Autumn Round-Up

Meetings 2021
Wednesday 7 April, Timaru

Thursday 8 April, Ashburton

Monday 12 April, Dunsandel

Thursday 15 April, Methven

 Table of Contents

Wheat cultivar performance in 2020-2021…………………………………………………………………….. 3

Wheat cultivar choice for disease management…………………………………………………………….. 7
BYDV management………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 12
Ramularia leaf spot management in barley……………………………………………………………………. 15
Cereal nitrogen use efficiency………………………………………………………………………………………… 18
Herbicide resistance survey and ryegrass management in cereals…………………………………. 22
Grass grub……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26
Oilseed rape monitor farm study and small plot trials 2020/21……………………………………… 29

© Foundation for Arable Research (FAR)

DISCLAIMER
This publication is copyright to the Foundation for Arable Research and may not be reproduced or copied in any form whatsoever
without written permission. It is intended to provide accurate and adequate information relating to the subject matters contained
in it. 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. No endorsement of named products is intended nor is any criticism of other alternative, but unnamed product.
Wheat cultivar performance in 2020-2021
Tabitha Armour and Jo Drummond (FAR)
Key points
• Performance of autumn sown feed and biscuit wheats, second wheats, milling wheats and
barleys were assessed as part of ongoing cultivar performance trials.
• Solar radiation through grain fill was lower than the 2019-20 season and some parts of
Canterbury experienced drought conditions which limited yield in some crops.
• Yields were average-below average, based on four-year adjusted means.
Results: Canterbury summary
Feed/Biscuit Wheat
• Irrigated feed and biscuit: 12.5 t/ha compared with a four-year average of 13.0 t/ha.
• Dryland feed and biscuit: 10.0 t/ha compared with a four-year average of 10.2 t/ha.
• Second wheat: 5.5 t/ha compared with a two-year average of 8.0 t/ha.
Solar radiation through grain fill was near average, but around 10% lower than last year, which
resulted in average to below average yields in Canterbury trials. The highest yields were achieved by
a range of cultivars under both irrigated and dryland conditions (Figure 1). KFW1902, KFW1903 and
RGT Universe were included in CPT2 for the first time.

KWW83
KFW1903
KFW1902
Graham
Gleam (SY114257)
Firelight
Voltron (KWW78)+
Kerrin (CK121)
CRWT245*
Wakanui
Ignite+
Reflection
RGT Universe (SFR86-096)
CRWT233
Torch
Starfire

85 90 95 100 105 110

Irrigated Yield (100 = 13.0 t/ha) LSD = 7 Dryland Yield (100 = 10.2 t/ha) LSD = 12

Figure 1. Autumn sown feed and biscuit wheat four-year adjusted means (relative to a site mean
yield of 100) for irrigated and dryland Canterbury sites (irrigated mean yield 13.0 t/ha and dryland
mean yield 10.2 t/ha).

3
In 2020, dry spring conditions in South Canterbury negatively impacted yield potentials. In this highly
variable trial, there were few differences between cultivars. The highest yields based on two-year
adjusted means were achieved by a range of cultivars. (Figure 2). Second year wheat cultivar trials
will continue in the 2021-22 season.

Starfire
Kerrin (CK121)
KFW1902*
Firelight
Gleam (SY114257)
KFW1903*
CRWT245
KWW83
SFR86-096*
Graham
Voltron (KWW78)
Ruapuna
Gator
Torch
Ignite
Empress*
CRWT246*
Reflection
CRWT233
Wakanui
85 90 95 100 105 110
Yield (100 = 8.0 t/ha) LSD = 13.5

Figure 2. Second year autumn sown feed and biscuit wheat 2-year adjusted mean yields at Makikihi
(relative to a site mean of 100, mean yield 8.0 t/ha).

4
Milling wheat
• Milling: 11.6 t/ha compared with a four-year average of 11.4 t/ha.
The highest yielding milling wheat cultivars in Canterbury based on four-year adjusted means were
achieved by a range of cultivars across premium, medium and gristing grades (Figure 3). Medium
grade CRWT245 and Zyatt were included in CPT2 trials for the first time. CRWT245 is an early-sown,
medium grade milling wheat that due to its early sowing window, also featured in feed wheat CPT
trials.

Griffin
CRWT247
Premium

Duchess
Reliance
Conquest

CRWT245
Medium

Zyatt (CK69)
Catherine
KMW89
Discovery
Viceroy
Gristing

KMW84
RGT Skyfall
Raffles
Hanson

80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115

Yield (100 = 11.4 t/ha) LSD = 8

Figure 3. May sown milling wheat four-year adjusted mean yields (relative to a site mean of 100)
averaged over four irrigated Canterbury sites (irrigated mean yield 11.4 t/ha).

5
Autumn barley
• Irrigated: 9.8 t/ha compared with a three-year average of 10.9 t/ha
• Dryland: 11.0 t/ha compared with a two-year average of 11.3 t/ha
The highest yields based on two-year adjusted means were achieved by a range of cultivars (Figure
4). Adjusted means for irrigated and dryland sites are based on a limited number of trials; as a result
the two-year mean for the dryland trial at St Andrews is higher than the three-year adjusted mean at
Rakaia. The new cultivars CRBA164, SYN416-756 and 417-021 were included in CPT2 trials for the
first time. They are feed varieties with high yield and malting potential.

SYN416-708
Fortitude
Laureate
RGT Planet
SYN415-586
SYN417-021
SY Silhouette (SYN415-651)
Tavern
SYN416-756
SYN415-584
Buttress (CRBA148)
CRBA164
Jimpy

80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115

Irrigated Yield (100 = 10.9 t/ha) LSD = 11 Dryland (100 = 11.3 t/ha) LSD = 7

Figure 4. Adjusted means for autumn sown barley in Canterbury (relative to a site mean of 100,
mean yield irrigated 10.9 t/ha, dryland mean yield 11.3/ha). Irrigated is a 3-year mean due to hail
damage in 2019-20 and dryland is a 2-year mean as no trials were conducted in the 2017-18 and
2018-19 seasons.

6
Wheat cultivar choice for disease management
Jo Drummond (FAR)
Key points
• Cultivar resistance continues to provide the foundation for disease control,
with the mostly resistant cultivar Firelight suffering an average yield loss
under irrigation of 0.6 t/ha (5%) if fungicides were not applied, whereas yield of the more
susceptible cv. Starfire was reduced by up to 4.7 t/ha (39%).
• Average yield losses without fungicide were 0.4 t/ha (5%) for cv. Firelight, 1.4 t/ha (17%) for
cv. Graham and 1.6 t/ha (21%) for cv. Starfire under dryland conditions.
• Analysis of economic returns in the cultivar x fungicide trials demonstrated the importance
of tailoring fungicide programmes to seasonal conditions, regardless of cultivar.
• Yields were lower than the 2019-20 season, but yield response to fungicide was similar, with
economic returns only observed when using fungicide programmes on more susceptible
cultivars.
• These trials demonstrated how a lighter touch approach can achieve a balance between
disease control, resistance management, yield and gross margin.

