MPGA On-Farm Soybean Trials: Assessing Effects of...

MPGA On-Farm Soybean Trials: Assessing Effects of u singonly Seed Applied Inoculant on Soybeans

November 19, 2014

Prepared for:

MPGAP.O. Box 1760

Carman, MB R0G 0J0Telephone/Téléphone: 201-745-6488

November 2014

Prepared by:

Ron Tone PAg, CCATone Ag Consulting Ltd.Box 333 St. Pierre, MBR0A 1V0Ph: 204-433-7189 Fax: [email protected]

MPGA Soybean Inoculation Trials Prepared by Tone Ag Consulting Ltd.November 2014 2

1 Executive Summary

In 2014, 7 field scale soybean trials (Table 1) were set up. These were to continue studies ondetermining what effect there would be on yield if only seed applied inoculant was used instead ofboth seed applied and in-furrow inoculant. There were 7 fields that were selected for the soybeanon-farm trials across Eastern Manitoba this year and they were seeded between May 21st and May31st. These fields all had a previous history of soybeans of at least 2 years.

Seeding rates ranged from approximately 168,000 seeds/acre to 237,000 seeds/acre with rowspacing from 10 to 30 inches. There were four planters and three air drills used to plant thesoybeans. In the trials, the farmer applied both his normal rates of seed applied and in-furrowinoculant (ranged from 5-7 lbs/ac for granular, 1X-3X rate for liquids) on 6 field-length strips(With), alternating with 6 strips of only inoculant on the seed (W/O). Please note that the Lorette-W trial had only 8 strips in total.

The following is a summary of the results:

1. The trial results (Table 1) showed an average –0.2 bus/acre yield disadvantage for the stripswith both seed applied and in-furrow inoculant. None of the ten trials showed a statisticalsignificance in favor of using both inoculants at a 95% confidence interval.

2. The cost of granular inoculant is $11.00/acre (average cost of 5 lbs/ac of granular). The cost ofin-furrow liquid inoculant is $3.00/acre. This year, the strips using granular inoculant resultedin a $11.00/acre loss and the strips using liquid in-furrow resulted in a $3.00/acre loss. Thetrials show that there would be no economic return for using in-furrow inoculant.

3. Soybean yields ranged from 20 to 53 bus/acre across the trials. The yield difference betweenany two treatments ranged from –1.5 to 0.8 bus/acre.

4. Nodulation counts were done at the V3 and R2 stage. Nodulation counts across all the trialswere high this year and showed no difference between the two treatments.

5. Fields with higher soil N and P levels showed a moderate correlation with higher yields. Therewas no correlation with soil K levels and yield. Rainfall, soluble salts and carbonates were highon four of the seven trials, which resulted in varying levels of iron chlorosis throughout thefield.

6. For this year, there seemed to be no correlation between yield and rainfall, even when lookingat the crucial period of R4 (pod is .75 inches long at one of four uppermost nodes) to R6 (seedfills pod at one of four uppermost nodes).

7. Diseases were low to medium this year and consisted of fusarium and phytopthora root rot,alternaria and septoria leaf spot, bacterial blight, and downy mildew. Insects consisted ofmainly grasshoppers and damage was low to medium. Soybean aphids arrived in all triallocations after the soybeans had reached R6.5 so damage was very minimal.

When combined with last year’s data, the probability for break-even economic return is 18% (at asoybean price of $10.00/bushel and granular inoculant at $11.50/acre (average cost of 5 lbs/ac ofgranular).

There will be another year of on-farm research to determine if using in-furrow inoculant onsoybeans provides an economic return.


Table of Contents

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 2

2 BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................................................... 4

3 OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 6

4 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 11

5 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................................... 11

6 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

APPENDIX 1: AIR PHOTO MAPS............................................................................................................................. 13

APPENDIX 2: INDIVIDUAL STRIP TRIAL SUMMARIES ................................................................................... 14


2 Background

Soybean acres in Manitoba have increased to about 1.3 million acres of soybeans in 2014 from lessthan 800 acres in 1996 (MAFRD). With this increase in acres comes interest in the bestmanagement practices to ensure sustainability of the industry and profitability for farmers. There isa need for an organized on-farm collection of quality data to learn what is profitable and what isn’t.In discussions with farmers, it appears that inoculation is a priority.

This year, there were 7 soybean farmers who set up strip trials across their fields in EasternManitoba. These 7 fields were set up to obtain data on inoculation. The 7 fields were seededbetween May 21st and May 31st. There were usually 12 strips across the field. There were 6alternating strips with the farmer’s normal application of seed applied and in-furrow inoculant and6 strips that contained only inoculant on the seed. There were 4 planters and 3 air drills (Table 2).The fields were usually about a ½ mile long and the strips 40 to 80 feet in width depending on whatwas needed to take a ‘pure’ combine swath. This resulted in about 2.4 to 4.8 acres in a strip orfrom 30 to 50 acres in a trial (See Appendix 1 for Airphoto maps). Information on individual trialsis located in Appendix 2.

The soybean seeds have been put under a 3-minute soak test to see the percentage of seeds thatcrack. These percentages range from approximately 8-25% (Table 2), with the lower numberindicating the better result. Anything below 10% is considered acceptable for percent of cracks.Plant populations were taken on 10 foot strips in each strip at first trifoliate and pre-harvest.


#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

013

Anola

Arnaud

Morris

Teulon

Aubigny

Balmoral

Landmark

Rosenort

St. Malo

Sperling

Greenwald

Stonewall

Beausejour

Cloverdale

Petersfield

St-Pierre-Jolys

ø÷3 0 5

ø÷3 3 0

ø÷0 0 2

ø÷3 0 2

ø÷0 1 2

ø÷3 1 7

ø÷0 4 4

ø÷0 0 1

ø÷0 5 2

ø÷0 5 9

ø÷0 2 3

ø÷2 0 5

ø÷0 0 9ø÷0 0 8

ø÷0 0 7

ø÷1 0 1ø÷2 0 6

ø÷0 6 7

ø÷0 5 9

ø÷0 7 5

ø÷2 0 0

ø÷0 1 2

Morris-H

Landmark-W

Lorette-W

Hazelridge-S

Beausejour-H

Beausejour-O

Carman-V

ø÷2 0 5Carman

Overview - Inoculation Trials

5 0 5 10 Miles

1:750000

N

EW

S

2014-11-13

MPGA On-Farm Network 2014

Data Sources:Fields drawn by Tone Ag in consul tation with landowner, and subject to change.Orthophotos are 1:60,000 from Manitoba Land Ini tative websiteHighways are from Manitoba Highways and Transportation 1:60,000 map 1994 Sections are from Manitoba Land Initative webs ite

MunicipalityMunicipal RoadsHighways

# TownsFields

Location

Carman-VBeausejour-HMorris-HLandmark-WBeausejour-OLorette-WHazelridge-S

Date Seeded

May 21May 22May 23May 23May 29May 30May 31

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

1E1W2W3W4W5W 2E 3E 4E 5E 6E 7E 8E 9E


3 Observations

Yield Difference:

Table 1 gives a summary of yields on the 7 trials. The average seeding rate across the triallocations was 193,000 (Table 1). Similar to last year, neither total rainfall nor rainfall from July 24to August 29 (R4-R6 stage) correlated with yield (Table 1 and Figure 1). The R4 stage (pod is ¾”long at 1 of 4 uppermost nodes on the main stem with a fully developed leaf) was reached aboutJuly 24 and lasted until August 29 on most of the trials. Yields ranged from 20 to 53 bushels/acre.The yield difference between the two treatments ranged from –1.5 to 0.8 bus/acre.

There was a loss of 0.2 bus/acres for using both inoculants across the trial locations. None of thetrials showed a statistical significance in favor of using one or both inoculants at a 95% confidenceinterval (Appendix 3).

Looking at the results from this year’s data, there was no economic advantage for using bothinoculants. When combined with last year’s trials, over the past two years there is an economicaladvantage for using both on seed and in-furrow inoculants 3 out of 17 times (18%).

MPGA On-Farm Soybean Inoculant Trial - 2014 Summary

Location VarietyPrevious

CropDate

Seeded

Row Spacing

(in.)

Seeding Rate (K) 2

Yield Difference

(bus/ac)

Total Rainfall

(in)

Rainfall R4-R6

(in)

Carman-V*Syngenta S00-T9

HRS Wheat 21-May-14 30 178 120 vs 118 67% vs 66% 52.8 vs 52.2 0.6 10.4 3.7

Landmark-W* Thunder 32004 Soybeans 23-May-14 30 168 116 vs 119 69% vs 71% 37.9 vs 39.4 -1.5 7.9 1.0

Lorette-W* Legend 004R21 HRS Wheat 30-May-14 20 170 140 vs 116 82% vs 68% 38.5 vs 39.2 -0.7 6.8 0.9

Hazelridge-S* NSC Moosomin HRS Wheat 31-May-14 15 196 139 vs 145 71% vs 74% 38.6 vs 38.5 0.1 12.7 3.1

Morris-H Pioneer 900Y61 Soybeans 23-May-14 15 195 154 vs 148 79% vs 76% 30.2 vs 29.4 0.8 12.6 2.8

Beausejour-H Pride Soybeans 22-May-14 10 237 172 vs 155 73% vs 65% 26.2 vs 26.5 -0.3 9.6 1.7

Beausejour-O Dekalb 24-10 Oats 29-May-14 10 210 91 vs 115 43% vs 55% 20.6 vs 20.7 -0.1 13.9 1.9

193 133 vs 131 69% vs 68% 35.0 vs 35.1 -0.22 K = in 1,000's 3 With = Liquid on seed and granular/liquid in row W/O = Liquid on seed only

* Planter

% of Target Pre-Harvest

With W/O

Plant @ Pre-Harvest (K)

With 3 W/O

Yield (bus/ac) With 3 W/O


Rainfall/Yield:

There was no correlation between total rainfall or R4-R6 rainfall and yield (Figure 1). Rainfallvaried from a low of 6.8 inches at the Lorette-W trial to a high of 13.9 inches at the Beausejour-Otrial. The excess water at the Beausejour-O trial during harvest made it difficult to keep thecombine header close to the ground.

Ground Cover/Yield:

Table 2 shows the soil types ranging from peat to clay to very fine sandy loam. The Ag Capabilityranged from Class 2 to 6. The varieties ranged from short to long season. The percent groundcover was taken at row closure between August 6-14. Two of the three trials with 30” row spacingdid not close. There was no relationship between ground cover and yield (Figure 3). The percentcrop residue cover on the fields was also done and showed no correlation with overall yield. Thismay be different in cooler/wetter springs where higher residue cover could have an impact on plantemergence and yield. There was a strong relationship this year between yield and row spacing withthe highest yields coming from 30” row spacing (Table 1).

Figure 1 - Rainfall vs. Yield

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

Carman

-V*

Land

mark-

W*

Lore

tte-W

*

Hazelr

idge-

S*

Morris

-H

Beaus

ejour

-H

Beaus

ejour

-O

Yie

ld (

bus/

ac)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Rai

nfal

l (in

) With

Without

Total Rainfall (in)

Rainfall R4-R6 (in)


Figure 3 - % Ground Cover & Residue Cover vs. Yield

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

Carman

-V*

Land

mar

k-W

*

Lore

tte-W

*

Hazelr

idge-S*

Mor

ris-H

Beaus

ejou

r-H

Beaus

ejou

r-O

Yie

ld (bu

s/ac

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% C

over

With W/O % Ground Cover % Residue Cover

Table 2 - Ground Cover & SoilsInoculation

Location Seeder TypeDate

Seeded

Date of Row

Closure

Days to Row

Closure

% Crop Residue Cover

1 % Ground Cover

Row Spacing

(in.)Variety

2 Season S/M/L

3 IDC Rating

TAC Crack

%

1 Soil TextureSoil Ag

Cap

Lorette-W* JD 1790 Planter 30-May-14 14-Aug-14 76 12 94 20Legend 004R21

M 1.6 11OBO d, RIV 5 -

OBO 5 dClay 2W-3W

Beausejour-H Bourgault 3320 22-May-14 6-Aug-14 76 22 93 10 Pride M 2.3 8 WTD d VFSL 3W

Landmark-W* JD 7200 Planter 23-May-14Did Not Close

Did Not Close

21 86 30Thunder 32004

S 1.7 12 RIV 8 - OBO 2 Clay 2W-3W

Hazelridge-S* JD DB60 Planter 31-May-14 6-Aug-14 67 32 86 15NSC

MoosominS 2.5 11 MRQ, OBO d Clay 2W-3NW

Carman-V* JD 7200 Planter 21-May-14Did Not Close

Did Not Close

21 84 30Syngenta S00-T9

L 1.6 22RLD o, KOT 7 -

RLD 3FSL 2M

Morris-H JD 1820 AD 23-May-14 8-Aug-14 77 24 82 15Pioneer 900Y61

M 1.6 11RIV 7 - OBO 3 d,

OBO dClay 2W-3W

Beausejour-O Concord 4010 29-May-14 6-Aug-14 69 28 64 10Dekalb 24-10

M 2.2 25OOK 4 - CAY 4 - FYL 2 p, OBO d

Clay - Peat3W-4WL-

6W1 % ground cover done at row closure2 Length of growing season * Planter 1 Soils:3 Iron Deficiency Chlorosis: IDC RIV - Red River KOT - Kronstol

1-1.7 Tolerant 1.8-2.6 Semi-Tolerant 2.7-5 Susceptible OBO - Osborne MRQ - Marquette

(taken from Seed Manitoba 2014) OOK - Orok

RGD - Rignold WTD - Wentland

FYL - Fyala

VFSL = Very Fine Sandy Loam

FSL = Fine Sandy Loam

CAY - Cayer


Soil Fertility & Nodulation/Yields:

Soil tests were done in spring after seeding (Table 3). All trials had at least a medium soil P level.There were very high soil P levels at Landmark-W (61 ppm), Carman-V (57 ppm), and Beausejour-O (20 ppm). Three of the seven sites have a history of manure (Landmark-W – chicken, Carman-V– dairy, Beausejour-H – swine). Figure 4 shows a moderate correlation between yield and N and Plevels.

The soil analysis (Table 3) shows soil nitrogen ranging from 7-42 lbs/acre. All trials had excellentnodulation and showed no difference between the two treatments.

30 lbs of actual P was applied in the fall at the Lorette-W field. At Beausejour-H, 20 lbs actual Pand 10 lbs actual K were added with the soybeans at planting.

Table 3 - Soil Sample Analysis Zn critical soil test levels are 0.25 (ppm) for cereals, 1 (ppm) for corn, 0.5 (ppm) for edible beans & soybeans?

Mn critical level 1 (pmm) for soybeans

Sorted by Field ID and Date sampled ascending0.76 -

24.6 -

6 46-60

2,100-4,500

0.7-0.8 3.1-4.0 -- 7.6-10

Field Name Field ID Acres DateSamN 0-24" (lb/a)

P 0-6" (ppm)

K 0-6" (ppm)

pH 0-6" pH 6-24"Na

(ppm)B

(ppm)S 0-6" (lb/ac)

S 6-24" (lb/ac)

Salts 0-6"

Salts 6-24"

CCE% O.M. ClCa

(ppm)Cu

(ppm)Mn

(ppm)Mn/Cu ratio*

Fe (ppm)

Beausejour-H NE 2-15-7E 155 10-Oct-13 9 13 112 8.1 8.2 25 1.2 38 360 0.4 0.7 4.0 4.1 88 5309 0.8 2.4 3.1 30.2Beausejour-O SW 16-16-8E 161 29-May-14 7 20 351 7.6 8.0 67 1.8 58 360 0.6 2.0 0.6 6.9 12 5855 1.5 2.0 1.3 44.2Carman-V SE 1-7-5W 172 21-May-14 25 57 257 7.4 8.3 25 0.7 22 54 0.2 0.2 0.4 2.0 96 2766 1.8 2.3 1.3 43.5Hazelridge-S Pt. NW 15-12-6E 96 31-May-14 19 14 400 7.5 7.9 104 2.0 120 360 1.1 2.1 2.0 7.8 80 6108 1.8 2.6 1.4 35.5Landmark-W SW 7-8-6E 125 23-May-14 42 61 576 7.3 7.8 79 1.2 16 84 0.6 0.7 1.8 5.9 152 6206 2.8 1.7 0.6 55.6Lorette-W RL 15 Tache 121 30-May-14 29 17 322 7.8 8.3 32 1.8 14 30 0.6 0.5 7.5 5.8 16 6559 1.7 2.2 1.3 21.7Morris-H SE 28-4-2E 81 23-May-14 17 15 541 6.8 7.7 80 1.2 8 78 0.5 0.8 0.1 6.4 744 5194 2.3 3.5 1.5 82.9

HIGH LEVEL

Figure 4 - Yield vs. Soil N & P Level

R2 = 0.7065

R2 = 0.5768

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.0

Carman

-V*

Land

mar

k-W

*

Lore

tte-W

*

Hazelr

idge-

S*

Mor

ris-H

Beaus

ejour

-H

Beaus

ejour

-O

Yie

ld (

bus/

ac)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

N (

lbs/

ac)

& P

(pp

m)

With

Without

Nitrogen (lbs/ac)

P (ppm)


Combine Losses:

Table 4 shows header types used and soybean losses after combining. Combine losses wereminimal to high and ranged from 0.4 to 3.1 bus/acre. Combine losses are considered minimal ifless than 2% of yield (Generally, less than 1 bus/acre). All combines had flexheads. Speeds rangedfrom 3-5 mph. Combines equipped with air reels showed a 0.3 bus/ac advantage.

Comments on Individual trials:

Influences on yields between strips (See Appendix 2 to look at individual trial results):

1. Compaction at seeding due to the ground being wet (varied across all trials)2. Sprayer tracks in one strip but not in other (varied across all trials)3. Excess moisture Beausejour-O, Morris-H4. Insects/disease – low levels

Table 4 - Combine Losses

Location Header TypeHeader Width

(ft)

Combine Loss Seed

loss/ft 2

Combine Speed (MPH)

Seeds/lbBus/ac

Combine Loss

Hazelridge-S 635F JD Flexhead 35 1.7 3 2998 0.4

Carman-V 930F JD Flexhead 30 1.8 3.7 2573 0.5

Lorette-WMacDon FD70

Flexdraper35 3.2 3.6 2695 0.9

Landmark-WCase 1020 Flexhead

25 4.6 3.2 2766 1.2

Morris-HCase 1020 Flexhead

30 4.5 4 2657 1.2

Beausejour-HMacDon FD75

Flexdraper40 7.0 3.5 2842 1.8

Beausejour-O 635F JD Flexhead 35 5 2984

Air Reel* Counts were not done at Beausejour-O location


4 Recommendations

Need one more year of on-farm inoculation trials to obtain more data to determine if using in-furrow inoculant on soybeans provides an economic return.

5 Conclusions

1. This year, the study showed there was a 0.2 bus/acre yield disadvantage of using both in-furrowand seed applied inoculants vs. only seed applied inoculant.

2. There was no economic return of using in-furrow inoculant.3. When combined with last year’s trials, there is an economic return of using in-furrow inoculant

3 out of 17 times (18%).4. Nodulation between the two treatments was the same at all 10 trial locations.5. The top yields came from fields planted on 30” row spacing.6. Soybean yields appear to have a relationship with soil P levels.


6 References

Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, 2005. Soil Management Guide.


Appendix 1: Air Photo Maps

#########################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################

##########################################################################################################################################################################################################################################

###############################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################

#########################################################################################################################################################################################################################################

#######################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################

###################################################################################################################################################################################################################

###############################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################

#########

############################################################################################################################################################################################################################################

############################################################################

############################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################

######################################################################################################################################################################################################################

####################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################

###########################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################

#######################################################################

W/O

W/O

W/O

W/O

W/O

W/O

With

With

With

With

With

WithWTD d

PMG

DCS xbxx

FMS xbxx

Beausejour-H

300 0 300 600 Feet

1:3750

N

EW

S

2014-11-12

DrainageMunicipal RoadsFieldsSoilsTest Strips

Yield# 0 - 20# 20 - 35# 35+

MPGA Trials - Inoculant

Data Sources:Fields drawn by Tone Ag in consultation with landowner, and subject to change.Orthophotos are 1:60,000 from Manitoba Land Initative websiteHighways are from Manitoba Highways and Transportation 1:60,000 map 1994 Sections are from Manitoba Land Initative website

Piney

Reynolds

Grey

LorneMorris

Alexander

Louise PembinaFranklinStanley

Portage La Prairie

Dufferin

Rockwood

Stuartburn

Woodlands

Westbourne

MacDonald

Springfield

Rhineland

Victoria

Tache

Hanover

North NorfolkNorth Cypress Cartier

Lac Du Bonnet

South Cypress

St. Andrews

Roland

Lansdowne Lakeview

St. Clements

Brokenhead

Rosser Whitemouth

South Norfolk

De SalaberryThompson

Montcalm

St. Laurent

Ste. AnneRitchot

La Broquerie

Pinawa

Headingly

St. Francois XavierWest St. Paul

East St. Paul

OBO d

OOK4 - CAY4 - FYL2 p

FYL p

MRS

With

With

With

With

With

With

W/O

W/O

W/O W/O

W/O

W/O

Beausejour-O

300 0 300 600 Feet

1:4500

N

EW

S

2014-09-08

FieldsSoilsTest Strips



Piney

Reynolds

Grey

LorneMorris

Alexander

Louise PembinaFranklinStanley

Portage La Prairie

Dufferin

Rockwood

Stuartburn

Woodlands

Westbourne

MacDonald

Springfield

Rhineland

Victoria

Tache

Hanover


Lac Du Bonnet

South Cypress

St. Andrews

Roland

Lansdowne Lakeview

St. Clements

Brokenhead

Rosser Whitemouth

South Norfolk


Montcalm

St. Laurent

Ste. AnneRitchot

La Broquerie

Pinawa

Headingly


East St. Paul

W/O

W/O

W/O

W/O

W/O

W/O

With

With

With

With

With

With

RLD oxxx

OWK

RLD8 1xxx - OWK2

KOT7 - RLD3

Carman-V

300 0 300 600 Feet

1:3500

N

EW

S

2014-11-19

Municipal RoadsFieldsSoilsTest Strips

Yield (bus/ac)0 - 2525 - 4545+



Piney

Reynolds

Grey

LorneMorris

Alexander

PembinaFranklinStanley

Portage La Prairie

Dufferin

Rockwood

Stuartburn

Woodlands

Westbourne

MacDonald

Springfield

Rhineland

Tache

Hanover


Lac Du Bonnet

South Cypress

St. Andrews

Roland

Lakeview

St. Clements

Brokenhead

Rosser Whitemouth

South Norfolk


Montcalm

St. Laurent

Ste. AnneRitchot

La Broquerie

Pinawa

Headingly


East St. Paul

OBOd/xxxs

MRQ/xx1x

MRQ1

With

With

With

With

With

With

W/O

W/O

W/O

W/O

W/O

W/O

Hazelridge-S

300 0 300 600 Feet

1:4500

N

EW

S

2014-09-08




Piney

Reynolds

Grey

LorneMorris

Alexander


Portage La Prairie

Dufferin

Rockwood

Stuartburn

Woodlands

Westbourne

MacDonald

Springfield

Rhineland

Tache

Hanover


Lac Du Bonnet

South Cypress

St. Andrews

Roland

Lakeview

St. Clements

Brokenhead

Rosser Whitemouth

South Norfolk


Montcalm

St. Laurent

Ste. AnneRitchot

La Broquerie

Pinawa

Headingly


East St. Paul

7

RIV8 - OBO2

W/O

W/O

W/O

W/O

W/O

W/O

With

With

With

With

With

With

Landmark-W

300 0 300 600 Feet

1:4750

N

EW

S

2014-09-08

DrainageFieldsSoilsTest Strips



Piney

Reynolds

Grey

LorneMorris

Alexander


Portage La Prairie

Dufferin

Rockwood

Stuartburn

Woodlands

Westbourne

MacDonald

Springfield

Rhineland

Tache

Hanover


Lac Du Bonnet

South Cypress

St. Andrews

Roland

Lakeview

St. Clements

Brokenhead

Rosser Whitemouth

South Norfolk


Montcalm

St. Laurent

Ste. AnneRitchot

La Broquerie

Pinawa

Headingly


East St. Paul

#With

# W/O

#With

# W/O

OBO d

RIV5 - OBO5 d

RIV5 - OBO5 d

OBO

OBO dDCS

405

405

Lorette-W

300 0 300 600 Feet

1:17500

N

EW

S

2014-05-30

DrainageFieldsSoilsTest Strips



Piney

Reynolds

Grey

LorneMorris

Alexander


Portage La Prairie

Dufferin

Rockwood

Stuartburn

Woodlands

Westbourne

MacDonald

Springfield

Rhineland

Tache

Hanover


Lac Du Bonnet

South Cypress

St. Andrews

Roland

Lakeview

St. Clements

Brokenhead

Rosser Whitemouth

South Norfolk


Montcalm

St. Laurent

Ste. AnneRitchot

La Broquerie

Pinawa

Headingly


East St. Paul

With

With

With

With

With

With

W/O

W/O

W/O

W/O

W/O

W/O

28RIV7 - OBO3 d

OBO d

Morris-H

300 0 300 600 Feet

1:4250

N

EW

S

2014-09-08




Piney

Reynolds

Grey

LorneMorris

Alexander


Portage La Prairie

Dufferin

Rockwood

Stuartburn

Woodlands

Westbourne

MacDonald

Springfield

Rhineland

Tache

Hanover


Lac Du Bonnet

South Cypress

St. Andrews

Roland

Lakeview

St. Clements

Brokenhead

Rosser Whitemouth

South Norfolk


Montcalm

St. Laurent

Ste. AnneRitchot

La Broquerie

Pinawa

Headingly


East St. Paul


Appendix 2: Individual Strip Trial Summaries

StripsYield

Difference1 and 2 25.1 21.9 -3.23 and 4 23.7 27.1 3.45 and 6 26.9 24.9 -2.07 and 8 24.6 26.8 2.29 and 10 28.5 27.9 -0.611 and 12 30.4 28.5 -1.9Average 26.53 26.18 0.35

Yield (Bu/Ac) W/O With

Strip Trial Summary - Beausejour-HInoculant

1 and 2 3 and 4 5 and 6 7 and 8 9 and 10 11 and12

W/O 25.1 23.7 26.9 24.6 28.5 30.4With 21.9 27.1 24.9 26.8 27.9 28.5

21.022.023.024.025.026.027.028.029.030.031.0

Yie

ld (

Bu

/Ac)

Strip Pairs

Yield Average By Strip Pairs

StripsYield

Difference1 and 2 19.6 20.2 -0.63 and 4 20.1 19.5 0.65 and 6 20.8 21.0 -0.27 and 8 21.8 22.8 -1.09 and 10 23.9 22.5 1.411 and 12 17.3 18.2 -0.9Average 20.58 20.70 -0.12

Yield (Bu/Ac) With W/O

Strip Trial Summary - Beausejour-OInoculant


With 19.6 20.1 20.8 21.8 23.9 17.3W/O 20.2 19.5 21.0 22.8 22.5 18.2

15.0

17.0

19.0

21.0

23.0

25.0

Yie

ld (

Bu

/Ac)

Strip Pairs


StripsYield

Difference1 and 2 49.6 48.9 -0.73 and 4 48.9 53.0 4.15 and 6 51.0 50.9 -0.17 and 8 54.6 55.3 0.79 and 10 55.3 54.0 -1.311 and 12 53.5 54.9 1.4Average 52.15 52.83 0.68


Strip Trial Summary - Carman-VInoculant


W/O 49.6 48.9 51.0 54.6 55.3 53.5With 48.9 53.0 50.9 55.3 54.0 54.9

46.0

48.0

50.0

52.0

54.0

56.0

Yie

ld (

Bu

/Ac)

Strip Pairs


StripsYield

Difference1 and 2 42.0 34.5 7.53 and 4 39.7 38.7 1.05 and 6 38.4 40.3 -1.97 and 8 35.5 37.7 -2.29 and 10 36.4 41.0 -4.611 and 12 39.7 38.7 1.0Average 38.62 38.48 0.13


Strip Trial Summary - Hazelridge-SInoculant


With 42.0 39.7 38.4 35.5 36.4 39.7W/O 34.5 38.7 40.3 37.7 41.0 38.7

34.0

36.0

38.0

40.0

42.0

44.0

Yie

ld (

Bu

/Ac)

Strip Pairs


StripsYield

Difference1 and 2 36.8 36.5 -0.33 and 4 35.6 37.3 1.75 and 6 37.6 35.4 -2.27 and 8 40.4 39.0 -1.49 and 10 41.6 39.7 -1.911 and 12 44.2 39.6 -4.6Average 39.37 37.92 -1.45

InoculantStrip Trial Summary - Landmark-W



W/O 36.8 35.6 37.6 40.4 41.6 44.2With 36.5 37.3 35.4 39.0 39.7 39.6

30.032.034.036.0

38.040.042.0

44.046.0

Yie

ld (

Bu

/Ac)

Strip Pairs


StripsYield

Difference1 and 2 37.2 38.9 -1.73 and 4 39.4 39.3 0.15 and 6 38.8 39.8 -1.07 and 8 38.8 38.9 -0.1Average 38.55 39.23 -0.67


Strip Trial Summary - Lorette-WInoculant

1 and 2 3 and 4 5 and 6 7 and 8With 37.2 39.4 38.8 38.8W/O 38.9 39.3 39.8 38.9

35.0

36.0

37.0

38.0

39.0

40.0

Yie

ld (

Bu

/Ac)

Strip Pairs


StripsYield

Difference1 and 2 26.6 27.7 -1.13 and 4 31.0 30.3 0.75 and 6 32.6 29.0 3.67 and 8 32.0 30.3 1.79 and 10 29.7 31.8 -2.111 and 12 29.2 27.5 1.7Average 30.18 29.43 0.75


Strip Trial Summary - Morris-HInoculant


With 26.6 31.0 32.6 32.0 29.7 29.2W/O 27.7 30.3 29.0 30.3 31.8 27.5

25.026.027.028.029.030.031.032.033.034.035.0

Yie

ld (

Bu

/Ac)

Strip Pairs


Date post:	07-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trandiep
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

MPGA On-Farm Soybean Trials: Assessing Effects of...

Documents