Effects of Introduction of Feed Grains into Mid South Soybean Production Systems Effects of...

28
Effects of Introduction of Feed Grains into Mid South Soybean Production Systems Bobby R. Golden Delta Research and Extension Center 479-409-6191 [email protected] Mississippi-crops.com Twitter: @BobbyRGolden or @DeltaSoil

Transcript of Effects of Introduction of Feed Grains into Mid South Soybean Production Systems Effects of...

Effects of Introduction of Feed Grains into Mid South Soybean Production

Systems

Bobby R. GoldenDelta Research and Extension Center

[email protected]

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

Year 1 Update

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 Production Issues Greater Mid-South

Year 1 Production Issues – Greater Mid-South

Year 1 Production Issues - Texas

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.

It Takes a Team

Questions ?