Integrated weed management in 2017 – P. Newman | 2017 Grains Research Update | Bendigo

s[ ‘The Honey Moon Is Over’ – The Cruel Sea ] Thank you, Steve, and good afternoon everyone. Last speaker of the day – I thought you might have needed a little bit of a wake up. Thanks to ORM Pty Ltd. for getting me over and giving me the graveyard shift. It’s great to be here. Now, I don’t think the honeymoon is over as Tex said, but I think we’re in a honeymoon and we’re in honeymoon. We’re in a honeymoon for a couple of our key herbicides – well, a number of our key herbicides, I believe: a range of pre-emergent herbicides and glyphosate. The honeymoon isn’t over, but those herbicides largely are still working for most people and we want to keep that honeymoon alive for as long as possible. I know you’ve heard a lot over a number of years about glyphosate’ and what a big deal it is and how this glyphosate resistance problem is coming and we keep talking about it, but for me it was a big wake-up when I heard the numbers coming through of what percentage of Australia’s barley samples had glyphosate in them, and then that led to the glyphosate permit for crop-topping barley getting up, which was a great thing, but it really just woke me up and I thought: right, if that’s our strategy, if what we’ve got for weed control is hammer these pre-emergents and then use glyphosate pre-harvest, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to work out that we’re going to break glyphosate quickly – and we’re using it for crop-topping in canola. Glyphosate resistance is a big one and our pre-emergent herbicide resistances are big and, just for a minute, just think about what it would be like farming without them. It would be really pretty challenging. I don’t want to stand here and be a prophet of doom and give a negative presentation, and we can’t look into the future too far, but we need to use the science that we know now and have a look at what our farming system is and use that knowledge to think of the best strategy to keep this honeymoon going for as long as we possibly can. I recently had a wonderful pair of thongs that I owned for about eight months. They were expensive thongs – and, incidentally, the more you spend on thongs, the shorter they last these days. I had this pair of thongs and I was in the honeymoon period with them, and I wouldn’t leave them anywhere and I wouldn’t leave him lying around for fear of someone pinching them – and then I got a bit relaxed, and then I started leaving them on the beach track at the end of my street – because I’m fortunate enough to live on the coast in Geraldton in WA – and then on Sunday some mug has pinched them. I’ve gone for a swim, they’ve pinched my thongs. It’s so un-Australian, isn’t it? But I let my guard down, didn’t I? The honeymoon period was finished, I got relaxed with my thongs and then they were gone – a bit like when you buy pair of sunnies isn’t it? You stay in this honeymoon period for a while with them – look, you can see what I’m getting at. We want to keep these herbicides alive and if we just treat them like dirt, we’re going to lose them. A little bit about myself: I work with the AHRI Communications team. I’ve been in that role for four years. AHRI spends about a third of its budget, now, on Communications. There’s a number of the AHRI team – some of those people have moved on and there’s new ones there and so on. It’s a big team of researchers at AHRI led by Steve in the middle, fully funded by GRDC. We’ve got six of us in Communications now – there’s myself, there’s Lisa and Jess in Perth, we’ve got Greg and Kirrily Condon doing some work with us out of Junee or Wagga, and Paul McIntosh, our man in the north in Queensland – so we’ve got this big Communications team, about a third of the AHRI budget on Communication, because not only research is the answer to our herbicide resistance problems but communication is as well. I’ve been in the grains industry for over 20 years and been working in herbicide resistant weeds for most of those 20 years, and now I find myself being the communicator for AHRI. Let’s get into it. I want to take you through a few things that I thought that I needed to present here, just in terms of this issue that we have with our pre-emergents and with glyphosate, and just the seedbank in general. Let’s start with a herbicide side of things. How do we get herbicides to live hard and die old like Keith Richards? Who ever thought Keith would outlive David Bowie and Prince? He’s living hard, dying old. How’s he do it? I don’t know – but we need to get our herbicides to live hard, die old. In other words, how do we keep using them a lot but get them to last a long time? That’s where this guy’s research here – Roberto Busi – comes in. Doesn’t he look so clean cut next to Keith? Anyway, that’s Roberto. He’s our Italian researcher in AHRI. He’s done a lot of