grainsearch trial booklet 2009-10

1 | w w w . g r a i n s e a r c h . c o m . a u

G r a i n S e a r c h P t y L t d

Contents Page

1 Overview 1.1 Introduction - Doug Laidlaw 1.2 Background to Trial Results 2009 / How to interpret results - Col Hacking 2 Grainsearch Wheat Variety Trials 2.1 Inverleigh 2.2 Dunkeld 3 Grainsearch Barley Variety Trials 3.1 Inverleigh 3.2 Dunkeld

4 Other Agronomy Trials 4.1 Revenue Wheat Grazing Trial 4.2 Barley Grazing Trial 4.3 Revenue Wheat Nitrogen Trial 5 Appendices 5.1 Rainfall data Inverleigh 5.2 Soil Test data Inverleigh

2

2

3

4

4

8

12

12

16

22

22

26

30

32

32

33



22 February 2010 Dear GrainSearch Shareholder, GrainSearch board and management are pleased to provide you a copy of the 2009/10 Trials Results Booklet. The South West Victorian and lower South East regions of South Australia have undergone a rapid change over the last 10-15 years. Similarly the Australian grain markets and plant breeding industry has undergone a rapid period of change following government decisions to deregulate grain markets and reduce their funding of public breeding programs. GrainSearch was established in 2002 by a group of thirty progressive South West Victorian growers wanting to ensure longer season, novel wheat and barley germplasm with the capability of improving their yields had a path to market in their region. GrainSearch has subsequently released a number of varieties (Wheat: Amarok, Frelon, Beaufort and Barley: GS1234/1228) that are now a major component of many growers cropping plans particularly in the south west. Over the past eight years GrainSearch has also been successful in developing its business relationships with a number of organisations. Wheat and barley germplasm is currently provided by Syngenta Seeds (NewFarm Crops Barley Program), Ausgrainz durum and winter wheat program, LongReach Plant Breeders and PGG Wrightsons (Nickersons). The company works closely with malting barley companies Barrett Burston and Malteurop in evaluating the malting qualities of potential malt barley lines. AMPS Agribusiness, a grower owned company in another high rainfall cropping region of Australia, has played an integral role in expanding the successful trialing of GrainSearch varieties and supporting our business goals and plans for the future. For GrainSearch to grow and to capture any opportunities from the major restructure of the Australian grains industry it needed more scale. SQP Co-operative’s decision in 2009 to become a major shareholder in GrainSearch has resulted in the company now being owned by over 200 growers. The company now has the scale to expand its capabilities and focus on accessing and evaluating new plant germplasm and technologies with the capability of delivering improved gross margins. In addition, GrainSearch is well positioned, as the owner of the commercial rights to specific varieties, to begin to develop premium proprietary grain markets for its grower shareholders. Under the guidance of Col Hacking GrainSearch conducted a number of trials in 2009 including the evaluating the agronomic performance of Revenue winter wheat, a number of potential longer season durum wheat lines and some exciting new potential malting barley varieties. Upon reading the trial results, despite a difficult production year, I trust you will agree that a number of GrainSearch’s commercial varieties and experimental lines delivered some exciting results. I would like to take this opportunity to thank our trial collaborator Southern Farming Systems for all their

excellent work and for the generous support of Ewen Peel for accommodating the large trial site at his

property.

Doug Laidlaw

GrainSearch Chairman



Firstly let me say that this year’s trial results are possibly some of the best I have seen. This is despite very low rainfall during grain fill and extreme temperatures during flowering and grain fill, particularly at Inverleigh. It is critically important when you are reviewing these results that you keep in mind that we are dealing with just one year’s data and that it is important you consider the results with other information that you might have at your disposal. You will see many tables of information which basically support the “Take Home Messages”, which are highlighted at the start of each trial. It is advisable that you review the tables along with the results summary section to get a better feel for what happened within the trial. The Trial Design, Inputs and Measurements section, at the end of the trial write-up, are there to learn about how the trial was setup and what measurements were taken. This is important for many reasons, such as to understand some of the rating scales used, levels of nitrogen applied and other detail. Within most of the tables, particularly those discussing yield and grain quality, there are a few statistical terms which you need to have a basic understanding of, the following is a brief description:

CV : This is short for Co-efficient of Variation. The lower the number, the more reliability you can place on the results. Any CV below 10 is good, a CV below 8 is very good and anything below 5 is excellent. Broadly speaking the larger the CV, the greater will be the LSD (P=0.05). LSD (P=0.05) is short for Least Significant Difference. If for example we have a number of varieties of varying yield and the LSD (P=0.05) = 0.345 for yield, then in order for us to be 95% confident the yield of a variety is any better or worse than any other, there needs to be at least a difference of 0.345 T/Ha between the varieties. In a Table of 10 varieties for example, the top 5 varieties may have yields that are not different by 0.345 T/Ha, is which case we cannot say that there is any difference between them. There may be a column next to a particular measurement titled “sig”. This column will have a letter or a combination of letters. These letters help you identify whether there is a significant difference between the varieties for the particular trait being measured. For example if any variety has the letter “a” or “ab” or “abc” beside it, then there is no significant difference between the varieties. This is because we have the same letter against each variety, in this case “a”. If you refer to the LSD (P=0.05) number ,you will notice the varieties won’t be different by more than the LSD figure. On the other hand, in the above example if one variety had “a” in the sig column and another had “b”, then they would be significantly different. Site Mean is the average of the particular measurement taken within the trial. There may be a column within some tables that gives say the yield of each variety as a percentage of the Site Mean Yield. A number say of 105% for variety, means that it yielded 5% better than the average. I have been pleased to have been able to bring these results to you. I hope you can use this information to

assist you in finalising your crop rotations for 2010.

Colin Hacking GrainSearch Quality Manager

Background to Trials Results 2009



Results Summary The trial was of excellent quality, with near perfect establishment. Management of the trial inputs throughout the year was also to a high standard. This quality is reflected in the low CV (Yield 7.04, Protein 4.27, Test Weight 1.45). A CV below 10 is regarded as good, meaning that the results can be relied upon. The high CV for screenings means that these results should be treated with caution. Despite a reasonably good start to the year (272 mm from start of April to end September), conditions became very tough late in the season, with little rainfall in October (19mm), a critical time for grain fill. There was also only 8 mm of rainfall from 1

st to 22

nd November, after which there was a further 83 mm for the

month. This late rainfall did little to help grain fill and was only detrimental to grain quality. Beaufort had reached the 50% heads visible stage on 23

rd September and Revenue on 14

th October (21 days slower

than Beaufort). Coupled with this low rainfall, were several days exceeding 35 degrees Celsius. Beaufort was a standout variety in this trial, producing the highest yield (Table 1) and significantly higher yielding than all other varieties, apart from entry 14, an experimental milling line. The earlier maturity of Beaufort compared to many varieties (Table 2), obviously was of benefit during the tough grain fill period. The grain yield of Revenue was very good given the tough finish. This variety appears to have the ability to tough it out if conditions turn dry. The grain filling period of Revenue also appears to be very quick by comparison to some varieties such as Mackellar, which helps in a tough finish. Grain quality of Revenue was reasonably good. Bolac performed well in the trial, although significantly lower yielding than Beaufort. Bolac was 7 days slower to flower by comparison to Beaufort, although 14 days quicker than Revenue. The only noticeable disease in the trial was Yellow Leaf Spot, which appeared to be more of an issue with some of the durum lines. There was no obvious leaf, stripe or stem rust observed in the trial. There are some exciting milling and durum lines coming through the program with good yield and high protein levels. We were able to achieve proteins in excess of 17% in two of the durum lines. The late application of nitrogen obviously helped in lifting grain protein. The early sowing was certainly helpful in achieving high yields in a tough year.

Take Home Messages

Early sowing (mid May) was helpful in achieving high yields in a tough year.

Beaufort was a standout variety, significantly out yielding all other varieties, apart for an experimental milling line.

Given the tough grain fill conditions, Revenue yielded very well given it was 21 days later than Beaufort to reach the 50% heads visible stage.

There are some exciting durum and milling lines coming through the program. Final grain quality assessment of the durum and milling lines is yet to be completed.

Wheat Variety Trial – Inverleigh

Trial Background and objectives This trial was established to evaluate the commercial potential of a

number of longer season milling, durum and feed wheat breeding lines for South West Victoria. The lines

were assessed on their agronomic characteristics, yield and grain quality in comparison to other industry

standard varieties.



Wheat Variety Trial — Inverleigh

Entry Pedigree Yield T/Ha

Sig Yield % Overall Site

Mean

10 Beaufort 6.708 a 136

14 EXP 1 Milling 6.265 ab 126

11 Bolac 6.005 b 121

13 EXP 2 Milling 5.998 b 121

12 Exp 3 Milling 5.935 b 120

9 Revenue 5.360 c 108

3 Exp 1 Durum 4.825 d 97

7 Caparoi 4.545 de 92

4 Exp 2 Durum 4.265 ef 86

6 Exp 3 Durum 3.983 f 80

2 Exp 4 Durum 3.968 f 80

8 Bellaroi 3.940 fg 79

5 Exp 5 Durum 3.913 fg 79

1 Exp 6 Durum 3.448 g 69

LSD (P=0.05) 0.4968

Standard Deviation

0.3477

CV 7.04

Overall Site-Mean Yield

4.94

Table 1: Grain Yield

Above: Wheat trial Inverleigh 2009 taken 13/10/09 showing even plant establishment and

good crop development.

