the Farm Journal Test Plot Narrow Row Corn Report - AgWeb

2009 Narrow Row Corn ReportINTRODUCTIONThe Farm Journal Test Plots were founded by Charlene Finck and Ken Ferrie in 1991. At the time, Finck was cropsand production editor for FARM JOURNAL magazine and Ferrie was starting his business as an independentagronomist in central Illinois. Together, their mission was to conduct third-party research to help farmers increasecrop yields and profitability. A critical part of the Test Plots was developing the core criteria and comprehensiveplot protocol used in each of the efforts.PROGRAM CRITERIASince its inception, the Test Plots program’s rigorous criteriahave been applied to every plot taken to yield and published inFARM JOURNAL. Each plot is overseen by Farm Journal FieldAgronomist Ken Ferrie, who develops additional, more specificprocedures for individual plots. Ferrie, a trained agronomist, hasa strong background in fertility, soils, machinery, chemistry,diseases, insects and herbicides.An extensive field history is compiled for each field before itis selected to be in the plot program. This history includes:■ Soil types■ Fertility and soil tests■ A record of manure applications, when applicable■ Crop rotations■ A record of past herbicide applications■ Assessment of disease, insect and other factors■ Soil density status■ Yield recordsBefore planting the plot, all equipment is checked for wear,mechanical soundness and accuracy. Meters are calibrated to theseed to be used; insecticide applicators are also calibrated. Allequipment is operated and set to conditions before the plotbegins. All companies participating in the plot have theopportunity to set their equipment or product before the plot isplanted. Throughout the study full access to the plots is availableto participating Test Plots Partners.When row spacings are a part of the plot or various plantingtechnologies are being used, great care is taken to make sure allmechanical factors that can impact yields are fair and/or equal.At planting, seeds are dug multiple times to make sure themachine(s) are performing correctly. The planting date,conditions, seed varieties, replications and other variables arerecorded. The plot is flagged as it is established to mark the fieldpositions. A map of the field is also drawn and filed.Emergence is monitored and multiple counts are taken atvarious crop stages. The field is scouted throughout the seasonfor insects and disease. In nutrient-related plots, nitrate tests aretaken. Rainfall and temperatures are monitored and recorded.Ear counts are taken before harvest. Each plot is harvestedwith a combine equipped with a calibrated yield monitor. Inaddition, the grain from each plot is weighed to verify theaccuracy of the monitor and make sure the accurate, rather thanrelative, yield data is recorded. Harvest losses are checkedbehind the combine.The yields are ground-truthed by Ferrie to attempt todetermine the agronomic reasons behind yield fluctuations anddocument what has happened. When the yield monitor resultsare scaled to match the weigh wagon results, the data is analyzedby soil type or yield zone. Any corrupt data is discarded.Every effort is made to position the plots in multiple locationsfor each year. All plots are planned as multi-year efforts.Spreading out the plots geographically and across crop yearsreduces the weather variability that a single location and yearmay present.The topics studied in the plots are sourced from numerousvoices in the industry–questions from farmers, reader requests,Ferrie himself and agricultural companies. The fertility, seedbed,inputs, planter operation, scouting and timeliness have to be ontarget to get all the details to add up to increased yields.NARROW ROW CORN TEST PLOTSTo date, for more than two decades Ferrie has worked withnarrow rows in row-crop production. The Farm Journal TestPlots effort to learn more about narrow row corn was launchedin 1999. Ferrie recognized narrow row corn’s potential to pushplanting populations without in-row crowding.“When adopting a new production practice, farmers need aTwo tractors equipped with automated steering madeplanting the replications faster and easier at TerryFerguson’s farm near Clinton, Ill. The tractors pulleda Great Plains precision drill and a custom-built GreatPlains twin-row plot planter for the variety plot.Conventional 30" row corn heads do not need any modifiationsto be used to harvest twin rows.Narrow Row Corn Report 01

