Mix and rotate herbicides

Part 1: Spray small radish twice Western Australian research reveals that careful timing, effective application and using different herbicide groups are more important than product choice for controlling wild radish. A range of herbicide combinations can provide effective control of herbicide-resistant wild radish if small plants were sprayed twice and attention is given to achieving good herbicide coverage. Peter Newman (Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative) and agronomist Grant Thompson (Crop Circle Consulting) discuss the results of their wild radish research. Resources Spray resistant radish early for best efficacy and yield (Grant Thompson, Crop Updates paper 2014) Herbicide resistant wild radish (Peter Newman) Controlling herbicide resistant Wild Radish in wheat in the Northern Agricultural Region of WA with a two spray strategy (Peter Newman) Diverse weed control: Left jab, right hook (AHRI insight) Part 2: When is it worth rotating from clethodim (Select®) to butroxydim (Factor®)? Is there any value in rotating the post-emergent herbicides clethodim (Select®) and butroxydim (Factor®)? The research suggests that Factor® will sometimes kill plants that are moderately-resistant to Select® that could help in driving down the weed seed bank. Dr Peter Boutsalis from the University of Adelaide discusses his latest research and observations using both products with AHRI’s Peter Newman.

Have you got the best and most cost efficient strategy to nuke your weeds before seeding? The case is clear: summer weed control is essential! Controlling weeds through summer and prior to seeding is key to securing moisture and nitrogen for the following crop. Part 1: Control summer weeds for yield and profit Every $1 spent on summer weed control can potentially return up to $8/ha through moisture and nitrogen conservation. The impact on grain yield as a result of various summer weed control treatments is what Colin McMaster (NSW DPI R&D) refers to as “buying a spring”. Listen to Colin and Pete Newman (AHRI) as they investigate the $$ benefits of controlling summer weeds. Part 2: Increase pre-em efficacy through a mix and rotate strategy We’ve done a good job of promoting herbicide rotation over the years. And whilst this advice still stands, recent research shows the benefits of mixing herbicides as well. As American weeds researcher, Pat Tranel, puts it, “rotating buys you time, mixing buys you shots (of herbicide)”. Listen to Pat and Pete as they explore the benefits of the mix and rotate strategy.

A few years ago they began an extensive liming and clay delving and spading program across 50 per cent of the 3500 ha cropping area to improve the water holding capacity of the natural non-wetting sands. With 75 per cent of the affected area now treated Trevor is looking forward to having this expensive but very beneficial operation behind him. Treating the non-wetting soils has assisted with weed control through 40 per cent higher yielding crops, more even crop germination and better efficacy with the pre-emergent herbicides. “Treating the non-wetting soils has assisted with weed control through 40 per cent higher yielding crops, more even crop germination and better efficacy with the pre-emergent herbicides,” says Trevor. “It has also enabled us to grow canola in paddocks that were previously not an option and crops seem to finish better and are less prone to frosting.” They have also achieved good results building soil organic matter with brown manured cereal rye crops. Trevor has trialled summer crop brown manuring too but the results over three seasons were unreliable and he has decided to look for other options to reduce evaporation over summer and reduce the need for summer weed control. The Symes’ farming system is 100 per cent controlled traffic and stubble retention with a long winter crop rotation of lupins, wheat, canola, wheat, barley, with brown manured cereal rye grown on the soils not suited to canola. Information on the summer fallow spray program The summer fallow spray program involves 2,4-D ester, triclopyr and glyphosate to control melons, caltrop, fleabane, sowthistle and volunteer cereals. For the last 5–6 years Trevor has applied a double knock of glyphosate followed with paraquat in preparation for sowing. “We try hard to get the timing right and target the right size weeds with the double knock,” he says. “We also avoid mixing a pre-emergent in with the paraquat because the aim is to get the paraquat on weed leaves using a high water rate and fine droplet size, whereas the aim with the pre-emergent is to achieve even coverage of the soil. Doing the pre-emergent spray separately costs us more but I believe it is worth using the right boom set up for the two jobs.” “Rotating crops and herbicide modes of action, and using the double knock tactic, are critical to our weed management program,” he says. “RR canola, Clearfield barley and lupins all have a fit in the crop rotation and allow us to rotate herbicides effectively. The imi-tolerant barley has enabled quite effective control of brome grass and we croptop the canola with glyphosate.In the lupins we are using a pre-emergent propyzamide application followed with clethodim in-crop and finish with a croptopping spray of paraquat.” Trevor is finding that weed control in the lupin phase is more critical than it used to be, but the value of lupins in boosting yields in the following wheat crop motivates him to look after the lupin crops, plant into clean paddocks and do everything he can to keep weed numbers low. The Symes have had good success with high biomass canola on sandy soils where multiple germinations of wild radish are the norm. They usually plan their crop and herbicide program with their agronomist at the end of September and then revise it in February or March. Trevor is going away from the current move toward narrow row spacing and disc seeders. “We are changing back from a disc seeder at 305 mm spacing to tines on 381 mm with a split boot to sow cereals in paired rows and canola and lupin in single rows,” he says. “We are working on the idea that less rows equals less disturbance equals less weeds in a controlled traffic system. The slightly wider row spacing also makes it easier to handle the stubble load accumulated over several years and allows us to inter-row sow.” He has found that high tillering wheat varieties, such as Magenta, offer an alternative way to increase crop competition through additional shading of the inter-row. In the 2015 harvest the Symes added a chaff deck to their weed control progam, directing all the chaff, and weed seeds, into the harvester wheel tracks. Trevor harvests weedy paddocks first to maximise the value of harvest weed seed control and has found the chaff deck easy to use and results in relatively few weeds surviving in the tramlines. The biggest benefit of the chaff deck is that weed seeds are collected across the whole farm every year, and concentrated in the inhospitable tramlines. “The biggest benefit is that we can collect weed seed across the whole farm every year where previously we have only really been able to do narrow windrow burning in the canola phase. Now at harvest the whole job is done, with no need to return to burn.” “It is great to know where the weeds are and they are dumped on a hard, inhospitable surface,” he says. “Any escapes are easily collected at the next harvest. We also have a back-up plan to use a shielded sprayer to weeds in the tramlines, but we really want to avoid using this option.” “In fields with high weed numbers in the tramlines we have tried simply driving a tractor, without any implement, along every tramline to achieve a crimp-rolling effect. This seems to have been a cost-effective way to stop seed set in weedy tramlines.” In fields with high weed numbers in the tramlines Trevor has tried simply driving a tractor, without any implement, along every tramline to achieve a crimp-rolling effect (right). Annual ryegrass, wild radish and brome grass are the main weed challenges on the Symes’ property. Trevor has done some herbicide resistance testing but generally takes the approach that all weeds present are likely to have some level of resistance. “The key is to keep weed numbers low so we take care to spray when weeds are small and avoid frost windows and high temperatures when the sprays are less effective,” he says. “We also use quite high water rates – 80 L/ha for most post-emergent herbicides and 120 L/ha for pre-emergent herbicides and paraquat – and have two sprayers so we can cover as much ground as possible when the conditions are right.” “Fencelines and fire breaks are a weak point in our farming system as a source of glyphosate resistant weeds,” he says. “We have removed as many fences as possible, now that we don’t run any livestock, and are actively looking for an alternative herbicide that is not used in crop to manage weeds on the firebreaks.” Trevor takes considerable care when choosing seed production paddocks, ensuring weed numbers are low to start with and then treating the paddock as a nursery. He harvests the seed crops early and cleans the seed prior to planting.

He is faced with a series of weeds each season, including barnyard grass, fleabane, milk thistle, red pig weed, peachvine, feathertop Rhodes grass, bathurst burr, black oats, phalaris and turnip weed. Resistance has been confirmed in barnyard grass (resistant to Group M herbicides – glyphosate) and black oats (resistant to Group A). Tristram Herstlet, Reardon Farms and Michael Brosnan B&W Rural Tristram expects to have additional problems with resistance in the future, particularly with feathertop Rhodes grass and glyphosate. To manage the existing and potential future resistance threats, Tristram has implemented an integrated approach to weed management, in collaboration with consultant Michael Brosnan of B&W Rural at Mungindi. “We regularly discuss our weeds management program with our agronomist. By the time we plant cotton, we have a program in place and know what we want to do,” Tristram said. “Our strategy is threefold: to minimise future resistance, prolong the use life of each herbicide, and avoid the problem of weed shifts. “We do this by having different tactics, such as rotating our chemical groups, cultivation, crop rotation and farm hygiene. We are well aware of the dire consequences of having multiple grass and broadleaf weeds resistant to glyphosate – and we are currently managing two cases of resistance, in barnyard grass and black oats,” Tristram said. Tristram takes a holistic approach to integrated weed management. “We use control methods at a whole farm level, at a management unit level, down to an individual field basis. And we apply as many options as possible to try and control the weeds that are resistant, and prevent further resistance developing,” Tristram said. “We use a Group L treatment instead of glyphosate (Group M) to give the field a break. More recently, we are using a Group K as a post-plant, pre-emergent in cotton. We intend to follow this with cultivation. We haven’t felt that we’ve needed a layby (a residual herbicide used to control weeds in-crop) as the other control methods are currently working. “We also have a range of other tactics. All of our contractors are required to have clean gear when they come on farm. We practice ‘Come Clean Go Clean’ primarily for disease protection, but an added benefit is weed management. “We also use chippers, predominately in non-crop areas, but also in-crop if necessary, such as if fleabane has become an issue. We try to keep everything spotless, as the fewer the weeds, the fewer the seeds for next year.” Tristram believes the future of weed management lies in robotics and microwave technology. “On our dryland areas we use a camera spray system, which we purchased in 2016. The driver behind the purchase was the ability to spray the dryland fallow area when cotton is in, and the ability to put on higher rates of chemical to kill fleabane without using a hormone,” Tristram said. “The system was a serious investment – a total of $640,000, including a tractor, sprayer and boom – but we’re spraying at the moment and it costs only $5 per hectare with this new system, versus $11.60 per hectare with a full boom. “Based on this, we’re saving around $2,000 per day in chemical with the new system. Most importantly, we’re really happy with the results: the cameras work on the chlorophyll in the plants, and the results are fantastic: we’re getting a good weed kill,” he said. Source: CottonInfo Weed Control case studies Further information: CottonInfo weed management page