Small grain harvest is well underway across the region, and soil testing is progressing quickly. Crop yields have varied from below average to exceeding expectations across the region and often in the same area. Planting date, summer temperatures, and rainfall (too little or too much) were major factors this year.
The major factors influencing the amount of residual soil nitrate-N after crops are:
1. Nitrogen fertilizer rate: too high or too low
2. Crop yield achieved: much lower or higher than expected
3. Nitrogen losses: denitrification and leaching after too much rainfall
4. Nitrogen mineralization from organic matter: cool or warm growing season
Seasonal weather is a large driving factor in the amount of nitrate-N in the soil profile. This changes from field to field and year to year. Early spring weather conditions were very wet across much of the region. In June and July, some areas continued to receive adequate to excess rainfall. Meanwhile, other areas received very little rain in the late growing season.
AGVISE has tested over 10,000 soil samples from wheat fields across the region. The table below indicates the percentage of soil samples in each soil nitrate-nitrogen category in several areas of Manitoba, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The data should give you a general idea of how variable residual soil nitrate is from field to field in each region. With such variable crop yields, there is quite a bit of variability in residual nitrate following wheat in the region. In drought-affected areas of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota, over 10 to 20% of soil samples have more than 60 lb/acre nitrate-N (0-24 inch soil profile) remaining after wheat.
What about Prevented Planting or unseeded acres?
For Prevented Planting or unseeded acres, the factors above plus some additional factors will affect the amount of residual nitrate-nitrogen:
1. How long was water standing on the field?
2. Was weed growth controlled, early or late?
3. Was tillage used? How many times? How deep?
4. Was a cover crop planted? What amount of growth was achieved?
When submitting soil samples from fields that were not planted, please choose “Fallow” or “Cover Crop” as the previous crop. This will allow us to send additional information on soil nitrate trends for unseeded and cover crop fields once we get enough data.
As the fall soil testing season continues, we will keep you updated. If you have any questions, please call our experienced agronomic staff. We hope you have a safe harvest and soil testing season.
Choosing the Right Phosphorus Method
in Phosphorus, Soil Chemical Analysis/by Cindy EvensonThis article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Spring 2023 Newsletter under President’s Corner
The phosphorus soil test debate never ends. Should I use the Olsen test, or maybe Bray-1 would be better? What about the Mehlich-3 method, and should that extract be analyzed on an ICP or with a colorimetric method? Perhaps, Bray-2 or the Haney extractable P is something to consider? This whole phosphorus test dilemma can be quite confusing; however, the answer is quite simple. Use the soil phosphorus test that is calibrated for your region!
In the upper Midwest, the Olsen test is the most reliable method to determine phosphorus availability and has the most correlation and calibration data with field trials. Many hours have been spent by university researchers putting out field trials to determine phosphorus fertilizer rates for various crops. The researchers have evaluated various phosphorus methods, and the two most common methods are the Bray-1 and Olsen extractants. The Bray-1 method is the older method, developed in Illinois. It works well on soils with pH below 7.3. Once the soil pH is above 7.3, the extractant may fail. If the test fails, it will produce a result near zero.
The Olsen method is required on calcareous soils (pH > 7.3), but it also works well on acidic soils. There is a common misconception that the Olsen method is only suitable on calcareous soils. In fact, the Olsen method is widely used across the world because of its versatility on acidic and calcareous soils. It is a perfect fit for our region because it works so well across a wide soil pH range and on diverse soil types. In the AGVISE Newsletter Spring 2017 issue, retired AGVISE President Robert Deutsch compiled soil test data for the Bray-1 and Olsen methods with over 25,000 soil samples. The graphs highlight how robust the Olsen phosphorus method is, working on acidic and calcareous soils alike.
