1. Nutrient elements are classified according to the quantities they required for plant development. Micronutrients are required in much lower concentrations than macronutrients. Macronutrients can still be divided in primary and secondary, also according to quantities required, not as low as micros but not at the same levels as macros. Classified as primary macros are Nitrogen, Carbon, Phosphorus, Potassium, Oxygen and Hydrogen, secondaries are Calcium, Magnesium and Sulfur. At last the macronutrients are Boron, Chlorine, Copper, Molybdenum, Manganese, Iron and Zinc. Considering that micronutrient have a much lower concentration requirement for plant growth, deficiencies are much rarer when compared to macronutrients, despite that fact, micronutrient fertilizer sales increase each year. According to the Global Market Report (2015) “Global Micronutrient Market to grow at 5.5% to 1,236.5 KMT from 2012 to 2017”. Research done in different areas found positive yield response to macronutrient fertilization in different crops, however what all those studies had in common was the fact that they all started with deficient levels, which is not always the case. The objective of this study was to evaluate micronutrient fertilization response in winter wheat yield and the effect of tillage and method of application in nutrient response. For the growing season of 2013-14 and 2014-15, two sites were utilized for this study. One was under conventional till (Lake Carl Blackwell) and another under no-till (Perkins). There were 11 treatments applied comprising of two checks, one foliar Ca application, and two different application times for four micronutrients (B, Cl, Cu and Zn), one in the soil at planting and another done foliar at development stage feekes 5. Yield data was recorded during harvest and analyzed utilizing SAS software through a MIXED procedure for main effects of treatment and tillage. Contrasts were utilized to compare soil and foliar application for each micronutrient. First year results shown no significant difference in yield response for any of the treatments. Tillage also did not have significant effect on treatment. Contrast comparisons of foliar and soil application showed no significant difference between the two applications. In conclusion before applying any fertilizer to the crop, soil sampling must be done to attest for nutrient deficiency. Treatment Yield (bu/ac) MeanStd. Dev Check 30.5*4.4 Check 32.15.9 Foliar Calcium 29.27.1 Soil Boron 26.43.2 Foliar Boron 28.65.1 Soil Chlorine 32.25.7 Foliar Chlorine 23.96.4 Soil Copper 27.27.2 Foliar Copper 31.65.0 Soil Zinc 25.31.7 Foliar Zinc 29.09.0 * Treatments were not significantly different from the check according to Dunnett’s test at the 5% level. Effect of micronutrient fertilizer on winter wheat yield Bruno Morandin Figueiredo Table 2. Mean wheat yield in bushels per acre per treatment at the Perkins site for the 2013-14 growing season. Table 1. Mean wheat yield in bushels per acre per treatment at the Lake Carl Blackwell site for the 2013-14 growing season. * Treatments were not significantly different from the check according to Dunnett’s test at the 5% level. Treatment Yield (bu/ac) MeanStd. Dev Check 31.6*12.4 Check 26.64.8 Foliar Calcium 31.211.5 Soil Boron 30.87.1 Foliar Boron 29.31.8 Soil Chlorine 30.15.0 Foliar Chlorine 27.98.2 Soil Copper 34.910.7 Foliar Copper 22.87.3 Soil Zinc 31.712.8 Foliar Zinc31.116.0