 Something appreciate opportunity to be here this morning. I want to thank Brenda for inviting me to participate in this course today. And I want to thank my co-author here, Charlie Burr Meister. He's not listed on the program actually, but he was very instrumental in helping us get going with this work here. We actually started some of this work back in the fall of 2007. And we've been working in, we've had some wheat tests going ever since then. So like I say, he was a lot of the catalyst for this. And obviously, if you don't agree with anything though, I'm responsible for that. But Charlie hadn't even seen some of all of this, but I do want to recognize his efforts with that. Obviously, I'm going to talk about nitrogen today, but I do want to make a quick point. And it's kind of the colors rotation helps us make that the colors rotation. If you're not familiar with just down the road here on South College, where the museum is on the left, it'll be behind that. It's a fertility trial that's been in place for over 100 years. And it has wheat in the rotation. And they have different fertility strips across here are different treatments of fertility. And they've just been in place for like say over 100 years. And I really think that this makes a good point for something we need to keep in mind. This is some data that I obtained from my Charlie Mitchell, who's the actual, I guess, curator of the colors rotation. And if you take a look here at got a 10 year average yield, and I'm not worried about what the yield would be, the point you'll see here in a minute. But that's an average yield over 10 years with complete fertilization and micronutrients. He's basically setting that at 100%. 100% is relative yield. Okay, then you can look at the effect of what happens when you don't have some of these nutrients. And obviously, nitrogen is an important nutrient. You can see that dropped a relative yield down to 35%. You know, we took a huge hit. And that's not surprising. The other thing though, to keep in mind is look how phosphorus, when we didn't have any phosphorus out there, it, we really saw a big drop in our in our yields as well, not quite as much as nitrogen, but essentially, essentially the same. When we look at potassium, not quite as detrimental, but still, you know, you do suffer a decrease with the potassium. And on this case, sulfur, you know, a slight decrease. And then we talked about micronutrients this morning, or heard about micronutrients, you can see a slight decrease. And obviously, you know, we're not talking about that yield potential. Those guys were talking about yesterday if you had 150 pounds or 150 bushes to the acre. Now that, you know, these numbers may be much more detrimental. But it gives you a relative comparison. And then obviously, when we don't have lime out there, we're talking about pH is below five, you know, we're not going to not going to see much yield. And then like say, they've got a strip out there that's had no fertilizer, no lime for over 100 years. And you get by what you think you can get in this case, nothing. And so the point being is like, they talked about that this morning, you know, when you're talking about the four hours, you know, it doesn't matter if we do the right rate, right source, right time, right placement with nitrogen, if we neglect phosphorus, it's not going to make any difference. So if we're trying to, you know, get the most out of this nitrogen, we got to make sure we got a complete fertility program in place, we're utilizing the soil samples that was discussed this morning with the, you know, a recommended lab, et cetera. And that way we can get the most out of our nutrient program. Let's see, I guess I wanted, I wanted to show this just to give an idea about, you know, wheat production in the United States. And you can obviously see, you know, the bread basket of the world, our United States is in Kansas and Oklahoma. They're growing a different type of wheat. And, you know, when you look at this here, you wonder why I'm even up here talking about wheat in Alabama. But we know that it is important. And we can zone in on, zoom in on that a little bit more. And basically, I've got the on the y-axis here, we've got harvested acres in Alabama. And then we have the crop years starting in 2000 up to this past current year. And then the blue lines represented by our average yields for the state. You can see we jump around in between 40 and 70 bushels to the acre there, roughly. And, you know, the interesting thing about the harvested acres is you notice in about 2000 or 2008, we essentially doubled, at least doubled our harvested acres in the state with the exception of 2010. And that's been consistent starting in 2008 up to current date. And, you know, I told you that we put in our first wheat test in the fall of 2007, which just happened to coincide with this. And I think, you know, a lot of that is probably Charlie's credit. He was probably getting questions related to that. I think that's when the prices of wheat really went up and people were interested in getting back into wheat production. And so, you know, he started getting questions about that. So, we started putting in tests to try to address some of their questions that the growers had. Now, and of course, some of these questions were related to modifying their management practices to, obviously, they wanted to maximize their yields. And some of these