Blog 2 - West Midlands Group

‘Flexible & Diverse Mixed Farming Systems’ Discussion Event – Farmer Summary

By Simon Kruger, WMG Project Communications Officer

Graham ‘Johno’ Johnson – Leearna Farm, Dandaragan

Opened up in the 50’s and cleared by his father, Johno took over Leearna Farm in the 80’s after the wool crash. The farm started conventionally with a focus on cropping and achieving higher yields but while yields were continually going up, inputs were also increasing. Around the 2000’s Johno made the decision to begin working towards a more ‘mixed’ farming system prioritising working with nature when yields started plateauing and the farm was having more issues with insects and diseases. Over the years Johno has worked ‘bit by bit’ to diversify his operation, with Leearna Farm continually evolving, now being 50% certified organic with a focus on diversity, long term sustainability and trying to keep away from the ‘nasties’.

Initial Discussion – Organic Operation

Leearna Farm has achieved 50% organic certification, primarily focusing on organic beef production with an expansion into organic lamb (Ultrawhite breed).

Breeding and Finishing: Calves are bred at Leearna and then moved to Dandaragan Organic Beef for finishing with the Cook family.
Quarantine and Organic Pastures: Upon arrival, animals undergo a 3-week quarantine period in designated paddocks before being introduced to certified organic pastures.
Calving and Herd Management: Replacement PTIC cows are brought in before the last trimester for calving. The cows never become organic certified. Only the calves grazed on certified organic land for at least the last trimester and all their life are eligible to be certified organic.
Rotational Grazing: Johno utilises rotational grazing, typically with a single large mob (ranging from 80 to 300 cattle) followed by sheep during the growing season. Sheep are particularly effective at eating radish that the cattle refuse to touch.
Soil Stewardship: Rotational grazing is employed not only for herd management but also to promote soil health. Johno is continuously seeking the best practices for sustainable land management and those that fit his system.

Paddock 1 – Turning Around a Challenging Paddock

Through dedicated effort and learning from setbacks, Johno has transformed one of Leearna’s worst paddocks into its best. This transformation required time and continuous adaptation. Each hurdle presented valuable learning opportunities for Johno.

Building with Treelines, Tagasaste and Perennials: In 2009 a single 95 Ha paddock was split into 4 cells with 30 m fenced treelines being planted to a large variety of trees and shrubs. Wide spaced Tagasaste with inter row perennial grasses was established inside the cells,
Managing Tagasaste: Tagasaste is cut back every 3-4 years to maintain its growth.
Addressing Sandy Soil Challenges: After initial setbacks with wind erosion stripping out the newly planted perennials, Johno incorporated 250t/ha clay, significantly improving soil stability and non-wetting. Then replanted perennials to avoid having bare areas.
Minimal Additional Inputs: Beyond the initial soil improvement with clay, there has been only one application of guano and lime since 2007.
Success Through System and Grazing: The combination of implementing a well-defined system and employing rotational grazing practices has been key to the paddock’s success.

Based on his experiences, Johno suggests the best success can be found in a 3-step system:

Invert: This initial step may involve disturbing the existing soil structure, potentially through soil amelioration or controlled grazing.
Stabilise: Incorporate organic matter and consider amendments like clay and guano, depending on needs and availability.
Sow: Once the soil is stabilised, introduce suitable pasture species, and implement a rotational grazing system.

Johno emphasises that this approach yields benefits beyond increased pasture production. The management has restored biodiversity, enhanced birdlife, and provided shelter for livestock.

Paddock 2 – First Crack at a Multispecies Mix

This section highlights Johno’s approach to utilising a 65-hectare paddock for lamb production with a multispecies pasture mix.

Paddock History and Preparation

The paddock was initially set up by using a knockdown, spreading crushed lime/dolomite, offset discing to incorporate and reduce non wetting.
The sowed multispecies mix included barley, lupins, wheat, cereal rye, clover, serradella, vetch, tillage radish, and forage brassica.

Planting and Grazing Strategy

The mix was sown relatively late in the season on June 30^th at 60 kg/ha of seed and 80 kg/ha of guano.
No further inputs or sprays applied.
On September 23rd, 500 mixed sex lambs were introduced to the paddock. 200 wether lambs were drafted off at the end of November with an average weight of 60kg and carcase weight of 28.2 kg. The remaining lambs stayed on the paddock with very minimal lupin supplementation until 14^th February when the dam water quality deteriorated.
The lambs displayed clear preferential grazing, with radish, brassica, lupin, and vetch being consumed first, followed by barley, wheat and finally the cereal rye.
Another paddock nearby was locked up and successfully harvested as mixed species seed for the following season to be sown in other paddocks.

Future Plans

The paddock will be left undisturbed this season to allow the multispecies mix to regenerate naturally, enabling Johno to assess its performance in the second year.

Key Takeaways

The lambs thrived on the diverse forage options provided by the multispecies mix.
The cereals, especially cereal rye played a crucial role in providing summer cover and soil stabilisation.
Maintaining a balanced ratio within the mix, with lower cereal content, is recommended to avoid dominance and ensure successful establishment of other species.
The success of this paddock allowed Johno to purchase an additional merino trade mob, demonstrating the positive impact of this strategy on farm operations.

Let us know if you’d like to join a WMG Discussion Group!

Stubble Management Project – 2023 Seasonal Update

By Melanie Dixon, WMG Mixed Faming Systems Officer

Key Messages

No clear differences between stubble management treatments for in-season biomass production and harvest yield.
Leaving stubble standing remains the simplest management option, in seasonally permitting conditions.

Background

Farmers across the Wheatbelt region of Western Australia require alternate strategies to manage the increased on-farm variability that accompanies a variable climate with reduced rainfall. In years where crop production is high, there is more crop stubble that forms a protective mulch layer over the soil, reducing soil water loss, wind erosion and contributes to maintaining soil carbon and nutrient levels. However, during dry years, particularly in canola and lupin crops, the amount of organic matter returning to the soil is severely reduced. To maintain optimal soil health outcomes, stubble management practices should be adapted to the season.

Methodology

WMG has collaborated with Corrigin Farm Improvement Group to establish six demonstration sites across the Northern and Central Wheatbelt region. The site layout is replicated at each of the demonstration sites (see Table 1).

Treatment #	Stubble Management Treatment
1	Standing stubble
2	Machinery Manipulation
3	Applied Bio-stimulant (UAN)

Table 1: Site Treatment Layout

There is a single application of each treatment at the beginning of the 2023 season before a return to standard management practices for the duration of the project. This includes crop rotation, inputs, and applications rates. Plant count, weed counts, biomass and yield measurements are recorded across 2023 and 2024 to compare each of the stubble treatment effects.

Results

In – season biomass production

Across all sites, irrespective of crop species and region, there is no clear difference in average biomass (kg/ha) in stubble management treatment, as shown in Figure 1. Throughout 2023, there were no reported visual differences in crop production, which is also reflected in the data displayed in Figure 1.

A similar result is found when comparing the data via region (Central Wheatbelt and Northern Wheatbelt) and crop type respectively (Figure 2). Although there is an increased biomass production in Central Wheatbelt – Wheat, the similarities between stubble treatments remain.

Figure 2: In-season biomass production (kg/ha) through Region and Crop Type.

Figure 3 shows the individual site in-season biomass production, accounting for rainfall and soil type variability. Northern Wheatbelt demonstration sites are 1 – 3 (top row) and Central Wheatbelt demonstration sites are 4 – 6 (bottom row). There is clear variability between sites, particularly where Site 4 exhibits increased biomass production. As with Figure 1 and Figure 2, Figure 3 suggests no distinct difference between stubble management treatments for in-season biomass production.

Figure 3: Biomass Production (kg/ha) through Sites 1 – 6.

Image 1: Biotimulant, control & machinery manipulation treatments (L-R) at Site 1 (Northern Wheatbelt) June 2023.

Yield

Figure 4 displays the yield data from the Northern Wheatbelt sites only. There are no clear differences in canola yield across the stubble management treatments. This aligns with Figures 1 – 3, where in-season biomass production remained consistent regardless of stubble management treatments. There are minor differences between yields at Site 2 – Wheat, where the machinery manipulation treatments yielded the highest. This result supported the host farmers prediction, where he had previously experienced increased yields in the season immediately following soil machinery manipulation. Visual differences at this site were also recorded in-season.

Discussion

The results of the 2023 season have demonstrated no differences in crop production between different stubble management practices. Due to the nature of a demonstration trial rather than replication, associations between yield, in-season biomass production and stubble management treatments are not definitive.

There was an increased stubble burden across all sites after a high production 2022 season. The project was originally devised as an opportunity to investigate management of large stubble burdens in above average rainfall years, and low stubble cover in dry years. Multiple factors may have affected the efficacy of treatments in the 2023 season, including a low average rainfall across both regions. Expectations amongst treatments included applied biostimulant increasing stubble breakdown and machinery manipulation increasing stubble soil contact, although possibly increasing the occurrence of nutrient tie-up. These expectations were not met, with no differences recorded between treatments, leading to the conclusion that leaving standing stubbles remains the simplest management option. Multiple factors such as ease of seeding and increased time for biomass breakdown remain when leaving stubbles standing with no treatments, however results from the 2024 season may change this report’s initial observations.

More Information

More information about this project can be found on the Stubble Management Project page.

Increasing the profitability of double break crop rotations using a high value legume in the Wheatbelt of WA

By Nathan Craig, WMG Chief Executive Officer

Key messages

Double break crop sequences can be more profitable than current canola-cereal sequences.
Early sowing can be a significant driver of profitability for chickpea, especially mid-April sowing.
Weed populations increased in the chickpea phase but did not cause issues in the following cereal crop.

Background

Break crops are widely acknowledged as being necessary to manage the biological constraints that reduce cereal crop production. However, one of the constraints in the use of break crops is that the Gross Margin of the commonly used break crops are generally less than growing a cereal crop. To combat severe biological constraints to crop production (high weed population and/or soil pathogens) break crops have traditionally been used as a single crop in rotation. The use of two break crops in sequence has been shown to improve the effectiveness of this approach, particularly as shifts in disease presence, and increases herbicide resistance in weeds has reduced the effectiveness of a single break crop. However, the use of break crops is limited to situations where the biological constraint has a greater impact on profitability relative to the lower profitability (Gross Margin) of the break crop.

The most desired traits of a break crop are to be highly effective in controlling weeds and soil pathogens while also being highly profitable. Current highly effective break crop options of canola and lupin are rated as moderate to low profitability (respectively) by growers, while pasture phases or fallow period generally result in a low or negative Gross Margin.

This study investigated the profitability of growing canola (with effective weed control options) followed by a high value legume (with higher economic value) as an effective and profitable double break crop sequence. The contribution of an early sowing date versus a traditional sowing date to further increase the profitability of the high value legume was also evaluated.

