Potential for Soybean Yield Loss Due to Frost

The threat of a killing frost across WI has many growers concerned about the potential yield loss to soybean. The soybean fields that I have scouted over the last week are well into the the R6 growth stage (full seed: pod containing a green seed that fills the pod cavity at one of the four upper most nodes on the main stem with a fully developed leaf). In fact as of Monday 9/12/11 8% of the soybean varieties had reached physiological maturity (R7) at our Arlington site. On average a soybean plant remains in the R6 growth stage for 18 days; however the range can be as short as 9 days or as many as 30. As we move through the R6 growth stage and into R7 soybean seed moisture declines thus decreasing the risk of yield loss due to frost. Judd et al. (1982) found that seed in green pods which contain 65% moisture are injured at 28 °F whereas seed found in brown pods at 35% moisture was not injured at 10 °F. If frost damage is suspected remember that frost damaged soybeans will dry slower in the field and accuracy of moisture sensors may be suspect (may be 1-2% higher than the moisture meter reading) (PM 1635).

For more information on storage issues and uses of frost damaged soybean read page two of: Frost Damage to Corn and Soybean.

Literate cited:

PM 1635: Frost Damage to Corn and Soybean. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/publications/PM1635.pdf

Judd, R., T.M. Tekrony, D. B. Egli, and G.M. White. 1982. Effect of freezing temperatures during soybean seed maturation on seed quality. Agron J. 74:645-650.

Late Season Soybean Diseases

The 2011 growing season has been one of great variability in terms of the weather and its impact on soybean diseases. Early season conditions were cool and wet planting which was then followed by high heat and humidity. Now, as reported in the August 19th blog posting, abnormally dry conditions are being reported in several areas of the state. Thus, a common question as we get closer to harvest is, “Given these variable weather conditions, what is the potential effect of soybean diseases on yield?” Based on recent reports and our observations of different field trials, we highlight below several diseases that are popping up in soybean fields and provide specific links for further information about each disease.

In spite of the heat during flowering in many areas, we have seen white mold occurring. This is not necessarily a surprise as we do find the disease each growing season. Based on our current observations and reports though, it appears that the disease intensity is low in many locations, although variation to the soybean variety is being noted.

Also, over the past week to two weeks, we have seen an increase in Frogeye leaf spot. This disease, caused by the fungus Cercospora sojina, was observed in 2010 across the state and conditions in 2011, especially the hot and humid periods that occurred a few weeks ago, were favorable for disease development. In some of the plots that were recently visited, the severity of the disease appears higher than what we observed in 2010, however, levels still appear to be low.

Similar to some of the conditions we saw in 2008, we have seen fields and soybean plants with symptoms of either Phytophthora root and stem rot or stem canker. These two diseases can easily be confused for one another so it is important to make sure a proper identification.

Last, but not necessarily least, we have had several reports and also seen symptoms of sudden death syndrome (SDS). Reports are still being compiled, but based on our observations, the severity of SDS is probably going to be lower than in 2010. With soybean in the R6 growth stage in many areas, it is also important to make sure that the disease identification is correct for SDS, since foliar symptoms are similar to brown stem rot (BSR). In particular, make sure to examine the whole plant, including stems (looking for internal browning due to BSR) and roots (looking for a root rot and also a bluish hue that is the fungus of SDS). Do not just rely on the foliar symptoms to verify your diagnosis of either disease.

Stress on R6 Soybean

I have logged many miles across Southern WI the past week and have noticed several pockets of soybean that could use some rain. The U.S. Drought Monitor service verifies my wind shield scouting as it places most of southern WI in the abnormally dry category (Image 1). Across southern and central WI the average soybean field I have been in is at the R5.5 to R6 growth stage (full seed). In WI the R6 growth stage on average lasts ~18 days but will range from 9 to 30 days depending upon the weather. Soybean in this stage use about 1/4 to 1/3 inches of water per day. Lack of sufficient water during this growth stage can cause young pods and developing seed to abort reducing the number of seeds per plant (Images 2 &3).

Image 1.

Images 2 & 3. Stress induced seed and pod abortion at R6 soybean.



