Cotton farming september 2017

Cotton Farming ONE GROWER PUBLISHING, LLC

PROFITABLE PRODUCTION STRATEGIES

SEPTEMBER 2017

www.cottonfarming.com

Cross Hedging Whole Cottonseed TEXAS STUDY EXAMINES FEASIBILITY OF MARKETING CONCEPT

®

RENEW YOUR FAITH IN cotton The food of our future.

The possibilities for cotton are limitless. Nutrientrich, whole cottonseed dairy feed for increased milk production is just one example of how The Cotton Research & Promotion Program is ďŹ nding innovative ways for your renewable crop to reach new markets for generations to come.

Find more reasons to believe at renew.cottonboard.org.

Paid for by America’s cotton producers and importers.

Vol. 61 No. 9

Cotton Farming PROFITABLE PRODUCTION STRATEGIES

SEPTEMBER 2017

www.cottonfarming.com

F E AT U R E S

6

Cross Hedging Whole Cottonseed

This marketing strategy can provide an additional potential outlet for cotton gins to market cottonseed aside from traditional methods and perhaps improve their financial position and profitability. Although the study that explores using similar futures contracts is primarily focused on Texas markets, the authors say the same methods can be used nationwide with presumably similar results.

DEPARTMENTS & COLUMNS

4 Editor’s Note 12 Industry News 5 Cotton’s Agenda 15 Specialists Speaking 11 Research & Promotion 22 My Turn ON THE COVER: Cottonseed is an important product of upland cotton production. Roughly 700 pounds of seed on average are produced from each 480-pound cotton bale.

13

WEST TENNESSEE FIELD DAY

14

ALABAMA COVER CROPS

18

GINNING MARKETPLACE

Monsanto hosted an event in Union City that included updates on cotton products and traits, weed resistance and new technology.

To get the most benefit from a cover crop, choose one suited to your production system and manage it carefully.

THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE GINNING INDUSTRY

Harrison Ashley, executive vice president of the National Cotton Ginners Association, discusses the organization’s diligence in managing multiple issues that affect gins.

WEB EXCLUSIVE The sixth annual Celebrate Cotton football game is scheduled for Sept. 16 in Lubbock, Texas. A special promo code is available for those interested in purchasing tickets. Plains Cotton Growers has proudly partnered with Texas Tech Athletics to establish this fun event that puts the High Plains cotton industry on a national stage. Go to www.cottonfarming.com for this Web Exclusive report.

Enter our Transform My Community contest!

Submit your entry by Sept. 30 for a chance to win $20K to improve your community. Please go to www.transformmycommunity.com today!

DIGITAL OFFERINGS Keep up with the latest from Cotton Farming by signing up for the monthly E-News at www.cottonfarming.com.

Look for the Cotton Farming E-News sign-up box in the upper right corner of the home page.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cottonfarming Twitter: @CottonFarming.

COTTON FARMING (ISSN 0746-8385) is published monthly January through December by One Grower Publishing LLC, 6515 Goodman Rd., Box 360, Olive Branch, MS 38654. Periodicals postage paid at Memphis, Tenn. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Omeda Communications, Customer Service Department, P.O. Box 1388, Northbrook, IL 60065-1388 (Phone: 847-559-7578) (Fax: 847-564-9453). Annual subscriptions are $40. International rates are $55 in Canada/Mexico, $90 in all other countries for air-speeded delivery. Surface delivery not available due to problems in reliability.

TWITTER: @COTTONFARMING

SEPTEMBER 2017 COTTON FARMING

3

Editor’s Note

Cotton Farming

Carroll Smith

®

EDITORIAL/PRODUCTION Editor Carroll Smith csmith@onegrower.com Managing Editor Vicky Boyd vlboyd@onegrower.com

Think Outside And Inside The Boll

A

nticipation is running high as harvest approaches in many areas of the Cotton Belt. Naturally, farmers are thinking “outside the boll” about how their cotton will yield, how it will grade and what type of return on investment they can expect. This month, we are encouraging them to also think “inside the boll” where the cottonseed lies. Unfortunately, decreased cottonseed prices have challenged the industry to look for creative ways to make more money from this product. To show its support, Cotton Incorporated recently approved a $100,000 increase to its 2017 Cottonseed Marketing budget line.

“With the large crop this year and the closing of a couple of oil mills, there is a dire need to create demand for cottonseed in the dairy feed industry,” says Tom Wedegaertner, director of cottonseed research & marketing for Cotton Incorporated. “The goal is to stimulate increased demand to help stabilize the price and prevent any further decline.”

A few years ago, former Texas A&M graduate student, Wes Regmund, says his “What if?” cottonseed moment struck as he contemplated topics for his master’s thesis. Having grown up in a cotton-producing area south of San Antonio, Texas, he always had a fondness for the crop although his background primarily was in livestock.

“Initially, my interest in risk management using futures markets led to discussions with Texas A&M cotton economist Dr. John Robinson and livestock economist Dr. David Anderson on the growing use of cottonseed in cattle feeding rations but with no real options for feeders to manage prices,” Regmund says. “At the time, I had my Series 3 brokerage license to trade futures contracts, and then I spent a summer at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange working in the commodity research and development department.

“We soon dove into discussions with the Texas Cotton Ginners’ Association. The project evolved into looking at cross hedging from the gin’s perspective because it is the first to have possession of the seed and then sell it either to mills or livestock feeders. The TCGA was helpful in putting together a survey we sent to its members to gather information.

We also thought this concept might be beneficial for farmers since cottonseed sales typically cover their ginning costs. I believe cross hedging whole cottonseed is a unique marketing approach with potential value for a lot of people.”

If this topic piques your interest, check out the fruits of Regmund’s efforts on page 6 and perhaps spark your own “What if?” moment.

Carroll If you have comments, please send them to: Cotton Farming Magazine, 7201 Eastern Ave., Germantown, TN, 38138. Contact Carroll Smith via email at csmith@onegrower.com.

4

COTTON FARMING SEPTEMBER 2017

Southeast Editor Amanda Huber ahuber@onegrower.com Art Director Ashley Kumpe ADMINISTRATION Publisher/Vice President Lia Guthrie (901) 497-3689 lguthrie@onegrower.com Associate Publisher Carroll Smith (901) 326-4443 Sales Manager Scott Emerson (386) 462-1532 semerson@onegrower.com Production Manager Kathy Killingsworth (901) 767-4020 kkillingsworth@onegrower.com Circulation Manager Charlie Beek (847) 559-7324 For circulation changes or change of address, call (847) 559-7578 EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD David Burns – North Carolina David Lynch – South Carolina Bob McLendon – Georgia Larkin Martin – Alabama Mike Sturdivant Jr. – Mississippi Charles Parker – Missouri Jimmy Hargett – Tennessee Allen Helms – Arkansas Jay Hardwick – Louisiana Ronnie Hopper – Texas Ron Rayner – Arizona John Pucheu – California

ONE GROWER PUBLISHING, LLC Mike Lamensdorf President/Treasurer Lia Guthrie Publisher/Vice President ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COOPERATION: Cooperating with COTTON FARMING are various cotton producer organizations across the Cotton Belt. Many representatives of producer organizations serve on COTTON FARMING’s editorial advisory board. Opinions expressed and conclusions reached by contributors are not necessarily those of the cooperating organizations or the editors.

All statements, including product claims, are those of the person or organization making the statement or claim. The publisher does not adopt any such statement or claims as its own and any such statement or claim does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the publisher.

Copyright 2017 © ASSOCIATED PUBLICATIONS – One Grower Publishing, LLC also publishes RICE FARMING, THE PEANUT GROWER, SOYBEAN SOUTH and CORN SOUTH.

One Grower Publishing, LLC 6515 Goodman Rd., Box 360, Olive Branch, MS 38654 Phone: 901-767-4020

COTTONFARMING.COM

Cotton’s Agenda Gary Adams

Preserving Plant Protection Products To ensure continued availability of proven plant protection products, the National Cotton Council closely monitors EPA’s pesticide review process and provides input to the agency.

What is the status of EPA’s review procedures?

n The safe protection of U.S. agricultural commodities from pests is dependent upon EPA regulation and registration procedures under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In the past, EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs registered safe products for helping U.S. agriculture remain competitive. That office used a risk-benefit analysis process in compliance with FIFRA. However, in the last several years, its regulatory process seems to have shifted toward a precautionary principle approach. By requiring additional needs justification, this approach has delayed, and in some cases, prevented new products from coming to the market.

The result is a systematic elimination of access to proven chemistries. If cotton is kept on a pesticide label but with such onerous use restrictions that the product is impractical to use, then that product is lost as surely as if cotton had been removed from the label.

How is the NCC addressing this concern?

n U.S. cotton and its agribusiness allies are partnering with EPA to address risk and policy-based issues as they arise. This requires the EPA to act in a transparent and cooperative manner and to adhere to FIFRA risk-benefit requirements. We believe this cooperative approach means U.S. cotton producers will continue to have access to many safe and environmentally friendly products.

What are some recent NCC actions in this arena? n Ahead of a July 24 deadline, the NCC submitted to EPA six sets of comments covering seven pesticides. Those comments can be accessed on the NCC’s website at www.cotton.org/ issues/2017/pesrev.cfm. Filed under the EPA’s registration/review process were comments for aldicarb, ethephon and methoxyfenozide. The NCC pointed out issues with EPA’s analyses of the pesticides. For example, we emphasized the lack of alternatives for aldicarb — especially in fields with high nematode populations — but conveyed our appreciation to EPA for its proposed continued registration of that important product. Regarding ethephon, we stated there was no need to conduct pollinator studies because by the time this harvest aid is applied, few if any flowers remain on the plant as it shuts down and begins maturing its fruit load.

