Soybean 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. Continued grower investment in “new” soybean herbicide tolerance genetics, which require increased technology fees per unit of soybean, are potentially unnecessary if conventional herbicides are able to economically compete. Modern soybean genetics, such as glyphosate (i.e. Roundup), dicamba (i.e. Xtendimax), glufosinate (i.e. Liberty), 2, 4-D, and HPPD (i.e. Callisto) tolerant soybeans, provide herbicide tolerance to increase post-emergence weed control options. However, misapplication and overuse of post-emergent herbicides has led to selection pressure in waterhemp populations. Soil applied residuals are effective as the herbicide is absorbed into the weed at the most vulnerable stage of growth, emergence.
Objectives are to 1) develop a summative treatment list for waterhemp control via micro-rate supported residual herbicide programs in soybean; 2) Develop more diverse one- and two-pass combinations of residual herbicides and maintain 95% waterhemp control 75 DAA; 3) Run ratio and crop safety evaluations on the most successful combination from the 2020/2021 micro-rate combo trials; 4) Institute outreach opportunities through; a) industry collaborators, b) plot tours; c) publications; and, d) reasonable winter meeting requests.
This grant focuses specifically on the continued development of Next Gen Ag micro-rate programs and objectives achieved through two studies: 1) micro-rate combination efficacy and soybean injury across multiple varieties; and, 2) PRE vs. PRE fb EPOST micro-rate combination efficacy. These two studies are repeated studies from 2021 in an effort to collect data in a less-drought impacted environment as crop injury and lambsquarters control was difficult to evaluate without activating rainfalls on residual herbicides and will be conducted at the research farm in Renville, MN, with seed and chemical provided by supporting industry partners. A third component of this grant includes funding to support the development of a virtual plot tour to be posted on my website and shared via social media by my company and in collaboration with MSRPC social media via a discussion held with David Kee prior to grant writing.
1. Study #1: “Soybean Varietal Sensitivity to Variable Micro-Rate Champion Rates” will achieve three goals. 1) soybean variety screening for PPO susceptibility, 2) soybean crop injury, and 3) rate ratio screening of the micro-rate combination champion treatment [PRE ONLY: Valor SX @ 2oz + Warrant @ 40floz + Blanket @ 8floz + Flexstar @ 10floz]. These 8 herbicide treatments and 16 soybean varieties [randomized complete block design in a split-plot arrangement] will provide data on the safety of the 2020 micro-rate combination champion across different soybean genetics as well as determine the optimal ratio of chemical to achieve 90% waterhemp control 75 DAA. The parent treatment from 2020 being evaluated achieved 92% season long control with a PRE only application timing. Trial will be included on field day. Changes from 2021 included doubling soybean varieties (8 to 16) and decrease in replication (4 to 2) plus previous year experience related to trial requirements results in a $1,080 decreased request compared to 2021.
2. Study #2: “PRE vs. PRE fb EPOST at Variable Micro-Rate Champion Rates” will observe the 2020 micro-rate combination champion treatment [PRE ONLY: Valor SX @ 2oz + Warrant @ 40floz + Blanket @ 8floz + Flexstar @ 10floz] against itself with the exception of manipulating timings. The PRE only treatment will be compared to itself as a PRE fb EPOST break out of the 4 components within label restrictions and at various rates. These 20 treatments by 4 replications [randomized complete block design] well determine the optimal rates and timings of the 2020 micro-rate combination champion treatment components. Data will be compared to the 2021 study data as well with check treatment rates and applications. Trial will be included on field day. There are no changes from 2021 and funding request for the trial will be equal. The advantage is additional data points collected in a different environment (hopefully not drought).
3. Virtual Plot Tour: I have past experience in video development and took graduate courses in plant photography. Although, in the past my “virtual tours” were built out as powerpoints, I anticipate something more interactive for this grant. The exact cost and time to develop these virtual tours is a guestimate considering I have no prior experience developing them, but based on past experiences in presentation and video development I have requested a reasonable (if not slightly lower) budget within this grant to independently address this process. As board members I would ask that you reflect on what the “point” is of funding research if the data is published and stored into a deep dark archive with limited farmer traffic in a format of text and tables….or if providing additional funding for development of visually engaging educational videos that can be shared over social media via a link to my website (or MSRPC’s?). Every year there is a struggle to get farmers out to the field as our farmer operations decrease in number, but increase in volume of acres. Most of our large farmers have employees or professional services that tell them how and what to do these days, so providing a link to a video on social media that they can watch at their convenience would increase tech transfer and is a trackable statistic for outreach based on likes or link clicks. There will be a learning curve for all parties involved and I ask you be understanding as a new idea is attempted.

Objectives are to 1) develop a summative treatment list for waterhemp control via micro-rate supported residual herbicide programs in soybean; 2) Develop more diverse one- and two-pass combinations of residual herbicides and maintain 95% waterhemp control 75 DAA; 3) Run ratio and crop safety evaluations on the most successful combination from the 2020/2021 micro-rate combo trials; 4) Institute outreach opportunities through; a) industry collaborators, b) plot tours; c) publications; and, d) reasonable winter meeting requests.

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.

Update:
Project Title: 2022 Continued Evaluation of Waterhemp Control and Crop Injury
Private Investigator (P.I.): Next Gen Ag, LLC/Andrew Lueck
Quarter Report: #1 May 2022 thru July 2022
Objectives: (List project objectives as submitted in final proposal. Describe activity for each during this reporting period.)
1. Renew a 2021 grant with modifications to repeat study to capture a second environment;
a. Goal #1: Resubmit 2022 grant with modifications (Done)
b. Goal #2: Industry partners contribute chemistry [BASF, Bayer, Corteva, FMC, Syngenta, Valent, Winfield] (Done).
2. Develop more diverse one- and two-pass combinations of residual herbicides and maintain 95% waterhemp control 56 DAA (canopy).
a. Goal #1: Successfully apply chemistry (Done).
b. Goal #2: Next Gen Ag based variable tank mix treatments and timing combinations (Done).
c. Goal #3: Collect data from a second environment (2022) (Done).
3. Develop array of treatment costs to provide competitive considerations.
a. Goal #1: The average cost of all five variable tank mix rates tested was $30.63 and ranged from $21.43 to $39.05. (Done).
4. Run ratio and crop safety evaluations on the most successful combination from the 2020 variable rate tank mix combo trial;
a. Goal #1: 1X rate of Blanket + Valor SX + Warrant + Flexstar at 8 + 2* + 40 + 10 (Done).
b. Goal #2: Ratios ranged from 0.62 of base rate to 1.37 (Done).
c. Goal #3: No crop injury recorded (Done).
d. Goal #4: Double number of varieties evaluated (Done).
5. Institute expansive outreach opportunities through;
a. Goal #1: Industry collaborators 8/8; 8 in attendance (Done).
b. Goal #3: One field plot tour held August 11th; 9 AM to Noon (Done).
c. Goal #4: Publications; will be attached with report (Done).
d. Goal #4: Create a virtual tour to disperse via social media (November, not done).
e. Goal #5: Ag Expo Posters/Appearance (January, not done).
Achievements: (Specific project achievements during this reporting period.)
1. Trial was successfully planted in an area of intense waterhemp pressure.
2. Every plot was planted and sprayed according to plans, NO MISTAKES!
3. Some crop injury noted from treatments, but no lasting evidence.
4. 14, 28, 42, and 56 DAA waterhemp control notes taken.
5. 19 field day attendees. 10 surveys taken; “Quality of tour” was rated 4.30/5.00; “Transfer of Info” rated 4.6/5.00; 10/10 would return for another tour next year however 3 individuals wonder if field tours are the “way” anymore….want to see the virtual tour concept; Survey participants wanted to see more plant health and possible corn demos in the future.
6. All 8 industry partners were on site to present and a LOT of great conversation and networking!
Challenges: (Challenges encountered. Specific request for assistance from Production AT on any challenges listed above.)
1. Erratic soybean and weed emergence due to dry conditions.
2. Less representation of farmers then expected at tour (6).
3. Less representation of local co-op staff then expected at plot tour (none).
4. Really need additional support and resources to be provided by the MSRPC board in the future for promotion. May consider moving away from field days or abandoning the work altogether in 2023…..will depend on virtual tour outcome.
Publications/Symposium:
1. All publications incomplete and will be included in the Quarter 2 report as separate attachments.
2. Plot tours complete with 19 attendees; virtual tour concept and impact TBD.
3. Publications posted to Next Gen Ag website that can be accessed through or FB page “Next Gen Ag LLC” in Quarter #2.
Tech Transfer: (General audience identification and approximate number attending.)
1. Plot tour attendees 19.
2. Facebook page followers 123; posts have reached up to 1,200 individuals.
3. Anticipate ag expo this winter.
4. Virtual tour build and dispersion via social media this winter.

View uploaded report

Update:
See attached Report. Associated costs for Q2 heavily a result of virtual tour efforts to be completed soon.

View uploaded report

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

View uploaded report

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

View uploaded report

View uploaded report 2

View uploaded report 3

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.

Outreach is a large component of this grant. Primary outreach achieved through an 1) in person plot tour and 2) the development of a virtual plot tour.
A second contribution to outreach is publication summaries that include 2021 and 2022 combined data averages to be posted on the company website and provided to MSRPC.
A third contribution to outreach would include reasonable winter meeting invites to present data. This may include MSRPC or University sponsored event. Discussion with SMSU professor Adam Alford indicates I will be welcomed to present data at the SMSU field day (100 or so attendees in 2021) and the Ag Expo. I also have made annual guest speaking appearances in SMSU agronomy courses the last three years around weed control and typically include soybean grower funded data and results.
Estimated outreach for plot tours is 30-50 farmers (23 attendees in 2021, but I am making changes to my approach with intent to increase). Outreach through publication is 100 farmers. Estimated outreach for speaking appointments is 100 students or farmers. These numbers are not representative of any secondary outreach achieved from knowledge transfer tied to first hand contact via sales or crop consultants. Weed control outreach and presentation of new ideas can be challenging as the modern day farmer either has a consultant or an existing program they seem to be sold on; however, I believe this grant provides the farmer flexibility of data transfer methods with the inclusion of a visual plot tour.