FA R MFIELD DAY

June 21, 2016

The Department of Soil and Crop Sciences Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service

S T I L E S

DSS

Table of Contents History of Stiles Farm Foundation………………………………………………………... 1 2015 Research Summaries ..………….…………………………………….……………… 5 Evaluation of the effects of Engenia TM herbicide on yield in Bollgard II XtendFlexTM Cotton…….……………………………………..………………………….………………... 20 Ross Trevino; Gaylon D. Morgan, Extension Cotton Specialist; Dale A. Mott, Extension Program Specialist II; and Chase Vasbinder, Extension Graduate Assistant Using Soil EC to Identify Soil Sampling Zones for Nitrogen Management……………... 23 Gaylon D. Morgan, Extension Cotton Specialis;, Ronnie Schnell, Professor and State Cropping Systems Specialist; Tony Provin, Professor and State Chemist; Dennis Coker, Extension Program Specialist II; Dale Mott, Extension Program Specialist II; Mark McFarland, Regents Fellow, Professor and Associate Head- Retired Impact of Soil Applied Potassium on Cotton Yield, Quality, and Plant Growth In Texas ………………..………………………………………………………………………………. 27 Chase Vasbinder, Extension Graduate Assistant; Gaylon Morgan, Extension cotton Specialist; Dale A. Mott, E Program Specialist II; Michael Spiegelhauer, Graduate Assistant; Mark L. McFarland, Regents Fellow, Professor and Associate Head- Retired; Tony Provin, Professor and State Chemist; Dennis L. Coker, Extension Program Specialist II; Marty Jungman, IPM, Hill/McLennan Counties; Ryan Collett, Farm Manager, Stiles Farm 2015-16 Stiles Farm Small Grains/Oilseeds Research……… ……………………………. 33 Clark Neely, Small Grain and Cool season Oilseed Extension Specialist; Daniel Hathcoat, Small Grain and Cool season Oilseed Program Specialist Managing Phosphorus for Corn Production ……………………………………………… 35 Dennis Coker, Extension Program Specialist II ; Mark McFarland. Regents Fellow, Professor and Associate Head-Retired; Jake Mowrer, Assistant Professor and Extension Soil Nutrient and Water Resource Management Specialist; Tony Provin, Professor and State Chemist; Dennis Pietsch, Crop Testing Director Second-Year Field Evaluation of AgraBurstTM for Corn and Cotton Production in Texas ………………………..……………………………………………….………………………... 40 Dennis Coker, Extension Program Specialist II; Jake Mowrer, Assistant Professor and Extension Soil Nutrient and Water Resource Management Specialist; Gaylon Morgan, Extension State Cotton Specialist; Dale Mott, Extension Program Specialist II; Ronnie Schnell, Assistant Professor and Extension State Cropping Systems Specialist; Ryan Collett, Farm Manager, Stiles Farm Foundation

History and Future of the Stiles Farm Foundation

Ryan Collett Stiles Farm Foundation Manager

The Stiles Farm Foundation originated with the visionary Stiles family at Thrall in Williamson County. Longtime farmers J.V. and H.A. Stiles wanted to commemorate their father, James E. Stiles, and the land he worked. They also wanted to help their neighbors and others in the Central Texas Blacklands learn about new farming practices. They envisioned a model demonstration farm where farmers could see such new practices in action. So in 1961, they established the Stiles Farm Foundation with its land holdings of about 3,000 acres as a bequest to the Board of Directors of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas (now the Board of Regents of The Texas A&M University System).

As the Foundation’s trustees, the Texas A&M Board of Directors asked Texas Cooperative Extension and the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (now the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service and Texas A&M AgriLife Research) to manage the farm according to the expressed purposes. Since November 1985, the farm’s operation has been under the auspices of the director of the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service. Current land holdings (about 2,800 acres) include some 1,800 acres of cropland and the remainder in pasture and stock ponds.

Among the expressed purposes of the Foundation are the following:

• To encourage and develop sound, profitable farm operations and land usage by practical demonstration.

• To stimulate and conduct demonstration, research, and experimental work for the study of any practical, economic, social, education, and scientific problem of importance to any substantial portion of the rural population of Texas.

• To disseminate educational and useful information developed as a result of any such study, demonstration, research, and experimentation.

1

• To promote and enlarge the intellectual and cultural interests and opportunities of the rural population of Texas.

• To establish, maintain, and operate a model or demonstration farm. • To assist in the education or training of people engaged in agricultural production or in

preparing themselves for careers in the field of agriculture.

Calvin Rinn was hired as farm manager in 1962 to work with Extension Specialists, Research Scientists and county agents to establish demonstration plots and also to manage most of the farm as a full-scale commercial operation. With money from that operation, scholarships and a chair of agricultural finance were established at Texas A&M University in 1969. Currently, two $4,500 Stiles Farm Foundation scholarships are given annually to outstanding Central Texas high school seniors to study some field of agriculture. In addition, support has been provided to the Stiles Chair in Agricultural Finance in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Texas A&M.

Over the years the farm has been a showplace for a wide ranging, diversified agriculture. New crops have been tried and new farming practices have graced the demonstration plots. Crops that have been planted on the farm, in addition to the traditional corn, grain sorghum, cotton, wheat and oats, include sunflowers, soybeans, peaches, grapes, Christmas trees, vegetables, and rapeseed. Of course, with these crops have come test plots with many different varieties available commercially as well as experimental types. The livestock component of the operation has included a cow-calf entity, stockers, swine, and catfish.

Overview of Operation

Various farming practices also have been demonstrated to determine their viability. For example, furrow diking and conservation tillage have been used to increase rainfall efficiency. Cropping systems have included narrow row cotton and broadcast grain sorghum, and there have been numerous demonstrations of different fertilizer sources, rates, and placements as well as seeding rates, methods, and planting dates. Various weed, disease, and insect control practices serve as longtime standards among demonstration plots at the farm. Stocker cattle and grazing studies have highlighted livestock operations along with a farrow-to-finish swine operation that was discontinued in 1992. Marketing of agricultural enterprises has also been explored, including such practices as forward contracts, futures, and options.

Information Outreach

Field days have been conducted annually at the farm since 1963 (except in 1996 when the event was cancelled because of drought conditions). The event attracts large groups, sometimes totaling more than 1,000 from across the Central

2

Texas area to view the demonstrations and educational exhibits. Resource persons for the field day represent the various entities of the Agriculture Program in the Texas A&M University System. The field day also features equipment and machinery displays by area agribusinesses. A barbecue concluding the day’s activities is sponsored by businesses in Williamson County and the surrounding area. The extraordinary support from local businesses and the community has provided the impetus for an ongoing partnership to fulfill the original purposes for the farm as envisioned by the Stiles family.

A handbook of the demonstration work under way at the farm has been published since 2002. This valuable reference for producers provides firsthand information on results of various farming operations that can serve as a management guide. The handbook is available from County Extension Offices throughout the Blacklands region and on the Stiles Farm website (http://agrilife-extadmin.tamu.edu/sff/handbook.htm). The farm is also open for individual and group visits, and tours are commonplace.

Past Leadership

Calvin Rinn managed Stiles Farm until his retirement in January 1997. During his 35-year tenure, the farm was at the heart of agricultural innovativeness in the Central Texas Blacklands and a showplace for those who desired new knowledge.

Archie Abrameit became the farm manager in early 1997 after managing the Luling Foundation Farm for more than 18 years. His energy, enthusiasm, and cooperative spirit moved the Stiles Farm to new heights as a field laboratory for agricultural producers in the region. His vision was to make the farm a learning center that transfers the science and knowledge generated within The Texas A&M University System to practical applications that benefit producers and citizens regionally and state-wide.

After 18 years of service, Archie retired in March of 2015. But, his leadership of the Stiles Farm and its impact on agricultural producers throughout the Blacklands will be felt long into the future.

The Future

In April 2015, Mr. Ryan Collett became the new Farm Manager for the Stiles Farm Foundation. Ryan already is working to ensure Stiles Farm remains on the cutting edge of technologyworking

in concert with local producers and industry partners. This will include utilizing the farm as a site for evaluating new products and technologies on a larger, whole-farm scale and giving producers a more realistic view of what might be incorporated into their own operations.

Stiles Farm is committed to fulfilling the vision of the Stiles family whose faith and trust in The Texas A&M University System inspired them to

3

establish the farm foundation for the betterment of Central Texas agriculture. To that end, The Stiles Farm, along with the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service and The Texas A&M University System, will continue its commitment to strive for excellence in leadership and service.

4

2015 Research Summaries

5

 

6

BAYER CROP SCIENCE ADVANCED PERFORMANCE TRAIL - COTTON Dr. Gaylon Morgan, Dale Mott

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service Date Planted: 4-5-16 Date Replanted: 5-4-16 Each variety planted in 4-row strips at 45,000 plants/ac. Plots start on the 9th row from the north ordered from N to S.

7

BAYER CROP SCIENCE SEED TREATMENT TRIAL - COTTON Dr. Gaylon Morgan, Dale Mott

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service Date Planted: 4-5-16 Date Replanted: 5-4-16 Each variety planted in 4-row strips at 45,000 plants/ac. Plots start immediately south of Bayer APT trial.

Treatments:

• Stoneville 5115 GLT with Aeris and Trilex • Stoneville 5115 GLT with COPEO • Stoneville 5115 GLT with Aeris, Trilex, and COPEO

8

STATEWIDE CORN PERFORMANCE STUDY Dr. Ronnie Schnell, Dennis Pietsch

Texas A&M AgriLife Research & Extension

Date Planted: 3-21-2016 Plots are two rows wide. There are 4 border rows on each end of the study area. Varieties are tagged within the study.

