In this issue:• GIA moves closer

• Limit setting in Southland

• Ashburton East groundwater

A D D I N G V A L U E T O T H E B U S I N E S S O F C R O P P I N G

From the Ground UpISSUE 85 I Autumn 2016

™

ContentsThis Issue

3 Operation velvetleaf

4 Biosecurity in the cropping industry

6 A word from the Chairman

7 20 by 2020 Learning how to get the best from early sown wheat

8 Northern Cropping Research Site update

9 New project to increase potato yields

10 Herbage seed update

11 Storage pest survey update

12 MPISFF-effectivecollaborativefunding

13 Velvetleaf and Black-grass

14 Velvetleaf farm management plan

16 Good management practices improve environmental outcomes

17 Payback on slug control is substantial

18 Limit setting in Southland

20 Limit Setting case study: Winter dairy grazing on cropping ground in Southland

7

13

232

Operation velvetleafOver the last couple of months I’ve been learning about biosecurity. I thought I had a reasonable grip on it after the 2013 black-grass spill, but velvetleaf, which has been found from Waikato to Southland and everywhere in between, has been a whole different ball game.

From my perspective, being involved in this particular incursion has been a bit like landing inside an episode of a CSI television show...action stations, in all directions, with new leads coming in every day. Following the initial finding, the identification team swings into action. Having confirmed the weed’s presence, a larger group is formed investigating all options for how it might have arrived and where else it might show up. Priorities around information gathering are set, timelines are drafted and industry experts, including FAR staff, are called in to provide expertise on the likely impacts, and advice on options going forward. While this is going on, another group is gathering information about the weed and its habits in order to inform decision making around what sort of response and management will be appropriate, and others are tracking down suspect seed in order to confirm the weed source. Plans are drawn up around how to withdraw contaminated seed from the market (and from farm sheds). Then there is further planning for the coming year’s imports. Throughout all of this, more reports are coming in...Canterbury, Otago, Southland, then the North Island, the scale is huge. A communication plan is drafted, information sheets are prepared, revised, revised again and approved for distribution. Once the decision is made to eliminate the plant, another group of people come on board, and more planning and logistics ensue. And so it continues.

From the outside, it may have seemed like not much was happening, and that what was happening, was happening slowly, but rest assured – from where I was sitting, this was not the case. Information was changing daily, MPI, regional councils and industry organisations were co-opting expertise and feet on the ground at a great rate and everyone was working together to do their best to stop the spread of this weed.

Please note, these are my impressions based on attendance of weekly meetings and conference calls. I don’t pretend to know what else was going on at a higher and wider level.

Anna Heslop

23 Aphicides and clover root weevil

21 Gluten and coeliac issues

22 New FAR Lincoln Crop Research Site

22 Ashburton East groundwater - what’s going on?

22 FAR Australia research capability

22 Arable Ys Southland trip

22 FAR student project wins innovation award

23 Arable kids competition

23 FAR Board

223

Biosecurity in the cropping industryTworecenthighprofileweedincursionshave,understandably,raisedmanyquestionsforthecroppingindustry.Someofthesequestions,outlinedbelow,maynotbetheonesyouareasking,buttheyareimportant if we are to protect our industry from future incursions.

Biosecurity operates at three levels in New Zealand. The level of greatest importance to farmers is on-farm biosecurity, which you, the grower, are responsible for. The level which generates the greatest discussion in the media and in meetings is border and post-border biosecurity, this is currently a MPI responsibility. In the middle is regional biosecurity which is managed by regional councils via Regional Pest Management Strategies.

Do you have a Farm Biosecurity Plan? A Farm Biosecurity Plan is a relatively straight forward plan which should be in place for all farm businesses. It will cover a range of issues relating to people and stock movement, machinery movement (including contractors and visitors), origins of inputs (seed, fertiliser, feed), surveillance, monitoring, recording and risk mitigation and management strategies. Plant Health Australia have some good resources for developing and managing a Farm Biosecurity Plan and FAR have utilised these, and other information, to develop a template within the FAR Farm Environment Plan. See: www.far.org.nz/resources/other_resources/farm_environment_plans www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/industries/grains/

Would the recent incursions have been prevented by good Farm Biosecurity Plans?Probably not, but surveillance and monitoring may have picked up plants that were present in crops last year and the velvetleaf incursion would have been limited to fewer properties. What if you have a good Farm Biosecurity Plan but your neighbours don’t? A good Farm Biosecurity Plan will play a big part in preventing the incursions of pests and weeds that are present in the local area but not on your farm, so it is worth you having a plan even if your neighbours don’t. For example, a Farm Biosecurity Plan could prevent the spread of a herbicide resistant weed from a neighbouring property to yours, or delay the incursion of a pest or disease onto your property, by managing human and vehicle movements.

Who should be responsible for the costs of my farm biosecurity?You. You know your property best and can adjust any Farm Biosecurity Plan to suit your farm and its changing requirements. The costs of running a Farm Biosecurity Plan are likely to be much less than the costs associated with trying to control or eradicate an unwanted weed, pest or disease from your farm.

Arable industry GIA by end of 2016?An industry wide Government Industry Agreement (GIA) for biosecurity has moved a step closer with five key parties agreeing to collaborate on the process. At the end of April; FAR, Federated Farmers, the Feed Manufacturers Association, the Flour Millers’ Association and the New Zealand Grain and Seed Association (NZGSTA) agreed to form an Incorporated Society which will be the signatory to the GIA Deed for biosecurity for arable crops. The next step is to complete a formal proposal for MPI with the intention of signing before the end of this year.

FAR have been actively increasing awareness of biosecurity nationally, regionally and on-farm. FAR, Federated Farmers and the NZGSTA have been involved with MPI in both the velvetleaf and black-grass incursions. Our role has been to provide advice and also provide people on the ground to assist with surveillance. The involvement of industry in an incursion from an early stage is very important as the industry understands the risk these weeds pose and what can be done to manage them. Under the current system MPI are responsible for managing all biosecurity incursions and meet all associated costs. They can involve industry as and when they wish. As such, they did not need to work with industry in the velvetleaf incursion but have done so to gain access our expertise and resources. Operationally, the ongoing velvetleaf response arrangement is similar to what would occur under a Government Industry Agreement (GIA).

4

Grower and Wholesaler Annual Return Forms were sent out in mid-January are now well overdue.

This form is a legal requirement and must be filled out and returned to FAR urgently. Failure to return the form may result in legal action.

The purpose of the form is to remind both growers and wholesalers of their obligation to pay or forward the levy by declaring all sales of grain and/or seed for the year of 1 January – 31 December 2015. This ensures that the levy system is fair and equitable.

How will GIA work?Under a GIA decision making and costs would be shared. This means that industry may need to pay a share of costs associated with an incursion. As a signatory to a GIA the arable industry will have a say in how an incursion is managed and on the associated costs. If the arable industry were not a signatory, then MPI could make all the decisions and still charge the industry. The GIA will encourage greater cooperation between government and industry, improve the effectiveness of biosecurity and reduce costs.

How can we reduce the risk of future border incursions?Working as part of the GIA will increase awareness of biosecurity, increase the understanding of the risks, and improve the efficiency of biosecurity responses – all of which will reduce the risk. Having your own Farm Biosecurity Plan will reduce the risks of incursions on farms and also increase the chance of unwanted organisms being detected and destroyed before they can establish.

Weeds, pests and diseases do not respect national, regional or farm borders. It is our responsibility to ensure the right plans are in place to prevent them crossing borders, and, if they do, to prevent them from establishing.

For more information on velvetleaf see page 14.

Nick Pyke

Annual Return Forms

URGENT

5

As the last of harvest is being brought in, we can look back at a season that provided exceptional growing conditions for some crops but caused problems for others, with high temperatures and low soil moisture levels. Once again, effective moisture retention techniques and irrigation delivered good levels of production where systems could keep up with demand, while dryland crops did the best they could under unfavourable climatic conditions. Overall most growers have achieved an average season from a production aspect.

