Category Archives: Research

JenREES 2-25-18

On-Farm Research: Last week a team of us did a series of meetings throughout the State regarding on-farm research updates. It’s always great to have the farmers presenting their research and adding in additional details that we didn’t have when the results booklet was published! Two more meetings continue in western Nebraska this week.

Perhaps my biggest reason for strongly promoting on-farm research is because there often is no better way to obtain answers to some of the questions you all have. These types of studies are often difficult to obtain funding (or can take months to obtain funding, resulting in a lost window of opportunity) and by conducting this research on your farms, we obtain the answers for your specific situations. Sometimes challenges such as storm damage also become opportunities to answer a question via on-farm research. Growers tend to appreciate research conducted on other growers’ farms when we share this research at various meetings, field days, and in articles. A variety of topics are researched every year including nutrient management, various products, row spacing, and new technologies including multi-hybrid planters, use of drone sensors, etc.

In this week’s UNL CropWatch at http://cropwatch.unl.edu, three on-farm research cooperators are featured. One of these is Ken Herz along with sons Zach and Aaron in the Lawrence, NE area as first-time cooperators. Ken approached me with several questions the winter of 2015. As growers with a non-irrigated, no-till wheat/corn/soybean rotation and a cattle operation, his family was curious about the impacts of grazing cover crops for cattle gains and improving soil organic matter. They were also curious about the trade-offs of the cover crop vs. any soil moisture loss or impact on the successive corn yield. They also wanted this study to be something that would be applicable to what farmers in this area did and something they could all learn from together. Thus, it was decided to not plant cover crops into the corn or soybean residue as that isn’t common and this would need to be a long-term study. Dr. Mary Drewnoski and I met with the Herz family to develop a plan for this study. Also thankful for Dr. Suat Irmak for his help in providing additional soil moisture equipment and advice I needed, to the Little Blue NRD in partnering with reduced cost of soil moisture equipment and also for the partnership of Green Cover Seed.

In 2016-2017, this study evaluated four treatments on the effects of successive corn yield: 1-ungrazed wheat stubble 2-grazed wheat stubble 3-ungrazed cover crop 4-grazed cover crop. Wheat was harvested July of 2016 and a five-species cover crop mix of spring triticale, winter peas, oats, collards, and purple top turnips was planted August 14, 2016 (they wanted a mix that would winter-kill). The cover crop received moisture within a week of planting that allowed for germination. Some additional fall moisture allowed for good growth and cover crop biomass was measured (3401 lb/ac) prior to grazing 28 (1100 lb) first-calf heifers for 22 days resulting in the cover crop carrying 2.4 animal unit months (AUM)/ac. The goal was not to graze too heavy to allow for ground cover and any long-term soil improvements, thus 2177 lb/ac of biomass was present post-grazing. Soil moisture was monitored from after cover crop planting through corn harvest. The soil was so dry after wheat harvest prior to planting the cover crop that it took using a drill to install the second and third foot moisture sensors. Beginning soil health parameters were also taken to be compared long-term in this study.

Corn was planted May 15, 2017. Prior to planting the corn, the soil moisture where the grazed and ungrazed cover crop plots were located were at 35% depletion (top three feet) compared to at field capacity (full soil moisture profile) in the grazed and ungrazed wheat stubble plots. Eight inches of rain in May evened out the soil profile allowing all plots to be at a full profile (top four feet) at the beginning of the corn growing season. As the season progressed, the grazing treatments started separating out from the ungrazed treatments from July through end of the season. I don’t know how to explain that yet.

Corn was harvested the Thursday of the major wind event with a calibrated grain wagon. Yields were not statistically different and were 218 bu/ac, 211 bu/ac, and 213 bu/ac for the ungrazed wheat stubble, grazed cover crop, and ungrazed cover crop respectively. The grazed wheat stubble treatment yielded 212 bu/ac but only had two reps at the end of the growing season so was not included in the statistical analysis. Economically, grazing the cover crop was as competitive as the ungrazed wheat stubble treatment when it came to ensuing corn yields and the spring rains made all the difference in beginning soil moisture. Because of the crop rotation, there wasn’t an opportunity to add a cover crop in this field Fall 2017. The Herz’ feel they lost an opportunity as environmental conditions vary so much every year, and this year, cover crops didn’t have as much growth in area fields. Thus, they’ve chosen to dedicate three fields to this study topic in the future, allowing for one of the fields each year to have wheat/cover crop/grazing to account for environmental variation. Continuing this for the next 5-7 years will better answer their questions while benefiting all of us with what is learned. Perhaps other growers are interested in some variation of this study for your farms?

Most studies are not this in depth and this is just one example of how growers are answering questions they have for themselves via on-farm research. It can take extra time at planting, harvest or other times of the season depending on the study. I believe most growers I’ve worked with would say the effort has been worth it to scientifically answer their questions for themselves. Truly am grateful for all of you I’ve had the opportunity to work with via on-farm research! So, if you’re thinking about a question you’d like to answer on your farm this year, consider reaching out to me or your local Extension educator and we’d be happy to talk with you now about how to set up your study. It is important to talk this through, especially if this is your first time conducting research. If you’d like to learn more about on-farm research, view some protocols, or view results from previous studies, please check out our website at http://cropwatch.unl.edu/farmresearch.

Bake and Take Month: March is Bake & Take month, a time when wheat organizations encourage others to bake a wheat good and share it with family, friends, neighbors, co-workers and shut-ins. In honor of the month, the Nebraska Wheat Board (NWB) is again sponsoring recipe cards and stickers for any 4-H groups or other organizations that wish to participate. This year’s recipes are mini dessert tacos and crockpot cherry chocolate lava cake. Those interested in participating or who have questions can contact the NWB office at (402) 471-2358 or wheat.board@nebraska.gov. There is no cost for the supplies, and no limit on the number that can be requested. Those wishing to preview the recipes before requesting materials can find them listed at http://wheat.nebraska.gov starting March 1.

York County Fair Volunteers: Gary Zoubek asked me to mention he’s looking for a few volunteers that could help with 4-H and Open Class primarily on entry and judging day in Ag Hall on July 31 and August 1st. If you’re interested, please contact Gary at 402-326-8185 or email gary.zoubek@unl.edu.

Herz 6-20 color-jr drawing

This study was conducted on a 40 acre field. Plot sizes are the same other than the grazed wheat stubble area which will not be included in the future. Aerial imagery was also taken throughout the growing season. The corn received hail damage on June 12, 2016 but recovered well.

soil probe drill pic

Herz field Sept. 21-2016

Photo taken Sept. 21, 2016

HerzCoverCrop-winter

Photo showing corner of 4 plots after grazing. Cattle were hard on my dataloggers but I had chosen to not fence them off as I wanted the true grazing data! Grazed treatments in background and ungrazed in forefront (cover crop left side and wheat stubble right). The cattle didn’t really graze the wheat stubble-tended to lay there as it wasn’t bumpy like cover crop area. Ultimately this led to bare soil in this area and we will not have this treatment in future years.

baresoilpalmerHerz

Observation showing importance of bare soil on Palmer germination: the grazed wheat stubble treatment turned to bare soil from where the cattle lay (not intended and something we learned). Could tell the treatment difference to the line even at harvest. June 8th: few Palmer plants in ungrazed wheat stubble (forefront) compared to in bare soil area (foreground). June 15 (3 days after June 12 hail storm): still only a few Palmer plants in ungrazed wheat stubble but it exploded in the bare soil area. These observations show what research has also shown regarding importance of light on Palmer germination and bare soil. There was minimal Palmer in the grazed cover crop area and was comparable to the ungrazed wheat stubble and cover crop areas.  The Palmer put on 2 leaves from June 12-June 15. The corn barely grew in the whorl in that same time-frame. Corn dicamba product did a great job in killing the Palmer after allowing the corn plants to recover a few days & this situation was common throughout the area in 2017.

