victoria - grdc · 2014 victorian grdc grains research update for advisers 3 welcome to the 2014...

VictoriaWednesday 5th and Thursday 6th

February 2014Ballarat Lodge, 613 Main Road, Ballarat

Share knowledge – accelerate adoptionPremier partners

Major sponsors

2 0 1 4 V i c t o r i a n G R D C G r a i n s R e s e a r c h U p d a t e f o r A d v i s e r s 2

Program management:Matt McCarthy

Proceedings edited and compiled by: Jane Crane and Catherine James

Design & Layout: Peter Hoffmann - Lightning Designs

Additional copies ($60 + $15 postage including GST) available from:

CAUTION: RESEARCH ON UNREGISTERED PESTICIDE USEAny research with unregistered pesticides or of unregistered products reported in this document does

not constitute a recommendation for that particular use by the authors, the authors’ organisations or the management committee. All pesticide applications must accord with the currently registered label for that

particular pesticide, crop, pest and region.

DISCLAIMER - TECHNICALThis publication has been prepared in good faith on the basis of information available at the date of publication without any independent verification. The Grains Research and Development Corporation does not guarantee

or warrant the accuracy, reliability, completeness of currency of the information in this publication nor its usefulness in achieving any purpose.

Readers are responsible for assessing the relevance and accuracy of the content of this publication. The Grains Research and Development Corporation will not be liable for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or

arising by reason of any person using or relying on the information in this publication.

Products may be identified by proprietary or trade names to help readers identify particular types of products but this is not, and is not intended to be, an endorsement or recommendation of any product or manufacturer

referred to. Other products may perform as well or better than those specifically referred to.

www.orm.com.au

46 Edward Street T 03 5441 6176PO Box 189 F 03 5444 4299Bendigo, Vic 3552 E [email protected]


Welcome to the 2014 GRDC Adviser Updates. We look forward to an informative and productive couple of days, with plenty of opportunity to ask questions of, and talk one on one to, an excellent line up of speakers and fellow advisers.

2013 has been a season that has thrown up many challenges. The start of the year was extremely dry, but the hope was that the season would turn around and provide a good finish. At a couple of times during the year it looked like this could be the case, but a combination of another dry Spring and crippling frosts certainly took the gloss from this potential. Amongst this there were some very good results, with excellent Water Use Efficiencies, which is very encouraging as advisers.

As always, we as advisers are being constantly challenged to help our farmer clients, so it is imperative that we maintain and develop our knowledge. This is such a busy time for advisers, a critical time to get the information together. We have aimed for these Updates to assist you in this regard.

We once again have an excellent range of speakers for you, including the latest from WA on herbicide resistance in Wild Radish and harvest weed seed management. These will all help us to make more informed decisions to assist our clients.

This year we have a larger program of concurrent sessions. Victorian advisers work in varying cropping areas and systems. We have tried to cater for this diversity by having a range of speakers and talks on such topics as varieties, along with canola and pulse agronomy.

A special thanks to the excellent line-up of presenters we have over the next 2 days, I encourage you to ask questions of all the presenters to make the most of their expertise.

I would also like to thank all of our sponsors, many of whom have been regular in supporting these Updates and helping to make them a valuable part of your planning program and the information you use with your clients.

I must also acknowledge the GRDC and the Southern panel in particular, for their continued support of the Adviser Updates, which have become so important in bringing together so many advisers and other industry representatives.

Many thanks also to Matt McCarthy and the team at ORM for the organising of these Updates. A special thanks to the planning committee, representing our industry from around the state, for their time and contributions towards these two days.

Bruce Larcombe, Chairman, Victorian GRDC Adviser Update Planning Committee

Robert Christie, Nuseed

Simon Craig, BCG

Simon Crane, Seednet

Alistair Crawford, Farmoz

Trevor Howie, Agritech Rural P/L

Damian Jones, Agresults

Bruce Larcombe, IK Caldwell & Co

Adam Logan, Grain Growers Assoc

Andrew McMahen, Landmark

Rob Norton, IPNI

Annieka Paridaen, SFS

Deanne Price, BCG

Jason Scott, Pioneer Seeds

Craig Sharam, Elders

Rob Sonogan, GRDC southern panel

Chris Sounness, DEPI Vic

Greg Toomey, Landmark

Kent Wooding, Agrivision

Grains Research Update 2014 planning committee

W e l c o m e

GRDC values the contributions made by its research partners during the 2014 series of Grains Research Updates

S A R D I

&SOUTH AUSTRALIAN

RESEARCH ANDDEVELOPMENT

INSTITUTE

R e s e a r c h p a r t n e r s



S u p p o r t e r s

Supporting the Australian Grains Industry through the

Grains Research Updates • VIC 5th & 6th February 2014 Ballarat • NSW 11th & 12th February 2014 Temora • SA 25th & 26th February 2014 Adelaide

* Networking time - refreshments -

GRDC 2014

RESEARCH PARTNER TO THE AUSTRALIAN GRAINS INDUSTRY

The GRDC plans, invests in and oversees research and development to benefit

Australian graingrowers.

Find us at www.grdc.com.au

Premier partners

Major sponsors


C o n t e n t sDAY 1THEME – Share knowledge – accelerate adoptionControlling herbicide resistant radish with herbicides in the Grant Thompson, 13 Northern Agricultural Region (NAR) of WA with a two Crop Circle Consulting spray strategy

Strategies and tactics to extend whole-farm water use James Hunt, CSIRO 25 efficiency – sow on-time or early

CONCURRENT SESSIONS Embedding legumes in the Wimmera rotation Andrew Newall, NEWAG Consulting 37

Fodder rotations with cropping to manage weeds David Watson, Agvise Services Pty Ltd 41

Canola establishment – does size matter? Rohan Brill, NSW DPI 51

Persistent pests – aphids, mites, millipedes and earwigs Paul Umina, cesar and 57 The University of Melbourne

Slug management practices – what is working? Jon Midwood, SFS 63

We can monitor soil moisture content – now what? Neil Huth, CSIRO 69

Biopesticides – fresh hope for the future Gavin Ash, Charles Sturt University 79

Cereal variety management review – high rainfall zone (HRZ) Nick Poole, Far Australia 83

Pulse varieties and agronomy update Jason Brand, DEPI Vic 89

Blackleg pod infection, resistance group monitoring Steve Marcroft, 96 and sclerotinia Marcroft Grains Pathology P/L

New canola varieties for 2014 Trent Potter, Yeruga Crop Research 103

Testing retained sowing seed of hybrid canola over a range Trent Potter, Yeruga Crop Research 107 of rainfall zones

FINAL SESSIONStudents at workManaging wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) in grain crops Emma Henne, La Trobe University 115 – preventing seed set to deplete the seed bank

Role of legume break crops in mobilising soil phosphorus (P) Daniel Espinosa, La Trobe University 121 for wheat

Accelerating adoption of innovative agronomy – experiences Steve Larocque, Beyond Agronomy 125 from Alberta, Canada

INDUSTRY INFORMATION 127

Nuseed Bayer Farmoz Syngenta Grain Growers Nufarm Agrimaster Incitec Pivot Dow AgroSciences


C o n t e n t sDAY 2THEME – Share knowledge – accelerate adoption

CONCURRENT SESSIONS Brown manure as a farm risk strategy – a whole farm experience Robert Patterson, 153 Rural Management Strategies Pty Ltd

Cereal diseases 2014 Grant Hollaway, DEPI, Vic 163

Novel summer crop options in the southern HRZ – thinking Annieka Paridaen, SFS 171 outside the square with Summer crops and pushing the limits with spring sown winter canola in 2013

Testing novel rotation options in the North Damian Jones, Agresults 177

The economics of subsoil manuring – the numbers are out Peter Sale, La Trobe University 181

Maximising the nitrogen benefits of rhizobial inoculation Maarten Ryder, University of Adelaide 187

Getting nitrogen (N) into the crop efficiently and effectively Rob Norton, IPNI 193

Is social media working for you? Prudence Cook, DEPI, Vic 199

Feeding the dragon – modernisation of China’s food industry Simone Tilley, ANZ 203

Wheat and barley variety summary for the low-medium Simon Craig, BCG 205 rainfall zones

Wheat, canola and barley outlook Malcolm Bartholomaeus, 215 Bartholomaeus Consulting

FINAL SESSIONFrost damage in crops – where to from here? Dale Grey, Department 227 of Environment and Primary Industries

Maintaining market access – the role of the adviser Steve Field, DEPI Vic 237

Non-herbicide weed control - not as sexy as a new herbicide Peter Newman, AHRI 239 but really important

Evaluation 248


Wednesday 5th February – Day 19.00am Welcome Keith Pengilley, GRDC Southern Panel and Bruce Larcombe, Planning Committee Chairman9.15am Managing stacked resistance in wild radish - P13 Grant Thompson, Crop Circle Consulting9.55am Strategies and tactics to extend whole farm James Hunt, CSIRO, Annieka Paridaen, SFS water use efficiency - P25 and Dannielle McMillan, BCG10.35am Morning tea

Share knowledge - accelerate adoption Ballarat Lodge

11.00am

11.45am

12.30pm

1.05pm Lunch

Backchat session with (R) Grant Thompson, Crop Circle Consulting, Simon Craig, BCG and Peter Boutsalis, University ofAdelaide

Back chat session Grant Thompson, Crop Circle Consulting, Simon Craig, BCG and Peter Boutsalis, University of Adelaide

Fodder rotations with cropping to manage weeds - P41David Watson, Agvise Services Pty Ltd and Corinne Celestina, SFS

Embedding legumes in the Wimmera rotation (R) - P37Andrew Newall, Newag Consulting

Canola establishment in marginal condition - P51Rohan Brill, NSW DPI

Persistent pests - aphids, mites, earwigs and millipedes (R) - P57 Paul Umina, CESAR

Fodder rotations with cropping to manage weeds (R) - P41David Watson, Agvise Services Pty Ltd and Corinne Celestina, SFS

Embedding legumes in the Wimmera rotation - P37Andrew Newall, Newag Consulting

Slug management practices - what is working? (R) - P63Jon Midwood, SFS

Canola establishment in marginal condition (R) - P51Rohan Brill, NSW DPI

Backchat session withJames Hunt, CSIRO, Annieka Paridaen, SFS and Dannielle McMillan, BCG

We can monitor soil moisture content - now what? (R) - P69Tim McClelland, BCG and Neil Huth, CSIRO

CONCURRENT SESSIONS (R = session to be repeated)

VICTORIA

Main room Eureka Ball room Victoria 1 room Victoria 2 room

(35-40 minutes including time for room change)


4.00pm Afternoon tea

4.30pm Students at work - P115 & 121

4.50pm Accelerating adoption of innovative agronomy - Steve Larocque, Beyond Agronomy experiences from Alberta, Canada - P125

5.30pm Close and evaluation

5.40pm Drinks (compliments of AGT)

2.00pm

2.40pm

3.20pm

We can monitor soil moisture content - now what? - P69Tim McClelland, BCG and Neil Huth, CSIRO

Cereal variety management review - high rainfall zone (R) - P83Nick Poole, FAR

Sclerotinia and Blackleg of canola - maintaining the vigilance - P96Steve Marcroft, Marcroft Grains Pathology

Persistent pests - aphids, mites, earwigs and millipedes - P57Paul Umina, CESAR

Pulses - new varieties and agronomy provide new options - P89Jason Brand, DEPI Vic

Cereal variety management review - high rainfall zone - P83Nick Poole, FAR

Bio-pesticides - fresh hope for future options - P79Gavin Ash, Charles Sturt University

Sclerotinia and Blackleg of canola - maintaining the vigilance (R) - P96Steve Marcroft, Marcroft Grains Pathology

Commercial corner - the latest services and products from the commercial sector

Slug management practices - what is working? - P63Jon Midwood, SFS

Commercial corner - the latest services and products from the commercial sector (R)

Canola variety update and testing retained hybrid canola seed - P103 & 107Trent Potter, Yeruga Crop Research

CONCURRENT SESSIONS

(R = session to be repeated)


(35-40 minutes including time for room change)

Premier partners

Major sponsors

2 0 1 4 V i c t o r i a n G R D C G r a i n s R e s e a r c h U p d a t e f o r A d v i s e r s 1 0

Thursday 6th February – Day 2


9.00am

9.40am

10.15pm Morning tea

10.50am

Brown manuring as a farm risk strategy (R) - P153Robert Patterson, Rural Management Strategies

Spots, blots and rots - cereal diseases - P163Grant Hollaway, DEPI Vic

Getting nitrogen into the crop efficiently and effectively (R) - P193Rob Norton, IPNI

Spots, blots and rots - cereal diseases (R) - P163Grant Hollaway, DEPI Vic

Brown manuring as a farm risk strategy - P153Robert Patterson, Rural Management Strategies

Is social media working for you? (R) - P199Pru Cook, DEPI Vic and Gavin Beever, ORM

Novel summer rotation options for the North and the South (R) - P171 & P177 Damian Jones and Annieka Paridaen, SFS

The economics of sub-soil manuring - the numbers are in (R) - P181Peter Sale, LaTrobe University

Novel summer rotation options for the North and the South - P171 & P177Damian Jones and Annieka Paridaen, SFS

Backchat session withSteve Larocque, Beyond Agronomy

Maximising the nitrogen benefits of rhizobial inoculation (R - P187Maarten Ryder, University of Adelaide

Feeding the dragon - modernisation of China’s food industry - P203Simone Tilley, ANZ

CONCURRENT SESSIONS


VICTORIA


(40 minutes including time for room change)


11.30am

12.10pm

12.40pm Lunch

1.35pm Frost - where to from here? - P227 Dale Grey, DEPI Vic

2.05pm Maintaining market access - the role of the adviser - P237 Steve Field, DEPI Vic

2.25pm Non herbicide weed management - achieving adoption with Peter Newman, AHRI your clients - P239


Wheat and barley variety management review - low and medium rainfall zone (R) - P205Simon Craig, BCG

Wheat and barley variety management review - low and medium rainfall zone - P205 Simon Craig, BCG

Getting nitrogen into the crop efficiently and effectively - P193Rob Norton, IPNI

Maximising the nitrogen benefits of rhizobial inoculation - P187Maarten Ryder, University of Adelaide

The economics of sub-soil manuring - the numbers are in - P181Peter Sale, LaTrobe University

Is social media working for you? - P199Pru Cook, DEPI Vic and Gavin Beever, ORM

Grain market update (R) - P215Malcolm Bartholomaeus, Bartholomaeus Consulting

Grain market update - P215Malcolm Bartholomaeus, Bartholomaeus Consulting

Premier partners

Major sponsors

CONCURRENT SESSIONS





(03) 5441 6176

(03) 5441 6176

For programs and to register head to www.orm.com.au

GRDC Farm Business Updates for AdvisersWednesday 19th March Bendigo VICTuesday 12th August Launceston TASThursday 14th August Wagga Wagga NSW Thursday 13th November Adelaide SA

GRDC Farm Business Updates for GrowersWednesday 12th March Clare SAWednesday 2nd April Naracoorte SAFriday 15th August Southern NSWTuesday 9th September North East VictoriaWednesday 10th September Horsham VICThursday 2nd October Central West NSW

Register at

www.orm.com.au

GRDC Research Updates for Advisers5th & 6th February Ballarat VIC Ballarat Lodge11th & 12th February Temora NSW Temora Ex-Servicemen’s Club25th & 26th February Adelaide SA Adelaide Convention Centre

GRDC Research Updates for GrowersFriday 7th February Lake Bolac VIC Lake Bolac HallThursday 13th February Corowa NSW Corowa RSL ClubThursday 27th February Crystal Brook SA Crystal Brook Football ClubWednesday 12th March Wallendbeen NSW Wallendbeen Memorial HallThursday 3rd April Bridgewater VIC Bridgewater HallWednesday 23rd July Speed VIC Thursday 24th July Nhill VIC Tuesday 29th July West Wyalong NSW Wednesday 30th July Griffith NSW Thursday 31st July Moama NSW Wednesday 13th August Waikerie SA Wednesday 20th August Cummins SA Thursday 21st August Minnipa SA Wednesday 27th August Naracoorte SA

GRDC UPDATES SOUTHERN REGION


Controlling herbicide resistant radish with herbicides in the Northern Agricultural Region (NAR) of WA with a two spray strategy Grant Thompson, Crop Circle Consulting

IntroductionThe threat of multiple herbicide group resistant radish and ‘stacked’ resistant radish is a great concern to growers and crop protection professionals throughout the Northern Agricultural Region (NAR) of Western Australia’s grain belt. For many years, the widespread use of effective and low cost herbicide mixes in cereals, based mainly on group I and B chemistry, has led to an alarming level of resistance in wild radish. More expensive broadleaf herbicides have also been used at below label rates for many years. Coupled with often poor application conditions and water volumes, this has created significantly enhanced selection pressure. In many cases these radish populations have also had significant exposure to group F and C herbicide groups in both cereal and broadleaf crops. Surviving plants to these herbicide groups over many seasons have shared resistance genetics and

Keywordswild radish, herbicide resistance

Take home messages• Herbicideresistantwildradishcanbe

controlled well by a range of herbicides if applied early when weeds are small.

• Atwospraystrategyhasproventobevery effective at controlling wild radish, particularly when the first spray is effective and is done as early as possible on small weeds.

• Knowyourresistancestatusandyourbest mode of action for success.


have created multiple herbicide group resistance within populations and individual plants, resistant to several modes of action.

Also of significant concern to the industry is the repetitive use of two new herbicides (Precept and Velocity) that contain the relatively new active pyrasulfotole (Group H). In many cases, two applications of pyrasulfotole are being applied in cereal crops to achieve acceptable wild radish control. Given the overuse and abuse of older modes of action, the industry as a whole needs to be very conscious of using this new active carefully in order to prolong its life within our farming system.

This paper demonstrates clear options for growers based on a second year of work conducted by the Northern Agricultural Region GRDC RCSN Initiative. In 2012, work conducted by Planfarm and AHRI showed that many two spray strategies were successful in controlling multiple herbicide group resistant radish through timely application and good water volumes with robust herbicide packages. The second year of work (2013), conducted at different locations on different populations in the NAR, also demonstrates that the best practice management of multiple herbicide group resistant radish revolves around early spraying followed by a quick and timely second spray with robust herbicide rates.

ObjectivesThe RCSN group clearly identified several objectives for this project:

1. Provide a Best Practice Management Guide to growers dealing with multiple herbicide group resistant radish, supported by thorough herbicide research.

2. Test or support the projects previous findings that not only is herbicide choice important, but timing, application volumes and weed size is also important in achieving weed control.

3. Provide opportunities for extension of these messages with field days for growers and advisers to visually inspect the trial work.

Methodology Three large scale experiments were conducted in 2013.

1. Trial 1 (HUSBANDS) was at Paul Husbands’s farm in Northampton. This site was resistance tested by Elders and Plant Science Consulting and found to have concerning levels of resistance to four herbicide groups.

2. Trial two (BROAD) was at Ian Broad’s farm at Mingenew. This site was known to several agronomists in the region as having a very hard to kill radish population.

3. Trial 3 (JERICHO) was at Paul Messina’s farm at South Yuna. This site was an application by timing trial on a very high density population. A large scale herbicide resistance screen was also conducted at the property.

Trial 1 and 2: The BROAD and HUSBANDS trial sites were sprayed as follows:

First spray treatments at the two leaf stage of the wheat crop – applied with a TEEJET AIXR11002 nozzle at 60L/Ha, 600KPA and 12km/hr.

1. Nil

2. 1500ml Bromicide 200

3. 1000ml Jaguar

4. 670ml Velocity + 1% Hasten

The second spray treatments were applied at five leaf stage – applied with an AGROTOP AIRMIX 110 01 nozzle at two bar at 98L/Ha at 4km/hr. The second treatments were applied at right angles across the first spray treatments in what is known as a criss-cross trial pattern.


This layout then achieved a trial that had 52 (4 x 13) treatments of 9m x 2m area, replicated 3 times.

The water sensitive paper strips placed in the crop drill row and between the drill rows at both sites

(below) demonstrate excellent application coverage onto weeds and penetration through the crop at the HUSBANDS (L) and BROAD (R) sites.

Table 1. Layout of first spray treatments applied at two leaf stage of the wheat crop

48m buffer 6m 48m buffer 6m 48m

9m nil Velocity Jaguar

9m bromicide 200 @ 1.5L nil Velocity

9m Jaguar @1.0L Brom 200 nil

9m Velocity @670ml jaguar Brom 200

plots 1-14 plots 15 - 28 plots 29 - 52

Table 2. Second spray treatments applied at five leaf stage of the crop, over the top of the two leaf stage treatments

Trt Herbicide Treatment and Adjuvant Rate/Ha or % volume

1 nil 0

2 Velocity + Uptake 800ml + 0.5%

3 Flight 720 EC 720ml

4 Precept 150 + metribuzin + amsul 1500ml + 60g +1%

5 Estercide Xtra 680 + Logran + Uptake 800ml + 10g + 0.5%

6 Tigrex + Ecopar 1000ml + 200ml

7 Precept 150 + Ecopar + Amsul 1000ml + 200ml + 1%

8 Jaguar + Agritone 570 LVE 500ml + 440ml

9 Jaguar + Estercide Xtra 680 1000ml + 800ml

10 Precept 150 + Bromicide MA + Uptake 1500ml + 1000ml + 0.5%

11 Velocity + Jaguar + Estercide Xtra 680 670ml + 500ml + 800ml + 0.5%

12 FMZ 1209 + Bromicide MA 250ml + 750ml

13 Velocity + X -Pand + Uptake 670ml + 125g + 0.5%


The JERICHO trial was a two time of application trial, using common and new herbicide mixtures applied at either two leaf or five leaf stage of the crop, on a high density radish site.

These spray treatments were applied with an AGROTOP AIRMIX 110 01 nozzle at two bar at 98L/Ha at 4km/hr. Weeds were cotyledon to two leaf at Z12, or 4-6 leaf and up to 20cm at Z15.

Figure 1. Application coverage at BROAD and HUSBANDS sites.

Table 3. Herbicide treatments applied at two or five leaf stage of the crop

Herbicide/ Growth Trt Herbicide Rate Rate Adjuvant Rate Adjuvant Stage

1 NIL

2 Jaguar 750 ml/ha Z12

3 Velocity 500 ml/ha Hasten 1 % Z12

4 Jaguar 800 ml/ha MCPA LVE 570 440 ml/ha Z15

5 Velocity 670 ml/ha MCPA LVE 570 440 ml/ha Hasten 1% Z15

6 Logran 10 g/ha MCPA LVE 570 440 ml/ha Hasten 1% Z15

7 Aptitude* 200 ml/ha MCPA Amine 500 500ml/ha Z15

*Registration pending


Resistance Profiles of the trial site populations HUSBANDS trail site: Glass house resistance tests by Plant Science Consulting / Belinda Eastough (Elders):

• 100% survival to 40g Logran (B)

• 45% survival to 2L Simazine (C)

• 0% survival with 1400ml Bromoxynil (C)

• 85% survival to 200ml Brodal (F)

• 0% survival with 500ml Velocity (H,C)

• 60% survival to 650ml 2,4-D Ester (I)

JERICHO trial site: In field resistance screen by Landmark R and D / Robert Alderman and Grant Thompson

• 81% survival to 30g Logran (B)

• 43% survival to 2L Atrazine (C)

• 57% survival to 200ml Brodal (F) 40% survival to 400ml Brodal

• 15% survival to 800ml 2,4-D Ester (I), 12% survival to 1600ml 2,4-D Ester.

• 62% survival to 500ml Intervix (B)

• 8% survival with 500ml Velocity (H & C)

Observations and resultsThe data in Table 4 (HUSBANDS) clearly demonstrates the success of the two spray strategy when Bromicide 200, Jaguar and Velocity were used at the early two leaf timing. When no late spray was used to clean up survivors, Velocity was the most reliable early spray, as indicated by 97% and 100% weed control in the two nil late spray treatments (Trt 1&14). At 10 days after Treatment 2 (T2) was applied, Velocity at 800ml, Tigrex + Ecopar and Precept + Ecopar gave significantly higher crop phytotoxicity results (p<0.05) than the other treatments.

When there was no early spray applied, the later five leaf stage sprays (T2) were put under a great deal of pressure. With approximately 200 radish plants/m2, there was shading of radish by other radish in many

plots. If the treatment did not contain a systemic mode of action, then some of the contact only modes of action were put under more pressure. This is demonstrated by the one late spray of 800ml of Velocity at five leaf stage achieving 93% control, but an early spray at the two leaf stage on much smaller weeds achieved 100% control. This trial also shows that most treatments recommended by the RCSN group were successful in controlling this population, even with the very high levels of resistance present in the test results.

Another point of interest is that a second flush of radish occurred after a mid-season rain in July. This germination died as a result of another short dry spell and a significant amount of competition from a crop that had reached Z39 and was using all available soil moisture.

The crop effects of Flight EC (Trt 3) and Precept + metribuzin (Trt 4) were still clearly evident at 32 days after application (DAA). Radish in the Estercide + Logran treatment trial sites took a very long time to die, with many plants showing some level of twisting and distortion but no plant death at 32DAA.

By 32DAA, the leaf burning caused by the Precept + Ecopar and Tigrex + Ecopar treatments was less evident. These burnt older leaves had almost completely senesced. The Jaguar + MCPA treatment had many survivors growing through the herbicide effects, with survivors exhibiting the typical dark green sheen associated with group F tolerance in radish. The more robust treatment of the higher rate of Jaguar + 24D ester had very few surviving plants at this time.

The Precept + Bromicide MA treatment was very clean at 32 DAA and there were no surviving plants or skeletons of old plants. There were also no crop symptoms visible. The Velocity + Jaguar + Estercide treatment was also extremely clean, but the treatment did noticeably thin out the crop canopy; plants were less leafy and there were less tillers per plant.

The FMZ 1209 treatment did have some survivors when used as a stand-alone single late spray option. This is a new and experimental product,


Table 4. Crop Phytotoxicity (%) 11 Days after application of Treatment 2 and efficacy (% plant death) at 11 and 105 Days after Treatment 2 at HUSBANDS

T1 1500ml Brom 200 T1 1000ml Jaguar T1 670ml Velocity no early T1 spray z12 z12 z12

crop crop crop crop efficacy efficacy efficacy efficacy efficacy efficacy efficacy efficacy phyto phyto phyto phyto

Rate/Ha 10DAA 10DAA 64DAA 10DAA 10DAA 64DAA 10DAA 10DAA 64DAA 10DAA 10DAA 64DAA No. T2 Treatments or % (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Volume

1 Nil 0 20 0 0 20 93 73 20 94 90 23 96 100

800ml 2 Velocity + Uptake 23 54 93 23 100 100 25 100 100 25 100 100 + 0.5%

3 Flight 720EC 720ml 15 63 100 13 98 100 13 100 100 13 100 100

Precept 150 + 1500ml 4 7 68 100 13 100 100 10 100 100 7 100 100 metribuzin + amsul + 60g

800ml Estercide Xtra 680 + 5 + 10g 7 17 100 7 93 100 4 98 100 7 99 100 Logram + Uptake + 0.5%

1000ml 6 Tigrex + Ecopar 23 69 100 22 100 100 20 100 100 23 100 100 + 200ml

1000ml Precept 150 + Ecioar 7 + 200ml 18 66 98 18 100 100 22 100 100 20 100 100 + Amsul + 1%

Jaguar + Agritone 500ml 8 8 31 91 8 97 100 7 100 100 8 100 93 570 LVE + 440ml

Jaguar + Estercide 1000ml 9 10 52 100 10 99 100 10 97 100 8 100 100 Xtra 680 + 800ml

1500ml Precept 150 + 10 + 1000ml 7 82 100 10 99 100 10 100 100 8 100 100 Bromicide MA + Uptake + 0.5%

670ml Velocity + Jaguar + 500ml 11 13 90 100 13 100 100 12 100 100 12 100 100 + Estercide Xtra 680 + 800ml + 0.5%

FMZ 1209 + 250ml 12 12 28 77 15 98 100 12 100 100 12 100 100 Bromicide MA + 750ml

670ml Velocity + X-Pand 13 + 125g 15 60 100 15 100 100 15 100 100 15 100 100 + Uptake + 0.5%

14 nil 0 0 0 0 0 88 67 0 81 75 1 99 97

LSD 0.01 27 62 166 28 7 172 27 7 174 22 2 7

LSD 0.05 20 46 123 20 5 127 20 5 129 16 1 5

CV 94 56 88 91 3 79 92 3 79 74 1 3


and has perhaps been used at a rate too low in this situation. The addition of 125g X-Pand to Velocity, did not affect efficacy by 10DAA, and achieved 100% control by 64DAA.

Table 5 shows that a yield advantage of 4-500kg/ha was consistently achieved if an early two leaf spray (T1) of either Bromicide 200, Jaguar or Velocity is followed up with any number of the five leaf stage spray (T2) options. Yields ranged from 2.63 - 3.06t/

ha when only one late spray was applied. When the two spray strategy was implemented, yields ranged from 3.1-3.64t/ha throughout the trial. In one case, the combination of an early Bromicide 200 spray at T1 took the yield of treatment 12 (FMZ + Brom MA at five leaf stage) from 2.63t/ha to 3.64t/ha, a yield increase of 1.01t/ha. Given a radish density of 200 plants/m2, these results demonstrate the importance of spraying early for improved efficacy and yield benefits.

Table 5. Crop yield (t/ha) and yield (%) compared to nil of all treatments at the HUSBANDS site

No early T1 T1 1500ml T1 1000ml T1 670ml spray Brom 200 z12 Jaguar z12 Velocity z12

YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD No. T2 Treatments Rate/Ha or% Volume % t/ha % t/ha % t/ha % t/ha

1 Nil 0 100 2.88 100 3.12 100 3.27 100 3.17

2 Velocity + Uptake 800ml + 0.5% 96 2.76 103 3.20 101 3.31 104 3.25

3 Flight 720EC 720ml 95 2.73 103 3.22 103 3.37 104 3.29

4 Precept 150 + metribuzin + amsul 1500ml + 60g 97 2.80 101 3.17 106 3.47 101 3.19

5 Estercide Xtra 680 + Logram + Uptake 800ml + 10g + 0.5% 91 2.63 98 3.05 103 3.37 102 3.24

6 Tigrex + Ecopar 1000ml + 200ml 94 2.71 107 3.34 100 3.26 104 3.31

7 Precept 150 + Ecioar + Amsul 1000ml + 200ml + 1% 93 2.69 109 3.41 97 3.16 105 3.33

8 Jaguar + Agritone 570 LVE 500ml + 440ml 91 2.62 105 3.29 108 3.53 98 3.11

9 Jaguar + Estercide Xtra 680 1000ml + 800ml 98 2.81 112 3.5 102 3.35 105 3.32

10 Precept 150 + Bromicide MA + Uptake 1500ml + 1000ml + 0.5% 95 2.73 111 3.48 101 3.32 108 3.43

11 Velocity + Jaguar + Estercide Xtra 680 670ml + 500ml + 800ml + 0.5% 95 2.74 110 3.43 104 3.39 101 3.19

12 FMZ 1209 + Bromicide MA 250ml + 750ml 91 2.63 117 3.64 99 3.23 101 3.21

13 Velocity + X-Pand + Uptake 670ml + 125g + 0.5% 106 3.06 105 3.29 107 3.50 105 3.33

14 nil 0 66 1.91 99 3.10 98 3.21 110 3.47

LSD 0.01 21 0.6 11 0.33 6 0.21 9 0.30

LSD 0.05 15 0.44 8 0.25 5 0.15 7 0.22

CV 3.39 9.76 1.42 4.44 0.84 2.80 1.26 3.98

n.b. numbers in bold are significantly different (P<0.05) from Trt 1


The return on investment from these early spray treatments is substantial. Including application costs, these early two leaf spray treatments cost, $19 - $29 per hectare. Their application results in an increase in net profit of approximately $90-$130/ha given the consistent yield improvements of between 4-500kg/ha of wheat ($290/t). In the case of Treatment 12, an increase of $260/ha grain returns was achieved by using 1.5L Bromicide 200 at T1 as well as the later T2 spray.

The data in Table 6 (BROADS) demonstrates the clear advantage of spraying first with either Jaguar or Velocity at the two leaf stage of the wheat crop when weeds are small. All treatments achieved 100% weed control when sprayed with the early two leaf spray of either Jaguar or Velocity. The

Bromicide 200 early spray treatment also showed clear benefits in final weed control, but was not quite as reliable as the Jaguar and Velocity early treatments, with 3 of the later treatments having some survivors. With no early spray, many of the T2 (five leaf stage) treatments had surviving plants at 105 DAA. Conditions at the time of application were not ideal, as the region was suffering from an extended heat and moisture stress period for 6 weeks. This site also had a pre-emergent application of Diuron applied by the host farmer, which did contribute to some crop phytotoxicity and radish control, as indicated by the crop phytotoxicity and weed control in the nil plots&. The radish density and uniformity at this site was uneven, which also contributed to the variable control achieved in the no early spray treatments.

Figure 2. Radish at 2nd spray timing at HUSBANDS.

Figure 4. Crop phytotoxicity from Ecopar (Treatments 6 and 7).

Figure 3. Radish at 1st spray timing at JERICHO.

Figure 5. Growers and advisers visit HUSBANDS site.


Table 6: Crop Phytotoxicity (%) 11 Days after Application of Treatment 2 and Efficacy (% plant death) at 11 and 105 Days after Treatment 2 at BROADS.

T1 1500ml Brom 200 T1 1000ml Jaguar T1 670ml Velocity no early T1 spray z12 z12 z12

crop crop crop crop efficacy efficacy efficacy efficacy efficacy efficacy efficacy efficacy phyto phyto phyto phyto

Rate/Ha 10DAA 10DAA 64DAA 10DAA 10DAA 64DAA 10DAA 10DAA 64DAA 10DAA 10DAA 64DAA No. T2 Treatments or % (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Volume

1 Nil 0 23 63 96& 20 100 100 20 100 100 22 100 100

800ml 2 Velocity + Uptake 27 43 77 28 100 100 27 100 100 27 100 100 + 0.5%

3 Flight 720EC 720ml 17 30 80 13 98 100 13 100 100 10 100 100

Precept 150 + 1500ml 4 12 42 97 17 100 100 18 97 100 15 100 100 metribuzin + amsul + 60g

800ml Estercide Xtra 680 + 5 + 10g 15 23 90 10 98 100 12 88 100 15 100 100 Logram + Uptake + 0.5%

1000ml 6 Tigrex + Ecopar 23 77 97 22 93 100 20 100 100 22 100 100 + 200ml

1000ml Precept 150 + Ecioar 7 + 200ml 23 67 97 23 98 100 13 100 100 18 100 100 + Amsul + 1%

Jaguar + Agritone 500ml 8 13 37 93 8 83 100 10 97 100 15 100 100 570 LVE + 440ml

Jaguar + Estercide 1000ml 9 17 47 93 15 80 77 8 93 100 17 100 100 Xtra 680 + 800ml

1500ml Precept 150 + 10 + 1000ml 10 38 90 15 93 100 10 100 100 13 100 100 Bromicide MA + Uptake + 0.5%

670ml Velocity + Jaguar + 500ml 11 15 35 87 17 100 97 17 100 100 18 100 100 + Estercide Xtra 680 + 800ml + 0.5%

FMZ 1209 + 250ml 12 20 57 87 10 77 87 17 100 100 17 100 100 Bromicide MA + 750ml

670ml Velocity + X-Pand 13 + 125g 20 67 93 17 100 100 18 97 100 20 100 100 + Uptake + 0.5%

LSD 0.01 27 62 166 28 7 172 27 7 174 22 2 7

LSD 0.05 20 46 123 20 5 127 20 5 129 16 1 5

CV 94 56 88 91 3 79 92 3 79 74 1 3

n.b. & see comments above; numbers in bold are significantly different (P<0.05) from Trt 1


Table 7 (JERICHO) shows that there is a significant yield improvement of between 22-36% by spraying radish at this trial site. More importantly, there is an improvement in efficacy when wild radish is sprayed early before shading occurs. Even when MCPA (grp I), a systemic herbicide, is added to Jaguar at the later five leaf spray timing, radish control declined compared to the early Jaguar spray at two leaf stage. Velocity achieved the highest level of control (100%) at two leaf stage, but when MCPA was added and sprayed at five leaf stage, the treatment still achieved 100% control and did not suffer a reduction in efficacy like the Jaguar + MCPA treatment. The Velocity based treatments (Trt 3 and 5) were also 10-13% higher yielding than the Jaguar based treatments (Trt 2 and 4). The data clearly shows that herbicide choice and time of application are both important factors in achieving the best weed kill and highest grain yield.

The data also clearly shows that knowledge of the herbicide resistance status is important. Treatment 6 (Group I and B) and Treatment 7 (Groups I, C, G) clearly underperformed, which is not unexpected given the in-field resistance screen results mentioned earlier.

DiscussionThe trial work conducted here fully supports the findings from the 1st year of the project (2012), that early spraying of small weeds followed by a timely second follow up spray, with a robust herbicide rate, is highly effective at controlling resistant radish populations. The 2013 data clearly shows that there are other options for the two spray strategy than the two consecutive doses of pyrasulfotole (group H). However, the data does show that herbicide mixes containing pyrasulfotole are highly effective

Table 7. Efficacy 76DAA (%) and crop yield (t/ha) of treatments at two different times of application at the JERICHO site.

Efficacy Yield as % Yield Trt Treatments 76DAA % of untreated kg/ha

1 Nil 0 100% 1400

2 Jaguar 750 ml/ha Z12 96 126% 1768

3 Velocity + Hasten 500ml/ha 1% Z12 100 136% 1911

4 Jaguar + MCPA LVE 570 800ml/ha 440ml/ha Z15 67 123% 1722

5 Velocity + MCPA LVE 570 + Hasten 670ml/ha 440ml/ha Hasten 1% Z15 100 136% 1905

6 Logran + MCPA LVE 570 + Hasten 10g/ha 440ml/ha Hasten 1% Z15 43 122% 1701

7 Aptitude* + MCPA Amine 500 200ml/ha 500ml/ha Z15 48 127% 1774

LSD 0.01 120 20.00 280.42

LSD 0.05 85 14.00 200.01

CV 74 0.00 6.46

n.b. Radish pod contamination of the nil sample was significant. Yield of wheat grain had to be estimated based on proportion of radish pod to wheat grain; numbers in bold are significantly different (P<0.05) from Trt 1


and reliable in many conditions. The trial also shows that there are significant improvements in efficacy and grain yield by implementing a two spray strategy when radish density is high. This season had a significant dry spell for most of June, which may have emphasized the grain yield losses from late weed control. Yield gains of up to 1t/ha were achieved at the HUSBANDS site from doing the two spray strategy instead of only one.

The focus of the RCSN group was to develop alternative control options to prevent the overuse and abuse of the group H active pyrasulfotole. This trial data does show that there are several reliable alternatives to the two group H products. However, in identifying alternative options, we encounter a new problem. Many of the alternative non- group H options identified at the HUSBANDS and BROAD sites contained Bromoxynil. In our attempts to preserve and use group H wisely, we must also ensure we do not inadvertently abuse and overuse group C chemistry, specifically Bromoxynil.

The addition of 200ml Ecopar (Pyraflufen-ethyl – Grp G) to Tigrex and Precept (Trts 6 & 7) achieved consistently high radish control. Although resulting in high levels of crop phytotoxicity early, these treatments had recovered by 32DAA. However, the top two wheat leaves at the time of application had completely senesced and although there was not a significant yield loss in this dry season, yield losses could occur in a better season where more crop biomass leads to greater grain yields. If growers and advisers are willing to accept this crop effect then these treatments can also become a very handy alternative.

The data from the HUSBANDS trial also presents a few questions rather than just providing answers. The resistance testing from this site identified a poor level of activity from group B, F and I, yet the Treatment 5 (Estercide and Logran (I & B)) eventually achieved 100% control of radish when used as a stand-alone or after an early spray. It was noted that this treatment took a very long time to achieve a complete kill of wild radish, however this does cast some doubt over the value of herbicide resistance testing as a sole determinant of a population’s resistance status in a whole paddock. Actual in-paddock herbicide mode of action and rate response screens are a much more reliable method of determining a resistance status of a population.

AcknowledgementsAndrew Sandison, Peter Newman, Cameron Weeks - Planfarm , Agrarian Management & RCSN Geraldton, Belinda Eastough – Elders, Simon Teakle – Full Flag Agronomics, Bernie Quade, Darren Chitty and Robert Alderman – Landmark, William Campbell – Nufarm, Rick Horbury – Bayer, Dave Nicholson and Steve Cosh – DAFWA Geraldton Research Support Unit, Host Farmers – Paul Husbands, Ian Broad and Paul Messina.

Contact detailsGrant Thompson,

Crop Circle Consulting, PO Box 501, Geraldton, WA, 6531.

0427 652 521

[email protected]


Notes


Strategies and tactics to extend whole-farm water-use efficiency - sow on-time or earlyJames Hunt1, John Kirkegaard1, Julianne Lilley1, Susie Sprague1, Tony Swan1, Brad Rheinheimer1,Tracey Wylie2, Nick Poole2, Dannielle McMillan3, Alison Frischke3, Annieka Paridaen4, Ed Hilsdon4, Gina Kreeck4, Paul Breust5 and Tony Pratt5,1CSIRO Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, 2FAR Australia, 3BCG, 4SFS, 5FarmLink Research

GRDC project codes: CSP00178, CSP00160, FarmLink Research and CSIRO stubble initiative project number (TBA)

IntroductionThe dry autumn and frosty spring of 2013 continues the pattern of the last 17 years, and is likely to continue into the future (Cai et al. 2012). Getting wheat to flower during the optimal period in a given environment is a huge driver of yield and water use efficiency, particularly with the recent pattern of late frosts, early heat and dry autumns making this very difficult to achieve. The majority of current wheat varieties need to be sown in the first half of May in order to flower during the optimal period for yield in most environments, which unfortunately coincides with the period of recent rainfall decline.

Growers wishing to maximise farm water-use efficiency need to adopt strategies that will allow them to get as much of their wheat crop as possible flowering during the optimal period in their environment. This means having the varieties, rotations, equipment and level of organisation required to take advantage of any sowing opportunity that arises from late summer onward. This article reports results from several experiments conducted across southern Australia investigating the potential for earlier sowing to increase wheat yields in the face of autumn rainfall decline.

Keywordsearly sowing, slow maturing wheat, winter wheat, time of sowing, frost

Take home messages• MaximisewheatWUEbyensuringas

much crop flowers during the optimal period as possible – sow on time or early!

• Earlysown,slowmaturingvarieties(winter and spring) yield as well as or better than faster maturing varieties sown later.

• Includinganearlysownvarietyinacropping program can greatly increase whole-farm yield.


Optimal flowering periodsEvery production environment has an optimal period in which wheat crops need to flower in order for yield and water-use efficiency to be maximised (Figure 1). This period is defined by an optimal balance between temperature, radiation and water availability, and also decreasing frost risk and increasing heat risk. Optimal flowering periods vary for different locations e.g. the optimal flowering period for the northern Mallee is at the start of September, whilst in SW Victoria it is at the end of October. Growers and advisers should have a firm understanding of the optimal flowering period in their environment, and how to achieve it from different sowing dates with different varieties.

Figure 1. The relationship between flowering time and yield at Kerang and Lake Bolac – optimal flowering periods are highlighted by light and dark grey boxes. Curves are derived from APSIM from 120 years of climate and with a yield reduction for frost and extreme heat events. Optimal flowering periods are mid-September at Kerang, and late October at Lake Bolac.

The key challenge for growers wanting to maximise whole-farm yield and WUE is to have as much of their wheat crop as possible flowering during

the optimal period. This has become increasingly difficult for three reasons;

1. Autumn rainfall has declined significantly in the last 17 years as a direct consequence of anthropogenic climate change.

2. Recently released varieties for most environments have a very narrow range of maturities and unstable flowering times and only flower during the optimal period if sown between late April and late May.

3. Farm sizes and cropping programs are getting bigger.

For these reasons, growers increasingly need to be able to take advantage of whatever sowing opportunities they can get, and there are three strategies that can be employed in order to ensure as much wheat crop as possible flowers during the optimal period.

1. Sow winter wheats from late February through to April.

2. Sow slower maturing spring wheats from mid-April to early May.

3. Sow mid-fast wheats from late-April onward, including dry sowing if the break has not arrived by this time.

Currently most growers are comfortable with the third strategy, and this has been the principal adaption to the drying autumns. However, there is great potential for the first two strategies to complement May sowing and further increase farm yield.

Achieving optimal flowering periods – experiments 2013February-March rainfall has not declined over the past 17 years, and in some areas it has increased (Hunt and Kirkegaard 2011). This rain can be used in lieu of the traditional autumn break to establish crops, but winter wheats are required to achieve this. Winter wheats have a vernalisation or cold requirement which means they will not develop beyond tillering until they have been exposed to

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

31-J

ul

10-A

ug

20-A

ug

30-A

ug

9-S

ep

19-S

ep

29-S

ep

9-O

ct

19-O

ct

29-O

ct

8-N

ov

18-N

ov

28-N

ov

Flowering date

Yie

ld (t

/ha)

Kerang

Lake Bolac


a certain duration of low temperatures (~4-18 C). This gives them a very stable flowering date from a broad range of sowing dates (Figure 2). They can even be sown in summer, and not flower until the optimal flowering period in spring. They are often only thought of as ‘dual purpose’ (grain and graze) varieties, and have been undervalued as grain-only varieties, particularly in drier areas of the country. Unfortunately, Australian breeding programs stopped selecting for milling quality winter wheats early last decade. There are very few cultivars available, particularly for medium-low rainfall zones with alkaline soils. Commercial breeding companies have now resumed selection for winter wheats, and it is likely that they will play a greater role in our future farming systems as modern, adapted varieties are released.

Sowing winter wheats on summer rain

The Curyo district north of Birchip received 50 mm of rain in mid-February 2013. As part of their Grain and Graze II project, BCG took the initiative and planted an experiment (sown 26 February, 2013) which consisted of a range of winter wheat varieties from various sources planted on a chick-pea stubble. The farmer’s paddock (KordA wheat sown 18 May) provided the experimental control.

The winter lines emerged successfully and survived one of the hottest and driest autumns on record. When rains finally came at the end of May, they regenerated rapidly and were able to flower during the optimal period for that environment (Table 1). Yields of the highest yielding lines (Table 2) were equivalent to that of the farmer’s paddock sown in May (3.6 t/ha), despite most of the winter varieties having been released over a decade ago, and having no adaptation to the Mallee environment (CCN, salt or boron resistance).

27 Oct

17 Oct

7 Oct

27 Sep

17 Sep

7 Sep

28 Aug

8 Aug

29 Jul

19 Jul 21 Jun

7 Jun

24 May

10 May

26 Apr

12 Apr

29 Mar

15 Mar

1 Mar

Sowing date

Flow

erin

g da

te

Optimal flowering window

Figure 2. Flowering date of three wheat cultivars from sowings between March and June at Wagga Wagga in 2006 (GRDC, 2011). EGA WedgetailA ( ) is a winter wheat with a moderate photoperiod requirement, EGA EaglehawkA ( ) is a very slow maturing spring wheat with a strong photoperiod requirement and Janz ( ) is a mid-fast spring wheat with a minor photoperiod requirement (adapted from GRDC Southern Region Time of Sowing Fact Sheet using data from Peter Martin, NSW DPI).


All lines produced useful amounts of forage for early grazing (0.2-0.5 t/ha), however grazing reduced yield across all varieties by an average of 0.3 t/ha (main effect P<0.001, LSD (p=0.05) = 0.1). See BCG 2013 Season Research Results for more details of this trial.

Whilst this experiment really pushes the boundaries of what is possible with winter wheats, yield of winter wheats is probably maximised if sown from early April onward. Temperatures are too hot during March for wheat to use water efficiently, and sowing this early is only an advantage if it is intended that

Table 1. Growth stage of different varieties assessed on 12 September 2013. Mid-September is the optimal anthesis (flowering) period for wheat in the southern Mallee

Ungrazed GrazedVariety Zadoks code Growth stage Zadoks code Growth stage

YW443 46 Booting 39 Flag leaf emerged

Whistler 63 Early anthesis 51 Early heading

WylahA 61 Early anthesis 64 Mid anthesis

WedgetailA 66 Mid anthesis 61 Early anthesis

Rosella 60 Early anthesis 51 Early heading

RevenueA 39 Flag leaf emerged 33 three nodes on main stem

CSIROW8A 53 Early heading 51 Early heading

CSIROW7A 67 Late anthesis 63 Early anthesis

Table 2. Ungrazed grain yield and quality of the winter wheat varieties in the BCG experiment planted at Curyo in 2013

Variety Grain yield (t/ha) Protein (%) Screenings (%) Test weight (kg/hl)

CSIROW7A 2.7 13.7 1.9 80

CSIROW8A 2.4 13.3 4.3 80

RevenueA 3.4 11.5 4.6 76

Rosella 3.3 12.2 2.7 81

WedgetailA 2.8 12.4 2.5 77

Whistler 3.0 11.8 4.3 79

WylahA 2.8 13.1 2.6 76

YW443 1.7 15.4 3.7 74

P-value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD (P=0.05) 0.3 0.9 1.2 3

CV% 6.5 4.6 24.1 2.3


crops be grazed, or the break ends up being very late.

This experiment really shows the possibilities which winter wheats could afford our modern farming systems, provided breeding companies could release modern, adapted lines. SW and NE Victoria are relatively lucky in that they have reasonably well adapted but aging winter varieties available (WedgetailA and Whistler in NE Vic, RevenueA in SW Vic). NW Victoria is not so lucky.

Sowing opportunities – take them as they arise

In regions such as southern NSW, which is lucky to have adapted winter wheats (WedgetailA, Whistler, WylahA) and slow maturing spring wheats (EaglehawkA, BolacA, LancerA) available, it has been repeatedly shown that there is a clear yield benefit from planting slower maturing varieties early (see GRDC update articles 2013). This was again the case in 2013, as demonstrated by a CSIRO and Kalyx trial comparing the grazing potential and grain recovery of winter and spring wheats sown at different times and with different grazing regimes. The experiment was located at Iandra north of Young on the SW slopes of southern NSW

(571 mm median annual rainfall with equiseasonal distribution). The site received 81 mm of rain from 24 February to 1 March 2013, which was followed by 14 mm on 23 March which made for ideal sowing conditions for a winter wheat (WedgetailA) on 26 March. Another 13 mm fell on 29 March, and the crop emerged well and grew rapidly.

Like most of SE Australia, April was very dry and no further significant rain fell until mid May. BolacA was planted in its ideal window on 23 April, but into marginal seed-bed moisture, and only 30% of the crop emerged at this time. GregoryA was sown dry on 8 May, and it and the remaining BolacA only emerged following 8 mm rain on 14 May. Winter was wet, but spring was dry, frosty and hot and the site received 280 mm for the growing season. The site was located on a hill and so largely avoided the black frost of 18 October which devastated crops in the region.

The yields very clearly show the benefit of using slower maturing wheats (winter and slow maturing spring) to take advantage of any establishment opportunity that arises early in the season (Table 3). WedgetailA and BolacA both had a 0.9 t/ha yield advantage over main season GregoryA.

Table3.CropyieldsfromfourtreatmentsattheCSIROandKalyxexperimentatIandra,NSWcomparing grazing potential and grain recovery of winter and spring wheats sown at different times and with different grazing regimes

Variety and sowing date Yield (t/ha) Standard error

WedgetailA - sown 26 March 2013

Uncut 4.7 0.1

Z30 hard defoliation 4.4 0.2

BolacA - sown 23 April (30% emergence, remainder emerged following rain mid-May)

Uncut 5.0 0.2


GregoryA – sown 8 May 2013

Uncut 4.1 0.2



Needless to say, the WedgetailA also provided significantly more forage (2.6 t/ha) than both the spring wheats (0.8 t/ha for BolacA and 0.4 t/ha for GregoryA), however grazing reduced yield. This (and the BCG data above) debunks a common misconception that winter wheats are only dual purpose varieties and have to be grazed in order to manage their canopy and achieve good yields. Winter wheats can be highly flexible grain-only varieties in their own right, and a very important tool for managing climate variability.

Early sowing in the HRZ

Early sowing has huge potential in the high rainfall zone of SW Victoria, as it overcomes many of the constraints of that environment e.g. water logging and damage by invertebrate pests. It also creates crops capable of achieving the high yield potentials which are frequently on offer.

As part of GRDCs new early sowing project, SFS, FAR Australia and CSIRO set up an experiment at Inverleigh in 2013 to investigate the potential for early sowing in SW Victoria. Constrained by the dry autumn, they used 15 mm of irrigation applied via drippers to press-wheel furrows to establish each time of sowing. Winter and spring were very favourable at this site (water limited yield potential was 8.2 t/ha), and Yield Prophet® was used to match N inputs to yield potential (300 kg/ha N applied in total). The trial was planted on pea-hay stubble, but there was significant take-all observed in the trial. Septoria tritici was also present despite in-furrow flutriafol and three foliar applications of fungicide.

Despite the disease pressure, yields were exceptional with the highest yields (>9 t/ha) coming from slow maturing red wheat varieties RevenueA (winter) and BeaufortA (slow maturing spring) sown at the end of April (Table 4). Defoliating RevenueA at Z30 (to simulate grazing) increased yield such that it out-yielded BeaufortA (Table 5). There is

some evidence that this could have been related to the effect of grazing on severity of Septoria tritici. Grazing increased yield of RevenueA by 3.3 t/ha in a section of the trial that inadvertently missed one of the foliar fungicides (and was excluded from the other analyses)!

