Chan Mazour Manager, Monsanto Learning Center, Gothenburg, NE. The Gothenburg Learning Center Team. Monsanto Technology Development

Transcription

1

2 Hello from a relatively warm and dry Gothenburg, Nebraska, we have finalized our results from the 2011 season. This book contains results from the demonstration plots that were in the field at Gothenburg during Winter has certainly been pleasant if you do not have an affinity for cold and snow. Dryness in the fall that led to excellent harvest conditions has continued into the winter. We've had almost no snow or other precipitation since early December, and that has many talking about the possibility of a very dry year. Although, conditions were great for harvest, the year s weather conditions led to lower yields almost across the board. As our reports show, we failed in our attempt to produce 300 bu. corn and 100 bu. soybeans. Coming off 2010 where we got close in some plots without much special care it seemed like those goals would be attainable. This was disappointing, but we will give it another go in The dry fall weather has allowed us to get some demonstrations in place with fall tillage and cover crop planting. This was not the case in 2009 and 2010 and it's been exciting to get the 2012 season started. We hope that your winter preparations for 2012 will lead to a successful year and that we get to visit with you at the Gothenburg Learning Center this year. Visit us on the web at: Chan Mazour Manager, Monsanto Learning Center, Gothenburg, NE The Gothenburg Learning Center Team Monsanto Technology Development

3 Table of Contents 2011 Demonstration Reports Corn Hybrid Response to Population... 1 Dryland Corn Populations and Spacings... 3 High Yield Corn Management...5 Irrigation and Row Spacing in Corn... 8 Nitrogen and Planting Date Effects on Goss s Wilt...10 Overwatering in Corn...12 Tillage Effects on Goss s Wilt...14 Water Efficiency in Era Hybrids...16 Corn and Soybean Intercropping...19 High Yield Soybean Management...21 Irrigation Evaluations in Soybeans...23 Soybean Planting Date...25 Soybean Row Spacing...27

4 Yield (bu/acre) Corn Hybrid Response to Population Every year, farmers strive to maximize yield potential by selecting the best hybrids and planting those hybrids at the optimum population for their particular fields. These decisions must carefully weigh the potential for stalk lodging or lack of return on the investment for increased seeding rates. In the Western Corn Belt, the availability of different corn germplasm and biotech traits may affect optimum planting populations. Study Guidelines A demonstration was established at the Monsanto Water Utilization Learning Center at Gothenburg, Nebraska in 2011 to evaluate the effects of plant population on yield potential of different corn hybrids. The demonstration compared the yield response of Hybrid 1, a 109 relative maturity (RM) with YieldGard VT Triple technology, and Hybrid 2, a 114 RM with Genuity VT Triple PRO technology, to planting populations of 18,000 to 48,000 kernels per acre increasing in 5,000 kernel increments. Each population was planted in two rows and harvested for yield. The previous crop was soybeans, and vertical tillage was conducted in the spring. The demonstration was planted on April 13, 2011 and harvested on October 7, Two hail storms occurred during the season, one on June 16th causing slight damage and one on July 10th causing moderate defoliation with stalk bruising. These hail events decreased final yield. Weeds were controlled with preplant applications of Roundup PowerMAX herbicide and preemergence herbicide application of Degree Xtra at 3.5 qts/acre, plus Roundup PowerMAX at 32 fl oz/acre, plus Sharpen at 3 fl oz/acre. An aerial application of Headline fungicide was applied to the hybrids at VT stage. Six inches of irrigation were applied to the demonstration in the later half of the growing season. Results Hybrids 1 and 2 reported similar responses to the different planting populations. Figure 1 shows the yield results of the two hybrids at the seven different planting populations. Hybrid 1 and 2 were both reported as having the highest yield at the planting population of 33,000 to 40,000 kernels/ acre. Figure 2 provides a visual response of Hybrid 1 (H1) and Hybrid 2 (H2) at 23,000, 33,000 and 43,000 kernels/ acre. These corn ear samples may indicate that Hybrid 2 is less responsive to different populations than Hybrid Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 18,000 23,000 28,000 33,000 38,000 43,000 48,000 Planting Population (kernels/acre) Figure 1. Effect of different planting populations on yield potential for Hybrid 1 and 2. Figure 2. Corn ear samples taken of both Hybrid 1 (H1) and 2 (H2) for the 23,000 (far left), 33,000 (center) and 43,000 (far right) kernel/acre planting populations. Summary continued on next page 1 Monsanto Technology Development

5 Corn Hybrid Response to Population Continued from page 1 Note the tip back is minimal until 43,000 plants/acre. Increased tip back at populations lower than 43,000 plants per acre can occur with different hybrids, or with increased stress such as moisture stress. Results from this trial also show how corn hybrids have different yield potential for a given environment. Hybrid 2 demonstrated increased yields when compared to Hybrid 1 (Figure 1). Hybrid 2 may be better adapted to the specific field and environmental conditions in this demonstration than Hybrid 1. Conclusions Hybrids vary in their response to population. Multiple years, environments, and trait packages should be considered when determining planting population. As suggested by the trendline, the maximum yield potential for Hybrid 1 was achieved at approximately 40,000 kernels/acre from one year of data. Tip back can increase with higher populations. However, hybrids differ in the amount of tip back they express at various populations. Each hybrid should be evaluated to try and determine the optimum planting population for a given environment. The information discussed in this report is from a single site, non replicated, one year 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. 2

6 Dryland Corn Populations and Spacings Dryland (rainfed) corn production in the High Plains has inherent risks due to limited rainfall, cool temperatures at higher altitudes, and high evapotranspiration rates during critical corn growth stages. Hybrid selection is important to ensure proper relative maturity, stress tolerance, and stalk strength for the area. Row spacing, arrangement, and plant density can improve success in dryland corn production through efficient use of available soil moisture and rainfall. Row spacing, plant density, and distribution that approximates equidistant plant spacing can allow corn roots to explore more of the available soil moisture and capture rainfall more effectively. Demonstration protocols were executed at the Monsanto Water Utilization Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE in 2011 to evaluate dryland corn row spacing and population effects on yield. Study Guidelines Two demonstration trials were conducted in 2011 to evaluate corn hybrid yield response to different plant populations, row spacing and arrangement. Protocol 1 was planted on May 31, 2011 into corn residue that was vertically tilled. Two YieldGard VT Triple corn hybrids with different relative maturities (102 and 109 RM) were planted in 30 inch single and 30 inch twin -row (8 inches between corn rows) configurations (Figure 1). Each hybrid and row spacing combination was planted at populations of 20,000, 25,000, and 30,000 seeds/acre. Corn was harvested on October 6, Protocol 2 focused on corn row spacing and arrangement to determine the effects on moisture utilization and yield. A single YieldGard VT Triple corn hybrid (same 109 RM as Protocol 1) was planted at a population of 24,000 seeds/acre into vertically tilled corn residue on May 31, Five row spacings were evaluated: 36 inch, 30 inch, 30 inch twin-row, skip-row (2-1-2) and skip-row (2-2-2). Skip-row arrangement 1 involves skipping 1 or 2 rows between every two planted rows and has been shown to be effective in some low rainfall environments due to moisture conservation for crop use during flowering. Corn was harvested on October 10, Both plots were treated with Headline fungicide at 6 fl oz/a when corn was tasseling. The area received 14.6 inches of rainfall during the season. Results And Conclusions The results from Protocol 1 (Figure 2) show a large yield advantage for the 109 RM hybrid to the twin-row row spacing and higher populations at both row spacings, without lodging problems. The 102 RM hybrid did not respond to the twin-row spacing, but did show a positive yield response to higher populations. Dryland yields were good despite two hail storms during the season, as well as, rainfall and degree days slightly below the normal for Gothenburg, NE. The yield advantage for the twin-row spacing could be attributed to better soil moisture and sunlight utilization by the 109 RM hybrid. Figure inch single, Twin-row and Skip-row configurations 30 inch row spacing Twin-row spacing Skip-row or arrangement Summary continued on next page 3 Monsanto Technology Development

