Improving Farm Income and Rural Communities
Through Value-Added Agriculture
Results of the 2001 On-farm Research Program
for Value-Enhanced Corn and Soybeans[1]
Compiled by Emerson D. Nafziger, Michael D. Roegge,
James A. Morrison, and Robert C. Bellm
During the 2001 growing season, on-farm trials were carried out at 68 locations in 36 Illinois counties to compare yields and expected economic returns from different value-enhanced corn hybrids and soybean varieties. The objective was to compile yield data and related information on cultivars with different value-enhanced traits, and to compare these specialty crops with conventional elite hybrids and varieties under the same conditions. These trials were conducted under a range of locations and conditions, which should make the results useful to producers in different part of the state. Producers can utilize these findings as a useful indicator to assess the performance and potential economic returns of these value-enhanced crops within their own farming operation. However, weather conditions and other factors may affect the predictability of future performance.
The locations of the 37 corn trials are shown on the enclosed map. Trial locations included 15 corn hybrids that were planted in 9 locations in Northern Illinois, 15 corn hybrids at 19 locations in Central Illinois and 11 corn hybrids at 9 locations in Southern Illinois. A comparable map is included for the soybean trials, including 10 varieties planted at 9 locations in Northern Illinois, 9 varieties at 16 locations in Central Illinois, and 4 varieties at 7 locations in Southern Illinois. The specific hybrids and varieties evaluated in each region are listed below:
Northern Illinois
Corn Hybrids: Conventional – Golden Harvest GH 8562, Syngenta 59Q9; Nutritionally Dense – Adler 2750NM, DEF SR 470; Hard Endosperm – Golden Harvest GH 8250, QTI QC9664, Pioneer 33G26; White – Pioneer 34P93, Syngenta Z76; High Starch – Pioneer 3335, QTI QC4935, Syngenta N58-F4; Waxy – Monsanto DK604, Kaltenberg 5901, Pioneer 34H98.
Soybean Varieties: Conventional – Syngenta S25J5, Kaltenberg 201; High Isoflavone – Public Jack, Public Dwight; Tofu – Syngenta S24-12, Kaltenberg 253; High Protein – Adler 285FG, QTI Rina, Public Savoy; High Oil – QTI Julie.
Central Illinois
Corn Hybrids: Conventional – Golden Harvest 9229; Lewis 4137, Burrus 440; Nutritionally Dense – Lewis ND 5001, DEF/Crows SR 470; Hard Endosperm – Golden Harvest 9345, Burrus 582, Quality Traders QC 4933, Pioneer 33G26; White – Pioneer 32Y52, Asgrow 776W;
High Starch – Pioneer 3335, Burrus 663, Quality Traders QC 4935; Waxy – Pioneer 33A63.
Soybean Varieties: Conventional – Lewis 372, Pioneer 93B82, HiSoy 3391; High Isoflavone – Golden Harvest 1383, Asgrow A3244; Tofu – Adler 350FG, Pioneer 9305; High Oil – Quality Traders Julie; High Protein – Quality Traders 3950.
Southern Illinois
Corn Hybrids: Conventional – Golden Harvest H-9229; Nutritionally Dense – DEF SR660; Hard Endosperm – QTI QC 4933, Pioneer 33G26, Golden Harvest H-9345, Burrus 789; White – Pioneer 32Y52; High Starch QTI QC 4935, Pioneer 3335, Burrus 569; Waxy – Pioneer 33A63. Soybean Varieties: Conventional – Bergman-Taylor BT 436C, Lewis 420; High Protein – QTI 435SN; Tofu – Adler 350FG.
The hybrids and varieties chosen were selected to represent specific output traits, but the number of individual entries was limited due to plot size constraints on the number of strips at each site. Corn hybrids and soybean varieties were planted and harvested using farmer’s equipment, and strips ranged from about 100 to some 1000 feet in length, and 8 to 16 rows (20 to 40 ft.) wide. Where possible, strips were harvested from the centers of plots to allow for border rows between harvested strips. Corn hybrids were planted at 28,000 to 30,000 seeds per acre. Soybean varieties were planted at about 175,000 seeds per acre, but somewhat lower for the tofu varieties. All other crop inputs followed each farmer’s specific management practices.
Locations covered a range of different soil types and productivity ratings. The locations for the value-enhanced corn and soybean trials carried out in 2001 are displayed on the maps below. All trials were planted in a timely manner due to favorable planting conditions. In general, the growing conditions were good and yields were average to above-average at most locations. Population counts taken at harvest showed fairly good stands, and few differences among entries in plant population. Grain samples were analyzed for a number of quality traits, including protein, oil, and (corn) starch content.
|
 |
Results
The 2001 growing season was relatively favorable in most areas of Illinois, with crop yields ranging from average in Northern Illinois, where there was some dryness, to above-average in Southern Illinois, which experienced above average growing conditions in most areas. The results from the value-enhanced corn and soybean trials are presented in Tables 1 and 2 below.
These findings are based on the combined average for each type of value-enhanced crop over all locations within each region. The additional value (or loss) for each type of value-enhanced crop has been computed based on the average, statewide premiums for 2001 (Source: 2001 USDA-Illinois Department of Agriculture Market News Value Enhanced Grain Survey). It is important to note that premiums vary at different locations across the state and for some specific hybrids/varieties within a category (e.g. clear hilum or tofu-type soybeans). Also, premiums for some value-enhanced crops were lower in 2001.
The LSD values given are for comparison between individual entries. Applying them to group averages should be conservative; differences that are greater than the LSD value were likely “real,” and not due to random variability. Such differences should occur under similar production conditions in the future. Results from the 2000 value-enhanced corn and soybean trials have been included in Appendix A for your convenience in comparing yearly on-farm research results.
As you use these results, keep in mind that the hybrids and varieties included in these trials were nominated by seed company representatives and then selected by the research team to represent different types of value-enhanced corn or soybeans. In so doing, it is impossible to have enough information to accurately choose “average” or “representative” entries for each category. Still, we believe these results reasonably represent the performance of the different types, at least relative to one another. We recommend that producers supplement these findings with data from other sources, since these comparisons cannot accurately predict how a particular hybrid or variety might perform on their farm.
Table 1: 2001 Value-enhanced Corn Trial Results[2]
Characteristic
Protein %
Oil
%
Yield
Bu/Acre
2001
Premium
Cents/Bu
Adjusted Gross Income[3]
Added
Value$/Acre
@$2.00/bu
Northern Illinois (9 locations)
Conventional (2) [4]
9.1
4.5
161.6
124.20
Nutritionally Dense (2)
9.2
5.2
138.3
.25
106.18
– 18.02
Hard Endosperm (3)
9.3
4.6
152.4
.11
122.56
– 1.64
White (2)
9.7
4.7
117.6
.28
77.13
– 47.07
High Starch (3)
8.8
4.1
156.4
.10
129.44
5.24
Waxy (3)
9.3
4.3
143.6
.15
109.74
– 14.46
Average
9.2
4.5
145.7
LSD 0.10
0.2
0.1
6.8
Central Illinois (19 locations)
Conventional (3)
9.0
4.7
171.6
144.20
Nutritionally Dense (2)
9.1
5.2
148.3
.25
128.68
– 15.52
Hard Endosperm (4)
9.0
4.6
164.5
.11
148.10
3.90
White (2)
9.4
4.6
155.6
.28
163.77
19.57
High Starch (3)
8.6
4.4
164.1
.10
145.61
1.41
Waxy (1)
9.0
3.9
161.5
.15
148.23
4.03
Average
9.0
4.6
162.5
LSD 0.10
0.3
0.2
6.6
Southern Illinois (9 locations)
Conventional (1)
9.6
4.6
167.2
135.40
Nutritionally Dense (1)
8.1[5]
5.2
140.7
.25
111.58
– 23.82
Hard Endosperm (4)
9.2
4.4
166.4
.11
152.10
16.70
White (1)
9.3
4.3
161.5
.28
177.22
41.82
High Starch (3)
8.8
4.0
164.5
.10
146.45
11.05
Waxy (1)
9.0
3.5
156.8
.15
138.12
2.72
Average
9.0
4.3
162.3
LSD 0.10
0.3
0.1
7.8
Table 2: 2001 Value-enhanced Soybean Trial Results[6]
Characteristic
Protein
%
Oil
%
Yield
Bu/Acre
2001
Premium
Cents/Bu
Adjusted
Gross Income
Added Value$/Acre
@$4.40/bu
Northern Illinois (9 locations)
Conventional (2)
36.3
18.9
54.0
122.60
High Isoflavone (2)
34.4
18.9
52.3
.25
128.20
5.60
Tofu (2)
34.6
19.8
50.6
1.00
158.24
35.64
High Protein (3)
37.4
18.0
50.4
.30
121.88
– .72
High Oil (1)
35.3
18.5
54.2
.08
127.82
5.22
Average
35.8
18.7
51.2
LSD 0.10
0.6
0.3
2.2
Central Illinois (15 locations)
Conventional (3)
36.3
18.8
51.3
110.72
High Isoflavone (2)
35.5
18.6
52.3
.25
128.20
17.48
Tofu (2)
36.3
19.0
43.3
1.00
118.82
8.10
High Protein (1)
35.2
18.8
49.9
.30
119.53
8.81
High Oil (1)
35.3
18.8
48.6
.08
102.73
– 7.99
Average
35.9
18.8
49.7
LSD 0.10
0.4
0.2
2.7
Southern Illinois (7 locations)
Conventional (2)
36.4
18.5
48.8
99.72
STS (1)
35.2
18.9
44.7
.20
103.62
3.90
Tofu (1)
37.1
19.1
41.4
1.00
108.56
8.84
Average
36.3
18.8
44.9
LSD 0.10
0.3
0.2
2.8
Discussion
The results from these trials show some rather large negative incomes from producing some types of value-enhanced corn, though the only consistent income decrease across regions was for “nutritionally dense” corn hybrids. White corn showed a rather large decrease in income in Northern Illinois, but very positive returns in Central and Southern Illinois during 2001, reflecting the overall improvement of white corn hybrids that are suitable for the central and southern parts of the state. Other income differences reflect either higher seed or other production costs, or the fact that some hybrids appear to be less-developed agronomically, with lower yield potential. Yields of value-enhanced soybean types tended to be closer to those of “conventional” varieties in 2001 and, as a result, many of these value-enhanced types showed a positive income potential relative to conventional soybean varieties.
In general, protein and oil contents of both corn and soybeans tended to change as expected. While we measured corn starch using NIR and not with tests for “extractable” starch, starch levels (not shown) tended to be higher in high-starch hybrids, reflecting lower protein and oil content. Also, it appears that high starch may in general be related to higher yields. The oil levels of nutritionally dense hybrids were consistently high, but protein levels were not; this result is surprising and not in agreement with results from previous years. It is possible that the NIR calibration that we used may not have accurately picked up protein in these hybrids, especially if they had a different amino acid profile. Even so, the lower yield potential of these hybrids continues to be a concern.
Acknowledgements:
The Value Project acknowledges the contributions and support provided by the following growers who participated in these on-farm trials, including: Dean and David Dedert, Adams County; Greenville FFA, Bond County; Charlie Snyder, Brown County; Karl and Mark Schultz, Bureau County; Marvin and Randell Johnson/ Cory Mitchell/Gifford State Bank, Glen Hartman, Bob Dunker/U of I Research Center, and University of Illinois South Farm, Champaign County; Tom Hogg, Clinton County; Dave and Mark Shupe/Shupe Ag Research, Cumberland County; Eric Lawler/Babson Farms and Lyle Paul/U of I Agronomy Research Center, DeKalb County; Busey Bank, DeWitt County; Delbert and Norbert Soltwedal, Effingham County; Adam Anderson/U of I Brownstown Agricultural Research Center, Fayette County; Curt Oldfield/Spoon River College, Fulton County; Larry and Allen Keim, Greene County; Doug Foss, Grundy County; Allen Berry/CPS, Hancock County; Rend Lake College, Jefferson County; Howard Sincox and Wayne Simmons, JoDaviess County; Beck Farms/Ken and Art Beck, LaSalle County; Dennis Boynton, Dan Hembrough, and Barry Sutton, Lee County; Kyle Miller/ Prairie Central FFA, Livingston County; U of I Extension, Logan County; Tom Connors, Art Leeffers, and Litchfield High School, Macoupin County; Dan Duval, Mason County; Darrel Ellis/Lee Crop Care and Jerry Vigue/WIU, McDonough County; Dale Haudrick, Monroe County; John Six and Edward Dufelmeier, Morgan County; Jeff Cappel and Bill Horst, Ogle County; Doug Gucker, Piatt County; Sam White, Glenn Raines/U of I Research Center, and University of Illinois Orr Center, Pike County; Steve Ebelhar/U of I Dixon Springs Agricultural Center, Pope County; Greg Guenther and Henry White Experimental Farm, St. Clair County; Lincoln Land Community College, Sangamon County; Tom Scheider, Stephenson County; Robin Harlin/Armstrong High School FFA and Lester Frerichs, Vermilion County; University of Illinois Monmouth Center, Allison Research Farm, and Eric Adee/U of I Research Center, Warren County; Loren Tenboer, Whiteside County; Eric Farrend/Joliet Junior College, Will County; Stanley Grebner and Jim and John Wiegand, Woodford County.
Emerson Nafziger, Professor of Crop Science, supervised this on-farm trial program and analyzed the data from these trials. Michael Roegge, Cropping Systems Educator from the Adams/Brown County Unit Office; Jim Morrison, Cropping Systems Educator from the Rockford Extension Center; and Robert Bellm, Cropping Systems Educator from the Edwardsville Extension Center; coordinated this on-farm research program in cooperation with Extension colleagues from throughout Illinois. These colleagues included: Aaron Dufelmeier, Morgan County; Bill Brink, Springfield Extension Center; Pete Fandel, Woodford County; Pat Toohill, DeWitt County; Rhonda Ferree, Fulton County; Marion Shier, Livingston County; Trent Torrance, McDonough County; John Fulton, Logan County; Dennis Bowman, Champaign Extension Center; Rick Keim, Greene County; Roger Larson, Mason County; Eric Adee, Warren County; Joy Gulotta, DeKalb County; Dale Baird, Rockford Extension Center; Stan Eden, Ogle County; Greg Clark, Whiteside County; Ellen Phillips, Countryside Extension Center; Glen Hartman, Assistant Professor Soybean Pathology and Genetics, and Wayne Pedersen, Associate Professor of Soybean Disease Management, University of Illinois National Soybean Research Center; Don O. Frederick, Jasper/Cumberland Counties; Lynn Weis, Bond County; Charles (Ike) Leeper, Clinton County; Omar Koester, Monroe and Randolph Counties; Dennis Epplin, Mt. Vernon Extension Center; Tim Lattsch, Effingham County; Mark Maidak, JoDaviess County; Joe Schwamberger, Lee County; Russ Higgins, Matteson Extension Center.
The Value Project has developed fact sheets for more than 20 different types of value-enhanced corn and soybeans and has information on the location of different specialty corn and soybean markets in Illinois. These fact sheets and an up-to-date searchable database of specialty soybean and corn markets for 2002 can be found at the Value Project’s web site: http://web.aces.uiuc.edu/value/. In addition, the research team published a comprehensive research report in October 2001 on Value-Enhanced Corn and Soybean Production in Illinois. Producers who do not have Internet access can get these reports by contacting: Burton E. Swanson; Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 412 Munford Hall; 1301 West Gregory Drive; Urbana, IL 61801;Telephone: (217) 244-6978; Fax: (217) 333-5502; or by e-mail: swansonb@uiuc.edu
Table 3: 2000 Value-Enhanced Corn Trial Results
Characteristic
Protein %
Oil
%
Yield
Bu/Acre
2000
Premium
Cents/Bu
Adjusted Gross Income
Added Value
$/Acre
@$2.20/bu
Northern Illinois (8 locations)
Conventional (3)
8.9
4.1
185.0
203.00
Hard Endosperm (4)
8.8
4.1
172.0
.14
196.48
– 6.52
Waxy (2)
8.7
3.9
163.0
.17
180.31
– 22.69
High-Oil TC (2)
8.5
6.2
155.0
.12
142.60
– 60.40
White (1)
8.8
4.0
147.0
.22
160.74
– 42.26
Nutritionally Dense (2)
10.4
5.4
147.0
.13
127.51
– 75.49
High Protein (1)
8.9
5.7
165.0
High Extract. Starch (1)
8.6
4.0
184.0
.09
215.36
12.36
Average
8.9
4.6
166.0
LSD 0.10
0.2
0.2
10.0
Central Illinois (20 locations)
Conventional (4)
8.8
4.1
162.0
152.40
Hard Endosperm (4)
9.1
4.3
167.0
.14
184.78
32.38
Waxy (2)
8.9
4.0
158.0
.17
168.46
16.06
High-Oil TC (2)
9.3
7.5
151.0
.22
148.42
– 3.98
White (2)
9.1
4.2
162.0
.22
197.04
44.64
Nutritionally Dense (2)
10.5
5.4
134.0
.13
97.22
– 55.18
Average
9.2
4.6
157.0
LSD 0.10
0.5
0.3
9.0
Southern Illinois (4 locations)
Conventional (3)
8.5
4.3
159.1
146.02
Hard Endosperm (4)
8.5
4.3
144.9
.14
133.07
– 12.95
Waxy (1)
8.6
4.1
148.3
.17
145.47
– .55