Entry Hybrid Company or Grain Cob Type Rep Rep Rep Rep Brand Name Color Color GE I II III IV

1 Phoenix 6522A4 Advanta Seeds Y P Agrisure Viptera 3111 128 240 323 4362 Phoenix 6542A4 Advanta Seeds Y P Agrisure Viptera 3111 101 232 339 4243 Phoenix 6518GT Advanta Seeds Y R Agrisure GT Artersian 112 239 336 4374 Phoenix 8400A4 Advanta Seeds Y P Agrisure Viptera 3111 123 234 301 4105 Phoenix 6948A3 Advanta Seeds Y R Agrisure 3000GT 138 212 321 4326 D54DC94 Dyna-Gro CPS Y P Drought Gard/VT2P 121 208 303 4287 D54VC52 Dyna-Gro CPS Y VT2P 139 231 316 4178 D56VC46 Dyna-Gro CPS Y R VT2P 108 214 338 4159 D57VP51 Dyna-Gro CPS Y R VT3P 125 219 340 40510 MY13M87 Dow AgroSciences Y R SSX 134 201 335 44011 MY12G36 Dow AgroSciences Y R SSX 119 223 320 42012 MY15T31 Dow AgroSciences 126 236 322 40713 6611 Golden Acres Y R Genuity VT3P 124 202 306 40414 7688 Golden Acres Y R Genuity VT2P 105 226 305 43515 15-2256 3MG R&D Y R None 117 230 327 42716 5F515 NuTech Seed Company Y R Optimum AcreMax 133 209 332 41317 5F113 NuTech Seed Company Y R Optimum AcreMax 131 203 329 42318 5H615 NuTech Seed Company Y R Herculex 1 129 216 319 43319 5F709 NuTech Seed Company Y R Optimum AcreMax-AUQAmax 136 224 331 42520 N68K 3111 Syngenta Y R BCW,CEW,ECB,FAW,WBC,SB,GT,LL 107 215 317 41921 N69D 3000 Syngenta Y ECB,CEW,FAW,SB,GT,LL 127 238 311 40122 N76A 3000 Syngenta Y R ECB,CEW,FAW,SB,GT,LL 102 204 309 41423 N78S 3111 Syngenta Y P BCW,CEW,ECB,FAW,WBC,SB,GT,LL 137 229 304 42924 REV 22BHR43 Terral Seed Inc. Y R OPTIMUM INTRASECT 115 217 334 42625 REV 23BHR55 Terral Seed Inc. Y P OPTIMUM INTRASECT 103 207 324 42226 REV 25BHR26 Terral Seed Inc. Y R OPTIMUM INTRASECT 110 218 326 41227 REV 26BHR50 Terral Seed Inc. Y R OPTIMUM INTRASECT 132 221 313 43028 REV 28HR20 Terral Seed Inc. Y R HX1/RR2/LL 109 235 333 43829 Integra 9642 Wilbur-Ellis Company Y R Genuity VT Triple Pro 135 237 312 41130 Integra 9678 Wilbur-Ellis Company Y R Genuity VT Triple Pro 111 211 315 40231 Integra 6612 Wilbur-Ellis Company Y Genuity SmartStax Complete RIB 122 206 325 40932 Integra 6474 Wilbur-Ellis Company Y P Genuity DroughtGard VT Double Pro RIB 118 210 318 41633 6P7169GT x TX777 Texas A&M AgriLife Research 130 213 302 40334 TR8145 x TX777 Texas A&M AgriLife Research 114 205 328 43135 Fill 106 228 308 43436 Fill 140 220 307 43937 Fill 104 225 310 42138 Fill 120 233 337 40639 Fill 116 227 314 41840 Fill 113 222 330 408

9

STATEWIDE GRAIN SORGHUM PERFORMANCE STUDY Dr. Ronnie Schnell, Dennis Pietsch

Texas A&M AgriLife Research & Extension

Date Planted: 3-21-2016 Plots are two rows wide. There are 4 border rows on each end of the study area.

GRAIN PLANT REP REP REP REPENTRY HYBRID COMPANY MAT COLOR COLOR I II III IV

1 Alta Seeds AG1203 Advanta US, Inc. ME BZ R 119 218 301 4252 Alta Seeds AG2103 Advanta US, Inc. ME CT R 124 208 319 4123 Alta Seeds AG2105 Advanta US, Inc. M R R 113 224 316 4094 Alta Seds AG3201 Advanta US, Inc. ML BZ P 121 216 305 4225 Sorghum Partners SP7715 Chromatin ML BZ P 126 214 314 4046 Sorghum Partners SP70B17 Chromatin ML R P 125 211 312 4137 Sorghum Partners SP68M57 Chromatin M BZ P 110 222 304 4198 Sorghum Partners K73-J6 Chromatin ML BZ P 127 209 320 4209 Golden Acres GA3545 Golden Acres M BZ P 111 221 330 407

10 Golden Acres GA3960B Golden Acres M BZ P 122 223 315 41811 Golden Acres GA3970R Golden Acres M R P 101 215 322 42912 DeKalb DKS38-16 Monsanto Co. ME BZ P 109 229 306 40313 DeKalb DKS45-23 Monsanto Co. M BZ P 129 206 310 42714 DeKalb DKS51-01 Monsanto Co. ML BZ P 104 201 311 42415 NuTech GS663 NuTech Seed, LLC M R P 116 227 324 42116 NuTech GS676 NuTech Seed, LLC ML BZ P 112 217 308 43017 NuTech GS693 NuTech Seed, LLC ML R P 114 213 323 42818 NuTech GS725 NuTech Seed, LLC ML R P 102 204 318 41019 Terral Seed REV 9924 Terral Seed Inc. L R P 107 210 321 41420 Terral Seed REV 9782 Terral Seed Inc. ML R P 115 205 302 40521 Terral Seed REV 9562 Terral Seed Inc. M R P 123 207 327 41122 Integra G3630 Wilbur-Ellis M R R 130 220 307 41523 Integra G3670 Wilbur-Ellis ML BZ R 128 202 313 42624 Integra G3701 Wilbur-Ellis ML R R 105 230 317 40825 Integra G3660 Wilbur-Ellis ML BZ R 106 226 329 41626 ATx399 x RTx430 Texas AgriLife Research ML BZ P 103 219 303 42327 ATx2752 x RTx430 Texas AgriLife Research ML BZ P 118 203 328 40628 ATx378 x RTx430 Texas AgriLife Research ML BZ P 117 228 325 41729 Fill 108 212 309 40130 Fill 120 225 326 402

10

2016 COTTON RESPONSE TO APPLIED POTASSIUM Dr. Gaylon Morgan, Dale Mott

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension 2016 Cotton Response to Applied K Trial ID: 2016-22 Stiles Farm, Williamson County

401 T6

402 T11

403 T9

404 T1

405 T3

406 T8

407 T12

408 T2

409 T7

410 T5

411 T10

412 T4

301 T9

302 T8

303 T2

304 T7

305 T3

306 T11

307 T5

308 T12

309 T1

310 T10

311 T6

312 T4

201 T1

202 T7

203 T10

204 T5

205 T12

206 T4

207 T2

208 T3

209 T8

210 T9

211 T11

212 T6

101 T8

102 T9

103 T4

104 T3

105 T6

106 T7

107 T1

108 T11

109 T12

110 T2

111 T5

112 T10

Treatments:

1. 0 lb./acre K spring broadcast incorporated (0-0-60) 2. 20 lb./acre granular, broadcast incorporated K2O/A 3. 40 lb./acre granular, broadcast incorporated K2O/A 4. 80 lb./acre granular, broadcast incorporated K2O/A 5. 120 lb./acre granular, broadcast incorporated K2O/A 6. 160 lb./acre granular, broadcast incorporated K2O/A 7. 0 lb./acre K Spring injected- run rig through plots (0-0-15) 8. 20 lb./acre liquid, injected K2O/A 9. 40 lb./acre liquid, injected K2O/A 10. 80 lb./acre liquid, injected K2O/A 11. 120 lb./acre liquid, injected K2O/A 12. 160 lb./acre liquid, injected K2O/A

Re-planted: 5/4/2016 Fertility Treatments Applied 3-7-2016 Row Spacing 38”. Plots are 55 ft from center alleys (50’ plots) Crop Goal: 2 bale/A cotton Site Detail: Trial begins about 300 ft E of County Road 424; flagged study area is 250 feet long by 48 rows wide

CR 424 North South

11

2016 NO-TILL CORN RESPONSE TO POTASSIUM PLACEMENT AND RATES Dr. Jake Mowrer & Dr. Dennis Coker

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension

401 T3

402 T4

403 T5

404 T2

405 T1

406 T6

301 T1

302 T3

303 T2

304 T4

305 T6

306 T5

201 T5

202 T3

203 T1

204 T2

205 T4

206 T6

101 T4

102 T6

103 T1

104 T5

105 T2

106 T3

County Road 424 Treatments:

1. Control - no addition of K 2. Liquid K at 50 lb K2O/A, band, surface-applied 3. Liquid K at 25 lb K2O/A band, subsurface applied to six-inch depth 4. Liquid K at 50 lb K2O/A band, subsurface applied to six-inch depth 5. Liquid K at 25 lb K2O/A band, subsurface applied to nine-inch depth 6. Liquid K at 50 lb K2O/A band, subsurface applied to nine-inch depth

Crop Goal: 120 bushel corn/A Study Detail: Four randomized complete blocks; 4-row plots with length 70 feet (75 to alley center); 5 foot alleys; 38-inch rows; Terral 25BHR26-CW0J planted on 3/7/16, planting population 24,000 seeds/A; liquid N source was 32-0-0, liquid P source was 11-37-0 and liquid K source was 0-0-15; treatments initiated on 3/29; applicator knives positioned 6 inches from seed row Site Detail: Brazos Research Field 601; adjacent to phosphorus rate & placement study; area planted is 24 rows wide; soil test recommended levels of N & P were applied to the soil surface; study plans based on rain-fed corn production; previous, 2015 crop was corn; range of 0 – 6-inch soil pH varies widely across plots - refer to soil test results of samples collected by the Extension Cotton Team Cooperator: Ryan Collett, Farm Manager, Stiles Farm Foundation

Row Direction

South North

Fiel

d Ro

ad

12

DOUBLE CROPPING IN WHEAT: THE RELATIVE IMPACTS OF ROOTS AND TILLAGE ON SOIL HEALTH

Lauren Tomlin, Dr. Clark Neely, Dr. Haly Neely, Dr. Ronnie Schnell, and Daniel Hathcoat, Texas A&M AgriLife Research & Extension

Cover crops have been shown to slow soil erosion, increase soil infiltration, suppress weeds, break up pest and disease cycles, and increase plant available nutrients. Double cropping has similar benefits, but with the addition of a potential crop profit. Reduced tillage systems are often recommended as best management practices, and research has shown an increase in soil porosity, aggregation, and organic matter. The relative contribution to soil health of live roots and reducing tillage will be investigated. Study Goal: To identify cropping systems and tillage practices that benefit soil health and overall farm profitability. Design: Randomized complete block design, three reps, six crop types, three tillage treatments, plots are 25 ft x 75 ft with 30” row spacing. To account for ecoregion variability, two additional locations were chosen: Lubbock and Beeville, Texas. Crop Types: Fallow control, grain sorghum, sesame, spring canola, cowpea, and a nine-species cover crop mix Tillage Treatments: Conventional till, strip-till, and no-till Soil Health Measurements:

Biannual: fertility panel, bulk density, wet aggregate stability, soil infiltration rate, penetrometer resistance Biweekly: soil moisture monitoring (neutron moisture meter)

13

See below for the first of three replications:

North County Road 424 South

F: Fallow, GS: Grain Sorghum, CVR: Cover Crop Mix, C: Canola, S: Sesame, CP: Cowpea

F GS CVR C S CP C CP CVR S GS F GS F S C CP CVR

Conventional Strip No-Till

14

VARIABLE RATE APPLICATION OF TOPGUARD FOR COTTON ROOT ROT CONTROL Dr. Tom Isakeit & Ryan Collett Texas A&M AgriLife Extension

Method: 8 row strips of cotton, Phytogen 333, were planted on 4-8-16 using 38” spacings. Schaffert Rebounder seed firmers were utilized to apply Topguard fungicide at three different rates 32 oz/ac, 16 oz/ac, and 0 oz/ac. 8-row Treatments were replicated four times. See the diagram below for a visual of the plot map:

15

PRECISION PLANTING CLEANSWEEP AND YETTER ROW CLEANER DEMONSTRATION Ryan Collett, Todd Lynn Kimbrell, Ryan Cramer

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, Precision Planting, & Yetter Co.

• Planted to grain sorghum (DKS 51-01) on 3-25-16. Plots start south of County Grain Sorghum Variety Trial.

