Break crop selection for Mallee farming systems

1. Michael Moodie & Todd McDonald (MSF)
Nigel Wilhelm & Peter Telfer (SARDI)
Break crop selection for Mallee
farming systems

2. 2015: Commenced SAGIT funded project in the SA Mallee comparing break
crop production and profitability in the Northern SA Mallee region.
Two sites (Loxton and Waikerie) with two sites on contrasting soils in each
location
Break crop selection and management
Deep yellow sand Red loam flat Sandy loamLimestone flat

3. Break crop comparison trials
Crop Variety Target plants
per m2
Seeding rate
(kg/ha)
Field Pea PBA Wharton 45 90
Vetch Rasina 60 40
Narrow-leaved Lupin PBA Barlock 50 90
Albus Lupin Luxor 35 120
Faba Bean PBA Samira 20 140
Lentil PBA Hurricane 120 50
Desi Chickpea PBA Striker 45 100
Kabuli Chickpea Genesis 090 35 120
Canola Stingray 40 2.5

4. 1
0
-A
u
g2
0
-A
u
g3
0
-A
u
g0
9
-S
e
p1
9
-S
e
p2
9
-S
e
p0
9
-O
c
t1
9
-O
c
t2
9
-O
c
t
-5
0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
L o x to n M in
Temperature
o
C
2 0 1 7
1
0
-A
u
g2
0
-A
u
g3
0
-A
u
g0
9
-S
e
p1
9
-S
e
p2
9
-S
e
p0
9
-O
c
t1
9
-O
c
t2
9
-O
c
t
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
L o x to n M a x
Temperature
o
C
2 0 1 7
2017 – Climate
J
a
n
u
a
ry
F
e
b
ru
a
ryM
a
rc
h
A
p
ril
M
a
y
J
u
n
e
J
u
lyA
u
g
u
s
t
S
e
p
te
m
b
e
r
O
c
to
b
e
r
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r0
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
2 0 1 7 R a in fa ll
Rainfall(mm)
L o xto n 2 0 1 7
L T A ve ra g e
W a ik e rie 2 0 1 7

5. 1
0
-A
u
g2
0
-A
u
g3
0
-A
u
g0
9
-S
e
p1
9
-S
e
p2
9
-S
e
p0
9
-O
c
t1
9
-O
c
t2
9
-O
c
t
-5
0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
L o x to n M in
Temperature
o
C
2 0 1 7
1
0
-A
u
g2
0
-A
u
g3
0
-A
u
g0
9
-S
e
p1
9
-S
e
p2
9
-S
e
p0
9
-O
c
t1
9
-O
c
t2
9
-O
c
t
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
L o x to n M a x
Temperature
o
C
2 0 1 7
2017 – Climate
J
a
n
u
a
ry
F
e
b
ru
a
ryM
a
rc
h
A
p
ril
M
a
y
J
u
n
e
J
u
lyA
u
g
u
s
t
S
e
p
te
m
b
e
r
O
c
to
b
e
r
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r0
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
2 0 1 7 R a in fa ll
Rainfall(mm)
L o xto n 2 0 1 7
L T A ve ra g e
W a ik e rie 2 0 1 7

6. 2017 – Grain Yield
A
lb
u
s
L
u
p
inC
a
n
o
la
K
a
b
u
li
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
D
e
s
i
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
F
a
b
a
b
e
a
n
N
a
rro
w
L
u
p
inL
e
n
tils
V
e
tc
h
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
L o x to n F la t
GrainYield(t/ha)
A
lb
u
s
L
u
p
inC
a
n
o
la
K
a
b
u
li
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
D
e
s
i
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
F
a
b
a
b
e
a
n
N
a
rro
w
L
u
p
inL
e
n
tils
V
e
tc
h
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
L o x to n S a n d
GrainYield(t/ha)
A
lb
u
s
L
u
p
inC
a
n
o
la
K
a
b
u
li
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
D
e
s
i
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
F
a
b
a
b
e
a
n
N
a
rro
w
L
u
p
inL
e
n
tils
V
e
tc
h
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
W a ik e rie F la t
GrainYield(t/ha)
A
lb
u
s
L
u
p
inC
a
n
o
la
K
a
b
u
li
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
D
e
s
i
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
F
a
b
a
b
e
a
n
N
a
rro
w
L
u
p
inL
e
n
tils
V
e
tc
h
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
W a ik e rie S a n d
GrainYield(t/ha)

7. 2017 – Grain Yield
A
lb
u
s
L
u
p
inC
a
n
o
la
K
a
b
u
li
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
D
e
s
i
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
F
a
b
a
b
e
a
n
N
a
rro
w
L
u
p
inL
e
n
tils
V
e
tc
h
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
L o x to n F la t
GrainYield(t/ha)
A
lb
u
s
L
u
p
inC
a
n
o
la
K
a
b
u
li
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
D
e
s
i
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
F
a
b
a
b
e
a
n
N
a
rro
w
L
u
p
inL
e
n
tils
V
e
tc
h
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
L o x to n S a n d
GrainYield(t/ha)
A
lb
u
s
L
u
p
inC
a
n
o
la
K
a
b
u
li
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
D
e
s
i
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
F
a
b
a
b
e
a
n
N
a
rro
w
L
u
p
inL
e
n
tils
V
e
tc
h
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
W a ik e rie F la t
GrainYield(t/ha)
A
lb
u
s
L
u
p
inC
a
n
o
la
K
a
b
u
li
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
D
e
s
i
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
F
a
b
a
b
e
a
n
N
a
rro
w
L
u
p
inL
e
n
tils
V
e
tc
h
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
W a ik e rie S a n d
GrainYield(t/ha)
Crop Yield (t/ha)
Albus Lupin 0.4
Kabuli Chickpea 0.6
Canola 0.5
Desi Chickpea 0.5
Faba Bean 0.4
Lentil 0.4
Lupin 0.8
Vetch 0.6
Field Pea 0.5

8. Overall – Grain Yield x Soil Type
L
u
p
in
(A
lb
u
s
)C
a
n
o
la
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
(K
a
b
u
li)
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
(D
e
s
i)
F
a
b
a
b
e
a
nL
e
n
tils
L
u
p
in
(N
a
rro
w
L
e
a
f)
V
e
tc
h
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
2 .0
L o x to n F la t
Yield(t/ha)
L
u
p
in
(A
lb
u
s
)C
a
n
o
la
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
(K
a
b
u
li)
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
(D
e
s
i)
F
a
b
a
b
e
a
nL
e
n
tils
L
u
p
in
(N
a
rro
w
L
e
a
f)
V
e
tc
h
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
2 .0
L o x to n S a n d
Yield(t/ha)
L
u
p
in
(A
lb
u
s
)C
a
n
o
la
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
(K
a
b
u
li)
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
(D
e
s
i)
F
a
b
a
b
e
a
nL
e
n
tils
L
u
p
in
(N
a
rro
w
L
e
a
f)
V
e
tc
h
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
2 .0
W a ik e rie F la t
Yield(t/ha)
L
u
p
in
(A
lb
u
s
)C
a
n
o
la
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
(K
a
b
u
li)
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
(D
e
s
i)
F
a
b
a
b
e
a
nL
e
n
tils
L
u
p
in
(N
a
rro
w
L
e
a
f)
V
e
tc
h
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
2 .0
W a ik e rie S a n d
Yield(t/ha)
L
u
p
in
(A
lb
u
s
)C
a
n
o
la
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
(K
a
b
u
li)
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
(D
e
s
i)
F
a
b
a
b
e
a
nL
e
n
tils
L
u
p
in
(N
a
rro
w
L
e
a
f)
V
e
tc
h
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
2 .0
L o x to n F la t
Yield(t/ha)
L
u
p
in
(A
lb
u
s
)C
a
n
o
la
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
(K
a
b
u
li)
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
(D
e
s
i)
F
a
b
a
b
e
a
nL
e
n
tils
L
u
p
in
(N
a
rro
w
L
e
a
f)
V
e
tc
h
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
2 .0
L o x to n S a n d
Yield(t/ha)
L
u
p
in
(A
lb
u
s
)C
a
n
o
la
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
(K
a
b
u
li)
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
(D
e
s
i)
F
a
b
a
b
e
a
nL
e
n
tils
L
u
p
in
(N
a
rro
w
L
e
a
f)
V
e
tc
h
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
2 .0
W a ik e rie F la t
Yield(t/ha)
L
u
p
in
(A
lb
u
s
)C
a
n
o
la
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
(K
a
b
u
li)
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
(D
e
s
i)
F
a
b
a
b
e
a
nL
e
n
tils
L
u
p
in
(N
a
rro
w
L
e
a
f)
V
e
tc
h
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
2 .0
W a ik e rie S a n d
Yield(t/ha)
1.3 t/ha
0.8 t/ha
0.8 t/ha
1 t/ha

9. Overall – Grain Yield
L
u
p
in
(A
lb
u
s
)C
a
n
o
la
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
(K
a
b
u
li)
C
h
ic
k
p
e
a
(D
e
s
i)
F
a
b
a
b
e
a
nL
e
n
tils
L
u
p
in
(N
a
rro
w
L
e
a
f)
V
e
tc
h
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
2 .0
GrainYield(t/ha)

10. Long term price analysis
Commo
dity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017
Vetch 280 300 200 300 500 700 500 280 280 500 380 650 850 350
Lupins 220 229 245 315 370 320 250 270 155 260 305 335 380 270
Lentils 420 570 385 560 760 1000 920 680 410 480 630 940 1340 420
Field
Peas 221 220 195 305 440 350 255 265 300 330 320 400 550 285
Faba
Beans 260 328 220 403 600 340 260 320 370 470 420 490 560 315
Chickpe
as 265 300 700 800 700 600 500 600 500 575 440 530 1050 900
Canola 378 320 301 515 600 520 405 600 500 540 490 480 530 480

11. Distribution Fitting: Lentils
5.0% 90.0% 5.0%
4.9% 89.1% 6.0%
401 1,091
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
Lentil / At Risk Price
Comparison with LogLogisticAlt(5E-2,401.25,0.5,630,0.95,1136)
Lentil / At Risk Price
Minimum 241.50
Maximum 1,648.15
Mean 669.25
Std Dev 215.03
Values 4950 / 5000
Filtered 50
LogLogisticAlt(5E-2,401.25,0.5,630,0.95,1136)
Minimum 212.52
Maximum +∞
Mean 684.45
Std Dev 273.53
5.0% 90.0% 5.0%
5.0% 90.0% 5.0%
147 2,725
-1,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Valuesx10^-4
Lentil / At risk yield
Comparison with Gamma(1.653,653.5947712)
Lentil / At risk yield
Minimum 0.970
Maximum 6,730.82
Mean 1,080.32
Std Dev 839.78
Values 5000
Gamma(1.653,653.5947712)
Minimum 0.00
Maximum +∞
Mean 1,080.39
Std Dev 840.32

12. Long term GM – Lentil
13.6% 48.7% 37.7%
0 500
-500
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.0010
0.0012
Lentil GM
Lentil GM
Minimum -172.14
Maximum 4,589.55
Mean 498.71
Std Dev 569.14
Values 5000
Category Probability %
Less than 0 14
0 - $500/ha 49
More than $500/ha 38

13. Long term GM – Chickpea
35.8% 46.5% 17.7%
0 500
-1,000
-500
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.0010
0.0012
0.0014
0.0016
0.0018
0.0020
Kabuli Chickpea GM
Kabuli Chickpea GM
Minimum -697.71
Maximum 2,758.67
Mean 217.02
Std Dev 387.24
Values 5000
Category Probability %
Less than 0 36
0 - $500/ha 47
More than $500/ha 18

14. Long term GM – Lentil v Chickpea
13.6% 55.2% 31.2%
35.8% 50.8% 13.5%
0 600
-1,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.0010
0.0012
0.0014
0.0016
0.0018
0.0020
Lentil GM
Lentil GM
Minimum -172.14
Maximum 4,589.55
Mean 498.71
Std Dev 569.14
Values 5000
Kabuli Chickpea GM
Minimum -697.71
Maximum 2,758.67
Mean 217.02
Std Dev 387.24
Values 5000

15. Long term price analysis
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
L
u
p
inC
h
ic
k
p
e
a
L
e
n
til
B
e
a
n
s
V
e
tc
h
C
a
n
o
la0
2 0
4 0
L e s s th a n $ 0 /h a
Proability%
F
ie
ld
P
e
a
L
u
p
inC
h
ic
k
p
e
a
L
e
n
til
B
e
a
n
s
V
e
tc
h
C
a
n
o
la
0
2 0
4 0
M o re th a n $ 5 0 0 /h a
Proability%

16. Improving Crop Water Use in Sandy Soils:
informing mitigation and amelioration strategies GRDC CSP00203
You can change this image to be
appropriate for your topic by inserting
an image in this space or use the
alternate title slide with lines.
Note: only one image should be used
and do not overlap the title text.
Enter your Business Unit in the ribbon
above the url.
[delete instructions before use]
Lynne Macdonald, Michael Moodie, Therese McBeath, Rick Llewellyn, Mel Fraser,
and the wider Sandy soils Team.

17. 17 |
MITIGATION APPROACHES:
aim to close the gap between actual
and inherent yield potential.
e.g. furrow management; seeding strategies; soil
openers; wetting agents; nutrient placement;
crop choice;
AMELIORATION APPROACHES:
aim to modify profile characteristics &
water dynamics.
e.g. increase yield potential through deep
placement of amendments; claying practices;
spading; inversion
Understanding which constraints play the greatest role, and how big an
impact they have will help to:
• identify when to mitigation and when to ameliorate
• which type of specific strategy is most appropriate

18. Deeper placement of fertiliser using pre-drilling or deep-ripping ahead of sowing.
Ouyen Sandy Soils – Fertiliser Placement
Description
Physical
Disturbance
2017 Nitrogen Rate
(kg N/ha)
Fertiliser Placement Nutrient package
(P, K, S, Zn, Cu,
Mn)
7.5
cm
20
cm
30
cm
Control Nil 30  +/-
Pre drill control Pre Drill 30  +/-
Pre drill N (annual) Pre Drill 30  +/-
Pre drill N (1 in 3) Pre Drill 90  +/-
Deep rip control Deep Rip 30  +/-
Deep rip N (annual) Deep Rip 30  +/-
Deep rip N (1 in 3) Deep Rip 90  +/-

19. Yield benefit from physical effect of deep ripping – 0.85 t/ha
Ouyen Sandy Soils – Fertiliser Placement
0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
7 5 0
7 0 0
6 5 0
6 0 0
5 5 0
5 0 0
4 5 0
4 0 0
3 5 0
3 0 0
2 5 0
2 0 0
1 5 0
1 0 0
5 0
P e n e tra tio n R e s is ta n c e (M P a )
Depth(mm)
P re D rille d
D e e p R ip p e d
C o n tro l - In te ro w
C
o
n
tro
l
C
o
n
tro
l
+
N
u
P
a
k
P
re
-d
rille
d
c
o
n
tro
l
(a
n
n
u
a
l)
P
re
-d
rille
d
N
(a
n
n
u
a
l)
P
re
-d
rille
d
N
+
N
u
P
a
k
(a
n
n
u
a
l)
P
re
-d
rille
d
c
o
n
tro
l
(1
in
3
)
P
re
-d
ille
d
N
(1
in
3
)
P
re
d
rille
d
N
+
N
u
P
a
k
(1
in
3
)
D
e
e
p
rip
c
o
n
tro
l
(a
n
n
u
a
l)
D
e
e
p
rip
N
(a
n
n
u
a
l)
D
e
e
p
rip
N
+
N
u
P
a
k
(a
n
n
u
a
l)
D
e
e
p
rip
c
o
n
tro
l
(1
in
3
)
D
e
e
p
rip
N
(1
in
3
)
D
e
e
p
rip
N
+
N
u
P
a
k
(1
in
3
)
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
2 .0
2 .5
3 .0
3 .5
GrainYield(t/ha)

20. Yield benefit from physical effect of deep ripping – 0.85 t/ha
Ouyen Sandy Soils – Fertiliser Placement
0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
7 5 0
7 0 0
6 5 0
6 0 0
5 5 0
5 0 0
4 5 0
4 0 0
3 5 0
3 0 0
2 5 0
2 0 0
1 5 0
1 0 0
5 0
P e n e tra tio n R e s is ta n c e (M P a )
Depth(mm)
P re D rille d
D e e p R ip p e d
C o n tro l - In te ro w
C
o
n
tro
l
C
o
n
tro
l
+
N
u
P
a
k
P
re
-d
rille
d
c
o
n
tro
l
(a
n
n
u
a
l)
P
re
-d
rille
d
N
(a
n
n
u
a
l)
P
re
-d
rille
d
N
+
N
u
P
a
k
(a
n
n
u
a
l)
P
re
-d
rille
d
c
o
n
tro
l
(1
in
3
)
P
re
-d
ille
d
N
(1
in
3
)
P
re
d
rille
d
N
+
N
u
P
a
k
(1
in
3
)
D
e
e
p
rip
c
o
n
tro
l
(a
n
n
u
a
l)
D
e
e
p
rip
N
(a
n
n
u
a
l)
D
e
e
p
rip
N
+
N
u
P
a
k
(a
n
n
u
a
l)
D
e
e
p
rip
c
o
n
tro
l
(1
in
3
)
D
e
e
p
rip
N
(1
in
3
)
D
e
e
p
rip
N
+
N
u
P
a
k
(1
in
3
)
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
2 .0
2 .5
3 .0
3 .5
GrainYield(t/ha)

21. Spading organic matter of different quality to increase rootzone fertility .
Ouyen Sandy Soils – Spaded Organic Matter
Treatment Application Rate (t/ha) C:N Ratio *N applied
(kg/ha)
Spaded Vetch Hay 6 16:1 156
Spaded Oaten Hay 5.9 72:1 35
Spaded Vetch + Oat Hay 3.3 + 2.7 25:1 102
Spaded Chicken Litter Compost 6.8 16:1 218
Spaded Compost 15.8 10:1 252
Urea 0.34 N/A 156
Spaded control Nil N/A -
Non-spaded control Nil N/A -

22. Spading organic matter of different quality to increase rootzone fertility .
Ouyen Sandy Soils – Spaded Organic Matter
N
o
n
-s
p
a
d
e
d
c
o
n
tro
l
S
p
a
d
e
d
c
o
n
tro
l
S
p
a
d
e
d
O
a
te
n
H
a
y
S
p
a
d
e
d
V
e
tc
h
H
a
y
S
p
a
d
e
d
U
re
a
S
p
a
d
e
d
V
e
tc
h
+
O
a
t
H
a
y
S
p
a
d
e
d
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
S
p
a
d
e
d
C
h
ic
k
e
n
L
itte
r
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
1 .5
2 .0
2 .5
3 .0
3 .5
GrainYield(t/ha)
Control
Spaded Vetch
(+0.6 t/ha)
Spaded
Chicken Litter
(+1 t/ha)

23. Herbicide residues:
* reported within MSF research compendium 2018
Gly + AMPA load:
• 0.7 to 6.1 typical applications
• 85% in top 10 cm
• 80% AMPA rather than Glyphosate
• impact of AMPA on root growth and
function unknown
• Glyphosate & AMPA
at all sites
• 2,4-D and Trifluralin
= v low (~0.1 kg/ha)

24. Mallee Activities: Lameroo
Fertility Strip
PERMANENT SEEDING ZONE:
• annual beneath seed banding
 fertility over time
 area of ‘amelioration’
• spread cost & risk
1. SOIL CONTEXT: PRIMARY CONSTRAINTS
• poor nutrient supply and biological activity
• mild non-wetting behaviour
2. Can innovative seeding systems be used for cost-
effective development of a permanent seeding zone of
improved fertility:
a) permanent-row sowing ± annual beneath seed banding
of amendments (clay and/or OM)

25. Questions