Table 2: Other Agronomic Traits

Entry Pedigree Maturity Maturity cf

Beaufort

YLS Early Vig-our

Height cm

10 Beaufort 132 0 1.25 3.50 85.00

14 EXP 1 Milling

131 -1 1.00 3.25 90.00

11 Bolac 139 7 2.00 3.50 90.00

13 EXP 2 Milling

132 0 1.75 3.75 92.00

12 Exp 3 Milling

130 -2 1.50 3.00 90.00

9 Revenue 153 21 1.00 4.50 87.00

3 Exp 1 Durum

132 0 2.00 3.00 95.00

7 Caparoi 130 -2 1.00 3.75 95.00

4 Exp 2 Durum

134 2 2.75 2.75 95.00

6 Exp 3 Durum

130 -2 1.50 3.00 80.00

2 Exp 4 Durum

138 6 1.25 3.00 95.00

8 Bellaroi 128 -4 1.00 3.00 95.00

5 Exp 5 Durum

158 26 4.00 2.25 90.00

1 Exp 6 Durum

129 -3 2.75 3.00 85.00



Entry Pedigree Protein % Sig Protein % Site Mean

TW kg/hl Sig TW % Site Mean

Screenings %

Sig

10 Beaufort 13.13 h 88 70.50 ghi 97 3.5 a

14 EXP 1 Milling 12.90 h 86 74.65 ab 103 1.3 a

11 Bolac 14.13 fg 94 75.25 a 104 2.3 a

13 EXP 2 Milling 13.58 gh 91 71.70 efg 99 2.0 a

12 Exp 3 Milling 13.75 gh 92 73.05 cde 101 2.3 a

9 Revenue 12.98 h 87 69.28 i 96 5.8 a

3 Exp 1 Durum 14.93 ef 100 73.68 bc 102 5.0 a

7 Caparoi 15.65 cde 105 73.23 bcd 101 3.0 a

4 Exp 2 Durum 14.98 def 100 70.50 ghi 97 4.0 a

6 Exp 3 Durum 17.30 a 116 70.83 fgh 98 3.0 a

2 Exp 4 Durum 15.88 cd 106 72.20 c-f 100 5.3 a

8 Bellaroi 16.93 ab 113 69.95 hi 97 2.3 a

5 Exp 5 Durum 16.18 bc 108 72.10 def 100 4.0 a

1 Exp 6 Durum 17.15 a 115 70.40 ghi 97 2.3 a

LSD (P=0.05) 0.914 1.492 2.99

Standard Deviation 0.639 1.044 2.1

CV 4.27 1.45 64.11

Overall Site Mean 14.96 71.95 3.27

Table 3 : Grain Quality


Measurements Yield : Based on plots of 1.45m width and 10m length. Plot weights corrected to 12% moisture. Protein : Calculated as a percentage of grain contents. TW : Test weight of grain expressed as kg/hl. (kilograms per hectolitre) Screenings : Expressed as a percentage of grain and husk passing through a 2 mm sieve. YLS : Yellow Leaf Spot (Pyrenophora tritici-repentis) disease infection using the scale below. Ratings averaged over 4 reps and undertaken 14

th September 2009.

Maturity : Days taken from sowing to when 50% heads visible. Maturity cf Beaufort : The maturity of each line is relative to Beaufort. A number of +5 for example means that the variety is 5 days slower than Beaufort. Vigour : Seedling vigour taken 16

th June 2009. Scale 1 = poor, 5 = excellent

Height : Distance in cm from ground level to tip of ear or awns.

1 = very low level infection on bottom 2 leaves

2 = medium level infection on bottom 2 leaves

3 = infection on bottom 3 leaves

4 = significant infection on all leaves other than flag

5 = all leaves infected including flag



Trial design and inputs A fully randomised and replicated trial (4 reps) was sown on 14/5/09 with 14 varieties. Sowing rate was adjusted according to germination and seed count to achieve a target established plant population of 175 plants per square meter. The trial was sown into canola stubble using 100 kg/ha MAP. Nitrogen status was reasonably low at sowing. Nitrogen was applied to all plots on the following dates in order to achieve high protein in the durum material :

24/7/09 : 30 kg/ha nitrogen. Good rain following 16/9/09 : 40 kg/ha nitrogen. Beaufort just starting to show a head. Good rain following 29/9/09 : 40 kg/ha nitrogen. Some concern about no follow up rain 5/10/09 : 40 kg/ha nitrogen. Good rain following

Fungicides : No foliar fungicides were used. Harvest : 30

th December 2009

Herbicides:

Date Product Rate

13-May Round Up P-max 1.5 L/ha

Triflur 1.5 L/ha

Striker 0.1 L/ha

Surpass 1.0 L/ha

25-May Dual Gold 0.25 L/ha

Diuron 0.5 L/ha

7-Jul Axial 0.4 L/ha

Precept 1.5 L/ha

Lontrel 0.2 L/ha

Adigor 1.0 L/ha


Acknowledgements Thanks go to Ewen and Ross Peel for providing land to undertake the research. Thanks also to Southern

Farming Systems who established and managed the trial to a very high standard. Some of the

experimental material was sourced through Ausgrainz and Longreach Plant Breeders, so thanks to these

organisations for their support.



Take Home Messages

Very high yields were achieved at the site with Beaufort being the standout commercial variety.

Depending upon the results of further grain testing, durum production may be a strong possibility in the area, with some excellent yields and initial high proteins having been achieved.

Yield results from Revenue were very pleasing given the reasonably late sowing. Earlier sowing in April should achieve higher yields with no increase in frost risk due to its vernalisation requirement.

There are some very exciting milling and other wheat lines in test, with high yields and good grain quality having been achieved.

Wheat Variety Trial—Dunkeld

Trial Background and objectives This trial was established to evaluate the commercial potential of a

number of longer season milling, durum and feed wheat breeding lines for south west Victoria. The lines

were assessed on their agronomic characteristics, yield and grain quality in comparison to other industry

standard varieties.

Results Summary The trial was of fair quality, with some establishment problems caused by stubble drag. Management of the trial inputs throughout the year was to a good standard. This quality is reflected in the slightly higher CV for yield being 10.59. A CV below 10 is regarded as good. The higher CV means that the LSD figure is also higher, so their needs to be a greater difference between the varietal yield before we can be confident that there is a significant difference between the varieties. The CV for Protein and Test Weight are excellent, meaning that the results can be relied upon. The high CV for screenings means that these results should be treated with caution. Growing conditions throughout the year were good, with adequate rainfall to fill the grain, although there was a period of approximately 10 days during grain fill where temperatures were high to extreme. These high temperatures would have had a negative impact on grain fill for the later maturing varieties such as Revenue and the Exp 5 Durum line. The yields achieved from these later maturing lines given the conditions were very good. At times throughout the winter months, rainfall was more than ideal, however the raised beds coped with this and there was no waterlogging damage. Beaufort was a standout commercial variety in this trial, producing the highest yield (Table 1), approximately 26% higher than the site mean yield. Beaufort was however not significantly higher yielding than the top 6 varieties including Revenue and Bolac. Grain yields from this trial overall were exceptionally high and reflects the excellent potential for grain production throughout this region. There were 2 diseases evident in the trial including Yellow Leaf Spot (Pyrenophora tritici-repentis), which appeared to be more of an issue with some of the durum lines. Another disease which was evident was barley yellow dwarf virus, which was scattered throughout the plots. This disease seems to manifest itself most years in this area with an early sowing, so seed treatment and/or other control strategies should be used. There was no obvious leaf, stripe or stem rust observed in the trial. There are some exciting milling and durum lines coming through the program with good yield and high

protein levels. We were able to achieve proteins in excess of 16% in two of the durum lines. The fact the

trial was planted into lupin stubble and the late application of nitrogen, obviously helped in lifting grain

protein. Grain test weights were very good and further quality analyses will be conducted on the durum

Above: Revenue Winter Wheat




Entry Pedigree Yield T/Ha Sig Yield % Site Mean

14 EXP 1 Milling 8.555 a 126

10 Beaufort 8.385 ab 124

9 Revenue 7.828 ab 116

11 Bolac 7.575 ab 112

5 EXP 5 Durum 7.468 b 110

12 Exp 3 Milling 7.455 b 110

3 Exp 1 Durum 6.408 c 95

13 Exp 2 Milling 6.383 c 94

6 Exp 3 Durum 6.225 c 92

2 Exp 4 Durum 6.098 c 90

4 Exp 2 Durum 6.093 c 90

7 Caparoi 6.080 c 90

8 Bellaroi 5.890 c 87

1 Exp 6 Durum 4.355 d 64

LSD (P=0.05) 1.025

Standard Deviation 0.7173

CV 10.59

Overall Site Mean 6.77

Table 1: Grain Yield

Entry Pedigree Protein %

Sig Protein % Site Mean

TW kg/hl Sig TW % Site Mean

Screen-ings

Sig Screenings % Site Mean

14 EXP 1 Milling 12.48 hi 88 77.30 ab 104 1.80 bc 65

10 Beaufort 13.08 ghi 92 70.70 g 95 3.50 abc 127

9 Revenue 12.47 i 88 67.88 h 91 6.80 a 247

11 Bolac 13.58 efg 96 74.15 def 99 3.80 abc 138

5 EXP 5 Durum 13.03 ghi 92 78.45 a 105 0.80 c 29

12 Exp 3 Milling 13.10 ghi 92 74.55 c-f 100 2.00 bc 73

3 Exp 1 Durum 14.00 def 99 76.78 abc 103 5.00 ab 182

13 Exp 2 Milling 13.25 fgh 93 74.93 b-f 101 2.00 bc 73

6 Exp 3 Durum 16.45 ab 116 72.53 fg 97 2.30 bc 84

2 Exp 4 Durum 14.68 d 103 77.73 a 104 1.80 bc 65

4 Exp 2 Durum 14.08 de 99 76.20 a-d 102 3.50 abc 127

7 Caparoi 15.93 bc 112 75.10 b-e 101 2.80 bc 102

8 Bellaroi 15.63 c 110 74.28 def 100 1.00 c 36

1 Exp 6 Durum 16.83 a 119 73.10 efg 98 1.80 bc 65

LSD (P=0.05) 0.7809 2.48 3.27

Standard Deviation

0.5464 1.735 2.29

CV 3.85 2.33 83.15

Overall Site Mean

14.18 74.55 2.75


1 0 | w w w . g r a i n s e a r c h . c o m . a u



Acknowledgements Thanks to Southern Farming Systems who established and managed the trial to a good standard. Some of the

experimental material was sourced through Ausgrainz and Longreach Plant Breeders, so thanks to these

organisations for their support.

Trial design and inputs A fully randomised and replicated trial (4 reps) was sown on 20/5/09 with 14 varieties. The trial was sown into lupin stubble, therefore nitrogen status was reasonably high. Fertiliser : Sown with 100 kg/ha MAP 90 kg/ha Urea (41.4 kg/ha nitrogen) applied on 1

st September 2009

109 kg/ha Urea (50 kg/ha nitrogen) applied on 23rd

September 2009. Early lines just starting to head. Harvest Date : 6

th January 2010

Herbicides:

PSPE: 21-May Dual Gold 0.25l/ha

21-May Diuron 0.5l/ha

Post Emergent 16-Jul Axial 0.3l/ha

16-Jul Precept 1.0l/ha

16-Jul Lontrel 0.25l/ha

16-Jul Adigor 0.5l/ha

Fungicides:

Fungicides: 9-Oct Prosaro 0.15l/ha Rep 1 Only

9-Oct Hasten 1%

Table 3 : Other Agronomic Traits

Entry Pedigree Height cm Early Vigour

14 EXP 1 Milling 90 2

10 Beaufort 82 3

9 Revenue 93 3

11 Bolac 97 4

5 EXP 5 Durum 95 3

12 Exp 3 Milling 96 3

3 Exp 1 Durum 96 3

13 Exp 2 Milling 90 4

6 Exp 3 Durum 80 4

2 Exp 4 Durum 98 3

4 Exp 2 Durum 92 3

7 Caparoi 97 4

8 Bellaroi 91 3

1 Exp 6 Durum 94 4

Measurements Yield : Based on plots of 1.45m width and 16m length. Plot weights corrected to 12% moisture. Protein : Calculated as a percentage of grain contents TW : Test weight of grain expressed as kg/hl (kilograms per hectolitre) Screenings : Expressed as a percentage of grain and husk passing through a 2 mm sieve Vigour : Seedling vigour taken 22nd June 2009. Scale 1 = poor, 5 = excellent Height : Distance in cm from ground level to tip of ear or awns.



Barley Variety Trial — Inverleigh

Take Home Messages

The early sowing was crucial to achieving the high yields given the difficult growing conditions from the end of September. Opting for an earlier maturing variety does not necessarily pay dividends in terms of increased yield.

Varieties of similar or later maturity (days to head emergence) to Gairdner, gave high yields. Starmalt was an exception, being 5 days quicker than Gairdner and yielding the same as

Gairdner. (no significant difference)

There was some level of spot form of net blotch in the trial, although barley scald was low.

There was no other disease of significance in the trial.

Westminster and Fairview are extremely promising new potential malt lines. Starmalt as an early maturing variety has yielded exceptionally well.

Trial Background and Objectives There is currently a heavy reliance on Gairdner as the commercial barley variety. This variety has served the farming community very well over a number of years, however emerging issues in relation to its susceptibility to the disease barley scald (Rhynchosporium secalis), standability problems at harvest along with a tendency to drop heads, has meant that the farming community is in search for a replacement variety of similar or better grain malting characteristics. This trial was designed to test a number of potential malting quality barley lines out of the Syngenta Seeds program, along with a number of check commercial lines.

Left: Trial shot taken 31/8/09 showing even establishment

Results Summary The low CV of 5.17 reflects the excellent establishment and even soil type across the site. This excellent result means that the yield data can be relied upon. The top yielding variety was Westminster, significantly outyielding Gairdner and yielding 13% higher than the site mean yield. The varieties Westminster, Fairview and GS5092 were not significantly different in yield. Only a sample of the data is included in this analysis, as there were many experimental lines in the trial. The 2 most promising experimental lines in terms of their overall performance were Exp 0937 and Exp 0653 out of the Syngenta Seeds program. Both lines have superior disease resistance to Gairdner, particularly against scald. Looking at the full data set, it would appear that varieties of similar maturity or slightly longer than Gairdner gave the highest yields. Westminster was in fact 5 days slower than Gairdner to reach 50% heads visible stage and topped the trial for yield. This is an excellent result given the extreme conditions during grain fill. The site received below average rainfall from April through to July however August and September were above average. Gairdner had heads visible on 19

th September so moisture availability at flowering was

excellent. From the end of September however, conditions became very dry with only 17mm of rainfall recorded in October and no rainfall for November up until harvest, well below the average. Several days of above 35 degree maximum temperatures were also experienced in November. I suggest that the early sowing date of 18

th May was the main reason why yields were high. The low use of post sowing nitrogen

also helped. There was very little disease present in the trial, with the only major disease being spot form of net blotch (Pyrenophora teres f maculata). There were very low levels of scald (Rhynchosporium secalis). These diseases were not sprayed for and did not impact yield, given the diseases was mainly confined to the lower canopy.




Entry Variety Yield T/Ha Significant Difference

Yield as % site mean

Yield % Gairdner

Maturity c.f. Gairdner

Height

40 Westminster 7.155 a 113 110 5 76

41 Fairview 6.895 ab 109 106 0 62

39 GS5092 6.703 a-e 106 103 2 62

4 Exp 0937 6.628 b-f 105 102 -3 60

1 Starmalt 6.540 b-f 103 101 -5 80

3 Exp 0653 6.508 b-g 103 100 -2 72

28 Gairdner 6.493 b-g 103 100 0 75

26 Buloke 6.480 b-g 102 100 -2 70

38 GS1234 6.360 d-j 100 98 4 60

30 Schooner 6.318 d-k 100 97 1 70

25 Baudin 6.308 e-k 100 97 5 53

31 Vlamingh 6.240 f-l 99 96 -1 75

27 Flagship 6.068 g-m 96 93 -1 67

29 Keel 6.005 h-m 95 92 -8 60

LSD (P=.05) 0.458


CV 5.170

Site Mean Yield 6.330

Prob (F) Treatments 0.01%

Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, LSD)

Table 1 : Grain Yield, Maturity and Height

Disease Assessment The only noticeable disease in the trial was Spot Form Net Blotch (Pyrenophora teres f maculata). SFNB 1 is the recording made on 24/7/09 and SFNB 2 is the recording made on 1/9/09 using the scale : 1 = clean , 2 = v small infection (few infection sites), 3 = clearly noticeable infection mainly on older leaves; 5 = lesions very visible on younger leaves An overall disease rating was conducted on 5/10/09 using the above scale Left: SFNB confined mainly to lower leaves. This would have rated 3

Entry Variety Yield T/Ha Significant Difference

Yield as % site mean

Yield % Gairdner

Maturity c.f. Gairdner

Height

40 Westminster 7.155 a 113 110 5 76

41 Fairview 6.895 ab 109 106 0 62

39 GS5092 6.703 a-e 106 103 2 62

4 Exp 0937 6.628 b-f 105 102 -3 60

1 Starmalt 6.540 b-f 103 101 -5 80

3 Exp 0653 6.508 b-g 103 100 -2 72

28 Gairdner 6.493 b-g 103 100 0 75

26 Buloke 6.480 b-g 102 100 -2 70

38 GS1234 6.360 d-j 100 98 4 60

30 Schooner 6.318 d-k 100 97 1 70

25 Baudin 6.308 e-k 100 97 5 53

31 Vlamingh 6.240 f-l 99 96 -1 75

27 Flagship 6.068 g-m 96 93 -1 67

29 Keel 6.005 h-m 95 92 -8 60

LSD (P=.05) 0.458


CV 5.170

Site Mean Yield 6.330

Prob (F) Treatments 0.01%

Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, LSD)



Nutrition The site was low in available nitrogen having come out of canola, however with the dry start to the year (Decile 1 rainfall through June), it was decided to keep nitrogen levels low early. The trial was sown using 100 kg/ha MAP and topped up with a total of 30 kg/ha nitrogen being applied as Urea at late tillering on 24

th July 2009.

