Final Post Conference Report (Published April 19, 2012)

Transcription

1 2011 Growing Season Final Post Conference Report (Published April 19, 2012) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Agricultural Research & Development Center Near Mead, Nebraska For more information, call UNL Extension at On the web at

2 2011 Growing Season Final Post Conference Report April 19, 2012 University of Nebraska-Lincoln Agricultural Research & Development Center Near Mead, Nebraska To learn more about the Nebraska Soybean and Feed Grains Profitability Project, contact: Keith Glewen, UNL Extension Educator or Dave Varner, UNL Extension Educator

3 Index of Projects Index of Projects ARDC - Nitrogen Rate Bopp Index - Crop of Growth Projects Promoters Bopp - Seed Treatment Chvatal - Fungicide Treatment Chvatal - Plant Population Gross-Rhode - Seed Depth Gross-Rhode - Using Biosolids 2

4 Index of Projects - continued Index of Projects - continued Hilgenkamp - Lime Use on Acid Soils McNamara - Plant Population Mulliken - Plant Population Mulliken - Profitability of Incorporating Lime Stewart - Cover Crop Profitability Williams - Cover Crop Profitability Williams - Fungicide Treatment Williams - Planter Metering Units Visit the Nebraska Soybean and Feed Grains Profitability Project Website at: 3

5 Program Guidelines Comparisons are identified and designed to answer producers production questions. Projects protocols are developed first and foremost to meet individual cooperator needs. Only projects that are randomized, replicated and harvested accordingly are reported. Treatment costs identified represent the economic difference among treatments applied. Multiple year comparisons are encouraged. Paired Comparison Design PAIR 1 PAIR 2 PAIR 3 PAIR 4 PAIR 5 PAIR 6 PAIR 7 Trt A Trt B Trt A Trt B Trt A Trt B Trt A Trt B 4

6 Randomized Complete Block Design Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Treatment A Treatment D Treatment B Treatment C Treatment B Treatment C Treatment A Treatment D Treatment B Treatment A Treatment D Treatment C Treatment D Treatment C Treatment B Treatment A ARDC Years: 2011 Title: Nitrogen Rate Crop: Corn NSFGPP Operator: ARDC Private Industry Cooperator: Mark Schroeder Objective: Determine & document the effect of different nitrogen rates on corn following late season hail damaged soybeans. Treatments: Lbs N/Ac: 0, 60, 100 5

7 ARDC Results: 2011 (Dekalb 63-45) Nitrogen Rate Rainfed Yield, Moisture, % Monitor, bu/ac Prob>/T/ <.0001 *** <.0001 *** ns Planting Date: 4/30/11 Harvest Date: 10/20/11 Fertilized Date: 3/23/11 Note: Prior year hail (9/13/10) damaged soybeans yielded 21 bu/ac. Summary: Yields were significantly increased when comparing no nitrogen to 60 and 100lbs. There was no significant difference between 60 and 100lbs. Corn was rainfed and planted at 23k pop. Bopp Years: Title: Crop Growth Promoter Crop: Irrigated Corn NSFGPP Operator: Ron Bopp, Dodge County Private Industry Cooperator: Doug Kriete Objective: To determine & document the effect of using LCO promoter technology on the profitability of producing corn. Treatments: Check vs Torque at 8 oz/acre 6

8 Bopp Results: 2010 Corn (Hoegemeyer 6203) Variable Check Torque Prob>/T/ Yield, 15.0% ns Avg Moisture, % * Cost/ac --- $5.00 Planting Date: 4/26/10 Harvesting Date: 10/22/10 7

9 Bopp Results: 2011 Corn (Pioneer 33D49) Variable Check Torque Prob>/T/ Yield, 15.5% * Avg Moisture, % Cost/ac --- $5.00 Planting Date: 5/3/2011 Harvesting Date: 10/21/2011 Summary: There was no significant difference in yield in The yield in 2011 for the check treatment resulted in an yield advantange that was statistically significant. The cost of the Torque treament has not been justified in the last two years of data. Bopp Years: 2011 Title: Seed Treatment Crop: Irrigated Corn NSFGPP Operator: Ron Bopp, Dodge County Private Industry Cooperator: Doug Kriete Objective: To determine & document the effectiveness of using Poncho VOTiVO on the profitability of producing corn. Treatments: Poncho vs Poncho VOTiVO 8

10 Bopp Results: 2011 Corn (Dekalb 6263) Variable Poncho Poncho VOTiVO Prob>/T/ Yield, 15.5% ns Avg Moisture, % Cost/ac $ $ Planting Date: 4/28/2011 Harvesting Date: 10/13/2011 Note: Poncho 250 vs Poncho 500 VOTiVO Summary: The yield difference between the two treatments was statistically insignificant in 2011 and did not support the additional expense of the additional VOTiVO product. 9

11 Chvatal Years: 2011 Title: Fungicide Treatment Crop: Soybeans NSFGPP Operator: Bryon Chvatal, Saunders County Private Industry Cooperator: Keith Glewen Objective: To determine & document the influence of foliar fungicide on the profitability of producing soybeans. Treatments: Check (no fungicide) vs. fungicide (Headline) applied foliar. Chvatal Results: 2011 Soybeans (Channel 2751R) Variable Check Headline Prob >/T/ Yield, 13% ns Moisture, % ns Cost/ac (Headline) --- $ Cost/ac (Application) --- $ Planting Date: 5/6/11 Harvesting Date: 9/29/11 Summary: Although the fungicide treatment resulted in a 1 bushel yield increase it was not statistically significant. The increased yield was not enough to offeset the product and application costs in

12 Chvatal Years: 2011 Title: Plant Population Crop: Corn NSFGPP Operator: Bryon Chvatal, Saunders County Private Industry Cooperator: Keith Glewen Objective: To determine & document the effect of plant population on the profitability of corn production. Treatments: 26,000 vs 28,000 vs 30,000 seeds Chvatal Results: 2011 Corn (Channel STX) Planting Rate Variable 26,000 28,000 30,000 Yield, 15.5% Moisture, % Cost/ac $81.25 $87.50 $93.75 Yield Prob>/T/ 26,000 28,000 28, ** , *** ns Moisture Prob>/T/ 26,000 28,000 28, ns , ** ns Planting Date: 5/5/11 Harvesting Date: 10/22/11 11

13 Chvatal Results: 2011 Corn (Channel STX) Planting Rate Variable 26,000 28,000 30,000 Yield, 15.5% Moisture, % Cost/ac $81.25 $87.50 $93.75 Yield Prob>/T/ 26,000 28,000 28, ns , * ns Moisture Prob>/T/ 26,000 28,000 28, ns , ns ns Planting Date: 5/5/11 Harvesting Date: 10/22/11 Chvatal Summary: Yield increased as population increased. Variety STX showed statistically significant yield increases at both 28k and 30k over the 26k population. No difference was noted between the 28k and 30k. The additional $6.25 seed cost at 28k returned $24.00 while at 30k the additional $12.50 seed cost returned $ The variety STX yield between 30k and 26k was statistically significant while 26k vs 28k and 28k vs 30k were not significant. The additional cost for 4k higher population was $12.50/Ac. while the additional revenue at $6.00/bu. was $24.00/Ac. 12

14 Gross-Rhode Years: 2011 Title: Planting Depth Crop: Corn NSFGPP Operator: Vaughn Gross-Rhode, Dodge County Private Industry Cooperator: Dave Varner Objective: To determine & document the effectiveness of growing corn at two different depths. Treatments: Planting Depth 2" vs 3" Gross-Rhode Results: 2011 Corn (Hoegemeyer 8102) Variables 2" Depth 3" Depth Prob >/T/ Yield, 15.5% *** Moisture, % ns Cost/ac Planting Date: 5/11/11 Harvest Date: 10/19/11 Summary: The 2011 yield data shows the 2" planting depth resulted in a statistically significantly higher yield than the 3" planting depth. Moisture was not impacted. 13

