Final Project Report · PDF file · 2018-03-21Report – Biological Fertilisers...

Final Project Report

Biological Fertilisers for Dairy Farming

07/05/2014

Report – Biological Fertilisers for Dairy Farmers Page 0

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................1

Methodology ..........................................................................................................................2

Site Selection .......................................................................................................................2

Measurements (all data is available in the Appendix) ..........................................................2

Fertiliser Application .............................................................................................................2

Treatments ...........................................................................................................................3

Trial Challenges .....................................................................................................................6

Discussion .............................................................................................................................7

Soil Microbial Test ................................................................................................................7

Soil Tests .............................................................................................................................7

Sap Tests .............................................................................................................................8

Brix Tests .............................................................................................................................8

Pasture Growth ....................................................................................................................9

Worm Count .........................................................................................................................9

Physical Soil Structure .........................................................................................................9

Standing Feed Test ............................................................................................................ 10

Results .................................................................................................................................. 11

Public Relations ................................................................................................................... 24

Financial Performance ........................................................................................................ 24

Conclusion of Project .......................................................................................................... 24

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 24

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................ 25


Introduction

The objective of the project was to assess the theory that biological fertilisers have lower impacts on beneficial soil microbial populations than conventional synthetic fertilisers, harnessing the existing microbial population’s ability to contribute to the productivity of the production system. The theory behind the negative impacts on soil microbes from synthetic fertilisers has been demonstrated previously, but it needs to be further researched to determine whether this is in fact occurring in practice. It also needs to be determined whether a biologically based system has the ability to sustain or improve productivity in an economically sound way. The trial has now been successfully completed on two properties within the Scottsdale region. These trials have had base line measurements collected at the start of the trial, and have received scheduled fertiliser treatments in accordance to the time line where practically possible. Pasture growth rate monitoring and nutrient analysis of pastures has been conducted throughout the trial to highlight any incremental changes in nutrient uptake by plants and dry matter production. Measurements of the changes in soil components including chemical, biological and physical characteristics for each site are compared with those base line measurements collected at the beginning of the trial. Biological farming is a concept that is driven by getting the balance of the soil environment right to improve productivity and profitability. It incorporates a range of concepts including chemical (nutrients), physical (air and water) and biological (soil life) to create an improved soil balance that in turn improves soil characteristics that drive social, economic, and environmental sustainability. This style of farming has become increasingly popular in Tasmania, and in particular within the dairy industry. However it is of significant concern that there is perhaps insufficient independent advice in the adoption of this approach to farming. While the physical and biological components are of significant importance, it is essential that the chemical component is still maintained at a sufficient level that will continue to drive productivity of farming enterprises in a manner that remains economically viable.

This trial implements and monitors an infield demonstration trial to compare biological fertiliser products with conventional fertilisers on two dairy farms in the North East of Tasmania, to investigate the impacts of these different practices on soil biology, the physical soil structure and pasture productivity. On the two separate demonstration sites, the validity of the claims for improved soil structure and soil biology was investigated, whilst simultaneously monitoring the productivity of pastures, the nutrient uptake of pastures, feed quality, the changes in soil nutrients, and profitability of the use of biological fertilisers. From this we expected to ascertain some realistic outcomes from the use of biological fertilisers on a commercial scale and their profitability in dairy production systems. Biological farming is no longer a new concept and industry needs to start to adopt and understand this novel and growing farming system in order to better support growers. This trial provides some insight into the additional costs of biological systems, the benefits, and an indication of the time frame in which change may be expected to occur. While the provision of nutrients in biological systems is only one small component of the overall style, these results will be powerful in assisting farmers who are looking to use this approach by providing some realistic and measured expectations. It is our strong belief that there needs to be continued work and support in this field to ensure that farmers who are changing fundamental components in their system, are able to access sound agronomic advice and information to assist in the transition process and to ensure they remain viable throughout the transition.


Methodology

Site Selection

The two trial sites are located in the North East of Tasmania. These sites were chosen based on their current relationships with the dairy industry and Serve-Ag, and their existing interest into biological farming systems. Properties include ‘Lyndsel Pastoral’ managed by Jarrod Smith located in Winnaleah (Plate 1), and ‘Ravenscroft’ in Ringarooma (Plate 2) which is owned and operated by Theo VanBrecht and Cheryl McCartie. The trial consisted of four (4) treatments on each site, with each treatment area being as close to 1 hectare as practically possible. Table 1 shows the different treatments, and highlights the changes to the applications in the trial, which is discussed further in trial challenges. The services of AgVita Analytical were engaged for the soil and sap sample analyses, and brix testing. The Microbe Wise testing was prepared by Microbial Laboratories Australia. The standing feed tests were through George Western Technologies. Measurements (all data is available in the Appendix)

Initial measurements were taken prior to the first application of fertilisers on the 19th of April 2013. Measurements including soil nutritional tests and soil microbial tests were taken as a site average and used as a base line measurement. However due to some variability in the sites it was decided to assess worm counts and soil structure for each individual treatment. The timing of the monitoring activities undertaken is outlined in Table 2. A standing feed test was taken in January to analyse the feed value of the pastures, and to indicate any significant variations. Due to budgetary constraints a single feed test was taken on the site at Ringarooma as this was the most consistent site. Initial pasture measurements were taken as a base line across the site. Pre-grazing and post-grazing measurements of each treatment were taken in accordance with individual rotations using a rising plate metre. Some measurements were missed throughout the trial during the season due to a lack of communication during busy periods; however sufficient data was collected to compare treatments. Sap samples and brix tests were also taken throughout the trial project and compared with a base line sample from the start of the project. Earthworm populations and soil fauna were assessed by taking a square sample of soil to a depth of approximately 20cm and counting the number of worms and other macro-organisms in the soil. Soil structure was conducted using the ‘Soil structure scorecard for clay loam textured topsoils in Tasmania’ (Cotching, 2006. http://www.billcotching.com/soilcondition.htm). Fertiliser Application

Fertilisers have been spread using FertCare approved TSH Spreading. The nutrients applied are outlined in Table 1. In addition to this, the grower standard treatments at both sites have received fertiliser applications. Ravenscroft was treated with Urea in May, and Lyndsel Pastoral applied lime (to the whole farm including the trial area) and a mixture of sulphate of ammonium plus trace elements also in May.

http://www.billcotching.com/soilcondition.htm


Treatments

Treatment B1: Activated Rock Phosphate Rock phosphate is very slow release and not readily available for plant use especially in alkaline soils (pH above neutral). In order for rock phosphate to become plant available the acidity of the soil solution must dissolve the P into a plant-available inorganic P. Rock phosphate is available as a finely ground powder with a consistency similar to flour.1 Bio-activation of rock phosphate results from treating it with phosphorous solubilising microbes (PSM) to release efficient, non-acid-driven phosphorous.2