The Mehlich-3 method has gained popularity in the southeast United States and the central Midwest. In these regions, the soils are more weathered and often do not have problems with high calcium carbonate content. At the University of Minnesota, Dr. Dan Kaiser has worked on Mehlich-3 method correlation on Minnesota soils for quite a few years. For some soils, the Mehlich-3 method performed as expected, while some others had Mehlich-3 results 8 to 10 times higher than expected. For these reasons, the Mehlich-3 method has not been approved for use in the upper Midwest or northern Great Plains.
As of this time the only phosphorus soil tests recommended for soils in the upper Midwest are the Olsen and Bray-1 extracts. If someone mentions using any other phosphorus soil test, it has not been tested or correlated to the soils in this region.
Are Soybean Iron Deficiency Chlorosis (IDC) Ratings Getting Worse?
in Iron, Soybean/by John BrekerThis article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Spring 2023 Newsletter
For the past three years, we have seen severe and widespread soybean iron deficiency chlorosis (IDC) symptoms across the region. In fact, some seasoned agronomists have commented that 2022 was the worst soybean IDC year that they had experienced in decades. Soybean IDC is a serious risk on soils with high calcium carbonate or salinity, which interfere with iron uptake and utilization in soybean. With all that we have learned about soybean IDC risk and management over the past 30 years, we have to ask, “What is going on? Why is soybean IDC continuing to get worse?”
The NDSU soybean IDC trial data suggests it might be the soybean varieties. Each year, seed companies submit soybean varieties to NDSU for independent evaluation of soybean IDC ratings (https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/varietytrials/). The NDSU trial sites impose high soybean IDC risk, where the best and worst soybean varieties are thoroughly tested alike for soybean IDC tolerance. In recent years, the problem is that the year-after-year average soybean IDC rating continues to get worse (see figure). In 2022, the average soybean variety scored 3.5 on the NDSU scale (1-good, 5-bad). Adverse soil and weather conditions may explain part of the worsening problem in the NDSU trials, but it is apparent that few soybean varieties can handle severe soybean IDC on their own. In defense of soybean breeders, there are a lot of different breeding objectives on their plates right now, including herbicide tolerance packages, disease and insect pests, and seed yield, of course!
This means we need to revisit and use all of our options in the soybean IDC toolbox. We have known about these effective management tools for over 20 years, and we are going to need to use all of them until soybean variety IDC tolerance can get to where we need it.
Steps to better soybean IDC management
Two Graphics You Should Know Before the 2023 Growing Season
in Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium/by Jodi BoeThis article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Spring 2023 Newsletter
The goal of AGVISE Newsletters is to inform you and your customers of important soil fertility information relevant to our area. Often, visuals or graphs are much more powerful at communicating a message than words. With that in mind, I want to share two figures I think you should know about going into the 2023 growing season with a short synopsis and where you can find more information on the topic.
Right now, there are many biological products and fertilizer additives on the market. In particular, asymbiotic nitrogen-fixing products have gained a lot of attention, but many have little or no university research evaluating them. Any grower wanting to try new products should test them on a small acreage first, before adopting them across the whole farm. To the left is a diagram of how such an on-farm trial would look. The key factors of a meaningful on-farm trial include a control treatment (the standard practice), the standard practice plus the product, and randomized replication (at least three replicates, randomized so that one treatment is not always on the east or west side of the trial area).
If the standard nitrogen rate will be reduced when the product is used, a treatment should also be included that compares the same reduced nitrogen rate without the product (this three-treatment setup is what is pictured). If the standard nitrogen rate is higher than the crop N requirement, maybe if you do not have a current soil nitrate-N test or just general overapplication, a reduced nitrogen rate plus the product that produces the same crop yield as the standard practice does not mean that the product is producing additional nitrogen for the crop; it may just mean that the grower can cut back their standard nitrogen rate.
