Nitrate Nitrogen vs. Total Nitrogen: Making Sense of Plant Analysis

By Kate Parker, WMG Project Officer

Plant tissue testing can sometimes throw up numbers that don’t seem to add up. At a local wheat trial site, tissue samples taken at GS30 (stem elongation) showed that some treatments had about five times more nitrate nitrogen than others — yet the total nitrogen levels across treatments were almost the same. This raised a question that many farmers might also ask when looking at their own test results: how can nitrate-N be so different while total N hardly changes?

The Soil Water Repellence Project trial site at the Minty’s property in Dandaragan.
The Trial Site

This work took place at the Minty’s property in Dandaragan, where 2025 marked the first year of a soil water repellence project trial site. The site is being used to look at how different mechanical tillage treatments affect crop establishment, nutrient uptake, and soil condition. The GS30 plant analysis provided an early opportunity to see how nitrogen was behaving under these contrasting management approaches.

Nitrate-N and Total N: What’s the Difference?

Nitrogen in plants comes in more than one form. Nitrate (NO??) is the main form taken up from the soil, especially after fertiliser or mineralisation. But once it’s inside the plant, most nitrate doesn’t stay as nitrate for long. The plant converts it into amino acids and proteins, which is where the real growth benefit comes from.

Figure 1. Diagram showing the basics of nitrogen fertiliser conversion to plant growth.

A tissue test that measures nitrate-N is picking up what’s sitting in the plant waiting to be converted. A total nitrogen test includes both the nitrate and all the organic forms, so it shows the whole picture. That’s why two samples can have very different nitrate levels but similar totals — it depends on the balance between how much nitrate has just been taken up and how quickly it’s being turned into protein.

What We Saw in the Trial

At GS30, plant tissue samples were collected from five different tillage treatments: the untreated control, a Plozza plow, a Plozza–Delver–Spader (PDS) combination, a Horsch Tiger, and a Plozza–Delver–Tiger (PDH) combination. When the results came back, the control, Plozza, and PDS plots all had much higher nitrate-N levels than the Horsch Tiger treatments. Yet total nitrogen was steady across the board, sitting between 35 and 47 kilograms per hectare.

Figure 2. Nitrate Nitrogen uptake (kg/ha) at GS30 for Wheat.
Figure 3. Total Nitrogen uptake (kg/ha) at GS30 for Wheat.

To help make sense of this, it’s useful to look at how much of total nitrogen is actually made up of nitrate. The chart below shows the proportion of nitrate-N compared to other nitrogen forms for each treatment. Even where nitrate was “five times higher,” it still made up less than two percent of total nitrogen.

Figure 4. Nitrate Nitrogen as a percentage of Total N (mainly proteins and amino acids) for each treatment.

The likely reason for these differences lies in how the tillage affected mineralisation and plant uptake. The Plozza and Spader treatments encouraged an early flush of nitrate by mixing organic matter more aggressively and stimulating microbial activity. Plants took up a lot of nitrate quickly, but at GS30 hadn’t yet converted it all into proteins. The control plots, though undisturbed, also showed high nitrate. Here the effect was probably due to mineralisation concentrated in the surface layer where roots were active, combined with slower growth and assimilation. By contrast, the Horsch Tiger and the PDH combination, which disturbed the soil less aggressively, appeared to support a more gradual release of nitrate. This steadier supply allowed nitrogen to be assimilated more consistently into organic forms and distributed across greater plant biomass, leading to lower tissue nitrate despite similar total nitrogen.

Conclusion

For anyone looking at their own plant test results, the key message is that nitrate-N and total N tell you slightly different stories. A high nitrate number might not mean the crop has more nitrogen overall; it might just reflect a recent flush from fertiliser or mineralisation, or slower assimilation into proteins. A lower nitrate result doesn’t necessarily mean the crop is short on nitrogen if total N is where it should be.

Results at GS30 are a useful check, but they’re only a snapshot in time. They are best interpreted alongside soil tests, crop observations, and seasonal conditions.

A field event is planned for this site on the 20th of August, which will be a good chance to see the paddock firsthand and discuss these results in more detail.

Soil Strength Following Amelioration: Year Two Results

By Kate Parker, WMG Project Officer

Soil amelioration is often viewed as a long-term investment, and results from the Creagh site in Dandaragan are starting to show what growers can expect in the years following treatment. Penetrometer testing, which measures how deep roots can grow before hitting soil strength limitations, was conducted at the site in both 2024 and 2025. Alongside these tests, root samples were taken from each treatment to provide a clearer picture of crop establishment below the soil surface.

Soil Strength: What Has Changed?