OFS Blend 2 A custom granular mineral fertiliser blend claiming improved biology and better uptake, with an analysis of NPK: 9-4-6 + Boron. Treatment B2: OFS Blend 1 A new era granular natural phosphorus mineral fertiliser with potassium and inoculated with beneficial microbes to enhance phosphorus release, with an analysis of NPK: 0-8-11. Treatment GS: Winnaleah The grower standard at the Winnaleah site utilises a biological product based on interactions between plant growth promoting bacteria, and plants and soils. The product was designed to work in several ways including unlocking soil nutrients, improving efficiency of nutrient delivery to plants, promoting the production of plant growth hormones and suppression of plant pathogens.3

1Elliott, A.L. et al, 2009. ‘Phosphorous fertilizers for organic farming systems’ Colorado State University

Extension, 2014. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00569.html visited 15/05/2014. 2Li et al, 2012. ‘Bioavailability and mechanism of modified rock phosphate in calcareous soil’ Chinese Journal of

Eco-Agriculture 2012/2013 PP.303-309. http://pub.chinasciencejournal.com/article/getArticle.action?articleId=25861 visited 15/05/2014. 3“What is Great Land

TM” http://www.greatland.net.au/docs/1405-07-www-tech-note_what-is-great-land.pdf

(visited 15/05/2014).

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00569.html%20visited%2015/05/2014

http://pub.chinasciencejournal.com/journal/getJournals.action?journalId=2174

http://pub.chinasciencejournal.com/journal/getJournals.action?journalId=2174

http://pub.chinasciencejournal.com/article/getArticle.action?articleId=25861

http://www.greatland.net.au/docs/1405-07-www-tech-note_what-is-great-land.pdf


Table 1. Treatments and associated application schedule

Treatment Maintenance Application

(March)

1st Top dressing

(April)

2nd Top dressing

(August)

(October)

3rd Top dressing

(October)

(December)

4th Top dressing

(January)

(Bio 1)

Biological treatment 1

Activated Rock Phosphate

0:10:0 + 30%Ca

@300kg/ha

SOP

0:0:41:18

@100kg/ha

NK + Traces Compound

15:17:8:3

@90kg/ha


15:1:17:8

@90kg/ha

NitroHumus

@40L/ha

OFS Blend 2

10:4:6 9:4:6 + Boron

@100kg/ha

@200kg/ha

OFS Blend 2

10:4:6 + Boron

@100kg/ha

(Bio 2)

Biological treatment 2

OFS Blend 1

0:8:11:0

@375kg/ha


15:17:8:3

@90kg/ha


15:1:17:8

@90kg/ha

NitroHumus

@40L/ha

OFS Blend 2

10:4:6 9:4:6 + Boron

@100kg/ha

@200kg/ha

OFS Blend 2

10:4:6 + Boron

@100kg/ha

(IS)

Industry Standard

Maintenance Fertiliser 0:7:10

@375kg/ha

Urea 46:0:0:0

@90kg/ha @100kg/ha

Urea 46:0:0:0

@90kg/ha Easy N

@80L/ha

Pasture Booster

24:4:13

@250kg/ha

Urea 46:0:0:0

@90kg/ha (applied only at Ringarooma site)

(GS)

(growers standard) Growers Seasonal Practice Growers Seasonal Practice Growers Seasonal Practice Growers Seasonal Practice Growers Seasonal Practice

Table 2. Gant chart indicating the activities used to assess the trial outcomes and their timing over the 12 month period of the trial.

March April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March

Fertiliser 19/04/13 24/05/13 Too Wet for Fertiliser 18/10/13 10/12/13 28/01/14

Soil Tests 19/04/13 31/03/14

Sap Samples 19/04/13 30/07/13 30/09/13 10/12/13 31/03/14

Brix Test 19/04/13 30/07/13 30/09/13 10/12/13 31/03/14

Pasture Growth Monitoring 19/04/13 31/03/14

Soil Microbial Test 19/04/13 31/03/14

Worm Count 19/04/13 31/03/14

Physical Soil Structure

Assessment

19/04/13 31/03/14

Standing Feed Tests 15/01/14


Plate 1: The Winnaleah site at Lyndsel Pastoral and approximate allocation of each treatment area.

Plate 2: The Ringarooma site at Ravenscroft and approximate allocation of each treatment area.


Trial Challenges Unfortunately due to time constraints the maintenance fertiliser at the start of the trial was applied before the results of the soil tests came back. These highlighted a very low pH at the Winnaleah site which would be considered unfavourable in biological systems, due to the hostility of the environment for microbial activity. However this is a common characteristic of Tasmanian soils, and represents industry reality. The site was treated with lime in the early stages of the trial, and gives an indication of the how biological systems are able to perform in situations such as this that represent the reality of the variation seen in farming. This Winnaleah site also did not receive summer irrigation as initially anticipated due to a change in their production system to a full winter milk system. This has meant that the summer application of Urea was not applied.

There was significant numbers of both Oncopera intricata (Corbie) and Oncopera rufobrunnea (Winter Corbie) last season in the region. This required chemical control on both properties which is disappointing for the trial. Interestingly, results indicate that microbial populations have not suffered a net negative affect. A very cold wet spring meant that the second top dressing was deemed unsuitable due to the environmental conditions thus altered to liquid fertiliser applications that were more in line with best practice.


Discussion

All figures referenced are contained within the Results section of this report. Soil Microbial Test Total bacteria population and total microbes at the Winnaleah trial site prior to treatment were above desirable levels and remained equal to or greater than this target 12 months later (Figure 1 & Figure 2). All treatments decreased in total bacteria population from base levels except B1, which increased. Alternatively, the Ringarooma site base total bacteria population and total microbes were less than desirable and decreased similarly across all treatments during the trial period (Figure 3 & Figure 4).

Total base level fungi were equal to the desirable level at the Winnaleah site and remained static for B1 and B2 treatments (Figure 5). Total fungi decreased in the IS treatment and increased under the GS. Total base level fungi at the Ringarooma site however were below desirable levels and marginally increased in all treatments except the IS, but remained below desirable for all (Figure 6). Baseline microbial diversity at the Winnaleah Site was greater than the desirable level and decreased for all treatments, but remained above the desirable target, except B1 which fell below (Figure 7). Baseline microbial diversity at the Ringarooma site were also greater than the desirable level, but dropped below across all treatments (Figure 8).

