Red Dirt Agronomy Podcast

Hosted by Brian Arnall Ph.D., Dave Deken, Josh Lofton Ph.D.

Technology Education Science

Website RSS feed

Episodes

Latest episode

Aug 2026

Language

About the show

The Red Dirt Agronomy Podcast is your source for in-depth discussions on agronomy explicitly tailored for the unique challenges and opportunities in Oklahoma and the Southern Plains. Hosted by a team of university experts, this podcast dives into soil health, crop production, pest management, and innovative farming practices, all with a regional focus. Whether you're a seasoned agronomist, a dedicated farmer, or simply passionate about agriculture in the Red Dirt region, this podcast offers practical advice, expert insights, and the latest research to help you thrive in your field. Tune in and stay connected to the heart of agronomy in the Southern Great Plains.

Listen to episodes

60 recent

August 18, 202646 min

Reaching Producers Beyond the Extension Meeting

Visit RedDirtAgronomy.com Daniel Adamson Ph.D., Oklahoma State University Extension soil and water conservation specialist, joins Dave Deken, Brian Arnall Ph.D. and Josh Lofton Ph.D. for a conversation about building an Extension program in a changing communications landscape. They discuss YouTube, short-form video, social media, field demonstrations and why seemingly ordinary work can become valuable educational content when producers get to see something they normally would not. Adamson currently serves as an OSU assistant professor and Extension specialist focused on soil and water management and conservation. The conversation also gets practical: what equipment actually matters for producing useful videos, why digital outreach can be difficult to measure inside traditional academic systems, and how artificial intelligence raises the stakes for putting reliable, unbiased agricultural information online. From a phone and microphone to a soil pit and a good explanation, the group makes the case that reaching producers is increasingly about meeting them where they already search. Key takeaways: YouTube and short-form video can reach producers who may never attend a traditional Extension meeting. What feels routine to a specialist may be completely new—and highly useful—to someone watching from the farm. Good agricultural video does not require a truckload of equipment; steady footage and clean audio can make a major difference. Digital outreach can produce measurable reach even though traditional academic evaluation systems may still place more value on peer-reviewed publications and fact sheets. As AI becomes another source of agricultural answers, recognizable, research-based Extension content becomes increasingly important. Detailed Timestamped Rundown 00:00–02:57 — Why Extension communication matters now Dave introduces the episode around Extension, communication and getting good research-based information to producers who increasingly search for answers on their phones. He previews YouTube, video production and the growing importance of trusted information in an AI-driven world. 02:58–05:31 — Meet Daniel Adamson The group reintroduces Adamson nearly two years into his OSU career, with some Oklahoma-versus-Texas banter and a little background on his rural roots. 05:32–07:15 — Building an Extension program Adamson talks about finding the right "lanes" for his program and learning what will actually meet people's needs. One unexpected responsibility has been onsite wastewater treatment—better known to most rural homeowners as septic systems. 07:16–09:20 — The communication problem The conversation turns to one of Adamson's biggest questions: how Extension reaches people in the ways they actually consume information while respecting their time. Video and social media become central to that discussion. 09:21–13:48 — From radio and websites to YouTube Arnall remembers an Extension landscape dominated by websites, radio and television. Dave contrasts that with Oklahoma Wheat Commission videos, describing a YouTube channel that grew rapidly as producers found timely crop information there. 13:49–18:50 — Short videos and ordinary Tuesdays Lofton and Adamson discuss the surprising reach of short-form videos. Adamson's simple soil-structure clip earns thousands of views, reinforcing the idea that work scientists consider ordinary can be genuinely interesting to producers. 18:51–23:30 — Local audiences become regional audiences The group compares Facebook, X, Instagram and YouTube audiences and discusses how online field days and videos can reach people well beyond Oklahoma. The practical advice: capture footage while the work is happening, even if narration comes later. 23:31–27:07 — Does academia reward digital outreach? Arnall and Lofton describe a mismatch between the ways audiences increasingly consume Extension information and the ways universities traditionally measure scholarly productivity. Fact sheets and peer-reviewed publications count differently than podcasts, blogs or social videos. 27:08–30:29 — Communication creates opportunities The group discusses how online visibility can build reputation, generate speaking opportunities and help specialists become recognizable resources. Arnall describes finding a place in academia through communication and "edutainment." 30:30–33:51 — Adamson's North Star: help people Adamson explains that he wants to learn useful things, teach them simply and avoid overlooking basic information just because a specialist has seen it many times. Research quality remains essential, but valuable Extension knowledge does not always fit neatly into an academic mold. 33:52–35:36 — Why YouTube stands out In-person education remains valuable, but Adamson is particularly interested in concise, useful videos. He illustrates the point with his own experience searching YouTube for practical help dealing with a mole in his garden. 35:37–39:16 — What equipment actually matters The group asks what someone needs to start making agricultural videos. Dave's recommendations are intentionally simple: a phone, something that holds it steady and an external microphone when possible. Clean audio matters more than an expensive production setup. 39:17–41:29 — Portrait, landscape and the algorithm They discuss vertical versus horizontal video, YouTube Shorts and platform algorithms. Dave's advice is essentially to make useful content rather than obsess over gaming the algorithm. 41:30–44:21 — Extension, trust and artificial intelligence Adamson explains why he valued Extension as a crop adviser: it offered a source of unbiased, factual information. Lofton connects that role to AI, warning that automated answers can incorporate unreliable material and making trustworthy source material even more important. 44:22–45:31+ — Extension's next generation The episode closes by reflecting on how much expectations have changed. Social media and technology are no longer optional extras for a new specialist or even a college instructor—they are increasingly part of communicating effectively with the people they serve. RedDirtAgronomy.com

August 4, 202646 min

Farm Recovery: Neighbors Clear the Way After The Storm

A tornado can leave a farm standing and still prevent the next crop from going into the ground. North-central Oklahoma farmer Karen Eifert Jones shares what happened after the April 23 tornado passed over her family’s headquarters near Enid and tracked across five of their farms. Barbed wire, lumber, shingles and household belongings covered fields and pastures that needed to be planted within days. Karen explains how more than 150 volunteers, neighbors and emergency crews helped locate equipment, wind-damaged fence and walk fields shoulder to shoulder before the next rain. She also shares practical lessons about disaster donations, community shelters, farm mental health, USDA fence assistance, crop decisions and the local relationships that make agricultural recovery possible. Key takeaways: Tornado debris can create serious hazards for planters, combines, livestock and vehicle tires long after the storm. Local emergency coordinators can help farmers locate highly specialized equipment such as hydraulic wire winders. Flexible cash donations allow trusted local groups to purchase the tools and supplies survivors actually need. Community recovery must address mental health, livestock losses, warning communication, and access to safe shelter. Long-term crop rotations still require flexible decisions based on moisture, weeds, labor, cattle, and planting windows. Detailed timestamped rundown 00:00–02:47 — Episode introduction Dave introduces Karen Eifert Jones and the episode’s central story: recovering farmland after a tornado scattered fences, construction material and household debris across multiple farms. 02:47–03:55 — What is growing on the farm Karen reviews millet planting, completed canola harvest, nearly completed wheat harvest, full-season corn, soybeans, grain sorghum, double-crop soybeans and the cattle operation. 03:55–05:04 — Making annual crop decisions The discussion turns to balancing a five-year operating plan with short-term field conditions, rainfall and individual farm constraints. 05:04–06:52 — Why millet fits one difficult farm Karen explains how access limitations make hay the only practical option on one rented farm and why millet has become its most profitable use. 06:52–07:11 — Hay sales build new relationships A wheat field overtaken by rye was harvested as hay, creating a relationship with a drought-stricken customer who later subleased pasture. 07:11–08:49 — Canola’s place in the rotation Canola may only break even in some years, but Karen values it as a rotation tool that can improve the following wheat crop. 08:49–09:33 — Wheat and canola yield losses Both crops produced roughly one-quarter of expected yields because the moisture needed during production did not arrive. 09:33–10:57 — Why the farm still double-crops Double-cropping helps keep the soil covered, manage weeds and provide an opportunity for revenue rather than leaving ground idle. 10:57–12:06 — Soybeans, sorghum and weed pressure Moisture, broadleaf weeds, grasses and Johnson grass influence which crop goes into each field. 12:06–12:56 — Why double-crop corn does not fit The family has considered double-crop corn but regards the timing and production potential as too marginal. 12:16–12:56 — Connecting crops and cattle Corn and sorghum residue can be grazed, so water access, fencing and planned cattle locations also influence crop choice. 13:03–15:10 — Buying equipment versus hiring custom work Karen describes how labor availability, machinery costs, custom rates and cooperation with neighboring operations shape equipment decisions. 15:10–16:34 — Preparing for generational transition Her son is working as an hourly employee before purchasing shares in the operation, while the family expands primarily through rented land. 16:44–19:23 — Remembering the April storm Dave recounts watching tornadoes near Braman and Enid before realizing one was approaching Karen’s farm and Vance Air Force Base. 19:23–20:28 — Karen watches from Stillwater Karen was attending an Oklahoma State University event and sheltered in the student union after discovering her friend’s hotel lacked an adequate tornado plan. 20:28–21:43 — The tornado crosses the operation A neighbor sent video showing the funnel over Karen’s house. The path crossed the headquarters and continued along five farms. 21:43–22:56 — Debris blocks spring planting Four fallow farms were filled with wire and wreckage just as full-season planting needed to begin. 22:56–24:29 — The search for wire winders After two unsuccessful days, Karen asked the local emergency command center for help locating a hydraulic wire winder. Within minutes, one was found—and a neighbor located another. 24:29–25:06 — One request produces two crews Karen’s church planned to send volunteers, while emergency coordinators arranged an additional crew. 25:06–26:29 — Walking fields shoulder to shoulder Volunteers searched the ground systematically. One 20-acre field contained so much material that workers could barely take a step without encountering debris. 25:30–26:29 — Returning personal belongings Crews recovered photographs, checks, certificates and named clothing that could be cleaned and returned to tornado survivors. 26:29–27:29 — More than 150 people volunteer Volunteers came from Enid, Tulsa, Wichita, Oklahoma City, Woodward and surrounding communities, representing many ages and occupations. 27:29–28:13 — The Oklahoma Standard in action The hosts reflect on the rural instinct to ask what work needs to be done and then show up to do it. 28:13–28:59 — Clearing the final field before rain A second crew completed debris removal around 3 p.m. The planter was already waiting, and the field was planted by 5 p.m. 29:14–30:06 — A growing crop becomes a thank-you Karen’s son arranged for a roadside banner thanking donors and volunteers. Grain sorghum growing behind it demonstrates what their work made possible. 30:08–32:45 — Community shelters and warning access Karen argues for more public shelter options, particularly for lower-income residents, immigrants, apartment residents and people who may not receive or understand warnings. 32:45–34:41 — Livestock losses and mental health The group discusses the emotional consequences of losing animals, homes and personal security, including anxiety that can return during later storms. 34:41–35:34 — Surviving more than one disaster Karen recounts the story of an elderly couple who lost a home in the 1973 Enid flood and then lost its replacement in the 2026 tornado. 35:34–37:51 — What disaster survivors really need Water, snacks, gloves and flashlights were useful, but excess or poorly matched donations created storage and distribution challenges. 37:51–38:31 — Cash purchases specialized equipment Local coordinators used donated funds to buy tow-behind magnetic sweepers for collecting nails and other metal from fields and properties. 38:31–40:10 — Keep donations close to the community Karen recommends working through trusted local organizations, churches, Extension offices or other groups that understand immediate needs. 40:10–40:39 — Leftover supplies become emergency trailers Unused water, first-aid materials, gloves and tools were stored in trailers that can be deployed during the next tornado, fire or emergency. 41:14–41:58 — USDA assistance for damaged fencing Karen used her previous USDA experience to help neighbors find the appropriate forms and ask about cost-share support. 41:58–43:02 — Previewing an Enid canola meeting The conversation shifts to an Aug. 4 producer meeting focused on canola production, harvest methods, varieties and market opportunities. 43:02–44:16 — Comparing canola harvest strategies Wind damaged windrowed canola, while rain complicated desiccation, illustrating that no harvest approach eliminates every weather risk. 44:16–45:40 — Canola’s renewable-fuel market Karen explains that much of the region’s canola enters a specialized market connected to renewable jet fuel, carbon ratings and energy policy. 45:40–46:14 — Final reflections The hosts thank Karen for sharing both the tornado recovery story and her perspective on the future of canola. 46:14–46:56 — Closing and listener invitation Dave directs listeners to Red Dirt Agronomy for guest information, resources and future episodes. RedDirtAgronomy.com

July 30, 202638 min

Can Quarter-Acre Trials Guide Whole Farms?

A new farming practice should earn a producer’s confidence before it is trusted with an entire field. Oklahoma State University Extension specialists Brian Arnall, Ph.D., and Josh Lofton, Ph.D., explain how small-plot research becomes practical agronomic guidance for Oklahoma producers. They discuss replication, field variability, statistical confidence, and the steps researchers take before recommending changes involving nitrogen, plant population, varieties, or other crop-management decisions. They also explain why on-farm cooperators and producer-run trials are critical for testing whether research results hold up under commercial conditions. Key takeaways: Small plots help researchers isolate treatment effects by reducing differences in soil, rainfall, pests and field management. A large field demonstration may look convincing, but without replication it can be difficult to separate a treatment response from normal field variability. Results should usually be repeated across multiple years, locations, soil types and weather conditions before becoming a broad recommendation. Researchers may require greater confidence when a recommendation would significantly change established practices or put a producer’s return on investment at risk. Producers can manage adoption risk by testing a new practice on a few strips or limited acres before applying it across the operation. Detailed Timestamped Rundown: 00:00–02:13 — Episode introduction and research question Dave Deken introduces the discussion of “big science on small acres” and previews how small-plot trials become real-world recommendations. Brian Arnall and Josh Lofton are introduced along with their OSU Extension roles. 02:16–05:09 — Why researchers use small plots Arnall explains that an entire trial may fit within roughly a quarter acre. The smaller area allows researchers to keep treatments on similar soil and under comparable rainfall, pest pressure and environmental conditions. Small plots also make it possible to test many treatments with several replications. 05:09–08:19 — Matching plot size to field variability Lofton explains that researchers must decide whether to minimize variability with smaller plots or include more variability within longer plots. Forage research may require longer plots, while detailed plant-physiology questions may be studied in one-foot-by-one-foot microplots. 08:21–10:14 — Demonstrations versus replicated science Large demonstrations can show whether a practice appears workable across several acres, but they may not provide strong scientific evidence without replication. Researchers are cautious about using a producer’s land for an idea that may reduce yield or profitability. 10:14–13:26 — Testing across years and environments A practice that works repeatedly near Stillwater may respond differently in western Oklahoma’s sandy soils or the wetter, heavier soils of northeastern Oklahoma. Researchers distinguish between an observation, a tentative practice to try and a formal recommendation. 13:26–16:19 — Blocking, variety trials and experimental tradeoffs Lofton describes how treatments are grouped into blocks so each treatment experiences a comparable environment. Trials containing too many varieties can stretch across changing soils and conditions, so researchers may divide varieties into separate maturity groups. 16:19–19:15 — Statistical error and recommendation risk The group discusses the possibility of concluding that a treatment works when it does not, or concluding that it does not work when it actually does. Arnall emphasizes the risk of recommending a product or practice that fails to produce a dependable return. 19:15–22:10 — Why confidence standards can change Lofton and Arnall discuss the difference between 90% and 95% confidence. The appropriate threshold depends on the research question, the quality of the field conditions and the consequences of being wrong. Major changes to accepted practices demand stronger evidence. 22:10–24:22 — Evidence behind major management changes The speakers compare agricultural risk with the much higher certainty required in medicine and engineering. Arnall says he had approximately six years of data before becoming highly vocal about delaying some nitrogen applications. 24:22–26:54 — Challenging assumptions and explaining mechanisms Researchers do not rely on statistics alone. They ask whether a result makes biological and agronomic sense, discuss it with colleagues and collect additional plant or soil measurements to explain why it occurred. 26:54–29:44 — Scientific disagreement strengthens recommendations Arnall and Lofton explain that members of the research team frequently disagree about mechanisms and interpretations. Those arguments continue until the data support a consistent OSU recommendation. Repeating work with different students or projects can provide additional confirmation. 29:46–32:10 — Moving research into producer fields The discussion returns to the progression from controlled plots to practical use. Some practices move into formal demonstrations, while others are tested through a few producer-applied passes or strips. Starting with a limited area gives producers a way to evaluate an unfamiliar practice without risking the whole operation. 32:10–34:31 — Why farmer-hosted small plots matter Arnall emphasizes that many small plots are located on commercial farms rather than research stations. These sites provide different soils, management histories and production environments, although the plots can create extra work for the cooperating producer. 34:31–35:30 — Helping producers become experimenters Lofton describes producers who begin with one research project and then start conducting their own field demonstrations. County Extension educators can help producers establish useful comparisons and interpret the results. 35:30–37:20 — Building a statewide cooperator network Arnall discusses working with different groups of cooperators over time and matching projects with farms that provide the appropriate crop, soil, management system and region. This network improves the relevance of OSU agronomy research. 37:20–38:22 — Closing thoughts The episode concludes with appreciation for producer cooperators and an invitation for listeners to visit Red Dirt Agronomy, submit questions and learn more about the research discussed on the program. RedDirtAgronomy.com

July 14, 202643 min

OSU Agronomy Farm: What Changes, What Stays

A new veterinary hospital is coming to one of OSU’s most visible agricultural sites, but the crop research Oklahoma producers rely on is not going away. OSU Department of Plant and Soil Sciences head Wade Thomason, Ph.D., joins Dave Deken, Brian Arnall, Ph.D., and Josh Lofton, Ph.D. to explain what is changing at the Agronomy Research Station, which long-term plots will be protected, and why good soil, irrigation, and proximity to campus cannot simply be replaced. They also walk through plans for new greenhouses, field laboratories, teaching space, soil and forage testing, plant disease diagnostics, and a possible summer 2028 move. Key takeaways: The historic Magruder Plots and other long-term fertility trials are not planned for development. The veterinary hospital is expected to use the area where the current agronomy buildings stand. Approximately 20 to 50 acres of other research ground may need to be replaced nearby. New facilities could bring wheat breeding, crop quality testing, field research and diagnostic services into a more efficient system. The modernization is designed to improve research, hands-on student education and service to Oklahoma producers. Detailed timestamped rundown 00:00–01:54 — Episode setup and field event invitation Dave introduces the debate over the Agronomy Research Station, the veterinary hospital project and the future of research and teaching at the site. He also previews the July 27 Summer Crop Demo Day near Chickasha. 01:54–02:32 — Participant introductions Brian Arnall and Josh Lofton are introduced before the recorded conversation with Wade Thomason begins. 02:32–04:18 — What is happening to the agronomy farm? The group addresses months of concern and confirms that the veterinary hospital is expected to occupy the footprint where the existing agronomy buildings stand. 04:18–05:59 — Are the Magruder Plots safe? The long-term fertility trials are identified as irreplaceable scientific resources. The discussion makes clear that the Magruder Plots and other longstanding trials have not been offered for development. 05:59–08:29 — Why agronomy cannot simply move anywhere Thomason explains the requirements for productive research ground: proximity to campus, student access, suitable soil, little slope, a location outside the floodplain and dependable irrigation supplied through the OSU water system. 08:29–10:12 — Why the plots must remain near campus The station supports hands-on classes, weed identification, breeding programs, frequent crop observations and technologies such as drone imagery. Moving those activities farther away would reduce efficiency and student access. 10:12–12:29 — The original farm layout had a purpose The group explains how soils, slope, wind direction, water and animal needs shaped the placement of agricultural programs. The land was not assigned randomly. 12:29–14:45 — Prime real estate and agricultural history Dave describes the corner as emotionally significant to people connected with OSU agriculture. The group acknowledges that reaction while explaining the university’s effort to create room for both agronomy and veterinary medicine. 14:45–17:03 — The rebuild is three connected projects Plans include a greenhouse and headhouse complex, new agronomy research operations and an education and laboratory center. Wheat breeding, wheat pathology, Extension, turfgrass and ornamental horticulture are among the programs discussed. 17:03–19:13 — New homes for producer services The proposed education center could include classrooms, conference space, the Soil, Water and Forage Analytical Laboratory and the Plant Disease and Insect Diagnostic Laboratory. Both laboratories currently face significant space and access limitations. 19:13–22:14 — Proposed locations and the 2028 target The conversation covers possible locations on the existing sheep and goat property, the likely order of construction and the need to move agronomy operations before the existing buildings can be removed. The target is summer 2028. 22:14–23:43 — Learning from other land-grant universities The planning team studied facilities at Kansas State, Purdue, Nebraska, Texas A&M, Georgia and Tennessee to identify useful designs and avoid problems those institutions encountered. 23:43–27:22 — Designing around the work, not old walls The proposed greenhouses may have less total square footage but greater usable capacity through rolling benches, better lighting and ventilation. Other improvements include a pull-through seed warehouse, integrated wheat quality space, improved cotton processing, chemical storage and shared drying and grinding areas. 27:22–31:27 — Shared space, compromises and adaptation The faculty discuss the benefits and frustrations of shared work areas. Some programs may gain more than others, but the experience of OSU’s newer Agricultural Hall suggests shared facilities can improve communication and the student experience. 31:27–34:34 — Balancing program needs and limited space The conversation continues into how researchers will adjust their workflows, which needs must be prioritized and how the new construction will affect existing research acreage. 34:34–35:57 — How much land could be displaced? The working estimate is approximately 20 to 50 acres. Options include nearby purchases, existing OSU land and other research sites; the department does not expect to replace the entire 185-acre main station. 35:57–37:09 — Other research locations and sheep facilities Land near Perkins and a university property east of Billings could provide additional research opportunities. The project may also accelerate plans for a new sheep and goat facility. 37:09–39:09 — State funding and possible federal support The episode describes a $40 million legislative allocation tied to a $10 million OSU match. The team also plans to pursue a federal research-facilities grant of up to $30 million, which could bring the potential project budget near $80 million. The federal award was not guaranteed at the time of recording. 39:09–41:42 — Private support and practical details Previously pledged greenhouse support is discussed as part of OSU’s match, followed by lighter conversation about equipment, refrigerators and the research team’s preferred ice machine. 41:42–43:36 — A working name and final thoughts The group closes with the working name “Agronomy Research Discovery Center,” thanks Wade for the update and directs listeners to Red Dirt Agronomy for future information. RedDirtAgronomy.com