The other three sets of comments were filed for the neonicotinoids (neonics): clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and dinotefuran. The imidacloprid comments primarily addressed concerns with the water models that NCC believes EPA uses incorrectly to assess aquatic risk. Comments on the other three neonics focused on errors in EPA’s study of risks to bees and on providing the agency with the benefits that these products provide for efficient cotton production.

Specific to clothianidin and thiamethoxam, we pointed out 1) entomologists’ consensus that there are no acceptable alternatives to replace neonic use in the IPM and resistance management strategies for their states and 2) the loss of access to neonics will lead to additional reliance on older chemistries, multiple applications, and risks to flare up other pest populations. These scenarios could result in additional, costly control measures.

Gary Adams is president/CEO of the National Cotton Council of America. He and other NCC leaders contribute columns on this Cotton Farming page.

Twitter: @CottonFarming

SEPTEMBER 2017 COTTON FARMING

5

COVER STORY

Cross Hedging Whole Cottonseed

BY WESLEY S. REGMUND, JOHN ROBINSON, DAVID ANDERSON AND JOHN PARK

Editor’s Note: Although this study is primarily focused on Texas markets, the authors say the same methods can be used nationwide with presumably similar results.

C

ottonseed is an important joint product of upland cotton production, where roughly 700 pounds of seed on average are produced from each 480-pound bale of cotton, according to Cotton Incorporated.

With cotton being the leading cash crop in the largest cotton-producing state of Texas, the value of whole cottonseed is an important factor in the overall economics of cotton production. The returns from whole cottonseed represent slightly less than 20 percent of the estimated gross returns from total production.

Whole cottonseed has become an important ingredient in livestock rations, especially for dairy cattle, as it is considered a complete supplement that offers 23 percent protein content, 20 percent energy in the form of fat, and 24 percent crude fiber on a dry matter basis. The high energy and protein stem from the kernel of the seed, while the fiber comes from short strands commonly referred to as “linters” that remain on the seed after the cotton, or lint, is removed.

Cotton Incorporated describes onefourth of U.S. whole cottonseed as being sold directly from gins as livestock feed, and another quarter being distributed as livestock feed products after cottonseed oil mill processing.

Given the importance of the Texas livestock industry, the state’s whole cottonseed share being fed to livestock may be greater than the national average.

6

COTTON FARMING SEPTEMBER 2017

Planning, Risk Management Most cottonseed marketing takes place from September to December after the typical harvest period in Texas. The value of whole cottonseed has traditionally been applied to offset ginning costs, and past price swings occurred as a result of inadequate storage capacities.

Historical observations of Texas whole cottonseed price imply that most of the time the price will be within plus-or-minus $65 per ton of the average price. This level of variation is significant enough to expose growers to occasional ginning cost increases. It might also represent a significant risk to the financial position of gins, cooperatives, livestock feeders and other users.

Conventional risk management practices for other storable agricul-

tural commodities consist of longer-term storage, forward contracting, and using futures markets as a means to combat unfavorable price movements.

However, special considerations must be made for storing such products, and no futures market currently exists for cottonseed.

This limits users and growers in their marketing planning and riskreduction strategies. The purpose of this study is to identify and evaluate applicable cross hedging strategies for whole cottonseed in Texas.

Similar Futures Contracts Because whole cottonseed market distribution information is not widely available, an online survey was created and sent to cotton gins throughout Texas. The purpose of the survey was COTTONFARMING.COM

to gain a better understanding of distribution and use patterns and assess the risk associated with buying and selling cottonseed for gins, farmers and livestock feeders.

Many respondents, who represent both cooperative and independently owned gins across all regions of Texas, noted there is the risk of fluctuating prices. Longer-term seed storage and forward contracting are used to help mitigate this risk. Cross hedging was mentioned in discussions with gin members as a means to manage price volatility, but this strategy is not typically implemented.

As such, there has been a very limited amount of research on the hedging possibilities for whole cottonseed.

With no current contract available for trade on any widely used commodities exchange, cross hedging cottonseed cash prices at the gin or oil mill level might be feasible using futures contracts similar in nature. Possible cross hedging contracts evaluated include soybeans, soybean meal, soybean oil and corn, all of which are traded at the Chicago Board of Trade and act as substitutes for cottonseed as protein in livestock rations.

Additionally, the canola contract offered by the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange was considered. In order for cottonseed cash prices to be hedged appropriately, there needs to be an adequate correlation between these cash and futures price series.

Optimal Hedge Ratios Correlations between the weekly West Texas whole cottonseed cash price and weekly near month futures prices of the aforementioned CBOT contracts were calculated for the price level, price changes and percent changes in price. Soybeans and soybean meal appear to be most aligned with cottonseed price movement.

With this information, optimal hedge ratios using a simple ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model were calculated at the price level to best select the appropriate number of contracts needed within the futures position to sufficiently cover one’s spot, or cash, position. After estimating the ideal number of contracts, empirical tests simulating cross hedging strategies were conducted to analyze cotton gin returns in both hedged and not hedged scenarios.

Simulated strategies in this study were explored from the viewpoint of Twitter: @CottonFarming

a cotton gin or a physical seed seller.

Since the Texas cotton harvest begins in late August, gins start receiving cottonseed from the ginning process at this time and seed sales to either oil mills or livestock feeders continue mostly from then through the end of December.

Cross Hedge Scenarios Gins can employ either a pre-harvest-based cross hedge or one that takes the limited storage time into account. A pre-harvest cross hedge involves taking a short position in the futures market before cotton harvest and then lifting that position after taking possession of and selling the cottonseed. To remove the hedge, a gin manager must buy back an equal number of futures contracts to offset the short position.

Storage Considerations Similarly, a cross hedge was assessed while taking storage into account by placing the hedge in the nearby futures on the first week of July and lifting it at the time of sale between the first week of September through the last week of December.

In this scenario, the date the hedge was applied remained constant as the first week of July, while the selling of cottonseed changed by a week over the four-month time period. Employing the hedge at this time allows the gin to assess its storage capabilities and cotton yields more accurately just before harvest while still being able to protect against falling prices once seed possession takes place.

To calculate the effective net price received by the gin, the revenue from the cottonseed sale was added to any

With cotton being the leading cash crop in the largest cotton-producing state of Texas, the value of whole cottonseed is an important factor in the overall economics of cotton production.

Alternatively, in the event of storing and holding cottonseed before the sale date, a short position is taken in the nearest futures delivery month when the seed arrives and the hedge is maintained until the time of sale. In this situation, if cottonseed remains in storage when the futures contract matures, the cross hedge is lifted and simply rolled forward into the next delivery month as necessary.

Both scenarios were tested using soybean and soybean meal contracts.

The pre-harvest cross hedge was executed by placing the hedge four months prior to the expected sale date. And then the short position in the futures market was lifted once the physical seed was sold during the September through December time period.

Four months prior to harvest was chosen as the time length because the gin is likely aware of the amount of cotton acres planted and can reasonably estimate expected production and cottonseed volume. Analysis using this approach involved changing the date the hedge was implemented as well as the date when spot market sales were performed so they remain four months apart.

gain or loss associated with the futures transaction to determine the total revenue. This value divided by the amount of cottonseed sold results in the realized price received by the gin.

A cross hedge using this method is deemed successful and effective when a gain in the futures market occurs due to declining prices and concludes with a calculated net realized price greater than the cash price of whole cottonseed that was not hedged.

Gain Or Loss Potential In the initial scenario, it is assumed that in the first week of May a cotton gin is aware of estimated production from planted acres and can reasonably assess the amount of cottonseed as well. The gin manager anticipates the need to sell cottonseed in the first week of September, which is four months away.

Because the price of cottonseed might be lower at that time due to increasing supplies at harvest, the gin manager protects against downside risk by currently selling the appropriate number of contracts using either soybean or soybean meal futures. If the futures price declines, a gain is made on the short position SEPTEMBER 2017 COTTON FARMING

7

Successful Cross Hedging Example In the first week of May 2014, the price of cottonseed in the West Texas cash market was $430 per ton. With the need to sell 1,000 tons of cottonseed at what the gin manager foresees as a possibly lower price at harvest, the manager sells four soybean futures contracts at the Chicago Board of Trade, which is currently trading at $14.65 per bushel or $488.37 per ton. On the first week of September, the gin sells new crop cottonseed at the now traded cash price of $287.50 per ton for total revenue of $287,500. Although the gin did not have ownership of the seed back in May, this represents a $142.50 per ton decline in the spot price.

At the same time, the manager lifts the hedge by buying four soybean futures contracts for $339.73 per ton. The futures transaction results in a gain of $148.64 per ton per contract, not including commission on trades, or a total payoff of $89,191 ($148.64 × 150 × 4). Note: 150 tons of cottonseed is the equivalent of one soybean contract (5,000 bu.).

The total return of $376,691($287,500 + $89,191) results in a net realized price the and offsets a decline in the cottonseed cash price.

On the other hand, a loss is incurred if the futures price rises.

Once the gin takes possession and sells the seed in the spot market on the first week of September, the manager buys back the same number of futures contracts to lift the hedge.

The loss or gain on the futures transaction can then be added to the value of the cottonseed sold and a net effective price received by the gin can be determined.

Storage-Like Cross Hedge Another approach was tested using a storage-like cross hedge that begins with the seed seller taking a short position in the futures market on the first week of July regardless of the expected selling date. July was chosen as the naïve month to place the hedge because a more accurate assessment of storage capacity and cotton yields leading up to harvest could be made around this time. It also exhibited the highest and most frequent profit from the futures transaction of all months observed.

