The composition of some of our nation's forests may be quite different 200 to 400 years from today according to a recent study at the University of Illinois. The study found that temperature and photosynthetic active radiation were the two most important variables in predicting what forest landscapes may look like in the future. The uncertainties became very high after the year 2200.

Approximately 100,000 acres of forested area west of Lake Superior which make up the Boundary Waters Canoe Area was used for the study. Using computer models PnET-II and LANDIS-II, the researchers were able to simulate 209 possible scenarios, including 13 tree species and 27 possible climate profiles to predict how the landscape will look over time.

"The tools that we developed and we're using for the research project can be applied to any discipline dealing with risk and uncertainty in decision making," said U of I researcher George Gertner.

"We were dealing with the uncertainties in global change predictions using the projections established by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. These projections were based on different CO 2 reduction scenarios and global circulation models. "

The study found that the most important source of uncertainty in the forest composition prediction is from the uncertainty in temperature predictions. The second most important source is photosynthetic active radiation, the third is carbon dioxide, and the fourth is precipitation.

"The Boundary Waters Area is significant because it's a transitional area between boreal forests — like those in Canada, Russia, Sweden, and Norway — and temporal forests," Gertner said. "So, if there are changes in the climate you'll see the changes — if it gets warmer, the temporal forests will move north. Because of its proximity to Lake Superior, rainfall is not so critical there. It's very moist. So, if you were to do a similar sort of study, say, in Illinois, temperature may not cause so much uncertainty; rainfall might."

The research was done by a team consisting of George Gertner, a statistician and quantitative ecologist; Chonggang Xu, his Ph.D. student; and Robert Scheller, a landscape ecologist at the Conservation Biology Institute in Corvallis, Oregon. They drew from the disciplines of statistics and ecology to interpret the data collected to predict the future of the forest landscape. "You have to have an understanding of the biology, physiology, as well as statistics as it relates to uncertainty. If you don't, then the results might not mean anything. You have to be able to interpret everything and make sure it all makes sense."

Gertner explained that in traditional uncertainty analysis, the variables are considered to be independent of one another. "But in reality, they are all interrelated. We try to account for the actual correlation of these inputs — these relationships. And that's where the methodology is new, because of that."

The relationships of the variables are more complicated than just raising the temperature and lowering the amount of rainfall. "One scenario might be if we establish a policy to reduce CO 2 greenhouse gas emissions by a certain level," Gertner said. "If we have agencies around the world who adopt these policies to make these reductions, over time the scenarios predict what will happen, but with uncertainty."

The question is what to do about it? How to adapt? How to manage the forest for global change?

"The bottom line is that we have to have very robust systems that can handle this variability. It can't be rigid. If we have robust systems, whatever happens, it can handle it. Sustainability comes into play in the robustness. You try to manage those areas by having more diversity, not monocultures."

Gertner said that management can be easier with agricultural systems. "Over short intervals you can adapt very quickly. You can make big changes very quickly, but with a forest, the lifespan is 100, 200 years, so once you do something it's longer term. We need to be making policies now that will affect our forests hundreds of years from now."

Uncertainties in the response of a forest landscape to global climatic change is published in Global Change Biology 2009.

Funding was provided by U.S. Department of Agriculture McIntire-Stennis funds and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratory funds.

University of Illinois economists project net farm operator returns for 2009 at minus $8 per acre for corn and minus $15 per acre for soybeans, the first downturn in the decades of the 1990s and 2000.

"Lower 2009 returns are caused by higher input costs and declining commodity prices. In 2009, non-land costs for corn are projected at $517 per acre, $89 higher than the 2008 non-land costs of $428 per acre. On the commodity price side, farmers received an average of $4.05 per bushel for corn in 2008. It's expected that they will receive $3.25 per bushel for corn in 2009," said Gary Schnitkey, U of I Economist.

The projections are based on crop budgets from the Farm Business Farm Management System (FBFM), yield estimates from National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS), and revised commodity price projections.

Based on estimates released by the National Agricultural Statistical Service, 2009 yields are projected at 200 bushels per acre for corn and 51 bushels per acre for soybeans. These yield estimates are slightly above 2008 yields of 199 bushels for corn and 50 bushels for soybeans.

