Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:59:06.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foreign Material and Seed Moisture in Glyphosate-Resistant and Conventional Soybean Systems1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David R. Shaw  and
C. Shane Bray
David R. Shaw*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
C. Shane Bray
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Advances in biotechnology within the last decade have caused dramatic changes in agricultural production systems. In Mississippi, over 60% of the soybean hectarage was planted to glyphosate-resistant soybean in the 2001 production season. One advantage of glyphosate-resistant systems may be that fields with fewer weeds at harvest result in less foreign material and lower seed moisture due to less foreign material. Research was conducted to assess the foreign matter and moisture content of representative glyphosate-resistant and conventional soybean by evaluating elevator receipts collected from soybean producers in the southern and midwestern United States. A survey of growers using glyphosate-resistant and conventional soybean was conducted during the fall and winter of 2000. Copies of elevator receipts were collected to compare the foreign matter percentage and moisture content of soybean in both categories. A total of 16,535 ha were represented, of which 13,903 were from glyphosate-resistant soybean and 2,632 were from conventional soybean. Average foreign matter content from the glyphosate-resistant soybean was 1.9%, compared with 2.5% from the conventional soybean. Thus, the glyphosate-resistant program reduced foreign matter, an indication of reduced weed seed and trash contained in the sample or improved harvest efficiency. No difference was noted in seed moisture content between the two systems.

Keywords

SoybeanGlycine max (L.) MerrCrop qualityfb, followed by
Type
Note
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 389 - 393
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Askew, S. D., Shaw, D. R., and Street, J. E. 1998. Red rice (Oryza sativa) control and seedhead suppression with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 12: 504–506.Google Scholar
Barker, M. A., Thompson, L. Jr., and Patterson, R. P. 1984. Effect of 2,4-DB on soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 32: 299–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, L. D., Padgette, S. R., Kimball, S. L., and Wells, B. H. 1997. Perspective on glyphosate resistance. Weed Technol. 11: 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1992. Rationale for developing herbicide-resistant crops. Weed Technol. 6: 621–625.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J. and Gianessi, L. 1999. Herbicide tolerant soybeans: why growers are adopting Roundup Ready varieties. AgBioForum 2: 65–72.Google Scholar
Conservation Tillage Information Center. 1999. Conservation Tillage Survey Data:. Web page: http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/Core4/ConsTillage.html. Accessed: June 4, 1999.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 2000. Weed management in ultra narrow row cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 14: 19–29.Google Scholar
Delannay, X., Bauman, T., and Beighley, D. H. et al. 1995. Yield evaluation of a glyphosate-resistant soybean line after treatment with glyphosate. Crop Sci. 35: 1461–1467.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. M., Shaw, D. R., and Barrentine, W. L. 1998. Herbicide combinations for preharvest weed desiccation in early maturing soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12: 157–165.Google Scholar
Giannessi, L. 2000. Agricultural Biotechnology: It's Here to Stay:. Web page: http://warp.nal.usda.gov:80/bic/GIANNESS.html. Accessed: February 25, 2001.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L. and Raymer, P. 2002. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) and red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) control in glyphosate-resistant soybean with narrow rows and postemergence herbicide mixtures. Weed Technol. 16: 669–674.Google Scholar
Harris, J. R., Gossett, B. J., Murphy, T. R., and Toler, J. E. 1991. Response of broadleaf weeds and soybeans to the diphenyl ether herbicides. J. Prod. Agric. 4: 407–411.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. F., Bailey, W. A., Wilson, H. P., Holshouser, D. L., Herbert, D. A. Jr., and Hines, T. E. 2002. Herbicide effects on visible injury, leaf area, and yield of glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 16: 554–566.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11: 354–362.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1996. Control of annual weeds with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 10: 957–962.Google Scholar
McKinley, T. L., Roberts, R. K., Hayes, R. M., and English, B. C. 1999. Economic comparison of herbicides for johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control in glyphosate-tolerant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 30–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2000. Acreage. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2001. 2000 Annual Summary. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 2001. Soybean growth and development as affected by glyphosate and postemergence herbicide tank mixtures. Agron. J. 93: 428–434.Google Scholar
Nice, G. R. W., Buehring, N. W., and Shaw, D. R. 2001. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) response to shading, soybean (Glycine max) row spacing, and population in three management systems. Weed Technol. 15: 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padgette, S. R., Kolacz, K. H., and Delannay, X. et al. 1995. Development, identification, and characterization of a glyphosate-resistant soybean line. Crop Sci. 35: 1451–1461.Google Scholar
Padgette, S. R., Re, D. B., Barry, G. F., Eichholtz, D. E., Delannay, X., Fuchs, R. L., Kishore, G. M., and Fraley, R. T. 1996. New weed control opportunities: development of soybeans with a Roundup Ready gene. In Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide-Resistant Crops. New York: Lewis. pp. 53–84.Google Scholar
Payne, S. A. and Oliver, L. R. 2000. Weed control in drilled glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 14: 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pike, D. R., McGlamery, M. D., and Knake, E. L. 1991. A case study of herbicide use. Weed Technol. 5: 639–646.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Arnold, J. C., Snipes, C. E., Laughlin, D. H., and Mills, J. A. 2001. Comparison of glyphosate-resistant and nontransgenic soybean (Glycine max) herbicide systems. Weed Technol. 15: 676–685.Google Scholar
Smith, M. C., Shaw, D. R., and Bennett, A. C. 1999. Interaction of glyphosate rate and initial application timing on season-long weed control in Roundup Ready soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 207–208.Google Scholar
Stougaard, R. N., Kapusta, G., and Roskamp, G. 1984. Early preplant applications for no-till soybean (Glycine max) weed control. Weed Sci. 32: 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Ayeni, A. O., and Majek, B. A. 2000. Optimum glyphosate timing with or without residual herbicides in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) under full-season conventional tillage. Weed Technol. 14: 140–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. S. and Worsham, A. D. 1988. Combinations of non-selective herbicides for difficult to control weeds in no-till corn (Zea mays) and soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 36: 648–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar