Improving the effectiveness of furrow sowing on water repellent sands

What is wrong with furrow sowing on water repellent soils?

Anthony contour drill stuff here

Knife Points

Contour Drill – wings & paired rows

Furrow Ridge Ridge Wall

Vol

um

etr

ic m

oist

ure

0-10

cm (

%)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6Knife Points Winged Point

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Deep sand Sandy gravel

Whe

at e

stab

lishm

ent

(pla

nts/

m2)

Knife points

Winged points

0

1

2

3

4

5

6W

heat

gra

in y

ield

(t/h

a)Knife points

Winged points & paired rows

• Improved grading out of furrow (wings) • Paired rows - 50% more seeding row• High press wheel pressure - firming• Good seed/fertiliser separation

Knife points Winged & paired rows

Knife points Stilletto boots

Lure H2O trials on non-wetting soils of the West Midlands

region

NAMI funding partners:

Purpose: To investigate the influence of rate, application timing and soil type of the activity of Lure H20 as a pre-sow soil wetting agent in the cropping phase

Product rate/ha:•10 L•20L•40LTimings:•16th March•14th April

SoilsYellow deep sand Shallow sandy gravel

Shallow loamy gravel

Loamy gravel resultsSoil moisture

WMG LureH2O Trial, Fordham.

Yellow deep sand, 19 May 2011

Contro

l

40L/

ha L

ureH

2O, M

arch

40L/

ha L

ureH

2O, A

prilS

oil m

oist

ure

(0-5

cm

) %

vol

umet

ric

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

WMG LureH2O Trial, Scotney.

Shallow gravel, 19 May 2011

Contro

l

20L/

ha L

ure

H2O, M

arch

40L/

ha L

ureH

2O, M

arch

40L/

ha L

ureH

2O, A

pril

Soil m

oisture (0-5 cm) %

volumetric0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

40L March- 15% average soil moisture contentControl- 13% average soil moisture content

Loamy gravel resultsCrop emergence

Plants per meter row

March 20L, March 40L and April 40L were significantly different to untreated control.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Untreated 10L March 20L March 40L March 10L April 20L April 40L April

Loamy gravel resultsBiomass

Green leaf/ biomass assessment NDVI

March 20L, March 40L and April 40L were significantly different to untreated control.

Untreated control March 20L March 40L

Loamy gravel resultsYield & quality

Trmt. Treatment description Product Rate / ha Timing

Yield t/ha*

Protein % Oil %

1 Untreated check - - 2.165 21.4 41.8

2 Lure H20 10L March10L

March 2.149 22.2 40.9

3 Lure H20 20L March20L

March 2.081 21.9 41.7

4 Lure H20 40L March40L

March 1.956 22.2 41.4

5 Lure H20 10L April10L

April 2.071 21.8 41.2

6 Lure H20 20L April20L

April 2.098 21.8 41.4

7 Lure H20 40L April40L

April 2.022 21.5 41.4F prob NS NS NSCV % NS NS NSLSD NS NS NS

Hypothesis

Extremely soft finish allowed

untreated plots to compensate

for lower plant populations

Between rows On rows

Ave

rage

lupi

n pl

ants

/m2

0

10

20

30

40

50Nil Banded wetter

Summary of grain yield responses with dry sown lupins

banded trial yield response summary, kg/ha P<95% P<90%

distance from headland, m IRR LSD5% LSD10%

75 190 232 191225 84 175 144

375 -63 184 152

525 68 219 180

675 -91 213 175

825 -11 258 212

975 307 236 194

full distance 69 96 79

Photo courtesy of Margaret Roper, CSIRO