March-May pre-plant moisture Herz

Always learning with on-farm research! I didn’t ask how corn fertilizer occurred so we had to remove sensors and re-install upon spring anhydrous application. Beginning soil moisture data shown here is from anhydrous app to day before planting. Cover crop treatments were at or close to 35% depletion (where we would typically trigger irrigation for silt-loam soils). Wheat stubble treatments had full soil moisture profile this entire time period.

June-July soil moisture-Herz

Late April and May rain events (8″ of moisture in May) allowed for a full soil profile at corn planting for all treatments with separation of treatments not occurring till mid-July.

Herz 2017 rainfall

2017 vs. 10 year average rainfall for this area of the State-blessed with rainfall in 2017.

Nebraska Ag Water Management Network Conference

March 10th marks the third annual Nebraska Ag Water Management Network Conference with 2016 being the 11th year since the Network was formed!  If you’re interested in learning how you can better schedule your irrigation in addition to learning about the latest in irrigation research from Nebraska Extension, consider attending this free event!

Irmak_NAWMN Meeting Agenda-Flier March 10 2016-CEUadded

UNL Grazing Corn Residue Research

Many stalks in Nebraska are left ungrazed for various reasons.  One reason I’ve heard is the potential impact of increased compaction and reduced yield of the next crop.  Nebraska Extension has long-term research addressing this concern…in fact, 16 years of research conducted at the Ag Research and Development Center near Mead.  There’s various components to this study and you can view the full report at: http://go.unl.edu/8mp6.

In this study, cattle were allowed to graze corn residue in the spring (February to mid-April) or the fall (November through January) and these treatments were compared to an area not grazed.  Corn and soybeans were planted the spring after grazing the residue for 16 years to determine the effect of grazing on the subsequent crop yield.

In the fall grazing treatments, the corn and soybeans were planted no-till.  For corn or soybeans planted into the spring grazing treatments, three tillage treatments were also implemented for nine years:  no-till, ridge-till, and spring conventional till, after which all treatments were converted to no-till.  This result of the tillage by spring grazing treatments for either corn or soybean yield over nine years showed no interaction and suggested the same effect on yield regardless of tillage treatment used after spring grazing.

Table1-Beef

Effect of Corn Residue Removal on Subsequent Crop Yields“, 2015 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report. Mary E. Drewnoski, L. Aaron Stalker, Jim C. MacDonald, Galen E. Erickson, Kathy J. Hanford, Terry J. Klopfenstein

Spring grazing across all tillage treatments did increase soybean yields statistically (58.5 bu/ac for spring grazed vs. 57.0 bu/ac for ungrazed) and had no effect on corn yields.  The results were similar looking at 16 years of grazing vs. not grazing under no-till for both corn and soybeans in the spring; there was no yield effect found for corn and the soybeans showed a slight yield increase with grazing.

Table2-Beef

Effect of Corn Residue Removal on Subsequent Crop Yields“, 2015 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report. Mary E. Drewnoski, L. Aaron Stalker, Jim C. MacDonald, Galen E. Erickson, Kathy J. Hanford, Terry J. Klopfenstein

Looking at a 10 year period of no-till management for both spring and fall grazed corn residue and subsequent corn and soybean crops, fall grazing statistically improved soybean yields over both spring grazing and no grazing (65.5 bu/ac vs. 63.5 bu/ac and 62.1 bu/ac respectively).  No grazing effects were observed on corn yields in either season.  All statistics were at the 95% confidence level meaning the researchers were 95% confident any yield differences were due to the treatments themselves vs. random chance.

Regarding compaction, in the fall, the field was typically frozen and the researchers felt any mud and compaction associated with grazing cattle was minimized; highest subsequent soybean yields were achieved with fall grazing.  The spring treatment was designed to look more at potential compaction and muddy conditions after spring thaw till right before planting-thus the implementation of different tillage treatments as well.  They used a stocking rate consistent with UNL grazing recommendations resulting in removal of half the husks and leaves produced (8 lbs of leaf and husk per bushel of corn grain produced).  Results of this study indicate that even with muddy conditions in the spring, grazing increased subsequent soybean yields compared to not grazing regardless of tillage system used and that corn yields were not different between grazing vs. not grazing and regardless of tillage system used in the spring.  This study was conducted in Eastern Nebraska in a rainfed environment with yields ranging from 186-253 bu/ac with a 16 year median yield of 203 bu/ac.

Additional Grazing Study

A five year fall grazing study (December through January) was conducted in an irrigated continuous no-till corn field at Brule, NE to determine the effect of corn residue removal via baling corn residue or fall grazing on subsequent corn yields.  That environment receives limited rainfall and residue is deemed important for reducing evaporation of soil moisture in addition for catching/keeping snow on fields.  Farmers were questioning the effects of any residue removal on subsequent corn yields and the study was implemented.

Treatments were 1) fall grazing at 1 animal unit month/acre (AUM), 2) fall grazing 2 AUM/ac, 3) baled, or 4) ungrazed.  The researchers found that residue removal did not affect corn grain yields from 2009-2013 in the continuous corn rotation.  There were no statistical yield differences with 5 year average yields of:  152 bu/ac, 155 bu/ac, 147 bu/ac and 148 bu/ac respectively for the above-mentioned treatments.

Table3-Beef

Effect of Corn Residue Removal on Subsequent Crop Yields“, 2015 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report. Mary E. Drewnoski, L. Aaron Stalker, Jim C. MacDonald, Galen E. Erickson, Kathy J. Hanford, Terry J. Klopfenstein

Sudden Death Syndrome and Corn Residue

SDS

Symptoms of Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS) on leaves show green veins with discoloration between the veins (left photo). Signs of the blue/gray/white Fusarium fungus causing SDS on a rotted soybean root (right photo).

Grazing corn residue provides many benefits to both livestock and grain farmers, yet many corn stalks in our area are not grazed for various reasons.  With as much hail as we’ve had this fall, grazing is also an option to remove ears and kernels that were lost, preventing volunteer corn next season.  Normally there is less than a bushel of ear drop per acre, but we most likely have more than that in some of our fields this year.  Two kernels per square foot or one ¾ pound ear in 1/100 of an acre is the equivalent of 1 bu/ac yield loss.  In 30” rows, 1/100 of an acre is 174’ long if you count in one row or 87’ if you count in two rows.

Soil

Soil samples (0-8″) for soybean cyst nematode (SCN) can be taken at any time but always good to sample areas that were affected with SDS to determine if SCN is also present.

What may also be of interest to you is a recent finding between corn grain loss pre-and during harvest and sudden death syndrome (SDS) of soybean.  Many asked me this this year, “Why did I see SDS this year when we’ve never had it in this field before?”  It’s a great question and I often responded by saying we need to sample the areas affected with SDS for soybean cyst nematode (SCN) as the two diseases are synergistic.  Sampling for SCN still remains free through your Nebraska Soybean Board Checkoff dollars and you can stop by the Extension Office for free sampling bags.  Crop consultants should contact the UNL Plant and Pest Diagnostic lab directly at (402) 472-2559 if you are requesting 10 or more sampling bags.

Anything that moves soil can transport the fungal soil-borne pathogens causing these diseases.  But recent research from Iowa State University also suggests that the fungal pathogen causing SDS (Fusarium virguliforme) survives on grain lost during the harvest process in fields and that SDS management in soybean actually needs to begin at corn harvest.

Studies were conducted for two years in greenhouse and in field plots with nine treatments to determine the survivability of Fusarium virguliforme (Fv) on corn and soybean residue.  The treatments were:  1-Corn kernels + Fv; 2-Corn roots + Fv; 3-Corn stem/leaves/husk + Fv; 4-No residue + Fv; 5-Soybean seeds + Fv; 6-Soybean stem/leaves/pods + Fv; 7-Soybean roots +Fv; 8-Corn stalk on soil surface + Fv; 9-Corn kernels and stalk on soil surface + Fv.  The researchers consistently found in both the greenhouse and field experiments that Treatment 1 of corn kernels at average harvest loss resulted in the most SDS.  Treatment 2 consistently resulted in the second most SDS.

rsz0910RevisedCornSoyRotation3

From Iowa State University, September 2010, “Good Harvest in Corn Should Help Manage SDS“.

