WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR DEEP SANDS? A Kooloonong Natya Landcare project in collaboration with BCG

IMPROVING SANDY SOILS IN THE VICTORIAN MALLEE

Victorian Mallee broadacre grain growers have for many years, been proactive in their attempts to improve production and the profitability of sandy (coarse textured) soils. Advances in farming system practices such as reduced-tillage and no-till combined with stubble retention, have changed the productive capability of these soils greatly. This was evident specifically during the millennium drought 2000-2009.

During the millennium drought, the important changes in

management practices were earlier sowing time, less cultivation,

more nutrition and protection of ground cover by retaining stubble.

Since 2010, growers have observed the sandy soils to be as responsive

to these practices, and growers are now dealing with similar issues

however at increased cost.

As part of the National Landcare Program 25th Anniversary Grants,

the Kooloonong-Natya Landcare Group sort to investigate the

potential causes for the decline in the performance of sandy soils in

the region. The project brought together the collaboration of local

growers, BCG (Birchip Cropping Group) and leading advisers in an

attempt to identify and address some of the specific issues arising.

This document will outline those issues and propose strategies

growers can implement in order to mitigate these issues, returning

the soils back to their once reliable status.

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES of sandy soils in the Victorian Mallee

Sandy soils inherently have a lack of organic

matter, lower water holding capacity and low clay content.

Organic matter is broken down quickly in sandy soils, which increases

the availability of nutrients through mineralisation in the short term. Due to its

larger porosity and low ‘ion’ exchange capacity, those nutrients or elements will leach down the

profile. Overtime, this ‘mines’ the soil of nutrients, especially from the topsoil resulting in these soils having

lower fertility.

In terms of water availability, sandy soils do not hold water as

strongly as other soils (e.g clay or finer textured soil), which is

reflected in greater infiltration and leaching of water down the profile

by gravity. Nevertheless this can be a positive as plants can extract

more water from the soil than in other soils (this is often referred to

as a lower crop limit). For example, when a heavier soil such as clay

has a crop lower limit of 24mm of moisture, once the soil reaches

that moisture content, the crop has essentially run out of water

because its roots can not physically extract water from the soil. A

sandy soil typically has a lower limit much lower (5-10mm), which

predominantly is why they performed well during the millennium.

The recent years have seen those hills perform less than expected.

Whilst there have been seasons with extreme climatic periods such as

frosts and heat stress during critical stages, but possibly some areas

of management need to be tailored towards the improving sand hill

performance more than other areas.

WATER HOLDING CAPACITY AND NUTRIENT AVAILABILITY of sandy soils in the Vic. Mallee

Sandy soils have a greater risk to wind and water erosion due to its properties already mentioned (low organic matter, clay content and water holding capacity), as such these soils do not ‘aggregate’ like other finer textured soils which increases its risk of erosion.

Without significant ground cover (70% or 2t/ha [images below]),

wind erosion between October to May poses a real risk. However,

it is often difficult to ensure coverage remains as crops are typically

shorter or lower to the ground in most years.

When harvest occurs growers will have to harvest lower to

get the grain. This obviously reduces the stubble height

and due to typically the lower yield and potentially

poorer establishment, means the ground cover is

insufficient.

90% 60% 30%Use the above images as a guide to compare the available stubble soil cover.

As cropping systems become more intensive

(100% cropping), there is now more traffic occurring,

especially in wetter years. Sandy soils, especially deep sands, have

been generally considered less affected than heavier soils. However, compaction is

pronounced in wet soils, therefore it is plausible that during 2010 when the soils were constantly

wet throughout the year, that with the extra traffic from trucks, chaser bins, spreaders and sprayers that a

substantial amount of compaction occurred.

Whilst some compaction will repair itself overtime, unfortunately

the majority of it will persist unless practices to minimise further

compaction are adopted. There have been some significant changes

in terms of successful ways growers can adopt a controlled traffic

system without breaking the bank.

Based on local experiences, setting up a Controlled Traffic (CT)

system on 40ft or 12m tramlines provides the greatest optimisation

of current machinery. Wheels can be set to 3m spacings which may

or may not be possible with all types of machinery, however if you

have a plan to head into CT, future investments/equipment purchases

could be tailored to fit the 3m wheel tracks and multiples of 12m

tracks. Below is an example of how the different machinery could

be used to operate on the same wheel tracks. Slight modifications

in terms of removing or adding nozzles or tynes to ideally fit to 12m

transects maybe required but the cost of these changes are minor.

COMPACTION of sandy soils in the Victorian Mallee

Considerations or imperfections in this system setup:

• If the auger on the header cannot reach the chaser bin a cheaper

way to manage rather than extend the auger, is to just nudge

3m on the GPS before unloading, that way one tyre remains on

a wheel track, while the compromise is just one tyre is off the

track. Newer headers have longer augers but depending on the

width, these may need to be adjusted anyway to fit the 12m

system.

• Dual tyres will be required on the header in order to spread

weight and increase traction when operating on sand hills.

• The header residue spreading system must be able to spread to

12m. Some setups may struggle with this.

• It can create some inefficiencies in logistics such

as during top-dressing hill tops, patching out

spraying, and at harvest when operating the

chaser bin in long paddocks. This is where

some growers have created some tracks

that can be used if managing soil

types differently.

36m 36m

24m

12 m 12m 12m 12m 12m 12m TRACTOR+SEEDER

HEADER CHASER BIN

TRACTOR+SEEDER HEADER

CHASER BIN

TRACTOR+SEEDER HEADER

CHASER BIN

TRACTOR+SEEDER HEADER

CHASER BIN

TRACTOR+SEEDER HEADER

CHASER BIN

TRACTOR+SEEDER HEADER

CHASER BIN

SPRA

YER

SPRE

ADER

ADDI

TIONA

L

24m 24m

CROP NUTRITION of sandy soils in the Victorian Mallee with a

focus on nitrogen and sulphur

Soil borne diseases

(such as Rhizoctonia, Cereal

Cyst Nematode, Take-all and Pratylenchus) are

common problems on sandy soils. Cereal dominant rotations,

soils of much lower soil biology and generally drier environment in the

Mallee, promotes the occurrence of these diseases. All of these diseases reduce root

growth. Restricting root growth will restrict the crops ability to extract moisture and nutrients from

the profile, resulting in poorer establishment and lower yields.

The lack of microbial activity means the material that may host these

diseases over summer (such as previous crop residue) are not broken

down, therefore threatening the subsequent crop. Dry summers

contribute to a greater risk to these pathogens being present at

sowing.

Despite these diseases being a great threat to cereal crops, they can

be easily managed. The most effective method is to use a ‘break’

crop that is free of any plants that may host these diseases (such as

grasses or cereals). Other approaches have been to cultivate below

the seed at sowing – this will help with breaking up the rhizotonia

hyphae that the crop roots may come into contact with. Increasing

nutrients (particularly N and P) and keeping pre-emergent herbicide

(e.g. trifluralin) rates low has, as a general rule have been effective at

minimising the effects of the disease. The use of seed dressings or in-

furrow fungicides at sowing can aid in the crop’s tolerance although

they are no silver bullet and they are often more expensive.

DISEASES of sandy soils in the Victorian Mallee

In terms of key nutrients where crop responses have been found in our environment, nitrogen, sulphur and phosphorus would be the most common. In soils, both Nitrogen (N) and Sulphur (S) behave similar, e.g. both are mobile in the soil and subsequently are leached readily through the profile, most notably the first 30cm.

Non-leguminous crops such as wheat, barley and canola, will require

N and S especially during the winter months when the root growth is

slow and soil nutrient mineralisation is low. This is principally where

growers need to apply N and S either as Urea (46% N) or Sulphate

of Ammonia, SOA (24% S, 20% N) during the season. It is important

when it comes to sandy soils that fertilisers are applied before the

deficiency symptoms appear as the yield potential and root growth

may be significantly delayed, reducing the benefits potentially of

earlier sowing.

The deficiency systems of nitrogen and sulphur are similar in cereals

in terms of yellowing of the leaves however it is the mobility of

these nutrients within the plant that is its characteristic difference.

Nitrogen is mobile so when N is limiting, the plant will translocate the

available N to the newer leaves, resulting in yellowing of the older

leave.

When taken up by plants, S is immobile, meaning it cannot be

translocated easily to the newer leaves like N. Therefore, when S is

limiting, then the yellowing occurs on the newer leaves. In canola,

the symptoms are similar, except purpling and may also be

seen on the affected leaves. Sulphur deficiency in canola is

also associated with ‘cupping’ of the leaves. In all cases,

plants will be stunted and lack vigour and biomass.

SULPHUR DEFICIENCY IN CANOLA. NEW LEAVES ARE YELLOWING, AND CUPPING.

RHIZOCTONIA. PATCH ON THE RIGHT

Phosphorus, like N and S,

is an essential nutrient as well.

Unlike N and S, it is relatively immobile in

soils therefore concentrating itself in the topsoil (0-15cm).

Sandier soils do not tend to hold P like other soils, and have a lower

phosphorus buffering index (PBI), so a lower P level may still be adequate to satisfy

a crops demand.

The PBI is a measure of the soil’s holding capacity of P, and similar

to water, sands have a lower capacity than other soils. Soils can

be tested prior to sowing, using a range of soil tests (Colwell P,

Olsen P, resin P and DGT). These tests can vary in their accuracy. The

most accurate and reliable of these tests are DGT and Colwell P. The

thresholds used for Colwell P needs to be changed according to its

PBI, by using a relationship described as:

Critical Colwell P (CCP) = 4.6 x (PBI^0.393)

For example, the CCP for a PBI of 30 (sand) = 4.6 x (30^0.393) =

17ppm. This means that the measure Colwell P value needs to be

above this value or the plant may be deficient in P. A PBI of a clay has

a PBI of 100-160, so its CCP ranges between 28-34ppm. Responses

to P are commonly found in all crops, even legumes. Unlike other

nutrients, Phosphorus deficiency cannot be corrected post sowing,

especially in low rainfall environments so it is important to get it

right and apply adequate nutrition based on the soil tests available.

Products most commonly used to applied P are MAP, 27:12 blend,

Granulock Supreme and single super with rates ranging from 4-10kg

P/ha (note, rates will change based on the products

concentration of P).

PHOSPHORUS Crop nutrition continued

This is one area where further research is required as there is little understanding of the breakdown of the herbicides specific to sandy soils. Due to the low organic carbon content and biological activity, sandy soils may not breakdown herbicides such as Amines- and Ester-containing products, clopyralid and imidazolinone herbicides. Unfortunately, these herbicides are commonly used and required to control specific weeds found in the region.

Spraying early when weeds are

small will allow lower product rates

to be applied and also more time for

the herbicide to be broken down. When this

is not possible, increasing the rate of non-residual

products such as glyphosate or gramoxone during the fallow

period can help. There are alternative herbicides for use in-crops

however these will need to be combined with a bigger crop plan so

best to discuss the options with your agronomist/consultant.

Certain pre-emergent herbicides (Trifluralin, Atrazine, Simazine,

Metribuzin and Diuron), are particularly soluble in sandy soils. Using

these products needs to be managed according to row spacing,

subsequent rainfall and soil types.

RHIZOCTONIA.PHOSPHORUS RESPONSE IN VETCH.

PHOSPHORUS RESPONSE IN VETCH.

HERBICIDE USE on sandy soils in the Victorian Mallee

HERBICIDE RESIDUE AFFECTING CROP ESTABLISHMENT AND GROWTH.

There is a fine line

between a ‘good’ and ‘bad’

Mallee farmer. Being in a low rainfall

environment where yield is not a guarantee, a farmer

must weigh the investment of input costs against the likely

return. On the short term basis this calculation can be easier, the longer

term benefits are less certain. For example, the decision to put a lupin crop in over another

cereal crop may not be the most profitable decision in a given year, but the subsequent cereal

crop may benefit greatly.

Some of the key management practices growers have experienced to

improve establishment have been well documented, such as;

• controlling weeds (both in summer and in-season)

• sowing early when the soils are warm, promoting faster above

and below ground growth and improving establishment.

• applying more nutrients (Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Zinc and

Sulphur) at sowing (ensuring fertiliser is separated from the

seed) or earlier in the season to encourage growth.

• growing crop types or varieties better suited to sandy soils (e.g.

barley, longer coleoptile lines, lupins etc).

• minimal disturbance and stubble retention to protect the soil

from erosion, increase infiltration and retain more plant residue

to return some organic matter back to the soil.

• incorporating a legume into the rotation to manage grass weeds

and increase soil nitrogen

• increase seeding rates.

THERE IS A FINE LINE BETWEEN A ‘GOOD’ AND ‘BAD’ MALLEE FARMER

This work was funded by the National Landcare Program 25th

Anniversary grants.

GROWERS AT THE KOOLOONONG CROP WALK.

GROWERS AT THE KOOLOONONG CROP WALK.

WHAT PRACTICES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO OVERCOME THESE LIMITATIONS?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS this publication would not be possible without

the following contributions

FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD DOROTHY Using Controlled Traffic to improve root growth on sands

GROWER: Alistair Murdoch LOCATION: Kooloonong CROPS: canola, wheat, barley, lupins, lentils, faba beans, chickpeas and vetch ANNUAL RAINFALL: 320mm SOIL TYPE: varied (everything from light sands through to

sandy loams and heavier flats)

On Alistair Murdoch’s Kooloonong farm, managing deep sands is a major focus, both on a paddock scale to a whole-system approach.

“Herbicide residues really need monitoring on sand hills as well,” Alistair Murdoch

Alistair, who farms in partnership with his parents Gordon and Geraldine and wife Simone, manages just over 6000ha of broadacre dryland cropping country at Kooloonong, Victoria.

“Weeds, soil fertility, disease and pest management and our rotation

all play a vital role to ensure our soils remain productive,” he said.

“Like others in the areas, we have noticed since 2010 our deeper sand

hills fail more often than not, and what was once considered the most

reliable soil types on our farm, they now the one least productive”

Alistair has integrated a Controlled Traffic Farming (CTF) system into

his farm with machinery following set wheel tracks, confining heavy

machinery traffic to minimise the compaction it causes.

“I, like most, was of the assumption that you couldn’t compact sand,

so responses to CTF in our environment were less likely, however

since 2010, (a wet year and wet harvest) believe there was a plenty of

compaction and I can still see some tracks today”.

Compaction would reduce root growth and therefore water-use,

which Alistair is a firm believer in as being a principal cause for the

poorer performance on his hills.

Nevertheless, Alistair said compaction is not the cause of sand hills

failing to perform.

“We have had some extreme weather events, such as extremely

windy days after sowing, which depending on the stubble cover

have made establishment of certain crops really difficult.

Frost (both head and stem frost) and extreme heat waves

(>38°C at flowering) have really smashed these soil

types in recent years.”

Alistair hopes that by improving crops access to moisture and greater

root growth under his CTF system, overtime the crops will be able to

handle those events better than under a normal uncontrolled traffic

system that he used to run.

When asked how difficult the change was to make, he said it took a

couple of years for him to get everything aligned, and like most

needed some evidence to convince himself that the change

was worth it.

Selecting the right crop and variety for specific soil

type is also vital. To keep the system as simple

as possible, only two wheat and two barley

varieties are sown each year; in 2017,

Scepter and Kord wheat and Compass

and Spartacus barley got the nod.

“I don’t see a fit for any more

than two varieties, as

cereals account for only

about 60 per cent of

the area we crop

each year,”

Alistair

said.

CASE STUDY Grower case study - with Alistair Murdoch (Kooloonong, VIC)

“These days one wheat

variety might only account

for 20 to 25 per cent of our crop;

so there’s less risk.”

The seasonal conditions and outlook also

play a part in variety selection, according

to Alistair. Last year’s dry summer, and the

potential for plant back issues, meant that the

family sowed more hectares to Kord and Spartacus

(Clearfield tolerant cereals) than they might have initially

planned.

“Herbicide residues really need monitoring on sand hills as well.

Due to their lack of microbial activity we find that the

of the barley, “We mainly use Spartacus as brome management tool

as we used to do with Scope, but we are trying to move away from

the reliance on the Clearfield technology because it limits out plant-

back options and its likely that the brome grass will one day develop

resistance” Alistair said.

“So we have moved to grow Compass because it competes well

against weeds and it establishes a lot better on our lighter soils.

Because it produces more biomass (than Spartacus), it helps with soil

health and wind erosion.”

Canola varieties grown on the Murdoch farm generally comprise one

Clearfield and one TT variety – last season 44Y89 (CLF hybrid) and

Stingray (TT open pollinated).

“On our sands, hybrids they tend to establish better than the open

pollinated varieties, so we will try and prioritise them on those soil

types.” Alistair said.

The canola varieties used on the farm also play an important role in

the family’s herbicide-resistance prevention strategy.

“We are aware that if we push the Clearfield system too hard it won’t

work for too long. I’ve moved towards using more TT varieties recently

so we’re only exposing paddocks to a Group B herbicide one in every

five years – usually the last year in our break phase so there are only a

small number of weeds to clean up,” Alistair said.

While disease prevention is also a consideration when selecting

varieties, Alistair said many could be managed agronomically.

“We still see rhizoctonia and pratylenchus (root diseases) affecting

crops particularly sandy soils in certain years, but with the right

agronomic management its impact is a lot less,” he said.

“We have a liquid seeding system so we can apply flutriafol in-furrow

and also adequate nutrition such as nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur

and zinc at sowing to ensure good establishment.”

Alistair admits that finding a pulse that suits all soil types on the farm

remains a challenge and it is for this reason the family has adopted a

variable rate sowing system.

“Experience has shown us that some particular legumes will not

perform on some soil types. Our system allows us to sow crops

according to zones (eg. vetch on flats and lupins on hills) so we

can make something out of every soil type.”

Last year the pulse part of the Murdoch family’s rotation

comprised Mandelup lupins, Jumbo 2 & Hurricane

XT lentils, Fiesta Faba Beans, Timok vetch and

Geneses 090 chickpeas.

“Variety selection is part of this.”

RHIZOCTONIA.

CASE STUDY Grower case study - with Alistair Murdoch (Kooloonong, VIC)

STUBBLE COVER. NO STUBBLE COVER.

IMPROVING CROP PERFORMANCES ON SANDS Simon Craig (Farm 360 Pty Ltd)

TRIAL REPORT ARTICLE

TAKE HOME MESSAGES

• The addition of fungicidal seed treatments did not improve the yield of barley (mean yield 2.8t/ha). Applying more fertiliser, regardless of the product had a significant improvement in the yield of barley. Therefore, dollars should be spent on fertilisers more so than seed dressings.

• There was a significant response to inoculation in chickpeas but not in lentils or lupins. There was no yield benefit in applying zinc or pulse seed coat to seed at sowing.

• Chickpea gross margin ($574/ha), followed by barley ($444/ha) was the most profitable crop grown on the site.

BACKGROUND

As we continue to look and explore new opportunities, over the past

three seasons, growers have begun to grow more lucrative pulse crops

such as lentils and chickpeas on soil types that were once considered

unsuitable. Mallee sand hills, since 2010, appeared to be less reliable

than they once were. Dry winters, coupled with higher temperatures

particularly in August, have not favoured crop growth during this

period. Nevertheless, with stubble retention, growers are gaining

confidence to sow crop types such as lentils on these soils without

having the risk of wind erosion.

With the recent seasons being fortunate in both production and

profitability of pulses compared to cereals; lentils and chickpeas

have been quite lucrative and have provided growers with a valuable

‘break’ from the cereal dominant rotations. For many years, lupins

were used as a break on these soil types, but several years of poor

performances have resulted in these other ‘higher risk’ crop types

being sown.

Due to the increased production risk, growers and advisors have been

exploring different fertiliser and seed dressing strategies in order

to promote the establishment and yield of these crops. Through

funding provided under the National Landcare Programme (Project

code: 4-3HSQACL), the Kooloonong-Natya Landcare group with the

assistance of BCG, explored specific management for barley, lentils,

chickpeas and lupins. The article will report on the findings from the

project.

AIM

To determine specific inputs growers can use to improve crop

production of barley, lentils, chickpeas and lupins on sand hills in the

Mallee.

PADDOCK DETAILS

Location: Kooloonong

GSR (Apr-Oct): 177.2mm

Soil type: Red sand

Paddock history: 2014 vetch, 2015 wheat, 2016 wheat

TRIAL DETAILS

Crop types: Spartacus CL barley, Hurricane XT lentils,

Genesis 090 chickpeas and Mandelup lupins

Treatments: Refer to Tables 1 and 2

Seeding equip: Knife points, press wheels, 30cm row spacing

Sowing date: 4 May 2017

Plot replication: Four

Harvest date: 19 November 2017

Trial ave. yield: Barley – 2.8t/ha,

TRIAL INPUTS

Fertiliser: (pulses) Granulock Supreme Z @ 60kg/ha + Intake®

HiLoad @ 2L/t applied to seed at sowing.

Fertiliser: (barley) see treatment list (Table 1)

Urea @ 45kg/ha at 3-4 leaf and urea @ 90kg/ha at 1st node stage

Pests and disease were controlled as required. No weeds or pests

affected the trial during the season.

Table 1. Barley treatment list for the trial.

Treatments Trial 1 (barley)Variate 1

‘Product’

1. MAP (0kg/ha)2. MAP (20kg/ha)3. MAP (40kg/ha)4. MES10 (0kg/ha)5. MES10 (25kg/ha)6. MES10 (50kg/ha)7. Urea (0kg/ha)8. Urea (15kg/ha)9. Urea (30kg/ha)

Variate 2

‘Seed

dressing’

A. ControlB. Intake HiLoad @ 300mL/100kg fertiliserC. Uniform® @ 300mL/100kg fertiliserD. Systiva® @ 150mL/100kg seed

Product nutrient concentration: MAP (10 percent N, 21.7 percent P, 1

percent S), MES10 (12 percent N, 17.5 percent P, 10 percent S), Urea

(46 percent N).

Note: MAP and MES10 treatments were balanced for phosphorus

(P) but not for nitrogen (N) or Sulphur (S). Each of these treatments

didn’t receive anything else at sowing than what is listed eg. no MAP

was applied to the urea treatment.

Table 2. Pulse treatment list for the trial.

Treatments Trial 2 (pulses)Variate 1

‘Crop type’

A. LentilsB. ChickpeasC. Lupins

Variate 2

‘Seed dressing’

1. Control2. Inoculation3. Pulse seed coat @ 400mL/100kg seed4. Pulse seed coat

@ 400mL/100kg seed + inoculation (peat)5. Zinc sulphate (seed dressing)

@ 200mL/100kg seed6. Zinc sulphate (seed dressing)

@ 200mL/100kg seed + inoculation (peat) *Nodulaid® peat inoculant was applied, with the lentils group

E, F and lupins group N.

METHOD

Two replicated field trials were sown into a standing wheat stubble

at Kooloonong in 2017. The site was chosen based on the heightened

risk of root and stubble borne diseases having been wheat-on-wheat

for the previous two seasons.

The first trial compared different fertiliser products at different rates

and seed dressings in barley. The second trial investigated six seed

dressing treatments on three pulse crop types – lentils, chickpeas and

lupins.

Both trials were designed using a two-way randomised block design.

Each trial compared the use of specific seed dressings or additives

applied at sowing that growers and advisors have seen anecdotal

benefits.

In-season assessments included crop biomass using a normalised

difference vegetative index (NDVI) with a handheld GreenSeeker®

crop sensor, and grain yield and quality parameters.

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

Barley

Upon the first NDVI assessment from 11 July, there were slightly

healthier plants identified by the Greenseeker®. As the Greenseeker®

can detect higher plant biomass or greater chlorophyll content

based on the crop reflectance, simply if the treatment had a higher

NDVI reading the plant is healthier or has responded positively to

the application. Uniform® was the only treatment to have been

significantly higher than the control, but only marginally. A follow up

NDVI assessment was made on 20 July. No difference between any of

the treatments were identified. This would suggest the benefit was

marginal, however it should be noted that there were several frosts

that occurred during July which did appear to affect the crop growth,

albeit not specific to treatments.

In terms of grain yield, there was no significant difference found

between any of the treatments. The mean grain yield for the trial was

2.8t/ha. There was also little difference identified in grain quality with

the exception of retention, which found Uniform to have strangely

a lower retention compared to the control and Systiva (Table 3). All

treatments due to screenings fell into the Feed 1 grade.

Table 3: Grain yield and quality parameters for the seed dressing

treatments in barley.

Treatment Yield (t/ha)

Protein (%)

Retention (%)

Screenings (%)

Test weight (kg/hl)

Grade

Control 2.83 11.2 69 8.0 64 F1 Flutriafol 2.85 10.6 67 8.4 65 F1 Systiva 2.78 10.9 71 7.7 64 F1 Uniform 2.80 10.7 65 9.6 64 F1Sig. diff. NS

(P=0.769)NS

(P=0.32)P=0.005 NS

(P=0.104)NS

(P=0.579)

LSD(P=0.05) 3.2CV% 9.8 14.1 10.4 39.5 4.4

The fertiliser products used in this trial were chosen specifically to

determine which nutrients were most important on this soil type.

Urea (46% N) as we all know contains only N, therefore any response

to the addition of this product would suggest N was limiting. MAP

and MES10 were balanced in terms of P but not N or S. There is

slightly more N applied under the MES10 treatment (1 and 2kg N/

ha respectively for the different rates) but the principal difference

between these products is the addition of S. Responses to S have been

reported in the Mallee and for some years growers have been using

this product to ensure S is not limiting crop yield. Again, it should be

noted that a percentage of this S applied is present as elemental S,

which in these soils may not be available to the crop until much later

in the season, if not until seasons later.

The initial NDVI reading found a significant interaction between

the product and rate of the different fertiliser treatments. Across all

treatments there was a positive response to the addition of fertiliser

and to a lesser extent, increasing the rate (Table 4). After the initial

amount of N applied in 15kg/ha urea in Rate 1, there was no further

yield benefit at the higher rate. The most incremental gain was

observed in MES10 and MAP treatments.

Table 4: Grain yield (t/ha) and rate for the fertiliser treatments in

barley.

Rate Product Average rateMAP MES10 Urea

Control (no fertiliser) 2.62Rate 1 3.01 2.79 2.70 2.84Rate 2 3.10 3.17 2.71 2.99Average product 3.05 2.98 2.71Sig. diff.Rate P<0.001Product P<0.001Product x rate P=0.009LSD (P=0.05)Rate 0.12Product 0.12Product x rate 0.19CV% 9.80

In terms of grain quality, as reported earlier in the article, all

treatments were classified as Feed 1, however interesting differences

occurred with increased screenings being observed in plots that

had received more P compared to those that didn’t (P<0.001). This

trend was also observed in retention as well. Whilst it is uncertain

why this occurred exactly, possibly due to the frost events there was

some secondary tillers that failed to fill during grain filling. Therefore,

increasing screenings would reduce retention as well. There was no

significant difference found in grain protein and test weight.

Pulses

The site had not grown any of these crop types, albeit having vetch

hay in 2014. The rhizobia for vetch falls under a different group to

lentils, lupins and chickpeas, although most vetch inoculants contain

group F (lentil inoculant). Depending on the weeds that persisted,

there could have been a natural rhizobia present in the soil,

reducing the likelihood of responses in lentils. Nevertheless,

it would be fair to expect the value of inoculation would

be pronounced in these trials than those in normal

crop sequences.

At harvest, there was no difference in any of the treatments in

either the lentils or lupins trial whilst in the chickpeas, there was

a strong response to inoculation (Table 5). All chickpea treatments

that were inoculated were significantly higher than the control

and uninoculated treatments (Figure 1). This has been supported

by previous BCG research (see 2013 BCG Season Research Results

compendium pp. 181-186).

The addition of zinc and the pulse seed coat failed to have a

significant improvement on grain yield for any of the crop types.

Table 5: Grain yield of chickpeas, lentils and lupins in response to

the treatments.

Treatment Yield (t/ha)Chickpeas Lentils Lupins

Control 0.58 0.59 1.37Inoculation 0.74 0.53 1.29Pulse seed coat 0.63 0.65 1.27Pulse seed coat + inoculation

0.76 0.57 1.26

Zinc SD 0.56 0.56 1.22Zinc SD + inoculation 0.75 0.62 1.33Mean yield 0.67 0.59 1.29Sig. diff.

P=0.026NS

(P=0.594)NS (P=0.096)

LSD (P=0.05) 0.14t/ha - -CV% 14.2 16.9 5.4

1 0.9 0.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.1

0 CONTROL INOCULATION PULSE SEED DRESSING

PULSE SEED DRESSING +

INOCULATION

ZINC SEED DRESSING

ZINC SEED DRESSING +

INOCULATION

Grain

yield

(t/h

a)

Figure 1. Chickpea grain yields in response to the specific

treatments. Error bars represent the LSD of the trial.

COMMERCIAL PRACTICE The results of these trials suggest growers should ensure proper

nutrition prior to investing in other inputs such as seed treatments.

Systiva, flutriafol and Uniform are unique and valuable products,

especially in situations where the risk of root and stubble borne

diseases are high. Nevertheless, at this site and environment, there

was no response to their application, so the investment into these

products was unwarranted.

The performance of the pulses was surprising given the season. The

benefits of pulse crops to subsequent rotations stretches beyond just

the one season so it is always difficult to compare. Growers should

be optimistic about the performance of pulses in this trial and recent

years, and should continue to explore their suitability on different soil

types. However, keeping the costs down by not investing in inputs

that do not have a proven value will be a way to mitigate some of the

risk of growing them.

ON-FARM PROFITABILITYThis trial found that chickpeas were the most profitable crop to grow

in 2017, followed closely by barley. Favourable chickpea prices were

a significant factor in driving this profitability. Note: these figures

were calculated based on no additional inputs which did not have a

positive response to yield being included. Adding these inputs would

only have increased the input cost and thus reduced the gross margin

by the cost of the product.

Table 6: Partial gross margin for the specific crop types used in

this trial.

Barley Chickpeas Lentils LupinsYield (t/ha) 2.58 0.67 0.59 1.29Grain price ($/t) 220 1200 500 310Gross income ($/ha) 568 804 295 400Input costs ($/ha) 124 230 145 97Gross margin ($/ha) 444 574 150 303

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThese trials were funded by National Landcare Programme ‘25th

Anniversary Grants’.