2022
2022 Continued Evaluation of Waterhemp Control and Crop Injury
Category:
Sustainable Production
Keywords:
AgricultureCrop protectionHerbicide
Parent Project:
This is the first year of this project.
Lead Principal Investigator:
Andrew Lueck, Next Gen Ag, LLC
Co-Principal Investigators:
Project Code:
10-15-44-22006
Contributing Organization (Checkoff):
Institution Funded:
Brief Project Summary:

Growers continue to look for ways to decrease input costs through herbicide program selection, unfortunately, herbicide-resistant weeds continue to affect yield while new resistant biotypes continue to evolve due to limited post-emergent herbicide options. Project objectives are to: develop a summative treatment list for waterhemp control via micro-rate supported residual herbicide programs in soybeans; develop more diverse one- and two-pass combinations of residual herbicides and maintain 95% waterhemp control 75 DAA; run ratio and crop safety evaluations on the most successful combination from the 2020/2021 micro-rate combo trials; institute outreach opportunities through industry collaborators, plot tours, publications and reasonable winter meeting requests.

Key Benefactors:
farmers, agronomists, applicators, ag retailers

Information And Results
Project Deliverables

Evaluation of success will be determined by 1) plot tour attendance; 2) virtual tour “clicks” or “viewed”; 3) plot tour day in person survey; 4) number of attendees at speaking appointments; 5) feedback from collaborating parties.

Materials and Methods
A known ALS and EPSP resistant waterhemp population will be tested near Renville (Lueck 2018). Conventional tillage on Webster Clay-Loam soil. Soybean will be seeded at 140,000 plants per acre on 30” row spacings. The two studies will have different plot sizes and application timings. Small plot herbicide applications will be done utilizing a bike sprayer with a 4 nozzle 20-inch spaced boom. All treatments will be applied through 110002 AIXR nozzles at 15 GPA. Specifics of each study and treatment list below:
1. Study #1: “Soybean Varietal Sensitivity to Variable Micro-Rate Champion Rates” is a randomized complete block design with split-plot arrangement with 16 soybean varieties and 8 herbicide rates (64 total 10 ft x 10 ft plots) across 2 replications (Figure 1; Table 3). Location will be Renville, MN, research farm only. Plot area is 1.0 acres including winter wheat buffers. Products target a PRE application timing only in a one-pass residual herbicide system. Soybean varieties will include diverse genetics. Data to be collected are waterhemp control and soybean crop injury at 15, 30, 45, 60, and 75 DAA (days after application “A”). Yield will not be taken. A plot tour will be held. Figure 1 is a diagram from 2021, however, accurately illustrations the general layout concept.
Figure 1. Soybean Varietal Sensitivity to Variable Micro-Rate Champion Rates Plot Layout.


Table 3. Soybean Varietal Sensitivity to Variable Micro-Rate Champion Rates Treatment List.
TRT1 Product Rate
Fl oz OR oz* App.
Code Avg Ratio2 Cost/A
1 Blanket + Valor SX + Warrant + Flexstar 5 + *1.25 + 24 + 6.5 A 0.62 $22.05
2 Blanket + Valor SX + Warrant + Flexstar 6 + *1.5 + 30 + 7.5 A 0.75 $26.61
3 Blanket + Valor SX + Warrant + Flexstar 7 + *1.75 + 36 + 8.5 A 0.88 $31.14
4 Blanket + Valor SX + Warrant + Flexstar 8 + *2 + 40 +10 A 1.00 $35.48
5 Blanket + Valor SX + Warrant + Flexstar 9 + *2 + 44 + 11 A 1.08 $38.61
6 Blanket + Valor SX + Warrant + Flexstar 10 + *2 + 48 +12 A 1.15 $41.78
7 Blanket + Valor SX + Warrant + Flexstar 11 + *2 + 56 + 14 A 1.27 $46.29
8 Blanket + Valor SX + Warrant + Flexstar 12 + *2 + 64 + 16 A 1.37 $50.81
1TRT=Treatment number.
2Avg Ratio=Average ratio of 4 components in relation to base treatment #4.




2. Study #2: “PRE vs. PRE fb EPOST at Variable Micro-Rate Champion Rates” is a randomized complete block design across 20 treatments and 4 replications (Table 4). Location will be Renville, MN, research farm only. Plot area is 1.10 acres including winter wheat buffers. Products target a PRE and V1-V2 application timing in a two-pass residual herbicide system. Treatments will include conventional herbicides only and be sprayed with bulk clethodim to control volunteer corn and grasses if necessary. Data to be collected are waterhemp control at 15, 30, 45, 60, and 75 DAA (days after application “A”). Yield will not be taken in this study. A plot tour will be held.
Table 4. PRE vs. PRE fb EPOST at Variable Micro-Rate Champion Rates Treatment List.
TRT1 Product Rate
Fl oz OR oz* App.
Code AI EPOST2 Cost/A
1 Valor SX + Warrant + Zidua + Flexstar *1.5 + 30 + *2 + 7.5 A 0 $33.13
2 Valor SX + Warrant + Zidua / Flexstar *1.5 + 30 + *2 / 7.5 A / B 1 $33.13
3 Valor SX + Warrant / Zidua + Flexstar *1.5 + 30 / *2 + 7.5 A / B 2 $33.13
4 Valor SX + Zidua / Warrant + Flexstar *1.5 + *2 / 30 + 7.5 A / B 2 $33.13
5 Valor SX / Warrant + Zidua + Flexstar *1.5 / 30 + *2 + 7.5 A / B 3 $33.13
6 Valor SX + Warrant + Zidua + Flexstar *2 + 40 + *2.5 + 10 A 0 $42.72
7 Valor SX + Warrant + Zidua / Flexstar *2 + 40 + *2.5 / 10 A / B 1 $42.72
8 Valor SX + Warrant / Zidua + Flexstar *2 + 40 / *2.5 + 10 A / B 2 $42.72
9 Valor SX + Zidua / Warrant + Flexstar *2 + *2.5 / 40 + 10 A / B 2 $42.72
10 Valor SX / Warrant + Zidua + Flexstar *2 / 40 + *2.5 + 10 A / B 3 $42.72
11 Blanket + Valor SX + Warrant + Flexstar 6 + *1.5 + 30 + 7.5 A 0 $26.61
12 Blanket + Valor SX + Warrant / Flexstar 6 + *1.5 + 30 + 7.5 A / B 1 $26.61
13 Blanket + Valor SX / Warrant + Flexstar 6 + *1.5 + 30 + 7.5 A / B 2 $26.61
14 Blanket + Valor SX + Warrant + Flexstar 8 + *2 + 40 +10 A 0 $35.48
15 Blanket + Valor SX + Warrant / Flexstar 8 + *2 + 40 +10 A / B 1 $35.48
16 Blanket + Valor SX / Warrant + Flexstar 8 + *2 + 40 +10 A / B 2 $35.48
17 Blanket + Valor SX + Warrant + Flexstar 10 + *2 + 48 +12 A 0 $41.78
18 Blanket + Valor SX + Warrant / Flexstar 10 + *2 + 48 +12 A / B 1 $41.78
19 Blanket + Valor SX / Warrant + Flexstar 10 + *2 + 48 +12 A / B 2 $41.78
20 Blanket + Valor SX + Warrant + Flexstar + Zidua 8 + *2 + 40 +10 + *2 A 0 $52.64
1TRT=Treatment number.
2AI EPOST =Active ingredients being applied EPOST vs. PRE ONLY

3. Virtual Tour Concept: A brief demonstration will be included when presenting to the board for 2022 research review. Right now, “Prezi” presentations combined with “Loom” video recordings seems to be the most interactive option at this point for a relatively affordable software platform ($500). I will build a set of slides related to treatments and record a video discussing the treatments similar to the plot tour day to include in the virtual presentation. I will be recording questions asked at the plot tour related to these trials and include within context of the slideshow flow to simulate a real in-field tour experience for viewers.

Final Project Results

Update:
See attached Report. Associated costs for Q3 light, receipt and invoice sent via email.

View uploaded report Word file

View uploaded report 2 PDF file

View uploaded report 3 PDF file

IN SUMMARY, growers could consider applying the residual CVRTM approach PRE as a potential cost and time saving one-time application in years with average early rainfall. However, in years with below average early rainfall the grower must be prepared to utilize a two-pass approach that includes a contact or systemic product. Data suggests the reduced rates of PRE products when combined with more modes of action can achieve 95%+ waterhemp control in moderate to severe infestation environments. Adding a low rate of Flexstar PRE when there is a low chance of 0.5-1.0 inches of rainfall in the 7-day forecast is encouraged. This conventional program is universal across all soybean genetics minimizing tank cleanout events for operations that grow multiple herbicide tolerant soybean genetics. Next Gen Ag LLC is responsible for conducting and summarizing information, but is not liable for any decisions made on the basis of this study or publication.

Results:
1) 2021 Data in Combined Analysis Impacted the A+28 Due to Lack of Early Activating Rain on PRE.
2) 2022 Data had an Early Activating Rain After PRE and 80% of Entries Achieved the 90%+ Threshold with 45% Achieving 95%+.
3) Applying Variable Rate Tank Mixes as a single PRE or two-pass is effective.
4) PRE only VRTM control at A+56 ranged from 87-97% and averaged 92%.
5) PRE fb Layby VRTM control at A+56 ranged from 79-98 and averaged 92%.
6) Best end of season treatments were a result of ONLY Flexstar POST. Flexstar applied alone POST vs. part of PRE tank mix increased control by 3-5%.
7) Treatments are on label, but there are specific guidelines surrounding Valor SX and Warrant tank mixes. This study does not violate those guidelines, but growers should read both product labels to understand the potential risk.
8) After 5 years of evaluating these products across 26 different soybean varieties and 4 companies I have witnessed injury once and crop recovered within a week.
9) Grower’s farming soils higher in sand (>33%) and/or lower in %OM (<4.5%) should consider experimenting on the lower end of tank mix rates.

The United Soybean Research Retention policy will display final reports with the project once completed but working files will be purged after three years. And financial information after seven years. All pertinent information is in the final report or if you want more information, please contact the project lead at your state soybean organization or principal investigator listed on the project.