 Thank you all again for being here today. Thanks to the R&E board. Thanks to Sumitomo for being our annual sponsor. Thanks to NDSU as well as University of Minnesota Administration for continuing this program now. It started way back in 1967. We will start in another minute and our first speaker this afternoon will be Mr. Jacob Rikas and his co-author is Dr. Mark Bautel. His presentation will be an impact of insecticide, fungicide, starter, fertilizer combinations on root maggot control and yield. Jacob whenever you're ready the floor is yours. All right. Well thank you everybody. Thanks for sticking around for the afternoon. Appreciate that. Let's just jump right into it shall we? Our pot location was up at St. Thomas. You can call that the mega capital of the world. I think that's what we nickname and joke around about. It was planted on May 19th this last summer of 2020. The plot size is six rows wide by 35 feet long and only the center four rows are treated and then rows one and six are active as an unchecked buffer. And then it was replicated four times in a randomized complete block design. Three performance assessments were done on this test. Three stand counts were taken at 37 days after planting 49 days and now also at 62 days. I do want to say that at this point that we had a lot of environmental factors that contributed to this test and it wasn't just affecting this test but it was affecting the entire site. So we saw a lot of differences among just with significant rain events. There were a couple of rain events in June where we got over two inches in less than a few hours. But that also hindered later stand count dates. And then also we did root ratings. We took 10 samples per each plot and we did those on the very outside rows of rows two and rows five of the treated areas in the plots. And then the center two rows, rows three and four, were harvested for a total of 70 feet for the recoverable sucross yield. And then all those assessments were then ran through the SAS program with a significant difference variable 5% of error. This first slide here or this first bar graph here I'm showing here is the injury that was done in this trial and it's kind of a flip. The lower the value on that on that bar is the better or the cleaner the bead is. So in the higher the bar is the more damage. The traditional root ratings is a range of a zero to nine as illustrated here on the left. But we kind of zoomed it in a little bit more here with a nine so or with a seven it kind of just blow it up a little bit for everyone to see nicely. So these four treatments here it's not said or written out or anything but they do have more of a diagonal line hue that indicates that that was fertilized had 1034 O put in DIF or dribble and furrow. So and what I want to point out here is that the check and the fertilizer check definitely stood out pretty good with significant damage. We definitely did have some good mega pressure up there this year despite the heavy rains. But we can definitely see a clear division two between these first sets here which is only one singular application of insecticide which was counter 20g and then at the below here at the bottom of the basis of each bar graph or yet each bar indicates the rate that was applied and then but this groupings here is only just with one insecticide whereas these lower groupings here or lower value on bars had two insecticides on it being a Yuma which is a generic version of copyrifos but it has the same AI active ingredient concentration that of lower band 4e and then we also did combinations here with thymet as well for another comparative purpose but then we also did asteroid in there that we mixed that in with together with the 1034 O and we also did the post treatments for the second round of insecticide these three purple bars here we did a take mixture of Yuma with quadris and then that also got banded on it wasn't put on by broadcast and then we also did here a treatment here with combined with thymet with a quadris band on that at the same time as well and then all these post insecticides too were applied one day pre-peak and that is not ideal that is certainly wasn't the intent of what we wanted but it did show however that even with such a late application of insecticide we still did have some good reactions and results from that I'm just getting that application on so here we have some word comparisons that we dug up later in I do I think that was damage rating was the end of July um up here on the upper left is the check and the dr up here means the the average damage rating that it was that it was assigned for that particular treatment and you could see that we have a lot of just the mass of the beast itself are so really reduced you can just see that the they're just smaller and a lot more root and fibrous you can see here that we probably have some pretty good mega pressure on on these smaller roots here and though some tap roots are probably taken out as well creating more of that sprangled growth and below is also the fertilizer check and also showed that there was some pretty good significant pressure in that as well with the darkened scarring as well which is a a characteristic of the maggot feeding and then the two pictures onto the right then would be the I would say over these two treatments were probably the best performing out of this out of this test and you can see a nice clear difference between the checks and the the good double insecticide programs and you can see that there the roots are a lot cleaner a lot more more more uniform compared to the checks and you you see that a reduction of that scarring so it's working there and also this would be a similar carrying on I got I think it was to believe that same treatment down below the check that we saw earlier but these are some the root comparisons of the two different rates of the counter but combined with the asteroid and the fertilizer and we are still seeing some pretty good scarring even in the with a good high rate of counter we're still getting some pretty good mega pressure and some good damage here um this is a bar graph indicating the stand counts for the season I didn't include the 37 day stand count because there were no significant differences on that but I kind of wanted just to illustrate here that there is some pretty good differences here between these single treatment insecticides and then also compared to the double treatments here and then the the checks are definitely showing up here too that we have some good control here but in between you know the the differences though between the treatments we're not seeing too many differences between the double action and the single action insecticides here and I did want to clarify too that these letters shared here these groupings letter groupings are not to be shared between the two here side by side bars um each it's it's the colors that are being separated by letter values um so I hope that clarified that for everybody um let's see here here are some good pictures of just the foliage throughout the season too I do believe that these pictures are taking uh late June um again the checks are on the left and we can see some very good significant pressure roommate pressure not only in the check rows but actually in the plot itself um and here on the top two here from center to the right are just the standalone counters at 7.5 ponds and also at the high rate of 8.9 um and then down below we it was just added with 1034 roll and you can see a little bit more of a leaf growth I would or more coverage you can see a little bit more reduced visibility in those in between those rows so there might be just a slight slight foliar uh gain from with the fertilizer then here is with the asteroid added on to that as well and we see just a little bit more uh coverage in between those rows um but then you compared to the uh double insecticide applications uh with the high rate of the counter of 8.9 pounds added on with thymet that's seven pounds and with the quadrice being with the one we've got some really good canopy closure here uh with these two treatments and here is the comparisons between the umma treatments as well and uh the canopy closures are almost as good just as good as the thymets but uh visually on top you can't really separate any differences hardly between these umma treatments and these combinations and then going into the recoverable sucrose yield um it again does show that there's kind of there is a separation here between the double insecticides uh combinations with the single insecticide um we are seeing a little bit more of a gain here with the asteroid just slightly if anything it's just numerical but there is no significant differences between these groupings here uh be it that they share letters um but uh the double insecticide treatments that they do a pretty good job of for uh recoverable sucrose and then obviously the uh checks are are down really uh the values for the checks are down too for the recoverable sucrose um we did uh notice and record uh a slight curling response uh mark mark