2020 was a crazy time. You may recall the mass hysteria gripping the nation about a highly divisive topic. Friends became enemies, popular opinion defeated science, and those with differing views made themselves known and were, in many cases, promptly ostracised. Of course, I am referring to “Strip and Disc farming.” Thankfully, the hype has died down, and we can now take a more sensible approach to discussing this.
Background
Most farms in WA use a Draper & Tine seeding system. Crops are harvested close to the ground with a draper front and sown with a knife point and presswheel machine, used to form a furrow and plant the seeds. These machines do not handle crop stubble well, so cutting the straw short at harvest is necessary. Implementing Strip and Disc farming involves using disc planters, and once these systems are in place and functioning well, using a stripper front for harvesting. This leaves crop residue standing tall, which its proponents say helps to conserve moisture, especially that which falls out of season, leading to better yields. Other pillars of this system include using narrow row spacings to leverage crop competition as a weed control method and using diverse rotations to deliver better soil health and help roots grow better in a true no-till environment. On paper, this system also has advantages in logistics. Disc machines can move faster meaning more hectares planted per day. Stripper fronts transform harvesters into lean, mean grain reaping machines with about a 40% improvement in throughput. The downside is that these stripper fronts cannot be used to harvest broadleaf crops, disc machines seem to require constant attention, and it involves a total shift in mindset about the farming system; crop nutrition, disease management, and crop rotations all come under scrutiny. While the purported benefits are large, they are not without challenges – just ask anyone on your favourite social media platform.
The Strip and Disc farming system seems attractive. The dream is to farm more area with less machinery, achieve excellent efficiency, and be drought-proof on your farm. In reality, if you could achieve the same yields while being more efficient, it may be enough to dip your toe in the water.
To evaluate this system and riding on the back of the social media hype, in 2020 we set up a grower-funded trial supported by Planfarm at Three Springs to pit a Strip and Disc farming system against a traditional Draper and Tine system. This was accompanied by GRDC funding trials with CFIG and the Liebe Group to do the same. With a paucity of data comparing the systems, it would be invaluable to settle the debates.
Table 1. Comparisons of replicated trials in WA. Three Springs site was the private grower x Planfarm site, and Corrigin and Bunjil are funded by GRDC.
The Three Springs trial found no difference in yield between treatments in 3 out of 4 years, and in 1 year saw a 300 kg/ha yield response to adopting the system. Although it was a good trial in many respects, using true disc machines with narrow row spacings, it lacked any crop rotation to fit in with the farmers surrounding paddocks. This ignored a key pillar of the system and may have contributed to the lack of yield response. In 2024, GRDC-supported trials by the Corrigin Farm Improvement Group (CFIG, Ashley Jacobs’ property) and Liebe Group (Dylan Hirsch’s property) found 3-500kg yield advantages, with no discernable difference in other years.
It has been demonstrated to be advantageous in some seasons, but the sentiment from most farmers is that you need a lot more benefit than 300 kg/ha yield improvement in some years to justify the headache and heartache!
Table 2. Brief comparisons of various aspects of the farming systems.
Ignoring the yield differences, which are marginal and inconsistent in WA, there are a plethora of issues to deal with. Chemical weed control needs to be rethought as crop safety for many of our favourite products relies on the separation between chemical and seed, which is much easier to achieve with a tine machine. Especially with what we have seen in WA, you would not proceed without several small plots sprayed across many soil types with your individual disc seeding rig. There is too much variation between disc seeders to be confident of applying what has been learned from one to others! Further, the consequences of chemical damage stitching up your crop are huge and can quickly erode an occasional yield advantage.
Figure 2. Strip and Disc plot at Three Springs in July 2024.
Figure 3. Three Springs, July 2024. Draper and Tine’s plots had much less soil cover and noticeably more volunteer wheat plants.
2024 saw the long-term Planfarm x grower-funded trial at Three Springs be run as a chemical fallow. After a droughted crop in 2023 (not saved by the masses of stubble covering the soil after the successive cereal crops), there were noticeably fewer volunteer wheat plants in the strip and disc plots.
We first approached the system thinking that there would be a yield gain to be made by adopting this system. However, it seems that the real gain may be operational efficiency. Reducing tractor hours in the paddock is a tangible benefit, especially in a world of $1m 4WD tractors and $1.5m harvesters. The original dream of 24m disc machines crushing hectares at 12 km/h, and as a result covering massive areas in a day may not eventuate. Issues with maintenance, machines blocking up, and many other problems meant achieving big seeding areas and having crops established well was difficult. This dream still exists, but it requires effort to develop into reality. Stripper fronts on the other hand seem to live up to the hype. Though they aren’t perfect and there is really only 1 manufacturer, they can increase harvest capacity in a big way. In the good years when harvest capacity is limited, having machines clean and in the shed by Christmas will taste even sweeter.
Table 3. Comparisons of harvest costs associated with the systems.
The figures above are rubbery but perhaps useful. Acknowledging that it’s easy to spend $1m on a harvester setup, the depreciation of 0.1% of the value per hour of operation is also likely to be wrong. Either way, it could be a tangible benefit, especially in the big years.
Hybrid model
Perhaps the best way to incorporate this system is to be less fanatical about it. Consider that header fronts and seeding bars are simply tools, just buy different tools for different jobs. Fully adopting this system would require having 2 header fronts; many farmers already have Vario/Vari-cut fronts specifically for harvesting canola. Adopting a second bar for the express purpose of planting break crops is not so different! Knife points and press wheels tend to leave soil loose underneath the seed and firm above it which works well for establishing cereals. Conversely, Canola and lupins tend not to establish themselves well in these conditions, especially in a drying profile. Crusting can kill canola emergence; minimising it by having loose soil above the seed and a firm seed bed is a perfect job for a disc seeder. Dylan Hirsch has adopted this approach, and it seems to be a sensible middle ground. It allows flexibility for the critical job of seeding and means you are not wed to the system if a different tool fits better. Disc machines can be employed for planting break crops, where the traits of a tine machine are less advantageous, and stripper fronts can be used in the areas locked into break crops the following year.
One product that may have a niche is Res+, newly released by Elemental Enzymes. 2025 will be the first season with large areas of it applied. It contains an enzyme which helps to degrade plant residue. This will enhance the cycling of organic material and, in trials, has massive implications for trashflow. This surely deserves a look in for stripper stubble to see if it will have consequences for long-term soil cover and trashflow through seeding bars. In an extreme case it may even enable tine machines to sow through stripper stubble? Time will tell.
Figure 4. Demonstration of Res+, from Elemental Enzymes.
Conclusion
Like other polarizing topics, being impartial and taking a measured approach is advised. With the benefit of hindsight, there has been more consistent and less polarising trial work. The replicated trials haven’t yet managed to make a silk purse out of a sows ear when it comes to growing crops on <100mm of GSR (look to 2023 at Three Springs and Bunjil for evidence of this.) But if you can change your system to gain advantages in some areas without sacrificing too much, then it surely has merits. If this is as simple as minimising machine depreciation or reducing the urgency of summer sprays, then it might swing you one way or another. The paddock scale trials have shown that it isn’t a silver bullet to drought-proofing your farm (at least in WA), and grower experiences with disc machines show plenty of places to fail in implementing it on your farm. But if nothing else, these trials show that there may be an advantage to gain by adopting this system, even if it is mostly on paper.
Bibliography and further reading
Liebe Group. (2025). Local Research and Development Results: Results from the 2024 season.
