Grazing Cereals final - frontpage — Mallee CMA Final Report to Mallee CMA: Grazing Barley and...

Grazing barley and other cereals in the Mallee

June 2011

Mallee Catchment

Management Authority

www.malleecma.vic.gov.au

PO Box 5017 Mildura 3502

Telephone 03 5051 4377

Facsimile 03 5051 4379

Copyright

© Mallee Catchment Management

Authority 2011

Disclaimer

Publications produced by the Mallee

Catchment Management Authority may

be of assistance to you but the Mallee

Catchment Management Authority and

its employees do not guarantee that the

publication is without flaw of any kind or

is wholly appropriate for your particular

purpose and therefore disclaims all

liability for any error, loss or other

consequence which may arise from you

relying on any information in any Mallee

Catchment Management Authority

publication.

Publication details

Grazing barley and other cereals in the

Mallee

Project Number: 1478-3-301

Contract Number: 10/827

June 2011

Author: Alison Frischke, Grain & Graze

Systems Officer, Birchip Cropping Group

Acknowledgements

This project was undertaken with funding

from the Federal Governments Caring for

our Country initiative, administered by the

Mallee Catchment Management Authority

(CMA); and through the Northern Victoria

Grain & Graze II project.

BCG recognizes the contribution made by

Peter Shirley at Culgoa, Warwick and Ian

McClelland at Jil Jil and Dennis Ryan at

Nullawil for hosting sites.

Field measurements were undertaken and

processed by Claire Browne, Kaylene

Nuske, Daryl Burdet, Eugene Liston, Zoe

Creelman and Margaret O’Keefe who are

all thanked for their contribution.

Cover images

Left: Sheep grazing a barley demonstration.

Photo: BCG

Middle: Ungrazed (top) and grazed (bottom)

plots at Culgoa. Photo: BCG

Right: Variety evaluation trial at Culgoa.

Photo: BCG

Version Prepared Author Reviewed

Final Draft May 2011 Alison Frischke, Grain & Graze Systems Officer, Birchip Cropping Group

Jo Latta, Mallee CMA

Final May 2011

Alison Frischke, Grain & Graze Systems

Officer, Birchip Cropping Group Jo Latta, Mallee CMA

Project partners

BCG Final Report to Mallee CMA: Grazing Barley and Other Cereals in the Mallee 2010

2

CONTENTS PAGE

PROJECT SUMMARY _____________________________________________________________ 3

INTRODUCTION _________________________________________________________________ 4

Background __________________________________________________________________________ 4

Objective ____________________________________________________________________________ 4

Method ______________________________________________________________________________ 4

RESULTS ______________________________________________________________________ 6

Variety evaluation – Culgoa ______________________________________________________________ 6

Broadacre demonstrations – Nullawil and Jil Jil _______________________________________________ 8

CONCLUSIONS _________________________________________________________________ 10

Variety evaluation – Culgoa _____________________________________________________________ 10

Broadacre demonstrations – Nullawil and Jil Jil ______________________________________________ 10

Extension ___________________________________________________________________________ 11

Acknowledgements ___________________________________________________________________ 11

References __________________________________________________________________________ 11

Appendix 1 __________________________________________________________________________ 12


3

PROJECT SUMMARY

In the Victorian Mallee there is a challenge to feed sheep in late autumn/early winter once stubbles have been consumed or lost nutritional value and before pastures are established sufficiently for grazing. If an early rain falls in March and April, oats and barley are commonly sown to generate early feed. The crops’ fate is opportunistic; usually grazed more than once and then sprayed out for fallow, cut for hay or harvested for grain, depending on the season. Alternatively, stock may be supplementary fed or put into containment. Farmer experience and research from grain growing regions with higher rainfall (eg south-east NSW, south-west VIC) have shown that cereals can be successfully grazed prior to the end of tillering (GS30) without compromising grain production. The success of dual purpose crops in these regions has driven interest in assessing the suitability of grazing cereals in low rainfall areas such as the Mallee, where currently there is very little grazing of crops that are intended for grain production (sown late April onwards), particularly wheat. Following a variety evaluation trial at Woomelang and four farmer demonstrations at Rainbow in 2009, a variety evaluation trial was sown at Culgoa and two farmer demonstrations were conducted at Nullawil and Jil Jil in 2010 to evaluate the practice of grazing cereal crops on fodder value and grain production. The 2010 season started well with good opening rains and crop establishment conditions. Locusts however, extensively damaged the Culgoa site beyond use, which had to be resown six weeks after the initial sowing date, losing the early sowing benefits. All barley and cereal varieties provided nutritious fodder, meeting the requirements of pregnant or lactating ewes and lambs. Barley again produced more dry matter than wheat, giving it greater feed value overall. Variety Evaluation Trial Grazing the crops at an early growth stage (GS13) and with above average rainfall in spring, allowed the grazed barley and wheat varieties to recover and maintain yields and quality, regardless of variety or maturity in 2010. For both barley and wheat varieties, grazing increased protein, while screenings were unaffected. Buloke barley and Yitpi wheat had the highest feed value and gross income. This contrasted to the 2009 season, a drier season with a poorer finish, in which protein was unaffected but screenings increased for several grazed treatments. Hindmarsh barley, Wyalkatchem and Derrimut wheat were the best cereals to graze in 2009. Farmer Demonstration Later grazing (GS15) of an early sown broadacre demonstration maintained income, while a later sown crop suffered reduced feed value and a protein increase which cost the grazed crop malt grade. This was the second season for this farmer that grazing had reduced the value of this farmer’’s crop, which was not countered by the livestock income. Results from two seasons of research and demonstrations, and the experiences of farmers participating in the demonstrations suggest that in general, it is risky grazing crops intended for grain in this low rainfall environment due to variable seasons, and the potential threat to yield and quality. The success of grazing crops (feed value and their ability to recover and maintain yield and quality) relies on an early sowing opportunity and a good spring. However, cereals such as Hindmarsh barley and oats are valued highly for their feed benefits and will continue to be sown for this purpose. Future work will involve Grain & Graze II using the 2009 and 2010 data in a national project to calibrate the APSIM model to model the response of crops to grazing. Further evaluation of varieties (spring and dual purpose), time of sowing and grazing and number of times grazed should occur.


4

INTRODUCTION

Background

Cereal crops offer a potential forage source to fill the late autumn/early winter feed gap. Higher rainfall cropping regions, such as south-west Victoria and south-east NSW, can successfully graze cereals without compromising grain production if stock are introduced after GS13 (3 leaf stage, plants anchored by secondary roots) and are removed before GS30 (stem elongation, emergence of 1st node). Lower rainfall environments which have more variable spring rainfall, such as upper Eyre Peninsula in SA, often suffer yield penalties but factor in many other system benefits when measuring success, such as the ability to:

maintain stock numbers at a time when feed availability is low, defer grazing on volunteer pasture paddocks, allowing medic and other slow growing pastures time to

establish and produce more forage before introducing stock, provide a feed paddock for stock when legume based pasture paddocks are unable to be grazed while

inside withholding periods following grass selective herbicide application, provide an opportunity to value-add to crops if they have the ability to recover from grazing, maintain weed control of continuously cropped paddocks and maintain or increase the proportion of

cropped land, reduce lodging in barley and reduce stubble loads, and offer risk management strategies: a back up fodder bank option if pasture feed runs out, or an

alternative end-use for a failed crop.

Currently in the Victorian Mallee region there is very little grazing of crops that are intended for grain production (sown late April onwards), particularly wheat. More information is needed about the ability of current cereal varieties to recover from grazing in this region, and the management practices for different seasons. This work follows on from a Mallee CMA funded project conducted at Woomelang and farmer demonstrations at Rainbow in 2009 (BCG 2009 Research Results, pp 46-51 and pp 52-55 respectively). Objective

To evaluate the suitability of different wheat and barley cultivars for both grazing and grain production, when sown as part of the normal cropping program, in low rainfall zones of western Victoria. Method

