The Orthman Research Farm is focused on strip-till as a base system. The strip-till system allows us to prepare an ideal seedbed, precisely place nutrients, and condition the root zone while eliminating compaction. This system will help optimize yields, and provide an environmentally friendly and sustainable system of production agriculture. At the Orthman Research Farm we push beyond this system to help growers find agronomic solutions to improve their bottom line.
ORTHMAN RESEARCH TRIALS
The Orthman Research Farm is focused on strip-till as a base system. The strip-till system allows us to prepare an ideal seedbed, precisely place nutrients and condition the root zone while eliminating compaction. This system will help optimize yields, and provide an environmentally friendly and sustainable system of production agriculture. At the Orthman Research Farm we push beyond this system to help growers find agronomic solutions to improve their bottom line. Return on investment is a very important part of modern production agriculture and our goal is to be an independent source testing products and practices to improve profitability.
2
Overview………………………………………………..…………………….. 5
Review of 2022.…………………………………………………………….. 9
Nutrient Use Efficiency………………………………………………... 13
Soybean Trials…………………………………………………............. 15 Soybean Side-Dress Trial...……………………….. 17 Soybean Planting Population Trial………….… 20 Soybean Foliar Trial………………………………….. 23 Soybean Starter Trial………………………………… 26 Soybean Strip-Till vs No-Till Trial………………. 29 Soybean Variety Trials………………………………. 31 Corn Trials…………………………………………………………………… 32 Corn Fertilizer Use Efficiency Trials…………... 33 Corn Foliar Trials………………………………………. 36 Corn In-Furrow Additive Trials………………….. 40 Corn Nitrogen Efficiency Product Trials ……. 42 Corn Nitrogen Placement Trials………………… 44 Corn Strip-Till vs No-Till Dribble Band ………. 46 Corn Nutrien Starter Trial.………………………... 48 Corn QLF Starter Trial……………………………….. 49 Corn Pioneer Hybrid Trial...………………….……. 51 Agronomy Educational Research Trials………………………… 53 High Plains FFA……………………………………..…. 55 Northeast Community College.…….………….. 56 AgroLiquid Trials………………………………………. 58 The Ohio State University Trials……………….. 60 Orthman Agronomy on Farm Trials……………………………… 68 Lovegrove Trial…………………………………………. 69 Brockevelt Trials ………………………………………. 70
3
4
2022 Orthman Research Farm Overview
– 33.0 - Acres of Soybeans – 31.6 - Acres of Corn
– 17 total trials (11 – on Corn) • Nutrien Starter trial • In furrow microbial trial
• Nitrogen fixing products trial • Foliar trial • Fertilizer efficiency trial • Foliar K trial • QLF Starter trial • Strip-till vs No-Till trial - Nitrogen timing trial • Humic acid trial • Pioneer hybrid trial - 6 – on Soybeans • Planting population trial • Soybean starter trial • Strip-till vs No-Till trial • Soybean side-dress trial • Soybean foliar trial • Pioneer soybean variety trial • Strip-tilled April 16, 2022 - Soybean stubble • 83 lbs. N • 110 lbs. P2O5 • 29 lbs. S • 0.51 lbs. Zn - Corn stalks • 110 lbs. P2O5 • 29 lbs. S • 0.51 lbs. Zn
5
– Planting
• Soybeans
- April 25, 2022 - Planted 120,000 spa - Final stand 95,200 ppa
• Corn
- April 28, 2022 - Planted 34,000 spa
– Corn final stand 33,000 ppa – Soybean stand 95,200 ppa
– Corn Cultivation • June 13, 2022
- 84 lbs N - 29 lbs S
– Corn Hilling
• June 17, 2022 - 84 lbs N - 29 lbs S
– Soybean Cultivation and Side-Dress Trials • June 21, 2022 – Soybean Hilling • July 19, 2020 – Corn VT Fungicide Application • July 16, 2021 – Soybean Fungicide and Foliar Trial • August 01, 2022 – 2 nd Corn Fungicide • August 06, 2022 – Soybean Harvest • September 23, 2022 – Corn Harvest • October 08, 2022
6
– Yields
• Soybeans 2022
- Whole farm average – 87.4 bpa - Average of weighed trials – 87.7 bpa - Lowest weights – 75.7 bpa
• P22A36PR 2.2 soybean in the variety plot • 80.6 bpa • Check for the foliar trial • P34A59PR 3.4 soybean in the variety plot • 93.6 bpa • 120 K in population trial
- Highest Weights – 107.2 bpa
• Corn 2022
- Whole farm average – 271.1 bpa - Average of weighed trials – 283.4 bpa - Lowest weight – 261.1 bpa • No starter check - Highest Weights – 314.0 bpa
• P1413AM in the Pioneer hybrid trial • 290.2 bpa • Grower Standard Practice + 2qts/ac Extract + 2qts/ac Blackmax22 + 2 gal/ac Altura
7
Figure 1. Graph of 2022 water year rainfall for Polk and Osceola Nebraska.
