Disease management variety interaction trial

2005
CC BY 4.0

Research organisaton
Funding source

Trial details

Researcher(s) Tabitha Armour (FAR)
Wes Arnott (FAR)
Nick Poole (FAR)
Rohan Wardle (SFS)
Year(s) 2005
Contributor Southern Farming Systems
Trial location(s) Inverleigh, VIC
Disease management variety interaction trial locations
Aims

To examine the integration of the principles of disease management and canopy management in cereal crops.

Key messages

Taking account of fungicide costs (both application and product) revealed that untreated Teesdale generated the equal highest margins (Table 6-16). With both Mitre and Kellalac the most cost effective treatments were two applications of fungicide based on a GS32 Bayleton followed by Opus, however as stand alone treatments the flag leaf spray of Opus was substantially more cost effective than either Jockey or Impact. The application of Bayleton at GS32 followed by GS39 Opus was slightly more cost effective than the Impact followed by Opus. Impact had an edge over Jockey in this trial in terms of green leaf retention, yield and margin.

Lead research organisation N/A
Host research organisation N/A
Trial funding source GRDC SFS00015
Related program N/A
Acknowledgments

The following trial is part of a new GRDC funded project (SFS 00015) examining the integration of the principles of disease management and canopy management in cereal crops.


Other trial partners Not specified
Download the trial report to view additional trial information

Method

Crop type Cereal (Grain): Wheat
Treatment type(s)
  • Crop: Variety
  • Fungicide: Timing
  • Fungicide: Type
  • Seed treatment: Inoculant
Trial type Experimental
Trial design Unknown

Inverleigh 2005

Sow date 30 May 2005
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication Not specified
Download the trial report to view additional method/treatment information

Download results

Trial results Table 1

# Variety
Treatment 1
Grain yield (t/ha) 1000 grain weight (g) Disease incidence (wheat) (% GLA) Protein (%) Screenings (%) Test weight (kg/hL) Disease incidence (wheat) (% damage)
1 Mitre Opus (250ml/ha) at GS39 5.01 29.08 89 12.4 5.6 71.4 11.1
2 Kellalac Opus (250ml/ha) at GS39 5.5 29.08 67 11.5 8.9 77 11.5
3 Teesdale Opus (250ml/ha) at GS39 7.19 39.08 NR 10 10 77.5 NR
4 Mitre Jockey (450ml/100kg) at sowing + Opus (250ml/ha) at GS39 5 27.25 89 11.5 5 69.2 10.7
5 Kellalac Jockey (450ml/100kg) at sowing + Opus (250ml/ha) at GS39 5.02 27.5 55 10.7 7.8 75.8 27.1
6 Teesdale Jockey (450ml/100kg) at sowing + Opus (250ml/ha) at GS39 7.44 37.99 NR 9.5 9.7 77.2 NR
7 Mitre Jockey (450ml/100kg) at sowing 3.21 22.07 50 12.6 7.5 58.9 49.9
8 Kellalac Jockey (450ml/100kg) at sowing 5.14 27.66 61 11.2 8.5 74.7 25
9 Teesdale Jockey (450ml/100kg) at sowing 7.49 36.33 NR 9.6 11.4 77.1 NR
10 Mitre Impact in furrow (0.4L/ha) at sowing + Opus (250mL/ha) at GS39 5.21 28.24 91 11.4 4.3 69.4 8.8
11 Kellalac Impact in furrow (0.4L/ha) at sowing + Opus (250mL/ha) at GS39 5.8 29.32 71 11.1 7.2 75.1 7.3
12 Teesdale Impact in furrow (0.4L/ha) at sowing + Opus (250mL/ha) at GS39 7.46 37.49 NR 9.6 9.2 77 NR
13 Mitre Impact in furrow (0.4L/ha) at sowing 3.51 23.57 51 12.5 8.5 58.7 48.2
14 Kellalac Impact in furrow (0.4L/ha) at sowing 5.03 27.99 62 10.7 10.3 74.4 15.8
15 Teesdale Impact in furrow (0.4L/ha) at sowing 7.21 35.24 NR 9.6 9.8 77.6 NR
16 Mitre Control 3.4 24.66 53 11.6 6.5 63.4 46.8
17 Kellalac Control 4.83 26.33 55 11.2 8.6 74.1 19.9
18 Teesdale Control 7.32 38.33 NR 10 10.1 77.8 NR
19 Mitre Bayleton (1000ml/ha) at GS32 + Opus (250mL/ha) at GS39 5.34 28.33 89 11.2 5.3 69.1 11.2
20 Kellalac Bayleton (1000ml/ha) at GS32 + Opus (250mL/ha) at GS39 5.92 28.66 69 10.5 8.4 75.4 10.4
21 Teesdale Bayleton (1000ml/ha) at GS32 + Opus (250mL/ha) at GS39 7.38 36.58 NR 9.6 9.2 76.3 NR

Grain yield t/ha


Loading

1000 grain weight g


Loading

Disease incidence (wheat) % damage


Loading

Disease incidence (wheat) % GLA


Loading

Protein %


Loading

Screenings %


Loading

Test weight kg/hL


Loading
Observed trial site soil information
Trial site soil testing
Not specified
Soil conditions
Trial site Soil texture
Inverleigh, VIC Not specified
Derived trial site soil information
Australian Soil Classification Source: ASRIS
Trial site Soil order
Inverleigh, VIC Sodosol
Soil Moisture Source: BOM/ANU
Average amount of water stored in the soil profile during the year, estimated by the OzWALD model-data fusion system.
Year Inverleigh VIC
2005 491.2mm
2004 438.6mm
2003 416.4mm
2002 399.6mm
2001 472.4mm
2000 448.5mm
National soil grid Source: CSIRO/TERN
NOTE: National Soil Grid data is aggregated information for background information on the wider area
Actual soil values can vary significantly in a small area and the trial soil tests are the most relevant data where available

Soil properties

Loading

Climate

Derived climate information

No observed climate data available for this trial.
Derived climate data is determined from trial site location and national weather sources.

Inverleigh VIC

Loading
Loading
Loading

Some data on this site is sourced from the Bureau of Meteorology

SILO weather estimates sourced from https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/silo/
Jeffrey, S.J., Carter, J.O., Moodie, K.B. and Beswick, A.R. (2001). Using spatial interpolation to construct a comprehensive archive of Australian climate data , Environmental Modelling and Software, Vol 16/4, pp 309-330. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-8152(01)00008-1.

Trial report and links

2005 trial report



Trial last modified: 18-11-2019 10:15am AEST