2021 Orthman Research Yield Book

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.

STRIP-TILL RESEARCH YIELD BOOK 2021

2021 ORTHMAN RESEARCH FARM PARTNERS:

ORTHMAN RESEARCH FARM: 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.

2021 Orthman Research Farm Overview • 30 Acres of Soybeans • 39 Acres of Corn o 16 trials  5 on soybeans • MaxEmerge5 vs Exact Emerge • Foliar • Side-Dress • Plenish Variety plot • Fertility trial  11 on corn

• Pioneer trial • Starter trial • Foliar trial

• Compaction trial • Short season corn • Starter vs no starter demo • Fertilizer source (dry vs liquid) • Side-Dress trial • Pioneer Hybrid trial • Fertility Trial • Mycorrhiza fungi trial

 Strip Tilled

– November 07, 2020 Dry  16 Rows 250 lbs./ac 11-52-0 • 27.5 pounds N • 130 pounds P2O5 – April 13, 2021 Liquid

 Corn Ground

• 40 gallon per acre ♦ 83.7 pounds N

 126.75 pounds P2O5

♦ 21.76 pounds S ♦ 2.254 pounds Zn

 Soybean Ground

• 49 Gallon per acre ♦ 61.3 pounds N

♦ 126.75 pounds P2O5 ♦ 43.51 pounds S ♦ 4.51 pounds Zn

 Planting

– Soybeans

 April 27, 2021  April 28, 2021 • Soybean starter in furrow ♦ 1 gal/ac Altura + 1 gal/ac Boost + 2 oz./ac Radiate + water  1.23 lbs. N

 2.37 lbs. P2O5  0.33 lbs. K2O  0.22 lbs. S

– 0.02 lbs. Zn – Corn

 April 27, 2021  April 28, 2021  Replant May 21, 2021

• Corn in furrow starter

♦ 2 gal/ac Riser + 2 gal/ac Altura + 1gal/ac Boost + 1 qt./ac Pro Zinc 10 + 2 Oz/ac Radiate  3.78 lbs. N

 8.32 lbs. P2O5  0.97 lbs. K2O  0.33 lbs. S  0.53 lbs. Zn

 Corn Cultivation – June 07, 2021  40 gal/acre • 83.7 pounds N

• 126.75 pounds P2O5 • 21.76 pounds S • 2.254 pounds Zn  Corn Hilling and Side Dress – June 14, 2021  27.5 gal/ac

• 77.9lbs N/ac • 2.0 lbs. K /ac • 14.7 lbs. S/ac • 1 gal/ac Boost  Drone Application for Foliar Trials – June 28, 2021  Soybean Hilling – July 3, 2021  VT Fungicide Application Corn – July 19, 2021  Whole farm fungicide application

– August 2, 2021  Soybean Harvest – September 28, 2021  Corn Harvest – October 12, 2021  Yields – Soybeans 2021  92 bu./ac average

 Lowest weight was 86.8 bu./ac • 2.2 bean in the variety plot  Highest weight was 108.4 bu./ac • ExactEmerge planter in the planter trial  All weights averaged 96 bu./ac  Weighed over 100 bu./ac four times – Corn 2021  279.0 bu./ac average • Lowest was 214.3 bu./ac ♦ 92 day corn

• 2 nd lowest was 252.7 bu./ac ♦ From our compaction trial • Highest was 314.5 bu./ac ♦ This was from the addition of mycorrhizal fungi • Weighed over 300 bu./a six times

2021 Nutrient use efficiency

Average Yield lbs N/bu lbs P2O5/bu lbs S/bu lbs Zn/bu

Hybrid P1108 P0622 P1082 P1185 P9211Q

0.88 0.90 0.84 0.94 1.14 0.88 0.78 0.70

0.45 0.46 0.43 0.49 0.59 0.45 0.40 0.36

0.21 0.016 0.21 0.016 0.20 0.015 0.22 0.017 0.27 0.021 0.21 0.016 0.18 0.014 0.17 0.013

280.3 274.0 291.9 260.8 214.3 279.0 314.5 350.0

Farm average

Max Goal

Nutrient Use Efficiency by Hybrid As a whole we are happy with the nutrient use efficiency. However, there is always room for improvement. Personally, we need to lower the average NUE for nitrogen closer to the 0.70 lbs. N/bu. We will be adjusting N timing for 2022 in order to drive that improvement. Since the farm was in single digit P values when we started working, we have been over applying P in an effort to raise P values. The 92 day hybrid P9211Q was planted with the intentions of creating a demonstration area for the field day but later we decided to take it to yield. We should have adjusted nutrient application for yield goals to make it a more efficient hybrid.

Pioneer Trial

Orthman agronomy was asked to plant and harvest a trial for Pioneer agronomy. This trial was successfully planted and harvested by the Orthman team and yield results were handed off to the Pioneer agronomy team.

Corn Starter Trial Again in 2021, Orthman and Nutrien teamed up for a starter fertilizer trial. We all had high hopes of learning more from this trial. Unfortunately, when planting we experienced planter issues that greatly compromised the stand. The decision was made to replant. We tried to remove the existing stand with a shallow strip till pass in order to not disturb the ridge. Although initially, this looked successful we found out that we did not remove all of the plants. On May 21, 2021, the plot was replanted with P0622. Throughout the season we monitored and measured plant characteristics as planned and noticed some inconsistencies in that data and attributed those to the excessive stand. When we harvested these trials the inconsistencies continued to show up. After discussion between Orthman Agronomy and Nutrien Agronomy we have concluded that the data is inaccurate and misleading therefore, we will not be publishing the results and we will repeat the trial in 2022.