went through a lot of work and and uh found some good photos here um we think uh it's not definitive at all but we did notice in the asteroid combination treatments that we were getting uh some curling response here on the outside live the leaf margins and uh more specifically it seemed you could see a lot of that more happening towards the new leaf growth as well so um we don't know exactly if that's a over response of maybe a too hot of a mixture uh going down at plant all at once um it's definitely something that we need to look at look at in the future and keep an extra eye out for here's your your return over the check treatment um I guess the take all mentions on this chart now would like to illustrate is that uh the again the the double insecticide treatments are are you're getting a lot of good return having that extra uh application of insecticide on top um compared to just uh the standalone long single time uh so the single application of insecticide um in summary um there are like I mentioned that there's slight visual symptoms of negative response with that asteroid and that started fertilizer combination at both rates of the counter um but there was no significant differences between uh with the the damage ratings or the um recoverable sucrose so statistically we didn't see that any difference there just the visual on top and then there's no significant yield uh revenue decreases from applying sucrose to urban uh either be it with the quadrice combinations with the umma or with the uh combinations of asteroid at plant um and it's concurrent uh with also with the counter or thymet um and I we really feel that this research should be repeated again being that it had uh a lot of uh environmental influence on that and uh if so if it could be done uh we would like to try to replicate that in a non-pest scenario to try to separate even more uh eliminate some more intellectual uh factors to see if there is any damages with these uh combinations uh with that I'd like to thank the the sugar beet uh research and education board and their funding for our program uh I'd like to also thank ag industry uh businesses for the chemical and the seed for these trials I'd like to thank our cooperator way in the sard up in uh you know in st. thomas he's really great to work with um I'd like to thank two of my fellow research colleagues here at NDSU and also collaborated work with the USDA um thank you for all their hard efforts too with uh sprays and harvest uh harvest operations throughout the year and I'd also like to thank my uh my hardworking summer assistants this year Zane uh Miller Brett Skarda Keenan Stolteno and Claire Stolteno uh they're the ones that do all the the the good work to get get all this data put together so I very much appreciate their help on that and with that do we have any questions uh Jake uh there is one question in the uh q and a I think probably you should uh take that there okay and uh I can also answer that later as well for Deanne uh but we'd probably better move on to the next uh presentation sounds good thank you Mark thank you okay our next speaker will be Dr. Mark Botel worked on by himself and uh uh Mr. Rickos evaluation of experimental and newly registered insecticides for root maggot control and the 2021 forecast Dr. Botel thank you so uh what I'm going to be presenting today is there as the title implies uh work on newly registered as well as experimental insecticides and uh my title each year for this presentation is a little bit clunky because I also like to present information on what we're expecting with the uh as a forecast for the sugar beet root maggot for those of you that are not familiar with the insect the it's a fly species and uh the larval stage is the only stage that damages the plant and they damage it by using whirl hooks as the information there in front of you shows there they can cause pretty significant yield losses if not adequately control and uh as Jake had shown we uh we uh rate injury on the zero to nine scale of Campbell at all and I've done some preliminary work well on a number of years worth of research or uh research trials and uh we've correlated uh yield and and revenue with the root injury rating scale and for it's not necessarily a fully linear response but but for every point on that zero to nine scale uh you can lose over 700 pounds of recoverable sucrose per acre and for if our any of our international friends are still in the audience that's about 800 kilograms per hectare my materials and methods are pretty similar to uh those of uh that Jake had nicely outlined one exception would be the bottom line there I've got one trial where I've got a combined analysis and whenever I do those I do uh check for treatment by year interactions and uh before I proceed with actually uh doing the full combined analysis and it was valid for the comparison that you'll see later in the presentation so now I'll jump right into the data and these will go kind of quickly because I want to get to that forecast as well um this is a uh single year uh evaluation that we uh performed this past growing season and despite those challenges that Jake had mentioned uh we got some encouraging results um I've got the uh blue rectangle that's outlining the top five performing treatments I realized they're not necessarily all statistically better than some of the other treatments but these are the five treatments that were statistically superior or different above the untreated check in regard to both recoverable sucrose and tons of root yield per acre uh the first of which was the what we might consider an industry at plant standard or a long step very commonly used product counter 20 g at its high labeled rate and then next we have Yuma which is a generic or a secondary manufacturer's product of uh of chlorpyrifos at its maximum labeled rate one thing I should point out on this chart is that all these applications all these treatments were a single application so either a at plant or as you see in the bold parenthesized notification or notations peak fly a single peak fly with no at plant so these are not what we would recommend but we're we did this to so we don't have any other uh companion treatments or dual applications to cloud the performance we just want to see whether we're kind of getting some hits on on possible uh products or treatments that might be incorporated into a dual program later on uh next we have indigo zcx we've been looking at indigo uh the uh last couple of year or few years uh this is the first year we got to work on the zcx formulation and uh it was not outperformed by the uh by counter at its high rate so that was encouraging as was a sauna when we combined it with exponent and exponent is a a synergistic material it's not an insecticide but it's a it's the active ingredient is a piperonyl butoxide and that it is known been shown demonstrated to uh heat up or synergize the activity of pyrethroid insecticides and a sauna is a pyrethroid um the moderate rate of counter uh also performed pretty well um like i said uh some of these others uh weren't necessarily terrible but uh and we had a a lot of variability in this as jake had mentioned the heavy rain falls that uh made it so our applications were not timed as optimally as we would want and a lot of water is something you don't necessarily want uh in in those heavy um two inch rain falls in a day kind of thing to to actually dilute your material that you've applied so but i think these results are encouraging uh this is what the plots looked like i'll kind of skim through these i've also got uh root injury ratings uh that you can see there we've got a sauna by itself and then in the center a sauna with the synergist you can see a little better canopy closure there uh similar uh endigo had a pretty nice looking stand and quite healthy looking plants there as well and these photos would have been taken i think in early around july 10th or so so there was still a little more damage to occur from the root maggots um and then there are comparative treatments on the bottom fairly good root maggot pressure in this trial uh our second study of three that i'll be presenting this this is three treatments that have been common to our midak and bifender work over the the last three years so as you can see in the upper right corner it's 2018 through this past year and uh we do have root injury rating uh that data on this as well and it very much corresponds with the yield data in this case but these three treatments were common to all three of those years and what we see here i've been getting a lot of questions on you know you know interest in midak and you know how does it perform relative to the products we know a little more about and it appears this this data would suggest pretty strongly that it is performs at a very comparable level to the moderate rate of counter the 7.5 pounds which is just it's 84 of the full rate the midak in all cases or all years was applied dribble and furl as jake had described next i've got a data slide from our third study presenting today this