Click to edit Master title style Effect of seed and foliar treatments on vigor of soybean plants Jerseyville, IL

Similar documents
UNITED STATES AND SOUTH AMERICA OUTLOOK (FULL REPORT) Wednesday, April 18, 2018

YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN CORN AND DRY BEAN CROPS

Flower Species as a Supplemental Source of Pollen for Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) in Late Summer Cropping Systems

Growth Stages of Wheat: Identification and Understanding Improve Crop Management

JRC MARS Bulletin global outlook 2017 Crop monitoring European neighbourhood Turkey June 2017

It is never so good as expected and never so bad as feared.

UNITED STATES AND SOUTH AMERICA SNAPSHOT REPORT Thursday, December 21, 2017

September 2018 Weather Summary West Central Research and Outreach Center Morris, MN

STOLLER ENTERPRISES, INC. World leader in crop nutrition

Head office Lahti, Finland

YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN VARIOUS CROPS

those in Arizona. This period would extend through the fall equinox (September 23, 1993). Thus, pending variation due to cloudiness, total light flux

November 2018 Weather Summary West Central Research and Outreach Center Morris, MN

UNITED STATES AND SOUTH AMERICA SNAPSHOT REPORT Wednesday, December 20, 2017

INVESTIGATING YIELD AND YIELD COMPONENT OF WINTER RAPESEED CULTIVARS AT BOJNORD-IRAN

UNITED STATES AND SOUTH AMERICA WEATHER ROUNDUP Sunday, December 17, 2017

Input Costs Trends for Arkansas Field Crops, AG -1291

YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN LIBERTY AND ROUNDUP RESISTANT SUGAR BEETS

Seed production potential of ICRISAT-bred parental lines of two sorghum hybrids in the central Rift-valley of Ethiopia

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT DOSES OF GLYCINE BETAINE AND TIME OF SPRAY APPLICATION ON YIELD OF COTTON (GOSSYPIUM HIRSUTUM L.)

UNITED STATES AND SOUTH AMERICA OUTLOOK (FULL REPORT) Thursday, December 28, 2017

Competition and reproduction ability of volunteer Clearfield oil seed rape and its control

3. Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial

Southern Illinois University. General Trial Information. Trial Location. Personnel. Pest Description. Maintenance.

OPTIMIZING NITROGEN USE AND EVALUATING ETHEPHON USE IN WAXY BARLEY

HANDBOOK OF PRECISION AGRICULTURE PRINCIPLES AND APPLICATIONS

Trial 1: Weed control in established grapes

2018 // Potato // HARS // CPB Systemic Trial Pg. 1

By the end of this lesson, you should be able to

Evaluation of Fall Application of Dual Magnum for Control of Yellow Nutsedge in Onions Grown on Muck Soils

MISSISSIPPI SOYBEAN PROMOTION BOARD PROJECT NO FINAL REPORT

Sugar Beet Petiole Tests as a Measure Of Soil Fertility

THE EFFECTS OF FOLIAR APPLICATION OF SALICYLIC ACID ON QUALITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE YIELD OF WHEAT UNDER SALINE CONDITIONS

ZANER WHEN DOES WEATHER MATTER? For more information, call: Or visit: Zaner is proud to present

F D Reviewed 1995 P.M. ANDERSON, E.A. OELKE AND S.R. SIMMONS MINNESOTA EXTENSION SERVICE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE

World Agricultural Outlook Board Interagency Commodity Estimates Committee Forecasts. Lockup Briefing April 10, 2013

Effects of high plant populations on the growth and yield of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus)

Southern Illinois University Plexus with Fomesafen Herbicides.

Weed Competition and Interference

Determining the Influence of Temperature on Plants

General: Actual barley prices FOB DK/SE. Crop EUR/t 1 H May Crop EUR/t 1 H Oct Crop EUR/t 1 H Oct 2017

Orange - Planted October 23, Preplant fertilization was 23- June 26. Warsaw no-till - Planted October 19, 2006.

EFFECTS OF SEED SIZE AND EMERGENCE TIME ON SUBSEQUENT GROWTH OF PERENNIAL RYEGRASS

Ergot; A Perennial Issue?