Short Season Corn – Discussion and Results The original purpose of this hybrid being planted was to help create an area for a demo during the field day. We asked North Forty Seed Company to find us a short season hybrid to cut for silage and they found us P9211Q. This hybrid looked great and created another thought. Would it be possible to grow short season corn followed by wheat then by double crop soybeans? On paper it makes sense. We will spend some time evaluating this concept under irrigation. We observed that with a yield of 214.3 bu./ac

this could be a very good way to incorporate another crop into the rotation. We had not adequately planned for this trial therefore we had over fertilized. We also planted these 12 rows along a tree line that takes a lot

12 Rows P9211Q

# of Rows 12 Row Length 1154 Weight 9595 Moisture 15.5 Test Weight 59.5 Yield 15.0 214.3

of moisture away from the crop setting up this hybrid to do poorly. In an effort to better plan and express the

potential economics of drilling wheat behind this crop we plan on replicating this trial with proper fertilization. Furthermore, we have drilled wheat in two areas at the Orthman research farm this fall. One area will be used to demonstrate the ability to drill beans following wheat harvest and take that to yield so we can calculate an ROI on double crop beans in east central Nebraska. The second area, no-till wheat, was drilled into the cornstalks where the P9211Q was harvested. To our amazement the stand as of November 1, 2021 looks better than expected considering the wheat was no-till drilled into cornstalks, on ridged ground and into dry soils. We look forward to learning more as we continue this trial.

Corn Foliar Trial Foliar treatments have been proven to be beneficial throughout the years. It is our experience that some are more beneficial than others and timing is critical. The thought process with this trial was to evaluate two foliar products on two different hybrids during the late vegetative stages of the corn. Foliar products were applied to two different hybrids on June 28, 2021 at approximately the V10 stage utilizing a Rantizo drone.

Foliar Products

• QLF Agronomy PowerAid • B, Cu, Co, Fe, Mn, Mo, Zn.

• Loveland Products NutriSync Complete 3D • N, P2O5, K2O, B, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Zn.

Corn Foliar Results and Discussion Timing and nutrients are extremely important in foliar application of corn. We observed that these products would have been better if applied earlier in the season around the V3 to V5 stage. Both of the products tested in 2021 are good quality products. However one looks better in the data than the other. Would I use one product over the other? I would not make a decision off of this one trial. Both products need to be examined again at different timings to fully evaluate them. Both products have their own agronomic fit. In the

case of our trial the PowerAid performed better. If we look at our nutrient needs on the Orthman research farm we applied ample N, P, and Zn but did not provided much for micronutrients.

Therefore, the response was better where we applied a higher concentration of micronutrients. We plan to further study the use of foliar fertilizer application and timing in the future at the Orthman Research Farm. This will help us gain insight into what and when to apply fertilizer to maximize yield potential. The 2021 data reflects one application timing and one replication on two hybrids.

P1185

P1082

Check PowerAid Nutrisync

% Mosture 16.9 Test weight 59.9

16.8 61.6

16.7 61.9

% Mosture 18.5 Test weight 56.7

18.6 56.7

18.6 57.0

Yield 15.0% 264.5 267.6

261.2

Yield 15.0% 291.4 296.4

292.0

Difference from check Product Cost $/ac

3.1

-3.3

Difference from check Product Cost $/ac

5.0

0.6

$ $

6.75 5.08

$ $

9.72 5.08

$ $

6.75 5.08

$ $

9.72 5.08

Grain Price

Revenu Change Application Net Revenue

Revenu Change

15.75 $ 12.00 $

-$16.76 $12.00

25.40 $ 12.00 $

$3.05

Application Net Revenue

$12.00 -$18.67

-$3.00 -$38.48

$6.65

% ROI

-44

-396

% ROI

-192

PowerAid Nutrisync

Average Difference from check

4.1

-1.3

Average Net Revenue

$1.82

-$28.58

Average ROI

(294)

Compaction Trial The Orthman team partnered with AKRS Equipment to determine the difference in compaction between an 8R tractor with full duals and an 8RX tractor while using the same equipment in the same field. To complete this setup, using the 8RX tractor, 36 rows were strip-tilled with the 12 row 1tRIPr and 32 rows were planted with the 16 row ExactEmerge planter. This was repeated using the 8R tractor. 16 Rows were selected with the same direction of travel to use for the trial area. The Orthman team utilized Spectrum Technologies SC-900 Constant, reading digital penetrometer to collect soil resistance data across the 16 rows of planted corn from the surface to 14 inches of depth. Additionally, 16 rows were hand harvested for 17’5’ or 1/1000 th of an acre at both ends and at the center of the plot to determine the effect on yield by row. The corn was then harvested with an eight row head and weighed to measure yield across the plot.

Compaction Trial Results

Hand Harvest Data Calculated by Ear Weight

Location West End Middle East End

West End Middle East End Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 198.4 221.0 258.0 183.1 286.2 267.3 207.7 276.8 268.7 212.1 262.5 252.6 223.7 245.9 204.4 200.8 275.7 272.6 204.2 277.8 259.5 217.7 254.1 247.9 206.9 250.5 240.0

Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3

Wheel Row 1 191.4 230.0 203.3 Wheel Row 2 163.3 253.4 258.7 Wheel Row 3 175.0 262.8 222.6 Wheel Row 4 160.3 217.9 202.8 Wheel Row 5 194.3 249.8 221.4 Wheel Row 6 199.4 232.1 193.0 Wheel Row 7 187.1 253.2 221.0 Wheel Row 8 184.3 256.7 247.9 Wheel Row 9 187.9 264.3 248.9 Wheel Row 10 200.2 242.7 275.3 Wheel Row 11 202.8 250.3 243.3 Wheel Row 12 171.5 257.5 223.6 Wheel Row 13 183.0 247.4 255.5 Wheel Row 14 154.9 221.2 225.8 Wheel Row 15 206.5 269.1 224.2 Wheel Row 16 184.4 267.6 223.7 Average 184.2 248.5 230.7

Track Row 1 Track Row 2 Track Row 3 Track Row 4 Track Row 5 Track Row 6 Track Row 7 Track Row 8 Track Row 9

Track Row 10 229.7 241.8 210.0 Track Row 11 186.3 274.3 243.9 Track Row 12 193.0 257.6 246.1 Track Row 13 221.6 240.0 257.7 Track Row 14 195.5 242.1 252.0 Track Row 15 196.3 233.6 222.7 Track Row 16 203.5 227.6 257.4

205.0 254.2 247.6

% Change 11.33 2.30 7.31 Average Yield Difference -20.9 -5.7 -16.9 Overall Average Difference -14.5

Corn Wheel vs Track

Wheel

Track 15.9

Track 15.5

% Mosture Test weight Yield 15.0% Average Yield Difference

17.3 59.3

16.5 62.3

60.0

61.4

252.7

257.5

260.3 261.5

255.1

260.9

7.5

4.0

Average Difference Grain Price

5.8

$5.08 $5.08 $5.08 Revenue $1,283.85 $1,307.99 $1,322.11 $1,328.40 Difference $38.26 $20.41 $5.08

Average Difference

$29.33

Tractor Cost $205,500.00

$256,900.00 $51,400.00

Price Difference

Acres to pay the difference

1343.4 2518.5

Average Acres to pay for the tractor

1752.2

Compaction Trial Results and Discussion

When we evaluated the penetrometer data we could identify the rows with wheel tracks or tracks from the 8RX. The difference is that the compaction installed by the wheel tractor was deeper and more intense than the track tractor. We also noticed that compaction was the most intense on the ends of the field where the strip-till and planter were starting and stopping. The differences in the center of the 1,242 foot length of planting was not as dramatic as the ends of the passes. One week prior to harvest we hand harvested ears from each of 16 rows for 17 feet 5 inches or 1/1000 th acre. The ears collected from each of the 32 rows were weighed and an average moisture was measured. We then estimated yield using the ear weights. This was repeated three times once on each end of the passes and once in the center of the passes. The west end was the end that the tractor started on for both the wheel tractor and the track

tractor. We saw the lowest yields on the west end due to the load that the tractors were carrying as they started into the pass. Similarly we saw a decreased yield on the east end of the field as the tractor would slow and start loading the weight onto the tractor. The ends exhibited larger differences between the two tractors. The middle still showed a difference and we predicted that we would see the wheel tractor pass yield 5.7 bu./ac less than the track tractor in that area. We harvested every eight rows of each of the tractors.

Interestingly enough when we weighed the trials harvested with the combine there was an average difference of 5.8 bu./ac between the tractors. The wheel tractor averaged 255.1 bu./ac while

the track tractor averaged 260.9 bu./ac. This difference would result in an average revenue increase of $29.33 per acre with the 8RX over the 8R. Estimating the cost of the 8R at $205,500 and the 8RX at $256,900 there is a difference of $51,400 between the tractors. We can estimate, based off of this study that demonstrated an increase in yield 5.8 bu./ac producing an additional $29.33 of revenue per acre that the price difference between the tractors could be made up with 1,752.2 acres. Our two replications ranged from 1,344 acres to 2,519 acres. We are confident that this data can help you think differently about equipment options.

We would like to figure out how far from the start and stop the larger yield differences occur in order to calculate a more in depth estimation of yield differences across entire fields.

Starter vs. No Starter Demo

For years agronomists have agreed that starter fertilizer on corn is essential to protect yields and improve early season vigor. Starter fertilizer has been used since the cultivation of corn whether it was fish parts in the mound with the seed or liquid fertilizer in a band 2”x2”. Today we are blessed with low salt starter fertilizers that we can safely place in furrow with corn and soybeans. These products supply nutrients to young plants and aid those plants through cold and wet stress throughout the spring. Starter fertilizers do not pay for themselves every year but usually will pay for themselves by nature eight to nine times out of ten years and will be most beneficial in springs that are cold or wet.

