1 of 15
FINAL REPORT
For Public Release
Part 1 - Summary Details
CRDC ID:
CRDC 1904 - Aquatill
Project Title: Are chemical or mechanical crop termination tactics more effective for cotton crop termination in a multi herbicide tolerant gene stack system?
Project Start Date:01/07/2018 Project Completion Date:30/06/2019 Research Program:1 Farmers
Part 2 Contact Details
Administrator: Annabelle Guest Organisation: AGDel
Postal Address: 239 Gun Club Road NARRABRI NSW 2390
Ph: 0428924568 Fax: E-mail: [email protected] Principal Researcher: Greg Butler
Organisation: South Australia No-Till Farmers Association Postal Address: Clare South Australia
Ph: 0427424278 Fax: E-mail: [email protected] Supervisor: Annabelle Guest
Organisation: AGDel
Postal Address: 239 Gun Club Road Narrabri NSW 2390
Ph: 0428924568 Fax: E-mail: [email protected]
Signature of Research Provider Representative:
Date submitted: ______________________
2 of 15
Part 3 Final Report
Background
1. Outline the background to the project.
The use of water jet water cutting in industry and the background to this project have been well documented in the preceding project, DAQ 1703 under the leadership of Dr Paul Grundy, Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF).
An extract of the report from this project report is presented below:
Ultra-High Pressure Water Jet technology has a number of industrial applications in product manufacturing. The technology uses water pumped through specialised nozzles at ultra-high pressures (50,000-60,000 psi) to create a high powered jet that can be used to very accurately cut through a broad range of materials ranging from steel to carrots. Researchers from the South Australian No Till Farmers Association (SANTFA) have been investigating the potential for this UHP Water Jet technology, termed AquaTill, to be retro-fitted to planting equipment for the purpose of cutting through fallen stubble that would otherwise obstruct the passage of the planting tynes through the soil surface. Compared to a standard cutting disc fitted to many planters for this purpose, AquaTill provides the advantage of cleanly cutting through
bb e, e i i a i g he cc e ce f a h hai i i g d i g he a i g e a i . Demonstrations of AquaTill in northern NSW by the SANTFA at field days during 2016 piqued the curiosity of a number of cotton growers who expressed an interest in seeing this technology tested for its potential to be used as an alternative method of cotton termination for traditional root cutting.
Root cutting is a commonly deployed crop destruction technique whereby two opposing and overlapping discs are drawn at ground level through the crop and used to cut through the main stem below the cotyledon nodes. Ineffective root cutting can occur when equipment is either not well set up or when in-field conditions are variable (un-even ground or stones), resulting in a percentage of plants that are not severed below the cotyledons and consequently grow back as ratoons, presenting a significant challenge for farm hygiene.
The use of AquaTill technology to cut through the main stem at ground level offers an alternative method to the use of metal discs. The addition of herbicide might also provide a technology fail-safe in that any plants not effectively severed below the cotyledons might still be destroyed.
To test the potential application of AquaTill technology as an alternative technique for root c i g, f f c ce e e i e a i a de ake a Ke ah e f M ee. Thi work was a joint effort by Mr Greg Butler SANTFA and Mr Darren Hart of Keytah with financial and intellectual support provided by the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF) through CRDC projects DAQ1502 and DAQ1703. These results have been separately reported.
In this project, CRDC 1904, two small plot replicated field trials were conducted in dryland cotton crop residue to determine repeatability of the results obtained from the previous season proof of concept work. An improved ground engagement tool (Aquatill Injecticide) was developed by Dale Foster, NDF Narromine as an in-kind contribution to the project. A manufacturer of Fluroxypyr, Titan AG, has also contributed through provision of chemical product and consultant support of registration requirements for the development of this project. The aim of the 2018 field trials was to demonstrate repeatability of the results achie ed f he f f c ce ia i he e i ea k and to generate data
3 of 15 for registration of Fluroxypyr applied through ultra high pressure water nozzles for control of cotton ratoons.
Objectives
Milestone 1.
Are chemical or mechanical crop termination tactics more effective for cotton crop termination in a multi herbicide tolerant gene stack system?
Milestone Description:
1.1 Chemical and mechanical cotton crop termination tactics are compared and evaluated for compliance with Resistance Management Plan requirements.
