DOCSLIB.ORG

Chicken Litter As Fertiliser for Broadacre Grain Crops a User's Guide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chicken Litter As Fertiliser for Broadacre Grain Crops a User's Guide Chicken Litter as Fertiliser for Broadacre Grain Crops a user’s guide Page 2 Increasing costs of fertilisers What is chicken litter’s has many broadacre cropping potential as fertiliser? farmers considering alternative nutrient sources to apply to Nutrient Content crops. Phosphorus-based fertiliser Chicken litter contains useful amounts of prices have been particularly phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium as volatile and expensive in recent well as trace elements zinc, manganese years. and copper. Nutrient contents can vary considerably between sources and Spent litter associated with batches.. broiler chicken production has gained attention from grain Moisture Nitrogen (N) Phosphorus (P) Potassium (K) Sulphur (S) Litter Type/Base (%) (%dwt) (kg/t fwt) (%dwt) (kg/t fwt) (%dwt) (kg/t fwt) (%dwt) (kg/t fwt) farmers in districts with chicken Average 20 4.0 32.1 1.1 8.6 2.2 17.2 0.63 5.0 farms close at hand. It contains Straw Range 14.5 - 25.1 2.0 - 5.3 0.7 - 1.8 1.6 - 2.8 0.5 - 1.1 a variety of plant nutrients and Average 25 3.8 28.2 1.2 8.9 1.8 13.7 0.54 4.1 Sawdust is commonly used overseas as a Range 20.1 - 28.8 2.8 - 5.9 0.75 - 1.53 1.3 - 2.5 0.4 - 0.7 source of crop nutrients. Until Wood Average 26 3.9 29.0 1.3 9.9 1.9 14.0 0.51 3.8 recently, little information existed Shavings Range 20.5 - 31.2 2.8 - 5.5 0.68 - 1.7 1.1 - 2.8 0.3 - 0.7 on its use in Australian farming Multibatch Average 21 4.0 31.7 1.7 13.4 2.4 18.9 0.58 4.6 systems. Table 1: Macro nutrient content of spent chicken litter (RIRDC Litter Survey From 2007 to 2012, Rural 2010) Zinc (Zn) Copper (Cu) Manganese (Mn) Directions Pty Ltd has conducted Litter Type/Base (g/tonne fwt) (g/tonne fwt) (g/tonne fwt) two RIRDC funded research Average 296 120 416 Straw projects examining the use of Range 128-400 88-168 312-664 chicken litter as a broadacre Average 270 113 300 Sawdust crop fertiliser in South Australia. Range 218-383 60-158 210-413 The project aimed to address Wood Average 318 96 355 frequently asked questions posed Shavings Range 200-437 59-222 259-570 by broadacre users of chicken Average 427 98 521 Multibatch litter, and provide practical Range 346-529 80-119 450-585 information on its use. Findings Table 2: Micro nutrient content of spent from the projects have been chicken litter (RIRDC Litter Survey 2010) used to develop this guide for NB - %dwt = percentage dry weight; kg/t fwt = kilogram of nutrient per tonne of litter fresh weight; g/tonne fwt = grams of micronutrient per grain producers considering tonne of litter fresh weight. chicken litter as an alternative fertiliser. Variability in Nutrient Levels Nutrient levels can vary by 100% or more Tip: Request an analysis between litter sources and batches. Given of the litter you intend this variability, it is important to obtain a to purchase to check nutrient content analysis of the product nutrient content, purchased to make sure it represents good particularly phosphorus. value. Don’t assume that what you are This analysis can be told will be in there is actually present in carried out at several the litter. laboratories for around $30-$50 per sample. Fresh litter contains 20% to 30% moisture. Nutrient contents are generally Alternatively, be quoted as percentage of dry weight conservative in your (%dwt). When calculating the amount estimation of nutrient of nutrient to be applied, the nutrient content to prevent content used in calculations needs to under application. be reduced proportionately to provide a realistic estimate. Page 3 Nutrient availability, Figure 1 displays the results of trials where chicken litter was applied with and without conventional fertiliser on a phosphorus responsive (low phosphorus) and a