Issuu

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

NON-PROFIT US POSTAGE PAID PERMIT 20 FRANKENMUTH, MI

2025 ON-FARM RESEARCH REPORT

Soybean MICHIGAN

Eric Anderson, 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 Spring Tillage Pre-Plant Sulfur Planting Rate Planting Date x Maturity Group In-Furrow Starter Fertilizer In-Furrow Radiate & Accomplish Max Soybean Seed Inoculation Residual Herbicide Foliar Micronutrient Cobra for White Mold Delaro Complete for High Yield Seed Box Treatment

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

THANK YOU to the farmer cooperators for contributing their land, equipment and time during the season to help improve Michigan soybean production. For more information on participating in the 2026 Michigan Soybean On-farm Research Program, contact Eric Anderson at (269) 359-0565 or eander32@msu.edu.

This year marks the 15th season of the soybean on-farm research program, made possible by the checkoff investment of Michigan soybean producers. This year, 38 producers around the state conducted on-farm research trials within 12 projects. Contained in this publication, you’ll find the results from 51 individual trial locations. The research projects were developed with farmer input and represent some of the most challenging production issues they face. 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 are presented for each treatment. Break-even yields utilized the projected USDA 2025-2026 average soybean price of $10.00 per bushel (updated Sept. 16, 2025), the manufacturers’ suggested retail prices for all products, and application costs associated with the treatments. Conducting these trials would not be possible without the strong partnership between the Michigan Soybean Committee (MSC) and Michigan State University Extension (MSUE). A few examples of the benefits of this unique collaboration include funding for: • MSUE statewide soybean educator and on-farm research program coordinator Eric Anderson, who devotes 100% of his work efforts to soybean research and education • MSUE field crops educator Teresa Crook (based in the Saginaw Bay region) who devotes half of her time to soybean research and programming and who was instrumental in creating this year’s report • Seven MSUE staff (Jenna Falor, Steve Whittington, Korede Olugbenle, Phil Kaatz, Nicolle Ritchie, Monica Jean and Madelyn Celovsky) who were instrumental in lining up and working with on-farm cooperators • A summer intern, Bella Perdue, who collected and organized soil and tissue samples and took stand counts for several trials The addition of advertisements in this publication helps stretch checkoff dollars by offsetting rising costs associated with printing and postage. Inclusion of these ads does not constitute endorsement by MSC or MSU Extension, and the purchase of space had no influence on the research process or the findings of our trials.

2025 On-Farm Trial Locations

Spring Tillage Pre-Plant Sulfur Planting Rate Planting Date X Maturity Group In-Furrow Starter Fertilizer In-Furrow Radiate & Accomplish Max Soybean Seed Inoculation Trial Residual Herbicide Foliar Micronutrient Cobra for White Mold Delaro Complete for High Yield Seed Box Treatment 3

Why Does Research Need to be so Complicated? Replications, Randomizations, Statistics, ugh! Many well-intentioned businesses market products and services to farmers claiming improved profitability. Farmers, as buyers, must minimize risk and invest only in practices that consistently enhance long-term profitability. Research helps reduce risk by identifying what works before scaling up. On-farm research by unbiased sources can separate real benefits from variability caused by weather, soil fertility and other factors. Researchers use scientific methods - randomization, replication, minimizing variables, and accurate measurements - to isolate treatment effects. Even a one to two bushel difference can matter. On-farm trials coordinated by MSC use multiple replications (four to six) and randomization for treatments, enabling statistical analysis to determine if differences are due to treatments or other variability (pests, water, soil pH, texture). Statistical analysis provides a least significant difference (LSD). When yield differences exceed the LSD, the treatment caused the effect in at least 90 percent of cases (confidence level). University studies often use 95 percent confidence levels in small-plot research. Farmers willing to accept more risk may choose lower confidence levels. NEW THIS YEAR: Some trials in this report include a statistic called a P-value, which shows the probability that results occurred by chance if no real treatment effect existed. Lower P-values indicate stronger evidence that differences were caused by the treatment. This complements LSD and offers transparency beyond the 90 percent confidence level. Since farmers often act on less than 90 percent confidence, P-values may help when considering new practices. Yield variability across combine passes - even without management changes - illustrates the challenge of simple comparisons. Replicating treatments, collecting strip-level data, and analyzing multiple data points require extra effort but ensure confidence in repeatable results. We thank farmer cooperators for their commitment to learning and sharing results with their peers statewide. Figure 1. Aerial view of trial field

Tillage Trial Purpose: The purpose of this trial was to evaluate how a single pass of any tillage implement selected by the trial cooperators affected soybean yield and income.

