Seeder maintenance is a standard part of every broadacre operation. The timing of it, however, is rarely questioned. For most businesses, the seeder gets serviced in late summer or early autumn, shortly before it is needed. That is how it has always been done, and in many cases it works fine.
But as farms scale up and seeding windows tighten, the pre-season period is carrying more and more competing demands. Workshop time, labour, parts sourcing and machinery readiness all converge in the same few weeks. For some businesses, that concentration of pressure is worth examining.
One question worth considering is whether completing major seeder maintenance immediately after seeding, rather than immediately before it, might suit some operations better.
The case for post-seeding maintenance
The logic is straightforward. Pack the seeder away in June or July with the season still fresh in everyone’s mind, fix what needs fixing, and park it ready to go. By the time February arrives, the pre-season workload is already one task lighter.
Judeen Farm near Warradarge is one example of an operation that has moved in this direction, with post-seeding maintenance allowing fault identification while wear patterns are still visible and operators can clearly recall what gave them grief during the run. Rather than relying on memory months later, issues can be assessed and acted on while machine performance is still recent.
There are broader efficiency arguments too. Moving major seeder servicing into winter may spread workshop workload more evenly across the year, reduce congestion in the already busy pre-seeding period, and make better use of staff during quieter operational phases. Machinery can be parked fully serviced and genuinely ready, rather than arriving at seeding with maintenance still in progress or recently rushed.
Trade-offs worth considering
This approach is not without its own complications, and whether it suits a given business depends on several factors.
Storage is the most obvious one. A fully serviced seeder sitting unused for eight to ten months needs appropriate undercover protection, and some operations may not have the shed space to accommodate that. A pre-season check before the machinery goes back to work is also worthwhile regardless of when the major service was done.
Winter labour is not always available. June and July compete with spraying, fertiliser applications, livestock operations and other servicing programs depending on the enterprise mix. For some businesses, the pre-seeding window is actually quieter and therefore a better fit for workshop time than the middle of winter.
Cashflow timing is worth considering too. Bringing maintenance expenditure forward by several months may not suit every business’s financial position or preferred payment timing.
A systems question more than a machinery question
The practical value of reconsidering maintenance timing is not really about the seeder itself. It is about how that timing decision sits within the broader operation.
If moving maintenance to winter reduces pre-seeding bottlenecks, improves machine reliability, smooths labour demand across the year, and increases readiness for a compressed sowing window, then the benefit extends well beyond the workshop. For businesses where the pre-seeding period is already stretched, that is worth examining carefully.
A few questions worth sitting with: Are machinery issues from the current season being forgotten by the time servicing comes around? Is pre-seeding workshop pressure creating bottlenecks that flow into the sowing program? Does winter genuinely offer better labour availability in your business? Is your machinery storage set up for long-term readiness? And if the break of season arrives in a narrow May window, will your seeder be ready to go when it does?
There is no universally correct answer on timing. What suits one business may not suit another, and the decision depends on labour availability, storage capacity, enterprise mix and how the pre-seeding period sits within the broader operation. For businesses where pre-seeding pressure is a recurring challenge, it may be worth reviewing whether maintenance timing is contributing to that and whether shifting the schedule would help.
By Simon Kruger, WMG Project Communications Officer
Across the West Midlands region, pale deep sands and sandy duplex soils are among the most challenging country to manage. Shorter seasons, more variable breaks and declining rainfall reliability have made it harder to maintain groundcover, leaving exposed soils more vulnerable to wind erosion, moisture loss and declining productivity. Around 21% of farmland in the region lacks adequate groundcover during the periods of highest erosion risk, a figure substantially higher than comparable regions in the broader WA grainbelt.
The Sustainable Solutions for Sandy Soils project, is a five-year initiative running from 2025 to 2030 aimed at helping growers manage these risks in a practical way. The project is led by Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) in partnership with WMG, the Mingenew-Irwin Group (MIG) and Edith Cowan University (ECU), and is funded through the Australian Government’s Future Drought Fund Resilient Landscapes Program with co-investment from the Government of Western Australia. The project area extends from Gingin in the south to Geraldton in the north.
Rather than promoting a single solution, the project is designed to look at how combinations of proven practices can be integrated into real farming systems on sandy soils, under local conditions and with the seasonal variability that growers in this region know well.
What the knowledge-gathering phase found
In early 2026, WMG, MIG and DPIRD conducted structured interviews and conversations with producers and advisers across the project area, covering localities from Regans Ford and Dandaragan in the south through to the Mingenew-Irwin district in the north. The interviews covered current practices, attitudes to groundcover, barriers to adoption and emerging approaches.
All interviews were conducted on the basis of anonymity. The findings below reflect the collective picture across the interview group rather than any individual producer or adviser.
How growers are thinking about groundcover
Across all enterprise types, producers described groundcover as a practical management priority with direct consequences for productivity, carrying capacity and long-term soil condition. The language used was consistently economic rather than environmental: cover protects soil, retains moisture, supports crop establishment and underpins livestock carrying capacity.
Adviser observations suggested that producer attitudes have shifted over time. Producers are now less tolerant of low cover than they used to be, a change attributed partly to a run of difficult seasons that made the consequences of poor management more visible and more costly. The 2021 season, which combined a false autumn break, the aftermath of Cyclone Seroja and a grasshopper plague, was raised in virtually every interview as a reference point for how quickly groundcover can deteriorate under compounding pressures.
What is working
Producers across the project area described a wide range of practices in use for maintaining or improving groundcover on sandy soils. No single approach dominated. In most cases, growers were managing cover through a combination of practices rather than relying on any one strategy.
In livestock and mixed systems, planned rotational grazing with defined rest periods and disciplined destocking windows were consistently identified as the foundational practices. Confinement feeding during high-risk periods was identified by advisers as a practice that had produced measurable improvements for clients.
In cropping systems, reducing stubble burning frequency was consistently identified as one of the most accessible and impactful changes available. Multiple producers described a target of no more than one burn per paddock per three-year rotation, though they were clear that this involved genuine trade-offs with weed management and pre-emergent herbicide performance.
Soil amelioration, including clay spreading, delving, mouldboard ploughing and deep ripping, was the dominant practice category across cropping and mixed enterprise interviews. Clay spreading at high rates was identified as the highest-impact available practice on pale deep sands. Identifying a suitable clay source and understanding what application rate is needed for a meaningful and durable improvement were consistently cited as practical challenges where producers wanted better guidance calibrated to local soil types.
Emerging approaches worth watching
Virtual fencing using GPS livestock collars attracted the strongest interest of any emerging practice across the interview group. The appeal is practical: excluding stock from the most vulnerable sandy areas within a paddock without the cost of permanent infrastructure, and adjusting exclusion zones as conditions change through the season. Two producers in the project area were already using the technology with cattle at meaningful scale.
Deep incorporation of clay through delving at depth was described as producing more durable profile improvements than surface application alone. One documented case involved a profile of 80 centimetres of sand over clay transformed through deep spading, producing what was described as above-average cropping country from previously marginal sandy ground.
Perennial C4 grass systems are well established on a number of properties in the northern portions of the project area and were consistently described as strong contributors to year-round cover. Reliable establishment on pale deep sands remained an unresolved challenge, with the fertiliser history of the soil identified as a potentially important factor.
What the barriers are
Cost was the most frequently cited barrier, particularly for soil amelioration. The difficulty of justifying capital investment with long payback periods within normal farm business planning timeframes was a recurring theme.
Technical uncertainty was a significant barrier in several practice areas. Uncertainty about clay assessment and application rates, unresolved questions about perennial species selection for local conditions, and the lack of practical guidance on post-fire erosion management on sandy soils were all identified as specific information gaps.
Social and behavioural barriers were described by advisers as at least as important as economic and technical ones. Producers most likely to have persistent groundcover problems were also described as least likely to attend group extension events, requiring fundamentally different engagement approaches. One-on-one contact framed around seeking producer input, very local peer role models, and well-designed demonstration sites with visible control strips were identified as the approaches most likely to reach this group.
What’s coming through the project
The SSS project is currently in its early stages. Demonstration sites and peer learning groups are being established across the project area, with trials and monitoring activities running through to 2029. WMG’s involvement covers the southern portion of the project area, broadly south of Eneabba, including localities around Dandaragan, Regans Ford, Yathroo, Badgingarra and Moora.
As demonstration sites are established and monitoring data becomes available, WMG will share findings through the enewsletter and website. For more information about the project or to find out how to get involved, contact Gabby Carrivick at eo@wmgroup.org.au or visit dpird.wa.gov.au.
By Simon Kruger, WMG Project Communications Officer
Potassium management has been a recurring question for growers across the West Midlands region, particularly on the coarse-textured sandy soils that dominate much of the cropping area. Growers and advisers have long suspected that fertiliser applications were falling short of what crops remove at harvest, but surface soil testing alone was not providing a reliable picture of availability across the full profile.
Between 2023 and 2025, WMG investigated potassium management across the region through a combination of paddock-scale nutrient budgeting, replicated field trials and a demonstration site, supported by GRDC investment WMG2304-001SAX. This article summarises the key findings and what they mean for fertiliser decisions heading into the 2026 season.
What the 2023 survey found
In 2023, potassium budgets were completed across 10 paddocks spanning the West Midlands region from Regans Ford to Coorow, covering a range of soil types from deep yellow sand through to heavy clay.
An example potassium budget using the K Management Infographic developed in the project.
Plant tissue testing at GS30 found 70% of crops were at sufficient potassium status at the time of sampling. However, in-season fertiliser applications fell short of whole-crop potassium requirements at all 10 sites. Using a crop requirement of 16 kg of potassium per tonne of grain removed, the gap between applied potassium and total crop requirement was present across every soil type and location surveyed. Growers were relying on potassium recycled through stubble and drawn from subsoil reserves to bridge that gap.
Soil testing to 90 cm confirmed substantial subsoil reserves at most sites, with cumulative potassium in the top 90 cm ranging from 206 kg/ha on a deep yellow sand at Regans Ford to 1,059 kg/ha on a dark brown sand at Dandaragan. The majority of that potassium was located below 30 cm, a finding that surprised many participating growers who had rarely tested beyond the surface layer.
Compaction was identified as a significant constraint to root access, with penetrometer readings exceeding the threshold associated with restricted root growth at 80% of sites, generally between 30 and 50 cm depth. Where compaction limits rooting depth, crop access to subsoil potassium reserves is restricted regardless of how much potassium is present at depth.
Dandaragan 2024: does deep ripping pay?
A replicated trial at Lachie Brown’s property near Dandaragan tested whether deep ripping to 60 cm could improve crop access to subsoil potassium reserves across five species: mid-season wheat (Tomahawk), short-season wheat (Anvil CL), canola (Blazer TT), lupin (Jurien) and serradella (Cadiz). Ripping was conducted post-emergent, approximately two to three days after seeding.
Ripping substantially reduced soil strength, with the depth at which resistance became limiting to root growth shifting from approximately 225 mm in non-ripped plots to 650 mm in ripped plots. A strong relationship between biomass production and potassium uptake was confirmed across all species and treatments (R² = 0.81), confirming that maximising biomass is the primary pathway to cycling potassium from depth. Ripped treatments accumulated approximately 20 kg/ha more potassium in plant biomass than non-ripped treatments.
Grain yield was significantly higher in ripped plots for both wheat types. Mid-season wheat yielded 3.35 t/ha ripped versus 2.85 t/ha non-ripped. Short-season wheat yielded 2.76 t/ha ripped versus 2.28 t/ha non-ripped. Canola, lupin and serradella did not show statistically significant yield differences between treatments, though ripped plots trended higher for most species.
Crop
No-rip (t/ha)
Ripped (t/ha)
Difference (t/ha)
Mid-season wheat (Tomahawk)
2.85
3.35
+0.49*
Short-season wheat (Anvil CL)
2.28
2.76
+0.48*
Canola (Blazer TT)
0.90
1.17
+0.28
Lupin (Jurien)
2.28
2.33
+0.05
Serradella (Cadiz)
0.35
0.31
-0.03
* Statistically significant. Dandaragan 2024. Bird damage noted on first range of ripped plots.
The economics of deep ripping were favourable for wheat and canola under all grain price scenarios tested. For mid-season wheat, the 0.49 t/ha yield benefit returned a net single-season gain of $58–108/ha depending on grain price, after deducting the $80/ha ripping cost. When spread across three years, the annual cost burden falls to around $27/ha and net returns range from $111–161/ha per year. Canola returned a positive single-season result at $650/t. Lupin did not recover the ripping cost in year one.
A few qualifications are worth noting. The post-emergent ripping technique reduced plant establishment across several species. In the 2024 season, crops compensated and still produced higher yields. In a difficult establishment year, that compensation may not occur. The amortisation assumption of three years may also not hold on highly dynamic sandy soils under wheeled traffic, where re-compaction can occur sooner.
Badgingarra 2024: rate, placement and product
A replicated trial at Rohan Marriott’s property near Badgingarra tested potassium fertiliser rates of 15, 30, 45 and 75 kg/ha of product, applied either banded below the seed or with the seed, using both muriate of potash (MOP) and sulphate of potash (SOP) in a wheat crop.
K30 MOP banded below seed was the economically optimal treatment, returning $122/ha above the nil K treatment at $330/t APW1. This finding was consistent across the original 2024 harvest prices and all three price scenarios tested.
Higher rates did not improve the outcome. K45 returned a slightly lower net return than K30 despite similar yield, because the additional fertiliser cost was not recovered through yield gain. K75 consistently returned below the nil K treatment at all grain price scenarios after fertiliser cost was accounted for.
No statistically significant effect of placement or product was detected at any rate. Given SOP costs approximately $400/t more than MOP, there is no economic basis for using SOP at this site unless specific sulphur or chloride sensitivities exist. The lowest-cost delivery method, MOP banded below seed, was also the most economically effective.
With-seed application reduced plant establishment at higher rates. Crops compensated and final yields were not significantly affected in 2024, but banded below placement avoids this risk entirely and is recommended where agronomy allows.
Ballidu 2025: broadcast K on contrasting soils
A paddock-scale demonstration at Corey Mincherton’s property near Ballidu compared broadcast MOP rates across two adjacent paddocks with contrasting soil types: a yellow sand and a clay loam. All treatments also received 15 kg/ha MOP banded at seeding.
The two sites produced markedly different responses.
On the yellow sand, yield increased from 2.98 t/ha in the control to 4.03 t/ha at 75 kg/ha broadcast MOP, a lift of 1.05 t/ha. Most of that response was achieved at moderate rates. Yields at 37.5 and 50 kg/ha broadcast MOP were only marginally below the highest rate, indicating the response curve flattens above approximately 37.5–50 kg/ha. On a net return basis at $330/t, the 37.5 and 50 kg/ha rates returned $276 and $274/ha more than the control respectively, compared with $284/ha at 75 kg/ha.
On the clay loam, the control produced the highest yield at 3.92 t/ha. All broadcast K treatments returned lower yields, and broadcast K reduced net return at every rate and price scenario tested. At $330/t, the control returned $1,294/ha net compared with $1,053–1,234/ha for treated plots.
These results are from a single season at one demonstration site. Yield figures were derived from precision harvest map strips rather than replicated small plots, and treatment-level differences should be treated as indicative of directional response rather than statistically confirmed results.
The divergent response between soil types within the same property reinforces the case for variable-rate K application on paddocks with mixed texture. Applying a uniform broadcast rate across both soil types in the same season would have either under-applied on the yellow sand or over-applied on the clay loam, at economic cost either way.
Cross-site summary and practical implications
Site
Strategy tested
Best treatment
Net return vs baseline
Key qualification
Dandaragan
Deep ripping to 60 cm
Ripped mid-season wheat
+$83/ha single yr; +$136/ha amortised (at $330/t)
Post-emergent ripping applied. Multi-year data needed.
Badgingarra
K rate, placement, product
K30 MOP banded below
+$122/ha vs Nil K (at $330/t)
K75 returns below Nil K at all prices.
Ballidu — Yellow sand
Broadcast K rate
T4 by yield; T3/T5 similar economics
+$284/ha vs T1 (mid price)
Economics favour 37.5–50 kg/ha on risk-adjusted basis.
Ballidu — Clay loam
Broadcast K rate
T1 (control) — no K response
All K treatments below T1
No yield benefit from broadcast K in 2025.
Three practical messages emerge from across the three sites.
Soil type is the most important variable in potassium response. Coarse-textured sands are most likely to benefit from targeted potassium investment. Heavier soils may not require additional broadcast inputs in seasons where existing reserves meet crop demand. Testing to depth, rather than relying on surface Colwell K alone, provides a better basis for decision-making.
Moderate rates captured most of the available yield response at responsive sites, while high rates consistently failed to recover their cost. At Badgingarra, K75 returned below the nil K treatment at all price scenarios. At Ballidu, the difference in net return between 37.5 and 75 kg/ha broadcast MOP on the yellow sand was around $8/ha.
Physical constraints matter as much as fertiliser rates on many West Midlands soils. Where compaction is restricting root access below 30–50 cm, investing in higher fertiliser rates may not deliver a return until the physical constraint is addressed.
The economic analysis used a MOP price of $820/t. Unlike urea and DAP, MOP supply is not heavily concentrated through Middle Eastern export routes, and potash pricing has been less directly affected by the current conflict. Growers should confirm current prices with their supplier before applying these figures to their own operations, as local pricing varies by supplier, location and purchase timing.
Acknowledgements
This article draws on research conducted under GRDC investment WMG2304-001SAX – the K Extension Project. WMG acknowledges Lachie Brown (Dandaragan), Rohan Marriott (Badgingarra) and Corey Mincherton (Ballidu) for hosting trial and demonstration sites and for their ongoing involvement in the K Extension Project.
By Simon Kruger, WMG Project Communications Officer
Walyoo Farm runs approximately 5,150 hectares of predominantly light white and grey sands with some red loamy sand and gravel country near Dandaragan. The rotation covers lupins, wheat, barley and canola, with long-term average wheat yields around 3.2 t/ha and canola around 2.15 t/ha. Mark Drake manages the property with a permanent team of three, drawing in casuals for seeding and harvest.
Walyoo is part of the Lawson Grains portfolio, which operates across 11 farms in Australia. Major plant including headers and sprayers moves between properties as seasonal workloads demand. That shared fleet context shapes how machinery decisions are made at Walyoo, and it is worth keeping in mind when reading through the approaches described here. Some will translate directly to other farm businesses. Others are specific to operating within a larger corporate structure.
Investment priority: seeding timeliness
Across Walyoo’s operation, seeding has become the primary focus of machinery investment. In 2023, Lawson Grains increased its seeding capital at Walyoo after the existing setup was not getting crops established within the target window.
The reasoning behind that priority is practical. Most operational delays can be addressed later in the season. A missed or compressed sowing window generally cannot. That logic drives where new technology and automation investment is evaluated first.
How replacement decisions are made
Machinery replacement at Walyoo sits within Lawson Grains’ annual capital expenditure process rather than at farm level. Each year, farm managers submit requests and supporting data. Head office analysts build financial models incorporating trade-in values, new machine prices, projected running costs and expected movements in the used machinery market over the coming 12 months.
Requests are reviewed by the general manager and CEO in October and November, then go to the board in December, with approvals typically coming through in mid to late December.
The metrics that feed into those decisions are specific:
Engine and work hours, including rotor hours on headers and spray hours on sprayers
Current market value
Estimated repair and maintenance cost for the coming 12 months
Forward-looking assessment of used machinery market conditions
The market analysis draws on online sales platforms, auction results and dealer pricing. The question being asked is not just whether a machine needs replacing, but whether now is the right time to sell given where prices are heading. Mark’s role is to provide accurate hours, realistic repair estimates and current quotes. The financial modelling sits with head office.
One practical constraint in this model: approvals landing in mid to late December leave limited time to order and receive machinery needed by January or February, unless the dealer already has stock available. That is a known limitation of the annual cycle.
Capital efficiency in practice
Walyoo runs both a self-propelled sprayer and a tug-along unit with a 10,000 litre tank. The tug-along cost around $220,000, compared with approximately $1.2 million for a self-propelled machine. The self-propelled travels faster, but the larger tank on the tug-along means fewer refill stops. In practice, daily hectares covered by each machine are often similar.
When capital cost, interest, depreciation and replacement are considered alongside output, the tug-along represents a different value proposition to the self-propelled, one that is worth examining in the context of any operation where capital tied up in plant is a consideration.
Walyoo’s internal machinery cost figure for 2024 was around $713 per hectare. Mark notes that within Lawson Grains’ benchmarking, Walyoo sits at a lower machinery investment level than some comparable operations, which he attributes largely to the shared fleet model rather than any difference in operational demands.
Utilisation as a management metric
One area where Lawson Grains uses data in a practical way is tracking engine hours against productive work hours. Mark gave the example of a sprayer showing 216 engine hours but only around 150 spray hours in a season, roughly 70% utilisation against an internal target closer to 75%.
That gap, made up of filling time, idling, turning and operational delays, prompted a practical change: modifying the sprayer plumbing so the engine can be off during part of the filling process, reducing unnecessary engine hours without affecting spraying capacity.
The metric itself, engine hours versus productive hours, is relatively straightforward to track on modern machinery and gives a more complete picture of how hard a machine is actually working than hectares per day alone.
Automation: current use and realistic expectations
Walyoo currently uses turn automation on seeding tractors, camera-based header automation, and depth sensing and control on the deep ripper. The deep ripper system addresses a specific, known problem: ensuring the implement is in the ground at the correct depth consistently, regardless of operator attention at any given moment.
Mark’s broader view on automation is measured. Systems that assist consistency and reduce the likelihood of operator error are where he sees the most immediate value, particularly given the reliance on casual and relatively inexperienced staff at peak times. Full autonomy is a different proposition. Current systems have real limitations around sensor and camera reliability in dusty conditions, and they cannot detect many mechanical problems. Skilled operators remain necessary.
Training and support capacity through dealerships and service providers is a constraint Mark flags as significant. The availability of technology is moving faster than the infrastructure to support growers in using it well.
Some broader considerations
The Lawson Grains approach to machinery investment reflects the discipline that comes with operating across a large portfolio: decisions modelled rather than made on feel, replacement timing informed by market analysis, and a shared fleet that keeps capital requirements lower than a fully self-contained operation would demand.
The trade-off is farm-level flexibility. When Walyoo needs to respond quickly to operational pressure, the options are sharing machines between properties or contracting, rather than rapid purchasing decisions.
The metrics and decision frameworks described here, productive hours versus engine hours, forward-looking market analysis, cost per hectare as a reporting tool, are applicable well beyond a corporate farming context. How they are used will depend on the scale and structure of each individual business.
Acknowledgements
This case study was produced through WMG’s involvement in the RiskWi$e National Risk Management Initiative, led nationally by CSIRO and by GGA in WA and funded by the Grains Research and Development Corporation. WMG thanks Mark Drake and Lawson Grains for their continued participation and engagement.
Growers across the West Midlands are heading into seeding under some of the most difficult input cost conditions in recent memory. The combination of record-high fertiliser prices, elevated diesel costs and genuine uncertainty about supply is putting pressure on budgets before a seed has gone in the ground. This article pulls together what we know, what it means practically, and where to go for support.
Fertiliser: what’s driving the price and what to expect
The conflict involving Iran has had an immediate and significant impact on global fertiliser markets. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a substantial share of the world’s fertiliser trade moves, has been severely disrupted since late February. Iran and Egypt, two of the world’s largest urea producers, have both curtailed production as a direct consequence of the conflict. Qatar, another major supplier, suspended downstream urea production when it halted LNG output. China has restricted exports to protect its domestic market, closing off one of the alternative supply routes that Australian importers typically rely on.
The result has been a sharp price increase. Granular urea in Australia reached around $1,300–$1,350 per tonne in mid-March 2026, up roughly 55–60% from pre-conflict levels. DAP and MAP prices have also risen, with the Gulf region being a major source of phosphate fertilisers as well as nitrogen.
For WMG growers, the practical implications centre on a few questions: how much fertiliser have you already secured, what are current prices from your supplier, and does your planned crop mix still make economic sense at these input costs? Crops with higher nitrogen demand, particularly wheat and canola, are under more pressure than lower-input options like feed barley or pulses. Some WA growers are reported to be adjusting their rotations in response, though this will depend heavily on individual paddock programs and contractual commitments. Talk to your agronomist and your bank before making significant changes.
It is also worth contacting your fertiliser supplier early if you have not already secured your full program. In seasons where supply tightens across multiple regions simultaneously, delivery lead times can become a constraint.
Diesel: the excise cut and what it actually means for grain growers
The federal government halved the fuel excise effective 1 April 2026, reducing pump prices by around 26.3 cents per litre for three months. That is welcome relief, but the picture for diesel is more complicated than it is for petrol. Diesel wholesale prices rose more steeply on the international market than petrol in the weeks following the conflict’s escalation, meaning the excise cut offsets less of the increase for diesel users than it does for motorists.
Terminal gate diesel prices in mid-April were sitting above 290 cents per litre at eastern state terminals. WA farm diesel prices will vary by supplier and location, so it is worth checking current pricing directly with your supplier rather than relying on metro figures.
For a broadacre cropping program, diesel is a significant cost centre. At seeding alone, fuel consumption typically runs between 8 and 15 litres per hectare depending on the system, soil conditions and machinery setup. Across a 3,000–5,000 hectare program, even a modest reduction in litres per hectare adds up quickly.
Where fuel is actually lost at seeding, and what you can do about it
Research consistently shows that machinery setup has a greater influence on fuel consumption at seeding than machine age or engine specification alone. The main losses occur through wheel slip, rolling resistance and unnecessary draft, and all three are manageable with attention to setup before the season starts.
The table below summarises the fuel savings potential from four key adjustments, drawn from peer-reviewed research and recent extension work. These are not guaranteed outcomes, they depend on your current setup and conditions, but they give a sense of where the biggest gains are available.
Adjustment
Potential saving (L/ha)
Ballasting and slip control (target 6–10% slip)
2–3 L/ha
Tyre pressure optimisation (lowest safe pressure for conditions)
Sources: Grisso et al. 2004; Giumelli 2025; Nebraska Tractor Test Laboratory 2023. For a 4,000 ha program, optimising across all four areas could reduce fuel use by 12,000–24,000 litres.
Wheel slip is the most common source of inefficiency in WA seeding systems. The target range is 6–10% for four-wheel drive tractors. Below that, rolling resistance climbs as ballast increases. Above it, energy is being wasted through tyre spin rather than converted to forward motion.
Seeding depth has a direct effect on draft and fuel use, with research indicating draft can rise by around 20% per additional centimetre of depth. On WA sandy soils, deeper sowing is sometimes agronomically justified to reach moisture, so this is a trade-off rather than a simple rule.
Tracked tractors are sometimes assumed to be more fuel efficient than wheeled machines, but the relationship depends on conditions. In dry soils under lighter draft loads, well-ballasted wheeled tractors are typically comparable. Tracks offer an advantage in wet or soft conditions where slip is hard to control.
Our colleagues at Liebe Group have produced a detailed technical article covering these topics in depth, including opener geometry, disc versus tyne systems, controlled traffic farming and precision guidance. It is certainly worth a read so please contact the Liebe Group to get access to it.
Support is available Seeding is a demanding time in any year. If the current season is adding financial or personal pressure, there are services available to help. Rural Financial Counselling Service WA Free, independent financial counselling for eligible farming businesses. 1800 612 004 — rfcswa.com.au Other support services: Rural Aid: 1300 327 624 — ruralaid.org.au Beyond Blue: 1300 22 4636 — beyondblue.org.au Lifeline: 13 11 14 — lifeline.org.au
References
Fertiliser supply and pricing
Australian Strategic Policy Institute. (2026, April). Not just fuel: Australia also relies on Gulf urea supplies. The Strategist. aspistrategist.org.au/not-just-fuel-australia-also-relies-on-gulf-urea-supplies/
Episode3. (2026, March 18). Australia’s urea supply is now a race against the clock. episode3.net/inputs/australias-urea-supply-is-now-a-race-against-the-clock/
FertilizerField. (2026, March 26). Australia fertilizer supply crisis disrupts winter crop planting. fertilizerfield.com/australia-fertilizer-supply-crisis-2026/
Anadolu Agency. (2026, March 25). Strait of Hormuz crisis threatens world fertilizer supply chain. aa.com.tr/en/world/strait-of-hormuz-crisis-threatens-world-fertilizer-supply-chain/3875786
Diesel prices and the fuel excise cut
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. (2026, April 2). Weekly fuel price monitoring report — Thursday 2 April 2026. accc.gov.au/system/files/weekly-fuel-price-monitoring-report-2-april-2026.pdf
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. (2026, April 24). Weekly fuel price monitoring update — 24 April 2026. accc.gov.au/about-us/publications/weekly-fuel-price-monitoring-update
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. (2026, April 2). ACCC monitors fuel excise cut, fuel surcharges and fuel price movements. accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-monitors-fuel-excise-cut-fuel-surcharges-and-fuel-price-movements
Australian Taxation Office. (2026). Excise duty rates for fuel and petroleum products. ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/gst-excise-and-indirect-taxes/excise-on-fuel-and-petroleum-products/excise-duty-rates-for-fuel-and-petroleum-products
CarExpert. (2026, April 1). The fuel excise has been cut, so why aren’t petrol and diesel prices cheaper? carexpert.com.au/car-news/the-fuel-excise-has-been-cut-so-why-arent-petrol-and-diesel-prices-cheaper
Machinery setup and fuel efficiency
Grisso, R., Kocher, M. and Vaughan, D. (2004). Predicting tractor fuel consumption. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 20(5), 553–561. doi.org/10.13031/2013.17457
The first few months of 2026 have kept the WMG team busy, with three events bringing growers, advisers and researchers together across the region. Here is a brief summary of each.
GRDC Farm Business Update — Dandaragan, 9 February
Growers and advisers gathered at the Dandaragan Community Recreation Centre in February for the GRDC Farm Business Update, hosted by WMG. The free, one-day workshop focused on practical farm business topics designed to support stronger decision-making and long-term profitability.
The program brought together a strong line-up of industry speakers. Ken Solly (Solly Business Services) opened the day with a session on business strategy, followed by Peter Newman (Planfarm) on investing a surplus wisely. Dr Jane Foster (Emotional Resilience Training) covered positive communication techniques within farm businesses, Joanne Gilbert (RSM Australia) addressed managing capital in a farm enterprise, and Ben White (Kondinin Group) rounded out the afternoon with a session on optimising machinery investment, examining the repair or replace question that many farming businesses face.
The day provided an opportunity for growers and advisers to step back from day-to-day operations and focus on the business decisions that underpin high-performing and resilient farm enterprises.
GRDC Seeder Set-Up Workshop — Warradarge, 27 February
Over 30 growers, advisers and industry representatives attended the GRDC Seeder Set-Up Workshop held at Judeen Farms, Warradarge, in late February. The event was part of a statewide GRDC series designed to help growers maximise seeding success through practical, in-paddock demonstrations ahead of the 2026 season, delivered in partnership with Facey Group, WMG and Primary Sales Australia.
Despite warm conditions on the day, attendees worked through several key areas including air cart calibration and distribution testing, depth control, press wheel setup and seed placement, liquid system setup and fault-finding, and general seeder bar maintenance. The workshop benefited from having multiple seeder configurations on display simultaneously, giving growers the opportunity to compare setups side by side and handle equipment directly.
Presenters Peter Broley and Brett Asphar (Primary Sales Australia) led the practical sessions, with strong engagement from participants throughout. A consistent theme across the day was that relatively small adjustments to seeder setup can have a meaningful influence on seed placement, emergence and overall crop establishment, a message that carries particular weight heading into a season where getting the most from every hectare sown will matter.
WMG thanks the Judeen Farms team for hosting the event and providing the seeder, GRDC for supporting the workshop series across WA, Facey Group and Primary Sales Australia for their expertise on the day, Jen from Jennovation for catering, and all growers and advisers who attended.
WMG Seasonal Updates — Moora, 10 March
More than 40 growers, advisers and industry representatives gathered at the Moora Recreation Centre in March for the 2026 WMG Seasonal Updates, one of the most important events on the WMG calendar. The day began with the WMG Annual General Meeting before moving into a full program of presentations spanning agronomy, research, technology and markets.
The morning covered local trial results from Summit Fertilisers, presented by Alana Alexander, and a session on high-value legume opportunities for the West Midlands region delivered by Erin Cahill (Agvivo). Paul Joules (Rabobank Australia) provided a market update, followed by a CBH Group presentation on what is currently impacting grain prices.
After lunch, Bindi Isbister (Agrarian Management) presented on automation and path planning technologies under the title Rows to Route, exploring how these systems are beginning to support efficiency and decision-making on farm. Wayne Parker (DPIRD) provided an update on the DPIRD SWAN Project 2025 results, and Andrew Fletcher (CSIRO) covered canola establishment fundamentals. Geoff Moore (DPIRD), alongside WMG and MIG, presented on the Sustainable Solutions for Sandy Soils project, an overview of which appears elsewhere in this edition. Julia Payne and Matt Willis (Bayer) presented on drone mapping for targeted weed control, and Emily Hourigan (CSBP) rounded out the afternoon with 2025 local CSBP trial results.
Running parallel to the afternoon technical program was a Carbon Farming Outreach Program session delivered by Chris Wyhoon (Campfire Ag), covering carbon farming essentials for farm businesses including the Australian Carbon Credit Unit scheme, farm emissions profiles and opportunities to capture value through the supply chain.
The day concluded with a guest presentation from Lynda Cornish of Hurt to Help, a Western Australian initiative that raises funds for individuals and families facing significant hardship, before moving into a Rabobank sundowner with steak burgers and Elders drinks.
WMG extends sincere thanks to all presenters, sponsors and attendees who contributed to another successful Seasonal Updates, and to Coffeelicious for keeping everyone well caffeinated throughout the day.
By Simon Kruger, WMG Project Communications Officer
Mouse activity across WA’s grain growing regions is at levels that warrant attention heading into seeding. CSIRO rodent researcher Steve Henry has described numbers in parts of WA as being at plague proportions, with burrow counts north of Geraldton reported as high as 40 per 100 square metres in some areas. For context, two to three burrows per 100 square metres would normally be cause for concern.
The conditions driving this are straightforward. A record 2025 WA harvest left an abundance of food available in paddocks through summer and autumn, providing ideal conditions for mouse breeding. Mice begin breeding at six weeks of age and produce litters of six to ten pups every 19 to 21 days. Numbers can build rapidly and populations are not uniform across a district, meaning local monitoring matters more than regional averages.
The West Midlands region sits within the broader northern agricultural region where elevated activity has been reported. Do not assume your paddocks are clear without checking.
How to monitor
Walk a 100-metre transect across the paddock and count active burrows in a one-metre-wide strip. This gives you an assessment area of 100 square metres. Vehicle inspections are not reliable, as standing stubble can hide burrow activity that is only visible at ground level.
Mouse chew cards are a useful complementary tool and can be ordered from GRDC at no cost by calling 1800 110 044 or emailing ground-cover-direct@canprint.com.au.
Log your observations, whether mice are present or absent, through the MouseAlert tool at feralscan.org.au/mousealert. This data supports the CSIRO monitoring program and helps build a more accurate regional picture of activity.
What to do if numbers are high
If mice are present at or around sowing time, baiting at or as soon as possible after seeding is recommended to prevent damage to freshly sown crop. Contact your bait supplier early. In seasons where activity is elevated across multiple regions simultaneously, demand for bait can rise quickly and supply can tighten. Discuss options with your agronomist or supplier and use any product strictly in accordance with the label.
By Simon Kruger, WMG Project Communications Officer
Harvest is complete at Jim Hamilton’s chickpea trial site near Moora, concluding a 2025 season that included failed establishment in April, reseeding in June, and prolonged waterlogging through winter. This article covers the final yield results, treatment findings and an indicative economic analysis for the site. Full technical results, including establishment data, biomass measurements and nitrogen fixation analysis, are in our November pre-harvest update.
Yield
The yield monitor recorded a whole-paddock average of 2.34 t/ha from 38.6 ha harvested, with a total of 90.4 t. Jim observed yields of 3.5 to 4.0 t/ha in the best-drained sections during harvest, consistent with what he saw driving the header. In the trial strips measured through the season, core zones away from the worst waterlogging averaged 2.19 to 2.42 t/ha depending on treatment, while outer zones affected by prolonged saturation sat substantially lower. Waterlogging ultimately affected around 10 to 16 per cent of the paddock area, and its influence on the whole-paddock average is significant. On better-drained country the crop performed commercially well, and the site went on to win the GGA Crop-etition for yield, a yield competition run by the Grower Group Alliance as part of the project.
Treatment results
The trial compared three treatments of Captain desi chickpeas: a control (100 kg/ha seed, 3.5 kg/ha Nodulator), a double inoculant treatment (100 kg/ha seed, 7 kg/ha Nodulator), and an increased seeding rate (130 kg/ha seed, 3.5 kg/ha Nodulator).
The increased seeding rate treatment produced consistently higher results across plant density, early and peak biomass, nitrogen fixation and yield. Peak biomass was significantly higher than the control, and that advantage carried through to the yield data from the measured strips. The additional seed cost was $28.50/ha. In a season where canopy recovery after the reseeding event mattered, the higher plant density appears to have supported more consistent crop development through to harvest.
The inoculant result is worth reading carefully. Standard rates achieved near-complete nitrogen fixation across all treatments, with %Ndfa (percentage of Nitrogen derived from the atmosphere) values at or above 90 per cent, meaning the crop was sourcing almost all of its nitrogen from atmospheric fixation rather than drawing on soil reserves. Doubling the inoculant rate did not improve fixation efficiency. However, the double inoculant treatment showed a small positive trend in biomass and yield relative to the control, and at an additional cost of only $24.50/ha, the project team considers this a potentially cost-effective option if the response proves consistent across seasons. We would be interested to hear from growers who have observed a similar biomass or yield response to higher inoculant rates in their own paddocks.
Economics
An indicative partial budget using variable input costs supplied by the host farmer shows a positive margin over variable inputs across all treatments. At a mid-range desi chickpea price of $700/t, core-zone margins over variable inputs ranged from approximately $1,190/ha for the control to $1,320/ha for the increased seeding rate treatment. Whole-paddock margins were lower, reflecting the waterlogging penalty on outer zones. These figures cover seed, seed treatments, fertiliser and the in-crop chemical program only, and exclude operations including seeding, spraying passes, harvest, freight and levies, which would typically add $250 to $350/ha or more depending on individual farm circumstances. At the lower price scenario of $615/t, whole-strip gross income falls by around $150/ha across all treatments. Growers should work through their own cost of production before drawing on these figures for rotation decisions.
The partial budget also does not capture nitrogen carryover to following crops, which is a meaningful part of the longer-term picture. All three treatments fixed nitrogen at levels suggesting a genuine contribution to the soil system, with the increased seeding rate treatment estimated at 83 kg N/ha fixed at the time of pre-flowering sampling. Post-harvest soil analysis recorded 10 mg NO?-N/kg in the 0 to 10 cm layer, with lower but detectable levels to 60 cm depth. Most of the nitrogen benefit from this season is likely held in crop residues and root biomass rather than immediately available as mineral nitrogen, and carryover to the following cereal should not be assumed to arrive quickly or in large amounts.
For Jim’s account of the season, including the decisions made at each stage and what he would carry forward, see the case study below.
The West Midlands Group’s heavy soil chickpea trial at Jim Hamilton’s property in Moora is approaching harvest, providing early insights into how Desi chickpeas perform in a challenging season. The site forms part of the broader GRDC funded, GGA led Grain Legumes Project and is testing whether management decisions such as seeding rate and inoculant loading influence establishment, biomass and nitrogen fixation on heavier country in the West Midlands region.
This update summarises findings to date, drawing on plant counts, biomass cuts, ¹?N analysis and seasonal constraints observed across the site. Final yield results will be reported once harvest is complete.
Trial design and seasonal context
The trial evaluated three treatments of Captain (Desi) chickpeas on heavy soil:
Treatment
Description
Control
3.5 kg/ha Nodulator, 100 kg/ha seed
Double inoculant
7 kg/ha Nodulator, 100 kg/ha seed
Increased seeding rate
3.5 kg/ha Nodulator, 130 kg/ha seed
The site experienced one of the most variable starts in recent seasons. Initial seeding on 14 April was followed by unseasonably hot and dry conditions through April and May, resulting in very poor establishment. The paddock was re-seeded on 9 June, after which plant numbers rapidly recovered, reaching target densities by early July.
From late July onward, the seasonal pattern reversed sharply. Rainfall at the nearby Barberton station far exceeded the long-term average in June, July and August, driving prolonged waterlogging in the top and bottom quarters of the paddock. This had a clear influence on crop development, with saturated soil becoming the dominant constraint through flowering and biomass sampling.
The 2024 soil tests (0–10 cm) indicated moderate phosphorus, high potassium, slightly acidic pH (5.7 CaCl?) and low organic carbon (1.01 per cent).
Establishment after reseeding
Plant establishment was measured twice: after the unsuccessful April sowing (8 June) and following the June reseeding (1 July). After the reseed, all treatments achieved strong and consistent establishment across the better-drained central portion of the paddock.
Figure 1 and 2. Plant establishment 1. Seeded on April 14th, Plant counts completed on the 8th of June. Plants/m2 (left) and Establishment % (right), Recommended establishment % is 80 percent germination of seeds.
While differences were not statistically significant, the increased seeding rate treatment recorded slightly higher plant numbers, aligning with expectations. By early July, establishment percentages across all treatments were close to the recommended 80 per cent germination benchmark.
Figure 3 and 4. Plant establishment 2. Re-seeded (100kg/ha) on June 9th, Plant counts completed on the 1st of July. Plants/m2 (left) and Establishment % (right), Recommended establishment is 80 percent germination of seeds.
Weed pressure
Weed counts taken at early flowering (21 August) showed no significant treatment effect, though the increased seeding rate plots carried marginally fewer weeds. Weed pressure was patchy, reflecting moisture variability and herbicide performance rather than treatment differences.
Figure 5. Weed counts in plants/m2 for each treatment on 21st of August.
Biomass development through winter
Early flowering biomass
The first biomass cuts (13 August) showed:
a clear trend toward higher early biomass in the increased seeding rate treatment
double inoculant and control treatments performing similarly
a separate “waterlogged reference” recording very low biomass due to persistent moisture stress.
Figure 6. Biomass in kg/ha for each treatment on the 13th of August.
These early results highlight chickpeas’ strong sensitivity to saturated soils. In low-lying areas, growth was severely restricted, with subsequent drone imagery (10 September) showing stark contrasts between waterlogged and better-drained zones.
Peak biomass
Peak biomass sampling on 7 October revealed a statistically significant treatment effect. The increased seeding rate treatment again produced the highest biomass, clearly above the control and double inoculant treatments.
Figure 8. Biomass in kg/ha for each treatment on 7th of October.
Waterlogged areas remained far lower in biomass across all treatments, confirming that soil moisture, not inoculant rate or disease, was the primary limiting factor this season.
Nitrogen fixation: a positive result
¹?N analysis conducted pre-flowering showed exceptionally strong nitrogen fixation across all treatments. Despite chickpeas often being considered “lazy nodulators”, the crop derived the vast majority of nitrogen from biological fixation.
Treatment
% N from atmosphere
N fixed (kg/ha)
Increased seeding rate
96.7%
83.2
Control
104.8%
59.4
Double inoculant
90.0%
64.7
The increased seeding rate fixed the most total nitrogen due to greater plant biomass at the time of sampling. Importantly, these values are likely conservative, as the crop continued to accumulate biomass beyond the sampling date.
Disease observations
No foliar diseases were detected during flowering, and the patchy chlorosis observed in low-lying areas was attributed to waterlogging rather than disease. Fungicide applications were effective, and there was no evidence of Ascochyta or Botrytis infection.
Key learnings so far
Based on the 2025 season to date, the following insights are emerging from the Moora heavy-soil trial:
Early drought followed by prolonged waterlogging created highly variable conditions across the site.
Reseeding in June restored plant establishment to target levels.
Increased seeding rate may improve canopy closure and weed competition.
Nitrogen fixation was very strong across all treatments, providing a positive contribution to soil nitrogen levels.
Waterlogging was the major limitation this season, rather than inoculant rate or foliar disease.
Yield results are still required to determine whether biomass differences translate into grain yield.
Current yield modelling suggests a potential yield of 4.29 t/ha, although actual values may vary depending on harvest conditions.
Next steps
Harvest results will be available shortly. These will help determine whether the benefits observed in biomass and N fixation carry through to final grain yield and what this means for chickpeas as a rotational option on heavy soils in the West Midlands region.
A full post-harvest report will be released in early 2026, including economic analysis and implications for growers considering chickpeas on heavier soil types.
Late-season NDVI imagery from the 2025 Ballidu potassium demonstration site, part of the GRDC funded K Extension Project, provided useful insights into treatment performance that were not visible through ground assessments alone. While early-season biomass cuts and plant tissue results showed minimal separation between potassium rates, the NDVI sequence revealed subtle differences in canopy development across soil types and treatments later in the season.
Early Season: Uniform NDVI Across Treatments
NDVI imagery from July and early August showed relatively uniform crop vigour across both trial sites. This aligned with field observations and GS30 biomass data, where no K treatment effects were detected. Early uniformity was expected, as potassium responses typically appear later in the season and soil type often plays a greater role than fertiliser rate at early stages.
Satellite imagery of NDVI of the trial site on 19/02/2025 taken from Data Farming website.Satellite imagery of NDVI of the trial site on 13/08/2025 taken from Data Farming website.
Late Season: NDVI Shows Increasing Variation
From September onwards, NDVI began to show clearer differences between treatments, particularly on the gravelly clay-loam (Site 2). While these differences did not translate into statistically significant treatment effects in biomass or tissue tests, the NDVI maps indicated variation in canopy density and greenness that was not evident during ground-based assessments.
These late-season contrasts suggest that NDVI is a useful tool for detecting subtle nutrient interactions and soil-related variation before yield measurements or further tissue analysis.
Satellite imagery of NDVI of the trial site on 02/09/2025 taken from Data Farming website.
Satellite imagery of NDVI of the trial site on 17/10/2025 taken from Data Farming website.
Reappearance of Historical N-Banking Strips
An unexpected outcome was the re-emergence of an old nitrogen-banking strip at Site 2 in the NDVI imagery. The grower reported that this strip had not produced visible responses or yield differences for several years, yet it became apparent in the 2025 imagery. This may reflect:
the interaction between residual N and the applied K treatments,
or improved root exploration in the gravelly profile.
This observation highlights the value of NDVI in identifying legacy nutrient effects that may not be visible on the ground.
Practical Implications for Growers
The NDVI monitoring at Ballidu demonstrated several practical points:
NDVI can detect small differences in canopy growth that field inspections may miss.
Potassium responses may not be strongly expressed early in the season, especially in sandy soils.
Historical nutrient treatments can reappear under favourable seasonal conditions.
NDVI is a useful tool for guiding targeted sampling, identifying management zones, and supporting interpretation of nutrient trials.
Summary
While ground measurements from the Ballidu trial did not show strong potassium treatment responses, NDVI provided an additional layer of evidence that helped identify subtle variations across soil types and historical nutrient zones. As a complementary monitoring tool, NDVI can improve understanding of nutrient behaviour and assist growers in evaluating trial performance and spatial variability within paddocks.