The gin manager will then lift the hedge whenever the spot sale occurs.

In this example, cottonseed is priced

8

COTTON FARMING SEPTEMBER 2017

Table 1. 4-Month Pre-Harvest Cross Hedging Example Using Soybean Futures Time

Cash

Futures

First week of May 2014 (Four Months Prior to Sale Date)

$430/ton

Sell 4 soybean futures contracts @ $488.37/ton

First week of September 2014

Sell 1,000 tons of cottonseed @ $287.50/ton

Buy 4 soybean futures contracts @ $339.73/ton Gain = $148.64/ton

Revenue from selling cash cottonseed = $287.50 × 1,000 = $287,500 Profit from futures transactions = $148.64 × 150* × 4 = $89,191 Total revenue = $287,500 + 89,191 = $376,691 Net effective price = $376,691 ÷ 1,000 = $376.69/ton *Note: 150 tons of cottonseed is the equivalent of one soybean contract (5,000 bu.) gin receives of $376.69 per ton. This net price is $89.19 per ton greater than what the gin would have collected by selling seed that was not hedged in the spot market.

This example is shown in Table 1. The same calculations were made every week until the last week of December with the futures position taken four months before the sale date and lifted when the physical cotat $327.50 per ton and nearby soybean meal futures are trading at $350.93 per ton on the first week of July in 2015.

Shorting seven soybean meal contracts is necessary for the gin to protect against a decline in price for 1,000 tons of cottonseed, as mentioned earlier using the optimal hedge ratio. (Note: 100 tons of soybean meal equals one contract.) As ginning begins and new crop cottonseed arrives in the warehouse, the gin manager decides to store the seed until the last week of December with the hope that cash prices will

tonseed was marketed. This strategy resulted in an effective net price received due to cross hedging that was greater than the not hedged cash price 69 percent of the time.

These results were calculated over the same months in 2007 through 2015, with the average effective price being $289.36 per ton compared to $271.03 per ton in a not hedged scenario. increase later into or after harvest.

Unfortunately, on the last week of December when the physical cottonseed was sold, the spot price had fallen to $265.50 per ton; however, the soybean meal futures price had also declined by $76.60 per ton and was trading at $274.33 per ton. Once the futures position was reversed and the hedge lifted, the transaction had a subsequent profit of $53,620 ($76.60 × 100 × 7), excluding the cost of commission.

The cottonseed was sold to an oil mill or livestock feeder at this time for a total of $265,500 ($265.50 ×

Table 2. July Storage Cross Hedging Example Using Soybean Meal Futures Time

Cash

Futures

First week of July 2015

$327.50/ton

Sell 7 soybean meal futures contracts @ $350.93/ton

Last week of December 2015

Sell 1,000 tons of cottonseed @ $265.50/ton

Buy 7 soybean futures contracts @ $274.33/ton Gain = $76.60/ton

Revenue from selling cash cottonseed = $265.50 x 1,000 = $265,500 Profit from futures transaction = $76.60 x 100* x 7 = $53,620 Total revenue = $265,500 + $53,620 = $319,120 Net effective price = $319,120 ÷ 1,000 = $319.12/ton *Note: 100 tons of soybean meal equals one contract.

COTTONFARMING.COM

Table 6. Average Effective Price September-Decemeber 2007-2015 Cash Cottonseed

Soybean July Hedge

Soybean 4 Mo. Hedge

Soybean Meal July Hedge

Soybean Meal 4 Mo. Hedge

$271.03

$296.60

$289.36

$295.65

$289.06

% of time Hedged Net Price > Cash Price

74%

69%

67%

63%

Avg. Amount Over Cash Price

$25.58

$18.81

$24.62

$18.51

Average Gain Over Unhedged Price

$50.14

$44.09

$51.44

$46.31

Max. Gain Over Unhedged Price

$161.94

$143.11

$135.29

$165.65

Average Loss Below Unhedged Price

$ (37.50)

$ (36.49)

$ (26.54)

$ (29.65)

Max. Loss Below Unhedged Price

$ (85.70)

$ (73.33)

$ (67.80)

$ (77.05)

Average Net Price ($/ton)

1,000). This combined with the gain in the futures resulted in a total return of $319,120 or an effective price of $319.12 per ton received by the gin, which exceeded the not hedged cash price by $53.62 per ton.

See these calculations in Table 2. Placing the hedge using soybean meal futures on the first week of July and lifting the position every week from the first week of September until the last week of December produced a higher realized price relative to a not hedged price by an average of $24.62 per ton. The better price experienced by the gin occurred 67 percent of the time from 2007 to 2015 with an average value of $295.65 per ton.

The same test procedures were implemented for the pre-harvest scenario using soybean meal futures as the cross hedging vehicle and taking a short position four months prior to selling cottonseed. Additionally, soybean futures were assessed while taking storage into account by placing the hedge on the first week of July and lifting it at the time of sale between the first week of September through the last week of December.

Compare Hedging Strategies Cash and effective net prices for the four different hedging scenarios were averaged over the 2007 to 2015 sample period and reported in Table 6. The storage-like July placed hedge using soybean futures as the tool for Twitter: @CottonFarming

cross hedging provided the highest returns and most consistent results over this time period.

The effective net prices were averaged for both cross hedged scenarios and the not hedged approach for the different weeks examined between the first week of September and the end of December over the 2007 through 2015 sample period. See the differences

between the strategies in Figure 1 for the hedges using the soybean contract and Figure 2 where soybean meal was the hedging vehicle.

The prices over the observed weeks indicated the storage-like hedge using either the soybean contract or the soybean meal contract will on average result in an effective net price greater than the effective net price found for both the not hedged scenario and the approach where the cross hedge is executed four months prior to selling in the cash market.

As noted previously, there is the possibility of experiencing a loss, or

a lower effective net price, as a consequence of hedging. This takes place in instances where price movement between futures and cash markets becomes dissimilar. Although these occurrences were observed less frequently with lower magnitudes using this historical data, the average and maximum amounts when hedged prices were lower than not hedged prices are reported in Table 6.

The average and maximum values for gains when the hedged prices were higher are also represented. Loss threats are notable from a financial risk standpoint because they signify occasions when hedging gins must meet margin requirements. This can reduce operating funds and become a cash flow issue if the losses from short positions stretch over lengthy periods of time.

However, the overall results tend to support that on average the probability of more consistent and higher gains outweigh the less frequent and less severe threat of lower realized prices through hedging.

Commissions And Margins Outlying years in 2007 and 2010 produced no weeks in which any hedges were profitable. This is presumably the result of highly uncharacteristic and unexpected movement in prices due to worldwide factors.

The cost of trading in the form of brokerage commissions and margin requirements also were taken into consideration; however, the varying SEPTEMBER 2017 COTTON FARMING

9

amounts for these costs and their lack of any significant influence on the ultimate outcome resulted in their exclusion during calculations.

Total commission costs would vary slightly between the scenarios as different hedging lengths were used requiring the need to roll contracts into the proper delivery month. Also, different contract quantities were bought and sold depending on the cross hedging vehicle chosen.

In addition, there would be different margin requirements associated with the separate exchange-traded commodities. When selecting the appropriate strategy, if a hedger is not merely seeking the highest return but is concerned with cash flow and liquidity, then these factors are important and need to be accounted for.

Other Considerations Research opportunities to build upon this study exist assuming there are factors affecting cottonseed that do not necessarily have an impact on soybean or soybean meal prices.

Outside influences such as government intervention in the form of farm program supports, demand for goods of processed commodities, and available supply of competing crops have an effect on these prices. In addition, protein and dairy markets may have a growing impact on whole cottonseed price movement due to its increasing use as an ingredient in cattle feeding.

Alternative hedging approaches should also be considered in future work. Different hedging horizons and lengths can be explored and dynamic time-varying hedge ratios can be implemented for potentially more effective hedges.

A gin does have the option of selling its cottonseed in the cash market and taking a long position in the futures market thereafter. This would allow it to take advantage of rising prices that were missed due to no longer having possession of the seed.

Gins engaging in forward contracts with oil mills introduce a different kind of risk and can be managed by implementing this strategy.

Hedges using options is also a common method to investigate. These derivatives may offer improved price risk reduction but have different cash flow considerations to take into account. Furthermore, using the same approaches with out-of-sam-

10

COTTON FARMING SEPTEMBER 2017

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

ple data or simulating future values would also help determine the effectiveness of these methods and could better forecast possible outcomes.

Potential To Improve Profitability The main objective of this study was to examine cottonseed supply and usage patterns within Texas and to analyze the feasibility of price risk management strategies by cross hedging cash cottonseed with soybean and soybean meal futures.

The relationship between cash and futures prices was deemed to be significant enough to warrant further investigation, and hedge ratios allowing for proper risk coverage for a seed seller were estimated. Additionally, a measurement of hedge effectiveness was considered, resulting in cross hedges using either soybean or soybean meal contracts providing reasonable amounts of risk reduction

when compared to a not hedged position.

Practical testing from a seller ’s perspective using historical data produced outcomes that showed effective net prices from cross hedging were typically higher than not hedged cash prices over the considered time period (Figures 1, 2). This allows for an additional potential outlet for cotton gins to market cottonseed aside from traditional methods and possibly improve their financial position and profitability.  Wesley S. Regmund is a former graduate student, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University.

Drs. John Robinson, David Anderson and John Park, are professors and Extension economists, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, and Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service.

