2014 Mississippi County Agriculture
Demonstration Report
Ray Benson
Mississippi County Extension
Staff Chair
Jason Osborn
Mississippi County Extension
Agriculture
The Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service offers its programs to all eligible persons regardless of race, color, national origin, religion,
gender, age, disability, marital or veteran status, or any other legally protected status, and is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity
Employer.
Table of Contents
Demonstration
Page
Insecticide Termination in Cotton Using COTMAN Rules …………………………..
3
Evaluation of Foliar Fertilizer Products in Cotton ……………………………………
7
Nitrogen Rate Study - N-STaR for Wheat ……………………………………………..
9
Procedures for Grid Soil Sampling ……………………………………………………
12
Timing the Initial Irrigation in Soybeans ……………………………………………..
15
Cotton Response to Three Seeding Rates …………………………………………….
18
Multiple Inlet Rice Irrigation …………………………………………………………
24
On-farm Corn Variety Demonstration based on soil type ……………………………
25
Phaucet Irrigation in Mississippi County …………………………………………….
53
PHAUCET Irrigation vs. Conventional Irrigation …………………………………...
54
Rice fungicide Demonstration ………………………………………………………..
55
2014 On-Farm Rice Variety Demonstration ………………………………………….. 56
Surge Value Irrigation Demonstration ……………………………………………….. 58
Insecticide Termination in Cotton Using COTMAN Rules
Ray Benson
Cooperator: Tom Veach
Purpose:
Knowing when a cotton crop has researched maturity is the key for producers to make informed
end-of-season management decisions. Determining when the crop no longer requires protection
from fruit feeding insects can help producers eliminate unnecessary and expensive pesticide
applications.
Methods:
A northeast Arkansas cotton field, which was enrolled in the Cotton Research Verification
Program, was monitored for progression of the number of Nodes-Above-White-Flower (NAWF)
duing the 2014 production season. Deltapine 0912 was planted on May 10, 2014. Production
inputs during the seaon were based on weekly inspections of the field and followed University of
Arkansas Divisionn of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service recommendaitons.
Beginning at approximately first flower, NAWF values were collected from the field and entered
into the COTMAN management system (Figure 1.). The analysis generated by the COTMAN
program identified that the crop reached cutout; ie NAWF = 5 on August 5, 2014 (Table 1).
Once the field had reaced cutout, daily heat units were recorded. According to University of
Arkansas research, a boll which has accumunulated 250 heat units is considered safe from plant
bug feeding. Therefore, once the field had reached NAWF = 5 + 250 heat units, insecticide
termination plots were established. Treatmens in the study included plots which received no
insecticide after NAWF = 5 + 250 heat units, plots which were treated one additional time after
reaching NAWF = 5 + 250 heat units and plots which were treated twice after reaching NAWF
= 5 + 250 heat units.
On August 12, 2014, the field had accumulated 180 heat units beyond NAWF = 5. Insect
scouting procuderes on that date identified sufficient levels of plant bugs to warrant an
insectidice application. The entire field was treated
with 0.75 lbs of Acephate + 4.2 oz Bifenthrin per
Picture 1. Plant bugs feeding white flowers, Veach
Farm 2014.
acre. This treatment represented the last treatment under current University of Arkansas
recommnedations for plant bug control in cotton. Any additional insecticide applications were
establishe as treatmens in the study and were only triggered when plant bug populations were
high and the producer/consultant believed yield losses may occur if left uncontrolled.
Field observations indicated a large build-up of plant
bugs on August 22, 2014 (Picture 1.). Plots were
randomized, marked for application, and treated on
August 25, 2014 using 5 oz Bidrin/Acre. Plots were
established as 56-rows wide and ran the length of
the field. This deminson matched the producers
spray equipment and would allow entire plots to be
collected in individual modules (Picture 2.).
Picture 2. 2014 Insecticide Termination Study, Veach Farms.
Insecticide treatments
terminated at NAWF = 5 +
250 heat units.
Treated 2 additional times
after NAWF = 5 + 250 heat
units.
A second treatment was established and
treated on September 5, 2014 using the
same procedure and chemical.
Plots were machine harvested using the
producers 6-Row John Deere cotton picker
on October 19, 2014. Harvest area,
module weights and lint yield per acre
(Table 2.) were analyzed to determine treatment effects.
Results:
Harvest resulted in no statistical difference among treatments. The results indicate that
controlling fruit feeding insects after the crop has reached NAWF = 5 + 250 heat units does not
increase the lint yield of cotton and supports the University of Arkansas guidelines for insect
control in cotton. Spraying after the crop is safe from insect damage can reduce overall
profitability as well as contribute to the development of resistance in the future.
Using 2014 crop enterprise budgets, application costs for producers using personal spray
equipment is $2.32 per acre per application. Additionally, the price of Bidrin (the product used
in this study) is estimated to be $5.40 per acre pre application. In the case of this study,
terminating insecticide applications for the control of plant bugs would result in a savings of
$7.72 per acre per application ($15.44 for two applications). Projected on the approximate
80,000 acres of cotton in Mississippi County, producers could have reduced their expenses by
$1.2 million dollars by using current University of Arkansas recommendations for terminating
the use of insecticide in cotton.
Figure 1.COTMAN growth curves for insecticide termination study at Veach Farms, 2014.
Table 1. NAWF, Heat Unit Accumulation Values, and
InsecticideApplication Dates for Veach Farms, 2014.
Insect
Population
Date
NAWF Heat Units
Level
Treatment
August 5, 2014
5
0
Low
August 12, 2014
3.4
180
TRT Level
None
0.75 lbs Acephate
+ 4.2 oz
Bifenthrin
August 21, 2014
NA
350
Low
None
August 25, 2014
NA
450
High (> 1/ft)
Bidrin @ 5 oz/A
September 5, 2014
NA
695
High (> 1/ft)
Bidrin @ 5 oz/A
Table 2. 2014 Plot Harvest Data from Insecticide Termination Study,
Veach Farms.
Area
(average)
Module wt
(average)2
% T.O.3
Lint Yild/A4
Control
5.14 acres
16,013 lbs
38.39
1196 a
1 additional spray
5.88 acres
17,053 lbs
38.39
1120 a
2 additional sprays
5.26 acres
17,460 lbs
38.39
1269 a
Treatment
1
LSD (0.05) 5
1
2
3
4
5
Control plots received no insect control measures after NAWF = 5 + 250 HU's,
1 additional spray represents plots which were treated one time after
NAWF = 5 + 250 HU's and 2 additional sprays represents plots which were
treated twice after NAWF = 5 + 250 HU's.
Module weights are represented as total weight for the whole plot and have
not been adjusted to a per acre weight.
% turnout was based on the average turnout for the entire field.
Lint yield was calculated on a per acre basis.
Numbers followed by the same letter are not significanly different (P=0.05)
NS
Evaluation of Foliar Fertilizer Products in Cotton
Ray Benson, Bill Robertson and Jason Osborn
Location: Manila Airport Research Location
Purpose:
Figure 2. Spraying foliar fertilizer plots at Manila, 2014.
Producers are looking for ways to
improve production and increase
yield to help off-set low commodity
prices. Several foliar fertilizer
products are now commercially
available. Evaluation of these
products will help determine the
potential for yield improvements.
Methods:
Stoneville 5288 B2R was planted at the Manila Airport Research Field on May 8, 2014. The
field was managed based on University of Arkansas recommendations for cotton production.
General manufacturer recommendations for the products in this test were to apply within the first
week of flower.
Treatments were established on July 17, 2014, approximately 10 days after first flower, and
included four 38 in rows by 50 ft. long. Plots were randomized three times and foliar products
were applied using a self-propelled plot sprayed calibrated to deliver 15 gallons per acre (Fig 1.).
Plots were machine harvested on October 21, 2014. Plot weights were converted to a per acre
yield (Table 1.).
Results:
All yields in this field were relatively high. Results of this study showed that yield was not
affected by foliar treatments (Table 1 – 2.). It is possible that high yielding fields, which have
adequate soil nutrient levels, may not benefit from the application of foliar products. Future
plans are to evaluate these and similar products on field areas expressing historically low yield,
and in areas with below adequate levels of soil nutrients.
Table 1. Yields for foliar fertilizer treatments, Manila, AR, 2014.
Foliar Product
NOVUS K
Quick Ultra with Awaken
Coron 25-0-0
NOBUS B
Utilize
Deliverek K plus
N-Pact 26-0-0
Coron Full BOR
Check – No Treatment
Re-Nforce
Boost-it
VitaBor
Bloom Pro
NUTRA – K
Lint yield
(lbs/acre)
1575
1539
1526
1502
1480
1468
1461
1458
1441
1405
1402
1386
1343
1314
P >F (0.49)
NS
Table 2. ANOVA for foliar demonstration, 2014.