Starter Fertilizer Used The starter blend contained the following:  2 gal/ac Riser  2 gal/ac Altura  1 gal/ac Boost  1 qt./ac ProZinc  2 oz./ac Radiate  Premium Starter cost was $38.44/ac

Starter Demo Results and Discussion With a premium starter comes a premium price and it is harder to pay for itself in a growing season such as we had in 2021. We planted in ideal soil temperatures and moistures that allowed for good early growth and development of the corn plant. Despite the good growing conditions in this demo the plants were shorter and lighter colored all season long. As we approached grain fill we observed ears that were tipped back where no starter was applied and estimated a benefit to the

starter around 10-12 bu./ac. As you see in the results table the yield differences were 5-7 bu./ac. We observed that the excellent conditions and adequate water during grain fill aloud that gap to close

between the two treatments because of the excellent grain filling conditions. This is how corn can cover up some of our mistakes that we make during the growing season. The fact is that yield was still positive when a starter was used resulting in more yield with the starter and as stated starter fertilizer generally pays for itself eight to nine times out of every ten years.

P1082

Starter Check No Starter No Starter

% Mosture Test weight Yield 15.0%

19.1 57.1

18.1 56.9

18.4 56.8

306.1

300.8

298.9

Difference from check Product Cost $/ac

5.3

7.2

$ $ $

38.44

38.44 $

Grain Price

5.08

Revenu Change

27.15

$36.40

Net Revenue

-$11.29 -$2.04

% ROI

-29

-5

Fertilizer Source Dry vs Liquid in Corn There has always been a debate between liquid and dry fertilizer over the years. A lot of the debate is always about which one is a better source and that liquid is more expensive. In reality the decision of using dry or liquid needs to come down to timing and availability. Dry fertilizer needs time to become available to the plant while liquid fertilizer is readily available to the plant. Typically dry fertilizer will take about 150 days of moist soil over 50 degrees F to become plant available. This is why I personally prefer dry in fall applications rather than spring. This trial was designed to evaluate the difference

between fall dry strip- till and spring liquid strip till then evaluate yields and profitability of the two treatments. Fall dry strip-till was applied on November 07, 2020 and the liquid

was applied on April 13, 2021. Unfortunately the pounds of nutrients were not consistent between the two applications but plans will be to replicate this trial with a better matching nutrient base. Fertilizer Source Results and Discussion When harvesting we harvested 8 rows of each treatment twice. Yields were very similar between these reps. The average yield for dry strip till was 294.1 bu./ac while the liquid average was 299.6 bu./ac. When we look at the cost of each treatment the dry cost was $61.25/ac and the liquid cost was $81.11/ac. The breakeven for spending $19.86 would be 3.9 bu./ac. Therefore, the average of 5.5

bu./ac advantage of the liquid over the dry would more than pay for the added expense. To dig a little deeper let’s think about what happened after dry was applied. The dry was applied in November in dry conditions, the dry conditions persisted until late January when a snowfall event occurred. February was dry and extremely cold. In March the Orthman research farm received around eight inches of precipitation, with April through July being dryer than average. Interestingly enough, in May at V4 to V5, while digging roots in this trial we were able to find fertilizer prills in the dry trial that had not dissolved. We observed that the dry conditions from application until March contributed to

the fertilizer not breaking down. The dry treatment did receive an

application of 21.8 lbs. of S and 2.3 lbs. of Zn at cultivation that should have helped to level the field. Overall the liquid averaged a net return of $8.04 per acre more than the dry trial.

Pounds of Nutrients supplied from strip till

P2O5

K2O S

Zn 2.3 0.0

Liquid

83.7 27.5

63.4

0.2 0.0

21.8

Dry

130.0

0.0

P1082

8 Rows Dry Fertilizer

8 Rows Liquid Fertilizer

% Mosture Test weight Yield 15.0%

18.7 56.9

18.8 57.8

18.1 56.2

19.2 56.8

294.3

293.9

301.5

297.7

Average Yield Product Cost $/ac

294.1

299.6

$61.25 $5.08

$81.11 $5.08

$81.11

Grain Price $5.08 Revenue $1,494.84 $1,493.00 $1,531.50 $1,512.14 Net Revenue $1,433.59 $1,431.75 $1,450.40 $1,431.03 Average $1,432.67 $1,440.71

Corn Side-Dress Trial This trial was designed to demonstrate the importance of nitrogen management and how varying side-dress amounts can change yields. On June 14 th during the hilling and side-dress application we varied the amount of side-dress applied from 0 to 125% of planned in replicated strips in the field. For ease of application we did this in 7 gal/ac increments. In mid-July leaf area index measurements were taken to predict the yield potential from each treatment.

Corn Side-Dress Results and Discussion When we measured leaf area index in mid-July we saw that we could expect a yield response to each increase in side-dress application. At that time it appeared from those measurements that the 100% or 28 gallon per acre rate was the correct rate. However, when we harvested we did see a response to the 35 gallon per acre application. Each shift of 7 gallons per acre changed the N rate by 19.5 lbs./ac and the S rate by 3.7 lbs./ac. Therefore when we added an additional 19.5 pounds of N per acre and 3.7 pounds of S brought in additional $17.54 per acre while cutting the same amount resulted in a loss

of $10.09 per acre. The net revenue changed from the reduction of -$1.33/ac and the addition resulted in $8.78/ac. Looking at the data you can

see that reducing side-dress by more than 25% resulted in significant losses. When we graph the yield results and apply a regression line to the yields compared to the application we can see that there is an excellent linear response to the side-dress application. We observed that the increase in yield over the 100% application rate is due to the excellent grain fill conditions that we were blessed with this fall.

