Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Home Blog Page 4727

Fertilize spring-flowering bulbs

By
K-State
-
0

October is the month that existing beds of spring-flowering bulbs such as
daffodils and tulips are fertilized. If bulbs have been fertilized in the
past, there is often plenty of phosphorus and potassium in the soil.
It is best to use a soil test to be certain. If the soil needs phosphorus
and potassium, use a complete fertilizer (such as 10-10-10, 9-9-6, etc.) at
the rate of 2.5 lbs. per 100 square feet. This would equal 1 rounded
teaspoon per square foot. If phosphorus and potassium are not needed, blood
meal makes an excellent fertilizer. It should be applied at the rate of 2
pounds per 100 square feet or 1 teaspoon per square foot. Turf fertilizers
such as a 27-3-3 or 30-3-3 can be used, but cut the rate by a third.

By: Ward Upham

Fall a good time for soil testing

By
K-State
-
0

Though we often think of soil testing as a spring chore, fall can actually
be a better time. Soil-testing laboratories are often very busy during the
spring resulting in a longer turnaround from submission to recommendations.
Also, soils in the spring are often waterlogged, making taking samples
difficult. If your soil test suggests more organic matter, fall is a much
better season because materials are more available than in the spring, and
fresher materials can be used without harming young tender spring-planted
plants.
Begin by taking a representative sample from several locations in the garden
or lawn. Each sample should contain soil from the surface to about 6 to 8
inches deep. This is most easily done with a soil sampler.
Many K-State Research and Extension offices have such samplers available for
checkout. If you don’t have a sampler, use a shovel to dig straight down
into the soil. Then shave a small layer off the back of the hole for your
sample. Mix the samples together in a clean plastic container and select
about 1 to 1.5 cups of soil. This can be placed in a plastic container such
as a resealable plastic bag.
Take the soil to your county extension office to have tests done for a small
charge at the K-State soil-testing laboratory. A soil test determines
fertility problems, not other conditions that may exist such as poor
drainage, poor soil structure, soil borne diseases or insects, chemical
contaminants or damage, or shade with root competition from other plants.
All of these conditions may reduce plant performance but cannot be evaluated
by a soil test.

 

By: Ward Upham

Laugh tracks in the dust

By
Milo Yield
-
0
Thayne Cozart
Milo Yield

     Folks, it’s odds and ends time again — when I foist off on my readers some of the “stuff” that’s been accumulating on my desk and in my e-mail box. So, here goes:

***

A friend, ol’ Aimen Blastitt, went to a local gun and knife show recently and gave me this report:

“Milo, went to an all-day gun show and there were tons of folks and merchandise. Looked like people buying mostly hand guns and a lot were just ‘interested lookers.’ Lots of folks lined up to join the NRA.

“The best sign I saw there was at a booth that read: “If you think this administration is doing a good job, we don’t want your business. You’re too stupid and dangerous to own a firearm.”

***

A farm wife went into a hardware store to purchase a bale of peat moss for her flower beds..

She offered a personal check in payment and said to the clerk, “I suppose you will want some identification.”

He replied, without hesitation, “No ma’am, that won’t be necessary.”

“How come?” asked the woman.

“Crooks and terrorists don’t buy peat moss,” answered the clerk.

Now that’s a smart clerk.

***

A friend of ours in Kansas City, Ms. Jenny Erous, bought a bird feeder. She hung it on her back porch and filled it with seed.

Within a week she had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.

But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue. Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table… everywhere!

Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb Jenny and try

to peck her even though she had fed them out of her own pocket and paid for it out of her own pocketbook. And gradually some of the birds became boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and chirped at all hours of the day and night, seeming to demand that Jenny fill the feeder when it got low on free food.

After a while, Jenny couldn’t even sit on her own back porch anymore. So she took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. She cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.

Soon, Jenny’s back yard was like it used to be… quiet and serene … no more freeloading birds demanding their rights to a free meal.

I think there’s a moral to Jenny’s story if I could only figger it out.

***

A Ozarks couple, both bonafied rednecks, had nine children. They went to the doctor to see about getting the husband the irreversible operation.

The doctor gladly started the required procedure and asked them what finally made them make the decision — why after nine children, would they choose to do this.

The husband replied that they had read in a recent article that one out of every ten children being born in North America spoke a foreign language as their first first language, and they didn’t want to take a chance on having a foreign-language-speaking baby because neither of them could speak anything but English.

***

Two young yuppie entrepreneurs were sitting down for a break in their

soon-to-be new store in the shopping mall in a generally rural community. As yet, the store’s merchandise wasn’t in — only a few shelves and display racks set up.

One said to the other, “I’ll bet that any minute now some ol’ farmer is going

to walk by, put his face to the window, and ask what we’re selling.”

Sure enuf, just a moment later, a curious gray-haired fellow in a straw hat and overalls walked up to the window, looked around intensely, rapped on the glass, then in a loud voice asked, “What are you selling here?”

One of the young would-be businessmen replied sarcastically, “We’re selling smart alecks.”

Without skipping a beat, the old timer said, “You must be doing well. Only two left.”

Seniors — don’t mess with us. We didn’t get old by being stupid!

***

The stretch of fine fall weather had continued for the past few days, but the forecast is for mid-week showers. That’s fine with me as the forage plots I planted for the chickens could use a bit of moisture to keep ‘em growing.

I’m gonna close for this week questioning a paradox of modern society. I’m wondering why it is that in an unprovoked terrorist bombing of innocent people, society and the lame-stream media blame the terrorist, but in a unprovoked mass shooting of innocents, they place the blame on the guns?

Think about why that is and have a good ‘un.

Turkeys raised

By
Editor
-
0

ISSN: 1949-1972

Released September 30, 2014, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA).

Turkeys Raised Down 2 Percent from 2013

Turkeys Raised in the United States during 2014 is forecasted at 235
million, down 2 percent from the number raised during 2013.

A combination of six states account for nearly two-thirds of the turkeys
produced in the United States during 2014. The largest turkey producing
state is Minnesota, at 45.0 million turkeys, up 2 percent from the previous
year.
Arkansas produced 29.0 million turkeys, which is up 4 percent from the
previous year. North Carolina decreased by 18 percent from last year,
producing 28.0 million turkeys. Indiana increased by 9 percent from a year
ago to 19.0 million turkeys. Missouri decreased by 6 percent from last year,
producing 16.0 million turkeys. Virginia increased the number of turkeys
raised compared to the previous year by 3 percent now at 16.0 million.

Number of Turkeys Raised – States and United States: 2013 and 2014 [Excludes
young turkeys lost]
—————————————————————————-
–
:         Number raised         :   2014 as

State            :—————————––:   percent

:     2013      :     2014      :   of 2013

—————————————————————————-
–
:    —— 1,000 head —–        percent

:

Arkansas …………………:     28,000          29,000          104

California ……………….:     13,000          11,000           85

Indiana ………………….:     17,500          19,000          109

Iowa 1/ ………………….:        (D)          11,000          (X)

Minnesota ………………..:     44,000          45,000          102

Missouri …………………:     17,000          16,000           94

North Carolina ……………:     34,000          28,000           82

Ohio …………………….:      5,500           6,000          109

Pennsylvania ……………..:      7,000           7,000          100

South Carolina 2/ …………:     12,000             (D)          (X)

:

South Dakota ……………..:      4,300           4,300          100

Utah …………………….:      4,000           4,400          110

Virginia …………………:     15,500          16,000          103

West Virginia …………….:      3,100           3,100          100

:

Other States 3/ …………..:     35,100          35,200          (X)

:

United States …………….:    240,000         235,000           98

—————————————————————————-
–
(D) Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual operations.

(X) Not applicable.

1/  Included in other states in 2013.

2/  Included in other states in 2014.

3/  Includes State estimates not shown and States withheld to avoid

disclosing data for individual operations.

Statistical Methodology

Survey Procedures: Data for turkey raised estimates are collected from all
known operations raising 1,000 or more turkeys annually. Individual NASS
field offices maintain a list of all known turkey grow-out operations to
update their lists. Approximately 400 turkey grow-out operations are
contacted in September and February. The data collected were received by
electronic data reporting (EDR), mail, telephone, and face-to-face personal
interviews.

Estimating Procedures: Turkeys raised preliminary estimates include young
turkeys intended for meat production and breeder turkeys reaching maturity
during the calendar year. These estimates exclude turkeys lost to disease or
those destroyed. Placement of turkey poults from the monthly Turkey Hatchery
Survey and indications from the September Turkeys Raised Survey provide the
basis for the preliminary estimates published in September. Final estimates,
published in April, use indications from the February Turkeys Raised Survey
in addition to updated hatchery data. Other indications for the final
estimates are obtained from monthly slaughter totals and check-off data
provided by individual State turkey or poultry associations.

Revision Policy: Estimates for the previous year are subject to revision
when final raised estimates are made in April. Revisions are primarily based
on updated hatchery and slaughter data. Estimates will also be reviewed
after data from the five-year Census of Agriculture are available. No
revisions will be made after that date.

Reliability: Turkey raised estimates are based on a census of all known
turkey grow-out operations and therefore have no sampling error. However,
estimates are subject to errors such as omissions, duplication, and mistakes
in reporting, recording, and processing of the data. While the affects of
these errors cannot be measured directly, they are minimized through strict
quality controls in the data collection process and through a careful review
of all reported data for consistency and reasonableness.

To assist in evaluating the reliability of the estimates in this report, the
“Root Mean Square Error” for number of turkeys raised is shown in the
following table. The “Root Mean Square Error” is a statistical measure based
on past performance and is computed using the differences between first and
final estimates. The “Root Mean Square Error” for number of turkeys raised
over the past 10 years is 1.8 percent. This means that chances are 2 out of
3 that the final estimate will not be above or below the current estimate of
235 million turkeys by more than 1.8 percent. Chances are 9 out of 10 that
the difference will not exceed 3.3 percent.

Reliability of September Turkeys Raised Estimates [Based on data for the
past ten years]
—————————————————————————-
——————————————-
:  Root mean   :  90 percent  :
Difference between first and latest estimate
: square error :  confidence  :        :
:        :               :
:              :    level
:—————————–—————————–
Item             :              :              :        :
:        :             Years
:              :              :        :
:        :—————————–—
:              :              :Average
:Smallest:Largest : Below latest  : Above latest
—————————————————————————-
——————————————-
:   percent        percent      ——– 1,000
——–          —– number —-
:

Number raised …………….:     1.8            3.3        3,687     500
8,540          7               3
—————————————————————————-
——————————————-

Information Contacts

Listed below are the commodity specialists in the Livestock Branch of the
National Agricultural Statistics Service to contact for additional
information. E-mail inquiries may be sent to [email protected]

Dan Kerestes, Chief, Livestock Branch …………………………….
(202) 720-3570

Bruce Boess, Head, Poultry and Specialty Commodities Section ………..
(202) 720-4447
Alissa Cowell-Mytar – Cold Storage …………………………….
(202) 720-4751
Heidi Gleich – Broiler Hatchery, Chicken Hatchery ……………….
(202) 720-0585
Michael Klamm – Poultry Slaughter, Turkey Hatchery, Turkeys Raised ..
(202) 690-3237
Tom Kruchten – Census of Aquaculture …………………………..
(202) 690-4870
Kim Linonis – Layers, Eggs ……………………………………
(202) 690-8632
Joshua O’Rear – Honey ………………………………………..
(202) 690-3676
Vacant – Catfish Production, Egg Products, Mink, Trout Production …
(202) 720-3570

Access to NASS Reports

For your convenience, you may access NASS reports and products the following
ways:

All reports are available electronically, at no cost, on the NASS
web
site: http://www.nass.usda.gov

Both national and state specific reports are available via a free e-
mail subscription. To set-up this free subscription, visit
http://www.nass.usda.gov and in the “Follow NASS” box under “Receive reports
by Email,” click on “National” or “State” to select the reports you would
like to receive.

For more information on NASS surveys and reports, call the NASS Agricultural
Statistics Hotline at (800) 727-9540, 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET, or e-mail:
[email protected].

Organic farms connect consumers with their food, USDA agriculture census reports

By
Editor
-
0
usda

Washington, Sept. 30, 2014 – Certified organic agriculture producers in the United States sell directly to consumers, produce on-farm renewable energy, and are younger, beginning, farmers more often than conventional producers, according to new 2012 Census of Agriculture data released today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Conducted only once every five years, the agriculture census presents a detailed look at the U.S. organic farm sector including production practices, economics and demographics.

“Earlier this year, the 2012 Agriculture Census reported that total organic product sales by farms in the U.S. increased 83 percent since 2007,” said NASS Administrator Joseph T. Reilly. “This information combined with the more comprehensive data released today shows the demand for, value of and potential for continued growth in certified organic products.”

The 2012 Census of Agriculture Organic Special Tabulation provides national and state level data on farms, land in farms and tenure; production expenses, equipment and machinery; farm income and government payments; land use and practices; operator characteristics; and more.

Some of the key findings include:

Production Practices

  • Organic agriculture producers were much more likely to report direct-to-consumer sales than conventional producers. While only 7 percent of all U.S. farms sold agricultural products directly to consumers, 42 percent of organic farms reported direct sales to consumers.
  • Organic farms were more likely than other farms to participate in non-traditional markets: 30 percent marketed products directly to retail outlets, 16 percent produced value-added products, and 13 percent distributed products through CSAs (community supported agriculture).
  • Organic farms were more likely than other farms to invest in on-farm renewable energy producing systems, such as solar panels and wind turbines.
  • Organic operations were also more likely to sell crops, such as fruits and vegetables, than livestock and poultry products. Almost 90 percent sold crops, while a slightly fewer than 50 percent sold livestock or poultry products.

Demographics

  • Organic producers were more likely to be beginning farmers, with 27 percent starting farming in the last 10 years, compared to 18 percent of all principal farm operators.
  • Organic operators were younger, with 26 percent under 45 years old, compared to 16 percent of all principal operators.

“These new data points from the agriculture census provide valuable information to help our stakeholders identify producer successes and needs to help them develop programs to benefit the organic industry,” said Reilly. “NASS is committed to continuing to help measure the organic industry and is looking forward to conducting the 2014 Organic Survey early next year.”

To access the 2012 Census of Agriculture Organic Special Tabulation and all other Census data and tools, visit www.agcensus.usda.gov.

Contact: Krissy Young, (202) 690-8123

1...4,7264,7274,728...4,775Page 4,727 of 4,775

Kansas News, Auctions & Classifieds

Trending

Categories

© Rural Messenger