Subsoil amelioration – results from year two

2016
CC BY 4.0

Research organisaton

Trial details

Researcher(s) Stuart Sherriff (Trengove Consulting)
Sam Trengove (Trengove Consulting)
Year(s) 2016
Contributor Hart Field Site Group
Trial location(s) , SA
, SA
Hart, SA
Subsoil amelioration – results from year two locations
Aims

To investigate effects of soil amelioration methods on subsoil constraints and the benefots to grain yields in the Mid-North of SA.

Key messages
  • Grain yield at Hill River was increased on two soil types by 12% and 33% through the addition of soil amendments to the surface or subsoil.
  • There was no yield difference between applying amendment to the surface or subsoil in 2016, except at one of the seven sites sown to lentils.
  • There was little difference between applying large rates of synthetic fertiliser or applying 20 t/ha chicken litter.
Lead research organisation N/A
Host research organisation N/A
Related program N/A
Acknowledgments N/A
Other trial partners Not specified
Download the trial report to view additional trial information

Method

Crop type Cereal (Grain): Barley
Treatment type(s)
  • Soil Improvement
Trial type Experimental
Trial design Randomised,Replicated,Blocked

2016

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
Other trial notes

While all due care has been taken in compiling the information within this manual the Hart Field-Site Group Inc or researchers involved take no liability resulting from the interpretation or use of these results. We do not endorse or recommend the products of any manufacturers referred to. Other products may perform as well or better than those specifically referred to. Any research with un-registered products and rates in the manual does not constitute a recommendation for that particular use by the researchers or the Hart Field-Site Group Inc.

2016

Sow rate or Target density Trojan wheat, 120 kg/ha
Sow date 18 May 2016
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size 2.5m x 10m
Plot replication Not specified
Fertiliser
  • 32:10 kg/ha IBS
  • 160 kg/ha post emergent urea
Other trial notes

While all due care has been taken in compiling the information within this manual the Hart Field-Site Group Inc or researchers involved take no liability resulting from the interpretation or use of these results. We do not endorse or recommend the products of any manufacturers referred to. Other products may perform as well or better than those specifically referred to. Any research with un-registered products and rates in the manual does not constitute a recommendation for that particular use by the researchers or the Hart Field-Site Group Inc.

Hart 2016

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
Other trial notes

While all due care has been taken in compiling the information within this manual the Hart Field-Site Group Inc or researchers involved take no liability resulting from the interpretation or use of these results. We do not endorse or recommend the products of any manufacturers referred to. Other products may perform as well or better than those specifically referred to. Any research with un-registered products and rates in the manual does not constitute a recommendation for that particular use by the researchers or the Hart Field-Site Group Inc.

Download the trial report to view additional method/treatment information

Download results

Trial results Hill River East

# Treatment 1
Screenings (%) Test weight (kg/hL) Grain yield (t/ha) NDVI (.) Protein (%)
1 Nil 2 72.7 7.27 0.39 9
2 Ripping only 2 72.1 7.14 0.45 9.1
3 20 t/ha chicken litter on surface 2 72 8.37 0.52 10.8
4 20 t/ha chicken litter on surface + ripping 2 71.2 8.25 0.54 11.2
5 20 t/ha chicken litter in subsoil + ripping 2.1 71.7 7.99 0.54 11.4
6 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea on surface 2.1 72.3 7.91 0.6 11
7 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea on surface + ripping 1.9 72.4 7.69 0.56 11.7
8 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea in subsoil + ripping 2.3 70.4 8.17 0.52 11.3

Grain yield t/ha


Loading

NDVI .


Loading

Protein %


Loading

Screenings %


Loading

Test weight kg/hL


Loading

Trial results Hill River West

# Treatment 1
Screenings (%) Test weight (kg/hL) Grain yield (t/ha) NDVI (.) Protein (%)
1 Nil 1.6 70.8 6.16 0.66 8.9
2 Ripping only 2 69 6.68 0.61 8.8
3 20 t/ha chicken litter on surface 1.6 71.4 8.41 0.62 10
4 20 t/ha chicken litter on surface + ripping 1.8 71.1 8.61 0.68 10.4
5 20 t/ha chicken litter in subsoil + ripping 1.5 71.5 8.66 0.67 11.6
6 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea on surface 1.7 70.6 8.68 0.62 10.3
7 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea on surface + ripping 1.8 70.2 8.56 0.6 10.3
8 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea in subsoil + ripping 1.9 69.3 8.22 0.63 11.8

Grain yield t/ha


Loading

NDVI .


Loading

Protein %


Loading

Screenings %


Loading

Test weight kg/hL


Loading

Trial results Hart East

# Treatment 1
NDVI (.) Grain yield (t/ha)
1 Nil 0.55 2.64
2 Ripping only 0.53 2.71
3 20 t/ha chicken litter on surface 0.53 1.82
4 20 t/ha chicken litter on surface + ripping 0.62 1.83
5 20 t/ha chicken litter in subsoil + ripping 0.53 2.76
6 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea on surface 0.45 1.88
7 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea on surface + ripping 0.46 2.38
8 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea in subsoil + ripping 0.56 2.49

Grain yield t/ha


Loading

NDVI .


Loading

Trial results Hart West

# Treatment 1
NDVI (.) Grain yield (t/ha)
1 Nil 0.41 3.43
2 Ripping only 0.48 3.35
3 20 t/ha chicken litter on surface 0.63 2.53
4 20 t/ha chicken litter on surface + ripping 0.62 2.39
5 20 t/ha chicken litter in subsoil + ripping 0.47 3.36
6 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea on surface 0.44 3.55
7 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea on surface + ripping 0.42 3.16
8 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea in subsoil + ripping 0.48 3.3

Grain yield t/ha


Loading

NDVI .


Loading

Trial results Bute NW

# Treatment 1
Screenings (%) Test weight (kg/hL) Grain yield (t/ha) NDVI (.) Protein (%)
1 Nil 4.4 63.9 6.65 0.86 13.4
2 Ripping only 6.2 64.6 6.64 0.86 14.6
3 20 t/ha chicken litter on surface 11.4 60 6.44 0.86 16.5
4 20 t/ha chicken litter on surface + ripping 11.3 61.3 6.22 0.87 17.2
5 20 t/ha chicken litter in subsoil + ripping 10.8 61.7 6.22 0.86 17
6 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea on surface 8.9 62.2 6.46 0.85 16.2
7 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea on surface + ripping 9.9 62.1 6.17 0.87 17.2
8 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea in subsoil + ripping 10.9 61.9 6.19 0.87 17

Grain yield t/ha


Loading

NDVI .


Loading

Protein %


Loading

Screenings %


Loading

Test weight kg/hL


Loading

Trial results Bute SE

# Treatment 1
Screenings (%) Test weight (kg/hL) Grain yield (t/ha) NDVI (.) Protein (%)
1 Nil 3.2 65.6 4.85 0.86 12.1
2 Ripping only 4 63.9 4.99 0.86 13.4
3 20 t/ha chicken litter on surface 10.5 61.5 5.38 0.86 16.2
4 20 t/ha chicken litter on surface + ripping 11.4 60.9 5.37 0.87 17.1
5 20 t/ha chicken litter in subsoil + ripping 9.1 61.9 4.92 0.86 17.4
6 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea on surface 8.3 62.7 5.55 0.86 16.5
7 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea on surface + ripping 10.1 61.7 5.02 0.86 17
8 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea in subsoil + ripping 8.9 61.6 5.14 0.86 17.1

Grain yield t/ha


Loading

NDVI .


Loading

Protein %


Loading

Screenings %


Loading

Test weight kg/hL


Loading

Trial results Bute Mid

# Treatment 1
Screenings (%) Test weight (kg/hL) Grain yield (t/ha) NDVI (.) Protein (%)
1 Nil 1.4 68.2 5.45 0.71 10.3
2 Ripping only 2.4 68 5.42 0.77 11.1
3 20 t/ha chicken litter on surface 7.5 62.4 5.35 0.87 16.4
4 20 t/ha chicken litter on surface + ripping 9 61.3 5.59 0.87 16.1
5 20 t/ha chicken litter in subsoil + ripping 8.3 62.8 5.56 0.86 15.6
6 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea on surface 7.2 61.8 5.48 0.86 15.3
7 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea on surface + ripping 7.8 62 6.07 0.86 16
8 MAP, MoP, SoA, urea in subsoil + ripping 7.7 61.8 5.38 0.85 16.9

Grain yield t/ha


Loading

NDVI .


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
, SA Not specified
, SA Dark cracking clay
Hart, SA Not specified
Derived trial site soil information
Australian Soil Classification Source: ASRIS
Trial site Soil order
, SA Calcarosol
, SA Chromosol
Hart, SA Chromosol
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 SA SA Hart SA
2016 508.5mm525.2mm659.9mm
2015 456.4mm494.7mm597.6mm
2014 541.6mm537.8mm638.6mm
2013 531.6mm512.6mm622.8mm
2012 533.2mm550.3mm654.6mm
2011 561.4mm584.1mm683.8mm
2010 566.6mm559.8mm686.7mm
2009 521.5mm533.8mm669.9mm
2008 507.1mm466.2mm633.9mm
2007 551.7mm483.2mm649.9mm
2006 534.0mm494.5mm651.2mm
2005 505.3mm581.3mm675.4mm
2004 489.1mm537.9mm633.0mm
2003 520.5mm555.0mm652.2mm
2002 517.1mm510.1mm649.4mm
2001 555.1mm547.1mm674.5mm
2000 552.6mm462.1mm625.6mm
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.

SA

SA

Hart SA

SA

Loading
Loading
Loading

SA

Loading
Loading
Loading

Hart 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 report and links

2016 trial report



Trial last modified: 10-12-2019 14:12pm AEST