​As we mentioned in our last post, we wanted to discuss the term “sustainability” and explore how well our IWM operations are fulfilling the aspects of sustainable agriculture and conservation. The main consideration we’ve had as we’ve been conducting this research project is whether what we are doing can be done on a long-term basis. In other words, can we sustain what we are doing financially, long term, with the labor requirements, and still achieve our goal of improving our operation? That made us think about what the term “sustainability” really means.

​The term “sustainability” frequently gets mentioned when a discussion turns to a person’s belief of whether what someone else is doing is deemed to be environmentally-friendly or sound. In agriculture, it can determine whether a person perceives an ag producer as a “good” farmer/rancher or a “bad” one, depending on whether or not the agricultural practice sustains the environment or leads to the demise of the world.
 
Unfortunately, the term “sustainability” is often narrowly limited to one aspect of the matter, the use of natural resources—soil, air, water, plants, wildlife, i.e., the earth. What is forgotten is the ecological aspect is only one crucial part of the bigger “sustainability” issue.   
 
On their website, SARE (Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education) lists “3 Pillars of Sustainability” as the following:

• Profit over the long term,
• Stewardship of our nation’s land, air and water, and
• Quality of life for farmers, ranchers and their communities.

 
The Western SARE website also shares this viewpoint from Dr. John E. Ikerd, Extension Professor at the University of Missouri:  “A sustainable agriculture must be economically viable, socially responsible and ecologically sound. The economic, social and ecological are interrelated, and all are essential to sustainability. An agriculture that uses up or degrades its natural resource base, or pollutes the natural environment, eventually will lose its ability to produce. It's not sustainable. An agriculture that isn't profitable, at least over time, will not allow its farmers to stay in business. It's not sustainable. An agriculture that fails to meet the needs of society, as producers and citizens as well as consumers, will not be sustained by society. It's not sustainable. A sustainable agriculture must be all three—ecologically sound, economically viable and socially responsible. And the three must be in harmony.” 
 
We couldn’t have said it better!
 
As our project has progressed, we have made a conscious effort to note whether certain efforts match SARE’s “3 Pillars of Sustainability.” Below, we reflect on each of our IWM practices. 

​Pillar #1: Profit over the long term
 
As we will again note under the preventative IWM principle, we have a significant amount of hay harvested from some of our fields that we will not be able to market because we are not satisfied with the amount of chicory in the product. Even though we’ve tried to control the weeds, the wet weather this year made timing very difficult. We will be able to utilize this forage for our livestock, so we can’t really state that we are losing profit because we need our own hay anyway. However, we will need to be watchful to assure that we keep areas frequented by our livestock free of re-infestation since they are consuming hay with chicory (and presumably chicory seeds) and then grazing in the pastures. That takes time and money if we need to keep taking action to squelch new plants.
 
Since we have been typically using herbicides to remove chicory from our hayfields, we have accepted the fact that the alfalfa being killed is merely a necessary part of collateral damage. We have been believing that alfalfa and chicory have growth cycles that are too similar to save one but remove the other. However, our research perhaps has provided us with a solution. If the prudent, proper, and responsible use of other chemicals (such as imazamox or Raptor) helps keep highly productive grass/alfalfa fields in production, such efforts will certainly help our profit.
 
Pillar #2: Stewardship of our nation’s land, air and water
 
There is always going to be the argument that chemicals are bad for the soil. The arguments are plentiful both ways. But again, if our place is any example, our careful use of herbicides has apparently not deteriorated the soil, plant, and ecological health of our property, as suggested by the excellent diversity of grasses and forbs in our pastures and the favorable soil health tests. Although we have some weed issues, we strive to keep things in check.
 
With regard to nature and the environment, we have been told by Natural Resource and Conservation Service officials that we have wonderful ground cover on our fields and pastures. The abundance of wildlife and birds serves as proof that our farm offers wildlife habitat. Additionally, we were the recipients of the Lawrence County Conservation District’s Conservation Citizenship Award for 2019. In our humble opinion, our limited use of chemicals is thus sustaining both our operation and the natural environment.

​Pillar #3: Quality of life for farmers, ranchers and their communities
 
Over the years, our customers have been and continue to be very satisfied with the products we sell them, particularly because they know that they are buying safe, noxious weed-free hay. The cow/calf producer whose cattle we pasture is also happy and satisfied with how his animals are growing because of the quality of our pastures. We’re certain there are those who could argue with what we are doing, but, all in all, the chemical IWM practices we are implementing are ensuring that our customers and community are satisfied with what we provide them. Thus, such efforts are sustainable.

​Pillar #1: Profit over the long term
 
It probably goes without saying that the use of goats is beneficial. Our operation isn’t as potentially profitable as some others in that we don’t have the larger breeding numbers some producers have—in some cases, producers raise a number of animals and sell some after they are used for grazing. We have chosen to not have the large numbers but to keep a smaller herd for the specific purpose of having a group of “experienced” munchers. We have noted that the more efficient grazers are the younger stock. The advantage to having some older animals is they literally teach the younger ones the ropes: where to go, what to eat, what to avoid, and so on. But, much like humans, the older animals don’t eat as much.
 
Because we keep the same livestock and replace as necessary, we maintain our herd through the non-grazing time of the year (i.e., winter). That means our goats need to be fed but, as previously mentioned above, we have a supply of non-marketable hay so we essentially use a product we don’t want to sell anyway. The goats do get a small, daily ration of grain, annual immunizations, and veterinary care as needed to maintain healthy body conditions, but that is an expense we are willing to absorb for the sake of the health of the animals.
 
The alternative to not having the goats would be to utilize more chemicals to control weeds after the cattle have grazed an area or use mechanical means like mowing to reduce seed production. Some places, however, are difficult and unsafe to get machinery into so goats serve a valuable purpose there. In the end, are our goats profitable? We would say they earn their keep.
 
Pillar #2: Stewardship of our nation’s land, air and water
 
There is little to no argument that goats are good for the environment (with the possible exception of the methane issue, but we’re not going there). Goats utilize forage that is, otherwise, not marketable. They provide a great natural fertilizer—we compost their bedding to be spread back onto the fields, for instance. And they keep problem weeds in check.  
 
Pillar #3: Quality of life for farmers, ranchers and their communities
 
Let’s face it. Nearly everyone loves goats, except when they get out and eat your most valuable flowers, trees, shrubs, and prize garden produce. Anyway, they’re enjoyable to have around and visitors to our farm love to watch them. Overall, we feel we can check the “sustainability” box for our biological IWM practices.

​Pillar #1: Profit over the long term
 
As with many mechanical IWM practices, mowing takes time and fuel. The obvious issue, at least from our practical experience, is that while mowing alone may control the spread of chicory because it reduces the seed producing flowers and, perhaps, the carbohydrate storage capacity of the weed, it does not eliminate the main problem, the presence of live chicory plants. The other concern is that, when a pasture or hayfield is mowed on a repeated basis to keep the chicory from flowering and maturing, the plant simply flowers at a lower height and has to be mowed at a lower level with each consecutive mowing. Whatever forage is cut off is probably not going to be consumed by livestock and certainly will not be harvested. If the weather conditions allow, hay could be cut and harvested before the first chicory flowers develop but, again, as we have seen, chicory recovers far faster than the grasses and other legumes. To avoid the chicory from developing a new set of flowers and going to seed, another round of cutting would have to take place before the grasses and alfalfa are ready for harvest. Thus, a subsequent cutting (hay crop) would not be harvestable.
 
Apart from mowing, a producer can hand pull the problem weeds in a field between cuttings if the field is small enough for that practice to be manageable. As our own efforts proved, this is an option. However, it takes time and manpower and is labor intensive.
 
In the end, all of this can affect the long-term profitability of an operation. Non-harvested hay does not generate income. Pasture forage cut and laid on the ground may not be consumed by the livestock. Mechanical control alone highly reduces potential income, and no income equates to less profit.
 
Pillar #2: Stewardship of our nation’s land, air and water
 
It could be said that, with mowing, no chemical needs to be applied to the ground. As we have seen, though, chicory that is mowed remains in the fields and pastures. If the mechanical means can be sustained, the plant population may be affected over time. This is not what we are practically observing, but it is theoretically possible.
 
The point here is defining “stewardship.” Are the mechanical practices environmentally-friendly? Other than fuel being consumed, one could argue that nothing else is harming the environment. But what if we consider another aspect of stewardship. Is the production and quality of the land being improved? Not so much. Repeated trips over a field with a tractor or other machinery can compact the soil, particularly if the mowing has to be done in wet soil conditions. What’s more, we have not seen a reduction in the chicory plant population by repeatedly mowing. We have, however, seen a reduction in native and tame grass and forage plants. If the stewardship goal is to improve the quality and productivity of the land, mechanical means alone may not do that.
 
Pillar #3: Quality of life for farmers, ranchers and their communities
 
As we’ve already noted, mechanical practices are time and labor intensive. They require the procedure to be done over and over. Taking all this into consideration, mechanical IWM practices have their place, but whether they improve the quality of life for the producer and create a sustainable operation would have to be a matter of opinion. 

There is no need to even list whether any of the “3 Pillars of Sustainability” were satisfied by the way we tried to plant a cover crop this year (if you missed our flop of an attempt, read our last blog post!). That being said, cover crops, if done properly, can pay huge dividends and will meet the criteria of all three parts of the sustainability definition. 

​To reflect upon current and future preventative IWM practices, we can arguably say that our chemical and biological IWM practices are sustainable, while our mechanical IWM practices have proven to be less so. With luck, we will have a better planting season next year to be able to meet the sustainable qualities in our cultural IWM practices.
 
As far as the “3 Pillars of Sustainability” are concerned, the non-marketing of a portion of our harvest obviously affects our profit margins. However, if we can utilize those products ourselves and turn those products into forage for our weed-eating goats, the loss won’t be as apparent. While the outer buffer strip we’ve created is subjected to regular, annual IWM weed control measures and may never reach full production potential, the inner areas of our farm will hopefully remain closer to a noxious weed-free status and can be areas where we can realize fuller profit potential. The sacrifice offered by the buffer will make for a better return on the rest of our property. What’s more, by focusing the IWM practices on a smaller portion of our entire operation, hopefully fewer chemicals will be required and the remaining parts of our farm can remain healthier. Ultimately, we will be satisfied if our preventative efforts result in an overall productive, profitable operation, one that we will be able to sustain and manage for many years to come.
 
That’s all for now! Next month, we will finish up this year’s series of posts with a brief summary and a recap of any final research results. As always, if you haven’t already signed up for our newsletter on our website or Facebook page, we invite you to do so by following this link. See you soon!

We finally had a break in the weather to get some hay harvested. After a number of 12 to 14-hour days, we’ve filled our hay shed, but that hasn’t given us much computer time. Then again, time in the field has given us a chance to think about what we wanted to share in this month’s update. For our August/Mid-September post, we are recapping what we’ve accomplished in each of our IWM areas. In the upcoming post at the end of this month, we will discuss the term “sustainability” and how our IWM operations are fulfilling what have been called the “3 Pillars of Sustainability.”
​
First, our recap…

​As we’ve examined and evaluated the effectiveness of various herbicides and application rates in our test plots, all chemicals, except one, appear to have eliminated the chicory plant, as well as all broadleaf plants including clover. Most herbicides also took out the alfalfa. We recently noted, however, that the alfalfa is making a bit of a comeback on a few plots. Clearly, though, in the plots that had Panoramic 2SL (also marketed as Plateau) applied at a rate of 4 ounces per acre, the chicory, along with the alfalfa and clover, has been “sickened” but not killed. 

We wondered why.

As we were writing our grant proposal, we stated in our project procedures that we would note what worked to raise cultivated chicory and would be cognizant of that when trying to control wild chicory. We wanted to determine if cultivated chicory and wild chicory behave the same. At least when it comes to a certain class of herbicide, the answer is maybe.

In reviewing previous research articles about controlling (and growing) chicory, we recalled that a particular group of chemicals has been determined to be safe to use in plots of cultivated chicory to remove unwanted weeds but not harm the chicory. A 2013 article published by the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, for instance, highlighted the efforts of UNL professor Dr. Robert Wilson (now Emeritus Professor) in growing chicory and noted him remarking, “Early research also showed that the herbicide imazamox was safe to use on chicory…”

A quick search found many sites referencing that imazamox (marketed as the herbicide Raptor) has been recommended in the use of controlling unwanted weeds in wildlife food plots consisting of alfalfa, clover, and chicory. That led us to check into the chemical structure of imazamox (Raptor) to find if any similarities exist between it and Panoramic 2SL (Plateau). See below. The differences between the two are bolded.

The active ingredient in Raptor is 12.1% ammonium salt of imazamox: 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1 H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-methoxymethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid. 

The active ingredient in Panoramic 2SL (Plateau) is 23.3% ammonium salt of imazapic: 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl) -5-oxo-1 H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-methyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid.

The two are almost identical, with the exception of imazamox (Raptor) versus imazapic (Panoramic 2SL) and                    5-methoxymethyl (Raptor) versus 5-methyl (Panoramic 2SL). What’s more, Raptor is labeled for use to control weeds in plantings of chicory. A quick, deeper check into the label for Panoramic 2SL showed it is also to be used to control weeds in plantings of chicory.

Panoramic 2SL (Plateau) didn’t eliminate the chicory in our test plots because it wasn’t supposed to. For someone familiar with herbicides and, especially, someone knowledgeable of the plant physiology of chicory, this would probably be common knowledge. To novices like us, though, this is what could be referred to as an “aha moment.”

The lesson? When using herbicides, you really need to check the labels; in fact, it’s essential to read the labels so you know what you are using and whether you are using it correctly.

An issue we have is trying to control or eliminate unwanted weeds, namely chicory, in our grass/alfalfa fields without causing permanent harm to the alfalfa. We have learned that in multi-species plantings of alfalfa, clover, and chicory, all plants seem to be tolerant of certain types of chemicals. But is alfalfa more tolerant to a higher rate of certain chemicals than chicory is, even though chicory could survive the same chemical at a lower rate? Raptor, for example, lists safe treatments of up to 6 ounces per acre for alfalfa but only 4 ounces per acre for chicory. Could we take advantage of that and use a higher rate of Raptor in heavily chicory-infested grass/alfalfa fields and salvage the alfalfa but eliminate the chicory? Additionally, are there other herbicides that may produce similar results that haven’t even been labeled for alfalfa or chicory? We have already seen some indication of that in the other plots, as we’ve mentioned earlier. 

Many stands of alfalfa in western South Dakota (ours included) are older stands with many plants being 15 to 20 (even more) years old and with deep tap roots. The chicory plants are typically younger, having more recently reproduced from seed or old growth. Research shows that, even if nurtured, chicory lives to five to seven years old. This is still younger, though, than decades’ old growths of alfalfa. Does that give alfalfa an advantage?

This sounds like a potential project for next year.

We talked with Mr. Paul Johnson (South Dakota State University Cooperative Extension Weed Science Coordinator), our expert advisor for the project who is conducting the herbicide trials. We’re not certain about the rates and what types of chemicals might work but we will be planning some trials to see if we can eliminate the chicory from some of our grass/alfalfa fields but retain the alfalfa population. If we could accomplish that, such results would be a huge benefit to producers dealing with this problem.

It goes without saying that our herbicide trials are set for at least two years for specific reasons. One is so we can take into account all we have just mentioned and see what long term effects we observe next year. To finalize this year, we will be cutting the forage from the plots so we can get a better look at the new, ground-level growth next year. Next month, we will provide a full list of chemicals used in the trial and their associated results.

Stay tuned…  

With regard to biological practices, our weed eating crew has been busy. We turned the boys out onto a small area that had been frequented by cattle last month when they came in for water and lounged around the windbreak for shade. The paddock is just under one acre in size and has been dedicated as somewhat of a “sacrifice area,” a place that is expected to get beaten up grazing wise. The weeds (chicory included) are often abundant because the area receives such heavy animal traffic.

This seemed like the perfect spot to do a monitored trial to determine the effectiveness of using goats to biologically reduce and control the weeds. It may be noted that we had originally intended to put the goats in another area earlier this year, but because of the wet weather (and the fact that the spot was under water for a while), that was not possible. We have been monitoring the regular pastures to see how the goats have grazed and have noted some good information. But this small plot finally offered us the chance to see what happens when goats are confined to a small area.

We knew from previous experience that animals can be trained to target a specific plant, and we hope that next year we will have a chance to do a more intensive grazing trial. But given the circumstances, rotating the goats into a pasture/plot that had been very recently utilized by other livestock (cattle) also provides good research data. This multi-species grazing practice is often recommended by grassland, range, and other grazing experts.

​The boys did not disappoint. As can be seen from the following before and after photos, they made a significantly impact that prevented the chicory from producing seeds. Even though the actual chicory plant still existed after the goats were rotated out of the plot, the number of seed-producing flowers was greatly reduced.   

​One caution: animals may control a plant, but it may take a long time for them to ultimately eliminate it, if ever. As we mentioned in our last blog, anytime you remove livestock for an extended time from an area that has been grazed, you can expect an influx of undesirable plants. Animals will do a good job of controlling things while they are present, but you must have a plan in place if the animals are taken off permanently. Things lurk below the soil surface just waiting for a chance to come alive, even in the best managed areas. This is a good reminder of why it’s important to employ as many of the IWM strategies as possible on your operation. Only one practice does not make a good weed control program!

​Theoretically, consistently removing a plant’s reproductive sources (seed production and the ability of the plant to store nutrients in the roots) by mowing, grazing, or burning should cause the plant to eventually die off. As we have repeatedly mentioned, though, this is not entirely true. Although the repetitive mowing of chicory may keep it somewhat controlled, we still have yet to see proof that it will eliminate the plant. Some people maintain that the lifespan of chicory is two years. However, we have regularly seen new growth (and, presumably, new plants) emerge from old, existing, dying plants. Most living things want to propagate. Chicory is certainly no exception.  

​In our last blog, we mentioned that we would report on test trials of mowing at various heights to discover what, if any, effect those differences would have on the chicory. In a series of plots (each being about one-half acre in size) within a pasture that is currently being grazed by cattle, we mowed one plot at 3”, one at 6”, one at 9”, and one at 12”. The 3”, 6”, and 9” plots did not show much regrowth or development of flowers. However, the 12” plot showed a fair number of flowers reappearing. Granted, this mowing was done in early August when the rate of plant growth was noticeably slower. The cattle were in that area as well and likely consumed some of the grasses, but we didn’t notice much of the chicory eaten so we thought the plants were nearing the end of their growth cycle. 

​Even so, in mid-August, in another pasture with no animals, we mowed the chicory to about 8” in height and checked this same location about three weeks later. We were actually surprised at how this area showed new flowers. In the first week of September, therefore, we chemically treated the area. 

Another mechanical practice we recently implemented is some hand-pulling of chicory from a grass/alfalfa field located near the county road. In the past, with what we had known and were familiar with, we just accepted the fact that the chemicals we were using to control the chicory in our hay fields would eliminate or, at least, greatly reduce the alfalfa population. In this particular field, we have a very desirable amount of alfalfa and we have been trying hard to keep the chicory from spreading into it. We have been employing a spot-spraying method rather than applying herbicide to the entire field. Still, new plants seem to find their way into the field.
​
Earlier, we harvested the hay before the chicory had flowered so we were comfortable that we could market that cutting of hay. Last week, we noticed that a number of chicory plants were again present and flowering. The second growth of alfalfa was coming nicely so we opted to walk the entire field and hand-pull anything we saw. We salvaged the alfalfa and now, weather permitting, we will have a nice second-cutting hay product to market. Since this is a small field (four acres), hand-pulling was something we could reasonably accomplish, even if it took us a few hours. But could we have done this on 40 acres? Not impossible but improbable. 

​The main cultural activity that took place this past month was the attempted incorporation of a cover crop in a weed-infested field. Part of the field was treated with a simple 2,4D chemical application (at a 1.7 pints per acre rate) to get the weeds knocked back but retain the grasses. The other part received no chemical treatment. Both sections were mowed to a plant height of about 8” to allow, in theory, the discs of the grain drill to get through the plants and provide seed-soil contact. Because of the small window of opportunity in the weather, the planting had to be done before the recommended 30 days’ period between application of the 2,4D and the planting of the cover crop (which included grasses and broadleaf plant varieties) had passed. We did not have access to a no-till drill so we decided that rather than broadcast the seed into the field, we would use our convention grain drill in a no-till fashion.

There are times when an idea sounds good but, in short, this was a complete failure! Part of the problem was there was too much plant residue on the ground after mowing and the discs of the conventional drill simply could not cut through to get the seed to the soil. In the end, we should have not done anything at all or waited to use a true no-till drill. At the very least, we didn’t risk the emergence of new weeds by using more aggressive tillage to remove the live plants and work in the remaining residue and then use the conventional drill. Regardless, this was a complete waste of time, fuel, money, and seed. Lesson learned!
​
We would still like to experiment with some cover crops but we will strive to do it using a true no-till system and proper timing of the herbicide application. The chemicals do provide us conventional operators with more options, but we feel planting cover crops could be an option for the organic producer to aid them in reducing weed population and, at the same time, improve soil health. 

As in prior years, our primary preventative practice was not marketing the hay harvested from portions of our fields that had an unacceptable amount of chicory. Although we did chemically treat the fields first, for peace of mind we chose not to sell the hay.
​
The other new aspect is that we are making efforts to establish a buffer on our outside borders that will be areas that we can treat with herbicides as needed to keep unwanted weeds from invading further into the fields and pasture in which we have managed to get the noxious weeds under control and even eliminated. Until we develop a chemical alternative that will allow us to retain our alfalfa while treating the chicory and other weeds, it is expected that most of the buffer will either be grass pasture or grass hay only (with the hopeful exception of the four-acre field mentioned earlier). Some fields and areas in our pastures are nearly weed free. If we can keep weeds from invading further onto our property, we can keep the inner fields clean and not have to resort to repeated weed control methods.

Lastly, we very recently had an opportunity to present our project at a meeting of the South Dakota Weed and Pest Commission, which is comprised of council members appointed by the Governor and non-voting members from several state agencies. This group is the regulating authority for noxious weeds across the entire state. Also present at this meeting were members of the South Dakota Weed and Pest Association, which is the group that represents the South Dakota county weed and pest supervisors. Some members of this same group then came to the farm to actually see the research results we have accomplished on our farm. It was rewarding to share our efforts with these folks.
​
That’s all for our recap. Please stay tuned for the post coming up at the end of this month in which we discuss the term “sustainability” and how we are applying that concept to our operation. As always, if you haven’t already signed up for our newsletter on our website or Facebook page, we invite you to do so by following this link. See you in a few weeks!

Resources:
University of Nebraska, Lincoln. (2013). Root of the matter. Retrieved from https://weedscience.unl.edu/currentTopics/2013ChicoryRW.pdf/ (UNL has unfortunately removed this source from their website.)