High-Oil TC (2)
9.1
7.6
145.4
.22
134.87
– 11.15
White (3)
8.9
4.2
115.0
.22
83.30
– 62.72
Nutritionally Dense (2)
10.5
5.5
127.1
.13
81.14
– 64.88
Average
8.9
4.9
139.7
LSD 0.10
18.7
Characteristic
Protein
Oil
Yield
Bu/Acre
2000
Premium
Cents/Bu
Adjusted
Gross Income[8]
Added Value $/Acre
@$5.45/bu
Northern Illinois (12 locations)
Conventional (2)
39.5
19.4
46.8
138.06
STS (2)
39.2
19.4
46.2
.20
159.03
20.97
High Protein (1)
40.4
18.8
46.3
.25
146.91
8.85
Tofu (4)
40.4
18.8
42.7
.60
141.34
3.28
Average
40.4
19.1
44.4
LSD 0.10
0.5
0.4
1.4
Central Illinois (20 locations)
Conventional (3)
39.2
20.2
56.0
188.20
STS (1)
40.3
19.8
50.0
.20
180.50
– 7.70
High Isoflavone (2)
38.5
20.3
53.9
.20
187.54
– .66
Tofu (3)
41.0
19.6
44.5
.60
155.22
– 35.98
Natto (1)
39.3
18.9
43.9
1.60
198.50
10.30
Average
39.7
19.8
50.3
LSD 0.10
0.5
0.3
2.9
Southern Illinois (7 locations)
Conventional (1)
38.9
20.7
48.0
144.60
STS (1)
39.4
20.1
39.8
.20
122.87
– 21.73
Tofu (3)
40.2
20.5
37.9
.60
112.30
– 32.30
Average
39.8
20.5
40.1
LSD 0.10
3.5
[1] The 2001 on-farm research program was carried out under the auspices of the University of Illinois Extension with funding provided by the Illinois Council on Food and Agricultural Research (C-FAR). This program was organized under the Value Project as part of C-FAR’s Special Research Initiative on Rural Community Development. The Value Project seeks to improve farm incomes and rural communities through value-added agriculture.
[2] The added value/acre is based on the average yield for the conventional hybrids included in this trial and average statewide production costs for conventional corn as determined from Illinois Farm Business Farm Management records. Farmers should use their own production averages in determining if one of these value-enhanced crops will increase their profits on an acreage basis. These comparisons can be easily done by using the partial budget analysis calculators found on the Value Project’s website http://web.aces.uiuc.edu/value/factsheets/corn.htm for corn.
[3] The adjusted gross income is the gross income minus average variable production costs for each type of value-enhanced corn, excluding land costs.
[4] The number of corn hybrids that make up each type of value-enhanced corn.
[5] The relatively low protein level measured for this nutritionally dense hybrid in Southern Illinois was a surprise; this hybrid had higher oil content and we expected higher protein as well. It is possible that the standard NIR calibration did not respond to the amino acid profile of this hybrid, making the measurement lower than the actual protein level of this and other nutritionally dense hybrids included in these trials.
[6] The added value/acre is based on the average yield for conventional soybeans included in this trial and average statewide production costs for conventional soybeans as determined from Illinois Farm Business Farm Management records. Farmers should use their own production averages in determining if one of these value-enhanced crops will increase their profits on an acreage basis. These comparisons can be easily done by using the partial budget analysis calculators found at the Value Project’s website: http://web.aces.uiuc.edu/value/factsheets/soy.htm for soybeans.
[7] The adjusted gross income and added value/acre were determined in the same manner as for Tables 1 and 2.
[8] The adjusted gross income is the gross income minus average variable production costs for each type of value-enhanced soybeans, excluding land costs.