• Seeding rate was 66,559 seeds/ac • Used Yetter Co Shark tooth row cleaners with Precision Planting CleanSweep pneumatic

row cleaner system. Treatments were full lift (no row cleaner-soil interaction), 30 psi of lift (moderate row cleaner-soil interaction), and 15 psi of lift (greater row cleaner-soil interaction)

• 8-row plots • Treatments were replicated three times in randomized strips

16

2016 COUNTY GRAIN SORGHUM REPLICATED VARIETY TRIAL Dr. Ronnie Schnell, Ryan Collett, Cooper Terrill

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension

• Planted on 03-25-16 • 66,559 seeds/ac on 38” spacing • Six varieties, four rows per plot, four replications. First row starts at the northern flag of

the study area.

2016 Official Grain Sorghum Trial 4 Rows per Entry

Entry# Company Brand Hybrid Replicate #1

Replicate #2

Replicate #3

Replicate #4

1 BH Genetics BH 4100 1 6 3 4

2 Advanta Alta Seeds AG1203 2 5 4 3

3 Terral Seeds REV 9782 3 2 1 6

4 CPA Dyna-Gro M75GR47 4 1 2 5

5 Monsanto Dekalb DKS 53-53 5 4 5 2

6 Pioneer Pioneer 84p80 6 3 6 1

17

2016 COUNTY CORN REPLICATED VARIETY TRIAL Dr. Ronnie Schnell, Ryan Collett, Cooper Terrill

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension

• Planted on 03-03-16 • 21,113 seeds/ac on 38” spacing • 12 varieties, 4 rows per plot, 4 replications, 192 total rows. First row starts on westside

of study area.

2016 Official Corn Entries

Entry # Company Brand Hybrid Trait(s) Replicate #1 Replicate #2 Replicate #3 Replicate #4

1 TAMU TAMU Murray n/a 9 4 5 2 2 BH Genetics BH BH 8590 SS 10 3 6 1 3 Dow-

Mycogen Seeds

Mycogen 2C786 SSX 6 1 2 5

4 Advanta Phoenix 6542A4 3111 3 10 7 4 5 Terral Seeds REV 25BHR26 HX1 1 6 3 10 6 CPS Dyna-Gro D54VC52 VT2P 11 8 11 12 7 Monsanto Dekalb DKC 67-

14 VT2P 12 7 12 11

8 Golden Acres Genetics

Golden Acres

G7601 VT3P 2 5 4 9

9 Stine Stine 9741 VT3P 5 2 1 6 10 Progeny Progeny PGY 6116 VT2P 5 2 1 6 11 Stine Stine 9728e VT3P 7 12 9 8 12 Progeny Progeny PGY 6116 VT2P 4 9 8 3

18

19

Evaluation of the effects of Engenia™ herbicide on yield in Bollgard II® XtendFlex™ cotton

Ross Trevino, Gaylon Morgan, Dale Mott, and Chase Vasbinder

Since the introduction of biotechnology to the agricultural industry, the reliance upon genetically modified crops has been rapidly adopted worldwide. Such crops contain biotypes with altered genes to increase yield, and tolerate certain herbicide formulations. Weed pressure has been identified as a major problem in modern crop management and negatively impacts industry profitability by competition for available nutrients, water, and sunlight. Herbicides give producers more options for controlling troublesome species lacking the GM tolerant genes while their GM tolerant crops have no or minimal damage. Herbicide resistant weed populations have developed due to the heavy reliance upon single herbicide modes of action within GM monocultures, specifically glyphosate resistance. With 81% of cotton planted worldwide being GM cultivars, the cotton industry remains at risk of unfeasible weed management options. Texas planted approximately 6,000,000 acres of cotton in 2011, leaving a large portion of the agricultural industry at risk. By combining herbicide formulations and varying modes of action, new herbicides are stacked with overlapping chemistry to kill tolerant weed species to prevent the continued evolution of resistance. Engenia™, has been developed by BASF Corporation as a triple stacked herbicide formulated with glyphosate, glufosinate, and dicamba to pair with recently deregulated Bollgard II® XtendFlex™ cotton varieties as a modern crop management option. The evaluation of new technology such as Engenia™ is necessary to understand the impacts made to crop yield and physiology which are critical factors for Texas cotton producers.

Materials and Methods

The field trial was conducted at Texas A&M AgriLife farm near Snook, Texas. The small plots were arranged in Random Complete Block Design with four replications. Plot dimensions were four rows wide and 25ft with a row spacing of 40 inches. The field trial was planted in early April, furrow irrigated and received fertilizer and pest control applications according to Texas A&M AgriLife Extension recommendations. Four treatments of Engenia™ were applied at 0.5 LB AI/A (12.8 oz/A), alongside RoundUp WeatherMax at 32 oz/A using TTI 11002 nozzles at 40 PSI (See treatments below). Results of treatment applications were compared to a weed-free check to determine positive or negative impact on yield. Herbicide applications were done in the morning with relative humidity above 80% and temperatures in the low 80’s with low wind speed coming from the south east. Cloud coverage ranged from 60-80%. Weed control ratings

20

were collected post application along with phytoxicity ratings which determined crop response to herbicide application. The trial was harvested in early October and ginned using a table top gin and fiber samples were then sent to the Fiber and BioPolymer Institute in Lubbock for HVI analysis. ANOVA analysis was conducted and treatments differences were determined using Fischer’s Protected LSD at 5% level.

Treatments, rate, and application timing for the EngeniaTM.

Treatment Rate Application Date

Untreated Check * * *

Engenia™ 0.5 lb/ai/a A 20-May

Engenia™ 0.5 lb/ai/a B 28-May

Engenia™ 0.5 lb/ai/a C 1-Jun

Engenia™ 0.5 lb/ai/a B&C 28-May + 1-Jun

WeatherMax 32 fl oz/a/a D Continuous

Results

The results of this trial show excellent crop safety with no positive or negative impact on lint yield from any of the treatments compared to the weed-free check or glyphosate trreatment as seen in figure 4. Engenia™ applied POST in Bollgard II® XtendFlex™ cotton provided good to excellent broadleaf control averaging 93% control. Fiber quality was not impacted by single or sequential applications of Engenia™. Over all, Engenia achieved heavy profitable yields with excellent weed control and crop safety when used in part with the Bollgard II® XtendFlex™ weed control system.

21

Cotton lint yield based on the application rate and timing of EngeniaTM

Cotton lint value based on the application rate and timing of EngeniaTM.

22

USING SOIL EC TO IDENTIFY SOIL SAMPLING ZONES FOR NITROGEN MANAGEMENT

Gaylon D. Morgan, Ronnie W. Schnell, Tony L. Provin, Dennis L. Coker, Dale Mott, Mark L. McFarland

Elevated levels of soil nitrate-nitrogen have been documented in Texas and across the Cotton Belt, which can have significant economic and environmental consequences. Cotton and rotational grain crops can recover residual soil nitrogen from profile depths up to 4 ft. However, significant spatial variability of soil profile nitrate-nitrogen may exist within fields creating challenges for sampling and accurate crediting for residual nitrogen. A multi-year study was initiated in 2012 to evaluate management zones developed using spatial measurement of soil electrical conductivity (EC) for deep profile nitrogen sampling. Five fertilizer nitrogen rates were imposed in replicates within each management zone for corn production during 2014 and cotton in 2015. A strong quadratic relationship (r2 = 0.62) was observed between soil EC and soil clay content, creating management zones with contrasting soil textures. Soil texture is likely to influence spatial distribution of residual nitrogen. In 2013, total profile soil nitrate nitrogen content did not vary across zones. Yet, distribution of nitrate nitrogen within the soil profile did differ (p < 0.05) by zone. During 2014, profile nitrogen content (2 ft depth) was 1.5-fold greater in zones with greater clay content compared to the zone with lowest clay content. Management zones with greater clay content and residual nitrogen reduced optimum fertilizer rates for corn production 36-54 lb/a. Study results reveal the potential for spatial management of profile nitrogen levels using EC-based zones in cotton and corn and are primarily based on soil texture delineation zones. This project data were presented at the Agronomy Society meeting and Beltwide Cotton Conferences.

23

Cotton Variety Trials in the Blacklands – 2015 The excessively wet spring and early summer in 2015 led to the fewest RACE (Replicated Agronomic Cotton Evaluation) trials planted and harvested since the RACE trials were initiated in 2007. In all of South Texas, over 0.5 million acres of cotton were not planted due to excessive soil moisture and prevented planted. The RACE trials also had more variability than in recent years past, due to standing water during the early season and extremely dry conditions from mid-season through harvest. The Tables below are self-descriptive. RACE trial details for the locations in the Blacklands of Texas in 2015.

County

Coop.

Planting

Date

Harvest

Date

Row Spacing (inches)

Plot Dimensio

ns

Irrigated or

Dryland

Area harvested/pl

ot

Burleson AgriLife

Research Farm

Mar 30

Sep 11 40 2 rows x

740 ft Irrigated 0.11

Williamson Adam &

Ricky Krueger

Apr 15 Sept 22 38 6 rows x

1225 Dryland 0.53

24

Burleson County RACE Trial, 2015. This was a furrow irrigated location.

Variety Yield (lbs/a) TO (%) Mic Length (in) Strnth (g/tx) Unif. Loan Value (¢/lbs)

Lint Value ($/Ac)2

DP 1555B2RF 1096 a 42.3 a 4.5 a 1.10 a 29.3 a 81.8 a 54.35 a 587 a NG 3406B2XF 1071 ab 43.4 a 4.5 a 1.13 a 30.5 a 82.9 a 54.50 a 579 a CL 3885B2XF 1019 ab

44.6 a 4.6 a 1.10 a 29.9 a 82.2 a 53.02 a 543 a

DP 1522B2XF 997 a-

41.1 a 4.6 a 1.13 a 31.5 a 83.9 a 52.10 a 541 a PHY 444WRF 884 cd

42.4 a 4.7 a 1.11 a 30.0 a 82.7 a 54.42 a 477 b

DG 3385B2XF 899 b-

42.3 a 4.1 a 1.14 a 29.9 a 83.4 a 53.38 a 477 b PHY 499B2F 896 cd

42.6 a 4.7 a 1.09 a 29.8 a 83.8 a 52.43 a 471 b

NG 1511B2F 845 de 45.0 a 4.7 a 1.08 a 29.5 a 81.9 a 53.35 a 447 b ST 4946GLB2 842 de 43.3 a 4.3 a 1.14 a 31.2 a 82.3 a 54.35 a 445 b ST 6182GLT 802 e 42.0 a 4.5 a 1.13 a 30.5 a 83.0 a 53.32 a 434 c

FM 1900GLT 807 e 43.1 a 4.6 a 1.09 a 29.0 a 82.7 a 52.45 a 429 c PHY 333WRF 799 e 43.1 a 4.6 a 1.08 a 29.4 a 81.9 a 53.67 a 424 c

Mean 913 42.9 4.5 1.11 30.1 82.7 53.44 488

P>(F) 0.0093 0.0796 0.3484 0.7842 0.4788 0.1475 0.1912 0.0121

LSD (P=.05) 173.5995 2.247 0.52 0.0833 2.26 1.668 1.9949 98.99

STD DEV 102.51 1.33 0.31 0.05 1.33 0.99 1.18 58.46

CV % 11.23 3.09 6.79 4.43 4.44 1.19 2.20 11.98 1 Indicates the location was irrigated 2 Lint values were calculated using the 2015 Upland Cotton Loan Valuation Model from Cotton Incorporated. CL= Croplan Genetics DG= Dyna-Gro, DP=DeltaPine, FM=FiberMax, NG=NexGen, PHY=Phytogen, ST= Stoneville.