ForrestA was the highest yielding milling wheat, particularly at the early times of sowing. Due to the very kind spring experience at this location, overall there was very little effect of sowing time on yield. However even the latest time of sowing (10 May) is still considered ‘early’ in SW Victoria. The results could have been very different had a more hostile spring (e.g. 2009) been experienced.

Table 4. Yield results from the experiment conducted by SFS, FAR Australia and CSIRO at Inverleigh in 2013. Results analysed with take-all score as a co-variate

Time of sowingVariety 26-Mar 8-Apr 24-Apr 10-May

BeaufortA 8.3 8.8 9.4 8.9

BolacA 6.2 6.6 7.3 7.6

DerrimutA - - 6.9 7.1

Einstein 7.6 7.4 - -

ForrestA 7.4 7.7 7.4 7.2

Frelon 7.4 7.3 8.7 7.2

Kellalac 5.3 5.0 5.5 6.3

LincolnA - - 5.4 6.6

RevenueA 8.0 8.2 9.3 8.4

WedgetailA 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.8

P-value 0.015

LSD (P=0.05) 1.1


A word on frostThe black frost of 18 October 2013 was financially and psychologically devastating to growers across southern NSW and Victoria who were affected. However, one learning from the catastrophe was that delaying sowing (or flowering) is not an effective way of managing frost risk. This was starkly illustrated by a grower (who shall remain nameless!) on the south west slopes of NSW who mixed up his seed silos and planted SpitfireA on 22 April and BolacA in May. This generated a very broad range of flowering dates from ‘too early’ to ‘too late’, but all crops were equally affected.

Further evidence of this was provided by a CSIRO experiment in a frost-prone site south of Temora. The experiment was dry-sown on 23 April, but only emerged following rain on 8 May. It included varieties with a broad range of maturities, and flowering extended for a fortnight from ‘too early’ until ‘too late’. Air temperature fell to -3.6°C on the morning of 18 October, and despite all varieties suffering ~60% frost damage, yield still very clearly declined with flowering date (Figure 3). Varieties which flowered on time (or early!) yielded the most.

To have had crops flower after the 18 October frost would have required delaying sowing with main season wheats well into July, which in the majority of years is guaranteed to result in poor yields. Delaying sowing past the optimal date for a given variety is not an effective way of managing frost risk, and historically has probably cost more yield than frost itself.

There are more successful ways to manage frost risk than delaying sowing. Another result from a different experiment at the same Temora site (funded through the GRDC stubble initiative and run in conjunction with FarmLink Research) comparing grazed, burnt and retained stubbles clearly demonstrated the insulating effect of stubble on the soil surface during frost events, and resultant increase in frost damage (Table 6). A similar yield result was observed in 2012, but whilst stubble retained treatments appeared visually to have more frost damage, frost scores showed no significant difference. These trials show the potential of burning stubbles in frost prone sites to reduce the risk of damage.

Table 5. Yield and take-all scores for RevenueA (with different agronomy treatments intended to maximise yield of early sown crops) and BeaufortA. There was no significant main effect of time of sowing or interaction with these treatments, and values are combined means from 26 March and 8 April sowing. Yield results were analysed with take-all score as a co-variate

Seed density Take-all scoreVariety Defoliation N strategy Yield (t/ha) (seeds/m²) (% white heads)

BeaufortA 250 nil grain 8.3 0

RevenueA 125 nil grain 8.1 12

RevenueA 250 nil grain 8.1 18

RevenueA 250 Z30 grain 9.0 13

RevenueA 250 Z30 forage* 8.7 7

P-value 0.029 0.026

LSD (P=0.05) 0.7 11

* more early N to promote dry matter growth and recovery


Figure 3. Relationship between flowering time and yield at a CSIRO experiment at Temora in 2013. The optimal flowering period in this environment is the first week of October

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

23-Sep 25-Sep 27-Sep 29-Sep 1-Oct 3-Oct 5-Oct 7-Oct 9-Oct

Sunstate

Janz

Chara

LSD (P=0.05)

Y = 0.0591x + 2459.2R2 = 0.7775

CSIROW7A

Rosella

WylahBolac

Sunvale

Wedgetail

YW443

CSIROW8ACSIROW16A

Flowering date

Gra

in y

ield

(t/h

a)

Table 6. Grain yield and frost damage for different stubble treatments applied prior to sowing at the FarmLink and CSIRO stubble initiative site at Temora

2013 wheat yield (t/ha) 2013 canola yield (t/ha) 2012 wheat yield (t/ha)

Treatment Burn Retain Burn Retain Burn Retain (30% frost (59% frost (43% frost (59% frost (10% frost (10% frost damage) damage) damage) damage) damage) damage)

Nil graze 3.3 2.2 1.0 0.7 5.0 4.4

Stubble graze 3.6 3.0 1.1 0.9 4.8 4.8

P value <0.001 0.014 0.003

LSD (P<0.05) 0.2 0.1 0.3


Another observation from the 18 October frost and previous events was the strong effect of elevation. This means that frost is able to be managed spatially, and on the SW slopes, farms zoned according to how frost-prone the different regions are, were able to avoid the worst of the damage. Frost sensitive crops are not planted in low lying or frost prone paddocks, and only pasture, hay crops, dual-purpose wheat or barley are grown in these areas.

The last obvious way to manage frost risk is through enterprise diversity. Farms in frost-prone areas should maintain enterprises not exposed to frost risk. These could be off-farm investments, or on-farm enterprises such as livestock or hay.

Putting it into practiceGrowers wishing to sow early in 2014 need to get themselves in a position to take advantage of early sowing opportunities should they arise? Early-sown wheat needs weed and disease free paddocks; a double break (e.g. pulse/legume pasture/hay crop followed by a canola crop) is an ideal set-up for early sown wheat, particularly in higher rainfall areas.

Growers also need to have a good idea of what their optimal flowering period is, and how to achieve it from different sowing dates with a range of varieties most suited to their environment. If growers keep 2-3 varieties (one winter and one or two spring wheats), they are able to take advantage of any sowing opportunity that may arise over a three month period (Table 7). It does require growers to be tactical in how much of each variety they grow in a given year, but the potential yield benefits well outweigh the logistical hassles.

Early sown crops do require different management to later sown crops. In SW Victoria Septoria tritici is a very serious pathogen of early sown crops, and it is recommended that flutriafol in-furrow and earlier foliar sprays are used when sowing early. Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus can be a threat in all environments, and it is recommended that seed be treated with imidicloprid, or crops closely monitored for aphid infestation and sprayed accordingly.

Nitrogen inputs should be deferred until Z30 to avoid excessive early growth (unless grazing), and if initial soil N is high, sowing rates should be reduced. Yield effects of grazing are variable; sometimes positive and sometimes negative, but the effect

Table 7. Wheat maturity groups, sowing windows to achieve optimal flowering windows and examples of best-bet varieties within groups for different regions in Victoria

Slow maturing Mid maturing Fast maturing Winter wheats spring wheat spring wheat spring wheat

Sowing Late February Mid-April Late-April Mid Mwindow – late April – early May – mid May ay onward

Mallee & Rosella, NA PhantomA, CorackA, MaceA, Wimmera WedgetailA, HarperA, YitpiA, ScoutA, ShieldA WylahA, Whistler MagentaA

North East & WedgetailA, BolacA, LancerA, PhantomA, SuntopA, ScoutA, North Central WylahA, Whistler CharaA GregoryA CorackA, YoungA

South West RevenueA, BeaufortA, BolacA, DerrimutA Elmore CLFA ManningA ForrestA


size is rarely more than 0.5 t/ha if grazed in the safe window (prior to Z30). It is certainly not necessary to graze early sown crops to maximise grain production, but they can offer significant amounts of forage at a time when feed can be scarce.

ReferencesCai W, Cowan T, Thatcher M (2012) Rainfall reductions over Southern Hemisphere semi-arid regions: the role of subtropical dry zone expansion. Nature Scientific Reports 2.

Hunt JR, Kirkegaard JA (2011) Re-evaluating the contribution of summer fallow rain to wheat yield in southern Australia. Crop & Pasture Science 62, 915-929.

Contact details James Hunt

GPO Box 1600 Canberra ACT 2601

02 6246 5066

[email protected]


V i c t o r i a

ConcurrentSessions

The second release of the FREE APVMA mobile app is now available, providing on-the-go access to the APVMA’s permits database.

The app provides a radically simpler, intuitive user interface with real-time access to the APVMA’s agricultural and veterinary medicines chemical registration and permits databases and is of particular relevance for those reliant on minor use authorisations in the horticultural and minor grains industry.

Chemical users—farmers, vets, householders, industry, chemical manufacturers, environmental managers and researchers —arenow able to:

• review product labels

• view off-label authorisations

• search by category, alphabetically, suspended or cancelled products and ‘did you mean?’ searches

• save searches and email results

• nd information on product formulations, active ingredients, withholding periods, pack sizes, pests treated, hosts treated, states where the product is registered and poison schedule information.

To download, search ‘APVMA’ on the App Store. For more information, visit www.apvma.gov.au.

APVMA permits database goes mobile

NEW RELEASE!

grdc_ground_cover_a4_ad.indd 1 5/30/2013 5:52:03 PM


Embedding legumes in the Wimmera rotationAndrew Newall, NEWAG Consulting

Why grow pulses?Possible reasons for growing pulses include:

• Profit.

• Grass weed control, in particular annual ryegrass.

• Nitrogen fixation into the soil to help balance the carbon:nitrogen ratio (Typically 30 -60 kg/ha).

• Higher yielding cereal crop following the pulse crop.

• Disease break.

• Carryover soil water.

Legume options in the Wimmera:

• Lentils, chickpeas, field Peas, faba beans, broad beans, vetch (with lentils being the most dominant and reliable pulse to grow).

Why some growers are hesitant to grow pulses?Perceived downsides to pulses:

• Unreliable yields and returns in dry years.

• Weed control; in particular broadleaf weeds like wild vetch.

• Marketability.

• Foliar diseases such as Ascochyta Blight and Botrytis Grey Mould.

Keywordspulses, rotations, weed control, inter row sowing, profitable

Take home messages• PulsesareprofitableintheWimmera

rotation.

• Theyareimportantforaddingnitrogen to the soil and providing an opportunity to control grass weeds, in particular annual ryegrass.

• Itisimportanttounderstandyoursoiltype and select a pulse crop that suits.

• Pulsesareanimportantpartoftherotation for many Wimmera farmers and pulses, in particular lentils, are the most profitable crop in the rotation. For many of my clients pulses will make up between 40-50% of the rotation.

• Whilepulseshavetraditionallybeenviewed as a higher risk crop to grow, with improvements in pulse breeding and with theuseofRTKguidance(allowingpulsesto be sown in standing stubble), these perceived risks need to be reassessed as they are much lower than what they once were.


Considerations for growing successful legumesKnow the soil type

It is important to select the correct pulse for your particular soil type. While lentils generally have the greatest return of all legumes, they don’t suit all soil types of the Wimmera.

Determine if there is any sub soil constraints

While Wimmera soils have the reputation as being some of the better soil types in Australia for growing legumes. However, many growers and advisers don’t realise the impact of sub soil constraints on pulse production. Sub soil constraints like boron and salts are prevalent through parts of the Wimmera soils and until recently most pulses have minimal if any tolerance to these constraints.

Inter row sowing is a must

With the rapid uptake of guidance by farmers, inter row sowing is a tool that most farmers can use. Inter row sowing has been one of the biggest influences towards pulses being profitable and reliable. The biggest benefit from inter row sowing is the plant architecture. Plants grown in standing stubble grow taller and have greater inter nodal length, and therefore, higher podding height. This higher podding height allows easier harvest and less harvest loss, which has been one of the biggest issues with growing pulses prior to the adoption of inter row sowing. Standing stubble also protects the plants from environmental factors like wind and frost. The plants create their own microenvironment amongst the stubble. Reduction of wind speed and presence of ground cover also reduces evaporation.

Weed control

If possible, it is important to choose paddocks with low broadleaf weed burden. Broadleaf weeds like wild vetch, wild radish, whip thistle and milk thistle can be harder to control in pulse crops and can cause contamination in the grain sample that will incur cleaning fees.

Figure 1. Image of an inter row sown pulse crop.

The new “imi” tolerant lentil varieties do give more options to control broadleaf weeds but control is still weak on wild vetch and thistles. Keep in mind also the carryover of ‘imi” herbicides for future crops.

Try to limit the amount of herbicide that is applied Post Sow Pre-Emergent (PSPE). While most legumes will tolerate small amounts of herbicides, they do not like growing through high rates of the commonly used herbicides, such as; metribuzin, diuron , simazine and terbyne. Lentils in particular, are more sensitive to these herbicides compared with other pulse crops. It is also important to understand some varieties are most sensitive to certain herbicides than others e.g. NipperA is more sensitive to metribuzin compared with Nugget.

Nutrition

Pulses generally don’t require much applied P, with the one exception being faba beans. Most pulses are very good at ‘scavenging’ phosphorus from the soil. However in low P soils it may be beneficial to apply some P with the seed.

One nutrient that is often forgotten about with pulses is sulphur. Pulses are generally very responsive to sulphur and require it during the growing season. With the move to higher analysis fertiliser and the higher cost of gypsum, sulphur is often neglected. In heavy clay soils that traditionally haven’t had gypsum applied to


them, sulphur can often by quite low. In these circumstances therefore, using fertilisers that have a higher sulphur content, like MES 10 or Airseeder Superfect, can be beneficial.

Row Spacing

To achieve successful inter row sowing, generally a row spacing between 12-15” is advisable. Legumes grow very well on these row spacing’s as it allows the plants to trellis on the stubble. The wider row spacing also allows for less disease pressure and more PAW at grain fill. Chickpeas in particular are well suited to be grown on even wider row spacing’s of 24-30”, as the wider rows allow more plants to access soil moisture in the inter row later in the season and during grain fill. Growing chickpeas on the wider row spacing’s also allows extra weed control via the use of shielded sprayers.

Figure 2. Spraying weeds within the chickpea crop with the use of shielded sprayers.

Summary• Pulses must be sown into standing stubble and

ideally within a controlled traffic farming system, as this allows a greater percentage of stubble to still be standing. For most growers that use no-till principles without controlled traffic, they will be driving over 35-45% of their paddocks compared to 14-18% for those practicing controlled traffic.

• Lentils have been the major pulse grown in the Wimmera due to the greater dollar return compared with other legumes. They traditionally have been much easier to market and can be delivered soon after harvest to many processers in the Wimmera. They have also been important in the rotation as a crop than can be successfully crop topped to stop annual ryegrass setting seed.

• Newer varieties that have better disease resistance have allowed growers to shorten up the rotations and grow the same legume within 2-3 years of one another compared to the old rule of thumb of at least 4 years. This has meant lentils can be grown more often in the rotation. Better disease resistance has also meant a lower number of fungicide applications. Many pulses now only need 2-3 fungicides during the season to manage diseases, which reduces risk, input costs and less stress for the grower and agronomist. The newer varieties are also being bred with better boron and salt tolerance which is important for certain soils of the Wimmera.

• Growing a higher percentage of pulses in particular lentils, does come with challenges. Wild vetch has now become a problem weed with numbers slowly building up in pulse crops and causing contamination issues. Controlling wild vetch in lentils is particularly difficult and it is a challenge to manage wild vetch control in the rotation without limiting grower’s gross income. Some growers are looking at adding legumes like field peas into their rotation which gives some level of wild vetch control or even adding vetch for brown manure into their rotation.

ConclusionPulses make up a vital part of my grower’s rotation. Not only do they provide the best profit margin, they also provide valuable soil nitrogen, which must be factored into the gross margin calculation. Typically in the Wimmera they are providing around 30-60 kg/ha depending on the legume grown and its yield.


However, this extra nitrogen is valuable for the following crops and reduces the amount of nitrogen required for the following crop. One of the biggest benefits of growing pulses in the rotation however, has been the opportunity to use crop topping as another tool to control the group A resistant annual ryegrass that is present in many paddocks across the Wimmera.

Contact detailsAndrew Newall

NEWAG Consulting

PO Box 1229 Horsham, Victoria, 3402

0418 224 422

[email protected]


Fodder rotations with cropping to manage weedsDavid Watson1 and Corinne Celestina2,1Agvise Services, 2Southern Farming Systems

GRDC project code: SFS00022

AimTo increase the adoption of pasture- and fodder-based practices to control key weed species that are threatening the long term viability of cropping dominant systems in the southern high rainfall zone.

Background Although widespread cropping is relatively new in the high rainfall zone (HRZ) of south-eastern Australia, the challenge from weeds is significant. Possible reasons for the high level of weeds include:

• A long growing season with extended springs allowing for late germination and seeding,

• sub optimal spraying conditions compounded by poor paddock trafficability due to waterlogging,

• raised bed cropping systems with unsown furrows and headlands,

• a lack of non-cereal crops in the rotation other than canola; and

• increasing herbicide resistance, with the incidence of annual ryegrass (ARG) herbicide resistance commonly above those seen in more traditional cropping zones (Table 1).

Herbicide resistance is expected to escalate in coming years with other key weeds such as wild radish and brome grass also exhibiting widespread resistance (White 2014).

Keywordsannual ryegrass, integrated weed management, herbicide resistance, pasture, fodder

Take home messages• Anaggressivefodderspecieswith

good herbicide options is effective at controlling weeds, but a grain/seed crop in combination with herbicides is better if the target weed has no resistance.

• Grazinginsummerorwinterhasnosignificant effect on weeds. Instead, controlling the late-in-crop weeds that survive grazing and preventing them from setting seed is what’s important.

• Thetimingofseedremovaloperationsis critical. Hay can be just as effective at reducing weeds as silage, if it is timed correctly to prevent seed set.

• Modellinghasshownthatthelongerthe pasture phase, the greater the weed control. Early work indicates that this may be the case but future trials will need to confirm this.


Common non-herbicide options are often difficult to implement in the HRZ of south-eastern Australia because of the particular environmental and management issues. For instance:

• Narrow windrow burning can be ineffective because ARG seed heads are often below harvest height, windrows can become moist and fail to reach critical seed sterilisation temperatures when burnt and grazing animals disturb harvest residue.

• Inversion ploughing is unsuited to the shallow duplex soils with subsoil limitations in the region.

However, the south-eastern HRZ does have opportunities via the incorporation of livestock and competitive forage species.

Integrated Weed Management (IWM) refresherThe principle tactic groups (TG) for weed control within the weed seed cycle are outlined in the 2006 IWM manual for farm advisers, IWM in Australian cropping systems. These are:

• TG1 – deplete seed reserves in the seed bank (e.g. autumn tickle, inversion ploughing).

• TG2 – kill weeds (e.g. herbicides).

• TG3 – stop seed set (e.g. hay and silage, grazing, manuring, spray topping).

• TG4 – prevent seeds entering the seed bank (e.g. seed destructor, windrow burning).

• TG5 – quarantine to prevent seeds entering from other sources.

The trial work reported on here is experimenting with a range of pasture- and fodder-type options based on TG1, 2 and 3 and aims to gain an understanding of how they work in the south-eastern HRZ.

To appreciate the impact fodder rotations could have on weed populations, the Ryegrass Integrated Management (RIM) model was used to test some of these fodder strategies, by comparing three different 10-year scenarios:

1. ‘Typical’ canola/wheat/barley rotation using a variety of herbicides with varying levels of efficacy and resistance.

2. Two years of persian clover employing autumn tickle, summer grazing, hay and manuring and then into a typical canola/wheat/barley rotation as per scenario 1.

3. Four years of lucerne employing silage, summer grazing and winter cleaning then into a typical canola/wheat/barley rotation as per scenario 1.

While assumptions were made about the efficacy of different control methods and the level of resistance to different herbicides (Appendix 1), the results demonstrate the theoretical value of fodder rotations of varying lengths in controlling ARG in a cropping system (Table 2).

The RIM modelling clearly shows that time, preventing seed set and weed seed bank exhaustion are essential elements in effective weed control.

Our key experimental findings to date are summarised below as the three key tactic groups

Table 1. Incidence of herbicide resistant annual ryegrass populations in the south-eastern Australian HRZ (South east SA and southern Vic) and LRZ (SA Mallee and northern Vic)

Region Year Trifluralin Hoegrass® Glean® Axial® Select® Intervix®

SA- Mallee 2012 43 20 61 12 3 36

Vic – Northern 2011 0 55 87 31 8 29

SA – South East 2012 78 90 74 80 43 60

Vic – Southern 2009 0 79 88 68 23 39

(Source: Boutsalis et al 2012)


being examined: (1) deplete seed reserves, (2) kill weeds and (3) stop seed set.

A warning when interpreting resultsWeed populations are dynamic and can fluctuate markedly from year to year. This is the result of dormancy strength conferred at seeding, fluctuations in temperature and moisture over summer, timing of the autumn break, predation, depth of burial and if it is grazed (Grundy 2003). In order to conclude that a treatment has altered a population, the results need to be compared to a control treatment.

Weed populations are often uneven across a site which means there can be large variability even within replicates of the same treatment. This means statistical significance is often not measured, even if the differences appear large. Therefore readers are encouraged to proceed with caution when interpreting results.

TG1: Deplete seed reserves in the seed bankShallow cultivation (autumn tickle)

Shallow cultivation is suggested as a useful tactic to encourage a more even germination of annual ryegrass and to a lesser extent wild radish (McGillon and Storrie 2006). A one year trial at Lake Bolac (ARG) and Inverleigh (wild radish, WR) showed no significant difference in post-sowing plant

populations where an autumn tickle had been used, although numbers were lower than the treatment that had not been cultivated (Table 3).

Table 3. Weed populations at Lake Bolac (ARG) and Inverleigh (WR) with or without a shallow autumn cultivation

ARG winter WR winter 2012 2012Treatment Lake Bolac Inverleigh (pl/m2) (pl/m2)

No autumn tickle 172 7.8

Autumn tickle 157 3.9

LSD P=0.05 ns ns

Std dev 61 5.7

Grazing and changes in weed populations

Grazing can be used to reduce weed populations by affecting plant survival and tillering and/or by suppressing seed set. This tactic is mainly used in a pasture phase, often in combination with herbicides and fodder conservation, but to be successful it requires intense grazing pressure (McGillon and Storrie 2006).

An underlying concern exists with many advisers and growers that grazing in the crop phase, either in the stubble or in winter, will increase weed populations. They believe grazing will push seeds into the soil, thereby staggering the time of germination and resulting in a greater population

Table 2. Results of RIM modelling showing predicted annual ryegrass numbers at the beginning and end of three different weed management scenarios

Ryegrass density per m2

Scenario Year 0 Year 10

seeds plants seeds plants

1. Continuous crop, W, B, C. 10,000 500 16000 530

2. 2 yrs Persian clover fb crop 20,000 1,000 8,400 420

3. 4 yrs lucerne fb crop 20,000 1,000 140 7


of weeds to control after the initial knockdown herbicides have been applied.

There is limited data to support this concern in the southern HRZ. Trials conducted over several years at Lake Bolac, Werneth and Inverleigh showed no significant increase in ARG population in 2013 when grazed in summer and winter compared to no grazing (Figure 1). While results from 2011 and 2012 would suggest ARG populations were increasing with grazing, there was a greater decline of the population in 2013 in the grazed treatments than the ungrazed treatment. Further examination of the results showed no evidence that either the summer or winter grazing had a significant influence over the changes in ARG populations.

An additional study at Lake Bolac, where summer grazing was applied over two seasons, also showed no significant difference in ARG populations (Table 4).

Table 4. Annual ryegrass populations at Lake Bolac over two seasons with or without summer grazing

ARG winter ARG winter Treatment 2012 (pl/m2) 2013 (pl/m2)

No grazing 419 44

Summer grazing 331 51

LSD ns ns

The apparent contradiction in the trial results to observations made by growers and advisers may be explained by the natural annual variability in weed populations that we warned about earlier. If observations were only made in 2011 and 2012 it would be understandable to conclude grazing makes weeds worse, but the reverse would then be case in 2013 (grazing improves weed control) and have no effect in 2010.

0

5

10

15

20

2010 2011 2012 2013

Plants(pl/m2 )

Inverleigh

No grazing

0

50

100

150

200

2010 2011 2012 2013

Plants(pl/m2 )

Lake Bolac

No grazing Summer & winter grazing

0

50

100

150

200

2011 2012 2013

Plants(pl/m2 )

Werneth

No grazing Summer & winter grazing

Figure 1. Population of annual ryegrass measured in late winter over consecutive years at Inverleigh, Lake Bolac and Werneth.


We believe of greater importance is the amount of ARG that is likely to survive late in the cropping phase, irrespective of whether grazing has occurred or not. There remains alarming populations of ARG late-in crop regardless of grazing, which are likely to set viable seed. Observations of viable ARG tillers at Lake Bolac in late November 2013 recorded 81 tillers/m2 in the ungrazed treatment and 83 tillers/m2 in the grazed treatment.

TG2: Kill or compete against weedsFodder species for competition with weeds

Competition from an aggressive fodder species is an effective method of weed control. The key to

reducing weed populations is to choose a fodder species that is strongly competitive and offers different, effective herbicide options for controlling the target weed. By ‘strongly competitive’ we mean a species that has vigorous early growth, rapid canopy closure and high biomass such as a clover, forage oats or peas. Species such as sub clover or Lucerne, which may be less competitive early on, can be an aggressive option in the second or third year when they are fully established and have set significant amounts of seed.

Different fodder species, when managed the same way, achieved a significantly similar level of weed control in the following season but had obvious differences in dry matter production and nitrogen legacy (Table 5).

Table 5. Comparison between dry matter production, nitrogen legacy and weed control efficacy of species sown for the same fodder end use

Dry Matter Total N 0-60cm ARG 2013 % Reduction in End Use/Species 2012 (kg/ha) October 2012 (kg/ha) (pl/m2) ARG from 2012-13

Grazing

Sub clover 2349 92 19 88

Lucerne 1692 88 19 90

Control1 3242 80 41 79

Silage

Arrowleaf clover 7241 109 15 91

Persian clover 5953 87 27 86

Forage oats 8664 90 56 82

Ryegrass 7727 73 19 90

Brown manuring

Balansa clover 5176 97 19 89

Peas 6135 114 23 89

Serradella 4752 82 5 68

Weed numbers are not significant at p=0.05. 1Control plots were weeds only with no sown fodder species.


Competition arising from sowing rate

Although crop competition arising from species differences is having an observable effect on weed populations, crop competition arising from sowing rate is not. Trials with a variety of pasture species sown at the recommended rate and then double and triple this rate, have shown no significant differences in weed control or herbage production between sowing rates. This is illustrated in Table 6, which shows that even at triple the recommended sowing rate, there is no difference in competition (in terms of dry matter production) or weed control.

These results support other pasture research (Burge and Nie 2012) that shows that the only advantage to higher sowing rates is achieving ground

coverage faster. A higher sowing rate does not necessarily translate to more dry matter production, or as shown here, a greater reduction in weed populations.

Killing weeds using herbicides

The final option being tested to kill weeds was herbicides. Different fodder species allow different options for chemical weed control in-crop (Table 7) and so a pasture species can be chosen not just on the basis of its competitiveness, biomass production or potential for N fixation, but also on the chemistry it offers. Rotating herbicide groups and modes of action is a critical part of any IWM strategy.

Table 6. Change in annual ryegrass population under three different species sown at common, double and triple sowing rate

Sowing rate Establishment Dry matter ARG 2013 % ReductionSpecies (kg/ha) (pl/m2) (kg/ha) (pl/m2) in ARG

Balansa clover

Common 6 113 5176 19 89

Double 12 202 5812 34 78

Triple 18 248 4031 19 90

Peas

Common 100 43 5637 23 89

Double 200 74 6393 25 82

Triple 300 81 4785 26 81

Forage oats

Common 100 187 8802 56 82

Double 200 279 7824 23 91

Triple 300 447 9681 33 89

Weed numbers are not significant at p=0.05


TG3: Stop seed setSeed set control relies on intercepting the seed production of weeds that have survived earlier attempts at control (McGillon and Storrie 2006). Therefore the timing of a seed removal operation is more critical than the method of seed removal. Tactics being trialled to control seed set include hay and silage, grazing and manuring.

Hay and silage

Fodder conservation is a practical option for growers in the high rainfall zone of southern Australia. The area still has a vibrant livestock industry and Victoria’s largest dairy region is close by. The market for fodder (both hay and silage) exists and is likely to grow.

A two year trial at Lake Bolac using five different species and a control showed a significant difference (p=0.05) in ARG populations the following year (when all species were combined). Annual ryegrass under the silage treatments resulted in 45 pl/m2 but 59 pl/m2 with the hay treatment. Further examination of the interaction between species and seed removal treatment highlights that the lesser effect from hay cutting only applies to some species (Figure 3).

Combinations of IWM tacticsThe main principle of IWM is to use a combination of tactics to achieve weed control. Several trials are exploring the effectiveness of different combinations of cultivation, species, sowing rates, herbicides, duration of treatment and prevention of seed set (silage, hay and manuring).

Table 7. Herbicide groups that can be used in different fodders species during the growing season

Clovers Serradella Oats, ryegrass Lucerne Peas,

A, I, F, G A, B, G, I, F A,B, C,L A, B, G

Refer to individual product labels for specific application instructions.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Amarok Revenue Persianclover

Arrowleaf Sub clover Control

Annualryegrass(pl/m2 )

Silage Hay

Figure 3. Annual ryegrass numbers under silage and hay in six different treatments. Error bars represent LSD at p=0.05.


In summary the trials show:

• The once off use of a fodder species (arrowleaf clover, balansa clover or peas) in combination with appropriate herbicides, hay or green manuring achieved similar ARG and WR control the next year as a ‘fallow’ treatment using multiple applications of herbicide. Large quantities of fodder were grown (up to 6t/ha) and significant additions to soil nitrogen were measured.

• The addition of summer fodder crops (forage rape, forage sorghum or millet) following a winter fodder (persian clover, balansa clover or peas) achieved similar ARG and WR control the next year compared to not growing a summer fodder. However at Inverleigh, the absence of a summer fodder led to a significant increase in other summer weeds (mainly hairy panic and black nightshade). Total dry matter produced from the winter and summer combination was no more than winter only, as a prolonged dry period led to poor performance from the summer fodder crops (< 05 t/ha).

Ongoing trial workOver the next few years more data will be collected that will allow us to build a picture of which methods work in combination to control weeds. Trials are currently underway that are testing a wider range of non-herbicide control options such as spray topping and spray grazing, green and brown manuring and novel legume species. Future work will also answer the question of how long should a pasture phase be, to control weeds?

ReferencesBoutsalis P, Gill GS, Preston C (2012) Incidence of herbicide resistance in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) across southeastern Australia. Weed Technology 26, 391-398.

Burge S and Nie, Z (eds) Reducing the Cost of Pasture Establishment. Meat and Livestock Australia, North Sydney, New South Wales.

Grundy, AC (2003) Predicting weed emergence: a review of approaches and future challenges. Weed Research 43, 1-11.

McGillon, T and Storrie, A (eds) (2006) Integrated Weed Management in Australian cropping systems – A training resource for farm advisers. CRC for Australian Weed Management, Adelaide, South Australia.

Nicholson, C (ed) (2013) Grain and Graze 2 Workshop notes. Grain and Graze 2 and Southern Farming Systems, Inverleigh, Victoria.

White B (2012) Resistant weeds: War on weed seeds. Farming Ahead 264, 2.

AcknowledgementsCam Nicholson

Contact detailsDavid Watson

Agvise Services PTY LTD

0408 536 196

[email protected]

Corinne Celestina

Southern Farming Systems

0400 660 180

[email protected]


Appendix 1Scenario 1: 10 year Canola/Wheat/Barley rotationMature ryegrass last spring: 200 pl/m2

Herbicide efficiency: Glyphosate 95%Trifluralin 70%Atrazine 70%Sakura 80%Axial 60% (declines 20% each year)TT Canola: knockdown Glyphosate+Hammer+Trifluralin, Atrazine PSPEWheat: knockdown Glyphosate+Hammer+SakuraBarley: knockdown Glyphosate+Hammer+Trifluralin, Axial post-em

Scenario 2: 2 years clover then WBC rotation from year 3 onwardsMature ryegrass last spring: 400 pl/m2

Herbicide efficiency: Glyphosate 95%, Trifluralin 70%, Atrazine 70%, Sakura 80%, Axial 60%Cultural efficiency: Silage+Summer Graze 99%, Manuring 99%Clover Yr1: Autumn tickle, Trifluralin knockdown, grazing and hay cutClover Yr2: Autumn tickle, Trifluralin knockdown, grazing and brown manureW/B/C rotation as per Scenario 1

Scenario 3: 4 years lucerne then WBC rotation from year 5 onwardsMature ryegrass last spring: 400 pl/m2

Herbicide efficiency: Glyphosate 95%, Trifluralin 70%, Atrazine 70%, Sakura 80%, Axial 60%, Sprayseed 95%Cultural efficiency: Silage+Summer Graze 99%Lucerne Yr1: Treflan knockdown, silage cut Oct, hard summer grazeLucerne Yr2-4: winter clean with Sprayseed, hard summer graze

W/B/C rotation as per Scenario 1


Notes


Canola establishment – does size matter?Rohan Brill1, Leigh Jenkins2 and Matthew Gardner³,1NSW DPI Wagga Wagga, 2NSW DPI Trangie,³AMPS Agribusiness (formerly NSW DPI Tamworth)

GRDC project code: DAN00129

IntroductionResearch in the southern region has almost universally shown a negative correlation between canola sowing date and grain yield. The challenge though is that earlier sowing of canola is generally (but not always) more risky for successful crop establishment. Therefore the overall aim of this research was not to improve canola establishment per se, but to increase the likelihood of achieving an adequate plant stand from sowing canola on time or early. The results reported here have greatest relevance for an early planting opportunity and a lesser relevance for canola that is dry sown or planted into moisture in May.

Sowing depth trialsSowing depth trials were conducted at Coonamble, Nyngan and Trangie in 2012 and at Nyngan and Trangie in 2013. Each trial had six common varieties with a range in seed size (Table 1). Target seeding depths were 2.5 cm, 5 cm and 7.5 cm.

Keywordscanola, establishment, seed size, phosphorus

Take home messages• Aimtosowlarge(>5g/1000seeds)

canola seed to achieve adequate establishment rates from early sowing.

• Hybridvigour(heterosis)hasanindirecteffect (larger seed size) and a direct effect (enhanced vigour) on canola establishment

• Avoidtheapplicationofhighratesofphosphorus in direct contact with canola seed at sowing

Table 1. Seed size and number of seeds sown in three canola variety sowing depth trials in 2012

Seed weight 2012 Seed weight 2013Variety Seeds sown/m² (g/1000 seeds) (g/1000 seeds)

AV-GarnetA 3.78 3.27 60

ATR-StingrayA 3.06 2.97 60

Pioneer 43C80 (CL)A 3.68 4.11 60

Pioneer 43Y85 (CL) 5.03 4.77 60

Pioneer 44Y84 (CL) 5.34 5.20 60

Hyola 555TT 4.26 4.00 60


In 2012, averaged across all trials and varieties, establishment (as a percentage of seeds sown) at the 2.5 cm target depth was approximately 66%, with no difference between varieties. All varieties had reduced establishment at the 5 cm sowing depth compared to the 2.5 cm sowing depth with the exception of Pioneer 44Y84 (CL) that had the largest seed (Fig. 1.). At the 7.5 cm sowing depth the difference between varieties and seed size became more marked as the largest seeded variety achieved 50% establishment compared to 20% establishment for the smallest seeded variety.

The effect of sowing depth on grain yield in 2012 was less marked than the effect on establishment. At Nyngan and Coonamble, the 7.5 cm target depth yielded approximately 250 kg/ha less grain than the 2.5 cm and 5 cm target depth. At Nyngan,

Pioneer 44Y84 (CL) had no grain yield reduction at the 7.5 cm target sowing depth compared with the shallower sowing depths, however there was a significant grain yield reduction for all other varieties as a result of deep sowing. There was no effect of sowing depth on grain yield at Trangie.

In 2013 the overall establishment achieved was less than 2012. At the 2.5 cm sowing depth establishment was approximately 50% with no significant difference between varieties (Figure 2). All varieties had reduced establishment at the 5 cm sowing depth compared with the 2.5 cm sowing depth; however the reduction was less severe for the hybrids than for the open-pollinated (OP) varieties. Establishment was further reduced at the 7.5 cm sowing depth, with a similar hybrid advantage as occurred at the 5 cm sowing depth.

Figure 1. Establishment of six canola varieties at three sowing depths, averaged across three trials at Coonamble, Nyngan and Trangie in 2012.

Figure 2. Establishment of six canola varieties at three sowing depths, averaged across two trials at Nyngan and Trangie in 2013.


The effect of sowing depth on grain yield was greater in 2013 than 2012 but was still of a lesser magnitude than the effect of sowing depth on establishment. At Nyngan, the grain yield of Pioneer 44Y84 (CL), AV-GarnetA and Hyola 555TT were all similar for the 2.5 cm sowing depth; however AV-GarnetA and Hyola 555TT both had a significant grain yield reduction at the 5 cm and 7.5 cm sowing depths, while Pioneer 44Y84 (CL) did not suffer a yield penalty from deeper sowing. At Trangie, all varieties suffered a grain yield penalty as sowing depth was increased but this reduction in grain yield was less severe for the larger seeded varieties.

Is seed size or plant type the key?

To determine if improved establishment is related to hybrid breeding or simply seed size the seed of each variety was graded into two size categories; large (2 - 2.4 mm diameter) and small (1 – 1.4 mm diameter). Twenty seeds of each variety and seed size category were sown at depths of 2.5, 5 and 7.5 cm in pots and placed in a glasshouse.

Similar to the field trial results the 2.5 cm planting depth had the highest establishment percentage and increasing planting depth to 5 and 7.5 cm significantly reduced establishment by 32 and 51% respectively, averaged across all varieties.

The small seeded OP varieties had the poorest establishment for each planting depth (Table 2). The large seeded hybrid and OP varieties had significantly better establishment compared to their respective small seeded varieties at both the 5 cm and 7.5 cm planting depths. Small seeded hybrids had significantly better establishment than the small seeded OP varieties (Table 2). This establishment data suggests that large seed as well as the heterosis advantage of hybrids contributes to improved establishment.

Dry matter of 100 plants was measured 15 days after emergence to give an indication of early plant vigour. The large seeded hybrids had the greatest dry matter accumulation at all sowing depths. Compared with the large seeded treatments,

Table 2. Plant establishment, days to emergence and 100 plant weights (15 days after emergence) for three hybrids (Pioneer 44Y84 (CL), Hyola 50 and Hyola 555TT) and three open pollinated (Pioneer 43C80 (CL), AV-Garnet and ATR-Gem) canola varieties segregated into large and small seed sown at three planting depths.

Hybrid Open-pollinatedPlanting depth Large seed Small seed Large seed Small seed

Establishment

2.5 cm 19.4a 19.8a 19.4a 16.3b

5.0 cm 18.8ab 12.8c 17.4b 8.8d

7.5 cm 15.9b 3.8e 8.7d 1.0f

Days to emergence

2.5 cm 5.0a 5.1a 5.1a 5.2a

5.0 cm 5.9ab 6.7b 6.8b 7.2b

7.5 cm 7.4b 11.3e 8.7c 10.0d

100 Plant weight 15 days after emergence

2.5 cm 56.9a 31.5d 45.7c 29.7d

5.0 cm 51.8b 24.5e 44.9c 23.5e

7.5 cm 49.5b 10.3g 45.8c 13.0f

**Numbers within each section (e.g. Establishment) designated with a different letter are significantly (P=0.05) different.


the small seeded treatments (hybrid and OP) accumulated less dry matter and had a greater reduction in establishment where planting depth was increased. The early vigour advantage hybrids displayed over OP varieties that was observed for the large seeded treatments was not observed for the small seeded treatments, with hybrid and OP varieties accumulating similar dry matter per plant.

These glasshouse findings indicate that the establishment and early vigour advantage of hybrids is mostly due to their larger seed size, but also partly due to the heterosis advantage of hybrid breeding.

Starter fertiliser trialsAt each trial site in 2012 a phosphorus rate trial was also sown. The phosphorus product used was triple super which does not supply any nitrogen with the phosphorus. The phosphorus rates applied were 0, 5, 10 and 20 kg/ha, with the fertiliser being placed directly with the seed.

There was no effect of phosphorus rate on canola establishment on the cracking clay (Grey Vertosol) soil at Trangie. In contrast, increasing P rate significantly reduced the establishment of all

varieties on the lighter textured soils at Nyngan (Red Chromosol) and Coonamble (Brown Chromosol) (Figure 2). All varieties experienced a similar reduction in establishment, regardless of seed size or plant type.

Grain yield responded positively to phosphorus application at Trangie and Nyngan, which highlighted that the complete exclusion of phosphorus in order to improve crop establishment is not reasonable.

Two further phosphorus trials were conducted in 2013, with the Trangie trial planted on a lighter textured soil (Red Chromosol) compared with a heavy (Grey Vertosol) soil in 2012. There was a significant establishment reduction at both sites as phosphorus rate (applied as triple super) increased (Figure 3). Further product comparisons at a common P rate showed that all major phosphate fertilisers (MAP, DAP, Single Super, Triple Super, Supreme Z) affected establishment to a similar degree. Despite the effect on establishment, grain yield still responded positively to phosphorus at Nyngan, with the 5 kg/ha P rate yielding 0.25 t/ha more than the nil P treatment but with no further yield increase beyond this rate.

Figure 3. Average establishment of four canola varieties sown with four rates of phosphorus at Trangie, Nyngan and Coonamble in 2012.


For growers using a tine seeder it is generally possible (and recommended) to separate seed and fertiliser to avoid the negative effects of starter fertiliser. For growers with a disc seeder (or considering a disc seeder), there are several management options available such as:

• Planting on relatively narrow crop rows to reduce fertiliser concentration in the furrow.

• Plant canola early allowing greater root exploration, with potentially less phosphorus application required.

• Pay strict attention to closing devices. The firmer/heavier the closing device, the greater the negative impacts of phosphorus fertiliser.

ConclusionTo maximise grain yield potential canola needs to be planted early. This requires careful attention to detail in relation to crop establishment. Since the soil surface dries out more rapidly in early-mid April compared to mid-May, seed may need to be planted slightly deeper than optimal (up to 5-6 cm deep). In this early planting situation, pay strict

attention to seed quality. Sowing large seed (> 5 g/1000 seeds) results in an increased likelihood of achieving an adequate establishment. For growers who wish to purchase seed, hybrid seed is generally larger than open pollinated seed. For growers who retain open-pollinated seed on farm for their own use, aim to clean seed with a 2 mm screen.

Phosphorus is essential for canola growth, but starter fertiliser may have an effect on crop establishment. Avoid high rates of phosphorus in direct contact with canola seed at sowing. Further research is required on phosphorus nutrition of canola, especially on the interactions between P application and sowing time and the effect that liquid phosphorus products may have on canola establishment.

Contact details Rohan Brill

Wagga Wagga Agricultural Research Institute

02 6938 1989

[email protected]

Figure 4. Average establishment of two canola varieties sown with four rates of phosphorus at Trangie and Nyngan in 2013.


Notes


Persistent pests – aphids, mites, millipedes and earwigsPaul Umina,1cesar, 2The University of Melbourne

GRDC project codes: CSE00046, UM00049, CES00001

Pest species within the grains industry pose a serious threat as farming practices change. To avoid costs associated with crop failure and increases in pesticide usage, potential pest species must be identified and their basic biology determined so effective control strategies can be devised. There is

a considerable amount of information known about several pests, such as the redlegged earth mite (RLEM) and green peach aphid (GPA). For other crop pests, such as European earwigs and black Portuguese millipedes, there is little known and few management options are available.

Redlegged earth mites and insecticide resistanceRLEM (Halotydeus destructor) is a major pest species, particularly to establishing crops and pastures. Mite feeding significantly reduces seedling survival and development and will often lead to entire paddocks needing to be re-sown. For decades, RLEM have been controlled relatively effectively with broad-spectrum pesticides. However, in 2006 chemical resistance was discovered in RLEM populations in Western Australia. Extremely high levels of resistance to several synthetic pyrethroids (> 200,000 fold in the case of bifenthrin) were detected using laboratory bioassays, and this has translated to significant yield losses in the field.

This resistance has been shown to have a genetic basis, persisting among mite populations after several generations of culturing away from the paddock. This means it can be passed on to offspring and will persist in the field indefinitely.

Keywordsinsect pests, resistance, control options, aphids, mites, millipedes, earwigs

Take home messages• Changestoinsectcomplexesare

presenting new pest challenges to farmers, particularly during the critical crop establishment period.

• Growersarelikelytofacesignificantchallenges in the future due to insecticide resistance in redlegged earth mites, green peach aphids and other crop pests.

• Manydecisionstomanagecropestablishment pests should be made well before sowing when there are far more control options available.


Further surveys of RLEM have found this resistance to be more widespread than first thought. Resistance was tested from 115 paddocks across 85 properties in WA between 2007-2010. Twenty-eight individual paddocks were found to contain mites with resistance to the synthetic pyrethroid insecticides. These paddocks were spread across 19 separate properties. Further properties with insecticide resistance have been detected since 2010, although at this stage, resistance has not been detected outside of WA. Experts predict resistance in RLEM will spread to other states, including to Victoria.

Concerns surrounding other crop establishment pests and chemical use also exist. High levels of tolerance to several organophosphates and/or synthetic pyrethroids have been found in blue oat mites, Balaustium mites and Bryobia mites. This shows that current pesticide usage is unlikely to be a sustainable practice and also helps explain the increasing number of reports of these species persisting in the field after multiple chemical applications. Smarter chemical use is critical and a more strategic and integrated approach to pest management is needed. Table 1 provides some recommended management strategies for earth mites.

Table 1. Recommended control strategies for earth mites

Pre-season Assess risk (previous High risk when: spring / • History of high mite pressure summer) • Pasture going into crop • Susceptible crop being planted (e.g. canola, pasture, lucerne) • Seasonal forecast is for dry or cool, wet conditions that slow crop growth If risk is high: • Ensure accurate identification of species • Use Timerite® (redlegged earth mites only) • Heavily graze pastures in early-mid spring

Pre-sowing If high risk: • Use an insecticide seed dressing on susceptible crops • Plan to monitor more frequently until crop established • Use higher sowing rate to compensate for seedling loss • Consider scheduling a post-emergent insecticide treatment If low risk: • Avoid insecticide seed dressings (esp. cereal and pulse crops) and plan to monitor until crop establishment

Emergence • Monitor susceptible crops through to establishment using direct visual searches • Be aware of edge effects; mites move in from weeds around paddock edges If spraying: • Ensure accurate identification of species before deciding on chemical • Consider border sprays • Spray prior to the production of winter eggs to suppress populations and reduce risk in the following season • Follow threshold guidelines

Crop As the crop grows, it becomes less susceptible unless growth is slowed by dry or cool, establishment wet conditions


Green peach aphids and insecticide resistanceAphids cause damage to crop plants from their feeding activities, as well as from the viruses they transmit. The green peach aphid (GPA – Myzus persicae) is an important pest of canola and several pulse crops, and vectors a number of important viruses such as cucumber mosaic virus, bean yellow mosaic virus and beet western yellows virus. Recent research has uncovered widespread

resistance among GPA populations to several chemical classes in Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.

More than 40 populations (over an area spanning more than 1700 kilometres across eastern Australia and 800 kilometres in WA) have been collected and tested for resistance. Almost 70% of all populations showed high resistance to synthetic pyrethroids (e.g. alpha-cypermethrin), indicating resistance to this chemical group has become significantly more common over the past 5-10 years.

Table 2. Recommended control strategies for green peach aphids

Summer Assess risk (virus)/ autumn High risk where • Summer rainfall creates a Brassica green bridge • Warm conditions favour early aphid build-up and timing of flights If high risk: • Use an insecticide seed treatment to manage virus spread (e.g. BWYV) by green peach aphid Manage Brassica weeds and volunteers (ideally area wide) 3-4 weeks before sowing Sow early to promote early flowering in spring before aphids peak

Winter Monitor crops for aphid colonisation from late winter when daily temperatures start to rise. High risk when: • Mild winter • Aphids forming dense colonies on growing tips • Forecast is for warm and dry conditions that favour aphid development • No beneficial activity and/or aphid parasitism If high risk: • Consider border sprays with a selective aphicide (pirimicarb) to prevent/delay build-up and retain beneficials

Spring Monitor trends in aphid and beneficial populations in crops over time. Use thresholds to guide spray decisions, considering crop stage and moisture stress. High risk when: • Infestation rapidly increasing during early flowering to bud formation • Forecast is for warm and dry conditions to continue • Low/no parasitism and beneficial activity (note: this can also happen if broad- spectrum insecticides are used to control native budworm and diamondback moth) If spraying: • Use soft products (pirimicarb or petroleum spray oils) to retain beneficials • Rotate insecticide MOAs to reduce resistance selection in green peach aphid.


Most alarming was the discovery that about 50% of populations were found to be resistant to pirimicarb (e.g. Pirimor®). The confirmation of widespread resistance to pirimicarb is particularly concerning for pulse and oilseed growers because this chemical has been a fallback for aphid populations resistant to other chemical groups.

Pirimicarb is aphid-specific and less harmful to other invertebrates when applied to crops, so is compatible with an integrated pest management (IPM) approach. In 2010, the first documented case of resistance to pirimicarb in Australia was identified in a GPA population from WA. This was the first confirmed instance of GPA resistance to carbamates in Australia, although tolerance to pirimicarb was identified many years previously by state agricultural entomologists in WA and in other states.

The recent survey also showed resistance to organophosphate chemicals (e.g. dimethoate) is widespread across Australia; something that has been demonstrated in previous research surveys.

Monitoring aphid populations and reducing ‘insurance sprays’ will help to prolong the life span of insecticides used to control GPA. It is recommended that growers reduce the availability of alternate GPA hosts between growing seasons by controlling summer and autumn weeds, particularly wild radish, wild turnip, capeweed and volunteer canola and lupins. A border spray in autumn/early winter, when aphids begin to move into crops, may provide sufficient control without the need to spray the entire paddock. Table 2 provides some recommended management strategies for green peach aphids.

European earwigsThere are many species of earwigs in Australia. Some are beneficial while others, particularly the European earwig (Forficula auricularia), are increasing in status as agricultural crop pests.

The paddock habitat for earwigs and other insects has altered in recent years with on-farm practice change. Retained crop residues on the soil surface are thought to contribute to populations building

up and damaging crops during autumn and early winter. Increases in earwig populations have also been linked to increases in soil organic matter.

European earwigs mainly attack canola but will also attack cereals, lupins and some legume crops. Damage can be scattered because of their patchy distribution. Earwigs chew the stems and cotyledons of emerging seedlings, killing plants or slowing plant development. As the plant grows, foliar damage includes shredded leaf tips and jagged holes in leaves. Earwigs can completely defoliate young seedlings leaving only stems or bare ground in patches. They can also chew through seedpods.

Earwigs feed together at night, and in many cases, damage will start along the edges of a paddock. Earwig damage to plant leaves closely resembles feeding damage caused by slugs.

Control options in broadacre crops are limited. Cultural control practices such as reducing stubble retention and decreasing available refuges are likely to be the most effective strategy for managing populations over time. Burning has been successful in reducing populations in some instances. If any damaged areas need to be reseeded, a higher seeding rate is recommended to compensate for further damage.

There are no sprays registered for in-crop control of earwigs. In some states, fipronil seed dressings are registered for protection of sorghum and sunflower crop seedlings from black field earwigs, while imidacloprid seed dressings are registered for protection of maize, sorghum, sunflower and sweetcorn from black field earwigs.

Black Portuguese millipedesIn the past five to 10 years, damage caused to some broadacre crops by black Portuguese millipedes (Ommatoiulus moreleti) has been increasing. Similar to earwigs, the increase has been linked to stubble retention, no-till farming practices and improvements in soil organic matter, which have provided a more favourable habitat for millipedes to survive and reproduce. Recent wet summers have contributed to a population build-up


in some parts of southern Australia while planting of more vulnerable crops, such as canola, has led to increased damage.

Millipedes feed on leaf litter, damp and decaying wood, fungus and vegetable matter like tender roots, mosses, pollen or green leaves on the ground. They can play a role breaking down organic matter in the soil. As a result, they occur in greater numbers in undisturbed leaf litter and organic mulch and in areas where winter weeds form a mostly continuous ground cover. Millipedes are generally not as numerous in cultivated areas or bare ground.

Since black Portuguese millipedes generally feed on organic matter, crop feeding damage is relatively rare. Black Portuguese millipedes occasionally attack living plants by chewing the leaves and stems. It has been suggested that millipedes feed on crop plants when they are seeking moisture but this has not been confirmed.

Most reported millipede damage has occurred in emerging canola crops on black organic soils with heavy stubble loads, although damage has also been observed on lighter soils. In canola, millipedes remove irregular sections from the leaves and can kill whole plants if damage is severe. Damage to cereals can also occur where the stems of young plants are chewed.

The presence of black Portuguese millipedes does not always result in damage. There have been many instances where no damage has occurred despite large millipede populations. Millipedes are mostly active and feed at night, which is the best time to check if they are causing damage to canola plants.

There are no insecticides registered to control millipedes in broadacre crops and control options are limited, although there are some measures that will reduce population sizes. Reducing the amount of trash and stubble over summer and early autumn is likely to be the most effective way to reduce millipede numbers. Burning stubbles may reduce millipede populations. Early sowing of high-vigour varieties at a higher seeding rate will help compensate for seedling losses from feeding damage.