Avoiding Stink Bug Damage and Flat Pod Syndrome in Soybean with a MGVI Cultivar and Planting Date Beaumont, TX 2005

EVALUATiON OF YUKON HERBICIDE RATES FOR YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN CORN GROWN IN ROTATIONS FOLLOWED BY ONION

These restrictions will only apply to post-emergence applications of XtendiMax (Monsanto), Engenia (BASF), and FeXapan (DuPont)

Water use efficiency in agriculture

Understanding Plant Life Cycles

Foliar Application of 2,4-D Reduces Damage to Potato Tubers by Common Scab

First year harvest. AGRONOVA-field trials

Herbicide Label Changes for Asparagus - Doug

VEGETABLE CULTIVAR AND CULTURAL TRIALS 2009

1 Rice Growth and Development

Title Sorghum/Cotton Rotation under Extreme Deficit Irrigation Conditions. Location Texas Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Halfway, TX

Weeds, Weed Control and PGRs Ronald N. Calhoun and Aaron D. Hathaway Department of Crop and Soil Sciences Michigan State University

Modeling crop overwintering Focus on survival

Evolving 2014 Weather Patterns. Leon F. Osborne Chester Fritz Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Sciences University of North Dakota

Effect of Organic Soil Fertility and Fungicide Treatments on Yield and Pest Management, Neely-Kinyon Farm-2015

A mineral profile of winter oilseed rape in critical stages of growth - magnesium

U.S. Hard Red Winter Wheat Crop Update

CERAIDE FOR USE AS AN AGRICULTURAL PLANT GROWTH REGULATOR FOR PROFESSIONAL USE ONLY

Avocado Thrips Subproject 2: Pesticide Evaluations and Phenology in the Field

AGRONOMIC POTENTIAL AND LIMITATIONS OF USING PRECIPITATED CALCIUM CARBONATE IN THE HIGH PLAINS

CropCast Daily Agro-Highlights Don Keeney Friday, April 22, 2016

Example problem in Birge & Louveaux, Introduction to Stochastic Programming. SLPwR: Farmer Problem page 1 D.L.Bricker

Soybean Agronomy and Host Plant Resistance Beaumont, TX 2009

MDA WEATHER SERVICES AG WEATHER OUTLOOK. Kyle Tapley-Senior Agricultural Meteorologist May 22, 2014 Chicago, IL

Weather and Climate Risks and Effects on Agriculture

CropCast Daily Agri-Highlights Don Keeney Monday, July 25, 2016

% control June 2005 Aminopyralid Aminopyralid Aminopyralid Picloram

COTTON DEFOLIATION IN GEORGIA UGA Cotton Agronomists: Jared Whitaker & Guy Collins

2014 Evaluation of Non Irrigated Early Maturing Cotton Varieties, Jay, Florida

Climate change in the U.S. Northeast

Trial Report: Slicing Cucumber Variety Evaluation Spring 2014

Crop Development and Components of Seed Yield. Thomas G Chastain CSS 460/560 Seed Production

Background and Assumptions

Basic Botany Master Gardener and Horticulture Training. Mark Heitstuman. WSU Asotin and Garfield County Director January 12, 2016

MARKET WIRE. Jason Vollmer (701) Trygg Olson (701) Nick Smith (701) Adam Allmaras (701)

Tropical Agricultural Research & Extension 16(4): 2014

ALS-Resistant Kochia Management in a Corn - Sugarbeet Rotation 2005 to 2006 and 2007 to Robert Wilson

Leaf Wetting and Uptake of Fluid Foliar P Fertilizers for Wheat

POTASSIUM IN PLANT GROWTH AND YIELD. by Ismail Cakmak Sabanci University Istanbul, Turkey

Normal to heavy rain forecast for most of the selected parts of the country. Europe s wheat reserves shrinking to lowest in more than a decade.

PLANT GROWTH REGULATOR

THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

Nebraska experienced a wide

Growth and Seed Yield in Kentucky Bluegrass. Thomas G Chastain George Hyslop Professor of Crop and Soil Science

Proline Fungicide on Corn Silage to Reduce Mycotoxins

Climate Change in the Inland Pacific Northwest

ALLELOPATHIC EFFECTS OF FIVE SELECTED WEED SPECIES ON SEED GERMINATION AND SEEDLING GROWTH OF CORN

Environmental Science: Biomes Test

2017 Michigan State University Spring Malting Barley Variety Trials

Partial budgets for cover crops in Midwest row crop farming

2014 Evaluation of Non Irrigated Mid to Full Season Maturing Cotton Varieties, Jay, Florida

Briggs Lake Water Quality Report 2014

Certification of PARENT LINES of Cytoplasmic Male Sterile (CMS) HYBRID WHEAT with Blended Parent Lines

Plant Growth & Development. Growth Processes Photosynthesis. Plant Growth & Development

IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program Research Report Cover Sheet

CropCast Daily Agro-Highlights Don Keeney Monday, April 25, 2016

Transcription:

Click to edit Master title style Effect of seed and treatments on vigor of soybean plants Jerseyville, IL Click to edit Master text styles Plant vigor 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 Second level UTC V3 7.5 7.5 Third level R2 Fourth level» Fifth level Treated seed UTS + One TS +One UTS + Two TS +Two UTS + Three TS + Three with spary at AC140DC (TS) and and, V3-V4, V3-V4 V3-V4 V3-V4 and R1-R2 and R1-R2 7.3 7.5 Plant vigor 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.67 V3 UTC 6.83 R2 7.04 6.76 Treated Seed Average of 4 UTS and 4 TS treatments 1. Early plant vigor was significantly better in the plots with all the 7 seed and treatments compared to UTC. 2. Late plant vigor was also significantly better in the plots with 4 of the 7 seed and treatments (UTS+V2, UTS+V2,V4, UTS+V2,V4,R2, TS+V2,V4,R2) compared to UTC. Growth was also better in the 3 other treatments compared to UTC but the difference was not statistically significant. 12/1/2016 17

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Plant vigor - Jerseyville, IL trial Fourth level» Fifth level T1 Untreated check T4 = T1 + 12/1/2016 18 T5 A140DC Treated seeds T8 = T5 +

Click to edit Master title style Plant vigor 24 days after last spray Jerseyville, August 11, 2016 Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level» Fifth level T1 Untreated check T8 = T5 + 12/1/2016 19 Plant vigor was better in plots with A140DC treated seeds and three spray (T8) compared to A140DC treated seeds (T5)and untreated check (T1)

Click to edit Master title style Effect of seed and treatments on vigor of sorghum plants Jerseyville, IL Click to edit Master text styles Plant vigor 7.0 6.5 Second level 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 Third level UTC V3 Fourth level Treated UTS + seed with One AC140DC (TS) R2» Fifth level TS +One UTS + Two and V3- V4 TS +Two spary at and V3- V4 UTS + Three, V3-V4 and R1-R2 TS + Three, V3-V4 and R1-R2 1. Early plant vigor was significantly better in the plots with 3 of the 7 seed and treatments (UTS+V2, UTS+V2,V4, TS+V2) compared to UTC. Growth was also better in the other 4 treatments compared to UTC but the difference was not statistically significant. 2. Late plant vigor was significantly better in the plots with 5 of the 7 seeds and treatments (UTS+V2, UTS+V2,V4, TS+V2, TS+V2,V4, TS+V2,V4,R2) compared to UTC. Growth was also better in the other 4 treatments compared to UTC but the difference was not statistically significant. 12/1/2016 20 Plant vigor 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.4 UTC V3 R2 Treated Seed Average of 4UTS and 4 TS treatments

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Plant vigor Jerseyville, IL trial Fourth level» Fifth level T1 Untreated check T4 = T1 + 12/1/2016 T5 A140DC Treated seeds T8 = T5 + spray 21 at

Click to edit Master title style Plant vigor 24 days after last spray Jerseyville, MO Aug 11, 2016 Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level T7» Fifth level T8 T5 T8 T8 T5 T5 Clear difference in plots with treatment 8 and 5. T5 is only seed treatment, and T8 12/1/2016 is seed treatment and three sprays. 22

Click to edit Master title style Effect of seed and treatments on grain yield of soybean Jerseyville, IL Click to edit 70 Master text styles 65 Second level Yield (Bushels/ acre) 60 Third level 55 Fourth 52.8a level 60.7bc 50» Fifth level 58.2ab 62.7bc 59.1ab 62.0bc 60.6bc 67.1c 45 UTC Treated seed with AC140DC (TS) UTS + One TS +One UTS + Two and V3-V4 TS +Two spary at and V3-V4 UTS + Three TS + Three, V3-V4, V3-V4 and R1-R2 and R1-R2 1. A140DC seed treatment showed statistically significant differences with UTC, with relative yield increase of 7.9 bushels (15%) over UTC. 2. Combination of seed and treatments presented higher yield response compared to their individual treatments alone. 3. Combination involving seed treatment and 3 applications (at V2, V4 and R2) gave the best response with yield increase of 14.3 bushels (27%) over UTC. This treatment also increased yield by 6.4 bushels (12%) over the seed treatment alone. 12/1/2016 27