7 Grain Yield (bu/acre) Grain Yield (bu/acre) Dryland Corn Populations and Spacings Continued from page Hybrid RM 102 Hybrid RM inch Twin Row 30 inch Twin Row 30 inch Twin Row 20,000 plants/acre 25,000 plants/acre 30,000 plants/acre Figure 2. Yield response of two corn hybrids to plant density and row spacing inch 30 inch Twin Row Skip Row Row Spacing (2-1-2) Skip Row (2-2-2) Figure 3. Yield effect of corn row spacing and arrangement. The results from the second protocol (Figure 3) show a yield advantage for the twin-row spacing versus the 30 or 36 inch spacing and the skip-row configurations. Skip-row plots had an overall population of 24,000 seeds/acre but, in skip-row (2-1-2) the in-row population was equivalent to 36,000 seeds/acre while skiprow (2-2-2) it was equivalent to 48,000 seeds/acre. Skip-row yields were likely compromised by in-row plant competition for moisture plus greater moisture loss from wide gaps between rows. These trials demonstrate that hybrids can respond differently to row spacing and higher populations. Twin-rows may optimize spacing of higher plant populations which may translate into higher yields. Research focused on integrating new hybrid genetics with improved drought tolerance coupled with improved biotech traits and agronomic practices will continue to support yield stability in dryland systems. 1 The University of Nebraska recommends skip-row planting if there is at least 4,000 pounds (40 bushel wheat crop) of evenly distributed wheat residue at planting to preserve soil moisture and suppress weed growth. References Lyon, D.J. et al Skip-Row Planting Patterns Stabilize Corn Grain Yields in the Central Great Plains. Plant management Network. Klein, R.N.; Lyon, D.J Recommended Seeding Rates and Hybrid Selection for Rainfed (Dryland) Corn in Nebraska G2068. University of Nebraska, Lincoln. The information discussed in this report is from a single site, non replicated, one year 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. Summary continued on next page 4

8 High Yield Corn Management Various management tactics can be adjusted to help maximize yield potential. The objective of a study conducted at the Gothenburg, Nebraska Learning Center was to evaluate the effects of irrigation, hybrid, and tillage/crop rotation on the ability to attain 300 bu/acre corn yields. Study Guidelines Four treatments were established at the Monsanto Learning Center in Gothenburg, NE to evaluate their potential for producing 300 bu/acre corn yields (Table 1 and Figure 1). The corn was planted on May 5th, with either Genuity VT Triple PRO or YieldGard VT Triple technology. All of the plots received the same nitrogen and phosphorus programs, had Headline fungicide applied at VT, and were maintained with good weed control (Table 1). Treatments 1 and 2 were irrigated, with hybrids H1, H2, and H3 planted at 38,000 to 40,000 seeds/acre. Treatments 3 and 4 were planted with hybrids H4, H5, and H6 at 26,000 seeds/acre and had no supplemental irrigation. Treatments 2 and 3 were planted into no-till soybean stubble. Treatments 1 and 4 were planted into strip-tilled corn residue. Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 4 Irrigation Irrigated Non-Irrigated Previous Crop Corn Soybean Soybean Corn Tillage Strip-till No-till No-till Strip-till Population 38,000-40,000 seeds/acre 26,000 seeds/acre Hybrids (Relative Maturity) Planting Date May 5 Traits Nitrogen Phosphorus Foliar Fungicide Weed Control H1 (114), H2 ( ), H3 (112) H4 (109), H5 ( ), H6 (109) Genuity VT Triple PRO or YieldGard VT Triple technology 100 lbs. N pre-plant; 100 lbs. N at V6; lbs. N at VT lbs/acre Headline fungicide at VT good weed control Table 1. Description of treatment variables. Dryland H4 H5 H6 H4 H5 H6 Strip-till Strip-till Figure 1. Overhead image of the trial. Irrigated No-till No-till H1 H2 H3 H1 H2 H3 Challenges There were challenges with accurately planting into the strips on the strip-till treatments. This complication may have resulted in poor seed to soil contact and cooler soil temperatures at planting, as the seeds were planted directly into corn residue. These agronomic conditions likely contributed to lower yields in the striptill/continuous corn treatments 1 and 4. Hail damage affected the plants twice during the growing season with a minor defoliation event on June 16th, and a more severe event on July 10th. Storm damage on July 10th resulted in some greensnap, and root lodging, which influenced the yield results (Figure 2). Storm damage also resulted in extensive defoliation around VT. Defoliation at tassel can result in significant yield loss (Table 2). Summary continued on next page 5 Monsanto Technology Development

9 High Yield Corn Management Continued from page 5 Tillage/Crop Rotation. When averaged across all 6 hybrids and both irrigation treatments, planting into no-till soybean stubble resulted in 211 bu/acre compared to 169 bu/acre for planting into strip-tilled corn residue (Table 3). Table 3. Effect of irrigation and tillage/crop rotation on corn yield (bu/acre). No-till in Soybean Strip-till in Corn Average Stubble Residue Irrigated Non-Irrigated Average Figure 2. Greensnap as a result of storm damage on July 10, Corn Growth Stage Percent Leaf Area Destroyed % Potential Yield Loss 10 Leaf Leaf Tassel Brown Silk Pre-Blister Blister Table 2. Estimated potential yield loss in corn from defoliation. Please note the corn growth stage is based on the indicator leaf method and not the V stage method developed by Iowa State University. Source: J. V. Vorst Assessing hail damage to corn. NCH-1. National Corn Handbook. Results Irrigation. The average yield for hybrids 1, 2, and 3 in the irrigated treatments was 199 bu/acre, compared to 181 bu/acre for hybrids 4, 5, and 6 in the non-irrigated treatments (Table 3). Hybrid Response. Hybrids should be evaluated over several locations and environments. However, observations from each location can be valuable. Some observations from this location include hybrid 1 having the highest yield in the no-till soybean stubble, and also maintaining similar or more yield than hybrids 2 and 3 in the strip-tilled corn ground (Figure 3). The yield penalty for strip-till in corn stubble was greater for hybrid 2 (-84 bu/acre) than hybrid 1 (-54 bu/acre) or hybrid 3 (-45 bu/acre). In dryland treatments, hybrid 5 performed very well with the highest yield in both tillage/crop rotation scenarios (Figure 4). Additionally, hybrid 5 had a smaller yield penalty than hybrid 4 for being planted into strip-till corn stubble. Hybrid 6 yielded slightly more in the striptilled corn residue versus the no-till soybean stubble. In no-till soybean stubble, hybrid 6 yielded 19 and 43 bu/acre less than hybrids 4 and 5, respectively. Conclusion The goal of reaching 300 bu/acre was not achieved in this demonstration plot in One contributing factor was weather early in the season and near pollination that was not conducive to high yield potential. Additionally, the challenges with planting into the strips likely reduced yield potential due to poor seed to soil contact and seedbed issues that affected plant growth. Irrigation provided higher yield potential than dryland. Planting into no-till soybean stubble yielded more than planting into strip-till corn Summary continued on next page 6