On the down side, we are in a period of over-supply for many of our products, reflected in a corresponding price reductions. Locally the dairy payout has reduced demand for our cereals and herbage seed production has also pulled back to match demand. Internationally we are seeing unfavourable financial conditions and some of the highest grain stock levels for many years. It is at times like this that we hope the relationships we have built up over years with end users are honoured.

These market conditions have led to discussions around the options for reducing inputs to improve gross margins. Depending on the season, some reductions in the number or rate of nutrient or agrichemical applications may be possible, but it is important to completely understand the implications before making such decisions, as climatic conditions can quickly change, leaving crops short of their potential yield. FAR’s website has large amounts of trial data that will help with the decision making around which inputs can be reduced without running the risk of false economies.

The recent biosecurity incursions have helped the industry to highlight any weaknesses in a potential GIA (Government Industry Agreement) in the future. It has also given FAR an opportunity to clarify its role in the arable industry.

FAR’s primary role is to provide research, development and extension of agronomic systems that will improve the economic return for arable growers. When it comes to industry policy and advocacy, our role is to support Federated Farmers and other groups working for our industry through the provision of industry intelligence and quality research. FAR research data is available to regulators to ensure that policy decisions are science based. We are happy to support the data we

A word fromthe Chairman

produce, but are not in a position to make our own submissions on legislation or regulation. One of our strengths is our independence around political issues.

As you are all aware, the current year (and probably next year too) will be financially difficult. FAR’s revenue is based on a percentage of farm gate sales, so as prices decrease so does our revenue. There are pros and cons to this system: it ensures that the organisation is run in a fiscally responsible way but also has the potential to reduce research in the lower price years when it is needed the most.

Delivering on the research projects we are currently engaged in, means FAR is currently predicting a loss for the current year and have budgeted a loss for the following one. However, over the last four years FAR has been able to build its reserves to a level that would allow for one year’s research to be performed and delivered regardless of levy income. These reserves will allow FAR to continue to deliver at its current level for the next season when we will once again review the situation and look at all options at that time.

Hopefully over the winter we will see some improvements in sales opportunities and some much needed groundwater recharge to ensure that next season is a good one. I hope you all have a well-earned rest over winter and that FAR can help to add value to your arable business.

David Birkett

6

20 by 2020 Learning how to get the best from early sown feed wheatGrazing early sown wheat crops has proved a winner in terms of yield in FAR’s 20 by 2020 research programme this year. Project Manager Rob Craigie says grazing is a way of utilising the extra autumn growth from the early planting as well as providing some disease and lodging control.

“Work at the 20 by 2020 site this season has shown that a grain yield of 16.7 t/ha was achieved from a treatment that was mown in May and again in August yielding 2,500 kg of dry matter. The mowing treatment did not receive a PGR and did not lodge in a trial that had severe lodging. Research this season will investigate if it is advantageous to cut the crop higher leaving a greater residual biomass and will also compare defoliating the crop once or twice.”

The 20 by 2020 programme has now completed four seasons. In this research the yields of winter wheat crops sown in February and March have been compared to more traditional April plantings.

Results to date have shown that crops planted in late March can be more productive than April sowings, but that earlier March and February planting results in excessive growth, which “chokes” the crop causing a period of senescence in the winter and early spring as the excess growth rots away. Rather than increasing light interception, this “transitory senescence period” reduces it in the early spring, nullifying all the benefits of planting earlier.

Over the last season the research team have been exploring ways of manipulating the crop canopy to keep it greener through winter and spring. Aside from defoliation, other options they have considered include cultivar selection and plant growth regulator programmes. The two slow developing cultivars, Wakanui and Inferno, were compared last season. For March sow dates they maintained similar canopy greenness and had similar average yields of about 16 t/ha. Although there was no difference between the two cultivars, we believe germplasm more suited to early sowing may offer a way forward. The PGR trial found that increasing the intensity of the PGR programme from two to four sprays appeared to benefit the February sow date only.

For the 2016-17 season a range of cultivars selected by breeders and seed companies are being screened from an early March sow date.

For further information contact Rob Craigie: rob.craigie@far.org.nz

7

Northern Crop Research Site update

Harvest is over for the Northern Crop Research Site (NCRS) at Tamahere, and data from a range of trials is now being compiled and analysed. Results will be communicated through newsletters, updates and booklets as the year goes on.

Maize Performance TrialThe Maize Performance Trial (MPT) silage yields were down slightly on last year due to a very dry January and February. The maize grain harvest was still underway as this is being written.

Long term cultivation trialThis long running trial compares direct drilling, strip-tilling and full cultivation. Unfortunately some of this land was lost to the new expressway, rendering statistical comparisons invalid this year. However, the whole trial has been re-established elsewhere on the NCRS site and the second year’s grain harvest will be completed in mid-May. The remaining area of the older trial has been sampled for soil quality, harvested for silage and ploughed. It will be sown with a range of crops, but principally annual clovers.

SlugsThe slug trial comparing efficacy of all the available molluscicides on brassicas and maize has been completed and AgResearch scientist Mike Wilson will analyse and publish results. More information on this trial can be found on page 17.

Forages for Reduced Nitrate Leaching NCRS hosts a trial comparing principally nitrogen fertiliser treatments in sorghum, giant rape, fodder beet (early and later sowings), maize and chicory as part of the national Forages for Reduced Nitrate Leaching project. Harvests occur every month and will continue until the end of May. Plant & Food Research staff, under the direction of Dr Paul Johnstone, will analyse the data and publish the results.

Cover crops and weed suppressionThis joint FAR and AgResearch trial is investigating weed suppression by autumn sown cover crops on a subsequent spring sown maize crop. 180 plots were harvested, comparing the effects of annual ryegrass, oats, faba beans and three annual clover species on maize. The maize crops were sown with and without herbicide (pre and post emergence combinations) and with and without cover crop incorporation. Data will be analysed by Dr Trevor James and Mike Trolove from AgResearch.

Fungicides in maizeIn 2014/15 a trial using fungicides in maize in a year with little disease, but drought at flowering, produced significant yield gains. To follow-up from that work, this season we planted four maize hybrids (with four replicates) using a strobilurin-triazole combination applied at three timings and an untreated control. This trial of 64 plots was harvested in late April.

8

Northern Crop Research Site update

Slow release fertiliserThe slow release fertiliser trial compared no fertiliser, urea and various rates of slow release nitrogen fertiliser, applied at maize planting. One trial was planted in a low nitrogen area, where annual ryegrass had been grown over winter, and the other in a higher nitrogen area following annual clover over winter. While the data has yet to be analysed, visually the maize in the nil fertiliser treatments on the annual clover area looked little different to that in the fertiliser treatments.

Other trialsOther trials which have not been harvested as this newsletter was being written include sequential intercrop planting following maize; miscanthus production for forage; comparing alternatives to neonicitinoids; the effects of crop rotations on maize yields; planting depth and maize emergence comparisons.

For further information contact Mike Parker: mike.parker@far.org.nz

Photo: Maize silage harvesting of the old establishment/cultivation trial.

New project to increase potato yieldsA new project aimed at increasing potato yields throughunderstandingtheimpactsofsoilquality,crop rotations and the possible role of biofumigant crops is underway.

Thefirstyearofthethreeyearprojectsaw18paddockswithdifferingcrophistoriesselectedacrossCanterbury,ManawatuandPukekohe.Soilquality was assessed prior to planting; disease incidence (Rhizoctonia solani and Spongospora subterranean) was monitored throughout the growing season and yield assessments have now been completed at all sites.