This helps to explain why some farmers are finding SDS in fields that have been continuous corn for a period of years, are finding SDS in corn and soybean rotation when little or no SDS was previously observed, and why SDS has increased in seed corn fields that may have higher harvest losses.  They did not experiment with tillage systems and their recommendation is to reduce harvest losses to reduce the risk of SDS.

Grazing residues can reduce your risk from these harvest losses and for those losses which were incurred with the hail/wind storms we’ve experienced since Labor Day.  When grazing corn residue, cattle are selective.  They will eat the grain first followed by the husk and leaf followed by the cob and stalk.

It’s also important to be aware of grazing restrictions from herbicides applied to row crops; you can read more about that in this post.

Sugar Application in Crops

Corn is approaching or at V7-V8 growth stage.  A few weeks ago, we published research results in our UNL CropWatch website.  That information can be found in the links below the video.  If you are interested in trying this in your field this year, please see the Nebraska On-Farm Research protocals also shown below.

Weed Science Field Day

July 1 is the upcoming Weed Science Field Day at UNL’s South Central Agricultural Laboratory near Clay Center.  The brochure with more information is shown below as photos; please click on the photos to enlarge if they are difficult to read.  You may RSVP to Dr. Amit Jhala at (402) 472-1534.  Hope to see you there!

SCAL Weed Field Day1SCAL Weed Field Day2

On-Farm Research Update

Hope to see you next week at our Nebraska On-Farm Research Updates to be held March 10 at ARDC near Mead and March 11 in York!!!

On-Farm Research Update

Nebraska On-Farm Research Network Testimonials

Listen to the value of on-farm research to these participants!  Sound interesting to you?  Learn more by checking our our On-Farm Research website or contacting any of our faculty involved!

Crop Update 6-20-13

The sun has been welcomed and crops are rapidly growing in South Central Nebraska!  Corn right now is between V6-V8 (6-8 leaf) for the most part.  Quite a few farmers were side-dressing and Corn that's been hilled in south-central Nebraska.hilling corn the past two weeks.  It never fails that corn looks a little stressed after this as moisture is released from the soil and roots aren’t quite down to deeper moisture.

Installing watermark sensors for irrigation scheduling, we’re finding good moisture to 3 feet in all fields in the area.  The driest fields are those which were converted from pasture last year and we want to be watching the third foot especially in those fields.  Pivots are running in some fields because corn looks stressed, but there’s plenty of moisture in the soil based on the watermark sensor readings I’m receiving for the entire area.  So we would recommend to allow your crops to continue to root down to uptake deeper moisture and nitrogen.

The last few weeks we observed many patterns from fertilizer applications in fields but as corn and root systems are developing, they are growing out of it.  We’ve also observed some rapid growth syndrome in plants.  This can result from the quick transition we had from cooler temperatures to warmer temperatures, which leads to rapid leaf growth faster than they can emerge from the whorl.  Plants may have some twisted whorls and/or lighter discoloration of theseOn-farm Research Cooperators, Dennis and Rod Valentine, get ready to spray their corn plots with a sugar/water solution.  Their study is to determine the effect of applying sugar to corn on yield and economics.  leaves, but they will green up upon unfurling and receiving sunlight.  This shouldn’t affect yield.

Damping off has been a problem in areas where we had water ponded or saturated conditions for periods of time.  We’ve also observed some uneven emergence in various fields from potentially a combination of factors including some cold shock to germinating seedlings.

We began applying sugar to our on-farm research sugar vs. check studies in corn.  We will continue to monitor disease and insect pressure in these plots and determine percent stalk rot and yield at the end of the season.

Leaf and stripe rust can be observed in wheat fields in the area and wheat is beginning to turn.  We had some problems with wheat streak mosaic virus in the area again affecting producers’ neighboring fields when volunteer wheat wasn’t killed last fall.  Alfalfa is beginning to regrow after first cutting and we’re encouraging producers to look for alfalfa weevils.  All our crops could really use a nice slow rain right now!

Sugar Applications to Crops

For the past ten years I’ve come across farmers who really believed in applications of sugar to reduce their pest populations.  Being no research to my knowledge to prove it, I tucked the observation in the back of my head for future reference.  With farmers looking to increase yields and looking to other farmers such as Kip Cullers for information, some of our on-farm research producers were curious about sugar applications in their operations with the hopes of increasing yield.

Nebraska On-Farm Research Corn Results

Using the application rates that Kip Cullers uses, one Clay County producer applied 3 lbs of sugar (purchased pallet of cane or beet sugar from the local grocery store) per 10 gallons of water at V7-V8 on corn in 2010-2011.  Cullers also tanked mixed the sugar solution with a post-herbicide application like glyphosate but this producer didn’t do that.  To simulate any affect of the water or driving through the field, he also drove through the untreated check spraying water only.  Two  years of research results showed no significant increase in yield.  However, there was a noticeable difference in standability at harvest.  This producer did not apply a foliar fungicide either year.  When it came to harvest, this producer needed the reel in 2010 for the untreated check.  Stalk rot ratings were taken using the pinch test two weeks prior to harvest.  To him, the $1.25/acre of sugar was worth it to improve standability even if yield was not significantly improved.  You can view the full research report here.

2010-2011-SugarOnCorn On-Farm Research Clay County Nebraska

Several York County producers have also tried this with one producer finding a non-statistical 2 bu/ac yield difference with the check yielding better while the other producers found a statisically significant 2 bu/ac increase to the sugar treatment.  Another producer in Hamilton County is testing this using the corn product he grows-using 1 qt of corn sugar (high fructose corn syrup) per 10 gal of water applied still at V7-v8.

In 2012, a small plot study was conducted at UNL’s South Central Ag Lab near Clay Center to determine any differences between sugar application, fungicide application, and untreated check in corn.  All treatments were applied at R2.  Because of the drought in 2012, there was minimal disease pressure, thus there were no significant differences between the three treatments regarding area under the disease progress curve.  The untreated check did show the most stalk rot (via the push lodging test).  The sugar application reduced the lodging rating by half and the fungicide application showed the lowest lodging rating.  For yield, there were no significant yield differences with the untreated check yielding the highest followed by the fungicide and sugar applications.  The entire study report can be found here.

In Soybeans we have had producers apply 3 lbs sugar in 10 gallons of water at R3 (beginning pod).  In all years, there have been no significant differences in yield.  Lodging ratings were not taken as that is more variety and water dependent.

Additional research…

has shown that application of sugar to crops increases the numbers of beneficial insects in those fields.  South Dakota research entomologists showed that lady beetles benefited from a combination of prey and non-prey foods.   In a follow-up study, these entomologists applied sugar sprays to soybeans and quantified the frequency of sugar feeding by analyzing the gut contents of common lady beetles in three states.  They found all the tested lady beetles regularly consumed sugar-like nectar in soybean fields, even when it wasn’t applied as a supplement.  They also found more lady beetles in the sugar treated plots compared to the untreated plots.

At this time we can’t explain the standability effect we’re seeing from our sugar applications to corn.  Our hypothesis is that early application of sugar to corn is increasing beneficial microbes that may be keeping the exposed brace roots and stalks healthier.  We hope to conduct more research in the future to answer this question.

In conclusion,

the application of sugar to corn and soybeans has not always shown increased yield.  However, in nearly all of the corn studies, sugar treated plots have shown increased stalk strength at harvest.  Research has also shown an increase in the number of beneficial insects in fields where sugar was applied.  Further research is needed to understand the interactions aiding stalk strength in corn.

If you are interested in conducting on-farm research studies in your field, please contact any of our UNL Extension Educators or Specialists!  You can also follow the conversations this year via our Facebook page and Twitter feed!

What do you think of sugar applications to crops?  Have you tried this in the past and if so, what were your results?

%d bloggers like this: