Our two-year Farmer/Rancher project titled “The evaluation of Integrated Weed Management practices to control chicory infestation in the pastures and hay ground of conventional and organic agricultural operations” is complete. The process was wide-ranging and multifaceted, and it involved conducting multiple research projects at the same time. The following is an overview of the results we gathered over the course of our two-year project.

As you may recall, IWM is a method that includes mechanical, chemical, cultural, and biological techniques, combined together over the course of a growing season. The key to IWM is not relying too heavily on one method over another. The initial and subsequent prevention of the spread of weeds and their seeds enhances the effectiveness of IWM. Our project measured the effectiveness of IWM practices while gauging the results against a standard of sustainability, with a focus on the four pillars described by SARE. 

According to SARE (www.sare.org/whatwe-do/what-is-sustainable-agriculture), the four central pillars of sustainable agriculture are: 

• Productivity: Grow enough food and fiber to meet humanity’s needs
• Stewardship: Enhance the quality of the land, water and air; and make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources
• Profitability: Maintain the economic viability of farms and ranches
• Quality of Life: Promote the resilience and well-being of producers, their families and society as a whole.

​Our project was focused on researching and evaluating IWM methods (biological, mechanical, cultural, chemical, and preventative) that could be recommended to either conventional or organic producers.

OUR METHODS: To formally study and document efforts in a way we could meaningfully and clearly share with others, we researched the results of grazing animals in varying conditions: size of pastures, density of chicory population, stages of chicory growth, and so forth.

OUR FINDINGS: In a broad sense, grazing with animals is clearly an important component of a sustainable operation. It can supply the producer with profitable financial resources through livestock production for replacement breeding stock, food, and fiber. The proper utilization of livestock in an ag operation provides benefits to the land and soil health. In fact, in pasture and range country, a planned, rotational grazing program with animals regularly proves to be essential, and the recommendation to use animals in a sustainable agricultural operation cannot be ​overstated. Therefore, generally speaking, the IWM biological/grazing control fulfills the essential pillars of sustainability: productivity, stewardship, profitability, and quality of life. 

However, if the primary reason for grazing animals (whether cattle, goats, or sheep) is specifically to control unwanted plants, and especially noxious, perennial weeds, our studies and results indicate there are limitations to using only the biological/grazing control. Grazing may provide some immediate, temporary results to control chicory. However, we found that unless the problematic area is subjected to continual, almost excessive grazing, the chicory has a likelihood of experiencing regrowth and will continue to spread.

​By itself, and because of the reproductive nature of chicory (via seed and from existing plants, with growth stimulated by grazing or mowing), grazing falls short of a long-lasting solution. It is merely a stopgap control measure that (at least specific to our study of chicory) fails to sufficiently reduce or eliminate the weed problem. If the animals are removed for any length of time, the plants will undoubtedly rebound, reflower, and reproduce. That, as we observed, could lead to the problem of spreading and infesting nearby fields and pastures. Loss of production, restricted marketability of crops, and reduced profit result. Therefore, we are reluctant to recommend grazing alone as a long-term sustainable IWM principle to either conventional or organic producers. 

OUR METHODS: We mowed various plots at varying heights (3”, 6”, 9”, and 12”) and monitored the chicory’s regrowth over the course of two mowing seasons.

​OUR FINDINGS: As with grazing, mechanical methods may perhaps be useful for some weed varieties, but not so with chicory because of its specific nature. Mowing chicory encourages it to regrow, and repeated mowing often results in more robust, not less, chicory population numbers. In order to effectively prevent the chicory from spreading to other parts of a field or beyond to other fields, the plants must be repeatedly mowed or pulled. 

From a production and profitability aspect, if a field is to be used for hay, it may be possible to harvest an early crop by cutting the field for hay before the flowers develop. Most states’ noxious weed laws prohibit the spreading of weed seeds, not the non-seedproducing portion of the plant. Therefore, a crop may be cut early, processed, and sold. This is assuming the number of chicory plants is not too excessive, as we have routinely found that animals will refuse to eat the cured chicory plants due to their unpalatability. Many of our forage customers will understandably reject the hay if there is an excessive number of weedy plants remaining in an animal’s feed bunk. From a sustainability aspect, profit obviously suffers.

​In our semi-arid environment, we have observed that once the first cutting is removed from the field, the chicory quickly regrows, re-bolts, and develops new flowers. This is often well before the other grasses and most alfalfa plants reach a sufficient height to produce a worthwhile second harvest. To mitigate additional weed infestation once the chicory reproduces flowers, the field must be mowed again to prevent the flowers and seeds from maturing. Therefore, along with the chicory, the grasses and alfalfa forage are prematurely cut and are unavailable for a second harvest. More concerning, repeated mowing of forage prevents the desirable plants’ structure and roots from fully recovering prior to being recut. The root structure is placed in danger of becoming weakened and the potential future yield of the field eventually suffers, further affecting productivity and profitability. All of this leads us to conclude that the IWM mechanical/mowing /hand-pulling method, when employed alone, is a poor candidate for a truly sustainable solution to chicory weed control. 

OUR METHODS: We attempted to plant a cover crop into two individual plots of a test field, one chemically treated and the other non-treated, to determine if the cover crops could choke out an infestation of chicory. 

​OUR FINDINGS: When properly applied (timing, methodology, suitable machinery, etc.), cultural methods are obvious options to consider, whether for an organic or conventional system. However, by themselves, they may not be the cure-all in certain circumstances, especially if the process is beginning with a heavy infestation of weeds. Just as with mowing or grazing, maintaining these methods may take the operation years into the future, if a producer has the weed problem under control. But, specifically speaking of chicory, if the infestation of weeds is severe to begin with, it may be prudent to take other steps first. Our experience has yet to prove to us that any non-chemical approach to a severe weed problem will, in a sustainable way, reduce the problem to a satisfactory degree. 

OUR METHODS: With the extremely valuable assistance of the South Dakota State University Extension Weed Science Coordinator (Mr. Paul Johnson) and Research Managers/Field Specialists (David Vos and Jill Alms), a comprehensive herbicide study was completed. As part of these trials, we examined options for both conventional and organic producers. This table lists the herbicides we tested.

​OUR FINDINGS: The 15 herbicides were applied at different chemical concentrations, and in a mixture equivalent to a rate of 20 gallons of chemical mix per acre. All herbicide types showed results, except Plateau, which is actually SAFE to use on chicory. 

A key objective of the project was to find one or more herbicide applications that would offer options to control chicory and other unwanted weeds in fields with broadleaf forages (alfalfa) by controlling the chicory but not eliminating the alfalfa. Three herbicides in particular (Clarity, Cimarron Plus, and Garlon 4 Ultra) effectively suppressed the chicory but allowed the alfalfa and clover to recover to an adequate degree, not unscathed but sufficient enough to allow regrowth of the forages. Garlon 4 Plus had the least adverse effect on the alfalfa and clover.

NOTE OF CAUTION: These results were observed in older stands of alfalfa (such as ours, which are 20+ years old). We are reluctant to state what results we might have seen in newly-planted forages. We are NOT recommending that producers employ this method of weed control on large portions of their pastures or hayfields without first thoroughly testing the results themselves. If a farmer or rancher is curious about how it may work on their fields, we suggest testing a SMALL area, an acre or less, to avoid a highly regretful situation.

The effectiveness of applying what could be termed “organic chemicals”— specifically 6% vinegar and pure alcohol/ethanol—to chicory-infested test plots proved less successful. These were also applied at the same rate of 20 gallons of chemical mix per acre. However, the difference between the herbicide and organic chemical mixes was the herbicide concentrates were dissolved in water according to label instructions. The organic compounds were not diluted but applied full-strength. Unfortunately, the application of vinegar and ethanol proved to have no controlling effect whatsoever on chicory.

Ideally, from what many believe to be a “sustainable” approach for the environment, being able to have an effective IWM program absent of chemicals is a desirable goal. However, unless a producer is fortunate to have an entirely weed-free environment without a threat of infestation from outside sources, removing chemical IWM methods from their toolbox could have adversely consequential results.

​We should emphasize that this is true of our growing conditions, environment, moisture totals, and other factors for our part of the country. A producer living where moisture is more abundant and where tillage and/or row crop agriculture are workable options could perhaps resort to more reliance on mechanical, biological, or cultural IWM controls only. Every producer needs to adapt methods to their circumstances. Overall, we can recommend that chemical IWM can make a meaningful contribution.

