Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE 2015 Demonstration Reports

Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE 2015 Demonstration Reports

Follow us! Scan the codes below to visit our website, and follow us on Facebook and Twitter for information and resources all year. Website: http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/gothenberg-learning-center.aspx. @MonsantoWaterLC https://www.facebook.com/monsantowaterutilizationlearningcenter Page 3 / 2015 Demo Report

Welcome... to the 2015 Demonstration Reports from your Learning Center in Gothenburg, NE. The overall growing conditions at the Learning Center were very good with 300 bu/a corn and 100 bu/a soybean recorded. Initially, precipitation at the Learning Center was minimal over winter which left soil dry in April. However, in the latter part of April, rains increased and continued on through the summer with the monthly totals as follows: April 2.8, May 4.5, June 3.4, July 3.0, August 3.7, and September 3.0 inches. Air temperature was moderate with only 12 days reaching between 95-99 o F and no days reaching above 100 o F. A strong wind event occurred on August 6th which caused some corn to lodge on the western third of the Learning Center but that was the only strong wind or hail event recorded. During the tour season, we took the opportunity to discuss various corn, soybean, and wheat research projects along with discussing new trait platforms such as the Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans with the many guests from multiple countries who attended. As always, we welcome and look forward to your visit in 2016. The Learning Center Team is gearing up for another successful season with demonstrations that will be valuable your operation. To schedule a visit with a group of any size please contact Khris Jinks (khris.a.jinks@monsanto.com) or Lisa Bihlmaier (lisa.m.bihlmaier@monsanto.com) at (308) 537-4506. We d enjoy the opportunity to show you around the field and the classrooms if you are in the area. If you have any questions feel free to contact me at brian.olson@monsanto.com. Thanks, The Gothenburg Learning Center Team Commercialization is dependent on multiple factors, including successful conclusion of the regulatory process. The information presented herein is provided for educational purposes only, and is not and shall not be construed as an offer to sell, or a recommendation to use, any unregistered pesticide for any purpose whatsoever. It is a violation of federal law to promote or offer to sell an unregistered pesticide. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Roundup Ready 2 Xtend is a trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. 2016 Monsanto Company. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 4

Table of Contents Overwatering Corn Products with Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids Technology High Yield Corn Management Corn Product Comparison from Different Eras to Water Stress Effect of Planter Down Force at Planting on Yield The Effect of Removing Irrigation During Corn Grain Fill Value of a Fungicide Application Following a Hail Event Product Stability Under Limited Irrigation in the Western Great Plains Effect of Stubble Height and Cover Crop on Dryland Corn Yield Possible Goss s Wilt Suppression with Cover Crops Soybean Management Strategies for High Yield Dryland Soybean Production Systems Soybean Response to Seeding Rates in 30-inch Row Spacing Planting Date Effects on Irrigated Soybean Stripe Rust and the Effect of Fungicide Application on Wheat 5-7 8-11 12-16 17-19 20-23 24-27 28-31 32-34 35-39 40-43 44-47 48-53 54-60 61-63 Page 5 / 2015 Demo Report

Overwatering Corn Products with Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids Technology Background Farmers have embraced corn products with Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids technology because the trait allows corn plants to handle water stressed environments better than corn without the trait. There are, however, years when rainfall is plentiful and corn plants may receive more water than needed. What happens in those years when corn receives too much rain? Rainfall over the growing season was 3.4 inches in June, 3.0 inches in July, and 3.7 inches in August, and 3.0 inches in September. This study was designed as a randomized splitplot with four replications. 160% 100% 120% Does a product with Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids technology respond differently and lose yield potential when compared to corn products without the trait in situations where a field has received more water than normal? Does a product with Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids technology act similarly to a corn product without the trait when each is overwatered? Study Guidelines Two products with Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids technology and two similar corn products without the technology were planted on May 18, 2015. All corn was planted with a no-till planter into grain sorghum stubble from the previous year. Important dates for the crop were: emergence on June 3 silking on July 24 blacklayer on October 4 first frost on October 16 Corn was irrigated on July 13, with subsequent irrigations on July 29, August 20, August 30, and September 13. Irrigation volume during each application was 1 inch, 1.2 inches, or 1.6 inches, representing 100%, 120%, or 160% of recommended irrigation volume, respectively (Figure 1). Total irrigation applied was 5 inches for the 100% plots, 6 inches for the 120% plots, and 8 inches for the 160% plots. Figure 1. Over irrigation treatments. Results and Discussion There was no significant difference between the performance of products with Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids technology and similar corn products without the trait when each received excess water from irrigation and/or rainfall. Take Aways Corn products with Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids technology and corn products without the trait performed similarly in overwatered environments. Legals The information discussed in this report is from a single site, 4 replication demonstration. This informational piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Monsanto Company is a member of Excellence Through Stewardship (ETS). Monsanto products are commercialized in accordance with ETS Product Launch Stewardship Guidance, and in compliance with Monsanto s Policy for Commercialization of Biotechnology-Derived Plant Products in Commodity Crops. This product has been approved for import into key export markets with functioning regulatory systems. Any crop or material produced from this product can only be exported to, or used, processed or sold in countries where all necessary regulatory approvals have been granted. It is a violation of national and international law to move material containing biotech traits across boundaries into nations where import is not permitted. Growers should talk to their grain handler or product purchaser to confirm their buying position for this product. Excellence Through Stewardship is a registered trademark of Excellence Through Stewardship. B.t. products may not yet be registered in all states. Check with your Monsanto representative for the registration status in your state. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 5

Overwatering Corn Products with Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids Technology Average Yield (bu/acre) 300 260 220 180 140 100 273 273 276 270 269 272 Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids Technology Figure 2. Effect of over irrigation on corn products. LSD (0.1) = NS 100% 120% 160% % of Full Irrigation No drought tolerant trait Figure 3. Corn Products with Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids Technology at 160% of Full Irrigation. 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. DroughtGard, Genuity, VT Double PRO, VT Triple PRO and Monsanto and Vine Design are trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. 2015 Monsanto Company. 151103150305 112015JEH. Page 6 / 2015 Demo Report

Overwatering Corn Products with Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids Technology Figure 4. Corn Products with Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids Technology at 120% of full irrigation. Figure 5. Corn Products with Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids Technology at 100% of Full Irrigation. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 7

High Yield Corn Management Background Additional management practices have helped increase corn yield potential. However, determining which practices contribute the most to yield potential is important as farmers desire consistent, high corn yields that result in economic gain. A similar demonstration titled Additive Management Practices on Corn Yield Potential was conducted at the Monsanto Learning Center near Gothenburg, NE in 2014. Some takeaways from the 2014 demonstration include: The general response to increased management resulted in a yield increase; however, not all treatments increased yield. Increasing the seeding rate provided the most consistent yield increase. The highest yield was achieved after adding the sulfur and zinc treatment. The purpose of this demonstration was to determine which components of high yield corn management are the most important and if there is an additive effect with each individual management practice contributing to yield potential. Study Guidelines A demonstration trial with four replications was conducted at the Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE in 2015 to evaluate the effect of various inputs contributing to increasing yield TABLE 1. NINE DIFFERENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. TRT Management Page 8 / 2015 Demo Report Phosphorus (10-34-0) (lbs/acre) potential. Plots were strip-tilled prior to planting. The demonstration trial was planted on April 30, 2015 at a base population of 32,000 seeds/acre. Weeds were controlled uniformly throughout the season using a residual PRE and POST herbicide program. Treatments Corn products: Two corn products with Genuity SmartStax technology were selected for the demonstration. Selected products had different relative maturities: 109 and 113. Nine different management practices (treatments) were applied with each management practice added to the previous. Subsequent treatments included the previous treatment plus an additional treatment resulting in a building block approach of treatments. Treatment 1 - Low management. Treatment 2 - Additional phosphorus (P): plus 40 lbs P/acre applied pre-plant with strip-till. Treatment 3 - Additional nitrogen (N): split N application injected as 32-0-0 UAN liquid solution; 50 % applied pre-plant with strip-till and 50% applied side-dress. Treatment 4 - Increased seeding density: increased seeding rate to 38,000 seeds/acre (an additional 6,000 seeds/acre). Nitrogen (32-0-0) (% applied) Density (seeds/acre) Fungicide* Sulfur & Zinc Late Nitrogen (46-0-0) LM 1 Low Management 40 AUF (240) 32,000 No No No AP 2 Add Phosphorus 80 AUF (240) 32,000 No No No SN 3 Split Nitrogen 120 lbs/acre at planting & V7 80 50/50 32,000 No No No DE 4 Density 80 50/50 38,000 No No No FU 5 Fungicide* at VT 80 50/50 38,000 Yes No No SZ 6 Sulfur + Zinc added to strip-till (S = 25lbs/acre, Zn = 1 lb/acre) 80 50/50 38,000 Yes Yes No KS Potassium + Sulfur in furrow at planting 7 (K=10lbs/acre, S = 3.5 lbs/acre) 80 50/50 38,000 Yes Yes No FN 8 Late Nitrogen application N = 80 lbs/acre at planting, V7, & VT 80 33/33/33 38,000 Yes Yes Yes IN 9 Insecticide** in furrow 80 33/33/33 38,000 Yes Yes Yes * Headline AMP Fungicide at 14 fl oz/acre, ** Capture LFR at 15 fl oz/acre

High Yield Corn Management Treatment 5 - Fungicide: Headline AMP Fungicide applied at VT growth stage. Treatment 6 - Additional sulfur and zinc: sulfur at 25 lbs/acre and zinc at 1 lb/acre applied pre-plant with strip-till. Treatment 7 Additional potassium and sulfur: potassium at 10 lbs/acre and sulfur at 3.5 lbs/acre applied in furrow at planting. Treatment 8 Additional nitrogen: 80 lbs N/ acre applied at planting, 80 lbs N/acre applied at V7 growth stage, and 80 lbs N/acre applied at VT growth stage. Treatment 9 Insecticide: Capture LFR insecticide at 15 fl oz/acre applied in furrow at planting. Results Tables 2 and 3 show the average yield by additive treatment (Table 2) and cumulative treatment cost versus the Low Management treatment (Table 3). Key Points An input like a fungicide may or may not impact yield depending on the occurrence of yieldlimiting levels of disease. Usually, wet weather along with adequate levels of high humidity create an environment where diseases like gray leaf spot can spread and a fungicide application may protect yield potential. Farmers should routinely test for nutrients. Sulfur, zinc, and other nutrients have the potential to significantly increase yield potential. No differences were reported in how the two corn products responded to treatments. In both 2014 and 2015, there was a general response to increased management resulting in increased yield potential; however, in both years not all treatments resulted in a yield increase. In both years, the highest corn yield was achieved after adding the sulfur and zinc treatment (6th treatment) when corn followed soybeans. TABLE 2. YIELD RESULTS, PLANT POPULATION, STALK LODGING AND ROOT LODGING RESULTS FROM DEMONSTRATION TREATMENTS. Treatment Yield (bu/acre) Plants/Acre % Stalk Lodging % Root Lodging Low Management (LM) 283 32,590 1.3 27.1 LM + Additional Phosphorus (AP) 283 31,442 1.7 34.3 LM+AP+Split Nitrogen (SN) 284 31,854 0.2 20.8 LM+AP+SN+Increased Density (DE) 287 36,539 1 34.0 LM+AP+SN+DE+Fungicide (FU) 295 36,844 1.4 26.5 LM+AP+SN+DE+FU+Sulfur/Zinc (SZ) 303 36,735 2.4 46.0 LM+AP+SN+DE+FU+SZ+Potassium/Sulfur (KS) 295 37,929 2.2 42.8 LM+AP+SN+DE+FU+SZ+KS+Late Nitrogen (LN) 288 36,859 0.9 38.7 LM+AP+SN+DE+FU+SZ+KS+LN+Insecticide (IN) 290 37,721 1.7 39.3 LSD (0.1) 7.6 1076 1.1 8.3 Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 9

High Yield Corn Management TABLE 3. COST OF DEMONSTRATION TREATMENTS. Treatment (TRT) Yield (bu/acre) Difference from LM (bu/acre) Cost of Demonstration TRT (compared to previous TRT) Cost of TRTs (cummulative cost) Low Management (LM) LM + Additional Phosphorus (AP) LM+AP+Split Nitrogen (SN) LM+AP+SN+Increased Density (DE) LM+AP+SN+DE+Fungicide (FU) LM+AP+SN+DE+FU+Sulfur/Zinc (SZ) LM+AP+SN+DE+FU+SZ+Potassium/Sulfur (KS) LM+AP+SN+DE+FU+SZ+KS+Late Nitrogen (LN) LM+AP+SN+DE+FU+SZ+KS+LN+Insecticide (IN) 283-0 0 283 0 $36.47 $36.47 284 1 $10.00 $46.47 287 4 $23.93 $70.39 295 12 $22.30 $92.69 303 20 $50.48 $143.17 295 12 $22.13 $165.30 288 5 $10.00 $175.30 290 7 $35.10 $210.40 305 300 LSD(0.1) = 7.6 Treatments 1 Low Management (LM) Average Yield (bu/acre) 295 290 285 280 275 2 LM + Additional Phosphorus (AP) 3 LM+AP+Split Nitrogen (SN) 4 LM+AP+SN+Increased Density (DE) 5 LM+AP+SN+DE+Fungicide (FU) 6 7 8 LM+AP+SN+DE+FU+ Sulfur/Zinc (SZ) LM+AP+SN+DE+FU+SZ+ Potassium/Sulfur (KS) LM+AP+SN+DE+FU+SZ+KS+ Late Nitrogen (LN) 270 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 LM+AP+SN+DE+FU+SZ+KS+ LN+Insecticide (IN) Treatments Figure 1. Average yield of high yield corn management treatments. Page 10 / 2015 Demo Report

High Yield Corn Management Figure 2. Low management treatment (LM). Figure 3. Treatment 5, additional phosphorus, split nitrogen application, increased plant population, and addition of fungicide treatment. Source Below, F. 2011. Management factors that contribute to high corn yields: Quantifying their value using an omission plot approach. University of Illinois. http://cropphysiology.cropsci.illinois.edu/ research/corn_omission_plots.html. Web sources verified 11/08/15. Figure 4. Treatment 6, Treatment 6, additional phosphorus, split nitrogen application, increased plant population, and addition of fungicide treatment, and additional of sulfur and zinc strip-tilled at planting. Legal The information discussed in this report is from a single site, non-replicated demonstration. This informational piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Monsanto Company is a member of Excellence Through Stewardship (ETS). Monsanto products are commercialized in accordance with ETS Product Launch Stewardship Guidance, and in compliance with Monsanto s Policy for Commercialization of Biotechnology-Derived Plant Products in Commodity Crops. This product has been approved for import into key export markets with functioning regulatory systems. Any crop or material produced from this product can only be exported to, or used, processed or sold in countries where all necessary regulatory approvals have been granted. It is a violation of national and international law to move material containing biotech traits across boundaries into nations where import is not permitted. Growers should talk to their grain handler or product purchaser to confirm their buying position for this product. Excellence Through Stewardship is a registered trademark of Excellence Through Stewardship. B.t. products may not yet be registered in all states. Check with your Monsanto representative for the registration status in your state. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW 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. Genuity, Monsanto imagine and Vine Design, Roundup Ready 2 Technology and Design, Roundup Ready, Roundup and SmartStax are trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC. LibertyLink and the Water Droplet Design is a registered trademark of Bayer. Herculex is a registered trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC. Headline AMP 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. 2015 Monsanto Company. 151102145653 11042015CRB. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 11

Corn Product Comparison from Different Eras to Water Stress With prime tillable corn acreage decreasing, world population growing, and meat consumption in developing nations increasing, the amount of grain produced will need to increase to fulfill future food and feed requirements. 1 Options for increasing corn production include bringing less productive or water stressed acreage into production and increasing yields on current farmland. 1 A common question asked by farmers and the general public is if modern day corn products placed on less productive or drought stressed acreage have improved performance compared to products from previous decades? The answer can help determine if current yield trends are on a path to help resolve the future need for food and feed. In the United States, the average corn yield has increased from about 25 bu/acre in the early 1900 s to around 150 bu/acre today. 1 During the past decade (2006-2015), the national average corn yield was estimated at about 154 bu/acre, which includes the 2012 drought year. The national yield projection for 2015 is about 169 bu/acre. 2 The increase in average yield has been attributed to genetics, fertility, pest management, and other agronomic factors. Monsanto Company releases new corn products annually that are incrementally better than previous products in yield and/or other agronomic characteristics. Modern products have the potential to contain genetically engineered traits that confer insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, grain quality Page 12 / 2015 Demo Report attributes, and stress tolerance. Through the ages, conventional breeding methods have improved upon characteristics such as yield, disease resistance, stress tolerance, grain quality, and standability. To help determine the progression of modern corn products, a corn demonstration trial was planted at the Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE to evaluate the effects of drought stress on two historical products and a modern-day product. Study Guidelines The selected corn products for the demonstration included: XL72AA Brand, a 115 RM product released in 1976 that was estimated to have been planted on 7 to 10% of the U.S. corn acreage during the 1970 s. NC+4880 Brand, a 111 RM product that was popular in the 1990 s. 112 RM Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete Corn Blend product that was released in 2015. It is genetically engineered to confer insect protection for corn earworm, European corn borer, and fall armyworm protection; however, it does not have corn rootworm protection. Also this modern-day product has biotech traits for herbicide tolerance to glyphosate and drought tolerance. The drought-tolerant biotech trait helps it maximize water use under drought stress, which can result in increased kernel number and reduced frequency of barren plants. ADDITIONAL AGRONOMIC INFORMATION: The selected site for the demonstration was previously planted to soybean The site was strip-tilled on April 14, 2015 Fertilizers applied with the strip-till unit included 40 lb/acre potash 20 lb/acre sulfur 25 lb/acre nitrogen The demonstration was planted on April 30, 2015 at a seeding rate of 36,000 seeds/acre No insecticides or fungicides were applied

Corn Product Comparison from Different Eras to Water Stress Irrigation regimen Full irrigation (FI) (8 inches) 70% of FI (5.6 inches) 40% of FI (3.2 inches) Seasonal rainfall 3.4 inches in June 3.0 inches in July 3.7 inches in August 3.0 inches in September Randomized split-plot design Three replications 9 irrigated plots Each irrigated plot contained 1 strip of each corn product Each product strip encompassed about 1,200 square feet (.0275 acres) Results and Discussion YIELD: There was a pattern where XL72AA and NC+4880 Brands appeared to be affected more by an irrigation treatment than the Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete Corn Blend Product. The Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete Corn Blend Product appeared to have much better stability across irrigation treatments in a moderately wet year (Figure 1). Average yields between products (all treatments) were statistically significant (Table 1). 40% FI TREATMENT Compared to the FI treatment, XL72AA and NC+4880 Brands were 19 and 16 bu/acre less, respectively. Compared to the FI treatment, the Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete Corn Blend Product was 3 bu/acre less. 70% FI TREATMENT Compared to the FI treatment, XL72AA and NC+4880 Brands were 10 and 14 bu/acre less, respectively. Compared to the FI treatment, the Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete Corn Blend Product was 2 bu/acre less. 300 Full Irrigation (FI) 70% FI 40% FI 266 264 263 250 Average Yield (bu/acre) 200 150 100 50 168 158 149 208 194 192 0 XL72AA Brand Figure 1. Yield as Affected by Irrigation Treatment NC+4880 Brand Product Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete Corn Blend Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 13

Corn Product Comparison from Different Eras to Water Stress TABLE 1. HARVEST DATA Product Average % Root Lodging Average % Harvest Moisture Content Average Test Weight (lb/bu) Average Yield (bu/acre) XL72AA Brand 98 14.9 60.2 158 NC+4880 Brand 85 13.5 60.9 198 Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double 19 13.1 61.2 264 PRO RIB Complete Corn Blend Product LSD (0.1) 12 0.6 0.4 10 Ear size demonstrated more variability with the historical XL72AA Brand at 40% FI compared to FI (Figure 2). In contrast, the Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete Corn Blend Product demonstrated more consistent ear size at 40% FI compared to FI (Figure 3). ROOT LODGING On August 7, root lodging occurred across the demonstration as a result of rain softened soils and 60+ MPH winds (Figure 4). Corn rootworm had no impact on the root lodging because the demonstration location was previously planted to soybean. The Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete Corn Blend Product had 19% root lodging compared to 98% and 85% respectively for XL72AA Brand and NC+4880 Brand (Table 1, and Figures 4-7). As a result of the lodging, harvest was difficult and had to be harvested in one direction (Figure 5). Figure 2. Ear Size Comparison of XL72AA Brand at 40% of FI and FI. Figure 3. Ear Size Comparison of the Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete Corn Blend Product at 40% FI and FI. Figure 5. Harvest of XL72AA Brand showing poor standability. All corn was harvested from the north driving west to increase ear retention. Page 14 / 2015 Demo Report

Corn Product Comparison from Different Eras to Water Stress XL72AA Brand Modern Day Product NC+4088 Brand Figure 4. Root lodging across the demonstration. Summary The Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids with VT Double PRO RIB Complete Corn Blend Product performed well across all irrigation environments. Compared to the FI treatment, XL72AA and NC+4880 Brands had reduced yields in the 40% and 70% FI treatments. During a normal growing season, rainfall is usually less; therefore, a similar study is planned for 2016. Sources 1 Edgerton, M.D. 2009. Increasing crop productivity to meet global needs for feed, food, and fuel. Plant Physiol. 149(1): 7-13. 2 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Quick Stats. 3 Smith, C.W., Betran, J. and Runge, E.C.A. 2004. Corn: Origin, History, Technology, and Production. (Chapter 1.4. Troyer, A.F. Persistent and popular germplasm in seventy centuries of corn evolution.) John Wiley & Sons. Corn water use efficiency in legacy hybrids. 2010 Demonstration Reports. The Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE. Technology Development & Agronomy. Water efficiency in era hybrids. 2011 Demonstration Reports. The Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE. Technology Development & Agronomy. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 15

Corn Product Comparison from Different Eras to Water Stress Figure 6. XL72AA Root Lodging Legal The information discussed in this report is from a single site, replicated demonstration. This informational piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Monsanto Company is a member of Excellence Through Stewardship (ETS). Monsanto products are commercialized in accordance with ETS Product Launch Stewardship Guidance, and in compliance with Monsanto s Policy for Commercialization of Biotechnology-Derived Plant Products in Commodity Crops. This product has been approved for import into key export markets with functioning regulatory systems. Any crop or material produced from this product can only be exported to, or used, processed or sold in countries where all necessary regulatory approvals have been granted. It is a violation of national and international law to move material containing biotech traits across boundaries into nations where import is not permitted. Growers should talk to their grain handler or product purchaser to confirm their buying position for this product. Excellence Through Stewardship is a registered trademark of Excellence Through Stewardship. B.t. products may not yet be registered in all states. Check with your Monsanto representative for the registration status in your state. Figure 7. NC+4880 Root Lodging IMPORTANT IRM INFORMATION: Genuity RIB Complete corn blend products do not require the planting of a structured refuge except in the Cotton-Growing Area where corn earworm is a significant pest. See the IRM/Grower Guide for additional information. Always read and follow IRM requirements. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Roundup Ready 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. Genuity Design, Genuity Icons, Genuity, Monsanto and Vine Design, RIB Complete, Roundup Ready 2 Technology and Design, Roundup Ready, Roundup and VT Double PRO are trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC. 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. 2015 Monsanto Company. 151113090150 12012015LGM Page 16 / 2015 Demo Report

Effect of Planter Down Force at Planting on Yield Background Planting time is the last opportunity to alter the physical environment in the soil to provide optimal conditions for seed germination and early growth. This is especially critical in no-till situations since it represents the only time the soil will be modified to provide these desired conditions. For optimal conditions seeds should be placed at a uniform depth, with good seed-to-soil contact, and uniform seed spacing. 1 Consistent seed depth at planting is essential to achieve uniform seedling emergence. For example, in corn it is ideal for seeds to emerge within 24 hours of each other. Firm soil limits penetration by the seed opener, which may make it difficult for the depth wheels to make solid contact with the ground surface. This situation may result in a more shallow planting depth. Excessive down force can cause compaction zones and lower actual seeding depth as well as cause problems later in the growing season as roots attempt to grow into additional soil areas. 2 Also, when planting in moist conditions, the amount of down force applied can become problematic. Similar to planting in firm soils, if too much pressure is applied when planting in wet soils it can create compaction problems that will adversely impact root structure as the roots attempt to grow into the compacted soil. It is essential to find the right balance of pressure to provide adequate seed-tosoil contact, but without causing over-compaction. 3 If not enough down force is applied then planting depth can be too shallow and seed-to-soil contact may not be adequate. Finding the optimum down force to help provide the right soil conditions for seeds can be a challenge. Planting conditions are typically less than ideal, which makes it more difficult to provide ideal conditions for seeds. Practices and technology that provide better soil conditions for the seed will only serve to increase agronomic efficiency and yield potential. Study Guidelines A corn demonstration trial was conducted at the Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE to evaluate if consistent planting depth provided by an automatic down force system increases yield potential. The plot area s previous crop was corn and the area was strip-tilled on April 16, 2015. A 109 RM corn seed product was planted on May 18, 2015. The trial area was irrigated with 6 inches, which provided a fully irrigated crop during the growing season. Additionally, all plots were grown to maturity using standard agronomic practices and then harvested to determine yields. Treatments Treatments of different planting unit down force at planting included the following: Manual down force of 0 lbs/acre Manual down force of 125 lbs/acre Manual down force of 250 lbs/acre Manual down force of 375 lbs/acre Automatic down force system The trial was a randomized complete block design with five treatments and three replications. Results Average Yield (bu/acre) 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 232 Manual 0 lbs 239 Manual 125 lbs LSD (0.10) = 8.3 227 226 Manual 250 lbs Manual 375 lbs Down force - Type and Amount Figure 1. Average yield from effect of down force at planting. 235 Automatic System lbs Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 17

Effect of Planter Down Force at Planting on Yield Take-Aways Using appropriate amounts of down force at planting can improve yields compared to excessive down force. The benefits of automatic down force systems would likely be more evident in fields where greater variability in soil physical properties are encountered at planting. Sources 1 Karayel, D., and Šarauskis, E. 2011. Effect of downforce on the performance of no-till disc furrow openers for clay-loam and loamy soils. Agricultural Engineering Research Papers vol 43: no 3, 16 24. ISSN 1392-1134. 2 Gratton, J., Chen, Y., and Tessier, S. 2003. Design of a springloaded downforce system for a no-till seed opener. Canadian Biosystems Engineering vol 45: 229-235. http://www.csbe-scgab. ca/docs/journal/ 3 Hanna, H.M. 2009. Planter set-up and adjustments for accurate seeding of corn and soybean. Proceedings 2009 Indiana CCA Conference. https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ 4 Salmon, R.W., and Dumbleton, A.J. 2006. The effect of seed treatment and depth of sowing on forage brassica crop establishment in no-tillage situations. Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association vol 68: 211-214. http://eurekamag. com/research/014/241/014241856.php Web sources verified 12/21/15. Legals The information discussed in this report is from a single site, replicated demonstration. This informational piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Monsanto imagine and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. 2015 Monsanto Company. 151218061331 122115DLB Figure 2. Down force planting map. Map showing the down force planter setting and the resulting weight riding on the gauge wheel. The red color indicates heavy down force. The diagonal tracks show the sensitivity and speed of the system. Contractors accidentally drove across the plots before planting. Page 18 / 2015 Demo Report

Effect of Planter Down Force at Planting on Yield Figure 3. Corn roots with 375 lbs down force pressure at planting (A) compared to the automatic down force system (B). A. Corn root grown in the 375 lbs applied down force strip. Note the root is somewhat limited to the seed furrow. B. Corn root grown in the automatic down force strip which adjusts down force to field conditions. The root system looks less restricted compared to heavier down force on the left. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 19

The Effect of Removing Irrigation During Corn Grain Fill TABLE 1. AVERAGE CROP WATER USE (ET C ) BY GROWTH STAGE FOR 113-DAY MATURITY CORN GROWN IN SOUTH CENTRAL NEBRASKA. Growth stage Average Water Use Rate (inches/day) Duration* (days) Water Use During Stage (inches) Water Needed Cumulative (inches) Emergence (VE) 0.08 0-10 0.8 0.8 4-leaf (V4) 0.10 11-29 1.8 2.6 8-leaf (V8) 0.18 30-46 2.9 5.5 12-leaf (V12) 0.26 47-55 1.8 7.3 Early tassel (R1) 0.32 56-68 3.8 11.1 Silking (R2) 0.32 69-81 3.8 14.9 Blister kernel (R3) 0.32 82-88 1.9 16.8 Beginning dent (R4.7) 0.24 89-104 3.8 20.7 Full dent (R5.5) 0.20 105-125 3.8 24.5 Maturity (R6) 0.10 126-140 1.4 25.9 *Long-term average number of days since planting required to progress from the previous growth stage to the next. For example, to go from the blister kernel stage to the beginning dent stage requires approximately 15 days (day 89 to day 104). Days to each growth stage were determined using the Hybrid-Maize Corn Growth Model for the period 1982-2005 at Clay Center, NE. Source: Kranz, W.L, Irmak, S., van Donk, S.J., Yonts, C.D., and Martin, D.L. 2008. Irrigation management for corn. NebGuide G1850. Background Every year farmers need to decide the optimal time to turn off irrigation to corn during the late reproductive stages. This decision has broad economic effects as terminating irrigation too soon can reduce corn yield potential. Alternatively, excessive irrigation reduces profit because there is no value recovered from extra water not utilized by the corn plant. The ultimate goal is to minimize stress during grain fill, but leave the soil in optimal condition for harvest. This study was developed to determine the appropriate timing to remove irrigation water from corn during the late stages of corn grain fill. Study Guidelines This study was conducted in the Rainout Shelter (ROS) and plots were rototilled before planting. Two corn products with 100-day relative maturity were planted on June 4, 2015. The field was previously planted to corn, and fertility and weed control were uniform across the study. The study was a randomized complete block design with three replications; factors were: 1. corn product and 2. timing irrigation removal. TABLE 2. IRRIGATIONTREATMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DATES. Corn Stage Irrigation was Removed Results and Discussion Date Blister August 14 Dough August 28 Dent September 13 ½ Milk Line September 20 ¾ Milk Line (Full Irrigation) October 1 Soil had approximately 10 inches of available moisture when irrigation was removed at the blister stage. If less water is in the soil profile, a greater reduction in yield would be expected if irrigation was removed at the earlier stages of grain fill (Table 3). No differences were observed in how the two corn products responded to stress across the different irrigation treatments. There were only differences between irrigation treatments (Figure 1). Page 20 / 2015 Demo Report

The Effect of Removing Irrigation During Corn Grain Fill In general, it was noted that the earlier irrigation was terminated the more moisture was drawn from the soil by the end of the growing season. Using the neutron probe data at the different depths determined that terminating irrigation at the blister stage withdrew the highest amount of remaining soil moisture (Table 4). Unfortunately, there were some confounding issues with this study. In July, the communication tower for ROS was struck by lightening which disabled the automatic opening and closing of the building for four weeks. During this time period, the ROS was opened at 8:00 a.m. and closed around 6 p.m. There may have been unintended effects on the corn caused by the ROS being closed more than it would have normally been during this time period (Figure 3). Takeaways The cost to pump an inch of water can vary significantly and is influenced by a number of factors: 1. The energy source used to power the irrigation pump: natural gas, electricity, diesel, etc., 2. The depth of water being pumped: 50, 100, 200 ft depth., and 3. Efficiency of the irrigation equipment delivering the water to the crops: 70%, 90%, 95%, etc. Corn products acted similarly across irrigation treatments. Significant yield potential can be lost if irrigation water is removed too early in grain fill. Cost per inch of water is an important factor in terminating irrigation after the dough growth stage of corn. The amount of moisture in the soil profile is an important factor to consider when farmers want to remove irrigation. Soil depth (ft) TABLE 3. MOISTURE CONTENT AND YIELD OF HARVESTED CORN FROM A FIELD WITH 70 TO 80% AVAILABLE SOIL MOISTURE LEFT IN A SILT LOAM SOIL WHEN IRRIGATION IS REMOVED. Corn Stage at Irrigation Removal Harvest Moisture % Yield bu/acre Blister 13.6 164 Dough 14.0 187 Dent 14.2 188 ½ Milk Line 14.4 194 ¾ Milk Line (Full Irrigation) 14.5 195 LSD (0.1) 0.4 8-1.25-0.75-0.25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Change in available water (inches) Blister Dough Dent 1/2 Milk Line 3/4 Milk Line Figure 1. Change in available water based on soil depth and timing of irrigation termination. Legals The information discussed in this report is from a single site, non-replicated demonstration. This informational piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. 2015 Monsanto Company. 151113141948 111715SEK Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 21

The Effect of Removing Irrigation During Corn Grain Fill TABLE 4. YIELD AND ACCUMULATED INCHES OF WATER BASED ON TIMING OF IRRIGATION TERMINATION. Corn Stage at Irrigation Removal Additional Inches of Water Accumulated Inches of Water % Yield Difference from Full Irrigation Reduced Yield to 250 bu/acre corn* Blister - 5 84 40 Dough 1.5 6.5 96 10 Dent 1.5 8 96 10 ½ Milk Line 1 9 99 2 ¾ Milk Line (Full Irrigation) 1 10 100 - LSD (0.1) 4 *Calculated potential reduction in yield Figure 2. Irrigation removal at blister stage (left) and irrigation removal at dent stage (right). Photos taken June 21, 2015 Page 22 / 2015 Demo Report

The Effect of Removing Irrigation During Corn Grain Fill Figure 3. Communication tower for ROS system. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 23

Value of a Fungicide Application Following a Hail Event Background Many growers consider the use of foliar fungicides as a tool to help relieve stress in corn, such as after hail damage. Fungicide product labels have changed to allow for mitigation of plant stress. For example, Headline AMP fungicide is labeled for use in disease control and plant health in corn. 1 The product label states that the increase in plant health comes from the combined effect of disease control, improved growth efficiency, and improved stress tolerance. Therefore, the use of foliar fungicides in corn following a hail event has become increasingly common for disease prevention and to minimize stress on the plant. Hail damage to corn can cause reduced leaf area, plant bruising, stand loss, or injury to the ear. 2 Hail causes the most yield loss by defoliating corn plants, but severe hail damage may also reduce plant stand. 3 Hail damage and losses can become more significant as the season progresses. 4 Yield loss from defoliation is greatest at the VT (tassel) growth stage, and yield loss is least during early vegetative growth stages. Severe hail damage during mid- to late-season can result in plant bruising and stalk damage (Figure 1). Figure 1. Mid- to late-season hail damage to corn leaves and ears. Reasons to consider a fungicide application in corn following a hail event include: 1. Crop may be more susceptible to infection as a result of increased stress from the damage, and 2. Plant health benefits gained from a fungicide application may help sustain or increase crop yield. However, the foliar diseases managed by fungicides, like Headline AMP fungicide, including gray leaf spot, leaf blights and rusts, do not require wounds for infection. Diseases favored by wounding, such as Goss s wilt, common smut, and stalk rots, are not controlled by the fungicide. 5 Disease development following a hail event may also be more likely caused by the rain and increased humidity that accompanied the storm, rather than by wounding from the hail. Results from fungicide applications on hail-damaged corn have been mixed. A University of Illinois study conducted in 2007 showed a fungicide application to VT corn after a simulated hail event had no effect on yield potential. 5 In multi-year testing conducted from 2012 to 2014 by Iowa State University, yield benefits were obtained by fungicide applications at the VT and R2 corn growth stages following simulated hail events. 6 The testing suggested a beneficial crop response from using a fungicide to be more likely in years with significant disease pressure. Results also suggested that waiting at least a week may be more beneficial than an immediate application when applying a fungicide after hail damage to mid-season corn. In 2015 a study was conducted at the Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE to further evaluate if a foliar fungicide application can provide benefits to corn following a mid-season hail event. Study Guidelines A 111-day relative maturity corn product was planted on April 28, 2015 in a rotation with wheat. Hail damage was simulated using a string trimmer at mid-season stages of corn growth on the following dates: VT/tassel stage on July 17, 2015 R2/blister stage on July 30, 2015 Page 24 / 2015 Demo Report

Value of a Fungicide Application Following a Hail Event Headline AMP fungicide at 12 ounces/acre was applied 6 to 7 days after the simulated hail events on the following dates: After VT stage damage on July 23, 2015 After R2 stage damage on August 6, 2015 Three levels of hail damage as measured by plant defoliation were simulated using a string trimmer (Figure 2): 1. 0% defoliation control with no leaf loss 2. 30% defoliation (group averaging 28% defoliation) 3. 60% defoliation (group averaging 57% defoliation) Five plants were collected from the plots and weighed to verify the extent of damage. After the wholeplant weight was recorded, the leaves were stripped and weighed. The data was used to determine the percent defoliation for each treatment group. Although not quantified, differences in the severity of corn damage was evident. Ears and stalks were more damaged in the 60% defoliation treatment group compared to the 30% defoliation group. Weekly disease ratings were taken from Aug. 25 to Sept. 22 for common rust, bacterial leaf stripe, gray leaf spot, and common smut (using a scale of 0 to 9, where 0 = no disease and 9 = a severe infection). Results and Discussion When averaged across all treatments, the simulated hail events significantly reduced corn yield (Figure 6). Non-injured corn yielded 220 bushels/acre compared to 30% defoliated corn at 183 bushels/ acre and 60% defoliated corn at 128 bushels/acre (LSD 0.1 = 11). Corn also yielded significantly higher when fungicide treatments were applied. When averaged across all treatment groupings, corn yielded 182 bushels/ acre when fungicide was applied compared to 171 bushels/acre with no application (LSD 0.1 = 9). The fungicide application provided control of gray leaf spot with an average rating of 3.5 compared to 4.2 with no application (LSD 0.1 = 0.2 data not shown). For other diseases present in the trial, no differences were observed between plots with and without fungicide treatment. Take Aways This study showed that a mid-season hail event can reduce the yield potential of corn. It also showed that the impact of hail damage on corn yield potential can be greater when it occurs at tassel emergence (VT) than at later reproductive stages. 0% DEFOLIATION 30% DEFOLIATION 60% DEFOLIATION Figure 2. Simulated hail damage to corn using a string trimmer Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 25

Value of a Fungicide Application Following a Hail Event Obviously, the impact on corn yield potential would depend on the severity of hail damage. A foliar fungicide applied about a week after a damaging hail event could decrease the impact on yield potential by reducing disease pressure that could provide added stress to corn. Profitability of a fungicide application will depend on product cost, commodity prices, and application costs. Figure 3. Stalk damage from a simulated hail event that could affect stalk quality. Figure 4. Common smut emerging from a wound in the stalk shortly after simulated hail damage. Sources 1 Headline AMP fungicide product label. http://www.cdms.net. 2 Hail damaged corn mid to late season. 2015. Monsanto Technology Development. http://www.aganytime.com. 3 Thomison, P. 2013. Hail damage to corn varies depending on growth stage. The Ohio State University C.O.R.N. Newsletter. November 13, 2013. http://agcrops.osu.edu. 4 Klein, R.N. and Shapiro, C.A. 2011. Evaluating hail damage to corn. University of Nebraska Lincoln extension publication EC126. http://extensionpublications.unl.edu. 5 Jackson-Ziems, T.A. 2014. Fungicide use in corn after hail or wind damage. University of Nebraska Lincoln CropWatch. http://cropwatch.unl.edu. 6 Sisson, A., Mueller, D., and Robertson, A. 2015. Hail and fungicide use on corn. Iowa State University ICM News June 30, 2015. http://crops.extension.iastate.edu. Web sources verified on 11/16/15. Legals The information discussed in this report is from a single-site, one-year demonstration. This information piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Headline AMP is a registered trademark of BASF Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. 2015 Monsanto Company. 151113143621 120415TED Figure 5. Stalk breakage from hail damage can lead to reduced stand and dropped ears. Page 26 / 2015 Demo Report

Value of a Fungicide Application Following a Hail Event Average Yield (bu/acre) 250 200 150 100 50 227 216 191 177 152 125 227 209 184 179 Fungicide No Fungicide 121 114 0 VT 0% VT 30% VT 60% R2 0% R2 30% R2 60% Timing of Simulated Hail Damage and % Defoliation Figure 6. Effect of hail damage on corn yield. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 27

Product Stability Under Limited Irrigation in the Western Great Plains Background Many regions of the western Great Plains pump water from the Ogallala Aquifer to irrigate their crops. As supplies from this aquifer decline, these regions have seen reduced pumping capacities and restrictions on the amount of water farmers can use in a given year. Monsanto is committed to addressing this problem by improving water utilization in corn products. A corn demonstration trial was conducted at the Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE to determine how corn products perform in low water, and consequently, lower yield environments. Current large-volume products and recently released products were evaluated in eight sites across four states in the High Plains region to see how each product responds to varying irrigation rates. These results will be used to assist with product recommendations based on the individual farmer s irrigation capacity. This report is a summary of the Eastern Colorado and Northwest Kansas data. Study Guidelines The trials were oriented along the curve of the pivot to avoid water pattern issues and to match the different controllable zones under the variable rate irrigation pivot. Each trial consisted of a large strip ranging from 300 feet closest to the center of the pivot to 800 feet furthest away from the pivot. All plots were strip-tilled in the spring. Additional cultural practices are outlined by location below: Planting dates: Kansas: April 23, 2015 Colorado: May 13, 2015 Harvest dates: Kansas: October 5, 2015 Colorado: October 16, 2015 Crop rotation: Kansas: corn/sunflower Colorado: corn/soybean Page 28 / 2015 Demo Report Products tested included 22 high-volume and new corn products ranging from 100 to 114 relative maturity (RM). Each product was tested with three irrigation treatments: 1) full irrigation (FI) 100% evapotranspiration (ET) replacement, 2) 70% of FI, and 3) 50% of FI (Table 1). Each treatment was replicated three times to provide additional data points and statistical power. TABLE 1: IRRIGATION TREATMENTS, AVERAGE PRECIPITATION BETWEEN THE TWO SITES, AND SEEDING RATES Treatment Irrigation (inches) Rainfall (inches) Results and Discussion Total (inches) Seeding rate (seeds/acre) Full 8.75 16.30 25.05 34,000 irrigation(fi) 70% of FI 5.59 16.30 21.89 29,000 50% of FI 3.81 16.30 20.11 24,000 Average rainfall for the two sites was 16.3 inches, nearly two thirds of which came before peak water use at tassel (Figure 1). The 30-year average rainfall is 11.5 inches, thus there was nearly 5 more inches of rain in 2015 compared to the 30-year average. This created a very high-yielding environment. The average ET for 2015 between the two sites was 23.5 inches. The results from the 110 RM and above are presented in this report and are representative of the results from the other maturity groups. In general, the highest yields were attained in the full irrigation treatment and yields decreased in the 70% and 50% treatments (Figure 2). The severity of the yield reduction varied among products. Some products, like A, performed very well in the full irrigation treatment, but showed a steep yield reduction in the limited water treatments. Other products, such as G, maintained yield across all irrigation treatments. Late-season plant health was compromised in some products in the limited irrigation treatments (Figure 3) resulting in more stalk lodging and lower yields.

Product Stability Under Limited Irrigation in the Western Great Plains Yield per thousand (YPT) is a measure of the yield per thousand plants and can be used as a tool to determine the optimum planting density. In this study, YPT was greatest in the 50% irrigation treatments (Figure 4). This could be an indication that the planting density at the 50% irrigation treatment was too low, and potentially more yield could have been captured at higher densities. Takeaways With the decline in groundwater resources in the High Plains, this type of data is becoming more critical for successful placement of products. By testing products under varying rates of irrigation, Monsanto can more effectively recommend products based on region and irrigation capacity. This research will be continued next year to evaluate more key products for the region. Legals The information discussed in this report is from a replicated demonstration at eight different sights. This informational piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. 2015 Monsanto Company. 151211072339 121815CAM 18 16 R3 R5 Rainfall and Irrigation (inches) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 5/1 5/6 5/11 5/16 5/21 5/26 5/31 6/5 6/10 6/15 6/20 6/25 6/30 7/5 7/10 7/15 7/20 7/25 7/30 8/4 8/9 8/14 8/19 8/24 8/29 9/3 9/8 9/13 9/18 9/23 9/28 V8 VT Rainfall 30 Year Historic Rainfall 100% Irrigation 70% Irrigation 50% Irrigation Figure 1. Total amounts of water received from irrigation and precipitation in 2015, and 30-year average precipitation. Amounts shown are averaged across the Eastern Colorado and Northwest Kansas sites. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 29

Product Stability Under Limited Irrigation in the Western Great Plains 290 Grain Yield (bu/acre) 270 250 230 210 190 170 150 A B C D E F G Corn Products 50% Irrigation 70% Irrigation 100% Irrigation Figure 2. Averaged yields by irrigation treatment and product. 70 60 % of stalks lodged when pushed to a 30 angle 50 40 30 20 10 0 A B C D E F G Corn Products 50% Irrigation 70% Irrigation 100% Irrigation Figure 3. Push test results. Results are averaged across both sites. Page 30 / 2015 Demo Report

Product Stability Under Limited Irrigation in the Western Great Plains 10.00 9.50 YPT (bu/thousand plants) 9.00 8.50 8.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 A B C D E F G Corn Products 50% Irrigation 70% Irrigation 100% Irrigation Figure 4. Yield per thousand plants (YPT). Results are averaged across both sites. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 31

Effect of Stubble Height and Cover Crop on Dryland Corn Yield Background Dryland corn production on the Great Plains can be rewarding or precarious, depending on the weather and how the field was managed to preserve water. Soil moisture is the number one factor farmers need to manage in order to provide the corn crop with the best chance of producing an abundant crop. Tillage operations, poor residue management, and poor weed control can all rob precious moisture from the soil and significantly reduce corn yield potential. In dryland crop production, wheat stubble heights that were cut tall (above 14 inches) or cut with a stripper header have been associated with greater yield potential in the subsequent corn crop. 1 Cover crop growth between grain crops is an alternative to fallow periods. Cover crops can capture precipitation, reduce erosion, and help control weed populations. Evaluation of the seed cost and moisture use of a cover crop are two factors that should be considered when choosing a method to protect soil and moisture between grain crops. 2 This study was conducted in conjunction with the University of Nebraska West Central Research and Extension Center to determine the effects of stubble height and cover crop on dryland corn yield potential. TABLE 1. STUBBLE HEIGHT TREATMENTS AND MACHINERY USED FOR CUTTING. Stubble Height of Wheat (inches) Machinery Used for Cutting 18 Stripper header 12 Regular combine platform 6 Regular combine platform Less than 2 Regular combine platform TABLE 2. COVER CROP TREATMENT; MIXTURE PLANTED AUGUST 22, 2014 AND TERMINATED MAY 2, 2015. Study Guidelines Corn seeds were planted 1.5 inches deep into moisture on May 8, 2015 at a rate of 24,000 seeds per acre. The field was no-till with wheat as the previous crop, and plot size was 40 ft by 50 ft long. The study was conducted as a randomized complete block factorial with 4 replications; factors were stubble height and cover crop. Results and Discussion EFFECT OF WHEAT STUBBLE: Having a good layer of wheat stubble is seen as an essential tool for raising dryland corn in semi-arid environments such as the Great Plains. Forage peas Field peas Oats Rapeseed Camelina Cereal Rye Flaxseed Turnips Page 32 / 2015 Demo Report

Effect of Stubble Height and Cover Crop on Dryland Corn Yield Wheat stubble traps moisture, minimizes water loss by decreasing air flow over the soil surface, shades the ground, and decreases moisture loss from evaporation. Good wheat residue management is not as important in years when spring rains saturate the soil profile and timely rains occur over the summer growing season. In Gothenburg, 3.4, 3.0, 3.7, and 3.0 inches of rainfall were received in June, July, August, and September, respectively. The adequate rainfall is believed the reason no effect from wheat stubble height was observed during this study year. EFFECT OF COVER CROP: A yield drop is sometimes observed in the first cash crop following cover crop growth. However, yield increases are expected as soil health, nutrient availability, and water infiltration improve. Cover crops can provide value to farmers by protecting the soil, increasing soil aggregate size, and cycling nutrients. Additional experience can also improve cover crop management and increase yields of cash crops. In a 2013-2014 survey, the average increase in corn yield was 2.04 bu/acre for farmers with 0 to 3 years of cover crop experience and was 6.76 bu/acre for farmers with 4 or more years of experience. 3 Over a five-year period in Iowa, the majority of corn yields were not affected by the previous cereal rye cover crop. Those site-years with a corn yield reduction occurred in the first two years of the study. 4 Further west on the Great Plains, the timing and species of cover crops in a dryland scenario needs to be closely managed as water availability may be limited during some years. Soil moisture management is critical to dryland corn production. On fields where irrigation is possible, the detrimental effect observed from cover crops could be mitigated by additional water from irrigation. Take Aways Stubble height did not affect yield potential during a year when soil moisture was sufficient and timely rains occurred. However, in years when moisture is reduced, increased stubble height is expected to improve yield potential. Effect of cover crop on yield depends on several factors: cover crop species, timing of planting and termination, weather and precipitation, crop rotation, and number of years cover crops have been in use with the cropping system. Cover crop species is an important factor as cereal rye may have allelopathic effects and inhibit corn growth. Farmers should consider the allelopathic effects of cereal rye on corn grain yields. Corn following cereal rye can have reduced yields and increased incidence of radicle infection and Pythium disease. These effects can be managed with earlier termination of cereal rye cover crops. Cereal rye terminated 10, 14, and 25 days before planting did not significantly reduce yield. 5 Sources 1 Schlegel, A. 2013. Effects of wheat stubble height on subsequent corn and grain sorghum crops. Cropping and Tillage Systems. Kansas State University. Southwest Research-Extension Report of Progress 1088. p. 43. 2 Holman, J.D., Roberts, T., Maxwell, S., Kisekka, I., and Obour, A. 2015. Fallow replacement crop (cover crops, annual forages, and short-season grain crops) effects on available soil water. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports: Vol. 1: Iss. 5. 3 National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. 2014. Second cover crop survey confirms yield boost. http://sustainableagriculture.net. 4 Gailans, S., Carlson, S., Comito, J., Juchems, L., and Helmers, M. 2015. Winter cereal rye cover crop effect on cash crop yield on long-term on-farm research. Practical Farmers of Iowa. Iowa Learning Farms. 5 Kaspar, T.C., Acharya, J., Roberston, A., Bakker, M., Lenssen, A.W., and Moorman, T.B. 2015. Effect of length of interval between cereal rye cover crop termination and corn planting on seedling root disease and corn growth. Poster No. 502. Legals: The information discussed in this report is from a multiple site, single year, non replicated demonstration. This informational piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. 2015 Monsanto Company. 151015115811 101415SEK Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 33

Effect of Stubble Height and Cover Crop on Dryland Corn Yield Figure 1. Treatments during the growing season: Cover crop mix (left), and wheat residue at the end of the season (right). Figure 2. Function of wheat stubble during and between seasons. Standing wheat stubble capturing snow (left), and wheat residue preserving moisture (right). Page 34 / 2015 Demo Report

Possible Goss s Wilt Suppression with Cover Crops Background Goss s wilt is a corn disease caused by a bacterium that can reduce yield potential. Farmers are looking for management practices to control Goss s wilt that are effective and economical. Selecting corn seed products with Goss s wilt tolerance or resistance is a key management practice to reduce the effect of this disease on yield potential. Previous studies at the Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE have indicated potential Goss s wilt suppression from the use of a wheat cover crop. 1,2 Recent Purdue University research indicated that annual ryegrass, another common cover crop species, can serve as a host for the bacterium that causes Goss s wilt. 3 Figure 1. Goss s wilt leaf freckles (yellow arrow) and necrotic streaks (red arrow). Figure 2. Cereal rye cover crop (left) and no cover crop (right). Photo taken on May 18, cover crop termination date. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 35

Possible Goss s Wilt Suppression with Cover Crops Study Objectives Can cover crops be used to manage Goss s wilt, thus reducing its effect on yield potential? Which cover crop species may suppress Goss s wilt? If cover crops suppress Goss s wilt, how is the benefit influenced by the corn product s susceptibility to Goss s wilt? Study Guidelines A corn demonstration trial was conducted at the Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE to evaluate the potential to use a cereal rye cover crop to reduce Goss s wilt. Three corn products with different tolerance ratings for Goss s wilt were used in the study and included the following: Susceptible 112 RM product with a disease reaction of 6. Moderately tolerant 111 RM product with a disease reaction of 5. Tolerant 113 RM product with a disease reaction of 3. The study was a split-plot design with 6 replications. Each corn product was planted no-till in two areas, an area with a cereal rye cover crop and an area with corn residue. Cereal rye was planted no-till into corn residue on February 15 and all corn products were planted no-till in the plots (cover crop and the corn residue) on April 28 at a seeding rate of 34,000 seeds/acre. The cereal rye cover crop was terminated with a herbicide application on May 18, which was 20 days after corn planting. All plots were irrigated with 6 inches, which provided a fully irrigated crop. 250 LSD (0.1) = 15 226 Average Yield (bu/acre) 200 150 100 50 197 199 187 208 183 0 Susceptible Moderately Tolerant Tolerant Goss's Wilt Rating Cover Crop None Figure 3. Average yield by treatment. Page 36 / 2015 Demo Report

Possible Goss s Wilt Suppression with Cover Crops 35,000 30,000 25,000 31,608 25,412 25,373 LSD (0.1) = 1,371 29,569 29,608 23,647 Plants/acre 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Susceptible Moderately Tolerant Tolerant Goss's Wilt Rating Cover Crop None Figure 4. Final average plants/acre. Planted at 34,000 seeds/acre. Disease Ratings (0-9) 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 4.2 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.8 7.2 1.7 3.0 LSD (0.1) = 0.6 1.3 2.7 0.0 Susceptible Moderately Tolerant Tolerant Susceptible Moderately Tolerant Tolerant 26-Aug-15 10-Sep-15 Goss's Wilt Rating Cover Crop None Figure 5. Average disease ratings for Goss s wilt. Ratings taken on August 26 at R4 (dough) growth stage. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 37

Possible Goss s Wilt Suppression with Cover Crops Figure 6. Susceptible corn product: Photos taken on September 2 at R5 (dent) growth stage. Planted into cereal rye (left) and planted with no cover crop (right). TABLE 1. SUMMARY: AVERAGE YIELD, GOSS S WILT RATING, AND PLANT POPULATION No Cover Crop Cover Crop Seed Product Reaction to Goss s Wilt Average Yield (bu/acre) Goss s Wilt Rating* Plant Population Average Yield (bu/acre) Goss s Wilt Rating* Plant Population Susceptible 199 4.2 31,608 197 2.0 25,412 Moderately Tolerant 208 1.8 29,569 187 1.0 25,373 Tolerant 226 1.0 29,608 183 1.0 23,647 *Goss s Wilt rating on Aug 26 at R4 (dough) growth stage. Reduced yield from Goss s wilt or seed product differences. Reduced yield from cereal rye. Reduced plant population from cereal rye. Page 38 / 2015 Demo Report

Possible Goss s Wilt Suppression with Cover Crops Results and Discussion Goss s wilt severity rating for the susceptible seed product was reduced from 4.2 to 2.0 with the use of a cereal rye cover crop, as evidenced by the August 26 evaluation at R4 (dough) growth stage. Also, the susceptible seed product in the presence of Goss s wilt and absence of cereal rye, had a reduced yield of 27 bu/acre compared to the tolerant seed product and a reduction of 9 bu/acre compared to the moderately tolerant seed product. These differences are a combination of the inherent difference in yield among seed products and the impact of Goss s wilt on yield of the susceptible product. Tolerant and moderately tolerant seed products had reduced yield potential when planted into a cereal rye cover crop. This observation was likely due to a decreased stand density associated with the cereal rye. Past trials at the Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE had shown increased yield potential when moderately tolerant and tolerant Goss s wilt corn products were planted into a wheat cover crop. 1,2 Plant populations were reduced in all seed products when planted into a cereal rye cover crop. Recent Iowa State University research has indicated corn yield potential was significantly reduced when cereal rye was terminated 3 days before or 1 day after corn planting, compared to no cereal rye cover crop. 4 However, no significant reduction in yield potential was observed when cereal rye was terminated 10, 14 or 25 days before corn planting. 4 Take-Aways Cereal rye as used in this demonstration trial as a cover crop, had an adverse effect on corn plant population and yield potential across all seed products. If managed correctly, cereal rye as a cover crop prior to planting corn can have positive benefits. Goss s wilt management with a cereal rye cover crop as implemented in this study may not be practical, however earlier cereal rye termination dates and other cover crop species need to be further evaluated. Potential exists for cover crops to suppress Goss s wilt severity and impact on yield potential. The negative effect of a cover crop on stand density and reduced yield potential needs to be further investigated. A future cover crop study at the Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE will further evaluate the potential of winter wheat as a cover crop in reducing Goss s wilt impact on yield potential. Winter wheat will likely not have as strong an allelopathic affect on corn as compared to cereal rye. Sources 1 Cover crop affect on Goss s wilt. 2014. Demonstration Report. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE. 2 Goss wilt management. 2012. Demonstration Report. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE. 3 Ikley, J.T., Wise, K.A., and Jonson, W.G. 2015. Annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), and large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) are alternative hosts for Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. nebraskensis, causal agent of Goss's Wilt of corn. Weed Science vol 63:901-909. http://www.bioone.org/ doi/10.16 14/WS-D-15-00028.1 4 Kasper, T.C., Acharya, J., Robertson, A., Bakker, M., Lenssen, A.W., and Moorman, T.B. 2015. Effect of length of interval between cereal rye cover crop termination and corn planting on seedling root disease and crop growth. Iowa State University. Poster abstract number 502. 2015 American Society of Agronomy Annual Meeting. https://scisoc. confex.com/scisoc/2015am/webprogram/paper92188.html. 5 Jackson, T.A., Harveson, R.M., and Vidaver, A.K. 2007. Goss s bacterial wilt and leaf bight of corn. Neb Guide G1675. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension. http://extensionpublications.unl.edu/ Web sources verified 12/07/15. Legals The information discussed in this report is from a single site, replicated demonstration. This informational piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Monsanto imagine and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. 2016 Monsanto Company. 151203100407 011916DLB Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 39

Soybean Management Strategies for High Yield Background Soybeans are an exceptional rotational crop for corn; however, consistent higher soybean yields are desired by many farmers. A 2012 soybean study from the Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE determined high input practices resulted in increased yield. Interactions of each practice with the other practices made it difficult to distinguish which inputs contributed the most to yield. 1 A soybean crop yielding 54 bu/acre requires approximately 315 lbs nitrogen (N) per acre. 2,3 Most of this nutrient is supplied from the environment and 191 lbs N/acre goes into seed production. 2 Nitrogen-fixing rhizobia are evident as nodules become visible on roots two weeks after emergence. Scouting at this time can help determine if roots are well nodulated. An in-season N application can be applied if roots have fewer than 5 to 7 nodules. 3 Inoculation is the least expensive way to supply N to soybean plants. With this in mind, two research trials were conducted to help determine which components, such as fertility and crop protection products, in a soybean system have the biggest effect in increasing irrigated soybean yield. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various treatments on an irrigated soybean crop (High Management). It also evaluated if an application of N improves soybean yield potential (Nitrogen Fertility). Study Guidelines For both studies corn was the previous crop, and the seedbed was strip-tilled on April 13, 2015. Water was not a limiting factor as fields were under full irrigation. The first soybean study (High Management) evaluated several high yield management practices and was planted on May 1, 2015. Randomized complete block design with four replications. Fertilizer application as a base: 40 lbs phosphorus (P). Fertilizer at strip-till timing: 10 lbs N as 10-34-0 on April 13, 2015. The second soybean study (Nitrogen Fertility) was planted on May 26, 2015 and evaluated the effects of inoculation and fertilization. This study had a randomized complete block design with six replications; fertilizer application of 30 lbs of P, 20 lbs sulfur, and 20 lbs of N per acre was made at strip-till timing on April 13, 2015. Page 40 / 2015 Demo Report

Soybean Management Strategies for High Yield TABLE 1. TREATMENTS FOR HIGH MANAGEMENT STUDY Number Treatment Description of Additional Management 1 (LM) Low Management 30-inch rows; 160K seeds/acre; 40 lbs P 2 O 5 /acre 2 (FP) LM + Fertilizer at Planting Fertilizer at planting: 100 lbs AMS/acre; 50 lbs P 2 O 5 /acre 3 (FB) LM + FP + Fertilizer at Bloom Fertilizer at mid bloom: 10-45-10 at 5 lbs/acre; Manganese chelate 1 pt/acre; Roundup PowerMAX Herbicide 32 fl oz/acre 4 (NR3) LM + FP + FB + N at R3 N at R3 growth stage: 60 lbs/acre as urea product 5 (HI) LM + FP + FB + NR3 + Insecticide Insecticide at R3 growth stage: Hero insecticide (5 oz/acre) 6 (TR) LM + FP + FB + NR3 + HI + Twin Rows Twin-row planted soybeans 7 (HF) LM + FP + FB + NR3 + HI + TR + Fungicide 8 (ID) LM + FP + FB + NR3 + HI + TR + HF + Increased Plant Density Fungicide at R3 growth stage: Headline fungicide (5 fl oz/acre) Planting population 220K seeds/acre TABLE 2. TREATMENTS FOR NITROGEN (N) FERTILITY STUDY Treatments No N or inoculation Inoculation only Inoculation + 60 lbs N/acre at R3 Inoculation + 60 lbs N/acre at planting Inoculation + 60 lbs N/acre at planting and 60 lbs N/acre at R3 Photo courtesy NDSU Extension Service Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 41

Soybean Management Strategies for High Yield Results TABLE 3. YIELD AND ADDITIONAL COSTS RESULTS FOR HIGH MANAGEMENT STUDY. Number Treatment Yield (bu/acre) LSD (0.1)=3.2 1 (LM) Low Management 93 Cost addition/acre Running Total 2 (FP) LM + Fertilizer at Planting 92 100 lbs AMS = $38 50 lbs P 2 O 5 = $50 3 (FB) LM + FP + Fertilizer at Bloom 90 5 lbs 10-45-10= $1.25 Manganese chelate = $3.72 $88.00 $92.97 4 (NR3) LM + FP + FB + N at R3 94 60 lbs N (as urea) = $30.00 $122.97 5 (HI) LM + FP + FB + NR3 + Insecticide 93 5 fl oz/acre Hero insecticide = $8.30 $131.27 6 (TR) LM + FP + FB + NR3 + HI + Twin Rows 7 (HF) LM + FP + FB + NR3 + HI + TR + Fungicide 8 (ID) LM + FP + FB + NR3 + HI + TR + HF + Increased Plant Density 93 Twin rows $131.27 100 5 fl oz/acre Headline fungicide = $14.06 $145.33 102 60K additional seeds/acre = $28.00 $173.33 * no difference was observed for plant height, harvest moisture, or grain test weight. TABLE 4. YIELD RESULTS FOR NITROGEN FERTILITY STUDY. Treatment Yield (bu/acre) No N or inoculation 88 Inoculation only 88 Inoculation + 60 lbs N at R3 with inoculation Inoculation + 60 lbs N at planting with inoculation Inoculation + 60 lbs N at planting with inoculation and 60 lbs N at R3 89 90 88 Take Aways Compared to the other production practices, fungicide application at the R3 stage was the only component that significantly increased soybean yield. Surprisingly, no fertilizer treatment increased soybean yield in either study. One or a combination of the following factors could have decreased the effectiveness of additional N to improve yield: 1. High soil organic matter level (2.8%) can allow for N mineralization over the growing season. 2. Residual soil N (80 to 100 lbs/acre) was relatively high at planting due to lowered corn yields from hail events the previous year. 3. Additional N (approximately 15 lbs/acre) applied through the linear as incidental nitrate in the irrigation water. LSD (0.1) NS Page 42 / 2015 Demo Report

Soybean Management Strategies for High Yield Figure 1. High Management Study: Low Management Treatment. Photo taken September 15, 2015. Figure 2. High Management Study: Fungicide Application. Photo taken September 15, 2015. Figure 3. Nitrogen Fertility Study. Photo taken September 15, 2015. Sources: 1 Gothenburg, NE Learning Center Summary, 2012. High yield management practices in soybeans. Monsanto Technology and Development. Monsanto Company. 2 Nutrient Content of Crops. United States Department of Agriculture - NRCS http://plants.usda.gov/npk/nutrientreport. 3 Klein, R. 2013. Check soybean nodulation to determine inoculant efficiency. UNL CropWatch. University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Legals The information discussed in this report is from a multiple site, single year, nonreplicated 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. 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. Monsanto and Vine Design, Roundup PowerMAX and Roundup Technology are registered trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC. Headline is a registered trademark of BASF Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. 2015 Monsanto Company. 151103150103 110615SEK Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 43

Dryland Soybean Production Systems When planting dryland soybeans, optimization of available water throughout the season is a key factor for success. Optimal genetics, good agronomic practices, and favorable environmental conditions are necessary to promote increased soybean yield potential in a dryland production system. Tillage operations, poor residue management, and poor weed control can all rob precious moisture from the soil and reduce yield potential. The proper integration of improved soybean genetics with the implementation of the right agronomic practices can help manage drought and other risks. Two soybean demonstration trials were conducted at the Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE comparing drought management practices to determine which components provide the most value: Journey of Drought Demonstration Planting Date Demonstration Study Guidelines Journey of Drought Randomized complete block design with 5 replications. An additive plot style from poor drought management to good drought management was used to identify system responses to each treatment change. Six treatments simulating different management decisions for a dryland production system.»» Everything Wrong Treatment represents practices that would not be recommended in a systems approach to reduce the impact of drought stress on the crop.»» The other treatments progressively reduced plant stress and improved agronomics to the system. Same soybean product was planted in all treatments at 110,000 seeds per acre. Standard dryland fertility practices were used across all plots. Weed pressure was light. TABLE 1. DRYLAND SOYBEAN PRODUCTION PRACTICES EVALUATED IN JOURNEY OF DROUGHT. Treatment Everything Wrong Treatment Planting date Row spacing June 15 30-inch Landoll None Tillage PRE weed control POST weed control Roundup PowerMAX herbicide at R1 soybean Weed Control June 15 30-inch Landoll Roundup PowerMAX herbicide + Authority MTZ Roundup PowerMAX herbicide + Select Max at 4 inch weeds Tillage June 15 30-inch No-till Roundup PowerMAX herbicide + Authority MTZ Roundup PowerMAX herbicide + Select Max at 4 inch weeds Planting Date May 27 30-inch No-till Post Residual Herbicide Row Spacing May 27 Page 44 / 2015 Demo Report May 27 30-inch No-till 30-inch twin rows No-till *Same soybean product planted in all plots at 110,000 seeds/acre. Roundup PowerMAX herbicide + Authority MTZ Roundup PowerMAX herbicide + Authority MTZ Roundup PowerMAX herbicide + Authority MTZ Roundup PowerMAX herbicide + Select Max at 4 inch weeds Roundup PowerMAX herbicide + Select Max at 4 inch weeds + Warrant Herbicide Roundup PowerMAX herbicide + Select Max at 4 inch weeds + Warrant Herbicide

Dryland Soybean Production Systems Study Guidelines Planting Date Randomized complete block design with three replications. Two soybean relative maturities (RM) used. Product A 2.4 RM Product B 3.0 RM Seven planting dates: April 1, April 24, May 1, May 8, May 15, May 26, and June 10 Results Journey of Drought Both demonstration studies were planted into good soil moisture. Rainfall was evenly spaced over a majority of the growing season. Accumulated rainfall per month: June 3.4 inches July 3.0 inches August 3.7 inches September 3.0 inches Average Yield (bu/acre) 75 70 65 60 55 62 66 65 72 71 LSD (0.1) = 3.5 70 71 50 Everything Wrong Weed Control Tillage Earlier Planting Date Planting Rate Post Residuals Twin Rows Figure 1. Drought management treatment impact on soybean yield potential. Figure 2A. Everything Wrong Figure 2B. Earlier Planting Date Figure 2. Late-season comparison of management practices. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 45

Dryland Soybean Production Systems Product A Product B 90 Average yield (bu/acre) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 63 47 78 79 79 74 75 76 71 69 69 70 63 57 10 0 1-Apr 24-Apr 1-May 8-May 15-May 26-May 10-Jun Figure 3. Yield response to planting date by product. Planting Date Key Messages To successfully produce dryland soybean, farmers need to look at the entire system and evaluate all components. Consistently using earlier planting dates along with incorporation of a residual herbicide at planting have had the biggest impact on increasing yield potential in the demonstration trials at Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, Nebraska. In years or areas where rainfall and subsequent soil moisture is less, incorporating no-till into the system would have a bigger impact on yield potential. Legal The information discussed in this report is from a single site, 5 replication 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. 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. Warrant Herbicide is not registered in all states. Warrant Herbicide may be subject to use restrictions in some states. The distribution, sale, or use of an unregistered pesticide is a violation of federal and/or state law and is strictly prohibited. Check with your local Monsanto dealer or representative for the product registration status in your state. 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. Monsanto and Vine Design, Roundup PowerMAX, Roundup Technology and Warrant are registered trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC. Authority is a trademark of FMC Corporation. Select Max is a registered trademark of Valent U.S.A. Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. 2015 Monsanto Company. 151014134302 103014AMH Page 46 / 2015 Demo Report

Dryland Soybean Production Systems Figure 4. Differences in leaf senescence for Product A (2.4 RM) for April 24 planting date (left) and June 10 planting date (right). Photos taken on September 16. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 47

Soybean Response to Seeding Rates in 30-Inch Row Spacing Background Choosing the optimal soybean seeding rate can improve profitability in soybean production. Many recent studies on soybean seeding rates in the High Plains suggest that higher seeding rates may not result in significant yield and profit increases. Results from a study by the University of Nebraska suggest that a seeding rate of 120,000 seeds/acre on 30-inch rows can maximize profit potential. 1 This recommendation was based on a cost of $40 to $65 per bag of seed and market prices at the time of the study (2006-2008, 2010, and 2013). In a 2010 Monsanto Learning Center study at Gothenburg, NE, a seeding rate of 125,000 seeds/ acre was found to maximize profitability. This recommendation was based on a seed cost of $68 per bag and a soybean market price of $10 per bushel. This study also demonstrated the ability of soybean plants to compensate for lower plant stands by increased branching and pod production. A follow-up study conducted in 2014 demonstrated that potential profitability of different seeding rates was greatly affected by market price. When considering a soybean market price of $10.40 per bushel, the highest profitability was achieved at a seeding rate of 100,000 seeds/acre. When soybean market price was higher, $14.50 per bushel, the highest profitability occurred at a seeding rate of 260,000 seeds/acre. Study Guidelines A soybean demonstration trial was conducted at the Monsanto Learning Center near Gothenburg, NE in 2015 to continue to evaluate how soybean seeding rate affects stand establishment, yield, and profitability. A 2.4 MG soybean product was planted at six different seeding rates: 60,000, 100,000, 140,000, 180,000, 220,000, and 260,000 seeds/acre. Potential profitability was considered by accounting for different seed costs on a per acre basis and varying soybean market values. and strip tillage was performed on April 16, 2015 to facilitate planting through corn residue. The trial was planted on May 27, 2015 in 30-inch rows. Irrigation was applied as needed to prevent moisture stress and the field was managed to remain weed free. The trial was designed as a randomized complete block with five replications. Each plot measured 40 feet by 10 feet. Data was collected from the center two rows of each plot. Results and Discussion Average yields steadily increased with increasing seeding rates and yield per thousand (YPT) steadily decreased with increasing seeding rates (Table 1). YPT is a measure of the yield per thousand plants and can be used as a tool to determine the optimum planting density. Final stand counts were much lower than the respective seeding rates in all treatments with larger differences as seeding rates increased (Figure 1). Relentless rains after planting may have contributed to these lower stand counts. TABLE 1. SEEDING RATE IMPACT ON FINAL STAND COUNT, YIELD, AND YIELD PER THOUSAND PLANTS (YPT) Seeding Rate (seeds/acre) Final Stand (plants/acre) Yield (bu/acre) YPT (bu/acre) 60,000 47,045 69.7 1.48 100,000 73,181 86.4 1.18 140,000 95,832 88.1 0.92 180,000 119,529 88.9 0.74 220,000 125,017 90.8 0.73 260,000 137,998 92.2 0.67 The field had been previously planted to corn Page 48 / 2015 Demo Report

Soybean Response to Seeding Rates in 30-Inch Row Spacing Final Stand Count (plants/acre) 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 60,000 100,000 140,000 180,000 220,000 260,000 Figure 1. Seeding rate compared to final stand count at harvest. Seeding Rate (seeds/acre) Seeding Density Final Stand Count The highest yield (92.2 bu/acre) was attained at the seeding rate of 260,000 seeds/acre (Figure 2). Yields were much higher in 2015 compared to the 2014 trial, possibly due to late-season hail damage that occurred in 2014 (Figures 2 and 3). The most profitable seeding rate (based on revenue seed cost) varied depending on seed costs and fluctuating soybean market prices (Tables 2 through 4). A comparison of soybean plants from the different seeding rates shows that smaller plant stature and limited branching occurs with increased seeding rates (Figures 4 and 5). Takeaways Soybeans can still achieve fair yields at low seeding rates and low final stand counts; however, significant yield was sacrificed at the lowest seeding rate of 60,000 seeds/acre in this study. Soybeans are often seeded at higher rates, which may not provide significant yield or profit increases; however, higher rates may provide a buffer for stand losses that often occur throughout the growing season with weather events common to the High Plains. Soybean seeding rate recommendations vary based on many factors and profitability will ultimately be influenced by seed costs and market prices. Always take into consideration planting date, row spacing, expected emergence, and the yield potential of the field, which includes moisture availability and fertility, when making decisions about soybean seeding rate. Source: 1 Rees, J., Glewen, K., Zoubek, G., and VenDeWalle, B. 2014. Nebraska on farm research network soybean seeding rate findings. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. www.cropwatch.unl.edu/ Legals The information discussed in this report is from a single site, replicated demonstration. This informational piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. 2015 Monsanto Company. 151218062605 010816CAM Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 49

Soybean Response to Seeding Rates in 30-Inch Row Spacing Average Yield (bu/acre) 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 LSD (0.1) = 5.1 69.7 86.4 88.1 88.9 90.8 92.2 60 60,000 100,000 140,000 180,000 220,000 260,000 Seeding Rate (seeds/acre) Figure 2. 2015 seeding rate impact on soybean yield. 76 Average Yield (bu/acre) 74 72 70 68 66 64 LSD (0.1) = 4.7 64 69 70 71 72 74 62 60 60,000 100,000 140,000 180,000 220,000 260,000 Figure 3. 2014 seeding rate impact on soybean yield. Page 50 / 2015 Demo Report Seeding Rate (seeds/acre)

Soybean Response to Seeding Rates in 30-Inch Row Spacing TABLE 2. SEEDING RATE ECONOMICS BASED ON A SEED COST OF $45 PER 140,000 SEEDS Seeding Rate (seeds/acre) Yield (bu/acre) Seed Cost ($/acre) Revenue Seed Cost ($/acre) $8/bu $9/bu $10/bu $11/bu $12/bu 60,000 69.7 19.29 538.31 608.01 677.71 747.41 817.11 100,000 86.4 32.14 659.06 745.46 831.86 918.26 1,004.66 140,000 88.1 45.00 659.80 747.90 836.00 924.10 1,012.20 180,000 88.9 57.86 653.34 742.24 831.14 920.04 1,008.94 220,000 90.8 70.71 655.69 746.49 837.29 928.09 1,018.89 260,000 92.2 83.57 654.03 746.23 838.43 930.63 1,022.83 Revenues based on a seed cost of $45 per unit (1 unit = 140,000 seeds) and varying soybean market values ($8/bu - $12/bu). TABLE 3. SEEDING RATE ECONOMICS BASED ON A SEED COST OF $55 PER 140,000 SEEDS Seeding Rate (seeds/acre) Yield (bu/acre) Seed Cost ($/acre) Revenue Seed Cost ($/acre) $8/bu $9/bu $10/bu $11/bu $12/bu 60,000 69.7 23.57 534.03 603.73 673.43 743.13 812.83 100,000 86.4 39.29 651.91 738.31 824.71 911.11 997.51 140,000 88.1 55.00 649.80 737.90 826.00 914.10 1,002.20 180,000 88.9 70.71 640.49 729.39 818.29 907.19 996.09 220,000 90.8 86.43 639.97 730.77 821.57 912.37 1,003.17 260,000 92.2 102.14 635.46 727.66 819.86 912.06 1,004.26 Revenues based on a seed cost of $55 per unit (1 unit = 140,000 seeds) and varying soybean market values ($8/bu - $12/bu). Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 51

Soybean Response to Seeding Rates in 30-Inch Row Spacing TABLE 4. SEEDING RATE ECONOMICS BASED ON A SEED COST OF $65 PER 140,000 SEEDS Seeding Rate (seeds/acre) Yield (bu/acre) Seed Cost ($/acre) Revenue Seed Cost ($/acre) $8/bu $9/bu $10/bu $11/bu $12/bu 60,000 69.7 27.86 529.74 599.44 669.14 738.84 808.54 100,000 86.4 46.43 644.77 731.17 817.57 903.97 990.37 140,000 88.1 65.00 639.80 727.90 816.00 904.10 992.20 180,000 88.9 83.57 627.63 716.53 805.43 894.33 983.23 220,000 90.8 102.14 624.26 715.06 805.86 896.66 987.46 260,000 92.2 120.71 616.89 709.09 801.29 893.49 985.69 Revenues based on a seed cost of $65 per unit (1 unit = 140,000 seeds) and varying soybean market values ($8/bu - $12/bu). Figure 4. Side-by-side comparison of branching at the different seeding rates (60,000 seeds/acre on the left to 260,000 seeds/acre on the right). Page 52 / 2015 Demo Report

Soybean Response to Seeding Rates in 30-Inch Row Spacing Figure 5A. 60,000 seeds/acre Figure 5B. 100,000 seeds/acre Figure 5C. 140,000 seeds/acre Figure 5D. 180,000 seeds/acre Figure 5E. 220,000 seeds/acre Figure 5F. 260,000 seeds/acre Figure 5 (A-F). Soybean plants showing differences in branching that can occur at different seeding rates. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 53

Planting Date Effects on Irrigated Soybean Background Research has shown that earlier planted soybeans can provide the opportunity for higher yields. Because of this, soybean planting dates have been moving to the last week of April or the first week of May when planting conditions and equipment allow in the Midwest region. This study was developed to determine the effect of planting date on soybean yield and crop canopy. The study was also intended to determine the effect of seeding density on soybean yields. Similar studies have been conducted at Gothenburg Learning Center: 2013 - Effect of Planting Date on Soybean Yield and 2011 - Soybean Planting Date. The 2015 study used an expanded number of planting dates. The study evaluated the timing of canopy closure and soybean yield as planting dates moved from April 1st to June 10th. Canopies close quicker with earlier planting allowing full interception of the sun s radiation during pod set and seed fill. More light harvested may result in greater yield. Earlier planted soybeans can reach R1 growth stage (early flowering) sooner and can potentially have a longer growing season. While internode elongation is temperature dependent, node accrual is time dependent. After V1 growth stage, soybean plants gain a new node once every 3.7 days; therefore, more nodes may be accrued with early-planted soybeans. 1 New nodes continue to accumulate through the R5 growth stage. In a 2014 survey of 181 Nebraska farmers, over half of those surveyed responded they were planting soybeans at a rate of 140,000 to 170,000 seeds per acre. 2 Some research has demonstrated seeding rates can be reduced to 120,000 seeds/acre in fields with clay loam/silty clay loam soils. 3 Population decisions should be made carefully with increased costs of production. Study Guidelines Two soybean products were planted: 2.4 MG and 3.0 MG at a rate of 160,000 seeds/acre. 2015 planting Dates: April 1, April 24, May 1, May 15, May 26, and June 10. Soybeans were planted into a field that was previously corn and had been striptilled April 1, 2015. The study was kept weed-free and a total of 6 inches of irrigation was applied during the growing season to keep plants free of moisture stress. The study was a randomized complete block design with 3 replications in large strips (150 ft by 10 ft) with the center two rows harvested. Results and Discussion TABLE 1. RESULTS OF MG 2.4 SOYBEAN PRODUCTS FOR 7 PLANTING DATES SPANNING A 70-DAY PLANTING SEASON. Planting Date Average Yield (bu/acre) Gross Revenue (dollars) Revenue Decrease Compared to Ideal Date (dollars) April 1 78 624-96 April 24 88 704-16 May 1 89 712-8 May 8 90 720 0 May 15 87 696-16 May 26 87 696-24 June 10 75 600-120 TABLE 2. RESULTS OF MG 3.0 SOYBEAN PRODUCTS FOR 7 PLANTING DATES SPANNING A 70-DAY PLANTING SEASON. Planting Date Average Yield (bu/acre) Gross Revenue (dollars) Revenue Decrease Compared to Ideal Date (dollars) April 1 77 616-96 April 24 89 712 0 May 1 84 672-40 May 8 84 672-40 May 15 81 648-64 May 26 81 648-64 June 10 76 608-104 Yield at the early planting date was likely reduced by frost damage. This, combined with the greater than three-week interval in April with no planting dates, may have caused the yield curve to slope at a higher than expected rate toward the early planting date. Without a frost, there could have been a longer optimal planting window on the early end of the curve. Page 54 / 2015 Demo Report

Planting Date Effects on Irrigated Soybean 90 88 87 87 y = 5E-05x 3-6.8775x 2 + 290127x - 4E+09 R² = 0.9528 Soybean Yield (bu/a) 85 80 75 70 77 84 84 75 65 1-Apr 8-Apr 15-Apr 22-Apr 29-Apr 6-May 13-May 20-May 27-May 3-Jun 10-Jun Yield Poly. (Yield) Polynomial Equation (Yield) Figure 1. Soybean yield based on planting date of two products planted at the Gothenburg Learning Center * Note this graph is drawn with the date as a scale so that the equation line can be applied to the chart. 120% Percent Canopy Closure 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 1-Apr 24-Apr 15-May 10-Jun 0% 19-Jun 26-Jun 10-Jul 17-Jul 24-Jul 7-Aug 2.4 Date of Canopy Measurement Figure 2: Percent canopy closure for four planting dates of a 2.4 MG product at selected measurement dates. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 55

Planting Date Effects on Irrigated Soybean 120% Percent Canopy Closure 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 1-Apr 24-Apr 15-May 10-Jun 0% 19-Jun 26-Jun 10-Jul 17-Jul 24-Jul 7-Aug 3 Date of Canopy Measurement Figure 3: Percent canopy closure for four planting dates of a 3.0 MG product at selected measurement dates. Takeaways In this study, yield was closely tied to the planting date of the soybean product with the highest yield when averaged across products coming at the April 24th planting date. Due to this high yield, the treatment also provided the most gross revenue per acre. There were fairly stable yields across the planting dates that were between the end of April and the end of May. The suggested planting date for this region of Nebraska is during the last week of April and the first week of May and our results closely matched this for the 2015 growing season. With the early planting date we were able to show a negative response to both planting too early and planting too late because yield at both the April 1st and June 10th planting dates were significantly lower than all of the other dates. The reason for low yields at the April 1st planting date was likely due to frost after soybean emergence which reduced plant stands. Temperatures reached slightly less than 30 F on May 12th which resulted in some stand loss due to soybeans freezing off. The lack of canopy closure for the April 1st planting date is likely due to this stand loss, but stand reduction was not measured in this study. Throughout the season it was apparent that the percentage of canopy closure on a given date was closely related to the planting date of the plot except for the April 1st planting date which suffered stand loss resulting in slower canopy closure. Early canopy closure may aid yield potential in several ways including an increase in leaf area to gather photosynthates and reducing the ability of weeds to compete with the soybean plants. Sources 1 Elmore, R., Specht, J., Rees, J., Grassini, P., and Glewen, K. 2014. Why planting soybean early improves yield potential. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. CropWatch. 2 2014 CropWatch Survey. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. http:// cropwatch.unl.edu/soy-pop-kiosk. 3 Specht, J., Rees, J., Grassini, P., and Mueller, N. 2015. Soybean planting tips for optimal yield 2015. University of Nebraska- Lincoln. CropWatch. Websites verified 1/8/16 Page 56 / 2015 Demo Report

Planting Date Effects on Irrigated Soybean Figure 4. Soybeans in the April 1st planting date pictured on May 1st. At this point there was a great stand in this planting date which was later reduced by frost. Figure 5. Soybeans in the April 1st planting date showing various levels of frost damage from a freeze on May 12th. (Note the healthy plants, plants regrowing below the main growing point, and dead plants. The damage was most severe where corn residue had blown back into the strip tilled seed bed.) Figure 6. Group 2.4 soybean planted April 1st planting date showing the canopy on June 19th with an estimated 8% canopy cover. Figure 7. Group 2.4 soybean planted April 24th with an estimated 16% canopy cover on June 19th. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 57

Planting Date Effects on Irrigated Soybean Figure 8. Group 2.4 soybean planted May 15th with an estimated 4% canopy cover on June 19th. Figure 9. Group 2.4 soybean planted June 10th just emerging on June 19th. Figure 10. Group 2.4 soybean planted April 1st with an estimated 37% canopy cover on July 10th. Figure 11. Group 2.4 soybean planted April 24th with an estimated 54% canopy cover on July 10th. Figure 12. Group 2.4 soybean planted May 15th with an estimated 47% canopy cover on July 10th. Figure 13. Group 2.4 soybean planted June 10th with an estimated 29% canopy cover on July 10th. Page 58 / 2015 Demo Report

Planting Date Effects on Irrigated Soybean Figure 14. Group 2.4 soybean planted April 1st with an estimated 83% canopy cover on July 27th. Figure 15. Soybean planted April 24th with an estimated 80% canopy cover on July 27th. Figure 16. Soybean planted May 15th with an estimated 75% canopy cover on July 27th. Figure 17. Soybean planted June 10th with an estimated 82% canopy cover on July 27th. Figure 18. Group 2.4 soybean planted April 1st with an estimated 82% canopy cover on August 7th. Figure 19. Group 2.4 soybean planted April 24th with an estimated 98% canopy cover on August 7th. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 59

Planting Date Effects on Irrigated Soybean Figure 20. Group 2.4 soybean planted May 15th with an estimated 95% canopy cover on August 7th. Figure 21. Group 2.4 soybean planted June 10th with an estimated 93% canopy cover on August 7th. Figure 22. Group 2.4 soybean planted April 1st starting to senesce on September 9th. Figure 23. Group 2.4 soybean planted April 24th showing increased senescence compared to the April 1st planting date on September 9th. Legals The information discussed in this report is from a multiple site, single year, nonreplicated demonstration. This informational piece is designed to report the results of this demonstration and is not intended to infer any confirmed trends. Please use this information accordingly. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. DEKALB and Design and Monsanto and Vine Design are registered trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. 2015 Monsanto Company. 151218060251 121915SEK. Figure 24. Group 2.4 soybean planted June 10th showing no signs of senescence on September 9th. Page 60 / 2015 Demo Report

Stripe Rust and the Effect of Fungicide Application on Wheat Background Stripe (yellow) rust (Puccinia striiformis) can cause yield losses up to near 50% in moderately susceptible wheat products when conditions are favorable for disease development and spread throughout the growing season. 1 Inoculum can be from several sources: dormant mycelium and uredinia, volunteer wheat plants, nearby fields with a different maturity date, alternate hosts such as Berberis spp., or winds carrying inoculant from fields in southern United States. 2 Researchers continue to work to develop new wheat products with tolerance to various races of P. striiformis. While several diseases can impact wheat, stripe rust was the predominant rust in the study and is characterized by its yellow to orange pustules called uredia. Uredia can be seen in stripes generally after stem elongation in wheat. In addition to decreasing active photosynthetic area on leaves, stripe rust also utilizes water and nutrients from host plants. Leaf rust is a similar rust that can be present and is characterized by reddish-orange uredia, scattered on leaves and sheaths of infected plants. Infection can appear on lower leaves or upper leaves depending on if spores overwintered or were deposited from the air, respectively. 3 Stripe rust generally causes more yield loss than leaf rust. Fungicides can help protect yield and have prevented multimillion dollar losses. 4 In 1981, a severe outbreak of stripe rust in the Pacific Northwest led to large scale use of fungicides. Without fungicide control, highly susceptible wheat cultivars were Figure 1. Stripe rust (left) and leaf rust (right). destroyed and cultivars with moderate resistance to stripe rust had 50% yield loss. 4 The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential benefits of a fungicide application on wheat at boot stage (Feekes 10) when stripe rust is evident. It was also intended to evaluate potential differences in observed benefits between products that tend to be more curative (Caramba ) compared to products that tend to be more protective (Headline ) and the combination of these fungicides (Table 1). TABLE 1. ACTIVE INGREDIENTS AND FUNGICIDE CLASSES FOR EACH PRODUCT NAME. Product Name Active Ingredient Fungicide Class Headline Pyraclostrobin Strobilurin Caramba Metconazole Triazole Twinline Priaxor Pyraclostrobin + metconazole Pyraclostrobin + fluxapyroxad Strobilurin + triazole Strobilurin + succinate-dehydrogenase (SDH) inhibitor Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 61

Stripe Rust and the Effect of Fungicide Application on Wheat Study Guidelines The study was planted on October 17, 2014 into a dryland field that was no-till and in soybean rotation. Weeds were uniformly controlled using a residual/post weed control program. A blanket application of fungicide at 6 oz/acre was applied to the area on April 29, 2015 (Feekes 5 growth stage). Four fungicides were applied at typical rates with recommended surfactants at the boot growth stage (Feekes 10) on May 21, 2015 (Table 2). The study was a randomized complete block design with four replications. Results Plots were harvested on July 21, 2015 and moisture, test weight, and yield were recorded. Take Aways Cool, wet weather along with a susceptible wheat variety and stripe rust inoculum carried from various sources can lead to a severe stripe rust outbreak. Timely fungicide applications can control the disease and decrease the potential for yield loss. A fungicide treatment provided an 11 to 14 bu/ acre benefit compared to the wheat without a fungicide application (Figure 2). There are different types of fungicide available with some tending to have more curative properties (Caramba ), others tending to have more preventative properties (Headline ), and products with a combination of the two. Depending on the year, stripe rust can greatly reduce yield potential. Farmers should choose the fungicide that best fits the disease(s) present and the conditions in the field. Sources 1 French-Monar, R. 2010. Stripe rust on wheat: scouting, spraying, and potential yield losses. Texas A&M. PLPA-Wh010-02. 2 Jin, Y., Szabo, L.J., and Carson, M. 2010. Century-old mystery of Puccinia striiformis life history solved with the identification of Berberis as an alternate host. Phytopathology. Vol. 100:432-435. 3 Lipps, P.E. Leaf rust of wheat. The Ohio State University. AC-6-96. 4 Chen, X.M. Epidemiology and control of stripe rust [Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici] on wheat. Legals Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Monsanto and Vine Design is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. Headline is a registered trademark of BASF Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. 2015 Monsanto Company. 150901101818 091615SEK TABLE 2. FUNGICIDE RATE AND FORMULATION FOR EACH TREATMENT. Treatment Fungicide Formulation Rate Applied 1 No Fungicide - - 2 Headline + Nonionic surfactant (NIS) 2.09 lb/gal 3 Caramba + NIS 0.75 lb/gal 4 Twinline + NIS 1.75 lb/gal 5 Priaxor + NIS 4.17 lb/gal 6 fl oz/acre 0.125% v/v 11 fl oz/acre 0.125% v/v 7 fl oz/acre 0.125% v/v 4 fl oz/acre 0.125% v/v Page 62 / 2015 Demo Report

Stripe Rust and the Effect of Fungicide Application on Wheat Figure 2. Wheat Plot Treated with Twinline Fungicide (photo taken before harvest). TABLE 3. MOISTURE, TEST WEIGHT, AND YIELD AT HARVEST FOR EACH FUNGICIDE TREATMENT Treatment Moisture (%) Test Weight (lb/bu) Yield (bu) No Fungicide 12.0 b 55.9 b 50 b Headline 14.0 a 59.4 a 62 a Caramba 14.3 a 59.5 a 63 a Twinline 14.6 a 60.5 a 64 a Priaxor 14.0 a 59.2 a 61 a LSD (P=0.05) 0.98 2.23 5.4 Coefficient of Variation 4.63 2.46 5.9 * letters a and b indicate significant differences between treatments. Monsanto Learning Center at Gothenburg, NE / Page 63

Monsanto Learning Center 76268 Hwy 47 Gothenburg, NE 69138 (308) 537-4500 www.monsanto.com