View
809
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
A presentation from the WCCA 2011 event held in Brisbane, Australia.
Citation preview
Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation
The impact of trash management and tillage on soybean productivity in sugar based farming
systems
Neil Halpin – DEEDI Bundaberg
Dr Mike Bell – QAAFI Kingaroy
William Rehbein and Sherree Short– DEEDI Bundaberg
2© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Australian Sugar Industry• Worth $2 Billion/Yr – (2nd largest export crop behind wheat)• 350 – 400 000 ha• 32 – 35 Million tonne of Cane• 4.5 – 5 Million tonne of Sugar• 4000 Cane growing Businesses with 6000 growers• 24 sugar mills• Employs 40 000 people directly and indirectly
3© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Southern Canelands
4© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Southern Canelands• Includes the Bundaberg, Childers and Maryborough growing regions
Bundaberg Childers Maryborough
Area of cane (ha) 19 000 13 000 10 000
Productivity (tCane/ha)
81 84 64
5© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
The Sugar Yield Decline Joint Venture
6© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
A more sustainable sugarcane farming system has 4 key components
Grain legume rotations
Reduced Tillage
Controlled traffic
Trash retention
7© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Why are grain legume rotations important?
8© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
50
70
90
110
130
150
Plant R1 R2 R3
Can
e yi
eld
(t/h
a)
Cane (Ploughout/replant) Grain legume crop (12 M)
Yields average at least 20% greater after grain legumes over whole crop cycle
9© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Grain legumes greatly improved the soil biology (Bundaberg rotation trial)
No. nematodes/200 ml soil
After cane After legume
Lesion 49 14
Reniform 309 23
Stubby root 9 1
Spiral 199 28
TOTAL 566 66
Bacterial feeders 1905 6997
Fungal feeders 1258 1958
TOTAL 3163 8955
Beneficial/Pests 6:1 136:1
10© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Aggressive tillage destroys soil structure and costs time and money
Tillage Treatment Effects on Inputs
0
50
100
150
200
250
Conventional Tillage Zonal Min Tillage Stool Sprayout
Fu
el
(L/h
a)
Po
we
r (k
W/h
a)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Ho
urs
/ h
a
Fuel kW Hours
A reduction in tillage offers an opportunity to save money and reduce impact on soil structure
11© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Cane grown on 1.5m rows.
Harvester on 1.8m centres
Why do we need to control traffic?
12© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Why retain trash?
• Weed suppression• Water conservation• Improved soil carbon status• Improved rainfall capture
Cane trash management effect on soil labile carbon
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1
Lab
ile
carb
on
(m
g/k
g)
Burnt GCTB
13© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Benefits of trash continued
Effect of organic matter retention on nematode supression - RKN
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
None GCTB
Soil Cover
RK
N/2
00m
L s
oil
OM Cane OM Cane and Soy OM Nil
14© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
This is all really great stuff! Are producers adopting these practices??
• Some components like legume rotations are well adopted• Controlled traffic is gradually being accepted• There has been some reduction in tillage BUT – Dealing with a large
trash blanket and a relatively short time frame between crops is problematic
15© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Typically there is 7 -12 t/ha of cane trash post harvest of the final ratoon
How do you handle this amount of trash and cycle between cane harvest and legume planting?
Trash yield relative to cane yield
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
40 60 80 100 120 140
Cane Harvested (T/ha)
Tra
sh b
lan
ket
(T/h
a)
16© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Trash Management option 1: Retain GCTB
17© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
2 passes with Rotary hoe
Then a deep ripping
A final rotary hoe operation will occur pre-plant to provide a good seed-bed.
Hardly minimum tillage system!
18© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Trash management option 2: Bale the trash
19© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Baling trash allows for a reduction in tillage
• However aggressive tillage equipment is still utilized• Exporting nutrients and organic matter out of the farming system
Nutrients in Cane Trash (Relative to cane yield)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Cane yield
Kg
of
nu
trie
nts
/ h
a
Nitrogen Phosphorous Potassium Calcium Magnesium Sulphur
20© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Trash management option 3: Burn trash
Most of the nutrients other than N are retained yet complete loss on organic matter
Allows a reduction in tillage compared to the full trash model
21© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
How we manage cane trash and tillage will have a large impact on the farming system
• Remember the New Farming System has Trash retention, reduced tillage, legume rotations!
• Removal of trash and use of aggressive tillage equipment will REDUCE the potential soil health benefits that the New Farming System can deliver
22© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Trash management by tillage trial• Determine the impact of differing trash and tillage management
techniques on soybean productivity
23© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Trash Management Options
by
Full Tillage Zonal – “Strip-Till” Direct Drill
Full TrashSome Removed
Burnt
Tillage Options
24© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Trash management options have already been explained
25© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Tillage treatments• Conventional Tillage = 3 rotary hoe operations and 1 deep ripping• Strip Till = Coulter rip on soybean plant line and 2 passes of fluted
coulter• Direct Drill = No Tillage
Factorial trial replicated 3 times in plots 5 cane rows wide by 25m length
The trial was fully irrigated via travelling irrigator
26© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Treatment Trash Management Tillage
1 Full Trash – GCTB Conventional Tillage
2 Full Trash - GCTB Strip Till
3 Full Trash - GCTB Direct Drill
4 Baled - Some removed Conventional Tillage
5 Baled - Some removed Strip Till
6 Baled - Some removed Direct Drill
7 Burnt Conventional Tillage
8 Burnt Strip Till
9 Burnt Direct Drill
27© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Strip-till equipment to alleviate sub-soil constraints yet leave trash on the surface
Cane controlled by “double-knock” herbicide application technology
28© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Soybean planter
Large coulter to cut through trash
Double Disc openers
29© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Soybean planter
Vacuum plate seed meter
Twin inclined press-wheels
Innoculant water injected peat
30© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Site planted – 24th November 2009
31© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Trash management had no effect on crop establishment
Trash managment effect on soybean establishment
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
1
Pla
nts
/ha
GCTB Baled Burnt
32© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Tillage had a significant effect on soybean establishment
Tillage effect on soybean establishment
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
1
Pla
nts
/ha
Conventional Strip-Till Direct Drill
a ba
33© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Flowering biomass 42 (DAS)
Trash management effect on biomass at flowering
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
1
Dry
mat
ter
pro
du
ctio
n (
t/h
a)
GCTB Baled Burnt
Trash management didn’t significantly effect productivity at flowering (p=0.066)
34© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Biomass production at flowering 42 (DAS)
Conventional Strip-Till Direct Drill
35© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Tillage effect on biomass production 42 (DAS)
Tillage effect on biomass production - flowering
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1
Dry
ma
tte
r p
rod
uc
tio
n (
t/h
a)
Conventional Strip-Till Direct Drill
a a b
36© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Trash management effect on maximum biomass – 113 (DAS)
Trash management effect on maximum biomass
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1Dry
ma
tte
r p
rod
uc
tio
n (
t/h
a)
GCTB Baled Burnt
37© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Tillage effect on maximum biomass production – 113 (DAS)
Tillage effect on maximum biomass production
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1Dry
mat
ter
pro
du
ctio
n (
t/h
a)
Conventional Strip-Till Direct Drill
38© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Grain Yield
n.s. effects
Cane trash management effect on soybean grain yield
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
5
1
Gra
in y
ield
(t/
ha
)
GCTB Baled Burnt
39© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Grain Yield
Tillage effect on soybean yield
0
1
2
3
4
5
Gra
in (
t/h
a)
Full Tillage Strip Till Direct Drill
40© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Large effect of tillage on plant heightTillage effect on soybean height
0
20
40
60
80
Pla
nt h
eig
ht a
t har
vest
(cm
)
Full Tillage Strip Till Direct Drill
a a bTillage effect on lowest pod height
0
2
4
6
8
10
Lo
we
st
po
d h
eig
ht
at
ha
rve
st
(cm
)
Full Tillage Strip Till Direct Drill
a a b
41© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Tillage effect on plant height
Conventional – Full TillageStrip - tillDirect Drill
42© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Pods set close to the ground are difficult to recover and reduce yield
43© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Strip Tillage system warrants commercial evaluation • Strip tillage overcame the significant constraints associated with a
reduced tillage system by:– Improved crop establishment (compared to direct drill)– Increased early growth (compared to direct drill)– Comparable crop height and height of lowest pod to
conventional• Strip Tillage
– Addresses sub-soil constraints– Maintains surface cover – erosion, soil carbon, weed &
nematode suppression– Facilitates a reduced and less aggressive tillage regime
44© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Reduced tillage on a controlled traffic platform
• Has the potential to deliver significant benefits to the Australian sugar industry
45© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Where to from here??• The site has now been planted to cane with the tillage treatments
maintained.• This trial has been repeated with peanuts rather than soys• Commercial evaluation needs to take place
46© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011
Acknowledge
• Bundaberg Sugar for access to site• Trial activity was funded by GRDC/SRDC and part of DAQ00129
Improving the integration of legumes in grain and sugarcane farming system in southern Queensland.
Recommended