A presentation made at the WCCA 2011 event in Brisbane, Australia.

1. Are Controlled Traffic and
Permanent Beds Sustainable for
CA?
Don Yule
CTF Solutions
Brisbane, Australia

2. Program
• 30 minutes of summaries of relevant papers
presented at the Congress
• 60 minutes of open discussion of your
comments and questions with the speaker
panel
• Conclude with Priority Issues from the
Workshop

3. Controlled Traffic Farming –
Productivity, sustainability and resilience
Don Yule
CTF Solutions, Qld, Australia
CTF is a farming systems solution by
optimising how the components work
together

4. Controlled Traffic

5. TRADITIONAL 100t/ha
Designed Field
Layouts
CTF Response to
severe erosion event
1997
CTF 10t/ha
5

6. No cultivation
Controlled traffic allows standing
residues and inter-row sowing

7. Spatial Technologies - GNSS Guidance
Radio
GNSS
antennae
Rover/tractor
Base station
7

8. CTF and GNSS define the
on-farm spatial footprint
8

9. “Measure to Manage” Tools
• Digital, computer based data records
• GIS spatial analysis
• Automated on-farm R&D with strip trials
• Delivers Continuous Improvement

10. CTF delivers Farming System
Outcomes
Rainfall Use Efficiency
CTF
21t/ha
8t/ha
TRAD
10

11. CTF delivers Triple Bottom Line
benefits
Darling Downs study of change from
traditional to CTF
• Soil erosion (-90%)
• Diesel use (-60%)
• Nitrogen leaving farms (-90%)
• Carbon dioxide losses (-70%)
• Labour use (-60%)
• Annual income (+44%)
• Annual Gross Margin (+68%)
For mechanised CA, do controlled traffic
FIRST 11

12. The synergy of raised beds, controlled
traffic, minimum tillage and stubble retention
delivers higher water use efficiency in SW
Victoria, Australia.
Renick Peries,
Dept Primary Industries, Victoria

13. The synergy of raised beds, controlled traffic, minimum tillage and stubble retention
deliver higher water use efficiency in South West Victoria, Australia
Renick Peries, DPI, Victoria &
Jaikirat Singh-Gill, LTU, Victoria

14. Raised beds offer crop insurance during drought
• water use 20-30cm depth
• Good agronomy – yield 1.5
t/ha

15. stubble issues on raised beds
• Improved soil/better drainage/ good agronomy –
contribute to heavy biomass
• Subsoil constraints- low HI – heavy stubble loads
• Over many years burning was the only option!
• Efficient machinery / canopy management
• Seasonal rainfall a critical factor!

16. stubble issues on raised beds
• Beds can get water logged if not properly designed
• Under ‘wet’ conditions – pests were (& are) a major issue
• To burn or not to burn- a climate specific decision?
• In ‘wet’ seasons even low stubble loads can be an issue

17. Overall benefits of the ongoing
initiatives?
• 2 m beds: Derrinallum 3 m beds: Winchelsea

18. Benchmarking WUE in HRZ (Vic) 2009
Wheat yield SW Vic
10
9
Mr A
8
Mr B
7 Mr C
Yield (t/ha)
6 Mr D
5 Mr E
4 Mr F
3 Mr G
French and Schultz
2
Sadras and Angus
1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
April-November rain (mm)

19. How major issues are impacting on farmer behaviour
• Land use change: Flat to raised beds
• Drought : Raised beds to flat !
• Rainfall variation : Stubble retained to stubble
burn!
• With full realisation of soil issues: Beds-Flat-Beds
• What next?

20. Why change from raised beds to flat CT?
• drought? was the message lost?
• loss of area to furrows (20%) or
• CT without beds - the way forward for
some!
June 2005
Sept 2011

21. from 2m raised beds to 3m controlled traffic and
back to 3m raised beds
• 2010 2011 (rainfall mm)
• Jan-Mar 124.8 205.9
• Apr-August 274.5 219.9
• Sept-Nov 235.0

22. A success story:
From flat – 2m raised beds (1995)
From 2 m beds to 3m CT(2006)
From 3 m CT to 3m raised beds (2011)!

