High Yield Soybean Production Systems Chad Lee, Ph.D. Extension Agronomist University of Kentucky...

High Yield Soybean Production Systems

Chad Lee, Ph.D.Extension AgronomistUniversity of [email protected]://graincrops.blogspot.com/

Chad Lee, University of Kentucky, 2010 1

mailto:[email protected]

http://graincrops.blogspot.com/

http://graincrops.blogspot.com/


FARMLAND VALUES: CURRENT AND FUTURE PROSPECTS, Brent Gloy, Chris Hurt, Michael Boehlje, and Craig Dobbins; Department of Agricultural Economics; Purdue University; December 14, 2010


TOTAL YIELD

Yield Limitations

TOTAL YIELD

Gen

etics

Soils

Nut

rient

sW

eeds

Gen

etics

Soils

Nut

rient

sW

eeds

6Chad Lee, University of Kentucky, 2010

Light Interception: Soybeans

Shibles and Weber, 1965 (Fig. 2.3 in in Gardner et al. 1985. Physiology of Crop Plants)


Average of 29 years of weather data, Spindletop Farm, Lexington, KY.Standard deviation: measurement of variation, expressed by bars.Flowering dates generated from CROPGRO and verified from field data by Dr. Dennis Egli.Field data generated by Chad Lee, University of Kentucky and Scott VanSickle, Wheat Tech, Inc.

9-Apr 19-Apr 29-Apr 9-May 19-May 29-May 8-Jun 18-Jun 28-Jun 8-Jul0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Predicted Number of Days to First Flowering for Kentucky

MG IIPolynomial (MG II)MG IIIPolynomial (MG III)MGIVPolynomial (MGIV)MGV

Planting Date

Da

ys

fro

m P

lan

tin

g t

o F

low

eri

ng

Light Interception:Soybean Plant Density

Fig. 2, Purcell et al. 2002. Crop Sci. 42: 172-177.

Fig. 2. Fraction of light intercepted at 11, 22, and 46 d after emergence (DAE) was regressed against population density for ‘Manokin’ (MGIV) soybean at Fayetteville, AR, in 1999, using a monomolecular model .

Arkansas (36°5' N)

9Chad Lee, University of Kentucky, 2010

http://crop.scijournals.org/content/vol42/issue1/images/large/172f2.jpeg


High yield system

• Key components– Productive soils (deep, adequate fertility, no

compaction)– Adequate, timely rainfall (or irrigation)– Using good genetics– Rotating crops– Planting on time (not necessarily early)– Planting in narrow rows (20 inches or less)– Capturing nearly 100% sunlight at by about R1– Getting excellent weed control (no trophy-hunting)– Scouting for diseases and pests


High Yield System

• When we are doing all the basics, is there some way to get even more yield?

Soybean Planting Date



Soybean Planting Date

• Plant soybeans once soil temperatures reach 65OF – Early May for most of Kentucky

• Yield losses of 1.5% per day can be expected for soybeans planted after June 10 to 15 in Kentucky

Soybean

Yield Harvest population Return Iowa

2003-2006

bu/acre plants/acre $/acre

Late April 62.5 110,769 334 Early May 60.1 118,988 321 Late May 56.7 128,219 301 Early June 46.8 130,202 243 LSD (0.05) 3.4 ns 19


Adapted from…Table 7. Seed yield, seeds m–2, and seed mass response to four planting dates at six locations in Iowa between 2003 and 2006.

De Bruin and Pedersen. 2008. Agron J 100:696-703.


Fig. 3. Regression of yield (Mg ha–1) on planting date (day of year) for three soybean cultivars during 2006 and 2007. Cultivars were Pioneer brand 92M61 (P92) (Maturity Group 2.6), Becks brand 321NRR (B321) (Maturity Group 3.2), and Becks brand 367NRR (B367) (Maturity Group 3.7). Regression models were developed based on significant orthogonal polynomial contrasts, or as linear-plateau models when means for early planting dates were not different within a cultivar. Error bars represent the least significant difference for comparing cultivar means within each planting date, P 0.05.

Robinson, Conley, Volenec and Santini. 2009. Agron J 101:131-139.