15 Gross-Rhode Years: Title: Using Biosolids Crop: Soybeans/Corn NSFGPP Operator: Vaughn Gross-Rhode, Dodge County Private Industry Cooperator: Dave Varner Objective: To determine & document the profitability of using Biosolids as a nutrient in a corn/soybean rotation. Treatments: No Biosolids vs. Biosolids Gross-Rhode Results: 2009 Soybeans (Hoegemeyer 303NRR) Variables None Biosolids Prob >/T/ Yield, 13% < *** Moisture, % ** Test Wt, lbs/bu ns Plants, 1000/ac ns Planting Date: Harvest Date: 11/6/09 Soil Test: 10/8/09 Check: Org. Matter 1.7, Bray P, 4.4, Zn 1.1 Biosolids: Org. Matter 1.8, Bray P, 16.0, Zn

16 Gross-Rhode Results: 2010 Corn (Hoegemeyer 80412) Variables Check Biosolids Prob >/T/ Yield, 15.5% ns Moisture, % * Cost/ac Planting Date: 5/7/10 Harvest Date: 11/1/10 Gross-Rhode Results: 2011 Soybeans (Hybrid) Variables None Biosolids Prob >/T/ Yield, 13% *** Moisture, % Cost/ac Planting Date: 5/7/11 Harvest Date: 9/30/11 Summary: The application of Biosolids during the 2009 growing season resulted in a significant increase in seed yield; however, moisture content at harvest was higher where Biosolids had been applied. The increase in seed yield is likely due to phosphorus in the Biosolids applied to this low phosphorus soil. In 2010, corn yields were not increased significantly; however, grain moisture was increased slightly. Plot was very variable due to excess rain. The 2011 soybean yields were significantly higher for the biosolids treatment. 15

17 Hilgenkamp Years: Title: Lime Use on Acid Soils Crop: Corn (95, 97, 99, 01, 03, 05, 07, 09, 11) Soybeans (96, 98, 00, 02, 04, 06, 08, 10) NSFGPP Operator: Rusty Hilgenkamp, Washington County Private Industry Cooperator: Dave Varner Objective: To determine & document the profitability of using lime on acid soil in a corn/soybean rotation. Soil Type: Marshall Treatments: No lime vs. lime according to soil 2.5 ton/acre (prorated $44/7 years). Soil ph: 5.5 Hilgenkamp Results: 1995 Corn Variable No Lime Lime Prob >/T/ Yield, bu/ac at 15.5% ns Moisture, % ns Test Wt, lbs/bu * Cost/ac --- $6.29 Results: 1996 Soybeans Variable No Lime Lime Prob >/T/ Yield, bu/ac at 13% ns Moisture, % ** Test Wt, lbs/bu ns Cost/ac --- $

18 Hilgenkamp Results: 1997 Corn Variable No Lime Lime Prob >/T/ Yield, bu/ac at 15.5% * Moisture, % ns Test Wt, lbs/bu ns Cost/ac --- $6.29 Results: 1998 Soybeans Variable No Lime Lime Prob >/T/ Yield, bu/ac at 13% *** Moisture, % ns Test Wt, lbs/bu *** Cost/ac --- $6.29 Hilgenkamp Results: 1999 Corn Variable No Lime Lime Prob >/T/ Soil ph Yield, bu/ac at 15.5% ns Moisture, % *** Test Wt, lbs/bu ** Cost/ac --- $6.29 Results: 2000 Soybeans Variable No Lime Lime Prob >/T/ Yield, bu/ac at 13% *** Moisture, % *** Test Wt, lbs/bu * Cost/ac --- $

19 Hilgenkamp Results: 2001 Corn Variable No Lime Lime Prob >/T/ Soil ph Yield, bu/ac at 15.5% ns Moisture, % ** Test Wt, lbs/bu ns Cost/ac --- $6.29 Results: 2002 Soybeans Variable No Lime Lime Prob >/T/ Soil ph Yield, bu/ac at 13% *** Moisture, % ns Test Wt, lbs/bu ns Cost/ac Hilgenkamp Results: 2003 Corn Variable No Lime Lime Prob >/T/ Yield, bu/ac at 15.5% ** Moisture, % ns Test Wt, lbs/bu ** Cost/ac Results: 2004 Soybeans (DK 25-51) Variable No Lime Lime Prob >/T/ Yield, bu/ac at 13% *** Moisture, % ns Test Wt, lbs/bu ns Cost/ac