P1082

0 Sidedress 25% Sidedress 50% Sidedress 75% Sidedress 100% sidedress 125% Sidedress

% Mosture Test weight Yield 15.0%

17.3 56.8

17.0 58.1

17.5 57.5

17.9 53.7

16.4 57.4

18.0 57.0

271.4 -20.5

275.8 -16.1

280.1 -11.9

289.9

291.9

295.4

Difference from check

-2.0

0.0

3.5

Product savings $/ac -$35.04

-$26.28

-$17.52

-$8.76 $5.08 -$10.09

$8.76 $5.08

Grain Price

$5.08

Revenu Change -$104.04 -$81.92

-$60.28

$17.54

Net Revenue -$69.00

-$55.64

-$42.76

-$1.33

$8.78

Corn Fertility Trial The purpose of this trial was to demonstrate the benefit of the fertilizer that was used during the strip-till operation. The fertilizer applied supplied 83.7 pounds of N, 63.4 pounds P2O5, 21.8 pounds of S, and 2.54 pounds of Zn. This was roughly 50% of our P2O5 and Zn program. We understood that we would have yield loss but wanted to quantitate how much profitability the fertility would bring us. Corn Fertility Results and Discussion At harvest we saw a response of 28.7 bu./ac to the fertility in the strip-till that resulted in $64.74/ac

additional net revenue. We invested $81.11/ac to get an additional $145.84/ac for an ROI of 80%. This was definitely a good investment to put the additional fertility in the strip-till.

P1082

Check EndoPrime

% Mosture Test weight Yield 15.0%

19.3 59.3

18.2 60.7

310.2

314.5

Difference from check Product Cost $/ac

4.2

$ $ $

8.50 5.08

Grain Price

Revenu Change

21.48

Net Revenue

$12.98

% ROI

153

P1082

Check No Fertility Strip Till Fertility in Strip Till

% Mosture Test weight Yield 15.0%

15.1 61.7

17.1 61.2

266.7

295.4

Difference from check Product Cost $/ac

28.7

81.11

$ $ $

Grain Price

5.08

Revenu Change

145.84

Net Revenue

$64.74

% ROI

Mycorrhiza Fungi Trial The purpose of this trial was to evaluate if the addition of additional mycorrhizal fungi to the system in the starter would result in improved plant health and positive gains in yield. We utilized a product called EndoPrime that contains 5 species of mycorrhiza at the rate of 2 oz./ac. Mycorrhiza Fungi Trial Results and Discussion This trial produced the highest yielding trials on the farm. We thought that the check was good at 310.2 bu./ac but when we added the EndoPrime product we saw an additional 4.2 bu./ac. We had observed throughout the growing season that the EndoPrime treatment had a dark green full canopy and that the rows remained closed longer. We hypothesize that the rows staying closed longer and the dark green canopy resulted in more efficient photosynthesis. The additional 4.2 bu./ac resulted in a revenue change of $21.98 giving a net revenue of $12.98. The EndoPrime product resulted in an ROI of 153%.

picture

Pioneer Hybrid Trial Results

P1828Q P1716Q P1366Q P1353Q

% Mosture Test weight Yield 15.0%

17.5 59.6

18.4 60.1

16.3 60.8

265.2

258.7

266.1

Pioneer Hybrid Trial

The purpose of the Pioneer hybrid trial was to learn more about different genetics and hybrids to evaluate their performance with the Orthman Strip- till System. One thing that was evident in this trial was that in the 2021 Orthman Research Farm the shorter season hybrids performed very well.

P1185Q P1108Q P1093Q P0924Q DKC59-81RIB 17.1 17.9 16.3 16.6 15.1 62.2 56.5 62.9 61.0 60.1 270.1 270.7 268.6 281.6 274.4 y Pioneer Hybrid Trial Results

2021 Soybean Trials- Plenish Soybean Variety Plot The purpose of the variety trial was to learn

more about different Plenish varieties and evaluate their performance for an Orthman Research farm partner. One thing that was evident in this trial was that all varieties held leaves and green stems in 2021 yet the grain was dry. 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

Pioneer Variety Trial

P34A59PR P30A46PR P28A83PR P27A26PR P22A36PR

% Mosture Test weight Yield 15.0%

12.8 57.0

10.0 57.7 98.4

9.6

9.5

9.0

57.0 97.0

57.0 93.4

57.4 86.8

104.6

Soybean Foliar T rials • Foliar treatments have been proven to be beneficial throughout the years. It is our experience that some are more beneficial than others and timing is critical. The thought process with this trial was to evaluate two foliar products during the early reproductive stages of the soybeans. • Foliar products were applied on June 28, 2021 at approximately the R1stage utilizing a Rantizo drone.

Foliar Products: • QLF Agronomy PowerAid • B, Cu, Co, Fe, Mn, Mo, Zn. • Loveland Products NutriSync Complete 3D • N, P2O5, K2O, B, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Zn.