Indiana

100 = Apr 9115 = Apr 24130 = May 9

9 Apr 9 May


April 12-17

April 22-28

May 7-12

May 20-22

June 3-6

June 21-23

July 6-7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

100 103 10193

8377

63

f(x) = − 1.29819976771195 x² + 3.93220092915212 x + 98.9445412311264R² = 0.982845470920777

Average Yield Response to Soybean Planting Date, KY, 2008-2010

Average (2008-2010)Polynomial (Average (2008-2010))

Planting Date

Relative Yield (% of 1st Planting Date)

• Location: UKREC (Princeton, Ky.)• Varieties: Pioneer 94M50 (2008, 2009). Pioneer 94Y60 (2010).• Rainfall (June-Sept.): (2008 = -7.5”) (2009 = +7.0”) (2010 = -4.5”).• Seeding rate = ~200,000 seeds per acre.•Jim Herbek, Univ. of Kentucky

Historically Optimum Planting Window

Fig. 1. Relationship between relative yield (yield in each experiment was expressed as a percentage of maximum yield) and planting date in the Midwest. The regression analysis was significant at P < 0.0001. The yield decline began on Day 60 ± 5.8 d (30 May). The slope of the linear regression after the breakpoint was –0.7 ± 0.16% points per day, while the slope before the breakpoint was –0.03 ± 0.15% points per day (approximate 95% confidence interval = –0.34 to 0.28).


Egli and Cornelius. 2009. Agron. J. 101:330-335

20 Apr 10 May 30 May


Fig. 2. Relationship between relative yield (yield in each experiment was expressed as a percent of maximum yield) and planting date in the Upper South. The regression analysis was significant at P < 0.0001. The yield decline began on Day 68 ± 2.8 d (7 June). The slope of the linear regression after the breakpoint was –1.1 ± 0.10% points per day, while the slope before the breakpoint was –0.04 ± 0.06% points per day (approximate 95% confidence interval = –0.17 to 0.08).Egli and Cornelius. 2009. Agron. J. 101:330-335

20 Apr 10 May 30 May


Soybean Planting Date Study, KY, 2008-2010

PlantingDate

Soybean Emergence2008 2009 2010

Days % Days % Days %April 12-17 14 71 18 55 10 83April 22-28 15 72 9 85 11 88May 7-12 10 71 10 73 8 87May 20-22 6 86 6 80 5 90June 3-6 4 85 6 69 4 94June 21-23 4 80 5 76 4 94July 6-7 4 90 4 81 4 83

• Location: UKREC (Princeton, Ky.)• Seeding rate = ~200,000 seeds per acre.• April: normally cool, wet; except (2010) was warm, dry.• Early May: normally cool, wet.•Jim Herbek, Univ. of Kentucky


Soybean Early Planting

• Greater Risk for:– Sudden Death Syndrome– Bean Leaf Beetle– Seedling Diseases– Lower Germination & Emergence– Frost/Freeze Damage

• Adjustments– Good seed, seed treatments & seed vigor


TOTAL YIELD

Yield Limitations

TOTAL YIELD

Gen

etics

Soils

Nut

rient

sW

eeds

Gen

etics

Soils

Nut

rient

sW

eeds


The various components interact with each other…

Warm Weather allows Early

PlantingEarly Planting

Raises Risk for SDS

Genetics need to adapt to SDS

Early Planting Raises Risk for

Lower Emergence

Higher Seeding Rate Needed


Kitchen Sink Soybeans


Maximum Soybean Yields (Kitchen Sink)

• Rationale: With high grain prices and a perception of stagnant yields, farmers are attempting to buy their way to greater yields – often with little (or no) scientific basis.

• The Kitchen Sink is an attempt to examine maximum yields through current products and to tease-out the product(s) that provide the greatest chance of increasing yields.


The Kitchen Sink

• Examines multiple inputs – By ‘drop out’– In systems

• Early-season intensive management• Late-season intensive management

• 3 locations per state• 6 replications


Kitchen Sink Soybeans

• 6 states– Michigan State– Minnesota– Iowa State– Kentucky– Arkansas– Louisiana State

• Part of a larger set of studies


Basic Comparisons

• Narrow rows– 15” or 20” (vs. 30”)

• High seeding rates– 200K (vs. 100K) –

2009– 240K (vs. 140K) –

2010


Kitchen Sink Treatment

• Seed treatment: – Trilex 6000 (Bayer)

2009– Cruiser Maxx

(Syngenta) 2010

• Inoculant: – Vault LV (Becker

Underwood)