one's kind of busy but i've got it color coded in a similar manner that jake had described for his these are stand counts a number of plants per 100 feet of row there were these were a um there these were taken at a point where not a whole lot of root megat feeding injury had taken place or at least plants had not been taken out to any significant extent at this point so really what we're looking at is stand establishment and so the clustered bars usually have they will always have a common element in this case the orange ones or yellow on your far left are counter at a couple of different rates either alone or concurrent not not mixed with not put in the furl with but dribbled in furl with a banded application of counter and then next in green we've got mind act two different placement methods and then the bar that has the texture to it included a post emergence application of by fender as a broadcast application and that as jake jake had mentioned this one actually was even a little later it was one day after peak fly which was not what we preferred but we had not only all of that rain but we had days and days of wind that was hovering around 18 to 23 miles per hour and in small pot plot work you really can't can't risk drift into another plot so we had to wait the next cluster of bars is poncho beta as the base treatment all of those had 1034 oh starter fertilizer with them in a t-band and then the second two the two poncho beta bars that have texture pattern to them one they both had my deck and then the the very far right one included asteroid 1034 oh and my deck on poncho beta treated seed all those being t-banded and then the treatments are going to repeat to the next slide so i'm kind of going through them more thoroughly here we had two rates of by fender and both of those were t-banded we found that pyrethroids tend to do better as a t-band so we we did that with by fender which is by fienthrin and then we have our fertilizer controls using the two placement methods and then an untreated check no significant differences in stand establishment which usually no differences is pretty boring maybe it is today at this this hour in the afternoon but it's actually a good thing suggesting that we didn't have any significant deleterious effects on on stand establishment similar to jake's study we did see there was a numerical reduction in stand i can't even call it a reduction but at least something to maybe bear a suggestion that we should continue looking at this further with the high rate of counter and the dribble and furrow of the 1034 oh same treatments this is recoverable sucrose per acre and it is in pounds essentially we don't have as as you saw in jake's presentation within these clusters as far as like rate or tank mix or not tank mix but concurrent application partners if you will we didn't see any significant differences reductions in yield from for instance in the counter group the dribble and furrow of the the fungis or the fertilizer again numerical with both treatments but but not significant mydac i would say this mainly suggests that dribble and furrow is probably going to be a little more efficacious but i can't even declare that because these two bars are have at least one letter in common the broadcast wasn't really effective of the bifender but again i think that has a lot to do with with timing because it was really applied about four days later than i would have wanted so we need to look at that further this was kind of a surprising trend at least within the poncho beta group the poncho beta alone with 1034 oh and then we start adding components adding mydac and then adding asteroid you'd kind of think the more you're loading on there um you might be having a negative impact on yield but this is difficult to separate out because you've also got insect pressure and even some of the fungicides are not have been known to have some act insecticidal activity i'm not necessarily suggesting that but um we we got good good protection of yield and good performance out of this sort of the kitchen sink treatment here uh no significant difference between the two rates of bifender although the pattern of performance suggests maybe that higher rate is better this is really the rate by the way is 10.97 but in the interest of space i rounded up for a presentation sake and then we we did have significant reductions in yield not necessarily due to fertilizer but we had these were unprotected as far as an insecticide so summing up the insecticide work uh first the the experimental entries in these trials bifender the high rate uh was comparable and not statistically outperformed by counter at either rate uh end ago uh similar and so it looks promising as an experimental and i believe both are being pursued for registration in sugar beet so that's very good news and uh the the catch is we need to look at this further because we independently started looking at end ago uh and uh and uh you know it looks promising but we've only looked at uh i believe the last or i believe we've only looked at at plant applications so we need to pursue this further with research on foliar applications uh with the registered materials asana was i would say performance was at least uh enhanced by exponent there was not a significant difference between the asana alone and the asana with exponent but uh but we but when by adding the exponent it bumped the performance up to where it was not statistically outperformed by any of the other the standard materials that we tested mydac sorry i'll go back one mark pardon me another minute okay so the the big thing on this insecticide stuff is we didn't see negative impacts from adding 10 34 o with the application but we need to test this further because it's a small dataset one real good year of it and there were those slight trends with the 10 10 34 o so here's what we're looking like the root maggot situation in 2020 2020 replaced 2019 as the second highest root maggot fly activity year valley wide in the last 14 years so we're not we're not winning the battle so we have work to do in uh regard to research and uh and on the farm really so uh hopefully we'll be able to help growers deal with that uh as far as what the forecast looks like for 2020 here's what our forecast looked like in 2017 trending upward 2020 looked like that and this and it came to bear and this is what we're expecting for 2021 the point thing to point out here is that the high the intense pressure is is increasing within these orange orbs and then we've got a new area on the map that we haven't seen for probably six years and that's six or eight years down in the sabon and bacon baker area so that's a concern as well i'll be presenting more of this at grower meetings to show you where we expect high and moderate risk but i'll wrap it up with an acknowledgement of all these entities that helped our our research succeed and i want to especially thank the r&e board for their uh their confidence and funding in our program and please do ask questions in the chat if you uh if any come up or feel free to email me as well right thank you mark if there are any questions please put them in the chat box our next speaker will be dr daniel keiser and he's from the university of minnesota his topic is what are bio stimulants and are they worth applying so what i'm going to talk to you about today is i'm just going to go over a little bit of the work that we did with funding that we received from the r&e board focusing on bio stimulants and what i'm going to talk more about are some of the things that we've been seeing with that i'll just kind of give you an idea in a couple of classes we're looking at and where we're kind of moving forward with some of this this particular work so with bio stimulants right now there's currently no legal definition how there was some work being done on that in europe they've been farther along when it comes to some of the definitions on some of this the european bio stimulants council defines them as substances or microorganisms whose function when applied to plants or the rise of sphere is to stimulate natural processes to enhance benefit nutrient uptake nutrient efficiency tolerance to abiotic stresses and crop quality another definition for bio stimulants would be substances or microbes that provide are provided in minute quantities promote plant growth these substances aren't fertilizers they're not pesticides and they're not soil conditioners so they're it's slightly nebulous in terms of the regulation on some of these products although some of them would fall in line with potentially some of the fertilizer amendments products that are completely out there so if you look at the products themselves there have been a number of products that have been marketed for years many years and if you are interested in looking at any data you can check out the regional ncra 103 the regional compendium that myself and Dave Dave franson are involved with where you can search some of the past research on some of these particular products particularly if you know the active ingredient