The information contained in this publication is based on knowledge and understanding at the time of writing (June 2017) and may not be accurate, current or complete. The State of New South Wales (including the NSW Department of Industry), the author and the publisher take no responsibility, and will accept no liability, for the accuracy, currency, reliability or correctness of any information included in the document (including material provided by third parties). Readers should make their own inquiries and rely on their own advice when making decisions related to material contained in this publication. The product trade names in this publication are supplied on the understanding that no preference between equivalent products is intended and that the inclusion of a product name does not imply endorsement by the department over any equivalent product from another manufacturer.
| Researcher(s) |
John Angus Felicity Harris (NSW DPI) Eric Koetz (NSW DPI) Graeme Sandral (NSW DPI) Ehsan Tavakkoli (NSW DPI) |
|---|---|
| Year(s) | 2016 |
| Contributor | Department of Primary Industries NSW |
| Trial location(s) |
Wagga Wagga, ACT
|
| Further information | View external link |
In this experiment, we compare three methods of N supply to wheat:
1. surface spread in front of the seeder (early May)
2. mid-row banding at sowing (early May)
3. surface spread at stem elongation (late July).
The difference method was used to evaluated the efficiency of each.
• Nitrogen offtake in grain was higher with mid-row banding urea than urea broadcast and incorporated by sowing for both BeckomA nd LongReach SpitfireA at the 80, 120 and 160 rates of N application.
• Apparent fertiliser recovery in grain was also higher from mid-row banding urea than from urea broadcast and incorporated by sowing in five of the possible eight treatment comparisons.
• Soils cored at stem elongation from the mid-row banding treatment showed higher ammonium levels in the top 20 cm and lower nitrate concentration at 60–100 cm than urea broadcast and incorporated by sowing.
• Roots proliferated around and below the original mid-row banding. These results indicate potential for mid-row banding to improve N use efficiency.
| Lead research organisation | N/A |
|---|---|
| Host research organisation | N/A |
| Trial funding source | DPI NSW |
| Related program | N/A |
| Acknowledgments |
This experiment was internally funded by NSW DPI, with technical support from BinBin Xu, Vincent Van Der Rijt, Graeme Poile, Wayne Pitt, Andrew Price, Hugh Kanaley, Greg McMahon, Jessica Simpson and Hayden Petty. |
| Other trial partners | Not specified |
| Crop type | Cereal (Grain): Wheat |
|---|---|
| Treatment type(s) |
|
| Trial type | Experimental |
| Trial design | Randomised,Replicated,Blocked |
| Sow date | 5 May 2016 |
|---|---|
| Harvest date | 15 December 2016 |
| Plot size | Not specified |
| Plot replication | Not specified |
| Psuedoreplication | Not specified |
| Fertiliser |
At sowing phosphorus (P) as triple super was drilled 50 mm below seed at a rate of 25 kg P/ha |
| Herbicide |
Weed management included glyphosate (450 g/L) at 1.2 L/ha plus 2,4-D (625 g/L) at 320 mL/ha during the fallow period (January–April 2016) Weed control was undertaken by applying the pre-emergent Sakura® (pyroxasulfone 850 g/L) at 118 g/ha and Logran® (triasulfuron 750 g/L) at 35 g/ha on 4 May 2016 and was incorporated at sowing |
| Insecticide |
Aphids were controlled at late stem elongation by applying Aphidex® (Pirimicarb 500 g/kg) at 250 g/ha |
| Fungicide |
Precautionary disease control was implemented. Seed was treated with Hombre® Ultra (imidacloprid 360 g/L and tebuconazole 12.5 g/L) at 200 mL/100 kg. Prosaro® (prothioconazole 210 g/L and tebuconazole 210 g/L) was 300 mL/ha at DC 30 and 37 to prevent and/or supress rust infections. |
| Other trial notes |
This research paper is an extract from the publication Southern NSW Research Results 2017, available at |
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 (