Abstract
Abstract The use of carbon‐based biostimulants (e.g., humic acid [HA] and molasses/yeast extract [MYE]) to enhance grain yield and/or quality of maize ( Zea mays L.) and soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] is increasing. The objectives of this study were to (1) determine if MYE or HA use can consistently influence grain yield and quality of maize and soybean across site‐years and (2) ascertain if these applications are profitable. Treatments consisted of an untreated control and two commercially available products, one MYE and one HA, applied as either a broadcast soil application or to the seed furrow at planting of maize and soybean in 2020, 2021, and 2022. Maize yield was higher with in‐furrow applications compared to preplant broadcast applications, culminating in a 3‐year average yield increase of 310 (HA) or 370 (MYE) kg ha −1 and respective return on investment of $29 or $63 ha −1 . Maize grain protein concentration increased with both the broadcast HA (+1.7 g kg −1 ) and in‐furrow MYE (+1.8 g kg −1 ) applications, netting an increase in protein production of 40 and 50 kg ha −1 , respectively. Conversely, there were no consistent effects of HA or MYE applications on soybean grain yield or quality, netting an average loss of $51 ha −1 . These data suggest that soil‐applied MYE or HA can increase grain yield, protein production, and profitability of maize but did not have a measurable agronomic or economic value when applied to soybean grown under the non‐stressed field conditions observed here.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
In-furrow HA increased maize yield by 310 kg ha −1 relative to preplant broadcast application.
- Treatment
- in‐furrow applicationse0
- Outcome
- Maize yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 310 (HA) or 370 (MYE) kg ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- HAe0
- Comparator
- preplant broadcast applicationse0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize yield was higher with in‐furrow applications compared to preplant broadcast applications, culminating in a 3‐year average yield increase of 310 (HA) or 370 (MYE) kg ha −1”
Claim · model-written summary
In-furrow MYE increased maize yield by 370 kg ha −1 relative to preplant broadcast application.
- Treatment
- in‐furrow applicationse0
- Outcome
- Maize yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 310 (HA) or 370 (MYE) kg ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- MYEe0
- Comparator
- preplant broadcast applicationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize yield was higher with in‐furrow applications compared to preplant broadcast applications, culminating in a 3‐year average yield increase of 310 (HA) or 370 (MYE) kg ha −1”
Claim · model-written summary
HA returned $29 ha −1 for maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize yield was higher with in‐furrow applications compared to preplant broadcast applications, culminating in a 3‐year average yield increase of 310 (HA) or 370 (MYE) kg ha −1 and respective return on investment of $29 or $63 ha −1”
Claim · model-written summary
MYE returned $63 ha −1 for maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize yield was higher with in‐furrow applications compared to preplant broadcast applications, culminating in a 3‐year average yield increase of 310 (HA) or 370 (MYE) kg ha −1 and respective return on investment of $29 or $63 ha −1”
Claim · model-written summary
Broadcast HA increased maize grain protein concentration by 1.7 g kg −1.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize grain protein concentration increased with both the broadcast HA (+1.7 g kg −1 ) and in‐furrow MYE (+1.8 g kg −1 ) applications”
Claim · model-written summary
In-furrow MYE increased maize grain protein concentration by 1.8 g kg −1.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize grain protein concentration increased with both the broadcast HA (+1.7 g kg −1 ) and in‐furrow MYE (+1.8 g kg −1 ) applications”
Claim · model-written summary
Broadcast HA increased maize protein production by 40 kg ha −1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize grain protein concentration increased with both the broadcast HA (+1.7 g kg −1 ) and in‐furrow MYE (+1.8 g kg −1 ) applications, netting an increase in protein production of 40 and 50 kg ha −1 , respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
In-furrow MYE increased maize protein production by 50 kg ha −1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize grain protein concentration increased with both the broadcast HA (+1.7 g kg −1 ) and in‐furrow MYE (+1.8 g kg −1 ) applications, netting an increase in protein production of 40 and 50 kg ha −1 , respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
HA or MYE had no consistent effect on soybean grain yield or quality.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- HA or MYE applicationse0
- Outcome
- grain yield or qualitye0
- Direction
- no consistent effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there were no consistent effects of HA or MYE applications on soybean grain yield or quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean applications averaged a loss of $51 ha −1.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Outcome
- average losse0
- Direction
- losse0
- Value
- $51 ha −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean grain yield or quality, netting an average loss of $51 ha −1”
The same questions in other papers
transplanting · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.