Table 1. Effect of tillage on soybean yield and income in 2019–2021 and 2024–2025

Procedure: A single tillage pass was compared with a non-tilled control at 11 locations in 2019–2021 and 2024–2025. A two-pass system was compared with a non-tilled control at one location each in 2020 and 2024. All tillage operations were performed in the spring except for the two-pass system in 2024, and the tillage tools used at each site are listed in Table 2. Stand counts were taken to determine if the tillage operations affected emerged populations.

* Two tillage passes used ** Cost of one tillage pass = $14.00 per acre

Results: Tillage increased soybean yield at two of the 13 locations and reduced it at one (Table 1). When all 13 sites were analyzed together, tillage increased yield by 1.0 bushel per acre but decreased income by $4.00 per acre (assuming a single pass). These results are consistent with other research findings across the northern U.S. and Canada. Soybean yield increases as a result of tillage are not consistent and typically do not outweigh the lower costs and conservation benefits of no-till practices. Tillage produced mixed results on final plant stands. At the Barry-20 and Kalamazoo-25 sites, tillage increased stands by 16,045 plants per acre on average. At Isabella-20, a single pass of a disk reduced the final stand by 3,500 plants per acre. Stand counts at all other sites were not statistically different between tilled and no-till control strips. Despite the lack of consistent economic returns to tillage, many producers feel tilling the soil prior to planting soybeans offers other benefits including: improved marestail control; improved planter/drill performance to achieve desired stand; burying residue to alleviate slug problems; and the ability to dry out the soil surface allowing earlier planting under wet soil conditions. Table 2. Background information for the tillage trials conducted in 2019–2021 and 2024–2025

** Two tillage passes used 6

Figure 1. Yield difference produced by one or two tillage passes from 2019–2021 and 2024–2025

* Yield difference was statistically significant ** Two tillage passes used

Table 3. Effect of a single spring tillage pass on soybean plant stand in 2019-2021 and 2024–2025

* Two tillage passes used Stand counts were not taken from the Isabella-21 trial

Preplant Sulfur Trial Purpose: Sulfur (S) is an essential element for soybean growth and development. Sulfur is a key component of proteins and is important in nitrogen fixation and absorption. This is why a crop deficient in S often appears to have a “highlighter green” hue. As atmospheric deposition has decreased over the past several decades, many farmers question whether S fertilizer use needs to increase to avoid yield-limiting deficiency. Recent research from Purdue University at one location showed a response to S fertilizer on light-textured soils. Soybeans rarely respond to S fertilizer, except in some cases with lighter soils having low organic matter where S has not been applied recently. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the impact of a preplant application of sulfur fertilizer on soybean yield and income. Procedure: This trial compared a preplant broadcast application of a sulfur product with a non-treated check. Fieldlength strips received a targeted rate of 20 lbs. S per acre while alternating strips received no sulfur with four to six replications at each location. See Table 1 for sulfur products used and pertinent information for each location. Soil samples were taken prior to treatment applications (Table 2), and foliar tissue samples were analyzed at the R1 growth stage (Table 3). Results: Two locations used ammonium sulfate (AMS) as a sulfur source and two used gypsum. Both the Clinton and Cass locations had low S soil test levels (Table 2), although most soil fertility specialists agree no reliable S soil test exists. Similar to soil nitrate, sulfate is a negative ion and moves with soil water, so soil moisture and many other factors affect S availability at any given time. None of the tissue samples were deficient in S, and no significant differences between S levels in treated and non-treated plots existed at any location (Table 3). No significant differences between soybean yields in treated and non-treated plots were found at any location (Table 4). The cost of the S application included the cost of each product plus a $12 per acre application cost. Since yields were unresponsive to S preplant fertilizer at all locations, the net return to S was negative with an average $29.72 per acre loss. Thanks to Dr. Kurt Steinke for his assistance in designing this trial.

Table 1. Background information for the preplant sulfur trial in 2025

* Enough product was used to apply 20 lbs. sulfur per acre

Table 2. Soil test report for the preplant sulfur trial in 2025

Bold values shaded in yellow were low or very low

Table 3. Soybean tissue nutrient analysis at R1 for the preplant sulfur trial in 2025

Bold values shaded in yellow represent low test levels

Table 4. Effect of a preplant sulfur application on soybean yield and income in 2025

* P-value is the probability the results occurred by random chance if there was no real treatment effect ** Cost includes fertilizer price paid by cooperator plus $12/ac application cost

Planting Rate Trial Purpose: Soybean planting rates were studied in on-farm trials at 66 locations from 2015 to 2021. Producers continued to express interest in this topic, so the study was revisited in 2024 and 2025. Many acknowledged reducing seeding rates in the past based on these findings with further reductions considered if these findings were updated and reinforced. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate how reducing planting rates will affect soybean yield and income across yield environments. Procedure: Four target planting rates (70K, 100K, 130K and 160K seeds/ac) were compared at 11 locations in 2024 and five locations in 2025. These were the same rates used in 2015–2021 except the lowest rate was 80K seeds/ ac. Stand counts were taken at almost all locations around V2 to estimate final plant stands compared with target planting rates. Projected market prices and conservative seed costs were used to determine the income (gross income minus seed cost) resulting from the four planting rates. Results: Yield response (Table 3), stand as a percent of target rate (Table 2), and net income (Table 3, Figure 1) all show these results have been fairly stable across years. Plant populations have consistently measured roughly 20 percent lower than target seeding rates on average over the years. This could be attributed to numerous factors including planter setup, germination and emergence issues, seed and seedling disease and predation, human error in stand count measurements and others. Farmers must know their plant populations to make seeding rate decisions to achieve an economically-optimum final stand. When averaged across all five locations in 2025, yields were highest at the two highest seeding rates and lowest at the lowest seeding rate. The same trend was found when averaged across all nine years of the study. Of note is the fact there were no differences in yield across seeding rates at three of the five locations in 2025, a pattern which was also found in previous years. Income was maximized at the 130K seeding rate in 2025 at $452 per acre - $2 per acre more than with the 100K seeding rate. However, when averaged across all 82 locations and nine years, income was maximized at 100K seeds/ac with the 130K rate producing $5 per acre less (Table 3, Figure 2). Given the consistency of yield and net economic return results over the nine years of this on-farm trial, farmers who have made incremental seeding rate reductions in the past may want to consider another reduction to improve their bottom line. As always, we encourage the use of strip trials to minimize risk when trying a different practice.

Table 1. Tillage and planting information in 2025

* Fall/spring; D - disc, CP - chisel plow, NT - no-till

Table 2. Target planting rates, average actual plant stands and percent of target rate across all locations in 2015–2025

* Lowest target planting rate was 80,000 from 2015–2021 and 70,000 from 2024–2025 10

Table 3. Effect of four planting rates on soybean yield and income in 2015–2025

* Lowest target planting rate was 80,000 from 2015–2021 and 70,000 in 2024–2025 ** Seed cost = $70 per 140,000 seed unit

Figure 1. Effect of four planting rates on soybean yield in 2015-2025

* Lowest target planting rate was 80,000 from 2015–2021 and 70,000 from 2024–2025

Figure 2. Average planting rate effects on soybean yield and income* from 2015–2025

* Income calculated based on seed cost and soybean price for 2025 ** Lowest target planting rate was 80,000 from 2015–2021 and 70,000 from 2024–2025 11

Planting Dates x Maturity Groups Trial Purpose: Early planting was studied at 25 sites over five years in on-farm trials from 2019 to 2023. Although results were not uniformly positive, on average yield was increased by 1.5 bu/ac when planted approximately two to three weeks earlier than normal. These results agreed with numerous university planting date trials across the country. Conventional wisdom says to choose a longer maturity group (MG) variety to maximize growth potential and yield when planting early. However, research from University of Wisconsin showed a relatively wide range of maturity groups produced similar yields when planted early. The purpose of this trial was to determine whether longer MG varieties produce higher yields when planted early. Clear distinction between planting dates and maturity Procedure: This trial had two variables: 1) Planting date - in or groups near the third week of April compared with 3–4 weeks later; and 2) Maturity group - two varieties nearly one full MG apart, all other traits as similar as possible. All other management practices were similar to isolate the effects of these two variables. Field-length plots were fully randomized and replicated four times at two locations in 2024 and one location in 2025. Two MGs were planted with only one planting date in Shiawassee in 2024 (data not shown).