A small plot trial was used to evaluate varieties for suitability of both grazing and grain production, and two demonstrations were conducted on farmer sown paddocks to evaluate the practice in a broadacre situation. The replicated small plot trial was sown at Culgoa on 23 April following 26mm rainfall for the month. Treatments included four barley (Hindmarsh, Buloke, Gairdner and Urambie) and five wheat (Derrimut, Correll, Lincoln, Gladius and Yitpi) varieties sown at 150 plants/m², with 50kg/ha MAP using knife points at 30cm row spacing, in paired plots of which one was to be grazed. Despite two applications of Alpha-Cypermetherin (a third application was not conducted due to the withholding period risk for grazing), locust damage was so severe and uneven (some plants were eaten down below the soil) that the trial had to be sprayed out and resown on 2 June after 19mm, this time with 43kg/ha urea only. A seed shortage meant that Urambie barley was replaced by Axe wheat in the second sowing. The trial was top-dressed with 50kg/ha urea on 24 June. The two demonstration paddocks were chosen by farmers. Dennis Ryan at Nullawil selected one of his best paddocks with the thought that if grazing a crop could be economical on ‘good’ ground, then it should also pay its way on other paddocks. After sowing, a 100m x 100m area of the paddock was then fenced off to create the area to be grazed. Warrick and Ian McClelland chose two adjacent 1ha fenced paddocks near the BCG Farming Systems Site at Jil Jil. All paddocks were sown to Hindmarsh barley; 11 May at Nullawil (sown at


5

40kg/ha, with 37kg/ha MAP + Zn at 15cm row spacing) and 6 June at Jil Jil (sown at 50kg/ha, with 30kg/ha MAP at 18cm row spacing), and were managed using the farmers’ own machinery and as part of their planned cropping program. Dry matter (DM) production and feed tests were measured at GS13 at Culgoa and GS15 at Jil Jil and Nullawil, just prior to grazing. This was used to calculate the potential dry sheep equivalent (DSE) grazing days, calculated as follows: DSE grazing days = dry matter (kg/ha) – 30kg/ha (physically unavailable DM) x feedtest metabolisable energy (ME) / 8MJ, which assumes that each DSE requires 8MJ/day. Between 6 – 9 July grazed treatment trial plots were fenced and five ewes (equivalent to 98 DSE/ha) were placed inside for three days where they grazed the crops down to the ‘white line (point on stem where tissue changes from green to white). For the demonstrations, both farmers put the stock into the grazing areas and removed them at the same stage, and before GS30. The Nullawil site was grazed from 7 – 12 July with 40 ewes that had just had lambs weaned (45 DSE/ha) and the Jil Jil site grazed from 26 July to 2 August with 40 rams (60 DSE/ha). Feed value was calculated using the 2011 Rural Solutions SA estimate for self-replacing merino flock gross margin of $40/DSE/year, assuming that 1 DSE consumes 1kg DM/day. Once sheep were removed, crops were grown through to harvest. Dry matter of trial plots was measured during flowering (barley varieties and Axe on 14 October, remaining wheats on 20 October), and measured again for trial plots and the demonstrations at crop maturity. Head density was counted at maturity for the trial. Grain yields of the trial were measured using a plot harvester (barley on 23 November, wheat on 15 December), and grain quality analyzed. Grain yield of demonstrations was measured by harvesting 15m lengths at Nullawil and 20m lengths at Jil Jil in the grazed and ungrazed areas using a plot harvester and grain quality analysed. Grain yields were adjusted to 11% moisture for barley and 11.5% moisture for wheat.


6

RESULTS

Variety evaluation – Culgoa Culgoa Rainfall: Annual GSR 237mm, 2010 GSR 248mm (71mm in Oct, 220mm Oct – Dec) Dry matter and feed value at grazing Crops were grazed at the 3 leaf stage (GS13), earlier than the trials in 2009 which were grazed at GS14 (June 23), and much earlier than the recommended 1000kg/ha. Though re-sowing meant that crops were sown into colder soil and plant growth was slower, they were well anchored and grazed at this stage in order to fulfill their role of providing an alternative feed source during the early feed gap (late autumn, early winter) and still had time left in the season to recover. Buloke barley and Yitpi wheat were the two highest feed value cereals (Table 1). Hindmarsh barley performed poorly in feed value, in contrast to last season’s trial at Woomelang. Table 1. Crop growth of cereal varieties at GS13, 5 July 2010, Culgoa. Crop Variety GS13 DM (kg/ha) ME (MJ/ha) DSE grazing days Barley Gairdner 42.3 172 22 Hindmarsh 36.0 85 11 Buloke 83.0 763 95 Wheat Correll 61.7 428 53 Axe 56.2 325 41 Yitpi 79.0 681 85 Gladius 42.7 174 22 Derrimut 40.0 139 17 Lincoln 46.3 214 27 All crops had high nutritional value with crude protein well above 16% (range 34.2-36.6%), neutral detergent fibre greater than 30% of DM (range 34.2-40.0% of DM), metabolisable energy greater than 11MJ kg/DM (range 12.4-14.4MJ/kg DM) and digestibility above 75% of DM (range 75.9-85.6% of DM), providing nutrition above minimum requirements for lactating ewes and their lambs (McInerney, 2007). While only 7mm of rain fell after sowing in June, after grazing in July rain fell almost weekly (except a four week spell from 11 September to 6 October) for the next five months, ensuring good soil moisture and conditions for plant recovery. Dry matter at flowering Dry matter production at anthesis, a key growth stage to determine grain yield, was on average greater for barley than wheat by 2070kg/ha, but was high across all varieties in 2010. Grazing reduced biomass for barley by 851kg/ha (P=0.062) and wheat by 676kg/ha (P=0.001). Buloke produced on average 1369kg/ha more biomass than Gairdner and Hindmarsh (P=0.016). For wheat, Axe produced the greatest biomass, but suffered when grazed, as did Gladius and Derrimut (Table 2).


7

Table 2. Dry matter comparison at flowering between grazed and ungrazed crops.

Crop Variety Grazed DM

(kg/ha) Ungrazed

DM (kg/ha) Difference in DM (kg/ha)

Barley Gairdner 8042 9233 -1191 Hindmarsh 8361 8324 37 Buloke 9251 10647 -1396

Sig. diff (interaction) NS

Wheat

Correll 6879 6820 59 Axe 6752 7931 -1179 Yitpi 7221 6914 307 Gladius 5795 7227 -1432 Derrimut 5850 7346 -1496 Lincoln 6908 7224 -316

Sig. diff (interaction) LSD (P<0.05) CV%

P=0.026 937 9.4

Dry matter at maturity and head counts are presented in Appendix 1, Table 11. Data was not analysed at the time of writing, but there was a trend for both head counts and dry matter to be similar or less in grazed crops in 2010. This data was collected for modeling purposes. Grain yield and quality Grain yield was the same for all barley varieties, despite a lower head density for Gairdner at 363 heads/m2 compared with 516 and 536 heads/m2 for Buloke and Hindmarsh respectively. There was no effect of grazing on barley head density or grain production. For wheat, yield differences were measured between varieties (Table 3), but again grazing had no effect on final grain yield. Wheat head density did not vary (average 252 heads/m2). Table 3. Grain yield and quality of varieties (grazed and ungrazed) in grazing cereals trial, Culgoa 2010.

Crop Variety Maturity Grain yield (t/ha)

Protein (%)

Test weight (kg/hl)

Screenings (%)

Barley Hindmarsh very early 4.73 10.0 68.2 2.1% Buloke mod early 4.65 9.9 65.4 2.8% Gairdner mid-late 4.64 10.1 67.2 2.7%

Sig. Diff (variety) LSD (P<0.05) CV%

NS NS P<0.001 0.46 1.4

P=0.002 0.18 13.9

Wheat

Correll mid-late 3.42 9.5 68.0 2.6 Axe early 3.44 10.1 66.5 1.6 Yitpi mid 3.33 9.9 69.8 1.8 Gladius mid 3.09 10.1 66.4 1.8 Derrimut early-mid 3.24 9.9 67.9 4.0 Lincoln mid 2.84 9.6 66.5 4.5

Sig. diff (variety) LSD (P<0.05) CV%

P<0.001 0.24 7.3

P=0.021 0.4 4.2

P=0.016 2.1 3.1

P<0.001 1.0

36.6 In 2010, grain quality characteristics for wheat and barley were affected mostly by variety, but there was some effect of grazing on protein.


