Archive for Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Corn not quite ready for harvest

Mark Milleret made a test cut of his corn this week but found it too wet to harvest. The corn harvest is delayed this year because of moisture and late planting.

Mark Milleret made a test cut of his corn this week but found it too wet to harvest. The corn harvest is delayed this year because of moisture and late planting.

September 24, 2013


Mark Milleret started cutting corn this week — to see if it was dry enough for him to cut more. The verdict? Still a week or two away.

"It's a late harvest for me and everybody," said Milleret, who farms east of Lawrence. "Normally I would be running full tilt right now, but that grain is still high in moisture. Most people are still sitting here waiting."

Because of the delayed start to the planting season and the recent rain, the local corn harvest will begin later than normal this year, as much of Douglas County's nearly 30,000 acres of corn still has some drying-out to do. Area co-ops, such as Baldwin Feed Co. Inc. of Baldwin City, have gotten some samples in but nothing dry enough to take.

Many corn farmers don't expect to get the crop out of the ground now until October, a few weeks later than they usually begin combining in earnest. Across the state, only 16 percent of the corn crop has been harvested, compared to 62 percent at the same time last year.

"It could be a week to 10 days yet before harvest, with this cool and wet weather," said Bill Wood, director for Douglas County Extension. "It sounds like we're going to be cool for a while, so that will slow down how fast the crop matures and is harvested."

But Wood added that this weather is preferable this time of year — for corn and soybean farmers alike — to the multiple 100-degree days the area had earlier this month.

Farmers with Nunemaker-Ross Inc. northeast of Lawrence have been cutting some high-moisture corn this week for cattle feed but are letting the rest of it dry out more.

"We're waiting on a little bit more sunshine," said Mary Ross. "If the sun will come out, a lot of it will be ready in the next few days."

The National Agricultural Statistics Service reported Monday that statewide winter wheat planting in Kansas was 13 percent complete, about even with the 15 percent average for this time of year.

The service said corn conditions statewide are rated as 29 percent poor to very poor, 32 percent fair, 31 percent good and 8 percent excellent. Just 1 percent of the sorghum and soybean crops have been harvested so far.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.


Alceste 4 years, 7 months ago

Welfare money at work = Nunemaker-Ross Inc. which has received payments totaling $1,105,802 from 1995 through 2012 and that does not include crop insurance subsidies. (fact source = )

Isn't it grand how the "free market place" works? shrug

....and the Millerat operation in Leavenworth County isn't doing so bad for able bodied welfare recipients according to the cash haul over the past several years per the facts: Mark Milleret received payments totaling $296,764 from 1995 through 2012 (and that is just the welfare paid for corn; outlines the other welfare payments this able bodied welfare recipient is taking as a hand out from the gubment ).

Again, ain't the "free marketplace" simply grand? Alceste is compelled to wonder the position these active welfare getters have on food benefits to children as well as the impoverished which were voted to be cut by the Kansas delegation to Congress?

Kansasfarmgirl 4 years, 7 months ago

Alceste has no clue how much it costs to run a farm. Do you think those payments are all profit? Did you consider the costs of seed, fertilizer, land tractors, combines, grain trucks, planters, fuel, and regular maintenance on all of that equipment. How about you ask those farmers how easy it is to run a profitable farm. A new combine is worth more than most middle class houses. And profits don't even happen every year. If you asked, you'll find that despite the "Inc." title, those are not big corporate farms. They are family run and they provide the food you eat. Be respectful and get the whole story, not two statistics from an online source.

Alceste 4 years, 7 months ago

Alceste knows very well the costs of running a farm..................................BUSINESS.....and Alceste also knows the COST to DO BUSINESS and Alceste believes in a FREE market place for all....not just for the wealthy.

Why should the gubment be responsible for any "....costs of seed, fertilizer, land tractors, combines, grain trucks, planters, fuel, and regular maintenance on all of that equipment...."?? Should not the market place dictate these realities of DOING BUSINESS?!

Also, these farms don't produce food which has few if any subsidies (vegetables; fruits; etc. don't get subsidies.....). Well, perhaps the wheat and soybeans could be considered food, despite the genetics....but the basic crop is not food for people....particularly that corn....which is for even more gubment welfare for the wealthy via the ethanol plants....typically owned by these "local farmers".!

Kansasfarmboy 4 years, 7 months ago

First of all, those "able-bodied welfare recipients" put in a 40 hour week by Tuesday, then put in at least another 40 by Saturday in order to not only put food on their tables, but also put food on yours. Forget 9-5 with weekends off. So, tell me again how these subsidies are so-called welfare checks? These people are the pillars of their communities and fighting like hell in order to keep the smaller communities on the map. I do agree that in a lot of industries the government subsidies are not needed, oil and gas for instance. In the case of the farm industry, the need for these subsidies is directly related to the amount of income the "free market" allows these farmers to collect to support themselves and their families. Without the subsidies these people EARN from the government, the families that built this great nation with the strength of their backs and the sweat of their brow would go by the wayside. Put your blame where blame is due, but I assure you these people aren't taking advantage of anything.

Alceste 4 years, 7 months ago

Welfare is welfare. Are these "farmers" "means tested" as other welfare recipients are? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Alceste wonders how these "family farms" vote and their own positions on the deep cuts in food assistance benefits for children and the impoverished could be subjected to thanks, in part, to the votes of the entire gang of Kansas representatives in Washington, D.C. All the while, a Farm Bill is about to be passed further ENHANCING subsidy payments. At the same time, the House’s “farm only” bill would increase federal spending on new farm subsidies by as much as $32 billion. This reverse Robin Hood approach would exacerbate an already lopsided imbalance that saw farmers enjoy record profits last year while 14.5 percent of Americans went hungry.. It is most curious how FOOD like lettuce, cabbage, tomatoes, apples, etc., etc., etc. etc., seem to continue to be produced despite the reality there are no subsidies for these crops.

Supporting Family Farmers

Congress should support family farmers by ending subsidies that flow to the largest farm businesses regardless of need, including measures that: End direct farm payments that are provided regardless of need. Reform insurance subsidies by placing reasonable limits on who can receive them and the amount they can receive, and reject efforts to cover “shallow losses” or to increase target prices for crops such as rice and cotton. Maintain the conservation compact to ensure that farmers protect wetlands, grasslands and soil health in exchange for a taxpayer-financed safety net, including crop insurance. Level the playing field for all farmers and assist beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers by easing access to conservation, crop insurance, credit, loan and grant programs. Invest in loan and grant programs that help create and expand local and regional markets for farm products.

Supporting Stewardship

Congress should invest in research and provide incentives for farmers and ranchers to protect and restore water quality and wildlife habitat by: Rejecting cuts to voluntary conservation programs. Delivering additional conservation funding and environmental benefits through grants to collaborative partnerships of farmers and local partners working together. Reforming easement and incentive programs to achieve administrative efficiencies, target funds more effectively and provide loans for large-scale infrastructure projects. Supporting organic food and helping farmers switch to organic food production. Strengthening and modifying research, education and extension programs to better focus on organic and sustainable crop and livestock production and healthy food.

And having it suggested you're a welfare recipient doesn't taste too good, huh?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.