clear goal of what they’re trying toaccomplish,” Ferrie says. “Theiragronomic base needs to be rocksolid, and they need to go about itcarefully.”1999 to 2002 The drive toplant narrow row corn withoutplacing the seed in tire tracks orhaving a tire run over the row ledthe first year’s effort (“Test PlotRoundup,” FARM JOURNAL, April2000). The test plot planter used wasspecially built by Great PlainsManufacturing and was able to plant30", 15" and 7" twin rows.Great care was taken to match thesprockets so the three row spacingswere planted at the same populations.To ensure accuracy, the plot crewcalibrated the finger-pickup meter for the seed, speed and rowspacing being used (“Two of a Kind,” Mid-February 2001).Since the planter used placed four of the 15" rows in tractorwheel tracks, the row spacing was taken out of the test plot(“Two by Two,” March 2002). Those rows resulted in reducedyield due to the unfair planting conditions.Within the 30" and twin rows, the study evaluated fourplanting populations: 28,000, 30,000, 32,000 and 36,000 plants peracre (ppa). Four sidedress rates were also evaluated: 0 lb., 60 lb.,90 lb. and 120 lb. on a base rate of 130 lb. of nitrogen. Ferrienoted his recommendation would be to increase the optimumpopulation for 30" rows by at least 2,000 plants per acre ifmoving from 30" rows to narrow rows. With nitrogen, the narrowrows were more efficient. The same amount of nitrogen producedmore bushels in the twins, which used 1.2 lb. of applied nitrogenper bushel, compared with 1.5 lb. for 30" rows.Wrapping up the initial three years of test plots, otherdifferences in the row spacings included:■ The twins outyielded the 30" spacing by 6 bu. to 22 bu. peracre compared with three-year average.■ Doubles resulted in aborted ears in all row spacings.■ Late-emerging plants ran into trouble in all row spacings.■ Being on 30" centers meant the twin rows could besidedressed, sprayed and harvested without special equipment.Yields at Peak Brothers Farm 2004Bu./Acre20520019519018518028,70029,90032,00033,600In the first year of twin rows at Peak Brothers, for thishybrid and plot conditions, yields climbed with the populationto 38,000 ppa and then started to trend down.Narrow Row Corn Report 02Planting PopulationThe Peak Brothers Farm near Springfield, Ill., provided the opportunity to comparetwin rows planted by a new Great Plains Yield-Pro planter with 16 paired rows andcorn planted by the farm’s 16-row, 30" planter.Twins36,00038,00040,00042,00044,00046,00048,000■ Both row spacings were harvested with a 30" corn head,and combine losses were checked for each plot.■ The ear counts for the twin and 30" corn were within 500 to600 for each population, but the twin-row ears filled better.■ The twin rows were seven days ahead of the 30" rows inclosing the canopy. Closing the canopy quicker helps retainmore soil moisture, but on the flip side it restricts air movementand can lead to a disease-prone environment.After the first three years, the effort built on the baseline data(“Twin Rows Take to the Field,” Mid-March 2003). A 60-mphwind and 3" of rain driving sideways at pollination nixed thechance for authoritative yield results. The wind laid flat alltreatments—30" rows and twins. Even though yields wereshortchanged, we harvested the plots—to salvage what waspossible for the cooperating farmer and to get a hint of overallperformance. The down twin rows were no more difficult thanthe 30" rows to pick up with the corn head.2003 The fourth year of the narrow row corn effort examinedplanting populations and variety responses (“Twin Row Success,”January 2004). In the population plots, all plots were replicatedand carefully tracked. Although twin row yield boosts can rangeas high as 22 bu. per acre, they averaged only 7 to 10 bu. per acre.The population plot made it clear again that twin rows have thecapacity for more plants per acre. We returned to the FergusonYields at Peak Brothers Farm 2005In 2005, the Peak Brothers plot, compared 30" rows andtwin rows, spaced 7½" apart on 30" rows in a corn-oncornenvironment. In the drought conditions of this year,the twin rows had more effiecient water managementand edged out the 30" rows in yield.

