2015-16 Wheat Crop Nitrogen Review
From trials to phone calls (and text messages, and tweets, and ect. ect) I have gathered a fairly good picture of this years winter wheat nitrogen story. And as normal, nothing was normal. Overall I seen/heard three distinct trends 1) Did not take much to make a lot 2) took a ton to make a lot 3) saw a response (N-rich strip or cow-pow) but fertilizer never kicked in. Covers most of the options, doesn’t it.
The N-rich strips really came out over all very good this year. N-Rich Strip Blog. On average many of those using the N-Rich Strip and SBNRC (SBNRC Blog) producers have been getting in the neighborhood of 1.0-1.3 lbs of N applied per bushel produced. This year the numbers ran from 0.66 to 2.3 lbs of N per bushel. In both extremes I believe it can be explained via the field history and the N-Cycle.
Nitrogen Cycle Pete’s Sheet
In at least two fields, documented with calibrated yield monitors, the N-Rich Strip and SBNRC lead to massive yields on limited N. One quarter of IBA bumped 86 bpa average on 47 lbs of N while a second quarter, also IBA, managed 94 bpa average on about 52 units of N. We are currently running grain samples from these fields to look protein levels.
The other side of the boat were those with N-Rich strip calling for +2.0 lbs N per bushel. I had received notes from producers without N-rich strips saying that they could predict yield based on the amount of N applied and it was a 2 to 1 ratio. Not always but many of these high N demand fields where wheat following a summer or double crop or corn or sorghum. While many of the low N demand fields were wheat after wheat or wheat after canola. In a rotational study that had been first implemented in the 2014-15 crop year I saw big differences due to previous crop. The picture below was taken in early March. The straw residue in wheat after wheat had just sucked up the nitrogen. While it was evident the residue from the canola broke down at a much more rapid pace releasing any and all residual nutrients early.
The yield differences were striking. The canola rotation benefited the un-fertilized plots by 22 bpa and even with 90 lbs of N applied having canola in the rotation increased yields by 12 bpa. We are looking and grain quality and residual soil sample now. I am sure there will be a more indepth blog to follow.
Canola Wheat Rotation study year two yield average. yields average across previous years N-rates.
Another BIG story from the 2015-16 wheat crop was the lack of benefit from any N applied pre-plant. It really took top-dress N this year to make a crop. Due to our wet early fall and prolong cold winter N applied pre was either lost or tied up late. Work by Dr. Ruans Soil Fertility Program really documented the lack luster pre-plant N effect. The figure below shows 4 location of a rate by timing student. The number at the bottom of each graph is a rate by time (30/0 means 30 lbs Pre-0 lbs Top, 60/30 means 60 lbs Pre-30 lbs Top). At every single location 0/60 beat 60/0. Top-dress N was better than Pre-plant N.
Figure 1. Work from Ethan Driver and Dr. Bill Raun. Study looked at rate and timing of N fertilization in wheat. Treatments are ordered by total N applied.
The last observation was lack of response from applied N even though the crop was deficient. Seen this in both the NE and NW corners. I would hazard with most of the circumstance it was due to a tie up of applied N by the previous crops residue. The length at which the winter stretched into spring residue break down was also delayed.
Take Home
Here it is folks APPLY NITROGEN RICH STRIPS. Just do it, 18 years of research preformed in Oklahoma on winter wheat says it works. Hold off on heavy pre-plant N even if anhydrous is cheap. It does matter how cheap it is if it doesn’t make it to the crop. Will we see another year like 2015-16, do not know and not willing to place money on either side. What we do know is in Oklahoma split applying nitrogen allows you to take weather into account and the N-Rich strip pays dividends.
There are several fact sheets available on top-dressing N and the application of N-Rich strips. Contact your local Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service county educator to get a copy and see if they have a GreenSeeker sensor on hand.
DAP vs MAP, Source may matter!
Historically the two primary sources of phosphorus have had different homes in Oklahoma. In general terms MAP (11-52-0) sales was focused in Panhandle and south west, while DAP (18-46-0) dominated the central plains. Now I see the availability of MAP is increasing in central Oklahoma. For many this is great, with MAP more P can be applied with less material. which can over all reduce the cost per acre. There is a significant amount of good research that documents that source of phosphorus seldom matters. However this said, there is a fairly large subset of the area that needs to watch what they buy and where they apply it.
If you are operating under optimum soil conditions the research shows time and time again source does not matter especially for a starter. In a recent study just completed by OSU multiple sources (dry, liquid, ortho, poly ect ect) of P were evaluated. Regardless of source there was no significant difference in yield. With the exception of the low pH site. The reason DAP was so predominate in central Ok, soil acidity. See an older blog on Banding P in acidic soils.
Figure 1. The cover of an extension brochure distributed in Oklahoma during the 1980s.
When DAP is applied, the soil solution pH surrounding the granule will be alkaline with a pH of 7.8-8.2. This is a two fold win on soil acidity aka aluminum (Al) toxicity. The increase in pH around the prill reduces Al content and extends the life of P, and as the pH comes back down the P ties up Al and allows the plant to keep going. However, the initial pH around the MAP granule ranges from an acid pH of 3.5-4.2. There is short term pH change in the opposite direction of DAP, however the the Al right around the prill becomes more available and in theory ties up P even faster.
Below is a table showing the yield, relative to untreated check, of in-furrow DAP and MAP treatments in winter wheat. The N401 location had a ph 6.1 while Perk (green) has a pH of 4.8. At Perkins in the low pH, both forms of P significantly increased yeild, almost 20 bushel on the average. DAP however was 5 bushel per acre better than MAP. At the N40 site the yield difference between the two sources was 1 bushel.
Relative yield winter wheat grain yield MAP and DAP both applied at equal rates of P (32 lbs P2O5 ac) when compared to a untreated check.
In general it can be said that in acid soils DAP will out preform MAP while in calcareous high pH soils MAP can out preform DAP. So regarding the earlier statement about the traditional sales area of MAP or DAP if you look at the soil pH of samples went into the Oklahoma State University Soil, Water, and Forage Analytical lab the distribution makes since.
Average soil pH of samples sent into OSU soil water forage analytical lab by county.
In the end game price point and accessibility drives the system. In soils with adequate soil pH levels, from about 5.7 to around 7.0, get the source which is cheapest per lbs of nutrient delivered and easiest to work with. But if you are banding phosphorus in row with your wheat crop because you have soil acidity, DAP should be your primary source.
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.
Wheat Disease Update – 14 May 2016
Wheat Disease Update – 14 May 2016
Bob Hunger, Extension Wheat Pathologist
Department of Entomology & Plant Pathology – 127 Noble Research Center – Oklahoma State University – Stillwater, OK
405-744-9958 (work) – bob.hunger@okstate.edu
This past week in addition to being around Stillwater, I attended field days in Canadian County (just west of Oklahoma City), Kay County (north of Ponca City), Kingfisher County (northwest of Oklahoma City) and Major County (west of Enid). Wheat I examined ranged from milk to medium dough. Some active stripe rust (producing spores) was still present in Major County, but only at low levels. Leaf rust is prevalent around Stillwater, with low levels of leaf rust found in Kay and Major Counties.
Symptoms of barley yellow dwarf (BYD) also were observed at all locations. As previously indicated, I observed only discolored (yellow to reddish-purple) flag leaves and no stunting indicating infection of BYDV by aphids occurred in the spring. One observation of note is that often with BYD the flag leaf will be discolored but leaves below the flag remain green as in the photo below. This is indeed BYD.
Wheat tiller showing flag leaf with BYD symptoms but lower leaf green
The Diagnostic lab also has continued to receive samples testing positive for Wheat streak mosaic virus and/or High plains virus. These samples have been from northern, northwestern and the panhandle regions of Oklahoma. For more information, see Fact Sheet EPP-7328 (Wheat Streak Mosaic, High Plains Disease, and Triticum Mosaic: Three Virus Diseases of Wheat in Oklahoma) at http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-8987/EPP-7328.pdf
Finally, another disease that is making an appearance in Oklahoma this year is take-all. I have not observed take-all in Oklahoma now for many years; in fact, the last time we received a number of samples of take-all was back in the early 2000s. Take-all is favored by moist conditions and a neutral to alkaline soil pH. Abundant moisture starting a year ago and in areas of Oklahoma again this year have likely provided conditions favorable for this disease in a few areas. Take-all will first show as white plants in low-lying, wet areas after a period of hot days. I don’t think this will be a significant disease in Oklahoma this year, but wanted to bring it to your attention.
Darkened crown and roots due to take-all
Reports/excerpts of reports from other states:
Colorado: Dr. Kirk Broders (Plant Pathologist); Colorado State University; Fort Collins, CO; May 11, 2016: “There has been good precipitation around the state this spring which has led to a good wheat crop, but also provides the potential for more foliar diseases than we usually see. Most of the wheat in the southeast has already headed out and there are low levels of stripe rust present, but likely will not impact yield especially where the wheat is further along. Wheat in the rest of the state ranges from booting to heading (Feekes 10 – 10.1). It is at this point that the flag leaf will also become fully emerged, and it will be important to ensure the flag leaf is protected in order to protect yield. I have received reports of stripe rust from multiple locations in eastern Colorado from Prowers County in the southeast and further north in Cheyenne, Kit Carson, Yuma, Washington and Arapahoe counties. Scott Haley mentioned he saw bacterial streak in the northeast part of Colorado and I have also received a couple reports and confirmed one report of Stagonosopora blotch on wheat in Washington County. Both reports were from wheat planted after a previous wheat crop. There were several reports of Stagonospora blotch in the state last year likely due to the significant amount of precipitation. This fungus is capable of surviving on wheat stubble and then infecting the successive crop given ample rainfall. Both Stagonospora blotch and stripe rust remain sporadically distributed and at low levels in most regions in the state, but with more predicted rain in the forecast growers may want to consider applying a fungicide once the flag leaf is fully emerged in order to ensure it is protected and the head is able to yield to potential. Certainly, they should take into consideration whether there is any foliar disease currently in the field or in their region, the potential yield of the crop and the cost of the fungicide to be applied, as well as the probability of cool, rainy weather in the forecast.”
Wisconsin: Dr. Damon Smith (Ast Prof – Field Crops Pathology); University of Wisconsin-Madison; May 11, 2016: “It was only a matter of time…. Today we confirmed the first observations of stripe rust in Wisconsin for 2016. Brian Mueller, Graduate Research Assistant in the Field Crops Pathology Lab at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found active stripe rust pustules in winter wheat in both southern and south central Wisconsin. In southern Wisconsin stripe rust was found in the Wisconsin Winter Wheat variety trial located in Sharon, Wisconsin. Stripe rust was at low incidence and severity on emerging flag leaves with some lesions manifesting as chlorotic flecks and not yet active. We speculate that the epidemic initiated recently. With the humid and rainy weather over the past several days, conditions have been ripe for symptom development. The second stripe rust confirmation was at the Arlington Agricultural Research Station in an integrated management trial for stripe rust. Again, incidence and severity were low on emerging leaves, therefore, we speculate that the epidemic has recently initiated. We have been actively looking for stripe rust as there have been numerous reports of epidemics in winter wheat in states to our south and west. Given the recent weather patterns we will likely see more stripe rust show up in the state. I suspect we will start to see fungicide sprayers active in wheat fields in the state given the fact that the epidemic onset is coinciding with the emergence of flag leaves. We will continue to monitor the situation carefully.”
Planting considerations after hayed or failed wheat crop
This article is written by Dr. Josh Lofton
Oklahoma State University Cropping Systems Extension Specialist
Determining wheat yield loss:
The question on to how to manage wheat production that has suffered high potential yield loss can be quite challenging. High disease pressure and periods of dry conditions have been the main focus of this season’s wheat crop, but the recent storms have added to these issues with fields having >50% lodged wheat. While this may be a great concern when viewing this crop initially, a lodged or damaged wheat crop may still have decent yield potential. It is important to remember that, 50% lodging does not necessarily represent 50% yield loss. Many times the wheat crop will stand back up days or weeks after a lodging event. Overall, for a questionable stand of wheat, the best course of action might be to keep the stand and get the most yield possible from the crop. If you are considering planting a crop after failed or abandoned wheat, there are some important considerations before making the jump.
Insurance potential for a replacement crop
This will be the biggest catch for terminating a current wheat crop for a replacement summer crop. In many scenarios, once the wheat crop has begun to head this will be considered a double crop situation. In this instance many companies will not allow insurance to cover the following crop. Even if insurance is available for this double-crop scenario, at least three year yield potential numbers are frequently the minimum needed to receive this support. The best first steps for a grower to take when evaluating their fields planting of a replacement crop after a termination or hay is to check on their individual coverage and talk to their representatives before any action is taken.
Things to consider before moving into a summer crop:
Herbicide restrictions:
One of the most important considerations for determining if and what potential crop could be planted following a non-harvested wheat crop is the chemistries used during the year. Table 1 gives rotational restrictions on some commonly used winter wheat herbicides. While this provides a summary or shortened list of herbicides and their rotational restrictions, producers should check individual labels if other herbicides were used. It should also be mentioned that minor plant injury could occur past the stated months following application given differences in soil conditions such as pH, soil moisture, and soil temperature.
Wheat herbicides rotation restrictions
Heavy wheat residue:
One thing that needs to be decided is how the grower will manage the heavy wheat residue associated with the failed crop. Certain situations exist that may result in limited to no residue (i.e. haying or heavy disease pressure); however, most producers will be faced with high residue load which may potentially be heavily matted and may pose challenges for producers to plant through. In these situations, producers may need to resort to tillage. The amount and intensity of tillage will greatly depend on the amount of residue left in field. In high residue situations, producers may need to run one or several primary tillage practices followed by a secondary or finishing tillage event. However, in lower residue conditions or if the producer has access to no-till equipment, no tillage may be needed to achieve a successful stand.
Overall cropping system:
When deciding to terminate an existing wheat crop and/or to plant a successive crop, decisions need to be evaluated at a systems level. Growers need to ask themselves whether this makes sense within their system and if it fits into their long-term system goals. If the original intent for the system was to double-crop following wheat harvest, it needs to be determined if the remaining economic benefit without the yield from the wheat crop. This may be at least partially alleviated if any profit can be made from the wheat crop (i.e. hayed) but needs to be evaluated on a specific field basis. The next question will be what the successive crop would have originally been? If a summer crop is planted, some systems will need a winter fallow as to not overstress the system, harvest the summer crop prematurely, or plant the successive winter crop past the appropriate timeframe. In this case it needs to be determined if that is suitable for the long-term system goals. Many of these scenarios exist and each could be beneficial or not within individual systems; however, growers need to evaluate these individually and determine what works best for their current situation and their long-term production goals.
Overall, the decision to move to a replacement crop can be very challenging. It cannot be stressed enough that in most situations maintaining the existing crop is likely the best option for most producers.
Josh Lofton
Assistant Professor
Cropping Systems Extension Specialist
376 Agricultural Hall
405-744-3389
josh.lofton@okstate.edu
Learning from Strip Trials.
This article is written by Dr. George Rehm, University Minnesota, Soil Fertility Specialist (retired).
See more of Dr. Rehm’s blogs at agwaterexchange.com.
Use of strip trials as a learning as a way to learn is becoming more popular across the Corn Belt. This is to be expected. Crop producers have a thirst for information. With GPS technology and yield monitors, and the use of common sense, it’s not difficult to establish strip trials for the purpose of evaluating a concept or compare one or more products or rates of a product. There are, however, some important considerations for the conduct of a strip trial. These begin with planning before planting and continue with appropriate interpretation of the data following harvest. These considerations are summarized in the paragraphs that follow.
IN THE PLANNING PROCESS, SIMPLICITY RULES — Speaking from years of experience, when planning, it’s very easy to bite off more than you can chew. What looks easy or simple on paper can be a logistical problem when you go to the field. So, make comparisons simple. If comparing rates of nitrogen fertilizer for corn, for example use no more than three rates. It’s nice to have a control (the variable of interest is not used). The treatments to be compared must be repeated in the field at, least three times. If comparing rates of nitrogen fertilizer for corn, for example, use no more than three rates. It’s nice to have a control (the variable of interest is not used). The treatments to be compared must be repeated at least three times. The replication must be in the same field. It is almost a waste of time if fields are used as replications. If a control is used, it should also be replicated three times.
SITE UNIFORMITY — The day of selection of the site for a strip trial is probably the most day for the entire project. Soil uniformity is a must. There is no easy and simple procedure that can be used to correct for lack of soil uniformity at the site. There are several tools that can be used to select for soil uniformity. The Soil Survey should not be ignored. Soil test information based on either grid or zone sampling can also be very valuable. Time spent in selecting a uniform site is time well spent.
PRODUCTION PRACTICES — Once a specific comparison has been selected it’s very important to keep other production practices constant. For example, information from a strip trial designed to compare nitrogen rates has little value if varieties are changed in the trial area. Except for the factor of interest, keep all other production practices constant across the strip trial area. Two production practices that change across the strip trial cannot be changed at the same time. Careful planning for this type of project takes time and thought.
DATA COLLECTION — Unless there are special reasons to do otherwise, samples collected from treatments at any strip trial site should be collected at the same time. This practice reduces variability in the data. Considering yields, use of combine yield monitors or weigh wagons is certainly appropriate. Although this may be obvious to most, it is essential to record yields from each strip separately.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS — There’s a reason for repeating (replicating) each treatment at least three times. The project is not complete until the data collected have been analyzed with a mathematical procedure called “statistical analysis”. I think that we all realize that there is variability across any field. With all factors being equal, we could combine four strips across any field and the yields would not be the same. So, when we see differences in yield, the obvious question is: “Is the difference in the yield the result of a real difference caused by the factor being considered or variability across the field?” Statistical analysis is the tool needed to answer this question. There is no other way to answer this question.
Let’s look at an example illustrating the importance of statistical analysis. Using strip trials in different counties, two rates of nitrogen were compared. There were three strips of each rate. For a field in Kandiyohi County with corn following a soybean crop, yields from the lower nitrogen rate (149 lb. soil + fertilizer N/acre) were 123, 157, and 170 bu./acre for the three strip receiving this rate. These three yields average to 150 bu./acre. For the higher nitrogen rate (199 lb. soil + fertilizer nitrogen), the three yields were 157, 176, and 166 bu./acre. This averages 171 bu./acre. Using these arithmetic averages, the initial conclusion is that the higher nitrogen rate was better than the lower nitrogen rate It would certainly appear that 171 bu./acre is better than 150 bu./acre. If statistical analysis is used, however, the difference in yield is not statistically significant. Why? This conclusion is the consequence of substantial variability among three replications. In other words, the arithmetic difference is due to variability in yield across the field rather than the factor being compared.
For the same project, a strip trial was used on a field in Carver County. The corn/soybean rotation was used. The low nitrogen rate was 102 lb./acre and the higher nitrogen rate was 151 lb./acre. Yields from the three strips with the low nitrogen were 181, 196, and 195 bu./acre with an average of 191 bu./acre. For the high nitrogen rate, yields from the three strips were 208, 210, and 207 bu./acre with an average of 208 bu./acre. Statistical analysis of this yield data showed that the difference between 191 bu./acre and 208 bu./acre was not due to variability in the field. It was, in fact, the result of the rate of nitrogen applied. Notice that variability among the three replications for each nitrogen rate was small. Thus, we can say with confidence that there was a REAL difference in yield caused by the rate of applied nitrogen.
Nearly everyone involved with strip trials wants to present an economic analysis of the yield data. This is logical. HOWEVWE, an economic interpretation is only valid if differences between or among treatments is STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. Otherwise, we make a serious MISTAKE that could have serious economic consequences. For the Kandiyohi County field, the difference in yield could have been caused by treatment applied or natural variation in the field. We have no way of knowing the real cause. For the trial in Carver County, we are sure that the difference in yield was due to the rate of nitrogen applied. Use of statistical analysis allows us to reach this conclusion. Now economic interpretation can be applied to the results.
SUMMING UP — Use of strip trials is a good way to make comparisons between or among factors that affect crop production. In addition, these comparisons can be conducted in growers’ fields. However, it’s not an easy task to do an accurate job. Good planning is needed at the beginning and STATISTICAL ANALYSIS is essential at the end. There are too many comparisons where statistical analysis is ignored and only arithmetic averages are used. Without statistical analysis, there can be any number of interpretations of the data. Statistical analysis eliminates the potential for confusion.
Dr. George Rehm,
University of Minnesota
Nutrient Management Specialist (retired)
rehmx001@umn.edu
Check Canola for Aphids
Tom A. Royer, Extension Entomologist
I have received scattered reports of cabbage aphids infesting canola racemes and low levels of green peach aphids feeding on canola leaves. Cabbage aphids are small, 2.0-2.5 mm (1/12 inches) blue-gray aphids with short cornicles. They are usually covered with a powdery wax coating. They are often found clustering on the developing panicle (Figure 1). They can cause plant stunting, distortion of growth, and flower abortion.
Cabbage Aphids
Green peach aphids are pale green to yellow (and sometimes pink) with long cornicles and antennae and measure 1/8 inch. They are found in winter and spring on leaves (Figure 2). Their feeding can cause stunting and defoliation. They can also transmit plant disease-causing viruses such as cauliflower mosaic and turnip mosaic viruses.
Green Peach Aphids
Scout for aphids by looking on the underside of the leaves, and racemes. For cabbage aphids, research conducted in Australia suggests that an insecticide application is justified if 20% of the racemes are infested with cabbage aphids.
For green peach aphids, research conducted by Dr. Kris Giles at OSU found that and average of one green peach aphid per plant can reduce seed yield by about 0.5 lb per acre. Thus, if the cost of an application is $10 per acre, and canola is bringing $0.2 per pound (quote from ADM Farmer Services 04/08/2016 www.adm.com), an infestation of 100 aphids per plant would cause yield loss of $10.00 (50 lb, x $0.2/pound) which is equal to the cost of the application. This is known as the ECONOMIC INJURY LEVEL (EIL). We typically set the ECONOMIC THRESHOLD (ET) below the EIL, in this case at 80% of the EIL (80 aphids per plant) to give time to schedule an application before the EIL is reached. Below is a set of suggested ECONOMIC THRESHOLDS, based on the cost of the application.
Application Cost Economic Injury Level Economic Threshold (Application cost/
0.5 lb/aphid x $0.2/lb (0.8 x EIL)
$8.00/acre 80 aphids/plant 64 aphids/plant\
$10.00/acre 100 aphids/plant 80 aphids/plant
$12.00/acre 120 aphids/plant 98 aphids/plant
$14.00/acre 140 aphids/plant 112 aphids/plant
Current recommendations for control of aphids in canola are listed in CR-7667, Management of Insect and Mite Pests in Canola which can be obtained online at http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-3045/CR-7667web2009.pdf.
Transform® insecticide is no longer registered for use in canola as of November 11, 2015. Only existing stocks that have already been purchased and delivered to the grower before the cancellation can be applied according to the label.
Remember, green peach aphids have a history of developing resistance to pyrethroids, which are the primary registered insecticides for use in canola. Thorough coverage of an insecticide application is necessary to obtain optimal control.
If you notice natural enemy activity, especially lady beetles, and want to preserve their activity, keep several things in mind. Our research shows that Beleaf® insecticide is particularly benign to natural enemies because of its slow acting efficacy on aphids, which allows aphid-feeding beneficials to continue to eat them with little to no consequence on their biology. That being said, cabbage aphid may contain toxins that they acquire through their feeding which make them less palatable to some predators, and reduces their effectiveness as natural controls.
With all pesticides, review label restrictions for applications during bloom, as honeybees can be killed if exposed to several of the registered products. One registered product, Beleaf® (FMC Corporation) does not have any restrictions for application during bloom.
Wrong Then Wrong Now
This article is written by Dr. George Rehm, University Minnesota, Soil Fertility Specialist (retired).
See more of Dr. Rehm’s blogs at www.agwaterexchange.com
Various products and/or concepts that pertain to crop production seem to cycle with time. I’m never surprised. There are foo-foo juice products that have disappeared only to appear sometime later under a different name. Likewise, there are concepts that have been proven by research to be bogus. Yet, they don’t die. There appear again. It seems that there are always some who attempt to make money from farmers by selling revived foo-foo juice products or bogus concepts. To paraphrase a line from a once-popular song: “everything old is new again”.
Recently, there has been a revived promotion of CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC) and CATION RATIOS. The CATION RATIO concept has sometimes been referred to as “BALANCED SOIL FERTILITY”. So, some review of what we know about CEC and balanced cations is probably appropriate at this time.
The concept of CEC and it’s relationship to crop production was first researched in New Jersey in the mid-1940’s. At that time, researchers measured the CEC of soils as well as the exchangeable cations (Ca++, Mg++, K+). The CEC is a nearly constant property of soils that is directly related to soil texture. Sandy soils have relatively low CEC values. BY contrast, fine textured soils have high CEC values. The exchangeable cation values (Ca++, Mg++, K+) vary with other soil properties — mainly soil pH.
In the New Jersey soils, the researchers measured the exchangeable cations in a “productive soil” and a “non-productive” soil. They calculated the ratios of one cation to another. For example, the ratio of Ca++ to Mg++ was 6.5 to 1. Alfalfa was the test crop. So, it was thought that a “productive” soil should have a Ca to Mg ratio of this value. These researchers neglected one important piece of information. This was that lime had been used on the “productive” soil but not on the “non-productive” soil and the sandy soil had an acid pH. The lime supplied Ca++. Do you suspect that productivity of the alfalfa crop was a consequence of the use of lime rather the magic ratios? In the years that followed, numerous research projects were conducted through the Midwest for the purpose of investigating the effect of cation ratios on crop production.
There were the comparisons of fertilizer recommendations provided by various Soil Testing Laboratories. Some followed the cation ratio concept. Others Used the sufficiency approach based on the response of crops to measured levels of available nutrients by standardized, routine analytical procedures. Although costs of fertilizer recommended by these approaches varied considerably each year for extended periods of time (14 years in Nebraska), crop yield was not affected. Fertilizer recommendations based on the cation ratio concept were much higher than those that were based on the sufficiency approach.
The results of the Midwest research led to the conclusion that the ratio of one cation to another in soils had no effect on crop production. Crop response to fertilizer was the result of the nutrient supply in the soil — not ratios. Nutrient supply is measured by the standard analytical procedures. The crop has no interest in ratios. Given the uniformity of the conclusions of these research projects, it appeared that the “ideal ratio” or “balanced nutrient” concept was dead and had disappeared from our knowledge base that pertained to soil fertility and fertilizer use.
Land Grant universities in the northern and western Corn Belt have published reports that document the bogus nature of the ideal cation ratio concept. Staff at Agvise Laboratories have worked hard and listed the links to these reports on the Laboratory web site. The web address is: agvise.com if anyone is interested in the detailed reports.
The concept of IDEAL CATION RATIOS has been thoroughly research for several crops. There is consistency in the results of this research. This concept is not in any way related to effective and economical fertilizer recommendations. In fact, use of this concept has a high probability of producing less than optimum recommendations for use of potash fertilizers on sandy soils.
The concept of IDEAL CATION RATIOS as a basis for fertilizer recommendations is truly bogus and has no place in agriculture. Please use this ratio concept if you want to waste money on fertilizer purchases in 2015. Those who advocate the use of this concept are not up to date in their understanding of modern principles of soil fertility. They’re still working in the 1940’s. It was WRONG THEN and it’s WRONG NOW.
Dr. George Rehm,
University of Minnesota
Nutrient Management Specialist (retired)
rehmx001@umn.edu
Herbicide and UAN tank mixed for top-dress
Spring is the time that many wheat producers apply herbicide and nitrogen (N) fertilizer. For many this can be accomplished in a single pass by tank mixing the herbicide and UAN. In most cases this is an effective practice which eliminates one pass over the field. There are some scenarios in which this practice is ill advised. One such scenario is high temperatures which would lead to excessive leaf burn and crop damage. The other scenario is no-till and that will be the focus of this article. Ruling out warm temperature tank mixing herbicides and nitrogen, assuming the herbicide can be tank mixed, is a good practice. No-till on the other hand can be a different issue.
Situations with a lot of residue and smaller wheat is common during top-dress.
The problem in no-till comes from the liquid application method needed to apply herbicides, flat flan. To get a good kill with the herbicide the spray pattern needs to have good coverage, i.e a lot of small droplets to ensure maximum surface area impacted. Unfortunately there are four primary fates of UAN when applied via flat fan nozzles. The UAN could be taken directly up into the wheat plant via absorption through the leaves, the UAN could reach the soil and go into the soil solution or absorbed onto the soil itself, the UAN can be taken up by weeds, or the UAN droplet may hit dead plant tissue and be adsorbed into the residue.
UAN applied with a flat fan will hit a growing plant, the soil, or residue.
The fourth fate of UAN presented is what can make the tank mix less efficient than a two pass system. In a no-till system any UAN that hits residue should be counted as lost, for the short term. The decision to go with a one pass or two pass system can be aided by evaluating the amount of canopy coverage. For example if the no-till field has 50% canopy coverage then one could estimate 50% of the UAN applied via a one pass system would be tied up in the residue. The cost of a second application could then be compared to the lost N. If 15 gallon of 28-0-0 was being applied then approximately 22.5 lbs of N would be tied up by the straw. At a price of $0.40 per lb on N, that is $9.00 worth of N. Conversely if the canopy coverage was 80% only 20% or 9 lbs of N would be tied up in the residue. Saving the $3.60 in nitrogen would not justify a second trip over the field. Luckily OSU recently released the Canopeo app which uses a cell phones camera to take pictures and quickly and accurately determine % canopy coverage. Canopeo is available for iOS and android http://canopeoapp.com/.
In fields with a high amount of residue or limited canopy coverage UAN should be applied with streamer nozzles. This will concentration the fertilizer into streams which will allow the UAN to have enough volume to move off the residue and into the soil.
So as the decision is being made to tank mix herbicide and UAN or make two passes take into consideration: % canopy coverage, rate of UAN (how much could be lost), cost of UAN per pound, and cost of a second trip over the field.
Below is an excerpt from the publication Best Management Practices for Nitrogen Fertilizer in Missouri; Peter C. Scharf and John A. Lory. http://plantsci.missouri.edu/nutrientmanagement/nitrogen/practices.htm
Broadcasting UAN solution (28 percent to 32 percent N) is not recommended when residue levels are high because of the potential for the N in the droplets to become tied up on the residue. Dribbling the solution in a surface band will reduce tie-up on residue, and knife or coulter injection will eliminate it. Limited research suggests that the same conclusions probably apply for grass hay or pasture. Broadcast UAN solution is also susceptible to volatile loss of N to the air in the same way as urea, but only half as much will be lost (half of the N in UAN solution is in the urea form).
Canola fertilizer rates when skip row seeding.
When drilling canola a common strategy to improve seeding rate accuracy is to only use every other row which effectively doubles the rate of seed going through each meter. There are also many producers who utilize air seeders and just prefer the wider spacing. Every season I get several questions about determining total fertilizer rates if the seed is dropped every other row but fertilizer is dropped every row. Regardless of whether or not fertilizer goes down every row it is important that the amount of salts placed with seed does not exceed the limit. The table below provide the limits in terms of lbs of salt per acre. If using 18-46-0 (DAP) or 11-52-0 (MAP) this is equivalent to pounds of N per acre. However if the fertilizer you use contains potassium (K) or sulfur (S), those have to be considered. An easy rule of thumb for determining total salt level of a fertilizer is pounds of N + K + 1/2 S.
Maximum amount of salt that can be applied in furrow with canola seed. Application rate should be at or below this value.
In a scenario in which canola is seeded in skip rows but every row will get fertilizer the total amount of fertilizer can be doubled. For example on a 15″ row spacing the max salt rate is 5 lbs per acre. If you were using DAP as your starter that maximum rate to place in furrow would be 28 lbs of DAP per acre. If using a drill set of 7.5″ spacing and putting fertilizer down every row the max rate would increase up to 56 lbs DAP per acre.
Seed, colored blue, is placed in every other row while an equal amount of fertilizer, dark grey circles, is placed in every row.
Some producers may have the capability of applying different rate in every other row. In this scenario it is important to maintain that safe rate in the seed furrow. In the opposite row, fertilizer rate can go as high as you wish or the equipment can handle.
Seed, colored blue, is placed in every other row while fertilizer, dark grey circles, is placed in every row. In this scenario a high rate is placed in the row without seed.
Now the big question is, “Is between row fertilization a good idea?” While we do not have results on this style of application (trials will be going out this year) we can draw upon upon similar work in other crops. For me the best win would be the second scenario in which a higher rate could be place between the rows. In this row I would use a urea and DAP blend. Any time we can put urea below the soil surface its a win and in fields with very soil soil test phosphorus (P) it would create something similar to the deep P bands once popular in corn production. Now if the field had adequate soil test P, I would focus on urea between rows. Keep in mind it is never a good to place urea in furrow with canola seed. For the average producer who is using a box drill the first scenario is the only option. In this case the rate of the between row bands will be reduced however I still believe on fields with very low soil test P this is potentially a great way to get the rest of it on. Remember if on 15″ and using DAP max rate only gets 12.9 lbs of P2O5 down. If fertilizer is dropped down every tube that number increases to about 26 lbs P2O5, which is still not enough for fields with low soil test P, but is better. With hope we will have some good results to share from the 2015-2016 canola crop.
Phosphorus fertilizer recommendations based upon Mehlich 3 P test, reported as STP index (ppm * 2)
Down and Dirty with NPK 