This report has been prepared in good faith on the basis of information available at the date of writing without any independent verification. While the information in this report is believed to be correct, no responsibility is accepted for its accuracy. No liability is accepted for any statement, error or omission. The Corrigin Farm Improvement Group will not be liable for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or arising by reason of any person using or relying on the information in this report. Readers are responsible for assessing the relevance and accuracy of the content of this report. Please note that permission by the author is required for articles being reproduced or presented. The Corrigin Farm Improvement Group does not endorse or recommend any product, manufacturer or service included in this publication. It is intended for growers to use the information to make more informed adoption decisions about these practices, products or services.
| Researcher(s) |
Veronika Crouch |
|---|---|
| Contact email | admin@cfig.org.au |
| Contact phone | 0476046100 |
| Year(s) | 2016 |
| Contributor | Corrigin Farm Improvement Group |
| Trial location(s) |
Corrigin, WA
|
The aim of this project is for the Corrigin Farm Improvement Group (CFIG) to identify the best method to increase soil and crop performance in non-wetting soils in the Corrigin area.
This project was funded through the Wheatbelt NRM Sustainable Agriculture Trials and Demonstrations Project during the 2016 season.
This demonstration compared how differing tillage practices, soil wetter applications and seeding depths affected the yield on non-wetting soils.
The Gross Returns (Income less Input Costs) for this demonstration using 2016 wheat prices for APW1, APW2 and ASW1 indicate that farmer practice (control) had the highest return of $443.61/ha (Figure 7 and Table 3). The second highest return was the spaded treatment at $442.11/ha.
All the treatments made a profit during 2016 between $303.13/ha to $443.61/ha. For a season such as 2016 where there was sufficient rainfall for plant establishment and growth, wetters may not be required at seeding which would reduce input costs.
Results generated using an average wheat price of $250/t over all treatments indicates that farmer practice (control) would still have the highest return of $465.81/ha, whilst the ploughed treatment would have the second highest return of $462.52/ha (Figure 8 and Table 4). All treatments would make a profit over $353.11/ha.
Over both scenarios the Gross Return ranking trend remained similar, with the soil amelioration treatments bringing a greater return than the wetters and DBS knife point at depth. There is a larger $/h return difference between the two wetter treatments when comparing the 2016 wheat prices due to the grade of the grain (Table 2); $52.55/ha for 2016 wheat price and $22.67/ha for average $250 price.
It would be interesting to see how all plots at this site perform under a range of seasonal conditions. A multi year Gross Returns analysis could indicate a change in the $/ha return ranking trend in seasons where wetters have a greater influence on plant establishment. This analysis may also present significant return on investment for the soil amelioration treatments in the second and third year crops.
Due to the wet start to the 2016 season results from the Corrigin non-wetting demonstration did not align as strongly with initial predictions. Further investigation is needed to determine which treatment will be more profitable and improve non-wetting conditions on a larger scale across Tony’s property. It would be beneficial to run a multi-year Gross Return analysis across all treatments, and the level of improvement of non-wetting in the soil. Ideally the treatments would be replicated to minimise any variation across treatments due to season conditions and soil constraints. Tony would also like to compare each treatment with twin points, and if there is a significant difference between knife points and twin points on his property with the use of wetter or soil amelioration.
| Lead research organisation |
Corrigin Farm Improvement Group |
|---|---|
| Host research organisation |
Corrigin Farm Improvement Group |
| Trial funding source | Wheatbelt NRM |
| Related program | N/A |
| Acknowledgments |
This project received funding from Wheatbelt NRM through the Sustainable Agriculture Trials and Demonstrations Project. Wheatbelt NRM Project Number: SA00762SA1. Thanks to local Corrigin growers Clint Pitman, Kevin Ling and Kim Wilkinson for the use of their machinery for the site; including spader, plough and DBS bar with liquid cart. To host grower Tony Guinness and to local agronomist Angus Sellars for their assistance through the trial. Lastly to SACOA and SST Australia for the donation of wetters SE14 and Bi-Agra Band to the demonstration. |
| Other trial partners | Not specified |
| Crop type | Cereal (Grain): Wheat |
|---|---|
| Treatment type(s) |
|
| Trial type | Experimental |
| Trial design | Unknown |
| Sow rate or Target density | 60 kg/ha | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sowing machinery |
40ft BDS Bar with press wheel and close plate on 10 inch row spacing’s, liquid placement bottom of seed. |
|||||
| Sow date | 18 May 2016 | |||||
| Harvest date | Not specified | |||||
| Plot size | Not specified | |||||
| Plot replication | Not specified | |||||
| Psuedoreplication | Not specified | |||||
| Fertiliser |
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. ClimateDerived climate informationNo observed climate data available for this trial. Derived climate data is determined from trial site location and national weather sources. Corrigin WA
SILO weather estimates sourced from https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/silo/ Trial report and links2016 trial report
Trial last modified: 23-10-2023 10:17am AEST
|
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 (