that's really important to do a search on this particular site to see if you can find any data that's been done in the past but again a lot of these things aren't necessarily new there's just been a new spin in terms of how the industry has been looking at them to try to develop these products and market to them for agriculture so categories of bio stimulants these are the kind of the five one being humic substances two amino acids and other nitrogen compounds three kitosons this highlighted ones are what i'm going to talk about further because these are some of the products that we tested in the trials this year four seaweed extracts and then five you know probably where we see the most market growth right now is in beneficial microorganisms which can include both bacteria which plant growth promoting rhizobacteria are kind of one of those things and also free living nitrogen fixers which is probably the biggest market in part we see market share right now moving forward and then also fungi themselves and one thing with this if you're looking at these products you can find products that contain some of these sources individually but many of them are kind of a cocktail of a number of these particular products that are meant to do different things just depending on on the microorganism itself that's that's in the product mixture so the first product i'm going to talk about are kitosons these are linear polysaccharide compounds composed of glucosamine where these come from is the treatment of shrimp which contain chitin in their outer shells with sodium hydroxide and they can form a liquid product when added to your fertilizer tank makes your tank smell like a shrimp cocktails what i've tend to found but the uses of these products they use them in cancer treatments dietary supplements wine making and then also agriculture the effects of them and what i've seen particularly with sugar beet production with both seed treatment and foliar application they've been looking at it for disease suppression and the most common thing that i found in looking at some background information was work in the middle east where they were looking at it for rhizectonia suppression i haven't seen anything with other diseases like sarcospera but i'm assuming they've looked at it and seeing that and we're not using these widely for natural bio controls you can kind of tell in terms of what some of the data has been in terms of consistency of these products as bio control agents but you know it's one of the reasons why i looked at these particular class of products because it made more sense than because of some of the disease suppression to include these in this particular data set just to see if there was anything that we could find at this time the other products are beneficial microorganisms this is again the fastest growing segment in the industry at this particular point in time and this is because of some of the new DNA techniques for analyzing what's in the rhizosphere around the roots these companies can isolate these microorganisms and try to engineer them to work better because that's one one of the challenges particularly with free living nitrogen fixers is to get them to have activity particularly in situations where you're applying high rates of nitrogen the more nitrogen you typically apply the less effective many of these products are so our 2020 research trial the primary goal was to establish and do some fall spring comparisons but we wanted to get some nitrogen rate data going in 2020 so i decided to look at some simple trials looking at a just a yes-no arrangement with two of these bio stimulant controls two locations we were at were crookston and woodlake they were a full nitrogen rate study where we had six nitrogen rates at crookston ranging from zero to 200 pounds of spring area and from zero to 210 pounds at woodlake the bio stimulants were applied we were applied in a total of six gallons per acre of water plus starter fertilizer which the starter we selected was three gallons per acre of 6246 sourcing these products it's amazing which you can find in amazon the kiteson product itself i had substantial difficulty finding a product the recommended rate for this product which is called high tide it's 0.25 ounces per gallon we used about double that with the product we had so we used a 0.5 ounce per gallon rate for that itself the n-fixer product that we tested was this bio red bio mate mix the rate we used were 60 ounces per acre of bio red plus 22 and a half ounces of bio mate the difference between these products of the bio red is primarily free-living n-fixers the bio mate contains sugars so the mixture of these two what i did that is for longevity of the product since we were mixing these ahead of time the bio mate had sugars that those n-fixers could feed off of from the time where we mixed it versus the time of application that was kind of the recommended practice for these products as well so yield data on these sites um very and responsive year at the woodlake site at crookston we look at um and what i'm showing you the data here is applied in plus our four foot soil nitrate in which if you look at the breakdown here this is the two foot end here at the locations in the two to four foot if you want to break that down by the two and four foot range but again these graphs are going to show you the data of applied end plus the four foot end rate at crookston and response up to about 80 pounds of applied end plus soil and at woodlake we're seeing end responses anywhere from around 175 to that highest end rate we applied which is around 240 pounds of total applied end so looking at this data this is just summarizing across the bio stimulants because we saw no effect of the bio stimulants at either site and if we were going to see them i would especially expected to see responses at woodlake where we had such an end deficient situation where if we were going to get some response from that free living end fixer we should have seen it and we just did not at that given location recoverable sucrose per acre if we break that down per ton we're seeing a maximum recoverable sucrose at around the same nitrogen rates that maximize yield the exception was at woodlake where we didn't see any general effect of end although if you look at the numbers the numbers were much higher as we approached our highest application rates and the significance at this site was about 0.15 so we're close to our accepted significance of 0.1 and it follows kind of the same generally trend we saw at crookston at maximizing near that point at which where we maximized yield at that given site on a per acre basis similar to yield looking at it around 80 pounds recoverable sucrose per acre maximized at crookston and we saw a pretty linear response at the woodlake site and that was an interesting site to kind of look at it when it went out to that site you really couldn't see the visual differences out there but there were significant differences particularly with the the yield at that given at that site so the kind of the thing here if you look at it nothing that i would have expected to happen differently than we've seen in the past in the relationship between recoverable sucrose and also yield with our nitrogen rate response data one of the questions i did receive about mid-summer was looking at some of the emergence data and we did look at some emergence this is emergence of percentage and i'm looking at just as applied and azurea seeing a fairly significant decline in our emergence as we increase end rate at our given locations and the only time we really saw some difference between the biostimulances where we looked at slightly lower emergence at these higher end rates at crookston and at woodlake the emergence was was similar no matter what we had for treatments biostimulant or not to put this in perspective though that we normally we did have a pretty substantial decrease in emergence it was about 20 percent reduction at woodlake up to that 210 pound nitrogen rate we also saw about a 40 percent increase in root yield so if you put the two together really you see a lot of compensation for that decreased emergence in the the sugar beet flexing the the root size and you see larger roots per plant with with that reduce rather that reduction in the emergence at these given locations a couple of things we're looking at i had some questions last year on petiol nitrate concentration we were looking at that i took some samples in early to mid july how this is just the data kind of see the relationship between the two um generally from this data if we got above a 850 part per million we're at 100 maximum yield the problem though is when we're below that point we're anywhere from 50 up to 100 percent so we had situations particularly a sister site that i don't have the yield data reported here from lake lily and which was just a simple a nitrogen rate in a labi nitrogen study where there's had very low petiol nitrate concentrations but very high yields we had similar yield potential at that site close to 40 tons as was