Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE Demonstration Reports

Transcription

1 Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE 2016 Demonstration Reports

2

3 Demonstration Report MONSANTO LEARNING CENTER AT GOTHENBURG, NE Welcome... to the 2016 Demonstration Reports from your Learning Center in Gothenburg, NE. The overall growing conditions at the Learning Center were very good with 280+ bu/a corn and 90+ bu/a soybean recorded. Moisture was timely over the first part of the growing season with 6.7, 7.7, 2.65, and 3.61 inches of rain recorded in April, May, June, and July. In August and September, rainfall was not as abundant with only 0.69 and 0.61 inches of rain recorded. Fortunately, temperatures in August were 2.8 F cooler than normal with only six days above 90 F. Also, no significant hail or wind events were recorded. During the summer tour season, we took the opportunity to discuss our corn, soybean, and wheat research projects and new trait platforms such as Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans with many guests. We enjoyed hosting tour participants from the region as well as visitors from many countries. As always, we welcome and look forward to your visit in The Learning Center Team is gearing up for another successful season with demonstrations that will be valuable your operation. To schedule a visit with a group of any size please contact Khris Jinks (khris.a.jinks@monsanto.com) or Lisa Bihlmaier (lisa.m.bihlmaier@monsanto.com) at (308) We d enjoy the opportunity to show you around the field and the classrooms if you are in the area. If you have any questions feel free to contact me at brian.olson@monsanto.com. Thanks, The Gothenburg Learning Center Team Monsanto Company is a member of Excellence Through Stewardship (ETS). Monsanto products are commercialized in accordance with ETS Product Launch Stewardship Guidance, and in compliance with Monsanto s Policy for Commercialization of Biotechnology-Derived Plant Products in Commodity Crops. This product has been approved for import into key export markets with functioning regulatory systems. Any crop or material produced from this product can only be exported to, or used, processed or sold in countries where all necessary regulatory approvals have been granted. It is a violation of national and international law to move material containing biotech traits across boundaries into nations where import is not permitted. Growers should talk to their grain handler or product purchaser to confirm their buying position for this product. Excellence Through Stewardship is a registered trademark of Excellence Through Stewardship. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Roundup Ready 2 Xtend is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC Monsanto Company.

4 Demonstration Report MONSANTO LEARNING CENTER AT GOTHENBURG, NE Follow us! Scan the codes below to visit our media sites. Website:

5 Demonstration Report MONSANTO LEARNING CENTER AT GOTHENBURG, NE Table of Contents 6-7 Corn Product Performance in Drought-Stressed Environments 8-9 DroughtGard Hybrids Corn Products Response to Overwatering DroughtGard Hybrids Crop Water Use Corn Product Performance in Different Irrigation Environments and Populations High Yield Management Systems in Corn Effects of Nitrogen Application Strategy on Corn The Impact of Baling and Livestock Grazing Corn Residue on Soil Compaction and Crop Yield The Impact of Row Spacing in High Density Corn Systems The Value of a Fungicide Application on Corn After a Hail Event Comparison of Corn Products from Different Eras to Water Stress Performance of RM Corn Products Grown in RM Regions Breaking Apical Dominance in Soybean High Yield Irrigated Soybean Management Strategies Soybean Irrigation Management Effect of Date, Rate, and Product on Wheat Yield High Management Wheat Response of Different Wheat Products to Tillage Practices

6 CORN PRODUCT PERFORMANCE IN DROUGHT-STRESSED ENVIRONMENTS TRIAL OVERVIEW Producers have many choices when selecting corn products that will fit various stress environments on their farm. However, it is hard to get data from environments that have consistent levels of stress. More data from these environments, particularly with corn products suited to these environments, can be extremely valuable to producers. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE Compare a 113 RM DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO corn product to P1151AM, a 111 RM Pioneer brand corn product with the Optimum AcreMAX trait package and branded AQUAMax. Both corn products were evaluated in several moisture stress environments to determine if there is a yield advantage and to quantify the advantage if one exists. Location Gothenburg, NE Soil Previous Crop Tillage Type Date Harvest Date Silt Loam Corn (5 years) Conventional 05/18/ /08/ Potential Yield/Acre Rate/Acre 34,000 seeds/acre UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS Figure 1: in the Rainout Shelter using a four-row plot planter. Note the irrigation system being installed immediately after planting. Figure 2. Across all stress levels in the study, the DroughtGard Hybrids with VT DoublePRO RIB Complete corn blend product out-performed the AQUAmax product across all irrigation treatments. (LSD 0.1 = 11.9) Figure 3. On average, the DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete corn blend product performed better than the AQUAmax branded product in the four-inch and seven-inch irrigation treatment, while the performance gap narrowed in the 10-inch irrigation Figure 4. Yields were impacted by irrigation treatment with the four-inches of irrigation treatment yielding significantly lower than the seven or 10 inches of irrigation. Water stress was imposed during the vegetative and grain-fill growth stages, with water applied near the VT growth stage time frame to alleviate stress at pollination.( LSD 0.1 = 27.8) 6 Monsanto.com // 2016 Regional Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC.

7 Figure 5: DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete corn Figure 6: AQUAmax branded product displaying weaker staygreen at the midblend product displaying good staygreen at the mid- R5 growth stage in a plot R5 growth stage in a plot irrigated with 4 inches of water. irrigated with 4 inches of water. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR FARM? Research has shown that DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO corn products are a good choice in drought stressed yield environments. This demonstration indicates that DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO corn products also have high yield potential in environments where moisture stress is not a yield-limiting factor. Producers can have confidence in their corn product choice even when rainfall conditions are better than expected. Producers should carefully consider all corn product characteristics for proper product placement. Other considerations may supersede performance in moisture stress conditions. Contact your Monsanto seed representative for appropriate product placement recommendations. LEGAL STATEMENT This publication was developed in partnership with Technology Development & Agronomy by Monsanto. The information discussed in this report is from a single site, non-replicated demonstration. This information piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Monsanto Company is a member of Excellence Through Stewardship (ETS). Monsanto products are commercialized in accordance with ETS Product Launch Stewardship Guidance, and in compliance with Monsanto s Policy for Commercialization of Biotechnology-Derived Plant Products in Commodity Crops. This product has been approved for import into key export markets with functioning regulatory systems. Any crop or material produced from this product can only be exported to, or used, processed or sold in countries where all necessary regulatory approvals have been granted. It is a violation of national and international law to move material containing biotech traits across boundaries into nations where import is not permitted. Growers should talk to their grain handler or product purchaser to confirm their buying position for this product. Excellence Through Stewardship is a registered trademark of Excellence Through Stewardship. B.t. products may not yet be registered in all states. Check with your Monsanto representative for the registration status in your state. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. Always read and follow IRM, where applicable, grain marketing and all other stewardship practices and pesticide label directions. Roundup Ready technology contains genes that confer tolerance to glyphosate, an active ingredient in Roundup brand agricultural herbicides. Agricultural herbicides containing glyphosate will kill crops that are not tolerant to glyphosate. DroughtGard, RIB Complete, Roundup Ready 2 Technology and Design, Roundup Ready, Roundup and VT Double PRO are trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC. Respect the Refuge and Corn Design and Respect the Refuge are registered trademarks of National Corn Growers Association. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners Monsanto Company JEH. 7

8 DROUGHTGARD HYBRIDS CORN PRODUCTS RESPONSE TO OVERWATERING TRIAL OVERVIEW Every year, farmers along with their seed representatives try to predict what corn products and traits will do best in various environments on dryland and irrigated fields. Corn products with DroughtGard Hybrids technology can allow plants to adapt quickly and handle water stressed environments better than corn without the technology. However, there are years when rainfall is plentiful and corn plants may receive more water than needed. Can corn products with DroughtGard Hybrids technology perform as well as corn products without the technology when too much water is received? RESEARCH OBJECTIVE Determine if there are any differences in performance of two corn products with DroughtGard Hybrids Technology compared to two similar products without the technology across irrigated overwatering treatments. Location Gothenburg, NE Soil Hord Silt Loam Previous Crop Tillage Type Date Harvest Date Potential Yield/Acre Wheat Strip-Till 05/05/ /25/ ,940 Rate/Acre SITE NOTES: Two corn products (112 and 113 RM) with DroughtGard Hybrids Technology were compared to two similar products of the same relative maturity in a randomized split-plot design with irrigation treatment as the whole plot and corn product type (with or without DroughtGard Hybrids Technology) as the subplot with four replications. Irrigation treatments with total irrigation applied was as follows: o 100% full irrigation (FI) 5 inches o 160% FI 8.3 inches o 220% FI 11.6 inches o 280% FI 14.8 inches Seasonal rainfall amounts were as follows: o April 6.7 inches o May 7.7 inches o June 2.6 inches o July 3.6 inches o August 0.7 inches o September 0.6 inches Herbicide applications were applied to manage weeds, with no insecticide or fungicide applications. UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS Figure 1. Soil moisture calculated from capacitance probes. 8 Monsanto.com // 2016 Regional Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC.

9 Figure 2. Corn products, with and without DroughtGard Hybrids Technology, response to irrigation treatments and overwatering. Soil moisture calculated from capacitance probes indicated that the 280% FI soil profile had an abundance of moisture over the growing season when compared to the 100% FI soil profile (Figure 1). There was no significant corn product by irrigation treatment interaction with or without DroughtGard Hybrids Technology (Figures 2 and 3). Results were similar to testing conducted in 2015 where no differences were observed between corn products with and without DroughtGard Hybrids technology under irrigation treatments of 100%, 120%, and 160% FI. 1 WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR FARM? Figure 3. Corn products, with and without DroughtGard Hybrids Technology, growing under overwatering conditions at 280% FI. The value of corn products with DroughtGard Hybrids Technology is their ability to yield across a wide range of environments. Farmers should have confidence that corn products with DroughtGard Hybrids Technology will perform as well as corn products without the trait when growing under conditions of excess water from irrigation and/or rainfall. SOURCES 1 Overwatering Corn Products with Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids Technology. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE 2015 Demonstration Report. LEGAL STATEMENT For additional agronomic information, please contact your local brand representative. Developed in partnership with Technology, Development & Agronomy by Monsanto. Monsanto Company is a member of Excellence Through Stewardship (ETS). Monsanto products are commercialized in accordance with ETS Product Launch Stewardship Guidance, and in compliance with Monsanto s Policy for Commercialization of Biotechnology-Derived Plant Products in Commodity Crops. This product has been approved for import into key export markets with functioning regulatory systems. Any crop or material produced from this product can only be exported to, or used, processed or sold in countries where all necessary regulatory approvals have been granted. It is a violation of national and international law to move material containing biotech traits across boundaries into nations where import is not permitted. Growers should talk to their grain handler or product purchaser to confirm their buying position for this product. Excellence Through Stewardship is a registered trademark of Excellence Through Stewardship. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. Always read and follow IRM, where applicable, grain marketing and all other stewardship practices and pesticide label directions. DroughtGard and Monsanto and Vine Design are registered trademarks of Monsanto TechnologyLLC. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners Monsanto Company TED 9

10 DROUGHTGARD HYBRIDS CROP WATER USE Demonstration Report MONSANTO LEARNING CENTER AT GOTHENBURG, NE TRIAL OVERVIEW Drought stress in the Western Great Plains and some other regions in the United States can quickly reduce corn yield potential. DroughtGard Hybrids are part of a systems approach that combines best agronomic recommendations, drought-tolerant germplasm, and a biotech trait for drought-tolerance to help reduce the impact of drought stress. Information and data is needed to help define the potential water use differences between commercial corn products with and without water saving genetics. In an effort to collect data and evaluate potential differences, the Monsanto Water Utilization Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE evaluated satellite imagery from strip-till corn research plots in Colorado and Nebraska initiated in 2014 and Elements of the research project: HydroBio Advanced Remote Sensing was enlisted to provide analysis of satellite imagery through their patented techniques, collect data, and calculate the water use by each product. The goal of the research was to calculate crop water use and derive irrigation crop coefficients (Kc) from the information collected. 18 fields (total) were selected within Colorado and Nebraska for the years of 2014 and Fields had one, two, or three types of the following corn products:»» Monsanto branded products with the DroughtGard Hybrids corn trait.»» Pioneer branded AQUAmax products and Pioneer branded products without AQUAmax.»» 12 rows of each product in 30-inch row spacing in large strip plots.»» Minimum yield of 140 bu/acre. Collected Data Weather Temperature, Relative humidity, Dewpoint, Solar radiation, Wind speed.»» Weather data collected using awhere computer weather services.»» Collected from May 1 thru September 10.»» Data used to calculate reference evapotranspiration (ETo) using modified Penman-Monteith algorithm.»» Geographical Latitude, Longitude, Elevation. Multispectral Satellite Imagery NIR, Red, Green, and Blue spectral bands.»» Satellites used were: Pleiades imagery 1A and 1B, RapidEye SM telecommunications services complex of 5 satellites, and Spot 6 and 7.»» Data provided was in resolutions of 2, 5, and 6-meter pixels Maximum of 1610 pixels/plot. 12 images/plot attempted - lowest number was 4 and greatest number was 17. Imagery Processing»» Images were processed into HydroBio Advanced Remote Sensing specialized vegetation index, which allowed for the pixel data to be clipped to each field s boundaries (Figure 1).»» HydroBio Advanced Remote Sensing removed any anomalous pixels, which never exceeded 9.6% of the total number of pixels.»» Removals helped reduce effects of structures, unplanted acres, or edge boundaries where the pixel may have both vegetation and bare ground reflectance values.»» After vegetation indices were derived, all fields were grouped for a given region by HydroBio Advanced Remote Sensing.»» R. Hermite and cubic spline techniques were used to model the change in vegetative index to produce daily values given the temporal spacing between collected images. Data restricted to dates between emergence and last irrigation (September 10). Fields bundled in the analysis by product and year to smooth any microclimate or minor geographic effects. Fields normalized to crop stage by vegetative index and Growing Degree Days (GDD) from preliminary HydroBio s proprietary Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) measurements taken in late May and early June. Daily values for each field were aggregated and the crop water use estimate from HydroBio provided the value for daily ET. The k-factor was derived using the equation: Kc = ET/ETo. Values were then aggregated by GDD to provide a usable metric and method for using the provided Kc for future irrigation demand calculations. 10 Monsanto.com // 2016 Demonstration Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC.

11 Demonstration Report MONSANTO LEARNING CENTER AT GOTHENBURG, NE Figure 1. Unprocessed imagery with trial boundaries. UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS DroughtGard Hybrids products used less water than all other corn types in this study. Data were categorized by water saving traits and company and crop coefficients (Kc) were generated based on alfalfa reference water use. Maximum Kc for DroughtGard Hybrids types was Other types exceeded 1.00 Kc including Pioneer brand AQUAmax products which peaked at Pioneer brand AQUAmax products had a slightly higher peak and steeper rise, and used more water over the season. Total water savings of 1.8 inches over Pioneer brand AQUAmax products and 2.4 inches over Pioneer brand products without AQUAmax by DroughtGard Hybrids corn products respectively, a 7% water savings by DroughtGard Hybrids Products. Any product with drought tolerant genetics used less water than its non-drought tolerant counterpart, but DroughtGard Hybrids corn products used less water than all other corn products. Irrigation can cost $3 to $10/inch of water. DroughtGard Hybrids corn products delivered an overall savings of $8 to $26/ acre. DroughtGard Hybrids corn products are the foundation of a systems approach designed to help minimize yield loss from drought by combining the industry s first drought-tolerant biotech trait with top-performing drought-tolerant germplasm and agronomic best practice recommendations for water conservation. The DroughtGard Hybrids systems approach yields in all conditions and also allows plants to use water more efficiently. Technology like DroughtGard Hybrids corn products is leading the way in farming innovations that will help feed a growing world population while making the most of finite freshwater supplies. Along with innovation in agricultural practices and breeding, the DroughtGard Hybrids systems approach to hydroefficiency improves the ability of crops to grow in water-limited conditions which in turn improves the chances for a steady harvest and an accessible food supply. Monsanto.com // 2016 Demonstration Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. 11

12 Demonstration Report MONSANTO LEARNING CENTER AT GOTHENBURG, NE TABLE 1. AVERAGE SEASONAL WATER USE BY CATEGORY Product N ET DroughtGard Hybrids Products Pioneer Brand AQUAmax Products Average NDVI (500 GDD) Maximum NDVI Average Yield 18, , Pioneer Brand Corn Products without 36, AQUAmax ET = Evapotranspiration; GDD = Growing Degree Days; NDVI = HydroBio s proprietary Normalized Difference Vegetation Index Source: Data collected from 18 fields in Colorado and Nebraska during the years of 2014 and Crop Coefficient Growing Degree Units Figure 2. Crop Coefficient (Kc) vs Growing Degree Days (GDD) for Pioneer Brand AQUAmax Products Crop Coefficient Growing Degree Units Figure 3. Crop Coefficient (Kc) vs Growing Degree Days (GDD) for Pioneer Brand Products without AQUAmax. 12 Monsanto.com // 2016 Demonstration Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC.

13 Demonstration Report MONSANTO LEARNING CENTER AT GOTHENBURG, NE Crop Coefficient Growing Degree Units Figure 4. Crop Coefficient (Kc) vs Growing Degree Days (GDD) for DroughtGard Hybrids Products Inches of Water DroughtGard Hybrids Trait Products Pioneer Brand AQUAmax Products Pioneer Brand Products without AQUAmax Figure 5. Cumulative Evapotranspiration for Each Category. LEGAL STATEMENT The information discussed in this report is from an 18 site, non-replicated demonstration. This informational piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. This publication was developed in partnership with Technology Development & Agronomy by Monsanto. Monsanto Company is a member of Excellence Through Stewardship (ETS). Monsanto products are commercialized in accordance with ETS Product Launch Stewardship Guidance, and in compliance with Monsanto s Policy for Commercialization of Biotechnology-Derived Plant Products in Commodity Crops. This product has been approved for import into key export markets with functioning regulatory systems. Any crop or material produced from this product can only be exported to, or used, processed or sold in countries where all necessary regulatory approvals have been granted. It is a violation of national and international law to move material containing biotech traits across boundaries into nations where import is not permitted. Growers should talk to their grain handler or product purchaser to confirm their buying position for this product. IMPORTANT IRM INFORMATION: RIB Complete corn blend products do not require the planting of a structured refuge except in the Cotton-Growing Area where corn earworm is a significant pest. See the IRM/Grower Guide for additional information. Always read and follow IRM requirements. Excellence Through Stewardship is a registered trademark of Excellence Through Stewardship. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. Always read and follow IRM, where applicable, grain marketing and all other stewardship practices and pesticide label directions. DroughtGard, Monsanto and Vine Design and RIB Complete are trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners Monsanto Company LGM Monsanto.com // 2016 Demonstration Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. 13

14 CORN PRODUCT PERFORMANCE IN DIFFERENT IRRIGATION ENVIRONMENTS AND PLANTING POPULATIONS TRIAL OVERVIEW Producers often have many different environments on their farm, including different irrigation environments. To help place the best corn products in these unique environments, information is needed on how products perform under reduced irrigation at different planting densities. Figure 1. Variable Rate Irrigation Locations used by Technology Development Figure 2. Example Layout of the Irrigation Blocks at Bethune, CO RESEARCH OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to test corn products at different planting densities under full and limited irrigation in different locations in the Great Plains in order to aid producers in selecting corn products and planting populations that will fit the full and limited irrigation environments on their farm. Location Soil Previous Crop Tillage Type Date Harvest Date Mingo, KS Silt loam Sunflowers Strip-till 05/10/ /10/2016 Bethune, CO Silt loam Soybean Strip-till 05/11/ /13/2016 Hugoton, KS Silt loam Sorghum Strip-till 05/12/ /12/2016 Bruning, NE Silt loam Soybean No-till 05/13/ /15/2016 Potential Yield/Acre Rate/Acre SITE NOTES: At each location, 22 corn products were planted with two replications under two irrigation treatments and four planting densities. Each site was irrigated with a variable rate irrigation system mounted on a pivot that allowed for control of the irrigation at two different levels: 100% full irrigation (100% FI) and 50% of full irrigation (50% FI). For the Mingo, KS site: rainfall = 10.2 inches, ET = 28.0 inches, 50% FI = 7.0 inches, and 100% FI = 13.5 inches. For the Bethune, CO site: rainfall = 9.5 inches, ET = 23.4 inches, 50% FI = 3.5 inches, and 100% FI = 7.1 inches. For the Hugoton, KS site: rainfall = 10.5 inches, ET = 29.7 inches, 50% FI = 9.0 inches, and 100% FI = 18.0 inches. For the Bruning, NE site: rainfall = 12.2 inches, ET = 29.6 inches, 50% FI = 3.6 inches, and 100% FI = 7.2 inches. The four planting densities were: 24,000 seeds/acre (24K), 30,000 seeds/acre (30K), 36,000 seeds/acre (36K), and 42,000 seeds/acre (42K). The plot design was a split-split-plot with irrigation as the main group and corn product as the secondary group. UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS 14 Monsanto.com // 2016 Regional Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC.

15 Table 1. Average Yields in Each Location and Irrigation Treatment Figure 3. Ear Size Was Reduced by a Lower Irrigation Rate and Increased Population Figure 4. Yields by Population for the Two Irrigation Treatments. Corn products that were planted at all four locations were used for the analysis. Figure 5. Performance of Each Corn Product in the Two Irrigation Environments Figure 6. Yields of Selected Corn Products by Irrigation Treatment and Population Figure 7. Return/acre based on a Seed Cost of $322/80K Units and a Corn Price of $3.20 At each location, the 100% FI treatment yielded higher than the 50% FI treatment (Table 1). Increasing planting populations tended to increase yield in both irrigation environments; however, this response was stronger in the 100% FI treatment (Figure 4). 15

16 The performance of each corn product in each environment was assessed against the other products in the study. This allowed a comparison of product performance in two irrigation environments in the same location (Figure 5). - For example, when comparing the 111 RM C product and the 111 RM D product, similar performance was observed in the 100% FI treatment, but the 111 RM D product performed better than the 111 RM C product in the water-stressed 50% FI treatment. A closer look at the data provides detailed information about how each planting population and irrigation treatment environment impacted corn product performance (Figure 6). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR FARM? Corn products vary in their response to different irrigation environments. This data is useful in helping to decide what products to plant in different irrigation environments. The data also highlights how planting population should be varied based on your yield environment. When all corn products are averaged together, the highest yield was reached in both irrigation environments at a planting population of 42K seeds/acre. The highest yield is not always the goal. As figure 7 shows, consider seed price and corn sale price to determine an optimum seeding rate. The optimum seeding rates across the corn products used in this study were 36K seeds/acre in the 100% FI treatment and 30K seeds/acre in the 50% FI treatment. This is a summary of the data from extensive studies on the impact of irrigation environment and planting population on corn yields. Please contact your local Monsanto representative for information on specific corn products and test locations. LEGAL STATEMENT For additional agronomic information, please contact your local brand representative. Developed in partnership with Technology Development & Agronomy by Monsanto. The information discussed in this report is from a multiple site, replicated demonstration. This information piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners Monsanto Company CAM 16

17 HIGH YIELD MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN CORN TRIAL OVERVIEW Producers are focusing on achieving higher potential corn yields possibly by adding inputs; however, the cost of added inputs needs to increase net economic returns. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of various inputs contribution to increasing corn yield potential and maximizing net economic returns in a high-yield irrigated environment. Location Gothenburg, NE Soil Previous Crop Tillage Type Date Harvest Date Potential Yield/Acre Rate/Acre Hord sil loam Soybean Strip-till 04/24/ /18/ bu/acre Variable SITE NOTES: Soil Test Report. All samples collected March 22, *Sampling depth was 0-8 inches for all samples except nitrate and sulfate which were 0-36 inches sampling depth. ph Organic Matter - 2.7% *Nitrate-Nitrogen - 38 lbs/acre Phosphorus (P) (Mehlich-3) - 23 ppm Potassium (K) ppm *Sulfate - 9 ppm Zinc (Zn) ppm Iron (Fe) ppm Manganese (Mn) ppm Copper (Cu) ppm Boron (B) ppm CEC meq/100g Two different seed products were planted in 30-inch row widths except treatment 10 was planted in 8-inch twin rows on 30-inch centers. 109 relative maturity SmartStax RIB Complete corn blend and a 113 relative maturity SmartStax RIB Complete corn blend Precipitation inches/month April May June July August September October Irrigation 6.0 inches of water was applied throughout the growing season. Treatments - The study consisted of basic management inputs with additional inputs added for each treatment. - Subsequent treatments included the previous treatment plus an additional treatment resulting in a building block approach of treatments. - The study was a randomized complete block with management treatments as the main plot and seed products as the subplot with four replications. Treatment 1 - Basic Management: 32,000 seeds/acre 240 lbs nitrogen (N)/acre preplant application 60 lbs phosphorus (P)/acre 30-inch row width Treatment 2 - Plus Density - Increase planting population to 38,000 seeds/acre Treatment 3 - Plus fungicide application at tasseling (VT) growth stage - 10 fl oz/acre of Headline AMP Treatment 4 - Plus 25 lbs of sulfur (S) and 0.5 lb of zinc (Zn)/acre - applied as strip-till Treatment 5 - Plus 10 lbs of potassium (K), 4.8 lb of magnesium (Mg), and 10 lbs S/acre - applied as K Mag PREMIUM with strip-till Treatment 6 - Plus split application of N - 80 lbs/acre preplant, 100 lbs/acre at V7 (7 leaf collars) growth stage, 60/lbs/acre at VT Treatment 7 - Plus fungicide application at V4 (4 leaf collars) growth stage - 6 fl oz/acre of Headline SC Treatment 8 - Plus high density - Increase planting population to 44,000 seeds/acre (increase of 6000 seeds/acre from the previous treatment) Treatment 9 - Plus foliar application of 0.5 lb of zinc (Zn)/acre Treatment 10 - Plus twin rows - 8-inch width twin rows on 30-inch centers (replaced 30-inch row width in the previous treatments) Monsanto.com // 2016 Regional Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. 17

18 UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS Figure 1. Treatment Summary Figure 2. Average Yield and Economic Impact of Subsequent Treatments Figure 3. Ears from 5 feet of row from selected treatments. Increasing plant densities resulted in higher ear counts per acre resulting in higher yields Figure 4. Fungicide treatment plot (left) displaying healthier leaves in the lower plant canopy compared to the no fungicide treatment plot (right). However, there was not a significant yield difference between the two treatments. 18

19 No average yield differences were observed between seed products under these conditions, hence results were averaged across seed products. Average corn yields were increased when densities were increased from 32,000 seeds/acre to 38,000/seeds/acre in treatment 2 and from 38,000 seeds/acre to 44,000 seeds/acre in treatment 8. VT and V4 growth stages fungicide treatments increased average yields under these conditions, but neither were significant. All forms of additional fertility inputs had minimal impact on yields under these conditions. Twin rows were significantly lower yielding than treatments 8 (high density 44,000 seeds/acre) and 9 (Zn foliar application). This may have been due to the twin rows being planted on the edge of the strip-till rather than in the center. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR FARM? There is year-to-year variability from the effect of additional input(s) increasing yield potential. Increased plant density increased yields in a similar 2014 study which had been stressed due to hail damage. A 2015 study resulted in increased plant density having a minimal effect on increasing yield potential; however, fungicides and the addition of sulfur and zinc significantly improved yields. Increasing corn yields can be driven through improved management practices and additional inputs. In times of low commodity prices, additional inputs should be carefully evaluated for their impact on potential yield and net economic return. SOURCES 1 Below, F.E. The seven wonders of the corn yield world. University of Illinois. Web sources verified 01/20/ LEGAL STATEMENT For additional agronomic information, please contact your local brand representative. Developed in partnership with Technology, Development & Agronomy by Monsanto. The information discussed in this report is from a single site, replicated demonstration. This informational piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Monsanto Company is a member of Excellence Through Stewardship (ETS). Monsanto products are commercialized in accordance with ETS Product Launch Stewardship Guidance, and in compliance with Monsanto s Policy for Commercialization of Biotechnology-Derived Plant Products in Commodity Crops. This product has been approved for import into key export markets with functioning regulatory systems. Any crop or material produced from this product can only be exported to, or used, processed or sold in countries where all necessary regulatory approvals have been granted. It is a violation of national and international law to move material containing biotech traits across boundaries into nations where import is not permitted. Growers should talk to their grain handler or product purchaser to confirm their buying position for this product. Excellence Through Stewardship is a registered trademark of Excellence Through Stewardship. B.t. products may not yet be registered in all states. Check with your Monsanto representative for the registration status in your state. IMPORTANT IRM INFORMATION: Genuity RIB Complete corn blend products do not require the planting of a structured refuge except in the Cotton-Growing Area where corn earworm is a significant pest. See the IRM/Grower Guide for additional information. Always read and follow IRM requirements. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Roundup Ready technology contains genes that confer tolerance to glyphosate, an active ingredient in Roundup brand agricultural herbicides. Agricultural herbicides containing glyphosate will kill crops that are not tolerant to glyphosate. Monsanto and Vine Design, RIB Complete, Roundup Ready 2 Technology and Design, Roundup Ready, Roundup and SmartStax are trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC. LibertyLink and the Water Droplet Design is a registered trademark of Bayer. Herculex is a registered trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC. Headline AMP and Headline are registered trademarks of BASF Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners Monsanto Company DLB 19

20 EFFECTS OF NITROGEN APPLICATION STRATEGY ON CORN TRIAL OVERVIEW Farmers are constantly looking for information on how to be more efficient with farm inputs. Nitrogen (N) is an input that provides many options relating to application strategy that can affect the efficient use of the material. The use of irrigation systems to apply N can be a very cost effective application method, because it allows for a delay in N investment. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE The research was set up to determine what effects the N application strategy had on corn. Specifically, whether higher yields result from putting N on before planting, with split applications between planting and irrigation, or applying all of the N through irrigation. Location Gothenburg, NE Soil Previous Crop Tillage Type Date Harvest Date Potential Yield/Acre Silt Loam Corn Strip-till 05/25/ /10/ ,000 Rate/Acre SITE NOTES: The trial was set up as a randomized complete block with 3 replications of 4 treatments. All treatments had a strip-till base application of 40 lbs/acre of phosphorus (P) as which also supplied 12 lbs/acre nitrogen (N) on April 14, At this time the 60 and 120 lb/acre of preplant N treatments were also applied with the strip-tiller. The site was irrigated with subsurface drip irrigation and in-season fertilizer was applied through drip irrigation. Nitrogen application through irrigation started 6 to 10 days before the corn required irrigation for water purposes. Soil test results determined nitrate level was 101 lbs/acre, organic matter was 4%, and soil ph 6.7 with a cation exchange capacity of UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS Figure 1. Corn Yields Based on Nitrogen Application Across Treatments. No treatments were significantly different at the P=0.10 level. The corn had improved stalk diameter because it had more vigorous early-season growth when the majority of N was applied at the beginning of the growing season. The growth effect did not significantly influence yield even in treatments when all the N applications were delayed to growing season applications (Figures 1 and 2). Treatments with N applications after planting had less vigorous early-season growth. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR FARM? 20 Monsanto.com // 2016 Regional Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC.

21 Figure 2. Stalk Diameters and Differences at the P=0.10 Level. Figure 3. Late-season nitrogen stress in Treatment #1 where all of the nitrogen was applied at planting. Figure 4. Corn with less late-season nitrogen stress (leaf chlorosis and necrosis) was shown at the end of the season when all the nitrogen was applied later through irrigation. Nitrogen applications through irrigation are an effective tool to manage N. These N applications did not lead to greater yields in this study, but they did provide yields that were similar to applying all of the fertilizer at planting. Applying all of the N at or near planting can be risky because excessive rainfall could result in leaching. Nitrogen losses result in costly reapplication and rescue treatments required to meet corn needs later in the growing season. If corn is N stressed early in the growing season continue to monitor the field and consider management with sidedress or rescue treatments. In this study, corn reached yield potential similar to the greatest-yielding treatment. This was true even for the first N applications in the late vegetative stage of corn development. LEGAL STATEMENT For additional agronomic information, please contact your local brand representative. Developed in partnership with Technology, Development & Agronomy by Monsanto. The information discussed in this report is from a single site, single year, replicated demonstration. This informational piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Developed in partnership with Technology Development & Agronomy by Monsanto. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners Monsanto Company SEK 21

22 THE IMPACT OF BALING AND LIVESTOCK GRAZING CORN RESIDUE ON SOIL COMPACTION AND CROP YIELD TRIAL OVERVIEW This study was initiated in 2013 to determine if baling or grazing corn stalk operations caused compaction resulting in subsequent penalties in crop yield. This study was a collaborative effort between University of Nebraska and Monsanto. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE Location Soil Previous Crop Tillage Type Date Harvest Date Potential Yield/Acre Rate/Acre Gothenburg, NE Silt Loam Corn Strip-Till/No- Till 05/06/ /18/ ,000 SITE NOTES: A 20-year eastern Nebraska study showed a slight increase in crop yield potential following grazing. 1 A Nebraska farmer survey indicated that 40% of the respondents did not graze their fields; of these 40% indicated that they did not graze due to fear of soil compaction problems. 2 Baling corn residue is an increasing practice due to the expansion of the ethanol industry. This practice may contribute to soil compaction due to heavy tractors and balers driving across wet soils. A 109 RM corn product was selected for the three-year study. Study treatments included: 1)Baled corn stalks - Corn stalks were harvested with a rotary blade windrower and large round baler 2)Grazed corn stalks - Cattle were grazed for residue removal at the recommended rate of 1.5 animal unit month (AUM)/acre. 3)No residue removal. The main treatment blocks had five replications and were split into sub-treatments: 1)Irrigation - A)Full irrigation and limited irrigation during the growing season B)Limited irrigation was targeted at 2-4 inches less than full irrigation; 2)Tillage: Strip-till and no-till Annual soil penetrometer readings were taken in the no-till plots within the three residue removal main treatments at one-inch increments down to 10 inches. UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS Table 1. Penetrometer psi results for top 11 inches of soil with different residue treatments. Figure 1. Effect of tillage interaction and residue treatment on average corn yield. Average Crop Yield Results - When averaged over the three-year study there was no significant difference in yield among the previous crop removal treatments. However, in 2014 the previous no residue removal treatment had a significantly higher yield compared to the baled and grazed treatments. 3 This could be due to dry conditions during the late vegetative and early reproductive corn growth stages that year. Environmental conditions in 2015 and 2016 provided adequate moisture for successful pollination; therefore, no significant differences in average yield for the residue treatments were reported for the three-year study. 22 Monsanto.com // 2016 Regional Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC.

23 There was a significant yield difference among the tillage treatments, strip-till showed an average yield increase of 8 bu/acre over no-till (Table 3). There was also an interaction between residue treatment and tillage operation as evidenced in Figure 1. Treatments which left higher residue (grazed and no removal) benefited from a strip-till operation. There was a significant difference among the irrigation treatments (Table 4). Full irrigation reported an average yield increase of 7 bu/acre over limited irrigation. However, there was no interaction between removal method and irrigation treatments. The lack of interaction is likely due to maintaining near the minimum recommended residue level (4,000 lbs/acre) for reducing soil water evaporation. 4 WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR FARM? In a continuous irrigated corn system, when compared to no residue removal, baled, and grazed treatments increased penetrometer readings, but did not reduce yield potential. Baled and grazed treatments may improve stands and yields when cool, wet springs occur. Aggressive baling and grazing operations should be avoided to maintain sufficient residue levels to limit soil water evaporation. In high residue conditions, strip-till may improve stands and yields in a cool, wet spring. SOURCES 1 McGee, A.L., Klopfenstein, T.J., Stalker, L.A., and Erickson, G.E Effect of grazing corn residue on corn and soybean yields Nebraska Beef CattleReport. MP98. University of Nebraska. 2 Drewnoski, M., Cox, J., MacDonald, J., Blanco, H., Franzen-Castle, L., and Rasby, R Nebraska farmer perspectives on grazing corn residue. CropWatch. March 1, University of Nebraska Demonstration Report Effect of residue removal on irrigated corn yields. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE. Monsanto. 4 Lyon, D Seeding populations for Western Nebraska dryland corn. CropWatch. University of Nebraska. LEGAL STATEMENT The information discussed in this report is from a single demonstration at three sites. This informational piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. Monsanto and Vine Design is trademark a of Monsanto Technology LLC. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners Monsanto Company CRB. 23

24 THE IMPACT OF ROW SPACING IN HIGH DENSITY CORN SYSTEMS TRIAL OVERVIEW Corn seeding rates are increasing in both irrigated and dryland environments as indicated by final plant populations and ear counts in the most recent USDA Crop Production Summary. 1 As farmers move production into higher density systems, continued evaluation of production factors is necessary. Figure 1. Average irrigated corn seeding rate in Nebraska from 2011 to Figure 2. Average dryland corn seeding rate in Nebraska from 2011 to RESEARCH OBJECTIVE This study was established to determine the impact of 30-inch rows and 30-inch twin rows planted at high seeding densities on corn yield potential. Location Gothenburg, NE Soil Previous Crop Tillage Type Date Harvest Date Potential Yield/Acre Rate/Acre Silt Loam Soybean Strip-till 04/25/ /11/ ,000 SITE NOTES: A 114 RM corn product was planted with a 30-inch planter and a 30-inch twin row planter with rows 8 inches apart. Three replications were laid out in a randomized complete block of four-row plots 80 feet long by 10 feet wide. UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS Figure 3. Ear size and plant spacing at 60,000 plants/acre in 30-inch row spacing. Figure 4. Ear size and plant spacing at 60,000 plants/acre in 30-inch twin rows. Yield was significantly increased by planting the 114 RM corn product in 30-inch twin rows as compared to standard 30- inch rows. In this demonstration, corn planted on 30-inch twin rows had a higher average yield than corn planted on 30-inch single rows. Average yield increased as seeding density increased at 48,000 and 54,000 seeds/acre. 24 Monsanto.com // 2016 Regional Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC.

25 Figure 5. Average yield of 114 RM corn product in 30-inch single and 30-inch twin row spacing. Yield was significantly increased by planting the 114 RM corn product in 30-inch twin rows as compared to standard 30- inch rows. In this demonstration, corn planted on 30-inch twin rows had a higher average yield than corn planted on 30-inch single rows. Average yield increased as seeding density increased at 48,000 and 54,000 seeds/acre. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR FARM? Figure 6. Average yield of 114 RM corn product by planting rate and row spacing. This study indicated that different row spacings such as 30-inch twin rows could increase yield potential over standard 30- inch rows when planting a high density corn product. However, this was only one corn product in one environment, so continued studies to assess more corn products and row spacings, such as 20-inch rows, will help build a better body of data. Results of previous research have varied and earlier work in Nebraska has indicated a 3 bu/acre advantage of using 30-inch twin row spacing when compared to 30-inch row spacing. 2 SOURCES 1 Crop Production 2015 Summary United States Department of Agriculture, National Statistics Service. ISSN: Barr, R.L., Mason, S.C., Novacek, M.J., Wortmann, C.S., and Rees, J.M Row spacing and seeding rate recommendations for corn in Nebraska. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension. G LEGAL STATEMENT For additional agronomic information, please contact your local brand representative. Developed in partnership with Technology Development & Agronomy by Monsanto. The information discussed in this report is from a single site, replicated demonstration. This information piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. Always read and follow IRM, where applicable, grain marketing and all other stewardship practices and pesticide label directions Monsanto Company MEC 25

26 THE VALUE OF A FUNGICIDE APPLICATION ON CORN AFTER A HAIL EVENT TRIAL OVERVIEW Hail during the corn-growing season is a common occurrence on the Great Plains. Growers may consider applying a fungicide one week after a hail event as a way to help reduce the effects of hail damage on their corn crop. Fungicides can help control foliar diseases like gray leaf spot, leaf blights, and rust which can occur without plant injury. Diseases that can occur after plant injury include Goss s Wilt, common smut, and stalk rots, which are not effectively controlled by fungicides. Figure 1. The VT growth stage with 60% defoliation, September 13, RESEARCH OBJECTIVE This study was established to evaluate if a foliar fungicide application following a mid-season hail event can increase the yield potential of a corn crop. Location Gothenburg, NE Soil Previous Crop Tillage Type Date Harvest Date Potential Yield/Acre Silt Loam Corn Strip Till 05/06/ /31/ ,000 Rate/Acre UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS Figure 2. Average yield by corn growth stage and percent defoliation. 26 Monsanto.com // 2016 Regional Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC.

27 There was no significant interaction between corn growth stage, percent defoliation, or fungicide application. There was no significant benefit of a fungicide application. Both the fungicide application and the no fungicide application treatments had an average yield of 167 bu/acre across all corn growth stages and defoliation treatments. These results vary from the Gothenburg Learning Center report published in 2015 where an 11 bu/acre increase in yield potential was observed when a fungicide was applied. This potentially was the result of dry weather conditions in Gothenburg in August with only 0.7 inches of precipitation recorded compared to 3.7 inches of precipitation in This environmental difference after fungicide application likely influenced results since more rainfall and higher humidity in 2015 was more conducive to foliar disease incidence and severity, possibly allowing fungicide application to result in increased yield potential. The timing of the hail damage was significant with more yield loss observed on corn with 60% defoliation at the VT growth stage compared to corn with 60% defoliation at the R2 growth stage, or 104 to 136 bu/acre (LSD (0.1) = 13). Hail damage during the VT growth stage occurs before flowering and pollination, which may lead to decreased yield potential as compared to the R2 growth stage when seed set has occurred. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR FARM? The benefit of a fungicide application on corn is independent as to whether or not the corn was injured by hail. Fields that experience wet and mild conditions during grain fill may benefit from a fungicide application. The benefit of a fungicide would be less likely if conditions were dry during grain fill. Severe hail damage at the VT growth stage consistently had the most negative effect on yield potential. LEGAL STATEMENT The information discussed in this report is from a single site, replicated demonstration. This information piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. Always read and follow IRM, where applicable, grain marketing and all other stewardship practices and pesticide label directions. Headline AMP is a registered trademark of BASF Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners Monsanto Company MEC 27

28 COMPARISON OF CORN PRODUCTS FROM DIFFERENT ERAS TO WATER STRESS TRIAL OVERVIEW This study highlights the advancements, through breeding and crop technologies, in the ability of corn products to yield in different environments. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE Location Gothenburg, NE Soil Previous Crop Tillage Type Date Harvest Date Potential Yield/Acre Hord silt loam Soybean Strip-tillage 04/26/ /21/ bu/acre Rate/Acre 33,940 seeds/acre SITE NOTES: Three corn products were used in this study: A popular corn product from the 1970s, XL45A Brand, 110 relative maturity (RM), small seed, first product sold in an 80,000 seed count bag. A popular corn product from the 1990s, NC Brand, 111RM. A current product, DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete Corn Blend product, 112 RM. Three irrigation treatments were used: 100% full irrigation (FI) (6 inches applied), 50% FI (3 inches applied), and a dryland control. Seasonal rainfall: April 6.7 inches; May 7.7 inches; June 2.65 inches; July 3.61 inches; August 0.69 inches; September 0.61 inches. Total 22 inches. Environmental stress during the growing season was low as calculated by the stress units (SSUs) from Smartfield. Modern day herbicides were used for weed control, no insecticides or fungicides were applied. The study was set up as a randomized split plot design with three replications. UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS Comparison of Corn Products from Different Eras to Water Stress Comparison of Corn Products from Different Eras to Water Stress The DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete Corn Blend product provided greater yield potential across irrigation environments when compared with the other corn products. Comparing products in the dryland versus 50% FI treatments, the DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete Corn Blend product produced 6% and 9% more grain than NC+4880 Brand and XL45A Brand, respectively. Similar results were obtained in The DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete Corn Blend product had significantly less stalk lodging and barren plants than the other products (data not shown). 28 Monsanto.com // 2016 Regional Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC.

29 Gothenburg Daily SSU by Irrigation by Date 1970s product XL45A Brand at 50% FI 1990s product NC Brand at 50% FI DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete Corn Blend product at 50% FI WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR FARM? The DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete Corn Blend product performed well across the different irrigation treatments. The value of DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete Corn Blend products is the ability to perform across a wide range of environments, a consideration for farmers when evaluating corn products for a variable environment. Corn breeders and crop technologies help improve drought stress for higher yield potential. LEGAL STATEMENT For additional agronomic information, please contact your local brand representative. Developed in partnership with Technology Development & Agronomy by Monsanto. Monsanto Company is a member of Excellence Through Stewardship (ETS). Monsanto products are commercialized in accordance with ETS Product Launch Stewardship Guidance, and in compliance with Monsanto s Policy for Commercialization of Biotechnology-Derived Plant Products in Commodity Crops. This product has been approved for import into key export markets with functioning regulatory systems. Any crop or material produced from this product can only be exported to, or used, processed or sold in countries where all necessary regulatory approvals have been granted. It is a violation of national and international law to move material containing biotech traits across boundaries into nations where import is not permitted. Growers should talk to their grain handler or product purchaser to confirm their buying position for this product. Excellence Through Stewardship is a registered trademark of Excellence Through Stewardship. B.t. products may not yet be registered in all states. Check with your Monsanto representative for the registration status in your state. IMPORTANT IRM INFORMATION: RIB Complete corn blend products do not require the planting of a structured refuge except in the Cotton-Growing Area where corn earworm is a significant pest. See the IRM/Grower Guide for additional information. Always read and follow IRM requirements. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Roundup Ready technology contains genes that confer tolerance to glyphosate, an active ingredient in Roundup brand agricultural herbicides. Agricultural herbicides containing glyphosate will kill crops that are not tolerant to glyphosate. DroughtGard, Monsanto and Vine Design, RIB Complete, Roundup Ready 2 Technology and Design, Roundup Ready, Roundup and VT Double PRO are trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC Monsanto Company JSC 29

30 PERFORMANCE OF RM CORN PRODUCTS GROWN IN RM REGIONS TRIAL OVERVIEW Concerns over potential water shortages and water restrictions in some corn growing areas of the western Great Plains have prompted some farmers to look at alternatives to full-season corn production with irrigation. One strategy for dealing with limited water availability is to use a shorter relative maturity (RM) corn product. Farmers considering this strategy will need to know what yield levels can be expected from corn products that are day RM earlier than the products that are widely grown in that region. This trial took place over three seasons (from ) at 5-6 locations per year. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to compare the yield performance of several RM corn products grown in regions that typically grow RM corn products. Location Soil Previous Crop Tillage Type Date Harvest Date Potential Yield/Acre Bruning, NE Silt loam Corn Conventional 05/06/ /16/ bu/acre Battle Creek, NE Gothenburg, NE Loamy sand Corn Conventional 05/24/ /26/ bu/acre Silt loam Soybean Strip Till 04/25/ /20/ bu/acre Colby, KS Silt loam Sunflower Strip Till 05/08/ /13/ bu/acre Bethune, CO Silt loam Soybean Strip Till 05/15/ /17/ bu/acre Rate/Acre 32,000 seeds/acre 33,000 seeds/acre 34,000 seeds/acre 34,000 seeds/acre 34,000 seeds/acre SITE NOTES: Six different corn products with RM ranging from were grown along with a 110 RM corn product as a control (check) at each location. All sites were irrigated to meet ET demands, and normal planting dates were targeted. Trial entries were replicated three times at all sites. UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS Table 1. Average Yields across Locations (*also used as a check but not grown at all locations) The RM corn products consistently yielded 81-88% of the yield of the 110 RM check during the course of this trial. This data supports a similar study conducted by Monsanto in in which similar trends were found. 30 Monsanto.com // 2016 Regional Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC.

31 WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR FARM? Based on the results of this study, farmers can expect approximately 2 bu/acre less yield potential per RM day when planting corn products with an earlier RM than the corn products they would normally plant in RM regions. A previous study conducted at Kansas State University has indicated that as much as 3 inches less water may be required for 95 RM corn products compared to RM corn products. Farmers must consider the economics of the potential water savings and potential yield penalties with earlier maturing products when choosing products for their field. LEGAL STATEMENT For additional agronomic information, please contact your local brand representative. Developed in partnership with Technology Development & Agronomy by Monsanto. The information discussed in this report is from a multiple site, multiple year, replicated demonstration. This information piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners Monsanto Company CAM 31

32 BREAKING APICAL DOMINANCE IN SOYBEAN TRIAL OVERVIEW Stressing soybean plants during early growth (up to stage V4) by using tactics such as herbicide treatments, mowing, or rolling can break apical dominance and encourage branching. Studies on the effectiveness of this strategy to increase yield potential have shown mixed results. 1,2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to determine if breaking apical dominance in soybean provides a yield benefit and if so, to determine the most effective method and the most effective timing. Location Gothenburg, NE Soil Previous Crop Tillage Type Date Harvest Date Potential Yield/Acre Rate/Acre Hord silt loam Wheat No-till 06/06/ /30/ bu/acre 160,000 seeds/a SITE NOTES: The same 2.4 RM soybean product was planted in all plots. A total of six treatments were tested which include three common methods used to break apical dominance (herbicide applications of 12.5 oz/acre Cobra, mowing with a lawn mower, and rolling with a lawn roller) at two different growth stages (V2 applied on June 22, 2016 and V4 applied on June 30, 2016). The trial was set up using a randomized complete block design with 6 replications. UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS Figure 1. Soybean Yields under the Different Treatments Some of the treatments had higher yields than the control, but none were significantly different (Figure 1). This indicates that, statistically, the treatments were unlikely to have any effect on yield. The stage of growth when the treatments were performed had no significant effect on yield. 32 Monsanto.com // 2016 Regional Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC.

33 Figure 2. Plots Showing Delayed Leaf Senescence Varying levels of delayed leaf senescence were observed in the treatments applied to break apical dominance compared to the untreated plots, resulting in a checkerboard pattern (Figure 2). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR FARM? Based on the results of this and other studies, breaking apical dominance in order to encourage branching likely has a limited ability to improve yield potential. These results could vary based on environmental conditions and management practices. For example, plant damage caused by mowing or rolling can increase the potential for pathogen invasion, especially in wet springs. Significant yield differences could occur with earlier planting. SOURCES 1 DeJong-Hughes, J., Holen, D., and Glogoza, P. Management considerations for rolling soybean in the upper Midwest. University of Minnesota Extension. 2 Cope, A. Early season soybean stress matters. Farm Journal. LEGAL STATEMENT For additional agronomic information, please contact your local brand representative. Developed in partnership with Technology Development & Agronomy by Monsanto. The information discussed in this report is from a single site, replicated demonstration. This information piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. Cobra is a registered trademark of Valent U.S.A. Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners Monsanto Company CAM 33

34 HIGH YIELD IRRIGATED SOYBEAN MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TRIAL OVERVIEW Soybeans are an exceptional rotational crop for corn. However, consistent higher soybean yields are desired by many farmers. With this in mind, two research trials were conducted evaluating which components such as fertility and crop protection products in a soybean system have the greatest effect on increasing irrigated soybean yield. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE The purpose of the first study (High Management) was to evaluate the effects of manageable inputs on an irrigated soybean crop. An additional study (Nitrogen Fertility) was conducted to evaluate the application of nitrogen (N) on soybean yield potential. Location Gothenburg, NE (High Management) Gothenburg, NE (Nitrogen Fertility) Soil Previous Crop Tillage Type Date Harvest Date Silt Loam Corn Strip-till 04/25/ /23/ Potential Yield/Acre Rate/Acre 160,000 to 220,000 Silt Loam Corn Strip-till 05/06/ /27/ ,000 SITE NOTES: High Management. The first soybean study (High Management) evaluated several high yield management practices and was planted on April 25, It was a randomized complete block design with four replications. At the strip-till timing, the low management treatment had 10 gallons of applied on April 15, All other treatments had 23 gallons of , and 8.4 gallons of S applied on April 15, 2016 (Table 1). Nitrogen Fertility. The second soybean study (Nitrogen Fertility) was planted on May 6, 2015 and evaluated the effects of inoculation and fertilization. The study was a randomized complete block design with six replications. A fertilizer application of 10 gallons of was made April 15, 2016 to provide a base rate of phosphorus (Table 2). UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS 34 Monsanto.com // 2016 Regional Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC.

35 In the High Management Study, treatment 7 with the additional fungicide plus the previously added management factors and treatment 8 with the increased seeding rate had significantly greater yields than the low management treatment and provided the most yield benefit (Table 3). No fertilizer treatment increased yield in either study (Table 3 and Table 4). These results are similar to Even though the nitrogen management study was specifically placed in an area with low residual nitrogen in 2016, there was still no observed yield benefit. Reasons for this could be one or both of the following factors. --High organic matter level in the soil of 2.8% which allows for the mineralization of nitrogen over the growing season. --Additional nitrogen applied through the pivot in the irrigation water of approximately 15 lbs/acre. In addition, soil type may have a significant effect on whether late-season nitrogen applications influence yield. No soil effect was observed at the Gothenburg Learning Center on our silt loam soils; however, a positive impact may be observed on soils with high clay content. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR FARM? To reach the high end range of yield potential for soybeans, soybean crop needs should be evaluated on each field. Highyielding soybeans come from managing yield-reducing factors such as disease, insects, irrigation, weeds, nutrient deficiency, and cultural practices. LEGAL STATEMENT For additional agronomic information, please contact your local brand representative. Developed in partnership with Technology, Development & Agronomy by Monsanto. The information discussed in this report is from a multiple site, single year, replicated demonstration. This informational piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. Headline is a registered trademark of BASF Corporation. Cobra is a registered trademark of Valent U.S.A. Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners Monsanto Company AMH 35

36 SOYBEAN IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT TRIAL OVERVIEW Many farmers are faced with water restrictions and/or limited well capacity and need information on how to maximize soybean yield while using the least amount of water. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate soybean yield response when irrigation is delayed until the R3 and R4 growth stages and with less water applied compared to soybean yields when supplied with full irrigation initiated earlier in the season. Location Gothenburg, NE Soil Hord Silt Loam Previous Crop Tillage Type Date Harvest Date Potential Yield/Acre Corn Strip-Till 05/14/ /21/ bu/acre Rate/Acre 160,000 seeds/acre SITE NOTES: Three different 2.4 RM soybean products were used in this study. Five different irrigation treatments were tested plus a dryland control (Table 1): Full irrigation (100% FI), two treatments above full irrigation to verify that full yield potential was actually achieved with the 100% FI treatment, and two treatments below full irrigation initiated at R3 or R4 to evaluate the effect of delayed and deficit irrigation on soybean yield. The study was set up as a randomized split-plot with irrigation amount as the whole plot and soybean product as the subplot with three replications. The irrigation system was subsurface drip with drip tapes buried 10 to 12 inches deep and spaced 40 inches apart. UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS Figure 1. Soil Water Chart for the 100% FI Treatment Table 1. Irrigation Treatment Effect on Yield No differences in yield were observed between the soybean products; therefore, yields from the three products were combined for each treatment. However, the irrigation treatments did have a significant effect on yield and were analyzed individually (Table 1). Above average rainfall lead to relatively high yields in all plots. Of this rainfall, 20.7 inches was received from mid-april through July; however, rainfall in August and September was only 0.7 and 0.6 inches, respectively. The 50% FI treatment yielded 97% of the 100% FI treatment while using 3 inches less water. As shown in Figure 2, the dryland treatment (left) showed earlier senescence while the 50% FI treatment (middle) and the other treatments (right image shows the 150% FI treatment) showed similar senescence, indicating that the dryland field (non-irrigated control) experienced late-season stress but the irrigation treatments did not experience the same level of stress. 36 Monsanto.com // 2016 Regional Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC.

37 Figure 2. Late-season Stress was not Observed in the Irrigation Treatments WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR FARM? For those farmers with limited water supplies or allocations, a majority of the soybean yield can be captured if timely irrigation is made during the R4 growth stage when growing conditions are adequate to meet the needs of the soybean crop early in the season. LEGAL STATEMENT For additional agronomic information, please contact your local brand representative. Developed in partnership with Technology Development & Agronomy by Monsanto. The information discussed in this report is from a single site, replicated demonstration. This information piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners Monsanto Company CAM 37

38 Demonstration Report MONSANTO LEARNING CENTER AT GOTHENBURG, NE EFFECT OF PLANTING DATE, RATE AND PRODUCT ON WHEAT YIELD TRIAL OVERVIEW There can be advantages to adjusting the planting density when changing planting dates for wheat. A study in Kansas determined increased seeding rate had a yield benefit for fields planted later than the optimal seeding date. 1 This four-year study also determined that seeding rate does not affect yield with the earliest planting date. Plants from the early planting date had adequate time to tiller. Tillers allow plants to adjust to environmental conditions and can account for 70 percent of grain yield in a normal year. There is less time for tillering with later planting dates. 2 date should allow for sufficient, but not excessive tillers. too early can lead to: (1) excessive fall tillering, (2) depleted soil moisture, and (3) increased pest pressure. Fall tillers may die and spring tillers could develop; however, yield potential between fall- and spring-developed tillers may differ. 2 Increased planting density is another way to increase the number of wheat heads per acre. This study was conducted in attempt to better understand planting date and population for different wheat products. Specifically, the study set out to find the best timing and planting rate for different wheat products grown in western Nebraska. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE Wheat products used in this study included WB-CEDAR (Early Maturity); WB4458 (Medium-Early Maturity), WINTERHAWK (Medium Maturity), and WB-GRAINFIELD (Medium-Late Maturity). Wheat was no-till planted into wheat residue on four different dates: September 28, October 13, October 28, and November 24. Three seeding rates were used: 800,000; 1,400,000; and 2,000,000 seeds/acre. The study was located in a dryland field with adequate moisture. The field was no-till and in a winter wheat rotation. Study design was a randomized complete block with a factorial design with factors: (1) planting date, (2) wheat product, and (3) seeding rate and had four replications. UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS Yield (bu/acre) SEP 28 OCT 13 OCT 28 NOV 24 WB-CEDAR (Early Maturity) WB4458 (Medium-Early Maturity) WINTERHAWK (Medium Maturity) WB-GRAINFIELD (Medium-Late Maturity) % of lodging SEP 28 OCT 13 OCT 28 NOV 24 WB-CEDAR (Early Maturity) WB4458 (Medium-Early Maturity) WINTERHAWK (Medium Maturity) WB-GRAINFIELD (Medium-Late Maturity) Figure 1. Effect of Date on Yield Figure 2. Effect of Date on Lodging 38 Monsanto.com // 2016 Demonstration Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC.

39 Demonstration Report MONSANTO LEARNING CENTER AT GOTHENBURG, NE UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS bu/acre [LSD (0.05) = 4.8] lodging [LSD (0.05) = 10] LSD (0.05) = 4.8 LSD (0.05)= Average Yield (bu/acre) % Lodging SEP ,000 SEP 28-1,400,000 SEP 28-2,000,000 OCT ,000 OCT 13-1,400,000 OCT 13-2,000,000 OCT ,000 Date - Seeding Rate OCT 28-1,400,000 OCT 28-2,000,000 NOV ,000 NOV 24-1,400,000 NOV 24-2,000,000 0 Figure 3. Yield and Lodging at Different Dates and Rates Number of Wheat heads/sq ft SEP 28 OCT 13 OCT 28 NOV 24 Date Figure 4. Effect of Date on Number of Wheat Heads WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR FARM? With earlier planting comes a greater risk of lodging at harvest. Yield potential diminished with later planting dates. The October 13 planting date provided the best timing to limit lodging, while still capturing yield potential for the growing conditions observed in the fall of While a normal planting date is optimum, reducing the planting population may help reduce lodging at earlier planting dates. Increasing the planting population at later planting dates may help increase yield potential to compensate for fewer tillers. SOURCES LSD (0.05)= 17 1 Olson, B. and Aiken, R Wheat planting date and seeding rate research in northwest Kansas. Kansas State University. 2 Klein, R. Winter wheat seeding date can have major effect on yields. UNL CropWatch. University of Nebraska, Lincoln. LEGAL STATEMENT The information discussed in this report is from a multiple site, single year, non-replicated demonstration. This informational piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS Monsanto Company SEK Monsanto.com // 2016 Demonstration Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. 39

40 Demonstration Report MONSANTO LEARNING CENTER AT GOTHENBURG, NE HIGH MANAGEMENT WHEAT TRIAL OVERVIEW Farmers typically view wheat as a low management crop. However, additional management may increase the profitability of wheat. Yield and protein benefits can vary with changes to management inputs: seeding rate, nitrogen (N) rate, and fungicide. Costs of inputs should be carefully weighed by producers against their individual and combined potential benefits to optimize profitability. Seeding Rate: Plant population affects tillering, which can affect the size and number of wheat heads contributing to grain yield potential. Nitrogen rate: Until plants reach the stem elongation stage, N generally benefits yield. After stem elongation, N contributes primarily to grain protein content. 1 Fungicide: In 2015, a Gothenburg Learning Center study found fungicide treatment provided an 11 to 14 bu/acre benefit compared to wheat without a fungicide application under significant (stripe) rust pressure. 2 This study was designed to evaluate additional management practices to determine their individual and combined effects on wheat yield. Can a more intensive management of wheat with specific attention paid to seeding rate, fertilizer, or fungicide applications increase wheat yield? RESEARCH OBJECTIVE Medium-maturity wheat product, WINTERHAWK, was planted on October 1, The field was dryland, no-till, and previously planted to soybean. Study was setup as a randomized complete block with a factorial design and three factors: seeding rate, N rate, and fungicide application. There were four replications in the study. TABLE 1. PLANTING RATE, NITROGEN RATE, AND FUNGICIDE TREATMENTS. Rate Low 800,000 seeds/acre High 1,600,000 seeds/acre Nitrogen Fertilizer (applied March 23, 2016) Low 30 lbs/n/acre High 90 lbs/n/acre Fungicide (applied May 12, 2016) No Fungicide Twinline Fungicide at 9 oz/acre UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS Yield (bu/acre) LSD (0.05) = 6.7 With Without Fungicide Application Figure 1. High Management Wheat Study at the Gothenburg Learning Center Figure 2. Effect of Fungicide Application on Yield. 40 Monsanto.com // 2016 Demonstration Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC.

41 Demonstration Report MONSANTO LEARNING CENTER AT GOTHENBURG, NE UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS 12.5 Grain Protein (%) Fungicide 9.5 Seed Rate (x 100k seeds/acre) Nitrogen (lbs/acre) With With With With Without Without Without Without Figure 3. Wheat Grain Protein WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR FARM? Seeding Rate: Increasing the seeding rate resulted in a 9 bu/acre increase, but the results were statistically similar. Since this growing season had very good growing conditions, the low seeding rate was able to produce similar yield. Nitrogen Rate: Additional N application only increased yield by 3 bu/acre, and yields between application rates were not statistically significant. Minimal rainfall leading up to the jointing growth stage may have affected N uptake by plant roots. Producers should be aware of residual N levels. These levels can differ between fall and spring sampling. Nitrogen may be lost by leaching or denitrification; alternatively, mineralization can add N to the soil profile. Fields with lower landscapes may have greater N mineralization rates. Therefore, higher N inputs may not be needed to increase yields in lower landscaped fields. 3 Fungicide: Fungicide application increased yield by 22.5 bu/acre. This spring was wetter than average and the application of fungicide aided plant health. Fungicide application increased seed size as shown by the increased weight of a 1000 seeds. Improved plant health likely allowed for a longer period of grain fill and larger sized seed. Increased seed size helps explain the large increased yield observed with fungicide application in this study. Protein: Grain was analyzed to determine grain protein content for a comparison between treatments (the data was not replicated). The application of fungicide tended to increase grain protein. There was also a trend for increased grain protein with higher N rate application. Nitrogen is a basic building block for protein, and higher amounts of N at grain fill can lead to increased grain protein. SOURCES 1 Jones, C. and Olson-Rutz, K Nitrogen management for grain yield and protein in the Northern Great Plains. 2 Gothenburg, NE Learning Center Summary, Stripe rust and the effect of fungicide application on wheat. Monsanto Technology and Development. Monsanto Company. 3 Franzen, D Economics and nitrogen fertilization for corn and wheat in the Northern Great Plains. Crops & Soils. Vol. 48: LEGAL STATEMENT The information discussed in this report is from a single site, single year, replicated demonstration. This informational piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners Monsanto Company SEK Monsanto.com // 2016 Demonstration Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. 41

42 Demonstration Report MONSANTO LEARNING CENTER AT GOTHENBURG, NE RESPONSE OF DIFFERENT WHEAT PRODUCTS TO TILLAGE PRACTICES TRIAL OVERVIEW The adoption of no-till or reduced tillage practices has been significant, especially in water-limited regions. No-till systems have become profitable due to decreased cost of fuel, producers becoming experienced in management, and long-term soil benefits. Some studies demonstrate yield increases to no-till wheat production; this is often linked to better water retention. Soils with improved water retention and minimal surface runoff are characterized by having surface residue and reduced erosion. Better water retention is particularly linked to increased infiltration, greater snow catch, improved soil structure and health. Producers have expressed concerns about wheat emergence when making the transition to no-till. Management changes to consider in the transition to no-till include machinery, planting date, seeding rate, nutrients, rotation, weed control, and wheat product. This study attempts to evaluate the response of different wheat products to no-till and conventional tillage environments. Questions answered in this study include - Is wheat yield affected by tillage practice? Do different wheat products have a yield response with different tillage practices? RESEARCH OBJECTIVE Wheat products were planted October 22, 2015: Early Maturity (WB-CEDAR); Medium-Early Maturity (WB4458); Medium Maturity (WINTERHAWK); Medium-Late Maturity (WB-GRAINFIELD). Field was previously soybean with 90 lbs nitrogen, 30 lbs sulfur, and 40 lbs phosphorus applied in the spring. Propiconazole was applied on May 5, 2016 (jointing growth stage) for stripe rust (Puccinia striiformis) control. Field was in dryland production and received adequate rainfall. The study was set up using a randomized splitplot design with four replications. Study was designed with tillage practice as the whole plot, and subplot was wheat product. Plots with conventional tillage as a treatment received vertical tillage on October 21, Each wheat product was evaluated under conventional tillage and no-till conditions. TABLE 1. WHEAT PRODUCT UNDER CONVENTIONAL AND NO-TILLAGE PROGRAMS. Early Maturity Medium-Early Maturity Medium Maturity Medium-Late Maturity (WB-CEDAR) (WB4458) (WINTERHAWK) (WB-GRAINFIELD) UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS LSD (0.05) = NS Yield (bu/acre) WB-CEDAR (Early Maturity) WB4458 (Medium-Early Maturity) WINTERHAWK (Medium Maturity) WB-GRAINFIELD (Medium- Late Maturity) Wheat Product Conventional Tillage No-Till Figure 1. Conventional tillage versus no-till. 42 Monsanto.com // 2016 Demonstration Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC.

43 Demonstration Report MONSANTO LEARNING CENTER AT GOTHENBURG, NE UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS Yield was influenced by wheat product. The medium-late maturity product (WB-GRAINFIELD) tended to have greater yield compared to the others under both no-till and conventional tillage. TABLE 2. WHEAT PRODUCT YIELD AVERAGED OVER CONVENTIONAL AND NO-TILL SYSTEMS. Wheat Product Average Yield (bu/acre) Early Maturity (WB-CEDAR) 88.5 Medium-Early Maturity (WB4458) 84.1 Medium Maturity (WINTERHAWK) 89.6 Medium-Late Maturity (WB-GRAINFIELD) LSD (0.05) = 4.7 WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOUR FARM Tillage did not affect yield nor did the wheat products respond differently to tillage in this trial. Precipitation was adequate in this growing season, but in years with greater water stress, no-till could potentially provide a benefit. LEGAL STATEMENT The information discussed in this report is from a single site, non-replicated demonstration. This informational piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible Monsanto Company SEK Monsanto.com // 2016 Demonstration Report Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. 43

44 Demonstration Report MONSANTO LEARNING CENTER AT GOTHENBURG, NE Notes 44

45

46 Monsanto Learning Center Hwy 47 Gothenburg, NE (308)