8
Review of 2022 The 2022 growing season was very stressful from beginning to end. When we look back we will remember this year as hot and dry, however let’s not forget about the winds and drastic temperature changes. One observation that many of us have made this year is that corn plants were short. As we observed this at the Orthman research farm we started to observe spacing between internodes. The lack of cloudy days resulted in very consistent and short internode spacing on the corn plant. This shortened up hybrids a lot compared to what we observed during the 2021 growing season. Furthermore, in some areas corn was shortened by a lack of water or natural rainfall. During a dry or drought year, timing of natural rainfall is extremely important. We observed that rains were very localized in 2022. There seemed to be broad differences in just a few miles or less making it difficult to utilize weather station data from more than a mile away. An example of how localized rainfall was, would be to compare a weather station in Polk, Nebraska, to one in Osceola, Nebraska. These weather stations are 14 miles apart as the crow flies. Long term average annual rainfall for these two weather stations is within 0.5”. For the 2021 to 2022 water year there was a difference of 4.61”. This is a huge difference and observing rain fed crops between the two weather stations confirmed the differences in rainfall. Of most importance is the amount of rainfall during the peak demands of the crop. Figure 1 shows that the major difference in rainfall between Polk and Osceola occurred in June and July when the corn plant needed it the most, resulting in crops suffering less from the lack of moisture in the Polk area. This is just a single example of the localized rainfall of 2022. Two neighbors 2.5 miles apart had dramatic differences in observed rainfall throughout the growing season of 2022. Furthermore, the Orthman research farm is 3.1 miles from the Polk weather station and rain gauge recorded rainfall was sometimes significantly less than the weather station. Figure 2, compares the 2022 water year to long term averages. The largest deficits from the long term averages in 2022 were in June and August. June is when corn water use is beginning to increase, and August is when soybean water use is important. Any rain fed system or inefficient irrigation system in the area would have limited yields due to the water shortages during these times.
9
Polk Precipitation Month Polk 2022 Water Year Polk Average October 2.57 2.23 November 0.39 1.08 December 0.25 0.85 January 0.13 0.53 February 0.02 0.56 March 1.01 1.42 April 2.71 2.67 May 4.64 4.89 June 3.08 4.29 July 6.1 3.78 August 0.84 3.4 September 2.39 2.36 Sum 24.13 28.06 Difference from Average -3.93
Figure 2. Polk Nebraska precipitation comparison 2022 vs. Average
Another stress that was prominent this season was the dramatic swings in temperature through the growing season. Figure 3 is a graph of daily high and low temperatures from the Polk weather station. From the graph we can see many spikes and dips in both high and low temperatures. On May 19 th , the high was 93 o F on May 20 th , the high was 68 o F and on the 21 st , the high was 59 o F. At this time, both corn and soybeans had emerged and were in the vegetative stage and the swings in temperatures were shocking the plants and causing stress because the plant did not know if it was going to grow or be dormant. There are several examples of this through the growing season and this was not an isolated incident. Another example later in the season was on July 23 rd the high temperature was 102 o F and the next day we had a high near average at 87 o F then on the 25 th the high temperature was 71 o F. At this point plants are all in the reproductive stage and once again are confused as to what they should be doing. Should these plants shut down because of heat, photosynthesize like crazy or shut down because it’s cold.
10
Another stress that we can learn from the daily temperature collection is the number of nights that were over 70 o F. Night time temperatures greater than 70 cause the corn plant stress because it increases respiration resulting in wasted energy and less energy for photosynthesis. Just like humans plants need time to rest and that rest does not occur when nighttime temperatures do not drop below 70. In 2022, there were a total number of 28 nights over 70 o F. That many nights over 70 definitely had an impact on corn yields in the area. Although the use of fungicide can help mitigate these warm nights I do not feel that it would help as much when we experienced that many warm nights.
Figure 3. Daily high and low temperatures for 2022 along with long term averages.
11
12
Nutrient Use Efficiency Nutrient use efficiency is important in efficiently growing corn. This year some
adjustments were made to improve nitrogen use efficiency because we were not satisfied last year. We also raised our yield goals and expectations and had a very stressful weather year that resulted in a nitrogen use efficiency similar to 2021. Personally this is what we need to improve the most on the farm. On our low P and Zn Soils at the farm we are doing a great job of utilizing those nutrients. This year we tested if we were providing the plant with enough sulfur. What we learned is that in 2022 we over applied sulfur, and we need to make adjustments for the 2023 season. Had we hit our yield goal of 350 bpa, our N and S NUE would have been acceptable. For the 2023 growing season, we will lower expectations across the plot area and plan to have an area where we push for maximum yield this will help us manage nutrients more responsibly.
Yield bu/a lbs N/bu lbs P 2 O 5 /bu lbs S/bu lbs Zn/bu
266.0 0.94 281.3 0.89 261.1 0.96 314.0 0.80 350.0 0.72
0.41 0.39 0.39 0.42 0.35 0.31
0.33 0.0019 0.31 0.0018 0.31 0.0018 0.33 0.0020 0.28 0.0016 0.25 0.0015
P0622 P1082
Weighed Farm Average 283.4 0.89
Worst
Best Goal
Figure 4. NUE from the 2022 Orthman research farm.
13
14
Soybean Trials Soybeans are a challenge to research due to them being so dependent on the weather and management. At the Orthman research farm, we have found that the strip-till system has helped us find some consistency in soybean research. We feel that the data that we have to share with you, will be informative and assist you in making some decisions to improve your soybean yields. For 2022, we will use $14.48 for the soybean price for ROI calculations. This was the delivery price at the local elevator the day that we harvested soybeans.