Fungicides It was decided not to apply any in crop fungicides as we wanted to screen the varieties for their susceptibility to foliar diseases. Harvesting The trial was harvested by Southern Farming Systems on 19

th November 2009. This was significantly

earlier than expected, however the extreme temperatures and no rainfall from the end of October hastened maturity.

Entry Pedigree Erect Early Vigour SFNB Rec 1 SFNB Rec 2 SFNB Dev *

Disease 5/10/09 **

40 Westminster 2 2.25 1.75 2.50 0.75 2.00

41 Fairview 3 3.00 1.25 2.00 0.75 1.00

39 GS5092 2 3.25 1.25 2.50 1.25 1.00

4 Exp 0937 3 2.50 1.25 2.00 0.75 1.75

1 Starmalt 3 3.25 1.50 2.75 1.25 3.50

3 Exp 0653 3 3.25 1.50 2.00 0.50 1.25

28 Gairdner 1 2.00 1.75 1.75 0.00 2.50

26 Buloke 3 3.00 1.25 1.75 0.50 1.25

38 GS1234 2 2.25 1.50 2.25 0.75 1.00

30 Schooner 3 3.00 1.25 2.25 1.00 1.25

25 Baudin 1 2.75 1.75 1.75 0.00 1.00

31 Vlamingh 3 2.75 1.75 1.50 -0.25 1.00

27 Flagship 3 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.25

29 Keel 3 3.00 1.25 2.25 1.00 1.25

Table 2: Early Vigour, Plant Erectness, Spot Form Net Blotch and Overall Disease


Key : * the development of SFNB over the recording period; ** Overall disease rating on 5/10/09

Grain quality analysis is yet to be completed, however once available they will be posted on the GrainSearch web site www.grainsearch.com.au

Trial Design and Inputs A fully randomised and replicated trial (4 reps) was sown on 18

th May 2009 with 41 varieties. The trial was

sown into canola stubble. The sowing rate was adjusted according to germination and seed weight, to achieve 175 plants per square metre. Plant establishment was excellent with very uniform plots being achieved.

Above: Fairview Barley 10th Nov 2009



Measurements Yield : Based on plots of 1.45m width and 10m length. Plot weights corrected to 12% moisture. Height : Readings taken on 16/11/09 and measured from ground level to the top of the neck bend Erectness : 1 = prostrate, 2 = semi prostrate, 3 = upright measured on 24

th July 2009

Early Vigour : Seedling vigour readings taken 16/6/09 barley 2 - 3 leaf stage (1 = poor vigour 5 = excellent vigour) Maturity : Measured as the number of days from planting to 50% heads visible. Maturity of Gairdner expresses the maturity of each variety relative to Gairdner. A number of 5 for example, indicates that the variety is 5 days slower than Gairdner. A number of -3 means that it is 3 days quicker to reach 50% heads visible than Gairdner.


Acknowledgements

Thanks must go to Southern Farming Systems who established and managed the trial to an excellent

standard. Some of the experimental material was sourced Syngenta Seeds (Newfarm Crops), so thanks to

this organisation for their support.

Herbicides

Date Product Rate

13-May Round Up P-max 1.5 L/ha

Triflur 1.5 L/ha

Striker 0.1 L/ha

Surpass 1.0 L/ha

25-May Dual Gold 0.25 L/ha

Diuron 0.5 L/ha

7-Jul Axial 0.4 L/ha

Precept 1.5 L/ha

Lontrel 0.2 L/ha

Adigor 1.0 L/ha

Insurance Alliance

After our fantastic uptake of the after harvest crop insurance with AgriRisk we decided to look further afield to see if there was any other way the co-op could assist its members in the insurance field. Now, after some extensive investigation, we are pleased to announce an alliance between SQP Co-operative and WFI. This relationship will allow members, if they choose, to join the SQP Co-operative/WFI Alliance. It is a simple process and costs no more to do than what you are currently paying. The only difference is a percentage of your premium paid then flows to the Co-operative and by default back to you. It is literally something for nothing. If you are already insured with WFI then all you need to do is instruct WFI in writing that you want to change over or if your WFI agent is visiting then request to sign the relevant paperwork requesting the transfer. Also, if you let the staff in the SQP office know then we can ensure this takes place on your behalf. If you are not insured with WFI and would like a quote then simply ring one of the numbers below, be sure to mention that you’re a SQP Co-op member and want to be part of the SQP Co-op/WFI Alliance. If you change across then the co-op will benefit from this decision.

WFI Offices: 1300 934 934, or

Golden Plains Shire

Adam Wray – 0412 117 458

Ballarat Brett McKinnis – 0409 331 749

Ararat

Graeme Bates – 0428 501 342 Sarah Anderson – 0429 109 116

Horsham

Lucretia Moroney – 0417 578 526



Barley Variety Trial — Dunkeld

Results Summary This trial was established very well and the relatively early sowing of 21

st May 2009 helped with the crop

growth throughout the year. The low grain yield CV of 7.18 (Table 1) means that we can place a high degree of reliance on the data. The growing conditions throughout the year were good and the raised beds handled any potential waterlogging issues throughout the winter months. The one real issue of concern was the level of the disease barley scald (Rhynchosporium secalis) which could not be controlled in some varieties despite two fungicide applications. There was a period of high temperatures during November, however most of the varieties would have filled grain by this time. There was some bird damage to a couple of the earlier maturing experimental lines which would have affected their yield. There was some slight damage to a couple of plots due to a boom spray and tractor knocking a portion of the plots down, however this damage was relatively insignificant. Table 1 expresses the yield as an average across the 4 replicates for each of the varieties. Refer to the measurements section for further details on the scald control measures. Hence those varieties that were heavily affected by scald would have been disadvantaged for yield. Westminster was the highest yielding of the commercial barley lines, yielding 60% more than Gairdner and 15% more than the site mean. This variety has excellent scald resistance – refer Table 5. Table 2 shows the yield of the three sprayed reps versus the single unsprayed rep. Care needs to be taken when reviewing this information as only 1 rep was unsprayed, so there could be some erroneous data. Some varieties such as Westminster, Exp 0937 and Exp 0653 showed little response to the scald spray indicating high levels of resistance. Other varieties such as Gairdner, GS5092, GS1234 and Fairview showed a significant response in yield when sprayed for scald. Gairdner and Fairview showed the highest level of scald susceptibility within the trial (Table 5). In terms of grain protein, the experimental Syngenta line 0937 showed low protein and previous tests have

indicated that this line has some excellent malting qualities. The same can be said for the experimental line

0653. Refer to Table 3 for this data. Test weights between the varieties were all reasonably similar,

although GS5092 was very low by comparison. This is probably due to the fact that GS5092 is a grazing

barley that produces large amounts of dry matter and can suffer with a difficult finish. Grain retention

figures were somewhat variable, however the scald spray appeared to lift the retention in most varieties.

Take Home Messages

Barley scald ravaged the trial with limited control despite two fungicide applications. This however produced excellent results in terms of identifying lines with superior scald resistance.

Westminster was the standout commercial barley variety, yielding in excess of 6.3 T/Ha and 60% higher than Gairdner. Westminster also had excellent scald resistance.

GS1234 was an excellent performer, yielding 49% greater than Gairdner and 7% better than the site mean yield. GS1234 has superior scald resistance to Gairdner.

GS1234 exhibited the best standability of all the lines in test.

There are several commercial and experimental lines that yielded better and had superior grain quality compared to Gairdner.

Gairdner lodged significantly worse than any other variety.

Trial Background and Objectives There is currently a heavy reliance on Gairdner as the commercial barley variety. This variety has served the farming community very well over a number of years, however emerging issues in relation to its susceptibility to the disease barley scald (Rhynchosporium secalis), standability problems at harvest along with a tendency to drop heads, has meant that the farming community is in search for a replacement variety of similar or better grain malting characteristics. This trial was designed to test a number of potential milling quality barley lines out of the Syngenta Seeds program, along with a number of check commercial lines.




Entry Variety Yield T/Ha Sig Yield % Site Mean

Yield % Gairdner

3 Exp 0937 6.550 a 119 165

8 Westminster 6.320 ab 115 160

2 Exp 0653 5.905 bc 107 150

6 GS1234 5.870 bc 107 149

4 Exp 2880-6 5.635 cd 102 143

7 GS5092 5.620 cd 102 142

5 Exp 2850-1 5.288 d 96 134

1 Starmalt 5.285 d 96 134

9 Fairview 4.668 e 85 118

10 Gairdner 3.948 f 72 100

LSD (P=0.05) 0.57


CV 7.18

Site Mean 5.51

Table 1 : Grain Yield (Averaged Sprayed and Unsprayed for Scald)

The varieties GS1234, GS5092, Fairview and Gairdner had particularly low grain retention. Care needs to be taken here through that not too much emphasis is placed on this result as scald control was not effective. The data does suggest however that there are some excellent experimental lines coming through the program for grain retention. Harvest was conducted on 9

th December 2009, which was possibly 2 weeks later than desirable.