• Additional soil-applied fertilizer: – P2O5, K2O, S, B, Mn, Zn

• Foliar Fertilizer: – Task Force 2

(Loveland) applied at R1

• Foliar Fungicide:– Headline (BASF) at R3

• Narrow or Wide Rows• Target Plant Density

– 100,000 plants/acre


Kitchen Sink Plus

• Kitchen Sink +– Additional 100,000

plants/acre (targeting a total of 200,000 plants/acre)

– 15” rows

• Kitchen Sink ++– Additional 100,000

plants/acre (targeting a total of 200,000 plants/acre)

– Additional foliar fungicide

• Headline @ R3• Quilt @ R5

– 15” rows


No. Treatment Abbreviation12 Standard input, 15" rows (control 15") Control 15"1 Standard input, 30" rows (control 30") Control 30"2 High input, 15" rows (Kitchen Sink 15") Kitchen Sink 15"3 High input, 30" rows (Kitchen Sink 30") Kitchen Sink 30"



5High input, 15" rows w/o additional soil fertility KS - Soil Fert.

6 High input, 15" rows w/o inoculant KS - Inoc.

8High input, 15" rows w/o seed treatment KS - Seed Trt

4 High input, 15" rows w/o foliar fertility KS - Fol. Fert.

7High input, 15" rows w/o foliar fungicide KS - Fol. Fung.

11High input, 30" rows w/o foliar fungicide KS - Fol. Fung. 30"









9 Late season management, 15" rows Late10 Early season management, 15" rows Early









9 Late season management, 15" rows Late10 Early season management, 15" rows Early13 Ultra high input, 15" rows Kitchen Sink +

14Ultra high input, 15" rows + add'l fungicide Kitchen Sink ++


MN, MI, and IA -- Kitchen Sink -- 2009-2010

Control

Control (30")

Kitchen Sink

Kitchen Sink (30")

- Soil Fert.

- Inoculation

- Seed Fung.

- Foliar Fert.

- Foliar Fung.

- Foliar Fung. (30")

"Late" mgmt

"Early" Mgmt

Kitchen + 100K

Kitchen ++ 100K

Yie

ld (

Bu

/ a

cre)

0

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70LSD = 4 bu/acre


Kitchen Sink – summaryMN, MI, and IA

• One single product was not responsible for all of the yield increases (overall, or in any single environment/location)

• Most KS “dropout” treatments resulted in yields similar to Kitchen Sink treatment.

• Fungicide may be very important in these treatments (compare “Early” to “Late” and “KS – fungicide” treatments)


Kitchen Sink – summaryMN, MI, and IA• One of the largest synergistic effects was

through narrow row spacing (for MN, MI and IA).– This indicates that other management factors

driving canopy development (e.g. planting date, tillage, pest management, and water management [drainage and irrigation]) may act similarly.

• Therefore, we expect farmers to get more value from these products when they are doing everything else right.


2009 Kitchen Sink Soybean Hopkinsville New Haven Lexington

Treatment 36°39'54" N, 87°26'34" W

37°39'28" N, 85°35'27" W

37°59'19" N, 84°28'39" W

bu/acre bu/acre bu/acre 12 Control 15"1 Control 30"2 Kitchen Sink 15"3 Kitchen Sink 30"5 KS - Soil Fert.6 KS - Inoc.8 KS - Seed Trt4 KS - Fol. Fert.7 KS - Fol. Fung.

11 KS - Fol. Fung. 30"9 Late

10 Early13 KS + 100K14 KS ++ Mean

ANOVA Treatment p value



Treatment 36°39'54" N, 87°26'34" W

37°39'28" N, 85°35'27" W

37°59'19" N, 84°28'39" W

bu/acre bu/acre bu/acre 12 Control 15" 66.3 37.2 cde 73.5 bcde1 Control 30" 69.5 30.3 e 72.7 cde2 Kitchen Sink 15" 68.1 42.4 bcd 82.0 bc3 Kitchen Sink 30" 67.1 32.1 e 76.2 bcde5 KS - Soil Fert. 74.5 50.1 ab 70.3 cde6 KS - Inoc. 68.3 45.8 abc 78.9 bcd8 KS - Seed Trt 67.6 42.6 bcd 66.0 de4 KS - Fol. Fert. 71.3 45.3 abc 76.2 bcde7 KS - Fol. Fung. 64.9 44.0 abc 66.0 de

11 KS - Fol. Fung. 30" 65.9 34.0 de 70.8 cde9 Late 74.6 44.2 abc 63.5 e

10 Early 69.5 44.8 abc 67.6 de13 KS + 100K 71.0 51.0 a 96.5 a14 KS ++ 71.5 49.8 ab 86.9 ab Mean 69.3 42.4 74.8

ANOVA Treatment p value 0.4491 <0.000

1 0.0008



Treatment 36°39'54" N, 87°26'34" W

37°39'28" N, 85°35'27" W

37°59'19" N, 84°28'39" W

bu/acre bu/acre bu/acre 12 Control 15" 37.2 cde 73.5 bcde1 Control 30" 30.3 e 72.7 cde2 Kitchen Sink 15" 42.4 bcd 82.0 bc3 Kitchen Sink 30" 32.1 e 76.2 bcde5 KS - Soil Fert.6 KS - Inoc.8 KS - Seed Trt4 KS - Fol. Fert.7 KS - Fol. Fung.


10 Early13 KS + 100K14 KS ++ Mean 42.4 74.8

ANOVA Treatment p value <0.000

1 0.0008



Treatment 36°39'54" N, 87°26'34" W

37°39'28" N, 85°35'27" W

37°59'19" N, 84°28'39" W

bu/acre bu/acre bu/acre 12 Control 15" 37.2 cde 73.5 bcde1 Control 30" 30.3 e 72.7 cde2 Kitchen Sink 15" 42.4 bcd 82.0 bc3 Kitchen Sink 30" 32.1 e 76.2 bcde5 KS - Soil Fert.6 KS - Inoc.8 KS - Seed Trt4 KS - Fol. Fert.7 KS - Fol. Fung.


10 Early13 KS + 100K 51.0 a 96.5 a14 KS ++ 49.8 ab 86.9 ab Mean 42.4 74.8


1 0.0008



Treatment 36°39'54" N, 87°26'34" W

37°39'28" N, 85°35'27" W

37°59'19" N, 84°28'39" W

bu/acre bu/acre bu/acre 12 Control 15" 37.2 cde 73.5 bcde1 Control 30" 30.3 e 72.7 cde2 Kitchen Sink 15" 42.4 bcd 82.0 bc3 Kitchen Sink 30" 32.1 e 76.2 bcde5 KS - Soil Fert. 50.1 ab 70.3 cde6 KS - Inoc. 45.8 abc 78.9 bcd8 KS - Seed Trt 42.6 bcd 66.0 de4 KS - Fol. Fert. 45.3 abc 76.2 bcde7 KS - Fol. Fung. 44.0 abc 66.0 de

11 KS - Fol. Fung. 30" 34.0 de 70.8 cde9 Late 44.2 abc 63.5 e

10 Early 44.8 abc 67.6 de13 KS + 100K 51.0 a 96.5 a14 KS ++ 49.8 ab 86.9 ab Mean 42.4 74.8


1 0.0008



Treatment36°39'54" N, 87°26'34" W

37°39'28" N, 85°35'27" W

37°59'19" N, 84°28'39" W

bu/acre bu/acre bu/acre12 Control 15" 20.6 55.9 df 51.31 Control 30" 17.6 47.7 f 52.22 Kitchen Sink 15" 24.3 70.6 a 55.33 Kitchen Sink 30" 16.4 60.7 bcd 57.35 KS - Soil Fert. 18.7 59.1 cd 59.86 KS - Inoc. 21.7 67.9 ab 47.28 KS - Seed Trt 20.6 68.5 ab 61.64 KS - Fol. Fert. 22.9 65.0 abc 49.77 KS - Fol. Fung. 22.0 55.5 f 51.8

11 KS - Fol. Fung. 30" 21.9 48.9 f 58.09 Late 22.2 64.3 abcd 53.1

10 Early 19.8 60.7 bcd 54.413 KS + 100K 22.2 70.9 a 69.814 KS ++ 19.6 64.0 abcd 58.6

Mean 20.7 61.4 55.7

ANOVA Treatement p value 0.8102 <0.000

1 0.5587



Treatment36°39'54" N, 87°26'34" W

37°39'28" N, 85°35'27" W

37°59'19" N, 84°28'39" W

bu/acre bu/acre bu/acre12 Control 15" 55.9 df1 Control 30" 47.7 f2 Kitchen Sink 15" 70.6 a3 Kitchen Sink 30" 60.7 bcd5 KS - Soil Fert.6 KS - Inoc.8 KS - Seed Trt4 KS - Fol. Fert.7 KS - Fol. Fung.


10 Early13 KS + 100K14 KS ++

Mean 61.4

ANOVA Treatement p value <0.000

1



Treatment36°39'54" N, 87°26'34" W

37°39'28" N, 85°35'27" W

37°59'19" N, 84°28'39" W

bu/acre bu/acre bu/acre12 Control 15" 55.9 df1 Control 30" 47.7 f2 Kitchen Sink 15" 70.6 a3 Kitchen Sink 30" 60.7 bcd5 KS - Soil Fert.6 KS - Inoc.8 KS - Seed Trt4 KS - Fol. Fert.7 KS - Fol. Fung.


10 Early13 KS + 100K 70.9 a14 KS ++ 64.0 abcd

Mean 61.4


1



Treatment36°39'54" N, 87°26'34" W

37°39'28" N, 85°35'27" W

37°59'19" N, 84°28'39" W

bu/acre bu/acre bu/acre12 Control 15" 55.9 df1 Control 30" 47.7 f2 Kitchen Sink 15" 70.6 a3 Kitchen Sink 30" 60.7 bcd5 KS - Soil Fert. 59.1 cd6 KS - Inoc. 67.9 ab8 KS - Seed Trt 68.5 ab4 KS - Fol. Fert. 65.0 abc7 KS - Fol. Fung. 55.5 f

11 KS - Fol. Fung. 30" 48.9 f9 Late 64.3 abcd

10 Early 60.7 bcd13 KS + 100K 70.9 a14 KS ++ 64.0 abcd

Mean 61.4


1


Kitchen Sink Soybean – KY, 2009-2010

• 2009:– Higher final plant population was critical– KS+ and KS++ > KS

• 2010.:– Soil fertility and foliar fungicide were critical


Kitchen Sink Soybean

• In Kentucky, 6 site-years– 2009, 2010– 3 locations each year– 1 site in 2010 “lost” to dry weather

• Significant differences in 3 out of 5 site-years

• In those 3 site-years: – KS + was among the highest yields, about 17

bu/acre higher than standard input in narrow rows


Partial Expenses per Acre Kitchen Sink +

Kitchen Sink

Trilex 6000 (or Cruiser Maxx) $ 4.51 $ 2.63 Vault LV $ 5.85 $ 3.40 Task Force 2, 2 qt/A $ 4.63 $ 4.63 Headline, 6 oz/A $ 14.53 $ 14.53 84 lbs P2O5 (DAP) $ 79.06 $ 79.06 56 lbs K2O (KCl) $ 25.43 $ 25.43 0.5 lb B (Borax, 11%B) $ 1.82 $ 1.82 2 lb Mn (MnSO4) $ 5.31 $ 5.31 0.5 lb Zn (ZnSO4) $ 1.70 $ 1.70

Fol. Fert. Application $ 7.00 $ 7.00 Fol. Fung. Application $ 7.00 $ 7.00

Additional 100K Seed ($60/bag) $ 37.50 -

__________ _________Total Extra Costs, $/acre $198.84 $ 152.50

Costs based on price estimates from farm supply stores in Kentucky, early Jan. 2011.


Kitchen Sink StudyPartial Returns for KY, 2009-2010

$6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $13.90 $16.00

$(120.00)

$(80.00)

$(40.00)

$-

$40.00

$80.00

$120.00

$(99.22)

$(65.22)

$(31.22)

$35.08

$70.78

Partial Net Returns for Kentucky 2009-2010: "Kitchen Sink +" versus "Control 15" at +17 bu/A

Soybean Commodity Price, $/bu

Parti

al N

et R

etur

n, $

/acr

e

Farm costs are from Kentucky Farm Budgets, Greg Halich, 2010.


Kitchen Sink StudyPartial Returns for MN, MI & IA, 2009-2010

$6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $13.90 $16.00

$(160.00)

$(120.00)

$(80.00)

$(40.00)

$-

$(127.51) $(117.51)

$(107.51)

$(88.01) $(77.51)

Partial Net Returns for MN, MI, IA 2009-2010: "Kitchen Sink" versus "Control Narrow" at 5 bu/A Increase


Parti

al N

et R

etur

n, $

/acr

e

Farm costs are from Kentucky Farm Budgets, Greg Halich, 2010.