Yields at Covel Creek Farms 2006This plot shows the yield impact of disease even thoughthe plot was sprayed with fungicide. Disease pressure,and the amount of down corn, increased at the higherpopulations, especially in the twin rows.Located near Leroy, Ill., McLaughlin-Dooley Farmsoffered a second location to compare 30" rows with twinrows on 30" centers. The corn followed soybeans. Thislocation was short on moisture but had the most rainof all of the six locations. However, uniform soil densitywas the key for the field’s ability to capture the rain thatarrived largely in surprise pop-up storms.farm to plant four populations (30,000, 32,000, 34,000 and 37,000ppa) with the custom-built plot planter in 30" and twin rows andan additional Great Plains drill set up for twin rows.Yields for both sets of twin rows continued to climb—even atthe 37,000 planting population. While the twins were postingyield gains as the population climbed, the 30" rows were doingwhat we expected based on previous plots and for the plotconsiderations and hybrid selection—peaking at 32,000 to 34,000ppa and then declining.In the variety plots, our initial work with six popular numbersfor the area clearly showed that some varieties take to twin rowsbetter than others. In 2003, three of the corn varieties yieldedA team effort from three operations near Grand Ridge, Ill., made this plot possible.They were R & D Walter, Hybrid Service and Covel Creek Farms.Narrow Row Corn Report 03A team effort involving R & D Walter Farms, Hybrid Serviceand John Thomas provided the chance to test 20", 30"and twin rows in a high-yield, longtime continuous cornsetting. High Illinois Soil N Test (ISNT) values point to theyield potential of the field.best in twin rows, two did worse, and yields for one were aboutthe same as in the 30" rows.2004 to 2005 In the next years, the focus was on theelements needed to make narrow rows successful: plantingpopulations, hybrid selection, and the rates and placement forstarter, insecticide and nitrogen. Each variable was tested in awide range of soils and growing conditions (“Make Twin RowsCount,” Mid-February 2005). The effort continued to reveal thebest way to go about growing narrow rows and on how twinscompare with 20" rows, another narrow-row route to bumpingcorn yields.For the next couple of years, the test plots involved six Illinoislocations, spanning from near Springfield north to Grand Ridge,just south of Chicago. In general, the plot data repeated thepopulation results of previous plots, showing that some hybridsare more suited for narrow rows and indicating that the hybridsgood for 20" rows also work well for twin rows.At the Peak Brothers plot near Springfield, starter wasapplied and FMC supplied a liquid applicator for Captureinsecticide (using the Great Plains tanks and FMC nozzles). TheGreat Plains Yield-Pro twin-row planter was compared with thePeak’s 16-row, 30" Kinze planter,outfitted with Precision Plantingmeters set for the seed size. Twelvefingermeters were used for the 30"rows and six-finger meters wereused for the twins, so the meterscould run at the same revolutionsper minute. In 2004, the Peak plotslooked at twin-row populationsranging from 28,700 to 48,000 ppa.For this hybrid in those plotconditions, yields climbed with thepopulation until 38,000 ppa and thenstarted to trend down (see chart:Yields at Peak Brothers Farm 2004).

