Skip to main content

Practice Guide: Reducing Herbicides

PART OF A SERIES OF PRACTICE GUIDES TO USE IN YOUR REGENERATIVE CROPPING TOOLSET  |  LAST UPDATED: JUNE 2025

Overview

This reducing herbicides practice guide outlines practical approaches to lower chemical inputs and adopt alternative weed control strategies.

Herbicides are the most commonly used pesticides globally, with many modern cropping systems relying on these chemicals as a primary tool for plant control. Reducing herbicide use can deliver ecological, human health and financial benefits, but finding alternative options for managing weeds in typical cropping systems can be challenging and can take time.

There are no silver bullets, but many croppers are finding success by taking a whole-of-farm approach and using a range of complementary strategies together – from incremental shifts in weed management practices through to system redesign.

This guide covers the benefits of reducing herbicides, how to start with a range of alternative weed management strategies, and how to monitor whether these strategies are working. Throughout the guide we share examples of how four farmers are reducing herbicides in their diverse operations in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia.

Before trying something new, it is important to consider your unique context and goals. What are you trying to achieve? Soil and landscape ecosystems are complex, and no two farming systems are the same – what worked for one farmer may not work for you. So consider starting small, monitoring the results and allowing some room for trial and error. There is no silver bullet when it comes to addressing soil health, so think about which strategies or combinations of other practices may be suitable to support what you’re doing.

Important: This Guide is designed to provide general information only. It is not tailored to the context of any individual farm, person or business, and does not constitute advice. Before using the information, you should carefully evaluate its accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance for your purposes, and consider seeking advice from appropriate professionals who have taken into account your individual circumstances and objectives. When it comes to herbicide use in particular, always read the product labels and follow all recommendations on the label. As a nonprofit dedicated to supporting farmers, we work hard to ensure our information is useful and accurate. However, Soils for Life accepts no liability arising from any use or release of information in, or referred to in or linked to this guide, or any error, inaccuracy or omission.

What does reducing herbicides involve?

Reducing herbicides in cropping systems tends to involve multiple complementary strategies, particularly strategies for weed management (also known as Integrated Weed Management), combined with a range of practices designed to build soil and plant health.      

While individual management practices may deliver short-term results, achieving long term and sustained reductions in herbicide use usually requires consideration of all three of the following strategies, and implementation of a range of complementary practices:11 Sometimes known as the ESR Framework: Efficiency, Substitution, Redesign. SB Hill, and RJ MacRae, ‘Conceptual framework for the transition from conventional to sustainable agriculture’, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 1996, 7(1): 81–87, doi.org/10.1300/J064v07n01_07.

  • Efficiency: Making herbicides more efficient, so smaller quantities are required, usually with flow-on benefits for soil biology and plant health.
  • Substitution: Replacing herbicide inputs with less impactful or disruptive methods of weed control, such as mechanical or biological controls.
  • Redesign: Integrating ecological principles to redesign the cropping system, with a focus on reducing the negative effects of weeds while retaining some of their ecological benefits.

Because reducing herbicides tends to involve multiple complementary practices, this guide provides an overview and introduction to each practice, rather than in-depth guidance. Some of these practices are covered in more detail in other Soils for Life practice guides, available here.

Farmers Reducing Herbicides

Farmers who are reducing herbicides

This guide includes examples from four Australian family run farms, showing their strategies for reducing herbicides in their farming systems in Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales.

Steven and Kelly Ford have been farming near Williams, Western Australia, for 16 years. After 10 years working as a livestock agent, Steven returned to the family farm in 2008. Being advised to use a new expensive chemical seed treatment prompted Steven to rethink and do some research. In 2016, he decided to transition their cropping system away from treated seed, synthetic fertilisers, insecticides and fungicides. This transition was a big move that he implemented across the whole cropping operation because it ‘seemed simpler than having a foot in two camps,’ says Steven. Meeting and starting to work with agronomist Col Bowey gave Steven the confidence to take this step.  

Weed control is a high priority for Steven, but he doesn’t strive for a farm that is 100% weed free. Sheep are integrated into the cropping system and are used to turn ‘weeds into money’. Steven explains that he is not ‘a purist’ in his approach. He plans to continue using some herbicides in his cropping system, strategically choosing the types of chemicals he is using and cutting back on what’s not needed. 

Location: Gnaala Karla Booja Country
Williams, Western Australia
Regional Climate: Hot dry summer, cold wet winter/temperate/Mediterranean
Average Annual Rainfall: 488 mm
Property Size: 4,000 ha
Elevation: 300 m
Social Structure: Family operated and owned/leased country
Enterprise Type: Winter cropping of oats, canola and lupins, merino ewes crossed with British breeds for prime lamb production 
Reducing Herbicides strategies: Grazing for weed control in summer fallow, avoiding sulfonylurea (SU) herbicides, strip and disc cropping system, narrow row spacing
Soils: Variable soil types, predominantly yellow or brown Chromsols and grey, yellow or brown Sodosols.

Russell Young was born and raised on the family farm near Dalby, Queensland, which his grandfather established in the 1950s. Russell became involved with the property after leaving school, and for many years divided his time between farming and truck driving before focusing on farming full time in 2012. He began exploring alternative approaches to weed management after becoming concerned about the impact of chemical use on the land and more generally in the food system. Driven by a desire to take more control back over the farm business and the health of the farm and family, Russell has invested in his own learning and considered how changing farming practices would benefit the land and his business.   

Russell began implementing changes to cropping practices and trialling different approaches to fertiliser and herbicide applications in 2017 to address soil compaction, water holding capacity and waterlogging. He had concerns about ‘crashing and burning’ if he shifted practices too quickly, and has taken a gradual, strategic approach, experimenting with ways to incorporate old and new practices while maintaining business viability. Russell began trials on a 17 ha intensive regeneration zone in 2021, where he has been experimenting with multispecies crops, soil health applications and companion cropping.

Russell is focusing on minimising herbicides rather than total elimination. With a business based on selling 100% clean, weed-free seed, Russell needs to manage weeds vigilantly in order to satisfy his customer base. Russell began reducing herbicide use by adding biological products that he observes help efficacy and support weed control by restoring soil health. Recently this has progressed to an investment in high-clearance, camera sensor spray equipment. Russell does not use paraquat to avoid handling a chemical with high safety risks. He also minimises the use of residual herbicides because ‘something that has the ability to stay in the soil a long time has me wondering what impact these chemicals could have on the soil’.

Location: Barunggam Country
Dalby, QLD
Regional Climate: Hot dry summer, cold winter
Average Annual Rainfall: 598 mm
Property Size: 872 ha
Elevation: 344 m
Social Structure: Family operated and owned
Enterprise Type: Grains and pulses sold into commodity markets, plus value-added seed production 
Reducing Herbicides Strategies: Buffering herbicides with carbon and a biological product, multispecies cover crops and roller crimping, companion planting, selective spraying using a high-clearance sensor camera sprayer, overall soil health improvements, and using rainwater to ensure good quality water for herbicide application
Soils: Black and grey cracking clays as well as black self-mulching classified as Vertosols.

Neil and Kym Sullivan run Valley View in Linthorpe Valley, Queensland. Neil began cropping in the Darling Downs region on his family farm after leaving school in the 1980s. His family had a typical approach to farming and he remembers using more and more inputs each year. In his early twenties, Neil observed beautiful plants of volunteer wheat with large long heads thriving where nobody had fertilised them near the silos, while the wheat in the paddock behind the silos was ‘nothing flash’. He remembers thinking, ‘What’s going on here? We put all this input money into fertiliser, and the difference is chalk and cheese.’ Neil describes this as his ‘wake up moment’, and he began thinking, ‘Some of this isn’t adding up. Nature was doing a better job than we were doing.’  

From here Neil became curious about organics. The impact of pesticide drift from neighbouring cotton farms drove Neil to relocate and start farming organically in 1996, initially setting up near Millmerran, then Tara, and now at their current location. The Sullivans have been growing organic crops without any herbicides for 27 years. Their current focus is growing organically-certified, gluten-free grains for human consumption.

Location: Waka Waka Country / Gambuwal Country
Linthorpe Valley, QLD
Regional Climate: Hot summer, cold winter/wet summer, low winter rainfall/temperate sub-humid
Average Annual Rainfall: 728 mm 
Property Size: 74 ha
Elevation: 470 m
Social Structure: Family operated and owned
Enterprise Type: Organic winter and summer cropping focused on gluten-free grain production 
Reducing Herbicides Strategies: Crop rotations, calcium applications, tillage, seed grading, multispecies cover cropping, and plant succession observations, identifying underlying reasons weeds are growing and experimenting with weed infusions
Soils: Dark brown clays, Vertosols and friable non-cracking clays Dermosols.