Click to edit Master title style Effect of seed and treatments on sorghum grain yield Jerseyville Click to edit Master text styles 125 Second level yield (Bushels/ Acre) 130 120 Third 115 level 110 Fourth level 105 100 95 100.7a 108.0ab» Fifth level 120.0c 123.4c 117.8bc 119.3bc 119.0bc 125.4c 90 UTC Treated seed with AC140DC (TS) UTS + One TS +One V1- V2 UTS + Two TS +Two spary at V1- and V3- V2 and V3-V4 V4 UTS + Three, V3-V4 and R1-R2 TS + Three, V3-V4 and R1-R2 1. Seed treatment with A140DC increased the yield by 7.3 bushels/acre (7%) over UTC but this increase was not statistically significant. 2. Foliar treatments of A140DC also showed significant difference with UTC with relative yield increase of 17.1 to 19.73bushels/acre (17% to 19%) over UTC. 3. Combination of seed and treatments presented higher yield response compared to these treatments alone. 4. Combination involving seed treatment and 3 applications (at V2, V4 and R2) gave the best response with yield increase of 24.7 bushels/acre (25%) over UTC and 17.4 bushels (17%) over seed treatment alone. 12/1/2016 28

Click to edit Master title style Effect of seed and treatments on soybean grain quality Jerseyville, IL Click to edit Master text styles Second level Treatments Protein % Third level Total fat % 12/1/2016 30 1000 kernel wt (g) UTC 42.1 20.6 173.4 UTS + One 40.8 21.0 175.6 UTS + Two spray sat and V3-V4 40.8 20.8 173.6 UTS + Three sprays at, V3-V4 and R1-R2 40.9 20.9 173.4 Fourth level Treated seed with AC140DC (TS) 40.2 20.7 168.0 TS +One 40.3 21.2 168.9» Fifth level TS +Two spray sat and V3-V4 40.7 20.7 169.2 TS + Three sprays at, V3-V4 and R1-R2 40.5 21.4 172.9 LSD at P=0.05 0.81 0.6 7.0 F value 4.4** 0.18 - NS 1.29 - NS P value 0.001 0.102 0.285 CV % 1.12 1.62 2.32 1. No significant effect of any treatment on the total fat and 1000 kernel weight compared to UTC. 2. Numerically total fat was more in the seeds from the plots with treated seeds and three applications compared to UTC. 3. Protein and Kernel weight was more in UTC compared to most of the treatments.

42.5 Click to edit Master title style Effect of seed and treatments on soybean grain quality Jerseyville, IL 42.0 21.4 41.5 Click to edit Master text styles 21.2 Protein % 41.0 40.5 40.0 39.5 39.0 Second level UTC Third level Treated seed with AC140DC (TS) TS +One UTS + TS +Two Fourth level Two UTS + One and V3-,» Fifth level and V3- V4 178.0 176.0 174.0 spary at V4 UTS + Three V3-V4 and R1- R2 TS + Three, V3-V4 and R1- R2 Total fat % 21.6 21.0 20.8 20.6 20.4 20.2 UTC Treated seed with AC140DC (TS) UTS + One TS +One UTS + Two and V3- V4 TS +Two spary at and V3- V4 UTS + Three, V3-V4 and R1- R2 TS + Three, V3-V4 and R1- R2 Kernel wt (g) 172.0 170.0 168.0 166.0 164.0 UTC Treated seed with AC140DC (TS) UTS + One TS +One UTS + Two and V3- TS +Two spary at and V3-V4 UTS + Three, V3-V4 V4 and R1-R2 12/1/2016 31 TS + Three, V3-V4 and R1-R2