accessibility and losses non-phosphorus responsive (high phosphorus) soil. Starter fertiliser in the seed row was important to maintain yield at the phosphorus responsive soil, but there was no Phosphorus advantage on the non-responsive soil. In trials on some soils, crops treated with Figure 1: Wheat yield in response to combinations of chicken litter and chicken litter showed less early vigour conventional fertiliser applications at phosphorus responsive and phosphorus compared to crops sown with conventional non-responsive sites at Freeling, SAGrainYield in 2010 fertiliser in close proximity to the seed, 6.00 particularly in low disturbance sowing systems. In most cases eventual grain yield A 5.00 A A was not affected, however, there were A A instances where yields were slightly lower than where conventional fertiliser was 4.00 applied. A A 3.00 The likely cause of vigour reductions is B B A B from the nutrients in chicken litter being 2.00 Responsive either less available, or less accessible Yield (t/ha) for uptake by the roots of the establishing Non Responsive crop. 1.00 Much of the nutrient in chicken litter 0.00 occurs in an organic form. As a result, microbial breakdown of the litter in the soil may temporarily ‘tie-up’ nutrients during the decomposition process. In addition, litter is mostly applied by broadcasting several weeks prior to seeding with no-till equipment (knife Tip: Use starter applications of Other Macronutrients points and presswheels). Minimal conventional fertiliser in the seed incorporation of the litter occurs during row, rather than using chicken Chicken litter also contains useful the seeding process and as a result litter alone if unsure of your quantities of potassium and sulphur which minimal litter ends up in the seed row in paddock’s soil phosphorus status. can provide added value in soil types close proximity to the roots of germinating requiring additions of these nutrients. crop seedlings. Trace Elements In most cases, the reduction in vigour is Nitrogen Chicken litter contains some trace phosphorus related. Vigour reductions are elements. Zinc, copper and manganese less likely in crops grown in soils with high Although chicken litter contains potentially are commonly deficient in many background levels of available phosphorus. useful amounts of nitrogen, a proportion cropping soils. Chicken litter provides an Grain analysis in field trials indicate of the nitrogen is lost as ammonia gas opportunity to contribute to soil reserves lower levels of grain phosphorus in plots between spreading and incorporation via of these nutrients. receiving chicken litter alone, compared the seeding operation. Loss rates are quite with those treated with conventional high, with up to 25% lost as ammonia As with phosphorus, accessibility of trace phosphorus fertiliser, helping to support from raw litter products in the week elements by the roots of establishing crops this explanation. following application, particularly during is limited due to the nature of application warm weather. More than 50% can be and subsequent incorporation. Foliar In most cases, the reduction in vigour lost if the litter remains on the soil surface nutrient applications may be required for is phosphorus related. Vigour and yield for extended periods without rainfall or these nutrients in potential deficiency reductions are less likely in crops grown physical incorporation. situations, particularly in the short term in soils with high background levels of after litter is applied. available phosphorus. Immediate incorporation by cultivation or rainfall following application can increase This problem is overcome when a “starter” the amount of nitrogen “preserved” for Tip: Although chicken litter provides application of some conventional fertiliser use by the crop. This, however, is often useful amounts of trace elements to build is applied in the seed row of the crop, impractical, or the negative effect of the soil levels in the longer term, be in conjunction with the application additional cultivation on soil structure prepared to address potential deficiencies of chicken litter. Depending on the outweighs the potential benefit from the with foliar nutrient sprays in crops phosphorus levels in the soil, often the additional nitrogen. As a result, when raw grown on deficient soils. rates of conventional fertiliser required to chicken litter is applied without immediate overcome this problem are significantly less incorporation, estimations of the nitrogen than standard rates. supplied may need to be discounted by up to 50% to account for losses. Page 4 How do I use chicken Soils with good phosphorus levels are Chicken Litter as a Soil also suited to chicken litter applications, Improver litter on broadacre crops? but with a slightly different objective. The aim of applying chicken litter may be to Growers in some cropping districts are Raw chicken litter is a light, bulky product, further build soil phosphorus reserves, applying high rates of chicken litter to which requires high volume specialised with a view to “mining” those reserves poor producing or problem soils in an spreaders to spread the litter effectively. in future years (particularly in years when attempt to improve them. Low fertility Compared to conventional fertilisers which conventional fertilisers are very expensive) sand hills and low organic matter, hard- are applied during the sowing operation, by applying less than maintenance rates of setting areas are particularly targeted with the time required and costs of applying conventional fertiliser. rates of chicken litter 2 to 5 times higher chicken litter per hectare can be high. than district practice rates with the aim of Given the time and logistics involved, for Beware of Applying too Much supplying high quantities of nutrients and most growers it is an impossible task to Nitrogen organic matter to boost fertility levels. treat their entire cropping area in one year.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assessing Crop Performance in Maize Field Trials Using a Vegetation Index
    Open Agriculture. 2018; 3: 250–263 Research Article Carl-Philipp Federolf, Matthias Westerschulte, Hans-Werner Olfs, Gabriele Broll*, Dieter Trautz Assessing crop performance in maize field trials using a vegetation index https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2018-0027 received February 17, 2018; accepted June 20, 2018 1 Introduction Abstract: New agronomic systems need scientific Nitrogen (N) is a crucial nutrient for crop growth and below proof before being adapted by farmers. To increase the optimal plant N concentration can lead to significant yield informative value of field trials, expensive samplings losses (Mollier and Pellerin 1999, Plénet and Lemaire 2000). throughout the cropping season are required. In a series Excess N fertilization however, can have a negative impact of trials where different application techniques and on ecosystems (Sutton et al. 2011). To acquire reliable rates of liquid manure in maize were tested, a handheld information on balanced N fertilization, researchers sensor metering the red edge inflection point (REIP) usually use multi-location and/or multi-annual field trials was compared to conventional biomass sampling at to acquire fundamental information (Gomez and Gomez different growth stages and in different environments. 1984). Regarding maize (Zea mays L.) fertilization trials in In a repeatedly measured trial during the 2014, 2015, and areas with higher contents of soil organic matter, major 2016 growing seasons, the coefficients of determination differences in early-growth might become insignificant at between REIP and biomass / nitrogen uptake (Nupt) harvest due to a high N mineralization potential (Federolf ascended from 4 leaves stage to 8 leaves stage, followed by et al.
    [Show full text]
  • How South Australian Broadacre Farms Increased Productivity From
    THIRTY YEARS OF CHANGE IN SOUTH AUSTRALIAN BROADACRE AGRICULTURE: TREND, YIELD AND PRODUCTIVITY ANALYSES OF INDUSTRY STATISTICS FROM 1977 TO 2006 Ian Black and Chris Dyson January 2009 SARDI Publication Number F2009/000182-1 SARDI Research Report Series Number 340 ISBN: 978-1-921563-09-6 South Australian Research and Development Institute Plant Research Centre Gate 2b Hartley Grove URRBRAE SA 5064 Telephone: (08) 8303 9400 Facsimile: (08) 8303 9403 http://www.sardi.sa.gov.au This Publication may be cited as: Black, I.D. and Dyson, C.B. Thirty Years of Change in South Australian Broadacre Agriculture: Trend, Yield and Productivity Analyses of Industry Statistics from 1977 to 2006. South Australian Research and Development Institute, Adelaide, 79pp. SARDI Publication Number F2009/000182-1. South Australian Research and Development Institute Plant Research Centre Gate 2b Hartley Grove URRBRAE SA 5064 Telephone: (08) 8303 9400 Facsimile: (08) 8303 9403 http://www.sardi.sa.gov.au DISCLAIMER The authors warrant that they have taken all reasonable care in producing this report. The report has been through the SARDI internal review process, and has been formally approved for release by the Deputy Executive Director. Although all reasonable efforts have been made to ensure quality, SARDI does not warrant that the information in this report is free from errors or omissions. SARDI does not accept any liability for the contents of this report or for any consequences arising from its use or any reliance placed upon it. © 2009 SARDI This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Faba Bean: a Historic Perspective (J.I
    Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Oct 06, 2021 Faba bean in cropping systems Hauggaard-Nielsen, Henrik; Peoples, Mark B.; Jensen, Erik S. Published in: Grain legumes Publication date: 2011 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link back to DTU Orbit Citation (APA): Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Peoples, M. B., & Jensen, E. S. (2011). Faba bean in cropping systems. Grain legumes, (56), 32-33. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. ISSUE No. 56 April 2011 Towards the world’s earliest maturing faba beans Molecular breeding approaches in faba bean Diseases infecting faba bean Resistance to freezing in winter faba beans Faba bean in cropping systems ‘Why should I grow faba beans?’ There is hope for faba bean cultivation EVENTS 2011 Model Legume Congress Sainte Maxime, France, 15-19 May 2011 http://inpact.inp-toulouse.fr/ModelLegume2011/index.html
    [Show full text]
  • The Implications of Digital Agriculture and Big Data for Australian Agriculture
    research report April 2016 The Implications of Digital Agriculture and Big Data for Australian Agriculture © 2016 Australian Farm Institute ISBN 978-1-921808-38-8 (Print and Web) Australia’s Independent Farm Policy Research Institute The Australian Farm Institute The Australian Farm Institute is an agricultural policy research organisation that has been established to develop and promote public policies that maximise the opportunity for Australian farmers to operate their businesses in a profitable and sustainable manner. To do this, the Institute carries out or contracts leading academics and consultants to conduct research into farm policy issues that the Institute’s Research Advisory Committee has identified as being of high strategic importance for Australian farmers. The Institute has a commitment to ensuring research findings are the conclusion of high quality, rigorous and objective analysis. The Australian Farm Institute promotes the outcomes of the research to policy-makers and the wider community. The Australian Farm Institute Limited is incorporated as a company limited by guarantee and commenced operations on 23 March 2004. The Institute is governed by a Board of Directors who determine the strategic direction for the Institute. The Institute utilises funding voluntarily contributed by individuals and corporations to perform its activities. Initial seed funding has been contributed by the NSW Farmers’ Association. Vision Farm policies that maximise the opportunity for Australian farmers to operate their businesses in a profitable and sustainable manner. Objective To enhance the economic and social wellbeing of farmers and the agricultural sector in Australia by conducting highly credible public policy research, and promoting the outcomes to policy-makers and the wider community.
    [Show full text]
  • Previous Supply Elasticity Estimates for Australian Broadacre Agriculture
    Previous Supply Elasticity Estimates For Australian Broadacre Agriculture Garry Griffith Meat, Dairy and Intensive Livestock Products Program, NSW Agriculture, Armidale Kym I’Anson Previously with the Industry Economics Sub-program, Cooperative Research Centre for the Cattle and Beef Industry, Armidale Debbie Hill Previously with the Industry Economics Sub-program, Cooperative Research Centre for the Cattle and Beef Industry, Armidale David Vere Pastures and Rangelands Program, NSW Agriculture, Orange Economic Research Report No. 6 August 2001 ii © NSW Agriculture 2001 This publication is copyright. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of the publication may be reproduced by any process, electronic or otherwise, without the specific written permission of the copyright owner. Neither may information be stored electronically in any way whatever without such permission. ISSN 1442-9764 ISBN 0 7347 1263 4 Senior Author's Contact: Dr Garry Griffith, NSW Agriculture, Beef Industry Centre, University of New England, Armidale, 2351. Telephone: (02) 6770 1826 Facsimile: (02) 6770 1830 Email: [email protected] Citation: Griffith, G.R., I'Anson, K., Hill, D.J. and Vere, D.T. (2001), Previous Supply Elasticity Estimates for Australian Broadacre Agriculture, Economic Research Report No. 6, NSW Agriculture, Orange. iii Previous Supply Elasticity Estimates For Australian Broadacre Agriculture Table of Contents Page List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………iv Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………...v Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in the Report…………………………………………..v Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………….vi 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………...1 2. Previous Supply Elasticity Studies……………………………………………………….. 4 2.1 Background………………………………………………………………………..4 2.2 Econometric Studies………………………………………………………………5 2.3 Programming Studies……………………………………………………………..8 3. Comparison and Evaluation of Previous Supply Elasticity Estimates………………….11 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Farming for the Future
    Farming for the Future Optimising soil health for a sustainable future in Australian broadacre cropping A report for By Alexander Nixon 2017 Nuffield Scholar March 2019 Nuffield Australia Project No 1709 Supported by: © 2019 Nuffield Australia. All rights reserved. This publication has been prepared in good faith on the basis of information available at the date of publication without any independent verification. Nuffield Australia does not guarantee or warrant the accuracy, reliability, completeness of currency of the information in this publication nor its usefulness in achieving any purpose. Readers are responsible for assessing the relevance and accuracy of the content of this publication. Nuffield Australia will not be liable for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or arising by reason of any person using or relying on the information in this publication. Products may be identified by proprietary or trade names to help readers identify particular types of products but this is not, and is not intended to be, an endorsement or recommendation of any product or manufacturer referred to. Other products may perform as well or better than those specifically referred to. This publication is copyright. However, Nuffield Australia encourages wide dissemination of its research, providing the organisation is clearly acknowledged. For any enquiries concerning reproduction or acknowledgement contact the Publications Manager on ph: (02) 9463 9229. Scholar Contact Details Alexander Nixon Bexa Pty Ltd T/A Devon Court Stud 769 Wallan Creek Road Drillham, Qld, 4424 Phone: 0429 432 467 Email: [email protected] In submitting this report, the Scholar has agreed to Nuffield Australia publishing this material in its edited form.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenge to Sustainability of Broadacre Grain Cropping Systems on Clay Soils in Northern Australia
    The challenge to sustainability of broadacre grain cropping systems on clay soils in northern Australia Mike Bell A, Phil Moody B, Kaara Klepper C and Dave Lawrence C APrimary Industries and Fisheries, Dept. of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Kingaroy QLD, Australia, Email [email protected] BEnvironment and Resource Sciences, Department of Environment and Resource Management, Indooroopilly QLD, Australia, CPrimary Industries and Fisheries, Dept. of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Toowoomba QLD, Australia. Abstract Fertilizer inputs, crop yields and grain nutrient concentrations were determined for sorghum, wheat, barley and chickpeas - the main species grown in the extensive grain cropping systems of north-eastern Australia. Apparent nutrient budgets (nutrient input in fertilizer – nutrients removed in grain) almost universally showed negative balances, indicating a decline in native soil fertility reserves. This was consistent with analysis of soil chemical fertility in paired cropped and uncropped sites across Queensland that showed a significant decrease in reserves of N, P and K in all cropping areas. Variable yields from cropping under rainfed conditions in these subtropical environments make additional investment in fertiliser inputs financially risky. It is suggested that an increased frequency of legumes (grain or pasture ley) in the farming system may reduce the requirement for N fertiliser, thus allowing growers to meet the demands for other fertiliser nutrient inputs. Such changes may be essential to ensure long term sustainability of the farming system. Key Words Fertility decline, nutrient budgeting, farming systems, legumes, nitrogen Introduction The northern grains region (Figure 1) occupies approximately 4M ha across northern NSW, southern and central Queensland.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification of High Quality Agricultural Land in the Mid West Region: Stage 1 – Geraldton Planning Region Second Edition Resource Management Technical Report 386
    Department of Agriculture and Food Identification of high quality agricultural land in the Mid West region: Stage 1 – Geraldton Planning Region Second edition Resource management technical report 386 Supporting your success Identification of high quality agricultural land in the Mid West region: Stage 1 – Geraldton planning region Second edition, replaces Resource management technical report 384 Resource management technical report 386 Peter Tille, Angela Stuart-Street and Dennis van Gool Copyright © Western Australian Agriculture Authority, 2013 April 2013 ISSN 1039–7205 Cover photo: Young wheat crop growing on the rich alluvial soils of the Greenough flats. (Photo: A. Stuart-Street,) Disclaimer While all reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of the information in this document, the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture and Food and its officers and the State of Western Australia accept no responsibility for any errors or omissions it may contain, whether caused by negligence or otherwise, or for any loss, however caused, arising from reliance on, or the use or release of, this information or any part of it. Copies of this document are available in alternative formats upon request. 3 Baron-Hay Court, South Perth WA 6151 Tel: (08) 9368 3333 Email: [email protected] agric.wa.gov.au Identification of high quality agricultural land in the Geraldton planning region Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... v Executive
    [Show full text]
  • Intercropping—Evaluating the Advantages to Broadacre Systems
    agriculture Review Intercropping—Evaluating the Advantages to Broadacre Systems Uttam Khanal 1,* , Kerry J. Stott 2 , Roger Armstrong 1,3, James G. Nuttall 1,3, Frank Henry 4, Brendan P. Christy 5 , Meredith Mitchell 5 , Penny A. Riffkin 4, Ashley J. Wallace 1, Malcolm McCaskill 4, Thabo Thayalakumaran 2 and Garry J. O’Leary 1,3 1 Agriculture Victoria, 110 Natimuk Road, Horsham, VIC 3400, Australia; [email protected] (R.A.); [email protected] (J.G.N.); [email protected] (A.J.W.); [email protected] (G.J.O.) 2 Agriculture Victoria, Centre for AgriBioscience, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia; [email protected] (K.J.S.); [email protected] (T.T.) 3 Centre for Agricultural Innovation, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia 4 Agriculture Victoria, 915 Mt Napier Road, Hamilton, VIC 3300, Australia; [email protected] (F.H.); [email protected] (P.A.R.); [email protected] (M.M.) 5 Agriculture Victoria, 124 Chiltern Valley Road, Rutherglen, VIC 3685, Australia; [email protected] (B.P.C.); [email protected] (M.M.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Intercropping is considered by its advocates to be a sustainable, environmentally sound, and economically advantageous cropping system. Intercropping systems are complex, with non- uniform competition between the component species within the cropping cycle, typically leading to Citation: Khanal, U.; Stott, K.J.; unequal relative yields making evaluation difficult.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Recommended Practice a DIRECTORY for BROADACRE DRYLAND AGRICULTURE
    Landscapes & Industries KNOWLEDGE Current recommended practice A DIRECTORY FOR BROADACRE DRYLAND AGRICULTURE Craig Clifton, Camille McGregor, Roger Standen & Simon Fritsch Current recommended practice A DIRECTORY FOR BROADACRE DRYLAND AGRICULTURE Craig Clifton, Camille McGregor, Roger Standen & Simon Fritsch Authors: Craig Clifton, Camille McGregor, Roger Standen & Simon Fritsch Published by: Murray-Darling Basin Commission Level 5, 15 Moore Street Canberra ACT 2600 Telephone: (02) 6279 0100 from overseas + 61 2 6279 0100 Facsimile: (02) 6248 8053 from overseas + 61 2 6248 8053 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.mdbc.gov.au ISBN: 1 876830 69 7 Cover Photo: Lisa Robins © 2004 Murray-Darling Basin Commission This work is copyright. Graphical and textual information in the work (with the exception of photographs and the MDBC logo) may be stored, retrieved and reproduced in whole or in part, provided the information is not sold or used for commercial benefi t and its source (Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Landscapes and Industries Program, Current Recommended Practice for Broadacre Dryland Agriculture) is acknowledged. Such reproduction includes fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968. Reproduction for other purposes is prohibited without prior permission of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission or the individual photographers and artists with whom copyright applies. To the extent permitted by law, the copyright holders (including their employees and consultants) exclude all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this report (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it.
    [Show full text]
  • Weed Management in Sugarcane Manual Acknowledgements
    TM Weed Management in Sugarcane Manual Acknowledgements • Bayer Australia Limited • Nufarm Limited • Sumitomo Chemical Australia Pty Ltd • Barry Callow – MSF Agriculture • Allan Blair – Department of Agriculture and Fisheries • Jack Robertson – Department of Agriculture and Fisheries • Emilie Fillols – SRA Limited • Phil Ross – SRA Limited • Alexa Adamson – SRA Limited More information Authors We are committed to providing the Australian sugarcane Written by Phil Ross and Emilie Fillols. industry with resources that will help to improve its productivity, profitability and sustainability. Edition A variety of information products, tools and events which Sugar Research Australia Limited 2017 edition of the complement this manual are available including: Weed Management Manual published in 2010 by BSES Limited. • Information sheets and related articles ISBN: 978-0-949678-38-6 • Publications including soil guides, technical manuals and field guides Contact details • Research papers • Extension and research magazines Sugar Research Australia PO Box 86 • E-newsletters and industry alerts Indooroopilly QLD 4068 Australia • Extension videos Phone: 07 3331 3333 • Online decision-making and identification tools Fax: 07 3871 0383 • Training events. Email: [email protected] These resources are available on the SRA website and many items can be downloaded for mobile and tablet use. Hard copies for some items are available on request. We recommend that you subscribe to receive new resources automatically. Simply visit our website and click on Subscribe to Updates. www.sugarresearch.com.au © Copyright 2017 by Sugar Research Australia Limited. All rights reserved. No part of the Weed Management in Sugarcane Manual (this publication), may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Sugar Research Australia Limited.
    [Show full text]
  • The Health and Safety of South Australian Farmers, Farm Families and Farm Workers
    The Health and Safety of South Australian Farmers, Farm Families and Farm Workers Northern Territory Queensland Western Australia South Australia New South Wales Victoria Tasmania Richard Franklin Lyn Fragar Andrew Page ISBN 1 876491 54 X © 1999 Australian Agricultural Health Unit Franklin, R; Fragar, L. & Page, A. (1999). The Health and Safety of South Australian Farmers, Farm Families and Farm Workers. Australian Agricultural Health Unit, Moree PO Box 256 Moree NSW 2400 Australia Acknowledgments Many people contributed to the development of this publication and without their support and commitment it would not have been possible. We would like to thank: • Jane Mackereth from South Australian Divisions of General Practice Inc and Merelyn Boyce from the Farm Injury Reference Group for collecting the information on deaths from the coroners office and for patiently waiting while we wrote the report. • Donna Dias at the Research and Analysis Unit of WorkCover for providing information on agricultural injuries. • Julie Mitchell from the Health Information Centre of the South Australian Health Commission. • South Australian Coroners Office for assistance and access to their records. • Alex Van Rooijen, the Eyre Division of General Practice and the York Peninsula Division of General Practice. • South Australian Ambulance Service for the information they provided, in particular Roslyn Clermont. • Dr Tony Lower, Dr Tim Driscoll and Dr Lesley Day for reviewing the report for publication. This report is part of the project National Farm Injury Data
    [Show full text]