Source
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
15
243533.6071
16235.5738
0.97 0.5109
Model
26
435828.5376
16762.6361
Error
679362.1448
Corrected Total 41
2
28065.1490
14032.5745
0.84 0.4443
rep
13
215468.4581
16574.4968
0.99 0.4878
trt
Nitrogen rate study - N-STaR for Wheat
Ray Benson and Jason Osborn
Cooperator (consultant): Scott Gifford
Location: Manila, Arkansas
Purpose:
Figure 3. 2014 Wheat Crop - Manila, Arkansas.
The purpose of this replicated field trial
was to evaluate nitrogen rates effect on
wheat yield. Ultimately the objective is to
develop a soil test procedure for wheat
which is similar to the N-STaR test used in
rice. Development of a more accurate soil
test and analysis program for wheat will allow producers to better manage their crops fertility.
Soil test programs which account for native soil nitrogen levels may result in more economical
production with potentially less environmental risks associated with over fertilization.
Methods:
A replicated study was conducted on a producer’s field in Manila, Arkansas during the 2014
production season. The soil type in the field was generally a sandy loam. Field preparation and
planting was conducted using the producers equipment and was based on the producers standard
production practices. Armor Ricochet was seeded on October 15, 2014 at a rate of 2.75
bushels/acre. After emergence, fertilizer plots were established in a randomized complete block
design with four replications. Plots were arranged in a randomized complete block with 4
replications. Each plot was 10 ft widy by 50 ft long and treatments included split applications of
pre-weighed urea fertilizer at rates ranging from 0 to 225 lbs per acre (Table 1). All production
practices, other than fertilizer rate, were based on the producers and consultants standard
practices. Plots were harvested using a plot combine with a 5 ft wide header.
Results:
Rains during February and March resulted in water standing on the test area for a prolonged
period of time. Although all treatments were applied in a recommended time, nitrogen loss was
likely due to the amount of rainfall in close proximity to application. Yellowing of the low
nitrogen plots was evident during this study (Fig. 1 and 2.). Although, plots receiving the least
amount of nitrogen appeared yellow, the effects on final yield were not significantly different
than plots receiving high nitrogen rates. These results indicate that traditional levels of nitrogen
may not be required for optimal yields. The development of a soil test procedure with accounts
for residual nitrogen may help producers reduce the amount of nitrogen fertilizer applied and
help improve crop profits.
High numbers of army worms were present in the plots in early June. Consultation with the
Extension Service’s area Entomologist resulted in the decision to not treat with insecticide.
Although army worm levels were high, the stage of wheat development (beginning hard dough)
likely resulted in only minor yield loss.
Figure 1. Wheat plots showing nitrogen deficiency, 2014 Wheat nitrogen rate study at Manila
(April 17, 2014).
Figure 2. Wheat plots showing nitrogen deficiency, 2014 Wheat nitrogen
rate study at Manila (April 2, 2014).
Table 2. Wheat yield from nitrogen rate study,
2014.
Total nitrogen applied
(units N/acre)
0
45
90
135
180
225
1
Wheat Yield1
(bu/acre)
34 ab
36 ab
38 a
35 ab
30 ab
29 b
Yields followed by the same letter are not
significantly different at 0.05 probability level.
Procedures for Grid Soil Sampling
Ray Benson and Jason Osborn
Purpose:
Producers in Mississippi County are
quickly adopting precision agriculture
practices. One of the main practices
consists of “grid” soil sampling for site
specific soil applied nutrients.
Determining how intensely a grid must be
sampled is often a question.
Method:
A field in Mississippi County was selected
to compare different grid sampling
methods. The field was a 32 acre
Figure 1. Soil ECa map showing differences in
soil texture.
precision leveled field. The predominant
soil classification was a Dundee silt loam. ECa was collected in March 2014 to help determine
soil textural differences in the field. After ECa collection, the field was divided into 2.5 acre
grids for soil sampling (figure 2). The procedures for collecting soil samples included taking soil
probe collected cores from a 4 in depth. Samples from within each grid were collected in
buckets from which a sub-sample was taken and submitted for lab analysis. Within each 2.5 acre
grid, samples were collected as a single core from the center of the grid (Single Core), a
composite of 8 cores collected from within an approximately 10 ft diameter radius in the center
of the grid (tight composite) and a composite of 25 cores collected across the entire grid (grid
composite).
Additionally, for comparison, a field composite sample was collected. For
comparison, the grid composite was assumed to be the most accurate for accessing soil test
values.
Figure 2. Sample methods for grid soil
sampling demonstration.
Results:
Variations among sampling methods were observed in this demonstration (Figures 3 – 5). All
methods, except for the field composite sample, yielded generally similar soil test values for pH,
K and P. The largest deviations appeared to be from areas of more coarse sand. Although this
was not a replicated test, the differences among sample methods suggest that further field studies
to address sample variability should be conducted in the future.
Variation in pH among sampling methods
pH Value
7
Single Core - pH
6.5
Tight Com. - pH
Zone Com. - pH
6
Field Com. pH
5.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Variation in soil test K values among sampling
650
Soil Test K (lbs/A)
600
550
500
Single Core - K
450
Tight Com. - K
400
Zone Com. - K
350
Field Com. K
300
250
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Variation in soil test P values among sampling
Soil Test P (lbs/A)
200
150
Single Core - P
Tight Com. - P
100
Zone Com. - P
50
Field Com. P
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figures 3 – 5. Variation in soil test values among soil sampling
methods.
Timing the Initial Irrigation in Soybeans
Justin Chlapecka and Ray Benson
Cooperator: Wildy Family Farms
Location: Manila, Arkansas
Purpose:
Expanded use of irrigation management tools are needed to improve irrigation and water use
efficiency in eastern Arkansas soybean production, especially on sandy loam fields. Current
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture recommendations for irrigation timing in
soybeans target the final irrigation. Irrigation timing decisions on initiation in different soil
textures may be improved by using technology available to characterize soil moisture, plant
requirements for water and evapotranspiration. Current recommendations on initiation timing
based on ET have not been validated on sandy soils in northeast Arkansas. Many Northeast
Arkansas producers are interested in recommendations for timing the initial irrigation.
Development of guidelines for timing the initial irrigation could further help improve irrigation
water use efficiency.
Methods:
The research site was a commercial farm located in Mississippi County, Arkansas, in a field with
sandy loam soil (Routon-Dundee-Crevasse Complex) that ranged from sand to sandy loam to silt
loam soils. There were four irrigation treatments 1) Early Start (ET=1 in), 2) Standard UA
Recommendation (Based on ET Chart, ET = 2.5 in), 3) Late Start (ET Deficit = 3 in), and 4)
Rainfed (Table 1). The experiment was arranged in a randomized complete block with 4
replications. Asgrow 4633, a cultivar of Group IV soybean, was planted in twin rows on raised
beds spaced at 38 in (1m). The cooperating producer performed all standard field operations.
Other than irrigation timing, all production practices were consistent for all treatments in this
study.
Whole plots were harvested using the producer’s equipment. Harvests from each plot were
collected and weighed in the producers load cell equipped grain cart. Yields were calculated on a
per acre basis and yield data were analyzed using PROC GLM and ANOVA statistics with mean
separation using protected LSD (SAS Institute; Cary, NC).
Results:
Precipitation was above normal for the 2014 (Table 2). The amount of rainfall tended to mask
any differences in yield between irrigation treatments. Delaying irrigation until the R3 growth
stage resulted in the highest yield in this study (Figure 1). The results would suggest that
delaying the initial irrigation in soybeans grown on sandy loam soils may help producers
improve their irrigation water use efficiency by reducing the number of early season irrigations.
Table 1. Timing details for soybean irrigation initiation study at Wildy Family Farms in Manila,
AR- 2014.
Irrigation Start1
Treatment Description
Early start
Standard (CES recommendation)
Late start
Rainfed
1
ET Cue
(in)
1.2
2.5
3.0
Growth stage
R2.5
R3
R3.5
Date
18-Jun
24-Jun
6-Jul
Days after planting
57
63
75
All irrigated treatment plots received irrigation on 6, 10, 28 July and 4, 25 August.
Table 2. Monthly precipitation at Wildy Family Farms compared to long term (40 yr) average from Manila, AR
Average
2014
Variation from
Month
Precipitation
Precipitation
Average
----------------------------- in ------------------------------April
4.75
6.04
1.29
May
5.37
4.51
(0.86)
June
3.99
6.37
2.38
July
4.04
4.69
0.65
August
2.36
8.19
5.83
20.51
29.80
9.29
Total Season
Mean yield (bu/ac)
100
Field Plot -Grain Cart
75
50
25
0
85
Early start
79
90
Standard
Late start
Irrigation initiation timing
75
Rainfed
Figure 1. Mean yield (±SEM) determined by from field length measurements taken at harvest
using our cooperating producer's grain cart with load cells – Manila, AR 2014.
COTTON RESPONSE TO THREE SEEDING RATES
Ray Benson
Problem:
Producers in Northeast Arkansas continue to look for opportunities to reduce production costs
and remain profitable while producing cotton. Although the development of transgenic Bt
cottons with herbicide tolerance has provided producers with tools to help improve pest
management, the cost of the biotechnology represents one of the most expensive inputs
associated with USA production. Reducing input costs by reducing seeding rates appears to be a
promising option. As rate controllers on precision planters become more widely adopted,
producers will have the capacity to apply seeding rates based on specific management objectives
within a field. One option to improve the efficiency and profitability of cotton may be to
reducing seeding rates in field areas with different yield potential. One of the objectives of this
2014 study was to evaluate the interactions of three cotton seeding rates across a NE Arkansas
production field characterized by heterogenous soils with a history of low yield potential.
Methods:
A cotton seeding rate field study was conducted in NE Arkansas during the 2014 production
season. The soil type in the field selected for the study was classed as a Routon Dundee –
Crevasse Complex, and ranged from coarse sand to a fine sandy loam. All production practices
including land preparation, fertilizer application, irrigation and weed and insect control were
based on the cooperating producer’s standard practices and using his equipment (Table 1). Prior
to planting, the field was partitioned into three management zones based observations of the
spatial variability of yield, soil ECa, and NDVI maps (Figure 1). Management zones based on
soil electrical conductivity (EC) properties classified from measurements using a dual depth
Veris® 3150 Soil Surveyor.
Stoneville 4747GLB2 was planted on May 4, 2014 using the producer’s 12-row John Deere
1720XP vacuum planter. Plots were 12-rows wide and ran the full length of the field.
Treatments included 3 target seeding rates of 1.5, 3.0 and 4.5 seeds per foot. A 4th treatment
included a variable seeding rate prescription based on 3 zones established by soil EC
measurements and was provided by the cooperating producer’s local John Deere spatial
technology specialist. The experiment was analyzed as a split plot design with seeding rates
considered main plots and soil EC classes considered sub-plots. Other than seeding rates, all
production practices were consistent across all treatments and were based on the producer’s
standard production practices.
Table 1. Dates of planting, irrigation and harvest for the 2014 seeing rate study, Wildy Family Farms, Manila, AR.
Operation
Date
Days after planting
Date of planting
4-May, 2014
Stand Counts
13, 20, 27 May and 4 June
9, 16, 23, 31
Insecticide
23 June 17, 28 July, 4 August
50, 74, 85, 92
Irrigation
23 June, 10 July, 12 September
50, 67, 131
Hand harvest
7 October
157
Harvest
17 October
166
Sand
Sandy Loam
Soil EC
(mS/M)
Clay
Loamy
Sand
Figure 4. Soil management zones for the 35 acre study site were originally classified in 2012 based on four soil EC
categories. After two years of extensive plant and soil monitoring, readings, management zones were re-classified
for the 2014 seeding rate trial into three categories: sand blow, sandy loam and clay – Wildy Family Farms, Manila,
AR.
Results and Discussion
The 2014 production season in Northeast Arkansas was characterized by cool temperatures
during stand establishment, with high rainfall early in the season. Stand counts from prescribed,
whole plot, seeding rates were consistent across all target seeding rates (Figure 2).
Stand counts from the three whole plot seeding rates followed the same trend and resulted in
actual stand counts ranging from 70 – 80% of the target. Stand counts from the clay soil zones
tended to have the lowest percentage of the targeted rate than stands from either the sand or
sandy loam zones and was most likely due to the amount of rainfall experienced during stand
establishment. Stand counts from the variable rate (soil type specific) treatment resulted in much
greater deviations from the target seeding rate than did any of the uniform seeding rates (Figure
2). Stand count data from the variable rate plots suggest that zone size and speed and accuracy
of the rate controller could affect precision agriculture practices.
100
Target:
3 seeds
per EC
foot
Target:
VR based
on soil
100
Target: 1.5 seeds per foot
50
25
Percent of target
75
Percent target
Percent of target
125
100
75
75
50
Sand blow
Clay
50
25
Sandy loam
25
0
2
9
16
23
30
0
0
2
2
Days after planting
9
916
23 16
30
23
30
Days after planting
Days after planting
Target: VR based on soil EC
125
Target: 4.5 seeds per foot
Percent of target
Percent of target
100
75
50
25
100
75
50
25
0
0
2
9
16
23
Days after planting
30
2
9
16
23
30
Days after planting
Figure 2. Observed plant stand densities determined in transect sampling across each soil EC zone over four dates in the first month after planting for each of the
four seeding rates (1.5, 3, 4.5 and variable rate (VR)) expressed as a % of target seeding rate in 2014 seeding rate field trial – Wildy Family Farms, Manila, AR..
10
Sand blow
5
5
0
Daily rainfall (inches)
Mean no. squaring nodes
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Days after planting
5
5
10
10
0
20
40
0
60
80
Days after planting
5
5
10
Clay
120
Seeding rate
1.5
3
4.5
Standard
Rainfall
Irrigation
10
0
0
5
100
20406080100
120
5
Days after planting
Daily rainfall (inches)
Mean no. squaring nodes
Mean no. squaring nodes
Mean no. squaring nodes
Sandy loam
Daily rainfal (inches)
10
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Days after planting
Figure 3. COTMAN growth curves for plants in soil EC zones: sand blow, sandy loam and clay planted at 1.5, 3,
and 4.5 seeds per foot in the 2014 seeding rate field trial – Wildy Family Farms, Manila, AR.
Although seeding rate did result in slight growth differences, the greatest effect on the crops
development appeared to due to soil types (Figure 3). Lower seeding rates in the sand blow
zones tended to have more squaring nodes at first flower than did the highest seeding rate.
Greater plant structure at first flower in the lower seeding rates may have been the result of less
interplant competition, especially within sand blow area where water and nutrients may be
limited.
Yields from hand harvest data resulted in no differences among seeding rate treatments (Figure
5). It should be noted however, that areas with large skips between plants were avoided during
hand harvest. A more non-discriminating harvest area selection procedure would likely have
affected yield results. Avoiding the excessive skips in the hand harvest areas may have
contributed to the consistency in yields across seeding rates. Skips, especially in the clay areas
of the field, were most likely due to the frequent rain fall and appeared to be more problematic in
the lowest seeding rate treatments. Hand harvest yield was significantly lower in the clay and
sand blow areas than the sandy loam area of the field.
Figure 5. Yield from hand harvested plots within soil EC zones in 2014 seeding rate study in 2014 seeding rate field
trial – Wildy Family Farms, Manila, AR.
Multiple Inlet Rice Irrigation
Jason Osborn
Cooperator: John Langston
Purpose:
Surge valves have been shown to improve irrigation efficiency and reduce total irrigation water
used by as much as 25%. Current USDA-ARS and University of Arkansas estimates suggest
that Arkansas irrigation must be reduced by approximately 45% to insure our ground water
supply is sustainable.
Methods:
During the 2014 rice growing season one field was equipped with flow meters and the producer
was educated on how the Multiple Inlet Rice Irrigation (MIRI) works. All planting and irrigation
methods, other than the MIRI, were based on the producers normal practices.
Results:
Eight fields were set up using the MIRI information but only one utilized flow meters for water
use. The conventional irrigated field of 32 acres used 3.5 acre inches less that the MIRI irrigated
field. The reason for the increased water usage is unknown. It may be attributed to the levee
spills in the MIRI being set higher. The producer noted that the MIRI fields on the rest on the
farm and including the demonstration field were easier to manage and reduced labor for the
season.
On-farm Corn Variety Demonstration based on soil type
Jason Osborn
Cooperators: Jason Bennett
Soil Types: Dundee Silt Loam
Purpose:
At the County Extension Council meeting, the council requested more on farm variety trials and
to base them on soil types (Sand Silt, Clay). Having more on-farm corn variety demonstrations
based on soil types will help producers and consultants choose more adapted varieties for the
farms soil type.
Methods:
Identifying growers and working with seed industry representatives and consultants, three corn
variety demonstrations were established based on different soil types throughout the county. All
field work, including planting and harvest, was performed using the producer’s equipment. All
cultural practices were based on the producer’s standard production practices and were consistent
for all corn varieties in the demonstration (Table 1). Inputs were based on producer and
consultant recommendations and were not necessary based on University of Arkansas Extension
recommendations for corn production.
Results:
Stand counts, Growth Stage, vigor, First Tassel Disease, and Height ratings were collected for
each variety in the demonstration (Table 2). Yields for each corn variety were calculated from
weights collected from producer’s harvested plots using yield monitor data (Table 3).
Table 1. Field Production Information for Bennett Farms, 2014.
County:
Lat/Lon
Grower:
County Agent:
Location of Field:
Soil Type:
Previous Crop:
Planting Date:
Row Width:
Planting Population:
Irrigation Type
Total number of
irrigations
Emergence Date
Herbicides:
Fertilizer:
Harvest Date:
Mississippi
Corn
35 32' 39.49N / 90
09'42.77W
Jason Bennett
Jason Osborn
Joiner
Dundee Silt loam
soybeans
April 25, 2014
38 inches
34,000
furrow
0 Dryland
5/5/2014
1 pint Dual
250 Units N/ P,K
variable rate
September 19, 2014
Applied April 26,
2014
Table 2.
Stand Count,
Growth
Stage, Vigor,
First Tassel,
Disease, and
Plant Height
Ratings
Growth Vigor
Stand
Stage Rating
Count
Date
Date
Hybrid
Cropland 6640
36
v-2
8
Terrell 2355
36
v-2
8
Terrell 2493
35.5
v-2
8
Terrell 2820
38.5
v-2
8
Mycogen 797
35.5
v-2
8
Mycogen 786
27.5
v-2
8
Mycogen 877
33
v-2
8
DeKalb 67-72
35
v-2
8
DeKalb 64-89
37.5
v-2
8
DeKalb 66-87
40
v-2
8
P1257YHR
38
v-2
8
P1602YHR
36
v-2
8
P2089YHR
38
v-2
8
P1739YHR
38.5
v-2
8
Delta Grow 2888
37.5
v-2
8
Delta Grow 3788
39
v-2
8
Dyna Grow 5577
43
v-2
8
Dyna Grow 5291
43
v-2
8
Dyna Grow 5646
37.5
v-2
8
Stine 9732
35.5
v-2
8
Stine 9739
35
v-2
8
121219-May
May
May
CR_P Common Rust Present
P- Present
First
Tassel
Date
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
L
Disease S Rust Rust
Plant
Rating Rating Rating Heigth
0
0
0
CR-P
0
0
0
0
0
CR-P
0
0
CR-P
CR-P
0
CR-P
CR-P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
105
119
113
125
112
105
115
110
116
114
115
125
128
128
120
127
93
105
110
99
106
Table 3. Yield
Results for
Bennett
Farms, 2014
Adj.
Hybrid
Yield1
Area
Weight
Cropland 6640
261.58
0.546
8,123
Terrell 2355
290.91
0.535
8,916
Terrell 2493
276.75
0.530
8,485
Terrell 2820
291.58
0.524
8,893
Mycogen 797
230.56
0.518
6,809
Mycogen 786
215.15
0.513
6,300
Mycogen 877
233.01
0.507
6,876
DeKalb 67-72
286.66
0.501
8,308
DeKalb 64-89
285.47
0.496
8,092
DeKalb 66-87
263.29
0.490
7,454
P1257YHR
264.94
0.484
7,373
P1602YHR
292.02
0.479
8,202
P2089YHR
283.74
0.473
7,860
P1739YHR
300.05
0.467
8,196
Delta Grow 2888
254.74
0.462
6,901
Delta Grow 3788
261.15
0.456
6,974
Dyna Grow 5577
250.12
0.450
6,535
Dyna Grow 5291
296.11
0.444
7,587
Dyna Grow 5646
297.36
0.439
7,570
Stine 9732
273.74
0.433
6,840
Stine 9739
265.37
0.409
6,325
1 Yield is adjusted to 15.5% moisture.
2 Plant Stand is given as plants per acre.
3 Lodging score - 1 is no lodging, 10 is completely lodged.
Avg.
Yld
270.2042
Yield
265.67
297.60
285.88
303.06
234.73
219.30
242.18
296.12
291.33
271.65
272.03
305.77
296.74
313.40
266.74
273.10
259.33
305.14
307.92
282.09
276.15
%
Moisture
16.8
17.4
18.2
18.7
17.0
17.1
18.7
18.2
17.2
18.1
17.7
19.3
19.2
19.1
19.3
19.2
18.5
18.0
18.4
18.0
18.8
Lodging
Score3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
On-farm Corn Variety Demonstration based on soil type
Jason Osborn
Cooperators: Ron Holthouse
Soil Types: Tiptonville and Dubbs Silt Loams
Purpose:
At the County Extension Council meeting, the council requested more on farm variety trials and
to base them on soil types (Sand Silt, Clay). Having more on-farm corn variety demonstrations
based on soil types will help producers and consultants choose more adapted varieties for the
farms soil type.
Methods:
Identifying growers and working with seed industry representatives and consultants, three corn
variety demonstrations were established based on different soil types throughout the county. All
field work, including planting and harvest, was performed using the producer’s equipment. All
cultural practices were based on the producer’s standard production practices and were consistent
for all corn varieties in the demonstration (Table 1). Inputs were based on producer and
consultant recommendations and were not necessary based on University of Arkansas Extension
recommendations for corn production.
Results:
Stand counts, vigor, and disease ratings were collected for each variety in the demonstration
(Table 2). Yields for each corn variety were calculated from weights collected from producer’s
harvested plots using yield monitor data (Table 3).
Table 1. Field Production Information for Holthouse Farms, 2014
County:
Mississippi
35 41’49.55N / 90
13’28.23W
Grower:
Ron Houlthouse
County Agent: Jason Osborn
Soil Type:
Silt
Previous Crop: Corn
Planting Date: April 18, 2014
Row Width:
38 Inches
Planting Population:
33,500
Harvested:
September 1, 2014
Fertility:
(lb/ac)
N
P
K
S
--- Preplant
273
10
--- Sidedress
246
--- Pretassel
Total Fertility:
Herbicide:
Inscecticide:
Fungicide:
Irrigations
Irrigation
Type:
Crop:
Zn
Planted
North to South
P,K variable
rate
100
619
N/
A
N/A
Power Maxx, Atrazine, Laudis
lambdacyhalothrin
Quilt XL
5
furrow
10
Corn
N/A
100 urea
50 amminoum
sulfate
Table 2. Stand count,
Growth Stage, Vigor,
First Tassel, and
Maturity Date.
Hybrid
NK 68B
NK 72Q
NK 77P
DK 64-69
NK 79Z
NK 78S
NK 79T
Pioneer 1690
NK 82V
NK 83D
DK 62-08
P1257YHR
P1319HR
P1637YHR
Armor 1550
P1602YHR
P1739YHR
P1794YHR
P2089YHR
DK 66-87
Pioneer 1883
Pioneer 1319 T839
Pioneer 1319 T849
Stine 9732
Stine 9739
Dyna Grow 5646
Dyna Grow 5577
Dyna Grow 5291
Delta Grow 3788
Delta Grow 2888
Mycogen 877
Mycogen 797
Mycogen 780
DK 66-87
DK 64-89
DK 67-77
Stand
Count
28
28
27
29
27.5
25.5
27.5
28
25
25.5
28.5
27
26.5
29.5
26
27.5
26
27.5
27
25
26.5
25
28.5
26
26
27
28
25
29.5
26.5
28
26
27.5
30
29
28
Growth
Stage
Date
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Vigor
Rating
Date
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
First
Tassel
Date
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
Disease
Rating
Date
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S Rust
Rating
Date
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
L Rust
Rating
Date
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Maturity
Date
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
4-Aug
Terrell 22BHR43
29.5
N/A
Terrell 23BHR55
27
N/A
Terrell 24BHR93
26.5
N/A
Terrell 26BHR50
26.5
N/A
Terrell 27BHR52
27
N/A
Terrell 27HR83
24.5
N/A
Terrell 28R10
27
N/A
Terrell 28H1220
27
N/A
Armor 1616
26.5
N/A
Armor 1555
26.5
N/A
Armor 1550
26.5
N/A
AXS 4115
27.5
N/A
Armor 1414
27.5
N/A
Armor 1330
24.5
N/A
Armor 1314
27
N/A
Pioneer 1319
28
N/A
Armor 1262
26.5
N/A
Armor 3111
29.5
N/A
Armor 4110
27.5
N/A
Armor 4109
28
N/A
Armor 2108
27
N/A
Armor 0700
22
N/A
Plant Stand is given as plants per acre.
Lodging score - 1 is no lodging, 10 is completely lodged.
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
6 20-23
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
14-Aug
Table 3. Holthouse
Corn Yields for
2014
Hybrid
NK 68B
NK 72Q
NK 77P
DK 64-69
NK 79Z
NK 78S
NK 79T
Pioneer 1690
NK 82V
NK 83D
DK 62-08
P1257YHR
P1319HR
P1637YHR
Armor 1550
P1602YHR
P1739YHR
P1794YHR
P2089YHR
DK 66-87
Pioneer 1883
Pioneer 1319 T839
Pioneer 1319 T849
Stine 9732
Stine 9739
Dyna Grow 5646
Dyna Grow 5577
Dyna Grow 5291
Delta Grow 3788
Delta Grow 2888
Mycogen 877
Lodging
Score
3
2
2
7
8
3
2
2
2
3
8
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
3
2
9
2
Adj.
Yield1
224.96
220.19
230.18
149.45
114.96
222.33
210.68
253.73
227.08
215.59
130.42
268.62
251.26
251.99
212.26
127.45
263.27
199.37
284.66
222.60
259.23
236.80
249.92
250.64
230.18
222.53
162.78
175.60
217.87
112.57
236.37
Area
Acres
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
Weight
3,820
3,840
3,980
2,600
2,040
3,980
3,720
4,480
4,060
3,840
2,220
4,600
4,420
4,400
3,720
2,220
4,660
3,560
5,020
4,000
4,600
4,140
4,380
4,420
4,100
3,900
2,860
3,120
3,920
2,000
4,280
Yield
227.38
228.57
236.90
154.76
121.43
236.90
221.43
266.67
241.67
228.57
132.14
273.81
263.10
261.90
221.43
132.14
277.38
211.90
298.81
238.10
273.81
246.43
260.71
263.10
244.05
232.14
170.24
185.71
233.33
119.05
254.76
%
Test
Moisture Weight
16.4
58.7
18.6
52.9
17.9
56.5
18.4
59.3
20.0
55.6
20.7
49.6
19.6
53.6
19.6
57.2
20.6
49.2
20.3
58.4
16.6
57.1
17.1
60.9
19.3
57.1
18.7
59.6
19.0
59.5
18.5
61.5
19.8
58.1
20.5
53.6
19.5
58
21.0
51.7
20.0
60.2
18.8
57.8
19.0
60.3
19.5
56.6
20.3
55.6
19.0
55
19.2
57.8
20.1
57.3
21.1
55.3
20.1
58
21.6
55.3
Mycogen 797
5
126.77
0.300
Mycogen 780
3
193.03
0.300
DK 66-87
3
205.90
0.300
2
174.74
0.300
DK 64-89** (see foot note)
DK 67-77
2
249.14
0.300
Terral 22BHR43
2
218.96
0.300
Terral 23BHR55
2
242.40
0.300
Terral 24BHR93
2
251.69
0.300
Terral 26BHR50
2
269.59
0.300
Terral 27BHR52
2
236.62
0.300
Terrall 27HR83
2
208.94
0.300
Terral 28R10
3
218.83
0.300
Terral 28HR20
3
243.91
0.300
Armor 1616
6
223.35
0.300
Armor 1555
3
158.23
0.300
Armor 1550
8
230.51
0.300
AXS 4115
2
119.62
0.300
Armor 1414
6
222.84
0.300
Armor 1330
4
164.65
0.300
Armor 1314
2
162.92
0.300
Pioneer 1319
3
252.22
0.300
Armor 1262
3
203.48
0.300
Armor 3111
2
184.09
0.300
Armor 4110
2
206.93
0.300
Armor 4109
2
211.50
0.300
Armor 2108
2
134.43
0.300
Armor 0700
2
221.30
0.300
1
Yield is adjusted to 15.5% moisture.
2
Plant Stand is given as plants per acre.
3
Lodging score - 1 is no lodging, 10 is completely lodged.
** Unload Auger on for half the plot
2,200
3,460
3,640
3,040
4,460
3,800
4,280
4,500
4,820
4,220
3,680
3,840
4,280
3,900
2,780
4,020
2,120
3,920
2,840
2,800
4,340
3,540
3,160
3,460
3,600
2,280
3,740
130.95
205.95
216.67
180.95
265.48
226.19
254.76
267.86
286.90
251.19
219.05
228.57
254.76
232.14
165.48
239.29
126.19
233.33
169.05
166.67
258.33
210.71
188.10
205.95
214.29
135.71
222.62
18.2
20.8
19.7
18.4
20.7
18.2
19.6
20.6
20.6
20.4
19.4
19.1
19.1
18.7
19.2
18.6
19.9
19.3
17.7
17.4
17.5
18.4
17.3
15.1
16.6
16.3
16.0
59.4
51.3
52.7
58.9
53.6
53.6
58.4
53
55.5
57.6
58.8
56.1
62.5
58.2
57.1
58
57
56.5
59.4
56.4
61.2
59
58.6
60.5
61
59.7
59
On-farm Corn Variety Demonstration based on soil type
Jason Osborn
Cooperators: David Wildy
Soil Types: Silty Clay
Purpose:
At the County Extension Council meeting, the council requested more on farm variety trials and
to base them on soil types (Sand Silt, Clay). Having more on-farm corn variety demonstrations
based on soil types will help producers and consultants choose more adapted varieties for the
farms soil type.
Methods:
Identifying growers and working with seed industry representatives and consultants, three corn
variety demonstrations were established based on different soil types throughout the county. All
field work, including planting and harvest, was performed using the producer’s equipment. All
cultural practices were based on the producer’s standard production practices and were consistent
for all corn varieties in the demonstration (Table 1). Inputs were based on producer and
consultant recommendations and were not necessary based on University of Arkansas Extension
recommendations for corn production.
Results:
Stand counts, vigor, lodging and disease ratings were collected for each variety in the
demonstration (Table2). Yields for each corn variety were calculated from weights collected
from producer’s harvested plots using yield monitor data (Table 3).
Table 1. Field Production Information for Wildy Farms, 2014
County:
Lat/Lon
Grower:
County Agent:
Location of Field:
Soil Type:
Previous Crop:
Planting Date:
Row Width:
Planting Population:
Irrigation Type
Emergence Date
Herbicide:
Harvest Date:
Mississippi
Corn
35 52' 30.70N / 90 15'
7.39W
David Wildy
Jason Osborn
Leachville
silty clay
soybeans
April 12, 2014
38 inch
34,000
furrow
5/5/2014
Gramoxone,
Halex GT,
Atrazine
September 20, 2014
Table 2. Stand
Count, Growth
Stage, Vigor,
First Tassel ,and
Disease Ratings
for Wildy Farms,
2014
Hybrid
DK 62-08
P1257YHR
P1319HR
AR 1550
P1602YHR
P1739YHR
P2089YHR
DK 66-87
RL 9795
RL 9858
RL 9633
RL 9583
XC 11840
RL 8898
RL 8812
RL 8430
Delta Grow 2888
Delta Grow 3788
Dyna Grow 5646
Dyna Grow 5291
Dyna Grow 5577
Terrell 2493
Terrell 2820
Terrell 2355
Mycogen 786
Mycogen 797
Mycogen 877
Stand
Count
32
29.5
29
28.5
28.5
27
27
26.5
28
26
27
25.5
30.5
27
29
30.5
28.5
25
27.5
30.5
29
30
28.5
28.5
24
32
30.5
Growth Vigor
Stage Rating
Date 5-May
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
First
Tassel
Date
18-Jun
20-Jun
18-Jun
16-Jun
20-Jun
18-Jun
18-Jun
16-Jun
20-Jun
20-Jun
20-Jun
18-Jun
18-Jun
18-Jun
20-Jun
20-Jun
20-Jun
20-Jun
18-Jun
16-Jun
16-Jun
18-Jun
18-Jun
20-Jun
18-Jun
18-Jun
16-Jun
Disease S Rust
Rating Rating
Date
Date
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L Rust
Rating
Date
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 3. Yield Information for Wildy Farms, 2014
Adj.
1
Yield
Area
Hybrid
DK 62-08
251.37 0.500
P1257YHR
252.74 0.500
P1319HR
248.70 0.500
AR 1550
190.07 0.500
P1602YHR
254.66 0.500
P1739YHR
256.29 0.500
P2089YHR
261.26 0.500
DK 66-87
257.63 0.500
RL 9795
253.39 0.500
RL 9858
258.48 0.500
RL 9633
258.07 0.500
RL 9583
249.97 0.500
XC 11840
244.57 0.500
RL 8898
262.33 0.500
RL 8812
258.77 0.500
RL 8430
263.35 0.500
Delta Grow 2888
252.27 0.500
Delta Grow 3788
214.10 0.500
Dyna Grow 5646
265.70 0.500
Dyna Grow 5291
251.79 0.500
Dyna Grow 5577
238.50 0.500
Terrell 2493
260.57 0.500
Terrell 2820
253.23 0.500
Terrell 2355
274.08 0.500
Mycogen 786
219.74 0.500
Mycogen 797
246.85 0.500
Mycogen 877
242.04 0.500
1
Yield is adjusted to 15.5% moisture.
3
Lodging score - 1 is no lodging, 10 is completely lodged.
Row Length 1148 feet, Plot Width 19
feet
Weight
7,030
7,060
6,980
5,360
7,190
7,350
7,520
7,300
7,180
7,440
7,330
7,100
7,100
7,460
7,280
7,400
7,270
6,170
7,620
7,050
6,670
7,410
7,210
7,720
6,160
6,920
7,070
%
Lodging
Test
Yield Moisture Score3 Weight
251.07
15.4
0
58
252.14
15.3
0
56
249.29
15.7
0
58
191.43
16.1
0
59
256.79
16.2
0
59
262.50
17.5
0
57
268.57
17.8
0
55
260.71
16.5
0
57
256.43
16.5
0
59
265.71
17.8
0
57
261.79
16.7
0
57
253.57
16.7
0
59
253.57
18.5
0
56
266.43
16.8
0
57
260.00
15.9
0
58
264.29
15.8
0
57
259.64
17.9
0
56
220.36
17.9
0
58
272.14
17.5
0
58
251.79
15.5
0
59
238.21
15.4
0
59
264.64
16.8
0
57
257.50
16.9
0
58
275.71
16.0
0
56
220.00
15.6
0
57
247.14
15.6
0
57
252.50
19.0
0
55
On-farm Soybean Variety Demonstration based on soil type
Jason Osborn
Cooperators: Benton Felts
Soil Types: (3) Alligator Clay, Sharky clay loam,& Jeaneretta Silt Loam
Purpose:
At the County Extension Council meeting, the council requested more on farm variety trials and
to base them on soil types (Sand Silt, Clay). With the implementation of the new Farm Bill and
market changes soybeans are being planted on an array of soil types. Many of those fields have a
history of root Knot Nematodes (RKN) and other problems. Having more on-farm soybean
variety demonstrations based on soil types will help producers and consultants choose more
adapted varieties for the farms soil type.
Methods:
Identifying growers and working with seed industry representatives and consultants, three
soybean variety demonstrations were established based on different soil types throughout the
county. These variety demonstrations were IV soybeans. All field work, including planting and
harvest, was performed using the producer’s equipment. All cultural practices were based on
the producer’s standard production practices and were consistent for all soybean varieties in the
demonstration (Table 1). Inputs were based on producer and consultant recommendations and
were not necessary based on University of Arkansas Extension recommendations for soybean
production.
Results:
Stand counts, vigor and disease ratings were collected for each variety in the demonstration
(Table 2). Yields for each soybean variety were calculated from weights collected from
producer’s harvested plots using yield monitor data (Table 3).
Table 1. Field Production Information for Felts Farms, 2014
County:
Lat/Lon
Grower:
County Agent:
Location of
Field:
Mississippi
Crop:
Soybean
35 32'49.79N / 90
11'31.61W
Benton Felts
Jason Osborn
Joiner
Top to Bottom Alligator Clay, Sharkey Silt Clay Loam, Jeaneretta Silt
Soil Type:
Loam
Previous Crop: rice
Planting Date: April 25, 2014
Row Width:
38 inches
Planting Population:
130,000
Irrigation Type
Furrow
Emergence
Date
5/5/2014
3 oz Fierce, Prefix +
Herbicides:
Roundup, Quadris Top
September
Harvested:
22, 2014
Table 2. Stand Count,
Growth Stage, Vigor
and Frogeye Ratings.
Growth
Stand
Stage
Variety
Count
NK 47-K5
114
NK 41-J6
109.5
NK 46-L2
90.5
Armor 46R42
100.5
Asgrow 4632
118.5
Asgrow 4934
117.5
Delta Grow 4765
120
Delta Grow 4670
124
Delta Grow 4755
120.5
P47T36R
102.5
P48T53R
105.5
P49T80R
103
P45T11R
125
Terrell 4664
105
Terrell 4994
114
Terrell 4844
97.5
Mycogen 4490
106.5
Mycogen 451
112.5
Vigor Rating - 1 Poor, 10
Excellent
Frogeye rating - 0 no Disease, 10
Poor
Date
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
Vigor
First
Rating Bloom
19May
Date
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
Frogeye
Rating
24-Jul
0
1
1
0
2.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 3. Yield
results for
Felts Farms
2014.
Adj. Yield1
Area
Weight
NK 47-K5
64.58
0.469
1,739
NK 41-J6
54.76
0.469
1,473
NK 46-L2
53.49
0.469
1,442
Armor 46R42
54.70
0.469
1,473
Asgrow 4632
61.57
0.469
1,658
Asgrow 4934
69.11
0.469
1,865
Delta Grow 4765
61.57
0.469
1,658
Delta Grow 4670
69.29
0.469
1,872
Delta Grow 4755
66.81
0.469
1,803
P47T36R
65.11
0.469
1,759
P48T53R
69.11
0.469
1,861
P49T80R
63.20
0.469
1,713
P45T11R
63.54
0.469
1,709
Terrell 4664
65.11
0.469
1,757
Terrell 4994
72.28
0.469
1,942
Terrell 4844
70.17
0.469
1,900
Mycogen 4490
66.00
0.469
1,797
Mycogen 451
87.03
0.469
2,359
1 Yield is adjusted to 13% moisture.
3 Lodging score - 1 is no lodging, 10 is completely lodged.
Hybrid
Note:
Yield
61.81
52.36
51.26
52.36
58.93
66.29
58.93
66.54
64.09
62.52
66.15
60.89
60.75
62.45
69.03
67.53
63.87
83.85
%
Moisture
9.1
9.0
9.2
9.1
9.1
9.3
9.1
9.4
9.3
9.4
9.1
9.7
9.0
9.3
8.9
9.6
10.1
9.7
Lodging
Score3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
The first thirteen varieties had excess water for 2/3 of the plot lengths early
due to heavy spring
rainfall
Plot
Length
1075
1075
1075
1075
1075
1075
1075
1075
1075
1075
1075
1075
1075
1075
1075
1075
1075
1075
Plot
Width
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
On-farm Soybean Variety Demonstration based on soil type
Jason Osborn
Cooperators: Ron Holthouse
Soil Types: Tunica Silt Loam
Purpose:
At the County Extension Council meeting, the council requested more on farm variety trials and
to base them on soil types (Sand Silt, Clay). With the implementation of the new Farm Bill and
market changes soybeans are being planted on an array of soil types. Many of those fields have a
history of root Knot Nematodes (RKN) and other problems. Having more on-farm soybean
variety demonstrations based on soil types will help producers and consultants choose more
adapted varieties for the farms soil type.
Methods:
Identifying growers and working with seed industry representatives and consultants, three
soybean variety demonstrations were established based on different soil types throughout the
county. These variety demonstrations were IV soybeans. All field work, including planting and
harvest, was performed using the producer’s equipment. All cultural practices were based on
the producer’s standard production practices and were consistent for all soybean varieties in the
demonstration (Table 1). Inputs were based on producer and consultant recommendations and
were not necessary based on the University of Arkansas recommendations for soybean
production
Results:
Stand counts, vigor and disease ratings were collected for each variety in the demonstration
(Table 2).
Yields for each soybean variety were calculated from weights collected from producer’s
harvested plots using yield monitor data (Table 3).
Table 1. Field Production Information for Holthouse Farms, 2014
County:
Mississippi
Crop:
35 40'8.93 N 90
11'40.72 W
Lat/Lon
Grower:
Ron Holthouse
County Agent:
Jason Osborn
Location of Field:
Athelstan
Soil Type:
Tunica Silt Clay
Previous Crop:
rice
Planting Date:
May 21, 2014
Row Width:
38 inches
Planting Population:
165,000
Harvested:
October 27
Irrigation Type
Furrow
Herbicides: Fierce, Prefix + Roundup, Quadris Top + Bifenthrin, Preaxor
Soybeans
Table 2. vigor and disease rating for
varieties on Holthouse Farms 2014.
Variety
Asgrow 4034
Asgrow 4232
Asgrow 4533
Asgrow 4534
Asgrow 4632
Asgrow 4633
Pioneer 47T36
Asgrow 4835
Asgrow 4135
Asgrow 4934
AG 4632
P45T11R
P46T21R
P47T36R
Armor 47-R13
P48T89R
P48T53R
P49T80R
P50T64R
AG 4934
SO EX 46
SO EX 48
Davis 4148
Davis C47
SO EX 53
Delta Grow 4755
Delta Grow 4765
Delta Grow 4670
Mycogen 451
Mycogen 4490
NK 47-K5
NK 41-J6
NK 46-L2
Dyna Grow 4713
Stand
Count
79
141
148
136
141
114
138
138
131
120
135
115
151
150
155
148
130
141
136
138
140
110
133
127
118
145
146
139
123
136
140
140
110
155
Growth Vigor Frogeye
Stage Rating Rating
Date
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
6 23
7
0
Rev Exp 46
Rev 46R64
Rev 47R34
Rev Exp 47
Rev Exp 47
Rev Exp 47
Rev Exp 48
Rev 48R44
Rev Exp 48
Rev 49R94
Rev Exp 49A14
Rev Exp 49
Rev Exp 49
Rev Exp 49
Armor 43 R43
Armor AX 4430
Armor 44 R08
Armor 46 R65
Armor AX 4450
Armor 48 R40
Armor 47 R13
Armor AX 4470
Armor AX 4480
Armor 48 R66
Armor AX 4490
Armor 49 R56
Armor AX 4471
Disease Rating - 1 Resistant, 10 very
susceptible
Vigor Rating - 1 Poor, 10 Excellent
Note:
151
139
120
138
135
129
138
158
110
131
141
136
121
145
148
157
131
149
144
137
151
146
140
147
141
152
155
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
6 23
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Heavy rains after emergence reduced stand counts
on the Asgrow Varities, others showed
water
damage as
well.
Table 3. Yield results Holthouse Farms 2014.
Hybrid
Asgrow 4034
Asgrow 4232
Asgrow 4533
Asgrow 4534
Asgrow 4632
Asgrow 4633
Poineer 47T36
Asgrow 4835
Asgrow 4135
Asgrow 4934
AG 4632
P45T11R
P46T21R
Pioneer 47T36R
Armor 47R13
P48T89R
P48T53R
P49T80R
P50T64R
AG 4934
SO EX 46
SO EX 48
Davis 4148
Davis C47
SO EX 53
Delta Grow
4755
Delta Grow
4765
Delta Grow
4670
Mycogen 451
Mycogen 4490
NK 47-K5
NK 41-J6
NK 46-L2
Dyna Grow
4713
Rev Exp 46
Rev 46R64
Rev 47R 34
Rev Exp 47
Adj.
Yield1
57.38
51.29
52.88
63.72
59.67
60.16
67.12
62.40
61.84
63.54
57.85
59.81
60.30
62.67
64.99
60.48
60.21
59.40
57.41
54.50
56.11
55.30
52.80
52.24
57.44
Area
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
Weight
825
753
756
913
851
863
954
893
885
887
826
857
861
898
928
850
852
832
816
760
801
772
754
726
822
Yield
57.32
52.31
52.52
63.43
59.12
59.96
66.28
62.04
61.48
61.62
57.39
59.54
59.82
62.39
64.47
59.05
59.19
57.80
56.69
52.80
55.65
53.63
52.38
50.44
57.11
%
Moisture
12.9
14.7
12.4
12.6
12.2
12.7
11.9
12.5
12.5
10.3
12.3
12.6
12.3
12.6
12.3
10.9
11.5
10.6
11.9
10.2
12.3
10.3
12.3
9.9
12.5
Lodging
Score2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Plot
Length
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
Plot
Width
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
56.33
0.240
797
55.37
11.5
0
550
19
61.98
0.240
883
61.35
12.1
0
550
19
60.36
60.50
61.04
51.52
49.12
58.18
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
855
857
857
739
679
827
59.40
59.54
59.54
51.34
47.17
57.45
11.6
11.6
10.8
12.7
9.4
11.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
550
550
550
550
550
550
19
19
19
19
19
19
43.38
53.00
50.97
60.51
60.97
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
609
750
727
862
854
42.31
52.11
50.51
59.89
59.33
10.8
11.5
12.2
12.1
10.6
0
0
0
0
0
550
550
550
550
550
19
19
19
19
19
Rev Exp 47
Rev Exp 47
Rev Exp 48
Rev 48R44
Rev Exp 48
Rev 49R94
Rev Exp
49A14
Rev Exp 49
Rev Exp 49
Rev Exp 49
Armor 43R43
Armor AX 4430
Armor 44R08
Armor 46R65
Armor AX4450
Armor 48R40
Armor 47R13
Armor AX 4470
Armor AX 4480
Armor 48R66
Armor AX 4490
Armor 49R56
Armor AX 4471
1
2
59.53
56.37
53.79
60.75
57.26
52.87
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
849
795
762
850
813
749
58.98
55.23
52.94
59.05
56.48
52.04
12.2
11.2
11.6
10.5
11.8
11.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
550
550
550
550
550
550
19
19
19
19
19
19
57.33
57.93
53.73
54.54
59.63
51.28
56.81
44.63
62.40
62.61
53.15
58.52
50.30
61.83
58.91
58.94
58.38
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.240
814
817
763
758
839
712
802
633
882
888
747
829
707
868
828
834
816
56.55
56.76
53.01
52.66
58.29
49.47
55.72
43.98
61.28
61.69
51.90
57.59
49.12
60.30
57.52
57.94
56.69
11.8
11.2
11.8
9.9
11.0
9.8
11.3
11.7
11.4
11.7
10.9
11.6
10.9
10.8
10.9
11.5
10.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Yield is adjusted to 13% moisture.
Lodging score - 1 is no lodging, 10 is completely lodged.
On-farm Soybean Variety Demonstration based on soil type
Jason Osborn
Cooperators: Gordon Miller
Soil Types: Routon-Dundee-Conevasse Complex (sand)
Purpose:
At the County Extension Council meeting, the council requested more on farm variety trials and
to base them on soil types (Sand Silt, Clay). With the implementation of the new Farm Bill and
market changes soybeans are being planted on an array of soil types. Many of those fields have a
history of root Knot Nematodes (RKN) and other problems. Having more on-farm soybean
variety demonstrations based on soil types will help producers and consultants choose more
adapted varieties for the farms soil type.
Methods:
Identifying growers and working with seed industry representatives and consultants, three
soybean variety demonstrations were established based on different soil types throughout the
county. These variety demonstrations were IV soybeans. All field work, including planting and
harvest, was performed using the producer’s equipment. All cultural practices were based on
the producer’s standard production practices and were consistent for all soybean varieties in the
demonstration (Table 1). Inputs were based on producer and consultant recommendations and
were not necessary based on the University of Arkansas recommendations for soybean
production
Results:
Stand counts, vigor and disease ratings were collected for each variety in the demonstration
(Table 2). Yields for each soybean variety were calculated from weights collected from
producer’s harvested plots using yield monitor data (Table 3).
Table 1. Field Production Information for Miller farms, 2014
County:
Lat/Lon
Grower:
County Agent:
Location of Field:
Soil Type:
Previous Crop:
Planting Date:
Row Width:
Planting Population:
Irrigation Type
Emergence Date
Herbicides:
Harvest Date:
Mississippi
Gordon Miller
Jason Osborn
Leachville
Routon-Dundee-Conevasse Complex
Cotton
April 22, 2014
38 inch
130,000
Furrow
5/5/2014
Gramoxone @ 40 oz + 3 oz Fierce
/ acre
Dual Magnum + Roundup early
post
Quadris TOP 8 oz
September 26, 2014
Crop:
Soybeans
35 57' 0.76N / 90 17'
52.94W
Applied May 6, 2014
N/A
N/A
Table 2.
Stand count,
Growth
Stage, Vigor
and First
Bloom
Ratings
Variety
Delta Grow 4765
Delta Grow 4770
Delta Grow 4755
Terrell 4664
Terrell 4753
Terrell 4994
Asgrow 4632
Asgrow 4934
Mycogen 451
Mycogen 452
Mycogen 449
Mycogen 479
P45T11R
P47T36R
P48T53R
P49T80R
Dyna Grow 3145
Dyna Grow 4853
NK 41-56
NK 46-L2
NK 47-K5
Armor 43R43
Armor 46R42
Armor 47R13
Stand
Stand
Stand
Growth
Vigor
First
Count
Count
Count
Stage
Rating
Bloom
Avg
90.75
93.5
112.8
111.3
103.3
107
112
101.3
117.5
89.75
98.5
96
91
107.5
89.5
105.3
95.25
88.5
108
96.5
105.3
114.5
113.8
110.3
15May
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
V-2
Date
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Date
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
6 10
1
64.5
68.5
110.5
118.5
101
101
100
90
121
75
86
85
94
103.5
86.5
104.5
89.5
77
93
90.5
107
112
102
97.5
2
117
118.5
115
104
105.5
113
124
112.5
114
104.5
111
107
88
111.5
92.5
106
101
100
123
102.5
103.5
117
125.5
123
Vigor Rating - 1 Poor, 10
Excelent
Stand Count Averages
Note: On May 15 Mycogen 451 showed less sand damage than the other
varities. Reasons not sure.
Table 3. Yield Results Miller Farms
2014.
Hybrid
Adj. Yield1
Area
Weight
Delta Grow
4765
77.13
0.254
1,153
Delta Grow
4770
56.86
0.254
849
Delta Grow
4755
55.72
0.254
832
Terrell 4664
60.81
0.254
908
Terrell 4753
54.11
0.254
808
Terrell 4994
55.39
0.254
827
Asgrow 4632
57.06
0.254
852
Asgrow 4934
51.77
0.254
773
Mycogen 451
54.66
0.254
818
Mycogen 452
49.72
0.254
744
Mycogen 449
44.62
0.254
667
Mycogen 479
52.58
0.254
786
P45T11R
44.77
0.254
670
P47T36R
53.18
0.254
795
P48T53R
54.06
0.254
809
P49T80R
56.73
0.254
850
Dyna Grow
3145
50.53
0.254
757
Dyna Grow
4853
45.85
0.254
687
NK 41-56
55.20
0.254
827
NK 46-L2
51.73
0.254
775
NK 47-K5
52.06
0.254
780
Armor 43R43
55.93
0.254
838
Armor 46R42
50.06
0.254
750
Armor 47R13
50.26
0.254
753
1 Yield is adjusted to 13% moisture.
3 Lodging score - 1 is no lodging, 10 is completely lodged.
Yield
%
Moisture
Lodging
Score3
Plot
Length
Plot
Width
75.57
11.2
0
583
19
55.64
11.1
0
583
19
54.53
59.51
52.96
54.20
55.84
50.66
53.61
48.76
43.72
51.52
43.91
52.11
53.02
55.71
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.3
11.3
11.2
11.2
11.3
11.2
11.3
11.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
49.61
11.4
0
583
19
45.03
54.20
50.79
51.12
54.92
49.16
49.35
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Phaucet Irrigation in Mississippi County
Jason Osborn
Purpose:
Resource Conservation is an important part of agriculture in Mississippi County. As water table
levels drop across the state and fuel prices that have doubled in the last five years, producers are
searching for ways to improve efficiency and lower cost.
Methods:
The Mississippi County Staff answered the call by implementing and demonstrating the Phaucet
Irrigation program. The program was developed by the NRCS-USDA and first used in County in
2011. The program takes well flow (GPM), poly pipe length, and row lengths of the field and
calculates the correct hole size per row. Field detentions are generated by using an iPad and
Google maps to plot boundaries to get the row lengths, pipe lengths and any other points needed.
The program calculations give an approximate time when the field will be fully irrigated. The
producer can then turn off the well at a specific time reducing irrigation cost.
Results:
Pumping cost average $75 an acre, and the Phaucet program reduced that cost by 18% to $61.60
an acre, which is a savings of $13.50 per acre. This equates to a fuel savings of $194,833.15 or
55,680 gallons of diesel not used in Mississippi County. The program is used on 23,682.2 acres.
33 producers use the program with 9 producers being new for 2014. Eight (8) new producers
were trained in 2014 and now use the program with no further assistance from Extension Staff.
This brings the county to 9 producers using the program with no further assistance from
Extension Staff.
PHAUCET Irrigation vs. Conventional Irrigation
Jason Osborn
Cooperator: Shane Adkisson
Purpose:
Resource Conservation is an important part of agriculture in Mississippi County. As water table
levels drop across the state and fuel prices that have doubled in the last five years, producers are
searching for ways to improve efficiency and lower cost.
Methods:
During the 2014 cotton growing season one cotton field was equipped with flow meters to show
the cost savings of the PHAUCET program. The producer was trained on using the PHAUCET
program and he implemented it on 1000 acres not included in the demonstration. The field was
divided in roughly half. Since the acreage was not the same for each side terminating irrigation
after each irrigation set was done by visual observation. One flow meter placed to show the
conventional irrigation water usage using the producer selected hole size. The second flow
meter was placed on the PHAUCET irrigation side to show water usage for the computer hole
size section. All planting, management, and harvest methods were based on the producer’s
normal practices.
Results:
By using the PHAUCET irrigation program and demonstrating it benefits the producer saved
19% on his irrigation cost. Pumping cost average $75 an acre, and the Phaucet program reduced
that cost by 19% to $60.75 an acre, which is a savings of $14.25 per acre. This equates to a fuel
savings of $14,250 or 4071 gallons of diesel not used on the producers farm.
Rice fungicide Demonstration
Jason Osborn
Cooperators: Keith Griffin
Purpose:
Despite advances in rice production diseases remain as a major cause of yield loss in which
profits are lowered. The use of high yielding rice cultivars with less disease resistance has
increased over the past several years.
Methods:
To determine if there is a benefit to applying a fungicide to rice, a strip trial was conducted in the
northern part of the county. The field was planted and standard cultural practices were followed.
Strip treatments across the field included areas receiving an application of Quilt XL fungicide at
a rate of 20 ounces per acre and areas of the field receiving no fungicide applications. The strips
were harvested using the producer’s combine and yield monitors.
Results:
The yield differences between the treated and non-treated test showed a 7 bushel increase over
the non-treated. The treated strips averaged 217 bushels (wet) per acre whereas the non-treated
strips averaged 210 bushels (wet) per acre. At $6.36 per bushel the yield increase gave a return
on of $44.52. Subtracting 25% for rent and the $20.00 per acre cost of fungicide and application,
the return on investment was $13.39 per acre. On the 1000 acres of fungicide applied the overall
benefit was $13,390.00 for the producer.
2014 On-Farm rice Variety Demonstration
Jason Osborn
Purpose:
Mississippi County produces over 20,000 acres of rice annually. On-farm comparisons of rice
varieties can help producers make a more informed decision as to which variety to pant on their
farm.
Methods:
In response to grower’s requests in Mississippi County, effort was made to increase the number
of on-farm variety tests and demonstrations. An on farm variety demonstration was established
in the county. Plots were planted with the producer’s equipment and managed throughout the
season based on the producer’s standard practices. All plots were harvested using the producer’s
equipment and yields determined by weighs obtained from a load cell equipped grain cart. After
harvest, plot was used to calculate yield per acre. Each plot’s yield was adjusted for moisture.
Results:
Yield differences within the two tests ranged from a low of 126 bushels to a high of 188 bushels.
There was a 62 bushel difference between the lowest and highest yielding variety. Using a $4.00
price per bushel for rice, variety selection could account for as much as a $248.00 revenue
difference per acre.
By selecting the best varieties could increase rice revenue in Mississippi County by as much as
$4,960,000.
Non Clearfield Trial
Planted 5-16-14
Harvested 9-20-14
Cooperator Ron Holthouse
VAR/HYBRID
CL 111
CL 151
CL 152
CLXP 4534
CLXL 745
CLXL 729
CLXL 756
CL 111
CL 151
CL 152
CLXP 4534
CLXL 745
CLXL 729
CLXL 756
Summary
CL 111
CL 151
CL 152
CLXP 4534
CLXL 745
CLXL 729
CLXL 756
PLOT
HAR. DATE
9/27/2014
9/27/2014
9/27/2014
9/27/2014
9/27/2014
9/27/2014
9/27/2014
WEIGHT
3988
3586
4142
4642
4366
4356
4210
9/27/2014
9/27/2014
9/27/2014
9/27/2014
9/27/2014
9/27/2014
9/27/2014
3667
2998
4616
4556
4620
4394
4230
Wet Yield/acre Dry Yield/acre
157.3
115.0
134
126
180.9
111.0
188.2
188.5
183.8
169.0
179.3
148.5
172.7
166.5
Dry bbl/acre
31.9
35
30.8
52.4
46.9
41.3
46.3
MOISTURE LENGTH
18.5
685
22.0
685
18.0
670
15.8
680
17.8
685
19.4
680
19.4
680
18.9
22.0
18.4
16.2
19.0
21.1
21.1
660
668
669
672
668
670
670
WIDTH
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
ACRES Wet Yield/acre Dry Yield/acre Wet bbl/acre
0.55
161
118
45
0.55
145
132
40
0.54
171
115
47
0.55
189
187
52
0.55
176
170
49
0.55
177
141
49
0.55
171
166
48
0.53
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
154
124
191
188
191
181
174
112
120
107
190
168
156
167
43
34
53
52
53
50
48
Dry bbl/acre
33
37
32
52
47
39
46
31
33
30
53
47
43
46
Surge Value Irrigation Demonstration
Jason Osborn
Cooperator: Ron Holthouse
Purpose:
Surge valves have been shown to improve irrigation efficiency and reduce total irrigation water
used by as much as 25%. Current USDA-ARS and University of Arkansas estimates suggest
that Arkansas irrigation must be reduced by approximately 45% to insure our ground water
supply is sustainable.
Demonstration:
During the 2014 production season, one field was equipped with a surge valve and the producer
was educated on its use. The 2014 demonstration was not designed to document water saving.
The 2014 producer was shown how to set up the valve as well as how to adjust it during the
season.
Results:
Yield was not a component in this demonstration. Water use efficiency was the focus of the
surge valve demonstration. Early into the season the demonstration surge valve malfunctioned
and ceased working. The producer recognizing the benefits of the valve purchased two new
valves replacing the malfunctioning valve and used the second purchased valve in a different
location. He noted how the field watered out sooner and with less flooding on the lower end of
the fields coupled with the PHAUCET irrigation program.