Performance Indicator:
Two replicated field trials are conducted in 2018 dryland crop residue consisting of treatments fluroxypyr 1.0 and 0.5 L/ha in three water volumes for example 113, 63 and 31 L/ha. A standard (commercial farm practice) and an untreated area included.
Two replicated small plot field trials were conducted in 2018/19 near Narrabri, NSW in commercial dryland cotton crop residue. One trial was conducted in standing cotton stubble a Ca , e f G e Pa a C a , Edgeroi, while the second trial was conducted at the University of Sydney c e cia fa L a a in mulched cotton crop residue.
The treatments evaluated in both trials were water only, Fluroxypyr at 0.5 and 1.0 L/ha applied in volumes of 113, 63 and 31 L/ha. An untreated control was also included. Water volume applied was regulated by tractor speed. Commercial farm practice at Camus consisted of double cropping the field with field peas, then broadacre spraying the crop residue with paraquat over the summer fallow period as required after rainfall. The fieldpea crop provided little groundcover and failed due to dry conditions. C e cia ac ice a L a a consisted of over the top spray applications of Fluroxypyr and paraquat (not in the trial area) as required after rain.
Milestone Description:
1.2 Field trial outcomes used to form recommendations for AquaTill system to achieve commercialisation
Performance Indicator:
Field trial outcomes are used to form recommendations for AquaTill system to achieve commercialisation
The first area of recommendation provided was to NDF around the ground engagement tool. To further the project, feedback was provided to NDF around the prototype ground engagement tool and the modifications required to enhance accuracy in guiding the nozzle along the cotton row. The ground engagement tool was commercially named AquaTill Injecticide at this point. It was proposed that a multi row unit would be developed for the 2019 project. It was then determined that the label use pattern for Fluroxypyr 400 would need to be amended to accommodate treatment through water jet cutting equipment and that a permit would be required to treat larger scale areas than is covered under the general trial permit. The decision was then made to refine the ground engagement tool as a single row unit until a label permit was granted for the use pattern of
4 of 15 Fluroxypyr. The project is continued in 2019 as part of CRDC 1937 - Opportunities
in dryland cotton with Bollgard3, with 3 further trials established. A meeting between the project partners DCRA, SANTFA, Titan Ag and and NDF is proposed in the next few weeks to determine the way forward for continued development.
The project team resulted from an NLP2 grant application made by SANTFA for development of ultrahigh pressure water cutting in sugarcane, cotton, cereals and woody weeds which was supported by CRDC. The grant application was unsuccessful. SANTFA has since secured some funding for development of the technology in all four areas through a smaller NLP grant.
Methods
Two replicated field trials were established on the 26th July 2018 a L a a Na ab i a d the 27th J a Ca Ba d Hi R ad, Edgeroi. Both sites were established in conventional cotton refuge. The i e a L a a c i ed f ched c stubble after picking while at Ca he c c e id e a anding plant residue post stripping. The standing stubble was chosen to accommodate the double crop after dryland cotton scenario, where the desired system is to pick cotton, plant winter crop (field peas or chickpeas), apply residual herbicide then slash cotton crop residue prior to the winter crop being too high. The desirability of using Aqua-Till in this scenario is to provide flexibility in timing of operations.
The mulched site was selected as per alternative commercial practice, which is to slash or mulch cotton crop residue within 4 weeks of picking as required under the Resistance Management Plan, then leaving the field fallow until the next crop in the rotation is planted.
The treatments applied at both sites were Fluroxpyr 400 at 0.5 and 1.0 L/ha in volumes of 132, 66 and 32 L/ha. The e e e e e ec ed ba ed he e i ea k a d to determine if there was a response in ratoon control to water volume used. The lower the water volume used, the greater the efficiency gain at treatment time. An untreated check (essentially a conventional commercial treatment) and a water only treatment were included at both sites. The water only treatment was included to demonstrate the efficacy of adding Fluroxypyr over water only, a result f he e i ea k. A ground engagement tool for holding the nozzle on the plant row was provided by Dale Foster, NDF (Figure 2) and the treatments were applied by Greg Butler from SANTFA using water jet cutting technology consisting of a Flow pump (Figure 1 ) using a pressure of approximately 50 000 psi through a 008 sapphire orifice nozzle.
Figure 1 Flow Pump Figure 2 Ground Engagement tool
5 of 15
Figure 3 Standing cotton crop residue treated at Camus (Blue Hills) Site
Efficacy assessments of ratoon control were conducted in mid-November, mid -December and early February by counting the number of regrown plants in each plot that were cut at treatment but had regrown. Those plants within the row that had been missed by ground engagement tool were excluded for the assessment purposes. Timing of the first assessment was delayed due to lack of rainfall during winter and spring limiting regrowth stimulation.
Results
Con ol of Co on Ra oon
Results were variable and inconsistent due to the extremely dry conditions experienced over spring and summer 2018/19. Only 70 mm of rainfall was recorded over the trial duration (July 18 to February 19) a Ca hi e 140 a ec ded a L a a . Control of cotton ratoons held until mid-December at both sites, and achieved 88% to 94% at Camus (Blue Hills) (Figure 4) and 55% to 89% at Llara (Figure 5). Well below average rainfall over the summer period delayed the final assessment until February where regrowth was recorded in all treatments. At the Llara site, more robust control resulted where the 1 L/ha rate of Fluroxypyr was applied compared to the 0.5 L/ha rate, however, there was no impact of water volume this rate was applied in. The same trend was seen at the Camus site.
A he L a a i e, F 1 L/ha a ied h gh he A aTi ga e e b c than water only at the final assessment but there were no significant treatment differences.
Fluroxypr at both 0.5 and 1 L/ha applied through the AquaTill gave equivalent but significant control (Table 1) compared to the untreated control or commercial regime hich a Ca phenoxy herbicide applied over the top of standing stubble. There was no significant increase in control gained from adding Fluroxypyr compared to water only through the AquaTill at this site.
6 of 15 Factorial analysis of chemical rate and spray volume and the interaction between these factors showed no significant interactions at either site (Tables 2 and 4 ) .
Figure 4 Percent Control of Cotton Ratoons compared to Untreated at Camus (Blue Hills) Site
Figure 5 Percent Control of Cotton Ratoons Llara PBI site
7 of 15 Table 1ANOVA statistical Analysis Camus (Blue Hills site) Number of Ratoons per Metre and percent Control Compared to Untreated
Pest CodeGOSHI GOSHI GOSHI GOSHI GOSHI GOSHI Pest Scientific NameGossypium hirs> Gossypium hirs> Gossypium hirs>Gossypium hirs> Gossypium hirs>Gossypium hirs>Pest NameAmerican uplan> American uplan> American uplan> American uplan> American uplan> American uplan>Crop CodeGOSHI GOSHI GOSHI GOSHI GOSHI GOSHI Crop Scientific NameGossypium hirs> Gossypium hirs> Gossypium hirs>Gossypium hirs> Gossypium hirs>Gossypium hirs>Crop NameAmerican uplan> American uplan> American uplan> American uplan> American uplan> American uplan>Assessment DateNov-14-2018Dec-21-2018Feb-8-2019Nov-14-2018Dec-21-2018Feb-8-2019Part AssessedPLANT - PLANT - PLANT - PLANT - PLANT - PLANT - Assessment TypeCOUNTCOUNTCOUNTCOUNTCOUNTCOUNTAssessment Unit mmmmmmCollection Basis, Unit 50ROWm50ROWm50ROWm50ROWm50ROWm50ROWmTrt Treatment No. Name RateAppl Rate Unit Code1352461fluroxypyr400High volume 0.5 l/haAA 1.9 bc5.4 b6.9 b1.9 bc(76.7%) 4.4 b(87.7%) 5.7 b(84.1%) 2 fluroxypyr 4000.5 l/haA0.7 bc4.3 b8.6 b0.7 bc4.2 b8.4 bMedium VolumeA(90.9%) (88.2%) (76.5%) 3fluroxypyr400low volume 0.5 l/haAA 2.2 abc5.9 b9.6 b2.2 abc(72.5%) 4.9 b(86.3%) 8.3 b(76.7%) 4fluroxypyr400High volume 1.0 l/haAA 1.0 bc2.7 b4.6 b1.0 bc(87.6%) 2.5 b(93.1%) 4.2 b(88.3%) 5fluroxypyr400Medium Volume 1.0 l/haAA 0.7 bc2.4 b6.1 b0.7 bc(91.7%) 2.3 b(93.7%) 5.6 b(84.2%) 6 fluroxypyr 4001.0 l/haA0.1 c 3.2 b5.8 b0.1 c 2.9 b5.6 blow volumeA(99.2%) (91.8%) (84.4%) 7 Untreated Check 8.0 a38.7 a37.5 a8.0 a(0.0%) 35.6a(0.0%) 35.7a(0.0%) 8 Water onlyA3.7 ab7.2 b6.0 b3.7 ab(53.7%) 6.5 b(81.7%) 5.6 b(84.2%) LSD P=.052.60 - 5.838.66 - 16.738.96 - 14.672.60 - 5.836.63 - 24.588.17 - 22.46Standard Deviation5.37t7.13t6.27t5.37t0.33t0.28tCV70.89t46.74t35.1t70.89t41.54t29.8tReplicate F2.8182.4331.7912.8182.4721.443Replicate Prob(F) 0.06670.09490.17970.06670.09140.2585Treatment F2.9417.3396.8982.9414.2323.651Treatment Prob(F)0.02900.00020.00030.02900.00520.0098
8 of 15 Table 2 Factorial Analysis Camus (Blue Hills) site Number of Ratoon per Metre and percent Control Compared to Untreated
Pest CodeGOSHI GOSHI GOSHI GOSHI GOSHI GOSHI Pest Scientific NameGossypium hirs>Gossypium hirs>Gossypium hirs>Gossypium hirs>Gossypium hirs>Gossypium hirs>Pest NameAmerican uplan>American uplan>American uplan>American uplan>American uplan>American uplan>Crop CodeGOSHI GOSHI GOSHI GOSHI GOSHI GOSHI Crop Scientific NameGossypium hirs>Gossypium hirs>Gossypium hirs>Gossypium hirs>Gossypium hirs>Gossypium hirs>Crop NameAmerican uplan>American uplan>American uplan>American uplan>American uplan>American uplan>Assessment DateNov-14-2018Dec-21-2018Feb-8-2019Nov-14-2018Dec-21-2018Feb-8-2019Part AssessedPLANT - PLANT - PLANT - PLANT - PLANT - PLANT - Assessment TypeCOUNTCOUNTCOUNTCOUNTCOUNTCOUNTAssessment Unit mmmmmmCollection Basis, Unit 50ROWm50ROWm50ROWm50ROWm50ROWm50ROWmTrt Treatment Rate Appl No. NameRate UnitCode135246TABLE OF A (Rate of Treatment) MEANS1 fluroxypyr 4000.5 l/haA1.5 a5.2 a8.3 a1.5 a4.5 a7.4 a2 fluroxypyr 4001.0 l/ha A0.5 a2.7 a5.5 a0.5 a2.5 a5.1 aLSD P=.051.35 - 1.793.28 - 3.774.39 - 4.981.35 - 1.792.70 - 3.433.75 - 4.97Standard Deviation5.42t6.04t6.12t5.42t0.34t0.30tCV98.16t53.27t40.40t98.16t52.50t34.91tTABLE OF B (Spray Volume) MEANS1 High volumeA1.4 a3.9 a5.7 a1.4 a3.3 a4.9 a2 Medium VolumeA0.7 a3.3 a7.3 a0.7 a3.1 a6.9 a3 low volumeA0.8 a4.4 a7.6 a0.8 a3.8 a6.8 aLSD P=.051.36 - 2.663.44 - 5.154.88 - 6.391.36 - 2.662.71 - 5.324.09 - 6.33Standard Deviation5.42t6.04t6.12t5.42t0.34t0.30tCV98.16t53.27t40.40t98.16t52.50t34.91tTABLE OF A (Rate of Treatment) B (Spray Volume) MEANS1 fluroxypyr 4000.5 l/ha A1.9 a5.4 a6.9 a1.9 a4.4 a5.7 a1 High volumeA2 fluroxypyr 4001 High volume 1.0 l/ha AA 1.0 a2.7 a4.6 a1.0 a2.5 a4.2 a 1 fluroxypyr 4002 Medium Volume 0.5 l/ha AA 0.7 a4.3 a8.6 a0.7 a4.2 a8.4 a 2 fluroxypyr 4002 Medium Volume 1.0 l/ha AA 0.7 a2.4 a6.1 a0.7 a2.3 a5.6 a 1 fluroxypyr 4003 low volume 0.5 l/ha AA 2.2 a5.9 a9.6 a2.2 a4.9 a8.3 a 2 fluroxypyr 4003 low volume 1.0 l/ha AA 0.1 a3.2 a5.8 a0.1 a2.9 a5.6 a
LSD P=.052.20 - 2.725.13 - 7.167.25 - 8.972.20 - 2.724.06 - 7.266.04 - 9.38Standard Deviation5.42t6.04t6.12t5.42t0.34t0.30tCV98.16t53.27t40.40t98.16t52.50t34.91t
9 of 15 Table 3 ANOVA statistical AnalsisLlara PBI site Number of Ratoon per Metre and percent Control Compared to Untreated
Pest CodeGOSHI GOSHI GOSHI GOSHI GOSHI GOSHI Pest Scientific NameGossypium hirs> Gossypium hirs> Gossypium hirs>Gossypium hirs> Gossypium hirs>Gossypium hirs>Pest NameAmerican uplan> American uplan> American uplan> American uplan> American uplan> American uplan>Crop CodeGOSHI GOSHI GOSHI GOSHI GOSHI GOSHI Crop Scientific NameGossypium hirs> Gossypium hirs> Gossypium hirs>Gossypium hirs> Gossypium hirs>Gossypium hirs>Crop NameAmerican uplan> American uplan> American uplan> American uplan> American uplan> American uplan>Assessment DateNov-14-2018Dec-21-2018Feb-8-2019Nov-14-2018Dec-21-2018Feb-8-2019Part AssessedPLANT - PLANT - PLANT - PLANT - PLANT - PLANT - Assessment TypeCOUNTCOUNTCOUNTCONTROCONTROCONTROAssessment Unit mmm%UNCK%UNCK%UNCKCollection Basis, Unit 50ROWm50ROWm50ROWm50ROWm50ROWm50ROWmTrt Treatment No. Name RateAppl Rate Unit Code1352461fluroxypyr400High volume 0.5 l/haAA 3.3 abc12.8 ab22.8 a3.3 abc(63.3%) 13.2 ab(55.7%) 23.0 a(16.7%) 2 fluroxypyr 4000.5 l/haA1.1 c 4.8 bc10.8 a1.1 c 4.8 bc10.8 aMedium VolumeA(88.3%) (83.8%) (60.9%) 3fluroxypyr400Low Volume 0.5 l/haAA 5.9 ab7.3 bc21.8 a5.9 ab(35.1%) 7.2 bc(76.0%) 21.7 a(21.3%) 4fluroxypyr400High volume 1.0 l/haAA 1.0 c 3.4 c 13.4 a1.0 c (88.9%) 3.4 c (88.7%) 13.5 a(51.2%) 5fluroxypyr400Medium Volume 1.0 l/haAA 1.4 bc5.4 bc9.8 a1.4 bc(83.9%) 5.4 bc(81.9%) 9.8 a(64.5%) 6 fluroxypyr 4001.0 l/haA2.5 bc3.9 bc8.7 a2.5 bc3.9 bc8.7 aLow VolumeA(72.7%) (86.8%) (68.5%) 7 Untreated Check 9.0 a23.7 a26.3 a9.0 a(0.0%) 29.8a(0.0%) 27.6a(0.0%) 8 Water onlyA3.9 abc12.1 ab14.5 a3.9 abc(56.2%) 12.1 ab(59.5%) 14.5 a(47.5%) LSD P=.053.75 - 6.548.57 - 16.3918.53 - 20.503.75 - 6.548.49 - 20.3719.74 - 21.63Standard Deviation0.31t0.32t0.33t0.31t0.32t0.34tCV52.66t34.04t27.65t52.66t33.51t28.35tLevene's F0.5960.2620.5970.5960.2260.51Levene's Prob(F) 0.7520.9620.7510.7520.9750.816
Replicate F1.3191.5270.4981.3191.6590.480Replicate Prob(F) 0.29730.24160.68800.29730.20940.7004Treatment F2.6452.6871.0552.6453.2751.049Treatment Prob(F)0.04340.04310.42990.04340.01860.4352