In the first year following amelioration (2024), penetrometer testing showed a clear advantage for treated plots compared with the controls. Control plots reached the threshold where root growth becomes limited (around 2500 kPa) at just 150 mm, while ameliorated treatments, particularly the Nufab double pass and the Fanger plow, allowed roots to penetrate well below 250 mm.

Testing in 2025 largely confirmed these patterns. While soil strength increased higher in the profile, an expected result of natural reconsolidation, ameliorated plots continued to support deeper root penetration than controls. The Nufab treatments again performed strongly, with roots able to extend to nearly 200 mm before encountering limiting resistance. The Fanger and Plozza plough treatments followed closely, reaching depths of around 150 mm. In contrast, controls remained limited to shallow depths of approximately 100 mm.

This pattern fits with expectations: amelioration often provides the biggest gains in the first year, but many of the benefits can persist into subsequent seasons, even as soils naturally firm up again.

Root Growth: What We Can See Below the Surface

Images of lupin roots collected in July 2025 supported the penetrometer findings. In ameliorated plots, roots were longer and displayed well-developed lateral spread, forming more structurally intact root systems. In contrast, control plots showed shallow root systems with roots closely following the taproot, reflecting the difficulty of penetrating compacted soil layers.

In particular, the Nufab and Plozza treatments supported lateral root growth throughout the profile, suggesting improved access to both subsoil moisture and nutrients. These differences in root architecture are important because they underpin crop resilience. Crops with deeper and more extensive root systems are better positioned to access water during dry periods and to make more efficient use of applied fertilisers.

What Does This Mean for Farmers?

For growers weighing up the costs and benefits of soil amelioration, the Creagh results provide reassurance that the investment can pay off beyond the first season. Although soil reconsolidation does occur, treatments such as the Nufab double pass and the Fanger plow continue to improve rooting depth and soil structure into the second year.

It is important, however, to recognise that responses vary depending on soil type, seasonal rainfall, and paddock management. At the Creagh site, the benefits have been most noticeable in gravelly sand profiles, where shallow root growth is usually a major limitation. Ongoing monitoring over the next seasons will show whether these establishment gains translate into yield benefits.

For now, the key message is clear: soil amelioration can deliver lasting improvements in root development and soil function. To maximise returns on investment, growers should pair amelioration with careful observation and adaptive management tailored to their soil type and seasonal conditions.

This information piece was developed as part of the GRDC-funded Soil Water Repellence Project. For more information on the project and local trial results, visit the project page.

Chickpea Trial in Moora: Learning from a Season of Extremes

By Kate Parker, WMG Project Officer

This year, we established a chickpea trial on a 43ha paddock just outside of Moora as part of the GRDC funded and GGA led Grain Legumes Project. The trial paddock sits on heavy soil — not the typical choice for chickpeas, which generally prefer lighter, well-drained conditions. The purpose was to see how the crop would perform under these circumstances and what management insights we could gain.

What we didn’t anticipate was just how extreme the season would be. A dry start followed by abnormally high rainfall early in the growing period has created prolonged waterlogging in some areas of the paddock. This has given us a valuable opportunity to observe how chickpeas respond to these conditions on heavier ground.

How Waterlogging Affects Chickpeas

Chickpeas are particularly sensitive to waterlogging. Unlike cereals, which can tolerate short-term saturation, chickpeas struggle when oxygen in the root zone is depleted. Prolonged waterlogging can cause:

  • Root damage – Reduced oxygen availability leads to root death and limits nutrient uptake.
  • Loss of nodulation – Rhizobia, the bacteria responsible for fixing nitrogen, are sensitive to anaerobic conditions.
  • Yellowing and reddening of foliage – Often caused by nutrient deficiencies triggered by poor root function.
  • Plant losses – In severe cases, plants die outright, reducing crop density.

In the worst-affected areas of the trial site, we’ve seen all these symptoms: sparse plant stands, reddish foliage, and large bare patches.

Standing water at the chickpea site in Moora.
Severe waterlogging damage at the chickpea site in Moora.
Not the Whole Story – Resilient Areas in the Paddock

While waterlogging damage is significant in low-lying or heavier parts of the paddock, other areas have remained relatively unaffected. On slightly higher ground or in areas where drainage is better, chickpea plants are looking healthy, with strong root systems and active nodulation.

This contrast is important — it shows that even within a single paddock, soil type, topography, and drainage can have a huge influence on chickpea performance. It also reinforces why site selection is such a key factor in pulse production.

What to Watch for Next

Over the rest of the season we will be watching for signs of recovery in areas that were waterlogged earlier, monitoring disease risk, and assessing the eventual impact on pod set and yield. These observations will help gauge how much influence early-season stress has on the final crop.