Scott Reid has been working on his family farm Killarney, near Temora, New South Wales, since he left school in 1990. The property has been in his family since 1907. Scott grows wheat, canola and barley. The wheat and canola are grown in a ‘grain and graze’ cropping system in conjunction with running merino sheep for wool production. 

A turning point for Scott was the 10-year drought that began in 2000, when he started to question the direction he was heading in. He could see other farmers spending a lot of money putting more and more inputs on, and crops going backwards quickly when a frost occurred. He also observed that spraying was not getting rid of the weed problems in crops. Reading an article in The Land newspaper about David Marsh, a farmer from Boorowa, NSW (and one of the original Soils for Life case studies), and Alan Savory’s book Holistic Management opened his mind to new ideas and set him off on a different path. Scott attended an RCS Grazing for Profit school in 2009 and then began gradually making changes.

Scott has kept rates of glyphosate at the low end of recommended rates by buffering herbicide applications with fulvic acid and using citric acid to reduce the water pH. Scott has also reduced the number of herbicide passes in cropping country by delaying spraying weeds. Instead of reacting with a herbicide as soon as weeds germinate, Scott lets the weeds grow to provide groundcover and sprays them out before they set seed. He applies herbicide once over the summer fallow period, instead of three to five times. Over the last two years Scott has been planting a multispecies summer grazing mix as a cover crop and is starting to see improvements in weed control and soil health. And with sheep grazing his crops, Scott no longer has issues with broadleaf weeds.

Location: Wiradjuri Country
Temora, NSW
Regional Climate: Hot dry summer, cold winter/temperate
Average Annual Rainfall: 526 mm 
Property Size: 990 ha
Elevation: 350 m
Social Structure: Family operated and owned
Enterprise Type: Wheat, canola and barley, merino sheep for wool production
Reducing Herbicides Strategies:‘Graze and grain’ cropping system, buffering herbicides with a carbon source (fulvic acid), reducing water pH when spraying using citric acid, delaying spraying weeds to reduce the number of applications, multispecies cover crops, keeping rates of urea low, seed grading, and narrowly spacing rows
Soils: Red brown earth classified as Kurosols.

What are the benefits?

Reducing reliance on inputs, improving long-term profitability and boosting soil, plant and human health.

Whilst herbicides have simplified weed management and decision-making, a number of unintended consequences are emerging that suggest there could be long-term costs. Negative impacts can be lessened by strategically dialing down herbicide usage, leading to:

  • Improved soil, crop and ecosystem health and resilience
  • Improved long-term profitability and market access
  • Avoidance of possible human health impacts.

Improved soil, crop and ecosystem health and resilience: Reducing the use of herbicides can minimise the negative impacts of herbicides on soil and ecosystems. This can help drive improvements in soil function, with flow-on benefits for plant health and farm resilience.

Herbicides can harm beneficial soil and root-associated microbes that play important roles in decomposition processes, soil carbon cycling and sequestration, soil structure, nutrient cycling, nutrient availability, as well as plant and animal health.2S Ruuskanen, B Fuchs, R Nissinen, P Puigbò, M Rainio, K Saikkonen and M Helander, ‘Ecosystem consequences of herbicides: the role of microbiome.’ Trends in Ecology & evolution, 2023, 38(1):35–43, doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.09.009. For example, glyphosate has been found to reduce nodulation in legumes, and harm mycorrhizal fungi which play an essential role in soil structure, soil organic matter formation and nutrient cycling.3J Kremer, ‘Disruption of the soil microbiota by agricultural pesticides’, in C L Wilson and DM Huber (Eds), Synthetic Pesticide Use in Africa, 1st Edition, CRC Press, 2021, doi:10.1201/9781003007036-10. Herbicides are highly toxic to earthworms,4CL Silva and Céline Pelosi, ‘Effects of glyphosate on earthworms: from fears to facts’, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2024, 20(5):1330–36, doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4873.,5K Chaudhary and P Kumawat, ‘A review on the effect of herbicides on the earthworms’, International Journal of Zoology Studies, 2018, Vol 3(2):120-125, doi.org/10.30574/wjaets. 2024.13.2.0643. impacting soil and ecosystem health due to their role in the food chain for birds and other animals who feed on them. In addition, an estimated 2–10% of spray volumes are fine droplets that can drift away from the target area, potentially causing harm to the surrounding ecosystem.6Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Herbicides, agric WA website, nd, accessed 25 October 2025.

Selective herbicide applications trigger defence responses in crops as they use their energy reserves to detoxify. This puts plants under stress7B Zhang, F Lv and J Yang, ‘Pesticides toxicity, removal and detoxification in plants: a review’, Agronomy, 2024, 14(6),1260, doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14061260. and reduces photosynthetic efficiency, affecting growth, development and overall crop health, which can make crops more susceptible to insect pests and diseases.8A Sharma, V Kumar, A Thukral and R Bhardwaj, ‘Responses of Plants to Pesticide Toxicity: an Overview,’ Planta daninha, 2019, (37), http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582019370100065. Glyphosate-based herbicides can impair plant defences and disrupt microbes in the rhizosphere, making plants more vulnerable to disease.9The rhizosphere is the ecosystem around plant roots. Glyphosate has been shown to contribute to nutrient deficiencies and disease issues in crops.10GS Johal and DM Huber, ‘Glyphosate effects on diseases of plants’, European Journal of Agronomy, 2009, 31(3):144–52, doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2009.04.004.,11B Fuchs, K Saikkonen and M Helander, ‘Glyphosate-modulated biosynthesis driving plant defense and species interactions,’ Trends in Plant Science, 2021, 26(4):312–23, doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants. 2020.11.004. It is also a chelating agent,12A chelating agent binds to nutrients, impacting their availability and uptake by plants. and can interfere with the uptake and transport of calcium, magnesium, iron and manganese in plants, which can impact crop health and reduce a plants’ ability to withstand pests and diseases.13M Mertens, S Höss, G Neumann, J Afzal and W Reichenbecher, ‘Glyphosate, a chelating agent—relevant for ecological risk assessment?’, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2018, 25(6):5298–5317, doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-1080-1.,14I Cakmak, A Yazici, Y Tutus and L Ozturk, ‘Glyphosate reduced seed and leaf concentrations of calcium, manganese, magnesium, and iron in non-glyphosate resistant soybean’, European Journal of Agronomy, 2009, 31(3):114–19, doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2009.07.001.

Improved profitability: Weeds are estimated to cost the Australian broadacre cropping industry billions of dollars each year.15GRDC, Integrated weed management in Australian cropping systems. A national reference Manual for growers, (2019), accessed 25 October 2025. Herbicide-resistant weed populations are now found throughout all cropping areas of Australia, with 91 weed species having developed resistance to one or more herbicide mode-of-action (MOA) groups.16 GRDC, Integrated weed management in Australian cropping systems. Herbicide resistance is leading to increasing herbicide costs because growers are finding they need to apply higher rates or multiple herbicides as part of a ‘double knock’17A ‘double knock’ is a second attempt to kill resistant weeds that have survived a herbicide application. Farmers often use another herbicide with a different mode of action, or another form of weed control. approach. Some weeds are proving resistant even to these strategies.18C Benjamin, Confirmed resistance to the double-knock tactic in tall fleabane, WeedSmart website, 2018, accessed 25 October 2025. Adopting an integrated approach to weeds19For example, the Weedsmart Big 6 approach. can reduce the need for herbicides and slow herbicide resistance, leading to lower costs and increased profit.20N Colbach and S Cordeau, ‘Reduced herbicide use does not increase crop yield loss if it is compensated by alternative preventive and curative measures’, European Journal of Agronomy, 2018, 94:67–78, doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.12.008.

Reducing herbicides can also support profitability by building long-term soil and landscape health, which can increase farm resilience and fertility, and therefore increase crop health and resilience to stressors. Improved natural capital as a result of reduced herbicide use could also enable cropping farmers to tap into new income streams through emerging natural capital markets.

Market access: Reducing herbicides is an important part of maintaining access to both domestic and international markets. With increasing numbers of consumers seeking food free of herbicides, companies are setting targets to reduce pesticide use in their product supply chains. Some herbicide-free products, such as mechanically desiccated (swathed) mung beans, glyphosate-free grains and paraquat-free legumes, are emerging as market opportunities with premium prices.21T Diamond, A global perspective on how Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) affect the Australian grain price and access to international markets, Nuffield Australia, Nuffield scholar website, 2024, accessed 24 October 2024. A number of herbicides currently used in Australia are banned or restricted elsewhere in the world, with potential to impact Australian export markets. These include paraquat (banned in over 67 countries), atrazine (banned in over 35 countries) and Diuron (restricted uses in USA, Canada, UK and Europe).22A Davies and D Lu, ‘The dirty dozen: 12 pesticides that are banned elsewhere but still used in Australia’, The Guardian, September 27, 2022, accessed 24 October 2024. The European Union has set an overall target to reduce pesticide usage (including herbicides) by 50% by 2030. 