Consequently there was some lodging in several varieties – refer Table 6. What is interesting however, is that the lodging was no greater in the earlier maturing varieties, but rather in the later variety Gairdner which was nearly completely flat on the ground. Westminster, Fairview, GS5092, GS1234 all were standing significantly better than Gairdner. This is pleasing given that they are of comparable maturity. GS1234 was the best of the varieties for standability. There was some head drop just prior to harvest which was more severe in the earlier maturing lines – refer Table 6. This is a function of the late harvest. Early seedling vigour was similar for most lines, although Fairview seemed a little weaker and Gairdner a

little stronger than the average (Table 6).




Entry Variety Yield T/Ha Un-sprayed for Scald

Yield T/Ha Sprayed for Scald

% Yield Gain from Scald Spray

3 Exp 0937 6.500 6.567 1.03

8 Westminster 6.350 6.310 -0.63

2 Exp 0653 6.420 5.733 -10.70

6 GS1234 5.370 6.037 12.42

4 Exp 2880-6 5.850 5.563 -4.91

7 GS5092 4.790 5.897 23.11

5 Exp 2850-1 5.270 5.293 0.44

1 Starmalt 5.180 5.320 2.70

9 Fairview 4.410 4.753 7.78

10 Gairdner 3.700 4.030 8.92

Table 2 : Grain Yield (Sprayed vs Unsprayed for Scald)

Entry Variety Protein Sig Test wt Sig Retention Sig Screenings Sig

3 Exp 0937 12.23 a 67.00 ab 80.0 a 4.8 b

8 Westminster 12.83 a 66.50 ab 66.3 ab 8.8 b

2 Exp 0653 12.58 a 67.40 a 83.3 a 3.3 b

6 GS1234 13.08 a 65.00 bc 66.5 ab 8.3 b

4 Exp 2880-6 12.63 a 66.40 ab 82.8 a 4.0 b

7 GS5092 12.65 a 57.50 d 20.8 c 32.5 a

5 Exp 2850-1 13.38 a 68.18 a 86.8 c 4.0 b

1 Starmalt 13.25 a 67.98 a 84.8 a 4.3 b

9 Fairview 13.15 a 63.10 c 19.3 c 27.8 a

10 Gairdner 12.48 a 66.95 ab 56.0 b 11.0 b

LSD (P=0.05) 1.337 2.008 21.89 8.7

Standard Deviation

0.921 1.384 15.09 6.0

CV 7.19 2.11 23.34 10.85

Site Mean 12.82 65.6 64.63 10.85

Table 3 : Grain Quality (Averaged Sprayed and Unsprayed for Scald)



Entry Variety lodging Head Drop Height cm Seedling Vigour

3 Exp 0937 1.25 1.00 76 3.25

8 Westminster 1.50 1.25 82 3.25

2 Exp 0653 2.75 1.25 73 3.25

6 GS1234 1.00 1.00 69 3.25

4 Exp 2880-6 1.63 2.25 85 3.25

7 GS5092 1.50 1.00 72 3.25

5 Exp 2850-1 1.75 1.00 82 3.25

1 Starmalt 2.75 1.50 76 3.25

9 Fairview 1.75 1.00 73 2.50

10 Gairdner 4.00 1.00 80 3.50


Table 6 : Lodging, head drop, height and seedling vigour

Table 4: Test Weight and Retention (Sprayed vs Unsprayed for Scald)

Entry Variety Test Wt kg/hl

Unsprayed

Test Wt kg/

hl Sprayed

Grain Retention %

Unsprayed

Grain Retention %

Sprayed

3 Exp 0937 68.3 66.6 76.0 81.3

8 Westminster 66.7 66.4 76.0 63.0

2 Exp 0653 67.8 67.3 85.0 82.7

6 GS1234 63.4 65.5 43.0 74.3

4 Exp 2880-6 68.2 65.8 89.0 80.7

7 GS5092 56.6 57.8 12.0 23.7

5 Exp 2850-1 68.2 68.2 85.0 87.3

1 Starmalt 69.2 67.6 89.0 83.3

9 Fairview 61.9 63.5 7.0 23.3

10 Gairdner 64.9 67.6 26.0 66.0

Table 5 : Barley Scald Rating

Entry Variety Scald 23/9

Scald 9/10

3 Exp 0937 1.0 1.5

8 Westminster 1.0 1.0

2 Exp 0653 1.0 1.0

6 GS1234 1.5 1.5

4 Exp 2880-6 1.0 1.0

7 GS5092 2.25 1.5

5 Exp 2850-1 2.25 2.0

1 Starmalt 1.0 1.0

9 Fairview 5.0 4.0

10 Gairdner 5.0 4.5



Disease Assessment There was a significant level of scald (Rhynchosporium secalis) within the trial, with fungicides being applied twice to rep 1 (15/9 and 9/10 ) and once to reps 2 and 3 (9/10). Two assessments for scald were made, namely 23

rd September

and 9th October. The 1

st assessment was averaged across all

4 reps. The 2nd

assessment was only averaged across reps 2 and 3. The scale used is given below 1 = zero to very low level infection confined to lower leaves 5 = severe infection affecting all leaves up to and including flag

Measurements Seedling vigour : ratings taken on 22/6/09 and averaged across all reps with a scale of 1 = poor 5 = excellent Grain yield : Based on plots of 1.45m width and 16m length. Plot weights corrected to 12% moisture. Height : Readings taken on 21/12/09 and measured from ground level to the top of the neck bend. Test Weight : Measured in kg/hl and reflects the density and size of grain Screenings : A measure of the % of grain and husk to pass through a 2.2 mm sieve Grain Retention : A measure of the % of grain above a 2.5 mm sieve Lodging : Measurement conducted on 21

st

December 2009 and averaged across all reps with a scale of - 1 = less than 5%of plants at an angle of less than 45 degrees to the horizontal 5 = 100% of plants at an angle of less than 45 degrees to the horizontal Head Drop : Measurement conducted on 21

st

December 2009 and averaged across all reps with a scale of - 1 = less than 1% of total heads on the ground 5 = greater than 10% of total heads on the ground

Acknowledgements Thanks must go to Southern Farming Systems who established and managed the trial to a good standard. Some of the experimental material was sourced Syngenta Seeds (Newfarm Crops), so thanks to this organisation for their support.

Knockdown: 21-May Roundup Pmax 2.0l/ha

21-May Triflur X 1.2l/ha

21-May Striker 0.2l/ha

21-May Surpass 0.5l/ha

PSPE: 28-May Dual Gold 0.25l/ha

28-May Diuron 0.5l/ha

Post Emergent 16-Jul Axial 0.3l/ha

16-Jul Precept 1.0l/ha

16-Jul Lontrel 0.25l/ha

16-Jul Adigor 0.50%

Fertilizer: 21-May MAP 100 kg/ha

1-Sep Urea 90 kg/ha

Fungicides: 15-Sep Prosaro Rep1 0.15l/ha

15-Sep Hasten Rep 1 1%

9-Oct Prosaro Rep 1,2 &3 0.15l/ha

9-Oct Hasten Rep 1, 2 &3 1%

Herbicides


Trial Design and Inputs A fully randomised and replicated trial (4 reps) was sown on 21st May 2009 with 10 varieties. The trial was sown into wheat stubble using 2 metre raised beds. The sowing rate was adjusted according to germination and seed weight, to achieve 175 plants per square metre. Plant establishment was excellent with very uniform plots being achieved.

Below: Scald in Gairdner 23/9/2009



Revenue Wheat Grazing Trial—Inverleigh

Take Home Messages

Early sowing (22nd

April) resulted in significantly higher grain yields in Revenue wheat compared to late sowing (22

nd May). In order to achieve maximum grain yields, sowing of Revenue should be

undertaken in April. The earlier the better. Revenue has a vernalisation requirement which means the variety will not flower early if sowing is undertaken early. Hence the frost risk is not increased through early sowing.

Grazing of the early sown treatments did not have a negative impact on grain yields so long as the grazing was completed before the end of July. To maximise gross margin per hectare, grazing could be undertaken, so long as pugging and waterlogging is not an issue.

Late sowing did not allow for grazing to be undertaken. If grazing is a priority, do not sow Revenue later than the 3

rd week in April.

Grain protein was not affected by grazing of the early sown treatments. There could have been some protein dilution due to the higher yield of the early sown treatments.

Grain protein was higher in the late sown ungrazed treatment compared to the early sown ungrazed treatment. This was undoubtedly caused by a reduction in grain yield with the later sowing.

Early sowing produced grain of good test weight. Grazing did not impact adversely on grain test weight so long as sowing was early.

Grain test weight was significantly lower in the late sown ungrazed treatment, compared to the early sown treatments (grazed or ungrazed). In order to achieve grain of good test weight, sowing of Revenue should be undertaken in April.

Grazing delayed flowering by approximately 5 days, and reduced plant height by approximately 20 cm. The delayed maturity did not impact yields.

