Graves Chapple Research Center - University of Missouri ...extension.missouri.edu/holt/documents/G-C 2011 annual report II.pdf · The Graves - Chapple Research Center is a University

Graves - Chapple

Research Center

2011 Annual Report

Northwest Missouri Demonstration Site

http://extension.missouri.edu/atchison/Graves/Main%20page.htm

Page 2

The Graves - Chapple Research Center is a University of Missouri research and demonstration

site located in southwest Atchison County. Graves - Chapple East is located on the east side of

I-29 at the foot of the bluffs. Graves - Chapple Heitman Farm is on the west side of I-29

adjacent to State Highway111.

The site was established in 1988 as a collaborative effort between Atchison County Extension,

Holt County Extension, the University of Missouri’s Agricultural Experiment Station, local

agribusinesses and local producers. Primary funding is provided by University of Missouri

Extension and the Agricultural Experiment Station.

Projects at this site are devoted to various agronomic practices, with a major emphasis on the

production of corn and soybeans. Work with forages, other row crops and alternative crops is

also conducted. This site is somewhat unique in the state due to the soil types and the

predominance of no-till planting techniques. Soil conservation and water quality issues are also

addressed. The farm strives to perfect practices that will maintain or increase the profitability for

area crop producers.

Acknowledgements

We appreciates the time and effort of the advisory committee that guides the work at this site.

Atchison County

Steve Klute - Chairman Phil Graves

Russell Herron - Vice Chair Jason Garst

Holt County

John Dudek- Secretary Greg Hall

Greg Biermann Morris Heitman

Andrew County

Dick Townsend Greg Furst

Nodaway County

Monica Wood

Regional Extension Faculty:

Jim Crawford - Natural Resource Engineering Specialist Wayne Flanary - Agronomy

Specialist Amie Schleicher - Livestock Specialist Bob Kelly - Ag Business

Specialist Shawn Deering - Livestock Specialist Tom Fowler - Horticulture

We want to thank the following people who have helped in so many ways throughout the year.

A special thanks go to CAFNR Deans Tom Payne and Marc Linit, Director of Field Operations

John Poehlmann and Karma Metzgar, University of Missouri Extension Northwest Regional

Director, for their continuing support of Graves - Chapple Research Center.

Bob Chapple Laura Sweets Kathi Hatleback Marilyn Graves

Larry Hecker Keith Lutz Jay McCoy Dean Adkins

Tom Brand Wayne Bailey Donna Thomas Beverly Spencer

Jonathon Baxley Robert Gibson Bruce Burdick Tim Reinbott


Page 3

Topic Page

From the Staff ........................................................................................................................ 4

Farm Sponsors ....................................................................................................................... 5

Tillage Systems in Corn ......................................................................................................... 6

Tillage Systems in Soybeans ................................................................................................. 8

Effect of Quadris Fungicide on Yield of Different Corn Hybrids ........................................ 10

The Influence of Different Corn Planting Populations at Two Yield Environments ........... 11

The Effect of Different Nitrogen Application Timings on Corn Yield ................................. 12

Effect of Different Nitrogen Products on Corn Yield ........................................................... 14

The Effect of Different Nitrogen Application Timings on Corn Yield ................................. 16

The Value of Narrow Row Spacing with a June Soybean Planting Date ............................. 17

Field Day .............................................................................................................................. 18

FFA Student Field Day ......................................................................................................... 22

2011 Graves - Chapple Research Center Daily Precipitation Data ....................................... 26

2011 Graves - Chapple Research Center Daily Temperature Data ....................................... 27

Index

Page 4

As everyone involved with agriculture knows, raising crops can be a challenge and 2011 was

no different. Parts of Northwest Missouri saw record floods while other parts received devastating

hail and wind storms. At the center, we were not spared from Mother Nature as our west side plots

were under flood water for over 3 months. While the flood waters provided excellent weed control, it

also presented us with a variety of other challenges and opportunities.

In 1988, one of the major changes occurring was the promotion of the no-till farming system.

No-till was seen as a way to reduce input costs and reduce erosion on our agricultural ground.

Agriculture was being singled out as the major source of pollution in our nations lakes and rivers.

The concept of not tilling the soil was so foreign to most farmers that the concept was thought to be

impractical in Northwest Missouri. “It will not work up here” was a common refrain. Under that

premise, the Graves-Chapple Farm was founded and has proven over the years that no-till is a viable,

profitable and environmentally friendly farming process for Northwest Missouri.

Why do we give you this background? Because the Graves-Chapple Research Center is here

to provide research based information to area producers under local conditions. While the flood was

devastating, we have chosen to look at it as an opportunity to conduct research on restoring flooded

ground to production. We are using the 2011 flood of our plots to develop information on the

impacts to the soil and how best to resume productive agriculture in these situations.

Another change in 2011 was in the name of the farm. The College of Agriculture, Food and

Natural Resources conducts research at outlying locations throughout the state. For the sake of

consistency across the state, all research locations were renamed Research Centers to more closely

represent the activities taking place at these locations. The name may have changed, but the quality

of research and demonstrations you have come to expect has not diminished.