Soybean Foliar

Check PowerAidNutrisync 12.7 12.5 12.1 55.6 56.3 59.0 93.9 93.0 94.2

% Mosture Test weight Yield 13.0%

Difference from check Product Cost $/ac

-0.9

0.3

$ 6.75 $ 9.72 $ 12.27 $ 12.27 (11.50) $ $3.18 $ 12.00 $12.00 -$30.25 -$18.54 -448 -191

Grain Price

Revenu Change Application Net Revenue

% ROI

Soybean Foliar Results and Discussion Not all trials are favorable. Certainly this is the case in our foliar trials on soybeans. We needed to have replication in these trials but unfortunately we did not in 2021. We observed that the timing was a little early for the soybeans. Typically foliar applications in soybeans are most effective in the R3 to R4 stages. We plan to re-evaluate the foliar trials in 2022 with better timing and replication. We observed that foliar applications should not be judged by single trials but should be evaluated over multiple trials and environments.

Soybean Fertility Trial The purpose of this trial was to demonstrate the value of fertility when raising soybeans. More farmers are utilizing fertilizer for soybeans but still some do not understand the value of fertilizing soybeans. On April 13, 2021, the ground going to soybeans was strip tilled with 49 gallons per acre of a blended liquid fertilizer. That blend provided 61.3 pounds N, 126.75 pounds P2O5, 43.51 pounds S, and 4.51 pounds Zn. This program was designed to be aggressive to help us with some very low P and Zn soil test values. In one area of the farm we did not apply the liquid in the strip-till operation.

Soybean Fertility Trial Results and Discussion

When we harvested the check and the strip-till treated we saw an advantage of 15.9 bu./ac where we applied the fertilizer. The addition of fertilizer resulted in additional revenue of $195.28 per acre. Even with the very aggressive fertilizer program we realized a net profit of $64.59 per acre. I don’t believe that there is a farmer today that would turn down an additional $64/ac of profitability. The ROI of 49% is nothing to be saying no to.

Soybean Fertility Trial

Check No Fertility Strip Till Fertility in Strip Till

% Mosture Test weight Yield 13.0%

10.3 58.0 90.2

10.2 58.0

106.1

Difference from check Product Cost $/ac

15.9

$ $ $

130.69 12.27 195.28

Grain Price

Revenu Change

Net Revenue

$64.59

% ROI

Soybean Side-Dress Trial 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. The thought came from a research article that describes the soybeans need for phosphorus during the reproductive stages. Because phosphorus and zinc are taken up together we also added zinc to the trial then added boost also to see if there was an advantage to that. The side- dress was added during the hilling operation in late R2 to early R3. Soybean Side-Dress Trial Results and Discussion Despite some of the indications that we were seeing in our trials the 10-34-0 treatment had the highest yield. Some of the pod counts that we saw

in mid to late August indicated that the treatments with the zinc and boost would dominate this trial. We observed that we may have had some late pod abortion in the 2 treatments that had zinc. We hypothesize that we may need to tweak the timing when using zinc to a little earlier so next year we will try to side-dress soybeans in late R1 to early R2 rather than late R2. We observed that this would give the plant more time to metabolize the zinc. Any of the three treatments that we had in this trial turned out positive and had good ROI ranging from 83% to 354%. We would suggest looking at a side- dress application on your soybeans in order to increase yields and profitability.

Soybean Sidedress

Check

10-34-0

10-34-0 +Zn 10-34-0 +Zn+ Boost

% Mosture Test weight Yield 15.0%

12.2 58.0 95.1

13.6 56.0

12.7 58.2 98.0

13.1 56.0 99.5

100.1

Difference from check

5.1

3.0

4.4

Product Cost Grain Price Revenu Change

$13.75 $12.27 $62.38

$20.05 $12.27 $36.62

$23.55 $12.27 $54.52

Net Revenue

$48.63

$16.58

$30.97

ROI

354

132

Soybean Planter Trial This study was designed to compare yields of the MaxEmerge5 planter to the ExactEmerge planter on soybeans. A round was planted using each planter at the same time with all inputs being the same.

Soybean Planter

MaxEmerge5 ExactEmerge

% Mosture Test weight Yield 15.0% Difference

10.2 58.0

10.1 57.5

106.1

108.4

2.2

Grain Price $12.27 Revenue $1,302.42 $1,329.55 Difference $27.13 $12.27

Planter Cost

$205,500.00 $256,900.00 $51,400.00

Acres to pay the difference

1894.81

Soybean Planter Trial Results and Discussion With both planters we were able to harvest some amazing soybeans. There was an advantage of

2.2 bu./ac for the ExactEmerge planter. That yield advantage resulted in an additional revenue of $27.13 per acre. If we price the two planters side by side the ExactEmerge planter would cost about $51,400.00 more then we can calculate the acres of soybeans needed to pay for the difference between the planters. The data from the trial we conducted on the Orthman research farm indicates that it would take 1,895 acres of soybeans to pay for the difference in the planters. There are other factors that need to be considered in this decision and that would include planting speed, yield difference in

corn and corn acres. This trial allows us to look at the results only from soybeans.

Orthman Agronomy Educational Research Trials

High Plains FFA Orthman teams with High Plains Community Schools FFA to help students gain agronomic knowledge and research experiences throughout the growing season on a local farmers ground. This year the crop was soybeans and the trial was to compare yields at five different planting populations. Soybeans were planted at 60,000 seeds/ac, 80,000 seeds/ac, 100,000 seeds/ac, 120,000 seeds/ac and 150,000 seeds/ac. One round or 32 rows of each population were planted and harvested to compare yields and ROI of the recommended population of 150,000 seeds/ac to reduced seeding rates under high management.

Soybean Population Results and Discussion During the growing season we collected physiological measurements from each trial to give us an indication of what we could see at harvest time. We measured plant height, number of branches and number of nodes across each treatment with 3 replications of 21 plants for each treatment. After we combined the data and averaged it for each treatment we could then start predicting what harvest results had potential to look like. Plant height did not change dramatically between treatments.

Soybean Planting Population

Check 150K 60 K

80 K 100 K 120 K 11.3 11.2 10.9 53.0 54.0 57.0 82.3 83.7 84.5

% Mosture Test weight Yield 13.0%

10.7 56.0 82.9

11.1 56.0 83.6

Difference from check 1.6 Seed Cost $/ac $55.00 $22.00 $29.33 $36.67 $44.00 Grain Price $12.27 $12.27 $12.27 $12.27 $12.27 Revenu Change $9.44 -$6.66 $9.79 $19.85 0.8 -0.5 0.8

Net Revenue $/ac

$961.8 $1,004.2 $980.8 $989.9 $992.6

Difference from the check $/ac

$42.44 $19.01 $28.13 $30.85

However, we could see as population decreased we saw an increase in both number of branches and number of nodes. Then we had to hypothesize if an increase of 12.9 nodes per plant was enough to overcome the loss of 90,000 plants per acre. We were very confident in the 80,000 and 100,000 plant populations at that time. At harvest we were excited to see that yields did not vary a lot between populations. The 120K population had the highest yield and the 80K had the lowest yield (there goes our theory).

To evaluate this trial we used yield and seed cost to calculate a net revenue per acre then we could compare and see if one population was the most profitable. By pure revenue increase we would say that 120K was the best population. However, when we apply seed cost and calculate a net revenue the 60K population is the most profitable. In times with high inputs are there ways to decrease cost but maintain yield? Reducing soybean population will not be a fit for all growers but could be a fit for those who are the more intense managers. We plan to replicate this trial on the Orthman research farm in 2022 to further evaluate the validity of reducing planting population of soybeans.

Northeast Community College Northeast Community College in Norfolk, Nebraska, utilized the 1tRIPr to compare no-till to strip-till with and without fertilizer in a high compaction environment.

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University Tillage Effects on Cotton Performance and Soil Quality in an Irrigated Arid Cropping System Omololu John Idowu 1,* , Sifat Sultana 2, Murali Darapuneni 3, Leslie Beck 1, Robert Steiner 4 and Mohammed Omer 1 1 Department of Extension Plant Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA;lebeck@nmsu.edu (L.B.); omer001@nmsu.edu (M.O.) 2 Department of Plant & Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA; ssultan@g.clemson.edu 3 Department of Plant & Environmental Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA;dmk07@nmsu.edu 4 Department of Economics, Applied Statistics & International Business, New Mexico State University,Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA; rsteiner@nmsu.edu * Correspondence: jidowu@nmsu.edu; Tel.: +01-575-646- 2571

Conclusions A trial conducted over two years to compare plow tillage and raised bed tillage to strip-tillage, showed no significant differences in cotton yields and fiber quality parameters across the tillage treatments. Additionally, soil physical measurements and POXC were not significantly different with tillage treatments. Out of all the biological measurements assessed, only the total fungal biomass and the AMF gave significant difference with tillage treatments, with strip tillage and bed tillage having higher measurement values than the plow tillage. Sampling time significantly impacted most of the soil measurements, with the physical measurements and POXC having final measurements (measurements at the end of second trial year) that were lower and less favorable than the initial measurements at the beginning of the experiment. However, the biological measurements were opposite, being higher and more favorable at the end of the second trial year. In this experiment, the total fungal population and the AMF were sensitive enough to soil disturbances to distinguish between the tillage systems, thus these measurements may serve as potential soil quality indicators for

evaluating performance of tillage systems in the short term. This study shows that the strip-tillage system can be used to produce cotton successfully in the irrigated arid agroecosystems and can provide economic benefits by minimizing the overall production costs for farmers in the region due to reduced tillage costs. It can also benefit the environment, help with soil moisture conservation, and improve soil quality due to its potential to reduce wind erosion by maintaining a more stable residue cover on the soil surface. Longer term studies are needed in the arid southwestern USA, to adequately monitor soil quality changes and document the benefits of reduced tillage systems to production costs, potential cotton yield, and the overall ecosystem.

Short-term Conservation Tillage Effects on Corn Silage Yield and Soil Quality in an Irrigated, Arid Agroecosystem Omololu John Idowu 1,*, Sifat Sultana 2, Murali Darapuneni 3, Leslie Beck 1 and Robert Steiner 4 1 Department of Extension Plant Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA 2 Department of Plant & Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA 3 Department of Plant & Environmental Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA 4 Department of Economics, Applied Statistics & International Business, New Mexico State University, LasCruces, NM 88003, USA * Correspondence: jidowu@nmsu.edu; Tel.: +1-575- 646-2571

