On-Farm Network takes soybean research into the fieldsFor many producers, seeing really is believing. The On-Farm Network takes soybean research studies out of the lab and small test plots into the fields of Pennsylvania soybean growers to see which management practices have an ap-preciable impact on production. Now in its third year, the On-Farm Network, a program funded by check-off dollars by the Pennsylvania Soybean Promotion Board, focuses on collecting information that can increase growers’ profits from soybean production. The network works by conducting research in real-world conditions, on test plots planted by farmer/collaborators through-out Pennsylvania on their own farms with their own equipment.

Producers can benefit from this real-world research by making crop man-agement decisions developed on a solid foundation of research, says Del Voight, Lebanon County Senior Extension Educa-tor. Voight initiated the project, and over-sees the research along with Ron Hoover, PSU on-farm coordinator, and Greg Roth, PSU agronomist. Currently, nine growers are working with these agronomists in the on-farm research projects.

“Sometimes,” Voight says, “field scale research may reveal responses that may not be apparent in small plot studies. Field scale variation in pests and nutrient levels as well as variations because of the use of field-scale planting and harvesting equip-ment can make a difference.”

On-farm research plotsThe farmer/collaborators participating in the trials follow specific protocols to en-sure that the data collected is accurate and reliable. Although exacting, these proto-cols are designed to be easy and practical enough for any producer to implement.

The field trials are replicated in strips planted side by side, and marked using GPS, to test variables to compare a differ-ence in the products used, the application

method, timing of the application, or other management practices.

“Although a single trial has value, es-pecially to the grower on whose farm it was conducted, there is much more value in looking at data from many on-farm tri-als from across the state, and evaluating those results,” says Voight.

And although the research conducted by the On-Farm Network farmer/collabo-rators doesn’t replace the research done at Penn State’s Landisville and Centre County research farms, “the work done in the field by the On-Farm Network can validate what we do there,” says Voight.

In 2010, the On-Farm Network tested various insecticide and fungicide applica-tions, the yield impact of moly on seeds, and the value of aerial photography in evaluating crops.

This year, the On-Farm Network will focus on the impact of fungicides on soy-

Del Voight (left) with Glenn Krall, one of the farmer/cooperators in the Pennsylvania On-Farm Network. The program is modeled after a similar, highly successful program that was developed in Iowa more than 10 years ago.

bean yield and quality, the impact of mo-lybdenum on soybeans planted in low pH soil, and an assessment of the potential of soybean starter fertilizer. Looking forward to 2012, Voight says a number of research projects currently be-ing conducted in small plots at the Penn State Extension Research Centers have the potential for in-field testing with the On-Farm Network. In addition to a split field demonstration (half of field receives IPM program, half the field using high-yield soybean tactics without regard to cost of production), they include research into the yield impact of: • Seed-applied fertilizer • Foliar K versus dry K • Foliar plant stress compounds • Seed-applied compounds • Cobra herbicide applications • Soil-enhancing compounds

Questions? If you have questions about something we’re doing with the On-Farm Network, or would like more information about the program, contact Del Voight at (717) 270-4391 or send an email to dgv1@psu.edu.

For complete information on all the studies from the On-Farm Network, go the Pennsylvania Soybean Promotion Board website at www.pasoybean.org.

Penn State Cooperative Extension and Outreach

extension.psu.edu

We provide access to Penn State’s rich store of research-based

information and expertise to people in all 67 Pennsylvania

counties. County Educators working to make life better.

www.pested.psu.edu

agguide.agronomy.psu.edu

cornandsoybeans.psu.edu

www.forages.psu.edu cmeg.psu.edu

weeds.cas.psu.edu

Contact your local County Educator for agronomic and

dairy/livestock advice or assistance.