The 200 bushel expected 2009 yields is above the five-year average yield of 188 bushels per acre. The 51 bushel expected 2009 yield for soybeans is below the five-year average of 54 bushels per acre.

Returns in 2009 include an ACRE payment on corn of $25 per acre. This $25 payment represents an average payment across acres enrolled and not enrolled in ACRE. ACRE payments, based on a $3.25 season-average-price, are projected above the $25 per acre payment for farms enrolled in ACRE and would be in the $60 per acre range.

The 2009 returns could vary from the above projections. At this point, changes in commodity prices have the most potential to change returns. Increases in corn and soybean prices will increase returns while declines in prices will reduce returns.

"An individual farm can have large variance from these averages because of yield, price, or cost differences from the averages. In 2009, there will be sizable variations in non-land costs across farms, as fertilizer prices varied greatly between the fall and the spring. Timing of purchase will have a large impact on non-land costs," Schnitkey said.

FBFM budgets also showed that, in 2008, cash rent in central Illinois averaged $197 per acre for high-productivity farmland. Cash rent is projected at $210 per acre for 2009.

"These 2009 returns indicate that farms will likely face financial stress. However, returns in 2007 and 2008 were above average and many farmers built financial reserves that will carry them through the low income year of 2009, and I don't expect widespread financial difficulties across grain farms in the Corn Belt," said Schnitkey.

He projected that net operator returns for 2010 will rise from 2009 levels to $94 per acre for corn and $84 per acre for soybeans. "The higher 2010 returns are based on lower non-land costs. Non-land costs for corn are projected at $440 per acre in 2010, down by $77 per acre from 2009 non-land costs of $517 per acre.

"Much of the decline in non-land costs is due to lower fertilizer prices. Fertilizer prices used for 2010 projections are $400 per ton for anhydrous ammonia, $400 per ton for DAP, and $600 per ton for potash. By way of comparison, anhydrous ammonia prices were above $1,000 per ton during the summer of 2008," Schnitkey said.

Budgets for 2010 contain an estimate of $3.75 corn and $10.00 soybeans. Currently, these prices are above bids available on futures markets.

"It's likely that the high returns period experienced during 2007 and 2008 is over and crop farming now faces agricultural returns closer to historical averages," Schnitkey said.

FBFM, which consists of 5,500 plus farmers and 60 professional field staff, is a not-for-profit organization available to all farm operators in Illinois. FBFM field staff provides on-farm counsel with computerized recordkeeping, farm financial management, business entity planning and income tax management. For more information, please contact the State FBFM Office located at the University of Illinois Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics at 217-333-5511 or visit www.fbfm.org, the FBFM website.

A copy of the full report with data tables is available at http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/manage/newsletters/fefo09_13/fefo09_13.html.

Throughout deer season, hunters make their way deep into the woods in search of venison. This annual celebration of hunter versus prey has other players that many of us only notice when we become the prey.

"I get many calls from people who say they have been attacked by turkey mites," says Doug Jones, integrated pest management specialist with University of Illinois Extension. "The callers would report that turkey mites were especially brutal, with hundreds of bites and severe itching that could last for weeks. This confused me because I had never heard of a turkey mite. So, I began to pour over the literature to find out the biology of this villain. I found no information about a mite that attacked both turkeys and people. So, I changed the focus of my investigation and asked anybody who got turkey mites to send in a sample. In every case, the case of turkey mites was actually the first life stage (larva) of a tick."

Most of the ticks found in the United States are hard ticks (Acari: Ixodidae). Of these, most are three-host ticks. That is, they require three separate animals to feed on in order to complete their life cycle.

A typical life cycle goes like this: Eggs hatch, the tick larvae (usually with only six legs) crawl up grass, weeds, etc. and hold their front legs up in the air in order to grab onto anything that passes by (questing). Once on the animal, they feed for a little while and then drop off the animal and molt into the next life stage (nymph). They now quest for another host, feed and then drop off again to molt into the adult stage. Now they quest for the last host animal. Once aboard, the female begins to feed, and the males seek the females. A female will only become heavily engorged with blood (replete) after she is mated. Once she is mated and fully replete, she drops off, lays her eggs and dies --- completing the cycle.

