CWFS

Management of rye grass and black oats in a stubble retained system

cwfs — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 00:41:14 +0000

Case study: Ian Leulf – control of rye grass and black oats in a retained stubble system.

Property size: 3500 ha at Weethalle, NSW.

Enterprises: Dryland wheat, barley, sheep.

Soil and pH: red sandy clay loam soils with a pH of 4.5.

Overview:

The Leulf’s generally follow a three year cropping program involving wheat, barley then fallow. After trialling numerous pulses and break crops, including brown manuring Ian felt it was a safer option in their environment to simply maintain a fallow as a break.

Although black oats is more of an issue for the Leulf’s than rye grass, they have encountered resistance problems in populations of ryegrass in their stubble retained farming system.

Rye grass and black oats control:

A few years ago the Leulf’s encountered a failure with Hoegrass on a ryegrass population. They switched from Group A herbicides and starting using strategic cultivation (with wheat) to include the use of pre-emergents Avadex and Treflan. This has allowed them to quickly get back on top of the issue.

They have also started growing Clearfield barley (a herbicide tolerant variety used in combination with the broad spectrum Intervix® herbicide) which has given them another weapon against grasses and effectively allowed them to grow barley with confidence.

Another method to assist control the Leulf’s have been experimenting with for the past couple of years is diverting chaff into the tramlines at harvest, depending on the stubble load and if they can achieve this without slowing the header too much.

Windrow burning is another tool Ian is looking at into the future if rye grass becomes an issue but is not confident it will have much effect on black oats.

When there is a black oats issue in a given paddock Ian makes it a priority to harvest those paddocks as early as possible to reduce seed drop as much as possible.

Grazing plays no part in Ian’s control of black oats and rye grass.

Key issues for control of rye grass and black oats:

Don’t hesitate to test for resistance if poor control from spraying is observed.
Use cultivation if necessary with tyned implements for use of pre-emergent chemicals, exposing buried seed and manual control.
Don’t rely on one chemical group.

Inter-row sowing with stubble retained farming systems

cwfs — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 04:18:59 +0000

Case study: Graham Mason, Ungarie, NSW – Inter-row sowing in a stubble retained farming system.

Property: “Westcourt” 8 km south west of Rankins Springs, 2500 ha.

Enterprises: Continuous cropping – wheat, vetch, canola, barley, lupins.

Soil type and pH: red soil with a pH of around 5.

Overview:

Graham follows a continual cropping, no – till farming program. Some of his country is trending to acidic so he is currently liming those areas. He last limed ten years ago and has only just seen country slipping back.

Most of Graham’s cropping is done on a controlled traffic system and has been for nearly ten years, except some paddocks that have issues with contour banks and rocky areas.

Issues and observations of controlled traffic farming:

One issue with controlled traffic farming Graham has noticed is the occasional need for renovating his tram tracks which are currently becoming quite depressed. However he sees this as opportunity to use a green manure crop on these paddocks before cultivating, as well as the chance to use different chemical groups with pre-emergent prior to sowing the following crop.

Levelling of tracks is only done about every ten years.

One of Graham’s primary motivations for moving into controlled traffic farming was after converting to a disc seeder and finding a less than optimal performance towing behind a heavy tractor, or even in header tracks. So by using tram tracks his sowing efficiency with a disc seeder was greatly improved.

The ability to inter-row sow was also a key factor in his decision, allowing him to accurately sow with 2 cm spacings.

Issues and observations of inter-row sowing:

Graham sees a huge advantage in being able to accurately sow between stubble rows, sowing into clean ground and avoiding stubble contact, yet still retaining the stubble.

Smaller seeds such as canola germinate more evenly without stubble contact in the soil, as well as not being covered by stubble.

His system is still evolving and Graham feels it will keep evolving as things change. He has encountered herbicide resistance developing with rye grass and black oats and used a tyned implement as a control strategy. However it then created problems switching back to a disc implement – so he is certainly finding challenges and limitations within the system to overcome.

Another control strategy he uses for resistance is brown manuring vetch (varying his chemicals) which gives 100% control of weeds as well as supplying nitrogen and organic matter to his soils. He then follows the brown manure with canola which gives two years of good weed control.

As stubble from previous crops builds up in the rows Graham has found a disc seeder to be superior over a tyned implement in slicing through any old remaining crowns that may be present.

If a tyned implement must be used Graham may slash a paddock to aid in faster stubble breakdown.

Although he hasn’t physically recorded fuel usage differences between tram track and conventional Graham has noticed the engine of the spray rig working much harder if it deviates off the tram tracks.

His advice for anyone moving into a controlled traffic system is to make sure the tracks are suitable to header use as it’s this component which is an integral part of avoiding soil compaction.

Soil Health:

Benefits to soil health of controlled traffic farming Graham has observed is a far better retention of moisture in his soils, with soils being much more friable and softer.

Fallow Management NSW

cwfs — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 03:28:43 +0000

Case study: Wayne Jarvis, Tottenham NSW – management of fallow (stubble) in a stubble retained system.

Property: 2400 ha between Condobolin and Tottenham.

Enterprises: 1200 ha cropping and a self-replacing merino flock. Mainly cropping cereals but moving into break crops. Direct drill operation on one property while more traditional mixed farming on another property.

Soil type and pH: Black belah to red loam with an average pH of 6.4

Overview:

The Jarvis’s have been farming with a no-till system (though the system varies and tillage is still used when necessary) for seven years.

They’ve noticed an increase in yields on no-till country where sheep have been removed from the system as well as an improvement in soil health.

However they also see a reduction in chemical costs and spraying applications on the mixed farming property, as well as sheep income providing more risk management.

Wayne sees benefits to both systems.

Post-harvest management and weed control:

On the mixed farming area sheep are used to graze stubble as part of the weed management strategy. Wayne finds that they use less chemical because of it and find it easier to control fleabane, milk thistle and windmill grass. However stubble retention is sacrificed if need be for increased grazing opportunities.

On the no-till country they rely on chemical control of weeds while maintaining a higher level of stubble retention. However this season because of the heavy stubble load they are looking at offset ploughing some paddocks for improved weed control and less trash at sowing.

They at times also cool burn heavy stubble loads just prior to sowing to prevent their sowing plant from blocking.

Soil Health:

It’s noticeable to Wayne that the country they direct drill without grazing is much softer and more friable than the mixed farmed areas.

Fallow Management

cwfs — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 03:24:09 +0000

Case study: Ian Manwaring, Condobolin NSW – Fallow management (stubble) in a stubble retained system.

Enterprises: Mainly cropping with wheat, barley and oats, sheep (mainly Dorper), cattle and goats.

Soil type and pH: Red, hard setting with pH ranging from 5 to 6.5.

Overview:

The Manwarings farm 22,000 ha North West of Condobolin. They run a mixed farming operation and on occasion take in stock on agistment as a sideline.

They classify themselves as conventional croppers, using whatever tools in the shed they need to fit any given season.

Ian generally crops a paddock for three years before putting it back into a pasture phase. The sequence is usually wheat followed by wheat, then barley under sown with lucerne, medics and clovers. Oats is usually grown for grazing and for grain and hay.

The pasture phase usually lasts for three to five years depending on how well the pasture is performing.

Post-harvest management and weed control:

Paddocks are sometimes grazed after harvest depending on the situation at the time. If rain has decreased the feed value they more likely spray or cultivate.

One useful aspect of grazing is allowing the stock a parasite free paddock after drenching which has a flow on effect of maintaining cleaner pastures.

When grazing the Manwarings have no set stocking period, again depending on the condition of the stubble and the season they may graze heavier stubble longer than normal if pasture is poor over the remainder of the property. This also allows some thinning of the stubble for subsequent sowing.

They like to have any operations carried out by the end of January.

Because of their light cropping regime followed by a lengthy pasture phase the Manwarings have not noticed any weed resistance developing at this stage.

Ian sees the biggest value in retained stubble being the retention of moisture. With such marginal country this is considered a valuable component of stubble retention.

However they remain flexible and use the most economic tools available and if stock returns are out performing cropping they tend to lean more towards maximising stock returns.

Soil Health:

Ian has noticed that the mulch effect of chaff from the harvest is the predominant cause of moisture retention, far outweighing the standing stubble in the paddock. Ian feels that retaining heavy stubbles has led to Nitrogen tie-up in some years so he remains committed to being flexible in his cropping program.

Nitrogen application and budgeting

cwfs — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:39:31 +0000

Case study: Chris Baker of Baker Ag Advantage, Forbes NSW – Managing his clients’ nitrogen applications and requirements in their stubble retained farming systems.

Overview:

Chris manages a consultancy business for dry land and irrigation, mixed and continuous cropping farming enterprises in Central West NSW, focusing on management of crop rotations, herbicide choices and crop nutrition.

His clients’ enterprises are an approximately a 50/50 mix of continuous cropping and more traditional mixed farming operations including livestock.

Although covering an area from North of Condobolin to south of Forbes it is more his clients’ preferences to a certain type of operation than any given area dictates.

Nitrogen requirements for his clients including the 2015 season:

The 2015 got off to a “perfect start” with a wet winter and good moisture profile, so nitrogen budgets were aimed at an above average crop. In some cases though possibly too much urea was applied considering the dry finish, leading to an overabundance of canopy for the available moisture.

Chris’s strategy for advising his clients on nitrogen management begins with soil testing to determine available N for the coming crop. He prefers a deep soil test to gain an understanding of N throughout the entire profile and uses the results as a benchmark to begin the crop’s requirements for the season ahead.

A soil test does not need to be done in a paddock every year as a nutrient budget can be also be determined by the previous year’s yield.

Then, once the available N is known and compared with available stored moisture and predicted season Chris has the conversation with his client to assess nitrogen requirements for the coming season.

This will also include what result the client is looking for. Are they are aiming to grow a 2.5 t/ha crop of APH wheat? Would earlier application of N be more beneficial than later applications? Is the risk worth the possible reward?

With regards to time of application Chris goes by the old rule of thumb of applying 70% of N demand at sowing time and 30% in-crop. Better results are obtained from earlier applications in most seasons, and more N is available to plants when applied in soil than top dressed N.

2015 proved a difficult season as for some crops too much N was applied early leading to a large amount of leaf matter and a drier profile during the crops finish. A “trickle feed” approach would have been the better option, but in a drier growing zone the opportunities don’t always arise later in the season. However in 2015 growers who applied nitrogen still came out ahead in yield and protein at harvest.

One big change Chris has observed however is an improvement in machinery by many growers, allowing them to move in quickly and apply N when needed. The use of boom applied foliar applied N products should also be worth watching into the future. Until now these products have been a bit hit and miss but are improving.

Chris also maintains that yield increase should be the overriding goal rather than aiming to increase protein. Many barley crops this year also had extra N applied throughout the growing season. Yield is king.

Within his client base in central west NSW break crops and good nitrogen fixing pastures play a large role in maintaining N in the soil. Although last season the final yields of some break crops were low they still fixed a large amount of N as they grew well throughout the season and had good biomass.

Lupins are popular with many mixed farming clients for both stock feed and nitrogen fixing. Brown manuring is not done so much but Chris can see the benefit in growing a break crop to a point where it fixes N, then spraying it out to maintain ground cover and store moisture for the following crop.

Management of ryegrass and black oats

cwfs — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 01:05:03 +0000

Case study: Jock Coupland– control of ryegrass and black oats in a retained stubble system.

Property owners: Jock and Trini Coupland, “Wardry” Condobolin.

Property size: 2800 ha

Enterprises: Dryland wheat, lupins, canola, irrigated cotton and cattle.

Soil and pH: red soil to river clays with a pH of 5.2 – 7.

Overview:

Jock doesn’t have a fixed rotation with his dryland farming, rather it depends on seasons and markets. His irrigation crops consist of wheat in winter and cotton in summer and paddocks are rotated between the two.

His cropping and livestock enterprises are kept separate and cattle are not grazed on stubbles or fallow.

Rye grass and black oats control:

Jock has found with his dryland cropping that although populations of rye grass are black oats are now lower than they were fourteen years ago when they began farming at “Wardry”, the weeds are becoming more difficult to control within a retained stubble system and with the emergence of Group A chemical resistance and possible rye grass resistance of Group B chemicals.

He is performing tests this year to confirm his suspicion of this resistance.

Jock is now rotating with TT canola and lupins to assist with control and is making headway on those harder to control weeds, as well as controlling weeds along fence lines and irrigation bays.

He is very keen to begin narrow windrow burning and has plans to set up his header for next year to achieve that.

Until then he will continue to use broad burning as a tactic if necessary, it’s not something he does often but sees it as another tool to be utilised in the arsenal against weed resistance.

Jock has also started using Treflan as a pre-emergent attack, it’s not as easy to incorporate into the soil in a stubble retained system but he feels he now has the system (with 12 inch spacings) that allows him to achieve good results.

Another strategy Jock is considering post-harvest is baling stubble for the mushroom market. He was geared to that last year but the contractor was unable to do the job. It’s a strategy he’ll use in the future.

Having a background in agronomy has made it a little easier for Jock with regards to having up to date information about weed resistance and herbicide resistance, but actually applying that knowledge as a farmer is not the easiest thing to do as Jock readily admits.

He also seeks advice from other agronomists and employs an agronomist to monitor his cropping program.

With his summer cropping program of irrigated cotton Jock notes the cultivation needed for preparation causes the burial of weed seed, but also the destruction of seed – there’s a lot going on. Glyphosate and other broad spectrum chemicals are more widely used in this facet of his cropping program.

He is very aware of maintaining clean irrigation channels as he has discovered resistant rye grass there. If possible he’ll chip these weeds by hand.

Key issues for control of rye grass and black oats:

Jock’s advice for farmers noticing resistance emerging is to first get tests done around harvest time on mature weed seeds to confirm that resistance so they know what they are dealing with. In other words, identify the problem first.

If resistance is confirmed crop and chemical rotations have to be adopted and every tactic available should be utilised, they are all valuable tools in the fight against resistance.

Jock also recommends looking at the Ryegrass Integrated Management System (RIM) as an online tool to identify herbicide strategies in a virtual world before applying those tactics in real world conditions.

Control of fleabane in stubble retained farming systems

cwfs — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 23:40:38 +0000

Case study: Paul Adam, Tottenham, NSW – The control of fleabane in a stubble retained farming system.

Property: 1620 ha CTF with retained stubble on one property and mixed farming on 1000 ha of leased country south of Tottenham.

Enterprises: Wheat, canola, pulses and sheep.

Soil type and pH: red clay loam with a pH of 5.5 to 6.

Overview:

Paul farms a controlled traffic farming system on his home property with full stubble retention, while maintaining a more traditional mixed farming enterprise on leased country nearby.

He grows mainly wheat and canola with some pulses but has pulled back slightly from pulses in the past 12 months due mainly to difficulty with efficient weed control.

Issues and observations of fleabane control:

Fleabane first became an issue for Paul in 2010. There had always been small populations on the property but grazing by sheep had kept it somewhat suppressed. Since removing sheep from the retained stubble area that control no longer existed, leading to a surge in weed population.

In 2010/11 control consisted of a double knock spray. He admits they were a bit late getting onto it that year due to a wet harvest continuing into January. As a result the weed was a problem in the subsequent crop and had a negative effect on crop yield.

His program now consists of maintaining a double knock if for some reason early control was delayed but the focus now is on targeting the weeds as early as possible, in crop.

As a result Paul has moved away from later 2,4 D applications, instead using LVE MCPA earlier in the season with, say, Lontrel for some residual control .

Control of fleabane in pulse crops has become a real issue and as a result Paul is starting to move away from growing pulses. For example in a crop of faba beans Paul has had to do four sprays, mainly for fleabane (and sow thistle), where by comparison a canola stubble has had just one spray.

Bringing sheep in to graze on the full stubble retained system is a potential option for Paul but not one he’s keen to pursue as he is quite happy with the two systems he now has in place.

Tillage is also used on the mixed farming country but Paul tries to avoid this using on the retained stubble system unless completely necessary, such as renovating tramlines that were damaged by a wet harvest and control of difficult weeds such as windmill grass. But the benefits must outweigh the negatives.

On the mixed farming property growing cover crops is part of the farming system and vetch is one crop Paul has used in the past. He is considering doing some brown manuring with vetch not only for soil health and nitrogen fixation but also as a further tool for fleabane and other weed control.

However grazing by sheep still play a large role on that property in the control of fleabane.

One issue Paul is concerned about into the future is the current dependence on just a handful of chemical groups in the early control of fleabane. Future research into new chemicals needs to be done in the event of resistance developing.

Key issues in fleabane management in a stubble retained farming system:

In Paul’s experience focusing on early, in crop control is paramount to successful control. Double knock is a great strategy if you’ve missed the boat but should be looked upon as a secondary strategy. Once it’s at the stage of stem elongation it’s very difficult (and expensive) to get good results.

One interesting aspect of using a double knock Paul has found is that the timing of the second spray with five to seven days after the first application is critical. But for some reason he’s not fully understanding of, in the second application there seems to be a short window of early evening to around 10 pm where spray results are most effective. Outside of this short window results are more variable and less effective.

Inter-row sowing in stubble

cwfs — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 22:28:45 +0000

Case study: Nick Eckermann, Rankins Springs, NSW – Inter-row sowing in a stubble retained farming system.

Property: “Hillview” 15km south west of Rankins Springs.

Enterprises: Cropping 10,000 ha.

Soil type and pH: loam tending to sands with a pH of 5 – 5.5.

Overview:

The Eckermann’s are broad acre croppers and have not run livestock for ten years. They felt they were compromising their farming country by running livestock in a mixed farming operation due to soil moisture decisions and compromises with weed management, deciding to concentrate purely on a stubble retained cropping system.

Issues and observations of controlled traffic farming:

Nick explains they are not 100% controlled traffic farming at this stage. They work on a twelve metre system but still use duels on their main tractor and header but everything is confined to a designated wheel track area.

Nick considers themselves to be currently in a conversion phase and in the future can see themselves being 100% controlled traffic.

They currently renovate their tram tracks (sow over them) as it better suits their soil type rather than leaving bare.

The Eckermann’s primary motivations for moving toward controlled traffic farming was the desire to improve their soil’s water retention capability and keep soil compaction to a minimum, after gaining information from various sources. The practice has evolved over a five or six year period with the existing machinery spacing suiting the transition.

Areas where they using controlled traffic are already showing a marked improvement in water infiltration and retention, resulting in increased crop yields over the traditionally farmed areas.

Reduced fuel use has not been noticeable to this point, though Nick is aware that single wheel permanent tracks would undoubtedly give more efficiency.

Taking on new country a few years previously that had been conventionally farmed in a mixed farming operation, Nick observed the soil was not as friable or easy to work as was the country they had farmed using no-till methods for some years.

Issues and observations of inter row sowing:

The Eckermann’s began inter row sowing in 2006 and had good success using one bar on a twelve inch spacing. Then in 2010 they switched to a disc sowing system to 50% of their planting operation but found they had more difficulty keeping within the rows with this system. They returned to a single bar system but this year are incorporating a satellite steering guidance system into their farming plant which will simplify the operation considerably.

Nick isn’t considering changing their row spacing, being happy with where they are at now. He feels with a guidance system the rows filling shouldn’t be an issue. It should also make sowing of small seeds such as canola easier and improve germination, as they have tried most stubble management techniques in the past, but inter row sowing is by far the most effective.

Break crops play an important role in their cropping program, largely for disease control. Depending on seasons and markets between 25% and 40% of their country is sown to alternate crops to wheat, canola if soil moisture is sufficient and various legume crops which he prefers. Flexibility remains a key.

Weed resistance is starting to become an issue and Nick has been using windrow burning the past couple of years as a new tool to combat this. He is also growing vetch for brown manure or hay as another management option in paddocks where there is suspected rye grass resistance.

Soil Health:

Nick is focused very much on stubble retention in his cropping program and does not consider full burning of stubble a viable tool. Even if the stubble load is over three ton a hectare (an amount possibly detrimental to the following crop) he would rather take a short term yield loss for the longer term benefits to the soil.

Some of their lighter country can blow if ground cover is insufficient. This, combined with increased soil retention and organic material, is the reason Nick and his family are determined to tackle the many challenges of inter row sowing and full stubble retention.

Fleabane Management

cwfs — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:24:58 +0000

Fleabane management

Case study: Ian Leulf– control of fleabane in a retained stubble system.

Property owners: Ian and Georgie Leulf.

Property size: 3600 ha

Enterprises: Wheat, barley and fat lambs.

Soil and pH: Sandy to clay loam with a pH of 4.9

Overview:

The Leulfs run a controlled farming system as well breeding 900 cross-bred ewes. They follow a three year rotation of wheat, barley and fallow and have implemented a controlled traffic system for four years.

They try to keep the sheep off the stubble as much as possible and have separate cropping and livestock areas.

Fleabane control:

Fleabane first became an issue for the Leulfs in the summer of 2011. After harvest that year it was all through their cropping country and in Ian’s words, “it was big, it was ugly and it was difficult to control.”

The first year their control wasn’t great, being concerned with large amounts of double knock chemical on advice from agronomists. But by the second year a lot had been learned and they were much more successful in keeping on top of it, with in-crop management now manageable.

Image sourced from the GRDC

Cultivation wasn’t initially used to control the weed but rather to clean up paddocks during fallow in preparation for the following crop. However cultivation in conjunction with chemical application is now a tool used in the control of young fleabane.

However as Ian stresses, cultivation is not purely for fleabane control but rather as a part of their normal cropping program where new fallow is cultivated approximately once every six years.

Pre-emergent chemicals seem to be providing good control although there hasn’t been as wet a summer since 2010 to completely verify these results. If fleabane is present in emerging crops a double knock is applied as early as possible.

Avadex and Lontrel are two of the main chemicals Ian is using at this stage in fleabane control during the cropping season and during summer fallow control Glyphosate and Surpass are used.

Grazing:

Grazing is not an ultimate control method as livestock are not kept long enough on the paddocks for effective control; however they can be a useful too in cleaning up larger plants and removing stubble for easier sowing and better chemical application.

Key issues for fleabane control:

Be aware of any emerging problem early. Be prepared to control in-crop if necessary and use all tools available; chemical, cultivation and grazing.

Fleabane isn’t the concern it was back in 2011 as control of the weed is now more understood.

Windmill grass nsw

cwfs — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 22:56:34 +0000

Management of windmill grass in a stubble retained system.

Case study: Bruce Staniforth– control of windmill grass in a retained stubble system.

Property owners: Bruce Staniforth, “Bogong” Condobolin.

Property size: 8000 ha

Enterprises: Cereals, sheep and cattle.

Soil and pH: red soil with a pH of 5.5

Overview:

Bruce is a mixed farmer and describes himself as fairly conventional. He tends to utilise poorer soils for grazing oats and crops his better country.

Paddocks are usually only cropped for three years before going back into a pasture phase of lucerne and medics for seven or eight years, or when the pasture starts to deteriorate.

Windmill grass control:

Bruce tends to find windmill grass isn’t a big problem in his cropping country, the initial fallow period and subsequent stubble treatments tend to keep it under control.

He sprays fallow in late winter then follows with an initial cultivation for soil preparation and the cultivation usually occurs when the windmill grass is quite young and easy to control.

But with herbicide resistance a possible future problem, Bruce is happy to consider new strategies for weed control such as narrow windrow burning.

Image sourced from the GRDC

Grazing:

Bruce grazes his stubbles but is quick to remove stock if a weather event is likely.

Key issues for control of windmill grass:

For Bruce the key issues to controlling not just windmill grass but all weeds is effective control and timeliness of application, whether tilling or spraying. But he is quick to state although windmill grass can be a nuisance in the cropping phase, he looks forward to seeing it in the pastures after summer rain!