Click to edit Master title style Effect of seed and treatments on sorghum grain quality Jerseyville, IL Click to edit Master text styles Second level Treatments Protein % Third level Total starch % 12/1/2016 32 1000 kernel wt (g) UTC 11.1 72.4 30.0 UTS + One 10.9 74.0 29.1 UTS + Two sprays at and V3-V4 11.0 73.0 29.5 UTS + Three sprays at, V3-V4 and R1-R2 11.1 71.2 29.2 Fourth level Treated seed with AC140DC (TS) 11.2 73.4 28.5 TS +One 11.0 73.5 28.7» Fifth level TS +Two sprays at and V3-V4 11.1 72.6 29.1 TS + Three sprays at, V3-V4 and R1-R2 10.9 73.5 28.4 LSD at P=0.05 0.4 1.4 1.0 F value 0.5 - NS 3.0* 2.2 - NS P value 0.855 0.014 0.061 CV % 2.1 1.1 2.0 1. Numerically protein was more in the seeds from the plots with treated seeds compared to UTC but this difference was not statistically significant. 2. Total starch was numerically more in the seeds from the plots with treated seeds alone or in combinations with applications compared to UTC. 3. No significant effect of any treatment on protein and 1000 kernel weight compared to UTC

Protein % Click to edit Master title style Effect of seed and treatments on sorghum grain quality Jerseyville, IL 11.3 11.2 11.2 Click to edit Master text styles 74.5 74.0 11.1 11.1 11.0 11.0 10.9 10.9 10.8 10.8 10.7 Second level UTC Treated seed with AC140DC (TS) Third level UTS + One Fourth level TS +One UTS + Two spary at» Fifth and and level V3-V4 Kernel wt (g) TS +Two V3-V4 30.5 30.0 29.5 29.0 28.5 28.0 27.5 UTS + Three, V3-V4 and R1-R2 UTC TS + Three, V3-V4 and R1-R2 Treated seed with AC140DC (TS) UTS + One spray at TS +One spray at 73.5 73.0 72.5 72.0 71.5 71.0 70.5 70.0 69.5 12/1/2016 33 Total starch % UTS + Two spray at and V3-V4 UTC TS +Two spary at and V3-V4 Treated seed with AC140DC (TS) UTS + Three, V3- V4 and R1- R2 UTS + One TS + Three spray at, V3-V4 and R1-R2 TS +One UTS + Two and V3- V4 TS +Two spary at and V3- V4 UTS + Three, V3-V4 and R1- R2 TS + Three, V3-V4 and R1- R2

NN-Magentar WHEAT AND BARLEY RESULTS South America 2016

26-12-2016 1) Objective. - Measure under field conditions, yield and biomass changes for the use of MAGNETAR in wheat and barley crops. 2) Trial design and analysis. - Paired plots with the following treatments: 1) Commercial control. 2) MAGNETAR 3 applications (1 seed + 2 during crop development) (time of application Z 12 and Z 30) already applied 3) MAGNETAR 4 applications (1 seed + 3 during crop development). (time of application Z 12, Z 30 and Z 60) 4) MAGNETAR 4 applications (1 seed + 3 during crop development) and 15% less agrichemicals and fertilizers. Until now, only 15% less fertilizer was applied. - Design in field (7 plots, control is used to correct environmental gradient) Control MAGNETAR 3 applications Control MAGNETAR 4 applications Control MAGNETAR 4 applications <15% Control Note: Z 12 = Three leaves; Z 30 = beginning of stem elongation; Z 60 = beginning of earing. - In each plot, we measure 5 times each variable. - For the statistical analysis, we used a design of paired control to correct environmental gradient of site. We used a mixed model and Gaussian correlation to adjust result to environmental gradient using controls. Then we used LSD test to separate means of each variable. - The analysis was done withy R software. 3) Measurements. - Plant population. - Biomass accumulation at the beginning of elongation (Z 30), flowering (Z 60) and harvest. - Differences in pests and weeds during the crop cycle (data no show as no differences were detected).

4) Results. 4.1) Plant population. - At the emergency of the crop the only treatment applied was seed treatment. - No differences were detected in barley between treatment (P< 0,3990), but a small difference where detected for wheat (P< 0,0001). - In wheat trial MAGNETAR application have around 10% more plant than control treatment. 250 200 Barley 196 a 193 a Plant Population (pl m -2 ) Plant population (pl m -2 ) 150 100 50 0 300 250 200 150 100 50 Control 200 b Wheat MAGNETAR at seed 219 a 0 Control MAGNETAR at seed Figure 1. Plant population per treatment. Means with common letter are not significantly different (P> 0.05).