25

Williamson County RACE Trial, 2015. Cooperator: Adam and Ricky Krueger. This was a non-irrigated site.

Variety Yield

(lbs/acre) Turnout % Micronaire Length (inches)

Strength (g/tex) Uniformity

Loan Value (¢/lbs)

Lint Value ($/Ac)1

PHY 333WRF 524 a 45.1 a 4.1 e 1.06 b 24.6 d 80.8 abc 50.48 bc 265 a DG 3385B2XF 491 ab 44.0 a 4.3 bc 1.05 c 26.8 b 81.0 abc 51.20 b 251 a

PHY 444WRF 460 bcd 42.5 a 3.7 f 1.14 a 28.8 a 81.6 ab 54.07 a 249 a NG 3406B2XF 487 abc 43.6 a 4.1 de 1.03 de 27.1 b 81.0 abc 49.55 bcd 242 a ST 4946GLB2 465 bcd 42.5 a 4.2 cde 1.04 cd 29.1 a 81.7 a 50.50 bc 235 bc CL 3885B2XF 444 b-e 43.5 a 4.8 a 1.03 ef 26.0 bcd 80.6 c 48.45 de 215 cd DP 1219B2RF 433 cde 43.3 a 4.3 bcd 1.02 ef 26.3 bc 79.3 d 48.30 de 209 d ST 6182GLT 411 de 45.5 a 4.4 b 1.04 cd 25.2 cd 80.7 bc 49.13 cd 202 e

DP 1549B2XF 431 de 44.0 a 4.2 cde 1.02 f 24.7 d 78.7 d 46.73 e 201 e

Mean 454 43.6 4.2 1.05 26.4 80.5 49.77 226 P>(F) 0.0042 NS 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003

LSD (P=.05) 55.7346 2.924 0.193 0.0125 1.408 0.946 1.8832 27.89

STD DEV 32.49 1.71 0.11 0.01 0.82 0.55 1.10 16.26

CV % 7.15 3.91 2.69 0.69 3.11 0.69 2.21 7.18 1 Lint values were calculated using the 2015 Upland Cotton Loan Valuation Model from Cotton Incorporated. CL= Croplan Genetics DG= Dyna-Gro, DP=DeltaPine, FM=FiberMax, NG=NexGen, PHY=Phytogen, ST= Stoneville.

26

IMPACT OF SOIL APPLIED POTASSIUM ON COTTON YIELD, QUALITY, AND PLANT GROWTH IN TEXAS

Chase Vasbinder Texas A&M University

College Station, TX Gaylon D. Morgan

Dale A. Mott Michael Spiegelhauer Mark L. McFarland

Tony L. Provin Dennis L. Coker Marty Jungman

Ryan Collett Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service

College Station, TX

Abstract

In recent years, various areas in the Texas Blacklands and Gulf Coast agricultural production regions have reported increased incidence of potassium (K) deficiencies in cotton. Cotton, specifically, is sensitive to low potassium levels reducing yields and fiber quality, as well as making the cotton plant more susceptible to some foliar diseases. In 2013 and 2014, eight locations were chosen to conduct trials on the rate of potassium applied to cotton, as well as the application methods. These sites ranged from low (60 ppm) to high (350 ppm) potassium levels in the soil. Treatments included four rates of granular (0-0-60) broadcasted and incorporated and five rates of liquid (0-0-15) injected fertilizer, as well as, untreated plots. In-season data collection included: plant height, nodes to first fruiting branch, total nodes, and leaf tissue sampling. The plots were harvested by various means, depending on the location. After harvesting was completed, samples were weighed and ginned. Lint samples were sent to Cotton Inc. to test fiber properties by HVI and AFIS analysis. The 2014 trials were non-responsive to the treatments at these two locations, unlike the 2013 trials which had a positive correlation between the amount of fertilizer and application method and yield.

Introduction

For the past decade, Texas has continued to become a larger percentage of the total U.S. cotton production. Much of the cotton production in Texas occurs on clay soils in the Blacklands of Texas and Gulf Coast production regions and potassium deficiencies have been reported in these regions in various years over the past 20 years. However, the frequency of the potassium deficiency symptoms seems to be on the rise, and the geographic occurrence seems to be increasing also as more potassium is mined from the soils. Additionally, under deficient potassium levels, cotton plants are more prone to foliar diseases that can further reduce the yield potential. Potassium is required in large amounts by cotton for normal growth and fiber development. Potassium plays a major role in photosynthesis, activation of protein enzymes, increases disease and drought resistance, and positively affects cotton fiber yield and quality. Previous research has shown a two bale cotton crop will remove 30 lbs/acre of potassium annually. However, increased yield potential in new varieties and better pest management have pushed cotton yields to 3-4 bales and can exceed 5 bales on irrigated land. As potassium demand continues to increase, deep profile soil samples indicate a reduced level of plant available potassium in some production areas.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of K application rates and methods on cotton growth, development, yield, and fiber quality.

Materials and Methods

The 2013 and 2014 trials were carried out in two regions in the Blacklands region including Williamson County at the Torres, Poncho, and Gin sites, as well as, Hill County. Wharton County, in the Upper Gulf Coast, was also included in the trails in both years. The plots were arranged in a Randomized Complete Block Design with five replications. Plot dimensions at the Williamson, Hill, and Wharton sites were 4-6 rows wide and 50 feet long with an in-row spacing of 38, 30, and 40 inches, respectively. Soil samples were collected to a total depth of 48 inches

27

from these locations and were analyzed at depth increments by the Texas A&M Soil Testing Laboratory. The soil analysis results from a Mehlich III extraction method and cotton varieties used in these trials are presented in Table 1. Table 2, shows the treatment data used for the trials. This data were analyzed in SAS using Fisher’s LSD means separation formula.

Table 1. Soil recommendations and cotton varieties

Site Year Recommended lbs K₂o/A Cotton Variety Wharton 13 0 DP 0935B2RF Wharton 14 0 ST 6448GLB2

Williamson- Torres 13 60 Phytogen 499WRF Williamson- Torres 14 20 Phytogen 499WRF

Williamson- Poncho 13 0 Phytogen 499WRF Williamson- Gin 14 0 Phytogen 499WRF

Hill 13 0 DP 2570B2RF Hill 14 0 DP 2570B2RF

Table 2. Treatments used

Fertilizer Formulation Rates (lbs K₂0/A) 0-0-60 Granular untreated 40 80 120 160 0-0-15 Liquid 20 40 80 120 160

The granular treatments were broadcasted by hand and incorporated to an approximate depth of 2 inches with tillage. The liquid potassium fertilizer was injected approximately 6 inches deep and 4 inches to the side of the row. Approximately 2 weeks before planting the granular and liquid fertilizer treatments were applied to the plots. The recommended amount of nitrogen and phosphorous from the soil analysis were also applied to the plots to obtain 2 bale/acre yields. The Williamson and Hill County sites were planted in early April and the Wharton county site was planted in mid- April. In-season plant measurements included stand counts, plant height, nodes to first fruiting branch, and total nodes. After harvest the cotton was ginned with a table-top gin and fiber samples sent to Cotton Inc. for HVI and AFIS analysis.

Results and Discussion

Figure 1 represents soil potassium levels from 0- 48 inches over eight site years. The Williamson- Torres site was the only location where potassium levels were below the current soil test threshold of 125 ppm and in both years stayed relatively consistent throughout the profile. The Wharton site soil test in 2013 shows an increase in potassium with depth, while the 2014 soil test show a higher level of potassium in the shallow and deep ranges of soil with the lowest levels at 12-24”. The Hill county site in 2013 showed the highest levels of potassium in 0-6” at 390 ppm and tappers off throughout the profile, while in 2014 it drops down and remains at a consistent level in the profile. This is likely due to natural soil potassium variation and not soil mining. The Williamson- Gin location in 2014 shows high levels at 0-6”, but drops below the soil test threshold throughout the profile. The Williamson- Poncho site in 2013 remains consistent from 0-48”, ranging from 260 ppm to 300 ppm. In 2013 the only locations to show a response to the potassium treatments were the Williamson- Torres, figure 2, and Wharton County sites, figure 3. Timely precipitation in 2013, along with response to applied treatments, allowed for good yields at the Williamson- Torres location. Williamson- Torres was unresponsive in 2014, with much lower yields than in 2013 likely due to unfavorable growing conditions. In the 2014 Wharton trial, cotton yield exceeded that of 2013 trial, but with no response to applied treatments. The Hill County locations, figure 4, in 2013 and 2014 yielded relatively well with a slight drop in yield from 2013 to 2014, but did not respond to the applied potassium. Figure 5 and 6 represent the yields at the Williamson- Gin and Poncho locations. The

28

Williamson- Poncho site received adequate precipitation, which allowed it to yield well, but the Williamson-Gin site in 2014 suffered a loss in yields due to poorly timed rainfall throughout the growing season. In 2013, treatments in soils containing less than 150 ppm showed a positive correlation in yield to the increasing rates of fertilizer, especially liquid injected treatments. In all cases in the 2014 trials, the yields varied little across treatments with no difference between high rates of fertilizer and the untreated check. Wharton county site had a higher soil potassium levels throughout the soil profile and was not responsive to the K rates or application method. Additionally, the ST 6448GLB2 is a later maturing variety with an extended fruiting period and thus placed less K demand from the soil.

Figure 1.Soil Potassium at Depth

29

Figure 2.Williamson- Torres yield 2013 and 2014

Figure 3.Wharton county yield 2013 and 2014

30

Figure 4.Hill county yield 2013 and 2014

Figure 5.Williamson- Gin yield 2014

31

Figure 6.Williamson- Poncho yield 2013

32

2015-16 Stiles Farm Small Grains/Oilseeds Research

Dr. Clark Neely – Small Grain and Cool-season Oilseed Extension Specialist Mr. Daniel Hathcoat – Small Grain and Cool-season Oilseed Program Specialist

Website: http://varietytesting.tamu.edu/wheat

The crop year of 2015-16 was difficult for small grain production at the Stiles Farm Foundation. An abnormally wet fall followed by a drier and warmer winter with another abnormally wet spring created planting, growing, and harvesting issues for all crops during this season. The following paragraphs outline what research was implemented at the Stiles Farm (on the field just adjacent to the headquarters off Highway 79) this growing season and the outcomes of those research trials. All of the variety trials listed below are part of larger experiments grown over numerous locations in Texas (and the Great Plains for the canola trial). The goal of all of the variety studies is to determine the best varieties that are adapted to the environments in and around Williamson County. Titles in parentheses are how the trial is labeled on the subsequent field map. National Winter Canola Variety Trial (Canola Variety Trial): This winter canola trial, as the name implies, is part of a national variety trial and one of 3 through the Texas Blacklands. This specific trial consisted of 20 commercially available canola varieties. Dry conditions at planting (Oct. 20, 2015) kept the seed from sprouting for weeks. Ample rainfall in November sprouted both the canola and volunteer wheat throughout the study. Wet conditions prevented timely herbicide application and heavy weed pressure increased variability across the trial. This, coupled with a very mild winter kept much of the canola from flowering properly (did not vernalize properly due to lack of chilling hours) and the trial was discontinued prior to harvest. The College Station location was lost for the same reason. The third location near McGregor was lost due to herbicide damage. Uniform Variety Trial (UVT) – Hard Red Winter Wheat: This hard red winter wheat trial is part of a uniform variety trial that is grown throughout the state of Texas in an average of 30+ locations annually. The trial this year has 40 total entries (27 grown state wide and 13 regionally adapted), consisting of 4 experimental lines and 36 commercially available varieties. Due to wet conditions throughout November, planting of this study was delayed until December 11, 2015. The warmer winter caused vernalization issues and heavy Hessian fly pressure. Early season stripe rust infestations created significant lodging and yield reduction closer to harvest time and significant bird damage caused the trial to be abandoned prior to harvest. Previous yield information from Thrall as well as other harvested sites from 2016 can be found later this summer at the website listed above.

