Dryland Production on the High Plains February 21, 2019 Cheyenne County Community Center 627 Toledo St., Sidney, NE
Agenda
8:30 Coffee and Donuts
9:00 Welcome and Overview – Cody Creech, Dryland Cropping Systems Specialist
9:10 HPAL 2018 Crop Production – Jake Hansen, HPAL Farm Manager
9:20 Alternative Crops (Proso Millet, Field Pea, and Sunflower), Forage Triticale, and Malting Barley Breeding Update - Dipak Santra, Alternative Crops Breeding Specialist
9:45 Wheat Stem Sawfly: Where Are They Coming From? – Jeff Bradshaw, Entomology
10:10 Annual Forages for Grazing and Haying – Mitch Stephenson, Forage and Range Specialist
10:20 Mineral Consumption and Performance of Grazing Cattle Consuming A Self-Regulated Ionophore – Karla Jenkins, Range Management Cow/Calf Specialist
10:30 Break
10:45 Pre-Emergent Herbicides for Improved Kochia Control in Chemical Fallow – John Spring, CSU Area Extension Agent
11:00 Management Strategies to Improve Winter Wheat Establishment and Yield – Amanda Easterly, Dryland Crops Research Lab Manager
11:20 Dryland Crop Research Update – Cody Creech, Dryland Cropping Systems Specialist
11:40 Nebraska Wheat – Tyson Narjes, Nebraska Wheat Board
12:00 Kansas Dryland Corn Research – Lucas Haag, KSU Northwest Area Agronomist
12:30 Lunch – Sponsored by Scoular
Panhandle District Happenings – Jack Whittier, PREC District Director
1:00 HPAL Advisory Board Meeting
Topics to Include:
Changes in Personnel, Facilities, Equipment, and Production – Jake Hansen What’s Up With Research – Around the Horn with UNL Specialists HPAL Field Days – Cody Creech HPAL Short-term Plan – Cody Creech and Jake Hansen Items From the Floor Table of Contents
Annual Report………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 HPAL Advisory Board……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 HPAL Personnel……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 Professional Staff Who Conducted Research at HPAL in 2018……………………………….. 7 Research Trials Conducted at HPAL in 2018…………………………………………………………… 9 HPAL Crop Production Maps 2018 and 2019 (Planned)…………………………………………. 14 Yield Summary of Crops Produced at HPAL…………………………………………………………… 16 HPAL Weather Data (October 2017 to September 2018)………………………………………. 18 Description of Crop Rotations Followed at HPAL in 2018………………………………………. 19 Proso Millet Breeding and Genetics Research: 2018 update…………………………………. 26 Pea Variety for Nebraska Panhandle: 2018 update………………………………………………. 28 Sunflower hybrids for Nebraska Panhandle: 2018 update……………………………………. 30 Breeding Winter Malting Barley with Superior Winter Survival……………………………. 32 Evaluation of variable seeding rates for oat and pea forage mixtures…………………. 34 Bovatec 2.2 mineral blocks for cattle grazing crested wheatgrass pastures………… 36 Wheat stem sawfly: Where are they coming from?...... 39 Characterization of Dryland Corn Hybrid Response to Seeding Rate…………………… 41 Dryland Forage Sorghum Variety Testing……………………………………………………………. 43 First Year of a Biochar/Nitrogen Experiment………………………………………………………. 45 Soybean Variety Trial………………………………………………………………………………………….. 47 Grain Sorghum Variety Testing…………………………………………………………………………… 49 Evaluating the feasibility of replacing Summer Fallow with Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.) in the semi-arid Central Great Plains…………………………………………………………………….. 50
ANNUAL REPORT 2018
HIGH PLAINS AGRICULTURAL LABORATORY
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA PANHANDLE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION CENTER
LOCATION: Six miles Northwest of Sidney, Nebraska
This report was prepared by the High Plains Staff, and Manager, Jake Hansen
2 HPAL ADVISORY BOARD 2016-2017 Walt Akeson 1815 Duchess Dr., 308-776-6510 [email protected] Longmont, CO 80501
Aaron Berger Kimball Co. Ext. Office 308-235-3122 [email protected] 209 3rd St. Kimball, NE 69145
Deb Brauer Crossroads CO-OP 308-254-4230 [email protected] 800 Greenwood Rd. P.O. Box 153 Sidney, NE 69162
Kent Brauer 520 Charles Dr. 308-254-5755 [email protected] Sidney, NE 69162
Jon Carter 15591 Road 14 308-874-2892 [email protected] Chappell, NE 69129
Don Cruise 2809 Road 111 308-254-7377 [email protected] Sidney, NE 69162
Chris Cullan Cullan Farms 308-487-3905 [email protected] 6733 Franklin Road Hemingford, NE 69348
Karen DeBoer Cheyenne Co. Ext. Office 308-254-4455 [email protected] 920 Jackson St. P.O. Box 356 Sidney, NE 69162
Ken Disney Disney Farms 308-483-5673 [email protected] 14309 Road 10 Lodgepole, NE 69149
Scott Easterly 10344 Road 12 308-254-4052 [email protected] Sidney, NE 69162
Carmen Egging-Draper Farm Credit Services 308-249-4795 carmen.draper@fcsamerica 9562 Rd. 50
3 Dalton, NE 69131
David Hagstrom 3595 Road 24 South 308-235-2701 [email protected] Kimball, NE 69145
Bryce Halstead 708 Webster St. 308-235-2106 [email protected] Kimball, NE 69145
Mark Halstead 6333 Road 18 308-235-7139 [email protected] Dix, NE 69133
Scott Hawthorne 3705 Road 24 South 308-430-0515 [email protected] Kimball, NE 69145
Chris Johnson 3605 Road 99 308-249-2600 [email protected] Sidney, NE 6916
Leon Kriesel Kriesel Certified Seed 308-884-2424 [email protected] 4626 Road 111 Gurley, NE 69142
Mike Leininger American National Bank 308-254-5536 [email protected] P.O. Box 19 Sidney, NE 69162
Alton Lerwick 70585 Carter Canyon Rd. 308-247-3139 [email protected] Lyman, NE 69352
Grant Lerwick 4071 Stegall Rd. [email protected] Harrisburg, NE 69345
Blake Mackey Scoular Grain 308-254-7871 [email protected] P.O. Box 257 3220 Road 107 Sidney, NE 69162
Randy Mathewson 2675 Rd. 87 308-254-6156 [email protected] Potter, NE 69156
Kristin Miller NRCS 308-254-4507 [email protected]
4 2244 Jackson Street Sidney, NE 69162
Pete Miller 14532 Rd. 40 308-483-5685 [email protected] Lodgepole, NE 69149
Clint Norman Security First Bank 08-254-4525 [email protected] P.O. Box 137 Sidney, NE 69162
Eugene Radke 3026 Road 199 308-889-3429 [email protected] Big Springs, NE 69122
Jerry Radke 19910 Road 22 308-889-5160 [email protected] Big Springs, NE 69122
Bryan Reimers 10439 Road 58 308-377-2403 [email protected] Dalton, NE 69131
Keith Rexroth 2478 Parkview Rd. 308-249-1750 [email protected] Sidney, NE 69162
Doug Schmale 3664 Road 139 308-483-5505 [email protected] Lodgepole, NE 69149
Brian Townsend 180497 Co. Rd. C 308-632-3351 [email protected] Mitchell, NE 69357
Jared Truetken Points West 308-254-7110 [email protected] Community Bank 809 Illinois St. Sidney, NE 69162
Merle Vigil USDA-ARS 907-345-2259 [email protected] 40335 Co. Rd GG P.O. Box 40 Akron, CO 80720
Tony Walker 1410 Rd 103 308-254-5810 [email protected] Sidney, NE 69162
4 5 PERSONNEL AT HPAL 2018
Employee Title Period Worked Jake Hansen Farm Manager Sept 2016-Dec 2018 David Blanke Range/Farm Technician March 2018-Dec 2018 Vernon Florke Crops Technician May 2007-Dec 2018 Bill Struckmeyer BQMS Technician Jan 2014-Dec 2018 Amanda Easterly Dryland Crops Lab Manager Feb 2018-Dec 2018 James Burford Crops Technician June 2016-Dec 2018 David Wills Summer Work April 2016-Dec 2018 Duane Nightingale Summer Work April 2017-Aug 2018 Nathan Pflueger Graduate Student May 2017-July 2018 Luana Simao Undergraduate Intern Sept 2017-Dec 2018 Juliano R. M. Sulzbock Undergraduate Student May 2018-Dec 2018 Samuel Koeshall Graduate Student May 2018-Dec 2018 Kaden Vowers Summer Work May 2018-Dec 2018
6 PROFESSIONAL STAFF OF THE PANHANDLE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION CENTER WHO CONDUCTED EXPERIMENTAL TRIALS OR WERE INVOLVED AT THE HIGH PLAINS AG LAB
STAFF MEMBER TITLE
Dr. Jack Whittier Director, Panhandle Res & Ext Center
Dr. Cody Creech Asst. Professor of Agronomy/Horticulture
Dr. Jeff Bradshaw Assoc. Professor of Entomology
Dr. Dipak Santra Assoc. Professor of Agronomy/Horticulture
Dr. Karla Jenkins Assoc. Professor of Animal Science
Dr. Mitch Stephenson Asst. Professor of Range and Forage
Dr. Bijesh Maharjan Asst. Professor of Agronomy/Horticulture
