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) | N/A |
|---|---|
| Contact email | admin@cfig.org.au |
| Contact phone | 0476046100 |
| Year(s) | 2007 |
| Contributor | Corrigin Farm Improvement Group |
| Trial location(s) |
Corrigin, WA
|
The focus of this project is to better determine the NRM impacts of immerging precision agricultural systems in WA, with particular reference to surface water management and sol health issues. The project will be implemented by one of the leading farming systems groups in Australia in the field of precision agriculture.
The data received from the 2007 trial year proved similar results to 2006. Although we received an extra 50mm more growing season rainfall than 2006, it was still 50mm short of the Corrigin average rainfall. With yields over 3t/ha, no-one can complain though, especially with barley prices around $480/t cash, at harvest in 2007. In terms of the trials’ aim – to find which stubble treatment better suits downhill tramlinning, the jury is still out as for the two years that the trial was run; 2006 & 2007, with limited rainfall we can only draw conclusions on the results that have been found; and for both years it was found that the burnt stubbles had higher yields over all. The burnt plots [having barer ground to seed into] collected more runoff than the other treatments in 2007. Removing the stubble can allow for light falls of rain to be more useful for a crop in such years, hence the better yield whereas having high levels of stubble in such cases can often intercept this moisture making it not available to the crop; rainfall that ponded on the stubbles evaporated before the plant could acess it [Jeff Russell pers.comm]. Subsoil moisture could have played a part in the earlier establishment of the burnt stubbles too as these plots would have got away sooner having no surface restrictions [stubble or organic matter] and therefore these plots would have had a chance to tap into the summer rainfall earlier than the other treatments [Glen Reithmuller pers.comm]. According to Dan Carter [DAFWA], burning stubbles removes valuable nitrogen, soil carbon and other nutrients and leaves the ground vulnerable to damage from wind erosion. In most cases, retaining stubbles will contribute to long-term soil fertility, through both preservation of nutrients and better moisture-holding capacity.
In saying this however, we found in 2007 [as we did in 2006] that the burnt [bare] stubble treatments yielded higher than any of the other stubble treatments as seen in trials. To compare against the control treatment, which has the least runoff, we use the 5%LSD = 2.14*3.94 = 8.4, which suggests that the burnt/bare and raked are significantly higher than the control since the difference between the means is higher than the LSD.
The data received from the 2007 trial year proved similar results to 2006. Although we received an extra 50mm more growing season rainfall than 2006, it was still 50mm short of the Corrigin average rainfall. With yields over 3t/ha, no-one can complain though, especially with barley prices around $480/t cash, at harvest in 2007. In terms of the trials’ aim – to find which stubble treatment better suits downhill tramlinning, the jury is still out as for the two years that the trial was run; 2006 & 2007, with limited rainfall we can only draw conclusions on the results that have been found; and for both years it was found that the burnt stubbles had higher yields over all. The burnt plots [having barer ground to seed into] collected more runoff than the other treatments in 2007. Removing the stubble can allow for light falls of rain to be more useful for a crop in such years, hence the better yield whereas having high levels of stubble in such cases can often intercept this moisture making it not available to the crop; rainfall that ponded on the stubbles evaporated before the plant could acess it [Jeff Russell pers.comm]. Subsoil moisture could have played a part in the earlier establishment of the burnt stubbles too as these plots would have got away sooner having no surface restrictions [stubble or organic matter] and therefore these plots would have had a chance to tap into the summer rainfall earlier than the other treatments [Glen Reithmuller pers.comm]. According to Dan Carter [DAFWA], burning stubbles removes valuable nitrogen, soil carbon and other nutrients and leaves the ground vulnerable to damage from wind erosion. In most cases, retaining stubbles will contribute to long-term soil fertility, through both preservation of nutrients and better moisture-holding capacity.
| Lead research organisation |
Corrigin Farm Improvement Group |
|---|---|
| Host research organisation |
Corrigin Farm Improvement Group |
| Trial funding source | DAFWA |
| Related program | N/A |
| Acknowledgments |
Corrigin Farm Improvement Group would like to thank all project sponsors and host farmers for successful achievement of project objectives. |
| Other trial partners | Not specified |
| Crop type | Cereal (Grain): Barley |
|---|---|
| Treatment type(s) |
|
| Trial type | Precision agriculture |
| Trial design | Unknown |
| Sow date | Not specified |
|---|---|
| Harvest date | Not specified |
| Plot size | Not specified |
| Plot replication | Not specified |
| Sow date | Not specified |
|---|---|
| Harvest date | Not specified |
| Plot size | Not specified |
| Plot replication | Not specified |
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 (