AcknowledgementsKym Perry, SARDI Entomology

Garry McDonald, cesar

Melina Miles, QLD DAFF

Owain Edwards, CSIRO

Contact detailsPaul Umina

03 9349 4723

[email protected]


Notes


Slug management practices – what is working?Jon Midwood,Southern Farming Systems

GRDC project code: SFS 0023

Slugs are a major pest that regularly damage emerging and seedling canola, fodder rape, pasture legumes and to a lesser extent cereal crops and pulses. The consequences and costs of slugs and damage or the potential to cause damage are:

• Re-sowing (additional seed and sowing costs and not sowing at the optimum time and hence potential yield is reduced).

• Costs of baits and baiting (multiple applications).

• Burning of stubble.

• Cultivation.

• Reduced area sown to canola.

Slugs have been an intermittent pest of crops in the HRZ. However, the frequency and level of damage caused by this pest has gradually increased over time. Slugs are now constant and major pests that frequently cause significant damage to crops at emergence and during the establishment phase. This may be attributed to a number of factors including the increase in adoption of stubble retention and reduced tillage and increased area of susceptible crops such as canola. The area of damage caused by slugs has increased irrespective of favourable climatic conditions, including the drought of 2006.

Slugs have caused significant damage to some canola during the germinating and early establishment phase of crops in 2013, especially in areas where damage had been seen previously. The extent of damage was unexpected given the very dry conditions of summer and autumn. The adoption of stubble retention has favoured this pest

Keywordsslugs, canola, bait, rolling, stubble, species identification

Take home messages• Managingslugpopulationsisunlikelyto

be successful unless both cultural and chemical control strategies are used.

• Researchhasfoundburning,lightcultivation and rolling improves slug control.

• Controlmeasuresmustbecarriedoutbefore slug damage is observed.

• Paddockswithaprevioushistoryofslugdamage are always a good place to start monitoring in a susceptible crop like canola.

• Slugbaitshouldbeappliedatarateto provide sufficient bait points per m2 relative to slug populations in the paddock.

• Checktheaccuracyofyourbaitspreaderto make sure there is an even distribution of bait across the spreading width. This width may not be the same as the width you spread urea.

• Identifyslugspeciespresentinapaddock for the most effective control. Different species demonstrate different behaviours.


through increased soil moisture holding capacity and the stubble providing a refuge for the slugs to survive.

Knowledge and skills to monitor slug populations and implement an effective slug control strategy are critical to reduce the impact of slugs. Currently growers, agronomists and advisers do not always use effective strategies that will consistently control slugs below thresholds for growing canola. The most common strategy often starts with applying slug bait once damage is seen in the establishing crop. Unfortunately this approach is reactionary and doesn’t lead to the most effective level of control. Following the very high levels of damage seen in 2011, many growers are now looking to include additional cultural control techniques; including burning of stubble, cultivation and rolling.

During the spring of 2012 the GRDC HRZ Regional Cropping Solutions group put forward the research topic of “managing slugs in the HRZ” as a major priority for growers and advisers. As a result, a fast track project was initiated to demonstrate and evaluate a range of management strategies that

could effectively reduce damage to emerging canola during establishment caused by slug species in the High Rainfall Zone (HRZ).

Twelve farms were surveyed across the western districts of southern Victoria that were considered suitable as potential trial sites based on grower and adviser recommendations. All had sufficient slugs in the spring sampling to be potential trial sites. The key factor for the project would be, what would happen to the slugs over the summer, and what mortality rates will occur? The aim was to have at least three final sites which fitted the project criteria, with the target species being the Grey Field Slug (Deroceras reticulatum), as this is the dominant species in the western districts and at least one site where Black Keel slug (Milax gagates) was the focus species. The rationale for this was that there is a shift in species prevalence in response to seasonal conditions, and therefore, it is important to understand management control options for both kinds of slug species. The final sites were at Inverleigh (east), Skipton (central) and Hamilton (west).

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugWinchelsea 0.8 -20.5 -13.7 -2.2 -31 -14.8 -22.4 -31.9 -8.2 43.5 18.2 36.7Hamilton -12.8 -20.9 -9.1 -19.5 -33.5 -8.8 -20.9 -25.5 1.3 7.1 15.1 34.8

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

DifferencetoLongTermMean(mm)

Figure 1. Difference in actual rainfall at 2 sites compared to the Long term mean from September 2012 to August 2013.


The very dry conditions experienced in southern Victoria over the summer months affected the final methodology used in the project and some cultural management techniques were not employed either by grower request or by what was actually achievable at each site. The data below shows the variation from the long term mean at two of the sites, from September 2012 to August 2013. Winchelsea BOM rainfall was used for the Inverleigh site.

The final trial plan was:

1. Stubble – all stubble from the previous crop was burnt.

2. Cultivation – none undertaken as too dry and growers didn’t want to use this intervention.

3. Rolling – rolling versus control. This was carried out using rubber tyre rollers.

4. Grazing – grazing versus ungrazed. Only one site grazed the stubble pre burning.

5. Baiting:

• Applied immediately after sowing versus “grower strategy” baiting versus double bait.

• Applied at full label rate versus “grower rate”.

ResultsInverleigh SiteThe canola variety, CrusherA, was sown on the 21st May into burnt barley stubble. Sowing rate of 4.2kg/ha on a 300mm row spacing. The slug species identified in this trial were the grey field slug (Deroceras reticulatum), the black keeled slug (Milax gagates) (Black Keeled Slug) and the striped field slug (Lehmannia nyctelia).

Skipton SiteThe canola variety, Thunder, was sown on the 17th May into burnt wheat stubble which was grazed. Sowing rate of 4.0kg/ha on a 220mm row spacing. The slug species identified in this trial was the grey field slug (Deroceras reticulatum).

Figure 2. Effect of each treatment on the plants displaying any slug damage (Inverleigh trial).

Figure 3. Effect of each treatment on the plants displaying any slug damage (Skipton trial).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

PlantsShowingDamage

(%)

Control (Not rolled)

Not rolled + grower rateapplied 4/6 + 18/6Rolled + grower rateapplied 4/6 + 18/6Not rolled + Slugout @10kg/Ha 27/5 + 4/6Rolled + Slugout @10kg/Ha 27/5 + 4/6

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

PlantsShowingDamage

(%)


Not rolled + growersrate on 25/MayRolled + growers rateon 25/MayNot rolled + Slugout @10kg/Ha on 25/MayRolled + Slugout @10kg/Ha on 25/May

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

PlantsShowingDamage

(%)


Not rolled + grower rateapplied 4/6 + 18/6Rolled + grower rateapplied 4/6 + 18/6Not rolled + Slugout @10kg/Ha 27/5 + 4/6Rolled + Slugout @10kg/Ha 27/5 + 4/6

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

PlantsShowingDamage

(%)


Not rolled + growersrate on 25/MayRolled + growers rateon 25/MayNot rolled + Slugout @10kg/Ha on 25/MayRolled + Slugout @10kg/Ha on 25/May


Hamilton Site

The canola variety, Thunder, was sown on the 14th May into burnt wheat stubble. Sowing rate of 3.5/ha broadcast and prickle chained. The slug species identified in this trial were the grey field slug (Deroceras reticulatum) and the black keeled slug (Milax gagates).

What did we learn?Timing of the bait

All the managed bait applications showed the lowest level of slug damage across all sites. This application was also applied post sowing but pre emergence of the crop and this gave a substantially improved level of control especially at Inverleigh and Hamilton where the first grower application was applied 8 days later.

Influence of Rolling PSPE

All sites showed a positive result from rolling immediately after sowing compared to not rolling. This was especially noticeable at Inverleigh and at Hamilton where there were higher slug numbers and damage. This was nicely demonstrated at Hamilton where the control treatment was rolled and resulted in less crop damage compared to applying bait but not rolling. This is a cheap, non-chemical, cultural control technique which restricts slug movement in the seed bed and also helps to

consolidate soil around the newly sown seed, and therefore, improves establishment.

Rate of Slug Bait

It is difficult to draw any conclusions from the differences in rates of product used as there were also differences in timing of application, which in itself almost certainly had a major influence on control. However, growers are often driven by what a bait will cost them per hectare and its perceived ability to tolerate wet weather and remain active (i.e. not disintegrate). In light of this we looked at five commonly used baits and measured bait points/m2 at full label rate compared to commonly used “grower rates” (Figure 5).

For many slug bait products, growers tend to have their own rates of application. This is often driven by cost/ha and can also be influenced by what rate their bait spreader is set up at! A common application rate is 4 to 5 kg/ha which equates to $30 - $35/ha. However, this is very often applied without any understanding of bait points per square metre, which needs to be at about 25/m2 for a paddock population of 20 slugs/m2, assuming 80% encounter (Nash 2013). A slug population of one per square metre is significant, and is considered the damage threshold for canola. An infestation of eight slugs per square metre is considered severe (Sabeeney 2013).

Figure 4. Effect of each treatment on the plants displaying any slug damage (Hamilton trial).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%PlantsShowingDamage

(%)

Control (rolled)

Not rolled + grower bait& rate applied 27/5 +18/6Rolled + grower bait &rate applied 27/5 + 18/6


Spreading Slug Bait

Recent research carried out by Ashley Wakefield and Greg Baker in SA on the distribution of slug and snail bait from standard farm spreaders adds further potential inaccuracy to applying bait:

• Many growers assume bait spreading requires the same machinery setup as urea spreading.

• Many growers are not spreading the product as widely as they think when using spreaders set-up for urea rather than for bait.

• Ute spreaders, set up for urea to spread to 15 meters were spreading bait to 7 meters only.

• Fertiliser spreaders, thought to be spreading bait to 35 meters were spreading bait to 20 meters only.

• During the spreading process, some of the bait was breaking up into smaller pieces. At this stage this is not seen as either a disadvantage or an advantage.

Species Identification

At both the Hamilton and Inverleigh trials, damage levels were higher than at the Skipton trial. One explanation for this may well have been the presence of two species of slugs which can live at different depths in the soil.

The Grey field slug or reticulated slug (Deroceras reticulatum) is mainly surface active and can have up to three generations a year. It will generally breed in autumn and spring however, if conditions are favourable this species will breed any time, and therefore, a pair can produce up to 1000 eggs a year. The second species identified at these two sites was the Black keeled slug (Milax gagates). This species can burrow up to 20 centimetres underground to escape the heat. A breeding pair can lay up to 200 eggs a year.

The importance of identification of the species relates to the emergence of each species as the autumn break developed. At the very early emergence stage of canola, only grey field slugs were causing plant damage but as the wet front penetrated the soil profile with increased rain, the black keeled slugs became active. This meant that only applying the initial bait treatment PSPE wasn’t going to be sufficient to control the later emerging species.

Contact details Jon Midwood

23 High Street, Inverleigh, VIC 3321

03 5265 1666

[email protected]

Figure 5. Bait points per square meter at various application rates (kg/ha).

0

20

40

60

80

100

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

BaitPoints/m2

Rate (kg/ha)

Slug Out Sluggoff Metarex Meta Multiguard


Notes


We can monitor soil moisture content – now what?Neil Huth1, Tim McClelland2, Harm van Rees3 and Bill Long4,1CSIRO, 2BCG, 3Crop Facts, 4AgConsulting Co.

Comparing soil water information presented by probes and Yield Prophet®

Over recent years there has been significant interest in capacitance soil moisture probes fitted with weather stations for monitoring crop water availability and climatic conditions in crop. Model supporters are challenged by the interest in probe use by farmers and some advisors when models (e.g. Yield Prophet®) have been doing the same for longer and for a fraction of the cost. The way in which soil water information is presented by probes and Yield Prophet® is very different. There are pros and cons associated with both systems. The type of information provided by soil moisture probes and Yield Prophet® are detailed in Figures 1 and 2, including comments on each method.

Keywordssoil moisture probes, APSIM simulations, Yield Prophet®, weather station, model accuracy

Take home messages• Soilmoistureprobesprovideeasily

understood outputs of soil water.

• YieldProphet®, using APSIM modelling, simulates soil water, crop water use and nitrogen (N) use on a daily basis and provides a risk assessment, through probability, of achieving a target yield.

• Integratingmodellingandmonitoringcan provide a means to simultaneously improve both. This could potentially include calibration of probes and Yield Prophet® at the same time.

• Whilethefocusoftheinteresthasbeen directed towards the integration soil moisture probes with models the integration of weather station data also has a significant contribution to make to improve model accuracy.


Comments:• shows total soil water and increase in soil water following rain• dry period during Aug-Sep depleted most of the available stored water (period circled on the graph)• shows limit to plant water use at 60cm (rooting depth) • estimate of crop lower limits (CLL) at the end of this cropping season (after a long dry spell)• note drained upper limit (DUL) was probably not achieved; and• uses a generic calibration for calculating volumetric soil water.

Figure 1. Typical soil moisture probe data representation for a wheat crop, May to October 2013. Lines are soil moisture content (mm) at eight depths in the profile (shallowest 30cm; deepest 100cm). Bars are rainfall (mm).


The fact that soil moisture probes can be held and be touched has meant that growers are comfortable with the data being produced. While probe data has many benefits, the practical application of the output data is limited. Often it is difficult to quantify the amount of soil moisture available to a crop because of the absence of meaningful data about the water-holding capacity of the soil. Further to this, applying the data to a decision can be difficult. The benefit of the data comes from integration with other decision support systems.

Yield Prophet® and soil moisture probes – where are we and where too from here? At present, Yield Prophet® crop simulations are created by combining the essential components of growing a crop including:

• a soil test sampled prior to planting

• a soil classification selected from the APSoil library of approximately 1,000 soils selected as representative of the production area

• historical and recent climate data taken from the nearest Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) weather station

• paddock specific rainfall data recorded by the user (optional)

• individual crop details (e.g. cultivar, sowing date), and

• fertiliser and irrigation applications during the growing season.

3 May, 2013 (sowing date for Scout wheat) PAW = 8mm Evap+Water use = 0.1mm/day

21 July, 2013 PAW = 44mm Evap+Water use = 1.3mm/day

26 Aug, 2013 PAW = 44mm Evap+Water use = 2.2mm/day

3 Nov, 2013 PAW = 6mm Evap+Water use = 0.1mm/day

CLL

DUL

PAW

Comments: • CLL and DUL from soil characterisation (users have access to a large Australia-wide data base of

characterised soils) • plant available water (PAW) highlighted on the graph and listed as an output in mm • daily water balance as simulated from the time of soil sampling (pre-sowing) • daily water use provided, and

• water stress exhibited by the crop expressed in another graph.

Figure 2. APSIM modelled plant available water as represented by Yield Prophet® for a wheat crop in 2013.


During the 2012 season, Yield Prophet® was amended to enable soil moisture probe data and climate data to feed directly into the program. This involves probe data being sent to a central location from which Yield Prophet® can collect the data. The initial phase of this process has focused on outputting the soil moisture probe data next to simulated soil moisture data from APSIM. This initial phase allows the two systems to be viewed side by side where they can act as validation for each other. The validation may assist users of both systems in identifying faulty readings on the probes and incorrect outputs from the simulations.

Figure 4 shows one of the outputs from the new Yield Prophet® soil probe crop report. The output is showing the probe (‘Probe’) and the simulated (‘Virtual’) soil water values from the summed profile (Total) and individual sensor depths (e.g. 10cm). It is evident from the figure that, in this example, the absolute values returned from the two systems are different but show a consistent offset. In this case the two systems are acting as a positive validation, but it is clear that the calibration of the probe water values need to be adjusted so as to more closely reflect the simulated values or vice versa.

Figure 3. Yield Prophet® simulation inputs.


The second phase of incorporating the two systems could involve feeding probe data into APSIM and allowing APSIM to generate crop simulations

based on this data. However, before this can occur, further research is required to determine whether this is possible.

Figure 4. Probe (solid line) and simulated/virtual (dotted line) plant available water at different depths and a summed total from the new Yield Prophet® soil probe crop report.

Pla

nt a

vaila

ble

wat

er


So, how would we go about marrying models and measurements?This area has had a lot of coverage in the scientific literature as models are increasingly used to inform decisions and as real time data becomes more readily available. The problem is often referred to as data assimilation (DA) or model-data fusion. One of the most common uses is in informing large scale spatial simulations through the use of remote sensing, most commonly satellite imagery. In these cases, surface spectral properties are used to infer surface conditions, such as vegetation cover, which are then used as an input into the simulation. This means that modellers operating at a global scale do not need to know everything about every crop in every paddock.

There are three main ways to assimilate models and data (Dorigo et al 2007):

1. Forcing method: the state variable in the model is directly replaced by the measured data. This requires continuous information on the time step used by the model.

2. Calibration method: model inputs or initial conditions are adjusted to create optimal agreement between the model and the observed data. This can require a large amount of computing time.

3. Updating method: the model is sequentially updated whenever an observation is required.

If done carefully, and correctly, any of the above can be used in the example of the use of satellite imagery for informing modelling of canopy development. In this case, an estimate of crop cover (from spectral indices) can be used to constrain the model so that modelled growth more closely matches that observed in the field. In this case, the data used to constrain the model may be a driver of the output of interest but with little feedback from that output of interest. In the case of soil moisture sensors, things are slightly different.

Two ideas are important. Firstly, in rain-fed environments, production is closely driven by water supply; any error in crop water use will likely impact on yield prediction. However, errors in water supply are constrained by the fact that water use cannot exceed water supply (i.e. effective rainfall + stored soil moisture). Therefore, better information on soil water supply should improve yield predictions. Conversely, any information or method that adversely impacts water balance predictions will harm yield predictions. This leads to the second point.

We need to recognise that nothing is perfect. There are errors in our model, for example. For this reason, we look to incorporate measured data into the model (i.e. to reduce error). However, the measured data is also imperfect. Direct incorporation of imperfect data into an already imperfect model may in fact increase model error. In Figure 5, we show soil water measured at various depths using gravimetric methods and EnviroSCAN™ probes at Norwin in Queensland during 2010 - 2012 (Dalgliesh 2013). We see large variation in gravimetric samples even though sampling with 12 replicate cores was used. Periods of equipment failure are evident in the EnviroSCAN™ data. Finally, discrepancy between the various measured and modelled time series are not insignificant. It is not clear that constraining the model using either of the observed datasets would actually improve yield estimations.

Furthermore, the mere act of interfering with the model can exacerbate errors within the model. Correcting prediction errors in a major driver of the system (i.e. soil water) without also correcting other prediction errors arising from that error (e.g. an overestimation in growth) can destroy compensating errors that restrict the model from diverging from reality. For example, consider the case where water use is over-predicted, resulting in over-predictions of growth. Correcting the soil water content without correcting the growth will simply result in increasing water supply for the next day, which will likely


result in even more accelerated growth. Total water use for the season will be accidentally inflated, errors in growth are never corrected, and model predictions are likely to be worse than if they were not ‘corrected’. This sort of adverse impact is likely for the forcing and updating methods.

The short message is this, simple combinations of models and observed data are likely to decrease predictive capacity through:

1. introducing new error into model parameterisation

Figure 5. Time series of measured gravimetric (circles), EnviroSCAN™ measured (thick line) and APSIM-simulated (thin line) soil water at Norwin during 2010 to 2012.


2. additive errors when combining imperfect models and imperfect data, or

3. destroying compensating errors within the model.

So what is the answer?There are methods that can help with all these problems. These are often referred to as filtering techniques in that they filter out bad data or model parameterisations and provide estimates of the confidence you should have in both models and the data. These techniques also arise out of the aerospace industries, where the earliest approaches were developed for reducing errors in predictions of missile or spacecraft positions estimated from measurements of speed and direction. Measurements in the movement of spacecraft have errors and predictions are affected by these. Filtering techniques were developed to pull the ‘noise’ out of the measurements to improve predictions.

The really good news is that methods used in assimilating models and soil moisture probes could be used to improve the quality of the information from the model, and also the quality of information from the probes. It is clear that probe data can help identify when the model is correct or incorrect. It is also possible that such techniques would allow the model to help identify periods when the probes are not working correctly, or are not calibrated correctly. Take this simple example, a simple water balance model can tell you that there is a problem if probes register a jump in soil water content of 40 mm for a 20 mm rainfall event. Filtering techniques would provide a more powerful way of detecting these, and possibly suggesting likely causes of the problem. In essence, you may be able to calibrate your model and your sensors at the same time by having them learn from each other. In fact, it is not hard to imagine a system where model-data fusion is used to provide rapid estimates of probe calibration curves to improve the quality of data from probe networks.

So, the data assimilation could provide:• a better parameterisation of the model • better predictions from the model• a better way to test sensor data, including

indication of periods of lower data integrity (i.e. when to believe them or not), and

• another way to calibrate your sensors by accumulating information over time.

However, to do this requires:• More computing power. Computing clusters

will need to run large numbers of simulations to get enough information to find solutions to the problems. Yield prophet® already uses such clusters

• More sensors, information on uncertainty in sensor data helps here. This means replication of sensors.

• Better mathematics and more software behind the scenes than currently used in Yield Prophet®.

Key developmentsWhile the focus of the interest has been directed towards integrating soil moisture probes with models, the integration of weather station data also has a significant contribution to make to improve model accuracy and reducing the effort associated using them effectively. At present Yield Prophet® uses climate information from the SILO Patched Point Dataset (PPD). This is a catalogue of climate information for 4,600 weather stations across Australia. Alternatively, users may enter rainfall for each paddock into the web interface. Currently users select a weather station from the database that is representative of the location of their paddock. The weather station has two distinct purposes in the simulations process:

1. It provides climate data for the current season which is used to simulate crop growth and the soil water and nitrogen processes in the paddock from the time of soil sampling to the time of the report.


2. It provides historic data which is used to simulate crop growth and resource availability from the day on which the report was generated to the end of the season. This process is repeated once for each year of climate record (approx. 120 years) providing 120 separate yield outcomes.

While this system is effective, there are some situations where the chosen weather station is a significant distance away from the paddock being simulated. Australia’s climate is highly variable and small distances can result in large differences in the climate between the weather station and the paddock of interest. This is especially the case for minimum air temperatures where local topography can cause substantial differences (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Plot of daily minimum air temperature (°C) for Hermitage Research Station, Qld, in 1985, comparing temperatures at the base of a small valley to those at a met station on a hill side.

These differences can cause quite large model error. This error can be reduced by having live weather stations located in the paddock being simulated. However, it should be noted that this improvement will only be realised in the simulation of crops in the current season. Yield Prophet® will still need to use the historic records from the PPD as the basis for simulations from the day on which the report was generated to the end of the season.

Table 1 shows some key outputs from two reports, generated on the same day for the same paddock. The only difference between the two is the source of climate data. Report 1 used the current Yield Prophet® system, where temperature was sourced from SILO and rainfall from the farmer’s rain gauge. Report 2 used the probe weather station for both rainfall and temperature. It is evident from the table that Report 1 had a significantly higher yield potential, had more rainfall recorded and was at an earlier growth stage. In this situation Report 1 was closer to reality.

Upon investigation, it became apparent that the probe weather station had stopped recording rainfall for a period. Furthermore, it was not equipped with a temperature sensor housed in a Stevenson screen. The temperature sensor was housed with the data logging unit. As such, the temperature readings were several degrees higher than reality. As a result, the simulated growth stages were well in advance of what was occurring in the paddock and this reduced the simulated yield potential. This example does not show a situation where the simulation has improved. However, it does show the potential benefits coming from integrating models and monitoring at a local scale. It also shows an example of how the two systems can be used to validate each other.


ReferencesDalgliesh N.P. (2013). Doing it better, doing it smarter-managing soil water in Australian agriculture. Final report on project CSA00023 to the Grains Research and Development Corporation, PO Box 5367 Kingston, ACT 2604 Australia, June 2013 http://www.grdc.com.au

Dorigo, W.A., Zurita-Milla, R., de Wit, A.J.W., Brazile, J., Singh, R., Schaepman, M.E. (2007). A review on reflective remote sensing and data assimilation techniques for enhanced agroecosystem modelling. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 9, 165-193.

Contact details

Tim McClellandP.O. Box 85, 73 Cumming Ave, Birchip VIC, 3483

03 5492 2787

[email protected]

Neil Huth

PO Box 102. 203 Tor St, Toowomba QLD, 4350

07 4688 1421

[email protected]

Table1. Yield potential, temperature and rainfall source, and simulated growth stage outputs from reports generated on the same crop on 12 August 2013

Item Report 1 Report 2

Yield potential

Temperature source

Silo Probe weather station

Rainfall source

Manually entered (187.4mm)

Probe weather station (150.7mm)

Growth stage

Mid booting (GS45)

Early flowering (GS62)


Biopesticides - fresh hope for the futureGavin J. Ash, B.A. Wilson, J.A. Pattemore, K. Crampton and A. Wang.,Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation, Charles Sturt University

GRDC project code: UCS00013; UCS00016; LUN00001

IntroductionBiopesticides offer an innovative approach to the management of pests in farming systems using formulated microbial agents as the active ingredient. Microbes that have been used in this approach include fungi, bacteria, viruses and nematodes. Biopesticides are a viable adjunct to synthetic pesticides in a number of crops. The development of microbial biopesticides relies on agent discovery and selection, development of methods to culture

the pathogen, creation of formulations that protect the organism in storage as well as aid in its delivery, studies of field efficacy, and methods of storage. Each microbial biopesticide is unique, in that not only will the organism vary but so too will the host, the environment in which it is being applied, and economics of production and control.

There are a large number of commercial products now available in most regions of the world, where biopesticides are being incorporated into farming systems. It has been projected that the market potential for these so-called “green products” could triple by 2020 and be worth over $4 billion (USD) (Bayer, 2013). The most successful examples of biopesticides include Dipel (a formulation of Bacillus thuringenesis - Bt), Gemstar (containing a nucleopolyhedrovirus – NPV) and T22 (Trichoderma harzianum). The development of biopesticides is being driven by market opportunities such as pesticide resistance, changing consumer demands and the difficulty and cost of finding new synthetic pesticides. In Australia there are registrations for products based on Bt, NPV, Trichoderma, Metarhizium and Beauvaria. However, the number of registrations are relatively small when compared to the synthetic pesticides.

The use of biopesticides as a strategy in pest management can be applied to both native and introduced pests. However, the success of this type of biocontrol revolves around the costs of production, the quality of the inoculum and, most importantly, the field efficacy of the product.

Keywordsbiological control, insects, weeds, diseases, nematodes, molluscs

Take home messages• Biopesticideshavebeencommercialised

in Australia.

• Theyofferanotheravenueformanagingrecalcitrant insects, diseases and insects.

• Successwithbiopesticidesdependsonchoosing the right target as well as the right agent.

• Therearealargenumberofpotentialbiopesticide agents but their commercial success depends on long term industry investment.


Biopesticides are usually developed through collaboration with commercial companies with an expectation that they will recoup their costs and make a profit through the sale of the product.

Currently, in the Graham Centre at Charles Sturt University, there are a number of projects, at various stages of development, examining biological control of disease, insects, molluscs and nematodes affecting broad acre crops. These projects are variously funded by GRDC and CSU and have some level of commercial involvement.

Biocontrol of diseasesBlackleg disease of canola is a fungal disease of global importance. It is difficult to control by the use of chemicals and to date the best control measures are the use of genetically resistant canola cultivars and good farming practices. These cultivars display incomplete resistance to the disease and resistance breakdown has occurred in Australia.

Recent studies in other crops like radish and cucumber have identified a plant mechanism known as induced systemic resistance (ISR). This mechanism involves the use of naturally occurring beneficial soil bacteria, which switch on and activate the plant’s defence system. The bacteria act somewhat like a vaccination to trigger the plants immune system. Such bacteria grow adjacent to and colonise a plant root system, this zone is high in nutrients released by the root system and consequently is heavily colonised by bacteria and fungi. The beneficial effects of rhizosphere bacteria have most often been based on increased plant growth, better seed germination and seedling emergence. These types of bacteria are now commonly called plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). PGPR use different mechanisms to suppress plant pathogens which include competition (nutrients and space), antibiosis production and inducing a plant’s resistance mechanisms. This defence affects treated areas but also extends into non-treated areas and often even into newly developing plant parts. Systemic protection does not confer absolute immunity against disease but may reduce the severity by reducing lesion number, size and the extent of

sporulation. Disease can be reduced by up to 90%. The potential of such bacteria is enormous for the reduction of disease and may be developed as seed coatings, drenches and powder applications depending upon the target pathogens, crop and the type of bacteria involved.

At Charles Sturt University we have isolated bacteria from the roots of canola and wheat in the southern cropping area. Some of these bacteria were from the rhizosphere and others were endophytic. They have been characterised in terms of their effect on growth of both wheat and canola, their ability to produce antibiotics active against the fungus that causes blackleg, numerous biochemical tests as indicators of their ability to suppress root pathogens and their ability to induce systemic resistance in canola against blackleg. Their ability to suppress disease in the glasshouse and in the field has also been assessed. Selected bacteria have been shown to reduce blackleg by induced systemic resistance in both sterile and non-sterile situations. The bacteria have then been ranked on desirable characteristics and the top 14 isolates have been identified using fatty acid analysis. This group includes endophytes and rhizobacteria, Bacillus and some Pseudomonads and all are plant growth promoters. Initial field results indicate that these bacteria are having positive effects on growth in the field. Furthermore, other species of bacteria have been isolated which have effects on other canola diseases and are comparable in efficacy to synthetic fungicides in field applications.

Biocontrol of molluscsFour introduced Mediterranean snail species; Cernuella virgata, Theba pisana, Cochicella barbara and Cochicella acuta have become serious pests for the Australian grain industry in recent years. These pest snails cause heavy economic loss to farmers and the whole grain industry by contaminating the grain (wheat, barley, canola, lentil etc.), clogging harvesting equipment and downgrading the quality of grain. The lack of natural enemies of these pests in their distribution areas (most in SA, particularly in the Yorke Peninsula, some in VIC, TAS, WA and NSW) allow populations of these pest snails to increase rapidly.


This project was designed to investigate the possibility of developing a nematode based bioagent to control these pest snails in Australia. Nematodes have been successfully used for the management of slugs in over 14 European countries, and entomopathogenic nematode (EPN)-based bioinsecticides have been widely applied for the control of insect pests in Forestry, Horticulture and the turf industries.

In this project, a survey from south eastern Australia was used to isolate hundreds of indigenous potential EPNs from soil. From this collection, five nematode species with molluscicidal activities were selected and identified. The bacteria found associated with the nematodes were also isolated and identified. One of the bacteria, a strain of Bt molluscicidal activity (Bacillus thuringiensis DAR 81934), was found to be highly effective by itself and in combination with the nematode in killing the target snails. The complete genome of the Bacillus was sequenced and is a resource for further research. The nematodes were also found to be effective against slugs in the laboratory.

To be able to apply these organisms in the field, commercially available systems were used to produce the nematodes in Australia and internationally. Different systems were successful for different nematode species, allowing the production of concentrated nematode suspensions to be used in field trials conducted in South Australia over a number of years. It was found that the nematodes were best applied in the field in spring when the snails were laying eggs and moving on the soil surface. Unformulated nematodes caused up to 65% mortality in the field. However, synthetic snail baits provided up to 92% control.

This research has been discontinued as the cost of production of the nematodes was found to be too high for the use of the organism in broad acre agriculture in Australia.

Biocontrol of insectsSucking insects like aphids can cause significant yield losses in agriculture due to the direct effects

of feeding and the indirect effects associated with the spread of viruses. Current control of sucking insects relies on the use of chemical insecticides; however, these encourage the development of chemical resistance and suppress natural predator populations. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs that reduce the reliance on chemical pesticide therefore are likely to provide better management strategies for the future. As part of an IPM strategy GRDC have funded research into the discovery of biopesticides for the management of aphids in cereals and canola in Australia. The aim of the project was to develop pre commercialisation data for the registration of a biopesticide based on the fungus M. anisopliae.

A number of isolates of the fungus from Queensland and New South Wales have been isolated and cultured, with a number of the strains found to be highly pathogenic to a wide variety of aphid species common in Australia. Bioassays have been used to establish application concentrations and production efficacy of the strains is being established in the laboratory. All isolates are being compared to commercially available standards. Initial indications are that the Australian fungi are as efficacious as the internationally sourced commercial strains and are amenable to large scale manufacture.

Biocontrol of nematodes At least four species of root lesion nematodes (RLN) in the genus Pratylenchus are considered serious pests of grain crops in Australia. Pratylenchus neglectus and P. thornei were chosen as the initial target species for this research project because of their prevalence and economic importance (recent estimates suggest losses due to RLN exceed $102M p.a. in Australia). Average incidence for both species across regions in Australia is 67-72% but with higher incidences recorded in the Northern and Southern regions (78-89%) compared to the Western region (43%). P. neglectus is more prevalent than P. thornei in the Western region but elsewhere the incidence levels are similar. It is important that the grains industry has robust control measures available to minimise the current and future losses from these nematode pests.


Currently, there are no nematicides registered for use in Australian cereal crops although some degree of management is possible with the use of resistant and/or tolerant crop cultivars, rotations incorporating poor host crops, manipulation of sowing time, provision of adequate nutrition and weed control within/between cropping phases. The cost of current control measures is estimated at $31OM p.a. for wheat and $81 M p.a. for barley.

The aim of this research project is to develop a bionematicide with activity against RLN on cereals. This strategy is based on the isolation and identification of naturally occurring beneficial microbes which are able to suppress the activity of the disease causing nematodes. The development of a new biological control product that is compatible with standard cereal cropping practices will provide growers with a wider range of disease management options for RLN and will add significant value to the grains industry.

The project has three initial research targets: the identification and evaluation of existing commercial biopesticides with potential suitability for this crop/pathogen system, the development of a Trichoderma-based bionematicide for cereal root lesion nematodes and the identification of indigenous strains of selected microbe groups that may have potential as bionematicides.

From initial surveys, a number of species of Trichoderma not previously recorded from Australia have been identified and their interaction with the organism responsible for crown rot and RLN are being evaluated in laboratory and glasshouse trials. A large screen of potential bacterial and fungal isolates have indicated that there are some which have potential as biological controls when compared with commercially available biopesticide formulations. Field trials in 2014 will establish whether these isolates can be used to manage nematodes in the field.

ConclusionThere are a number of advantages of the use of biopesticides over the use of conventional pesticides, including the minimal residue levels, control of pests already showing resistance to conventional pesticides, host specificity, and the reduced chance of resistance to biopesticides. This indicates an emerging, strong role for biopesticides in any integrated pest management strategy and an important involvement in sustainable farming production systems in the future. The main constraints to the production and use of biopesticides in Australia are the existence of facilities capable of producing the organisms economically and the systems for distribution and marketing of the products. These rely on the continued involvement of large corporations in the funding and development of these new management options.

Contact details Gavin Ash

Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation, Charles Sturt University, Locked Bag 588, Wagga Wagga 2678, NSW, Australia.

02 69332765

[email protected]


Cereal variety management review – high rainfall zone (HRZ)Nick Poole1,2,3,

1FAR Australia, 2NVT, 3SFS


The role of varieties in the farming system is pivotal to increasing whole farm profitability. In the high rainfall zone there are frequent opportunities to achieve the highest levels of productivity as a result of a longer season environment (principally lower grain fill temperatures and higher rainfall). However, these opportunities involve careful selection of cultivars for the farm, since longer season opportunities can be curtailed by late autumn breaks, which frequently curtail yield potential.

Background to 2013 cultivar performanceLate autumn breaks in many parts of the southern Victoria high rainfall zone (HRZ) resulted in mid-late May crop emergence even for the earliest sown crops.

With recent trials showing the benefit of late April/early May sowing, this late break was a setback for both weed control and the potential performance of longer season cultivars such as winter feed wheats, which have an important role in the region’s farming systems.

Despite the later break, cereal crop yield performance was, if anything, average or above average in National Variety Trial (NVT) and regional Southern Farming Systems (SFS) farming group trials. Above average rainfall for September, average rainfall for October and significantly cooler

Keywordswheat, barley, National Variety Trials (NVT), long season, high rainfall zone

Take home messages•Despitealatebreak,2013wheatand

barley yields in high rainfall zone (HRZ) trials have been average or above average with longer season cultivars performing better than expected.

•ThelongerseasoncultivarWestminsterA

topped the NVT trial in the region with a yield exceeding 6t/ha, however shorter season barley cultivars SkipperA and CompassA (under malting evaluation), CommanderA (malt) and the feed cultivar FathomA have also performed well.

•Earlysown(May10)wheattrialsattheSouthern Farming Systems (SFS) site in Inverleigh, southern Victoria have shown a yield advantage to feed wheat over the highest yielding milling wheat of 0.8-1.3 t/ha (10-17%), with yields between 7-9 t/ha. Using NVT data (2005-2012) the difference is approximately 0.65t/ha (13%) based on yields of approximately 5 t/ha.


temperatures in November ensured a soft finish. This gave later sown crops that had struggled through winter, a chance to compensate in late spring, increasing yield and allowing longer season cultivars such as winter wheat (e.g. RevenueA) a chance to finish more strongly than would have been possible in a harder finish.

Barley cultivar performance2013 NVT barley yields recorded at Teesdale near Inverleigh were almost 0.6 t/ha higher than the five year average in NVT trials for the region. In SFS malting barley trials over the last two seasons the yields recorded in 2013 were almost 2 t/ha higher than the previous year (Figure 1).

The longer season potential malting barley cultivar, WestminsterA, has performed strongly in the NVT trial for the region, yielding over 6t/ha (121% compared to site mean on 100) in the Teesdale trial in southern Victoria (Figure 2). This performance is 1t/ha up on its 2008-2012 performance.

The shorter season cultivars SkipperA and CompassA (under malting evaluation), CommanderA (malt) and FathomA (feed) fulfilled the runner-up positions, all exceeding 105% of the site mean. The feed cultivar Oxford performed less strongly in the 2013 NVT trial (2013 yield - 100) compared to 118% of site mean for the period 2008-2012 (Figure 2, Table 1). At the time of going to press (mid-January 2014) the NVT quality results for this site were unavailable. SFS malting evaluation trial produced results where all eight varieties tested, yielded over 7t/ha and produced protein ranging from 10.5-12.0%. Test weights and retentions were high, and quality was generally good, despite following peas.

In the SFS Inverleigh trial, SY Rattler (malt potential) (105% relative to site mean), Grange R (104%) and Henley (103%) topped the yields and were significantly higher yielding than Gairdner (94%) and Commander (96%). Westminster was just below the site mean (99%, 7.49t/ha).

Figure 1. 2013 barley yield means Teesdale, southern Victoria NVT trial versus long term mean (2008-2012), SFS malting barley trial 2013 yields versus 2012.

5.2

7.57

4.63

5.86

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

NVT 2013 SFS Malting Trial2013

NVT 2008-2012 SFS 2012Malting Trial

GarinYieldt/ha(basedontrialsite

means)


Table 1. 2013 cultivar yield performance (t/ha, % site mean) and % yields for the period 2008-2012 – Teesdale 2013 results and SW region means

Cultivar Yield t/ha % site mean (100%) % site mean (2008-2012) No. of site/years Trials in SW VIC

WestminsterA 6.28 121 109 13SkipperA 5.90 113 --- ---FathomA 5.69 109 --- ---CommanderA 5.64 108 107 13CompassA 5.57 107 --- ---Henley 5.50 106 108 7Grange RA 5.41 104 --- ---SY RattlerA 5.42 104 --- ---VlaminghA 5.31 102 107 13HindmarshA 5.20 100 --- ---OxfordA 5.21 100 118 7FlagshipA 5.10 98 --- ---FlindersA 5.10 98 103 7WimmeraA 5.07 97 109 13ChargerA 4.92 95 --- ---UrambieA 4.89 94 104 4FairviewA 4.81 93 109 13BulokeA 4.79 92 --- ---GairdnerA 4.74 91 98 13MaritimeA 4.61 89 93 12BassA 4.47 86 104 11ScopeA 4.31 83 --- ---Site Mean (t/ha) 5.2 CV (%) 7.02 Probability <0.001 LSD (t/ha) 0.62 12

Figure 2. 2013 barley cultivar performance in NVT HRZ trial at Teesdale, southern Victoria – sown May 10.


Wheat cultivar performanceThe 2013 weather pattern highlighted the difficulty of wheat cultivar selection for the HRZ. Early sowing suits the longer season feed wheat and some of the quality white wheats, but what happens when there is no early break? How many cultivars do we need to cover an early and late break? This was a question asked at the 2013 SFS AgriFocus event held near Lake Bolac where a survey was carried out of those who attended (Table 2).

Table 2. Number of wheat cultivars on farm (grown or advised on) reported by growers and advisers who attended 2013 SFS AgriFocus event held in the southern Victoria HRZ

Number of Number of wheat cultivars respondents grown on farm (%)

One 11 (14)

Two 39 (50)

Three 19 (25)

Four 6 (8)

More than four 2 (3)

Of these respondents (growers and advisers) growing or advising on wheat, over 25% were growing the winter feed wheat RevenueA (Table 3).

At the time of paper submission the NVT and SFS cultivar trials in southern Victoria were just about to be harvested, however there was some early indication of cultivar performance from a trial at SFSs main base at Inverleigh. The GRDC funded research conducted by CSIRO, SFS and FAR Australia looked at early sowing and very early sowing in the 2013 season. Using “simulated rainfall – irrigation” there were few differences in yield due to sowing dates between 26 March and 10 May. The results of the 10 May sowing date represent cultivar performance at an early sow date in the region since the plots were not irrigated but emerged based on rainfall in mid-May. These results, though based on only one trial, give us a picture of cultivar performance at this sowing date (Table 4).

Yield gap between feed and milling wheat in the HRZLooking at the data from Table 4, the yield gap between feed (BeaufortA and RevenueA) and

Table 3. Cultivars being grown by growers and advisers who attended the 2013 SFS AgriFocus event held at Westmere, southern Victoria HRZ

Cultivar Winter/Spring (feed/quality) Number of respondents growing cultivar

RevenueA Winter (Feed) 52

BolacA Spring (AH) 30

DerrimutA Spring (AH) 28

ForrestA Spring (APW) 21

LincolnA Spring (AH) 16

ScoutA Spring (AH) 15

BeaufortA Spring (Feed) 13

Kellalac Spring (APW) 6

PrestonA Spring (Feed) 5

Amarok Winter (Feed) 3

Einstein Winter (Feed) 3


highest yielding milling wheat (BolacA) cultivars is high in absolute yields (0.8-1.3 t/ha) compared to previous data taken from NVT and SFS cultivar trials in the region. However, recorded as a percentage, the advantage of feed wheat is 11 or 17% using Beaufortv, RevenueA and BolacA as the basis of the comparison.

Historically, using data collected over recent years in NVT (2005-2012) and SFS (2010-2013) trials, the gap between the best feed wheat and milling wheat yields has been approximately 0.63-0.73 t/ha (13-15%) feed wheat advantage over milling. This has been based on milling wheat yields of approximately 4.75-5.0 t/ha.

AcknowledgementsI would like to place on record my grateful thanks to staff at NVT and SFS for assistance with data in producing this paper.

Contact details Nick Poole

FAR Australia, 23 High St, Inverleigh, VIC 3221

(03) 5265 1290

[email protected]

Table 4. 2013 Wheat cultivar yields in the SFS, FAR Australia and CSIRO trial at Inverleigh in 2013. Results analysed with take-all score as a co-variate

Time of sowingVariety 26-Mar 8-Apr 24-Apr 10-May*

BeaufortA 8.3 8.8 9.4 8.9

BolacA 6.2 6.6 7.3 7.6

DerrimutA - - 6.9 7.1

Einstein 7.6 7.4 - -

ForrestA 7.4 7.7 7.4 7.2

Frelon 7.4 7.3 8.7 7.2

Kellalac 5.3 5.0 5.5 6.3

LincolnA - - 5.4 6.6

RevenueA 8.0 8.2 9.3 8.4

WedgetailA 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.8

P-value 0.015

LSD (P=0.05) 1.1

* 10 May sowing date (figures in bold) were rain fed yields, earlier sowings (figures in italics) were irrigated to establish.


Notes


Pulse varieties and agronomy updateJason Brand1, Matt Rodda1, Peter Kennedy1, Michael Lines2, Larn McMurray2, Jeff Paull3 and Kristy Hobson4, 1Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries 2SARDI - Clare; 3University of Adelaide 4NSW DPI - Tamworth

GRDC project codes: DAV00113, UA00127, DAV00072, DAV00071, DAN00151, DAS00107

Keywordslentil, field pea, chickpea, faba bean, lupin

Take home messages• Abroadrangeofpulsevarietiesare

available with improved adaptability to a range of environments. Five new varieties were released for southern Australia in 2013. It is important to carefully assess the agronomic, disease and marketing strengths and weakness of each variety to ensure maximized productivity and profitability from your pulse.

• Cropdamagefromherbicideresidues,particularly Group B, was observed in many pulse crops in 2013, primarily due to the extremely dry spring and summer of 2012/13. It is important to carefully choose your pulse crop and variety to minimize these risks. The availability of herbicide tolerant lentil varieties (XT) reduces the risks of production in this crop.

• Plantdiseaselevelsandseedqualityissues were generally moderate in 2013

and varied widely across crops and regions in Victoria. Ascochyta blight was observed at low to moderate levels in several crops of chickpeas, including some of the ‘resistant’ varieties. Similarly in lentils, ascochyta blight was observed in crops relatively early and reduced grain yield and quality in the more susceptible varieties where it was not adequately controlled. In some regions insect damage (Etiella and Heliothus) resulted in some seed quality issues.

• Extremeweathereventsweregenerallylimited in 2013, with no major heat stress during the reproductive phase. However, in some regions frost caused significant losses in grain yield and quality.

• Areasowntofieldpeaandfababeancontinues to grow in Victoria due to good grain prices and the need for an alternative rotation crop that provides a different weed control option with the added benefit of nitrogen inputs. With the new varieties available we also see broader adaptability and opportunity for forage rather than grain.


2013 in review• Pulse grain yields were variable in 2013, ranging

from below average to well above average, depending on rainfall distribution and the impact of frost during October. Grain quality was generally good standard with issues of insect damage (Etiella and Heliothus) and ascochyta blight seed staining in some crops and some Pea Seed borne Mosaic Virus staining in some faba beans.

• Many regions of Victoria experienced rainfall totals equivalent to the long term growing season average or less. There was generally no or very little summer rainfall, with the break occurring as late as the 4th week of May in many areas. Despite the relatively low annual rainfall totals, there was generally a good distribution of rain and this combined with relatively mild spring temperatures and minimal extreme events (heat or cold) meant that in many areas pulses set and filled pods better than expected. However, in some cases pod set of beans was poor early on due to the cooler temperatures and overcast conditions during early flowering, and in some crops of chickpeas a number of empty pods were observed because temperatures failed to reach critical levels for seed set.

• Residual herbicide damage (primarily from Group B chemicals) was observed in many pulse crops in 2013. It is believed that this was due to the extremely dry spring and summer of 2012/13, so that in many instances growers did not see enough rainfall to meet suggested label requirements for the sowing of pulses crops, despite the timeframe being met. These observations have again helped to remind us in the pulse industry that it is extremely important to carefully choose crop and variety to minimize these risks, and where necessary not a pulse crop. The availability of herbicide tolerant lentil varieties (XT) reduces the risks of production in this crop. Also it is important to be clearly aware of the residue risks that a chemical may impose to proceeding crops. In addition, to herbicide residues, weed control, both broadleaf and grass proved challenging in some regions for pulse crops in 2013 due to the many rain days

that were experienced during early growth, not allowing growers to traffic paddocks. This meant that there were many ‘weedy’ looking pulse crops in late spring and at maturity, but it is not believed to have significantly impacted on the yields achieved.

• Plant disease levels and seed quality issues were generally moderate in 2013 and varied widely across crops and regions in Victoria. Ascochyta blight was observed at low to moderate levels in several crops of chickpeas, including some of the ‘resistant’ varieties, due to highly conducive winter conditions. Work is ongoing to investigate the races and virulence of these ascochyta blight isolates. Similarly in lentils, ascochyta blight was observed in crops relatively early and reduced grain yield and quality in the more susceptible varieties, like PBA FlashA, where it was not adequately controlled. Improved resistance in newer varieties like PBA AceA and PBA BoltA also help to ensure lower risks of yield and quality loss from this disease. In some regions insect damage (Etiella and Heliothus) resulted in some seed quality issues. This caught many growers by surprise as in many cases multiple insecticide sprays had been applied. It also indicates that flights were later than expected and highlights the importance of monitoring until late in the season.

Update of new variety releases and agronomic researchAdenotes Plant Breeder’s Rights apply

Lentil

The amount of disease seen in 2013 was higher than what’s been seen in many years previous. In breeding trials at medium-high rainfall sites, unsprayed plots of PBA FlashA commonly had ascochyta blight, which severely affecting yields. Higher levels of disease are now being reported on the varieties NipperA and Nugget than seen previously, evidence that the pathogen population is evolving to overcome some resistance genes. Despite this, however, the resistance of new varieties PBA AceA, PBA BoltA and PBA Herald XTA is holding up well.


A high incidence of BGM was seen at all South Australian sites and Horsham, with susceptible varieties such as Aldinga, PBA BoltA and PBA JumboA suffering yield loss. Rain late in the season also contributed to shattering in the Wimmera, impacting yields of varieties prone to shattering, such as Boomer and to some degree PBA AceA.

PBA AceA continues to be the best performing lentil variety available, yielding highest on average, especially in Victoria. PBA BountyA, was a close runner up, performing well in 2013, especially in the long growing season available at Horsham. PBA BlitzA and PBA FlashA were the highest yielding (released) varieties in South Australia in 2013. PBA FlashA yields in the Wimmera were well down on normal because of disease, however, across the country at shorter season sites lacking disease pressure, or those sprayed with fungicide, PBA FlashA outperformed Nugget and occasionally PBA AceA.

The significant yield advantage of the new line PBA Hurricane XTA over PBA Herald XTA and NipperA was seen again in 2013, in both NVT and breeding trials, averaging yields 20% higher than PBA Herald XTA and 10-15% higher than NipperA (this was especially seen in long season locations, with HurricaneA yielding 40% above PBA Herald XTA at Horsham).

PBA Hurricane XTA (CIPAL1101)

PBA Hurricane XTA builds on the success of the first herbicide tolerant lentil, PBA Herald XTA. It incorporates the same improved tolerance to some Group B herbicides, but with higher grain yields and improved agronomic characteristics. PBA Hurricane XTA has an APVMA permit for imazethapyr use (product label rates, plant-back periods and all label directions for use must be adhered to).

PBA Hurricane XTA is the highest yielding small red lentil with a 5-12% long term yield advantage over PBA Herald XTA and NipperA. It is lower yielding than PBA AceA and PBA BoltA, but may be preferred where more flexible weed control is desired or for marketing reasons. It is a mid-maturity, broadly adapted variety with earlier flowering, improved vigour and increased plant

height over PBA Herald XTA and Nipper, with resistance to ascochyta blight. Seed is slightly larger in size than PBA Herald XTA and Nipper with a grey seed coat. Seed is available through PBSeeds

A ‘green’ future

In Australia we have yet to develop a substantial green lentil industry, despite significant opportunities on the world markets (Canada produce and export in excess of 0.5M tonnes annually). Primarily this has been due to a lack of suitably adapted varieties and an understanding of the agronomy to maximise yields and quality. In 2013, agronomic trial work conducted by the Southern Pulse Agronomy project assessed the impact of harvest timing and desiccation on the yield and quality of two new breeding lines with improved yields and adaption from Pulse Breeding Australia. In agronomy and breeding trials, the yields on one variety were 10% above Nugget on average, similar to PBA AceA and PBA BountyA. When harvested on time, the grain quality was excellent. Further information will be available at the updates.

Field Pea

Mild temperatures, low disease pressure and reasonably consistent growing season rainfall throughout many parts of the state created ideal conditions for the variety KaspaA, which was the best performing commercial line in Victorian breeding trials overall. PBA PearlA, a white seeded variety, was another standout, reinforcing its place as the highest yielding Australian variety (long term average). Given the consistently high yield of varieties like PBA PearlA, further market development of white pea in the Australian industry is becoming increasingly attractive especially as potential market opportunities in China develop.

The presence of ascochyta blight in SA has provided the breeding program with some of the best field data for ascochyta resistance in years. Furthermore, powdery mildew incidence in the Wimmera breeding trials allowed for greatly improved selection of resistant varieties in early generation material. This data will enable the breeding program to identify superior sources of resistance within the current germplasm and eliminate excessively susceptible varieties.


The field pea breeding program continues to make yield gains, with unreleased breeding lines often yielding 10% higher than KaspaA and PearlA in the Mallee this season. Further gains will continue to be made through improved resistance to Bacterial blight in the Kaspa type background and a continued emphasis on salt and boron tolerance, disease resistance and improved phenology.

PBA WhartonA (OZP0805)

PBA WhartonA is a new superior yielding “Kaspa type” field pea. PBA WhartonA combines disease resistance to the viruses PSbMV and BLRV and powdery mildew and relatively higher soil boron toxicity tolerance. It is widely adapted across southern cropping regions of Australia and best suited to districts with a short to medium growing season or those that are prone to powdery mildew and virus diseases (e.g. south east SA). PBA WhartonA is early to mid-season flowering and early maturing (e.g. similar PBA GunyahA). It has a semi-leafless erect growth habit, pink flowers and shatter resistant pods like KaspaA. Its grain colour and size is similar to KaspaA but more spherical and smoother. PBA WhartonA can be marketed as “kaspa type” grain. Seed is available through Seednet.

PBA CoogeeA (OZP1103)

PBA CoogeeA is a high yielding conventional (trailing) type dun pea that provides the flexibility of a forage option if frost or drought limit grain yield. PBA CoogeeA has a conventional plant type similar to the variety Parafield but with increased early season growth, more basal branching and longer vines. It is a long season variety that flowers mid to late season but pods rapidly and combines resistance to powdery mildew with high tolerance to soil boron and salinity. This variety has moderate resistance to bacterial blight. PBA CoogeeA produces grain that can be marketed as “Australian dun type” suitable for stockfeed or human consumption. Seed is available through Seednet.

Forage peas - biomass production for forage

In the last two years, two varieties (PBA HaymanA and PBA CoogeeA) have been released for suitability to forage (hay/silage) or green/brown manuring. The southern pulse agronomy program has been assessing the biomass accumulation and grain yields in comparison with current standards, KaspaA (the predominant grain yield variety in south eastern Australia) and MorganA (a dual purpose field pea variety). Results to date show:

• The ideal timing of hay cutting for both maximum biomass production and ease of drying (i.e. before pod set) is likely to be approximately 7-14 days after commencement of flowering (i.e. early pod development).

• Varieties with later flowering and pod set (e.g. PBA HaymanA) are likely to be better suited to hay production as this allows maximum vegetative growth prior to cutting, and extends hay cut timing into better (warmer and quicker) drying conditions.

• PBA CoogeeA may not produce more biomass than KaspaA or MorganA at the early pod stage.

• PBA HaymanA will generally produce more biomass at flowering than grain or dual purpose varieties (due to its later flowering). This variety shows more rapid growth in early spring than other varieties.

• KaspaA and PBA CoogeeA produce significantly higher grain yield than MorganA or PBA HaymanA.

• PBA HaymanA has shown the lowest yield and lowest harvest index, indicating that grain retrieval may be difficult in low rainfall areas. However, due to its lower seed weight (averages 14g/100 compared with 20-25g/100 seeds in other varieties); seed requirements for sowing will be significantly lower than other varieties.


Faba Bean

The overall yield of faba beans was quite varied throughout the southern region and much of this variation can be attributed to dry conditions at the end of the growing season. Good winter rains set the trials up for high yield potential and sites that were mild or received reasonable spring rain achieved around 4t/ha, but where there was little late spring rain yields were less than 2t/ha. Overcast conditions and low temperatures during late winter and early spring impacted on podding and there were numerous reports of poor pod set in the lower canopy. The high humidity and vigorous winter growth also increased risk of chocolate spot and multiple fungicide sprays were required to control this disease. Symptoms indicative of Pea Seedborne Mosaic Virus (PSbMV) appeared on seed from a number of faba bean crops and in severe cases resulted in downgrading of quality. It is likely that the source of the virus was nearby infected field pea crops. NuraA appears to be more prone to expression of symptoms of PSbMV than other faba bean varieties, while PBA Rana expresses very few and mild symptoms. It is not known if the variation in seed symptoms is indicative of variation in plant resistance to the virus. Research is being undertaken to assess the risk of seed transmission of PSbMV in faba bean.

There was little variation in yield among current faba bean varieties across the southern region, and in particular Fiesta VF and FarahA were very similar in all trials. The average yield of NuraA across all trials was similar to Fiesta VF and FarahA, while PBA RanaA averaged 1-2% less than other varieties across 16 trials. In view of the small variation in yield, factors such as disease resistance, herbicide tolerance, seed quality and access to particular markets should be considered when selecting varieties.

No new releases in 2013

Potential New Releases - AF05069-2A

This breeding line has very good yield (generally 8-10% greater than current varieties), wide adaptation and very good ascochyta resistance. Resistance to other diseases is equal to or better than current varieties. It is a moderately late flowering type, similar to NuraA and PBA RanaA, and has improved standing ability compared to FarahA. Seed is comparable in size and colour to Fiesta and FarahA. A release in 2014 for cultivation in 2015 is likely.

High rainfall zone opportunities

Faba beans are arguably the best adapted pulse crop for the high rainfall zone. The Southern Pulse Agronomy program, in conjunction with Southern Farming Systems, has been conducting a range of agronomic and varietal trials in south western Victoria. Results have highlighted significant yield improvements in new breeding lines (up to 30% in 2012; Table 1) and opportunities for optimising management through appropriate disease management and agronomy. It has also highlighted the improvement in resistance of new varieties, further lowering risks of yield loss for growers

Table 1. Grain yield of faba bean varieties grown at Westmere, south West Victoria, in 2012

Variety Grain Yield (t/ha)

AF05095 5.53

AF05069 5.14

AF05073 5.00

AF07125 4.49

PBA RanaA 4.49

AF06125 4.49

NuraA4.14

FarahA 4.04

lsdP<0.05 = 0.37


Chickpea

In the 2013 kabuli evaluation trials, preliminary yield data suggests that the medium seeded PBA Monarch yielded similarly to the smaller seeded Genesis™090. The large seeded Genesis™Kalkee yielded well in the longer Wimmera season, particularly considering the 45 % increase in seed size this variety offers over Genesis™090. The PBA chickpea program is making good progress combining improved ascochyta blight resistance with larger seed, and new breeding lines with this combination are expected to enter NVT this season.

In the desi trials, preliminary yield data indicates that the newly released PBA MaidenA yielded similarly to PBA Slasher. In fact most of the recent desi releases: PBA StrikerA, Ambar and NeelamA performed similarly at most of the sites that had yield data available. Using long term yield analyses is critical to make informed decisions about variety performance. Desi breeding lines with southern adaptation, improved plant type and harvest ability are showing good yield potential.

The PBA chickpea program continues to work closely with a GRDC funded project, led by the University of Melbourne that monitors the variability of the causal pathogen of Ascochyta blight. This project will assist the breeding program to understand the risk to our resistance sources in Victoria.

A new GRDC funded project, led by SARDI will develop herbicide tolerant chickpea lines. This new technology will provide greater options to manage weeds in chickpea crops and the farming system in the future.

PBA MonarchA (CICA0857)

PBA MonarchA is a high yielding medium sized kabuli chickpea. It is particularly well adapted to the shorter medium rainfall environments of south eastern Australia, due to improved adaptation through earlier flowering and maturity compared to Genesis™090, AlmazA and Genesis™ Kalkee. It has shown a consistent yield advantage of 5 - 13 % over current medium and large seeded kabuli

varieties. It also has shown similar yields but larger seed size than the small sized Genesis™090. Seed size is predominantly 8 - 9 mm (larger than Genesis™090 and similar to AlmazA).

PBA MonarchA has a semi spreading plant type and is early flowering and maturing (earlier than Genesis™ 090 and AlmazA). It is moderately susceptible (MS) to ascochyta blight (similar to AlmazA and Genesis™ Kalkee but more susceptible than Genesis™ 090) and susceptible (S) to phytophthora root rot. Seed is available through Seednet.

PBA MaidenA (CICA0717)

PBA MaidenA is a large seeded desi chickpea suitable for the medium to low rainfall environments of southern Australia. It is broadly adapted to these regions and has shown similar yields to PBA SlasherA. PBA MaidenA is moderately resistant (MR) to foliar infection by ascochyta blight (equal to PBA StrikerA). Seed size is greater than current southern desi varieties (28 % larger than PBA SlasherA) with a yellow-tan seed coat. PBA MaidenA is well suited to whole seed desi markets such as those in Bangladesh. It has a semi-spreading plant type and height similar to PBA SlasherA, with early to mid flowering and maturity (earlier than PBA SlasherA but later than PBA StrikerA). Seed is available through Seednet.

Profitability in seed size

Agronomic trials in the southern Mallee in 2012 and 2013 have shown that the increased seed size of the kabuli variety, PBA MonarchA, could result in significant benefits to gross margins. In both seasons the profitability of PBA MonarchA was higher than other varieties, despite yields equivalent or less than other varieties (data from 2013 shown in Figure 1). For example in 2013, PBA MonarchA yield about 10% less than the desi variety, CICA1229, but had gross margins about 30% higher. Also, as indicated above it has shown similar long term yields but larger seed size than the smaller sized Genesis 090, meaning that its gross margins are a likely to be higher than Gensis090.


Contact detailsJason Brand

DEPI Victoria PB Bag 260 Horsham, Vic, 3401

[email protected]

Figure 1. Grain yield (t/ha) and Gross Margins ($/ha) of chickpea varieties grown at Curyo, southern Mallee Victoria, in 2013.

Gross Margins based on the following grain prices: Desi = $450/t; Kabuli = <7mm-$330, 7-8mm-$550, 8-9mm-750, 9-10mm-$850, 10-11mm-$1000 with fixed management costs of $220/ha and fungicides at $15/ha per application (Fortnightly = 8, Strategically = 3, Podding = 1, Nil = 0).


Blackleg pod infection, resistance group monitoring and sclerotiniaStephen Marcroft1, Angela Van de Wouw1, 5, Vicki Elliott1, Kurt Lindbeck2 , Andrew Ware3, Ravjit Khangura4 and Barb Howlett5,1Marcroft Grains Pathology P/L, Grains Innovation Park, Horsham; 2Department of Primary Industries, Wagga Wagga Agricultural Institute; 3SARDI, Port Lincoln; 4 DAFWA, South Perth, 5 The University of Melbourne

GRDC project codes: UM00051, MGP0003

Blackleg pod and seed infectionBlackleg pod infection is caused by lesions forming on the pods, the same process as what causes lesions on the leaves. In 2013 pod infection was observed in all monitored regions of Victoria. Pod infection will result in seed infection. Infected seeds may die and shrivel and/or cause pod shatter, reducing yield. Seed retained from infected pod will have reduced germination and may result in seedling blight.

Pod infection was assessed on six cultivars which were present at each site and chosen as they represent the resistance groups used in blackleg management (groups A, B, C, D, E and G). Plants were assessed by counting all pods on randomly selected plants and then counting the number of pod lesions to determine the average number of lesions per plant (Table 1).

Cultivar and regional effects were recorded with groups D, E and G showing no or very low pod infection. Although pod infection was not shown to be correlated to stem canker infection it was clearly evident that in cultivars which have effective seedling resistance (such as group D, E and G) very little, if any pod infection was observed compared to cultivars reliant on adult plant resistance (groups A, B and C). These data suggest that seedling (major gene) resistance may play a role in controlling pod infection and further investigation is ongoing.

Keywordscanola, blackleg, disease management, resistance groups, pod infection, sclerotinia

Take home messages• Blacklegpodinfectionwasseverein

some locations in 2013.

• Podinfectioncancausesignificant yield loss.

• Regionalmonitoringresultsforeachblackleg resistance group are available on the NVT online website. Consult the Blackleg Management Guide for details of resistance groups.

• GroupEcultivarshavedevelopedlowlevels of stem canker on the Eyre Peninsula.

• GroupDcultivarshavedevelopedmoderate levels of stem canker in the North East.

• SclerotiniawasprevalentinNSW,WAand North eastern Vic.

• Sclerotiniawasmoreseverewhereextended wetness and warm weather coincided during flowering.

• Whendeterminingiftosprayforsclerotinia weigh up yield potential, disease risk and costs of fungicide application.


Table 1. Mean pod infection data for eight locations across Victorian canola growing regions (pod infection is measured as the percentage of pod with a blackleg lesion)

Resistance GroupSites A B C D E G

CHARLTON 0.3 1.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

DIGGORA 1.8 2.6 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

HAMILTON 3.5 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

KANIVA 2.6 7.1 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

MINYIP 1.4 0.9 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

STREATHAM 1.7 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

WUNGHNU 0.4 0.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

YARRAWONGA 0.1 1.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Key findings on pod infection research:1. Pod infection varies between sites / regions and

seasonal conditions. Moist conditions during flowering / pod development appear to result in pod lesions.

2. Pod infection does not correlate with stem canker severity, i.e. a cankered plant may have no pod infection or a plant with no canker may have severe pod infection.

3. Pod infection will result in seed infection; infected seeds may shrivel and cause yield loss. Pod lesions may also cause pod shatter causing significant yield loss. In 2013 some sites had more yield loss from pod lesions than traditional stem canker.

4. Retained seed from pods with lesions will have reduced germination and seedlings may die from seedling blight.

5. Spraying canola plants at the 4th leaf stage to control stem canker does not reduce pod infections.

6. It is not known if later fungicide applications reduce pod infection.

7. Cultivars with effective major gene resistance (seedling resistance) do not get pod lesions.

Victoria 2013 Blackleg severityBackground:

• The fungal disease Blackleg can be minimised by a number of factors including sowing cultivars with high blackleg resistance, avoiding last year’s stubble and applying fungicides (see the current Blackleg Management Guide for details - www.grdc.com.au). An additional method for minimising disease is rotating cultivars with different resistance genes.

• All canola cultivars are classified into different resistance groups. Refer to the current Blackleg Management guide (www.grdc.com.au) for individual cultivar groups.

• Cultivars representing each of the resistance groups are sown at 32 National Variety Trial across Australia and monitored for levels of blackleg development. These data indicate which resistance groups have higher levels of disease compared to the national average at each of the regionally based NVT canola yield sites.

• It is important to note that blackleg monitoring sites are sown without any fungicide protection to seed or fertiliser and do not receive any foliar fungicide applications.

2013 summary

In 2013, eight sites were monitored for blackleg severity. Each site contained each of the six blackleg resistance groups; Groups A, B, C, D, E and G. Overall blackleg severity has not increased in recent years.

In 2013 there were generally low levels of blackleg across Victoria. This is due to the very dry start to the season. Blackleg fruiting bodies on the stubble were not mature and did not release from the stubble until the end of July. This late onset of spore


production reduced disease pressure.

In 2013 the Group D resistant cultivar Hyola®444TT was observed to have moderate levels of blackleg infection in one site in the North East. Group D still has low blackleg infection to blackleg in all other sites and regions across Victoria. This is the same situation as occurred with Group D cultivars in 2010 on the Eyre Peninsula. If the same pattern of increased infection occurs, the level of blackleg infection in Group D cultivars will increase in 2014 and then become severe in 2015.

If you are in the North East and have grown Group D cultivars over the past 2 years, Group D cultivars may have increased disease severity in 2014.

For individual site results consult the NVTonline website.

Summary of all Australian blackleg monitoring sites. Cultivars representing each of the resistance groups were sown adjacent to canola National Variety Trial sites across Australia and monitored for levels of blackleg. These data indicate which resistance groups have high levels of disease compared to the national average at each site.

For more detail consult the individual site summaries and recommendations on the NVTonline website.

Sclerotinia Stem Rot – the new challengeHow does the disease develop?

The fungal pathogen that causes sclerotinia stem rot is called Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. This fungus can infect over 300 plant species, mostly broadleaf plants, including many crop, pasture and weed species. This includes plants like canola, lupin, pulses, sunflower, lucerne, cape weed, and shepherds purse. The main features of the disease are:

1. Airborne spores of the fungus are released from apothecia (a small, golf tee shaped structure, 5 – 10 mm in diameter) which germinate from sclerotia in the soil. For this to occur prolonged

moist soil conditions in combination with moderate temperatures of 15°C to 25°C are considered ideal. Most sclerotia will remain viable for up to 3 – 4 years then survival slowly declines.

2. Spores of the sclerotinia pathogen cannot infect canola leaves and stems directly. They require petals as a food source for spores to germinate, grow and colonise the petal. When the infected petal eventually drops, it may become lodged onto a leaf, within a leaf axil or at branch junctions along the stem. If conditions are moist the fungus grows out of the petal and invades healthy plant stem tissue which will result in a stem lesion and production of further sclerotia within the stem which will be returned to the soil after harvest.

3. Sclerotia also have the ability to germinate in the soil, produce mycelium and directly infect canola plants in close proximity, causing a basal infection.

4. Weather conditions during flowering play a critical role in determining the development of the disease. Sclerotinia development requires both moisture, and warm temperatures during flowering and petal fall. Dry and or cool conditions during this time will prevent the development of the disease. Hence, even if flower petals are infected, dry conditions or cool wet conditions during petal fall will prevent stem infection development.

Research findings in 2013

In 2013 sclerotinia was observed in all canola producing states, however it was more severe in North Eastern Victoria, NSW and WA. This is because in the southern growing regions rainfall is normally associated with cold fronts which result in cooler conditions not conducive to sclerotinia development.

In NSW a number of commercial canola crops were monitored for the development of sclerotinia stem rot in 2013. These crops were around Cootamundra and south of Henty, in traditionally high disease risk districts. Results from observations within these


Table 2. Levels of disease for each resistance group at the canola NVT sites across Australia

Group Comments

NSW A B C D E G BECKOM H H M M L L High blackleg severity in groups A, B. Moderate in C, D.

BELLATA L L L L L L Low blackleg severity in all groups.

COOTAMUNDRA H H L L L L High blackleg severity in groups A and B.

CUDAL H H H H L L High blackleg severity in groups A, B, C and D.

GEROGERY L L L L L L Low blackleg severity in all groups.

GRENFELL H M L L L L High blackleg severity in group A. Moderate in group B.

LOCKHART H H L M L L High blackleg severity in groups A and B. Moderate in group D.

MULLALEY L L L L L L Low blackleg severity in all groups.

PARKES H H M L L L High blackleg severity in groups A and B. Moderate in group C.

WAGGA WAGGA H H H H L L High blackleg severity in groups A, B, C and D.

SA A B C D E G

ARTHURTON L L L L L L Low blackleg severity in all groups.

BORDERTOWN L L L L L L Low blackleg severity in all groups.

MT HOPE L L L H L L High blackleg severity in Group D.

RIVERTON L L L L L L Low blackleg severity in all groups.

SPALDING L L L L L L Low blackleg severity in all groups.

TURRETFIELD H M L L L L High blackleg severity in group A. Moderate in Group B.

VIC A B C D E G

CHARLTON L L L L L L Low blackleg severity in all groups.

DIGGORA L L L L L L Low blackleg severity in all groups.

HAMILTON L L L L L L Low blackleg severity in all groups.

KANIVA L L L L L L Low blackleg severity in all groups.

MINYIP L L L L L L Low blackleg severity in all groups.

STREATHAM L L L L L L Low blackleg severity in all groups.

WUNGHNU L H M L L L High blackleg severity in Group B. Moderate in Group C.

YARRAWONGA H H L H L H High blackleg severity in Groups A, B, D and G.

WA A B C D E G

BADGINGARRA L L L L L L Low blackleg severity in all groups.

CORRIGIN L L L L L L Low blackleg severity in all groups.

GIBSON L L L L L L Low blackleg severity in all groups.

KATANNING L M L L L L Moderate blackleg severity in Groups A and B.

KENDENUP L M L L L L Moderate blackleg severity in Group B.

KOJONUP L M L L L L Moderate blackleg severity in Groups B.

S. STIRLING L L L L L L Low blackleg severity in all groups.

WILLIAMS L M L L L L Moderate blackleg severity in Group B.

Key No data

L Low blackleg severity compared to national average – continue with current management techniques.

M Moderate blackleg severity compared to national average – Monitor crops for disease, see Blackleg management guide.

H High blackleg severity compared to national average – high risk of yield loss, see Blackleg management guide.

2 0 1 4 V i c t o r i a n G R D C G r a i n s R e s e a r c h U p d a t e f o r A d v i s e r s 1 0 0

crops found a very strong relationship between leaf wetness and stem rot development. While the level of stem rot development varied between the crops south of Henty and those at Cootamundra, it was found those extended periods of continual leaf wetness of at least 24 hours or longer were critical ‘trigger’ points for stem rot development in both regions.

It was also found that petal infection is important in the initial establishment of stem rot. But, once canopy closure occurred and a humid microclimate was established, the infection of plant tissue under the crop canopy can provide ready opportunities for continual disease development later in the season. These tissues include lower leaves and senescent leaves that can become colonised and later adhere to stems, causing stem lesion development and yield loss. This work will continue in 2014 to collect and collate data which will be used to develop a disease prediction model.

Where did the disease occur in 2013?

In 2013 epidemics of sclerotinia in southern NSW and north eastern Victoria were observed in traditionally high rainfall districts. These included districts east of Cootamundra, Young and Cowra, south of Henty, around Corowa and Howlong and districts along the Murray River. Infection levels observed in some crops were as high as 30 – 60%. In other districts, crop infection levels were generally low.

Why did we observe higher levels of sclerotinia stem rot in 2013?

The weather conditions during the winter of 2013 could be considered ideal for the development of sclerotinia stem rot. Mild winter temperatures resulted in many canola crops flowering 3 – 4 weeks earlier than would be considered ‘normal’ for southern NSW and northern Victoria. Canola crops were observed to be flowering as early as the middle of July. These flowering crops also coincided with good rainfall throughout late July and August, which provided ideal conditions for apothecia development and release of ascospores. Frequent rainfall events throughout August provided

long periods of leaf wetness and ideal conditions for infected petals to drop into wet crop canopies and allow infection to occur.

What are the indicators that sclerotinia stem rot could be a problem in 2014?

• Epidemics of sclerotinia stem rot generally occur in districts with reliable spring rainfall and long flowering periods for canola.

• Use the past frequency of sclerotinia stem rot outbreaks in the district as a guide to the likelihood of a sclerotinia outbreak. Paddocks with a recent history of sclerotinia are a good indicator of potential risk, as well as those paddocks that are adjacent.

• The commencement of flowering can determine the severity of a sclerotinia outbreak. Spore release, petal infection and stem infection have a better chance of occurring when conditions are wet for extended periods, especially for more than 24 hours. Canola crops which flower earlier in winter, when conditions are cooler and wetter, are more prone to disease development.

If I had sclerotinia in my canola crop last year, what should I do this season?

The biggest challenge in managing sclerotinia stem rot is deciding whether or not there is a risk of disease development and what will be the potential yield loss. Research in Australia and Canada has shown that the relationship between the presence of the pathogen (as infected petals) and development of sclerotinia stem rot is not very clear due to the strong reliance on moisture for infection and disease development.

Important management options include:

1. Sowing canola seed that is free of sclerotia. This applies to growers retaining seed on farm for sowing. Consider grading seed to remove sclerotia that would otherwise be sown with the seed and infect this season’s crop.

2. Separate this season’s paddock away from last year’s canola stubble. Not only does this work for other diseases such as blackleg, but also for sclerotinia.


3. Rotate canola crops. Continual wheat/canola rotations are excellent for building up levels of viable sclerotia in the soil. A 12 month break from canola is not effective at reducing sclerotial survival. Consider other low risk crops such as cereals, field pea or faba bean.

4. Follow recommended sowing dates and rates for your district. Canola crops which flower early, with a bulky crop canopy are more prone to developing sclerotinia stem rot. Bulky crop canopies retain moisture and increase the likelihood of infection. Wider row spacing’s can also help by increasing air flow through the canopy to some degree until the canopy closes.

5. Consider the use of a foliar fungicide. Weigh up yield potential, disease risk and costs of fungicide application when deciding to apply a foliar fungicide.

6. Monitor crops for disease development and identify the type of stem infection. Main stem infections cause the most yield loss and indicate infection events early in the growing season. Lateral branch infections cause lower levels of yield loss and indicate infection events later in the growing season.

When is the best time to apply a foliar fungicide?

Research in Australia and Canada has shown that an application of foliar fungicide around the 20% - 30% flowering stage (20% flowering is 14 – 16 flowers on the main stem, 30% flowering is approx. 20 flowers on the main stem) can be effective in reducing the level of sclerotinia infection. The objective of the fungicide application is to prevent early infection of petals while ensuring that fungicide also penetrates into the lower crop canopy to protect potential infection sites (such as lower leaves, leaf axils and stems). Timing of fungicide application is critical.

In 2013 some commercial crops which received an application of foliar fungicide still developed stem rot later in the season. This is not unexpected as the fungicide will have a limited period of protection during a time of rapid plant growth and that the main aim of foliar fungicide applications is the prevention of main stem infections, which cause the greatest yield loss. Development of lateral branch infections later in the season is not uncommon, and will cause lower yield loss.

Consult the Sclerotinia Stem Rot in Canola Factsheet for further information. This publication is available from the GRDC website.

Contact detailsSteve Marcroft

[email protected]


Notes


New canola varieties for 2014 Trent Potter1 and Andrew Ware2,1Yeruga Crop Research, 2SARDI

Once again there are a large number of new canola varieties available for 2014. There are several new open pollinated varieties being released, these will attract an end point royalty (EPR). However, the majority of new releases will be hybrids. These, together with a range of existing varieties, will give growers and advisers a wide selection of varieties across all herbicide tolerance groups for planting in 2014.

Blackleg and other diseasesBlackleg has the potential to be a very destructive disease when growing canola. Its management is critical in order to maximise yields. Growers and

advisers are directed to the Blackleg Management Guide (at grdc.com.au or australianoilseeds.com) as a point of reference to help manage the disease. This document is updated annually in March.

It is important to review and monitor blackleg management strategies on a regular basis as the disease has a high capacity to breakdown varietal resistance.

Blackleg management involves assessing risk to the disease (based on rainfall and the intensity with which canola is grown on a regional level), having a good understanding of disease levels in existing and previous crops, and then planning to keep new canola crops at least 500 meters from the previous year’s canola stubble. Additional strategies include selecting varieties with a suitable blackleg resistance rating, assessing the need to use fungicides, and possibly changing varieties to a different blackleg resistance group after a number of years of growing one variety.

Since 2011, National Variety Trials (NVT) have been sown with the same fungicide treatment on all varieties and so the reaction to blackleg will be more difficult to assess from looking at the trials.

Much higher than normal occurrences of downy mildew and white leaf spot were reported across Australia in 2013. Any varietal differences and effects these diseases are having on yield are not clear at this stage and will be the subject of on-going research.

Keywordscanola, varieties, 2014

Take home messages• CheckNVTtrialresultsandtheblackleg

management guide to make the best decisions about new varieties;

• Selectmostappropriateherbicidegroupbased on your weed spectrum; and

• Usevarietieswithhighlevelsofblacklegresistance, especially in medium to high rainfall zones.


Speciality and juncea types In recent years a number of specialty canola varieties have been released. These include the Victory® varieties (marketed by Cargill) and Monola® varieties (marketed by Nuseed). These varieties have a different oil profile, than commodity canola, that is more suitable for use in the food industry. Agronomically, speciality canola is the same as commodity canola. Speciality canola is being offered to growers in a closed loop marketing systems, often attracting a premium price. Currently production contracts for these varieties are limited to particular regions close to crushing plants, but this may change into the future.

Juncea canola is being developed as a drought and heat tolerant alternative to canola for the low rainfall environments. In 2014 there will be two juncea varieties available for sowing (both marketed by Seednet). Sales of juncea canola must be segregated from regular canola.

Varietal selection The selection of the most suitable canola variety for a particular situation needs consideration of maturity, herbicide tolerance, blackleg resistance, relative yield, oil content and early vigour.

The weed species expected may dictate the need for a herbicide tolerant production system (e.g. triazine tolerant, Clearfield® or Roundup Ready®). Triazine tolerant varieties will incur a yield and oil penalty when grown in situations where they are not warranted.

When decisions are being made on canola varietal choice, the NVTs provide an excellent, unbiased resource. Data from the NVT website (www.nvtonline.com.au) and any observations you might make from trials in 2013 will greatly add to the confidence you have on selecting a new variety.

Varietal characteristics for new varieties for 2014Notes on a newly released conventional variety

Nuseed Diamond (tested as NHC1203C). Early-mid maturing hybrid. Nuseed indicate a blackleg rating of MR (P). Medium plant height. Tested in NVTs in 2012-13. Bred and marketed by Nuseed Pty Ltd.

Herbicide tolerant varieties

Notes on newly released Clearfield® (imidazolinone tolerant) varieties

Hyola® 577CL. Mid maturing hybrid. Very high oil content. Very high yield, medium-tall plant height. Adapted to medium-high rainfall areas. Provisional Pacific Seeds blackleg resistance rating R-MR (P). Rotation blackleg group to be advised. Tested in NVTs in 2013. Pacific Seeds indicate excellent for standability and direct harvesting. Bred and marketed by Pacific Seeds.

Pioneer® 44Y87 (CL) (tested as Pioneer 09N121I). Early-mid maturing hybrid. Moderate-high oil content. Medium plant height. Suited to medium rainfall areas. DuPont Pioneer indicates blackleg resistance rating R-MR (P). Tested in NVTs 2012-13.

Pioneer® 45Y88 (CL) (tested as Pioneer 09N146I). Mid maturing hybrid. Moderate-high oil content. Medium plant height. Suited to high rainfall and irrigated areas. DuPont Pioneer indicates blackleg resistance rating R (P). Bred and marketed by DuPont Pioneer.

XCEEDTM X121 CL. The first hybrid Clearfield® tolerant juncea canola. Four days later than EXCEED™ Oasis CL. Excellent early vigour and branching ability and has high oil content. XCEED™ X121 CL has excellent pod shattering tolerance and is suitable for direct harvest. Provisional blackleg resistance of R-MR. Bred by Seednet in conjunction with GRDC.


Notes on newly released triazine tolerant (TT) varieties

ATR BonitoA (tested as NT0183). Early-mid season maturing variety. Short-medium height. Nuseed indicate a blackleg rating of MR (P). Tested in NVTs 2012-13. Bred and marketed by Nuseed. An EPR of $5 per tonne (GST ex) applies to ATR BonitoA.

ATR WahooA (tested as NT0184). Mid maturity variety. Medium plant height. Nuseed indicate a blackleg rating of MR (P). Tested in NVT trials 2012-13. Bred and marketed by Nuseed. An EPR of $5 per tonne (GST ex) applies to ATR WahooA.

Hyola® 450TT. Early-mid maturing hybrid. Medium plant height. Provisional blackleg resistance rating of R (P), blackleg rotation group D. Pacific Seeds indicate excellent standability and shatter tolerance. Tested in NVTs in 2013. Bred and marketed by Pacific Seeds.

Hyola® 650TT. Mid to mid-late maturing hybrid. Medium-tall plant height. Provisional Pacific Seeds blackleg resistance rating of R (P). Pacific Seeds indicate excellent standability and shatter tolerance. Tested in NVTs in 2013. Bred and marketed by Pacific Seeds.

Monola™ 314TT. Early-mid open pollinated specialty oil variety. Medium plant height. Nuseed indicate a blackleg rating of MR. Bred and marketed by Nuseed Pty Ltd.

Pioneer Sturt TT. Early-mid maturity open-pollinated variety. Moderate oil content. Short-medium plant height. Adapted to the low and medium rainfall areas. Blackleg rating of MS-S. Tested in NVTs in 2011-13. An EPR applies. Bred by Canola Breeders but marketed by DuPont Pioneer.

Notes on newly released Roundup Ready® varieties

Hyola® 400RR. Early to mid–early maturing hybrid. Medium plant height. Suited to low to medium rainfall areas. Blackleg resistance rating 2013 R (P) and resistance group D, E. Tested in NVTs for the first time in 2013. Bred and marketed by Pacific Seeds.

Hyola® 500RR. Mid maturing hybrid. Medium-tall plant height. Suited to medium to high rainfall areas. Blackleg resistance rating 2013 R (P) and resistance group D, E. Tested in NVTs for the first time in 2013. Bred and marketed by Pacific Seeds.

IH 30 RR. Early maturing hybrid. Blackleg resistance rating MR (P). Tested in NVTs in 2012 and 2013. Bred and marketed by Bayer CropScience.

Pioneer® 44Y24 (RR) (coded PHI-5133). Early-mid maturing hybrid. Medium plant height. Adapted to medium–high rainfall areas. DuPont Pioneer consider the blackleg resistance rating should be MR-R (P). Tested in NVTs 2011-2013. Bred and marketed by DuPont Pioneer.

Notes on newly released Roundup Ready® – triazine tolerant varieties

Hyola® 525RT®. Mid maturing Hybrid RT® dual herbicide tolerant. Medium plant height. Pacific Seeds indicate high yield and high oil content. Suited to medium to high rainfall areas. Tested in NVTs for the first time in 2013. Bred and marketed by Pacific Seeds.

Contact details Trent Potter

PO Box 819 Naracoorte SA 5271

0427 608 306

[email protected]


Notes


Testing retained sowing seed of hybrid canola over a range of rainfall zonesTrent Potter,Yeruga Crop Research

GRDC project code: YCR00001

BackgroundCanola hybrids are now available in Australia covering conventional, Clearfield®, triazine tolerant and Roundup Ready® herbicide systems. As farmers are used to sowing retained seed from open pollinated crops, they may wish to retain sowing seed harvested from the previous hybrid crop to reduce the up-front cost of sowing a canola crop. Little independent research has evaluated the effect on plant growth, blackleg resistance and grain yield. It is important that farmers have credible information as to the effect of retaining hybrid seed in all rainfall zones.

Recent on-farm researchOn-farm research has previously been conducted as part of the Better Oilseeds project but only based on one hybrid variety. This research showed reduction in blackleg resistance in the retained hybrid seed but variable grain yield responses. Additional research has been conducted by Pacific Seeds that showed significant yield reductions by retaining hybrid seed. This research, however, only tested Pacific Seeds hybrids and used seed harvested from yield plots and so would be expected to have some contamination from previously harvested plots.

This preliminary work highlights a need for further on-farm research to determine the effect of retaining hybrid sowing seed on plant growth, blackleg resistance and grain yield for the range of herbicide tolerance options over a range of rainfall zones in southern Australia.

Research objectiveThis research program aimed to conduct a series of trials in 2012 to measure the effect of retaining hybrid sowing seed on plant growth, blackleg resistance and grain yield compared to the original hybrid (ie. as purchased from seed supplier; referred to as ‘commercial’ here after) for a range of herbicide tolerance options in a range of rainfall zones in southern Australia.

Keywordscanola hybrids, retained seed, yield, quality

Take home messages• Averageyieldlossofcanolagrownfrom

retained hybrid seed varied from site to site, but ranged from 7-17% when compared to the commercial hybrid sowing seed.

• Oilcontentofcropsgrownfromretainedhybrid seed was significantly lower than that from commercial hybrids.

• Whilesomehybridswerelessaffectedbyusing retained seed it is recommended that new seed is purchased each year.


MethodologyReplicated trials were conducted at four locations within different rainfall zones in South Australia. Site locations were Minnipa and Lameroo for low rainfall conditions, Bordertown for a medium rainfall site and Bool Lagoon for a high rainfall site. Plot size was 10 meters long by eight rows and three replicates were sown. Trials were conducted to compare the original hybrid seed with first generation farmer retained hybrid seed. Retained hybrid sowing seed was sourced from individual farmers commercial crops from 2011 to reduce the possibility of contamination in samples harvested from small plot yield trials.

Conventional (Hyola®50 plus CB™Taurus at Bool Lagoon), Clearfield (Pioneer®45Y77, 45Y82, 46Y83 and Hyola® 575CL) and triazine tolerant (CB™Tumby HT™ and CB™Jardee HT™) hybrids were assessed. All seed was graded and assessed for germination to ensure good quality seed was used. Treatments under test were the retained hybrid seed plus and minus a fungicide treatment compared to the original hybrid seed also plus and minus a fungicide treatment. Varieties with the same herbicide tolerance were sown in groups to reduce

the risk of damage by herbicides.

Plant vigour, internal blackleg infection, grain yield and oil content were measured.

Results

Flowering dates

Very little variation occurred for flowering date between the commercial hybrid and the retained sowing seed with only about one day difference in days to 50 per cent of plants having first flowers.

Early vigour

Some hybrids showed reduced early vigour when sown with retained seed, but the response was variable.

Blackleg

Internal infection with blackleg was scored at three sites. A significant interaction between hybrid and seed type occurred at Lameroo and Bordertown with no significance at Bool Lagoon (Table 1). Several hybrids showed increased internal infection when sowing seed was retained.

Table 1. Internal blackleg infection (%) at three sites in 2012

Lameroo

45Y77 45Y82 46Y83 Hyola50 Hyola575CL CB Jardee HT CB Tumby HT

Commercial 20.7 e 12.1 c 8.4 c 1.8 a 5.5 b 21.8 de 22.8de

Retained 21.4 de 27.5 e 13.1 c 8.4 b 4.2 b 24.1 e 17.5 d

Bool Lagoon

45Y77 45Y82 46Y83 Hyola50 Hyola575CL CB Jardee HT CB Tumby HT Taurus

Commercial 19.4 17.7 8.7 1.5 4.1 28.5 38.9 3.0

Retained 21.5 22.7 9.1 7.3 4.7 27.8 34.1 4.0

Bordertown

45Y77 45Y82 46Y83 Hyola50 Hyola575CL CB Jardee HT CB Tumby HT

Commercial 68.5 f 54.6 e 46.5 d 4.8 a 9.9 b 87.5 g 96.8 h

Retained 71.8 f 57 e 60.3 e 24.6 c 12.8 bc 86.8 g 94.9 gh

Note: Within table, values followed by a different letter are significantly different.


When hybrid seed was retained, Jockey® was needed to be applied to get a similar low level of blackleg as that produced by the commercial hybrid seed, except at Bordertown where very high levels of blackleg occurred (Table 2).

Grain yieldGrain yield was significantly higher for commercial over retained hybrid sowing seed at all sites except Bool Lagoon (Table 3), with the greatest percentage yield loss at the two lower rainfall sites of Minnipa and Lameroo. Overall yield loss ranged from seven to 17 per cent over all hybrids.

Table 2. Internal blackleg infection (%) affected by seed type and fungicide at three sites in 2012

Lameroo Bordertown Bool Lagoon

Treatment Jockey Nil Jockey Nil Jockey Nil

Commercial 10.9 a 15.7 b 47.5 a 57.9 b 13.3 a 17.2 b

Retained 12.6 a 20.6 c 57.2 b 57.7 b 16.3 ab 16.5 ab


Table 3. Mean grain yield (kg/ha) for hybrid sowing seed in 2012

Site Commercial Retained % Commercial

kg/ha kg/ha %

Bool lagoon 2,394 a 2,228 a 93

Bordertown 1,668 a 1,503 b 90

Lameroo 830 a 693 b 83

Minnipa 572 a 485 b 85


Table 4. Grain yield of retained hybrid compared to commercial sowing seed for different varieties at all sites (%)

Variety % Commercial variety

Bool Lagoon Bordertown Lameroo Minnipa

1 94 89 85 107

2 100 90 85 80

3 91 93 80 80

4 82 82 84 78

5 92 83 71 75

6 99 106 86 96

7 101 94 95 94

8 88


Grain quality

Oil content of canola was significantly reduced when retained seed was used at all three sites tested (Table 6). However, protein content was not affected by retaining sowing seed compared to the commercial hybrids and glucosinolate content was only affected by retaining sowing seed at Bool Lagoon and in this case the variation was very minor compared to the acceptable limits for canola quality.

Table 6. Oil content of commercial and retained hybids in 2012

Site Commercial Retained

Oil % Oil %

Bool Lagoon 46.0 a 45.4 b

Bordertown 42.3 a 41.6 b

Lameroo 40.1 a 39.2 b


Financial returns from using retained hybrid sowing seed compared to commercial hybrid seed

Relative financial returns were calculated based on a price per tonne of $600. Oil content calculated at the normal contract basis resulted in the grain from the commercial hybrid producing a premium of about $6 per tonne over the retained grain. Likewise the cost of preparing retained sowing seed ready for sowing was calculated at $6 per hectare, graded, treated with fungicide and bagged. As can be seen from Table 7, the use of commercial hybrid sowing seed gave a good financial return over the use of retained hybrid seed for most hybrids at most sites. Using a price of $26 per kg for hybrid seed, and a sowing rate of 2.5 kg/ha, the difference in returns of over $65 per hectare produces a benefit to using commercial seed. Oil content premium and grading and fungicide cost reduced this threshold by $12 per hectare and $18 per hectare when grain yield could be expected to be 1 and 2 t/ha respectively.

Table 5. Grain yield of retained and commercial hybrids as affected by fungicide at all sites 2012

Seed type Lameroo Minnipa Bordertown Bool Lagoon

Fungicide Nil Fungicide Nil Fungicide Nil Fungicide Nil

Commercial 834 a 825 a 561 a 584 a 1,680 a 1,656 a 2,436 a 2,352 a

Retained 709 b 677 b 474 b 495 b 1,533 a 1,473 b 2,306 a 2,151 b


Table 7. Difference in $ return from commercial and retained hybrid sowing seed for each variety at all four sites in 2012

Increased $ return per ha of using commercial over retained hybrid sowing Variety seed (@ $600 per tonne)

Bool Lagoon Bordertown Lameroo Minnipa

1 73 94 71 -16

2 -1 115 87 89

3 120 68 102 70

4 290 228 81 96

5 131 193 147 104

6 12 -56 64 11

7 -10 49 24 14

8 180


SummaryIn many cases higher grain yields and reduced impact of blackleg occurred when commercial hybrid sowing seed was used rather than retained sowing seed. Benefits of commercial hybrid sowing seed outweighed the cost of buying that seed. Differences between hybrids are likely to be caused by the hybrid breeding system being used by the different companies and the degree of heterosis between parental lines that are used to produce each hybrid.

Similar results have been shown in recent studies in Canada where a yield reduction of up to 13% has been shown for retained hybrid canola seed.

AcknowledgementsThis work was funded by GRDC as a Fast Track project administered by the Southern Regional Panel. The field work was conducted by the SARDI New Variety Agronomy (NVA) group at Struan Research Centre, SA.

Contact details Trent Potter

PO Box 819, Naracoorte SA 5271

0427 608 306

[email protected]


Notes


V i c t o r i a

Students at work

Field Peas App

www.grdc.com.au

Application features:

• Predictivesearchfortopics

• ProgressiveSymptomSortertoidentifydisease or physical, nutritional or chemical disorders and their management

• Comparephotosoffieldpeadisordersorpests side by side with pictures in the app

• Opttodownloadcontentupdatesin-apptoensureyou’reawareofthelatestresearch on field peas

• ReceivenotificationsoffieldpeanewsfromGRDC

Visit www.grdc.com.au/apps for GRDC’sfullsuiteofapps

GrainsResearchandDevelopmentCorporation Level1,TourismHouse|40BlackallStreet,BartonACT2600 POBox5367,KingstonACT2604T+61261664500|F+61261664599 E [email protected]

Field Peas: The Ute Guide app will assist in recognising disease, insect attack and poor nutrition symptoms in field pea crops. Also contains best practice in growing and marketing the crop.


Managing wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) in grain crops - preventing seed set to deplete the seed bankEmma Henne and Peter Sale,Department of Agricultural Sciences, La Trobe University

BackgroundWild radish, Raphanus raphanistrum L. is one of the most challenging crop weeds in the Southern Australian grain belt (Walsh and Powles 2009). Its persistence as a weed is attributed to; its ability to germinate at any time through the year, to prolonged seed longevity in the soil, to the large number of seed that can be produced by the wild radish plants, and to its competitiveness due to rapid seedling establishment and fast growth rate (Cheam 1986; Walsh et al. 2007; Cheam et al. 2008). Cropping farms in Western Australia and more recently in South Australia and Victoria are now becoming increasingly infested with wild radish (Nugent 1999).

With the introduction and development of no-till systems, herbicides have been the only way to control this weed (Walsh et al. 2007; Walsh and Powles 2007). However the use of herbicides to control wild radish cannot generally achieve a complete weed kill and so they cannot completely prevent seed set by surviving weeds. Unfortunately the repeated use of herbicides has led to the development of herbicide resistant radish populations, particularly in Western Australia, where it has been difficult to control wild radish in the lupin

Keywordswild radish, seed bank, integrated weed management, herbicide resistance, crop competition

Take home messages• Amodifiedflotationmethodwas

developed to extract wild radish seed and measure radish seed numbers in topsoil samples.

• Inaseverelywildradishinfestedpaddock in 2012, preventing wild radish seed set for one year using silage crops, markedly reduced seed bank numbers by over 80%. Radish emergence in the following crop in 2013 was reduced by 60-80% by the previous silage crop.

• Mostfarmersbelievethatdepletingthewild radish seed bank is just too time consuming and uneconomical; some farmers however have been able to successfully deplete the radish seed bank.


phase of the rotation. I have seen paddocks in the Geraldton district in WA that are badly infested with wild radish that is resistant to practically every herbicide option. This situation is very serious.

Campbell (2013) and Walsh et al. (2009) suggest that the only way to control resistant wild radish populations, is the use of an integrated weed management (IWM) program based around seed set control. Methods to stop seed set include the use of silage or hay crops, and green or brown-manured crops. These practices, in an IWM program, can provide some economic return from the crop, either in terms of dollars or from soil health benefits. The idea of such a program is to mix both physical and chemical control methods, for example, using a pre-emergent spray followed by cutting the crop for hay (Ball 1992). The practices have generally not been adopted due to the expense involved in purchasing herbicides, the time required for the spray applications, and the cost of hay or silage making with perhaps uncertain markets for the products.

My Honour’s research in 2013 investigated the proposition that wild radish could/should be managed by completely preventing seed set (100% control), thereby depleting the seed bank in the soil over time. My first objective was to measure how just a single year of seed set prevention with silage making would affect seed bank numbers, in a severely infested paddock. This required a technique to extract wild radish seed from the top soil layers, and then measure seed bank numbers in the field after making silage in the spring, to stop seed set. An additional objective was to survey the opinions of farmers and advisers on the feasibility of complete seed set control over time to deplete the seed bank.

Experimental approachMeasurements were undertaken at a field trial in Inverleigh in south west Victoria that was severely

infested with wild radish. This was part of a larger wild radish control experiment conducted by Southern Farming Systems. Plots were selected that had high wild radish populations in the early winter in 2012, and were then sown to either persian clover or annual ryegrass, for silage making in the spring of 2012. Wild radish seedling emergence was also counted in the early winter of 2013. Topsoil samples were collected from these plots and from control plots, in July 2013. A method for extracting wild radish seed from soil samples was developed by placing the soil in a solution that allows the seed and light debris to float. This flotation technique was used with the 0-2 cm and 2-10 cm deep soil samples collected from the trial plots, to extract and count the wild radish seed in the seed bank in the topsoil samples.

Farmers and advisers from a range of cropping backgrounds across the southern Australian wheatbelt were surveyed in relation to wild radish infestation on their farms. Advisers were a target for these surveys as they advise farmers on weed control strategies on the farms. Farmers and advisers were approached on field trips to Western Australia, at field days run by agricultural organisations and on farms. The main focus of the survey was on how wild radish seed set might be prevented in cropping paddocks, and whether this would be both a feasible and an economic strategy for managing wild radish infestations.

Results and discussionGrowing a silage crop at Inverleigh successfully prevented seed set in 2012. This cessation of seed set for just one season markedly reduced wild radish infestation in the paddock. The annual ryegrass and persian clover silage treatments significantly reduced seed bank numbers by more than 80% in the top soil (0-2 cm depth) and by 30 – 55% in the deeper 2-10 cm soil (Figure 1). Also there were fewer radish emerging in 2013 (Figure 2) in the silage plots compared to the control plots.


The silage strategy produced high yields of ryegrass or clover biomass that could be rapidly ensiled to make very high quality silage, as well as stopping seed set. It is likely that such silage, in the Victorian high rainfall zone, could be sold to farmers, particularly dairy farmers located within a 50-100km radius from the cropping paddock. The

equivalent dry matter yields were 3.6 tonne/ha for persian clover and 5 tonne/ha for annual ryegrass silage at 45% moisture (C. Celestina, personal communication). The sale of this high quality silage would generate a useful cash return for the farm while achieving 100% seed set control (Stanton et al. 2012). Follow up herbicide management or

Figure 1. Wild radish seed bank numbers (seed/100 g soil) in July 2013 after seed set had been prevented by growing a Persian clover or ryegrass crop for silage in the winter/spring of 2013. Seed were extracted from soil collected at depths of 0-2 and 2-10 cm. Vertical bars represent LSD (p=0.05).

Figure 2. The emergence of wild radish seedlings (plants/m2) in the early winter in 2012, and then in 2013 following a Persian clover or ryegrass silage crop in 2012. Vertical bars represent LSD (p = 0.05).


heavy grazing after the silage is harvested would be required to prevent subsequent wild radish emergence if summer rainfall events occurred (Nugent 1999; Blackshaw et al. 2002; McGillion and Storrie 2006). It would be important for farmers to seek a silage market before using this strategy instead of other less expensive radish control tactics.

Grower and adviser attitudes to complete seed bank depletion

There were a range of responses from farmers and advisers towards the proposition that 100% seed set control of wild radish to deplete the seed bank could or should be used. The advisers that were approached in Victoria were focused on the use of herbicide, as herbicide-susceptible wild radish populations were still widespread. Some advisers however considered that 100% seed set control should be the ideal that their clients aim for. Advisers who I approached in Western Australia, who had to deal with widespread herbicide-resistant radish populations were more concerned about relying on herbicide control. They realize that a ‘stacked-herbicide-resistant’ population cannot be controlled with herbicides any more, and they are running out of herbicide options. This has led to them advising their clients to consider physical approaches such as moldboard ploughing or burning narrow windrows after harvest. A number of farmers, who were approached, were very pessimistic about the idea of 100% seed set control of wild radish in their crops; they believed it was uneconomical even if it were possible. However some were trying IWM strategies such as chaff carts and livestock grazing within their rotations with positive results.

The future for stopping 100% of wild radish seed set, and depleting the seed bank, will depend on positive attitudes and real commitment from farmers and advisers. While most farmers believe that this strategy is not possible, nor economical, a few farmers and most of the participating advisers had more positive attitudes to stopping seed set and depleting the seed bank. Their attitudes resulted from successful practices used for controlling

herbicide-resistant wild radish populations. These experiences need to be publicized as successful case studies, in workshops and seminars, so that all grain producers can see that it is possible to really get on top of wild radish in their paddocks.

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank Peter Sale for all his contributions and continual support during my research and also throughout my Agricultural Science studies at La Trobe University. I would also like to thank Southern Farming Systems, in particular Corinne Celestina and Annieka Paridaen for their help with the field studies. The time given by all the farmers and advisers who I contacted, particularly Greg Toomey, Grant Thompson and Bill Campbell, and their general interest and advice in the project was much appreciated.

ReferencesBall DA (1992) Weed seedbank response to tillage, herbicides, and crop rotation sequence. Weed Science 40, 654-659.

Blackshaw RE, Lemerle D, Young KR (2002) Influence of wild radish on yield and quality of canola. Weed Science 50, 344-349.

Campbell B (2013) ‘Understanding and managing proposed different development stages of herbicide resistance in wild radish (raphanus raphanistrum), GRDC Crop updates.’ SA, Vic and WA. pp 49-58.

Cheam A (1986) Seed production and seed dormancy in wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum l.) and some possibilities for improving control. Weed Research 26, 405-414.

Cheam AH, Storrie A, Koetz E, Holding D, Bowcher A, Barker J (2008) ‘Managing wild radish and other brassicaceous weeds in Australian cropping systems.’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management)

McGillion T, Storrie A (2006) ‘Integrated weed management in Australian cropping systems: A training resource for farm advisors.’ (Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management: Adelaide, South Australia)


Nugent T (1999) ‘Managing wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum l.).’ (CRC for Weed Management Systems and the Grains Research and Development Corporation)

Walsh MJ, Owen MJ, Powles SB (2007) Frequency and distribution of herbicide resistance in raphanus raphanistrum populations randomly collected across the Western Australian wheatbelt. Weed Research 47, 542-550.

Walsh MJ, Powles SB (2007) Management strategies for herbicide-resistant weed populations in Australian dryland crop production systems. Weed Technology 21, 332-338.

Walsh MJ, Powles SB (2009) Impact of crop-topping and swathing on the viable seed production of wild radish (raphanus raphanistrum). Crop and Pasture Science 60, 667-674.

Contact detailsEmma Henne

Department of Agricultural Sciences LaTrobe University, Melbourne

0424 930 317

[email protected]


Notes


Role of legume break crops in mobilising soil phosphorus (P) for wheatDaniel Espinosa,Department of Agricultural Sciences, La Trobe University

GRDC project code: UA00119

BackgroundA limited number of studies have demonstrated that wheat following a pulse break crop takes up more P than wheat following wheat, over and above any nitrogen or disease break benefits (Nuruzzaman et al. 2005; Hassan et al. 2012). The mechanisms for this enhanced P uptake by the following wheat are not well understood. Research evidence suggests that the mobilization of P by the legume crop occurs from sparingly soil P compounds that wheat cannot use. Extra P is then likely to become available from

the decomposition of the legume crop residues. It is also possible that changes in soil microbial communities with legume crops occur, which may enhance soil P availability for the wheat crop (Alamgir et al. 2012) .

Legume crops have different strategies to mobilize P from the soil. Acidifying the soil around the roots, and organic acid release from roots, are among those strategies that make legumes efficient in mobilizing P from inorganic soil P pools (Hinsinger 2001; Hinsinger et al. 2005). Soil acidification is particularly important to dissolve P from calcium carbonates, whereas organic acids will chelate cations like Fe+3, Al+3 and Ca+2 to release the P. However, it has been difficult to detect any surplus P in the soil after a legume break crop. It is likely that any additional P that is mobilized by the break crop is “re-fixed” by the soil or immobilized by microbial activity. In view of these difficulties, I developed an alternative intercropping approach to see if wheat plants, growing together with legume crops, could take up extra P compared to wheat plants growing in the absence of legume roots.

The research that I will undertake in my PhD program aims to understand how legume break crops can mobilise P for the following wheat crop. Such understanding may well lead to practices that can help grain producers use more of the P “bank” in cropping soils, that is currently unavailable to cereal crops.

Keywordsbreak crops, phosphorus acquisition strategies, rotation, intercropping

Take home messages• Legumebreakcropscan

significantly increase the P uptake of intercropped wheat.

• Thelegumesdifferintheirabilitytomobilize soil P reserves.

• Interactionsbetweensoilproperties,plant biology and microbial activity are likely to determine the amount of soil P that is mobilised by the legume.


Preliminary ResultsA glasshouse study was initially undertaken to compare the ability of different break crops to mobilise soil P and increase the P uptake of companion wheat plants. We proposed that surplus mobilised P, resulting from the root activity of the companion break crop, would be scavenged and taken up by the inter-mingled wheat roots. The experimental system involved wheat and different break crops growing together, or growing separately with a physical barrier preventing the intermingling of their roots.

