• Sheep grazing on stubbles and crops do not reduce crop yields provided summer weeds are controlled and at least 70% stubble cover (2-3 t/ha cereal stubble) is maintained.
• Reduced water infiltration and yield from grazing are due to removal of cover rather than compaction – it is sheep’s mouths that do damage, not their hooves.
• Sheep do compact soil, but only at the surface and natural shrinking and swelling of soils and sowing with knife points alleviates this.
• Grazing of stubble and crops appears to make more N available to crops which can increase yield, although the mechanisms remain unclear.

• Sheep grazing on stubbles and crops do not reduce crop yields provided summer weeds are controlled and at least 70% stubble cover (2-3 t/ha cereal stubble) is maintained.
• Reduced water infiltration and yield from grazing are due to removal of cover rather than compaction – it is sheep’s mouths that do damage, not their hooves.
• Sheep do compact soil, but only at the surface and natural shrinking and swelling of soils and sowing with knife points alleviates this.
• Grazing of stubble and crops appears to make more N available to crops which can increase yield, although the mechanisms remain unclear.

• Sheep grazing on stubbles and crops do not reduce crop yields provided summer weeds are controlled and at least 70% stubble cover (2-3 t/ha cereal stubble) is maintained.
• Reduced water infiltration and yield from grazing are due to removal of cover rather than compaction – it is sheep’s mouths that do damage, not their hooves.
• Sheep do compact soil, but only at the surface and natural shrinking and swelling of soils and sowing with knife points alleviates this. 
• Grazing of stubble and crops appears to make more N available to crops which can increase yield, although the mechanisms remain unclear.

• Sheep grazing on stubbles and crops do not reduce crop yields provided summer weeds are controlled and at least 70% stubble cover (2-3 t/ha cereal stubble) is maintained.
• Reduced water infiltration and yield from grazing are due to removal of cover rather than compaction – it is sheep’s mouths that do damage, not their hooves.
• Sheep do compact soil, but only at the surface and natural shrinking and swelling of soils and sowing with knife points alleviates this.
• Grazing of stubble and crops appears to make more N available to crops which can increase yield, although the mechanisms remain unclear.

• Sheep grazing on stubbles and crops do not reduce crop yields provided summer weeds are controlled and at least 70% stubble cover (2-3 t/ha cereal stubble) is maintained.
• Reduced water infiltration and yield from grazing are due to removal of cover rather than compaction – it is sheep’s mouths that do damage, not their hooves.
• Sheep do compact soil, but only at the surface and natural shrinking and swelling of soils and sowing with knife points alleviates this.
• Grazing of stubble and crops appears to make more N available to crops which can increase yield, although the mechanisms remain unclear.

• Grazing crop stubbles makes more mineral N available to crops which increases grain N uptake and is perhaps an overlooked benefit of keeping livestock in stubble-retained farming systems.

The gravel content of a soil certainly affects soil physics and chemistry as well as crop growth processes.

In terms of nutrient management, currently increased gv% is assumed to reduce the amount of nutrients available to the crops, but not to concentrating the effect of fertiliser inputs. Adjustments for gv% are made in systems which use soil test calibration curves to produce recommendations when in fact those adjustments are probably not justified. All of the adjustments which are made, lead to higher fertiliser recommendations.  Even so, no attempt is made to better sample for or estimate gv%.

Whether it is worth investing further resources to confirm or refute the importance of the questions raised in this study is open to question. The complexity of the effects of gv% in real farming systems is such that there may well be no way to improve the predictive power of the models (both regression and mechanistic) to any great extent.

If resources are found to fund future work then it would be best to start with direct measures of whether gravel is inert or not – particularly with respect to water.  Experimental work used in parallel with ROOTMAP model runs to study the effect of gravel on nutrient uptake could also be worthwhile.

• Grazing perennial native shrubs are being trialled on Eyre Peninsula.
• Three sites established, Elbow Hill, Streaky Bay & Minnipa.
• Perennial native shrubs could potentially help fill the summer-autumn feed gap while providing other benefits such as drought management, nutritional value, reduced soil erosion, carbon sequestration and in some species fodder production in a saline environment.
• Increasing ground cover in low-medium rainfall farming systems.

• On average in the Mediterranean Mallee environment, sub-tropical grasses grow best during late spring and early summer when soil temperatures are rising and soil moisture is available.
• Unless significant rain occurs after December, the growth rate of sub-tropical grasses is typically low in the period December to April.
• Subtropical grasses are dormant in the winter months, so weed control measures are relatively easy and the inclusion of annual medics may be possible.
• The standing fodder of sub-tropical grasses can potentially be carried over for grazing later in summer.

After six years of running the Systems Site comparing farming systems it has become clear that the critical issues are as follows.

Conserving soil water into dry seasons, which can be achieved using either mechanical in a conventional system or chemical means in a reduced till or no till system (assuming there is enough stubble to protect the soil surface from evaporation).

Since the introduction of Frame and Yitpi (CCN resistant wheats) CCN has not been a problem.

Take-all and Pratylenchus neglectus appear to more closely correlate to specific areas in a paddock rather than levels changing because of crop choice or the rotation (field peas did lower Pratylenchus levels). Certainly there did not appear to be any influence of farming system on these two soil borne diseases.

Weed levels have not changed markedly over the duration of the trial and there were no differences between systems after six years. Brome grass is now present at the site at very low levels whereas it was not recorded in 1999 and 2000.

Wind erosion susceptibility and risk is lowest in the No Till plots because of good stubble cover and aggregation of soil particles. The three other systems all had plots which were moderately susceptible to wind erosion, primarily as a result of low stubble cover.

Using current technology and sampling intensity it is not possible to pick up changes in soil available nitrogen levels between different farming systems.

