Groundswell Agronomy - mid project report

8/7/2019 Groundswell Agronomy - mid project report

1/66

6/25/2010

Prepared by: Chris Houghton

CHRIS

HOUGHTON

AGRICULTURAL

GROUNDSWELL MID PROJECT

AGRONOMY REPORT


2/66

GROUNDSWELL Chris Houghton Agricultural

PO Box 18 Crookwell NSW 2583 T/F: 02 48320803 M: 0409 816 433 Page 2

Table of Contents

1 Summary2 Background

2.1Seasonal Conditions2.1.1 Goulburn Site

2.1.2 Bungendore Site2.1.3 Condobolin Site

3 Trial Objectives4 Outcomes and observations

4.1The Goulburn Sites4.1.1 Introduction4.1.2 Divalls trial

4.1.2.1Site Details4.1.2.1.1 Soils4.1.2.1.2 Location4.1.2.1.3 Trial Design

4.1.2.2Measurements4.1.2.3Plans for 2010

4.1.3 Sielers trial4.1.3.1Site Details

4.1.3.1.1 Soils4.1.3.1.2 Location4.1.3.1.3 Trial Design

4.1.3.2Measurements4.1.3.3Plans for 2010

4.2Bungendore trial4.2.1 Introduction4.2.2 Site Details

4.2.2.1Soils4.2.2.2Location4.2.2.3Trial Design

4.2.3 Measurements4.2.4 Discussion of measurements4.2.5 Plans for 2010

4.3Condobolin trial4.3.1 Introduction4.3.2 Site Details

4.3.2.1Soils4.3.2.2Location4.3.2.3Trial Design

4.3.3 Measurements4.3.4 Discussion of measurements4.3.5 Plans for 2010

5 Conclusion6 Appendixes


3/66



1 SUMMARYA brief summary of the trial outcomes to date are as follows.

Pasture / Grazing trials.

The same trial designs were used on two properties at Narrambulla 20km to the east of

Goulburn, and Strathmere, 10 km to the west of Goulburn. The results from both werevery similar.

The response in the compost plots is directly proportional to the application rate.

Due to the dry year there was not much difference between the different treatment andthe control plot that received nothing.

The cost effectiveness of these rates is yet to be determined.

Other outcomes were:

Compost use has not reduced pasture growth.

The levels of physical contaminants in the UW compost used in the trials wereacceptable.

There was no evidence of toxicities having affected plant growth.

There are no weed problems that have occurred as a result of the compost beingspread.

There was inadequate pasture growth to determine grazing information from the threepaddock trials.

There was no evidence of negative effects of compost use on livestock.

There was no evidence of negative impacts on water quality from run-off from thetrial site.

Cropping trials

Two cropping trials were established, the first at Landtasia approximately 20 km east ofBungendore and the second at the Condobolin Agricultural Research Station.

The results for the Bungendore trial can be summarised as follows:

The yields were very low as a result of the dry growing conditions.

There was no appreciable difference in plant uptake of nutrients as determined byplant tissue tests.

The yield graph is very similar in appearance to the graph of dry matter cuts at GS30(See Appendix C).

However there does appear to be a trend emerging; that yield response is proportionalto the rate of compost applied.

The results for the Condobolin trial can be summarised as follows:

It is not advisable to read too much into the results as the dry matter and grain yieldsare very low due to the dry growing conditions and lack of finishing rainfall.

There was little appreciable difference between the treatments at the dry matter cut atGS30.

It appears that the herbicide treatments had a yield suppressing effect where compostwas used. In the herbicide free trial the compost treatments more than doubling the

yield of the treatments in the herbicide treated trial.

Other outcomes of both cropping trials were: There was no evidence of toxicities having affected plant growth.


4/66



The levels of physical contaminants in the UW compost used in the trials wereacceptable.

There are no weed problems that have occurred as a result of the compost beingspread.

There was no evidence of negative effects of compost use on grain quality.

There was no evidence of negative impacts on water quality from run-off from thetrial site.

Although some base level testing has been done of soil nutrient levels, soil carbon and soil

biota levels, further testing is required to draw any conclusions on changes due to the

application of UW compost. Also the impact of UW compost on other factors such as

changes to soil nutrient levels, grain quality, soil water holding capacity, crop water use

efficiency, soil carbon levels, and soil structure improvements are yet to be determined.

These factors will be the focus of further testing towards the end of 2010.


5/66



2 BACKGROUNDGroundswell builds on the successful City to Soil project run by DECC and Queanbeyan City

Council in 2004, and seeks to prove the wider economic viability of the City to Soil

collection system and establish composted urban organic waste as a cost effective, high

quality agricultural input. The project aims to have farmers and Councils working together to

pull urban organic waste out of the cities and back onto agricultural land, simultaneouslyreducing organic waste to landfill and increasing organic levels in agricultural soils.

Between 40% and 70% of urban waste currently going to landfill is organic material. This

project is demonstrating that the most logical and economically viable use for organic waste

is, when properly composted, in agriculture.

The project aims to quantify the economic benefits to agriculture of returning quality organic

product to soil. In doing so, models aim to be identified for the development of a permanent

market for recycled urban organics in agriculture.

The Groundswell project targets 5 key needs:

to divert organic waste from the urban waste stream

to improve urban sustainability

to improve agricultural sustainability including increased health and productivity ofagricultural soils

to improve environmental sustainability

to establish economically viable models for the collection, processing and applicationof urban organic waste into agricultural land

Groundswell was developed in partnership with the Wiradjuri Condobolin Corporation(WCC), the Palerang Agricultural Society, Bettergrow, Zero Waste Australia and the South

East office of the DECC Sustainability Programs Division.

Chris Houghton Agricultural provides agronomic services for the Groundswell project, conducting

trials at 4 sites, one at Bungendore, two at Goulburn and one at Condobolin. The Goulburn trials are

to evaluate the use of compost on pastures, and the subsequent livestock performance. The

Bungendore and Condobolin sites are cropping trials. The sites were established from Autumn 2009

and will be monitored over two years until the end of 2010.

The agronomic component of the Groundswell program is critical to the marketing and

subsequent use of the urban waste (UW) compost on farms. Before UW compost will beaccepted as a regular farm input, landholders need to know the expected production and

environmental outcomes as well as the cost benefits to be achieved.

Although the short duration of the trials (1.5 years) is not long enough to be able to generate

all of the information that is required, it should provide enough to give potential users the

confidence needed to try UW compost for themselves. It will also give the Councils involved

information about the size of the broadacre UW compost market and provide feedback on

general market acceptance.


6/66



2.1 Seasonal ConditionsProgress with the trials to date has been hampered by poor rainfall through 2009. This

restricted the benefits that could be seen in the trials and reduced the outcomes that could be

measured. Soil moisture is critical when using UW compost and other organic products as

soil organisms are needed to break the product down into plant available forms. Rainfall in

2010, however, has started well and forecasts look promising for the remainder of the year.

2.1.1 Goulburn Site

Goulburn Rainfall (Glbn TAFE weather station)

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

Glbn-09 35 27.2 8.8 69 20.4 30.4 37.2 30.8 60.6 67.8 11.2 92.4

10 Yr ave 60.0 64.5 45.6 22.4 20.1 52.8 36.5 37.5 42.9 49.8 58.7 60.1

L T ave 62.1 60 52.6 46.1 44.3 50 42.6 52.5 49.7 55.5 64.8 57.9

Divalls-09 36.3 26 7.8 62 18 30.8 26.5 25 46.8 45.6 26.5 77.8

Table: 1 Goulburn monthly rainfall analysis.

Note:

1. Goulburn 2009 figures are from the Goulburn TAFE meteorological station.2. Sielers rainfall figures are taken to be the same as the Goulburn figures.

3. Divalls figures are actuals from the property.4. The 10 year and long term averages are from the Bureau of Meteorology figures forGoulburn TAFE meteorological station.

Comments

There has been a reduction in annual rainfall by approximately 67mm in comparisonto long term average for the Goulburn TAFE figures. This was approximately 20%

less than the long term average.

2009 was characterised by a very dry period from May to September and a prematureend to spring flush in October.

Divalls trial experienced less winter and spring rainfall than Goulburn resulting in a

crash in pasture production in spring. This was further exacerbated by very windyconditions.

0

1020

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Rainfall(mm)

Goulburn Rainfall - Monthly analysis

Glbn-09

10 Yr ave

L T ave

Divalls-09
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_nccObsCode=136&p_stn_num=070263&p_startYear=2009http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_nccObsCode=136&p_stn_num=070263&p_startYear=2009


7/66



2.1.2 Bungendore Site

Bungendore Rainfall (Post office meteorological station)

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

B-dore 09 39.6 7 11.4 60.6 10 26.1 34 45.4 87.4 73.4 29.6 80.4

Bdore 10 Yr ave 41.6 59.1 38.1 24.4 19.6 50.1 37.5 48.3 55.4 50.1 62.2 54.2

B-dore L T ave 61.8 49.2 51 46.6 46.7 51.1 49.2 52.5 51.7 63 58.6 54.9

L-tasia 09 36 13.5 10 47 12.5 18.5 36 22 43 60 4.5 64.5

Table: 2 Bungendore monthly rainfall analysis.