Avoidance of possible human health impacts: Some studies have shown herbicides can have an impact on human health.23T Üstüner, M Sakran and K Almhemed, ‘Effect of herbicides on living organisms in the ecosystem and available alternative control methods’, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 2020, 10(8):633, dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.10.08.2020.p10480. While acute toxicity related to a single large dose of a chemical can generally be avoided through appropriate protective measures, it is believed that chronic impacts that may occur following long-term exposure to small amounts of herbicides are much harder to detect and avoid, and can take years to appear.24RM Ghazi, NRN Yusoff, NSA Halim, IRA Wahab, NA Latif, SH Hasmoni, MAA Zaini and AA Zakaria, ‘Health effects of herbicides and its current removal strategies’, Bioengineered, 2023, 14(1):2259526. doi.org/10.1080/21655979.2023.2259526.,25Safe Work Australia, Managing risks of hazardous chemicals in the workplace. Code of practice, 2018, accessed 24 October 2024. By this time, the herbicide may have become an integral part of routine cropping practices, making it harder to switch to other options. With research frequently indicating potential or probable human health impacts from various herbicides, reducing herbicides can decrease or avoid this risk.

For Scott Reid reducing herbicides has meant that he feels prepared for potential herbicide bans. ‘We keep hearing about banning Roundup, I think at some point it’s going to happen and I will be half ready,’ says Scott, who has reduced herbicide volume applied on his farm by more than 50%. Summer herbicides are down from between three and five passes to just one, and broadleaf weeds are no longer an issue in winter crops. 

Reducing herbicides has led to increased groundcover during fallow periods, and Scott is noticing improving soil health and soil moisture retention as a result. Scott has not had much frost damage to crops this year, while others around him have had a lot. Scott is wondering if this is in part a result of delayed finishing of his crops due to grazing them early in the season. This is part of his weed control strategy but could have an added frost-mitigation benefit.

Overall Scott says the steps he’s taken to reduce herbicides, in particular reducing input costs and integration of sheep into the cropping program to create diverse income streams (grain and wool), have made the farm business more financially resilient. 

Crops at Steven Ford’s look different to those in a typical cropping system, being shorter and smaller with denser foliage, but he believes this to be a part of why his crops tend to be less susceptible to frosts and disease. Being part of Planfarm benchmarking group reassures him financially, with the business operating profit per hectare per millimetre of rainfall consistently ranking in the top half of the 26 farmers in their group while at the same time avoiding the fluctuations in profitability experienced by the other members. Pre-plant and in-crop herbicides are applied at the base rate of recommendations and Steven avoids increasing these rates over time, unlike many other growers who are increasing herbicide rates in response to herbicide resistance. Meanwhile, at Scott’s place, broadleaf weeds such as capeweed (Arctotheca calendula) are reducing, and livestock are as healthy as they have ever been.  

Russell Young has observed changes in weed populations and soil physical health from trialling multispecies cropping. In one case, sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus) was completely absent from a crop that followed a multispecies cover crop, whereas it was prevalent in the area immediately beside, which had not been planted with a cover crop. The soil where the cover crop was planted became friable and soft enough for Russell to dig deeply into the soil with his hands. This was completely different to the hard soil elsewhere. 

Russell has also found that buffering herbicides with fulvic acid and biological products initially reduced herbicide rates by 10%, and when combined with camera spray equipment, herbicide rates are now down by 80% on average.

For the Sullivans, eliminating herbicides has enabled organic certification and access to a market that is growing every year due to increasing consumer demand. They find farming in alignment with their personal values and growing chemical-free, ‘nutrient-dense’ food for people incredibly rewarding. Neil and Kym have also benefited from learning more about the reasons weeds grow, observing plant successional dynamics, and learning the importance of calcium and plant nutrition. Neil has found applying lime and gypsum has reduced problems with weeds, particularly with brassicas. After not using herbicides for 27 years, Neil says he ‘doesn’t think about herbicides anymore, it’s not relevant’.

Strategies to reduce herbicides

Farmers often use multiple complementary practices and strategies for reducing herbicide use because there are no silver bullets, and repeated use of any single weed management method tends to lead to weed adaptation and resistance. A combination of complementary approaches can deliver better results than any one strategy.

In this section we cover strategies and practices that fall into three categories:26Hill, and MacRae, ‘Conceptual framework for the transition from conventional to sustainable agriculture’.

  1. Efficiency strategies: Including buffering herbicides with a carbon source or biological products to improve efficiency of the herbicide and reduce negative impacts, ensuring water quality for spraying, and prioritising targeted, selective applications.
  2. Substitution strategies: Including naturally-derived herbicides, integration of livestock grazing, roller crimping, strip and disc systems, tillage, mechanical desiccation/swathing, harvest weed seed control and seed cleaning.
  3. Redesign strategies: Including understanding weeds as ecological indicators and increasing diversity through the system, such as cover cropping, mulching residues, intercropping, integrating grazing and pasture phases, crop rotations and improving crop competition.

Tips and tricks: Start with a trial! Herbicides are an important part of most cropping systems, and while the task of reducing their usage can feel challenging, experimenting with small steps before scaling up can help manage risk and allow your farming system time to adjust.

Efficiency strategies

Improving the efficacy of herbicide use can help to reduce rates of use, lower costs of production and lessen negative impacts. Common efficiency strategies include:

  • Buffering herbicides with a carbon source
  • Ensuring good water quality for herbicide spray mix
  • Targeted selective application of herbicides.

Buffering herbicides with a carbon source

Buffering herbicides involves mixing a carbon source, such as fulvic acid, with the herbicide before application. This has been shown to enhance plant uptake of the herbicide, improving efficacy. The carbon also feeds soil microbes, helping to reduce the negative impacts of the chemical on microbial populations and assisting with residue breakdown.27N Masters, For the love of soil: strategies to regenerate our food production systems, Printable Reality, 2019.

Key considerations when buffering herbicides with a carbon source are:

  • Ingredients: The most common type of carbon source used for buffering herbicides is fulvic acid, which can be sourced via specialty rural supply stores. Sometimes other products such as vermicast (earthworm casting) extracts are used. Earthworm castings contain carbon sources (humic and fulvic acids), along with nutrients, enzymes and other plant metabolites beneficial to plant and soil biology.28I Oyege and MSB Bhaskar, ’Effects of vermicompost on soil and plant health and promoting sustainable agriculture’, Soil Systems, 2023, 7(4):101, doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems7040101. 
  • Equipment: Existing equipment can be used for mixing and applying herbicides buffered with fulvic acid.
  • Application: Fulvic acid is best dissolved in water before adding to the spray tank with an herbicide. Rates can vary, and it is important to always follow the recommended rates and instructions provided by the supplier. One example, provided by agroecologist Nicole Masters, suggests that non-residual herbicides can be buffered by reducing the rate by 30% and then adding 1 part fulvic acid to 4 parts herbicide.29Masters, For the Love of Soil. See below for additional examples from case study farmers.

Tips and tricks: Not all herbicides are compatible with fulvic acid, so prior to mixing fulvic acid with a herbicide, it is important to jar test30A jar test is done by mixing a small quantity of the herbicide and fulvic acid in a jar to check for physical and chemical compatibility (meaning no clumping, layering, gelling, or separation happens) before adding these products to spray equipment. for compatibility and apply the product to a small test area before widespread application. 

Buffering with fulvic acid is not recommended for residual soil-applied herbicides or for in-crop selective herbicides, as the fulvic acid could increase uptake of herbicides by non-target plants.

It is important to apply buffered herbicides immediately and never leave them sitting in the spray tank because the product can settle out over time and create a sediment that can block equipment.

Scott Reid’s buffering recipe

As guided by agronomist David Bushell

Ingredients: 100 g/ha soluble fulvic acid powder, 1–2 L/ha glyphosate
Process: Scott puts the fulvic acid powder into water overnight to dissolve before adding to the herbicide spray tank immediately before application with no need to filter. A 20 L bucket of water will dissolve enough fulvic acid for a 4,000 L spray tank applying 70 L/ha of water.

