No abstract

No abstract

HWSC systems that target weed seed production during harvest have been in use in Australian crop production systems for over 30 years. Until recently, though, grower adoption of these systems has been relatively low. It is now apparent with the introduction of a range of new weed seed targeting systems that there is renewed grower interest in the use of this approach to weed control. With the aim of determining the current adoption and use of HWSC systems, 600 crop producers from throughout Australia’s cropping regions were interviewed on their adoption and use of these systems. This survey established that 43% of Australian growers are now routinely using HWSC to target weed seed production during grain harvest. The adoption of narrow-windrow burning (30%) was considerably greater than the other currently available techniques of chaff tramlining (7%), chaff carts (3%), bale-direct system (3%), and the Harrington Seed Destructor (HSD) (<1%). When growers were asked about their future use of these systems 82% indicated that they would be using some form of HWSC within five years. Grower preferences for future HWSC use were primarily for either narrow-windrow burning (42%) or the HSD (29%). This very high level of current and potential HWSC adoption signifies that HWSC is now considered an established weed control practice by Australian growers.

Background and Aims:  Previous work has identified the potential for enhancing the profitability of both grapegrowing and winemaking through the implementation of selective harvesting. However, there has been a perception that such strategies may not be feasible when winery infrastructure is geared to large production volumes, such as is commonly the case in Australia's warm irrigated regions. This work sought to examine the merits of this perception. Methods and Results:  The tools of Precision Viticulture were used to identify zones of similar vineyard performance in two Cabernet Sauvignon vineyards in the Murray Valley region of Victoria such that sufficient quantities of fruit were available for commercial scale vinification into different product lines. Wines from these zones were also made in small lots. Sensory analysis demonstrated that wines derived from like zones were indeed similar, whilst those from contrasting zones were discernibly different. A partial gross margin analysis strongly suggested that selective harvesting should be highly profitable. Conclusions:  If market opportunity warrants it, selective harvesting of fruit into different product streams is a feasible and profitable strategy even when production is geared to large volumes. Significance of the Study:  The work demonstrates that selective harvesting can be profitably applied in situations where production is geared to large fermentation volumes. It therefore provides a counter to the view that Precision Viticulture offers opportunities only to small (boutique) producers or to large, well‐resourced companies with a flexible winery infrastructure.