effects of introduction of feed grains into mid south soybean production systems effects of...
TRANSCRIPT
Effects of Introduction of Feed Grains into Mid South Soybean Production
Systems
Bobby R. GoldenDelta Research and Extension Center
Mississippi-crops.comTwitter: @BobbyRGolden or @DeltaSoil
Participants
• Jeremy Ross – U of A, State Soybean Specialist • Josh Lofton – LSU AgCenter, Agronomist • Gene Stevens – Mizzou Delta Center,
Agronomist• Clark Neely – TAMU, State Wheat Specialist• Ronnie Schnell – TAMU, Cropping Systems Spec.• Trent Irby – MSU, State Soybean Specialist• Larry Falconer – MSU, Extension Economist• Bobby Golden – MSU, Delta Agronomist/Soil
Fertility
Graduate Students
• Melanie Fuhrman – U of A, Masters • Richard Turner – MSU, Masters
• Potential Post Doc, or Associate yet to be filled, will be housed at the DREC at MSU– Have spoken with one potential
candidate– Very difficult to find.
Other Cooperation
• Pioneer Hybrid – Will provide the corn Hybrid (P1637), Soybean (49T97R) and Grain Sorghum (83P17) for the duration of the project.
• Soil analysis conducted by LSU AgCenter
• Nematode Analysis conducted by U of A– Soils currently being processed for first
year
Rational
• The dramatic increase in corn acreage in the Mid-South and the resulting agronomic and economic impact of incorporating corn into Mid-South soybean production systems.
• The unique problems and management issues that may result from a rotational system of soybean and grain crops, and the incorporation of wheat in a double-cropping production scheme.
Why
• Numerous research out of the Midwest suggests that both corn and soybean benefit as a rotation partner.
• Does this hold true in Southern U.S. Climates when cultivation occurs on low organic matter soils
• Overall lack of long term rotational research with Corn in the Mid South.
Breakdown of Treatments – Trial Level
10 F
T10
FT
10 F
T
4 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Dryland Cont.
Sorghum
Corn/Soy MG4/Wht No Res Mgmt
Corn/Soy MG4/Wht Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Sorghum
Dryland Soy
MG4/Sorg 1:1 Res Mgmt
Dryland Soy
MG4/Corn 1:1 Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Soybean
Cont. Corn -
Res Mgmt
Cont Soybean
Soy MG4/Corn
1:1 No Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
2:1 Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
1:2 No Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont. Corn -
Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Corn - No Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
1:2 Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
2:1 No Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
1:1 Res Mgmt
Cont Soybean
Cont Corn - No Res
Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Soybean
Dryland Soy
MG4/Corn 1:1 No
Res Mgmt
Dryland Soy
MG4/Sorg 1:1 Res Mgmt
Cont. Corn - No Res Mgmt
Cont Soybean
Soy MG4/Corn
1:1 Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
2:1 No Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
1:2 Res Mgmt
Cont Corn - Res Mgmt
Cont Soybean
Soy MG4/Corn
1:1 No Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
2:1 Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
1:2 No Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Corn - No Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Soybean
Dryland Soy
MG4/Corn 1:1 No
Res Mgmt
Dryland Soy
MG4/Sorg 1:1 Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Sorghum
Corn/Soy MG4/Wht Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Soybean
Dryland Soy
MG4/Corn 1:1 Res Mgmt
Dryland Soy
MG4/Sorg 1:1 Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Sorghum
Corn/Soy MG4/Wht No Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont. Corn -
Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
1:2 Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Corn - No Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Soybean
Dryland Soy
MG4/Corn 1:1 Res Mgmt
Dryland Soy
MG4/Sorg 1:1 Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Sorghum
Cont Corn - No Res
Mgmt
Cont Soybean
Soy MG4/Corn
1:1 Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
2:1 No Res Mgmt
Cont. Corn -
Res Mgmt
Cont Soybean
Soy MG4/Corn
1:1 No Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
2:1 Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
1:2 No Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont. Corn -
Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Soybean
Dryland Soy
MG4/Corn 1:1 No
Res Mgmt
Dryland Soy
MG4/Sorg 1:1 Res Mgmt
Buffe
r Cro
p
50 F
T50
FT
50 F
T
Alley
Alley
Alley
Dryland Soy
MG4/Corn 1:1 No
Res Mgmt
50 F
T
Dryland Soy
MG4/Sorg 1:1 Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Sorghum
Corn/Wht/MG4 Soy No Res Mgmt
Cont. Corn -
Res Mgmt
Cont Soybean
Soy MG4/Corn
1:1 No Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
2:1 Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
1:2 No Res Mgmt
Corn/Wht/MG4 Soy Res Mgmt
Corn/Wht/MG4 Soy No Res Mgmt
Corn/Wht/MG4 Soy No Res Mgmt
Corn/Wht/MG4 Soy Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont. Corn -
Res Mgmt
Corn/Soy MG4/Wht No Res Mgmt
Corn/Soy MG4/Wht Res Mgmt
Corn/Soy MG4/Wht No Res Mgmt
Corn/Soy MG4/Wht Res Mgmt
Alley
Alley
Alley
Dryland Cont.
Soybean
Dryland Cont.
Sorghum
Corn/Wht/MG4 Soy Res Mgmt
Cont Corn - No Res
Mgmt
Cont Soybean
Soy MG4/Corn
1:1 Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
2:1 No Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
1:2 Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Corn - No Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Soybean
Dryland Soy
MG4/Corn 1:1 Res Mgmt
Dryland Soy
MG4/Sorg 1:1 Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Sorghum
Corn/Wht/MG4 Soy Res Mgmt
Corn/Wht/MG4 Soy No Res Mgmt
Breakdown of Treatments – Replicate Level
10 F
T10
FT
Dryland Cont.
Sorghum
Corn/Soy MG4/Wht No Res Mgmt
Corn/Soy MG4/Wht Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Sorghum
Dryland Soy
MG4/Sorg 1:1 Res Mgmt
Dryland Soy
MG4/Corn 1:1 Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Soybean
Cont. Corn -
Res Mgmt
Cont Soybean
Soy MG4/Corn
1:1 No Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
2:1 Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
1:2 No Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont. Corn -
Res Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Corn - No Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
1:2 Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
2:1 No Res Mgmt
Soy MG4/Corn
1:1 Res Mgmt
Cont Soybean
Cont Corn - No Res
Mgmt
Dryland Cont.
Soybean
Dryland Soy
MG4/Corn 1:1 No
Res Mgmt
Dryland Soy
MG4/Sorg 1:1 Res Mgmt
50 F
T
Alley
Alley
50 F
T
Corn/Wht/MG4 Soy Res Mgmt
Corn/Wht/MG4 Soy No Res Mgmt
Breakdown of Treatments – Experimental Unit
• Residue Management– Harvest and Burn– Harvest, shred and
Hip
• These are the two most common practices of residue management in Mississippi.
Why are we interested in Residue Management?
• How we handle corn stubble may influence our overall soil quality.
• Residue management may have a distinct effect on soil test sulfur.
• Corn residue management may impact soybean yield
Outputs
• Soil Testing– Total N&C, Mehlich-3 Extractable
Nutrients, Soil pH, Nematode analysis
• BMP Approach– Fertilization level based on State
Recommendations.
• Commodity Tracking for Economics– Determine economic optimum rotation
Planting Dates
Crop Planting Date
Mississippi Arkansas Texas Louisiana Missouri
Stoneville BrooksvillePine Tree
NewportCollege Station
St. Joseph Portageville
Corn 03-26 05-13 04-11 05-7 03-7 04-24 05-7
Soybean 04-19 05-13 05-24 05-7 03-27 04-24 05-12
Grain Sorghum 05-1 05-13 05-24 05-7 03-27 04-24 05-12
Year 1 – Mississippi Individual Comments
• Two locations – Brooksville and Stoneville– Because of an overabundance of rainfall,
Dryland and Irrigated treatments showed little difference, especially corn.
– Final soybean harvest Sept 29 (Stoneville). – Burning treatments took place over a 2 wk
period due to rainfall (Stoneville)–Wheat planted on October 23 (Stoneville),
and Nov 6 (Brooksville)
Year 1 – Arkansas Individual Comments
• Pine Tree Location• Soybeans experienced slight deer damage that
caused a slight stunting in a few plots.• Overall yields were good. Wheat was planted on Nov 3
• Newport Location:• Due to persistent wet conditions, all crops at the
Newport location were seeded on May 7. • Because of Equipment constraints and poor weather
surrounding harvest yields were low at Newport.• The Newport field had to be reworked after burning for
to improve drainage
Year 1 – Louisiana Individual Comments
• Due to inclement weather, all crops (soybeans, corn, and grain sorghum) were established on the same day. While not ideal, surprisingly yields were good, especially with the late corn crop.
• Grain Sorghum yields were decreased due to extreme blackbird damage
• Residue Burning treatments were imparted three days after the last harvest. Followed by inline sub soiling and bed reforming
Year 1 – Missouri Individual Comments
• Grain sorghum was damaged by blackbirds, but still yielded well.
• Corn residue was burned on Oct 31 followed by tillage and wheat seeding
• Treatments not directly adjacent to wheat burned on Nov 10 due to windy conditions on Oct 31.
• A great deal of interest in the trial was expressed from producers at the Delta Center field day
Year 1 – Texas Individual Comments
• As of November 30, College Station was exactly on average for rainfall for the year with near normal rainfall for September through November (36.8 cm).
• Soil samples were taken after harvest on August 28.
• Residue shredded on Oct 2, residue burned on Nov 25 and wheat was planted.
Year 1 – Soybean Baseline Yield
Location LatitudeMean Soybean grain yieldIrrigated Rainfed
- - - - - - - - -Bushels/acre- - - - - - - -
-Stoneville 33.4 67 58Portageville 36.4 68 64St. Joseph 32.0 63 66Pine Tree 35.0 72 54Newport 35.3 28 18Brooksville 33.1 51 50
LSD0.5 4.0P-value <0.0001
Soybean yields were greatly influenced by irrigation in 2014, even with all the rainfall. Low yields at Newport location were directly attributed to vast amounts of rainfall and drainage. Texas results were not included due to Dicamba drift contamination
Dicamba Drift at Texas A&M• Did not include
College Station soybean data in overall analysis for 2014
• Average yield 53.3 bu/ac– Yields ranged from
30 to 63 bu/ac
Year 1 – Corn YieldLocation Latitude
Mean corn grain yield
Bushels/acre
Stoneville 33.4 248
Portageville 36.4 239
College Station 30.3 212
St. Joseph 32.0 194
Pine Tree 35.0 167
Newport 35.3 110
Brooksville 33.1 103LSD0.5 9.0
P-value <0.0001
No Statistical response was observed to irrigation for corn in 2014. Low corn yields at Newport and Brooksville were due to vast amounts of rainfall and drainage issues.
Year 1 - Grain Sorghum Yields
Location Latitude
Mean corn grain yield
Bushels/acre
College Station 30.3 137
Portageville 36.4 118
Pine Tree 35.0 91
Brooksville 33.1 65
St. Joseph 32.0 57
Newport 35.3 18
LSD0.5 13.0
P-value <0.0001
No Milo was harvested in 2014 at Stoneville due to severe damage from sugarcane aphid. Low corn yields at Newport were do to abundant rainfall
Summary
• Baseline year for rotations went well at most locations, but a few hiccups.– Brooksville - farm crew disked before burning,
burning was attempted– College Station – Dicamba Drift from farm
crew– Newport – Environmental conditions– Most locations Milo suffered from bird and
sugarcane aphid damage– No response to irrigation for corn was
observed.