10 Corn Yield (bu/acre) Corn Yield (bu/acre) High Yield Corn Management Continued from page 6 residue. However, the yield penalty for striptill corn residue was probably due in large part to the yield loss that is typically seen when planting corn on corn, which is often amplified in a no-till situation. If planting corn on corn, residue needs to be properly managed to try and attain maximum yield potential. When trying to reach 300 bu/acre corn yields, hybrids should be selected that can produce top-end yield potential, have the characteristics conducive to yielding in the field they will be placed into, and can provide strong yields under stressed conditions. In 2011, corn planted into no-till soybean stubble and irrigated had the highest yields, although not 300 bu/acre. This study should be repeated again to gain experience with another environment, and hopefully with less storm damage and fewer difficulties with planting into strip-till. No-till in Soybean Stubble Strip-till in Corn Residue H1 H2 H3 Figure 3. Yield response of hybrids 1, 2, and 3 in the irrigated treatments. No-till in Soybean Stubble Strip-till in Corn Residue H4 H5 H6 Figure 4. Yield response of hybrids 4, 5, and 6 in the dryland treatments. The information discussed in this report is from a single site, non replicated, one year 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. 7 Monsanto Technology Development

11 Irrigation and Row Spacing in Corn Corn yield potential can be greatly influenced by row spacing, and different row spacings can alter the effectiveness of irrigation and how water is stored in the soil. Many producers have tried to increase yield potential by planting rows narrower than 30 inches. Narrow rows spread the corn plants more evenly throughout the field leaving more space between plants within a row and less space between rows. In theory, equidistant planting, where plants are spaced apart in a diamond pattern, may be ideal for water and nutrient utilization and sunlight interception. Study Guidelines Demonstration trials were conducted in 2011 at the Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, Nebraska to determine yield response of corn in 30-inch rows compared to equidistant (EQ) plant spacing and to determine how row spacing may affect the yield response to irrigation. For both demonstrations, a 109 relative maturity (RM) corn hybrid with YieldGard VT Triple trait was planted on May 31, For the EQ Row Spacing demonstration, seeds were planted in 30-inch rows and EQ spacing at 3 different populations: 36,000, 50,000 and 70,000 seeds/acre. For the Irrigation and Row Spacing demonstration, corn was planted in 20-inch, 30-inch, and 36-inch single rows and 30-inch twin rows. For the EQ demonstration, the EQ plots were hand planted using stencils and hand harvested (Figure 1). For both demonstrations, weeds were controlled with preplant applications of Roundup PowerMAX herbicide and preemergence herbicide application of Degree Xtra at 3.5 qts/acre, Roundup PowerMAX at 32 fl oz/acre and Sharpen at 3 fl oz/acre. An aerial application of Headline fungicide was applied to the hybrids at VT stage. The EQ demonstration was hand harvested and shelled on October 26, The Irrigation and Row Spacing demonstration Figure 2. Corn planted in equidistant (EQ) spacing (top) and 30- inch rows (bottom). was harvested on October 20, Both demonstrations received six inches of supplemental irrigation in the later half of the growing season. The Irrigation and Row Spacing demonstration received a total of 14.6 inches of rainfall during the growing season. Summary continued on next page Figure 1. Stencils for hand corn planting for the equidistant system. 8

12 Yield (bu/acre) Yield (bu/acre) Irrigation and Row Spacing in Corn Continued from page Figure 3. Yield results of EQ and 30-inch row spacings at 36,000, 50,000 and 70,000 seeds/acre planting population EQ 30-inch 36,000 50,000 70,000 Planting Population 36-inch 30-inch Twin Row 20-inch Row Spacing Figure 4. Yield results of irrigation demonstration at 36-inch, 30- inch, 20-inch and twin row spacings. Results Equidistant Row Spacing In 2010, a demonstration was initiated by Monsanto on different row width configurations versus equidistant spacing. Yield results from the first year of data showed that 30-inch row spacing reported higher yields than the EQ spacing. However, the demonstration also found that plants in EQ spacing had larger ear size, stalk width and were greener in color than 30-inch single row spacing. In 2011, the demonstration only compared 30-inch rows to the EQ row spacing. The EQ spacing reported higher yield than the 30-inch spacing at all three planting populations in 2011 (Figure 3). Corn planted at 50,000 seeds/acre in EQ spacing reported the highest yield increase of 58.6 bu/acre when compared to 30-inch row spacing at the same planting population (Figure 3). Results Irrigation and Row Spacing For the Irrigation and Row Spacing demonstration, yields were taken from the four row spacings (36-inch, 30-inch, 20-inch and twin row) under irrigation (Figure 4). The 30-inch row spacing reported the highest yield at 202 bu/acre, followed closely by the 36-inch row spacing at bu/acre. These results may indicate when corn is not under moisture stress wider row widths can result in higher yield potential. Conclusions Depending on the environmental conditions, EQ row spacing may provide a yield advantage over 30-inch row spacing. EQ row spacing maximized yield potential when planted at 50,000 seeds per acre. Under dryland conditions, twin row corn production may have a yield advantage when compared to wider row widths (30-inch and 36-inch row spacing). When corn is not under moisture stress, wider row widths (30 inch and 36-inch rows) may have a yield advantage over narrow row spacing. The information discussed in this report is from a single site, non replicated, one year 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. 9 Monsanto Technology Development

13 Yield (bu/acre) Nitrogen and Planting Date Effects on Goss s Wilt Goss s wilt is caused by the bacterium Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. nebraskensis, which overwinters in infected crop residue. Infection occurs when rain or irrigation water splashes bacteria from infected crop residue onto wounded corn plants. Tillage operations that bury infected residue, crop rotation, and use of tolerant hybrids are accepted measures to help manage Goss s wilt. Because of the increase in incidence and severity of Goss s wilt in some areas of the Corn Belt, there has been an effort to determine if other agronomic practices may have an effect on the disease. Study Guidelines In 2011, a study was conducted at the Gothenburg Learning Center to determine the roles that nitrogen (N) application and planting date may play in the development of Goss s wilt. Three hybrids were selected with tolerant, intermediate, and susceptible reactions to Goss s wilt. On April 29, two rows of each hybrid were planted in adjacent strips on no-till ground. A portion of each row was treated with a) high nitrogen and fungicide, b) high nitrogen and no fungicide, c) low nitrogen and fungicide, and d) low nitrogen and no fungicide. The high nitrogen treatment was 200 lbs. of N applied as a 32% sidedress. The low nitrogen treatment was 100 lbs. of N applied as a 32% sidedress. A second rep was planted on June 2. Goss s wilt was allowed to develop from natural inoculum that had overwintered in debris from the previous year s crop. Plots were irrigated, but allowed to remain in a fairly waterstressed state. Hail events occurred on June 16 and July 10. Plots were harvested on September 21. Results The hybrid tolerant to Goss s wilt had the highest yields across all treatments (Figure 1) with an overall average yield of 123 bu/acre. Yield of the tolerant hybrid was not affected by planting date with average yields of 126 bu/acre and 121 bu/acre for April 29 and June 2 plantings, respectively. Yields of the hybrids with intermediate and susceptible reactions to Goss s wilt were higher from the late planted plots. The intermediate hybrid had an average yield of 80 bu/acre and 103 bu/acre when planted on April 29 and June 2, respectively. The susceptible hybrid had an average yield of 53 bu/acre when planted on April 29, and 92 bu/acre when planted on June 2. Nitrogen and fungicide treatments did not have a measurable effect on yields in this demonstration. Summary continued on next page High N Low N High N Low N High N Low N High N Low N Fungicide No Fungicide Fungicide No Fungicide 4/29 6/2 Tolerant Intermediate Susceptible Figure 1. Effect of nitrogen (N) and fungicide treatments on yields of three hybrids identified as tolerant, intermediate, and susceptible in their reaction to Goss s wilt. 10

