TY 2015 Form 990

- TIN:

SCHEDULE A
(Form 990 or 990EZ)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Public Charity Status and Public Support

Complete if the organization is a section 501(c)(3) organization or a section 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust.
right arrow

Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
right arrow

Information about Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2015

Open to Public
Inspection

Name of the organization

NORTH CENTRAL SOYBEAN RESEARCH PROGRAM

Employer identification number

42-1394799

Part I

Reason for Public Charity Status (All organizations must complete this part.) See instructions.

The organization is not a private foundation because it is: (For lines 1 through 11, check only one box.)

A church, convention of churches, or association of churches described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(i).

A school described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii). (Attach Schedule E (Form 990 or 990-EZ))

A hospital or a cooperative hospital service organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii).

A medical research organization operated in conjunction with a hospital described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii). Enter the hospital's name, city, and state:

An organization operated for the benefit of a college or university owned or operated by a governmental unit described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iv). (Complete Part II.)

A federal, state, or local government or governmental unit described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(v).

An organization that normally receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or from the general public described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). (Complete Part II.)

A community trust described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). (Complete Part II.)

An organization that normally receives: (1) more than 331/3% of its support from contributions, membership fees, and gross receipts from activities related to its exempt functions—subject to certain exceptions, and (2) no more than 331/3% of its support from gross investment income and unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 tax) from businesses acquired by the organization after June 30, 1975. See section 509(a)(2). (Complete Part III.)

An organization organized and operated exclusively to test for public safety. See section 509(a)(4).

An organization organized and operated exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, or to carry out the purposes of one or more publicly supported organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or section 509(a)(2). See section 509(a)(3). Check the box in lines 11a through 11d that describes the type of supporting organization and complete lines 11e, 11f, and 11g.

Type I. A supporting organization operated, supervised, or controlled by its supported organization(s), typically by giving the supported organization(s) the power to regularly appoint or elect a majority of the directors or trustees of the supporting organization. You must complete Part IV, Sections A and B.

Type II. A supporting organization supervised or controlled in connection with its supported organization(s), by having control or management of the supporting organization vested in the same persons that control or manage the supported organization(s). You must complete Part IV, Sections A and C.

Type III functionally integrated. A supporting organization operated in connection with, and functionally integrated with, its supported organization(s) (see instructions). You must complete Part IV, Sections A, D, and E.

Type III non-functionally integrated. A supporting organization operated in connection with its supported organization(s) that is not functionally integrated. The organization generally must satisfy a distribution requirement and an attentiveness requirement (see instructions). You must complete Part IV, Sections A and D, and Part V.

Check this box if the organization received a written determination from the IRS that it is a Type I, Type II, Type III functionally integrated, or Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organization.

Enter the number of supported organizations ..............

Provide the following information about the supported organization(s).

(i)Name of supported organization	(ii) EIN	(iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document?		(v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions)	(vi) Amount of other support (see instructions)
(i)Name of supported organization	(ii) EIN	Yes	No	(v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions)	(vi) Amount of other support (see instructions)


Total

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for
Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 11285F

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015

Page 2

Part II

Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(iv) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 5, 7, or 8 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part III. If the organization fails to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part III.)

Section A. Public Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2011	(b) 2012	(c) 2013	(d) 2014	(e) 2015	(f) Total
1	Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any unusual grants.) ....	3,453,345	2,989,502	2,855,813	3,172,734	3,622,308	16,093,702
2	Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf.......						0
3	The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge..						0
4	Total. Add lines 1 through 3	3,453,345	2,989,502	2,855,813	3,172,734	3,622,308	16,093,702
5	The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f)..						0
6	Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4.						16,093,702

Section B. Total Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2011	(b) 2012	(c) 2013	(d) 2014	(e) 2015	(f) Total
7	Amounts from line 4..	3,453,345	2,989,502	2,855,813	3,172,734	3,622,308	16,093,702
8	Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources...	339	2,452	1,359	6,812	12,376	23,338
9	Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on..						0
10	Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.)..						0
11	Total support. Add lines 7 through 10.						16,117,040

Gross receipts from related activities, etc. (see instructions) ..................

First five years. If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a section 501(c)(3) organization, check this box and stop here........................................ right arrow

Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage

Public support percentage for 2015 (line 6, column (f) divided by line 11, column (f)) .........

99.860 %

Public support percentage for 2014 Schedule A, Part II, line 14 ...............

99.920 %

16a

33 1/3% support test—2015. If the organization did not check the box on line 13, and line 14 is 33 1/3% or more, check this box
and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ....................... right arrow

33 1/3% support test—2014. If the organization did not check a box on line 13 or 16a, and line 15 is 33 1/3% or more, check this
box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ..................... right arrow

17a

10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2015. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, or 16b, and line 14
is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the facts-and-circumstances test, check this box and stop here. Explain
in Part VI how the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported
organization ..................................................... right arrow

10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2014. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, or 17a, and line
15 is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test, check this box and stop here.
Explain in Part VI how the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly
supported organization ................................................ right arrow

Private foundation. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, 17a, or 17b, check this box and see
instructions ..................................................... right arrow

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015

Page 3

Part III

Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Section 509(a)(2)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 9 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part II. If the organization fails to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part II.)

Section A. Public Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2011	(b) 2012	(c) 2013	(d) 2014	(e) 2015	(f) Total
1	Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") .
2	Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose......
3	Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513...
4	Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf...
5	The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge..
6	Total. Add lines 1 through 5.
7a	Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons...
b	Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year.
c	Add lines 7a and 7b..
8	Public support. (Subtract line 7c from line 6.)

Section B. Total Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2011	(b) 2012	(c) 2013	(d) 2014	(e) 2015	(f) Total
9	Amounts from line 6...
10a	Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources..
b	Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975.
c	Add lines 10a and 10b.
11	Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.
12	Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) ..
13	Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.)..

First five years. If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a section 501(c)(3) organization,
check this box and stop here............................................. right arrow

Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage

Public support percentage for 2015 (line 8, column (f) divided by line 13, column (f)) .........

Public support percentage from 2014 Schedule A, Part III, line 15 ...............

Section D. Computation of Investment Income Percentage

Investment income percentage for 2015 (line 10c, column (f) divided by line 13, column (f)) ......

Investment income percentage from 2014 Schedule A, Part III, line 17 .............

19a

331/3% support tests—2015. If the organization did not check the box on line 14, and line 15 is more than 33 1/3%, and line 17 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ....... right arrow

33 1/3% support tests—2014. If the organization did not check a box on line 14 or line 19a, and line 16 is more than 33 1/3% and line 18 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization .... right arrow

Private foundation. If the organization did not check a box on line 14, 19a, or 19b, check this box and see instructions .... right arrow

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015

Page 4

Part IV

Supporting Organizations

(Complete only if you checked a box on line 11 of Part I. If you checked 11a of Part I, complete Sections A and B. If you checked 11b of Part I, complete Sections A and C. If you checked 11c of Part I, complete Sections A, D, and E. If you checked 11d of Part I, complete Sections A and D, and complete Part V.)

Section A. All Supporting Organizations

Yes

Are all of the organization’s supported organizations listed by name in the organization’s governing documents?
If "No," describe in Part VI how the supported organizations are designated. If designated by class or purpose,
describe the designation. If historic and continuing relationship, explain.

Did the organization have any supported organization that does not have an IRS determination of status under section 509(a)(1) or (2)? If "Yes," explain in Part VI how the organization determined that the supported organization was described in section 509(a)(1) or (2).

Did the organization have a supported organization described in section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6)? If "Yes," answer (b) and (c) below.

Did the organization confirm that each supported organization qualified under section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6) and satisfied the public support tests under section 509(a)(2)? If "Yes," describe in Part VI when and how the organization made the determination.

Did the organization ensure that all support to such organizations was used exclusively for section 170(c)(2)(B) purposes? If "Yes," explain in Part VI what controls the organization put in place to ensure such use.

Was any supported organization not organized in the United States ("foreign supported organization")? If “Yes” and if you checked 11a or 11b in Part I, answer (b) and (c) below.

Did the organization have ultimate control and discretion in deciding whether to make grants to the foreign supported organization? If “Yes,” describe in Part VI how the organization had such control and discretion despite being controlled or supervised by or in connection with its supported organizations.

Did the organization support any foreign supported organization that does not have an IRS determination under sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a)(1) or (2)? If “Yes,” explain in Part VI what controls the organization used to ensure that all support to the foreign supported organization was used exclusively for section 170(c)(2)(B) purposes.

Did the organization add, substitute, or remove any supported organizations during the tax year? If “Yes,” answer (b) and (c) below (if applicable). Also, provide detail in Part VI, including (i) the names and EIN numbers of the supported organizations added, substituted, or removed; (ii) the reasons for each such action; (iii) the authority under the organization's organizing document authorizing such action; and (iv) how the action was accomplished (such as by amendment to the organizing document).

Type I or Type II only. Was any added or substituted supported organization part of a class already designated in the organization's organizing document?

Substitutions only. Was the substitution the result of an event beyond the organization's control?

Did the organization provide support (whether in the form of grants or the provision of services or facilities) to anyone other than (i) its supported organizations, (ii) individuals that are part of the charitable class benefited by one or more of its supported organizations, or (iii) other supporting organizations that also support or benefit one or more of the filing organization’s supported organizations? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did the organization provide a grant, loan, compensation, or other similar payment to a substantial contributor (defined in section 4958(c)(3)(C)), a family member of a substantial contributor, or a 35% controlled entity with regard to a substantial contributor? If “Yes,” complete Part I of Schedule L (Form 990 or 990-EZ) .

Did the organization make a loan to a disqualified person (as defined in section 4958) not described in line 7? If “Yes,” complete Part I of Schedule L (Form 990 or 990-EZ).

Was the organization controlled directly or indirectly at any time during the tax year by one or more disqualified persons as defined in section 4946 (other than foundation managers and organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or (2))? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did one or more disqualified persons (as defined in line 9a) hold a controlling interest in any entity in which the supporting organization had an interest? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did a disqualified person (as defined in line 9a) have an ownership interest in, or derive any personal benefit from, assets in which the supporting organization also had an interest? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

10a

Was the organization subject to the excess business holdings rules of section 4943 because of section 4943(f) (regarding certain Type II supporting organizations, and all Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organizations)? If “Yes,” answer line 10b below.

10a

Did the organization have any excess business holdings in the tax year? (Use Schedule C, Form 4720, to determine whether the organization had excess business holdings).

10b

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015

Page 5

Part IV

Supporting Organizations (continued)

Yes

Has the organization accepted a gift or contribution from any of the following persons?

A person who directly or indirectly controls, either alone or together with persons described in (b) and (c) below, the governing body of a supported organization?

11a

A family member of a person described in (a) above?

11b

A 35% controlled entity of a person described in (a) or (b) above? If “Yes” to a, b, or c, provide detail in Part VI.

11c

Section B. Type I Supporting Organizations

Yes

Did the directors, trustees, or membership of one or more supported organizations have the power to regularly appoint or elect at least a majority of the organization’s directors or trustees at all times during the tax year? If “No,” describe in Part VI how the supported organization(s) effectively operated, supervised, or controlled the organization’s activities. If the organization had more than one supported organization, describe how the powers to appoint and/or remove directors or trustees were allocated among the supported organizations and what conditions or restrictions, if any, applied to such powers during the tax year.

Did the organization operate for the benefit of any supported organization other than the supported organization(s) that operated, supervised, or controlled the supporting organization? If “Yes,” explain in Part VI how providing such benefit carried out the purposes of the supported organization(s) that operated, supervised or controlled the supporting organization.

Section C. Type II Supporting Organizations

Yes

Were a majority of the organization’s directors or trustees during the tax year also a majority of the directors or trustees of each of the organization’s supported organization(s)? If “No,” describe in Part VI how control or management of the supporting organization was vested in the same persons that controlled or managed the supported organization(s).

Section D. All Type III Supporting Organizations

Yes

Did the organization provide to each of its supported organizations, by the last day of the fifth month of the organization’s tax year, (i) a written notice describing the type and amount of support provided during the prior tax year, (ii) a copy of the Form 990 that was most recently filed as of the date of notification, and (iii) copies of the organization’s governing documents in effect on the date of notification, to the extent not previously provided?

Were any of the organization’s officers, directors, or trustees either (i) appointed or elected by the supported organization(s) or (ii) serving on the governing body of a supported organization? If "No," explain in Part VI how the organization maintained a close and continuous working relationship with the supported organization(s).

By reason of the relationship described in (2), did the organization’s supported organizations have a significant voice in the organization’s investment policies and in directing the use of the organization’s income or assets at all times during the tax year? If "Yes," describe in Part VI the role the organization’s supported organizations played in this regard.

Section E. Type III Functionally-Integrated Supporting Organizations

Check the box next to the method that the organization used to satisfy the Integral Part Test during the year (see instructions):

The organization satisfied the Activities Test. Complete line 2 below.

The organization is the parent of each of its supported organizations. Complete line 3 below.

The organization supported a governmental entity. Describe in Part VI how you supported a government entity (see instructions)

Activities Test. Answer (a) and (b) below.

Yes

Did substantially all of the organization’s activities during the tax year directly further the exempt purposes of the supported organization(s) to which the organization was responsive? If "Yes," then in Part VI identify those supported organizations and explain how these activities directly furthered their exempt purposes, how the organization was responsive to those supported organizations, and how the organization determined that these activities constituted substantially all of its activities.

Did the activities described in (a) constitute activities that, but for the organization’s involvement, one or more of the organization’s supported organization(s) would have been engaged in? If "Yes," explain in Part VI the reasons for the organization’s position that its supported organization(s) would have engaged in these activities but for the organization’s involvement.

Parent of Supported Organizations. Answer (a) and (b) below.

Did the organization have the power to regularly appoint or elect a majority of the officers, directors, or trustees of each of the supported organizations? Provide details in Part VI.

Did the organization exercise a substantial degree of direction over the policies, programs and activities of each of its supported organizations? If "Yes," describe in Part VI. the role played by the organization in this regard.

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015

Page 6

Part V

Type III Non-Functionally Integrated 509(a)(3) Supporting Organizations

Check here if the organization satisfied the Integral Part Test as a qualifying trust on Nov. 20, 1970. See instructions. All other Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organizations must complete Sections A through E.

	Section A - Adjusted Net Income		(A) Prior Year	(B) Current Year (optional)
1	Net short-term capital gain	1
2	Recoveries of prior-year distributions	2
3	Other gross income (see instructions)	3
4	Add lines 1 through 3	4
5	Depreciation and depletion	5
6	Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions)	6
7	Other expenses (see instructions)	7
8	Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4)	8

	Section B - Minimum Asset Amount		(A) Prior Year	(B) Current Year (optional)
1	Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year):	1
a	Average monthly value of securities	1a
b	Average monthly cash balances	1b
c	Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets	1c
d	Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c)	1d
e	Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI):
2	Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets	2
3	Subtract line 2 from line 1d	3
4	Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 1-1/2% of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions).	4
5	Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3)	5
6	Multiply line 5 by .035	6
7	Recoveries of prior-year distributions	7
8	Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6)	8

	Section C - Distributable Amount		Current Year
1	Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A)	1
2	Enter 85% of line 1	2
3	Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A)	3
4	Enter greater of line 2 or line 3	4
5	Income tax imposed in prior year	5
6	Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions)	6

Check here if the current year is the organization's first as a non-functionally-integrated Type III supporting organization (see instructions)

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015

Page 7

Part V

Type III Non-Functionally Integrated 509(a)(3) Supporting Organizations (continued)

Section D - Distributions		Current Year
1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes
2 Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity
3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations
4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets
5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required)
6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions
7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6.
8 Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions
9 Distributable amount for 2015 from Section C, line 6
10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount

Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions)		(i) Excess Distributions	(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2015	(iii) Distributable Amount for 2015
1 Distributable amount for 2015 from Section C, line 6
2 Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2015 (reasonable cause required--see instructions)
3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2015:
a
b
c
d From 2013.......
e From 2014.......
fTotal of lines 3a through e
g Applied to underdistributions of prior years
h Applied to 2015 distributable amount
i Carryover from 2010 not applied (see instructions)
j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f.
4Distributions for 2015 from Section D, line 7:
$
a Applied to underdistributions of prior years
b Applied to 2015 distributable amount
c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4.
5 Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2015, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions)
6 Remaining underdistributions for 2015. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions)
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2016. Add lines 3j and 4c.
8 Breakdown of line 7:
a
b
c Excess from 2013.......
d From 2014.......
e From 2015.......

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) (2015)

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015

Page 8

Part VI

Supplemental Information. Provide the explanations required by Part II, line 10; Part II, line 17a or 17b; Part III, line 12; Part IV, Section A, lines 1, 2, 3b, 3c, 4b, 4c, 5a, 6, 9a, 9b, 9c, 11a, 11b, and 11c; Part IV, Section B, lines 1 and 2; Part IV, Section C, line 1; Part IV, Section D, lines 2 and 3; Part IV, Section E, lines 1c, 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b; Part V, line 1; Part V, Section B, line 1e; Part V Section D, lines 5, 6, and 8; and Part V, Section E, lines 2, 5, and 6. Also complete this part for any additional information. (See instructions).

Facts And Circumstances Test

Return Reference	Explanation

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015

Additional Data

Software ID:	15000324
Software Version:	2015v2.0

- TIN:

SCHEDULE O
(Form 990 or 990-EZ)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Supplemental Information to Form 990 or 990-EZ

Complete to provide information for responses to specific questions on
Form 990 or 990-EZ or to provide any additional information.
MediumBullet

Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
MediumBullet

Information about Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at
www.irs.gov/form990.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2015

Open to Public
Inspection

Name of the organization

NORTH CENTRAL SOYBEAN RESEARCH PROGRAM

Employer identification number

42-1394799

Return Reference	Explanation
Form 990, Part VI, Line 11b: Form 990 Review Process	PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AT THE MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 6, 2016
Form 990, Part VI, Line 12c: Explanation of Monitoring and Enforcement of Conflicts	ANNUALLY THE BOARD IS REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE CONFLICTING INTERESTS. BOARD MEMBERS ARE REQUIRED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM ANY VOTE IF THERE IS A CONFLICT.
Form 990, Part VI, Line 19: Other Organization Documents Publicly Available	Governing documents, conflict of interest policy and financial statements are available to the public upon request.
Program Descriptions (1) through (5)	(1) Project Title: Breeding to improve resistance to SDS in soybean as a means to protect yield Delivering resistant varieties and linesPrincipal Investigador: Silvia R. Cianzio, Co-Pis: B. Diers, J. Orf. D. Wang, P. Chen, S. Kantartzi, G. Hartmann, J. Bond Budget Amount: $171,312 Year: 2015-2016Brief Statement of Objectives: Breeding high yield SDS-resistant soybean cultivars in Maturity Groups I to VI for farmers, and seed industry. Objectives that support Objective 1: 1) Identify new sources of resistance to SDS; 2) Evaluation of SDS-field resistance of public experimental linesBackground information. An ideal production approach for managing sudden death syndrome (SDS) is the planting of resistant cultivars. Development of soybean resistant cultivars is difficult and time consuming, since SDS genetic resistance is determined by numerous genes, each and every one interacting with the production environment. The number of SDS-resistant cultivars is presently limited. A group of soybean breeders already working on developing SDS resistant germplasm at different institutions was brought together to this project. (2)Project Title: Acceleration of Soybean Yield and Composition Improvement through Genomic SelectionPrinciple Investigator and Co-PIs: Brian Diers, Matt Hudson, Pat Brown, Randall Nelson, Katy Martin Rainey, Bill Beavis, Asheesh Singh, George Graef, Jim Specht, and Aaron LorenzBudget Amount and Project Year: Year , $315,642Brief Statement of Objectives:The overall objective of this project is to use results from the large, USB funded SoyNAM project to predict the performance of new experimental lines and to test whether these predictions result in the selection of better lines than traditional breeding methods. If these new methods are successful, this will increase the rate of genetic gain in breeding programs. Below are the specific project objectives. The first objective is to test genomic selection in breeding populations. This first step is to use the dataset from the SoyNAM project to optimize methods for using genetic markers to predict yield, protein concentration, and maturity of soybean lines (this is called genomic prediction and when plants or lines are selected with this method, it is call genomic selection). In this objective, predictions for the traits can be made and compared to trait data that is available. The second step is to conduct a breeding experiment using the optimized genomic selection approaches in populations of breeding lines developed by each cooperating breeder. Within each population, lines selected using genomic selection and traditional approaches will be compared to determine which method was the most successful. The second objective is to use of genomic data to decide what cross combinations should be made by breeders. We will develop methods for selecting specific combinations of parents for crossing in soybean breeding nurseries. Once these methods are developed, they will be used by breeders to help them decide what cross combinations to make(3)Project Title: Increasing profits through genetic resistance to SDSPrinciple Investigator and Co-PIs: Brian Diers, Osman Radwan, Glen Hartman, Jason Bond, James Orf, Dechun Wang Budget Amount and Project Year: Year 3 Total budget $162,545Brief Statement of Objectives:The overall objective of this research is to increase profits through improving yields with genetic resistance to SDS. The specific objectives of the project are:Objective 1. Map locations on chromosomes of genes that confer resistance to SDS. This mapping is being done in Minnesota and Michigan using two genetic populations in each state.Objective 2. Confirm and deploy SDS resistance genes. This is being done to determine if previously mapped genes are useful in different genetic backgrounds and environments.Objective 3. Identify genes involved in SDS resistance by gene expression profiling soybean roots and leaves. To complete this work, the level of gene expression was estimated for soybean roots and leaves using pairs of soybean lines that differ for SDS resistance genes but are otherwise almost completely identical (these are called near isogenic lines or NILs).(4)Project Title: Exploiting Potential Bio-control Agents to Manage Seedling Diseases of SoybeanLead PI: Ahmad Fakhoury, Budget Amount and Project Year: $139,991 Year 2 Issue and Objectives: The long-term objective of the proposed research is to characterize the bio-control activity of a collection of fungal species isolated from soybean production fields. The ultimate goal is to use potential bio-control agents to improve the management of soybean diseases caused by pathogens present in the soil such as Fusarium spp., Phytophthora sojae, and Pythium spp. This could be achieved either by introducing these bio-control agents to soybean production fields, and/or by fine-tuning existing management practices to enhance the prevalence and activity of bio-control agents native to production fields. Our specific objectives are:Objective 1.Test the effect of a set of recently identified potential bio-control agents on soil-inhabiting fungal, oomycete, and nematode pathogens of soybeanObjective 2.Assess potential roles of these agents in eliciting defense mechanisms in soybean plants Objective 3.Test the effect of fungicidal seed treatments on these organismsObjective 4.Follow the effect of commonly used management practices on the distribution and activity of these organisms in the soil (activity planned for years 2&3 of the project)(5) Project Title: Identifying High-yield Genotypes in the USDA Soybean Germplasm Collection Principle Investigator and Co-PIs: George Graef, University of Nebraska, Kent Eskridge (Statistics, UNL), Randy Nelson (USDA, ARS, Illinois), Brian Diers (University of Illinois), Danny Singh (Iowa State University), Aaron Lorenz and Jim Orf (University of Minnesota), Andrew Scaboo (University of Missouri). Budget Amount and Project Year: $198,601, Year 2Brief Statement of Objectives: The overall objective is to identify the best soybean lines in the USDA collection that will increase soybean yields in the north central region. This research will develop ways to efficiently and effectively sample the over 17,000 introduced soybean accessions and identify the best ones to improve yield and quality in US commercial soybean varieties. Less than 20 PIs make up more than 86% of the parentage of modern US soybean cultivars. Effective use of the other 16,980 accessions becomes a sampling issue. So our approach makes use of the 50K SNP genotype information available on all accessions in the collection to evaluate differences among sampling methods related to genetic diversity, yield, and ability to identify genomic regions related to yield in this vast resource that we have available. We used three sampling methods a super saturated design (SSD), cluster method (CLU) and random selection (RAN) -- to choose PI accessions based on the 50K SNP genotype information. The SSD maximizes differences among all entries in the group, so our expectation is that the lines in the SSD group will have greater genetic variation, and a larger variance for yield and other traits that we measure in our evaluations. The ultimate end goal is to facilitate development of high-yielding soybean cultivars for producers by making efficient use of these genetic resources.