Wheat cultivar selection - season overview

In the 2020-21 season, despite wet conditions during November, dry conditions (few relative
humidity events >85% up to flag leaf) slowed disease progression, with low-moderate Septoria tritici
blotch (STB) pressure across Mid Canterbury. As a result, STB developed to reach low to moderate
severity across fungicide and CPT trials.
In parts of South Canterbury, rainfall was well below average from March 2020. By spring, many
crops were already yield limited due to water stress and average rainfall in September, November
and December was insufficient for some crops to recover. These conditions resulted in low STB
pressure.
In addition to STB, conditions in some areas, especially in Mid Canterbury, were conducive to the
development of powdery mildew, with up to 20% severity in CPT trials. Powdery mildew favours
mild winters, with high relative humidity (>80%) but is inhibited by free water e.g. rainfall.
In the latter part of the season, leaf rust developed to reach moderate-high levels, especially in the
Chertsey cultivar x fungicide trials, where a STB:leaf rust complex developed, making post-flowering
disease assessments challenging in some varieties.
Average to below-average yields were recorded in Canterbury trials. Temperatures and solar
radiation through grain-fill were similar to long-term means, but below the high-yielding 2019-20
season. Yields for some crops, especially those in South Canterbury, were limited by moisture stress
in spring.
Cultivar selection can mitigate crop losses from disease
In recent years, nil fungicide replicates were included in the CPT trials at Chertsey, Methven and
Temuka (Figure 1). Despite low to moderate disease pressure, yield loss in the nil fungicide
treatments ranged from 1.7 t/ha for cv. Firelight (14% yield loss) to 5.1 t/ha for cv. Starfire (46% yield
loss) compared to the cultivars with a fungicide programme (Figure 1). The more susceptible
cultivars suffered greater yield loss than the more resistant ones, and consequently, their response
to fungicide was greater.

7
 14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0
Yield (t/ha)

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

Fungicide Nil Fungicide

Figure 1. Mean yield for irrigated wheat grown with or without a fungicide programme at Chertsey,
Methven and Temuka, 2020-21.
The 2020-21 wheat cultivar x fungicide trials at Chertsey continued to show disease control could
largely be achieved by selection of a more resistant cultivar. Average yield losses with irrigation were
0.6 t/ha (5%) for the mostly resistant cv. Firelight compared with 4.1 t/ha (32%) for cv. Graham
(moderately resistant) and 4.7 t/ha (39%) for cv. Starfire (moderately resistant – moderately
susceptible), if the crop did not have fungicide applied (Table 1). Average yield losses without
fungicide were 0.4 t/ha (5%) for cv. Firelight, 1.4 t/ha (17%) for cv. Graham and 1.6 t/ha (21%) for cv.
Starfire under dryland conditions (Table 2).
Cultivars Firelight, Graham and Starfire are rated mostly resistant, moderately resistant-moderately
susceptible and moderately susceptible to leaf rust respectively.
Cultivar selection can provide flexibility in fungicide programmes
Under low disease pressure conditions, cultivar selection influenced flexibility in fungicide
programme choice under both irrigated and dryland conditions. Under irrigated conditions, for all
three cultivars, reduced input and flag leaf “straddle” programmes achieved similar yields to 4-spray
programmes. However, revenue-cost and gross margin analysis showed the economic return for the
untreated crop was equal to those from treatments receiving fungicides for cv. Firelight. There was
an economic return on fungicide spend for cultivars Graham and Starfire, but no difference between
fungicide programmes, suggesting that under trial conditions, reduced input programmes

8
represented the greatest balance between disease control, yield, financial return and resistance
management.
Under dryland conditions, cv. Firelight demonstrated the greatest flexibility, where the gross margin
for the untreated crop was equal to fungicide treated crops. Economic returns for cv. Graham were
similar to the irrigated trial, with a return on fungicide spend over the untreated, but no difference
between the treatments themselves. For the more susceptible cv. Starfire, revenue-cost and gross
margin analysis showed it was possible to underspend on fungicide. The lack of return on investment
on some fungicide programmes raises the question of risk, and demonstrates the importance of
tailoring fungicide programmes to seasonal conditions, regardless of cultivar.
Overall, these trials were able to demonstrate how a lighter touch approach could be achieved
without compromising profitability.

9
 Table 1. Disease severity, yield, Revenue – fungicide cost ($/ha) and gross margin ($/ha) for autumn sown wheat cultivars with different disease resistance ratings*, under
irrigated conditions at Chertsey in 2020-21, following application of different fungicide programmes. Wheat price $390/t (Source: NZX Grain & Feed Insight).
Growth Stage (GS), application date and fungicide treatment (L/ha)
LAA LAA by Revenue Gross
16.9.20 13.10.20 23.10.20 2.11.20 10.11.20 23.11.20 by STB Rust Yield cost Margin
Cultivar GS30-31 GS32 GS33-37 GS39 GS45 GS65 (%)1 (%)1 (t/ha) ($/ha) ($/ha)
Firelight Nil - - - - - 6.8 6.6 12.0 4515 2904
Firelight - Kestrel® 1.0 - Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 - - 3.5 5.0 12.5 4550 2940
Firelight - Kestrel® 1.0 - Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 - Opus® 0.75 + Comet® 0.4 3.4 5.0 12.5 4472 2862
Firelight - Kestrel® 1.0 - - Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 Opus® 0.75 + Comet® 0.4 2.7 4.0 12.7 4559 2949
Firelight - - Kestrel® 1.0 - Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 Opus® 0.75 + Comet® 0.4 2.2 2.9 12.7 4556 2946
Firelight Opus® 1.0 Kestrel® 1.0 - Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 - Opus® 0.75 + Comet® 0.4 0.6 2.5 12.5 4446 2836
Graham Nil - - - - - 32.1 39.9 8.7 3240 1630
Graham - Kestrel® 1.0 - Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 - - 19.1 34.8 12.7 4607 2997
Graham - Kestrel® 1.0 - Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 - Opus® 0.75 + Comet® 0.4 13.3 24.3 12.7 4566 2956
Graham - Kestrel® 1.0 - - Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 Opus® 0.75 + Comet® 0.4 16.2 23.3 12.8 4568 2958
Graham - - Kestrel® 1.0 - Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 Opus® 0.75 + Comet® 0.4 9.4 15.0 12.6 4492 2882
Graham Opus® 1.0 Kestrel® 1.0 - Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 - Opus® 0.75 + Comet® 0.4 8.8 13.1 12.7 4500 2890
Starfire Nil - - - - 42.1 77.5 7.2 2666 1056
Starfire - Kestrel® 1.0 - Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 - - 28.3 36.8 11.7 4244 2634
Starfire - Kestrel® 1.0 - Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 - Opus® 0.75 + Comet® 0.4 27.4 36.4 12.0 4291 2681
Starfire - Kestrel® 1.0 - - Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 Opus® 0.75 + Comet® 0.4 17.4 24.1 11.8 4206 2594
Starfire - - Kestrel® 1.0 - Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 Opus® 0.75 + Comet® 0.4 16.3 22.9 11.9 4247 2625
Starfire Opus® 1.0 Kestrel® 1.0 - Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 - Opus® 0.75 + Comet® 0.4 11.6 18.9 11.9 4204 2594
Mean 14.5 21.8 11.9 4274 2663
P value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
LSD (p=0.05) 2.2 2.6 0.3 126 127
CV (%) 1.9
Note: Yellow indicates the treatments that were amongst those that produced the greatest seed yield, revenue – cost or gross margin.
Adexar® (a.i. 62.5 g/L fluxapyroxad and 62.5 g/L epoxiconazole, Group 7 and 3 fungicides); Comet® (a.i. 250 g/L picoxystrobin, Group 11 fungicide); Kestrel® (a.i. 160 g/L prothioconazole + 80
g/L tebuconazole, Group 3 fungicide); Opus® (125 g/L epoxiconazole, Group 3 fungicide). 1LAA (%) – percent leaf area affected by STB and leaf rust. Disease was assessed on the top two leaves

