| Researcher(s) |
Bill Bowden (West Midlands Group) David Gartner (West Midlands Group) |
|---|---|
| Year(s) | 2013 |
| Contributor | West Midlands Group |
| Trial location(s) |
Badgingarra, WA
|
To independently compare a range of agricultural foliar products on wheat at Badgingarra in a replicated trial.
In this trial we observed no response to the non-nitrogen test products, either on the low or high fertilizer at seeding treatments. However we cannot say that they will not work under other site, season and management conditions. Unfortunately the promoters can rightly say that we did not give their product the best opportunity to perform and so it was an invalid test.
Such a reply has implications for the promoters rather than the testers. The promoters have an obligation to state under what conditions they expect their product to work and those conditions have to be readily recognized by potential local users. It is not good enough to list a range of processes which the product “improves” or even to quote circumstances from elsewhere where the product has worked. Any new product (and agronomic practice for that matter) has to be extensively tested under local conditions so that the promoters can say what the chances of success are if used by local growers.
We, the testers are able to state that the product did not work under our conditions and in the Popper sense of “falsification” have disproved any statement about how generally useful the product might be. That is, 100% of our observations say it does not work, but that is hardly useful. We could have had a drought year and nothing would have worked. We could have been wiped out by frost or we may have chosen a site with the wrong levels of fertility. We did not test across a full range of conditions and so have too limited information for invalidating the all claims made for the products. This problem is equally true for validation by the product developers.
Products MUST be tested across a wide range of local conditions before it can be promoted with confidence to the broader agricultural community.
In short, any new product (or agronomic practice) requires a major investment in validation trials which are ranged across the full set of management, site and season conditions experienced in the new environment. Otherwise, general promotion of those products should not be believed until such work has been done.
| Lead research organisation |
West Midlands Group |
|---|---|
| Host research organisation |
West Midlands Group |
| Trial funding source | DAFWA |
| Trial funding source | Summit |
| Related program | N/A |
| Acknowledgments |
Thanks to Andrew Kenny the pre-seeding spray, to Graham and Don White for providing the site and management, to Summit Fertilizers for the seeding ‘plus fertilizer’ treatment, to Deb Jackson for assistance, the participating players for their products. DAFWA did the harvesting and both CSBP and Summit funded the grain analyses. Last but not least to Joel Andrew who helped with his mechanical skills at both sub-treatment application days. |
| Other trial partners | Not specified |
| Crop type | Cereal (Grain): Wheat |
|---|---|
| Treatment type(s) |
|
| Trial type | Experimental |
| Trial design | Replicated |
| Sow rate or Target density | 80kg/ha |
|---|---|
| Sowing machinery |
2 by 55 metre runs with a 12 metre bar seeder were used to sow the main plots with plus and minus fertilizer. Sub plots were applied via a quad bike spray unit, or were hand top- dressed. |
| Sow date | 23 May 2013 |
| Harvest date | Not specified |
| Plot size | 24m x 4m |
| Plot replication | 3 |
| Fertiliser |
The two main treatments were sown without and with Summit Spud at 130 kg/ha. The plus fertiliser treatments were drilled with the seed and provided the following nutrients: 10.4 kg N/ha, 16.6 kg P/ha, 14.6 kg K/ha, 10.3 kg S/ha, 2.9 kg Ca/ha, 1.2kg Mg/ha , 180 gm Cu/ha, 170 gm Zn/ha, 200 gm Mn/ha and 10 gm Mo/ha. The plus nutrient plots were given subsequent additional 100 litres/ha of UAN (42 kg N/ha) on June 17 (3.5 leaf stage) On June 17 (3.5 leaf stage), cross treatments (13) were applied. Those treatments with repeat applications received them again on 24th July (6.5 leaf stage) |
| Rainfall trial gsr (mm) | 440mm |
|---|
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.
Plant Breeders’ Rights (PBR)
Some crop varieties used in research trials may be covered by Plant Breeders' Rights (PBR). Users should confirm PBR status of relevant varieties by searching the IP Australia PBR database, http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/pbr_db/ or Variety Central (http://varietycentral.com.au/) and contacting variety owners for further information if required. Where possible, varieties have been listed according to their registered PBR name, although OFT cannot and does not guarantee that the information is accurate or complete.
Note that PBR cover is administered through the Plant Breeders’ Right Act 1994 (