Evaluating alternative pulse options for low rainfall regions

2015

Research organisatons

Trial details

Researcher(s) Leigh Davis (SARDI)
Sarah Day (SARDI)
Larn McMurray (SARDI)
Christine Walela (SARDI)
Year(s) 2015
Contributor SARDI Minnipa Agricultural Centre
Trial location(s) Minnipa Agricultural Centre, SA
Evaluating alternative pulse options for low rainfall regions locations
Aims

There has been increasing interest from growers and agronomists in low rainfall farming regions to evaluate alternative break crop options to field peas. Field peas are generally well suited to low rainfall farming systems and have historically been the main pulse option for the upper Eyre Peninsula region. However, record high prices and new varieties with improved agronomic characteristics has renewed interest in alternative pulse options. This is the second consecutive year for this trial and alternative pulse crops to field peas performed poorer in the 2015 season compared to the 2014 season. 2014 saw yields well above the long term averages due to favourable conditions and above average rainfall. Crop means for 2014 have been included for reference.

Key messages
  • Field peas have proven to be the most reliable pulse option on the upper Eyre Peninsula with yields remaining the most stable across seasons.
  • Under favourable conditions there is potential for alternative pulse crops to be successful.
  • Paddock selection, soil type, time of sowing, pulse agronomy, marketing and storage options all need careful consideration when looking at growing alternative pulse crops.
  • New varietal options offer earlier maturity as well as improvements in harvestability, disease resistance and herbicide tolerance over older commercial standards, aiding production and profitability.
  • Higher value alternatives, such as lentils, may be a high risk option and pulse crops better suited to the region could still prove to be the most profitable option in the long term.
Lead research organisation South Australian Research and Development Institute
Host research organisation SARDI Minnipa Agricultural Centre
Related program Southern Pulse Agronomy
Acknowledgments N/A
Other trial partners Not specified
Download the trial report to view additional trial information

Method

Crop types Grain Legume: Field peas Grain Legume: Chickpeas Grain Legume: Faba beans Grain Legume: Lentils
Treatment type(s)
  • Crop: Type
  • Crop: Variety
Trial type Experimental
Trial design Replicated

Minnipa Agricultural Centre 2015 Field peas

Sow rate or Target density Faba beans sown at 24 plants/m2, field peas at 55 plants/m2 and lentils at 120 plants/m2. Desi chickpeas were sown at 50 plants/m2 and kabuli chickpea varieties were sown at 35 plants/m2.
Sow date 13 May 2015
Harvest date 29 October 2015 Field peas were harvested on 29 October, faba beans and lentils on 30 October, and chickpeas on 30 N
Plot size 1.5m x 10m
Plot replication 3
Fertiliser

all sown with 60 kg/ha of MAP

Herbicide

Throughout the growing season pests and weeds were controlled as required in line with standard pulse crop management.

Insecticide

Throughout the growing season pests and weeds were controlled as required in line with standard pulse crop management.

Inoculant Faba beans were sown with Group F inoculum at 24 plants/m2, field peas with Group E at 55 plants/m2 and lentils with Group F at 120 plants/m2. Chickpeas were sown with Group N inoculum. Desi chickpeas were sown at 50 plants/m2 and kabuli chickpea varietie

Minnipa Agricultural Centre 2015 Chickpeas

Sow rate or Target density Not specified
Sow date Not specified
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication Not specified
Fertiliser Not specified
Herbicide Not specified
Insecticide Not specified
Inoculant Not specified

Minnipa Agricultural Centre 2015 Faba beans

Sow rate or Target density Not specified
Sow date Not specified
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication Not specified
Fertiliser Not specified
Herbicide Not specified
Insecticide Not specified
Inoculant Not specified

Minnipa Agricultural Centre 2015 Lentils

Sow rate or Target density Not specified
Sow date Not specified
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication Not specified
Fertiliser Not specified
Herbicide Not specified
Insecticide Not specified
Inoculant Not specified
Download the trial report to view additional method/treatment information
Trial source data and summary not available
Check the trial report PDF for trial results.
Observed trial site soil information
Trial site soil testing
Not specified
Soil conditions
Trial site Soil texture
Minnipa Agricultural Centre, SA Clay loam
Derived trial site soil information
Australian Soil Classification Source: ASRIS
Trial site Soil order
Minnipa Agricultural Centre, SA Rudosol
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 Minnipa Agricultural Centre SA
2015 321.8mm
2014 374.5mm
2013 309.1mm
2012 331.2mm
2011 372.1mm
2010 355.3mm
2009 367.4mm
2008 310.4mm
2007 330.8mm
2006 342.9mm
2005 316.5mm
2004 323.7mm
2003 305.0mm
2002 305.7mm
2001 303.3mm
2000 332.8mm
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

Minnipa Agricultural Centre SA 2015


Observed climate information

Rainfall avg ann (mm) 325mm
Rainfall avg gsr (mm) 241mm
Rainfall trial total (mm) 333mm
Rainfall trial gsr (mm) 258mm

Derived climate information

Minnipa Agricultural Centre SA

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 last modified: 10-09-2019 15:23pm AEST