The fungi to bacteria ratio is a function of the total individual populations for fungi and bacteria and thus mirrors those trends for each treatment. The baseline fungi to bacteria ratio at the Winnaleah Site was less than desirable (Figure 9). IS and B2 treatments increased slightly above the base level and B1 fell below. GS increased to meet the desirable level, possibly due to the growers’ standard seasonal practice at this site is to use biological methodology. The baseline fungi to bacteria ratio was slightly greater than desirable and increased markedly for all treatments, and GS increased by the least amount (Figure 10). The lack of response and/or comparable trends in microbial populations for the B1 and B2 treatments is most likely due to the restrictive trial period of 12 months as the literature suggests following conversion to a biological system it may take 3-5 years for observable/measurable effects to occur.4 Soil Tests Total soil carbon percentage baseline was approximately 6% at both sites, which is greater than the minimum desirable level (Figure 11 & Figure 12). Levels remained roughly the same with IS and B1 areas increasing slightly. Baseline soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) was higher at the Ringarooma site compared to the Winnaleah site and all treatments at the Ringarooma site with the exception of B2 increased above this initial level with B1 increasing the most (Figure 13 & Figure 14). Soil CEC in the GS treatment at the Winnaleah site remained the same as at the commencement of the trial while the other treatments dropped. Soil nitrogen percentage increased the most in the B1 plot at both sites (Figure 15 & Figure 16). Soil nitrogen in the IS treatment also increased above base level at the Ringarooma site and the other treatments remained constant or decreased marginally. 4Zimmer, 2000. ‘The Biological Farmer: A Complete Guide to the Sustainable & Profitable Biological System of

Farming’, Acres USA Publishers, Austin Texas.


Soil phosphorous in the GS treatment remained the same at the Winnaleah site whilst all other treatments increased to levels within the optimal range (Figure 17). Baseline soil phosphorous was below optimal at both sites and decreased further for all treatments at Ringarooma except B2 which remained the same (Figure 18). Baseline soil potassium was below optimal at both sites and remained so the following year (Figure 19 & Figure 20). Slight increases were measured in the B1 and B2 and decreases in the IS and GS treatments at the Ringarooma site. Soil potassium increased the most at the Winnaleah site and the other treatments decreased markedly. Soil trace element levels are higher at the Ringarooma site in general except iron which is higher at the Winnaleah site. These differences would appear to be site specific and not treatment effects. Sap Tests

The nutrient uptake analysis shows nutrient uptake and balance at the time of sampling providing real time information on the composition of nutrients in the plant sap stream.5 At the Winnaleah site all treatments elicited a plant sap nitrate response with peaks in December (Figure 21). The greatest response was observed in the IS and GS treatments. IS received threefold the amount of nitrogen as the B1 and B2 treatments at this time. GS received no nitrogen, but spiked to the greatest sap nitrate levels at the conclusion of the trial period. Fluctuations in sap nitrate at the Ringarooma site is interesting, as the peaks in the IS treatment do not correlate with fertiliser application (Figure 22). The peak in the B2 treatment area in December does coincide with an application of OFS Blend 2, however B1 received an identical treatment, but no corresponding sap response was measured. Sap phosphorous increased in October 2013 across all treatments (Figure 23& Figure 24). B1 increased the most at the Ringarooma site and B2 the least and both went on to peak in April 2014, whilst the standards plateaued. Whereas both B1 and B2 peaked at the Winnaleah site at this time then phosphorous sap levels in all treatments decreased to the conclusion of the trial period. At Winnaleah the sap potassium increased to a peak in December 2014 for all treatments (Figure 25). This was a greater maximum than Ringarooma, but then all treatments dropped back to levels similar to the baseline by the end of the trial. B2 was consistently higher throughout. Sap potassium increased over the life of the trial for all treatments at the Ringarooma site, but to the greatest extent in the B1 and B2 areas in October 2014 (Figure 26). The level then plateaued, but remained high for B2 and the most fluctuation was measured in the GS treated area. Comparing the sap and soil data, differences appear to correlate to the separate sites and trends between sites for identical treatments are not evident. Brix Tests

Brix levels between treatments at the Winnaleah site were comparable, with B2 often measuring the highest (Figure 27). The greatest difference was between the standard and the biological treatments in October 2013. Brix levels followed a similar trend for all treatments at the Ringarooma site (Figure 28) with B1 consistently returning the highest measurement. The greatest difference in brix was between the standard and the biological treatments in December 2013 and April 2014. 5AgVita Analytical: Nu-test ® nutrient uptake http://www.agvita.com.au/nu-test.html (visited 29/05/2014).

http://www.agvita.com.au/nu-test.html


Overall it was a biological treatment that returned the highest brix level at both sites, but only marginally. The greatest divergence at the Winnaleah Site was between the GS (which is a biological method) and the B1/B2 (which did also receive conventional nutritional inputs). Pasture Growth

The pasture growth was monitored in accordance with grazing to measure the total dry matter (DM) production, and the removal to get an indication if a particular treatment was being preferentially grazed.

There were no significant differences between pasture removals that were consistent between the sites following fertiliser applications that would indicate an increased response from any particular treatment throughout the trial (Table 3). The B1 treatment was consistently lowest or equal with the lowest in production throughout the year at the Ringarooma site with the exception of a measurement in January where the GS treatment was slightly lower. There was some variability at the Winnaleah site however the biological treatment had the lowest DM available most frequently of all the sites.

The B1 treatment had the lowest total DM removal for the year, and lowest average DM removed at the Ringarooma site (Figure 29 & Figure 31). The GS treatment at the Winnaleah site had a slightly lower total DM production and average pasture removal, and when compared with the IS the three biological treatments (B1, B2 and GS), were considerably less productive (Figure 30 & Figure 32). The IS treatment at the Winnaleah site was the highest in all pasture measurements with the exception of one measurement in November. It also had a considerably higher total DM productivity, and total average pasture removal when compared to the other treatments. At the site at Ringarooma the GS treatment had consistently highest removal, however the IS was the next most consistently high. As with the site at Winnaleah, the IS treatment produced the highest total DM removal, and had the highest average dry matter removed (Figure 29 & Figure 31).

The lowest pre and post grazing cover at the Ringarooma site was on the B1 treatment (Figure 33 & Figure 35) and the GS treatment at the Winnaleah site (Figure 34 & Figure 36). The IS had the highest pre and post grazing cover at Ringarooma, and the highest pre-grazing cover at Winnaleah but the post grazing residual was lower than that of the B1 treatment which had the highest average residual at this site (Figure 36). There were no substantial differences between pasture residuals following grazing that was consistent between the sites that would indicate an increase in palatability from any particular treatment throughout the trial.