Results: Planting background information is presented in Table 1 and soil test data in Table 2. Early planting produced higher yields than later planting regardless of MG (Table 3, Figure 1). Early-planted soybeans yielded 8.8 bu/ac higher than later-planted soybeans when averaged across all maturity groups, locations and years. No differences were detected between MGs at the later planting. In 2025, the longer MG variety yielded 6.0 bu/ ac higher than the shorter MG at the earlier planting. When averaged across all three locations, no statistical differences existed between MGs at either planting timing. Changes in planting date and variety selection can impact stand establishment, and efforts were made to conduct stand counts to determine potential impact. Reliable stand count data was not able to be collected for this trial in 2024, but stand counts were taken in 2025 (Table 4). Stand counts for the shorter MG at the later planting date were lower compared to other treatments. Weed pressure, primarily from common lambsquarters, occurred in later-planted plots, likely due to early herbicide applications and no herbicides applied at the later planting date. While this weed pressure did not likely influence soybean emergence, it may have contributed to reduced yields. While some experts have suggested grain quality may be a concern when managing planting date and variety selection, no appreciable differences were found from sample analyses of oil and protein concentrations in 2025. We want to thank Drs. Manni Singh and Christy Sprague for their input in designing this trial.

Table 1. Background information for the planting date by maturity group trial in 2024–2025

* Fall/spring tillage, NT - no-till, CP - chisel plow, D - disc, SF - soil finisher

Table 2. Soil test levels for organic matter, CEC, phosphorus, potassium, and pH at trial locations in 2024–2025

Table 3. Effect of planting date and maturity group on soybean yield and income in 2024–2025

* P-value is the probability the results occurred by random chance if there was no real treatment effect

Figure 1. Yield differences produced by different planting dates and maturity groups in 2024–2025

Same letters indicate similar yield at each location

Table 4. Effect of planting date and maturity group on stand count in 2025

* P-value is the probability the results occurred by random chance if there was no real treatment effect 13

In-Furrow Starter Fertilizer Trial Purpose: Producers consistently rank nutrient management as a high priority for on-farm research and reference starter fertilizer specifically. Knowing if applying nutrients in-furrow at planting is a profitable practice is important for controlling expenses. 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 fertilizers applied in-furrow affected soybean yield and income in 2023–2025. Procedure: Two treatments (in-furrow product vs. an untreated control) were compared at three locations in 2023, eight locations in 2024 and three locations in 2025. This project is different than our other on-farm research trials in that the cooperators selected the products and application rates to evaluate on their farms (Table 1). We collected baseline soil samples from each site (Table 2). Stand counts were also taken as soybean seed is sensitive to salt injury and stands could be adversely affected by such products applied in contact with the seed. Results: Yield was increased with an in-furrow fertilizer compared with the control at one of the 14 locations and was decreased at two locations (Table 3, Figure 1). Yields at all other locations were not significantly different between fertilizer and Table 1. Background information for the in-furrow trials conducted in 2023–2025 control treatments. Net income ranged from an increase of $12.45 per acre to a loss of $107.68 per acre when yield differences and cost of fertilizer products were considered. Plant stands were higher with the in-furrow products compared with the control at two of the locations, lower at three locations, and not different at all other locations * Fall/spring tillage, NT - no-till, VT - vertical till, CP - chisel plow, DR - disc ripper, FC - field cultivator, across all years (Table DB - disc and rolling basket 4). Stand counts were ** Heat-treated poultry fertilizer crumbles were applied at this location statistically higher with the Table 2. Soil test levels at the in-furrow starter trial locations in 2023–2025 in-furrow products on average in 2025, but when all locations and years were averaged together, no difference was detected. Best practice is to fertilize according to needs identified on a recent soil test. When planting into cold soils, providing small amounts of nutrients may be beneficial until temperatures are warm enough for mineralization. Care must be taken to ensure the salt load in the fertilizer product will not injure the seed when applying in-furrow. Thanks to Herbruck’s for providing the heat-treated poultry fertilizer crumbles applied at the Jackson location and SureCrop for donating product for three locations in 2024 and 2025. Bold figures indicate low or very low soil test levels. 14

Table 3. Effect of various in-furrow products on yield and income in 2023–2025

* Net return is based on cost of specific in-furrow products, yield differences, and soybean price for each year

Figure 1. Yield difference produced by various in-furrow starter products in 2023–2025

* Yield difference was statistically significant

Table 4. Effect of various in-furrow starter products on final plant stands in 2023–2025

In-Furrow Radiate® & Accomplish Max™ Trial Purpose: Sometimes looking to those who have successfully grown high-yielding soybeans can give ideas for how to achieve higher yields on your own farm. According to one Michigan soybean yield contest winner, applying Radiate® and Accomplish Max™ helped him achieve those record-setting yields. Radiate contains indole butyric acid (IBA), an auxin plant growth regulator in the auxin group that increases root formation and benefits plants under stressful conditions. Applied in-furrow, the early-season root growth could increase water use efficiency and yield. Accomplish Max reportedly feeds microbes to improve the conversion of organic and inorganic fertilizers into plant-available forms, increase nutrient availability and may improve plant tolerance to abiotic stresses. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the effect of these combined products on soybean yield and income when applied in-furrow. Procedure: Two treatments (in-furrow products vs. a non-treated control) were compared at four locations each in 2024 and 2025. Background information regarding planting is presented in Table 1. Radiate was applied at 4 oz/ac combined with Accomplish Max at 32 oz/ac. Results: Yields were not different between the in-furrow plant growth products and the non-treated control at any location (Table 2). When averaged across locations and years, a difference of only 0.1 bu/ac was found, resulting in a net loss of income of $20 per acre due to the price of the products. Yields at all locations fell short of the breakeven yield for the trial (Figure 1). We want to thank Loveland Products, Inc. for donating product for all locations.

Table 1. Background information for the in-furrow plant growth products trials conducted in 2024–2025

* Fall/spring tillage, NT - no-till, CP - chisel plow, D - disc, VT - vertical till, DR - disc ripper, FC - field cultivator

Table 2. Effect of in-furrow application of plant growth products on yield and income in 2024–2025

* P-value is the probability the results occurred by random chance if there was no real treatment effect ** Cost of Radiate = $10.00/ac; Accomplish Max = $11.25/ac; Total cost = $21.25/ac

Figure 1. Yield difference produced by in-furrow plant growth products in 2024–2025

Soybean Seed Inoculation Trial Purpose: Legume crops like soybeans have a symbiotic relationship with N-fixing bacteria whereby the soybean plant provides sugars to feed the bacteria which then fix atmospheric N into a form the plants can use. These bacteria - Bradyrhizobium japonicum in the case of soybeans - colonize the roots to form nodules which are 1/16 to 1/8 inch in diameter. Typically, soybean seeds do not need an inoculant added if soybeans have been grown in the field in the past three to five years, as the bacteria will survive in the soil. However, under certain conditions such as soil pH below 6.0, soils with high sand content, or past flooding events lasting more than a week, introducing B. japonicum via seed treatment or in-furrow may be beneficial. The relatively low cost of inoculants, ease of use and increasing shelf life have created more interest in the use of inoculants. Many farmers routinely inoculate their soybeans without knowing whether they will receive a return on their investment. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the impact on yield and income of inoculating soybeans. Procedure: This trial had two treatments: soybean seed without an inoculant, and seed from the same lot with an inoculant of the farmer’s choice. The trial was conducted by placing the inoculated seed in half the planter and the non-inoculated seed in the other half. There were at least four replications at each location in 2024 and 2025. Results: When averaged across years and locations, yield was not affected by the inoculant. Inoculated plots produced higher yields than the non-inoculated plots at two of the five locations, resulting in an average net return to inoculation of $4.78 per acre. However, when averaged across all locations and years, the average net return was only $0.81 per acre. If you plan to grow soybeans in 2026 in fields where they have been grown recently, consider hosting a trial to see whether inoculating seed will be beneficial to your operation.

Table 1. Key background information for soybean inoculant trials in 2024–2025

Table 2. Effect of seed inoculant on soybean yield and income in 2024–2025

* P-value is the probability the results occurred by random chance if there was no real treatment effect

Figure 1. Yield difference produced by soybean inoculation in 2024–2025

* Yield difference was statistically significant at this location

Residual Herbicide Trial Purpose: As the list of resistant weed species in Michigan continues to grow, farmers need to employ effective strategies with effective active ingredients to manage these weeds and their seed production. Adding herbicides with residual soil activity to preemergence (PRE) and postemergence (POST) applications - “layering residuals” will help to manage weeds not controlled by certain active ingredients and decrease the weed seed bank. Several effective active ingredients are available for use PRE in soybeans, but few are safe when applied after soybean emergence. Refer to MSU Bulletin E0434 – 2025 Weed Control Guide for Field Crops for a list of herbicides and species controlled. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a residual herbicide application would decrease weed pressure and increase yield and profitability. Procedure: Trial cooperators were given the option of applying S-metolachlor + metribuzin (Boundary®) PRE or S-metolachlor (Dual Magnum®) POST depending on their existing weed management program. Two farmers in 2025 chose the POST option. The two treatments - herbicide applications with and without Dual Magnum - were replicated in alternating strips at least five times at each location. Applications were made prior to R2 at one to two pt/ac depending on soil type and organic matter per the product label. Weed pressure ratings were taken around R7 after soybeans had dropped most leaves, and yields were measured from the middle of each strip. Results: Planting and herbicide application information is found in Table 1. No weeds were present in the field in Montcalm, but weed pressure was moderate across the field in Sanilac, although weed counts could not be collected at that location. No difference in yield was found at the Montcalm site; however, the Sanilac site showed a 5.6 bu/ac difference resulting in a net profit of $43.81/ac (Table 2, Figure 1). When averaged together, a $16/ac net profit resulted from applying a residual herbicide combined with a POST application. We want to thank Syngenta for donating the product for these trials and Dr. Christy Sprague for assisting with trial design.

Table 1. Planting and herbicide application information for residual herbicide trial in 2025

* Weed pressure assessed at approx. R7: None - no weeds present, Low - individual weeds found sporadically, Medium - scattered weed patches or moderate but consistent weed presence throughout field, Severe - many large weed patches or heavy and consistent weed presence throughout the field

Table 2. Effect of a residual herbicide with a postemergence application on soybean yield and income in 2025

* P-value is the probability the results occurred by random chance if there was no real treatment effect ** Dual Magnum cost = $12.19 per acre at 1.5 pt/ac rate; application cost was not included because it was tank-mixed with a planned postemergence herbicide application 20

Figure 1. Yield differences and break-even yield from a residual herbicide with a postemergence application on soybean yield in 2025

* Yield difference was statistically significant ** Application cost is not included, only the cost of the product, assuming a rate of 1.5 pt/ac for medium-textured soil

MicroStrike Bean Foliar Fertilizer Trial Purpose: MicroStrike Bean is a micronutrient product for foliar feeding and nutrient uptake containing chelated zinc (2.25%), manganese (1.25%) and magnesium (0.75%), as well as boron (2.25%). The product is reportedly compatible with most fertilizers and pesticides. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate how adding MicroStrike Bean to a planned postemergence herbicide application would affect soybean yield and income. Procedure: Two treatments were compared in this trial - postemergence herbicide plus MicroStrike Bean vs. the same postemergence herbicide without MicroStrike Bean. The product was applied at 1 qt/ac between V4 and early R1. The trial was conducted at 12 locations in 2025 (Table 1) with three to seven replications at each site. Soil samples were analyzed and the results are presented in Table 2. Tissue samples were collected two weeks after the MicroStrike Bean application and results are presented in Table 3. Results: At least one soil test level was low at several locations, which suggested the crop may respond to a fertilizer application. However, no significant differences in tissue test levels between treated and control strips existed for any location (data not shown). The foliar application of MicroStrike Bean increased yield at three locations by as much as 3.6 bu/ac (Table 3). Yield was not significantly affected at any other location at a 90 percent confidence level. A second application was made four weeks after the first one at the Lenawee-2 location per company recommendations, but yields were not different among treatments (data not shown). When averaged across locations, yield was not impacted by the MicroStrike Bean application and the average net income was reduced by $1/ac after accounting for the cost of the product (Table 3, Figure 1). We want to thank Crop Performance LLC for donating the product for this trial.

Table 1. Planting and treatment information for the MicroStrike Bean foliar fertilizer trial in 2025

* Both one-pass and two-pass treatments were included at this location

Table 2. Soil test levels at MicroStrike Bean foliar fertilizer trial locations in 2025

Bold figures indicate low or very low soil test levels Soil testing was not conducted for the Montcalm location 22

Table 3. Effect of a single application of MicroStrike Bean on soybean yield and income in 2025

* P-value is the probability the results occurred by random chance if there was no real treatment effect ** MicroStrike Bean cost = $5.75 per acre; application cost was not included because it was tank-mixed with a planned postemergence herbicide application

Figure 1. Yield difference from a foliar application of MicroStrike Bean in 2025

* Yield difference was statistically significant ** Application cost is not included, only the cost of the product