changes included utilizing conservation tillage practices and then subsequently, they need to increase their nitrogen rates by using these types of systems. And of course, the thought was, you know, if you're using conservation tillage systems with wheat, you know, you're not doing a clean till system, you're going to have more surface residue there. And they were concerned about delaying wheat emergence or plant development, that the residue could be interfering with that. And then also, if you're putting out, you know, generally we're going to be surface applying our nitrogen in a wheat system. And so, you got more residue on the soil surface. So, you got a little bit higher chance for any kind of ammonia volatilization, et cetera. So, they thought maybe they needed to be increasing the nitrogen. So, very simply, you know, we just tried to set up something where we're determining the level of tillage necessary to optimize the wheat yields. And then also determine optimum nitrogen fertilizer rates and timing across the tillage system. And this study that I'm going to talk about right now is what Leah talked about at the end of the day yesterday related to the economics. So, I'm going to go into more of the agronomics and so forth. And so, you can see this picture here of Alabama, and it kind of gives a distribution of where our wheat has grown in the state. You know, we're heavily concentrated in North Alabama. We have some in Central and then Southeast and Southwest. And so, just coincidentally, Auburn University has experiment stations located in these areas as well. So, we set up research at each one of these locations. So, we did this from 2008 to 2011. We wound up with 12 site years of data utilizing this test. And I'll tell you, we had to go back to nine. We had to throw out three locations. I'll tell you, one of them was we got hit with the fusarium head blot disease. You're going to hear our head scab. I'm not sure it's that name. It's going to hear a whole talk on that here in a little bit. I think that obviously shows the importance of how detrimental that disease can be. We had another one we took. We used a poor variety. I made a poor variety choice at one location. We didn't get enough cold weather. Didn't have good burnalization on that particular variety. And I didn't get good yields. And another one, I think it was something like what happened on the colors. And we forgot to put some phosphors out or something because it didn't, we just didn't get any kind of yield. So, when we're trying to make recommendations, you know, we want to have the most representative data that we can. So, that's why we got rid of those sites. This gives a kind of a distribution or gives you an idea of the sites. You can see the years that we had them and what particular locations we were dealing with. Obviously, the soil series for those locations. And it changed sometimes depending on where you're at on the station, you know, where you get assigned land and so forth. You can see the cultivars. We jumped around a little bit with our cultivars to start with. And then we kind of wound up going with AGS 2060. You know, and you can make the argument that, you know, maybe we need to see this over multiple more varieties, et cetera. But we felt like 2060, we could get some, you know, some data from across the state. And with the number of treatments that we had, it was just going to be impossible to try to do this over multiple varieties and so forth. So, it gives us, you know, a little bit of a representation, I think. But yeah, you could probably see maybe slightly different responses with different varieties. And then you see our planting dates. Typically, I always had them planted by third week in November. And then, of course, the harvest dates were, you know, really kind of dependent on what kind of spring we had and so forth. And sometimes it spilled over into June. In some cases, it actually went to July one time. The experimental design is just pretty straightforward, split plot. We had two tillage systems where we're using conventional tillage with the, you know, multiple tillage passes to make a clean seed bed. And then we had the non-inversion tillage, which I'm going to just refer to KMC from now on. I'm not trying to endorse KMC, but that's what it was. We use our sub-solar leveler. And, you know, that was just a one-pass. And then we could plant into it, basically, you know, trying to maximize the blow ground disruption with minimizing the surface disturbance. So, we'd leave some residue up there. And then on the Tennessee Valley locations, we actually did no tillage there as opposed to any kind of non-inversion tillage. And all these experiments always followed cotton that had been stripped And our sub-plots, then, we had 12 different nitrogen combinations, different combinations of rates and timings, and so four replications. So, you know, you can look at this and you got 12 nitrogen treatments, two tillage systems, four reps. It's 96 plots per location. So, it was a big, it was a big endeavor to do this work here. These are the fertilizer treatments that we had. I said, like I said, we had 12 of them. We broke it down. We had, you know, no fall applied nitrogen, and then 20 pounds of fall applied nitrogen. And then we had it split between Feeks 4 and Feeks 6. We always did, you know, some kind of multiple of 60, 90, and 120. That was always the rates that we were