Minnesota Wheat Check- Off

Transcription

1 Minnesota Wheat Check- Off

2 On Farm Research Network What it is? Where it is? Who is involved? How to become involved? Results from Continuing and Additional Projects for 2015

3 Northwest Minnesota On-Farm Research Network On-Farm Research Network What? Goal: Improve the profitability of wheat production in Minnesota by utilizing Best Management Practices. Objective: Engage and assist growers in the Network to conduct multi-location/multi-year, field scale on-farm research. Approach: The Network will incorporate four levels of grower participation, these are: Level 1) Research Idea Contest Level 2) Share Your Independent On-Farm Research Project and Results Level 3) Coordinated Research Project Level 4) Submit a Mini-Research Grant Application.

4 On-Farm Research Network What? Anticipated Outcomes 1. Participants in the Network will gain a better understanding of and assist in determining best management practices for spring wheat production. 2. Growers who participate in Network activities will gain an enhanced knowledge on how to conduct appropriate research on their own farm. Beneficiaries The intended direct beneficiaries are participants in the Network and wheat growers in Minnesota who learn from the on-farm research network findings.

5 On-Farm Research Network Where? Simple answer is your field using your equipment. The research that growers choose to participate in fits within their current operation. Participants on-farm research activities are replicated by other growers who are testing the same treatment in a different environment.

6 On-Farm Research Network Who? Dr. Garth Kruger, Ph.D., Producer, Director of EvaluationGroup, LLC Warren, MN Education: Ph.D. in research methodologies from the University of North Dakota and Master s Degree in Clinical Psychology from Mansfield University. Garth has been conducting program evaluations of local, state and federally funded programs over the past 17 years. Dr. Dave Grafstrom, Ph.D., Custom Training Representative-Precision Agriculture Roseau, MN Education: Ph.D. North Dakota State University - Weed Science, M.S. in Agronomy, NDSU. Dave has extensive experience with coordinating on-farm research with growers of multiple crops and is currently working with U of M on small plot research and field scale on-farm research. Lauren Stai, On-Farm Research Coordinator, MN Wheat Reserch & Promotion Council, Red Lake Falls, MN Education: 2012 BS in Agronomy, U of M Crookston, Crookston MN For the past 2 1/2 years, Lauren has worked as an agronomist at Northern Farmers Co-op Exchange in Williams, MN. Lauren begins her new position with the Minnesota Wheat Council February 2 nd,2015. Dave Torgerson, Executive Director, Minnesota Wheat Research and Promotion Council (MWRPC) & Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers (MAWG) Education: 1986 B.S. in Agriculture Economics from NDSU Dave has worked with a committee of growers, university and industry experts to prioritize and fund wheat research projects.

7 On-Farm Research Network Who? Cont d Tony Brateng, Producer/Manager, Roseau, MN Education: 2005 B.S. Agronomy and Weed Science, U of M Crookston. Tony is a current board member of MWRPC and the MN Canola Council, as well as the RL Grass Seed Growers Cooperative. He is proficient in precision ag, using RTK, GPS, variable rate applications, satellite images, yield monitors and he has conducted numerous onfarm research projects. Richard Magnusson, Producer/Manager, Roseau, MN Education: B.S. in Agronomy from North Dakota State University, 2014 U of M Eldon Siehl Prize Laureate for Excellence in Production Agriculture. Richard is past chairman and current member of the Small Grains Research and Communications Committee and past president of the MAWG and the Minnesota Crop Improvement Association. Tim Osowski, Producer/Co-manager, Argyle, MN Education: 2004 B.S. in Ag Economics from NDSU with a minor in Crop and Weed Science Tim currently serves on the Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers and is a member of the National Association of Wheat Growers Research Committee.. Crop Consultants Many farmers hire a crop consultant, and utilizing a crop consultants experience with a farmer and their individual fields is highly valuable to the Network.

8 On-Farm Research Network Who? Farmer Cooperator Cooperators name and fields will be anonymous. Just the data from ur trial will be published in the analysis.

9 LeOn-Farm Research Network How to be Involved? f Participation Level 1 Enter Research Idea Contest You can submit to the Network a idea of what you would like to see researched. Level 2 Share Your Individual On-Farm Research Project and Results: You can share with the Network a trial you have done or would like to do that is not part of the Level 3 Coordinated Research. Level 4 Submit a Mini-Research Grant Application: The mini research grant is designed for growers who have substantial experience with managing on-farm research and who have a complex research idea that they may require additional assistance to make it feasible to conduct and complete. The mini grant should outline the research objective, the design, and the method of analysis.

10 Le On-Farm Research Network How to be Involved? Level 3 Conduct a Coordinated Research Project: One treatment tested per trial site. Trial design fits specific field. Four replications of treatment and control. Data collection assistance. For participating you will receive up to $1,500 per trial to help de-fray costs associated with each specific coordinated project.

11 Minnesota Wheat Research and Promotion Council 2014 On-Farm Trials Does split applying nitrogen increase yields or protein and when is it cost effective? Prepared by Garth Kruger, Ph.D. EvaluationGroup, LLC Dave Willis Agassiz Crop Management, Inc. Dave Torgerson Executive Director Minnesota Wheat Research & Promotion Council Missy Geiszler Research Assistant Minnesota Wheat Research, On-Farm Research Page 11

12 Does Split Applying Nitrogen in Spring Wheat Increase Yields or Protein? Is it Cost Effective? Apply significantly less nitrogen at planting than is required for yield goals with the intent to put the remaining nitrogen on later in the season. Relevant Current/Past Nitrogen Research Studies on split application have been done on small plot and a number of large plot going back almost 20 years. Studies in the past conducted at sites in heavy soils (e.g. Crookston and Fargo) have not found split applications to improve yield as long as pre-plant nitrogen is sufficient. Spring wheat varieties and some agronomic practices/equipment have changed.

13 Does Split Applying Nitrogen in Spring Wheat Increase Yields or Protein? Is it Cost Effective? Amount to Apply In this coordinated research project, each cooperator chose the total nitrogen rate to apply to their field. Sims, A., Rhem, G., Lamb, J., (2008). Best Management Practices for Nitrogen Use in Northwest Minnesota. University of Minnesota. Publication Accessed on November 14, extension.umn.edu/ agriculture/nutrient-manage-ment/nitrogen/docs/ northwestmn.pdf Franzen,D. (2009). Online wheat nitrogen recommendation calculator, see:

14 Does Split Applying Nitrogen in Spring Wheat Increase Yields or Protein? Is it Cost Effective? Timing of Application This study compared a split nitrogen application vs. 100% yield goal nitrogen down at pre-plant as urea or anhydrous ammonia. Total lb. N applied minus 45 lb N. This equates to 15 gallons of 28% N or 100 lbs of urea.

15 Does Split Applying Nitrogen in Spring Wheat Increase Yields or Protein? Is it Cost Effective? Research Methods Randomized complete block design was used and a minimum of three replications were completed at each location, most had four. Yields were calculated using a calibrated weigh wagon or a calibrated yield monitor, depending on availability of equipment of each cooperator. Sample yields were standardized to 13.5% moisture and 60lb test weight Three protein samples were probed from the hopper from each strip. Each trial strip was approximately 1 acre. Topdress was applied at the 5 leaf stage. One trial had urea as pre-plant, rest used anhydrous ammonia. One trial used urea as topdress, rest used UAN(28-0-0). All participants received adequate moisture to ensure that nitrogen reached the root zone once the topdress was applied.

16

17

18 In-Hopper Protein Sample Probe

19 Results Yield Treatment Field-Yield Fosston Fosston 2 Manvel Oslo Warren Argyle Stephen Roseau Prev. Crop Soybeans Soybeans Prev. Plant Soybeans Soybeans Wheat Soybeans Soybeans Top-dress No Top-dress Mean # of reps Sig test p<.05 ns ns ns p<.10 p<.05 ns ns p<.05 Mean. Average yields across the eight sites were significantly lower in the topdress treatment group. Topdress= 66.5 bushels/acre Control= 68.7 bushels/acre A paired samples t-test was calculated to compare the mean differences between all treatment and control conditions on yield. (t(28) = -2.5, p<.05).

20 Results Protein Field-Protein Treatment Fosston Fosston 2 Manvel Oslo Warren Argyle Stephen Roseau Mean Top-dress No Top-dress Mean # of reps Sig test p<.15 p<.15 p<.10 p<.20 p<.15 p<.05 ns p<.05 p<.05 Average protein was significantly higher across the sites in the treatment group Topdress= 13.5% Control= 13.2% A paired samples t-test was calculated to compare the mean differences between overall treatment and control conditions on protein (t(28) = 2.05, p<.05).

21 Results

22 Results

23 Observations In this trial, split applying nitrogen increased protein 62% of the time (an average of 0.58% percent), and 38% of the time either decreased it or had no effect. Chart of each replication on each site is included in handout book and on smallgrains.org website under On-Farm Research Network tab. There is a wide range of yields from a low of 44.1 to a high of There is great variability in proteins ranging from a low of 11.1 to There are 4 different varieties identified in the trials.

24 Cost/Benefit Analysis * Average total cost for treatment condition = $47.60/acre pounds of cost per rate applied Weight per product per/ product ton (est.) cost per pound per gallon gallon ac@ 15 gals/ac cost per ac $370 $ lbs $ bushels approximately lost per acre average (wheel $5 bu=$10/ac $8/acre cost for application (fuel + equipment or custom) Opportunity cost? (no $ cost assigned) $435 per ton urea used as price to compare treatments * Average total gain from top-dressing = $12.06/acre at 67 bu/ac average 12 cents 1/5 th protein discount from 14 to 13 pro =.18 cents/bushel gain (going from 13.2 to 13.5).18 x 67 bu/ac =$12.06/ac +15 per 1/5 th from 14.0 to per 1/5 th from 14.6 and up Treatment Topdress Protein No Topdress Protein Cost/Benefit Analysis by Site Fosston Fosston 2 Manvel Oslo Warren Argyle Stephen Roseau Mean Protein Gain/Loss $ Protein Gain/bu Top dress Yield Total $ Gain Topdress for Protein $28.62 $23.13 $49.12 ($6.90) ($20.34) $16.05 ($4.75) $23.64 $11.96 Application Costs (including wheel 2 bu/ac*$5bu. $47.60 $47.60 $47.60 $47.60 $47.60 $47.60 $47.60 $47.60 $47.60 Financial Gain/Loss ($18.98) ($24.47) 1.52 ($54.50) ($67.94) ($31.55) ($52.35) ($23.96) ($35.64) Total economic impact of treatment activity, $ $12.06 = $35.54 per acre LOSS average. To compare with 45 lb N as urea applied pre-plant, would be $ $7.60(cost diff. of using urea to equal N rate) = $27.94 per acre LOSS

25 Discussion Does topdressing increase yields? Yields did not increase in this study as a result of topdressing. Significant nitrogen losses may have occurred before topdressing which may have contributed to yield loss. Does topdressing increase protein? Protein did increase as a result of topdressing, on average just slightly. Overall, protein increased in the topdress treatment by.3 of a %. Future study of split application of nitrogen should be continued to realize a greater amount of environments to gain additional data. By continuing this study a greater confidence in the results found will be obtained. Split application was not economical in the analysis reported. DISCLAIMER: Materials in this document are designed solely to inform growers about potential risks and benefits of various crop products and techniques. In no way does MN Wheat Council assume any liability for results achieved as the result of practices described herein.

26 Minnesota Wheat Research and Promotion Council 2014 On-Farm Trials To What Extent Does Sulfur and Ammonium Sulfate Impact Soybean Yields and When Does It Work Best? Prepared by Garth Kruger, Ph.D. EvaluationGroup, LLC Dave Willis Agassiz Crop Management, Inc. Dave Torgerson Executive Director Minnesota Wheat Research & Promotion Council Missy Geiszler Research Assistant Minnesota Wheat Research, On-Farm Research Page 20

27 To What Extent Does Sulfur and Ammonium Sulfate Impact Soybean Yields and When Does It Work Best? Relevance Soil tests for sulfur can provide highly variable results. Crops grown on soils low in organic matter (top six inches is 2.0% or less) seem to be more responsive to sulfur applications. Recent Studies Dr. Daniel Kaiser received funding from the MN Soybean Research and Promotion Council in 2011 and 12 to investigate the effects of Microessentials SZ on soybean yields in comparison to: 1) N only (as ammonium nitrate), 2) N and P as MAP, 3) N, P, and S as MAP, 4) ammonium sulfate, and 5) elemental sulfur (50/50 blend). Treatments were intended to supply nutrients in the same amount as MEZ. Eleven sites over two years were studied across Minnesota. Two sites showed significant yield increases as a result of additional nitrogen and sulfur fertilizers. The trials were conducted to define nitrogen and sulfer response, and it was found the additional sulfur provided no yield benefit. 6,7

28 To What Extent Does Sulfur and Ammonium Sulfate Impact Soybean Yields and When Does It Work Best? Reaserch Methods Products Used MicroEssentials SZ otherwise known as MESZ is a granulated fertilizer that incorporates nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur and zinc within each granule. MESZ contains: total nitrogen 12%, available P 2 O 5 40%, total sulfur 10% (sulfur as sulfate 5%, sulfur as elemental S 5%), total zinc 1%. The product is produced by Mosaic, Inc Ammonium sulfate, (NH4)2SO4 contains 21% nitrogen and 24% sulfate sulfur. This is a widely available non-proprietary bulk fertilizer. Trial Design Two field locations were used in this study, both owned/operated by the same grower. Both in close proximity to one another. Randomized complete block design was used. Two blocks with two replications were completed in field one; and in field two one block of four replications was used. Sample yields were standardized to 13.0% moisture and 60lb test weight. Each trial strip was approximately 1 acre.

29 To What Extent Does Sulfur and Ammonium Sulfate Impact Soybean Yields and When Does It Work Best? Site Conditions Soil type(s) at the site were light, sandy soils with <2% organic matter. Weather conditions during the growing season were slightly cooler on the average with precipitation greater earlier on and then below average in August.

30 To What Extent Does Sulfur and Ammonium Sulfate Impact Soybean Yields and When Does It Work Best? Results Field 1 Field 2 Field 1 found a 1.90 bu/acre greater yield for treatment than control The treatment mean (M=38.70) was significantly higher than the control mean (M=37.43) (t(3)=2.68, p<.10). There were four treatment strips and four control strips. Field 2 had no significant difference.

31 To What Extent Does Sulfur and Ammonium Sulfate Impact Soybean Yields and When Does It Work Best? Discussion Results from past studies and as well from this one suggest that applying sulfur and nitrogen may have an impact on soybean yields. In Field 1, results showed significant differences in yield between the treatment and control condition suggesting that the additional 100lbs of AMS at the 2-3 trifoliate stage had a positive impact of nearly 2 bu/ac on yields. When does it work best? The greatest response to sulfur in soybeans appears to be found in fields having a sandy texture or soils with a high degree of slope with low soil organic matter. These types of soils are known to be at risk of sulfur deficiency. 9 However, conditions where a sulfur response will occur are still not well understood or clearly defined. 10

32 To What Extent Does Sulfur and Ammonium Sulfate Impact Soybean Yields and When Does It Work Best? Suggestions for Future Research This study should continue in additional environments that would be expected to see a sulfur response to further evaluate the soybean response to sulfur application. The study should also be refined to eliminate possible nitrogen benefit from AMS application by using a nitrogen source at a equal rate in the control. More sites and replications are needed to further evaluate the preliminary findings from this study. DISCLAIMER: Materials in this document are designed solely to inform growers about potential risks and benefits of various crop products and techniques. In no way does MN Wheat Council assume any liability for results achieved as the result of practices described herein.

33 Minnesota Wheat Research and Promotion Council On-Farm Research Trials 2014 Does Blending Poly Coated and Non-Coated Urea Improve Yields or Protein and Is It Effective? Prepared by Garth Kruger, Ph.D. EvaluationGroup, LLC Dave Willis Agassiz Crop Management, Inc. Dave Torgerson Executive Director Minnesota Wheat Research & Promotion Council Missy Geiszler Research Assistant Minnesota Wheat Research, On-Farm Research Page 25

34 Past Research Does Blending Poly Coated and Non Coated Urea Improve Yields or Protein? Some trials in the past found possible yield and protein benefits of using PCU blended with urea applied in the spring before seeding spring wheat. Trials were expanded and more recent trials have found less occurrences of significant yield or protein increases by applying PCU blended with urea Gathering protein samples: 2014

35 Does Blending Poly Coated and Non Coated Urea Improve Yields or Protein? Methods This study examined yield and protein outcomes on hard red spring wheat comparing a 50% Urea 50% ESN blend to 100% Urea. Each replication strip was +/- one acre. There were 24 total sites over three years. o 22 sites in 2012, 1 site in 2013, and 1 site in Randomized complete block design was used. A minimum of three replications were completed at each location (most had four). There were a total of 100 replications using the 50/50 blend and 100 using 100% Urea. Sample yields were standardized to 13.5% moisture and 60lb test weight. Weather Conditions Early, warm, dry Late, wet, cool Late, wet May and June in most spring wheat growing areas

36 Does Blending Poly Coated and Non Coated Urea Improve Yields or Protein. Results + spring applied plot only included in data presented for consistency with previous years. * p<.05, sig difference between means A paired samples t-test comparing 22 sites in 2012 found no significant differences on yields (M=70.80 for Urea, M=70.86 for ESN) ((t (88) = -.090, p>.05). In 2012 the average protein for Urea was M=13.76 and for Urea/ESN blend it was M= This difference was also not significant ((t88) = 1.13,p=.26). Similarly, in 2013, one site only tested, there was no significant difference on either yield or protein. In 2014, in one site only tested, there was a significant difference in yield of 4.21 bushel. There was no significant difference in protein, however.

37 Does Blending Poly Coated and Non Coated Urea Improve Yields or Protein. Discussion In the 1 site of 24 tested over 3 years that showed a significant response to spring blended PCU and Urea, the May-June rainfall was 9.52 inches over the average of that timeframe Precipitation (in inches) by Month-RLF Precipitation April May June July August RLF Site Historical Average Duff From Ave Temperature by Month-RLF Temp April May June July August RLF Site Historical Average Duff From Ave In 2014, the plot in Red Lake Falls found an increase of 4.2 bushels/acre using the ESN/Urea blend in the spring. This difference was significant at the p<.05 level.

38 Questions?

39

40

41 Thank You Minnesota Wheat Check- Off