Program Descriptions (11) through (15)	(11)Project Title: Engineered resistance to soybean cyst nematode via induced gene silencing (RNAi)Principle Investigator and Co-PIs: Harold Trick (Project Leader), Tim Todd and Jiarui Li (Kansas State University), John Finer (The Ohio State University), Wayne Parrott (University of Georgia) and Lila Vodkin and Jack Widholm (University of Illinois); Budget Amount and Project Year: $136,177 Year 4Brief Statement of Objectives: The primary goal of this research project is to establish a new set of biotech traits that have durable resistance to soybean cyst nematode (SCN). Turning off genes by a process known as RNA interference (RNAi) has tremendous potential as a new strategy to increase nematode resistance. Past research with other nematode species has demonstrated the scientific merit of the technique. This project will investigate the opportunities to insert target gene sequences in the SCN that will provide durable genetic materials that will be lethal to SCN populations.The specific objectives of this project are to:Complete the production of stable transgenic soybean plants with traits that can silence specific nematode genes Perform bioassays with the engineered plants to confirm effectiveness of the SCN resistance; and Examine the durability of traits on single and diverse populations of SCN.Brief Statement of Expected Deliverables: It is anticipated this research will result in stable transgenic soybean lines expressing the RNAi constructions and that events with increased levels of SCN resistance will be identified. By the end of the funding cycle we intend to identify specific lines that have broad levels of resistance to several populations or HG types of soybean cyst nematodes. (12)Project Title: Disease Study Group: Focus on New and Emerging Soybean DiseasesPrinciple Investigator and Co-PIs: Kiersten Wise, Purdue University and Daren Mueller, Iowa State University, Loren Giesler, University of Nebraska, Carl Bradley, University of Illinois, Martin Chilvers, Michigan State University, Albert Tenuta, OMAFRA; Project contributor (no-cost): Damon Smith, University of WisconsinBudget Amount and Project Year: Project period 03/01/13 to 02/28/16; Year 2 of 3Total funding: $42,250 Year 3Brief Statement of Objectives:This project directly benefits soybean farmers in the North Central region by providing current and timely Extension material to aid in the identification and management of emerging diseases, and diseases lacking Extension information. The project improves awareness and stakeholder knowledge of emerging diseases using traditional mechanisms such as fact sheets and bulletins, as well as new technologies such as web-based videos and web content that are downloadable and viewable through new technology such as smartphones and tablet devices.Project objectives: 1. Provide information on emerging soybean diseases at multiple levels of Extension interface (print, web, video, etc.) to reach diverse groups of stakeholders.2. Create a platform to host and brand Extension material developed in conjunction with the North Central Soybean Research Program to facilitate updates and allow users to identify trusted sources of material through this branding partnership.3. Provide current research summaries on emerging diseases to direct and coordinate future research priorities thereby minimizing duplication, maximizing resources and increasing response time.(13)Project Title: Understanding the role of fungicide programs on soybean health and charcoal rot developmentPrinciple Investigator and Co-PIs: Kiersten Wise, Purdue University and Daren Mueller, Iowa State University, Emmanuel Byamukama, South Dakota State University, Martin Chilvers, Michigan State University, Chris Little and Doug Jardine, Kansas State University, Damon Smith, University of WisconsinBudget Amount and Project Year: $62,000 Year 2Brief Statement of Objectives:Charcoal rot, caused by Macrophomina phaseolina, is a disease of growing importance in the North Central Region, yet current management options are limited. In addition, this disease is more severe when plants are stressed by heat and dry conditions. New fungicide programs and fungicide products are marketed to reduce plant stress, but these products and programs have not been evaluated to determine their impact on charcoal rot development and yield. The goal of this research is to understand under what conditions fungicides may reduce plant stress and yield loss due to charcoal rot so that we may improve our recommendations to farmers interested in using fungicides to mitigate plant stress and/or to manage charcoal rot.Research objectives:1. Determine efficacy of pre-emergence fungicide applications on M. phaseolinacolonization and soybean yield.2. Evaluate various foliar fungicides applied at different times for efficacy against M. phaseolina to determine optimum foliar fungicide use for charcoal rot management.3. Integrate research findings into NCSRP charcoal rot Extension materials(14)Project Title: Evaluation and Development of a Biological Control Product to Control Soybean Sudden Death Syndrome and White MoldPrinciple Investigator and Co-PIs: X.B. Yang, Iowa State UniversityShrishail Navi, Iowa State University Carl Alan Bradley, University of Illinois Youfu Zhao, University of IllinoisJames Kurle, University of MinnesotaBudget Amount and Project Year: $163,845, Year 3Brief Statement of Objectives: Sudden death syndrome (SDS) and white mold are two of the most important fungal diseases in soybean production in the US, affecting 40 - 50 million acres in the North Central Region. These two diseases threaten the sustainable production of soybean in the North Central Region. Biological control products are the future for disease management in row crops and private industry has made significant progress in development of biological fungicides for row crops. The goal of this proposal is to evaluate their effectiveness of potential biological control agent in other states of the North Central Region and develop the agent into a product for commercial use, which will provide reliable and cost-effective control of SDS and white mold of soybean. Project Objectives: oTo conduct multi-state field evaluation for fungal biological control agents that are found effective in reducing soybean sudden death syndrome and white mold.oTo investigate a wide-host-range bacterial bio-control agent that is effective in killing SDS and white mold pathogens for management of SDS and white mold in Illinois.oTo collect data of prototype product of the biological control agent for commercializationoTo determine if application of the biocontrol agent to crop residues of corn, alfalfa, or soybean can reduce inoculums production, infection, and disease caused by F. virguliforme and Sclerotinia. (15)Project Title: An integrated approach to enhance durability of SCN resistance for long-term, strategic SCN managementPrinciple Investigator and Co-PIs:Dr. Thomas Baum, Professor and ChairCo-PIs: Dr. Greg Tylka, ProfessorDr. Andrew Severin, Scientist IDr. Melissa Mitchum, Associate Professor Dr. Henry Nguyen, MSMC Endowed ProfessorDr. Andrew Scaboo, Assistant Research ProfessorDr. Matthew Hudson, Associate ProfessorDr. Brian Diers, Associate Head, ProfessorBudget Amount and Project Year: $593,260 Year 1Objective 1. Diversify the genetic base of SCN resistance in soybean oObjective 1.1: Develop and evaluate germplasm with new combinations of resistance genes in high yielding backgrounds. (Diers, Nguyen, Scaboo).oObjective 1.2: Determine resistance gene copy number in the experimental lines for more effective breeding. (Diers, Nguyen, Scaboo).Objective 2. Identify SCN virulence factors and better understand how the nematode adapts to resistance oObjective 2.1: Refine SCN genome assembly and its accessibility.?Objective 2.1.1: Improve genome assembly. (Hudson)?Objective 2.1.2: Genome curation and annotation. (Baum, Severin).oObjective 2.2: Conduct comparative population studies to identify genes associated with SCN virulence and evaluate utility as novel resistance targets. (Mitchum, Baum)oObjective 2.3: Determine unique resistance gene stacks that would be beneficial in rotations to enhance durability of SCN resistance. (Diers, Nguyen, Scaboo, Mitchum)Objective 3. Translate the results of objectives 1 and 2 to increase the profitability of soybean for producers (Tylka)oObjective 3.1: Educate growers on how SCN adapts to grow on resistant soybeans. oObjective 3.2: Inform growers on effective rotation schemes designed to protect our resistant sources.
Program Descriptions (16) through (19)	(16)PROJECT TITLE: Benchmarking soybean production systems in the North-Central Principal Investigators:Dr Patricio Grassini (Principal Co-Investigator)Dr. Shawn P. Conley (Principal Co-InvestigatorBudget Amount and Project Year: $433,081 Year 1PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND RATIONALESoybean production is expected to increase to satisfy the increasing demand for food, biodiesel, and livestock feed, both in the USA and globally. Thus, it is crucial to reduce the yield gap, which is the difference between the attainable crop yield, as determined by the interactive effects of weather, soils, and genetics, and the actual crop yield attained by a producer. The North Central USA region includes these states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. The 12 states combined produce 2,719 million bushels annually on 63 million harvested acres during 2010-2014, representing a respective 82 and 81% of total U.S. soybean production and acreage (USDA-NASS). Average soybean yield in the NC-USA region during 2010-2014 was 43 bushels/acre, yet some producers can consistently attain soybean yields near or greater than 80 bushels/acre (Specht et al., 1999, Grassini et al., 2014, VanRoekel and Purcell, 2014). This large gap between an average state yield and the very high yield obtained by some producers in that state needs to be explored and better understood. This project is targeted at identifying the factors - whether these are site-specific soil or weather conditions, or are less than optimal crop management practices - that prevent most producers from attaining yields closer to the high yields attained by other producers. Once those factors are identified, both the producer and his/her university research/extension specialist can focus on how to close the yield gap for that individual producer (and others like him or her).The most common approach to identify yield-limiting factors in producer fields involves conducting on-farm trials, in which researchers selectively apply different input levels or management practices in experimental trials conducted in multiple producer fields (e.g., Villamil et al., 2012), and then evaluate whether a particular input or management practice is statistically significant in improving yield, and of course, whether the degree of yield improvement justifies the cost of the input. An example of this approach is the USB-funded kitchen sink project that was just completed. An alternative method is the use of producer self-reported field yield and associated crop management practice data (e.g., Grassini et al., 2011, 2015). This approach can be used to (1) evaluate current on-farm management relative to recommended optimal practices, and (2) discern the yield impact of individual factors, and their relative importance, in the context of commercial-scale fields, in contrast to small experimental plots, and within the range of cost-effective management practices that are actually being used by producers. Indeed, when hundreds of such producer reports are available, the yield difference between various management practices and the interactions of those practices can be contextualized for a given weather-soil context. Such analysis of large-scale producer data can thus complement and maybe provide a focus for what treatments to evaluate in the more costly agronomic field trial evaluations (see FIGURE 1 below for an example of how producer self-reported data was used by Grassini et al relative to soybean planting date in Nebraska).