2014 Agricultural Research Southeast Agricultural Research Center

Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports, Jun 2017

Kansas State University. Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

http://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3396&context=kaesrr

2014 Agricultural Research Southeast Agricultural Research Center

Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports 0 Kansas State University. Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service (2014) "2014 Agricultural Research Southeast Agricultural Research Center," Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports: Vol. 0: Iss. 8. https://doi.org/ 10.4148/2378-5977.3396 , USA 1 Kansas State University. Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service , USA Follow this and additional works at: http://newprairiepress.org/kaesrr Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Animal Sciences Commons Recommended Citation - 2014 Agricultural Research Southeast Agricultural Research Center Thi s report is brought to you for free and open access by New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. Copyright 2014 Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. Contents of this publication may be freely reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved. Brand names appearing in this publication are for product identification purposes only. K-State Research and Extension is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Creative Commons License Thi s work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Report of Progress 1105 Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service LYLE LOMAS Research Center Head and Animal Scientist B.S., M.S., Animal Husbandry, University of Missouri Ph.D., Animal Husbandry, Michigan State University Lyle provides administrative and research leadership and directs beef cattle research at the Kansas State University Southeast Agricultural Research Center. Lyle joined the staff in 1979 as an animal scientist and became head in 1986. His research interests are beef cattle nutrition and forage utilization by grazing beef cattle. JOE MOYER Forage Agronomist B.S., M.S., Ph.D., Agronomy, Kansas State University Joe has been a staff member since 1978. His research evaluates forage grass and legume cultivars and management practices and forage utilization by grazing beef cattle. GRETCHEN F. SASSENRATH Cropping Systems Agronomist B.A. Oberlin College M.S., Biophysics, University of Illinois Ph.D., Plant Physiology, University of Illinois Gretchen joined the staff in 2013. Her research focuses on crop production; physiological, edaphic, biotic, and abiotic stressors in cropping systems; and integrated production systems. DAN SWEENEY Soil and Water Management Agronomist B.S., Chemistry, Kentucky Wesleyan College M.S., Agronomy, Purdue University Ph.D., Soil Science, University of Florida Dan joined the staff in 1983. His research focuses on soil fertility, tillage and compaction, water quality, and irrigation. SEARC Agricultural Research Contents 1 1 8 23 28 38 38 41 43 45 53 53 55 56 61 64 Beef Cattle Research Effects of Various Forage Systems on Grazing and Subsequent Finishing Performance Effects of Cultivar and Distillers Grains Supplementation on Grazing and Subsequent Finishing Performance of Stocker Steers Grazing Tall Fescue Pasture Effects of Frequency of Dried Distillers Grains Supplementation on Gains of Heifers Grazing Smooth Bromegrass Pastures Distillers Grains Supplementation Strategy for Grazing Stocker Cattle Forage Crops Research Use of Legumes in Wheat-Bermudagrass Pastures Alfalfa Variety Performance in Southeastern Kansas Evaluation of Tall Fescue Cultivars Burning Dormant Alfalfa for Pest Control Soil and Water Management Research Tillage and Nitrogen Placement Effects on Yields in a ShortSeason Corn/Wheat/Double-Crop Soybean Rotation Seeding Rates and Fertilizer Placement to Improve Strip-Till and No-Till Corn Surface Runoff Characteristics from Claypan Soil in Southeastern Kansas Receiving Different Plant Nutrient Sources and Tillage Response of Wheat to Residual Fertilizer Nitrogen Applied to Previous Failed Corn Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium Fertilization for Newly Established Tall Fescue 66 66 71 79 Cropping Systems Research Crop Yield Trends in Kansas Identification of Yield-Limiting Factors in Southeast Kansas Cropping Systems Conservation Systems: Potential for Improving Yields in Southeast Kansas Fungicide and Insecticide Use on Wheat in Southeast Kansas Wheat Response to Fungicides in Southeast Kansas Annual Summary of Weather Data for Parsons Research Center Personnel Acknowledgments Effects of Various Forage Systems on Grazing and Subsequent Finishing Performance Summary A total of 160 mixed black yearling steers were used to compare grazing and subsequent finishing performance from pastures with ‘MaxQ’ tall fescue, a wheat-bermudagrass double-crop system, or a wheat-crabgrass double-crop system in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Daily gains of steers that grazed ‘MaxQ’ tall fescue, wheat-bermudagrass, or wheat-crabgrass were similar (P > 0.05) in 2010, daily gains of steers that grazed wheatbermudagrass or wheat-crabgrass were greater (P > 0.05) than those that grazed ‘MaxQ’ tall fescue in 2011 and 2012, and daily gains of steers that grazed wheat-crabgrass were greater (P > 0.05) than those that grazed wheat-bermudagrass and similar (P > 0.05) to those that grazed ‘MaxQ’ fescue in 2013. Finishing gains were similar (P > 0.05) among forage systems in 2010, 2012, and 2013. In 2011, finishing gains of steers that grazed ‘MaxQ’ tall fescue were greater (P < 0.05) than those that grazed wheat-bermudagrass. Introduction ‘MaxQ’ tall fescue, a wheat-bermudagrass double-crop system, and a wheat-crabgrass double-crop system have been three of the most promising grazing systems evaluated at the Southeast Agricultural Research Center in the past 20 years, but these systems have never been compared directly in the same study. The objective of this study was to compare grazing and subsequent finishing performance of stocker steers that grazed these three systems. Experimental Procedures Forty mixed black yearling steers were