1. Home ::  
  2. Trial Search

Do the rotational benefits of break crops improve the profitability of subsequent cereal crops?

2011
CC BY 4.0

Research organisations
Funding source
FarmLink Research Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
<abbr title='Grains Research and Development Corporation'>GRDC</abbr>

Trial details

Researcher(s) Paul Breust (FarmLink Research)
James Hunt (CSIRO)
Guangdi Li (CSIRO)
Richard Lowrie (Graham Centre)
Mark Peoples (CSIRO)
Antony Swan (CSIRO)
Laura Watson (CSIRO)
Year(s) 2011
Contributor FarmLink Research
Trial location(s) Junee Reefs, NSW
Do the rotational benefits of break crops improve the profitability of subsequent cereal crops? locations
Aims

To determine whether rotational benefits of break crops improve the profitabiliyt of first wheat after break crops.

Key messages
  • Results from experimentation undertaken in southern NSW in 2011 and 2012, have demonstrated that crop sequences which include a brassica or legume break crops can be as profitable as, and in many instances more profitable than, continuous wheat.
  • Canola was consistently the most profitable break crop option. However, the rotational benefits of canola were usually restricted to just the first subsequent wheat crop whereas additional wheat yields can occur for two years after a legume.
  • Growing pulses for grain maximises profit, particularly in favourable seasons, but compromises grass weed control and (depending upon species) reduces N available to subsequent crops compared to brown manuring.
  • Growing pulses for hay was found to be profitable across a range of season types, achieves excellent grass weed control and provides greater N inputs and higher carry-over of soil water than when the same crop is grown for grain.
  • Growing pules for brown manure loses money in the year they are grown, but achieves excellent grass weed control, high N inputs, residual carry-over of soil water, provides more ground cover, and requires less labour than when grown for hay or grain.
Lead research organisation Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Host research organisation FarmLink Research
Trial funding source GRDC
Related program N/A
Acknowledgments

We thank the GRDC for financial support. We are also indebted to Bernard Hart and Rob Hart at Junee Reefs for allowing us access to their land to establish on-farm experiemental trials, and NSW DPI (Dr Eric Armstrong), the Graham Centre (John Broster) and from Kalyx (Peter Hamblin) for provision of unpublished data.
Other trial partners Graham Centre (CSU/NSW DPI)
Download the trial report to view additional trial information

Method

Crop type Cereal (Grain): Wheat
Treatment type(s)
  • Crop : Rotation
  • Fertiliser : Rate
Trial type Experimental
Trial design Replicated

Junee Reefs 2011

Sow rate or Target density Target density of 75 plants/m2 (low input) and target density of 150 plants/m2 (high input)
Sow date mid-May
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication Not specified
Fertiliser

Low/high inputs as per treatments in trial reports
Herbicide

Low/high inputs as per treatments in trial reports
Insecticide

Low/high inputs as per treatments in trial reports
Fungicide

Low/high inputs as per treatments in trial reports
Seed treatment Low/high inputs as per treatments in trial reports
Download the trial report to view additional method/treatment information

Download results

Trial results Junee Reefs

@T1: T1 @T2: T2
# Variety
 Treatment 1
Treatment 2
Gross margin ($/ha) Protein (%) Grain yield (t/ha) Gross income ($/ha) Cost of production ($/t) Profit/Cost ratio (value) Shoot dry matter (t/ha) Shoot dry matter (t/ha)
1 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Canola - low input █ Low input 545 9.8 3.4 861 92 1.7 666 10.3
1 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Canola - high input █ Low input 581 9.8 3.6 896 88 1.8 432 9.2
1 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Lentils █ Low input 764 11.2 4 1079 78 2.4 771 11.2
2 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Barley █ Low input 537 10.3 3.4 852 93 1.7 495 8.7
2 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Wheat - high input █ Low input 617 11 3.5 933 91 2 439 10
2 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Lupin █ Low input 821 12.4 3.9 1136 80 2.6 737 10.8
3 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Wheat - low input █ Low input 540 3.4 3.4 855 92 1.7 614 9.4
3 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Chickpeas █ Low input 851 12.4 4 1166 78 2.7 863 12.2
3 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Pea BM █ Low input 861 12.3 4.1 1176 77 2.7 860 11
4 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Lupin BM █ Low input 902 13.6 4 1218 79 2.9 951 11.2
4 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Canola - low input █ High input 456 11.3 3.8 1013 147 0.8 903 10.2
4 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Canola - high input █ High input 498 9.8 3.9 1054 142 0.9 1013 10.6
5 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Lentils █ High input 558 12.9 3.8 1114 144 1 1114 10.9
5 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Barley █ High input 448 11 3.7 1004 149 0.8 803 10.4
5 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Wheat - high input █ High input 442 11.2 3.7 998 150 0.8 813 10.4
6 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Lupin █ High input 396 13.7 3.7 952 152 0.7 1195 10.9
6 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Wheat - low input █ High input 527 11.7 3.8 1083 148 0.9 827 9.9
6 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Chickpeas █ High input 414 13.9 3.7 971 149 0.7 1386 10.7
7 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Pea BM █ High input 428 14.1 3.8 984 147 0.8 1201 11.1
7 █ Spitfire █ 2011 Lupin BM █ High input 404 15.1 3.7 961 151 0.7 1558 11.1
7 █ Spitfire █ █
8 █ Spitfire █ █
8 █ Spitfire █ █
8 █ Spitfire █ █
9 █ Spitfire █ █
9 █ Spitfire █ █
9 █ Spitfire █ █
10 █ Spitfire █ █
10 █ Spitfire █ █
10 █ Spitfire █ █
11 █ Spitfire █ █
11 █ Spitfire █ █
11 █ Spitfire █ █
12 █ Spitfire █ █
12 █ Spitfire █ █
12 █ Spitfire █ █
13 █ Spitfire █ █
13 █ Spitfire █ █
13 █ Spitfire █ █
14 █ Spitfire █ █
14 █ Spitfire █ █
14 █ Spitfire █ █
15 █ Spitfire █ █
15 █ Spitfire █ █
15 █ Spitfire █ █
16 █ Spitfire █ █
16 █ Spitfire █ █
16 █ Spitfire █ █
17 █ Spitfire █ █
17 █ Spitfire █ █
17 █ Spitfire █ █
18 █ Spitfire █ █
18 █ Spitfire █ █
18 █ Spitfire █ █
19 █ Spitfire █ █
19 █ Spitfire █ █
19 █ Spitfire █ █
20 █ Spitfire █ █
20 █ Spitfire █ █
20 █ Spitfire █ █

Grain yield t/ha

Loading

Cost of production $/t

Loading

Gross income $/ha

Loading

Gross margin $/ha

Loading

Profit/Cost ratio value

Loading

Protein %

Loading

Shoot dry matter t/ha

Loading
Observed trial site soil information
Trial site soil testing
Not specified
Soil conditions
Trial site Soil texture
Junee Reefs, NSW Not specified
Derived trial site soil information
Australian Soil Classification Source: ASRIS
Trial site Soil order
Junee Reefs, NSW Kandosol
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 Junee Reefs NSW
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000

Climate

Junee Reefs NSW 2011

Observed climate information

Rainfall trial gsr (mm) 169mm

Derived climate information

Junee Reefs NSW

NOTE: Exact trial site locality unknown - Climate data may not be accurate
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

2011 trial report



Trial last modified: 09-12-2019 10:34am AEST