Notes:

1. The figures are from the Bungendore Post Office meteorological station.2. The Landtasia figures are for the Swamp, the part of the property where the crop was

grown.

Comments

In 2009 there was a reduction in annual rainfall of approximately 131 mm from thelong term average. This was approximately 21% less than the long term average.

2009 was characterised by a very dry period from February/ March and another in

May / June and a premature end to spring flush in October. Landtasia rainfall figures are well below Bungendore.

The Landtasia spelt (wheat) crop went in with little moisture in the soil profile andexperienced well below average rainfall right through the growing period.

Although some decent rain fell in October, the yield potential had already been set ata very low level. The dry November stopped any chance of a recovery.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Rainfall(mm)

Bungendore Rainfall - Monthly analysis

B-dore 09

Bdore 10 Yr ave

B-dore L T ave

L-tasia 09
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_nccObsCode=136&p_stn_num=070011&p_startYear=2009http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_nccObsCode=136&p_stn_num=070011&p_startYear=2009


8/66



2.1.3 Condobolin Site

Condobolin Rainfall (Condo Research Station)

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

2009 4.2 60.6 29 44.9 14.2 52.5 23.4 10.7 16.7 34.2 17.2 90.6

10 Yr ave 23.9 54.8 25.3 16.4 24.2 40.8 27.5 27.6 29.4 25.7 41.2 35.8

L T ave 48.4 43.7 37.3 31.6 36 29.5 36.4 34.8 31.6 48.8 37.8 40.3

2010 16.6 158.6 55.4 33 38.3

Table: 3 Condobolin monthly rainfall analysis.

Notes:

1. The Condobolin figures are from the Agricultural Research Station MeteorologicalStation, which is only about 500 m from the trial site.

Comments

In 2009 there was a reduction in annual rainfall of approximately 55 mm from thelong term average. This was approximately 12 % less than the long term average.

2009 characterised by good rains in February, April and June allowing crops to besown a little late but into reasonable moisture in the top 200mm of soil.

Growing season rainfall and follow-up rain in the spring was very poor, leading to adisappointing finish to the season.

Although December rainfall was good it was too late as the crops had well and trulyfinished by that stage.

0

10

20

30

4050

60

70

80

90

100


Rainfall(mm)

Condobolin Rainfall - Monthly analysis

2009

10 Yr ave

L T ave

Growing season
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_nccObsCode=136&p_stn_num=050052&p_startYear=2009http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_nccObsCode=136&p_stn_num=050052&p_startYear=2009http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_nccObsCode=136&p_stn_num=050052&p_startYear=2010http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_nccObsCode=136&p_stn_num=050052&p_startYear=2010http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_nccObsCode=136&p_stn_num=050052&p_startYear=2010http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_nccObsCode=136&p_stn_num=050052&p_startYear=2009


9/66



3 TRIAL OBJECTIVES

The trial measurements in the agronomic trials have been designed to test the following

assumptions:

1. Nutrients in Urban Waste (UW) compost are available in a suitable time frame to

meet plant needs.

2. No toxicity risks to the environment or the end user exist from the use of UWcompost.

3. Limited weed risks exist through the use of UW compost.

4. The application of nutrients to a cereal crop partly by synthetic fertiliser and partly byUW compost is a cost effective method of improving gross margin.

5. UW compost has other properties such as the presence of beneficial microorganisms

that aid in improving plant performance.

6. Soil water holding capacity is enhanced through the application of UW compost tosoils.

7. Crop water use efficiency is enhanced through the application of UW compost tosoils.

8. UW compost application enhances soil carbon levels and is a practical means ofsequestering carbon.

9. The application of UW compost to crop or pasture soils has a positive impact on soilstructure (aggregate stability).


10/66



4 OUTCOMES AND OBSERVATIONS

To be able to evaluate the use of compost as a nutrient source and a soil ameliorant suitable

for broadacre agriculture, the agronomy trials have been designed with these uses in mind.

The quantity of material produced through the wide scale production of UW compost is

potentially larger than can be used for home garden and other horticultural uses, so it is

important to evaluate the use of the products more widely than those markets.

The broadacre agriculture market is potentially larger than Councils can supply, but if the

products become popular, and are consumed in the home garden and local horticultural

markets, there would be no problem from the perspective of regional Councils. Councils

need to get the best financial return possible for the compost, but the price of the product

must be determined by market forces. The compost must be competitive with other products,

but at present there is uncertainty in a number of areas about how UW compost will perform.

The data generated from these trials will be instrumental in this process.

4.1 Goulburn Trial Sites

4.1.1 IntroductionTwo sites were chosen for Goulburn, both being pasture based. It was decided that the main

opportunity for finding a market for Goulburn compost was to get it out onto grazing

properties as grazing is the main land use in the region.

Each of the two Goulburn trials involves a small plot trial and a triple paddock comparison.

A small plot trial has been established to ensure that scientifically valid data is generated, and

for comparisons to be made with other conventional fertilisers and soil ameliorants. The

triple paddock trial will allow actual paddock performance to be tested. No pasture dry

matter cuts will be taken in the triple paddock trial and data will be extrapolated fromlivestock grazing records from grazing charts (See Appendix D).

4.1.2 Divalls trial

4.1.2.1 Site Details

The first property Narrambullabelongs to the Divall family. The property is presently

undergoing progressive pasture improvement but the paddock where the trial is located was

not sown down to improved pasture at the time of trial commencement. It has since been

sown to a perennial ryegrass base in April 2010. In 2009, at the commencement of the trial,

the paddock was dominated by residues of productive native species, annual grasses,

broadleaf weeds and subterranean clover.

4.1.2.1.1 Soils

The site soils are predominantly sandy loams, overlaying poorly decomposed rocky subsoils.

The relief of the site chosen varies from mid slope to ridgeline, and the soil depth varies

accordingly, being shallower on the upper slope. The soil test results show the soils to have

following features:

Topsoil (010 cm)

Analyte Result Unit Opt Range Comment

pH (CaCl2) 5.1 5.2 - 6 Good for regional soils

Aluminium 2.2 %


11/66



Potassium 0.23 meq/100g 0.50.9 Very low

Sulphur (KCl 40) 5.2 mg/kg 10 - 25 Very low

CEC* 4.58 5 - 10 Low

Note: CEC = Cation exchange capacity.

Subsoil (010 cm)


pH (CaCl2) 4.5 5.2 - 6 Good for regional soilsAluminium 22 %


12/66



Replicated Small Plot Trials for both Goulburn sites.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

A 1 2 6 5 8 4 3 7 Plots size:2 x 4m, with a 1m

buffer between

each plot.

The plot trial area

is 322m ( 23m x

14m).

B 2 3 6 4 8 7 5 1

C 1 4 2 6 3 8 5 7

Note:Reference Point is on SW corner of Sielers trial and NE corner of Divalls trial. At Sielerstrial Row A is on the southern side, however, for Divalls trial Row A is on the northern side.

Replicated trial treatments:

1 Compost at 5 m3/ha2 Compost at 10 m3/ha3 Compost at 20 m3/ha4 Superphosphate at 125 kg/ha5 Superphosphate at 250 kg/ha6 Bio-phos at 125 kg/ha7 Bio-phos at 250 kg/ha8 Control

Treatments for the Triple Paddock Grazing Trial

Paddock A -Small plot

treatment 8NB: Small plot trial

is here.

Paddock B -Small plot

treatment 2

Paddock C -Small plot

treatment 5

Information to be recorded by the farmer in the three paddocks will be:

1 Grazing duration (dates in and out)

2 Stock details (type and class)3 Numbers grazed and their average weights.

4 Metabolic condition,( ie: 4-6 months pregnant).

Note: See Appendix D for an example of a grazing chart used at the Goulburn trials.

NOTE:The aim of the triple paddock

component is to determine the

DSEs/ha carried each year on

each paddock

Reference point


13/66



4.1.2.2 Measurements

Small Plot Replicated Trial

First cut Nov 2009

Treatments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Rep A (kg/ha) 1590 2252 3683 1862 3918 4422 2098 1823

Rep B (kg/ha) 2475 3945 3945 2717 3076 3091 2760 2475

Rep C (kg/ha) 1162 2137 3055 2137 1633 1781 1633 2239

Average 1742 2778 3561 2239 2876 3098 2164 2179

Note: All numbers in kg/DM/Ha

Figure 2: Divalls first dry matter cut - Nov 2009

Comments:

There was a linear response to the compost treatments (1) (2) & (3), as shown by the red

trend line. In interpreting this response, it needs to be acknowledged that the low compost

treatment (1) actually produced less than the control treatment (8). Even taking this into

account, there was a definite and measurable response. The medium and high compost

treatments (2) & (3) were both in front of the superphosphate treatments (4) & (5).

