Research highlights.

              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