Corn & Soybean

Field Guide2011 Edition

ID-179

Corn & Soybean Field Guide

Purdue Extension

Purdue extension

Purdue Crop

Diagnostic

Training and

Research Center

2011 Edition

www.agry.purdue.edu/dtcwww.entm.purdue.edu/fieldcropsipm

It is the policy of the Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service that

all persons have equal opportunity and access to its educational programs,

services, activities, and facilities without regard to race, religion, color,

sex, age, national origin or ancestry, marital status, parental status, sexual

orientation, disability or status as a veteran. Purdue University is an Affirmative

Action institution. This material may be available in alternative formats.

www.the-education-store.com

Purdue AGriCuLture

ID-179

Corn & Corn & Corn & SoybeanSoybeanSoybeanSoybean

Field GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField Guide

www.agry.purdue.edu/dtc

Penn State Cooperative Extension and Outreach

extension.psu.edu

We provide access to Penn State’s rich store of research-based

information and expertise to people in all 67 Pennsylvania

counties. County Educators working to make life better.

www.pested.psu.edu

agguide.agronomy.psu.edu

cornandsoybeans.psu.edu

www.forages.psu.edu cmeg.psu.edu

weeds.cas.psu.edu

Contact your local County Educator for agronomic and

dairy/livestock advice or assistance.

Corn & SoybeanField Guide

2011 Edition

ID-179

Corn & Soybean Field GuidePurdue Extension

Purdue extension

Purdue Crop

Diagnostic

Training and

Research Center

2011 Edition

www.agry.purdue.edu/dtc www.entm.purdue.edu/fieldcropsipm

It is the policy of the Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service that

all persons have equal opportunity and access to its educational programs,

services, activities, and facilities without regard to race, religion, color,

sex, age, national origin or ancestry, marital status, parental status, sexual

orientation, disability or status as a veteran. Purdue University is an Affirmative

Action institution. This material may be available in alternative formats.

www.the-education-store.com

Purdue AGriCuLture

ID-179

Corn & Corn & Corn & SoybeanSoybeanSoybeanField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField Guide

www.agry.purdue.edu/dtc

Penn State Cooperative Extension and Outreachextension.psu.edu

We provide access to Penn State’s rich store of research-based information and expertise to people in all 67 Pennsylvania counties. County Educators working to make life better.

www.pested.psu.edu agguide.agronomy.psu.edu

cornandsoybeans.psu.edu www.forages.psu.edu

cmeg.psu.edu weeds.cas.psu.edu

Contact your local County Educator for agronomic and dairy/livestock advice or assistance.

Corn & SoybeanField Guide

2011 Edition

ID-179

Corn & Soybean Field GuidePurdue Extension

Purdue extension

Purdue CropDiagnostic

Training andResearch Center

2011 Edition

www.agry.purdue.edu/dtc www.entm.purdue.edu/fieldcropsipm

It is the policy of the Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service that all persons have equal opportunity and access to its educational programs,

services, activities, and facilities without regard to race, religion, color, sex, age, national origin or ancestry, marital status, parental status, sexual

orientation, disability or status as a veteran. Purdue University is an Affirmative Action institution. This material may be available in alternative formats.

www.the-education-store.com

Purdue AGriCuLture

ID-179

Corn & Corn & Corn & SoybeanSoybeanSoybeanSoybeanField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField Guide

www.agry.purdue.edu/dtc

Penn State Cooperative Extension and Outreachextension.psu.eduWe provide access to Penn State’s rich store of research-based information and expertise to people in all 67 Pennsylvania counties. County Educators working to make life better.

www.pested.psu.edu agguide.agronomy.psu.edu cornandsoybeans.psu.edu www.forages.psu.edu

cmeg.psu.edu weeds.cas.psu.eduContact your local County Educator for agronomic and dairy/livestock advice or assistance.

Corn & SoybeanField Guide

2011 Edition

ID-179

Corn & Soybean Field Guide

Purdue Extension

Purdue extension

Purdue CropDiagnostic

Training andResearch Center

2011 Edition

www.agry.purdue.edu/dtcwww.entm.purdue.edu/fieldcropsipm

It is the policy of the Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service that

all persons have equal opportunity and access to its educational programs,

services, activities, and facilities without regard to race, religion, color,

sex, age, national origin or ancestry, marital status, parental status, sexual

orientation, disability or status as a veteran. Purdue University is an Affirmative

Action institution. This material may be available in alternative formats.www.the-education-store.com

Purdue AGriCuLture

ID-179

Corn & Corn & Corn & Corn & SoybeanSoybeanSoybeanSoybeanSoybeanField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField GuideField Guide

www.agry.purdue.edu/dtc

Penn State Cooperative Extension and Outreachextension.psu.edu

We provide access to Penn State’s rich store of research-based

information and expertise to people in all 67 Pennsylvania

counties. County Educators working to make life better. www.pested.psu.edu agguide.agronomy.psu.edu

cornandsoybeans.psu.edu www.forages.psu.edu

cmeg.psu.edu weeds.cas.psu.edu

Contact your local County Educator for agronomic and

dairy/livestock advice or assistance.

Corn & SoybeanField Guide2011 Edition

ID-179

Corn & Soybean Field Guide

Purdue Extension

Purdue extension

Purdue CropDiagnosticTraining andResearch Center

2011 Edition

www.agry.purdue.edu/dtcwww.entm.purdue.edu/fieldcropsipm

It is the policy of the Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service that

all persons have equal opportunity and access to its educational programs,

services, activities, and facilities without regard to race, religion, color,

sex, age, national origin or ancestry, marital status, parental status, sexual

orientation, disability or status as a veteran. Purdue University is an Affirmative

Action institution. This material may be available in alternative formats.

www.the-education-store.com

Purdue AGriCuLture

ID-179

Corn & Soybean Field GuideThis handy pocket-size, in-field reference, produced by the crop experts at Purdue University, provides detailed and descrip-tive information for corn and soybean producers.

Topics include identifying and managing insect, disease, and weeds; diagnosing herbicide injuries; soil fertility; making planting decisions; and under-standing crop growth.

A $7 value, this pocket guide will be distributed to Pennsyl-vania soybean growers free of charge at the Grower’s Field Day on August 25, 2011 at the Penn State Extension’s Landisville Research Center.

2010 Soybean Yield Response to Fungicide and Insecticide Applications

On-Farm Test Locations: Lancaster, Lebanon York (2), Franklin, Fayette, Berks Counties

Farmer/Collaborators: Glenn Krall, Bill Beam, Bob Dorazio, Dan Wolf, Leslie Bowman, Bob Miller

Research Objective: Evaluate the impact of fungicide, insecticide and fungicide/insecticide applications on soybean yield

Research Findings: Statistical analysis revealed no improvement in yield for the 2010 growing season

“Producers must weigh the costs against the potential benefits of foliar fungicide and insecticide applications on profitability,” says Del Voight. “To assist producers with these decisions, we initiated on-farm field studies at seven testing locations in Pennsyl-vania to evaluate the effects of fungicide and insecticide applications on yields.” At each of the seven sites, field length side-by-side comparisons were repli-cated three times to gain data. Plot sizes ranging from one to two acres were planted by the farmer/cooperators. Four treatments were utilized in this study containing either Syngenta or BASF products.

SyngentaCheck: No treatment • Insecticide: Endigo 3.5 oz./acre R3 timingFungicide: Quadris 6.2 oz./acre + NIS .25% v/V R 3 timingInsecticide+ Fungicide: Endigo 3.5 oz./acre + Quadris 6.2 oz./acre + NIS .25% v/v

BASFCheck: No treatment • Insecticide: Respect 4 oz./acre • Fungicide: Headline 6 oz./acre • Insecticide + Fungicide: Headline 6 oz./acre + Respect 4 oz./acre

Yield was collected by the use of a calibrated yield monitor. The chart below represents combined results of this soybean yield response to fungi-cide and insecticide applications. “Statistical analysis revealed no improvement in yield due to any of the com-binations for the 2010 growing season,” says Voight. “Further studies will be needed to assess the factors that may prove useful for these products to aid in the improvement of yield. Conditions were very dry in late July and August and disease and insect pressure was low. The most prevalent disease was Downy Mildew, but was it present at low levels.”

2010 Pennsylvania Soybean Yield Response to Fungicide & Insecticide Applications

Fayette Lebanon Franklin Bradford

Check 56 67 44 71

Fungicide 56 69 45 71

Insecticde 56 67 45 75

Fungicide + Insecticide

53 68 45 74

Site Average 55 68 45 73

Syngenta York Berks York 2 Lancaster

Check 50 59 56

Fungicide 55 65 62 80.2

Insecticde 46 66 61 84.4

Fungicide + Insecticide

48 65 64 86

Site Average 51 64 61 83.5

BaSF

Check 58

Fungicide 61

Insecticde 59

Fungicide + Insecticide

60

Site Average 59

OVeRaLL aVeRage

The numbers in these charts represent bu./acre.

