Panhandle research highlights 2010 |
Previous | 1 of 11 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
Route 1, Box 86M Goodwell, Oklahoma 73939-9705 (580) 349-5440 http://oaes.pss.okstate.edu/goodwell Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center Oklahoma State University Field & Research Services Unit Department of Animal Science Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Department of Plant and Soil Sciences Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering USDA - ARS Animal Waste Management Biofuels Canola Corn Crop Rotation Feeding Distiller’s Grains Irrigation & Water Management Soil Fertility Sorghum Soybeans Sunflowers Weed Management Wheat In Sincere Memory of Brent Westerman Brent Westerman Senior Director of Field Research Service Units Robert E. Whitson DASNR Vice President, Dean & Director Clarence Watson Associate Director of the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station Jonathan Edelson Assistant Director of the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station OKLAHOMA PANHANDLE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION CENTER The Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources (DASNR) including the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station (OAES) and the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service (OCES) at Oklahoma State University (OSU) have a long history of working cooperatively with Oklahoma Panhandle State University (OPSU) to meet the needs of our clientele, the farmers and ranchers of the high plains region. OAES is the research arm of DASNR and continues with the mission to conduct fundamental and applied research for the purpose of developing new knowledge that will lead to technology improvements addressing the needs of the people. The OCES continues to strive to disseminate the research information generated by OAES to the public through field days, workshops, tours, and demonstrations. This has been and will continue to be a major focus of our efforts at the Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center. Together as a team we have been able to solve many significant problems related to high plains agriculture. The OPREC is centrally operated within the Field and Research Services Unit (FRSU) of the OAES. The FRSU serves as the back bone for well over 1,000 statewide field and lab based research trials annually. Our unit consists of 18 outlying research stations including the OPREC, the Controlled Environmental Research Lab, the Ridge Road Greenhouse Phase I and Phase II, the Noble Research Center and the Stored Product Research and Extension Center. The FRSU works to provide a central focus for station operations and management with the goal to improve overall efficiency by providing a systematic means for budget management, facility upgrades, consolidation of labor pools, maintenance and repair of equipment and buildings, and other infrastructure needs. The Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center at Goodwell is committed to serving the people of the region. Many staff continue to serve our clientele and include; Rick Kochenower Area Agronomy Research and Extension Specialist, Britt Hicks Area Livestock Extension Specialist, and Lawrence Bohl Senior Station Superintendent of OPREC. Other essential OPREC personnel include Donna George Senior Secretary, Craig Chesnut Field Foreman II, Jake Baker Agriculturalist, and several wage payroll and part-time OPSU student laborers. OSU faculty members from numerous Departments continue to utilize OPREC to conduct research and extension efforts in the Panhandle area. Additionally, the OPREC continues to serve as a “hub” for our commodity groups and agriculture industries by hosting several informative agriculture related meetings annually. The DASNR, OAES, and OCES truly appreciate the support that our clientele, farmers, ranchers, commodity groups, industry, and other agricultural groups have given us over the years. Without your support many of our achievements would not have been possible. We look forward to your continued support in the future and to meeting the needs of the research, extension, and teaching programs in the high plains region. Clarence Watson Associate Director Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources Oklahoma State University The staff at OPREC, OAES F&RSU, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Department of Animal Science and Department of Biosystems and Ag Engineering at Oklahoma State University would like to thank the companies and individuals listed below, for providing resources utilized in research projects. Their valuable contributions and support allow researchers to better utilize research dollars. This research is important for producers in the high plains region, not just the Oklahoma panhandle. We would ask that the next time you see these individuals and companies that you say thank you with us. Archer Daniels Midland Company BASF Bayer Crop Sciences Dow Agro Sciences (Jodie Stockett) DuPont (Jack Lyons and Robert Rupp) Farm Credit of Western Oklahoma Green Country Equipment Hitch Enterprises Liquid Control Systems (Tim Nelson) Midwest Genetics (Bart Arbuthnot) Monsanto (Ben Mathews, T. K. Baker, Mike Lenz) National Sorghum Producers Rick Nelson GM Northwest Cotton Growers Co-op Oklahoma Grain Sorghum Commission Oklahoma Wheat Commission Oklahoma Wheat Growers OPSU Orthman Manufacturing Pioneer Seed (Ramey Seed) Sorghum Partners Hopkins Ag/AIM Agency (J. B. Stewart & Jarrod Stewart) Syngenta Texhoma Wheat Growers Triumph Seed Company United Sorghum Checkoff Program Joe Webb Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center ~ Advisory Board ~ Mr. Bert Allard, Jr. P. O. Box 588 Texhoma, OK 73949 Mr. Kenton Patzkowsky Rt. 2, Box 48 Balko, OK 73931 Dr. Curtis Bensch OPSU Goodwell, OK 73939 Mr. Larry Peters OPSU Goodwell, OK 73939 Mr. Lawrence Bohl Route 3, Box 49A Guymon, OK 73939 Mr. Leon Richards Rt. 2, Box 92 Turpin, OK 73950 Dr. Peter Camfield OPSU Goodwell, OK 73939 Mr. Kenneth Rose Rt. 2, Box 142 Keyes, OK 73947 Mr. Bob Dietrick P. O. Box 279 Tyrone, OK 73951 Mr. Tom Stephens Route 1, Box 29 Guymon, OK 73942 Mr. Steve Franz Rt. 2, Box 36 Beaver, OK 73932 Mr. J. B. Stewart P. O. Box 102 Keyes, OK 73947 Mr. Jason Hitch 309 N. Circle Guymon, OK 73942 Dr. Clarence Watson, Jr. 139 Ag Hall Stillwater, OK 74078-6019 Mr. Rick Heitschmidt Route 1, Box 52 Forgan, OK 73938 Dr. Brent Westerman 370 Ag Hall Stillwater, OK 74078 Mr. Steve Kraich P. O. Box 320 Guymon, OK 73942 Dr. Robert Westerman 139 Ag Hall, OSU Stillwater, OK 74078 Mr. Rick Nelson P. O. Box 339 Beaver, OK 73932 Dr. Kenneth Woodward Route 1, Box 114A Texhoma, OK 73949 2010 Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center Staff and Principal Investigators Vacant Director Lawrence Bohl (580) 349-5440 Station Superintendent Rick Kochenower (580) 349-5441 Area Research and Extension Specialist, Agronomy Britt Hicks (580) 349-5439 Area Extension Livestock Specialist Curtis Bensch (580) 349-1503 Adjunct Professor Craig Chesnut Field Foreman II Jake Baker Agriculturalist Donna George Senior Administrative Assistant Joe Armstrong (405) 744-9588 Assistant Proffessor, State Ext. Weed Scientist, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Brian Arnall (405) 744-1722 Assistant Professor, State Ext. Soil Fertility Specialist, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Brett Carver (405) 744-6414 Professor, Wheat Genetics, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Dr. Jeff Edwards (405) 744-9617 Assistant Professor, Wheat, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Dr. Chad Godsey (405) 744-3389 Assistant Professor, Cropping System Specialist, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Jeff Hattey (405) 744-9586 Professor, Animal Waste Research Leader, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Gopal Kakani (405) 744-4046 Assistant Professor, Bioenergy Crop Production, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Dr. Tyson Ochsner (405) 744-3627 Assistant Professor, Soil Physics, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Dr. Randy Taylor (405) 744-5277 Associate Professor/Ext. Agriculture Engineering, Dept. of Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University Dr. Jason Warren (405) 744-1721 Assistant Professor, Soil and Water Conservation, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Climatological data for Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, 2010. Temperature Precipitation Wind Month Max Min Max. mean Min. mean Inches Long term mean One day total AVG mph Max mph Jan 67 -6 48 17 0.49 0.30 0.29 10.7 52.0 Feb 57 9 39 20 1.51 0.46 0.39 9.9 40.9 March 87 18 60 30 2.51 0.95 0.73 13.4 55.0 April 87 24 69 41 1.76 1.33 0.83 15.3 56.1 May 92 31 77 47 2.64 3.25 0.82 13.8 52.1 June 103 51 91 63 3.16 2.86 1.48 14.3 68.5 July 102 58 93 66 1.22 2.58 0.65 12.6 57.9 Aug 103 49 93 64 5.42 2.28 3.16 11.3 38.9 Sept 99 42 88 56 0.20 1.77 0.11 12.4 51.8 Oct 89 26 76 43 0.81 1.03 0.63 11.5 44.9 Nov 81 8 61 27 0.29 0.77 0.23 13.2 50.9 Dec 71 2 51 22 0.34 0.31 0.23 10.5 52.2 Annual total 70.0 40.5 13.03 17.9 NA NA NA Data from Mesonet Station at OPREC Longterm Average Precipitation by county (1948-98) Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Precipitation (in) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Texas Cimarron Yearly Total Beaver Texas 17.89 Cimarron 18.39 Beaver 22.89 BEAVER COUNTY 1948-99 RAINFALL (inches) .01-.24 .25-.49 .50-1.0 1.0-2.0 > 2.O PERCENT OF EVENTS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1767 2,987 TOTAL EVENTS 542 442 185 51 CIMARRON COUNTY 1948-99 RAINFALL (inches) .01-.24 .25-.49 .50-1.0 1.0-2.0 > 2.O PERCENT OF EVENTS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1874 549 381 159 36 2,999 TOTAL EVENTS TEXAS COUNTY 1948-99 RAINFALL (inches) .01-.24 .25-.49 .50-1.0 1.0-2.0 > 2.O PERCENT OF EVENTS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1835 479 341 176 25 2,856 TOTAL EVENTS Oklahoma Panhandle Research & Extension Center 2010 Research Highlights Crops Sunflower and Grain Sorghum Combine Header Loss Evaluation ...................................... 1 Wheat Variety Development and Breeding Research ..................................................... 6 Garrison hard red winter wheat Release Announcement ..................................................... 12 Ruby Lee hard red winter wheat Release Announcement ................................................... 13 Effect of Planting Date on Yield and Test Weight of Dry-land Wheat in the Oklahoma Panhandle ............................................................................................................ 14 Effects of Corn Stover Harvest on Soil Quality Indicators and Irrigated Corn Yield in the Southern Great Plains ...................................................................................... 17 GreenSeeker™ Sensor in Irrigated Corn Production ........................................................... 20 Nitrogen Fertilizer Management using Subsurface Drip Application of Swine Effluent ...................................................................................................................... 22 Impact and Sustainability of a Subsurface Drip Irrigation System used for the Application of Swine Effluent in Semi-Arid Environments ............................................... 24 Comparison of Bleacher Herbicides for use in Corn ........................................................... 30 Post Emergent Broadleaf Control in Grain sorghum ........................................................... 32 Post Emergent Grass Control in Grain sorghum .................................................................. 34 Timing of Dry-land Strip-tillage for Grain Sorghum Production in the High Plains .......... 35 No-till VS Minimum-till Dry-land Crop Rotations .............................................................. 37 Dry-land No-till Cropping Intensity ..................................................................................... 41 Expanding Production Area and Alternative Energy Crop Market of Proso Millet for Water deficient Lands .......................................................................................... 42 Mitigation and Remediation of Hydrogen Sulfide and Ammonia Emissions from Swine Production Facilities .................................................................................................. 57 Extension Publications Oklahoma Corn Performance Trial, 2010 Grain Sorghum Performance Trials in Oklahoma, 2010 Oklahoma Soybean Variety Trial Report 2010 Oklahoma Sunflower Trial Report 2010 Oklahoma Wheat Variety Trails 2009-10 1 Sunflower and Grain Sorghum Combine Header Loss Evaluation Wesley M. Porter1, Rick Kochenower2, Elizabeth Miller1, Randy Taylor1 1: Dept. of Biosystems and Ag Engineering, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 2: Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell, OK More producers are growing row crops such as grain sorghum (milo) and sunflowers in Northwest Oklahoma. Most of the growers already own a combine that they either use for cutting wheat, beans, or corn. These row crops can be a little more difficult to harvest when compared to the other crops that are normally harvested with the combine and its specific headers. A major difference with these crops is that seeds and in extreme cases full heads can be lost. The loss of seeds is common in all crops but losing heads during harvest can be a significant harvest loss. Specific combine headers perform better than others at preventing both types of losses. There are also special attachments for certain headers that aid in retaining the grain seeds and grain heads. Our objective was to measure header loss during sunflower and grain sorghum harvest with different combine headers and/or attachments. Header losses were measured by collecting full grain heads and counting the number of seeds left behind from selected areas in the field and quantified to a loss in yield (in lbs/ac). Methods A John Deere 6620 combine was used to harvest both crops. Sorghum harvest was performed on November 4, 2010. Four different combine headers were used during this harvest and included a row crop header, a bean header, a conventional wheat header, and the conventional header with milo finger attachments. Sunflowers were harvested on November 17, 2010. Five different headers were used with during the sunflower harvest and included a row crop header, a conventional wheat header, a corn header with sunflower plates, a bean header, and the conventional header with the milo fingers (Figure 1). Header loss collections were performed at six different locations within the field during the harvest performed with each header. The header loss locations were collected using a method shown in Figure 2 to ensure total combine loss was not a factor in the collections. 2 Figure 1. From top left, clockwise: Row crop head, flex bean header, conventional wheat head with Downer Milo Guards, SunStar sunflower plates for a corn header, corn header with sunflower plates and conventional wheat head (without attachments). 3 Figure 2. The red area represents the areas where header loss was collected. The headers used were four rows wide (30 inch rows), thus the actual designated collection area was ten foot in width by six foot in length for a total of sixty feet squared within the collection area for each collection (Figure 3). This sample area was collected six times per header. Within this collection area the number of heads were counted and collected to be threshed and weighed later. From within the 60 ft2 area four one foot square areas were randomly selected to count seeds. Three other 60 ft2 areas from each header were selected and collected after harvest to get to get a total combine loss weight. Figure 3: The 6’x10’ collection area with the four 1ft2 sample aids inside. 4 Heads from both the sunflower and milo harvests were collected from within the 60 ft2 area. These heads were threshed and the seeds weighed. The seed weights collected from the heads helped to give a pound per acre loss for heads that did not make it into the combine. The header loss was compared to the total loss. Results Header loss was calculated for each of the headers based on the individual seed weight and count per the unit area they were collected from. The seeds collected from the heads were counted for a 60 ft2 area and the individual seed counts were accounted for the four 1 ft2 areas from each collection site. These numbers were then converted to pound per acre yield loss. The results for the sunflowers (Table1) and the grain sorghum (Table 2) can be viewed below. Table 1. Header loss from heads and seeds during sunflower harvest. Header # of Heads lbs/ac hd loss # of Seeds lbs/ac sd loss Total Header Loss Row Crop 2.4 90.7 15.8 72.8 163.4 Wheat 10.8 433.8 9.8 45.3 479.1 Sunflower 4.2 108.4 23.8 109.6 218.1 Bean 4.5 148.5 8.3 38.4 186.8 Milo 6.6 265.4 9.1 42.0 307.5 As shown in Table 1, the row crop header had the lowest header loss followed by the bean header, the sunflower attachments were not very far behind these two. There was a statistical difference in yield loss from each of the headers used. For yield loss from head loss the row crop, sunflower plates and bean header statistically performed the same, while the wheat header and milo fingers were statistically the same. The row crop and sunflower headers performed well below the other three headers when it came to seed loss. More seeds were retained using the grain headers (wheat, bean, and milo fingers). The grain platforms on these headers aided in retaining the higher number of seeds. Total loss followed the same trend as head loss in the performance levels of the headers. A corn header can perform very well with the sunflower plates. However a regular flex header for beans also seemed to work very well for sunflowers during this study. The longer grain platform of the bean header helped to retain a higher number of seeds and heads above the conventional wheat header. Based on this data it is not recommended to use a conventional wheat header or the milo finger attachments for harvesting sunflowers. Table 2. Header loss from heads and seeds during Milo harvest. Header # of Heads lbs/ac hd loss # of Seeds lbs/ac sd loss Total Header Loss Row Crop 0.0 0.0 16.1 54.8 54.8 Bean 2.2 72.6 9.7 33.1 105.7 Wheat 0.5 30.9 9.1 31.0 61.9 Milo 0.3 5.1 11.2 38.2 43.3 5 The milo was harvested at about 13% moisture content. It was a very uniform stand and fed into the headers very well. The average total yield was about 130 bushels per acre. As seen in Table 2 the Milo finger attachments for the conventional wheat header performed the best, with the row crop and wheat headers falling right behind. The row crop header had a higher number of seed losses than any of the other heads because of the smaller seeds and header design. However statistically the number of seeds lost between each header was not different. The yield loss due to head losses was statistically the same for the row crop header and the milo attachments. This means that these two headers perform at the same level for retaining heads. As in the sunflower harvest the grain platforms on the bean and wheat headers helped in the reduced seed loss numbers. Even though the total losses of each header was not significantly different the row crop header and the milo finger attachments improved losses. It should be noted that the very uniform high yielding stand of milo helped to keep all headers at a high harvest level. Conclusions The data from both studies support very good performance from the row crop head, and if available this header would be a good choice to be used for harvesting these row crops. However depending on what combine headers you have available specialty attachments can make a significant difference in the amount of head and seed loss occurring during harvest. It would be worth the investment to buy the sunflower plates or the milo fingers for their designed crop. In both cases the grain headers performed better on seed loss due to the design of the header grain platform. Even though fewer seeds were lost with the grain headers it must be remembered the significant losses that occur from the loss of complete or partial grain heads. In both studies the row crop header retained the highest number of grain heads. Milo fingers and sunflower plates both have reduced head loss numbers compared to the wheat and bean headers without attachments. Based on the data collected from this study it is shown that the header attachments tested in these trials helped in retaining full heads. It is very important to retain as many heads as possible to prevent large losses thus the attachments are worth using. 6 Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center Wheat Improvement Program Annual Report, 2011 Brett Carver, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University OSU joins Texas A&M University/AgriPro in Uniform Testing The Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center (OPREC) plays a pivotal role in the final stages of OSU wheat variety development. The 2009-2010 crop season represented our second year of collaborative uniform testing of contemporary varieties and candidate varieties with two other breeding programs in the southern Plains, namely Texas AgriLife and AgriPro. This uniform trial contained the same entries tested across Texas and Oklahoma, including a dryland trial at the OPREC. Along with the usual varieties that would appear in a variety trial such as TAM 111, Jackpot, and Duster, experimental lines under release consideration were evaluated head-to-head. Two such experimental lines from OSU were included in 2010 (Table 1) and have now been officially released by the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station (OAES) as Ruby Lee and Garrison. Topping the list for statewide performance in Oklahoma were Armour (WestBred), Duster, and the new OAES release, Garrison (Table 1). The statewide yield means included trials at Granite, Enid, Lahoma, and Goodwell dryland. To identify best-variety performance at Goodwell, one must focus strictly on the Goodwell performance data in Table 1. That is because variety means at Lahoma or at Granite were not significantly correlated with variety means at Goodwell (r = 0.2 for both pairs of correlations). Hence, a different set of varieties excelled at Goodwell than elsewhere in the state, including TAM 203, the OSU new beardless variety Pete, Jagger, and SY Gold (AgriPro). This lack of yield consistency between downstate locations and the OPREC is not unusual, and we must account for this inconsistency in the OSU wheat improvement program by using the OPREC as a core testing site for line evaluation and selection. The Uniform Variety Trial summarized in Table 1 will be repeated in 2011 with a different lineup of experimental lines. Testing of Elite Materials from the OSU Wheat Improvement Program As alluded above, the OPREC is used as one of the three cornerstone testing sites for replicated yield and quality trials in the OSU wheat improvement program. The other two sites include Granite in southwest Oklahoma and Lahoma in north central Oklahoma. Breeding lines in their first year of replicated yield trials, all the way up to those in their fifth year of replicated trials, typically appear at the Center in both dryland and irrigated plots. One such trial contains the most advanced (i.e., elite) breeding lines each year, called the Oklahoma Elite Trial (OET). Nine of the 30 slots in the 2010 OET were occupied by contemporary check varieties, plus the long-term check variety Chisholm (Table 2). We include varieties which represent the best available commercial genetics for Oklahoma in the HRW market class. Thus each year the panel of checks changes slightly to reflect new improved genetics. This year you will find test results for these outstanding check varieties: Billings, Duster, Endurance, OK Bullet, Centerfield, Fuller, TAM 203, Pete, and Jackpot. The 2010 trial also featured four candidate varieties that were under the careful watch of the OSU Wheat Improvement Team. Two of those candidates were released by the OAES in February 2011 and are currently being considered for licensing. 7 OK05212 was released as Garrison, and OK05526 was released as Ruby Lee. More information on each of those varieties may be found at the end of this report. Under further release consideration are the experimental lines OK07209, OK07214, and OK07231, all of which have Duster as one of their parents, with the other parent being different. Of primary interest are the two highest yielding lines in the 2010 OET, OK07209 and OK07214. These lines also performed very well at the OPREC, either irrigated or dryland. Differences between OK07209 and OK07214 have relevance to downstate Oklahoma, such as Hessian fly resistance or tolerance to acidic soils. OK07209 is currently under large-scale foundation seed increase, whereas OK07214 was placed under a limited foundation seed increase, with the intent to undergo a second year of seed multiplication in 2011-2012. Unlike previous years, the yield results obtained under irrigation were not highly influenced by viruses, the most notable of which in the past have been Barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV), Wheat streak mosaic virus (WSMV), and Triticum mosaic virus. However, the correlation between yields in the irrigated trial versus the dryland trial was no better than in previous years where differential disease presence biased the comparison (r=0.62 in 2010). Duster, Billings, TAM 203, and Jackpot consistently had higher yields among the checks in both trials. In addition to the two experimental lines already discussed, we have our sights set on a couple other experimentals that have performed well over several years of OPREC testing, including OK05511 and OK05312. OK05511 provides much needed insect resistance currently not offered in OSU releases--specifically to greenbug and Hessian fly—and we are evaluating in 2011 a reselection of the original line to purify the insect resistance. OK05312 holds our interest strictly as a High Plains variety, because its yield potential is best expressed in the Oklahoma panhandle, and it confers a high degree of resistance to curl mite, the WSMV vector. What is our plan for breeding resistance to WSMV? The OSU Wheat Improvement Team has been able to transfer breeding success to OSU stakeholders through the release of varieties with resistance to multiple viruses. Those traits are often stacked in a single variety, with Duster being one example of conferring resistance to Wheat soilborne mosaic virus (WSBMV), Wheat spindle streak mosaic virus (WSSMV), BYDV, and High Plains Virus. However, WSMV has presented a greater challenge to the team, and we do realize the severity of the disease and the yield-limitations it causes in the Oklahoma panhandle. Dr. Hunger, the team’s wheat pathologist, reported in 2004 an average yield loss of 62% when infection occurred in the fall and an average yield loss of 15% when infection occurred in the spring relative to non-infected wheat. Our awareness of WSMV susceptibility was reflected in the priority we placed on this trait when participating in the USDA-CAP grant from 2005 to 2010, where molecular markers were employed across several generations to select directly for WSMV resistance using germplasm developed at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in partnership with USDA-ARS and at Kansas State University. The resulting breeding populations are making their way through the breeding program at Oklahoma State University, and purelines are now being developed for statewide testing. Furthermore, we have since expanded our breeding strategy to combine two distinct gene forms of WSMV resistance known as Wsm1 and Wsm2 (indeed, they are selected by different molecular markers) with a gene (probably Cmc4) that confers resistance to the disease vector (curl mite). This three-pronged approach should uniquely provide the best protection to date for this disease. 8 One curl-mite resistant experimental has progressed through the program to become a candidate variety, already mentioned as OK05312. We continue to evaluate this line for agronomic and quality traits, and particularly the value of the insect resistance trait to protection from WSMV (in cooperation with Rich Kochenower). Its yielding ability in the High Plains is well established, though performance in the Oklahoma Small Grains Variety Performance Tests in 2010 and in the 2010 OET (Table 2) was compromised by shattering losses. At Yuma, AZ, 500 head-rows of OK05312 were planted in Fall 2009 to eliminate red-chaff variants and to improve uniformity within the variety. This nursery will provide breeder seed for producing foundation seed in 2011-2012, pending confirmation of reduced yield losses in the presence of WSMV. Scientists at Kansas State University have already confirmed curl mite resistance of OK05312, such that leaf rolling is significantly reduced and fecundity of the curl mite is greatly decreased when plants of OK05312 versus Jagger were infested in a controlled environment (Table 3). The Wheat Improvement Team will continue to address concerns specific to the High Plains and pertinent to research capabilities at the OPREC. We appreciate the research opportunity afforded by the OPREC and the unique position it places OSU’s Wheat Improvement Team in solving concerns of wheat producers in the panhandle region. Contributed by Brett F. Carver, OSU Wheat Breeder, on behalf of the Wheat Improvement Team 9 Table 1. Texas-Oklahoma-AgriPro Uniform Wheat Variety Trial, 2009-2010, conducted at four Oklahoma locations. Entry Statewide mean OPREC dryland mean & rank Armour 54 67 20 Duster 52 72 6 Garrison 52 63 24 TX06A001263 51 71 9 Billings 51 69 17 Jackpot 50 66 21 TAM 304 49 70 13 Greer 49 70 12 TAM 401 48 73 5 TAM 111 48 71 8 Ruby Lee 48 70 14 Santa Fe 47 68 18 TAM 113 47 71 10 CJ 47 59 30 OK05511 46 70 11 Fannin 46 61 28 TAM 112 46 71 7 Jagger 45 75 2 SY Gold 45 74 4 Pete 45 75 3 TAM 203 45 77 1 Endurance 44 62 27 Shocker 44 62 25 TX05A001822 44 66 22 Fuller 44 68 19 Doans 44 56 31 AP503CL 42 70 15 Art 40 65 23 TAM W-101 39 55 32 Jagalene 39 69 16 OK Bullet 38 60 29 AP06T3621 36 62 26 Mean 68 C.V. 8 LSD 9 10 Table 2. Oklahoma Elite Trial 3 (OET3) conducted at 10 locations in 2009-2010. Entry mean yields and ranks are shown in each column. OPREC Entry Pedigree of experimental line Statewide Irrigated Dryland OK07214 OK93P656-(RMH 3299)/OK99711 54 1 88 1 60 13 OK07209 OK93P656-(RMH 3299)/OK99621 53 2 81 5 70 1 Duster Check 52 3 82 4 60 12 Billings Check 49 4 80 6 62 5 Garrison OK95616-1/Hickok//Betty 49 5 70 16 61 9 Ruby Lee KS94U275/OK94P549 49 6 72 15 61 7 Jackpot Check 49 7 77 8 66 2 OK05204 SWM866442/OK95548 48 8 77 9 64 3 OK06332 SWM866442/OK95548//2174 47 9 66 20 60 11 OK06029C TXGH12588-120*4/FS4//2*2174 47 10 83 3 61 6 TAM 203 TAM 203 47 11 87 2 63 4 OK06336 Magvars/2174//Enhancer 47 12 61 27 59 15 OK05511 TAM 110/2174 46 13 77 7 56 20 OK07231 OK92P577-(RMH 3099)/OK93P656-(RMH 3299) 46 14 73 14 49 26 OK05312 TX93V5919/WGRC40//OK94P549/WGRC34 46 15 66 19 61 10 OK06609 SWM866442-7H/2174//OK95548-26C 46 16 60 28 54 23 OK06822W OK97G611/Trego 45 17 64 24 57 18 Endurance Check 45 18 66 21 58 16 OK06617 FAWWON 06/2137//OK95G703-98-61421 45 19 65 22 47 28 OK06127 KS91W049-1-5-1/CMBW90M294//X920618-C-4-1/3/. 43 20 65 23 54 22 Centerfield Check 43 21 75 12 58 17 Pete Check 43 22 77 10 59 14 Fuller Check 43 23 76 11 56 19 OK03825- 5403-6 Custer*3/94M81 43 24 75 13 53 24 OK07919C OK98G508W/(IMITX105/2174 F3 seln) 42 25 68 18 55 21 OK05711W G1878/OK98G508W 42 26 64 25 46 29 OK Bullet OK00514-05806 41 27 69 17 61 8 OK06618 SWM866442/OK94P549//2174 41 28 57 30 43 30 Chisholm Check 41 29 59 29 50 25 OK06528 Vilma/Hickok//Heyne 36 30 62 26 49 27 Mean 46 71 57 C.V. 10 10 9 LSD 4 12 8 11 Table 3. Mean number of wheat curl mites produced and two indicators of feeding damage occurring on OK05312 and Jagger wheat plants infested with a group of curl mites. Data collected 14 days post-infestation, courtesy Kansas State University (M. Marimuthu, P.A. Sotelo, D. Ponnusamy, and C.M. Smith ). Entry No. of wheat curl mites produced Leaf folding score Leaf rolling score OK05312 79 ± 15 b 1.0 ± 0 b 1.9 ± 0.3 b Jagger 1573 ± 390a 2.0 ± 0.3a 7.7 ± 0.6 a Means in a column followed by the same letter not significantly different (α = 0.05) 12 RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT ‘Garrison’ Hard Red Winter Wheat Experimental Designation OK05212 Pedigree OK95616-1/Hickok//Betty Yield Performance Ranks (highest yielding = ‘1’) OSU Breeding Nurseries (statewide) 2010 n=30 2009 n=30 2008 n=15 2007 n=30 Garrison 4 1 4 4 Duster 3 3 1 28 Endurance 18 6 8 1 SRPN History (18-20 sites per year) 2010: 10th out of 48 entries; 1st at Lahoma and Wichita; 3rd at Winfield 2009: 7th out of 46 entries; 3rd at Colby, 4th at Lahoma, 5th at Amarillo (irrig.) Disease Protection WSBMV, WSSMV Highly resistant BYDV Moderately resistant High Plains Virus Moderately resistant WSMV Not known Stripe rust Resistant (to races present in OK in 2005, 2008, & 2010) Leaf rust Intermediate to moderately resistant (late symptoms) Powdery mildew Intermediate to moderately resistant (field tolerance) Tan spot Resistant Septoria leaf blotch Intermediate Fusarium head blight Moderately resistant Agronomic and Quality Traits: Exceptional acid-soil tolerance Exceptional spring freeze avoidance or tolerance Late FHS arrival, good grazing recovery; Endurance-type maturity Moderately good emergence and early vigor 2010 test weight: 1-2 lb > Endurance 2010 WVT Protein: 13.3% vs. 11.7% (Endurance) vs. 12.8% (Duster) Weaknesses Kernel size (similar to Duster) Hessian fly Late-season leaf rust 13 RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT ‘Ruby Lee’ Hard Red Winter Wheat Experimental Designation OK05526, OK05526-RHf Pedigree KS94U275/OK94P549 Yield Performance Ranks (highest yielding = ‘1’) OSU Breeding Nurseries (statewide) 2010 n=30 2009 n=30 2008 n=15 2007 n=30 Ruby Lee 4 T 16 1 T 3 Duster 3 3 1 28 Endurance 18 6 8 1 SRPN History 2010: 5th out of 48 entries 1st at Amarillo (irrig.), Chillicothe, Winfield 4th at Wichita Disease and Insect Protection WSBMV, WSSMV Resistant BYDV Moderately resistant High Plains Virus Moderately resistant WSMV Intermediate Stripe rust Intermediate (to races present in OK in 2005, 2008, & 2010) Leaf rust Moderately resistant (↓) Powdery mildew Intermediate Tan spot Resistant Septoria leaf blotch Susceptible Hessian fly Resistant Agronomic and Quality Traits: Exceptional top-end yield Early maturity Above-average test weight with kernel size Very good baking quality Excellent grazeability (vegetative regeneration, grazing recovery) 2010 test weight: 0.5 lb > Garrison 2010 WVT Protein: 13.3% vs. 12.4% (Endurance) vs. 12.7% (Duster) Weaknesses Acid soils (similar to Fuller) Spring freeze events 14 EFFECT OF PLANTING DATE ON YIELD AND TEST WEIGHT OF DRY-LAND WHEAT IN THE OKLAHOMA PANHANDLE Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell Jeff Edwards, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater Dryland wheat producers in the panhandle region often plant wheat when soil moisture is adequate regardless of calendar date. In the fall of 2004 a study was initiated at OPREC to determine the effect of planting date and variety on dryland wheat grain yield and test weight. Results from these studies can be found in previous highlights books. In the fall of 2009, Duster a variety this known for producing a high number of tillers, was selected for the seeding rate by planting date study. By producing a high number of tillers grain yield maybe increased for planting dates after the optimum period. Planting dates selected were September 1 and 15, October 1 and 15, and November 1 and 15. The selected seeding rates were 45 lb/ac and 90 lb/ac for all dates. Plot size was 5 feet wide by 35 feet long and all plots were planted with a Great Plains no-till plot drill. Results Previous research at OPREC has shown the first two weeks of October to be the optimal planting time with the highest yields obtained when planted October 1 (Fig. 1). Recommendations for planting after the optimum date have been to increase seeding rate to potentially increase yield. These recommendations were based on with more seeds planted more tillers and heads would be produced, thus increasing grain yield. Utilizing Duster a variety that will produce a high number of tillers may increase the chance to make up yield with later planting. The results in 2010 were similar to what has been observed in the past, except no difference was observed for the September 15th date when compared to the October dates (Fig. 2). The grain yield was 60 bu/ac or higher for the September 15th to October 15th planting dates. The yields for the September and November 1st planting dates were reduced by 10 bu/ac or more when compared to the optimum period. The November 15th date had the lowest yield at 39 bu/ac. Seeding rate had no effect at any of the selected dates which is most likely due to the high number of tillers produced by Duster. 15 Figure 1. Grain yields for dry-land wheat on selected planting dates at ORPEC in 2005, 2007, and 2009. Planting date Sept 1 Sept 15 Oct 1 Oct 15 Nov 1 Nov 15 Grain yield (bu/ac) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 D C A AB BC CD Yields with same letter are not significantly different Figure 2. Grain yields for Duster planted dry-land at selected dates and seeding rates at OPREC in 2009. Planting date Sept 1 Sept 15 Oct 1 Oct 15 Nov 1 Nov 15 Yield (bu/ac) 30 40 50 60 70 45 lb 90 lb A A A B B C Yields with same later are not significantly different and are for date only 16 Planting date had a greater effect on test weights than grain yield in 2010, although the November 15th planting date was also affected by seeding rate. As with the yield the optimum planting period was from September 15th to October 15th. Test weights were negatively affected by earlier or later planting compared to the optimum period (Fig 3.). The trend was for higher test weights with higher seeding rates for the last two planting dates. And there was a difference observed for the last planting date with a 1.5 lb/bu higher test weight for the 90 lb/ac seeding rate. This trend has also been observed in earlier seeding rate work and is hard to explain. For 2011 a trial was planted November 15th to compare Duster to another variety at 4 selected seeding rates to determine if it will require a lower seeding rate when planted late. Figure 3. Test weights for Duster planted dry-land at selected seeding rates and planting dates at OPREC in 2010. Planting date Sept 1 Sept 15 Oct 1 Oct 15 Nov 1 Nov 15 Test weight (lb/bu) 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 45 90 A A A B B C Yields with same letter are not significantly different and are for date only 17 EFFECTS OF CORN STOVER HARVEST ON SOIL QUALITY INDICATORS AND IRRIGATED CORN YIELD IN THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS Tyson Ochsner, Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell Jason Warren, Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Corn fields in Southwest Kansas and the Oklahoma Panhandle have been identified as potential sources of crop residue to serve as cellulosic feedstock for a new cellulosic ethanol plant. Research in other locations has shown that crop residue harvest can have negative impacts on soil quality such as increased erosion, reduced soil nutrient content, and a loss of soil organic carbon. These changes in soil quality can reduce crop productivity and reduce the potential for soil carbon sequestration under no-till management in the region. These detrimental effects of stover harvest might be reduced by partial residue removal and the utilization of cover crops. However, no data are available for the high-yielding, irrigated conditions on the Southern High Plains. Additionally, the impacts of strip-tillage on these soil quality characteristics have not been studied in this region. The impacts of residue removal, strip-tillage, and cover crop utilization may differ from those found in the Midwestern US because the soils, climate, and cropping systems are different. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to evaluate the effects of full and partial corn stover removal and the use of winter cover crops on soil carbon storage in no-till and strip-till management systems. Materials and Methods A field experiment was initiated in October 2009 at the Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center at Goodwell, OK. The treatment structure includes three strip-till treatments that differ only by the amount of residue removed. One has no residue removed and represents the standard irrigated corn production system. All residue is removed from a second strip-till treatment, and 50% of the corn residue is removed from the other treatment. A fourth strip-till treatment has all the residue removed and a cover crop of winter wheat planted after corn harvest. The final treatment is no-till with all residue removed. The experiment is a randomized complete block design with four replications. The plots are 6 corn rows wide and 30 feet long. Ground cover was measured three times in 2010 using downward facing digital photographs taken at a height of 1.2 m and analyzed using SamplePoint software. Saturated hydraulic conductivity and bulk density of the 0-5 cm soil layer were measured using intact 5.0 cm diameter samples collected on 30 October 2010. 18 Results and Discussion A primary concern related to corn residue harvest is the increased potential for wind erosion due to inadequate ground cover. Conservation tillage systems may be rendered ineffective for wind erosion prevention by the practice of residue harvest. Typically, a tillage system must maintain <70% bare soil (or >30% residue cover) after planting to qualify as conservation tillage. In 2010, the strip-till treatment with 100% residue removal had 76% bare soil exposed at the surface in May after corn planting (Fig. 1). That level of bare soil exposure would increase the vulnerability to wind erosion. The no-till treatment with 100% removal had 62% bare soil in May and would have offered a marginal level of protection against erosion. Both the strip-till plus cover crop treatment with 100% residue removal and the strip-till treatment with 50% residue removal offered better protection against erosion as indicated by bare soil exposure at the surface remaining below 50% throughout the year. Fig. 1. Percent bare soil during March, May, and October 2010 for strip-till (ST) with 0%, 50%, and 100% residue removal, for no-till (NT) with 100% residue removal, and for strip-till with 100% residue removal and a winter wheat cover crop. Corn was planted in all treatments in April and harvested in September. Vertical bars represent ± one standard deviation from the mean. Soil samples collected on 30 October 2010 show highest saturated hydraulic conductivity and lowest bulk density under the strip-till plus cover crop treatment (Fig. 2). These data suggest that the wheat cover crop helped to alleviate short-term degradation of soil physical properties under 100% residue removal. More data will be needed to determine if the treatment effects are statistically significant and if they persistent from year to year. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 March May October Bare soil (%) 2010 ST 0% removal ST 100% removal NT 100% removal ST 100% removal + cover crop ST 50% removal 19 Fig. 2. Saturated hydraulic conductivity and bulk density for the 0-5 cm soil depth under strip-till (ST) with 0%, 50%, and 100% residue removal, for no-till (NT) with 100% residue removal, and for strip-till with 100% residue removal and a winter wheat cover crop. Corn was planted in all treatments in April and harvested in September. Soil samples collected in 30 October 2010. Corn yields were low and variable across all treatments in 2010 (Table 1). Lowest average yields occurred in the no-till and strip-till plus cover crop treatments with 100% residue removal. More data are needed to determine how these treatments will affect the yield of the subsequent corn crop. Table 1. Corn yields in 2010 after one year of residue removal treatments Treatment Average Std. Dev. bu ac-1 ST 0% removal 104 55 ST 100% removal 100 37 NT 100% removal 87 32 ST 100% removal + cover crop 84 36 ST 50% removal 92 42 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Conductivity Density Saturated hydraulic conductivity [ln (cm d-1)] Bulk density (g cm-3) 2010 ST 0% removal ST 100% removal NT 100% removal ST 100% removal + cover crop ST 50% removal 20 GreenSeeker™ Sensor in Irrigated corn production Brian Arnall, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell The GreenSeeker™ sensor plots were established to demonstrate the use of the sensor and N-Rich strip in the high yield production system of the Oklahoma Panhandle. The trials consisted of three nitrogen (N) rates replicated four times. The N treatments were 0, 100 and 200 lbs N ac- 1 applied at planting. On June 14th the plots were sensed with the GreenSeeker™ handheld sensor and Normalized Difference Vegetative Index (NDVI) reading recorded. Those readings were used to predict final grain yield and side-dress N rates. No side-dress fertilizer was applied because the plots needed to go to final grain yield without additional N to evaluate the ability of the sensor to predict yield. Final grain yield ranged from 107 to 195 bu ac-1, Table 1 show the treatment averages. You can see in Figure 1, that yield was likely maximized with just a little more than 100 lbs of N. The optical sensor did predict higher yields than what was recorded however this is expected as Predicted Yield (YP0) should be considered as a maximum yield potential and as often the case something will occur between sensing and harvest that will reduce yield potential. Figure2 illustrates the relationship between NDVI and final yield, in which there is a strong correlation. The purpose of using the sensor is to collect the data needed for the Sensor Based Nitrogen Rate Calculator (SBNRC) that is looked on the www.NUE.okstate.edu website. Table 1 has the SBNRC side-dress N rate recommendation (N-Rec) and the theoretical N need (N-Need) of each treatment. The theoretical N-Need is calculated as total Grain N of the plot subtracted from total Grain N of highest yielding plot divided by an expected N fertilizer use efficiency of 50%. On the treatment average the SBNRC underestimated N at the 0 and 100 lbs rate and over estimated at the 200 lbs rate. However if we average every plot the SBNRC underestimated the N need by 9 lbs N ac-1. This is actually a very impressive value as we often expect soil test N recommendations to be off by 20 to 30 lbs. This trial demonstrated the potential of the technology and an expanded trial is planned for the 2011 crop year. Table 1. Treatment averages across the three nitrogen (N) rates. Yield, predicted yield (YP0), NDVI, SBNRC N rate recommendation (N-Rec), and theoretical N needs based on a grain N concentration of 0.75 and fertilizer use efficiency of 50% (N-Need). N rate lbs ac-1 Yld bu ac-1 YP0 bu ac-1 NDVI N-Rec lbs ac-1 N-Need* lbs ac-1 0 129 175 0.70 71 98 100 177 210 0.76 19 27 200 185 208 0.76 23 15 *N-Need calculated as total Grain N of the plot subtracted from total Grain N of highest yielding plot divided by an expected N fertilizer use efficiency of 50%. 21 Figure 1. Nitrogen rate and final yield from the GreenSeeker™ corn trial. Grain yield was maximized between 100 and 200 lbs N ac-1. Figure 2. Normalized Difference Vegetative Index (NDVI) recorded from the plots on June 18th2010 and final grain yield (bu ac-1). R² = 0.84 0 100 200 0 100 200 Yield (Bu/ac) N-Rate (lbs/ac) R² = 0.84 0 50 100 150 200 250 0.68 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 Yield (Bu/ac) GreenSeeker NDVI 22 Nitrogen Fertilizer Management using Subsurface Drip Application of Swine Effluent Jason Warren, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell Jeff Hattey, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University In traditional center pivot applications as much as 50% of the total N applied in swine effluent can easily be lost to volatilization. In addition, diurnal variations in the amount of N lost to volatilization after application causes variation in the availability of N across the irrigated corn field. This variability is generally overcome using supplemental application of commercial fertilizer at rates sufficient to ensure optimum yields in the most N limited areas of the field. This results in very inefficient utilization of swine effluent N. Swine effluent application through subsurface drip irrigation eliminates ammonia volatilization, thereby optimizing the potential use efficiency of swine effluent N. The cost savings resulting from reduced supplemental commercial N requirements can offset some of the cost of implementing subsurface irrigation. Elimination of ammonia volatilization after swine effluent application also provides environmental benefit. The N is no longer transported off the intended cropland and therefore cannot be deposited in sensitive ecosystems. Despite these obvious benefits of subsurface swine effluent applications, research is needed to optimize its use in the context of current corn management practices. Specifically, there is currently no research data available to evaluate subsurface irrigation in combination with strip-tillage pre-plant N applications. Therefore a study was initiated in 2010 in which the treatments in Table 1 were imposed in a corn/soybean rotation. This study will allow us to determine if supplementation with 40 lbs of commercial fertilizer applied pre-plant with a strip-till unit will influence nitrogen use efficiency when N is applied as commercial fertilizer or swine effluent periodically throughout the growing season. Table 1: N source, tillage and N rate treatments imposed on subsurface drip irrigated (SDI) corn within a corn/soybean rotation located at the OPREC, Goodwell, OK TRT# N application strategy* Tillage N rate First N application Fertigation schedule 1 No Nitrogen Control no-till 0 -- 2 No Nitrogen Control strip-till 0 -- 3 Effluent only through SDI no-till 180 initiate at 4 leaf 4 0lbs at V4 and 35lbs at V8, V12, V15, VT 4 Effluent only through SDI strip-till 180 40 lbs in Strip 35lbs at V8, V12, V15, VT 5 UAN through SDI no-till 180 initiate at 4 leaf 40lbs at V4 and 35lbs at V8, V12, V15, VT 6 UAN through SDI strip-till 180 40 lbs in Strip 35lbs at V8, V12, V15, VT *all treatments will recieve 5 gals of 10-34-0 at corn planting and all treatments except the No-N control will receive a additional target application of 180 lbs of total N. Corn and Soybeans will be rotated on plots with 4 replicates for three years at which time the treatment structure and objectives will be assessed.. 23 Expected Results: We expect that strip-tillage application of commercial fertilizer may increase NUE because the N is placed above the irrigation drip line. This will allow early season water applications to carry this supplemental fertilizer to the root zone with the wetting front. In contrast, early season fertigation can result in portion of the fertilizer N be leached to below the drip line thereby moving it farther from the root zone. This research will help to make informed decision about the N management strategies when utilizing strip-till and subsurface drip irrigation. 24 Impact and Sustainability of a Subsurface Drip Irrigation System Used for the Application of Swine Effluent as a Nutrient Resource in Semi-Arid Environments Kyle Blankenship, Lisa Fultz, J. Clemn Turner, and Jeff Hattey – Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater Rick Kochenower–Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell INTRODUCTION It is estimated that rough 2.4 M pigs are located in the Oklahoma panhandle and surrounding counties. In the geographic region of the Ogallala Aquifer which is the prime non-renewable water resource. The Ogallala Aquifer supplies the water used to irrigate approximately one fifth of U.S. cropland. Looking for sustainability, farmers and producers search for alternatives to current water sources. With the influx of animal waste increments from swine production facilities, numerous farmers and producers apply effluent to adjoining property as a liquid fertilizer for irrigation. Nevertheless, continuous applications have lead to the buildup of macro and micro-nutrients in the soil which makes them more vulnerable to leaching. For water or soil issues, subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) provides several advantages including water use efficiency by reducing soil evaporation, surface runoff, or deep percolation while improving infiltration and water storage. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nutrient distributions that occur after various seasonal applications of swine effluent through a subsurface drip irrigations system. Swine effluent was placed through two subsurface drip irrigation systems, one with an emitter rate of 2.38 L hr-1 and the other with a slower emitter rate of 0.72 L hr-1. After 10 years of application, an extensive soil sampling regime was implemented and the samples were taken to the lab for analysis. Nutrient distribution maps were determined for the following: NO3, NH4, P, Ortho-P, K, Mg, SO4, Ca, Zn, Cu, Mn, Fe, and B. The data indicates that concentrations between the lower and the higher emitter rate were significantly different at all depths and distances. However, the lower emitter rate on the SDI system can help use swine manure as sustainable water and nutrient rich resource for agricultural purposes. The lower emitter rate allows for the nutrients to be distributed more evenly throughout the profile. This project will play a significant role in the future of agriculture, water efficiency, and animal waste management as water resources become a more prevalent issue. PROCEDURE Research plots were established in 2001at the Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center (OPREC) in Goodwell, OK and fitted with the SDI system. The 18.29 m X 182.88 m (60 by 600 ft.) plots were put on a corn-soybean rotation with two flow rates range from the highest flow rate for plots 49-50 to be 2.38 L h-1 (0.63 gal h-1) and the lowest flow rate of 0.72 L h-1 (0.19 gal h-1) for the field designated 53. Swine effluent was applied in 2010: May 21st, June 5th, July 2nd, and July 23rd. Approximately 18,927.06 L (5000 gallons) were applied to each plot during each application. Plots are also irrigated with groundwater on a revolving schedule. In the fall of 2010, an extensive soil sampling regime was put into place. Sampling layout had small difference between plots because, irrigation tape lines with an emitter rate of 2.38 L h-1 emitters were placed 60 cm apart and irrigation tape lines with an emitter rate of 0.72 L h-1 emitters were spaced 46 cm apart (Figure 1). As a control plot, soil samples were taken in surround soil to examine original nutrient distributions prior to swine effluent amendments. 25 Figure 1. Soil Sampling Schematic. Each circle with an “X” indicates a soil core with a depth from 0-90 centimeters (cm) which were not randomly assigned for each rep. Black dots represent emitters along drip tape line. Top right emitter exemplifies emitter in question. RESULTS ANOVA was used to determine if there was significance in the nutrient distributions between the high and low flow emitter rates. Table 1 shows below that for all mobile nutrients, there was only a significant difference at the 15-30, 30-45, and 45-60 cm depths. Difference Between Nutrient Distribution of High vs. Low Emitter Depth (cm) Mobile Nutrients Immobile Nutrients NO3 B SO4 P K Mg Ca Zn Cu Fe 0-15 NS NS NS * * * * NS NS NS 15-30 * * * * * * * NS NS NS 30-45 * * * * * * * NS NS NS 45-60 * * * * * * NS NS NS NS 60-75 NS NS NS * * * NS NS NS NS 75-90 NS NS NS * * * NS NS NS NS Table 1. NS, * Not significant or significantly different at 0.05 respectively 26 Figure 2. Data shows that NO3 - concentrations directly at emitter are higher for the Low Flow. This build up of nutrients in the low flow emitter is due to the low amount of pressure used to exert the nutrients away from the emitter and into the surrounding soil. Boron and SO4 - distributions were similar to the nitrate distributions as stated in Table 1. Figure 3. High flow (left) vs. Low right (right) NO3 - concentrations between emitters at the 45 cm depth. Emitters are represented by black square boxes. The data suggest that there is a “starving” effect occurring between emitters in the low flow while the contours within the high flow are not at steep and there is an overall evening of nutrients throughout the profile. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Depth (cm) NO3 - (mg kg-1) at Emitter Control Low Flow High Flow Emitter Contour Graph 1 24 22 22 20 20 20 20 20 20 18 18 18 18 18 18 16 16 16 16 16 16 18 18 14 14 22 20 16 22 Length (cm) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Width (cm) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 45cm Depth Contour Graph 1 25 25 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 15 15 15 15 15 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 15 15 25 20 10 25 Length (cm) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Width (cm) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 45cm Depth NO3 - (mg kg-1) 27 Figure 4. Data shows that Phosphorus concentrations directly at emitter are higher for the Low Flow. This is due to the low amount of pressure used to exert the nutrients away from the emitter and into the surrounding soil. Potassium, Magnesium and Calcium distributions were similar. P (mg kg-1) Figure 5. High flow (left) vs. Low right (right) Phosphorus concentrations between emitters at the 45 cm depth. Emitters are represented by black square boxes. Nutrient distributions for Phosphorus show that the high flow has a more even distribution while the low flow has steeper contour changes. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Depth (cm) P (mg kg-1) at Emitter Control Low Flow High Flow Emitter Contour Graph 1 30 30 30 32 34 28 28 28 28 28 28 26 26 26 26 26 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 22 22 22 22 20 22 26 26 26 28 28 28 30 30 30 24 32 32 30 26 34 28 32 30 34 Length (cm) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Width (cm) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 45cm Depth Contour Graph 1 50 40 50 40 40 40 30 30 30 30 30 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 10 10 10 30 30 30 20 40 40 40 30 50 40 40 Length (cm) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Width (cm) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 45cm Depth 28 Figure 6. Data shows that Zinc concentrations directly at emitter are higher for the Low Flow. This is due to the low amount of pressure used to exert the nutrients away from the emitter and into the surrounding soil. Copper and Iron distributions were similar. Figure 7. High flow clay % between emitters at the 45 cm depth. Emitters are represented by black square boxes. Clay percentages can be seen to being exerted by emitters and moved towards the center of the profile. This would also cause a sand percentage increase right at the emitters. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Depth (cm) Zn (mg kg-1) at Emitter Control Low Flow Emitter High Flow Contour Graph 1 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 30 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 34 30 33 31 31 31 32 29 31 30 30 29 Length (cm) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Width (cm) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 45cm Depth 29 CONCLUSIONS Nitrate-N concentrations are significantly correlated with depth and distance at the 30, 45, and 60 cm depths. Zinc, Copper, and Iron were not significantly correlated with depth or distance, and Phosphorus and Potassium were significantly correlated at all depths and distances. The data indicates that concentrations between the lower and the higher emitter rate were significantly different at all depths and distances only for the nutrients of Phosphorus, Potassium, and Magnesium. However, the lower emitter rate on the SDI system can help use swine manure as sustainable water and nutrient rich resource for agricultural purposes. The lower emitter rate allows for the nutrients to be distributed more evenly throughout the profile. This project will play a significant role in the future of agriculture, water efficiency, and animal waste management as water resources become a more prevalent issue. 30 Comparison of bleacher herbicides for use in corn Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell Joe Armstrong, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Introduction In 2010, a study was conducted at the OSU Panhandle Research Station to compare various “bleacher” herbicides for weed control and yield in corn. The bleacher herbicides, also known as HPPD inhibitors, have been shown to provide excellent control of many difficult-to-control weeds, including broadleaf weeds that have developed resistance to other herbicides. Many of the bleacher herbicides can be used as either preemergence or postemergence treatments and are usually tank-mixed with atrazine to further improve weed control. Additionally, the herbicide Integrity® was also evaluated. Integrity is a pre-mix of Sharpen® and Outlook® and is used as a preemergence treatment for grass and broadleaf weed control. Sharpen is typically used with glyphosate to improve control of weeds in burndown applications prior to planting in no-till situations, but can also be used a preemergence treatment ahead of corn to provide soil residual weed control. Results All of the treatments evaluated provided good to excellent control of pigweed and sunflower at 21 days after application. The preemergence only treatments, Trt 1 Corvus and Trt 2 Balance Flexx, were effective at controlling pigweed and sunflower during the evaluation period, but would likely not provide season-long weed control. Capreno, Trts 5 and 6, provided 100% control when applied as a “delayed preemergence” treatment at V2-V4 corn. When combined with Roundup or Ignite, Capreno can control any weeds that are present and provide soil activity into the growing season, often requiring only a single application. Integrity also provided excellent control of pigweed and sunflower at 21 days after application. No crop injury was observed with any of the treatments that were evaluated. To effectively prevent or delay the development of herbicide-resistant weeds, it is necessary to use multiple herbicides and modes of action. Over-reliance on a single herbicide is the quickest way to select for herbicide-resistant weeds. The bleacher herbicides provide excellent weed control and allow use of a new herbicide mode of action. Bleacher herbicides are also available for use in other crops, such as Huskie® in grain sorghum and wheat, and Callisto® and Callisto-containing products in grain sorghum. As always, read the product labels to determine appropriate application timings and use rates. 