Slide from Dr. John Jones’ 2023 AGVISE Seminar presentation, Phosphorus and Potassium: A Fresh Look with Fresh Data https://www.agvise.com/resources/seminars-and-events/
With fertilizer prices remaining high, it is tempting to cut back phosphorus and potassium inputs to save money. As tempting as this is, do not cut back farther than the fertilizer rates needed to meet the critical soil test level, as optimum soil-test P and K levels are required to achieve the highest response from nitrogen fertilizer. While working to update the Wisconsin phosphorus and potassium fertilizer guidelines, Dr. John Jones at the University of Wisconsin has put together some excellent data illustrating the reality of Liebig’s Law of the Minimum: when P and K fertility needs are unmet, the return from nitrogen fertilizer investment will be reduced compared to when P and K are at optimum levels. This means pouring on more nitrogen will not increase crop yield unless you are doing a good job of managing P and K too. Although not shown here, Dr. Jones also has data showing that corn and soybean yield response to P is reduced when K fertility needs are unmet.
John Breker Appointed to NAPT Oversight Committee
in Quality Control/by John BrekerThis article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Spring 2023 Newsletter
John Breker was appointed to the North American Proficiency Testing Program Oversight Committee as the North Central Region representative, starting in January 2023. The North American Proficiency Testing (NAPT) Program assists soil, plant, and water laboratories with quality control and quality assurance through inter-laboratory sample exchanges as well as statistical evaluation of the analytical data. These tools help laboratories generate accurate and precise analyses, as well as provide confidence to clients that their data meets high standards.
The NAPT program guidelines have been developed for the agricultural laboratory industry by groups involved with standardizing soil and plant analysis methods in the United States and Canada. The program is authorized through the Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) and administered by the NAPT Oversight Committee, composed of representatives from regional soil and plant analysis workgroups, state/provincial departments of
agriculture, and private and public soil and plant analysis laboratories.
AGVISE Laboratories has been a member of the NAPT program since its inception. AGVISE Laboratories in Benson, MN and Northwood, ND participate in the soil, plant, and water programs through NAPT, as well as the Performance Assessment Program (PAP) required for participation in USDA-NRCS programs. AGVISE is a strong supporter of NAPT and the ongoing objectives of the NAPT program.
NAPT Program Objectives
High Fertilizer Prices? Using Crop Removal P & K Rates is an Expensive Choice
in Crop Removal, Phosphorus, Potassium/by John BrekerThis article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Spring 2023 Newsletter
If you thought high fertilizer prices would resolve after one or two years, it is looking like those prices are becoming the new norm. At such prices, every fertilizer dollar you spend must be spent to guarantee the best bang for each buck. This means soil testing makes more dollars and sense than ever.
Phosphorus and potassium are best managed with current soil test information to maximize crop yield potential and profitability. Yet, some people continue to apply phosphorus and potassium at crop removal (CR) rates as a way to maintain the soil fertility status quo. This is a major oversight because CR-based rates maintain soil fertility in a way that overapplies fertilizer to parts of the field with high soil test P or K that do not need more fertilizer, yet underapplies fertilizer to parts with low soil test P or K and ultimately sacrifices crop yield. This is particularly troublesome if the factor that limited crop yield was one of those nutrients! As a result, the reduced crop yield leads to a lower CR-based fertilizer rate that fails to fix the soil fertility issue, and you stay in a low soil fertility rut. For example, if soil test P is very low and limits crop yield, a crop removal-based P rate will undershoot the actual crop P requirement, resulting in reduced crop yield and continued nutrient mining year after year. A soil test-based P rate will show you exactly where more fertilizer is required to maximize crop yield and where you can reduce fertilizer rates to maximize profitability.
Another serious reason to avoid CR-based rates is the risk of off-site nutrient losses, especially phosphorus. When CR-based rates are applied on soils with high or very high soil test P, this increases the risk for environmental P loss to waterways that can degrade water quality and result in regulatory oversight. Precision soil sampling (grid or zone) and soil test-based fertilizer rates is the best way to maximize crop yield, profitability, and protect the environment.
Early Soil Nitrate Trends after Wheat in 2022
in Nitrogen, Regional Data, Wheat/by John BrekerSmall grain harvest is well underway across the region, and soil testing is progressing quickly. Crop yields have varied from below average to exceeding expectations across the region and often in the same area. Planting date, summer temperatures, and rainfall (too little or too much) were major factors this year.
