Target audiences include but are not limited to employees of federal agencies such as the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the General Services Administration, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Additional audiences include: state/local government officials tasked with IPM, Extension educators, master gardeners, 4-H staff, crop consultants, pest management professionals, and a wide array of green industry professionals

Learn more by visiting the website with course information, costs and dates.

As fall temperatures begin cooling, growers across the region have an opportunity to control winter annual and perennial weeds. Understanding how weeds grow, and learning key control concepts will enhance producers’ ability to reduce the spread and impact of weeds this fall. This article provides tips to manage winter annual weeds in small grain farming systems and reviews several concepts for managing perennial broadleaf weeds.

Click here to read the complete article.

There are many ways a person can learn about calibration.

• Contact your local weed coordinator or extension agent.
• Attend a Private Applicator’s Class in your area.
• Use a combination of print and video materials available.

The following are some of the print materials available.  We have provided links or you may contact your extension agent.

• Calibrating Ground Sprayers Using Shortcut Methods - a MSU Extension Publication
• Calibrating Pesticide Application Equipment – a MSU Extension Publication
• Calibrating Boom & Broadjet Sprayers – a MSU Extension Publication
• Calibrating Hand Sprayers – a MSU Extension Publication

MWCA helped to underwrite this short video that demonstrates calibration of equipment.  We have broken it down in to 6 steps.

Chapter 1 Importance of Calibration

Chapter 2 Equipment & Pre-Calibration Check

Chapter 3 Understanding Calibration
[See post to watch Flash video]

Chapter 4 Calibrating Backpack Sprayer and Handline
[See post to watch Flash video]

Chapter 5 Calibrating Using the Strip Method
[See post to watch Flash video]

Chapter 6 Adding Pesticide to Your Tank
[See post to watch Flash video]

MSU Extension also has a DVD available for purchase on their website.  There is also information on the MSU Webpage on Calibration.

Summary: Seed head insects, primarily the seed head fly, Urophora affinis, and the seed head weevils, Larinus spp., are reducing spotted knapweed seed production by about 94% in most areas of western Montana. Studies were conducted on the compatibility of seed head biological control agents and mowing for management of spotted knapweed.  Our study demonstrated that mowing of spotted knapweed in the spring and early summer can result in the growth of secondary flower buds which escape attack by seed head biocontrol agents, thereby allowing the knapweed to produce a nearly-normal complement of seed.  Therefore, we conclude that the historical practice of mowing spotted knapweed during the spring and early summer with no follow-up mowings should be avoided if large populations of seed head biocontrol agents are present.

Download a copy of the research article.

Authors: Jim M. Story, Lincoln Smith, Janelle G. Corn & Linda J. White

Summary:  Studies were conducted on the impact of seed head insects on spotted knapweed reproductive potential in western Montana over a 30-year period.  Results indicated that seed head insects are reducing seed production by about 94% in many areas of western Montana.  The reduction of knapweed seed production has resulted in a 98% reduction in the knapweed seed bank which, in turn, has contributed to the decline of knapweed in these areas.  Of the seed head insects, the fly, Urophora affinis, and the weevils, Larinus obtusus and L. minutus, are having the greatest impact on knapweed seed production.  The current decline of spotted knapweed in many areas is likely due to the impact of the seed head insects on the knapweed seed bank and the effects of the root weevil, Cyphocleonus achates, on mature plants.

Download a copy of the research article.

Authors: J.M. Story, N.W. Callan, J.G. Corn, L.J. White

Summary:  Spotted knapweed plant density was monitored over a 11-year period (1993-2004) at two sites in western Montana where the root weevil, Cyphocleonus achates was released.  Spotted knapweed density declined significantly over time at both sites (99% and 77%, respectively), after C. achates numbers increased dramatically at both sites.  The current decline of spotted knapweed in many areas is likely due to the effects of C. achates on mature knapweed plants and the impact of the seed head insects on the knapweed seed bank.

Click here to download and read the complete article.

Read the complete article about these weed eating cattle.

The following is an interview that was conducted on October 23, 2009, between Becky and Lisa regarding targeted grazing.

Sheep grazing dalmatian toadflax, photo credit: L. Surber

Lisa, the MSU Sheep Institute has been involved in numerous targeted grazing projects in Montana over the past few years, and I have to credit MSI with elevating targeted grazing as an integrated control method for noxious weeds. How many targeted grazing projects have you [MSI] been involved with over the years and what specific weeds have been chosen to experiment with?

The Montana Sheep Institute (MSI) oversees approximately 15 targeted grazing projects with monitoring sites utilizing sheep and goats from multiple sheep producers.  Montana Sheep Institute weed projects directly involved over 50,000 acres of weed-infested Montana rangeland and about 500 landowners. Currently major weed projects are targeted at leafy spurge, spotted knapweed and Dalmatian toadflax.

What have been some of the more notable projects?

Key project areas include 155 km of the Powder River, 40 km of the Yellowstone River, 13 km of the Madison River, the Deer Lodge valley area, and key support of the management program for the “Bucksnort” After-Fire project.

I was involved with the BLM Madison sheep project in its conception and while it is still ongoing today, I have to say that I’m not sure the sheep are as effective with knapweed as they are with other species, such as leafy spurge. Do the sheep seem to be more effective with certain noxious weeds?

Yes, there is a difference in the effectiveness of targeted grazing of different weed species.   Most of these differences are driven by palatability compared to the native species we want to reestablish. A lot of people involved in weed control are associated with chemical control and that philosophy is to find a chemical to kill the plant and that plant will be gone for a length of time.  Targeted grazing is a more subtle or refined  movement away from that target plant. The strategy is a gradual shift in the landscape to the more desirable species.  The goal is to graze the targeted species is such a way as to the target plant at a disadvantage to the desired species. So the palatability of the targeted plant to the sheep/goat plays a big role. When sheep grazing Leafy spurge they almost develop an addiction to it and grazing strategies are almost easy to develop whereas spotted knapweed is much more difficult.  Sheep readily consume spotted knapweed but not at a much higher preference than the native grass and forb species.

There are other weeds showing great promise to be controlled very effectively using targeted grazing – Dalmatian toadflax and Sulfur cinquefoil.  The MSI has 5 monitoring sites on Dalmatian toadflax infested areas being grazing by sheep and goats.  We have see drastic reductions in Dalmatian toadflax on these sites. Dr. Rachel Frost and Dr. Jeff Mosley have a targeted grazing project with Sulfur cinquefoil and they are very encouraged with data from the first year of the project.

Sheep and goats tend to be fairly high maintenance, I mean it isn’t like you can just go grab a few lambs and stick them in your pastures. What is the average cost per acre with targeted grazing?

Commonly, in Montana it is suggested that the cost of targeted grazing is $4 – 8 per acre.  However, typically these costs are not the same as “contract grazing”. In other parts of the country, Idaho for example, contract grazing for weed control can be higher in cost because the services will include all costs involved plus a grazing fee (i.e. trucking, herders, death loss, extra management costs).  Contract grazers can be thought of just like contract spray crews. Most targeted grazing projects in Montana are a cost shared agreement between the landowner and the sheep producer.  The landowner might pay for one-way of trucking or help with costs associated with camp tending.

If you wish to try using targeting grazing as a control method, what are the basic criteria to implement a program? (i.e. fencing, herder, necessary acres, predator management, etc.)

This is a difficult question to answer because it is different with every project.  Under ideal circumstances, the sheep producer needs to be able to bring 800 head (a band) for 3-4 months for it to work economically for him; that would cover about 1 acre of infested area per sheep per month.  The sheep producer will have a herder under employment already and will not need to hire additional herders.  Additionally, in a new project area it is useful to be in close contact with Wildlife Services in case there are coyote problems. Sheep do water differently than cattle therefore there must be watering facilities suitable to handle the band of sheep all at one time.