20 Hilgenkamp Results: 2005 Corn (Pioneer 33P97) Variable No Lime Lime Prob >/T/ Soil ph Yield, bu/ac at 15.5% ns Moisture, % ns Test Wt, lbs/bu ns Results: 2006 Soybeans (Asgrow 3005) Variable No Lime Lime Prob >/T/ Yield, bu/ac at 13% ** Moisture, % ns Test Wt, lbs/bu ns Plants, 1000/ac ns Planting Date: 5/12/06 Harvesting Date: 10/24/06 Hilgenkamp Results: 2007 Corn (LG 2540BT) Variable No Lime Lime Prob >/T/ Soil ph Yield, bu/ac at 15.5% ns Moisture, % *** Test Wt, lbs/bu ns Plants, 1000/ac ns Planting Date: 5/2/07 Harvesting Date: 10/22/07 Results: 2008 Soybeans Variable No Lime Lime Prob >/T/ Yield, bu/ac at 13% *** Moisture, % ns Test Wt, lbs/bu ns Plants, 1000/ac ns Planting Date: 5/26/08 Harvesting Date: 10/10/08 19

21 Hilgenkamp Results: 2009 Corn (Midwest 79504) Variable No Lime Lime Prob >/T/ Yield, bu/ac at 15.5% ns Moisture, % *** Test Wt, lbs/bu ** Plants, 1000/ac ns Planting Date: Harvesting Date: 11/11/09 Results: 2010 Soybeans (Asgrow 2909) Variable No Lime Lime Prob >/T/ Yield, bu/ac at 13% ** Moisture, % ns Planting Date: 5/31/10 Harvesting Date: 10/7/10 Hilgenkamp Results: 2011 Corn (Channel VT3) Variable No Lime Lime Prob >/T/ Yield, bu/ac at 15.5% ns Moisture, % ** Test Wt, lbs/bu Planting Date: 4/30/2011 Harvesting Date: 10/20/11 20

22 Hilgenkamp 2011 Soil Test Analysis SOM ph M3-P K S Zn 0-8 No lime Lime No lime Lime This is a summary of the results from 2011 soil samples. These are quite different from the 2010 results. An explanation for the differences is not obvious, but these results are much more realistic than the 2010 results. For 0-8, only the effect on ph is statistically different. For 8-16, the effects on SOM, ph, P and K were significant; except for P, and there is not have a good interpretation for the 8-16 results. Note that the P and Zn levels are low and probably constraining yield, especially of corn. Suggested applicant of these nutrients to prevent much yield loss. The west strip is especially low. Hilgenkamp Summary: A 2-ton lime application with a 7-year life expectancy was applied in spring A significant difference was detected between test weights at the 90% confidence level in In 1996, there was a significant difference in moisture content of seed at harvest. In 1997, the use of lime increased corn grain yield slightly. In 1998, lime increased seed yield of soybeans significantly; however, seed test weight was reduced. In 1999, lime reduced grain moisture at harvest and resulted in a slightly lower test weight. In 2000, the lime application resulted in higher seed yield, slightly higher moisture, and slightly higher seed test weight. In 2001, grain moisture was lower at harvest where lime had been applied. In 2002, seed yield of soybeans was increased significantly by lime. In 2003, grain yield of corn was increased and grain test weight was higher where lime had been applied. Seed yield was again higher in 2004 where lime had been applied in Lime application had no effect on corn in 2005; however, soil ph was still higher where lime had been applied. In 2006, soybean seed yield was significantly higher where lime had been applied. The grain moisture of corn was significantly lower at harvest in 2007 where lime had been applied. Soil ph was higher in the fall of 2007 where lime had been applied and soybean seed yield in 2008 was significantly higher from lime application. Yield of corn was not significantly effected in 2009 from lime application; however, grain moisture at harvest was lower and test weight was higher where lime had been applied. In 2010, the seed yield of soybeans was increased significantly by the application of lime. The 2011 corn yields were not statistically different. 21

