Spend less. Manage more. Take control.
Here’s a deal for you. Invest in a few pieces of well-chosen steel,
diversify your crop mix for higher-value marketing, and harvest a higher return
to your bottom line through big savings on herbicide.
Interested? I thought so.
Keep in mind, whether you farm 1 acre or 1,000 acres, you can save in many
ways—not just in dollars and cents. The tools and techniques you read
about in this book will also pay off in less liability, greater management
flexibility, less trouble with herbicide-resistant weeds and reduced off-farm
environmental impacts.
Thinking about weed control changed dramatically in the years following
World War II. Scientists working for the Allies developed growth-regulating
compounds known today as 2,4-D and MCDA. When these chemicals “leaked”
into the biological research community, it soon became clear they could be
formulated to kill broadleaf weeds and not harm corn. These herbicides helped
to reduce the need for cultivation and led to greater plant populations per
acre. Check planting in wide rows of aligned hills (to allow cultivating across
rows) gave way to drilled corn in narrower rows.
Herbicides, affordable hybrid corn seed and inexpensive nitrogen fertilizers
opened new production frontiers throughout the ’50s. The arrival in
the ’60s of atrazine and other herbicides that provided control for
a wide range of weeds led to the wholesale abandonment of mechanical weed
control (MWC) in some areas.
Tough-to-mount and painfully-boring-to-operate cultivators frequently became
fencerow architecture. Farm-country cultivating skills and wisdom dwindled
as herbicides simplified decision-making. Researchers can trace the origin
of herbicide-resistant weeds, as well as “new” weeds, to the very
areas where cultivation ceased.
However, mechanical weed control is still important to many
farmers. While national aggregate sales of cultivating equipment
slowly declined through the ’80s and ’90s, use of
cultivators remains fairly common in scattered areas. Many farmers
cultivate in some row-cropping regions of the Midwest and South.
Vegetable farmers, especially in California, keep farmshop welders
at work creating custom tools that fit their specialized needs.
And ridge-till farming (see page 34) usually means at least an
annual ridge-forming cultivator pass.
The current interest in mechanical and flame weed control tools as a preferred
technology began long ago with farmers who decided—for a range of reasons—not
to abandon their “steel” for herbicides. A few individuals never
switched. Many contemporary tool users blend physical and chemical weed management
modes. Some depend primarily on mechanical controls, using partial rates or
“banding” herbicide in a swath just over the row area. Others
use full broadcast rates and continue to cultivate to ensure top yields—or
just because it feels right.
While the “other-than-herbicide” group of farmers has grown
significantly in the past 30 years, it is still a distinct minority. Yet,
out of necessity, these farmers have preserved weed management skills and
developed sophisticated tools to produce crops profitably.
Steel used appropriately can cut herbicide costs. But an integrated mechanical
tool approach wins in other ways, too. It deals effectively with
herbicide-resistant weeds, perennial weeds in no-till fields,
and soil types that respond positively to occasional tillage within
a no-till system. Mixing in the optimum combination of tools and
cultural weed management preserves the effectiveness of herbicides
through limiting their use. When farmers bring together improved
tools with all these factors, many find that an integrated, steel-based
approach is their least risky, most profitable option.
There are even signs of a watershed in how mainline agricultural researchers
will view the weed control future. Orvin C. Burnside is a veteran weed scientist
at the University of Minnesota. In 1993, he authored a perspective piece titled
“Weed Science—The Step Child” (Weed Technology, Vol. 7,
Issue 2, pp. 515-518). He wrote:
Later, Burnside called for a systems approach using preventive,
mechanical, cultural, biological, chemical and integrated strategies
in his address to the North Central Weed Science Society’s
1995 annual meeting.
If these professionals pursue research into biological and mechanical
strategies as aggressively as they have herbicides, many farmers
featured in this book are ready to help. These visionary, self-funded
agriculturists have practical, farm-tested techniques to share
and plenty of new ideas to test and refine.
Expectations of tillage have changed dramatically in 50 years.
Farmers are under critical scrutiny from their neighbors and regulators
to keep streams clean and topsoil in place. Yet, as they devote
more management to meet rising environmental standards, farmers
wonder how to find new ways to make their operation profitable.
To win acceptance in the ’90s by farmers who know it only
by its negative reputation, mechanical weed control has to show
it can meet these challenges. This strategy has its own demands
and limits, but also offers its own assurances. Through market
incentives or crop diversification options, some operators decide
that the benefits of not using herbicides justify the trade-off
of mastering broader management skills. Other operators see well-managed
herbicides and steel tools as equally useful and acceptable, and
invest in learning how to fine-tine the combination.