OUR METHODS: The primary preventative step we take on our farm is refusing to market any chicory-infested hay harvested on our farm. In the event we feed this hay to our own livestock, we feed the bulk of the weed infested hay during the winter when the animals spend more time in their barns and smaller holding pastures. There, we can control and effectively deal with weed re-infestation if it happens. Similarly, the manure from the animals is composted to aid in reducing viable seed as well. Even so, we only apply infested manure on fields where we are not reluctant to use chemical control.

​Another action we take is cleaning machinery before moving to a noninfested field in order to avoid unintentionally spreading chicory. Overall, we also are meticulous in monitoring the weed problem on our entire farm.

​OUR FINDINGS: The essence of preventative IWM methods is doing what is reasonable, necessary, and responsible to keep weed problems contained in such a manner as to be able to assure the applications of other IWM practices are as successful and long-lasting as possible. Preventative measures should not be viewed as a sole replacement for other IWM methods but a means of “insurance” for the producer to reap the benefits of the efforts for as long as possible. 

Our project was quite broad, intentionally encompassing many aspects of IWM all at once being testing independently and simultaneously. Our being able to answer the question of how each IWM control approach will contribute to sustainable agriculture clarified our focus and mapped the direction we will move forward with in the future. Some final thoughts for our fellow farmers and ranchers to consider:

• IWM is not a one-method approach. It is most effective when applied as a holistic program of all IWM principles.
• Before starting a new weed management program, read, research, and study ideas that seem reasonable for your operation. What works in one part of the country may be completely unrealistic in another.
• Determine the goals you want to achieve. It’s difficult to map where one WANTS TO GO if it isn’t known where one WANTS TO BE.
• Define level of control to be achieved. Do you want a quick stopgap measure, a suppression of the weed to keep its presence in check, a reduction of the problem, or an all-out elimination of the weed? Each level is attainable with IWM.
• Share ideas, successes, and failures. Each presents an opportunity for someone to learn.  

To access the complete final report, visit ​https://projects.sare.org/project-reports/fnc19-1187/. 

Click here to access a printable fact sheet of the information explained above. If you have any questions about the project, please feel free to contact us. Thank you for following our blog!

In our July 2020 post, we talked about the activity we would be doing moving forward into 2020, placing an emphasis on applying day-to-day real-world application of IWM principles to further develop realistic options for producers. For a full re-cap of our planned courses of action, see the “2020 Plans Preview” section of our July 2020 post “Year II Kick-Off.”

Like anything in agriculture, weather plays a commanding role. When we shared the post during the first week of July, our area was doing well weather-wise, with adequate moisture and reasonable temperatures. But that quickly changed. Beginning the middle of July, we experienced hot, dry conditions that continued into the last week of August. Temperatures were well above average and the moisture pretty much shut off. Even though the US Drought Monitor now shows our area as being only “abnormally dry” with moderate drought in regions very close to us, the plants did what Mother Nature designed them to do and quickly slowed in growth. Applying herbicide soon became impractical since the plants would not have taken in much chemical. Planting grass seed would have been a lost cause particularly because of the risk of new plants sprouting only to dry up.  
​
Consequently, we were not able to start any new chemical test plots, nor were we able to test the effectiveness of using cattle to work grass seeds into the ground. We did try to spray some areas prior to the weather bringing everything to a halt and chemically treated the variable-height mowed plots that had been grazed by cattle and some areas within a goat pasture. But this was towards the end of July and the hot, dry weather had already begun to affect how the plants were growing. The chemically-treated chicory did not produce as many flowers as the plants that were not sprayed, but all the plants continued to grow. As of September 2nd, there doesn’t seem to be much difference between the chicory that was sprayed and other plants that were not treated. 

​We were particularly disappointed in the variable-height test plots. Even after these plots were mowed at the end of the 2019 growing season, then grazed with cattle in 2020, and then chemically treated, the chicory in these plots was able to grow significantly. Again, we did not note many flowers so we will have to evaluate the success or failure of our actions when growing conditions improve.

The true indication of whether the chemical weed control measures were successful or not probably won’t be obvious until next spring when new plants, if any, begin to grow. That is an instance affirming that weed control, even with IWM principles, is not a one-time job. It is a non-stop commitment. That is also a clear example of the IWM rule stressing the importance of using the plant’s physiological characteristics—when the plant is most susceptible to being affected by a control method—to your advantage. We knew the plants’ maturity was getting advanced and being affected by the weather, diminishing the chances for optimum results to happen. But with everything else going on around the farm, things didn’t always work according to a neat schedule. We pushed the time and weather limits. The results, good or bad, will be good information to know.

One of the primary goals of this project has always been to find an effective, sustainable means of controlling the invasive spread of chicory in fields and pastures, retain a sustainable production of the field or pasture, and not remove the desirable legumes such as alfalfa and clover in the process. Even though all of the IWM principles (mechanical, biological, cultural, chemical) have some value and should be used together, as no one technique should be depended upon alone, our research has continually come back to chemical treatment as the most effective, long-term measure to deal with the invasive nature of chicory. As mentioned in earlier posts, some of the SDSU herbicide trials have produced some promising results to control chicory but not eliminate the alfalfa. We are still very much interested in expanding those trials by trying some additional real-world applications to verify the initial results. If successful, we will have accomplished the most significant goal of this research. But those trials simply cannot be completed this year, and we will need to wait for more favorable conditions, perhaps next spring, to continue further.
​
Initially, we had hoped to conclude our research during the two-year period of this project and be able to provide producers with proven options they could use on their farm or ranch. As our final report (coming in October) will reflect, we can make conclusions about certain aspects of mechanical, biological, and preventative IWM practices. However, as we mentioned and as is typical in chemical and certain features of cultural trials, weather plays a huge role. Beyond heat and moisture, patience is essential to assure recommendations are safe, effective, and valid. All in all, two years simply is not enough time to adequately test and evaluate certain solutions. Even so, we feel confident that we’ll have some promising results to build upon next year. Regarding chemical trials in particular, the first year served to identify which chemicals were quickly effective to control or eliminate the chicory and to evaluate the immediate impact on desirable plants, particularly legumes. This second year provided insight into whether the chicory would be able to rebound and grow back. It also substantiated whether desirable forages impacted the first year could recover during the second growing season or whether they were weakened to the point that they could not regrow. Next year will hopefully solidify those results further. 

This October, when the growing season is complete and we can be more certain of the outcomes, a complete list and the associated results of the fifteen chemicals tested will be published. At this point, we feel safe in reporting that one chemical (Plateau) was found to be completely ineffective for use on chicory, as it had no adverse impacts on the plant. The good news is Plateau had no adverse effect on the alfalfa or clover either. The remaining fourteen chemicals were found to be effective in controlling and/or actually eliminating chicory. However, of those fourteen, eleven impacted the desirable forages to the point that we would not recommend them to control chicory in hay fields or pastures unless there was no concern to also eliminate legumes such as alfalfa and clover.
​
The final three chemicals produced results that merit further research. These chemicals (Clarity, applied at a rate of 1.5 pints per acre; Garlon 4, applied at 1.5 pints per acre; and Cimarron Plus, applied at 0.5 ounces dry weight per acre) all eliminated the chicory. While they did not leave the red clover unscathed, the alfalfa appeared to recover to an acceptable degree. Clarity and Cimarron Plus appeared to have more of an impact on the alfalfa than Garlon 4. But, the results in the Garlon 4 plots definitely show great promise to remove chicory from hay fields without causing an unacceptable loss of alfalfa. These three chemicals will be the subject of further testing next year.

​It MUST be emphasized that the alfalfa in the test plots is “old,” at least 20 years old. It is uncertain what effect any of the chemicals would have on newly planted (within 5 years or less) alfalfa. Therefore, the results we are mentioning for the purpose of this project must be cautiously applied to newer stands of alfalfa. 

On a couple of other notes we reported in July, we had been conducting other routine IWM practices on our farm as part of our normal operation and have identified a potential problem with Deptford Pink (scientific name, Dianthus Armeria). South Dakota State University Weed Science Department (the same people conducting the chicory trials) was able to begin research on July 15th of this year on controlling the Deptford Pink in one field that suddenly became heavily infested with the plant. Fourteen chemicals are being tested in a total of 60 plots.
 