23 McNamara Years: Title: Plant Population Crop: Corn NSFGPP Operator: John McNamara, Cass County Private Industry Cooperator: Objective: To determine & document the effect of plant population on the profitability of corn production. Treatments: 24,000 seeds vs 30,000 seeds McNamara Results: 2010 Corn (Dekalb DKC65-63) Planting Rate Variable 24,000 30,000 Prob >/T/ Yield, 15.5% *** Moisture, % ns Plants, 1000/ac < *** Cost/ac $75.00 $93.75 Planting Date: 4/6/10 Harvesting Date: 9/15/10 22

24 McNamara Results: 2011 Corn (Dekalb DKC65-63) Planting Rate Variable 24,000 30,000 Prob >/T/ Yield, 15.5% *** Moisture, % ns Cost/ac $75.27 $94.12 Planting Date: 5/7/11 Harvesting Date: 10/10/11 Summary: The higher plant population resulted in a statistically significant higher grain yield and profit per acre for both 2010 and Mulliken Years: 2011 Title: Plant Population Crop: Corn NSFGPP Operator: Jerry Mulliken, Dodge County Private Industry Cooperator: Objective: To determine & document the effect on plant population on the profitability of corn production. Treatments: 24,500 seeds vs 27,000 seeds 23

25 Mulliken Results: 2011 Corn (Golden Harvest 9416) Planting Rate Variable 24,500 27,000 Prob>/T/ Yield, 15.5% ns Moisture, % ns Cost/ac $71.63 $78.30 Harvest Population 23,668 24,684 Planting Date: 4/28/2011 Harvesting Date: 10/14/2011 Summary: The yield at 27k population was not statistically significant at the 95% probability level. Note that the spread in harvest population was only 1,000 plants compared to the 2,500 difference in seeding rate. However, the cost of $6.67 for additional seed was completely offset by $24.00 per acre more revenue ($6.00 bu). Mulliken Years: , Title: Profitability of Incorporating Lime Crop: Soybean/Corn Rotation NSFGPP Operator: Jerry Mulliken, Dodge County Private Industry Cooperator: Jerry Mulliken Objective: To determine & document the effect on incorporating lime on the profitability of crop production. Soil ph 5.5. Treatments: No tillage, no lime vs. tillage, no lime, vs. no tillage, with lime, vs. tillage w/lime. Lime incorporated April Soil Type: Moody Silty Clay Loam Soil, No-Till Costs: Lime T/ac x 14.30/T = $34.32 Prorate for 8 yrs = $4.29/ac/yr Tillage - 2 x $7/ac = $

26 Mulliken Results: 2001 Soybeans Yield, bu/ac Moisture Test Wt Cost 13% % lbs/bu $/ac No Tillage, no lime No Tillage, lime Tillage, no lime Tillage, lime Statistical Analysis: (Prob >F) Tillage (T) *** ns ns Lime (L) *** ns ns TxL ns ns ns Mulliken Results: 2002 Corn (Pioneer 34M94) Yield, bu/ac Moisture Test Wt Cost 15.5% % lbs/bu $/ac No Tillage, no lime No Tillage, lime Tillage, no lime Tillage, lime Statistical Analysis: (Prob >F) Tillage (T) *** ns ns Lime (L) ** ns ns TxL ns ns ns 25

27 Mulliken Results: 2004 Corn (GH 8906) Yield, bu/ac Moisture Cost 15% % $/ac No Tillage, no lime No Tillage, lime Tillage, no lime Tillage, lime Statistical Analysis: (Prob >F) Tillage (T) ns ns Lime (L) ** ** TxL ns ns Mulliken Results: 2005 Soybeans (Latham 967) Yield, bu/ac Moisture Cost 13% % $/ac No Tillage, no lime No Tillage, lime Tillage, no lime Tillage, lime Statistical Analysis: (Prob >F) Tillage (T) ns ns Lime (L) *** ns TxL ns ns 26

