• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
The impact of trash management and tillage on soybean productivity in sugar based farming systems. Neil Halpin
 

The impact of trash management and tillage on soybean productivity in sugar based farming systems. Neil Halpin

on

  • 952 views

A presentation from the WCCA 2011 event held in Brisbane, Australia.

A presentation from the WCCA 2011 event held in Brisbane, Australia.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
952
Views on SlideShare
952
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
28
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    The impact of trash management and tillage on soybean productivity in sugar based farming systems. Neil Halpin The impact of trash management and tillage on soybean productivity in sugar based farming systems. Neil Halpin Presentation Transcript

    • Department of Employment, Economic Development and InnovationThe 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
    • 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© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 2
    • Southern Canelands© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 3
    • Southern Canelands • Includes the Bundaberg, Childers and Maryborough growing regions Bundaberg Childers Maryborough Area of cane (ha) 19 000 13 000 10 000 Productivity 81 84 64 (tCane/ha)© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 4
    • The Sugar Yield Decline Joint Venture© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 5
    • A more sustainable sugarcane farming system has 4 key components Grain legume rotations Reduced Tillage Controlled traffic Trash retention© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 6
    • Why are grain legume rotations important?© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 7
    • 150 130 Cane yield (t/ha) 110 90 Yields average at least 20% greater after 70 grain legumes over whole crop cycle 50 Plant R1 R2 R3 Cane (Ploughout/replant) Grain legume crop (12 M)© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 8
    • 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© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 9
    • Aggressive tillage destroys soil structure and costs time and money A reduction in tillage offers an opportunity to save money and reduce impact on soil structure Tillage Treatment Effects on Inputs 250 25 Fuel (L/ha) Power (kW/ha) 200 20 Hours / ha 150 15 100 10 50 5 0 0 Conventional Tillage Zonal Min Tillage Stool Sprayout Fuel kW Hours© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 10
    • Why do we need to control traffic? Cane grown on 1.5m rows. Harvester on 1.8m centres© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 11
    • Why retain trash? • Weed suppression • Water conservation • Improved soil carbon status • Improved rainfall capture Cane trash management effect on soil labile carbon 2.5 2 Labile carbon (mg/kg) 1.5 1 0.5 0 1 Burnt GCTB© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 12
    • Benefits of trash continued Effect of organic matter retention on nematode supression - RKN 250000 200000 RKN/200mL soil 150000 100000 50000 0 None GCTB Soil Cover OM Cane OM Cane and Soy OM Nil© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 13
    • 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© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 14
    • How do you handle this amount of trash and cycle between cane harvest and legume planting? Trash yield relative to cane yield 13.0 12.0 Trash blanket (T/ha) 11.0 Typically there is 7 -12 t/ha of 10.0 cane trash post harvest of the 9.0 final ratoon 8.0 7.0 6.0 40 60 80 100 120 140 Cane Harvested (T/ha)© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 15
    • Trash Management option 1: Retain GCTB© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 16
    • 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!© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 17
    • Trash management option 2: Bale the trash© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 18
    • 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) 120 100 Kg of nutrients / ha 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Cane yield Nitrogen Phosphorous Potassium Calcium Magnesium Sulphur© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 19
    • 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© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 20
    • 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© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 21
    • Trash management by tillage trial • Determine the impact of differing trash and tillage management techniques on soybean productivity© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 22
    • Trash Management Options Full Trash Burnt Some Removed by Tillage Options Full Tillage Zonal – “Strip-Till” Direct Drill© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 23
    • Trash management options have already been explained© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 24
    • 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© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 25
    • 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© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 26
    • Strip-till equipment to alleviate sub-soil constraints yet leave trash on the surface Cane controlled by “double-knock” herbicide application technology© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 27
    • Soybean planter Large coulter to cut through trash Double Disc openers© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 28
    • Soybean planter Vacuum plate seed meter Twin inclined press-wheels Innoculant water injected peat© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 29
    • Site planted – 24th November 2009© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 30
    • Trash management had no effect on crop establishment Trash managment effect on soybean establishment 350,000 300,000 250,000 Plants/ha 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1 GCTB Baled Burnt© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 31
    • Tillage had a significant effect on soybean establishment Tillage effect on soybean establishment 400,000 350,000 300,000 Plants/ha 250,000 200,000 150,000 a a b 100,000 50,000 0 1 Conventional Strip-Till Direct Drill© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 32
    • Flowering biomass 42 (DAS) Trash management effect on biomass at flowering Dry matter production (t/ha) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1 GCTB Baled Burnt Trash management didn’t significantly effect productivity at flowering (p=0.066)© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 33
    • Biomass production at flowering 42 (DAS) Conventional Strip-Till Direct Drill© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 34
    • Tillage effect on biomass production 42 (DAS) Tillage effect on biomass production - flowering Dry matter production (t/ha) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 a a b 0 1 Conventional Strip-Till Direct Drill© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 35
    • Trash management effect on maximum biomass – 113 (DAS) Trash management effect on maximum biomass Dry matter production (t/ha) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 GCTB Baled Burnt© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 36
    • Tillage effect on maximum biomass production – 113 (DAS) Tillage effect on maximum biomass production Dry matter production (t/ha) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 Conventional Strip-Till Direct Drill© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 37
    • Grain Yield Cane trash management effect on soybean grain yield 5 4.5 4 Grain yield (t/ha) 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1 GCTB Baled effects n.s. Burnt© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 38
    • Grain Yield Tillage effect on soybean yield 5 4 Grain (t/ha) 3 2 1 0 Full Tillage Strip Till Direct Drill© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 39
    • Large effect of tillage on plant height Tillage effect on soybean height 80Plant height at harvest (cm) 60 40 a a b 20 Tillage effect on lowest pod height Lowest pod height at harvest (cm) 0 10 Full Tillage Strip Till Direct Drill 8 6 4 a a b 2 0 Full Tillage Strip Till Direct Drill © The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 40
    • Tillage effect on plant height Direct Drill Conventional – Strip Tillage Full - till© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 41
    • Pods set close to the ground are difficult to recover and reduce yield© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 42
    • 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© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 43
    • Reduced tillage on a controlled traffic platform • Has the potential to deliver significant benefits to the Australian sugar industry© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 44
    • 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© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 45
    • 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.© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2011 46