Are Controlled Traffic and Permanent Beds Sustainable for CA?

Don YuleCTF Solutions

Brisbane, Australia

Program

• 30 minutes of summaries of relevant papers presented at the Congress

• 60 minutes of open discussion of your comments and questions with the speaker panel

• Conclude with Priority Issues from the Workshop

Controlled Traffic Farming – Productivity, sustainability and resilience

Don YuleCTF Solutions, Qld, Australia

CTF is a farming systems solution by optimising how the components work

together

Controlled Traffic

CTF Response to severe erosion event

1997

TRADITIONAL 100t/ha

CTF 10t/ha

5

Designed Field Layouts

No cultivation

Controlled traffic allows standing residues and inter-row sowing

Base station

Radio

Rover/tractor

GNSS antennae

A

B

Spatial Technologies - GNSS Guidance

7

CTF and GNSS define the on-farm spatial footprint

8

“Measure to Manage” Tools

• Digital, computer based data records• GIS spatial analysis• Automated on-farm R&D with strip trials• Delivers Continuous Improvement

CTF delivers Farming System Outcomes

Rainfall Use Efficiency

10

CTF21t/ha

8t/haTRAD

CTF delivers Triple Bottom Line benefits

Darling Downs study of change from traditional to CTF

• Soil erosion (-90%)• Diesel use (-60%)• Nitrogen leaving farms (-90%)• Carbon dioxide losses (-70%)• Labour use (-60%)• Annual income (+44%)• Annual Gross Margin (+68%)

11

For mechanised CA, do controlled traffic FIRST

The synergy of raised beds, controlled traffic, minimum tillage and stubble retention delivers

higher water use efficiency in SW Victoria, Australia.

Renick Peries, Dept Primary Industries, Victoria

The synergy of raised beds, controlled traffic, minimum tillage and stubble retention deliver higher water use efficiency in South West Victoria, Australia

Renick Peries, DPI, Victoria &Jaikirat Singh-Gill, LTU, Victoria

Raised beds offer crop insurance during drought

• water use 20-30cm depth• Good agronomy – yield 1.5

t/ha

stubble issues on raised beds• Improved soil/better drainage/ good agronomy –

contribute to heavy biomass• Subsoil constraints- low HI – heavy stubble loads• Over many years burning was the only option!• Efficient machinery / canopy management • Seasonal rainfall a critical factor!

stubble issues on raised beds• Beds can get water logged if not properly designed• Under ‘wet’ conditions – pests were (& are) a major issue• To burn or not to burn- a climate specific decision?• In ‘wet’ seasons even low stubble loads can be an issue

Overall benefits of the ongoing initiatives?

• 2 m beds: Derrinallum 3 m beds: Winchelsea

Benchmarking WUE in HRZ (Vic) 2009Wheat yield SW Vic

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

April-November rain (mm)

Yie

ld (

t/h

a)

Mr A

Mr B

Mr C

Mr D

Mr E

Mr F

Mr G

French and Schultz

Sadras and Angus

How major issues are impacting on farmer behaviour

• Land use change: Flat to raised beds

• Drought : Raised beds to flat !

• Rainfall variation : Stubble retained to stubble burn!

• With full realisation of soil issues: Beds-Flat-Beds

• What next?

Why change from raised beds to flat CT?

• drought? was the message lost?• loss of area to furrows (20%) or• CT without beds - the way forward for

some!

June 2005

Sept 2011

from 2m raised beds to 3m controlled traffic and back to 3m raised beds

• 2010 2011 (rainfall mm)• Jan-Mar 124.8 205.9• Apr-August 274.5 219.9• Sept-Nov 235.0

A success story: From flat – 2m raised beds (1995)

From 2 m beds to 3m CT(2006)From 3 m CT to 3m raised beds (2011)!

Summary

• South-West Victoria is continuing to adapt to change made necessary by economic & climatic considerations

• While there is significant appreciation of CA in the region, not all of the CA practices appeal to all farmer champions

• The synergy of raised beds, CT & stubble retention have raised crop yields towards potential WUE in the region

• There may need to be more flexibility and clarity in the definition of CA applications in this region

Soil and yield improvements from Controlled Traffic Farming on a red Chromosol were similar

to CTF on a swelling black Vertosol.

Tim Ellis CSIRO, Brisbane

Field research conducted at Roseworthy South Australia 1989 to 1994

Funded by: Key Centre for Dryland Agriculture and Landuse Systems; John Shearer LTD; Grains Research Council; and Grains Research and

Development Corporation

Take home message 1. - better soil structure if you don’t drive on it. Why?

Take home message 2. – deep ripping doesn’t necessarily improve soil structure, especially if you don’t stop driving on it. Why?

Take home message 3. - better root growth if you don’t drive on the soil. Why?

Does CTF reduce root disease? Why?

Take home message 4. - better yields if you don’t drive on the soil. Why?Take home message 5. – deep ripping did not improve yields. Why?

Take home message 6. – there are many other systemic advantages of CTF e.g. greater timeliness/earlier sowing etc. that have not been measured rigorously due to the nature of traditional field trials.

Should we try to measure the effects of these?Thanks

Initial findings show benefits of controlled traffic for intensive vegetable production

John McPhee Tasmanian Institute Agricultural Research

Conv CTF Conv CTF Conv CTFDec 09 Jul 10 Dec 10

45

50

55

60

65

70

Poro

sity

(%)

Porosity increases with controlled traffic (150 mm depth)

More balanced soil:water:air ratio with controlled traffic (150 mm depth)

Conv CTF Conv CTF Conv CTFDec-09 Jul-10 Dec-10

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

AirWaterSoil

Conventional Controlled traffic

After potato harvest

Infiltration improves with controlled traffic

Infiltration test results Conventional CTF

Duration of test (min) 30 90

Time to run-off (min) 4 not reached

potato - onion onion - broccoli broccoli - beans0

1

2

3

4

5

Conventional Controlled traffic

No.

ope

ratio

ns to

pre

pare

seed

bed

Fewer tillage operations with controlled traffic

Poppy/grain

Tractor

Pea

Bean

Bean

Potato

Poppy

Py windrower

Onion

Onion

Carrot

Relative track and working widths of a selection of vegetable industry harvesters

Equipment incompatibility constrains full adoption in vegetables

Short term agronomic gains from conservation agriculture in NW China.

Jack McHugh Uni Southern Queensland

Saving Natural Resources, Promoting Sustainable Farming, Securing and Stabilizing Food Production:

How do you “sell” CA in NW China against the lack of appropriate machinery, the "good farming" mindset of conventional tillage and competition for crop residues?

Improvement in soil condition on rigid soils in 4 years• SOM, porosity, bulk density, water stable aggregates, pore size distribution,

hydraulic conductivity.

Water saving - ~40% less irrigation required• Increased available water, plant root accessibility, reduced soil wetted

perimeter and soil water monitoring

Reduced groundwater contamination• EM38 confirms increased soil water extraction. no apparent salt build up,

reduced variability in soil condition (soil water).

Improved yield and economics• Reported improvement of 10%, but 2% over 3 seasons on-farm.• Reduction in input costs for fuel, fertiliser and labour: Barley – 12.2%; Wheat –

19.2%; Maize – 18.6%.

Poor crop establishment• Poor performance of prototype planting machinery, operating under difficult

conditions of heavy residue, high soil moisture, frozen soil conditions, combined with poor depth control and inadequate seed-fertiliser separation.

• Low soil temperature due to trash blanket/standing stubble• Inexperience with CA techniques

Controlled Traffic /Permanent Bed Farming reduces GHG Emissions.

Jeff Tullberg CTF Solutions, Brisbane

CTF = No-till with better porosity, aeration & drainage

.

24 cm

4- Years CTF Non-Wheeled

Annually Wheeled (5t Tractor)

Black = Soil Solids, White = Air or Water (from D.McGarry )

Greenhouse Impact?

• Inputs • Fuel, Machinery• Herbicides• Fertilisers

• Outputs • Nitrous oxide & methane• Nitrate in runoff and drainage• Nitrate in eroded soil

}

}

Easily QuantifiedFor Known Systems

Highly Variable, Less Well-Understood

Greenhouse gas emissions (not Carbon)

Energy

Wasted Energy

In practise:Greenhouse Impact = Economic

Impact

Soil Emissions – Nitrous Oxide + Methane

Literature: N loss and emissions associated with waterlogging

NOx emissions occur when: Water- filled porosity <75%, >65%., Nitrate +C present in surface 10 cm.

Management Impact ?

Till v. no-till: less NO3 emissions in well-drained soils. (Rochette 2009)

more NO3 emissions in poorly drained soils.

Wheel effect: wheeled soil emissions 5 x non wheeled (Russer 1998)(potato fields) wheeled soil emissions 5 x non wheeled (Thomas 2003)

Common thread– wheel effects?(measurements rarely taken in wheel tracks)

Emissions - kg CO2-e/ha

Source T Lane Rand P Bed

kg kg kg

N2O 324.6 369.5 58.2

CH4 0.33 0.41 -0.43

Total 324.6 369.5 58.2

Ratio 5.57 6.35 1.00

Wheel track emissions probably greater by a factor of 5.0 – 7.0

Cumulative Emissions (6 weeks post-seeding)

Conclusions1. Pilot trial confirms the literature:

wheel track emissions 5-7 times greater than bed emissions.

2. Permanent traffic lanes of CTF require 10 – 20% of area.but minimum of 50% area is wheeled in non—CTF.

3. This suggests that CTF should reduce soil emissions by about 50%

or more with precise, split N application plus a substantial impact on input-related emissions.

4. Improved agronomy, soil health and precision also increase WUEindicating possibility of greater biomass and C input.

Needs investigation in different environments

Grower presentations

• Richard Heath, Liverpool Plains, NSW• Aaron Sanderson, Burdekin, Qld

CTF Workshop Summary PointsFarming system responses

Include machinery, CT, layouts, no till, spatial technologies; Impacts of timeliness, efficiencies, precision; Benefits – yield, inputs and costs, GHG , environment

Soil impactsWheel tracks – positive for machinery and negative for soil; Non-wheel tracks – amelioration, less variability; Soil types – suitable

for all? Possible need for tillage even deep ripping.Challenges

Residues; Available machinery.Environment

Resources ↑, GHG ↓, fuel ↓, NOx ↓, groundwater pollution ↓

Outcomes Generally very positive from extensive work across soils, environments, countries, and over timeTriple bottom line – yield ↑, productivity ↑, inputs and costs ↓, impacts ↓, sustainability ↑Adoption

Proposed Statements of Workshop Priority Outcomes

• Controlled Traffic - the 4th pillar of CA• Do controlled traffic first, then everything works better• CTF – the farming system solution for CA in mechanised

cropping• for mechanised CA, do controlled traffic FIRST