Methodology

The double break crop sequence was evaluated at 6 demonstration sites (no replication) over three years in the Western Australian Wheatbelt region. An existing paddock of canola or fallow (depending on rainfall zone) was selected to grow a high value legume and then follow this with a cereal crop on a wide range of soil types that are prevalent across the region. Crop growth was monitored along with grain yield, and the Gross Margin was calculated to give an overall return on the three-year crop sequence. Rainfall at most sites had a combination of a below and above average seasonal rainfall that impacted on the growth and grain yield of either the double-break crop or the following cereal crop, but not both.

Results

**Figure 1.** Cumulative Gross Margin over three years for each double-break crop rotation at each site compared to current practice (dark bars) in this study. Sites presented contained 3 years of data to include the first and second break crop, followed by cereal. Ca=Canola, Ch-L=Chickpea-Late sown, Ch-E=Chickpea-Early sown, L-L=Lentil-Late sown, AL=Albus Lupin, FP=Fieldpea, Fa=Fallow, W=Wheat, B=Barley, O=Oats.

There was large variation between sites for the Cumulative Gross Margin of the double-break crop sequence of Canola (or Fallow) followed by a legume and was reflective of the range of annual rainfall and grain yield potential for each site (Figure 1). Within each site, a strong trend was that the inclusion of a double-break crop led to a similar or greater cumulative Gross Margin over the 3-year period. Within the double-break legume phase, the early time of sowing tended to give an increase in grain yield for chickpea and this was a significant driver of the increase in Gross Margin. Some sites were discontinued after the high value legume year following poor crop growth and this resulted in a lower two-year Cumulative Gross Margin compared to growing wheat after a single break (data not presented).

**Figure 2.** Gross Margin of cereal crops following a double-break for all sites that completed the 3-year crop sequence. Dark bars denote current practice for each site. Sequence abbreviations: Ca=Canola, Ch-L=Chickpea-Late sown, Ch-E=Chickpea-Early sown, L-L=Lentil-Late sown, AL=Albus Lupin, FP=Field pea, Fa=Fallow, W=Wheat, B=Barley, O=Oats.

The was a trend that the Gross Margin of cereal crops was improved in the third phase of the crop sequence following a double break crop sequence (Figure 2). There was no consistent trend in the effect of time of sowing for chickpea on subsequent cereal grain yield, however, the Gross Margin and grain yield were increased by the preceding legume crop when the legume grain yield was low, independent of the time of sowing.

**Figure 3.** Comparison of early sown (left) versus late sown (right) chickpea at Wickepin on the 17^th August, 2021. The alternate plot can be seen in each photo for reference as well as tree in left of both pictures. Photo: Amy Bowden (Facey Group).

There was also a trend that the total weed population in the third-year cereal or second-year legume were higher after the double break crop sequence compared to standard practice of growing two cereal crops following canola or fallow (when measured at GS.30 growth stage for cereals) (data not presented). The use of canola or fallow as the first crop in the double break sequence appeared effective at lowering weed numbers, while weed populations tended to be higher in the high value legume year. Weed control in the cereal crop year appeared effective in ensuring that weed populations do not get out of control as total weed population was around 50 plants/m² for double break crop sequences.

The impact of double break crop sequences on the four main soil pathogens in WA was not clear in this study (data not presented). The level of soil pathogen varied between sites and years, with the major soil pathogens being P. neglectus and R. solani AG8. Within each site, there was evidence that each crop sequence had a greater impact on changing the relative proportions of soil pathogens rather than an overall reduction in pathogen levels. The structure of this study limited the collection of soil pathogen data prior to the double break being implemented.

Discussion

This study has shown that a double break crop sequence can be more profitable than a single break where a high value legume (chickpea) can be successfully grown across the Wheatbelt of WA. This was shown across a range of soil types and rainfall zones in this study, with a key outcome being that chickpea were successfully grown in soil types and regions that were not considered to be suited to growing this legume crop. The early seeding of a high value legume in Mid-April rather than Mid-May was an effective practice to increase grain yield and drive profitability of the legume compared to the late sowing timing for every paired sowing date. It appears that the potential for chickpea to be a profitable break crop is underestimated in WA with the current agronomy packages and genetic material available.

A double break crop sequence can be a profitable option for growers in the Wheatbelt region of WA to boost the both the following cereal crop and be profitable in each year of the crop rotation. This benefit to the productivity of cropping in this region is based on the amelioration and removal of soil constraints that have previously impeded the growth of chickpea on soils other than heavy clay types. Strategies have been employed by growers over the past 10 years to remove soil compaction (deep ripping), soil water repellence (rotary spading, mouldboarding), and soil acidity (lime application). The result is a soil that is no longer inhospitable for chickpea and lentil growth. It is, however, difficult to estimate the amount of land that has been effectively ameliorated in the past 10 years where all constraints are now removed. While the focus of soil amelioration has been on the impact of these practices on wheat production, perhaps the most significant benefit for grain production from the removal of soil constraints may be the ability of growers to now diversify their crop options to further improve profitability with a lower risk of failure. Through this study and other related projects, chickpea production on other soil types has been de-risked for adoption by the practice of early sowing, which has been shown to increase grain yield on a range of soils in the Wheatbelt region, from deep coloured sands to sandy loam and clay soils.

While by no means conclusive, the data collected in this study indicates that weed populations are likely to increase in the legume phase of the double break sequence, but this does not cause a weed ‘blowout’ in the subsequent cereal crop. A barrier to successful weed control was encountered in this project where we found very limited knowledge among agronomic advisors on how to successfully grow high value legumes, especially in applying effective herbicide packages using the new chemical options now available.

More Information

Contact WMG for a copy of the full report, visit the GRDC website, or via https://www.farmtrials.com.au/

Acknowledgements

This project was a GRDC investment which was led by the West Midlands Group over the 2020-2022 period in collaboration with the Liebe Group, Facey Group, and Corrigin Farm Improvement Group. We thank all the growers who contributed to this project.

CEO Report: Continuing the evolution of WMG

By Nathan Craig, WMG Chief Executive Officer

It is a really exciting time to be at the helm of WMG as we take the covers off a whole suite of innovation in the way we engage and deliver to our farming members. Read on to learn more about how WMG will be working with its farming community in 2024.

For the past three years, WMG has been focused on answering one question – How do we deliver the outcomes that we promise in our project applications? This has led us to tear apart the whole organisation and put it back together, piece by piece, in order to address this question. There are three key aspects of project delivery that we focus on, including activities, outputs, and outcomes, with each leading to the next in order to achieve what the project has been designed for. To achieve this, we have had to change the way we structure the activities and outputs of the organisation. Many of the tools that we needed to engage effectively with our farming community were already in use by WMG, but they needed to be trimmed and polished a bit to get them working better together. This restructure does have an impact (hopefully positive) on our farming community.

Activities are what we do in the field and are now focused on working with our farming members to trial and make an informed decision on whether or not to adopt a new practice or technology. You can read about this in other posts on the WMG website, but in essence, our role is to support farmers to work through the innovation and decide if it is right for them – not all practices or technologies are universally adoptable. We encourage our farming members to reach out with an idea or challenge to address – chances are that we have a project that you can slip straight into with other like-minded farmers.

Our outputs have two main focuses – they are what come from our on-ground activities.

We are engaging directly with our farming community through small group activities to facilitate information sharing in the region. My view has always been that if you want a problem solved, just get a handful of farmers in the room – their experience and know-how will soon find an answer. The calendar is being filled with a range of small group meetings during the year on a range of topics – we encourage all members to find the ones that resonate most with them and come along. This approach varies from the traditional grower group practice of having large, full-day events with multiple topics and speakers, and allows greater farmer engagement and discussion on a specific topic.

All the activities and outputs from WMG are now housed on the WMG website for each project, along with the latest news and calendar of events. I encourage everyone to take a look through the websites as there are some fun things to play with that have been scattered throughout the site. I would like to acknowledge WMG Extension Officers Simon Kruger for his massive efforts in developing this website, and Melanie Dixon for helping to get all of the project information up on the website. There is still way more information and innovation to find its way to the website, and we will let you know in due course when we do our updates.

To reflect the many changes in the organisation, there has been a restructure of our roles within WMG.

On a sad note, we recently said farewell to Michelle Johnson after nearly three years of service to WMG. Michelle has left a significant legacy in the organisation after helping to develop a lot of the back-end processes and frameworks that we need to be an efficient organisation, much of this won’t be visible to our members. We wish Michelle all the best in her future endeavours.

The remaining roles of WMG have been reclassified to better reflect where the organisation has grown to in the past two years. My role has now moved up to Chief Executive Officer to reflect the professional approach that the organisation and board have adopted, and in recognition of the depth and complexity of the process that we have in place across the organisation.

The roles of Communications and Project Officers has become quite blurry of late as we focus strongly on extension and now our on-ground team have transitioned to an Extension Officer role. Each extension officer has their specialisation, with Melanie focusing on data and project management and Simon on media and stakeholder engagement. We envisage that future Extension Officer roles will include other specialisations as the organisation and the needs of our members evolve.

Moving forward, the speed of change appears to be increasing as we complete many of our planned changes for this year. There are a number of posts on the website now that outline the process that has moved WMG to the strong position that we are now in. The capacity built in the organisation during this time will serve well into the future, but the way we have gone about innovating within the organisation will allow WMG to continue to evolve well into the future.

Better ways to engage with WMG in 2024

By Nathan Craig, WMG Chief Executive Officer

WMG continues to innovate in the way it supports it farming community to profitably grow farming businesses in the region. Read on to find out how to access timely and relevant information through on-farm trials and events, the WMG website, and our streamlined newsletters.

The learning preferences and the way that farmers engage in learning about new practices has changed significantly in the past few years. In response, WMG has developed a new model for delivering timely and relevant information based on the research that we have completed in the past year on how farmers want to engage and receive information. You can read about this here.

On-farm events

The primary way that we support farming businesses to evaluate new practices and technologies is now through small, on-farm group discussion style events that are based on our highly successful ‘Pasture Drive’ series held in 2022/23. This informal style of event encourages farmers to share and learn in a supportive environment without being ‘talked at’ by industry peers. Researchers and industry are invited to attend these meetings, but this participatory approach to extension everyone means that everyone is equal in the conversation.

In the coming years, WMG will support many groups of farmers to come together to explore a range of issues and opportunities for the region and to identify the best path forward that helps to achieve the sustainable growth of agriculture. Best of all, it is done while having a sticky beak at a member property!

Through our research, small group engagement that is focused on a specific topic are considered to be a better use of farmers time and also allows farmers to come and learn, share knowledge, and leave each group meeting with something that they can implement in their business or investigate further.

Working with farmers

The second way that WMG supports our members is through helping farmers to evaluate new practices and technologies that could improve the profitability of their farming business. Our members are encouraged to identify an issue or opportunity for their farm business and work with the WMG Team to conduct a trial, collect data, and collate this into a useable format for review. This model has been successful in ensuring that farmers have the information at hand to make well-informed decisions on whether or not to adopt a new farming practice or technology into their business.

The challenges and opportunities that we tackle in this approach are ones that are likely to provide a step change in agricultural practices to ensure that our members are still profitable, sustainable, and confident in running their business in 5 years time.

Online access to local information

The WMG website has recently had an upgrade in our quest to facilitate knowledge sharing for the region. In the past, our activities were blasted across the website, social media, local and state newspapers, e-newsletters, and the WMG Quarterly. This made it difficult to show how the full body of work that has been completed for a project, but not any more!

The new website will house all our content for projects and allow greater searchability of projects, posts, and events. Each project page has a range of interactive content and the latest updates, podcasts, reports, and background information to learn more about each farming practice that could help to improve the bottom line of farming businesses in the region.

All of the latest updates to the information will be communicated by social media in real time as they go live on the website, and at the end of the month, the WMG ‘What You Missed’ email summarises all of the month’s activities so that our farming community are fully across the new information for the region.

A bit more about us

WMG supports the sustainable growth of agriculture in the West Midlands region of Western Australia. As changes to farming practices becomes increasingly complex and harder to implement, our goal it is to demystify, simplify, and reduce the friction for farmers to adopt new practices and technologies. Our farming members will feel confident and supported when responding to the many future challenges and ensure they don’t feel the pressure of social license, regulation, and legislative impacts of changes to the agricultural industry.

Increasing engagement: Learning how farmers learn

By Nathan Craig, WMG Chief Executive Officer

In a deviation from the status quo of normal farming systems group focus, WMG has been investing over 20% of its resources to understand how best to engage farmers in delivering much needed innovation to ensure they have the tools required to be profitable and sustainable in the future. Read on to see what we have learned over the past two years.

The impetus for conducting this research has been the gradual decline in farmer attendance at key events such as our Seasonal Updates and Spring Field Day events which have typically been the large, book-end events for our organisation. Over the past 10 years, we have seen farmer attendance drop from 150 down to 60 at the Spring Field Day in 2023. Our aim was to understand the driving factors behind this change, and whether there was a simple or complex fix. Like everything in agriculture, the answer was not a simple yes or no, but that it depends.

WMG has been conducting a bi-annual survey of its members at its large events for the past 3 years which has helped to understand the local issues, opportunities, and ways that farmers choose to engage locally. A key insight that we have gained here is that farmers often learn from greater than seven sources of information when looking for new farming practices. This has helped to avoid a myopic view of what we do, in that WMG is just one of many sources of information that are available in the decision-making process. The question then arises of “What is our role in the information and extension ecosystem?” and “What information do we need to deliver and how?”

To learn more about the demographics of farmers across the region and their attitudes towards soil health (a long-term topic within WMG), WMG partnered with Dr Hanabeth Luke from Southern Cross University (SCU, NSW), the Liebe Group, WANTFA, and Wheatbelt NRM to survey the lower half of the Northern Agricultural Region of WA on a range of topics. This comprehensive survey confirmed many of our guesses for the attitudes towards managing soil health, including some of the drivers of adopting new practices for farmers, other than just profitability and productivity.

Our involvement in the Soil CRC, a national co-operative research centre focused on developing high performing soils, has allowed us to develop good working relationships with other farming systems groups across Australia. Through conversation, the issue of declining farmer attendance was something that we all came back to in discussion. A Soil CRC project led by Dr Hanabeth Luke (SCU) supported WMG and Central West Farming Systems (NSW), Birchip Cropping Group (Vic), Agricultural Innovation and Research – Eyre Peninsula (SA) farming systems groups to share our collective knowledge and experience on engaging farmers to come up with a ‘Knowledge Sharing Guide’ that will guide future farmer engagement. This document (available through the Soil CRC) explored successful engagement of farmers in field walks, soil pit days, social media, and discussion session type events and was a huge step forward in finding common ground in what works and what doesn’t.

There has been a fair bit of trial and error as well in this process. Through our regular project meetings, a pilot idea for a ‘pasture-drive’ event was hatched by the young, and at that time inexperienced WMG Team where we get farmers to stand in a paddock and talk about farming. The more experienced of the group suggested that there was a high chance of failure as there needs to be more structure and a guest speaker, but we progressed nonetheless and this has now become highly successful model and the preferred way that WMG engages with its members.

Through the delivery of many state-wide projects and collaborating with farming systems groups in WA, it became apparent to WMG that the style and quality of reporting of trial results was extremely variable. In thinking of the earlier finding that farmers learn from greater than 7 sources of information, it posed the question: whether farmers are unable to find all the information in one place to make an informed decision? A project that is just nearing completion is focused on improving the information presented to farmers from trials so they can make informed decision on whether or not to adopt new farming practices or technologies. Again, collaborating nationally with other farming systems groups and Charles Sturt University, a more comprehensive and standardised report format has been developed based on farmer survey and feedback during the project. The insights gained from this process have been pivotal in helping the WMG Team to understand what is really important to farmers, including that the cost of implementing a new practice or technology is now assessed not only on financial cost but on the time cost to the farmer to implement as well.

Through collaborating with universities and other farming systems groups across Australia, WMG has been able to increase its knowledge of effective farmer engagement and shape a new extension program that increases the engagement of our farming community across the region. This has helped the team to design better, more engaging projects for our farmers, understand what works and what doesn’t (and when), and significantly reduce the amount of useless information cluttering up our inboxes and social media feed. This research has been a significant step in understanding our role in supporting the sustainable growth of agriculture in the West Midlands region of WA and how we can better deliver value to our farming members.

WMG would like to acknowledge the support of the Soil CRC in funding many of these projects listed above and the collaboration of the many farming systems groups across Australia that have taken part in open and honest conversations that have allowed many of the key insights in the projects to be explored and built upon.

Examining variance in crop production levels through soil test comparisons

By Joy Sherlock, Valle Agribusiness and Environmental Services

Interpretation of lab data and graphical results for CB1 and CB2 Paddocks. Two sections of one paddock were tested to identify potential variances between production levels that had been noted. One section in particular; in CB1 has been outperforming CB2 for some unknown reason even though it is apparent CB1 (outside of this small area) is not a great performing area.

First paddock area CB1

At the time of soil sampling CB1 paddock area (previously used for canola, now pasture) we planned to collect 0 – 10 cm, 10 – 20 cm and 20 – 30 cm samples (34 sub samples of each). Due to the excessive rocky nature of the ground we also had to utilise handheld sampling gear and were unable to get enough soil from 10-20 cm depth for testing so potentially 20 -30cm is more reflective of the 10 – 20 cm depth.

The samples were collected in a grid pattern over entire area for optimal scientific representation of the average of the paddock, avoiding some of the excessive variability we often see within paddocks.

Soil texture was sandy loam over sand. As mentioned, the paddock was extremely rocky (gravelly) and quite hard.

pH levels are fine at both depths. The 0-10 cm depth has a lower CEC (2.78) then 20 – 30 cm (4.05) conversely to lab soil texture guides specified as sandy loam over sand. We need to be aware that loading lots of cations into the soil (e.g., Calcium) shows elevated CEC – sand can have apparent CEC of 8 if lots of calcium in the soil. Perhaps in this situation a higher CEC at depth is due to excessive K cations or higher Ca and magnesium at depth.

Phosphorous (P) levels are very low at both depths. Low levels need to be improved.

Generally, across other farms, most parameters are reduced as the depth increases. But in this case K, Mg, Ca, Na, Zn, Fe, Mn, NO3 and S are higher in the lower depth reflecting the CEC and increased nutrient exchange and holding capacity in the lower depths.

PBI is on the very low to low end of the scale (16 – 61) indicating plant available P (higher PBI soil binds P). Total P indicates some P is available via microbial activity to plant also. Potassium is sufficient in the top 0 – 10 cm and even higher at depth.

Low magnesium is apparent in the top 0 -10 cm with good levels in the lower depths.

Calcium is also low in the top 0 -10 cm. Sufficient in the lower depth. The Ca:Mg ratio is little out of balance with more calcium then required (even though both are very low in the top 10 cm).

In this situation it may be useful to improve the basic soil fertility/balance and productivity. Keep in mind long term use of Urea or Ammonia compounds, especially if combined with high concentrations of Sulphur not only increase acidity but at the same time reduce the active soil Calcium concentration.

Sodium also very low (0 – 10 cm) and low in the 20 – 30 cm. Trace elements are all generally low except for zinc which is sufficient in the topsoil and higher at depth.

Boron is low at both depths (0.19 and 0.29 respectively versus ideal range of 0.5 – 2 mg/kg).

Nitrate Nitrogen is low in the top depth and higher at depth. A low C:N ratio indicates sufficient N in the system if high organic matter is existing however organic matter is low to midrange. All soils in the wheatbelt have a typically low OM content so keep an eye on N levels. The balance of Nitrate to Ammonium Nitrogen (2.6:3.5 and 3.9:4) is out of balance with not enough Nitrate N in the system which does show little mineralisation is occurring. Total Nitrogen levels (0.089% – 0.11% Total N x 10 000 = 890 – 1100) are ok showing some N in system that can be utilised if microbiological activity is occurring.

The low C:N ratio can also indicate a soil structure problem, with field work also indicating very hard (and rocky) soil, potentially being an issue but not necessarily due to human induced compaction.

As Sodium is low at both depths there would be no issues using Muriate of Potash in the future (can exacerbate soils with high sodium but a more affordable option for K applications).

Sulphur is low (12) to adequate in the top depth but is very high (33) in the lower depth which can cause toxicity. I do suspect that is why there is a better performing area in the first section (CB1) as CB2 has what can be interpreted at nearly toxic levels in the top and lower depth. S is showing up as more acceptable at times in the graphs due to the lower concentrations of other parameters as we look at “balance”.

Feedback from locals in the area have brought up the interesting considerations of tectonic plate fault lines in the region!

Second Paddock Area CB2

Again, sampling to the three depths occurred with 34 sub samples taken at each of the 3 depths. This area is used for canola. In field observations over time have noted it is a lesser performing area then certain sections of CB1.

The pH levels are fine in all depths to 30 cm. CEC is quite good consistent with loam/sand ranging from sand on top to loamy sand at depth so acceptable/good nutrient holding ability.

An interesting point (Similar to CB1 but different per depth impacted) is that CEC at 0 – 10 cm is 5.94 but it is a sand and that is a higher CEC then loamy sand at depth (4.27 and 5.38). Possibly excessive calcium in soil is acting as increased CEC.

P levels again are really low. Generally, most parameters are reduced as the depth increases however in this situation, they seem to drop at depth but then increase in the lower depth again which is a great indication of the nutrient holding capacity increase with higher CEC and OM content at depth.

PBI is on the low end of the scale indicating potential of plant available P (higher PBI soil binds P).

Total P indicates some P is available via microbial activity to plant also if the system is functional.

Potassium is sufficient in all depths.

Magnesium is sufficient through the profile but lower at 10 – 20 cm.

Calcium is also quite high. The Ca:Mg ratio is generally out of balance with more calcium then required compared to Magnesium.

Sodium is sufficient in top depth lower at depth.

Trace elements are all low except for Zinc which is sufficient on the top and at depth.

Boron is fine.

Nitrate Nitrogen is sufficient in the topsoil and lower at depth. A low C:N ratio indicates sufficient N in the system if high organic matter is existing. All soils in the wheatbelt have a typically low OM content so keep an eye on N levels as very volatile. The balance of Nitrate to Ammonium Nitrogen is surprisingly well balanced in the topsoil (8.1:3.6) indicating mineralisation is occurring. Total Nitrogen levels are also looking quite high (0.14 x 10 000 = 1400). The low C:N ratio can also indicate a soil structure problem, with field work also indicating very hard (and rocky) soil, potentially being an issue (less O2 circulation in pore spaces). Cultivation may improve aeration but would be difficult in this paddock due to the rocks.

Sufficient to low sodium levels through the depths.

All trace elements are low except for Zinc.

Sulphur is quite high (even though showing as green, 31 in the topsoil can potentially be causing some toxicity. Lower at 20 – 10 cm and again high at 20 – 30 cm.

Having a closer look at comparisons of CB1 and CB2 paddock areas (0-10 cm) results

Similarity between these two sections of the paddock in the 0-10 cm depth, are the low P, sufficient K, low Cu, adequate Zn, low Fe.

**Figure 4.** CB1 Area VS CB2 0-10 cm results.

In general, all major and trace elements are lower in the CB1 area that includes the better performing area.

I do suspect that excessive Calcium (can affect uptake of other nutrients) and Sulphur (S) in CB2 explains why there is a better performing area in the first section (CB1) as CB2 has what can be interpreted at nearly toxic levels in the top and lower depth. S is showing up as more acceptable at times in the graphs due to the lower concentrations of other parameters as we look at “balance”.

Sulphur whilst illustrated as ok, 31 versus 12 in 0-10 from CB2 to CB1 is quite a bit higher, may indicate slight impact on performance with CB1 having lower S in 0 – 10cm main root zone. Sulphur in general is very high in this paddock, is it due to long term fertiliser applications or something to do with the fault lines in the region?

Overall, we received a significant amount of information from this initial testing program, it would be very useful to follow up with tissue tests within the season to confirm efficiencies/deficiencies and further soil testing in the next year. This allows us to assess changes and soil nutrient balance as we do have capacity to improve the system, impact soil structure and improve production at the same time as applying what fertilisers are needed (not applying what is not needed) and potentially in this economic climate saving quite a few $$$ whilst better managing the environmental health of our land.

Nitrogen source in wheat, Dandaragan

By Isaac Gilchrist, Summit Fertilizers Field Research Officer

Key Points

This Summit trial investigated five nitrogen sources, including one of our EEF (Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizer) products.
In-season biomass, harvest yield and protein results were consistent across all treatments, and therefore there were no significant differences between N sources.
There was no significant financial advantage from using one N source over another, reinforcing the idea that on-farm logistics and requirements for other nutrients would be greater determinants of choice.
Using the urease inhibitor-coated urea was no less profitable than using the standard urea under 2023 conditions and could be considered a good insurance policy.

Trial Aim

With many nitrogenous fertilizers available in the market, giving growers confidence when choosing or switching products is important – particularly with the recent market volatility and unavailability of some products. This trial is part of a series comparing some available nitrogen (N) products, all at one rate, to evaluate any differences and potential benefits, with this one being conducted in the Dandaragan area. A urease inhibitor product was also included in this trial to assess if there is any production advantages or disadvantages from the application of this product.

Trial Design

Calibre wheat, sown at 80 kg/ha, with all basal nutrients applied to meet the needs of the site. The red sandy loam site experienced just below average growing season rainfall (302mm – decile 4 season), with a dry finish.

The five N sources tested were Urea, Urea coated with urease inhibitor, UAN, UreaPlus (NS granule), and MAXamFLO (NS liquid).

In-Season Results

Emergence recorded at 3-leaf was consistent across all treatments and exceeded the target rate. Wheat shoot biomass assessments taken at mid-tillering and flag -1 showed no significant differences between N sources.

Harvest Results

Yields were very consistent across the treatments, with a range of 4.8t/ha to 4.9t/ha, and 12 to 12.7% protein, with all treatments graded as H2 (figure 1). There were no significant differences between N sources (p=0.78). Gross margins only had a range of $34/ha from the lowest to highest treatments.

**Figure 1**. Harvest yield (t/ha), grain protein (%) and indicative gross margins ($/ha), based on grain value minus fertilizer cost.

Discussion

The trial results were not unexpected, given many years of research looking at N source. The majority of trials show that rate and timing are more influential on profitability than N source. On-farm logistics, along with the need for other nutrients such as S or K, tend to be the determining factors when deciding which N source is best for each situation.

The results from 2023 in Dandaragan show that there is no detriment to profitability by using a urease inhibitor-coated product. Using the inhibitor products may be a good insurance policy and will undoubtedly have a positive outcome in certain circumstances. Trials investigating EEFs will be ongoing by Summit Field Research.

More Information

This is a brief version of the trial report. Contact your Summit Area Manager for further details.

Summit Fertilizers have been a long term supporter of the West Midlands Group.

Banding potassium increased profits from K fertiliser at Wyalkatchem

By Andreas Neuhaus, CSBP Fertilisers Research Agronomist

A CSBP trial near Wyalkatchem in 2023 showed that banding K-Till Extra on its own or with muriate of potash (MoP) at seeding was superior to topdressing MoP either pre- or post-seeding.

The highest wheat yield response (0.8 t/ha) came from topdressing 180 kg MoP/ha in June (Table 1). Every potassium (K) treatment was profitable, but the K banding treatment with 30 kg K/ha stood out as the most profitable treatment at this trial site.

Due to very low K reserves (Colwell-K = 15 mg/kg in the 0 – 10 cm layer and <15 mg/kg at 10 – 50 cm), rates needed to be lifted above 15 kg K/ha. Where no K was applied (treatment 1 in Table 1), yield was low and protein was high.

Placement and timing

Cereal plants need access to adequate levels of soil K early in the growing season and applications later than June may not be as effective – see the results in Table 1. Topdressed K needs rain to move it into the soil for root uptake. Growing season rainfall was 173 mm with most of the rain falling before the end of June. The later rainfall events were significantly smaller, which would have delayed the movement of K into the root zone for plant uptake.

The timing of topdressed K, either pre- or post-seeding, did not impact yield as much as banding K at seeding. Banding K puts it closer to the seed, which in this case led to superior yield results.

***Table 1.*** Treatments, grain yield and economic assessment from a trial at Wyalkatchem, 2023. The most profitable K strategy at this site (highlighted) was obtained by banding K-Till/MoP at seeding. All plots received 77 kg N/ha. *Assuming wheat price = $ 340/ t, K cost = $ 1.7/kg (MoP), $ 2.7/kg (K-Till).

Potassium use efficiency

Potassium use efficiency (KUE) was highest where K was banded. This was calculated as yield increase divided by the K rate applied. At 15 kg K/ha banded, the agronomic KUE was 17 kg grain per kg K applied and at a rate of 30 kg K/ha the KUE was 21 kg grain/kg K applied.

In contrast, the KUE was only 6 – 7 kg grain/kg K applied when 30 – 90 kg K/ha was applied pre-seeding (April) and 7 – 12 kg grain/kg K applied when the same amount of K was applied post-seeding (June). The increased vigour from banding K was also observed in the field trial (Figure 1).

***Figure 1.*** Field plots at Wyalkatchem showing the treatments receiving 15 kg K/ha banded as K-till at seeding (plot on the left) and a plot that received 30 kg K/ha as MoP top-dressed 11 days before seeding (right).

It is important to soil test to depth for K. If the soil is K deficient, consider the best placement and timing for the recommended K rate. To give plant roots the earliest access to K, banding K close to the seed using a compound fertiliser with better nutrient distribution is better than using a higher concentrated product like MoP (that provides the same amount of K).

Find out more about this trial here.

CSBP have been a long term supporter of the West Midlands Group.

Carbon farming funding opportunities

By Edward Day, RSM Senior Manager – Government Grants, Perth

Government funding to support your carbon sequestration and land restoration projects

In response to the transition to net zero, governments are making funds available to farmers and landowners to implement carbon farming projects. Carbon farming refers to land management practices that sequester carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon farming can range from a single change in land management to a whole-of-farm integrated plan which maximises carbon capture and emissions reduction.

Carbon farming offers environmental benefits, such as enhanced biodiversity, increased soil fertility, and economic gains from increased productivity. It can also generate a diversified income stream by creating carbon credits known as Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs). Each ACCU represents one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions stored or avoided by a project.

Queensland and Western Australia

The Queensland and Western Australian Governments provide landowners access to up-front funding for their carbon farming projects in return for an agreed number of ACCUs over a negotiated period.

The Queensland Government’s $500m Land Restoration Fund provides funding via its Investment Rounds with up to $50m available in Round 3 which closed in late 2023. Further funding will be available later in 2024.

In Western Australia, Round 3 of the $15m Carbon Farming & Land Restoration Program will open next week. Funding will be available to plan and implement soil carbon and land restoration projects and will be repaid over up to 10 years with an agreed number of ACCUs. There is no cap on the funding amount that each project can apply for within the round’s funding pool.

Victoria and New South Wales

Other jurisdictions such as Victoria and New South Wales offer grant funding that does not require repayment via ACCUs.

The $15.3m Victorian Carbon Farming Program is being initiated via a $3m pilot. Private landowners within the North Central Catchment Management Authority (NCCMA) region can access up to $330,000 to implement a broad suite of tree planting projects and management approaches.

The $10m High Impact Partnerships grant program in New South Wales offers up to $2m in matched funding for emissions reduction projects in agriculture or sequestration in soils or vegetation. The partnership approach is designed to unlock abatement at scale across multiple land tenures. A new round of funding is anticipated in April.

The carbon farming funding landscape is constantly changing so if you are planning a carbon farming project, it pays to seek support early so that you are well-positioned as funding opportunities arise.

More information

If you would like to learn more about the topics discussed in this article, please contact your local RSM office.

RSM have been a long term supporter of the West Midlands Group.