A test plot in Berks County, shown in the center of this aerial photo, shows limestone outcroppings at the far end of the field.

Getting a bird’s eye view of your fields is a fast way for corn and soybean growers to collect scouting infor-mation and detect important field patterns that can provide valuable management feedback, says On-Farm Network coordi-nator and Lebanon County Senior Exten-sion Educator Del Voight. “The use of aerial photography was proposed to us by the Iowa On-Farm Net-work,” explains Voight. “In Iowa, they use a combination of aerial imagery and yield monitor data to assess variability within the field. Basic digital photography docu-ments both natural variability, like soil type and elevation, and man-made vari-ability, like machine malfunction and op-erator error, during the season. And a big plus is that by using aerial photography, we’re able to evaluate field-scale research faster than using historic sampling and statistical analysis methods. “One of the inherent challenges with satellite imagery is that there’s no guar-antee it will be a clear day when the satellite passes over the area of interest. Cumulus and other patchy type clouds can cause problems. With aerial photog-raphy, you can select the time you want to take the images. “Through aerial photography, we might also be possible to visually assess differ-ences due to treatments such as plant pop-ulation, fungicide rate, product/no product,

tillage practices, etc.,” Voight continues. “Based on this work in Iowa, in 2010, we set out to assess the potential of this tech-nology to Pennsylvania growers.”

Exploring aerial imagery optionsThe first order of business was to explore options for obtaining aerial imagery. “A colleague at the University of Dela-ware recommended professional aerial mapping services that offered geo-recti-fied imagery in both visible color and color infrared (CIR),” says Voight. These services produce excellent imagery, but the cost was prohibitive at approximate-ly $1,000 per farm, and the images were more sophisticated than we needed. “Next, we explored the potential of chartering our own aircraft and using our own digital camera equipment to obtain imagery. We were able to retain the ser-vices of a local flight charter company in Fredericksburg, Pa. that agreed to fly us around the state to the different farmer/col-laborator On-Farm Network field sites.” The charter company charged a much more affordable rate of $100/hour for services. Voight and his team flew over 19 sites in Montgomery, Bradford, Cen-tre, Fayette, Franklin, Dauphin, Lebanon, Berks, York and Lancaster Counties in a Cessna 182. The total charge for the plane for the day was $900 or about $47 per farm to obtain the images.

Both still and video cameras were used to test exposure, shutter settings and im-age quality. “The video camera captured decent imagery,” says Voight. “The nice thing about the camcorder is that you sim-ply press record, and 60 full frames per second are captured. This allowed us to capture every angle and perspective seen while in the plane.”

Identify treatment differences “We captured images of each of the field sites with a fungicide trial,” says Voight. “In general, we weren’t able to identify differences from the fungicide and insec-ticide treatments, probably because there wasn’t much disease and insect pres-sure last year. At most of the locations, we couldn’t document a significant yield response to the fungicide. Differences tend to be most evident from fungicide treatments near maturity, and if we had obtained imagery later in the season, we expect we may have been able to see more treatment differences.” But, what was clearly visible in many of the fields was variability due to other factors. One plot showed evidence of an old farmstead, another had some lime-stone outcroppings in the field, and on yet another, they could see variable soil types in the field resulting in variations in crop maturity. During the flight, they also recorded

images of fields where ongoing studies on other crop issues were identified. “In one field, we observed a N application prob-lem associated with a mechanical error. We also observed variation due to a side-dressing error,” says Voight. “We docu-mented field differences with the aerial imagery in a field scale variable N rate study, and we’re in the process of relating the imagery to yield data in the field.” Evidence of a side-dressing error docu-mented by aerial imagery. The corn was too tall, and the operator turned around, resulting in N deficiency.