A Season of Learning

This season is a good reminder that trying something new — even in less-than-ideal conditions — can give us useful information for future decision-making. While heavy soils and chickpeas aren’t the easiest match, this trial is helping us better understand the limits, challenges, and opportunities for pulse production in our region.

We’ll share a full wrap-up of results and lessons learned after harvest.

Year Two Trials Underway for Soil Water Repellence Project

By Simon Kruger & Kate Parker, WMG

The GRDC funded Soil Water Repellence Project has entered its second year, with three demonstration trial sites now established across the West Midlands region. Two new sites have been added for the 2025 season alongside the original 2024 site, allowing for a broader look at how different soil types respond to amelioration treatments.

Water repellence is becoming a challenge on a wider range of soil types in the region, extending beyond the deep sands traditionally targeted for amelioration. The project is taking a Participatory Action Research approach, working with local growers, researchers, consultants and industry representatives to test and compare management strategies. The aim is to build grower confidence in addressing non-wetting soils and to evaluate the return on investment of different treatments.

Trial Sites and Treatments
  • Site 1 – Dandaragan: Shallow sand over gravel, lupins sown in May. Treatments include Plozza plough, Fanger plough, and Nufab rip/delve options.
  • Site 2 – Gillingarra: Sand over gravel and true gravel plots, barley sown in June. Treatments include Horsch Tiger, Plozza plough, and Fanger plough (Figure 1).
  • Site 3 – Rowes Rd: Deep grey-yellow sand, wheat sown in May. Treatments include single and stacked machinery passes using ploughs, delvers, spaders and rippers.

All trials follow host farmer fertiliser and crop protection programs, with establishment, biomass, and yield to be monitored through 2026.

Figure 1. Site 2 treatments immediately post implementation.
Early Findings

Soil testing at Site 1 confirmed that last year’s amelioration continues to reduce surface water repellence, and increase root penetration depth. At Site 2, water repellence was evident, with field observations pre-sowing showing weeds primarily growing in the previous years furrows, and indication of water infiltration limitations. Site 3’s deep sands displayed significant water repellence before treatment, and the early results suggest marked improvements in rooting depth.

Plant establishment results have varied:

  • Site 1: Nufab double pass, Plozza plough, and Nufab single pass showed higher lupin establishment compared to untreated controls.
  • Site 2: No significant differences yet in barley establishment, with variability linked to ryegrass pressure, seeding depth issues and rocky ground.
  • Site 3: All ameliorated treatments improved wheat establishment over the control, with denser and more uniform crops in treated plots.
Figure 2. Plant establishment for each treatment at site 1 taken 09/06/2025.
Figure 3. Plant establishment for each treatment at site 2 – sand over gravel plots, taken 16/07/2025.
Figure 4. Plant establishment for each treatment at site 2 – true gravel plots, taken 16/07/2025.
Figure 5. Plant establishment for each treatment at site 3 taken 02/07/2025. PDH is a combination of Plozza plough, Delver and Horsch Tiger; PDS is combination of Plozza plough, Delver and Spader.
Figure 6. Image of Site 3 treatments PDS (left) and Control (right) taken 02/07/2025.
Seasonal Conditions

A late break to the season delayed crop emergence, but July brought above-average rainfall across all sites. While the wet conditions may have eased some establishment challenges, they also make it harder to distinguish treatment effects at this early stage. These results underline the importance of long-term monitoring to understand how amelioration interacts with seasonal variability.

Next Steps

Monitoring will continue through the season, with biomass cuts, plant tissue testing and yield mapping planned. A full economic analysis will be carried out at the end of the project to determine the long-term value of each treatment.

This project is supported by the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC).

Tracking Potassium Behaviour in Two Distinct Soil Types at Ballidu

By Kate Parker & Simon Kruger, WMG

In 2025, the West Midlands Group has launched a new potassium-focused demonstration trial just north of Ballidu with grower Corey Mincherton – an extension of the GRDC funded K Extension Project. This project aims to explore how potassium behaves across contrasting soil types and to spark conversations about potassium cycling, soil variability, and the effectiveness of traditional soil testing methods. While potassium is the headline act, the broader suite of soil tests conducted across both trial paddocks gives us a valuable early-season snapshot of the paddock variability before treatments are applied.