weighed on two consecutive days each year and allotted on April 6, 2010 (633 lb); March 23, 2011 (607 lb); March 22, 2012 (632 lb); and April 4, 2013 (678 lb) to three four-acre pastures of ‘Midland 99’ bermudagrass and three 4-acre pastures of ‘Red River’ crabgrass that had previously been no-till seeded with approximately 120 lb/a of ‘Fuller’ hard red winter wheat on September 30, 2009, and September 22, 2010, and 130 lb/a and 95 lb/a of ‘Everest’ hard red winter wheat on September 27, 2011, and September 25, 2012, respectively, and four 4-acre established pastures of ‘MaxQ’ tall fescue (4 steers/pasture). All pastures were fertilized with 80-40-40 lb/a of N-P2O5-K2O on March 3, 2010; January 27, 2011; January 25, 2012; and February 19, 2013. Bermudagrass and crabgrass pastures received an additional 46 lb/a of nitrogen (N) on May 28, 2010; June 10, 2011; May 18, 2012; and July 3, 2013. Fescue pastures received an additional 46 lb/a of N on August 31, 2010; September 15, 2011; and September 18, 2013. An additional 5 lb/a, 4 lb/a, and 4 lb/a of crabgrass seed was broadcast on crabgrass pastures on April 8, 2011, April 4, 2012, and May 7, 2013, respectively. Pasture was the experimental unit. No implants or feed additives were used. Weight gain was the primary measurement. Cattle were weighed every 28 days, and forage availability was measured approximately every 28 days with a disk meter calibrated for wheat, bermudagrass, crabgrass, or tall fescue. Cattle were treated for internal and external parasites before being turned out to pasture and later were vaccinated for protection from pinkeye. Steers had free access to commercial mineral blocks that contained 12% calcium, 12% phosphorus, and 12% salt. Wheat-bermudagrass and wheat-crabgrass pastures were grazed continuously until September 14, 2010 (161 days); September 7, 2011 (168 days); and September 10, 2013 (159 days); fescue pastures were grazed continuously until November 9, 2010 (217 days); October 21, 2011 (212 days); and October 29, 2013 (208 days). In 2012, all pastures were grazed continuously until August 23 (144 days), when grazing on all pastures was terminated due to limited forage availability because of below-average precipitation. Steers were weighed on two consecutive days at the end of the grazing phase. After the grazing period, cattle were moved to a finishing facility, implanted with Synovex-S (Zoetis, Madison, NJ), and fed a diet of 80% whole-shelled corn, 15% corn silage, and 5% supplement (dry matter basis). Finishing diets were fed for 94 days (wheat-bermudagrass and wheat-crabgrass) or 100 days (fescue) in 2010, 98 days (wheat-bermudagrass and wheat-crabgrass) or 96 days (fescue) in 2011, 105 days in 2012, and 105 days (wheat-bermudagrass and wheat-crabgrass) or 91 days (fescue) in 2013. All steers were slaughtered in a commercial facility, and carcass data were collected. Results and Discussion Grazing and subsequent finishing performance of steers that grazed ‘MaxQ’ tall fescue, a wheat-bermudagrass double-crop system, or a wheat-crabgrass double-crop system are presented in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, respectively. Daily gains of steers that grazed ‘MaxQ’ tall fescue, wheat-bermudagrass, or wheatcrabgrass were similar (P > 0.05) in 2010, but total grazing gain and gain/a were greater (P < 0.05) for ‘MaxQ’ tall fescue than wheat-bermudagrass or wheat-crabgrass because steers grazed ‘MaxQ’ tall fescue for more days. Gain/a for ‘MaxQ’ fescue, wheatbermudagrass, and wheat-crabgrass were 362, 286, and 258 lb/a, respectively. ‘MaxQ’ tall fescue pastures had greater (P < 0.05) average available forage dry matter (DM) than wheat-bermudagrass or wheat-crabgrass. Grazing treatment in 2010 had no effect (P > 0.05) on subsequent finishing gains. Steers that grazed ‘MaxQ’ were heavier (P < 0.05) at the end of the grazing phase, maintained their weight advantage through the finishing phase, and had greater (P < 0.05) hot carcass weight than those that grazed wheat-bermudagrass or wheat-crabgrass pastures. Steers that previously grazed wheat-bermudagrass or wheat-crabgrass had lower (P < 0.05) feed:gain than those that had grazed ‘MaxQ.’ In 2011, daily gains, total gain, and gain/a of steers that grazed wheat-bermudagrass or wheat-crabgrass were greater (P < 0.05) than ‘MaxQ’ fescue. Gain/a for ‘MaxQ’ fescue, wheat-bermudagrass, and wheat-crabgrass were 307, 347, and 376 lb/a, respectively. ‘MaxQ’ tall fescue pastures had greater (P < 0.05) average available forage DM than wheat-bermudagrass or wheat-crabgrass. This was likely due to greater forage production by ‘MaxQ’ and/or greater forage intake by steers grazing wheat-bermudagrass and wheat-crabgrass. Steers that grazed ‘MaxQ’ had greater (P < 0.05) finishing gain than those that grazed wheat-bermudagrass and lower (P < 0.05) feed:gain than those that grazed wheat-bermudagrass or wheat-crabgrass. Carcass weight was similar (P > 0.05) among treatments. In 2012, daily gains, total gain, and gain/a of steers that grazed wheat-bermudagrass or wheat-crabgrass were greater (P < 0.05) than ‘MaxQ’fescue. Gain/a for ‘MaxQ’ fescue, wheat-bermudagrass, and wheat-crabgrass were 226, 325, and 313 lb/a, respectively. ‘MaxQ’ tall fescue pastures had greater (P < 0.05) average available forage DM than wheat-bermudagrass or wheat-crabgrass. Grazing treatment had no effect (P > 0.05) on subsequent finishing performance or carcass characteristics. In 2013, daily gain was greater (P < 0.05) for steers that grazed wheat-crabgrass than for those that grazed wheat-bermudagrass, and daily gain from ‘MaxQ’ fescue and wheatbermudagrass were similar (P > 0.05). Gain/a for ‘MaxQ’ fescue, wheat-bermudagrass, and wheat-crabgrass were 338, 244, and 316 lb/a, respectively. Gain/a was greater (P < 0.05) for ‘MaxQ’ fescue and wheat-crabgrass than for wheat-bermudagrass. Overall gain was not different between forage systems; however, steers grazed ‘MaxQ’fescue for 49 more days than wheat-bermudagrass or wheat-crabgrass. Total daily gain was greater (P < 0.05) for wheat-crabgrass than for ‘MaxQ’ tall fescue. ‘MaxQ’ tall fescue pastures had greater (P < 0.05) average available forage DM than wheat-bermudagrass or wheat-crabgrass and wheat-bermudagrass pastures had more (P < 0.05) available forage DM than wheat-crabgrass. Grazing treatment had no effect (P > 0.05) on subsequent finishing daily gain or carcass characteristics. Hotter, drier weather during the summer of 2011 and 2012 likely provided more favorable growing conditions for bermudagrass and crabgrass than for fescue, which was reflected in greater (P < 0.05) gains by cattle grazing those pastures. Lack of precipitation also reduced the length of the grazing season for ‘MaxQ’ fescue pastures in 2012, which resulted in less fall grazing and lower gain/a than was observed for those pastures in 2010, 2011, and 2013. 