds can produce normal seedlings under ideal conditions. There are very few ideal soybean fields in Kentucky making seed vigor very important. In most years, seed germination and seed vigor are quite high and there is no need for concern. However, seed vigor can be greatly reduced when subjected to repeated, frequent rains after the R7 growth stage; the EXACT conditions that occurred across much of the soybean seed production region in 2018.

Seed vigor is not listed on the seed tag, but it can be tested at many laboratories across the nation, including the University of Kentucky Regulatory Services. In general, the seed vigor test for soybean is the Acceler-ated Aging test. This test takes a minimum of 10 days to complete. This does not include any backlog the laboratory may have at the time the sample is submitted. Therefore, submitting samples as soon as possible is important to allow time to obtain the test results and make management decisions that will not impact planting dates.

In general, the test results will list the seed vigor as “High” or “Low”. Essentially, seed lots with “High” seed vigor will likely produce acceptable germination and emergence rates in less than ideal conditions, such as cool, wet soils. Conversely, “Low” vigor seed lots are not expected to produce adequate, uniform stands unless field conditions are ideal, i.e. soil temperature between 68 and 86°F with no moisture stress (see Chapter 4 in A Comprehensive Guide to Soybean Management in Kentucky for additional details). “Low” vigor seed lots generally produce initial plant stands with unacceptable plant populations (less than 100,000 plants per acre) because much less seedlings will become established than would be predicted from the seed germination rate alone. This situation often results in reduced profitability at the end of the season due to the need for re-planting and in some cases reduced yield potential of the later-planted replant.

It is impossible to predict future growing seasons and what, if any, challenges may be encountered. Howev-er, given what we know about seed quality and the 2018 harvest season, it is reasonable to assume that farmers may be starting the 2019 with the considerable challenge of ensuring that their 2019 soybean seed lots are acceptable for their specific planting conditions. To minimize any potentially negative impacts, farmers will likely need to adjust seeding rates according the labeled seed germination rates and will cer-tainly need to determine seed vigor of A LL soybean seed lots. If a seed lot has “Low” vigor, do not use in conditions that are less than ideal. It may even be worth acquiring a different seed lot that is known to have “High” vigor to reduce the likelihood of inadequate stands, and the need for re-planting due to seed source.

CAIP Cost-Share Program Informational Meetings Schedule—

Breckinridge County Extension Community Building

For more information on Individual CAIP Cost-Share Program areas and to obtain answers

to your questions, please attend one of the meetings listed below.

Please call 270-756-2182 to register for the meeting of your choice.

Tuesday, March 12 —–— 8 a.m., 10 a.m., 1 p.m., 4 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. (ct)

Tuesday, March 19 ——- 12 Noon, 2:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. (ct)

Thursday, March 21 —– 7 p.m. (ct)

Thursday, March 28 ——- 6 p.m. (ct)

These meetings DO NOT qualify for approved CAIP meeting.

4

5

Economists’ Viewpoints Surrounding the Hemp Boom: Part I Source: Economic & Policy Update February 2019 Newsletter

Edited by: Will Snell & Samantha Mastin

As winter extension meetings occur across Kentucky and the nation, the conversation has often steered to the top-

ic of industrial hemp as farmers, and other agribusinesses inquire about an emerging crop in the midst of an over-

all struggling farm economy. This environment is creating enthusiasm and perceived opportunities for the crop.

Although the crop has been produced and marketed for thousands of years, the revitalized hemp market presently

contains many new economic opportunities and a wide variety of consumer products, coupled with political, reg-

ulatory and marketing challenges and uncertainties for hemp producers, processors, manufacturers, retailers, input

suppliers, and consumers.

Some of these uncertainties have been addressed by the enactment of the 2018 farm bill, which included language

to remove industrial hemp from the controlled substance list, enables hemp farmers to be eligible for federal crop

insurance, and allows hemp researchers to apply for competitive federal grants. Despite legislative approval and

expanding product sales, regulatory risks still prevail which complicates the long-term outlook for hemp.

In reality, the “economics” of hemp is complex. Economists are challenged in evaluating this crop’s economic

potential given an alleged 50,000+ uses for this crop from different parts of the plant, various production meth-

ods, an unpredictable policy and regulatory environment, and at least in the short-run, limited market and farm-

level data. This article will provide some general “macro” economic issues related to the crop. We will present

some farm-level budget and financial analyses in next

month’s issue to assist farmers in making production

and investment decisions related to this crop.

What We Do Know

While many unknowns surround the economics of hemp, three definitive statements can be made about the evolving hemp industry:

Hemp can be used as an input for thousands of consumer products. Sales of a wide variety of hemp products in the U.S. and worldwide represent a small portion of consumer

goods, but have been growing at a relatively brisk pace in recent years (see charts) Global production of hemp has declined considerably since the 1950s, but has been rebounding over the past

decade in response to growing consumer demand for hemp products, policy changes, infrastructure/business investment, and improved production practices.

While hemp can be used as an input to produce thousands of items, ultimately, businesses contemplating using hemp in their products must find hemp cost competitive with other competing inputs such as synthetic or other natural fibers, alternative oils, and other dietary/health supplements and therapeutic compounds. For farmers, hemp must be profitable relative to other potential crops and agricultural enterprises and competitive with hemp imported from competing countries. Demand for hemp will be shaped by the utility consumers receive from pur-chasing hemp products, which includes perceived health and environmental benefits, subject to price levels for hemp products and income constraints.

6

Hemp is Part of a Global Market

Hemp is produced worldwide in more than 30 countries. Historically, China and Europe have been major players,

but over the past two decades, Canada has become a significant player (primarily grain) with the U.S. being its larg-

est customer. Production (and prices) in the Canadian market have been very volatile over the past 20 years with

approved production licenses ranging from less than 50,000 acres in 2016 to nearly 140,000 acres in 2017, to re-

portedly less than 100,000 acres in 2018.

Currently, in the U.S., over 40 states have legislation that have approved production of industrial hemp, with most

adjusting to the requirements laid out in the 2018 Farm Bill. Even Alaska has an approved industrial hemp pro-

gram. U.S. hemp acres have increased from just a few hundred during the early years of the new hemp era in 2014-

2015 (primarily Colorado and Kentucky), to over 25,000 acres in 2017, to more than 78,000 acres in 2018.

The Kentucky Department of Agriculture approved slightly over 42,000 acres for 2019, consisting of 1,035 farmers

and more than 100 processors. This compares to 6,700 planted acres in 2018, comprised of 210 approved growers

and 72 approved processors. Based on history, look for Kentucky hemp planted acres to top 20,000 in 2019, with

U.S. hemp acreage easily exceeding 100,000 acres.

Despite its production and marketing challenges, some Kentucky farmers have done well during the early years of

hemp production, others have had complete/significant crop failures due primarily to weed pressures, while others

have had to wait for one, two or more years to receive full payment for their crops

Following the reintroduction of hemp back into the U.S. market after the 2014 Farm Bill most of the early produc-

tion centered around the hemp grain and fiber markets where returns were anticipated to compete with other homo-

geneous grain (corn, soybeans, and wheat) markets. Ultimately in this type of marketing environment, short term

profits encourage additional supplies that will eventually lead to lower prices and ultimately generating a competi-

tive rate of return, resulting in only the lowest cost producers/areas remaining in business.

The emergence of the CBD market has been sort of a game-changer. CBD currently offers a much higher economic

return for hemp producers, but also possess more volatile financial, policy, and regulatory risk than markets for

hemp fiber and grain. Likewise, lucrative short-run profits that may exist during the early years of this emerging

industry will likely lure additional supply across the U.S. and globally, which will diminish future profit potential

and commoditize the market, unless additional barriers to entry for this market are created.

A critical question for the foreseeable future will be can anticipated demand for hemp-derived products continue to

outpace expected large increases in hemp production in the United States and globally?

7

Undoubtedly, competition from Canada and Europe (with established infrastructure, management expertise, and mar-

kets), and China (with access to lower wages and lower regulatory standards) will provide competition for U.S. hemp

farmers, processors, and associated companies. With more than 40 U.S. states currently positioning themselves for

this quickly emerging market, it is not practical to expect (unless product demand grows substantially) that the market

can sustain viable hemp production in every state. Hemp processors will not likely locate in every state and consider-

ing transportation costs (especially for fiber) and access to markets, technology may dictate that production will ulti-

mately be concentrated in relatively few states where hemp can be grown at the lowest cost of production and trans-

ported shorter distances for processing. This suggests that states that can entice processors, manufacturers and infra-

structure to locate in their state based on a strong research base of knowledge, an interested and willing/educated

grower pool with lowest cost of production for desired quality characteristics requested, along with support from local

and state governments, will likely enhance their chances for success in this emerging industry.

Significant price volatility will likely evolve, depending on the supply/demand balance. Plus, with limited access to

inputs (e.g., seed, chemicals, labor, specialized equipment) and management expertise slowly evolving, growers can

anticipate continued yield variability. Consequently, growers are encouraged to incorporate a wide range of prices and

yields over multiple years in their budgeting analysis as the expansion of acres and companies is expected to put

downward pressure on prices in future years.

With any emerging industry, investors of all types will attempt to capitalize on potential market opportunities promis-

ing large economic returns. History reveals that some will succeed, while many others will fail. Thus, growers should

thoroughly investigate potential buyers to evaluate if they possess sound and sustainable business plans/strategies

along with examining up-front investment demands, production requirements, and payment details. Additionally, it

might also be advisable to consider alternative market structures, such as vertically-integrated production models to

share risk among buyers and sellers and allow buyers greater control over input, use and production practices to con-

trol the quantity and quality of a highly-regulated crop.

Access to credit may remain a challenge in the near term as lending institutions will likely require some production

history with established hemp returns or other forms of collaterial in making lending decisions. Although subsidized

federal crop insurance is mandated in the farm bill for hemp, it is unclear when products will become available, given

a lack of production history.

Without any safety net for this crop and the infancy of the industry, producers need to understand and be willing to

lose their investment in the crop if it fails, the processor goes out of business, or the policy environment changes. If

these are not risks the producer is willing to accept or does not have the financial ability to absorb, then hemp may not

be the right crop for their operation until these conditions are ameliorated or become more stable.

Despite all these market and policy/regulatory challenges and uncertainties, Kentucky does have some significant ad-

vantages compared to other states thanks to foresight and aggressiveness of many Kentucky policymakers, businesses,

and farm leaders. Some of these advantages include:

getting into the game early to better understand and improve upon many of the production challenges facing this

crop.

developing some of the best production research programs of any state with our land-grant and regional university

hemp research programs,

attracting early/significant investment dollars among hemp businesses/processors into Kentucky

developing a model administrative oversight program (i.e., the Kentucky Department of Agriculture) that other

states are trying to duplicate,

possessing existing tobacco production experience and infrastructure (barns and equipment) that is adaptable to

some hemp production models, which gives Kentucky an advantage over other non-tobacco states. Tobacco com-

panies are investing in the hemp industry and considering the utilization of existing tobacco growers as their

grower base.

8

9

10

11

Mark your calendars for these meetings to be held in the Breckinridge County Extension

Farmers’ Market & Educational Facility.

March 22, 2019 Poultry meeting 6 p.m. (ct)

March 23, 2019 Poultry meeting 9 a.m. (ct)

Participant must attend both AM & PM meetings.

These meetings will be hosted by:

William Rogers, KSU Small Farm Extension Agent

Please call 270-756-2182 to register for these meetings.

These Webinars will be available in the Breckinridge County Extension Farmers’ Market and Ed-

ucational Facility on Central Time. Call the Extension office at 270-756-2182 for more infor-

mation.

12

13

14

15

16

Stop by one of the following recycling centers near you:

Breckinridge County High School Cloverport Fire Department Auggie Doggie’s, Garfield

St. Romuald Gym, Hardinsburg McQuady Firehouse

Breckinridge County Extension Office Rough River Corp of Engineers Office

McDaniels Community Center Frederick Fraize High School, Cloverport

Hardinsburg Elementary School Union Star

All recycling sites are accessible 24 hours a day,

seven days a week.

The Cooperative Extension Service prohibits discrimination in its programs and employment on the basis of race, color, age, sex, religion, disabil-

ity, or national origin.

To file a complaint of discrimination, contact Tim West, UK College of Agriculture, 859-257-3879; Terry Allen or Patty Bender, UK Office of

Institutional Equity and Equal Opportunity, 859-257-8927; or the USDA, Director Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W Whitten Bldg., 14th & Inde-

pendence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 (202-720-5964).

Mark your calendars!

If you are interested in any of these events, call the Extension Office at 270-756-2182 for more information.

March 12, 2019—CAIP Informational meeting—Breck. Co. Extension Community Building

March 19, 2019—CAIP Informational meeting –Breck. Co. Extension Community Building

March 19, 2019—Pond Management meeting—-Breck. Co. Extension Community Building

March 20, 2019—The Novel Tall Fescue Workshop—Central Presbyterian Church—Princeton, KY

March 21, 2019—CAIP Informational meeting—Breck. Co. Extension Community Building

March 28, 2019—CAIP Informational meeting—Breck. Co. Extension Community Building

April 6, 2019—Beef, Egg & Ag Issue Breakfast—Breck. Co. Extension Community Building May 14, 2019—UK Wheat Field Day—UK Research & Educational Center, Princeton, KY

July 23, 2019—UK Corn, Soybean & Tobacco Field Day– Princeton, KY

Almanac Tidbits for: March

Plant above ground crops -— 6, 10-1, 14-15

Plant Below ground crops — 1, 5, 20-24, 27-28

Seed Beds——————— 14-15, 22-24

Kill plant pests:————— 2-4, 7-9,12-13, 16-19, 25-26, 29-31