MPGA On-Farm Soybean Trials: Assessing Effects of using only Seed Applied Inoculant on Soybeans November 19, 2014 Prepared for: MPGA P.O. Box 1760 Carman, MB R0G 0J0 Telephone/Téléphone: 201-745-6488 November 2014 Prepared by: Ron Tone PAg, CCA Tone Ag Consulting Ltd. Box 333 St. Pierre, MB R0A 1V0 Ph: 204-433-7189 Fax: 204-433-3335 [email protected]
28
Embed
MPGA On-Farm Soybean Trials: Assessing Effects of …toneag.com/joomla/images/tac/inoculation_2014.pdf · MPGA On-Farm Soybean Trials: Assessing Effects of using only Seed Applied
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
MPGA On-Farm Soybean Trials: Assessing Effects of u singonly Seed Applied Inoculant on Soybeans
Ron Tone PAg, CCATone Ag Consulting Ltd.Box 333 St. Pierre, MBR0A 1V0Ph: 204-433-7189 Fax: [email protected]
MPGA Soybean Inoculation Trials Prepared by Tone Ag Consulting Ltd.November 2014 2
1 Executive Summary
In 2014, 7 field scale soybean trials (Table 1) were set up. These were to continue studies ondetermining what effect there would be on yield if only seed applied inoculant was used instead ofboth seed applied and in-furrow inoculant. There were 7 fields that were selected for the soybeanon-farm trials across Eastern Manitoba this year and they were seeded between May 21st and May31st. These fields all had a previous history of soybeans of at least 2 years.
Seeding rates ranged from approximately 168,000 seeds/acre to 237,000 seeds/acre with rowspacing from 10 to 30 inches. There were four planters and three air drills used to plant thesoybeans. In the trials, the farmer applied both his normal rates of seed applied and in-furrowinoculant (ranged from 5-7 lbs/ac for granular, 1X-3X rate for liquids) on 6 field-length strips(With), alternating with 6 strips of only inoculant on the seed (W/O). Please note that the Lorette-W trial had only 8 strips in total.
The following is a summary of the results:
1. The trial results (Table 1) showed an average –0.2 bus/acre yield disadvantage for the stripswith both seed applied and in-furrow inoculant. None of the ten trials showed a statisticalsignificance in favor of using both inoculants at a 95% confidence interval.
2. The cost of granular inoculant is $11.00/acre (average cost of 5 lbs/ac of granular). The cost ofin-furrow liquid inoculant is $3.00/acre. This year, the strips using granular inoculant resultedin a $11.00/acre loss and the strips using liquid in-furrow resulted in a $3.00/acre loss. Thetrials show that there would be no economic return for using in-furrow inoculant.
3. Soybean yields ranged from 20 to 53 bus/acre across the trials. The yield difference betweenany two treatments ranged from –1.5 to 0.8 bus/acre.
4. Nodulation counts were done at the V3 and R2 stage. Nodulation counts across all the trialswere high this year and showed no difference between the two treatments.
5. Fields with higher soil N and P levels showed a moderate correlation with higher yields. Therewas no correlation with soil K levels and yield. Rainfall, soluble salts and carbonates were highon four of the seven trials, which resulted in varying levels of iron chlorosis throughout thefield.
6. For this year, there seemed to be no correlation between yield and rainfall, even when lookingat the crucial period of R4 (pod is .75 inches long at one of four uppermost nodes) to R6 (seedfills pod at one of four uppermost nodes).
7. Diseases were low to medium this year and consisted of fusarium and phytopthora root rot,alternaria and septoria leaf spot, bacterial blight, and downy mildew. Insects consisted ofmainly grasshoppers and damage was low to medium. Soybean aphids arrived in all triallocations after the soybeans had reached R6.5 so damage was very minimal.
When combined with last year’s data, the probability for break-even economic return is 18% (at asoybean price of $10.00/bushel and granular inoculant at $11.50/acre (average cost of 5 lbs/ac ofgranular).
There will be another year of on-farm research to determine if using in-furrow inoculant onsoybeans provides an economic return.
