Grill Talk: Soyfoods With Sizzle
August 9, 2010 – 11:02 am | No Comment

Soyfoods are hot, and you can prove it on your own grill. In fact, now that soyfoods have become mainstream ingredients, more cooks are discovering ways to feature them in appetizers, main courses, side dishes …

Read the full story »
Commentary

From our usual contributors to guest columnists, read how the experts are seeing things.

Illinois

From breaking news to features, find the latest news concerning Illinois farmers.

International

Whether it’s trade missions or trade talks, find news from abroad here.

Iowa

From breaking news to features, find the latest news concerning Iowa farmers.

National

See what your checkoff dollars are working towards around the nation.

Home » Commentary

Wright: Soybean Inoculants: Friend or Foe?

Submitted by admin on March 1, 2010 – 9:32 pmOne Comment

Director of Research, Iowa Soybean Association

Soybean production practices in the United States have changed tremendously in the last 20 years often responding to advances in technology and equipment design and availability.  As farmers strive to find new information and new technology to improve soybean yield they may try any number of seed or soil inoculants that are currently marketed. However, the odds of getting a yield increase from inoculants may not be good.

A 2007 survey of farmers by crop specialists at land grant universities found that 18 percent of farmers in Indiana used an inoculant while a separate survey in 2008 found 85 percent of farmers in Wisconsin used one. Inoculating soybeans with products containing the bacterium Bradyrhizobium japonicum is considered an inexpensive management tactic to increase yield. The bacterium forms a symbiotic or beneficial relationship with soybean roots allowing for nitrogen fixation to occur.

Current recommendations for the use of inoculants in the Midwest suggest they should be used if soybeans have not been grown in a field in the last 5 years or if a field has been flooded for more than seven days.

Purdue University researchers concluded in 2005 that “Inoculant use [in a soybean/corn rotation] may be a viable method of increasing soybean yield.” In contrast, researchers from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln recently published that the use of inoculants in a field that had been planted to soybeans in the recent past was unnecessary.

University soybean specialists from several Midwest states recently took a big-picture look at the data from several research trials investigating the performance of inoculants for soybeans.  They found that 51 inoculant products had been evaluated in 73 experiments conducted between 2000 and 2008 in Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin.

The result?

The research team reported that sixty-three of the 73 environments (environment = year x location) showed no significant yield response to an inoculant. Four of the environments showed a negative response from the inoculants between the range of five and seven percent. And only six of the environments showed a positive response between five and twenty-three percent greater than the control.

Rising input costs, escalating land prices, and volatile commodity prices are all driving the need for soybean producers to improve profitability. However, the use of inoculants to increase yield may not be the solution farmers are looking for, especially if soybeans have been grown in the recent past.  In fact, the prophylactic use of inoculants without an active on-farm testing program could be costing you money. However, if a field has not produced soybeans in the past four or five years or has never produced soybeans, an inoculant is needed for nitrogen fixation to occur.

Higher soybean yields can be achieved with greater levels of management and the adoption of current, science-based best management practices. Many of these recommendations can be found at www.planthealth.info, the North Central Soybean Research Program’s website for information on soybean production. That’s your soybean checkoff. Delivering Results.

One Comment »

  • T Smith says:

    The word significant is used in this article without the level being indicated. If a .05 significance level is applied it is in no wonder that no significance difference in yield is found with the levels of CV’s common to research done at most University research farms. What would be valuable to know from this analysis of a group of studies is if the average yield increase across the studies paid for the cost of the treatment and at what level of return on investment might have been achieved across all of the studies. Farmers make decisions everyday with little hard data that give them 95% confidence level that they are correct. If you tell farmers that more than 50% of the time you can more than double your return on investment they will make the decision of whether the practice should be tested on their farms or if it is not worth the trouble.

Leave a comment!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.