Home » Grain Sorghum
Category Archives: Grain Sorghum
Grain Sorghum, 2023 edition
As I sit in my office writing this I am seeing the chances for Stillwater to get a good rain today slowly dwindle away. Last night we had a 75% chance of 0.56. Its now 3pm we have received 0.01 and have a 60% chance of getting an additional 0.10. And as this is how 2023 has gone, but we are still better off than so many west and north of us.
No some of the zeroed out wheat ground and winter fallow ground has seen its first moisture in 100+ days. Planters and drilling are rolling and or ready to roll. So I wanted to throw out a few thoughts and re-share an older blog.
In August of last year I was talking about how the extended drought was impacting organic matter and nitrogen cycling “Nitrogen cycle hiccups and a lot of drying“. Wish I could say things have changed since then but we all now otherwise. While we have moisture to plant and germ our H2O fuel tank is far from full. Its going to take significant rainfall to rebuild the soil profile, not to mention the ponds. And I can not forget how last year we had great rains in May and were going pineapple by the end of July. I had N response studies all over the state in sorghum, at every trial nitrogen was not a limiting factor.
By this point if you know me or have every read anything I have written in the past you should know what is coming. My recommendation for pre-plant N is 0.0 lbs. Go ahead and put a starter down where you have low P or pH that’s out of range, and Fe and/or Zn in the calcareous soils where needed, but that’s it. We are continually adding to the research data base that says sorghum responds exceptionally well to in-season nitrogen applications in some cases nearly all the way to boot stage. I believe we are close to determining/explaining why the crop does so well but not ready to share that work just yet.
I just do not have the trust in the what rains may come to spend money on a fertilization pass that has been proven to be less valuable. Get the seed in the ground and crop up, put out some N-Rich strips. Let the weather play out for a month or so and see 1) Do I have soil moisture to get me through harvest or am I living day by day on a hope and a prayer? 2) is my N-Rich strip showing?
For Question 1) if your living day to day is further investment in the crop warranted? If you have soil moisture and rain in the forecast, its time to rock and roll. For question 2) which I hope you take my advice on doing. If the N-Rich is showing up 30 days into the you can use some rough yield goal estimations and apply 1 lb N per bushel or go get access to a GreenSeeker sensor (available through OSU extension offices) and use OSU’s online calculator SBNRC. If the strips not showing up then you need to consider that a month into the crops growth the soil has supplied 100% of the crops N need. Depending on if you want to push yield or save N adjust your rec accordingly. I would say reducing planned N rate by 40-50 lbs would a legitimate option. There are more and more agronomist utilizing N strips in wheat and sorghum so you could check around.
Final thoughts.
The more I do research on N timing and N management the more I am finding that there are some great benefits to limiting early N availability to the crop. To the point were I am finding and increasing value of an early season N stress on crop performance and grain yield.
Now for rehashed research. Much like wheat, sorghum can and probably should wait for N.
Can Grain Sorghum Wait on Nitrogen? One more year of data.
Original Posting 4.7.2022
Michaela Smith, Ph.D. candidate under advisement of B. Arnall
Brian Arnall, Precision Nutrient Management Specialist
The impressive ability of sorghum to recover from significant N stress with late applied nitrogen was originally reported in the blog “Can grain sorghum wait on nitrogen”. This projected was replicated again in 2021 and these are the results. During the 2021 growing season, frequency of rainfall events and amounts were similar to the 2020 growing season. Figure 1. shows the application dates and rainfall events.
Statistically there was no significant difference in grain yield from the pre-plant (0) and any application up to the 56 day application. This data matches up quite well the yield results from 2020.
Looking and the current soil moisture conditions (Figure 3.) and fertilizer price I think this data supports the recommendation to get the seed in the ground and see how the situation plays out. If there are decent rains at and shortly after planting then there is time to apply nitrogen with little risk of yield loss. If fact the weather during late May and early June provide some of the best chances to getting the fertilizer rained in (Figure 4) . If the weather doesn’t cooperate and provide us the much needed rains, then by waiting to apply we are not left with a lot of Expensive nitrogen setting out in the field of a failed crop.
Final Thoughts Heading into the 2021 Sorghum Planting Season.
– Make sure you have a soil sample, knowing P and K will be critical.
– No need to front load N fertilizer, especially if soil moisture is short.
– Utilize in-furrow P if soil pH and or soil test P is low.
– If you skip pre-plant N APPLY N-RICH STRIPS!!!!
– If you apply pre-plant N consider applying 50% of the expected N or less.
– If you are applying any level of pre-plant N, Create Zero-N Strips.
For more information or questions contact
Brian Arnall b.arnall@okstate.edu 405.744.1722
Special thanks to EDC Ag Products Co LLC for suppling NH4NO3 used in the delayed N project.
Original Post March 22, 2022.
Data for this post available in thesis Impact of delayed nitrogen application in grain sorghum
Smith, Michaela Lynn (2021-05). Available at https://shareok.org/discover
Grain sorghum producers in Oklahoma are challenged greatly by their environment and sporadic rainfall patterns, which diminish as the season progresses. These uncontrollable variables influence timing of nitrogen (N) application and nitrogen use efficiency. Using rainfall events as an incorporation method forces producers to apply before the event regardless of its intensity or delay application until field conditions are acceptable while anxiously waiting for another rainfall event. When deciding to delay N application it’s important to know the effects on physiological development and grain yield.
Trial structure and breakdown
This study was conducted over the 2020 growing season consisting four locations, including one double cropping system following wheat. Ten in-season applications were made using ammonium nitrate (AN) as the N source at a rate of 90 lbs. ac. Using AN as the N source reduced the risk of nitrogen loss through the process of volatilization as the goal of the research was to test the plant not the fertilizer. A pre-plant treatment served as the standard check, while in-season applications were initiated at 21 Days After Planting (DAP) and applications made sequentially at 7-day intervals. A non-fertilized check was included to the study to confirm locations were responsive to N fertilized applications Hybrid, plant date, and seeding rate can be found in Table 1.
Physiological Response to Application Timing
Two of the four locations demonstrated an effect to physiological development and maturity with the delay of nitrogen application. A delay in heading by a one to two-week period was observed at Perkins and Lahoma for applications made after May 21st (Table 2.). This delay in heading contributed to similar delay in maturity and potential harvest date. At Perkins decreased plant height was observed in the pre-plant plot and was associated with the onset of late season nitrogen deficiency (Figure 2). While this response was unexpected, the impact of nitrogen deficiency experienced early in the crop growth on the root and shoot growth has been well documented in many species. As a plant experiences nitrogen limitations growth changes from above ground to the below ground parts (roots) in an attempt to alleviate nitrogen stress. This increase in root growth could contribute to a more efficient uptake of nitrogen and decrease loss. In contrast to Figure 2, pre-plant application is shorter than compared to later season applications, this could be a result of inadequate N uptake thus leading to N loss by leaching, whereas later applications had increased root growth for efficient N interception and uptake.
Yield Response to Application Timing
Response of N was observed at all locations (Figure 3), while the delay of nitrogen varied in its effects across all locations. Grain yield from each N application was compared back to the pre-plant application to evaluate the effects of timing. All four locations responded positively to N fertilizer. At both LCB and Lahoma grain yield was maintained with applications made as late as 42 to 63 DAP respectively before any negative trend in grain yield was observed. Perkins was the only locations to have a statistically significant increase in grain yield due to delayed N applications. At this site, which is a sandy loam, waiting until 42 DAP resulted in a 15 bushel increase over the pre-plant plot. Now Alva which was double crop showed that rainfall is key. At this site, none of the in-season treatments made it up the level of the pre-plant. The reason for this will be discussed further below.
Influence of Rainfall
The loss in grain yield at Perkins in the pre-plant application could likely be reflective of nitrogen loss due to leaching. Pre-plant applications have been well documented in the aspect loss as a result of crop requirement and early physiological development. Long term mesonet rainfall data depicts a decline in the probability of rainfall with the progression of the growing season across all locations. In early season the probability of 0.5 inches of rainfall ranges from 8 to 10% respectively for LCB, Lahoma, and Perkins, and dramatically decline to percentages at low as 5% in mid-July during grain filling period. For Alva rainfall probability is substantially lower as its season was initiated during the drier months, which depicted a probability of 6% for 0.5 inches of rainfall, and 4.5% for 1 inch for early season rainfall crucial for pre-plant incorporation and crop establishment. These probabilities drop considerably compared to regular season as the months progress onward, mid to late August probability for 0.5 inches ranges from 0.8 to 11.5%, while for a 1 inch is 0 to 6.9%. Past weather data provided by the mesonet illustrates how later in the season rainfall and its amount is variable, suggesting that in a double crop scenario delayed application is not recommended while it is in regular season crop due to the increased chance of rainfall probability.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impacts of delayed nitrogen application in grain sorghum. In order to develop an accurate conclusion additional site years are required, although current data could suggest delaying nitrogen application for full season grain sorghum is possible without a detrimental loss in grain yield. This means producers have time to evaluate the crop and market to determine if more inputs are needed and economical, while allowing implementation of technologies such as the N-Rich Strip and SBNRC.
If you have any questions for comments please reach out.
Brian Arnall
b.arnall@okstate.edu
405.744.1722
Acknowledgement of EDC Ag Products Co LLC for support of this project.
In-season N application methods for Sorghum
Raedan Sharry, Ph.D. candidate under advisement of B. Arnall
Brian Arnall, Precision Nutrient Management Specialist
The data about to be reported is from the study we have fondly named “Burn Baby Burn”, you will see why soon enough.
Grain Sorghum production continues to be an important component of many growers crop rotations in the Great Plains. However, for many growers who focus primarily on small grains production, equipment restraints may impose limits on in season nitrogen (N) management. When producers are able to delay the application until in-season it helps to ensure that N is available to the crop at the time of increased uptake during the reproductive stages of the crops life. Producers often have access to equipment and technologies that may be used to take advantage of improved N application timing, but may worry about the negative effects that nitrogen can have if the fertilizer is inadvertently applied to plant material. An experiment was initiated in Central Oklahoma to evaluate the yield response of grain sorghum to in-season nitrogen application methods.
Trials were placed at Lake Carl Blackwell near Stillwater, Perkins and Chickasha Oklahoma and included 9 in-season fertilization methods and a 0 nitrogen control. Treatments are listed in Table 1 below.
In total 120 lbs of N was applied to all treatments receiving in-season applications. 60 lbs was applied at planting to all treatments including the “Zero N Control”. The remaining 60 lbs. of N was applied according to application method in-season. The urea was applied by hand and the liquid treatments a push cart with adjustable boom height (Figure 1) was used to apply the UAN. Applications were made mid day at V8 growth stage. The temperature at the time of all applications was about 90 F and humidity below 75%. Nozzle position for 30″ and 60″ was set for between rows.
At two of the three locations (Stillwater and Perkins) the addition of 60 lbs. of N in-season increased yield above the control treatment. At the Stillwater (Lake Carl Blackwell) location there were no statistical differences (α=0.05) between in-season fertilized treatments except the T-Bar 20” treatment (Figure 2). The Perkins location (Figure 3) provided a similar result in which again there was no statistical difference between fertilized treatments, excluding the T-Bar 20” treatment.
The Chickasha location differed in that additional in-season nitrogen did not improve yield (Figure 4). While we want a response to applied N, in the case it allows use to solely evaluate the impact of burn associated with N application. The T-bar 20” treatment statistically negatively impacted grain yield and the FlatFan-20″ did at α=0.10, which means we are only 90% confident the yield lose was due to treatment. This response has been consistent across all three locations, on average decreasing yield approximately 21 bu/ac relative to the individual site grain yield average.