33

Oat Variety Trial (OVT): This winter oat variety trial is again part of a uniform variety trial grown across several regions of Texas annually. This year, this trial consisted of 30 oat lines - 13 commercially available and 17 experimental. This study was planted at the same time as the UVT above. The mild winter temperatures did not impact the oat maturity as with the wheat (and Hessian fly will not survive on oats) so this study was taken to harvest (May 6, 2016). Yield data from this study will be available later this summer at the website listed above. Uniform Oat Elite (UOE): This winter oat trial is grown in numerous locations around Texas, but only consists of 4 commercially available varieties. The other 36 entries are advanced breeding oat lines that are evaluated based on disease resistance and yield to determine if they are to be advanced to the OVT in subsequent years. This study was planted and harvested the same as the OVT listed previously. Data generated from this trial is used internally and not published. Winter Barley Variety Trial (Winter Barley Variety): This is a newer variety trial conducted across 3 locations in Central and South Texas. This trial evaluated 11 winter barley varieties specifically for grain yield, disease resistance, and malting quality. This study was planted at the same time as the wheat and oats, but due to the mild winter (many didn’t vernalize correctly), this study was discontinued due to unreliable yield at harvest time. Spring Barley Variety Trial (Spring Barley Variety): This variety trial is also newer and is conducted across the same 3 locations as the winter barley variety trial. It too is evaluated on the same characteristics as its winter counterpart. Spring barley does not require vernalization and thus was unaffected by the mild winter temperatures. It was planted the same day as the other small grain trials, but unlike the winter barley, was harvested on May 13, 2016. Yield information will be available later this summer. Volunteer Wheat Management Study (Un-named left strip of attached map): Un-harvested wheat fields in 2015 and wet conditions during normal planting time this past fall, produced fields with excellent stands of volunteer wheat. Management questions prompted the implementation of this study to determine if volunteer wheat could be successfully taken to grain harvest, and if so, what management practices may help increase yields and reduce lodging potential under extremely high stands. A strip of volunteer TAM 304 was left standing after germinating following a late October rain. Three management treatments were imposed on the trial just prior to wheat jointing which included tillage (field cultivator), Roundup (2 pt/a through dribble tips on 6” spacing), and Palisade (14 oz/a, broadcast). At harvest samples were collected to evaluate the number of seed heads/acre, number of seeds/head, seed size and the total yield/acre. This information will be available to producers later this summer. A special thanks to Ryan Collett, Farm Manager for Stiles Foundation Farm, for land access and Daniel Hathcoat for planting, maintaining, and harvesting trials.

34

Managing Phosphorus for Corn Production

Dennis Coker, Extension Program Specialist – Soil Fertility Mark McFarland, Professor Emeritus and Former Extension State Soil Fertility Specialist

Jake Mowrer, Assistant Professor and Extension Soil Nutrient and Water Resource Management Specialist

Tony Provin, Professor and Extension State Soil Chemist Dennis Pietsch, Crop Testing Director

Introduction In Texas, corn is commonly grown as a rotational crop with cotton on approximately 3.2 million acres per year. As with other nutrients, growers are concerned about market volatility in the price of phosphorus (P), managing P inputs to maximize grain yield of corn for each unit of P applied and sound stewardship as related to possible impacts on water resources. Reducing the potential for contamination of surface and groundwater reserves by P merits further study on best management practices for P needed for modern, commonly-grown corn hybrids across key growing regions of the state. Yield response of corn to P application depends on a number of factors including residual soil P level, availability of soil moisture, soil chemical, biological and physical properties, and varieties planted (Stichler and McFarland, 1997). According to Gerardo et al. (2008), interaction of any two or more factors may influence the accuracy of using soil test results to make P fertilizer recommendations for corn production. Yield potentials of current corn hybrids can be altered by weather induced variations from year to year within a region (Derby, et al., 2004). Thus, P requirements in the corn plant need to be predicted with a fair degree of accuracy using soil test results, even across a range of growing conditions (Brosch et al., 2009). Objective To assess grain yield response of corn to P application across multiple growing environments based on residual soil P levels to a 6-inch depth and current laboratory recommendations. Materials & Methods Prior to planting (December through February), deep soil samples were collected and composited from potential study sites. A pickup-mounted Giddings hydraulic probe was used to collect two-inch soil cores at interval depths (0 to 6, 6 to 12, 12 to 24, 24 to 36, and 36 to 48 inches). Samples were analyzed by the Soil, Water & Forage Testing Laboratory to determine fertilizer nutrient requirements for each study site, and recommendations for P fertilizer based on soil testing to 6-inches. At each study site, treatments included a rate of P fertilizer based on a representative yield goal, as well as reduced or enhanced rates of P using a conventional, liquid source blend. An alternate, high- performance ortho and poly phosphate source was included among treatments at most study sites in 2008 and 2009.

35

Corn hybrids adapted to Texas growing conditions were planted on one University and 12 grower cooperator farms located in the Central Blacklands, Brazos River Valley, and Upper Gulf Coast regions of Texas between February 20 and March 15 during 2008, 2009 and 2010. All studies were randomized complete block designs and replicated four to six times. Test plots representing individual treatments were four to six rows wide with inter-row spacings of 40, 38 or 30 inches. Applications of herbicides, insecticides, tillage and other cultural practices were kept uniform across treatments for each site. Application of liquid, conventional-source P fertilizer was subsurface banded using a knife-type injector in plots at all study sites. Nitrogen (N) was subsurface band applied at the same time as P via a second injector mounted on each shank and separate N source. Studies were hand or machine harvested at full grain maturity in July or August. Grain moisture, yield and test weight were determined in the field via a modified John Deere combine or in the laboratory depending on the method of harvest. Corn yields were adjusted to 15.5% moisture. Results Overview of Precipitation (2008, 2009 and 2010) Across studies, monthly rainfall accumulation during the 2008 and 2009 growing seasons was similar to the long-term averages during February, March and April. However, rainfall amounts declined sharply beginning in June and continued at most study locations till harvest in July and August. Monthly rainfall accumulation at most study sites in 2010 was similar to long-term averages during February and March. However, the Calhoun, Wharton and Williamson sites fell behind on rainfall starting in April. In May, the Calhoun, Hill and Williamson sites continued to be dry compared to normal. Depending on the study site, rainfall amounts in June and July 2010 were above or below long-term averages and the differences in rainfall were reflected in the respective grain yields. Studies in 2008 The highest yield goal for corn grain and level of residual soil P at planting was represented by Burleson I, an irrigated site (Table 1). Residual soil P levels ranged from 30 to 160 lb P/A and amount of recommended P addition from 0 to 74 lb P2O5/A across seven study sites. Grain yield at all study sites fell short of crop goals, due in large part to lack of rainfall during the season. Addition of P fertilizer twice above recommended rates had no effect on corn yield at the Williamson I and Burleson II sites (Table 2). Likewise, corn yield was not reduced with half of P fertilizer applied compared to that recommended at five sites. Application of an alternate phosphate source had no effect on corn yield at all six sites.

36

Table 1. Crop yield goal, soil test P, pH and rates of P fertilizer recommended for corn grain production at study sites in the Central Blacklands, Brazos Valley and Gulf Coast regions of Texas. 2008. Study Site Yield Goal Residual Soil P Soil Test P2O5

Recommended Soil pH

bu/A lb/A lb/A

Hill 120 30 71 7.8

Williamson I 120 83 40 6.0

Williamson II 140 38 60 8.2

Burleson I† 180 160 0 8.2

Burleson II 150 70 30 7.8

Wharton 150 48 50 7.9

Collin 120 37 74 7.9 †Irrigated, applied two, 1.5-inch furrow irrigation events in July. Table 2. Grain yield response of corn to rate of phosphate application as determined by 6-inch soil test results at study sites in the Central Blacklands, Brazos Valley, and Gulf Coast regions of Texas. 2008. Grain Yield

Study Site No P2O5 Added

Soil Test Recommended

P2O5

Half P2O5 Recommended

Twice P2O5 Recommended

Alternate P2O5 Source†

-------------------------------------bu/A‡---------------------------------------

Hill 49 a§ 51 a 48 a ---¶ 49 a

Williamson I --- 67 a --- 65 a 65 a

Williamson II 78 a 86 a 87 a --- 80 a

Burleson I 142 a --- --- --- 145 a

Burleson II 130 a 126 a 117 a 120 a 124 a

Wharton 125 b 136 a 136 a --- ---

Collin 54 a 51 a 49 a --- 54 a †Represents a high performance, ortho and polyphosphate material applied at recommended 10 lb P2O5/A. ‡Grain yields adjusted to 15.5% moisture. §Within rows, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to LSD (P≤0.05). ¶Treatments were not initiated or no P2O5 was recommended.

37

Studies in 2009 Residual Residual soil P levels ranged from 15 to 130 lb P/A and amount of recommended P addition from 0 to 90 lb P2O5/A across eight study sites in 2009 (Table 3). The addition of P fertilizer, twice above recommended rates had no effect on corn yield at the Burleson I, Calhoun, Colorado and Williamson sites (Table 4). Likewise, corn yield was not reduced with less P fertilizer than recommended at three of eight sites. Low soil moisture at key stages of growth likely played the greatest role in the lack of response to P additions with actual yields across sites reaching only 36 to 80 percent of yield goal amounts. Table 3. Crop yield goal, soil test P, pH and rates of P fertilizer recommended for corn grain production at study sites in the Central Blacklands, Brazos Valley and Gulf Coast Regions of Texas. 2009. Study Site Yield Goal Residual Soil P Soil Test P2O5

Recommended Soil pH

bu/A lb/A lb/A

Burleson I 150 108 15 7.8

Burleson II† 180 130 0 7.9

Calhoun 130 107 10 6.2

Colorado 140 100 15 8.0

Fannin 120 15 90 8.0

Hill 120 23 80 7.8

Wharton 150 48 55 8.2

Williamson 120 81 15 8.0 †Applied 3-inch furrow irrigation on 8 and 22 July.

38

Table 4. Grain yield response of corn to rate of phosphate application as determined by 6-inch soil test results at study sites in the Central Blacklands, Brazos Valley and Gulf Coast regions of Texas. 2009.

Grain Yield

Study Site No P2O5 Added

Soil Test Recommended

P2O5

Half P2O5 Recommended

Twice P2O5 Recommended

Alternate P2O5

Source†

-------------------------------------bu/A‡---------------------------------------

Burleson I 121 a§ 123 a ---¶ 116 a 119 a

Burleson II# 140 a 138 a --- ---

Calhoun --- 64 a --- 66 a 60 a

Colorado 74 a 72 a --- 80 a 77 a

Fannin 70 a 69 a 69 a --- ---

Hill 57 a 58 a 56 a --- 59 a

Wharton 56 a 58 a 57 a --- 61 a

Williamson 43 a 46 a --- 52 a 50 a †Represents a high performance, ortho and polyphosphate material applied at recommended 10 lb P2O5/A. ‡Grain yields adjusted to 15.5% moisture. §Within rows, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to LSD (P≤0.05). ¶Treatments were not initiated or no P2O5 was recommended. #Applied 3-inch furrow irrigation on 8 and 22 July. Studies in 2010 Residual soil P levels ranged from 26 to 133 lb P/A and amount of recommended P addition from 0 to 80 lb P2O5/A across six study sites in 2010 (Table 5). Addition of P fertilizer above rates recommended by soil tests had no effect on corn yield at the Calhoun, Colorado, Victoria, Wharton and Williamson sites (Table 6). However, corn yield also was not reduced without P fertilizer at the Hill, Victoria and Wharton sites where additional P was recommended.

39

IMPACT OF SOIL APPLIED POTASSIUM ON COTTON YIELD, QUTALITY, AND PLANT GROWTH IN TEXAS

Chase Vasbinder Texas A&M University

College Station, TX Gaylon D. Morgan

Dale A. Mott Michael Spiegelhauer Mark L. McFarland

Tony L. Provin Dennis L. Coker Marty Jungman

Ryan Collett Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service

College Station, TX

Abstract

In recent years, various areas in the Texas Blacklands and Gulf Coast agricultural production regions have reported increased incidence of potassium (K) deficiencies in cotton. Cotton, specifically, is sensitive to low potassium levels reducing yields and fiber quality, as well as making the cotton plant more susceptible to some foliar diseases. In 2013 and 2014, eight locations were chosen to conduct trials on the rate of potassium applied to cotton, as well as the application methods. These sites ranged from low (60 ppm) to high (350 ppm) potassium levels in the soil. Treatments included four rates of granular (0-0-60) broadcasted and incorporated and five rates of liquid (0-0-15) injected fertilizer, as well as, untreated plots. In-season data collection included: plant height, nodes to first fruiting branch, total nodes, and leaf tissue sampling. The plots were harvested by various means, depending on the location. After harvesting was completed, samples were weighed and ginned. Lint samples were sent to Cotton Inc. to test fiber properties by HVI and AFIS analysis. The 2014 trials were non-responsive to the treatments at these two locations, unlike the 2013 trials which had a positive correlation between the amount of fertilizer and application method and yield.

Introduction

For the past decade, Texas has continued to become a larger percentage of the total U.S. cotton production. Much of the cotton production in Texas occurs on clay soils in the Blacklands of Texas and Gulf Coast production regions and potassium deficiencies have been reported in these regions in various years over the past 20 years. However, the frequency of the potassium deficiency symptoms seems to be on the rise, and the geographic occurrence seems to be increasing also as more potassium is mined from the soils. Additionally, under deficient potassium levels, cotton plants are more prone to foliar diseases that can further reduce the yield potential. Potassium is required in large amounts by cotton for normal growth and fiber development. Potassium plays a major role in photosynthesis, activation of protein enzymes, increases disease and drought resistance, and positively affects cotton fiber yield and quality. Previous research has shown a two bale cotton crop will remove 30 lbs/acre of potassium annually. However, increased yield potential in new varieties and better pest management have pushed cotton yields to 3-4 bales and can exceed 5 bales on irrigated land. As potassium demand continues to increase, deep profile soil samples indicate a reduced level of plant available potassium in some production areas.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of K application rates and methods on cotton growth, development, yield, and fiber quality.

Materials and Methods

The 2013 and 2014 trials were carried out in two regions in the Blacklands region including Williamson County at the Torres, Poncho, and Gin sites, as well as, Hill County. Wharton County, in the Upper Gulf Coast, was also included in the trails in both years. The plots were arranged in a Randomized Complete Block Design with five replications. Plot dimensions at the Williamson, Hill, and Wharton sites were 4-6 rows wide and 50 feet long with an in-row spacing of 38, 30, and 40 inches, respectively. Soil samples were collected to a total depth of 48 inches

40

Second-Year Field Evaluation of AgraBurstTM for Corn and Cotton Production in Texas

Dennis Coker, Extension Program Specialist – Soil Fertility

Jake Mowrer, Assistant Professor and Extension Soil Nutrient and Water Resource Management Specialist

Gaylon Morgan, Professor and Extension State Cotton Specialist Dale Mott, Extension Program Specialist – Cotton Production

Ronnie Schnell, Assistant Professor and Extension State Cropping Systems Specialist Ryan Collett, Farm Manager, Stiles Farm Foundation

Introduction AgraBurstTM is a liquid product sold by GroGenesis which claims to increase the natural surfactant properties of plant foliage, enabling more rapid and efficient absorption of light, water, and nutrients at the cellular level. Cotton and corn are major crops in Texas, historically grown annually on approximately 6 million and 2.5 million acres, respectively. The purpose of this project was to evaluate the potential use of AgraBurst to improve yields and/or quality of these important crops. Objective Evaluate establishment, growth, and yield response of field-grown corn and cotton to in-furrow and foliar applications of AgraBurst. Materials and Methods Field studies were conducted on both corn and cotton at each of two locations, the Stiles Farm Foundation near Thrall, in Williamson County, Texas, and the Texas A&M University (TAMU) Research Farm near College Station, in Burleson County, Texas. Background soil samples were collected at each study location prior to treatment application and again following crop harvest, and analyzed for pH, conductivity, and primary, secondary, and micronutrients by the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Soil, Water and Forage Testing Laboratory in College Station, Texas. Regionally appropriate cultivars of each crop were selected and planted at both locations. Soil-applied nitrogen and phosphorus were subsurface, side-dress banded before planting or soon after emergence at all study sites using recommended rates based on soil test results. Corn Studies At both study locations, individual plots were four rows wide and 70 feet in length. Inter-row spacing was 30 inches at the TAMU Research Farm and 38 inches at Stiles Farm. Studies were designed as randomized complete blocks with six replications. Pioneer P1602 was planted on March 17 into a Westwood silty clay loam (Fine-silty, mixed, superactive, thermic Udifluventic Haplustepts) at the TAMU Research Farm and on March 30 into a Burleson clay (Fine, smectitic, thermic Udic Haplusterts) at the Stiles Farm. The planting population was 31,800

41

seeds per acre at the TAMU Farm and 32,000 seeds per acre at Stiles Farm. Gravimetric soil moisture at planting (to 6-inch depth) averaged 11 and 18.2% at the TAMU Research Farm and Stiles Farm, respectively. In-season cultural practices, irrigation scheduling, pest control, and defoliation were managed according to current Extension recommendations. Individual treatments for the corn study at both locations were as follows:

1. 10 oz. AgraBurst/A in-furrow, single application 2. 10 oz. AgraBurst/A foliar applied at 2-3 leaf stage, single application 3. 10 oz. AgraBurst/A foliar applied at 2-3 leaf and V-5 stages 4. 10 oz. AgraBurst/A foliar applied at 2-3 leaf, V-5 and pre-tassel stages 5. 20 oz. AgraBurst/A foliar applied at 2-3 leaf, V-5 and pre-tassel stages 6. No AgraBurst (control)

The in-furrow treatment was applied using 6 gallons/acre of water, and all foliar treatments were applied using 11 gallons/acre of water. A ground-driven, planter-mounted CDS-John Blue piston pump was used for the in-furrow treatment and a backpack sprayer with CO2 pressure source was used to apply the foliar treatments. Environmental parameters were recorded using a hand-held meter (Kestrel 3000 Pocket Weather Station) at the time each foliar treatment application was made in the studies planted to corn at the TAMU Research Farm and Stiles Farm (Table 1). Table 1. Weather conditions at the time AgraBurst was foliar applied to corn in treated plots at the TAMU Research Farm, Burleson County and Stiles Farm, Williamson County. Treatment Application Environmental Conditions

Study Location Timing Wind Temperature Relative Humidity

(mph) (◦F) (%)

TAMU V2 2 60 90

V5 4 69 55

Pre-tassel 3 70 90

Stiles V2 6 75 57

V5 4.5 81 60

Pre-tassel 2.5 74 85 In-season data collection included emergence/stand counts, plant height at two growth stages, and ear leaf chlorophyll (SPAD 502) readings at flowering. Plots were harvested mechanically using a combine with capability to determine plot weight, test weight, and grain moisture. Plots were combined on August 18 at the TAMU Research Farm and August 7 at the Stiles Farm. All

42

data were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance and means separated using Tukey’s HSD test, where appropriate. Cotton Studies At both cotton study locations, individual plots were four rows wide and 40 feet in length, with 40-inch row spacing. Studies were designed as randomized complete blocks with four replications. Phytogen 499WRF was planted on March 31 into a Westwood silty clay loam (Fine-silty, mixed, superactive, thermic Udifluventic Haplustepts) at the TAMU Research Farm and April 14 into a Burleson clay (Fine, smectitic, thermic Udic Haplusterts) at the Stiles Farm. In-season cultural practices, irrigation scheduling, pest control, and defoliation were managed according to current Extension recommendations. At the TAMU Research Farm, three inches of water were furrow-applied on July 13 and again on July 27. Individual treatments for cotton were as follows:

1. 10 oz. AgraBurst/A foliar applied each at a) 2nd true leaf, b) squaring, and c) 21 days after 2nd application.

2. 5 oz. AgraBurst/A foliar applied each at a) 2nd true leaf, b) squaring, and c) 21 days after 2nd application.

3. 15 oz. AgraBurst/A foliar applied each at a) 2nd true leaf, b) squaring, and c) 21 days after 2nd application.

4. 10 oz. AgraBurst/A foliar applied each at a) 2nd true leaf, and b) squaring. 5. 10 oz. AgraBurst/A foliar applied each at a) 2nd true leaf, and b) 21 days after squaring. 6. No AgraBurst (control)

Environmental parameters were recorded using a hand-held meter (Kestrel 3000 Pocket Weather Station) at the time each foliar treatment application was made (Table 1). Table 2. Weather conditions at the time AgraBurst was foliar applied to cotton in treated plots at the TAMU Research Farm, Burleson County and Stiles Farm, Williamson County. Treatment Application Environmental Conditions

Study Location Timing Wind Velocity Temperature

Relative Humidity

(mph) (◦F) (%)

TAMU 2nd True Leaf 5 77 96

Squaring 1 81 78

Squaring + 21 Days 5 86 60

Stiles 2nd True Leaf 6 69 74

Squaring 5 86 60

Squaring + 21 Days 3 88 64

43

In-season data collection included emergence/stand counts, plant height, total node counts, and number of nodes above white flower. The two center rows of each plot were mechanically harvested on September 15 at Stiles Farm and September 12 at the TAMU Research Farm. For each plot, a 150 g subsample of seedcotton was ginned to determine lint yield and gin turnout. Additionally, loan value was calculated on a pound basis and lint value on an acre basis for each harvested seedcotton sample. Afterward, a 50 g subsample of fiber was removed and submitted to the Texas Tech Fiber & Biopolymer Research Institute for fiber quality analysis. All data were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance and means separated using Fisher’s Protected LSD, where appropriate. Rainfall Distribution Monthly rainfall for corn and cotton during the 2015 season ranged from 6% (July) to 225% (May) of the long-term average at the TAMU Research Farm, and from 1% (September) to 346% (May) of the long-term average at the Stiles Farm (Table 3). Thus, while monthly rainfall amounts generally exceeded the long-term average from February through May, exceptionally lower than average amounts of rainfall were received in June, July, and September at study sites on the TAMU Research Farm and Stiles Farm. Table 3. Monthly rainfall during the corn and cotton growing season at AgraBurst study sites on the TAMU Research Farm, Burleson County and Stiles Farm, Williamson County, TX. Monthly Rainfall Accumulation Month TAMU Research Farm Stiles Farm 2015 Long-term Average 2015 Long-term Average ------------------------------------inches---------------------------------- February 0.75 2.83 0.98 2.36 March 5.83 3.19 6.71 2.64 April 4.8 2.68 2.99 2.68 May 9.73 4.33 18.03 5.2 June 3.11 4.45 4.97 3.78 July 0.12 2.13 0.04 1.61 August 1.36 2.68 0.81 2.09 September 1.74 3.19 0.03 3.31

44

Results and Discussion Corn In-furrow application of AgraBurst had no effect on stand counts of emerged corn at any interval of time after planting at the TAMU Research Farm (Table 4) or the Stiles Farm (Table 5). In addition, corn plant height at V8 and pre-tassel stages and SPAD readings of ear leaf chlorophyll at flowering were not different across treatments at the TAMU Research Farm (Table 6) or the Stiles Farm (Table 7). Table 4. Effect of in-furrow-applied AgraBurst on emergence of rain-fed corn at the TAMU Research Farm, Burleson County, TX. Treatment Application Plant Stand Counts

Rate Timing 10 Days After Planting 18 Days After Planting

oz/A

-------------#/20 row feet--------------

0 N/A 24† 24

6 In-furrow 24 24

P>(F)

0.4560 0.1019

CV

4.5 2.4 †Means within a column were not different according to ANOVA (P≤0.05). Table 5. Effect of in-furrow-applied AgraBurst on emergence of rain-fed corn at the Stiles Farm, Williamson County, TX. Treatment Application Plant Stand Counts

Rate Timing 15 Days After Planting 23 Days After Planting

oz/A

-----------#/20 row feet------------

0 N/A 30† 32

6 In-furrow 26 32

P>(F)

0.1074 0.7291

CV

12.1 9.9 †Means within a column were not different according to ANOVA (P≤0.05).

45

Table 6. Effect of in-furrow and foliar-applied AgraBurst on plant height and uppermost unfolded leaf chlorophyll of rain-fed corn, TAMU Research Farm, Burleson County, TX. Treatment Application In-Season Measurements†

Rate Timing Plant Height at

V8 Plant Height at

Pretassel

Ear Leaf Chlorophyll at

Flowering

oz/A

----------cm----------- (SPAD)

0 N/A 35‡ 142 60.1

10 In furrow 36 142 59.8

10 V2-3 36 141 60.5

10 V2-3 and V5 36 143 60.3

10 V2-3, V5, and pretassel -§ - 60.4

20 V2-3, V5, and pretassel 37 144 61

P>(F)

0.5172 0.8818 0.9804

CV

5.3 4 4.4 †Plant height is the mean of six plants and leaf chlorophyll is the mean of eight plants per replication. ‡Means within a column were not different according to ANOVA (P≤0.05). §Treatment was not in full effect at time of measurement.

46

Table 7. Effect of in-furrow and foliar-applied AgraBurst on plant height and uppermost unfolded leaf chlorophyll of rain-fed corn, Stiles Farm, Williamson County, TX. Treatment Application In-Season Measurements†

Rate Timing Plant Height at

V8 Plant Height at

Pretassel

Ear Leaf Chlorophyll at

Flowering

oz/A

-----------cm----------- (SPAD)

0 N/A 41‡ 111 45.4

10 In furrow 43 108 46.1

10 V2-3 39 107 45.8

10 V2-3 and V5 40 102 43.2

10 V2-3, V5, and pretassel -§ - 44.1

20 V2-3, V5, and pretassel 39 103 48.4

P>(F)

0.6616 0.0943 0.3133

CV

12.6 5.7 8.6 †Plant height is the mean of six plants and leaf chlorophyll is the mean of eight plants per replication. ‡Means within a column were not different according to ANOVA (P≤0.05). §Treatment was not in full effect at time of measurement.

47

Grain yield, test weight, and moisture of grain were statistically the same in untreated and AgraBurst-treated plots at the TAMU Research Farm in Burleson County (Table 8) and the Stiles Farm in Williamson County (Table 9). Grain yields ranged from 141 to 160 bu/acre at the TAMU Farm and from 77 to 87 bu/acre at Stiles Farm. These yields are considered average to below average for these areas when compared with historic yields. Table 8. Grain yield, test weight, and moisture response of rain-fed corn to applied rates of AgraBurst at the TAMU Research Farm, Burleson County, TX. Treatment Application Harvest Measurements

Rate Timing Grain Yield† Test Weight Moisture

oz/A

bu/A lb/bu % 0 N/A 153‡ 61.6 8.7 10 In furrow 151 61.2 8.8 10 V2-3 151 61.2 8.8 10 V2-3 and V5 160 61.4 8.8 10 V2, V5, and pretassel 141 61.2 8.9 20 V2-3, V5, and pretassel 160 61.5 8.8 P>(F)

0.1066 0.7104 0.9934

CV

7.4 0.8 5.8 †Grain yield corrected to 15.5% moisture. ‡Means within a column were not different according to ANOVA (P≤0.05). Table 9. Grain yield, test weight, and moisture response of rain-fed corn to applied rates of AgraBurst at the Stiles Farm, Williamson County, TX. Treatment Application Harvest Measurements

Rate Timing Grain Yield† Test Weight Moisture

oz/A

bu/A lb/bu % 0 N/A 84‡ 60.9 9.7 10 In furrow 87 60.9 10.1 10 V2-3 77 59.3 9.6 10 V2-3 and V5 83 59.1 9.1 10 V2-3, V5, and pretassel 78 60.6 9.9 20 V2-3, V5, and pretassel 85 59.5 9.2 P>(F)

0.6583 0.0387 0.055

CV

15.2 2.1 6.5 †Grain yield corrected to 15.5% moisture. ‡Means within a column were not different according to ANOVA (P≤0.05) and Tukey’s (HSD) Test.

48

Results of laboratory analyses on soil samples collected pre-treatment and after harvest from the corn study sites are presented in Tables 10 and 11, respectively, for the TAMU Research Farm, and Tables 12 and 13, respectively, for the Stiles Farm. Table 10. Soil test results for pre-treatment samples collected from control plots and the 20 oz./acre foliar AgraBurst treatment applied at V2-3, V5, and pretassel for corn production, TAMU Research Farm, Burleson County, TX. Parameter Units Treatment Control AgraBurst pH 8 8 Conductance µmhos/cm 237 231 NO3-N ppm 9 8 P ppm 73 73 K ppm 204 223 Ca ppm 5798 5706 Mg ppm 169 169 S ppm 12 12 Na ppm 17 16 Fe ppm 4.4 4.4 Zn ppm 0.7 0.8 Mn ppm 2.5 2.8 Cu ppm 0.5 0.5 Table 11. Soil test results for post-harvest samples collected from control plots and the 20 oz./acre foliar AgraBurst treatment applied at V2-3, V5, and pretassel for corn production, TAMU Research Farm, Burleson County, TX. Parameter Units Treatment Control AgraBurst pH 8.2 8.2 Conductance µmhos/cm 237 246 NO3-N ppm 6 6 P ppm 84 86 K‡ ppm 176 198 Ca ppm 5570 5612 Mg ppm 152 160 S ppm 14 15 Na ppm 5 6 Fe ppm 4.3 4.4 Zn ppm 0.9 1 Mn ppm 4.4 4.7 Cu ppm 0.5 0.5

49

Table 12. Soil test results for pretreatment samples collected from control plots and the 20 oz./acre foliar AgraBurst treatment applied at V2-3, V5, and pretassel for corn production, Stiles Farm, Williamson County, TX. Parameter Units Treatment Control AgraBurst pH 5.6 5.6 Conductance µmhos/cm 264 247 NO3-N ppm 4 4 P ppm 27 28 K ppm 98 94 Ca ppm 3867 3870 Mg ppm 484 478 S ppm 8 8 Na ppm 34 36 Fe ppm 22.5 22.9 Zn ppm 0.1 0.1 Mn ppm 10.2 11.2 Cu ppm 0.4 0.4 Table 13. Soil test results for postharvest samples collected from control plots and the 20 oz./acre foliar AgraBurst treatment applied at V2-3, V5, and pretassel for corn production, Stiles Farm, Williamson County, TX. Parameter Units Treatment Control AgraBurst pH 5.8 5.7 Conductance µmhos/cm 271 273 NO3-N ppm 4 3 P ppm 31 35 K ppm 85 86 Ca ppm 3391 3438 Mg ppm 458 457 S ppm 10 10 Na ppm 18 17 Fe ppm 16.4 16.9 Zn ppm 0.2 0.3 Mn ppm 11.3 13.4 Cu ppm 0.3 0.3 To enable treatment comparisons, soil test data were normalized using the difference between pretreatment and after harvest analyses. In contrast to observations the previous season at the TAMU Research Farm, results showed no significant differences in the change in primary, secondary or micronutrient concentrations between control and AgraBurst-treated plots planted to corn at the TAMU Research or Stiles Farms in Burleson and Williamson counties, respectively.

50

Cotton There were no differences between treatments for plant population counts, early-bloom plant height, total number of nodes, and mid-bloom nodes above white flower as measured during the season at the TAMU Research Farm (Table 14). Table 14. Effect of foliar-applied AgraBurst on in-season cotton growth parameters, TAMU Research Farm, Burleson County, TX. Treatment Application In-Season Measurements†

Rate Timing Stand Counts

May 21 Plant Height

June 15 Total Nodes

June 15

Nodes Above White Flower

July 6

oz/A

(#/0.001 A) (inches) (#) (#)

0 N/A 42‡ 18 9 7

10 2nd TL, Squaring, Squaring + 21 days 45 18 9 7

5 2nd TL, Squaring, Squaring + 21 days 43 17 9 7

15 2nd TL, Squaring, Squaring + 21 days 40 16 8 7

10 2nd TL, Squaring 43 15 9 7

10 2nd TL, Squaring + 21 days 42 17 10 6

P>(F)

0.6812 0.1661 0.3731 0.5931

CV

10.4 11.8 12.9 10.6 †Plant height, total nodes, and node above white flower counts are the mean of 10 plants. ‡Means within a column were not different according to ANOVA (P≤0.05).

51

Likewise, there were no differences between treatments in early-season stand counts, mid-bloom plant height, total nodes, as well as late-season plant height and node counts at the Stiles Farm location (Table 15). Table 15. Effect of foliar-applied AgraBurst on in-season cotton growth parameters, Stiles Farm, Williamson County, TX. Treatment Application In-Season Measurements†

Rate Timing

Stand Counts May 21

Plant Height July 1

Total Nodes July 1

Plant Height

Aug. 10

Total Nodes

Aug. 10 oz/A

(#/0.001 A) (inches) (#) (#) (#)

0 N/A 47‡ 21 8 32 17

10 2nd TL, Squaring, Squaring + 21 days 34 21 8 30 17

5 2nd TL, Squaring, Squaring + 21 days 39 20 8 31 17

15 2nd TL, Squaring, Squaring + 21 days 39 20 8 31 17

10 2nd TL, Squaring 43 22 8 32 17

10 2nd TL, Squaring + 21 days 40 20 8 29 18

P>(F)

0.0605 0.7830 0.9226 0.1621 0.8888 CV

17.6 9.8 6.6 6.8 11.8

†Plant height and total nodes are the mean of 10 plants. ‡Means within a column were not different according to ANOVA (P≤0.05).

52

Lint yields ranged from 1241 to 1454 lbs/acre and were within the expected average range for irrigated cotton in the area. Though cotton lint yield and lint value varied significantly between treatments, observed differences in AgraBurst-treated compared to control plots were not consistent at the TAMU Research Farm (Table 16). Gin turnout and loan values were not affected by treatment. Table 16. Effect of foliar-applied AgraBurst on lint yield, gin turnout percentage, loan and lint values of irrigated cotton, TAMU Research Farm, Burleson County, TX. Treatment Application Yield Measurements

Rate Timing Lint Yield Gin Turnout Loan Value Lint Value

oz/A

(lb./A) (%) (cents/lb.) ($/A)

0 N/A 1400 a† 43‡ 55 763 a

10 2nd TL, Squaring, Squaring + 21 days 1454 a 43 54 791 a

5 2nd TL, Squaring, Squaring + 21 days 1254 b 42 55 685 b

15 2nd TL, Squaring, Squaring + 21 days 1241 b 42 55 679 b

10 2nd TL, Squaring 1312 b 43 54 714 b

10 2nd TL, Squaring + 21 days 1446 a 43 54 780 a

P>(F)

0.0001 0.0880 0.1664 0.0001

CV

4.9 1.7 0.9 4.7 †Means followed by different letters within a column are statistically significantly different according to ANOVA (P≤0.05) and t test (LSD). ‡Means within a column were not different according to ANOVA (P≤0.05).

53

Likewise, fiber micronaire, length, strength, and uniformity at the TAMU Research Farm were not affected by treatment (Table 17). Table 17. Effect of foliar-applied AgraBurst on the fiber quality of irrigated cotton, TAMU Research Farm, Burleson County, TX. Treatment Application Fiber Quality Measurements

Rate Timing Micronaire Length Strength Uniformity

oz/A

(units) (inches) (g/tex) (ratio)

0 N/A 4.7† 1.1 34.3 84

10 2nd TL, Squaring, Squaring + 21 days 4.6 1.1 33.5 84

5 2nd TL, Squaring, Squaring + 21 days 4.6 1.1 33.7 84

15 2nd TL, Squaring, Squaring + 21 days 4.5 1.1 33.8 85

10 2nd TL, Squaring 4.5 1.1 33.8 84

10 2nd TL, Squaring + 21 days 4.6 1.1 34.1 84

P>(F)

0.7783 0.3106 0.6999 0.0781

CV

3.9 1.3 2.8 0.8 †Means within a column with letters or followed by the same letter are not different according to Fishers LSD (P≤0.05).

54

Cotton lint yield, gin turnout, and loan and lint values were not affected by treatment at the Stiles Farm location (Table 18). Lint yields ranged from 320 to 375 lbs/acre and were below average for the area, due primarily to the lack of rainfall during the latter half of the vegetative and all of the reproductive growth stages. Table 18. Effect of foliar-applied AgraBurst on lint yield, gin turnout percentage, and loan and lint values of rain-fed cotton, Stiles Farm, Williamson County, TX. Treatment Application Yield Measurements

Rate Timing Lint Yield Gin Turnout Loan Value Lint Value

oz/A

(lb./A) (%) (cents/lb.) ($/A)

0 N/A 341† 40.8 49 167

10 2nd TL, Squaring, Squaring + 21 days 363 41.7 49 177

5 2nd TL, Squaring, Squaring + 21 days 375 41.7 49 185

15 2nd TL, Squaring, Squaring + 21 days 336 41.3 49 165

10 2nd TL, Squaring 344 41.3 49 167

10 2nd TL, Squaring + 21 days 320 41.2 49 158

P>(F)

0.0708 0.1247 0.6438 0.0984

CV

9.2 1.5 1.7 9.5 †Means within a column were not different according to ANOVA (P≤0.05).

55

Fiber micronaire, length, strength, and uniformity were not affected by treatment at the Stiles Farm location (Table 19). Table 19. Effect of foliar-applied AgraBurst on the fiber quality of rain-fed cotton, Stiles Farm, Williamson County, TX. Treatment Application Fiber Quality Measurements

Rate Timing Micronaire Length Strength Uniformity

oz/A

(units) (inches) (g/tex) (ratio)

0 N/A 4.4† 1 27 82

10 2nd TL, Squaring, Squaring + 21 days 4.6 1 27 82

5 2nd TL, Squaring, Squaring + 21 days 4.4 1 27 82

15 2nd TL, Squaring, Squaring + 21 days 4.4 1 28 82

10 2nd TL, Squaring 4.4 1 27 82

10 2nd TL, Squaring + 21 days 4.4 1 27 82

P>(F)

0.7797 0.5399 0.3604 0.7306

CV

4.2 1.2 3.3 0.8 †Means within a column were not different according to ANOVA (P≤0.05).

56

Results of laboratory analyses on soil samples collected pre-treatment and after harvest from the cotton study sites are presented in Tables 20 and 21, respectively, for the TAMU Research Farm, and Tables 22 and 23, respectively, for the Stiles Farm. Table 20. Soil test results for pre-treatment samples collected from control plots and the 15 oz./acre foliar AgraBurst treatment applied at second true leaf, squaring, and 21 days after squaring for cotton production, TAMU Research Farm, Burleson County, TX. Parameter Units Treatments Control AgraBurst† pH 8.3 8.1 Conductance µmhos/cm 472 490 N ppm 34 35 P ppm 54 62 K ppm 392 386 Ca ppm 7125 7026 Mg ppm 338 337 S ppm 13 13 Na ppm 32 32 †Represents 15 oz. AgraBurst/acre application at 2nd true leaf, squaring, and 21 days after second application. Table 21. Soil test results for post-harvest samples collected from control plots and the 15 oz./acre foliar AgraBurst treatment applied at second true leaf, squaring, and 21 days after squaring for cotton production, TAMU Research Farm, Burleson County, TX. Parameter Units Treatments Control AgraBurst† pH 8.2 8.1 Conductance µmhos/cm 441 401 N ppm 11 4 P ppm 42 35 K ppm 293 278 Ca ppm 7200 7345 Mg ppm 305 311 S ppm 12 12 Na ppm 47 48 Fe ppm 7.9 8.4 Zn ppm 0.3 0.2 Mn ppm 5.4 4.5 Cu ppm 0.7 0.7 †Represents 15 oz. AgraBurst/acre application at 2nd true leaf, squaring, and 21 days after second application.

57

Table 22. Soil test results for pre-treatment samples collected from control plots and the 15 oz./acre foliar AgraBurst treatment applied at second true leaf, squaring, and 21 days after squaring for cotton production, Stiles Farm, Williamson County, TX. Parameter Units Treatments Control AgraBurst† pH 5.7 5.6 Conductance µmhos/cm 339 341 N ppm 11 11 P ppm 56 56 K ppm 93 93 Ca ppm 3434 3434 Mg ppm 481 479 S ppm 12 20 Na ppm 21 17 †Represents 15 oz. AgraBurst/acre application at 2nd true leaf, squaring, and 21 days after second application. Table 23. Soil test results for post-harvest samples collected from control plots and the 15 oz./acre foliar AgraBurst treatment applied at second true leaf, squaring, and 21 days after squaring for cotton production, Stiles Farm, Williamson County, TX. Parameter Units Treatments Control AgraBurst† pH 5.8 5.6 Conductance µmhos/cm 335 377 NO3-N ppm 7 17 P ppm 65 61 K ppm 85 82 Ca ppm 3227 3218 Mg ppm 522 519 S ppm 9 12 Na ppm 9 7 Fe ppm 19.5 21.7 Zn ppm 0.4 0.4 Mn ppm 19 20.4 Cu ppm 0.4 0.4 †Represents 15 oz. AgraBurst/acre application at 2nd true leaf, squaring, and 21 days after second application. To enable treatment comparisons, data were normalized using the difference between pre-treatment and after harvest analyses. Results showed no significant differences in the change in primary, secondary or micronutrient concentrations between control and AgraBurst-treated plots planted to cotton at the TAMU Research or Stiles Farms in Burleson and Williamson counties, respectively.

58

3

• To promote and enlarge the intellectual and cultural interests and opportunities of the rural population of Texas.

• To establish, maintain, and operate a model or demonstration farm. • To assist in the education or training of people engaged in agricultural production or in

preparing themselves for careers in the field of agriculture.

Calvin Rinn was hired as farm manager in 1962 to work with Extension Specialists, Research Scientists and county agents to establish demonstration plots and also to manage most of the farm as a full-scale commercial operation. With money from that operation, scholarships and a chair of agricultural finance were established at Texas A&M University in 1969. Currently, two $4,500 Stiles Farm Foundation scholarships are given annually to outstanding Central Texas high school seniors to study some field of agriculture. In addition, support has been provided to the Stiles Chair in Agricultural Finance in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Texas A&M.

Over the years the farm has been a showplace for a wide ranging, diversified agriculture. New crops have been tried and new farming practices have graced the demonstration plots. Crops that have been planted on the farm, in addition to the traditional corn, grain sorghum, cotton, wheat and oats, include sunflowers, soybeans, peaches, grapes, Christmas trees, vegetables, and rapeseed. Of course, with these crops have come test plots with many different varieties available commercially as well as experimental types. The livestock component of the operation has included a cow-calf entity, stockers, swine, and catfish.

Overview of Operation

Various farming practices also have been demonstrated to determine their viability. For example, furrow diking and conservation tillage have been used to increase rainfall efficiency. Cropping systems have included narrow row cotton and broadcast grain sorghum, and there have been numerous demonstrations of different fertilizer sources, rates, and placements as well as seeding rates, methods, and planting dates. Various weed, disease, and insect control practices serve as longtime standards among demonstration plots at the farm. Stocker cattle and grazing studies have highlighted livestock operations along with a farrow-to-finish swine operation that was discontinued in 1992. Marketing of agricultural enterprises has also been explored, including such practices as forward contracts, futures, and options.

Information Outreach

Field days have been conducted annually at the farm since 1963 (except in 1996 when the event was cancelled because of drought conditions). The event attracts large groups, sometimes totaling more than 1,000 from across the Central

59

Texas A&M AgriLife does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, genetic information, veteran status, sexual orientation or gender identity and provides equal access in its programs, activities, education and employment.

The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating

Produced by Soil & Crop SciencesAdditional publications may be viewed at:

soilcrop.tamu.edu

The information given herein is for educational purposes only. Reference to commercial products or trade names is made with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service implied.

2016

stilesfarm.tamu.edu