10
at GS 75-80.
*Cultivar ratings: Firelight (STB: mostly resistant – MRR; Leaf Rust: mostly resistant – MRR); Graham (STB: moderately resistant – MR; Leaf Rust: moderately resistant/moderately susceptible
– MRMS); Starfire (STB: moderately resistant/moderately susceptible – MRMS; Leaf Rust: moderately susceptible – MS).
 Table 2. Disease severity, yield, Revenue – fungicide cost ($/ha) and gross margin ($/ha) for autumn sown wheat cultivars with different disease resistance ratings*, under
dryland conditions at Chertsey in 2020-21, following application of different fungicide programmes. Wheat price $390/t (Source: NZX Grain & Feed Insight).
Growth Stage (GS), application date and fungicide treatment (L/ha)
13.10.20 2.11.20 23.11.20 LAA by STB LAA by Leaf Rust Yield Revenue – cost Gross Margin
Cultivar
GS32 GS39 GS54 (%)1 (%)1 (t/ha) ($/ha) ($/ha)
Firelight - - - 2.7 8.8 8.1 3001 1926
Firelight - Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 - 2.6 7.8 8.3 3102 1926
Firelight Kestrel® 1.0 Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 - 2.5 6.9 8.3 3013 1847
Firelight Kestrel® 1.0 Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 Opus® 0.75 + Comet® 0.4 1.4 6.9 8.7 3257 1936
Firelight - Adexar® 0.62 + Opus® 0.45 - 2.2 6.9 8.5 3153 2001
Firelight Prosaro® 1.0 Adexar® 0.62 + Opus® 0.45 - 1.9 3.8 8.5 3153 1936
Graham - - - 6.0 53.0 6.8 2475 1400
Graham - Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 - 4.8 17.3 8.0 2950 1774
Graham Kestrel® 1.0 Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 - 3.3 16.9 8.4 3130 1874
Graham Kestrel® 1.0 Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 Opus® 0.75 + Comet® 0.4 3.1 16.2 8.5 3169 1848
Graham - Adexar® 0.62 + Opus® 0.45 - 4.4 21.4 8.0 2952 1800
Graham Prosaro® 1.0 Adexar® 0.62 + Opus® 0.45 - 5.0 16.6 8.2 3034 1817
Starfire - - - 13.6 79.4 6.0 2201 1126
Starfire - Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 - 5.9 37.9 7.2 2667 1491
Starfire Kestrel® 1.0 Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 - 4.5 21.4 7.9 2921 1665
Starfire Kestrel® 1.0 Adexar® 1.0 + Opus® 0.25 Opus® 0.75 + Comet® 0.4 4.7 20.3 7.9 2951 1630
Starfire - Adexar® 0.62 + Opus® 0.45 - 5.7 23.2 7.1 2632 1480
Starfire Prosaro® 1.0 Adexar® 0.62 + Opus® 0.45 - 4.2 14.3 7.7 2856 1639
Mean 5.9 21.0 7.9 2923 1729
P value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
LSD (p=0.05) 1.6 10.3 0.4 174 174
CV (%) 4.0
Note: Yellow indicated the treatments that were amongst those that produced the greatest seed yield, revenue – cost or gross margin.
Adexar® (a.i. 62.5 g/L fluxapyroxad and 62.5 g/L epoxiconazole, Group 7 and 3 fungicides); Comet® (a.i. 250 g/L picoxystrobin, Group 11 fungicide); Kestrel® (a.i. 160 g/L prothioconazole + 80
g/L tebuconazole, Group 3 fungicide)); Opus® (125 g/L epoxiconazole, Group 3 fungicide); Prosaro® (a.i, 125 g/L prothioconazole + 125 g/L tebuconazole, Group 3 fungicide). 1LAA (%) – percent
leaf area affected by STB and leaf rust. Disease was assessed on the top two leaves at GS 75-80.

11
*Cultivar ratings: Firelight (STB: mostly resistant – MRR; Leaf Rust: mostly resistant – MRR); Graham (STB: moderately resistant – MR; Leaf Rust: moderately resistant/moderately susceptible
– MRMS); Starfire (STB: moderately resistant/moderately susceptible – MRMS; Leaf Rust: moderately susceptible – MS).
BYDV management
Jo Drummond (FAR)
Key points
• Field trials in mid Canterbury in the 2018-19 and 2019-20 seasons found that wheat crops
did not suffer the same post GS 31 yield losses as wheat plants tested under high aphid
pressure in shade houses.
• In 2020-21, a trial to compare BYDV incidence and severity in wheat crops grown from seed
treated with a neonicotinoid (Group 4A insecticide) or from untreated seed, showed no
significant differences in yield, thousand seed weight or bulk density between treatments.
• Monitoring of aphids and beneficial insects and local weather conditions in the trial
identified a potential BYDV risk period between GS 21 – 31.
• Despite this risk period, few visual BYDV symptoms were observed post-flowering in the trial
and no BYDV-PAV (the common virulent strain) was detected in randomly collected leaf
samples following laboratory testing.
• These data suggest that the threshold for BYDV disease expression was likely not reached in
the trial between GS 21 and GS 31, regardless of seed treatment, possibly because beneficial
insect populations were managing pest populations.
• More trials are needed to understand seasonal variation in aphid pressure and any potential
risks should access to neonicotinoid seed treatments be removed.
Aphid pressure in field trials shows no impact on wheat post GS 31
Field trials in mid Canterbury in the 2018-19 and 2019-20 seasons found that wheat crops did not
suffer the yield losses observed post GS 31 in wheat plants tested under high aphid pressure in
shade houses. The lack of any yield loss in the trials was thought to be a result of lower aphid and
BYDV pressure in the field than in the shade houses.
Although no trapping data was collected to confirm low aphid and BYDV pressure in the field, crops
grown from insecticide treated seed and without further insecticide applications produced yields
similar to those treated with foliar insecticides up to GS 31 or GS 39. This provided further evidence
that aphid pressure in the field was relatively low in comparison to that experienced in the shade
houses.
Can we manage aphid pressure without neonicotinoids?
The main seed treatment insecticides used for protection against BYDV vectoring aphids belong to
the neonicotinoid group (Group 4A insecticide) and include the active ingredients clothianidin and
imidacloprid. Neonicotinoids have been banned in Europe and are under review in New Zealand, so
cannot be relied upon as part of long-term BYDV management strategies.
The field trials in mid Canterbury in the 2018-19 and 2019-20 seasons did not compare BYDV in crops
grown from seed treated with an insecticide with those produced from untreated seed. To address
the question of managing wheat crops without the use of seed treated with a neonicotinoid, in the
2020-21 season a replicated weigh-bin trial was established at Pleasant Point with insecticide-
treated (Poncho® a.i. clothianidin, Group 4A insecticide) and untreated seed. No foliar insecticides
were applied to the trial or surrounding crop.
Monitoring of insect populations found fewer aphids than at either of the 2018-19 and 2019-20 trial
sites, however, beneficial insect numbers were similar (Figure 2). Aphid and beneficial insect

12
numbers dropped in late June but spiked again in July, meaning the crop, which had reached
tillering, was potentially exposed to aphids vectoring BYDV between late-June and late-July. Aphid
numbers remained low from late-July until late-October, by which time the crop was past GS 31. A
low, but steady beneficial insect population was observed through winter, with population increases
in early October and again in late October, which were in line with aphid population increases.

2500 Risk period ? 25

Aphid and beneficial insect numbers

2000 20
Degree weeks above 5.8°C

Sowing GS21 GS31 GS39

1500 15

1000 10

500 5

0 0

Degree weeks Aphids 2020 Beneficials 2020

Figure 2. Degree weeks above 5.8°C and aphid and beneficial insect populations between sowing
and two weeks post GS 39 for autumn sown milling wheat cv. Duchess sown as bare or insecticide
treated seed, under dryland conditions at Pleasant Point, 2020-21.
Visual assessment of BYDV symptoms post flowering (yellow/red discolouration, plant stunting)
identified low disease levels across the crop (Table 3), which was confirmed by ELISA diagnostic
testing of BYDV-PAV (common virulent strain). Nevertheless, there were no significant yield,
thousand seed weight or bulk density differences between bare and insecticide seed treatments
(Table 3). This suggests that any risk of BYDV infection between GS 21 – 31 was reduced in the trial
by respective aphid and beneficial insect populations, even though a higher ratio between aphid and
beneficial insects in late-July (18:8), may have triggered an insecticide application.
These data underline the need for continued monitoring of local weather conditions and insect
ratios, as aphid pressure and BYDV development is seasonal. Future work will continue to investigate
whether insect and degree week modelling can allow growers to mitigate risk based on conditions at
the paddock level. It will also include bare seed as a treatment, and there is scope to include
biopesticides as an alternative to neonicotinoid seed treatments.

13
Table 3. BYDV severity, BYDV-PAV incidence, yield and quality for autumn sown milling wheat cv.
Duchess sown as bare seed or treated seed under dryland conditions at Pleasant Point in 2020-21.
BYDV BYDV-PAV Screenings Test
Yield TSW
Treatment severity* Incidence** >2 mm Weight
(t/ha) (g)
(%) (%) (%) (kg/hL)
Bare seed 0.9 0 8.9 38.6 1.8 63.2
Poncho® 0.8 0 8.5 38.3 1.5 61.7
Mean 0.85 0 8.7 38.5 1.7 62.5
P value 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3
LSD (p=0.05) 0.5 1.2 0.6 4.3
CV (%) 2.5
Note. Poncho® (a.i. clothianidin 600 g/L, Group 4A insecticide) * Visual assessment of 1m2 quatrats,
** incidence determined by ELISA (Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay) by Plant Diagnostics Ltd.
TSW: thousand seed weight.

14
Ramularia leaf spot management in barley
Jo Drummond (FAR)
Key points
• Right fungicide mixture + right timing = maximise yield + economic return + reduced disease
severity + product stewardship
• The highest yields and profits (Margin-over-Cost) for autumn sown barley, cultivar Surge,
under moderate disease pressure conditions were achieved when fungicides were applied at
GS 31 and GS 39 or at GS 31 and GS 49; however, Ramularia leaf spot (RLS) severity was
lowest when fungicides were applied at GS 31 and GS 39.
• There was no financial benefit to applying a GS 59 fungicide, despite the shorter application
window between GS 31 and GS 39 applications.
• Current results indicate some reduced efficacy of solo Group 3 (demethylase inhibitor –
DMI) and Group 7 (succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor – SDHI) fungicides in the field.
• Using a mixture of Proline® (a.i. prothioconazole, Group 3 fungicide) and Phoenix® (a.i.
folpet, Group M4 fungicide) at both application timings was profitable and provided a strong
fungicide resistance management strategy.
• The addition of Acanto® (a.i. picoxystrobin, Group 11 fungicide) or Seguris Flexi® (a.i.
isopyrazam, Group 7 fungicide) provided an effective mixing partner for managing leaf rust.
• Promising disease control, yield and economic returns were achieved by the new product
Revystar® (a.i. mefentrifluconazole + fluxapyroxad, Group 3 + Group 7 fungicide), however
this product should be carefully stewarded to ensure its continued use.
• Seasonal variation should dictate fungicide programme choice and fungicide timing.
In addition to isolate testing, which indicated that 100% of SdhC isolates are insensitive to SDHI
(Group 7 fungicides), Plant and Food Research surveyed farm-saved seed which had been collected
from across New Zealand and included many different cultivars and sowing dates (Figure 2). Samples
were tested for Ramularia DNA and compared to historical samples dating back to 1961. Testing of
27 samples identified that all were positive for Ramularia, albeit sometimes in very small quantities.
Despite small quantities, any detection above 5 pg/100 mg seed constitutes a risk (Soonie Chng, pers
comm). None of the historical samples tested positive for Ramularia.
DNA presence

Figure 2. Dot histograms for each cultivar of estimated Ramularia DNA quantity (pg Rcc / 100 mg
seed). Plant and Food Research 2020.

15
In recent seasons, fungicide trials have been set up in autumn barley crops at Geraldine, South
Canterbury. High disease pressure conditions for Ramularia include leaf surface wetness at GS 30/31
and the weeks following head emergence. In 2020-21, rainfall was low during stem extension, but
high following head emergence, so under these moderate disease pressure conditions, RLS
developed to reach high levels on the top three leaves in the crop by the end of grain fill; resulting in
a yield losses of up to 23%. The average yield loss of 18% was similar to 2018-19 and 2019-20 trials.
Disease severity and its impact on yield appears to be closely linked to the timing of symptom
development, where the earlier symptoms appear, the greater the yield loss. This will vary
seasonally so fungicide choice should be dictated by disease pressure and crop stress. In recent
years, RLS developed during or post grain fill, so its impact on yield was minimal. There also appears
to be a point of no return, after which RLS develops to a maximum level, regardless of fungicide
programme.
The average yield in the 2020-21 autumn sown barley trial was 11.5 t/ha and the untreated control
produced a yield of 9.6 t/ha (Table 4). While Proline® (a.i. prothioconazole, Group 3 fungicide) and
Seguris Flexi® (a.i. isopyrazam, Group 7 fungicide) applied alone reduced RLS compared to the
untreated control, better disease control was achieved when these products were applied in
mixtures with other fungicide groups. This further confirms that solo Group 7 (succinate
dehydrogenase inhibitor - SDHI) and Group 3 (demethylase inhibitor - DMI) fungicides are struggling
to control RLS in the field. Yields and economic returns, measured as margin-over-fungicide cost
(MoC) for these treatments, applied solo, were lower than when applied as part of a mix with other
fungicide groups.
Disease assessment data showed the multi-site fungicide Phoenix® (a.i. folpet, Group M4 fungicide)
gave good control of Ramularia when used in a mix with Proline® (a.i. prothioconazole, Group 3
fungicide) and additional rust protection such as Seguris Flexi® (a.i. isopyrazam, Group 7 fungicide)
or Acanto® (a.i. picoxystrobin, Group 11 fungicide). These data also show how timing of application
is important, with reduced disease severity and increased yield when the applications were made at
GS 31 and GS 39 compared with GS 31 and GS 49. However, MoC for these treatments were the
same. There was also no financial benefit to applying a GS 59 fungicide, despite the shorter window
between GS 31 and GS 39 applications. Promising disease control, yield and economic returns were
achieved by the new product Revystar® (a.i. mefentrifluconazole + fluxapyroxad, Group 3 + Group 7
fungicide), however this product should be carefully stewarded to ensure its continued use.

16
 Table 4. Ramularia leaf spot (RLS), grain yield at 14% moisture and economic margins following fungicide treatments on autumn sown barley at Geraldine, cv. Cassia in
2019-20 and cv. Surge in 2020-21.

Fungicide treatment (L/ha) and growth stage (GS) 2019-20 2020-21

% LAA Yield MoC2 % LAA Yield MoC2

GS31 GS39 GS49 GS59
by RLS1 (t/ha) ($/ha) by RLS1 (t/ha) ($/ha)
Nil Nil 45 8.5 0 85 9.6 0
Proline® 0.4 Proline® 0.4 27 9.2 84 87 10.4 183
Seguris Flexi® 0.6* Seguris Flexi® 0.6* 26 9.7 219 85 11.2 480
Proline® 0.4 + Seguris Flexi® 0.6 Proline® 0.4 + Seguris Flexi® 0.6 14 9.8 184 68 11.6 553
Proline® 0.4 + Phoenix® 1.5 Proline® 0.4 + Phoenix® 1.5 6 9.9 255 44 11.7 656
Proline® 0.4 + Seguris Flexi® 0.6 Proline® 0.4 + Seguris Flexi® 0.6
9 9.5 15 44 11.9 619
+ Phoenix® 1.5 + Phoenix® 1.5
Proline® 0.4 + Acanto® 0.25 + Proline® 0.4 + Seguris Flexi® 0.6
6 10.3 319 63 11.8 610
Phoenix ®1.5 + Phoenix® 1.5
Proline® 0.4 + Acanto® 0.25 + Proline® 0.4 + Seguris Flexi®
6 9.5 64 14 12.2 759
Phoenix® 1.5 0.6 + Phoenix® 1.5
Proline® 0.4 + Acanto® 0.25 + Proline® 0.4 + Seguris Flexi® Proline® 0.2 + Seguris
5 10.2 228 10 12.1 668
Phoenix® 1.5 0.6 + Phoenix® 1.5 Flexi® 0.3
Revystar® 1.5 Revystar® 1.5 - - - 15 12.5 807
Mean 16.9 9.6 171 52 11.5 667
P value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
LSD (p=0.05) 8 0.6 171 13 0.6 215
CV (%) 3.6 3.3
Note: Yellow indicated the treatments that were amongst those that produced the greatest seed yield or MoC. * Experimental treatment only. Acanto® (a.i. 250 g/L picoxystrobin, Group 11
fungicide); Phoenix® (a.i. 500 g/L folpet, Group M4 fungicide); Proline® (a.i. 250 g/L prothioconazole, Group 3 fungicide); Revystar® (a.i. 100 g/L mefentrifluconazole + 50 g/L fluxapyroxad,
Group 3 + Group 7 fungicide); Seguris Flexi® (a.i. 125 g/L isopyrazam, Group 7 fungicide). 1LAA (%), percent leaf area affected by RLS. 2MoC, margin over fungicide cost. Grain calculated at
$390/t source: NZ Grain and Feed Index.

17
Cereal nitrogen use efficiency
Dirk Wallace (FAR)
Key points
• Nitrogen is a key input in cereals; efficient management has multiple economic and
environmental benefits.
• Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) can have multiple definitions.
• Simple NUE indicators show good correlations with more complicated NUE measures in
wheat systems.
Background
Nitrogen (N) is required in a cereal system to maximise yield potential, but this reward needs to be
balanced against the economic risk of overspending on fertiliser (reducing profit) and the
environmental risk of N losses to the atmosphere and water.
This balancing act provides an incentive to maximise nitrogen use efficiency. Nitrogen use efficiency
(NUE) is an indicator of how well your system is using nitrogen. Any discussion about NUE needs a
consistent and quantifiable definition of the term, as researchers have thought up multiple ways of
defining it. Table 1 lists the definitions that are the most applicable to arable systems.
The objective of this work
FAR’s NUE work aims to develop and promote a nitrogen use efficiency indicator for cereals that
meets the following criteria:
1. Simple
2. Uses readily available information
3. Can inform future N management decisions
To achieve this, we are researching how simple Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) indicators such as
Partial Factor Productivity (PFP) and Partial Nitrogen Balance (PNB) compare with indicators that are
more difficult to get all the data for on-farm. By correlating these simple indicators with more
complicated measures we can provide guidance on the next steps to improve NUE.

18
 Table 1. Nitrogen use efficiency terms, definitions and references.

Term Acronym Calculation Reference

Nitrogen use efficiency NUE Semenov et al. 2007

𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 =
𝑁𝑁𝑎𝑎

Where grain yield (kg grain/ha) and Na is nitrogen supply from soil, fertiliser and residue (kg N/ha). Units are kg grain/ kg N.

Agronomic Nitrogen Use Singh et al. 1998 Chakwizira et al.

aNUE
Efficiency 2015 Ullah et al. 2019
𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑁𝑁𝑥𝑥 − 𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑁𝑁0
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 =

Where YieldNx is the yield from fertiliser applied treatments (kg grain/ha), YieldN0 is the yield from the no nitrogen control treatments (kg grain/ha) and
𝑁𝑁𝑥𝑥

Nx is the amount of fertiliser applied (kg/ha). Units are kg grain/kg fertiliser N.

Evans et al. 2016 -
Partial Nitrogen Balance PNB
GRDC
𝑁𝑁𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 =
𝑁𝑁𝑥𝑥

Where NYield is the nitrogen in the grain removed (kg N/ha) and Nx is the amount of fertiliser applied (kg N/ha). Indicator is unitless.

Partial Factor Productivity PFP Ullah et al. 2019

𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 =
𝑁𝑁𝑥𝑥

Where grain yield (kg grain/ha) and Nx is the amount of fertiliser applied (kg N/ha). Units are kg grain/kg fertiliser N

Nitrogen surplus N Surplus Overseer®FM

𝑁𝑁 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 =

Where N inputs = fertiliser, clover fixation, irrigation, atmospheric deposition (via rainfall), imported feed. N outputs = grain, milk, wool, meat,
𝑁𝑁 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜

supplements, effluent. Units are N/ha.

Nitrogen Conversion Wheeler et al. 2011
NCE
Efficiency Overseer®FM
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑁𝑁
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 =

Where Product N is the amount of N in product (kg N/ha), Nx is the amount of fertiliser applied (kg N/ha) NFix is the amount of N fixation from legumes
𝑁𝑁𝑥𝑥 + 𝑁𝑁 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 + 𝑁𝑁𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆

(kg N/ha) and NSup is the amount of N imported in supplements (kg N/ha). Indicator is unitless and is expressed as a percentage.

19
Outcomes
Initial work with historical data (Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4) has demonstrated that there is a good
relationship between agronomic NUE and simple NUE indicators (PFP and PNB). The rule of thumb is
that a higher PFP or PNB value indicates better agronomic NUE. A low PFP or PNB value means that
there is excess N in the system. Where excess N is identified, a deep soil mineral N test is
recommended; this will allow you to revise your N fertiliser input for the following crop.
Southland and South Otago data

140 1.2
PFP
120 1
PNB
PFP (kg grain/kg fert N)

100
0.8
80

PNB
0.6
60
0.4
40

20 0.2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
aNUE (kg additional grain/kg N)

Figure 1. Correlation between simple indicators (PFP and PNB) and agronomic NUE (aNUE) from N
response trials in autumn sown wheat held in Waiwera South in 2015.

South Canterbury North Otago data

120 2.0
PFP 1.8
100 PNB 1.6
PFP (kg grain/kg fert N)

1.4
80
1.2
PNB

60 1.0
0.8
40
0.6
0.4
20
0.2
0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
aNUE (kg additional grain/kg N fertiliser)

Figure 2. Correlation between simple indicators (PFP and PNB) and agronomic NUE (aNUE) from N
response trials in autumn sown wheat held in Temuka in 2004 and St Andrews in 2007.

20
Mid Canterbury data

70 1.2
PFP
60 1
PNB

PFP (kg grain/kg fert N)

50
0.8
40

PNB
0.6
30
0.4
20

10 0.2

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
aNUE (kg additional grain/kg N fertiliser)

Figure 3. Correlation between simple indicators (PFP and PNB) and agronomic NUE (aNUE) from N
response trials in autumn sown wheat held at Chertsey in 2017.

Central Canterbury data

180 3
160 PNB
2.5
140 PFP
PFP (kg grain/kg fert N)

120 2
100
PNB

1.5
80
60 1
40
0.5
20
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
aNUE (kg additional grain/kg N fertiliser)

Figure 4. Correlation between simple indicators (PFP and PNB) and agronomic NUE (aNUE) from N
response trials in autumn sown wheat held at Leeston in 2013.
Next steps:
• Define the limitations of particular indicators and/or where they are most appropriate.
• Test the usefulness of these NUE indicators with growers.
• Develop a traffic light system of appropriate responses when a specific indicator value is
generated.
• Determine how these simple indicators relate to Overseer® Nitrogen Conversion Efficiency
and N surplus values.

21
Herbicide resistance survey and ryegrass management in cereals
Phil Rolston, Matilda Gunnarsson and Ben Harvey (FAR)
Key points
• Herbicide resistance to several commonly used Group A and B herbicides was identified on
17 of 26 farms in South Canterbury with ryegrass weeds in cereal crops.
• Herbicide sequences, incorporating multiple modes of action, resulted in the greatest
reduction in ryegrass populations in an autumn sown barley crop grown at a site
contaminated with Italian ryegrass.
• A spring wheat trial also demonstrated that a sequence of pre-emergence herbicides
followed by a post emergence herbicide application is needed to control ryegrass.
• Future work will examine the financial implications of using these strategies.
Background
FAR has completed three herbicide resistance surveys as part of the AgResearch-led MBIE funded
Herbicide Resistance Programme. The surveys sampled approximately 20% of arable growers in
Selwyn District (2019), South Canterbury (2020) and Southland (2021).
In South Canterbury, two fields from each of 37 randomly selected growers were surveyed. This
represented 23% of arable growers in the district. Samples were taken pre-harvest in the 2019-20
season. The fields selected were mostly crops of either wheat or barley. The weed species collected
were perennial and annual ryegrass, wild oats, Vulpia hairgrass and bromes.
Two field trials, one in winter barley and the other in spring wheat, compared single herbicide
applications with a sequence of pre-emergence and post emergence herbicides, incorporating
multiple modes of action, on the control of ryegrass and grain yield.
Results
South Canterbury survey shows widespread herbicide resistance in ryegrass
Of those tested, 59% of farms had Group A herbicide resistance (mostly to haloxyfop-P and
pinoxaden) and 53% of farms had Group B resistance (iodosulfuron or pyroxsulam).
Table 1. Ryegrass with herbicide resistance (HR), partial resistance (1-20% of plants died) or nil
resistance, from fields surveyed in South Canterbury in January, 2020.
Number of Number of Partial HR
Herbicide Herbicide active Nil
fields fields with (1 - <20%
group ingredient resistance
tested HR plants surviving)
A Clethodim 14 2 1 11
A Haloxyfop 29 12 3 14
A Pinoxaden 28 14 3 11
B Iodosulfuron 28 12 5 11
B Pyroxsulam 11 9 2 0

22
Barley weed management trial
Increasing barley plant density at sowing from 150 to 225 plants/m2 increased competition, reducing
ryegrass seed head numbers by 23% and increasing barley yield. In a high-density ryegrass weed
situation, single herbicide options or mixes at one timing were not sufficient to control ryegrass
(Table 2).
Spring wheat weed management trial
Single timing applications were not able to achieve ryegrass control in spring wheat. Near complete
ryegrass control was achieved with a sequence of pre-emergence herbicides followed by a post
emergence herbicide (Table 3). The grain yields for all treatments averaged 8.4 t/ha. There was no
significant difference between treatments (data not shown).
Discussion
Ryegrass and brome grasses tend to emerge over a long period of time. Single timing herbicide
applications did not fully control ryegrasses that had emerged either early, or late, relative to the
treatment time. Herbicide sequences incorporating multiple modes of action provided good control.
It should be noted that the Firebird® label is for annual Poa and Vulpia hairgrass control and does
not make a claim for ryegrass control.
Most pre-emergence herbicides require soil moisture or about 10 mm of rainfall to be activated. In
dry autumn conditions this may not be achieved. However, most of these herbicides are stable and
will be activated once it rains. Delaying sowing or herbicides until rain is forecast is a risky strategy.
Preliminary industry trials in a low rainfall autumn in South Canterbury in 2020 demonstrated
excellent ryegrass control when Avadex® was pre-plant incorporated and followed by Sakura® pre-
emergence. When ryegrass pressure at the site was high, a follow-up post emergence herbicide
improved overall control.
Planned trials for 2021 will include Avadex®-Sakura® sequences and new ryegrass control herbicides
being released in Australian cereal systems. The financial implications of using these strategies will
also be examined.

23
 Table 2. Annual Ryegrass (cv. Winterstar) populations and winter barley (cv. Laureate) yield in a crop sown at two densities and treated with different herbicides in a trial
contaminated with 50 kg/ha annual ryegrass at Chertsey, 2020-21.
Pre-plant herbicide Barley Density Pre-emergence herbicide Early post-emergence herbicide Late post-emergence herbicide Ryegrass Barley
Treatment
(7 May) (plants/m2) (8 May) (1 ryegrass leaf) (4 ryegrass leaf) (heads/m2) (t/ha)
1 150/m2 - 877 4.73
2 150/m2 - Firebird (300 mL/ha) 670 5.91
Stomp
3 150/m2 - Firebird (300 mL/ha) 602 5.38
(2.5 L/ha)
4 150/m2 - Stomp (2.5 L/ha) + Firebird (300 mL/ha) 413 6.95
2
5 150/m Firebird (300 mL/ha) 503 6.00
2
6 150/m Sakura (125 g/ha) 250 8.46
7 225/m2 - 474 6.26
2
8 225/m Firebird (300 mL/ha) 445 7.25
2
9 225/m Sakura (125 g/ha) 179 9.10
Firebird (300 mL/ha) +
10 225/m2 482 7.32
Gardoprim (750 mL/ha)
Firebird (300 mL/ha) +
11 150/m2 431 6.42
Gardoprim (750 mL/ha)
Firebird (300 mL/ha) + diuron
12 150/m2 568 6.69
(1.3 L/ha)
Sakura (125 g/ha) +
13 150/m2 282 8.97
Gardoprim (750 mL/ha)
Sakura (125 g/ha) + diuron
14 150/m2 295 9.38
(1.3 kg/ha)
15 150/m2 Firebird (300 mL/ha) + Gardoprim (750 mL/ha) Othello (1 L/ha) 41 10.52
Firebird (300 mL/ha) + IPU (2
16 150/m2 402 6.76
L/ha)
17 150/m2 Firebird (300 mL/ha) IPU (2 L/ha) 383 8.25
LSD (p=0.05) 194 1.07
P value <0.001 <0.001
Note: Yellow indicated the treatments that were amongst those that produced the greatest barley yield and the lowest number of annual ryegrass seed heads.
Firebird® (flufenacet -Mode of Action Group K3 + diflufenican Group G1); Gardoprim® terbuthlazine - Group C1; diuron (Group C2); IPU (isoproturon Group C); Othello® OD

24
(diflufenican + idosulfuron + mesosulfuron – Groups B+F); Rexade™ GoDri™ (halauxfen+pyroxsulam- Groups B+O); Sakura® pyroxasulfone – Group K3; Stomp® Xtra
(pendimethalin Group K1).
 Table 3. Annual Ryegrass (cv. Winterstar) populations in spring wheat (cv. Discovery) with different herbicides in a trial contaminated with 30 kg/ha annual ryegrass sown at
Kowhai Farm, Lincoln 2020/21.
Pre-plant herbicide Pre-emergence herbicide Early post-emergence Late post-emergence Ryegrass (plants/m2) Ryegrass (heads/m2)
Treatment
(17 Sept) (24 Sept) herbicide (1 ryegrass leaf) (4 ryegrass leaf) (4 Nov) (4 Feb)
1 - 280 110
2 Stomp (2.5L/ha) - 116 33
3 Sakura (125 g/ha) 152 41
4 Firebird (500 mL/ha) 204 91
Stomp (2.5 L/ha) + Sakura
5 168 42
(125 g/ha)
6 Sakura (125 g/ha) Rexade (100 g/ha + 0.25% N_I surfactant) 92 1
7 - Rexade (100 g/ha + 0.25% N_I surfactant) 64 6
8 Sakura (125 g/ha) Othello (1 L/ha) 136 2
Sakura (125 g/ha) +
9 84 29
Gardoprim (750 mL)
Sakura (125 g/ha) + diuron
10 96 27
(1.3 kg/ha)
Sakura 125 g/ha + diuron 1.3
11 Othello (1 L/ha) 100 2
kg/ha
12 Sakura (125 g/ha) IPU (2L/ha) 196 14
Sakura (125
13 g/ha)+Gardoprim (750 Othello (1 L/ha) 76 1
mL/ha)
14 BAS 684 (650 mL/ha) Othello (1 L/ha) 108 1
15 BAS 684 (650 mL/ha) 104 84
LSD (p=0.05) 96 24
P value 0.003 <0.001
Note: Yellow indicated the treatments that were amongst those that produced the lowest number of annual ryegrass seed heads.
Firebird® (flufenacet -Mode of Action Group K3 + diflufenican Group G1); Gardoprim® terbuthlazine - Group C1; diuron (Group C2); IPU (isoproturon Group C); Othello® OD
(diflufenican + idosulfuron + mesosulfuron – Groups B+F); Rexade™ GoDri™ (halauxfen+pyroxsulam- Groups B+O); Sakura® pyroxasulfone – Group K3; Stomp® Xtra

25
(pendimethalin Group K1).
Grass grub
Sarah Mansfield (AgResearch) and Richard Chynoweth (FAR)
Key points
• Organophosphate insecticides for grass grub control are disappearing from the New Zealand
market due to changes in national and international regulations and consumer pressure.
• Biological control utilising naturally occurring pathogens and/or predators of grass grub will
become more important as chemical control options are removed.
• Cultural control utilising strategic use of cultivation, cover crops and sacrificial crops are
options for growers to consider.
Introduction
Approximately seven years ago the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) set 3, 10 and 15 year
phase out periods for three important active ingredients used for chemical control of grass grub
(Costelytra giveni) in New Zealand. This meant that phorate was removed from the market in 2016-
17, while terbofus (Counter) and diazinon will be unavailable from 2023-24 and 2028-29,
respectively. While chlorpyrifos was retained, with additional controls imposed, its withdrawal from
use in the European Union will likely have flow on effects in New Zealand.
Growers now have a window of time to plan and test alternative strategies for long-term control of
grass grub. Currently the use of alternative insecticides (e.g. seed treatment Poncho® (a.i. 600 g/L
clothianidin)) and granular products (e.g. suSCon® Green (a.i. 100 g/kg Chlorpyrifos)) is common
practice.
New Zealand grass grub
New Zealand grass grub begin their lifecycle as eggs laid during November and December (Figure 1).
The larvae hatch about three weeks later and have three stages of larval growth, called instars.
Larvae develop into second instars from mid-January to late February, when they may move into the
top 6 cm of soil to feed on living roots. First and second instar larvae may feed solely on soil organic
matter. Third instars develop from February through until June and may be found as shallow as the
top 2-3 cm of the soil where they feed on living roots until developing enough fat to pupate. They
pupate during September/October at approximately 10 - 25 cm below the soil surface and emerge
as adults 4-6 weeks later. This one-year life cycle is typically found in arable crops and pastures, but
a two-year life cycle (Figure 1) is found in native habitats.
Natural controls
Pathogens are disease-causing organisms that can cause death or increase susceptibility to other
pathogens. Disease in grass grub populations may cause the population to collapse, particularly
when populations are high and food resources are low. In the North Island, protozoa (especially in
Taranaki) and milky disease bacteria (Bacillus popilliae) are mainly responsible for the collapse of
grass grub populations. In the South Island, Serratia entomophila (amber disease) is the dominant
pathogen. Species of fungi (Metarhizium sp. and Beauveria sp.) have been implicated in population
collapse in the Waikato region.
Recently, Serratia proteamaculans (AGR96X), a bacterium active against grass grub has been
identified from diseased C. giveni larvae. In laboratory bioassays, it killed 90-100% of grass grub
larvae within 5-12 days of ingestion. The rapid kill of larvae by AGR96X is more similar in speed to an
insecticide (Hurst et al. 2018).

26
2020-21 field trials
In May 2020, two field trials were established to investigate the potential of AGR96X to protect
seedlings of barley, cultivar Planet (trial 1), and wheat, cultivar Discovery (trial 2), from attack by
larvae of the New Zealand grass grub. Previously the site had grown two years of ryegrass pasture
and during the summer prior to establishment, it was dryland with sparse cover maintained to
approximately 20 cm in height. Pre-planting assessments showed a larvae density of ~350/m2 with
variation in larval size. The trial area was irrigated, with 40 mm applied the day prior to direct drilling
with a double disc small plot drill into 8 x 1.35 m plots. Treatments (Table 1) were replicated five
times in a randomised complete block design.
Preliminary results
In trial 1, the plant population of barley was quickly reduced due to slug damage and grass grub
feeding. Poncho® based treatments provided final populations of ~86 plants/m2 while the untreated
was reduced to 28 plants/m2 (Table 1). Poncho® f.b. Grub Zero responded in a similar way to
Poncho® alone where larval feeding may have ceased at application.
In trial 2, plant losses from both slugs and grass grub were generally less severe than in trial 1.

27
Table 1. Final plant population of wheat, cultivar Discovery, and barley, cultivar Planet, when sown
with a target plant population of 150 plants/m2 into a population of ~350 New Zealand grass grub
larvae/m2, following seven control options. Trial sown 13th May 2020 at the FAR Arable Research
Site, Chertsey.

Final plant population/m2

Treatment Product and rate
Barley Wheat
1 Nil 28 a 82
2 SuSCon® Green (15 kg/ha) 75 ab 114
3 Poncho® 85 c 114
4 AGR96X (30 kg/ha) 61 bc 106
5 Serratia entomophila (30 kg/ha) 53 bc 95
6 AGR96X (15 kg/ha) + Serratia (15 kg/ha) 60 bc 101
7 Poncho® f.b. Grub Zero - 16.7.20* 87 c 124
LSD (p=0.05) 28.1 NS (29.8)
P value 0.003 0.125
Note: Yellow indicated the treatments that were amongst those that produced highest plant
populations. *Date of application.
In trial 1, Poncho®, SuSCon® Green and AGR96X treatments produced the highest grain yields at 8.0,
7.8 and 7.1 t/ha, respectively (Table 2). Poncho® f.b. Grub Zero responded in a similar way to
Poncho® alone. In trial 2, the pattern repeated with Poncho®, SuSCon® Green and AGR96X
producing the highest grain yields. Grain yield was closely related to final plant population in both
trials (R2>0.9, data not shown).

Table 2. Grain yield of wheat, cultivar Discovery, and barley, cultivar Planet, with a target plant
population of 150 plants/m2, following seven treatments for the control of the New Zealand grass
grub, population ~350/m2, sown 13th May 2020 at the FAR Arable Research Site, Chertsey.

Grain yield (t/ha)

Treatment Product and rate
Barley Wheat
1 Nil 3.1 d 6.2 d
2 SuSCon® Green (15 kg/ha) 7.8 ab 10.0 ab
3 Poncho® 8.0 a 10.2 a
4 AGR96X (30 kg/ha) 7.1 ab 9.0 abc
5 Serratia entomophila (30 kg/ha) 5.0 c 7.8 c
6 AGR96X + 15 kg/ha Serratia (15 kg/ha) 6.9 b 8.6 bc
7 Poncho® f.b. Grub Zero - 16.7.20* 8.2 a 10.0 a
LSD (p=0.05) 1.2 1.4
P value <0.001 <0.001
Note: Yellow indicated the treatments that were amongst those that produced the greatest yield.
*Date of application.

28
Oilseed rape monitor farm study and small plot trials 2020/21
Keith Gundry (Pure Oil NZ), Harry Washington and Phil Rolston (FAR)
Key points
• Oilseed rape (OSR) yields increased with increasing N rates (applied + soil mineral N) to 178
kg N/ha and then plateaued.
• OSR yields responded to applied K when soil test values were less than 6 (MAF QT units).
• No OSR yield response to P when Olsen P values were in the range of 10 to 25 ppm.
Background
In 2020, FAR and Pure Oil NZ setup a collaborative Monitor Farm Study (MFS) to look at all aspects of
oilseed rape crop production, with the aim of identifying key drivers of yield, establishing best
agronomic practice and identifying areas of further research. The Monitor Farm Study also helped to
build greater grower engagement and to spread the risk of failure. As part of setting up the study,
Pure Oil NZ organised and FAR funded the upgrade of a research weigh wagon to take harvest yield
results from the different monitor farms.
A small plot trial was also conducted near Pleasant Point which looked at fertiliser applications on
oilseed rape. This was Year 3 of trials looking into nitrogen (N) application, but also included
different potassium (K) application rates to investigate whether K rates impact on production.
Trial design
The small plot trial near Pleasant Point was sown on 12 March 2020, ex-barley. Evaluation of the N
and K at the site showed a soil mineral N of 25 kg N/ha and a soil available K of 7 (MAF Quicktest).
This was a dryland site on rolling downland, in a season with a drier than average late-spring. Late
winter N (11 August) was applied as Ammo-S (ammonium sulphate) and the subsequent applications
were applied as urea. N was applied at 7 rates from 0 to 250 kg N/ha to plots receiving 50 kg K/ha
and K was applied as muriate of potash (MOP: 50% K) at 5 rates, 0 to 400 kg MOP/ha (all to plots
receiving 170 kg N/ha). The trial was desiccated and direct-headed, not swathed, on 21 January
2021.
The OSR Monitor Farm Study was spread over sites in Waimate (3), St Andrews (3) and Pleasant
Point/Fairlie (3), with 18 individual plots. A large number of growth parameters were recorded for
each crop and tests included soil nutrition testing, crop nutrient testing, canopy assessments,
chemical and fertiliser applications. Specific areas of the crop with different rates of N and K, plus
bio-stimulant and effective microbe (EM) applications, were also identified for detailed analysis and
testing. Over 3,000 individual data points, records and observations were recorded throughout the
season. The weigh wagon was used to assess yields for large plots harvested by growers’ combines
and hand harvests were also undertaken from three 1 m2 plots in each area.
Results
A linear increase in yield was observed in response to total N up to 178 kg N (applied + mineral N),
with the response being a flat line at higher rates (Figure 1). In previous trials, the breakpoint was at
a total N rate of 174 kg N/ha (Hook, 2018-19) and 61 kg N/ha (Greendale, 2019-20). These results
were all lower than the current UK recommendation of 200 kg N/ha (2020-21 NIAB TAG Agronomy
Strategy 3).

29
 4.5
4.0
3.5
OSR Yield (T/ha)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Total N [applied+soil minN] (kg/ha)

Figure 1. Oilseed rape (OSR) yield response to increasing nitrogen (N) rates at Pleasant Point in 2020-
21.
In the small plot trial, there was no yield increase from adding K when the soil test = 7 (MAF QT
units), while higher rates of applied K suppressed yields by up to 0.23 t/ha (p = <0.05). In the on-farm
monitor trials, we recorded a K response when the soil K was less than 6 (MAF QT units) (Figure 2).
We expect that about a third of crop soils growing OSR may have this low and responsive quantity of
K while the remaining two thirds would not require additional K fertiliser.

5500

5000
Yield weigh wagon (kg/ha)

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
K (MAFQT units)

Figure 2. Oilseed rape (OSR) yields assessed by weigh wagon for large plots in nine fields in South
Canterbury.
Unfortunately, after all the hard work from the growers and research staff in setting up the crop and
recording all the data and observations, the weather deteriorated. In the first week of January,
several large hailstorms damaged crops in Waimate and St Andrews, affecting 8 out of 18 plots.
Another two sites near Pleasant Point were heavily affected by drought. There was no relationship
between hand harvested yields and weigh wagon yields. The data presented is from the 9 fields not
damaged by hail or drought and the yield as assessed by weigh wagon.

30
Some preliminary trends in crop responses were found. For example, OSR yields showed a response
trend to increasing sulphate sulphur (Figure 3).

6000

5000
OSR yield (kg/ha)

4000
y = 39.163x + 3509.4
3000 R² = 0.49

2000

1000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
S-SO4 (mg/kg soil)

Figure 3. Oilseed rape (OSR) yield response to sulphate sulphur (S-SO4) determined using a weigh
wagon at 9 sites in South Canterbury in 2020-21.
There was a yield response to increasing soil magnesium (Mg) (R2 = 0.35), while increasing soil
calcium above 10 MAF units depressed OSR yield (R2=0.93). There was no yield response to Olsen P
in the range of 10 to 25 ppm. There was no response to foliar boron (B) in the range 19 to 48 mg/kg.
The three lowest yielding crops (< 5.0 T/ha) were associated with a Green Area Index (GAI) of < 3.0
at the end of September.
Conclusion
Optimum spring N fertiliser applied as a split application at green bud and yellow bud was 178 kg
N/ha for 2020-21 in South Canterbury and similar to a previous trial at Hook in 2018-19.
Preliminary data from on-farm weigh wagon trials suggest that K responses occur if soil available K is
< 6 MAF QT units. No response to P was found when Olsen P values were in the range of 10 to 25
ppm. There is a suggestion that OSR yields may increase with increased sulphate sulphur and
magnesium (Mg).

31
 Foundation for Arable Research
PO Box 23133, Hornby
Christchurch 8441

Phone: 03 345 5783

Email: far@far.org.nz

Follow us
@FARarable

www.far.org.nz