Even though it was mentioned for Chickasha, it is also important to note that while it was not statistically significant (α=0.05) the FF- 20” treatment (Flat Fan nozzles above canopy on 20” spacing) trended towards decreasing yields at all 3 locations and is likely detrimental to crop performance. At all locations substantial damage to leaf material was observed, similar to that pictured in Figure 5 below. Several of the treatments damaged leaf material on the plant through burn injury, but most were not negatively impactful on grain yield in the 2021 growing season. Grain sorghum yield did not benefit from moving the application point below the canopy using drop attachments, nor did adjusting nozzle spacing from 30 to 60”. Source was not a significant factor impacting grain yield regardless of it application method.
The observations from this study show that many of the in-season nitrogen application methods that are available to growers will not negatively impact yield. This however does not apply to tools such as the T-Bar. Similar tools that concentrate large amounts of N to leaf material are also likely to produce similar results. It is important to note that the T-bar was used on 20” spacings and not tested otherwise. Moving the spacing of the T-bar may lead to different results.
Growers who are looking to move N applications in their grain sorghum crop to in-season to capture the benefits associated will likely be able to with equipment that is already available to them. While leaf damage may be observed under sub-optimal application methods, damage is unlikely to contribute to significant yield loss. However, growers should keep in mind that environmental conditions may have a significant impact on the results seen from these types of application as growers should always look to limit stress to the plant when possible.
We of course will be putting out a second year of this study and will share the results when we can.
For more information or questions contact
Brian Arnall b.arnall@okstate.edu 405.744.1722
Can Grain Sorghum Wait on Nitrogen? One more year of data.
Michaela Smith, Ph.D. candidate under advisement of B. Arnall
Brian Arnall, Precision Nutrient Management Specialist
The impressive ability of sorghum to recover from significant N stress with late applied nitrogen was originally reported in the blog “Can grain sorghum wait on nitrogen”. This projected was replicated again in 2021 and these are the results. During the 2021 growing season, frequency of rainfall events and amounts were similar to the 2020 growing season. Figure 1. shows the application dates and rainfall events.
Statistically there was no significant difference in grain yield from the pre-plant (0) and any application up to the 56 day application. This data matches up quite well the yield results from 2020.
Looking and the current soil moisture conditions (Figure 3.) and fertilizer price I think this data supports the recommendation to get the seed in the ground and see how the situation plays out. If there are decent rains at and shortly after planting then there is time to apply nitrogen with little risk of yield loss. If fact the weather during late May and early June provide some of the best chances to getting the fertilizer rained in (Figure 4) . If the weather doesn’t cooperate and provide us the much needed rains, then by waiting to apply we are not left with a lot of Expensive nitrogen setting out in the field of a failed crop.
Final Thoughts Heading into the 2021 Sorghum Planting Season.
– Make sure you have a soil sample, knowing P and K will be critical.
– No need to front load N fertilizer, especially if soil moisture is short.
– Utilize in-furrow P if soil pH and or soil test P is low.
– If you skip pre-plant N APPLY N-RICH STRIPS!!!!
– If you apply pre-plant N consider applying 50% of the expected N or less.
– If you are applying any level of pre-plant N, Create Zero-N Strips.
For more information or questions contact
Brian Arnall b.arnall@okstate.edu 405.744.1722
Special thanks to EDC Ag Products Co LLC for suppling NH4NO3 used in the delayed N project.
Original Post March 22, 2022.
Data for this post available in thesis Impact of delayed nitrogen application in grain sorghum
Smith, Michaela Lynn (2021-05). Available at https://shareok.org/discover
Grain sorghum producers in Oklahoma are challenged greatly by their environment and sporadic rainfall patterns, which diminish as the season progresses. These uncontrollable variables influence timing of nitrogen (N) application and nitrogen use efficiency. Using rainfall events as an incorporation method forces producers to apply before the event regardless of its intensity or delay application until field conditions are acceptable while anxiously waiting for another rainfall event. When deciding to delay N application it’s important to know the effects on physiological development and grain yield.
Trial structure and breakdown
This study was conducted over the 2020 growing season consisting four locations, including one double cropping system following wheat. Ten in-season applications were made using ammonium nitrate (AN) as the N source at a rate of 90 lbs. ac. Using AN as the N source reduced the risk of nitrogen loss through the process of volatilization as the goal of the research was to test the plant not the fertilizer. A pre-plant treatment served as the standard check, while in-season applications were initiated at 21 Days After Planting (DAP) and applications made sequentially at 7-day intervals. A non-fertilized check was included to the study to confirm locations were responsive to N fertilized applications Hybrid, plant date, and seeding rate can be found in Table 1.
Physiological Response to Application Timing
Two of the four locations demonstrated an effect to physiological development and maturity with the delay of nitrogen application. A delay in heading by a one to two-week period was observed at Perkins and Lahoma for applications made after May 21st (Table 2.). This delay in heading contributed to similar delay in maturity and potential harvest date. At Perkins decreased plant height was observed in the pre-plant plot and was associated with the onset of late season nitrogen deficiency (Figure 2). While this response was unexpected, the impact of nitrogen deficiency experienced early in the crop growth on the root and shoot growth has been well documented in many species. As a plant experiences nitrogen limitations growth changes from above ground to the below ground parts (roots) in an attempt to alleviate nitrogen stress. This increase in root growth could contribute to a more efficient uptake of nitrogen and decrease loss. In contrast to Figure 2, pre-plant application is shorter than compared to later season applications, this could be a result of inadequate N uptake thus leading to N loss by leaching, whereas later applications had increased root growth for efficient N interception and uptake.
