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) | 2006 |
| 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.
|
Key achievements were getting the trial in the ground, harvesting and collection of results. Also successful application for 2nd & 3rd years of funding Project 053042 – Precision Agriculture Systems – Impact on zone management, soil health and surface water management (Years 2 & 3). Key findings from the trial in 2006 were that the most run off was collected from burnt stubble tramline which suggests that bare ground with tracks, can potentially aid the channelling of water more than with stubbles where water can ‘dam’ with the interference of stubble and foreign matter. As this was the first year of the trial at Corrigin it raised many more questions which will hopefully be answered in the next two years. Late notification of project approval combined with difficulty in employing a suitable coordinator resulted in the project starting 6 months late (February 2006). Farmer with tramlining capability easily identified. |
|
Paul Blackwell’s (DAFWA) assistance proved beneficial, were able to combine two trial sites into one paddock to better utilise the farmers controlled traffic system. Minor issue occurred when fire from burning chaff heap destroyed original stubble trial site. New site established. The biggest issue for the trial in 2006 was lack of heavy rainfall events, while a crop was taken off, there were very few rainfall events greater than 10mm. |
|
Several issues occurred with the design, construction and collection of water from the water traps. After consultation with Paul Blackwell on trap design and a visit to his Pindar site (Liebe project) to visually assess the traps, we had a better understanding of how to construct the Corrigin traps. To bury 20 chemical containers into hard soil it was decided to hire local contractor to use his backhoe/digger to dig them out. |
|
Collection of water from the water traps was a major issue too. A range of equipment and methods was trialled and found to be inadequate. After consultation with the local businesses in town, a powerful suction pump that could be screwed to a battery pack for power and ease of moving was order. The pump proved to be the right combination for the job required. A further issue arose over the 2006 trial year with water traps chemical drums becoming |
|
slimy and animals getting trapped resulting in blocking and clogging of the pump. To overcome this problem in 2007 we decided to a) place gauze over the hole from the trap to the pipe leading to the drum, so large matter cannot enter the drum. This has worked well so far, however it has restricted some trap’s water from entering the pipe. We are currently working on rectifying this problem. and b) a second filter was put on the water pump so now it has a main filter and a hose filter to sort though the ‘gunk’ before allowing it to enter the water pump.
|
The Normal Stubble [NM] retention practice [farmer practice] plots ‘threw’ the results out though and showed no consistency over the final results of water flow. For example, NM plot #1 and NM plot #13; [on graph 4.1.1 it is #16 [13 plots + three T [tramline plots] = 16]], are both exceedingly high also. It has been suggested this could be due to an “Edge effect’. In 2007 we’ll discuss with the steering committee whether we remove these plots out of the trial to refine the conclusions by taking out the outliers. No trends can be clearly seen in this data.
The Burnt plot #8 was by far the highest yielder [1.65t/ha] in table 4.1.2 and had the most number of plants/m2 at 36.44 on average [please see appendix 5.3]. Again with this data, we can’t conclusively say that the more plants/m2 = higher yield, as the next highest yielder was the Raked Plot #12 at 20.44 plants/m2 with a yield of 1.59t/ha. One thing we can draw out of this [& is not statistically proven as such...] is that all the stubble management plots i.e. burnt, raked and slashed are in the top right hand corner illustrating that they yielded more than the stubble retention [NM] plots. Could this be due to Paul Blackwell’s theory that with a year of light rainfall events, the rain that sits on top of stubble will evaporate at a much higher rate than if it can directly hit the soil surface, infiltrating practically instantly and becoming available to the plant so therefore increased yields. Due to monetary constraints, to have an intensity meter on each plot at $1000 each isn’t viable.
| 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 the sponsors and growers for their help to achieve the outcomes of the project. |
| Other trial partners | Not specified |
| Crop type | Oilseed: Canola |
|---|---|
| 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 |
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 (