Year of study:
2009-11
Lead organisation & collaborators:
ONFARM consulting, John Mulvany
Kevin and Helen Jones
GippsDairy
Gardiner Foundation
Dairy Australia
Contact:
John Mulvany
PO box 461, Leongatha Vic 3953
T: (03) 5664 3393
Best available science assessment:
|
Objectives |
Conceptual model |
Study design |
Soil analysis |
Production & financial |
Method reporting |
Data analysis |
Results reporting |
Publication |
|
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
Project details
Objectives:
The trial was undertaken to assess pasture responses to fertiliser application, with the ultimate aim to increase dry matter production and inform decisions on profitability of lime and fertiliser use.
Hypotheses:
Soil pH affects the availability of nutrients. The use of lime to increase pH may be required in some instances so as to improve the availability of nutrients and manage exchangeable aluminium.
In addition, naturally acidic soils may have a lower pH range to achieve acceptable pasture growth. The addition of lime may be required to manage the soils within its operating pH range for the area.
Basis:
Soil tests are often an unreliable guide to pasture response to fertiliser and lime. This makes assessing the profitability of fertiliser choices difficult. Test strips combined with soil testing improves skill in predicting pasture response to fertiliser and lime.
On this farm, a pre-test was conducted. Lime was then applied and follow up soil test conducted. There were both anecdotal and soil test results that informed productivity decisions.
Location details
Management practices tested:
Lime application (test strip)
Trial site details:
Wet climate
River silt (loam and clay loams)
Pre-trial management:
Phosphorus/sulphur levels were relatively high. Only need modest maintenance rates. When farmers feed pastures they need to address lime and micronutrients.
Dairy farm (380 cows)- 34-35 days (wet period, coinciding with calving), in September back to 25 day rotation.
40ha fixed irrigation sprinkler
Previous history of fertiliser application:
| N (kg/ha) | P (kg/ha) | K (kg/ha) | S (kg/ha) | |
| 500kg 2&1 | 29.5 | 83.5 | 36.5 | |
| 700kg Urea | 350 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 700kg 3&1 | 46.2 | 88.9 | 57.5 | |
| 800kg 2&1 | 47.2 | 133 | 58.4 |
Trial management:
Management is guided by a support group which meets to discuss performance measures and adoptive practices
Results:
Summary of key findings of trial:
It is important to consider the productivity and performance outputs of farms to inform the management of the property.
Variation in soil pH with time and management influence:
4t/ha lime application resulted in increase of 0.2 in pH 12 months later.
| Date | Area | Paddock | pH (CaCl2/H20) |
| December 2002 | Green | 4.4/5.4 | |
| February 2004 | Green | 4.6/5.5 | |
| December 2009 | Over River | 16 & 17 | 4.9/5.6 |
| January 2011 | 16 & 17 | 4.7/5.5 | |
| December 2002 | Irrigation | 5.0/5.8 | |
| February 2004 | Irrigation | 4.8/5.6 | |
| February 2005 | Irrigation | 5.1/5.8 | |
| December 2009 | Irrigation | 20 to 23 | 5.0/5.8 |
| January 2011 | 20 to 23 | 4.8/5.7 | |
| December 2009 | New purchase | 35 & 32 | 5.1/5.9 |
| January 2011 | New purchase | 35 & 32 | 4.8/5.8 |
| December 2002 | Richards | 4.6/5.4 | |
| February 2004 | Richards | 4.6/5.5 | |
| December 2009 | Front | 6 to 8 | 4.5/5.2 |
| January 2011 | Front | 6 to 8 | 4.8/5.8 |
Other soil treatments:
| Date | Area | Paddock | P | K | S | ||||
| December 2002 | Green | 12 | 171 | 12 | |||||
| February 2004 | Green | 17.2 | 175 | 9.8 | |||||
| December 2009 | Over River | 16 & 17 | 23.9 | 148 | 13.6 | ||||
| January 2011 | 16 & 17 | 28.1 | 142 | 17.5 | |||||
| December 2002 | Irrigation | 23 | 160 | 33 | |||||
| February 2004 | Irrigation | 24 | 181 | 16 | |||||
| February 2005 | Irrigation | 25 | 204 | 14 | |||||
| December 2009 | Irrigation | 20 to 23 | 31.4 | 279 | 18 | ||||
| January 2011 | 20 to 23 | 34.5 | 267 | 20.5 | |||||
| December 2009 | New purchase | 35 & 32 | 18.2 | 142 | 7.6 | ||||
| January 2011 | New purchase | 35 & 32 | 19.1 | 148 | 14.6 | ||||
| December 2002 | Richards | 20 | 133 | 14 | |||||
| February 2004 | Richards | 21 | 107 | 8.2 | |||||
| December 2009 | Front | 6 to 8 | 28.4 | 135 | 12.8 | ||||
| January 2011 | Front | 6 to 8 | 29.7 | 130 | 16.3 | ||||
Experimental design:
2009 to December 2011(2 years)
On this farm, a pre- test was conducted. Then applied lime and conducted some follow up tests. There were both anecdotal and soil test results.
4t/ha lime broadcast was applied, high EMB lime (fine), tested 12 months later- pH up by 0.2. No visual growth effect. Economics of situation meant that this approach is a ‘soil insurance policy’ for the farmer. Where there are adequate funds, try to get lime on farms with low pH (~20% of the farm). Every 5 years. When paddocks cultivated and resown, 4-5t/ha opportunity to incorporate it. Cut off point is dependent on individual farms.
| N (kg/ha) | P (kg/ha) | K (kg/ha) | S (kg/ha) | Lime (t/ha) | ||||||
| 2010/11 | 293 | 35 | 114 | 41 | 4 | |||||
Trial design/layout:
Whole-of-farm approach
Production Measurements:
Silage crops were late and of average quality
Cost and value of production:
Fertilisers $98,574 spent.
Reporting:
How results have been reported:
Field day booklet
How a copy of any relevant reports can be obtained:
John Mulvany
Soil Sampling method:
Soil tests conducted (pre and post) by Farmright Technical Services
pH, P, K and full spectrum of chemical analysis. The following identifies the measured soil test elements between 2009 and 2011 over the different paddocks.
| Analysis | December 2009 | January 2011 | |||||||||
| 35/32 | 16/17 | 20,21,22 | 6,7,8 | 6/8 | 16/17 | 32/35 | 20-23 | ||||
| Phosphorus (Olsen) (Mg/kg) | 18.2 | 23.9 | 31.4 | 28.4 | 29.7 | 28.1 | 19.1 | 34.5 | |||
| Potassium (Colwell) (mg/kg) | 142.0 | 148.0 | 279.0 | 135.0 | 130.0 | 142.0 | 148.0 | 267.0 | |||
| Sulphur (KCl40) (mg/kg) | 7.6 | 13.6 | 18.0 | 12.8 | 16.3 | 17.5 | 14.6 | 20.5 | |||
| pH (1:5 water) | 5.9 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 5.2 | 5.8 | 5.5 | 5.8 | 5.7 | |||
| pH (CaCl2) | 5.14 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 4.5 | 4.8 | 4.7 | 4.8 | 4.8 | |||
| Salinity (1:5 water) (dS/m) | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.16 | |||
| Organic carbon (%) | 5.02 | 4.63 | 4.72 | 4.12 | 3.55 | 5.28 | 6.08 | 5.75 | |||
| Nitrate (mg/kg) | 6.0 | 7.0 | 13.0 | 10.0 | 1.0 | 8.0 | 5.0 | 18.0 | |||
| Ammonium (mg/kg) | 15.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 7.0 | 11.0 | 15.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | |||
| Copper (mg/kg) | 1.06 | 1.49 | 1.81 | 0.54 | 0.40 | 1.66 | 0.99 | 2.03 | |||
| Zinc (mg/kg) | 2.77 | 3.76 | 4.98 | 3.05 | 3.41 | 3.96 | 3.14 | 5.46 | |||
| Manganese (mg/kg) | 16.6 | 47.3 | 71.8 | 25.8 | 29.6 | 69.6 | 18.4 | 90.4 | |||
| Iron (mg/kg) | 395.3 | 399.3 | 434.0 | 455.0 | 287.3 | 299.0 | 343.4 | 316.3 | |||
| Boron (mg/kg) | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.9 | |||
| Phosphorus (mg/kg) | 39.0 | 69.0 | 84.0 | 64.0 | 80.0 | 85.0 | 47.0 | 105.0 | |||
| Calcium (meq/100g) | 11.30 | 11.25 | 10.07 | 5.25 | 6.55 | 9.53 | 10.85 | 8.85 | |||
| Magnesium (meq/100g) | 1.72 | 2.67 | 2.94 | 1.21 | 1.35 | 2.29 | 1.77 | 3.19 | |||
| Sodium (meq/100g) | 0.24 | 0.46 | 0.71 | 0.20 | 0.15 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.57 | |||
| Potassium (meq/100g) | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.65 | 0.32 | 0.28 | 0.30 | 0.33 | 0.63 | |||
| Aluminium (meq/100g) | 0.13 | 0.49 | 0.12 | 0.64 | 0.21 | 0.49 | 0.13 | 0.28 | |||
| CEC (meq/100g) | 13.76 | 15.22 | 14.49 | 7.62 | 8.54 | 12.90 | 13.37 | 13.52 | |||