comparing. And sometimes, you know, we would split that up or we would make up the difference, you know, based on what was applied in the fall. And, you know, one thing was, you know, by looking at these different timings, you know, especially maybe we could look at a split application, a wider window of application. These time frames correspond to, you know, roughly Feeks 4 is going to be, you know, early February, certainly by, you know, the first week, second week of February. And then Feeks 6 typically is going to be about a month later. And then, of course, at Tennessee Valley, it's typically a little bit behind that. But that gives you a rough idea of when we're talking about making these applications and so forth. The previous week in recommendations were, and this was straight out of the production guide at the time we first started this experiment back in 2007, or 2008, I guess, been the harvest year. It was fall applied in, 20 pounds. And then spring application, 60 to 100 pounds by Feeks 6. And that was what was represented for the, you know, the entire state at the time. I want to look at tiller data, or we took a look at tiller data, and we measured that at Feeks 4. And this shows the different locations. And, you know, as, you know, not the only thing that was probably influencing, but the things that we had control over influencing tillers was going to be the tillage and the fall nitrogen. So if you take a look at, if you take a look at the tillage here, you look at Tennessee Valley, I mean, the tillage really had, you know, we didn't have any difference there in our tiller production, and very little difference across those. You know, you had a couple of sites here and there, and sometimes it favored one tillage systems, and other times another one. But the tillage was not as important as the fall in. You know, at Tennessee Valley, we did not see a response to fall in at all up there. But then and on the coastal plain, you know, much sandier soils as you would expect, you know, it was imperative that we had the fall nitrogen applied. Now, I'm going to, I broke this out to kind of give you an idea of how we're, how I'm doing this, but from now on, I'm going to, I'm going to consolidate this, and it's going to be Limestone Valley soils or it's going to be coastal plain soils. And just, just to simplify, because we're trying, where we can, we're trying to average over all these locations, so that way we can get the widest, you know, amount of information applicable to, to the region. So just to summarize that real quick, I mean, I kind of looked at that, but that gives you the averages, you got the coastal plain, you can see the average tillers where we had fall applied nitrogen over all that, at Feaks 4 over all those locations was 92. And that was greater than where we didn't have any nitrogen. Limestone Valley, you see, we had more tiller production, but there was no difference. Tiller biomass actually measured that, you know, we had a difference there where we had 20 pounds, compared to none. And then notice the biomass was smaller here at Limestone Valley, but there was no difference in the tiller biomass. So if we look at some more plant data, during the growing season, it's kind of getting an idea of the health of the plant, I guess, if you will, before we get to harvest, you know, we took measurements again at Feaks 6, and you can see the tillage effect on the end concentration of the plant material. And you can see in this case, conventional tillage was actually higher than the non-inversion or KMC. And the plant biomass you can see was actually, was also, was higher, but it was lower here. And I think it was simply just a dilution effect. We had more material there, and it just diluted that down. Limestone Valley, notice how much higher nitrogen contents here compared to the coastal plain, but there's no difference between the tillage systems. And again, with the plant biomass, lower amounts of biomass, but again, no difference there between our treatments. If we take a look at our fall applied end, averaged over the rates that were applied at Feaks 4, and the reason there's none there is because, remember, we had some where we didn't apply anything at Feaks 4, we waited till later. And you can see with that 20 pounds, you know, not any real difference here, obviously at the lower rates, but then we start to see a slight separation in the end concentration as we get to the higher rates. Some other data that we have at Feaks 6, in this case, I'm looking at coastal plain, biomass in this column, and then I'm looking at Limestone Valley end concentrations. You can see that, again, the 20 pounds, obviously more supporting evidence that we needed that 20 pounds had better healthier plants, bigger plants measured at that growth stage. And then you take a look at the amounts over the end rates that were applied at that time. And you can see there was no benefit to putting more nitrogen on. 90 and 120 were the same. The reason I show this with Limestone Valley, and I'll go ahead and tell you this, there of all those things we looked at at Limestone Valley, we didn't see any difference between anything except for this. And it was, you know, we saw an end concentration effect slightly higher where we put on 20 pounds of nitrogen. And then you can see the, you know, a little bit more with the, at 90 pounds for the plants. And I'll go into that a little bit further, but