The companion plants of chickpea, white lupins and field pea significantly increased P uptake by wheat (Figure 1) when the roots of both the wheat and the pulse were grown together, compared to when the wheat roots grew separated from those of the legume crop. The P uptake was increased by 114% and 70% by chickpea and white lupins, respectively, due to an increase in both shoot biomass and higher P concentrations in the wheat shoots. Wheat growing with field pea had the lowest shoot dry biomass overall. However, the P uptake of the wheat shoots still increased by 69%, despite reduced wheat growth with the barrier in place.

An alternative way to assess the effect of the companion plants on P uptake by wheat is to calculate the P uptake ratio (P-UpR) between the no-barrier and the barrier systems (Figure 2). The greatest increase in P uptake by wheat (2.19 wheat P-UpR) occurred with chickpea as a companion plant. However, the P uptake by chickpea was reduced by the wheat (0.74 chickpea P-UpR). White lupins and field pea also increased wheat P uptake (1.58 and 1.52 P-UpRs, respectively) while the P uptake by these legumes was not affected by wheat (0.93 and 1.12 P-UpR, respectively, for white lupins and field peas).

This initial study highlights how legume break crops differ in their ability to mobilise P from the Vertosol soil. Wheat plants were able to scavenge and utilize this extra mobilised P when grown as companion crops (i.e. intermingled roots) with legume break crops. Further experiments will follow this study. I will be particularly focussed on understanding the mechanisms by which common legume break crops mobilise soil P, so that the process can be exploited in the cropping system.

Figure 1. Phosphorus uptake by wheat and companion legume break crop under two systems, with and without barrier. Error bars represent one standard error.


AcknowledgmentsI wish to thank my supervising panel for their guidance and the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) for their financial support through the Soil Biology Initiative project (UA00119).

ReferencesAlamgir, M., A. McNeill, C. X. Tang and P. Marschner, 2012: Changes in soil P pools during legume residue decomposition. Soil Biol Biochem 49, 70-77.

Hassan, H. M., P. Marschner, A. McNeill and C. Tang, 2012: Grain legume pre-crops and their residues affect the growth, P uptake and size of P pools in the rhizosphere of the following wheat. Biol Fertil Soils.

Hinsinger, P., 2001: Bioavailability of soil inorganic P in the rhizosphere as affected by root-induced chemical changes: a review. Plant and Soil 237, 173-195.

Hinsinger, P., G. R. Gobran, P. J. Gregory and W. W. Wenzel, 2005: Rhizosphere geometry and heterogeneity arising from root-mediated physical and chemical processes. New Phytologist 168, 293-303.

Nuruzzaman, M., H. Lambers, M. D. A. Bolland and E. J. Veneklaas, 2005: Phosphorus benefits of different legume crops to subsequent wheat grown in different soils of Western Australia. Plant and Soil 271, 175-187.

Contact detailsDaniel Espinosa

Agricultural Sciences La Trobe University, AgriBio – Centre for AgriBioSciences

5 Ring Rd, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia

61(03)9032-7462

[email protected]

Figure 2. Phosphorus uptake ratio between the two systems: with and without barrier.


Notes


Accelerating adoption of innovative agronomy - experiences from Alberta, CanadaSteve Larocque, Beyond Agronomy

The presentation offers a visual tour of the technologies and agronomy used by leading edge farmers in Western Canada.

Contact detailsSteve Larocque

Box 1696, Three Hills, AB, T0M 2A0

1-403-321-0181

[email protected]

KeywordsKeywords:nitrogenuseefficiency,precision planting, abiotic stress, soil temperature, GreenSeeker®, NDVI mapping, controlled traffic farming

Take home messages• Focusonbuildingasystemthat

addresses abiotic stress (wind, cold, heat, flooding).

• Soiltemperatureshaveagreaterimpacton yield than ambient temperatures.

• GreenSeeker® technology is a real time mapping and variable rate nitrogen tool.

• Controlledtrafficfarming(CTF)performswell in low rainfall environments – improved water use efficiency.

• Vacuumplantersprovideimprovedsingulation and plant spacing in small grain crops.

• Inter-rowsidedressnitrogenincerealsreduces dependency on rainfall after application.


Notes


V i c t o r i a

Industry information

“AND BEST OF ALL

”

IT’S FROM NUSEEDSO YOU KNOW IT’S

IN THE BAG

NUSEED GT-50 HYBRID CANOLA• Roundup Ready

• High yielding

• Excellent vigour

• Good blackleg resistance

nuseed.com.au

Tomorrow’s innovations in canola are in the works at Nuseed today. For us, it’s not just about yield. It’s about using seed technology to solve customer problems and discover new ways to add value for everyone in the food chain.

Variety Maturity Type 2013 Blackleg Rating* Height

Roundup Ready Canola

Nuseed GT-50 Mid F1 Hybrid R Med-Tall

Triazine Tolerant Canola

ATR Bonito NEW Early-Early/Mid Open-Pollinated MR (P) Short-Med

ATR Wahoo NEW Mid Open-Pollinated MR (P) Medium

Conventional Canola

Nuseed Diamond NEW Early-Mid F1 Hybrid R-MR (P) Medium

Roundup Ready Monola

Monola 513GT Early-Mid Open-Pollinated MR (P) Medium

Triazine Tolerant Monola

Monola 314TT NEW Early-Mid Open-Pollinated MR (N) Medium

Monola 605TT Early-Mid Open-Pollinated R-MR Medium

Monola 413TT Early-Mid Open-Pollinated R-MR (P) Medium

Mick PhelanWestern VIC & South East SAM 0417 369 389

Robert Christie Eastern VIC & Mid North SAM 0427 340 608

Disclaimer: All material appearing in this publication is copyright. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any way without the consent of Nuseed. Pricing and other information in this document is subject to change without notice.

Please Contact:

DIFFERENT THINKING FROM

A NEW KIND OF SEED COMPANYTHAT’S HOW NUSEED IS ENHANCING

THE VALUE OF FOOD AND FEEDTHROUGH TECHNOLOGY.

*Blackleg ratings (P) = Provisional Rating, (N) = Nuseed Rating

PREMIUMPAYMENT

TT MONOLA VARIETIES

per Tonne$80

GO FOR A

GROWHEALTHY PROFIT

Get ready for aNEW SHOW OF STRENGTH!

You’ll soon have the chance to experience the power of a smarter soluti on for yourself when we

launch new weedmaster® ARGO™ on February 14. Combining a higher acti ve loading with

the proven benefi ts of Dual Salt Technology®, this valuable additi on to our glyphosate range

provides fast knockdown and excepti onal compati bility for powerful one-pass knockdown.

Find out more at weedmasterargo.com.au

No one knows glyphosate better than Nufarm.

Copyright 2014. Nufarm Australia Limited ACN 80004377780

® Weedmaster, Dual Salt Technology and Amicide are registered trademarks of Nufarm Australia Limited. ™ ARGO is a trademark of Nufarm Australia Limited. NUF0074

LAUNCHING FEBRUARY 2014

NEW

EXPERIENCE THE POWER OF A SMARTER GLYPHOSATE

Experience the power of a smarter glyphosate solutionNew weedmaster® ARGO™ sets a new standard for convenient and effective one-pass knockdown control

With 540 g/L glyphosate, weedmaster ARGO is the most powerful Dual Salt Technology® formulation yet. Its exceptional compatibility makes it easy to tank mix with key partner products like Amicide® Advance 700 for comprehensive knockdown of even the most hard-to-kill weeds.

After fi ve years of development, involving the testing of over 50 formulations, the weedmaster ARGO formulation was identifi ed as providing the optimal combination of effi cacy and handling benefi ts, including low foaming and viscosity to speed up mixing.

• Fast, powerful one-pass knockdown

• Exceptional compatibility with other knockdown products

• Highest active loading with Dual Salt Technology® yet

• More compatible than ‘single potassium salt’ knockdowns

• Rapid plant uptake & translocation for fast control

• Easy fl owing, low foaming

• One hour spray to sow

• Australian innovation developed and made here

• 100% backed by Nufarm’s No Worries Warranty

Dual Salt Technology: unique Australian knockdown knowhow

Developed in Australia by Nufarm, Dual Salt Technology (DST) contains two glyphosate salts to aid solubility and uptake by the plant. Dual Salt Technology is used in Nufarm’s weedmaster DST and weedmaster DUO as well as new weedmaster ARGO.

Unlike other glyphosate products, these weedmaster products are formulated using two bases to form an advanced glyphosate salt that aids solubility and improved uptake by the plant.

Adding a tailored surfactant package has allowed Nufarm to use the highest active loading yet for a Dual Salt Technology product in weedmaster ARGO and still deliver optimal effi cacy in a range of conditions and excellent compatibility with other tank mix partners.

Copyright 2014. Nufarm Australia Limited ACN 80004377780

® Weedmaster, Dual Salt Technology and Amicide are registered trademarks of Nufarm Australia Limited. ™ ARGO is a trademark of Nufarm Australia Limited.

Key benefi ts of new weedmaster ARGO

For more information about Agrimaster go to www.agrimaster.com.au or phone 1800 110 000.

Now – Where – HowYou should always know where you are now financially, be able to decide where you want to be and then have the ability to plan how you are going to get there.

Use the financial implications of production decisions as the backbone to successful change and volatility management.

At Agrimaster, we use a set of powerful business tools to breakthrough barriers so you can see where you are ‘now’, ‘where’ you want to go and ‘how’ you are going to get there.

A recent report from Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) noted that, “farmers will require information to make cost-effective adaptation decisions.”

Good operators invariably use systems that provide timely and accurate information, and form part of their monthly operational review.

Plans change with seasonThey say that most people don’t plan to fail they fail to plan. Seeding is a good time for you to begin thinking about where you see the future of your business and how you are going to plan for this. The Agrimaster cashbook and budgeting software is used by the majority of West Australian farmers; this program provides the framework for solid planning which is key to getting the best out of your business..

Your historical financial data is applied not only to show what you have achieved in the past but also to help clear a path forward – to plan where you are going.

Good financial management provides you with a strong base on which to plan future direction in the event of sudden change.

It is constant and timely feedback that helps you go forward.

Agrimaster may have been considered a radical tool when it was developed in Western Australia nearly 30 years ago but farmers across Australia have adopted the technology at an exponential rate, and now it is considered the software package that is a pivotal driver of profit in farming businesses.

Integrating good planning and decisions

Having accurate up to date financials can help you confront the brutal facts about your business.

This is very important as it helps you feel the pulse of your business and identify any current or potential problems that are causing pain.

This provides you with a solid reference point from which to make changes.

Positive steps to help manage change:

Do your own books for 1. business management not just compliance needs – FEEL your numbers.

Develop a strong financial 2. frame of reference by getting close to your numbers on a regular basis.

Confront the brutal facts – 3. stay resilient and use your facts and planning tools to NOW, WHERE, HOW

Plan, Do, Check, Act – 4. constantly

Get a good Business Adviser, 5. Coach, Mentor

Embrace change as an 6. opportunity

CheckCheck

JAZ-

#56

46

FONT IS NEWS GOTHIC DEMI!!!!!!

Performance optimisedRadial®

To optimise the performance of your wheat and barley crop with Radial® visit, www.farmoz.com.au

Radial®

epoxiconazole 75 g/L, azoxystrobin 75 g/LRadial

®

is an optimised high performance broad spectrum fungicide for use in wheat and barley. With up to 6 weeks preventative disease control Radial

®

optimises the performance of your crop.

Triathlon®

Go the distance on broadleaf weeds with Triathlon®’s unique triple mode of action. With excellent control of Wild Radish and other hard to control broadleaf weeds in wheat and barley. Also providing residual action to control later germinating weeds.

Goes the distanceTriathlon®

To go the distance on broadleaf weeds, visit www.farmoz.com.au

*Registration pending at time printing.

Incitec Pivot Fertilisers

www.incitecpivotfertilisers.com.au Incitec Pivot Fertilisers is a business of Incitec Pivot Limited ABN 42 004 080 264

How important is the previous rotation

in determining the optimum rate of

phosphorus for wheat?

An interrogation of the Better Fertiliser

Decisions for Cropping Systems in

Australia data suggests a critical

Colwell P of 34 mg/kg (to achieve

95% of maximum yield) with a range

of 29 to 40 for wheat trials where

cereal was the previous crop (Table 1).

In contrast, Better Fertiliser Decisions suggests a critical Colwell

P of 49 (range 17 to 140) for wheat following canola, albeit

with a much smaller data set and with a weaker correlation.

Menhenett et al (2013)3 and Laycock (2011)2 have reported

strong wheat yield responses to phosphorus in wheat

following canola where Colwell P levels were at or above the

suggested critical concentrations.

In response to this data, a number of wheat trials were

established in 2013 at sites in Curban, Forbes, Grenfell, Rand

and Dookie that grew canola, lupins and wheat in 2012.

By Charlie Walker, Technical and Development Manager, Incitec Pivot Fertilisers

Managing phosphorus for wheat based on rotations

Table 1: Critical Colwell P level (95% max yield) 0-10 cm for various rotations across NSW, Vic and SA

Rotation Colwell P 95% relative

yield

R value Number of trials

Wheat on wheat 34 (29-40) 0.47 242Wheat on canola 49 (17-140) 0.24 34Wheat on grain legume 30 (17-53) 0.35 26

Source: Peverill, K., Conyers, M., Reuter, D. and Norton, R. (2013). Making better fertiliser decisions for cropping systems in Australia. Crop & Pasture Science Vol 64, Issue 5:417-547.

Table 2: Phosphorus rate comparison in wheat, Curban, Forbes and Dookie, 2013

Location 2012 crop Colwell P mg/kg P rate kg/ha (wheat yield t/ha)0 8 16 24 32 40 l.s.d.

Curban Lupins 12 3.04 3.27 3.39 3.51 3.70 3.58 0.26Forbes Canola 46 4.30 4.63 4.75 4.78 4.73 4.86 0.402Dookie Canola 60 3.59 4.48 5.07 5.72 5.72 5.92 0.280Dookie Wheat 48 5.24 5.77 5.93 6.03 6.00 6.05 0.346

Source: Incitec Pivot Fertilisers

www.incitecpivotfertilisers.com.au Incitec Pivot Fertilisers is a business of Incitec Pivot Limited ABN 42 004 080 264

Incitec Pivot Fertilisers

Perhaps the most interesting result is the contrast in yield

response to phosphorus at Dookie depending on the previous

crop.

In wheat after wheat, high yields were reported, but a

statistically significant yield increase was only observed

in response to 8 kg P/ha. No additional responses were

observed with additional phosphorus. This is not surprising

given that the Colwell P was at or close to the recognised

critical level for that district.

In wheat following canola, significant yield increases were

observed up to 24 kg P/ha despite a slightly higher Colwell

P reading which would have traditionally been regarded as

non-responsive.

So what are possible reasons for higher critical P levels?

lHigher wheat yield potential of 0.6 to 0.8 t/ha (Swan et al

2013)5.

lReduced mycorrhizal root colonisation in wheat following

canola, leading to less drain on assimilates (Harris et al

2002)1 and lower phosphorus foraging ability in wheat.

How should we respond to this observation?

The logical conclusion might be to reassess the allocation of

phosphorus fertiliser based on crop rotation. In simple terms,

this could mean increasing phosphorus rates where wheat

follows canola (and possibly lupins) and reducing phosphorus

rates where wheat follows wheat or other AMF hosts.

Of course, such an approach is best guided by the use of a

soil testing program to establish soil phosphorus status in the

paddocks under consideration.

References:

1 R. H. Harris, G. J. Scammell, W. J. Müller and J. F. Angus (2002). Crop productivity in relation to species of previous crops and management of previous pasture. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 53: 1271 – 1283.

2 Laycock, J. (2011). Nutrition Review – consequence of a wet year. GRDC Adviser Update Young 2011

3 Menhenett, L., Walker, C.N., Howie, P. and Farlow, C.M. (2013). Assessing the importance of phosphorus nutrition and alternative managment strategies in wheat following canola. Research for the Riverine Plains 2013.

4 Peverill, K., Conyers, M., Reuter, D. and Norton, R. (2013). Making better fertiliser decisions for cropping systems in Australia. Crop & Pasture Science Vol 64, Issue 5:417-547.

5 Swan, T., Watson, L., Peoples, M., Hunt, J., Li, G., Lowrie, R. and Breust, P. (2013). Break crops and brown manures: Effects on nitrogen, grass weeds, grain yield and profit. GRDC project CSP000146.

™ The Agronomy Community is a trademark of Incitec Pivot Limited. ® Fertcare is a registered trademark of Australian Fertiliser Services Association, Inc.

Table 3: Phosphorus rate comparison in wheat at various nitrogen rates, Grenfell in 2013 and Rand in 2010 and 2013

Location Year Previous crop

Colwell P mg/kg

P rate kg/ha (wheat yield t/ha)

0 10 20 30 40 l.s.d.Grenfell 0N 2013 Canola 23-47 2.72 3.20 3.69 3.96 4.20 0.27

Grenfell 120N 2013 Canola 25-53 3.30 3.71 3.96 3.97 4.06Rand 0N 2013 Canola 42-73 3.94 4.40 4.06 4.48 4.44 0.22

Rand 120N 2013 Canola 46-85 4.58 5.19 5.32 5.53 5.43Rand 0N 2010 Canola 55-86 4.50 5.53 5.81 6.13 6.21 0.517

Rand 120N 2010 Canola 5.27 5.88 6.19 6.22 6.30Source: Incitec Pivot Fertilisers

1. DIGITAL FARM MAPPING

+ Google powered mapping tools + High resolution imagery + Digital paddock boundary mapping+ Grain infrastructure configuration

2. MY FARM

+ Farm status & operations monitoring + Planted area & grain position summary+ Five-day weather summary + Topographic paddock information including slope,

aspect, elevation & general soil characteristics + Soil plant available water capacity

3. MY DIARY

+ Record keeping of crops, operations, inputs, management practice, yield & production

+ Maximum potential yield calculation + All data fully exportable to spreadsheet + Provide your advisor access

4. MY GRAIN

+ On & off farm grain storage diary + Recording of current contracts & sales + Auto-calculation of unsold remainder + Auto-created commodity vendor declarations

ProductionWise® is an integrated online farm management system that allows you to map your paddocks, record management practices and monitor crop development using the advanced paddock diary, crop tracker, seasonal climate & yield forecasting tools.

The FREE component provides access to:

SUBSCRIPTION TOOLS

+ Seasonal climatics influencing your crop development + Biomass (NDVI) tracking of paddock crop growth + Seasonal rainfall forecasting + Yield & production modelling throughout the season + Benchmarking & regional comparison of performance + Gross margins generated for each paddock+ SprayWise Decisions Add-On tools

ADVISOR TOOLS

+ Register as an advisor for free + Producers who subscribe with an advisor configured

get 10% discount + Advisor dashboard displaying list of all approved

producers & view their current paddock status + Obtain full read & write access to each producer’s

diary with their permission + View producer’s paddock forecasted yield & production,

seasonal conditions, rainfall forecasts & biomass+ Recommendation and observation reporting and

messaging services

KEEN TO BOOST YOUR FARM PRODUCTION? PUT THIS

INNOVATIVE TOOL TO THE TEST

Freecall 1800 620 519 Email [email protected] for more information

Manage farM production using the latest online crop

ManageMent tool

SUBSCRIPTION TOOLS

+ Seasonal climatics influencing your crop development

+ Biomass (NDVI) tracking of paddock crop growth

+ Seasonal rainfall forecasting

+ Yield & production modelling throughout the season

+ Benchmarking & regional comparison of performance

+ Gross margins generated for each paddock

+ SprayWise Decisions Add-On tools

ADVISOR TOOLS

+ Register as an advisor for free

+ Producers who subscribe with an advisor configured get 10% discount

+ Advisor dashboard displaying list of all approved producers & view their current paddock status

+ Obtain full read & write access to each producer’s diary with their permission

+ View producer’s paddock forecasted yield & production, seasonal conditions, rainfall forecasts & biomass

+ Recommendation and observation reporting and messaging services

www.productionwise.com.au

1. DIgITAL FARm mAPPINg

+ Google powered mapping tools

+ High resolution imagery

+ Digital paddock boundary mapping

+ Grain infrastructure configuration

2. my FARm

+ Farm status & operations monitoring

+ Planted area & grain position summary

+ Five-day weather summary

+ Topographic paddock information including slope, aspect, elevation & general soil characteristics

+ Soil plant available water capacity

3. my DIARy

+ Record keeping of crops, operations, inputs, management practice, yield & production

+ Maximum potential yield calculation

+ All data fully exportable to spreadsheet

+ Provide your advisor access

4. my gRAIN

+ On & off farm grain storage diary

+ Recording of current contracts & sales

+ Auto-calculation of unsold remainder

+ Auto-created commodity vendor declarations

ProductionWise is an integrated online farm management system that allows you to map your paddocks, record management practices and monitor crop development using the advanced paddock diary, crop tracker, seasonal climate & yield forecasting tools.

The FREE component provides access to:

Free 1800 620 519 Email [email protected] for more information

Grain quality, the Australian way.

The take-anywhere answer to your grain quality questions...

Price: GrainVantageTM sets a new benchmark in NIR pricing and will sell for under $10,000 ex GST.

Accurate: The GrainVantageTM results are aligned using the NMI (National Measurement Institute) certified IM 9500 analyser so you can be sure the data is accurate. The GrainVantageTM comes to you factory tested and calibrated.

Rugged: Designed for Australian conditions, this rugged instrument is ideal for use on-farm, at grain storage facilities and at grain processing sites. New, rugged optics and an automated dust shutter ensure reliable, low maintenance operation.

Portable: Compact, light enough to hand carry and powered by 240V, 12V, or battery (up to 2 hours), the GrainVantageTM goes with you where you need it most: in the ute, in the cab of the header and to the silo.

GPS: The GrainVantageTM is equipped with a GPS to provide accurate, location specific grain quality results. This assists with generating protein maps on-farm to make efficient harvesting and binning decisions.

GrainGrowers and Perten Instruments Australia have worked together to develop the next generation NIR instrument for protein, moisture and oil content in whole grains and oilseeds. The GrainVantageTM, released in 2013, is a must have tool to better manage your grain.

GrainVantageTM Specifications:

Size: 335(h) x 270(l) x 270(d) (mm)

Weight: 7kg

Analysis Time: 40 seconds

Sample Size: 300 grams

Cost: Under $10,000 ex GST

GrainVantageTM Calibrations:Moisture Protein Oil

Wheat Yes Yes –

Barley Yes Yes –

Canola Yes – Yes

Chickpea Yes Yes –

Sorghum Yes Yes –

For further information:Email: [email protected]: 1800 620 519Web: www.graingrowers.com.au

BO

XE

R G

OLD

® -

to

ugh

on

ryeg

rass

an

d g

ives

yo

u m

ore

op

tio

nsl

P

rove

n p

erfo

rman

ce o

n A

nnua

l Rye

gras

s, in

clud

ing

trifl

ural

in r

esis

tant

bio

typ

es

l

Out

stan

din

g ea

rly s

easo

n w

eed

con

trol

due

to

mul

tiple

poi

nts

of

up

take

res

ults

in im

pro

ved

cro

p e

stab

lishm

ent

l

Flex

ible

op

tion

- no

res

tric

tions

on

crop

cho

ice

in t

he fo

llow

ing

seas

on

l

7 d

ay in

corp

orat

ion

per

iod

pro

vid

es fl

exib

ility

at

seed

ing

time

010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10

0

BO

XE

R G

OL

D 2

.5L/h

a

Saku

ra 1

18g

/ha

Annual Ryegrass control (%)

Num

ber

of

tria

ls =

102

Num

ber

of

tria

ls =

38

*

= a

vera

ge

WIN

an

iPad

Air

with

Syn

gent

a T

here

are

5 u

p f

or

gra

bs.

Ent

er t

od

ay a

t w

ww

.syn

gen

ta.c

om

.au

Valu

ed a

t $7

49 e

ach.

Pro

mo

tio

n en

ds

28th

Feb

ruar

y, 2

014

Talk

to

yo

ur

loca

l d

istr

ibu

tor

tod

ay a

bo

ut

Syn

gen

ta’s

so

luti

on

s.Fo

r fu

rthe

r te

chni

cal i

nfor

mat

ion

or p

rod

uct

advi

ce,

cont

act

the

Tech

nica

l Pro

duc

t A

dvi

ce L

ine

on 1

800

067

108

or v

isit

ww

w.s

ynge

nta.

com

.au.

P

rod

uct

lab

els

and

usa

ge d

irect

ions

sho

uld

be

follo

wed

for

the

ap

plic

atio

n of

any

pro

duc

t re

ferr

ed t

o in

thi

s p

ublic

atio

n. T

he in

form

atio

n co

ntai

ned

in t

his

doc

umen

t is

bel

ieve

d

to b

e ac

cura

te.

No

resp

onsi

bili

ty o

r lia

bili

ty is

acc

epte

d in

res

pec

t of

thi

s in

form

atio

n an

d t

hose

non

-exc

lud

able

con

diti

ons

imp

lied

by

any

Fed

eral

or

Sta

te le

gisl

atio

n or

law

of

a Te

rrito

ry.

®R

egis

tere

d t

rad

emar

k of

a S

ynge

nta

Gro

up C

omp

any.

™Tr

adem

ark

of a

Syn

gent

a G

roup

Com

pan

y.

New

use

pat

tern

s no

t re

gist

ered

at

time

of p

rintin

g.

AD

14/0

15

Rot

atio

nal C

rop

BO

XE

R G

OLD

Sak

ura*

Whe

atü

ü

Bar

ley

ü9

mth

s /

250m

m r

ain

Can

ola

ü9

mth

s /

250m

m r

ain

Pul

ses

ü9

mth

s /

250m

m r

ain

Lent

ilsü

9 m

ths

/ 25

0mm

rai

n

Oat

en H

ay

ü21

mth

s /

550m

m r

ain

Dur

um W

heat

ü21

mth

s /

550m

m r

ain

* S

aku

ra is

a r

eg

iste

red

tra

dem

ark

of

Baye

r. R

efe

r to

the S

aku

ra la

bel f

or

mo

re d

eta

ils.

NE

Wus

e pa

tter

nsco

min

g so

on!

BO

XE

R G

OL

D g

ive

s yo

u r

ota

tio

na

l op

tio

ns!

Sec

ond

ary

upta

ke

Sec

ond

ary

upta

ke

Roo

tlets

Mes

ocot

yl

root

s

Mes

ocot

ylP

rimar

y up

take

vi

a M

ES

OC

OTY

L

Prim

ary

leaf

(F

irst

seed

ling

leaf

)

BO

XE

R G

OL

D d

eliv

ers

ou

tsta

nd

ing

ea

rly

sea

son

we

ed

co

ntr

ol

du

e t

o m

ult

iple

po

ints

of

up

tak

e

Co

mp

ara

ble

co

ntr

ol o

f A

nn

ua

l Rye

gra

ss w

ith

BO

XE

R G

OL

D a

nd

Sa

ku

ra

Saku

ra r

e-c

rop

pin

g r

est

rictio

ns

are

sub

ject

to r

ain

fall

and

pla

ntb

ack

req

uirem

ents

.

AD

14-0

15_B

oxer

Gol

d_A

4_B

W_2

0140

114.

indd

1

1/15

/201

4 1

:24:

35 P

M

WIN

an

iPad

Air

with

Syn

gent

a T

here

are

5 u

p f

or

gra

bs.

Ent

er t

od

ay a

t w

ww

.syn

gen

ta.c

om

.au

Valu

ed a

t $7

49 e

ach.

Pro

mo

tio

n en

ds

28th

Feb

ruar

y, 2

014

Talk

to

yo

ur

loca

l d

istr

ibu

tor

tod

ay a

bo

ut

Syn

gen

ta’s

so

luti

on

s.Fo

r fu

rthe

r te

chni

cal i

nfor

mat

ion

or p

rod

uct

advi

ce,

cont

act

the

Tech

nica

l Pro

duc

t A

dvi

ce L

ine

on 1

800

067

108

or v

isit

ww

w.s

ynge

nta.

com

.au.

P

rod

uct

lab

els

and

usa

ge d

irect

ions

sho

uld

be

follo

wed

for

the

ap

plic

atio

n of

any

pro

duc

t re

ferr

ed t

o in

thi

s p

ublic

atio

n. T

he in

form

atio

n co

ntai

ned

in t

his

doc

umen

t is

bel

ieve

d t

o b

e ac

cura

te.

No

resp

onsi

bili

ty o

r lia

bili

ty is

acc

epte

d in

res

pec

t of

thi

s in

form

atio

n an

d t

hose

non

-exc

lud

able

con

diti

ons

imp

lied

by

any

Fed

eral

or

Sta

te le

gisl

atio

n or

law

of

a Te

rrito

ry. ®

Reg

iste

red

tra

dem

ark

of a

Syn

gent

a G

roup

Com

pan

y. ™

Trad

emar

k of

a S

ynge

nta

Gro

up C

omp

any.

A

D14

/016

WH

AT

HA

PP

EN

S B

ELO

W T

HE

G

RO

UN

D IS

JU

ST

AS

IMP

OR

TAN

T

AS

WH

AT

HA

PP

EN

S A

BO

VE.

Ass

oci

atio

n o

f se

ed t

reat

men

ts a

nd y

ield

in c

om

par

iso

n w

ith u

ntre

ated

in a

low

yie

ldin

g e

nviro

nmen

t –

Mal

lee,

Vic

201

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8 1 1.2

1.4

Yield (T/ha)

Unt

reat

edD

IVID

EN

D (2

.6 L

/T)

VIB

RA

NC

E (3

.6 L

/T)

* S

igni

�can

t (P

<0.

05) y

ield

ad

vant

age

vs u

ntre

ated

. (M

alle

e V

ic, P

erac

to 2

010)

Yie

ld

Ad

vant

age*

vs

unt

reat

ed

17%

VIB

RA

NC

E® -

the

new

sta

ndar

d in

Rhizoctonia

and

Pythium

co

ntro

l•

The

only

see

d t

reat

men

t w

ith p

rote

ctio

n ag

ains

t R

hizo

cton

ia

and

Pyt

hium

in w

heat

, bar

ley,

oat

s an

d t

ritic

ale

• C

ontr

ol o

f loo

se s

mut

, bun

ts, fl

ag s

mut

and

See

d B

orne

Net

Blo

tch

• 3

mod

es o

f act

ion

givi

ng b

road

sp

ectr

um o

f pro

tect

ion

• R

obus

t R

hizo

cton

ia p

erfo

rman

ce

• P

ythi

um R

oot

Rot

con

trol

• E

nhan

ced

vig

our

thro

ugh

good

roo

t he

alth

for

bet

ter

crop

per

form

ance

• Y

ield

ad

vant

age

in c

omp

aris

on w

ith s

tand

ard

see

d t

reat

men

ts

in h

igh

and

low

yie

ld e

nviro

nmen

ts

Co

ntro

l

Sup

pre

ssio

n

No

t R

egis

tere

d

Pro

duc

t b

enefi

tP

rod

uct

feat

ures

Vib

ranc

eE

verg

ol

Pri

me

Valu

eY

ield

Saf

ety

Cro

p S

afet

y

Est

ablis

hmen

t

root

dis

ease

s

Pyt

hium

Rhi

zoct

onia

See

d b

orne

d

isea

ses

Bun

t

Loos

e S

mut

Flag

Sm

ut#

*#

*N

et B

lotc

h

# S

eed

bor

ne

* S

oil b

orne

AD

14-0

16_V

ibra

nce_

A4_

GR

DC

_Upd

ate_

2014

0114

B.in

dd

11/

17/2

014

12:

14:5

5 P

M

Give’em the sucker punch!

®™ Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) or an affiliated company of Dow.

For more information call 1800 700 096www.dowagrosciences.com.au

• Outstanding aphid control

• Approved for use in canola and all winter cereals

• Effective across a wide range of temperatures

• New Mode of Action (Group 4C)

® ™ Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) or an affiliated company of Dow

- Uptake Spraying Oil is a proprietary blend that offers superior performance with regard to crop safety, tank mix compatibility, and herbicide performance

- Research and Development continues to expand Uptake Spraying Oil’s uses

- Uptake Spraying Oil’s effective, recommended use rate is 0.5% versus 1% rate of other oils

- There are NO copies of Uptake Spraying Oil on the market

ENGINEERED FOR MAXIMUMPERFORMANCE

www.grdc.com.au

If you have an iPhone or iPad:

• gotoiTunesandsearchfor‘GRDC’ and/orgotothePodcastapp

• subscribetotheprograms youwanttohear;and

• theprogramswillautomatically downloadtoyourphoneortablet astheybecomeavailable.

Forotherdevices:

• gotowww.grdc.com.au/podcasts;

• clickontheprogramyouwouldlike tohear;and

• followdirectionsforsubscribing tothepodcastofyourchoice.

Did you know that the GRDC has a suite of audio programs to keep growers up to date with RD&E, locally and across the country.

GRDC on air

GROUND COVER RADIO Anaudioversionofthe mainstoriesfromthecurrentissueofGRDC’sbimonthlyGroundCovermagazine.

DRIVING AGRONOMY WeeklyinterviewscoveringnationallysignificantresearchprojectswithAustralia’sleadinggrainsindustryscientistsandadvisers.

GRDC RADIO UPDATES Weeklyregionalaudioprogramsthatbringresearchdowntothelocallevelandincludelocalgrainsnews,informationandevents.

NowintheGRDCaudiolibraryare:

GrainsResearchand DevelopmentCorporation Level1,TourismHouse|40BlackallStreet,BartonACT2600 POBox5367,KingstonACT2604T+61261664500|F+61261664599 [email protected]

ListentotheprogramsontheGRDCwebsiteorasapodcastdownloadedontoadevicesuchassmartphoneorMP3player.

Bellata 2397 Coolah 2843 Merriwa 2329 Mullaley 2379 North Star 2408 SoMertoN 2340 SpriNg ridge 2343 taMworth 2340 welliNgtoN 2820 woNgarBoN 2831 Bullarah 2400 CooNaMBle 2829 gilgaNdra 2827 gooNuMBla 2870 NyNgaN 2825 parkeS 2870 traNgie 2823 tullooNa 2400 walgett 2832

ariah park 2665 Boorowa 2586 BroCkleSBy 2642 CaNowiNdra 2804 CootaMuNdra 2590 Cowra 2794 Cudal 2864 CuMNoCk 2867 galoNg 2585 gerogery 2642 greNfell 2810 hardeN 2587 heNty 2658 QuaNdialla 2721 teMora 2666 wagga wagga 2650 BalraNald 2715 BeCkoM 2665 Boree Creek 2652 ColeaMBally 2707 CoNdoBoliN 2877 loCkhart 2656 MayruNg 2710 Merriwagga 2652 oaklaNdS 2646 willBriggie 2680 Biloela 4715 Capella 4723 duariNga 4712 kilCuMMiN 4721

SpriNgSure 4722 BrookStead 4364 JoNdaryaN 4401 kiNgSthorpe 4400 MaCaliSter 4406 BuNguNya 4494 dulaCCa 4425 luNdavra 4390 MeaNdarra 4422 MuNgiNdi 2406 NiNdigully 4497 weStMar 4422 CoCkaleeChie 5631 CuMMiNS 5631 greeNpatCh 5607 Mt hope 5607 rudall 5642 uNgarra 5607 waNilla 5607

wharMiNda 5603 yeelaNNa 5632 CryStal Brook 5523 laura 5480 MiNtaro 5415 rivertoN 5412 SalterS SpriNgS 5401 SpaldiNg 5454 tarlee 5411 turretfield 5411 Cooke plaiNS 5261 geraNiuM 5301 laMeroo 5302 NaNgari 5333 palMer 5237 paruNa 5311 piNNaroo 5304 waikerie 5330 waNBi 5310 wuNkar 5311

BordertowN 5268 CoNMurra 5272 fraNCeS 5262 keith 5267 Moyhall 5271 MuNdulla 5270 Sherwood 5267 wolSeley 5269 darke peak 5642 elliStoN 5670 kiMBa 5641 loCk 5633 MiNNipa 5654 MitChellville 5602 NuNJikoMpita 5680 peNoNg 5690 piedNippie 5680 Streaky Bay 5680 tooligie 5607 warraMBoo 5650

arthurtoN 5572 BreNtwood 5575 Bute 5560 MaitlaNd 5573 MiNlatoN 5575 paSkeville 5552 port CliNtoN 5570 uraNia 5573 warooka 5577 willaMulka 5554 wokurNa 5520 CreSSy 7302 BirChip 3483 hopetouN 3396 MaNaNgataNg 3546 MerriNee 3496 Murrayville 3512 QuaMBatook 3540 raiNBow 3424 ultiMa 3544

walpeup 3507 BalliaNg 3340 CharltoN 3525 ColBiNaBBiN 3559 diggora 3561 eaStville 3463 MitiaMo 3573 dookie 3646 ruthergleN 3685 wuNghNu 3635 yarrawoNga 3730 haMiltoN 3300 StreathaM 3351 teeSdale 3328 BriM 3391 CoraCk 3480 horShaM 3400 kaNiva 3419 MiNyip 3392 tarraNyurk 3414

woNwoNdah 3401 BadgiNgarra 6521 CarNaMah 6517 eradu 6532 MiNgeNew 6522 Morawa 6623 NaBawa 6532 ogilvie 6535 walkaway 6528 BadgiNgarra 6521 Beverley 6304 BiNNu 6532 BuNtiNe 6613 CaliNgiri 6569 Coorow 6515 CorrigiN 6375 CuNderdiN 6407 eNeaBBa 6518 eradu 6532 gooMalliNg 6460

kataNNiNg 6317 kuliN 6365 MiliNg 6575 MiNgeNew 6522 NareMBeeN 6369 piNgelly 6308 wagiN 6315 wiCkepiN 6370 woNgaN hillS 6603 woNgaN hillS r.S. 6603 arthur river 6315 Coorow 6515 fraNklaNd 6396 gNowaNgerup 6335 keNdeNup 6323 koJoNup 6395 Mt. Barker 6324 Mullewa 6630 NarrogiN 6312

NyaBiNg 6341 piNgrup 6343 toodyay 6566 williaMS 6391 york 6302 arthur river 6315 BeNCuBBiN 6477 Cadoux 6466 dalwalliNu 6609 kataNNiNg 6317 kellerBerriN 6410 MerrediN 6415 MooriNe roCk 6425 MukiNBudiN 6479 Mullewa 6630 piNgelly 6308 pithara 6608 wyalkatCheM 6485 yuNa 6532

graSS patCh 6446 holt roCk 6355 hydeN 6359 JerraMuNgup 6337 lake graCe 6353 Mt. MaddeN 6356 SalMoN guMS 6445 SCaddaN 6447 witteNooM hillS 6447 woNgaN hillS 6603 eSperaNCe 6450 giBSoN 6448 MuNgliNup 6450 Newdegate 6355 hydeN 6359 MerrediN 6415 eSperaNCe 6450

www.nvtonline.com.au

We’ve done the track Work for you

your variety form guide

NVT.A4ad_Sep13.indd 1 25/09/13 4:25 PM

storedgrain.com.au

Get the latest stored grain information online

www.grdc.com.au www.storedgrain.com.au 02 6166 4500

Booklets and fact sheets on all things grain storage

´ Economics of on-farm storage

´ Grain storage hygiene

´ Aeration cooling or drying

´ Managing high moisture

´ Fumigation

´ Insect pest management

´ Managing different storages

´ Storage facility design

´ Storing pulses and oilseeds

Workshops in all regions covering topics such as:

´ Peter Botta [email protected] 0417 501 890

Contact your regional specialist to arrange a workshop

SOUTHERN REGION


VictoriaWednesday 5th and Thursday 6th

February 2014Ballarat Lodge, 613 Main Road, Ballarat

Share knowledge – accelerate adoptionPremier partners

Major sponsors

Welcome to Day 2


S u p p o r t e r s

Supporting the Australian Grains Industry through the

Grains Research Updates • VIC 5th & 6th February 2014 Ballarat • NSW 11th & 12th February 2014 Temora • SA 25th & 26th February 2014 Adelaide

* Networking time - refreshments -

GRDC 2014

RESEARCH PARTNER TO THE AUSTRALIAN GRAINS INDUSTRY

The GRDC plans, invests in and oversees research and development to benefit

Australian graingrowers.

Find us at www.grdc.com.au

Premier partners

Major sponsors


C o n t e n t sDAY 2THEME – Share knowledge – accelerate adoption

CONCURRENT SESSIONS Brown manure as a farm risk strategy – a whole farm experience Robert Patterson, 153 Rural Management Strategies Pty Ltd

Cereal diseases 2014 Grant Hollaway, DEPI, Vic 163

Novel summer crop options in the southern HRZ – thinking Annieka Paridaen, SFS 171 outside the square with Summer crops and pushing the limits with spring sown winter canola in 2013

Testing novel rotation options in the North Damian Jones, Agresults 177

The economics of subsoil manuring – the numbers are out Peter Sale, La Trobe University 181

Maximising the nitrogen benefits of rhizobial inoculation Maarten Ryder, University of Adelaide 187

Getting nitrogen (N) into the crop efficiently and effectively Rob Norton, IPNI 193

Is social media working for you? Prudence Cook, DEPI, Vic 199

Feeding the dragon – modernisation of China’s food industry Simone Tilley, ANZ 203

Wheat and barley variety summary for the low-medium Simon Craig, BCG 205 rainfall zones

Wheat, canola and barley outlook Malcolm Bartholomaeus, 215 Bartholomaeus Consulting

FINAL SESSIONFrost damage in crops – where to from here? Dale Grey, Department 227 of Environment and Primary Industries

Maintaining market access – the role of the adviser Steve Field, DEPI Vic 237

Non-herbicide weed control - not as sexy as a new herbicide Peter Newman, AHRI 239 but really important

Evaluation 248


Thursday 6th February – Day 2


9.00am

9.40am

10.15pm Morning tea

10.50am

Brown manuring as a farm risk strategy (R) - P153Robert Patterson, Rural Management Strategies

Spots, blots and rots - cereal diseases - P163Grant Hollaway, DEPI Vic

Getting nitrogen into the crop efficiently and effectively (R) - P193Rob Norton, IPNI

Spots, blots and rots - cereal diseases (R) - P163Grant Hollaway, DEPI Vic

Brown manuring as a farm risk strategy - P153Robert Patterson, Rural Management Strategies

Is social media working for you? (R) - P199Pru Cook, DEPI Vic and Gavin Beever, ORM

Novel summer rotation options for the North and the South (R) - P171 & P177 Damian Jones and Annieka Paridaen, SFS

The economics of sub-soil manuring - the numbers are in (R) - P181Peter Sale, LaTrobe University

Novel summer rotation options for the North and the South - P171 & P177Damian Jones and Annieka Paridaen, SFS

Backchat session withSteve Larocque, Beyond Agronomy

Maximising the nitrogen benefits of rhizobial inoculation (R - P187Maarten Ryder, University of Adelaide

Feeding the dragon - modernisation of China’s food industry - P203Simone Tilley, ANZ

CONCURRENT SESSIONS


VICTORIA




11.30am

12.10pm

12.40pm Lunch

1.35pm Frost - where to from here? - P227 Dale Grey, DEPI Vic

2.05pm Maintaining market access - the role of the adviser - P237 Steve Field, DEPI Vic

2.25pm Non herbicide weed management - achieving adoption with Peter Newman, AHRI your clients - P239


Wheat and barley variety management review - low and medium rainfall zone (R) - P205Simon Craig, BCG

Wheat and barley variety management review - low and medium rainfall zone - P205 Simon Craig, BCG

Getting nitrogen into the crop efficiently and effectively - P193Rob Norton, IPNI

Maximising the nitrogen benefits of rhizobial inoculation - P187Maarten Ryder, University of Adelaide

The economics of sub-soil manuring - the numbers are in - P181Peter Sale, LaTrobe University

Is social media working for you? - P199Pru Cook, DEPI Vic and Gavin Beever, ORM

Grain market update (R) - P215Malcolm Bartholomaeus, Bartholomaeus Consulting

Grain market update - P215Malcolm Bartholomaeus, Bartholomaeus Consulting

Premier partners

Major sponsors

CONCURRENT SESSIONS




Winter Cereal Nutrition App

www.grdc.com.au

It covers both nutrient deficiencies and toxicities and environmental, chemical and physiological disorders which can give similar symptoms to nutrient disorders.

The app contains prominent images, detailed descriptions of the issue and its contributing factors.

Application features:

• Predictivesearchtopicsfordisorders

• Enablesusertocomparephotosofdifferent nutritional disorders side-by-side for correct disorder identification

• Opttodownloadcontentupdatescontaining the latest research on nutritional disorders for winter cereals

• Receivenotificationsofwintercereal newsfromGRDC

Visit www.grdc.com.au/apps for GRDC’sfullsuiteofapps

GrainsResearchandDevelopmentCorporation Level1,TourismHouse|40BlackallStreet,BartonACT2600 POBox5367,KingstonACT2604T+61261664500|F+61261664599 E [email protected]

Winter Cereal Nutrition: The Ute Guide is designed to assist growers to easily identify cereal nutritional disorders.


V i c t o r i a

ConcurrentSessions


Brown manure as a farm risk strategy – a whole farm perspectiveRobert A Patterson,Rural Management Strategies Pty Limited

BackgroundMany farmers in southern NSW, particularly younger ones, have switched from a traditional mixed farming system to a more intensive farming system involving no livestock at all. While these decisions may have been rationalised or justified on the basis of dubious economics, or the notion that sheep are nasty for soil structure and incompatible with cropping, the reality is that many of these decisions have been made for reasons of personal choice or lifestyle.

However, it is acknowledged that not many farmers excel at managing both crop and livestock production systems, as compromises do exist and have to be managed on mixed farms. Therefore the adoption of a production system where only crops have to be managed, can be rationalised on the basis that a manager is likely to perform better in an area in which he or she specialises and prefers.

The benefits of crop rotations, especially crop sequences where wheat follows broadleaf crops such as grain legumes or oilseeds is widely known and acknowledged. So also are the benefits of lucerne to livestock production (especially sheep) and subsequent crops.

However, during the relatively dry decade of the recent past, the benefits of lucerne to subsequent crop production have been challenged by many farmers, due to failures of pasture establishment under cereal crops in dry springs, plus poor crop performance following lucerne where recharge of soil moisture has not occurred prior to cropping.

Keywordswheat, canola, barley, field peas, brown manure legumes, continuous cropping, Available Moisture, Water Use Efficiency, EBIT, production risk, financial risk

Take home messages• Farmersarefacedwithhighlyvariable

crop yields from one year to the next, with the overall trend in yields down, due primarily to decreasing Growing Season Rainfall and Available Moisture.

• Thequantityandcostofkeycropinputsused in continuous cropping, particularly herbicides and Nitrogen fertiliser, is increasing in spite of decreasing yields.

• Theproductionandfinancialriskprofileof continuous cropping farm businesses is increasing, due to crop yields trending down, coupled with costs of production steadily increasing.

• Acropproductionsysteminvolvingbrown manure legumes, can be as profitable as continuous cropping, but even if slightly less profitable, has considerably less production and financial risk due to lower input and operating costs.


Continuous cropping would appear to be free of these negative impacts of lucerne, but obviously also fails to benefit from the positive aspects of lucerne.

Due to changes in traditional markets for lupins and field peas in southern NSW, there is only a very limited scope for using grain legume cash crops in rotation on any significant scale, which leaves canola as the only viable cash break crop. This has resulted in crop sequences of CWCW or CWW being adopted.

These sequences however, require increasing quantities of artificial Nitrogen, in an attempt to maintain yields and grain protein, while weed control, particularly that of annual ryegrass and wild oats, has become more problematic with increasing incidences of herbicide resistance occurring. Full stubble retention and the adoption of wide row spacing have also presented challenges for controlling grass weeds, through less efficacy of many pre-emergents due to stubble absorption, and less crop competition for weeds, depending on crop type and variety.

The author has serious doubts as to whether these continuous cropping sequences involving only canola and wheat, are sustainable in the medium or long term.

Therefore brown manure legume crops, comprising of field peas and vetch, are being adopted into cropping systems to address the shortcomings of continuous cropping, particularly with regards to Nitrogen input and herbicide resistance.

Rainfall and crop yieldsThe average annual wheat yields from a typical North Eastern Riverina farm in southern NSW, for the period 1986/87 to 2013/14 are presented in Figure 1. The average wheat yield for this period is 3.19 t/ha and the median is 3.37 t/ha, but the trend line slopes down, depicting lower yields over time, coupled with significant variation from year to year. Canola yields for this farm show a similar trend and volatility, with average yields for the same period being 1.46 t/ha (46% of wheat) and median yields being 1.58 t/ha (47% of wheat).

Figure 1. Average wheat yields 1986/87 – 2012/13 (NE Riverina farm).


The volatility and trend in wheat and canola yields is largely explained by decreasing Growing Season Rainfall and Available Moisture (30% November to March rainfall plus April to October rainfall less 110 mm).

The very close relationship between average wheat yields and Available Moisture which averaged 296 mm for the period, is shown in Figure 2.

The downward slope for both Growing Season Rainfall and Available Moisture is very similar, but steeper than the downward slope of the farm’s annual average wheat yields, depicting a slight increase in Water Use Efficiency over this time period. The Water Use Efficiency calculation for wheat based on Available Moisture, expressed as kg/mm is illustrated in Figure 3

Figure 2. Available moisture versus wheat yield, 1986/87 – 2012/13 (NE Riverina farm).

Figure 3. Average WUE 1986/97 – 2012/13 (NE Riverina farm).


Brown manure legume cropsBrown manure cropping has involved growing a grain legume crop with minimal inputs in terms of fertiliser and herbicides, with the aim of achieving maximum dry matter production before the major weed species being targeted, such as annual ryegrass or wild oats, have set viable seed. The grain legume crop is sprayed with a knockdown herbicide before seed set to kill both the crop and weeds, ideally no later than the initiation of pod development of the crop, to also conserve soil moisture. A second knockdown herbicide application is generally made to achieve a “Double Knock”. This is in contrast to green manure where both the crop and weeds are killed by cultivation.

Vetch is a common brown manure crop, but the author has favoured early sown field peas, due to their greater competiveness with weeds and potentially greater dry matter production. Higher dry matter production should lead to higher Nitrogen accumulation, while more stubble cover provides shading to reduce evaporation and sunlight available to germinating weeds.

Brown manure legume crops provide three major benefits over long fallowing. These benefits are; competition for weeds (reducing the application of knockdown herbicides during the growing season), accumulation of soil Nitrogen and the maintenance of ground cover both during the growing season and over the summer preceding the next crop. This brown manure crop residue should reduce soil surface evaporation and reduce wind erosion, but also provide a better environment for germinating weeds over the summer.

The major disadvantage of brown manure crops compared with long fallowing is the cost of the grain legume seed ($30-$35/ha), plus the cost of sowing, which is low in the overall scheme of things. Fertiliser is not usually applied at sowing unless soil Phosphorus levels are low, as grain legumes are relatively non-responsive to Phosphorus if sown early. Also, no nutrients are exported from the paddock in that year.

Crop sequencesGrain legume crops such as lupins in southern NSW have traditionally been followed by wheat, which responds well in terms of both yield and grain protein, due to the freedom from root diseases and high soil Nitrogen levels. However in dry springs, many of these wheat crops “blow up”, due to high early dry matter production depleting soil moisture, resulting in reduced wheat yields, high protein but grain with high screenings.

The author has observed severe take-all in early sown wheat crops (mid to late April) sown on well managed canola, lupin and field pea stubbles, where successive wet winters and springs during the 1990’s were favourable for the build-up of the take-all fungus. This occurred especially where liming had taken place recently and crops were direct drilled. Severe crown rot has also been observed in wheat sown after well managed | canola crops.

One year’s control of wild oats in a break crop, does not appear to give sufficient control to the extent that control measures are unnecessary in the following wheat crop.

Given the desire to establish canola early with stored soil moisture and adequate Nitrogen to optimise yield potential, canola is now being grown after brown manure crops. This enables almost complete prevention of wild oat seed set in two successive years, which depletes the seed bank significantly to the extent that control measures may not be necessary in the following two cereal crops. This has significant cost savings and reduced risk of crop damage from post-emergent wild oat herbicides.

The two year broadleaf crop sequence of brown manure legume followed by canola is also predicted to provide control of crown rot, which a one year break does not. Reduction of take-all levels under high disease pressure weather conditions, should also be adequate to allow early (mid April) sowing of the first wheat crop with little root disease risk. The ability to sow early with confidence (subject to


variety), is expected to lead to higher wheat yield potential.

The incidence of yellow leaf spot in wheat crops has also been observed to be substantially less following two sequential broadleaf crops.

A common crop sequence being adopted is brown manure legume, followed by canola, wheat and feed barley. While field peas have generally been the first brown manure crop grown, vetch is being adopted in the second sequence, to minimise disease experienced with only a three year break between pea crops.

EconomicsAn economic analysis of two farming systems conducted in southern NSW with a 450 mm annual rainfall is presented below. The two farming systems analysed were:

1. Continuous cropping of wheat and canola only.

2. Continuous cropping, but including brown manure field peas grown on 25% of the arable area.

The economic analysis is based on a 1,680 hectare property in Southern NSW, which is 95% arable (1,600 hectares) and run by two family labour units performing most of the operations themselves. The data used is drawn from actual farm results and figures from clients of the author.

The assumptions used for each of the two production systems are presented in Table 1.

Farm data from properties which have adopted brown manure peas, have shown

25 – 30% yield increases for both canola and wheat crops grown in the two years following brown manure pea crops. Wheat crops grown either after PC or PW have also shown elevated grain protein levels.

The analysis conservatively assumes a 20% increase in yield above average in the first two crops following brown manure peas. Wheat prices have been adjusted to reflect protein levels.

Table 2 shows the estimated capital required for each of the farming systems. The difference in plant investment is due to a larger header and bins

Table 1. Assumptions used – 1,600 ha arable (95%) farm

Continuous Crop Brown Manure Peas

Crop Sequence CWW PCWB

Crop Area 1,600 ha 1,600 ha

Key C – canola W – wheat B – feed barley P – field peas

Average Crop Yields

Canola 1.35 t/ha 1.62 t/ha

Wheat 3.00 t/ha 3.60 t/ha

Feed Barley 3.60 t/ha

Average Price Received (net at local silo)

Canola $450/t $450/t

Wheat $220/t $235/t

Feed Barley $170/t

Family Labour Units 2 2

Family Labour Allowance $100,000 $100,000


being required for the continuous cropping system, due to the greater area and tonnage to harvest in a given time. The working capital requirement of the continuous cropping system is higher than the brown manure peas system, due to the larger area of cash crop requiring higher inputs in terms of herbicides, fungicides and artificial Nitrogen.

The amount of working capital required is a measure of the degree of risk of the system, as while there is almost a guarantee that costs of continuous cropping will be higher, there is no guarantee that gross income will be higher. This results in the potential for a greater loss to occur in that year if seasonal conditions are unfavourable, leading to the potential for this additional working capital to be capitalised into long term debt.

The brown manure system is considered to be relatively robust and low risk in drier seasons, as there is less potential to spend money on crop inputs, in the desire to achieve elusive higher crop yields.

The annual trading results measured by EBIT (Earnings before Interest and Tax) and three key financial ratios are shown in Table 3.

EBIT is a measure of profitability after allowances for plant replacement and family labour.

It is seen that based on the assumptions used, predicted EBIT from continuous cropping is slightly higher than that from the brown manure legume system. There is little difference between the financial ratios, except that while the gross income and EBIT from continuous cropping is higher, it

Table 2. Capital required for business


Land 1,680 ha @ $3,211/ha

(4,150 acres @ $1,300/acre) $5,394,480 $5,394,480

Plant & Vehicles $ 950,000 $ 900,000

Working Capital $ 535,000 $ 420,000

Total Capital Required $6,879,480 $6,714,480

Table 3. Annual trading results and financial ratios ($pa)


Trading Income $1,028,220 $874,800

Operating Costs – Variable $ 469,656 $339,716

– Fixed $ 271,600 $264,100

Total Operating Costs $ 741,256 $603,816

EBIT (Earnings Before Interest & Tax) $ 286,964 $270,984

Sales to Assets (Sales/Assets) 15% 13%

EBIT Margin (EBIT/Sales) 28% 31%

Return on Assets (EBIT/Assets) 4.2% 4.0%


has the lower EBIT Margin, due to its higher costs relative to income. This lower EBIT Margin suggests a higher degree of risk associated with this system.

The results of the comparison are very sensitive to the price of Nitrogen fertiliser, which is relatively cheap at present. A $100/tonne increase in the price of Urea, increases costs in continuous cropping by

$19,200 pa compared to $5,200 in the brown manure legume system. This would bring the respective EBITs within $2,000 of each other.

Table 4 presents the annual cash receipts and payments for the two farming systems at average

crop yields, based on current fertiliser prices.

It is seen that based on the assumptions used, the annual cash surplus from continuous cropping is slightly higher than that from the brown manure legume system. However to achieve a higher cash surplus of $6,653, the outlay prior to harvest to produce the crops, is $115,000 more for the continuous cropping system.

The annual cash receipts and payments for the two farming systems at one third (33%) of average yields, due to very low spring rainfall and/or late frost after all crop inputs have been used, are shown in Table 5.

Table 4. Annual cast receipts and payments assuming average crop yields


Cash Receipts $1,028,220 $874,800

Cash Payments $ 853,381 $706,614

Cash Surplus $ 174,839 $168,186

Working Capital $ 535,000 $420,000

Table 5. Annual cash receipts and payments assuming crop yields 33% of average


Crop Yields

Canola 0.45 t/ha 0.54 t/ha

Wheat 1.00 t/ha 1.20 t/ha

Feed Barley 1.20 t/ha

Average Price Received (net at local silo)

Canola $600/t $600/t

Wheat $300/t $315/t

Feed Barley $230/t

Cash Receipts $464,100 $391,200

Cash Payments $815,368 $670,538

Cash Deficit – $351, 268 – $279,338

Working Capital Year 1 $535,000 $420,000

Potential Working Capital Year 2 $886,268 $699,338


Table 5 shows that based on the given assumptions, the annual cash deficit from continuous cropping is substantially greater ($71,930) than that from the brown manure legume system.

While there may be some savings in crop establishment costs in the second year after the adverse weather event depicted in Table 5, the savings are likely to be similar in both systems. Assuming no significant savings, it is seen that the potential working capital requirement in the second year, are around $187,000 more for continuous cropping compared with the brown manure legume system. When interest is added, the difference is close to $200,000, depicting the much higher downside financial risk of continuous cropping in years with dry springs and/or late frosts.

ConclusionVolatile and lower Available Moisture, coupled with an increasing reliance on artificial Nitrogen fertiliser and selective herbicides in continuous cropping systems, has increased the risk profile of those businesses significantly.

Actual farm data from recent years, suggests that a crop production system comprising brown manure legumes, canola, wheat and barley, can be as profitable as continuous cropping, but with less production and financial risk. The brown manure legume system is considered to be more resilient in dry years, plus more sustainable due to the reduced reliance on selective herbicides for weed control and artificial Nitrogen for crop nutrition.

For those producers who prefer not to engage in mixed farming involving livestock, it appears that a brown manure legume system can produce acceptable financial results, with a relatively lower risk profile compared to continuous cropping.

Generally, simple but technically sound systems have less risk and perform better financially, than more complex systems.

Contact detailsRobert A Patterson

Rural Management Strategies Pty Limited

PO Box 472, COOTAMUNDRA NSW 2590

02 6942 3666

[email protected]


Cereal Diseases 2014Grant Hollaway1, Mark McLean1, Andrew Milgate2 and William Cuddy3,1Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Horsham, 2New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Wagga Wagga; 3NSW Department of Primary Industries, Menangle and Plant Breeding Institute, University of Sydney, Cobbitty.

GRDC project codes: DAV00129, DAQ00187, DAN00175, DAN00177, US00067

2013 in reviewThe dry start to the 2013 season, followed by a wet winter and early spring favoured stubble borne diseases (e.g yellow leaf spot and spot form of net blotch), but not rusts or mildews which require summer volunteers for inoculum carry over. Yellow leaf spot was the main wheat disease in the Wimmera and Mallee, while Septoria was common in the Western District. Spot form of net blotch (SFNB) was the dominant foliar disease of barley, causing yield and quality losses where susceptible varieties were grown in infected stubble and left untreated. Barley scald was important during September in the Wimmera, while the net form of net blotch was present where susceptible varieties were grown.

Crown rot, during 2013, caused whiteheads in Mallee wheat crops which experienced a dry finish to the season. There were also reports of other root diseases (i.e. Take-all, CCN and Rhizoctonia).

Stripe rust: a new strain of importance in Victoria

Rust pressure during 2014 will be low due to the dry conditions during spring and early summer, and the low levels of rust present during 2013. However, growers must still have a plan to manage cereal rusts, particularly in susceptible varieties, as levels can increase quickly if suitable conditions occur. This is especially important for growers of MaceA, which is rated as susceptible to very susceptible (SVS) to stripe rust and requires preventative control in all seasons due to its high susceptibility.

Keywordscereal diseases, stripe rust, septoria tritici blotch, yellow leaf spot, net form of net blotch, scald, fungicides

Take home messages• Stubblebornediseases,suchasyellow

leaf spot in wheat and spot form of net blotch, and scald and net form of net blotch in barley will need management during 2014 following ideal conditions for inoculum build up during 2013.

• Whenpossibleavoidgrowingsusceptiblevarieties and planting into infected stubble from the same crop.

• Iffungicidesarerequired,makesurethey are applied in the early stages of the epidemic.

• Septoriatriticiblotchhasincreasedinimportance in high rainfall areas and fungicide strategies will require careful attention to minimise the chances of further resistance developing.

• Rootdiseaselevelshavebeenincreasingand a soil test (Predicta B) taken pre-sowing may be useful to identify paddocks at risk of loss.


The speed at which stripe rust can develop in MaceA, relative to some other varieties, is shown in Figure 1. In this field example within a period of only 14 days the leaf area affected by stripe rust increased from less than 1% (7 Oct) to 55% (21 Oct). In less than a week the leaf area affected by stripe rust in MaceA increased from 16% (18 Oct) to 70% (24 Oct). Proactive management with fungicides is essential, for highly susceptible varieties, even in seasons not conducive to rust development. The slower development of stripe rust in the more resistant varieties is also shown in Figure 1.

During 2013, there were reports of a stripe rust strain of the ‘WA’ pathotype that is relatively new to Victoria. This strain, designated as pathotype 134 E16 A+17+27+, is a single-step mutational derivative of the dominant wheat stripe rust pathotype 134 E16 A+17+. This newer strain has virulence on both the Yr17 and Yr27 resistance

genes. Even though this strain was first observed in NSW during 2010, it was not detected in Victoria until 2012. In 2013 it was detected in the Wimmera and Western District. During 2012 and 2013 this strain was also detected near Albury and Rand in southern NSW, suggesting that the strain is likely to be present in north east Victoria.

The occurrence of this strain has implications for the varieties that have Yr27 resistance, which includes LivingstonA, MerindaA, GBA RubyA and WaaganA which are rated as MRMS, MRMS, MSS and S, respectively, to this strain. This strain of stripe rust will still attack wheat varieties without the Yr27 resistance gene, similarly to the older ‘WA’ strains (134 E16 A+, 134 E16 A+17+, 134 E16 A+J+, 134 E16 A+J+T+); their stripe rust ratings however, remain unchanged. It is likely that this strain will continue to increase in importance in the coming years.

Figure 1. Progression of stripe rust in 6 wheat cultivars with different stripe rust susceptibility at Horsham during 2013 (Data collected by Joshua Fanning, DEPI Horsham).


Since new rust strains can and will develop, it is always important to consult a current disease guide before choosing varieties each year. As an example, in 2013 the Australian Cereal Rust Survey at the Plant Breeding Institute, Cobbitty, identified one new pathotype of wheat leaf rust in northern NSW as well as a new pathotype of barley leaf rust in WA. Always send samples of any rusts encountered to the Australian Cereal Rust Survey. Samples should be collected before fungicides are applied.

Pressure from rust diseases and the likelihood of yield loss can be reduced by avoiding susceptible varieties in the cropping system. Growing resistant varieties makes rusts easier to control during the growing season, reduces the carry-over of inoculum from one season to the next and reduces the likelihood of resistance breakdown. To control rust, growers should aim to remove volunteer cereals by late-March, avoid growing rust susceptible varieties, apply fungicides on seed or fertiliser prior to sowing, and monitor crops with a view to timely fungicide sprays if necessary.

Septoria tritici blotch (STB) an important disease for high rainfall wheatSeptoria tritici blotch (STB), is an important stubble borne foliar disease of wheat in Victoria. This disease has increased in importance in the high rainfall cropping regions during the last five years, even though it has been well controlled in Victoria for the last 30 years through the use of partially resistant wheat varieties. The increase in STB in the high rainfall zone has been favoured by stubble retention, intensive wheat production, susceptible cultivars and favourable disease conditions.

Septoria tritici blotch causes red-brown coloured lesions which can sometimes be silver grey on more susceptible varieties. The lesions tend to run parallel to the leaf veins with straight sides. Black fruiting bodies (pycnidia) are usually visible within the dead leaf tissue. Disease development is favoured by extended cool and moist conditions.

Septoria tritici blotch control

An integrated approach that incorporates crop rotation/stubble management, variety selection and fungicides can provide effective suppression of STB.

Since STB is primarily a stubble borne disease, both crop rotation and stubble management contribute to disease control. In most instances, a one-year rotation out of wheat is highly effective in reducing early disease occurrence, but during dry seasons a two season break may be required. Any tillage practice that reduces stubble density on the surface (such as burial, burning or grazing) will reduce inoculum levels; but these practices need to balanced against the increased risk of soil erosion, especially in light soils. Stubble management will not reduce disease caused by spores blown in from other fields during the growing season.

Avoiding susceptible and very susceptible (ratings of S, SVS or VS) varieties is an effective strategy to reduce in-crop disease severity and historically has provided long term disease control. Since STB is a pathogenically diverse pathogen (i.e. there are many strains that differ in their ability to attack a given variety), and resistance breakdown is known to occur, it is important to consult a current disease guide each season.

Fungicides can contribute to STB control, especially during seasons with persistent wet conditions. In high risk areas, the timing of fungicides will be important to achieve adequate disease control. In early sown susceptible varieties, if infection establishes during the autumn, an early fungicide application at growth stage 31-32 may be required to suppress the disease and protect emerging leaves. Once the flag leaf has fully emerged at GS39, another fungicide application may be required to protect the upper canopy. Since STB is prone to developing resistance to fungicides it is important that fungicide strategies to reduce the likelihood of resistance developing are adopted.


Managing STB resistance to fungicides

Partial resistance in STB to some azole fungicides has been detected in Australia through research conducted by New South Wales Department of Primary Industries. This is the first instance of fungicide resistance in a wheat disease in Australia. Currently the resistance may not be causing reduced spray efficacy, but a strategy to prolong fungicide effectiveness is vital. The two mutations identified affect the efficacy of a number of azole fungicides (Group 3) commonly used in Australia such as; triadimfon, triadimenol, tebuconazole, propiconazole and epoxiconazole (which is not registered for control of STB in Australia).

These mutations reduce the effectiveness of these fungicides rather than making them completely ineffective. However, if the fungicides are continued to be used, further selection pressure will be applied to the pathogen and potentially new and more concerning mutations will be selected.

It is critical that growers adopt strategies to reduce the selection rate of further mutations and hence extend the useful life of currently available fungicides. To achieve this growers are encouraged to mix or alternate different azoles. This is because not all azole fungicides are affected equally by mutations of the STB fungus. Products that combine azoles such as Tilt® Xtra (Propiconazole and cyproconazole) or Impact Topguard® (tebuconazole and flutriafol) and have a registration for STB, could be used in this way. Equally, in crops where two fungicide applications are to occur (e.g. at Z31 and Z39) the same active should not be used at both applications. Growers MUST always follow label guidelines and ensure maximum residue limits are adhered to at all times.

In Australia, there are limited choices of fungicides with different modes of action for use on wheat. A number of products combine a strobilurin with an azole and these may provide some benefits in delaying or reducing the risk of resistance development. However, the strobilurins on their own are considered to be at high risk of developing resistance due to their single site mode of action. In some countries, resistance to strobilurins is so widespread in the STB population they are no longer recommended as effective control measures, even in mixtures.

In addition to mixing or rotation of fungicides an integrated approach to disease control that includes crop rotation and avoidance of susceptible cultivars will reduce inoculum loads, and therefore, reduce the likelihood of resistance to fungicides developing.

Yellow leaf spotYellow leaf spot is a stubble borne foliar disease of wheat, common when susceptible varieties are sown into infected wheat stubbles. Even though this disease is widespread, it has generally been regarded as causing limited yield loss. However, recent data collected by BCG and DEPI,Vic suggests that in the presence of yellow leaf spot inoculum the more resistant cultivars (MR and MRMS) out yielded susceptible cultivars (S and SVS) by ~ 10% and this finding was consistent with DEPI data collected previously. Likewise, field trials conducted during 2013 showed that at two sites, yellow leaf spot reduced the yield of susceptible and resistant wheat varieties by ~15 and ~4% respectively. This indicates that variety selection in a wheat on wheat situation is important to minimise losses associated with this disease. Fungicide control of this disease is often difficult.

To minimise losses due to yellow leaf spot do not sow wheat into paddocks with one or two year old wheat stubble present. If wheat is to be grown where infected stubble is present, chose a more resistant variety. Avoiding the more susceptible cultivars (e.g. those rated S and SVS) is particularly important when infected stubble is present.

Barley disease management in 2014Stubble-borne disease inoculum loads will be high in 2014 following high disease pressure during 2013 and decreased stubble breakdown during the dry summer. Spot form of net blotch (SFNB), net form of net blotch (NFNB) and scald will all need to be proactively managed, where the risk of loss is high. Avoid growing susceptible and very susceptible rated varieties if possible, as this significantly reduces the risk of grain yield and quality losses, as demonstrated with barley scald at Horsham in Table 1 (note that HindmarshA is only resistant to scald where virulent pathotypes are absent).


Barley foliar disease management using fungicidesFoliar diseases should be proactively managed where resistant varieties are not an option and disease pressure is likely to be high. Fungicide strategies need to consider the target disease. Below are findings from DEPIs 2013 experiments, each of which highlights the importance of chemical application early in the epidemic development.

Scald management

Scald can be effectively managed using fungicides. Experiments conducted at Horsham and Wonwondah during 2013 provided additional information to previous years’ studies and highlighted that the most effective fungicide strategies combined an up-front application such as a fertiliser treatment or early foliar fungicide application (~Z31) with a foliar application at around

Table 1. Scald severity and grain yield and quality loss in four barley varieties with different susceptibility to scald at Horsham during 2013

Barque SkipperA FlagshipA HindmarshAB (VS) (S) (MS) (MR#)

Scald severity (%LAA) Z55-65 11 12 5 0

Z85 24 18 13 0

Yield lossA 19% 16% 14% 0%

Grain quality reductionA Retention (>2.5mm) 17% 13% 12% 5%

Screenings (<2.2mm) 5% 4% 0% 0%

A Yield and quality loss figures are based on a comparison between untreated control plots and fungicide treatment plots which consisted of Impact Infurrow® (Flutriafol 250g/L) applied @ 400ml/ha, Prosaro® (210g/L prothioconazole 210g/L tebuconazole) applied at Z31, 39 and 55 @ 300ml/ha.

B Note that HindmarshA was resistant to the scald pathotypes present at this site, but is more susceptible to alternate strains present in Victoria.

Table 2. Effect of fungicide timings on scald development and resulting grain yield and quality in the scald susceptible barley variety Yagan at Horsham during 2013

Scald severity Grain yield Screenings RetentionTreatmentA (% leaf area affected) (t/ha) (<2.2mm) (>2.5mm) 19/9/13 (Z69) 8/10/13 (Z85)

Nil 30.4a 62.4a 3.6a 9a 67a

Baytan® 10.6b 29.6b 3.9ab 6b 76b

Prosaro® @Z31 8.5b 29.8b 4.1abc 4c 80bc

Impact® 2.3c 5.5c 4.1abc 4c 83bcd

Prosaro® @ Z39 9.3b 9.5c 4.3bcd 4c 83bcd

Impact® & Prosaro® @Z31 0.6c 2.5c 4.4bcde 4c 85cd

Impact® & Prosaro® @Z31, Z39 0.4c 0.1c 4.8de 3c 86cd

Prosaro® @ Z31 & Z39 0.9c 0c 4.8de 3c 90d

Impact® & Prosaro® @ Z39 0.7c 0.2c 4.9e 3c 89d

Impact® & Prosaro® @Z31,39, & 55 0c 0c 4.9e 3c 90d

LSD (0.05) = 6.28 11.95 0.54 1.9 9.0

P = <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

A Baytan® (150 g/L Triadimenal) applied @100ml/100kg of seed, Impact Infurrow® (Flutriafol 250g/L) applied @ 400ml/ha, Prosaro® (210g/L prothioconazole 210g/L tebuconazole) applied @ 300ml/ha


flag leaf emergence (Z39) (Table 2). A single application of foliar fungicide at either Z31 or Z39 provided significant suppression but was inferior to two treatments. Scald reduced grain yield by 26%, with this reduction being prevented through two fungicide applications.

Spot form and net form of net blotch management using fungicides

The best strategy for managing both net blotches is to avoid growing susceptible varieties (i.e those rated as S, SVS and VS) into infected stubble. However, if these options are not available then foliar fungicide application can be used to provide suppression and reduce the risk of yield and quality loss. An experiment conducted at Horsham during 2013 (Table 3), showed a yield loss of 13% due to NFNB. Within this field study, suppression of NFNB and associated benefits to grain yield and quality were achieved following foliar fungicide application at both stem elongation (Z31) and flag leaf emergence (Z39). Single applications at either

Z31 or Z39 also provided improvements relative to the untreated, but were not as effective at disease suppression as application of fungicides at two different growth stages.

Root and Crown Diseases of CerealsThere were reports of root disease in cereal crops during 2013, with CCN reported in the Wimmera, crown rot in the Mallee and take-all and Rhizoctonia from multiple locations.

To identify the potential risk from root diseases before they affect crop yield, a PreDicta B soil test can be used prior to sowing (contact your local agronomist). Since crown rot is a stubble borne disease it is important that soil samples also include a portion of stubble in the sample. Ideally samples should be taken targeting the old cereal row and any stubble that is taken in the sample should remain in the sample (i.e. do not remove stubble from the sample).

Table 3. Effect of fungicide treatments on severity of net form of net blotch (NFNB) and subsequent grain yield and quality of a very susceptible barley line (VB9613) at Horsham, 2013

NFNB severity Yield Retention ScreeningsTreatmentA (%LAA) (t/ha) (>2.5mm) (<2.2mm)

Z69 (25/9/13) Z85 (14/10/13)

Nil 12.9 28.5 4.5a 64a 11a

Prosaro® @Z55 21.7 25.3 4.7ab 68ab 10ab

Prosaro® @Z31 3.8 14.7 5.0cd 68ab 9abc

Prosaro® @Z39 2.3 1.1 5.0cd 75bc 6cd

Prosaro® @Z39+55 1.9 0.6 5.0cd 82c 4d

Prosaro® @Z31+39 0.1 1.4 5.3e 79c 6cd

Prosaro® @Z25, 31, 39, 55 0.8 0.9 5.2de 80c 5d

LSD (0.05)= 6.098 9.664 0.23 9.95 3.60

P= <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.006 0.004

AProsaro® (210g/L prothioconazole 210g/L tebuconazole) applied at Z25, Z31, 39 and 55 @300ml/ha


Most cereal root and crown diseases (take-all, crown rot, cereal cyst and root lesion nematode) can be controlled with a one or two year break from susceptible hosts. It is important that break crops are kept free of grass weeds to be effective.

Bunts and Smuts of CerealsSeed treatments provide cheap and effective control of bunt and smut diseases. Seed should be treated every year with a fungicide. Without treatment bunt and smut can increase rapidly, resulting in unsaleable grain. Good product coverage of seed is essential for good control.

Note that fertiliser treatments do not control bunt and smuts, so additional seed treatments are required. Clean seed should be sourced if a seed lot is infected.

Contact details Grant Hollaway

Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Private Bag 260, Horsham, 3401

03 53622 111

[email protected]


Notes


Novel summer crop options in the southern HRZ – thinking outside the square with summer cover crops and pushing the limits with spring sown winter canola in 2013Annieka Paridaen,Southern Farming Systems

GRDC project code: SFS00020

BackgroundGrazing cereals has proven to be a major opportunity for mixed livestock and cropping farmers in Southern Victoria. If managed correctly, the crop can provide ample amounts of forage over winter and go on to produce grain without a penalty on yield. With more and more land sown to canola in the HRZ, finding the fit of canola in a mixed farming system has been the focus of more recent research. Over the last four years, SFS trials have shown that the grazing of canola over winter hasn’t supplied much feed and has usually been at the expense of yield.

Conventional grazing of canola in the HRZ provides valuable winter fodder, yet often at the expense of grain yield come harvest. With the introduction of varieties with a vernalisation requirement, such as Taurus and Hyola 971 CL, spring sowing and grazing over the summer/autumn period can fill the feed gap with potentially little impact on subsequent grain yield. In addition, they may provide other options for management of problem paddocks.

Sowing in October or November means that the crop is in the ground for over 12 months. The

Keywordsspring sown canola, grazing, cover crops

Take home messages• Winterhabitcanolahasbeen

successfully sown in spring, grazed over summer and harvested for grain in 2012 and 2013.

• Establishingcanolainspringmeanslarger, more resilient plants in autumn with less impact from slugs and waterlogging.

• Foragevaluecomparabletocommercially available dedicated forage rapes over summer and autumn with added benefit of oil seed production.

• In2012,grazingoversummerincreasedgrain yield compared with no grazing. Ungrazed yield was 1.9 t/ha; grazed was 2.7 t/ha. Taurus sown at the conventional time (April) yielded 2.3 t/ha.


vernalisation requirement of winter canola varieties dictates that a plant will not flower until it has endured a certain period of cold weather (over winter). To test this theory, in 2010 some Hyola 50 (spring canola variety) was sown alongside Taurus and was found to be attempting to flower over summer.

What did we do?In spring 2011 we sowed some Taurus canola into a fallow area at Dunkeld to test the vernalisation theory and answer questions around grazing management.

In spring 2012, five winter canola varieties were sown at Inverleigh into a paddock coming out of thirty years of poor pasture. The summer and autumn of 2013 certainly tested the resilience of this niche crop rotation with next to no rainfall received between sowing in November 2012 and the break in May 2013.

Grazing managementWe set out to answer some key questions relating to grazing spring sown canola. How many times can it be grazed before a yield penalty is suffered? Should I graze it lightly or can I graze it as heavily as my cereals? Does nitrogen application following grazing enable better recovery?

Grazing commenced at the end of January 2012 following some decent rainfall in the summer to enable the crop to get up and away, with 3 t/ha of good quality dry matter available when most of the area was lacking feed. The area was grazed by dry ewes at a stocking rate of 13 DSE/ha.

Grazing management of the crop is outlined below (Table 1), detailing the dates of the three grazings as well as the dry matter consumed during this time. All up, there was just over 4000 kg/ha of DM removed over 55 days of grazing.

Table 1. Dry matter production and grain yield for spring sown Taurus canola at Dunkeld in 2012

Grazing Intensity Grazing Days DM consumed Grain yield (no). of grazing times grazed cumulative (kg/ha) (t/ha)

1 Light 31 Jan - 22 Feb 22 494 2.8

Heavy 31 - Jan - 5 Mar 34 2316 2.5

2 Light 31 Jan - 22 Feb 29 2763 2.9

29 Mar - 5 Apr

Heavy 31 - Jan - 5 Mar 46 2944 2.5

29 Mar - 10 Apr

3 Light 31 Jan - 22 Feb 36 3488 2.7

29 Mar - 5 Apr

26 Apr - 3 May

Heavy 31 - Jan - 5 Mar 55 4031 2.4

29 Mar - 10 Apr

26 Apr - 7 May

LSD (p=0.05) NS

Sown in Spring, ungrazed 1.9

Sown in Autumn, ungrazed 2.3


Quality of feed on offer was high throughout the grazing period. Metabolisable energy (ME) averaged 13.5 MJ/kg DM and protein was up around 22%. In 2012, nitrate poisoning was not of concern, with levels well under the toxic threshold of 1000 mg/kg for lambs. In saying that, introducing stock to forage brassicas needs to be done gradually. It is important that stock are not put out on canola with an empty stomach and they perhaps should be supplied with some roughage when grazing. Observations of the animals grazing suggest that it can take a few days for them to develop a taste for the crop, as almost every other plant in the trial area was eaten before they began on the canola. It is also important to monitor feed levels when stock are grazing, as it didn’t take long for the sheep to completely eat the paddock bare once they had become accustomed to the forage. The third and final grazing in this experiment was much heavier than planned due to the sheep eating it down rather quickly.

What was the effect on grain yield?This experiment has demonstrated the ability of canola to recover from the stress of complete defoliation and go on to produce a fairly handy grain yield. The final grazing was severe, with most plants eaten back to the ground with next to no leaf present. However, after a week or so, they had begun to reshoot and grew back rapidly, catching the lighter grazed plants.

After the grazing treatments were completed, the gate was closed and the trial was left to grow into a grain producing crop. Due to the spectacular recovery and compensatory nature of canola following the stress of grazing, it was very difficult to identify between treatments.

In 2012, grazing over summer increased grain yield compared to no grazing as shown in Table 1. Spring sown and ungrazed canola yielded 1.9 t/ha compared with optimal grazing that yielded 2.7 t/ha. Taurus sown at the conventional time (April) yielded 2.3 t/ha. Observations were that plants that were grazed had branched more and produced a denser canopy with stems producing pods for grain.

The number of times the crop was grazed had a small effect on yield. Grazing twice produced the best result, yielding 0.1 t/ha more than grazing once and 0.2 t/ha more than grazing three times. Although there was a yield penalty by grazing three times compared to two times, the third grazing supplied an additional 1 t/ha of high quality feed at the beginning of May.

Heavy grazing reduced yield compared to light grazing irrespective of the number of times it was grazed. However the reduction in yield was small and heavy grazing produced 4 t/ha of feed compared to 1.4 t/ha when lightly grazed. When deciding on stocking rate and grazing intensity, it can be a trade-off between the value of the feed over summer and autumn and the final grain yield, suggesting that attitude and preference will vary between growers.

Applying nitrogen over summer has no yield benefits except for multiple (three) heavy grazings. In this case, yield increased from 2.0 t/ha to 2.7 t/ha when 150 kg/ha of urea was spread after each grazing. This would suggest that an application of fertiliser purely to boost crop performance is not necessary.

Establishing the crop and maintaining plant numbersHaving a good seed bed to sow into is paramount to ensuring the success of spring sowing. Sowing into dry, cloddy soil has the potential to set back fodder and yield production before summer even arrives. Successful germination needs good seed/soil contact, so a loose, friable soil free of lumps and clods is suggested. Given that spring sowing has a potential fit with fallow/pasture paddocks that are coming back into the cropping rotation, there may be quite a bit of work involved with paddock preparation, particularly if there is residual pasture present.

Despite the heavy grazing in 2012, plant numbers did not suffer under grazing. In fact, the general appearance of the heavily grazed spring sown crop was far better than the April sown canola which was struggling with the cool, wet weather as well as pest pressure from slugs and earth mites.


The summer of 2013 was hard on the crop, with plant losses around 30-40%. However, plant loss was similar between grazed and ungrazed trials, so can probably be blamed on the dry, hot conditions rather than grazing pressure. It is also worth noting that plant numbers under spring sowing and heavy grazing were significantly higher than when sown in autumn due to dry conditions at sowing and loss through pests.

The 2013 season was almost the complete opposite to 2012, with extremely dry and hot conditions from sowing until the break in May 2013. Table 2 indicates that dry matter production was down on 2012 (over a tonne less feed) however, the value of the green feed in 2013 would most likely outweigh the extra tonne in the favourable 2012 season. It is difficult to put a price on almost three tonne of high quality green feed when there is nothing else around!

Table 2. Dry matter production and grain yield for several winter canola varieties sown in spring 2012 and harvested in December 2013, Inverleigh VIC

Grain yield Spring Autumn Reduction Summer Time of ManualVariety Grazing estab survival in plants DM sowing harvest (pl/m2) (pl/m2) (%) (t/ha) (t/ha)

Spring

Grazed 47 26 -43% 2.5 4.0

Taurus Ungrazed

42 30 -29% 5.0

Autumn 8 3.6

Spring

Grazed 41 28 -28% 2.4 4.6

Hyola 971 CL Ungrazed

42 28 -28% 5.2

Autumn 14 4.4

Spring

Grazed 42 26 -38% 2.2 4.9

Hyola 930 Ungrazed

39 36 -4% 5.2

Autumn 11 4.1

Spring

Grazed 43 24 -44% 2.3 4.2

CB 143 CL Ungrazed

38 30 -18% 4.5

Autumn 17 3.9

Spring

Grazed 38 24 -35% 2.8 4.7

CB Sherpa Ungrazed

43 27 -36% 5.2

Autumn Not sown -

Winfred Spring Grazed 62 31 -49% 2.8 -

LSD (P=0.05) 12 7 NS NS 0.8


Resilience of the canola was well and truly tested, with three very heavy grazings occurring between the end of January and the end of April. There were plants lost and for a while it looked like nothing was going to grow back. However, the thick starchy stem and root system of the established canola allowed the plants to hang on, and begin to grow leaves back once the break finally came. The recovery of the plants was just astounding; in winter 2013 you wouldn’t have believed what the area looked like only three months earlier.

Due to the variation in maturity, mechanical harvest would have compromised the performance of the crop so hand cuts were taken at windrowing and put aside to mature. Although this makes yields hard to compare between the seasons, it allows us to evaluate the performance of varieties as well as a spring versus a conventional autumn sowing. There were no significant differences within varieties when looking at yield under spring and autumn sowing except for Taurus which came from a seed source of very low germination. In spring sowing, whether it was grazed or not also had no role in the final yield performance, and considering there was nearly 3t/ha of feed eaten in an extremely dry period, why wouldn’t you graze it?

What about slugs and other pests?In June 2012, the war against slugs was at full steam at the Dunkeld research site. After being in the ground for almost seven months, the resilient, mature Taurus plants were unaffected by slugs and red legged earth mites, whilst these pests posed a real threat to emerging plants in other trials nearby and demanded costly preventative treatments. The overall resilience and health of the spring sown and heavily grazed crop was astounding, allowing us to leave it and concentrate on the struggling April and May sown crops.

The presence of cabbage moth over summer was noted. However, no spray program was implemented. Instead, the crop was grazed by sheep and hence the leaf being eaten by the grubs was removed. How is that for an IPM strategy?

Slug numbers need however, to be monitored when sowing in spring because they are around!

What about weeds?Planting a conventional variety can limit weed control from the beginning. Sowing into a paddock that has an existing broadleaf weed burden is likely to exacerbate the problem due to the long rotation and limited control options throughout this time. In 2012, there was no observed difference in weeds when grazed compared to not grazed, nor were there fewer weeds in the April sown crop. Throughout both years of trialling, weed numbers have been of no concern as it appears the rapid closure of the canopy following grazing easily outcompetes any early weeds and is noticeable throughout the season.

Release of winter canola with Clearfield chemistry has provided greater flexibility and weed control options, particularly when sowing in spring or early autumn.

Grazing effect on canopy As the crop matured, there were noticeable differences in the canopy development of the plants. Grazing appears to have removed the main stem, causing secondary stems or tillers to appear, of which all went on to produce pods and grain. Heavy grazing led to more stems. Plant height was not noticeably altered by grazing. There was some discussion throughout the season, whether these secondary stems would go on to produce sufficient grain compared to one good main stem. Results indicate that in fact, the branching of canola following grazing was a positive effect.

Fitting into the farming systemOne of the biggest benefits provided by the opportunity to sow in spring was that the crop could make the most of summer rainfall and establish at a time when there were fewer threats to plant growth. In 2012, large amounts of rainfall in May (80 mm) and June (75 mm) left a lot of the site and


surrounding area either underwater or very close to it, making access for sowing and subsequent management difficult. By then, spring sown plants were well and truly established, with tap roots of 300 mm being observed in the grazed areas giving us a healthy, vigorous crop at a time when conventional sown canola was struggling to cope with the conditions or the paddocks were unable to be driven on.

The resilient, mature plants were unaffected by slugs and red legged earth mites, whilst these pests posed a real threat to emerging plants nearby and demanded costly preventative treatments.

Another common concern with spring sown canola is the ability for the crop to survive a very dry summer and autumn period, recover from grazing and the survival of enough plants to result in a viable crop. After 40 mm of rainfall two weeks after sowing in November 2012, the crop was pretty much deprived of rain until the break occurred in May 2013. We were sceptical about whether the plants would bounce back from the three grazings on top of the dry and hot conditions, but they came back with flair. At the time we were sowing the autumn crop, the spring sown and grazed plants were well on their way to being a viable commercial canola crop, without the threats caused by slugs, red legged earth mites and cold, wet conditions over the winter.

Benefits of spring sown canola in the system:

• Sowing in spring means less pressure at the usual sowing time,

• makes use of summer rainfall,

• large amounts of feed on offer in summer and autumn,

• established, vigorous crop in autumn, less likely to fall victim to slugs and waterlogging,

• paddock is sown before the paddock gets too wet in autumn/winter; and

• two crops from the one sowing pass.

Potential threats/limitations of spring sown canola in the system:

• Weed numbers and weed control are a concern in a long-season crop,

• pests at establishment in spring/summer including slugs, red legged earth mites and diamondback moth; and

• insufficient moisture over summer and autumn resulting in low plant numbers.

Contact details Annieka Paridaen

Southern Farming Systems, 23 High St Inverleigh VIC 3321

03 52 651 666 / 0439 339 433

[email protected]


Testing novel rotation options in the NorthDamian Jones,1Agresults, 2Irrigated Cropping Council

Summer rotation optionsA summer rotation trial and demonstration work was conducted by the Irrigated Cropping Council (ICC) as part of the GRDC funded Grain and Graze II project in Northern Victoria. The intent of this subproject was to assess the likelihood of increased summer rainfall via climate modelling, and how might this summer rainfall be utilised by summer crops. Despite the ICC co-ordinating the work, the trials and demonstrations were not irrigated, except if required to ensure crop establishment (Kerang site).

Climate modelling confirmed the probability of summer rainfall being higher in the future, but of course there is no certainty to the amount or reliability of this rainfall. So the project initially trialled two approaches to investigate how to use summer rainfall for crop production. One was a “low cost” option, with sowing of whatever was on hand (essentially winter cereals which meant low cash cost) and the second option was sowing summer crops/forages.

The first summer experienced record rainfall in the northern part of the state (420 mm over summer at Kerang), which resulted in large dry matter production figures from some of the summer forage crops (i.e. sorghums and millet). However, the winter cereals, despite good and timely rainfall, failed to produce any valuable dry matter or grain yields. Similarly, grain yields of the summer grain crops were relatively poor and subject to pest and environmental stresses.

Figure 1 and Figure 2 summarise the better forage yield performers. Due to the large amount of variability, the yields presented should be regarded as a guide for comparison rather than definitive values.

The second summer saw relatively good rainfall (192 mm at Kerang) and a similar result. Winter crops failed and grain yields from the summer crops were very low and/or poor quality. This confirmed our belief that sowing crops during summer for

Keywordssummer rainfall, dryland summer forage crops, faba beans, green manuring

Take home messages• Summerrainfallcanbeutilisedtoprovide

summer forage

• Summerforageproductionrequiressummer crops

• Fababeanscanprovidequickdrymatterproduction in autumn, with this dry matter being converted to livestock or soil N.


grain was highly risky; both from a yield and quality perspective. Consequently, the trial was broadened to test more forage crops with less focus on summer grain crops.

The third summer focused on lablab (Lablab purpureus), a sub-tropical legume. Seed was supplied to several co-operators across the northern part of the state but only one crop was successfully established (thanks to a timely irrigation), highlighting the unreliability of summer rainfall.

Lessons learnt:

Summer crops suit summer conditions

Although winter cereals sown in summer could be relatively cheap to sow, the plants suffered from high temperatures despite abundant rainfall in 2010-11. Plants did establish but most failed to thrive, with some survivors producing small spindly plants that rapidly matured. A similar result occurred in 2011-12.

2010-11 Forage Yields

French Millet Jap Millet Pearl Millet Mung Beans Grain Forage Sorghum Sorghum

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Dry

Mat

ter

Yie

lds

(t/h

a)

Kerang Kooloonong Tungamah

2011-12 Forage Yields

181614121086420

Dry

Mat

ter

Yie

lds

(t/h

a)

Kerang Kooloonong Tungamah

Forag

e Sor

ghum

Sudan

X S

orgh

um

Sweet S

orgh

um X

Grain S

orgh

um

Lab

Lab

Frenc

h Mille

t

Pearl M

illet

Jap

Millet

mung B

eans

Cow P

ea

Figure 1. Forage yields of a number of different summer forage crops during 2010/11.

Figure 2. Forage yields of a number of different summer forage crops during 2011/12.


In contrast, Taurus, a winter canola actually survived the 2011-12 summer and remained vegetative rather than bolting to seed. Theoretically, Taurus would then have gone into the winter as a canola crop but its late maturity would still see it as a risky option for canola grain.

If it rains, it can grow

Looking at the 2010-11 results, the forage sorghum grew approximately 25 t of dry matter per hectare but did have decile 9 and 10 growing conditions. Although the summer of 2011-12 didn’t have quite the same rainfall, there was still enough rainfall to yield quite useful forage amounts, particularly in some of the pulses.

Similarly if it doesn’t rain, there is no growth. If it is the intention to grow a summer crop on rainfall, then it is essential to be ready for when the rain falls. If a crop type such as lablab is going to be sown, seed may have to be sourced from interstate which takes time. If seed is purchased in anticipation of rainfall, there is the chance that an opportunity to sow doesn’t present itself (like summer 2012-13) and consequently the seed has to be stored.

You don’t get something for nothing

Plant growth requires moisture and nutrients. 2010-11 demonstrated that the plants are extremely effective in scavenging any nutrients from the soil, but this can impact on the subsequent crop. A summer annual system may offer the opportunity to convert early summer rainfall into feed, but it also can still be terminated early enough to hopefully have sufficient time to build up some soil moisture before sowing.

A grain harvest isn’t realistic

Useful amounts of grain were produced in 2010-11, and there were harvestable yields in 2011-12, but there were issues which would make a commercial harvest far more difficult. The first issue was the variation in maturity mainly due to rainfall events stimulating a flush of growth. Many of the grain crops had some shoots ready for harvest while others were still quite green. The second issue was the lack of height reached by some of the pulses, making commercial harvest almost impossible.

Growing fodder

Useful amounts of fodder can be grown if rainfall is favourable, but rainfall also presents an opportunity for weeds and there may be limited options for control. This affects both the conversion of rain into useful fodder and may have health implications for stock.

Irrigated faba beans for forage or green manureIn February 2012, the ICC Trial Block at Kerang received 76mm of rain which germinated a crop of volunteer faba beans. The beans were allowed to survive in a small area to investigate forage production and the potential for regrowth once grazed. When assessed in mid-May, the faba beans had grown to 70 cm high and produced 3.5 t/ha of dry matter. However, regrowth was poor and the crop succumbed to disease.

While forage was the initial focus, any dry matter produced represents potential nitrogen inputs into the cropping system if the crop was green manured. In this case, the 3.5 t/ha of dry matter could represent 70 kg N/ha.

The trial was repeated in 2013 with known populations of faba beans, to confirm the potential of faba beans as a forage crop and to assess the potential for nitrogen accumulation as the result of dry matter production.

The trial had two times of sowing ; March 13th (watered up) and April 23rd (into moisture).

The earlier sown trial had portions harvested on May 27th for dry matter assessment. Plants ranged from 40 to 60 cm high. Plants were growing rapidly at this stage and would have produced similar yields to 2012 in a similar time frame.

The majority of the unharvested portion of the earlier sown trial was green manured on August 8th, with the dry matter assessed. By this stage, the faba beans had produced plants approximately 1.5 m high.

Soil samples were taken over time to assess the N released. Table 2 summarises the nitrate levels of


the site, with all treatments combined. The site was irrigated on September 9th and October 16th, and therefore, the soil had been moist to ensure plant residue break down.

The palatability of faba beans is open for discussion. Limited feeding of crop samples to livestock has shown good acceptability. However, there is anecdotal evidence of stock refusing to eat faba beans, and the Pulse Australia legume handbook lists them as having poor palatability. However, these results could be conflicted with the growth stage/stress that the plants are under as studies report sheep not eating faba beans that are summer volunteers (i.e. moisture stressed). Further investigation regarding palatability of faba beans is therefore required.

Contact details Damian Jones

PO Box 238, Kerang 3579

0409 181 099

[email protected]

Table 1. Dry matter production

Sowing Rate (kg/ha) Target plant population DM 27th May (t/ha) DM 8th August (t/ha)

164 25 pl/m2 1.52 9.43

197 30 pl/m2 1.54 10.88

230 35 pl/m2 1.96 11.27

n.b. no treatment was significantly different to another.

Table 2. Soil nitrate levels

Crop Initial Nitrate levels Nitrate levels on 2nd Oct Nitrate levels on 21st Nov

Faba beans 38 kg N/ha 117 kg N/ha 125 kg N/ha


The economics of subsoil manuring - the numbers are outPeter Sale1 and Bill Malcolm2,1 Department of Agricultural Sciences, La Trobe University, 2Department of Land and Food Systems, University of Melbourne

GRDC project code: ULA0008

BackgroundThe first objective of this project was to determine whether subsoil manuring would deliver grain yield increases at a range of sites across the Victorian high rainfall zone (HRZ). The practice involves the incorporation of high rates of organic manure such as poultry litter (up to 20 t/ha fresh weight) in rip-lines 80 cm apart, in the upper layers of dense clay subsoils at depths of around 30-40 cm. The practice has been developed to overcome the constraints to crop growth that result from the dense, sodic clay in the subsoil, which is widespread in cropping soils across the Victorian HRZ. The second objective was to determine whether the practice was profitable. There was considerable doubt as to the profitability of the practice, and that it would be too costly to ameliorate subsoils. Consequently, the question of profitability was crucial for this new practice.

At this gathering in Ballarat in 2012, we reported that significant grain yield increases occurred at field sites across the HRZ in 2009, 2010 and 2011. The story was the same for the 2012 crop where the grain yield increases exceeded all expectations. This was the year of the ‘dry finish’ which suited subsoil manuring. This is because subsoil manuring ‘opens up’ the clay subsoil, enabling the crop to use the deep subsoil water late in the growing season,

Keywordssubsoil constraints, dense clay subsoils, manuring, high rainfall zone

Take home messages• Subsoilmanuringisexpensive;itinvolves

the incorporation of high rates (up to 20t/ha) of organic manures into clay subsoil and is estimated to cost in excess of $1100/ha depending on the location of the farm.

• OurfieldtrialsacrosstheHRZ,usingsmall, hand-harvested plots, found that large increases in grain yields continue to occur, over a four year period, with subsoil manuring.

• Thelarge,continuing,andconsistentincreases in grain yield with consecutive crops mean that subsoil manuring is highly profitable.

• Researchintotheuseofprocessed crop residues as subsoil amendments is now required to reduce subsoil manuring costs and the reliance on animal manures.


and then to ‘replenish’ the subsoil water with summer, autumn, or in-crop rainfall that can readily infiltrate into the subsoil. The yield increases in the subsoil-manured crops in 2012 were around 2 t/ha of canola at one site, more than 4 t/ha of wheat at each of the 3 wheat sites, and 2.7 t/ha at the faba bean site. Over the 8 years of subsoil manuring research, we calculated that the average yields for wheat crops, for 12 site x season combinations, was 5.8 t/ha for the commercial crop and 9.3 t/ha for the subsoil-manured crop, which represented an average yield increase of 60%. Would these yield increases make the practice profitable?

This paper will focus on the costs of subsoil manuring, and whether the practice is profitable. These objectives will be determined for two field sites at Penshurst and at Derrinallum, where 4 consecutive grain crops were grown from 2009 to 2012.

MethodologyThe approach taken for this economic analysis was to carefully analyse the inputs and outputs, and hence the costs and returns that were associated with the crop sequences at Penshurst and Derrinallum. The analysis used the actual grain yields and grain prices that occurred at the sites, over the four consecutive crops, and the costs of inputs for the crops. We employed a partial budgeting approach to compare the extra costs and the extra returns for the subsoil-manured crops, compared to the nil-intervention commercial crops, which grew side-by-side in replicated small plots in the paddocks.

Simply put, the analysis was all about “….what happened over 4 years of cropping on these HRZ cropping farms, when subsoil manuring was undertaken in 2009, compared to what happened with normal cropping practices over the same time”.

Central to the analysis were the assumptions that were made to calculate the cost of incorporating the poultry litter into the subsoil. Here we were guided by discussions with grain producers and industry specialists about the costs associated with owning and operating a 300 HP tractor, and a custom-

built subsoil-manuring implement, that would incorporate a high rate of 18-20 t/ha of poultry litter at the rate of 0.5 ha/hour into the subsoil. We assumed that the tractor would operate for 1500 hours per year, and this increased to 2000 hours per year to undertake subsoil manuring on 125 ha on the home farm, and a further 125 ha on a contract basis on neighbouring farms. The cost of the poultry litter (at $18/ t) and the freight ($0.083 /t/km) were based on prices ex-Bendigo in 2009-2010. In addition there was a handling cost of $80/ha to screen the litter and a further $20/ha to load the manure into the implement. Two labour units costing $100/ha were required for the intervention. There were extra harvesting and handling costs for the higher grain yields. We also assumed that there would be savings in fertiliser costs for three years, given the high rates of added nutrients in the litter. These savings lasted for three crops, based on the higher grain protein concentrations in wheat crops that persisted for three years. These savings were determined using prices from local suppliers that were quoted for urea, MAP and muriate of potash in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

The net benefit (in $/ha) was calculated at each site, for each of the four years, by subtracting the extra costs associated with the subsoil-manured plots, from the extra cash benefit in $/ha for the given year. This enabled the NPV (net present value) and the annual annuity for the 2009 investment in subsoil manuring, in 2009 dollars, to be determined over the four years (NPV) and on an annual basis, respectively.

Results and discussion

Poultry litter incorporation costs

The per ha estimated cost associated with the 20 t/ha subsoil manuring intervention in 2009, at the Penshurst and Derrinallum sites, were higher than we had previously estimated (Table 1). The costs of purchasing and delivering poultry litter (the floor material used in sheds where batches of broiler chickens are grown into mature meat birds) to the implement that incorporates the litter into the subsoil, were disconcertingly high. They


amounted to around 2/3 of the total cost of the subsoil manuring intervention. The estimated freight costs alone for transporting the litter 261 km from Bendigo to Penshurst amounted to $440/ha. The fact that the Derrinallum site was 61 km closer to Bendigo meant that the incorporation cost declined by around $100/ha. Then there was the estimated cost that would be required to screen the litter (to make it flow through the implement), and then load the screened litter into the implement, which amounted to $150/ha. These estimated litter costs just highlight the benefits that might be possible if grain producers were able to somehow use their crop residues as a base material for an effective amendment that is incorporated into the subsoil. Preliminary PhD research findings at La Trobe University indicate that processed crop residues show promise as potential subsoil amendments.

The incorporation costs were based on the machinery operating at 0.5 ha/hour, due to the high rate of litter being incorporated into the subsoil. On the other hand, if the tractor and implement could travel faster and cover 1 ha/hour, then the per ha costs in labour, operating costs, and machinery overheads could be substantially reduced. Interestingly, we estimated the costs of incorporating the poultry litter at 10 t/ha, which did

allow the machinery to cover 1 ha/hour. The total estimated subsoil manuring costs were reduced to $681 and $631/ha for the Penshurst and Derrinallum sites, respectively. The estimated total incorporation cost component declined from $440 for 20 t/ha to $229/ha for 10 t/ha, after allowing for extra repairs and maintenance costs with the faster incorporation rate.

Partial budget analysis

The key finding from this analysis is that the payback period for the investment was surprisingly short (Table 2). In fact the large yield increases in the wheat crop at the Derrinallum site in 2009 (98% yield increase), and the high quality of the wheat from the subsoil-manured plots, meant that the investment was repaid in the first year. At Penshurst, the yield response to subsoil manuring was lower for the 2009 wheat crop, and this resulted in the payback occurring in the second year rather than the first. Spring rainfall in 2010 was excessively high at Derrinallum (a decile 9 year), and this led to the failure of the canola crop in the second year. Less rain fell at Penshurst compared to Derrinallum in the spring of 2010, and this allowed a small canola crop to survive, but only on the subsoil-manured land.

Table 1. Costs for subsoil manuring (at 20t/ha) at the Penshurst and Derrinallum sites in 2009

Costs of incorporating poultry litter Penshurst Derrinallum

Poultry litter – purchase ($/ha) 320 320

Poultry litter – freight ($/ha) 435 334

Poultry litter – handling ($/ha) 100 100

Poultry litter – labour ($/ha) 50 50

Poultry litter - TOTAL 905 804

Incorporation - machinery ($/ha) 168 168

Incorporation – operating ($/ha) 222 222

Incorporation – labour ($/ha) 50 50

Incorporation – TOTAL 440 440

TOTAL $1345 /ha $1244 /ha


Having paid for the subsoil manuring at these sites with the grain yield increases from the 1st crop at Derrinallum, or from the 1st and 2nd crop at Penshurst, then any continuing increases in grain yield on subsoil-manured land with the 3rd or 4th crop would contribute to profit. Such yield increases did continue with the 3rd and 4th crop. In fact the quite amazing responses in the 4th consecutive 2012 crop, following subsoil manuring in 2009 (discussed above), resulted in increased net benefits in excess of $1000/ha at the Penshurst and the Derrinallum sites (Table 2). Similar net benefits also occurred in 2012 at the 3-year site at Wickliffe, and at the 2-year sites at Dookie and Stewarton in north east Victoria.

Given the magnitude of the crop yield increases with subsoil manuring, and their continuation over time, then it is not surprising that the practice was found to be highly profitable. Investing in subsoil manuring in 2009 meant that these farmers were very much better off in terms of financial and economic criteria. At Penshurst we estimated that the average annual increase in wealth (Table 3), above the conventional way of using the land and capital, would be $546 per ha. The amount of this annuity was less at Derrinallum due to the canola failure in the very wet spring in 2010.

Table 3. The financial results from subsoil manuring with 20 t manure/ha at the Penshurst and Derrinallum in 2009, based on the extra costs and returns from the 4 successive crops between 2009 and 2012

Financial Penshurst Derrinallumperformance

NPV /ha $1810 $1387

Annuity /ha $546 $419

MIRR 76 % N/A

NPV is the total addition to wealth per ha (in 2009 $s) over the 4 years from subsoil manuring in 2009, over and above other uses of capital that would earn 8% p.a. The Annuity is the extra annual addition to wealth per ha (in 2009 $s) from subsoil manuring in 2009, over and above other uses of capital that would earn 8% p.a. The MIRR is percentage annual return over the 4 years on the extra capital that was invested in subsoil manuring in 2009. This could only be calculated if there was a negative benefit in year 1.

The yield responses for the lower rate of litter incorporation (10 t/ha) were still quite large for the wheat crops, but smaller for the canola crops at the Penshurst and Derrinallum sites. However the costs were substantially less (Table 4).

Table 2. The yield increases, and extra costs and benefits resulting from the subsoil manuring at 20t/ha at the Penshurst and Derrinallum sites in 2009

Penshurst DerrinallumYield increases

2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 costs and benefits Wheat Canola Wheat Canola Wheat Canola Wheat Wheat

Yield increase (t/ha) 2.8 1.2 4.5 2.0 4.8 0.0 2.4 4.1

Extra costs ($/ha) 1398 27 67 39 1310 0 43 64

Extra benefits ($/ha) 830 791 1202 1100 1359 66 715 1086

NET BENEFIT ($/ha) -568 764 1135 1061 49 66 673 1022


Using the results in Table 4, we estimated that the average annual increase in wealth (the annual annuity) for this lower rate of subsoil manuring at 10 t/ha, was lower than that from the higher rate of litter incorporation, but was still in excess of $300 / ha / year (Table 5). This is encouraging for growers who are not able to incorporate the higher rate of litter at 20t/ha.

Table 5. Financial results from subsoil manuring with 10 tonnes manure/ha at the Penshurst and Derrinallum sites in 2009, using crop yield responses at these sites from 2009-2012

Financial Penshurst Derrinallumperformance

NPV $1114 /ha $1024 /ha

Annuity $336 /ha $309 /ha

MIRR 239 % N/A

ConclusionsSubsoil manuring with 20 t/ha of poultry litter, or with the half rate of 10 t/ha, was profitable and financially feasible, with net benefits above alternative uses of land and capital. The intervention resulted in a reasonably prompt return to positive net cash flow. These findings are quite illuminating, given the earlier view that any attempt to modify the properties of subsoils would be exorbitantly

expensive and unlikely to be profitable or financially feasible.

The costs of subsoil manuring with 20 tonnes of poultry litter per ha, are estimated to be high, relative to conventional cropping, and were in excess of $1200/ha for the farms in this analysis. However the large increases in grain yield, occurring each year over at least a four year period, plus savings on fertiliser use, meant that there were large economic and financial benefits. There is now an urgent need for industry research to determine whether processed crop residues, or other farm sources of plant material, could be used as alternative subsoil amendments to lower subsoil manuring costs and to reduce the reliance on animal manures.

The analysis shows that the farmers at these two grain farms were likely to be substantially better off as a result of investing in subsoil manuring in their paddocks in 2009. These results will increase the interest in subsoil manuring in the HRZ and will surely lead to increased adoption in the region.

AcknowledgementsWe are particularly grateful for the owners and managers of the cropping land on which the field experiments were conducted, and for all industry stakeholders who contributed to the assumptions used in this paper.

Table 4. The yield increases, and extra costs and benefits from subsoil manuring with 10 tonnes of poultry litter per ha, at the Penshurst and Derrinallum sites in 2009

Penshurst DerrinallumYield increases

2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 costs and benefits Wheat Canola Wheat Canola Wheat Canola Wheat Wheat

Yield increase 2.0 0.6 3.6 0.6 2.7 0.0 1.9 2.5

Extra costs ($/ha) 717 21 57 22 674 0 37 45

Extra benefits ($/ha) 678 398 814 330 902 66 418 662

NET BENEFIT ($/ha) -39 377 757 308 228 66 381 617


Contact detailsPeter Sale

AgriBio Centre for AgriBioscience, Department of Agricultural Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora 3083

(03) 9032 7460

[email protected]


Maximising the nitrogen (N) benefits of rhizobial inoculationMaarten Ryder1, Matt Denton1 and Ross Ballard2,1School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, The University of Adelaide, 2SARDI, Waite Campus, Urrbrae SA

GRDC project code: UA00138

Introduction Inoculation of legumes with rhizobia is a standard practice. However, we can optimise legume nodulation and improve nitrogen inputs by

following a few basic rules of thumb and fine-tuning inoculation practices.

A recent national survey of legume growers has yielded useful information about current farmer knowledge and practice in relation to rhizobial inoculation. The results of the survey are being used to guide and refine key messages going out to growers.

Inoculation can greatly increase the amount of biologically fixed N from legumes where they are sown for the first time or where soils are not conducive to rhizobial survival. For example, inoculation of faba bean in south western Victoria boosted fixed N from 32 to 196 kg N/ha, as well as increasing dry matter production and increasing yield by 1 tonne per ha compared with an uninoculated crop (Denton et al. 2013). However, it is also common for growers to get fixed N benefits from inoculation even when the inoculation only leads to a small yield increase.

You have probably heard the phrases ‘if in doubt, inoculate’ and ‘inoculation is cheap insurance’ as well as the message to ‘inoculate every year’. These messages are sometimes appropriate, but may lead to unnecessary inoculation in some instances, or alternatively cause growers to become cynical about the need for inoculation which can result in the sub-optimal use of inoculant. It is possible to adopt a more targeted and strategic approach to inoculation and N management by using some basic rules of thumb as guides about when and where it is best to inoculate.

Keywordsnitrogen fixation, inoculation, rhizobia, legumes, pulses

Take home messages• Inoculationoflegumeswithrhizobiacan

deliver substantial N inputs to southern farming systems even when the impact on legume yield is small.

• Targeted,strategicuseofinoculants,using a risk/benefit approach is the best and most cost effective way to maximise N inputs from legumes.

• Tomaximisethechancesofgettingapositive response to inoculation, follow the guidelines that are set out in recent GRDC publications.

• Careneedstobetakeninsituationswhere the survival of rhizobia is compromised, such as dry sowing, acid soils, mixing with fertilisers and pesticides; follow the guidelines.


A risk/benefit framework can be used with respect to the likelihood of obtaining a positive response to inoculation to assist in decision-making, through consideration of soil type, legume species and inoculation history.

After making the decision to inoculate, it is worth maximising the chances of success, as inoculation failure is generally difficult and expensive to remedy. Again, following some general guidelines will be helpful to ensure successful legume nodulation, noting that there is a range of inoculant products available, with different application methods.

Changing practices on farm, such as the trend towards early (dry) sowing in some regions, is taking us into new territory with respect to recommendations about rhizobial inoculation. Another important and common practical issue is the degree of compatibility between rhizobial inoculant and fertilisers and seed-applied pesticides and additives. Although it would be useful to know the compatibility of each rhizobial strain with all of the common chemical formulations, this information is currently not available.

The recent national survey of legumes growers has highlighted the need for common-sense, practical guidelines so that inoculation can be practised successfully in the context of a grower’s preferred operations at sowing. Several recent GRDC

publications give useful information about optimising inoculation and nitrogen inputs from N fixation. These publications are available online or from the GRDC, and are listed at the end of the paper.

Nitrogen fixation benefits Legumes (crop and pasture combined) are estimated to fix almost 3 million tonnes of nitrogen each year in Australia, which is worth around $4 billion. This amount of fixed N makes a substantial (around 50 per cent) contribution to the estimated 6 million tonnes of nitrogen that are required annually for grain and animal production on Australian farms.

The contributions made by legumes vary considerably with the species (Table 1) and with the situation (soil type, seasonal rainfall and crop management). Crop legumes fix about 110 kg of N per hectare annually, on average (Table 1). However the range is large, varying in individual paddocks from close to zero to more than 400 kg N/ha.

Nitrogen fixation generally increases with increased crop biomass, therefore good agronomic management leading to good legume growth will favour higher N inputs from fixed N. There are also significant contributions of fixed N from legume roots (Table 1). In the southern Australian environment, legume growth is strongly influenced by the amount of water that the crop or pasture can

Table 1. Estimates of the amounts of N fixed annually by crop legumes in Australia

% of crop N Shoot dry Total N Shoot N Root N Total cropLegume requirement matter fixed1

(kg/ha) (kg/ha N (kg/ha) fixed (t/ha) (kg/ha)

Lupin 75 5.0 125 51 176 130

Pea 66 4.8 115 47 162 105

Faba bean 65 4.3 122 50 172 110

Lentil 60 2.6 68 28 96 58

Soybean 48 10.8 250 123 373 180

Chickpea 41 5.0 85 85 170 70

1Total N fixed = Percent N fixed x Total crop N; data sourced primarily from Unkovich et al. (2010).


access from the combination of stored soil moisture and growing season rainfall. Management practices that optimise water use efficiency, and also keep soil nitrate levels low, will favour legume growth and N fixation. The fixed N is used by the legume itself for growth, but any root and shoot residues remaining after grain harvest or pasture grazing (for pastures legumes) will contribute to soil nitrate which can provide N to subsequent crops.

Nitrogen fixation is greater when soil nitrate is below 50 kg/ha and virtually ceases at nitrate levels above 200 kg/ha (Figure 1). Nitrogen fixation by chickpea (Figure 1) and field pea is more sensitive to high soil nitrate than for faba bean.

Figure 1. Impact of soil nitrate on chickpea nitrogen fixation in northern NSW. Source: unpublished data of WL Felton, H Marcellos, DF Herridge, GD Schwenke and MB Peoples.

In addition to providing an N benefit, legumes can provide a disease break benefit to increase the productivity of following cereal and oilseed crops by reducing the inoculum levels of key soil-borne pests such as nematodes and also fungal diseases. Cereals grown after legumes generally out-yield cereals grown after non-leguminous crops, partly due to the N benefit and partly due to pest and disease control by the legume break crop.

When, where and how to inoculate?There is a low likelihood of response to inoculating grain legume crops or pastures where there has been a recent history of inoculation with the appropriate rhizobia (i.e. the correct inoculant group); the soil pH is above 6 (in CaCl2); and recent nodulation, grain yields and pasture production have been good. In these situations, inoculation every four years or so will be adequate because soil rhizobial populations will generally be maintained at above 1,000 per gram, which is considered adequate for good nodulation. After four years there is increased likelihood of a response to inoculation because the rhizobia that persist in the soil can lose some of their capacity to fix nitrogen, so a top-up with the potent inoculation strain may be beneficial. If the legume species (or another that uses the same rhizobia) has not been grown in the last four years, or soil conditions are hostile, then the probability of a response to inoculation is greater.

Such is the case where acid sensitive legumes (e.g. peas and beans) are sown into acid soils (pH 5.5 or less in CaCl2). In these situations it will be prudent to inoculate every time a crop is sown because rhizobial populations tend to diminish quickly under these soil conditions (refer to Table 2). The exception to this acid soil rule is lupin, because both lupin and its rhizobial strain are well-adapted to acid soils.

Where a crop such as chickpea, which has a very specific rhizobia requirement, is grown for the first time, inoculation is essential as there will be no background of suitable rhizobia present. A double rate of inoculant is often used in these situations, to enhance the likelihood of good nodulation.

In the recent GRDC publications about rhizobial inoculation, ‘good nodulation’ and ‘well-nodulated crops’ are frequently referred to, and guidelines

0 50 100 150

200

160

120

80

40

0

Sowing soil nitrate (kg/ha)

Chi

ckp

ea N

2 fix

atio

n (k

g N

/ha)


are given about adequate numbers of nodules per plant. How do we go about checking this? We strongly encourage growers and/or consultants to look below the soil surface, dig up several plants about 2-3 months after sowing, wash out the root systems gently and look at the level of nodulation on the roots. This is important, as it will help a grower to decide on the need for inoculation in future years. A guide to assessing nodulation in pulse crops is provided at www.agwine.adelaide.edu.au/research/farming/legumes-nitrogen/legume-inoculation/.

A visual check of root systems is worthwhile to establish if a reasonable number of nodules is present and well distributed across the root system or whether there has been a nodulation delay or failure. Carefully breaking open nodules to determine if there is a pink or reddish colour in the nodules will show that the nodules are active. Neither of these visual assessments, however, will give an indication of the actual level of N fixation being achieved; sophisticated scientific techniques are required to measure this.

Common inoculation issues faced by growersCan I sow inoculated seed into dry soil?

Growers in some regions want to sow legumes early into dry soil. Sowing inoculated seed into dry soil is not recommended where a legume crop is sown for the first time. On the other hand, where a legume has been used frequently and the soil is not particularly hostile to rhizobia, the risk of nodulation failure resulting from dry sowing is much reduced. Rhizobial formulations which are applied in furrow, such as granules or peat suspended in liquid, are placed deeper in the soil and will have a better chance of survival as the soil conditions will be less extreme at greater depth. There is also some evidence from field trials that placing the inoculum deeper in the soil is beneficial in a dry sowing, but it should be noted that there has not been a great deal of definitive research on this topic to date.

Can I mix inoculated seed with fertiliser, including trace elements?

Some growers claim success in mixing rhizobial inoculant with fertiliser and/or trace elements.

Host legume Rhizobia pH 4 pH 5 pH 6 pH 7 pH 8

Lupin, serradella cowpea, mungbean

Bradyrhizobium spp.

Soybean Bradyrhizobium japonicum

Clovers Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii

Pea, faba bean, lentil, vetch

Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viciae

Chickpea Mesorhizobium ciceri Medics Sinorhizobium spp.

Table 2. Sensitivity of key rhizobia to pH ( is sensitive, is optimal)


Rhizobium biologists recommend against mixing inoculant with fertilisers (particularly superphosphate and others that are very acidic) or other, novel plant nutrition treatments. However we recognise that farming operations need to be pragmatic for practical and economic reasons. Small scale testing is highly recommended where mixing inoculum with fertilisers and micro-nutrients is contemplated. Tanks should be cleaned well before they are used for rhizobial inoculum. Placement of the fertiliser or trace elements away from the rhizobial inoculum (e.g. in furrow below the seed) is highly recommended. It is worth noting that the detrimental effects of mixing inoculants and fertilisers etc. are often overlooked because legumes are often sown in paddocks not responsive to inoculation. It is only when a nodulation problem suddenly appears in a paddock that is responsive to inoculation, that the harmful effect of mixing rhizobia with other products is considered.

If molybdenum is required as a seed treatment (Mo is sometimes needed for optimum nodulation, especially in acid soils), then molybdenum trioxide or ammonium molybdate should be used, NOT sodium molybdate (toxic to rhizobia!).

Can I mix rhizobial inoculant with seed pickles and pesticides?

Some combinations of rhizobia with some pickles and pesticides appear to perform satisfactorily, whereas others are very effective at destroying rhizobia. The booklet Inoculating Legumes: a practical guide (see further readings) contains a table on page 40 that lists the compatibility of different rhizobia groups with seed-applied fungicides, and also discusses specific compatibility issues between rhizobia and certain insecticides and herbicides. Pickled seed can be coated with rhizobia (except soybean and peanut), but the time interval between inoculation and sowing should be kept to a minimum, usually less than six hours. The use of granular inoculants or liquid inoculantion into furrows can reduce this impact by separating the pickled seed from the inoculant.

The following mixtures are NOT compatible with peat, liquid and freeze-dried inoculants:

• chemicals containing high levels of zinc, copper or mercury;

• fertilisers and seed dressings containing sodium molybdate, zinc and manganese;

• fungicides such as Sumisclex® or Rovral®

• herbicides such as MCPA, 2,4-D and Dinoseb; and

• insecticides containing endosulfan, dimethoate, omethoate, or carbofuran.

National survey of legume growersThe survey, conducted in 2013, comprised 18 questions that explored grower knowledge and practice in relation to rhizobial inoculation. It was completed by 405 growers, representing a farmed area of just over 1 million hectares, across all GRDC regions.

Results are still being analysed in detail, but initial indications are available. Growers generally had a good level of knowledge about rhizobia and their use, though ten per cent did not know that rhizobia fall into different groups that are specific to certain crop and pasture legumes. Virtually all growers know that rhizobia are living organisms, but 22 per cent stated that it was fine to mix rhizobia with fertiliser and eight per cent thought it was acceptable to mix rhizobia with pesticides. As discussed above, combinations and mixtures can work in some circumstances, but care must be taken to avoid incompatibility and the risk of inoculation failure.

Ninety percent of survey respondents reported that they used inoculants. Of the ten per cent that did not inoculate, over half specified that inconvenience was a reason and also that the benefit was not clear.

Peat formulation was by far the most common method of application (used by 82 per cent of respondents). Other formulations were also


important however, including granules (19 per cent) and freeze-dried formulations (14 per cent). A substantial proportion of growers used more than one type of formulation.

Further readingInoculating Legumes: a practical guide (GRDC 2012) Free, online at www.grdc.com.au/GRDC-Booklet-InoculatingLegumes

Inoculating Legumes: The Back Pocket Guide (GRDC 2013) Free, online at www.grdc.com.au/Resources/Publications/2013/09/Inoculating-legumes-back-pocket-guide

Fact Sheet: Rhizobial inoculants (GRDC 2013) Free, online at www.grdc.com.au/~/media/B943F697AF9A406ABBA20E136FDB7DC4.pdf

ReferencesDenton MD, Pearce DJ, Peoples MB (2013) Nitrogen contributions from faba bean (Vicia faba L.) reliant on soil rhizobia or inoculation. Plant and Soil 365, 363-374.

Unkovich MJ, Baldock J, Peoples MB (2010) Prospects and problems of simple linear models for estimating symbiotic N2 fixation by crop and pasture legumes. Plant and Soil 329, 75-89.

Contact detailsMaarten Ryder

PMB 1 Glen Osmond SA 5064

0409 696 360

[email protected]


Getting nitrogen (N) into the crop efficiently and effectivelyRob Norton,International Plant Nutrition Institute

IntroductionBecause nitrogen (N) use on grain crops has now become a tactical issue in response to seasonal conditions, it is always a topic of conversation. Some worry that they have skimped and missed yield, others worry that what they applied either did not work or gave only a small response and still others worry that there were big losses in what they applied, so they have wasted a lot of the N applied.

In developing an N management strategy, these tactical issues need to be considered but within the general approach of a soundly based and regularly reviewed N budget. Making and reviewing yield estimates is critical, as the yield potential will be a function of the N demand in our rain fed environments. The budget should include N supplied from the soil as profile N, plus in-crop mineralisation, as well as the efficiency with which the nutrient gets to the product; termed nitrogen use efficiency (NUE).

What do efficiency and effective use mean?

While the term NUE seems simple, there are many ways it can be assessed. There are differences in the numerator and denominator of the equation, as well as the temporal and spatial scale adopted. Some of the more common terms are explained in Table 1. Some such as Apparent Recovery

Keywords4R nutrient stewardship, wheat, fluid fertilisers, grain protein.

Take home messages• Efficiencyandeffectivenessaredifferent

dimensions of nutrient use efficiency (NUE). A system level assessment of NUE can be made using a partial nutrient balance (N removed in grain/N applied) and partial factor productivity (grain produced/N applied). What are your numbers?

• EarlyNisgenerallyusedmoreefficiently,but the source, rate, timing and placement of N all affect the efficiency with which the crop can access N.

• WhencomparingNsources;rate,timingand placement all interact so that efficiency options vary and no single source is a “silver bullet” to all situations.

• Therewouldneedtobecompellingcircumstances to justify moving away from top-dressed urea applied to the crop as the season unfolds.


Efficiency or Agronomic Efficiency rely on having a nil fertiliser control, which makes them less suited to paddock or regional scale and more suited to experimental comparisons. Alone, none of these indicators are of particular value, but Partial Factor Productivity (PFP) helps understand the return in grain from the use of fertiliser, while Partial Nutrient Balance (PNB) tells something of the source of the nutrients removed in the crop. In terms of fertilisers, PFP tells us about effective nutrient use, while PFP

tells use about efficient nutrient use. Both can be assessed at paddock or farm scale, and do give some idea of two long term NUE measures that can be used to assess system level performance, much in the same way growers and advisers are comfortable using water use efficiency (WUE) for the same purpose. For example, a grower who produces 1000 t of 11% protein wheat using 40 t of urea has a PFP of 55 kg grain/kg N applied and PNB of 1.1 kg N removed/kg N applied.

Table 1. Examples of ways to derive nutrient use efficiency (after Dobermann 2007)

Term Calculation Range for N in cereal crops

Partial Nutrient PNB = kg nutrient removed kg-1 applied 0.1 to 0.9 kg/kg; >0.5 where background Balance (Nutrient = Ug/F supply is high and/or where nutrient Removal Ratio) losses are low. Australian figure for cereals is 0.82 kg N removed/kg N applied.

Partial Factor PFP = kg yield kg-1 nutrient applied 40-80 kg/kg: >60 in well managed Productivity = Y/F = (Y0/F) systems, at low N use or at low soil N supply. Australian figure for cereals is 52 kg grain/kg N applied.

Recovery RE = kg increase in uptake kg-1 applied 0.3 to 0.5 kg/kg; 0.5 to 0.8 in well Efficiency = (U – U0)/F (whole plant) managed systems, at low N use level or = (Ug-U0g)/F (grain only) at low soil N supply.

Physiological PE = kg yield increase kg-1 fertiliser 40 to 60 kg/kg; >50 in well-managed Efficiency nutrient uptake systems, at low N use level or at low soil = (Y-Y0)/(U-U0) N supply.

Internal utilization IE = (kg yield kg-1 nutrient uptake) 30 to 90 kg/kg; 55 to 65 is the optimal efficiency = (Y/U) range for balanced nutrition at high yield levels.

Agronomic AE = kg yield increase kg-1 10 to 30 kg/kg; >25 in well managed Efficiency nutrient applied systems, at low N use or at low soil = (Y-Y0)/F = RE x PE N supply.

Y=crop yield with applied nutrients; Y0=crop yield with no applied nutrients; F=fertiliser applied; U=plant nutrient uptake of above ground biomass at maturity; U0=plant uptake with zero fertiliser; Ug=grain nutrient content with applied nutrients; U0g=grain nutrient content with no applied nutrients.


Assessing NUE on farmsTable 1 also shows the mean PFP and PNB estimates for Australian cereal production systems. Both values should be considered because a high PFP with a low PNB indicates that the high productivity is drawing on soil N reserves rather than from fertilisers. Alternatively, a very high PNB (>1) with a low PFP suggests that losses of nutrients are occurring. In our farming systems, growers may have very high PFP and PNB because they rely on soil reserves (say N from a pasture ley) to sustain productivity. These indicators, like WUE, can help understand something of the system efficiency for farmers, but the interpretation is far more important than the numbers themselves. The most efficient way to use fertilisers is not to use any, but that is not effective, as production is likely to be nutrient limited.

Using the above metrics can be useful in looking at broad-scale efficiency, but at a crop level, grain protein can be an estimate of the degree of N limitation a crop has undergone. Providing grain size is good, wheat grain protein concentration generally has a strong inverse relationship with grain yield. However, with increasing N supply yield and protein converge (Figure 1). This relationship has a large genetic component, so some varieties express higher levels than others. The response is also affected by rainfall/water supply, particularly after anthesis.

If the upper limit to grain protein for a variety is known, then grain protein can help us understand the degree of N limitation during the season. Figure 1 shows the yield and protein relationship that is generally held, and as N supply increases, yield initially increases to a maximum, but protein is slower to resolve. Consequently, if grain protein is low with a higher yield, it suggests that N was limited.

Figure 1. Grain yield (t/ha) and protein concentration (%) from 10 wheat varieties with 0, 30, 60, 90 and 120 kg/ha applied nitrogen in a trial at Parkes in 2011 (Brill et al, 2012).

Agronomic manipulation using 4R nutrient stewardshipThe first aspect of ensuring N is used efficiently and effectively is to ensure that other issues such as sodicity, salinity, acidity, other nutrients, pests, weeds or diseases are not the limitation. A simple way to do this is to use an N-rich strip in a paddock. This will serve as a reference for later in the season as well as give some early indications if additional N is giving a response, and even if further N could provide extra benefit.

Given the above, there are some indicators however, that can be considered around effective and efficient N use:

Right Time

The earlier N is applied, the larger the yield increase, whereas the later the N is supplied, the larger the protein increase. Basically, the N supplied will most affect the tissue that is actively growing at that time.

4.2

4.0

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.0

11.6

11.2

10.8

10.4

10

9.60 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Nitrogen fertiliser (kg/ha)

Yie

ld (t

/ha)

Gra

in p

rote

in (%

)

YieldProtein


Early N stimulates shoots or tillers, whereas later N can increase stem growth. Once active stem growth slows, later N can be used in grain filling.

Table 2 shows the results of a small experiment where 20 kg N/ha was applied as urea at different times to a wheat crop at Horsham. The later applications gave progressively smaller yield responses, while the protein response increased except when applied during early dough. Table 2 shows that 20 kg N applied showed lower recovery as application was delayed.

The other aspect of timing to consider is timing of application relative to rainfall. Most growers would try to time application of urea ahead of rainfall so that the losses of N as volatilized urea are reduced. The amount of N lost from surface applied urea has been a topic of significant research over the past few years, especially with the commercialization of urease inhibitors. Experiments in cropping systems in the Wimmera and Mallee showed losses of up to 23% from urea, and this loss can halve where there was rain within a day of application (Turner et al. 2012). Soil texture, wind-speed, crop cover, stubble load, soil organic matter and temperature all affect the rate of volatilization. The detail of how much N is lost due to particular rainfall events probably causes more grief than a Collingwood grand final win, but addressing ammonia losses is only one part of the actual efficiency.

Right rate

While timing and form often get the most interest, getting the rate right is as important. The key question here is, is the crop actually N limited? Unless this is the case, there will be no response to N and so a low efficiency. Nitrogen budgets reviewed with yield estimates such as from Yield Prophet® are vital to estimate demand, while supply from deeper in the soil or mineralised N will also be important (but often not estimated). The rate can be determined based on having adequate N in the crop by anthesis to match the yield and protein target. A 3.5 t/ha grain yield will probably come from a biomass at anthesis of 7 t/ha and to meet an 11% protein target, the crop should have around 120 kg N (do the maths up or down). If the post-anthesis conditions are better than target, then N will be diluted by the extra growth and grain protein will decline. If conditions are worse, then grain protein will increase. Therefore, the actual yield response will depend on the N rate meeting the gap between the target demand and expected supply (neither of which we know in advance). Consequently, there is some luck in what outcome does occur.

Right place

Having the N isolated from losses due to ammonification, denitrification and leaching means that if the crop really needs the N, it can access it

Table 2. Responses of wheat (cv YitpiA, 2001, Longerenong) to 20 kg N/ha applied at different crop stages, relative to nil added N

N applied at: Responses NilN DC31 DC42 DC65 DC72 LSDp>0.05

Yield (t/ha) 3.31 3.94 3.23 3.29 3.14 0.31

Protein (%) 8.6 9.4 10.4 9.8 8.9 0.4

N recovered (kg N/ha) 50 65 59 57 49

% Recovery 75% 44% 33% -4%


with minimal loss. Applying the entire N up-front would suggest a good efficiency. However, this is when seasonal conditions are least known, and so demand is still being formed. If all application of N is up-front, the decision on rate can only be adjusted up, not down.

It is also important to caution about placing fertiliser, especially urea, in a seed-row. Poor establishment due to fertiliser damage to germinating seeds can be significant with the use of wide rows, narrow points, light soils and dry conditions (http://anz.ipni.net/article/ANZ-3076). A 3-5 cm separation between fertiliser and seed is adequate to minimise damage.

Inter-row banding pre-crop or even in-crop (side-banding) is an attractive option as it buries the N. However the technologies around these application options require more refinement.

In most situations however, the placement for in-crop application will be over the top of the crop. For dry fertilisers, most will end up on the soil and the fate for urea is to become either ammonia which can be lost, or plant available ammonium or nitrate. Leaves can absorb inorganic and organic nitrogen sources. Small pores within leaf cuticles can take up urea, ammonium and nitrate. These pores are lined with negatively charged molecules, and therefore, uptake of cations (such as ammonium) is faster than anions (such as nitrate). Uptake of small, uncharged molecules, like urea, is fast. Urea is commonly used for foliar fertilization because it’s uncharged, has high solubility and can be rapidly and efficiently absorbed by leaves (Fernandez et al. 2013).

For fluid fertilisers, such as urea or urea/ammonium nitrate solutions, depending on the application equipment used, some proportion of the material will intercept the crop canopy and some will hit the soil. Once on the soil, the loss processes are the same for dry fertilisers, but the N on the canopy can be taken up through the leaves.

Foliar applied N has been proposed as the most efficient method to present N, and urea is rapidly and effectively taken directly through the leaf surfaces. For highest efficiency, coverage should be good, but crops are susceptible to damage

both from urea itself as well as the salt effect of the solution. This urea toxicity will dictate the upper level for effective N uptake, and it is probably around 10-15 kg N/ha depending on crop cover, ambient conditions, and application technology. Streaming nozzles place fluids on the inter-row rather than the canopy, and while reducing canopy damage, they do expose the material to soil surface losses under the canopy.

Right source

Many of the comparisons of N sources (products) confound the source with both the placement and the timing effects. However, where N for N comparisons at similar timings is made, differences in recovery of applied N and yield responses are small (Gooding et al. 2007). There are however, quite large differences in cost (Doyle 2013) that need to be balanced against benefits gained.

For surface applied N, two experiments showed losses to ammonification as urea (23%), urea/ammonium nitrate (12% and sulfate of ammonia (12%) for 9 days between application and light rainfall on an alkaline vertosol (Turner et al. 2012). In a similar earlier experiment, the loss of N from urea can be reduced from 10% to 1% of applied N through the use of an urease inhibitor (Turner et al. 2010), although the efficiency of this reduction was reduced at higher temperatures and higher soil organic C content (Suter et al. 2011).

At Birchip in 2013 (McClelland, pers. comm.) trials showed that N uptake from both UAN (streaming nozzles), urea solution (flat fan nozzles) and dry urea (top-dressed) was similar 10 days after application (DC31). However, by anthesis the UAN (streaming nozzles) and dry urea had more N in the crop than the urea solution. By maturity there were no yield differences, although the UAN and dry urea had higher grain protein contents than the urea solution.

Fluid fertilisers offer the opportunity to combine two operations, thereby reducing paddock traffic, as well as giving application options for additional nutrients such as S or micronutrients.

There are however, many other factors at play to achieve a profitable yield response from N


application. However, in my opinion there would need to be compelling circumstances where expected losses are high, to justify moving away from top-dressed urea, applied as the season unfolds.

The way forward1. Try N-rich strips in fields to see where the

response could be sitting.

2. Unless springs are good to very good, there will be little benefit from N applied later than booting, and much of this will be as a protein response.

ReferencesBrill et al. 2012 http://www.grdc.com.au/Research-and-Development/GRDC-Update-Papers/2012/04/Comparison-of-grain-yield-and-grain-protein-concentration-of-commercial-wheat-varieties)

Doyle (2013) http://www.grdc.com.au/Research-and-Development/GRDC-Update-Papers/2013/03/Liquid-Nitrogen-pros-and-cons-of-different-formulations

Fernandez et al. 2013. Foliar Fertilization, Scientific Principle and Field Practices. International Fertiliser Industry Association. (http://www.fertiliser.org/HomePage/LIBRARY/Our-selection2/Fertiliser-use.html/Foliar-Fertilization-Scientific-Principles-and-Field-Practices.html)

Gooding and Davies. 1992. Fertiliser Research, 32, 209-222.

Gooding et al. 2007. Field Crops Research, 100, 143-154.

Suter et al. 2011. Soil Research, 49, 315-319.

Turner et al. 2010. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 137, 261-266.

Turner et al. 2012. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems,93, 113-126.

Contact details Rob Norton

0428 877 119

[email protected]

http://anz.ipni.net


Is social media working for you?Prudence Cook, Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Victoria

IntroductionSome digital technologies; namely smart devices and apps, have been adopted rapidly in a short time frame with approximately 70 per cent of advisers now owning a tablet, despite the iPad only being commercially available since 2010. The benefit of these devices and their supporting applications are clearly apparent; you purchase a device and download the apps according to the functions you want it to perform. However, the benefits of social media, particularly for professionals who are not

directly involved in marketing and communications, are much less obvious. Despite this, several benefits do exist, and having a grasp on these new media channels will become increasingly important as the Australian workforce incorporates more and more technological components.

Adopting social media, particularly from a professional standpoint, brings with it the need for many to develop new skills. Given that up-skilling can be a time consuming and costly exercise, you’d want to be certain that the skill will be needed in the long term. With that in mind, it’s worth considering what core capabilities will be required in the workforce in the future. A report conducted by the Institute for the Future, looked at key drivers that will reshape the landscape of work and the key skills that will be needed in the next ten years. Ten key skills were identified:

• New media literacy: The ability to develop content online to communicate persuasively.

• Computational thinking: The ability to translate vast amounts of data.

• Transdisciplinary working: The ability to understand concepts across multiple disciplines.

• Cognitive load management: The ability to filter information depending on importance.

• Virtual collaboration: Work productively as a member of a virtual team.

• Sense making: The ability to determine greater significance from given information.

Keywordssocial media, Twitter, Google +, LinkedIn, social media manager, access to information, networking, reputation management

Take home messages• Socialmediawillbecomeincreasingly

important to the workforce in the future.

• Socialmediachannelscanbeusedassources of timely, relevant information.

• Usingsocialmediaallowsyou to build networks outside of geographic boundaries.

• Havingaprofessionalonlinepresenceis crucial for reputation and brand management.


• Social intelligence: The ability to network and draw information from peers.

• Novel and adaptive thinking: The ability to find innovative solutions different to the norm.

• Cross cultural competency: The ability to work with an increasingly diverse workforce.

• Design mindset: The ability to develop tasks and processes for desired outcomes.

An understanding of social media can assist you in acquiring the above skill set through quickly accessing reliable information from a diverse range of sources and adapting that information into a local context. Staying abreast of happenings online will benefit continual professional development and ensure that your skill set remains aligned with an increasingly digital workforce.

In the short and medium term, there are still benefits to be gained for a grains adviser participating in social media. These are:

• Access to information,

• network building; and

• online presence and reputation.

Access to informationFor any adviser considering using social media, the most immediate benefit is accessing information from all your preferred information sources. We’re now at the stage where almost all agricultural media organisations, seed, chemical, fertiliser and marketing companies as well as grower groups and government organisations have a social media presence and are using it to distribute information the minute it comes to hand. This allows recipients of this information to be more proactive and timely with decision making as you’re not waiting for a specific publication date, by which time, the information will not be as useful. It also allows you to receive the information most relevant to you, instead of having to flick through an entire publication.

In addition to the information sources listed above, a growing number of producers are using platforms like Twitter to share what’s happening on their farm, while seeking information from others in industry. This includes seeking agronomic advice and troubleshooting machinery issues.

What’s becoming increasingly important as more and more individuals and organisations contribute content to social media, is the filtering of that information to ensure it’s relevant and easily accessed. There are a number of mechanisms that allow you to organise social media content to ensure you only get information that is relevant to you.

In order to sort incidental information, you may want to use a social media manager such as Tweetdeck (for Twitter only) or Hootsuite (for Twitter and other platforms such as Facebook and LinkedIn). A social media manager allows you to sort tweets into columns according to people or topics you’re interested in. Some twitter hashtags (a hashtag is a way of categorising tweets) you may want to follow include: #tweetsfromthetractorcab, #harvest13, #plant14, #ausag, #agronomy, #grdcupdates and #agchatoz.

If you’re after specific information from a particular source, you can often alter your settings within various social media platforms to ensure you are alerted whenever new information becomes available. For example, I receive a text message to my phone any time my local Country Fire Authority Twitter account puts out information regarding an incident. Another mechanism for ensuring you’re alerted when new information becomes available is Google Alerts (you need a Gmail account to use this). This will allow you to select keywords that interest you. When new content that contains those keywords appears online, you’ll receive an email. You have the ability to choose the type of content received and the frequency of emails received. I have set several Google Alerts. Some of these include “Agricultural Apps” and “Social media in Australian Agriculture”.


Network BuildingAs the amount of information available increases, so does the complexity of decision making. This means that, in the future, it will be unreasonable to expect that an individual adviser will be an expert in all areas. However, an individual will be expected to leverage on their professional and personal networks, to tap into people and resources that may be able to assist.

Local networks will always remain crucial, as producers will look to their adviser for issues relating to their region. However, as grain production is increasingly impacted by happenings on the other side of the state, country and even the world, building networks outside immediate geographic boundaries is important. Being involved in social media is a good way to start building those networks. In addition to accessing information, strong online networks can present professional opportunities and business leads.

For the Australian grains industry, following the hashtags mentioned above on Twitter is a great place to start networking with farmers, advisers, grain marketers, researchers, seed/chemical/fertiliser companies, industry bodies, agricultural media and consumers. Twitter is also useful for a global perspective, but you may also be interested in Google+. Google + has a series of communities centered on a common theme such as “Agricultural Innovators” and “Extension” that allow members to seek advice from professionals all around the world. Google + is free and accessable to anyone who has a Google account.

Online Presence and ReputationYour professional reputation is an incredibly important asset. You work hard to ensure that you have a good presence in the area you service and that clients know to come to you with an issue that relates to your area of expertise. But what does your online presence look like?

If you don’t have one; you need one. Increasingly, the Internet is the first place many people will visit when seeking information or looking for someone

to help them. If you don’t have an online presence, you run the risk of missing out on potential clients as well as business, media, career and funding opportunities.

Do you have a personal online presence instead of a professional one? Clean it up (no inappropriate photos or opinions); lock down your privacy settings for personal accounts so only those you choose can access it. Treat anything you post like a personal press release.

In addition to a Twitter and Google + presence, which allows you to network with others in your area of interest, consider a LinkedIn profile. This will allow you to have a ‘virtual resume’ as well as allow prospective clients, employees, employers or business partners to view not only your capabilities, but also your networks.

ConclusionSocial media is what you make of it. It can be used as entertainment or as a professional business tool, a time waster or a way of keeping up with the latest information. At present, return on investment from social media is difficult to calculate, particularly from an adviser’s perspective, as often it’s not used directly as a marketing tool. However, placing a value on access to information, networks and your reputation is also difficult, yet no one denies their importance in any business. Social media has the potential to aid these three areas, and will only become more important in the future as we move into a more online reliant workforce.

Please see the next page for a checklist of considerations when posting content on social media channels.

ReferencesCook, P. (2012) Keepad Evaluation from I.T. Starter Guide presentation, GRDC Farm Business Updates, Pineroo, Jamestown, Nhill, Echuca and Hamilton, October 2012.

Future Work Skills 2020. Institute for the Future for the University of Phoenix Research Institute, 2011.


The Do’s and Don’ts of posting online

Do:

✓ Be human

✓ Be helpful and educating

✓ Ask questions

✓ Post consistently (try to stick to a few key themes)

✓ Respond to comments

✓ Post images and links

✓ Be relevant when joining conversations

✓ Maintain your account

✓ Understand your audience

✓ Pay attention to the reasons why you use different platforms

✓ Proofread your posts

✓ Remember that once it’s online, it’s permanent

Contact DetailsPrudence Cook

Private Bag 260 Horsham 3400

(03) 5362 2111

[email protected]

Twitter: @DEPI_Grains

Don’t:

✗ Self promote excessively

✗ Post too often

✗ Pick fights and troll

✗ Give out personal information or too much information

✗ Post links you haven’t read

✗ Drink and post!

✗ Post something you wouldn’t want your mother to read


Feeding the dragon – modernisation of China’s food industrySimone Tilley,ANZ

For information regarding this topic, please access the full report at http://www.anzbusiness.com/content/dam/anz-superregional/AgricultureInsightsChinaFood.pdf

Contact DetailsSimone Tilley

ANZ, 6A Docklands, Melbourne, 3000

[email protected]


Notes


Wheat and barley variety summary for the low-medium rainfall zones Simon Craig,1BCG and 2NVT


The role of varieties in the farming system is pivotal to increasing whole farm profitability. However, adopting a new variety without refining the other management practices that are crucial to its success will inevitably lead to disappointment. Each variety will have a different level of risk; whether it is to frost, heat stress, sprouting or disease. Each level of risk has to be weighed up and understood

in order to maximize the variety’s yield and subsequent profitability.

Season reflectionIn what many would have thought was a tough year for crops, most growers were quietly pleased in the end. No soil moisture, low soil Nitrogen (N), late break and low grain prices failed to create enthusiasm for growers in early May. The dry summer not only created uncertainty for production, it also had impacts for rotations. This was because residual herbicides, such as the group Bs (Imi’s) had not had sufficient rainfall to break down the chemical, creating plant-back dilemmas, particularly for conventional varieties. Subsequently, there was a significant increase of the area sown to Clearfield® tolerant varieties, in particular Kord CL PlusA and Scope CL PlusA.

In terms of the growing season, both Wimmera and Mallee experienced well above average rainfall in June which potentially restored growers’ enthusiasm. However, each region experienced a vastly different finish to the season. In the Mallee, smaller rainfall events occurred after June but they were followed by extremely windy conditions. Consequently, the benefit of these rainfall events may have been insignificant. The dry conditions in August took a lot out of most areas in the central and northern Mallee, particularly west of Ouyen and north. On the 15 September, there was a drought saving rain, with excess of 20mm in most places. The prospects of wheat yields significantly improved, whereas the yield potential of early barley may have already been set in the Mallee.

Keywordswheat, barley, NVT, low rainfall, medium rainfall

Take home messages• CorackA and MaceA have consistently

performed well in NVT over the past three seasons as has LRPB TrojanA in the medium to higher rainfall environments (2012 & 2013).

• LRPBCobraA and Emu RockA were performed notably better in 2013 than previous years which could be attributed to the late break suiting the shorter maturing varieties.

• CompassA, which is similar to CommanderA, will be a very well adapted variety that advisers should be excited about. It has topped NVT yields in 2012 and 2013 and is currently undergoing malt accreditation.


WheatTable 1. List of the wheat varieties commercially available

Seed Coleoptile Boron Sprouting Stem StripeName Quality Maturity Flowering CCN YLS company length tolerance tolerance Rust Rust

AxeA AGT AH Early E MS MI I/VI S MR-MS R-MR S

Clearfield STLA InterGrain APW Mid S MR MS-S MS-S

CorackA AGT APW early-mid EM MS I MI R-MR MR MS MR

CorrellA AGT AH Mid M ML MT I/VI* MR MR MRMS SVS

DerrimutA Nuseed AH early-mid EM - MT MI* R MR MS S

Elmore CL PlusA AGT AH Mid S MR MR-MS S

Emu RockA InterGrain AH Early E M - I S MR-MS MR-MS MS

GladiusA AGT AH Mid EM M MT I/VI MS MR MR-MS MS

Grenade CL PlusA AGT AH Mid EM M T MI/I MR MR MR-MS S

Justica CL PlusA AGT APW Mid M - MT MI MS MR MR-MS S

Kord CL PlusA AGT AH Mid EM - MT I MR MR MR-MS MS-S

LivingstonA AGT AH early-mid MS MR-MS R-MR MS

PacificLRPB CobraA AH early-mid EM M MI I MR-MS R-MR MS-S MR-MS Seeds

PacificLRPB DartA AH Early E - - MI/I S MR MR MR-MS Seeds

PacificLRPB LincolnA AH Mid EM - MI I/VI* S MR R-MR MR-MS Seeds

PacificLRPB PhantomA AH mid-late ML MS MT MI/I MR-MS MRMS MR S-VS Seeds

PacificLRPB ScoutA AH Mid EM ML T MI R MR MS S-VS Seeds

PacificLRPB SpitfireA AH early-mid S MR MR MS-S Seeds

PacificLRPB TrojanA APW mid-late MR-MS MR-MS MR MS-S Seeds

MaceA AGT AH early-mid EM MS T MI/I MR-MS MR S-VS MR-MS

MagentaA InterGrain APW mid-late S R-MR MS MR-MS

ShieldA AGT AH early-mid EM MS MI MI MR R-MR MR MS-S

WallupA AGT AH Mid M M I MI/I* MR R-MR MR-MS MS-S

YitpiA Seednet AH Mid ML M MT MI/I MR S MR-MS S-VS


Varieties such as TrojanA, CorackA and MaceA performed very well in the Mallee, Wimmera and North East regions. TrojanA and CorackA, both being APW varieties, potentially give MaceA a slight economical advantage if premiums of Hard (H1 quality) exist over APW. Mace’s susceptibility to Stripe rust (VS) is concerning for late infection however, this factor just needs to be managed. Both MaceA and CorackA have better adaptability to a lower rainfall environment than other varieties, and their tolerance to Yellow Leaf Spot (YLS) make it a perfect fit into the generally cereal dominated rotations of the Mallee.

Excitement about the two-gene imi-tolerant tolerant variety Grenade CL PlusA over Kord CL PlusA may have been a bit premature with GrenadeA failing to out-yield Kord CL PlusA at all sites except Merrinee. The problem with Kord CL PlusA is its susceptibility to pre-harvest sprouting. Grenade CL PlusA has better tolerance, and therefore, poses a lower risk to growers. However, based on this year’s results, it’s inferior to KordA in yield.

Figure 1. NVT Mallee yield results 2013 (yield expressed as a % of site mean).


Table 2. Mallee Wheat NVT results 2013

Birchip Hopetoun Manangatang Merrinee Murrayville Quambatook Ultima WalpeupVariety Name t/ha % t/ha % t/ha % t/ha % t/ha % t/ha % t/ha % t/ha %

AxeA 2.02 96 2.13 92 1.68 99 1.29 106 1.92 94 1.28 97 1.73 93 1.42 106

CatalinaA 2.01 95 2.14 93 1.52 90 0.92 76 1.81 89 1.17 89 1.77 95 1.19 89

CobraA 2.37 112 2.43 106 1.66 98 1.02 84 1.91 93 1.29 98 1.74 94 1.21 90

CorackA 2.32 110 2.54 110 1.93 114 1.35 111 2.11 103 1.43 108 1.8 96 1.6 120

CorrellA 2.11 100 2.29 99 1.64 97 1.07 88 2.01 98 1.2 91 1.98 106 1.29 97

DartA 1.91 91 2.1 91 1.66 98 1.02 84 1.81 89 1.12 85 1.71 92 1.18 88

DerrimutA 1.94 92 2.25 98 1.68 100 1.18 97 1.96 96 1.16 88 1.89 101 1.21 91

Emu RockA 2.3 109 2.15 94 1.83 108 1.31 108 2.18 107 1.46 111 1.83 99 1.54 115

EstocA 2.15 102 2.29 100 1.65 98 1.24 102 2.09 102 1.26 95 1.91 103 1.16 87

GladiusA 2.12 100 2.25 98 1.7 100 0.88 73 2.06 101 1.42 108 1.84 99 1.27 95

Grenade CL PlusA 1.96 93 2.11 92 1.68 99 1.06 87 2.08 102 1.3 99 1.81 97 1.26 95

HarperA 2.28 108 2.42 105 1.63 97 1.48 122 2.06 101 1.21 92 1.96 105 1.26 95

Justica CL PlusA 1.96 93 2.14 93 1.58 93 1.24 102 2.07 101 1.2 91 1.95 105 1.28 96

Kord CL PlusA 2.09 99 2.25 98 1.7 101 0.71 58 2.16 106 1.31 99 1.8 97 1.34 101

MaceA 2.02 95 2.35 102 1.91 113 1.35 112 2.23 109 1.35 102 1.75 94 1.39 104

PhantomA 1.99 94 2.22 97 1.27 75 0.99 82 1.75 85 1.17 89 2.02 108 0.9 67

ScoutA 2.13 101 2.11 92 1.73 102 0.79 65 1.93 94 1.21 92 1.84 99 1.21 91

ShieldA 2.04 97 2.22 96 1.64 97 1.15 94 2.13 104 1.25 95 1.83 98 1.31 98

TrojanA 2.29 109 2.52 109 1.68 99 1.01 83 2.18 107 1.4 106 2.08 112 1.27 95

WyalkatchemA 2.04 97 2.36 103 1.66 98 1.38 114 2.02 99 1.32 100 1.75 94 1.33 99

YitpiA 2.18 103 2.34 102 1.5 89 1.32 109 1.98 97 1.2 91 1.95 105 1.19 89

Site Mean (t/ha) 2.11 2.3 1.69 1.21 2.04 1.32 1.86 1.34

CV (%) 4.7 3.13 3.11 5.98 4.64 6.28 2.2 7.82

15-May- 22-May- 08-May- 16-May- 17-May- 01-Jun- 06-Jun- 21-May-Sowing Date 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013


Table 3. Wimmera Wheat NVT results 2013

Region North Central North East North East North East WimmeraNearest Town Charlton Dookie Wunghnu Yarrawonga BrimVariety Name t/ha % t/ha % t/ha % t/ha % t/ha %AxeA 3.09 103 5.03 104 3.25 108 4.58 96 2.22 99

BarhamA 2.64 88 4.07 84 2.55 85 4.44 93 1.9 85

CatalinaA 2.85 95 - - - - - - 2.03 91

CharaA 3.25 108 4.52 94 2.94 98 4.46 93 - -

CobraA 3.06 102 5.38 111 3.29 109 5.07 106 2.38 107

CorackA 3.53 117 5.12 106 3.2 107 4.62 97 2.64 118

CorrellA 2.85 95 4.58 95 2.92 97 5.13 107 2.18 98

DartA 2.6 86 4.48 93 2.93 97 4.72 99 2.21 99

DerrimutA 2.98 99 4.47 93 2.6 87 4.45 93 2.04 91

EGA GregoryA - - 4.91 102 3.16 105 4.83 101 - -

Elmore CL PLusA 2.76 92 4.84 100 2.94 98 4.48 94 1.84 82

Emu RockA 2.83 94 4.98 103 3.05 101 4.59 96 2.15 97

EspadaA - - 5.2 108 3.14 104 4.88 102 - -

EstocA 2.97 99 4.86 101 3.02 100 4.44 93 2.15 96

GascoigneA 2.43 81 4.46 92 3.02 100 4.57 96 2.05 92

GauntletA 3.09 103 5.06 105 2.93 97 5.03 105 2.1 94

GazelleA 2.45 81 4.51 93 2.71 90 4.71 98 2.18 98

GladiusA 2.63 87 4.83 100 2.86 95 4.16 87 2.24 101

Grenade CL PlusA 2.69 89 4.61 95 2.76 92 4.28 89 2.2 99

HarperA 2.84 94 4.7 97 3.04 101 4.83 101 2.11 94

ImpalaA 2.95 98 4.58 95 2.57 86 4.46 93 2.13 96

JanzA - - - - 2.61 87 - - 1.94 87

Justica CL PlusA 2.97 99 4.69 97 2.93 98 5.16 108 2.25 101

Kord CL PlusA 3.33 110 4.84 100 3 100 5.23 109 2.04 92

LincolnA 2.76 92 5.24 109 2.85 95 4.3 90 2.12 95

MaceA 2.96 98 5.16 107 3.29 110 4.87 102 2.43 109

MagentaA 3.04 101 5.24 108 2.97 99 5.18 108 2.19 98

MerlinA - - 4.42 91 2.85 95 4.57 96 - -

OrionA 2.54 84 4.64 96 2.67 89 4.68 98 1.91 86

PhantomA 2.87 95 5.23 108 2.88 96 4.82 101 2.16 97

QAL2000 - - 4.72 98 - - 4.61 96 - -

ScoutA 3.15 104 4.93 102 2.84 94 4.92 103 2.19 98

ShieldA 2.76 92 - - - - - - 2.15 96

SpitfireA - - 4.81 100 2.71 90 4.83 101 - -

SuntopA - - 4.61 95 3.24 108 4.98 104 - -

TrojanA 3.71 123 5.07 105 3.56 119 4.92 103 2.5 112

WallupA 3.24 108 4.85 100 3.25 108 4.93 103 2.2 99

WyalkatchemA 3.2 106 - - - - - - 2.46 110

YitpiA 3.14 104 4.71 97 2.81 93 4.41 92 2.06 92

Site Mean (t/ha) 3.01 4.83 3.01 4.78 2.23CV (%) 10.71 7.14 5.78 6.65 4.48LSD (%) 18 12 10 12 8Sowing Date 28-May-2013 14-May-2013 03-May-2013 18-May-2013 08-May-2013


Figure 2. NVT yields in the Wimmera and North East (expressed as a % of site mean).