Theprojectalsoincludesabiofumigantaspect,and this trial was sown in South Canterbury at the end of March. Yields from potato crops sown followingeitherabiofumigantcrop(mustard,radishor oats) or into a paddock which had been left fallow,willbeassessed.Thistrialshouldprovidesome good discussion over the winter. Another aspect of this project involves Lincoln University PhDstudentThanhLeinvestigatingtheeffectsofbiofumigant crops on both Rhizoctonia solani and beneficialsoilmicrobes.

The project is funded through the MPI Sustainable Farming Fund and would not be possible without the support of the growers who allow us to use theirproperties,andPlant&FoodResearchwhowe are collaborating with to undertake the project.

9

Herbage seed updateThe 2015/16 season was challenging for herbage seed producers and researchers alike. On the crop research front, the growing season started out very dry, which was great for examining early drought treatments on browntop at Chertsey (photo below), but provided challenges for dryland trials and producers around supplying nitrogen to crops and making PGR decisions. The dry October and November was followed by near average rainfall in December and above average in January (throughout Canterbury). This rainfall helped finish off late season ryegrass but generally made harvest difficult and frustrating, with many mid-season grasses sitting on the ground for two weeks or more, during which time large seed losses could occur. For example, in a nitrogen trial on Italian ryegrass at AgResearch, we measured an average loss of around 1200 kg/ha compared with a long term average loss of about 400 kg/ha.

The damp weather also made it difficult to investigate alternative harvesting methods on ryegrass, an idea which arose following renewed interest in direct harvesting as a result of the visit by Thor Gunnar Kofoed (Danish Seed Council) to the ARIA field day in December. The continually damp days allowed for slow reductions in seed moisture content (ideal for seed yield increases) but damp straw made it difficult to separate the seed

from straw in the combine, producing generally heavier bags of seed following swathing (final results still to come).

The damper than normal January made desiccation of white clover a far more proactive proposition than it appeared in November, with damper soil conditions and frequent damp periods hampering efforts to shut down the crop. In FAR’s first look at desiccation of white clover differences in dry matter and subsequently the drydown of the white clover crop were generated through the use of MCPA and Reglone® + wetter, then two applications of Reglone®. However when harvest occurred on a 30°C day no difference in seed yield was found!

The 2016/17 season is bringing its own challenges, many of which are economic and rotation based. This season will see FAR invest further in research on white clover seed crops and alternative grasses, such as browntop and cocksfoot. Ryegrass investment is likely to decrease while information collected over the past few seasons is consolidated for growers.

For further information contact: Richard Chynoweth richard.chynoweth@far.org.nz or Phil Rolston phil.rolston@far.org.nz

10

Photo taken 16 February 2016: Browntop irrigation trial located at the FAR Chertsey Arable Research Site. Left = nil irrigation, centre = fully irrigated, right = mid-season drought.

Storage pest survey update A recent survey on pest storage management has shown that 73 per cent of all sampled grain was infested by one or more species of insects or mites. FAR in collaboration with Orion Crop Science carried outthesurveyinAugustoflastyear,andinvitedgrowers to send in a sample of grain that they suspected was infected.

The objectives of the survey were to determine the range of insect species that currently occur in stored grain and provide guidance for a comprehensive survey to quantify insect frequency and distribution. The survey then further aimed to assess the status of insecticide resistance in selected storage pests.

Key points highlighted in the survey:• Three quarters of grain samples were infested

with one or more species of insect or mite.• Twothirdsofsamples,ortheirsourcestorage

facilities,hadbeentreatedwithinsecticideinthe previous 12 months. In most cases that insecticide was the organophosphate product primiphos-methyl (Actellic).

• Key insects found were saw-toothed grain beetle (20%ofsamples),flatgrainbeetles(12%),minutemould beetles (12%) and psocids (50%).

• Mites were found in 12% of samples and thrips (a likely contaminant from harvest) in 15% of samples.

The results of this survey will feed into the recently funded Sustainable Farming Fund Project. See over page.

FAR would like to thank those who provided samplesforthesurvey,aswellasBruceChapmanfor completing the project and writing the report and John Marris from the Entomology Research Museum,Bio-ProtectionCentre,LincolnUniversity.

We are very pleased to welcome Phil Rolston to the FAR seed research team on a part-time basis. It is great to be able to retain Phil’s interest and expertise for growers and industry personnel for the short-medium term future. Phil’s arrival coincides with farewells for six staff with a total of around 180 years of forage seed and breeding research experience from AgResearch Lincoln. While the loss from AgResearch creates opportunities for others, it also constitutes the loss of a major research provider for FAR in the area of herbage seeds research.

11

MPI SFF…effective collaborative funding

Three FAR led crop research projects have received support from the Ministry for Primary Industries’SustainableFarmingFund(SFF),cementingSFF’sroleasthemosteffectivecollaborative funding mechanism for our applied research activities.

“BYDV can have significant impacts on wheat and barley yields. This project being funded by SFF will focus on identifying ways to reduce costly insecticide inputs by identifying BYDV tolerant wheat cultivars and understanding when wheat becomes tolerant of BYDV. Pesticide resistance management strategies will also be included in the work. In the end we hope to develop a management strategy to support farmers in their BYDV management decisions.”

Mr Pyke says the second project, investigating pests of stored grain, also has a very practical focus.

“Last year, a preliminary survey of grain stored in silos around New Zealand found that a high percentage of grain samples were infested with one or more species of insect or mite. This is despite many of them receiving some form of insecticide treatment. Internationally there have been significant changes in storage pest species and populations, the effectiveness of control practices due to insecticide resistance and stored grain management. Further surveys and resistance testing should give us a clearer understanding about what is happening in New Zealand silos, aid the development of improved methods for monitoring and managing stored grain, and identify alternative control options for insect pests.”

The aim of the final project is clearly spelt out in its title, Nitrogen: measure it and manage it. This project will develop a simple Quick Test Mass Balance (QTMB) field guide that guides farmers through the process of deciding whether or not to apply nitrogen to a range of crops.

“The QTMB field guide will be a ‘How To’ guide for farmers and consultants. It will include look-up tables for the nitrogen demand for a range of crops; information about how and when to collect soil samples; and correction factors for the Quick Test results to enable improved fertiliser management decisions. The big aim here is for farmers to understand and have confidence in the QTMB approach, using the Quick Test as a proxy for more costly and time consuming soil tests to develop a simple crop mass balance budget. Nitrogen use efficiency will improve and production costs and nitrogen leaching will be reduced.”

FAR CEO Nick Pyke says SFF is integral to the overall investment the organisation makes into cropping research to benefit New Zealand growers.

“SFF is focused, industry led and outcome driven, and operates within appropriate, cost effective reporting structures. Over the years, we have had considerable success in delivering benefits to farmers from SFF projects, with outcomes leading to the development of new extension groups and tools, significant changes in agronomic practices, and influencing policy.

“For example, our very successful Women in Arable and Arable Ys groups grew out of SFF projects, as did ProductionWise® which has since been introduced as an effective recording and reporting system on cropping farms. Other projects have led to changes in management practices around soil cultivation and pest and disease management, and in the case of a project on N management, which commenced over ten years ago, provided some of the base information industry used to develop Good Management Practices for Nutrient Management last year.

“For the return on investment to cropping farmers, MPI SFF is the most effective government research and extension fund and we would like to see further government investment redirected towards it.”

Successful 2016 applicationsFAR projects investigating barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV), pests of stored grain and quick N tests have been granted funding totaling around $640,000 in this year’s MPI Sustainable Farming Fund round. FAR will also be involved in a fodder beet agronomy project led by Plant & Food Research; a psyllid biocontrol project led by Horticulture NZ; a bee health project with the Bee Friendly Farming Group and a forage diversification project with the Northland Legume and Forage Group.