Visitors are always welcome whether you are attending a field day, special tour, meeting, or

just passing through the area. We are pleased that you have picked up this copy of the annual report.

The information in this report is a brief overview for some of the current research and demonstrations

at the farm and we hope that you find the information beneficial to your operation.

If you are not on our mailing list or email list for flyers or meetings and would like to be,

please let us know. We encourage you to ask questions. You are the reason this center exists and

sometimes your questions or suggestions become an entire experiment or demonstration that benefits

many people.

We would also like to thank the members of our Advisory Board for their support and

guidance. Their time and efforts are greatly appreciated.

Jim Crawford Wayne Flanary

Farm Superintendent Agronomist

From the Staff

Page 5

Ag Choice, Rock Port

AgriGold Hybrids

American Family Insurance, Rock Port

Atchison County Extension Council

Atchison County Farm Bureau

Atchison-Holt Electric Coop

Burrus Power Hybrids

Citizens Bank & Trust, Rock Port

Citizens Bank of Oregon

Craig Grain

Cunningham Farms, Inc.

Danny Burke

Lois Dodd Trust

Douglas Garrison

Exchange Bank of Fairfax

Fairfax Agency

Farmers State Bank, Mound City

Farmers Supply Ag Service, Burlington

Junction

FCS Financial

Garst Seed

Grebe Farm & Home

Helena Chemical Company

Hoegemeyer Hybrids

Holt County Extension Council

Steve Joesten

Julie Joesten

Keith Lutz

Kelly’s Welding and Repair

KFEQ Radio

Supporters

KMA Radio

Larry Hecker

McCoy Repair

MFA Enterprises

MFA, Fairfax

Missouri Corn Growers Association

Missouri Valley Tractor Club

MO Valley Ag

Morning Sun Seed

Morris Heitman

Mycogen Seeds

Nodaway Bank, Mound City

Phil Graves

Pioneer Hybrids

Producers Hybrids

R&L Fine Meats

River Valley AG

Robert Gibson

Rock Port Rotary

Scheib Drainage

Scott Milne Pioneer Seed, Oregon

St. Joseph News-Press

Sur-Gro, Savannah

Sur-Gro Forest City

Syngenta

Tarkio Co-op

Taylor Seed Farms

Teresa Kurtz

Willcross Seed

Wyffels Seed

Yocum Fertilizer

We would like to thank the following companies and individuals for their contributions to this

year’s work. Their assistance is greatly appreciated.

Page 6

Objective

Methods & Materials

The objective of this demonstration is

to evaluate the effect of different tillage

systems on corn yields and profitability of the

enterprise. This is the 20th year for this

demonstration.

The four most common tillage systems

practiced in this region were used for this

demonstration. The tillage systems used

were:

Fall & Spring Disk

Spring Disk

No-till

Fall Chisel & Spring Disk

Each plot consisted of eight rows

spaced 30 inches apart and 250 feet long.

Yield results were taken from the center six

rows of each plot. The plots were planted on

May 4, 2011 with a population of 32,401

seeds/acre into a field that raised soybeans in

2010. Harvest was conducted on October 6,

2011.

Tillage Systems in Corn

Results and Discussion

In 2011, the Spring Disk plot had the

highest yield with 245.3 bu/acre. The lowest

yielding system was the Fall chisel and Spring

disk plot which yielded 197.9 bu/ac. The

average for the four systems was 220.5 bu/ac

with a standard deviation of 19.8 bu/ac. Yield

results for all four tillage systems are shown in

Table 1 and Figure 1.

Perhaps the best comparison can be

made by looking at the cumulative results of

the study as shown in Figure 2. This long

term collection of data allows the weather

variable to be minimized since we have had

greatly varying weather patterns during this

time period. During this 21 year period, the

Spring Disk system averaged 173.7 bu/acre.

The Fall and Spring disk treatment had the

lowest average of 168.1 bu/acre. With a

standard deviation of only 2.6 bu/acre over

this period, there is no significant difference

between the yields.

The most important aspect of the

tillage trials is the net bottom line. The

application of fertilizer, herbicides, seed,

planting and harvesting were identical for

each of the tillage systems used. Thus, the

economic differences shown are a result of the

tillage procedures conducted on each plot and

the associated costs.

Figure 1 - 2011 Corn tillage systems yield

results.

197.9

214.6

245.3

224.1

Fall Chisel/Spring Disk

No-Till

Spring Disk

Fall & Spring disk

bu/Acre

Til

lag

e S

yst

em

Til

lag

e S

yst

em

Table 1 - 2011 Corn tillage systems yield

Corn Tillage

System

Harvest

Moisture

(%)

Yield at

15.5%

Moisture

bu/acre Fall & Spring disk 16.0 224.1

Spring Disk 15.8 245.3

No-Till 15.7 214.6

Fall Chisel/Spring Disk 15.7 197.9

Trial averages 15.8 220.5

Standard Deviation 19.8

Page 7

It is very difficult to estimate tillage

costs as each grower’s operating costs will be

different. Age and size of the equipment, field

shape and size as well as soil type will all

effect the tillage costs. A large variable most

seasons is fuel cost. To come up with a

standard comparison value, we used the rates

from the MU Custom Rates guidesheet for the

various tillage operations performed. These

values are based on data collected from

producers across Missouri. The most recent

guide was updated in 2009. There is no

assurance that these rates would cover a

particular producers costs. However, this is

the best estimate we can find for a comparison

One factor not considered in the

economic analysis is labor. It is almost

impossible to place a value on a producer’s

labor per hour. Therefore, no labor costs are

included in the analysis.

Table 2 provides a summary of the

gross income per acre minus the costs for the

tillage work that was conducted. If we use a

value of $6.00 per bushel, over this 21 year

period the no-till plots grossed $4.81 less than

the Spring disk plots and $40.47 and $43.56

per acre more than the other tillage systems.

Another important factor that is

sometimes not considered is the benefit to the

environment of different tillage practices. No-

till programs greatly reduce the amount of soil

erosion caused by wind and water runoff. Soil

particles are the number-one contaminant

found in the rivers and streams of Northwest

Missouri. These particles not only cloud the

water but they also may have other pollutants

(herbicides, insecticides, fertilizer) adhered to

them which may contaminate the water.

Fig 2 - Corn tillage systems 21 year yield

averages.

168.5

171.0

173.7

168.1


No-till

Spring Disk

Fall & Spring Disk

bu/acre

Til

lage

Syst

em

Corn Tillage Trial - 21 Year Averages

Til

lag

e S

yst

em

Table 2. Gross income per acre minus tillage costs over a 21-year period.

Corn Tillage System

21 Year

Yield Ave

bu/acre

Gross

Income @

$6.00/bu

Tillage

Costs per

Acre

Gross Income

less Tillage

Costs per

Acre

Fall & Spring Disk 168.1 $1,008.64 $23.32 $985.32

Spring Disk 173.7 $1,042.04 $11.44 $1,030.60

No-till 171.0 $1,025.79 $0.00 $1,025.79

Fall Chisel/Spring Disk 168.5 $1,011.27 $29.04 $982.23

Page 8 Tillage Systems in Soybeans

Disk treatment had the lowest average yield

for any of the treatments with an average of

55.5 bu/ac per year. These yields are shown

in Figure 2.

With eleven years of data, you can see

a trend developing in the yields for each

tillage method. This longer term collection of

data allows the weather variable to be

minimized since we had varying weather

patterns during this time period. The ten year

average for all the plots is 56.5 bu/acre with

only a 0.7 bu/acre standard deviation. This is

not a significant variation between the various

tillage systems.

Objective

Methods & Materials

The objective of this demonstration is

to evaluate the effect of different tillage

systems on soybean yields and profitability.

This is the tenth year for this demonstration.

The four most common tillage systems

practiced in this region were used for this

demonstration. The tillage systems used

were:

Fall Chisel & Spring Disk

No-till

Spring Disk

Fall & Spring Disk

Each plot consisted of eight rows

spaced 30 inches apart and 250 feet long.

Yield results were taken from the center six

rows of each plot. The plots were planted on

May 18, 2011 with a population of 175,402

seeds/acre into a field that was planted in corn

in 2010. Harvest was conducted on October

26, 2011.

In 2011, the highest yielding system

was the No-till plot with a yield of 68.1 bu/ac.

The lowest yielding system was the Fall and

Spring Disk plot which yielded 57.1 bu/ac.

The average yield for the four systems was

59.8 bu/ac with a standard deviation of 5.5 bu/

ac. Yield results for all four tillage systems

are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.

If you compare the data obtained over

the eleven years of the study, the No-till

treatment has had the highest average yield for

any of the tillage methods with an average of

57.3 bu/acre per year. The Fall Chisel/Spring


Table 1 - Soybean tillage systems yield

results for 2011.

Soybean Tillage

System

Harvest

Moisture

(%)

Yield at

13.0%

Moisture

bu/acre

Fall Chisel/Spring Disk 8.5 57.8

No-till 8.5 68.1

Spring Disk 8.5 56.4

Fall & Spring Disk 8.5 57.1

Trial averages 8.5 59.8

Standard Deviation 5.5

Fig 1 - 2011 Soybean tillage systems yield

results.

57.8

68.1

56.4

57.1


No-till

Spring Disk

Fall & Spring Disk

Bu/Acre

Til

lag

e S

yst

em

2010 Soybean Tillage System Yields

Til

lag

e S

yst

em

Page 9

The economic analysis follows the

trend we have seen in the corn tillage

demonstrations. The application of the

fertilizer, herbicides, seed, planting and

harvesting were identical for each of the

tillage methods used. With only a 0.6 bu/acre

variation between the treatments, the

economic difference is a result of the tillage

procedures conducted on each plot and the

associated costs. It is very difficult to

estimate tillage costs as producer's operating

costs will be different. Age and size of the

equipment, field shape and size, and soil type

will all effect the tillage costs. As with the

corn tillage demonstration, we used the 2009

MU Custom Rates guidesheet to estimate the

tillage costs for each system used.

One factor not considered in the

economic analysis is labor. It is almost

impossible to place a value on a producer’s

labor per hour. Therefore, no labor costs are

included in the analysis.

Table 2 provides a summary of the

gross income per acre minus the costs for the

tillage work that was conducted. The No-till

plots grossed between $18.10 and $49.59 per

acre more than the other tillage systems

assuming a price of $12.00 per bushel for

soybeans.

Another important factor that is

sometimes not considered is the benefit to the

environment of different tillage practices. No-

till programs greatly reduce the amount of soil

erosion caused by wind and water runoff. Soil

particles are the number-one contaminant

found in the rivers and streams of Northwest

Missouri. These particles not only cloud the

water but they also may have other pollutants

(herbicides, insecticides, fertilizer) adhered to

them which may contaminate the water.

Figure 2 - Soybean tillage eleven year yield

averages.

56.1

56.7

57.3

55.5

Fall & Spring Disk

Spring Disk

No-till


bu/acre

Til

lage S

yst

em

Soybean Tillage Trial - 11 Year Averages

Til

lag

e S

yst

em

Table 2 - Gross income per acre minus tillage costs over a eleven year period.

Soybean Tillage System

11 Year

Yield Ave

bu/acre

Gross Income

@ $12.00/bu

Tillage

Costs per

Acre

Gross Income

Less Tillage

Costs per Acre

Fall Chisel/Spring Disk 55.5 $666.52 $29.04 $637.48

No-till 57.3 $687.06 $0.00 $687.06

Spring Disk 56.7 $680.41 $11.44 $668.97

Fall & Spring Disk 56.1 $672.98 $23.32 $649.66

Page 10 Effect of Quadris Fungicide on Yield of

Different Corn Hybrids

Introduction

Methods & Materials

The effect of fungicides on corn yields

has been hybrid specific. University research

indicates that if hybrids are resistant to a

particular disease, there will be little or no

benefit to treating the hybrid with a fungicide.

Check with your seed dealer regarding the

disease package of your hybrid.


An off-set boom was fabricated and

attached to the loader bucket of our spray

tractor to apply fungicides to corn after tassel.

Six rows of corn and soybeans were planted

alternating allowing one to drive in the

soybeans and reach over the corn to apply the

spray. The carrier was water applied at 23

GPA. Quadris was applied July 11th at a rate

of 1 pint per acre.

The yield data statistical analysis did

not indicate any significant differences

between treated and untreated. However, the

Pioneer 1395HR shows a trend of the

fungicide application increasing yield.

Each set of bars indicates the yield of

untreated followed by treated. The first two

sets of bars are corn following soybean

residue. The remaining six bars are corn

following corn residue. Again, there were no

significant differences among yields.

Effect of Quadris Fungicide Applied to Corn Following Soybean and Corn Residue

Graves Chapple Research Center

171 173

215

202

137

158 157153

177 180

0

50

100

150

200

250

NK B67W

(FSB Check)

NK B67W

(FSB

Fungicide)

P1395HR

(FSB Check)

P1395HR

(FSB

Fungicide)

P1395HR

(FC -Check)

P1395HR

(FC

Fungicide)

DKC 62 (FC

Check)

DKC 62 (FC

Fungicide)

P33D49 (FC

Check)

P33D49 (FC

Fungicide)

Hybrid X Residue X Treatment

bu

/A

LSD .05 = NS across all treatments - Flanary

2011

Page 11 The Influence of Different Corn Planting Populations at Two Yield Environments

Introduction

Methods & Materials

Growers are using precision

agriculture technologies to adjust corn seeding

rates. However, determining the correct

seeding rate and what criteria should be used

to change corn seeding rates is a challenge.

Issues are what criteria should be used to drive

population changes and also what should be

the magnitude of such changes

Effect of Different Productivity Environments on Corn Yield


0

50

100

150

200

250

23800 28800 32400 36500 40800 45700

Population

bu

/A High water table

Compacted layer 18-inches

Flanary 2011

The high yielding site had water within

one foot of the surface of the plot area by a

drainage ditch. This caused the water table to

be extremely high at this site causing lower

corn yields. Furthermore, the high water table

created a lot of plot to plot variability.

As far as the compacted plot area,

yield was maximized yield at 36,500 plants

per acre. Higher populations caused yields to

decline in these plots.

Results and Discussion Two sites were chosen for testing in

different yield environments. One area is a

compacted site located at the south triangle of

the Graves Chapple Research Center and the

other plot area is located further south. The

compacted layer starts at 18 inches then is

approximately two feet of compacted soil

which was caused by heavy equipment used

during the building of Interstate 29. The other

area is a very productive area that has yield

potentials of over 200 bushels per acre of

corn.

Previous Crop: Corn

Variety: Pioneer 1395HR

No. of replications: 3

Planting Population: 34,500

Planting Date: May 2, 2011

Plot Size: 10 X 35

Row Spacing: 30-inch

Design: RCBD

Herbicide Program: Lumax, Atrazine, 2,4-D,

Glystar FB: Glystar

Page 12 The Effect of Different Nitrogen Application

Timings on Corn Yield

Introduction

Methods & Materials

The objective is to measure impact of

split, pre and side-dress application timings of

nitrogen on corn yield. Nitrogen application

timing, given the wet springs, has created

attention with many growers adding

supplemental nitrogen to nitrogen deficient

corn and obtaining excellent responses.

Growers question whether they should split

nitrogen, or if they split nitrogen, what rates of

splits should be used.

The pre-plant nitrogen yielded

significantly better than the side-dress

application. This is the same result as in

2010. The 60 pound pre-plant followed by

120 pounds was not significantly different

from the pre-plant treatment. These results

are shown in Figure 1.

The standard deviation indicated

variability with this treatment however. We

continue to find in loess derived soils with

good drainage, that pre-plant nitrogen

applications at the time of planting perform

better than later side-dress treatments.

In another experiment looking at pre-

plant compared to side-dress nitrogen

application, the same results were found as

shown in Figure 2.


Urea treated with Agrotain was used as

the source of nitrogen. Pre-plant nitrogen

was applied May 16th and side-dress

application made June 13th. The corn planting

date was May 16th.

Previous Crop: Soybean


No of treatments: 5


Planting Population: 34,500


Plot Size: 10 X 35


Design: RCBD


Glystar fb Glystar

Treatments: Nitrogen applied May 17, 2011

Nitrogen Side-dressed May 17, 2011

Page 13

Effect of Split and Timing of Nitrogen Application on Corn

Graves Chapple Reseach Center

89

223

203196

189

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Check 180 N Pre 60 N Pre + 120

Side-dress

120 N Pre + 60

Side-dress

180 N Side-dress

Nitrogen rate and timing

bu

/A

LSD .05 = 25 Flanary 2011

Figure 1 - Yield for various nitrogen rates and application timing.

Effect of Nitrogen Application Timing on Corn Yield


130

217

179

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Check 16-May 13-Jun

Application Timing

bu

/A


Figure 2 - Yield for pre-plant compared to side-dress nitrogen application.

Page 14

Page 14

Objective Methods & Materials

Measure the effect of different

nitrogen fertilizer products on corn yield.

A urease inhibitor is used to prevent

volatilization. Thiophosphoric triamide,

commonly referred to as NBPT, has the trade

name Agrotain. This product inhibits the

urease enzyme that converts urea to ammonia.

The addition of this product reduces the

potential volatilization of surface applied urea

containing products.

Nitrification inhibitors retard the

conversion of ammonium to nitrate. The

nitrate form of nitrogen is susceptible to losses

by denitrification or leaching. The benefit

from using an inhibitor varies. Soil

conditions, time of year, type of soil,

geographic location, rate of nitrogen

application, and weather conditions that occur

after the nitrogen is applied and before it is

absorbed by the crop affect the value of

nitrification inhibitors.

Super U contains the urease inhibitor

Agrotain and a nitrification inhibitor DCD

(dicyandiamide).

ESN stands for Environmentally Smart

Nitrogen and is manufactured by Agrium.

Polymer coated urea has a special polymer

coating. Water moves through coating to

dissolve urea. The nitrogen diffuses through

the porous polymer membrane.

Nitrogen products were applied at the

rate of 180 pounds of nitrogen per acre. ESN

was applied with ammonium nitrate per the

recommendation by manufacturer. This is to

insure that enough nitrate nitrogen would be

available soon enough for early season crop

growth. The mix was 75% ESN plus 25%

ammonium nitrate.

The products Super U, urea, urea plus

Agrotain, ESN and ammonium nitrate were

tested. The check did not have any nitrogen

applied.

Plot Size: 10 x 35

Previous Crop: Corn

Variety: Pioneer 1395

Planting Population: 34,500 seeds/acre


No. of treatments: 6


Treatments: Applied at planting

Design: RCBD

Planting Date: Corn - April 28, 2011


Glystar fb Glystar

Harvest Date: October 18, 2011

Effect of Different Nitrogen Products on Corn Yield

Page 15 Page 15


There was a significant difference between

urea and urea applied with the additive

Agrotain. Also ammonium nitrate performed

significantly better than urea alone. The

mixture of ESN and ammonium nitrate

performed significantly better than urea along.

The LSD was 19 bushels to be statistically

significant at the 95% probability level. The

second set of plots, located west of Interstate

Effect of Different Nitrogen Additives and Products on Corn

Yield - Graves Chapple Research Center

227 223232

220

202

101

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

75% ESN +

25% Nitrate

Nitrate Urea +

Agrotain

Super U Urea Check

Products and Additives

bu

/A


Page 16

The Effect of Different Nitrogen Application Timings on Corn Yield

Objective

The objective was to measure the

effect of different nitrogen fertilizer rates on

corn yield.

Nitrogen fertilizer rates are based on yield

goals and contributions of nitrogen from

various sources.

Nitrogen efficiency is affected by

uncontrollable factors such as precipitation

and temperature. Controllable factors are crop

type, past crop, yield goals, organic matter,

application timing and sources of nitrogen.

These factors should be carefully considered

when modifying nitrogen application rates.

Methods & Materials

Ammonium nitrate was used as a pre-

plant nitrogen source.

Previous Crop: Soybean




The 2011 growing season had little

loss of nitrogen resulting in high yields even

at low application rates of nitrogen. This is

different from past years in which we had

losses from denitrification caused by heavy

rain events during late May and early June.

The 120 pound nitrogen rates

produced maximum yields. The yield results

are shown in the following chart. The

nitrogen rate plots located on the Heitman

Farm were flooded.



Plot Size: 10 X 35


Design: RCBD

Nitrogen Source: Ammonium Nitrate

Herbicide Program: Lumax, Atrazine,

2,4-D, Glystar, fb Glystar

Harvest Date: Oct 19, 2011

Effect of Nitrogen Rate on Corn Yield

Graves Chapple Research Farm - 2011

104

167

216 216 212218

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 60 120 180 240 300

Nitrogen rates

bu

/A


Page 17 The Value of Narrow Row Spacing with a

June Soybean Planting Date

Objective

The objective was to demonstrate the

yield advantage of 15-inch row spacing

compared to 30-inch when seeding later

planted soybeans. The Extension Service

recommends using narrow row spacing during

delayed planting. When planting late, the time

for vegetative growth is shorter and this

reduces the canopy development. By

narrowing the row spacing, the crop can

compensate by producing more pods per area.

Methods & Materials

Ten foot wide plots were planted and

the center rows were harvested. Each variety

was an individual test comparing the 30-inch

row spacing with 15-inch.

Previous Crop: Corn

Variety: Various


Each variety was a single experiment

that compared 30-inch row spacing to 15-inch.

The chart compares each variety with a 30-

inch row spacing to the 15-inch. The means

are provided at the top of the bar. Each variety

performed better in narrow rows compared to

wider rows in the June 6 planting date.



Planting Date: June 6, 2011

Plot Size: 10 X 35


Design: RCBD

Herbicide Program: Dual, FirstRate, 2,4-D,

Glystar fb Glystar

Treatments: Only single varieties were tested

against each other.

Harvest Date: Oct 21, 2011

Effect of Row Spacing on Soybean Yield Planted June 6


62

70

6367

56

73

63

66

48

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Pioneer

93M61 30-

inch

Pioneer

93M61 15-

inch

Pioneer

93Y70 30-

inch

Pioneer

93Y70 15-

inch

Northrup

King S37-F7

30-inch

Northrup

King S37-F7

15-inch

Asgrow 3730

30-inch

Asgrow 3730

15-inch

Asgrow 3803

30-inch

Asgrow 3803

15-inch

Variety

Bu

/A

Flanary 2011

Page 18 2011 Field Day

The 23rd annual Graves - Chapple Research

Center Field Day was held on August 23, 2011.

Over 150 participants registered at the event.

A pre-field day breakfast was held to thank

the many individuals, organizations and

agribusinesses that make the farm possible. One

hundred and ten attendees enjoyed breakfast and

fellowship before the 2011 Supporters of Graves-

Chapple Farm were recognized. Russell Herron was

recognized as outstanding individual supporters.

Scott Milne of Milne Pioneer Seed was recognized as

the outstanding agribusiness supporter.

The field day tours and lunch were made

possible through the assistance of many local

organizations. Atchison-Holt REA provided

doughnuts and coffee to the attendees in the morning.

A pork loin lunch was sponsored by Kent Fisher

Insurance with ice cream sandwiches provided by

MO Valley Ag. KMA Radio from Shenandoah and

KFEQ Radio from St. Joseph conducted live remote

broadcasts from the farm during the event.

Scott Milne receives his Supporter

of Graves-Chapple Research

Center plaque from advisory board

chairman Steve Klute.

Advisory board chairman Steve

Klute presents Russell Herron

with his Supporter of Graves-

Chapple Research Center plaque. Breakfast attendees enjoy a little fellowship and

networking before the start of the field day.

Page 19

Attendees could participate in three

tours that highlighted some of the work being

conducted on the farm. These tours were:

Red Tour – Pest Management

Stop 1 - Identification and Management of

Emerging Soybean Insect Pests

Dr. Wayne Bailey

MU Assoc. Professor of Entomology

Stop 2 - Glyphosate Influences Biology of the

Soil and Crop Growth Environment

Dr. Robert Kremer

MU Adjunct Professor Soil Science

Stop 3 - Nematode Update

Dr. Laura Sweets

MU Extension Associate Professor

Plant Sciences

Stop 4 - What to Do With All These Resistant

Weeds

Dr. Kevin Bradley

MU Assoc. Professor Plant Sciences

White Tour – Crop Management

Stop 1 - Automated Weather Monitoring at

Graves– Chapple Farm

Pan Guinan

MU Extension Associate

Stop 2 - Cover Crops, Soil Conservation, and

Winter Pasture

Dr. Rob Kallenbach

MU Assistant Professor Agronomy

Stop 3 - What is Happening in Land Markets?

Dr. Ray Massey

MU Extension Associate Professor

Blue Tour – Nutrient Management

Stop 1 - Assessing N Management

Using a Stalk Nitrate Test

Dr. John Lory

MU Extension Assistant Professor

Plant Sciences

Stop 2 - Phosphorus Enhancing Products

and Strip-tilling

Chris Dudenhoeffer

MU Graduate Student, Soil Science

Stop 3 - Nitrogen Fertilizer Management

Dr. Peter Scharf

MU Assoc. Professor Plant Sciences

Stop 4 - The Need for Sulfur and Zinc

Wayne Flanary

MU Extension Regional Agronomist

Dr. Peter Scharf , MU Assoc. Professor

Plant Sciences talks to producers about

managing their nitrogen fertilizer during

Dr. Wayne Bailey, MU Assoc. Professor

of Entomology, shows producers insect

pests for which they should be on the

lookout in 2011 and beyond.

Page 20 2011 Field Day

Dr. John Lory, MU

Extension Assistant

Professor Plant

Sciences, explains the

process for Nitrogen

management using a

stalk nitrate test.

Chris Dudenhoeffer,

MU Graduate Student,

Soil Science, talks to a

tour wagon regarding

phosphorus enhancing

products and strip-

tilling.

Page 21

Dr. Ray Massey,

MU Extension

Associate Professor,

talks about the

changing prices for

purchasing and

renting farm

ground.

Herbicide resistant weeds

are becoming more of a

problem in Missouri

according to Dr. Kevin

Bradley, MU Assoc.

Professor Plant Sciences,

who lays out strategies to

control them in our fields.

Page 22 FFA Student Field Day

Two hundred fifty four high school

students from 8 area schools attended the

annual Student Field Day at the Graves-

Chapple Research Center on September 16.

The goal for the event is to show some of the

various aspects of agriculture to demonstrate

to our youth that there is more to agriculture

than planting crops.

Each learning station was designed to

provide hands on learning opportunities for

the students on some of the cutting edge

technology and practices used in today’s

agriculture and how it affects their everyday

lives.

The learning stations were:

1) Is Ugly Only Skin-deep? The Relationship

Between Log and Lumber Defects - Using

a portable sawmill they demonstrate why

some timber is more valuable for wood.

2) Representative from MU with

opportunities in ag at MU

3) Conducting an Energy Audit - With the

rising

cost of energy, the need for and how to

conduct energy audits.

4) Precision Ag - How the use of technology

can reduce input cost, maximize yield and

make producers more efficient.

5) Wind and Solar Energy - As energy costs

increase, more people are looking at

installing alternative energy sources to

generate their own electricity.

6) Composting/vermiculture – Composting

can help reduce the materials added to

landfills and produce a valuable product.

7) Biomass Energy Production - The

Renewable Energy Standards of 2006

make the production of ethanol from

biomass a mandate.

8) Turf grass Management - One of the

fastest growing industries is the care of

turf grass in both lawns and public spaces.

9) GPS and Community Resource Mapping -

How the use of handheld GPS devices can

be a useful tool for people in urban

settings.

10) Field tour to show some of the projects

and research being conducted at the farm.

A lunch of hotdogs and hamburgers

was provided by the research center and local

area businesses and prepared by the Rock Port

Rotary club. Volunteers from the Atchison

County Extension council helped serve the

meal.

Assignments were given to each class

to do a simple energy assessment of their

farms and/or homes in order to evaluate what

the students learned at the field day. They

were asked to identify energy saving

Dr. Brad Fresenburg, Assistant Extension

Professor and turf grass specialist explains

some of the differences in varieties using the

turf grass plots at the Graves-Chapple

Research Center.

Handheld GPS devices can benefit us in

everyday life according to Charlie Ellis,

MU Extension Natural Resource Engineer.

Page 23

opportunities and to list the energy saving

changes they and their parents were likely to

install as a result of their assessment.

Many of the students identified

changing light bulbs as an opportunity for

saving energy. Others identified changing to

Energy Star appliances, turning off lights, and

alternative fuels. Some said they would raise

the temperature in the home in the summer

and lower it in the winter.

Students were asked to rate their

knowledge on four subjects before and after

the field day using the following scale: No

knowledge, Some knowledge, Average

knowledge, Above average knowledge,

Excellent knowledge

1) Why energy conservation is important.

Before the field day averaged 3.2

After averaged 4.5.

2) Knowledge of increasing energy

efficiency on farms.


After averaged 4.1.

3) Knowledge of how to calculate energy

savings and simple payback.


After averaged 3.4.

4) Knowledge of sources of energy assistance


After averaged 4.1.

From these figures, the attendees

increased their knowledge on all the subjects

as a result of the presentations made at the

field day.

The Department of Energy developed

metrics for farm energy field days. Based on

these metrics we would expect energy saving

from this field day of 12936 million Btu’s of

energy. There would be a reduction of 235

metric tons of carbon. Electricity reduction

would be 726 megawatts and reduction of

6759 gallons of propane use would be

achieved.

Kent Shannon, MU Extension Natural

Resource Engineer, demonstrates how GPS

benefits producers in todays agriculture.

With Bob Chapple and Wayne Flanary as

their guides, a group of students sets out on

a tour of the research and demonstration

plots at Graves-Chapple Research Center

Demonstrating how composting naturally

or using worms to break down materials

can reduce landfill wastes and provide a

useful product is MU Extension Regional

Horticulturalist Tom Fowler.

Page 24 FFA Student Field Day

Dusty Walter, MU Natural

Resource Research Assis-

tant, explains the value that

can be obtained when tim-

ber is properly managed.

Demonstrating differ-

ent types of biomass

and their production is

Tim Reinbott,

Superintendent of the

MU Bradford Research

Center.

Susan Brown, Vice President

of Brightenergy Solar

Solutions, talks to the

students about the current

state of photovoltaic and

wind generated electricity

systems for homes and

businesses.

Page 25

Another group of

students heads out on

a field tour.

CeCe Leslie, Director of

Student Recruitment for

CAFNR, explains some of

the opportunities offered

by the College of

Agriculture, Food and

Natural Resources at the

University of Missouri.

Wayne Flanary, MU

Extension agronomist,

explains some of the

research and

demonstration projects

taking place at the

research center.

Page 26 2011 Graves - Chapple Research Center

Daily Precipitation Data, April - September 2011

Daily Precipitation in Inches

Day April May June July August September

1 0.01

2 0.05

3 1.23 0.02

4

5 0.09 0.12 0.17

6

7 1.11 1.65 0.14

8 0.14

9 0.45 0.02

10 0.39 .

11 2.12

12 0.01 0.05 1.01

13

14 1.24 0.03

15 0.54 0.01 0.28

16 0.58 0.02 0.14

17 0.01

18 1.32 1.37 0.07

19 0.44 0.01 0.23 0.01

20 0.28 0.46 0.39

21 0.01 0.02

22 0.13 0.77 0.37

23 0.02

24 0.71 1.95

25 0.09 0.35

26 0.04 1.15 0.02

27 0.83 0.01

28 0.08 0.05

29 0.02 0.02

30 0.75

31

TOTAL 3.61 3.25 5.68 5.83 4.94 0.29

Page 27 2011 Graves - Chapple Research Center

Daily Temperature Data , April - September 2011

Daily Temperature in °Fahrenheit

Day April May June July August September

Max/Min Max/Min Max/Min Max/Min Max/Min Max/Min

1 65/36 65/40 87/55 95/77 96/80 96/78

2 74/31 62/33 87/68 90/70 98/78 92/76

3 90/46 65/32 95/74 83/66 90/75 84/65

4 53/33 75/39 91/73 87/68 86/74 76/56

5 75/28 68/46 96/70 89/72 87/73 75/50

6 70/49 78/41 99/74 90/69 91/68 74/49

7 55/46 84/53 96/76 85/68 88/68 77/50

8 63/44 87/58 93/76 86/68 88/68 79/50

9 87/54 97/72 86/63 88/74 86/69 83/59

10 85/50 97/73 70/62 92/76 81/65 83/56

11 67/42 89/62 78/57 96/75 82/62 85/59

12 73/36 80/59 77/62 92/73 84/63 91/65

13 80/55 61/48 78/64 86/70 83/63 76/60

14 75/54 55/46 89/65 89/73 82/61 67/43

15 59/39 60/43 86/61 92/78 76/66 60/42

16 65/36 69/37 81/64 93/79 81/67 56/48

17 66/38 70/39 89/68 95/81 88/72 58/51

18 56/42 69/49 84/63 95/80 88/65 66/53

19 44/38 67/59 88/69 95/79 88/65 84/51

20 57/38 72/61 89/64 97/81 84/67 81/55

21 58/42 83/63 78/62 94/78 87/67 72/48

22 69/46 82/64 75/61 97/73 88/67 72/44

23 56/41 86/58 77/58 97/77 96/74 72/43

24 62/36 75/61 82/58 9272 92/64 73/48

25 53/48 76/54 8062 91/71 84/58 70/40

26 57/41 71/48 87/65 93/76 85/64 75/42

27 63/42 63/52 81/62 97/77 91/65 80/49

28 73/44 77/53 79/58 90/77 79/63 86/52

29 79/42 90/62 88/67 87/74 83/63 76/53

30 71/50 86/74 94/77 88/74 84/67 72/43

31 --- 84/61 93/75 90/70 ---

For additional copies or for more information contact:

University of Missouri Extension Center

201 East HWY 136

Rock Port, MO 64482

Phone: (660) 744-6231

Email: [email protected]


University of Missouri, Lincoln University, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Local Extension Councils Cooperating

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ADA INSTITUTIONS

Documents

Graves Chapple Research Center - University of Missouri ...extension.missouri.edu/holt/documents/G-C 2011 annual report II.pdf · The Graves - Chapple Research Center is a University