Biomass acumulation - Z 30 (kg ha -1 ) Biomass acumulation - Z30 (kg ha -1 ) 4.2) Biomass accumulation at the beginning of elongation (Z 30). - No statistically differences were detected between treatment for barley (P< 0,1909) and wheat (P< 0,1413). - Although treatments with MAGNETAR tend to have about 31% and 22% more biomass than control for wheat and barley respectively. - In turn crops with MAGNETAR have a better visual aspect, especially at the beginning of elongation (Image 1). 1000 900 Barley 800 700 600 500 400 300 609 a 793 a 807 a 200 100 0 2500 Control MAGNETAR MAGNETAR <15% Fertilizer Wheat 2000 1500 1000 1680 a 2085 a 2031 a 500 0 Control MAGNETAR MAGNETAR <15% Fertilizer Figure 2. Biomass accumulation at the beginning of elongation. Means with common letter are not significantly different (P> 0.05).

BARLEY Magnetar Control WHEAT Control Magnetar Control Image 1. Trials at beginning of elongation. 4.3) Biomass accumulation at the beginning of flowering (Z 60). - No statistically differences were detected between treatment for barley (P<0,6879) and wheat (P<0,3968). - For barley, treatments with MAGNETAR tend to have about 6% more biomass than control. - For wheat, as biomass accumulation was higher at this stage, and therefore nutrients demand, treatment with less fertilizer, tend to accumulate less biomass, independently of MAGNETAR. - For this crop, if we compare treatments with full fertilization, MAGNETAR treatment tend to accumulate 8% more biomass than control.

Biomass acumulation - Z60 (kg ha-1) Biomass acumulation - Z 60 (kg ha -1 ) 6000 Barley 5000 4000 3000 2000 4789 a 5064 a 5089 a 1000 0 Control MAGNETAR MAGNETAR <15% Fertilizer 10000 9000 Wheat 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 7552 a 8176 a 7199 a 2000 1000 0 Control MAGNETAR MAGNETAR <15% Fertilizer Figure 3. Biomass accumulation at the beginning of flowering. Means with common letter are not significantly different (P> 0.05). 4.4) Grain yields. - For barley, where detected statistical differences between treatment (P<0.001). - Barley s yield where low consider that is a trial, and this is a consequence of the bad weather conditions at the beginning of trial. - The MAGNETAR treatment with 3 application obtain the maximum yield.

Grain yield (kg ha -1 ) - The treatment with MAGNETAR application and less fertilizer obtain the lowest yield. - The fourth application of Magnetar don t rise yields, maybe as consequence of late application (Z 60), but counterparty, have less yields as 3 application treatment without a clear explanation of results. 4500 4000 Barley 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 2993 c 3720 a 3138 b 2316 d 500 0 Figure 4. Barley grain yield. Means with common letter are not significantly different (P> 0.05). - For wheat yield, statistical differences were detected (P< 0,0228). - As well as barley, the treatment with 3 applications have the maximum yield and the application of less fertilizer with MAGNETAR have the minimum yield. - In the relation to control, MAGNETAR (3 applications) was 8% higher yields (426 kg ha -1 ).

Grain yield (kg ha -1 ) 7000 Wheat 6000 5000 4000 3000 5372 b 5798 a 5588 ab 5447 ab 2000 1000 0 Control Magnetar (3 application) Magnetar (4 application) MAGNETAR (4 application) - < 15% Figure 5. Wheat grain yield. Means with common letter are not significantly different (P> 0.05). 5) Total biomass and numeric yield components. - For barley crops, differences in yield were consequence of changes in grain number, the number of spikes and total biomass accumulate at harvest. - For wheat, statistical yield differences, were no explain directly by a variable, as no differences in numerical yield components. Although, the greatest treatment yield, tend to have more total biomass, more spikes and number of grains.

Table 1. Total biomass and numeric yield components for barley and wheat crops. Barley Treatmeant Total Biomass (kg ha -1 ) Spikes m -2 Grain number m -2 Grain weight (gr) Control 9751 ab 409 a 6938 b 47,0 MAGNETAR (3 10105 a 423 a 7983 a 48,2 MAGNETAR (4 9561 ab 402 ab 6702 c 46,9 MAGNETAR (4 app.) - < 15% 8507 b 347 b 5106 c 46,0 P-value 0,0997 0,0033 <0,0001 0,2345 Wheat Control 14921 419 15080 35,7 MAGNETAR (3 15684 465 16217 36,0 MAGNETAR (4 15316 431 15976 36,0 MAGNETAR (4 application) - 14526 391 15395 36,0 P-value 0,1614 0,1837 0,4438 0,9096 6) Final comments. - Application of MAGNETAR achieved the greater yield in barley and wheat crops (24% and 8% of increase). - The better treatment was the application of MAGNETAR in three times (seed + Z12 + Z30). - The treatment with application at the beginning of flowering, keep a lower yield without a clear explanation. - Differences were magnified in the more stressed crop (barley) in field. - Differences in yield as consequence of MAGNETAR treatment, were construct with small but a consistent more growth, that determine better condition for crops at grain formation stage. - These results must be re-tested in different years and conditions, but show a MAGNETAR as a possible technology to incorporate in local crops systems, especially in stressful environmental.

Universal Bio Program Field test summary Mineral fertilizer Magnetar and soy beans-south America- 2016 Tests made on three different test sites. Season was very poor with heavy rains reducing normal yields with up to two thirds. Seed treatment with Magnetar, 15gr / 100Kg seed Foliar treatments with Magnetar 150gr / hectare Site A Control Sample Site A Magnetar 3 (V1-2, V5, R1) Yield kg / ha Treatment 2,067 No Magnetar, regular fertiliser program 2,391 Magnetar Foliar Magnetar treatment at stages V1-2, V5, R1 +reg fertilizer program Site B Control Sample Site B Magnetar Seed, 2 (V1-2, V5) 1,642 No Magnetar, regular fertiliser programs 2,242 Magnetar Seed treatment and treatment at stages V1-2, V5 + regular fertiliser programs. Site C Control Sample Site C Magnetar Seed, 3 (V1-2, V5, R1) 1,135 No Magnetar, regular fertiliser programs. 1,819 Magnetar Seed treatment and treatment at stages V1-2, V5, R1 + regular fertiliser programs. www.northernnutrients.com email: info@northernnutrients.com P: 1-305-809-7185

Results: With three treatments and no seed treatment: +324kg (+15.6%) With seed treatment + two treatments +600kg (+36.5%) With seed treatment + three treatments : +684kg (+60.2%) A-R egular Co ntrol A-Magnetar 3 no seed B- R egular Co ntrol B-Magnetar Seed + 2 C Regular control C Magnetar Seed + 3 Foliar 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 www.northernnutrients.com email: info@northernnutrients.com P: 1-305-809-7185

Northern Nutrients email: info@northernnutrients.com Universal Bio Program Field test summary Mineral fertilizer NN-Magnetar and soy beans South America 2015 Seed treatment with NN-Magnetar, 15gr / 100Kg seed Foliar treatments with NN-Magnetar 150gr / hectare Mass 1000 Yield kg / ha Treatment Control Sample 147.8 3,083 Regular fertiliser program Magnetar Seed 151.8 3,249 Magnetar Seed treatment + regular fertiliser Magnetar Seed, 1 151.6 3,362 program MAGNETAR Seed treatment, MAGNETAR treatment at R1 +reg fertilizer (R1) Magnetar Seed, 2 (R1, V5) 151.6 3,669 stage MAGNETAR R1 + regular Seet treatment, fertiliser program MAGNETAR treatment at R1 + V5 + reg fertilizer stages R1, V5 + regular fertiliser program. Results: With only one seed treatment the yield increase was:+166kg (+5.38%) With seed treatment + one treatment the yield increase was: +279kg (+9.04%) With seed treatment + two treatments the yield increase wa +586kg (+19.11%) R egular Co ntrol Magnetar S eed Magnetar S eed + R1 Magnetar Seed+ R1+ V5 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Plot test summary Mineral fertilizer NN-Magnetar and sugar beet by Sugar beet Research Center 2016 Three-year (2016-2018) test. Strip test 2x48m Test 1-3 were all using same fertilizer and herbicide program. Yield kg / ha Treatment 1, Control 34,309 No Magnetar 2, In-Furrow treatment 42,007 1% Magnetar solution at sowing 3, Foliar treatment 39,046 3 treatment 0.075% Magnetar solution 4, Foliar treatment, reduced herbicide 31,908 3 treatment 0.075% Magnetar solution with 25% reduction of herbicide agents *. Results: 2 In-Furrow treatment +7,698kg (+22.4%) 3 Foliar treatment +4,737kg (+12.1%) 4 Foliar treatment -25% herbicide: Poor performing part of field and no proper control. But encouraging results by the accounts of the testing party and tests will continue during the coming two years with separate control. * For 2016 test, no control with reduced herbicide usage www.northernnutrients.com