Soil changes in soil biological characteristics are currently being assessed and will be reported by the BCG update in February 2006.

• The application of lime and gypsum to a sodic soil has improved soil structure (observations) and fertility (soil test results) in the top soil (0-10cm). However, despite the lime and gypsum being applied 5 years ago, soil tests indicate there has been no change in the sub soil (10-30cm).
• Gypsum produced a greater soil ameliorant effect in the early years, but after 5 years appears to have largely 'run out of puff. In contrast, lime produced smaller benefits in the early years, but it's effects have lasted longer and are still clearly visible after 6 years.

• The application of lime and gypsum to a sodic soil has produced improvements in soil structure observable to visitors of the trial site.
•  Improvement in soil structure have been associated with variable responses in grain yield and quality across years, apparently in response to varying available soil moisture over the last 5 crop years (2000 to 2004).
• Yield increases with soil amelioration are associated with years where crop growing conditions were conducive to high yield and/or reasonable levels of sub soil moisture were available to the crop (years 2001 and 2002).
• In contrast, barley yield declines of 40% - 80% and quality downgrades have occurred in the last two very dry years (2003 and 2004). This is thought to be due to the soil amelioration treatments promoting additional early season vegetative growth but being followed by severe spring conditions leading to the crop "haying off”.
• The trial has sown no economic benefit of soil amelioration in 5 years.

No significant differences were found from either the different rates of gypsum applied in 1994 or from the tillage practices.

• Soil acidification is a natural process accelerated by high crop yields and fertilizer use. It is an unseen cost of doing business.
• To maintain a good soil pH profile, producers should aim for a pHCa above 5.0 in the 0-10cm of topsoil or 5.5 if subsoil acidity issues are present. The target in the 10-30cm zone is greater than
  pHCa 4.8.
• Correct pH is paramount when growing legumes, especially if the decision to grow them is to increase soil nitrogen levels.
• Liming needs to be thought of as a farm input, like checking and changing the oil in the tractor (maintaining capital), rather than buying urea (dollars returned per dollar invested).

• Soil acidification is a natural process accelerated by high crop yields, fertilizer use and potentially direct drilling and stubble retention. It is an unseen cost of doing business.
• To maintain a good soil pH profile producers should aim for a pH(CaCl) above 5.0 in the 0-10cm of topsoil or 5.5 if subsoil acidity issues are present. The target in the 10-30cm zone is greater than pH (CaCl) 4.8.
• Retesting during 2015 of historic soil pH datasets confirms soil profiles continue to acidify.
• Left unmanaged sub soil acidification is likely to occur in most Central West NSW soils.
• Liming needs to be thought of as a farm input, like checking and changing the oil in the tractor, (maintaining capital) rather than buying urea (dollars returned per dollar invested).
• Cost in managing soil pH are easier to quantify than returns.

• Soil acidification is a natural process accelerated by high crop yields, fertilizer use and potentially direct drilling and stubble retention. It is an unseen cost of doing business.
• To maintain a good soil pH profile producers should aim for a pH(CaCl) above 5.0 in the 0-10cm of topsoil or 5.5 if subsoil acidity issues are present. The target in the 10-30cm zone is greater than pH (CaCl) 4.8.
• Retesting during 2015 of historic soil pH datasets confirms soil profiles continue to acidify.
• Left unmanaged sub soil acidification is likely to occur in most Central West NSW soils.
• Liming needs to be thought of as a farm input, like checking and changing the oil in the tractor, (maintaining capital) rather than buying urea (dollars returned per dollar invested).
• Cost in managing soil pH are easier to quantify than returns.

• Soil pH levels in paddocks across KI are below critical levels which is having an impact on both farm production and the environment.
• Soil acidity potentially remains as a significant land management issue on Kangaroo Island with 94% of all sites analysed the top and sub soil were below the critical level of 5.0 pHCaCl2.
• Amelioration of soil acidity, through lime spreading needs to be conducted to prevent soil acidification.

• Over time applications of lime increase soil pH by an average of 0.45 unit.
• Many limed paddocks were still at critical pH levels, it’s important to retest paddocks about 2 to 3 years after liming and re-apply lime if required.
• Amelioration of soil acidity, through lime spreading, needs to be conducted to prevent soil acidification.

• Over time applications of lime (2.5-3t/ha) increase soil pH by an average of 0.45 unit.
• Monitor pH levels, retest 2 to 3 years after liming and reapply lime if required.
• Amelioration of soil acidity, through lime spreading, needs to be conducted to prevent soil acidification.

The results so far (after three dry seasons) indicate that:

- deep ripping has resulted in significantly lower yields, and

- gypsum has had no affect on yield.

• The purpose of 2010 was to establish this long-term trial and baseline soils analysis
• Due to limited funding no formal monitoring took place and all results and analysis was visual.
• The Spader caused the trial area to be soft and as such sowing depth was compromised. Some furrows were partially collapsed, burying the seed even deeper. This cause patchy germination on the spaded area.
• Perennials did not germinate due to lack of spring and summer rain- these may need to be re-seeded in 2011.
• Unfortunately some of the treatments were affected by aphids, eg Dalkeith and to a lesser extent Bartolo Bladder clover and Rose Clover.
• Due to a very dry finish there appeared to be very poor seed set on all treatments.
• Low clay rates of 60T without incorporation was effective in aiding establishment of seeded varieties and could be an economic option for establishing annual pasture on poorer non-wetting sands.
• At at current levels. This option produced high quality pasture which was a great improvement over the control and on a larger scale may sustain higher stocking rate and or growth rates.