that was the only thing that we saw significant at Limestone Valley over the treatments that we administered. So now when we start looking at the yield, and we can see here, we look at the coastal plain first, average over all those locations, we had average of 53 bushels, but non-inversion was greater than the conventional tillage. So we were able to, you know, increase our yields there with that single tillage operation as opposed to multiple tillage operations with conventional tillage. The crude protein, which that's just the end content of the grain multiplied by a conversion factor. And again, you see a little bit of dilution, I think, going on here. These are slightly less there on the coastal plain. You look at Limestone Valley, no difference in yields. But, you know, we did have generally higher yields at, at Limestone Valley. And of course, no difference is good in this case because, you know, if you can just go out there and no till in and, and, and plant it as opposed to having to do some kind of tillage operation, that's going to be, you know, that's obviously, obviously to your benefit, no difference in the crude protein there. As there was more, you know, the coastal plain had a lot more differences. So I'll just go into that just showing again that, you know, supporting that 20 pounds. We needed that. We did see an increase, or we had the 20 pounds for the yield. You can see where the, this is basically saying, did we put on nitrogen at Feeks 4 or did we wait till Feeks 6? And in this case, we had to, you know, it was a benefit to go ahead and put it on. We, we didn't need, if we waited, we saw a yield penalty there. And then you can see the rates. I told you our base rates, basically 60, 90, 120. And, you know, there was no benefit to applying 120. The 90 was where we wanted to be. The protein, again, you're seeing some, some dilution there. Again, here, you're seeing a little bit of dilution. But if you notice on the rates, we actually do see a response for the protein. And I think that was alluded to earlier, you know, that it, but you did, you know, you're going to take more nitrogen to increase the protein content. Like somebody was talking about applying it later, like maybe a late season application to do that. But in this case, you know, we're trying to get the recommendation for the yield. If we were looking at it for the protein content, then yeah, maybe we want to increase that a little bit. So that kind of summarizes this particular study here. And this, this corresponds to the, the treatment that was discussed yesterday from economics, you know, it was 20 pounds in the fall. And then making up that difference was 70 pounds at feaks four. And that seemed to be the, the recommended treatment over those particular set of conditions that we had in this, in this experiment. But, you know, we presented this information at some of the grower meetings and so forth. There were some extension meetings around and growers were there. And of course, when you have an experiment, it seems like you do research and then it just leads to more questions because then growers want to know, well, can I know till in the, can I know till in the, in the coastal plain? And, you know, my first thought was I was like, I don't think so, you know, but so we started looking at that because I got the thinking about it. And, you know, obviously that soil is, it's prone to compaction. I mean, that's obviously a summer photograph. And that's been, you know, you got a very, very heavy compacted zone there. But we're talking about over the winter months. Because you think about, even though the plants may not be growing that much during the winter, we're going to get a lot of rainfall during the winter. And it could potentially, you know, the soil is going to be wet. So the penetration resistance required to go through a hard pan is going to be slightly, you know, should be slightly lower. So that way, if that's the case, those roots might be able to penetrate that zone under those types of conditions. And if you think about, like for us, we do a lot of work with conservation tillage, etc. We plant a lot of cover crops. We plant cover crops no till all the time. You know, we just go in there and drop in there with a grain drill and plant them. And we don't, you know, we don't think anything about it. And we get plenty of biomass. Now granted, we're not growing them for grain, but they, it's not really an issue of those crops growing. So that's why we thought, well, maybe we should give this a shot and take a look at it. And then the other thing was, you know, if we are going to eliminate some of that tillage, then maybe, you know, do we need a little bit more nitrogen there to offset those effects? So that was kind of the premise behind, you know, our next phase, if you will, looking at nitrogen and tillage. And, you know, simply we're just comparing non-inversion and no tillage wheat yields across coastal plain and then trying to determine if higher nitrogen rates are required as the surface tillage is eliminated. So this time, obviously we just concentrated on the coastal plain locations. We had nine site years. We just completed that in this past harvest year. Did it for three years. And you can see, you know, three per growing season. You see the soil types. Again, we use the same variety every time. So we're trying to eliminate that variable. You know, granted, that could be, you could see better yields sometimes if you chose a little bit better variety for the particular location. See the planting dates, you know, fairly consistent and then our harvest dates. Same kind of experimental design. In this case, we used, you know, no tillage, like I said, instead of conventional tillage. And we compared that with the non-inversion. We felt like, you know, we had learned a little bit from based on our nitrogen rates work that we had done previously. So we didn't need quite as many treatment combinations of rates and timings. And then again, we have four applications. So in this case, we use fall applied and we used either 20, 20 pounds or 30 pounds. And, you know, it kind of, maybe, you know, one hand should have went to 40. But I was a little bit nervous going to that high just because I don't want to get excessive growth coming up on the winter because you can get, you know, that it could be real lush and subject to winter kill may have some more disease pressure, et cetera. So we kept it at 30. And obviously we got rid of the Feek 6 application. And we used our same 60, 90, 120 scheme that we talked about previously. I have this one highlighted in red because that just shows the one that we thought was the best one based on the previous work using that non-inversion tillage, you know, 20 in the fall and 70 at Feek's 4. And I did, I failed to mention this throughout. We used UAN. That was our source here with the sprayer tips and put it on, you know, surface applied. These are actually, this is all liquid. Everything was done liquid. In the first test, with the fall applied, we used ammonium nitrate. And at Tennessee Valley, we had urea. But this one is all liquid. Just the difference is the nitrogen rate. So, again, if we take a look at tiller density, I was not able to average this one as much as I would have liked. But it does show you the variability across a different location. You can see we've got EV Smith and we got the three years of data, 2012, 13, 14. And then it, you know, Gulf Coast, Wiregrass, et cetera. And you can look at the difference in tillers between this KMC and the no-tillage. And there is, you know, we saw, you know, there's not a lot of significance. You look at some locations, there's slight differences. And sometimes it favored KMC and sometimes it favored no-tillage. But, you know, right off the bat, I was a little bit surprised that the no-tillage was able to do as well as it did. I really thought that this was going to be kind of easy to take care of that question. If we look at the biomass again, you know, you can see the variability across all the different locations. And most of the time, it's, you know, the KMC seemed to favor, had a little bit better plants with KMC. This location right here, Gulf Coast 2012, I will tell you there's something, I left it in here, but I think it's going to have to go. There's some stuff going on there that we're not really sure. What we thought happened is we just sampled a little bit later. We missed the sample time, so we were actually sampling maybe feaks five or six plants instead of feaks four, because the values are really high. But you just kind of keep your eye on that one. When we look at end concentration, you know, we're averaging over the locations there. And in this case, you know, surprisingly, these are not different. We had a slight difference at Gulf Coast. But again, I'm just, I was very surprised that the no tillage was able to do as well as it did. So now when we talk about yields, you know, we're going to compare those fall in rates over the over the springs. And and just remember, you know, here for the green line, we're talking about 20 pounds. And then we made, you know, this is 40 pounds in the spring. Whereas for the blue lines, it'll be 30 and 30. So both of them are 60 pounds. It's just the difference was the fall amount. So that's why I set them as that's why I set it up as low, medium and high. But, you know, obviously, there's a difference between the spring rates. But if you're looking at 2020 and 30, didn't didn't make any difference. And so why, you know, why not just use the 20 because it's going to be cheaper for you. When we look at the wheat yields over all the different environments, you know, the main thing I want to look at here, obviously, you got, you know, major differences in the environment. So I mean, some some produce better than others. The main thing is does the 120, you know, did we need that 120? And there was four locations. So just a little bit less than half, where we saw, you know, a clear response to putting on additional 120 or not an additional but putting up to 120 pounds. And two of them two out of three years were at Wiregrass had one at Gulf Coast, and then one at Evie Smith. This is the one that I showed you was had all those high tiller counts and high biomass. And then it wound up, you know, didn't yield very well at all. So, you know, when we take a look at that and kind of average it over the locations, you can see that there was a the KMC was clearly better at Wiregrass compared to no till. But surprisingly, at the other two locations, the no till was, you know, it's hanging in there a lot better than I thought it would be. We look at crude protein again, and, you know, kind of the same story that we talked about previously. In this case, almost all the all the areas or environments saw a response to additional