Building on the project“Overall, we felt the project was very suc-cessful,” says Voight. “We were able to assess the technology and obtain imagery from all of the project farms, and we have developed some procedures for economi-cally obtaining real time aerial imagery. The cost last year was about $47/per farm for the aircraft and we believe we can reduce that cost substantially. We feel there is potential to improve the quality and number of images we collected. We can easily schedule flight time and can schedule a plane that has a camera port in the bottom. There were some issues with glare and reflection as we tried to take pictures through the windows, so using the photo port on the bottom of the plane may very well eliminate this issue. This

will also improve our ability to capture vertical images, which are much easier to geo-rectify and use as possible layer data in the future. “This year, we plan to continue the aerial imagery project to build on what we learned,” he continues. “We will again use a video camcorder. We’d like to upgrade to a digital SLR camera to capture some higher-resolution images and to research opportunities to synchronize higher reso-lution DSLR cameras. We’d also like to explore differences in the timing of the imagery, with later flights just at maturity. And, we want to explore the potential for assessing more in-season insect issues such as spider mites or stink bugs. “We believe that we should build upon our experience with visible and infrared imagery. We’re not trying to capture pre-cise differences as much as we’re trying to look at relative differences that could be related to yield data. We were disap-pointed that the bright sunlight became an exposure issue with the infrared, but I believe we can remedy this with the use of filters, and we’d like to determine whether it’s better to capture imagery on a sunny or overcast day. “In addition to doing the aerial photog-raphy at project farms, we’ve also estab-lished a relationship with USGS and plan to combine in-season satellite imagery with the aerial photography.”

AERIALPhOTOgraPhy a low-cost diagnostic toolAERIALPhOTOgraPhy

A test plot in Berks County, shown in the center of this aerial photo, shows limestone outcroppings at the far end of the field.

Getting a bird’s eye view of your fields is a fast way for corn and soybean growers to collect scouting infor-mation and detect important field patterns that can provide valuable management feedback, says On-Farm Network coordi-nator and Lebanon County Senior Exten-sion Educator Del Voight. “The use of aerial photography was proposed to us by the Iowa On-Farm Net-work,” explains Voight. “In Iowa, they use a combination of aerial imagery and yield monitor data to assess variability within the field. Basic digital photography docu-ments both natural variability, like soil type and elevation, and man-made vari-ability, like machine malfunction and op-erator error, during the season. And a big plus is that by using aerial photography, we’re able to evaluate field-scale research faster than using historic sampling and statistical analysis methods. “One of the inherent challenges with satellite imagery is that there’s no guar-antee it will be a clear day when the satellite passes over the area of interest. Cumulus and other patchy type clouds can cause problems. With aerial photog-raphy, you can select the time you want to take the images. “Through aerial photography, we might also be possible to visually assess differ-ences due to treatments such as plant pop-ulation, fungicide rate, product/no product,

tillage practices, etc.,” Voight continues. “Based on this work in Iowa, in 2010, we set out to assess the potential of this tech-nology to Pennsylvania growers.”

Exploring aerial imagery optionsThe first order of business was to explore options for obtaining aerial imagery. “A colleague at the University of Dela-ware recommended professional aerial mapping services that offered geo-recti-fied imagery in both visible color and color infrared (CIR),” says Voight. These services produce excellent imagery, but the cost was prohibitive at approximate-ly $1,000 per farm, and the images were more sophisticated than we needed. “Next, we explored the potential of chartering our own aircraft and using our own digital camera equipment to obtain imagery. We were able to retain the ser-vices of a local flight charter company in Fredericksburg, Pa. that agreed to fly us around the state to the different farmer/col-laborator On-Farm Network field sites.” The charter company charged a much more affordable rate of $100/hour for services. Voight and his team flew over 19 sites in Montgomery, Bradford, Cen-tre, Fayette, Franklin, Dauphin, Lebanon, Berks, York and Lancaster Counties in a Cessna 182. The total charge for the plane for the day was $900 or about $47 per farm to obtain the images.

Both still and video cameras were used to test exposure, shutter settings and im-age quality. “The video camera captured decent imagery,” says Voight. “The nice thing about the camcorder is that you sim-ply press record, and 60 full frames per second are captured. This allowed us to capture every angle and perspective seen while in the plane.”