Field test summary Magnetar and winter rapeseed-eastern Europe Trial had two test sites. One larger 2x2ha and one smaller 2x1ha with two test plots. The smaller test site suffered from heavy winter damage on plot 1 not experienced in the control field. The larger test site had similar plantstand to its control field. Yields were harvester measured. Tests were done without seed treatment and four treatments. Foliar treatments 1 Magnetar 100gr/ha + Regular program (Delfan Plus, Tradebor, Caryx Biscaya) 2 Magnetar 120gr/ha + Regular program (Ruuter AA) 3 Magnetar0 120gr/ha + Regular program (Tradebor, Delfan Plus, Magnesium sulfate, Biscaya, Tilmor, Spray Plus) 4 Magnetar 100gr/ha + Regular program (Magnesium sulfate, Cantus Gold) Yield kg / ha Oil % Water % Treatment Seed Oil F1 Control 4,700 1.908 40.6 14.8 No Magnetar, regular fertiliser/protection program F1 Magnetar 5,300 2.178 41.1 14.1 Control + Magnetar treatment at 1, Autumn rosette phase 2, Spring beginning of vegetation 3, 28 days after 2 nd spray 4, 10 days after 3 rd spray F2 Control 4,800 2,016 42.0 10.7 No Magnetar, regular fertiliser/protection program F2-1 Magnetar 4,700 N/A N/A N/A Control + Magnetar treatment at stages 1, Autumn rosette phase 2, Spring beginning of vegetation 3, 28 days after 2 nd spray 4, 10 days after 3 rd spray F2-2 Magnetar 4,900 2,067 42.2 10.2 Control + Magnetar treatment at stages 1, Autumn rosette phase 2, Spring beginning of vegetation 3, 28 days after 2 nd spray 4, 10 days after 3 rd spray * Waiting for release confirmation

Plot test summary winter Rapeseed, 2017 Results: With four Magnetar treatments and no seed treatment: +600/270kg (+12.8%/+14.2%) With four Magnetar treatments with severe winter damage test fields - +100/51kg (+2.1%/2.5%) F1 Control F2 Control F2 Magnetar F1 Magnetar F1 Control F2 Control F2 Magnetar F1 Magnetar

Plot test summary Mineral fertiliser Magnetar / Magnetar-B and winter rapeseed with The Rural Economy and Agricultural Societies, Grästorp, Sweden. Tests made on one test site with two rows and six repetitions. Season was in general fair. Trials was only made with two later stage treatments Foliar treatments with Magnetar 150gr / hectare per treatment. Magnetar multipurpose complex. Foliar treatments with Magnetar-B 300gr / hectare per treatment. Magnetar-B multipurpose complex with additional chelated Boron. Yield kg / ha Stem Oil % Water % Treatment strength Seed Oil (0-100) Row 0 4,540 2,171 81 52.6 13.7 No Magnetar, regular fertiliser/protection program Control Row 1Mag- 4,934 2,348 88 52.3 14 Control + Magnetar treatment at stages netar DC51-53 and DC57-59. Row 2 Mag- 4,783 2,307 92 53.0 13.7 Control + Magnetar treatment DC51-53 netar + Magnetar-B and Magnetar-B treatment in DC57-59

Plot test summary winter Rapeseed, Swedish Rural Economy and Agricultural Societies, Grästorp, Sweden 2017 Results: With two Magnetar treatments and no seed treatment: +394/177kg (+8.7%/+8.2%) With one Magnetar and one Magnetar-B treatments and no seed treatment +243/136kg (+5.4%/6.3%) Control Magnetar & Magnetar-B Magnetar Control Magnetar & Magnetar-B Magnetar