July 1, 202651 min

What This Wheat Year Taught Farmers

A hard wheat year can still teach Oklahoma producers something useful about risk, timing, and variety decisions. In this episode of the Red Dirt Agronomy Podcast, Dave Deken, Brian Arnall Ph.D., and Josh Lofton Ph.D. talk with Amanda Silva Ph.D., Oklahoma State University Extension small grains specialist, about the 2026 Oklahoma wheat crop. They discuss drought stress, scattered rainfall, early crop development, planting date decisions, test weight, wheat streak mosaic virus, and what variety trials can still tell farmers in a difficult year. Key takeaways: Rain timing drove much of the difference between fields, even within the same county. Earlier crop development, warm winter conditions, and a cooler grain-fill period shaped yield and test weight outcomes. Planting date can be used as a risk-management tool, especially when paired with different maturity groups. Wheat variety trials are still valuable in stressful years, but researchers must carefully judge data quality, CV, blocks, and field variability. OSU research continues on late-planted wheat, seeding rates, nitrogen management, forage production, coleoptile length, and deeper planting to chase moisture. Detailed timestamped rundown 00:00–02:14 — Intro and setup Dave opens Episode 514 by framing the conversation around the Oklahoma wheat crop and why a hard year can still shape decisions for future crops. He also promotes the Summer Crop Demo Day near Chickasha and introduces Brian Arnall Ph.D., Josh Lofton Ph.D., and guest Amanda Silva Ph.D. 02:17–06:19 — Field-tour context and statewide wheat observations The group talks about seeing wheat across Oklahoma through field tours, Oklahoma Wheat Commission work, and research stops from Apache and Greenfield to the Panhandle and northeast Oklahoma. Dave notes how seeing the crop in person gave a fuller picture than just looking at numbers. 06:27–09:10 — A hard, variable wheat season Silva describes the season as one of the hardest since she started at OSU. She explains that southwest and western Oklahoma were especially rough, while some locations saw enough rain to produce pockets of better wheat. Rainfall patterns created major differences, even between fields in the same county. 09:11–12:02 — Stand establishment, planting timing, and grain fill Josh compares the wheat variability to what he saw in canola. Silva and Arnall discuss how some locations benefited from earlier establishment, while others struggled with stands and canopy closure. Cooler weather during grain fill likely helped preserve some grain quality and test weight. 12:04–15:17 — Why wheat matured early Arnall asks why wheat was running ahead of schedule across a broad region. Silva points to warm late-winter and early-spring temperatures that moved the crop through growth stages quickly. The group also compares how those conditions affected canola and freeze risk. 15:17–17:40 — The critical period for yield Silva explains that the jointing-to-flowering period is especially important because key yield components are being set. Moisture or stress during that window can strongly shape final yield. 17:45–20:35 — Diversifying planting dates Arnall raises the idea of spreading planting dates as another form of risk management. Silva agrees that stacking planting dates could help, especially when combined with different variety maturities. She clarifies that “early” for grain-only wheat may still mean mid-October, not September. 20:36–23:53 — Dusting in wheat and chasing moisture Dave asks when dusting in becomes worth the risk. Silva explains that farmers and researchers both have acreage and time constraints, and sometimes planting dry is a practical choice. The group also discusses deeper planting, coleoptile length, and whether Oklahoma could learn from dryland systems in the Pacific Northwest and Australia. 23:54–28:13 — How much water does wheat really need? Dave asks whether researchers can determine a minimum moisture requirement for wheat in a controlled setting. Arnall and Lofton explain why lab or pot-study answers do not always translate well to field decisions because soil, temperature, humidity, wind, rooting environment, and other factors change the outcome. 29:09–32:19 — Silva’s research program Silva outlines current OSU wheat work, including planting date, variety maturity, nitrogen management in late-planted wheat, seeding rates, forage response, grazing recovery, nitrogen uptake, protein, and nitrogen-use efficiency. She notes new forage-focused seeding-rate work at El Reno and possibly Chickasha. 32:20–36:47 — Variety trials and disease pressure The group discusses OSU’s wheat variety trial network, the number of varieties being evaluated, and the inclusion of irrigated wheat work in the Panhandle. Silva notes wheat streak mosaic virus pressure in irrigated plots and explains that water alone does not remove the impact of disease. 36:48–45:45 — How researchers judge trial data Arnall asks Silva and Lofton to explain how they decide whether trial data is trustworthy. They discuss CV, blocks, reps, averages, plot-by-plot review, field notes, drone imagery, canopy gaps, and the challenge of publishing fair comparisons when field variability is high. 45:46–49:10 — Lessons from a stressful wheat year Silva’s big takeaway is the resilience of wheat and Oklahoma producers. The group points out that hard “scientist years” can reveal useful information about stress tolerance, variety response, and management, even when they are not the years producers hope for. RedDirtAgronomy.com