Little seems to be known about this potentially invasive plant so we are starting with limited information. We have been able to determine so far that Deptford Pink is a biennial that reproduces from seed only. A plant develops the first year without a flowering stalk. Then, during the second year, it bolts to form the flowering stem. Our research has failed to prove conclusively what a first-year plant looks like. We believe it is a small rosette type of plant but we are not certain. This information is determined from the fact that Deptford Pink is a member of the dianthus family and other dianthus plants form rosettes at the beginning. The overwhelming majority of the plant photos on the internet show the second-year plant only.
​
What has became apparent is that Deptford Pink appears to mature in hot, dry weather. The plots were chemically treated on July 15th and within 15 days, all of the plants turned brown. However, this was not necessarily the result of the chemicals, as all the plants, treated and untreated, within the test plots and outside of the testing area all look the same. 

​So, unfortunately, any observations of obvious impact on the standing plants from the chemical treatments is completely unreliable. Using the presumption that the first-year plant begins as a rosette, we examined the ground level of the test plots to determine if the chemical treatment had any effect on the young, first-year rosettes. Small rosettes were found and we noted some of the chemicals had a definite impact on the rosettes and some did not.

We are also conducting germination tests on seeds collected from the test plots to determine if the chemical treatments had any effect on the viability of the seeds. There are no results to report as of the date of this post.

Again, observations made next spring will likely be a key indicator as to whether any chemical treatments were effective or not and whether chemicals are at all useful in controlling Deptford Pink. This plant could potentially create a major problem. Stay tuned for more developments on this project.
​
Finally, a note of caution to anyone who uses goats to graze pastures. It is common knowledge that goats are browsers and prefer to eat woody plants. We have owned goats for ten years. We know that they eat pine needles and small branches on trees. What we didn’t realize is that they will also eat the bark and chew through the bark to the inner fiber layers of the trees. If the goats are able to completely girdle a tree, they can potentially kill it, even a large pine tree. We have had to resort to covering the trees in one pasture with plastic snow fence to keep the goats from destroying the pine trees. Goats may not actually eat everything, but sometimes they eat enough to be a problem. Just a word to the wise.

Stay tuned for our final report in October. Until then, 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 next month!

Welcome to year two of our SARE-funded research project to evaluate the effectiveness of Integrated Weed Management practices to control the invasive spread of chicory. The fact that this post didn’t come out earlier this spring doesn’t mean nothing has been happening. On the contrary, a lot has been going on. The emphasis this year has changed a bit from last year. In 2019, many initial steps of the research project were taking place. This year, we are monitoring and continuing to study and evaluate the results of efforts taken last year. Now that the growing season is in full swing, the next steps in the project can begin in earnest.

Before we provide a quick recap of 2019, here is a brief review of the five principles of Integrated Weed Management (IWM). IWM is a process that applies the following techniques: mechanical (mowing, cultivation, tillage, hand-pulling), chemical (herbicides), cultural (cover crops, crop rotation), biological (grazing animals, beneficial insects), and preventative (curtailing the spread of undesirable seeds), combined to control and/or eradicate problematic weeds over the course of a growing season. The key to IWM is not relying too heavily on one method. Sequentially applying as many of the IWM principles as possible often assures greater success.
​
Often downplayed but vitally important in a successful weed management program, and critical before implementing IWM actions, is the necessity of looking for and selecting specific weed species to target. Once that is done, it’s also a good idea to research the physiology of the targeted plant to learn what makes it tick. This makes it possible to adjust the timing of control methods and resources to match when the plant is most vulnerable, which increases the chances for success. Applying control or eradication actions at the wrong time can lead to less than desirable results. 

We had some successes and failures during the 2019 research period. Some results, as is true with any research, will take more time to evaluate. For a detailed summary of 2019’s results, refer to the “End of Year 1 Review” report from November of last year. That post also outlines possible directions we were, at the time, planning for 2020. While some slight modifications will be made to those ideas, the objectives outlined at the end of 2019 are still valid.  

Among the goals of the chemical (herbicide) trials was the goal to identify which chemical(s), if any, effectively controlled chicory but were safe to use on alfalfa and legumes in our farm’s pastures and hay fields. At end of 2019, we had no conclusive results to indicate potential chemical options. However, a couple of chemical plots showed some early, promising signs. As reported below, our 2020 observations are making it clear that the one sure-fire method to control and eradicate chicory is through the use of herbicides. However, we still want to ensure that legumes, and the overall quality of forage, won’t suffer, so our 2020 efforts are going to be critical.

One hurdle that needs to be crossed with any weed-control program, whether it be conventional or organic, is whether the practice is possible of a long-period of time—is it sustainable?    Unfortunately, not many organic methods developed in 2019 seemed promising. This is especially true of organic methods related to our semi-arid pasture lands and hay fields. The topic of sustainability was covered in the September 2019 post “The Question of Sustainability.”  In short, a “sustainable” agriculture operation must be economically viable over the long-term, the operator must practice ecologically responsible stewardship of their resources, and the operation must provide a desirable quality of life for its operator and supporting community. One aspect without the others may result in short-term survivability. But without all three sustainable characteristics, a long-lasting operation will undoubtedly fail. 
​
If the farm/ranch operator is a “hobbyist,” losing money isn’t so damaging and labor-intensive practices may be tolerable for a short time. But when a farm/ranch owner must consider the needs of the operation year after year, the vision is dramatically different. 

From the organic approach, large scale use of organic chemical methods (vinegar or alcohol) were simply not practical. Those options may work in a small garden but not on a 20-40-160-acre field. Repeated mowing of the chicory (and the associated desirable plant community) may keep the weed from flowering and producing seed, but yield and forage quality will ultimately suffer. Many successful organic producers are able to use mechanical, tillage methods—often repeated several times throughout the growing season—to keep the weeds at bay in their crops. But tillage simply isn’t an option in pastures or in areas where it isn’t realistic to replant hay fields every year. 

In our conversations last year with one particular organic producer from outside of our area, he emphasized the need of the organic farmer to get weeds under control before moving to organic production. He explained that it may be necessary to start out with chemicals and, once the weeds are manageable, convert to organic practices. This particular producer uses conventional tillage (plowing and other methods), but, again, this is not possible on pastures. He also emphasized that if a producer finds themselves in a situation where the weeds are taking over, it may be necessary to step away from being organic on a particular field, use conventional methods (chemicals) to regain control of the weeds, and then reapply for organic status. 
​
As a result of last year’s observations, our project in 2020, while continuing to conduct trials using IWM that certainly apply to organic operations (mechanical, biological, cultural, and preventive), will not be focusing any further on finding a strictly organic solution to control chicory in our pastures and hay fields. 

In the first week of February, while there was still snow on the ground, we noted that the chicory had already began sprouting from existing plants. We noted a similar situation last year. This proves that even if the old plants appear to be “dead” above ground, problems lurk below the surface. This is why, for effective weed control, it’s advisable to use a chemical with a residual, pre-emergent element to kill young weeds as they sprout. This can be devastating, however, to other plants (such as legumes) that can also be killed by the pre-emergent chemical. Another technique often used to control weeds at their early growth stage while minimizing damage to desirable plants is to spray early-sprouting weeds with a herbicide (preferably, glyphosate because it does NOT have a residual component). This process kills the early weeds before the other plants that are also susceptible to the chemical grow enough to be affected. But this is risky and, generally, with snow on the ground, even the chicory isn’t actively growing to the extent that any herbicide will be completely effective.

At the end of March, we checked the plots in which, in 2019, we had tested mowing chicory at variable rates (4”, 6”, 8”, and 10” heights) to determine if there was any difference in the degree of control due to more or less residual matter being left on the ground. Observations indicated the mowing height made no difference and, as was observed in February, the young plants were actively growing in all plots. The only difference to mowing at higher heights (8”and 10”) is some forage was available for livestock.

​We checked these mowed test plots again in mid-May with more obvious results showing that the chicory was even more actively recovering from the mowing.

Therefore, in these plots, mowing alone may have reduced the seed population of the chicory, but it certainly did nothing to eradicate the plant. As a reminder, during research to put our project’s proposal together, we learned that chicory is theoretically an annual/biannual plant, meaning that a plant should live for two years. However, research also found that chicory may live for five to seven years if the conditions are good. Our experience has been that mowing repeatedly over several years has had no apparent reduction in the chicory population and, in fact, stimulates its growth. The research from the test plots so far only bolsters our previous observations, thus leading us to conclude that mowing alone is not an effective control (and certainly not an eradication measure), regardless of the height the plants are being cut. For more details on what we learned early on about mowing chicory in our 2019 research, check out the “Mechanical IWM” section of our June 2019 post “IWM Underway.” The studies we found dealt with cultivated chicory, and at the time, we wondered if wild chicory would react the same as its tame cousin. Our observations lead us to believe the wild plant does respond the same.

In May, we also studied the herbicide test plots to ascertain whether any early conclusions, differing from 2019 observations, could be made. In 2019, most of the herbicides were effective in removing the chicory, but many or most also appeared to have eradicated the alfalfa and clover. The one exception, as noted in our September 2019 post “Recording Results,” was the chemical Plateau, which we learned is designed to be ineffective in controlling chicory. As for any clearer indications of chemical results, it was still too early in May to make conclusions.
​
In June, we surmised even more that mechanical measures to control chicory (i.e. mowing) are, at best, stopgap control measures to keep the plants from seeding out. These efforts are totally ineffective in achieving total, long-term control and certainly will not lead to eradication of the chicory plants.

​With regard to our biological practices, grazing by our goats shows evidence that animals are nipping tops of stems as the plants bolt (form the flowering stem). As in 2019, however, we see no indication that they are reducing the plant’s nutrition sources. We had previously learned that the leaves taste bitter so we are not surprised. The grazing behavior we are seeing is indicative of goats’ preference to eat plants at shoulder height and not ground level. As with the mowing, their grazing will control flowering but we are not seeing any sign that the population of the chicory is being reduced.

​As we’ve re-examined the herbicide plots in June, we see that, in many of the test plots, the alfalfa is recovering and the chicory appears to have been eliminated. This could potentially be a result that the alfalfa in these plots is “old” alfalfa, several years old with deep roots. Because of the root structure, the plants may have “staying power.” This fact could be used to our advantage. However, we would caution applying our results from this project to fields containing young alfalfa and clover plants, as the roots will likely not be as deep. Because the herbicide trials are being officially conducted by the South Dakota State University (SDSU) Weed Science Department, we are not releasing any conclusions until their research is finalized. We will, however, continue to provide updates as to whether any chemicals reveal any candidates that may meet our goal of eradicating the chicory plants but retaining the legumes in our hay fields. 

Now that we know the strengths and weaknesses of each IWM method, when used individually, our actions this year will reflect a more non-research, day-to-day practical application of IWM to develop options for producers. 

First, we will be applying herbicide to the variable-height mowing areas to prevent chicory from spreading further in the pasture containing the test plots. Because repeated mowing alone has little negative impact on the chicory, we currently have cattle grazing that pasture. They have not consumed the chicory, but we are noticing some impact on the plants. Depending on the condition of the plants once the cattle are moved, we anticipate mechanically mowing the area to further damage the chicory. We will then apply herbicide while the chicory is actively recovering to determine its eradication rate. 

Second, we may repeat some chemical trials on new plots within the pasture being grazed by our goats. These pastures contain clover and alfalfa, so we plan to test those chemicals that show potential of eliminating the chicory but not completely removing the legumes. We would like to test whether or not grazing will weaken the chicory plants enough so that we may be able to use a lower rate of chemical. 

Third, we would like to improve a certain hay field that has historically been a poor producer due to a high water table stunting the grass varieties present. We have been applying chemical to the field because of chicory infestations, thereby removing all legumes, and we are going to attempt to change the plant population and diversity of the field (an IWM cultural approach). The field is not a good candidate for conventional tillage due to the water table. We also do not have a no-till drill and, while we could rent one, we are trying to find other ways to plant grass seed using livestock. We will be studying the effect of using cattle to graze the area concurrently with introducing grasses that are more moisture-loving to determine whether the hoof action of the cattle duplicates the action of a no-till drill. This process will be weather-dependent. We may try it yet in July if the moisture conditions are favorable. If conditions are not satisfactory, we will perform this experiment in the fall when we typically get autumn moisture.   

Finally, we have been conducting other routine IWM practices on our farm as part of our normal operation. Through these efforts, we have noted a “new” plant that appears to be taking hold in one particular hay field. Through reading and research, we have identified the plant as Deptford Pink (scientific name Dianthus Armeria). This plant is relatively unknown in South Dakota. Many other areas of the country have noted its presence but little is published about the plant or its possible impact on fields and pastures. It is not a noxious weed at this time, although some have noted that it can be invasive. Because we are already cooperatively working with the SDSU Weed Science Department on the chicory plots, we will be conferring with them on treatment options. 

​That is all for now! 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 next month!

Now that we have the first year of our two-year SARE/SDSU Integrated Weed Management (IWM) project under our belt, we can reflect on what we learned, what worked, what didn’t, and what we plan to do next year. While we learned many things, we would like to summarize for you the three key lessons we realized. Using those examples, we would also like to outline some of the main objectives for next year’s project activity.

(If you want more information on the points made here, you can read the individual blogs that covered the information in more detail.)
​
The all-encompassing thought that clearly stood out at the end of this year was the fact that, after many years of working our farm—raising crops, grazing livestock, and working to control unwanted weeds—we really thought we knew the basic principles of IWM. That may have been somewhat true. But we now realize that we didn’t truly comprehend the total IWM package, that is, how the five individual principles work together and, more importantly, how they need to be used together.

One of the crucial first-steps in implementing IWM into any operation is doing an assessment of the weed problem. In our mid-May blog (“The FAQs of IWM”), we explained how the assessment process is accomplished. At the end of our first year of research, we realized that this first step is far more crucial than just checking the box to say it is done. The act of assessing is an ongoing process. We’re doing that but, in reality, we could be doing more, with regard to really studying the problem, reading about what other growers have experienced, and fully studying others’ research.

When it comes to controlling chicory, as with any plant, it has certain physiological characteristics. Certain things make it grow or fail to thrive. This year, we found spraying the plant too early or too late can have the same result, as in a poor result. We also found that using goats and cattle to graze the plant too young may yield poor results. The taste of the young leaves may be too bitter to attract the livestock. It may be difficult to encourage them to eat the weed instead of the tender, early-growth grasses or more tasty plants. Waiting until the chicory plant bolts (develops a stem) may actually provide a better chance of controlling it.

One thing that agricultural producers (and other plant-growing professionals) know when using herbicides is to read the chemical’s label information, that multi-page document typically glued to the herbicide container that has no shortage of small print, text and charts. It isn’t light reading, but it’s important material. We learned that when we found one chemical in our herbicide trial that didn’t have any effect on the chicory. As noted in our mid-September blog (“Recording Results”), we found it important to not only study the safety precautions and application rates but to look at the chemical makeup as well. This was a simple lesson to remind us that herbicides are plant specific. One must take the time to fully read the instructions.

Each of the five IWM practices (mechanical, chemical, cultural, biological, and preventative) has its benefits and short comings. Our experience from this past year’s research intentionally focused on each distinct IWM element in an attempt to gain a deeper understanding of each of those elements and to find what does and doesn’t work. That goal was a success; we now understand more fully the pros and cons of each IWM element. The successes and failures are highlighted in our previous blog posts from this year. We will use those lessons to move forward into next year, particularly as we expand our efforts to a more comprehensive research process.
​
Along with the objectives of the goal mentioned above, we tried to find weed management options for both conventional and organic producers. We found that conventional methods, those practices that incorporate chemical options into their programs, had more tools that could be used. We knew that. We also knew there would be more challenges for an organic grower, particularly if they didn’t want to use chemicals and wanted to avoid tillage, a basic means to control weeds in many organic operations. At the end of this year, it was even clearer to us that organic operations face some serious challenges. We have some ideas for next year; more on this later.

Our third lesson was we found there are objectives and goals that go beyond just controlling an unwanted weed. The overall health of an agricultural operation involves more than removing a noxious plant. Things such as soil health, ground cover, field production, profitability, and the producer’s quality of life also need consideration. In our end-September blog (“The Question of Sustainability”), we addressed these concepts. It likely will benefit us to review that information from time to time, as it’ll help keep us focused on why we are doing what we are doing.  

​The project may be wrapping up for 2019 but it is far from being complete. Next year will not be the conclusion of the project either. Controlling unwanted weeds is a never-ending task. But we have a great amount of data and newly-gained experience to study, assess, and utilize to develop a plan for the 2020 research. With all honesty, we haven’t fully developed next year’s project goals and objectives. But we can certainly give you a taste of what we are contemplating.

​We have intentionally been rather limited on documenting the herbicide trial results for good reason. The use of chemicals is not just a one-year proposition. As we have already learned, many of the chemicals we used in the plots provided some quick results. But as anyone who has used weed killers knows, the real results come when it can be determined whether there was any long-lasting effect. The main question we are looking to answer is whether or not the chicory plant will rebound next year. We’re particularly interested in seeing if new seeds still sprout and if we’ll have to start the spraying process all over again next year. Plus, we want to determine if certain chemicals do have effective long-term results; if they do, we’ll likely be able to use less chemical going forward, meaning less chemicals will actually have to be put into the soil. Lastly, we want to determine if there is a chemical option available to remove the chicory from a hay field but not cause severe harm to the desirable forage such as the alfalfa. These are some of the key points we will be studying in our 2020 research. 

Now that we know how the five IWM techniques work individually and have a better idea of the strength and weaknesses of each, we can meld them together to approach weed control from a comprehensive, multi-practice approach. In 2019, we focused on using one technique on each particular test plot or area. In 2020, we will use multiple IWM methods on test plots to control weeds from many angles at once, somewhat like a one-two-three punch approach. For example, a trial we are considering is to incorporate grazing (biological means) within a plot to weaken the weeds and then apply a low-dose herbicide (chemical means) to eliminate them, followed by seeding a plant species that can be a companion to the plant community already in place (cultural approach). This final step will thereby take a mono-culture environment and turn it into a more biodiverse one that is healthier and will be more resistant to a future chicory infestation.

Another plan is to define a buffer area on the outer perimeter of our property in which chemical measures can be utilized to control chicory without the concern of collaterally removing other broadleaf forage such as alfalfa. Our hope is if we can contain the chicory to a narrower band of pasture and hay ground that has more grasses and fewer legumes, we’ll be able to make chemical applications more feasible. Plus, we’ll be able to contain the spread of chicory to those areas and keep it from moving further onto our farm (a preventative measure). In effect, we hope to eventually get the interior of our farm chicory-free and thus reduce the use of herbicides overall. In 2019, we nearly accomplished that goal, but we need to take additional measures to minimize the encroachment of chicory from areas outside of our control onto our property. If the herbicide trials provide us with a chemical alternative that eliminates the chicory but doesn’t severely affect legumes—there are a couple of herbicides that actually looked promising in 2019 but it’s too early for concrete results—we will have even more options for the buffer areas.
​
These trials may also move us closer to developing alternatives for organic producers, which is still on our list of objectives. 

Now that we have a better idea of the “bigger picture,” we want to dig deeper into researching alternative methods as well.

For example, the soil testing we did in 2019 showed us that we are definitely on the right track to having very healthy soils—high levels of organic matter, great soil structure, awesome infiltration rates, and so forth. But there is one field that gives us reason for concern. This particular hayfield (located on the outer edge of our farm) has had a high population of chicory as well as a less-than-desirable, mono-culture grass community. We have on several occasions intentionally failed to harvest this field, as we did not want to risk spreading the chicory to other areas. We have subjected the field to chemical applications but the grass population is such that the ground cover is poor and the chicory (as well as thistles) always seem to get re-established. The field has a high underground water table, limiting the type of plants that can survive long-term. We know from previous experience that tilling the ground to remove undesirable plant species will only propagate an explosion of weeds. No-till practices to incorporate another plant type may be an obvious option, but the soil structure is concerning. This provides us with a situation to try some innovation.

Our plan next year is to, as mentioned above, use a multifaceted IWM approach. We have already selected a grass variety that has a better chance of surviving a wetter environment, but we didn’t want to plant it this fall because of the presence of chicory. Therefore, our plan for this field for next year is to start out by applying an appropriate type of herbicide to eliminate any chicory or thistles. We will then increase the organic matter in the soil by applying aged manure we have available from our livestock. We will then spread the new grass seed onto the field.
​
Rather than tilling this planting into the ground and causing a new “crop” of weeds, we will try another approach. We have been reading about using livestock to graze a field during which time the action of them walking acts in a similar fashion to a “no-till” drill. The thing with grass and legume seeds is that they only need to have soil contact, not deep planting. Our thought is after the manure and seed are spread on the field, the cattle and goats can graze the field and work the manure and seed into the ground. Will it work? We’ll find out.

​It has been an exciting year and we’re looking forward to next year. Stayed tuned with the activities on our farm on our webpage. There are some things in the works beyond this SARE/SDSU project (hint: more conservation efforts involving many different aspects of wildlife habitat, water quality, forest management, and the list goes on). Join us on Facebook and our website for all the latest. 

​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.)

…and we’re not talking about the weeds!

As with most projects, what is planned and what actually comes to fruition often doesn’t match up. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the project has hit a detour, so to speak. This has caused us to refocus our priorities for what we hope to accomplish this year and to re-examine our methods and goals for next year. In reality, these changes may actually turn out to be a good thing.

First, though, let’s start off with some good news! We have been notified that we are the recipients of this year’s Lawrence County Conservation Citizenship Award. We were selected because of the management practices we have been doing over the past several years, from cross fencing to installing livestock water lines to participating in this research project. We are honored and truly hope we are a good example for others to follow.

When we were contacted by the Conservation District about the award, we were also asked if we would be willing to host a group from the Pullman, Washington-based Phoenix Conservancy to show them some of what we are doing on our farm. The Phoenix Conservancy’s mission is to “restore endangered ecosystems globally for the communities that depend on them and the conservation of biodiversity.” Check them out at www.phoenixconservancy.org. A component of the organization has been working with the United States Forest Service in the Bearlodge Ranger District of the Black Hills National Forest. We welcomed the opportunity. On Friday, July 19, 2019, we met with four members of the group whose focus is the biology of the ecosystem. We had a wonderful time, shared a lot of information, and learned so much! It was rewarding to receive confirmation that what we are doing is meaningful and is serving a bigger purpose. Thank you, Zindie from the Lawrence County Conservation District and Ben and his team from the Phoenix Conservancy!!  

Now on to our research project…

Wet weather has slowed down many of the vital activities on the farm, most importantly, haying. We’re running out of time to get the harvest done, and that moves our focus on that to a critical stage. The broad scope of the research project—more specifically, the demand for our time to measure, monitor, and track everything associated with the original project—would not have been an issue had we experienced a normal year. However, too many things are now having to be done in the limited time we have remaining, and so, needless to say, realism dictates which jobs receive a higher priority.

That being said, the overarching purpose of the project continues to be to examine which of the five principles of Integrated Weed Management (IWM) produce the most realistic, long-term, sustainable solutions to deal with the invasive spreading and production-robbing nature of wild chicory. Our objectives have become more focused on what we will do this year and what will receive more attention next year.

That is not to say that nothing has been happening in the past month. Many, many aspects of the research have been ongoing. South Dakota State University’s chemical trials are continuing as initially planned and remain a key component to our overall project. Some interesting, noteworthy results are already being observed (see below for more on this). Mowing also continues on certain areas of our farm. The intent in doing these procedures is still to evaluate whether mechanical weed control is a viable, long-term solution to control chicory, should someone choose not to use herbicides. See below for some pointers.

One change that has occurred is that intensive grazing with the goats on specific test plots will be more of an emphasis next year. This year, we’ve been monitoring the goats on our farm’s pastures. Below, we will explain what we are seeing so far in the grazing practices we have routinely employed on the farm, all which give a fair indication of what we expect to see as the project moves forward.
​
Another change is that a stronger emphasis is now being placed on our farm’s overall soil health in the fields and pastures affected by the chicory. While maintaining our farm’s soil health has always been a concern for us, the redirection of the project affords us the opportunity to do some targeted analysis of what is really happening under the plant canopy. As such, the cultural aspect of the project will actually receive more emphasis than we first envisioned. Our premise has always been that it is not sufficient to merely maintain status quo on our farm while controlling the weed; rather, we aim to make certain that soil health does not suffer as we work to keep the chicory from spreading. In production agriculture, making certain that conditions absolutely do not suffer but actually improve can make a difference between staying in business for the short-term and promoting production and a livelihood well into the future. 