28 Mulliken Results: 2006 Corn (Dekalb 6716) Yield, bu/ac Moisture Cost 15.5% % $/ac No Tillage, no lime No Tillage, lime Tillage, no lime Tillage, lime Statistical Analysis: (Prob >F) Tillage (T) ns ns Lime (L) ns ns TxL ns ns Planting Date: 4/28/06 Harvest Date 10/18/06 Mulliken Soil Tests: 3/15/06 Water ph Depth, inches Treatment No Tillage, no lime No Tillage, lime Tillage, no lime Tillage, lime Buffer ph No Tillage, no lime No Tillage, lime Tillage, no lime Tillage, lime

29 Mulliken Results: 2007 Soybeans (Latham 967) Yield, bu/ac Moisture NDVI Cost 13% % $/ac No Tillage, no lime No Tillage, lime Tillage, no lime Tillage, lime Statistical Analysis: (Prob >F) Tillage (T) ns ns * Lime (L) *** ns < *** TxL ns ns ** Planting Date: 4/30/07 Harvesting Date: 9/22/07 Mulliken Results: 2008 Corn (Hybrid) Yield, bu/ac Moisture Cost 15.5% % $/ac No Tillage, no lime No Tillage, lime Tillage, no lime Tillage, lime Statistical Analysis: (Prob >F) Tillage (T) ns ns Lime (L) ns ns TxL ** ns Planting Date: 5/5/08 Harvest Date 10/30/08 28

30 Mulliken Results: 2009 Soybeans (Pioneer 93M43) Yield, bu/ac Moisture Cost 13% % $/ac No Tillage, no lime No Tillage, lime Tillage, no lime Tillage, lime Statistical Analysis: (Prob >F) Tillage (T) ns ns Lime (L) ns ns TxL ns ns Planting Date: 4/24/09 Harvest Date 10/11/09 Mulliken Results: 2010 Corn (DK 62-29) Yield, bu/ac Moisture 15.5% % No Tillage, no lime No Tillage, lime Tillage, no lime Tillage, lime Statistical Analysis: (Prob >F) Tillage (T) ns ns Lime (L) ns ns TxL ns ns Planting Date: 4/18/10 Harvest Date: 9/27/10 29

31 Mulliken Results: 2011 Soybeans (Pioneer 93M11) Yield, bu/ac Moisture Cost 13% % $/ac No Tillage, no lime No Tillage, lime Tillage, no lime Tillage, lime Planting Date: 5/3/2011 Harvesting Date: 10/1/2011 Mulliken Results: 2011 Soybeans (Pioneer 93M11) Statistical Analysis: (Prob >/T/) Yield Tillage Tillage-Lime No Tillage-No Lime Tillage-Lime ns No Tillage-No Lime ns ns --- No Tillage-Lime ns ns ns Moisture Tillage Tillage-Lime No Tillage-No Lime Tillage-Lime ns No Tillage-No Lime ns ns No Tillage-Lime ns ns ns 30

32 Mulliken Soil Tests: May 2011 Depth 0-8 inches ph samples are 0-8 depth, and only taken in the notill strips Treatment Strip ID Lab_pH Buff_pH P205 K OM S Lime No Lime Mulliken Summary: In 2001, Tillage & Lime increased soybean yields independently & the effects were additive. In 2002, grain yield was lower due to tillage done in 2001 where no lime was applied. Yield data were not obtained in In 2004, grain yield & grain moisture at harvest were increased by lime applied in Soybean seed yield was increased by lime in 2005 where lime was applied in In 2006, corn growth was not affected by lime applied in In 2007, seed yield was increased significantly but seed moisture at harvest was not affected. The NDVI (an estimate of crop canopy density) was increased slightly by tillage where no lime was applied in 2001, however, lime increased NDVI significantly regardless of tillage. In 2008, corn yields were not increased by lime applied. Soybean yields were not increased in 2009 or 2011 and corn yields were not affected by treaments in

33 32

34 33

35 34

36 35

37 36

38 37

39 Stewart Years: 2011 Title: Cover Crop Profitability Crop: Corn/Soybeans NSFGPP Operator: Jim & Mike Stewart, Lancaster County Private Industry Cooperator: Keith Glewen Objective: Determine the effectiveness of cover crops in improving yield and profitability in a corn and soybean rotation. Treatments: Check vs Rye vs Smart Mix 38

40 Stewart Results: 2011 (Fontanelle 9789) Variable No Cover Rye Smart Mix Yield, bu/ac Moisture, % Cost/ac --- $19.30 $27.81 Yield Prob >/T/ No Cover Rye Rye ns --- Smart Mix ns ns Moisture Prob >/T/ No Cover Rye Rye ns --- Smart Mix ns * Cover Plant Date: 10/16/10 Planting Date: 5/3/2011 Harvest Date: 10/16/11 Summary: Yield difference was not statistically significant among the three treatments. No portion of cost of the cover crop was recouped by either cover crop treatment, relative to the check treatment. Note: Cover crop was killed off later than preferred. Stewart 39

41 Stewart Stewart 40

42 Stewart Williams Years: Title: Cover Crop Profitability Crop: Corn/Soybeans NSFGPP Operator: Brad Williams, Saunders County Private Industry Cooperator: Objective: To determine & document the influence of rye cover crop on the profitability of producing corn/soybeans. Treatments: Check vs Rye 41

43 Williams Results: 2010 Clara's Soybeans-NI (NK 34N3) Variable Check Rye Prob >/T/ Yield, 13.0% ns Moisture, % *** Cost/ac --- $40.00 Planting Date: 5/1/10 Harvesting Date: 10/11/10 Cover Crop Planted: 9/17/09 Williams Results: 2010 Jessen East Corn-NI (GH 9180 GT/CB/LL) Variable Check Rye Prob >/T/ Yield, 15.5% *** Moisture, % ns Cost/ac --- $40.00 Planting Date: 4/9/10 Harvesting Date: 10/21/10 Cover Crop Planted: 9/17/09 42

44 Williams Results: 2010 Nancy's 40 Corn-NI (GH 9180 GT/CB/LL) Variable Check Rye Prob >/T/ Yield, 15.5% ns Moisture, % ns Cost/ac --- $40.00 Planting Date: 4/19/10 Harvesting Date: 10/22/10 Cover Crop Planted: 9/30/09 Williams Results: 2011 Jessen East Soybean-NI (Pioneer 93Y70) Variable Check Rye Prob >/T/ Yield, 13% ** Moisture, % * Cost/ac --- $40.00 Planting Date: 5/3/11 Harvesting Date: 10/4/11 Cover Crop Planted: 9/30/10 43

45 Williams Results: 2011 Nancy's 40 Soybean-NI (NK 28K1) Variable Check Rye Prob >/T/ Yield, 13.0% ns Moisture, % ns Cost/ac --- $40.00 Planting Date: 5/1/11 Harvesting Date: 9/27/11 Cover Crop Planted: 9/30/10 Variety: Short Season 2.8 Group Summary: Analysis of the data shows variable results. Three of the five locations indicated no statistically significant difference in grain yield between the check and the rye cover crop (2 soybean & 1 corn). The other corn site statistically favored the check over the rye in grain yield. The rye treatment on a soybean site resulted in a higher grain yield which was statistically significant. Williams Title: Crop: NSFGPP Operator: Private Industry Cooperator: Objective: Fungicide Treatment Soybeans Brad Williams, Saunders County To determine & document the influence of foliar fungicide on the profitability of producing soybeans. Treatments: Check vs Fungicide '09 & '10 Split vs Single Treatment '11 44

46 Williams Results: 2009 Soybeans (Pioneer 93M11) Variable Check Headline Prob >/T/ Yield, 13% ** Moisture, % ns Cost/ac (Headline) --- $14.52 Cost/ac (Application) --- $4.50 Planting Date: Harvesting Date: Application: 6 oz at R3 stage Williams Results: 2010 Soybeans Variable Check Headline Prob >/T/ Harley (NK 39A3) Yield, 13% < *** Moisture, % *** Cost/ac (Headline) $10.22 Cost/ac (Application) $5.29 Planting Date: 5/3/10 Harvesting Date: 10/7/10 Jessen (Pioneer 93Y70) Yield, 13% < *** Moisture, % < *** Cost/ac (Headline) $10.22 Cost/ac (Application) $5.29 Planting Date: 5/3/10 Harvesting Date: 10/9/10 Application: 6 oz at R3 stage 45

47 Williams Results: 2011 Bruce's Soybeans-IR (Pioneer 93M43) Variable Check Headline Prob >/T/ Yield, 13% ns Moisture, % *** Cost/ac (Headline) --- $11.96 Cost/ac (Application) --- $5.05 Planting Date: 4/25/11 Harvesting Date: 10/5/11 Application: 3 oz. 7/9 on strips and 6 oz. 7/31 entire field Williams Results: 2011 Harley's Upland Soybeans-IR (NK 39A3) Variable Check Headline Prob >/T/ Yield, 13% ns Moisture, % ** Cost/ac (Headline) --- $11.96 Cost/ac (Application) --- $5.05 Planting Date: 5/5/11 Harvesting Date: 10/8/11 Application: 3 oz. 7/9 on strips and 6 oz. 8/2 on entire field 46

48 Williams Results: 2011 Rohman's Soybeans-NI (NK 28K1) Variable Check Headline Prob >/T/ Yield, 13% *** Moisture, % <0.0001*** Cost/ac (Headline) --- $11.96 Cost/ac (Application) --- $5.05 Planting Date: 4/30/11 Harvesting Date: 9/27/11 Application: 3 oz. 7/8 on strips and 6 oz. 7/31 on entire field. Williams Summary: In 2009 the fungicide treatment provided a statistically significant yield increase of 2 bushels/acre. Yields in 2010 substantially higher for the fungicide treatment with strong statistical confidence for both locations (9 and 7 bushels respectively). The 2011 study showed a statistically significant yield increase for fungicide at only one of the three locations studied. 47

49 Williams Years: 2011 Title: Planter Metering Units Crop: Corn NSFGPP Operator: Brad Williams, Saunders County Private Industry Cooperator: Objective: To determine & document the influence of the seed metering unit on producing corn. Treatments: JD Pro 40 vs Precision Williams Results: 2011 Stearn's Corn-NI (GH GT) Variable JD Pro 40 Precision Prob >/T/ Yield, 15.5% *** Moisture, % ns Cost/ac --- $0.50 Planting Date: 4/25/11 Harvesting Date: 10/24/11 48

50 Williams Results: 2011 Johny's Corn-NI (Pioneer 33D49) Variable JD Pro 40 Precision Prob >/T/ Yield, 15.5% ns Moisture, % ns Cost/ac --- $0.50 Planting Date: 4/30/11 Harvest Date: 10/21/11 Williams Results: 2011 Jason's Corn-NI (Dekalb 63-87) Variable JD Pro 40 Precision Prob >/T/ Yield, 15.5% ns Moisture, % ** Cost/ac --- $0.50 Planting Date: 4/29/11 Harvesting Date: 10/8/11 Summary: One location showed a statistcally significant higher yield in favor of the JD Pro 40 unit. The other two locations showed no statistical yield difference between the units. See Note regarding 2% sprocket difference. 49

51 Williams Note: After addtional investigation on the yield difference between the two meters. It was determined that the Precision meters were planting 2% less population and that may be a contributing factor to the negative yield difference between the meters. The reason for the 2% population difference was due to the need to equalize the precision meters, which are 30 cell plate, and the JD meters which are 40 cell plates. The precision meters speed was increased to get the same population as the JD Pro 40 meters and the closest combination of sprockets still resulted in 2% difference. 50