June 24, 202659 min

Oklahoma Crops: Small Isn’t Bad

Oklahoma summer crops may look smaller than usual, but that does not automatically mean yield potential is gone. Dave Deken talks with Brian Arnall Ph.D. and Josh Lofton Ph.D. about how timely June rains, cooler temperatures, and still-uncertain July weather are shaping corn, soybeans, grain sorghum, hay, and double crop decisions across the Southern Plains. The conversation covers why smaller soybeans can sometimes offer better yield stability in dryland Oklahoma, what corn needs during pollination, how growers are thinking about double crop acres after an early wheat harvest, and where fertilizer dollars may be best spent with current nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and lime prices. Brian also shares lessons from Brazilian row crop systems, and the team previews a hands-on OSU Extension summer crop field day in Chickasha. Key takeaways June rain changed the summer crop outlook. After a dry start, many Oklahoma fields caught enough rain to germinate and carry crops forward. Smaller crops are not automatically bad. In dryland Oklahoma, shorter soybeans and sorghum may use less water and hold up better if July turns hot and dry. Corn is in a critical window. Cooler temperatures in the 70s and 80s could help early planted corn during pollination. Soybeans are already moving. Some April-planted soybeans are flowering, but wide-row fields that have not canopied may face more weed pressure. Double crop decisions remain complicated. Moisture is favorable in places, but prices, risk, and plans for next wheat crop are slowing some decisions. Some growers may invest in existing acres first. Instead of adding more double crop acres, producers may spend fertility dollars on full-season corn, sorghum, or soybeans. Hay and forage acres may increase. Hay grazer could see more interest as producers rebuild hay supplies for winter. Potassium and lime may deserve attention. Brian points to K and lime as places to invest where soil tests show a need, while staying cautious on expensive N and P. Fertilizer markets are global. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potash prices are being shaped by international demand, freight, geopolitics, and timing. Brazil offers useful contrasts. Brian’s trip highlighted major differences in soils, rainfall, row crop systems, planter setup, fertility, and crop disease pressure. Detailed timestamped rundown 00:00–01:43 — Episode setup and introductions Dave introduces episode 513 and frames the discussion around moisture, cooler weather, wheat harvest, summer planting, and what has changed across the Southern Great Plains. 01:48–04:55 — Weather whiplash and wet wheat harvest areas The group jokes about June feeling like winter and discusses wet conditions in northeastern Oklahoma, including areas where wheat harvest had been delayed by repeated rainfall. 04:55–07:18 — “Weird things called rain” Josh explains that after a very dry early spring, rain finally arrived. Instead of one big soaking event in many areas, crops benefited from more spread-out rainfall. 07:18–09:37 — Double crop decisions and crop progress The group discusses wheat coming off, double crop choices, cooler temperatures, corn approaching pollination, and early planted soybeans beginning to flower. 09:37–13:10 — Josh’s research projects Josh outlines current work, including crabgrass and small grain rotations, nitrogen management, forage production, soybean and sorghum herbicide work, and pigweed control research. 13:10–14:16 — How research programs evolve Brian and Josh talk about how Extension research shifts through phases based on grower needs, student interests, funding, and emerging problems. 14:16–17:02 — Summer crop acreage trends Josh says corn interest increased after strong performance last year, soybeans remained steadier than expected, and marketing conditions have made decisions feel like choosing the least bad option. 17:02–18:40 — Early wheat harvest and double crop caution Brian notes how early wheat harvest was in some areas. Josh says some growers are considering whether to double crop or prepare ground for wheat again. 18:40–19:44 — Fertility and hay grazer decisions Josh says some growers may spend money on full-season acres instead of double crop acres, while also considering lime, phosphorus, potassium, and hay grazer needs. 19:45–20:55 — Bermuda grass and hay outlook Brian notes Bermuda grass started slowly because of the dry, cool start, but second cuttings may look stronger. Josh adds that eastern Oklahoma avoided some flooding problems seen in previous years. 21:08–22:23 — Dry planting, then June moisture The group compares expectations at planting with current field conditions and notes that Oklahoma growers would rather have moisture in June than early growth with no rain later. 22:23–24:02 — Why small crops may be okay Josh introduces the idea that smaller soybean and sorghum plants may offer yield stability in Oklahoma by lowering water demand. 24:02–26:21 — Soybean height, canopy, and weed pressure Josh explains that large soybean plants can support more yield in unlimited conditions, but they also require more water. Shorter plants may protect yield if July dries out, though wide rows that have not canopied may face weed pressure. 26:21–27:09 — Grain sorghum size and drought fit Josh says sorghum is smaller than recent years but is beginning to boot in some places, which may be a good fit if heat and dryness return. 27:09–30:27 — Corn’s narrower flexibility Brian and Josh compare soybeans, cotton, sorghum, wheat, and corn. Corn can handle cool conditions well, but it has less flexibility than indeterminate crops once it commits to yield structure. 30:27–33:24 — Data behind small-crop thinking Josh explains past soybean work with plant growth regulators and crop topping. In stressful years, smaller crops protected yield; in non-limiting years, taller crops could have an advantage. 33:24–36:02 — Why topping soybeans is not a recommendation Josh clarifies that physically topping soybeans is not a recommended practice. Instead, planting date, irrigation, and system fit are better levers for managing crop size. 36:02–37:38 — Double crop soybeans west vs. east Josh explains that farther west, double crop soybeans can sometimes compare more favorably with full-season soybeans because shorter vegetative growth may better match moisture limitations. 37:38–39:24 — Weather pattern uncertainty Dave asks about changing weather patterns. Josh says producers should not overhaul whole-farm practices based on one season, but repeated issues with overly tall crops may justify revisiting planting windows. 39:24–42:03 — Wheat harvest and fertility strategy Brian says many wheat fields under-yielded and fertilizer spending was down. He recommends looking at current prices and soil needs instead of assuming last year dictates this year. 42:04–47:17 — Fertilizer markets and geopolitics Brian discusses urea, phosphorus, potash, lime, international fertilizer movement, and why nitrogen prices do not respond instantly to shipping news. 47:17–48:40 — Brazil’s role in fertilizer demand The group discusses how Brazil’s crop demand, transportation constraints, tariffs, and global trade shape fertilizer movement and pricing. 48:40–52:17 — Brian’s Brazil agronomy trip Brian describes visiting Pará, Brazil, where row crop systems are relatively new, soils are deep and highly weathered, rainfall is extreme, and soybean systems depend heavily on fungicide. 52:17–54:06 — What Oklahoma can learn from Brazil Brian reflects on how newer production regions may be more open to ideas, while also facing unproven products and unique fertility, soil, and equipment challenges. 54:06–57:27 — Chickasha Summer Crop Demo Day Brian previews the July 27 producer event at the Chickasha research station, including hands-on stops for crop staging, scouting, soil pits, irrigation, spray nozzles, nitrate testing, alfalfa, and summer crop management. The related OSU event listing describes hands-on demonstrations from soil pits to crop scouting to improve summer crop productivity. 57:27–59:32 — Wrap-up The group closes with the show website, resources, and a reminder for listeners to send questions through Red Dirt Agronomy. RedDirtAgronomy.com