Soybean plants can reduce the size of their leaf pore openings to reduce the loss of water vapor. This also reduces the intake of carbon dioxide and the manufacturing of photosynthates which slows plant growth. When normal soil moisture returns, normal growth is resumed. This ability to reduce metabolic activity allows plants to tolerate dry spells without dying or harming their ability to resume growth when normal moisture returns.

If stress has severely affected pod set and seed fill, and if livestock feed is needed, soybeans can be harvested as a forage for ensiling. Highest protein and yields are obtained from soybean harvested at the R6 to R7 growth stage. Harvesting soybeans for forage between the R1 and R5 stage will result in a very high quality silage, but dry matter yields will be reduced significantly. Forage quality will be reduced from R5 soybean forward if a conditioning process is used during harvest. Conditioning will cause significant seed shattering.

Goss’s Wilt of Corn

We are starting to receive an increase in the number of reports, calls and/or emails regarding Goss’s wilt of corn. Goss’s wilt is caused by the bacterium, Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. nebraskense. This disease has been on the increase in the past two years, including being found in numerous seed corn and sweet corn fields in Wisconsin in 2010. Significant yield losses can occur in very susceptible hybrids.

Symptoms of Goss’s wilt include: distinct light tan/yellow to gray lesions, with wavy or irregular margins that follow the leaf veins. Within the lesions, dark green to black specks or flecks [freckles] are common and the lesions often have a shiny appearance due to the bacteria oozing onto the leaf surface. As symptomology progresses, lesions can coalesce causing whole leaves to be blight, and furthermore, there can be wilting and stalk degradation leading to entire plant death. To examine the stalk for Goss’s wilt, split the stalk and look for an orange to brown color with water-soaked and slimy tissue.

Currently, there is no good, in-season management tactic for control of Goss’s wilt. As a bacterial disease, foliar fungicides are not effective.

Reports from Wisconsin follow on several recent reports from surrounding states. The links below will take you to several of these bulletins, which also provide several excellent photos of this disease:

1) Illinois

2) Iowa

3) Minnesota

Since yield losses can be significant, it is important to properly diagnose Goss’s wilt in order to develop an effective management plan. This disease can be confused with another bacterial disease, Stewart’s wilt, as well as fungal diseases like Northern corn leaf blight and Diplodia leaf streak. We recommend that you submit samples for proper identification of Goss’s wilt to the Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic. Make a note of the hybrid from fields where Goss’s wilt was found and talk to your seed dealer about hybrids that have better Goss’s wilt ratings if this disease has been confirmed. Cultural management includes tilling fields immediately after harvest and burying residue. Planting corn into the same field in the next growing season is not recommended. Instead, rotate to a non-host crop like soybean.

The Official 2011 WI Winter Wheat Performance Test Results

Wisconsin saw a 37% increase in winter wheat acres harvested (315,000) in the 2010 -2011 growing season compared to the previous year. The forecasted yield for the 2011 crop is 68 bu/a, up 4 bu/a from last year. The increase in winter wheat acres was due to timely corn and soybean harvest coupled with increased commodity price. Wheat that was established in a timely manner last fall looked very good to excellent going into winter dormancy; however some areas had delayed emergence and poor fall growth due to dry soil conditions. Late planted wheat suffered from poor tiller development that led to thin stands and weed control problems. Spring growing conditions were mostly favorable across the state; however excessive rainfall did impact wheat in some low lying areas. Warmer-than-normal temperatures in July accelerated crop maturity, however yields were largely unaffected by the hot weather.

Winter wheat yields were variable across our testing locations due to variable rainfall, planting date, and disease pressure. Wheat yields at the Janesville, Lancaster and Arlington, and Chilton locations averaged 86, 102, 97 and 71 bu/a, respectively. Wheat yield and test weight at Chilton was reduced due to variable stands and poor tillering caused by adverse weather conditions (extremely wet and cool early spring) as well as delayed harvest caused by frequent rainfall events. Overall, winter wheat test weights were excellent in 2011. No winterkill was noted at any location in 2011.

Please visit www.coolbean.info to view the official results.