Kitchen Sink SoybeanKentucky

• “Kitchen Sink +” resulted in significantly higher yields 60% of the time (3 out of 5 environments) in KY.

• Is a 60% chance of getting an additional17 bu/acre worth the cost?– @ $14/bu– @ $10/bu– @ $08/bu

$6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $13.90 $16.00

$(120.00)

$(80.00)

$(40.00)

$-

$40.00

$80.00

$120.00

$(99.22) $(65.22)

$(31.22)

$35.08 $70.78

Partial Net Returns for Kentucky 2009-2010: "K-itchen Sink +" versus "Control 15" at +17 bu/A


Parti

al N

et R

etur

n, $

/acr

e


Kitchen Sink StudyMN, MI & IA 2009-2010

• The “Kitchen Sink” treatment resulted in a 5 bu/a increase over the “Control Narrow Row” treatment.

• At current prices for inputs and soybean, the partial net return is negative for all price ranges– $08/bu (-$119.95/acre)– $10/bu (-$109.95/acre)– $16/bu (-$79.95/acre)


Get the basics, first.

• Are you doing these already?– Productive soils (deep, adequate fertility, no

compaction)– Rotating crops– Using good genetics– Planting on time (not necessarily early)– Planting in narrow rows (20 inches or less)– Capturing nearly 100% sunlight at by about R1– Getting excellent weed control (no trophy-

hunting)– Scouting for diseases and pests


Soy MVP

• Soybean Management Verification Program

• Compares University of Kentucky guidelines to producer practices.

• 2009 and 2010: an economic advantage to U.K.

June 24, 2010 – V13, R2June 24, 2010 – V13, R2

University Guidelines Producer Practice


Location University Guidelines

Producer Practice

University Guidelines

Producer Practice

Yield, bu/acre Partial Net Return, $/acreGraves County A 72.1 76.6 641.11 660.42Graves County B 59.2 50.1 511.55 418.49Hickman County A 51.0 50.8 427.17 425.25Hickman County B 50.6 50.8 423.33 425.25Lyon County 42.8 42.5 339.78 333.64Muhlenberg County A 47.0 45.1 389.46 360.42Muhlenberg County B 38.9 39.3 311.70 304.74Trigg County 54.8 57.1 438.34 454.35Average 52.1 51.6 435.31 422.82Average Difference +0.5 bu/acre + $12.49/acre

Soy MVP, 2009


LocationUniversity Guidelines

Producer Practice

University Guidelines Producer Practice

Yield, bu/acre Partial Net Return, $/acreMuhlenberg1 48.1 49.8 404.69 414.97Trigg2 23.9 28.0 169.24 177.58Marshall3 19.7 19.0 133.86 97.44Calloway4 26.7 24.3 203.86 150.44Butler5 44.7 46.6 365.33 371.73Henderson 16 71.5 70.9 629.72 593.15Henderson 27 75.2 80.4 681.72 688.15Average 44.3 45.6 369.77 356.21Average Difference -1.3 bu/acre + $13.56/acre

1Seeding rate 135K (FP) vs. 120K (UK)2Seeding rate 150K (FP) vs. 120K (UK),fungicide, insecticide on FP 3Fungicide seed treatment for FP, 160K (FP) vs. 120K (UK)4Fungicide seed treatment for FP, 160K (FP) vs. 120K (UK)5Seeding rate 150K (FP) vs. 120K (UK), fungicide used on both sides6Insecticide used for FP, 165K (FP) vs. 120K (UK), fungicide and foliar P, K on both sides7FP used fungicide, insecticide, foliar fertilizer, 165K (FP) vs. 120K (UK)

Soy MVP, 2010


Soybeans

• Soil test and follow AGR-1: Lime and Fertilizer Rec’s.

• Choose good varieties• Plant in May• Target 100,000 plants per acre• Use 15-inch rows• Keep weeds controlled• Scout for insects and diseases


Thank You

High Yield Soybean Production Systems Chad Lee, Ph.D. Extension Agronomist University of Kentucky...

Documents

Transcript of High Yield Soybean Production Systems Chad Lee, Ph.D. Extension Agronomist University of Kentucky...