MPGA Soybean Inoculation Trials Prepared by Tone Ag Consulting Ltd.November 2014 3
MPGA Soybean Inoculation Trials Prepared by Tone Ag Consulting Ltd.November 2014 4
2 Background
Soybean acres in Manitoba have increased to about 1.3 million acres of soybeans in 2014 from lessthan 800 acres in 1996 (MAFRD). With this increase in acres comes interest in the bestmanagement practices to ensure sustainability of the industry and profitability for farmers. There isa need for an organized on-farm collection of quality data to learn what is profitable and what isn’t.In discussions with farmers, it appears that inoculation is a priority.
This year, there were 7 soybean farmers who set up strip trials across their fields in EasternManitoba. These 7 fields were set up to obtain data on inoculation. The 7 fields were seededbetween May 21st and May 31st. There were usually 12 strips across the field. There were 6alternating strips with the farmer’s normal application of seed applied and in-furrow inoculant and6 strips that contained only inoculant on the seed. There were 4 planters and 3 air drills (Table 2).The fields were usually about a ½ mile long and the strips 40 to 80 feet in width depending on whatwas needed to take a ‘pure’ combine swath. This resulted in about 2.4 to 4.8 acres in a strip orfrom 30 to 50 acres in a trial (See Appendix 1 for Airphoto maps). Information on individual trialsis located in Appendix 2.
The soybean seeds have been put under a 3-minute soak test to see the percentage of seeds thatcrack. These percentages range from approximately 8-25% (Table 2), with the lower numberindicating the better result. Anything below 10% is considered acceptable for percent of cracks.Plant populations were taken on 10 foot strips in each strip at first trifoliate and pre-harvest.
MPGA Soybean Inoculation Trials Prepared by Tone Ag Consulting Ltd.November 2014 5
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
013
Anola
Arnaud
Morris
Teulon
Aubigny
Balmoral
Landmark
Rosenort
St. Malo
Sperling
Greenwald
Stonewall
Beausejour
Cloverdale
Petersfield
St-Pierre-Jolys
ø÷3 0 5
ø÷3 3 0
ø÷0 0 2
ø÷3 0 2
ø÷0 1 2
ø÷3 1 7
ø÷0 4 4
ø÷0 0 1
ø÷0 5 2
ø÷0 5 9
ø÷0 2 3
ø÷2 0 5
ø÷0 0 9ø÷0 0 8
ø÷0 0 7
ø÷1 0 1ø÷2 0 6
ø÷0 6 7
ø÷0 5 9
ø÷0 7 5
ø÷2 0 0
ø÷0 1 2
Morris-H
Landmark-W
Lorette-W
Hazelridge-S
Beausejour-H
Beausejour-O
Carman-V
ø÷2 0 5Carman
Overview - Inoculation Trials
5 0 5 10 Miles
1:750000
N
EW
S
2014-11-13
MPGA On-Farm Network 2014
Data Sources:Fields drawn by Tone Ag in consul tation with landowner, and subject to change.Orthophotos are 1:60,000 from Manitoba Land Ini tative websiteHighways are from Manitoba Highways and Transportation 1:60,000 map 1994 Sections are from Manitoba Land Initative webs ite
MPGA Soybean Inoculation Trials Prepared by Tone Ag Consulting Ltd.November 2014 6
3 Observations
Yield Difference:
Table 1 gives a summary of yields on the 7 trials. The average seeding rate across the triallocations was 193,000 (Table 1). Similar to last year, neither total rainfall nor rainfall from July 24to August 29 (R4-R6 stage) correlated with yield (Table 1 and Figure 1). The R4 stage (pod is ¾”long at 1 of 4 uppermost nodes on the main stem with a fully developed leaf) was reached aboutJuly 24 and lasted until August 29 on most of the trials. Yields ranged from 20 to 53 bushels/acre.The yield difference between the two treatments ranged from –1.5 to 0.8 bus/acre.
There was a loss of 0.2 bus/acres for using both inoculants across the trial locations. None of thetrials showed a statistical significance in favor of using one or both inoculants at a 95% confidenceinterval (Appendix 3).