Yield Response to Application Timing
Response of N was observed at all locations (Figure 3), while the delay of nitrogen varied in its effects across all locations. Grain yield from each N application was compared back to the pre-plant application to evaluate the effects of timing. All four locations responded positively to N fertilizer. At both LCB and Lahoma grain yield was maintained with applications made as late as 42 to 63 DAP respectively before any negative trend in grain yield was observed. Perkins was the only locations to have a statistically significant increase in grain yield due to delayed N applications. At this site, which is a sandy loam, waiting until 42 DAP resulted in a 15 bushel increase over the pre-plant plot. Now Alva which was double crop showed that rainfall is key. At this site, none of the in-season treatments made it up the level of the pre-plant. The reason for this will be discussed further below.
Influence of Rainfall
The loss in grain yield at Perkins in the pre-plant application could likely be reflective of nitrogen loss due to leaching. Pre-plant applications have been well documented in the aspect loss as a result of crop requirement and early physiological development. Long term mesonet rainfall data depicts a decline in the probability of rainfall with the progression of the growing season across all locations. In early season the probability of 0.5 inches of rainfall ranges from 8 to 10% respectively for LCB, Lahoma, and Perkins, and dramatically decline to percentages at low as 5% in mid-July during grain filling period. For Alva rainfall probability is substantially lower as its season was initiated during the drier months, which depicted a probability of 6% for 0.5 inches of rainfall, and 4.5% for 1 inch for early season rainfall crucial for pre-plant incorporation and crop establishment. These probabilities drop considerably compared to regular season as the months progress onward, mid to late August probability for 0.5 inches ranges from 0.8 to 11.5%, while for a 1 inch is 0 to 6.9%. Past weather data provided by the mesonet illustrates how later in the season rainfall and its amount is variable, suggesting that in a double crop scenario delayed application is not recommended while it is in regular season crop due to the increased chance of rainfall probability.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impacts of delayed nitrogen application in grain sorghum. In order to develop an accurate conclusion additional site years are required, although current data could suggest delaying nitrogen application for full season grain sorghum is possible without a detrimental loss in grain yield. This means producers have time to evaluate the crop and market to determine if more inputs are needed and economical, while allowing implementation of technologies such as the N-Rich Strip and SBNRC.
If you have any questions for comments please reach out.
Brian Arnall
b.arnall@okstate.edu
405.744.1722
Acknowledgement of EDC Ag Products Co LLC for support of this project.
Utilizing N fixing biologicals.
In the past couple years significant efforts have been made to produce N fixing microorganisms that can be utilized in an agriculture system. The atmosphere is 78% N2 and prokaryotic microorganisms such as the bacteria species Azotobacter, Bacillus, Clostridium, and Klebsiella take that N2 gas and turn it into plant available NH4. These organisms have been around providing nitrogen for plants, for as long as there has been plants. In agriculture we have heavily utilized their relationship with legumes however have struggled bringing them into other realms of production. Naturally they tend to be found in areas that are very low levels of nitrogen. For example, prokaryotes were found in the un-fertilized check of the 130-year-old Magruder Plots but are not found any other treatment that receives fertilizer organic or commercial.
Now there are several products marketed as containing N fixing microorganisms suited for use in today’s corn, sorghum, and wheat production. While I have an active research program evaluating the use of such materials in Oklahoma, this blog will not address what works or how well. This blog will touch upon my thoughts on how to utilize a technology such as this if you pull the trigger to implement.
So there is one key to getting a ROI on products that create plant available nitrogen, and it’s a really simple key.
Under Apply Nitrogen
If you apply enough or more N than the crops needs, then there is ZERO value in a product that creates more N. For example, applying one of these products in your 250-bushel yield goal corn after you’ve already laid down 300 lbs of N preplant. Unless you lose it all to leaching, your probability of seeing a ROI on your biological investment is pretty poor. I have a hard time understanding the thought process behind paying for a N fixing product and not lowering your fertilizer rate. I can see one of two reasons. 1) You believe you historically under apply N and are losing yield because of such 2) Are in an environment which has a high potential of late season N losses, and you are unable to make recovery applications.
So what to do if using a N Fixer? I do not have the confidence yet to say, “Apply X product, it will produce Y lbs of N, so cut your rate by Y lbs”. That uncertainty is one of the greatest challenges, not knowing will I get 10 lbs or 40 lbs? If I did, then I would just subtract that off my planned rate. Side note, as someone who has been doing on farm N rate studies for a decade plus, I would have to add that most were likely over applying by that much and could cut back anyways. For me the use of the N Fixers should force your hand into utilizing in-season N applications, regardless the crop. So that you can better predict or determine impact of the product.
This is where the use of a refence strip (N-Rich or Zero N) is the golden ticket. We need a way to quickly evaluate the amount of N the crop has access to. The N-Rich method works best when preplant N is drawn way back. I would add that reduced pre-plant is a great scenario for N Fixers. The N-Rich in comparison to the rest of the field will provide you guidance towards your in-season goals. If the N-Fixers are doing a great job the N-Rich will not be showing up any time soon and you can make your N rate adjustments accordingly. If you are a Pre-plant or die kind of farmer, then I say you need to pull back the reins on the preplant rate but give the N Fixers some room to add value and add in your Zero N strips. These will again let you observe what is happening in the soil apart from your fertilizer. If it is getting on the late side of in-season N and you cannot find your zero, might be a good time to walk away and hang up the fertilizer applicator keys. I have lots of blogs and pubs on the use of reference strip so send me a note if you want to dive further into these approaches.
Feel free to reach out with questions or comments. B.arnall@okstate.edu
Related Blogs
Sorghum: Late season management and pests emerging
Josh Lofton- Cropping System Specialist
Tom Royer- Extension entomologist/IPM coordinator
Full-season sorghum across the state is reaching maturity, while late-season and double-crop sorghum are at various stages of early reproductive growth. In the last several weeks, insect pressure has been a major issue throughout the state. Therefore, growers will be left with several management decisions in the next several weeks.
Harvest management for sorghum:
Sorghum harvest aids or desiccants have been periodically used in sorghum throughout Oklahoma. Several reasons exist for growers to use these practices; however, two primary reasons include drying down the vegetative portion of the sorghum plant or managing late-season weeds present in field. Most years in the southern Great Plains, as with this one, there is very little need to rapidly dry-down the primary sorghum stem and first tillers. Higher temperatures, higher winds, and lower humidity will often result in the plant drying at a similar rate to the grain. Since desiccants have little impact on dry-down of the grain, this can result in rapid stem dry-down potentially leading to lodging issues. However, later tillers could still be maturing and take much longer to finish grain and dry-down. Growers have to decide if it is worth waiting for these later tillers prior to harvest. Often, the presence of wildlife and the risk of lodging will result in growers harvesting closer to when the main stem matures. Growers can use desiccants to rapidly dry-down these later tillers, which terminates the tillers. Some grain in these may be harvestable, depending on how close the grain was to black-layer.
The second reason for using desiccants is to help manage late-season weeds in the sorghum crop. Grassy weeds, especially Johnsongrass, are the primary weeds of concern. Currently, few in-season options are available to help control grasses in sorghum. The problem with Johnsongrass is that resources developed can be stored over winter in rhizomes for the successive year’s plants. Using late-season desiccation treatments can limit the transfer of these resources to the storage portions Johnsongrass. Further information regarding using harvest aids in grain sorghum can be found in PSS-2183 (Using Harvest Aids in Grain Sorghum Production | Oklahoma State University (okstate.edu)).
Sorghum pests emerging:
In recent weeks discussion has focused on armyworms and their impact not only on lawns but crops. While these can still be a major issue on crops, especially those that are still vegetative. Most of the impact will be in those crops planted late, without a large amount of vegetative growth. While these are still a major concern, other pests are around. Stinkbugs have been present in sorghum for several years, but they are not normally at high populations, or are not widespread enough to cause major issues. However, we experienced an increased number of calls regarding stinkbugs this year. The particle stinkbug of interest is rice stinkbug. The question becomes, “When do growers need to think about treating for stinkbugs in sorghum?” The best fit for Oklahoma sorghum growers for a treatment threshold for rice stinkbug is to sample 30 emerged heads, and treat when the average number is 0.5 to 1 stinkbug per head. Research based damage thresholds numbers are per acre, not numbers per plant. Therefore, the 0.5 per head threshold is for higher plant populations, and the 1 per head is for lower plant populations. A number of products are available for control of panicle feeding bugs in sorghum.
Can Grain Sorghum Wait on Nitrogen?
Michaela Smith, Masters student under advisement of B. Arnall
Brian Arnall, Precision Nutrient Management Specialist
Grain sorghum producers in Oklahoma are challenged greatly by their environment and sporadic rainfall patterns, which diminish as the season progresses. These uncontrollable variables influence timing of nitrogen (N) application and nitrogen use efficiency. Using rainfall events as an incorporation method forces producers to apply before the event regardless of its intensity or delay application until field conditions are acceptable while anxiously waiting for another rainfall event. When deciding to delay N application it’s important to know the effects on physiological development and grain yield.
Trial structure and breakdown
This study was conducted over the 2020 growing season consisting four locations, including one double cropping system following wheat. Ten in-season applications were made using ammonium nitrate (AN) as the N source at a rate of 90 lbs. ac. Using AN as the N source reduced the risk of nitrogen loss through the process of volatilization as the goal of the research was to test the plant not the fertilizer. A pre-plant treatment served as the standard check, while in-season applications were initiated at 21 Days After Planting (DAP) and applications made sequentially at 7-day intervals. A non-fertilized check was included to the study to confirm locations were responsive to N fertilized applications Hybrid, plant date, and seeding rate can be found in Table 1.
Physiological Response to Application Timing
Two of the four locations demonstrated an effect to physiological development and maturity with the delay of nitrogen application. A delay in heading by a one to two-week period was observed at Perkins and Lahoma for applications made after May 21st (Table 2.). This delay in heading contributed to similar delay in maturity and potential harvest date. At Perkins decreased plant height was observed in the pre-plant plot and was associated with the onset of late season nitrogen deficiency (Figure 2). While this response was unexpected, the impact of nitrogen deficiency experienced early in the crop growth on the root and shoot growth has been well documented in many species. As a plant experiences nitrogen limitations growth changes from above ground to the below ground parts (roots) in an attempt to alleviate nitrogen stress. This increase in root growth could contribute to a more efficient uptake of nitrogen and decrease loss. In contrast to Figure 2, pre-plant application is shorter than compared to later season applications, this could be a result of inadequate N uptake thus leading to N loss by leaching, whereas later applications had increased root growth for efficient N interception and uptake.
Yield Response to Application Timing
Response of N was observed at all locations (Figure 3), while the delay of nitrogen varied in its effects across all locations. Grain yield from each N application was compared back to the pre-plant application to evaluate the effects of timing. All four locations responded positively to N fertilizer. At both LCB and Lahoma grain yield was maintained with applications made as late as 42 to 63 DAP respectively before any negative trend in grain yield was observed. Perkins was the only locations to have a statistically significant increase in grain yield due to delayed N applications. At this site, which is a sandy loam, waiting until 42 DAP resulted in a 15 bushel increase over the pre-plant plot. Now Alva which was double crop showed that rainfall is key. At this site, none of the in-season treatments made it up the level of the pre-plant. The reason for this will be discussed further below.
Influence of Rainfall
The loss in grain yield at Perkins in the pre-plant application could likely be reflective of nitrogen loss due to leaching. Pre-plant applications have been well documented in the aspect loss as a result of crop requirement and early physiological development. Long term mesonet rainfall data depicts a decline in the probability of rainfall with the progression of the growing season across all locations. In early season the probability of 0.5 inches of rainfall ranges from 8 to 10% respectively for LCB, Lahoma, and Perkins, and dramatically decline to percentages at low as 5% in mid-July during grain filling period. For Alva rainfall probability is substantially lower as its season was initiated during the drier months, which depicted a probability of 6% for 0.5 inches of rainfall, and 4.5% for 1 inch for early season rainfall crucial for pre-plant incorporation and crop establishment. These probabilities drop considerably compared to regular season as the months progress onward, mid to late August probability for 0.5 inches ranges from 0.8 to 11.5%, while for a 1 inch is 0 to 6.9%. Past weather data provided by the mesonet illustrates how later in the season rainfall and its amount is variable, suggesting that in a double crop scenario delayed application is not recommended while it is in regular season crop due to the increased chance of rainfall probability.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impacts of delayed nitrogen application in grain sorghum. In order to develop an accurate conclusion additional site years are required, although current data could suggest delaying nitrogen application for full season grain sorghum is possible without a detrimental loss in grain yield. This means producers have time to evaluate the crop and market to determine if more inputs are needed and economical, while allowing implementation of technologies such as the N-Rich Strip and SBNRC.
If you have any questions for comments please reach out.
Brian Arnall
b.arnall@okstate.edu
405.744.1722
Acknowledgement of EDC Ag Products Co LLC for support of this project.
Recent Weather Causing Corn (and Sorghum) Injury From Pre-emerge Herbicides
With the brief window of dry ground last week my crew went at full speed planting and applying pre-emergence. Today I am sitting at home with campus closed due to the potential to severe weather with a forecast of 4-6 inches of rain for the areas I planted. Combine the recent planting activities and limited windows for pre-emergence applications, I will not be surprised if we don’t start seeing injury in some of the sorghum that was just planted before the rains. I would also add the over the years I often see bleaching in sorghum, that looks similar to zinc and/or iron deficiency, caused by atrazine injury. This typically occurs when atrazine is applied prior to a heavy rain. The atrazine is washed down slope and into the rows, the injury is almost always seen in low lying areas. The crop usually grows out of it.
Atrazine injury in sorghum. Heavy rains followed application. Pic via Rick Kochenower.
Brian A.
This article is written by Mr. Cody Daft, Field Agronomist Western Business Unit, Pioneer Hi-Bred
Have you noticed any corn leafing out underground prior to emergence? Have you seen tightly rolled leaves or plants that can’t seem to unfurl leaves and look buggy whipped? Almost all of the fields I have looked at recently have shown these symptoms in at least a portion of the field, and some fields this has been very widespread. The common denominator in all the fields I have viewed has been the herbicides applied were a metolachlor (Dual/Cinch type products) and the weather (cooler than normal, wetter than normal). Similar issues can be noted in grain sorghum to some extent.
The recent wet weather and water-logged soils have increased the possibility of corn injury from many popular soil applied herbicides. Corn growing in wet soils is not able to metabolize (degrade) herbicides as rapidly as corn growing in drier conditions. Plant absorption of herbicides occurs by diffusion. What this means is that the herbicide diffuses from locations of high concentration (application site on the soil) to low concentration (plant roots). The diffusion process continues regardless of how rapidly the corn is growing. In corn that is not growing rapidly (cool, wet conditions) corn plants can take up doses of herbicide high enough to show damage and a few differences in symptomology.
The unfortunate aspect of wet soil conditions is that additional stress is put on the plant not only to metabolize herbicide residues, but also to ward off diseases and insects. These additional stresses can impact a corn plant’s ability to metabolize herbicide.
The most common type of herbicide injury observed under these conditions is associated with chloroacetamide herbicides. These herbicides are used for control of grass and small seeded broadleaf weeds, and are seedling root and shoot inhibitors.
These products include the soil-applied grass herbicides such as:
- Dual/Cinch/Medal II
- Degree/Harness
- Microtech/Lasso
- Frontier/Outlook
- Define/Axiom
- And other atrazine premixes like Lumax (a premix of mesotrione (Callisto), s-metolachlor (Dual II Magnum), atrazine and a safener benoxacor).
What About The Injury Symptoms?
Before corn emergence:
- Stunting of shoots that result in abnormal seedlings that do not emerge from soil.
- Corkscrewing symptoms similar to cold/chilling injury.
- Corn plants and grassy weeds may leaf out underground and leaves may not properly unfurl.
After corn emergence:
- Buggy whipping – leaves may not unfurl properly.
Figure . Buggy-whipping symptom from carryover of PPO herbicides to corn.via https://www.pioneer.com/home/site/us/agronomy/library/herbicide-carryover/
What About Safeners?
Products like DUAL II Magnum herbicide contain the safener benoxacor which has been shown to enhance S- Metolachlor metabolism in corn. This enhanced metabolism can reduce the potential of S- Metolachlor injury to corn seedlings when grown under unfavorable weather conditions such as cool temperature or water stress. However, a safener is not the silver bullet, and slow plant growth may still have trouble metabolizing the herbicide even with a safener…but it does help the severity of damage/symptoms.
Will The Plants Recover?
Plants that have leafed out underground or show corkscrewed mesocotyl symptoms are likely to not recover or even emerge from below the soil. Larger plants that are already emerged that show tightly rolled leaves and are buggy whipped will most likely recover once the field sees drier conditions and we have warm weather and sun light to assist in better plant growth.
More Information Discussing Corn Injury From Pre-emerge Herbicides Here:
Cody Daft
Pioneer Hi-Bred
cody.daft@pioneer.com
Time to re-post an old post. Sorghum injuries from Pre-Emerge Herbicides
Based on a few recent text messages and emails I think it is time to revisit an older post about Corn and Sorghum injuries from pre-plant herbicides.