FAR CEO Nick Pyke says all of FAR’s project applications were drawn up with the intention of developing solutions for common, costly on-farm issues.

12

VelvetleafOfficial paddock checks for velvetleaf have now been completed. Responsibility for this process was contracted by MPI to AsureQuality, who in turn, worked with regional councils to ensure that all paddocks known to be sown with the contaminated lines of Kyros or Bangor fodder beet were walked and any velvetleaf plants recorded and removed.

It is still possible that late plants could show up in these, or other fodder beet crops, so farmers are urged to keep checking. As stock are transitioned on the fodder beet, it would be sensible to check the next day’s break for velvetleaf plants.

As the official hunt for the plants this season has been completed, farmers may now remove and destroy velvetleaf themselves. The full process for this is outlined on the following page, but basically, if you spot velvetleaf:1. Photograph it.2. Record its location so you can check the spot for seedlings

next year.3. Double bag seed heads, remove and destroy the whole

plant.4. Report the find to MPI 0800 80 99 66.

Management plans containing general guidelines have been drawn up for properties where velvetleaf have been found. These can be found on either the FAR or MPI Biosecurity websites.

You are probably also aware that a very small number of black-grass seeds were identified in a line of ryegrass seed harvested in mid-Canterbury this season. MPI and industry are taking the find very seriously, and a working group has been formed to assist in the ongoing response.

In the meantime, a thorough investigation into the history of the paddocks the seed came from, as well as tracking of all straw and offal from the paddocks has been completed. To date, no obvious source of contamination has been confirmed, and no more plants or seeds have been found.

Seed from this consignment has been held - none has been distributed in New Zealand.

While the source of contamination remains unclear at this stage, there appears to be no connection to the black-grass seed

spillage incident in July 2013. The location of the paddocks where the contaminated rye grass was grown is not close to the spillage route.

And the good news!Final surveillance of the 2013 black-grass spill route has been completed and no black-grass was detected. Accordingly, this response is now being closed down.

This 2013 incursion provided a test case for how such an incursion, threatening the arable industry, could be managed, and many of the lesson learned in 2013 were applied to the current velvetleaf incursion, speeding up processes and improving interagency communication.

Black-grass

Forfurtherinformationabouteitheroftheseweedincursions,pleasecontacttheFARoffice033455783oremailadmin@far.org.nz

FAR Field Research Officer Matilda Gunnarson, one of several FAR staff who spent days searching fodder beet crops for velvetleaf.

13

Velvetleaf farm management plan

What is velvetleaf?Velvetleaf is an annual broad-leaved weed that grows up to 2.5 metres tall*. Its flowers are about 3 cm across, and are present from spring through autumn. The plant has distinctive seedpods, about 2.5 cm in diameter.

What you need to doTo help protect your property, check for velvetleaf. If you find it, contact MPI on 0800 80 99 66.

If the plants have no seeds or if seed pods are green• Record the location of the plant/s so it is easy to find again

for future monitoring.• Pull out the plant. Bag the full plant – using a large bag (e.g.

fertiliser bag or sack).• Dispose of the bagged plant/s by deep burial (at least 1 m)

e.g. your offal pit. You can contact your local regional council for advice.

If the seed pods have turned black• Carefully place a large bag (like a fertiliser bag or sack) over

the plant’s seed capsules and tie the bag tightly around the stem. It is important to make sure all seed heads are contained within the bag.

• Bend the velvetleaf plant in half so that seeds cannot escape out of the neck of the bag.

• Carefully pull out the plant, bag it again, and dispose of it as described above.

• Inspect the rest of your crop to ensure there are no more plants.

Velvetleaf has been discovered in fodder beet crops in the North and South Islands. MPI is working with primary sector organisations and regional councils to locate this pest weed and help contain its spread.

Inset: Velvetleaf multiple seedpodsVelvetleaf mature plant

14

Velvetleaf farm management plan

Re-inspection this season - window of opportunity is narrowingKeep an eye out for any late emerging velvetleaf plants.• Re-inspect your field before grazing your fodder beet crop

even if your property was inspected for velvetleaf this season, re-inspect it.

• If you find plants pull them out, double bag them, and dispose of them as described above.

* Be aware that in some areas, including Southland, plants are not growing as high as a metre.

Velvetleaf management – going forwardVelvetleaf is mainly spread by stock and agricultural machinery. Good on-farm biosecurity management will help control this pest into the future. A velvetleaf farm management plan has been developed (available here: www.mpi.govt.nz/alerts), that contains guidelines for:• Machinery hygiene.• Feed management.• Stock movement.• Future management of affected areas.• Re-inspection in future growing seasons.Below are some key recommendations for preventing velvetleaf spreading.

Machinery hygiene• Clean machinery before it leaves an affected property – by

removing all visible soil and plant matter.

Feed Management• Fence off areas where velvetleaf has been found within a

paddock, to keep stock out. Allow a 1.5 m buffer from weed to fence. If using a single wire fence, add an extra 1 m, i.e. 2.5 m buffer. Leave the fodder beet in the ground.

• Finish grazing in an uncontaminated part of the crop, and if possible keep the stock there for at least 24 hours.

• If you’re buying fodder beet, ask the seller if their property had velvetleaf; purchase cleaned fodder beet where possible.

• To avoid further spread of velvetleaf seeds, growers must not lift beet from areas where velvetleaf seeds have dropped.

Stock movement• Before moving stock off an infested paddock, or to another

farm, keep stock in a designated holding paddock for 24 hours. Record stock movements for up to a week after grazing for future monitoring.

• If using a stock truck, inform the truck operator of the potential for velvetleaf seed contamination in the effluent. Stock truck effluent must be disposed of in an effluent disposal site.

• If newly arrived stock could have fed on velvetleaf, try to keep them in a holding paddock for 24 hours.

Re-inspection next seasonYou should start checking your paddocks for velvetleaf from early December. If you find any plants, follow the guidelines.

If you have any questions or concerns around velvetleaf and howtomanageit,refertotheMPIwebsite www.mpi.govt.nz/alerts. Follow the farm management plan here on our website or call 0800 80 99 66.

Velvetleaf flower

Velvetleaf seedpod

15

Good management practices improve environmental outcomes

“It takes a while to get your records organised but if you’re using a good system then you should have everything you need. I use the ProductionWise®appasIgo,it’snothard.IfyoucanuseaniPhone,youcanuseProductionWise®.”

TheCairns’farmreceiveda“B”initsfirstFEPaudit,agradewhich recognises that while they are well and truly on the righttrack,thereisstillworktobedone.Oneareawhichthe audit found could be improved was around irrigation maintenance.Toaddressthis,Malcolmwillstartcarryingout,andrecordingtheresultsof,buckettests.

“The FEP process triggers thought processes around the impact your operation is having on the environment. I see it as a way of creating an action plan for progress.”

Acknowledgement: This article was developed from material originally prepared by Environment Canterbury.

“You don’t have to be Steve Jobs to create a Farm Environment Plan”. That’s the message from mid Canterbury farmer Malcolm Cairns who describes FEPs as “completely doable”.

Malcolm,whoisamemberoftheBarrhill-ChertseyIrrigationscheme,saystheFEPprocesshashelpedhimtorecogniseareaswhereimprovementscouldbemadetobenefitthefarmbusinessaswellastheenvironment.Forexample,sincecompleting the FEP he has purchased soil moisture probes to inform decisions about when to irrigate.

“Applying the right amount of water in the right place and at the right time is really important for farmers. Given that we’re payingachargeforwaterdelivery,anyamountthatwedon’tuse is a saving for us and for the environment.”

He has also started using ProductionWise®,thefarmrecording system which is freely available to FAR levy payers.

“FrommyexperienceoftheFEPandauditingprocess,themost important thing is to make sure your records are up-to-date.Intheory,anydecentrecordingsystemwilldothetrick,but I have found ProductionWise® very user-friendly. It has mademyrecordkeepingmuchmoreefficientandaccurate,and made it easier when the auditors came.

Malcolm’s tips for FEPs• You don’t need to be Steve Jobs to create a FEP.• Keep your farm records up to date – ProductionWise® works

well for this.• Consider your FEP as your farm action plan.

16

Good management practices improve environmental outcomes

Payback on slug control is substantialResearch at FAR’s Northern Crop Research Site at Tamahere has shown just how much damage a few slugs can do to emerging maize crops.

Slugs are a common pest in crops, especially in crops established using no-till techniques. FAR is currently involved in research, supported by the MPI Sustainable Farming Fund (SFF), which aims to develop a set of best practice guidelines for integrated slug management. As part of this project, in spring 2015 an experiment was set up to investigate the relationships between slug density, the extent of slug grazing on seedlings and the final yield of maize grown under field conditions.

After the maize plants first emerged from the ground, fifty galvanised iron rings (32 cm diameter x 15 cm deep) were hammered into the soil to a depth of approximately 5 cm, such that each ring enclosed two maize seedlings.

Each ring was populated with either zero, one, two, five or ten slugs; the slugs were contained by securing a coarse nylon mesh over the rings and the rings were left covered for about 10 days - until seedlings in untreated plots were pushing against the mesh. After this time, one of the two seedlings from each ring was randomly selected, oven dried at 80°C and dry weight recorded. The other plant grew until harvest, and wet and dry weights were recorded at that stage to confirm plant biomass and maturity. No other slug food sources were present in the rings.

Initial findings show that even relatively low (12 slugs / m2) populations of slugs present in a maize paddock at establishment can cause significant financial damage to the crop (see Table 1).

A ring installed after maize planting.

A ring showing plant at maturity - note severely stunted plant due to slug damage.

Table 1. Effects of slug populations on maize crop performance.

Slugs per m2 0 12 25 62 124

T / ha DM 20.49 15.97 12.59 6.21 0.16

Income (25c/kg DM) $5,121 $3,993 $3,147 $1,552 $40

Lost income from slug damage -$1,129 -$1,975 -$3,570 -$5,081

Return (Extra income per $ slug control)1 $4.70 $8.23 $14.87 $21.17

1 Cost of control is estimated at $240 per hectare, which includes two applications of slug baits.

This Sustainable Farming Fund project will continue with an evaluation the effect of time, cultivation techniques and weather conditions on the breakdown of EDTA, Methiocarb and Metaldehyde slug pellets.

17

Limit setting in SouthlandWorking with the council to improve their understanding of arable systems

FAR does not get directly involved in policy development but it is our role to ensure councils have accurate information about our sector when they are developing new rules.

The Southland Regional Council are going through the process of setting environmental limits for nutrient losses for their new Water and Land Plan. These limits will impact farm management practices. The limit setting process will be informed by the Southland Economic Model. This dynamic model is currently being developed and will be used to run scenarios that test the likely impacts of various policy options during limit-setting processes. FAR and a group of Southland arable farmers have provided information to help with the development of this model. They wanted to know what nutrients were lost from Southland arable farms, what could be improved and what it would cost.

Four case study farms, representing a range of arable farm systems in Southland were chosen for the study. Full Overseer® budgets were developed for these farms and the nitrogen and phosphorus losses were examined. Possible mitigations to reduce the environmental losses were selected for each of the farms and the Overseer® nutrient budgets were re-run.

The mitigations selected were those that could possibly be implemented on the farm without changing its intrinsic characteristics. They included: • Improved nitrogen fertiliser rates and timing.• Planting crops in the rotation to reduce fallow periods.• Reducing the long term pasture phase in the rotation.• Managing the nitrogen supply to the crop following grazing.• Choice of phosphorus fertiliser and timing of applications.

Table 1. Results of the Overseer® modelling before and after the mitigations to reduce nutrient losses were applied.

Farm 1 Farm 2 Farm 3

Grain crops: Wheat, barley, oats.

Grain and seed crops: Wheat, barley, oats, ryegrass seed, peas.

Grain and seed crops: Wheat, barley, oil seed rape, oats, peas.

Forage crops for farm stock: Turnips and/or swedes and annual ryegrass. Long term pasture comprises 33% of the farm area.

Forage crops for farm stock: Fodder beet, kale and annual ryegrass

No forage crops

Stock: Breeding ewes, lambing rate of 135%. The majority of the lambs are sold by the end of January.

Stock: Hinds and their replacements and progeny, dairy weaners and heifers, and winter dairy grazing (500 in-calf cows)

No stock

Before mitigation

Nitrogen loss to water: 39 kg N/ha/yearPhosphorus loss to water:1.2 kg P/ha/year

Nitrogen loss to water: 31 kg N ha/yearPhosphorus loss to water:0.2 P kg/ha/year

Nitrogen loss to water: 7 kg N/ha/yearPhosphorus loss to water:0.1 P kg/ha/year

After mitigation

Nitrogen loss to water: 20 kg N/ha/yearPhosphorus loss to water:0.9 kg P/ha/year

Nitrogen loss to water:27 N kg/ha/yearPhosphorus loss to water:0.2 P kg/ha/year(No P mitigations modelled)

No mitigation modelling was done for this farm because the nutrient losses were low.

18

Feedback from the farmers and messages to the council

The survey farmers were given the opportunity to comment on the mitigations modelled. Their feedback covered four main points:

1. They agreed that the mitigations were consistent with industry good management practice.We noted that the farmers in our survey were well aware of industry good management practices but at times they must make deliberate decisions to follow an alternative approach. A good example of this is the need to revert back to ploughing and full cultivation practices to control persistent grass weeds which establish after periods of minimum tillage.

2. They raised concerns about the ability of OVERSEER® to model arable farms. We noted that in many respects these concerns are justified as Overseer® does not capture some of the subtleties of their management practices. Examples include fertiliser timing, stock management on cropping paddocks with mixed forage crops and feed allocation on cropping blocks.

3. The difference between a desk top exercise and real farming. We noted that farm decisions are a response to external factors such as weather and markets. They are deliberate decisions made in real time, whereas desk top exercises could model

mitigations that were not practical. Farmers will sometimes be unable to change or improve management practices because of weather constraints, or the absence of preferred crop and stock options. It may not be feasible to change the length of the farm rotation to reduce long pasture phases or select planting and harvesting dates and manage grazing systems differently.

4. There was concern that regulators have little understanding of their businesses and their management constraints. We have presented this feedback to the Governance group for the development of the Southland Economic Model to improve their understanding of Southland’s arable systems. There is always a risk that they will misinterpret the information we have provided and we have emphasised that this information is from a small study. The positive thing about FAR’s involvement is the relationships we form with the council and the modelling team which enable ongoing discussion about the limit setting processes and development of rules. Time will tell if this is reflected in the rules developed in the Water and Land Plan.

I wish to acknowledge the time and commitment of the case study farmers in sharing their farm information for this study.

For further information contact Diana Mathers: diana.mathers@far.org.nz

19

Winter dairy grazing on cropping ground in Southland

Case Study Four:

The most obvious mitigation for the environmental impacts of winter dairy grazing on cropping ground is to not do it at all. However, the dairy sector see wintering off as a mitigation to reduce losses from the dairy farm and arable farmers are keen to host the cows because it is a profitable option for their businesses. Reducing stock numbers is an obvious mitigation for pollutant losses and soil damage but income relates to the number of cows hosted for the season and stock rate is determined by the DM yield of the fodder crop. The aim of the game is good utilisation of the feed.

For the mitigation studies, two approaches were considered. 1. No dairy grazing in the rotation. Dairy grazing replaced with

winter wheat and spring barley and cut and carry (C&C) forage and fodder crops; lucerne, annual ryegrass and fodder beet. Scenario 2.

2. Dairy grazing restricted to 15% of the block area. The rotations included:• Dairy grazing on fodder beet, on Eureka soil type, C&C

lucerne, C&C fodder beet, C&C annual ryegrass, and winter wheat. Scenario 3.

• Dairy grazing on fodder beet, on Riversdale soil type, C&C lucerne, C&C fodder beet, C&C annual ryegrass, winter wheat. Scenario 4.

• Dairy grazing on kale on Riversdale soil type, C&C lucerne, C&C fodder beet, C&C annual ryegrass, winter wheat. Scenario 5.

As a comparison to the current dairy grazing management on kale, a Scenario (6) was run for dairy grazing on fodder beet. Scenario 1 is the existing system, dairy grazing on 44 ha of kale.

Overseer® modelling and gross margin analysis was completed for each of the new rotations. The farmer’s gross margins were used and no fixed costs were considered. The block income was calculated for a single year of the rotation and includes the income and costs associated with the crops and the dairy grazing.

A summary of the Overseer® N loss figures and the income for the scenarios are in Graph 1 and Table 1.

Support for Southland’s dairy industry is provided by arable farmers in the form of calf and heifer grazing and wintering of in-calf cows on forage crops. The financial returns for winter dairy grazing are good, sufficient enough for arable farmers to give it a go. However, there is a down-side which can have ongoing, negative impacts on the profitability of the arable farm over a number of years. Farmers report that their biggest concern following winter dairy grazing is the long-term impact on soil structure, which in turn impacts on the yield of the following crops and imposes additional costs for soil remediation. Many farmers include winter grazing in the rotation by avoiding soils that are vulnerable to pugging and selecting lighter, free-draining soils, sometimes on leased land.

In this winter dairy grazing case study we looked at the environmental and economic performance of the system using Overseer® modelling and gross margin analysis.

The case study dairy grazing block is a small part of a large mixed arable enterprise, comprising mixed cropping and stock enterprises on owned and leased land.

The block is 64 ha, with six paddocks. There are two soil types; a well-drained Riversdale silt loam and poorly drained Eureka silty loam. For the past two years, 17 ha of the block has been in cut and carry lucerne and the remaining 44 ha has been grazed in the winter with cows, on swedes in the first year and kale in the second year.

The Overseer® modelling for the block with this rotation is: Nitrogen loss to water: 41 kg N/ha/yearPhosphorus loss to water: 1.3 kg P/ha/year

Mitigation ModellingEnvironmental risks associated with winter dairy grazing arise from the management of the crops, both the forage crop for grazing and the crop following the grazing event, and management of the stock during their stay. The economic performance of the system relates strongly to the number of cows grazed, which in turn relates to the DM production of the forage crop.

20

Scenario Number Scenario Description

Stocking Rate

Block income/annum before fixed costs are considered (Income - variable costs for

crops and stock)

N lost to water for the

Block Kg N/ha/year

P Loss to water for the

block Kg P/ha/year

1

Current block management. Lucerne and dairy grazing on 44 ha of kale. Dairy grazing on both soil types in

the block.

17 $118,251.00 41 1.3

2

Lucerne, dairy grazing on 9 ha of fodder beet (Eureka soils) and C&C fodder beet, C&C annual ryegrass

and winter wheat.

37 $183,725.10 25 1.1

3

Lucerne, dairy grazing on 9 ha of fodder beet (Riversdale soils) and

C&C fodder beet, C&C annual ryegrass and winter wheat.

37 $183,725.00 29 1.2

4

Lucerne, dairy grazing on 9 ha on kale (Riversdale soils) and C&C

fodder beet, C&C annual ryegrass and winter wheat.

17 $140,194.00 20 1.2

5No dairy grazing: Lucerne, C&C

fodder beet, C&C annual ryegrass, winter wheat and spring barley.

0 $153,867.00 14 1.1

6 Lucerne and dairy grazing on 44 ha of fodder beet. 37 $311,263.00 84 1.4

Table 1.

Figure 1. Dairy grazing scenarios.

$350,000.00

$300,000.00

$250,000.00

$200,000.00

$150,000.00

$100,000.00

$50,000.00

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

N Lo

ss/h

a

Bloc

k in

com

e

Scenarios

Block income N Loss

1 2 3 4 5 6

21

Conclusions and DiscussionIn this case study wintering on fodder beet, supplemented with additional feed for nutritional balance, is the most profitable scenario and has the highest environmental risk.

On paper, the current system of wintering on kale is less profitable than a system of grain crops, cut and carry forages and fodder crops and no winter grazing. The gain for the environment is significant, with N losses to water decreasing from 41 to 14 kg N/ha/year. In practice however, the options selected for modelling the no dairy grazing scenario may not be achievable or too risky to undertake. Lifting and moving a fodder crop is a hassle, it is often easier to graze them in situ, and the modelled rotation has no fallow periods, i.e. no disruption by poor weather. In practice bad weather is always a risk and autumn harvest and replanting can be delayed. Farmers assess risks to their bottom lines and are likely to choose the least risky option for their profit, irrespective of the environmental risks. Dairy grazing is a simpler option.

As a mitigation option the scenario testing looked at a restriction of dairy grazing to 15% of the farm area, a possible rule in the Water and Land Plan of the block area.

To model this restriction, the 44 ha block was set up with a 9 ha block for dairy grazing on fodder beet, either on the Eureka soils or the lighter Riversdale soils. The original long-term lucerne blocks remained and the balance of the land was planted in cut and carry forage and fodder crops and winter wheat and spring barley, (scenarios 3 and 4). Profitability increased and there was no difference in income between the Eureka and Riversdale soils, but the lighter Riversdale soils had higher N losses. Restricting the cow numbers on the lighter soils by grazing on kale improved the N losses to water but reduced the profitability.

Fodder beet crops offer the opportunity of high stocking rates because of their high DM production, but grazing them in-situ has a high environmental penalty. The option of harvesting the beet for feeding out on a feed-pad or to housed cows is a possibility which delivers a number of benefits to the rotation. Lifting and removal of the crop in autumn enables an additional crop to be planted in the rotation. The cost of soil damage from the grazing is not incurred and nitrogen leaching losses are reduced. However, the cost of harvest and transport is high and if conditions are unfavourable during harvest there is a risk of soil damage from the harvesting machinery.

The farmer in this case study has considered a cut and carry fodder beet operation, but rejected the idea on the grounds that he “can’t make it pay”. He has also considered building feed-pads for his wintering operation. These, along with an effluent management system for the feed-pad, were considered not to be feasible for the existing farm business. “If we were going this far, we might as well go all the way and become dairy farmers”. A successful cut and carry fodder beet system is more practical on the dairy farm where transport is minimised and the crop is stored close to the feed out area.

This and the other three Southland case studies show that arable systems have a range of impacts on the environment, as measured by nutrient losses to water. Apart from managing fertilisers, the most likely way nutrient losses from the farm will be reduced will be by the selection of crop and stock options in the rotation. This only works well when farming is humming. Then the choice of profitable options for the rotation is wide, especially if the sector is supported by local infra-structure for processing grain and seed crops.

22

Aphicides and clover root weevil

However, laboratory investigations do not always accurately predict what happens in the field as insect life cycles, weather and the timing of insecticide applications can influence the impact on the non-target species. Laboratory studies are also less likely to highlight any ongoing sub-lethal effects of the insecticide, such as reduced parasitoid wasp longevity or parasitism rates, which may only become apparent over time.

So, in order to more accurately determine its effects on both CRW and its parasitoid, a field study was carried out in conjunction with three Canterbury growers, to assess the impact of Mavrik on CRW adult populations and parasitism by Microctonus aethiopoides.