Identify treatment differences “We captured images of each of the field sites with a fungicide trial,” says Voight. “In general, we weren’t able to identify differences from the fungicide and insec-ticide treatments, probably because there wasn’t much disease and insect pres-sure last year. At most of the locations, we couldn’t document a significant yield response to the fungicide. Differences tend to be most evident from fungicide treatments near maturity, and if we had obtained imagery later in the season, we expect we may have been able to see more treatment differences.” But, what was clearly visible in many of the fields was variability due to other factors. One plot showed evidence of an old farmstead, another had some lime-stone outcroppings in the field, and on yet another, they could see variable soil types in the field resulting in variations in crop maturity. During the flight, they also recorded

images of fields where ongoing studies on other crop issues were identified. “In one field, we observed a N application prob-lem associated with a mechanical error. We also observed variation due to a side-dressing error,” says Voight. “We docu-mented field differences with the aerial imagery in a field scale variable N rate study, and we’re in the process of relating the imagery to yield data in the field.” Evidence of a side-dressing error docu-mented by aerial imagery. The corn was too tall, and the operator turned around, resulting in N deficiency.

Building on the project“Overall, we felt the project was very suc-cessful,” says Voight. “We were able to assess the technology and obtain imagery from all of the project farms, and we have developed some procedures for economi-cally obtaining real time aerial imagery. The cost last year was about $47/per farm for the aircraft and we believe we can reduce that cost substantially. We feel there is potential to improve the quality and number of images we collected. We can easily schedule flight time and can schedule a plane that has a camera port in the bottom. There were some issues with glare and reflection as we tried to take pictures through the windows, so using the photo port on the bottom of the plane may very well eliminate this issue. This

will also improve our ability to capture vertical images, which are much easier to geo-rectify and use as possible layer data in the future. “This year, we plan to continue the aerial imagery project to build on what we learned,” he continues. “We will again use a video camcorder. We’d like to upgrade to a digital SLR camera to capture some higher-resolution images and to research opportunities to synchronize higher reso-lution DSLR cameras. We’d also like to explore differences in the timing of the imagery, with later flights just at maturity. And, we want to explore the potential for assessing more in-season insect issues such as spider mites or stink bugs. “We believe that we should build upon our experience with visible and infrared imagery. We’re not trying to capture pre-cise differences as much as we’re trying to look at relative differences that could be related to yield data. We were disap-pointed that the bright sunlight became an exposure issue with the infrared, but I believe we can remedy this with the use of filters, and we’d like to determine whether it’s better to capture imagery on a sunny or overcast day. “In addition to doing the aerial photog-raphy at project farms, we’ve also estab-lished a relationship with USGS and plan to combine in-season satellite imagery with the aerial photography.”

AERIALPhOTOgraPhy a low-cost diagnostic tool

PENNSYLVANIA SOYBEAN BOARDMaking Your Checkoff Pay Off.

The Pennsylvania Soybean Promotion Board administers the national soybean checkoff program, approved by Congress in 1990. Under its terms, farmers “check off” 50 cents on every $100 at the first point of sale of their beans. Half goes to the state, with the remainder to the United Soybean Board. The money is used to fund or support soybean research, market development and education. The Pennsylvania Soybean Promo-tion Board promotes the growth and development of Pennsylvania’s soybean industry. The board membership is com-posed of seven soybean producers from across the state.

• Daryl Alger, Chairman, Lebanon, PA

• Paul Kieffer, Vice-Chairman, Dornsife, PA

• Bill Beam, Secretary/Treasurer, Elverson, PA

• John Yocum, Catawissa, PA

• Jim Musser,Mount Joy, PA

• Brian Kreider, Lebanon, PA

• Mike Gerhart, Ephrata, PA

• Del Voight, Ex-Officio Member, Lebanon County Senior Extension Educator

Contact us at:Pennsylvania Soybean BoardChris Herr, Executive DirectorNorthwood Office Center2215 Forest Hills Drive, Suite 40Harrisburg, PA 17112