• The purpose of 2010 was to establish this long-term trial and baseline soils analysis
• Due to limited funding no formal monitoring took place and all results and analysis was visual.
• The Spader caused the trial area to be soft and as such sowing depth was compromised. Some furrows were partially collapsed, burying the seed even deeper. This cause patchy germination on the spaded area.
• Perennials did not germinate due to lack of spring and summer rain- these may need to be re-seeded in 2011.
• Unfortunately some of the treatments were affected by aphids, eg Dalkeith and to a lesser extent Bartolo Bladder clover and Rose Clover.

 

• Good soil moisture conditions at sowing reduced the impact of repellence on establishment; all treatments established a healthy number of plants.
• Claying improved crop establishment, growth and grain yield in 2011; this appears to be driven by better seedbed moisture retention and reduced nutrient leaching, espeically nitrogen.
• Good soil moisture conditions during grain fill minimised any water shortage (haying off) effects from claying.
• Cultivation treatment had no impact on grain yield, possibly because seasonal conditions were not conductive to showing differences or because the cultivation impacts are reducing over time, ongoing assessment should clarify this.
• Drier conditions at seeding and harder finishes would be expected to result in greater impact from the repellence management treatments.

There was a significant yield improvement of the triticale to applied gypsum.

• Crop production on these deep infertile sands is often well below the water-limited potential, partly because they have little capacity to hold mobile nutrients such as nitrogen but also because they are often compacted.
• However, a major limitation on these soil types is the very infertile subsoils, which prevent efficient extraction of water by crop roots.
• Adding fertilisers into this area can produce spectacular benefits to crop performance but techniques to produce these benefits need to be further refined to make them more cost-effective.
• The addition of products, which will hold nutrients near the seed, showed some promise in this trial but further testing should be conducted to assess the reliability of this approach.
• Deep ripping is usually beneficial on these deep sands.

• Soil inversion with a mouldboard plough results in a layer of repellent topsoil being buried at depth with a layer of wettable subsoil brought to the surface. Water can readily enter subsoil brought to the surface but it can take some time for the buried water repellent topsoil to wet up.
• Soil moisture measurements made just after seeding and prior to emergence indicated that at both sites the top 10cm of soil in both the furrow and the ridge was wetter in the mouldboard plough treatment compared with the control treatment.
• For further results please see the attached trial report.

• There is still a lack of scientific research to validate results and their complete interpretation, nor does there appear to be any standardisation of tests.
• Testing may provide a ‘guide’ and some value as a comparison tool between paddocks.
• Significant differences in results between labs, possibly due to different analysis methods. This highlights the
• need to be cautious when comparing results from different labs.
• For a copy of the full report contact the PIRSA Office, Kingscote.

• Stubble retention and reduced stocking pressures increase soil microbial activity.
• Activity of soil microbes give soils natural suppression of root diseases.
• Disease suppression has been shown to be substantially increased through retention of stubbles over a 5-10 year period.
• Microbial activity has a strong influence on the availability of soil nutrients to crops, Nitrogen is the nutrient most influenced by microbial activity.
• There are many microbes that can break down chemicals and this break down is often enhanced with increased stubble retention.

Results show that there was a significant increase in grain yield and protein level for brown manure and organic matter treatments.

Research and trial work across Australia has shown that stubble retention does eventually lead to an improved soil resource

The lupin phase is primarily a 'set up' rotation which continues evaluation of the soil resource. No yield results are obtained in the lupin rotation.

No significant differences have been found between treatments in relation to the soil resource.

• This trial was implemented in an effort to increase grain yield through improved soil water storage and biological functioning. Organic matter, whether as retained stubble or additional inputs, is a significatn source of crop nutrition, and improved moisture conditions allow for optimal breakdown by soil microbes.
• Further investigation and trial work into the effect of chaff and straw from different crop species would have on yield and soil health properties would be beneficial to evaluate.

It was expected that the imposed treatments to increase soil organic matter would take several years to become noticeable, especially in medium rainfall areas.  Even after three reasonable seasons at Temora with good crop production there were no differences in Soil C stock between the stubble and nutrient supply treatments.  The same result was found at the other seven trial sites located in SE Australia.  Thjis work shows that increasing soil C stocks is a long-term process, and three years was not long enough to measure significant changes with the practices selected.  The Temora Soil C trial will be remeasured again on the completion of the 2016 season after five years of trial work.

Given that carbon sequestration is not an overnight process it is not surprising that there have been few significant results or trends to report on in either an intensive plot or large paddock scale.  Nutrient addition to balance the ration of C;N;P;S has surprisingly had little impact on yield and this is possibly a desirable outcome as no difference between +/- nutrient treatments would indicate that the nutrients are available for sutbble breakdown, rather than crop vegetative mass. Cost associated on a whole farm scale of purchasing nutrients in addition to normal fertiliser requirements could prove prohibitive.

• Seasonal conditions and soil type have a greater effect on carbon than management.
• Providing necessary nutrients and pH for optimum pasture production will potentially increase soil carbon.
• Cropping in a good season might not decrease soil carbon stocks. Opportunities could exist for Monaro landholders to diversify their enterprises when the conditions are right without depleting their soil carbon.
• A rapid increase of soil carbon can easily be followed by a rapid decrease.
• For more information please see our eBook: Soil carbon in the Monaro region (https://itunes.apple.com/au/book/ id1035198100 or http://tinyurl.com/zrr9mht).

• Compacted layers exist in EP soils, but there is no economic advantage in mechanically intervening.
• Any benefit from deep ripping alone is most likely for 2 years.
• Deep ripping is a high risk option in below average years.
• Sandy soils are more responsive to deep ripping.

Over the summer of 2002/03 soil conservation is as critical as summer weed control to ensure that your soil resource is in the best possible condition to produce high yielding crops in 2003.

• Relatively low levels of stubble cover during January – March provide effective protection against soil erosion.
• Protection against soil erosion is not related to the tillage system employed in crop establishment or management provided stubble is retained over the summer period.
• Ripping techniques in which significant levels of clod are brought to the soil surface are effective in preventing significant soil losses on paddocks without vegetative cover.

• Salinity is increasing slightly but is still well within desired levels. Salinity is not increasing at depth.
• Acidity is worsening with the majorioty of sites below critical levels. Acidity is also inceasing at depth, where it is much more costly to treat.
• Phosphorus levels, where fertilser had been applied, is at optimum to above optimum levels.

• Basal yield reached 75% of potential yield at this site.
• The plus N treatment did not significantly affect yield, and N was not a limiting factor.
• Moisture was in excess below 60cm soil depth.

This site was close to achieving potential yield according to the French-Schultz equation.

Yield from the basal applied treatment wqas 90% of potential yield.

Actual yield (basal treatment) was well below potential yield according to the French-Schultz equation.

• Yield was not significantly increased with the addition of extra N, therefore N was no limiting.
• Potential yield was not reached with either treatment.

• This site exceeded yield potential.
• The plus N treatment did not significantly increase yield from the basal treatment.

• Potential yield was not reached with the basal or the plus N treatments.
• Wheat yield was 1.27t/ha and was not significantly different with the addition of more nitrogenous fertiliser.

This was the highest yielding satellite site with the basal treatment yielding 4.03t/ha.

• As in 2014, there was a significant difference in yield, in response to the cultivation treatments but not between the lime treatments.
• Screenings in 2015 were much higher in the mouldboard and spaded plots than any other treatments. The percentage of screenings in these treatments increased with the increasing rate of lime.

• Sapding or delving in lime lifted the soil pH to a depth of 20cm within one year.
• All other results are inconclusive at this stage; this may be due to seasonal conditions and/or crop variety.

• This trial is a large-scale experiment, the data collected provides an indication of treatment effects and demonstrates benefits and pitfalls of adopting these subsoil acidity management methods on a large-scale. The small plot trials are more accurate and provided detailed statistical analysis of the impact of different treatments.
• Further years of research and analysis from this site and other sites will confirm these findings.

Soil moisture retention granules did not influence wheat grain yield or quality at Hart in 2010.

Soil moisture retention granules did not influence wheat grain yield at Hart in 2009.

• N2O emissions at the Gunnedah site were approximately 10 times higher than at the Emerald site, due to the wet soil conditions and high pre-season rainfall at Gunnedah which led to denitrification of N from pre-season anhydrous ammonia application.
• Two nitrification inhibitors, DMPS (“Big N-sure”, Incitec Pivot Fertilisers) and nitrapyrin (“N-serve”, Dow AgroSciences) directly injected into anhydrous ammonia during pre-plant N application delayed the conversion of applied ammonium in the soil to nitrate for a period of 2–3 months.
• At the Gunnedah site, cumulative N2O emitted was reduced by 86% (DMPS) and 65% (nitrapyrin), compared to untreated ammonia.

Conclusions: 

In a season such as that experienced at the Emerald 2016–17 site, there were only minor environmental benefits from using a nitrification inhibitor in conjunction with anhydrous ammonia. However, these experimental conditions may not be typical as pre-plant fertiliser is usually applied earlier in the year at Emerald than it was at this site. A longer period of time between pre-plant application and plant establishment would provide greater opportunity for N2 O losses to occur, although the potential for heavy winter rainfall tends to be low in the Emerald region. While both inhibitor products clearly reduced emissions during the first two measurement periods, it was apparent that the effectiveness of these products had dissipated by the time of the second irrigation. The additional inhibitor application with the side-dressed urea boosted the N2 O reduction period for the DMPP treatment, while the application of untreated urea to the other treatments allowed further losses matching those of the untreated control after the initial pre-plant N application. The 2016–17 Gunnedah experiment provided the perfect testing conditions for nitrification inhibitors as the soil was very wet at application, and received frequent heavy rainfall during the next 3 months. These inhibitors were designed to retain mineral N from applied N fertiliser in the soil during periods of excessive rainfall that may otherwise lead to large losses of nitrate N through denitrification and leaching. Leaching occurs through downward movement of nitrate with water in the soil, but we found no evidence of this having occurred in the soil core samples we took just prior to sowing. For heavy clay soils such as this one at Gunnedah, denitrification of soil nitrate during periods of anaerobic soil conditions is the most likely major N loss pathway. The results of the gas sampling campaigns highlighted the almost complete mitigation of N2 O emissions during this period by adding nitrification inhibitors. The Big N-sure® inhibitor appeared to remain active for longer in the soil than the N-serve®.

• Visually the impacts of Lime may not be seen, but the benefits of Lime are evident when comparing
  Limed areas plant biomass and yield with that of unLimed areas.
• Application of Lime is shown to halt subsoil acidification which is costly to address and will impact upon future sustainability and productivity of an agricultural enterprise.
• Appropriate rates of Lime are shown to increases yield

When comparing the soil pH map against the EM38 map we found that there were some similar trends, especially in the alkaline zone in the south east of the paddock which lines up partially to the high EM38 readings (clay soil). However, the difference between the two maps is significant in terms of creating lime The greatest lime savings through the soil pH mapping approach have occurred on paddocks which are considered to be in a maintenance phase. That is, paddocks which have had a reasonable lime history and only require strategic lime applications. Savings on these paddocks tends to range between 35 – 65%. Other farmers who have previously implemented variable rate lime are also using the grid soil pH mapping service to measure how effective the variable rate application was. The subsequent map is then used to apply a maintenance rate of lime.

• Monitor pH to depth by using a shoven and cheap pH test kit.
• Don't assume just because you once limed that the problem is solved - monitor, monitor, monitor.
• Consider options to get lime to depth by increasing the rate and/or frequency of limin or using strategic tilage.

• Precision mapping of soil provides a more accurte understanding of pH and nutrient status than traditional mapping.
• Soils are highly variable, so even replicate samples of the same transect will vary and there is no 'perfect result' so just be aware of htis in the interpretation of the maps.
• If your paddock varies in soil type ensure extra samples are analysed for PBI.

Soil testing prior to sowing revealed that chemical properties were highly variable between zones (see Table 1 in attached Trial report). For example, over a distance of 100 m between the midslope and the swale, soil organic carbon levels nearly doubled from 0.22 to 0.40. Topsoil phosphorus levels also increased from just above the marginal level of 20 (Colwell) on the midslope to nearly 30 (Colwell) on the swale. 

Averaged across all sampling locations, protein levels increased by 0.6% in the 50kg/ha of urea treatment and by 1% in the 100kg/ha of urea treatment relative to the nil in-crop fertiliser strip. This increase in protein was enough to improve grain quality from Australian Standard White (ASW) to Australian Premium White (APW) at four of the six sampling locations. On the day of harvest at the nearest grain receiver site (Yelta), the ASW silo cash price was $127/t and APW was $158/t. At a urea cost of $620/t, the application of 50 kg/ha of urea costs $31/ha (fertiliser cost only). Therefore, at the four sites where grain quality was improved, a small profit was made (15 – 55 $/ha) with the application of 50 kg/ha of fertiliser. However, at one third of the protein sampling sites, a loss of $31/ha was incurred as there was no difference in grain quality between the treatments.

While all soil types responded to nitrogen, the response and profitability of nitrogen application varied between soil zones. Using the Urea/SOA treatment as an example, for the loam and swale soil types, the additional profit compared to no in-season N was approximately $50/ha. However, applying additional fertiliser to the dune soil was twice as profitable (approximately $100/ha). As input costs were standard across all soil types (i.e. an N Rich strip with the equivalent rate of N was used for all treatments), profitability was driven by the increase in yield. As fertiliser efficiency was below its potential for the loam and swale soils (and at potential for the dune soil), it is possible that the same yield response could have been achieved with less fertiliser, therefore these two soil zones could have been more profitable if less nitrogen was applied.

• Soil water can be predicted from EM38 measurements made on the soil surface in southern dryland cropping soils.

• It is possible to estimate the amount of water and its distribution in the top 50 cm of soil.

• Rapid surveys of large areas and/or high numbers of experiment plots will be possible.
 

• The trial provides strong support for the use of soil-specific N management to improve profitability and risk management on Mallee dune-swale paddocks.
• Sandy soil types have consistently shown yield responses to increased inputs of N, while the heavy swale soils have not shown a yield benefit of increased N inputs.
• Nil fertiliser (N and P) has been the most profitable fertiliser treatment on the heaviest swale soil and the least profitable elsewhere.
• Upfront N at a higher rate still appears to generate the most consistent yield increase and profit outcome on the sandy soil types.

• The trial provides strong support for the use of soil-specific N management to improve profitability and risk management on Mallee dune-swale paddocks.
• Sandy soil types have consistently showing yield responses to increased inputs of N, while the heavy swale soils have not shown a yield benefit of increased N inputs.
• Nil fertiliser (N and P) has been the most profitable fertiliser treatment on the heaviest swale soil and the least profitable elsewhere.
• There was still a measurable response in 2013 to a pasture break in 2009.

• Field experiment to test the relative effectiveness of a zinc spray to the soil surface compared to zinc-enriched fertilizers.
• These results suggest that zinc-enriched fertilizers which are of a heterogeneous nature will not be effective at correcting zinc deficiency in the year of application, or in the following year.
• Both soil sprays of zinc pre-sowing and zinc-enriched fertilizers drilled with the seed of a homogeneous nature are effective at correcting zinc deficiency.

• The frequency of winter cereals in the rotation have a large impact on crown rot inoculum build up.
• Monitoring paddocks over time is a powerful way to help crown rot management and the PreDictaB™ soil tests are an effective method for achieving this.
• The dominant wheat–canola rotation in southern NSW is increasing the region’s level of risk to losses caused by crown rot.
• Not all paddocks behave the same way and factors other than crop type are affecting crown rot behaviour.

• 55% of paddocks tested in 2014 and 80% of paddocks in 2015 had crown rot.
• 90% of paddocks tested in 2014 and 2015 had take all.
• The previous crop grown in the paddock can greatly influence the pre-sowing levels of crown rot and take all in the following year, particularly in a cereal on cereal rotation.
• Most paddocks with pre-sowing levels of crown rot and take all had increased inoculum levels throughout the growing season.
• Crop rotation and duration, and stubble management can reduce crown rot and take all infection risk.

Results from the Northern Agricultural Region have shown that crops can be sown over subtropical perennial grasses without jeopardizing persistence of the perennial base. However, perennial grasses vary in their tolerance to in-crop herbicides and crop yield is dependent on effective weed control, adequate fertility and moisture, and winter dormancy (or suppression) of the perennial pasture.

Pasture cropping systems can also lift overall biomass production, improve the feed value of stubbles, provide out of season fodder, and reduce the likelihood of wind erosion and groundwater recharge on deep sandy soils.

The application of additional nitrogen can lead to greater biomass in both the annual crop and perennial pasture. However, this is dependent on seasonal conditions and the economics of applying additional nitrogen needs to be considered carefully on low moisture holding, infertile, sandy soils in the Northern Agricultural Region.