Contrary to the laboratory results, these field trials found that December application of the insecticide, when aphid control is generally carried out, had no impact on either CRW or parasitoid numbers, with parasitism rates comparable across the control and insecticide treated plots.

While these results strongly indicate that Mavrik has no insecticidal activity against adult CRW, the parasitoid is expected to provide useful suppression of CRW populations to below damaging levels in white clover crops.

As such, a positive outcome of this study is that Mavrik may be a useful agrichemical for use in an Integrated Pest Management Programme targeting aphids while conserving biological control of CRW.

Thanks to Mark McNeill at AgResearch for managing this trial.

A field trial funded by FAR has found that Mavrik® used to control aphids in white clover seed crops has no obvious impact on the clover root weevil (CRW) or its natural enemy, the parasitoid wasp Microctonus aethiopoides. As such it provides confidence to growers that they can control aphids but preserve the biological control agent of CRW. Prior to the spread of the parasitoid in Canterbury, CRW was a significant pest in white clover seed crops, and was causing growers to question the value of maintaining second year clover for cropping. In an effort to address grower concerns, a laboratory study was carried out to look at options that would control white clover crop pests and provide some CRW control while saving the parasitoid wasp. That laboratory study showed that Mavrik® Aquaflo (Mavrik) (a.i. taufluvalinate) was potentially the best option for controlling aphids and CRW while having reduced impact on the parasitoid (see FAR Herbage Update 70, August 2012).

23

Gluten and coeliac issuesWork with FAR is also on the horizon with plans to investigate the links between fertiliser use, grain protein and gluten. Screening and breeding low gluten varieties in the Cereal Performance Trial may also be a step towards producing more varieties for those sensitive to common cultivars.

Attendees also got to hear information about FODMAPs – short and long chained carbohydrates that are fermented by bacteria in the small intestine - and the how gluten can often unfairly get the blame for inflammation and discomfort in the stomach.

Jen Linton from FAR gave her first-hand experience of being diagnosed with coeliac disease as a young adult, and the long term effects coeliac disease has had on her digestive system. She described the process of being falsely diagnosed by GPs, despite having a family history of the disease.

Tash White, a mid-Canterbury grower, was also able to give an account of what gluten issues can be like for children, with her daughter diagnosed as ‘gluten sensitive’. Tash and her friend Sarah Redwood were able to explain the challenges of having children that struggle to process the gluten hidden in many ‘kids’ foods.

A number of women at the meeting were able to discuss the challenges and frustrations that come with a gluten intolerance issue, and left with a better understanding of what causes these inflammatory disorders.

FAR would like to thank Nigel Larsen for taking the time to share his knowledge and we look forward to running the same session in Gore on Wednesday 1 June.

FAR’s specialist group Women in Arable had the opportunity to hear Nigel Larsen from Plant & Food Research present his team’s research around gluten intolerance and coeliac disease at their April meeting.

Nigel explained the chemistry behind a person’s reaction to gluten and his presentation included comparative images of a healthy small intestine which was pale and covered in nutrient absorbing villi and one from a person suffering from coeliac disease, where the villi were all gone and the intestine was completely smooth, red and inflamed.

It is estimated that 30 percent of New Zealanders carry the gene that makes them susceptible to coeliac disease, and Nigel says that of these, around three percent will develop symptoms at some stage during their life.

“Coeliac disease is an auto-immune disorder. We do not yet understand why it develops in some people who carry the gene, and not in others, but we do know that in some cases it appears to be triggered by illness or stress. For example, many cases in women develop after pregnancy. We also suspect that if people who carry the coeliac gene stick to a low gluten diet, they may be able to reduce their chances of developing the disease.”

Plant & Food’s research into coeliac disease and gluten issues is currently focussed on two ways of reducing the coeliac peptide levels in wheat products: the first involves exploring genetic variation in current cultivars and the second, measuring the effects of agronomic, milling and baking practices on gluten levels.

24

FAR Lincoln Crop Research Site

The new Lincoln Crop Research Site consists of 15.5 hectares under irrigation. It is divided into two paddocks which have been mapped for soil characteristics and sampled for nutrients. Cultivation of the blocks is well underway and the area will be sown in grass and a cereal crop for the first year.

We are excited about the possibilities this site provides for our sector and our team is engaged with making this a great showcase for seed production in New Zealand.

FAR has a new crop research site in Lincoln. In March, we secured a three year lease of Lincoln University’s former organic research farm, known locally as Kowhai Farm, with the aim of expanding our seed production research and strengthening our relationship with Lincoln University students and their projects.

Coinciding with the recent addition of Dr Phil Rolston to our staff, this new dedicated site provides FAR with the opportunity to run field research on seed crops as well as a platform for students, growers, the seed industry, researchers and visiting scientists to conduct experiments in a centralised location.

Bryan Mitchell, Ivan Lawrie and Tim Brooker at the gate to the Lincoln Crop Research Site.

25

Ashburton East groundwater– what’s going on?

“Fifty wells have been randomly selected from the area, and farmers were contacted to determine whether they would like to be a part of the study. They have all been very supportive and patient with the proceedings of the project, and I thank them for that.”

Sophie spent a lot of time on the road in March and one set of sampling has already been completed, with samples going to Silver Fern Farms for analysis.

“The results are looking positive, and there is a good spread of nitrate concentrations across the wells; however we will not be able to analyse the results fully until further sampling has been completed this winter. We are positive about the project and what the data will tell us. The ability to develop this data set will be very beneficial to the community in the coming years.”

Fifty wells will be sampled regularly over the next three years to gain a better understanding of nitrate concentrations in groundwater in the area between Ashburton and Rakaia Rivers, east of SH1. The project, which is supported by MPI’s Sustainable Farming Fund (SFF), is being managed by FAR on behalf of the Ashburton East Groundwater Users Group.

FAR Graduate Sophie Blair, who is managing the project says 50 wells of differing depths will be sampled four times a year for three years to look at the changes in nitrate concentrations over time, seasonally, at different depths, and sub regionally.

“The aim of the project is to give farmers and landowners in the area a clearer picture of what is going on underground in terms of nitrate contamination, by providing them with a larger, more complete, and current data set. This will enable them to develop a better understanding of high risk zones and allow them to take an informed approach to discussions with Environment Canterbury on the development of actions to meet not only the environmental needs of the area, but also the economic, and social needs of the businesses and community.

26

Ashburton East groundwater– what’s going on?

FAR Australia research capability

Four years after it was formed, FAR Australia has invested in machinery to expand their research capability as part of a new business strategy. The increased capability over the last twelve months has included the purchase of new research seeding equipment and a tractor unit fitted with GPS guided autosteer. This machinery will enable us to foster new collaborations and ensure we can respond to future research opportunities.

The new 105hp Massey Fergusson 5609 tractor has its own Top Con base station for autosteer, which will enable FAR to sow research projects anywhere in SE Australia with 2 cm accuracy and provide the ability to sow seed with both liquid and solid fertilisers.

Nick Poole, FAR Australia’s Managing Director says that the tractor and drill, which will be based near the NSW/Victoria border, will underpin a number of new research projects starting this autumn with farming groups, GRDC and the wider industry.

“Our aim is to provide the highest quality research outcomes for FAR projects and our collaborating partners by pursuing work on the latest cropping developments, whether it be germplasm, agronomy or agrichemical developments. Having this increased capability will ensure that we have a greater level of control and flexibility to obtain the best outcomes for our research.”

The FAR Australia board is also keen to showcase the latest developments being generated by New Zealand research organisations. FAR’s linkage with organisations such as GRDC, CSIRO, State Departments and Australian universities has led to opportunities to collaborate on trans-Tasman projects such as cereal endophytes which is funded by GRDC and FAR. But FAR is certain there are other areas where New Zealand science can be put in front of the Australian cropping industry.