(17)Project Title: Biology and control of sclerotinia stem rot of soybeanPrincipal Investigator: Mehdi Kabbage, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Co-Investigators:Damon Smith, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Daren Mueller, Iowa State University, Martin Chilvers, Michigan State University, Sydney Everhart, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Budget Amount and Project Year: $88,700 Year 1III. Brief Project Justification and Rationale Need, state-of-the-art, opportunity for farmers and the soybean industry:Sclerotinia sclerotiorum is a fungal pathogen with a worldwide distribution, causing disease on over 400 plant species and up to $252M in losses per year on sunflower, soybeans, dry edible beans, canola, and pulse crops (U.S. Canola Association, 2014). S. sclerotiorum causes considerable damage to soybean and has proven difficult to control (culturally or chemically), with host resistance to this fungus being mostly inadequate. In the temperate north central soybean production areas of the United States, Sclerotinia stem rot (SSR) can be a significant yield limiting disease, with reported losses more than 10 million bushels (270 million kg) per year (Peltier et al., 2012). These impacts on yield are significant and make SSR one of the most important diseases of soybean in the North Central U.S. Although US Congress has appropriations for the National Sclerotinia Initiative, only a small portion of that funding supports research directly related to soybean production in the NC States. Thus, the proposed project is designed to address: factors affecting fungicide efficacy in the NC States, soybean NADPH oxidases as a novel host resistance mechanism for soybean, fungicide resistance emergence, and to develop new outreach and disease management strategies.(18)Project Title: Developing an Integrated Management and Communication Plan for Soybean Sudden Death SyndromePrincipal Investigator: Dr. Daren Mueller, Iowa State UniversityCo-Investigators:Dr. Leonor Leandro, Iowa State UniversityDr. Greg Tylka, Iowa State UniversityDr. J. Arbuckle, Iowa State UniversityDr. Georgeanne Artz, Iowa State UniversityDr. Jamal Faghihi, Purdue UniversityDr. Kiersten Wise, Purdue UniversityDr. Damon Smith, University of WisconsinDr. Virginia Ferris, Purdue UniversityDr. Martin Chilvers, Michigan State UniversityDr. Febina Mathew, South Dakota State UniversityBudget Amount and Project Year: $100,000 Year 1Brief Project Justification and Rationale:The foundational management strategy for sudden death syndrome (SDS) is using resistant cultivars.However, in years such as 2010 when environmental conditions were favorable for disease development, it is evident that resistance alone does not provide adequate control or reduce farmer risk sufficiently, which provides us with an early education awareness opportunity. Also, SDS continues to move into new areas. Thus, the main goal of this project is to investigate management options that will help ensure resistant cultivars will be as effective as possible thereby reducing risk as well as providing farmers with maximum economic return on their investment even in unusually conducive SDS conditions.Objectives for Year)1:Objective 1. Determine how seed treatments in furrow and foliar fungicides will affect SDSObjective 2. Evaluate if soybean cyst nematode reproduction affects SDS developmentObjective 3. Study how cultural practices affect inoculum levels and SDS developmentObjective 4. Determine a Return On Investment (ROI) for SDS management strategiesObjective 5. Communicate research results with farmers, agribusinesses and other soybean stakeholders(19)Project Title: Development of soybean genotypes with enhanced capacity of nitrogen fixationPrincipal Investigator: Stella K. Kantartzi, Ph.D., Southern Illinois University CarbondaleBudget Amount and Project Year: $26,281 Year 1Brief Project Justification and Rationale Need, state-of-the-art, opportunity for farmers and the soybean industry:Soybean yield increase in the United States has been remarkable. In the last 30 years the rate has been 31.2 kg ha-1 on annual basis and the genetics has been claimed to be responsible for 80% of this gain (Specht et al., 1999). Despite the recent progress in yield potential of new soybean cultivars, many concerns have been raised regarding the capacity of current and future cultivars to meet their nitrogen (N) demand solely by the biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) and available soil N (Salvagiotti et al., 2008). Although soybean grows relying exclusively on its fixed and available soil N, soybean is one of the most N requiring crops (Sinclair and Wit, 1975). N removal in the harvested seeds is estimated to be 3.5 lb bu-1 for soybean (Salvagiotti et al., 2008), while only 0.78 lb bu-1 for corn. Therefore, farmers are more likely to face N shortage due to high N removals either by planting new high-yielding soybean cultivars or by not supplying the required N either with inorganic N fertilizer. In order to avoid a shortage of N supply affecting yield potential, the high yielding soybean cultivars grown in high quality environments require a continuous selection of more efficient Bradyrhizobium strains as well as genotypes with a higher capacity of BNF. This will allow meeting future soybean N demand without N fertilizer input (Nicols et al., 2002).
Program Descriptions (20) through (23)	(20)Project Title: Improving our understanding of stem canker and how to manage it in soybean across the MidwestPrincipal Investigator: Damon Smith, University of Wisconsin-MadisonKiersten Wise, Purdue University; Daren Mueller, Iowa State University; Febina Mathew, South Dakota State UniversityBudget Amount and Project Year: $50,000 Year 1Brief Project Justification and Rationale Need, state-of-the-art, opportunity for farmers and the soybean industry:Objective: Several different diseases can cause similar symptoms on soybeans. An example of a disease that is easily misdiagnosed as early crop maturity, sudden death syndrome (SDS), Sclerotinia stem rot or charcoal rot in the North Central United States, is soybean stem canker. Symptoms of the disease can include main stem wilting and widespread plant death in areas of a field (Fig. 1). Closer examination of plants often reveals sunken cankers on main stems (Fig. 2). In recent years stem canker and other diseases caused by fungi in the same group, such as pod and stem blight, have become increasingly problematic in the North Central region. Severe stem canker epidemics can occur in wet springs, and with climate experts predicting wetter springs, it is possible that this disease will be more prevalent in coming years (Fernandez et al. 1999). In 2014, this disease was frequently observed and mentioned as the second most prevalent disease in the North Central region, behind SDS (NCERA137 reports).(21)Project Title: Initiation of a genomic selection pipeline for public soybean breeders in the North Central RegionContact Information: Aaron Lorenz (PI), University of MinnesotaBill Beavis, Iowa State University, Patrick Brown, University of Illinois, Urbana, Brian Diers (PI), University of Illinois, Urbana, George Graef, University of Nebraska, LincolnMatt Hudson, University of Illinois, Urbana, Alex Lipka, University of Illinois, Urbana, Leah McHale, The Ohio State University, Randall Nelson, USDA-ARS and Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, Henry Nguyen, University of Missouri, Katy Martin Rainey, Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, 765-494-1212Andrew Scaboo, University of Missouri, William Schapaugh, Kansas State University, Grover Shannon, University of Missouri, Asheesh Singh, Iowa State University, Dechun Wang, Michigan State University, Budget Amount and Project Year: $368,739 Year 1Brief Project Justification and Rationale: Increases in soybean yield through breeding are slower than producers expect. There are several possible reasons for the reduced rate of gain in soybean grain yield, including limited genetic variation in the commercially used gene pool, amount of time required for each breeding cycle, size of the breeding populations, and accuracy of evaluations. Advances in genomics have made whole-genome genotyping less expensive than multi-location yield testing. A powerful approach to make use of this genomic information for selective breeding is through a method called genomic prediction and selection. Large datasets of genomic and phenotypic information are required to maximize the effectiveness of genomic prediction. Fortunately, a wealth of data already exists within the public soybean community that could be used to initiate a genomic prediction pipeline to assist soybean breeders to more effectively select for yield and introgress diversity into their breeding program. This pipeline will evolve into a service for soybean breeders that will help address all of the major restraints to soybean breeding progress. (22)Project Title: Seedling Diseases: Biology, Management and EducationPrincipal Investigators: Jason Bond, Southern IL. Univ. John Rupe, Univ. of ArkansasTony Adesemoye, UNMartin Chilvers, MSUSydney Everhart, UNAhmad Fakhoury, SIUChris Little, KSUDean Malvick, UMNFebina Mathew, SDSUGary Munkvold, ISUAlison Robertson, ISUKiersten Wise, PUUSB CollaboratorsLoren Giesler, UNHeather Kelly, UTLeonor Leandro, ISUBerlin Nelson, NDSUAlbert Tenuta, Ontario Min. of Ag.Budget Amount and Project Year: $269,501 Year 1Brief Project Justification and Rationale: Soilborne seedling and root diseases of soybean significantly reduce yields in the North Central region of the United States. Seedling diseases rank among the top 4 pathogen threats to soybean, because their insidious nature makes them difficult to diagnose and control. It is nearly impossible to predict when they will take a heavy toll, until it happens. The challenges and failures of managing soilborne diseases and pathogens of soybean and other crops are based in part on limitations in knowledge and methods. This project will address critical limitations in identifying and managing seedling diseases. Producers and industry will see benefits in the form of rapid diagnostics and management recommendations. This benefit will also help industry in their assessments in pesticides and germplasm development. Producers will also see their check-off funding being maximized by the synergy of this team, the USB seedling disease project and the USDA-NIFA oomcyete project. This project complements the USB seedling disease project. (23)Project Title: Soybean Entomology in the North Central Region: Management and Outreach for New and Existing PestsPrincipal Investigator: Kelley Tilmon, The Ohio State University. Brian Diers, University of Illinois, Glen Hartman, USDA-ARS at University of Illinois, Christian Krupke, Purdue University, Punya Nachappa, Indiana University- Purdue University Fort Wayne, Matt ONeal, Iowa State University, Erin Hodgson, Iowa State