Follow Up on Inoculant Performance Peanut Notes No. 52 2025
go.ncsu.edu/readext?1069734
en Español / em Português
El inglés es el idioma de control de esta página. En la medida en que haya algún conflicto entre la traducción al inglés y la traducción, el inglés prevalece.
Al hacer clic en el enlace de traducción se activa un servicio de traducción gratuito para convertir la página al español. Al igual que con cualquier traducción por Internet, la conversión no es sensible al contexto y puede que no traduzca el texto en su significado original. NC State Extension no garantiza la exactitud del texto traducido. Por favor, tenga en cuenta que algunas aplicaciones y/o servicios pueden no funcionar como se espera cuando se traducen.
Português
Inglês é o idioma de controle desta página. Na medida que haja algum conflito entre o texto original em Inglês e a tradução, o Inglês prevalece.
Ao clicar no link de tradução, um serviço gratuito de tradução será ativado para converter a página para o Português. Como em qualquer tradução pela internet, a conversão não é sensivel ao contexto e pode não ocorrer a tradução para o significado orginal. O serviço de Extensão da Carolina do Norte (NC State Extension) não garante a exatidão do texto traduzido. Por favor, observe que algumas funções ou serviços podem não funcionar como esperado após a tradução.
English
English is the controlling language of this page. To the extent there is any conflict between the English text and the translation, English controls.
Clicking on the translation link activates a free translation service to convert the page to Spanish. As with any Internet translation, the conversion is not context-sensitive and may not translate the text to its original meaning. NC State Extension does not guarantee the accuracy of the translated text. Please note that some applications and/or services may not function as expected when translated.
Collapse ▲Here is a quick follow up on Dan’s comments on inoculants in Peanut Notes No. 50. In a trial with a relatively short rotation, inoculant increased yield by 168 pounds per acre. In his example, that was a $40 per acre value at a price of $485/ton. We have similar data from North Carolina. In Table 3-4 on page 27 in 2025 Peanut Information, we show a 170 pound per acre yield increase with in-furrow inoculation in fields with recent plantings of peanut. When I used an inoculant price of $8 per acre and peanut price of $535 per ton, the return on investment (net return) was $41 per acre. It pays to inoculate peanuts in all fields regardless of rotation history.
Several years back we compared inoculated peanut to non-inoculated peanut in a group of rotation trials (variation in previous crop sequences that ranged from continuous peanut to no peanuts for the previous five years.) It turned out that previous crop sequence was not a good indicator of whether or not you would get a positive response to in-furrow inoculant treatment. In some trials, we did not get a response but that was not influenced by the crop sequence. In other trials, we got a positive response to matter what the previous crop sequence happened to be. Based on these trials along with other trials we have conducted and results like Dan presented in Peanut Notes No. 50 (combined with the relatively low expense of inoculant,) every acre of peanuts could potentially benefit from inoculant applied in the seed furrow at planting.
Jordan, D.L., J.S. Barnes, T. Corbett, C.R. Bogle, T. Marshall, and P.D. Johnson. 2009. Influence of crop rotation on peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) response to Bradyrhizobium in North Carolina. Peanut Sci. 36:174-179.