Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 4235 IREC Farmers' Newsletter No. 196 — Summer 2016 Cropping phase results In the first cropping phase (Winter 2014), all treatments had a relatively low gross margin return for both $/ha and $/ML. The low returns were due to low yields for the cereal crops and a low commodity price for canola. In the second cropping phase (Summer 2014–15), the cotton treatment had the highest gross margin return for both $/ha and $/ML. The very high returns resulted from a high yield and a high commodity price. The gross margin return for the cotton treatment was over 300% higher than the gross margin return for the maize treatment, which had the second highest returns for both $/ha and $/ML. The soybean treatments suffered some early flowering moisture stress, which likely reduced yield potential. In the third cropping phase (Winter 2015), the faba bean treatments had the highest gross margin returns for both $/ha and $/ML. The gross margin return for the faba bean treatments were over 60% higher than the gross margin return for all the other cropping treatments in that cropping phase. In the fourth cropping phase (Summer 2015–16), the maize treatment had the highest gross margin return for both $/ha and $/ML. The maize gross margin for $/ha was over 100% higher than all other treatments, while the maize gross margin for $/ML was over 50% higher than all other treatments. Cropping sequence results The fallow/cotton/faba bean/fallow sequence (T3) had the highest gross margin return for both $/ha and $/ML. The high gross margin return for T3 resulted mainly from a high cotton yield (13.95 bales/ ha) in summer 2014–15 and the high commodity price. The T3 gross margin per hectare results were at least 85% higher than all other rotations and at least 110% higher per ML. The T3 sequence also included a faba bean crop in winter 2015 that had a high gross margin result, which was second only to another faba bean crop (T7) in that particular season. The T3 rotation also used less water than most other treatments except the wheat/fallow (T5) sequence, which is reflected in the very large gross margin per ML result. The canola/maize/faba bean/fallow sequence (T7) had the second highest gross margin return for both $/ha and $/ML. The T7 rotation included three crops back-to-back, concluding in a summer fallow. The highlight of this rotation was the faba bean crop in winter 2015 which had the highest gross margin of the crops in this sequence as well as the highest gross margin of all the winter 2015 treatments. This was in part due to a very good yield from the faba bean crop (4.57 t/ha). The previous T7 maize crop in summer 2014–15 also had a comparatively high gross margin for both $/ha and $/ML despite the relatively low Figure 1. Gross margin return over two years from the crop sequencing experiment at Leeton Field Station yield. The T7 rotation resulted in increased income compared with some treatments, partly due to the fact that it produced three crops, while some other rotations only had two crops. It is also noted that the water use in T7 was comparatively low at 15.10 ML/ha in total. Other rotation results that compared favourably on a gross margin per hectare basis, and were not much lower than that of T7, were the sequences that produced four crops in the rotation period. These were the barley/soybean/barley/soybean (T6) and wheat/soybean/ wheat/soybean (T4) sequences. The T4 and T6 rotations resulted in comparatively good cumulative gross margin results, ranging from $3,037/ha to $2,977/ha. There was variation noted between the gross margin results for T4 and T6 in individual years. The wheat/fallow/wheat/fallow (T5) sequence had the lowest gross margin return on a per hectare basis with a return of only $1,428/ha over the two years. Even though this sequence had the lowest gross margin for $/ha, it had a much better gross margin return on a per megalitre basis with $216/ML. Conclusion This data is useful to compare gross margin per hectare for land use and water use across years. Outside the cotton effect, there is useful information and trends within this data. The T5 effect is of interest, as whilst it had the lowest gross margin per hectare for land use, it was one of the best for gross margin per megalitre for water use. This implies that if water is limited, growers need to seriously consider increasing the proportion of winter crops within their rotation and using summer fallows as a break. In contrast, if water is plentiful and of low cost, a more summer crop dominant rotation could be more profitable. Growers need to fully understand the influence of commodity price, water cost and inputs costs on their overall farm profitability. This study aimed to help develop a realistic foundation for a decision support tool to be developed to account for variances in the fore- mentioned price variables. Acknowledgements The research is part of the Correct Crop Sequencing for Irrigated Double Cropping project (GRDC project VIC00010 2014–2016) jointly funded by NSW DPI, ICC and GRDC. The support of Alan Boulton and Paul Morris for field work and data collection is gratefully acknowledged. The support of Fiona Scott and Rajinder Pal Singh for economic analysis is also gratefully acknowledged. Further information Tony Napier T: 02 6951 2796 E: [email protected] $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 Gross margin ($/ML) Gross nargin ($/ha) $/ha $/ML Inter-row cultivation of maize at the experimental site. Gross margin ($/ha) $/ha - l.s.d.(