The major factors influencing the amount of residual soil nitrate-N after crops are:
1. Nitrogen fertilizer rate: too high or too low
2. Crop yield achieved: much lower or higher than expected
3. Nitrogen losses: denitrification and leaching after too much rainfall
4. Nitrogen mineralization from organic matter: cool or warm growing season
Seasonal weather is a large driving factor in the amount of nitrate-N in the soil profile. This changes from field to field and year to year. Early spring weather conditions were very wet across much of the region. In June and July, some areas continued to receive adequate to excess rainfall. Meanwhile, other areas received very little rain in the late growing season.
AGVISE has tested over 10,000 soil samples from wheat fields across the region. The table below indicates the percentage of soil samples in each soil nitrate-nitrogen category in several areas of Manitoba, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The data should give you a general idea of how variable residual soil nitrate is from field to field in each region. With such variable crop yields, there is quite a bit of variability in residual nitrate following wheat in the region. In drought-affected areas of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota, over 10 to 20% of soil samples have more than 60 lb/acre nitrate-N (0-24 inch soil profile) remaining after wheat.
For Prevented Planting or unseeded acres, the factors above plus some additional factors will affect the amount of residual nitrate-nitrogen:
1. How long was water standing on the field?
2. Was weed growth controlled, early or late?
3. Was tillage used? How many times? How deep?
4. Was a cover crop planted? What amount of growth was achieved?
When submitting soil samples from fields that were not planted, please choose “Fallow” or “Cover Crop” as the previous crop. This will allow us to send additional information on soil nitrate trends for unseeded and cover crop fields once we get enough data.
As the fall soil testing season continues, we will keep you updated. If you have any questions, please call our experienced agronomic staff. We hope you have a safe harvest and soil testing season.
Corn Growth and Development – Are we behind?
in Corn/by Brent JaenischThis article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Fall 2022 Newsletter under Southern Trends
The spring and early summer were very interesting to say the least. Spring rains continued well into late May and delayed planting for sugar beet, corn, and soybean throughout the southern region. By mid-May, many producers changed long-day corn maturities to earlier corn maturities. In the Benson, MN neighborhood, corn planting finally got underway around May 20 (60% planted) and near completion on June 5 (93% planted). Around the coffee shop, many people have commented, “How far behind is the corn crop in 2022?” So, let’s put some numbers to this question.
The High Plains Regional Climate Center has a nice growing degree day (GDD) calculator for simulations of corn growth and development (https://hprcc.unl.edu/agroclimate/gdd.php). I made a few GDD simulations for previous years, comparing 2022 with 2019 (a below-average GDD year) and 2021 (an incredible GDD year). As of mid-July, the 2022 growing season was 3 days ahead of 2019 (63 more GDD) and 9 days behind 2021 (182 fewer GDD). A corn plant takes about three days to make a new leaf when the corn plant is V12 and younger, so you can guesstimate that we were about 3 leaf stages behind 2021.
With the late spring planting window, many corn producers around Benson, MN opted for corn maturities about 6 to 8 days earlier than normal. If you compare an earlier 92-day corn maturity with a more typical 100-day corn maturity, the required GDD to blacklayer is 2207 and 2401 GDD, respectively. We generally accumulate 20-30 GDD per day in midsummer. If either corn maturity was planted on May 20, the estimated silking (R1 stage) date is July 21 for the 92-day maturity and July 25 for the 100-day maturity, a difference of four days. Similarly, the estimated blacklayer (R6 stage) date is September 18 for the 92-day maturity and October 12 for the 100-day maturity, a difference of 24 days. Toward the end of the growing season when fewer GDD are accumulated per day, the difference in maturity groups really starts to show. Warmer than average temperatures will shorten that difference, but only time will tell if the right decision was to plant earlier corn maturities.
Nielsen, R. L. The Planting Date Conundrum. Corny News Network, Apr. 2022. Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN. https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/pltdatecornyld.html
To help drive home the point about planting date and final corn grain yield, I really like the graph from Dr. Bob Nielsen at Purdue University (figure above). Early planting does not always result in very high corn yield, and late planting does not always result in very low corn yield. In 2022, late planting will limit top-end crop yield potential, but the final crop yield could still be good as long as GDD accumulation remains above average. As always, Mother Nature will be the final determinant in setting the final crop yield.
Sampling Depth: Be consistent!
in Soil Sampling/by Jodi BoeThis article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Fall 2022 Newsletter
Soil test results are only as reliable as the soil samples collected in the field. A crucial part of soil sample quality is consistent sampling depth. This is important because all the soil test calibration research and fertilizer guidelines for non-mobile nutrients (e.g., phosphorus, potassium, zinc) are based on a soil core depth of 0-6 inches, thanks to the historical tillage depth. If soil cores are taken too shallow or too deep, you can skew soil test values and the resulting fertilizer guidelines. Getting the most accurate and useful fertilizer guidelines starts with a good quality soil sample. To help illustrate this point, we did a simple demonstration project, showing how soil sampling depth consistency affects soil test results in a long-term no-till and conventional-till field.
Soil nutrient concentrations can vary greatly throughout a soil profile, even more so in long-term no-till where soil nutrients are not regularly mixed. This leads to stratification of nutrients near the soil surface, meaning a soil core that is too shallow or too deep can greatly affect soil test results. You can clearly see the effect of no-till stratification in soil test potassium (STK) levels in Table 1. Between the 0-2 and 0-4 inch soil cores, there is a 53 ppm difference in STK. Although nutrients in conventional tillage systems do not concentrate at the surface to the extent they do in no-till, a concentration gradient still exists. This is most obvious near the tillage depth, where soil mixing below that depth stops. In Table 2, the 0-2 and 0-4 inch soil test results are similar, but the differences become apparent at the 0-6 inch depth. Soil sample depth is just as critical in conventional tillage as it is in no-till. In addition, it is important to collect soil samples before any fall tillage occurs
to collect good quality soil cores with consistent depth. Tillage creates uneven clods and a “fluffy” soil surface, making it hard to determine what actually represents the 0-6 inch soil depth.
Tips to increase soil sample depth consistency
• Collect soil samples before any tillage occurs. If tillage does happen before you can take a soil sample, try to make a firm surface with your foot or sample in a tire track.
• If you are using a hand probe, mark the target soil core depth on the soil probe clearly. A metal file works great to cut a notch in the soil probe at 6 inches. The file mark does not wear away like a piece of tape or permanent marker can.
• If you are using a hydraulic probe and use your hand to measure the soil core length, calibrate often to ensure you are measuring a true 0-6 inch soil core.
• If you train new soil samplers, reiterate the importance of soil sampling depth consistency. Provide clear instructions on measuring the proper soil sampling depth in the field.
• Be sure the soil sample submission information sent to the laboratory (online or paper) matches the actual soil sample depth obtained in the field. The correct soil sample depth can be noted on the paper forms or edited on the AGVISOR online submission before it reaches the laboratory.
Prevented Planting Acres? What to do for 2023
in Nitrogen, Prevented Planting/by John BrekerThis article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Fall 2022 Newsletter
Good crop prices encouraged late planting beyond crop insurance deadlines, but additional June rainfall kept some producers from planting all their acres, leaving some unplanted fields or unplanted parts of fields. There are many questions about soil testing on these unplanted fields: When should you start soil sampling? What kind of residual soil nitrate-nitrogen amounts can you expect? The extremely wet soil conditions may have caused considerable soil nitrogen losses to leaching or denitrification. Through summer, warmer and drier weather added nitrogen through mineralization of soil organic matter. In addition, cover crops and any weedy growth will acquire nitrogen from soil. The amount of soil nitrate-nitrogen remaining for next year will depend on soil type, environment, and management factors, which vary from field to field and zone to zone.
Management Factors
• What was the crop grown in the previous year?
• What was the nitrogen fertilizer rate and application timing? Was it applied last fall?
• Did you do any summer tillage? More tillage promotes nitrogen mineralization.
• How was your weed control? Did the weeds get large and acquire substantial nitrogen?
• Did you plant a cover crop? Did the cover crop get incorporated later?
Environmental Factors
• Did excessive rainfall cause nitrate leaching on well-drained soils?
• Did excessive rainfall cause denitrification on poorly drained soils?
• Were summer temperatures warm? Warm temperatures promote N mineralization.
Soil testing on these unplanted fields can begin as soon as good quality soil samples can be collected after mid-August. There is no reliable way to guess how much residual soil nitrate may be present in these unplanted fields or unplanted parts of fields. Soil testing is the only accurate way to learn how much residual soil nitrate remains in the soil profile. To obtain the best information for nitrogen management, we recommend splitting fields into management zones for soil testing. The unplanted field areas can vary considerably from the rest of the field, which will skew the field-average soil test result and resulting nitrogen fertilizer rate.
Soil Sampling for Nitrogen in a Delayed Spring
in In-Season Fertilizer, Nitrogen, Soil Sampling/by John BrekerSpring planting is clipping along in some parts of the region, while other parts are still waiting to hit the field, as excessive rainfall and cold temperatures have delayed spring field work and planting. Who would have thought last fall that this is what spring 2022 would look like, after the worst region-wide drought in 30 years? Mother Nature always reminds us to stay prepared for anything.
A delayed spring start means that every day in the field is important. AGVISE delivers next-day turnaround on processing soil samples. The soil samples are analyzed and reported the next business day after arrival at the laboratory. Soil test results are posted to our online AGVISOR portal for quick and easy access. If you need any soil sampling supplies for spring, please let us know and we will send them to you right away.
So, what is the best strategy for spring soil testing and assessing soil nitrogen losses after the rain? The compressed fertilizer and planting window might not leave enough time to adjust preplant fertilizer rates, especially if the field is just barely dry enough to plant. If soil nitrogen losses have occurred following spring rains, a spring soil test collected now will be helpful to create a split-applied nitrogen plan or to direct a supplemental nitrogen application later. In the AGVISE Spring 2022 Newsletter, we answered some questions on split-applied nitrogen application strategies, so please take a look at those options for applying nitrogen during the growing season.
Short-season crops develop quickly, so additional nitrogen should be applied in the upcoming weeks. A soil sample collected before or shortly after planting will provide the best assessment of preplant soil nitrogen supply and losses. Do not wait too long to collect the soil sample because, as we move into June, plant nitrogen uptake and nitrogen mineralization from soil organic matter will make the soil nitrogen result more difficult to decipher. To maximize yield in small grains, apply all topdress nitrogen before jointing (5-leaf stage). Any nitrogen applied after jointing will mostly go to grain protein. In canola, apply nitrogen during the rosette stage, before the 6-leaf stage.
Long-season crops like corn offer more flexibility and time for in-season soil sampling and nitrogen application. Rapid nitrogen uptake in corn does not begin until after the V6 growth stage. The Pre-sidedress Soil Nitrate Test (PSNT) can help you decide the appropriate sidedress nitrogen rate. For more details, take a look at the PSNT article link for instructions on collecting and submitting PSNT soil samples. The PSNT requires a 0-12 inch depth soil sample taken when corn plants are 6 to 12 inches tall (at the whorl), usually in late May or early June. Late-planted corn may not reach that height before mid-June, but PSNT soil samples should still be collected during the first two weeks of June. If spring rainfall was above normal, Iowa State University guidelines provide additional PSNT interpretation criteria for excessive rainfall, manured soils, and corn after alfalfa.
If you have any questions on the best strategies for spring soil sampling and in-season nitrogen application options, please call our technical support team and we will be happy to answer any questions you may have.