• Bean yields at Conmurra were significantly lower in 2011 than in 2010.
• This trial was located in much shallower soil in 2011 than 2010, and yield was suppressed by dry conditions and several frost events during September and October.

• Since soil moisture was not limiting, and a soft finish to the season was observed, sowing date trials at Minnipa in 2010 showed no differences in yield between early and late sowing dates under these conditions.

• Despite only close to average growing season rainfall, yields in 2011 (average 2.9t/ha) were
  buoyed by stored soil moisture from summer rainfall, low disease levels and generally
  favourable growing conditions, and performed significantly higher than the wetter seasons of
  2009 (2.4t/ha) and 2010 (2.5t/ha) where growing season rainfall was higher but disease was
  more prevalent. These favourable growing conditions are also likely responsible for the lack of
  sowing date response in 2011.

Early sowing is essential in order to maximise yield of wheat crops grown on long (18 month) fallow. Long fallowing and early sowing are complementary practices, as the fallow reduces weeds and diseases which can be difficult to control in early sown crops, and early sowing with slow developing cultivars allows the crop to better use soil water that is stored during the fallow. Stored soil water also helps to establish early sown crops when there is minimal autumn rainfall. This fact sheet outlines how farmers can maximise wheat yield on long fallow by sowing early with slow developing cultivars, and is based on two years of GRDC funded research conducted by AgGrow Agronomy, CWFS and CSIRO in western NSW.

• There were no measurable differences in 2014 wheat yield in response to two different sowing dates and sowing on-row vs. inter-row.
• On the sandy soil type, there was more plant available water (PAW) in the top 10cm when sowing on-row.
• Rhizoctonia inoculum was higher with on-row compared to inter-row sowing but this did not carry through to an effect on rhizoctonia infection in the crop. 
• In a season where the profile PAW was similar for the two sowing dates (April 30 and May 14) crop establishment was better with the earlier time of sowing but ryegrass pressure on the swale was also higher with the earlier time of sowing.

• In a non-wetting sand, sowing on-row allowed seedlings to germinate in a wetter soil, with increased competitiveness against weed and disease pressures resulting in significant advantages in crop establishment and biomass production.
• Sowing on-row in sands or loam that did not express non-wetting did not capture the same level of benefits.
• Sowing crops on or very near last year’s crop row greatly suppressed grass weed populations and reduced brome grass seed set by over 70% compared to inter-row seeding.
• Early sowing in the last week of April instead of the third week of May helped to overcome the dry spring conditions and resulted in yield benefits of 28% at Loxton and up to 13% at Karoonda.
• When sowing crops on last year’s row, the potential for higher stubble borne pathogen (Take-All and Fusarium) inoculum and a greater likelihood of N tie-up after opening rains needs to be considered. However, impacts on rhizoctonia disease depend upon inherent biological fertility of soil.

• In a non-wetting sand, sowing on-row allowed seedlings to germinate in a wetter soil, with increased competitiveness against weed and disease pressures resulting in significant advantages in crop establishment and biomass production.
• Sowing on-row in sands or loam that did not express non-wetting did not capture the same level of benefits.
• Sowing crops on or very near last year’s crop row greatly suppressed grass weed populations and reduced brome grass seed set by over 70% compared to inter-row seeding.
• Early sowing in the last week of April instead of the third week of May helped to overcome the dry spring conditions and resulted in yield benefits of 28% at Loxton and up to 13% at Karoonda.
• When sowing crops on last year’s row, the potential for higher stubble borne pathogen (Take-All and Fusarium) inoculum and a greater likelihood of N tie-up after opening rains needs to be considered. However, impacts on rhizoctonia disease depend upon inherent biological fertility of soil.

• In a non-wetting sand, sowing on-row allowed seedlings to germinate in a wetter soil, with increased competitiveness against weed and disease pressures resulting in significant advantages in crop establishment and biomass production.
• Sowing on-row in sands or loam that did not express non-wetting did not capture the same level of benefits.
• Sowing crops on or very near last year’s crop row greatly suppressed grass weed populations and reduced brome grass seed set by over 70% compared to inter-row seeding.
• Early sowing in the last week of April instead of the third week of May helped to overcome the dry spring conditions and resulted in yield benefits of 28% at Loxton and up to 13% at Karoonda.
• When sowing crops on last year’s row, the potential for higher stubble borne pathogen (Take-All and Fusarium) inoculum and a greater likelihood of N tie-up after opening rains needs to be considered. However, impacts on rhizoctonia disease depend upon inherent biological fertility of soil.

• Earlier sowing and standing residue was important to maximising grain yield in lentils in the Wimmera.
• Mid to mid/late maturing varieties like CIPAL0803 and PBA Jumbo, where highest yielding in the 2011 season with mild conditions and significant stored moisture.

• Early to late May was optimum for planting chickpeas at Yenda in 2010. This season was
  one of the most favourable experienced for many years. However, during a normal season in this lower rain zone, greater moisture and heat stresses will occur, later sowings will be
  more exposed to climate stress and yields will be lower. These findings support conclusions
  from the Wagga Time of Sowing trial reported above - late April to early May is the optimal
  window to plant chickpeas in southern NSW. In the drier Yenda environment (compared to
  Wagga), sowings should be targeted more towards the first half of this window.
• PBA Slasher, CICA0603 and Genesis 509 (all desi types) were the best varieties especially
  when sown in May and June. Genesis 090 and Genesis 079 (kabuli) performed well at the
  May planting only.
• Plant population had little or no affect on yield or seed size.

• As to be expected, the highest rate of lime application (100 t/ha) had the greatest increase on pH, increasing pH by 1.5 units in the topsoil and 0.4 of a unit in the sub soil.
• The spaded only treatments (no lime applied) also increased the pH by bringing up less acidic clay into the surface soil horizons.
• The higher lime rate applications showed that the soil pH had been evenly increased through the profile,  demonstrating the ability of the spader to uniformly mix the lime to depth.

Growers taking part in the trials were hoping that the spader would create a more uniform soil by mixing clay throughout the root zone and breaking up impermeable clay at depth and help reduce waterlogging.

Soil acidity affects up to 5.5 million hectares (50%) of Victoria’s agricultural land and soil acidification looms as a major soil
degradation issue (NHT 2001). Soil acidification can be seen is a cost of productive agricultural systems - whether from
product removal, increased potential for nitrate leaching, the build-up of soil organic acids, or from the increased use of
nitrogen fertilizers.
Soil acidity and acidification are mostly ameliorated by applying agricultural lime. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018)
survey data show the average rate of application of lime is only about 1.5 t/ha, which is considerably less than the general
minimum recommendations of 2.5-7.5 t/ha (Agriculture Victoria 2019). Moreover, few Victorian farmers, about 1,000 (5%),
use variable rate application. Variable rate application is used to apply a wide range of agricultural chemicals, lime being
only one of many, so that the application rate is adjusted to match changing local requirements within the paddock. No
statistics are available on the application of variable rate technology for managing soil acidity, however service providers
supporting variable rate liming are increasingly active.
Agriculture Victoria Research (AVR) studied 10 case-study paddocks in the HRZ of Victoria to demonstrate the net
economic benefits of using intensive point sampling of surface soil pH and the precision application of lime in cropping
systems.
The initial pHCa distribution within each paddock was obtained by sampling at the rate of 100 soil cores per paddock
followed by spatial interpolation to a resolution of 10 square metres.
Discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis was used to generate profit-maximising lime 'prescriptions’ for each homogenous pH
zone (HZ) within the 10 case-study cropping paddocks, and to quantify the net benefits of the precision liming strategy.
These benefits were compared to alternative liming strategies, including traditional approaches and uniform application.
The analysis followed the best-practice method described by Mullen (2001). It involved optimization and simulation; and it
accommodated the dynamic nature of the acidity nature of the soil, in that production in the current year is affected by
current pH and in turn has an impact on pH in the next year.
It was shown that reaping the benefits of the precision liming strategy is difficult, because benefits depend on the
decisions made by farmers and their advisors requiring a high level of data collection and management, interpretation, and
judgement.
When acid tolerant crops are grown, the net benefits of liming can generally be maximised using low-cost traditional
practices. However, if the decision-maker wants the option of planting high-value, acid-sensitive crops then it would pay to
pursue a profit-maximising strategy involving intensive point sampling, pH mapping and variable rate application.
The DCF model described in this report demonstrates the nature of the data, analysis and interpretation involved in the
decision-making process. The model has been prototyped in MS Excel® and uses Evolver, an optimization add-in that is
part of Palisade’s DecisionTools Suite. The DCF model is available from the primary author on request and can be used
with attribution.

The use of cultivation, whether deep or shallow, in 2003, shows no advantage in increasing the grain yield. In fact there may be a penalty in the loss of soil water, particularly at the surface, if the cultivation is performed in a dry autumn, as was the case in 2003.

The data would suggest that Deep Ripping had an effect on increasing the total water content of the soil, thereby making more moisture available to the barley crop during the spring months at a time when the crop was filling the grain. This may have resulted in a higher grain yield for both Ripped and Ripped + Gypsum treatments by comparison to the Direct Drilled and Shallow Cultivation treatments (although yield difference not statistically significant). 

For further conclusions please see the attached trial report.

For results and discussion please see the attached trial report.

Pre-sowing comment: surface crusting with adequate moisture at 3cm.

Early season commment: slow chickpea growth. Field peas ok some ryegrass. Adequte moisture.

Pre sowing comment: surface crusting with adequate mositure at 3cm.

Early season comment: slow chickpea growth. Field peas ok some ryegrass. Adequate moisture.

Artificially applied nitrogen had no significant effect on crop establishment or on early growth as determined from NIR testing 

• For further conclusions please see the attached trial report.

The project on the strategic use of tillage within no-till systems continued at the 4 sites in 2015: Harden, Daysdale (near Corowa), Thuddungra (near Young) and Berthong (near Cootamundra). Soil physical and chemical properties continued to be monitored throughout 2015. Establishment counts, dry matter and grain yields were also measured. The final harvest for the sites occurred in December 2015, except at the Daysdale site where we grew a vetch brown manure crop that was cut for dry matter in October. The final soil sampling at all sites will take place in autumn 2016. 

• Think of a fallow as a risk reducing investment for your property.
• Soil testing after chemical fallow is essential to determine the starting point of available nutrients in the soil.
• Good agronomic practices that maximise plant health and growth will allow crops to use water more effectively, improving yield potential.
• Weed free fallows mean increased moisture conservation leading to potentially higher yielding crops for the following year and more profitable rotations.
• The use of a residual herbicide to help suppress weeds over summer will be beneficial.
• If this trial was to be repeated, results will vary given different seasons and different soil types

• Fertiliser nitrogen (N) rates should be tailored to suit paddock history and soil mineral N levels at sowing.
• Sorghum yields without N fertiliser, although high in a favourable season, were still well below those achieved using additional N fertiliser.
• At Tamworth, in-season rainfall ideally suited a split-N application strategy resulting in the highest yields.
• At Breeza, drier conditions meant that neither split N application nor slowrelease N products boosted grain yields above those reached using urea all applied at sowing.
• Gross margins for most alternative N strategies were greater than that achieved when no N was applied.
   

• Fertiliser nitrogen (N) rates tailored to suit paddock history/ soil mineral N levels optimised N2O emissions.
• At Tamworth, withholding N fertiliser on a high mineral N soil reduced N2O emissions, but did not optimise grain yield.
• At Breeza, most strategies of urea + nitrification inhibitor, polymer-coated urea and split N application substantially reduced N2O emissions. Most alternatives produced similar grain yields to the current practice of urea all applied at sowing, so the N2O emissions intensity per tonne of grain produced was also reduced.
• A 1:3 blend of urea + polymer-coated urea all applied at sowing, increased N2O emissions compared with the urea all at sowing treatment. The treatment also reduced grain yield, so potential slow-release treatments need to be carefully evaluated from both an N2O emissions and grain production point of view.

• Fertiliser nitrogen (N) rates tailored to suit paddock history/ soil mineral N levels optimised N2O emissions.
• At Tamworth, withholding N fertiliser on a high mineral N soil reduced N2O emissions, but did not optimise grain yield.
• At Breeza, most strategies of urea + nitrification inhibitor, polymer-coated urea and split N application substantially reduced N2O emissions. Most alternatives produced similar grain yields to the current practice of urea all applied at sowing, so the N2O emissions intensity per tonne of grain produced was also reduced.
• A 1:3 blend of urea + polymer-coated urea all applied at sowing, increased N2O emissions compared with the urea all at sowing treatment. The treatment also reduced grain yield, so potential slow-release treatments need to be carefully evaluated from both an N2O emissions and grain production point of view.

• Fertiliser nitrogen (N) rates tailored to suit paddock history/ soil mineral N levels optimised N2O emissions.
• At Tamworth, withholding N fertiliser on a high mineral N soil reduced N2O emissions, but did not optimise grain yield.
• At Breeza, most strategies of urea + nitrification inhibitor, polymer-coated urea and split N application substantially reduced N2O emissions. Most alternatives produced similar grain yields to the current practice of urea all applied at sowing, so the N2O emissions intensity per tonne of grain produced was also reduced.
• A 1:3 blend of urea + polymer-coated urea all applied at sowing, increased N2O emissions compared with the urea all at sowing treatment. The treatment also reduced grain yield, so potential slow-release treatments need to be carefully evaluated from both an N2O emissions and grain production point of view.

• Very dry conditions during the 2013−14 summer meant that much of the nitrogen (N) fertiliser applied was not taken up by the sorghum crop, especially if it had been applied in-crop at booting. Between 46–65% of the applied N remained in the soil at harvest in 2013−14.
• A following crop of unfertilised sorghum accessed the remaining N for crop growth and, at rates of 100 kg N/ha and above in the 2013−14 crop, increased grain yield and protein above the control. Late N application by topdressing in the 2013−14 crop gave similar crop production results to treatments where N was sidebanded at sowing.
• Two-year gross margins showed a significant benefit from N application as urea either at sowing or incrop.
   

• For three seasons, we applied isotope-labelled urea (15N) to sorghum in small (0.75–1.0 m2) plots, then calculated nitrogen (N) recovery by comparing the amount applied with the total 15N found in grain, crop residues and soil.
• Between 55–85% of the N fertiliser applied was recovered at harvest, meaning a 15–45% loss, presumably during wet soil conditions when nitrate denitrification led to N2 and N2O gaseous losses.
• In very wet conditions, little of the applied N remained in the soil at harvest, while in a dry season there was more of the applied N found in the soil at harvest than in the plant.

• Treatment 1, Nil grazed, moderate stubble yielded the highest, (2.18 t/ha).
• No significant difference in Total Plant Available Water, majority of stored water was below the 50 cm depth.
• There was a significant difference between the eight treatments when comparing available soil nitrogen.
• There was a significant difference in grain quality attributes between the eight stubble treatments.

• Different methods of stubble handling had little impact on yield.
• Early soil testing allowed good decision making for crop nutrition and budgeting.
• Soil biota were more active in the in-row root zone, as opposed to the mid row zone.

No real conclusions can be drawn from 2005 data, although the use of scratch tillage at the Inverleigh and Mingay sites showed some promise, but did come at a financial cost if implemented on raised-beds. 

• For different 2013 treatments, the amount of stubble ranged from 2.4 to 4.0 t DM/ha at harvest and from 1.6 to 3.0 t DM/ha at the subsequent sowing. The only statistically significant effect of 2013 treatments on 2014 pre sowing stubble was a difference between wheat and vetch stubble, 2.7 t DM/ha and 2.0 t DM/ha, respectively, reflecting faster breakdown of vetch than wheat stubble.
• Despite significant differences in the amount and types of stubble generated in 2013, and remaining at sowing in 2014, there was no statistically significant effect of 2013 treatments on 2014 soil moisture at sowing or 2014 crop yields.
• There were significant differences between crop types in 2014. Significantly more wheat plants established than canola (49 and 15 plants/m2 respectively) and wheat had a significantly higher grain yield than canola (1.2 and 0.3 t/ha respectively). Both wheat and canola were affected by the dry spring and associated frosts, plus canola had poor establishment.
• Research conducted previously at Walpeup in the 1980s found that maintaining 2 t/ha stubble increased the amount of water stored in the soil at sowing, at depth 0–140 cm, by 16 mm in 1 year of 3. This increase in soil water availability was not reflected in increased crop yield.
• The recent experiment at Ouyen, together with the previous research at Walpeup, indicate that Mallee crop yields are unlikely to be increased by retaining higher levels of stubble, although there can be benefits of reduced soil erosion.

High stubble loads appear to increase frost damage by reducing the amount of heat radiated from the soil at night, leading to lower canopy temperatures and greater frost severity, duration and damage.