161 12 633 919b 286b 1.78 286b 3497b 94 919b 1,281b 361 3.84 24.6b 6.42b 794b 0.38 12.5 2.5 590 92 144 12 632 957b 325b 2.26b 325b 4,172b 105 957b 1,409 451 4.30 28.3 6.61 873 0.38 12.8 2.7 591 83 Effects of Cultivar and Distillers Grains Supplementation on Grazing and Subsequent Finishing Performance of Stocker Steers Grazing Tall Fescue Pasture L.W. Lomas and J.L. Moyer Summary Two hundred eighty-eight yearling steers grazing tall fescue pastures were used to evaluate the effects of fescue cultivar and dried distillers grains (DDG) supplementation during the grazing phase on available forage, grazing gains, subsequent finishing gains, and carcass characteristics. Fescue cultivars evaluated were high-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ and low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ ‘HM4,’ and ‘MaxQ.’ Steers were either fed no supplement or were supplemented with DDG at 1.0% body weight per head daily in 2009 or 0.75% of body weight per head daily in 2010, 2011, and 2012 while grazing. Steers that grazed pastures of low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ ‘HM4,’ or ‘MaxQ’ gained significantly more (P < 0.05) and produced more (P < 0.05) gain/a than those that grazed high-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ pastures. Gains of cattle that grazed low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ ‘HM4,’ or ‘MaxQ’ were similar (P > 0.05). Subsequent finishing gains were similar (P > 0.05) among fescue cultivars in 2009 and 2012; however, steers that previously grazed high-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ had greater (P > 0.05) finishing gains that those that had grazed ‘HM4’ or ‘MaxQ’ in 2010 and greater (P < 0.05) finishing gains than those that grazed low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ or ‘HM4’ in 2011. Supplementation of grazing steers with DDG supported a higher stocking rate and resulted in greater (P < 0.05) grazing gain, gain/a, hot carcass weight, ribeye area, and overall gain and reduced the amount of fertilizer needed by providing approximately 60 lb/a, 50 lb/a, 50 lb/a, and 30 lb/a of nitrogen (N) in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively, primarily from urine of grazing cattle. Introduction Tall fescue, the most widely adapted cool-season perennial grass in the United States, is grown on approximately 66 million acres. Although tall fescue is well adapted in the eastern half of the country between the temperate North and mild South, presence of a fungal endophyte results in poor performance of grazing livestock, especially during the summer. Until recently, producers with high-endophyte tall fescue pastures had two primary options for improving grazing livestock performance. One option was to destroy existing stands and replace them with endophyte-free fescue or other forages. Although it supports greater animal performance than endophyte-infected fescue, endophyte-free fescue has been shown to be less persistent under grazing pressure and more susceptible to stand loss from drought stress. In locations where high-endophyte tall fescue must be grown, the other option was for producers to adopt management strategies that reduce the negative effects of the endophyte on grazing animals, such as diluting the effects of the endophyte by incorporating legumes into existing pastures or providing supplemental feed. In recent years, new tall fescue cultivars have been developed with a non-toxic endophyte that provides vigor to the fescue plant without negatively affecting performance of grazing livestock. Growth in the ethanol industry has resulted in increased availability of distillers grains, which have been shown to be an excellent feedstuff for supplementing grazing cattle because of their high protein and phosphorus content. Distillers grains contain approximately 4% to 5% N, and cattle consuming them excrete a high percentage of this N in their urine and feces; therefore, feeding DDG to grazing cattle will provide N to the pastures. Objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate two of these new cultivars in terms of forage availability, stand persistence, and grazing and subsequent finishing performance of stocker steers and compare them with high- and low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ tall fescue; (2) evaluate DDG supplementation of cattle grazing these pastures; and (3) determine the contribution of DDG as a nitrogen fertilizer source. Experimental Procedures Seventy-two mixed black yearling steers were weighed on two consecutive days and allotted to 16 5-acre established pastures of high-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ or lowendophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ ‘HM4,’ or ‘MaxQ’ tall fescue (4 replications per cultivar) on March 26, 2009 (569 lb); March 24, 2010 (550 lb); March 23, 2011 (536 lb); and March 22, 2012 (550 lb). ‘HM4’ and ‘MaxQ’ are cultivars that have a non-toxic endophyte. Four steers were assigned to two pastures of each cultivar and received no supplementation, and five steers were assigned to two pastures of each cultivar and supplemented with DDG at 1.0% or 0.75% body weight per head daily during the grazing phase in 2009 or 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively. All pastures were fertilized with 80 lb/a N and P2O5 and K O as required by soil test on February 5, 2009; February 10, 2 2010; and January 27, 2011; and 90 lb/a N on January 25, 2012. Pastures with steers that received no supplement were fertilized with 60 lb/a N on September 16, 2009, 46 lb/a N on August 30, 2011 and September 15, 2011, and 30 lb/a N on August 10, 2012. This was calculated to be approximately the same amount of N from DDG that was excreted on pastures by supplemented steers during the entire grazing season. Cattle in each pasture were group-fed DDG in meal form in bunks on a daily basis, and pasture was the experimental unit. No implants or feed additives were used. Weight gain was the primary measurement. Cattle were weighed every 28 days; quantity of DDG fed was adjusted at that time. Forage availability was measured approximately every 28 days with a disk meter calibrated for tall fescue. Cattle were treated for internal and external parasites before being turned out to pasture and later vaccinated for protection from pinkeye. Steers had free access to commercial mineral blocks that contained 12% calcium, 12% phosphorus, and 12% salt. Two steers in 2009 and one steer in 2012 were removed from the study for reasons unrelated to experimental treatment. Pastures were grazed continuously until October 13, 2009 (201 days); November 3, 2010 (224 days); October 19, 2011 (210 days); and August 21, 2012 (152 days), when steers were weighed on two consecutive days and grazing was terminated. After the grazing period, cattle were moved to a finishing facility, implanted with Synovex-S (Zoetis, Madison, NJ), and fed a diet of 80% whole-shelled corn, 15% corn silage, and 5% supplement (dry matter basis). Cattle that received no supplement or were supplemented with DDG while grazing were fed a finishing diet for 119 or 99 days and for 112 or 98 days, respectively, in 2009 and 2011, for 106 days in 2010, and for 113 days in 2012. All steers were slaughtered in a commercial facility, and carcass data were collected. Results and Discussion Because no significant interactions occurred (P > 0.05) between cultivar and supplementation treatment, grazing and subsequent finishing performance are pooled across supplementation treatment and presented by tall fescue cultivar in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 for 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively, and by supplementation treatment in Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8 for 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively. During all four years, steers that grazed pastures of low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ ‘HM4,’ or ‘MaxQ’ gained significantly more (P < 0.05) and produced more (P < 0.05) gain/a than those that grazed high-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ pastures (Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4). Gains of cattle that grazed low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ ‘HM4,’ or ‘MaxQ’ were similar (P > 0.05). Daily gains of steers grazing pastures with high-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ ‘HM4,’ or ‘MaxQ’ were 1.70, 2.35, 2.25, and 2.33 lb/head, respectively, in 2009; 1.56, 1.91, 1.97, and 2.04 lb/head, respectively, in 2010; 1.47, 2.00, 1.96, and 1.95 lb/head, respectively, in 2011; and 1.00, 1.93, 2.06, and 2.04 lb/head, respectively, in 2012. Gain/a from pastures with high-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ ‘HM4,’ and ‘MaxQ’ were 318, 438, 415, and 428 lb/a, respectively, in 2009; 322, 390, 400, and 416 lb/a, respectively, in 2010; 288, 385, 377, and 378 lb/a, respectively, in 2011; and 145, 271, 288, and 286 lb/a, respectively, in 2012. In 2009, subsequent finishing gains and feed efficiency were similar (P > 0.05) among fescue cultivars (Table 1). Steers that previously grazed low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ ‘HM4,’ or ‘MaxQ’ maintained their weight advantage through the finishing phase and had greater (P < 0.05) final finishing weights, hot carcass weights, overall gains, and overall daily gains than those that previously grazed high-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31.’ Final finishing weights, hot carcass weights, overall gains, and overall daily gains were similar (P > 0.05) among steers that previously grazed low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ ‘HM4,’ or ‘MaxQ.’ Backfat thickness and percentage of carcasses graded choice or higher were similar (P > 0.05) among fescue cultivars. In 2010, steers that previously grazed high-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ had greater (P < 0.05) finishing gains than those that had grazed ‘HM4’ or ‘MaxQ,’ finishing gains similar (P > 0.05) to those that grazed low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ lower (P < 0.05) hot carcass weight than those that grazed ‘MaxQ,’ hot carcass weight similar (P > 0.05) to those that grazed low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ or ‘HM4,’ and less (P < 0.05) fat thickness than those that grazed low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ ‘HM4,’ or ‘MaxQ’ (Table 2). Feed:gain and percentage of carcasses grading choice or higher were similar (P > 0.05) among fescue cultivars. Overall gain of steers that grazed high-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ was greater (P < 0.05) than that of steers that grazed low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ or ‘MaxQ’ and similar (P > 0.05) to that of steers that grazed ‘HM4.’ In 2011, steers that previously grazed high-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ had greater (P < 0.05) finishing gains and lower (P < 0.05) feed:gain than those that had grazed low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ or ‘HM4’ and lower (P < 0.05) hot carcass weight and smaller (P < 0.05) ribeye area than those that grazed ‘MaxQ’ (Table 3). Hot carcass weight, ribeye area, and overall gain and daily gain were similar (P < 0.05) between steers that grazed low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ ‘HM4,’ or ‘MaxQ.’ Steers that previously grazed high-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ had lower (P < 0.05) overall gain and daily gain than steers that grazed ‘HM4’ or ‘MaxQ.’ In 2012, subsequent finishing gains were similar (P > 0.05) among fescue cultivars (Table 4), but steers that previously grazed high-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ had lower (P < 0.05) feed intake, lower (P < 0.05) feed:gain, lower (P < 0.05) hot carcass weight, lower (P < 0.05) overall gain, and lower (P < 0.05) overall daily gain than those that had grazed low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ ‘HM4,’ or ‘MaxQ’ (Table 4). Steers supplemented with DDG gained significantly more (P < 0.05) and produced more (P < 0.05) gain/a than those that received no supplement while grazing (Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8). Grazing gains and gain/a of steers that received no supplement and those that were supplemented with DDG were 1.71 and 2.61 lb/head daily and 343 and 525 lb/a, respectively, in 2009; 1.62 and 2.12 lb/head daily and 363 and 475 lb/a, respectively, in 2010; 1.46 and 2.23 lb/head daily and 246 and 469 lb/a, respectively, in 2011; and 1.31 and 2.20 lb/head daily and 160 and 334 lb/a, respectively, in 2012. Supplemented steers consumed an average of 7.8, 6.0, 5.9, and 5.5 lb of DDG/head daily during the grazing phase in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively. Each additional pound of gain obtained from pastures with supplemented steers required 6.5, 7.2, 5.6, and 4.8 lb of DDG in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively. Steers that were supplemented during the grazing phase had greater (P < 0.05) final finishing weights, hot carcass weights, overall gain, and overall daily gain than those that received no supplement while grazing during all four years. Daily gain, feed efficiency, yield grade, marbling score, and percentage of carcasses grading choice or higher were similar (P > 0.05) between supplementation treatments in 2009; however, in 2010, 2011, and 2012, steers supplemented with DDG while grazing had lower (P < 0.05) finishing gains than those that received no supplement while grazing. Average available forage dry matter (DM) is presented for each fescue cultivar and supplementation treatment combination for 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 in Tables 9, 10, 11, and 12, respectively. A significant interaction occurred (P < 0.05) between cultivar and supplementation treatment during all four years. Within each variety, there was no difference (P > 0.05) in average available forage DM between pastures stocked with 0.8 steer/a that received no supplement and those stocked with 1.0 steer/a and supplemented with DDG at 1.0% body weight per head daily in 2009 (Table 9). Average available forage DM was similar (P > 0.05) between supplementation treatments and pastures with supplemented steers stocked at a heavier rate, which indicates that pastures were responding to the N that was being returned to the soil from steers consuming DDG, or cattle supplemented with DDG were consuming less forage, or both. High-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ pastures with or without DDG supplementation had greater (P < 0.05) average available forage DM than ‘MaxQ’ pastures without supplementation. No other differences in average available forage DM were observed. In 2010, no difference occurred (P > 0.05) in average available forage DM within variety for high-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ or ‘HM4’ pastures stocked with 0.8 steer/a that received no supplement and those stocked with 1.0 steer/a and supplemented with DDG at 0.75% body weight per head daily (Table 10); however, ‘MaxQ’ pastures that were stocked at the heavier rate and grazed by steers supplemented with DDG had greater (P < 0.05) average available forage DM than those stocked at a lighter rate and grazed by steers that received no supplement. High-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ pastures had greater (P < 0.05) average available DM than low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ ‘HM4,’ or ‘MaxQ’ pastures stocked with 0.8 steer/a that received no supplement. In 2011, no difference occurred (P > 0.05) in average available forage DM within variety for low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ or ‘HM4’ pastures stocked with 0.8 steer/a that received no supplement and those stocked with 1.0 steer/a and supplemented with DDG at 0.75% body weight per head daily (Table 11), but ‘MaxQ’ pastures that were stocked at the heavier rate and grazed by steers supplemented with DDG had greater (P < 0.05) average available forage DM than those stocked at a lighter rate and grazed by steers that received no supplement. High-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ pastures that were stocked at the heavier rate and grazed by steers supplemented with DDG had lower (P < 0.05) average available forage DM than those stocked at a lighter rate. High-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ pastures had greater (P < 0.05) average available DM than low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ ‘HM4,’ or ‘MaxQ’ pastures stocked with 0.8 steer/a that received no supplement. In 2012, a cultivar × date interaction occurred, with similar peak available DM on April 18 (P > 0.05) but lower available DM for ‘MaxQ’ and ‘HM4’ (P < 0.05) at the end of the grazing phase on August 17. No difference occurred (P > 0.05) in average available forage DM within variety for low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ ‘HM4,’ or ‘MaxQ’ pastures stocked with 0.8 steer/a that received no supplement and those stocked with 1.0 steer/a and supplemented with DDG at 0.75% body weight per head daily (Table 12); however, high-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ pastures that were stocked at the heavier rate and grazed by steers supplemented with DDG had lower (P < 0.05) average available forage DM than those stocked at a lighter rate in both 2011 and 2012. This result suggests that supplementation with DDG increased forage intake and utilization by cattle grazing these pastures. High-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31’ pastures had greater (P < 0.05) average available DM than low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ ‘HM4,’ or ‘MaxQ’ pastures within each stocking rate and supplementation level in 2012. Grazing gains and overall gains of steers that grazed low-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31,’ ‘HM4,’ or ‘MaxQ’ were similar (P > 0.05) and significantly greater (P < 0.05) than those of steers that grazed high-endophyte ‘Kentucky 31.’ Supplementation of grazing steers with DDG resulted in greater (P < 0.05) grazing gains, supported a higher stocking rate, resulted in greater (P < 0.05) gain/a, and reduced the amount of fertilizer needed by providing approximately 30 to 60 lb of N/a. Producers seeking to maximize production from fescue pastures should consider using one of the new fescue varieties with the non-toxic endophyte in combination with DDG supplementation. g n e L r a e g a r e v E 6 A 5 4 7 6 z o h g i e 2 1 K f o r 25 e b m u e g a r e N20 v 15 A 10 W l g a r e v 0.4 0.2 600 b o 500 c r e p l 400 s e n r e K f o 300 m u 200 N r e b e g a r ve 100 0 18 d n u 16 o r a , s l e r 14 n e K f o r e 80 70 Rowed Drilled 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Number of Plants per Acre, 1000 Rowed Drilled 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Number of Plants per Acre, 1000 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 a / u b , d l e i Y n a e b y o S Hand Harvested Rowed Drilled Conservation Systems: Potential for Improving Yields in Southeast Kansas G.F. Sassenrath and T. Mueller1 Summary Concern for soil resources has increased the use of conservation tillage in southeast Kansas. Although this has improved soil and water quality, problems still exist in crop production fields prone to erosion. Publically available imagery and elevation data can be used to identify areas of vulnerability and develop alternative management practices to reduce soil loss and improve crop production. Introduction Southeast Kansas has nutrient-rich soils. One challenge for crop production is the shallow topsoil, underlain with a dense, unproductive clay layer. Concerns for topsoil loss have shifted production systems to reduced tillage or conservation management practices. Transitioning to conservation management practices such as reduced tillage and use of cover crops has been shown to improve the soil microenvironment and enhance the long-term sustainability of the agronomic production system. To improve crop production and develop conservation practices, identification of vulnerable areas of fields is needed. Publicly available high-resolution imagery products and terrain maps can provide information on field conditions. This research explores within-field variability of farm production fields and uses online databases to collect information on vegetation and topography. The information is used to develop protocols for alternative management to protect vulnerable areas and reduce topsoil loss. Experimental Procedures High-resolution imagery is collected through the USDA National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP). Elevation data and orthoimagery for production fields were downloaded from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (http://nationalmap.gov) and analyzed using ArcGIS with Spatial Analyst (ESRI, Redlands, CA). NAIP imagery for the production field presented here was collected from June 8 through July 24, 2012. The NAIP 4-band imagery was used to calculate the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI). NDVI is commonly used to indicate plant growth and is calculated as: (NIR-Red) NDVI = (NIR + Red) where NIR and Red are the spectral bands for the near-infrared (~> 725 nm) and red (~600–725 nm) regions of the spectrum, respectively. Digital elevation maps (DEMs) were used to perform terrain analysis of production fields using ArcGIS and Taudem (http://hydrology.usu.edu/taudem/taudem5/index.html). 1 John Deere & Company, Agronomic Data Researcher. Analysis of the DEM allows determination of areas of the field that hold water and areas of high potential runoff. Crop performance was determined as described previously from sampling sites within each production field. Two-row-wide line-transects were established through the fields, and multiple sampling locations were established along each transect (Figure 1). At each sampling location, plants were hand-harvested from 3 ft2 for determination of yield components (plants per area, pods or cobs per plant, seeds per pod or cob, average seed size, etc.). Soil samples were taken at each sampling site at four depths (0–3 in., 3-6 in., 6–12 in., and 12–18 in.) and analyzed for nutrients, pH, organic matter, and classification (percentage clay, silt, and sand content). Results and Discussion The production field used in this study is 110 acres in Labette County, southeast Kansas (Figure 1). It is composed almost entirely of a Wagstaff silty clay loam soil with 1 to 3% slope and has been in a long-term corn/winter wheat/soybean rotation. Waterways drain the field to the south and north (arrows), and the deeper northern waterway is planted to grass. The NDVI map indicates areas of thin vegetation, particularly in the western half of the field (Figure 2). The NAID imagery from which the NDVI was calculated was taken in 2012, when the field was planted to corn. Although the field has only a moderate slope (1–3%), calculation of surface curvature for the field indicates a higher ridge through the center of the field (lighter area in Figure 3). This area corresponds to the area of poor vegetative coverage. The following year, soybean yield was reduced in areas of low vegetation (Figure 4), indicating a persistent problem in those areas of the field. To identify potential areas of erosion, we performed a terrain analysis of the field (Figure 5). Areas of high potential for soil loss are indicated by the black lines. These areas could benefit by altered management practices to slow water runoff from the field and preserve topsoil. This study is being expanded to other production fields in southeast Kansas. Alternative production methods, such as cover crops, are being explored for their potential to retain topsoil and limit soil erosion. Acknowledgements We would like to express our gratitude to the producers who collaborated in this research project. Fungicide and Insecticide Use on Wheat in Southeast Kansas K. Kusel, D. Shoup1, and G. Sassenrath Summary Producers have increased management of wheat in recent years in response to higher commodity prices. Wheat response to fungicide and insecticide application was evaluated in 2012 and 2013. Treatments included an untreated check, Mustang Maxx (FMC, Philadelphia, PA) insecticide at 3.2 fl oz/a, Headline (BASF Research Triangle Park, NC) fungicide at 6.0 fl oz/a, and Headline at 6.0 fl oz/a + Mustang Maxx at 3.2 fl oz/a. Treatments were applied to Everest wheat at complete flag leaf emergence in 2012 and heading in 2013. No treatment × year interaction was detected, so data were combined across years. Good wheat yields were achieved, and the addition of any pesticide increased yield over the untreated check. The addition of insecticide, fungicide, and fungicide + insecticide increased wheat yields by 5.4, 9.0, and 12.1 bu/a, respectively. Introduction Wheat fungicide use across the state of Kansas historically has resulted in an approximate 10% yield increase when disease was present on a susceptible variety. Yield response of wheat to insecticides has not been well documented in southeast Kansas. With the change in economics of wheat production in recent years, producers are considering increased use of pesticides to improve wheat yield and quality. A two-year study was initiated to evaluate the yield response of wheat to fungicide and insecticide applications in southeast Kansas. Experimental Procedures The experimental site was located on a Parsons silt loam planted in tilled ground after corn harvest. The experiment utilized a randomized complete block design with four replications of four treatments. Everest wheat was planted on October 25, 2011, and October 3, 2012, at 75 lb/a in 7-in.-spaced rows. Plots were 8 ft × 275 ft in 2012 and 8 ft × 40 ft in 2013. Treatments included an untreated check, Mustang Maxx insecticide at 3.2 fl oz/a, Headline fungicide at 6.0 fl oz/a, and combined Mustang Maxx at 3.2 fl oz/a + Headline at 6.0 fl oz/a. Treatments were applied to wheat at the complete flag leaf emergence stage (Feekes 9) on March 3, 2012, and wheat at the heading stage (Feekes 10.1) on May 7, 2013. Wheat was harvested by plot combine on May 30, 2012, and June 24, 2013, and plot weights were adjusted to 13.5% moisture. Results and Discussion Favorable growing conditions resulted in above-average yields in both years. No year × treatment interaction was detected, so data were combined across years (Table 1). The untreated wheat averaged 61.6 bu/a. The addition of Mustang Maxx increased yield to 67.0 bu/a, and the addition of Headline increased yield to 70.6 bu/a. The fungicide treatment in this trial increased yield 9.0 bu/a, greater than the 10% yield increase response traditionally observed in Kansas. The highest-yielding treatment was 1 Kansas State University Southeast Area Extension. the combined Headline + Mustang Maxx treatment at 73.7 bu/a. Disease and insect pressure were not recorded in this study, but common pests in the area during the years the trial was conducted were Septoria and stripe rust fungal pathogens and several aphid species, including bird cherry-oat aphid and English grain aphid. The enhanced response to fungicide and insecticide treatments observed in this study may indicate a greater pressure from these pathogens in these years. Wheat Response to Fungicides in Southeast Kansas D. Shoup1, K. Kusel, G. Sassenrath, and E. DeWolf 2 Summary Fungicide use on wheat has become a more common occurrence in recent years. To evaluate wheat response to fungicide applications under southeast Kansas conditions, three wheat varieties were planted following corn for two years (Everest, Endurance, and Overley in 2010 and Everest, Armour, and Fuller in 2012). Prosaro (Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC) at 6.5 fl oz/a was applied at Feekes 10.5.1 in 2011, and Headline (BASF, Research Triangle Park, NC) at 6.0 fl oz/a was applied at Feekes 10.1 in 2013. Foliar disease was evaluated after application. No significant yield increase was observed in 2011; however, little to no disease was observed in 2011 following fungicide application. In 2013, heavier disease pressure was observed, and fungicide applications significantly increased yield across all three varieties. Fungicide application increased yield 10.3, 13.7, and 19.5 bu/a for Armour, Everest, and Fuller, respectively. Introduction Wheat fungicide use across the state of Kansas historically has resulted in approximately 10% yield increase when disease is present on a susceptible variety. With the change in economics of wheat production in recent years, producers are looking more intensively at the use of fungicides to improve wheat yield and quality. A two-year study was initiated to evaluate the yield response of fungicide applications to wheat varieties with varying levels of fungal disease resistance. Experimental Procedures The experimental site was located on a Parsons silt loam planted in tilled ground after corn harvest. The experiment utilized a randomized complete block design with four replications of six treatments consisting of three wheat varieties applied with and without fungicide. Varieties Everest, Endurance, and Overley were planted on October 7, 2010, and Everest, Armour, and Fuller were planted on October 19, 2012, at 75 lb/a in 7-in.-spaced rows. Prosaro 421 SC was applied at 6.5 fl oz/a on May 5, 2011 when wheat was at the Feekes 10.5.1 stage. Headline SC was applied on May 8, 2013, to wheat at the Feekes 10.1 stage. Wheat fungal diseases on the flag leaf were evaluated by visual inspection after applications. Wheat was harvested by plot combine on June 15, 2011, and June 24, 2013. Results and Discussion Wheat was planted in a timely manner both years and adequate fall tillering occurred, promoting average to above-average yields. Moisture was abundant in 2011, totaling 14.8 in. during the critical foliar disease months of March, April, and May; however, no significant fungal disease pressure was observed after fungicide application. Precipita1 Kansas State University Southeast Area Extension. 2 Kansas State University Department of Plant Pathology. tion in 2013 totaled 17.0 in. during March, April, and May and promoted the occurrence of stripe rust (Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici) and septoria tritici blotch (Mycosphaerella graminicola) (Table 2). In 2011, yields ranged from 46.5 to 58.8 bu/a (Table 1). Although the highest-yielding treatment was 58.8 bu/a for Everest treated with a fungicide, no significant differences were observed between treated and untreated plots. In 2013, significant reductions in stripe rust and septoria were observed for plots treated with a fungicide (Table 2); consequently, yield differences between varieties and fungicide treatments were significant. Fungicide increased yield of all three varieties by 10.3, 13.7, and 19.5 bu/a for Armour, Everest, and Fuller, respectively. Yield increases with fungicide treatment were expected because of the high number of fungal lesions on the flag leaves of untreated plots, but yield increases of this magnitude are greater than typical responses to fungicides applied to wheat in Kansas. ------- bu/a ------46.5 49.4 57.4 58.8 48.0 51.6 8.9 48.0 58.1 49.8 6.3 Untreated 50.6 Treated 53.2   LSD (0.05) NS 1 Application of 6.5 fl oz/a Prosaro 421 SC (Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC) to wheat at Feekes 10.5.1. 2 Yields adjusted to 13.5% moisture. Cropping Systems Research Untreated 1.5 12.8 Treated 0.1 3.9   LSD (0.05) 1.1 2.8 1 Application of 6.0 fl oz/a Headline SC (BASF, Research Triangle Park, NC) to wheat at Feekes 10.1. 2 Leaf ratings evaluated on May 22. 3 Yields adjusted to 13.5% moisture. Annual Summary of Weather Data for Parsons 80 F ° , r 60 e 20 n a J 1 b e F 1 M 1 u J 1 u A 1 p e S 1 t c O 1 v o N 1 c e D 1 Tmax Tmin N.Tmax N. Tmin N.Pcp 40 30 25 20 15 10 5 n i , n o i t a t i p i c e r P Avg. max Avg. min Avg. mean Precip Snow Heat DD Cool DD Departure from normal Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual Avg. max 4.3 -3.1 -5.8 -6.2 -1.2 4.2 -1.1 -4.0 4.5 -0.1 -2.1 -3.0 -1.1 Avg. min -4.9 -10.1 -10.1 -7.8 -4.9 -2.2 -3.2 -1.3 0.6 -5.2 -8.9 -10.2 -5.7 Avg. mean -0.3 -6.6 -8.0 -7.0 -3.0 1.0 -2.2 -2.7 2.6 -2.7 -5.5 -6.6 -3.4 Precip. -0.86 0.36 -2.02 -0.78 -0.16 -3.04 1.67 7.94 -3.35 -1.06 -2.35 -1.64 -5.29 Snow -2.8 -1.7 -1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.3 -2.7 -8.7 Heat DD 10 186 244 190 75 6 2 -1 -32 78 162 205 1123 Cool DD 0 0 -2 -21 -21 37 -65 -85 45 -5 -2 0 -119 * Daily values were computed from mean temperatures. Each degree that a day’s mean is below (or above) 65°F is counted for one heating (or cooling) degree day. Research Center Personnel Lyle Lomas, Research Center Head and Animal Scientist Larry Buffington, Custodial Specialist Jason Denton, Agricultural Technician Senior TaLana Erikson, Agricultural Technician Senior Terry Green, Agricultural Technician Senior Adam Harris, Agricultural Technician Senior Marla Sexton, Accountant I Joseph Moyer, Forage Agronomist Mike Cramer, Agricultural Technician Senior Larry Sale, Agricultural Technician Gretchen Sassenrath, Crop Production Agronomist Garth Blackburn, Agricultural Technician Kelly Kusel, Research Assistant Lonnie Mengarelli, Agricultural Technician Daniel Sweeney, Soil and Water Management Agronomist Michael Dean, Agricultural Technician Senior David Kerley, Agricultural Technician Senior Acknowledgments ADM Alliance Nutrition, Quincy, IL AgChoice, Parsons, KS Ag Research USA Ltd., Asheville, NC AGSECO, Girard, KS Barenbrug USA, Tangent, OR Bartlett Coop Association Beachner Grain, St. Paul, KS Steve Black, Mound Valley, KS Brad Boss, Dennis, KS Coffeyville Livestock Market, Coffeyville, KS Community National Bank & Trust Larry Cook, Parsons, KS DeLange Seed Co., Girard, KS Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN DLF International, Tangent, OR Ernie and Sharon Draeger, Columbus, KS Elanco Animal Health, Indianapolis, IN Rich Falkenstein, Altamont, KS Farmers Coop, Columbus, KS Frontier Farm Credit, Parsons, KS Greenbush Southeast Kansas Education Service Center, Girard, KS Joe Harris, St. Paul, KS Kansas Corn Commission, Garnett, KS Kansas Fertilizer Research Fund, Topeka, KS Kansas Forage and Grassland Council, Chanute, KS Kansas Soybean Commission, Topeka, KS Koch Agronomic Services, LLC, Wichita, KS Denver Lawson, Pittsburg, KS Lima Grain Cereal Seeds, Ft. Collins, CO McCune Farmers Union Coop, McCune, KS Merck Animal Health, Summit, NJ MFA Incorporated, Columbia, MO Midwest Fertilizer, Thayer, KS Steve Murphy, Girard, KS Olson Medical, Parsons, KS Parsons Livestock Market, Parsons, KS Pennington Seed Inc., Madison, GA Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Johnston, IA Producers Coop, Girard, KS R & F Farm Supply, Erie, KS Marty Reichenberger, Independence, KS Ridley Block Operations, Pittsburg, KS South Coffeyville Stockyards, South Coffeyville, OK Star Seed Co., Osborne, KS Ray Stice, Cherryvale, KS Strickland Brothers Inc., Oswego, KS Syngenta/AgriPro, Berthoud, CO Emmet and Virginia Terril, Catoosa, OK Westbred LLC, Bozeman, MT Wildcat Feeds, Topeka, KS Zoetis, Madison, NJ SEARC Copyright 2014 Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. Contents of this publication may be freely reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved. In each case, give credit to the author(s), Agricultural Research 2014, Southeast Agricultural Research Center, Kansas State University, April 2014. Contribution no. 14-306-S from the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station. Chemical Disclaimer Brand names appearing in this publication are for product identification purposes only. No endorsement is intended, nor is criticism implied of similar products not mentioned. Experiments with pesticides on nonlabeled crops or target species do not imply endorsement or recommendation of nonlabeled use of pesticides by Kansas State University. All pesticides must be used consistent with current label directions. Current information on weed control in Kansas is available in 2014 Chemical Weed Control for Field Crops, Pastures, Rangeland, and Noncropland, Report of Progress 1099, available from the Distribution Center, Umberger Hall, Kansas State University, or at: www.ksre.ksu.edu/bookstore (type Chemical Weed Control in search box). Publications from Kansas State University are available at: www.ksre.ksu.edu Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service


This is a preview of a remote PDF: http://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3396&context=kaesrr

Kansas State University. Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. 2014 Agricultural Research Southeast Agricultural Research Center, Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports, 2017,