15
16
Soybean Side-Dress Trial This is the second year of testing in the soybean side-dress trial and continues to be one of our favorite trials on the farm. This trial is designed to evaluate the response to late season addition of phosphorus to soybeans. When we set up this trial a lot of people thought that we were crazy when we talked about side dressing soybeans with phosphates. The thought came from a research article that describes the soybeans need for phosphorus during the reproductive stages and results that indicated yield increases from these additions. Because phosphorus and zinc are taken up together we also added zinc to the trial then added QLF Boost and Terramar also to see if there was an advantage to that. We would expect the Boost to drive photosynthesis and the Terramar to aid in stress reduction, nutrient movement and photosynthesis. The side dress was added during cultivation in the early R1 growth stage. In 2021, we added the side-dress at late R2 to early R3. We observed a 5.1 bpa increase from the addition of 4 gpa of 10-34-0, however when we added zinc and QLF Boost, yields were increased over the check but not as dramatically as the 10-34-0 alone. We felt that this was because we did not have ample time to move the zinc through the plant. Once zinc reaches the leaf petiole it can take an additional 20 to 30 days to reach the leaf tip. For 2022, we moved the timing to the early R1 growth stage in order to allow more time for the zinc to move through the plant. Phosphorus (P) is an essential nutrient that enhances root development, photosynthesis and energy transport in soybeans. P is immobile in the soil and when loss occurs it is with soil loss by erosion and runoff, small amounts of water soluble P can be bad in water causing algae blooms when there is enough nitrogen also present. The immobility in the soil makes it very important to place P where the plant roots can acquire it in order to optimize yields. Placing P next to the plant with the cultivator makes great sense when thinking of adding P in season, in order to most efficiently supply additional nutrients. P reacts with other elements in the soil such as iron, calcium or aluminum that can leave it unavailable to the plant. We feel that this is another reason that we are seeing a response to additional P during the growing season. This is because 75-80% of the P is taken up by soybeans in the late vegetative to mid reproductive stages of the plant.
17
Figure 5. P uptake, timing, and distribution in the soybean plant. (Modified from Hanway and Weber, 1971)
Soybean Side-Dress Results and Discussion Once again physiological measurements and visual observations had us convinced that the treatments with zinc were going to be the top yielding treatments. In fact, a month after application physiological measurements were taken and the treatment that looked the best overall was the 10-34-0+Zn+Terrimar. Data in Figure 6, from the July 25 th data collection of physiological measurements, suggests that the addition of the zinc will lead to more yield. In general, the physiological measurements of plant height, number of nodes, and number of branches are good indicators of yield for soybeans. Furthermore, at each of the 3 field days in August and September, visual examination of the treatments indicated similar findings as the physiological measurements.
Percent change from the untreated check.
10-34-0
10-34-0+Zinc
10-34-0 + Zinc + Terramar
10-34-0 +Zinc + QLF Boost
Crop Height Number of Nodes Number of Branches
3.35
5.03
10.14 80.43
6.34
35.23
48.22
24.38
7.04
11.84
27.50
11.83
Figure 6 Percent change from the untreated check from physiological measurements taken in season on July 25, 2022.
18
Imagine our surprise as we weighed these trials and the treatments with the zinc added did not rise to the top. Once again the treatment of 10-34-0 was the highest yielding. This goes against what the plant was telling us in mid-August and early September. We believe that the zinc and additives present us with a sense that we have the ability to set more pods by presenting more nodes and branches but that the plant can only support a set amount of yield. The additional P is getting us to our set yield potential and the zinc and additives are not providing us with additional yield because of the amount of time needed to process the zinc. Should we push the zinc earlier in the plant and then provide additional P later in the growing season? Certainly we feel that is what we are seeing after two years of this trial. The yield data in Figure 7, shows how yields compared when we weighed the trials. Although we had a buffer along the tree line, we feel that the treatment with Boost was lower than expected due to the competition with the trees for moisture throughout the growing season, especially in August and September. While the addition of zinc and Terramar still provided a positive ROI why should you put on products that are not going to improve yield overall. We feel that the consistency of the 10-34-0 treatment over two years has been really good even with the change of timing. Next year we plan on testing the timing of application, along with rates to help dial in what the best rate should be. Many have asked if we would see results with a Y drop application. This will be addressed with another trial later in this book. We assume, because of the immobility of P that it will be best when applied near the plants roots.
4 gal 10-34-0 + Zn
4 gal 10-34-0 + Zn + Terramar
4 gal 10-34-0 + Zn + Boost
Check
4 gal 10-34-0
Yield 13.0
83.6
88.6
85.9
87.3
84.1
Difference from check
5.0
2.4
3.7
0.6
Product Cost Grain Price
$20.09 $14.48 $72.71
$24.28 $14.48 $34.22
$32.65 $14.48 $54.00
$28.03 $14.48 $8.16
Revenue Change
Net Revenue
$52.62
$9.94
$21.35
-$19.87
ROI
262
41
65
-71
Figure 7. Soybean Side-dress trial yield results.
19
Soybean Planting Population Trial We chose to adapt the soybean planting population trial that was conducted by the High Plains FFA chapter in 2021 to the Orthman research farm in 2022. It has been standard practice to plant high populations of soybeans in order to overcome crusting, emergence issues, and potential insect damage. This has been the thought process because soybean seed has generally been inexpensive. From the agronomic standpoint this thought process causes plants to be overcrowded and cause inter plant competition and can result in unnecessary expenses. The purpose of this trial is to help define what the optimum planting population for soybeans planted in 30” rows. Soybean Planting Population Results and Discussion Sixteen rows of soybeans were planted a length of 1232’ at populations of 150,000, 120,000, 100,000, 80,000, and 60,000 seeds per acre. Because of weather conditions and heavy rain, emergence was poor and very erratic across the west 2/3 of the research farm. This led to replanting at a population that was 30 percent less than the original planted population. Because the planting population trial was also in this area of the research farm it was replanted at the following populations 105,000, 84,000, 70,000, 56,000, 42,000 directly planted over the existing row. Continued erratic weather resulted in final stand across the entire research farm of 72% of dropped population regardless of replanting or not. The planting population trial ranged from 50.6 to 70.5 percent of target population, planting population and final stand counts are listed in Figure 8. This was a difficult trial in 2022 where soybean emergence was difficult and resulted in erratic plant spacing however, we feel that there are still lessons to learn from this trial.