this low dose work. I’m not going to go through it all in great detail – a lot of you have probably seen it – but I want to focus a bit on it because we think we’ve got something to share in terms of how to use these pre-emergent herbicides. Roberto did a lot of this work – I’ll just go back to him for a minute there so I don’t focus on those boxes. Just to recap quickly, he took some really nasty resistant ryegrass, exposed it to low doses of Sakura in the lab, evolved Sakura resistance in the lab before it was even released as a commercial product to farmers, and then found that it was cross-resistant to Boxer Gold and Avadex – so a big wake up call – and highly suspected that that cross resistance is due to the P450 enzymes, the enzymes that can break down a herbicide before it gets to the target site. That was his research in a nutshell; I’m not going to show you all the graphs and everything, a lot of you have probably seen it already, and we developed this here, through that. We sort of said OK, how do we rotate our herbicides with this in mind? What we’re saying is rotate between the boxes, and you’ve probably seen this before – where we’ve put Sakura, Boxer Gold and Avadex essentially in the same box because there is potential cross-resistance between them. Then we’ve got trifluralin and propyzamide. Even though they’re both in Group D, there’s no cross-resistance between them so they’re in different boxes, so a little confusing. Then – just bear with me for a minute – we started having a look at this recently, and Greg Condon presented this recently in Wagga, and he called me up and said “I think the boxes need a bit of an overhaul,” so we started having a chat and we added some other herbicides. So, in this big blue box – and you’ll notice that they are all still a bit separate, because it is still good to rotate between them, don’t get me wrong – but what we know is that all of the herbicides here in blue, there is potential for cross-resistance between them all by metabolic resistance. So even though we’ve got some different groups going on – there’s quite a bit of K in there but there’s J as well – there is potential cross-resistance between them, so let’s talk about that. Roberto found cross-resistance between these three; Butisan, there’s an asterisk there – it’s not tested yet but we suspect that it’s sort of in this box, Roberto is going to test that as well. There is cross-resistance to Dual, just metolachlor, by enhanced metabolism. Peter Boutsalis, I think, spoke to many of you this morning – they found some Avadex resistant ryegrass and, in some cases, have found that it’s cross-resistant to Boxer Gold – not always, but in some cases. The researchers in Canada in wild oats – wild oats really find it hard to evolve resistance – the researchers in Canada found some Avadex resistant wild oats and found that it was also cross resistant to Sakura. It doesn’t happen every time; it’s not fully reliable that if you have resistance to one of these you lose them all, but we know that some cross-resistance between them all exists. Let’s look at what other boxes we’ve got. We had these other ones, we’ve added some herbicides in here and then we’ve also got our triazines which can be in another box altogether, so essentially no cross-resistance between these boxes but potential cross-resistance between all of them. So, ideally, we mix and rotate between all of those boxes. Then, we add some more boxes! These aren’t pre-emergents, but clethodim, glyphosate, paraquat – they’re post-emergents, so a bit more to the story. If we want to make these things last we mix, rotate and double knock with all of these herbicides on the screen – and, ideally, we don’t go Avadex one year, Boxer Gold the next, Sakura the next. So what can we do? Well, if you’ve lost trifluralin already, you’ve lost quite a few options, haven’t you? Just talking, so we know that’s the metabolic cross-resistance box – what could we mix that with? Well, some good mixes can be trifluralin plus any of those, if trifluralin is still effective in a particular paddock. Propyzamide plus the triazines, perhaps pre-canola and soon registered in pulses – propyzamide, I believe. Hopefully, that registration gets there. Hopefully we get propyzamide in our pulses. There’s a good mix – even though you might be 60% control here, mixing it with propyzamide is a good idea. Incidentally, in Roberto’s work where he evolved resistance to a number of herbicides, he’s got a population of ryegrass with resistance to FOPs, DIMs, SUs, Sakura, Boxer Gold, Avadex, everything – but it’s not resistant to propyzamide. He’s never found any resistance to propyzamide, Peter Boutsalis has never found any resistance to propyzamide and there’s none in the world at the moment, so it’s a really good, strong product and we would look after it even more if we can mix it pre-sowing. Trifluralin + propyzamide, another good mix. Trifluralin + triazines; you can see trifluralin features pretty heavily. Look – this is the quote that I love. Pat Tranel in the US, they did a big study on glyphosate resistant weeds and he came up with this quote: that rotating buys you time, but mixing buys you shots. I’ve sort of turned it into my own quote: “Mix and rotate buys you time and shots.” The strong message is that we’ve had this big message of rotation for a long time – use the product last year, don’t use it next year sort of thing; well, the message really – these days – is mix two products together and then mix two products together next year and then mix two products together the year after that. Trifluralin, in the paddocks it works, will probably feature pretty heavily in that mix in all of those years, but from my perspective I’d rather see that than just rotating between one, then another, then another. So mix and rotate and double knock – that’s the first bit of the presentation in terms of the herbicide mixes. I’m going to do something a little different and a little risky, here – so if you’d like to stay in touch, AHRI has a newsletter called AHRI Insight – it comes out roughly every couple of weeks and it keeps you updated on the latest research. Many of you already subscribe, but if any of you would like to subscribe, the different thing I’m going to do is pass around my phone. I really hope it comes back, so if you find yourself with this at the end of the presentation, could you please bring it back to me? I normally send my iPad around, it’s always come back and I’m sure the phone will as well. I’m just wondering if you could help me, if you could pass it into the crowd – you just need to put your name and email in there, you get about a 200 word email in your inbox and then you click through to the website. If you could send that around the audience, that’d be great. If you don’t want another newsletter, don’t subscribe – and thank you to all of those who have subscribed already. Honeymoon period with the iPhone is way over. Where are we? Rates – herbicide rates. So, Stephen Powles – he’s traveled the country and the world, and one of his big messages for a long time has been keep the rates up, use full label rates. That’s great, good message. I’m here to tell you that that’s what you’ve been doing. Last year, we promised GRDC we would do a survey and we didn’t, so we just got around to it the last couple of weeks – sorry, GRDC, Steve. We’ve just done a survey on herbicide rates of agronomists – we got about 160 agronomists fill this survey to just see what you’re doing with rates. We offered five Leatherman tools, multi-tools as prizes – that was a good lure, so we got 160 – so thank you to all of those in the audience that did this survey, and let’s have a quick look at the results, so rates. You could interpret that as a bit scary – so this is saying that this is people who never recommend below label rates and then agronomists saying one to 25% of my recommendations contain below label rates. You could look at that on face value and go ooh, our growers are rate cutting still. Let’s have a look a bit further – the motivation to cut those rates, some say they never do, but mainly it’s when they’re doing a spike – so, often, a herbicide spike is a below label rate on its own. Herbicide carryover, crop safety – they’re the big reasons, but to reduce cost and ‘well, the full rate is not needed’ is the other reason, so I look at that and think OK, in the most part, if agronomists are cutting rates, they’re probably doing it for the right reason. If we look at Sakura and Boxer Gold specifically, we asked “Do you ever cut the rate of these?” Just about everyone said “I never, ever cut the rate of Sakura and Boxer Gold,” and then a few people said “I occasionally cut the rate,” and I know that there’s little pockets in the country where there’s some particular soil types where there’s been some Sakura damage, I think on some limestone-y soil, and I’m guessing that’s where that’s come from – and then there were a couple of renegades who regularly cut the rate, but we never get 100% adoption, do we? That’s good news – people are using the full rate of Sakura. Glyphosate rates now, in the most part, are 10-50% higher than they were five years ago and that’s a bit of a function of low prices of glyphosate, weeds’ sort of creeping resistance coming and people chasing the weeds with the higher rates, and I think that’s a good thing – so glyphosate rates have gone up, and here’s the big one. This is asking the agronomists “Is there a link between rate and herbicide resistance?” Most people said below label rates contribute strongly to resistance and then a few people said they contribute a little to resistance and then a couple of people said no link and a couple of people said high rates are what causes it – but the message