2022 Michigan Soybean On-Farm Research Report

Michigan Soybean Committee, 3055 W M-21,St. Johns, MI 48879

NON-PROFIT US POSTAGE PAID PERMIT 20 FRANKENMUTH, MI

2022 ON-FARM RESEARCH REPORT

Soybean MICHIGAN

Mike Staton, MSU Extension Soybean Educator Mark Seamon, MSC Research Director CONTENTS

On-farm Research Report Introduction Trial Location Map Introduction to Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Interpretation Michigan Soybean Committee Research Priorities Planting Date Trial 2x2 Starter Fertilizer Trial HeadsUp® Seed Treatment Trial ILeVO® vs. Saltro® Seed Treatment Trial Planting Equipment Comparison Trial STIMULATE™ Biological Foliar Trial Growthful™ Trials Prescription Foliar Fertilizer Trial eNhance™ Foliar Fertilizer Trial Delaro® Complete Foliar Fungicide Trial White Mold Fungicide Application Timing Trial Reducing Soybean Production Costs in 2023 Profitability of Specialty Soybeans Review of 2022 Soybean Diseases

2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 31

THANK YOU to the farmer cooperators for contributing their land, equipment and time during the busy planting and harvest seasons to help improve Michigan soybean production.

For more information on participating in the 2023 Michigan Soybean On-Farm Research program, contact Mike Staton at (269) 673-0370 extension 2562 or staton@msu.edu.

2

2022 marks the 12th season of the Michigan Soybean On-Farm Research program, made possible by the checkoff investments of Michigan soybean producers.

This year, 46 farmers around the state conducted on-farm research trials within 11 projects. Contained in this publication you’ll find the results from 59 individual trial locations. The research projects were developed with producer input and represent some of the most challenging production issues growers are facing.

Most of the projects were conducted at multiple locations and, in some cases, across several years, improving the reliability of the results presented in this research report.

Agronomic and economic data is presented for each treatment. Breakeven yields utilized the projected USDA 2022-2023 average soybean price of $14.00 per bushel, the manufacturers’ suggested retail prices for all product(s) and application costs associated with the treatments.

Conducting these trials would not be possible without the strong partnership between the Michigan Soybean Committee and Michigan State University Extension.

One example is the unique collaboration between Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) and the Michigan Soybean Committee (MSC) to jointly fund Mike Staton, MSUE statewide soybean educator and on-farm research program coordinator.

MSC has also provided funding for four MSU Extension educators (Eric Anderson, Phil Kaatz, Paul Gross and Jenna Falor) who were instrumental in lining up trials and working with on-farm cooperators. We also want to thank MSC’s summer intern Avery Claybaugh, as she collected and organized soil samples and took stand counts for the trials.

Dr. Arnold Saxton, Professor Emeritus, University of Tennessee, provided the SAS statistical procedure used for analyzing the 2022 trial results and provided valuable input regarding experimental design and statistical analysis.

2022 On-Farm Trial Locations

3

Introduction to Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Interpretation The Michigan Soybean On-Farm Research program designs and analyzes field research trials enabling Michigan soybean producers to reliably evaluate the performance and profitability of new products, equipment and practices on their farms. Developing and implementing trials requires sound experimental design which is the first step to generating meaningful and reliable results from on-farm research trials. One of the most common and effective designs is called the randomized complete block design (RCBD). The RCBD is also one of the easiest for cooperators to implement. The RCBD reduces the experimental error by grouping or blocking all the treatments to be compared within replications. Increasing the number of replications generally increases the sensitivity of the statistical analysis by reducing the experimental error. The on-farm research program encourages cooperators to use at least four replications but six replications is preferred for trials comparing only two treatments.

Another important aspect of a good experimental design is the concept of randomization. Randomly assigning the order of the treatments within each block removes bias from treatment averages or means and reduces experimental error. Figure 1 shows the actual RCBD design that was used in the 2021 and 2022 white mold fungicide application timing trials and demonstrates the principles outlined above. Note how each treatment is included and randomized within the replications. All of the trials comparing three or more treatments utilized the RCBD with four replications of each treatment, unless stated otherwise. The treatments in all the trials comparing two treatments were alternated (not randomized within each block) and replicated at least four times.

Figure 1. The randomized complete block design used for the 2021 and 2022 white mold fungicide application timing trials.

After the trials were harvested, the GLIMMIX procedure within SAS was used to determine if the differences in measurable variables such as yield were due to the treatments or other outside factors. We set our confidence level at 90 percent for all statistical analysis as designated by LSD0.10 (Least Significant Difference). Whenever the difference between two or more yields or other measurable variables is greater than the LSD0.10, we can say that the difference is due to the treatment. This is always true in trials comparing only two treatments. However, the LSD0.10 can falsely indicate statistical significance whenever more than two treatments are compared. The risk of this occurring increases with the number of treatments compared. There is an example of this situation in this publication (the Sanilac location on page 27). If the yield of two treatments differs by less than the LSD0.10 listed, we cannot say with a reliable degree of confidence that it is due to the treatment.

Letters are used in the tables and an asterisk (*) is used in the figures in this publication to identify yields or other measurements that are statistically different. When no letters are listed or the same letter appears next to the yield or other measurable condition, the difference between the treatments is not statistically significant. Only the statistically significant yield increases are mentioned in the text in this report. All other yield differences (no matter how large) are not due to the applied treatment and should be ignored.

In many cases, a given trial like the planting rate trial, will be conducted at multiple locations and over multiple years. This greatly improves the reliability of the information produced.

4

MICHIGAN SOYBEAN COMMITTEE FY22 FUNDED RESEARCH CATEGORIES

The Michigan Soybean Committee funds over $600,000 in soybean production research each year using soybean checkoff dollars. Funding is divided among the categories listed above to provide well-rounded research that is relevant to Michigan soybean farmers.

5

Planting Date Trial Purpose: Early planting is an important management practice for producing high-yielding soybeans. However, many Michigan soybean producers believe that planting early is risky and have not fully adopted the practice. The question is, do the benefits of early planting outweigh the risks? The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the yield and income benefits of early-planted soybeans from 2019 to 2022.

Procedure: This trial compared soybeans planted at an early date for the area vs. soybeans planted at a normal planting date for the area. There were three locations in 2019, eight locations in 2020, 10 locations in 2021 and two locations in 2022. The early planting dates at seven of the locations are considered very early, whereas the early planting dates at the other sites are consistent with the current MSU recommendations for planting soybeans Severe freeze injury during the last week of April and the first week of May if soil conditions are conducive (Table 1). All other factors were kept the same to isolate the effect of planting date in these trials.

Results: Early planting increased soybean yield by an average of 3.5 bushels per acre at 10 of the sites (Table 2).

However, early planting reduced yields at one location in 2021 and both 2022 locations. The average yield reduction at these locations was 4.7 bushels per acre. Yield was not affected by planting date at the other 10 locations. When all 23 sites were combined and analyzed, early planting increased soybean yield by 1.6 bushels per acre. These results support the recommendation to plant soybeans early as they demonstrate potential for producing higher yields without significantly increasing the risk of experiencing yield reductions. This should increase growers’ confidence in planting soybeans earlier and help them manage weather risk by extending the soybean planting window.

We want to thank Dr. Manni Singh and the North Central Soybean Research Program (NCSRP) for their role in making this research possible.

Table 1. Background information for the planting date trials conducted from 2019 to 2022

CP - chisel plow, FC - field cultivator, NT - no-till, VT - vertical tillage, SF - soil finisher, DR - disk ripper, D - disk, R - roller * These were irrigated sites. ** This planter has been modified to plant twin 12” rows on 36” centers.

6

Table 2. The effect of planting date on soybean yield and income from 2019 to 2022

Figure 1. Yield difference produced by early planting from 2019 to 2022

*The yield difference was statistically significant at this location.

7

2x2 Starter Fertilizer Trial Purpose: Producers consistently rank nutrient management as a high priority for on-farm research and mention starter fertilizer specifically. They want to know if applying nutrients in a 2x2 band at planting is a profitable practice. They also want to identify the most profitable nutrients and application rates for this placement method. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate how various 2x2 starter fertilizers affected soybean yield and income in 2021 and 2022.

Procedure: Two treatments (2x2 starter fertilizer vs. an untreated control) were compared at six locations in 2021 and five locations in 2022. This project is different than most of our on-farm research projects in that the cooperators selected the fertilizer and application rates they wanted to evaluate on their farms (Table 2). We collected baseline soil samples from each site and broadcast fertilizer applications (Table 1). Final stand counts were taken in 2021 but not in 2022 as the 2x2 placement method should not position the fertilizer band close enough to the seed to adversely affect stand.

Results: Starter fertilizer increased soybean yields by an average of 2.7 bushels per acre at three of the 11 locations (Saginaw 21, St. Joseph 21 and St. Joseph 22). However, yields at the other eight locations were not significantly affected by the starter fertilizer applications. Starter fertilizer increased net income by $4.50 per acre at the Saginaw 21 and St. Joseph 21 sites but significantly decreased income at the other eight locations (Table 3). Final plant stands were not affected by the starter fertilizers at the four sites where stand counts were taken in 2021.

Table 1. Soil test levels at the 2x2 starter fertilizer trial locations

Bold figures indicate low or very low soil test levels.

Table 2. Background information for the 2x2 starter fertilizer trials conducted in 2021 and 2022

CP - chisel plow, NT - no-till, VT - vertical tillage, SF - soil finisher, DR - disk ripper, D - disk, R - roller 8

Table 3. The effect of various 2x2 starter fertilizers on yield and income in 2021 and 2022

Net return is based on the specific 2x2 starter fertilizer and application rate for each location.

Figure 1. Yield difference produced by various 2x2 starter fertilizers in 2021 and 2022

*The yield difference was statistically significant at this location.

9

HeadsUp® Biological Seed Treatment Purpose: HeadsUp is a relatively new biological seed treatment distributed by HeadsUp Plant Protectants Inc. It is being promoted as being part of a proactive management strategy for white mold and sudden death syndrome (SDS). The purpose of this trial was to determine the effect of HeadsUp seed treatment on soybean yield and income in 2022.

Procedure: Soybean seed treated with HeadsUp was compared to seed from the same seed lot without HeadsUp. The treatments were applied by splitting the planters so seed treated with HeadsUp was planted by half the planter and seed without HeadsUp was planted by the other half.

Results: Neither white mold nor SDS occurred at detectable levels at any of the locations. Despite this, the HeadsUp seed treatment increased soybean yields by 2 bushels per acre at two locations (Branch 2 and Allegan). Yield was not affected at the other two locations. When all four locations were combined and analyzed, the HeadsUp seed treatment increased yield by an average of 1.2 bushels per acre and increased income by $12.00 per acre.

We want to thank HeadsUp Plant Protectants Inc. for providing the HeadsUp and local seed dealers for treating the seed for these trials.

Table 1. Planting dates, varieties, planting rates, and row spacings at the trial locations

HeadsUp seed treatment is a low cost product that doesn’t require much yield response to be profitable

10

Table 2. HeadsUp biological seed treatment effect on soybean yield and income in and 2022

HeadsUp seed treatment cost in 2022 = $4.00 per acre

Figure 1. Yield difference produced by HeadsUp seed treatment in 2022 Breakeven yield increase for HeadsUp seed treatment (0.3 bu/ac)

*The yield difference between the fungicide application timings and the control was statistically significant at these locations.

Sclerotia

White Mold 11

ILeVO® vs. Saltro® Seed Treatment Trial Purpose: Sudden Death syndrome (SDS) is spreading in Michigan. The most effective management tactics are variety selection and seed treatment. The purpose of this trial was to compare the relative effects two commercially available SDS seed treatments (ILeVO from BASF and Saltro from Syngenta) had on SDS foliar disease symptoms, yield and income.

Procedure: This trial had two treatments (base seed treatment with ILeVO vs. the same base seed treatment with Saltro). This trial was conducted by placing the ILeVO-treated seed in half the planter and the Saltrotreated seed in the other half at four locations in 2022.

All sites had a history of having SDS. We sampled all fields to determine the soybean cyst nematode (SCN) population levels and rated each treatment for SDS. Results: Visible SDS symptoms were difficult to detect in any of the trials conducted in 2022. SCN was not detected at the Calhoun 2 and St. Joseph locations.

SDS foliar symptoms However, low levels were found at the Calhoun 1 location and moderate levels were found at the Macomb location.

The ILeVO produced 2.6 bushels per acre more than the Saltro at one location (Calhoun 2). However, the yields produced by the two seed treatments were comparable at the other three locations. When all four locations were combined and analyzed, yield was not affected by the seed treatments. This is consistent with research results generated by Dr. Martin Chilvers, MSU Extension plant disease specialist and his colleagues across the U.S. Both ILeVO and Saltro have proven to protect soybean yield in fields having a history of SDS. We want to thank BASF and Syngenta for providing the products for these trials and the seed dealers that treated the seed.

ILeVO and Saltro showed similar performance in protecting yield from SDS Field view of SDS infection 12

Table 1. Key background information for the ILeVO vs. Saltro seed treatment trials

D - disk, HSD - high speed disk, VT - vertical till, DR - disk ripper, R - roller, FC - field cultivator

Table 2. The effect of ILeVO and Saltro seed treatments on soybean yield and income in 2022

ILeVO cost in 2022 = $13.00/140,000 seeds Saltro cost in 2022 = $14.00/140,000 seeds

Figure 1. Yield difference produced by ILeVO compared to Saltro seed treatment in 2022

*The yield difference was statistically significant at these locations.

13

Planting Equipment Comparison Trial Purpose: Soybeans are planted using a wide variety of planters, air seeders and drills. This planting equipment is also set up for different row spacing configurations. Some producers have multiple pieces of planting equipment on the farm and want to know which planting equipment performs best and under what conditions. These producers also want to know if they can plant soybeans with all their available planting equipment at the same time to ensure timely planting. Other producers are replacing existing planting equipment and want to know what planting equipment is the most versatile and beneficial to their farm. The purpose of this trial was to compare any two pieces of planting equipment the cooperating producers wanted to compare on their farm to determine how different planting equipment affected soybean yield.

Procedure: One trial was conducted in 2020 (Hillsdale 20) and two more were conducted in 2022 (Branch 22 and Lenawee 22). The Hillsdale 20 trial compared a John Deere 1770 30-inch row planter to a John Deere 1690 15-inch row air seeder. At the Branch 22 location, a John Deere 1770 NT 30-inch row planter was compared to a John Deere 1590 box drill setup for 15-inch rows. The Lenawee location compared a Horsch Maestro split-row planter set for 15-inch rows to a White 5100 30-inch row planter. At the Hillsdale and Branch 22 locations, both pieces of planting equipment being compared were set to deliver the same seeding rate. At Lenawee, the Horsch planter dropped 15,000 fewer seeds per acre than the White planter. Stand counts were taken at all locations to determine how the planting systems affected final plant stands.

Results: Soybean yield was not affected by planting equipment at any of the three locations. Final plant stands were also comparable for the planting equipment compared at each location. Due to the narrower row configuration, the air seeder, box drill and split-row planter would be expected to perform better in lower yielding environments and when planting after the first week of June. The 30-inch row planters would most likely perform better when planting in fields that have a history of white mold, are prone to crusting or have marginal soil conditions.

Table 1. Background information for the planting equipment comparison trials conducted in 2020 and 2022

*HSD - high speed disk, CP - chisel plow, SF - soil finisher

14

Table 2. Planting rate, final plant stands and soybean yield in Hillsdale County in 2020

Table 3. Planting rate, final plant stands and soybean yield in Branch County in 2022

Table 4. Planting rate, final plant stands and soybean yield in Lenawee County in 2022

15

STIMULATE™ Biological Trial Purpose: STIMULATE is a highly concentrated microbial formulation of naturally occurring beneficial microorganisms specifically selected to convert unavailable nutrients to usable forms, increase root mass and produce natural substances to enhance soil and plant health and growth. It contains dozens of microbial strains including a recently discovered rhizobial inoculant. This trial evaluated how adding STIMULATE to a planned postemergence herbicide application affected soybean yield and income.

Procedure: Two treatments were compared in this trial (post-emergence herbicides with STIMULATE vs. the same herbicides without STIMULATE) at 10 locations in 2022. The STIMULATE was applied at 8 ounces per acre.

Application timing was determined by the cooperator and based on optimizing weed control. Application dates, application characteristics and rainfall information for each site were gathered and are presented in Table 1. To eliminate sprayer tracks from affecting the results, tracks were either present or absent in all harvested strips in each trial.

Results: The foliar application of STIMULATE did not significantly affect soybean yield at any 2022 trial locations.

Net income was reduced by the cost of the product. The two-year study will continue next year.

We want to thank GARRCO Products Inc. for donating and delivering the product for these trials.

Table 1. The effect of a single application of STIMULATE biological on soybean yield and income in 2022

STIMULATE cost = $6.25 per acre * The application cost was not included because STIMULATE was tank-mixed with a planned post-emergence herbicide application.

16

Figure 1. Yield difference from a foliar application of STIMULATE biological in 2022 **2022 STIMULATE application breakeven yield increase (0.5 bu/ac)

** Application cost is not included.

Biological products hold promise. Product choice, timing, rate and application method need more work to find the best uses.

17

Growthful™ Trials Purpose: Growthful is an acidifying agent from Aqueus. It is marketed as relieving plant stress and increasing crop yields. It can be applied to the soil or tank-mixed with foliar fungicides or insecticides. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate how Growthful affected yield and income in 2021 and 2022.

Procedure: In 2021, a single application of Growthful was compared to an untreated control at two locations.

Growthful was applied at a rate of 2 gallons per acre in a tank-mix with the cooperators’ pre-emergence herbicides.

In 2022, a new formulation of the product, Growthful Post-Emerge Spray, was applied at 12.8 ounces per acre at R1 and again at R3. The R1 application was tank-mixed with the cooperators’ post-emergence herbicide and the R3 application was tank-mixed with a foliar fungicide. These were compared to the same post-emergence herbicide and fungicide applications without the Growthful.

Results: In 2021, the Growthful application increased soybean yield by 2.1 bushels per acre at the Branch County location but did not significantly affect soybean yield in Shiawassee. Growthful increased income by $7.40 per acre at the Branch location. When both sites were combined, Growthful did not affect yield and reduced income by $12.00 per acre.

In 2022, the Growthful Post-Emerge Spray did not increase soybean yield at either location. When both locations were combined, Growthful reduced net income by $10.00 acre.

We want to thank Aqueus for providing and delivering the product for these trials.

Table 1. The effect of a single application of Growthful soil amendment on soybean yield and income in 2021

Cost of Growthful soil amendment = $18.00 per acre

Figure 1. Yield difference produced by a single application of Growthful in 2021

*The yield difference was statistically significant at this location. **The application cost was not included.

18

Table 2. The effect of two applications of Growthful Post-Emerge Spray on soybean yield and income in 2022

Cost of Growthful Post Emergence Spray = $8.00 per acre plus $10.00 for the R3 application

Figure 2. Yield difference produced by two applications of Growthful Post-Emerge Spray in 2022 **Breakeven yield increase for two applications of Growthful (1.3 bu/ac)

** The R1 application cost was not included but a $10 application cost was applied to the R3 application as prophylactic fungicide applications typically are not warranted in Michigan.

19

Prescription Foliar Fertilizer Trial Purpose: Producers consistently rank nutrient management as a high priority for on-farm research. One of the frequently identified practices is the use of in-season plant tissue sampling to develop field-specific foliar fertilizer recommendations. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate how various field-specific prescription foliar fertilizers affected soybean yield and income in 2022.

Procedure: Two treatments (field-specific foliar fertilizers based on in-season plant tissue samples vs. an untreated control) were compared at four locations in 2022. We collected baseline soil samples from each site and information regarding broadcast fertilizer applications. Helena developed field-specific foliar fertilizer recommendations based on plant tissue sampling done at the R2 growth stage.

Results: The prescription foliar fertilizer did not increase soybean yields at any of the locations. However, the yield of the prescription foliar fertilizer treatment was 2.1 bushels per acre lower than the control at the Sanilac location.

Due to the lack of a positive yield response, the prescription foliar fertilizer applications were not profitable in 2022.

We would like to thank Helena for collecting/submitting plant tissue samples, developing the field-specific foliar fertilizer recommendations and providing and delivering the products applied in this project.

Table 1. Soil test levels at the prescription foliar fertilizer trial locations

Bold figures indicate low or very low soil test levels.

Table 2. Plant tissue nutrient levels used to develop prescription foliar fertilizer recommendations

Bold figures indicate low or very low nutrient levels.

Italic figures indicate high nutrient levels.

All other figures indicate sufficient nutrient levels.

20

Table 3. Prescription foliar fertilizer and broadcast fertilizer analyses and application rates

Table 4. Application and rainfall information for the prescription foliar fertilizer locations

*Rainfall data was obtained from the nearest MSU Enviroweather station.

Figure 1. Yield difference produced by various prescription foliar fertilizers in 2022

Table 5. The effect of various prescription foliar fertilizers on yield and income in 2022

Net return is based on the specific prescription foliar fertilizer and application rate for each location. * Does not include fertilizer application costs.

21

eNhance™ Foliar Fertilizer Trial Purpose: eNhance is a liquid fertilizer distributed by AgroLiquid. It contains seven percent nitrogen, 8.7 percent sulfur, and trace amounts of manganese and zinc. eNhance is promoted as being an excellent source of crop available sulfate. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate how adding eNhance to a planned foliar fungicide application affected soybean yield and income in 2022.

Procedure: Two treatments were compared in this trial (foliar fungicide plus eNhance vs. the same foliar fungicide without eNhance) at 11 locations in 2022. We collected soil samples from every trial and presented the sulfur, manganese and zinc soil test levels in Table 1. Application dates, application characteristics and rainfall information for each site were gathered and are presented in Table 2. To eliminate sprayer tracks from affecting the results, tracks were either present or absent in all the harvested strips in each trial.

Results: The foliar application of eNhance increased soybean yields by 2.4 bushels per acre at the Berrien location.

However, it reduced yield by 3.0 bushels per acre at the Lenawee 3 location. Soybean yields were not significantly affected at the other nine locations. When all 11 locations were combined and analyzed, the foliar fertilizer did not significantly affect soybean yields.

The eNhance fertilizer increased income by $28.00 per acre at the Berrien location. However, when all 11 locations were combined, the addition of the fertilizer was not profitable.

We want to thank AgroLiquid for donating and delivering the product for these trials.

Table 1. Soil test levels for sulfur, manganese and zinc at the eNhance foliar fertilizer trial locations

Bold figures indicate low or very low soil test levels.

Table 2. Application dates, volume, pressure, ground speed and rainfall information for the eNhance trial locations

*Rainfall data was obtained from the nearest MSU Enviroweather station.

22

Table 3. The effect of a single application of eNhance foliar fertilizer on soybean yield and income in 2022

eNhance cost = $5.63 per acre * The foliar fertilizer application cost was not included because it was tank-mixed with a planned foliar fungicide application.

Figure 1. Yield difference from a foliar application of eNhance fertilizer in 2022 **2022 eNhance fertilizer application breakeven yield increase (0.4 bu/ac)

*The yield difference was statistically significant at these locations. ** The application cost is not included.

Sulfur deficient field

Sulfur deficient plant 23

Delaro® Complete Foliar Fungicide Trial Purpose: Delaro Complete is a new foliar fungicide from Bayer Crop Science that is being promoted as having more consistent disease control and improving plant health and yield potential. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate how a foliar application of Delaro Complete affected soybean yield and income in 2022.

Procedure: A foliar application of Delaro Complete was compared to an untreated control at thirteen locations in 2022.

The Delaro Complete was applied at 8.0 ounces per acre at the R1 to R2 growth stages. Application dates, application characteristics and rainfall information for each site were gathered and are presented in Table 1. To eliminate sprayer tracks from affecting the results, tracks were either present or absent in all the harvested strips in each trial.

Results: The foliar application of Delaro Complete increased

Frogeye leaf spot soybean yields at two of the 13 individual trial locations (Table 2). When all 13 locations were combined and analyzed, the fungicide application increased soybean yields by 0.8 of a bushel per acre.

After accounting for product and application costs, the fungicide was not profitable at any of the individual locations or when all locations were combined. The lack of a positive economic response to the foliar fungicide may have been because some of the trial locations experienced dry conditions in July and August.

We would like to thank Bayer Crop Science for donating the products for these trials.

Table 1. Application dates, volume, pressure, ground speed and rainfall information for the Delaro Complete trial locations

*Rainfall data was obtained from the nearest MSU Enviroweather station.

24

Table 2. The effect of a single application of Delaro Complete on soybean yield and income in 2022

Delaro Complete cost = $27.50 per acre Application cost = $10.00 per acre

Figure 1. Yield difference from a foliar application of Delaro Complete fungicide in 2022 **2022 Delaro Complete fungicide application breakeven yield increase (2.7 bu/ac)

*The yield difference was statistically significant at these locations. ** A $10.00 per acre application cost was included.

25

White Mold Fungicide Application Timing Trial Purpose: Foliar fungicides can be an important tactic for reducing yield loss from white mold, especially when combined with other effective management practices such as planting resistant/tolerant varieties, wide rows, reduced planting rates, tillage decisions and irrigation management. Properly timing fungicide applications is essential for success but can be challenging. The purpose of this trial was to determine the effect of fungicide application timing on soybean yield and income in 2021 and 2022. Another goal was to validate Sporecaster, a relatively new white mold apothecia prediction app.

Procedure: The trial compared two different fungicide application timings to an untreated control at locations previously infested with white mold. There were three locations in 2021 and two locations in 2022. The application timings were: R1 (one open flower on 50 percent of the plants and R3 (one pod >3/16” long on any of the upper four nodes on the main stem). Propulse® fungicide was applied at a rate of 6 ounces per acre for both timings. Application dates were entered into the Sporecaster app to determine the apothecia risk level for the dates and locations. White mold incidence was also determined at all locations.

White mold apothecia

Results: White mold did not occur at the Berrien 21 or Sanilac 21-2 sites but was present at low levels at Sanilac 21-1 and at Sanilac 22.

The Eaton 22 location experienced the heaviest disease pressure. The fungicide performed best at the Sanilac 21-1 site where both application timings increased soybean yields and income compared to the untreated control. At this site, yield increases ranged from 4.6 bushels per acre for the R1 timing to 6.8 bushels per acre for the R3 timing. Income was increased by $30 per acre at the R1 timing and by $57 per acre at the R3 timing. Neither fungicide application timing increased yields over the untreated control at the other four locations. However, when all five locations were combined, the R3 application increased yield Bird’s nest apothecia by 3.2 bushels per acre and the R1 application increased yield by 2.3 (Often confused with white mold apothecia) bushels per acre compared to the untreated control. When the product and application costs were subtracted from the gross income for each treatment, the income ranking for the treatments averaged across all five sites was: R3 > R1 > control.

The Sporecaster app did not recommend a fungicide application at either application date at any of the locations 2021. However, in 2022, Sporecaster recommended applying a white mold fungicide at the R1 timing at Sanilac.

We want to thank Bayer Crop Science for providing the Propulse and Dr. Martin Chilvers.

Table 1. Planting dates, planting rates, row spacing and fungicide application dates at the trial locations

Propulse fungicide cost for a single application = $17.30 per acre, application cost = $8.00 per acre 26

Table 2. White mold foliar fungicide application timing effect on soybean yield and income in 2021 and 2022

Propulse fungicide cost for a single application = $17.30 per acre, application cost = $10.00 per acre

Figure 1. Yield difference produced by a single fungicide application at two different timings when compared to the untreated control in 2021 and 2022 Breakeven yield increase for a single application of Propulse (2.0 bu/ac)

*The yield difference between the fungicide application timings and the control were statistically significant at these locations.

Screenshots generated by the Sporecaster app for the Sanilac 22 and Eaton 22 sites.

27

Reducing Soybean Production Costs in 2023 Mike Staton, MSU Extension Soybean Educator Agricultural economists are projecting tight profit margins for soybeans in 2023 due to rising input costs.

Because of this, soybean producers will need to manage production costs carefully. The following researchbased recommendations will help producers reduce production costs without adversely affecting yields.

Reduce or eliminate tillage operations Tillage trials conducted across the U.S. and Ontario have shown that tillage does not significantly affect soybean yield. A single tillage pass performed in the spring was compared to an untilled control at eight locations in Michigan from 2019 to 2021. Tillage increased income at only two locations. If your fields are relatively smooth and free from harvest ruts, and your planting equipment is equipped to plant through the existing residue, consider planting without additional tillage. Tillage operations may be necessary to repair harvest ruts prior to planting and may be beneficial when planting very early (last week of April).

Select high-yielding and pest resistant varieties Variety selection is one of the most important decisions when planting soybeans. Choosing varieties carefully can increase yield potential by 5 to 12 bushels per acre and reduce yield losses due to white mold, sudden death syndrome (SDS), Phytophthora root and stem rot and soybean cyst nematodes (SCN) without increasing costs. Strategically match varieties with the pest pressure and productivity of your fields.

Plant soybeans early Numerous planting date trials show that planting soybeans early maximizes yield potential. Yield losses of 0.3 to 0.6 bushels per acre have been documented for each day that planting is delayed after May 8. However, it is far better to delay planting than to plant into soil that is too wet.

Reduce planting rates Results from 67 replicated on-farm trials conducted in Michigan from 2015 to 2021 show that low planting rates can produce surprisingly high yields. In fact, the 100,000-seeds-per-acre planting rate was more profitable

28

than the 130,000 and 160,000 planting rates when all 67 sites were combined. Higher planting rates are recommended when planting in marginal soils and when planting late. Higher rates are also recommended in northern Michigan, where early maturing varieties are planted. Under good planting conditions, planting rates should be 15 to 20 percent higher than your intended harvest populations.

Base lime applications on soil test results Soybeans will generally perform well at soil pH levels between 6.0 and 7.0. However, the optimal range is between 6.3 and 6.5 as this maximizes nutrient availability and biological nitrogen fixation while minimizing SCN population growth. Variable-rate lime applications are strongly recommended to achieve more uniform soil pH levels within fields.

Don’t apply nitrogen fertilizer Hundreds of university trials have shown that nitrogen fertilizer applications to soybeans are rarely profitable. This has been confirmed in replicated on-farm trials conducted in Michigan.

Don’t apply foliar fertilizers Foliar fertilizer applications to soybeans are rarely profitable. This has been demonstrated in hundreds of university trials and in the Michigan on-farm foliar fertilizer trials, where only 15 of the 156 replicated trials were profitable. The exception is foliar application of manganese sulfate, which is recommended to correct visible manganese deficiency symptoms.

Consider eliminating starter fertilizer Eleven on-farm 2x2 starter fertilizer trials were conducted in Michigan in 2021 and 2022. In two of the trials, the starter fertilizer increased income by $4.50 per acre. However, when all eleven sites were combined, the starter fertilizers decreased income by $30 per acre. In-furrow fertilizer placement has not consistently increased soybean yields in Michigan on-farm trials either. In-furrow fertilizers increased yields in only two of 11 trials.

Table 1. Potassium critical levels and maintenance limits for soybeans (Tri-state fertilizer recommendations) Cation Exchange Capacity (meq/100g)

K critical level (ppm)

K maintenance limit (ppm)

≤5

100

130

>5

120

170

Apply potassium (K) fertilizers as needed to maintain critical soil test levels Soybean producers can make important potash allocation decisions by comparing their K soil test levels to the values listed in Table 1. If your K soil test levels are at least 10 ppm above the critical level, eliminating potash applications should not adversely affect soybean yields or drop K soil test levels below the critical level. However, if your soil test levels are less than 10 ppm above the critical levels, a maintenance level K application is warranted. The K levels reported in Table 1 are Mehlich III values. If your soil test reports K levels as ammonium acetate values, multiply by 1.14 to convert to Mehlich III.

Apply seed treatments only when warranted Soybean seed treatments including fungicides, insecticides, inoculants and nematicides have produced inconsistent yield benefits in university trials. For example, base seed treatments containing multiple fungicides and an insecticide were profitable in only 10 out of 31 on-farm trials conducted in Michigan from 2017 to 2020. The average yield increase was 1.4 bushels per acre which is about breakeven. Seed treatments may be warranted when pest problems such as SDS or Phytophthora root rot have been verified or when planting conditions favor pest damage. Examples include early planting (Pythium and SDS), planting into grass sods (white grubs and wireworms) and when manure or green plant material has been incorporated within two weeks of planting (seed corn maggot).

Consider eliminating foliar fungicide applications unless field and weather conditions are favorable for white mold Prophylactic foliar fungicide applications have produced modest yield increases in Michigan on-farm trials. Stratego YLD, Priaxor, Miravis Neo and Delaro Complete have been evaluated in on-farm trials in Michigan from 2012 to 2023 (Table 2).

Foliar fungicides rated as providing good white mold control (Aproach®, Endura®, Lektivar™, Omega® and Propulse®) can be important tools for managing white mold. A combination of tactics is recommended when planting soybeans into fields having a history of white mold. These include wide rows, resistant varieties, reduced planting rates, irrigation water management, careful tillage decisions, foliar fungicides and using the Sporecaster app to assist with application decisions.

Select and apply herbicides to maximize weed control, minimize crop damage and reduce herbicide resistance Dr. Christy Sprague, MSU weed scientist, evaluates commercially available weed control programs each year. The most profitable weed control programs year-in and year-out provide the highest level of weed control and minimize crop injury. The cost of the weed control programs is also considered, but it does not affect overall profitability as much as the level of weed control and crop injury.

Reducing production costs and improving efficiency will help soybean producers respond to the projected high input costs.

Table 2. Summary of the Michigan on-farm foliar fungicide trials Stratego® YLD

Priaxor™

Miravis® Neo

Delaro® Complete

Number of trials

Fungicide

9

22

22

13

Number of trials with yield increases

5

8

9

2

1.5

2.1

2.2

0.8

Average yield increase (bu/ac)

29

What is the Market Potential for Identity Preserved and Non-GMO Soybeans?

Prepared by Bill Knudson, MSU Product Marketing Economist, for the Michigan Soybean Committee Identity Preserved (IP) soybeans are grown using specific practices to maintain segregation and utilize pre-determined inputs from pre-planting through growing and harvesting, through handling, storage and delivery, and through processing and distribution in order to deliver a specific trait or product quality to the final consumer.

IP can be used for conventional, organic and even GMO soybeans. The key aspect of IP is producing a soybean with a characteristic or multiple characteristics that buyers desire and are willing to pay a premium for. Some of these characteristics are size, color, composition, food grade and non-GMO. In 2021, 87.2 million acres of soybeans were planted, and 4.37 billion bushels were produced in the U.S. Of that amount, 4.4 million acres, or 5 percent of all soybeans, were non-GMO soybeans. A very rough estimate of the total number of non-GMO soybeans produced in 2021 is 220 million bushels.

The U.S. exports about 47 percent of all soybeans produced in the U.S. Non-GMO food-grade soybean exports are expected to be 20.42 million bushels, or approximately 9 percent of non-GMO production. Given the potential growth of soybeans for human use and the potential for consumer rejection of GMO technology, there could be strong interest in exports. Despite the price premiums paid for non-GMO soybeans, the acres of non-GMO soybeans planted are steady or declining slightly.

Calculating profit based on the CBOT price for March 25, 2022 of $14.91/bu for new crop soybeans makes growing IP food grade soybeans profitable as shown in Table 1. Table 1 outlines three options.

The first is non-GMO soybeans with a premium of $2.00/bu, the second is growing non-GMO food grade soybeans with a premium of $3.20/bu and the third is growing Roundup Ready soybeans. The figures in Table 1 are on a per acre basis. In this case, growing IP soybeans is solidly profitable. The additional profit per acre for non-GMO soybeans is about $54/acre and the additional profitability for food grade soybeans is approximately $124/acre.

Potential Export Markets One market region with a great deal of potential for IP soybeans is Southeast Asia. In 2017, this area imported almost four million tons of soybeans. Unlike 30

Table 1. Costs and Revenues of IP and GMO Soybeans IP Non-GMO Soybeans

IP Food Grade Soybeans

Roundup Ready Soybeans

Item

Cost Per Acre

Cost Per Acre

Cost Per Acre

Clean Planter

$

Clean Combine

0.15 $

0.15

$

-

0.15

0.15

0.00

57.33

57.33

71.00

Fertilizer

116.00

116.00

116.00

Pesticides

Seed

108.00

108.00

63.00

Machinery Fuel

20.00

20.00

20.00

Machinery Repairs

18.00

18.00

18.00

Hauling

7.00

7.00

7.00

Interest

10.00

10.00

10.00

Miscellaneous

43.00

43.00

43.00

379.63

379.63

348.00

Total Yield

58

58

60

Price

$16.91

$18.11

$14.91

$980.78

$1050.38

$894.60 546.60

Revenue per Acre Gross Margin

601.15

670.75

Difference IP vs.

Roundup Ready

54.55

124.15

Assumed Price Premium

$2.00

$3.20

1.06

1.06

Breakeven Premium

Sources: Purdue University, Snobelen Farms, Great Lakes Grain, Les Young Farms, Ltd.

Europe, many of the soybeans used in Southeast Asia are used for human consumption. Countries with an interest in food grade soybeans and potential for growth include Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and Indonesia.

U.S. soybeans have several desirable characteristics that importing countries desire. These include high quality, managed disease and insect, ability to develop varieties for human food uses and state of the art processing facilities.

To read the full report and other economic research reports, visit www.michigansoybean.org/marketdevelopment. To learn more about specialty soybeans, contact MSC Demand Specialist Hanna Campbell at hcampbell@michigansoybean.org

Soybean Diseases: What Happened in 2022 and What to Expect Next Year?

Dr. Martin Chilvers, MSU Field Crops Pathologist Apart from planting delays due to moisture, the 2022 growing season brought relatively dry conditions across most of the state. Foliar diseases such as Septoria leaf blight and frog eye leaf spot which are dependent on leaf moisture for infection and reproduction were limited in their development. There were some cases of sudden death syndrome (SDS) in parts of the state. In most cases this was clearly due to the use of susceptible varieties. We also saw heavy levels of white mold in our irrigated variety and fungicide trials, but not in most dry land situations.

In planning for disease management in 2023, I would first ask if there were diseases that you have been dealing with over the last few years. The best course of action when managing disease issues is to use a variety with a high level of resistance to the disease of issue. If you have a history of a particular disease, be sure to speak with your seed dealer to ensure that you are using varieties with some level of resistance. Just because you didn’t have an issue in 2022, does not mean an outbreak of SDS or white mold will not occur this upcoming season. Many disease issues are highly dependent on weather conditions, and it can be easy to forget issues of a few years ago.

Unfortunately, most of the pathogens that we deal with can reside in the soil or residue for many years. Good historical field notes can help you best predict likely issues in the future.

I often get asked, should I use a seed treatment or a foliar fungicide. Unfortunately, there’s not an easy answer that covers all situations. Certainly, seed treatments can be thought about as a form of insurance. In some instances, we have seen much needed protection against seedling diseases. But this is not always the case, and the situation appears to vary from farm to farm. A positive ROI from seed treatments tends to occur in situations of lower planting populations, early planting, moisture stress events and in fields with a history of seedling or root rot diseases. With regards to foliar fungicide applications, remember, the chance of return on investment from a fungicide application will always be greatest when there is disease pressure to control. With respect to white mold, the Sporecaster app can be downloaded free of charge to examine in-season risk and even to retrospectively examine risk of previous seasons. Additional information on disease management is available on the Crop Protection Network website, which includes a soybean fungicide efficacy table at https://cropprotectionnetwork. org/publications/fungicide-efficacy-for-control-of-soybean-foliar-diseases If you do opt to make a fungicide application, always plan on leaving check strips, ideally two or three per field. Be mindful of other factors in the field that might influence yield, such as soil type, moisture levels, tile lines, air flow, etc. Check strips can quickly help you gauge the value of fungicide on disease management, yield and the bottom line. Without check strips you will not have a reference point to gauge the value of that input. Also avoid putting all your eggs in one basket. By using multiple varieties, you spread the risk of a particular disease or impacts of a weather event.

In comparing results of our Field Crop Pathology program with that of the MSC-MSUE on farm trials we see good agreement between our small plot work and that of on-farm trials, so both sources of information can be helpful in the decision-making process. Good luck and don’t forget about the bottom line when making disease management decisions.

SDS advanced foliar symptoms 31