seen at that woodlake site so in general the bio stimulants right now we're kind of dropping that point and i'm shifting towards the fall spring application at this you know i think it's going to be pretty hit or miss and i don't know with particularly with a crop with a deep tap rate if you're going to see as much of a benefit as as you might see with a crop with a fibrous grit system such as corn uh disease pressure we didn't assess that but just without without lack of a difference in yield i can't imagine just looking at that that any of these products were giving us any benefit in terms of disease pressure but again it's two site years of data this usually these these bio stimulants you need a lot of site years to kind of look at a probability model for many of these treatments so anerate response now it's one of the things this data will be included in the database i don't expect any large changes i'll have been talking with john lamb about um we're looking at at least updating the publication i don't know where that's going to go with the nitrogen rate recommendations at this time however the additional site years of data are really invaluable for us in looking at that that overall evaluation but again it's something we're looking at i didn't have time to go through everything i have on bio stimulants um minnesota crop news i'm likely going to be putting out a post here sometime here within the spring so if you have any follow-up questions on that it's a good source to look for and at this mohammed if we have any time for questions i can take a question or two thank you dan you do have a minute or so so if there are any questions feel free go ahead and ask dan if not they will put it in mohammed there is one question for dan and i am back in full capacity so i can take over as moderator as well thank you go ahead and i can't see the question so could you yeah i'll read it for you so where where are we where we start to find these by stimulant products to consider for production sugar beet production with a very wide definition of what these products are so where's a good starting place to find information well a lot of the issue right now is going to be finding products that might be specific or crop specific and that's one of the things if you look at a lot of the work right now there's a lot of work to isolate specific microbes that are in the rhizosphere specific crops and that's the challenge i had was when we started setting up the study was finding products that weren't corn specific because that's been kind of the king right now in terms of products particularly these free living nitrogen fixers there's a lot of work on on corn so it's um you know looking at it in terms of a web search it's kind of what i went i looked at um some published data just to see what's out there to see it but it's very limited right now so um the main thing would be just following up um with um you know some of the extension researchers to see what they know particularly those of us that are on that ncr a 103 committee uh just to see because we're generally in tune with um some of the products that are out there just to know kind of what's being marketed but we can't keep up with everything so they it is a challenge because again i think if you look at these products they're going to be really tailored to specific crops and that's one of the things you're going to want to watch out for if you're using them because some things may not make sense for one crop it may make more sense for another all right thank you our next speaker is and i think she's i see she's on the post so uh our paper the next paper is liquid separated dairy manure in a sugar beet rotation presented by dr melissa wilson the university of minnesota so melissa when you're ready go ahead hi all my name is melissa i'm an extension specialist and assistant professor and i work on manure management so i want to talk a little bit about a project that we started in 2019 so fall of 2019 we applied liquid separated dairy manure and wanted to see where in rotation it'd be beneficial for um sugar beet so as you know a lot of the there's a lot of big dairies that are coming into western minnesota into sugar beet growing regions and a lot of them are installing what's called a liquid separated system for their manure so this is actually some screw presses that are in line and the you see the dry material here the dry material from the manure is actually recycled back into the barns as bedding and then the liquid is what's applied to the land and there is there's some concern that it might release nutrients a little differently and that's why we wanted to test this in the sugar beet rotation because we know that slow release of nitrogen especially if that release happens late in the season can be detrimental to sugar so we started this location in fall 2019 we applied manure in near murdoch minnesota and then we also just started our second site this past fall up near national minnesota so i'm going to talk mostly about the results from the first year of the study where we started in murdoch so in case you're interested in wondering how we apply manure in small plots you can see a picture it's basically just a poly tote filled with manure lifted in the air and has a hose on the end of it what we did is we wanted to apply similar rates to what the dairy was offering so we applied a high rate this ended up being about 14400 gallons per acre and the first year available nitrogen credit from that was 177 pounds of nitrogen assuming about 55 percent of the total nitrogen was available for the low rate they were offering 9500 gallons per acre that ended up being about 85 pounds of nitrogen for first year credit and then we compare that to the standard practice of adding spring fertilizer so we had three different crops corn soybean and sugar beet and for all of these if there were nutrients that were not met by the manure say it was phosphorus or potassium we did add spring fertilizers to those plots to balance that out so essentially all of these had a very similar nitrogen rate when it came to corn or the sugar beet but our soybean we did not apply any additional nitrogen to with our spring fertilizers for that one we just applied phosphorus and potassium as needed so overall we tried to meet all of the baseline nutrient needs of the crops but sometimes there were over applications of nutrients if it came with the manure for the second and third year in this rotation we're going to be doing just fertilizers so we don't we're not applying manure any other time and we will take nitrogen credits and look at the soil test phosphorus and potassium as well and adjust our fertilizer needs based on those so we also had a couple different crops as I mentioned and you'll see each one of these rows has either corn soybean or sugar beet and then within each of these blocks we have our high rate in six rows our low rate in six rows and our fertilizer in six rows and then we had some buffer plots here too as well each crop was replicated four times that's why I see four different blocks of these and like I said we just kind of finished up our first field year of data collection we started seeing some nutrient deficiencies or differences pretty early in the season this is an aerial photograph of our corn and I show here what was applied so this is fertilizer only this is low rate manure and this is high rate manure I want to note that this previous year was this whole field was planted to corn so it kind of gives you an idea of where we're at overall the corn definitely looks smaller where there was only fertilizer applied it was bigger and there's more a little bit more row closure in the low and high manure rates and we saw a very similar pattern with our sugar beet as well in this case we have our high manure rows here our low manure rate here and fertilizers and again the top growth was much more robust where we had our manure application rates and what's interesting is that we tried to match nitrogen for the fertilizers and the manure in both of these plots but that was first year availability of nitrogen so we don't know if more mineralization happened in this particular year or what was going on but it was definitely interesting to see now soybean was a different story soybean this is our two manure applications and then this is our fertilizer only and you can see the fertilizer only was much more green and had a lot less of the iron chlorosis deficiency happening what what we think happened is these are high pH soils this is a pH of about 88.1 and we added organic matter and we added nitrogen which are both tend to drive IDC in high pH soils and you know we didn't think about it we didn't apply any kind of products to try to help with the iron or anything so that was one of our mistakes that we need to rectify in the future I always joke with people that my research sometimes is doing dumb things so you all don't have to and that was one of the dumb things we did so I do not recommend applying manure prior to soybeans if you're not going to also apply