FAR Australia has two office bases, one in southern Victoria and the other in New South Wales. It is funded by research grants from GRDC, Department of Agriculture and other industry sources in Australia

FAR Australia’s new research equipment – MF5609 and 8-10 row seed drill with liquid and solid fertiliser capability.

27

Arable Ys Southland trip

We estimate that transport and accommodation for the trip will cost between $800-$1000 for the week, plus meals and the odd beer at the local.

If you’re interested in being part of the tour, please register your interest with Jen Linton at jen.linton@far.org.nz. Keep an eye out for more information in the coming months and remember to like the Arable Ys Facebook page for more info about our monthly meetings: www.facebook.com/arableys

London,LasVegasandnowSouthland–theArable Ys trips just keep getting better!

Arable Ys, FAR’s specialist extension group for under 35s, is planning to set off on another road trip this September. Starting and finishing in Ashburton, the trip will involve five days of farm visits in South Canterbury, Otago, Southland and the Mackenzie Country.

In the past Arable Ys trips have been rewarding and eye-opening experiences, providing the opportunity to learn more about the varying growing environments and farming challenges in different regions. They also provide a great opportunity to meet young farmers and industry professionals from all over New Zealand.

FAR student project wins innovation award

Independent judging panel convenor Terry Heiler says Carrfield’s HydroFix system was chosen because it held wide application for New Zealand’s irrigation market and was the result of solid research involving several parties.

The innovation originated from a request by FAR levy payers looking for help following 2013’s gale force wind event that damaged more than 800 irrigators across Canterbury. The loss of irrigation systems for several months caused major losses of production for farmers and the cost of repairs was estimated in the millions of dollars.

Assistance was sought from the University of Canterbury’s Mechanical Engineering Department for an engineering design to stabilise irrigators and a patented solution was developed by FAR and the university and licenced to Carrfields Irrigation for further development and commercialisation.

Ashburton’sCarrfieldsIrrigationcompany has won the IrrigationNZ 2016 Innovation Award in association with Aqualinc for the irrigator stabiliser which was designed as part of a FAR funded student project.

The HydroFix Irrigator Stabiliser System consists of a series of inflatable water tanks connected to a pulley and counterweight systems along the length of an irrigator. On arrival of a major wind event, the turn of a tap fills the tanks with water and lowers them to the ground to secure the irrigator at the centre of each span. When the wind danger has passed, the water tanks can simply be drained and after this they will raise themselves to a ready to activate; storage position in two stages, requiring minimal effort from the operator.

28

Turn over the page for this issue's competition

Congratulations to our competition winners!

Megan Alexander, from Hunter in South Canterbury won the 7 years and under section. Anna Turner, from Te Awamutu won the 7 -12 years section. Great work!

The days are getting shorter, the air is crisp and the leaves are falling from the trees in an array of red, orange, brown and gold... that’s right, Autumn is here! So why not embrace the season with some Autumn inspired crafts and recipes.

Apple turnoversYou will need:• 225g cream cheese, softened• ¾ Cup butter or margarine, softened• 1 egg, separated• 3 Tablespoons cold water, divided• 2 Cups flour• 7 Cups thinly sliced peeled apples (about 6)• ¾ Cup sugar• 1 ½ teaspoons ground cinnamonIn a mixing bowl, mix cream cheese and butter together until smooth.Separate egg yolk from egg white. Chill the egg white to use later. Beat egg yolk and 2 tablespoons cold water into cream cheese mixture.Gradually beat in flour until well blended. Shape mixture into a ball and chill 1 hour. This will be the turnover dough.Toss apples with sugar and cinnamon and place in a microwave safe dish. Add a little water to the bottom of the dish. Microwave 4-5 minutes. Use pot holders to remove dish from the microwave.Roll pastry dough to about 3 mm thick and then cut circles with a biscuit cutter. Top each circle with a tablespoon or more of apple mixture. Fold pastry over filling and press together with a fork.In small bowl, whisk egg white and 1 tablespoon water. Brush over pastry and sprinkle with sugar.Place on baking paper and bake at 190oC for 18-20 minutes.Serve with ice cream, if desired.

Q. What reads and lives in an apple? A. A bookworm.

Q. What did one leaf say to another? A. I’m falling for you.

Q. What kind of coat goes on wet? A. A coat of paint.

Q. What runs around a farm but doesn’t move? A. A fence.

Q. Why shouldn’t you tell a secret in a cornfield? A. Because the corn has ears.

Q. How do trees get onto the internet? A. Easy, they just LOG on.

FAR funnies

Chestnut streamersYou will need:• Chestnuts• Coloured crepe or tissue paper• Glue• Scissors or small screw driver

Make a hole in the chestnut with sissors or screw driver (be careful!) and cut paper into thin strips.

Hold 4-5 strips together so they are all even at one end and twist together.

Put glue into the hole and push the twisted end of the streamer into hole. Allow to dry.

Take into the back yard and see how high you can throw them!

Arable kidsArable kids

29

WIN PRIZESName: .................................................................................................................... Age: ..........................................Address: .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Postcode: .................................Tel: ........................................................ Fax: ...................................................... Email: ........................................

Return your entry by Friday 24 June 2016 to:Arable Kids Competition, FAR, PO Box 23133, Templeton 8445

M A P L E T R E E Z B JL W G P A V Y E L L O WO B J U P E Y F H G S ZR X K M P G O D A E J PA E C P L E C L R E B EN C H K E T T E V S R AG O I I S A O A E E O RE L L N E B B V S Z W XK O L H R L E E T N N MV R Y A E E R S R I C EX S X Y D S S C H O O LC S W E A T E R F A L L

GOOD LUCK!

Arable kids competitionAges up to 7 years: Colour in the picture below and send it in to FAR to be in to win.

Ages 7 to 12 years: Complete the word search and send it in to FAR to be in to win.

• apple• brown• chilly• harvest• hay• leaves• maple tree• orange• pear

• pumpkin• red• rice• school• sweater• tree• vegetables• yellow

30

Name: .................................................................................................................... Age: ..........................................Address: .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Postcode: .................................Tel: ........................................................ Fax: ...................................................... Email: ........................................

Return your entry by Friday 24 June 2016 to:Arable Kids Competition, FAR, PO Box 23133, Templeton 8445

DISCLAIMER This publication is copyright to the Foundation for Arable Research (“FAR”) and may not be reproduced or copied in any form whatsoever without FAR’s written permission. This publication is intended to provide accurate and adequate information relating to the subject matters contained in it and is based on information current at the time of publication. Information contained in this publication is general in nature and not intended as a substitute for specific professional advice on any matter and should not be relied upon for that purpose. No endorsement of named products is intended nor is any criticism of other alternative, but unnamed products. It has been prepared and made available to all persons and entities strictly on the basis that FAR, its researchers and authors are fully excluded from any liability for damages arising out of any reliance in part or in full upon any of the information for any purpose.

Members of the FAR Board

To get all the latest arable information and updates visit www.far.org.nz

DAVID BIRKETT (Chairman) Northern South Island 033244499

ALAN HENDERSON Northern North Island 078719934

RUSSELL FLEMING South Western North Island 063248641

HUGH RITCHIE Eastern North Island 068568279

DAVID GRANT Mid Canterbury 033028580

PETER MITCHELL South Canterbury/North Otago 034349244

STEVE WILKINS South Otago/Southland 0274375209

Dr MIKE DUNBIER Appointed Member 033586479

RICHARD GREEN Appointed Member 0274973692

DR TONY GREGSON Appointed Member

31

A D D I N G VA L U E T O T H E B U S I N E S S O F C R O P P I N G

Foundation for Arable Research PO Box 23133

Templeton Christchurch8445

Phone:6433455783 Fax:6433417061 Text:64275ARABLE Visit: www.far.org.nz

From the Ground Up ISSN2324-1411(Print) ISSN2324-142X(Online)