Preliminary Wheat Yields

Spotty rains and high humidity have somewhat slowed wheat harvest, however progress is being made across Southern WI. We harvested our Janesville winter wheat variety trial yesterday (7/19/11) and will move on to Lancaster today. Grain moisture was relatively high (19%) as we started cutting borders and fill at 12:30 pm. Once we entered the plots grain moisture was <17% and dropped to 13% by the end of the day. Preliminary data (not adjusted for moisture) showed yields varied from 70 bu per acre to the mid-90’s, variety dependent. Test weights were also very good and roughly averaged 59.5 lb per bu.

2011 WI Soybean Yield Contest Entry Deadline Approaching (August 1, 2011)

Now that your soybeans have started to bloom and the canopy is closing it is a great time to pick the field or fields you plan to enter into the 2011 WI Soybean Yield Contest.

The top prize for each contest class in $1,000.

For contest rules and entry forms please either visit www.coolbean.info or contact.

Shawn P. Conley
Soybean and Wheat Extension Specialist
Department of Agronomy
University of Wisconsin, Madison
1575 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
Office: 608-262-7975
Cell: 608-279-6211

To enter the 2011 WI Soybean Yield Contest there is a $75 fee per entry.

The deadline to enter in August 1st, 2011.

Good luck and Coolbeans!!!!!

Examining Risk Factors Associated with White Mold in Soybean

I just spent the past three days participating in various field days in the western part of the state. These travels really provided an excellent opportunity to examine stand quality across the different field crops, in particular the soybean crop. Soybean stands were pretty variable across these areas, ranging from some really good looking soybean to areas where the stands were struggling quite a bit. Given that many of these fields were last in soybean during 2009, when we had excellent conditions for white mold to develop, this was a topic that was on the minds of many of the producers and consultants.

With soybean moving into the early flowering period, now is a good time to think about several risk factors that can be integrated to determine if using a management tactic like foliar fungicides is warranted.

(1) What has been the previous history of white mold in my fields? In several of the meetings during this past week, multiple growers indicated that white mold was their main disease affecting soybean yield. During these discussions, it was also clear that they recognized that they either needed to, or had already changed several of their production practices to better manage this disease. Recognizing the risk to white mold is critical for constructing both a short- and long-term management plan for reducing the risk of this disease it is important to maintain good records for previous occurrences of white mold as well as field history information like the crop rotation, soybean variety, row spacing, plant population, and general weather conditions.

(2) How does planting date and relative maturity affect risk? Early planting, late-maturing, and varieties with a bushy architecture can all contribute to increased close canopies. This year, from our discussions with various growers, the planting date is much more variable than in 2010 so it remains to be seen how much that affects differences in flowering dates around the state. Many of the fields we visited were planted weeks later than last year.

(3) What variety have I planted and what level of partial resistance does this variety have for white mold? During the discussions, there were several questions about “what soybean variety” should I consider planting. Keep in mind that there are no varieties with complete resistance to white mold but there are partially resistant varieties available. What this means is that in years where white mold occurs, the severity of the disease will be less than in a susceptible variety. If you are not sure what the level of resistance is to white mold in the variety you are currently using, asking your local extension agent or seed dealer to help you find that information is important. Also, do not be shy to ask how that rating was determined.

(4) What was the plant population I planted? When I asked many of the growers what their current plant populations were, the common answer ranged from something like “140,000 to 160,000 plants per acre” to “one bag, one acre”. Previous research has shown that when the plant population is greater than 175,000 plants per acre, the risk of white mold can increase. It is advisable to consider to taking stand assessments across your fields with a history of white mold to accurately determine the average plant population in those fields.

(5) What is the row width of my soybean? We saw a wide range of row widths in our travels from 7.5″ to 30″ as well as twin rows. Narrower row spacings can lead to faster and more complete canopy closure, which can increase the risk of white mold. Several growers commented how they had moved to wider row spacing to improve air flow through the canopy especially in fields where they had a history of white mold.