BarleyTable 4. Agronomic details of barley varieties

Spot Net Barley Root lesion nematode Barley form form Powdery Leaf Yellow grassVariety Scald CCN (Pratylenchus) of net of net mildew rust Dwarf stripe blotch blotch Virus P. neglectus P. thornei rustMALTING BARLEYBassA MSS MSS MSS S MR# MRMSp S MRMS MRMS R

BaudinA SVS MS MRMS# SVS VS MR S - - R

BulokeA MS MSS MR MR SVS MSp S MS MRMS R

CommanderA S MS MSS MRMS S MS R MRMS MRMS R

GairdnerA SVS S MRMS MR S S S MRMS MS R

GrangerA MSS S MRMS R MR Sp - MRMS MRMS R

NavigatorA MR# MRMS MRMS R VS Sp R MRMS MRMS R

ScopeA MSS MS MR MR SVS MR S MS MRMS R

WestminsterA MR# S MRMS RMR MR MSp - - - MRMS

FEED/FOOD BARLEYCapstanA S MRMS S MR MRMS S R - - MR

FathomA MR# MR MSS MRMS MSS MS R MRMS MRMS R

FleetA MSS MR MRMS MRMS MSS MRMS R MRMS MRMS R

Flindersv* S MSS MS R MS MS - - - R

HindmarshA (F) SVS S MRMS MS MSS MS R MS MRMS R

Oxford MSS# S MRMS# R MR MS S MRMS MR R

Skipperv* S MRMS MR MR SVS MR R MS MRMS R

WimmeraA* MSS MSS MRMS S MR# MRMSp S MRMS MRMS MR

La Trobev R-VS S MR MR MS - R - - -

# Varieties marked may be more susceptible if alternative strains are present. P These ratings are provisional - treat with caution. * Variety currently undergoing malting accreditation. (F) Food grade barley, accredited for human consumption markets. R = Resistant RMR = Resistant to moderately resistant MR = Moderately resistant MRMS = Moderately resistant to moderately susceptible MS = Moderately susceptible MSS = Moderately susceptible to susceptible S = Susceptible SVS = Susceptible to very susceptible VS = Very susceptible. (Information obtained from DEPI Crop Disease Guide)


Table 5. NVT barley results for the Mallee in 2013

Region Mallee Mallee Mallee Mallee Mallee Mallee

Nearest Town Hopetoun Manangatang Murrayville Rainbow Ultima Walpeup

Variety Name t/ha % t/ha % t/ha % t/ha % t/ha % t/ha %

Barque 2.69 97 1.61 93 2.01 90 3.72 104 2.14 107 1.57 103

BassA 2.7 97 1.73 100 2.16 97 3.55 100 1.8 90 1.76 115

BulokeA 2.77 100 1.88 109 2.22 100 3.6 101 2.02 102 1.66 109

CommanderA 2.98 107 1.61 93 2.22 100 3.74 105 2.29 115 1.1 72

CompassA 3.16 114 1.88 109 2.7 121 3.94 110 2.27 114 1.67 109

FathomA 3.01 108 1.81 105 2.51 113 3.83 108 2.23 112 1.86 122

FlagshipA 2.59 93 1.76 102 2.22 100 3.44 97 1.84 93 1.48 97

FleetA 2.97 107 1.73 100 2.22 99 3.88 109 2.18 109 1.55 101

Flinders 2.57 92 1.55 90 2.13 95 3.31 93 1.95 98 1.17 77

GairdnerA 2.56 92 1.61 93 1.95 87 3.13 88 1.88 94 1.37 90

GrangerA 2.72 98 1.57 91 2.02 91 3.53 99 1.84 92 1.35 88

HindmarshA 2.97 107 1.84 106 2.56 115 3.5 98 2.04 102 1.81 119

Keel 2.89 104 1.82 105 2.6 116 3.45 97 2.1 105 2.03 133

La TrobeA 2.88 104 1.99 115 2.47 111 3.67 103 2.06 104 1.81 118

MaritimeA 2.61 94 1.75 101 - - - - 1.89 95 - -

Oxford 2.83 102 1.61 93 1.91 86 3.64 102 1.77 89 0.87 57

Schooner 2.57 93 1.7 98 2.01 90 3.31 93 1.76 88 1.54 101

ScopeA 2.8 101 1.85 107 2.2 99 3.62 101 1.97 99 1.53 100

SkipperA 2.87 103 1.95 113 2.45 110 3.73 105 2.17 109 1.85 121

Sloop SAA 2.61 94 1.72 99 - - - - 1.96 99 - -

SY RattlerA 2.77 100 1.7 98 2 90 3.4 95 1.84 92 1.56 102

WimmeraA 2.72 98 1.66 96 - - - - 1.8 90 - -

Site Mean (t/ha) 2.78 1.73 2.23 3.56 1.99 1.52

CV (%) 2.97 3.99 7.5 2.49 4.37 11.84

Sowing Date 22-May-2013 08-May-2013 17-May-2013 17-May-2013 06-Jun-2013 21-May-2013


Table 6. NVT barley results for the Wimmera in 2013

Region North Central North Central North East Wimmera Wimmera Wimmera

Nearest Town Charlton Colbinabbin Wunghnu Horsham Kaniva Minyip

Variety Name t/ha % t/ha % t/ha % t/ha % t/ha % t/ha %

BassA 2.73 89 2.75 82 3.43 91 3.83 97 5.3 103 4.78 97

BaudinA 2.64 86 3.73 111 3.52 93 3.99 101 5.1 99 4.88 99

BulokeA 3.08 100 3.11 92 3.57 95 3.95 100 5.34 104 4.76 96

ChargerA 2.95 96 3.38 101 4.03 107 4.24 107 5.1 99 5.32 108

CommanderA 3.23 105 3.1 92 3.69 98 3.91 99 5.2 101 5.08 103

CompassA 3.24 106 3.34 99 4.44 118 4.36 110 5.58 108 5.66 114

Fairviewv 3.23 105 3.86 115 4.16 110 4.08 103 - - 4.96 100

FathomA 3.02 98 2.88 86 3.57 95 3.91 99 5.31 103 4.88 99

FlagshipA 3.51 114 3.02 90 3.73 99 3.73 94 4.85 94 4.29 87

FleetA - - - - - - 4.25 107 5.31 103 5.16 105

FlindersA 2.82 92 3.47 103 3.95 105 3.75 95 5.14 100 4.71 95

GairdnerA 2.4 78 2.98 89 3.49 93 3.73 94 4.82 94 4.73 96

GrangerA 3.49 113 3.47 103 4.04 107 4.18 105 5.34 104 5.15 104

HindmarshA 3.75 122 3.57 106 3.89 103 3.88 98 5.21 101 4.92 100

La TrobeA 3.5 114 3.55 106 3.85 102 4.09 103 5.28 103 4.99 101

MacquarieA - - - - 3.76 100 4.01 101 - - - -

MaritimeA - - - - 3.34 89 3.78 95 4.94 96 - -

Navigatorv 2.99 97 3.15 94 - - 3.85 97 - - 4.87 99

Oxford 2.68 87 3.42 102 3.77 100 4.01 101 5.35 104 5.4 109

Schooner 2.57 83 3.21 95 3.75 99 3.25 82 4.9 95 4.2 85

ScopeA 3.15 102 3.58 106 3.76 100 4.43 112 5.2 101 4.79 97

SkipperA 3.2 104 2.81 84 3.82 101 4.06 103 5.18 101 4.69 95

SY RattlerA 3.19 104 3.84 114 4 106 3.86 97 4.79 93 4.95 100

WestminsterA 2.6 85 3.64 108 3.6 96 3.65 92 5.03 98 4.66 94

WimmeraA 3.06 100 3.47 103 3.82 101 3.95 100 5.18 101 5.04 102

Site Mean (t/ha) 3.07 3.36 3.77 3.96 5.15 4.94

CV (%) 11.14 8.42 5.58 3.84 2.43 2.13

Sowing Date 28-May-2013 29-May-2013 03-May-2013 17-Jun-2013 14-May-2013 11-Jun-2013


The superiority of HindmarshA may appear to be coming to an end, with new varieties CompassA (bred as WI4593), FathomA and SkipperA performing equally or better than Hindmarsh for yield. CompassA is a CommanderA type that is undergoing malt accreditation. It seems to have very consistent performance between regions (Figure 3 and Table 5 & 6). The impact of the dry August in the Mallee, as mentioned earlier, is likely attributed to HindmarshA’s below par performance, in a year where it typically would excel (e.g. below average growing season). The greatest issue growers have with HindmarshA is its lack of weed competition. This has led to more areas of Scope CL PlusA being grown but at the cost of yield. Compass, SkipperA and FathomA offer much better weed

competitiveness, and therefore, will be attractive to growers provided they consistently yield similar to HindmarshA. FathomA is an early maturing feed variety which has been bred from a wild barley, which improves water-use efficiency and drought tolerance. It has CCN resistance and is resistant to SFNB so it is well suited to the sandy soils in the Mallee.

Contact details Simon Craig

PO. Box 85, Birchip VIC 3483

(03) 5492 2787

[email protected]

Figure 3. NVT State wide comparison of barley varieties from 2012.


Notes


Wheat, canola and barley outlookMalcolm Bartholomaeus,Bartholomaeus Consulting

WheatThe January 2014 USDA report has set the tone for wheat prices for the 2014/15 season. The report confirmed a large crop from the 2013/14 season, growing global wheat stocks and a major shift in consumption by livestock feeders from wheat back to corn and feed barley.

Wheat prices were supported for much of 2013 by what looked like being only a very small increase in global stocks, and from unexpected demand for

milling wheat from China and strong buying outside of South America by Brazil.

The initial burst of Chinese buying in August was not revisited as expected, and crops elsewhere in the world started to ‘come in’ larger than forecast to eventually push 2013/14 production to an all time record of 712.66 million tonne. This was a massive 15.4 million tonne increase over the previous record set in 2011/12, and resulted in stocks lifting by an estimated 9.27 million tonne rather than going sideways as originally projected in early 2013.

Keywordsproduction, outlook, 2014, wheat, canola, barley

Take home messages• Globalwheatproductionwasabovetrend

last year and may not lift again this year.

• Globalconsumptionofwheatmayfallascheaper corn and barley removes wheat from feed rations.

• However,withoutasignificantproductionissue emerging, wheat stocks are set to grow again in 2014, putting pressure on prices as we move from harvest 2013 to harvest 2014.

• Easternstatesgrowerswillseealargeryear-on-year price fall as basis levels return to normal.

• Currencymightnotplayabigpartinthedirection of Australian wheat prices, with the underlying futures price likely to set the tone.

• Canolawillenterthe2014yearwithalargecarryover in Canada from their record crop, and reduced demand for biofuel probably reducing exports to the EU.

• Soybeanproductionshouldhitanewrecord in South America as well.

• Longerterm,thedemandforoilseedsforcrushing is growing faster than production, and will continue to keep prices strong around short term volatility as supply and demand close in on each other.

• Barleypricesmightnotfallashardaswheat prices as the gap between wheat and corn, and wheat and feed barley closes up a little more in 2014.


With larger stocks of wheat becoming available from other exporters like Canada, Australia, the EU and the Black Sea, export sales from the US finally began to falter into the end of 2013. With reduced use for livestock feed, this saw the forecast decline in US wheat stocks reduced in the January USDA reports.

So we have begun the 2014 calendar year with wheat futures slipping to their lowest levels since June 2012 in A$ terms, and in US dollar terms prices are as low as they have been since July 2010.

Unless global wheat consumption lifts in 2014, or production falls, to produce a pull back in global wheat stocks year-on-year coming into December 2014, there is no reason to think that the decline in the A$ value of US futures from December 2012 to December 2013 won’t be extended into December 2014.

The APW cash price in Australia remains highly correlated to the A$ value of CBOT futures, particularly in port zones with an exportable surplus of wheat. As such, if wheat futures continue to fall during 2014, we would expect to see a year-on-year decline in APW prices in all port zones.

With premiums on prices in NSW and Victoria for the 2013/4 harvest, their year-on-year price falls are likely to be much larger.

Global balance sheet

Production

Global wheat production has been rising steadily, but growth in output in 2013/14 was above trend, producing the new record crop of 712.66 million tonne (January 2014 USDA estimate).

As we go into 2014, the planted area to winter wheat in the US (the world’s largest exporter) has come in at 41.9 million acres, down 2.2 million acres on 2013 levels. There will be a recovery in production in the UK (a large net exporter within the EU normally) this year, but it is hard to see the record crop in Canada being repeated. There were also planting delays for the winter wheat crop in the Black Sea region, although a benign autumn has apparently compensated for late plantings.

There is also the issue of cold stress on US and Black Sea winter wheat crops. The severe cold in the US may have done some damage, and a lack of snow cover in parts of Russia and Ukraine in early January has left some of their crop at risk. However, India does seem poised to produce a record crop this year, and continue to be an exporter of wheat in 2014/15.

All in all the expectation is that the global wheat crop will fall slightly in 2014, even if just to see yields at a global level, pull back to trend line levels.

Figure 1. Global wheat production (million tonne).


Consumption

As in 2011/12, 2013/14 was characterised by a lift in the use of wheat for livestock feeding against tight corn supplies and abundant wheat supplies. Once the US corn crop was ‘in the bin’ during October the availability of cheaper feed grains saw consumption of wheat begin to pull back.

It will still leave consumption for the 2013/14 marketing year at an all time high of 703.39 million tonne (up 6.1 million tonne from the previous record set in 2011/12). While wheat consumption has been growing strongly, the levels seen in both 2011/12 and 2013/14 were above trend.

It is likely that consumption won’t grow, or may even pull back in 2014/15, as cheaper and more plentiful corn finds its way into feed rations in the US, and as feed barley replaces wheat in rations in the EU.

Global wheat stocks

Even if wheat production does stagnate, or pull back, it is hard to see why global wheat stocks won’t continue to increase in 2014/15, unless there

is a major production issue in one or more key regions of the world.

However, the lift in wheat stocks will be modest (i.e. similar to 2013/14 at around 8 – 10 million tonne). Although it won’t be until closer to June before judgements can be made on the expected outcome of the global wheat crop, the markets are likely to assume that stocks will continue to build until enough information becomes available to suggest otherwise.

The ongoing issue for the wheat market though, is that in 2013/14 a crop 15.4 million tonne above the previous record only allowed grain stocks to increase by 9.27 million tonne. There is a not a lot of room for something to go wrong. Even a drought just in Australia would be enough to wipe out any surplus.

Either way, the global stocks to use ratio is expected to increase a little more, possibly towards 28 per cent. This is well above the levels that triggered higher prices during the 2001 – 2008 period.

Figure 2. Global wheat consumption (million tonne).


Figure 3. Global wheat stocks (million tonne).

Figure 4. Global wheat surplus or deficit (million tonne).


Figure 5. Global wheat stocks to use ratio (%).

Figure 6. Average December prices (CBOT A$ Futures).


Figure 7. CBOT Futures versus APW Port Adelaide.

Figure 8. Change in APW price December 2012 to December 2013, Port Adelaide.


Wheat Prices

There is a strong correlation between the AUD value of CBOT futures, and port based APW prices in Australia.

Based on average cash prices during December for the last 6 harvests, there has been an 84.51 per cent correlation between the year-on-year move in the A$ value of US futures, and the move in APW cash prices at Port Adelaide.

When we look at the daily APW cash price against the AUD value of spot CBOT futures for the period from 27/10/08 to 11/1/14, there has been an 89 per cent correlation. Basically, if US futures adjusted for currency fall, so to do our cash prices and vice versa.

Futures

The biggest impact on price is the underlying US futures price. However, currency and basis have a big part to play as well. Over the last 12 months, US futures have fallen by A$75.37 per tonne, but the drop in the A$ added $46.70 per tonne and basis levels lifted by A$4.16 per tonne to limit the drop in APW prices year-on-year to $24.51 per tonne.

Currency

We all know that a lower dollar is helpful to export commodity prices. However, it is not that simple. In the case of wheat, and other commodities denominated in US dollars, a drop in the Australian dollar can be driven by a lift in the US dollar, which in turn pushes the US$ commodity price down.

During 2013, the US dollar had been kept lower by the US Federal Reserve policy of quantitative easing (i.e. printing money). However, the Australian dollar also shed value against the US dollar and it has probably helped hold the A$ value of futures (and therefore APW cash prices) higher.

What we do know is that a 5 cent drop in the exchange rate over 2013 did not deliver higher wheat prices, but it has probably prevented our prices from falling as far as they might have.

Looking forward to 2104, the US has a new Chairperson for the Federal Reserve. If the expected pull back from quantitative easing does not happen quite as fast as previously expected, it will tend to keep the US dollar down and the Australian dollar higher in 2014. That might not have too much impact though if the lower US$ allows the underlying commodity price to trade a little higher anyway.

Similarly, if the US dollar rises as quantitative easing is wound back, we would expect to see a higher US dollar, drive the Australian dollar lower, with the US currency driven drop in commodity prices covered by the drop in the A$.

Basis

Basis levels in South Australia during December 2013 were slightly above those for 2012, but close to those of 2011. We should expect something similar for the 2014 harvest unless we see a major shift in market structure (e.g. a drought in Australia would push basis up, while very aggressive exports from India or Russia into Asian markets could see basis fall).

However, in Victoria and NSW in 2013 basis levels were above normal. As this unwinds going into the 2014 harvest, we would expect larger year-on-year price falls at Victorian and NSW ports, as cash prices in those zones fall back basically to equate to Port Adelaide export based price levels.

Summary

Without a significant production issue somewhere in the global market, it is hard to see why futures won’t post a year-on-year fall from harvest 2013 to harvest 2014. The futures market has already priced a fall of A$10 per tonne when we compare the average A$ value of spot futures for December 2013 against the A$ value of December 2014 futures just after the January USDA Report on 11 January.

Any weakening of basis will add to the price falls for APW year-on-year.

There is no guarantee that a further drop in our exchange rate against the US currency will help


stem any price falls. The impact of currency may be close to neutral, while the A$ value of US futures basically gets moved by the underlying global wheat supply and demand forces.

CanolaThe global oilseed market was driven partially by shortages of canola in Canada and soybeans in the US, hanging over from the 2012/13 season. That held canola prices in the early part of the season, with pricing opportunities running out by the end of August.

Production issues in eastern Australia, and export sales to China, provided support for prices once harvest got underway in Australia.

However, behind the scenes we have:

• a very large crop in Canada

• logistics issues in Canada slowing their pace of exports and lifting their carryover inventory

• slowing demand for biofuel

• reduced import demand from the EU as they increase their own supplies internally and from nearby neighbours, and

• A rebuild of global oilseed stocks as US production recovered in 2013, and as we face a new record soybean crop from Brazil.

The trends set in 2013 are likely to continue in 2014. Any change in trend will not be until the US soybean and Canadian canola crops are harvested in late September and October. That is when we are most likely going to know if futures prices for canola in 2014 are going to hold close to prices just seen for the 2013 crop. Even if the Canadian canola crop is smaller this year, carryover stocks will continue to keep supplies high.

Harvest prices for canola in 2013 were supported by shortages in the eastern state’s crop and a strong harvest export program. Any reduction in basis levels will put further pressure on Australian prices for the 2014 crop.

Figure 9. Global oilseed production (million tonne).


Figure 10. Global oilseed crush (million tonne).

Figure 11. Global oilseed stocks (million tonne).


Figure 13. F1 barley versus APW harvest averages.

Figure 12. Average harvest feed barley prices.


What does underpin the oilseed market is a 15.91 per cent increase in the global oilseed crush from 2009/10 to 2013/14, against a 13.94 per cent increase in output. While that has still seen production lift by 61.9 million tonne over that period, against the oilseed crush increase of 57.03 million tonne, if the trends continue the growth in demand will exceed the growth in production, tipping the world back into a situation of declining oilseed stocks.

As with wheat, this basic underlying supply and demand equation underpins the market in the longer term, but in the short term surpluses will result in lower prices.

BarleyBarley prices are highly correlated with wheat prices, but at the margins there is room for barley to make its own price as the spread between wheat and barley opens and closes over time.

From harvest 2012 to harvest 2013, average harvest feed barley price fell by $42.45 per tonne. At the same time, APW wheat prices fell by closer to $30 per tonne. This has left barley under priced against wheat, which is similar to the relativity between wheat and corn in US futures markets.

During the 2013 harvest, the average spread between APW wheat and F1 barley was $64 per tonne. By mid January this had closed up to $43 per tonne.

In 2014 we are likely to see the gap between wheat and corn, and wheat and feed barley, close up closer to longer term averages. That may limit any year on year price declines for barley even if wheat continues to lose ground as expected.

Malting barley may not get the same protection. The malt premium over feed barley averaged $29.34 per tonne, and peaked at $42 per tonne for the 2013 harvest. In part this was supported by weak feed barley prices. If feed barley holds it value better in 2014, it might keep the malt premium down closer to $20 per tonne.

Contact detailsMalcolm Bartholomaeus

Callum Downs, PO Box 54, Clare SA 5453

08 8842 2781, 0411 430 609

[email protected]

www.bartholomaeusconsulting.com.au

Figure 14. Malt premium over F1 barley harvest averages.


Frost damage in crops - where to from here?Dale Grey,DEPI, Vic

BackgroundIn October 2013 many farmers and their advisers experienced severe late frosting that dramatically decreased yield. The 18th of October was the morning that caused people the most grief, but in parts of NE Victoria and Southern NSW up to three significant frosts were experienced in October. Due to the relative sparseness of official temperature readings and the large effect low topography plays in frosting, the maps (Figures 1 and 2) are an underestimate of the affected area. Known frost effected regions exist outside these boundaries however; a suitable satellite did not pass overhead on that morning for a finer resolution image.

Keywordsfrost, temperature, wheat, canola, pulses, yield loss

Take home messages• Frostisarelativelyrareoccurrencebut

some areas are more prone to it than others.

• Therehasbeenanincreaseinfrostfrequency in many areas in the last 20 years.

• Minoragronomictweaksmightbenecessary in some frost prone areas but most growers should be steady as she goes.

• Intheeventofseverefrost,monitoringneeds to occur up to two weeks after the event to detect all the damage.


Figure 1. Frost distribution map set at +2 degrees C, ground level 0 degrees C, wheat head height + 1 degrees C, perimeter in black dashes.


Concern about frostA small survey conducted by DEPI in October-November 2013 showed that 68% of respondents in SE Australia were very or moderately concerned about frost damage in cereals (n=111). In canola the number was less, at 40% and in pulses the level was 57%.

What causes frost?Clear, calm and dry nights following cold days are the precursor conditions for a radiation frost (or hoar frost). These conditions are most often met during winter and spring where high pressures follow a

cold front, bringing cold air from the southern ocean but settled cloudless weather. When the loss of heat from the earth during the night decreases the temperature at ground level to zero, a frost occurs. Wind and cloud reduce the likelihood of frost by decreasing the loss of heat to the atmosphere. The extent of frost damage is determined by how quickly the temperature takes to get to zero, the length of time its stays below zero and the how far below zero it gets.

A cold front passes through, injecting cold air in from the Southern Ocean the day before the frost. Over night the high stabilises over SE Australia meaning clear skies and no wind. Frost happens.

Figure 2. Frost distribution map set at 0 degrees C, ground level – 2 degrees C, wheat head height -1 degrees C, perimeter in black dashes.


How do we measure frost temperatures?Most BoM temperatures are measured 1.2-1.5 metres above the ground in a Stevenson Screen. Frost occurs at ground level when it’s +2.2°C in the white box. The officially recorded temperatures vary

for frost damage depending on the height of the crops; lentils and chickpeas being the shortest. The threshold temperature for damage also varies with crop and season. In general however, an official temperature of 0°C, will have a negative effect on crops of any crop height, but between 0+2°C the frost effect is variable.

A cold front passes through, injecting cold air in from the Southern Ocean the day before the frost.

Over night the high stabilises over SE Australia meaning clear skies and no wind. Frost happens.

Figure 3. Common weather patterns experienced prior to frost occurrence.

Figure 4. Diagram of frost recording system and the variation of temperature recorded with location of measurement.


Frost effect on the plantThere are two types of frost experienced in Victoria, “white” and “black”. “White” frost occurs when the air around the plant is moist and the temperature around the plant is zero or below. Ice crystals form on the surface of the plant (“white”). The water in between plant cells freezes and draws water out of surrounding cells to form more ice. When frost melts slowly (e.g. in winter), damage is minor and the plants repair themselves to fight another day. Often the least damage is in the shadows of trees where the thaw is slower, or on the side of the grain head away from the sun. The visual effect is similar to drought stress as plants can temporarily appear wilted. In spring, the thawing can be rapid and damage can be severe.

“Black” frost occurs when the temperature drops below zero but the surrounding air is dry (e.g. drought conditions). Ice can’t form on the plant surface and the water between cells freezes quickly and forms large crystals. These large crystals “pop” holes in the cells causing permanent damage. Once thawed, plant parts affected immediately look floppy, spongy and discoloured. If that plant part happens to be a flower or a developing ovary the result can be detrimental to yield.

Frost damage occurs to legume pods and seeds, canola pods, flowers and seeds and cereal grains, flowers, or whole heads if the stem freezes around the flag leaf or in the boot. Flowering wheat, triticale, podding canola and field peas are some of the most sensitive crops to frost. Barley and oats are the most tolerant.

Are frosts becoming more frequent?The DEPI survey showed that 66% of respondents thought that frost events were a 1-3 in 10 year event, but the spread between never and every year in ten was wide. Geographic viewing of this data might help to elucidate this better for the different regions.

It is ironic that as temperatures (particularly those in winter and spring), are getting warmer, frost is still a major issue. CSIRO researchers have discovered that there are areas of Australia where the frost number has been measured to be rising (greatest in August), with Eyre Peninsula, Esperance, Northern Vic Mallee, and Central West NSW the only major crop growing areas to be less affected by frost in the period 1961-2010 (Crimp et al. in Press) The finger of blame has been pointed at the latitude of the Sub Tropical Ridge of high pressure drifting south (causing more stable pressure systems) and the existence of more El Nino conditions during this period.

Analysis of the long term temperature data for Ouyen and Longerenong shows a trend of greater numbers of 2°C frosts during the wheat flowering window in the Wimmera in the last 15 years. This is even more concerning if you plot the severe frosts at 0°C. This is in stark contrast to the Northern Mallee where frost risk is low and shows no upward trend.

Figure 5. Regions of increasing Aug – Nov frosts (Source: Steven Crimp).


Figure 6. Historic number of 2°C frosts experienced during the wheat flowering window at Longerenong.

Figure 7. Historic number of 0°C frosts experienced during the wheat flowering window at Longerenong.


Effect of nitrogen and stubble on frost damageAny action that can increase the storage of heat in the soil for re-radiation back at night can help to decrease frost damage. Unfortunately, thin crops and bare soils which increase the storage of heat within the soil, are ergonomically on the nose. The process of heat storage requires moist soil which is why frost damage is greatest when soil is dry. Stubble cover insulates the surface against moisture and heat loss, but also increases heat gain. Extra soil moisture or lower soil temperatures as a result of stubble cover can delay flowering potentially changing the frost risk in or out of the danger zone.

WA is conducting research on stubble retention and frost due to anecdotal information from farmers. The use of high nutrition rates can lead to thick crops which are also a good insulator for preventing heat loss back to the surrounding air at night, but also preventing sunshine from warming the earth. If the addition of nitrogen (N) increases canopy size, it will also increases water use at a time that could be critical for frost damage. Nitrogen application delays flowering potentially moving the crop out of a frost period. WA research has shown that sowing frost prone areas thinly and cutting back fertiliser has led to a greater chance of lower losses from those paddocks.

Figure 8. Historic number of 2°C frosts experienced during the wheat flowering window at Ouyen.


The importance of sowing time and flowering datesMost people stage their sowing dates over a 3-6 week period. If you were sowing just one variety, this would provide a long flowering window. If like most people you sow the winter wheat first, then the long season, then the mid-season, then the early maturing wheats last, you set your whole crop to flower over a 2 week period, potentially exposing you to more frost risk but maximising the yield potential in the absence of frost. To maximise frost risk resilience you need a mix of sowing dates and maturity types to be able to miss the late frosts. In years of severe frost it may not matter what you do to prevent damage.

What can you do about it?The DEPI survey asked people what they were currently doing to mitigate against frost damage. Most farmers and advisers use crop types and maturity length regularly, but much less mix up their sowing times to manipulate frost risk exposure. Even fewer people choose to deliberately sow later. Some people do treat frost prone areas differently or grow less of the susceptible crops.

Figure 9. Effect of nitrogen application (Source GRDC Managing frost, minimising damage Fact sheet).


Table 1. Survey results regarding grower’s methods of mitigation against frost damage

All the time Most of the time Some of the time Never Other

Sowing a mix of crop types 26% 36% 28% 10%

Sowing a mix of crop maturities 20% 33% 37% 10%

Sowing at a mix of times 5% 16% 46% 32%

Delaying sowing 3% 2% 37% 59%

Treating frost prone areas differently 9% 10% 32% 49%

Grow less of the most susceptible crops 7% 13% 48% 32%

Other 3%

N=111 N=111 N=111 N=111

Figure 10. Chance of frost in the flowering window of YitpiA wheat, sown at five different dates, at Longerenong.


Other strategies suggested by respondents:

• Sow varieties with higher tillering capacity and those that flower over an extended period.

• Grow crops on fallow to avoid extreme moisture stress when vulnerable to frost.

• Frost at flowering is not the only susceptible time. Because damage occurs at any time from head emergence to late in grain filling the strategies have to be more robust than just minor variations in things like sowing dates.

When the frost is late and cold, it may not matter what you have done if you are in a frost prone area. There are many things you can do to mitigate against frost damage in the not so bad years though. Sowing an earlier maturity variety early, whilst flying in the face of the frost often misses out on the late ones. Likewise barley and oats which have much greater temperature thresholds than wheat can minimise the loss as well. Perhaps if you have copped one too many frosts in the same paddock you might start treating those parts of paddocks slightly differently.

What have we learned?Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater as most of us are sowing our crops as soon as we can to maximise the yield in the absence of frost. The odds would suggest that the majority of crop should remain that way. Perhaps though, a few paddocks could fly in the face of conventional agronomic wisdom to keep nature guessing. Frost mitigation really requires some serious mixing up of the cropping program.

This season was similar to the 1998 frost. Symptoms showed up the next day on the crops closest to flowering but the damage on developing grains can take up to two weeks to become totally apparent. Once you know you have had a bad frost you must continually monitor for signs of damage even after the first check has proven OK.

ReferencesCrimp et al. 2013 Bayesian space-time model to analyse frost risk for agriculture in South-East Australia: explaining the frost paradox. Int. J. Clim. 2013 (in Press)

Contact detailsDale Grey

Department of Environment and Primary Industries, PO Box 3100, Bendigo DC, 3554.

0354 304444

[email protected]


Maintaining market access – the role of the adviserSteven Field,DEPI Vic

ContentUnacceptable residues of agricultural chemicals can have a significant impact on all sectors of the grains industry. Grains advisers are key links in the chain of stewardship and the promotion of good agricultural practices to growers.

The Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) regulates the use of all agricultural chemicals in Victoria under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992 (“the Act”). This includes the sale of contaminated agricultural produce and the provision of false and misleading information to chemical users.

Under s52AA of the Act a person who produces agricultural produce must not sell or offer to sell that produce if it is contaminated. For the purpose of the Act contaminated produce is defined as produce that contains a level of an agricultural chemical in excess of the Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) set by either the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) or Food Standards Australia and New Zealand.

Australian MRLs are closely linked with on-label use patterns for chemical products registered for use in Australia, hence using such products off-label may result in unacceptable residues. On-label use patterns are not necessarily the same as MRLs set in other countries, and therefore, on-label use of agricultural chemicals here in Australia does not provide a guarantee that the resulting residue meets export requirements.

Grains advisers are at the cutting edge of the provision of technical advice to growers. This can sometimes involve an element of risk, for example, providing information about off-label chemical use. Advisers need to address all potential risks when providing information to growers, with a particular emphasis on the potential for unacceptable residues.

DEPI has a long history of working with industry to resolve residue issues within Victoria before they jeopardise export market access. Preferably, this is achieved by communication and extension but

Keywordschemicals, contaminated, grains, exports, DEPI, advisers

Take home messages• Pooradvicemayresultinsevere

consequences for the grower, adviser and industry.

• Containerisedexportsposeasignificantrisk to market access.

• Goodstewardshipisessentialtoaddressrisks when providing advice.


occasionally it requires a more immediate response.

DEPI recently issued a Contaminated Agricultural Produce Notice (CAPN) to a grower who was found to have sold canola contaminated with flutriafol, a fungicide applied as a foliar spray for in-furrow fertiliser treatment. The grower was unable to source commercially treated fertiliser from an appropriately licensed company and so he treated his own fertiliser. The treated fertiliser was moved using an auger into a trailer bin, neither of which were decontaminated prior to being used to handle the harvested canola.

The CAPN had a significant impact on the grower as the contaminated canola could not be sold until it could be proved the residue had dropped to below the relevant MRL. As the grower was supplying a domestic processor, DEPI was able to assist in negotiations between the two parties to manage the processing of the canola. This however, is not always going to be possible, particularly with export market grains.

The provision of advice regarding agricultural chemical use is also regulated under the Act. It is illegal to provide advice that is false or misleading and likely to lead a person to:

• commit an offence under the Act,

• contaminate agricultural produce; or

• injuriously affect plants.

It is not common for issues regarding the provision of advice to be brought to the attention of DEPI, which indicates that the large majority of advisers are doing a great job. The last major incident involved an adviser telling growers to use an insecticide in an off label manner, which resulted in contaminated produce. The adviser was fortunate to only receive an official warning under the Act.

Advisers are encouraged to review their processes and procedures governing the provision of advice to ensure they exercise due diligence and appropriate stewardship. This will result in benefits for all involved in the grains industry.

Contact detailsSteven Field

Senior Chemical Standards Officer

Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Epsom, Victoria

0407 258 433

[email protected]


Non-herbicide weed control - not as sexy as a new herbicide but really importantPeter Newman, AHRI

GRDC project codes: DAW00196, UWA00146

Crop competitionWeeds are a problem in crops because they compete for resources. The crop needs to compete back or the weeds will win.

Most grain growers are reluctant to reduce their row spacing for a number of good reasons. However, many growers are now using ribbon sowing or paired row sowing techniques that effectively reduces the row spacing without affecting the tine spacing. These seeding techniques in combination with higher seed rates (where environmental conditions allow) have the potential to further increase crop competition with weeds. In 2012 we embarked on some crop competition research in the Geraldton area in the northern wheatbelt of WA. For this research we modified our seeding machinery to seed with a Stiletto seeding boot to sow paired crop rows 75mm apart in combination with seeding rate and herbicide treatments.

Keywordsnon-herbicide weed control, crop competition, harvest weed seed control, mouldboard plough

Take home messages• Herbicidesarenottheanswerto

herbicide resistance. We need to do something else. There is a very short list of effective non-herbicide weed control practises on offer to Australian grain growers. Harvest weed seed control and mouldboard ploughing have been successfully adopted by many Western Australian grain growers. There is a lot of room for improvement in crop competition with weeds.


Figure 1. Ryegrass seed production per m2 at Mingenew for four seeding rates, plus and minus Sakura herbicide 118 g/ha pre-sowing (average of single and paired row sowing). Wheat plant density is shown in brackets.

Figure 2. Wheat and wild radish (un-sprayed) dry weight (g/m2) at Binnu as measured on 13 September from area of trial where no post-emergent herbicide was applied.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

40kg/ha (138 plants/m2)80kg/ha (179 plants/m2)


Ryegrassseeds/m2

Seeding rate / wheat density

MIG stiletto - ryegrass seeds /m2

Plus SakuraMinus Sakura

0

50

100

150

200

250


120kg/ha (222 plants /m2)160kg/ha (287 plants/m2)

Dryweight(g/m2 )

Seed rate / wheat density

Binnu - wheat and wild radish dry weight - 13 Sept

wheatwild radish


Mingenew trial – annual ryegrass

Ryegrass seed set was significantly reduced by increasing seeding rate (p<0.05; lsd 2768 seeds /m2) (Figure 1).

Binnu trial – wild radish

This research demonstrates what many other crop competition trials have demonstrated in the past. As crop density increases, crop biomass increases, and weed growth and seed set decreases (Figures 1 and 2). The concept is not new. The challenge is to do this in a practical and cost effective way.

Paired row sowing achieved using the Stiletto boot in this trial, has the potential to improve grain yield and competition with weeds.

Harvest weed seed control (HWSC)Removing weed seeds at harvest is currently our greatest non-herbicide weed control tool in Australian grain cropping. This practice is now widely adopted in the form of narrow windrow burning, chaff cart, bale direct, diverting weed seeds onto permanent tramlines, and now the Harrington Seed Destructor. All of these tools are equally effective at removing weed seeds, averaging 55% removal of annual ryegrass seeds (Walsh, 2012). They all differ in their cost and the amount of residue that they remove from the paddock.

The following data relates to a selection of 24 focus paddocks where the growers are cropping dominant with no livestock in the farming system. These focus paddocks have been monitored for twelve years as a part of a GRDC funded project to promote practical weed management.

Eight of the growers regularly practice harvest weed seed control (HWSC) either in the form of windrow burning or towing a chaff cart. On average, these growers practiced HWSC in 58% of years while achieving an average cropping intensity of 88.5% (Table 1). The frequency of HWSC is a little lower than expected, however the droughts of ‘02, ‘06 and ‘07 reduced the amount of harvest weed seed management due to a lot of paddocks either not harvest or not cropped. Also, some growers used

HWSC for 5 years in a row by which time weed numbers were down so they cut back to burning lupin and canola windrows only.

Sixteen of the growers practiced HWSC in the form of narrow windrow burning in only 12% of years (i.e. Herbicides only group). This includes some whole paddock “cool burns”. If we remove these cool burns the amount of windrow burning drops to 8% of years. These growers maintained a cropping intensity of 88% (Table 1), almost identical to that of the plus HWSC group.

Table 1. Cropping intensity (%) and the percentage of years in which harvest weed seed control (HWSC) was practiced for 16 cropping dominant growers who rarely practice HWSC (Herbicides only) compared with eight cropping dominant growers who regularly practice HWSC

Herbicides Herbicides + Harvest Only Weed Seed Control

% Crop 88 88.5

% of years using Harvest Weed 12 58Seed Control

The plus HWSC group have been on or are very close to the “zero line” for ryegrass since 2008, demonstrating the benefits of removing weed seeds at harvest. This group started with 183 ryegrass /m2 in 2001 compared to 125 ryegrass /m2 in 2001 for the herbicides only group.

It is quite remarkable that growers have been so successful at eroding annual ryegrass seed banks of paddocks, while maintaining a cropping intensity of 88%. Many of the original messages about managing herbicide resistance in the 1990’s were built around the concept of phase farming, and rightfully so. However, these growers are now demonstrating that it is possible to crop at high intensity while eroding the weed seed bank despite some of the highest levels of herbicide resistance on the planet.


The growers who have had the most success at managing ryegrass populations are those who have practiced harvest weed seed control in the form of narrow windrow burning or by towing a chaff cart (Figure 3). These growers started with a higher seed bank which was eroded to very low levels in just four years. In the eighth year of using this practice these growers had zero ryegrass in their focus paddocks and have averaged less than 1.5 ryegrass plants /m2 ever since. Harvest weed seed control does not fix a system that is broken but can be the key lynch pin to making a system work. The herbicides only group have also been very successful at eroding the ryegrass seed bank while maintaining the same cropping intensity as the plus HWSC group at 88%. However, the heavy reliance on herbicides of this group is likely to result in higher levels of resistance in these paddocks.

Mouldboard ploughing – back to the future!There are currently about fifteen large mouldboard ploughs owned and operated by growers and contractors in the northern wheatbelt of WA and several more are on their way in sea containers from Europe. This all started with some Department of Agriculture and Food research conducted by myself, Sally Peltzer and Alex Douglas. This research showed that we could correct four of our biggest constraints to sandplain farming in one fell swoop, namely:

• Non-wetting soil – burying of non-wetting top soil,

• herbicide resistant weeds – burying of the seed bank regularly achieving 99% control,

Figure 3. Average surviving ryegrass (in August) for 16 focus paddocks of cropping dominant growers who rarely practice harvest weed seed control (HWSC) (Herbicides only) compared with eight cropping dominant growers who regularly practice HWSC.

0

10

20

30

40

50

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Ryegrass(plants/m2 )

Herbicides only

plus Harvest WeedSeed Control


• sub-soil acidity – deep burial of lime sand to correct acidity at depth; and

• compaction – deep ripping effect to a depth of 35cm (14”).

The ploughs that have been imported by growers are typically 8 to 14 furrow. Eight to ten furrow ploughs are typically pulled with a 300hp front wheel assist tractor with three point linkage. These machines can plough 2.5 to 3.5 ha / hour. The bigger ploughs are pulled with large wheeled or track tractors in the 400 to 500hp range. The 14 furrow plough is pretty much the biggest in the world, towed by the biggest tractors on the planet and can plough 5 to 5.5 ha / hour. The cost of ploughing for owner operator machines is approximately $70 to $100 /ha.

Research has shown average yield response to ploughing of 400 kg/ha across a range of crops. In many cases these yield responses are enduring for five years or more. Often the cost of ploughing is paid for in the first year and profit is made in the following years. Two large sandplain growers in the northern wheatbelt of WA are aiming to plough their entire farms. One has 12,500 ha and the other a 20,000 ha farm. These are successful growers who can see the income potential from adopting this technology.

Contact detailsPeter Newman

AHRI

0427 984 010

[email protected]


Notes


KEITH PENGILLEY (CHAIR)0448 015 539 [email protected]

As a panel, we want to hear more about what is happening in our region and the needs of our stakeholders. The new GRDC structure and operating processes will help us achieve this.The regional location of a GRDC manager grower services and our panel support team will help the panel spend more time at events and activities in the region, while remaining in close contact with the GRDC staff in Canberra. In addition to the 10 members of the Southern Panel and the GRDC Executive Manager, we now have 42 grower and agronomist members of the four Regional Cropping Solutions Networks. These people are spread across the region in four networks, based on rainfall zone or the use of irrigation. Two or three panel members are associated with each network.The networks play a key role in capturing research ideas and prioritising short-term issues. This leaves more time for the panel to work on strategic investment requirements that often require longer-term strategies.”

GRDC MANAGER REGIONAL GROWER SERVICES – SOUTH

As one of the three regionally based managers, Andrew Rice brings the face of the GRDC into the Southern Region. Having GRDC staff in the region offers visibility, accessibility and understanding. The skills set of the grower services manager provides another dimension to the operation of the GRDC. Andrew believes that pairing the new position of manager grower services – south, with the establishment of the facilitated Regional

Cropping Solutions Networks provides the capacity and links to really make a difference.

M 0427 965 469 E [email protected]

REGIONAL CROPPING SOLUTIONS NETWORKS

Bringing together a consistent approach to evaluating research priorities with a large network of growers, advisers and researchers across the region has the potential to provide a focused regional portfolio of research, development and extension investments.The objectives of the Regional Cropping Solutions Networks are to:

1. Create and manage knowledge on grains industry issues. 2. Build regional D&E capacity among growers and advisers. 3. Proactively respond to regional industry issues in a timely manner. 4. Provide enduring links between growers, advisers and the GRDC.

Four networks have been established in the southern region, each supported by a facilitator. The networks will meet face-to-face up to three times each year.Each network will liaise with the wider grower community in their production zone, including convening regional meetings with relevant groups.The facilitator provides each network with an effective interface with regional farming systems groups, agribusiness and research and development organisations across the regions.While the primary focus of these facilitators will be working with farming systems groups and advisers, their work will also extend into maintaining a regional industry RD&E database of GRDC project activities and results.Names of the members of the networks are listed on the GRDC website (www.grdc.com.au/RCSN).

GRDC Regional Cropping Solutions Networks – locationsand key contacts in the southern region.

¢Medium-rainfall zoneFacilitator: Felicity Pritchard, 0427 600 228, [email protected]

¢Low-rainfall zoneFacilitator: Nigel Wilhelm, 0407 185 501, [email protected]

¢ Irrigation zoneFacilitator: Rob Fisher, 0428 545 263, [email protected]

¢High-rainfall zoneFacilitators: Jen Lillecrapp, 0427 647 461, [email protected];Trent Potter, 0427 608 306,[email protected]

THE GRDC IN YOUR SOUTHERN REGION


THE 2013-2015 GRDC SOUTHERN REGIONAL PANEL

Level 1, Tourism House | 40 Blackall Street, Barton ACT 2600 | PO Box 5367, Kingston ACT 2604 | T +61 2 6166 4500 | F +61 2 6166 4599 | E [email protected] | W www.grdc.com.au

Chair Keith Pengilley

Keith is the general manager of a dryland and irrigated family farming operation at Conara in the northern Midlands of Tasmania, operating an 8300 hectare mixed farming operation over four properties. He

is a Director of Tasmanian Agricultural Producers P/L, a grain accumulation, storage, marketing and export business.


Deputy Chair Dr Chris Blanchard

Chris is an Associate Professor in Food Science at Charles Sturt University’s School of Biomedical Sciences in Wagga Wagga and has an Honours Degree in applied science, a PhD in molecular biology

and qualifications in teaching and management. His research has included projects in genetically engineering plants, human genetic diseases, grain quality and the development of functional food ingredients.

T 02 6933 2364 M 0438 662 992 E [email protected]

Neil Fettell Based at Condobolin in the central-

west of NSW, Neil is an authority on cropping and tillage systems, stubble and soil management and crop physiology. A University of New England part-time Lecturer in Crop

Production, he also assists the Central West Farming Systems group and previously led grain research projects across the southern region.


Susan Findlay Tickner Susan is a partner in Yellow Grain

Pty Ltd, an innovative and expanding dryland cropping enterprise producing cereals, pulses and oilseeds near Warracknabeal in north-west Victoria. She has a background in science

communication, specialising in grains and climate research, development and extension. Susan has a Masters in Communication, a Diploma in corporate governance and is a graduate of the Australian Rural Leadership Program.


Richard Konzag Richard has been a grain grower

at Mallala, in SA’s Lower North, since 1981. He is currently cropping about 1800 hectares to wheat, durum, barley, beans, lentils, canola and oaten hay. He has served on the

SA Advisory Board of Agriculture, representing the board on various forums and committees and chairing its ‘Achieving an Informed and Supportive Government’ working group. Richard has also served on the Plant Biosecurity CRC Grains Advisory panel since 2008.


Bill Long Bill is an agricultural consultant

and farmer on South Australia’s Yorke Peninsula. He has led and been involved in many research, development and extension programs and was one of the

founding members of the Yorke Peninsula Alkaline Soils Group and chairman of the Ag Excellence Alliance. He has a strong interest and involvement in farm business management and communication programs within GRDC. He is a Churchill fellow.


Geoff McLeod Geoff runs an irrigated cropping

farm near Finley in southern NSW. The farm produces a range of winter cereal, oilseed and grain legume crops and soybeans using both overhead and surface irrigation

systems. Geoff has a degree in Agricultural Science and 30 years experience with irrigated and dryland farming systems in southern Australia. Geoff is a board member of SoyAustralia and chairman of Southern Growers, a local grower group in the southern Riverina. Geoff also provides consultancy services to government, industry and catchment management authorities related to land and water management.


John Minogue John runs a mixed broadacre

farming business and an agricultural consultancy, Agriculture and General Consulting, at Barmedman in south-west NSW. John is the chairman of the district council of the NSW

Farmers Association, Deputy Chair of the Lachlan Catchment Management Authority and a winner of the Central West Conservation Farmer of the Year award.


Rob Sonogan From Swan Hill in north-west

Victoria, Rob is an extension agronomist who has specialised within government agencies in the areas of soil conservation, resource conservation and dryland farming

systems. Over some three decades he has been privileged to have had access to many farmers, businesses, consultants, rural industry and agribusiness advisers. Rob also has been closely involved in rural recovery and emergency response into issues as diverse as locusts, fire, mice, flood and drought. Rob is currently employed part-time within the Mallee consultancy group AGRIvision.


Mark Stanley Mark has had extensive experience

in field crops development and extension and more recently in natural resources management with the State and Commonwealth Governments and with industry. He has led a number

of extension programs including the introduction of canola in SA and the national TOPCROP program. He currently operates his own project management business, Regional Connections, on the Eyre Peninsula of South Australia. Mark is the executive officer with the Ag Excellence Alliance, supporting farming systems groups across SA, and is also on the board of the Eyre Peninsula Agricultural Research Foundation. He is a committee member of the Lower Eyre Agricultural Development Association.


Stuart Kearns Stuart joined the GRDC in 1998

as the Northern Panel Officer and has worked in a number of roles throughout the organisation since then. He is currently the Executive Manager Regional Grower Services.

The aim of the Regional Grower Services Business Group is to deliver new, innovative, high-value and improved regionally relevant products and services that meet the needs of growers and their advisers.

T 02 6166 4500 E [email protected]

Southern Panel Support Belinda Cay (nee Barr)

Belinda and the Raising the Barr (RTB) team are a communication company that design creative science education programs and corporate exhibits, plus offer media, marketing, facilitation and

communication services. She has a Bachelor of Science (Honours) and a Graduate Diploma in Scientific Communication. RTB provides panel support services to the Southern Regional Panel.



WE LOVE TO GET YOURFEEDBACKFor your convenience, an electronic copy of the evaluation form has been created and can be accessed via the QR code provided or by typing the URL address into your internet browser.

To make the process as easy as possible, please follow these points:

• It must be completed on the one device (i.e. don’t swap between your iPad and Smartphone devices, information will be lost).

• Once you start the survey, others should not use your device to complete their survey (i.e. one person per device).

• This survey allows respondents to start and stop the survey whenever they choose. For example, after the morning session you could complete that session’s relevant questions and then re-access the survey following the afternoon session.

Thank you for your feedback.

URL https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GRDCballarat


Which of these best describes your main role? (circle)

1 Government Adviser

2 Government Researcher

3 Agribusiness Agronomist

4 Agribusiness Sales/Administration

5 Agribusiness R & D

6 Private Consultant

7 Grain Marketing

8 Environment/ Catchment Management

9 Farmer 10 Other (specify)……………………….........................

How many years experience have you had in this role?

…………………… Years

Which other Grains Research Updates have you attended? (circle)

2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008

From the list below of the highly rated topics from the 2013 Victorian GRDC Adviser Update, please tick those that have influenced your advice in the last 12 months?

Enhancing mental and emotional resilience (Dennis Hoiberg)

Focus on calcium (Rob Norton)

Sowing dates – getting the best from our varieties (James Hunt)

Nailing snails (Graham Hayes)

Building soil organic matter (Clive Kirkby)

Blackleg and sclerotinia management (Steve Marcroft)

Using new ICT tools and social media (Pru Cook)

Sakura in review (Alistair Crawford)

Maintaining the best options with herbicides (Chris Preston)

Cereal disease update (Grant Hollaway)

Organisers wonder whether you are happy with the content of the program. (Tick box and/or write, suggestions and comments)

• sensibletopicselections?

Yes Partly No

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

•thechancetoexploreselected topics in-depth?

Yes Partly No

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

•enoughaccesstospecificagronomyrecommendations (including proceedings)? Yes Partly No

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

•opportunitytoattendissuesofgreatestinterest?

Yes Partly No

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

•intellectualstimulation?

Yes Partly No

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

Please indicate any other issues you noted

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

What is the likelihood that you will use three pieces of information from this conference in your business?

Rate on 0 – 100% likelihood scale where 0% = completely unlikely and 100% = totally likely __________%

GRDC Adviser Update - Victoria 2014


What is the likelihood that you will attend an Update like this next year? Rate on a 0 –100% likelihood scale where 0 = totally unlikely, and 100% = totally likely _________%

Would you agree with the Updates providing only electronic proceedings in 2015 (i.e. no hard copy)? Yes No Not yet

Please rate your degree of satisfaction with the following (tick)

1 2 3 4 5 very poor poor average good excellent

Overall program

Proceedings

New Release Booklet

Venue

Visual aids

Audio

Meals

Organisation

Registration

Please make any extra comments on anything organizers can do to deliver a better conference for you.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Perhaps you have been to a conference where you experienced something you really liked that could be adapted for these Updates. What was that?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

10

11


Program contentFor each presentation you attended, please rate on a scale of 0 to 10 (where 0 = totally dull and 10 = outstanding) the content of the presentation and how it was presented by placing a number in each box.If you didn’t see that presentation, leave the boxes blank. Your comments are encouraged

DAY 1 – Wednesday Content Presentation /10 Comments

Controlling herbicide resistant radish - Grant Thompson ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Strategies and tactics to extend whole-farm WUE - James Hunt - Annieka Paridaen

…………………………………… - Dannielle McMillan

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

CONCURRENT SESSIONS Content Presentation /10 Comments

Embedding legumes in the Wimmera rotation - Andrew Newall ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Fodder rotations with cropping to manage weeds - David Watson

…………………………………… - Corinne Celestina

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Canola establishment – does size matter? - Rohan Brill ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Persistent pests – aphids, mites, millipedes and earwigs - Paul Umina ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Slug management practices – what is working? - Jon Midwood ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

We can monitor soil moisture content – now what? - Neil Huth

…………………………………… - Tim McClelland

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

12


LUNCH

Biopesticides – fresh hope for the future - Gavin Ash ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Cereal variety management review – high rainfall zone (HRZ) - Nick Poole ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Pulse varieties and agronomy update - Jason Brand ……………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Blackleg pod infection, resistance group monitoring and sclerotinia - Steve Marcroft ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

New canola varieties for 2014 & retained canola seed - Trent Potter ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

FINAL SESSIONManaging wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) in grain crops - Emma Henne ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Role of legume break crops in mobilising soil P for wheat - Daniel Espinosa ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Accelerating adoption of innovative agronomy - Steve Larocque ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………


DAY 2 – Thursday Content Presentation /10 Comments

CONCURRENT SESSIONS

Brown manure as a farm risk strategy - Robert Patterson ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Cereal diseases 2014 - Grant Hollaway ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Novel summer crop options - Annieka Paridaen

…………………………………… - Damian Jones

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The economics of subsoil manuring - Peter Sale ……………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Maximising the nitrogen benefits of rhizobial inoculation - Maarten Ryder ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

LUNCH

Getting N into the crop efficiently and effectively - Rob Norton ……………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Is social media working for you? - Prudence Cook

…………………………………… - Gavin Beever

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Feeding the dragon - Simone Tilley ……………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Wheat and barley varieties for the low-medium rainfall zones - Simon Craig ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Wheat, canola and barley outlook - Malcolm Bartholomaeus ……………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


Content Presentation /10 Comments

FINAL SESSION

Frost damage in crops – where to from here? - Dale Grey ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Maintaining market access -the role of the adviser - Steve Field ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Non herbicide weed management - Peter Newman ……………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Please place this evaluation form in the return boxes located at the registration desk or mail back to ORM, PO Box 189, Bendigo 3552

Thank you for your feedback which will be evaluated and utilised to help improve future programs.

victoria - grdc · 2014 victorian grdc grains research update for advisers 3 welcome to the 2014...

Documents