COTTONFARMING.COM

RESEARCH & PROMOTION

Cotton Producers Have Renewed Faith

BY STACEY GORMAN COTTON BOARD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS

PHOTOS BY NATHAN BLACK

L

ast year, The Cotton Board launched a new multimedia campaign directed toward cotton producers with the hopes of giving them the confidence needed to renew their faith in the crop. The “Renew Your Faith in Cotton” campaign (renew.cottonboard.org) was launched at a time when cotton was entering new territory — a time when prices were low and market share was declining.

The new campaign elicited a forward looking rally cry for the cotton industry, letting the cotton-growing community know that the Cotton Research and Promotion Program was pressing on and that possibilities for cotton are limitless. The campaign tells the story of research and promotion by Cotton Incorporated and introduces the cotton industry to exciting projects leading to innovations in using cotton for food production and breakthroughs in fiber technology.

Larry McClendon of Marianna, Arkansas, says farming cotton has “rewarded me more personally than any crop I’ve ever grown.” food that the U.S. and the world needs. And they’re trying to do it in a responsible, sustainable way,” Johnson says.

The Cotton Board will visit Tunica again later in the year to check in with Johnson and his crop.

The second grower being featured is Larry McClendon of Marianna, Arkansas. The video production team visited Larry’s farm just after his crop emerged and will check back in with him during harvest.

“Over the course of farming, I think my greatest joy has been growing the crop. And cotton has satisfied me and rewarded me more personally than any crop I’ve ever grown,” McClendon says.

Watch the testimonial on The Cotton Board’s Facebook page or by visiting the Video Gallery on cottonboard.org.

Patrick Johnson, who farms near Tunica, Mississippi, talks about farming cotton in a responsible, sustainable way.

Cotton Farmer Testimonials This year, The Cotton Board is extending the campaign to include testimonials from cotton producers who have renewed faith in cotton. This testimonial phase of the campaign includes a series of videos chronicling the story of two cotton farmers throughout the growing season.

The first video released in July features Tunica, Mississippi, grower, Patrick Johnson. The Cotton Board visited Johnson’s farm during the spring and captured him planting his crop. In this video, he talks about the faith it takes to sow a seed and why he continues to grow cotton even after 21 crops.

“I’d like people to understand you still have families out there working the land, trying to produce the fiber and the Twitter: @CottonFarming

Cultivating New Markets Cotton’s future is renewable. Cotton prices have risen and fallen many times, but the demand for this natural, sustainable resource always returns with new possibilities and advances from research and promotion. The Cotton Research and Promotion Program continues to cultivate new markets and applications for cotton on behalf of today’s producers and importers, and for the generations that follow.

Although downturns in cotton prices make headlines, new markets and innovations for cotton have the potential to make even more history. To find out more about the campaign, visit renew.cottonboard.org.

For further information, please contact Stacey Gorman at sgorman@cottonboard.org.

SEPTEMBER 2017 COTTON FARMING

11

Industry News Enter By Sept. 30 For A Chance To Win $20,000 To Transform Your Community Attention hometown heroes! Tell us how Transform WG insecticide has transformed your cotton fields and how $20,000 could improve your community. To enter the 2017 contest, go to www.transformmycommunity.com before the Sept 30 deadline arrives.

The third annual Transform My Community Contest is sponsored

by Dow AgroSciences and Cotton Farming magazine.

On the entry form, tell how Transform has helped protect your cotton yield from plant bugs and how your favorite organization or charity (local FFA chapter, food bank, library, etc.) is working to help transform your community. Your idea could win $20,000 for your community and a $1,000 cash prize for you.

In 2015, grand prizewinner A.J. Hood, who farms near Monticello, Ark., helped fund construction of a baseball field and playground designed especially for kids with disabilities. Last year, Dow AgroSciences donated $20,000 to the Carl Perkins Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse on behalf of Tennessee cotton consultant Larry Kimery. This money allowed the center to hire a full-time family advocate who works directly with children, who have been victims of child abuse, and their families.

Don’t delay! Enter online at www. transformmycommunity.com.

Remembering Bill Pearson — ‘One Of The Good Guys’ William Wallace “Bill” Pearson died peacefully at home in Davis, California, July 18, from complications following hip surgery. Bill grew up in Sumner, Mississippi, where his mother’s family lived.

Bill joined the Army Air Force in 1942 and trained as a fighter pilot, but the war ended before he saw combat duty. After the war he took over the management of his family’s cotton plantation near Webb, Mississippi.

He married Erie Elizabeth Bobo in 1947, and their daughter and only child, Erie, was born in 1949.

Always searching for a better way to farm, Bill introduced the

12

COTTON FARMING SEPTEMBER 2017

Cotton Board Announces New Communication Hires Tw o n e w r e g i o n a l c o m m u n i c a tion managers have joined The Cotton Board. Christi Chadwell will serve as the Southwest RCM, with a territory including Central and South Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Shelley Heinrich will serve as the Southern Plains RCM, covering North Texas, Christi Shelley Kansas and Oklahoma. The new regional Chadwell Heinrich managers will train under the current Southwest RCM, Bob Stanley, who is retiring in October.

The Cotton Board’s regional communication managers work to ensure stakeholders of the Cotton Research and Promotion Program in their respective territories are informed of the program’s activities. They also visit producers in the field, speak at industry meetings, participate in trade shows, and coordinate Cotton Incorporated’s producer tours.

Christi Chadwell served as the communications and recruiting coordinator for the Plant and Soil Science Department at Texas Tech University. She currently resides in Lubbock, Texas.

Shelley Heinrich, from Slaton, Texas, served as the development director for the National Sorghum Producers. She serves on the board for the Bayer Museum of Agriculture in Lubbock and on the Lubbock County Ag Committee.

The Cotton Board’s other regional communication managers are Monty Bain, covering Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia; and Brent Murphree, covering Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.

“skip-row” planting pattern to the Mississippi Delta, experimented with using geese to weed his crops and collaborated with seed developers to field-test new varieties.

In 2008, Bill and Betty moved to California to be closer to their daughter and her husband. At 95, he inspired all who knew him with his erudition, mental clarity, sense of humor and gentle warmth.

Dryland Cotton Farmers Defy The Odds In 2016 More than 100 cotton farmers qualified for the inaugural class of the FiberMax Maximizer Club. To join the club, the growers qualified halfton and higher yields with FiberMax varieties on dryland acres in 2016.

The exclusive Maximizer Club was created for growers who take on the challenge of dryland cotton production. Yielding 1,000 pounds per acre on a dryland is an accomplishment worth celebrating.

“The three legs of the stool that support dryland production are science, art and environment. Bayer

provides consistently high-performing FiberMax varieties, growers add knowledge and experienced management skill, and we all cross our fingers that Mother Nature cooperates,” says Jason Wistehuff, U.S. product manager for FiberMax cotton.

The highest yield for those who qualified for the club in 2016 — 1,553 pounds per acre — was recorded

by Charlie Fisher of Sudan, Texas.

Donald Houser Farms JV of Taft, Texas, came in with the highest loan value, garnering $0.0575. Kim and Kerry Garrison of Amarillo, Texas, qualified the most acres for the club, harvesting dryland yields averaging 1,000 lb/A or more on 589 acres.

Barry Street of Claytonville, Texas, won the sweepstakes drawing for a Polaris Ranger XP 1000 EPS. Street, who also owns Street Community Gin, can tell the difference between FiberMax and other varieties when the gin is running.

“By far, you can always pick out the FiberMax varieties. They’re easy to gin and just good quality,” he says.

Please visit www.FiberMax.com/ Maximizer for more information.

COTTONFARMING.COM

SPECIAL REPORT

West Tennessee Field Day

BY CARROLL SMITH EDITOR

T

hose attending Monsanto’s annual field day recently in Union City, Tennessee, enjoyed moderate temperatures, which are unusual for the dog days of summer. Company and university personnel primarily addressed cotton topics — including products and traits, weed resistance and new technology — along with information on soybeans and corn.

Scott Stewart, IPM Extension specialist, University of Tennessee, says the level of bollworm injury on Bollgard II and WideStrike cotton varieties is higher than we are used to seeing. Bollworm populations are beginning to develop some levels of resistance to Bt toxins currently available in cotton and corn.

Compounding the problem is that bollworm resistance to pyrethroid insecticides is getting worse.

“Pyrethroids are not a swing and a miss on bollworms. But instead of being 90 percent effective, as they once were, they now appear to be about 50 percent effective,” he says.

As far as “good news,” Stewart says new technology — Bollgard 3 and WideStrike 3 — does provide better control. Both express the protein Vip3A, which provides another mode of action for caterpillar control.

However, he cautions farmers “not to assume anything in this business.

We have to be more aware, more aggressive and better worm scouts.

If you get enough worm pressure, it is possible you will have to make an insecticide application on even the newer Bt technologies.”

The Bt Lygus Trait Stewart is also working with the new Bt lygus trait, which is intended to help control tarnished plant bug but is still a few years down the road.

TWITTER: @COTTONFARMING

“We are seeing plant protection and a reduction in plant bug numbers, but insecticides are still needed to control tarnished plant bug,” he says.

“However, we have not had to spray it as much as cotton that doesn’t contain the trait. The Bt lygus trait won’t be a no-spray technology for plant bugs, but it will help.”

The Tennessee entomologist also notes that in his experience, the Bt lygus trait technology has provided very good thrips control similar to or better than the “best competitive standard we could put it up against.”

Managing Weed Resistance In a team presentation, Monsanto’s John Willis and Garrett Montgomery discussed managing weed resistance.

They said this effort will help farmers remain sustainable and make use of durable weed control programs to keep effective technology around in a long-term scenario.

Here are some tips they offered.  Rotate crops in which other herbicide modes of action can be used.  Use multiple herbicide modes of action. Don’t depend on just one.  Keep residuals in the tank for both pre and post timings.  Depending on the weeds you are targeting, stick to the right timing and right rate.  Don’t apply lower-than-labeled herbicide rates.  If there is even one weed in the field (particularly pigweed), don’t harvest through it because you don’t know if it is resistant. One female pigweed plant produces about 500,000 seeds. Harvesting through that plant will only increase the weed population.

Stop, cut it down or pull it up.

“Whether you are using Monsanto’s

NemaStrike Technology NemaStrike, a nematicide technology that will be offered as part of the Acceleron Seed Applied Solutions, also was featured at the field day.

According to information released by Monsanto May 1, NemaStrike is “a novel mode of action that stays in the root zone where nematodes attack. NemaStrike Technology will provide broad-spectrum control of plant parasitic nematodes and consistent yield performance in corn, soybeans and cotton.

“Over the last three years in Monsanto product development field trials, NemaStrike Technology provided a yield protection performance advantage over the competitive standard of 7 bushels per acre with a 73 percent positive response rate in corn, 3 bushels per acre with a 68 percent positive response rate in soybeans, and 80 pounds lint per acre with an 86 percent positive response rate in cotton (results varied based on nematode pressure in each field).” system or something else, remember it’s a numbers game,” Montgomery says. “The more management practices you can incorporate into your weed control strategy to make your system last longer, the more money you will ultimately save.”

Willis also made an important announcement regarding Monsanto’s Roundup Ready PLUS Program.

For each additional mode of action a farmer selects from the approved product list, Monsanto will increase the rebate to higher levels.

The informative morning wrapped up with a complimentary lunch catered by Strawberry’s Barbecue Restaurant in Holcomb, Missouri — always a crowd favorite!

SEPTEMBER 2017 COTTON FARMING

13

CCOY

SPECIAL REPORT

Cover Crops For Alabama

Cotton Consultant of the Year established 1981

Tim Roberts 2016 CCOY AWARD RECIPIENT

To get the most benefit, choose a cover crop suited to your production system and manage it carefully

“My partner, Billy Beegle, and I have been with many of our farmers for 30 years. Some seasons are more challenging than others, but the job is never boring. It’s intense. We learn something new all the time.

“Consultants are great when it comes to sharing information and their own experiences.

Many times, it’s just the moral support that helps.

“When I heard I had been selected as the 2016 Cotton Consultant of the Year, I began to reminisce about the fields I have checked, the farmers I’ve scouted for, everything Billy and I have been through growing our business and the amazing varieties and crop protection products we have.

We are all very fortunate.”

Cotton Consultant of the Year sponsored by

Cotton Farming 14

COTTON FARMING SEPTEMBER 2017

More Cover Crop Benefits Cover crops can improve soil fertility in several ways. Legumes and their associated bacteria produce nitrogen that becomes available to following crops as plant residue decomposes. Unused nutrients from the previous crop are taken up by the cover crop, reducing leaching losses. Deep-rooted cover crops scavenge nutrients from deep in the soil. These nutrients become available to crops the next growing season as the residue decomposes.

Cover crops often affect pest pressures in the cropping system. Weed growth is suppressed on the soil surface by thick plant residue that

CARROLL SMITH

C

over crops are those grown to benefit the following crop as well as to improve the soil. They are normally not intended for harvest. “Green manure” is another term often used for soil-building cover crops.

Cover crops can protect the soil, feed the soil eco-system, increase soil organic matter and supply nutrients to following crops. Selecting the right cover crops for your operation can improve yields, soil and water conservation and quality, and your bottom line.

Properly managed cover crops protect the soil surface from water and wind erosion and remediate soil compaction. Growing plants feed the soil ecosystem by exuding compounds from their roots — sugars, organic acids, amino acids and more. These materials glue soil particles together into aggregates, improving soil structure. Decomposed plant residue increases the water storage capacity of the soil and becomes soil organic matter that provides food for soil organisms — bacteria, fungi, arthropods and others.

Winter wheat is a good cover crop choice in a cotton production system. blocks sunlight and physically slows weed seedling growth. Some cover crops produce allelopathic chemicals that inhibit the growth of weed seedlings. Others suppress parasitic nematodes by repelling, confusing, or starving them. However, some cover crops can support nematodes and diseases harmful to following crops, so care must be taken to select the right cover crop for the cropping system.

Cover crops can make an economic difference to your operation, mainly by reducing production costs and risks. Improved water infiltration and storage can reduce the effects of mini-droughts and irrigation costs.

Production of nitrogen and scavenging of nutrients can reduce fertilizer needs. By suppressing weeds and pests, cover crops can reduce costs of pesticides and application. Reduction of erosion and soil compaction means less land preparation and tillage expense.

Choosing The Right Cover Crops A number of cover crops are suited for Alabama cropping systems.

Choose the ones you use based on your particular system. What do you need from them? What is your time frame between cash crops when you Continued on page 21 COTTONFARMING.COM

Specialists Speaking Pre-Harvest Decisions ARKANSAS Bill Robertson The National Agricultural Statistics Service August Crop Production Report projects Arkansas producers to harvest 1,103 pounds of lint per acre. This estimate is 28 lbs lint/A greater than last year and slightly above our five-year average of 1,101 lbs lint/A. Cooler temperatures in August generally translate into higher yields. Lower-than-average temperatures we experienced through the first half of the month can help give some optimism for continued improvement of our yield estimates.

Temperatures in the last half of August and September can go a long way toward making or breaking a crop.

Oftentimes, yield drives profit, but there is a point of diminishing returns that can lead to losses for even the most needed inputs. We don’t have the luxury of having a cushion in our cotton budget to gamble on feel-good or look-good treatments that don’t provide a return to the producer. Tracking heat unit accumulation beyond cutout to effectively terminate inputs without affecting yield is critical in managing costs and preserving profit potential.

As harvest approaches, we must remember to preserve yield and fiber quality potential through well-developed and well-timed cultural practices for harvest aids and harvest management. Avoiding discounts is paramount. An effective lint contamination prevention program that starts in the field benefits everyone.

We need to improve our overall efficiency for cotton to be sustainable. brobertson@uaex.edu

ARIZONA Randy Norton As the cotton-growing season winds down and final irrigations have been made, we begin to look at decisions for harvest preparation and harvest aids application. There are two main components of this decision, and each can be influenced by a variety of factors.

The two components are timing and material. Both can be influenced by many factors including crop maturity, crop and soil water status, crop fertility status, and weather conditions around the time of defoliation. The choice of harvest aid material can be complex since there are different types on the market including herbicidal defoliants, desiccants and hormonal stimulants.

In Arizona, a lot of work has been done evaluating appropriate timing and material selection in a wide variety of production scenarios. As general guidelines, it is best to use some crop evaluation techniques to determine crop readiness for defoliation.

If the late-season irrigation interval is 12 days, then it is estimated in about two times that late season irrigation interval beyond the final irrigation (24 days) the crop would be ready for a defoliant application. This interval may vary depending on soil water-holding capacity and weather conditions. Under hot and dry conditions, this interval may be shorter. Cooler and wetter conditions may lead to a longer time between final irrigation and defoliation.

Another good indicator for crop readiness is percent open boll.

This can be estimated by counting the number of nodes above the uppermost first position cracked boll to the uppermost harvestable boll.

Nodes above cracked boll (NACB) is easy to evaluate and provides a fairly accurate measurement of percent open boll. When NACB Twitter: @CottonFarming

drops below four, the crop is at approximately 60 percent open boll, which is the trigger point for most herbicidal-type defoliants. If desiccants, such as sodium chlorate, are to be used, it is important to wait until you approach 80 percent open boll before application.

For more information on harvest aid application timing and material selections, go to the “cotton” section of cals.arizona.edu/crops. rnorton@cals.arizona.edu

FLORIDA David Wright As we end the 2017 fruiting and growing season, it has been interesting to see that once rains began in early June, there was very little window for management on most of the Florida cotton acres. Some growers were not able to apply side-dress nitrogen in a timely manner or at all along with growth regulators. There should not be much nitrogen left in the root zone for cotton to continue vegetative growth, which helps with defoliation and preparing the crop for harvest.

Some producers flew on nitrogen because soils were too wet for field equipment. Most of these applications had minimal rates of nitrogen due to the expense of flying on material. Some farmers who routinely apply potassium as a side-dress on sandy soils were not able to make those applications, which created concern about potassium deficiencies.

However, most cotton looks good even with reduced inputs and should produce an average crop or better if the remainder of the season goes well. Cotton is a hardy crop and often suffers more from dry weather than wet during the growing season. Our farmers always seem to adapt to changing conditions. We will look back on this year as being wet unless something more catastrophic happens during harvest. wright@ufl.edu

LOUISIANA Dan Fromme Yield potential for the 2017 cotton crop has improved during the past month. Current estimates are about 1,000 pounds of lint per acre. Target spot is prevalent across the state in many fields due to rainfall, cloudy, and humid conditions. Defoliation began in the latter part of August, and harvest will begin in the earlier planted fields during early September.

As we prepare the 2017 crop for harvest, we should review some of the basic defoliation timing principles. There is always a balancing act between yield and fiber quality when defoliating cotton. There are several accepted methods to time defoliation, and all of them have strengths and weaknesses. Here is a review of some of the more common defoliating-timing techniques. These three methods or options for timing cotton defoliation are at 60 percent open boll, four nodes above cracked boll, or 1,050 heat units beyond cutout (NAWF=4).

Most importantly, whatever method is employed farmers should include inspecting the uppermost harvestable boll prior to defoliation by cutting a cross-section of the selected bolls. A boll is considered mature if it is difficult to slice with a knife, and seeds have begun to form a tan/brown or black seed coat. Once a dark seed coat has formed, defoliation will not adversely affect the yield of those bolls.

Our Louisiana cotton defoliation guide can be found at lsuagcen ter.com>crops>cotton>agronomy. dfromme@agcenter.lsu.edu SEPTEMBER 2017 COTTON FARMING

15

Specialists Speaking MISSISSIPPI Darrin Dodds The 2017 roller coaster ride continues in Mississippi. Over the past six weeks, we have seen a tremendous amount of bollworm pressure that has necessitated insecticide applications on all commercial Bt technologies. Everyone is aware cotton varieties have different susceptibility levels to worms, depending on which Bt technology is planted.

However, researchers at Texas A&M have confirmed bollworm populations collected in Mississippi are resistant to Cry1ac and/ or Cry2ab toxins. These Bt toxins comprise some, if not all, of the current commercially available Bt trait packages. Trait composition within a given variety, particularly with respect to the Bt component, should be considered when selecting a variety in 2018. In addition, do not rely solely on Bt traits for bollworm control next year as subsequent sprays may be necessary.

Cracked and open bolls appeared in early August in our earliest planted cotton. However, large-scale harvest aid applications will likely not take place until the end of September. A small portion of our cotton will be harvested at that time and then move into full swing in October. A repeat of 2016 fall weather is sorely needed to finish this crop and get it out of the field. dmd76@pss.msstate.edu

MISSOURI Mike Milam According to the Aug. 7 Crop Progress and Condition Report, cotton squaring had reached 97 percent. Cotton-setting bolls reached 69 percent. We are ahead of last year’s pace and the five-year average.

Cotton condition was rated 1 percent very poor, 9 percent poor, 33 percent fair, 47 percent good and 10 percent excellent. Our last effective bloom date is near, and at this time, the over-all crop looks good.

However, there are concerns for the rest of the season. Last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture had projected a near-record yield.

I knew this was unrealistic because we had so many days of rainfall and cloudy weather during July and August. At the Cardwell weather station, we had more than 9 inches of rain during this period. Therefore, the projected yield was off by about 100 pounds per acre.

This year, we have rainfall forecast for 10 of the next 15 days. Wet soils and cloudy days are not good this time of the year. In 2016, many of our irrigated fields yielded less than non-irrigated fields due to boll rot and target spot.

As of Aug. 2, the Missouri Department of Agriculture had received 240 alleged dicamba complaints. Since then, Section 24(c) labels are in effect with more restrictions, including on-line registration prior to use. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the season plays out. milammr@missouri.edu

NORTH CAROLINA Keith Edmisten The North Carolina crop is late overall, which could delay defoliation and harvest. Because of this, it’s important we initiate defoliation and harvest as soon as the crop is ready. The average hours suitable for harvest per day or week decrease as we move later into the year with shorter days and lower solar radiation.

Gaining a week in early to mid-October by starting on time can save you several weeks in November or December. Defoliation delays may also push some of your defoliation into cooler weather where the results may be less than desired.

Nodes above cracked boll is a good tool to use to help time defoliation. We normally see that we can defoliate cotton at four nodes

16

COTTON FARMING SEPTEMBER 2017

above cracked boll. Sometimes we can defoliate a little earlier if the crop is compact and the plant population is not low.

The best way to know when it is safe to defoliate is to use nodes above cracked boll as a guide and start cutting some of the least mature bolls you intend to harvest to check maturity. The least mature bolls will normally be on the top of the plant and on vegetative branches. It is important to consider the fruit on vegetative branches, especially with skippy stands or low plant populations. keith_edmisten@ncsu.edu

OKLAHOMA Randy Boman This year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service is estimating we planted 470,000 acres and will harvest 450,000. We likely have more than 500,000 acres planted, the most in the state since 1982.

The 2016 crop yielded 617,000 bales, which was an all-time record high per-acre yield — an astounding 1,021 pounds per acre — for the state for all practices. The cotton varieties and technologies our farmers planted are producing record yield and quality when environmental factors align. Although we don’t necessarily expect a record state per-acre yield in 2017 from this much larger planted acreage, we are still anticipating another huge crop in terms of bale volume due to this substantial acreage increase.

The recent NASS report estimated the statewide yield at 768 lbs/ acre, which results in a 720,000-bale production number. Even if the crop finishes in a less-than-desirable manner and the statewide average is 600 lbs/acre, this still results in a 625,000-bale crop, which would be similar to last year’s production.

The crop has made good to excellent progress in the past several weeks. Irrigation in most areas was adequate to meet crop demands.

Soil moisture got somewhat short in early August in certain areas, but later rainfall has been excellent in many counties. It appears we have good dryland and irrigated yield potential in many places.

Harvesting and ginning another anticipated large crop will be a challenge for both producers and ginners. Harvesting as early as possible is critical with respect to fiber quality. And farmers should be on point with respect to monitoring crop maturity, applying harvest aids, and getting the crop harvested as quickly as possible.

The quality of a cotton boll is never greater than on the day it opens. It only goes down after that, so time is of the essence with respect fiber quality. The value of a properly executed early harvest cannot be overstated. And in our area, proper harvest aid selection, crop maturity assessment, application timing and harvesting must all be integrated for success. randy.boman@okstate.edu

TENNESSEE Tyson Raper On Aug. 14, I’d rate the average cotton acre in Tennessee at near exceptional. Plant bug pressure has been light, and fruit retention is very good. Leaf spots of almost every type have appeared across our acreage, but treatable levels of target spot have only developed on very few acres.

Many acres reached physiological cutout the first week of August close to our last effective bloom date. At this point, we only need several good rains and a warm, dry fall to finish the crop. Rains today and over the past weekend helped, but we are still several inches away from set. Furthermore, much of July and August have been cooler than normal and we are behind on heat units. I’m still concerned about the number of acres we have planted to varieties with high mic potential. However, the season is not progressing COTTONFARMING.COM

MARY JANE BUERKLE

Specialists Speaking

in a manner that would suggest high mic will be a major issue for us during 2017.

I’ll be updating our news.utcrops.com blog with defoliation information near the middle of September and will get into variety-specific defoliation management at our Cotton Tour in Jackson on Sept. 6.

Hope to see you there! traper@utk.edu

TEXAS Gaylon Morgan As of mid-August, cotton harvest is wrapping up in the Rio Grande Valley. Irrigated cotton yields and quality are quite good while yields on some dryland areas reflect the lack of rainfall received all year. Harvest conditions in the Coastal Bend have been good with many reports of 2.5-plus bales dryland yields.

This likely will exceed 2016’s high yields.

The Upper Gulf Coast began harvesting Aug. 1 but had a scare with a week of wet weather. After resuming harvest in mid-August, yields of 3-plus bales are common. Dryland cotton harvest in the Southern Blacklands will begin in early September. Average yields are expected, while irrigated cotton should exceed 3 bales.

The Northern Blacklands and all the Rolling Plains (dryland and irrigated) have a lot of potential to make a great crop, especially if the Rolling Plains has a warm fall. Aphid problems have been widespread through much of that area with higher numbers than usual.

Weed control has been good, and reports of off-target movement have remained low. gdmorgan@tamu.edu

TEXAS Seth Byrd On Aug. 15, we were coming out of the latest string of storms that brought most of the High Plains several rain showers since the end of July. With the last effective bloom date historically in mid- to late August across the region, most of the crop received at least an inch of rain to help finish out the flowering period and contribute to filling bolls.

As the crop matures over the next several weeks, the next major step will be harvest-aid applications. Although it’s too early to tell what kind of weather the fall will bring, this will have a tremendous influence on what products will be needed. However, there are some Twitter: @CottonFarming

things we do know that will influence end-of-season decisions. Most of the crop is behind, either due to harsh conditions early in the season or because of delayed planting.

Tracking plant development late in the effective blooming window will be key. If our first frost date is close to the Oct. 31 average, there may be some late fruit set that won’t have a chance to fully mature.

It will be key to take this into account when monitoring the plant to schedule harvest aid applications, as both the 60 percent open boll and four nodes above cracked boll (NACB) methods should only take into account harvestable bolls. This means we should focus only on bolls that will be open and contain fully mature fiber, as well as contribute the most to yield.

We can leave out immature bolls that contribute very little to lint yield and contain poor quality fiber. Most field cleaners can dispose of green bolls or immature bolls frozen shut by a frost with only small amounts of immature fiber making it into the basket. This is a more desirable scenario than attempting to wait until all bolls are open, exposing the largest proportion of our yield to detrimental weathering effects. Although bolls at the top of the plant are tempting, factoring them into our end-of-season decisions often does more harm than good. seth.byrd@ag.tamu.edu

VIRGINIA Hunter Frame While writing this blog, I looked outside and observed the fifth rainy day in a row. This is a good sign as the past two Augusts have been dry for Virginia cotton producers. Yields, as I type this, appear to be above average. However, we need to get through tropical storm season to be sure.

In 2016, we lost an estimated 500-600 pounds of lint per acre from two tropical systems, resulting in the lowest lint yields in my tenure as Virginia’s cotton specialist. Let’s hope Mother Nature is kind during boll opening this year.

Once the time comes to defoliate, producers need to consult local Extension defoliation guides to make sure the proper combinations of defoliants and boll openers with current weather are applied to limit the negative effects on fiber quality.

So far, so good in Virginia, let’s keep our fingers crossed and hope tropical storms do not materialize. whframe@vt.edu SEPTEMBER 2017 COTTON FARMING

17

ww

COTTON

Ginners Marketplace COTTON FARMING IS THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE GINNING INDUSTRY.

Preserving Quality, Preventing Overregulation The National Cotton Ginners’ Association is diligently managing multiple issues.

Among the most serious is the threat posed by plastic contaminants — a concern addressed by National Cotton Council President/CEO Gary Adams in this magazine’s August issue and one that NCGA President David Blakemore has talked about in various ginner meetings across the Cotton Belt this year.

The NCGA will continue its training of gin employees on proper round module wrap removal. We also will continue supporting research at the three U.S. Department of Agriculture ginning laboratories where scientists are investigating methods to detect and remove plastic contamination before it gets too far along in the ginning process. In the meantime, we are strongly urging the industry’s use of the contamination prevention resources available on the NCC’s website at www.cotton.org/tech/quality/contamfree.cfm.

Support For Labs And Research Regarding the ginning laboratories, the NCGA has worked

with the NCC this past year on the NCC’s 2018 federal appropriations request, which called for specific increases in the budgets for all three labs. The NCGA sent letters to both the Senate and House appropriations committees’ chairmen requesting that the labs be funded at the 2017 level and not eliminating the Stoneville, Mississippi, gin lab as was proposed in the president’s budget.

The NCGA also continues to support and be an advocate for other quality-related research. Ginners have indicated that when it comes to cotton quality and gin efficiency, the top concerns are leaf hairiness, seed coat fragments, seed size, seed loss from ginning and small seed-size varieties.

There is no doubt that with the increased capacities of modern gin machinery, we have a desperate need for better communication to take place between researchers, the ginning industry and gin equipment manufacturers.

I am pleased to note that more than 300 active ginners responded to a survey about bale tie usage, including the reasons for specific tie type choices and if there were plans to switch bale tie types. Although the NCGA does not advocate any bale tying system, we took the lead in conducting the survey – as part of an effort to seek views from all raw cotton sectors. The goal is to help the Joint Cotton Industry Bale Packaging Committee respond to a U.S. manufacturer’s

Lummus Corporation has available the following quality, high-capacity used gin machinery.

All machinery is offered “as is, where is” (unless noted otherwise) and is subject to prior sale.

“As is” machinery can be repaired/reconditioned for an additional charge.

1 – Consolidated 96” R-5000 Stick Machine* 2 – Consolidated 120” R-5000 Stick Machines* 1 – Lummus 60” overshot Standard Battery Condenser* 1 – Consolidated 72” undershot Standard Battery Condenser* 1 – Consolidated 72” undershot MC Battery Condenser*

Cotton Ginners Marketplace

1 – Belt-Wide 75-HP Flooded-Suction Hydraulic Booster Pumping Unit 1 – Lubbock Electric Hydraulic Pumping Unit for Gin Dor-Les® or E.E. Dor-Les® Press (single reservoir with multiple motor/pump groups) 1 – Lummus Bale Handling System for up-packing press 1 – Lot, miscellaneous Burner and Moisture Unit components (contact us for details) * - does not include any Steel Supports or Platforms

®

1 - Complete 2/141 Gin Plant consisting of: Unloading System with 15” diameter single-lane Powered Telescope, Rock Trap with Trash Vacuum, 72” Unloading Separator/Feed Control with Vacuum Wheel and Flight-Saver, and No. 50 Unloading Fan; First-Stage Drying/Precleaning System with Continental 3 MBTU Burner and No. 40 Push Fan, 54” Tower Dryer, 96” Continental Inclined Cleaner with Vacuum Wheel over 96” Horn 3-Saw Stick Machine (with double 96” x 24” Vacuum Wheels), Second-Stage Drying/Precleaning System with Continental 3 MBTU Burner and No. 40 Push Fan, 54” Tower Dryer, 96” Continental Inclined Cleaner with Vacuum Wheel over 96” Continental 2-Saw Stick Machine; Distribution/Overflow System with Continental 2-Stand Conveyor Distributor and 72” Automatic Overflow Hopper with Breaker Cylinder; Feeding/Ginning System with two (2) Continental 141-Saw Gins (converted) and 96” Comet Supreme Feeders; Lint Cleaning System with four (4) 66” wide Continental 16-D Lint Cleaners (two tandem arrangements); Condensing/Pressing System with 50” Moss Battery Condenser, 20” x 54” Continental Bespress, and Bale Handling System with Bale Push Cart (manual) and Bagger (powered); five (5) Smith 35/40 Centrifugal Fans (only one season of operation)

Physical Address: 225 Bourne Boulevard • Savannah, Georgia 31408-9586 USA Mailing Address: P.O. Box 929 • Pooler, Georgia 31322-0929 USA Phone: (912) 447-9000 • Fax: (912) 447-9250 Toll Free (USA Only): 1-800-4LUMMUS (1-800-458-6687) Web Site: www.lummus.com • E-mail: lummus.sales@lummus.com

© Copyright 2017 Lummus Corporation

18

COTTON FARMING SEPTEMBER 2017

COTTONFARMING.COM

request to eliminate wire ties by the 2018 crop year.

Addressing Burdensome Rules

The NCGA also has been dealing with several onerous regulations.

Among those are the Food & Drug Administration’s proposed Food Safety Modernization Act and the Animal Food plate 3/7/14 3:26 PM Page 1 Rule.

We assumed that FDA would exempt those low-risk commodities held in facilities, such as grain elevators and warehouses, which store only raw agricultural commodities intended for further distribution or processing. However, in the final rule for Preventive Controls for Animal Food published in 2015, the FDA said it believed the application of heat to dry the seed cotton could be considered a process.

The NCGA and NCC continue to represent the industry’s interests with FDA about compliance with this rule, which includes contesting the agency’s belief that cottonseed should be treated differently from grain. We also pointed out that the FDA’s decision to regulate gins based on ownership structure or type was illogical and not germane to the rule. The NCGA and NCC continue to work to ensure that gins are treated equitably under this rule.

WWW.NORTHERNLUCUS.COM 1116 Slaton Hwy. Lubbock, TX

FOR SALE: 2 – 158 GIN STANDS WITH CONTROLS MANUFACTURER OF HI-CAPACITY LINT CLEANING SYSTEMS IN 86” to 110” WIDTHS NEW 60” & 72” OVERSHOT BATTERY CONDENSERS

HIGH CAPACITY VACUUMS USED & FACTORY REBUILT GIN MACHINERY BALE HANDLING SYSTEMS COMPLETE LINE OF REPAIR PARTS FOR MURRAY, MITCHELL, H.E., CONSOLIDATED, CONTINENTAL, MOSS, LUMMUS, HORN & CMI 806-745-8156 1-800-776-8182 FAX 806-745-0564 E-MAIL: NORTHERNLUCUS@YAHOO.COM WWW.NORTHERNLUCUS.COM Twitter: @CottonFarming

1328 SOUTH BROADWAY, GREENVILLE, MS 38701 662-332-6985

Serving the Ginning Industry Since 1970

USED GIN EQUIPMENT FOR SALE 1 – Complete 142 Murray Gin Plant – Double Battery 1 – Complete 3-128 Lummus Gin Plant 2 – 96” Continental Inclined Cleaners 1 – 96” Continental/Moss Gordin Inclined Cleaner 1 – 120” Continental Inclined Cleaner 1 – 120” Continental Impact Cleaner Gin Saws Exchanged and Repaired Lint Cleaner Saws Exchanged and Repaired Machine Shop Service Repair Parts for all Makes of Machinery Chain – Flashing – Screens – Channel Saws – Brushes Dealer for Smith Fans – Roots Blowers – International Balers SEPTEMBER 2017 COTTON FARMING

Cotton Ginners Marketplace

96” TO 144” INCLINE CLEANERS, STICK MACHINES & AIRLINE SEPARATORS

TARVER SAW & GIN REPAIR

19

ww

Tracking Illnesses And Injuries On another significant matter, the ginning industry gained additional time for complying with the Occupational Safety & Health Administration’s “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses.” This rule would require employers to electronically report workplace injuries.

Comments on this proposed rule are due by Dec. 1, 2017, to provide the administration with an opportunity to review the new electronic reporting requirements and allow affected entities sufficient time to familiarize themselves with the reporting system. Both the NCGA and the NCC plan to submit comments.

Both also plan to convey any concerns regarding OSHA’s announced intention to issue a separate, future proposal to reconsider, revise or remove parts of the prior final electronic reporting rule.

MODULE FEEDERS

CHANNEL SAWS

COTTON GIN BRUSHES

BATS & BRUSHES

VERTICAL COMBO DRYER

ROUND MODULE MACHINERY

Harrison Ashley, executive vice president of the National Cotton Ginners Association, contributed this article.

Contact him at (901) 274-9030 or hashley@cotton.org.

Cotton’s Calendar 2017 ■ Sept. 20: PCCA Annual Meeting, Lubbock, Texas ■ Sept. 20: PCCA Board Meeting, Lubbock, Texas ■ Sept. 20: Staplcotn/Stapldiscount Annual Meeting, Greenwood, Miss.

■ Sept. 25: Calcot Ltd. Board of Directors/Auditors Meeting, Phoenix, Ariz.

RAM MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1333 E. 44th. ST. Lubbock, TX 79404 806-745-5552 Fax: 806-745-5582 rammfgco@rammfg.net www.rammfg.net

LEC-200 Electronic Seed Scale

Cotton Ginners Marketplace

Advertise in Cotton Ginners Marketplace • Place classified ads for equipment, sales and help wanted • Generate leads, drive sales and INCREASE PROFITS Contact Sales Manager Scott Emerson 386-462-1532 • semerson@onegrower.com

Oil Free Air Cylinders & Valves Double Cylinders – Upper & Lower 100+ Bale per Hour Capacity

Lu b b o c k Ele c t r i c C o .

800-692-4474

www.lubbockelectric.com 20

COTTON FARMING SEPTEMBER 2017

COTTONFARMING.COM

can grow a cover crop? Generally, choose a cover crop of an opposite type to the next year’s crop (broadleaf versus grass, etc.): • Cotton Cereals or legumes • Peanuts or soybeans Winter small grain (rye is usually best) • Corn Any small winter grain, a winter legume, or both • Vegetables Most cover crops, including winter and summer cereals, legumes, Brassicas and others.

But don’t use a legume cover before legume vegetables.

• Brassicas Can be added as winter covers to any of the above. They can help in a number of ways, but don’t use a Brassica cover before Brassica cash crops.

You can grow one cover crop species or a mix of two or more. Farmers across the country are experimenting with a variety of mixtures (cover crop cocktails) to serve a variety of needs; however, research into the use of mixtures in Alabama is limited.

Adding additional covers may dilute the benefits of each component. If a mixture is used, covers with similar maturities will be easier to terminate at the same time.

Know how and when you are going to terminate the covers before you plant. A cover that doesn’t die when it is supposed to can be a problem. Green or half-dead covers can pull moisture from deep in the soil, interfere with planting, and provide a “green bridge” for pests to move directly to following crops. Generally, allow at least two to three weeks after termination before planting another crop. Cover crops that have entered bloom or seed development are generally much easier to kill.

Want Nitrogen?

You can grow your own with legume cover crops. Some cereals, especially rye, are good at scavenging unused nitrogen from a previous crop.

Many cover crops, including buckwheat, mustards, radish and rye, can scavenge unused phosphorus and potassium from deep in the soil and move it closer to the surface.

TWITTER: @COTTONFARMING

CLINT THOMPSON, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA

Continued from page 14

Cotton in rye cover

Weed Control Covers that produce a lot of biomass can help. Rye, black oat, sorghum-sudangrass, sunn hemp, iron clay cowpea, radish, and buckwheat can smother weed seedlings. Some of those also produce allelopathic chemicals that inhibit weed growth.

These same chemicals can also affect crop germination and growth, so a waiting period may be needed before planting. Residual herbicides from the main crop can affect cover crops, so check pesticide labels carefully for planting intervals.

Break Up Soil Compaction Crops with deep taproots, like tillage radish or canola, can break through a compacted layer. Other crops that have dense root growth — rye, sunn hemp, sorghum-sudangrass — add organic matter to the soil and improve the soil structure, reducing compaction and slowing re-compaction.

Nematode Suppression Some cover crops repel, confuse, or starve pest nematodes — lupin, sunn hemp, velvet bean, black oat, sorghum-sudangrass, and some Brassicas. In a healthy soil ecosystem fueled by cover crops, parasitic and predatory organisms can help keep pest nematodes in check. Some cover crops can also harbor pests, so selection of the right ones for the cropping system is important.

Attract Beneficials Beneficial insects can pollinate

crops and eat pests. Some covers that attract them are hairy vetch, lupin, sunflowers and buckwheat.

Grazing, Harvesting For Forage Some cover crops can provide good-quality forage or grazing early on and still recover to benefit the soil system. Clovers, sorghum-sudangrass and wheat are especially good for this. However, removal of biomass by grazing can weaken root systems and organic matter, and grazing animals during wet periods can increase soil compaction at depths. If too much cover is removed, many benefits will be lost, such as prevention of soil erosion, infiltration of rain and prevention of runoff, and shading of the soil.

Managing A Cover Crop Careful management is needed to ensure payback from planting a cover crop, just as it is for any crop.

Good-quality seed should be planted at the recommended rate and depth. Planting date is also critical for good development — winter covers should generally be planted at least two to four weeks before the average first killing frost, and summer covers should be planted when favorable soil temperatures and moisture are expected.

Information for this article provided by the Alabama Cooperative Extension System (Alabama A&M University and Auburn University). For more, contact your county Extension office.

SEPTEMBER 2017 COTTON FARMING

21

My Turn Agriculture Trumps Calculus

A

lthough I was Jack created the safety program on which most born in the sub- programs are still based today. Gins were having u r b i a o f o u r difficulty securing workers’ compensation insurnation’s capital, ance, but TCGA soon secured a policy through my parents shouldn’t have a carrier that mandated safety reps from TCGA been surprised I ended work with each gin. I was moved to Corpus up in agriculture. My dad Christi to cover the eastern two-thirds of Texas.

My time in Texas exposed me to a very diverse grew up on a subsistence farm in Pennsylvania, and segment of our industry. I worked with staff in mom’s grandfather owned some of the most modern gins of that period, the only gin in Leslie, and some whose equipment qualified to be in the Dusty Smithsonian Institution. This experience instilled South Carolina.

A f t e r m y p a r e n t s in me a deep appreciation for the headaches that Findley got engaged, the U.S. small entrepreneurial business operators had to Department of Agriculture deal with, whether it was ginning season or not.

In 1997, I joined the Southeastern Cotton transferred my father, who worked for the National Agricultural Statistics Service, to D.C. Ginners Association as executive director and A few years later, I was born in Fairfax, Virginia. worked for its CEO, Bob Tucker. The region had We moved several times, finally settling in Buda, experienced a rapid acreage and ginning capacity expansion, and the Texas. Upon finishSCGA needed its own ing high school, I had “I eagerly redirected my efforts staff and executive. delusions of becoming the years since, the a mechanical engineer into Ag Systems Management.” In association has gone via Texas A&M…until from 55 percent supI took calculus. Given my family background, my counselor recommend- port to more than 85 percent, which I think is ed agriculture. So I eagerly redirected my efforts industry affirmation we are doing what they into a new program under the ag engineering want us to do.

SCGA represents all six Southeastern states. umbrella called Ag Systems Management.

I learned about ginning, employee safety, air From air quality permitting, compliance assisquality and other gin-related subjects that have tance and gin safety, to OSHA (both federal and held me in good stead. Although I didn’t appreci- state), trucking, commercial driver’s licenses and ate it at the time, I studied under some premier tax law compliance, there’s never a dull moment. professors whose legacies will forever be a part We always learn something new to keep our gins of ag history: Lambert Wilkes, who helped invent and ginners safe and their businesses viable.

This industry has changed and advanced more the module builder and module feeder systems; Dr. Calvin Parnell, an expert in grain dust explo- than anyone could have predicted. As staff, we’ve sions, air quality and cyclone design; and Dr. Bill found it invaluable to remain flexible, identify Stout, an expert in tillage and tractor energy effi- issues quickly and position experts in the field ciency. These men shaped my educational back- to resolve them. Twenty years of experience has ground and made me feel lucky I didn’t get along taught me to appreciate our marvelous Board of Directors. With their ongoing guidance and with calculus!

After receiving my degree, I worked in the ASM insight, I pray we will have another 20 years of Department for 18 months as a research associ- advancing the Southeast ginning business. ate on a “cage gin” project — my first experience – Dusty Findley working with a research prototype installed in a CEO, Southeastern Cotton Ginners Association commercial gin. About that time, Jack Link and Dawsonville, Georgia Tony Williams hired me as the first field safety dusty@southern-southeastern.org rep for the Texas Cotton Ginners Association.

Cotton Farming’s back page is devoted to telling unusual “farm tales” or timely stories from across the Cotton Belt. Now it’s your turn. If you’ve got an interesting story to tell, send a short summary to csmith@onegrower.com. We look forward to hearing from you.

22

COTTON FARMING SEPTEMBER 2017

COTTONFARMING.COM

CF0917 Layout_CF 11/13 template 8/21/17 2:09 PM Page 23

Ginners Marketplace COTTON

• Brought to you by Cotton Farming #"!" " " of the ginning industry " ! ! " " "

" " " # " " "

" "

" and INCREASE PROFITS

" " " "!

# 386-462-1532 # ! #

Cotton Farming

ONE GROWER PUBLISHING, LLC

CF0917 Layout_CF 11/13 template 8/21/17 2:09 PM Page 24

ONE GROWER PUBLISHING, LLC

Providing profitable production strategies to improve your bottom line.

Cotton Farming ONE GROWER PUBLISHING, LLC

PROFITABLE PRODUCTION STRATEGIES

The

www.ricefarming.com

®

ONE GROWER PUBLISHING, LLC

PROFITABLE PRODUCTION STRATEGIES

MAY 2017

2017 Market Outlook

PEANUTGROWER ONE GROWER PUBLISHING, LLC

JULY 2017

CornSouth

THE PEANUT PRODUCER'S MARKETING & PRODUCTION MAGAZINE www.peanutgrower.com

ONE GROWER PUBLISHING, LLC

JULY 2017

Southern Production & Marketing Strategies

www.cottonfarming.com

NOMINATIONS OPEN FOR 2017 CCOY MY TURN: DOROTHY YOUNG

Horizon Ag, BASF ink pact to launch Provisia Rice System Handheld device helps predict midseason nitrogen needs

TURNAGE FARMS Cotton Legacy Thrives In The Missouri Bootheel

Know The Sustainability Message

ONE GROWER PUBLISHING, LLC

MAY 2017

Prepare Your Equipment For Harvest

PEACE of

MIND Computerized bin system fine-tunes rice drying

Weighing Optimum Maturity In The

Digging Decision

A ‘game changer’ Mild weather could prompt redbanded stink bug buildup, surprising growers

■ Target spot outbreak in trial sheds light on disease’s complexity

■ Scientists delve deeper into genetics behind PPO-resistant pigweed

A Supplement to Cotton Farming and The Peanut Grower Magazines

To advertise, contact Sales Manager Scott Emerson · 386-462-1532 · semerson@onegrower.com

February 2017