is through. The agronomists have got the message. Below label rates are a contributor to herbicide resistance. I don’t need to belt you over the head with rates anymore – we just need to say the message is out there, you’re using good rates, you’re using full rates of our products and well done and let’s keep that going. Alright, let’s move on to crop competition. We’ve talked about the herbicide part of how to keep the honeymoon going; the other part is all about certainly getting herbicides to work better – and Chris [Preston] is going to speak tomorrow and talk about the benefits of crop competition plus pre-emergent herbicides – but also all of these things for smashing the weed seedbank. They’re all important. The only answer to keeping the honeymoon going for as long as possible is to have a really low seed bank, and we just need to do that. We’re always banging on about this seedbank – well, if you’re crop-topping barley with glyphosate, you haven’t got a low seedbank. I know that we are in a high rainfall area, that rye grass grows fantastically well here – but I also get the feeling that, really, we could benefit from some extra management to smash the seedbank. I was actually invited to Bendigo to speak about row spacing; Glen Riethmuller in Western Australia has done a 29 year long row spacing trial, and that paper went up to the crop Updates and was to be presented at all of the Updates, and I was asked to speak about that and then the organiser said “just speak about whatever else you’d like as well,” so crop competition – there’s these four aspects to it: seed rate, row spacing, orientation – so north-south versus east-west – and cultivar, so how competitive is the cultivar. They’re all important. Seed rate is gives you obviously some extra competition, but if you’re on wide row spacing, there’s a bit of a limit to how much it’s worth pushing the seed rate up. Orientation – we know that east-west halves ryegrass seed set compared to north-south, but pretty much crop orientation is often determined by the longest fence, so it’s a bit hard to push it too hard. Cultivar – we know that most cultivars are just chosen for all the other attributes of a cultivar – but if you do have two cultivars you’re deciding between and one’s a spindly looking thing and one’s a big vigourous one that’s going to compete with weeds, then you know which one I would recommend. But I’d like to spend most of my time on crop competition talking about the unpopular topic of row spacing. The “inconvenient truth,” as Al Gore would call it. I’ll firstly just talk mostly about Glen Riethmuller’s work – so that’s Glen up there – he’s a legend, Glen. He’s an agricultural engineer and he just set out with no funding in 1987 to do this row spacing trial, and he’s put the same row spacings back on the same plots every year for 29 years in a row, but for a year of fallow. Amazing effort – how good are long-term trials? We just don’t have enough of them anymore. Glen put on nine, 18, 27, 36 centimetre row spacing and plus and minus burning, so either stubble retained or stubble burnt. So, what happened? Let’s just cut straight to the chase. Over all of those years, so 1987 to 2013, here’s the row spacings and here’s the yields. It’s pretty close to that old rule of thumb of one percent per inch – so one percent extra yield for every inch reduction in row spacing. Many of you have probably seen the crop monograph put together by Charles Sturt Uni Graham Centre showing 89 wheat row spacing trials that adhere to the one percent per inch. We had a fellow from Canada – ‘Wheat Pete,’ they call him, I can’t remember his real name – but he said all the Canadian trials show one percent per inch as well. It’s an enormous area of confirmation bias, row spacing. It’s huge. For me, you’ve got to look at the bulk of the data. Anyway, I know we’re talking about Merredin, we’re talking about low yields compared to Victoria – but the answer in here is the higher the yield, the more you’ve got to lose. Higher yielding crops benefit more from narrow row spacing than low yielding crops, even. As you can see, improved row spacing – if we just times that all by $250 a ton, that’s just a back-of-the-envelope bit of economics; it’s not accurate, but there was more wheat than anything else – you can see that there’s a good 20 bucks to be made by moving up a row spacing each time, or thereabouts; not as much here, only seven dollars or something, but there’s money to be made in row spacing – but only a little bit – but it’s that one percent per inch. It’s a hard sell, I know, but here’s what happens to the weeds. I’ll get people arguing that fact all the time – I’ll get people always arguing no, I don’t think we’re losing the yields from row spacing here, I think it’s different here – and I always get people arguing that fact and I also get people arguing the point OK, I know wide