Controlled traffic for vegetable production: Part 2. Layout considerations in a complex topography

Controlled traffic farming (CTF) maintains the same machinery wheel tracks in cropping fields year after year, thereby isolating the impacts of traffic compaction from the soil used for crop growth. The benefits of CTF include reduced energy use, improved soil health and crop yield, better timeliness of field operations and improved economics. The simplest adoption of CTF occurs in flat landscapes, and mildly sloping landscapes are an advantage in relation to surface drainage. The adoption of CTF in the Australian grain and cane industries has, to a large extent, been in flat to mildly sloping topographies. The Tasmanian vegetable industry faces a very different scenario, with topographies ranging from very flat, which present potential drainage issues, to steeply undulating, which present machine tracking and erosion challenges. Two significant challenges to the adoption of CTF in a vegetable and mixed cropping based industry were investigated – (1) working and track width compatibility of current equipment, and (2) farm layouts suited to steeply undulating topography. Farm layout can dictate success or failure in the adoption of CTF, with the risk of concentrated runoff and consequent erosion in wheel tracks. Mapping of representative farms in north-west Tasmania showed effective CTF layouts are possible, despite undulating topography and infrastructure challenges. The direction of run for many fields is already close to that required for CTF. Issues related to machinery aspects of this topic are covered in a companion paper ( McPhee & Aird, 2013 ).

[1]  Ross Kingwell,et al.  The whole-farm benefits of controlled traffic farming: An Australian appraisal , 2011 .

[2]  Hongwen Li,et al.  Traffic and tillage effects on wheat production on the Loess Plateau of China: 1. Crop yield and SOM , 2008 .

[3]  Je McPhee,et al.  Controlled traffic for vegetable production: Part 1. Machinery challenges and options in a diversified vegetable industry , 2013 .

[4]  Dionysis Bochtis,et al.  Effect of controlled traffic on field efficiency , 2010 .

[5]  M. V. Braunack,et al.  Traffic control and tillage strategies for harvesting and planting of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) in Australia , 2006 .

[6]  Jeff N. Tullberg,et al.  Wheel traffic and tillage effects on runoff and crop yield , 2007 .

[7]  G. Stirling.  The impact of farming systems on soil biology and soilborne diseases: examples from the Australian sugar and vegetable industries — the case for better integration of sugarcane and vegetable production and implications for future research , 2008, Australasian Plant Pathology.

[8]  E. Audsley,et al.  A study of the comparative economics of conventional and zero traffic systems for arable crops , 1993 .

[9]  U. D. Perdok,et al.  Controlled traffic farming systems in the Netherlands , 1986 .

[10]  Jeff N. Tullberg,et al.  Wheel Traffic Effects on Tillage Draught , 2000 .

[11]  Je McPhee,et al.  Controlled traffic for irrigated double cropping in a semi-arid tropical environment: Part 2, Tillage operations and energy use , 1995 .

[12]  Ibrahim A. Hameed,et al.  Tramline establishment in controlled traffic farming based on operational machinery cost , 2010 .

[13]  Ole Green,et al.  Modelling of material handling operations using controlled traffic , 2009 .

[14]  D. Mcgarry,et al.  Controlled traffic farming - From research to adoption in Australia , 2007 .

[15]  Fu Chen,et al.  Soil Structure and Crop Performance After 10 Years of Controlled Traffic and Traditional Tillage Cropping in the Dryland Loess Plateau in China , 2009 .

[16]  D. Freebairn,et al.  Traffic and residue cover effects on infiltration , 2001 .

[17]  Je McPhee,et al.  Controlled Traffic for Irrigated Double Cropping in a Semi-Arid Tropical Environment: Part 3, Timeliness and Trafficability , 1995 .