On July 26, 2019, Paul Johnson (South Dakota State University Cooperative Extension Weed Science Coordinator) paid a visit to the herbicide test plots. As noted in our last post, 16 different chemical applications were made to 32 plots. Nearly all the herbicides are showing early control of chicory with the exception of one, at least at this point. Even so, controlling the chicory should not be the only sufficient outcome for the ag producer. Other key elements are what the chemical does to the desirable vegetation present in the plant community and whether or not any chemicals require repeated applications because they have a short-term result but fail to produce long-term control. Those research results will not be evident until much later. Hence, the full list of chemicals and their associated impact on chicory will not be reported until more conclusive data is finalized.

Still, as noted in the second photo below, an interesting early result with one of the chemicals is its impact on the brome grass. In the test plots of that particular chemical, the grass is a full 12” taller than all the grasses in the other plots. There could be a couple of reasons. First, a characteristic of that particular herbicide is that it acts as a “growth enhancer” for certain grasses.

When applied at a higher rate than was applied on the test plots, this chemical is actually used to control grass in highway ditches around sign and delineator posts (the grass outgrows itself and dies because it cannot sustain the rapid growth). Within the test plot, however, the chemical was applied at a low rate and, presumably, the grass has been able to grow but maintain its health. Time will tell if the plants actually survive long-term.
​
On other chemical plots, the grasses were also slightly taller than in others. In those, a coincidental reason could be that the chemicals simply reduced the viable plants around the grasses, thus reducing the other-plant competition. The grass was then able to take advantage of the available moisture and nutrients and flourish. Is this a good thing? Not necessarily, especially if the nutrient-rich legumes are not harvestable. Such considerations are all part of the research and the real-world decisions producers have to make to determine what provides the most acceptable results to maximize a balance between weed control and valuable forage production. 

​Incidentally, the vinegar and ethanol trials have been suspended. Even with spraying the plots with an equivalent of 20 gallons per acre of both substances, absolutely no effect can be seen on the weeds. While this method may work on a small scale, such as along a driveway or garden fence line, it is not an effective, sustainable way to get any meaningful weed control on a larger-scale ag-production setting.  

​It has always been said that goats may not eliminate a weed but they will certainly control it. Very true! That is what we have been seeing on our farm for years. Even though we aren’t monitoring specific test plots this year, we can readily see what is happening in the pastures that the goats routinely graze, especially now that we are paying close attention to what the goats are accomplishing, albeit on a much larger scale. As previously noted, the tops of the weeds (the seed-producing parts) are generally eaten but the leaves stay fairly intact. A theory is that if the plant is controlled enough and is kept from producing seed (i.e., by an animal eating the seeds or seed-producing part of the plant), it will eventually die out. Thus, grazing equals weed elimination. We can state with certainty that as long as the goats are allowed to graze an area, nearly all the weeds will be kept under control. In the photos below, the evidence is clear that the goats will consume the tops of the plants and may even nibble a bit on the leaves. The propagation of seeds will definitely be reduced, and it is safe to say goats are a reliable control-targeted alternative. 

​However, be careful. We also found that if the animals are pulled from the area for an extended time period and no other control method is employed, the weeds may come back with a vengeance. Mowing may also keep the weeds at bay, but chicory is persistent and will likely become more prevalent, particularly because the goats have also done a fine job of fertilizing the ground they were grazing on. Case in point, we took an area that had been goat pasture and fenced it off to plant some trees. Soon thereafter, the chicory became so prolific we had to chemically treat the area to stop the spread of the weed. Mechanical means (mowing) may have kept the plants from producing an abundance of seed but the plant population definitely became a problem.

​As with grazing, mowing can be an effective method to keep a plant from reaching the flowering stage. However, time and again we have been seeing that mowing is not a “one time and done” method. We have one test area that we have continuously mowed to keep the vegetation from growing too tall, yet a “healthy” population of chicory still resides in that space. We highlighted this same part of our farmyard in last month’s blog. We continue to mow it and have not applied any chemical treatment on it at all. In the photos below, it is clear that if the plants are left unattended, an undesirable amount of chicory will bolt and could soon produce flowers. The illustrated area was mowed less than two weeks ago. Obviously, it will be crucial to mow it again very soon. 

​The question still remains whether or not mowing alone can accomplish adequate control. Perhaps it can, but that depends. A determining factor is how much time a producer is willing to devote to mowing chicory in infested fields or pastures. As we all know, controlling weeds is one job on an ag operation but certainly not the only job. Another factor is whether the forage yield eventually realized by constantly mowing the plants off will be acceptable enough to warrant the routine mowing. A final factor is whether or not different cutting heights will make a significant difference in controlling the weed. We will have those results next month.

As mentioned above, the cultural aspect of IWM will now be receiving more emphasis in our project than we had originally planned. An added component will be laboratory-conducted soil health tests to measure the amount of organic matter and the full spectrum of nutrients available in our soils. We’ve been monitoring what is happening above ground with the ground cover but we really haven’t concentrated on what is going on below the surface. Good soil health includes both!
​
On July 30, 2019, Tanse Herrmann from the USDA Natural Resource and Conservation Service office in Sturgis, SD, collected three soil tests in areas of our fields that have become infested with chicory and other weeds. These samples will be mailed to the lab and the results will be reported in next month’s blog. The question to be answered is whether there is a difference in soils that have an overabundance of weeds compared to an area that is relatively weed-free. The presumption is that the weed-infested ground isn’t as healthy overall. The lab tests will prove or deny that belief. Equally as interesting could be if the “clean” soil is found to be less healthy, i.e., has less organic matter and less fertility. In that case, we will need to determine why that may be. The results should be interesting!  

Another addition to the cultural IWM is that we examined the physical makeup of the soils by doing a Rainfall Infiltration Test on the same areas. This test measures the ability of the soil to absorb an inch of rain, followed shortly thereafter by another inch, and whether or not the soil can utilize the water. Healthy soil can soak all the rain in, resulting in less runoff. Poor soil (ground that has adversely compromised soil structure, due to poor ground cover, compaction, or damaging tillage practices) can’t make use of the rain and, consequently, is more prone to drought conditions. A farm with poor soil can get a couple of inches of rain but can’t store it and the water runs away. In other words, the farm may as well have not received any rain at all.
​
We’re happy to report that our soil passed the tests! In the first test (taken in a non-weed infested portion of a grass pasture), the soil was able to absorb an inch of rain in 20 seconds. When the second inch of water was applied 15 minutes later, the water completely disappeared into the ground in 1 minute and 26 seconds. Range health standards tell us that the ground in this area of our farm has good structure and will be able to make use of even heavy rain. When that same test spot was dug up, the observations supported the theory. Healthy soil has the consistency of chocolate cake, and there should be signs of roots and organic matter mixed into the soil, as well as an ag producer’s friends, earthworms. The presence of earthworms should make every ag producer smile. In fact, tests have shown that worm poop is extremely nutrient-dense. In equal amounts of material, worm casts have 25 times more plant-usable nutrients than an equal amount of other material. Our soil in this part of the farm is in good shape!

Interestingly, we also did a Rainfall Infiltration Test in another cropland field where a significant population of undesirable plants has grown. To improve the production of the field, we very recently sprayed the field with 2,4D to reduce the weeds and we will be no-till planting a cover crop, hopefully, in the next week, weather permitting. In that field, the first inch absorbed in 26 seconds and the second inch (applied 15 minutes later) soaked away in 1 minute and 15 seconds (actually less time than the non-weedy pasture soil). The reason for this could be that the multispecies of plants (including weeds) actually opened up additional root channels for the water to soak into. This proves that a monoculture of one species of grass alone is not as desirable as a mixture of grasses and forbs, especially plants with taproots. Once we get the full spectrum of lab tests back, we may consider no-till planting a variety of pasture plants into the first grass pasture to provide a more diverse plant (and root) community.  

Well, that’s all for this month! Please stay tuned for future news and 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 next month!