Karen Deboer Extension Educator
Aaron Berger Extension Educator
Harrison Boateng System Support Specialist
Pam Joern Accounting Associate
Stefanie Cruz Assistant Business Manager
7 PROFESSIONAL STAFF OUTSIDE THE PANHANDLE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION CENTER WHO HAD COOPERATIVE STUDIES WITH REGULAR STAFF MEMBERS
NAME ORGANIZATION
Dr. Stephen Baenziger Prof of Agronomy/Horticulture
Dr. Gary Hein Prof of Entomology & Director of Plant Health Program
Dr. Robert Graybosch USDA-ARS
Dr. Stephen Wegulo Assoc Professor of Plant Pathology
Dr. Teshome Regassa Research Asst. Professor
Dr. Edward Cahoon Professor of Biochemistry
Dr. Humberto Blanco Assoc Prof Agronomy
Dr. Daniel Schachtman Professor and director, Center for Biotechnology
8 RESEARCH TRIALS CONDUCTED DURING 2018
WHEAT AND BARLEY
TRIAL STAFF DESCRIPTION
Wheat Nursery Baenziger Exp. Varieties in comparison Graybosch with established varieties Santra
Wheat Quality Baenziger Milling and baking quality of Lan Xu Varieties
Long Term Tillage Study Creech Comparisons of Plow, Subtill, Easterly and No Till Burford
Winter Wheat Variety Trial Santra Varieties & exp. Lines Regassa Florke
Planting date & variety selection Hein Evaluation of early and late planting for management of the wheat McMechan of commercial varieties of winter curl mite complex Creech wheat
Winter Wheat Creech Timing of Gibberellic acid treatments Easterly in winter wheat Burford
Winter Barley Baenziger Variety Trial Santra Florke
Albaugh Rye and Jointed Goat Grass Creech Evaluate effectiveness of Albaugh Herbicide Trial Easterly technology of winter annual control Burford
Effects Soil Applied Biochar on Creech Investigate the effects of soil applied Organic Matter Content Humberto High-carbon char on soil fertility Blanco Easterly Nielson
Wheat Planting Date/Row Spacing/ Burford Evaluate the effect of planting date, Seeding Rate Study Creech row spacing, and seeding rate on Easterly winter wheat yield Taylor
9 Valent Outrider/Maverick study Creech Investigate the residual effects of Burford Outrider and Maverick herbicides Easterly on multiple crops
Wheat Residue Study Burford Investigate the effects of wheat residue Creech strength on rotations Orrell
Spring Wheat Seed Treatment Creech Evaluate the effects of a seed treatment Easterly on biomass and yield of spring wheat Burford
Wheat Protone Study Creech Evaluate protone compound effect Easterly on wheat yield Burford
Kochiavore Fallow Herbicide Trial Creech Test herbicides in fallow Easterly Burford
ISK Fallow Herbicide Trial Creech Test herbicides in fallow Easterly Burford
AMVAC Fallow Herbicide Trial Creech Test herbicides in fallow Easterly Burford
Salty Water Fallow Herbicide Trial Creech Determine impact of water salinity on Easterly Efficacy of herbicides for controlling Burford Weeds in fallow fields
Forages
Trial Staff Description
Winter Triticale Santra Winter Triticale Varieties Baenziger Florke
Summer annual inter seeding of Stephenson Inter seeding of cool season Perennial pasture Jenkins pasture with legumes Multistate trial Creech
10 Dryland and Irrigated Forage Creech Yield and quality of varieties Sorghum Variety Trial Stephenson Easterly Burford
Pea/Oat Forage Trial Stephenson Evaluate different proportions of peas Schiltz and oats on forage production and Creech quality Easterly Burford
Oilseed Crops: Sunflower and Winter Canola
Trial Staff Description
Sunflower Varieties, oils Santra Dryland and irrigated Florke sunflower varieties
Winter Canola Creech Evaluation of planting date and Easterly population of winter canola Burford
Sunflower Fertility Bijesh Evaluate sunflower fertility levels Florke
Sunflower Herbicide Trial Creech Evaluate different herbicides on Easterly sunflowers Burford
Legumes
Trial Staff Description
Pea Variety Trial Santra Dryland variety trial Florke Hazen
BASF Field Peas Herbicide Trial Creech Evaluate efficacy of PRE herbicides Easterly In field peas Burford
Winfield Field Pea Herbicide Trial Creech Evaluate efficacy of PRE herbicides Easterly In field peas Burford
11 FMC Field Pea Creech Evaluate efficacy of POST herbicides in Esterly field peas Burford
Pea Planting Date and Population Creech Test the effects of planting date by Easterly seeding rate on yield and yield Burford components of field peas Koeschall
Pea versus Fallow (Rotation Study) Creech Compare effects of field pea versus Easterly fallow on soil water and fertility and Burford wheat yield Koeschall
Pea Fertility Trial Bijesh Evaluation of fertility in peas Florke
Soybean Variety Trial Creech Evaluate varieties of soybeans for Easterly dryland production in the panhandle Burford
Soybean Population Trial Creech Evaluate two varieties of soybeans at different populations for dryland production in the panhandle
Millet, Sorghum, Corn
Trial Staff Description
Proso Millet Variety Trial Santra Dryland & Irrigated Varieties Florke
Proso Millet Breeding/nursery Santra Bulk selection of proso head rows Florke Hazen
Milo Variety Trial Creech Dryland milo varieties Easterly Burford
Winfield Armezon Dryland Creech Evaluate effectiveness of Armenzon Corn Herbicide Trial Orrell and Armezon pro on dryland corn
Proso Millet Fertility Bijesh Evaluating fertility in Proso Millet Florke
12 Proso Millet Biochar Creech Evaluate effects of biochar and nitrogen Easterly on millet yeild Blanco Burford
Cover Crop Study Creech Effects of residue on cover crop Easterly establishment, impacts on corn Burford yield in following year Tonan-Rosas
Cover Crop Study, Rye, and Triticale Creech Test effects of residue removal and rye versus winter triticale as cover crops on soil fertility and corn yield
Cattle
Trial Staff Description
Pasture Trial Jenkins Bovatec 2.2 mineral block trial
Cover Crop Grazing Stephenson Efficiency of including a grazed cool- Schlitz season annual forage in a dryland PFlueger crop rotation
13 2018 HPAL NORTH UNIVERSITY of NEBRASKA HIGH PLAINS AG LAB
ROT. #1 – Pea-Wheat-Millet HPAL Pastures Extend 2 Fields 1E,1C,1W Organic Rotation Miles North. Cattle Shed is on RD 38 (Egging RD) Rot. #2-Wheat-Corn-Fallow Fields 2,3 Rd ROT. #3 – Wheat – Fallow 36 Millet Wheat CF Sunflower Forage Fields 4, 5, 14, 15 ROT. #4– Wheat-Corn-SunF-Peas . (Continuous Crop) 25.1A 29.6A 33.9A 32.2A Fields 6, 9, 10, 13 ROT. #5– Wheat-SunF-Millet-Forage F11 Fields 7, 8, 11, 12 (Continuous Crop) F12 F8 F7 ROT. #6 – Wheat-Millet-Fallow Millet Corn Wheat Peas Fields 16, 17, 18 To Road 42 ROT. #7 – Wheat-SunF-Fallow-Wheat- Millet-Fallow 30.5A 31.1A 36.7A 35.9A Fields 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 ROT. #8 – Wheat-Corn-Fallow F13 F10 F9 F6 Fields 25, 26, 27 Fallow Wheat Road Road 111 HPAL PASTURE
21.8A 22.5A
Trail F14 F5 Road 109 Road
IGLOOS Wheat Fallow
31.3A 30.3A
F15 F4 Rd 34 Fallow Wheat Fallow Corn
25.1A 23.4A 26.5A 26.8A Fallow Wheat F22 F21 F16 F3
Sunflower Millet Wheat Fallow 19.7A 25.1A F27 TRAIL F26 25.7A 23.8A 24.8A 24.3A F23 F20 F17 F2 Irrigation Fallow Wheat Corn Wheat Fallow Millet Millet Peas 1/2mile 32 ToRoad 22.3A 27.6A 23.7A 22.4A 21.8A 1W 1C 1E F25 7.4A 7.4A 7.4A 19.0A F25 F24 F19 HPAL IRRI F18 OFFICE
Road 32N To Road 32 1/2 mile UN UN HPAL SHOPS
1 Mile East On RD 32 to Hiway 385
14 2019 HPAL NORTH UNIVERSITY of NEBRASKA ROT. #1 – Pea-Wheat-Millet HIGH PLAINS AG LAB Fields 1E,1C,1W Organic Rotation HPAL Pastures Extend 2 Rot. #2-Wheat-Corn-Fallow Miles North. Cattle Shed is on Fields 2,3,4 RD 38 (Egging RD) ROT. #3 – Wheat – Fallow Fields 5, 14 Rd ROT. #4– Wheat-Corn-SunF-Peas Peas Sunflower Corn Wheat 36 (Continuous Crop) . Fields 6, 9, 10, 13 ROT. #5– Wheat-Corn-Sunflower-Pea 25.1A 29.6A 33.9A 32.2A Fields 7, 8, 11, 12 (Continuous Crop)
ROT. #6 – Wheat-Millet-Fallow F12 F11 F8 F7 Fields 16, 17, 18 ROT. #7 – Wheat-SunF-Millet-Fallow Peas Sunflower Corn Wheat To Road 42 Fields 19, 20, 23, 24 ROT. #8 – Wheat-Sorghum-Fallow Fields 15, 21, 22 30.5A 31.1A 36.7A 35.9A ROT. #9 – Wheat-Corn-Fallow Fields 25, 26, 27 F13 F10 F9 F6
Wheat Fallow Road Road 111 HPAL PASTURE
21.8A 22.5A
Trail F14 F5 Road 109 Road
IGLOOS Fallow/Flex Corn
31.3A 30.3A
F15 F4 Rd 34 Wheat Corn Wheat Pea/Chickpea
25.1A 23.4A 26.5A 26.8A Wheat Corn F22 F21 F16 F3
Millet Fallow/Flex Millet Wheat 19.7A 25.1A F27 TRAIL F26 25.7A 23.8A 24.8A 24.3A F23 F20 F17 F2 Irrigation Fallow
Fallow/ Sunflower Wheat Fallow Peas Millet Wheat 1/2mile 32 ToRoad Flex 1W 1C 1E 27.6A22.3A 23.7A 22.4A 21.8A 7.4A 7.4A 7.4A 19.0A F25F25 F24 F19 HPAL IRRI F18 OFFICE
Road 32N To Road 32 1/2 mile UN UN HPAL SHOPS
1 Mile East On RD 32 to Hiway 385
15 Yield Summaries 2015-2016-2017-2018
ROTATION 2015 2016 2017 2018 R#1 WHEAT-MILLET-FALLOW-WHEAT-SUNFLOWER-FALLOW; ORGANIC F1E MILLET-36.4 bu/a Millet -28.2 bu/a WHEAT 39.7 bu/a PEAS 27.7 bu/a F1C PEAS 24.3 bu/a WHEAT 30.65 bu/a F1W MILLET 27 bu/a MILLET 36.6 bu/a
R#2 WHEAT-CORN-FALLOW F2 FALLOW WHEAT - 43.7 bu/a CORN 101.4 bu/a FALLOW F3 Wheat-51.3 bu/a Fallow WHEAT 51.1 bu/a CORN 103 bu/a
R#3 WHEAT-FALLOW F4 WHEAT-32.2 bu/a FALLOW SUNF 1306.71 lbs/a FALLOW F5 FALLOW WHEAT - 42.6 bu/a FALLOW WHEAT 62.2 bu/a F14 WHEAT-38.5 bu/a FALLOW SUNF 1421.52 FALLOW F15 FALLOW WHEAT - 35.44 bu/a FALLOW WHEAT 52.05 bu/a
R#4 WHEAT-CORN-SUNFLOWER-PEA F6 MILLET-44 bu/a FALLOW WHEAT FAILED PEAS 48.95 bu/a F9 SUNF-1005 lb/a MILLET - 49.96 bu/a PEAS 23 bu/a WHEAT 50.81 bu/a F10 WHEAT 50 bu/a SUNF - 1583.28 lbs/a MILLET 25.9 bu/a CORN 87 bu/a F13 FALLOW WHEAT - 36.3 bu/a SUNF 1341.64 bu/a MILLET 36.34 bu/a
R#5 WHEAT-SUNFLOWER-MILLET-FORAGE/PEAS F7 WHEAT-48.6 bu/a SUNF - 1734.16 lbs/a MILLET 33.7bu/a PEAS 30.48 bu/a F8 MILLET-48 bu/a PEAS - 15 bu/a WHEAT 27.07 bu/a SUNF 1741.5 lbs/a F11 SUNF-915 lb/a MILLET - 54.66 bu/a GRAZED WHEAT 38.23 bu/a F12 PEAS-37 bu/a WHEAT - 35.5 bu/a SUNF 1582.33 lbs/a MILLET 34.5 bu/a
16 Yeild Summaries (con't)
ROTATION 2015 2016 2017 2018 R#6 WHEAT-MILLET-FALLOW F16 FALLOW WHEAT - 43.9 bu/a MILLET 27.8 bu/a FALLOW F17 WHEAT-54.2 bu/a MILLET - 20.84 bu/a FALLOW WHEAT 63.47 bu/a F18 MILLET-37 bu/a FALLOW WHEAT 37.1 bu/a MILLET 27.55 bu/a
R#7 WHEAT-SUNFLOWER-FALLOW-WHEAT-MILLET-FALLOW F19 FALLOW WHEAT - 29.8 bu/a SUNF 1316.96 lbs/a FALLOW F20 SUNF-773 lb/a FALLOW WHEAT 39.64 bu/a MILLET 32.66 bu/a F21 WHEAT-39.7 bu/a MILLET - 41.55 FALLOW WHEAT 52.35 bu/a F22 FALLOW WHEAT-38.3 bu/a MILLET 25.7 bu/a FALLOW F23 MILLET-41 bu/a FALLOW WHEAT 36.8 bu/a SUNF 1992.99 lbs/a F24 WHEAT-46 bu/a SUNF - 1602 lbs/a FALLOW WHEAT 50.32 bu/a
R#8 WHEAT-CORN-FALLOW F25 CORN-69 bu/a FALLOW WHEAT 38.53BU/A CORN 84.48 bu/a F26 WHEAT-45.9 bu/a CORN - 86.88 bu/a FALLOW WHEAT 46.25 bu/a F27 FALLOW WHEAT-35.1 bu/a CORN 74.1 bu/a FALLOW
CROP 2015 2016 2017 2018 WHEAT 45.1 bu/a 37.9 bu/a 38.38 bu/a 55.79 bu/a MILLET 41.3 bu/a 41.76 bu/a 28.02 bu/a (hail) 33.53 bu/a SUNF 898 lb/a 1640 lb/a 1393.83 lbs/a 1867.25 lbs/a CORN 69 bu/a 86.88 bu/a 87.75 bu/a 91.49 bu/a Peas 37 bu/a 15 bu/a 23.65 bu/a 35.71 bu/a
17 HPAL ANNUAL DATA OCTOBER 2017-SEPTEMBER 2018
HPAL PRECIPITATION 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Precipitation (in) 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 Monthly Precipitation 0.87 0.21 0.87 0.55 0.44 0.76 1.92 5.51 2.19 4.98 1.34 0.79 71-yr Average Precipitation 0.87 0.46 0.36 0.29 0.38 0.91 1.68 3.01 3.07 2.55 2.00 1.37 Month
Monthly Precipitation 71-yr Average Precipitation
HPAL LOW TEMPERATURE 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 Monthly Average Low Temp 34.0 26.9 15.7 17.5 12.5 24.9 28.2 46.5 55.0 58.7 54.9 48.9 Temperature Temperature (*F) 71-yr Average Low Temp 34.0 22.2 14.9 12.9 16.6 23.0 31.5 41.5 51.2 57.1 55.2 45.6 Month
Monthly Average Low Temp 71-yr Average Low Temp
HPAL HIGH TEMPERATURE 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0
Temperature Temperature (*F) 10.0 0.0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 Monthly Average High Temp 63.6 56.4 41.3 39.4 39.8 54.8 54.8 72.1 83.5 86.3 83.6 81.5 71-yr Average High Temp 64.4 50.0 41.1 39.8 43.8 50.8 59.9 69.1 79.8 87.7 85.6 76.8 Month
Monthly Average High Temp 71-yr Average High Temp
18 2018 Crop Rotation #1 3 Year Stacked Organic Field 1E, 1C, 1W Peas, Wheat, Millet
Operations
Field 1E – 7.4 Acres – Peas – Previous Crop - Millet March 15 One Pass March 21 Planted Nette Peas 180 lbs/a July 11 Harvested Peas 27.7 bu/a July 13 Disked August 10 One Pass September 5 One Pass September 6 Planted Wheat 60 lbs/a Ruth
Field 1C – 7.4 Acres – Wheat – Previous Crop – Peas July 3 Harvested Wheat 30.65 bu/a July 13 Disked August 10 One Pass September 5 One Pass September 6 Planted wheat for cover
Field 1W – 7.4 Acres – Millet – Previous Crop – Wheat April 2 One Pass April 30 Disk June 5 One Pass June 7 Planted Huntsman Millet 15 bu/a September 12 Harvested Millet 36.6 bu/a
2018 Crop Rotation #2 Wheat, Corn, Fallow Fields 2, 3
Operations
Field 2 – 24.3 – Fallow – Previous Crop – Corn April 27 32oz/a Roundup RT3 + 8oz/a LV6 + 1/100 Class Act June 4 32oz/a Roundup RT3 + 8oz/a LV6 + 2qt/a Class Act July 3 12oz/a Superb HC +12oz/a Volunteer + 16 oz/a LV6 July 19 32oz/a Gramoxon + 1/100 Superb plus August 24 32oz/a Roundup RT3 + 8oz/a LV6 + 2qt/100 Class Act September 7 Planted Wheat 60 lbs/a Ruth
19 Field 3 – 26.8 – Corn – Previous Crop – Wheat April 10 32oz/a Roundup RT3 + 1/100 Class Act April 26 50 # Nitrogen 32 O-O Streamer Nozzles May 8 Planted Corn 14,000/a Croplan 3337 June 6 32oz/a Roundup + 8oz/a Dicamba HD + 2qt/100 Class Act October 2 Harvested Corn 103 bu/a
2018 Crop Rotation #3 2 Year Fields 4, 5, 14, 15 Wheat, Fallow
Operations
Field 4 – 30.3 Acres – Fallow – Previous Crop – CL Sunflowers April 9 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 1/100 Class Act June 1 1qt/a Blanco + 2qt/a Cropoil + 4 oz LV6 June 29 32 oz/a Roundup + 12 oz LV6 + 2qt/100 Class Act July 20 32 oz/a Gramoxon + 1/100 Superb Plus August 24 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 2qt/100 Class Act + 8oz/a LV6 September 24 32 oz/a Roundup + 1.5 lbs/a Atrazine + 1/100 Class Act
Field 5 – 22.5 Acres – Wheat – Previous Crop – Fallow September 9 Planted Freeman Wheat 60lbs/a April 27 8 oz/a LV6 + 10lbs/a of N July 9 Harvested Wheat 62.2 bu/a August 2 32 oz/a Roundup + 12 oz/a LV6 + 1/100 Class Act August 24 32 oz/a Roundup + 1.1 lbs/a Atrazine + 1/100 Class Act
Field 14 – 21.8 Acres – Fallow– Previous Crop – CL Sunflowers April 9 32 oz/a Roundup + 1/100 Class Act June 1 1qt/a Blanco + 2qt/a Cropoil + 4 oz/a LV6 June 29 32 oz/a Roundup + 12 oz/a LV6 + 2qt/100 Class Act August 11 One Pass August 16 50 lbs N 32-0-0 Streamer Nozzles August 23 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + .5/100 Class Act + 8 oz/a LV6 September 8 Planted Ruth Wheat 60 lbs/a
Field 15 – 31.3 Acres – Wheat – Previous Crop – Fallow September 7 Planted Freeman Wheat 60lbs/a April 27 8 oz/a LV6 + 10 lbs/a N July 9 Harvested Wheat 52.05 bu/a August 2 32 oz/a Roudup + 12 oz/a LV6 + 1/100 Class Act September 24 32 oz/a Roundup + 1.5 lbs/a Atrazine + 1/100 Class Act
20 2018 Crop Rotation #4 4 Year Fields 6, 9, 10, 13 Wheat, Sunflower, Millet, Fallow
Operations
Field 6 – 35.9 Acres – Peas – Previous Crop – Destroyed Wheat March 20 Planted Nette Peas 180 lbs/a @ 2 ¼ deep March 21 1.5 oz/a optill dry + 32 oz/a Roundup Powermax July 11 Harvested Peas 48.95 bu/a July 20 32 oz/a Gramoxon + 1/100 Superb Plus August 15 50 lbs N 32-0-0 Streamer Nozzles August 23 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + .5/100 Class Act + 8 oz/a LV6 September 10 Planted Ruth Wheat 60 lbs/a
Field 9 – 36.7 Acres – Wheat – Previous Crop – Peas September 12 Planted Freeman Wheat 60lbs/a April 26 8 oz/a LV6 + 10 lbs/a N July 7 Harvested Wheat 50.81 bu/a August 2 32 oz/a Roundup + 12 oz/a LV6 + 1/100 Class Act
Field 10 - 31.1 Acres – Corn – Previous Crop – Millet April 26 50 lbs/a N 32-0-0 April 27 32 oz/a Roundup + 1/100 Class Act May 7 Planted Corn Croplan 3337 14,000/Acre May 17 32 oz/a Roundup Rt3 + 1/100 Class Act + 12 oz Dicamba HD June 6 32 oz/a Roundup Rt3 + 2qt/100 Class Act September 27 Harvest Corn 87 bu/a
Field 13 – 30.5 Acres – Millet – Previous Crop – Sunflowers April 12 32 oz/a Roundup Rt3 + 1/100 Class Act April 30 45 lbs/a N Streamer Nozzles 32 0-0 June 5 Planted 15 lbs/a Huntsman Millet June 6 32 oz/a 24D Amine Shreader + 4 oz/a Dicamba + 2 qt/100 Class Act August 23 Desiccated Millet Roundup + Cropoil September 11 Harvested Millet 36.34 bu/a
21 2018 Crop Rotation #5 4 Year Continuous Fields 7, 8, 11, 12 Wheat, Sunflowers, Millet, Peas
Operations
Field 7 – 32.2 Acres – Oats/Peas – Previous Crop – Millet Grazing 10 Acres March 15 Streamed 50 lbs/a N 32-0-0 March 26 Planted oats 70 lbs/a May 29 Turned Cattle Out On Cover Crop 5hd/Paddock June 8 Removed Cattle June 25 Cattle Turned Back Out July 11 Removed Cattle July 19 32 oz/a Gramoxon + 1/100 Superb Plus Farm 22.2 Acres March 21 Planted Nette Peas 180 lbs/a March 21 1.5 oz/a Optill Dry + 21 oz/a Roundup Powermax July 10 Harvested Peas 30.48 bu/a July 19 32 oz/a Gramoxon + 1/100 Superb Plus Both 32.2 Acres August 16 50 lbs/a N Streamer Nozzles August 23 32 oz/a Roundup Rt3 + .5/100 Class Act + 8 oz/a LV6 September 10 Planted Ruth Wheat 60 lbs/a
Field 8 – 33.9 Acres – Sunflowers – Previous Crop – Wheat April 10 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 1/100 Class Act April 30 50 lbs N Streamer Nozzles June 2 Planted 432 E Sunflowers 17,000/a June 3 32 oz/a Roundup Rt3 + 2qt/100 Class Act + 2.8 oz/a Spartan Charge + 2.2 pt/a Prowl H20 October 5 Harvested Sunflowers 1741.5 cwt
Field 11 – 29.6 Acres – CL Wheat – Previous Crop – Grazing Oat/Peas September 6 Planted Wheat Settler CL 60lbs/a April 27 4 oz/a Beyond + 8 oz/a LV6 + 10 lbs/a N July 9 Harvested Wheat 38.23 bu/a August 2 32 oz/a Roundup + 12 oz/a LV6 + 1/100 Class Act September 17 32 oz/a Roundup + 1/100 Class Act
Field 12 – 25.1 Acres – Millet – Previous Crop – Sunflowers April 27 32 oz/a Roundup + 1/100 Class Act June 5 Planted Huntsman Millet 15 lbs/a June 6 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 2qt/100 Class Act + 2 oz/a Sharpen August 23 Desiccated Millet Roundup + Cropoil September 11 Harvested Millet 34.5 bu/a
22 2018 Crop Rotation #6 3 Year Fields 16, 17, 18 Wheat, Millet, Fallow
Operations
Field 16 – 26.5 – Fallow – Previous Crop – Millet April 12 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 1/100 Class Act June 4 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 2qt/100 Class Act + 8 oz LV6 July 9 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 12 oz LV6 + 4 oz Dicamba August 16 50 lbs/a N 32-0-0 Streamer Nozzles August 24 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 8 oz LV6 + 2 qt/100 Class Act September 7 Planted Ruth Wheat 60 lbs/a
Field 17 – 24.8 Acres – Wheat – Previous Crop – Fallow September 10 Planted Freeman Wheat 60lbs/a April 27 8 oz/a LV6 + 10 lbs/a N July 8 Harvested Wheat 63.47 bu/a August 2 32 oz/a Roundup + 12 oz/a LV6 + 1/100 Class Act September 18 32 oz/a Roundup + 1/100 Class Act
Field 18 - 21.8 Acres – Millet – Previous Crop – Wheat April 10 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 1/100 Class Act April 30 45 lbs/a N Streamer Nozzles June 6 Planted Huntsman Millet June 7 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 2 oz Sharpen + 2qt/100 Class Act August 23 Desiccated Millet Roundup + Cropoil September 11 Harvest Millet 27.55 bu/a
23 2018 Crop Rotation #7 6 Year Fields 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 Wheat, Sunflower, Fallow, Wheat, Millet, Fallow
Operations
Field 19 – 22.4 Acres – Fallow – Previous Crop – Sunflowers April 27 32 oz/a Roundup + 8 oz/a LV6 + 1/100 Class Act June 5 32 oz/a Roundup + 8 oz/a LV6 + 1/100 Class Act July 9 32 oz/a Roundup + 12 oz/a LV6 + 1/100 Class Act August 16 50 lbs/a N 32-0-0 Streamer Nozzles August 24 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 8 oz/a LV6 + 2qt/100 Class Act September 8 Planted Ruth Wheat 60 lbs/a
Field 20 – 23.8 Acres – Millet – Previous Crop – Wheat April 10 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 1/100 Class Act April 30 45 lbs/a N 32-0-0 Streamer Nozzles June 5 Spot Disc to fill in ruts from gas company June 6 Planted Huntsman Millet 15 lbs/a June 7 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 2 oz/a Sharpen + 2qt/100 Class Act August 23 Desiccated Millet Roundup + Cropoil September 11 Harvested Millet 32.66 bu/a
Field 21 – 23.4 Acres – Wheat – Previous Crop – Fallow September 9 Planted Freeman Wheat 60lbs/a April 27 8 oz/a LV6 + 10 lbs/a N July 8 Harvested Wheat 52.35 bu/a August 2 32 oz/a Roundup + 12 oz/a LV6 + 1/100 Class Act September 19 32 oz/a Roundup + 1.5lbs/a Atrazine + 1/100 Class Act
Field 22 – 25.1 Acres – Fallow – Previous Crop – Millet April 27 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 8 oz/a LV6 + 1/100 Class Act June 5 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 8 oz/a LV6 + 1/100 Class Act July 9 32 oz/a Roundup + 12 oz/a LV6 + 4 oz/a Dicamba August 16 50 lbs/a N 32-0-0 Streamer Nozzles August 24 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 8 oz/a LV6 + 2qt/100 Class Act September 6 Planted Ruth Wheat 60 lbs/a
Field 23 – 25.7 Acres – Sunflower – Previous Crop – Wheat April 10 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 1/100 Class Act April 26 50 lbs/a N 32-0-0 Streamer Nozzles June 2 Planted 432 E Sunflowers 17,000/a June 3 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 2qt/100 Class Act + 2.8 oz.a Sparten Charge + 2.2 pt/a Prowl H20 October 4 Harvested Sunflowers 1992.99 lbs/a
24
Field 24 – 23.7 Acres – Wheat – Previous Crop – Fallow September 19 Planted Freeman Wheat 60lbs/a April 27 8 oz/a LV6 + 10 lbs/a N July 10 Harvested Wheat 50.32 July 24 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 12 oz/a LV6 + .5/100 Superb Plus August 23 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 8 oz/a LV6 + 1/100 Class Act
2018 Crop Rotation #8 3 Year Fields 25,26,27 Wheat, Corn, Fallow
Operations
Field 25 – 22.3 Acres – Corn – Previous Crop – Wheat April 10 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 1/100 Class Act April 26 80 lbs/a N 32-0-0 Streamer Nozzles May 9 Planted Corn Croplan 3337 14,000/a June 6 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 8 oz/a Dicamba + 2qt/100 Class Act October 3 Harvested Corn 84.48 bu/a
Field 26 - 25.1 Acres – Wheat – Previous Crop – Fallow September 9 Planted Freeman Wheat 60lbs/a April 27 8 oz/a LV6 + 10 lbs/a N July 10 Harvested Wheat 46.25 bu/a July 24 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 12 oz/a LV6 + .5/100 Superb Plus August 23 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 8 oz/a LV6 + 1/100 Class Act September 24 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 1.5 lbs Atrazine + 1/100 Class Act
Field 27 – 19.7 Acres – Fallow – Previous Crop – Corn April 12 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 1/100 Class Act June 5 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 8 oz/a LV6 + 1/100 Class Act July 3 12 oz/a Supurb HC + 12 oz/a Volunteer + 16 oz/a LV6 July 20 32 oz/a Gramoxon + 1/100 Superb Plus August 16 50 lbs/a N 32-0-0 Streamer Nozzles August 24 32 oz/a Roundup RT3 + 8 oz/a LV6 + 2qt/100 Class Act September 6 Planted Ruth Wheat 60 lbs/a
25 Proso Millet Breeding and Genetics Research: 2018 update
Dipak K. Santra, Vernon Florke, Allison Rickey, Saurav Das, and Rituraj Khound Panhandle Res. & Ext. Center, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Goal and objective Goal is to develop high yielding proso millet cultivars for Nebraska and neighboring regions of the central High Plains of the USA following basic plant breeding method (Fig.1). 2018 objectives: (1) test and select advanced breeding lines, (2) advance and select early-generation breeding populations (F2, F4, F5).
Material and Methods Yield trial: Plot was 5 feet x 30 feet; Seed rate: 15 lbs/a. Selection was based on uniformity and general agronomic appearance mainly plant height, flowering (50% of the emerged spikes had extruded anthers), and lodging tolerance. Multi-location yield trials: 50 lines (including 10 check varieties) at HPAL, Akron, and Scottsbluff.
Replicated yield trials: 80 (including 10 check varieties) Fig.1. Methods of proso millet breeding lines with 4 replications at HPAL Preliminary yield trial: 160 entries at HPAL
Results Variety trial: Results of the three variety trials (40 entries each) at the HPAL were presented in Table 1 (dryland/rainfed), Table 2 (organic), and Table 3 (irrigated), respectively.
PT: 160 F5 lines Yield (lbs/a): 1965 – 784; Test wt (lbs/bu): 55 - 53
RYT: 80 F6 lines
26 Table 1. 2018 proso millet variety trial across three sites (HPAL, Scottsbluff, and Akron, CO)
*2-3 lines to be released in 2019 based on 4-yrs (8 sites) yield data (2015 –’18)
27 Pea Variety for Nebraska Panhandle: 2018 update
Dipak K. Santra, Vernon Florke Allison Hazen, and Saurav Das Panhandle Res. & Ext. Center, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Goal and objective: Overall goal is to find high yielding, well adapted field pea varieties with different genetics for Nebraska. Specific objective is to test commercially available varieties for yield, seed protein, flowering, maturity, and important agronomic characters across different sites (Box Butte Co., Cheyenne Co., and Perkins Co., and Custer Co.) in western Nebraska.
Methods: Trial were planted and managed following standard agronomic recommendation for pea. Seeding rate for dryland was 350,000 live seeds/acre. Seed of each plot for all trials were inoculated with granular inoculum right before planting. Plot design for each trial was random complete block design (RCBD) with four replications. Trials were planted in a 25 feet long 6-rows plot with 10 inches between rows (i.e. 5 ft x 25 ft) at a seeding depth of approximately 2 inches. Days to 50% flowering in days counted from date of planting and plant height at harvest were recorded. Trials were harvested using small-plot combine (Winter Steiger Delta). Seed weight/plot, test weight, and moisture at harvest were recorded from the combine. Yield and test weight (bushel weight) were reported at 10% grain moisture since grain moisture significantly varied among the plots. Seed protein was estimated by NIR machine at the North Dakota State University.
Results: • Four (Profit, Polancos, Dakota, and Spectrum) of six new entries in 2018 were had high seed yield. • Dakota seems to be high yield and high seed protein (2018 data ONLY) • Multiple choices for high yielding verities with different genetics for Panhandle • The varieties differ significantly in seed protein, seed sizes (i.e. number of seed/lbs) • High seed protein varieties: Salamanca, Durwood, and Spider • Always plant 2-3 different branded varieties (i.e. different genetics) in order to stabilize yield and minimize production loss.
28 Table 1. Nebraska Pea Variety Test - 2018 in Nebraska Panhandle. Yield at 10% moisture basis and 1 bu = 60 lbs. Flowering days counted from date of planting.
Chey.Co: Planted 3/26/’18; Harvested 7/13/’18; B.Butte Co: Planted 4/12/’18; Harvested 7/23/’18; (Powdery mildew susceptible @ Box Butte Co: Bridger, Jetset, Salamanca, and Nette 2010)
Table 2. 2018 Average of top 5 pea varieties at west-central Nebraska
Conclusions: • Multiple high yielding varieties are available for farmers to choose from • High yielding varieties in Panhandle were high yielding in west-central NE with a few exceptions
29 Sunflower hybrids for Nebraska Panhandle: 2018 update
Dipak K. Santra, Vernon Florke, Allison Rickey, and Rituraj Khound Panhandle Res. & Ext. Center, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Goal and Objectives
Goal is to identify high yielding commercial oil-type sunflower hybrids for both dryland and irrigation in western Nebraska based on yield, oil and other agronomic characteristics from field trials at different Counties (Box Butte Co., Cheyenne Co., Scotts Bluff Co, and Perkins Co) in western Nebraska.
Materials and Methods
In 2017, 11 oil type hybrids (Croplan Windfield and Nuseed America) were tested at two dryland (Cheyenne Co. and Box Butte Co.). For irrigated trials 24 and 5 oil type hybrids (Nuseed America, and DynaGro) were tested Box Butte Co. and Scottsbluff Co., respectively. Trials were planted in a 30 feet long 2-rows plot with 30 inches between rows (i.e. 5ft x 30 ft) at a plant population of 17,500/acre for dryland oil and 22,000/acre for irrigated oil trials. In order to ensure optimal PPA double amount of seeds were planted. At seedling stage, total number of plants per row was counted. For dryland trial (PPA 17,500), 30 plants/30 feet row were kept and additional plants were removed. For irrigated trials (PPA 22,000), 38 plants/30 feet row were kept and additional plants were removed. Flowering date was measured as the number of days after planting Jan. 1 to when 50% of the plot had heads with 50% opened flower. Seed weight/plot, test weight, and moisture at harvest were recorded from the combine (Winter Steiger Delta small plot combine). Yield was reported at 10% grain moisture since grain moisture significantly varied among the plots.
Results:
• Farmers have a few but limited options (only two Brands) to select high seed yielding oil type hybrids. The hybrids differ significantly in oil % • Same hybrids’s yield was significantly lower in Box Butte Co., which most like due to yield loss from delated harvest • ‘Same hybrids’s yield was better under irrigation in Box Butte Co. although irrigated yield was significantly lower than rainfed yield of Cheyenne Co. • Yield difference of the same hybrids across location is due to significant GxE effect although effects of different harvest dates can’t be ignored.
30 Table 1. 2018 Nebraska sunflower hybrid (oil) testing under dryland at the High Plains Ag. Lab in Cheyenne Co. Yield of the same hybrid at Box Butte Co.rainfed in last column.
Table 2. 2018 Nebraska sunflower hybrid (oil) testing under irrigation Box Butte Co. Yield of the same hybrid at Box Butte Co.
31 Breeding Winter Malting Barley with Superior Winter Survival Dr. P. Stephen Baenziger, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Executive Summary: As in the past, the Great Plains is a region of climate diversity. In 2017-2018, we had average yields in Lincoln, NE (due to heat stress at flowering and rain just before harvest, 62.5 bu/a, 3002 lbs/a with 48 lbs/bu), Mead, NE (due to late planting, thin stands, and heavy rain before harvest, 51.0 bu/a, 2454 lbs/a), and Hays, KS (due to severe drought, 43.8 bu/a, 2101 lbs/a) and excellent yields at Stillwater, OK (84.9 bu/a, 4030 lbs/a). In 2016- 2017, we had outstanding grain yields in eastern Nebraska (trial average for 40 entries was 111 bu/a at Mead and 110 bu/a at Lincoln. In western Nebraska where it is drier, the grain yield was 69 bu/ac. At Hays, the barley looked excellent until harvest when a severe wind and rain storm destroyed the field. These results were compared to 2015-2016 when we had excellent grain yield at Colby KS (~ 120 bu/a), hail at Lincoln (hence not harvested), and moderate grain yields at Mead (~77 bu/a) and Sidney (~47 bu/a) NE. Winterkilling was not severe among our adapted lines, but it was sufficient to injure many of the unadapted lines in collaborative nurseries. The continued improvement in our lines is impressive as the lowest yielding lines in the annual and three year summary (Table 2) are the released and currently grown cultivars. We now have two years of malt and microbrew testing on the nursery (thanks to the USDA Madison Lab) and the line closest to desirable malt and brewing quality is P-845. We have not received the data for 2018, but that is probably hung-up doe to the shutdown. Clearly adding malt and brewing quality and increasing the number of 2-row barley lines while maintaining winter hardiness are expected goals for this project. We are accessing more European and Oregon winter malting barley in our crossing blocks and AMBA supported Oregon DHs to increase the frequency of malting genes in our germplasm. We have made substantial progress in working with local brewers, supported growers to plant commercial spring and winter malting barley field (with great advice from Limagrain, Drs. R. Horsley, K. Smith, and J. Wiersma) for local beer production and hope to have additional local craft maltsters/distillers in Nebraska in the future. Interestingly our local barely production is becoming more important because there is an expanding local hops industry (https://agronomy.unl.edu/nebraska-hops , http://nehopgrowers.com/ )
Primary objectives: 1.Enhance barley competitiveness with other crops. 2. Foster and support research that helps develop higher yielding public sector malting barley varieties with characteristics that mitigate production risk factors to increase acceptance rates. 3. Foster and support research that helps develop traits for public and private sector malting barley varieties that mitigate production risk factors to increase acceptance rates, and 4. Increased secondary market uses.
Project Personnel P. Stephen Baenziger, Mr. Madhav Bhatta, supported by a Monsanto Beachell-Borlaug International Scholarship (graduated and became a postdoctoral scientist at the University of Wisconsin), and Ms. Fang Wang, Ph.D. supported in part by the Chinese Government and the Brewers Association grant are the key people in this project. In addition, Dr. Ibfrahim Elbaysoni, a visiting scientist is working on barley as part of his efforts this year. Cooperators include Dr. Dipak Santra, Dr. Guorong Zhang, and through the Brewers Association grant, Dr. Do Mornhinweg.
Recent Publications:
Regassa, T., P.S. Baenziger, R. Werle, and D. Santra. 2018. Fall Seed Guide 2018. EC103. University of Nebraska. This is the main extension publication describing the state variety trails for winter wheat, barley, and triticale.
32 Table 1. Data for 2016 to 2018 (three years, a total of eight environments) on grain yield (by location), flowering date, plant height, and test weight.
These data are interesting because the averages were developed in two ways. The first average is over years (N=3) and the second is averaged over locations (N=4). In general, there is good agreement.
33 Evaluation of variable seeding rates for oat and pea forage mixtures M. Stephenson – Assistant Professor, Range and Forage Specialist B. Shultz – Forage and Range Research Technician N. Pflueger – Graduate Student
Objective: Many dryland crop rotations are evaluating options to limit the fallow period prior to planting winter wheat. A crop that has received relatively new interest in western Nebraska is field pea for human consumption, but other options may be viable as a short season annual crop. Cool-season annual forages may provide adequate forage production in some dryland situations to justify their integration into cropping rotations. The objective of this research was to evaluate forage production and quality within variable seeding rates of oats and peas at two locations in western Nebraska. Methods: We developed a two-year study (2017 - 2018) to evaluate the influence of variable oats/spring pea seeding rates on forage production and quality at two western Nebraska locations. Plots (30’ by 5’) were planted in early-April and fertilized with 60 lbs/ac N and 30 lbs/ac P. Plots were harvested between June 19 to June 22 in both years, 75 to 85 days after planting. Harvest date was targeted at the soft dough stage for the oats and seed pod set for the peas to optimize both forage yield and quality. To determine the amount of oat and pea forage, we hand clipped three foot long sections along two different planting rows in each plot. Oat and pea forage production was separated, dried, and weighed to estimate actual proportion of each crop for the different seeding rate treatments. All plots were then harvested with a Carter flail forage harvester. Bulk harvest weights were measured and grab samples were taken to determine moisture content dry matter production calculations. Ward Laboratories (Kearney, NE) analyzed all samples with a wet chemistry test for crude protein (CP) and total digestible nutrients (TDN). Results and Conclusions: Mean precipitation from March through June (i.e., the most critical time for cool-season forage growth) in 2017 and 2018 was 7.4 inches at the High Plains Ag Lab (HPAL) and 11.9 inches in North Platte (NP). The greater precipitation provided greater overall production at the NP site compared to the HPAL site (Fig. 1). Averaged over both years of the study, oat alone at a seeding rate of 70 lbs per acre produced the greatest amount of forage at the HPAL site. In contrast, there were no differences detected in production between any of the mixtures with oats at the NP site up to seed mixtures with half oats and half peas. Production of spring peas in mixtures at the HPAL site were limited compared to the amount planted in the mixtures. This was not observed at the NP site, suggesting that the increased precipitation at the NP site allowed the spring peas more opportunity to compete with the oats and provide greater biomass production relative to the total forage production (Fig. 1). Total digestible nutrients (TDN) concentration did not differ among the seeding rate treatments at either location. Crude protein (CP) followed an expected pattern at the NP site with CP increasing from 8.3% to 19.7% as the amount of spring pea increased in the total forage production (Fig. 1, Table 1). At the HPAL site, there were minimal differences observed in CP with any of the seeding treatments that contained oats. It is likely that the limited amount of spring pea production in the mixtures with oats at HPAL did not sufficiently increase the concentrations of crude protein within the forage mixtures. Overall, the oats alone produced a greater amount, or similar amount, of forage at the lowest seed costs at both sites. The potential benefit of adding a spring pea to an oat seeding may be offset by the higher cost of the seed unless the spring pea production is sufficient to provide increased forage quality. The dryer climate at HPAL may have limited the ability of the spring pea to compete in mixtures with oats and the oat monoculture may provide sufficient production and quality in these environments.
34
Figure 1. Yields of oats alone, pea alone, or variable seed mixes of oats and peas. Numbers represent the lbs per acre of oat seed in the mix (first number) and the amount of pea seed in the mix (second number). Difference letters represent significant statistical differences in yield between the seed mixes at each separate location.
Table 1. Concentration of crude protein (CP) and total digestible nutrients (TDN) in forage harvested from variable oat and spring pea mixtures at the High Plains Ag Lab (HPAL) and North Platte. Seeding Rate Treatments (lbs ∙ ac-1) Study 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% SE P-Value Location Oat Oat Oat Oat Oat HPAL CP % 19.2 A1 16.1 B 15.2 B 13.9 B 13.8 B 2 <0.01 TDN % 61.6 59.6 58.9 58.0 57.1 4 0.10 North Platte CP % 19.7 A 16.6 B 15.6 B 12.1 C 8.3 D 1 <0.01 TDN % 58.3 55.1 55.7 56.5 56.9 1 0.23
35 Bovatec 2.2 mineral blocks for cattle grazing crested wheatgrass pastures
Karla H. Jenkins, Jacob A. Hansen, David Blanke
Summary: A two year grazing study was conducted to determine if providing Bovatec® in a trace mineralized salt block would improve cattle performance over cattle provided a trace mineralized salt block without an ionophore while maintaining block consumption below 2 oz/hd/d. In year 1, average daily block intake was 1.40 and 1.25 oz/d for the Bovatec® and control cattle, respectively. Lasalocid consumption was 193 mg/hd/d. In year 2, Bovatec 2.2 cattle consumed 1.25 oz/d and the control cattle consumed 5.04 oz./d. This resulted in 178 mg/hd/d Lasalocid for the Bovatec 2.2 cattle. In Year 1, the Bovatec cattle gained 3% more than the control cattle (1.78 vs. 1.73 lb/d) and in Year 2, the Bovatec cattle gains 5.8% more (1.46 vs 1.38 lb/d, respectively). However, statistically, this was not significant (1.46 vs 1.38 lb/d, respectively); P > 0.57). Supplying an ionophore through a self-feeding block may not improve gain compared to supplying mineral alone in a self-feeding block.
Introduction: Beef cattle producers grazing cattle on improved or native pastures are often looking for inexpensive ways to increase gains and forage utilization efficiency. Ionophores have been shown to improve gains and efficiency in beef cattle. However, delivering them to grazing cattle can be challenging and expensive. If a grain or by-product is chosen as a carrier, the supplement has to be routinely delivered to the cattle. Cattle producers with integrated operations are also farming during the growing season and may not have time to supplement cattle daily. In addition to the cost of the carrier, producers incur costs associated with time, labor, and equipment. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine if a trace mineralized salt block supplying lasalocid could improve cattle performance while limiting consumption under 2 ounces/head/day.
Methods and Materials: In Year 1, ninety crossbred steers (728 lb ± 4 lb) were blocked by BW and randomly allotted in an incomplete block design and assigned to pastures, which were assigned to treatments to determine ADG and supplement consumption of the Bovatec 2.2 block. Nine pastures were used in the study (10 hd/pasture), five were assigned randomly to the Bovatec 2.2 block and four were assigned to the control block. In Year 2, 114 crossbred spayed heifers (593 lb ± 5 lb) were assigned to one of 12 pastures (8-10 hd/pasture), which were assigned to treatment. A trace mineralized salt block was used for the control supplement (Table 1). The CON block did not contain protein or an ionophore. Prior to trial initiation cattle were weighed two consecutive days and then began grazing the crested wheatgrass pastures starting May 24, 2012 in Year 1 and May 22, 2018 in Year 2. Prior to trial initiation, cattle were vaccinated for respiratory viruses and clostridial perfinges, dewormed, and given a growth implant. Cattle were rotated through the pastures every two weeks to eliminate any pasture effect on treatment response. Cattle were removed from the pastures on August 2, 2012, after only 69 days of grazing due to extreme drought. In Year 2, cattle grazed 118 days and were removed September 17, 2018 after being weighed two consecutive days again to obtain an average finish weight.
The mineral blocks were weighed and placed in each pasture at the beginning of the experiment. The blocks were weighed for consumption approximately every 3 d. Blocks were replaced before cattle were without supplement. Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS with pasture as the experimental unit.
Results and Discussion: Initial BW and final BW were not different for the cattle consuming Bovatec or control blocks in either year. (P ≥ 0.45; Table 2). Previous research in these same pastures indicated that when cattle were fed ionophores mixed in a daily supplement, they gained more than cattle fed
36 supplement without ionophores (1996 Nebraska Beef Report pp.69-70.) However, in another study, when ionophores were supplied in a mineral block ADG was not different from the control (1991 Nebraska Beef Report pp. 29-30).
In year 1, cattle consumed 1.40 and 1.25 oz./hd/d of the Bovatec and control blocks, respectively (Table 2; P = 0.43).The consumption of lasalocid in the Bovatec blocks was 193 mg/hd/d. Consumption of both blocks was well under the 2 oz/hd/d maximum intake targeted for the study. In Year 2, cattle consumed 1.25 and 5.04 oz/hd/d of the Bovatec and Control blocks, respectively. The consumption of lasalocid was 172 mg/hd/d. Previous authors (1991 Nebraska Beef Report pp.29-30) also indicated a lack of gain response when the ionophore was contained in a mineral block. These authors suggested the lack of treatment response was due to low consumption of the ionophore. When feeding the ionophore in a daily supplement (1996 Nebraska Beef Report, pp.69-70) the intake of lasalocid was 200 mg/hd/d and gains were greater than the control. Yet, in the present study the average daily intake of lasalocid was 193 mg/hd/d and 172 mg/hd/d. It is possible that each animal did not consume the mineral block every day. Intake was highly variable across days with intake well above the targeted 2 oz. on some days and well below that on others. Consuming more than 200 mg/hd/d on some days did not result in a significant gain response overall. Possibly the lack of significant gain response above the control was due to inconsistent intake of the ionophore. Providing an ionophore through a self-feeding mineral block resulted in less than the targeted 2 ounces/hd/d intake of supplement, and did not improve gain compared to the control mineral block which did not include an ionophore.
37 Table 1. Trace mineral content of Bovatec 2.2 and control mineral blocks Bovatec 2.2 Control Trace Control Trace Block Mineral Block (Y1) Mineral Block (Y2) Lasalocid Sodium, g/lb 2.2 ------Salt (NaCl),% 87.5-92.0 95.5-98.5 12-14 Ca,% ------18-21.6 P,% ------8 Mg,% ------0.5 Zn, ppm 3500 3500 1000 Fe, ppm 3400 2000 Not listed Mn, ppm 2000 1800 1000 Cu, ppm 330 280 250 Co, ppm 50 60 ------I, ppm 70 100 100 Vitamin A, IU/lb ------80,000 Vitamin D, IU/lb ------20,000 Vitamin E, IU/lb ------50
Table 2. Performance and mineral intake of grazing cattle consuming a mineral block with or without lasalocid.
Year 1 Year 2 Bovatec Control SEM P Value Bovatec Control SEM P value 2.2 Block Block 2.2 Block Block
Initial Wt, lb 727 729 4.1 0.49 592 594 5.2 0.51 Final Wt, lb 854 853 7.2 0.82 777 768 19.3 0.45 Average Daily 1.78 1.73 0.10 0.57 1.46 1.38 0.06 0.34 Gain, lb Mineral intake, 1.40 1.25 1.25 5.04 oz./d
38 Wheat stem sawfly: Where are they coming from? Jeff Bradshaw, Associate Professor & Extension Entomologist Bethany Thomas, Graduate Research Assistant
Many wheat growers in western Nebraska are familiar with the sawfly survey the PHREC has conducted for several years. With the help of Julie Peterson’s entomology program at the West Central Research and Extension Center, agriculturalists and growers. We have collected over 200 site-years of data! So, what have we observed, what are we learning, and what have we tested thus far?
Figure 1. Map of wheat stem sawfly infested fields in Nebraska from 2011 through 2017.
We have observed that the wheat stem sawfly has increased from an occasional, localized problem on a couple fields in 2011 (with most impact seen in Box Butte County) to a wide-spread epidemic that, for Nebraska, currently is confined to the panhandle (Fig. 1). Our survey data has indicated no particular infestation differences due to tillage practice, crop rotation, management practice, etc. However, our survey data relies on self-reporting and cannot be validated easily for accuracy. We also learned that a native, parasitoid wasp has been highly successful in some locations in some years. Through studies concerning the effect of tillage on sawflies we also happened to observe that these parasitoids are not originating from wheat fallow in order to attack sawflies. Therefore, I recruited a graduate student and we designed a survey to try to understand if grassland habitats could be the source for these biological control organisms of the wheat stem sawfly.
39 Methods: Sweep sampling. We chose 11 grassland sites located both within wheat country and into the Sandhills. Twenty sweep samples were collected for 10 weeks from May 14th through July 5th in 2018. Both wheat stem sawflies and sawfly parasitoids were counted from the samples. Stem sampling. The same sampling locations that were used for sweep sampled, were revisited for grass-stem sampling twice. Two sampling periods June 27 through July 5 and August 6th through 9th 2018. At each location and both sample periods 100 stems per sample per dominant grass species was collected. For each stem sawfly and parasitoid (larvae and pupae) were counted. Additionally, the length and width of each tiller of each species were also measured. For 2019, a PCA analysis will be calculated to identify patterns between the data collected and the observed data.
Results: Roughly 10,000 tillers of various grass species from the 2 collection dates from the 11 locations were collected. The most dominant grass species found at most of our sample locations are smooth brome, intermediate wheat grass, and crested wheat grass. However, so far 5 grass species have been found commonly infested with wheat stem sawfly (Table 1). Based on sampled collect thus far, smooth brome appears to harbor the greatest proportion of sawflies, while intermediate wheatgrass appears to conserve the highest ratios (19%) of parasitized sawfly. Because very, very few wheat stem sawflies were located in the Sandhills, the 2019 sampling season will focus our attention more on locations primarily within the panhandle.
Table 1. Dominant grass species sampled from grassland habitats for wheat stem sawfly and sawfly parasitoids in 2018 (n=32)
% % sawfly-infested Dominant Grasses parasitoids tillers in tillers Crested Wheatgrass 9.5 0.6 Intermediate 20.3 3.9 Wheatgrass Needle and Thread 0.4 0.0 Sand Dropseed 11.5 1.5 Smooth Brome 43.4 5.1
40 Characterization of Dryland Corn Hybrid Response to Seeding Rate Lucas Haag Ph.D., Associate Professor / Northwest Area Agronomist K-State Northwest Research-Extension Center, Colby, Kansas Phone: (785)462-6281 Email: [email protected] Twitter: @LucasAHaag Website: www.northwest.ksu.edu/agronomy
Introduction Hybrid characterization is key to selecting agronomically and economically optimal seeding rates both for field-wide and site-specific management. Our ability to create variable rate seeding prescriptions has exceeded our ability to characterize how any individual hybrid will respond to changes in seeding rate. Rapid turnover in the hybrid corn market further complicates this as producers have fewer opportunities to evaluate a hybrid before it is removed from the marketplace. We know that yield components flex differently and at different rates for different hybrids. The very term “ear-flex” is poorly defined in the industry and some seed companies are no longer publicizing ear flex scorings of any type in their product profiles.
Objective The objective of this research project is to evaluate potential dryland corn hybrids over a wide range of seeding rates and evaluate the response of individual yield components. Also important is the evaluation of how stable a hybrids response is across years and environments.
Procedures From 2016 through 2018 a set of 35 to 42 hybrids was no-till planted into dryland wheat stubble in Decatur County, KS, near the Nebraska state line. Five seeding rates were used, 8.1, 14.2, 17.2, 20.7, and 27,000 seeds per acre. Plots were arranged in a split plot design with four replications. Data collected included yield, ears per plant, average kernel rows per hear, average kernels per ear row, and kernel weight.
Results and Discussion Record high corn yields were obtained for the environment for all 3 years of the study (2016, 2017, 2018). Observed in this study however is that one of the biggest drivers to differences in seeding rate response curves is yield per plant under conditions of high resource availability per plant (i.e. very low seeding rates in high yield environments). This is illustrated by two of the hybrids in the 2018 study (Figure 1). For a common yield goal of 150 bu/ac, the optimal seeding rate between these two hybrids would differ by 5,000 seeds/acre. At current seed costs, this could result in a difference of $15/ac in seed cost. Prolificacy, or the ability of a hybrid to set multiple productive ears per plant, was a major factor in a given hybrid’s ability to capitalize on resource availability. In 2018, per plant grain yield among hybrids at the lowest seeding rate ranged from a low of 0.57 lb/plant to 0.84 lb/plant, equivalent to grain yields of 85.7 to 121.1 bu/ac (Figure 2). An increase in average ears/plant was a significant contributor to this, increasing from 1.8 to 2.7.
Recommendations Producers can learn a lot about a hybrid’s response to resource availability (and therefore response to seeding rate), by planting hybrids over a very large range of seeding rates. Producers should consider that if their seeding rate maximizes per plant grain yield in an average year they are likely leaving yield on the table in years where conditions would allow higher yield potentials. This could be especially problematic in hybrids that are non-prolific, and thus have less “flex” potential.
41
For your most familiar hybrid and new hybrids you might be considering, plant small areas (one planter width x some distance) at a wide range of seeding rates (perhaps 5,000 to 25,000 for Panhandle dryland corn). You could also plant strips with a minimum of 400’ in length to different seeding rates and evaluate seeding rate response and per plant grain yield.
Figure 1- Yield response to seeding rate for two hybrids. Decatur County, Kansas, 2018.
Figure 2 - Yield per plant and ears per plant for 38 hybrids planted at 8,100 seeds/acre. Decatur County, Kansas, 2018.
42 Dryland Forage Sorghum Variety Testing Cody Creech, Dryland Cropping Systems Specialist; Amanda Easterly, Dryland Cropping Systems Research Lab Manager James Burford, Dryland Cropping Systems Research Technician Introduction and Objective Forage sorghum is primarily used as a feed for livestock. The entire, above ground mass, is harvested at the soft dough stage and stored as silage for future use. It can also be grazed by livestock, but this option can lead to waste of the sorghum due to trampling in down. Forage sorghum is a reasonable crop to grow due to its drought tolerance and quick growth. These attributes make it a good alternative to corn under the right conditions and if forage is desired. Materials and Methods The study was planted at HPAL on May 31st, 2018. The row spacing was 30 inches and planted at a population of 60 thousand seeds per acre. The trial area was sprayed with a mix of Warrant and Roundup on June 4, 2018. This trial was conducted in both dryland and irrigated conditions. They were harvested on September 26th. Results and Discussion For the dryland results, Variety F76FS77BMR had the highest yield of 11.27 tons per acre at 65% moisture, while SuperSile20 had the best yield of 11.25 tons per acre for the irrigated trial. The lowest performing variety for dryland was the 96 BMR, only yielding 3.66 tons per acre. For the irrigated results, variety Fullgraze BMR did the worst with 4.49 tons per acre. Although it is usually assumed that irrigation is better, the results reflected the opposite. It is likely that the irrigated trial was lacking fertility to achieve maximum yields and did not receive enough irrigation. For the yield results, our dryland field outperformed the irrigated by about a ton and a quarter per acre average. The dryland also came in significantly higher in percent crude protein. Irrigated results are not presented but are available upon request.
43
44 First Year of a Biochar/Nitrogen Experiment
Cody Creech, Dryland Cropping Systems Specialist; Amanda Easterly, Dryland Cropping Systems Research Lab Manager; James Burford, Dryland Cropping Systems Research Technician; Humberto Blanco, Associate Professor Soil Management
Introduction and Objective Biochar is the byproduct of the pyrolysis of biomass, usually lumber byproducts. It is marketed as a soil amendment that can provide soil organic matter, increase water holding capacity of soils, enhance plant-beneficial microorganisms, as well as sequester carbon (Atkinson et al., 2010). In the spring of 2018, an experiment was established to evaluate the interaction between nitrogen fertilization and biochar over the course of a three-year cropping rotation.
Materials and Methods Five rates of biochar (0, 1.25, 2.5, 5, and 10 tons/acre) were applied with a mechanized spreader on 30’ by 30’ plots in a randomized complete block design and incorporated using tillage. Each of these plots was subdivided into 10’ by 30’ plots on which three rates of nitrogen (0, 75, and 150 lbs/acre) were applied as 52-0-0 urea. The field had been planted to sunflowers the year prior to reduce residual nitrogen in the plot. The entire field was planted to proso millet without any additional fertilizer, but weed control and field management was otherwise uniform to mimic growing conditions by dryland producers.
Results and Discussion Visual differences were apparent in the plots between the different nitrogen treatments. This was confirmed by differences in yield response to the different rates of urea. The 75 and 150 lb/acre nitrogen treatments performed similarly at 65.6 and 64.1 bushels/acre, respectively, while the no nitrogen treatment was significantly lower at 56.2 bushels/acre. Figure 2 shows the differences between combinations of Figure 1. Biochar being spread on the field. treatments for biochar-by-nitrogen interactions. While there are no significant effects of the biochar on yield yet, this experiment will be continued over the next several years through an intensive crop rotation and other soil health parameters will be monitored.
45 Sources Atkinson, C. J., Fitzgerald, J. D., & Hipps, N. A. (2010). Potential mechanisms for achieving agricultural benefits from biochar application to temperate soils: a review. Plant and soil, 337(1- 2), 1-18.
Figure 2. Effects of Biochar and Nitrogen treatments on millet yield. Under the control (0 ton/acre) biochar treatment, the millet yield increases with increasing nitrogen, however the relationship becomes more complicated as biochar is added and some of the nitrogen may be tied up by the biochar.
46 Soybean Variety Trial
Cody Creech, Dryland Cropping Systems Specialist; Amanda Easterly, Dryland Cropping Systems Research Lab Manager; James Burford, Dryland Cropping Systems Research Technician;
Introduction and Objective Soybeans are a fairly new crop to dryland farmers in the Panhandle. Not only do they offer a competitive price at market, but they also provide a couple different benefits to farmers. Soybeans have the natural benefit of fixing atmospheric nitrogen, making it available to the soil. This is very useful when implementing soybeans into a crop rotation program to reduce inputs for other crops. There are also several varieties of soybeans that have advanced genetics, allowing for more aggressive and effective herbicide applications. The focus of this trial was to examine differences in yield between 17 varieties of soybeans in a dryland system. This will allow producers that are interested in soybeans a more accurate way of determining which variety is best for them and what to expect at harvest.
Materials and Methods The soybeans were planted on the HPAL (High Plains Agricultural Lab) Farm on June 4, 2018 in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Seeds were planted at 1.5 inches deep at a rate of 100,000 seeds per acre on 30-inch rows. The plot size was 30 feet long by four rows wide. The entire plot area was sprayed with glyphosate prior to planting for a burndown on the weeds at a rate of 32 oz/acre. The study also required a second application of glyphosate and raptor a few weeks later, along with hand weeding as needed.
Results and Discussion Although 2018 had unusually high rainfall, shattering of the soybeans had a negative effect on yields. Some varieties matured later than others, making it difficult to harvest at an optimum time for all varieties. There was a large difference between our highest and lowest performing variety. The highest yield was that of variety U11-607166R/M17 with an average yield of 20.11 bushels per acre and the lowest was variety 1926NR with an average yield of 11.83 bushels per acre. In future, such variety trials will be blocked by relative maturity to allow for harvest at the optimal time to obtain better estimates of yield.
47
48 Grain Sorghum Variety Testing Cody Creech, Dryland Cropping Systems Specialist; Amanda Easterly, Dryland Cropping Systems Research Lab Manager James Burford, Dryland Cropping Systems Research Technician Introduction and Objective Grain Sorghum, or Milo, differs from forage sorghum by the fact that its seed is primarily utilized as opposed to it total biomass. The grain is often fed to livestock in the U.S. or packaged for birdseed; however, it can be used for human consumption as well. Being that it is a sorghum, it performs better in hotter, dryer climates than corn does. Materials and Methods The study was planted at HPAL on May 31, 2018. Another replication of the study was planted on a cooperators field in Banner County, NE on June 5, 2018. The row spacing was 30 inches and planted at a population of 60 thousand seeds per acre. The trial area was sprayed with a mix of Warrant and Glyphosate on June 8, 2018. The HPAL location also received an additional herbicide application of atrazine at 2.5 pints per acre on June 26, 2018. The Banner County location was hand weeded and spot sprayed when needed. Results and Discussion As Table 1.1 shows, the Banner County plot had a much better crop than the HPAL location. Average yield for Banner Co. was 52.38 and HPAL was only 34.19. The top performing variety at HPAL, AS215, performed as well as the average in Banner Co., but did not come close to the 65.2 bushels per acre of variety DKS29-28 in Banner Co.
49 Evaluating the feasibility of replacing Summer Fallow with Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.) in the semi-arid Central Great Plains S. Koeshall – Graduate Research Assistant C. Creech – Dryland Cropping Systems Specialist A. Easterly – Dryland Cropping Systems Research Laboratory Manager R. Werle – Weed Scientist (UW-Madison) S. Stepanovic – Cropping Systems Extension Educator
Objective
Water conservation and soil fertility are the two limiting factors in dryland cropping systems throughout the Great Plains. Many cereal grain dryland cropping systems have incorporated summer fallow in wheat-based production systems as a management practice to conserve soil water content. Even though summer fallow does conserve soil water content, proper management of summer fallow demands effective management of weeds. Weed management can be a challenge in summer fallow due to herbicide-resistant weed populations increasing which limit cost-effective herbicide options. Yellow field pea (Pisum sativum L.) has become a popular pulse crop in the central Great Plains that could replace summer fallow because of its short growing season and a growing market demand. Yellow field pea has the ability to improve soil fertility, increase water productivity, and suppress summer annual weeds while producing a cash crop in place of a summer fallow period.
Methods
Two sites (Sidney & North Platte, NE) were established to determine the effect of yellow field pea versus summer fallow on soil fertility, water conservation, and land productivity in a wheat-corn-fallow rotation. Field pea plots were paired side-by-side with summer fallow for comparison throughout the growing seasons. Field peas were planted March 21 and March 23 at Sidney and North Platte. After field pea was emerged, a baseline soil test was taken on summer fallow and field pea plots. Soil water content was monitored every two weeks in field pea and summer fallow plots after field pea was emerged. Soil fertility was tested again after field pea plots were harvested on July 10 to test for differences in nitrates, phosphorus, potassium, organic matter, pH, and soil microbiome activity between summer fallow and field pea at 0-8 inches and 8-24 inches in the soil profile. Field pea plots were harvested for yield, test weight, and seed moisture.
Results and Conclusions
Volumetric water content (m3 m-3) did not differ between summer fallow and field pea until yellow field pea began the reproductive cycle of forming seed pods, however, after field pea harvest, soil water content of field pea began to come back into equilibrium with summer fallow water content. Summer fallow contained on average 47% more water over field pea across all observations. At Sidney, nitrate and soluble salt content was different with summer fallow expressing greater levels while microbial activity did not differ. At North Platte, field pea expressed a greater level of microbial activity and nitrogen mineralization over summer fallow. The effect of field pea may depend on environmental conditions as soil trends between Sidney and North Platte differ. Field pea yielded 22 bu. /acre and 30 bu. /acre at Sidney and North Platte respectively. Integration of field pea into crop rotations can be approached with a multi-year vision for improving ecological parameters such as soil water holding capacity, soil microbiome, and soil fertility. The use of field pea can be part of a long-term strategy to enhance ecological sustainability while producing a high-protein cash crop.
50
Figure 3. Volumetric Water Content (m3 m-3) over time from establishment of yellow field pea to recent establishment of hard red winter wheat (HRW) in summer fallow and previous yellow field pea plots.
Figure 5 & 6. Nitrate, mineralization of nitrogen from organic carbon sources, and soluble salts in summer fallow and field pea treatments.
51