row spacing is lower yielding, but it’s important for my system and I’m making up yield elsewhere in my system by inter-row sowing, maybe seeding a little faster, therefore I’m sowing a little earlier, it’s reducing my machinery cost, all of that – so I’m happy with that message, that if someone says, “I know I’m losing a little bit of yield for my row spacing, but I believe I’m making it up elsewhere,” that’s all well and good – but I never get anyone arguing this one: the weed seed set. This is weed seed set just in 11 years of the trial – they didn’t measure it the whole time, just sort of the last 11 years. It makes perfect sense, and it always does work out this way in trials, that narrower row spacings, you get lower weed seed set. That really is a given, that narrow row spacing is good for crop competition and it does reduce the seed set of the weeds. There’s plenty of data on it and it’s a fact – but I know that the yield component of narrow row spacing is a hard sell. Let’s have a little bit more of a look at that. If we just do the one percent per inch – this is, honestly, this is back-of-the- envelope on the plane on the way here – but just for different crop yields: compared to seven inch, at high yield you can be 70 bucks better off at seven inch than 14 and there’s plenty of money to be made, but we know that getting to seven is going to be a tough ask, isn’t it? You could get there with a disc seeder, but in this environment it’s hard with tines. We have farmers with seven inch in Mingenew in Western Australia in four ton areas, but I don’t think we grow quite as much straw. The point is, if you can move up one step – if you can move from 14 to 12 inch – you can really add 20 bucks a hectare to your whole program, if you’re in those high yields. I’m not suggesting we all try and achieve this seven inch Holy Grail – some people with disc seeders will; what I’m suggesting is just the narrowest practical row spacing that works for you. That’s all I’m suggesting. But there’s money to be made from row spacing, and there is no doubt it’s going to reduce our seed set of our weeds. So here’s all of the data of the row spacing trials for all of those years, and it’s hard to – you can’t take it all in – but you can see just in every year – so this is the narrow arrow and this is the wide row spacing – just this decrease in yield, and then you get a year when there was no difference, no difference and then a little decrease, little decrease, big decrease in yield; faba beans here, no difference, big decrease in yield, no difference in chickpeas, decrease in yield, no difference here for whatever reason, canola – even in canola there was a bit of a decrease, fallow there, big decrease in yield to wide rows here, there’s the old myth of in dry years wide rows yield more – that didn’t happen there, or there, yield tiny bit more there, but not worth changing your row spacing to chase yield in dry years – but you can just see every year just that little decrease in yield from the wide rows, and then you do get the odd year where it doesn’t matter. Alright, enough said, I think – but the point is, there is bucket loads of trial data and you guys are agronomists and you’re scientists and you really need to make recommendations based on that, and as I said – we probably can’t get to seven inch. If you’re going disc machines, you should just go as narrow as you possibly can, but if you’re on 14 and you think you could be at 12 or 10, then you should be advising your clients to get there because there’s yield and there’s weed suppression. Burning – what did burning do? They had burning every year versus stubble retained. There was a small increase in yield for retaining stubble and a big decrease in ryegrass where it was burnt, so there’s 20 bucks to be made by retaining stubble on average a year and that sort of played out in some years – so some years it was really important to have stubble to just retain moisture in the topsoil to just get the crop away at that point. So yeah stubble retention is a good thing. I’ll flick past that one, and let’s just do one more slide on this long-term study of Glen Riethmuller that was written up by Catherine Borger at the Ag Department. There’s a lot of numbers up there, I know that, but this is the annual ryegrass seed set at harvest in the residue retained treatment over the years that they measured it. You’ll see there was a blow-out somewhere in the canola here – I don’t think that canola was sprayed, so there was a stuff-up – you have stuff ups in trials – but the point being is that if you really just focus on the bottom line, the narrow row spacing treatments are almost weed free even in stubble retention and there’s always that background population of weeds in the wider row spacings. Narrow row spacings – I know it’s a hard sell, but as I said, if we want to keep this honeymoon going, we