31 Table 1. Weed control and grain yields for various bleacher herbicides used in corn. Trt Herbicides Rate/acre Application timing % Weed control 21 d after treatment Grain yield bu/acre Pigweed Sunflower 1 Corvus + Aatrex 5 fl oz + 2 pt PRE 98 100 156 2 Balance Flexx + Aatrex 5 fl oz + 2 pt PRE 95 88 144 3 Corvus + Aatrex Laudis + Aatrex 3 fl oz + 2 pt 3 fl oz + 1 pt PRE V5-V6 100 100 107 4 Balance Flexx + Aatrex Laudis + Aatrex 3 fl oz + 2 pt 3 fl oz + 1 pt PRE V5-V6 100 99 141 5 Capreno + Ignite + Aatrex 3 fl oz + 22 fl oz + 2 pt V2-V4 100 100 129 6 Capreno + Roundup + Aatrex 3 fl oz + 22 fl oz + 2 pt V2-V4 100 100 156 7 Lumax Roundup 2.5 qt 22 fl oz PRE V5-V6 98 95 137 8 Bicep II Magnum Callisto + Aatrex 1.6 qt 3 fl oz + 1 pt PRE V5-V6 100 100 141 9 Prequel Roundup 1.66 oz 22 fl oz PRE V5-V6 99 95 129 10 Integrity Roundup 10 fl oz 22 fl oz PRE V5-V6 100 100 144 11 Integrity Roundup 16 fl oz 22 fl oz PRE V5-V6 100 100 126 12 Untreated 0 0 135 Mean 137 CV % 11.4 LSD 26 32 Post Emergent Broadleaf Control in Grain Sorghum Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell In 2010 in a study was initiated to evaluate Huskie, a broadleaf herbicide currently labeled for use in wheat, for its effectiveness in controlling pigweed and velvetleaf in grain sorghum (it is expected to get registration for use in grain sorghum in September of 2011). Huskie is a pre-mix combination of Buctril and pyrasulfotole, a bleacher herbicide. Applications were mad at the V- 5 growth stage, or 15 inch tall grain sorghum, with 6 treatments at each stage, a sequential treatment, and one preemergent treatment (Table 1.) Table 1. List of treatment for post emergent broadleaf control in grain sorghum at OPREC, in 2010 Treatment Number Herbicide Rate Timing 1 Control NA NA 2 Sharpen 2 oz/ac Preemergent 3 and 10 Huskie Atrazine Ammonium Sulfate 13 oz/ac Pt/ac Lb/ac V-5 and 15 inch sorghum 4 and 11 Huskie Atrazine Ammonium Sulfate 16 oz/ac Pt/ac Lb/ac V-5 and 15 inch sorghum 5 and 12 Huskie Atrazine 2,4-D Ester Ammonium Sulfate 16 oz/ac Pt/ac 4 oz/ac Lb/ac V-5 and 15 inch sorghum 6 and 13 Huskie Atrazine Banvel Ammonium Sulfate 16 oz/ac Pt/ac 4 oz/ac Lb/ac V-5 and 15 inch sorghum 7 and 14 Atrazine Buctril 2EC Pt/ac Pt/ac V-5 and 15 inch sorghum 8 and 15 Aim EC 2,4-D NIS .50oz/ac 8 oz/ac .3 pt/ac V-5 and 15 inch sorghum 9 Huskie Atrazine Ammonium Sulfate Huskie Atrazine Ammonium Sulfate 13 oz/ac Pt/ac Lb/ac 13 oz/ac Pt/ac Lb/ac V-5 + 15 inch sorghum 33 Ratings for crop tolerance and weed control were taken on selected dates (Table 2.) Since velvet leaf was the major weed species in all plots it was only one rated. Pigweed was only found in 3 plots therefore no comparisons could be made. Grain was also harvested and yields reported. Table 2. Ratings for crop tolerance and velvet leaf control at selected dates, also grain yield for Huskie post emergent control at OPREC, 2010. Treatment 7/26/2010 8/2/2010 8/9/2010 8/20/2010 Grain Yield bu/ac Injury % Velvet Leaf control % Injury % Velvet Leaf control % Injury % Velvet Leaf control % Injury % Velvet Leaf control % 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 2 0 92 0 97 0 93 0 95 131 3 7 100 0 87 0 100 0 97 147 4 0 100 0 97 0 100 0 93 153 5 7 100 0 93 0 100 0 98 146 6 3 100 0 93 0 100 0 97 149 7 7 88 0 87 0 93 0 97 142 8 40 100 13 80 0 98 0 93 141 9 13 100 47 100 37 100 7 100 137 10 ---- ---- 27 87 13 95 7 92 134 11 ---- ---- 37 90 23 97 13 90 114 12 ---- ---- 10 90 10 90 0 87 131 13 ---- ---- 3 90 3 95 17 98 119 14 ---- ---- 0 63 0 37 0 67 91 15 ---- ---- 70 80 63 90 20 100 120 mean 128 CV% 20.8 L.S.D. 44 Results The crop tolerance for Huskie is good, as can be seen by grain yields (Table 2). Although leaf blotching is observed, it grows out of it and it doesn’t affect yields. As always recommended it is better to control weeds early as possible. Plots sprayed at the V-5 stage had 28 bu/ac yield increase when compared to plots sprayed at 15 inch sorghum height. A large part of the yield difference may be attributed to the reduced weed control for the Atrazine/Buctril treatment at the 15 inch stage, but all yields were lower for later applications. Larger weeds are generally more difficult to control with all herbicides. Although the Huskie shows excellent control of velvet leaf at a later application, the highest yields were obtained when applications were made at the V-5 stage. 34 Post Emergent Grass Control in Grain Sorghum Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell Joe Armstrong, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University In 2010 in conjunction with DuPont chemical company two grain sorghum inbred lines were planted that were tolerant to post emergent grass control herbicides. One inbred was tolerant to ALS inhibitor herbicides and will have the trade name Inzen Z™. The other inbred is tolerant to “fop” herbicides from the ACCase herbicides inhibitor mode of action, such as Assure II (active ingredient: quizalofop) and will have the trade name Inzen AII™. These resistance traits were breed into sorghum from wild relatives at Kansas State University, making them non-genetically modified organisms (non-GMO). Since the resistance came from wild relatives and could potentially move from the grain sorghum back to johnsongrass and shattercane, best management practices will be CRITICAL for the long-term viability of the technology. The present timetable for release for Inzen AII is a limited supply of seed in 2011 with adequate seed supplies in 2012. The Inzen Z launch date has been delayed until 2015. In 2010 both inbreds were planted to evaluate and demonstrate tolerance to the herbicides. The Inzen Z herbicide formulation has not been determined as of yet, but we can report that the inbred is tolerant to the grass control herbicide. The Inzen AII rate most likely will be 8 oz/ac of Assure II and, as with the Inzen Z trait the inbred is tolerant to Assure II. The inbred is not tolerant to the “dim” herbicides of the ACCase inhibitor mode of action such as Select Max (active ingredient clethodim). In addition to excellent tolerance in the inbred lines, control of grass weeds was very good with the postemergence herbicide treatments. 35 TIMING OF DRY-LAND STRIP-TILLAGE FOR GRAIN SORHUM PRODUCTION IN THE HIGH PLAINS Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell With the growing interest in strip-till throughout the high plains, a study was initiated in the fall of 2003 to determine if timing of strip-till would affect yield of dry-land grain sorghum. After three years it appeared that strip-till reduced grain yields when compared to no-till. But one question that was not answered in the previous study was would strip-tilling just before planting reduce yields. Therefore in the summer of 2007 a new study with four dates of strip-tilling was initiated. The dates were immediately after wheat harvest, fall, spring, and on the same day as planting. The immediately after harvest date was selected for two reasons. It is generally a good time for producers to have time do tillage and the chance to receive rainfall and replenish the tilled strips with moisture. The fall date was selected due to data from the previous study, in 2005 yield for fall strip-till was same as no-till (Table 1). This can be explained by the strip-tillage having been done before a significant rainfall event in November of 2004. With the amount of rainfall received (3.51 inches) the tillage strips were replenished with moisture before planting, therefore no reduction in grain yields was observed. The spring date was selected because again it is time when producers can do tillage work. One of the concerns many producers have with no-till is that nitrogen (N) is tied-up in the crop residue when surface applied or volatilized. Nitrogen tie-up and volatilization is greatly reduced with strip-till due to the N being placed below (generally 3 – 8 inches) seeding depth. Many irrigated producers in the region are doing strip-till from late fall to early spring. This original study was designed to determine what the affect of strip-till (no fertilizer applied) at different dates would have on grain sorghum yield. In the new study all fertilizer in the strip-till treatments is applied with the strip-till unit, and only the no-till fertilizer is applied on the surface. Grain sorghum was selected as the crop to be grown, because it is the most widely grown summer row crop in the region. Plots were four rows wide by 50 foot long and strip-tilled with an Orthman four-row one-tripper at a depth of 7 inches. 36 Table 1. Grain sorghum yield (bu/ac) for selected years from a timing of dry-land strip-till experiment at OPREC. Timing 2004 2005 2006 Two-year No-till 62.5 a† 81.7 a 80.1 a 74.8 a March (spring) 47.6 b 77.6 a 54.1 b 59.1 b September (fall) 45.5 b 66.9 a 56.6 b 57.9 b January 42.1 b November 37.9 b †Yields with same letter not significantly different Results No data was collected in 2009 due to late planting. Climate conditions varied between 2008 and 2010 as seen by the difference in yields (Table 2). The late winter and spring of 2010 had higher than normal rainfall. The 6.39 inches of precipitation received was 3.04 inches more than the long-term average. This higher precipitation may have accounted for no difference in yields between treatments in 2010. Although no differences were observed, yields for strip-till after the preceding wheat harvest and at planting are the highest when looking at two-year data. No difference in test weight has been observed in either year (data not reported). Future work will look more at N rates of strip-till compared to no-till. Planting date may also be affected, therefore strip-till and no-till will be compared looking at a very late April planting date. Table 2. Grain sorghum yield (bu/ac) for 2008 timing of dry-land strip-till experiment at OPREC. Strip-till Timing 2008 2010 Two-year After harvest 48.1 a 78 a 63 a At planting 50.7 a 74 a 63 a No-till 44.2 a 77 a 60 a Fall 45.4 a 70 a 58 a Spring 31.8 b 77 a 55 a Yields with same letter not significantly different 37 NO-TILL VS MINIMUM-TILL DRY-LAND CROP ROTATIONS Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell A study was initiated in 1999 to evaluate four different dry-land cropping rotations and two tillage systems for their long-term productivity in the panhandle region. Rotations evaluated include Wheat-Sorghum-Fallow (WSF), Wheat-Corn-Fallow (WCF), Wheat-Soybean-Fallow (WBF), and Continuous Sorghum (CS). Soybean and corn were not successful in the first five years of the study; therefore in 2004 cotton replaced soybean and sunflower replaced corn in the rotation, also continuous sorghum was replaced with a grain sorghum-sunflower (SF) rotation. Starting in 2010 the study was changed again and only sorghum was grown. Tillage systems include no-till and minimum tillage. Two maturity classifications were used with all summer crops in the rotations until 2001, at which time all summer crops were planted with single maturity hybrids or varieties. Most dry-land producers in the panhandle region utilize the WSF rotation. Other rotations would allow producers flexibility in planting, weed management, insect management, and marketing. Results Climate Due to climate condition and other factors obtaining results from the rotations other than the WSF has been difficult, therefore only the WSF will be reported. Precipitation since 1999 has been erratic for the panhandle region with yearly totals ranging from a low of 12.0 inches in 2007 to a high of 20.31 in 2004. Even in 2008 the yearly total of 18.27 inches was above the long-term mean of 17.89 inches, although most of the rainfall 14.81 inches was received after July 1. The mean rainfall for the last eleven summer growing seasons (June, July, and August) of 6.55 is 1.17 inches below the long term mean (Table 1). Four of the nine years have been 3 inches or more below the long term mean therefore grain sorghum yields have been affected. Between drought and hail storms three wheat crops have failed in the duration of the study. In 2002 rainfall was not received in time to activate the preemergent herbicide and no sorghum was harvested, this was the only time it has happened. 38 Table 1. Summer growing season precipitation at OPREC Month 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Long-term mean June 2.29 0.61 1.32 5.26 3.82 2.01 2.34 1.62 1.51 1.74 3.16 2.86 July 0.76 0.00 2.52 1.87 2.43 1.40 2.05 2.00 3.77 2.58 1.22 2.58 August 1.09 0.66 0.27 1.19 2.87 3.21 4.06 0.26 5.64 1.36 5.42 2.28 Total 4.14 1.27 4.11 8.32 9.12 6.62 8.45 3.88 10.7 5.68 9.80 7.72 Wheat No wheat was harvested in 2002 and 2008 due to drought, and 2006 due to a hail storm. This report will focus on wheat yields following grain sorghum, because in some years other crops never emerged or were lost to other factors. Fig. 1. Wheat grain yields (bu/ac) from WSF in dry-land tillage and crop rotation study at OPREC. Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Wheat yield (bu/ac) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 No-till Conv-till Neither tillage system produced, or will produce grain when drought occurs and no crops are harvested as in 2002 and 2008 (Figure 1). In three of the seven years that wheat was harvested grain yields were significantly higher for no-till (Fig. 1) with an average increase of 14 bu/ac. In 2010 yields for conventional tillage were significantly higher than no-till for the first time. In years that no difference was observed yields have been the same. In research conducted by 39 Kansas State University, they have shown a constitent increase in grain yield for no-till that hasn’t yet been observed in this study. Grain Sorghum As with wheat when no precipitation is received one tillage system makes no difference as in 2002 when no sorghum was harvested (Fig. 2). Figure 2. Grain yields of grain sorghum (bu/ac) for dry-land tillage and crop rotation study at OPREC. Year 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Yield (bu/ac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 No-till Conventional till Since 2004, grain sorghum yields have been significantly higher for no-till than conventional tillage (Table 3). This increase in sorghum grain yields was in year 6 or the third time through the rotation. This yield difference was also observed and reported by researchers at Kansas State University at the Tribune location. In 2004, 2006, and 2007 no-till grain yields were double of those for minimum tillage. Part of the higher grain yield in 2006 can be attributed to higher test weights for no-till (Table 4). The delayed maturity of minimum till grain sorghum adversely affected the test weights. In 2008 with delayed planting, maturity selection was too long for the year with the cooler conditions that existed. The mean high temperatures in 2008 for July and August were 3 and 9 Fo cooler than in 2007 at 90 and 87 Fo respectively. These cooler temperatures didn’t allow for maturity of the grain sorghum and reduced yields. In hybrid 40 performance trial near this study the highest yields 75 bu/ac were obtained with shorter season hybrids than was planted in this study. Again in 2009 planting was delayed until late June due to lack of soil moisture, and with the lower than normal rainfall test weights were affected although not significantly. In all other years no difference in test weight was observed between tillage treatments, although yields for no-till were higher than minimum till. Planting was delayed in 2004 due to a lack of soil moisture; therefore, an early maturity sorghum was utilized instead of the normal medium maturity. Although test weights are not significantly different for each year, when all years are considered no-till is has a significantly higher test weight than doe’s minimum tillage. Table 3. Yields of grain sorghum (bu/ac) for dry-land tillage and crop rotation study at OPREC. Tillage 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Seven-year No-till 54.8 53.9 73.7 41.5 34.5 86.4 86.3 61.6 Minimum till 28.0 38.3 35.6 17.4 22.3 69.0 67.0 40.8 Mean 42.3 46.2 53.5 29.5 28.4 77.7 76.7 51.2 CV % 6.4 13.6 19.0 8.0 55.3 1.2 4.1 17.9 L.S.D. 6.1 NS 24.2 8.3 NS 10.9 10.9 5.9 Table 4. Test weight of grain sorghum (lb/bu) for dry-land tillage and crop rotation study at OPREC. Tillage 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Seven-year No-till 56.5 57.8 56.8 57.9 50.9 57.4 59.7 56.7 Minimum till 55.8 56.9 49.6 57.9 49.5 55.4 58.1 54.8 Mean 56.3 57.2 53.1 57.9 50.2 56.4 58.9 55.8 CV % 0.8 1.6 4.2 0.4 2.3 3.0 1.9 3.6 L.S.D. NS NS 5.0 NS NS NS NS 1.3 41 DRY-LAND NO-TILL CROPPING INTENSITY STUDY Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell In the fall of 2010 a study was initiated to determine if increasing cropping intensity for rainfed no-till rotations is possible. Previous work at OPREC has shown significantly higher yields for no-till grain sorghum in the wheat-sorghum-fallow rotation (WSF) when compared to minimum tillage. Grain yields for wheat have been inconsistent with no-till and minimum tillage each having significantly higher yields in some years. With no-till generally showing an increase in yields it was determined to see if cropping intensity would affect the yield of grain sorghum. The intensity and timing of selected crops will alter fallow periods from short fallow periods during the winter (when evaporation is least) to the long term standard of approximately 14 months. Shifting the fallow period may allow more intense rotations without affecting yields of grain sorghum. The rotations are wheat-fallow-wheat (WFW) long term standard, wheat-grain sorghum-fallow (WSF) present standard, wheat-double crop millet-grain sorghum-safflower- wheat (WMSSa) most intense rotation, wheat-double crop sesame-sorghum-millet-wheat (WSeSMW), wheat-double crop millet-sorghum-wheat (WMSW), wheat-sorghum-safflower- wheat (WSSaW), and continuous wheat (CW). Plots are 30 ft X 30 ft and will be planted with appropriate equipment and harvested with Massey 8XP plot combine. Crops were selected to increase intensity based on when they could be planted and harvested. Proso millet was selected because it could be planted from mid May till late July. So it could be used early or as a double crop. Sesame was selected because it would work as a double crop following wheat, and is a crop that is drought tolerant and flowers best when temperatures are warm. Safflower was selected because it could be planted in late March and harvested in early August, therefore wheat could be planted following harvest. Also Safflower is a broadleaf crop which may help with weed control. There are other crops that would work as either hay crops or as a cover crop, these were selected because grain could be harvested and yields established. Results The rotations are just being established, it will take a couple of years to collect any data. 42 Expanding Production Area and Alternative Energy Crop Market of Proso Millet for Water Deficient Lands Kevin Larson and Jeffrey Tranel, Plainsman Research Center, Walsh Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell Proso millet is a low water-use, low input crop. It is an ideal crop for water deficient lands, such as contract-expired CRP lands. Expanding the production area of proso millet will require development of a new end-use market. Currently, proso millet is used almost exclusively for birdseed. The birdseed market is limited and expansion is improbable. The feed grain market with recent exponential growth is ethanol. Most ethanol production in the United States is from corn. If proso millet replaces some of the corn as an ethanol feedstock, expansion of proso millet production would occur. The purpose of this study is two-fold: 1) to determine if proso millet is viable crop outside of its traditional production area and 2) to determine if proso millet is a viable ethanol crop. If our objectives for proso millet are successful, production area expansion (into new dryland areas) and market expansion (as a new ethanol feedstock) will be realized. Material and Methods for 2009 We planted proso millet at two sites, the Plainsman Research Center at Walsh, Colorado and the Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center at Goodwell, Oklahoma. We planted four proso millet cultivars at four incremental planting dates throughout July 2009. Three of the cultivars were standard starch cultivars: Huntsman, Sunrise, and Horizon. The fourth cultivar was a waxy starch cultivar, Plateau. The four planting dates at Walsh were: PD1, July 1; PD2, July 10; PD3, July 20; and PD4, July 31, 2009. The four planting dates at Goodwell were: PD1, July 7; PD2, July 14; PD3, July 21; and PD4, July 28, 2009. The experimental designs were split-plots with planting dates as the main plot and cultivars as the subplots with four replications. The plot size at Walsh was 10 ft. by 50 ft. (harvested 10 ft. by 44 ft.). The plot size at Goodwell was 5 ft. by 35 ft. (harvested 5 ft. by 30 ft.). Both sites were irrigated to assure seed germination. All cultivars and planting dates were seeded at 15 lb/a. Nitrogen was the only fertilizer applied, 50 lb/a at Walsh and 100 lb/a at Goodwell. For weed control at Walsh, the entire site had a preplant application of glyphosate 24 oz/a and 2,4-D ester 0.5 lb/a, and a post emergence application of dicamba 4 oz/a and 2,4-D amine 0.38 lb/a. For weed control at Goodwell, the entire site had a preplant application of atrazine 1.0 lb/a, and no post emergence herbicides were applied. Both sites were harvested with a self-propelled combines equipped with conventional grain heads. For both sites at harvest, we recorded grain yield, test weight, and seed moisture. The harvest dates at Walsh were: PD1, September 29; PD2, October 16; PD3 and PD4, October 17. The harvest dates at Goodwell were: PD1, September 14 and PD3 October 19. At Goodwell, the July 14 planting date (PD2) did not establish an adequate stand and was eliminated from the study, and the July 28 planting date (PD4) was not harvested because of excessive rainfall. To determine ethanol production, grain samples (7 lb of cleaned seed) were milled three times with a grain mill set at 0.008 in. The milled grain was diluted with water (20 gal/bu). The mash was boiled and alpha amylase was added to liquefy it. The mash was cooled and alpha amylase was again added to breakdown the starches into dextrins. The mash was further cooled and gluco amylase was added to convert the dextrins into sugars. The temperature of the mash 43 was further lowered, yeast was added, and the mash was allowed to ferment for five days in an airlocked container. After fermentation was completed, the beer in the mash was pressed out with a fruit press. To extract the remaining beer, water was added and the dilute beer was pressed (this step was repeated twice). The remaining wet distillers grain was oven dried. The alcohol in the beer was distilled with a stainless steel still with a refractation column. Material and Methods for 2010 All cultural practices in 2010 were similar to the cultural practices we used in 2009, except we planted the proso millet cultivars at four monthly planting dates from May to August. The four planting dates at Walsh were: PD1, May 12; PD2, June 3; PD3, July 2; and PD4, August 2, 2010. The four planting dates at Goodwell were in early May, June, July, and the August planting date was not planted due to bird damage in the previous planting dates. The Goodwell site was not harvested because of severe bird damage. Grain yield, test weight, seed moisture, plant height, and seed shattering measurements were recorded at harvest for Walsh. The harvest dates at Walsh were: PD1, August 30; PD2, August 30; PD3, September 21; and PD4, November 5. Results for 2009 The first planting dates at both sites produced the highest average grain yield, 1645 lb/a at Walsh and 1450 lb/a at Goodwell (Tables 1 and 2). The planting date ranking for grain yield at Walsh was: PD1>>PD2>PD3=PD4 (Table 3). The planting date ranking at Goodwell was PD1>PD3 (Table 4). Huntsman produced the highest yield at all harvested planting dates at both sites, although Huntsman was not significantly different than Sunrise at Walsh, and Huntsman only significantly out yielded Plateau at Goodwell. Grain yield ranking of the four cultivars was consistent for all four planting dates at Walsh: Huntsman=Sunrise>Horizon>Plateau (Table 3 and Figure 1). The relative ranking of the four cultivars for the two harvested planting dates at Goodwell was: Huntsman>Sunrise=Horizon>Plateau, although the only significant difference was between Huntsman and Plateau (Table 4 and Figure 3). At both sites, the first planting date produced the highest ethanol production, 59.5 gal/a for Walsh and 50.0 gal/a for Goodwell (Tables 3 and 4). The ethanol production rankings for the planting dates were: PD1>>PD2>PD3=PD4 at Walsh, and PD1>PD3 at Goodwell. These planting date ethanol production rankings have the same order and magnitude as the grain yield rankings. At both sites, Huntsman had the highest ethanol production at each planting date (Tables 1 and 2) and highest overall production, 36.6 gal/a for Walsh and 56.8 gal/a for Goodwell. Plateau produced the highest per bushel ethanol yield for each planting date at Walsh. Horizon had the highest overall ethanol yield at Goodwell with 1.98 gal/bu, and Plateau had the highest overall ethanol yield at Walsh with 2.11 gal/bu. Test weights significantly decreased with later planting dates at Walsh (Table 3 and Figure 2), but increased, although not significantly, between the two harvested planting dates (PD1 and PD3) at Goodwell (Table 4 and Figure 3). Huntsman had the highest overall test weight at both sites, 56.9 lb/bu at Goodwell and 54.6 lb/bu at Walsh. Plant height consistently decreased with later planting dates at Walsh (Table 1). The plant height ranking from tallest to shortest was: Huntsman, Sunrise, Horizon, and Plateau. At Walsh, date to 50% heading averaged 33 days after planting (DAP) for all planting dates and cultivars (Table 1). With later planting dates, date of 50% heading became increasingly earlier for all cultivars, except Plateau. Plateau was the earliest maturing cultivar 44 tested and its date to 50% heading remained at 30 to 31 DAP for the first three planting dates then dropped to 29 DAP at the last planting date. Date to 80% maturity, when the crop was ready for swathing, averaged 61 DAP for all planting dates and cultivars. Like heading, date to 80% maturity was earlier with later planting dates for all cultivars, except Plateau. Date of maturity of Plateau remained 58 to 59 DAP for all four planting dates. Results for 2010 All the yield results for 2010 are from the Walsh site only, because the Goodwell site was lost to bird damage. At Walsh, the June planting date had the highest grain yield of 1891 lb/a, but it was not significantly higher than the July planting date with 1783 lb/a (Table 6 and Fig. 4). The May and June plantings dates were significantly higher than the July planting date, and the July planting date was significantly higher than the August planting date. The grain yield ranking for the planting dates was PD2=PD1>>PD3>>PD4. Huntsman had the single highest yield of 2170 lb/a with the June planting date, although it was not significantly different from Sunrise, which had the second highest yield of 2045 lb/a with the May planting date (Table 5). Huntsman and Sunrise produced significantly higher yield than Plateau and Horizon. The yield ranking for the cultivars was Huntsman=Sunrise>Plateau=Horizon. The average test weight for the July planting was significantly higher than May and August planting dates, but it was not significantly higher than the June planting date (Table 6 and Fig. 5). The test weight ranking for the planting dates was PD3=PD2>PD4>PD1. Test weight for PD4 was based solely on Huntsman because there was insufficient plot yield from the other three cultivars for test weight measurements. The highest test weight of 56.4 lb/bu occurred with Huntsman at the July planting date, and the lowest test weight was 50.9 lb/bu with Plateau at the May planting date (Table 5). Huntsman had the highest test weight, 55.7 lb/bu. The test weight of Huntsman was significantly higher than Sunrise and Horizon, which were significantly higher than Plateau. The test weight ranking for the cultivars was Huntsman>Sunrise=Horizon>Plateau. Plant height remained relatively constant at about 25 in. for the first three planting date, but it was only half as high for the last planting date (Table 5). Huntsman was the tallest cultivar; it was an inch taller than the second tallest cultivar, Sunrise, in three of the four planting dates. It took an average of 5 to 8 days longer for the cultivars planted in May to reach 50% heading and 80% maturity than the other three planting dates (Table 5). The cultivars in the July planting date had the fewest days to heading and maturity. Huntsman required an average of an extra day more than Sunrise to reach 50% heading and 80% maturity. We have not yet performed the fermentations and distillations on the 2010 crop needed for ethanol analyses. Ethanol analysis for the 2010 crop will be conducted later this winter. For later reports, we will include ethanol yield and ethanol production after we perform the necessary fermentations and distillations. Discussion In 2009, we evaluated only July planting dates for proso millet production. The first planting dates (July 1 for Walsh and July 7 for Goodwell) produced the highest grain yield and ethanol production (Tables 3 and 4). There was a significant yield decrease between the July 1 and July 10 planting dates at Walsh (990 lb/a yield drop), and the yield difference between the two harvested planting dates (July 7 and July 21) at Goodwell of 267 lb/a was also significant. 45 This suggests that, when planting in July, early July planting is critical for high yields at Walsh and Goodwell, but with the small yield decrease, the planting window maybe longer at Goodwell. Highest ethanol production corresponded with highest grain yield. Huntsman planted in early July had the highest grain yield and ethanol production at both Walsh and Goodland (Tables 1 and 2). Test weights decreased significantly with later planting dates at Walsh, but they actually increased at Goodwell, although the test weight increase was not significant. Moreover, at Walsh, Plateau consistently had the lowest test weight for all four planting dates; however, Plateau had the highest per bushel ethanol yield. Delayed planting, past early July, did not appear to have the severe yield and test weight penalty at Goodwell as it did at Walsh. Nonetheless, the highest grain yield and ethanol production averages were from the first planting dates at both sites. The 2010 yield results were only from the Walsh site. Huntsman at the June 3 planting date had the single highest yield of 2170 lb/a (Table 5). The optimum planting date for Huntsman was late May (Fig. 4). We have yet to perform ethanol analysis on grain samples harvested in 2010, but ethanol analysis from 2009 indicates that high ethanol production corresponded with high grain yield. Therefore, Huntsman planted in late May/early June may produce the highest ethanol production. After we identify the optimum ethanol production window for the highest ethanol producing cultivar, we will develop crop enterprise budgets for proso millet as an ethanol crop and compare it to proso millet as a birdseed crop. 46 Table 1.--Proso Millet: Planting Dates and Cultivars, Walsh, CO, 2009. _____________________________________________________________________ Total Seed Test Ethanol Ethanol Plant 50% 80% Cultivar Yield Weight Yield Production Height Heading Maturity _____________________________________________________________________ lb/a lb/bu gal/bu gal/a in DAP DAP PD1 - July 1 Huntsman 2137 56.5 2.04 77.8 27 39 66 Sunrise 1956 56.3 1.96 68.5 26 38 65 Horizon 1411 56.0 2.03 51.1 24 36 64 Plateau 1076 53.5 2.10 40.4 21 30 58 PD1 Average 1645 55.6 2.03 59.5 25 36 63 PD2 - July 10 Huntsman 981 55.8 2.04 35.7 21 36 63 Sunrise 940 54.5 2.04 34.2 20 35 62 Horizon 490 54.4 2.07 18.1 19 34 61 Plateau 208 54.1 2.10 7.8 16 30 58 PD2 Average 655 54.7 2.06 24.0 19 34 61 PD3 - July 20 Huntsman 429 54.1 2.08 15.9 18 34 62 Sunrise 399 53.9 2.01 14.3 16 34 62 Horizon 139 55.0 2.08 5.2 16 33 61 Plateau 151 53.5 2.18 5.9 13 31 59 PD3 Average 280 54.1 2.09 10.3 16 33 61 PD4 - July 31 Huntsman 365 51.9 2.00 13.0 16 32 59 Sunrise 316 51.5 1.94 10.9 14 32 59 Horizon 229 51.3 2.06 8.4 15 30 58 Plateau 201 50.7 2.07 7.4 12 29 58 PD4 Average 278 51.4 2.02 10.0 14 31 59 _____________________________________________________________________ Average 714 53.9 18 33 61 LSD 0.05 272.1 0.94 _____________________________________________________________________ Harvested: PD1, Sept. 29; PD2, Oct. 16; PD3, Oct. 17; PD3, Oct. 17, 2009. DAP is days after planting. Seed yields adjusted to 13% seed moisture content. Ethanol Production is 100% ethanol. 47 Table 2.-Proso Millet Planting Dates and Cultivars, Seed Yield and Ethanol Yield at Goodwell, OK, 2009. ____________________________________________________________________ -----------PD1 - July 7----------- -----------PD3 - July 21---------- Total Total Seed Test Ethanol Ethanol Seed Test Ethanol Ethanol Cultivar Yield Weight Yield Prod. Yield Weight Yield Prod. ____________________________________________________________________ lb/a lb/bu gal/bu gal/a lb/a lb/bu gal/bu gal/a Huntsman 1686 56.4 1.95 58.7 1558 57.3 1.97 54.8 Sunrise 1498 54.8 1.88 50.3 1065 57.6 2.03 38.6 Horizon 1450 55.4 1.97 51.0 1234 55.5 1.98 43.6 Plateau 1168 52.4 1.91 39.8 873 54.7 1.98 30.9 ____________________________________________________________________ Mean 1450 54.8 1.93 50.0 1183 56.3 1.99 42.0 LSD 0.05 NS NS NS NS CV % 23 3 27 3 ____________________________________________________________________ Seed Yield is adjusted to 13.0% seed moisture content. Ethanol Production is 100% ethanol. 48 Table 3.--Proso Millet Planting Dates and Cultivar Summary at Walsh, 2009. ________________________________________________________________ Total Ethanol Seed Ethanol Test Seed Production Yield Yield Weight Moisture ________________________________________________________________ gal/a lb/a gal/bu lb/bu % Planting Date PD1 - July 1 59.5 1645 a 2.03 55.6 a 13.0 a PD2 - July 10 24.0 655 b 2.06 54.7 b 14.4 b PD3 - July 20 10.3 280 c 2.09 53.9 c 14.7 b PD4 - July 31 10.0 278 c 2.02 51.3 d 17.0 c PD LSD 0.05 160.8 0.44 0.35 Cultivar Huntsman 35.6 978 a 2.04 54.6 a 14.8 a Sunrise 32.0 903 a 1.99 54.0 b 14.8 a Horizon 20.7 567 b 2.06 53.9 b 14.7 a Plateau 15.4 409 c 2.11 53.0 c 14.8 a Cultivar LSD 0.05 135.2 0.49 0.37 ________________________________________________________________ Average 26.0 715 2.05 53.9 14.8 ________________________________________________________________ Seed Yield is adjusted to 13% seed moisture content. Ethanol is adjusted to 100% alcohol. 49 Table 4.--Proso Millet Planting Dates and Cultivar Summary at Goodwell, 2009 _________________________________________________________________ Total Ethanol Seed Ethanol Test Seed Production Yield Yield Weight Moisture _________________________________________________________________ gal/a lb/a gal/bu lb/bu % Planting Date PD1 - July 7 50.0 1450 a 1.93 54.7 b 13.8 a PD3 - July 21 42.0 1183 b 1.99 56.3 a 12.9 a PD LSD 0.05 91.2 2.31 2.33 Cultivar Huntsman 56.8 1622 a 1.96 56.9 a 13.8 a Sunrise 44.5 1282 ab 1.96 56.3 a 13.5 a Horizon 47.3 1342 ab 1.98 55.4 ab 13.3 a Plateau 35.4 1021 b 1.95 53.5 b 12.8 a Cultivar LSD 0.05 354.0 1.97 1.88 _________________________________________________________________ Average 46.0 1317 1.96 55.5 13.4 _________________________________________________________________ Seed Yield is adjusted to 13% seed moisture content. 50 Fig. 1. Seed yield of proso millet planting dates and cultivars for ethanol production study at Walsh, CO, 2009. The planting dates were: PD1, July 1; PD2, July 10; PD3, July 20; and PD4, July 31. The cultivars were: Huntsman, Sunrise, Horizon, and Plateau. All planting dates and cultivars were seeded at 15 lb/a. Harvest dates were: PD1, September 29; PD2, October 16; PD3 and PD4, October 17. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Jul 01 Jul 10 Jul 20 Jul 31 Seed Yield (lb/a @ 13% MC) Planting Date Proso Millet, Planting Date and Cultivar Walsh, 2009 Huntsman Sunrise Horizon Plateau 51 Fig. 2. Test weight of proso millet planting dates and cultivars for ethanol production study at Walsh, CO, 2009. The planting dates were: PD1, July 1; PD2, July 10; PD3, July 20; and PD4, July 31. The cultivars were: Huntsman, Sunrise, Horizon, and Plateau. All planting dates and cultivars were seeded at 15 lb/a. Harvest dates were: PD1, September 29; PD2, October 16; PD3 and PD4, October 17. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Jul 01 Jul 10 Jul 20 Jul 31 Test Weight (lb/bu) Planting Date Proso Millet, Planting Date and Cultivar Walsh, 2009 Huntsman Sunrise Horizon Plateau 52 Fig. 3. Seed yield and test weight of proso millet planting dates and cultivars for ethanol production study at Goodwell, OK, 2009. The harvested planting dates were: PD1, July 7; and PD3, July 21, 2009. The cultivars were: Huntsman, Sunrise, Horizon, and Plateau. All planting dates and cultivars were seeded at 15 lb/a. Harvest dates were: PD1, September 14; and PD3, October 19. Seed yield is adjusted to 13.0% seed moisture content. 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 PD1-July 7 PD2-July 21 Test Weight (lb/bu) Seed Yield (lb/a) Planting Date Proso Millet Planting Dates and Cultivars Seed Yield and Test Weight, Goodwell, OK, 2009 Huntsman Yield Sunrise Yield Horizon Yield Plateau Yield Huntsman TW Sunrise TW Horizon TW Plateau TW 53 Table 5.--Proso Millet: Planting Dates and Cultivars, Walsh, CO, 2010. __________________________________________________________________ Seed Test Plant 50% 80% Cultivar Yield Weight Moisture Shattering Height Heading Maturity __________________________________________________________________ lb/a lb/bu % % in DAP DAP PD1 - May 12 Huntsman 2101 54.9 14.0 15.0 26 54 87 Sunrise 2045 54.4 13.7 12.5 25 53 86 Horizon 1466 53.7 14.3 12.5 22 51 84 Plateau 1519 50.9 14.4 9.0 22 47 80 PD1 Average 1783 53.5 14.1 12.3 24 51 84 PD2 - June 3 Huntsman 2170 56.0 16.6 5.0 29 47 78 Sunrise 1985 55.1 16.4 3.5 28 46 77 Horizon 1717 55.5 14.9 5.5 25 44 75 Plateau 1692 51.9 14.6 4.0 23 40 73 PD2 Average 1891 54.6 15.6 4.5 26 44 76 PD3 - July 2 Huntsman 1126 56.4 13.6 4.0 26 38 66 Sunrise 1143 55.4 14.0 3.0 25 38 65 Horizon 766 55.1 14.2 1.5 22 36 62 Plateau 926 53.5 13.9 3.0 21 32 62 PD3 Average 990 55.1 13.9 2.9 24 36 64 PD4 - Aug. 2 Huntsman 79 54.3 13.7 0.0 12 49 77 Sunrise 40 -- -- 0.0 13 48 76 Horizon 17 -- -- 0.0 11 45 76 Plateau 30 -- -- 0.0 11 43 75 PD4 Average 42 54.3 13.7 0.0 12 46 76 __________________________________________________________________ Average 1177 54.4 14.3 4.9 22 44 75 LSD 0.05 221.1 0.86 0.44 2.12 __________________________________________________________________ Harvested: PD1, Aug. 30; PD2, Aug. 30; PD3, Sep. 21; PD4, Nov. 5, 2010. DAP is days after planting. Seed yields adjusted to 13% seed moisture content. 54 Table 6.--Proso Millet Planting Dates and Cultivar Summary at Walsh, 2010. _______________________________________________ Seed Test Seed Yield Weight Moisture _______________________________________________ lb/a lb/bu % Planting Date PD1 - May 12 1783 a 53.5 c 14.1 b PD2 - June 3 1891 a 54.6 ab 15.6 a PD3 - July 2 990 b 55.1 a 13.9 bc PD4 - August 2 42 c 54.3 b 13.7 c PD LSD 0.05 134.6 0.71 0.37 Cultivar Huntsman 1369 a 55.7 a 14.7 a Sunrise 1303 a 55.0 b 14.7 a Horizon 991 b 54.8 b 14.5 ab Plateau 1042 b 52.1 c 14.3 b Cultivar LSD 0.05 113.5 0.45 0.23 _______________________________________________ Average 1177 54.4 14.3 _______________________________________________ Seed Yield is adjusted to 13% seed moisture content. PD4 test weight and seed moisture of Huntsman only. 55 Fig. 4. Seed yield of proso millet planting dates and cultivars for ethanol production study at Walsh, CO, 2010. The planting dates were: PD1, May 12; PD2, June 3; PD3, July 2; and PD4, August 2. The cultivars were: Huntsman, Sunrise, Horizon, and Plateau. All planting dates and cultivars were seeded at 15 lb/a. Harvest dates were: PD1, August 30; PD2, August 30; PD3, September 21; and PD4, November 5. y = -279x2 + 684x + 1752 R2 = 0.979 Huntsman Sunrise y = -261x2 + 618x + 1714 R2 = 0.995 Horizon y = -250x2 + 720x + 1066 R2 = 0.944 Plateau y = -267x2 + 813x + 1014 R2 = 0.981 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 May 12 Jun 3 Jul 2 Aug 2 Grain Yield (lb/a @ 13% MC) Planting Date Proso Millet, Planting Date and Cultivar Grain Yield, Walsh 2010 Huntsman Sunrise Horizon Plateau Huntsman Sunrise Horizon Plateau 56 Fig. 5. Test weight of proso millet planting dates and cultivars for ethanol production study at Walsh, CO, 2010. The planting dates were: PD1, May 12; PD2, June 3; PD3, July 2; and PD4, August 2. The cultivars were: Huntsman, Sunrise, Horizon, and Plateau. All planting dates and cultivars were seeded at 15 lb/a. Harvest dates were: PD1, August 30; PD2, August 30; PD3, September 21; and PD4, November 5. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 May 12 Jun 3 Jul 2 Aug 2 Test Weight (lb/bu) Planting Date Proso Millet, Planting Date and Cultivar Test Weight, Walsh 2010 Huntsman Sunrise Horizon Plateau 57 MITIGATION AND REMEDIATION OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE AND AMMONIA EMISSIONS FROM SWINE PRODUCTION FACILITIES Kyle Blankenship, J. Clemn Turner, and Jeff Hattey – Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Scott Carter, Animal Sciences Department INTRODUCTION In recent years, the number of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) has increased within the United States to a level where CAFOs now produce approximately 40% of U.S. livestock. The reduction of costs in feed, facility management, transportation and labor has caused animal production facilities to favor this scheme of management. However, residents in communities that are in close proximity to CAFOs are concerned about their health, as well as the environment, due to the quantity of malodorous compounds, bacteria, fungi, and endotoxins that these facilities release. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and United States Department of Agriculture are dedicated to regulating animal feeding operations and the pollutants they emit. As CAFOs operators attempt to decrease their emissions effectively and efficiently, the use of biofiltration in these facilities has been under research. Biofiltration systems contain biologically active media that react with volatile organic compounds and inorganic air toxins while relying on microbial catabolic reactions for waste compounds degradation to improve exflow air quality. The greatest concentration of swine raised in CAFOs is in Oklahoma, Arkansas, North Carolina, northern Iowa and southern Minnesota (Copeland, 2007). The high concentration of animals in a small geographic area has resulted in noticeable emissions of airborne pollutants; these airborne emissions in large enough quantity can have a detrimental effect on the environment and human health, and can lead to decreased production and increased costs. To protect the surrounding population as well as the swine, the well known biofiltration technology was applied to mitigate and remediate emissions from hazardous concentrations from livestock (pig) buildings. However, little is known about what processes the biofilter technology actually uses to reduce hazardous gas concentrations. There are three major processes that biofilters use: chemical, physical, and biological. The objective of this study was to determine the pathways and processes involved in the biofiltration of the two main hazardous waste that arise from swine production: NH3 (ammonia) and H2S (hydrogen sulfide) at concentrations of 5 ppm and 25 respectively. This research was based on the hypothesis that physical characteristics such as surface area and pore size would have a greater effect on biofilter performance for both gases than would pH or biological species. The purpose of this study was to determine if the reactions occurring during the process of filtering these gasses was related to biological, chemical or physical factors. Keywords: biofilter, swine, animal waste, pig housing, production, CAFOs. 58 Materials and Methods This experiment was performed at Oklahoma State University at the Swine Research Farm. Fifteen Drierite polycarbonate gas purifiers (Stock # 26800, W. A. Hammond Drierite Co. LTD, Xenia, OH) with a volume of 1.009*10-3m3 were used as replicates of a biofilter. The Drierite columns were packed with one of each of the fifteen treatments (Table 1). As the biofilter received inlet gas concentrations from the swine barn, the outlet end was attached to both a Thermo Scientific Hydrogen Sulfide Analyzer (pulsed fluorescence gas analyzer) and a Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometer made by California Analytical Instruments. Table 1. The various treatments used as media to approve and/or disprove the hypothesis. Control Anionic Resin Cationic Resin Compost 20% Moisture Compost 40% Moisture Compost 70% Moisture Autoclaved Compost Wood Chips 50:50 Cationic/Anionic Resin Mix 50:50 Compost/Wood Chip Mix 50:50 Compost/Cationic Resin Mix 50:50 Compost Anionic Resin Mix 50:50 Autoclaved Compost/Wood Chip Mix 50:50 Autoclaved Compost/Anionic Resin Mix 50:50 Autoclaved Compost/Cationic Resin Mix Swanson and Loehr (1997) summarized characteristics that a filtering material should posses: • Optimal microbial environment – nutrients, moisture, pH, carbon supply should not be limiting • Large specific surface area – maximizes attachment area, sorption capacity, and number of reaction sites per unit of medium volume • Structural integrity – necessary to resist medium compaction which increases pressure drops and lowers gas retention times • High moisture retention – moisture is critical in maintaining active microorganisms • High porosity – keeps retention times high and backpressure low • Low bulk density – reduces medium compaction potential Most current biofilter technology uses either a straw/compost or woodchip/compost mixture as the media. The compost media and wood chip mixtures were from the Oklahoma Botanical Garden in Stillwater, OK. The initial moisture content of the compost and wood chip medias were determined by drying from more than 8 hrs at 105 C in a drying oven (Yani et al., 1998). Deionized water was then added to bring the final moisture content to 20%, 40%, and 70 % dry mass basis. These moistures contents were selected based on Nicolai and Janni (1997) to assess microbial growth during the biofiltration process. Moisture content was recorded at the beginning and the end of a 40 min sampling period. Samples were run at an ambient temperature range of 4 – 40°C with a residence time of .504 to .336 min (1.008 L / (2 – 3 L min-3) = .504 - .336 min). Also, because an acclimation period is needed for certain bacteria and organisms that biodegrade NH3 and H2S, the compost mixtures were placed into a biofilter at the Swine Research Farm two weeks prior to the experiment. To determine how strong pH has an effect on biofilter performance inert cationic and anionic resins were used. Results and Discussion Ammonia levels were determined by California Analytical Instrument’s CAI 600 FTIR Analyzer. Hydrogen Sulfide concentrations were determined simultaneously with a Thermo Scientific Model 450i was used because it utilizes pulsed fluorescence technology to analyze 59 H2S gas compounds. All results were analyzed using PROC GLM and PROC MIXED using SAS 9.1 statistical software (SAS Institute, Raleigh, NC). Hydrogen Sulfide Data suggests that the most effective media in mitigating H2S is a 50:50 Compost/Anionic Resin Mix. The table below shows that hydrogen sulfide does rely on pore space, bacteria, and a particular pH range to achieve high reduction percentages (Table 1). Table 1. Hydrogen Sulfide (% reduction) means and standard deviations Treatment No. of Observations Mean Std. Dev. Control 120 2.68 3.88 Anionic Resin 120 41.72 6.27 Cationic Resin 120 97.54 4.37 50:50 Anionic/Cationic Resin Mix 120 49.16 9.99 Autoclaved Compost 120 79.54 5.77 50:50 Compost/Anionic Resin Mix 120 69.58 8.61 50:50 Compost/Cationic Resin Mix 120 9.99 8.58 50:50 Autoclaved Compost/Anionic Resin Mix N/A N/A N/A 50:50 Autoclaved Compost/Cationic Resin Mix N/A N/A N/A Wood Chip 120 72.35 8.38 50:50 Wood Chip/Compost Mix 120 77.60 5.97 50:50 Wood Chip/Autoclaved Compost Mix 120 72.92 8.59 Compost 20% moisture 120 81.37 6.42 Compost 40% moisture 120 81.94 6.19 Compost 70% moisture 120 6.19 6.67 Ammonia Preliminary data suggests that surface area places the largest role in mitigating NH3. The 40% and 70% moisture levels were not significantly different (Table 2). Table 2: Ammonia (% reduction) means and standard deviations Treatment No. of Observations Mean Standard Deviation Control 120 3.12 3.10 Anionic Resin 120 83.13 7.26 Cationic Resin 120 30.30 12.01 50:50 Anionic/Cationic Resin Mix 120 54.93 22.68 Autoclaved Compost 120 50.00 22.68 50:50 Compost/Anionic Resin Mix 120 100.00 0.00 50:50 Compost/Cationic Resin Mix 120 27.26 10.19 50:50 Autoclaved Compost/Anionic Resin Mix 120 98.20 5.32 50:50 Autoclaved Compost/Cationic Resin Mix 120 51.74 20.96 Wood Chip 120 82.92 6.99 50:50 Wood Chip/Compost Mix 120 89.80 6.03 50:50 Wood Chip/Autoclaved Compost Mix 120 59.81 15.90 Compost 20% moisture 120 72.67 4.54 Compost 40% moisture 120 84.95 3.92 Compost 70% moisture 120 80.23 15.00 60 Other Results These results are based off of reduction percentages • Anionic Resin, because of its pH of 7.69, was not effective at filtering NH3, nor H2S • Cationic Resin was effective at filtering NH3 and did even better at filtering H2S. • H2S filtration appeared to be primarily due to a biochemical process or as a result of small pore spaces. • Cationic and Anionic Resin had an additive effect on NH3 and H2S. • Autoclaved Compost was less effective at filtering NH3 than Cationic Resin, but somewhat effective at removing H2S. • Compost was effective at removing both H2S and NH3, possibly because of microbial activity, numerous micro pores, and large surface area. • Compost/Wood Chip mixture was effective at removing both H2S and NH3, but less effective than Compost alone. • Moisture level played an important part in the reduction of H2S. Popular belief is currently that biofilters need to maintain a moisture percentage of 70% to keep sulfur reducing bacteria healthy, and this research backs up that belief. CONCLUSION • The factors that affect the biofiltration process: • NH3 Biological, little requirements Chemical, pH has small effect Physical, requires media to have a large surface and low bulk density • H2S Biological, requires sulfur reducing bacteria Chemical, requires pH of 2.5-5.0 Physical, requires media to have a large surface area and low bulk density Biofilters would be more effective with different design and operating parameters in order to function more efficiently for longer periods of time. There is a need for a two-stage biofilter; this could be accomplished with a top and a bottom layer. Since preliminary data suggest that the biofiltration process would work better for longer periods of time if the NH3 was captured before the H2S, the first (bottom) layer should contain a porous media to capture NH3 and the second (top) layer should have porous media with a low pH in order to capture H2S. Acknowledgements This work was supported in part by USDA-CSREES proposal number 2008-03357. 61 REFERENCES 1. Copeland, C. 2007. Animal Waste and Water Quality: EPA Regulation of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). Congressional Research Service. 2. Nicolai, R.E. and K.A. Janni. 1997a. Development of a Low Cost Biofilter for Swine Production Facilities. Paper No. 974040. ASAE, 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659 USA. 3. Swanson, W.J., and R.C. Loehr. 1997. Biofiltration: Fundamentals, design and operations principles, and applications. J. Environ. Eng. 123:538-546. 4. Yani, M., M. Hiral, and M. Shoda. 1998. Ammonia gas removal characteristics using biofilter with activated carbon fiber as a carrier. Environ. Technol. 19:709-715. Extension Reports OKLAHOMA CORN PERFORMANCE TRIALS, 2010 PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY CROPS OKLAHOMA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF PLANT AND SOIL SCIENCES DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES & NATURAL RESOURCES OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY PT 2010-7 December 2010 Vol. 22, No. 7 Rick Kochenower Britt Hicks Area Research and Extension Specialist Area Extension Livestock Specialist Plant and Soil Sciences Department Northwest District TRIAL OBJECTIVES AND PROCEDURES Each year the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service conducts corn performance trials in Oklahoma. These trials provide producers, extension educators, industry representatives, and researchers with information on corn hybrids marketed in Oklahoma. Company participation was voluntary, so some hybrids marketed in Oklahoma were not included in the test. Company or brand name, entry designation, plant characteristics, and maturity information, were provided by the companies and were not validated by OSU; therefore, we strongly recommend consulting company representatives for more detailed information regarding these traits and disease resistance ratings (Tables 3 and 4). Irrigated test plots were established at the Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center (OPREC) near Goodwell and the Joe Webb farm near Guymon. Fertility levels, herbicide use, and soil series (when available) are listed with data. Individual plots were two 25-foot rows seeded at a target population of 32,000 plants/ac. Plots were trimmed to 20 feet prior to being harvested to determine grain yield. The ensilage trial was seeded the same as the grain trial with 10 feet of one row harvested to determine yield. Experimental design for all locations was a randomized complete block with four replications. Grain yield is reported consistent with U.S. No. 1 grade corn (56 lbs/bu and adjusted to moisture content of 15.5%). Corn ensilage was harvested at the early dent stage with average moisture content of 69% and production is reported as tons/ac adjusted to 65% moisture. GROWING CONDITIONS Corn planting started in early April but was delayed until mid April from rainfall. Most planting resumed April 28th and was not delayed again until mid May by which time most corn had been planted. Conditions for germination and emergence were good. Most corn acres required no pre-irrigation prior to planting, due to the 4.51 inches of precipitation received during the January through March time period. Temperatures during the growing season were near normal with no 100 ⁰F recorded during May, June had 3, July had 4, and August had 10 days of 100 ⁰F or greater. The number of days in August may have reduced yields on the later planted corn in 2010. Mean high temperatures for the period were near the long-term averages. The mean high temperature for May was 77 ⁰F which is 2 degrees below the long term mean. For June, July and August the mean high temperatures were normal or slightly above, June 91⁰F compared to 88 ⁰F, July 93 ⁰F which is the long term mean, and August 93 ⁰F compared to 91 ⁰F. The number of 100 ⁰F and higher than normal temperatures may have affected grain fill on the later planted corn. Rainfall for the period was above the long-term mean, but 38% was received in mid to late August (Table 1). Therefore irrigation scheduling was critical during most of the growing season. The harvest period had no major delays to weather and most producers reporting yields ranging from 200 bu/ac to over 250 bu/ac. RESULTS Grain yield, test weight, harvest moisture, and plant populations for OPREC and Webb trials are presented (Tables 3 and 4). Least Significant Differences (L.S.D.) are shown at the bottom of each table. Unless two entries differ by at least the L.S.D. shown, little confidence can be placed in one being superior to another. The coefficient of variation (C.V.) is provided as an estimate of the precision of the data with respect to the mean. To provide some indication of yield stability, 2-year means are also provided in tables producers interested in comparing hybrids for consistency of yield should consult these. The following people have contributed to this report by assisting in crop production, data collection, and publication; Roger Gribble, Jeff Bedwell, Tommy Puffinbarger, Donna George, Lawrence Bohl, Matt LaMar, Eddie Pickard, Wilson Henry, Cameron Murley, and Craig Chesnut. Their efforts are greatly appreciated. Table 1. Rainfall and irrigation for irrigated corn performance trial locations in Texas County. Location April May June July Aug Total Long-term mean 1.33 3.25 2.86 2.58 2.28 12.30 2010 1.76 2.64 3.16 1.22 5.42 14.20 Irrigation Joe Webb 0.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 18.0 OPREC 0.0 1.3 3.9 3.9 1.3 10.4 Oklahoma State University, in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. and other federal laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, disability, or status as a veteran in any of its policies, practices or procedures. This includes but is not limited to admissions, employment, financial aid, and educational services. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bob Whitson, Director of Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma. This publication is printed and issued by Oklahoma State University as authorized by the Dean of the Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Oklahoma State University PT2010- 7 Page 2 Table 2. Characteristics of Corn Hybrids in Panhandle Corn Performance Trials, 2010. Company Brand Name Hybrid Plant Characteristics MATURITY SV SS SG EP Days Golden Acres GA 26V21 1 1 2 M 115 Golden Acres GA 208V81 2 2 2 M 118 Golden Acres GA 27V01 2 2 2 High 117 Mycogen Seeds TMF2H918 8 8 NA NA 123 Mycogen Seeds TMF2L844 7 7 NA NA 119 Mycogen Seeds F2F622 8 7 NA NA 109 Mycogen Seeds F2F700 8 8 NA NA 113 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 25HR39TM 8 7 5 MH 115 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 25R19TM 8 7 5 MH 115 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 26R60TM 7 6 6 M 116 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28HR20TM 7 7 7 MH 118 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28HR30TM 7 7 8 MH 118 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28R30TM 7 7 8 MH 118 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28R10TM 7 7 7 MH 118 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 1536H 2 3 3 M 115 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. TRX01601 3 3 3 M 116 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 7514X 3 3 3 M 114 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 1420V 3 3 3 M 114 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 1825V 3 2 2 MH 118 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 2288H 3 2 1 H 122 * Plant Characteristics: SV - Seedling Vigor; SS - stalk strength; SG - stay green; EP - ear placement (Low, Medium, High) Rating scale for above characteristics except ear placement 1 = excellent - 9 = poor __________________________________________________________________________________________ Oklahoma State University PT2010- 7 Page 3 Table 3. Grain Yield and Harvest Parameters Joe Webb location, Oklahoma Corn Performance Trials, 2010. Company Brand Name Hybrid Grain Yield Bu/ac Test Weight Lb/bu Harvest Moisture Plant Population plants/ac Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 1825V 232 58.0 13.8 33,200 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28R10TM 205 60.5 13.9 31,700 Golden Acres GA 208V81 203 59.9 13.8 29,800 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28HR20TM 197 60.6 13.9 32,800 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28HR30TM 192 60.5 14.5 31,300 Golden Acres GA 27V01 190 56.9 12.3 31,500 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 7514X 187 58.2 14.4 31,100 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 2288H 185 59.2 17.8 28,300 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 1420V 181 59.7 13.1 33,400 Mycogen Seeds TMF2H918 181 58.0 20.7 30,900 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 25HR39TM 179 61.0 12.8 31,400 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28R30TM 177 59.5 13.4 32,900 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 26R60TM 173 60.0 14.7 30,700 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 25R19TM 172 60.7 14.1 31,600 Golden Acres GA 26V21 172 58.1 12.1 30,700 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 1536H 164 60.3 12.6 30,500 Mycogen Seeds TMF2L844 153 58.3 13.0 28,700 Mycogen Seeds F2F622 145 60.3 12.3 34,300 Mycogen Seeds F2F700 112 61.1 12.6 34,100 Mean 179 59.5 14.0 31,500 CV % 8.9 1.1 9.9 8.5 L.S.D. 23 0.9 2.0 NS Cooperator: Joe Webb Soil Series: Richfield Clay Loam Strip-Till: Following wheat in 2009 Soil Test: N: NA P: NA K: NA pH: NA Fertilizer: N: 230 lbs/ac P: 50 lbs P2O5/ac K: 0 and 5 gal 10-34-0 in row with planter Herbicide: 1.5qt/ac Harness Extra (Preemergence) + 3/4 oz/ac Balance Planting Date: April 14, 2010 Harvest Date: September 21, 2010 __________________________________________________________________________________________ Oklahoma State University PT2010- 7 Page 4 Table 4. Ensilage Yields and Quality Panhandle Corn Performance Trial, 2010. Company Brand Name Hybrid YIELD Tons/ac Plant Population plants/ac Harvest Moisture % Golden Acres GA 27V01 28.5 30,900 53.7 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 1825V 28.2 29,200 51.9 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 2288H 28.1 28,500 59.2 Golden Acres GA 208V81 28.0 29,000 54.4 Mycogen Seeds TMF2H918 27.8 28,700 57.6 Mycogen Seeds TMF2L844 27.5 30,900 54.8 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 26R60TM 27.2 30,600 50.5 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 25R19TM 27.0 31,500 52.7 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 1536H 26.2 30,200 49.5 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28HR30TM 24.4 31,200 52.2 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28R30TM 24.3 30,800 50.9 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 1420V 24.3 32,500 52.6 Mycogen Seeds F2F700 24.0 29,200 53.5 Ter
Object Description
Description
Title | Panhandle research highlights 2010 |
OkDocs Class# | Z2100.3 P191r 2010 |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Downloaded from agency website: http://oaes.pss.okstate.edu/goodwell/Publications/2010%20research%20highlights%20book.pdf |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
Language | English |
Full text | Route 1, Box 86M Goodwell, Oklahoma 73939-9705 (580) 349-5440 http://oaes.pss.okstate.edu/goodwell Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center Oklahoma State University Field & Research Services Unit Department of Animal Science Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Department of Plant and Soil Sciences Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering USDA - ARS Animal Waste Management Biofuels Canola Corn Crop Rotation Feeding Distiller’s Grains Irrigation & Water Management Soil Fertility Sorghum Soybeans Sunflowers Weed Management Wheat In Sincere Memory of Brent Westerman Brent Westerman Senior Director of Field Research Service Units Robert E. Whitson DASNR Vice President, Dean & Director Clarence Watson Associate Director of the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station Jonathan Edelson Assistant Director of the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station OKLAHOMA PANHANDLE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION CENTER The Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources (DASNR) including the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station (OAES) and the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service (OCES) at Oklahoma State University (OSU) have a long history of working cooperatively with Oklahoma Panhandle State University (OPSU) to meet the needs of our clientele, the farmers and ranchers of the high plains region. OAES is the research arm of DASNR and continues with the mission to conduct fundamental and applied research for the purpose of developing new knowledge that will lead to technology improvements addressing the needs of the people. The OCES continues to strive to disseminate the research information generated by OAES to the public through field days, workshops, tours, and demonstrations. This has been and will continue to be a major focus of our efforts at the Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center. Together as a team we have been able to solve many significant problems related to high plains agriculture. The OPREC is centrally operated within the Field and Research Services Unit (FRSU) of the OAES. The FRSU serves as the back bone for well over 1,000 statewide field and lab based research trials annually. Our unit consists of 18 outlying research stations including the OPREC, the Controlled Environmental Research Lab, the Ridge Road Greenhouse Phase I and Phase II, the Noble Research Center and the Stored Product Research and Extension Center. The FRSU works to provide a central focus for station operations and management with the goal to improve overall efficiency by providing a systematic means for budget management, facility upgrades, consolidation of labor pools, maintenance and repair of equipment and buildings, and other infrastructure needs. The Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center at Goodwell is committed to serving the people of the region. Many staff continue to serve our clientele and include; Rick Kochenower Area Agronomy Research and Extension Specialist, Britt Hicks Area Livestock Extension Specialist, and Lawrence Bohl Senior Station Superintendent of OPREC. Other essential OPREC personnel include Donna George Senior Secretary, Craig Chesnut Field Foreman II, Jake Baker Agriculturalist, and several wage payroll and part-time OPSU student laborers. OSU faculty members from numerous Departments continue to utilize OPREC to conduct research and extension efforts in the Panhandle area. Additionally, the OPREC continues to serve as a “hub” for our commodity groups and agriculture industries by hosting several informative agriculture related meetings annually. The DASNR, OAES, and OCES truly appreciate the support that our clientele, farmers, ranchers, commodity groups, industry, and other agricultural groups have given us over the years. Without your support many of our achievements would not have been possible. We look forward to your continued support in the future and to meeting the needs of the research, extension, and teaching programs in the high plains region. Clarence Watson Associate Director Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources Oklahoma State University The staff at OPREC, OAES F&RSU, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Department of Animal Science and Department of Biosystems and Ag Engineering at Oklahoma State University would like to thank the companies and individuals listed below, for providing resources utilized in research projects. Their valuable contributions and support allow researchers to better utilize research dollars. This research is important for producers in the high plains region, not just the Oklahoma panhandle. We would ask that the next time you see these individuals and companies that you say thank you with us. Archer Daniels Midland Company BASF Bayer Crop Sciences Dow Agro Sciences (Jodie Stockett) DuPont (Jack Lyons and Robert Rupp) Farm Credit of Western Oklahoma Green Country Equipment Hitch Enterprises Liquid Control Systems (Tim Nelson) Midwest Genetics (Bart Arbuthnot) Monsanto (Ben Mathews, T. K. Baker, Mike Lenz) National Sorghum Producers Rick Nelson GM Northwest Cotton Growers Co-op Oklahoma Grain Sorghum Commission Oklahoma Wheat Commission Oklahoma Wheat Growers OPSU Orthman Manufacturing Pioneer Seed (Ramey Seed) Sorghum Partners Hopkins Ag/AIM Agency (J. B. Stewart & Jarrod Stewart) Syngenta Texhoma Wheat Growers Triumph Seed Company United Sorghum Checkoff Program Joe Webb Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center ~ Advisory Board ~ Mr. Bert Allard, Jr. P. O. Box 588 Texhoma, OK 73949 Mr. Kenton Patzkowsky Rt. 2, Box 48 Balko, OK 73931 Dr. Curtis Bensch OPSU Goodwell, OK 73939 Mr. Larry Peters OPSU Goodwell, OK 73939 Mr. Lawrence Bohl Route 3, Box 49A Guymon, OK 73939 Mr. Leon Richards Rt. 2, Box 92 Turpin, OK 73950 Dr. Peter Camfield OPSU Goodwell, OK 73939 Mr. Kenneth Rose Rt. 2, Box 142 Keyes, OK 73947 Mr. Bob Dietrick P. O. Box 279 Tyrone, OK 73951 Mr. Tom Stephens Route 1, Box 29 Guymon, OK 73942 Mr. Steve Franz Rt. 2, Box 36 Beaver, OK 73932 Mr. J. B. Stewart P. O. Box 102 Keyes, OK 73947 Mr. Jason Hitch 309 N. Circle Guymon, OK 73942 Dr. Clarence Watson, Jr. 139 Ag Hall Stillwater, OK 74078-6019 Mr. Rick Heitschmidt Route 1, Box 52 Forgan, OK 73938 Dr. Brent Westerman 370 Ag Hall Stillwater, OK 74078 Mr. Steve Kraich P. O. Box 320 Guymon, OK 73942 Dr. Robert Westerman 139 Ag Hall, OSU Stillwater, OK 74078 Mr. Rick Nelson P. O. Box 339 Beaver, OK 73932 Dr. Kenneth Woodward Route 1, Box 114A Texhoma, OK 73949 2010 Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center Staff and Principal Investigators Vacant Director Lawrence Bohl (580) 349-5440 Station Superintendent Rick Kochenower (580) 349-5441 Area Research and Extension Specialist, Agronomy Britt Hicks (580) 349-5439 Area Extension Livestock Specialist Curtis Bensch (580) 349-1503 Adjunct Professor Craig Chesnut Field Foreman II Jake Baker Agriculturalist Donna George Senior Administrative Assistant Joe Armstrong (405) 744-9588 Assistant Proffessor, State Ext. Weed Scientist, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Brian Arnall (405) 744-1722 Assistant Professor, State Ext. Soil Fertility Specialist, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Brett Carver (405) 744-6414 Professor, Wheat Genetics, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Dr. Jeff Edwards (405) 744-9617 Assistant Professor, Wheat, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Dr. Chad Godsey (405) 744-3389 Assistant Professor, Cropping System Specialist, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Jeff Hattey (405) 744-9586 Professor, Animal Waste Research Leader, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Gopal Kakani (405) 744-4046 Assistant Professor, Bioenergy Crop Production, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Dr. Tyson Ochsner (405) 744-3627 Assistant Professor, Soil Physics, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Dr. Randy Taylor (405) 744-5277 Associate Professor/Ext. Agriculture Engineering, Dept. of Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University Dr. Jason Warren (405) 744-1721 Assistant Professor, Soil and Water Conservation, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Climatological data for Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, 2010. Temperature Precipitation Wind Month Max Min Max. mean Min. mean Inches Long term mean One day total AVG mph Max mph Jan 67 -6 48 17 0.49 0.30 0.29 10.7 52.0 Feb 57 9 39 20 1.51 0.46 0.39 9.9 40.9 March 87 18 60 30 2.51 0.95 0.73 13.4 55.0 April 87 24 69 41 1.76 1.33 0.83 15.3 56.1 May 92 31 77 47 2.64 3.25 0.82 13.8 52.1 June 103 51 91 63 3.16 2.86 1.48 14.3 68.5 July 102 58 93 66 1.22 2.58 0.65 12.6 57.9 Aug 103 49 93 64 5.42 2.28 3.16 11.3 38.9 Sept 99 42 88 56 0.20 1.77 0.11 12.4 51.8 Oct 89 26 76 43 0.81 1.03 0.63 11.5 44.9 Nov 81 8 61 27 0.29 0.77 0.23 13.2 50.9 Dec 71 2 51 22 0.34 0.31 0.23 10.5 52.2 Annual total 70.0 40.5 13.03 17.9 NA NA NA Data from Mesonet Station at OPREC Longterm Average Precipitation by county (1948-98) Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Precipitation (in) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Texas Cimarron Yearly Total Beaver Texas 17.89 Cimarron 18.39 Beaver 22.89 BEAVER COUNTY 1948-99 RAINFALL (inches) .01-.24 .25-.49 .50-1.0 1.0-2.0 > 2.O PERCENT OF EVENTS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1767 2,987 TOTAL EVENTS 542 442 185 51 CIMARRON COUNTY 1948-99 RAINFALL (inches) .01-.24 .25-.49 .50-1.0 1.0-2.0 > 2.O PERCENT OF EVENTS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1874 549 381 159 36 2,999 TOTAL EVENTS TEXAS COUNTY 1948-99 RAINFALL (inches) .01-.24 .25-.49 .50-1.0 1.0-2.0 > 2.O PERCENT OF EVENTS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1835 479 341 176 25 2,856 TOTAL EVENTS Oklahoma Panhandle Research & Extension Center 2010 Research Highlights Crops Sunflower and Grain Sorghum Combine Header Loss Evaluation ...................................... 1 Wheat Variety Development and Breeding Research ..................................................... 6 Garrison hard red winter wheat Release Announcement ..................................................... 12 Ruby Lee hard red winter wheat Release Announcement ................................................... 13 Effect of Planting Date on Yield and Test Weight of Dry-land Wheat in the Oklahoma Panhandle ............................................................................................................ 14 Effects of Corn Stover Harvest on Soil Quality Indicators and Irrigated Corn Yield in the Southern Great Plains ...................................................................................... 17 GreenSeeker™ Sensor in Irrigated Corn Production ........................................................... 20 Nitrogen Fertilizer Management using Subsurface Drip Application of Swine Effluent ...................................................................................................................... 22 Impact and Sustainability of a Subsurface Drip Irrigation System used for the Application of Swine Effluent in Semi-Arid Environments ............................................... 24 Comparison of Bleacher Herbicides for use in Corn ........................................................... 30 Post Emergent Broadleaf Control in Grain sorghum ........................................................... 32 Post Emergent Grass Control in Grain sorghum .................................................................. 34 Timing of Dry-land Strip-tillage for Grain Sorghum Production in the High Plains .......... 35 No-till VS Minimum-till Dry-land Crop Rotations .............................................................. 37 Dry-land No-till Cropping Intensity ..................................................................................... 41 Expanding Production Area and Alternative Energy Crop Market of Proso Millet for Water deficient Lands .......................................................................................... 42 Mitigation and Remediation of Hydrogen Sulfide and Ammonia Emissions from Swine Production Facilities .................................................................................................. 57 Extension Publications Oklahoma Corn Performance Trial, 2010 Grain Sorghum Performance Trials in Oklahoma, 2010 Oklahoma Soybean Variety Trial Report 2010 Oklahoma Sunflower Trial Report 2010 Oklahoma Wheat Variety Trails 2009-10 1 Sunflower and Grain Sorghum Combine Header Loss Evaluation Wesley M. Porter1, Rick Kochenower2, Elizabeth Miller1, Randy Taylor1 1: Dept. of Biosystems and Ag Engineering, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 2: Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell, OK More producers are growing row crops such as grain sorghum (milo) and sunflowers in Northwest Oklahoma. Most of the growers already own a combine that they either use for cutting wheat, beans, or corn. These row crops can be a little more difficult to harvest when compared to the other crops that are normally harvested with the combine and its specific headers. A major difference with these crops is that seeds and in extreme cases full heads can be lost. The loss of seeds is common in all crops but losing heads during harvest can be a significant harvest loss. Specific combine headers perform better than others at preventing both types of losses. There are also special attachments for certain headers that aid in retaining the grain seeds and grain heads. Our objective was to measure header loss during sunflower and grain sorghum harvest with different combine headers and/or attachments. Header losses were measured by collecting full grain heads and counting the number of seeds left behind from selected areas in the field and quantified to a loss in yield (in lbs/ac). Methods A John Deere 6620 combine was used to harvest both crops. Sorghum harvest was performed on November 4, 2010. Four different combine headers were used during this harvest and included a row crop header, a bean header, a conventional wheat header, and the conventional header with milo finger attachments. Sunflowers were harvested on November 17, 2010. Five different headers were used with during the sunflower harvest and included a row crop header, a conventional wheat header, a corn header with sunflower plates, a bean header, and the conventional header with the milo fingers (Figure 1). Header loss collections were performed at six different locations within the field during the harvest performed with each header. The header loss locations were collected using a method shown in Figure 2 to ensure total combine loss was not a factor in the collections. 2 Figure 1. From top left, clockwise: Row crop head, flex bean header, conventional wheat head with Downer Milo Guards, SunStar sunflower plates for a corn header, corn header with sunflower plates and conventional wheat head (without attachments). 3 Figure 2. The red area represents the areas where header loss was collected. The headers used were four rows wide (30 inch rows), thus the actual designated collection area was ten foot in width by six foot in length for a total of sixty feet squared within the collection area for each collection (Figure 3). This sample area was collected six times per header. Within this collection area the number of heads were counted and collected to be threshed and weighed later. From within the 60 ft2 area four one foot square areas were randomly selected to count seeds. Three other 60 ft2 areas from each header were selected and collected after harvest to get to get a total combine loss weight. Figure 3: The 6’x10’ collection area with the four 1ft2 sample aids inside. 4 Heads from both the sunflower and milo harvests were collected from within the 60 ft2 area. These heads were threshed and the seeds weighed. The seed weights collected from the heads helped to give a pound per acre loss for heads that did not make it into the combine. The header loss was compared to the total loss. Results Header loss was calculated for each of the headers based on the individual seed weight and count per the unit area they were collected from. The seeds collected from the heads were counted for a 60 ft2 area and the individual seed counts were accounted for the four 1 ft2 areas from each collection site. These numbers were then converted to pound per acre yield loss. The results for the sunflowers (Table1) and the grain sorghum (Table 2) can be viewed below. Table 1. Header loss from heads and seeds during sunflower harvest. Header # of Heads lbs/ac hd loss # of Seeds lbs/ac sd loss Total Header Loss Row Crop 2.4 90.7 15.8 72.8 163.4 Wheat 10.8 433.8 9.8 45.3 479.1 Sunflower 4.2 108.4 23.8 109.6 218.1 Bean 4.5 148.5 8.3 38.4 186.8 Milo 6.6 265.4 9.1 42.0 307.5 As shown in Table 1, the row crop header had the lowest header loss followed by the bean header, the sunflower attachments were not very far behind these two. There was a statistical difference in yield loss from each of the headers used. For yield loss from head loss the row crop, sunflower plates and bean header statistically performed the same, while the wheat header and milo fingers were statistically the same. The row crop and sunflower headers performed well below the other three headers when it came to seed loss. More seeds were retained using the grain headers (wheat, bean, and milo fingers). The grain platforms on these headers aided in retaining the higher number of seeds. Total loss followed the same trend as head loss in the performance levels of the headers. A corn header can perform very well with the sunflower plates. However a regular flex header for beans also seemed to work very well for sunflowers during this study. The longer grain platform of the bean header helped to retain a higher number of seeds and heads above the conventional wheat header. Based on this data it is not recommended to use a conventional wheat header or the milo finger attachments for harvesting sunflowers. Table 2. Header loss from heads and seeds during Milo harvest. Header # of Heads lbs/ac hd loss # of Seeds lbs/ac sd loss Total Header Loss Row Crop 0.0 0.0 16.1 54.8 54.8 Bean 2.2 72.6 9.7 33.1 105.7 Wheat 0.5 30.9 9.1 31.0 61.9 Milo 0.3 5.1 11.2 38.2 43.3 5 The milo was harvested at about 13% moisture content. It was a very uniform stand and fed into the headers very well. The average total yield was about 130 bushels per acre. As seen in Table 2 the Milo finger attachments for the conventional wheat header performed the best, with the row crop and wheat headers falling right behind. The row crop header had a higher number of seed losses than any of the other heads because of the smaller seeds and header design. However statistically the number of seeds lost between each header was not different. The yield loss due to head losses was statistically the same for the row crop header and the milo attachments. This means that these two headers perform at the same level for retaining heads. As in the sunflower harvest the grain platforms on the bean and wheat headers helped in the reduced seed loss numbers. Even though the total losses of each header was not significantly different the row crop header and the milo finger attachments improved losses. It should be noted that the very uniform high yielding stand of milo helped to keep all headers at a high harvest level. Conclusions The data from both studies support very good performance from the row crop head, and if available this header would be a good choice to be used for harvesting these row crops. However depending on what combine headers you have available specialty attachments can make a significant difference in the amount of head and seed loss occurring during harvest. It would be worth the investment to buy the sunflower plates or the milo fingers for their designed crop. In both cases the grain headers performed better on seed loss due to the design of the header grain platform. Even though fewer seeds were lost with the grain headers it must be remembered the significant losses that occur from the loss of complete or partial grain heads. In both studies the row crop header retained the highest number of grain heads. Milo fingers and sunflower plates both have reduced head loss numbers compared to the wheat and bean headers without attachments. Based on the data collected from this study it is shown that the header attachments tested in these trials helped in retaining full heads. It is very important to retain as many heads as possible to prevent large losses thus the attachments are worth using. 6 Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center Wheat Improvement Program Annual Report, 2011 Brett Carver, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University OSU joins Texas A&M University/AgriPro in Uniform Testing The Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center (OPREC) plays a pivotal role in the final stages of OSU wheat variety development. The 2009-2010 crop season represented our second year of collaborative uniform testing of contemporary varieties and candidate varieties with two other breeding programs in the southern Plains, namely Texas AgriLife and AgriPro. This uniform trial contained the same entries tested across Texas and Oklahoma, including a dryland trial at the OPREC. Along with the usual varieties that would appear in a variety trial such as TAM 111, Jackpot, and Duster, experimental lines under release consideration were evaluated head-to-head. Two such experimental lines from OSU were included in 2010 (Table 1) and have now been officially released by the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station (OAES) as Ruby Lee and Garrison. Topping the list for statewide performance in Oklahoma were Armour (WestBred), Duster, and the new OAES release, Garrison (Table 1). The statewide yield means included trials at Granite, Enid, Lahoma, and Goodwell dryland. To identify best-variety performance at Goodwell, one must focus strictly on the Goodwell performance data in Table 1. That is because variety means at Lahoma or at Granite were not significantly correlated with variety means at Goodwell (r = 0.2 for both pairs of correlations). Hence, a different set of varieties excelled at Goodwell than elsewhere in the state, including TAM 203, the OSU new beardless variety Pete, Jagger, and SY Gold (AgriPro). This lack of yield consistency between downstate locations and the OPREC is not unusual, and we must account for this inconsistency in the OSU wheat improvement program by using the OPREC as a core testing site for line evaluation and selection. The Uniform Variety Trial summarized in Table 1 will be repeated in 2011 with a different lineup of experimental lines. Testing of Elite Materials from the OSU Wheat Improvement Program As alluded above, the OPREC is used as one of the three cornerstone testing sites for replicated yield and quality trials in the OSU wheat improvement program. The other two sites include Granite in southwest Oklahoma and Lahoma in north central Oklahoma. Breeding lines in their first year of replicated yield trials, all the way up to those in their fifth year of replicated trials, typically appear at the Center in both dryland and irrigated plots. One such trial contains the most advanced (i.e., elite) breeding lines each year, called the Oklahoma Elite Trial (OET). Nine of the 30 slots in the 2010 OET were occupied by contemporary check varieties, plus the long-term check variety Chisholm (Table 2). We include varieties which represent the best available commercial genetics for Oklahoma in the HRW market class. Thus each year the panel of checks changes slightly to reflect new improved genetics. This year you will find test results for these outstanding check varieties: Billings, Duster, Endurance, OK Bullet, Centerfield, Fuller, TAM 203, Pete, and Jackpot. The 2010 trial also featured four candidate varieties that were under the careful watch of the OSU Wheat Improvement Team. Two of those candidates were released by the OAES in February 2011 and are currently being considered for licensing. 7 OK05212 was released as Garrison, and OK05526 was released as Ruby Lee. More information on each of those varieties may be found at the end of this report. Under further release consideration are the experimental lines OK07209, OK07214, and OK07231, all of which have Duster as one of their parents, with the other parent being different. Of primary interest are the two highest yielding lines in the 2010 OET, OK07209 and OK07214. These lines also performed very well at the OPREC, either irrigated or dryland. Differences between OK07209 and OK07214 have relevance to downstate Oklahoma, such as Hessian fly resistance or tolerance to acidic soils. OK07209 is currently under large-scale foundation seed increase, whereas OK07214 was placed under a limited foundation seed increase, with the intent to undergo a second year of seed multiplication in 2011-2012. Unlike previous years, the yield results obtained under irrigation were not highly influenced by viruses, the most notable of which in the past have been Barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV), Wheat streak mosaic virus (WSMV), and Triticum mosaic virus. However, the correlation between yields in the irrigated trial versus the dryland trial was no better than in previous years where differential disease presence biased the comparison (r=0.62 in 2010). Duster, Billings, TAM 203, and Jackpot consistently had higher yields among the checks in both trials. In addition to the two experimental lines already discussed, we have our sights set on a couple other experimentals that have performed well over several years of OPREC testing, including OK05511 and OK05312. OK05511 provides much needed insect resistance currently not offered in OSU releases--specifically to greenbug and Hessian fly—and we are evaluating in 2011 a reselection of the original line to purify the insect resistance. OK05312 holds our interest strictly as a High Plains variety, because its yield potential is best expressed in the Oklahoma panhandle, and it confers a high degree of resistance to curl mite, the WSMV vector. What is our plan for breeding resistance to WSMV? The OSU Wheat Improvement Team has been able to transfer breeding success to OSU stakeholders through the release of varieties with resistance to multiple viruses. Those traits are often stacked in a single variety, with Duster being one example of conferring resistance to Wheat soilborne mosaic virus (WSBMV), Wheat spindle streak mosaic virus (WSSMV), BYDV, and High Plains Virus. However, WSMV has presented a greater challenge to the team, and we do realize the severity of the disease and the yield-limitations it causes in the Oklahoma panhandle. Dr. Hunger, the team’s wheat pathologist, reported in 2004 an average yield loss of 62% when infection occurred in the fall and an average yield loss of 15% when infection occurred in the spring relative to non-infected wheat. Our awareness of WSMV susceptibility was reflected in the priority we placed on this trait when participating in the USDA-CAP grant from 2005 to 2010, where molecular markers were employed across several generations to select directly for WSMV resistance using germplasm developed at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in partnership with USDA-ARS and at Kansas State University. The resulting breeding populations are making their way through the breeding program at Oklahoma State University, and purelines are now being developed for statewide testing. Furthermore, we have since expanded our breeding strategy to combine two distinct gene forms of WSMV resistance known as Wsm1 and Wsm2 (indeed, they are selected by different molecular markers) with a gene (probably Cmc4) that confers resistance to the disease vector (curl mite). This three-pronged approach should uniquely provide the best protection to date for this disease. 8 One curl-mite resistant experimental has progressed through the program to become a candidate variety, already mentioned as OK05312. We continue to evaluate this line for agronomic and quality traits, and particularly the value of the insect resistance trait to protection from WSMV (in cooperation with Rich Kochenower). Its yielding ability in the High Plains is well established, though performance in the Oklahoma Small Grains Variety Performance Tests in 2010 and in the 2010 OET (Table 2) was compromised by shattering losses. At Yuma, AZ, 500 head-rows of OK05312 were planted in Fall 2009 to eliminate red-chaff variants and to improve uniformity within the variety. This nursery will provide breeder seed for producing foundation seed in 2011-2012, pending confirmation of reduced yield losses in the presence of WSMV. Scientists at Kansas State University have already confirmed curl mite resistance of OK05312, such that leaf rolling is significantly reduced and fecundity of the curl mite is greatly decreased when plants of OK05312 versus Jagger were infested in a controlled environment (Table 3). The Wheat Improvement Team will continue to address concerns specific to the High Plains and pertinent to research capabilities at the OPREC. We appreciate the research opportunity afforded by the OPREC and the unique position it places OSU’s Wheat Improvement Team in solving concerns of wheat producers in the panhandle region. Contributed by Brett F. Carver, OSU Wheat Breeder, on behalf of the Wheat Improvement Team 9 Table 1. Texas-Oklahoma-AgriPro Uniform Wheat Variety Trial, 2009-2010, conducted at four Oklahoma locations. Entry Statewide mean OPREC dryland mean & rank Armour 54 67 20 Duster 52 72 6 Garrison 52 63 24 TX06A001263 51 71 9 Billings 51 69 17 Jackpot 50 66 21 TAM 304 49 70 13 Greer 49 70 12 TAM 401 48 73 5 TAM 111 48 71 8 Ruby Lee 48 70 14 Santa Fe 47 68 18 TAM 113 47 71 10 CJ 47 59 30 OK05511 46 70 11 Fannin 46 61 28 TAM 112 46 71 7 Jagger 45 75 2 SY Gold 45 74 4 Pete 45 75 3 TAM 203 45 77 1 Endurance 44 62 27 Shocker 44 62 25 TX05A001822 44 66 22 Fuller 44 68 19 Doans 44 56 31 AP503CL 42 70 15 Art 40 65 23 TAM W-101 39 55 32 Jagalene 39 69 16 OK Bullet 38 60 29 AP06T3621 36 62 26 Mean 68 C.V. 8 LSD 9 10 Table 2. Oklahoma Elite Trial 3 (OET3) conducted at 10 locations in 2009-2010. Entry mean yields and ranks are shown in each column. OPREC Entry Pedigree of experimental line Statewide Irrigated Dryland OK07214 OK93P656-(RMH 3299)/OK99711 54 1 88 1 60 13 OK07209 OK93P656-(RMH 3299)/OK99621 53 2 81 5 70 1 Duster Check 52 3 82 4 60 12 Billings Check 49 4 80 6 62 5 Garrison OK95616-1/Hickok//Betty 49 5 70 16 61 9 Ruby Lee KS94U275/OK94P549 49 6 72 15 61 7 Jackpot Check 49 7 77 8 66 2 OK05204 SWM866442/OK95548 48 8 77 9 64 3 OK06332 SWM866442/OK95548//2174 47 9 66 20 60 11 OK06029C TXGH12588-120*4/FS4//2*2174 47 10 83 3 61 6 TAM 203 TAM 203 47 11 87 2 63 4 OK06336 Magvars/2174//Enhancer 47 12 61 27 59 15 OK05511 TAM 110/2174 46 13 77 7 56 20 OK07231 OK92P577-(RMH 3099)/OK93P656-(RMH 3299) 46 14 73 14 49 26 OK05312 TX93V5919/WGRC40//OK94P549/WGRC34 46 15 66 19 61 10 OK06609 SWM866442-7H/2174//OK95548-26C 46 16 60 28 54 23 OK06822W OK97G611/Trego 45 17 64 24 57 18 Endurance Check 45 18 66 21 58 16 OK06617 FAWWON 06/2137//OK95G703-98-61421 45 19 65 22 47 28 OK06127 KS91W049-1-5-1/CMBW90M294//X920618-C-4-1/3/. 43 20 65 23 54 22 Centerfield Check 43 21 75 12 58 17 Pete Check 43 22 77 10 59 14 Fuller Check 43 23 76 11 56 19 OK03825- 5403-6 Custer*3/94M81 43 24 75 13 53 24 OK07919C OK98G508W/(IMITX105/2174 F3 seln) 42 25 68 18 55 21 OK05711W G1878/OK98G508W 42 26 64 25 46 29 OK Bullet OK00514-05806 41 27 69 17 61 8 OK06618 SWM866442/OK94P549//2174 41 28 57 30 43 30 Chisholm Check 41 29 59 29 50 25 OK06528 Vilma/Hickok//Heyne 36 30 62 26 49 27 Mean 46 71 57 C.V. 10 10 9 LSD 4 12 8 11 Table 3. Mean number of wheat curl mites produced and two indicators of feeding damage occurring on OK05312 and Jagger wheat plants infested with a group of curl mites. Data collected 14 days post-infestation, courtesy Kansas State University (M. Marimuthu, P.A. Sotelo, D. Ponnusamy, and C.M. Smith ). Entry No. of wheat curl mites produced Leaf folding score Leaf rolling score OK05312 79 ± 15 b 1.0 ± 0 b 1.9 ± 0.3 b Jagger 1573 ± 390a 2.0 ± 0.3a 7.7 ± 0.6 a Means in a column followed by the same letter not significantly different (α = 0.05) 12 RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT ‘Garrison’ Hard Red Winter Wheat Experimental Designation OK05212 Pedigree OK95616-1/Hickok//Betty Yield Performance Ranks (highest yielding = ‘1’) OSU Breeding Nurseries (statewide) 2010 n=30 2009 n=30 2008 n=15 2007 n=30 Garrison 4 1 4 4 Duster 3 3 1 28 Endurance 18 6 8 1 SRPN History (18-20 sites per year) 2010: 10th out of 48 entries; 1st at Lahoma and Wichita; 3rd at Winfield 2009: 7th out of 46 entries; 3rd at Colby, 4th at Lahoma, 5th at Amarillo (irrig.) Disease Protection WSBMV, WSSMV Highly resistant BYDV Moderately resistant High Plains Virus Moderately resistant WSMV Not known Stripe rust Resistant (to races present in OK in 2005, 2008, & 2010) Leaf rust Intermediate to moderately resistant (late symptoms) Powdery mildew Intermediate to moderately resistant (field tolerance) Tan spot Resistant Septoria leaf blotch Intermediate Fusarium head blight Moderately resistant Agronomic and Quality Traits: Exceptional acid-soil tolerance Exceptional spring freeze avoidance or tolerance Late FHS arrival, good grazing recovery; Endurance-type maturity Moderately good emergence and early vigor 2010 test weight: 1-2 lb > Endurance 2010 WVT Protein: 13.3% vs. 11.7% (Endurance) vs. 12.8% (Duster) Weaknesses Kernel size (similar to Duster) Hessian fly Late-season leaf rust 13 RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT ‘Ruby Lee’ Hard Red Winter Wheat Experimental Designation OK05526, OK05526-RHf Pedigree KS94U275/OK94P549 Yield Performance Ranks (highest yielding = ‘1’) OSU Breeding Nurseries (statewide) 2010 n=30 2009 n=30 2008 n=15 2007 n=30 Ruby Lee 4 T 16 1 T 3 Duster 3 3 1 28 Endurance 18 6 8 1 SRPN History 2010: 5th out of 48 entries 1st at Amarillo (irrig.), Chillicothe, Winfield 4th at Wichita Disease and Insect Protection WSBMV, WSSMV Resistant BYDV Moderately resistant High Plains Virus Moderately resistant WSMV Intermediate Stripe rust Intermediate (to races present in OK in 2005, 2008, & 2010) Leaf rust Moderately resistant (↓) Powdery mildew Intermediate Tan spot Resistant Septoria leaf blotch Susceptible Hessian fly Resistant Agronomic and Quality Traits: Exceptional top-end yield Early maturity Above-average test weight with kernel size Very good baking quality Excellent grazeability (vegetative regeneration, grazing recovery) 2010 test weight: 0.5 lb > Garrison 2010 WVT Protein: 13.3% vs. 12.4% (Endurance) vs. 12.7% (Duster) Weaknesses Acid soils (similar to Fuller) Spring freeze events 14 EFFECT OF PLANTING DATE ON YIELD AND TEST WEIGHT OF DRY-LAND WHEAT IN THE OKLAHOMA PANHANDLE Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell Jeff Edwards, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater Dryland wheat producers in the panhandle region often plant wheat when soil moisture is adequate regardless of calendar date. In the fall of 2004 a study was initiated at OPREC to determine the effect of planting date and variety on dryland wheat grain yield and test weight. Results from these studies can be found in previous highlights books. In the fall of 2009, Duster a variety this known for producing a high number of tillers, was selected for the seeding rate by planting date study. By producing a high number of tillers grain yield maybe increased for planting dates after the optimum period. Planting dates selected were September 1 and 15, October 1 and 15, and November 1 and 15. The selected seeding rates were 45 lb/ac and 90 lb/ac for all dates. Plot size was 5 feet wide by 35 feet long and all plots were planted with a Great Plains no-till plot drill. Results Previous research at OPREC has shown the first two weeks of October to be the optimal planting time with the highest yields obtained when planted October 1 (Fig. 1). Recommendations for planting after the optimum date have been to increase seeding rate to potentially increase yield. These recommendations were based on with more seeds planted more tillers and heads would be produced, thus increasing grain yield. Utilizing Duster a variety that will produce a high number of tillers may increase the chance to make up yield with later planting. The results in 2010 were similar to what has been observed in the past, except no difference was observed for the September 15th date when compared to the October dates (Fig. 2). The grain yield was 60 bu/ac or higher for the September 15th to October 15th planting dates. The yields for the September and November 1st planting dates were reduced by 10 bu/ac or more when compared to the optimum period. The November 15th date had the lowest yield at 39 bu/ac. Seeding rate had no effect at any of the selected dates which is most likely due to the high number of tillers produced by Duster. 15 Figure 1. Grain yields for dry-land wheat on selected planting dates at ORPEC in 2005, 2007, and 2009. Planting date Sept 1 Sept 15 Oct 1 Oct 15 Nov 1 Nov 15 Grain yield (bu/ac) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 D C A AB BC CD Yields with same letter are not significantly different Figure 2. Grain yields for Duster planted dry-land at selected dates and seeding rates at OPREC in 2009. Planting date Sept 1 Sept 15 Oct 1 Oct 15 Nov 1 Nov 15 Yield (bu/ac) 30 40 50 60 70 45 lb 90 lb A A A B B C Yields with same later are not significantly different and are for date only 16 Planting date had a greater effect on test weights than grain yield in 2010, although the November 15th planting date was also affected by seeding rate. As with the yield the optimum planting period was from September 15th to October 15th. Test weights were negatively affected by earlier or later planting compared to the optimum period (Fig 3.). The trend was for higher test weights with higher seeding rates for the last two planting dates. And there was a difference observed for the last planting date with a 1.5 lb/bu higher test weight for the 90 lb/ac seeding rate. This trend has also been observed in earlier seeding rate work and is hard to explain. For 2011 a trial was planted November 15th to compare Duster to another variety at 4 selected seeding rates to determine if it will require a lower seeding rate when planted late. Figure 3. Test weights for Duster planted dry-land at selected seeding rates and planting dates at OPREC in 2010. Planting date Sept 1 Sept 15 Oct 1 Oct 15 Nov 1 Nov 15 Test weight (lb/bu) 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 45 90 A A A B B C Yields with same letter are not significantly different and are for date only 17 EFFECTS OF CORN STOVER HARVEST ON SOIL QUALITY INDICATORS AND IRRIGATED CORN YIELD IN THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS Tyson Ochsner, Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell Jason Warren, Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Corn fields in Southwest Kansas and the Oklahoma Panhandle have been identified as potential sources of crop residue to serve as cellulosic feedstock for a new cellulosic ethanol plant. Research in other locations has shown that crop residue harvest can have negative impacts on soil quality such as increased erosion, reduced soil nutrient content, and a loss of soil organic carbon. These changes in soil quality can reduce crop productivity and reduce the potential for soil carbon sequestration under no-till management in the region. These detrimental effects of stover harvest might be reduced by partial residue removal and the utilization of cover crops. However, no data are available for the high-yielding, irrigated conditions on the Southern High Plains. Additionally, the impacts of strip-tillage on these soil quality characteristics have not been studied in this region. The impacts of residue removal, strip-tillage, and cover crop utilization may differ from those found in the Midwestern US because the soils, climate, and cropping systems are different. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to evaluate the effects of full and partial corn stover removal and the use of winter cover crops on soil carbon storage in no-till and strip-till management systems. Materials and Methods A field experiment was initiated in October 2009 at the Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center at Goodwell, OK. The treatment structure includes three strip-till treatments that differ only by the amount of residue removed. One has no residue removed and represents the standard irrigated corn production system. All residue is removed from a second strip-till treatment, and 50% of the corn residue is removed from the other treatment. A fourth strip-till treatment has all the residue removed and a cover crop of winter wheat planted after corn harvest. The final treatment is no-till with all residue removed. The experiment is a randomized complete block design with four replications. The plots are 6 corn rows wide and 30 feet long. Ground cover was measured three times in 2010 using downward facing digital photographs taken at a height of 1.2 m and analyzed using SamplePoint software. Saturated hydraulic conductivity and bulk density of the 0-5 cm soil layer were measured using intact 5.0 cm diameter samples collected on 30 October 2010. 18 Results and Discussion A primary concern related to corn residue harvest is the increased potential for wind erosion due to inadequate ground cover. Conservation tillage systems may be rendered ineffective for wind erosion prevention by the practice of residue harvest. Typically, a tillage system must maintain <70% bare soil (or >30% residue cover) after planting to qualify as conservation tillage. In 2010, the strip-till treatment with 100% residue removal had 76% bare soil exposed at the surface in May after corn planting (Fig. 1). That level of bare soil exposure would increase the vulnerability to wind erosion. The no-till treatment with 100% removal had 62% bare soil in May and would have offered a marginal level of protection against erosion. Both the strip-till plus cover crop treatment with 100% residue removal and the strip-till treatment with 50% residue removal offered better protection against erosion as indicated by bare soil exposure at the surface remaining below 50% throughout the year. Fig. 1. Percent bare soil during March, May, and October 2010 for strip-till (ST) with 0%, 50%, and 100% residue removal, for no-till (NT) with 100% residue removal, and for strip-till with 100% residue removal and a winter wheat cover crop. Corn was planted in all treatments in April and harvested in September. Vertical bars represent ± one standard deviation from the mean. Soil samples collected on 30 October 2010 show highest saturated hydraulic conductivity and lowest bulk density under the strip-till plus cover crop treatment (Fig. 2). These data suggest that the wheat cover crop helped to alleviate short-term degradation of soil physical properties under 100% residue removal. More data will be needed to determine if the treatment effects are statistically significant and if they persistent from year to year. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 March May October Bare soil (%) 2010 ST 0% removal ST 100% removal NT 100% removal ST 100% removal + cover crop ST 50% removal 19 Fig. 2. Saturated hydraulic conductivity and bulk density for the 0-5 cm soil depth under strip-till (ST) with 0%, 50%, and 100% residue removal, for no-till (NT) with 100% residue removal, and for strip-till with 100% residue removal and a winter wheat cover crop. Corn was planted in all treatments in April and harvested in September. Soil samples collected in 30 October 2010. Corn yields were low and variable across all treatments in 2010 (Table 1). Lowest average yields occurred in the no-till and strip-till plus cover crop treatments with 100% residue removal. More data are needed to determine how these treatments will affect the yield of the subsequent corn crop. Table 1. Corn yields in 2010 after one year of residue removal treatments Treatment Average Std. Dev. bu ac-1 ST 0% removal 104 55 ST 100% removal 100 37 NT 100% removal 87 32 ST 100% removal + cover crop 84 36 ST 50% removal 92 42 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Conductivity Density Saturated hydraulic conductivity [ln (cm d-1)] Bulk density (g cm-3) 2010 ST 0% removal ST 100% removal NT 100% removal ST 100% removal + cover crop ST 50% removal 20 GreenSeeker™ Sensor in Irrigated corn production Brian Arnall, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell The GreenSeeker™ sensor plots were established to demonstrate the use of the sensor and N-Rich strip in the high yield production system of the Oklahoma Panhandle. The trials consisted of three nitrogen (N) rates replicated four times. The N treatments were 0, 100 and 200 lbs N ac- 1 applied at planting. On June 14th the plots were sensed with the GreenSeeker™ handheld sensor and Normalized Difference Vegetative Index (NDVI) reading recorded. Those readings were used to predict final grain yield and side-dress N rates. No side-dress fertilizer was applied because the plots needed to go to final grain yield without additional N to evaluate the ability of the sensor to predict yield. Final grain yield ranged from 107 to 195 bu ac-1, Table 1 show the treatment averages. You can see in Figure 1, that yield was likely maximized with just a little more than 100 lbs of N. The optical sensor did predict higher yields than what was recorded however this is expected as Predicted Yield (YP0) should be considered as a maximum yield potential and as often the case something will occur between sensing and harvest that will reduce yield potential. Figure2 illustrates the relationship between NDVI and final yield, in which there is a strong correlation. The purpose of using the sensor is to collect the data needed for the Sensor Based Nitrogen Rate Calculator (SBNRC) that is looked on the www.NUE.okstate.edu website. Table 1 has the SBNRC side-dress N rate recommendation (N-Rec) and the theoretical N need (N-Need) of each treatment. The theoretical N-Need is calculated as total Grain N of the plot subtracted from total Grain N of highest yielding plot divided by an expected N fertilizer use efficiency of 50%. On the treatment average the SBNRC underestimated N at the 0 and 100 lbs rate and over estimated at the 200 lbs rate. However if we average every plot the SBNRC underestimated the N need by 9 lbs N ac-1. This is actually a very impressive value as we often expect soil test N recommendations to be off by 20 to 30 lbs. This trial demonstrated the potential of the technology and an expanded trial is planned for the 2011 crop year. Table 1. Treatment averages across the three nitrogen (N) rates. Yield, predicted yield (YP0), NDVI, SBNRC N rate recommendation (N-Rec), and theoretical N needs based on a grain N concentration of 0.75 and fertilizer use efficiency of 50% (N-Need). N rate lbs ac-1 Yld bu ac-1 YP0 bu ac-1 NDVI N-Rec lbs ac-1 N-Need* lbs ac-1 0 129 175 0.70 71 98 100 177 210 0.76 19 27 200 185 208 0.76 23 15 *N-Need calculated as total Grain N of the plot subtracted from total Grain N of highest yielding plot divided by an expected N fertilizer use efficiency of 50%. 21 Figure 1. Nitrogen rate and final yield from the GreenSeeker™ corn trial. Grain yield was maximized between 100 and 200 lbs N ac-1. Figure 2. Normalized Difference Vegetative Index (NDVI) recorded from the plots on June 18th2010 and final grain yield (bu ac-1). R² = 0.84 0 100 200 0 100 200 Yield (Bu/ac) N-Rate (lbs/ac) R² = 0.84 0 50 100 150 200 250 0.68 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 Yield (Bu/ac) GreenSeeker NDVI 22 Nitrogen Fertilizer Management using Subsurface Drip Application of Swine Effluent Jason Warren, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell Jeff Hattey, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University In traditional center pivot applications as much as 50% of the total N applied in swine effluent can easily be lost to volatilization. In addition, diurnal variations in the amount of N lost to volatilization after application causes variation in the availability of N across the irrigated corn field. This variability is generally overcome using supplemental application of commercial fertilizer at rates sufficient to ensure optimum yields in the most N limited areas of the field. This results in very inefficient utilization of swine effluent N. Swine effluent application through subsurface drip irrigation eliminates ammonia volatilization, thereby optimizing the potential use efficiency of swine effluent N. The cost savings resulting from reduced supplemental commercial N requirements can offset some of the cost of implementing subsurface irrigation. Elimination of ammonia volatilization after swine effluent application also provides environmental benefit. The N is no longer transported off the intended cropland and therefore cannot be deposited in sensitive ecosystems. Despite these obvious benefits of subsurface swine effluent applications, research is needed to optimize its use in the context of current corn management practices. Specifically, there is currently no research data available to evaluate subsurface irrigation in combination with strip-tillage pre-plant N applications. Therefore a study was initiated in 2010 in which the treatments in Table 1 were imposed in a corn/soybean rotation. This study will allow us to determine if supplementation with 40 lbs of commercial fertilizer applied pre-plant with a strip-till unit will influence nitrogen use efficiency when N is applied as commercial fertilizer or swine effluent periodically throughout the growing season. Table 1: N source, tillage and N rate treatments imposed on subsurface drip irrigated (SDI) corn within a corn/soybean rotation located at the OPREC, Goodwell, OK TRT# N application strategy* Tillage N rate First N application Fertigation schedule 1 No Nitrogen Control no-till 0 -- 2 No Nitrogen Control strip-till 0 -- 3 Effluent only through SDI no-till 180 initiate at 4 leaf 4 0lbs at V4 and 35lbs at V8, V12, V15, VT 4 Effluent only through SDI strip-till 180 40 lbs in Strip 35lbs at V8, V12, V15, VT 5 UAN through SDI no-till 180 initiate at 4 leaf 40lbs at V4 and 35lbs at V8, V12, V15, VT 6 UAN through SDI strip-till 180 40 lbs in Strip 35lbs at V8, V12, V15, VT *all treatments will recieve 5 gals of 10-34-0 at corn planting and all treatments except the No-N control will receive a additional target application of 180 lbs of total N. Corn and Soybeans will be rotated on plots with 4 replicates for three years at which time the treatment structure and objectives will be assessed.. 23 Expected Results: We expect that strip-tillage application of commercial fertilizer may increase NUE because the N is placed above the irrigation drip line. This will allow early season water applications to carry this supplemental fertilizer to the root zone with the wetting front. In contrast, early season fertigation can result in portion of the fertilizer N be leached to below the drip line thereby moving it farther from the root zone. This research will help to make informed decision about the N management strategies when utilizing strip-till and subsurface drip irrigation. 24 Impact and Sustainability of a Subsurface Drip Irrigation System Used for the Application of Swine Effluent as a Nutrient Resource in Semi-Arid Environments Kyle Blankenship, Lisa Fultz, J. Clemn Turner, and Jeff Hattey – Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater Rick Kochenower–Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell INTRODUCTION It is estimated that rough 2.4 M pigs are located in the Oklahoma panhandle and surrounding counties. In the geographic region of the Ogallala Aquifer which is the prime non-renewable water resource. The Ogallala Aquifer supplies the water used to irrigate approximately one fifth of U.S. cropland. Looking for sustainability, farmers and producers search for alternatives to current water sources. With the influx of animal waste increments from swine production facilities, numerous farmers and producers apply effluent to adjoining property as a liquid fertilizer for irrigation. Nevertheless, continuous applications have lead to the buildup of macro and micro-nutrients in the soil which makes them more vulnerable to leaching. For water or soil issues, subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) provides several advantages including water use efficiency by reducing soil evaporation, surface runoff, or deep percolation while improving infiltration and water storage. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nutrient distributions that occur after various seasonal applications of swine effluent through a subsurface drip irrigations system. Swine effluent was placed through two subsurface drip irrigation systems, one with an emitter rate of 2.38 L hr-1 and the other with a slower emitter rate of 0.72 L hr-1. After 10 years of application, an extensive soil sampling regime was implemented and the samples were taken to the lab for analysis. Nutrient distribution maps were determined for the following: NO3, NH4, P, Ortho-P, K, Mg, SO4, Ca, Zn, Cu, Mn, Fe, and B. The data indicates that concentrations between the lower and the higher emitter rate were significantly different at all depths and distances. However, the lower emitter rate on the SDI system can help use swine manure as sustainable water and nutrient rich resource for agricultural purposes. The lower emitter rate allows for the nutrients to be distributed more evenly throughout the profile. This project will play a significant role in the future of agriculture, water efficiency, and animal waste management as water resources become a more prevalent issue. PROCEDURE Research plots were established in 2001at the Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center (OPREC) in Goodwell, OK and fitted with the SDI system. The 18.29 m X 182.88 m (60 by 600 ft.) plots were put on a corn-soybean rotation with two flow rates range from the highest flow rate for plots 49-50 to be 2.38 L h-1 (0.63 gal h-1) and the lowest flow rate of 0.72 L h-1 (0.19 gal h-1) for the field designated 53. Swine effluent was applied in 2010: May 21st, June 5th, July 2nd, and July 23rd. Approximately 18,927.06 L (5000 gallons) were applied to each plot during each application. Plots are also irrigated with groundwater on a revolving schedule. In the fall of 2010, an extensive soil sampling regime was put into place. Sampling layout had small difference between plots because, irrigation tape lines with an emitter rate of 2.38 L h-1 emitters were placed 60 cm apart and irrigation tape lines with an emitter rate of 0.72 L h-1 emitters were spaced 46 cm apart (Figure 1). As a control plot, soil samples were taken in surround soil to examine original nutrient distributions prior to swine effluent amendments. 25 Figure 1. Soil Sampling Schematic. Each circle with an “X” indicates a soil core with a depth from 0-90 centimeters (cm) which were not randomly assigned for each rep. Black dots represent emitters along drip tape line. Top right emitter exemplifies emitter in question. RESULTS ANOVA was used to determine if there was significance in the nutrient distributions between the high and low flow emitter rates. Table 1 shows below that for all mobile nutrients, there was only a significant difference at the 15-30, 30-45, and 45-60 cm depths. Difference Between Nutrient Distribution of High vs. Low Emitter Depth (cm) Mobile Nutrients Immobile Nutrients NO3 B SO4 P K Mg Ca Zn Cu Fe 0-15 NS NS NS * * * * NS NS NS 15-30 * * * * * * * NS NS NS 30-45 * * * * * * * NS NS NS 45-60 * * * * * * NS NS NS NS 60-75 NS NS NS * * * NS NS NS NS 75-90 NS NS NS * * * NS NS NS NS Table 1. NS, * Not significant or significantly different at 0.05 respectively 26 Figure 2. Data shows that NO3 - concentrations directly at emitter are higher for the Low Flow. This build up of nutrients in the low flow emitter is due to the low amount of pressure used to exert the nutrients away from the emitter and into the surrounding soil. Boron and SO4 - distributions were similar to the nitrate distributions as stated in Table 1. Figure 3. High flow (left) vs. Low right (right) NO3 - concentrations between emitters at the 45 cm depth. Emitters are represented by black square boxes. The data suggest that there is a “starving” effect occurring between emitters in the low flow while the contours within the high flow are not at steep and there is an overall evening of nutrients throughout the profile. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Depth (cm) NO3 - (mg kg-1) at Emitter Control Low Flow High Flow Emitter Contour Graph 1 24 22 22 20 20 20 20 20 20 18 18 18 18 18 18 16 16 16 16 16 16 18 18 14 14 22 20 16 22 Length (cm) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Width (cm) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 45cm Depth Contour Graph 1 25 25 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 15 15 15 15 15 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 15 15 25 20 10 25 Length (cm) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Width (cm) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 45cm Depth NO3 - (mg kg-1) 27 Figure 4. Data shows that Phosphorus concentrations directly at emitter are higher for the Low Flow. This is due to the low amount of pressure used to exert the nutrients away from the emitter and into the surrounding soil. Potassium, Magnesium and Calcium distributions were similar. P (mg kg-1) Figure 5. High flow (left) vs. Low right (right) Phosphorus concentrations between emitters at the 45 cm depth. Emitters are represented by black square boxes. Nutrient distributions for Phosphorus show that the high flow has a more even distribution while the low flow has steeper contour changes. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Depth (cm) P (mg kg-1) at Emitter Control Low Flow High Flow Emitter Contour Graph 1 30 30 30 32 34 28 28 28 28 28 28 26 26 26 26 26 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 22 22 22 22 20 22 26 26 26 28 28 28 30 30 30 24 32 32 30 26 34 28 32 30 34 Length (cm) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Width (cm) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 45cm Depth Contour Graph 1 50 40 50 40 40 40 30 30 30 30 30 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 10 10 10 30 30 30 20 40 40 40 30 50 40 40 Length (cm) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Width (cm) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 45cm Depth 28 Figure 6. Data shows that Zinc concentrations directly at emitter are higher for the Low Flow. This is due to the low amount of pressure used to exert the nutrients away from the emitter and into the surrounding soil. Copper and Iron distributions were similar. Figure 7. High flow clay % between emitters at the 45 cm depth. Emitters are represented by black square boxes. Clay percentages can be seen to being exerted by emitters and moved towards the center of the profile. This would also cause a sand percentage increase right at the emitters. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Depth (cm) Zn (mg kg-1) at Emitter Control Low Flow Emitter High Flow Contour Graph 1 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 30 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 34 30 33 31 31 31 32 29 31 30 30 29 Length (cm) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Width (cm) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 45cm Depth 29 CONCLUSIONS Nitrate-N concentrations are significantly correlated with depth and distance at the 30, 45, and 60 cm depths. Zinc, Copper, and Iron were not significantly correlated with depth or distance, and Phosphorus and Potassium were significantly correlated at all depths and distances. The data indicates that concentrations between the lower and the higher emitter rate were significantly different at all depths and distances only for the nutrients of Phosphorus, Potassium, and Magnesium. However, the lower emitter rate on the SDI system can help use swine manure as sustainable water and nutrient rich resource for agricultural purposes. The lower emitter rate allows for the nutrients to be distributed more evenly throughout the profile. This project will play a significant role in the future of agriculture, water efficiency, and animal waste management as water resources become a more prevalent issue. 30 Comparison of bleacher herbicides for use in corn Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell Joe Armstrong, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University Introduction In 2010, a study was conducted at the OSU Panhandle Research Station to compare various “bleacher” herbicides for weed control and yield in corn. The bleacher herbicides, also known as HPPD inhibitors, have been shown to provide excellent control of many difficult-to-control weeds, including broadleaf weeds that have developed resistance to other herbicides. Many of the bleacher herbicides can be used as either preemergence or postemergence treatments and are usually tank-mixed with atrazine to further improve weed control. Additionally, the herbicide Integrity® was also evaluated. Integrity is a pre-mix of Sharpen® and Outlook® and is used as a preemergence treatment for grass and broadleaf weed control. Sharpen is typically used with glyphosate to improve control of weeds in burndown applications prior to planting in no-till situations, but can also be used a preemergence treatment ahead of corn to provide soil residual weed control. Results All of the treatments evaluated provided good to excellent control of pigweed and sunflower at 21 days after application. The preemergence only treatments, Trt 1 Corvus and Trt 2 Balance Flexx, were effective at controlling pigweed and sunflower during the evaluation period, but would likely not provide season-long weed control. Capreno, Trts 5 and 6, provided 100% control when applied as a “delayed preemergence” treatment at V2-V4 corn. When combined with Roundup or Ignite, Capreno can control any weeds that are present and provide soil activity into the growing season, often requiring only a single application. Integrity also provided excellent control of pigweed and sunflower at 21 days after application. No crop injury was observed with any of the treatments that were evaluated. To effectively prevent or delay the development of herbicide-resistant weeds, it is necessary to use multiple herbicides and modes of action. Over-reliance on a single herbicide is the quickest way to select for herbicide-resistant weeds. The bleacher herbicides provide excellent weed control and allow use of a new herbicide mode of action. Bleacher herbicides are also available for use in other crops, such as Huskie® in grain sorghum and wheat, and Callisto® and Callisto-containing products in grain sorghum. As always, read the product labels to determine appropriate application timings and use rates. 31 Table 1. Weed control and grain yields for various bleacher herbicides used in corn. Trt Herbicides Rate/acre Application timing % Weed control 21 d after treatment Grain yield bu/acre Pigweed Sunflower 1 Corvus + Aatrex 5 fl oz + 2 pt PRE 98 100 156 2 Balance Flexx + Aatrex 5 fl oz + 2 pt PRE 95 88 144 3 Corvus + Aatrex Laudis + Aatrex 3 fl oz + 2 pt 3 fl oz + 1 pt PRE V5-V6 100 100 107 4 Balance Flexx + Aatrex Laudis + Aatrex 3 fl oz + 2 pt 3 fl oz + 1 pt PRE V5-V6 100 99 141 5 Capreno + Ignite + Aatrex 3 fl oz + 22 fl oz + 2 pt V2-V4 100 100 129 6 Capreno + Roundup + Aatrex 3 fl oz + 22 fl oz + 2 pt V2-V4 100 100 156 7 Lumax Roundup 2.5 qt 22 fl oz PRE V5-V6 98 95 137 8 Bicep II Magnum Callisto + Aatrex 1.6 qt 3 fl oz + 1 pt PRE V5-V6 100 100 141 9 Prequel Roundup 1.66 oz 22 fl oz PRE V5-V6 99 95 129 10 Integrity Roundup 10 fl oz 22 fl oz PRE V5-V6 100 100 144 11 Integrity Roundup 16 fl oz 22 fl oz PRE V5-V6 100 100 126 12 Untreated 0 0 135 Mean 137 CV % 11.4 LSD 26 32 Post Emergent Broadleaf Control in Grain Sorghum Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell In 2010 in a study was initiated to evaluate Huskie, a broadleaf herbicide currently labeled for use in wheat, for its effectiveness in controlling pigweed and velvetleaf in grain sorghum (it is expected to get registration for use in grain sorghum in September of 2011). Huskie is a pre-mix combination of Buctril and pyrasulfotole, a bleacher herbicide. Applications were mad at the V- 5 growth stage, or 15 inch tall grain sorghum, with 6 treatments at each stage, a sequential treatment, and one preemergent treatment (Table 1.) Table 1. List of treatment for post emergent broadleaf control in grain sorghum at OPREC, in 2010 Treatment Number Herbicide Rate Timing 1 Control NA NA 2 Sharpen 2 oz/ac Preemergent 3 and 10 Huskie Atrazine Ammonium Sulfate 13 oz/ac Pt/ac Lb/ac V-5 and 15 inch sorghum 4 and 11 Huskie Atrazine Ammonium Sulfate 16 oz/ac Pt/ac Lb/ac V-5 and 15 inch sorghum 5 and 12 Huskie Atrazine 2,4-D Ester Ammonium Sulfate 16 oz/ac Pt/ac 4 oz/ac Lb/ac V-5 and 15 inch sorghum 6 and 13 Huskie Atrazine Banvel Ammonium Sulfate 16 oz/ac Pt/ac 4 oz/ac Lb/ac V-5 and 15 inch sorghum 7 and 14 Atrazine Buctril 2EC Pt/ac Pt/ac V-5 and 15 inch sorghum 8 and 15 Aim EC 2,4-D NIS .50oz/ac 8 oz/ac .3 pt/ac V-5 and 15 inch sorghum 9 Huskie Atrazine Ammonium Sulfate Huskie Atrazine Ammonium Sulfate 13 oz/ac Pt/ac Lb/ac 13 oz/ac Pt/ac Lb/ac V-5 + 15 inch sorghum 33 Ratings for crop tolerance and weed control were taken on selected dates (Table 2.) Since velvet leaf was the major weed species in all plots it was only one rated. Pigweed was only found in 3 plots therefore no comparisons could be made. Grain was also harvested and yields reported. Table 2. Ratings for crop tolerance and velvet leaf control at selected dates, also grain yield for Huskie post emergent control at OPREC, 2010. Treatment 7/26/2010 8/2/2010 8/9/2010 8/20/2010 Grain Yield bu/ac Injury % Velvet Leaf control % Injury % Velvet Leaf control % Injury % Velvet Leaf control % Injury % Velvet Leaf control % 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 2 0 92 0 97 0 93 0 95 131 3 7 100 0 87 0 100 0 97 147 4 0 100 0 97 0 100 0 93 153 5 7 100 0 93 0 100 0 98 146 6 3 100 0 93 0 100 0 97 149 7 7 88 0 87 0 93 0 97 142 8 40 100 13 80 0 98 0 93 141 9 13 100 47 100 37 100 7 100 137 10 ---- ---- 27 87 13 95 7 92 134 11 ---- ---- 37 90 23 97 13 90 114 12 ---- ---- 10 90 10 90 0 87 131 13 ---- ---- 3 90 3 95 17 98 119 14 ---- ---- 0 63 0 37 0 67 91 15 ---- ---- 70 80 63 90 20 100 120 mean 128 CV% 20.8 L.S.D. 44 Results The crop tolerance for Huskie is good, as can be seen by grain yields (Table 2). Although leaf blotching is observed, it grows out of it and it doesn’t affect yields. As always recommended it is better to control weeds early as possible. Plots sprayed at the V-5 stage had 28 bu/ac yield increase when compared to plots sprayed at 15 inch sorghum height. A large part of the yield difference may be attributed to the reduced weed control for the Atrazine/Buctril treatment at the 15 inch stage, but all yields were lower for later applications. Larger weeds are generally more difficult to control with all herbicides. Although the Huskie shows excellent control of velvet leaf at a later application, the highest yields were obtained when applications were made at the V-5 stage. 34 Post Emergent Grass Control in Grain Sorghum Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell Joe Armstrong, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University In 2010 in conjunction with DuPont chemical company two grain sorghum inbred lines were planted that were tolerant to post emergent grass control herbicides. One inbred was tolerant to ALS inhibitor herbicides and will have the trade name Inzen Z™. The other inbred is tolerant to “fop” herbicides from the ACCase herbicides inhibitor mode of action, such as Assure II (active ingredient: quizalofop) and will have the trade name Inzen AII™. These resistance traits were breed into sorghum from wild relatives at Kansas State University, making them non-genetically modified organisms (non-GMO). Since the resistance came from wild relatives and could potentially move from the grain sorghum back to johnsongrass and shattercane, best management practices will be CRITICAL for the long-term viability of the technology. The present timetable for release for Inzen AII is a limited supply of seed in 2011 with adequate seed supplies in 2012. The Inzen Z launch date has been delayed until 2015. In 2010 both inbreds were planted to evaluate and demonstrate tolerance to the herbicides. The Inzen Z herbicide formulation has not been determined as of yet, but we can report that the inbred is tolerant to the grass control herbicide. The Inzen AII rate most likely will be 8 oz/ac of Assure II and, as with the Inzen Z trait the inbred is tolerant to Assure II. The inbred is not tolerant to the “dim” herbicides of the ACCase inhibitor mode of action such as Select Max (active ingredient clethodim). In addition to excellent tolerance in the inbred lines, control of grass weeds was very good with the postemergence herbicide treatments. 35 TIMING OF DRY-LAND STRIP-TILLAGE FOR GRAIN SORHUM PRODUCTION IN THE HIGH PLAINS Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell With the growing interest in strip-till throughout the high plains, a study was initiated in the fall of 2003 to determine if timing of strip-till would affect yield of dry-land grain sorghum. After three years it appeared that strip-till reduced grain yields when compared to no-till. But one question that was not answered in the previous study was would strip-tilling just before planting reduce yields. Therefore in the summer of 2007 a new study with four dates of strip-tilling was initiated. The dates were immediately after wheat harvest, fall, spring, and on the same day as planting. The immediately after harvest date was selected for two reasons. It is generally a good time for producers to have time do tillage and the chance to receive rainfall and replenish the tilled strips with moisture. The fall date was selected due to data from the previous study, in 2005 yield for fall strip-till was same as no-till (Table 1). This can be explained by the strip-tillage having been done before a significant rainfall event in November of 2004. With the amount of rainfall received (3.51 inches) the tillage strips were replenished with moisture before planting, therefore no reduction in grain yields was observed. The spring date was selected because again it is time when producers can do tillage work. One of the concerns many producers have with no-till is that nitrogen (N) is tied-up in the crop residue when surface applied or volatilized. Nitrogen tie-up and volatilization is greatly reduced with strip-till due to the N being placed below (generally 3 – 8 inches) seeding depth. Many irrigated producers in the region are doing strip-till from late fall to early spring. This original study was designed to determine what the affect of strip-till (no fertilizer applied) at different dates would have on grain sorghum yield. In the new study all fertilizer in the strip-till treatments is applied with the strip-till unit, and only the no-till fertilizer is applied on the surface. Grain sorghum was selected as the crop to be grown, because it is the most widely grown summer row crop in the region. Plots were four rows wide by 50 foot long and strip-tilled with an Orthman four-row one-tripper at a depth of 7 inches. 36 Table 1. Grain sorghum yield (bu/ac) for selected years from a timing of dry-land strip-till experiment at OPREC. Timing 2004 2005 2006 Two-year No-till 62.5 a† 81.7 a 80.1 a 74.8 a March (spring) 47.6 b 77.6 a 54.1 b 59.1 b September (fall) 45.5 b 66.9 a 56.6 b 57.9 b January 42.1 b November 37.9 b †Yields with same letter not significantly different Results No data was collected in 2009 due to late planting. Climate conditions varied between 2008 and 2010 as seen by the difference in yields (Table 2). The late winter and spring of 2010 had higher than normal rainfall. The 6.39 inches of precipitation received was 3.04 inches more than the long-term average. This higher precipitation may have accounted for no difference in yields between treatments in 2010. Although no differences were observed, yields for strip-till after the preceding wheat harvest and at planting are the highest when looking at two-year data. No difference in test weight has been observed in either year (data not reported). Future work will look more at N rates of strip-till compared to no-till. Planting date may also be affected, therefore strip-till and no-till will be compared looking at a very late April planting date. Table 2. Grain sorghum yield (bu/ac) for 2008 timing of dry-land strip-till experiment at OPREC. Strip-till Timing 2008 2010 Two-year After harvest 48.1 a 78 a 63 a At planting 50.7 a 74 a 63 a No-till 44.2 a 77 a 60 a Fall 45.4 a 70 a 58 a Spring 31.8 b 77 a 55 a Yields with same letter not significantly different 37 NO-TILL VS MINIMUM-TILL DRY-LAND CROP ROTATIONS Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell A study was initiated in 1999 to evaluate four different dry-land cropping rotations and two tillage systems for their long-term productivity in the panhandle region. Rotations evaluated include Wheat-Sorghum-Fallow (WSF), Wheat-Corn-Fallow (WCF), Wheat-Soybean-Fallow (WBF), and Continuous Sorghum (CS). Soybean and corn were not successful in the first five years of the study; therefore in 2004 cotton replaced soybean and sunflower replaced corn in the rotation, also continuous sorghum was replaced with a grain sorghum-sunflower (SF) rotation. Starting in 2010 the study was changed again and only sorghum was grown. Tillage systems include no-till and minimum tillage. Two maturity classifications were used with all summer crops in the rotations until 2001, at which time all summer crops were planted with single maturity hybrids or varieties. Most dry-land producers in the panhandle region utilize the WSF rotation. Other rotations would allow producers flexibility in planting, weed management, insect management, and marketing. Results Climate Due to climate condition and other factors obtaining results from the rotations other than the WSF has been difficult, therefore only the WSF will be reported. Precipitation since 1999 has been erratic for the panhandle region with yearly totals ranging from a low of 12.0 inches in 2007 to a high of 20.31 in 2004. Even in 2008 the yearly total of 18.27 inches was above the long-term mean of 17.89 inches, although most of the rainfall 14.81 inches was received after July 1. The mean rainfall for the last eleven summer growing seasons (June, July, and August) of 6.55 is 1.17 inches below the long term mean (Table 1). Four of the nine years have been 3 inches or more below the long term mean therefore grain sorghum yields have been affected. Between drought and hail storms three wheat crops have failed in the duration of the study. In 2002 rainfall was not received in time to activate the preemergent herbicide and no sorghum was harvested, this was the only time it has happened. 38 Table 1. Summer growing season precipitation at OPREC Month 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Long-term mean June 2.29 0.61 1.32 5.26 3.82 2.01 2.34 1.62 1.51 1.74 3.16 2.86 July 0.76 0.00 2.52 1.87 2.43 1.40 2.05 2.00 3.77 2.58 1.22 2.58 August 1.09 0.66 0.27 1.19 2.87 3.21 4.06 0.26 5.64 1.36 5.42 2.28 Total 4.14 1.27 4.11 8.32 9.12 6.62 8.45 3.88 10.7 5.68 9.80 7.72 Wheat No wheat was harvested in 2002 and 2008 due to drought, and 2006 due to a hail storm. This report will focus on wheat yields following grain sorghum, because in some years other crops never emerged or were lost to other factors. Fig. 1. Wheat grain yields (bu/ac) from WSF in dry-land tillage and crop rotation study at OPREC. Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Wheat yield (bu/ac) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 No-till Conv-till Neither tillage system produced, or will produce grain when drought occurs and no crops are harvested as in 2002 and 2008 (Figure 1). In three of the seven years that wheat was harvested grain yields were significantly higher for no-till (Fig. 1) with an average increase of 14 bu/ac. In 2010 yields for conventional tillage were significantly higher than no-till for the first time. In years that no difference was observed yields have been the same. In research conducted by 39 Kansas State University, they have shown a constitent increase in grain yield for no-till that hasn’t yet been observed in this study. Grain Sorghum As with wheat when no precipitation is received one tillage system makes no difference as in 2002 when no sorghum was harvested (Fig. 2). Figure 2. Grain yields of grain sorghum (bu/ac) for dry-land tillage and crop rotation study at OPREC. Year 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Yield (bu/ac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 No-till Conventional till Since 2004, grain sorghum yields have been significantly higher for no-till than conventional tillage (Table 3). This increase in sorghum grain yields was in year 6 or the third time through the rotation. This yield difference was also observed and reported by researchers at Kansas State University at the Tribune location. In 2004, 2006, and 2007 no-till grain yields were double of those for minimum tillage. Part of the higher grain yield in 2006 can be attributed to higher test weights for no-till (Table 4). The delayed maturity of minimum till grain sorghum adversely affected the test weights. In 2008 with delayed planting, maturity selection was too long for the year with the cooler conditions that existed. The mean high temperatures in 2008 for July and August were 3 and 9 Fo cooler than in 2007 at 90 and 87 Fo respectively. These cooler temperatures didn’t allow for maturity of the grain sorghum and reduced yields. In hybrid 40 performance trial near this study the highest yields 75 bu/ac were obtained with shorter season hybrids than was planted in this study. Again in 2009 planting was delayed until late June due to lack of soil moisture, and with the lower than normal rainfall test weights were affected although not significantly. In all other years no difference in test weight was observed between tillage treatments, although yields for no-till were higher than minimum till. Planting was delayed in 2004 due to a lack of soil moisture; therefore, an early maturity sorghum was utilized instead of the normal medium maturity. Although test weights are not significantly different for each year, when all years are considered no-till is has a significantly higher test weight than doe’s minimum tillage. Table 3. Yields of grain sorghum (bu/ac) for dry-land tillage and crop rotation study at OPREC. Tillage 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Seven-year No-till 54.8 53.9 73.7 41.5 34.5 86.4 86.3 61.6 Minimum till 28.0 38.3 35.6 17.4 22.3 69.0 67.0 40.8 Mean 42.3 46.2 53.5 29.5 28.4 77.7 76.7 51.2 CV % 6.4 13.6 19.0 8.0 55.3 1.2 4.1 17.9 L.S.D. 6.1 NS 24.2 8.3 NS 10.9 10.9 5.9 Table 4. Test weight of grain sorghum (lb/bu) for dry-land tillage and crop rotation study at OPREC. Tillage 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Seven-year No-till 56.5 57.8 56.8 57.9 50.9 57.4 59.7 56.7 Minimum till 55.8 56.9 49.6 57.9 49.5 55.4 58.1 54.8 Mean 56.3 57.2 53.1 57.9 50.2 56.4 58.9 55.8 CV % 0.8 1.6 4.2 0.4 2.3 3.0 1.9 3.6 L.S.D. NS NS 5.0 NS NS NS NS 1.3 41 DRY-LAND NO-TILL CROPPING INTENSITY STUDY Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell In the fall of 2010 a study was initiated to determine if increasing cropping intensity for rainfed no-till rotations is possible. Previous work at OPREC has shown significantly higher yields for no-till grain sorghum in the wheat-sorghum-fallow rotation (WSF) when compared to minimum tillage. Grain yields for wheat have been inconsistent with no-till and minimum tillage each having significantly higher yields in some years. With no-till generally showing an increase in yields it was determined to see if cropping intensity would affect the yield of grain sorghum. The intensity and timing of selected crops will alter fallow periods from short fallow periods during the winter (when evaporation is least) to the long term standard of approximately 14 months. Shifting the fallow period may allow more intense rotations without affecting yields of grain sorghum. The rotations are wheat-fallow-wheat (WFW) long term standard, wheat-grain sorghum-fallow (WSF) present standard, wheat-double crop millet-grain sorghum-safflower- wheat (WMSSa) most intense rotation, wheat-double crop sesame-sorghum-millet-wheat (WSeSMW), wheat-double crop millet-sorghum-wheat (WMSW), wheat-sorghum-safflower- wheat (WSSaW), and continuous wheat (CW). Plots are 30 ft X 30 ft and will be planted with appropriate equipment and harvested with Massey 8XP plot combine. Crops were selected to increase intensity based on when they could be planted and harvested. Proso millet was selected because it could be planted from mid May till late July. So it could be used early or as a double crop. Sesame was selected because it would work as a double crop following wheat, and is a crop that is drought tolerant and flowers best when temperatures are warm. Safflower was selected because it could be planted in late March and harvested in early August, therefore wheat could be planted following harvest. Also Safflower is a broadleaf crop which may help with weed control. There are other crops that would work as either hay crops or as a cover crop, these were selected because grain could be harvested and yields established. Results The rotations are just being established, it will take a couple of years to collect any data. 42 Expanding Production Area and Alternative Energy Crop Market of Proso Millet for Water Deficient Lands Kevin Larson and Jeffrey Tranel, Plainsman Research Center, Walsh Rick Kochenower, Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Goodwell Proso millet is a low water-use, low input crop. It is an ideal crop for water deficient lands, such as contract-expired CRP lands. Expanding the production area of proso millet will require development of a new end-use market. Currently, proso millet is used almost exclusively for birdseed. The birdseed market is limited and expansion is improbable. The feed grain market with recent exponential growth is ethanol. Most ethanol production in the United States is from corn. If proso millet replaces some of the corn as an ethanol feedstock, expansion of proso millet production would occur. The purpose of this study is two-fold: 1) to determine if proso millet is viable crop outside of its traditional production area and 2) to determine if proso millet is a viable ethanol crop. If our objectives for proso millet are successful, production area expansion (into new dryland areas) and market expansion (as a new ethanol feedstock) will be realized. Material and Methods for 2009 We planted proso millet at two sites, the Plainsman Research Center at Walsh, Colorado and the Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center at Goodwell, Oklahoma. We planted four proso millet cultivars at four incremental planting dates throughout July 2009. Three of the cultivars were standard starch cultivars: Huntsman, Sunrise, and Horizon. The fourth cultivar was a waxy starch cultivar, Plateau. The four planting dates at Walsh were: PD1, July 1; PD2, July 10; PD3, July 20; and PD4, July 31, 2009. The four planting dates at Goodwell were: PD1, July 7; PD2, July 14; PD3, July 21; and PD4, July 28, 2009. The experimental designs were split-plots with planting dates as the main plot and cultivars as the subplots with four replications. The plot size at Walsh was 10 ft. by 50 ft. (harvested 10 ft. by 44 ft.). The plot size at Goodwell was 5 ft. by 35 ft. (harvested 5 ft. by 30 ft.). Both sites were irrigated to assure seed germination. All cultivars and planting dates were seeded at 15 lb/a. Nitrogen was the only fertilizer applied, 50 lb/a at Walsh and 100 lb/a at Goodwell. For weed control at Walsh, the entire site had a preplant application of glyphosate 24 oz/a and 2,4-D ester 0.5 lb/a, and a post emergence application of dicamba 4 oz/a and 2,4-D amine 0.38 lb/a. For weed control at Goodwell, the entire site had a preplant application of atrazine 1.0 lb/a, and no post emergence herbicides were applied. Both sites were harvested with a self-propelled combines equipped with conventional grain heads. For both sites at harvest, we recorded grain yield, test weight, and seed moisture. The harvest dates at Walsh were: PD1, September 29; PD2, October 16; PD3 and PD4, October 17. The harvest dates at Goodwell were: PD1, September 14 and PD3 October 19. At Goodwell, the July 14 planting date (PD2) did not establish an adequate stand and was eliminated from the study, and the July 28 planting date (PD4) was not harvested because of excessive rainfall. To determine ethanol production, grain samples (7 lb of cleaned seed) were milled three times with a grain mill set at 0.008 in. The milled grain was diluted with water (20 gal/bu). The mash was boiled and alpha amylase was added to liquefy it. The mash was cooled and alpha amylase was again added to breakdown the starches into dextrins. The mash was further cooled and gluco amylase was added to convert the dextrins into sugars. The temperature of the mash 43 was further lowered, yeast was added, and the mash was allowed to ferment for five days in an airlocked container. After fermentation was completed, the beer in the mash was pressed out with a fruit press. To extract the remaining beer, water was added and the dilute beer was pressed (this step was repeated twice). The remaining wet distillers grain was oven dried. The alcohol in the beer was distilled with a stainless steel still with a refractation column. Material and Methods for 2010 All cultural practices in 2010 were similar to the cultural practices we used in 2009, except we planted the proso millet cultivars at four monthly planting dates from May to August. The four planting dates at Walsh were: PD1, May 12; PD2, June 3; PD3, July 2; and PD4, August 2, 2010. The four planting dates at Goodwell were in early May, June, July, and the August planting date was not planted due to bird damage in the previous planting dates. The Goodwell site was not harvested because of severe bird damage. Grain yield, test weight, seed moisture, plant height, and seed shattering measurements were recorded at harvest for Walsh. The harvest dates at Walsh were: PD1, August 30; PD2, August 30; PD3, September 21; and PD4, November 5. Results for 2009 The first planting dates at both sites produced the highest average grain yield, 1645 lb/a at Walsh and 1450 lb/a at Goodwell (Tables 1 and 2). The planting date ranking for grain yield at Walsh was: PD1>>PD2>PD3=PD4 (Table 3). The planting date ranking at Goodwell was PD1>PD3 (Table 4). Huntsman produced the highest yield at all harvested planting dates at both sites, although Huntsman was not significantly different than Sunrise at Walsh, and Huntsman only significantly out yielded Plateau at Goodwell. Grain yield ranking of the four cultivars was consistent for all four planting dates at Walsh: Huntsman=Sunrise>Horizon>Plateau (Table 3 and Figure 1). The relative ranking of the four cultivars for the two harvested planting dates at Goodwell was: Huntsman>Sunrise=Horizon>Plateau, although the only significant difference was between Huntsman and Plateau (Table 4 and Figure 3). At both sites, the first planting date produced the highest ethanol production, 59.5 gal/a for Walsh and 50.0 gal/a for Goodwell (Tables 3 and 4). The ethanol production rankings for the planting dates were: PD1>>PD2>PD3=PD4 at Walsh, and PD1>PD3 at Goodwell. These planting date ethanol production rankings have the same order and magnitude as the grain yield rankings. At both sites, Huntsman had the highest ethanol production at each planting date (Tables 1 and 2) and highest overall production, 36.6 gal/a for Walsh and 56.8 gal/a for Goodwell. Plateau produced the highest per bushel ethanol yield for each planting date at Walsh. Horizon had the highest overall ethanol yield at Goodwell with 1.98 gal/bu, and Plateau had the highest overall ethanol yield at Walsh with 2.11 gal/bu. Test weights significantly decreased with later planting dates at Walsh (Table 3 and Figure 2), but increased, although not significantly, between the two harvested planting dates (PD1 and PD3) at Goodwell (Table 4 and Figure 3). Huntsman had the highest overall test weight at both sites, 56.9 lb/bu at Goodwell and 54.6 lb/bu at Walsh. Plant height consistently decreased with later planting dates at Walsh (Table 1). The plant height ranking from tallest to shortest was: Huntsman, Sunrise, Horizon, and Plateau. At Walsh, date to 50% heading averaged 33 days after planting (DAP) for all planting dates and cultivars (Table 1). With later planting dates, date of 50% heading became increasingly earlier for all cultivars, except Plateau. Plateau was the earliest maturing cultivar 44 tested and its date to 50% heading remained at 30 to 31 DAP for the first three planting dates then dropped to 29 DAP at the last planting date. Date to 80% maturity, when the crop was ready for swathing, averaged 61 DAP for all planting dates and cultivars. Like heading, date to 80% maturity was earlier with later planting dates for all cultivars, except Plateau. Date of maturity of Plateau remained 58 to 59 DAP for all four planting dates. Results for 2010 All the yield results for 2010 are from the Walsh site only, because the Goodwell site was lost to bird damage. At Walsh, the June planting date had the highest grain yield of 1891 lb/a, but it was not significantly higher than the July planting date with 1783 lb/a (Table 6 and Fig. 4). The May and June plantings dates were significantly higher than the July planting date, and the July planting date was significantly higher than the August planting date. The grain yield ranking for the planting dates was PD2=PD1>>PD3>>PD4. Huntsman had the single highest yield of 2170 lb/a with the June planting date, although it was not significantly different from Sunrise, which had the second highest yield of 2045 lb/a with the May planting date (Table 5). Huntsman and Sunrise produced significantly higher yield than Plateau and Horizon. The yield ranking for the cultivars was Huntsman=Sunrise>Plateau=Horizon. The average test weight for the July planting was significantly higher than May and August planting dates, but it was not significantly higher than the June planting date (Table 6 and Fig. 5). The test weight ranking for the planting dates was PD3=PD2>PD4>PD1. Test weight for PD4 was based solely on Huntsman because there was insufficient plot yield from the other three cultivars for test weight measurements. The highest test weight of 56.4 lb/bu occurred with Huntsman at the July planting date, and the lowest test weight was 50.9 lb/bu with Plateau at the May planting date (Table 5). Huntsman had the highest test weight, 55.7 lb/bu. The test weight of Huntsman was significantly higher than Sunrise and Horizon, which were significantly higher than Plateau. The test weight ranking for the cultivars was Huntsman>Sunrise=Horizon>Plateau. Plant height remained relatively constant at about 25 in. for the first three planting date, but it was only half as high for the last planting date (Table 5). Huntsman was the tallest cultivar; it was an inch taller than the second tallest cultivar, Sunrise, in three of the four planting dates. It took an average of 5 to 8 days longer for the cultivars planted in May to reach 50% heading and 80% maturity than the other three planting dates (Table 5). The cultivars in the July planting date had the fewest days to heading and maturity. Huntsman required an average of an extra day more than Sunrise to reach 50% heading and 80% maturity. We have not yet performed the fermentations and distillations on the 2010 crop needed for ethanol analyses. Ethanol analysis for the 2010 crop will be conducted later this winter. For later reports, we will include ethanol yield and ethanol production after we perform the necessary fermentations and distillations. Discussion In 2009, we evaluated only July planting dates for proso millet production. The first planting dates (July 1 for Walsh and July 7 for Goodwell) produced the highest grain yield and ethanol production (Tables 3 and 4). There was a significant yield decrease between the July 1 and July 10 planting dates at Walsh (990 lb/a yield drop), and the yield difference between the two harvested planting dates (July 7 and July 21) at Goodwell of 267 lb/a was also significant. 45 This suggests that, when planting in July, early July planting is critical for high yields at Walsh and Goodwell, but with the small yield decrease, the planting window maybe longer at Goodwell. Highest ethanol production corresponded with highest grain yield. Huntsman planted in early July had the highest grain yield and ethanol production at both Walsh and Goodland (Tables 1 and 2). Test weights decreased significantly with later planting dates at Walsh, but they actually increased at Goodwell, although the test weight increase was not significant. Moreover, at Walsh, Plateau consistently had the lowest test weight for all four planting dates; however, Plateau had the highest per bushel ethanol yield. Delayed planting, past early July, did not appear to have the severe yield and test weight penalty at Goodwell as it did at Walsh. Nonetheless, the highest grain yield and ethanol production averages were from the first planting dates at both sites. The 2010 yield results were only from the Walsh site. Huntsman at the June 3 planting date had the single highest yield of 2170 lb/a (Table 5). The optimum planting date for Huntsman was late May (Fig. 4). We have yet to perform ethanol analysis on grain samples harvested in 2010, but ethanol analysis from 2009 indicates that high ethanol production corresponded with high grain yield. Therefore, Huntsman planted in late May/early June may produce the highest ethanol production. After we identify the optimum ethanol production window for the highest ethanol producing cultivar, we will develop crop enterprise budgets for proso millet as an ethanol crop and compare it to proso millet as a birdseed crop. 46 Table 1.--Proso Millet: Planting Dates and Cultivars, Walsh, CO, 2009. _____________________________________________________________________ Total Seed Test Ethanol Ethanol Plant 50% 80% Cultivar Yield Weight Yield Production Height Heading Maturity _____________________________________________________________________ lb/a lb/bu gal/bu gal/a in DAP DAP PD1 - July 1 Huntsman 2137 56.5 2.04 77.8 27 39 66 Sunrise 1956 56.3 1.96 68.5 26 38 65 Horizon 1411 56.0 2.03 51.1 24 36 64 Plateau 1076 53.5 2.10 40.4 21 30 58 PD1 Average 1645 55.6 2.03 59.5 25 36 63 PD2 - July 10 Huntsman 981 55.8 2.04 35.7 21 36 63 Sunrise 940 54.5 2.04 34.2 20 35 62 Horizon 490 54.4 2.07 18.1 19 34 61 Plateau 208 54.1 2.10 7.8 16 30 58 PD2 Average 655 54.7 2.06 24.0 19 34 61 PD3 - July 20 Huntsman 429 54.1 2.08 15.9 18 34 62 Sunrise 399 53.9 2.01 14.3 16 34 62 Horizon 139 55.0 2.08 5.2 16 33 61 Plateau 151 53.5 2.18 5.9 13 31 59 PD3 Average 280 54.1 2.09 10.3 16 33 61 PD4 - July 31 Huntsman 365 51.9 2.00 13.0 16 32 59 Sunrise 316 51.5 1.94 10.9 14 32 59 Horizon 229 51.3 2.06 8.4 15 30 58 Plateau 201 50.7 2.07 7.4 12 29 58 PD4 Average 278 51.4 2.02 10.0 14 31 59 _____________________________________________________________________ Average 714 53.9 18 33 61 LSD 0.05 272.1 0.94 _____________________________________________________________________ Harvested: PD1, Sept. 29; PD2, Oct. 16; PD3, Oct. 17; PD3, Oct. 17, 2009. DAP is days after planting. Seed yields adjusted to 13% seed moisture content. Ethanol Production is 100% ethanol. 47 Table 2.-Proso Millet Planting Dates and Cultivars, Seed Yield and Ethanol Yield at Goodwell, OK, 2009. ____________________________________________________________________ -----------PD1 - July 7----------- -----------PD3 - July 21---------- Total Total Seed Test Ethanol Ethanol Seed Test Ethanol Ethanol Cultivar Yield Weight Yield Prod. Yield Weight Yield Prod. ____________________________________________________________________ lb/a lb/bu gal/bu gal/a lb/a lb/bu gal/bu gal/a Huntsman 1686 56.4 1.95 58.7 1558 57.3 1.97 54.8 Sunrise 1498 54.8 1.88 50.3 1065 57.6 2.03 38.6 Horizon 1450 55.4 1.97 51.0 1234 55.5 1.98 43.6 Plateau 1168 52.4 1.91 39.8 873 54.7 1.98 30.9 ____________________________________________________________________ Mean 1450 54.8 1.93 50.0 1183 56.3 1.99 42.0 LSD 0.05 NS NS NS NS CV % 23 3 27 3 ____________________________________________________________________ Seed Yield is adjusted to 13.0% seed moisture content. Ethanol Production is 100% ethanol. 48 Table 3.--Proso Millet Planting Dates and Cultivar Summary at Walsh, 2009. ________________________________________________________________ Total Ethanol Seed Ethanol Test Seed Production Yield Yield Weight Moisture ________________________________________________________________ gal/a lb/a gal/bu lb/bu % Planting Date PD1 - July 1 59.5 1645 a 2.03 55.6 a 13.0 a PD2 - July 10 24.0 655 b 2.06 54.7 b 14.4 b PD3 - July 20 10.3 280 c 2.09 53.9 c 14.7 b PD4 - July 31 10.0 278 c 2.02 51.3 d 17.0 c PD LSD 0.05 160.8 0.44 0.35 Cultivar Huntsman 35.6 978 a 2.04 54.6 a 14.8 a Sunrise 32.0 903 a 1.99 54.0 b 14.8 a Horizon 20.7 567 b 2.06 53.9 b 14.7 a Plateau 15.4 409 c 2.11 53.0 c 14.8 a Cultivar LSD 0.05 135.2 0.49 0.37 ________________________________________________________________ Average 26.0 715 2.05 53.9 14.8 ________________________________________________________________ Seed Yield is adjusted to 13% seed moisture content. Ethanol is adjusted to 100% alcohol. 49 Table 4.--Proso Millet Planting Dates and Cultivar Summary at Goodwell, 2009 _________________________________________________________________ Total Ethanol Seed Ethanol Test Seed Production Yield Yield Weight Moisture _________________________________________________________________ gal/a lb/a gal/bu lb/bu % Planting Date PD1 - July 7 50.0 1450 a 1.93 54.7 b 13.8 a PD3 - July 21 42.0 1183 b 1.99 56.3 a 12.9 a PD LSD 0.05 91.2 2.31 2.33 Cultivar Huntsman 56.8 1622 a 1.96 56.9 a 13.8 a Sunrise 44.5 1282 ab 1.96 56.3 a 13.5 a Horizon 47.3 1342 ab 1.98 55.4 ab 13.3 a Plateau 35.4 1021 b 1.95 53.5 b 12.8 a Cultivar LSD 0.05 354.0 1.97 1.88 _________________________________________________________________ Average 46.0 1317 1.96 55.5 13.4 _________________________________________________________________ Seed Yield is adjusted to 13% seed moisture content. 50 Fig. 1. Seed yield of proso millet planting dates and cultivars for ethanol production study at Walsh, CO, 2009. The planting dates were: PD1, July 1; PD2, July 10; PD3, July 20; and PD4, July 31. The cultivars were: Huntsman, Sunrise, Horizon, and Plateau. All planting dates and cultivars were seeded at 15 lb/a. Harvest dates were: PD1, September 29; PD2, October 16; PD3 and PD4, October 17. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Jul 01 Jul 10 Jul 20 Jul 31 Seed Yield (lb/a @ 13% MC) Planting Date Proso Millet, Planting Date and Cultivar Walsh, 2009 Huntsman Sunrise Horizon Plateau 51 Fig. 2. Test weight of proso millet planting dates and cultivars for ethanol production study at Walsh, CO, 2009. The planting dates were: PD1, July 1; PD2, July 10; PD3, July 20; and PD4, July 31. The cultivars were: Huntsman, Sunrise, Horizon, and Plateau. All planting dates and cultivars were seeded at 15 lb/a. Harvest dates were: PD1, September 29; PD2, October 16; PD3 and PD4, October 17. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Jul 01 Jul 10 Jul 20 Jul 31 Test Weight (lb/bu) Planting Date Proso Millet, Planting Date and Cultivar Walsh, 2009 Huntsman Sunrise Horizon Plateau 52 Fig. 3. Seed yield and test weight of proso millet planting dates and cultivars for ethanol production study at Goodwell, OK, 2009. The harvested planting dates were: PD1, July 7; and PD3, July 21, 2009. The cultivars were: Huntsman, Sunrise, Horizon, and Plateau. All planting dates and cultivars were seeded at 15 lb/a. Harvest dates were: PD1, September 14; and PD3, October 19. Seed yield is adjusted to 13.0% seed moisture content. 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 PD1-July 7 PD2-July 21 Test Weight (lb/bu) Seed Yield (lb/a) Planting Date Proso Millet Planting Dates and Cultivars Seed Yield and Test Weight, Goodwell, OK, 2009 Huntsman Yield Sunrise Yield Horizon Yield Plateau Yield Huntsman TW Sunrise TW Horizon TW Plateau TW 53 Table 5.--Proso Millet: Planting Dates and Cultivars, Walsh, CO, 2010. __________________________________________________________________ Seed Test Plant 50% 80% Cultivar Yield Weight Moisture Shattering Height Heading Maturity __________________________________________________________________ lb/a lb/bu % % in DAP DAP PD1 - May 12 Huntsman 2101 54.9 14.0 15.0 26 54 87 Sunrise 2045 54.4 13.7 12.5 25 53 86 Horizon 1466 53.7 14.3 12.5 22 51 84 Plateau 1519 50.9 14.4 9.0 22 47 80 PD1 Average 1783 53.5 14.1 12.3 24 51 84 PD2 - June 3 Huntsman 2170 56.0 16.6 5.0 29 47 78 Sunrise 1985 55.1 16.4 3.5 28 46 77 Horizon 1717 55.5 14.9 5.5 25 44 75 Plateau 1692 51.9 14.6 4.0 23 40 73 PD2 Average 1891 54.6 15.6 4.5 26 44 76 PD3 - July 2 Huntsman 1126 56.4 13.6 4.0 26 38 66 Sunrise 1143 55.4 14.0 3.0 25 38 65 Horizon 766 55.1 14.2 1.5 22 36 62 Plateau 926 53.5 13.9 3.0 21 32 62 PD3 Average 990 55.1 13.9 2.9 24 36 64 PD4 - Aug. 2 Huntsman 79 54.3 13.7 0.0 12 49 77 Sunrise 40 -- -- 0.0 13 48 76 Horizon 17 -- -- 0.0 11 45 76 Plateau 30 -- -- 0.0 11 43 75 PD4 Average 42 54.3 13.7 0.0 12 46 76 __________________________________________________________________ Average 1177 54.4 14.3 4.9 22 44 75 LSD 0.05 221.1 0.86 0.44 2.12 __________________________________________________________________ Harvested: PD1, Aug. 30; PD2, Aug. 30; PD3, Sep. 21; PD4, Nov. 5, 2010. DAP is days after planting. Seed yields adjusted to 13% seed moisture content. 54 Table 6.--Proso Millet Planting Dates and Cultivar Summary at Walsh, 2010. _______________________________________________ Seed Test Seed Yield Weight Moisture _______________________________________________ lb/a lb/bu % Planting Date PD1 - May 12 1783 a 53.5 c 14.1 b PD2 - June 3 1891 a 54.6 ab 15.6 a PD3 - July 2 990 b 55.1 a 13.9 bc PD4 - August 2 42 c 54.3 b 13.7 c PD LSD 0.05 134.6 0.71 0.37 Cultivar Huntsman 1369 a 55.7 a 14.7 a Sunrise 1303 a 55.0 b 14.7 a Horizon 991 b 54.8 b 14.5 ab Plateau 1042 b 52.1 c 14.3 b Cultivar LSD 0.05 113.5 0.45 0.23 _______________________________________________ Average 1177 54.4 14.3 _______________________________________________ Seed Yield is adjusted to 13% seed moisture content. PD4 test weight and seed moisture of Huntsman only. 55 Fig. 4. Seed yield of proso millet planting dates and cultivars for ethanol production study at Walsh, CO, 2010. The planting dates were: PD1, May 12; PD2, June 3; PD3, July 2; and PD4, August 2. The cultivars were: Huntsman, Sunrise, Horizon, and Plateau. All planting dates and cultivars were seeded at 15 lb/a. Harvest dates were: PD1, August 30; PD2, August 30; PD3, September 21; and PD4, November 5. y = -279x2 + 684x + 1752 R2 = 0.979 Huntsman Sunrise y = -261x2 + 618x + 1714 R2 = 0.995 Horizon y = -250x2 + 720x + 1066 R2 = 0.944 Plateau y = -267x2 + 813x + 1014 R2 = 0.981 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 May 12 Jun 3 Jul 2 Aug 2 Grain Yield (lb/a @ 13% MC) Planting Date Proso Millet, Planting Date and Cultivar Grain Yield, Walsh 2010 Huntsman Sunrise Horizon Plateau Huntsman Sunrise Horizon Plateau 56 Fig. 5. Test weight of proso millet planting dates and cultivars for ethanol production study at Walsh, CO, 2010. The planting dates were: PD1, May 12; PD2, June 3; PD3, July 2; and PD4, August 2. The cultivars were: Huntsman, Sunrise, Horizon, and Plateau. All planting dates and cultivars were seeded at 15 lb/a. Harvest dates were: PD1, August 30; PD2, August 30; PD3, September 21; and PD4, November 5. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 May 12 Jun 3 Jul 2 Aug 2 Test Weight (lb/bu) Planting Date Proso Millet, Planting Date and Cultivar Test Weight, Walsh 2010 Huntsman Sunrise Horizon Plateau 57 MITIGATION AND REMEDIATION OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE AND AMMONIA EMISSIONS FROM SWINE PRODUCTION FACILITIES Kyle Blankenship, J. Clemn Turner, and Jeff Hattey – Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Scott Carter, Animal Sciences Department INTRODUCTION In recent years, the number of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) has increased within the United States to a level where CAFOs now produce approximately 40% of U.S. livestock. The reduction of costs in feed, facility management, transportation and labor has caused animal production facilities to favor this scheme of management. However, residents in communities that are in close proximity to CAFOs are concerned about their health, as well as the environment, due to the quantity of malodorous compounds, bacteria, fungi, and endotoxins that these facilities release. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and United States Department of Agriculture are dedicated to regulating animal feeding operations and the pollutants they emit. As CAFOs operators attempt to decrease their emissions effectively and efficiently, the use of biofiltration in these facilities has been under research. Biofiltration systems contain biologically active media that react with volatile organic compounds and inorganic air toxins while relying on microbial catabolic reactions for waste compounds degradation to improve exflow air quality. The greatest concentration of swine raised in CAFOs is in Oklahoma, Arkansas, North Carolina, northern Iowa and southern Minnesota (Copeland, 2007). The high concentration of animals in a small geographic area has resulted in noticeable emissions of airborne pollutants; these airborne emissions in large enough quantity can have a detrimental effect on the environment and human health, and can lead to decreased production and increased costs. To protect the surrounding population as well as the swine, the well known biofiltration technology was applied to mitigate and remediate emissions from hazardous concentrations from livestock (pig) buildings. However, little is known about what processes the biofilter technology actually uses to reduce hazardous gas concentrations. There are three major processes that biofilters use: chemical, physical, and biological. The objective of this study was to determine the pathways and processes involved in the biofiltration of the two main hazardous waste that arise from swine production: NH3 (ammonia) and H2S (hydrogen sulfide) at concentrations of 5 ppm and 25 respectively. This research was based on the hypothesis that physical characteristics such as surface area and pore size would have a greater effect on biofilter performance for both gases than would pH or biological species. The purpose of this study was to determine if the reactions occurring during the process of filtering these gasses was related to biological, chemical or physical factors. Keywords: biofilter, swine, animal waste, pig housing, production, CAFOs. 58 Materials and Methods This experiment was performed at Oklahoma State University at the Swine Research Farm. Fifteen Drierite polycarbonate gas purifiers (Stock # 26800, W. A. Hammond Drierite Co. LTD, Xenia, OH) with a volume of 1.009*10-3m3 were used as replicates of a biofilter. The Drierite columns were packed with one of each of the fifteen treatments (Table 1). As the biofilter received inlet gas concentrations from the swine barn, the outlet end was attached to both a Thermo Scientific Hydrogen Sulfide Analyzer (pulsed fluorescence gas analyzer) and a Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometer made by California Analytical Instruments. Table 1. The various treatments used as media to approve and/or disprove the hypothesis. Control Anionic Resin Cationic Resin Compost 20% Moisture Compost 40% Moisture Compost 70% Moisture Autoclaved Compost Wood Chips 50:50 Cationic/Anionic Resin Mix 50:50 Compost/Wood Chip Mix 50:50 Compost/Cationic Resin Mix 50:50 Compost Anionic Resin Mix 50:50 Autoclaved Compost/Wood Chip Mix 50:50 Autoclaved Compost/Anionic Resin Mix 50:50 Autoclaved Compost/Cationic Resin Mix Swanson and Loehr (1997) summarized characteristics that a filtering material should posses: • Optimal microbial environment – nutrients, moisture, pH, carbon supply should not be limiting • Large specific surface area – maximizes attachment area, sorption capacity, and number of reaction sites per unit of medium volume • Structural integrity – necessary to resist medium compaction which increases pressure drops and lowers gas retention times • High moisture retention – moisture is critical in maintaining active microorganisms • High porosity – keeps retention times high and backpressure low • Low bulk density – reduces medium compaction potential Most current biofilter technology uses either a straw/compost or woodchip/compost mixture as the media. The compost media and wood chip mixtures were from the Oklahoma Botanical Garden in Stillwater, OK. The initial moisture content of the compost and wood chip medias were determined by drying from more than 8 hrs at 105 C in a drying oven (Yani et al., 1998). Deionized water was then added to bring the final moisture content to 20%, 40%, and 70 % dry mass basis. These moistures contents were selected based on Nicolai and Janni (1997) to assess microbial growth during the biofiltration process. Moisture content was recorded at the beginning and the end of a 40 min sampling period. Samples were run at an ambient temperature range of 4 – 40°C with a residence time of .504 to .336 min (1.008 L / (2 – 3 L min-3) = .504 - .336 min). Also, because an acclimation period is needed for certain bacteria and organisms that biodegrade NH3 and H2S, the compost mixtures were placed into a biofilter at the Swine Research Farm two weeks prior to the experiment. To determine how strong pH has an effect on biofilter performance inert cationic and anionic resins were used. Results and Discussion Ammonia levels were determined by California Analytical Instrument’s CAI 600 FTIR Analyzer. Hydrogen Sulfide concentrations were determined simultaneously with a Thermo Scientific Model 450i was used because it utilizes pulsed fluorescence technology to analyze 59 H2S gas compounds. All results were analyzed using PROC GLM and PROC MIXED using SAS 9.1 statistical software (SAS Institute, Raleigh, NC). Hydrogen Sulfide Data suggests that the most effective media in mitigating H2S is a 50:50 Compost/Anionic Resin Mix. The table below shows that hydrogen sulfide does rely on pore space, bacteria, and a particular pH range to achieve high reduction percentages (Table 1). Table 1. Hydrogen Sulfide (% reduction) means and standard deviations Treatment No. of Observations Mean Std. Dev. Control 120 2.68 3.88 Anionic Resin 120 41.72 6.27 Cationic Resin 120 97.54 4.37 50:50 Anionic/Cationic Resin Mix 120 49.16 9.99 Autoclaved Compost 120 79.54 5.77 50:50 Compost/Anionic Resin Mix 120 69.58 8.61 50:50 Compost/Cationic Resin Mix 120 9.99 8.58 50:50 Autoclaved Compost/Anionic Resin Mix N/A N/A N/A 50:50 Autoclaved Compost/Cationic Resin Mix N/A N/A N/A Wood Chip 120 72.35 8.38 50:50 Wood Chip/Compost Mix 120 77.60 5.97 50:50 Wood Chip/Autoclaved Compost Mix 120 72.92 8.59 Compost 20% moisture 120 81.37 6.42 Compost 40% moisture 120 81.94 6.19 Compost 70% moisture 120 6.19 6.67 Ammonia Preliminary data suggests that surface area places the largest role in mitigating NH3. The 40% and 70% moisture levels were not significantly different (Table 2). Table 2: Ammonia (% reduction) means and standard deviations Treatment No. of Observations Mean Standard Deviation Control 120 3.12 3.10 Anionic Resin 120 83.13 7.26 Cationic Resin 120 30.30 12.01 50:50 Anionic/Cationic Resin Mix 120 54.93 22.68 Autoclaved Compost 120 50.00 22.68 50:50 Compost/Anionic Resin Mix 120 100.00 0.00 50:50 Compost/Cationic Resin Mix 120 27.26 10.19 50:50 Autoclaved Compost/Anionic Resin Mix 120 98.20 5.32 50:50 Autoclaved Compost/Cationic Resin Mix 120 51.74 20.96 Wood Chip 120 82.92 6.99 50:50 Wood Chip/Compost Mix 120 89.80 6.03 50:50 Wood Chip/Autoclaved Compost Mix 120 59.81 15.90 Compost 20% moisture 120 72.67 4.54 Compost 40% moisture 120 84.95 3.92 Compost 70% moisture 120 80.23 15.00 60 Other Results These results are based off of reduction percentages • Anionic Resin, because of its pH of 7.69, was not effective at filtering NH3, nor H2S • Cationic Resin was effective at filtering NH3 and did even better at filtering H2S. • H2S filtration appeared to be primarily due to a biochemical process or as a result of small pore spaces. • Cationic and Anionic Resin had an additive effect on NH3 and H2S. • Autoclaved Compost was less effective at filtering NH3 than Cationic Resin, but somewhat effective at removing H2S. • Compost was effective at removing both H2S and NH3, possibly because of microbial activity, numerous micro pores, and large surface area. • Compost/Wood Chip mixture was effective at removing both H2S and NH3, but less effective than Compost alone. • Moisture level played an important part in the reduction of H2S. Popular belief is currently that biofilters need to maintain a moisture percentage of 70% to keep sulfur reducing bacteria healthy, and this research backs up that belief. CONCLUSION • The factors that affect the biofiltration process: • NH3 Biological, little requirements Chemical, pH has small effect Physical, requires media to have a large surface and low bulk density • H2S Biological, requires sulfur reducing bacteria Chemical, requires pH of 2.5-5.0 Physical, requires media to have a large surface area and low bulk density Biofilters would be more effective with different design and operating parameters in order to function more efficiently for longer periods of time. There is a need for a two-stage biofilter; this could be accomplished with a top and a bottom layer. Since preliminary data suggest that the biofiltration process would work better for longer periods of time if the NH3 was captured before the H2S, the first (bottom) layer should contain a porous media to capture NH3 and the second (top) layer should have porous media with a low pH in order to capture H2S. Acknowledgements This work was supported in part by USDA-CSREES proposal number 2008-03357. 61 REFERENCES 1. Copeland, C. 2007. Animal Waste and Water Quality: EPA Regulation of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). Congressional Research Service. 2. Nicolai, R.E. and K.A. Janni. 1997a. Development of a Low Cost Biofilter for Swine Production Facilities. Paper No. 974040. ASAE, 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659 USA. 3. Swanson, W.J., and R.C. Loehr. 1997. Biofiltration: Fundamentals, design and operations principles, and applications. J. Environ. Eng. 123:538-546. 4. Yani, M., M. Hiral, and M. Shoda. 1998. Ammonia gas removal characteristics using biofilter with activated carbon fiber as a carrier. Environ. Technol. 19:709-715. Extension Reports OKLAHOMA CORN PERFORMANCE TRIALS, 2010 PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY CROPS OKLAHOMA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF PLANT AND SOIL SCIENCES DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES & NATURAL RESOURCES OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY PT 2010-7 December 2010 Vol. 22, No. 7 Rick Kochenower Britt Hicks Area Research and Extension Specialist Area Extension Livestock Specialist Plant and Soil Sciences Department Northwest District TRIAL OBJECTIVES AND PROCEDURES Each year the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service conducts corn performance trials in Oklahoma. These trials provide producers, extension educators, industry representatives, and researchers with information on corn hybrids marketed in Oklahoma. Company participation was voluntary, so some hybrids marketed in Oklahoma were not included in the test. Company or brand name, entry designation, plant characteristics, and maturity information, were provided by the companies and were not validated by OSU; therefore, we strongly recommend consulting company representatives for more detailed information regarding these traits and disease resistance ratings (Tables 3 and 4). Irrigated test plots were established at the Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center (OPREC) near Goodwell and the Joe Webb farm near Guymon. Fertility levels, herbicide use, and soil series (when available) are listed with data. Individual plots were two 25-foot rows seeded at a target population of 32,000 plants/ac. Plots were trimmed to 20 feet prior to being harvested to determine grain yield. The ensilage trial was seeded the same as the grain trial with 10 feet of one row harvested to determine yield. Experimental design for all locations was a randomized complete block with four replications. Grain yield is reported consistent with U.S. No. 1 grade corn (56 lbs/bu and adjusted to moisture content of 15.5%). Corn ensilage was harvested at the early dent stage with average moisture content of 69% and production is reported as tons/ac adjusted to 65% moisture. GROWING CONDITIONS Corn planting started in early April but was delayed until mid April from rainfall. Most planting resumed April 28th and was not delayed again until mid May by which time most corn had been planted. Conditions for germination and emergence were good. Most corn acres required no pre-irrigation prior to planting, due to the 4.51 inches of precipitation received during the January through March time period. Temperatures during the growing season were near normal with no 100 ⁰F recorded during May, June had 3, July had 4, and August had 10 days of 100 ⁰F or greater. The number of days in August may have reduced yields on the later planted corn in 2010. Mean high temperatures for the period were near the long-term averages. The mean high temperature for May was 77 ⁰F which is 2 degrees below the long term mean. For June, July and August the mean high temperatures were normal or slightly above, June 91⁰F compared to 88 ⁰F, July 93 ⁰F which is the long term mean, and August 93 ⁰F compared to 91 ⁰F. The number of 100 ⁰F and higher than normal temperatures may have affected grain fill on the later planted corn. Rainfall for the period was above the long-term mean, but 38% was received in mid to late August (Table 1). Therefore irrigation scheduling was critical during most of the growing season. The harvest period had no major delays to weather and most producers reporting yields ranging from 200 bu/ac to over 250 bu/ac. RESULTS Grain yield, test weight, harvest moisture, and plant populations for OPREC and Webb trials are presented (Tables 3 and 4). Least Significant Differences (L.S.D.) are shown at the bottom of each table. Unless two entries differ by at least the L.S.D. shown, little confidence can be placed in one being superior to another. The coefficient of variation (C.V.) is provided as an estimate of the precision of the data with respect to the mean. To provide some indication of yield stability, 2-year means are also provided in tables producers interested in comparing hybrids for consistency of yield should consult these. The following people have contributed to this report by assisting in crop production, data collection, and publication; Roger Gribble, Jeff Bedwell, Tommy Puffinbarger, Donna George, Lawrence Bohl, Matt LaMar, Eddie Pickard, Wilson Henry, Cameron Murley, and Craig Chesnut. Their efforts are greatly appreciated. Table 1. Rainfall and irrigation for irrigated corn performance trial locations in Texas County. Location April May June July Aug Total Long-term mean 1.33 3.25 2.86 2.58 2.28 12.30 2010 1.76 2.64 3.16 1.22 5.42 14.20 Irrigation Joe Webb 0.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 18.0 OPREC 0.0 1.3 3.9 3.9 1.3 10.4 Oklahoma State University, in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. and other federal laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, disability, or status as a veteran in any of its policies, practices or procedures. This includes but is not limited to admissions, employment, financial aid, and educational services. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bob Whitson, Director of Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma. This publication is printed and issued by Oklahoma State University as authorized by the Dean of the Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Oklahoma State University PT2010- 7 Page 2 Table 2. Characteristics of Corn Hybrids in Panhandle Corn Performance Trials, 2010. Company Brand Name Hybrid Plant Characteristics MATURITY SV SS SG EP Days Golden Acres GA 26V21 1 1 2 M 115 Golden Acres GA 208V81 2 2 2 M 118 Golden Acres GA 27V01 2 2 2 High 117 Mycogen Seeds TMF2H918 8 8 NA NA 123 Mycogen Seeds TMF2L844 7 7 NA NA 119 Mycogen Seeds F2F622 8 7 NA NA 109 Mycogen Seeds F2F700 8 8 NA NA 113 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 25HR39TM 8 7 5 MH 115 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 25R19TM 8 7 5 MH 115 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 26R60TM 7 6 6 M 116 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28HR20TM 7 7 7 MH 118 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28HR30TM 7 7 8 MH 118 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28R30TM 7 7 8 MH 118 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28R10TM 7 7 7 MH 118 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 1536H 2 3 3 M 115 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. TRX01601 3 3 3 M 116 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 7514X 3 3 3 M 114 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 1420V 3 3 3 M 114 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 1825V 3 2 2 MH 118 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 2288H 3 2 1 H 122 * Plant Characteristics: SV - Seedling Vigor; SS - stalk strength; SG - stay green; EP - ear placement (Low, Medium, High) Rating scale for above characteristics except ear placement 1 = excellent - 9 = poor __________________________________________________________________________________________ Oklahoma State University PT2010- 7 Page 3 Table 3. Grain Yield and Harvest Parameters Joe Webb location, Oklahoma Corn Performance Trials, 2010. Company Brand Name Hybrid Grain Yield Bu/ac Test Weight Lb/bu Harvest Moisture Plant Population plants/ac Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 1825V 232 58.0 13.8 33,200 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28R10TM 205 60.5 13.9 31,700 Golden Acres GA 208V81 203 59.9 13.8 29,800 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28HR20TM 197 60.6 13.9 32,800 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28HR30TM 192 60.5 14.5 31,300 Golden Acres GA 27V01 190 56.9 12.3 31,500 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 7514X 187 58.2 14.4 31,100 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 2288H 185 59.2 17.8 28,300 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 1420V 181 59.7 13.1 33,400 Mycogen Seeds TMF2H918 181 58.0 20.7 30,900 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 25HR39TM 179 61.0 12.8 31,400 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28R30TM 177 59.5 13.4 32,900 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 26R60TM 173 60.0 14.7 30,700 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 25R19TM 172 60.7 14.1 31,600 Golden Acres GA 26V21 172 58.1 12.1 30,700 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 1536H 164 60.3 12.6 30,500 Mycogen Seeds TMF2L844 153 58.3 13.0 28,700 Mycogen Seeds F2F622 145 60.3 12.3 34,300 Mycogen Seeds F2F700 112 61.1 12.6 34,100 Mean 179 59.5 14.0 31,500 CV % 8.9 1.1 9.9 8.5 L.S.D. 23 0.9 2.0 NS Cooperator: Joe Webb Soil Series: Richfield Clay Loam Strip-Till: Following wheat in 2009 Soil Test: N: NA P: NA K: NA pH: NA Fertilizer: N: 230 lbs/ac P: 50 lbs P2O5/ac K: 0 and 5 gal 10-34-0 in row with planter Herbicide: 1.5qt/ac Harness Extra (Preemergence) + 3/4 oz/ac Balance Planting Date: April 14, 2010 Harvest Date: September 21, 2010 __________________________________________________________________________________________ Oklahoma State University PT2010- 7 Page 4 Table 4. Ensilage Yields and Quality Panhandle Corn Performance Trial, 2010. Company Brand Name Hybrid YIELD Tons/ac Plant Population plants/ac Harvest Moisture % Golden Acres GA 27V01 28.5 30,900 53.7 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 1825V 28.2 29,200 51.9 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 2288H 28.1 28,500 59.2 Golden Acres GA 208V81 28.0 29,000 54.4 Mycogen Seeds TMF2H918 27.8 28,700 57.6 Mycogen Seeds TMF2L844 27.5 30,900 54.8 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 26R60TM 27.2 30,600 50.5 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 25R19TM 27.0 31,500 52.7 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 1536H 26.2 30,200 49.5 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28HR30TM 24.4 31,200 52.2 Terral Seed, Inc RevTM 28R30TM 24.3 30,800 50.9 Triumph Seed Co. Inc. 1420V 24.3 32,500 52.6 Mycogen Seeds F2F700 24.0 29,200 53.5 Ter |
Date created | 2012-01-19 |
Date modified | 2012-02-14 |