14 Nitrogen and Planting Date Effects on Goss s Wilt Continued from page 10 * * * * * * Figure 2. Aerial view taken on July 26 showing planting date differences. Red lines and asterisks indicate June 2 planting date; white lines and asterisks indicate April 29 planting date. Six row plots contain two rows each of the susceptible, intermediate, and tolerant hybrids. Summary Comments The hybrid tolerant to Goss s wilt yielded substantially more than the intermediate and susceptible hybrids, regardless of planting date, nitrogen treatment, or fungicide use. These results indicate that hybrid selection plays a crucial role in the successful management of Goss s wilt. The hail events of June 16 and July 10 should have been conducive to the introduction and spread of Goss s wilt. Young plants (such as those in the plots planted June 2) that are infected with Goss s wilt can become wilted and withered. Plants that are infected at relatively early growth stages also have a greater opportunity to become systemically infected with Goss s wilt. It is likely that plants infected at an early growth stage would have greater yield loss due to Goss s wilt. However, in this study the susceptible and intermediate hybrids planted on June 2 had higher yields than the susceptible and intermediate hybrids planted on April 29. This may be due in part to the older plants in the April 29 plots sustaining greater physical damage from the hail storms, which led to greater yield loss. Yield reductions from hail tend to be greatest when leaf damage and defoliation occur between the pre-tassel to pre-blister growth stages. The information discussed in this report is from a single site, non-replicated, one-year 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. 11 Monsanto Technology Development

15 Corn Yield (bu/acre) Overwatering in Corn The negative effects of overwatering corn have often been related to additional cost and expense, as well as wasted water. Recently it has been observed that overwatering can further decrease profits due to a negative yield response in corn when the amount of water applied exceeds the evapotranspiration (ETc) needs of the corn crop. A demonstration was conducted at the Gothenburg Learning Center to evaluate the effects of different amounts of water on corn yield potential. Background Data from the Gothenburg Learning Center last year, suggested that some hybrids had a negative yield response to being watered at 100% ETc. Other hybrids maximized yield when watered at 100% ETc. When all hybrids were averaged together, the data indicated that the 100% irrigation level resulted in maximum yield potential. Studies conducted by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) have shown similar results 1. Across two years with very different yield levels, corn yields were consistently depressed by irrigating at the 125% of ETc level 1. In 2011 studies were expanded to evaluate potential differences in hybrid response to irrigation. Study Guidelines Eighteen hybrids with either YieldGard VT Triple or Genuity VT Triple PRO technology were planted on May 3rd, The previous crop was corn. Dryland plots were no-till. Irrigated plots were tilled with a Landoll VT7410 on April 30th, Planting populations were 24,000 and 34,000 seeds/acre for dryland and irrigated plots, respectively. Degree XTRA (3.5 qt/acre), Roundup PowerMAX herbicide (22 oz/acre), and Sharpen (3 oz/acre) were applied preemergence for weed control. Irrigation treatments are listed in Table 1. Table 1. Description of irrigation treatments. Dryland Treatment Rainfall or Additional Irrigation inches of rain 50% irrigation +3.7 inches 100% irrigation inches 125% irrigation inches Challenges The demonstration got off to a challenging start because of poor planting conditions after the tillage pass. Due to a planting population error, the correct population was planted between the original rows, and later, the rows of corn that were planted at the incorrect population were removed with cultivation. There was a hail event on June 16, 2011, when corn was V6. There was another hail and wind event on July 10, 2011, when corn was approximately V14. These challenges, plus the heat at pollination led to depressed yields compared to last year. Results Irrigation. In 2010, a 125% irrigation treatment was not applied, and the decreased yield response was not observed at the 100% irrigation level (data not shown). In 2011, irrigating at 100% ETc provided maximum yield when averaged across hybrids (Figure 1). Economic differences for the various irrigation treatments are provided in Figure None 25% (3.7 inches) % (7.57 inches) % (9.75 inches) Irrigation as Percent of Evapotranspiration (Actual inches applied) Figure 1. Effect of different amounts of irrigation on corn yield, averaged across multiple hybrids. Hybrid Response. Hybrids should be evaluated over several locations and environments. There was a difference in hybrid response to different levels of irrigation. Some hybrids had a positive yield response to the 125% ETc irrigation treatment (Figure 3A). Several hybrids had a negative yield response to overwatering (Figure 3B). A handful of hybrids did not vary in their response to irrigation between 50 and 125% ETC. Summary continued on next page 12

16 Corn Yield (bu/acre) Corn Yield (bu/acre) Average Economic Return ($/acre) After Water Cost Corn Yield (bu/acre) Overwatering in Corn Continued from page 12 $870 $8 $850 $840 $830 $820 $810 $800 $790 $780 $770 Conclusion In the two years that provided two different yield environments, it was observed that overwatering can have a negative effect on corn yield. Additionally, hybrids vary in their response to irrigation. Additional data from the same demonstration established by UNL at Brule, NE under center pivot irrigation, as well as data from neutron probe measurements from the Gothenburg Learning Center, will help provide additional information regarding conditions below the soil line, the penalties associated with overwatering, and different hybrid responses to irrigation. Sources $ $ $ $824. None 25% (3.7 inches) 100% (7.57 inches) 125% (9.75 inches) Irrigation as Percent of Evapotranspiration (Actual inches applied) Figure 2. Effect of different amounts of irrigation on economic return, averaged across multiple hybrids. 1 Irmak, S. and W.R. Rathje Plant growth and yield as affected by wet soil conditions due to flooding or over-irrigation. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension. G (verified 12/2/2011). The information discussed in this report is from a single site, non replicated, oneyear 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. A B C RM A 110 RM B 112 RM None 50% 100% 125% Irrigation (% ET c ) 105 RM A 109 RM B 112 RM B 113 RM A 114 RM A 115 RM A 115 RM B None 50% 100% 125% Irrigation (% ET c ) 106 RM A 107 RM B 109 RM A 116 RM A None 50% 100% 125% Irrigation (% ET c ) Figure 3. Some hybrids that had a positive yield response to irrigation above 100% ETc (A), while some hybrids show a negative yield response to excess irrigation (B), and some hybrids are relatively unaffected by the amount of irrigation (C). See charts A, B, and C above. 13 Monsanto Technology Development

17 Yield (bu/acre) Tillage Effects on Goss s Wilt Goss s wilt is caused by the bacterium Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. nebraskensis, which overwinters in infected crop residue. Infection occurs when rain or irrigation water splashes bacteria from infected crop residue onto corn plants, and bacteria enters plants through wounds caused by hail or strong winds. Tillage, which buries crop residue, hastens the decomposition of infected plant tissues and results in reduced levels of primary inoculum. The use of resistant hybrids also can play an important role in the management of Goss s wilt. Study Guidelines In 2011, a study was conducted at the Gothenburg Learning Center to assess the impact of tillage on Goss s wilt management. Three hybrids with susceptible, intermediate, and tolerant reactions to Goss s wilt were planted on April 29. Eight rows of each hybrid were planted in adjacent strips on no-till ground. Additional replications were planted in strip-tilled and conventional-tilled plots. A portion of each eight-row strip was treated with a fungicide, while the remainder was left untreated. Goss s wilt developed from natural inoculum that had overwintered in debris from the previous year s crop. Plots were harvested on September 23. Results By mid-july symptoms of Goss s wilt were present in all plots. Disease severity in all tillage systems was highest on the susceptible hybrid and lowest on the tolerant hybrid Yield of the Goss s wilt tolerant hybrid averaged 142 bu/acre across all treatments and had the highest yield in each tillage system, regardless of the presence or absence of fungicide (Figure 1). Yield of the Goss s wilt tolerant hybrid appeared to be unaffected by the type of tillage system used. Yields of the hybrids with intermediate and susceptible reactions to Goss s wilt were higher from plots that were conventional and striptilled than from no-till plots. Yields of both hybrids were slightly higher from conventional-tilled plots than from strip-tilled plots. Yield was not significantly affected by fungicide use in this demonstration. Summary Comments The Goss s wilt tolerant hybrid yielded substantially more than either of the two more susceptible hybrids, regardless of tillage system or fungicide use. These results indicate that hybrid selection plays a crucial role in the successful management of Goss s wilt. S I T S I T Fungicide No-till Strip-till Conv-till No Fungicide Summary continued on next page Figure 1. Yield of three hybrids with susceptible (S), intermediate (I), and tolerant (T) reactions to Goss s wilt, on no-till, strip-tilled, and conventional-tilled ground. A portion of each row was treated with fungicide. 14

18 Tillage Effects on Goss s Wilt Continued from page 14 No-till Strip-till Figure 2. Photographs of the hybrid susceptible to Goss s wilt taken on August 11. Conventional-till Tolerant Intermediate Susceptible No-till farming offers many benefits, such as retention of soil moisture, preservation of organic matter, and reduced soil erosion. In areas where Goss s wilt disease pressure is high, growers may still be able to use a no-till system if they select a hybrid that is highly tolerant to Goss s wilt. If a hybrid that is less tolerant to Goss s wilt is selected, tillage may be a useful tool to reduce the source of primary inoculum (bacteria overwintering in residue) and thereby minimize potential yield losses due to Goss s wilt. It is likely that fungal disease pressure was low in 2011, resulting in no yield differences between fungicide-treated and non-treated plots. Because Goss s wilt is caused by a bacterium, fungicide use would have no effect on the incidence or severity of Goss s wilt. Exceptionally intense Goss s wilt disease pressure in this study is the most likely explanation of why the hybrid with an intermediate response to Goss s wilt did not perform as well as expected. Figure 3. Aerial view on August 29 of one demonstration plot containing three hybrids with tolerant, intermediate, and susceptible reactions to Goss s wilt. The information discussed in this report is from a single site, non-replicated, one-year 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. 15 Monsanto Technology Development

19 Bushels/inch of water Water Efficiency in Era Hybrids According to recent projections, the current global population will increase by over 1 billion people and reach eight billion between 2025 and ,2. This increasing global population is driving the need for more food. Monsanto has made a commitment to assist farmers in the goal of doubling corn yield (from 2000) to 300 bu/acre by the year 2030 while reducing the amount of key crop inputs by one-third. Average corn yield in the U.S. in the 1930 s was approximately 24 bu/acre and nearly quadrupled to approximately 90 bu/acre in the 1970 s 3. From the 1970 s to the recent high yield of bu/acre in 2009, average yield has nearly doubled 3. Yields will need to continue to increase steadily in the next two decades to feed the world s growing population. Data from a Monsanto trial conducted in 2009 and 2010 at Gothenburg, NE showed that current hybrids planted at current populations yield more per inch of water compared to hybrids of past decades planted at historic and current populations 4,5. In 2011, a similar demonstration was performed to compare yield per inch of water across hybrids from the 1930 s to present day. Study Guidelines A demonstration trial was conducted in 2011 at the Gothenburg Learning Center with an objective of assessing how productivity in hybrids has been enhanced over the past nine decades. This was measured in terms of bushels produced per inch of water from irrigation and rainfall. Nine corn hybrids, which were planted in the U.S. between the 1930 s to 2010, were selected for this demonstration (Table 1). In addition to the 14.6 inches of rainfall that fell on Table 1. Corn products evaluated across irrigation and population regimes. the trial in 2011, three irrigation regimes were used to represent different levels of stress: full irrigation (8.4 inches), 50% (4.3 inches), and dryland. The drip irrigation applications were varied in time and amount throughout the season. Planting populations were 34,000 seeds per acre for the irrigated plots and 24,000 seeds per acre for the dryland plots. Each plot was replicated four times within each irrigation regime. The trial was planted on May 4, 2011 into soybean ground. No-till practices were followed, and weed management consisted of 3.5 qt/acre Degree Xtra + 3 oz/acre Sharpen as a burndown application. Postemergence, 22 oz/acre Roundup PowerMAX herbicide was applied. Headline fungicide was applied at tassel (VT). Results Similar to 2009 and 2010, the data from 2011 showed an incremental increase in yield per inch of water for each decade of hybrid release across irrigation regimes and populations (Figure 1). The 2011 demo was expanded to include corn lines from the Decade of Release Product Evaluated 1930 s DK s * 1950 s * s XL45A 1970 s XL72AA 1980 s DK s RX s RX DKC62-97 Brand *Public product released by university 's 1940's 1950's 19's 1970's 1980's 1990's 2000's 2010 Decade of Hybrid Release Figure 1. Water use efficiency across the decades. Data reported as average yield in bushels per inch of water, averaged across the three irrigation regimes. Data Source: Gothenburg Learning Center Summary continued on next page 16

20 Bushels/inch of water Water Efficiency in Era Hybrids Continued from page s double cross - DK s hybrid - RX Figure 2. Three-year summary of water use efficiency. Data reported as average yield in bushels per inch of water, averaged across planting populations. *Only one year of data available. **Current hybrids for 2009 and 2010 were hybrids released in Current hybrid for 2011 was a hybrid released in Data Source: Gothenburg Learning Center 's* 1940's* 1950's* 19's 1970's 1980's 1990's 2000's Current** Decade of Hybrid Release 1930 s through the 1950 s. Water use efficiency of the 2010 Genuity VT Triple PRO corn product was over 6 bu/inch of water greater than a 1930 s product, and over 3 bu/inch of water greater than a 1970 s product. The three-year summary of water use efficiency of hybrids across the decades illustrates continued water use improvement with current hybrids (Figure 2). The 2010 hybrid used for the 2011 demo at Gothenburg yielded over 0.5 bu/inch of water more than the 2009 hybrids used in 2009 and Conclusions Globally, irrigation accounts for 69% of the water withdrawn for human use 6. More yield with less water will need to be addressed to meet global food demand; in other words, produce more crop per drop. The demo data shows that through plant breeding and the use of biotech traits, Monsanto hybrids have been developed that have improved water utilization over the decades. Summary continued on next page 17 Monsanto Technology Development

21 Water Efficiency in Era Hybrids Continued from page 17 Sources 1World Population: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2Ch. 5: Population Size and Composition. World Population Prospects, the 2000 Revision. Vol.III. United Nations Population Division. p United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 4Gothenburg Learning Center Summary, History of Corn: Impact of Plant Breeding and Plant Population on Corn Yield over the Last Six Decades, Gothenburg Learning Center Summary, Corn Water Use Efficiency in Legacy Hybrids, 2010; 6 Agriculture and Water. Water Encyclopedia. waterencyclopedia.com. The information discussed in this report is from a single site, one-year 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. 18

22 Corn and Soybean Intercropping Strip-intercropping has been proposed as a means to increase corn yields. The idea is to create more edge rows throughout a field to increase corn yield, without negatively affecting soybean yield from shading, much like the outside, edge rows of a field yield more than interior rows. The theory is supported by the fact that corn is a C4 plant with high photosynthetic efficiency which captures and converts more sunlight into more grain yield when planted in strips with a shorter crop like soybeans or small grains. Technological upgrades in new auto-guidance systems, variable rate planting and application equipment can enable farmers to implement stripintercropping systems. Technology advancements introduced with Genuity traits for weed and insect management in corn and soybeans, coupled with hybrid genetics that respond to higher populations make strip-intercropping feasible. Study Guidelines Agronomists at the Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE established a pilot demonstration protocol in 2011 to determine the feasibility of strip-intercropping corn and soybeans in western Nebraska. Four row strips of each crop were planted in 30 inch rows and alternated across the plot (Figure 1). Soybeans were Figure 1. Aerial view of strip intercropping corn and soybeans at the Gothenburg Learning Center, planted at a constant,000 plants/acre population in each strip adjacent to corn. Corn strips had various row populations equivalent to 24,000, 30,000, or,000 plants/acre. The seven Population in 1000s for each plot row Figure 2. Corn treatment comparisons used for intercropping at the Gothenburg Learning Center, corn, four row plot configurations are outlined in Figure 2. Corn and soybeans were planted on May 16, 2011 in rows oriented east to west and harvested October 16, The corn used was a 112 RM Genuity VT Triple PRO corn product and a 2.7 RM Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybean product was planted. Rainfall was plentiful through June but, supplemental irrigation was used in the later part of the season. Growing degree days were 141 below the normal average for Gothenburg, NE. Headline fungicide at 6 fl oz/ acre was applied aerially to the plot when corn was tasseling (VT). Results And Conclusions The demonstration results are summarized in Figure 3 and indicate that an edge effect in outside rows was observed in most of the comparisons. All corn comparisons had a higher average yield than the 30,000 plants/acre check plot. The outer corn rows responded better to the additional light and higher plant population versus the interior rows. Figure 4 shows two examples from the demonstration that could represent field configurations compared with the check plot and the resultant yield gain from edge rows. Soybeans showed a consistent yield decline in the one row adjacent to corn regardless of corn population configuration as shown in Figure 3. The results of this demonstration agree with additional research and with farmer experience in strip-intercropping corn and soybeans 1, 2. Previous data would indicate that strip row width should be 8 rows or less to capture the maximum yield gain in corn. Although the concept of higher corn yields from outer rows is valid, a higher level of input management will be required to realize benefits in a strip-intercropping system. The trade-off in yield between corn and soybeans will have to be weighed against expected market conditions. The work on strip-intercropping will continue in 2012 to determine the yield impact and effects on profitability of the system. The same plots will be utilized but, corn will be rotated to soybean strips and soybeans to corn strips. Summary continued on next page 19 Monsanto Technology Development

23 Corn Grain Yield (bu/acre) Grain Yield in bu/acre Corn and Soybean Intercropping Continued from page Corn Soybeans Plot Averages References 1 West, T.D. and D. R., Griffith Effect of strip-intercropping corn and soybean on yield and profit. J. Prod. Agric. 5: Winsor, S Farming on the edge. Corn and Soybean Digest. 4 Row Corn and Soybean Population in 1000s Figure 3. Corn and soybean yield response to various corn row population configurations Plot Ave Plot Ave. 2.5 Plot Ave Row Corn Population in 1000 s of Plants/acre Plants/A Figure 4. Corn yield response to selected corn row population configurations. The information discussed in this report is from a single site, non replicated, one year 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. 20

24 High Yield Soybean Management An increasing global population is driving the need for more food. Helping farmers achieve more through improved product performance and better placement and management recommendations can help achieve this goal of increased yield. At the Learning Center in Gothenburg, Nebraska, researchers established a goal of reaching 100 bu/acre soybeans in The following summary describes what was learned and how growers can apply this knowledge. Study Guidelines A demonstration trial was conducted at the Gothenburg Learning Center with an objective of achieving 100 bu/ acre soybean yields. Four treatments were evaluated, each with an intense level of management inputs (Table 1). Plant populations of,000 and 200,000 plants/acre were evaluated (Figure 1). Three varieties of varying relative maturity (RM) were included: 2.9, 3.1, and 3.3 RM. Two irrigation regimes were examined, including irrigated, and dryland. Additional treatments of Headline, which is a broad-spectrum foliar fungicide, and Brigade, which is an insecticide/miticide were also applied. A hail storm affected this trial on July 10, 2011 when the soybeans were at the R2 growth stage. Results Soybean yields were highest in the irrigated 200,000 plants/acre treatment in the 3.1 RM variety (81.4 bu/ acre) (Figure 2). In general, the yields for the 2.9 RM variety were similar across all treatments, ranging 76 to 77 bu/acre. However, the dryland 200,000 plants/acre treatment yielded lower at 69 bu/acre. The 3.3 RM variety yielded 5 to 7 bu/acre higher in the irrigated treatments in comparison to the dryland treatments. For the 3.1 RM variety, the yield in the irrigated 200,000 plants/acre treatment was over 6 bu/acre higher than any other treatment. When comparing high yield management with a demo of standard yield management in irrigated treatments, high yield management averaged over 17 bu/acre more than the standard yield management system (data not shown). However, in dryland, the high yield management system yielded only 3.5 bu/acre more. Table 1. Inputs for the four treatments in the high yield soybean management demo at Gothenburg Learning Center. Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 4 Irrigated (9.9 inches),000 plants/acre,000 Dryland 200,000,000 Irrigated (9.9 inches) 200,000 plants/acre Three varieties: 2.9, 3.1, and 3.3 RM Acceleron Seed Treatment Products Strip-till 80 lbs P as Irrigated Dryland,000 plants/acre Inputs for All Treatments 200,000 Dryland 200,000 plants/acre 5 lbs/acre of at mid-bloom Headline fungicide at R3 Brigade insecticide/miticide at R3 lbs N as Urea at R5 Figure 1. Aerial photo of soybean plots taken August 9, 2011, Gothenburg Learning Center. Rows separated by white lines = 2.9 RM. Rows separated by red lines = 3.1 RM. Rows separated by blue lines = 3.3 RM. Summary continued on next page 21 Monsanto Technology Development

25 Yield (bu/acre) High Yield Soybean Management Continued from page RM 3.1 RM 3.3 RM 10 0 Dry Irr Dry Irr,000 plants/acre,000 plants/acre 200,000 plants/acre 200,000 plants/acre Figure 2. Soybean yield results from the four high yield management treatments. Dry = dryland; Irr = irrigated. Data Source: Gothenburg Learning Center Conclusions The hail storm that occurred during the second week of July caused approximately 30% leaf defoliation at the R2 growth stage, along with some stem damage to the plants. Previous defoliation studies have shown a 3% yield loss when 30% defoliation occurs at the R1-R2 stage 1. When factoring in the stem damage, it is estimated that the hail may have resulted in 4 to 5% yield loss in this demo. In this demo, there was a limited response to irrigation. At Gothenburg, it has been observed that too much irrigation can decrease soybean yield 2. Yields did not reach the 100 bu/acre goal. However, the irrigated 200,000 plants/acre treatment with 3.1 RM variety yielded over 80 bu/acre. This variety and the associated system could potentially be used as part of a high yield management strategy in future experiments, and in years with more favorable weather conditions, to reach the 100 bu/acre yield goal. Sources: 1 Shapiro, CA, TA Peterson, and AD Flowerday G Soybean yield loss due to hail damage. University of Nebraska. 2Gothenburg Learning Center Summary, Corn and Soybean Water Use Efficiency in dryland and irrigation, The information discussed in this report is from a single site, non-replicated, one-year 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. 22

26 Yield in bu/acre Irrigation Evaluations in Soybeans Irrigated soybean acreage in Nebraska has grown to over 2 million acres. New locally adapted soybean varieties with high yield potential are available for irrigated acres in western Nebraska. Proper irrigation management has become a critical necessity to optimize soybean yields. Recent research indicated soybean irrigation requirements and monitoring practices need to be reevaluated to maximize production while efficiently utilizing water resources. The 2011 demonstration at the Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, Nebraska addressed questions regarding the amount of irrigation required by different soybean varieties and a new approach to irrigation scheduling for western Nebraska. Study Guidelines Based on results from similar demonstrations conducted in 2009 and 2010 at Gothenburg, an irrigation demonstration with ten Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybean products and one Roundup Ready soybean product with relative maturities (RM) ranging from 2.4 to 3.7 were planted on May 4, 2011 in a split-plot randomized complete block design with 3 replications. Three irrigation regimens were imposed on each soybean product based on recommendations from University of Nebraska SoyWater 1 : 1.) No irrigation, natural rainfall only (14.6 inches in 2011). 2.) 100% irrigation (9 inches + natural) when crop water use depleted available soil water by 40%. 3.) 50% irrigation (4.2 inches + natural) at the same timing as 100% irrigation. A 3.1 RM soybean was used with the SoyWater model to determine irrigation needs for the entire plot. Irrigation was accomplished with drip tape buried 12 inches deep in the soil with 40 inches between drip lines. The trial received an early postemergence (V3 soybeans) tank mix application of Roundup PowerMAX herbicide at 22 oz/acre, Select 2EC herbicide at 3 oz/acre, and Warrant Herbicide at 3 pints/ acre for season-long weed control. Results and Conclusions In general, there was a positive yield response to irrigation versus no irrigation. Nine of the eleven soybean products produced higher yields with the 50% irrigation regimen versus full irrigation (Figure 1). Two varieties had a linear response to increasing irrigation (data not shown). The average yield for all varieties receiving 9 inches of irrigation (100%) was 5.4 bushels/ Varieties That Responded Negatively to Full irrigation Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield 2.7 Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield 2.9 Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield 3.0 Roundup Ready 3.0 Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield 3.1 A Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield 3.1 B Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield 3.4 Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield 3.7 Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield Figure 1. Individual soybean product yield response to each irrigation regimen =Dryland, 0.5 = 4.15" Irrigation, 1 = 8.95" Irrigation Summary continued on next page 23 Monsanto Technology Development

27 Grain yield in bushels/acre Grain yield in bushels/acre Irrigation Evaluations in Soybeans Continued from page Figure 2. Average soybean yield for each irrigation regimen Average Yield by Irrigation Treatment - All Varieties Dryland Irrigated 4.2 inches Irrigated 9 inches A 3.1 B 3.1 C Dryland Irrigated 4.2 inches Irrigated 9 inches Figure 3. Differential yield response for three, 3.1 RM soybean products to irrigation. 75 acre greater than the non-irrigation regimen (Figure 2). Reducing irrigation by 50% produced the highest yield in the trial, resulting in a 3 bushels/acre increase over 100% irrigation. Comparing the three 3.1 RM soybean products illustrates the differential response to irrigation that can occur within and between variety groups (Figure 3), reinforcing the need to understand how the characteristics of each field may influence varietal performance. The response to reduced irrigation is similar to results observed in previous trials at Gothenburg. In several cases, the same variety had more nodes, but reduced yield in the 100% irrigation regimen versus the 50% regimen. Over-irrigation can reduce the exchange of oxygen between the soil and atmosphere, causing a reduction in root growth in the top few feet of the soil. This lack of oxygen exchange can reduce the transport of water and nutrients through the roots to the upper parts of the plant (Irmak et al. 2008). Producers can positively impact profitability by carefully managing irrigation timing and pumping costs to prevent yield loss and higher irrigation costs. 1 Specht, J. and K. Cassman SoyWater. soywater.unl.edu (verified 12/8/2011) University of Nebraska. References Irmak, S. R. et. al Plant growth and yield as affected by wet soil conditions caused by flooding or over-irrigation G1904. University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Kranz, W.L. et. Al Irrigating Soybeans G1367. University of Nebraska. The information discussed in this report is from a single site, replicated, one year 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. 24

28 Yield (bu/acre) Yield (bu/acre) Soybean Planting Date Historically, soybean planting dates have been delayed relative to corn and were considered less critical in regards to yield. However, research has shown that early planting is important to maximize soybean yield potential. With soybean commodity prices increasing, and seed treatment options allowing for earlier planting, planting dates need to be evaluated as a factor to help increase potential yield and profitability. Study Guidelines Demonstration trials were conducted in 2011 at the Monsanto Learning Center in Gothenburg, NE to evaluate the impact of planting date on the yield of different soybean varieties. In one trial, Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybean varieties, with relative maturities (RM) of 2.4 and 3.1, were planted on April 14, April 28, May 11, May 23, and June 9, Plots were nonreplicated with four rows of soybeans at lengths of 225 to 250 feet, harvesting the center two rows. In another trial, a 2.9 RM Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybean variety was planted every one to two weeks beginning March 31 and ending June 10, Plots were also non-replicated, but with two rows of soybeans at a length of 145 feet, harvesting both rows. All soybean varieties were planted in 30 inch rows at a population of,000 seeds per acre, and all plots were harvested on October 11, Weather conditions during the growing season were generally normal, with more than adequate rainfall in May, and above normal temperatures in July and August. Soil conditions were good for the early plantings of soybeans in these demonstrations. Results And Discussion In the trial with the two soybean varieties, planting after May 11 generally resulted in lower yields for both varieties (Figure 1). The varieties had their highest yields when the 2.4 RM product was planted on May 11 (59.9 bu/acre) and the 3.1 RM product was planted early on April 14 (55.9 bu/acre). Both varieties had their lowest yields when planted late on June 9, showing a yield decrease of 13 to 14 bu/acre. In the trial with the 2.9 RM soybean variety, the maximum yield was 64.8 bu/acre with significantly lower yields when planting after May 5 (Figure 2). The 2.9 RM product yielded 13 to 15 bu/acre more when planted in April through early May than when planted on June 10. When averaged across all varieties in this demonstration testing, soybean yields showed the most decrease when planted after the middle of May (Figure 3). The average yield loss for delayed planting after mid-may was 2.6 bushels per week. Yield loss was more with delayed planting of the 2.4 RM variety (3.2 bu/week) RM 3.1 RM April 14 April 28 May 11 May 23 June 9 Planting Date Figure 1. Effect of planting date on the yield of 2.4 and 3.1 relative maturity (RM) Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybean varieties Mar 14-Apr 28-Apr 12-May 26-May 9-Jun Figure 2. Effect of planting date on the yield of a 2.9 relative maturity Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybean variety. Summary continued on next page 25 Monsanto Technology Development

29 Soybean Planting Date Continued from page 25 Planting Date Average Yield Loss of 2.6 bu/week Figure 3. Influence of planting date on the yield of soybeans when averaged across all varieties (2.4, 2.9, and 3.1 RM products) in the demonstration trials. compared to the 3.1 RM variety (2.5 bu/week). Generally, full season varieties adapted to the area yield best when planted at early to normal planting dates. As planting is delayed, yield potential goes down, and the risk of frost damage to later maturity varieties increases. Early season varieties can yield as well as full season varieties when soybean planting is delayed (June). However, planting the latest-maturing variety that will reach physiological maturity before the first killing frost is generally best to maximize soybean yield potential. 1 Soybean varieties in maturity groups II and III are best adapted to Nebraska conditions. 2 Early to mid May is generally considered optimum for soybean planting, although soybeans can produce similar yields when planted in March and April, as shown in this demonstration testing. 3 The extended vegetative growth of soybeans from early planting can lead to a larger crop canopy earlier in the growing season, and more nodes on the main stem increasing the potential for more pods per plant. Early planting also leads to earlier flowering of soybeans and a longer period of reproductive growth for seed fill. Planting soybeans early, when growing conditions are favorable, can help to capture the maximum yield potential of a soybean variety. 4 References 1Beuerlein, J. and Dorrance, A. Soybean production. Ohio Agronomy Guide, 14 th edition, Ohio State University Extension, Bulletin (verified 11/21/11). 2Nelson, L. et al Crop profile for soybeans in Nebraska. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Cooperative Extension. April, (verified 11/21/11). 3Klein, B Recommended soybean planting date. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Crop Watch. March 31, flood.unl.edu (verified 11/21/11). 4Bastidas, A.M. et al Soybean sowing date: The vegetative, reproductive, and agronomic impacts. Crop Science 48: The information discussed in this report is from a single site, non replicated, one year 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. 26

30 Yield (bu/acre) Soybean Row Spacing Row spacing is considered more important than tillage or optimum plant population to maximize soybean yield potential. 1 Research shows that narrow rows (less than 30 inches) can produce higher yields than wider rows (30 inches or greater). However, narrow rows have not consistently shown increased yields over wider rows because of many influencing factors. 2 Therefore, testing is needed to examine the impact of row spacing on soybean yield under various growing conditions. Study Guidelines A demonstration trial was conducted in 2011 at the Monsanto Learning Center in Gothenburg, NE to evaluate the impact of row spacing on soybean yield. Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybean varieties, with relative maturities (RM) of 2.7 and 3.1, were planted on June 8, 2011 in 7½ (drilled), twin, 15, 30, and 36 inch rows. Soybeans were planted at a population of,000 seeds per acre in all row spacings. The trial consisted of 20 plots (5 row spacings, 2 varieties, 2 replications) each with 2 to 6 soybean rows (depending on the spacing) at a length of 1 feet. All plots were harvested on October 11, Weather conditions during the growing season were generally considered to be normal for the area RM 3.1 RM Average 54 Results and Discussion The drilled soybeans produced the highest yields in this demonstration, with an average yield of 65 bushels bu/acre across both varieties (Figure 1). The 2.7 RM variety yielded higher (by more than 4 bu/ acre) than the 3.1 RM variety at all row spacings, except the 36 inch row spacing where yields were nearly equivalent. On average, the drilled soybeans had a 20-35% increase in yield over the other row spacings. Yields were similar between the 15 inch and twin rows, and the 30 and 36 inch rows. The 15 inch row spacing outyielded the 30 inch row spacing by 10% or 4.7 bu/acre on average. The 7½ inch drilled rows out-yielded the 15 inch row spacing by 20% or 11.5 bu/acre on average. Soybean yield losses exceeded 10 bu/acre in all row Drill 15 inch Twin 30 inch 36 inch Row Spacing Figure 1. Effect of row spacing on the yield of 2.7 and 3.1 relative maturity (RM) Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybean varieties. spacings for both varieties in comparison to the 7½ inch drilled row planting (Figure 2). Testing in Iowa showed a 4.6 bu/acre yield advantage for 15 over 30 inch row spacing. 1 Testing in Nebraska showed a 2.2 bu/acre yield advantage for 20 over 30 inch row spacing. 2 Monsanto testing conducted in 2009 at five Midwest locations showed no significant yield difference between 20 and 30 inch row spacing. 3 The impact of row spacing on soybean yield can be influenced by the field environment. Narrow row spacing generally increases yield in high yielding environments, but when soybean yield potential is low, because of stress, narrow rows may not always provide a yield advantage. 1,2 The presence of diseases such as white mold or brown stem rot is often the cause for narrow rows to yield the same as wide rows. 4 There was also no evidence of white mold or high disease pressure in this demonstration testing. Narrow rows provide a yield advantage because the soybean canopy develops quicker and intercepts more light throughout the growing season. 1 Canopy closure of 15 inch rows can happen as much as 15 days earlier than 30 inch rows. 4 This can be important, since canopy closure is needed by the start of pod set (R3) for maximum pod formation and seed filling. 2 Due to earlier canopy closure, narrow rows can have a larger yield advantage when the soybean planting date is delayed into June. Summary continued on next page 27 Monsanto Technology Development

31 Yield Loss Compared to Drilled (bu/acre) Soybean Row Spacing Continued from page RM 3.1 Rm Average inch Twin 30 inch 36 inch Row Spacing Figure 2. Soybean yield loss at different row spacings compared to a drilled (7½ inch) planting configuration. References 1Pedersen, P Row spacing is important to maximize your yield. Soybean Production Fact Sheet 3/12/2008. Iowa State University Extension. extension.agron.iastate.edu (verified 11/22/11). 2Elmore, R.W. et al Narrow-row soybeans. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Cooperative Extension. NebGuide G issued November Monsanto National Research Summary Interaction of plant population, row spacing and variety selection on soybean yield. Monsanto Technology Development. 4Plant Health Initiative Soybean row spacing. (verified 11/22/11). The later planting date could have impacted the narrow row yield advantages shown in this demonstration testing. Other benefits of narrow row planting and early canopy closure are as follows: 4 better weed control reduced soil moisture loss easier and more efficient harvesting Combine efficiency increases in narrow rows because a more even plant distribution provides for easier cutting and feeding into the combine. Harvest losses can also be reduced because of the absence of cultivator ridges to interfere with cutting height. Soybean row spacing testing will be continued at this location to better define how certain factors, such as high disease pressure, can have an impact on yield potential. The information discussed in this report is from a single site, one year 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. 28

32 Monsanto Technology Development NOTES

33 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. Commercial product(s) 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 Biotechnology Industry Organization. B.t. products may not yet be registered in all states. Check with your Monsanto representative for the registration status in your state. Roundup Technology includes Monsanto's glyphosate-based herbicide technologies. 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 crops contain genes that confer tolerance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup brand agricultural herbicides. Roundup brand agricultural herbicides will kill crops that are not tolerant to glyphosate. Degree Xtra is a restricted use pesticide and is not registered in all states. Tank mixtures: The applicable labeling for each product must be in the possession of the user at the time of application. Follow applicable use instructions, including application rates, precautions and restrictions of each product used in the tank mixture. Monsanto has not tested all tank mix product formulations for compatibility or performance other than specifically listed by brand name. Always predetermine the compatibility of tank mixtures by mixing small proportional quantities in advance. Acceleron, Degree Xtra, Genuity and Design, Genuity Icons, Genuity, Roundup PowerMAX, Roundup Ready 2 Technology and Design, Roundup Ready, Roundup, Technology Development by Monsanto and Design, VT Triple PRO, and YieldGard VT Triple are trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC. Headline is a registered trademark of BASF Corporation. 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.