Direct link to the original post Recent Weather Causing Corn (and Sorghum) Injury From Pre-emerge Herbicides
Sorghum with likely atrazine injury. Image courtesy Jana Slaughter
The Sufficiency versus Replacement tipping point.
Being educated in the realm of Soil Fertility at Oklahoma State University by the likes of Dr Gordon Johnson and Dr. Bill Raun, Brays Nutrient Mobility Concept and Mitscherlich’s Percent Sufficiency Concept are ingrained in my psyche. In class the concept of Build and Maintain for phosphorus fertilizer management was just briefly visited and not discussed as a viable option. For anyone in the corn belt, and some Okies, reading this that may seem unusual. But when I was in school on average in Oklahoma there was about 100-200 K acres of 100 120 bpa (bushel per acre) corn, 300-400 K acres of 40-50 bpa sorghum, and over 5 million acres of 20-30 bpa wheat. In a state with those average yields, replacing P removed by the crop was not a major concern.
But times are changing. There is more corn and soybean planted and the achievable yields of all crop are increasing. While the average winter wheat producer should not be worried about replacement rates of P there is a growing group of producers that should. This blog will discuss the scenarios in which sufficiency rates are best and those in which replacement should be considered. The OSU factsheet PSS-2266 goes in-depth on each of these methods.
Applying P based on sufficiency will increase soil test P levels in a low yielding environment. For example on a 20 bpa wheat field that starts out with a soil test P level of 0. Using the sufficiency recommendation each year the soil test value will reach 20 ppm (40 STP) in 20 years. A 30 bpa field would take 30 years. Yes that is a long time but the soil test value is increasing a little each year. The point of 20 ppm is important because at that level the crop is 95% sufficient, meaning if no P is added the crop will only reach 95% of the fields yield potential.
Using a mass balance approach we can determine at what point does the crop remove more than we can supply with in or near furrow starter fertilizer. Table 1 shows the values I am using for the discussion. The first column is just the average amount of P removed per bushel of grain, most of our grains fall in the .4 to .5 lbs P per bushel range. The second column is the soil test value at which P level is said to be at 90% sufficient. The reason this column is included is that the P2O5 reccomendation for this P level fits into the starter rate for all crops. The low high starter rates are the typical range of P2O5 that is delivered within the safe range (N based) and what I see as the common rates. These values may be above or below what you use.
Table 1. Values used to create Table 2. Phosphorus per bushel of grain. Mehlich 3 soil test value (ppm) at which crop is determined to be 90% sufficient, typical range of P2O5 applied with starter fertilizers, recommended P2O5 rate when soil test P is at 90% sufficiency.
Table 2 is pretty simple but it is the center point of this article. The one caveat I need to add is this assumes strip till or 2*2 / 3*2 is not being used. Table 2 is using the starter range and removal value to determine the yield level the starter can support. The first take on this table may provide some hint on why in a state with 5 million acres of wheat averaging 36 BPA the state soil fertility specialist didn’t focus on replacement rates. In fact for most for most the the wheat ground P application is higher than removal and P levels are slowly increasing. The big take home from this table should be is my yield level outside this window? If so do not immediately go out in crease your P rates but do take a close look at your system as a whole. Take a close look at your cropping system, not just one seasons but look at a three or four year cycle. Add up P applied and P removed, are you positive or negative net balance? If you are negative take a long hard look at your soil test over time. Some soils can supply a large amount of P even if you are removing more than you apply. Other soils will be rapidly drawn down. Regualr soil testing allows for producers to keep an eye on these values.
Table 2. Yield level (bushels per acre) at which P removal is equal to P added in starter fertilizer application.
In the end even if the production warrants the use of replacement rates, the current market may not. For more on that read https://osunpk.com/2016/08/27/now-may-not-be-the-time-for-replacement/.
Speaking of market currently both soybeans and cotton are getting a lot of attention due to how the economics is penciling out. Soybean is a “heavy” P crop pulls .8 lbs per bpa while cotton removes 13 lbs per bales. Both of these crops are salt sensitive and the rate of inforrow is typically quite low providing only about 6 lbs when on 30″ rows. If you are growing beans or cotton make sure you account for their removal when you talley up your system.
Below is a table that I wanted to add, well because I like it. This table illustrates that buildup, and drawdown, rate is heavily impacted by existing soil test value. In short it takes a lot more fertilizer P to raise soil test p levels in a very low P testing field than it does when soil test P is closer to optimum, 19 lbs per 1 lb at STP of 10 and 5 lbs per lb when STP is 65. The exact rate changes by soil type and the same holds true to drawn down via crop removal.
Amount of P2O5 above crop removal needed to increase soil test phosphorous based upon initial soil test results.
Adapted From http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/Soil_test_P_and_K_buildup_and_drawdown.htm “Drawdown of Soil Test Phosphorus and Potassium Levels by Alfalfa, K.L. Wells & J.E. Dollarhide, Univ. of Kentucky, Soil Science News & Views, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2000”
Any questions or comments? Feel free to contact me at b.arnall@okstate.edu
Sugarcane Aphids Numbers are Building in Oklahoma.
Guest Blog:
Jessica Pavlu, Graduate Research Assistant,
Tom A. Royer, Oklahoa State University Extension Entomologist
Co-Editors: Eric Rebek and Justin Talley; Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service
On July 12, 2016, we found sugarcane aphids in a sorghum field in Caddo county that had exceeded treatment thresholds. Jerry Goodson, Extension Assistant in Altus, reported finding a sparse colony of sugarcane aphids in Tillman county last week. Most of the sugarcane aphid infestations that we have observed so far are located south of Interstate 40. We will continue to provide weekly reports of sugarcane activity throughout the rest of the summer growing season.