some sort of iron chelation product or something like that here's a mid-season aerial photograph again sugar beets look great corn look great soybean looks awful it really took a hit and you can see exactly where we applied manure in most cases in those treatments so I want to talk about yield here we have our corn yield in this first graph over here from zero to 240 bushels per acre our fertilizer plots had a 207 bushel per acre yield our low manure rate was about 10 bushels per acre or higher than that at 217 and our high manure rate was in between the two at 212 I didn't get a chance to statistically analyze these yet but it does show you there's definitely differences based on our nutrient source for our corn yields soybean as you probably expected soybean yields were really low for our manure plots only 13 and 8 bushels per acre even our fertilizer plots yielded about 35 bushels per acre which is a little low for the region I think in 2019 the average for this area was about 45 so this is even a little bit low in these areas and here we have our sugar beet yields this is what I have at the top here is nutrient source yield in tons per acre extractable sugar in pounds per ton of yield extractable sugar in pounds per acre and percent sugar purity so overall we had some differing results interestingly we had a lot more tonnage with our manure or averaging about 35.7 tons per acre versus our fertilizer only had 32.7 the extractable sugar in pounds per ton of material definitely was lower with our manure averaging right around 290 to 89 pounds per ton versus with fertilizer only it was 297 but because we had such higher amount yield or higher yields our extractable sugar in pounds per acre was a lot higher with our manure about 10,280 or 200 or 300 or so on average versus we only had 9,710 pounds per acre with our fertilizer and kind of as expected we did have a bit of a purity hit with our manure it was about 90.8 percent purity and the fertilizer resulted in 91.2 so definitely saw some interesting differences in the sugar beets what were we up to next year well as I mentioned we applied manure last fall up in Nashua pretty happy with how that went we think we should have a nice site up there for the next three years and we'll also have our second year of the rotation next year and hopefully our soybeans will not look like this next year we will see if we can get some of the IDC issues worked out but that is all I have thanks to the research and education board for funding this here's my contact info if you'd like to see any of our other research that we're conducting in the manure group check out this link z.umn.edu slash manure research 2020 get to catch up on everything we were doing this past year all right well thank you Melissa and I really like that we do dumb things so you don't have to think I'm gonna have to remember that it's a good mantra okay on to our next speaker thanks for closing out and our next speaker is Dr. Amitava Chatterjee with North Dakota State University and he's going to be asking and hopefully answering should we incur a loss by interceding sugar beet so today I'm going to talk about if you are including this interceding this cover crops in sugar beet production system whether that is going to lead towards the sugar beet yield loss enough because as you know that if we are including this interceding cover crops and cover crops growth need some nitrogen water so when we are cutting down those resources because of this interceding whether that can lead to this sugar beet effect the sugar beet production or not before we are I'm just going too much deep I just like to recognize that our co-authors that Shailesh he's the graduate student he moved to Penn State for his PhD Marisol Barty from department of plant science she actually kind of helped us to design this research and cover crop and Norman Katana to lay out our plots and then harvesting he is dealing with all in all for this and guiding student also so why do we need to think about interceding cover crops in sugar beet this picture is showing that how this beet field loops at the late fall if you don't have any protection for these fields and as you can see these soils are exposed to the wind erosion so there can be a chance that significant soil is getting lost to the ditches and your beach turns to the dark so for that reasons we are thinking about that if we have some residue some kind of protection against this wind erosion then it can help to improve our soil health productivity for the long-term basis so we interceded this right and how it looks like in between those rows just I like to show you that picture and this is that how it looks like just soon after harvest so this sugar beet after defoliation and as you can see that these residues they are just lying in between those sugar beet rows and if you have a cover crop that overwinters then you can see some growth during the next early spring during the snow melts after the snow melt and what it does that it can catch some nutrients from the leaching losses so we have some benefits if we are having this interceding and like rye or that wind overwinters or if you have suppose like that winter kills suppose for like pea or tamalina or musters they can protect some soil loss after the beet harvest that is the main ambition or main goal and if we have like a crop interceding cover crop that overwinters they can actually reduce the nutrient losses in spring so just let's talk about that what are the cover crops we have so we have four cover crop species we have winter rye we just like seeded at 20 pounds per acre tamalina and mustard tamalina six pounds per acre because it is a small seeds master 10 pounds per acre and then pea because it is a bigger seed 20 pounds per acre now the important thing is that in case of interceding when we need to do this interceding because as you know this sugar beet is round up ready so you have to make sure that you apply this round off just after this you apply this round up ready then you can go for interceding now you can see this 2018 19 and 20 we play a little bit with this interceding time during this 2018 first year we interceded in June 21 for the late interceding we go up to July 11 and I will show you in the results at what happens if you are going a little bit late like July 11 and just one thing in the mind that we have like 22 inch row spacing so it's not like a bunch of spacing like 30 inches of row spacing you have some exposure to the sun so there may be some growth and more room for the cover crop growth or less kind of nutrient cut off from this sugar for 2019 so we just make it a little bit early like June 13 for the early one and June 24 for the late planting and then for the growing season for the 2020 we have planted this early interceding is done in June 18 and late interceding in June 26 so it is close 2019 and 20 is close for all these years we did this study at Ada now the thing is that we actually have another side but it did not work out so I'm just going to show you that those solid results that we have at Ada so we have four cover crop spaces Rye, Camelina, mustard and pea and then we have two interceding early and late plus we have this control that is means without any cover crops we have these things at three years at Ada at different parts of the field of the brain farm and we have previous crop as a previous crop we have spring wheat all our alkaline soils we applied nitrogen 130 pounds of nitrogen and all recommended NPK for all these crops based on the two-feet soil test then what we did we measured the cover crop biomass at harvest means just before they are defoliating just a week before that thing we harvested the cover crop biomass from this quadrant 2 by 2 square feet quadrant and we also measured this sugar beet root yield sugar content and finally we determined the economic return to find out that whether these growers if they are having this interceding because we are not getting any kind of monetary benefit or our kind of incentive for having cover crops we just want to know that whether we are having some loss from this interceding cover crop so we have this rcvd and four replications and we analyze these things in SAS 9.4 at P level of 95 percent before in Red River Valley before we are talking about results we need to first talking about the growing season condition this is the growing season just at near about harvest how the prosperous site looks like where we have one of our site in 2019 so we did not really get good data from that thing so we discarded that one so these today we are just going to I have to talk about only for the eda sites 2018 it's really dry during the early growing season as you can see from the square ones and that is that all over the places and this ones on the y axis I am showing that deviation from the 30-year average rainfall so as you can see 2018 19 and 20 all of this early growing season rainfall is comparatively less because they are like minus on the negative side so they are like not below normal but as you can see the late growing season they are particularly for 2020 we got bunch of rainfall during this august and almost similar in 2019 but in case of 2018 we see that we have less amount of rainfall during this july and august where we have planted and that actually influence our cover crop biomass I just want to show you a short video that how the cover crop biomass harvest are during the defoliation looks like so because why I showed you that one that because lot of growers they asked me questions that whether whenever you are doing the harvesting whether it is affecting your beat or not whether it is going to give you any trouble with the defoliator just I like to let you know because we have bunch of biomass this year we saw we heard some sounds whenever it is defoliating because if it is if it is wrangling in between those spokes but before that I did not hear that much of noise during this defoliation or anything so let's talk about the results if we consider all three years 2018 to 2019 and 2020 we did not see any effect significant effect of interesting time on this cover crop biomass root yield sugar concentration and recoverable sugar yield same thing for this cover crop species we did not see any kind of effect and as you can see that I will talk about in next couple of slides this statistics you know it is sometimes it is just like mark was showing that well it's all non-significant but it is good yes because all non-significant means we have no significant influence either positive or negative on cover due to cover crop on this all these parameters but what we observe that if you are considering the year versus this interesting that is going to affect on all those things so it depends on your growing season condition which some years you can see some benefits of cover crop some year you did not show you some cover crop effect as you know 2018 was dry 2019-20 we got some decent rainfall during the late growing season so we will see some effect on those things so it depends varies from year to year that is not like that if you are thinking about all over like 10 years 15 years well we will see that no effect but if you are going for the individual year versus there will be some effect early always have more biomass than late growing season as you can see 2019 and 2018-19-20 whenever you are doing this early interesting they have more cover crop biomass than this late growing season and another thing is that as you can see that if you are comparing pea, camelina, mustard and rye pea and rye have generally have this higher biomass than this camelina and mustard but if you are thinking about the next one after this pea and rye mustard had higher biomass in 2020 as compared to camelina again if you are going for this three-year average just because of this 2018 was really low yield we did not see that much of year effect three-year effect but as what I think that we need to see that individual years next one is that if we include in the treatment no cover crops those all the statistics that I talked about in early this that is going to compare because we are having this factorial activity so we take out this control plot or no cover crops even if you are including this no cover crops or control then we can see that only 2019 has some effect on this yield and sugar and what is that one if you are having this early planting particularly for rye and for brown mustard then we can see there is a some or significant declining yield for this sugar beet root yield but let's see that what is happening with the sugar content as you can see that if you are having this sugar means including these cover crops there is some kind of lies in sugar content but it is not significantly different from this no cover crop but for late planting as you can see that some of those ones are really little bit getting affected but not again not that much of different because there's all are abc except for amelina they have they are all kind of not significant but if you are seeing this root yield for the late one as you can see they are not significantly different from this no cover crop so if you are going for this late planting with any cover crop then there is not much difference with the yield and sugar but if you are going with this early planting just after you apply this roundup ready then for this rye and this particularly pea you can see and brown mustard in some years they can affect because if they are having bunch of cover crop biomass they can take out the nitrogen and as you know sugar beet in among the nutrients all essential nutrients they are very sensitive about this nitrogen so if you are taking out the nitrogen cover crop then it might affect in your yield let's see about this cover crop economic profitability I have this economic profitability that how much returned from the this american crystal sugar they provided me the data for their payment and I just included that thing in my calculation and this plus signs or minus signs they indicates that how much it is different from this no cover crops in case of 2018 you can see all plus because we didn't have that much of cover crop biomass but as you can see from this 2019 if you are having this early rye or this brown mustard or pea because of this as I mentioned that it can reduce your recoverable sugar yield so it is showing up in case of that it you have some loss out there but if you are going for late late planting that is not that much of difference or like I would say there is not much effect on this economic return in 2020 we did not see any kind of effect on this economic effect on economic profitability due to this interceding with this cover crops so just before ending I just want to point out that if you are having this case of this early rye or if you are going with the mustard then that can reduce your yield particularly for one growing season that happened so conclusion from this three-year study this late interceding of cover crops had no negative effect on economic return yield or sugar if you are thinking about this amount of biomass or that residue that is going to be left over after your harvest pea and rye that have huge biomass cover crop biomass depending on again depending on the rainfall that it gets followed by the mustard then the camalina has the lowest one but one thing we need to remember that camalina has the upright one so it is and they also need some nutrients so it has the less amount of biomass but pea they roll on the ground and this rye they are really kind of withstand with the less amount of nutrient and water so they have this more biomass growth depending on amount of cover crop biomass produced early interceding particularly by rye and pea can reduce the economic return and cost involved with this interceding and ecosystem services from proper crops are we did not consider that thing we don't know that how much you can save with this soil erosion loss and those are the things that we need to consider before we are making a overall kind of conclusion. Thanks Mark if we have if I have any time for question I'll be happy to take those ones. Thanks Amitava yes you do have time for one question there is one in the message board or in the chat and or a question answer and I cannot see that thing can you just sure I'll I'll read it for you how did you plant just they may have missed it but how did you plant the interceded crop what kind of plant or cedar did you use? It's a good question well you know Mark sometimes we did by hand with the hope and kind of imitating with that planter that is our interceder that is available in the market but for the small row small plot and particularly for 22 inch row spacing there is not a interceder for that thing but for 13 inch row spacing there is a interceder so in our case we did it by hope hand hope so it is really kind of exhausting but well that we did and just to add one thing that I think Amity they have a interceder for this cover crop interceder but I don't know in details that what is the cost or anything about that whether it is available in the market or not but one unit that they give it to Marisol Barty that I know of and yeah in future in next year I'm I have two new cover crops winter wheat and flax so that we are going to play with for the next year. Amit this is Tom. Yes maybe you maybe your seeding rate was too high have you considered backing off on your seeding rate? That's a good question yeah you know again I I have not played with the seeding rates it is just like we just go in the like it'll be really good study if we can play with that seeding rates and see that how it is affecting we planted it really thick like that I can tell you and you are correct in that one and it'll be good study to kind of play with that one that how it is it will be affecting very good thank you all right we will move on to the next presentation and that is entitled integrated integrating cover crop and stripped tillage to improve soil health update and it's presented by Jody DeYoung Hughes of the University of Minnesota. Next year we'll have a lot more data to show you this year what happened in 2019 is it just uh or in 2019 not 2020 we got the grant in the spring of 19 and was hoping to uh get this project going but it just rained and rained and rained and we could not get in to get in our cover crops in the three locations that we were at so we postponed it a year and the three locations that we have we have Wayne Tormo near Granite Falls and we have Noah Hultgren which has a field near south of Danbury's and then we also have Brian Ryberg while in he gave us a field even 20 miles further away from my home thank you Brian and it's near Winthrop and we had three treatments and it's replicated three times 22 inch rows the full length of the field and it mostly all three fields were around 23 or four acres in total and the one practice was whatever they normally use and so for two of them that's chisel plower just gripping ahead of time and then one was stripped till after the corn okay I'll back up just a little bit this year is corn and so um and in the fall after harvest they will either chisel or disc grip the second treatment is they'll do strip till the other treatment was that we uh put in early season cover crops and then we're going to strip till this fall and then uh late season cover crops stripped till in the fall so those are four treatments and we got all of them interceded and the v3 v4 and we used the uh machine uh Carson claustramine came down from Fargo he also he's the owner of strip till for you and he made this tool bar for us and brought it down and all three sites used it and we put in crimson clover an annual rye grass so that they can live underneath the canopy and we don't expect them to over winter and I want to thank Carson truly for this because he did not charge us to use this machine and for transportation or for the use of it and we lost the lid to his fertilizer tank and he was very nice about not charging us so that was it was a good good person to work with the ryberg farm now since he doesn't do a lot of tillage he does mainly strip till he has a broadcast not interceded but a broadcaster for the cover crops and we compared that to the when we go in and drill it instead so that was just a little different thing that we did on his place all the crops germinated all the cover crops which was great to see you can see here a lot of them look just like this and so then we went out to brian's and we took an app it's called kind of pale and went and you take a picture straight down onto the the floor and it will decide how much of it is cover crop or green material versus soil and so you can see here at three percent here's it looks at this here and it turns it into this image here and the one down below is broadcast and the one up above is drilled or interceded at five percent you can see that you know a little bit more out there again the broadcast is down below and then ten percent but nine percent for the the broadcast we didn't we didn't get a ten percent in the broadcast but really nine percent ten percent isn't a big deal it was very variable throughout the field on how you know what was our averages and i think most of them were around five percent but they did grow um and they were there this this winter too then on september 9th uh we had a field day and rantezo drone was there i was trying to find an interceder or a hege or tall boy or something that i could get into the field and was looking all summer and i could find one for 30 intervals could not get one for 22s so uh rantezo said that they would come and they would fly it on with a drone and see how that worked out and that was fun to learn it took it took a while for setting up baby lines and and the tank we had to go over it three times to get the rate that we wanted the tank isn't big very big so it could go down and then we it would come back to fill up and it it takes a while but it got the job done and it did a very nice job and you know it went exactly where it needed to be and so it was exciting kind of to use that and what was nice about that is they brought it up and they didn't charge us the transport or the person we just had a a little bit of time in there but not for his travel time and this is a cover crop plot that um you remember it snowed really early in october and we're like oh gosh i don't have any in my tillage in yet and we went out there was kicking around and we could still see cover crop was growing and this was the late season cover crop or i'm sorry the early season cover crop had pretty good growth and the late season that we put on with the drone had it was not as robust so we'll have to see what happens and we were able to plant in the or not plant till in the snow with discriping but i wasn't going to do that with strip tilling and we had to wait a little bit for the strip tiller anyway and luckily it warmed back up snow was gone soils were ready and we went back in at wane's place uh karson clausterman again brought down a strip tiller and we did it and it was a little muddy and it i think we're going to need a secondary pass this the spring to kind of just freshen it up and get it ready for sugar beets um i don't want to say we have to stick to one pass and then i have a horrible emergence it doesn't make sense so um but otherwise uh ryan's look good and noah's look good and i were already for spring i it's actually very nice that all three plots everything worked out really well so strip till may need a secondary pass this spring we'll we'll evaluate that when we get closer um the disc grip or the chisel plow plots will have to have a field cultivation to get them ready for planting and then after everything's ready we're going to assess how much of the cover crops grew and continue to grow and seedling damage so after we plant we'll go back out there and rate that and we will also do a weed pass too to see did the rye help smother out and have a high enough biomass that maybe we don't need our first pass of herbicides don't don't quote me on that i'm getting so much trouble with the university so we're going to see uh you know what kind of benefits we could get and then of course we're going to go to yield and um i'm kind of excited about all that we're a year late but it's um i think it was worth it because this year was really nice and and we got some really everything got in very timely so uh do i have any questions so do you have awful lot of corn residue on the surface are you worried about that yeah i mean we have really good yields um no i'm not uh that's what that's also when we'll evaluate if we need a secondary pass or not mainly just to push the residue to the side off the berm so that the the sugar beet has pretty much a black berm to plant into other questions for jody okay uh yes we do have one in the q and a thing and uh they were asking about what your row spacing was 22 inches for all three okay i'm really pleased with how many people stayed on a full the full day a wonderful crowd um excellent questions were asked as well i guess maybe i should open it up for questions for any of the other speakers if you didn't get an opportunity if you have one for jody something comes to mind please do ask if you want to know the soil that's a soil up by crookston behind me there okay that uh larry smith had some color colorful words for some of the soil up there i recall i can imagine all right good afternoon again thank you mark for caring true um we have some people would like to thank those people especially from europe i saw anja is still on in syria so thank you for staying it's about 11 o'clock over there time to drink some milk tea or whatever cool beverage you like at this time i saw anfan week and a lot of our colleagues uh from michigan from idaho oliver uh peter regetnik uh thank you for staying on sorry we can't have you here uh this year but hopefully we'll have your own next year dr albert sims uh thank you for your service to the uh industry and university thank you very much dr jacob uh butkin congratulations on your award dr tom peters congratulations and your distinguished service award all my fellow researchers thank you thank you for the work you do thank you for presenting the research and then thank you for making this information available to our producers as we indicated earlier we'll have recordings for you especially for the board members if they need to look back at any specific area so as soon as i have that available i will let you know uh thanks to um i didn't do that i would like to thank somitomo cooperation for their sponsorship they should be researched an education board for their funding n d s u and university of minnesota administrators uh for continuing to support this joint program i think is exemplary and more states neighboring states should probably be doing this kind of an arrangement thank you all it was good to see so many different names who participated special thank you to our colleagues from europe who were able to join us this morning and for those uh you have a lot of people from uh sweden and germany and france and has set sorby who's still on thank you for staying to the end