The research project is officially underway! The past few weeks have been busy—measuring and flagging test plots, collecting forage samples, making modifications to equipment, coordinating research plans, and actually getting things started. Many local producers agree that the growing season is about three weeks behind normal. But recently, the plants have come to life. Most days have been on the cooler (albeit seasonable), damper side but warm enough for grasses, plants and, yes, weeds, to grow—a lot!

Our project tasks thus far have been focusing on four of the five Integrated Weed Management (IWM) techniques: mechanical (mowing), cultural (monitoring ground cover), chemical (herbicides), and biological (using goats for grazing). 

Preventive measures, the fifth component of IWM, hasn’t been necessary at this point since the chicory isn’t flowering and no seed is being produced. Our goal is to keep it that way! 

Let's get into what we’re working on so far...

​Mowing is obviously one of the more visible aspects of our research, especially in these early stages of the project. The mowing will be monitored to determine which, if any, mowing procedures adversely affect the vitality of the chicory plant. 

It’s too early to say what effect the mowing is going to have on the chicory plants. One of the basic elements of IWM is to use mechanical methods (mowing) to control weed growth. Thus, our immediate, short-range goal is to control the spread of chicory by removing the flower. We have measures planned for later in the growing season during which a cover crop of various plant species will be broadcast seeded into a weed-infested area that will have chemical applied to it prior to remove as much plant competition as possible. 

Several sources have agreed that mowing alone may actually stimulate the chicory plant, as it can spur shoots to grow from the existing root structure. This data causes us some consternation about whether mowing will have the desired result. Then again, common weed management rationale infers that if the plant can be prevented from reaching the mature seed stage (a process called “bolting”) by eliminating the flowering stem, fewer seeds should be produced, resulting in fewer new seedlings. 

The trick is to keep the plant from going to seed. To get a sense of the challenge we face, imagine controlling dandelions on your lawn. You mow your grass and, in a period of 24 hours, the dandelions have grown, bolted, and produced a new seed head almost overnight. Remember, chicory is a relative of the dandelion and they share some characteristics. In fact, in the early growth stages, a person has to look closely to distinguish between the two plants. 
​
While chicory doesn’t flower nearly as quickly as a dandelion, the seed stem reappears in amazing time. We have seen this quick recovery in areas of our farm we’ve cut with a lawn mower, typically at heights of less than four inches. With repeated mowing, we have still seen the plant bolt, but the flowers develop closer to the ground, just below the height of the mower blade. Without lowering the mower, the blade can’t reach the stem to cut it off and the plant flowers and reseeds. Below are some photos showing just how persistent chicory is to reproduce. The first photo was taken on June 19th and shows the chicory just before being mowed. The second photo was taken after the mowing was completed a few hours later. The third photo was taken on June 27th.  The grass is still short (four inches) but the chicory has grown and bolted, and the stem is already 24” tall. Left in this condition, it would flower in a short time. 

​So, what’s the difference between what is happening on the lawn and the mowing we are doing in our fields? Not much! Will the varied mowing heights make a difference? That’s to be seen. The critical task is to monitor the chicory’s condition and make adjustments as necessary to meet the control goal. 

​At this point, only one IWM cultural procedure is in progress—monitoring the ground cover to assure adequate residue and plant material are present to shade and protect the ground. Rather than demonstrating practices that could be duplicated in a garden (techniques such as mulching or hand weeding, for instance), our project will demonstrate practices that the typical ag producer would be doing on acres and acres of land. Even though most producers are cognizant of the effects of harvesting hay, we chose to add this component to our research so we can readily show how removing the forage and plant material affects the soil and plant health.  

The herbicide trials will undoubtedly be getting a lot of attention from people, both through our blog posts and our farm visits. When we mention to producers what we are doing for research on our farm, we typically get asked what herbicide works best to control chicory. We very much appreciate the help of Paul Johnson (SDSU Cooperative Extension Weed Science Coordinator) and his staff for helping us perform verifiable, university-driven tests using various chemicals. Each herbicide we’re using is readily available to producers.

After scouting out various locations on our farm, we decided on a portion of a hay field that has become infested with chicory. The field’s forage is a mixture of grass, clover, and alfalfa. If weather conditions would have allowed, we would have harvested a portion of the forage from the plots to determine how much the use of herbicides will affect the alfalfa. Because timing didn’t work with this round of applications, we have a high degree of certainty that the alfalfa and clover will take a hit. Even so, our sense is that the alfalfa may still recover; the result will all be part of the research. Later in the year, we plan to harvest a portion of a weed-infested hay field and then apply an herbicide within a day or so, giving the chicory time to recover but not waiting too long so the alfalfa has time to regrow. 
​
The chemical trials were conducted on 34 plots measuring 10’ x 30’ each. Two plots are “control plots” and received no chemical treatment at all. On the other 32 plots, 15 different chemical combinations were applied, some of which were applied at varying rates to ascertain the lowest effective amount that can be applied to the plants and that will still get a satisfactory result.  

An added component of the trials is the application of organically-friendly solutions on a separate group of plots. We decided to add this component after speaking with people who were interested in seeing what happens when some of the more common substances, typically used by organic gardeners, are applied to chicory-infested areas. Dave Heck, the Lawrence County Invasive Species Coordinator, specifically requested that we try vinegar and gin. After consulting with Paul Johnson, we decided to add seven additional plots, two of which will be for household cleaning vinegar (6% acetic acid strength) and one for horticulture vinegar (20% acetic acid strength or higher). The high percentage vinegar is rather difficult to acquire locally, and we will apply that vinegar once we have been able to find a provider. 
​
The other four plots are somewhat more unique in what will be applied. Rather than using gin as the alcohol substance—gin contains up to 50% alcohol and is rather costly to apply in volume—we have decided to use 100% corn ethanol on two of the plots. On the remaining two plots, we have decided to try E85 Ethanol (yep, the same stuff used in fuel-flex vehicles) since that contains 85% ethyl alcohol. I’m not sure I’d recommend either just yet… this falls into the “don’t try this at home” category. Please let us see what happens first before attempting this yourself. These plots are smaller, measuring 10’ x 20’ each. The environmental impact, if any, will be minimal. 

The team from SDSU has a tremendous amount of experience in conducting these tests. All of the chemicals and substances were applied at a rate of 20 gallons of water/herbicide PER ACRE. Since the plots are small (0.0069 acres for the herbicide plots and 0.0046 acres for the organic trials), the amount of chemicals being applied to each plot was very minute (mere fractions of an ounce or pint). 
​
The actual application process was a learning experience for me. Dave Vos (SDSU Weed Science Ag Research Manager/Specialist) and Jill Alms (SDSU Weed Science Ag Research Manager/Specialist) made short work of getting it done. While Dave walked the plots, applying the various herbicides, Jill methodically measured and mixed each substance. Dave used a backpack that was pressured by compressed carbon dioxide. He said that he has done this so many times that he doesn’t even have to think about how fast he walks to get the application rate correct. 

It should be mentioned that a part of the herbicide trial involves monitoring weather conditions. Jill documented wind speed and direction, temperature, and relative humidity. This data is necessary to assure the applications are done correctly and that the chemicals stay where they are intended to be placed. Thanks, guys, for all your work!!
​
Just to give everyone an idea of the condition of the chicory in the plots being sprayed, the majority of the plant leaf matter ranges from 8” to 12” tall. However, some bolting is beginning to occur, meaning taller stems are forming. Jill located one very prolific plant that gives us an idea of what chicory is capable of. Jill is 5’ 4” tall. The photo speaks for itself.

Finally, the biological aspect (grazing with goats) has been ongoing. We have been monitoring the condition of the chicory in the goats’ pastures. Our experience over the years is that the goats (and other livestock on our farm) don’t really desire the chicory plant when it is in the rosette stage. That is the low-growing, leafy period that most of us are familiar with in the spring when dandelions are growing in our lawns. 

A quick internet search reveals a common characteristic of chicory. People who have eaten chicory leaves in salads have commented that the leaves have a somewhat bitter taste. Some folks prefer the taste while others avoid it. Many online sites mention that chicory leaves become bitterer the older they are and the more they are exposed to sunlight and air. They’re right—I’ve eaten chicory, and I’m not a fan. 

Do people and animals have similar selective tastes? Actually, yes, and there is a scientific explanation. According to Kim Cassida, author of “Chicory: Improved varieties are a pasture option” in Progressive Forage (August 29, 2014), “Chicory forage reduces worm burdens in small ruminants and farmed deer, offering an alternative to chemical dewormers. The primary bioactive components responsible for this effect are sesquiterpene lactones, which are also responsible for the characteristic bitter flavor of chicory… While chicory is usually highly palatable, occasionally animals are reluctant to eat it, which may be related to the bitterness of the sesquiterpene lactones.”

So, now we know why the goats, in fact, may not “eat everything,” as it is claimed. Cassida pointed out that sheep will commonly avoid chicory with high sesquiterpene lactone levels but goats don’t show a preference one way or another. Perhaps our critters are a little pickier.

All that being said, I know from working on another project in which we used sheep to eat dalmatian toadflax that animals can be trained to eat something that they initially don’t like. In that research project, the sheep initially wouldn’t touch any of the toadflax plant, leaves or stems. After a short time, and with a little encouragement in the form of being left in a toadflax-infested plot and having consumed nearly everything else, the sheep ate the toadflax. In fact, they even developed a preference for it to the point that they would eat the toadflax and leave grass standing. That’s called a “trained flock.”  
​
In the chicory project, we’re a little ahead of the game. Even though the goats aren’t munching on the chicory leaves (they like to browse on plants about shoulder height or 12” off the ground), we’ve seen countless examples in the pastures where the goats have nipped the chicory stems all the way down to the rosette. The leaves are untouched (too bitter?) but the stem (and ensuing flowers and seeds) are gone. Now we just have to get them to target the leaf and really reduce the chicory plant matter, the next phase of what lies ahead for the weed-eating crew.

This post was long, but a lot happened this month! Please stay tuned for future news and research results at the end of July. 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 next month!

When we were planning our project, using previous years’ experiences as a guide, we anticipated that the weeds would be actively growing by mid- to late-May of this year. Last year, when we were helping with the South Dakota Cooperative Extension and Bureau of Land Management project using sheep to target Dalmatian toadflax, we were nearly halfway into the research and already had tangible results by the end of May.

But, when we were preparing for this year’s project, we apparently forgot to consult with Mother Nature about the weather. Here we are at the end of May and the trees are just starting to leaf out. The grasses and other plants (including weeds) are starting to grow but not like a “normal” year.  In fact, on May 22nd, we were blessed to receive 7 inches of very heavy, wet snow. We’re not complaining—the higher elevations of the Black Hills received in excess of 20 inches. But over the last few weeks, we have yet to see much sunshine.  

​In western South Dakota, you don’t complain about the moisture. But we’re beginning to think it’s OK to frown a bit. For the past several days, we have been in a wet weather pattern and, as a result, we are having to rethink our grazing plans. The pasture where we had originally intended to start grazing the goats is so wet that we can hardly find places to put the shelters and pens that don’t have water running through them. Just look at the pictures below…that’s a difference of only a few hours! Thankfully, we have other options on the farm, so we’ll scout out another site, at least until things dry up a bit.

One positive from all of the constant rain is some unintended but necessary training for the weed-eating team. Admittedly, our goats are a bit wimpy when it comes to precipitation falling from the sky. Typically, at the first sign of rain, they head for shelter—at a run.

(I know. Some of you with range-hardy goats are saying, “Really???”)

​We have friends who have “tougher” goats, mainly because those critters are out on a vast pasture in the spring and summer and don’t have the luxury of a barn or shelter being within an easy running distance. We had actually wondered how our boys would behave being restricted to the test plots with less-than-ideal barn-like shelter conditions readily available. But, after days upon days of rain, they have apparently gotten weary of lounging in the barn and have succumbed to the calling of the green grass. This morning, with rain falling from the sky, the herd was out grazing! Training mission accomplished!

Hopefully, by the time our next blog and newsletter comes out the end of June, we will actually be able to show the research efforts well underway. Summer shouldn’t be far away, right?  Again, 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.

Thanks for following us. See you next month!

Whether you own a small hobby farm or a large farming and ranching operation, controlling weeds can be a never-ending task. Determining which method of weed control to implement can seem somewhat elusive, especially when so many techniques and approaches exist.

For many years, herbicides were the option of choice. Yet relying on herbicides alone has only resulted in more herbicide-resistant weeds. According to the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds, 254 weed species are now herbicide-resistant; what’s more, this survey determined that weeds are now resistant to 163 different herbicides. It goes without saying that herbicides, by themselves, are not the answer to sustainable, and effective, weed control.

​A more viable strategy is Integrated Weed Management (IWM). But what exactly is IWM? How does someone go about implementing this approach? And what are its benefits? Let’s explore these questions and more.

According to the Integrated Weed Management (IWM) Resource Center, “IWM is an approach to managing weeds using multiple control tactics.” These methods include mechanical, chemical, cultural, and biological techniques, combined together over the course of a growing season. The key to IWM is not relying too heavily on one method over another. That’s why selecting specific weed species to target and then adjusting the timing of control methods and resources is so important. The initial and subsequent prevention of the spread of weeds and their seeds enhances the effectiveness of IWM.

​IWM is not a “one and done” approach. Just as Integrated Pest Management involves a multi-step process that includes identifying the problem, assessing the severity of the issue, determining options, implementing the best strategy, assessing once again, and recording the results, IWM involves a number of stages that occur over the course of a given growing season.  The first stage, which perhaps is obvious, is prevention. The goal of prevention is making certain that weed-seed-contaminated forage products do not leave the farm. Monitoring pastures for weed growth and reducing the potential movement of weed seeds from one location to the next, whether through livestock manure or farm equipment, can help lessen the spread of weeds. Additionally, establishing borders between fields and pastures can also limit exposure and spreading.

​Another stage involves cultural methods that maximize crop production during the growing season. Rotating crops, limiting bare ground (whether in rows or in pastures) to create better crop cover, and selecting those crops that will be most effective in competing against weeds are all ways a producer can culturally change his or her planting patterns to limit weed growth. Ultimately, if fewer weed species grow to maturity, fewer weed seeds will accumulate during the growing season.

​Once weeds begin to grow, chemical, mechanical, and biological methods become the third stage. As stated above, many weeds have become herbicide-resistant. However, using residual herbicides and applying the chemical according to specific rates and at specific weed growth times can boost the effectiveness of herbicide application. Rotating different herbicides and avoiding the application of two similar herbicides on the same site will also produce better results. In addition to chemical applications, organic methods, which include everything from tilling, mowing, and burning to hand pulling and seed collection, can help control weed growth and spreading. Intensive grazing by livestock trained to eat unwanted weeds can also weaken the weed plants, making them more susceptible to other IWM control methods.

​Aside from the fact that ag producers can no longer rely on herbicides alone to solve their weed woes, IWM gives producers more options for both controlling weeds and capitalizing on resources they already have. Organic producers can also find effective strategies to control weeds in their fields and gardens.

​Just about any ag producer, big or small, can use IWM. By blending and incorporating IWM strategies into realistically-doable applications, producers can find an effective, ecologically-sound, and financially-viable solution that is suitable for nearly any agricultural operation. Because these options are also sustainable over the long-term, enhanced quality and production of the land, balanced resource stewardship, and an improved bottom line becomes more plausible.

Our project will use several of the methods described above. Our preventive measures already include keeping any infested hay on the farm and placing animals in a clean-out pen before locating them to a non-infested pasture. Biological methods will include intensive grazing with goats; chemical methods will include using varied rates of different herbicides. As the project moves forward, future blogs and newsletters will address how these methods are utilized in more detail.

In our next post, we will describe the preparations we have made during the last few months to get ready for this year’s growing season. Watch for the next post towards the end of this month and stay tuned through our social media sources. If you haven’t already, please subscribe to our newsletter by following this link.

Resources:
1. Hillyer, G. (2018, August). Weed wars. Progressive Farmer, 4.
2. Pittman, K., Flessner, M., Rubione, C., & Ackroyd, V. (2019). What is integrated weed management? Retrieved from http://integratedweedmanagement.org/index.php/iwm-toolbox/what-is-integrated-weed-management/
3. South Dakota Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Weed and pest control, integrated pest management. Retrieved from https://sdda.sd.gov/ag-services/weed-and-pest-control/weed-pest-control
​