Oklahoma’s “Sugarcane Aphid Team” (which also includes Dr. Ali Zarrabi, Mr. Kelly Seuhs, Dr. Kristopher Giles from the Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, USDA researchers Dr. Norm Elliott and Dr. Scott Armstrong, and Dr. Josh Loftin and Dr. Tracy Beedy from the Department of Plant and Soil Sciences), is conducting research to identify effective insecticides, resistant sorghum varieties, best cultural practices to avoid sugarcane aphid, and develop improved sampling and decision-making rules for treatment thresholds.
When scouting, make sure you are finding sugarcane aphid, as it can be confused with yellow sugarcane aphid. The sugarcane aphid (Fig.1) is light yellow, with dark, paired “tailpipes” called cornicles and dark “feet” called tarsi. The yellow sugarcane aphid (Fig. 2) is bright yellow with many hairs on its body and no extended cornicles.
Figure 1. Sugarcane aphid
Figure 2. Yellow sugarcane aphid
Currently the suggested treatment threshold for sugarcane aphid is to treat when 20-30 percent of the plants are infested with one or more established colonies of sugarcane aphids. An established colony is an adult (winged or wingless) accompanied by one or more nymphs (Fig 3).
Figure 3. Sugarcane aphid colony
Two insecticides, Sivanto 200 SL, and Transform WD, provide superior control of sugarcane aphid. Sivanto can be applied at 4-7 fluid ounces per acre. Transform WG can be applied at 0.75-1.5 oz. per acre. It is important to achieve complete coverage of the crop in order to obtain the most effective control. Consult CR-7170, Management of Insect and Mite Pests in Sorghum http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/HomePage for additional information on sorghum insect pest management.
Sorghum “Whorlworm” and “Headworm” Decisions
Tom A. Royer, Extension Entomologist
This week, I received several reports of “worms” feeding in the whorls of sorghum (Fig 4) which I identified as fall armyworms. I rarely recommend that a producer treat for fall armyworms infesting whorl stage sorghum. Why? because available research suggests that under rain-fed production, whorl feeding rarely caused enough yield loss to warrant treatment costs, AND more importantly, most insecticide applications provide poor control. The poor control is a result of difficult delivery of the insecticide into the whorl allowing the caterpillars to avoid contact. However, recent unpublished research shows that some new insecticides may provide effective control of fall armyworm in the whorl, so it is time to revisit my recommendations.
Figure 4. “Whorlworm” damage
Recent unpublished research results conducted in irrigated sorghum out of Lubbock suggest that Prevathon®, Besiege®, and Belt® can provide acceptable control of the caterpillars in the whorl (even large caterpillars). Therefore, the second of the two reasons I listed above may no longer be true; they can be controlled. However, 1: these products were tested on irrigated sorghum 2: they are quite expensive 3: some products may flare sugarcane aphids and spidermites and 4: WE STILL DON’T KNOW HOW THEY IMPACT YIELD, thus, we are still “guessing” with regard to return on investment for control.
How has this information changed my recommendations? Keep in mind that the research in Texas was conducted in irrigated sorghum with a very high yield potential. Since Oklahoma growers typically grow rain-fed sorghum which has lower yield potential, my suggestion is to examine 30 plants (5 consecutive plants in 6 different locations) and split a few stalks to see where the panicle is located. If the panicles are close to emerging (boot stage), my “best guess” is to consider treating if 70% or more of the whorls are infested and there are an average of 1-2 live caterpillars present. Under this scenario, you would be protecting physical damage to the emerging head.
On choosing an insecticide I offer some things to consider. 1: the effective products may or may not be available. 2: some have the potential to flare sugarcane aphids and spidermites. 3: they are all expensive. Belt is still available for use, but EPA recently requested that Bayer voluntarily remove it from the market. Bayer refused, and asked for an administrative hearing. On June 1, an administrative law judge upheld EPA’s decision to cancel registration of Belt. Bayer is appealing and is scheduled to receive another review from the Environmental Appeals Board before July 6. If EPA prevails in the appeal process, Belt will no longer be available. However, Bayer says that Belt can still be sold, purchased and used during the appeals process.
I have little information on how Belt affects sugarcane aphids or spidermites. Besiege is a mixture of the active ingredient in Prevathon with an added pyrethroid. Research in Lubbock suggests that spidermites may flare with Besiege. We also know that any pyrethroid will flare sugarcane aphid. Prevathon has not shown the propensity to flare either spidermites or sugarcane aphids.
We are attempting to obtain data on the effectiveness of, and yield returns obtained from Prevathon to control fall armyworm in the whorl. Until I have more data, I can only say that a producer should carefully consider a decision to control “whorlworms”. The jury is still out as to whether controlling them is economically justified.
With regard to headworms, we have well-designed decision making capability coupled with solid treatment thresholds. USDA and University scientists developed a computer-based program that can calculate an economic threshold for headworms (Fig.5) and provide a simple sampling plan that tells the producer if threshold is reached (Fig.6).
Figure 5. Sorghum headworm
Figure 6. Bucket sampling for headworm
Called the Headworm Sequential Sampling and Decision Support System (http://entoplp.okstate.edu/shwweb/index.htm), it uses input on the plant population, the crop’s worth and the control costs to calculate a treatment threshold.
Now, prepare for the tricky part! If we only had to consider one pest, I would advise selecting the insecticide that works best on that pest. However, we now have to consider sugarcane aphid in all of our sorghum pest management decisions. In my opinion, if sugarcane aphid is already starting, a producer must consider using either Transform or Sivanto. That narrows the choice options for combining another product to control headworms because pyrethroids could flare the aphids.
I have reviewed data from multiple years of insecticide trials throughout the SE US. The data suggests that products containing chlorpyrifos provide spotty control of headworms. Data that I have reviewed from other insecticide trials suggests that Prevathon and Blackhawk provide excellent control of headworms and Diamond® was also effective on headworms. For information on spray mix compatibility, talk to the local sales representatives for the products you have chosen.
Consult CR-7170, Management of Insect and Mite Pests in Sorghum http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/HomePage for more information.
Down and Dirty with NPK 