Wheat

June 15, 2016

 

 

 

 

Methods and Material

 

The trial was conducted on irrigation wheat. One section of a centre pivot received the AAT treatment and the rest of the pivot, that did not receive the AAT treatment, served as the Control. The AAT treatment and control received the same fertilizer program. The AAT treatment received the following additional ACF-SR applications:

  • Pre-plant application of 8 litre/Ha ACF-SR

  • Foliar spray of 8 litre/Ha ACF-SR 5 weeks after emergence.

With the pre-plant application, the product was applied on the soil surface as a full cover spray and washed into the soil with a light irrigation cycle. With the foliar spray the product was diluted in non-chlorinated water and applied as a full cover leaf spray.

The table below gives a summary of the products applied, application rate, time and method of application.

 

 

Results and Discussion

 

Earlier in the season it was difficult to see a visual difference, specifically in colour. There was however, a difference in plant height at the spots observed. The treated section was about 10 cm higher than the control.

The photos below were taken to give a visual impression of the treated and untreated wheat. No visual difference in colour was reported through the season.

 

Leaf Analysis

 

A leaf sample for the analysis of plant nutrients was taken just before flag leaf stage, see analysis below. There was no big difference between any of the elements. However, if you add all the macro-element differences, there is a total increase of 0.29 units, which equates to a 3% increase in macro-element content. If you add all the micro-element differences, there is a total increase of 37 mg/kg, which equates to a 13% increase in micro-element content. This did indicate a slight increase in nutrient uptake in the treated plants.

 

Yield Results

 

Three sections from both the control and treatment were harvested. The yield and surface area were measured for each section to calculate the production/Ha. The following input data was used in the yield calculations: The yields were adjusted for moisture content. The fields were damaged by hail a month prior to harvest. The insurance company assessed a 23% loss. Therefore, the yields were also adjusted by 23% to provide a more accurate representation of actual yield. The table below show the yield for each replication per treatment and the average yield for each treatment. The AAT treatment resulted in a 1.6 t/Ha increase and 2 t/ha increase with the hail adjustment. This equates a 34% yield increase.

 

The results can be summarized as follows: Without the product cost, the yield increase in R value was R 6 230 and R 7 663 with the hail adjustment. At a Gallon price of R 143.26/litre, the total cost of the treatment was R 2 292/Ha and the net income increase was R 3 939/Ha and R 5 371/Ha with the hail adjustment. At a Tote price of R 95.96/litre, the total cost of the treatment was R 1 535/ha and the net income increase was R 4 695/Ha and R 6 128/ha with the hail adjustment.

 


Conclusion

 

It can be concluded that the AAT treatment, with a pre-plant application of 8 litre/Ha of ACF-SR and a foliar spray of 8 litre/Ha ACF-SR, increased the yield by 34%. There were no differences in yield quality parameters.

 

This trial confirms the plant growth promoting effect of the product. Please see the “Plant Growth Promotion by AAT Products” document for an explanation on the products’ mode of action.

 

 

 

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Featured Posts

Wheat

June 15, 2016

1/1
Please reload

Recent Posts