University, Brian McCormack, Kansas State University, Deborah Finke, University of Missouri, George Heimpel, University of Minnesota, Bruce Potter, University of Minnesota, Robert Koch, University of Minnesota, Tom Hunt, University of Nebraska, Robert Wright, University of Nebraska, Deirdre Prischmann, North Dakota State University, Janet Knodel, North Dakota State University, Andy Michel, Ohio State University, Budget amount and Project Year: $427,192 Year 1Brief Description of Proposed Research: The Extension and Outreach component of this proposal is to ensure that the research results generated by the other three Program Areas are delivered to soybean producers and other stakeholders in a user-friendly format, in a coordinated fashion. In an era of shrinking extension systems and budgets and reduced extension staff, we believe a coordinated approach to NCSRP content delivery is an efficient use of project resources. Our entomology team has a good track record of providing such deliverables. For example, in our previous project we produced the NCSRP Soybean Aphid Field Guide (with 17,500 hard copies distributed in the region, and a free download available on NCSRPs Soybean Research and Information Initiative website); the Visual Guide to Counting Soybean Aphids field scouting card (4000 copies distributed, plus free download); a 3-part webinar series on soybean aphid management for the Plant Management Network (open-access presentations available any time); an award-winning a 3-part animated video series to educate producers on aphid-resistant soybean varieties; a postcard with flash drive to distribute multiple NCSRP publications while reducing printing costs (2000 copies distributed); an NCSRP multistate research field event in the summer of 2014; and an outreach booth at the 2015 Commodity Classic where we distributed outreach material and made approximately 2,000 direct stakeholder contacts.
Program Descriptions (6) through (10)	(6) Project Title: Characterization and Enhancement of Soybean Genetic Resources for Soilborne Disease ResistancePrinciple Investigator and Co-PIs: (PIs) James Kurle, Xianjin Ma, (Co-PIs) Jim Orf, Nevin Young, Kate Rainey.Amount and Project Year: $185,237 Year 2Brief Statement of Objectives:Obj. 1. Evaluate of soybean germplasm for resistance or partial resistance to Phytophthora sojae, Pythium irregulare, P. ultimum, and Fusarium graminearum (Kurle & Orf)Obj. 2. Identify of QTLs underlying resistance to P. sojae, F. graminearum, P. irregulare, and P. ultimum by association mapping (Kurle & Young)Obj. 3. Fine mapping, isolation, and functional verification of two uncharacterized Rps genes conferring resistance to P. sojae (Ma&Rainey)Obj. 4. Develop highly adapted soybean cultivars or experimental lines with major resistance QTLs and Rps genes by marker-assisted selection (Rainey & Orf)Brief Statement of Expected Deliverables (max 250 words):Obj. 1. Relate new QTLs/genes to resistance and partial resistance to P. sojae, P. ultimum, F. graminearum identified in early maturity lines.Obj. 2. Initial results of statistical analysis and association mapping for P. sojae. Obj. 3. Fine mapping of RpsUN2 to a 64-kb region within 430 kb previously associated with marker for this gene.Obj. 4. Introgression of RpsUN1 and RpsUN2 to elite breeding lines developed by Purdue.(7)Project Title: Micronutrients for Soybean Production: A Position Paper for the North-Central RegionPrincipal Investigator: Antonio P. Mallarino, Iowa State UniversityBudget Amount and Project Year: Year 2, $15,241Brief Statement of Objectives: Soybean growers in the in the North Central region have been asking many questions concerning possible soybean yield loss due to deficiency of micronutrients. However, few extension publications address this issue based on recent research results, and often have divergent recommendations not clearly related to soil differences across states. Therefore, the goal of this multi-state project is to gather information across key states of the North Central regional and prepare a regional position paper on rational use of micronutrients for soybean production. The specific objectives are: 1. Find, analyze, and summarize published and unpublished land-grant university field response-based information about soybean need for micronutrients and the value of both soil and plant tissue analyses in the North Central region. 2. Prepare and publish a regional position paper addressing the most important issues concerning use of micronutrients for soybean production in the North Central region.(8)Project Title: Iron Deficiency Chlorosis: Getting to the root of the problemInvestigators/institutions: Phil McClean (Project Leader and Robert Stupar (University of Minnesota). Budget Amount & Project Year: $141.599 Year 6Projects Strategic Goal is to develop useful molecular markers that can identify IDC efficient genotypes and use state of the art genomic technologies to identify genes involved in IDC efficiency or inefficiency. The ultimate goal of the research is to isolate candidate genes and develop markers for these genes that will aid the soybean breeder in developing IDC resistant varieties.(9)Project Title: Developing an Integrated Management and Communication Plan for Soybean Sudden Death SyndromePrinciple Investigator: Daren MuellerBudget Amount and Project Year: $141,599, Year 3Brief Statement of Objectives:The foundational management strategy for sudden death syndrome (SDS) is using resistant cultivars. However, in years such as 2010 and 2014, when environmental conditions are favorable for disease development, it is evident that resistance alone does not provide adequate control or reduce farmer risk sufficiently. Also, SDS continues to move into new areas. Thus, the main goal of this project is to investigate management options that will help ensure resistant cultivars will be as effective as possible thereby reducing risk as well as providing farmers with maximum economic return on their investment even in unusually conducive SDS conditions. Objective 1. Evaluate if soybean root health can be improved to reduce SDS or be used as an indicator of SDS risk.Objective 2. Determine how shifts in soybean production practices affect the risk of SDS development.Objective 3. Communicate research results with farmers, agribusinesses.Examined the effect of glyphosate on SDS. Study has been published in Plant Disease. Study of effect of interaction between herbicide and seed treatment on SDS is ongoing. We collected and analyzed the first year data. Completed a multi-lab study evaluating performance of six qPCR assays developed for F. virguliforme. The manuscript was submitted for publication to Phytopathology. In this study, we compared the strengths and weakness of all six assays under different research facilities in terms of their specificity, sensitivity, and consistency and also identified an effective protocol for better diagnosis and quantify SDS pathogen. To summarize, assays differed in their performances and also the performance of the same assay varied among the laboratories. An assay developed in Chilvers lab showed the highest sensitivity and the second highest specificity, and thus is suggested as the most useful qPCR assay for F. virguliforme. This assay is currently being used for quantifying F. virguliforme population in root and soil in other objectives. Identified seed treatments to reduce SDS foliar symptoms. We completed a study evaluating planting date and seed treatment effect on SDS development. Manuscripts are being written to peer-reviewed journals. To summarize, ILeVO seed treatment reduced disease severity and increased yield nearly in all plantings and cultivars, with a maximum yield response up to 21% (Roland Iowa). Effect of planting date on foliar SDS symptoms was inconclusive. Although Mid-June plantings did not have higher disease than early plantings it yielded lower grain up to 19 bu/A compared to early May plantings.Evaluated different fungicide products and application methods to see if any would complement cultivar resistance Manuscript is being written for publication in peer-reviewed journal. We are continuing this study in 2015 replacing some products and foliar applications with new chemical and biological products. From this study, the main conclusion was that ILeVO seed treatment and Luna Privilege in-furrow were effective at reducing SDS severity in many different environments compared to the control. Foliar applications of any chemicals had no effect on SDS. Collected SCN, SDS and yield data from all participating states and data analysis is being done. We will continue this experiment in 2015 as well. However, so far we found varieties with Peking source of resistance for SCN had lowest SDS in many environments and varieties with no resistance to SDS and SCN had the highest disease. Presented our preliminary research at professional meetings, on Plant Management Network, gave national and international seminars, media interviews, talk in field days and conferences for farmers and also published in state newsletter articles, 20+ media releases etc. To communicate with researchers, we also published or are in the process of publishing in peer-reviewed journals. We also had several press releases, including some jointly with NCSRP, based on results from this project (e.g., glyphosate study, ILeVO study).(10)Project Title: Accelerating soybean yield improvement by utilizing yield genes from soybean wild relativesPrinciple Investigator and Co-PIs: Randall Nelson (PI), USDA-ARS, University of Illinois, Jianxin Ma, Purdue University, Matthew Hudson, Patrick Brown and Brian Diers, University of Illinois, Ram Singh, USDA-ARS, Urbana; George Graef, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.Budget Amount and Project Year: $181,875, Year 2Brief Statement of Objectives:Our objective is to identify and genetically characterize high-yielding lines derived from the wild relatives of soybean that can be used to infuse unique and highly productive yield genes into new soybean varieties. We have three sub-objectives that will help us achieve this goal. First, using the highest yielding experimental lines derived from crossing Dwight by PI 441001 (G. tomentella), we will genetically map the location of the genes/chromosomal regions responsible for these large yield increases. Secondly, using large populations of the inbred lines derived from crosses of the soybean variety, Williams 82, with the wild soybean accessions PI 483916 and PI 479752, we will precisely map agronomically important genes associated with the major differences between soybean and wild soybean. Finally, we will yield test experimental lines derived from up to eight wild soybean accessions and identify chromosomal regions from the wild soybean parent that are adjacent to (but do not contain) the genes that condition the wild soybean plant type. This will put a prio