Treatments1 Compost at 5 m3/ha 5 Superphosphate at 250 g/ha

2 Compost at 10 m3/ha 6 Bio-phos at 125 kg/ha


4 Superphosphate at 125 kg/ha 8 Control

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

kg/DM/ha

Divall's - First cut- Nov 2009

Rep A (kg/ha)

Rep B (kg/ha)

Rep C (kg/ha)

Average


14/66



2nd DM cut March 2010

After very poor rainfall during 2009, 2010 started with some excellent summer falls. I have

incorporated these into this report as this dry matter cut was done prior to the application of

the 2010 treatments. Any results achieved should be understood to be as a consequence of

the 2009 treatments.

Treatment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Rep A (kg/ha) 4247 4258 4725 4262 4292 5421 2644 4058

Rep B (kg/ha) 5657 4401 4279 4045 3465 4041 3719 4120

Rep C (kg/ha) 4300 4344 5495 3680 5098 4604 3613 4395

Average 4734 4334 4833 3995 4285 4689 3325 4191


(See Graph overleaf).

Figure 3:Divalls second dry matter cut - March 2010

Comments:

As can be seen by the pasture dry matter figures in the left hand column there was atremendous amount of material cut from the trial compared to November 2009. The trend

line for the responses is not linear as with the first cut, but the compost treatments are

incrementally better than the superphosphate treatments (4) & (5) and the control (8).

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

kg/DM/ha

Divall's - 2nd DM cut Mar 2010

Rep A (kg/ha)

Rep B (kg/ha)

Rep C (kg/ha)

Average


15/66



Divalls Trial - Cumulative DM to March 2010

Treatment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Rep A (kg/ha) 5836 6510 8408 6124 8209 9843 4742 5882

Rep B (kg/ha) 8131 8346 8224 6762 6541 7132 6478 6595

Rep C (kg/ha) 5462 6481 8551 5817 6731 6385 5246 6634

Average 6476 7112 8394 6234 7161 7786 5489 6370Note: All numbers in kg/DM/Ha

Figure 4:Divalls trial - Cumulative dry matter production at March 2010

Comments

The key points are:

There is a linear response to the three different rates of compost.

There is also a linear response to the two different rates of superphosphate.

The higher rate of Bio-phos resulted in less pasture dry matter.

The production from the control (8) was quite high in comparison to those wherenutrients were applied.

Grazing trial results

Due to the poor pasture growth from the time of the spreading of the treatments (June 2009)

until the end of December, there were no grazing of the paddocks. However, there has been

consistent grazing through 2010 to date and comparative results for the three paddocks will

be available at the end of this year.

4.1.3.3 Plans for 2010

This trail will remain the same as 2009, although at the end of the growing season additional

testing will be carried out to obtain the various data-sets required to meet the objectives

outlined in Section 3. These tests will provide the necessary information to determine

changes to soil nutrient levels, soil carbon, soil biota levels,soil water holding capacity, crop

water use efficiency, and soil structure.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

kg/DM/ha

Divall's - Cumulative DM to Mar 2010

Rep A (kg/ha)

Rep B (kg/ha)

Rep C (kg/ha)

Average


16/66



4.1.3 Sielers Trial

4.1.3.1 Site Details

Strathmere is owned by the Sieler family and is a grazing property, although some fodder

cropping is done. It has a range of soil types from undulating ridges with skeletal soils to

productive alluvial flats. The trial site is on the creek flats, and the pasture base is phalaris

and sub-clover.

4.1.3.1.1 Soils

The soil tests results showed the soils to have following features:Topsoil (010 cm)


pH (CaCl2) 4.8 5.2 - 6 OK for regional soils

Aluminium 1.2 %


17/66



Note: Refer to documentation on Divalls trial design to see Sielers replicated small plot

trial design.

4.1.3.2 Measurements

First cut Nov 2009

Treatment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Rep A (kg/ha) 2660 4452 2586 2598 3278 2850 2374 2483Rep B (kg/ha) 3602 2910 3930 2108 3181 2475 2003 2790

Rep C (kg/ha) 2912 3366 3730 4058 3240 2751 2419 3096

Average 3058 3576 3415 2922 3233 2692 2266 2790

Figure 6:Sielers first dry matter cut - Nov 2009

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

kg/DM/ha

Sieler's - First cut- Nov 2009

Rep A (kg/ha)

Rep B (kg/ha)

Rep C (kg/ha)

Average

Replicated trial site


18/66



Comment:

The results are very similar to those from Divalls trial.

A linear although not as great a response to the three rates of compost (1) (2) & (3).

A linear response to the two rates of superphosphate (4) & (5), although not equal tothe compost.

Second cut March 2010

Treatment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Rep A (kg/ha) 2628 2200 2693 2317 2271 2317 1950 2271

Rep B (kg/ha) 1607 1840 2545 2222 2028 2743 1870 1908

Rep C (kg/ha) 1933 2227 3310 1624 2529 2035 1973 2200

Average 2056 2089 2849 2054 2276 2365 1931 2126

Figure 7:Sielers second dry matter cut - March 2010

Comment:

No spectacular results but the trends are going in the right direction of compost (1) (2)& (3) and superphosphate (4) & (5). This demonstrates that there is a response to

applied nutrients from both compost and superphosphate.

Again there was a fall in dry matter production from the Bio-phos treatments, (6) &

(7). Again the control (8) was a solid performer with no treatments.

Sielers Cumulative DM to March 2010

Treatment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Rep A 5288 6652 5279 4915 5549 5167 4324 4755

Rep B 5209 4750 6474 4330 5209 5218 3873 4698

Rep C 4845 5592 7039 5682 5769 4786 4393 5296

Average 5114 5665 6264 4976 5509 5057 4197 4916


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

kg.DM/ha

Sieler's - Second cut- Mar 2010

Rep A (kg/ha)

Rep B (kg/ha)

Rep C (kg/ha)

Average


19/66



Figure 8:Sielers trial - Cumulative dry matter production to March 2010

Treatments

1 Compost at 5 m3/ha 5 SSP at 250 g/ha



4 SSP at 125 kg/ha 8 Control

Comments:

The red trend line shows that the response in the compost plots (1) (2) & (3) isdirectly proportional to the application rate. Since 2009 was such a dry year, this

could be as a result of the increased water holding capacity of the soil, as much as the

nutrients applied. This will be further verified in 2010.

Overall there were similar trends in the two cuts and between the two Goulburn sites.There was a linear response to both compost (1-3) and superphosphate (3 & 4) but for

some reason the control (8) performed well.

Not too many conclusions should be drawn from these results. Although there aresome patterns emerging it takes time for biological activity in the soil to improve and

any such improvements, as a result of these changes, may take several years to show

as improved production.

These results shed no light on the economics of the different treatments. This will bedetermined as a separate activity by Michael Reynolds, the Groundswell economist.

Grazing trial results

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Kg/DM/ha

Cumulative DM to Mar 2010 - Sielers

Rep A

Rep B

Rep C

Average


20/66



Due to the poor pasture growth from the time of the spreading of the treatments (June 2009)

until the end of December, there were no grazing of the paddocks. There has, however, been

consistent grazing through 2010 to date, so comparative results for the three paddocks will be

available at the end of this year.

4.1.3.3 Plans for 2010

This trail will remain the same as 2009, although at the end of the growing season

additional testing will be carried out to obtain the various data-sets required to meet

the objectives outlined in Section 3. These tests will provide the necessary information to

determine changes to soil nutrient levels, soil carbon, soil biota levels, soil water holding

capacity, crop water use efficiency, and soil structure.


21/66



4.2 Bungendore Trial

4.2.1 IntroductionIt was decided that a cropping trial should be established on the Southern Tablelands to

evaluate the role that compost could play as a nutrient source, as well as a soil ameliorant.

Richard Graham had made land available for the composting site for use by the Palarang

Council as part of the Groundswell project, and this cropping paddock was within 800 m of

that site.

The property, known as Landtasia, is owned by Richard Graham and is a certified organic

farm. Care had to be taken with the trial to ensure that guidelines were adhered to as set by

the accrediting body, the Biological Farmers of Australia (BFA). The crop grown was

organic spelt, an ancient grain that was grown in Ancient Egypt more than nine thousand

years ago. It is a relatively low yielding crop, but the grain can obtain high prices when

organically grown.4.2.2 Site Details

4.2.2.1 SoilsThe soil tests results showed the soils to have following features (See Appendix F for more details):

Topsoil (010 cm)


pH (CaCl2) 6.1 5.2 - 6 V good for regional soils

Phosphorus (Colwell) 37 mg/kg 25 - 35 Very good

Potassium 0.21 meq/100g 0.50.9 Very low

Sulphur (KCl 40) 4.3 mg/kg 10 - 25 Very low

CEC* 6.5 5 - 10 Fair

Notes: CEC = Cation exchange capacity. No aluminium was detected.

This soil test shows that this soil has had lime applied recently and plentiful quantities ofphosphorus fertiliser. Although sulphur and potassium are low, there are no major limitations

that will adversely affect the growth of the trial.

4.2.2.2 Trial location

Landtasia is approximately 20 km east of Bungendore and the trial is site about 800 m north

of the Kings Highway on a part of the property known as The Swamp.

Figure 9: Location of Bungendore trial.