Phone: (717) 651-5922

Fax: (717) 651-5926

www.pasoybean.org

2010 Pennsylvania Soybean Yield ResponseAddition of Molybdenum as a Seed Treatment

Apron + Moly Apron

2010 Molybdenum Seed Treatment Results

In fields with acidic soil, information from Southern states sug-gests a yield advantage from the use of molybdenum as a seed treatment. “Little information exists on the response to molybdenum on Pennsylvania soils,” says Del Voight. “We did a field trial to assess the need for further study into the impact of ‘moly’ in Pa. soils.” Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) are the three most impor-tant soil-supplied nutrients. But there are several other micronutrients, needed in much lower concentrations, that are also important for plant growth. As a micronutrient, molybdenum is found in small concentrations in soybean plants. However, it’s very important because it enables plants to take nitrogen and build it into amino acids and proteins. In legume plants, molybdenum also allows atmospheric nitrogen gas to be fixed by rhizobia — that’s why legumes don’t require nitrogen fertilizers. To find out if the application of “moly” would increase soybean yield in Penn-sylvania soils, a field length side-by-side comparison of two treatments was rep-licated three times in Lancaster and Lebanon counties in one to two acre plots. The two treatments, Apron Max RTA and Apron Max RTA plus Moly, were tested with 5 oz./100 lb. of seed applied directly to the seed prior to planting. Yield was collected by the use of a calibrated yield monitor. The graph below represents the results of the average of three replications per site and the yield response to the addition of molybdenum as a seed treatment. “It appears that there was a 2.5 bu./acre advantage by using the molybde-num-treated seed,” says Voight. “We’re planning further studies to assess the factors that allow for this improvement in yield.”

On-Farm Test Locations: Lancaster County, Lebanon County

Farmer/Collaborators:glenn Krall & Bill Beam

Research Objective:Evaluate the impact of molybdenum on soybean yield

Research Findings: a 2.5 bu/acre advantage using molybdenum-treated seed

The numbers in this graph represent bu./acre.

Lebanon (pH 6.4)

71

68

Lancaster (pH 6.2)

66.664.7

Overall Average

68.8

66.3

You’re invited!Ag Night at the Lancaster BarnstormersJuly 8, 2011 Lancaster, Pa.

Come out for an evening of major league fun as the Lancaster Barnstormers take on the York Revolution on Ag Night at Clipper Stadium. Root for your favorite minor league baseball team, enjoy freebies and food as the stadium celebrates Penn-sylvania agriculture.

lancasterbarnstormers.com

The 2011 Soybean Grower Field DayAugust 25, 2011 Landisville, Pa. 9:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.

Join us for a tour of Penn State Extension’s Landisville Research Center and see trials funded by the soybean check-off. Ask questions of the experts, compare notes with your fellow soybean producers, and enjoy a hearty lunch.

Cost is free. Walk-ins are welcome, but please help us prepare by pre-registering by August 19, 2011.

Send registration to:Soybean Grower Field Dayc/o Del Voight2120 Cornwall Road, Suite 1Lebanon, PA 17042dgv1@psu.edu

Don’t miss your chance to be a WINNER in PSB’s 2011 Soybean Yield Contest

The Pa. Soybean Yield contest highlights practices that produce maximum economic yields and encourages the production of high-quality beans. This year, the rules have been changed to give growers in four sepa-rate growing areas in Pennsylvania a chance to be recognized. Don’t miss this opportunity to win a great prize and bragging rights!

ELIGIBILITY: Any bona-fide farmer who farms in Pennsylvania and grows 5 acres or more of soybeans within the state is eligible.

PRODUCTION: Participants must use non-irrigated soybeans, but are not restricted as to variety, fertilization, spacing or other cultural practices.

PRIZES!1ST PLACE: All-expense paid trip for 2 to 2012 Commodity Classic in Nashville, TN

2ND & 3RD PLACE state-wide winners will receive plaques.

TOP YIELD IN EACH REGION will receive a plaque.

80 BUSHEL CLUB ribbons will also be awarded.

SIGN UP TODAY! Your entry must be postmarked by August 25, 2011.

For complete rules and an entry form, go to www.pasoybean.org or request a form from:

PA Soybean Yield Contestc/o Del Voight2120 Cornwall Road, Suite 1Lebanon, PA 17042

Ag Progress DaysAugust 17-19, 2011 Rock Springs, Pa.

If you plan to attend Ag Progress Days, be sure to stop by the Soybean Board display, located in the Ag Choice Building. Sponsored by Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania’s largest outdoor agricultural exposition is held at the Russell E. Larson Agricultural Research Cen-ter at Rock Springs, nine miles southwest of State College on Pa. Route 45. We’ll look forward to seeing you there!

agsci.psu.edu/apd