Your local link to MU for ag extension and research information

To send a message to an author, click on the author's name at the end of the article.

Volume 8, Number 4 - April 2002

This Month in Ag Connection

This Month in Ag Connection | Ag Connection - Other Issues Online

Insect Resistance Management (IRM) Requirements

If you intend to plant Bt corn in 2002 you are now contractually bound to grow all Bt corn products in a manner consistent with mandates outlined by the new INSECT RESISTANCE MANAGEMENT (IRM) program, which the EPA finalized last October. There are three core mandates that make up the bulk of the IRM requirement:

  1. There must be a minimum 20% refuge of a non-Bt hybrid. For example, for every 80 acres of a Bt-hybrid, there needs to be a minimum of 20 acres of a non-Bt hybrid. However in corn and cotton growing areas, growers must plant a minimum 50% refuge.
  2. The non-Bt refuge must be planted within one-half mile of each Bt corn field, and preferably within one-quarter mile.
  3. Non-Bt corn (in the refuge) may be treated with conventional insecticides only if pest pressure reaches economic thresholds. Bt- based foliar insecticides are not to be used within the refuge crop.

The EPA is requiring suppliers of Bt technology to ensure growers use these products responsibly. Suppliers are required to document that growers using Bt hybrids implement the IRM program, otherwise they risk having the registrations pulled on their products.

The goal of the IRM program is to help protect the Bt technology for farmer's long-term use and to help prevent or delay potential insect resistance. The logic behind the refuge and its management is based on producing susceptible offspring. For example, if a resistant corn borer survived on Bt corn, it would be more likely to encounter and mate with a susceptible corn borer from the refuge corn and produce susceptible offspring. There are no confirmed reports of any resistance problems with Bt corn at this time, but as more selection pressure is applied, the more likely a resistant insect will occur.

Complete information on the IRM requirements is available from each of the companies supplying the Bt technology.

(Author: Wayne Crook, Agronomy Specialist)

This Month in Ag Connection | Ag Connection - Other Issues Online

Improve Your Pasture Management for Better Weed Control


Proper pasture weed management leads to increased forage quality and utilization. The most effective weed control methods are typically a combination of cultural and chemical management practices. Weed control is site specific and can involve one or both of these management practices. Decisions are typically based on economics. The economic impact of weeds on forage and pasture production varies across Missouri. Typically, 1 lb of weeds reduces forage production by 2-5 lbs. This is enough to make anyone reevaluate management practices.

Weed seeds are in the soil waiting for an opportunity to germinate. Something as simple as equipment scalping the ground can cause weed seed germination. Nutrient deficiencies and thinning stands allow for bare soil and extra room for weed competition. Other possible sources of weed transportation and distribution include: livestock, uncertified seed, birds, equipment and vehicles, hay, wind, and water.

Weed identification is the first step in weed control and directly affects long-term management decisions. These decisions are based upon questions like: Is it a grass or broadleaf? Is it an annual, biennial or perennial? Do I want to use herbicides or alter my cultural practices? Many more questions must be considered prior to taking actions. These actions will vary with each pasture weed control program.

Chemical control is not always the first choice. Cultural methods may be more cost effective and practical. Some examples of cultural practices include:

Direct weed control actions should be taken when new perennial, poisonous or noxious weeds show up, or when weeds comprise 30% of the stand. Direct weed control actions may include the use of chemicals when cultural methods are not economical, practical, or feasible. UMC extension publication MP 581 "Weed and Brush Control Guide for Forages, Pastures and Non-Cropland" is a good reference. When chemicals are the best management choice, always read and follow the label.

Recommendations in MP 581 are based upon the control area -- i.e. (forage, pasture, or woody) and take into consideration grass and legume species herbicide tolerances. Attention should be given to grazing or haying restrictions and those effects on management decisions.

Effective chemical weed control is based upon correct application timing:

In many cases the best program is merely an enhancement of cultural practices where chemicals are used secondary to improved pasture management. Weed control success requires observation, practice, and experience so know your weeds, know your soil and know your options.

(Author: Todd Lorenz, Horticulture/Agronomy Specialist)

This Month in Ag Connection | Ag Connection - Other Issues Online

Taxation Tidbits: A New Depreciation Deduction is Born

Cash and coins

If new depreciable property was acquired in 2001 following the 9/11 terrorist attack - it may be beneficial to recalculate your 2001 tax liability. The "Jobs Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002", signed into law March 9, 2002, contains a provision for "additional first-year depreciation deduction equal to 30% of the adjusted basis of qualified property".

In most cases qualified properties are assets that meet the following tests:

The Joint Committee on Taxation's Technical Explanation of the Act indicates the following order of cost recovery:

1stSection 179 expensing if elected
2nd30% first-year depreciation deduction
3rd Regular depreciation deduction

For example, the following is a calculation of total deduction available under the new law for qualifying 7-year property acquired on 10-10-2001 at a cost of $100,000.

Total 2001 depreciation deduction available with the new provision would be:
Section 179 expensing =$24,000
30% first-year depreciation deduction =
($100,000 - 24,000)*30% =
Regular year one depreciation =
($100,000 - 24,000 - 22,800)*10.71% =
$ 5,698

The total 2001 depreciation deduction available under the old law would be:
Section 179 expensing = $24,000
Regular year one depreciation =
($100,000 - 24,000)*10.71% =
$ 8,140

(Author: Parman R. Green, Farm Business Management Specialist)

This Month in Ag Connection | Ag Connection - Other Issues Online

Value-Added Newsletters

The following newsletters are available from the Missouri Value Added Development Center's web site.

(Author: Don Day, Ag Engineering/Information Technology Specialist)

This Month in Ag Connection | Ag Connection - Other Issues Online

Missouri Century Farms Program for 2002

Century Farm

The College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources and University Outreach and Extension participate in this annual event. From 1976 to 2001 there have been 5,967 designated as Missouri Century Farms.

Outreach & Extension and Agricultural Information - Extension Publications are coordinators of the Century Farm update. University of Missouri Extension Councils are the local sponsors. Applications for Missouri Century Farm are available from Extension Publications, MU, 2800 Maguire Boulevard, Columbia, MO 65211 and from the University Extension Center in your county from March 1 through July 4 of each year. Forms may also be downloaded from the Missouri Century Farms web page. For more information, call (573) 882-7216 or FAX: (573) 884-5038.

This Month in Ag Connection | Ag Connection - Other Issues Online

Publishing Information

Ag Connection is published monthly for Central Missouri Region producers and is supported by University of Missouri Extension, the Commercial Agriculture program, the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station and the MU College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources. Managing Editor: Kent Shannon.