Replanted Population
Planted Population
Final Stand
Percent of Target
150,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000
105,000 84,000 70,000 56,000 42,000
100,125 84,625 64,000 43,750 30,375
66.8% 70.5% 64.0% 54.7% 50.6%
Figure 8. Planting population and final stand count for soybean planting population trial. The purpose of the broad range of planting populations in this trial are not to recommend anyone to see how low of population that they can plant but rather to help define a better planting population that could result in a better ROI for the grower. Lowered planting populations in soybeans needs to be managed and understood before diving in whole hog.
20
For this study, we considered the 150,000 planting population as our check and compared that population to the lower populations. Yields from the 5 different populations varied from 87.8 to 93.6 bpa, this 5.8 bpa difference is a wider gap than the 2.2 bpa range that was observed in 2021. In Figure 9, we have harvest data and net revenue for each different planting population. We utilized a seed cost of $43.17 per unit of seed and a soybean price of $14.48 per bushel to calculate net revenue for this trial. Net revenue ranged from $1,236.62 to $1,317.71 per acre a total difference of $81.09 per acre. The data from 2022 indicates that the planting population of 120,000 seeds per acre was the most profitable and the best balance of seed cost and yield. This data is similar to 2021 data where 120,000 was the highest yielding and the second highest in net revenue. We feel that we need one more year of testing to validate this trial but we are comfortable with our results despite the challenges presented in 2022.
16 rows 150K 16 Rows 120K 16 Rows 100K 16 Rows 80K 16 Rows 60K
Yield 13.0
92.1
93.6
88.4 -3.7
87.8 -4.3
86.7 -5.5
Difference from check
1.4
Seed Cost $/Ac
$46.25 $14.48
$37.00 $14.48 $20.52
$30.84 $14.48 -$54.02
$24.67 $14.48 -$62.54
$18.50 $14.48 -$79.36
Grain Price
Revenue Change
NET Revenue $/ac
$1,287.94
$1,317.71
$1,249.33
$1,246.98
$1,236.32
Difference from check $/ac
$29.78
-$38.61
-$40.95
-$51.61
Figure 9. Yield data for the soybean planting population trial.
21
22
Soybean Foliar Trial Foliar treatments have been proven to protect yield in soybeans throughout the years. There are many types of foliar treatments ranging from nutritional to hormone to seaweed extract and all do different things in the plant to protect yield. Some products feed the plant, while others enhance photosynthesis, and some trigger growth or stress responders. Do these products really do anything or are they modern day snake oils? The reason that we ask this is that generally these products are added as tank mix partners to insecticides or fungicides and are applied to the entire field therefore the grower does not know if they have done anything or not. The purpose of this trial was to help the grower understand what these products do to improve soybean yields and evaluate each products ROI. For this trial we tested 7 products in 8 row trials applied with a Rantizo drone with 20 foot booms on August 1, 2022. All products were mixed with the fungicide for application. Figure 10 describes each product used for the soybean foliar trials in 2022. The products that we tested in 2022 covered a wide range of products and gave us the opportunity to evaluate some products with different active ingredients. Many of the products promote stress mitigation and improved plant health. Product Rate How the product works
BW-Respite
6 oz./ac
Soluble Potash, limits ethylene gas production.
Enhance water, nutrient, and carbohydrate movement throughout the plant.
Promote ATP production for photosynthesis regulation.
Radiate + NutrriSync Complete 3D
2 oz./ Ac Radiate 1 qt/ac Nutrisync Complete 3D
Radiate Promotes root and shoot growth.
Improves vigor
Reduces Stress
Nutrisync Complete 3D Promotes healthier plants.
Greater nutrient utilization.
More consistent quality and higher yield potential.
23
Radiate + Terramar
2 oz./ Ac Radiate 1 qt/ac Terramar
Radiate Promotes root and shoot growth.
Improves vigor
Reduces Stress
Terramar Enhances nutrient uptake and provides a carbon source to optimize plant performance. Improves crop tolerance to abiotic stress such as heat, drought, and salt.
BW-Sea Amino 1 qt/ac
Allows the plant to process amino acids more efficiently.
Improved plant health, vigor, and yield potential.
Stress Mitigation late in the season.
Loaded with natural plant enhancing substances. Increases photosynthesis and carbohydrate production.
QLF Kelpak
1qt/ac
Increase fruit set and fruit retention.
Increase fruit number, size, color and sugar content.
K-Star
1 qt/ac
Soluble potash.
Reduce plant stress.
Reduce potassium deficiencies.
BW-Advance
1 qt/ac
Enhance soil microbial communities for optimal rhizome stimulation
Invigorate plant hormone and energy production.
Build a robust resistance to pests, disease, and harsh environmental conditions.
Figure 10. Product descriptions for products utilized in the soybean foliar trial in 2022.
24
Soybean Foliar Results and Discussion We were pleasantly surprised that just 4 days later there was a visual response in all the treatments when compared to the untreated check. While walking along the lateral on August 5 th the differences between the check and treatments were noticeable because the treated passes had larger leaves than the untreated check. The visual difference varied from one treatment to the next and was most obvious with the BW-Advance and the differences could be observed until the onset of senescence. Therefore we feel that that each of the treatments actually promoted more photosynthesis. When we harvested this trial we observed an increase of 1.6 to 4.3 bpa. This is a typical response range to foliar treatments in soybeans. Figure 11 is a table of yields and ROI for each of the seven treatments tested in 2022. Interestingly enough the largest ROI was from the least responsive treatment and all of the ROIs were over 100%. We feel that each individual will have a different target that is their goal and this data can help them be more profitable no matter if they are looking for the highest ROI a good net return or the highest yields.