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 51056K

Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015

Additional Data

Software ID:	15000324
Software Version:	2015v2.0

		Prior Year	Current Year
8	Contributions and grants (Part VIII, line 1h) .........	3,172,734	3,622,308
9	Program service revenue (Part VIII, line 2g) .........		0
10	Investment income (Part VIII, column (A), lines 3, 4, and 7d ) ....	6,812	12,376
11	Other revenue (Part VIII, column (A), lines 5, 6d, 8c, 9c, 10c, and 11e)		0
12	Total revenue—add lines 8 through 11 (must equal Part VIII, column (A), line 12)	3,179,546	3,634,684
13	Grants and similar amounts paid (Part IX, column (A), lines 1–3 )...		0
14	Benefits paid to or for members (Part IX, column (A), line 4).....		0
15	Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits (Part IX, column (A), lines 5–10)		0
16a	Professional fundraising fees (Part IX, column (A), line 11e) .....		0
b	Total fundraising expenses (Part IX, column (D), line 25) 0
17	Other expenses (Part IX, column (A), lines 11a–11d, 11f–24e)....	208,208	4,798,710
18	Total expenses. Add lines 13–17 (must equal Part IX, column (A), line 25)	208,208	4,798,710
19	Revenue less expenses. Subtract line 18 from line 12.......	2,971,338	-1,164,026
		Beginning of Current Year	End of Year
20	Total assets (Part X, line 16).............	4,605,452	4,021,013
21	Total liabilities (Part X, line 26).............	1,149,884	1,729,471
22	Net assets or fund balances. Subtract line 21 from line 20.....	3,455,568	2,291,542

Sign Here

	Signature of officer	Date

	Type or print name and title


4a	(Code: ) (Expenses $ 4,655,256 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )
	SEE ATTACHED STATEMENT OF PROGRAM SERVICES

4b	(Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )












4c	(Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )












4d	Other program services (Describe in Schedule O.)
	(Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )
4e	Total program service expenses4,655,256

(A) Name and Title	(B) Average hours per week (list any hours for related organizations below dotted line)	(C) Position (do not check more than one box, unless person is both an officer and a director/trustee)		(D) Reportable compensation from the organization (W- 2/1099-MISC)	(E) Reportable compensation from related organizations (W- 2/1099-MISC)	(F) Estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations
(A) Name and Title
(1) Craig Converse...................................................................... Director	0.00 ................. 0.00	X		0	0	0
(2) RON OHLDE...................................................................... Director	0.00 ................. 0.00	X		0	0	0
(3) CLIFF MULDER...................................................................... President	0.00 ................. 0.00	X	X	0	0	0
(4) Keith Kemp...................................................................... Director	0.00 ................. 0.00	X		0	0	0
(5) GENE STOEL...................................................................... Vice President	0.00 ................. 0.00	X	X	0	0	0
(6) Larry Tonniges...................................................................... Director	0.00 ................. 0.00	X		0	0	0
(7) Dave Rodibaugh...................................................................... Director	0.00 ................. 0.00	X		0	0	0
(8) CECIL DEMOTT...................................................................... Director	0.00 ................. 0.00	X		0	0	0
(9) ED CAGNEY...................................................................... Director	0.00 ................. 0.00	X		0	0	0
(10) Jerod Hooker...................................................................... Director	0.00 ................. 0.00	X		0	0	0
(11) Matt Danuser...................................................................... Director	0.00 ................. 0.00	X		0	0	0
(12) MIKE CERNY...................................................................... Secretary/Treas	0.00 ................. 0.00	X	X	0	0	0

(A) Name and Title	(B) Average hours per week (list any hours for related organizations below dotted line)	(C) Position (do not check more than one box, unless person is both an officer and a director/trustee)						(D) Reportable compensation from the organization (W- 2/1099-MISC)	(E) Reportable compensation from related organizations (W- 2/1099-MISC)	(F) Estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations
(A) Name and Title

1	Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities: COORDINATE SOYBEAN RESEARCH
2	Check this box
3	Number of voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1a) ........	3	12
4	Number of independent voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1b) .....	4	12
5	Total number of individuals employed in calendar year 2015 (Part V, line 2a) ......	5	0
6	Total number of volunteers (estimate if necessary) .............	6	12
7a	Total unrelated business revenue from Part VIII, column (C), line 12 ........	7a	0
b	Net unrelated business taxable income from Form 990-T, line 34 .........	7b

1b	Sub-Total................
c	Total from continuation sheets to Part VII, Section A....
d	Total (add lines 1b and 1c)...........

(A) Name and business address	(B) Description of services	(C) Compensation





2 Total number of independent contractors (including but not limited to those listed above) who received more than $100,000 of compensation from the organization 0

1a	Federated campaigns..		1a
b	Membership dues..		1b
c	Fundraising events..		1c
d	Related organizations		1d
e	Government grants (contributions)		1e

f	All other contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts not included above		1f	3,622,308

g	Noncash contributions included in lines 1a-1f:$
h Total.Add lines 1a-1f.......		3,622,308

		Business Code
2a
b
c
d
e
f	All other program service revenue.
g Total.Add lines 2a–2f.....		0

3 Investment income (including dividends, interest, and othersimilar amounts) ..........			12,376		12,376
4 Income from investment of tax-exempt bond proceeds			0
5 Royalties...........			0
		(ii) Personal	(i) Real
6a	Gross rents
b	Less: rental expenses
c	Rental income or (loss)
d	Net rental income or (loss)......			0
		(ii) Other	(i) Securities
7a	Gross amount from sales of assets other than inventory
b	Less: cost or other basis and sales expenses
c	Gain or (loss)
d	Net gain or (loss).....			0
8a	Gross income from fundraising events (not including $ of contributions reported on line 1c). See Part IV, line 18 ....
	a
b	Less: direct expenses ...b
c	Net income or (loss) from fundraising events..			0
9a	Gross income from gaming activities. See Part IV, line 19 ...
	a
b	Less: direct expenses ...b
c	Net income or (loss) from gaming activities..			0
10a	Gross sales of inventory, less returns and allowances ..
	a
b	Less: cost of goods sold ..b
c	Net income or (loss) from sales of inventory..			0
Business Code			Miscellaneous Revenue
11a
b
c
d	All other revenue ....
e	Total. Add lines 11a–11d ......			0
12	Total revenue. See Instructions......			3,634,684		12,376

1	Grants and other assistance to domestic organizations and domestic governments. See Part IV, line 21	0
2	Grants and other assistance to individuals in the United States. See Part IV, line 22	0
3	Grants and other assistance to governments, organizations, and individuals outside the United States. See Part IV, lines 15 and 16	0
4	Benefits paid to or for members	0
5	Compensation of current officers, directors, trustees, and key employees ....	0
6	Compensation not included above, to disqualified persons (as defined under section 4958(f)(1)) and persons described in section 4958(c)(3)(B) ....	0
7	Other salaries and wages	0
8	Pension plan accruals and contributions (include section 401(k) and 403(b) employer contributions) ....	0
9	Other employee benefits .......	0
10	Payroll taxes ...........	0
11	Fees for services (non-employees):
a	Management ......	0
b	Legal .........	0
c	Accounting ...........	0
d	Lobbying ...........	0
e	Professional fundraising services. See Part IV, line 17	0
f	Investment management fees ......	0
g	Other (If line 11g amount exceeds 10% of line 25, column (A) amount, list line 11g expenses on Schedule O)	0
12	Advertising and promotion ....	0
13	Office expenses .......	0
14	Information technology ......	0
15	Royalties ..	0
16	Occupancy ...........	0
17	Travel ............	0
18	Payments of travel or entertainment expenses for any federal, state, or local public officials .	0
19	Conferences, conventions, and meetings ....	0
20	Interest ...........	0
21	Payments to affiliates .......	0
22	Depreciation, depletion, and amortization ..	0
23	Insurance ...	0
24	Other expenses. Itemize expenses not covered above (List miscellaneous expenses in line 24e. If line 24e amount exceeds 10% of line 25, column (A) amount, list line 24e expenses on Schedule O.)
a	RESEARCH ACTIVITIES	4,655,256	4,655,256
b	ADMINISTRATIVE	143,454		143,454
c
d
e	All other expenses	0
25	Total functional expenses. Add lines 1 through 24e	4,798,710	4,655,256	143,454	0
26	Joint costs. Complete this line only if the organization reported in column (B) joint costs from a combined educational campaign and fundraising solicitation. Check here if following SOP 98-2 (ASC 958-720).

1	Cash–non-interest-bearing ........		2,157,805	1	1,318,113
2	Savings and temporary cash investments .........		2,251,560	2	2,542,046
3	Pledges and grants receivable, net ......			3	0
4	Accounts receivable, net .............		191,573	4	158,211
5	Loans and other receivables from current and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, and highest compensated employees. Complete Part II of Schedule L
				5	0
6	Loans and other receivables from other disqualified persons (as defined under section 4958(f)(1)), persons described in section 4958(c)(3)(B), and contributing employers and sponsoring organizations of section 501(c)(9) voluntary employees' beneficiary organizations (see instructions) Complete Part II of Schedule L
				6	0
7	Notes and loans receivable, net ....			7	0
8	Inventories for sale or use ........			8	0
9	Prepaid expenses and deferred charges ......			9	0
10a	Land, buildings, and equipment: cost or other basis. Complete Part VI of Schedule D	10a
b	Less: accumulated depreciation	10b		10c	0
11	Investments—publicly traded securities .			11	0
12	Investments—other securities. See Part IV, line 11 .....			12	0
13	Investments—program-related. See Part IV, line 11 ..			13	0
14	Intangible assets ...............			14	0
15	Other assets. See Part IV, line 11 ...........		4,514	15	2,643
16	Total assets. Add lines 1 through 15 (must equal line 34)...		4,605,452	16	4,021,013

17	Accounts payable and accrued expenses .....	1,149,884	17	1,729,471
18	Grants payable ...		18
19	Deferred revenue .........		19
20	Tax-exempt bond liabilities .........		20
21	Escrow or custodial account liability. Complete Part IV of Schedule D		21
22	Loans and other payables to current and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, highest compensated employees, and disqualified
	persons. Complete Part II of Schedule L..		22
23	Secured mortgages and notes payable to unrelated third parties ..		23
24	Unsecured notes and loans payable to unrelated third parties ..		24
25	Other liabilities (including federal income tax, payables to related third parties, and other liabilities not included on lines 17-24). Complete Part X of Schedule D		25
26	Total liabilities. Add lines 17 through 25..	1,149,884	26	1,729,471

	Organizations that follow SFAS 117 (ASC 958), check here and complete lines 27 through 29, and lines 33 and 34.
27	Unrestricted net assets	3,455,568	27	2,291,542
28	Temporarily restricted net assets ...........		28
29	Permanently restricted net assets		29
	Organizations that do not follow SFAS 117 (ASC 958), check here and complete lines 30 through 34.
30	Capital stock or trust principal, or current funds .....		30
31	Paid-in or capital surplus, or land, building or equipment fund ...		31
32	Retained earnings, endowment, accumulated income, or other funds		32
33	Total net assets or fund balances ...........	3,455,568	33	2,291,542
34	Total liabilities and net assets/fund balances ........	4,605,452	34	4,021,013