nitrogen, except for two of them. So that just shows how the protein, you know, is going to be much more sensitive and need a higher end requirement if we're trying to increase protein content. Some guys mentioned this about nitrogen use efficiency this morning, and we did take a look at this. In this particular trial, we had zero plots. They were not in the in the red, but they were immediately adjacent to all the plots. So we could kind of get it some idea of what soil contribution was on the on the wheat. And so we took a look at and this is this is for grain. This gives you an idea of, you know, what kind of nitrogen use efficiency we had over all those different environments. And I remember that one, I told you it was kind of weird. That one, those are negative nitrogen use efficiencies. That's why I did it that way. And I think what happened was there was there must have been a slug of nitrogen that was available at that particular location. So the zero plots were able to just take up all this nitrogen. And so then when you calculated nitrogen use efficiency, then the others were negative. And it's pretty standard, you know, as you increase the nitrogen rate, the nitrogen use efficiency is going to go down. That's that's not terribly surprising. But it just gives us an idea of what, you know, what what kind of numbers we had this red line corresponds. And I, I, I forgot to go back and put the reference, but as Dr. Bill Ron, I'd Oklahoma State had done a calculation over all basically for global wheat production. And he's estimating nitrogen use efficiency. And he put it at, you know, basically about 33% for wheat. That's what the red line is. And coincidentally, I calculated nitrogen use efficiency for all these here, including the negatives, because that's what it was. And it wound up being about 33.8%. So he made pretty good estimate, I think. But then, you know, this is one of the things we're trying to do is we want to increase that nitrogen use efficiency. That's the whole thing. Those guys are talking about with the, you know, the four hours, et cetera, we're trying to try to increase the nitrogen use efficiency. So, you know, it really comes down to then, well, what's the answer? What can I get it by with no till or not? And so I put this up there to just hopefully try to illustrate this point. You got your different KMCs with 20, and then 30 and no till. And you see the different colored lines. Now, obviously, you know, a clear response, we don't, we can't go down to 60. That's clear. You know, it's a little bit more muddy up here with our 90 and 120 pounds. But you can look at a couple of scenarios here. And like the guy said this morning, like when he said that answer about it depends, I mean, this right here is going to illustrate that. If you look at the green line, you know, that was the one that we said was the, we thought was the best one from the previous work. That's 20 in the fall. And then coming back at 70, it fixed four. And then you see it flattened out. We didn't see any, any benefit to putting on that additional 30 pounds of nitrogen. Okay. If you take a look at the, the red and the, that's a brown line. I don't know if y'all can see that red and brown lines, you know, we, we, we put on, that's no tillage. We, we put on additional 30 pounds and it goes up slightly. I mean, you can make, it's there, there may be a slight significance there. Okay. Let's just look at play around with the number. Let's use this one here. Let's say that's about, you know, let's say that's, that, that'd be 52 and a half. Let's say that's, let's just say 52 bushels. We go up here where it, you know, 50, 56, whatever. So four, you know, four bushels, whatever. Okay. We got $6, $6 wheat. So we're $24. All right. Now we got to pay for that nitrogen. Not worried about application costs. Cause we got it, we already put it out 90. We, no big deal if we're going to put out, if we're going to put out 120 instead of 90. So, you know, if you said 60, 60 cents, let's say, so that's $18. We can cover, we can cover it, but you know, is it really, I don't know if it's worth it or not because you can look at it the other way and say, well, I put out 90 with this one and I'm, you know, I'm right there anyway. I'm there. So why do I need to do all, why do I need to put additional nitrogen? But you got that tillage trip in there. On one hand, you're eliminating the tillage trip. So which one is going to be better? And even at these scenarios here, I mean, yes, those are all significantly or basically all the same. They're not significantly different, but this is just the yield. Now when we put all those economics on it that we talked about previously or that was talked about yesterday, you know, you're, you're getting a slightly less yield, but you eliminated one complete trip across the field. So that, you know, what's going to be, what's going to be the break even there. Unfortunately, I got a lady that can look at this a little bit closer for me and see because it really depends on the scenario. It depends on how what's the price of wheat, what's the price of nitrogen. Now it's really hard to say. I will say this, I was very surprised that the no till was able to do as well as it did. I really thought this was going to be clear cut and the no till wouldn't be wouldn't even be a player. But you got to remember these were strip till fields. The cotton had been strip tilled and so we had that, we were able to maintain I think that tillage, you know, for the wheat. Now if we, you know, if you're trying to wait for the next year, I don't know that that's and you wanted to plant a crop. I don't know that word, but for the wheat it seemed to be there definitely is something there. So I talked about leading to more questions. This almost, you know, kind of leads to more questions again. And just to summarize this, you know, non-inversion and no tillage produced comparable yields to conventional tillage. I was in the first study I talked about and surprisingly the no tillage produced comparable yields to non-inversion tillage across the coastal plain. You know, there was some evidence for higher end requirements using the no tillage, but then you can also look at it the other way and you could stay at the current rate and current nitrogen rate and eliminate that tillage and it could be better. So really need an economic analysis here because you got to keep in mind it's not necessarily the highest yield, it's what's going to make the most money. And so that's what we're really trying to look at. Fall applied end and these actually, this stuff here has been incorporated into the new production guide. You know, the fall applied end was obviously essential for the coastal plain. It was not as important on the Limestone Valley soils. The total end applied by Feaks 4 was necessary to optimize the yields and that was a little, you know, on one hand that's disappointing because you want to have that wider application window. You want to, you know, have more time to get the nitrogen out there, but it sure seemed like if you waited on those sandier soils that you were going to suffer a yield penalty. So, you know, that's just something to keep in mind. Limestone Valley, I think, you know, there were other factors involved, obviously. You know, I think the fall applied nitrogen didn't seem as important, which indicates that we're obviously able to get a hold of some residual nitrogen on those soils as opposed to the coastal plain. So, you know, we typically do not sample for nitrogen. We don't have a soil test that we do that as far as part of university recommendations, but it may be something that we have to take a look at. Although, you know, those soils can be aggravating to sample at that time. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it may be something we want to try to quantify. But I do think the window of application was wider up there. You could wait to fix six up there if you needed to. So, you had a lot more time to apply the nitrogen there. And I certainly want to thank the financial support provided by the Wheaton Feed Grain Commission and International Plant Nutrition Institute on Acknowledged ARS Technic Support, which for me is basically Jeffrey Walker. He's here in the audience. And I thank the Experiment Station staff because they were always helpful in accommodating because we had big tests taking up a lot of area and they always accommodated us. So, I certainly want to thank them. And with that, I'll be happy to try to answer any questions if there are any. And did you have any tissue burn problems? No, we didn't. Of course now, you know, we were using, it was pretty small at the time. And even though it's a high rate, it's not 120 pounds because we typically was always applying some in the fall. That was just a total amount. Like I said, we would have 120 for the total, but we wouldn't be putting on 120 at that time. Right. That's right. No, we didn't have them wrong. No, we didn't. And that was one of the things when we kind of went with this variety also. It's kind of a shorter variety, so we can protect against that. But there is some products out there that help with that, but we didn't look at any of that in this study. But there are some products that supposedly is a benefit on that. That's right. And I agree. And I think, you know, one of the things is just hard to do everything in one test. And, you know, if we could have done that, and then we would have had to split it out anyway. But yeah, that's definitely an issue. You know, like one of the problems, I think, and maybe I'm wrong, but that was with the head scab. Sometimes you may have more instance. Sometimes when you follow the residue or corn residue, so yeah, it could definitely change. But you know, the other thing with the equipment that we have, I'm not so much worried about planting into it as it would be, I could see where the nitrogen rate would be different in that residue. That would be just my hypothesis off the bat, I guess. Yes, sir. Kiff in response to the question there on the color rotation experiment that you show, we always thought of one. Right. And you and Jeff do the work, and y'all seem to get a good stand. And Larkin, if you go out and look at that experiment today that was planted about a month or so ago, and we seem to get a good stand in the corn residue. Well, and I will say, you know, that's true, but then it depends on, you know, the residue that's there. That's right. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. That's right. The amount of corn that we grow in the colors versus. Yeah. All right. Well, I certainly think y'all's time, I guess, we'll be a little bit early for the break. So before you leave today, please return that evaluation to us. Thank you. We will be, we will go on to the break and we should be back here at 10 p.m.