2 oz/ac Radiate + 1 qt/ac Nutrisync
2 oz/ac Radiate + 1 qt/ac Terramar
1 qt/ac SeaAmino 1 qt/ac KelPack 1 qt/ac Kstar
1 qt/ac BW Advance
Check 11.67
6 oz/ac Respite
Moisture Yield 13.0 Grain Price
11
11.3 82.6
13
10
9.7
10.6 82.2
10.5 83.5
80.6
83.2
82.4
84.9
83.0
$14.48
$14.48 $83.00
$14.48
$14.48
$14.48 $38.00
$14.48 $38.00
$14.48
$14.48 $29.40
Product Cost $/gal Product Cost $/ac Difference from Check
$254.80/$26.30 $254.80/$33.50
$5.48 $1.37
$3.89
$10.56
$12.36
$9.50
$9.50
$7.35
2.6
2.0
1.8
4.3
2.4
1.6
2.9
Revenue Change
$37.67
$29.45
$26.26
$62.48
$34.48
$23.73
$42.60
Net Revenue
$33.78
$18.89
$13.90
$52.98
$24.98
$22.36
$35.25
ROI
868
179
113
558
263
1632
480
Figure 11. Yield results and ROI calculations for the 2022 Soybean foliar trials.
25
Soybean Starter Trial Starter fertilizers have been debated for years. Starter fertilizers have been proven to be beneficial to corn and soybeans around the globe. The problem is that growers tend to look at starter fertilizer as an expense and generally only give it a one year trial. In our experience, starter fertilizers will pay for themselves seven to eight times out of ten. The reason that starter fertilizers do not always pay for themselves is that the weather largely dictates if starter fertilizer is needed or not. Generally starter fertilizer provides the plant early nutrition before the roots are large enough to explore enough soil to gather their own nutrition. Cool and wet conditions, slow root development and growth, and phosphorus releases from the soil slower in soil temperatures lower than 70 degrees Fahrenheit; therefore starter fertilizers are most beneficial in the spring that have cold and wet soils. However, starter fertilizers are also beneficial when other environmental stresses that slow root and shoot growth are present. Soybeans are very sensitive to salt therefore, many growers do not think about using starter fertilizer with their soybeans. Since the onset of low salt starter fertilizers, many agronomists have been recommending starter fertilizer in planted soybeans. Safety of these low salt starters improves when water is added to them in order to dilute the salt down. This trial was designed to show the benefit of using a low salt starter fertilizer on soybeans.
26
Soybean Starter Results and Discussion Sixteen rows of soybeans were planted at the population of 140,000 seeds per acre without starter fertilizer and 16 rows of soybeans were planted with 3 gallons of starter fertilizer and 5 gallons of water placed in furrow. The starter fertilizer had an analysis of 10 - 20 - 2 - 0.13 Zn – 0.14 Mn with a density of 10.72 lbs/gal and therefore provided 3.22 pounds of N, 6.43 pounds P2O5, 0.64 pounds K2O, 0.042 pounds of zinc, and 0.045 pounds of manganese. As the intent with a starter this blend is just intended in assisting the plant until the roots can acquire their own nutrients and not feed it throughout the growing season. We observed early in the growing season, the 16 rows that did not get starter fertilizer applied were less vigorous than the rest of the farm and later in the season appeared to be lighter in color. When we harvested the soybeans with starter fertilizer, they yielded 1.7 bpa better than the soybeans without the starter. Many will say it’s not worth the pain to use starter fertilizer for soybeans, but figure 12 helps us understand the value that starter fertilizer can bring to soybeans. If you increased net revenue on every acre by $5.69 it may not be a lot of extra money but it is a piece of the puzzle to make your operation profitable while still providing a positive ROI. In general starter fertilizer on soybeans will produce 1.5 to 3.0 bpa and realistically become even more important as we move soybean planting earlier in the spring. No these are not huge increases but starter fertilizer could be the missing piece to your operation and drive your yields up beyond the plateau that you could be stuck on.
16 Rows No Starter 16 Rows Starter
Moisture Yield 13.0 Grain Price
12.4 86.0
10.7 87.6
$14.48
$14.48
Product Cost $/gal Product Cost $/ac Difference from Check
$6.10
$18.30
1.7
Revenue Change
$23.99
Net Revenue
$5.69
ROI
31
Figure 12. Yield results and ROI calculations for the 2022 Soybean starter fertilizer trials.
27
Figure 13. Yield results and ROI calculations for the 2022 Soybean strip-till vs No-Till trial.
No-till dribble band vs strip-till
No-till dribble band Strip-till
Moisture Yield 13.0 Grain Price
11.1 84.1
12.4 87.6
$14.48
$14.48
Fuel use per ac Fuel price $/gal
0.2
0.8
$4.56 $0.91
$4.56 $3.65
Application cost $/ac Difference from Check
3.5
Revenue Change
$51.36
Net Revenue
$1,216.29
$1,264.92
Difference from Check
$48.63
28
Soybean Strip-Till vs No-Till Trial Soybeans are not always easy to conduct research on and traditionally in the Midwest have been thought of as the crop that you grow when you are not growing corn. Some of the reasoning for this thought is that in the past many growers would not fertilize soybeans. More recently consistent responses to fertility have been proven in soybeans and additions of fertilizer and genetic gains has increased the popularity of raising soybeans for profit. We have observed over the last several years that in mid-June soybeans that are fertilized look better than those that are not fertilized. Taking this a step further I have observed that fields with strip-till looked better than No-Till and if fertility was applied in the strip-till operation, the soybeans looked even better. Soybean yields are hard to estimate in the field and looks don’t always equal yield with soybeans. However, the Orthman research farm has consistently raised some very good soybeans. Therefore, we decided to measure strip-till soybean yields compared to No-Till surface dribbled fertility. Because the Orthman research farm is ridge till we were not able to do complete No-Till because we needed to pull the old corn root balls out of the ridge before planting. For this trial, after the stalk puller had ran across the field, we strip-tilled 16 rows with a blend of 28 gals 10-34-0, 10 gals 12-0-0-26, ½ gal 10% Zinc, 2 gal QLF Boost, and 2 gal water. Next we raised the strip-till rig and applied the same blend to 16 rows for the No-Till dribble band check. Soybean Strip-Till vs No-Till Results and Discussion As we planted this trial the 16 rows that we did not strip-till were noticeably rougher than the strip-tilled rows. The planter bounced a lot less in the strip-till than the No-Till. As the strip-tilled plants emerged, even though we had emergence issues, they seemed more consistent than the No-Till check and planting depth. This makes sense because of the bounce that was observed in the planting process. The next question was will these observations show anything in yield differences? The No-Till soybeans yielded 84.1 bpa while the strip till yielded 87.6 bpa. We feel that the increase in yield of 3.5 bpa is due to a combination of better planting conditions and along with placing the fertility where the plant will better utilize it and finally addressing and eliminating a shallow compaction layer. Interestingly enough the increased yield even after accounting for additional fuel expense of 0.6 gal per acre due to pulling the strip-till applicator through the ground provided an additional $48.63 per acre net revenue. This could be an additional $48,630.00 across 1,000 acres of soybeans. Figure 13 shows the data in a table. Certainly this trial is a demonstration of how strip-till can help improve the profitability of your operation.
