Information for Soybean Producers
A few years ago, several companies started producing “beef” burgers that contained no beef. These “meat” products were seen as a plus for U.S. soybean producers because they contained protein from soybeans. Click here for an article that describes this issue in detail.
Now we are hearing about “meat” that is grown from animal cells cultured in a laboratory. This product, also called cultivated meat or lab-grown meat, is being hailed as a breakthrough because it is more climate friendly than meat that comes from animals. In reality, lab-grown meat does come from animals, but not from slaughtered animals.
As of May 2024, lab-grown meat is not available in U.S. grocery stores or restaurants. If some states have their way, it never will be. For example, Alabama and Florida have passed laws banning the sale or production of lab-grown meat in those states. Of course, all of this “meatless” activity has been encouraged because of the perception that animal agriculture is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions that are deemed significant contributors to climate change [click here to access an article with information that counters this perception].
Dr. Jianxin Ma and graduate student Chance Clark of Purdue Univ. have devised a method that will aid in the domestication of desirable soybean traits from wild soybean relatives much faster than done with previous methods. By using gene-editing technology, this new process can be used to modify genes that can be used in the development of more suitable varieties for producers to use in their operations.
According to results reported in a 1972 article titled “The Effect of Temperature and Moisture on the Survival of Heterodera glycines in the Absence of a Host” by Slack, Riggs, and Hamblen, SCN can survive for an extended period in flooded soil and at temperatures that are rarely exceeded in Midsouth soils. The authors found that SCN larvae survived in water up to 630 days, but that the survival rate was inversely related to temperatures when they ranged from 16° to 36°C [61-97°F]. SCN larvae died after 1 day at 40°C [104°F–rarely if ever occurs in Midsouth soils]. Also, irrigation of a soybean variety that is susceptible to SCN infestation will not overcome the negative effect of an SCN infestation on seed yield, nor will rotation with a rice crop that is flood-irrigated affect SCN infestation potential of soybean grown in such a rotation. This likely means that only a genetic solution to the negative effect of SCN on soybean yield will provide meaningful results.
In an article by Pamela Smith titled “SCN Resistance in a ‘SNAP’”, details about just such a genetic discovery that may help in the management of SCN are presented. Information in the article highlights results from research led by Dr. Andrew Scaboo at the Univ. of Missouri and Dr. Melissa Mitchum of the Univ. of Georgia. They discovered that manipulating gene GmSNAP02–involved in several types of native resistance against SCN–might be used to preserve the utility of current soybean varietal resistance to SCN. Adding a non-functioning copy of GmSNAP02 might enhance SCN resistance in soybean varieties with Peking-based resistance [contains three genes]. Current research is attempting to develop plant material that will test whether or not the omission of the GmSNAP02 gene will affect soybean yield. The resistance this gene provides has the potential to protect current and future soybean varieties from SCN damage. CRISPR gene editing technology can be used to facilitate the process of developing the plant material needed to determine the utility of this discovery. More information about this discovery can be found in an article from the SCN Coalition and by searching for “GmSNAP02" in a search browser.
In an article titled “Midsouth Wheat acres down, but set for harvest”, author Whitney Haigwood provides details about the amount of wheat acres in the Midsouth. According to statistics in this article and survey estimates from NASS Quick Stats, wheat acres in the Midsouth states of Arkansas [140,000 acres–4.6% of planted soybean acres], Louisiana [<10,000 acres–<8.5% of planted soybean acres], and Mississippi [70,000 acres–3.1% of planted soybean acres] are low compared to acreages in the southeastern [SE] U.S. states of Georgia [145,000 acres–90.6% of planted soybean acres], North Carolina [410,000 acres–26.4% of planted soybean acres], South Carolina [85,000 acres–22.4% of planted soybean acres], and Virginia [150,000 acres–23.8% of planted soybean acres]. Tennessee had 380,000 planted wheat acres [22.4% of planted soybean acres], which is in line with acreages in the SE states.
In the Midsouth states, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi had 76%, 69%, and 79% of their soybeans planted by May 12, 2024, respectively. The SE states of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia had 32%, 40%, 39%, and 45% of their soybeans planted by May 12, 2024, respectively. Tennessee was again in line with the SE states with 46% of its soybeans planted by May 12. Thus, the Midsouth states vs. the SE states had a much larger percentage of their soybeans planted before mid-May, which indicates that a large percentage of soybean acres in those states were planted before wheat harvest would have occurred.
As stated in previous articles posted on this website, there needs to be a definitive and objective long-term assessment of which cropping system–i.e. early planting of early-maturing varieties [ESPS] or doublecrop [DC]–is the more profitable over the long-term. It is likely that this assessment will yield a different result for nonirrigated vs. irrigated ESPS vs. DC systems in the Midsouth. Again, this needs to be determined over the long term using both research and farmer data.
Composed by Larry G. Heatherly, July 2024, larryh91746@gmail.com