Based on these results it can be assumed that the productivity of a conventional system will be higher than that of a biological system in its first year. This may be attributed to the increase in the units of nitrogen applied using the conventional system. However the productivity of a property is vital in its profitability, especially with a reliance on pastures in these systems. The pasture in the IS treatment for both sites was the ‘cheapest’ in terms of cost of fertiliser per kg DM response (Table 4). However this accounts only for the fertiliser component of the costs of production, thus when fixed cost are added in addition to the fertiliser cost, the difference would be exacerbated as a result of the difference in total productivity. Worm Count

The Ringarooma Site had higher earthworm populations than the Winnaleah site, in general (Figure 37 & Figure 38). At Winnaleah, worms increased the most in the IS and B1 treatments and the IS and B2 at Ringarooma, with greatest decreases in GS. All treatments at both sites had good earthworm numbers at the conclusion of the trial. Site variations may have influenced these differences rather than the treatments.


Physical Soil Structure

The soil structure did not change at the Ringarooma site (Figure 39) with the exception of the soil in the B1 treatment area which increased slightly. Soil structure at the Winnaleah site however, decreased in all treatment areas (Figure 40). Improving soil health in general through organic matter inputs and consequent decomposition, improving water and air flow and minimising compaction providing a favourable environment for aggregation of soil particles and conducive to earthworms would all lead to improved physical soil structure. An integrated approach to managing the production system utilising biological strategies may also contribute to one or several of these areas, but further investigation is required. Standing Feed Test

The results indicate that over one season there is no increase in feed value through the use of biological fertilisers (Figure 41 & Table 5). There was no substantial difference found in potassium, chloride, calcium, phosphorus, neutral detergent fibre (NDF), acid detergent fibre (ADF), or megajoules of metaboloisable energy (ME) between the treatments. B1 and B2 treatments returned slightly higher crude protein (CP) levels (Figure 43) however these treatments also show lower DM%, starch% and water soluble carbohydrate (WSC%) and a slightly higher lignin% (Figure 42 & Figure 44). Grazing results have also not shown any obvious variation, which would suggest that the biological fertilisers are not resulting in a reduction of dry matter production in these early stages of the project. However growth rates have been slow through the winter months and variations may be more evident when the rotations on the sites speed up and growth rates increase. There was some slight colour difference observed in the biological treatment, which may be attributed to the sulphur component of that blend which will have a ‘greening’ effect on pastures in colder months. However this did not correspond to an evident increase in pasture productivity. Also sap sulphur in August was variable with the B1 and B2 treatments being the highest and lowest at one site and the reverse at the other.


Results

Figure 1. Total bacteria population for all treatments at the Winnaleah Site over the trial period.

Figure 2. Total microbe population for all treatments at the Winnaleah Site over the trial period.

Figure 3. Total bacteria population for all treatments at the Ringarooma Site over the trial period.

Figure 4. Total microbe population for all treatments at the Ringarooma Site over the trial period.

0

5

10

15

20

25

IS B1 B2 GS

Tota

l (N

o.)

Total Bacteria (mg/kg) Desirable Base Line

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

IS B1 B2 GS

Tota

l (N

o.)

Total Microbes (mg/kg) Desirable Base Line

0

5

10

15

20

25

IS B1 B2 GS

Tota

l (N

o.)

Total Bacteria (mg/kg) Desirable Base Line

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

IS B1 B2 GS

Tota

l (N

o.)

Total Microbes (mg/kg) Desirable Base Line


Figure 5. Total fungi for all treatments at the Winnaleah Site over the trial period.

Figure 6.Total fungi for all treatments at the Ringarooma Site over the trial period.

Figure 7. Microbial Diversity for all treatments at the Winnaleah Site over the trial period.

Figure 8. Microbial Diversity for all treatments at the Ringarooma Site over the trial period.

0

10

20

30

40

IS B1 B2 GS

Tota

l (N

o.)

Total Fungi: Winnaleah

Total Fungi (mg/kg) Desirable Base Line

0

10

20

30

40

IS B1 B2 GS

Tota

l (N

o.)

Total Fungi: Ringarooma

Total Fungi (mg/kg) Desirable Base Line

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

IS B1 B2 GS

Rat

ing

(No

.)

Microbial Diversity: Winnaleah

Microbial Diversity Desirable Base Line

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

IS B1 B2 GS

Rat

ing

(No

.)

Microbial Diversity: Ringarooma

Microbial Diversity Desirable Base Line


Figure 9. Fungi to bacteria ratio for all treatments at the Winnaleah Site over the trial period.

Figure 10. Fungi to bacteria ratio for all treatments at the Ringarooma Site over the trial period.

Figure 11. Total soil carbon percent for all treatments at the Winnaleah Site at trial commencement and conclusion.

Figure 12. Total soil carbon percent for all treatments at the Ringarooma Site at trial commencement and conclusion.

0

1

2

3

4

5

IS B1 B2 GS

Rat

io

Fungi:Bacteria - Winnaleah

Fungi:Bacteria Desirable Base Line

0

1

2

3

4

5

IS B1 B2 GS

Rat

io

Fungi:Bacteria - Ringarooma

Fungi:Bacteria Desirable Base Line

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

IS B1 B2 GS

Soil

Car

bo

n (

%)

Total Soil C%: Winnaleah

April 2014 April 2013 Minimum Desirable

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

IS B1 B2 GS

Soil

Car

bo

n (

%)

Total Soil C%: Ringarooma

April 2014 April 2013 Minimum Desirable


Figure 13. Soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) for all treatments at the Winnaleah Site at trial commencement and conclusion.

Figure 14. Soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) for all treatments at the Ringarooma Site at trial commencement and conclusion.

Figure 15. Total soil nitrogen (N) percent for all treatments at the Winnaleah Site at trial commencement and conclusion.

Figure 16. Total soil nitrogen (N) percent for all treatments at the Ringarooma Site at trial commencement and conclusion.

10

12

14

16

18

20

IS B1 B2 GS

CEC

e (

me

q/1

00

g)

Soil CECe: Winnaleah

April 2014 April 2013

10

12

14

16

18

20

IS B1 B2 GS

CEC

e (

me

q/1

00

g)

Soil CECe: Ringarooma


0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

IS B1 B2 GS

Tota

l N (

%)

Total Soil Nitrogen: Winnaleah


0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

IS B1 B2 GS

Tota

l N (

%)

Total Soil Nitrogen: Ringarooma



Figure 17. Available soil phosphorous (P) for all treatments at the Winnaleah Site at trial commencement and conclusion.

Figure 18. Available soil phosphorous (P) for all treatments at the Ringarooma Site at trial commencement and conclusion.

Figure 19. Available soil potassium (K) for all treatments at the Winnaleah Site at trial commencement and conclusion.

Figure 20. Available soil potassium (K) for all treatments at the Ringarooma Site at trial commencement and conclusion.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

IS B1 B2 GS

P (

mg/

kg)

Soil P: Winnaleah

April 2014 April 2013 Desirable range

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

IS B1 B2 GS

P (

mg/

kg)

Soil P: Ringarooma


0

50

100

150

200

IS B1 B2 GS

K (

mg/

kg)

Soil K: Winnaleah


0

50

100

150

200

IS B1 B2 GS

K (

mg/

kg)

Soil K: Ringarooma



Figure 21. Plant sap nitrate for all treatments at the Winnaleah Site over the trial period.

Figure 22. Plant sap nitrate for all treatments at the Ringarooma Site over the trial period.

Figure 23. Plant sap phosphorous for all treatments at the Winnaleah Site over the trial period.

Figure 24. Plant sap phosphorous for all treatments at the Ringarooma Site over the trial period.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

17-Mar-13 25-Jun-13 03-Oct-13 11-Jan-14 21-Apr-14

Nit

rate

(p

pm

)

Sap Nitrate: Winnaleah

IS B1

B2 GS

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400


Nit

rate

(p

pm

)

Sap Nitrate: Ringarooma

IS B1

B2 GS

100

200

300

400

500

600


Ph

osp

ho

rou

s (p

pm

)

Sap Phosphorous: Winnaleah

IS B1B2 GS

100

200

300

400

500

600


Ph

osp

ho

rou

s (p

pm

)

Sap Phosphorous: Ringarooma

IS B1B2 GS


Figure 25. Plant sap potassium for all treatments at the Winnaleah Site over the trial period.

Figure 26. Plant sap potassium for all treatments at the Ringarooma Site over the trial period.

Figure 27. Pasture brix percentage for all treatments at the Winnaleah Site over the trial period .

Figure 28. Pasture brix percentage for all treatments at the Ringarooma Site over the trial period.

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000


Po

tass

ium

(p

pm

)

Sap Potassium: Winnaleah

IS B1B2 GS

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000


Po

tass

ium

(p

pm

)

Sap Potassium: Ringarooma

IS B1B2 GS

2

4

6

8

10

12


Bri

x (%

)

Brix: Winnaleah

IS B1B2 GS

2

4

6

8

10

12


Bri

x (%

)

Brix: Ringarooma

IS B1

B2 GS


Table 3. Dry matter (DM) removal for all treatments for the Ringarooma and the Winnaleah Site over the trial period.

DM Removed/ha (kg)

RINGAROOMA 28/04/2013 21/06/2013 1/10/2013 25/10/2013 13/12/2013 22/01/2014 8/03/2014 TOTAL

IS 925 1075 775 2336 1568 1540 1075 9294

B1 925 750 570 1824 1232 952 825 7078

B2 1075 1075 1130 2130 1232 1064 950 8656

GS 1475 1240 740 1560 1904 868 1150 8937

WINNALEAH 6/05/2013 11/06/2013 12/08/2013 1/11/2013 13/12/2013 11/02/2014

TOTAL

IS 280 671 504 504 560 925

3444

B1 224 475 308 532 258 525

2322

B2 252 450 440 700 196 600

2638

GS 252 435 280 756 280 300

2303

Figure 29. Total DM removed for each treatment at the Ringarooma Site over the trial period.

Figure 30. Total DM removed for each treatment at the Winnaleah Site over the trial period.

1500

2500

3500

4500

5500

6500

7500

8500

9500

IS B1 B2 GS

DM

(kg

/ha)

TOTAL Pasture Removal: Ringarooma

1500

2500

3500

4500

5500

6500

7500

8500

9500

IS B1 B2 GS

DM

(kg

/ha)

TOTAL Pasture Removal: Winnaleah


Figure 31. Average amount of pasture removed at grazing for each treatment at the Ringarooma Site over the trial period.

Figure 32. Average amount of pasture removed at grazing for each treatment at the Winnaleah Site over the trial period.

Figure 33. Average pre-graze pasture availability for each treatment at the Ringarooma site over the trial period.

Figure 34. Average pre-graze pasture availability for each treatment at the Winnaleah site over the trial period.

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

IS B1 B2 GS

DM

(kg

/ha)

TOTAL AVERAGE Pasture Removal: Ringarooma

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

IS B1 B2 GS

DM

(kg

/ha)

TOTAL AVERAGE Pasture Removal: Winnaleah

1600

1900

2200

2500

2800

3100

3400

IS B1 B2 GS

DM

(kg

/ha)

Pre-graze Pasture Availability: Ringarooma

1600

1900

2200

2500

2800

3100

3400

IS B1 B2 GS

DM

(kg

/ha)

Pre-graze Pasture Availability: Winnaleah


Figure 35. Average post-graze pasture availability for each treatment at the Ringarooma site over the trial period.

Figure 36. Average post-graze pasture availability for each treatment at the Winnaleah site over the trial period.

Figure 37. Earthworms counted in each treatment at the Ringarooma site at commencement and conclusion of the trial.

Figure 38. Earthworms counted in each treatment at the Winnaleah site at commencement and conclusion of the trial.

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

IS B1 B2 GS

DM

(kg

/ha)

Post-graze Pasture Availability: Ringarooma

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

IS B1 B2 GS

DM

(kg

/ha)

Post-graze Pasture Availability: Winnaleah

3

8

13

18

23

28

33

38

IS B1 B2 GS

Wo

rm (

No

.)

Earthworms: Ringarooma

Apr-13 Apr-14

3

8

13

18

23

28

33

38

IS B1 B2 GS

Wo

rm (

No

.)

Earthworms: Winnaleah

Apr-13 Apr-14


Figure 39. Soil structure in each treatment at the Ringarooma site at commencement and conclusion of the trial.

Figure 40. Soil structure in each treatment at the Winnaleah site at commencement and conclusion of the trial.

Table 4. Cost of DM production per unit of nitrogen for each treatment as the Winnaleah and the Ringarooma Site for the trial period.

Winnaleah Pasture Removal Units N $/kg removed

IS 3444 140.00 0.221

B1 2322 44.30 0.284

B2 2638 44.30 0.376

Ringarooma Pasture Removal Units N $/kg removed

IS 9294 181.40 0.090

B1 7078 44.30 0.093

B2 8656 44.30 0.115

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

IS B1 B2 GS

Stru

ctu

re S

core

Soil Structure: Ringarooma

Apr-13 Apr-14

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

IS B1 B2 GS

Stru

ctu

re S

core

Soil Structure: Winnaleah

Apr-13 Apr-14


Figure 41. Relative Feed Value for each treatment at the Ringarooma site measured from a single feed test in January 2014.

Figure 42. Starch and lignin percentage for each treatment at the Ringarooma site measured from a single feed test in January 2014.

Figure 43. CP and DM percentage for each treatment at the Ringarooma site measured from a single feed test in January 2014.

Figure 44. WSC percentage for each treatment at the Ringarooma site measured from a single feed test in January 2014.

20

40

60

80

100

120

Relative Feed Value

IS B1 B2 GS

0

1

2

3

4

5

% Starch % Lignin

IS B1 B2 GS

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

% Crude Protein % Dry Matter

IS B1 B2 GS

56789

101112131415

% Ash % Water Soluble Carbs.

IS B1 B2 GS


Table 5. Results of single feed test taken at the Ringarooma site comparing the treatments in January 2014.

RINGAROOMA IS B1 B2 GS

% Starch 2.9 2 1.7 1.9

% Lignin 4 4.3 4.7 4.2

% Ash 9.87 9.55 10.07 9.4

% Water Soluble Carbs. 13.7 11.3 8 11.1

% Crude Protein 17.4 18.8 20 17.5

% Dry Matter 18.1 17.1 15.5 17.9

% Acid Detergent Fibre 30.7 32 33.3 32.8

% Neutral Detergent Fibre 51.9 54.1 53.7 55.4

Relative Feed Value 117 110 109 106

ME (MJ/kg) 9.84 9.76 9.68 9.59

% Calcium (NIR) 0.65 0.62 0.7 0.6

% Phosphorus (NIR) 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.34

% Magnesium (NIR) 0.23 0.23 0.26 0.23

% Sulphur (NIR) 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.22

% Chloride Ion (NIR) 1.28 1.1 1.02 1.04

% Potassium (NIR) 2.88 2.98 3.03 2.76


Public Relations

This project work looking at biological fertilisers has highlighted the need for independent and robust support for farmers who have committed to changing their farming practices to become more biologically minded. In response to this, Serve-Ag is hoping to work with growers to facilitate a discussion group, which will provide sound agronomic grounding and information in addition to biological concepts. This group will incorporate growers from the North East from a range of agricultural industries, and provide a safe forum to share their experiences with other interested growers. It will also provide expert advice from reputable sources with a good sound agronomic base. We are currently looking into funding options to help resource this group.

Financial Performance

The grower contribution to this project has included all fertiliser requirements for the ‘Grower Standard’ treatments. In addition to this, any lime or chemical requirements of the treatment areas have been met by the growers. At both sites growers have been very generous with their time, and have assisted where possible to improve the efficiency of measuring pastures, and in the application of fertilisers.

Conclusion of Project

Biological concepts are being rapidly adopted in the agricultural industry. It is paramount to the sustainability, and continued growth of the industry that these farmers are well support by service providers, and it is ensured that there is a strong agronomic base to the adoption of these new agricultural practices. The lack of any emerging treatment effects needs to be considered in light of the constrained trial period and conversion to a biological system to achieve optimal balance among all factors would most likely be an extended process prior to achieving productivity gains, improved nutrient status and soil health benefits. We encourage as much industry feedback and participation in this research to build knowledge in this area and enable accurate support to industry.

Acknowledgements

Warm thanks are extended to the producers who conducted the trials on their land. A special thank you also goes to Ashley Hobbins (RMCG) and Julie Finnigan, Hannah Mucha and James Burbury (Serve-Ag) who contributed to the project and Rosie James (Serve-Ag) for her collaboration and effort. DairyTas are also gratefully acknowledged for funding the activities.


APPENDIX


SoilExpress (mg/kg)

Date Paddock P K Ca Mg Zn B S Cu Fe Mn Na Al Cl

26/04/2013 Ringarooma Baseline 13.4 73.9 1977 159.3 1.52 0.36 12 2.01 134.45 72.45 43.4 1327.7 13.05

4/04/2014 Ringarooma IS 10.6 62.2 2363.8 192.8 1.7 0.43 13.5 2.19 159.72 107 19.2 1176.48 2.56

4/04/2014 Ringarooma B1 9.9 81.4 2394.9 209.9 1.45 0.62 14.1 2.08 157.48 129.71 46.1 1140.24 10.2

4/04/2014 Ringarooma B2 13.5 89.1 1945.2 186.7 1.18 0.64 15 1.86 141 120.62 43.6 1139.1 7.65

4/04/2014 Ringarooma GS 7.6 58.2 2243.4 192.6 1.41 0.38 12.8 1.88 153.36 138.76 34.7 1180.52 5.8

Date Paddock P K Ca Mg Zn B S Cu Fe Mn Na Al Cl

19/04/2013 Winnaleah Baseline 15.5 88.4 1268.4 118.4 1.99 0.71 14.7 0.17 390.79 6.05 30.9 1313.86 17.7

4/04/2014 Winnaleah IS 22 105.9 1135 91.9 1.41 0.21 18 517.9 5.65 26.6 1320.8 14.2

4/04/2014 Winnaleah B1 22.6 52.9 1121.7 83.5 2.22 0.1 17.5 529.99 2.76 18.2 1173.86 9.75

4/04/2014 Winnaleah B2 24.2 49.4 1230.2 161.5 1.99 0.67 19.9 0.01 517 4.16 22.4 1258.65 16.2

4/04/2014 Winnaleah GS 15.1 53.3 1433.5 161.5 1.36 0.56 15.1 510.59 7 24 1158.88 6.55

SoilExpress

Date Paddock EC

(dS/m) H2O (pH)

CaCl2 (pH)

M3-PSR TN (%)

TC (%)

CNR Base

Saturation (%)

Ca % of

CECe

Mg % of

CECe

K % of

CECe

Na % of

CECe

Al & H % of

CECe

Lime Req. (t/ha)

26/04/2013 Ringarooma Baseline 0.04 5.99 5.24 0.008 0.5 6.05 12.08 70.9 60.5 8.1 1.2 1.2 29.1 0.17

4/04/2014 Ringarooma IS 0.04 5.91 5.16 0.007 0.55 6.32 11.33 78.1 67.6 9.1 0.9 0.5 21.9 1.12

4/04/2014 Ringarooma B1 0.05 6.07 5.3 0.007 0.57 6.26 10.97 73.5 62.4 9 1.1 1 26.5

4/04/2014 Ringarooma B2 0.05 5.99 5.18 0.01 0.5 5.82 11.6 76.7 63.8 10.1 1.5 1.2 23.3 0.13

4/04/2014 Ringarooma GS 0.04 6.02 5.2 0.005 0.5 5.8 11.5 73.5 62.9 8.9 0.8 0.8 26.5

Date Paddock EC

(dS/m) H2O (pH)

CaCl2 (pH)

M3-PSR TN (%)

TC (%)

CNR Base

Saturation (%)

Ca % of

CECe

Mg % of

CECe

K % of

CECe

Na % of

CECe

Al & H % of

CECe

Lime Req. (t/ha)

19/04/2013 Winnaleah Baseline 0.07 5.15 4.57 0.009 0.6 6.45 10.69 55.7 46 7.1 1.6 1 44.3 8.04

4/04/2014 Winnaleah IS 0.05 5.18 4.4 0.012 0.59 6.98 11.82 53.5 44.5 6 2.1 0.9 46.5 7.66

4/04/2014 Winnaleah B1 0.04 5.05 4.28 0.014 0.62 7.01 11.14 51.9 44.7 5.5 1.1 0.6 48.1 8.29

4/04/2014 Winnaleah B2 0.05 5.29 4.54 0.014 0.58 6.59 11.26 63 50.3 10.9 1 0.8 37 5.49

4/04/2014 Winnaleah GS 0.04 5.33 4.52 0.009 0.57 6.8 11.87 62 50.8 9.5 1 0.7 38 6.33


SoilExpress

Date Paddock Sample Depth (cm) CECe

(meq/100g) Ca

(meq/100g) Mg

(meq/100g) K

(meq/100g) Na

(meq/100g)

Exch. Acidity

(meq/100g)

26/04/2013 Ringarooma Baseline 15 16.34 9.88 1.32 0.19 0.19 4.76

4/04/2014 Ringarooma IS 20 17.5 11.82 1.59 0.16 0.08 3.84

4/04/2014 Ringarooma B1 20 19.2 11.97 1.73 0.21 0.2 5.082

4/04/2014 Ringarooma B2 20 15.25 9.73 1.54 0.23 0.19 3.56

4/04/2014 Ringarooma GS 20 17.83 11.22 1.59 0.15 0.15 4.719

Date Paddock Sample Depth (cm) CECe

(meq/100g) Ca

(meq/100g) Mg

(meq/100g) K

(meq/100g) Na

(meq/100g)

Exch. Acidity

(meq/100g)

19/04/2013 Winnaleah Baseline 15 13.8 6.34 0.98 0.23 0.13 6.12

4/04/2014 Winnaleah IS 20 12.74 5.68 0.76 0.27 0.12 5.92

4/04/2014 Winnaleah B1 20 12.55 5.61 0.69 0.14 0.08 6.04

4/04/2014 Winnaleah B2 20 12.23 6.15 1.33 0.13 0.1 4.52

4/04/2014 Winnaleah GS 20 14.1 7.17 1.33 0.14 0.1 5.36


Nu-test (ppm)

Date Paddock NO3 P K Ca Mg Zn B S Cu Fe Mn Na Mo NH4 Cl Brix (%)

23/04/2013 Ringarooma

Baseline 425 283 2520 729 375 4.83 0.62 456 0.91 18.44 19.23 1203 0.097 109.5 2585 5

1/08/2013 Ringarooma IS 680 191 1888 376 145 2.22 0.22 238 0.66 31.16 7.93 477 0.035 21.8 1020 3.7

1/08/2013 Ringarooma B1 223 301 2411 684 294 2.76 0.34 516 0.77 30.8 20.11 807 0.034 18.25 1640 5.4

1/08/2013 Ringarooma B2 146 210 1814 371 194 2.16 0.4 233 0.73 79.36 11.88 328 0.053 38.45 1150 3.4

1/08/2013 Ringarooma GS 181 200 1224 444 220 2.77 0.32 251 0.81 131.07 16.04 912 0.038 33.8 1220 4.1

1/10/2013 Ringarooma IS 116 379 2237 1134 331 2.9 0.47 541 0.85 8.8 22.8 1566 0.041 16.5 2165 6.5

1/10/2013 Ringarooma B1 162 447 4075 1020 360 3.59 0.46 535 0.96 20.49 26.88 824 0.034 17.2 2640 7.7

1/10/2013 Ringarooma B2 105 322 3924 845 300 2.74 0.43 438 0.82 15.91 26.34 796 0.021 17.75 2325 6.7

1/10/2013 Ringarooma GS 186 396 2119 870 314 3.6 0.4 380 1.07 19.36 22.34 1717 0.042 30.6 2145 7.2

13/12/2013 Ringarooma IS 128 311 2620 1183 507 2.93 0.69 582 0.7 3.12 20.19 1353 0.043 8.1 2635 8

13/12/2013 Ringarooma B1 270 414 3236 1203 433 4.11 1.26 544 1.03 8.78 20.59 1310 0.045 10.65 2560 9.8

13/12/2013 Ringarooma B2 625 326 4403 1085 432 3.71 0.99 487 0.93 7.36 22.1 673 0.052 12.45 2440 9.5

13/12/2013 Ringarooma GS 112 341 1789 1092 388 3.25 0.9 497 0.84 5.24 18.14 1827 0.07 10.05 2480 8.1

2/04/2014 Ringarooma IS 1030 292 3712 832 385 3.25 0.75 550 0.9 4.91 18.34 1697 0.051 100.5 3000 7.1

2/04/2014 Ringarooma B1 240 516 3401 965 529 3.69 0.69 917 1.14 6.95 23.74 1207 0.029 40.8 2820 8

2/04/2014 Ringarooma B2 96 533 4161 828 413 3.16 0.66 763 0.98 5.78 23.82 881 0.082 16.2 2795 7.6

2/04/2014 Ringarooma GS 97 346 2998 809 387 2.87 0.63 632 0.82 5.18 25.49 1017 0.029 11.2 2770 6.1


Nu-test (ppm)

Date Paddock NO3 P K Ca Mg Zn B S Cu Fe Mn Na Mo NH4 Cl Brix (%)

17/04/2013 Winnaleah Baseline 553 248 2525 413 326 3.12 0.44 234 0.51 15.75 16.38 641 0.103 48.35 2530 3.2

2/08/2013 Winnaleah IS 240 289 2511 635 253 3.91 0.4 444 0.75 10.44 17.71 887 0.076 22.9 1910 5.9

2/08/2013 Winnaleah B1 141 209 2219 643 240 2.89 0.37 406 0.52 39.16 15.82 704 0.047 15.65 1795 5.3

2/08/2013 Winnaleah B2 229 328 3589 684 309 3.77 0.33 543 0.72 12.48 20.88 542 0.08 17.5 2080 6.5

2/08/2013 Winnaleah GS 192 299 2548 599 255 3.69 0.37 454 0.71 11.83 20.14 648 0.115 22.25 1795 5.5

1/10/2013 Winnaleah IS 376 392 4180 612 240 4.17 0.46 547 0.59 21.04 17.53 804 0.067 24.3 2655 6.7

1/10/2013 Winnaleah B1 192 445 4264 588 258 3.69 0.54 432 0.62 15.19 17.56 872 0.1 28.9 2840 7.1

