Connect with SACOA




    LURE H2O Label

The Start You Need

Early Application

Capture Moisture

Improve Establishment

Improve Weed Control

Improve Yield

2nd Year Effect

Application Guide

LURE H2O - The Start You Need

The LURE H2O System* improves rainfall capture and retention on your farm, delivering better weed control and crop/pasture establishment and growth in water repellent soils.

The issue of rainfall runoff is significant wherever hard to wet soils exist, and this is particularly true in Western Australia, where the rainfall events are rare. It results in poor water absorption, leaving the soil dry and dusty under the surface after a rainfall event.
As shown in the picture on the left, the rain will sit on the surface and run off before infiltrating the subsoil. The soil profile will then struggle to wet up and the crop or pasture will have difficulties in germinating and establishing themselves in a soil suffering from inconsistent wetting.

The LURE H2O System* has been developed to maximise the water capture and retention by overcoming this water repellency.

With LURE H2O, the rain is captured where it lands, and infiltrates the soil before the run-off occurs.

LURE H2O treated site (10L/ha) clearly showing excellent penetration after 22mm of rain.

LURE H2O overcomes the water repellency to help wetting the soil profile. The treated area (on the right) harvested the rain and banked the moisture, while the untreated area didn't get the opportunity to wet up.

Doug Harrington from Narrogin with his outstanding 2010 Vlamingh barley crop.

“In a very dry year we still managed the double benefit of better weed control and a profitable yield” October 2010.

Back to top

LURE H2O - Early Application

LURE H2O is designed to be applied prior to opening rains to maximise rainfall capture and retention. This in turn improves knockdown weed control and crop/pasture emergence and establishment.

“LURE H2O has given us some fantastic results through the Boyup Brook area. I have seen responses to the product in almost every soil type – wetting or non-wetting – but our greatest response has been in the non-wetting gravel soils. It is little early to measure the return of LURE H2O but from what I have seen in most cases, farmers are going to get their money back well and truly.

I have seen the best results when the product has been applied during March and is left undisturbed by stock and cultivation till 25-30mm of rain has wet the soil.

From the results I have seen around the Great Southern, I will recommend LURE H2O to many of my clients in 2012.”

Chris Robinson, Farmanco 2011

Application timing trial - Brookton (WA), 2011

Early application ensures maximum rainfall capture that delivers benefits throughout the season. The following graph represents results from a farmer demonstration site in Brookton.

Late application missed the April rainfalls (only 12mm) and even with 20mm just after application, didn’t catch up with 1st application.

The early and consistent wetting encourages rapid weed germination and improves the performance of knockdown sprays.

Fig 1. Yield obtained for early and late application of LURE H2O in canola, Brookton (2011)

Back to top

LURE H2O - Capture and Retain Moisture

By capturing and retaining rainfall, LURE H2O provides a moisture bank that improves early establishment and reduces dry period plant stress.

A - Stubble Burning Interaction - Wandering (WA), 2012

Water Infiltration Test

 A simple Water Infiltration Test was used to quantify the effect of LURE H2O in different conditions and for different rates:
1. The plots were sprayed with different rates of LURE H2O
2. An open PVC cylinder was installed on the treated (or untreated) surface
3. 200mL of water was poured into the cylinder
4. Time was measured in seconds from the moment the water was poured in the cylinder to the moment the water penetrated the ground. As the soil is repellent, the water ran off and the timer was stopped only when the water that went the furthest from the cylinder penetrated the ground.


A replicated trial was organised in Wandering in 2012, where LURE H2O was applied at different rates, and to plots with different agricultural practices: burning, standing stubble, raked and flat stubble.

The results obtained for the infiltration test are showed below:

Fig 2. Infiltration Test with 200mL of water after spraying LURE H2O at various rates

For the untreated control, the longest infiltration time was observed for the raked stubble, where the top soil was disturbed before spraying. This disturbance may have been disadvantageous for the soil, increasing its water repellency by mixing the non wetting particules with the "good" soil, which is typically present in the top 5cm of forrest loams.

The standing stubble had the second longest infiltration time. The flat stubble has the third infiltration time, which could possibly be explained with the presence of organic matter on the ground reducing the run-off and increasing the chances of water infiltration.

The shortest infiltration time was for the burnt stubble. This brings the question the effect burning has on the wax coated particules typically found in non-wetting soils.

The application of LURE H2O greatly reduced the infiltration time with a trend to reduce the infiltration time when the rate of LURE H2O was increased. These results show that LURE H2O is not locked up in the stubble and is able to infiltrate the top soil.

Water Volumetric Content

The soil water volumetric content was then measured with a Theta Moisture probe at 70mm depth.

Fig 3. Water volumetric content at 70mm depth for different LURE H2O rates, Wandering (WA), June 2012

A correlation seems to exist between the rate of LURE H2O and the Water Volumetric Content, with a moisture increasing when the LURE H2O rate was increased. However, the 10 and 20L/ha rates gave similar results, confirming the relevance of the rate recommended by SACOA (10L/ha unless particular situations). Based on the Water Volumetric content, the agricultural practice doesn't seem to influence the water content at this stage, with similar values for the different practices.

B - Rate response in canola post pasture - Wandering (WA), 2012

This replicated trial was established 27th April 2012 on the North side of Wandering Pingelly Road near Pingelly (WA). The paddock has been pasture for several years and was cropped to canola in 2012.
Different rates were applied to the trial plots: Nil, 10L/ha and 20L/ha. Rainfall events for this area are presented below.

The first assessment was done 18th of May 2012, 21 days after application, and the preliminary results are presented below.

Soil Moisture Content

The soil moisture content was assessed with a Theta Probe for the different treatments. The results are expressed in % and showed in the graph on the right. Measurements were taken at 7cm (10 measurements) and 15cm depth (only one measurement).

A clear trend was observed at both depths, with the application of LURE H2O increasing the soil moisture content after important rainfall events.
The rate of LURE H2O seems to be proportional to the soil moisture content at 7cm depth but not at 15cm depth. However this last data is based on only one measurement, so no conclusion can be made here.

Water Infiltration Test

A simple Water Infiltration Test was used the same day to quantify the effect of LURE H2O on water penetration:
1. An open PVC cylinder was installed on the treated (or untreated) surface
2. 200mL of water was poured into the cylinder
3. Time was measured in seconds from the moment the water was poured in the cylinder to the moment the water penetrated the ground. As the soil is repellent, the water ran off and the timer was stopped only when the water that went the furthest from the cylinder penetrated the ground.
The results obtained are presented to the right.

This test clearly shows the effect of LURE H2O on the soil surface, reducing the time for the water to infiltrate the soil from 317 seconds for the untreated control, to 67 seconds for the 10L/ha and 38 seconds for the 20L/ha rate. LURE H2O seems to create a favorable interface between soil and water facilitating water penetration and reducing run-off.

“Replicated trials have shown that when correctly applied, LURE H2O changes the soil’s surface characteristics and allows water that would normally runoff or evaporate to be captured in the soils profile.

Soil moisture readings show that the treated profiles wet quicker and remains wetter for longer. In dry starts where every drop of rain counts, differences in pasture and crop establishment have been really impressive.”

Steve Pettenon, Synergy Consulting, WA 2011

“We trialed the use of LURE H2O across a range of soil types including sandy to sandy gravel to heavy gravel country, on our property last year. In all areas across our farm where we sprayed LURE H2O at 10L (app. date: 8/4/2011) we noticed that the grass germinated much earlier and tended to be denser than those areas not sprayed in most soil types.

Many of the treated areas continued to have noticeably denser pasture cover throughout the whole season. We are particularly impressed to note the large amount of pasture land reclaimed near our bush lines.

We are very impressed with the product and believed with the use of it we will be able to increase our sheep stocking rate. We will definitely be using the LURE H2O across our farm from now on.”

Rob & Dani Hewton, Moodiarrup, WA 2011

Capture the rain where it lands and bank the moisture. The LURE H2O treated strip in the center shows excellent rainfall penetration after 15mm of rainfall.

Brookton, 2011

The difference between soil treated with LURE H2O and untreated is visible under the surface (Untreated on the left vs. treated with LURE H2O on the right) .

Brookton, 2011

LURE H2O builds a moisture bank that improves germination and yield throughout the season.

C - Volumetric Water Content - Brookton (WA), 2011

Soil moisture (Volumetric Water Content) has been monitored in Brookton as part of an ongoing research program in 2011.

Moisture at 5cm Depth

The tracking data at 5cm depth shows a marked improvement in rainfall capture into the soil on the LURE H2O treated areas. This consistent moisture on the top 5cm of soil reduces staggered plant germination and aids weed control by increasing the effectiveness of knockdown and pre-emergent herbicide applications.

Moisture at 20cm Depth

20cm depth tracking data illustrates a real and sustained improvement in retained moisture banked in the subsoil area from the first rains of the season.
This allows farmers to continue seeding for longer with confidence even if follow up rains aren’t received soon after.

“After applying LURE H2O and receiving opening rains, I could see exactly where I had sprayed as the moisture was held on the surface.

Most importantly this moisture on the surface gave me an extra three days of seeding after rain with confidence of germination. After seeing LURE H2O trial results on my farm in 2010 and increased production where LURE H2O was used in 2011, I believe this is the best product I have seen for my land in 25 years.”

David Parsons, WA 2011

Back to top

LURE H2O - Improve Establishment

LURE H2O has the ability to improve crop and pasture establishment

Pastures are denser and have a higher clover content when treated with LURE H2O.

A - Vegetative Cover Assessment - Wandering (WA), 2012

The vegetative cover was assessed for a burnt stubble in May 2012.
The application of LURE H2O increased significantly the vegetative cover, and the lower rate of LURE H2O was sufficient to double the vegetative cover. A higher rate of LURE H2O can bring further benefits but is mainly recommended for specific situations such as erosion zones, mallet hills and areas close to the break-away country, where the water repellency is significantly worse than usual.

Fig 4. Vegetative cover for different LURE H2O rates applied on burnt stabble


B - Rate response in canola establishment - Wandering (WA) 2012

This replicated trial was established 27th April 2012 near Pingelly (WA). The paddock has been pasture for several years and was cropped to canola in 2012. Different rates were applied to the trial plots: Nil, 10L/ha and 20L/ha.

The vegetative cover was assessed the 18th May 2012 (3 weeks after application)  with a 1 to 5 scale, after 70mm of rain.

Fig 5. Canola Germination Cover (1-5) post pasture 21 DAT Wandering 18 May 2012

A big difference was observed between the untreated controls and the plots treated with LURE H2O.

“I noticed a really good early germination in my pasture where I had applied LURE H2O. You can
still see where I applied LURE H2O now after grazing, it has far better coverage. I am keen to use
more next year!”

Damien Batt, Boddington,WA 2011

C - Vegetative Cover Assessment, Brookton (WA), 2011

The vegetative cover was assessed in Brookton, 7 weeks after application of LURE H2O at different rates in pasture.

Fig 6. Vegetative Cover (%) observed 7 weeks after LURE H2O application in Pasture, Brookton (2011)

“For years I have complained about our non wetting gravels, I tried LURE H2O this year and the results are nothing short of amazing.

Our pastures are four times denser, the crops germinated when planted and are a foot taller than non sprayed, I even have oats geminating that I planted two years ago in my barley crop (bugger).

The application was easy and I will definitely be using it again next year.”

Craig Lubcke, Darkan, WA 2011

Fig 7. Kojonup Pony Club sprayed the track with LURE H2O in January 2012, Kojonup (May 2012)

Fig 8. Comparison Untreated (Left) vs. treated with LURE H2O (Right), Narrogin (8 May 2012)

Fig 9. Improved pasture establishment on LURE H2O treated strip, Darkan, WA (2011)

Fig 10. Strip applied with LURE H2O at 15L/ha outside of the paddock, Boyup Brook, WA (July 2011)

Fig 11.Paddock sprayed with LURE H2O with corner missed in 2011, Darkan, WA (2011)

Fig 12. LURE H2O treated strip on left (8/2011)
Application in 2010, Brookton, WA (2011)

Back to top

LURE H2O - Improve Weed Control

LURE H2O has the ability to improve weed control. Early en-masse germination of weeds created from consistent wetting of the top soil allows for better control via knockdown and pre-emergent sprays. This in turn reduces reliance on expensive and problematic post-emergent sprays, as well as reducing late season weed germination.

Weed germination - Coondee (WA) 2012

Assessments of plant numbers was undertaken 30 days after seeding (DAS) after late April rains in 2012. The results below show that Lure H2O treatment improved the germination of grasses, clover and broadleaf weeds like cape weed.

Fig 13. Weed assessment 30 days after seeding, Coondee (WA), 17 June 2012

NB: LURE H2O was applied in 2010 on this trial
Fig 14. Germination observed in the trial, 30 DAS, Coondee (WA), 17 June 2012

In our 2011 programme we used LURE H2O on our pasture paddocks and continued with our biennial application to crop paddocks.Although the pastures did not have fertilizer applied they germinated well and had a higher clover content than we had seen in many years. Crop paddocks showed good early weed germinations and even moisture uptake whether the LURE H2O was applied last year or in 2010. We intend to use LURE H2O again next year on the 2010 applied paddocks.

Doug Harrington, Narrogin,WA 2011

Back to top

LURE H2O - Improve Yield

Grower experience and research evidence highlights the real benefits being delivered by LURE H2O.

A - Yield Evaluation Esperance (WA) - 2011

Fig 15. Yield with LURE H2O at 20L/ha in lupin, Esperance (2011)
Source: Precision Agronomics

A yield response of 760kg/ha was reported in replicated lupin trials in Esperance, WA, which equates to an increase of $182/ha. Based on a lupin sale price of $240/t LURE H2O delivered a $82 return on investment on cost of product.

The west end trial site (results shown beside) is in an elevated area where natural drainage limited soil wetting ability due to runoff.

Fig 16. LURE H2O treated strip running across image, Kojonup, WA (2011)

B - Yield evaluation Brookton (WA), 2011

In a wet year like 2011, differences are still observed in yield, which is confirmed by the two trials presented below, done in canola.

Fig 17. Canola Yield obtained with LURE H2O Site 1, Brookton, WA (2011)
Fig 18. Canola Yield obtained with LURE H2O Site 2, Brookton, WA (2011)

“Our best result was on our barest gravelly sandy paddock which we sowed last on the 3rd of June. We applied 10L of LURE H2O on the 20th of April before a rain. It yielded 3.8t/ha when I would have expected 3 tonnes at best. It looked fantastic all year.”

Justin Elliot, Kojonup, WA

C - Yield Evaluation DAFWA, Darkan (WA), 2011

Fig 19. Yield Benefit, Soil Types Darkan, WA. Canola (2011)
Source: DAFWA

LURE H2O is effective across a range of soil types as data from demonstration site trials conducted by the DAFWA show beside.

“We saw the following results from our LURE H2O program (treatment at 15L/ha):

  • White gum gravel ridges treated with LURE H2O averaged 3T/ha where normally you would be lucky to do 0.5t/ha.
  • In the Balancia clover we got 765kg/ha compared to 400kg/ha from an untreated area.
  • Oats was 5t/ha and untreated 3.9t/ha.
  • Barley was 5t/ha and untreated 4.2t/ha.”

Michael Wright, Boyup Brook, WA

D - Dry matter Brookton (WA), 2011

LURE H2O was applied in pasture in Brookton in 2011 and the difference observed 8 months later was impressive:

1.1t/ha more than the untreated control!

Fig 20. Dry Matter (t/ha) obtained 8 months after LURE H2O application in pasture - Brookton, WA (2011)

2nd Year Effect

A - Coondee Trial Site A, Application 2010

2nd year effect (2011)

LURE H2O continues to work through the second year after application. Results from the Brookton trial sites below indicate an estimated return on investment for Canola at $550/ha:

Fig 21. Canola yield obtained in 2011 for LURE H2O applied in 2010, Coondee Site A (2011)

⇒ Gain : 570kg/ha in a 2nd year

= $310 added value*!

* Added value is calculated based on $550/tonne

In a second year (paddock treated in 2010), LURE H2O managed to bring a 570kg/ha increase in this Coondee trial.

For a canola at $550/t, it his a $310/ha gain in a second year!

3rd year effect (2012)

The same site was assessed in 2012 to see what the effect, if any, would be in the 3rd season.
Plant germination post late April rains in 2012 indicated that Lure H20 treatments applied at 10L/ha in Feb 2010 were still contributing to improved water infiltration.
Post seeding on the 15th May 2012, treated plots generally had higher weed burden in the fallow uncultivated area and soil moisture was higher (darker) post seeding in areas that was also cultivated to canola in 2011.

Figure 22 – Fallow Area of trial showing lack of germination in UTC. Treated plots on either side. Coondee (WA), 2012
Figure 23 – Differences in moisture UTC (left) vs LURE H2O 10L/ha (right), Coondee (WA), 2012

Assessments of crop vigor was undertaken 30DAS. Lure H2O treatment showed benefits of improved soil moisture.

Oat vigour was higher when compared to adjacent untreated plots.

Fig 24. Oat vigour 30 days after seeding (DAS), Brookton, 17 June 2012

Fig 25. Wandering Oat Yield derived from tiller count, Coondee (WA), 2012

Gain : 2108kg/ha in a 3rd year

= $527 added value*!

* Added value is calculated based on $250/tonne

B - Coondee Trial 2011 Site C, Application 2010

2nd year effect (2011)

In this other trial done in the same area, the yield increase was also impressive, with a 600kg/ha increase when sprayed with LURE H2O at 10L/ha.

This is a gain of $330/ha in a second year!

Fig 26. Canola yield obtained in 2011 for LURE H2O applied in 2010, Coondee Site C (2011)

Gain: 630kg/ha in a 2nd year

= $346 added value*

* Added value is calculated based on $550/tonne

3rd year effect (2012)

Fig 27. Oat yield obtained in 2012 for LURE H2O applied in 2010, Coondee Site C (2012)

⇒ Gain : 1060kg/ha in a 3rd year

= $265 added value*!

* Added value is calculated based on $250/tonne

The second year effect of LURE H2O can bring a considerable added value regardless of the results obtained in a first year. As LURE H2O has an effect limited in time, SACOA recommend to reapplied on a third year in order to continue the moisture capture during the third year and beyond.

See Application guide

Back to top