Looking at the results from this year’s data, there was no economic advantage for using bothinoculants. When combined with last year’s trials, over the past two years there is an economicaladvantage for using both on seed and in-furrow inoculants 3 out of 17 times (18%).
HRS Wheat 21-May-14 30 178 120 vs 118 67% vs 66% 52.8 vs 52.2 0.6 10.4 3.7
Landmark-W* Thunder 32004 Soybeans 23-May-14 30 168 116 vs 119 69% vs 71% 37.9 vs 39.4 -1.5 7.9 1.0
Lorette-W* Legend 004R21 HRS Wheat 30-May-14 20 170 140 vs 116 82% vs 68% 38.5 vs 39.2 -0.7 6.8 0.9
Hazelridge-S* NSC Moosomin HRS Wheat 31-May-14 15 196 139 vs 145 71% vs 74% 38.6 vs 38.5 0.1 12.7 3.1
Morris-H Pioneer 900Y61 Soybeans 23-May-14 15 195 154 vs 148 79% vs 76% 30.2 vs 29.4 0.8 12.6 2.8
Beausejour-H Pride Soybeans 22-May-14 10 237 172 vs 155 73% vs 65% 26.2 vs 26.5 -0.3 9.6 1.7
Beausejour-O Dekalb 24-10 Oats 29-May-14 10 210 91 vs 115 43% vs 55% 20.6 vs 20.7 -0.1 13.9 1.9
193 133 vs 131 69% vs 68% 35.0 vs 35.1 -0.22 K = in 1,000's 3 With = Liquid on seed and granular/liquid in row W/O = Liquid on seed only
* Planter
% of Target Pre-Harvest
With W/O
Plant @ Pre-Harvest (K)
With 3 W/O
Yield (bus/ac) With 3 W/O
MPGA Soybean Inoculation Trials Prepared by Tone Ag Consulting Ltd.November 2014 7
Rainfall/Yield:
There was no correlation between total rainfall or R4-R6 rainfall and yield (Figure 1). Rainfallvaried from a low of 6.8 inches at the Lorette-W trial to a high of 13.9 inches at the Beausejour-Otrial. The excess water at the Beausejour-O trial during harvest made it difficult to keep thecombine header close to the ground.
Ground Cover/Yield:
Table 2 shows the soil types ranging from peat to clay to very fine sandy loam. The Ag Capabilityranged from Class 2 to 6. The varieties ranged from short to long season. The percent groundcover was taken at row closure between August 6-14. Two of the three trials with 30” row spacingdid not close. There was no relationship between ground cover and yield (Figure 3). The percentcrop residue cover on the fields was also done and showed no correlation with overall yield. Thismay be different in cooler/wetter springs where higher residue cover could have an impact on plantemergence and yield. There was a strong relationship this year between yield and row spacing withthe highest yields coming from 30” row spacing (Table 1).
Figure 1 - Rainfall vs. Yield
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
Carman
-V*
Land
mark-
W*
Lore
tte-W
*
Hazelr
idge-
S*
Morris
-H
Beaus
ejour
-H
Beaus
ejour
-O
Yie
ld (
bus/
ac)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
Rai
nfal
l (in
) With
Without
Total Rainfall (in)
Rainfall R4-R6 (in)
MPGA Soybean Inoculation Trials Prepared by Tone Ag Consulting Ltd.November 2014 8
MPGA Soybean Inoculation Trials Prepared by Tone Ag Consulting Ltd.November 2014 9
Soil Fertility & Nodulation/Yields:
Soil tests were done in spring after seeding (Table 3). All trials had at least a medium soil P level.There were very high soil P levels at Landmark-W (61 ppm), Carman-V (57 ppm), and Beausejour-O (20 ppm). Three of the seven sites have a history of manure (Landmark-W – chicken, Carman-V– dairy, Beausejour-H – swine). Figure 4 shows a moderate correlation between yield and N and Plevels.
The soil analysis (Table 3) shows soil nitrogen ranging from 7-42 lbs/acre. All trials had excellentnodulation and showed no difference between the two treatments.