29
30
Soybean Variety Trials: Plenish and Enlist Soybean Varieties The purpose of the variety trial was to learn more about different Plenish and Enlist varieties and evaluate their performance on the Orthman research farm. The difficulty of variety trials is that shorter season varieties dry down much faster than the longer season varieties. We understand that by delaying harvest to match the moisture to the longest season variety caused loses in the shorter season varieties. For more information see the following article from UNL Cropwatch explaining losses when harvesting soybeans dryer than 13% moisture. https://cropwatch.unl.edu/harvest-soybeans-13-moisture
Plenish Soybean Trial
P22A36PR
P24A6PR
P27A26PR
P28A93PR P3046PR P34A59PR
# of Rows Moisture
16
16
16
16
16
16
9.6
10.9
10.8 54.2 87.8
9.1
18.2 53.4 96.3
20.9 53.6
Test Weight
56.4 75.7
53.9 90.8
Yield 13.0
82.0
107.2
Enlist Soybean Trial P23A40E
P25A16E
P28A65E
# of Rows Moisture
16
16
16
10.2
10.2 57.4 88.4
12.4 56.1 96.5
Test Weight
57
Yield 13.0
86.0
Figure 14. 2022 Soybean variety trials.
31
Corn Trials The Orthman research farm starts with the systems approach of strip-till then we build from there to test agronomic practices and products to help growers make better informed decisions and to promote ROI for the grower. For 2022, we used $7.02 for the corn price and ROI calculations. This was the local elevator price the day that we harvested corn.
32
Corn Fertilizer Use Efficiency Trials We have all heard that world phosphate reserves are depleting and that we need to become more efficient with phosphorus fertilizer. This trial was designed to see if we could effectively and efficiently reduce fertilizer inputs and maintain profitability. Working with Nutrien we chose products that we felt could improve nutrient use efficiency and help us reduce fertilizer inputs. It was our goal to maintain profitability while improving nutrient use efficiency. Therefore, for this trial we utilized the grower standard practice (GSP) or normal Orthman research farm practice as a check, then added the products to that GSP as another check, then we reduced the GSP for strip-till by ten percent and fifteen percent and added the efficiency products. Observations were made throughout the growing season and harvest data was collected by weight of 8 rows wide and 1,243 feet long. The goal with having large scale plots is to help us produce more reliable data with field variability included in that data set. Figure 15 shows the nutrients that were reduced and replaced with the additives for this trial. It is important to recognize that we did not replace as much nutrient as we reduced other than the small amount of K 2 O and we are placing more Zn into the system than we are removing. In regards to N and P we are replacing 12-22% of the N we are removing and 28-41% of the P removed from the strip-till operation. If you think about corn using 0.36 lbs of P2O5 per bushel we are removing 18 to 33 bushels worth of phosphorus from the system, therefore yields similar to the check would be an efficiency victory.
Nutrient reduction
K 2 O 0.07 0.10
S
Zn
N
P 2 O 5 11.09 16.64
10 percent 15 percent
8.31
2.93 4.40
0.11 0.17
12.47
Nutrient added
N
P 2 O 5
K 2 O
S
Zn
2 Qt/ac Extract + 2qt/ac Blackmax22 + 2 gal/acAltura 1 qt/ac Terramar + 2 qt/ac Blackmax22 + 2 gal/ac Altura
1.82
4.58
0.20
0.63
0.44
1.53
4.58
0.20
0.00
0.44
Figure 15 Nutrient reduction and addition for efficiency trials.
33
Corn Fertilizer Use Efficiency Results and Discussion We knew right away that we had spent more on the efficiency products than we would be saving in fertilizer reduction, however the goal of the trial was efficiency. Our goal was to produce high yields with less fertilizer and be able to make up for some of the added expense. We were able to maintain similar yields to the check and there are several lessons that we will try to show you from this data. First, we were able to produce similar yields within 4.4 bpa of the GSP check with reductions of 10 and 15 percent of the strip-till fertilizer. In Figure 16, we compare the different treatments to the GSP. Of course it will be difficult to show a positive return when we are comparing the GSP to the GSP plus the additives. When we are adding an additional expense of $37.50 and $39.06 for the efficiency products nor was this the intention. However, when we added Extract and cut fertility by ten percent we saw a yield increase of 1.9 bpa with a net return of -$1.72/ac this gives us hope that this philosophy may be able to work with a positive ROI. We feel that more testing is needed in order to find the correct combination to reducing fertilizer inputs. It is our opinion that with the amount of phosphate cut from the system and all the reduced fertilizer treatments are within 4.4 bpa of the GSP check that we are heading down the correct path.
