--

Growing Pains

…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. 

Chemical IWM

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.  

Biological IWM

​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.

Mechanical IWM

​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.

Cultural IWM

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!