30 lbs of actual P was applied in the fall at the Lorette-W field. At Beausejour-H, 20 lbs actual Pand 10 lbs actual K were added with the soybeans at planting.
Table 3 - Soil Sample Analysis Zn critical soil test levels are 0.25 (ppm) for cereals, 1 (ppm) for corn, 0.5 (ppm) for edible beans & soybeans?
Mn critical level 1 (pmm) for soybeans
Sorted by Field ID and Date sampled ascending0.76 -
MPGA Soybean Inoculation Trials Prepared by Tone Ag Consulting Ltd.November 2014 10
Combine Losses:
Table 4 shows header types used and soybean losses after combining. Combine losses wereminimal to high and ranged from 0.4 to 3.1 bus/acre. Combine losses are considered minimal ifless than 2% of yield (Generally, less than 1 bus/acre). All combines had flexheads. Speeds rangedfrom 3-5 mph. Combines equipped with air reels showed a 0.3 bus/ac advantage.
Comments on Individual trials:
Influences on yields between strips (See Appendix 2 to look at individual trial results):
1. Compaction at seeding due to the ground being wet (varied across all trials)2. Sprayer tracks in one strip but not in other (varied across all trials)3. Excess moisture Beausejour-O, Morris-H4. Insects/disease – low levels
Table 4 - Combine Losses
Location Header TypeHeader Width
(ft)
Combine Loss Seed
loss/ft 2
Combine Speed (MPH)
Seeds/lbBus/ac
Combine Loss
Hazelridge-S 635F JD Flexhead 35 1.7 3 2998 0.4
Carman-V 930F JD Flexhead 30 1.8 3.7 2573 0.5
Lorette-WMacDon FD70
Flexdraper35 3.2 3.6 2695 0.9
Landmark-WCase 1020 Flexhead
25 4.6 3.2 2766 1.2
Morris-HCase 1020 Flexhead
30 4.5 4 2657 1.2
Beausejour-HMacDon FD75
Flexdraper40 7.0 3.5 2842 1.8
Beausejour-O 635F JD Flexhead 35 5 2984
Air Reel* Counts were not done at Beausejour-O location
MPGA Soybean Inoculation Trials Prepared by Tone Ag Consulting Ltd.November 2014 11
4 Recommendations
Need one more year of on-farm inoculation trials to obtain more data to determine if using in-furrow inoculant on soybeans provides an economic return.
5 Conclusions
1. This year, the study showed there was a 0.2 bus/acre yield disadvantage of using both in-furrowand seed applied inoculants vs. only seed applied inoculant.
2. There was no economic return of using in-furrow inoculant.3. When combined with last year’s trials, there is an economic return of using in-furrow inoculant
3 out of 17 times (18%).4. Nodulation between the two treatments was the same at all 10 trial locations.5. The top yields came from fields planted on 30” row spacing.6. Soybean yields appear to have a relationship with soil P levels.
MPGA Soybean Inoculation Trials Prepared by Tone Ag Consulting Ltd.November 2014 12
6 References
Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, 2005. Soil Management Guide.