8

For barley, protein was higher in grazed crops (10.4%) compared with ungrazed (9.6%) (P=0.002, LSD 0.47, CV=5.4%). Barley screenings were low and were not affected by grazing, but did vary between varieties (Table 3). Barley test weights were adequate. For wheat, protein and test weight were influenced by variety (Table 2). Protein was affected by grazing, which like barley was higher for grazed (10.1%) than ungrazed (9.7%) wheat crops (P=0.003, LSD=0.25, CV=4.2%), while test weight was not. Screenings again were below 5%, were not affected by grazing, but varied between varieties. Gross income of crops As barley was harvested earlier, it maintained its intended malt (MALT 1) receival grade (exception was two Buloke plots downgraded to feed (Feed1)). Wheat, harvested following significant rainfall on ripe crops, was all downgraded to general purpose (AGP1) or feed (FED1) due to low test weights. Subsequently, variance in quality had a large impact on gross income. Gross income was not affected by grazing, but differed between wheat varieties (P=0.003, LSD=83, CV=12.5%) (Table 4). Table 4. Gross income (GI) of grazed and ungrazed cereals, Culgoa 2010

Crop Variety GI from Grazed

DM*($/ha)

GI Grazed Grain ($/ha)

Total GI Grazed ($/ha)

GI Ungrazed Grain ($/ha)

Barley Gairdner 4.6 1183 1188 1166 Hindmarsh 3.9 1071 1075 1089 Buloke 9.1 1183 1192 961

Sig. diff NS

Wheat

Correll 6.8 672 679 695 Axe 6.2 606 612 722 Yitpi 8.7 717 726 725 Gladius 4.7 601 606 603 Derrimut 4.4 660 664 703 Lincoln 5.1 580 585 533

Sig. diff NS GI DM based on 2011 Rural Solutions SA Farm Gross Margin Guide for self-replacing merino flock gross margin of $40/DSE/year, assuming that 1 DSE consumes 1kg DM/day. Grain prices as delivered Birchip GrainFlow, 23 December 2010, sourced AWB. Broadacre demonstrations – Nullawil and Jil Jil Nullawil Rainfall: Annual GSR 250mm, 2010 GSR 216mm (289mm fell from Oct-Dec) Jil Jil Rainfall: Annual GSR 250mm, 2010 GSR 350mm (111mm fell in Oct) The Nullawil Hindmarsh barley crop was very lush and on the verge of stem elongation, GS31, when grazed. Luckily this crop escaped severe locust damage, unlike other areas of the farm. DM cuts before grazing measured 493kg DM/ha. Metabolisable energy was 13.8MJ/kg DM, and therefore DSE grazing days were estimated at 799. The grazing value of the crop was $54/ha. Spraying of the grazing site was delayed until after stock were removed. Dennis Ryan observed that his barley grew back very well after grazing, but was a few days behind in maturity at flowering time and appeared to have less dry matter production than the ungrazed crop. Dry matter production was not measured at flowering (crop was already in grain fill when other sites were sampled). However, dry matter production at maturity (straw + grain) totalled 10609kg/ha for ungrazed barley crop, and 8324kg/ha for grazed barley crop. This equates to a dry matter production penalty from grazing of 2.28t/ha at maturity.


9

Dennis noted that there was lower vetch contamination in the grazed area: the ewes must have grazed them down or pulled them out. He commented that reduced amounts of straw where crops were grazed will make sowing easier (better trash flow) next season. Grain yield was not affected by grazing but grain quality was. Protein dropped by 0.9% and screenings increased by 0.39% (Table 5). Test weight was unaffected. Table 5. Crop yield, quality and gross income performance at Nullawil, 2010. Grazed Ungrazed Grain yield (t/ha) 4.3 4.3 Protein (%) 9.5 10.4 Screenings (%) 1.2 0.9 Test weight (kg/hl) 66.9 66.1 Gross income ($/ha) 1024 979 GI DM based on 2011 Rural Solutions SA estimate for self-replacing merino flock gross margin of $40/DSE/year, assuming that 1 DSE consumes 1kg DM/day. Grain prices as delivered Birchip GrainFlow, 23 December 2010, sourced AWB. Since the receival grade was not affected by the differences in quality (all made the Hindmarsh segregation, HIND), with the added grazing value the gross income was the same for grazed and ungrazed crop. Dennis also grazed other paddocks in 2010, including a crop of Yitpi wheat. Locusts had compromised his feed paddocks so he decided to put the sheep on before they got to the Yitpi paddock as well. The Yitpi paddock supported a mob of 200 ewes and 200 lambs for two weeks, and Dennis was very pleased with the crop recovery. The paddock still yielded well. Dennis will be sowing Moby barley and Hindmarsh barley/vetch mix paddocks for feed in 2011. The Jil Jil Hindmarsh barley crop was also 5-leaf when grazed, but because it was sown several weeks later, much less biomass was present. DM cuts before grazing measured 73kg DM/ha, equivalent to 75 DSE grazing days, similar to plots in the 2010 Culgoa trial. The grazing value of the crop was $8/ha. Ian McClelland also commented that his barley grew back very well after grazing, but was a few days behind in maturity at flowering time. Dry matter production at flowering was 6528kg/ha for ungrazed barley, and 5189kg/ha for grazed barley; a dry matter penalty of 1339kg/ha due to grazing. Maturity dry matter production (straw + grain) totalled 7306kg/ha for ungrazed barley crop, and 6692kg/ha for grazed barley crop. Grain yield was affected by grazing, with yield decreasing by 0.89t/ha. Grain quality was also affected, but in a different way from that at Nullawil. Protein increased by 2%, but screenings were similar (Table 6). Test weight had deteriorated due to rain by the time the site was harvested, and therefore is not considered in this report. Table 6. Crop yield, quality and gross income performance at Jil Jil, 2010. Grazed Ungrazed Grain yield (t/ha) 2.3 3.2 Protein (%) 13.4 11.4 Screenings (%) 1.7 1.1 Gross income ($/ha) 398 687 GI DM based on 2011 Rural Solutions SA estimate for self-replacing merino flock gross margin of $40/DSE/year, assuming that 1 DSE consumes 1kg DM/day. Grain prices as delivered Birchip GrainFlow, 23 December 2010, sourced AWB. Ungrazed Hindmarsh made the Hindmarsh segregation grade (HIND), whereas the higher protein of grazed barley downgraded it to Feed 1. This, coupled with low feed value, meant the grazed crop gross income was penalised by $292/ha.


10

Every season, the McClellands sow any paddocks that are not cropped, to oats and medic for sheep feed. While barley is more valuable than oats, Ian has seen oats recover much faster and sustain feed value longer than barley, and they provide the break against Take-all in the rotation. The oat/medic pasture is spray topped with Gramoxone, allowing medic to dominate during spring. CONCLUSIONS

Variety evaluation – Culgoa At the commencement of grazing, feed value was low due to the early stage of the crop. However, it still offered some grazing value and would have contributed towards the ‘mixed farming system’ benefits. Both barley and wheat crops provided adequate nutrition for livestock before GS30, meeting the needs of pregnant and lactating ewes and lambs. In 2009 early maturing crops were clearly more affected by grazing. However in 2010, despite a dry period during September, well above average rainfall thereafter meant barley and wheat crops did not suffer a yield penalty from grazing, regardless of variety and maturity. It is also likely that grazing at an early plant growth stage meant less biomass removed and more time for plant recovery. Grain quality was also maintained in grazed crops, with protein even increasing. Buloke barley and Yitpi wheat were the best varieties to graze, offering greatest feed value and recovered grain income. There were other varieties that also handled grazing well. This was different from the 2009 trial at Woomelang, a drier season with a poorer finish, in which Hindmarsh barley (greatest biomass, suffered grain yield penalty but still highest yielding barley), Wyalkatchem and Derrimut wheat (maintained yields and no screenings penalty) were shown to be the best cereals to graze (Nuske et al, 2010). Tables 8-10 in Appendix 1 compare 2009 and 2010 grazing value, grain production and grain quality results. The economic suitability of varieties to grazing is very dependent on how the season plays out, and the effects on grain quality. Broadacre demonstrations – Nullawil and Jil Jil At both Nullawil and Jil Jil Hindmarsh barley provided good quality feed for growing ewes and lambs, enabling pastures a few days rest or providing alternative feed where locusts had eaten pastures. Feed value was higher in the Nullawil demo due to the early sowing, enhancing fast early growth. This enabled earlier grazing and longer time for crop recovery. Yield and receival grade was maintained, giving the same return as ungrazed. The later sowing at Jil Jil reduced feed value, and with a quality downgrade, the return of grazed crops was penalised. Despite the good year, this is the second season this has happened at Jil Jil (in 2009, the grazed crop incurred a 20% yield penalty). Demonstration site hosts Dennis and Ian believe that it is risky grazing crops intended for grain in this environment due to variable springs, and the potential threat to yield and quality. This supports results from 2009 where yield and quality varied at Woomelang and, while yield was maintained at Rainbow (better spring), screenings suffered. However, they do value cereals for their feed benefits and will be sowing them as pastures again in 2011, with the crop outcome (eg. spray topped, hay, grazed to maturity) dependent on season. Dennis and Ian support further evaluation of varieties and agronomy for feed value. Grain & Graze II will use the 2009 and 2010 data in a national project to calibrate APSIM to model the response of crops to grazing. Further evaluation of varieties (shorter season and dual purpose), time of sowing and time of grazing should also occur in the field.


11

Extension Table 7. Extension activities for MCMA and BCG project ‘Grazing Barley & Other Cereals in the Mallee’ Extension Type Event/Activity Location When Press release ‘Grazing Cereals’ Stock and Land April 2010 Tech sheet ‘Grazing cereals, Rainbow VIC’ BCG website &

newsletter May 2010

Tech sheet ‘Grazing cereals, Woomelang VIC’ BCG website & newsletter

June 2010

Presentation Women’s Agronomy Group Birchip 10 June 2010 Presentation BCG Members Field Day Culgoa 13 August 2010 Presentation BCG Main Field Day Culgoa 9 September 2010 Report BCG 2010 Season Research Results Birchip February 2011 It is also intended that results are presented at the Donald BWBL meeting on 11 February, BCG Trials Review at Birchip on 18 February, BCG Traveling Trials Review across the Mallee-Wimmera region 21-25 February, and at 2 other farmer gatherings before seeding 2011. Acknowledgements This project was undertaken with funding from the Federal Governments Caring for our Country initiative, administered by the Mallee Catchment Management Authority (Mallee CMA); and through the Northern Victoria Grain & Graze II project. BCG recognizes the contribution made by Peter Shirley at Culgoa, Warwick and Ian McClelland at Jil Jil and Dennis Ryan at Nullawil for hosting sites. Field measurements were undertaken and processed by Claire Browne, Kaylene Nuske, Daryl Burdet, Eugene Liston, Zoe Creelman and Margaret O’Keefe who are all thanked for their contribution. References Best, F. (2010). ‘Grazing cereals – farmer demonstrations, Rainbow’. BCG 2009 Season Research Results. Pp 52-55.

Grains Research and Development Corporation (2009) ‘Dual Purpose Crops’, Fact Sheet: July.

McInerney, E. (2007) ‘Why is testing feed value important for sheep?’. Eyre Peninsula Farming Systems 2007 Summary. Pp 84-85.

Nuske, K., Hunt, J. and Best, F. (2010). ‘Grazing Cereals’. BCG 2009 Season Research Results. Pp 46-51.


