A UVM blog Out Croppings: Important crop news from the field!

Oilseeds are crops that may provide avenues for diversification on Vermont farms. They include sunflower, canola, soybean, flax, and hemp. Oil extracted from these crops can be used for on-farm fuel production or culinary uses, while the leftover meal can be used as a high protein livestock feed or soil amendment to boost fertility.

An oil press is a machine that extrudes the oil from the crop by separating it from the meal. There are several types of small-scale oil presses that vary in size, and some offer more flexibility than others. Check out this factsheet on Oilseed Oil Presses or this YouTube video on small-scale oil presses to learn more.

Pressing seed for oil is an activity that begins as the farm season slows down and the weather cools at Borderview Research Farm. The video below shows our oil press in action, with farm owner Roger Rainville and two UVM Extension NWCS employees processing soybeans:

The UVM Extension NWCS team’s oilseed program aims to develop best practices for oilseed production under Vermont’s growing conditions. Check out our 2021 Research Reports for the most up-to-date results, including the Conventional Soybean Variety Trial, the Conventional Soybean Performance Trials Summary, the Organic Soybean Variety Trial, and the Organic Soybean Performance Trials Summary. 

For more information and resources, read our Oilseed Production in the Northeast guide and visit our oilseed crops webpage. 

The University of Vermont Extension Northwest Crops and Soils Program conducted an organic silage corn variety trial in 2021 to provide unbiased performance comparisons of commercially available varieties. To determine varieties that are best suited to this production system and our region’s climate, we evaluated 14 commercially available organic corn silage varieties from 2 companies. 

Varieties ranged significantly in terms of yield, quality, and digestibility.  These differences can have notable impacts on herd health, milk production/yield, and your bottom line as a farmer, which is why selecting the variety you plant is crucial to achieve optimal results.  With a changing and increasing volatile climate, farmers need to know which varieties may perform better in dry drought conditions and which may perform better in wet conditions to make management decisions for their local weather patterns on their fields. 

Read the full 2021 Organic Silage Corn Performance Trial report linked here.

All research reports are posted to the Research Results tab of our website. Check back there as we post more reports from the 2021 field season this winter!

Written by Laura Sullivan, Founder of Pipedream Hempworks, Research Technician at the University of Vermont Extension Northwest Crops and Soils Program.

This past growing season we at UVM Extension Northwest Crops and Soils (NWCS) planted 13 fiber and dual-purpose varieties of Hemp at Borderview Research Farm in Alburgh, Vermont as part of our Hemp fiber variety trial. The seeds were sown in early June 2021 and two harvest dates were set for late August and early September to obtain data at a variety of stages in the lifecycle. After each harvest, fiber was retted one of two ways: Field retting is a process in which the hemp is cut and left on the ground to grow bacteria that break down the pectin layer binding the bast fiber (outermost layer of the stalk) to the hurd (woody core of the stalk). Water retting is a process where plant bundles are submerged in water to achieve the same. Subsamples of each variety underwent both retting practices for quality comparison.

After the small feats of retting were completed came the more daunting task of getting the retted samples processed into workable fiber. In 2021 America, we have become accustomed to a certain ease around manufacturing products that simply doesn’t exist for hemp. In a nation where growing industrial fiber hemp was once mandated to keep up with development and war, currently there is not a single long staple fiber mill to speak of. “Long staple” refers to the length of fibers belonging to bast fiber plants like hemp and flax. After NAFTA and CAFTA were implemented in the 1990s, the majority of textile manufacturing and other non-perishable industries were moved overseas where they could be done at a lower price point, and U.S. mills and dye houses subsequently closed.

Lucky for us, living in a small state with a rich textile history has its perks. Antique milling equipment belonging to the historic Old Stone House Museum in Brownington, Vermont was generously lent to us for our research. A good bit of the fiber was processed manually this way, yielding beautiful horsehair-like sliver for spinning, while the rest awaits processing with the aid of electricity at a mini mill in Nova Scotia (our closest option) this winter. Stay subscribed to our blog to follow along with this fibershed project as it unfurls in the coming seasons, and as more fiber hemp research is published by the NWCS team. Ambitions have been laid for fun events and educational opportunities surrounding growing and processing fiber domestically.

Through our research we aim to carve a trail into the modern era that bypasses the perils of the current fast fashion model where clothes are treated as disposable, while consisting of the least “disposable” materials on the planet. If there is anything that you, reader, take away from this post let it be this: clothing is agriculture. It is revolutionary to grow and support local fiber because it is to believe in an alternative future where humans work symbiotically with nature instead of in spite of it. When our clothing comes from the soil, it can return to the soil, thus, building soil. When we build soil, we sink carbon.  If we can achieve this goal of a closed-loop-clothing system on our research farm, then we will be able to better help farmers in our region to do the same. In an era of climate breakdown, fiber farming could offer Vermonters a lot to be hopeful about.

For the second year in a row, the UVM Extension, Northwest Crops and Soils Program has been conducting a regional assessment of the disease and insect pests found in industrial hemp throughout New England. Over the last couple of weeks, 10 hemp fields have been scouted from across Vermont and we would love to share a little of what we have been seeing. Depending on the specific location, the 2021 season has presented challenges with the heat, not enough rain, too much rain, or all the above! As a result, we have been seeing various issues related to abiotic (water in particular) stresses popping up.  

The most common diseases we are finding this year are fungal leaf spots. They can include several species of pathogens, the one specific to hemp is Septoria cannabis. Like most foliar diseases, Septoria requires moist conditions to germinate, and begins at the ground in the bottom leaves, working its way up the plant. Common signs are yellow spots, and brown or yellow discoloration on the leaves (Figure 1).  

A small amount of powdery mildew has also been seen, but we can expect to see increasing amounts throughout the region. Powdery mildew appears as patches of white spores on the surface of leaves (Figure 2). If the infection progresses, and entire leaves, petioles, and flowers become covered, that can lead to reduced flower quality. 

It should be no surprise that, by far, the most common insect pest we are seeing in hemp fields are cannabis aphids. Winged and wingless aphids (Figure 3) can usually be found the underside of leaves and stems, sucking the life out of your hemp plants. They are not doing any harm at this point; however, the concern is that as the season progresses and aphid populations slowly grow, high populations might reduce plant vigor or slow growth.

You are probably also seeing chewing damage from flea beetles (Figure 4) and Japanese beetles, but those guys are just nibbling here and there, and your plants can withstand a considerable amount of defoliation without any impact on hemp yields. Kadie Britt (2021), a good friend of ours recently found that “removal of leaf tissue in grain and CBD cultivars did not significantly impact observable effects on physical yield (seed or bud weight) or cannabinoid content (CBD or THC) at the time of harvest”.

For a full report on last year’s results, checkout our 2020 On-Farm New England Hemp Pest & Disease Scouting Report at: (https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Northwest-Crops-and-Soils-Program/2020%20Research%20Reports/2020_Hemp_On-Farm_Scouting_Report_Final.pdf).  

For more information on our Industrial Hemp Research Program, check out the Industrial Hemp page on our website: https://www.uvm.edu/extension/nwcrops/industrial-hemp  and/or a full list of our research reports at:  https://www.uvm.edu/extension/nwcrops/research  

Although it hasn’t felt like it, fall is right around the corner. Despite dry conditions through much of the growing season, and still persisting in some regions, soybeans seem to be doing well. Overall, they look tall and healthy with pods filling and not too much disease. Since it will be a while longer until we have all the results from our 2021 trials, here are some highlights from our soybean work in 2020 to consider while you wait. We hope you find this information useful in making informed decisions on your farm. Full results of research trials can be found at uvm.edu/extension/nwcrops/research. Reach out to us if you have any questions (cropsoil@uvm.edu)! 

Variety Selection

In 2020 we trialed 19 conventional and 8 organic soybean varieties spanning maturity groups 0-2. Despite exceptionally dry and hot weather, soybeans in both trials performed well averaging 65.3 bu^-1 and 55.8 bu ac^-1 in the conventional and organic trials respectively (Figure 1 and Figure 2). However, as you can see from the figures below, there was quite a range in yield between varieties. Interestingly, in both trials we observed high yields from short and long season varieties indicating that high yields can be attained in our northern climate. It is important to consider such trial results when selecting a variety that fits your farm’s goals and is well suited to its environment. Check out the full reports on our website for more details. 

Cover Cropping with Soybeans

In 2020 we conducted two cover cropping trials with soybeans. The goals of the trials were to: 

1) investigate the impact of various cover crop species and mixtures on subsequent soybean yield and quality, as well as nutrient and soil health dynamics, and 

2) investigate the impact of termination methods on soybean yields and quality. 

Introducing a cover crop into a cropping system can provide a multitude of benefits but also presents challenges. Cover crops used in this region can be categorized into two main groups: winterkilled and overwintering. While overwintering cover crops provide protection to the soil through the winter and regrow the following spring, having them regrow in the spring requires terminating them in a timely manner without delaying planting impeding nutrient availability for the cash crop. In 2017, we saw a 7.5 bu ac^-1 yield reduction when soybeans followed winter rye but no yield reduction when soybeans followed a winter killed cover crop. Interestingly the experiment was repeated from 2018 through 2020 and although the soybeans yields were often higher following a winterkilled cover crop, it wasn’t statistically different in yields compared to soybeans following winter rye (Table1). This suggests that utilizing an overwintering cover crop that was incorporated into the soil prior to seeding soybean, does not result in a significant yield reduction. We are still trying to understand why the overwinter cover crop might lead to yield reductions in soybeans. 

When comparing the different cover crop treatments, there were differences in soil nitrate concentration throughout the season (Figure 3). You can see that incorporating the overwintering cover crop biomass (winter wheat and triticale) into the soil resulted in the lowest nitrate availability throughout the season whereas the winterkilled cover crop such as annual ryegrass and tillage radishes, led to significantly higher soil nitrate concentration over the season. The additional nitrogen in the spring may help the soybeans establish and could potential lead to higher yields.   

We also compared three different termination methods for terminating overwintering cover crops:

1. Tillage 

2. Pre-plant herbicide application 

3. Post-plant herbicide application (planting green) 

Figure 4 shows the spring cover crop biomass and subsequent soybean yield for each of the termination treatments. The pre-plant herbicide application treatment (pre-spray) saw the lowest cover crop biomass and the highest soybean yield of over 70 bu ac^-1. In the tillage treatment, although the cover crop biomass was significantly higher at over 2 tons ac^-1, no significant soybean yield reduction was observed. The lowest soybean yield was observed in the post-plant herbicide application treatment where yields were almost 30 bu ac^-1 lower than the tillage and pre-spray treatments. This treatment also experienced significantly lower soil nitrate and soil moisture concentrations compared to the tillage treatment over the season which may have negatively impacted soybean establishment and performance. 

Planting Dates

Over the last four years we have also been conducting research on altering soybean planting dates in order to better understand the best range of planting dates and their subsequent impact on soybean performance in our region. Two-row plots of an early group 1 maturity variety and a mid-group 1 maturity variety were planted approximately weekly from 14-May through 2-Jul. 

The significant interaction between relative maturity and planting date for yield indicates that soybeans of different maturity groups have different yield responses to delaying planting dates (Figure 5). We would expect shorter season varieties to begin to out yield longer season varieties as planting dates are delayed. However, that is not what we observed in this trial. Although we did see the later maturing variety out yielding the early maturing variety in early planting dates, both varieties experienced significant yield declines as planting dates were delayed beyond mid-June and the early maturing variety did not outperform the late maturing variety at these dates. This indicates that, even for shorter season varieties, delaying planting until late June or later will have a significant impact on soybean yields. This was likely impacted by the early frost that negatively affected both maturities despite adequate GDDs. The extremely low yields experienced in the first two planting dates was likely due to an error in herbicide application that contributed to damage to early planted treatments, not a factor or the planting date itself. This is further evidenced by growth stage data collected throughout the season that shows the first two planting dates aligning with the growth stages of soybeans planted 3-4 weeks later. 

Soybean yields ranged from 1519 to 3411 lbs ac^-1 or 25.3 to 56.9 bu ac^-1 with the highest yields being obtained when planting between 28-May and 19-Jun (Figure 6). However, the first two planting date yields were likely negatively impacted by an erroneous herbicide application. These data suggest that delaying planting to late June and beyond negatively impacts soybean yields in this region. However, some of the later dates may not support such high yields in years where weather conditions are less conducive to soybean productivity.  

Soybean yields were significantly impacted by planting date with the highest yields observed when soybeans were planted between late-May and mid-June. These data suggest that delaying planting of soybeans beyond this is likely to result in depressed yields. An erroneous herbicide application likely impacted the first two planting dates. There was no significant difference in oil content between planting dates. Soybean yield was not significantly impacted by relative maturity of the variety as both varieties were able to reach maturity and produce high yields. However, these trends may not hold in years with more normal GDD accumulation.