Trial Background and Objectives Revenue is a dual purpose wheat capable of producing large amounts of grazing dry matter. There has been little work undertaken to assess the impact of sowing date on the production of dry matter for grazing, however it is thought that the earlier sowing will be beneficial for dry matter production. There has also been little work to assess the impact of variable grazing times on the ultimate grain yield and grain quality. The objectives were to assess the impact of sowing date on the production of grazing dry matter using 2 different sowing dates. The impact of grazing on final yield and grain quality was also assessed. This trial was also used by a LaTrobe University student to assess the impact of grazing on soil moisture availability and to investigate whether grazing will result in more water being available in the soil profile for grain fill, thereby increasing grain yield and improving quality.

Results Summary This was an excellent trial which produced some very good results with very low CV’s. Growing conditions were good up until the end of September, at which point rainfall became severely limiting for grain fill. There were also several days of above 35 degrees celcius during November which would have impacted yield. Despite these tough finishing conditions, grain yield was in excess of 6 T/ha with the early sown (22/4/09) treatments. In fact the early sown ungrazed treatment yielded 6.793 T/Ha which was 2.025 T/Ha greater than the May sown ungrazed treatment – refer Table 1. This was the most significant result from the trial, where it was very apparent that early sowing is critical to achieving high yields out of Revenue in a tough season. The highest yielding treatment was the April sown plots grazed 15

th July. This yield however was not

significantly different to all other April sown treatments, apart from the single buffer plot, which was April sown and grazed on 11

th August. It would therefore suggest that grazing up until the end of July has no

detrimental impact on grain yield, so long as sowing is completed by no later than the 3rd

week in April. Care must be taken that the plant has not reached GS30 so that no damage occurs to the growing point. An interesting observation is that the single plot that was grazed twice (28/7 and 4/8) was not significantly different in yield to all the other April sown treatments. This requires further investigation as in a real life situation, pugging and soil structural damage could occur with excessive grazing, which cannot be simulated using a lawn mower. The rate of regrowth for the April sown and grazed plots was extremely rapid as shown in the following picture. A significant result was that the 22

nd May sown treatments could not be grazed because of very

slow early growth.




There was approximately 1,200 kg/ha dry matter available for grazing with the early sown treatment. Graph 1 indicates that the rate of regrowth from the April sown cut plots was extremely rapid. With a cut on 22nd July, where approximately 1600 kg dry matter was removed, the total amount of dry matter was similar to the ungrazed treatment at flowering. A similar thing happened with the 11th August cut, although the crop was not cut down as low. This indicates that Revenue has a very good ability to recover after defoliation, so long as the crop is sown early and the plant is well established prior to grazing. In terms of grain quality, there no significant difference between the April sown treatments for grain protein – refer Table 2. The single plot Trt 8 should be disregarded as it was only a single data set. The May sown ungrazed treatment did however produce higher grain protein than the April sown treatments. This was due to the lower yield a concentration of protein relative to energy within the grain of the May sown treatment. April sowing produced grain of significantly higher test weight than May sowing – refer Table 2. Trt 5 which was grazed twice and April sown, had the lowest test weight. This result needs to be treated with caution as the data only comes from a single plot. The test weight data is highly significant and strongly suggests that to achieve a high test weight from Revenue, particularly in a tight finish, sowing needs to be undertaken early in April. An observation from the April grazed plots was that flowering was delayed by approximately 5 days. This may have resulted in lower yields given the tough finish, however this was not the case, apart from the single plot that was grazed on the 11

th August. It would appear that the reduction in biomass achieved

through grazing, could have compensated for the delayed maturity by reducing the amount of transpiration loss from the plants and perhaps conserving more moisture in the soil profile for grain fill. Grazing certainly did have an effect of reducing plant height by around 20cm compared to the ungrazed. This could be beneficial if planting is very early and high nitrogen rates are used by reducing the tendency for lodging.

Above : Regrowth of Revenue in 7 days from 70 mm to 130 mm

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

15/7

/09

22/7

/09

29/7

/09

5/8/

09

12/8

/09

19/8

/09

26/8

/09

2/9/

09

9/9/

09

16/9

/09

23/9

/09

30/9

/09

7/10

/09

14/1

0…

21/1

0…

D

r

y

M

a

t

t

e

r

T

/

H

a

Graph 1 : Revenue Dry Matter Production

Ungrazed

Cut 21/7

Cut 11/8

1600 kg/ha DM Cut 21/7

1300 kg/ha DM cut

Flowering




Table 1 : Grain Yield at different sowing and grazing times

Trt Description Grain Protein % Sig Test Weight kg/Hl Sig

4 April Sown Grazed 15th July 10.30 b 72.18 a

3 April Sown Ungrazed 10.43 b 72.08 a

6 B2 (single plot) April sown grazed 28/7 9.30 c 72.30 a

7 B3 (single plot) April sown ungrazed 10.40 b 71.60 a

5 B1 (single plot) April sown grazed 28/7 & 4/8 10.90 b 67.60 c

2 April Sown Grazed 11th Aug 10.23 b 71.75 a

8 B4 (single plot) April sown grazed 11/8 10.80 b 71.60 a

1 May Sown 11.95 a 69.73 b

LSD (P=.05) 0.804 1.338

Standard Deviation 0.522 0.868

CV 4.95 1.22

Site Mean 10.54 71.1

Treatment F 8.218 14.094

Treatment Prob(F) 0.0009 0.0001


Trt Description Yield T/Ha

Sig

4 April Sown Grazed 15th July 6.860 a

3 April Sown Ungrazed 6.793 a

6 B2 (single plot) April sown grazed 28/7 6.790 a

7 B3 (single plot) April sown ungrazed 6.740 a

5 B1 (single plot) April sown grazed 28/7 & 4/8 6.670 ab

2 April Sown Grazed 11th Aug 6.383 ab

8 B4 (single plot) April sown grazed 11/8 6.170 b

1 May Sown ungrazed 4.768 c

LSD (P=.05) LSD (P=.05) 0.5532

Standard Deviation Standard Deviation 0.359

CV CV 5.61

Site Mean Yield T/Ha Site Mean Yield T/Ha 6.400

Treatment F Treatment F 15.183

Treatment Prob(F) Treatment Prob(F) 0.0001



Grazing : A lawn mower was used to cut the Revenue down to 70 mm in height. This was to simulate grazing as it was impractical to run sheep on such a small area. Cuts were taken on the 15/7/09 and 11/8/09 for the early sowing date. It was also intended to cut the later sowing date plots, however this was not achieved because of very slow growth. Cutting was done at a time before the Revenue had reached GS30, so no damage to the growing point was caused.

Below: Revenue cut to 70 mm

Measurements Grain Yield : Calculated from plots 1.45 metres in width and 13 metres in length Protein : Calculated as a percentage of grain contents Grain Test Weight : Test weight of grain expressed as kg/hl (kilograms per hectolitre) Grain Screenings : The % of grain and husk that falls below a 2.0 mm sieve

Trial Design and Inputs A replicated trial was established where 2 sowing dates (22/4/09 and 22/5/09) were undertaken. The wheat variety Revenue was used. Sowing Rate : The trial was sown with the aim of establishing 175 plants/m

2.

Fertiliser : 100 kg/ha MAP was used at sowing. Follow up nitrogen was topdressed as Urea at the following dates

The topdressing of nitrogen for the 1

st time of sowing immediately followed the cutting.

Fungicides : There were no obvious leaf diseases so no foliar fungicides were used.

31/07/2009 (TOS2) 50 kgN/ha

17/07/2009 (TOS1) 50 kgN/ha

14/08/2009 (buffer) 50 kgN/ha

Acknowledgements Thanks go to Southern Farming Systems who established and managed the trial to a very high standard.

Thanks also to Annieka Paradeine from Latrobe University for the grazing data.




Barley Grazing Trial—Inverleigh

Results Summary This was a well conducted trial that achieved some interesting outcomes. There can be possibly only one criticism and that is the trial was sown 2 weeks later than desirable. This had an impact on early forage production and the dry finish to the season caused difficulties during grain fill. Most varieties were flowering around mid October and this was when we had the onset of the dry weather. The site also experienced some extremely hot conditions during November, with several days over 35 degrees Celcius. Despite the tough conditions, GS 5092 was still able to produce in excess of 6 T/ha ungrazed (Table 1). This yield was not significantly better than Westminster or Gairdner. Grazing did have a small negative and significant impact on grain yield – refer Table 2. Grazing reduced grain yield on average by approximately 200 kg/ha. The effect of grazing was different across the varieties, with GS5092 and Fairview being the most negatively affected, down by 9.2% and 7.1% respectively. On the other hand, grazing had a positive impact on the grain yield for Gairdner, increasing grain yield by a small 1.2%, the only variety to have its yield improved by grazing. I suspect that this could have been due to a reduction in the scald infection in the grazed Gairdner plots, compared to the ungrazed. There was a noticeable difference in scald levels within Gairdner at the end of October, whereas there was no discernable difference observed within the other varieties. Whilst there was a small decrease in grain protein caused by grazing (Table 3), this difference was not significant (Table 4). Hence the main objective of the trial to look at the possible effect of grazing on grain protein did not give any conclusive results. It should be remembered however that with reps 1 and 2, the cut material was removed from the plots, similar to a forage harvesting operation. With reps 3 and 4, the cut material was not removed, simulating a grazing operation. Table 5 tends to suggest that grain protein could have been higher where the cut material was left on the plots, however the data is not conclusive. Further work needs to be undertaken.

Above: Centre plot Westminster grazed, plot to the left Westminster ungrazed. Pic taken 23/9/2009

Take Home Messages

Early grazing negatively impacted on grain yields, decreasing yield by approximately 200 kg/ha.

Grazing had no significant effect on grain protein.

Grazing significantly reduced grain test weights and grain retention.

Grazing delayed the time taken to reach 50% heads visible by approximately 3 – 4 days.

Grazing may be useful in decreasing barley scald innoculum pressure, however the impact on yield and grain quality was minimal.

GS5092 had the highest grain yield of the varieties when ungrazed, however was most affected by grazing in terms of grain yield and grain quality. This variety produced more dry matter than any other, so this may have resulted in less moisture available for grain fill.

There was not much difference between the performance of the other varieties in test.

Trial Background and Objectives Work conducted in 2008 by Southern Farming Systems as part of the Grain & Graze program, showed that grazing of barley can have an impact on grain protein levels and may make the difference between a barley crop being accepted as malt grade or feed grade. This finding may provide some real benefits to growers who are growing barley on high nitrogen paddocks and may provide rotation alternatives. GrainSearch has a number of barley lines, both feed and malt quality types where the response to grazing

in terms of grain quality is unknown. The trial is designed to assess the effect of an early grazing on grain

quality parameters.




Trt Variety Ungrazed

Yield T/Ha

Sig Grazed

Yield T/Ha

Sig Grain Yield Depression from Graz-ing T/Ha

Grain Yield Depression

%

1 GS1234 5.695 b 5.603 bc -0.092 -1.6

3 GS5092 6.175 a 5.608 bc -0.567 -9.2

5 Westminster 5.830 ab 5.788 ab -0.042 -0.72

7 Fairview 5.633 bc 5.232 c -0.401 -7.1

9 Gairdner 5.878 ab 5.948 ab +0.07 +1.2

LSD (P=.05) 0.4513


5.22 CV

Grand Mean 5.74

Table 1: Grain Yield Grazed vs Ungrazed (analysed as a complete data set)

Table 2 : Overall Effect of Grazing on Grain

Yield (across all varieties)

Treatment Grain Yield T/Ha

Ungrazed 5.842

Grazed 5.635

LSD (P=0.05) 0.202

Prob (F) 0.0456


Grain Protein %

Sig Grazed

Grain Protein %

Sig Grain Protein De-pression from

Grazing %

1 GS1234 13.68 a 13.03 a -0.65

3 GS5092 12.18 a 12.80 a +0.62

5 Westminster 13.15 a 13.13 a -0.02

7 Fairview 12.75 a 12.38 a -0.37

9 Gairdner 12.68 a 12.30 a -0.38

LSD (P=.05) 1.051


CV 5.45

12.80 Grand Mean

Table 3 : Grain Protein Grazed vs Ungrazed (analysed as a complete data set)

The effect of grazing did however significantly lower grain test weights (Table 7). GS5092 had low test weights for both the grazed and ungrazed (Table 6). One of the major impacts of grazing was to significantly lower grain retention, dropping the average retention from 56.73% to 47.35% (Table 9). The variety GS 5092 was significantly worse than all other varieties for grain retention and was impacted most by grazing (Table 8). One significant effect of grazing was to delay the maturity by on average of 3 – 4 days (Table 10). That is the time to reach flowering was delayed by around 3 – 4 days. This could have been significant with the dry finish and could explain why the yield and grain retention were adversely affected.




Treatment Grain Protein %

Ungrazed 12.89

Grazed 12.73

LSD (P=0.05) 0.47

Prob (F) 0.4794


Protein (across all varieties)

Table 5 : Grain Yield and Grain Protein averaged

across grazed and ungrazed for each replicate

Replicate Grain Yield Grain Protein

1 5.508 12.59

2 6.232 11.89

3 6.016 12.99

4 5.199 13.75

Treatment Grain Protein %

Ungrazed 12.89

Grazed 12.73

LSD (P=0.05) 0.47

Prob (F) 0.4794

Replicate Grain Yield Grain Protein

1 5.508 12.59

2 6.232 11.89

3 6.016 12.99

4 5.199 13.75

Trt Variety Ungrazed Grain TW

(kg/Hl)

Sig Grazed

Grain TW (kg/Hl)

Sig

1 GS1234 62.95 b 62.45 ab

3 GS5092 58.38 c 55.68 d

5 Westminster 64.03 ab 62.65 b

7 Fairview 63.55 ab 63.68 ab

9 Gairdner 64.98 a 65.18 a

LSD (P=.05) 2.008


2.14 CV

Grand Mean 62.35

Table 6 : Grain Test Weight Grazed vs Ungrazed (analysed as a complete data set)

Treatment

Test Weight (kg/Hl)

Ungrazed 62.78

Grazed 61.93

LSD (P=0.05) 0.19

Prob (F) 0.4672


Test Weight (across all varieties)

Above : Paired plots of each variety with one plot

being cut to approx. 70 mm and the other left uncut.

Measurements Grain Yield : Calculated from plots 1.45 metres in width and 13 metres in length Protein : Calculated as a percentage of grain contents Grain Test Weight : Test weight of grain expressed as kg/hl (kilograms per hectolitre) Grain Retention : The % of grain that is above a 2.5 mm sieve Grain Screenings : The % of grain and husk that falls below a 2.2 mm sieve Maturity : The time taken from sowing to 50% heads visible



Trial Design and Inputs A replicated (4 rep) split plot trial was established with 5 barley lines (GS1234, GS5092, Westminster, Fairview and Gairdner) being sown. Each variety was sown in 2 plots side by side, with 1 plot being “grazed” and the other plot being left ungrazed. The trial was sown on 4/6/09 using 100 kg/ha MAP. Grazing was undertaken on 18/8/09 and was achieved by cutting with a lawn mower when the varieties were at approximately GS30. Each variety was cut to approximately 70mm from ground level. Only approximately 10 - 15 cm of leaf was cut, given that the press wheel groove prevented from cutting any lower. For Reps 1 and 2, the cut material was carted off the plots, whereas for Reps 3 and 4 the cut material was not removed. Nitrogen : Applied at the rate of 30 kg/ha (65 kg/ha Urea) on the 14

th August just prior to cutting.

Fungicides : Tilt was applied on 29/9/2009 to control barley scald


Grain Retention %

Sig Grazed

Grain Retention %

Sig

1 GS1234 64.13 ab 59.25 ab

3 GS5092 39.00 c 17.00 d

5 Westminster 65.75 a 56.25 ab

7 Fairview 57.50 ab 51.75 bc

9 Gairdner 57.25 ab 52.50 b

LSD (P=.05) 13.135


16.75 CV

Grand Mean 52.04

Table 8 : Grain Retention Grazed vs Ungrazed (analysed as a complete data set)

Treatment Grain Retention %

Ungrazed 56.73

Grazed 47.35

LSD (P=0.05) 5.87

Prob (F) 0.004

Table 9 : Overall Effect of Grazing on

Grain Retention (across all varieties)

Variety Maturity Ungrazed

Days Maturity Grazed

Days Difference

GS1234 7/10/2009 125 12/10/2009 130 5

GS5092 4/10/2009 122 6/10/2009 124 2

Westminster 7/10/2009 125 10/10/2009 128 3

Fairview 5/10/2009 123 9/10/2009 127 4

Gairdner 6/10/2009 124 9/10/2009 127 3

Table 10: Varietal Maturity (days from sowing 4/6/09 to 50% heads visible)





Revenue Wheat Nitrogen Trial—Inverleigh

Take Home Messages

Very high yields were achieved in Revenue which indicates the benefit of an early sowing (23rd

April). To achieve high yields in Revenue sowing should be undertaken as early as possible. This variety has a strong vernalisation requirement which means that flowering will occur at approximately the same time of year irrespective of sowing date, thereby not increasing the frost risk.

A greater emphasis of nitrogen “up front” tended to increase grain yields in Revenue. The best combination was 25 kg/ha nitrogen at sowing as Urea (plus 100 kg/ha MAP), along with 75 kg/ha nitrogen at GS30. (end of tillering/floral initiation)

Very acceptable grain protein, test weight and screenings were achieved in all nitrogen treatments apart from the control. There were no significant differences between any of the nitrogen treatments (apart from the control) for these grain quality parameters. Once again an early sowing has impacted favourably on these grain quality traits.

Trial Background and Objectives Revenue is a dual purpose winter wheat that has proven to be very high yielding in southern environments. There has been limited work done in relation to the response of Revenue to nitrogen manipulation in terms of both grain yield and quality. It is known that Revenue because of its high yield potential, can benefit from high levels of nitrogen. It is also thought that Revenue could be responsive to higher levels of “up front” nitrogen in order to develop more tillers and final grain heads at harvest. The trial was set up to investigate the best approach to applying a set amount of nitrogen (100 kg/ha) in order to achieve the greatest grain yield and to maximise quality.

Results Summary This was an excellent trial which produced some very good results with very low CV’s. The yield and Test Weight CVs are possibly the lowest I have seen. The CV for screenings was quite high, so these results should be treated with caution. Growing conditions were good up until the end of September, at which point rainfall became severely limiting for grain fill. There were also several days of above 35 degrees celcius during November which would have impacted on yield. Despite these conditions, yields in excess of 7 T/Ha were achieved (Table 1), which was extremely good. This once again highlights the incredibly high yield potential of Revenue given an early sowing (23/4/09). The highest yielding treatment was where 25 kg/ha nitrogen was applied “up front” and 75 kg/ha at GS30 (floral initiation). This was however not significantly higher than treatments 3 and 4, however was significantly higher than for treatments 6, 5 and 1. The data would therefore suggest that an increased emphasis on early nitrogen did give a positive yield response. The lowest yielding treatment was where no nitrogen was applied – refer Table 1. There was no significant difference between all nitrogen treatments, apart from the control, for grain protein. The reasonably high grain protein figure of 9.70% where no nitrogen was applied in the control, suggests that the site was already quite high in available nitrogen. There was no difference in grain test weight between the treatments, with very acceptable readings being achieved. This again points to the benefits of an early sowing. The lowest treatment for grain test weight was in fact the control, however the difference was not significant. There were no significant differences between treatments for screenings.



Trial Design and Inputs The wheat trial was sown using the variety Revenue, on the 23

rd April with a sowing rate calculated to

achieve 175 plants/m2 . A sowing fertilizer application of 100 kg/ha MAP was used.

There were 6 treatments established in a fully replicated (4 rep) trial. These treatments consisted of applying 100 kg/ha nitrogen at different timings, namely :

The dates of the N application were GS21 (17/7/09), GS30 (17/8/09) and GS37 (2/9/09) The nitrogen was applied as Urea in treatments 2 – 6 above. The nitrogen applied at sowing was run out over the top of the sown rows using the cone seeder at sowing time.

Trt Description

1 Untreated Control (no nitrogen)

2 25kg/ha N at sowing GS00, 75 kg/ha N at GS30 (floral initiation)

3 25kg/ha N at sowing GS00, 50kg/ha N at GS21(1st tiller), 25kg/ha N at GS30

4 25kg/ha N at sowing, 25kg/ha N at GS21, 50 kg/ha N at GS30

5 50 kg/ha N at GS21, 50 kg/ha N at GS30

6 25 kg/ha N at GS21, 75 kg/ha N at 37 (just prior to flag)

Trt Description Yield T/Ha Protein % Test Wt kg/Hl Screenings %

2 25% GS00, 75% GS30 7.650 a 11.08 a 72.75 a 4.8 a

3 25% GS00, 50% GS21, 25% GS30 7.505 ab 10.38 ab 72.75 a 6.0 a

4 25% GS00, 25% GS21, 50% GS30 7.478 ab 10.60 a 72.38 a 5.3 a

6 25% GS21, 75% GS37 7.415 bc 10.70 a 72.15 a 5.7 a

5 50% GS21, 50% GS30 7.413 bc 10.45 ab 72.23 a 4.0 a

1 Untreated Control 7.250 c 9.70 b 71.18 a 7.5 a

LSD (P=.05) 0.2079 0.767 1.158 3.17

Standard Deviation 0.1336 0.509 0.768 2.09

CV 1.79 4.85 1.06 37.75

Grand Mean 7.45 10.48 72.24 5.53

Replicate F 1.118 0.133 1.916 0.312

Replicate Prob(F) 0.3837 0.9389 0.1703 0.8167

Treatment F 3.877 3.206 2.277 1.312

Treatment Prob(F) 0.0285 0.0363 0.0996 0.3144

Revenue Wheat Nitrogen Trial—Inverleigh

Table 1 : Grain Yield and Quality

Fungicides : No foliar fungicides were applied to the trial as there was no obvious diseases present. Measurements Grain Yield : Calculated from plots 1.45 metres in width and 13 metres in length Protein : Calculated as a percentage of grain contents Grain Test Weight : Test weight of grain expressed as kg/hl (kilograms per hectolitre) Grain Screenings : The % of grain and husk that falls below a 2.0 mm sieve Harvest Date : 6

th January 2010




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Inverleigh Rainfall Data 2009

Rainfall mm

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

mm

Date

Rainfall (Daily mm) Inverleigh

October Rainfall (mm)

November Rainfall (mm)

Appendix 1: Inverleigh Rainfall Data 2009



Appendix 2: Soil Test Data Inverleigh A

pp

end

ix 2

: I

nv

erle

igh

Soil

Tes

t D

ata

7th

Ap

ril

2009

Dep

th

pH

(1

:5 W

ate

r)

pH

(1

:5 C

aC

l2)

Ele

ct.

Con

du

ctiv

ity

Ele

c. C

on

d.

(Sat.

Ex

t.)

Ch

lori

de

d

S/m

d

S/m

m

g/k

g

0-1

0

5.8

5

.1

0.1

0

.8

36

10

-30

6.3

5

.2

0.0

9

0.7

2

5

30

-60

7.2

6

.2

0.2

4

1.5

8

6

Dep

th

Calc

ium

(A

mm

-acet

.)

Pota

ssiu

m (

Am

m-a

cet.

) M

ag

nes

ium

(A

mm

-ace

t.)

Sod

ium

(A

mm

-ace

t.)

Cati

on

Ex

ch.

Cap

.

M

eq/1

00

g

Meq

/10

0g

Meq

/10

0g

Meq

/10

0g

Meq

/10

0g

0-1

0

2.8

0

.5

0.5

8

0.1

3

10

-30

3.1

0

.67

3.5

0

.74

30

-60

3.8

1

.2

11

2.8

1

8.8

Dep

th

Cop

per

(DT

PA

) Ir

on

(D

TP

A)

Man

gan

ese

(DT

PA

) Z

inc

(DT

PA

) B

oro

n (

Hot

CaC

l2)

m

g/k

g

mg/k

g

mg/k

g

mg/k

g

mg/k

g

0-1

0

0.4

7

15

0

4.7

0

.58

0.8

5

10

-30

0.4

8

15

0

4.5

0

.48

1.8

30

-60

0.5

7

40

4.2

0

.03

4.6

Dep

th

Dis

p.

Ind

ex,

Loved

ay

/

Py

le

Sla

kin

g 2

Hrs

A

lum

iniu

m (

KC

l)

Calc

ium

(A

mm

-acet

.)

Calc

ium

(A

mm

-acet

.)

m

g/k

g

%

%

0-1

0

2

Wat

er S

tab

le

9

6

8

10

-30

7

Co

nsi

der

able

9

3

8

30

-60

11

Co

nsi

der

able

20



Appendix 2: Soil Test Data Inverleigh

Ap

pen

dix

2 :

In

ver

leig

h S

oil

Tes

t D

ata

7th

Ap

ril

2009

Dep

th

Nit

rate

Nit

rog

en (

NO

3)

Am

mo

niu

m N

itrog

en

(KC

l)

Ph

osp

horu

s

(Colw

ell)

P

hosp

horu

s B

uff

er

Ind

ex (

PB

I-C

ol)

A

vail

ab

le P

ota

ssiu

m

m

g/k

g

mg/k

g

mg/k

g

m

g/k

g

0-1

0

16

2.1

4

3

48

20

0

10

-30

5.4

1

.7

5

18

0

26

0

30

-60

3.7

3

.6

5

36

4

48

0

Dep

th

Calc

ium

/ M

ag

nes

ium

Rati

o

Sod

ium

(A

mm

-ace

t.)

Alu

min

ium

(K

Cl)

C

ati

on

Ex

ch.

Cap

. S

od

ium

% o

f C

ati

on

s

(ES

P)

Alu

min

ium

Satu

rati

on

%

Meq

/10

0g

Meq

/10

0g

%

%

0-1

0

4.8

0.1

4

.11

3.2

2

.4

10

-30

0.9

0.1

8

.11

9.1

1

.2

30

-60

0.4

1

5

Dep

th

Su

lfate

Su

lfu

r (K

Cl4

0)

Org

an

ic C

arb

on

(O

C)

Sil

icon

(C

aC

l2)

Soil

Colo

ur

Soil

Tex

ture

m

g/k

g

%

mg/k

g

0-1

0

11

0.8

5

28

Bro

wn

Cla

y L

oam

10

-30

11

0.6

3

B

row

n

Cla

y

30

-60

34

0.5

6

B

row

n

Cla

y

Dep

th

Mag

nes

ium

(A

mm

-ace

t.)

Mag

nes

ium

(A

mm

-

ace

t.)

Pota

ssiu

m (

Am

m-

ace

t.)

Pota

ssiu

m (

Am

m-

ace

t.)

Pota

ssiu

m t

o M

ag

nes

ium

Rati

o

%

%

%

%

0-1

0

1

4

1

2

0.9

10

-30

4

3

8

.3

0.2

30

-60

59

6

.4

0

.1

grainsearch trial booklet 2009-10

Documents

years grainsearch

grainsearch board

barley germplasm

number of varieties

dear grainsearch shareholder

barley grazing trial

novel wheat

number of trials