MPGA Soybean Inoculation Trials Prepared by Tone Ag Consulting Ltd.November 2014 13
Data Sources:Fields drawn by Tone Ag in consultation with landowner, and subject to change.Orthophotos are 1:60,000 from Manitoba Land Initative websiteHighways are from Manitoba Highways and Transportation 1:60,000 map 1994 Sections are from Manitoba Land Initative website
Piney
Reynolds
Grey
LorneMorris
Alexander
Louise PembinaFranklinStanley
Portage La Prairie
Dufferin
Rockwood
Stuartburn
Woodlands
Westbourne
MacDonald
Springfield
Rhineland
Victoria
Tache
Hanover
North NorfolkNorth Cypress Cartier
Lac Du Bonnet
South Cypress
St. Andrews
Roland
Lansdowne Lakeview
St. Clements
Brokenhead
Rosser Whitemouth
South Norfolk
De SalaberryThompson
Montcalm
St. Laurent
Ste. AnneRitchot
La Broquerie
Pinawa
Headingly
St. Francois XavierWest St. Paul
East St. Paul
OBO d
OOK4 - CAY4 - FYL2 p
FYL p
MRS
With
With
With
With
With
With
W/O
W/O
W/O W/O
W/O
W/O
Beausejour-O
300 0 300 600 Feet
1:4500
N
EW
S
2014-09-08
FieldsSoilsTest Strips
MPGA Trials - Inoculant
Data Sources:Fields drawn by Tone Ag in consultation with landowner, and subject to change.Orthophotos are 1:60,000 from Manitoba Land Initative websiteHighways are from Manitoba Highways and Transportation 1:60,000 map 1994 Sections are from Manitoba Land Initative website
Piney
Reynolds
Grey
LorneMorris
Alexander
Louise PembinaFranklinStanley
Portage La Prairie
Dufferin
Rockwood
Stuartburn
Woodlands
Westbourne
MacDonald
Springfield
Rhineland
Victoria
Tache
Hanover
North NorfolkNorth Cypress Cartier
Lac Du Bonnet
South Cypress
St. Andrews
Roland
Lansdowne Lakeview
St. Clements
Brokenhead
Rosser Whitemouth
South Norfolk
De SalaberryThompson
Montcalm
St. Laurent
Ste. AnneRitchot
La Broquerie
Pinawa
Headingly
St. Francois XavierWest St. Paul
East St. Paul
W/O
W/O
W/O
W/O
W/O
W/O
With
With
With
With
With
With
RLD oxxx
OWK
RLD8 1xxx - OWK2
KOT7 - RLD3
Carman-V
300 0 300 600 Feet
1:3500
N
EW
S
2014-11-19
Municipal RoadsFieldsSoilsTest Strips
Yield (bus/ac)0 - 2525 - 4545+
MPGA Trials - Inoculant
Data Sources:Fields drawn by Tone Ag in consultation with landowner, and subject to change.Orthophotos are 1:60,000 from Manitoba Land Initative websiteHighways are from Manitoba Highways and Transportation 1:60,000 map 1994 Sections are from Manitoba Land Initative website
Piney
Reynolds
Grey
LorneMorris
Alexander
PembinaFranklinStanley
Portage La Prairie
Dufferin
Rockwood
Stuartburn
Woodlands
Westbourne
MacDonald
Springfield
Rhineland
Tache
Hanover
North NorfolkNorth Cypress Cartier
Lac Du Bonnet
South Cypress
St. Andrews
Roland
Lakeview
St. Clements
Brokenhead
Rosser Whitemouth
South Norfolk
De SalaberryThompson
Montcalm
St. Laurent
Ste. AnneRitchot
La Broquerie
Pinawa
Headingly
St. Francois XavierWest St. Paul
East St. Paul
OBOd/xxxs
MRQ/xx1x
MRQ1
With
With
With
With
With
With
W/O
W/O
W/O
W/O
W/O
W/O
Hazelridge-S
300 0 300 600 Feet
1:4500
N
EW
S
2014-09-08
FieldsSoilsTest Strips
MPGA Trials - Inoculant
Data Sources:Fields drawn by Tone Ag in consultation with landowner, and subject to change.Orthophotos are 1:60,000 from Manitoba Land Initative websiteHighways are from Manitoba Highways and Transportation 1:60,000 map 1994 Sections are from Manitoba Land Initative website
Piney
Reynolds
Grey
LorneMorris
Alexander
PembinaFranklinStanley
Portage La Prairie
Dufferin
Rockwood
Stuartburn
Woodlands
Westbourne
MacDonald