Some important facts to remember about ticks are that they do not transmit diseases from mother to egg. This means that a tick must feed on an infected host before it can transmit diseases such as Rocky Mountain spotted fever, tularemia, Lyme's disease, ehrlichiosis, STARI, relapsing fever or babesiosis. However, tick paralysis could be caused by any life stage since it is not caused by a virus, bacteria or protozoan, but by factors in the tick saliva.

So what can you do to protect yourself from ticks? Wear long clothing with tight fitting cuffs. Liberally apply tick repellents that contain DEET. Application of permethrin-based repellents to your clothing works well, but do not apply these products directly to your skin.

Check yourself or enlist a trusted friend to check you for ticks once you get home. Carefully remove any tick you find by grasping the tick as close to your skin as possible with tweezers. Next, put gentle pulling pressure on the tick until it relaxes its mouthparts and comes out whole.

Pulling too quickly or hard can complicate things by leaving the tick's mouthparts in your skin. Burning a tick with a match is even worse; it causes the tick to regurgitate into you as its insides begin to boil. It usually takes 12 to 24 hours of feeding before an infected tick can transmit a disease to you.

See a physician if you start experiencing high fevers, unexplained rashes or a pounding headache after being bitten by any tick. These symptoms are common to all of the diseases that ticks can transmit.

The jury is still out on the size of the 2009 U.S. corn and soybean crops. The markets are still trying to decide if large crops will get larger or if late maturity will result in smaller than expected crops. The USDA will update acreage and yield forecasts on October 9, reducing the uncertainty about crop size. The sizes of the crops have obvious important implications for price levels and seasonal price patterns for corn and soybeans. Larger crops would likely put additional pressure on price. Under that scenario, the lowest prices might be expected at harvest with gradually improving prices during the storage season. On the other side, any substantial shortfall in production could result in a harvest time price rally and reduce the odds of a seasonal recovery in prices into 2010.

Of the many factors that could influence prices of corn and soybeans after the U.S. harvest, potential size of South American crops is one of the most important. In general, it is planting time in South America. The USDA is anticipating a decline in corn acreage in both Brazil and Argentina. Brazilian acreage is forecast at 33.3 million, down from 34.8 million last year and 36.3 million in 2007. Acreage in Argentina is expected to drop from 8.4 million in 2007 and 5.6 million in 2008 to 4.7 million this year. Conversely, Brazilian soybean acreage is forecast at 55.6 million acres, up from 53.6 million last year and 52.6 million in 2007. Soybean acreage in Argentina is forecast at 44.5 million, up from 39.5 million last year and 40.4 million in 2007.

Even though corn acreage in both Brazil and Argentina are expected to decline, production in 2010 is expected to be larger than in 2009 due to higher yields. Combined production in the two countries is forecast at 2.6 billion bushels compared to 2.46 billion in 2009. The current forecast, however, is 118 million bushels below the August forecast and 575 million smaller than the 2008 harvest. Soybean production is expected to be substantially higher in 2010 than in 2009, particularly in Argentina where drought conditions reduced yields in 2009. Combined production in the two countries in 2010 is forecast at 4.15 billion bushels, 880 million bushels larger than the 2009 harvest and 210 million larger than the 2008 harvest.

The size of the 2010 South American crops will have implications for U.S. corn and soybean exports during the last half of the 2009-10 marketing year. Currently, the USDA projects 2009-10 marketing year U.S. soybean exports at 1.28 billion bushels, equal to the record exports of 2008-09. Corn exports are expected to rebound from a four year low of 1.85 billion bushels in 2008-09 to 2.2 billion in 2009-10. The larger corn export forecast comes in spite of an expected increase of nearly 100 million bushels in South American exports. While Argentine soybean exports are expected to increase by 137 million bushels, Brazilian exports are expected to decline by 180 million bushels.

The market will closely monitor crop progress in South America to judge U.S. export potential. The developing ElNino weather pattern, particularly if it strengthens, bodes well for South American prospects.

Darrel Good
Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics
University of Illinois

The soft red winter wheat basis in virtually every location has been generally very weak for about three years. There have been occasions of more normal basis behavior, but those periods have not lasted.

After the close of futures trading on September 18, 2009, spot bids for soft red winter (SRW) wheat in southern Illinois were quoted in a range of $2.50 to $2.96. With December 2009 futures at the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) settling at $4.5725 on the same date, those bids reflected a basis ranging from -$2.0725 to -$1.6125. Basis at markets deliverable for CBOT wheat futures contracts are also extremely weak. For example, basis levels on September 18 were quoted at -$.91 to -$.90 at Toledo, -$.94 to -$.93 at Chicago, and -$1.92 at St. Louis. This magnitude of basis has been common for an extended period of time.

Basis levels for hard red winter wheat (HRW) are on the weak side as well, but not to the same extent as the weakness in SRW basis. Spot cash bids for HRW in western Kansas were reported in a range of $3.69 to $3.97 on September 18. Those bids were $.75 to $1.03 under the settlement price of December 2009 futures at the Kansas City Board of Trade.

The weakness in the SRW basis comes in the face of a much smaller crop in 2009. Production is estimated at about 412 million bushels, 202 million bushels (33 percent) smaller than the 2008 harvest. The harvest in Illinois was estimated at 48.38 million bushels, 25.22 million (34 percent) smaller than the 2008 harvest. On the surface, the much smaller crop along with a large carry in the futures market that strongly encourages storage of the 2009 crop might be expected to result in a stronger SRW basis at most locations. Those factors have been offset by a very slow pace of SRW wheat exports and an unwillingness of producers and others to store SRW wheat in the production areas.

The USDA reported that as of September 10, 2009, 14 weeks into the 2009-10 marketing year, only 33.5 million bushels of SRW wheat had been exported. That compares to cumulative exports of 89 million bushels at the same time a year earlier. In addition, unshipped sales stood at only 29.5 million bushels, down from 39 million bushels a year ago. The overall decline in exports reflects much smaller shipments to Egypt (down 83 percent) and Mexico (down 64 percent), the two largest customers for U.S. SRW wheat.

While the weak basis and large carry in the futures market encourages storage of the 2009 SRW wheat crop, producers and some country elevators are reluctant to tie up storage space with wheat. Instead, space is devoted to the upcoming corn and soybean harvest. Producers in Illinois, for example, typically deliver about 75 percent of the crop to market in June, July, or August.

The continuation of the extremely weak SRW wheat basis implies a fundamental disconnect between the value of SRW wheat to end users and the value established in the futures market. The inability of cash and futures prices to converge at delivery markets during the maturity and delivery period of the futures contracts also implies a disconnect between cash and futures value, as well as a delivery process that is not robust enough to allow convergence of cash and futures prices. Nonconvergence persisted through the delivery period for the September 2009 futures contract in spite of a number of changes to the wheat contract specifications. Those changes included higher, seasonal storage rates and the addition of alternative delivery locations. Further changes in contract specifications are being considered to accommodate (force) convergence of cash and futures prices. While there are ways to force convergence (cash settlement or forced load out of deliveries), the focus on storage rates threatens to weaken other performance aspects of the wheat contract. The two major issues continue to be largely ignored: 1) the disconnect between SRW wheat values and CBOT futures prices and 2) delivery locations that are out of the commercial flow of wheat.

Current low cash prices for soft red winter wheat, along with prospects for a continuation of weak basis levels into the 2010 marketing year, may discourage SRW wheat seedings this fall. In addition, late maturity and harvest of the corn and soybean crops may tend to limit seedings in some areas. The USDA will release an estimate of seedings in the second week of January 2010.

Hog producers may be seeing the first signs of the financial dawn. However, before profits are achieved in the spring of 2010, there will be another six months of losses, but the magnitude of those losses should decline over time.

The components of the dawning are coming from both supply and demand factors. On the supply side, the USDA's September 25th Hogs and Pigs report revealed slightly larger reductions in the herd than had been expected. The breeding herd was down 3.1 percent over the past year compared to an anticipated 2.5 percent. The number of pigs weighing less than 60 pounds was down 3.7 percent compared to an anticipated 1.5 percent reduction. The market herd was down 0.7 percent more than pre-report guesses.

Unfortunately, the reductions are small relative to expectations and the overall decline in the herd has also been limited given the magnitude of losses in the past two years. The breeding herd has dropped only 5 percent in the past two years and this has been partially offset by higher weaning rates and higher market weights. As a result, production in 2009 dropped only 2 percent with prospects of only a 1 to 2 percent drop in 2010. While these reductions are small, they are at least headed in the right direction.

Improving demand will likely have more positive implications for hog prices than reduced supply. Many economists believe the recession is over. It is widely anticipated that GDP numbers for the third quarter of 2009 will be positive, signaling the end of this long and deep recession. The U.S. estimate will be released on October 29. While the recovery in the U.S. economy will be slow with unemployment staying high, positive growth numbers will tend to help meat consumers "free up" spending somewhat.

Also positive for pork consumption will be the lower pork prices consumers are expected to see this fall. In the first-half of 2009, U.S. pork prices averaged $2.95 per retail pound compared to $2.87 in the first-half of 2008. It was very difficult to sell larger U.S. pork supplies at higher prices early this year. In July and August, retail pork prices finally fell below their year-previous levels. In August, for example, retail pork prices were eight cents lower than in August of 2008 and a similar pattern of lower retail prices is expected through the fall and winter. Lower pork supplies with lower retail prices will strengthen hog prices and result in a higher portion of the retail pork expenditures flowing back to producers.

Exports are expected to strengthen as well. World economic recovery is expected to have more upside potential than the U.S. recovery. In addition, the value of the U.S. dollar is expected to remain weak and will be another reason that foreign pork purchases could increase. Current USDA forecasts are for pork exports to be up 9 percent over the next nine months compared to the same period a year earlier.

With some reduction in domestic production and greater exports, per capita pork availability in the U.S. will be down about 3 to 4 percent in the coming nine months. This, along with lower U.S. retail pork prices, improving incomes, and improving consumer attitudes will provide the basis for strengthening hog prices.

Hog prices are expected to average in the high $30s on a liveweight basis for the final quarter of 2009. Prices are expected to rise to the low $40s this winter and then move into the mid-$40s for second quarter averages. Next summer's prices are expected to rise into the high $40s for an average and the low $50s for weekly highs.

Lower corn, soybean meal, and energy prices will be helpful in reducing losses this fall and winter. Estimated costs for this time period are in the $44 to $46 range. Costs may rise to $45 to $47 for the spring and summer of 2010 using current adjusted corn and soybean meal futures prices.

Given these costs and the hog price outlook, farrow-to-finish producers are expected to lose about $15 per head this fall and $7 per head in the winter. Margins would turn to small profits of about $2 a head in the spring and $12 a head in the summer. For all of 2010, current forecasts are for about $3 per head of profits versus losses of $22 per head in 2009 and $17 of loss in 2008.

Just as the world economic slowdown helped plunge the animal industries into recession more quickly than the crops sector, the world economic recovery may help lift the animal industries out of recession more quickly than the crops sector.

Needless to say, pork producers are eager for the dawn to arrive.

Soybean rust (SBR) was reported and confirmed in several Southern Illinois counties on October 1^st, by Dr. Carl Bradley, State Extension Specialist for Soybean Pathology. The finding was reported on the Integrated Pest Management PIPE website, which is used to monitor movement of this pathogen within North America.

According to Bradley, although many double-crop fields in southern Illinois are still very green, all fields that he observed were past the point of soybean rust causing any yield loss. Soybean plants are most susceptible to rust from R1 thru the R5 growth stages, and all fields were at least at R5. Finding rust in Illinois is absolutely no surprise to Bradley, as rust has been observed recently in adjacent counties in Missouri and Kentucky.

This is the fourth year in a row that soybean rust has been found in Illinois; and there has been a concern this year that late planted beans might be more vulnerable if they were not past the R5 growth stage when the pathogen moved into our area. At this time however, fungicide treatments are not recommended in Illinois, because most soybeans are mature or at a point in their development and growth stage past the time where soybean rust can cause economic yield loss. Soybean plants at growth stages R1 to R5 are the only ones at risk of yield loss from SBR.

In Western Illinois, fields with double-crop beans or any late planted soybean fields where green leaves remain might be a good place to look for soybean rust. Dr. Loretta Ortiz-Ribbing, University of Illinois Extension Specialist in Macomb suggests to, "Look at the underside of the leaves in the lower canopy of soybean plants with green leaves and check to see if you observe any clusters of SBR pustules in small tan or red groupings. A 20X hand lens would be very helpful in this process."

"Even though soybean rust is not an economic problem right now, we would like to continue monitoring its spread, so we can confirm and verify models used to predict SBR spore movement." Please let Dr. Ortiz-Ribbing know if you think you may have found any suspect leaves.

The fungal organism that causes soybean rust does not survive the winter in Illinois. The spores of this pathogen have to move into the Midwest every season on air currents that move up from the Southern United States where the disease organism can survive the winter.

You can follow the movement of soybean rust and obtain more information by visiting the Pest Information Platform for Extension and Education (PIPE) website located at http://sbr.ipmpipe.org. Updated management guidelines are also available in the "management toolbox" located in the lower right-hand corner of the main page.

Corn exports will rebound sharply during the current marketing year, and soybean exports are expected remain at the record level of the 2008-09 marketing year, according to new USDA projections.

"Corn exports during the 2009-10 marketing year are projected at 2.2 billion bushels, 237 million below the record exports during the 2007-08 marketing year, but 350 million above exports during the 2008-09 marketing year," said Darrel Good, University of Illinois Extension economist.

"The U.S. share of the world corn export market is expected to increase from 60 percent last year to 65 percent this year. A larger U.S. share of the world export market reflects prospects for smaller crops in the exporting countries of Canada, South Africa, and China," he said.

In addition, total world trade of corn is expected to grow by about 275 million bushels or nearly 9 percent due to smaller crops in Europe and Mexico and growing consumption in China.

"Soybean exports during the current marketing year are projected at 1.28 billion bushels, equal to exports during the 2008-09 marketing year. The U.S. share of the world soybean export market is projected at 45 percent, about equal to that of last year as world soybean trade is expected to increase by only 25 million bushels or about 0.9 percent," Good said.

Larger imports by Japan and Mexico are expected to be offset by smaller imports by Western Europe and China.

One of the major factors that will influence export demand for U.S. soybeans during the last half of the 2009-10 marketing is the size of production in Argentina and Brazil.

"Production in Argentina in 2009 was down 31 percent from production in 2008 due to dry weather conditions. Production in Brazil dropped about 7 percent. As a result of smaller production, Argentine exports dropped from about 510 million bushels to about 220 million bushels. Soybean exports from Brazil, however, increased from about 930 million bushels in 2007-08 to about 1.08 billion in 2009-10. Inventories were reduced sharply in both countries," Good said.

For the 2010 harvest, the USDA has projected a 2 million acre increase in soybean plantings in Brazil and a 5 million acre increase in Argentina.

"A return to more normal yields would result in production increases totaling about 700 million bushels in Argentina and 185 million bushels in Brazil. The USDA expects Argentine exports to increase by 140 million bushels and Brazilian reports to decline by 180 million bushels during the 2009-10 marketing year," Good said.

Prospective supplies would allow for larger exports from both countries than is currently projected. Decisions by importers on sourcing soybeans will be important in maintaining record large U.S. exports.

The USDA weekly reports of export inspections and export sales provide the information to monitor the pace of export activity relative to projected exports for the year.

"Corn export inspection through the first 4.5 weeks of the marketing year was reported at 182 million bushels about 16 million above the total of a year ago. Inspections need to average about 42 million bushels per week to reach the USDA projection for the year," Good said.

As of September 24, 2009, the USDA reported that 466 million bushels of U.S. corn had been sold for export, but not yet shipped. That exceeds outstanding sales of a year ago by about 60 million bushels.

"The early pace of U.S. corn activity is encouraging, but will need to accelerate to stay on track with the USDA projection for the year," Good said.

U.S. soybean export inspections during the first 4.5 weeks of the marketing year were reported at 39 million bushels, about equal to that of a year ago. Shipments are typically small during the first 5 or 6 weeks of the marketing year as South American exports dominate.

As of September 24, 2009 the USDA reported that 714 million bushels of U.S. soybeans had been sold for export, but not yet shipped. That total is nearly double the total on the same date last year. The large increase in outstanding sales is to China, up 120 percent, and unknown destinations, up 290 percent. China has purchased 450 million bushels of U.S. soybeans for import during the current marketing year, accounting for 61 percent of all U.S. export sales.

"As a result, sales of U.S. soybeans have reached nearly 60 percent of the USDA's projected exports for the year. The current pace of export sales cannot be maintained, but the large sales to date suggest that the USDA's projection will be reached, if not exceeded," Good said.

While early export prospects for corn and soybeans are encouraging, Good said the size of the U.S. corn and soybean crops will dominate prices for the next several weeks. The USDA will update production forecasts on October 9.

Most producers know that going into a wet field with equipment will cause soil compaction. But with the late harvest season and wet soil conditions, many operators will take compaction as the lesser evil. Soils at field capacity will allow the greatest amount of compaction to occur. If compaction occurs this fall, it will probably still be noticeable during the next growing season. Uneven plant growth, ponded areas in wheel tracks, or evidence of dry-weather stress may be seen.

Duane Friend, natural resources management educator with University of Illinois Extension, says there are still some ways to reduce the amount of compaction that may occur.

Whenever possible, restrict traffic to specific tracks or lanes. The first trip through the field creates the greatest amount of compaction. Secondary trips over the same lanes do not significantly increase the amount of compaction in those areas. When unloading the combine, use the combine's previous wheel tracks. Never cross the field diagonally.

If you can't park the semi trucks on the adjoining road, keep them on the headlands. Research indicates that high surface contact pressure, such as from over-inflated tires, concentrates loads onto smaller areas and compacts soil. Using larger wheels and tires for floatation of a given load allows lower inflation pressures. Although less conclusive, research also suggests that large axle loads (greater than 10,000 to 15,000 pounds) may cause some compaction in subsoil, even if surface pressure is relatively light (e.g. 10 to 15 psi).

Once soil is compacted, time will be needed to reduce it, says Friend. Wetting/drying and freezing/thawing will diminish compaction over time, but Mother Nature should not be expected to correct problems by the next season. Some research suggests that only well-defined, compacted soil layers deeper than 4 inches below the soil surface are candidates for loosening or subsoiling.

This year's corn harvest is going to place quite a demand on grain drying systems, both on the farm and at the elevator. It has been years since we have seen the kind of harvest we are likely to be facing this year. I will be the first to admit that I know very little when it comes to improving/increasing the efficiencies of grain drying systems, but I will try and summarize some of what I've read.

There are a number of factors that affect grain drying, including: grain moisture, air flow, temperature (outside, grain and heated air), humidity, type of drying system, etc. However, some factors are going to be the same, regardless of the drying system you have. One of those would be air movement. Generally speaking, the more air you can move, the better conditions you would have for drying. There are certain minimum air flows required based upon grain moistures and temperatures. The lower the heat, the higher you would like the air flow to be. The higher the heat, the quicker and more efficiently you will lower the grain moisture levels.

Following are some grain drying tips taken from Dr. Ken Hellevang, North Dakota State University. The entire paper is located on eXtension at www.extension.org/pages/Postharvest_Tips_for_Later-maturing_Corn.

High Temperature Grain Drying—using the maximum drying temperature that will not damage the corn increases the dryer capacity and can reduce energy consumption. The amount of energy required to remove a pound of moisture is about 20 percent less at a temperature of 200 F versus 150 F. Remember, however, too high of temperatures can lead to increased cracking and lower test weights. Also with higher moisture corn, lengthened drying times with high temps can lead to corn browning and discounts.

In Storage Cooling—using in storage cooling rather than in dryer cooling will boost your capacity. It requires airflow rates of about .20 cfm/bu or 12 cfm/bu-hr of fill rate. Cooling should start immediately when corn is placed in the bin. About 1 percentage point is removed during corn cooling.

Dryeration—dryeration will increase dryer capacity by 50 percent or more, reduce energy by 25 percent and remove about 2 to 2.5 points of moisture (.25 points for each 10 degrees corn is cooled). Place the hot corn from the dryer into a bin, let sit for 4 to 6 hours without airflow, then turn on the fan to cool it. There will be a tremendous amount of condensation, so you must move the corn to a different bin.

Estimating Costs for High Temperature Drying—use the following formula: cost/bu. point= 0.022 x propane cost/gallon. For example, the drying cost is 2.9 cents/ bu. point if the cost of LP is $1.30 (0.022 x $1.30) It will cost about $34 for LP to remove 10 points of moisture from 120 bu of corn using $1.30 propane. The estimated quantity of propane needed to dry is 0.022 gallon per bushel per point of moisture removed. For example, 26 gallons of propane is needed to dry 120 bushels of corn from 25 percent to 15 percent (0.022 x 120 bushel x 10 points).

Test weight will also increase as corn moisture decreases. Normally, test weight increases about 0.25 pound for each point of moisture removed during high temperature grain drying. However, mechanical damage during harvest and gentleness during the drying process can affect test weight. In North Dakota last year, due to mechanical damage involving 25 to 30 percent moisture corn and high drying temperatures, there was sometimes no test weight increase. There will be little to no test weight increase on immature (frost damaged) corn.

Remember also to account for shrink when drying grain. To dry corn to 15.5 percent moisture, the shrink factor is 1.1834. The shrink drying corn 5 points would be 5 x 1.1834= 5.92 percent.

A host of economic indicators suggest that the recession has ended — with more positive than negative signs for the U.S. and the world economies — signaling a recovery for the cattle industry as well.

"Unfortunately the beef industry rode the recession downward. So far this year, through the month of September, beef production has been down by 5 percent, but finished cattle prices have been almost $11 lower than in the same period last year," said Chris Hurt, Purdue University Extension economist.

Nebraska finished steers averaged $93.60 per live hundredweight in the period between January and September 2008. This year those values dropped to $82.75. Steer calf values have also been about $11 per hundredweight lower and feeder cattle about $9 lower.

Beef and cattle prices are generally more directly impacted by changes in economic prospects than pork or poultry markets, moving downward with recession and upward with recovery.

"The indicators of recovery are beginning to become more numerous in such data as the rise in the average length of work week, rising building permits, falling numbers of new claims for unemployment, and, of course, the rising stock market. The recovery is expected to be slow by historic standards with unemployment remaining high into 2010. However, the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator and not the one to use as the measure of recovery," said Hurt.

Inflationary investing may be another reason cattle are underpriced.

"In the past six weeks, there has been a resurgence of inflationary buying in futures markets. This has also been related to the continued weakening of the U.S. dollar where the lead futures contract has been down 5 percent since September 1," said Hurt.

"Since that date, the lead futures contracts for various commodities have been shooting upward: corn up 19 percent, copper and gold 5 to 10 percent higher, and crude oil up 14 percent. In contrast, the lead contract for live cattle futures has been down about 2 percent. This may well mean that cattle are cheap relative to other commodities," he said.

The fundamentals are positive for beef as well. Production will continue to drop as both export and domestic demand improve with the recovery. USDA expects exports to increase by 3 percent over the next 12 months.

"Given that the rest of the world may recover more quickly than in the United States, and with the weak dollar, U.S. beef exports could do well. Per capita available supplies in the United States will decline by 2 percent over the coming 12 months, and competitive supplies of pork per person will be down 5 percent," said Hurt.

While more cattle have moved into feedlots in recent months, the overall indicators suggest that the breeding herd will continue to drop in the January 2010 inventory report.

"Cheaper corn, meal, and feed ingredients late this summer did cause a larger number of lighter-weight calves to move into feedlots. In August and September, placements of cattle weighing under 700 pounds were up 8 percent while those over 700 pounds were up 1 percent. With corn and feed prices moving upward in recent weeks, it is likely that placements in October will slow once again," said Hurt.

"Perhaps more important was that the number of heifers in feedlots on October 1 was up 4 percent, indicating a relatively low rate of heifer retention to go back into breeding herds. This supports a 1 to 2 percent drop in beef cow herd numbers in the January 2010 inventory," he said.

The clearest threat to cattle producers is that economic recovery will be anemic or there will be a second recessionary dip, but cattle prices are expected to move upward over the coming year.

"Nebraska finished steers are expected to rise from the current low $80s to the middle $80s by the end of the year. The general pattern to higher prices is expected to continue in the first quarter with prices in the mid to higher $80s. Early spring daily highs could move into the very low $90s or higher depending on the strength of the economic recovery. Summer are prices normally are a few dollars lower, but that may not occur in the summer of 2010 as prices could stay in the low to mid-$90s," said Hurt.

Assuming the industry is able to ride the recovery, producer pricing strategy should be fairly clear.

"Stay long in cattle, at least for now. This means retaining ownership of calves for a longer period, considering feeding out calves rather than selling them this fall, and for feedlot cattle, waiting a bit to forward price the finished cattle in order to give inflation investors a little time to locate the cattle futures trading pit," said Hurt.