In 30" rows plot at McLaughlin-Dooley Farms, you cansee the sunlight is able to reach the ground in betweenthe canopyAt the same plot as shown to the left, the twin rows havea tighter canopy, which led to conserving water by shadingthe ground.In 2005, the second year at Peaks farm also showed consistentperformance by the twins (see chart: Yields at Peak BrothersFarm 2005). Populations were compared for the twins and 30"rows at five levels ranging from 28,700 to 36,000 ppa. The entireplot was sprayed with fungicide for disease. Even so, the twinrows suffered more disease pressure than the 30" rows. Whencomparing year-to-year results, it became apparent there arecertain hybrids and certain soils that can and need to be pushedwith higher populations. Inconsistency in response to populationcan be attributed to the hybrid’s characteristics of being flex- orfixed-ear type. To find the upper limit in pushing populations,the first consideration should be the hybrid’s capabilities andthen the growing conditions.McLaughlin-Dooley Farms near Leroy offered a secondopportunity to compare 30" rows with twin rows. The same rigused at Peaks put in the twins, and the 30" treatments went inwith the farm’s John Deere 7200 vacuum planter. The twinsoutpaced the 30" at every planting population above 28,000 ppa(see chart: Yields at McLaughlin-Dooley Farms).At Gregg Sauder’s farm near Tremont, the twin rows werecompared to 20" rows. The Great Plains Yield-Pro planterplanted the twins, and Sauder’s 36-row Kinze planter put in the20" rows. Precision Planting meters were used in both machines,and care was again taken for the meters to operate at the samespeed. Plots were put in both corn-on-cornand corn/soybean rotations. The back-tobackcorn yielded 10 bu. to 15 bu. per acrehigher than the corn following beans. In2004 there was a slight advantage to the twinrows, and in 2005 there was an advantage tothe 20" rows. The data showed that twinrows and 20" rows have similar yieldadvantages compared with 30" rows.Near Grand Ridge, test plot cooperatorJohn Thomas put in twin-row plots in cornon-cornand corn-on-bean fields. He built aplanter for the job. A hitch, called a planterpull arm, built by Meteer Manufacturing inAthens, Ill., links two 12-row, 30" plantersinto one rig. Thomas and son Rob set it upso that the rear machine runs 7½" to the leftof the front planter. He used Bt-rootwormhybrids so insecticide wasn’t an issue andcompared twins with 30" rows. The plotsNarrow Row Corn Report 04Bu. per acre compared to 30” yield +/-20151050-5were impacted by disease to the extent that the yield resultswere compromised (see chart: 2006 Yields at Covel CreekFarms).Thomas took his planter to R & D Walter Farms, GrandRidge, to help put in a plot comparing twins, 30" and 20" rows.Ralph and Don Walter used their 30" planter and 20" planter,and Hybrid Service provided the 20" combine head andcombine. Both corn-on-corn and corn-on-bean plots wereplanted. Two varieties were used with a split-planter setup. Onehybrid barely showed a response to row spacing or population,while the other responded aggressively. The Grand Ridge groupplanted their plot in a longtime continuous corn field with highIllinois Soil N Test (ISNT) values built by years of manureapplications and corn-on-corn production. The high-yieldenvironment is suited for higher planting populations. In 2005,the plot yielded extremely well considering that it had less rainthan any of the other locations included in the effort. Thedownside of the many years of continuous corn is that the fieldis a welcome mat for disease (see charts: Yields at Grand Ridgewith Fungicide and without Fungicide).The data points to 34,000 to 36,000 ppa as the top end for mosthybrids in medium to light soils. At the same time, populationsneed to be pushed more in fields with heavier soils, greaterwater-holding capacity and higher ISNT values—as seen in theYields at Kuntz Farm 20081 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26ReplicationsThe chart shows twin row yield compared with 30" row yield (plus or minus).Overall, the twin rows averaged 7 bu. greater than the 30" rows.

Silage Plot 2008: PopulationSilage Plot 2008: Effect of Fungicidelb. milk/acre25,00024,00023,00022,00021,00020,00019,00018,00017,00016,00015,000Using the University of Wisconsin’s Milk 2006 formulation,our test plots show how 30" row silage and twin rowsilage yields in pounds of milk per acre.results from the McLaughlin-Dooley and Grand Ridge plots.In 2005, preharvest checks predicted strong yields in the FarmJournal twin-row corn plots, but it was still hard to believe howstrong the final numbers were when the grain rolled into thecombine. Checks with the weigh wagon verified the yields(“Tough Year Tests Twin Rows,” Mid-January 2006). Conservingwater was a key factor in the plot effort with narrow rows. Thefive Illinois plot locations posted yields as high as 240 bu. peracre; most hovered between 175 bu. and 200 bu.2006 to 2008 By 2006, twin rows had gone from a nichepractice used primarily by vegetable growers to a mainstreamoption for corn growers in less than a decade (“Dynamic Duo,”February 2007). Twin rows advanced to the point that some ofthe winners in the 2006 National Corn Growers Yield Contestused twins to achieve their big yields.In 2008, at Bob Kuntz’s farm, a plot was replicated multipletimes across one field. Having 26 replications provided datashowing a yield advantage averaging 7 bu. for the twin rows.Where twin rows yielded less than 30" rows, that yield dropcould be attributed to the sprayer tracks (see chart: Yields atKuntz Farm 2008).The opportunity to push populations and increase yields canbenefit any corn grower but is especiallyimportant to those raising corn for silage. Westarted a new effort in 2006 to examine theimpact of twin rows on corn silage production.We linked up with Illinois State University andIowa State University to create replicated plotsthat compare the nutritive value of silagegrown in twin rows with that of silage from 30"rows. More plants meant more tonnage peracre (“Twin Rows Yield Tonnage,” September2007). After the first year, the study continuedat one location, Illinois State University’sresearch and teaching farm near Lexington, Ill.We compared the results from 30" and twinrows and evaluated how population and rowspacing impact silage quality. Two hybrids—onein each field—were used; the seed was providedby Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. andNarrow Row Corn Report 0530" Twin row29,000 33,000 37,000Planted Populationlb. milk/acre32,50030,00027,50025,00022,50020,00017,50015,00012,50010,000Check30"33,000Twin33,000With fungicide30"37,000Planted PopulationTwin37,000Tonnage and quality are important in silage production.Applying fungicide provided increased value of our silageyields in terms of pounds of milk per acre.Mycogen Seeds. Using RTK guidance on a New Holland tractorwith a 40' Great Plains planter, we planted the twin rows firstand returned to plant the 30" rows. To harvest the test plots, weused a six-row New Holland FX50 silage chopper, which provedto be a significant time-saver for the research farm. Whilechopping, we created data log files for each silage load on aPDA with GPS. From the field, we weighed each load beforeand after dumping. We backtracked to see where each loadcame from and its origin soil type.The plot crew harvested valuable data from the thee-yearsilage study. As population increased, tonnage followed. Afterthe first year of data regarding the impact of row spacing andpopulation in terms of tonnage yield and relative feed value, weexpanded the study to include silage quality (“Twin RowsCutting Edge,” Mid-November 2008). The 2007 data wasanalyzed with the University of Wisconsin’s Milk 2006formulation. Corn silage provides energy from two pools in thefeed—starch and digestible neutral detergent fiber—and theresults using Milk 2006 take into consideration those two energypools to provide a more well-rounded perspective.Narrow row silage production increased tonnage withoutcompromising quality as measured in pounds of milk per acreUsing a 40' Great Plains planter, we planted 70 acres of silage at the IllinoisState University’s research and teaching farm near Lexington, Ill.

(“Feed Silage Success,” Summer 2009). The silage results wereevaluated with the Milk 2006 test (see chart: Silage Plot 2008:Population). The samples were taken before ensilage; therefore,the green forage equation was used in our evaluations. Thesilage harvester we used was also equipped with a kernelprocessor, which can increase the quality of test results.With an aerial application when the corn was tasselling, a plotpartner applied Bayer Stratego fungicide, which has a harvestrestriction of 30 days in silage. In twin rows, the response tofungicide was at all populations with higher pounds of milk peracre. In pounds of milk per acre, where the fungicide was appliedcompared with the control, we saw no response in 30" rows at33,000 ppa; a 16% increase in twin rows at 33,000 ppa; an 8%increase in 30" rows at 37,000 ppa; and a 23% increase in twinrows at 37,000 ppa. Comparing the two row spacings in poundsof milk per acre, without the fungicide application there was an11% increase in the twin rows compared with the 30" rows at33,000 ppa. There was a 6% increase in twin rows compared withthe 30" rows at 37,000 ppa. Where the fungicide was applied,there was a 29% increase in twin rows compared with 30" rowsat 33,000 ppa and a 21% increase in twin rows compared with30" at 37,000 ppa (see chart: Silage Plot 2008: Effect ofFungicide). As he reviews the three-year effort, Ferrie says planthealth and population are king in silage production.CONCLUSIONSAs we wrapped up the many years of replicated narrow rowtest plots, this summarizes what we’ve learned:Yield. Years of replicated plot data show narrow rowsoutyield 30" rows by as much as 22 bu. per acre, and the averageyield gain was 7 bu. to 10 bu. per acre. The row spacings producesimilar ear counts, but the twin and 20" rows pick up extra yieldthrough better tip fill and deeper kernel depth. The upper end ofthe yield response came from soils that need to be pushed andfrom lighter soils that need to hang onto water. At the same time,the average yield gains were posted in middle-of-the-road soils.In silage, twin rows result in increased tonnage withoutcompromising quality, and fungicide has a powerful effect.Populations. Narrow rows let you push populations in soilsand hybrids that can handle it. During the multiple years ofplots, we’ve used populations from 28,000 to 48,000 ppa. Theresults show that the best population for narrow row corn ishigher than what’s best for 30" rows. In silage production, thelesson is that higher populations are key.Hybrids. Seed selection is important with anyrow spacing in corn production and silageproduction. If you’re growing a racehorse hybridwithout strong defensive traits, you’ll need toprotect it. And some disease-prone fields simplyneed a hybrid with defensive genetics. As always,it is wise to plant your own variety plot to seewhat works best in your fields at what population.There are limited labels for insecticide in twinrows, and the postemergence ground applicationis more difficult. When you’re planting non-GMO crops and aerial applications aren’tavailable, take this into consideration.Disease pressure. The downside of narrowrows and high populations is that you have tomanage disease. With narrow row corn, thetighter canopy can make disease worse. As withany row spacing, growing conditions are moreNarrow Row Corn Report 06Although the sidedressing window is tight, the sameequipment used for 30" rows can be used for twin rows.conducive to disease in some years than in others. Scouting fordisease is especially important. Narrow rows have to be treatedlike 30" rows when it comes to weeds, although the narrow rowsclose faster and help choke back the weeds.Insect control. In particular, rootworm control in narrowrows requires the most attention. In narrow rows, it’s not the rateof insecticide per acre that needs to be calculated, but rather therate per foot of row. This means a higher insecticide rate andincreased cost to reach control as compared with 30” rows.Starter fertilizer. The application rates of starter fertilizerin narrow rows should be calculated in rate per foot of row. Innarrow rows, starter application will cost more than wider rows.However, banding a greater portion of a field’s fertilizerallocation will result in more efficient nutrient pick up.Water. Narrow row corn can conserve water—because ofmore canopy and quicker closure than 30" rows—and make themost of extra moisture by maximizing higher populations.Machinery. We were nervous about harvest during our firstyear of twin-row plots, but we quickly learned that a 30" cornhead has no problem munching through the twin rows. Ofcourse, using a guidance system at planting makes it even easier.The sidedress window can be tight, and residue management canbe tough. Depending on the type of planter and crop rotationyou use for narrow rows, the tolerances for residue flow can betight between row units. You may need to shred and size thestalks in corn-on-corn. You’ll also want to make sure you’re notburying one of the rows with residue during planting.For more information, e-mail testplots@farmjournal.comHarvesting twin row silage did not require any modifications to thesilage chopper and its head.