1/10/2013 Winnaleah B2 162 470 4718 655 291 4.14 0.53 465 0.78 27.65 24.35 644 0.111 13.25 2920 7.1

1/10/2013 Winnaleah GS 194 410 3533 623 284 3.87 0.65 427 0.58 14.07 18.32 829 0.202 10.25 2500 5.7

13/12/2013 Winnaleah IS 980 317 5081 737 344 4.23 0.9 379 0.7 9.04 14.61 585 0.132 58.5 3050 7

13/12/2013 Winnaleah B1 620 389 5010 734 372 6.18 0.97 457 0.86 7.64 23.7 585 0.131 41.85 3230 7.3

13/12/2013 Winnaleah B2 475 304 5643 796 387 4.8 1.22 459 0.79 6.13 22.3 588 0.127 17.7 3515 8.1

13/12/2013 Winnaleah GS 1165 318 5466 791 397 5.1 1.22 436 0.8 5.96 19.65 481 0.099 14.45 3100 8

2/04/2014 Winnaleah IS 405 287 2509 550 290 3.93 0.59 302 0.57 4.83 19.65 624 0.093 42.95 2080 4.8

2/04/2014 Winnaleah B1 111 290 1733 710 335 4.71 0.66 417 0.62 4.18 24.34 825 0.094 19.3 1785 4.5

2/04/2014 Winnaleah B2 112 276 2569 569 289 3.89 0.58 345 0.51 3.85 28.67 385 0.113 24.7 2010 4.4

2/04/2014 Winnaleah GS 267 163 1985 419 215 2.63 0.48 213 0.48 3.17 19.76 366 0.111 21.25 1670 3.6


Rising Plate Meter

Ringarooma IS B1 B2 GS

Date Pre Post DM Pre Post DM Pre Post DM Pre Post DM

28/04/2013 2700 1775 925 2700 1775 925 2750 1675 1075 2900 1425 1475

21/06/2013 2500 1425 1075 2175 1425 750 2550 1475 1075 2640 1400 1240

1/10/2013 2200 1425 775 2000 1430 570 2700 1570 1130 2500 1760 740

25/10/2013 3786 1450 2336 3244 1420 1824 3580 1450 2130 2970 1410 1560

13/12/2013 (CUT)

3524 1956 1568 3160 1928 1232 3608 2376 1232 4000 2096 1904

22/01/2014 3972 2432 1540 2908 1956 952 3104 2040 1064 3048 2180 868

8/03/2014 3625 2550 1075 2750 1925 825 3175 2225 950 3150 2000 1150

31/03/2014 3160 3160 2124 2124 2908 2908 2460 2460

TOTAL 12454 9202 11564 11397

Rising Plate Meter

Winnaleah IS B1 B2 GS

Date Pre Post DM Pre Post DM Pre Post DM Pre Post DM

6/05/2013 1620 1340 280 1620 1396 224 1620 1368 252 1620 1368 252

11/06/2013 2096 1425 671 1900 1425 475 1900 1450 450 1860 1425 435

12/08/2013 2040 1536 504 1900 1592 308 2060 1620 440 1844 1564 280

1/11/2013 2572 2068 504 2544 2012 532 2516 1816 700 2376 1620 756

13/12/2013 2236 1676 560 2046 1788 258 2012 1816 196 2012 1732 280

11/02/2014 2475 1550 925 2075 1550 525 2100 1500 600 1750 1450 300

18/03/2014

1650

1675

1575

1525

31/03/2014 2208 2208 2292 2292 1900 1900 2012 2012

TOTAL 5652 4614 4538 4315


Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

S1-Industry Standard Pit 1 28 31 5 4 3 corbies, 1 mill ipede 2 corbies, 1 armyworm

Pit 2 31 47 5 5 2 redheaded cockchafers 2 corbies, 1 armyworm

Pit 3 18 24 4 5 1 rove, 1 mite, 1 spider, 1 coleoptera

Average 25.67 34.00 4.67 4.67 -2 -1

S2-Biological 1 Pit 1 15 22 5 5 8 corbies 2 RHCC, 1 spider, 1 corbie, 1 weevil

Pit 2 29 26 4 6 1 mill ipede, 1 corbie 2 weevil, 2 corbie

Pit 3 40 25 5 4 1 corbie 1 coleoptera, 1 WW, lots collembola

Average 28 24.33333333 4.666666667 5 -3 0

S3 Biological 2 Pit 1 24 19 5 5 2 corbies 1 weevil, lots GPA, 1 RHCC

Pit 2 31 50 5 4 3 corbies, 1 slug, 1 pupae 1 corbie

Pit 3 16 16 4 5 root aphid 1 FG, 1 cent

Average 23.67 28.33 4.67 4.67 -2.5 -7

S5-Growers Standard Pit 1 34 18 5 6 1 wireworm 1 corbie, 1 RHCC

Pit 2 30 12 6 4 nematode

Pit 3 27 9 6 7 1 corbie 3 WW, 2 corbie

Average 30.33 13.00 5.67 5.67 -1 -2.5

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

S1-Industry Standard Pit 1 13 42 5 5 1 RCC, 3 FWW

Pit 2 8 10 6 6 2 FWW

Pit 3 9 23 6 4 2 slugs, spiders, ants

Average 10.00 25.00 5.67 5.00 0 -2

S2-Biological 1 Pit 1 7 4 4 3 9 RHCC, 1 mill ipede

Pit 2 3 25 5 4 2 RHCC 1 springtail, 1 CW

Pit 3 16 37 5 5 1 WFW

Average 8.67 22.00 4.67 4.00 -4 0

S3 Biological 2 Pit 1 15 11 4 3 5 BHCC, 2 WFW, 1 corbie 1 weevil, 1 rove, 2 coleoptera

Pit 2 24 39 5 5 root aphid, 1 RHCC

1 cent, LF's, FGs, 1 rove, CC, 2WW,

collembola

Pit 3 7 5 6 5

Average 15.33 18.33 5.00 4.33 -3 1

S4-Growers Standard Pit 1 13 33 5 5 5 WW, 1 WFW 1 cent, LF's, 3RHCC, 1WW, collembola

Pit 2 35 19 4.5 4 1 corbie 1 FWW

Pit 3 37 28 5 4 1 armyworm, 2 corbies, 2 WW spiders, 1 rove, 2 cents

Average 28.33 26.67 4.83 4.33 -4 0

Ringarooma SiteWorm Structure Other Observations

Winnaleah SiteWorm Structure Other Observations

Final Project Report · PDF file · 2018-03-21Report – Biological Fertilisers...

Documents

Transcript of Final Project Report · PDF file · 2018-03-21Report – Biological Fertilisers...