want to keep our pre-emergents alive, we want to suppress our weed seedbank and we want to grow more grain at the same time – narrow row spacing really is a very important tool that we have. It’s not the only tool so the point is there’s another way of doing it that probably we don’t have much data on – having paired row sowing – but that probably improves crop competition, don’t know about yield, probably a little bit – but the point is really for crop competition we should be doing at least one of these things. If we must go wide rows, then can we sow east-west and get some crop competition that way? But it’s pretty easy to be wide rows, north-south, uncompetitive cultivar and a low to moderate seed rate. It’s pretty easy to be worst-case scenario for crop competition. And in the future, as our herbicides become more limiting, things like crop competition will become more and more important. Let’s switch to the harvest time. At harvest, we have this opportunity – we have this crop full of weeds. One option is to get those weeds and spread them back out for next year; the other option is to capture them, isn’t it? We’re seeing really great adoption of harvest weed seed control. We’ve got these six tools here, but let’s just cut to the chase and have a look at how do we choose between these things. Let’s just start by looking at cost. Narrow windrow burn looks really cheap because you only had to spend a couple of hundred bucks on this chute and you’re into it, but there’s this nutrient removal cost – $7.50 for every ton of wheat that you harvest, and that’s actually half the nutrient cost; I’ve halved it because I know you don’t get every nutrient back next year from your residue. If we call narrow windrow burn for a two ton crop – and all of these comparisons are two tons, 2,000 hectares – we’re looking at about $17 a hectare. The Harrington Seed Destructor is expensive, so it has a higher running cost – and so that’s finance, fuel, maintenance – it comes in very similar to narrow window burning. You might say I’ve rigged that number but there is an asterisk next to it because that is financed over eight years at six percent, so maybe you should finance it at four years and call it $25. I don’t know, but I financed them all the same – no matter how you do finance, someone tells you you got it wrong. Harrington Seed Destructor – expensive capital but no residue, no nutrient loss, so a good option. Now there’s these two, the chaff deck and the chaffline – so the chaff deck is where we’re putting the chaff on the permanent tram lines and the chaff line is where we have a chute on the back of the header putting it in the middle and just leaving it in a tram lining system. And they are as cheap as chips, aren’t they? Look at that. The chaff line is not only cheap for capital costs, but very cheap for nutrient removal – and if you’re on high potassium soils, you can halve that again, so the chaff line is, I think, a wonderful opportunity for this part of the world because it can be done at almost no expense. One of the excuses of not going for narrow windrow burning is that you do have high residue levels and you’re going to burn the whole paddock, whereas the chaff line – just putting that weed bearing chaff in a narrow line – is a great option and it’s used extensively in Esperance, as is the chaff deck, in a high rainfall area and you can also reset the system by putting a big canola windrow on there and burning it, as well, you know down the track. I’ll get to those a bit more in a minute. Bale Direct – very expensive capital, also expensive nutrient removal, so the most expensive one but you can sell the bales, so if you’ve got a market for bales, it can be a good option – and then, finally, the chaff cut – a bit of a mid-range cost, really, so probably middle of these, this road, for capital costs, low nutrient removal because it’s just the chaff and a mid-range sort of cost. That can come down, obviously, if you buy a second-hand one and you can also get some value for grazing the dumps – so, for me, that’s for people with sheep, these ones are for people with tramlines – sorry this is for people with tram lines, that’s for someone with a market for bales. That’s a frost – narrow windrow burning; there’s data out of WA this year that’s going to show that narrow windrow burning for residue reduction is as effective as burning the paddock black for frost, so narrow windrow burning: good for frost, also good in lower rainfall environments. And then the iHSD; I think also for this part of the world – the higher rainfall, high production environments where we’re trying to retain every bit of residue. There’s two that jumped out of there. This chaffline here, as I said, we’re just getting a bit of plastic, making a chute, couple hundred bucks, putting all the weed seeds in there and leaving them there – and the weeds just don’t like growing in chaff. And the chaff deck; Greg and Kirrily Condon – both camera shy – working with us in the AHRI Communications team. They’re based at Junee, just north of Wagga, and Kirrily’s right into her video so I thought we might just have a quick look at some video that she’s done of a client; this is the client setup where he’s made his own chaff line chute and gone and used it, If we can get that video going there, that’d be great. As you can see, all the straw still chopped and spread and with a MAV chopper, incidentally, so he’s getting good spread, and here’s him just starting to harvest – and, as you can see, it’s just the chaff off the sieves going into this chute and putting it in a narrow row. I think it’s a great option for, let’s face it, “tightwads” – people who are tight with money but want to get into harvest weed seed control and don’t want to burn stuff. Not much science on it yet, but Mike Walsh has done a little bit and the Esperance farmers would just tell you that you’ll expect to see big rows of weeds in there, but often they’re cleaner – as clean as anything – and you’ll see some weeds on your wheel tracks where you’ve run over them. The next one is the chaff deck. We’ll get this video going as well, if we can. Both of these guys, incidentally, came out for WeedSmart Week, came touring around WA with us, saw these things and went home and adopted them. How good’s that? We funded them to come out – three growers came out, they all went home and bought something at the end of it. It was great spending your money to get a practice change. We do it with AHRI – we put people in the Tarago with Lance Turner and at the end of the week they buy a chaff cart. Sorry, I missed that. Was that good? That’s the chaff deck, putting the chaff on the tram lines, so they’re a little bit more capital cost and a brilliant option for anyone in tram line farming, and they reduce dust at spraying time in summer and, I think, if you’re in a tram line system you’ll see weeds on your trams anyway, so I think we may as well just put them all there. Let’s not do that, I’m running out of time. Just to summarise that: harvest wheat seed control still, a big tool – there’s a Diveristy Era course, that’s our online learning course through WeedSmart that’s coming out in a few weeks’ time that summarises all of these things – you can have a look in more detail. It’s fantastic – we have these seven options now, all invented by grain growers. Fantastic. Just a little bit of an update on the iHSD; you’re probably wondering how they’re going. There were 12 of them in WA last year, Ray Harrington has just done his fourth harvest with his one. They were on Case and New Holland headers and they had some some teething problems – the main teething problems they had were with the cooling system; the cooling system just wasn’t up to scratch and they were overheating on the hot days, and they’ve sorted that out now. There was the odd problem with them feeding into the mills. One of the big issues was that because they were overheating, they had to slow down the mill speed from 3,000 revs to 2,800 revs and then they just didn’t feed as well. Operating well with the new cooler at 3,000 revs, they’re a really good product, the mill is going to wear out – the rotating bit is going to wear out about every one to two harvests, depending how many hectares you use, and that’s going to cost about $2500 to just replace those moving parts. They’ve got really good data – it was a frosty year in WA in the southwest, big frost damage, and so the chaff volume from those frosted crops was massive so it was a big challenge for the iHSDs – but they’ve passed with flying colors, really. Even though they did have their problems, you were never going to have a completely seamless harvest, I think, with prototypes. They are going strong and there’ll be 40 or 45 or something for this harvest, so good news there. Here’s my hobby horse and I’ve got a tenuous link to harvest weed seed control. Here’s how to increase your canola profit by 20 to 200 bucks, guaranteed. Guaranteed. Increase in profit, not yield – well, it is yield, but straight, bottom line profit. Can anyone guess what it is? It’s harvest losses. The guy here’s a farmer, and I’m not going to tell his name because he doesn’t want to be in the limelight and he doesn’t even know I’m presenting this, actually – but he measures his harvest losses with big trays like this. That’s his header – and I’m not going to bag any particular header colour here, but that just happens to be his header – and he puts one tray under there and one there with electromagnets and he gets the harvester harvesting and then presses the button and so that one collects everything and that one just collects – so this one measures your rotor losses and this one measures everything, so you subtract that from that and you get your sieve losses. He puts it in windrowing mode and dumps everything on top of them and measures it. He does this roughly daily and the story was – back in 2012 he had two headers which he loved, I’m not going to tell you what colour they are, and he loved them for every reason. He stuck them into his canola crop – that the monitor said was yielding two tons per hectare – and then he did this and found out no, it was actually yielding 2.4 tons per hectare – so he was spitting 400 kilograms of canola on the ground and he did everything to that machine. He said you couldn’t believe the modifications you can make and make no difference at all. The only thing that made any difference was slowing down. That’s the only thing that made any difference, so he sold those headers and he bought his two New Holland headers that you’ve just seen – and they also spit canola out the back, and the only thing that makes any difference to them is slowing down. They were better than his previous headers. Let’s have a look at some of his tests. This is his test with canola – this is, I think, the headers that he sold. He did get it down from the 400 by changing some things in the back of the harvester, but at 11 tons an hour of canola with a class seven header, that was his losses – and then by slowing down he could get the losses down. He reckons that the grain loss monitor and headers should read in dollars per hectare. Look at how much money you can make – $50 a hectare by just slowing down. $50 bottom line profit have Let’s have a look at some more. So, you think some of these new big beasts would be better, wouldn’t you? These big class 9 and 10 demos that are getting around and they come out and what do they tell the farmer? This will do 50 tons an hour a of wheat, this harvester. This will do 20 tons an hour of canola. So he got one of these demos out, made up a frame, put it underneath it – they were like, “What are you doing under there?” and he said I’m going to measure the losses. We don’t sell these things on losses, we sell them on tons an hour. So he got this big demo header out; first thing he did, put it in 18 tons an hour – $70 it was spitting on the ground. Slowed down to 15 tons an hour, it was down to $48, slowed down more, it was down to $36 a hectare spitting out the back. This is a machine that costs 800 grand or something. Pathetic. Here’s another one, another colour. This one is in wheat, look at that – they’d brought it out, 50 tons an hour they said; here you go, stick it in the crop – it spat 743 kilos of wheat out the back. Can you believe that? Well, they had it set up wrong – so he set it up for them, opened the pre-cleaner and he slowed down and he got the losses right down to $20, and then he changed something else and got the losses down further. So, wheat – they are pretty good at harvesting wheat, you can get the losses down in wheat to ten or 20 kilos a hectare, but you can’t do it at 50 tons an hour. No way. Here’s his header in wheat – 28 tons an hour is what he harvests at, 20 kilo losses of wheat. My point is, you can’t manage what you don’t measure. He would be the best grower in Western Australia – in Australia – for harvest losses and he’s losing 40 or 50 bucks worth of canola. So if you think that you can buy a new header and harvest fast, then you’re kidding yourself – so there’s a good, easy one for agronomists: turn up at harvest, give the unpopular message that if you slow down this header, you’re going to increase your profit by 20 to 50 bucks a hectare. Where’s my tenuous link? Oh, there’s his other quote – “The more horsepower you have, the bigger the stuff up can be.” Where’s my tenuous link? There’s plenty of horsepower for these Integrated Harrington Seed Destructors – so yep, they cost some horsepower from the machine, but in my mind it’s excess horsepower. You shouldn’t be harvesting at 50 tons an hour of wheat or 20 tons an hour of canola – we should be harvesting slower to harvest our crop and then there’s actually plenty of horsepower left over for an Integrated Harrington Seed Destructor, or the alternative. I’ve already said that – that’s Deven in there, they’ve had a successful year and they’ll be going ahead. We’re getting to the end, you can follow me on Twitter; I love speaking to people all around the country so please engage with us, and I guess I’ll just finish up by saying the honeymoon isn’t over, but I do think we are in a honeymoon with glyphosate – we’re going to break it fast if that’s our pre-harvest option of glyphosate over barley and canola, so we need to be doing this other stuff. We need to be doing competitive crops, we need to be mix, rotating and double knock, and we need to be doing the harvest weed seed control. The honeymoon isn’t over, but I think we should do our darndest to keep it going as long as we can. Thank you.

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *