DISCLAIMER
This has been prepared on the basis of information available at the time of publication without any independent verification. Neither the author nor any contributor represent that the contents are accurate or complete; nor do we accept any omissions in the contents, however they may arise. Readers who act on the information in this publication do so at their risk. The author may identify products by proprietary or trade names to help readers identify any products of any manufacturer referred to. Other products may perform as well or better than those specifically referred to.
CAUTION: RESEARCH ON UNREGISTERED PESTICIDE USE
Any research with unregistered pesticides or unregistered products reported in this document does not constitute a recommendation for that particular use by the authors or the authors’ organisations. All pesticide applications must be in accord with the currently registered label for that particular pesticide, crop, pest, use pattern and region.
| Researcher(s) |
Mitch Buster Mark Congreve |
|---|---|
| Contact email | mark@icanrural.com.au |
| Contact phone | 0294824930 |
| Year(s) | 2025 |
| Contributor | ICAN Rural |
| Trial location(s) |
Rowena, NSW
|
There is strong evidence of glyphosate resistance in this milk thistle population, with typical rates of glyphosate performing poorly. Treatments containing glufosinate or a Group 14 herbicide were mostly showing high levels of brownout by 10 days after application, particularly on the smaller cohort of weeds.
At 10-12 days after application, brownout of the glyphosate treatments (alone) was much slower relative to the faster-acting contact herbicides, however there was a noticeable increase in the level of initial brownout for the high rate of Crucial compared to the lower rate of Roundup Plantshield. This was especially evident on the smaller cohort of weeds.
In this trial, both of the Group 14 herbicides have performed extremely well on milk thistle, especially when applied alone and on younger weeds. While not statistically significant, there is a trend to reduced control when either glyphosate or glufosinate have been tank mixed, with increased rate of Group 14 appearing to be more detrimental to final performance.
Glufosinate alone, as Biffo at the 3.75 L/ha broadcast rate for fallow application, has provided high levels of initial brownout although significant regrowth was evident in several plots by the end of the trial. While there appears to be a counterintuitive numerical decrease in regrowth with larger weeds or application under harsher environmental conditions, this trend was not statistically significant.
| Lead research organisation |
ICAN Rural |
|---|---|
| Host research organisation |
AMPS Agribusiness |
| Trial funding source | GRDC ICN2404-002RTX;ICN2403-002RTX |
| Related program | N/A |
| Acknowledgments | N/A |
| Other trial partners | Not specified |
| Crop type | None: No crop specified |
|---|---|
| Treatment type(s) |
|
| Trial type | Demonstration |
| Trial design | Randomised,Blocked |
| Sow date | Not applicable |
|---|---|
| Harvest date | Not applicable |
| Trial design method | RCBD Randomised Complete Block Design |
| Trial design arrangement | 32 rows x 3 cols |
| Total plots | 96 |
| Plot size | Not specified |
| Plot replication | 4 |
| Plot blocking | yes |
| Plot randomisation | N |
| Herbicide |
Please refer to the trial report for treatment details |
SILO weather estimates sourced from https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/silo/
Jeffrey, S.J., Carter, J.O., Moodie, K.B. and Beswick, A.R. (2001). Using spatial interpolation to
construct a comprehensive archive of Australian climate data , Environmental Modelling and Software, Vol
16/4, pp 309-330. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-8152(01)00008-1.