March 31, 202633 min

The Power of Local Ag Events & Answers - RDA 512

At the Central Oklahoma Cattle Conference, we visit with Jennifer Patterson , Payne County Extension ag educator, about how local agricultural programming comes together and why it still matters for Oklahoma producers. From cattle markets and forage fertility to weed control and producer education, Jennifer explains how Extension listens first, then builds programs around the issues producers are actually facing. This episode also offers a closer look at the day-to-day reality of county Extension work. Jennifer talks about moving from Adair and Sequoyah counties to Payne County, learning a new region, working across diverse audiences, and helping connect rural communities to research-based answers. It is a conversation about service, problem-solving, and the people helping keep agriculture informed and connected. Top 10 takeaways Extension succeeds by listening first. Jennifer makes clear that the best programs start with the real questions producers are already asking. Local conferences still matter. The Central Oklahoma Cattle Conference works because it gives producers face-to-face access to timely, practical information. County Extension work is highly local. Even within Oklahoma, the needs in Payne County differ from those in Adair and Sequoyah counties. Producer concerns drive programming. Topics like cattle markets, forage quality, fertility, and weed control shaped this event because they are the issues producers are dealing with now. Extension serves more than one audience. In Payne County, educators may help cow-calf producers, stocker operators, homesteaders, gardeners, and commercial horticulture clients all in the same week. Relationships are a major part of Extension. Whether it is with producers, community partners, or state specialists, trust helps turn questions into solutions. Hands-on programs have lasting value. Jennifer’s enthusiasm for pasture tours and the Hoof to Hook program shows how effective experiential learning can be. Youth livestock education can go beyond showing. The feedout program connects young people to cattle production, carcass outcomes, and management decisions from start to finish. Extension careers are rewarding but unpredictable. Jennifer describes the work as diverse, meaningful, and never the same two days in a row. Extension is still underused in many communities. One of the strongest themes in the episode is that many people do not fully realize how much help is available through their county office. Detailed Timestamped Rundown 00:03–00:58 Dave opens Episode 512 and introduces the conversation from the Central Oklahoma Cattle Conference, emphasizing Extension’s role in helping producers navigate real-world agricultural challenges. 00:58–01:31 The team introduces the show and transitions into the live conversation recorded February 13, 2026, in Stillwater. 01:31–02:15 Jennifer Patterson joins the podcast and is introduced as the organizer of the conference and Payne County Extension ag educator. 02:16–03:10 Jennifer explains that she has been in Payne County about a year and a half and describes the conference as a regional, multi-county event designed around current producer concerns. 03:12–04:18 The group discusses the speaker lineup, including the range of topics covered and the importance of making educational sessions approachable and interactive. 04:18–06:11 Jennifer highlights the value of speakers like Derrell Peel and Megan Roth, especially with ongoing interest in cattle markets, herd rebuilding, and bull selection. 06:12–08:11 Brian asks Jennifer about moving from Adair and Sequoyah counties to Payne County. She explains differences in rainfall, forage systems, native grasses, weed pressure, and local production conditions. 08:11–09:23 Jennifer reflects on the pace of the Payne County office and the strong local engagement she has seen from producers and community members. 09:23–10:59 The discussion turns to public awareness of Extension. Jennifer explains that many people still do not fully understand what Extension offers beyond 4-H. 10:59–12:23 Josh and Brian talk about the unique mix of audiences in Payne County, where rural agricultural issues overlap with homeowner and horticulture questions in Stillwater. 12:23–15:18 Jennifer describes how educators often work together across agriculture, horticulture, and homesteading topics because clientele frequently have questions that cross categories. 15:19–17:12 The group discusses the need to know your audience. Jennifer explains that successful Extension programming depends on adapting the message to the people in the room. 17:12–20:08 Josh raises the idea that Payne County might be viewed differently because it is home to the university. Jennifer says some local clients already know campus specialists, which can be helpful but also intimidating. 20:08–22:17 Jennifer talks about future programming, including pasture tours, outdoor educational opportunities, pesticide meetings, and possible sheep and goat field days. 22:17–24:32 She describes the Hoof to Hook youth steer feedout program, explaining how it walks students and families through feeding, management, education, and carcass evaluation. 24:32–25:08 Dave highlights the long-term value of that experience for young cattle producers and the way it connects management decisions to carcass outcomes. 25:08–26:22 Brian asks about the most common questions Jennifer gets in the office. She points to weed identification, weed control, forage analysis, and declining warm-season forage performance. 26:22–27:42 Dave asks how conference topics are selected. Jennifer says program planning comes from producer conversations, monthly reporting, neighboring county collaboration, and local partner input. 27:42–30:19 Josh asks how to get young people interested in Extension careers. Jennifer says the variety, freedom, and service-oriented nature of the work make it rewarding and unique. 30:19–32:22 The group discusses the challenge of Extension’s unpredictable workload. Jennifer explains how mentors and stronger communication networks helped her adapt to the pace of the job. 32:22–33:43 Brian asks how state specialists can better connect with county educators. Jennifer says approachability and relationship-building matter so county staff feel comfortable reaching out. 33:43–End The episode wraps with thanks to Jennifer Patterson and a reminder to visit the Red Dirt Agronomy website for more information and resources. RedDirtAgronomy.com

March 25, 202633 min

Bring Pastures Back Fast: Recovery That Lasts - RDA 511

High cattle prices can make it tempting to push pasture ground harder than ever, but what happens when the grass gives out before the market does? In this episode, Dave Deken, Dr. Brian Arnall, and Dr. Josh Lofton visit with OSU Extension Forage Specialist Brian Pugh about pasture recovery, grazing pressure, and the management decisions producers need to make now to protect long-term forage production. They break down the difference between native and introduced systems, why rest matters, and how too many cows with too few inputs can quietly drive a pasture into decline. Their conversation also digs into what recovery really looks like. Introduced forages like bermudagrass can rebound quickly with rest, nutrients, and weed control, while native range may take much longer and demands more careful timing. Along the way, the group discusses soil testing, stocking rates, drought carryover, old world bluestem in western Oklahoma, TEFF as an annual option, and why more producers should start thinking about pasture management the same way they think about crop management. Top 10 takeaways Pasture recovery starts with management, not luck. Rest, fertility, and weed control are the backbone of rebuilding forage systems. Many producers are still stocked for a cheap-input era that no longer exists. High cattle numbers with reduced inputs is a recipe for forage decline. Native grasses need a different rest schedule than introduced forages. Pugh recommends resting native grasses after July 10 , while bermudagrass benefits from a few weeks of rest before frost. Introduced forages can rebound surprisingly fast. Damaged bermudagrass can recover in a single season when pressure is reduced and nutrients and weed control are addressed. Native range recovery is slower and requires more patience. Native plants may remain alive below ground even when above-ground growth looks poor. Pasture should be managed more like a crop. Soil tests, nutrient plans, and intentional competition control are just as important in forage systems as they are in row crops. Economics drive bad grazing decisions as much as biology does. Strong cattle markets can encourage overstocking, especially when crop returns are weak. Emotions make herd reduction hard. Cow-calf operations are not easy to scale down quickly because of years of investment in genetics and herd building. Regional forage fit matters. Bermudagrass may work well in some areas, while old world bluestem, native mixes, or carefully managed annuals make more sense farther west. Recovery costs money. Producers often wait until the financial picture worsens before rebuilding pasture, but the inputs needed for recovery do not disappear. Detailed Timestamped Rundown 00:03–01:02 Dave opens the episode and frames the main topic: forage systems, pasture recovery, cattle prices, input costs, and long-term pasture health. He previews discussion on worn-out pastures, resting native grasses, introduced forage recovery, and regional differences across Oklahoma. 01:02–01:40 Dave points listeners to the Red Dirt Agronomy website, then introduces the usual crew: Brian Arnall and Josh Lofton. 01:40–02:45 The recorded interview begins from the Central Oklahoma Cattle Conference in Stillwater on February 13, 2026. Brian Pugh is introduced as OSU’s state forage extension specialist. 02:45–04:20 The group recaps the conference session. Early expectations were that producers would mostly ask weed questions, especially around bermudagrass, but the bigger theme became forage system management under current economics. 04:20–05:09 Brian Pugh explains that many producers are still managing herds and forage stands like inputs are cheap, even though fertilizer and other costs are far higher now. His point: too many mouths to feed and too few inputs is putting pressure on forage systems. 05:09–06:32 Brian Arnall says one forgotten practice is pasture rest, especially in native systems. He argues many producers are grazing too late into the season, especially at the very time native grasses need to recover and recharge below ground reserves. 06:13–06:32 Pugh gives a practical native pasture benchmark: after July 10 is when they recommend rest for natives. For bermudagrass, he says a three- to four-week rest before frost , often in October, helps stand health. 06:32–08:15 The team discusses how drought, rising fertilizer prices, and the need for forage have led to widespread decline in native pasture condition. Pugh gives an example of carrying too many cows on a declining native system and slowly slipping from one cow per 10 acres to one cow per 8, then worse, as undesirable plants take over. 08:15–10:15 Josh asks why producers quit using rest as part of management. The group suggests cattle numbers, tighter economics, incomplete management information, and the lingering influence of older production mindsets all played a role. They also note cheap fertilizer in the 1980s and 1990s made it easier to support intensive systems. 10:15–12:44 Dave asks whether producers should treat pasture more like a crop. Pugh strongly agrees, saying forage management is becoming the next frontier in agronomy. The group discusses soil testing, nutrient application, and improving forage efficiency the same way row-crop producers manage corn or wheat. 12:44–15:51 The conversation shifts to how strong cattle prices may be carrying operations while crop prices are weak. Pugh warns that profitable cattle markets can encourage producers to run more cows than their forage system can sustainably support, especially when feed and hay are still affordable. 15:51–17:10 Arnall highlights the emotional side of herd decisions. Producers may know they should cut numbers during drought or market shifts, but cow-calf herds are tied to years of genetic selection and personal investment, making those decisions difficult. 17:10–20:20 The group answers a question about lime, pH, and native systems. Arnall says old bermudagrass stands often persist at lower pH because they’ve adapted over time, while native stands are more likely to shift species composition as soil conditions change. Pugh notes eastern Oklahoma comparisons can be tricky because much of that land has a long cropping history. 20:20–22:24 Dave asks the big practical question: how long does it take to build back pasture? Pugh says introduced forages can recover extremely quickly if they get three things: reduced use, nutrients, and competition control. He shares trial results showing severely damaged bermudagrass reached full ground cover in about 75 days and more than a ton of production per acre in about 120 days .| 22:24–23:05 Native systems are different. Pugh says native plants may take much longer, and in patch-burn systems, some plants may not show much above-ground growth the following year even though they remain alive and capable of long-term recovery. 23:05–25:33 The discussion turns westward across Oklahoma. Pugh says bermudagrass starts to give way to old world bluestem farther west, calling it the “bermuda of western Oklahoma.” He also discusses lovegrass and notes that intensive management can maintain acceptable quality in some stands. 25:33–27:28 Josh asks about orchardgrass and TEFF. Pugh says orchardgrass may have more potential than people once thought, especially if persistence issues are tied to disease or humidity rather than drought alone. He describes TEFF as a high-quality annual option that can fit producers willing to manage it carefully. 27:28–30:32 For western Oklahoma, Pugh says native forages often make more sense under dryland conditions, though introduced species still have a place. He estimates native establishment in far western areas may take a couple of years, especially with short- and mid-grass species. 29:43–31:23 Pugh explains the economics of perennial versus annual forage systems. Perennials usually win on establishment cost, while TEFF can justify annual planting through quality, tonnage, and hay-market value. He notes TEFF is frost-intolerant, planted around early May, and typically harvested two to three times by late summer. 31:23–32:57 The episode closes by returning to the big theme: yes, pastures can come back, but recovery takes investment. Arnall emphasizes the hard truth that producers often want to rebuild only after markets weaken, which is exactly when spending money on fertilizer and herbicide is hardest. 33:05–end Dave closes the show, thanks Brian Pugh, and directs listeners to the website for guest information and resources. RedDirtAgronomy.com

March 18, 202632 min

How Soybeans Shape Oklahoma - RDA 510

Soybeans are a lot more than a crop in the field, and this episode proves it. Dave Deken and Brian Arnall visit with Rick and Ginger Reimer of the Oklahoma Soybean Board about how soybean checkoff dollars are being invested in research, producer outreach, education, and consumer awareness across Oklahoma. From Red Dirt Soy and production research to classroom workshops and virtual reality tools, the Reimers share how the board is helping connect agriculture to both producers and the public. The conversation also digs into soybean rotations, the crop’s spread into new parts of Oklahoma, why soybeans are so important to livestock agriculture, and how the board has even supported feral hog control because of the damage those animals cause to crops and pasture. It’s a wide-ranging look at how soybean leadership, Extension partnerships, and strategic outreach are helping strengthen agriculture from the farm gate to the classroom Top 10 Takeaways This episode reframes soybeans as much more than a crop. The Oklahoma Soybean Board is investing not only in production research, but also in education, livestock-connected outreach, and public understanding of agriculture. Teacher training is one of the board’s biggest multiplier strategies. Ginger says the board has worked with nearly 800 teachers and is reaching around 20,000 students annually through workshops and classroom-ready materials. The soybean checkoff is tightly accountable. Rick emphasizes audits, compliance reviews, and documentation because every dollar being spent belongs to soybean producers. Research is still the budget anchor. Rick estimates about 60% of retained board funds go toward research, with another 20% to 30% supporting education and outreach. Soybeans and livestock are directly linked. Rick says most domestically used soybeans go into animal agriculture, which explains why the board supports pork, poultry, and related educational programming. Soybean production geography in Oklahoma has shifted. Counties once dominant in eastern Oklahoma are no longer the only leaders; major soybean production now includes north-central Oklahoma, and the crop is pushing even farther west. Western Oklahoma soybeans bring new management questions. Brian points to irrigated production and iron deficiency issues in high-pH soils as examples of why region-specific research matters. Digital outreach is becoming a bigger part of the mission. The board is expanding through social media, recorded workshop content, YouTube, and online education platforms. Feral hog control is a serious agricultural issue. The board’s support for control efforts shows how soybean leadership is responding to broader on-farm threats, not just soybean-only problems. Agricultural literacy is long-term risk management. Ginger makes the strongest public-facing point of the episode: informed teachers become informed communities, and informed communities shape the future of agriculture. Detailed Timestamped Rundown 00:02–01:06 Dave opens Episode 510 and frames soybeans as more than a field crop, tying them to livestock feed, producer research, ag education, and statewide outreach. He previews the conversation with Rick and Ginger Reimer of the Oklahoma Soybean Board and points listeners to Red Dirt Agronomy online for more resources. 01:07–01:40 Dave introduces Brian Arnall, and the hosts set up the interview, noting it was recorded January 10, 2026, at the Oklahoma Wheat Commission booth during KNID Agrifest. 01:41–03:24 Brian introduces Rick and Ginger Reimer. Rick explains his long tenure with the soybean organization and walks through the shift from the Oklahoma Soybean Commission to the Oklahoma Soybean Board after the national soybean checkoff was established, including the split of funds between the state and national boards. 03:25–06:22 Ginger outlines her role in marketing, consumer information, and education. She explains how her classroom work evolved into teacher workshops that equip educators with supplies, books, curriculum, and hands-on materials. Rick adds that the board tracks reach by counting how many students those teachers serve each year. Ginger says they are nearing 800 teachers and about 20,000 students annually. 06:22–08:41 The group discusses workshop themes including “Pork and Beans” and “Chicka Doodle Do.” Ginger describes using VR headsets to show students swine production and explains how different workshops are tailored for preschool through older students. Brian notes the board’s outreach goes well beyond soybeans alone and reflects the full agricultural ecosystem. 08:41–10:32 Rick stresses accountability for checkoff dollars, jokingly summarizing it as “document or die.” He explains the importance of receipts, audits, and compliance reviews because the board is spending producer money. He estimates roughly 60% of the state board’s retained budget goes to research, 20% to 30% to education and outreach, and admin is kept near or under 10% when possible. 10:32–13:38 Dave and Brian talk about Red Dirt Soy and the Oklahoma Soybean Board’s support for digital outreach and research communication. They highlight how the board helped make room for creative, scalable outreach ideas, including online field-day style content that can reach producers across the state without requiring travel. Rick adds that soybean research also includes topics beyond yield, such as ensuring crop protection practices do not harm beneficial beetles. 13:38–15:05 Rick explains why the board supports livestock-related education: livestock is soybeans’ biggest customer. He says about half of U.S. soybeans are exported, while 97% of the soybeans staying domestic are used in animal agriculture. That is why Oklahoma Soybean Board programs often connect soybeans to pork, poultry, and other livestock sectors. 15:05–17:23 The conversation shifts to crop rotation and geography. Rick says soybeans help clean up wheat fields and work well in rotations. He explains that the top soybean-producing counties in Oklahoma used to be in the east, but now counties such as Garfield, Grant, Kay, and Noble are among the leaders. Brian adds that soybeans have pushed farther west, even into the Panhandle, creating new fertility and iron-deficiency management challenges in high-pH soils. 17:23–20:32 Rick and Brian explain why Oklahoma can be a strong soybean state: soil, weather, rainfall, and the crop’s fit as a double-crop option behind wheat. Brian notes the historical appeal of double-crop beans as a relatively low-risk, high-reward system. The discussion also covers soybeans’ sensitivity to timely late-season rains and the use of different maturity groups to spread production risk. 20:32–25:11 Brian raises another lesser-known soybean board priority: feral hog control. Rick describes years of support for thermal scopes, traps, panels, and grain carts used in control efforts through Wildlife Services. The hosts explain how destructive hogs are to soybeans, hay meadows, pastures, and farm infrastructure, making this issue much bigger than row crops alone. 25:11–29:04 Dave asks what is next for the board. Ginger says a bigger social media presence is a priority, along with posting recorded teacher workshops online so educators can revisit them later. She also describes forming a teacher advisory group, experimenting with Facebook Live training, and growing the board’s YouTube content, including Rick reading Full of Beans: Henry Ford Grows a Car from a soybean field. 29:04–31:28 Dave asks what producers want from the board. Rick says growers want strong production research and continued promotion of soybeans’ value. Ginger adds a broader civic point: when they teach teachers, they are also reaching future voters, and agriculture needs a more informed public as farmland disappears under development. 31:28–32:11 The episode wraps with appreciation from both sides and a reminder that agriculture works best when commodity groups and institutions collaborate. Dave closes the show and thanks listeners. RedDirtAgronomy.com

March 10, 202646 min

The New Rules Of Wheat Weed Control - RDA 509

What actually works in wheat weed control when the old spray plan starts slipping? In this episode of Red Dirt Agronomy, Dave Deken, Brian Arnall, and Josh Lofton sit down with Liberty Galvin at AgriFest in Enid to talk through the real-world decisions that separate a clean wheat field from a frustrating one. The conversation covers pre-emergent herbicides, burndown programs, delayed planting, competitive wheat canopies, and why one weed-control strategy rarely fits every field. Liberty also breaks down why producers need to think beyond chemistry alone. From no-till residue and seedbank behavior to variety selection, tillage timing, and even the role of fire and chaff lining, this episode is packed with practical ideas for Oklahoma wheat producers facing ryegrass, brome, cheat, and other tough weed problems. It is a sharp, funny, highly useful discussion about managing weeds with better timing, better systems, and fewer assumptions. Top 10 takeaways Wheat weed control has to be system-specific now; one standard program no longer fits every field. Delayed planting can be a real weed-control tool because it lets producers target the first flush before or near planting. Variety selection and crop competition deserve more attention as weed-management tools , not just yield tools. A dense, fast-closing wheat canopy can suppress weed emergence and make herbicides work in a friendlier environment. In heavy-residue no-till systems, burndown programs may sometimes outperform soil-applied pre-emergent products because of poor soil contact. Bare ground at green-up is not always a disadvantage; it can create an opening for spring residual herbicides. Herbicide timing and rotating modes of action matter as much as product choice when resistance is in play. Weed seedbanks behave differently by species; many grasses are shorter-lived than broadleaf weeds, which can persist much longer. Occasional strategic tillage may have value in long-term resistance management, but timing, moisture, and erosion risk all matter. Fire and chaff lining are not silver bullets, but they may become useful post-harvest tools in integrated weed-management systems. Detailed Timestamped Rundown 00:00–01:34 — Dave opens Episode 509 and frames the show around a question many wheat producers are asking: what do you do when the old reliable spray program is not getting the job done anymore? 01:34–03:03 — The crew records live from AgriFest in Enid, with a quick round of banter before introducing Liberty Galvin and setting up the conversation around current wheat weed-control challenges. 03:03–05:06 — Liberty gives an update on building her program at OSU and describes her “spaghetti plate method” of trying multiple ideas until a clearer research direction starts to form. 05:06–06:06 — She explains a pre-emergent herbicide study funded by the Wheat Commission, including trials at Lahoma, Perkins, and Chickasha, and how dramatically different those environments behaved. 06:06–07:15 — Liberty shifts to a cultural weed-control and IPM study, comparing multiple systems, including variety selection, to see which wheat types compete best against weeds. 07:15–09:28 — The discussion turns to delayed planting. Liberty explains how cooler temperatures and moisture patterns affect winter weed emergence, and why delaying planting can help knock out the first flush. 09:28–11:02 — Josh and Brian push on the tradeoffs: smaller, later wheat may conserve resources for spring, but more open soil can also invite weed emergence. 11:02–15:13 — The group digs into species-specific weed behavior, especially Italian ryegrass, and talks through spring residual opportunities, bare ground at green-up, and mixing herbicide timings and modes of action. 15:13–17:34 — Economics enter the picture. Liberty points out how hard it is to recommend multiple passes in a $4 wheat market, while Brian argues that badly infested fields can still justify stronger programs. 17:34–20:21 — They compare delayed planting, tillage, roundup burndown, and no-till systems, with Liberty sharing observations that residue-heavy no-till fields may not always favor soil-applied pre products. 20:21–24:23 — The conversation moves into tillage in long-term no-till, including when precision tillage might help, how moisture affects the operation, and how occasional soil inversion could influence resistant weed problems. 24:23–28:01 — Dave asks how long weed seeds persist. Liberty gives a great primer on seedbanks, explaining why many grasses tend to have shorter dormancy while some broadleaf seeds can remain viable for years or even decades. 28:01–31:44 — Josh shares a story about deep flipping fields and unexpectedly bringing crabgrass back. That leads into a broader point from Liberty: selection pressure drives weed problems, so no single tactic can carry the whole load. 31:44–35:14 — Josh asks Liberty to explain her identity as a weed ecologist rather than a purely herbicide-focused weed scientist. She lays out why understanding weed biology helps producers exploit weak points with smarter management. 35:14–39:11 — The crew tackles the myth that healthy soil alone eliminates weeds, then pivots into fire as a weed-management tool, including controlled burns, chaff lining, and research showing seed destruction under the right conditions. 39:11–42:31 — They explore what fire can and cannot do, how residue burns sometimes create cleaner zones, and why chaff lining could eventually reduce sprayed acres by concentrating weed pressure into narrow strips. 42:31–45:56 — The show closes with a plug for Winter Crop School, more Oklahoma burn-talk humor, and a final thank-you to Liberty for a practical and entertaining conversation. RedDirtAgronomy.com