12

Appendix 1 Table 8. Comparison of grazing days at GS13 for barley and wheat varieties, Woomelang 2009 and Culgoa 2010

Variety DSE Grazing Days*

2009 - Woomelang 2010 – Culgoa Hindmarsh 252 11 Buloke 234 95 Gairdner - 22 Correll 160 53 Axe 162 41 Yitpi 165 85 Gladius - 22 Derrimut 109 17 Lincoln - 27 Wyalkatchem 141 - Young 87 - CLF_STL 114 - *Grazing days calculated prior to grazing at GS13, assuming 1 DSE consumes 8MJ/day Table 9. Comparison of grain yield performance for ungrazed and grazed barley and wheat varieties, Woomelang 2009 and Culgoa 2010

2009 - Woomelang 2010 - Culgoa

Variety Grain Yield (t/ha) Yield

Penalty (t/ha)

Grain Yield (t/ha) Yield Penalty (t/ha) Ungrazed Grazed Ungrazed Grazed

Hindmarsh 2.29 1.97 0.32 4.69 4.77 ns Buloke 1.73 1.75 ns 4.62 4.67 ns Gairdner - - - 4.60 4.67 ns Correll 1.80 1.69 ns 3.40 3.44 ns Axe 1.70 1.55 0.16 3.62 3.25 ns Yitpi 1.58 1.48 ns 3.24 3.43 ns Gladius - - - 3.08 3.09 ns Derrimut 1.83 1.76 ns 3.28 3.21 ns Lincoln - - - 2.72 2.95 ns Wyalkatchem 1.88 1.74 ns - - - Young 1.88 1.59 0.29 - - - CLF_STL 1.40 1.48 ns - - - ns – not significant


13

Table 10. Comparison of grain quality for ungrazed and grazed barley and wheat varieties, Woomelang 2009 and Culgoa 2010

2009 - Woomelang 2010 - Culgoa

Variety Protein (%) Screenings (%) Protein (%) Screenings (%)

Ungrazed Grazed Ungrazed Grazed Ungrazed Grazed Ungrazed Grazed Hindmarsh 13.6 14.5 1.9 2.5 9.7 10.2 2.3 1.9 Buloke 14.0 14.4 2.5 5.8 9.4 10.5 3.0 2.5 Gairdner - - 9.7 10.5 2.4 3.0 Correll 13.5 12.8 5.3 9.4 9.4 9.7 2.7 2.6 Axe 13.2 12.6 3.5 4.2 9.8 10.4 1.4 1.8 Yitpi 13.6 14.1 4.7 5.2 9.8 10.0 1.2 2.3 Gladius - - - - 9.8 10.5 1.7 2.0 Derrimut 12.5 12.5 5.5 5.8 9.8 10.1 3.7 4.3 Lincoln - - - - 9.5 9.7 4.6 4.3 Wyalkatchem 13.1 13.0 1.8 2.1 - - - - Young 12.7 12.6 3.6 5.6 - - - - CLF_STL 14.9 14.4 1.0 4.2 - - - - Sig. diff LSD (P<0.05) CV%

ns P<0.001

1.3 21.4%

P(B)=0.002 P(W)=0.003 0.47 0.24 5.4 4.2

P(B)=0.014 P(W)=ns 0.25 q 13.9 q

ns – not significant (B) – barley (W) – wheat NB. 2009 Barley and wheat data was analysed together, and used variety (which included grazed and

ungrazed) for treatment 2010 Barley and wheat data was analysed separately, and used grazing*variety for treatment

2010 Culgoa protein stats are for ‘grazing effect’ only 2010 Culgoa screening statistics are for ‘grazing*variety’ effect Table 11. Final head count and total dry matter production, replicated variety evaluation, Culgoa 2010 Head Density (heads/m2)* Dry Matter at Maturity (kg/ha)* Variety Ungrazed Grazed Ungrazed Grazed Axe 298 209 10834 8893 Buloke 511 483 10859 10666 Correll 293 256 10571 9483 Derrimut 321 325 9503 9099 Gairdner 428 408 10925 10952 Gladius 265 231 9604 8710 Hindmarsh 535 534 11209 10043 Lincoln 260 220 10160 8992 Yitpi 284 238 10499 9896 *Not statistically analysed at time of writing.

Mallee Catchment

Management Authority

www.malleecma.vic.gov.au

PO Box 5017 Mildura 3502

Telephone 03 5051 4377

Facsimile 03 5051 4379

Grazing Cereals final - frontpage — Mallee CMA Final Report to Mallee CMA: Grazing Barley and...

Documents

Transcript of Grazing Cereals final - frontpage — Mallee CMA Final Report to Mallee CMA: Grazing Barley and...