23. Summary
• South-West Victoria is continuing to adapt to change made
necessary by economic & climatic considerations
• While there is significant appreciation of CA in the region,
not all of the CA practices appeal to all farmer champions
• The synergy of raised beds, CT & stubble retention have
raised crop yields towards potential WUE in the region
• There may need to be more flexibility and clarity in the
definition of CA applications in this region

24. Soil and yield improvements from Controlled Traffic
Farming on a red Chromosol were similar to CTF on a
swelling black Vertosol.
Tim Ellis
CSIRO, Brisbane
Field research conducted at Roseworthy South Australia
1989 to 1994
Funded by: Key Centre for Dryland Agriculture and Landuse Systems; John
Shearer LTD; Grains Research Council; and Grains Research and
Development Corporation

25. Take home message 1. - better soil structure if you don’t drive
on it. Why?

26. Take home message 2. – deep ripping doesn’t necessarily improve soil
structure, especially if you don’t stop driving on it. Why?

28. Does CTF
reduce root
disease?
Why?
Take home message 3. - better root growth if you don’t drive on
the soil. Why?

29. Take home message 4. - better yields if you don’t drive on the soil. Why?
Take home message 5. – deep ripping did not improve yields. Why?

30. Take home message 6. – there are many other systemic
advantages of CTF e.g. greater timeliness/earlier sowing etc.
that have not been measured rigorously due to the nature of
traditional field trials.
Should we try to measure the effects of these?
Thanks

31. Initial findings show benefits of controlled
traffic for intensive vegetable production
John McPhee
Tasmanian Institute Agricultural Research

32. Porosity increases with controlled traffic (150 mm depth)
70
65
Porosity (%)
60
55
50
45
Conv CTF Conv CTF Conv CTF
Dec 09 Jul 10 Dec 10

33. More balanced soil:water:air ratio with controlled traffic (150 mm depth)
100%
80%
60%
Air
40%
Water
Soil
20%
0%
Conv CTF Conv CTF Conv CTF
Dec-09 Jul-10 Dec-10

34. Infiltration improves with controlled traffic
Conventional Controlled traffic
After potato harvest
Infiltration test results Conventional CTF
Duration of test (min) 30 90
Time to run-off (min) 4 not reached

35. Fewer tillage operations with controlled traffic
5
No. operations to prepare seedbed
4
3
2
1
0
potato - onion onion - broccoli broccoli - beans
Conventional Controlled traffic

36. Equipment incompatibility constrains full adoption in vegetables
Tractor
Pea
Bean
Bean
Potato
Poppy
Poppy/grain
Py windrower
Onion
Onion
Carrot
Relative track and working widths of a selection of vegetable industry harvesters

37. Short term agronomic gains from conservation
agriculture in NW China.
Jack McHugh
Uni Southern Queensland

38. Saving Natural Resources, Promoting Sustainable Farming,
Securing and Stabilizing Food Production:
How do you “sell” CA in NW China against the lack of appropriate machinery, the
"good farming" mindset of conventional tillage and competition for crop residues?
Improvement in soil condition on rigid soils in 4 years
• SOM, porosity, bulk density, water stable aggregates, pore size
distribution, hydraulic conductivity.
Water saving - ~40% less irrigation required
• Increased available water, plant root accessibility, reduced soil wetted
perimeter and soil water monitoring
Reduced groundwater contamination
• EM38 confirms increased soil water extraction. no apparent salt build
up, reduced variability in soil condition (soil water).
Improved yield and economics
• Reported improvement of 10%, but 2% over 3 seasons on-farm.
• Reduction in input costs for fuel, fertiliser and labour: Barley – 12.2%; Wheat –
19.2%; Maize – 18.6%.
Poor crop establishment
• Poor performance of prototype planting machinery, operating under difficult
conditions of heavy residue, high soil moisture, frozen soil conditions, combined
with poor depth control and inadequate seed-fertiliser separation.
• Low soil temperature due to trash blanket/standing stubble
• Inexperience with CA techniques