(6) What conditions favor the development of white mold? There are several environmental conditions that need to occur to increase the risk of white mold. Sclerotia (the overwintering structure of the pathogen) in the top two inches of soil can germinate to produce apothecia under high moisture and cool soil conditions (40 to 60 F). Apothecia can produce millions of spores called ascospores and these can infect the plant through senescing flowers. Infection is favored by a dense canopy during the flowering period and rain, fog, or dew which result in a shaded and moist microclimate within the canopy. Temperature is key driver in this process. Cool maximum daily temperatures (< 85F) are more favorable conditions for disease development.

After considering all of these factors, in-season management of white mold is focused on determining if there is a need for a foliar fungicide application. The use of a foliar fungicide should be part of an overall integrated program that is based on all of the risk factors previously discussed. Over the past two years, results from our white mold fungicide trials in Wisconsin have not shown a consistent result meaning that, while there has been some reductions in white mold in some of the trials, this has not always translated in increased yields. We have also not seen a consistent response by specific fungicide products meaning results differed between the years. Over the years, the best results across University studies have shown reductions as high as 60%, although several factors can influence this response. In particular, the best timing remains in the early reproductive developmental stages like R1 (initial flowering). Also, adequate plant coverage is needed to get the fungicide to the site of where infections occur (the flowers). Flat-fan spray nozzles that produce a fine to medium droplet size (200 to 400 microns) provide the best fungicide coverage. Canopy density also needs to be considered since this can affect the necessary volume of water needed to achieve optimal coverage, as a greater volume is needed when there is a heavy canopy density.

For further information about white mold management please check:

/soybean_pests_diseases/white_mold/

Early Planted Soybeans Starting to Bloom

I spotted my first soybean flower yesterday at the Janesville, WI variety trial site which was planted May 4th. As we enter the soybean reproductive growth phase there are a few things to keep in mind. The first is that soybean will produce flowers for ~3 to five weeks, depending upon planting date and environment. Soybean will abort anywhere from 20 to 80% of the flowers that they produce. Generally it is the first and last flush of flowers produced that are most likely to be aborted.

Second of all the timing window for our glyphosate applications in soybean are quickly closing.

“Monsanto has clarified the definition of “throughout flowering” in regard to the latest stage that glyphosate can be applied to glyphosate-resistant soybean. Soybean flowering is defined as the R2 growth stage. The R3 growth stage begins when one of the four top nodes with a fully developed leaf has a 3/16 inch long pod. With this definition, glyphosate can be applied through the R2 growth stage, but not after the R3 stage begins. Applications made after the R3 stage are off-label applications.”

On average it takes ~ 4 days to move from R1 (beginning flower) to R2 (full flower) and ~10 days from R2 to the start of R3 (beginning pod). That means we have ~2 weeks for glyphosate applications to occur.

Next, wheel track damage made from ground applications may start to reduce yield. Sprayer wheel traffic from first flower (R1) through harvest can damage soybean plants and reduce yield (Hanna et al. 2008). Our research suggests that an adequate soybean stand (more than 100,000 plants per acre) planted in late April though mid-May can compensate for wheel tracks made when a field is sprayed at R1. Yield loss can occur, however, when wheel tracks are made at R1 or later in thin soybean stands (less than 100,000 plants per acre) or late planted soybeans. Regardless of stand, plants could not compensate for wheel tracks made at R3 (early pod development) or R5 (early seed development). The average yield loss per acre is based on sprayer boom width (distance between wheel track passes). In our trials yield losses averaged 2.5, 1.9, and 1.3% when sprayer boom widths measured 60, 90, and 120 foot, respectively. Multiple trips along the same wheel tracks did not increase yield loss over the first trip.

Lastly, for white mold questions please refer to the following information: White Mold in Soybean in 2010: Factors to Consider

Image 1. Soybean crop beginning to bloom.

Do Foliar Applications of Sugar Improve Soybean Yield

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 at 15 to 20 gal a-1. 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.


The source of this data is:

Furseth, B. J., Davis, V., Naeve, S., Casteel, S., and Conley, S. P. 2011. Soybean Seed Yield Was Not Influenced by Foliar Applications of Sugar. Crop Management. Accepted: 6/1/11.

Please visit:
http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/sub/cm/brief/2011/sugar/
to view the entire manuscript.