Fertilizer Use Efficiency Trials
GSP + 1 qt/ac Terramar + 2 qt/ac Blackmax22 + 2 gal/ac Altura
10% Reduction of GSP plus Terramar Blackmax22 + Altura
15% Reduction of GSP plus Terramar Blackmax22 + Altura
GSP + 2 Qt/ac Extract + 2qt/ac Blackmax22 + 2 gal/acAltura
10% reduction of GSP plus Extract Blackmax22 + Altura
15% reduction of GSP plus Extract Blackmax22 + Altura
GSP (Check)
Moisture Yield 15.0 Grain Price GSP Cost $/ac
13.9
14.6
14.9
14.5
14.3
14.4
13.3
285.9 $7.02
290.2 $7.02
287.8 $7.02
283.0 $7.02
285.1 $7.02
281.5 $7.02
283.8 $7.02
$226.11
Savings at % Reduction Product Cost $/ac Difference from Check
$22.63 $37.50
$33.95 $37.50
$22.63 $35.52
$33.95 $35.52
$37.50
$35.52
4.3
1.9
-3.0
-0.8
-4.4
-2.2
Revenue Change
$30.02
$13.15
-$20.99
-$5.78
-$31.12
-$15.14
Net Revenue
-$7.48
-$1.72
-$24.54
-$41.30
-$44.02
-$16.71
ROI
-20
-5
-65
-116
-124
-47
Figure 16. Fertilizer use efficiency trial data.
34
Another way of looking at this trial is to compare the GSP with the additives to the reduced fertilizer inputs. Figure 16 compares the Extract plus GSP to the reduced fertilizer with Extract and it also compares the Terramar plus GSP to the reduced fertilizer plus Terramar. This is where there is a lot to discuss. Beginning with the Extract treatments, the reduction of fertilizer resulted in lower yields. However, the 10% reduction resulted in a higher net return per acre than the GSP plus the Extract, therefore in this case it shows that it would be beneficial to reduce the fertilizer. Another interesting observation was that the 10% reduction resulted in 2.4% less yield and the 15% reduction resulted in 7.3% less yield with these not being proportional we feel that there are some interactions that are occurring with the products and fertilizer. When we compare the reductions to the GSP plus the additives we are even more confident in this systematic approach of reducing fertilizer inputs as all yields are similar to the checks. The largest deficit would be the 15% reduction using Extract but that deficit is only 7.3 bpa and in reality that is within 2.48% of the check. The next logical step would be to continue to look at these types of trials and create a database of replicated data. Future trials also need to include GSP at reductions to match the reductions with the additives, to help us better understand the value of the additives.
Fertilizer Use Efficiency Trials
GSP + 1 qt/ac Terramar + 2 qt/ac Blackmax22 + 2 gal/ac Altura
10% Reduction of GSP plus Terramar Blackmax22 + Altura
15% Reduction of GSP plus Terramar Blackmax22 + Altura
GSP + 2 Qt/ac Extract + 2qt/ac Blackmax22 + 2 gal/acAltura
10% reduction of GSP plus Extract Blackmax22 + Altura
15% reduction of GSP plus Extract Blackmax22 + Altura
Moisture Yield 15.0 Grain Price
14.6
14.9
14.5
14.3
14.4
13.3
290.2 $7.02
287.8 $7.02
283.0 $7.02
285.1 $7.02
281.5 $7.02
283.8 $7.02
Difference from Check Percent change in yield Savings at % Reduction
-2.4
-7.3
-3.6
-1.3
-0.83
-2.48
-1.26
-0.46
$22.63
$33.95
$22.63
$33.95
Net Revenue
$2,037.37
$2,043.13
$2,020.31
$2,001.57
$1,998.86
$2,026.16
Difference from Check
$5.76
-$17.06
-$2.71
$24.59
Figure 16. Another way to look at the Fertilizer use efficiency data.
35
Corn Foliar Trials Foliar applications can have benefits to corn yields and plant health. For many years this market has been called “snake oils” because many products in the past were sold with unrealistic promises and unimpressive results. More recently replicated trials and research have shown the industry’s improvement in the foliar market. Responses to foliar applications are very dependent on timing of application, typically corn responds best to foliar applications made between V3 and V7. This timing matches very well with post herbicide applications therefore not requiring an additional trip through the field. There are many types of foliar treatments ranging from nutritional to hormone to seaweed extract and all do different things in the plant to protect yield. Some products feed the plant, while others enhance photosynthesis, and some trigger growth or stress responders. Do these products really do anything or are they modern day snake oils? The reason that we ask this is that generally these products are added as tank mix partners to previous herbicide applications and are applied to the entire field therefore the grower does not know if they have done anything or not. The purpose of this trial was to help the grower understand what these products do to improve corn yields and evaluate each products ROI. Foliar treatments were applied individually to 8 rows for the length of 1,243 feet at the V5 growth stage. Typical responses to foliar applications are generally from 2.5 to 7.5 bpa.
36
Product
Rate
How the product works
Radiate + NutrriSync Complete 3D
2 oz./ Ac Radiate 1qt/ac Nutrisync Complete 3D
Radiate Promotes root and shoot growth.
Improves vigor Reduces Stress Nutrisync Complete 3D
Promotes healthier plants. Greater nutrient utilization. More consistent quality and higher yield potential.
Radiate + Terramar
2 oz./ Ac Radiate 1qt/ac Terramar
Radiate Promotes root and shoot growth.
Improves vigor Reduces Stress Terramar Enhances nutrient uptake and provides a carbon source to optimize plant performance. Improves crop tolerance to abiotic stress such as heat, drought, and salt. Allows the plant to process amino acids more efficiently. Improved plant health, vigor, and yield potential. Stress Mitigation late in the season. Loaded with natural plant enhancing substances. Increases photosynthesis and carbohydrate production. Increase fruit set and fruit retention. Increase fruit number, size, color and sugar content.
BW-Sea Amino 1qt/ac
QLF Kelpak
1qt/ac
K-Star Soluble potash. Reduce plant stress. Reduce potassium deficiencies. Figure 17. Product descriptions for products utilized in the corn foliar trial in 2022. 1qt/ac
37
Figure 18 A and B Yield results from the 2022 Corn Foliar Trials
Corn Foliar Trials
2 oz/ac Radiate + 1 qt/ac Nutrisync Complete 3D
2 oz/ac Radiate + 1 qt/ac Terramar
1 qt/ac SeaAmino 1 qt/ac Kelpack
Check
Moisture
14.7 57.4
15.2 57.5
15.2 58.0
14.8 57.3
15.8 56.3
Test Weight Yield 15.0 Grain Price
280.7 $7.02
282.5 $7.02
287.6 $7.02
286.6 $7.02
285.8 $7.02
Product Cost $/gal Product Cost $/ac Difference from Check
$254.80/$26.30 $254.80/$33.50
$38.00
$38.00
$10.56
$12.36
$9.50
$9.50
1.9
6.9
5.9
5.1
Revenue Change
$12.99
$48.49
$41.64
$35.95
Net Revenue
$2.44
$36.14
$32.14
$26.45
ROI
23
292
338
278
Corn Foliar Trials
Check
1 qt/ac K-Star
Moisture
12.2 58.8
12.5 60.4
Test Weight Yield 15.0 Grain Price
266.6 $7.02
269.3 $7.02 $5.48 $1.37
Product Cost $/gal Product Cost $/ac Difference from Check
2.6
Revenue Change
$18.48
Net Revenue
$17.11
ROI
1249
38
Corn Foliar Results and Discussion Although the corn foliar trials did not have as dramatic responses as the soybean foliar trials, there were still visual differences. The most notable visual difference was between the check and the three treatments that contained a seaweed extract (Terramar, SeaAmino, and Kelpak) all three treatment had larger leaves than the check. The leaves of these treatments were longer and wider than the same leaves on the check creating more surface area for sun absorption therefore we assume resulting in more efficient photosynthesis. When walking in these treatments you could see less sun penetrated the canopy because of the larger leaves. Next, we wonder if there is any correlation between larger leaves and yield since you could see the visual differences walking through the treatments. Figures 18 A and B show the yields and ROI for each of the treatments tested in 2022. The reason for two different tables is the K-Star treatment was applied in a different hybrid than the rest of the trials. Interestingly enough the products that contained seaweed extracts were the highest yielding as indicated by the increased surface area of the leaves. These three treatments had similar yields and ROIs. We were not surprised that the seaweed extracts did well because they help turn on the plants stress responders prior to stresses occurring and 2022 was loaded with stresses. When a lot of the seaweed extracts were introduced they were touted as a product to assist with drought conditions. Further research has demonstrated that these products are assisting the plant with many different kinds of stress. The highest ROI product that we tested was the K-Star product, this is not necessarily the most increase in yield but is high return due to low cost.
39
Corn In-Furrow Additive Trials While applying starter fertilizer in-furrow, it can be a good time to add additional products to the fertility. Some products might be root and shoot promoters, seaweed extracts, additional micronutrients, microbial products, chelating agents, humic or fulvic acids, fish oils, sugars or about anything that anyone might think about adding to the starter fertilizer. Many of these products have a positive effect on yield and some can even add to plant health and most cause increased root and shoot growth. As with foliar products growers usually purchase these products and apply them to every acre or whole fields. This trial was designed to test a few in furrow products to evaluate their effect on yield and the ROI that could be realized. Corn In-Furrow Additive Results and Discussion While there are many products out there to choose from we only had room to test 3 on the Orthman research farm in 2022. We chose to look at a humic acid product, a microbial product and adding a seaweed extract to a microbial. The growing interest in microbial products drives us to learn more of how microbial products work and what products work on a variety of acres. Populations of many microbial products in one jug have a better chance of working because surely a few species could survive and thrive conversely if only on or two species are introduced can they survive in an environment that they may not be native to. We need to understand the microbial system in the soil like we do the microbial systems of the human or animal gut. We feel that we are still a little way off from this but as a whole agriculture is working that way and when we reach that level of understanding we will see a new level of yields. Humic acids have many benefits to crops some of which are improved root mass and growth, improved nutrient availability, and improved yields. However, many growers and agronomists have avoided them because they are dark colored products that can make it difficult to monitor flow sensors, furthermore humic products are mined from organic matter and tend to have a lot of particles that can clog equipment. Today we have flow sensors but do not always have to rely on flow sensors such as red ball to monitor flow and manufactures are realizing that the particles in humic acids are not where the benefit is coming from and are creating a cleaner product that clogs less. With these enhancements growers are now beginning to realize the benefits of humic acids. Are microbial additives and humic acids the answer for all fields and all locations? Absolutely not is the quick and easy answer. These products are not the cure all but are additives to help a well-managed system become better or more efficient. All three products that we tested in 2022 improved yields over the check and had positive ROI. The Environoc 401 product from BW Fusion produced 7.7 bpa over the check matching what we observed in season with more root mass and larger leaf surface area. The 401 product contains 24 different microbes that are chosen to help solubilize nutrients and promote growth in order to enhance
40
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online