Cobra® Herbicide for White Mold Trial Purpose: Cobra® (active ingredient lactofen) is a PPO-inhibiting contact herbicide typically applied at 8–12.5 oz/ ac for postemergence broadleaf weed control in soybeans. However, Cobra has also been investigated as a potential treatment to protect against white mold in soybeans. Small-plot research at MSU and other universities has shown Cobra can perform as well as the best white mold fungicides under high disease pressure. However, Dr. Marty Chilvers, MSU field crop pathologist, warns soybean yield loss is possible when white mold conditions are not present. According to the product label, “Effects of Cobra Herbicide on white mold is not a fungicidal response but one that may involve Systemic Acquired Resistance (SAR).” The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate Cobra’s ability to suppress white mold and its impact on soybean yield and net income. Procedure: A single application of Cobra was compared with a non-treated control in alternating field-length strips at five locations in 2025. All locations had a history of white mold. Cobra was applied at 6 oz/ac at or just before early R1 (one open blossom on the main stem of 50 percent of plants). Soybean variety, white mold resistance rating, and planting information are presented in Table 1. Application dates, white mold risk prediction at R1, application characteristics, rainfall information and disease pressure at R5–R6 are presented in Table 3. Results: White mold pressure was very low across most of the Lower Peninsula in 2025 due to dry summer conditions. No white mold was found at four locations and only a very low level of incidence was found at the St. Joseph-2 location. The foliar application of Cobra produced low levels of leaf injury typical of this herbicide, but plants quickly grew out of it at all locations. Soybean yields were significantly lower with the Cobra application at the Saginaw and Montcalm locations but were not statistically different at the other three locations (Table 2). When all locations were averaged together, the Cobra application decreased soybean yield by 1.1 bu/ac and decreased net profits by $15/ac after accounting for product cost. Application cost was not included as it was assumed Cobra would be tank-mixed with a planned postemergence herbicide application. Thanks to Valent for donating the product for these trials and Dr. Marty Chilvers for assisting with trial design.

Table 1. Variety and planting information for Cobra white mold trial locations in 2025

Table 2. Effect of a 6 oz Cobra application for white mold suppression on soybean yield and income in 2025

* P-value is the probability the results occurred by random chance if there was no real treatment effect ** Cobra cost: $4.22 per acre; application cost was not included because it was tank-mixed with a planned postemergence herbicide application 24

Table 3. Application information and disease assessment for Cobra white mold trial locations in 2025

* Rainfall data obtained from the nearest MSU Enviroweather station ** White mold disease pressure observations made throughout the plot area between R5 and R6: None - no infected plants, Low few infected plants, Medium - several infected plants noticeable from a distance, High - extensive injury observed *** Fungicide applications typically recommended when apothecia development forecasts are higher than 40 percent, colors correspond to risk level as depicted in the Crop Protection Network white mold risk tool

Figure 1. Yield difference from a 6 oz application of Cobra for white mold suppression in 2025

* Yield difference was statistically significant ** Application cost is not included, only the cost of the product

Delaro® Complete Foliar Fungicide for High Yield Trial Purpose: Delaro® Complete is a foliar fungicide from Bayer Crop Science 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 applied at R3 affected soybean yield and income when used as a general foliar fungicide, not specifically applied to manage white mold, in 2023–2025.

Procedure: A foliar application of Delaro Complete was compared with a non-treated control at 10 locations in 2023, 11 locations in 2024, and 11 locations in 2025. Delaro Complete was applied at 8 oz/ac at the R3 growth stage (one pod 3/16” long on one of the uppermost nodes having unrolled leaves on the main stem). Application dates, application characteristics, and rainfall information for 2025 locations are presented in Table 1. Results: Delaro Complete increased soybean yields at eight of the 10 individual trial locations in 2023 and one of the 11 locations in 2024 (data not shown). In 2025, the fungicide increased yields at two of the 11 locations (Table 2). Yield increases ranged from 2.3 to 7.9 bu/ac across the three years. However, the biggest increases occurred in 2023, a year with higher white mold pressure across the state. Some portion of the greater yield differences from 2023 can be presumed to be the fungicide protecting the crop against white mold. Both 2024 and 2025 were relatively dry seasons with low white mold pressure, so yield increases with the fungicide in those years can more likely be attributed to a plant health response. When all 32 locations were analyzed together, the fungicide application increased soybean yields by 1.7 bu/ac. After accounting for product and application costs, the fungicide was profitable at six locations in 2023 and two locations in 2024 (data not shown). The additional income ranged from $0.37 to $68.72 per acre at these locations. However, the treatment was not profitable at any location in 2025 or when averaged across locations within each year and across years (Table 2, Figure 1). When averaged across all years and locations, the fungicide application resulted in a net loss of $23/ac due to product and application costs and soybean prices for 2025. We want to thank Bayer Crop Science for donating the product for these trials.

Table 1. Application and rainfall information for the Delaro Complete trial locations

* Rainfall data obtained from the nearest MSU Enviroweather station ** Drone application

Table 2. Effect of a single R3 application of Delaro Complete on soybean yield and income in 2023–2025

* P-value is the probability the results occurred by random chance if there was no real treatment effect ** Delaro Complete cost = $28.13 per acre, Application cost = $12.00 per acre

Figure 1. Yield difference from a foliar application of Delaro Complete fungicide at R3 in 2023–2025

* Yield difference was statistically significant ** Break-even cost includes $28.13/ac for Delaro Complete plus $12/ac application cost

Planter Box Treatment Trial Purpose: A recent surge in companies selling planter box seed treatment products is driven by strong farmer demand for convenient, cost-effective solutions to improve crop yield and health, address environmental concerns, and offer flexibility in application. These products offer targeted benefits without the cost and complexity of commercial seed treating or in-furrow application equipment. They typically contain micronutrients, biologicals, biostimulants, seed lubricants, or other additives reportedly to improve early plant growth. When profit margins are tight, farmers want to know whether there is a return on investment for new products. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the impact of including a seed box treatment on soybean yield and income. Procedure: Two treatments—soybean seed planted with a planter box treatment product and a non-treated control from the same seed lot—were compared at a single location. Soil samples were collected to determine whether any nutrients were deficient prior to planting. Results: Planting information is found in Table 1. According to the soil test report (Table 2), only zinc and boron were low in this field. Yield was not statistically different between the control and treated plots which resulted in a net loss of $4.71 per acre based on the cost of the product (Table 3). Testing will need to be conducted across more fields and years to determine whether this product could be profitable. This was not a prescribed trial in our program for 2025 but was conducted with a farmer who was interested in testing this product recommended to him by his seed salesman. We are happy to work with farmers to conduct experiments like this even though they are not part of our official program. If you have a practice or product you would like to learn more about, contact us for help in designing a trial with you and analyzing the data.

Table 1. Background information for the planter box treatment trial location in 2025

Table 2. Soil test levels at the planter box treatment trial locations in 2025

Bold figures indicate low or very low soil test levels.

Table 3. Effect of planter box treatment on yield and income in 2025

* P-value is the probability the results occurred by random chance if there was no real treatment effect 28

Family Owned, American Company ~ Since 1972 ~

FomAsate

™

Herbicide

Me-Too-Lachlor MTZ ™

Herbicide

UP-Front

™

Herbicide

Drexel Chemical Company strives to make a Quality Product at an Affordable Cost to Growers. Call 901.774.4370 or visit DrexChem.com to contact your local sales representative. FOMASATE, ME-TOO-LACHLOR, UP-FRONT and the DREXEL logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Drexel Chemical Company.

MISYAD-1125

MICHIGAN PROVEN. MICHIGAN GROWN. DF Seeds pressure-tests their varieties to identify the agronomic characteristics that ultimately increase your profit-per-acre. We find the right genetics for growers, plus connect them with the best local agronomy resources. CATEGORY

KEY POINTS

DETAILS

Testing & Product Performance

Local Testing

Varieties are tested throughout the sales region to ensure best performance.

Proven Product Lineup

Products are specifically selected and proven for Michigan growing conditions.

E3 Genetics

Strong lineup of E3 genetics for GMO operations.

Strategic Partnerships

Works with Michigan Ag Commodities and Zeeland Farm Services.

High-Yield Opportunities

Partnerships provide high-yielding varieties for premium programs.

Farmer Profitability

Programs designed to bring more money back to growers.

Michigan Focus

DF Seeds works exclusively with Michigan farmers and has decades of experience in the region.

NGMO Leadership

Long-standing leader in NGMO soybeans.

High-Quality Seed

Proven success growing high-quality seed for Michigan environments.

Partnerships & Grower Value

Company Focus & Experience

Call 517.623.6161 or visit www.dfseeds.com

WIN

E H

G A A I R N A ST W

START THE SEASON STRONG WITH FIERCE® HERBICIDES. With multiple modes of action and three formulations, Fierce EZ, Fierce XLT and Fierce MTZ Herbicides give you options to tackle the toughest weeds, including Palmer amaranth and waterhemp. Keep weeds where they belong by applying Perpetuo® Herbicide post emergence for overlapping residual control. Planning for next year? Consider INTEGO® and Aveo® EZ seed treatments to protect your bottomline.

BETTER SOYBEANS WITH

THE BATTLE FOR BETTER SOYBEANS STARTS NOW. TALK TO YOUR VALENT REP TODAY. Products That Work, From People Who Care® | valent.com | 800-6-VALENT (682-5368) Always read and follow label instructions. Aveo, Firece, INTEGO, Perpetuo, and Products That Work, From People Who Care are registered trademarks of Valent U.S.A. LLC. ©2025 Valent U.S.A. LLC. All rights reserved.

VALENT’S SOYBEAN PORTFOLIO