Landtasia trial


22/66



4.2.2.3 Trial Design

The trial site is approximately 250 m out from the corner of a paddock (away from old

headlands) and 80m north of the laneway fence.

Laneway

80 m

250m Trial area

NW corner

Paddock

Treatments

1 Composthigh rate (20 m3 /ha) 5 FCMP - med rate (250 kg /ha)

2 Compost medium rate (12.5 m3 /ha) 6 FCMP - high rate (400 kg /ha)

3 Compost low rate (5 m3 /ha) 7 Control (No fertiliser)

4 FCMPstandard rate (120 kg /ha)

Trial Plan7 5 4

1.5 m buffer

6 3 2

5 1 7

4 2 3

3 7 6

2 4 1

1 6 5

Direction of sowing

N

NW corner

2 m buffer


23/66



Trial details:

The trial is replicated (3 x) and randomised.

There will be no weed control after sowing except for possible grazing.

Seeding was with a conventional combine (seed only). All fertiliser treatments are

put out by hand prior to seeding.

The compost rates are:o Low rate @ 5 m3 /ha on a DM basis.o Med rate @ 12.5 m3 /ha on a DM basis.o High rate @ 20 m3 /ha on a DM basis.

The FCMP rates are:

o Low rate @ 120 kg /hao Med rate @ 250 kg/hao High rate @ 400 kg/ha

Ideally the compost should be spread 68 weeds prior to sowing to allow time formineralisation. This is not possible this year, but can be done for the 2010 trial in the second

year of the project.

Note:

TNN Calcium Magnesium Phosphate (FCMP) is sold asa non-acid phosphorous fertilizer

which is claimed:

to reduce acidity in soils

not to leach into waterways or become fixed or immobile in the soil

to ensure stable yields for an extended period of time.

The components of FCMP are Phosphorous 7.8%, Magnesium 10%, Calcium 24%, Silicon

12%, plus traces of Sulphur, Boron, Manganese, Zinc, Nickel, Cobalt, Copper, Molybdenum.

FCMP is accredited for organic production.


24/66



4.2.3 Measurements

The first measurement taken at this site was a dry matter (Biomass) cut on 29th

October 2009,

just prior to stem elongation at growth stage 30 (GS 30). See Appendix E for details on crop

growth stages. The purpose of the biomass cut was to determine whether the different

treatments had shown up as differences in the vigour of plants. Please note that additional

vigour can be a good or a bad thing depending on whether soil moisture is plentiful orlimiting.

Dry matter yield at GS 30

Treatment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Rep A 2375 3319 3133 3790 2893 3338 3846

Rep B 3749 3429 2989 3474 3858 3670 3031

Rep C 2637 4736 3088 2718 3595 2973 2977

Average 2920 3828 3070 3327 3449 3327 3285

Figure 10: Crop dry matter at GS30.

Treatments

1 Composthigh rate (20 m3 /ha) 5 FCMP - med rate (250 kg /ha)

2 Compost medium rate (12.5 m3 /ha) 6 FCMP - high rate (400 kg /ha)

3 Compost low rate (5 m3 /ha) 7 Control (No fertiliser)

4 FCMPstandard rate (120 kg /ha)

Comment:

Although the spelt is not a forage variety it was decided to cut and measure forage dry matter

as an early indicator of the vigour with different treatments. There are no appreciable trends.

The lack of any result was attributed to the dry growing conditions and the subsequent poorcrop vigour.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Kg/D

M/Ha

Treatment

Spelt crop - DM yield at GS 30

Rep A

Rep B

Rep C

Average


25/66



Tissue test results

Tissue tests were done on the first replicate of the trial as a means of determining whether

there was improved nutrient uptake from the plots that received the higher rate.

Sampling date: 2/11/09

Optimumrange

REP/PLOTAnalyte Unit Comment A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Nitrogen (Kjeldahl) % 5.5 to 6.5 Very Low 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.1

Nitrate Nitrogen mg/kg Very Low 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Phosphorus % 0.44 to 0.65 Low 0.33 0.38 0.4 0.37 0.4 0.32 0.34

Potassium % 2.5 to 4 Low - Mod 2.6 3 2.7 2.7 3.2 2.1 2.3

Sulphur % 0.2 to 0.4 Very low 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.16

Calcium % 0.25 to 0.8 Low 0.23 0.25 0.2 0.19 0.23 0.27 0.18

Magnesium % 0.13 to 0.4 Low 0.1 0.11 0.09 0.1 0.12 0.13 0.1

Sodium % 0 to 0.6 OK 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01Chloride % 0 to 2 OK 0.62 0.64 0.46 0.49 0.58 0.44 0.43

Manganese mg/kg 25 to 300 OK 76 66 56 51 34 42 40

Iron mg/kg 25 to 100 Mod - high 75 84 76 69 66 83 61

Copper mg/kg 5 to 50 Low 3.7 4.6 4.9 5.7 5.8 5.5 6

Zinc mg/kg 20 to 70 Low 16 23 20 20 18 19 21

Boron mg/kg 5 to 10 Low 3.7 3.7 2.8 4.9 5 4 3.8

N/P Ratio 5.8 5.5 5.3 4.3 4.5 5.6 6.2

N/K Ratio 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9

N/S Ratio 12 12 13 10 10 11 13Note: N = Nitrogen, P = Phosphorus, K = Potassium, S = Sulfur

Table 4: Tissue test results for Bungendore trial.

Plot Treatment DescriptionA1 7 Control (No fert)

A2 6 FCMP - high rate (400 kg /ha)

A3 5 FCMP - med rate (250 kg /ha)

A4 4 FCMPstandard rate (120 kg /ha)

A5 3 Compost low rate (5 m3 /ha)

A62

Compost medium rate (12.5 m3 /ha)A7 1 Composthigh rate (20 m3 /ha)

Comment:

There were no apparent differences in the nutrient uptake of the crop that could be attributed

to the treatments.

Grain Harvest Results

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Ave Plot Wt Ave Yield (t/ha)

1 2.15 2.05 2.45 2.22 0.62

2 3.20 3.40 1.90 2.83 0.79


26/66



3 3.20 2.40 1.65 2.42 0.67

4 2.20 2.25 2.05 2.17 0.60

5 2.40 2.50 1.90 2.27 0.63

6 1.95 2.65 1.70 2.10 0.58

7 3.10 1.75 1.75 2.20 0.61

Figure 11: Bungendore trial crop yield.

4.2.4 Discussion of measurements

The yields are very low as a result of the dry growing conditions and lack of finishingrainfall so it is not advisable to read too much into the results.

Unfortunately there was a patchy emergence of the crop that went across sometreatments and may have skewed the results at the highest application rate (1).

The above graph is very similar in appearance to the first graph for dry matter cuts atGS30, which correlates with the patchy emergence in treatment 1.

There does appear to be a trend emerging. The yield appears to be proportional to therate of compost applied to treatments (1) (2) & (3).

4.2.5 Plans for 2010The trial has been moved for 2010 to a site just north of Goulburn. There was concern about

the possibility of contaminants compromising the organic accreditation on Landtasia. The

same trial plan was used to sow down the 2010 trial apart from the addition of a

gypsum/compost treatment and a couple of plots with very high compost rates for

demonstration. The trial is now on a conventional farm and sown to a variety of oats called

Blackbutt. It is commonly used as a forage / hay production on the NSW Tablelands but,

in this instance, it has been sown as a seed crop.

At the end of the growing season additional testing will be carried out to obtain the various

data-sets required to meet the objectives outlined in Section 3. These tests will provide the

necessary information to determine changes to soil nutrient levels, soil carbon, soil biota

levels, soil water holding capacity, crop water use efficiency, and soil structure.

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(T

ones/ha)

Treatments

Spelt grain yield - Bungendore 2009

?


27/66



4.3 Condobolin Trial

4.3.1 Introduction

The trial is managed in conjunction with the Wiradjuri Condobolin Corporation (WCC). The

Central West Farming Systems (CWFS) have been contracted to look after the day to day

operations of the trial, such as sowing, weed and pest control and harvesting. The WCC

manage the production of the compost at a site adjacent to the Condobolin waste depot. They

also have a keen interest in the trial.

4.3.2 Site Details

4.3.2.1 SoilsThe soil tests results showed the soils to have following features (See Appendix G for more

details):

Topsoil (010 cm)


pH (CaCl2) 4.8 5.2 - 6 Low

Aluminium 1.0 %


28/66



Figure 12: Condobolin trial location.

The trial site is the south east corner of the paddock directly south east of the main

Condobolin Research Station office block, as shown below.

CondobolinNynganRoad

Main

office

& sheds

4.3.2.3 Trial Design

There were a number of possible trial design scenarios discussed. Alternative trial designs

included application in commercial vegetable production and for use in nursery production.

The broadacre grain production model was decided on. Although there would never be

enough compost produced for use in grain growing this trial design would allow easy

comparison with district grain yields and allow financial returns to be calculated. The trial

will be conducted on the same land for two years to determine what cumulative benefits may

be evident from compost use.

Chemical treated plots1 Composthigh rate 3 Compost low rate 5 ControlA (DAP @ 50/kg/ha)

Theche

micalfreetrialgoes

onfrom

thisendofthe

chemicaltreatedplots.after

a15mb

uffer.

2 Compost medium rate 4 DAP @ 30kg/ha + medium

compost

1 Composthigh rate

3 Compost low rate 5 ControlA (DAP @ 50/kg/ha) 2 Compost medium rate

4 DAP @ 30kg/ha + medium

compost

2 Compost medium rate 3 Compost low rate

5 ControlA (DAP @ 50/kg/ha) 1 Composthigh rate 4 DAP @ 30kg/ha + medium

compost

Chemical free plots1 DAP @ 30kg/ha + medium

compost

3 Compost - medium rate 5 ControlC(No chemical & no

fertiliser)

2 Composthigh rated 4 Compost - low rate 1 DAP @ 30kg/ha + medium

compost

3 Compost - medium rate 5 ControlC(No chemical & no

fertiliser)

2 Composthigh rated

4 Compost - low rate 2 Composthigh rated 3 Compost - medium rate

5 ControlC(No chemical & nofertiliser)

1 DAP @ 30kg/ha + mediumcompost

4 Compost - low rate

N

Chemical free

Chemicals used


29/66



As can be seen from the trial plan, the whole trial was repeated twice, once with pre-emergent

and postemergent herbicides, and the other without any use of any herbicide treatments.

The two trials were placed end to end with a 19m buffer in between.

Notes:

The shaded areas received DAP (di-ammonium phosphate) fertiliser at sowing.This is the normal fertiliser used by farmers in the region when growing wheat.

The herbicide treated plots received an application of Glyphosate pre-sowing and abroadleaf weed spray later in the season.

If a fungicide treatment was needed, only the herbicide treated plots would havereceived it.

Buffer plots are sown on each side of the trial making the trial 7 plots wide ratherthan 5.

DimensionsPlots are to be 2m x 15m each in size. There is a 2m buffer at the end of adjoining plots.

Note: The sowing width is only 1.8m, the same as the harvester. The wheel tracks of the

seed drill make up the extra 0.2m to make the width 2m.

4.3.3 Measurements

Figure 13: Condobolin wheat crop dry matter production to GS30.

1 DAP @

30kg/ha +

medium

compost

2 Compost

- high rate

3 Compost

- medium

rate

4 Compost

- low rate

5a Control

A (DAP @

50/kg/ha)

5b Control

B (No

chemical

& no fert

No Chem 2023 1643 1697 1883 1813

Chem 1773 1620 1390 1690 2060

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Tonnes/DMh

a

Tonnes / Ha

Dry Matter production to GS30

No Chem

Chem


30/66



Figure 14: Condobolin wheat crop yield, 2009.

4.3.4 Discussion of measurements

It is not advisable to read too much into the results as the dry matter and grain yieldsare very low due to the dry growing conditions and lack of finishing rainfall.

There was little appreciable difference between the treatments at the dry matter cut atGS30.

From Fig 13 it could also be interpreted that the herbicide treatments had a yieldsuppressing effect where compost was used.

An interesting picture emerged for the herbicide free trial. In this trial, as is shown inFig 13, the compost treatments were much more effective, more than doubling the

yield of the treatments in the herbicide treated trial. Although the absolute yield

figures were small, this is a stand-out result for the trial.

4.3.5 Plans for 2010

The trials will be sown in the exact same location and to the same trial design in 2010. The

reasons for this are:

1. It will show if a cumulative benefit emerges for the compost treatments.2. It will verify whether yield suppression of herbicides on compost treated soil is an

issue.

3. It will give time for the soil organisms to adjust to the increased organic material inthe soil.

1 DAP @

30kg/ha +

medium

compost

2

Compost -

high rate

3

Compost -

medium

rate

4

Compost -

low rate

5b Control

A (DAP @

50/kg/ha)

5a Control

B (No

chemical

& no fert)

No Chem 0.286 0.262 0.202 0.139 0.156

Chem 0.121 0.088 0.085 0.131 0.161

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

Tonnes/Ha

Tonnes / Ha

Condobolin Trial Grain Yields - 2009

No Chem

Chem


31/66



There is a belief amongst many users of recycled organic products that it takes a couple of

years to prime the soil microbes for them to be able to best utilise the organic material and the

nutrients applied. Much of the nutrients in compost are locked up in organic matter and the

existing soil organisms may not be suitable for its decomposition.

There is also a commonly held theory amongst the biological farming fraternity that the use

of certain agricultural pesticides has a negative impact on soil biota. Glyphosate is often

mentioned as a cause of damage to populations of certain groups of soil microorganisms. It

is a long shot to say that Glyphosate has caused the above crop yield reduction in the

herbicide trial but it could, theoretically, have had a negative impact on some of the key

organisms responsible for nutrient cycling. This could have resulted in a lesser degree of

breakdown and nutrient release from the compost where the herbicides were used.

At the end of the growing season additional testing will be carried out to obtain the various

data-sets required to meet the objectives outlined in Section 3. These tests will provide the

necessary information to determine changes to soil nutrient levels, soil carbon, soil biota

levels, soil water holding capacity, crop water use efficiency, and soil structure.


32/66



5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI would like to acknowledge several individuals and organisations for their contribution to the

Groundswell agronomy trials.

Andrew Sieler of Strathmere,and Andrew Divall of Narrambulla, Goulburn, fortheir cooperation and generous contributions of time and fencing materials. Mark and

Camilla Hart, employees of Divalls have also been very helpful.

Richard Graham and Dennis Northey from Landtasia for their generous assistanceand cooperation.

Noel Trevaskis and Rohan Davies of IncitecPivot for arranging a contribution offertiliser for the Goulburn trials over the past two years.

Brad Davis and Jodie Dean of the Central West Farming Systems for managing muchof the Condobolin cropping trial.

Condobolin Agricultural Research Station for providing the site for the trial.

Lisa Hibbert, Eugene Coe and Cecil Coe and the other staff at the Wiradjuri CondobolinCorporation (WCC) for their assistance with the Condobolin trial work.

Andrew Galland and staff from Goulburn Mulwaree Council for their ongoing andenthusiastic cooperation.


33/66



5 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Comments to research questions relevant to the agronomy

trial work.

APPENDIXB: Toxicity and weed contamination test of the Goulburn and

Condobolin composts.

APPENDIXC: Growth stages of cereal crops.

APPENDIXD: Example grazing chart used in Goulburn triple paddock

comparisons.

APPENDIX E: Soil test for Goulburn Trial Site

APPENDIX F Soil tests for Bungendore Trial Site.

APPENDIXG Soil tests for Condobolin Trial Site.

APPENDIXH Compost test results.


34/66



APPENDIX A:

Comments to research questions relevant to the agronomy trial work.

Below are the research questions that relate to the agronomy component of the Groundswell

trial. The outcomes to date and those still to be achieved are discussed under each question.

A1 What happened when composted urban organic waste (UW) was applied toAgricultural land?

This is the basis of the agronomy trials. Preliminary evidence suggests that urban wastecompost is useful in supplying nutrients and improving soil conditions for plant growth.

A2 Where and what quantities of composted product are/were applied?

The rates per hectare used in the trials are listed in the report. The total quantities applied arenot relevant for the purpose of determining production benefits and economics.

A3 What can compost made from urban organic waste be used for?

It has been shown in these trials that it can be used as a topdressing fertiliser/soil ameliorant onpastures providing adequate quantities are applied. A key outcome of the trial is to determinethe exact rates required and the economics of using such rates. Insufficient evidence has beengathered to prove or disprove this to date.

A4 What are the risks from using composts? How can those risks be mitigated? Do therewards outweigh the risks?

There are several risks involved with the use of UW compost including:

o Physical contaminants such as glass, metal, rocks, plastic, etc. Glass being a majorconcern.

o Chemical contaminants. These are most unlikely but potentially the most problematic.They are also expensive to test for.

o The introduction of weeds with the compost.

In the process of preparing UW compost most physical contaminants can be removed if thematerial is carefully sorted before starting and when it is turned. This is an essential part ofthe QA process. Although it is up to the contributors of organic material to ensure that nochemical contaminants exist, an adequate level of testing is required prior to the point of sale,to prove that this risk is mitigated. Both of these matters are out of the hands of the end user.There is little that can be done to remove physical or chemical contaminants once thecompost is prepared.

It has however been shown that the contributors of urban waste for composting are very keen

to do the right thing and carefully partition their wastes at the household level. It also appearsthat the processes of using education and incentives must be ongoing in order to consistentlyachieve the highest level of quality in the end product.

Weeds are an ongoing menace, and although farmers will not be concerned about smallamounts of some common but insignificant grass and broadleaf plants being introduced, if theweeds present a serious threat to production, the compost should not be allowed to be usedin broadacre agriculture. This is a serious issue with significant long term implications for bothCouncils and end users.

A5 What is the financial value to farmers of increased yield?

This is yet to be determined. Due to the poor rainfall received in 2009, there was little material

to harvest or graze. I am hopeful that the situation will be different in 2010, and in particular


35/66



that the cumulative benefits of two applications in consecutive years will show somesignificant yield increases.

A6 What is the financial value to farmers of improved crop quality?

This is yet to be determined. Whilst it is not expected that there will be an improvement inquality, if it does occur that will be an additional benefit. The cropping trials at Bungendore

and Condobolin in 2009 showed no difference in quality. No protein testing was done in 2009as I was advised that it would not show any differences as because yields were so low, all ofthe protein levels would have been high. In 2010 I will test Brix levels at GS30 to determinewhether there is any difference in plant sugar levels.

COMMENT: Quality is a broad term that could relate to feed value of crop or pasture materialthat is grazed, or to the quality of the grain harvested. It is only really in the context ofcropping for grain that quality can be measured, and that is in terms of the protein level, forwhich a premium is paid. Most comments in this study in relation to quality will be subjective.

A7 What is the financial value to farmers of reduced water use?

None of the trials involve irrigation, so reduced water use is not relevant.

A8 What is the financial value to farmers of improved water efficiency?

Further to the answer to A7, water use efficiency (WUE) is quite relevant, and has beencalculated above for all of the trials. Although WUE is useful for comparative purposes, it doesnot provide measurable data for financial evaluation.

A9 What is the financial value to farmers of improved soil structure?

Improved soil structure does not relate directly to any financial benefit, and can only benefitfarmers through increased yield. Even if increased yield is the outcome, it is very difficult todetermine the role that soil structure has played in that yield increase. Soil structure will bevisually evaluated at the completion of the trials to determine the correlation that it has to

increased yield.

A 10 What is the financial value to farmers of increased microbial activity?

Improved soil microbial activity does not relate directly to any financial benefi, and can onlybenefit farmers through increased yield. Even if increased yield is the outcome it is verydifficult to determine the role that improved soil microbial activity has played in that yieldincrease. Soil microbial activity has been measured at the commencement of the trial, andwill be evaluated at the completion of the trials to determine any correlation to increased yield.

A11 What is the financial value to farmers of reduced nutrient leakage?

The cropping and pasture systems in which the compost is being evaluated are very lownutrient use systems, phosphorus inputs are well below levels that could start to leak andthere is little nitrogen fertiliser used (nitrogen is usually the nutrient that leaks). Nutrientleakage is not a problem. As no nutrients are expected to be lost, there is no economic loss tothe farmers involved.

A12 What is the financial value to farmers of reduced fertilizer costs?

As the nutrient value in all of the good quality compost sample tests that I have seen is fairlyconsistent, this depends almost entirely on the cost of the compost to the farmer. The issue isthat good quality compost is difficult to get. Farmers need to be able to obtain a consistentsupply of high quality product, at the right price.

There are some other components of compost that are difficult to quantify, being the influenceon the performance of soil microbes, and the effect of the trace elements that compostcontains. Anecdotal evidence indicates that there is noticeably greater value in using compost


36/66



than what is in the nutrients that it contains. It is generally assumed by the users of organicwaste products that enhancement in the activity of soil microbes provides the additionalbenefits.

A13 What is the financial value to farmers of reduced erosion?

Improved groundcover through better balanced nutrition should result in reduced erosion. As

there is no actual evaluation of erosion in the trial, I will only be able to estimate the effect ofcompost application on the factors that normally contribute to erosion, ie: groundcover andsoil structure.

A14 What is the financial value to farmers of carbon sequestration?

This will be fairly easy to evaluate. The organic carbon level in the compost is measurable,the rates applied are known, so the quantities of carbon will be able to be estimated. This willbe done at the end of the trial and the economic benefits determined.

A15 What is the financial value to farmers of increased land value?

This factor is very subjective, as land values fluctuate considerably over time, but an estimate

will be made on the completion of the trial that will be relevant at that point in time.

A20 What are the optimum rates and methods of application?

To be cost effective, the rates used need to be adequate to obtain a benefit that is equal to orbetter than other normal inputs that are required for pasture or crop growth. The trials willclearly demonstrate this outcome.


37/66



APPENDIX B:

Toxicity and weed contamination test of the Goulburn and Condobolin composts

All of the trial sites were scanned at various stages for weeds, particularly unusual weeds that

could have been introduced by the compost. Also observations were made to determine any

obvious signs of toxic effects on plants. The results are as follows:

GoulburnDivalls trial site.

No weeds introduced. No apparent toxins.

Goulburn - Sielers trial site.


Bungendore organic spelt crop trial site at Landtasia.


Condobolin wheat crop trial site at the Agricultural Research Station.


The following is a weed and toxic contaminant evaluation trial that was conducted with a

small sample of compost from each of the Goulburn and the Condobolin sources. Potential

toxicity is tested by germinating radish seeds and comparing the length of shoot or root

development against a known base mix to see if any toxic materials have inhibited growth.

Goulburn Compost on the left Condobolin Compost on the right


38/66



Method:Two pots were filled with freshly made compost from both Goulburn and Condobolin landfill

and radish was planted in one of each. All pots were watered regularly until the radish and

any weed seeds had been given plenty of time to germinate (About 6 weeks).

The trial was conducted between June and October 2009.

Results:There was almost a 100% germination of the radish plants.

There were only two weeds that germinated in the pots:

1. One brome grass plant germinated in the Goulburn compost.2. One wild mustard plant germinated in the Condobolin compost.

Discussion:This exercise was not designed to be scientifically rigorous, rather, as a general validation

that there were no chemical or weed contaminants in the compost that would negatively

impact on the growth of plants to which the compost was applied. This was demonstrated to

be the case.

Future implications:In 2010 a similar trial will be done on a larger scale for each batch of compost. The compost

treatments in the trials will again be evaluated for the presence of problematic weeds that

germinate as a result of the compost.


39/66



APPENDIX C: Growth stages of cereal crops.


40/66

APPENDIX D: Example grazing chart used in Goulburn triple paddock comparisons.

Paddock 1 - Name: Paddock Area (A): (ha)

Date On DM On(kg/ha)

Date Off DM Off(kg/ha)

TotalDays

Animal Class AveWeight(kg)

DSERating

No. ofAnimals

Total DSE GrazingYield

B C D E = C x D B x E

TOTAL(F):

Average stocking rate (DSE/ha) G = F/365/A


41/66

APPENDIX E: Soil test for Goulburn Trial Site

APPENDIX F Soil tests for Bungendore Trial Site.

APPENDIXG Soil tests for Condobolin Trial Site.

APPENDIXH Compost test results.

(There was no compost test for Bungendore as

Goulburn compost was used)


42/66

Qualitative Analysis

Report prepared for:

Chris Houghton AG

Chris Houghton 02-010489 | Submission:02-005200

PO Box 18 Divall

Crookwell, NSW 2583 Australi Not Indicated

0

Report Sent:

Sample#:

Unique ID:

Plant:

Invoice Number:

[email protected] 23/06/2009Sample Received:

For interpretatio

Local Advisor:

Con

Notes:Overal Rating: Poor.Sample information: Sandy loam soil taken from non irrigated pasture on 15/06/09.

Overal rating is based on the percentage of organisms observed in each category.

Although a high percentage of organisms may suggest a good rating, the lack of other organisms will place the sample into a lower

Bacteria: > 500 per field. Cocci bacteria of various sizes.

Fungi: 55%. Diversity is low. Opaque and light brown fungi only.

FD: 2.5 - 5.0 um.

Actinobacteria: None observed.

Flagellates: None observed.

Amoebae: None observed.

Ciliates: None observed.

(# * 10^8/ml)

Nematodes: None observed.


43/66



Chris Houghton AG


PO Box 18 Andrew Seiler

Crookwell, NSW 2583 Australi Not Indicated

0

Report Sent:

Sample#:

Unique ID:

Plant:

Invoice Number:


For interpretatio

Local Advisor:

Con

Notes:Overal Rating: Poor.Sample Information: Loam soil sample taken from non irrigated pasture on 15/06/09.

Overall rating of samples are based on the percentage of organisms observed in each category. Although high percentages of som

good rating,the lack of other organisms will place the sample into a lower category.

Bacteria: > 500 per field. Cocci bacteria, various sizes.

Fungi: 20%. Diversity is low, Light brown septate fungi only.

FD: 2.5 - 5.0 um.





(# * 10^8/ml)



44/66

SOIL ANALYSIS REPORTReport Numbei:352845

Al'&Chris Houghton Agricultural NATA phi ip wjliamsPO Box 1019OUEANBEYAN Registered SignatoryNSW 2620 #S#*',""* NATA Accfedited LaboratoryNumber: 1 1958

Analyte Result Units Method Code CommentsCo our Brcwn 04-042-PHYS N/unsellTexture Sandy Loam O4-O42,pHyS Fietd texture, Northcote (1984)pH (1:5 Wate4 59 04031-PH 1:5 soit/waterpH (1 5 CaC 2) 5 1 04-031-PH 1:5 soiu0 01M CaCl2Organic Carbon 24 % O4-018-UV1 Watkey& Btack(1g47)Nitrate Nikogen


45/66

SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT35292A

Chris Houghton AgriculturalPO Box 10'19OUEANBEYANNSW 2620

The results pertain only to the sample submittedThis document shall not be reproduced except in fu IAnalyses performed on soil dried at 40 "C and ground to 2mm oa lessThis doc!ment is issued in accordance w th NATA's accreditation requirementsAccredited for compliance with ISO/lEC 17025

Report Numberl

NATATECHI{ICAL

Phi ip Wi liamsRegistered Signatory

NATA Accred ted LaboratoryNumber; 1 1958

SampfeNumber: O2O7Ogl94Test Codei N51Purchase O.der No: 020037068

Paddock Name: LAKE PADDOCKSamDle Name: ROASample Depth: 1O to 20 (


46/66

Report Number: 352929@&OIL ANALYSIS REPORT

HATAhris Houghton AgriculturalPO Box '1019QUEANBEYANNSW 2620 TECHNICAL

Philip Wil iamsRegistered Signatory

NATA Accredited LabofatoryNumber '1 1958

The results perta n only to the sample submittedThis document shall not be reproduced except in fullAnalyses perforrned on soi dried at 40 "C and ground to 2mm or less^ Test not rnc uded in laboratory's NATA scope of accreditationThis document s jssued in accordance with NATA'S accreditation requirementsAccredlted for compliance with ISO/lEC 17025

SampleNumber: 020199787Test Code: N2Purchase Order No: 020037068

Paddock Name: TRIAL PADDOCKSample Name: ROASample Depth: 0 to 10

DateSampled: 31-Oct-2008DateReceived: 5-Nov-2008Date of Report: 12-Nov-2008

AnalyteColourTexturepH (1:5 Water)pH (1:5 CaCl2)

Nitrate NitrogenSulphate Sulphur (KCl40)Phosphorus (Colwell)PotassiumCalciumMagnesiumAluminiumSodiumCh ordeElect Conductivity (EC)Cation Exch Cap (CEC)Calcium/Magnes um RatioElec Cond (Sat Ext ) ^Aluminium % of CationsSodium % of Cations (ESP)Phosphorus Buffer Index

ResultSandyClayLoam57

(1sJ3.8 %

mg/Kgmg/Kg.ng/Kgmeq/1009meq/1009meq/1009meq/1009meq/1009mg/KgdS/mmeq/1009

dS/m%%

l\rethod Code04-042-PHYS04-042-PHYS04-031-PH04-031-PH04-018-UVl04-052-SNO3CL04-021-tcP204-013-COL P04-026-tcP804-026-tcP804-026-lcP804-427)CP904-026-tcP804-052-SNO3CL04-031-PH04-026-tcP804-026-rcP804-054-WCALC04-026-tcP804-026-tcP8a4-o20-tcP 17

CommentsL4unsellF eld texture Northcote ( 1984)1:5 soil/water1 :5 soi /0 01M CaCl2Walkley & Black (1947)Water extraction0 25N, KCI at 40'C0 5[/ NaHCo3 (pH 8 5)Ex Cat Ammonium Acetate (pH 7 0)Ex Cat Ammonium Acetate (pH 7 0)Ex Cat Ammonium Acetate (pH 7 0)Ex Cat 1M KCIEx Cat Ammonium Acetate (pH 7 0)Water extraction1:5 soil/waterCalculat onCalculaUonCalculationCalcu ationCalcu ationCalculation using ColwellP (PBl)

5918

.to.17:8023013o44011

r 11.0 135

4010

Nutrient Advantage Laboratory ServicesNutr ent Advantage is a trademark of Incitec Pivot Lim tedIncrtec P vot Limlted ABN 42 004 080 2648 South Rd, Werribee Vic 3030Toll-free: 1800 803 453 Fax: (6'1 3) 9974 0699Enquiryr [email protected]

Disclaimen This analysis report is prepafed solely for the clientlisted above To the extent permitted by aw, Incitec Pivot Limitedexcludes all liability n connection with this report and where iablitycannot be excluded, ljmits its I ability, at its e ection to the re-supplyof the soil analysis services or the cost of the re-supply of suchserv ces

Page 1 of 1


47/66

SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT

Chris Houghton AgriculturalPO Box 1019QUEANBEYANNSW 2620

Report Number:352930

A!*&NATATECIINICAL

Philip Will amsRegistered Signatory

NATA Accredited LaboratoryNumber: '11958

The results pertain only to the sample submittedThis document shall not be repfoduced except in fullAnalyses pedormed on soi died at 40 'C and ground to 2mm or essThis document s ssued in accordance with NATA s accreditation requirementsAccredited for compliance with ISO/lEC 17025

SampfeNumber: A2A7A9796Test Code: N5jPurchase Order No: 020037068Grower Name: CROUNSWEI I SITLER

Paddock Name: TRIAL PADDOCKSample Name:sampre Depthi ozo ( gvaj Saiu)

DateSampled: 31-Oct-2OOBDateReceived: 5-Nov-2008Date of Report: 12-Nov-2008

AnalylepH ('1:5 Water)pH (1:5 CaCl2)Nitrate NitrogenPotassiumCalciumMagnesiumAlumin umSodiumCh ordeElect Conductivity (EC)Cation Exch Cap (CEC)Calcium/l\,4agnesium RatioA urninium % of CationsSodiurn % of Cat ons (ESP)

Result52

r 4.3 )18o1245T9095044570107912456

[Jnits

mg/Kgmeq/1009meq/1009meq/1009meq/1009rneq/T 009rng/KgdS/mmeq/1009

%%

lllethod Code04-031-PH04 031 PH04 052 SNO3CL04-026-lcP804-026-tcP804-026-tcP804-427- CPg04-026-tcP804-052-SNO3CL04-031-PH04-026-lcP804-026-tcP804-026-tcP804-026-tcP8

Comments1 5 soil/water1 5 soil/O 01M CaC12

Ex Cat Arnmonium Acetate (pH 7 0)Ex Cat Arnmonium Acetate (pH 7 0)Ex Cat Arnmonium Acetate (pN 7 0)Ex Cat 1N,4 KCIEx Cat Ammonium Acetate (pH 7 0)Water extraction1:5 soil/waterCalcu ationCalculationCalculationCalculation

Nutrient Advantage Laboratory ServicesNutr ent Advantage s a trademaft of Incitec Pivot LimitedIncitec P vot Limiled - ABN 42 004 080 2648 South Rd, Werribee Vic 3030Toll-free 1800 803 453 Fax: (61 3) 9974 0699Enquiry: lab.feedback@incitecpivot com.au

Disclaimer: This analysis report s prepaaed solely for the clentlsted above To the extent permitted by law Incitec Pivot Limitedexcludes a I liabiity jn connection wilh this report and where liabilitycannot be excluded, limits its liabiljty, at its election to the re-supplyof the soil ana ysis serv ces or the cost of the re-supp V oi suchserytcesPage 'l of 1


48/66

Foodweb Analysis


Soil

Chris Houghton AG 09/07/2009


PO Box 18 Landtasia

Crookwell, NSW 2583 Spelt

5503

Report Sent:

Sample#:

Unique ID:

Plant:

Invoice Number:


For interpretatio

Local Advisor:

Con

OrganismBiomass Data

Dry Weight Active Bacterial(g/g)

Total Bacterial(g/g)

Active Fungal(g/g)

Total Fungal(g/g)

HyphalDiameter (m)

Results

Comments

0.840

In Good Range

0.450.85

58.3

Above range

680

Above range

3.74

In range

99.2

Below range

2.75

15

175300

15

175300

Results

Comments

16440

High

5000

505

Low

16

Low

7.99

Low

0%

Low

5000 50

100

10

20

40%

80%

Results

Comments

0.15

Low

0.8

1.5

0.04

Low

0.09

Low

0.06

Low

50-75

0.15

0.2

0.15

0.2

0.75

1.5

Protozoa (Numbers/g)Flagellates Amoebae Ciliates

TotalNematodes #/g

Mycorrhizal Colonization (%)

Organism

Biomass Ratios

Total Fungal to

Tot.Bacterial

Active to Total

Fungal

Active to Total

Bacterial

Active Fungal

to Act.Bacterial

Plant Available N

Supply (lbs/ac)

Nematode detaClassified by typ

ExpectedRange LowHigh

ExpectedRange

Low

High

ExpectedRange

Low

High

0%

Low

40%

80%

ECTOENDO

(If section is bla

Bacterial Feeders

Acrobeloides

Cephalobus

Chiloplacus (stubbEucephalobus

Panagrolaimus

Rhabditis

Fungal Feeders

Eudorylaimus

Fungal/Root Feeder

Aphelenchoides

Aphelenchus

Root Feeders

Paratylenchus

1 Crawford Road East Lismore, NSW 2480 Australia

0266225150 | [email protected]

www.soilfoodweb.com.au


49/66

Chris Houghton AG 09/07/2009


PO Box 18 Landtasia

Crookwell, NSW 2583 Spelt

5503

Report Sent:

Sample#:

Unique ID:

Plant:

Invoice Number:


For interpretatio

Local Advisor:

Con

Interpretation Comments

Soil Type: Sand, low organic matter, Irrigated: No., Plant: Spelt.Actinobacteria Biomass = 0.29 ug/g

Active Bacteria Bacterial activity above expected levels; Bacterial biomass will increase as long as nutrients are available.

Total Bacteria Higher than normal bacterial biomass suggests high bacterial species diversity.

Active Fungi: Filamentous fungal activity and diversity in normal range.

Total Fungi: Need to improve total fungal biomass. Add fungal compost (2.5 to 12.5 tonnes/ha or more), or multiple applications of 200 litres/ha fungal com

Hyphal Diameter Good balance of disease suppressive and normal soil fungi.

Protozoa Lacking amoeba numbers. Minimal nutrient cycling occurring. Need to improve protozoan numbers, need to improve soil structure by improvin

Total Nematodes Low numbers, low diversity. Switchers and root feeders present. Need to add beneficial nematodes, improve conditions to allow their survival

Mycorrhizal Col. No mycorrhizal colonization. Add an inoculum of mycorrhizal spores, then provide humic acids to feed mycorrhizal fungi and improve colonizat

TF/TB: Too bacterial dominated for spelt crops. Will lack disease suppression, nutrient retention, ability to build soil structure. Need to improve benebiomass.

AF/TF: Low fungal activity compared to total biomass; need to add fungal foods to encourage fungi.

AB/TB: Low bacterial activity compared to total biomass: add bacterial foods.

AF/AB: Soil is bacterial dominated, and becoming more bacterial; addition of fungal foods might help maintain balance.

Nitrogen Supply Low nutrient cycling and availability. Need more protozoa and beneficial nematodes to cycle nutrients.

Dry Weight: Check plant requirements, but moisture appears to be fine.

1 Crawford Road East Lismore, NSW 2480 Australia

0266225150 | [email protected]

www.soilfoodweb.com.au


50/66

Nutrient Recommendation Report

Kings Hwy

Agent/Dealer:

Advisor/Contact: Chris Houghton

Bubgendore

NSW 2621

Report Print Date:

Phone: 02 4837 3342

06/05/2010

Landtasia

SwampPaddock Name:

Chemistry

SoilSample Type:

020954364Sample No:

Sample Name:

Test Code: A12

Sample Depth (cm) To0 10

Assay Value OptimalExcessHighAdequateMarginalVery LowUnit

6.70pH (1:5 Water)

Neutral6.10 5 - 6.5pH (1:5 CaCl2)

17.00 12-25Nitrate Nitrogen (NO3) mg/kg ###

37.00Phosphorus (Colwell) mg/kg

Very Low34.00Phosphorus Buffer Index (PBI-Col)

81.00Available Potassium mg/kg

4.30 8-15Sulphate Sulphur (KCl40) mg/kg ###

20.00


51/66



Chris Houghton AG


PO Box 18 Groundswell - Condo

Crookwell, NSW 2583 Australi Wheat

0

Report Sent:

Sample#:

Unique ID:

Plant:

Invoice Number:


For interpretatio

Local Advisor:

Con

Notes:Overal Rating: Poor.Samle information: Clay loam soil sample taken from non irrigated wheat crop on 16/06/09.

Overal rating is based on the percentage of organisms observed in each catagort.

Although high percetages of some organisms may suggest a good rating, the lack of other organisms will place the sample into a lo

Bacteria: >500 per field. Cocci bacteria of various sizes.

Fungi: 20%. Diversity is low, light brown septate fungi only.

FD: 3.0 - 5.0 um.





(# * 10^8/ml)



52/66

Nutrient Report

24/11/2009

FRANK COONEY & SONS

36 WILLIAM ST

CONDOBOLIN

NSW 2877

Frank Cooney & Son PL

Frank Cooney & Son P/L

02 6895 2288

Report Print Date:

Phone:

Advisor/Contact:

Agent/Dealer:

Unit ValueAssay

CONDO ARAS

021080910

Soil

CWFS

21/09/2009

A14

0 - 10Sample Depth (cm)

Test Code

Sample Name

Sample Type

Paddock Name

Sampling Date

Sample No

ab Report No.

ab Report Date 05/10/2009

5.60H (1:5 Water)

4.80H (1:5 CaCl2)

1.0Aluminium Saturation %

1.00Organic Carbon (OC) %

37.0Nitrate Nitrogen (NO3) mg/kg

3.8Ammonium Nitrogen (KCl) mg/kg

22Phosphorus (Colwell) mg/kg

79Phosphorus Buffer Index (PBI-Col)

790Available Potassium mg/kg

3.6Sulfate Sulfur (KCl40) mg/kg

0.40Zinc (DTPA) mg/kg

0.86Copper (DTPA) mg/kg

21.0ron (DTPA) mg/kg

25.00Manganese (DTPA) mg/kg

1.70Boron (Hot CaCl2) mg/kg

21.0Chloride mg/kg

0.11Electrical Conductivity dS/m

1.00Electrical Conductivity (Saturated Extract) dS/m

10.10Cation Exchange Capacity meq/100g

9.00Aluminium (KCl) mg/kg

0.10Aluminium (KCl) meq/100g

5.50Calcium (Amm-acet.) meq/100g

Analyses conducted by Nutrient Advantage Laboratory Services

NATA Accreditation No:

Laboratory report is available upon request

Toll-Free: Email:

11958

1800 803 453 [email protected]

Page 1 of 2mple No: 021080910 Version: 1


53/66

Nutrient Report

Grower Name :

Report Print Date: 24/11/2009

Advisor/Contact:

Phone:

Frank Cooney & Son PL

02 6895 2288

FRANK COONEY & SONS

Unit ValueAssay

CONDO ARAS

021080910

Soil

CWFS

21/09/2009

A14

0 - 10Sample Depth (cm)

Test Code

Sample Name

Sample Type

Paddock Name

Sampling Date

Sample No

ab Report No.

ab Report Date 05/10/2009

54.00Calcium (Amm-acet.) %2.40Magnesium (Amm-acet.) meq/100g

24.00Magnesium (Amm-acet.) %

0.13Sodium (Amm-acet.) meq/100g

1.3Sodium % of Cations (ESP) %

2.00Potassium (Amm-acet.) meq/100g

20.00Potassium (Amm-acet.) %

2.3Calcium/Magnesium Ratio

0.8Potassium to Magnesium Ratio

Clay LoamSoil Texture

RedSoil Colour

6Disp. Index, Loveday/Pyle

ConsiderableSlaking 2Hrs

The results reported pertain only to the sample submitted.

Analyses performed on soil dried at 40 degrees Celsius and ground to


54/66

Tel: +61 3 9701 6007

Fax: +61 3 9701 5712

Email: [email protected]

DATE ISSUED : 25/05/2009

DATE RECEIVED : 20/05/2009

FILE NO : 090567211

GROUNDSWELL CLIENT ID : GRO033

ATT: SIMONE DILKARA PHONE : 02 6229 7136

C/- DECC, PO BOX 622 REFERENCE :

QUEANBEYAN, NSW 2620 REFERENCE PHONE :

SAMPLE ID : GLB001A ANALYSIS REQUIRED : Compost

& Microbes

ABN: 26 005 031 569

www.swep.com.au

Sustainable Soil Management with the Mikhail Balance System

CONTENTS:

Compost Analysis

SWEP Analytical Laboratories

45 - 47 / 174 Bridge Road

Keysborough VIC 3173 Australia

Web: www.swep.com.au


P.O. Box 583 Noble Park VIC 3174

page

1. Total Analysis, Microbial Analysis 2

2. Plant Available Nutrients 3

3. Exchangeable Cations & suggested amendments 4

4. Notes on Biology Management 5








55/66

FILE NO : 090567211 PAGE NO : 2

ITEM unit RESULT

Basic Measures:

pH (1:5 Water) 8.1

pH (1:5 0.01M CaCl2) 7.7

Electrical Conductivity EC S/cm 3461TOTAL SOLUBLE SALT TSS ppm 11421

Major Nutrients:

TOTAL NITROGEN N kg/t 15.1 1.51 %

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS P kg/t 3 0.3 %

TOTAL POTASSIUM K kg/t 11.8 1.18 %

TOTAL SULPHUR S kg/t 1.9 0.19 %

Total Cations:

TOTAL CALCIUM Ca % 1.77TOTAL MAGNESIUM Mg % 0.3

TOTAL SODIUM Na % 0.19

Trace Minerals:

TOTAL COPPER Cu ppm 28.4

TOTAL ZINC Zn ppm 225.9

TOTAL IRON Fe ppm 10253

TOTAL MANGANESE Mn ppm 348

TOTAL COBALT Co ppm 4.58

(Major Nutrients in percentages)

Total Analysis







o ppm .

TOTAL BORON B ppm 2.17

Carbon Content:

TOTAL ORGANIC MATTER % 28.6

TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON % 14.3

ITEM unit RESULT

ACTIVE LACTIC ACID BACTERIA 10,000,000

Active Fungi cells/g 10,000

Cellulo

Groundswell Agronomy - mid project report

Documents

Transcript of Groundswell Agronomy - mid project report