Site Overview

Two neighbouring paddocks are being used in this trial, with clear contrasts in soil type:

  • Site 1: A deep yellow sand (Figures 1 & 2)
  • Site 2: Sand over gravel (Figures 3 & 4)
Figure 1. Soil core from deep sand site (Site 1)
Figure 2. Soil core from deep sand site (Site 1)
Figure 3. Soil core from sand over gravel site (Site 2)
Figure 4. Soil core from sand over gravel site (Site 2)

At the time of initial soil testing, neither site had any of the planned potassium treatments (ranging from 0 to 75 kg/ha MOP) implemented yet, so any differences currently seen in soil test results are due to inherent variation, not treatment effects. This makes it a good opportunity to examine the baseline soil conditions (Site 1 Results – Figure 5)(Site 2 Results – Figure 6).

Soil Variability and Topography

The differences between Site 1 and Site 2 are stark and highlight how much topography and soil type influence nutrient availability and storage:

  • Site 1 (yellow sand): Characterised by low fertility, particularly in the deeper layers. Nutrient levels, organic carbon, and conductivity all decrease with depth, consistent with a leached, low-holding-capacity soil. Moisture and sulfur levels are also low and uniform.
  • Site 2 (sand over gravel): Displays more variation, possibly influenced by changes in depth to gravel or subsoil texture. Higher organic carbon and nutrient levels in the top 10 cm suggest more biological activity or legacy nutrition. The gravel layer likely contributes to moisture retention and higher conductivity in patches.
Figure 5. Soil testing results from the deep yellow sand site (Site 1)
Figure 6. Soil testing results from the sand over gravel site (Site 2)

Even across a relatively short distance, these paddocks (located next to each other) show how variable subsoil constraints and nutrient profiles can be. The presence of gravel or denser subsoil horizons in Site 2 likely affects both nutrient leaching and root access, particularly as depth increases.

Depth Effects on Nutrients

Both sites demonstrate a strong decline in key nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) with depth, though this trend is more exaggerated in Site 1. Organic carbon is sharply concentrated in the surface layer (0–10 cm) at both sites, reinforcing the importance of surface management for maintaining biological activity. Soil pH remains relatively consistent down the profile, although slightly higher at depth in Site 2, which could influence nutrient availability, particularly for potassium and phosphorus.

A Closer Look at Potassium

Potassium is the key focus of this demonstration, and the initial soil results already paint an interesting picture.

  • Site 1 shows a classic sandy profile with limited potassium reserves, especially below 30 cm. The total potassium Colwell values across depths are low, suggesting poor K holding capacity and likely responsiveness to fertiliser.
  • Site 2, by contrast, has much higher potassium levels in the top 30 cm, particularly in plots like S2T2 and S2T3. Interestingly, potassium remains present at depth in some cores, possibly indicating past redistribution or differences in soil mineralogy and gravel content. These deeper reserves may play a role in sustaining crop growth during dry periods or when surface moisture is limited.

The stacked bar charts (Figures 7 & 8) showing total potassium by treatment underscore these contrasts. Site 2 has a much greater potassium “bank” to draw from, although how accessible that K is remains to be seen.

Figure 7. Site 1 Potassium Colwell mg/kg by Treatment & Depth
Figure 8. Site 2 Potassium Colwell mg/kg by Treatment & Depth
Setting the Scene for 2025

This season’s trial won’t just test different potassium rates, it will explore how each soil type responds to the same management, with a particular focus on nutrient movement, crop uptake, and yield. As the season unfolds, it will be important to monitor how each site behaves under the same inputs, particularly in terms of:

  • Plant establishment and biomass
  • Potassium availability and plant uptake
  • Yield and grain quality at harvest

This is a long-term conversation, not a quick fix. With many growers in the region questioning the reliability of topsoil potassium tests and the long-term depletion of K reserves, this trial is a timely piece of the puzzle.

Let’s Keep the Conversation Going

The Ballidu site is designed to be as useful to growers as it is to researchers. As data rolls in from plant sampling, biomass cuts, and yield results, we’ll have more to share. In the meantime, take a look at your own paddocks and ask: How well do I know what’s happening with potassium across my paddocks’ soil profiles?

Stay tuned for updates as the season progresses and reach out to the WMG team if you’re keen to discuss the results, or run your own potassium checks.

Four Years On: Soil Amelioration Still Delivering Plant Establishment Gains

By Kate Parker, WMG Project Officer

The stacking soil amendments and soil amelioration site at Wathingarra (supported by the Soil CRC, through funding from the Australian Government’s Future Drought Fund) continues to offer valuable insights into the long-term benefits of amelioration and amendment strategies on sandy soils. Now entering its fifth season since the original 2021 amelioration treatments, the site is under wheat once again, with early crop establishment counts reveal some interesting trends.

A recent drone image from the site (Figure 1) shows distinct soil colour and texture changes across treatments. The mouldboard plots stand out most clearly, suggesting significant and lasting soil inversion effects. With closer inspection, the rotary spaded plots are also distinguishable, though less stark. In contrast, the shallow tillage and untreated control strips blend more closely into the surrounding paddock, hinting at their more surface-level impact.

Figure 1. Drone image showing colour and texture changes across treatments in 2025 post seeding.

From the establishment data collected this season, it’s evident that deep amelioration treatments like mouldboarding and rotary spading continue to influence crop performance. Both treatments showed higher wheat plant numbers compared to the untreated control, even four years after they were implemented (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Plant establishment numbers per metre squared for 2021 Soil amelioration treatments.

When considering the organic and mineral amendments applied in 2022, such as compost, ironman gypsum or biochar and frass (BF), plant numbers trended slightly higher than the unamended strips, although differences were not statistically significant (Figure 3 & 4). This suggests a potential benefit, though perhaps more subtle or variable under this season’s conditions.

Figure 3. Plant establishment numbers per metre squared for 2021 soil amendment treatments.
Figure 4. Plant establishment numbers per metre squared for 2022 soil amendment treatments

Interestingly, the most informative results emerged from examining the interaction between the 2021 amelioration treatments and the 2022 amendments (Figure 5). In particular:

  • The untreated NIL control plots had the lowest establishment overall, highlighting the cumulative disadvantage of doing neither amelioration nor amendment.
  • Among the amendment treatments, the bio-fertiliser (BF) control also lagged behind its ameliorated counterparts.
  • Both BF and NIL plots that had been mouldboarded showed the highest establishment, reinforcing that the legacy of deep amelioration is still strong when paired with organic inputs or even on its own.
Figure 5. Plant establishment numbers per metre squared for 2021 Soil amelioration treatments and 2022 Soil amendment treatments combined.

These patterns underline the idea that soil amelioration can deliver multi-year benefits for crop establishment on challenging sandy soils. While seasonal conditions, rainfall timing, and crop type all play a role, the foundation laid by deep amelioration appears to have a lasting impact. Meanwhile, amendments may offer additional support, though their effects might be more sensitive to the season.

The Wathingarra trial site continues to act as a valuable demonstration of how strategic intervention in soil structure and biology can support better crop performance over multiple years. As we move forward, it’s a good prompt to reflect on what legacy your soil treatments are leaving behind and what you might build on next.

Farmer-Led Nitrogen Strip Trials: Establishing a Local Benchmark

By Kate Parker, WMG Project Officer

In 2024, a number of growers in the West Midlands region took part in a farmer-led initiative trialling nitrogen strips in their paddocks. These strips compared different nitrogen rates, including a control and one or more increased applications, with the aim of building a clearer understanding of crop responses to nitrogen under local soil and seasonal conditions. N-Strip Farmer Reports have now been compiled by the WMG team analysing the 2024 results and allowing for further discussion of results and learnings by those growers involved.

This is the first year of a multi-season effort, forming an important part of the Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach utilised in the RiskWi$e Project. Rather than aiming for fixed recommendations, the focus is on encouraging observation, reflection, and adaptation, assisting growers to fine-tune nitrogen decisions over time by looking at data specifically from their own paddocks and from others in the network.

The 2024 season presented several challenges. A late break in May was followed by a period of higher than average rainfall, particularly in June and July. In the sandy soils common across the region, this raised concerns around nitrogen leaching, prompting questions about whether early-season nitrogen had been lost, and whether crops would benefit from additional applications later in the season.

At the same time, the relatively short growing window left little room for error and meant many crops had limited time and moisture to take up and respond to applied nitrogen. This created uncertainty about whether standard practices were suitable for the conditions, and whether applying more, or less, would have made a meaningful difference.

To support interpretation of the trial strips, response curves were generated for each site by Dr. Yvette Oliver (CSIRO). These curves use site-specific information such as soil type and seasonal rainfall to simulate how crops would be expected to respond to increasing nitrogen rates in a given environment. Comparing these simulated benchmarks to what was observed in the paddock offers a useful reference point for future decision-making.

Over time, these comparisons may help identify which soils or seasonal conditions are more likely to benefit from higher nitrogen rates, and when it might be more appropriate to hold back.

The growers involved will soon come together to review their 2024 strips and discuss what was observed, review the response curves, and plan how they might adjust their nitrogen strategies or trial designs in the season ahead. This group process plays into a broader “observe–plan–act” cycle that supports practical, peer-to-peer learning and more individually tailored and confident nitrogen decisions over time.

If you’re interested in running your own nitrogen strip trials, with an opportunity for analysis from the WMG and wider RiskWi$e team, or taking part in the upcoming review event, contact the WMG team to get involved.

Farm Automation in Focus at GRDC GrainAutomate Workshop & WANTFA Demo Day

By Kate Parker & Simon Kruger, WMG

WMG Project Officer Kate Parker and Simon Kruger, Project Communications Officer, recently travelled to Wickepin to attend the GRDC GrainAutomate Workshop and WANTFA Soil Amelioration Demonstration, hosted by the Facey Group. The day brought together growers, advisors, researchers and service providers to look at where automation and digital tools are heading in broadacre systems, and how those tools are being applied on-ground across grain-producing regions.

The crowd inspecting the John Deere 830 9RX at the WANTFA Demo portion of the day

While a big part of the day involved looking at machinery and equipment in action, the real emphasis was on the systems and decision-making behind automation. Presenters from Agrarian Management, DataFarming, CSIRO, and others provided practical insights into how data is being used to plan tasks, target inputs and better match machinery investment to farm needs.

Digital setup is the starting point

Bindi Isbister (Agrarian Management) opened the workshop with a clear message: automation isn’t about buying one piece of equipment, it’s about building a system that works. She walked through the five foundations of a functional autonomous setup:

  1. Accurate paddock boundaries
  2. A clear digital filing system (naming, storage, consistency)
  3. Reliable connectivity
  4. Secure data sharing
  5. Data security protocols

Most growers in the room were already using autosteer, and about half had section control systems. Variable rate technology was less common, and only a handful had explored driverless or fully autonomous equipment. Bindi stressed that automation can begin with small steps, such as using a sprayer on an autonomous tractor or automating specific tasks rather than entire systems.

Discussion also focused on the accuracy of boundary data. RTK mapping is still the benchmark, and most attendees had mapped external paddock boundaries. Far fewer had mapped internal features. Sprayer operators were highlighted as often having the most accurate understanding of internal paddock layout, given their experience with coverage and fenceline detail.

Workshopping the ‘Diagnosis – Decision – Perform’ decision making process

Bindi also introduced the Verge platform, which allows users to plan and simulate machine paths and paddock operations. It can be used to compare machinery options or estimate time and fuel savings. Several attendees were interested in using Verge to model different scenarios on their farms.

Using imagery and field data to guide decisions

Tim Neale (DataFarming) followed with a session on using satellite imagery and digital tools to inform variable rate decisions and better understand paddock variability.

Key takeaways included:

  • NDVI auto-zoning tools are now accessible and relatively low-cost (approx. 50c/ha), with the ability to export files directly to most in-cab systems
  • A new tool allowing users to stack multiple years of NDVI imagery (from 2017 onwards) is now available. This provides a more stable view of paddock variability across seasons
  • Additional layers, such as soil pH and radar-estimated rainfall, can be added to improve decision-making
  • Imagery can help identify variability in growth stages across a paddock, supporting decisions around fungicide or herbicide timing, or harvest planning

Tim noted that while digital tools are improving, groundtruthing remains essential, particularly when using NDVI to identify underperforming areas. Growers were encouraged to link NDVI maps to paddock observations and yield results, rather than relying on imagery alone.

Tim also outlined ongoing work into green-on-green weed detection, including early trials on ryegrass in cereals. Growers asked how this could compare with current hardware-based spot spraying tools, particularly in terms of cost and reliability.

Making automation investment stack up

Dr Roger Lawes (CSIRO) provided a broader perspective on machinery investment decisions, particularly those linked to automation.

His session focused on the importance of planning and evaluating machinery choices based on the full range of costs and operational impacts. This includes:

  • Setup and training
  • Labour requirements
  • Compatibility with existing equipment
  • Support and servicing
  • Chemical and fuel costs
  • Finance and tax implications

He also encouraged growers to look at how paddock planning can support machinery efficiency, such as using a lower-pressure paddock during peak seeding or harvest periods to free up equipment elsewhere.

Roger highlighted the value of assigning someone in the farm business as a ‘data manager’, to keep systems maintained and data flowing correctly. He also mentioned that CSIRO and GRDC are currently finalising a Grain Automate Timeliness Calculator, which will help growers assess the value of timely operations across different farming systems.

Matching mapping tools with local knowledge

Mapping was a common theme throughout the day. Several presenters made the point that while technology is advancing, local knowledge still plays a central role in decision-making.

For example, Bindi demonstrated how farmer-drawn maps, based on observation and experience, can be a valuable starting point when combined with tools like NDVI, EM mapping or yield data. She also discussed the use of Gamma Thorium mapping, which has proven useful for identifying ironstone gravel areas in WA and guiding variable depth operations like ripping or reefination.

The ability to bring together different data layers, whether from satellite imagery, machine sensors or farmer knowledge, was seen as one of the more practical applications of precision ag tools currently in use.

Soil amelioration machinery on show

The final part of the day was the WANTFA Soil Amelioration Implement Demonstration, with a range of machines operating side by side under local conditions. These included:

The Bednar Terraland ripper-mixer with interchangeable delving plates
  • Horsch Tiger 4MT – One-pass ripper-mixer
  • Gessner HDR-6011 MKII – Deep ripper
  • Bednar Terraland – One-pass ripper-mixer with interchangeable delving tines
  • Gregoire Besson Discordon – One-pass ripper-mixer with independent tines
  • Gregoire Besson Occitan – One-pass Speed tiller
  • Lemken Karat 10 – One-pass cultivator

The John Deere 830 9RX was also on display, drawing attention for its handling and traction, particularly when matched with the heavier ripping and mixing gear.

The John Deere 830 9RX
Summary

The day provided a practical look at where the industry currently stands with digital and autonomous tools. While there is growing interest in automation and variable rate systems, many of the tools remain underused, largely due to skills gaps, platform compatibility and the complexity of managing digital systems across a mixed machinery fleet.

That said, there is clear momentum. The value of good mapping, clean data and thoughtful planning was reinforced throughout the day. For growers considering how and when to adopt new tools, starting with tasks, rather than technology, may be the most effective approach. Thanks again to the Facey Group for hosting a well-organised and valuable event. If you’d like to learn more about any of the tools or approaches discussed, get in touch with the WMG team.

Assessing Chickpea Establishment in Heavy Soils: Early Results

By Kate Parker & Simon Kruger, WMG

A demonstration site near Moora is helping to assess the establishment potential of chickpeas in heavy soils within the West Midlands region of Western Australia. This trial, part of a broader initiative to increase grain legume adoption in WA, builds on previous work evaluating break crop options for local farming systems. In 2025, the focus shifted to chickpeas as a high-value pulse option under local grower conditions.

This site is one of several across WA supported by GRDC and coordinated through the Grower Group Alliance (GGA) and participating grower groups. The aim is to explore the feasibility and profitability of grain legumes in regions with currently low adoption but promising environmental potential.

The 42-hectare paddock was sown with Captain (Desi) chickpeas under three treatments:

  • a standard control (100 kg/ha seed with 3.5 kg/ha Nodulator)
  • an increased seeding rate (130 kg/ha with the same inoculant rate)
  • a double inoculant treatment (100 kg/ha seed with 7 kg/ha Nodulator)

The trial is examining how variations in seeding rate and inoculation influence establishment, nitrogen fixation, and crop performance under farm-scale conditions.

Challenging Start to the Season

The season opened with a particularly dry start, recording well below average rainfall from January to May (Barberton weather station). Although seeding occurred in mid-April after some early rain, warm temperatures and limited follow-up moisture in May severely constrained emergence. Plants that emerged in early May (Figure 3) had wilted and collapsed by mid-May (Figure 4). By early June, plant counts showed establishment levels below recommended targets, indicating widespread establishment failure (Estimated establishment = 80% (Cumming & Jenkins, 2011))(Figure 2).

Figure 1. Plant establishment counts on the 8th of June for each treatment per metre squared.
Figure 2. Plant establishment percentage on the 8th of June for each treatment with a red dotted line to indicate recommended establishment percentage.
Figure 3. Chickpeas on the 2nd of May 2025. 
Figure 4. Chickpeas on the 12th of May 2025.

Low-lying areas with heavier stubble cover and shaded headlands showed better plant survival. These microclimates retained soil moisture for longer, reinforcing the critical role of moisture availability in crop establishment. Variability across the paddock also highlighted the complexity of interpreting establishment results under dry conditions.

Reseeding Success

In response to poor establishment, the paddock was reseeded on June 9 using a disc seeder in the inter-row. Subsequent plant counts in early July showed a significant improvement in emergence, with most areas achieving or surpassing the target of 40–45 plants/m² (DPIRD, 2024; Power et al., 2024; GRDC, 2017)(Figure 5). This result suggests that some of the original April-sown seed may also have contributed to the final stand, germinating with the later rainfall.

Figure 5. Plant establishment counts on the 1st of July for each treatment per metre squared.
Figure 6. Plant establishment percentage on the 1st of July for each treatment with a red dotted line to indicate recommended establishment percentage.

While the difference between treatments was not statistically significant at this early stage, there was a slight trend toward higher establishment in the increased seeding rate treatment. Volunteer wheat was present along some paddock edges and may have competed with emerging chickpeas (Figure 7). Variable soil surface conditions, particularly in areas with cloddy or loose soils, also appeared to limit establishment, likely due to reduced seed-soil contact and uneven moisture availability (Figure 8).

Figure 7. Chickpeas with volunteer wheat on the (1/7/25).
Figure 8. Chickpeas in cloddy areas of the paddock (1/7/25).
Early Takeaways

While it is too early to draw conclusions about yield or economic performance, the trial is already offering useful insights into the delicate nature of establishing legumes under unpredictable autumn conditions. Early rainfall can create a false break, leading to poor emergence if not followed by consistent moisture. The contrast between seeding timings and the impact of minor environmental variations (such as tree lines and soil condition) may prompt further exploration into targeted management practices to improve establishment reliability.

Further monitoring will focus on biomass, nitrogen fixation, disease incidence, and final yield. These results will inform local growers on the management requirements for chickpeas in heavier soils and contribute to broader understanding of legume crop potential in WA through the Closing the Economic Yield Gap of Grain Legumes in WA investment.

To follow the trial’s progress or explore previous legume demonstrations in the region, visit the Grain Legumes Project page.

References

Cumming, G., & Jenkins, L. (2011). Chickpea: Effective crop establishment – Sowing window, row spacing, seeding depth & rate (PA 2011 #07). Pulse Australia & Industry & Investment NSW. https://www.pulseaus.com.au/storage/app/media/crops/2011_NPB-Chickpea-crop-establishment.pdf

Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Western Australia. (2024), Desi chickpea – essentials for growing a successful crop. Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Western Australia, Perth. Factsheet DPIRD-43. https://library.dpird.wa.gov.au/fc_factsheets/5

Power, S, Shackley, B, Paynter, B, Seymour, M, Dhammu, H, and Wackett, B. (2024), 2025 Western Australian Crop Sowing Guide. State of Western Australia (Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development), Perth. Bulletin Bulletin 4935. https://library.dpird.wa.gov.au/bulletins/292

Grains Research and Development Corporation. (2017). Chickpeas Western Region – GrowNotes™. GRDC.

New RiskWi$e N Banking & Long-Term Soil CRC Trial Sites Seeded

By Simon Kruger & Kate Parker, WMG

The West Midlands Group has kicked off two important trial sites for the 2025 season, both seeded in late May by Kaylx field team members Yaseen and Cleber. These sites are part of ongoing, long-term research into improving nitrogen use efficiency and building drought resilience in local farming systems.

Nitrogen Banking on Deep Sands – Velyere, Dandaragan

The first site is hosted by Peter Rathjen and team at Velyere, located between Dandaragan and Badgingarra. This season marks the beginning of a new GRDC-supported trial exploring nitrogen banking strategies on deep brown sands, a soil type common across the West Midlands.

The site includes six treatments replicated four times, comparing different nitrogen application strategies including farmer practice, economic optimal rates, high N bank targets, and modelled decile-based recommendations from Yield Prophet. The trial design has been developed with the assistance of CSIRO’s Yvette Oliver and the broader RiskWi$e Project team, and will continue in future seasons to capture multi-year outcomes.

This site is part of the RiskWi$e Project’s Nitrogen Decisions theme, led in WA by the Grower Group Alliance, nationally by CSIRO, and funded by the GRDC.

Drought Resilience and Stacked Soil Amelioration & Amendments – Wathingarra Rd, Badgingarra

The second site, hosted by Jeremy Roberts on Wathingarra Rd, Badgingarra, enters its fifth year as part of the Soil CRC’s Drought Resilience Long-Term Trials. Wheat has been sown following two years of serradella, creating a valuable opportunity to examine how legume-derived nitrogen interacts with historical soil amelioration treatments and a suite of novel amendments.

The site continues research originally established through the Future Carbon Project and now contributes to the Soil CRC’s broader investigation into how stacked soil treatments such as compost, gypsum, clay, frass, and biochar, can improve crop performance, soil health and water-holding capacity. More background on this site’s history and treatment layout is available via WMG’s technical update.

Trial operations at Wathigarra are now being managed by the Kaylx team, with all measurements and in-season analysis conducted by WMG staff.

This project is supported by funding through the Australian Government’s Future Drought Fund under the Long-Term Trials Program and The CRC for High Performance Soils (Soil CRC).

What’s Next?

Both sites will form part of WMG’s seasonal events calendar later in the year, offering members and local growers a chance to see the work first-hand and hear early findings as they emerge.

Stay tuned for updates via WMG social media, website, and upcoming WMG ‘What You Missed’ eNewsletters as the season progresses.