Conclusions A short-term trial comparing conservation tillage systems (no-tillage and strip-tillage) to conventional tillage system (plow based tillage) for corn production in the irrigated arid Southwest shows that the yields under the conservation tillage systems were not significantly different from conventional tillage. In fact during the first trial year, the no-tillage had significantly higher fresh silage yield than the conventional tillage treatment. Many of the soil measurements assessed such as mean

weight diameter of dry aggregates, wet aggregate stability and permanganate oxidizable carbon did not show any significant tillage effect in this short- term experiment. Penetration resistance measured before planting was significantly higher in the no- tillage compared to strip tillage and plow tillage at 0–30 cm in the first year. Mid-season and post- harvest penetration measurements were mostly not significant with tillage treatments during the first trial year. During the second year, penetration resistance measurements were not significant with tillage at all measurement periods. Generally, no till treatment gave the most favorable biological indicator measurements and also had the highest fungal biomass and diversity index, indicating the sensitivity of biological measurements to short-term soil quality changes. From the results of this study, it is possible for farmers in the irrigated arid Southwest to transition to conservation tillage systems thus conserving and

improving soil quality, while sustaining good silage corn yields and forage quality. An added benefit from conservation tillage would be an increase in farm profit arising from reduced fuel and labor use for land preparation compared to the convention plow till system.

University of Minnesota This experiment investigated the interactions between row establishment treatments and fertilizer N rates for corn production in a kura clover living mulch system during the 2021 growing season at Arlington, WI. Treatments were applied on May 7 th and corn was seeded at 36,000 plants/acre on May 8 th . The rotary zone tillage tool increased grain and stover yields as well as plant N uptake relative to the Orthman and banded herbicide treatments.

Grain yield (bu./acre) 153 (28) 161 (32) 180 (21) 201 (23) 176 (19) 180 (44) 182 (21) b 175 (18)

Stover yield (tons/acre) 2.3 (0.34) 2.49 (0.08) 2.78 (0.21) 3.54 (0.18) 2.62 (0.25) 3.19 (0.21) 2.75 (0.25) b 2.69 (0.25) 2.61 (0.23) 2.41 (0.2) 2.83 (0.21) 2.91 (0.31) 3.09 (0.28) 3.18 (0.26) a 2.54 (0.3) 3.21 (0.19) 3.35 (0.23) 3.29 (0.31) 3.44 (0.2) 3.26 (0.2)

N uptake (lb./acre) 144 (18) b 110 (20) 125 (14) 146 (11) 181 (10) 137 (7) 168 (18) 148 (15) b 126 (9) 132 (16) 159 (20) 152 (9) 156 (18) 162 (10) 173 (13) a 136 (14) 170 (9) 185 (8) 178 (12) 191 (5) 181 (13)

Herbicide

175 † (27) ‡ b* 2.82 (0.29) b

40 80

120 160 200

Orthman

40 80

165 (22) 196 (32) 194 (14) 175 (24) 190 (21) 193 (20) 223 (6) 218 (3) 207 (15) 232 (1) 207 (12)

120 160 200

Rotary zone tillage 213 (12) a

40 80

120 160 200

P > F

Row treatment Fertilizer N rate Row x N rate

< 0.001

< 0.001 < 0.01

< 0.0001 < 0.0001

0.34 0.83

0.12

0.29

† Treatment means. ‡ Standard error of treatment means. * Within a column for a given fixed effect, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05.

Rotary zone tillage

Orthman 1tRIPr

Banded Dicamba + Stinger

North Carolina State University

NCSU conducted a trial comparing multiple nitrogen placement and timing practices. NCSU utilized an Orthman 1tRIPr to place the banded nitrogen. NCSU did not find statistical significance in yield differences however, there were some differences that could be financially significant.

Orthman Industry Partner Trials

Central Valley Ag The Central Valley Ag Team conducts research trials throughout their trade territory to help them differentiate between products and practices. CVA utilizes an Orthman 1tRIPr to evaluate different fertilizer blends in eight row trials and compare yields in these replicated trials in Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa.

Yield bu/ac

Difference from Check

Yield bu/ac

Difference from Check

Treatment

Check Blank Strip 166.1

Check Blank Strip 292.8 MicroEssentialsSZ 287.0

MicroEssentialsSZ 198.2 32.1

-5.8 -6.0

MAP

183.7 17.6

MAP

286.8

Yield bu/ac

Difference from Check

Yield bu/ac

Difference from Check

Treatment

Check Blank Strip 159.2

Check Blank Strip 286.7 MicroEssentialsSZ 279.2

MicroEssentialsSZ 179.5 20.3

-7.5 -5.3

MAP

179.8 20.6

MAP

281.4

Dealer Agronomic Partnership Trials

21st Century Equipment Imperial Nebraska This was a trial comparing liquid fertilizer to dry fertilizer in spring strip-till west of Imperial, Nebraska.

Treatment

Yield

Dry Fertilizer Liquid Fertilizer Difference Liquid - Dry

247 bu./ac 262 bu./ac 15 bu./ac

21st Century Equipment Fort Morgan Colorado This was a trial comparing liquid fertilizer to dry fertilizer in spring strip-till in Fort Morgan, Colorado.

Treatment

Yield 1 255.9 256.7

Yield 2 259.6 257.3

Dry Fertilizer Liquid Fertilizer

Difference Liquid – Dry

0.8

-2.3

Thank You for All Your Efforts:

A Special Thank you to all of our cooperators and sponsors.

McNaught family for the cooperation with the research farm.

High Plains FFA for assistance with data collection and cooperation on their plot.

Cross County FFA for assistance with data collection.

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 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89

Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker