Archive for category: Uncategorized

Adapted from original article written 6/1/2015.

Its been a struggle to get across our fields this year given all our precipitation. However I am sure there are “a plethora of opportunities” this year to to add sugar to your tanks to”perk that crop right up” so I thought I would dust off and re-post the below article originally entitled “Do Foliar Applications of Sugar Improve Soybean Yield”.

I also wanted to link to a few other articles from colleagues at the University of Nebraska “Sugar Applications to Crops – Nebraska On-Farm Research Network Results” and “Research Results: Sugar Applications to Crops“. In short the University of Nebraska team did not find a consistent yield increase in corn or sorghum and an 0.8 bu per acre yield increase in soybean. If farmers are considering a pass for just the sugar application, the average cost of ground application is $7.90 and aerial is $9.65 per acre; 2020 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey and the average yield loss caused by sprayer wheel track damage in soybean in rows less than 20 inches is 1.9 or 1.3% with a 90 or 120 foot boom, respectively.

I also want to give credit to my colleague Chad Lee who wrote a nice article entitled “Could Sugar Help Drought Stressed Corn?” that discusses sugar rates, biological activity and actual costs of product.

I am certain this re-posted article will stir up the same severe indignation as the original, however with November beans trading at $11.11 per bu locally today ROI is equally important under high commodity prices as it is low!

Do Foliar Applications of Sugar Improve Soybean Yield (Originally published: June 14th, 2011)

High commodity prices have led growers to consider many novel soybean inputs. One input that has garnered considerable attention is the foliar application of sugar products to increase soybean yield. The objective of this research was to evaluate soybean yield in response to various sources of foliar-applied sugar across four states in the Midwest. Field research studies were conducted at Arlington, Wisconsin; Urbana, Illinois; St. Paul, Minnesota; and West Lafayette, Indiana in 2010.The four sources of sugar evaluated in this study were:

1. Granulated cane sugar
2. High fructose corn syrup
3. Molasses
4. Blackstrap molasses.

All treatments were applied at the equivalent rate of 3 lb sugar a^-1 and applied in 15 to 20 gal a^-1 carrier. The treatments consisted of an untreated check, all four sources of sugar applied at V4, granulated cane sugar and blackstrap molasses applied at R1, granulated cane sugar applied at V4 and R1, and blackstrap molasses applied at V4 and R1.

No positive or negative (phytotoxic) effects were visually observed on the soybean foliage at any location within 10 days following foliar applications (data not shown). Furthermore, sugar did not increase soybean yield within location (data no shown) or across locations [P= 0.60 (Figure 1)], regardless of source. While this study cannot conclusively prove foliar applications of sugar will not increase soybean yield, the authors conclude that other management strategies to improve soybean yield should take precedence over applying sugar.

 

Adapted from original article written in 2018 by Authors: S.P.Conley, J.M Gaska, S. Mourtiznis, D. Mueller, and A. Varenhorst

With only 8 days left in May and roughly only 57% of the WI soybean crop planted what if any production changes should growers consider modifying?

1. Do Not Switch Your Maturity Group….Yet: Do not consider switching to an earlier soybean maturity group until ~June 1. After June 1 do not go any earlier than a 0.5 MG earlier variety. For more information please see:  Soybean Planting Date and Maturity Group Considerations Moving into 2019.
2. Increase your seeding rate to roughly 154,000 seeds per acre. Efficacy of soybean seed-applied fungicide and insecticide at early and late planting dates and a range of seeding rates were tested in multiple states during the 2016 and 2017 growing seasons. Researchers in Iowa, South Dakota, and Wisconsin participated with 4 locations each year for a total of 24 location/years.  Seed treatments included a) UTC, b) fungicide (prothioconazole, penflufen, and metalaxyl), and c) fungicide+insecticide (clothianidin). Only late planting dates were used in this below analysis. The average of the late planting dates for each state over the two years were: IA: May 24,  SD: June 21, and WI: May 31.  Seeding rates were in increments of 20,000 from 60,000 to 160,000 seeds/acre. There was a quadratic yield response to seeding rate that was significant (Figure 1). Maximum yield was observed at 154,000 seeds/acre. The curve is not very steep which shows that practical yield differences between seeding rates were not large. So, the curve does not tell the whole story. We re-ran the model with seeding rate as a categorical variable. The results suggest that yields for 140 and 160K were not different and 100-140K were not different either (Table 1). It may be argued that our seeding rate was not extended high enough…I assume my Twitter “friends” will come back and say “hey bean boy why didn’t you go to 180 or 220,000 seeds per acre”. That is a valid critique however given the flat response curve we find it difficult to believe we would have seen a significant yield response above where we are. As a reminder our recommended seeding rate for early planted soybean can be found here: Just the Facts Jack: Soybean Planting Date, Seeding Rate, Pre-Herbicide Timing, and Seed Treatment Recommendations .
3. Interpret the below information on return above seed cost cautiously. The best part of writing in a blog format is that you get to tweak the post after it is originally published. To that point we had several comments last year on the the small yield response difference between seeding rates and question the optimal farmer return above seed cost. If you were to look only at that factor the optimal seeding rate would be ~100,000 seeds per acre even at a late May planting (Table 2). Though those economic numbers are very appealing I would caution growers to not go this low if they have uneven or rocky fields as harvestabilty will be a challenge with a lower soybean pod set. Furthermore many soybeans will be “planted” and I use that term loosely into unfavorable environments (wet and compacted soils) and emergence issues will be likely. I would also not go this low in fields that are prone to drought as the rows will be slower to canopy and lead to greater soil water evaporation and subsequent weed competition. This leads us to waterhemp and its wonderful biology of delayed germination and prolific seed set. The point I am trying to make is this is a system and as Paul Harvey so eloquently stated……”now for the rest of the story”!
4. Figure 1. Soybean seed yield response to seeding rate for soybean planted in Late May and June in IA, WI, and SD.

Table 1. Mean soybean seed yield response to seeding rate for soybean planted in Late May and June in IA, WI, and SD.

Table 2. Return above seed cost at various market prices for seeding rates over 60000 seeds/acre.

Shawn P. Conley, Jed Colquhoun, and Damon Smith; UW Madison Professors and State Extension Specialists

#Plant24 is “On Like Donkey Kong” so we thought it would be a good to remind growers to keep your cocktails for happy hour and consider the perils of complex tank mixing!

Adding something “extra” to the spray tank is not a new or novel phenomenon in agriculture; however, in today’s economic, social, and regulatory environment it is in agriculture’s best interest to think twice before blindly adhering to this mentality. Dr. Paul Mitchell, UW Ag Economist and Associate Dean, terms this practice “the more-on principle”. In its simplest form, this principle is founded on the belief that the more I put on the less downside risk my operation will be exposed to. This “more-on principle” is usually sold as or purchased under the guise of “cheap insurance” for farmers. What makes this principle more appealing is that the extra input is often priced in the 0.5 to 1 bu price for soybean or 2-3 bu price of corn. It is usually conveniently priced so a researcher, farmer, or crop consultant can’t effectively measure if the product paid for itself or not. Not surprising to anyone, these one-off products are internally referred to as profit centers.

The “more-on principle” is risky enough as a one-off addition to a tank-mix, but we are now starting to see multiple products added to the tank. Without further investigation, the farmer may not know what they are applying. To make it worse, the products are often applied at rates that are ineffective. To frame this more explicitly, a common practice this summer in field corn was to offer a farmer a tank-mix that included a fully loaded fungicide, an insecticide (in absence of any insect pests), a foliar feed product, (in the absence of any nutrient deficiency and at fertilizer rates that are known to be ineffective), and additional adjuvant (because it is a well know profit center) at a cost of ~$50 per acre. We won’t even broach the soybean programs containing fully loaded fungicides, insecticides, micronutrient packs, biologicals, and sugar components or the specialty crops where 8-way mixes aren’t uncommon!

So what damage is the “more-on principle” bringing to the ag sector? The first negative hit to a farmer is economic. The custom suite of products is often sold to the farmer as a program. The farmer is expected to either buy the entire program as is or they must wait until the end of the spray cycle to get their off-program applications. It is also difficult to verify if the program worked because often there isn’t a yield-check strip. This challenge is further confounded with genetic yield-gain in most crops, that regardless of inputs, will lead to increased yield over last. So, the real question is ‘did this suite of practices really work?’ To be frank, probably not. For example, we tested the hypothesis that high-input soybean systems provide greater yield and economic stability to farmers. What we found was that intensive management input systems minimally reduced the average cost of yield risk (<3% of average yield) and did not consistently protect soybean yield from downside yield risk, which is counter to what the “more-on principle” would say. See more here!

The next downside peril is increased risk of pesticide resistance. In the example above, an insecticide was added to the tank-mix in the absence of a known insect threshold/pest issue. This not only increases selection pressure for insecticide resistance but also damages the beneficial insect population. The use of insecticide in this case makes the problem worse! We also see this with the use of fungicides, where inappropriate product choices have been used because they were “cheap insurance.” While this sounds good, using the wrong product can make a disease worse. Growers should know what is being sprayed and be sure that the product has been verified to be effective for the target you are after.

In the above scenario we also run the risk of decreased pesticide efficacy due to potential compatibility issues. Not only does this lead to decreased pesticide efficacy and increased resistance issues, but it also can result in registrants’ walking away from issues due to incompatibility issues. In some cases, complex, untested multi-product tank mixes can sometimes even cause crop injury or malformed development.  For example, we’ve seen cases in cranberries where a new and unknown adjuvant in an herbicide mix fused the cranberry blossoms to the point where they couldn’t be pollinated and didn’t produce a crop.

Lastly and even scarier is the increased risk of metabolic resistance, where pesticide applications can ramp up general enzymes in pests that “digest” subsequent applications such that they’re ineffective. This is a scary deal check it out here! The cherry on top of this story of peril is that the pesticide pipeline is very slim. The path to new pesticides, especially novel classes of active ingredients, is nearly non-existent. Also coming along are possible new regulations regarding the Endangered Species Act and agricultural pesticide use. While still open for public comment and potential revisions, there are regulations being considered that will heavily restrict the use of pesticides especially near water and where endangered species are known to exist. Careless use of pesticide applications as described above merely adds to the reasoning to further restrict pesticide use in agriculture.

Finally, it’s important to consider the greater social implications. In agriculture we often pat ourselves on the back and tell everyone we are sustainable and are feeding the world. We can do, and be, better when it comes to using research-based decision making to use inputs only when and where they’re warranted and effective.

If you are a farmer and you wish to explore alternative inputs and complex tank mixes, we are not entirely against this practice, but suggest considering the following before you pull the input trigger.

1. Know what you are buying (know the active ingredient and don’t let sellers get away with the excuse that it is proprietary). For pesticides, remember that the label is the law with use directions that need to be followed and often dictate tank mix options.
2. Know the mechanism of action (i.e. what is the input going to do, and is that a verified issue for your crop situation?).
3. Have independent data showing yield results and efficacy, not just the pretty sales brochure from the company showing huge yield differences with no statistics.
4. Work with your regional educator, crop consultant or CCA and leave a check strip to see for yourself under your management techniques. Observe the treated area compared to the check strip for pest control, crop development and any potential crop injury.  Tank mixes can sometimes be synergistic and result in crop injury or antagonistic in ways that reduce target pest control.  Most complex tank mixes with several products haven’t been tested extensively.

Though this quote wasn’t meant for this application we think it is definitely apropos: “Protectionism is the Institutionalization of Economic Failure” – Edward Heath

Blog article updated 4/3/2024 with pre-emergence herbicide information from Dr. Werle and Guilherme Chudzik added as authors.

When I am asked a direct question from a farmer or a crop consultant my response is always as follows…Do you want the short answer or the long answer as I can say the same thing in 5 minutes or 5 hours. Their response to me is almost always the same…”Just the Facts Jack”. In this blog I will attempt to answer four very agronomically important and challenging questions in a very succinct manner.  However as we all know brevity can be a gift or a curse depending upon the context of the question. With that being said here we go!

Question #1. When should I start planting soybean? My general response is to start planting your soybean crop ~7 to 10 days before you start putting your corn in the ground with the caveat that the soil is fit and you are following your crop insurance replant dates (Please review updated RMA map). We have measured soybean yield loss due to delayed planting date as early as ~April 10th in parts of the Midwest however the rapid yield decline (up to 0.5+ bpa per day) occurs at ~May 10th. As you would expect the magnitude of this planting date yield response is soil and climate dependent and yield losses in some areas (TED’s) where as high as 2.8 bpa per week for delayed planting (Figures 1 and 2). For a deeper dig please review the below supplemental documents.

• Identifying Optimal Soybean Planting Dates across the U.S.
• Analyzing more than two decades of Wisconsin soybean planting progress (2000-2022)
• Corn and soybean planting order decisions impact farm gross revenue
• Benchmarking Soybean Production Systems in the North Central USS
• Soybean Planting Date and Maturity Group Considerations Moving into 2019
• The Best Soybean Planting Date
• Does precision planting really matter in soybean?

Figure 1. Map of the North Central US region showing nine technology extrapolation domains (TEDs) used in this analysis.

Figure 2. Producer soybean yield plotted against planting date in 9 technology extrapolation domains (TED) in the NC USA region.

Question #2. What is the optimal soybean seeding rate? The quest for the optimal agronomic soybean seeding rate for yield vs. the optimal economic seeding rate has been an ongoing debate. Fortunately a large group of academics and industry (thank you Corteva) were able to combine data sets and address this question (Figure 3). Our results suggest that for “on-time” soybean planting dates the optimal agronomic soybean seeding rate to achieve 99% yield potential ranged from 237,000 to 128,000 seeds per acre (assuming 90% germ) across environments; whereas the optimal economic soybean seeding rate ranged from 157,000 to 103,000 seeds per acre. Thankfully this roughly confirms my original recommendation that you buy a bag an acre (140K) and place ~20% more seed on the low yielding acres and ~20% less on the high yielding acres, especially in areas of high white mold concern. If planting is delayed however we do recommend that you increase your seeding rate accordingly (Adjust Your Seeding Rate (Higher) But Not Your Maturity Group For Late May Planted Soybean ). For a deeper dig please review the below supplemental document.

• Agronomically optimal soybean seeding rates and associated risk across North America
• Soybean Plant Population Density
• The Soybean Growth Cycle: Important Risks, Management and Misconceptions

Figure 3. Location of 211 trial site-years that are included in the database and their respective environmental cluster classifications.

Table 1. Agronomic and Economic Optimal Soybean Seeding Rates by Environmental Cluster.

¹Agronomic optimal seeding rate (x1000 seeds) based on 99% maximum yield level.

²Economic analysis based on $62 a unit (140k) for seed and $9 a bushel pricing; soybean price and seed cost fluctuations will change the EOSR.

Question #3. When should I apply my pre herbicide?

The effectiveness of PRE-emergence herbicides is influenced by many factors including application time, soil type, weather conditions, and weed seedbank community composition and infestation level. The ideal time to apply a PRE herbicide is shortly before the onset of emergence of the target weed species followed by 1-2 inches of activating rainfall. But that’s often not the reality under field conditions.

For soybean planted in May, applying a pre-emergence herbicide at or shortly after crop planting is a standard practice and makes agronomic sense. Deciding when to deliver a pre-emergence herbicide to ultra-early planted soybean can be challenging though. One of the challenges is that some of the effective PRE herbicides for waterhemp control should be applied within 3 days of soybean planting according to their labels (e.g., flumioxazin, sulfentrazone). If soybean is planted in mid-April, and waterhemp doesn’t start emerging until mid/late-May, should a PRE still be sprayed in April within 3 days of planting? Or should a grower decide on a more flexible chemical program that allows for a later application?

Our recent research funded by the Wisconsin Soybean Marketing Board indicates that, in lighter soil (e.g., sandy loam, 1.6% O.M), residual herbicides dissipated faster compared to in silt loam soil (e.g., silt loam soil, 3.5% O.M). Moreover, herbicide dissipation was faster during the wetter spring of 2022 compared to the dry spring of 2023. What these results suggest is that applying PRE herbicides early, particularly in fields with lighter soils during wet years, may result in poor control of late-emerging weeds such as waterhemp and small-seeded annual grasses (e.g., foxtail species).

• Factors like soil type, weather conditions, and weed seedbank community composition and infestation level impact the effectiveness of PRE herbicides.
• Timing PRE herbicide applications is crucial for successful weed control, particularly in ultra-early soybeans.
• In lighter soils, residual herbicides dissipate faster, thus application timing becomes critical to avoid reduced control and the need for multiple sprays to control late-emerging weeds, particularly during wet years.

Question #4. When do I use a soybean seed treatment? I purposely placed this questions last as I know it will draw significant ire; however the data are what they are. Soybean seed treatments should only be used in some early planted soybean situations and/or if you have a history of or have scouted for an insect (i.e. Bean leaf beetle) or a pathogen (i.e. SDS) that exceeds economic thresholds. For a deeper dig please review the below supplemental document.

• Neonicotinoid Soybean Seed Treatments Provide Negligible Benefits to US Farmers
• Evaluating Yield Response of Biological Seed Treatments in Soybean 2023

Th-th-th-that’s all folks!

Background on Notice to Trade:

On March 6, 2023, USDA-AMS published a report titled “More and Better Choices for Farmers: Promoting Fair Competition and Innovation in Seeds and Other Agricultural Inputs.” This report was a response to Executive Order 14036, which directs federal agencies to take action to promote competition across the American economy. It outlines strategies for ensuring that the intellectual property system, while incentivizing innovation, does not unfairly restrict competition.

During the process of collecting public comments, holding listening sessions, and conducting meetings with farmers, plant breeders, industry experts, and seed companies, concerns were raised regarding the lack of important information available to seed purchasers through advertisements and catalogs.

The report found that withholding crucial details, such as variety names, before delivery can constrain competition and hinder innovation in several ways:

• Marketing a plant variety under different brand names without disclosing the variety name makes it difficult for consumers to determine which IP rights pertain to a variety.
• Withholding variety names from advertising can lead to price discrimination and prevent brands selling the same variety from competing based on other factors like price, seed quality, and customer service.
• Lack of varietal information in advertising also complicates farmers’ strategies to manage on-farm diversity and mitigate risk by planting multiple varieties of the same crop.

As a response to these concerns, USDA published a notice to trade, which underscored that farmers and other businesses should know the kind and variety of the seed that they are purchasing. AMS expects purchasers to be informed of kind and variety at the earliest opportunity, usually at the time of purchase and no later than the commencement of shipment. Sellers may achieve this by allowing the grower to physically review the seed container and its label prior to shipment, by making the labeled claims easily accessible to the grower (e.g., a link to an image of the actual label), or through other appropriate means. The notice to trade aims to ensure that growers have the necessary information to make reasoned and well-informed purchasing decisions. This, in turn, fosters transparency and promotes fairer competition in agricultural input markets.

For additional information, feedback and questions, please visit the Seed Liaison Website www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/seed-liaison or contact the USDA Seed Liaison Initiative at seedliaison@usda.gov. For information on how to file a complaint under the Federal Seed Act, please visit the Federal Seed Act website at www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/fsa/complaints or email seedcomplaints@usda.gov.

Main points for farmers:

• You should have access to the variety name of the seed you are purchasing when the seed is shipped, and usually at the point when you make purchasing decisions.
• This is so you can make decisions about what to plant on your farm, with all the relevant information needed to choose the best seed and supplier for your situation.