The success/failure of a project is a direct result of all parties taking shared ownership.  Each MSI project typically involves a group of private (Montana sheep producers, land owners, local organizations) and public (BLM, Fish and Game, Weed Boards) cooperators.  Each year the monitoring data is shared with the parties involved and grazing plans are adjusted accordingly to improve the success of the project.

As with all methods of control for noxious weeds, there is no one silver bullet. What do you see as the benefits and drawbacks to targeted grazing and do you endorse integrated methods in conjunction with grazing?

There are many benefits of targeted grazing.  Primarily, it is scientifically proven that targeted grazing is effective.  Secondly, there is no chemical residues therefore it is a “greener” or more environmentally friendly  approach to weed control.  Targeted grazing converts weeds into a saleable product (i.e. meat).  It has been suggested that given the current climate and societies view of herbicides that targeted grazing may be more sustainable in the long term.  Targeted grazing may be the most economical method of weed control  for large landscape  scale infestations.

Targeted grazing does have some short comings.  It does not work well in areas that have large predators like bears and wolves.  As I mentioned previously, there are situations when the desired grass species are more palatable than the target weed.  You can’t force the animal to eat the weed. Alfalfa, Smooth Brome, Kentucky Bluegrass, and lush re-growth will always be more palatable than the target weed. No matter what type of control or management tool employed to control invasive weeds there is always a potential for some non-intended risks.

The MSI always encourages the use of integrated method of weed control.  Weed control works best when multiple measures are employed.

Recently, FWP issued a management plan for Big Horn Sheep that included a section on noxious weed control and targeted grazing. I know that the big horn issue prevented sheep grazing in the upper Madison early on; can you comment on what the Sheep Institute’s and Wool Growers stance is on this management plan?

The MSI’s stance is that the Big Horn sheep issue is a very complicated issue. Research is certainly not conclusive on either side. That being said we have always been sensitive to domestic and big horn sheep issues and have felt fairly confident that the risk of co-mingling could be managed.  In several cases, in project development it was felt the risk of comingling could  not be managed and those projects were not initiated.  Unfortunately, in each of those cases the target weed is not being effectively managed currently.

There has been a very successful invasive weed project in the Deer Lodge area for years with no dire consequences to the stability of the resident Bighorn sheep population. In many cases where targeted grazing could be used the risk of domestic and Bighorn sheep interactions could be managed.  In some of these areas the possible interaction with Bighorn and domestic sheep can be managed to the extent that the potential benefits to the landscape are much greater than the potential risks to Bighorn sheep.  The FWP plan fails to recognize that this possibility exists.

We have had no documented cases where Big Horn sheep and domestics sheep intermingled on any of the grazing projects the MSI has been directly involved with.

In light of the economic, predator, and environmental plights facing producers today, how many producers are out there and available to offer targeting grazing options? Who are some of the bigger outfits?

There are numerous large sheep producers that are been used in targeted grazing project.

• John and Eric Lehfeldt
• Bob and Ben Lehfeldt
• Sven Svensson
• John and Nina Baucus
• John and Jerry Paugh

There are 32 state-listed noxious weeds, with more coming down the pike. Does MSI have any research projects in the works to experiment with some of the other state-listed weeds and targeted grazing?

Spotted knapweed, leafy spurge are the big ones.  Exciting and promising data is being gathered on Dalmatian toadflax, Sulfur cinquefoil and common tansy.

Finally, a year or two ago, the Sheep Institute appeared to be on the Congressional list for chopping. What is the status of MSI and how stable is this program?

We have a lot of support from within Montana.  All of our congressional delegation is extremely supportive.  We received partial funding in FY08 and FY09 and currently funding for FY10 has come out of committee and is set to be approved. The reality is that the federal government is tightening these type of expenditures and the MSI is not a mandated program.

Full Article Text