Springfield
Rhineland
Tache
Hanover
North NorfolkNorth Cypress Cartier
Lac Du Bonnet
South Cypress
St. Andrews
Roland
Lakeview
St. Clements
Brokenhead
Rosser Whitemouth
South Norfolk
De SalaberryThompson
Montcalm
St. Laurent
Ste. AnneRitchot
La Broquerie
Pinawa
Headingly
St. Francois XavierWest St. Paul
East St. Paul
7
RIV8 - OBO2
W/O
W/O
W/O
W/O
W/O
W/O
With
With
With
With
With
With
Landmark-W
300 0 300 600 Feet
1:4750
N
EW
S
2014-09-08
DrainageFieldsSoilsTest Strips
MPGA Trials - Inoculant
Data Sources:Fields drawn by Tone Ag in consultation with landowner, and subject to change.Orthophotos are 1:60,000 from Manitoba Land Initative websiteHighways are from Manitoba Highways and Transportation 1:60,000 map 1994 Sections are from Manitoba Land Initative website
Piney
Reynolds
Grey
LorneMorris
Alexander
PembinaFranklinStanley
Portage La Prairie
Dufferin
Rockwood
Stuartburn
Woodlands
Westbourne
MacDonald
Springfield
Rhineland
Tache
Hanover
North NorfolkNorth Cypress Cartier
Lac Du Bonnet
South Cypress
St. Andrews
Roland
Lakeview
St. Clements
Brokenhead
Rosser Whitemouth
South Norfolk
De SalaberryThompson
Montcalm
St. Laurent
Ste. AnneRitchot
La Broquerie
Pinawa
Headingly
St. Francois XavierWest St. Paul
East St. Paul
#With
# W/O
#With
# W/O
OBO d
RIV5 - OBO5 d
RIV5 - OBO5 d
OBO
OBO dDCS
405
405
Lorette-W
300 0 300 600 Feet
1:17500
N
EW
S
2014-05-30
DrainageFieldsSoilsTest Strips
MPGA Trials - Inoculant
Data Sources:Fields drawn by Tone Ag in consultation with landowner, and subject to change.Orthophotos are 1:60,000 from Manitoba Land Initative websiteHighways are from Manitoba Highways and Transportation 1:60,000 map 1994 Sections are from Manitoba Land Initative website
Piney
Reynolds
Grey
LorneMorris
Alexander
PembinaFranklinStanley
Portage La Prairie
Dufferin
Rockwood
Stuartburn
Woodlands
Westbourne
MacDonald
Springfield
Rhineland
Tache
Hanover
North NorfolkNorth Cypress Cartier
Lac Du Bonnet
South Cypress
St. Andrews
Roland
Lakeview
St. Clements
Brokenhead
Rosser Whitemouth
South Norfolk
De SalaberryThompson
Montcalm
St. Laurent
Ste. AnneRitchot
La Broquerie
Pinawa
Headingly
St. Francois XavierWest St. Paul
East St. Paul
With
With
With
With
With
With
W/O
W/O
W/O
W/O
W/O
W/O
28RIV7 - OBO3 d
OBO d
Morris-H
300 0 300 600 Feet
1:4250
N
EW
S
2014-09-08
FieldsSoilsTest Strips
MPGA Trials - Inoculant
Data Sources:Fields drawn by Tone Ag in consultation with landowner, and subject to change.Orthophotos are 1:60,000 from Manitoba Land Initative websiteHighways are from Manitoba Highways and Transportation 1:60,000 map 1994 Sections are from Manitoba Land Initative website
Piney
Reynolds
Grey
LorneMorris
Alexander
PembinaFranklinStanley
Portage La Prairie
Dufferin
Rockwood
Stuartburn
Woodlands
Westbourne
MacDonald
Springfield
Rhineland
Tache
Hanover
North NorfolkNorth Cypress Cartier
Lac Du Bonnet
South Cypress
St. Andrews
Roland
Lakeview
St. Clements
Brokenhead
Rosser Whitemouth
South Norfolk
De SalaberryThompson
Montcalm
St. Laurent
Ste. AnneRitchot
La Broquerie
Pinawa
Headingly
St. Francois XavierWest St. Paul
East St. Paul
MPGA Soybean Inoculation Trials Prepared by Tone Ag Consulting Ltd.November 2014 14
Appendix 2: Individual Strip Trial Summaries
StripsYield
Difference1 and 2 25.1 21.9 -3.23 and 4 23.7 27.1 3.45 and 6 26.9 24.9 -2.07 and 8 24.6 26.8 2.29 and 10 28.5 27.9 -0.611 and 12 30.4 28.5 -1.9Average 26.53 26.18 0.35