39. Controlled Traffic /Permanent Bed Farming
reduces GHG Emissions.
Jeff Tullberg
CTF Solutions, Brisbane

40. CTF = No-till with better porosity, aeration & drainage
Black = Soil Solids, White = Air or Water (from D.McGarry )
24 cm
4- Years CTF Annually Wheeled
Non-Wheeled (5t Tractor)
.
Greenhouse Impact?

41. Greenhouse gas emissions (not Carbon)
• Inputs
• Fuel, Machinery
• Herbicides
• Fertilisers
} Easily Quantified
For Known Systems
Energy
• Outputs
• Nitrous oxide & methane
• Nitrate in runoff and drainage
• Nitrate in eroded soil } Highly Variable,
Less Well-Understood
Wasted Energy
In practise:
Greenhouse Impact = Economic
Impact

42. Soil Emissions – Nitrous Oxide + Methane
Literature: N loss and emissions associated with waterlogging
NOx emissions occur when: Water- filled porosity <75%, >65%.,
Nitrate +C present in surface 10 cm.
Management Impact ?
Till v. no-till: less NO3 emissions in well-drained soils.
(Rochette 2009)
more NO3 emissions in poorly drained soils.
Wheel effect: wheeled soil emissions 5 x non wheeled (Russer
1998)
(potato fields) wheeled soil emissions 5 x non wheeled (Thomas
2003)
Common thread– wheel effects?
(measurements rarely taken in wheel tracks)

43. Cumulative Emissions (6 weeks post-seeding)
Emissions - kg CO2-e/ha
Source T Lane Rand P Bed
kg kg kg
N2O 324.6 369.5 58.2
CH4 0.33 0.41 -0.43
Total 324.6 369.5 58.2
Ratio 5.57 6.35 1.00
Wheel track emissions probably greater by a
factor of 5.0 – 7.0

44. Conclusions
1. Pilot trial confirms the literature:
wheel track emissions 5-7 times greater than bed
emissions.
2. Permanent traffic lanes of CTF require 10 – 20% of area.
but minimum of 50% area is wheeled in non—CTF.
3. This suggests that CTF should reduce soil emissions by about
50%
or more with precise, split N application
plus a substantial impact on input-related emissions.
4. Improved agronomy, soil health and precision also increase WUE
indicating possibility of greater biomass and C input.
Needs investigation in different environments

45. Grower presentations
• Richard Heath, Liverpool Plains, NSW
• Aaron Sanderson, Burdekin, Qld

46. CTF Workshop Summary Points
Farming system responses
Include machinery, CT, layouts, no till, spatial technologies;
Impacts of timeliness, efficiencies, precision; Benefits – yield,
inputs and costs, GHG , environment
Soil impacts
Wheel tracks – positive for machinery and negative for soil; Non-
wheel tracks – amelioration, less variability; Soil types – suitable
for all? Possible need for tillage even deep ripping.
Challenges
Residues; Available machinery.
Environment
Resources ↑, GHG ↓, fuel ↓, NOx ↓, groundwater pollution ↓

47. Outcomes
Generally very positive from extensive work across
soils, environments, countries, and over time
Triple bottom line – yield ↑, productivity ↑, inputs and costs
↓, impacts ↓, sustainability ↑
Adoption

48. Proposed Statements of Workshop Priority Outcomes
• Controlled Traffic - the 4th pillar of CA
• Do controlled traffic first, then everything works better
• CTF – the farming system solution for CA in mechanised
cropping
• for mechanised CA, do controlled traffic FIRST