Russell Young's buffering recipe

Russell Young has recently worked with agroecologist Sarah Fea (BEAR Biologics) and begun experimenting with buffering herbicides with fulvic acid and adding biologicals, aiming to improve chemical efficiency, reduce the amount of chemical required and reduce the impact on soil organisms. This change has led to a 10% reduction in overall herbicide use.

Step 1: Soil-Life brew
Ingredients:

  • 100 L ActivFert Soil-Life product
  • 100 L molasses
  • 800 L water

Process:
Russell follows the ActivFert method for extending and activating the Soil-Life product. He adds all ingredients to a 1,000 L intermediate bulk container (IBC) and leaves to brew for around 2 weeks. He covers it with a loose fitting lid to keep insects out, allow some air in and let gas out (do not use an air pump). A white yeast will appear on top when the product is starting to activate. When the white yeast disappears, the product will be ready for use, which is usually about a week to 10 days later depending on the ambient temperature. The pH of the brew should be around 3.9.

 Step 2: Immediately before application
Ingredients:

  • 150–200 g/ha Nutri-Tech Solutions soluble fulvic acid powder
  • 2–5 L/ha Soil-Life product

Process:
Immediately before application, Russell adds all ingredients with the herbicide in a spray tank.

Water quality

Good quality, clean water is essential when applying herbicides because poor quality water can reduce herbicide effectiveness.31GRDC, Spray Water Quality Fact Sheet. Water Quality for Spraying Operations, GRDC, 2019, accessed 24 October 2024.

Aspects of water quality that can affect chemical performance include dirt and other suspended solids, salinity, water hardness and pH. While some water is simply unsuitable, some factors can be addressed by:

  • Installing rainwater tanks or filtering and settling sediment in water in a holding tank prior to use.
  • Using ammonium sulfate to soften hard water.32Hard water has a high percentage of dissolved minerals such as calcium, magnesium, sodium, iron and bicarbonates in the water. The GRDC Spray Water Quality fact sheet includes rates, and recommends that water hardness above 250 ppm (calcium carbonate equivalents) is treated before use, particularly when the pH is over 7. Bicarbonate levels as low as 175 ppm (mg/l) have been known to reduce the efficacy of some herbicides.
  • Using citric acid to lower the pH of alkaline water according to the desirable pH for the specific herbicide.33G Sait, ‘Chasing the biggest bang – ten tips to reduce input costs’, Nutritech, June 17, 2022, accessed 24 October 2024. The amount of citric acid required will depend on the water pH. Educator Graeme Sait suggests that the ideal water pH for applying glyphosate is 2.9.34G Sait, ‘Chasing the biggest bang – ten tips to reduce input costs’. Graeme has a general rule of thumb that 100 g of citric acid per 100 L of water will drop water pH by one full pH unit.

Scott Reid adds 200 g of citric acid to 100 L of water to get the pH of spray water down to 2–3, as guided by his agronomist David Bushell.  

Russell Young installed fourteen 22,000 L rainwater tanks to ensure he has plentiful clean, good quality water for herbicide applications. While Russell hadn’t experienced problems with, or even tested, their bore water, he wanted to ensure good quality water to get the best results from herbicides.

Find out more:

Targeted selective application of herbicides

Selectively spraying areas of weeds, rather than a whole paddock, can improve effectiveness and reduce the volume of herbicide applications. This can be done by:

  • Visually identifying problem areas in a paddock and selectively spraying those areas rather than the entire paddock.
  • Using optical spray technology with cameras that can automatically detect and spray weeds.
  • Using drones or satellite technology to identify and develop weed maps that growers can load into spray equipment and then locate and spray only the areas of the paddock with weeds present.

Russell Young purchased a 4,000 L, 28 m wide camera sprayer in 2023 with the goal to minimise herbicide use. In the 18 months he has been using it, he has seen an average of 80% reduction in herbicide volumes. It will take time to recoup the investment in the equipment, however the reduction in herbicide is delivering more than $14,000 in cost savings per year, equivalent to an 8% annual return on investment on the purchase of the equipment, along with all the flow on benefits to the soil.

Like any new technology, Russell has experienced a learning curve in using the camera sprayer. Russell operates the sprayer at 12–14 km/hr, as going faster reduces its accuracy. While this is a slower speed than he would normally drive (around 20 km/hr), he spends less time refilling, as a tank load of herbicide covers a lot more ground. Using the camera sprayer also allows Russell to control weeds in situations where it is not feasible to spray entire paddocks, keeping better control of weeds in crops. The camera sprayer can also make it more affordable to use expensive herbicides. Russell has used it to good effect when there is just a 3% spray area. Russell expects to use the camera sprayer more often in drier years than in wetter years where there are more weed seeds germinating.

Image 5. Russell Young’s 28 m wide camera sprayer. Source: Russell Young.

Image 6. Close up of the camera sprayer, featuring the camera mounted above the spray nozzles. Source: Russell Young.

Image 7. Camera sprayer working at night. The red line is the point at which the camera will detect the weed and fire the nozzle. The blue light allows the operator to see the nozzles firing across the boom. Source: Russell Young.

Find out more:  

Substitution strategies

Substitution involves replacing current herbicide inputs with less disruptive ones, such as mechanical or biological controls or other non-chemical ways to manage weeds. When substituting herbicides for other methods, it is important to consider the long-term impact of the practice involved to ensure that there aren’t any negative effects that counteract the positive short-term benefits. Common substitution strategies discussed in this guide include:

  • Strategic tillage
  • Seed cleaning
  • Harvest weed seed control
  • Strip and disc system to retain more stubble and suppress weeds
  • Mechanical desiccation or swathing
  • Roller crimping for termination and weed control
  • Substituting with naturally-derived herbicides
  • Integrating livestock grazing.

Strategic tillage

Tillage practices influence how many and the type of weeds that germinate. While no-till systems can improve soil health, they tend to encourage the germination of weed seeds on the soil surface. Strategic tillage can reduce the need for herbicide by burying seeds or bringing seeds up from within the soil profile to stimulate germination ahead of a herbicide application.35C Borger, A Hashem, ‘Weed ecology: the key to weed control’, GRDC, February 11 2021, accessed 24 October 2024.

Tillage approaches that can support weed management include:

  • One-off, strategic tillage that takes into account timing, soil conditions (especially soil moisture) and depth of tillage. Ideally avoid cultivation of large areas in the summer fallow period when soils are prone to drying out. 
  • Strip-tillage is where soil disturbance is limited to a narrow planting zone and soil between the rows is left undisturbed.
  • Kelly tillage systems can be used to stimulate weed seeds to germinate uniformly before planting to enhance the effectiveness of a herbicide application. This approach can be used as a ‘double knock’ alternative to herbicide.
  • Selective tillage, where a small area of a paddock is ploughed to target specific weeds.

Neil and Kym Sullivan currently use tillage for weed control, with future plans to move towards a no-till organic system with a roller crimper, mulcher and disc planter. They prioritised investing in their seed grading and packaging facility, and the next step will be upgrading farm machinery that reduce tillage. At present, Neil will lightly disc in a cash crop or a green manure crop residue initially, and he usually cultivates twice (depending on the season) using a scarifier until planting with a combine. When they originally purchased their property, it was overrun with weeds after a history of overgrazing. Cultivation stimulated weed germination over summer, allowing Neil to see which paddocks were going to be more manageable and viable for a crop and the worst areas were put aside for longer before cropping. However, Neil avoids cultivating areas where there is black bindweed (Fallopia convolvulus, also known as climbing buckwheat). To prevent this invasive plant from spreading further, he uses a herbicide on these areas and the land stays out of production to meet organic certification standards.

Tips and tricks: Educator Nicole Masters recommends a ‘rip and drip’ approach, where tillage equipment is modified to drip liquids at low rates down the tynes to feed soil biology and reduce the damage caused to soil health. Nicole suggests using 1 L/ha each of molasses and humic acid.36Masters, For the Love of Soil.

Find out more about strategic tillage options:

Image 8. View of buckwheat crops with tillage around the edge to control weeds at the Sullivans’. Source: Neil and Kim Sullivan.

Seed cleaning

For growers who are saving their own seed for replanting, grading to remove weed seeds from grain can be an effective way of reducing herbicide applications, although its effectiveness can depend on the method that is used.37Studies have shown that 73% of cleaned crop seed samples still had weed seed contamination. See, C Benjamin, Clean seed–don’t seed resistant weeds, WeedSmart, June 17 2019, accessed October 2024. Many farmers find that a gravity table is the most effective seed cleaning method.

Neil and Kym Sullivan have invested in a grading and packing facility, which allows them to clean weed seeds out of their products for sale and to keep their own seed for replanting. When choosing what crops to plant where, the Sullivans consider weed issues in particular paddocks to ensure weed seeds can be graded out. Neil feels that the grading facility has been a key to their success in cropping without herbicides.

As a seed producer, Russell Young prioritises having a clean seed sample before grading to meet customer expectations. If there is a heavy weed seed load going into the seed grader, he will not be able to guarantee 100% clean seed for sale.  

Scott Reid finds the sheep perform better in crops when there is a diversity of plants for them to graze. Scott has a good stand of vetch in the canola he will harvest this year, which he is happy to grade out.

Image 9. Neil and Kym Sullivan’s seed grading set up on the right, with a bagging bin on the left. Source: Neil Sullivan.

Harvest weed seed control

Harvest weed seed control practices aim to remove weed seed during harvesting, and therefore reduce the need for herbicides. Practices include:

  • Chaff decks or chaff line chutes attached to the harvester to separate weed seed from grain and deposit it in the controlled traffic wheel tracks or in a narrow band behind the harvester to allow more targeted weed control.
  • Impact mills to pulverise the chaff, destroying 85–98% of the weed seeds and spreading residue in the paddock in one pass at harvest.

Find out more about harvest weed seed control: Harvest weed seed control in a nutshell: A guide to help decide which system fits your farm best and how to get the best results.

Strip and disc system

Strip and disc systems allow crop residues to be retained after harvesting. A stripper front on the harvester leaves most of the stubble standing, minimising bare ground and reducing the opportunity for weeds to germinate and thrive. Disc planters are combined with the stripper front because they can get through the greater volume of crop residue left by the stripper front. 

WeedSmart suggests a three step process for implementing a strip and disc system:38C Benjamin, 3-step implementation of the ‘strip and disc’ system, WeedSmart, June 10 2019, accessed 24 October 2024

  • Disc seeding using sharp discs with adequate down pressure and seed firming wheels to close the furrow. 
  • Narrow row spacing of 6.5–7.5 inches will improve groundcover and reduce competition from weeds.
  • Stripper fronts work best in high residue cereal crops sown in narrow rows. They generally don’t work well on canola or pulse crops.

Steven Ford has moved to a strip and disc cropping system. The disc seeder has made it possible to sow through what grows over summer, including melons, with no more worries about not getting tynes through plant residue.

Image 10. Steven Ford’s disc planter. Source: Steven Ford.

Image 11. Steven Ford’s header with a stripper front. Source: Steven Ford.

Tips and tricks: As a similar alternative approach, some farmers who do not have a stripper front set their header height to 40–60 cm to leave more crop residue behind.39C Benjamin, Stacking the big 6 in a strip and disc system, WeedSmart, March 12, 2019, accessed 24 October 2024.

Find out more about strip and disc systems:

Mechanical desiccation or swathing

Mechanical desiccation or swathing40C Benjamin, What alternatives are there for desiccation and crop topping?, WeedSmart, December 5 2020, accessed 24 October 2024. (also called windrowing) involves cutting a crop with specialised equipment when the seed is almost mature and laying it in a swath or windrow to dry. When the crop has dried, it is harvested using conventional harvesting equipment with a pick-up attachment. Farmers use it as an alternative to late season herbicide applications to reduce weed seed set and as a desiccant to facilitate harvest. 

Benefits include:

  • No withholding periods: Swathed crops can be harvested within a few days without needing to wait for withholding periods for chemicals. 
  • Pulse crops: There can be faster dry down, earlier harvest and more consistent grain quality in pulse crops.41J Gentry and P McIntosh, Swathing could improve mungbean desiccation, GRDC, May 17 2022, accessed 24 October 2025. 
  • Canola crops: There can be more even ripening and earlier harvest in canola.42K Nuske and Birchip Cropping Group, Direct heading versus windrowing, GRDC, 2010, accessed 24 October 2024.

Considerations when swathing include:

  • Timing: Swathing needs to occur when 90% of the crop seeds are mature.
  • Crop suitability: Swathing is well suited to pulse crops (mung beans, chickpeas, faba beans)43Gentry and McIntosh, Swathing could improve mungbean desiccation. and canola. It can also be considered for cereals (more below).
  • Timeliness: Harvesting swathed crops in a timely manner, ideally within 10 days of swathing protects against lost yield from weather or pest damage. 
  • Weather conditions: Dry, calm weather conditions ensure crops dry evenly and reduce the risk of spoilage. Rain or high humidity after swathing can delay drying, reduce grain quality and increase the risk of mould or sprouting. Windy weather can disrupt windrows and create yield losses. 
  • Harvesting speed: Fewer hectares may be covered per hour when harvesting grain in windrows.
  • Risk of contamination: There is an increased risk of contaminating grain samples with rocks and soil when harvesting closer to the ground.
  • Crop density: Thin crops or crops with stubble too short to support the swath and keep it above the ground should not be swathed because grain will come in contact with the ground, leading to sprouting and problems picking it up with the header.
  • Additional costs: Purchasing or contracting of specialised equipment required for swathing.

Find out more about swathing cereal crops:

Roller crimping

Roller crimping44Roller crimping involves using a rolling steel drum with blunt, curved steel blades, called a crimper, that can be mounted at the front or the back of a tractor. As the crimper rolls through the cover crop, the blunt blade injures the plant stems. is a mechanical approach used to terminate cover crops without herbicides and leave a mulch on the soil that suppresses weed growth. 

Some farmers have reported mixed results with roller crimping, so here are a few tips and tricks that can help improve the results:45L Barrera, How to Get Effective Cover Crop Termination with Roller-Crimping, Cover crop strategies, 2 March 2022, accessed 24 October 2024.

  • Timing roller crimping to occur at the right growth stage: The best timing for roller crimping is when the cover crop is in the flowering stage near the end of the plant growth cycle. Cereals need to be in the ‘boot’ or head stage, and broadleaves and legumes need to reach full bloom or early pod set, to be terminated with a roller crimper.  
  • Using a roller crimper on the right plant species: Roller crimping has been found to deliver good results in many annual crops. Perennial grasses do not reach full maturity like annual plants do, so a roller crimper will not kill them.
  • Using a roller crimper on crops that are upright and not lodged: Seeding rates can be chosen to lower the risk of lodging.
  • Using a roller crimper on even ground: Roller crimping on even ground ensures uniform results.

Russell Young hired a roller crimper to use on a multispecies crop in 2021 to aid the planting transition between the two seasons. The roller crimper was part of a strategy to maintain living plant roots in the system for as many months of the year as possible to improve management and utilisation of moisture, while also maximising soil biological diversity and soil health. The cover crop was a 12-species mix, and Russell learned that it is tricky to get a complete kill with roller crimping with so many species because there is always a species not mature enough to effectively terminate. He also noticed that the roller crimping worked better where there was more plant material. Instead of following the rows, roller crimping on an angle diagonally across the rows resulted in more cover across the interrows. Russell suggests choosing an angle according to row spacing to provide the best coverage of plant material across the rows.

Substituting with naturally derived herbicides

Some farmers are trialling naturally derived herbicides made from botanical extracts. These herbicides stop plant growth by drawing moisture out of plant cells, disrupting the waxy outer layer of plants, or inhibiting root growth.  

Products and sourcing: A few common naturally derived herbicides are pelargonic acid and pine oil, and herbicides made from acetic acid (vinegar) are also available. These products can be sourced directly from the manufacturers and through specialty rural suppliers. 

Application: When putting out a herbicide made from a botanical extract, it’s important to:

  • Follow the same spray drift and safety protocols: Similar to using other chemicals, this minimises harm to users and the environment. Although these products comprise nature-derived compounds, this does not mean they are harmless.46Bellingen Shire Council, Bellingen Shire herbicide review, 2022, accessed 24 October 2024.
  • Ensure good spray coverage: These types of herbicides are generally contact-based and non-selective, killing all plant tissue they come into contact with.47C Wilen, ‘Natural herbicides: are they effective?’ UC Weed Science, 3 January 2012, accessed 24 October 2024. See more below in Tips and Tricks.
  • Target the correct part of the plant: It is especially important to spray the growing points of target plants to slow regrowth.

Equipment: You can use existing equipment, however ensure it is clean and when using acidic herbicides like pelargonic acid and acetic acid regularly inspect it to identify possible corrosive impacts that may over time impact seals and equipment.48Bellingen Shire Council, Bellingen Shire herbicide review.

Costs: Naturally derived herbicides can be more expensive in terms of labour and product due to needing more applications.

Tips and tricks: While results from naturally derived herbicides can be seen quickly, they may be of short duration because these herbicides are non-systemic and plants may regrow quickly. As a result, these herbicides can be more effective on small, annual weeds. Larger weeds may need repeat applications. Grasses and perennial weeds that have their growing points below ground are more difficult to control using these types of herbicides.49Wilen, ‘Natural herbicides: are they effective?

Neil Sullivan has tried using Slasher, a naturally derived herbicide with pelargonic acid as the active ingredient. Neil found it to be uneconomical for broadacre applications because ‘very specific conditions are required to get maximum efficacy, target plants need to be young at emergence growth stage, and it does not work well on established plants’.

Integrating livestock grazing

Grazing can be an effective weed control option for reducing herbicides in cropping systems,50C MacLaren, J Storkey, J Strauss, P Swanepoel, K Dehnen-Schmutz, ‘Livestock in diverse cropping systems improve weed management and sustain yields whilst reducing inputs’, Journal of Applied Ecology, 2018, 56:144–156, doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13239. directly through the grazing and trampling impact of the animals on the weeds, and indirectly by helping to improve soil health and move the system in a direction where weeds are less likely to germinate.

When using grazing to control weeds in cropping systems, it is helpful to consider:

  • High grazing pressure: Increasing grazing pressure helps to improve weed control. Weeds that are closer to water, shade and mineral supplements will get more grazing pressure than weeds further away.
  • Timing: Grazing should be planned to best fit weeds and crop growth cycles. If you have an integrated strategy combining herbicides and livestock, be aware of withholding periods.
  • Weed palatability and toxins: Some weeds may be unpalatable or poisonous to livestock. For example, grazing can be used as part of a strategy to control St John’s Wort (Hypericum perforatum) or common heliotrope (Heliotropium europaeum), but care must be taken to avoid grazing post flowering, especially with starving stock, as these weeds can be toxic to livestock.  
  • Limiting the spread of weed seeds: Make sure weed seeds are not spread to other paddocks by managing stock and vehicle movement.
  • Additional labour requirements: More labour may be needed to manage grazing livestock as well as cropping.
  • Management skills: A high level of management of both livestock and cropping enterprises is required in order to manage them both successfully.  
  • Livestock species and breed: Species and breed selection should consider those that are the best suited for weed management needs, labour and market availability.
  • Infrastructure requirements: Additional fencing, water and other infrastructure, as well as capital available for investment, may be required.

Steven Ford has integrated sheep into his cropping system, using them to ‘turn weeds into money’. The sheep graze paddocks over the summer fallow period after crops are harvested, eliminating the need for herbicides in summer fallows. Steven avoids using SU herbicides that have a residual effect on broadleaf weeds, as he wants to allow clovers to grow in the crop for sheep feed after harvest. Over the last two years, though, Steven has seen annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) toxicity in his sheep. He is now exploring reasons for this and options for grazing ryegrass in the future. So far Steven has observed that ryegrass is worse in paddocks cropped more often and is wondering if it might be because the cropping system is creating the conditions for shorter season ryegrass.  

For Scott Reid, grazing is a key aspect of weed management. Scott grazes wheat and canola crops in June and July with merino ewes for six weeks over lambing. The sheep are removed from the crops in the first week of August. The crop is then left to go to grain, relying on spring rain to get a grain harvest. For Scott, ryegrass is the main weed challenge. He applies a selective grass herbicide to canola crops to get ahead of the ryegrass before it flowers. He applies this before the sheep graze the canola to adhere to the 21-day withholding period. Broadleaf weeds are no longer a problem in winter crops and Scott no longer sprays for these. He believes this is due to the sheep grazing the crops.

Image 12. Putting the sheep into a winter cover crop of ryecorn, peas, vetch and faba beans at Steven and Kelly Ford’s. Source: Steven Ford.

Image 13. Sheep grazing crop stubble at Scott Reid’s. Source: Scott Reid.

Find out more about integrating livestock into cropping systems:

Redesign strategies

Redesign strategies reduce the use of herbicide by integrating ecological principles into the cropping system. Using redesign strategies, farmers often shift their focus from eradicating weeds using herbicide efficiency and/or substitution, to finding ways to reduce the negative effects of weeds, while retaining the ecological benefits of the weeds.51M Riemens, M Sønderskov, AC Moonen, J Storkey and P Kudsk, ‘An integrated weed management framework: a pan-European perspective’, European Journal of Agronomy, 2022, 133, doi.org/10.1016/j. eja.2021.126443. Many plants we consider weeds are performing an important ecological role, often appearing in degraded areas as ‘early/low succession’ species, covering and protecting bare ground, and fixing soil limitations such as compaction or micronutrient deficiencies. Redesign strategies aim to move beyond treating the symptom of these deficiencies (weeds appearing) to treating the underlying causes.

Redesign strategies used by farmers and covered in this section include:

  • Utilising weeds as ecological indicators: The presence of specific weeds can indicate opportunities to improve soil and plant health, which in turn can reduce weed pressure.
  • Building diversity: Multispecies cover cropping, intercropping, pasture Ley phases can increase diversity in the paddock.
  • Improving crop competition with weeds: Planting rates, row spacing, planting date, choice of crop and varieties, row orientation.

Utilising weeds as ecological indicators

The weed seedbank in the soil contains a diversity of species that can remain dormant and germinate when conditions are most suitable. Weeds that germinate in the paddock reflect soil physical, mineral and biological conditions and limitations.52D Sandborn, ‘Weeds Are an Indicator of a Soil’s Health’, Michigan State University Extension, 15 August 2016, accessed 24 October 2024. Specific weeds can indicate soil compaction, waterlogging, and low biological activity, as well as nutrient cycling, nutrient deficiencies and nutrient excesses.

Understanding weed ecology, growth cycles and their role in the landscape can help farmers design management strategies to create the conditions where those weeds will no longer germinate.53JK Scott, ‘Weed invasion, distribution and succession’, in BM Sindel (ed), Australian weed management systems, Melbourne: RG and FJ Richardson, 2000.,54G Gill and C Borger, Ecology of major emerging weeds, GRDC, 2024, accessed 5 June 2025.

Neil Sullivan has used observations of weeds to inform crop selection. For example, he decided to grow cereal buckwheat in an area where he had found black bindweed and observed that the black bindweed was no longer an issue. ‘I think it’s taking that niche in the ecosystem and because that is filled, there is no need for the climbing wild buckwheat [another common name for black bindweed] to show up,’ says Neil.

Some examples of soil conditions supporting weeds include:

  • High available potassium and low phosphorus: This combination can encourage the germination of broadleaf weeds. 
  • Low available calcium: Lower calcium levels occur in bacterially dominated soils and can trigger the germination of many weeds including thistles and primitive, weedy grasses. Some farmers have reported weed control benefits from applying calcium. 
  • High soil nitrates: Nitrates can trigger the germination of nitrate accumulating weeds such as capeweed,  sow thistle, nettles and fat hen (Chenopodium album).56Masters, For the love of soil.
  • Compacted soils: High compaction can trigger the emergence of deep-rooted species such as plantain (Plantago spp.), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), capeweed and dock (Rumex spp.), which help break up hardpan layers and improve aeration and soil structure.
  • Waterlogged soils: Heavily saturated soils may encourage the growth of species like nutgrass (Cyperus rotundus), marshmallow (Malva parviflora), dock and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), which assist in aeration and rebalancing soil moisture.

Neil Sullivan sees his crop nutrition program as his weed control. Neil has found applying 100 kg/ha of lime and 100 kg/ha of gypsum provides calcium and sulphur, which has led to reduced problems with weeds, in particular with wild turnips (Brassica tournefortii) and other brassicas. ‘Turnips are telling you that you have a lack of calcium and sulphur,’ says Neil. He has also been experimenting with 6 kg/ha applications of potassium sulphate on black bindweed to stunt its growth in his soils that are low in potassium. Using potassium meters in crops has confirmed that potassium can be a limiting factor in crop nutrition in his paddocks. Neil’s fertiliser program focuses on lime, gypsum, boron and molybdenum, and he does not apply nitrogen. 

Russell Young can see the benefits of weeds, explaining how he is observing that the longer he leaves weeds, the greater potential there is for these plants to pull up nutrients and feed the soil.  

Scott Reid does not apply high rates of urea. Scott spreads 50 kg/ha of urea pre-plant and two foliar applications of 12 kg/ha urea in his cropping program. He believes keeping nitrogen rates low helps reduce weeds, as many weeds like high rates of nitrogen. Capeweed in particular is no longer an issue.

Weed infusion and teas

Some farmers are experimenting with weed infusions and teas. The theory is that by infusing and fermenting dominant weeds in water, then diluting and applying the extract to weed-dominated areas, it may supply the soil with the nutrients and microbiomes that are deficient in that area, and which those weeds are accumulating. 

Neil Sullivan is experimenting with fermenting wireweed (Polygonum aviculare) and black bindweed and spraying it out on the areas where these weeds are appearing. Initially, he applied a diluted mixed (1 part ferment to 10 parts water) but found this to be not very effective, and he is now trying the method again with undiluted ferment. He is fully aware that this practice is not a silver bullet and a combination of factors are influencing the situation. Neil followed this practice after biodynamic farming colleague and friend, Kym Green from South Australia, had good success with Paterson’s curse (Echium plantagineum) using this method.

Neil Sullivan's weed fermentation recipe

Step 1: Fermentation

Ingredients:
10 kg target weed species, 20 L molasses, water

Process:
Neil adds the plant material and molasses to a 1,000L IBC and then fills the IBC with water, leaving it to ferment for four to six months, stirring occasionally with a length of poly pipe. 

Fermentation time depends on temperatures. The mixture is ready to apply when it starts to form a white film on the top and has a neutral odour. 

Step 2: Application

Neil filters the mixture into the spray tank and applies it undiluted with the boom spray at 60–70 L/ha.

Tips and Tricks: A plant tissue test can reveal if your weeds are dynamic accumulators of particular nutrients. Nicole Masters recommends sampling at least 20 crop plants and at least 20 plants of a particular weed when the plants are at least 10 cm high and before they flower. A soil test taken at the same time is also useful.57Masters, For the love of soil. These results can indicate whether mineral imbalances are part of the weed dynamics and inform alternative strategies.

Find out more:

Increasing diversity

Increasing the diversity of plants is a simple way to increase ecological function in cropping systems. Growing two or more crop species together provides an opportunity for these plants to occupy ecological niches that weeds would otherwise fill. Increasing diversity also harnesses crop competition to suppress weed germination and growth.58C Benjamin, ‘Can multi-species planting provide effective weed control?’ WeedSmart, 21 November 2021, accessed 5 June 2025.

Cover cropping

In addition to soil health benefits, cover crops can play a valuable role in weed management by suppressing weeds through direct competition, allelopathy,59Some plants release allelochemicals as root exudates that can affect the seed germination and growth of other plants. Allelochemicals can also wash off leaves, shoots or be released from decomposing residues. shading and their effect on soil microbes.60M Schonbeck, ‘How cover crops suppress weeds’, eOrganics, 20 January 2009, accessed 5 June 2025. Considerations for introducing cover cropping include:

  • Species selection: Fast growing species establish and grow quickly and can outcompete weeds for resources. Examples include millets, forage soybeans, sorghum, cereal rye, oats and field peas.61Schonbeck, ‘How cover crops suppress weeds
  • Diversity: Using a mix of species with varied growth habits can enhance weed suppression compared to single-species planting.
  • Timing: Planting cover crops as soon as possible after harvest minimises the fallow period and prevents weed establishment.62E Creech, ‘Discover the cover: managing cover crops to suppress weeds and save money on herbicides’, Plants, 2018, 12(4), 752, dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants12040752. Early planting promotes rapid growth and maximises biomass production.63M Fernando and A Shrestha, ‘The potential of cover crops for weed management: a sole tool or component of an integrated weed management system?’ Plants, 2023, 12(4):752, doi.org/10.3390/plants12040752. The timing of termination of cover crops can also be chosen to improve weed control.
  • Allelopathy: Allelopathic plants (e.g. cereal rye, sorghum, buckwheat) release chemicals that can suppress weed growth. They can also impact subsequent crops.64Schonbeck, ‘How cover crops suppress weeds’. 
  • Crop canopy and light: Establishing cover crops early to get rapid canopy closure optimises weed suppression. Unfiltered daylight can trigger the germination of many small-seeded weeds, while the green light that reaches the soil beneath a closed canopy of plant foliage tends to inhibit weed seed germination.65Schonbeck, ‘How cover crops suppress weeds’. 
  • Soil microbes: Cover crop root exudates influence soil microbes, creating conditions that suppress certain weeds. Grain and legume cover crops support mycorrhizal fungi that enhance crop growth and reduce weed vigor.66Schonbeck, ‘How cover crops suppress weeds’.
  • Residues as mulch: Cover crop residues can be used as mulch after cover crop termination to block sunlight from weed seeds and suppress germination. Weed suppression can also be enhanced when allelopathic chemicals are released from crop residues. The nitrogen content of the residue will impact how long this mulch effect will last. Straw that is lower in nitrogen lasts longer as a mulch than green legume residues that are high in nitrogen.67Schonbeck, ‘How cover crops suppress weeds’.

Neil and Kym Sullivan have been planting multispecies cover crops for the last two years and are finding that weed issues reduce after the cover crop. Neil feels confident that the multispecies is creating a tough environment for weeds. The key for Neil is to give the crops enough time to do their job.

Neil uses multispecies cover crops in his rotation instead of a year-long fallow period. During this rotation, multispecies crops are planted in winter, summer and then winter again before returning to a cash crop. Neil plants winter cover crops of oats and vetch and summer cover crops of millet and cowpeas, and adds another species to each depending on what seed he has on hand. He chooses species that grow and mature at similar times and can be easily terminated and managed to fit with his cropping program without the risk of them seeding and creating a volunteer multispecies crop. Ideally, the Sullivans plant winter multispecies crops in early April to get good establishment and biomass before growth slows down in winter, ensuring there is adequate biomass to block sunlight and minimise weed germination as it warms up in spring. 

Neil currently terminates cover crops by cultivating with discs at the flowering stage (before seeding), lightly incorporating crop residues into the soil without completely burying them. This leaves some biomass on the surface for soil protection. Neil plans to move towards a minimal disturbance cover cropping model using a roller crimper and disc planter to plant through plant residues. He believes that he might need to shift to a single species cover crop when he changes to a roller crimping termination system to make termination more successful.

Neil also treats weeds as part of his cover crop rotation, observing and managing weeds so they don’t mature and go to seed. If this looks like happening, Neil will terminate the cover crop earlier. Neil may plant another cover crop if he needs to keep the soil covered for longer, as his goal in summer is to have no bare soil.

Image 14. Cowpea and millet crop at Neil and Kym Sullivan’s. Source: Soils for Life.

Russell Young observed that multispecies crops were influencing weed behaviour, such as altering the ‘normal’ growth profile of weeds. In particular, he noted that sow thistle was significantly stunted in paddocks where multispecies crops had grown (see Image 15). Russell sees potential to include multispecies cover crops in paddocks that would otherwise be fallowed following wheat and ahead of planting sorghum the following year. Russell relies on favourable weather conditions for cover crops to deliver weed control outcomes, noting that dry years have resulted in poor crop establishment and less benefits.

Image 15. Paddock showing differences in sow thistle (S. oleraceus) presence, with very few in the foreground following a multispecies cover crop trial compared to the background, which did not have a multispecies crop. Source: Russell Young.

Scott Reid is noticing changes to weeds after two summer cover crops. The summer cover crops compete with summer grass weeds, in particular hairy panic (Panicum effusum), suppressing their growth.

Find out more: Soils for Life Multispecies Cropping Practice Guide: A step-by-step guide.

Intercropping, relay cropping and companion cropping

Intercropping, or growing two crops together in space or time,68C Collis, ‘Multi-pronged trials road test intercropping’, GRDC Groundcover, 30 June 2021, accessed 5 June 2025. can reduce the need for herbicides by filling the functional gaps that arise in monoculture systems, outcompeting weed. Grain can be harvested from more than one crop by selecting species with complementary growth patterns, seed sizes and harvest timings. This method is particularly beneficial when one crop struggles to compete with weeds in a monoculture, such as ‘peaola’, a combination of field peas and canola.69Benjamin, ‘Can multi-species planting provide effective weed control?’.

Relay cropping is where the life cycles of two crops overlap, with one species being sown into an existing crop before it is harvested. A common example is with wheat and soybeans.704RPlus, ‘Soil health leads farmers to relay cropping’, Farm Progress, 2 November 2020, accessed 5 June 2025.

Companion cropping is where two or more species that mutually benefit each other are grown together for nitrogen use efficiency, pest control, improved water and nutrient use, pollination or growth enhancement. Commonly, cereals can be undersown with legumes like clover.

Pasture cropping, pioneered by Australian farmer Colin Seis, involves sowing annual crops, such as oats or wheat, directly into dormant summer growing perennial pastures without tilling and sometimes without herbicides. This method maintains continuous groundcover, enhances soil health, and reduces input costs by minimising the need for fertilisers and herbicides. While this is largely considered a more opportunistic approach to cropping, it can be a great way to establish biomass and feed for livestock, and harvest a cash crop if conditions are favourable.

No-kill cropping is a low-disturbance method where annual crops are direct drilled into standing or dormant perennial pastures without tillage, fertilisers or herbicides. Developed in Australia by farmer Bruce Maynard, it aims to maintain living groundcover year-round, protect soil structure and support soil biology.

Russell Young began trialling companion cropping in 2021. He started with lucerne and wheat in 2021, followed by a mix of medics and clover with a wheat crop in 2022. While he did apply some herbicides for weed control in wheat stubble, he can see the potential for weed suppression.

Image 16. Cover crop of ryecorn, vetch, field peas, faba beans, oats and wheat at Steven Ford’s. Source: Steven Ford. 

Pasture ley phases & integrating livestock

Ley pasture phases involve planting (ideally diverse) annual or perennial pasture legumes or grasses in short or long term rotations with crops to improve soil health. Ley pastures in crop rotations can reverse declining soil health by keeping living plant roots in the soil to restore soil carbon, which leads to improvements in soil structure and organic matter, nutrient cycling and groundcover. In addition to their soil health benefits, ley pastures also compete with weeds for light, water and nutrients. 

Considerations when using a ley pasture phase for weed control include:71IJ Collet and BR McGufficke, Pastures in cropping rotations–North-West NSW [data set], NSW Department of Primary Industries website, 2005, accessed 5 June 2025.

  • Skills: Both livestock and pasture management skills are required to make pasture phases work well.
  • Infrastructure: Additional fencing and livestock handling facilities may be needed to utilise pastures in the rotation.
  • Timing: The desired length of the pasture phase to deliver desired outcomes (e.g. improved nitrogen fixation, profitable livestock production) and to fit within the crop rotation.
  • Species selection and establishment: Choosing pasture species that suit the climate, soil type, and livestock type and practices to achieve good pasture establishment.
  • Grazing management: Adequate rest and recovery of pasture between grazing is needed to maximise pasture growth and competition with enough impact to suppress weeds.   
  • Weed palatability: Ley pastures have been found to be effective in reducing the seed bank of palatable annual weeds (e.g. wild oats (Avena fatua) and barnyard grass (Echinochloa spp.), but less palatable weeds or weeds with long-lasting seeds (e.g. wild turnip) are less effectively controlled.

When a paddock gets weedy, Steven Ford drops the area out of cropping and grazes his sheep instead of using heavier rates of pre-emergent herbicides or more expensive herbicides. He uses heavy rotational grazes to delay ryegrass plant maturity then follows up with a chemical spray timed to target seed set at the end of the season before the paddock goes back into cropping. Steven controls other grasses and broadleaf weeds by spray-topping earlier in the season when the clover has not finished flowering and seed set. The pasture phase may include some selective grass sprays when there are undesirable grasses, such as brome grass (Bromus spp.), barley grass (Hordeum spp.) and silver grass (Vulpia spp.), that mature early and contaminate wool. Steven sprays out before the end of March with the goal of conserving moisture for the following winter crop.

Find out more: Role of ley pastures in tomorrow’s cropping systems: A review of ecosystem services ley pastures can provide in cropping systems, along with different types of ley pastures and their management.

Crop rotations

Diversifying crop rotations is one way of altering weed dynamics.72D Weisberger, Vi Nichols and M Liebman, ‘Does Diversifying Crop Rotations Suppress Weeds? A Meta-Analysis’, PLOS ONE, 2019, 14(7): e0219847, doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219847. A diversified cropping system creates a constantly changing environment, varying germination signals and disrupting weed growth patterns. Conditions that favour specific weeds in one season change in the next so that the same weeds are less likely to build up year after year.73M Schonbeck. ‘Keep the weeds guessing with crop rotations’, eOrganics, 20 January 2009, accessed 5 June 2025. Crop rotations are frequently designed to include break crops with herbicide options in mind. Crop rotations can also be designed around the weeds present with alternative weed management options as the focus, such as choosing crops that vary planting and harvest dates, cultural practices and weed management techniques.74Schonbeck. ‘Keep the weeds guessing with crop rotations’.

Neil and Kym Sullivan adapt their crop rotation according to the weeds present. Neil does not have a set crop rotation, but instead bases crop choice on the predominant weeds he observes in a paddock. Neil chooses crops that will compete with the weeds present and that have seeds that can be graded out from the weed seeds at harvest. For example, in areas with wild turnip, Neil will plant chickpeas, as these seeds are easy to grade out.

Improving crop competition with weeds

A competitive crop that limits a weed’s access to light, water and nutrients can suppress weeds by reducing their growth and ability to seed. Strategies for improving crop competition with weeds include:

  • Increasing planting rates and moving to narrow row spacing: Increased crop density can leave less soil bare for weeds to fill. Planting on narrow row spacing improves crop competition with weeds and also encourages weeds to set seed high in the crop canopy where seed can be picked up by the harvester. 
  • Planting date: Adjusting planting dates can reduce weed competition. Weeds that emerge at the same time as the crop create more competition, whereas if they emerge after the crop, they will more likely be outcompeted.
  • Choice of crops and varieties: Some farmers choose crops and varieties that can outcompete problem weeds or support weed management strategies. For example, shorter season varieties can mean you may get a crop harvested before weeds go to seed.   
  • Orientation of crop rows: Direction can affect crop growth and development and give the crop a competitive advantage against weeds.75AA Bajwa, M Walsh and BS Chauhan, ‘Weed management using crop competition in Australia’, Crop Protection, 2017, 95:8–13, doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2016.08.021. An east-west row direction creates an orientation in relation to the direction of sunlight that maximises early crop vigour so the crop canopy closes more quickly, effectively suppressing weeds by shading the interrow.

Steven Ford plants a narrow row spacing (7.5 inches) and uses higher seeding rates to increase crop competition with weeds.  

Scott Reid has changed from planting on a 12-inch row spacing with a tyne planter to using a disc seeder on an 8-inch row spacing to increase crop competition with weeds.  

Neil Sullivan does full sweeps on his tyne planter so the entire seed bed is cultivated at planting to aid in weed control.

Image 17. Narrow row spacing at Steven Ford’s (8 inches). Source: Steven Ford.

Finances

Financial outcomes of reducing herbicides can include:

  • Reduced input costs
  • Maintained business performance
  • Improved access to markets
  • Better business resilience

However, for many, concerns about finances and reduced crop yields can be a barrier to getting started on reducing herbicides. Farming systems can take time to transition ecologically and economically away from herbicides. Farmers who are successfully reducing herbicides are navigating the financial aspects of this transition by designing a strategy that fits their context and level of risk tolerance.

Designing a strategy that fits your context

Russell Young took a gradual, strategic approach to changing his cropping practices to avoid ‘crashing and burning’ if he shifted practices too quickly. This involved setting aside 17 ha to trial new practices and explore ways to incorporate old and new farming practices, while maintaining the viability of his business.

Steven Ford implemented changes more quickly across the whole cropping operation as this seemed simpler than having ‘a foot in two camps’. Working with a trusted adviser to implement the changes to the cropping program gave Steven the confidence to take this step. Being able to integrate sheep with the cropping system helped facilitate the transition by providing an additional income stream.  

Neil and Kym Sullivan needed to find alternative ways to manage weeds when they made the decision to convert their farming system to organic. Growing multispecies crops has been a key strategy in converting their latest farm to certified organic. Overall, they have seen that the organic farming system combined with value-adding through grain cleaning has improved profitability.

Reducing input costs

Reducing herbicide use can lower the costs of production and has potential to improve profitability, provided that alternative strategies are developed to manage weeds in the cropping system for profitable outcomes. 

Both Steven Ford and Scott Reid use sheep grazing to turn weeds into income. In addition, Scott estimates that he saves $68/ha annually on herbicide costs by removing broadleaf in-crop herbicides, keeping knockdown herbicide rates at the low end of recommended rates and reducing summer fallow herbicides by 75%.76Percentage calculated based on average cost of $11/ha and an average of 4 applications previously. Scott applies herbicide once over the summer fallow period (at a cost of $10–12/ha) instead of 3–5 times and no longer needs to apply a broadleaf herbicide in winter crops.

Figure 1. Changes to Scott’s summer fallow program. Source: Soils for Life.

Steven Ford applies herbicides at the base rate of recommendations and has not needed to increase rates over time, a common response to herbicide resistance. Strategically choosing the types of chemicals he is using and cutting back the chemicals he does use keeps input costs efficient.   

Russell Young initially reduced herbicide use and costs by 10% by buffering herbicides with fulvic acid and biological products. When combined with the efficiency of the camera spray equipment, Russell is now saving an estimated 80% on herbicide use and costs. He estimates that he has reduced his chemical use by 3,200 L of herbicide per year, saving $14,400 in herbicide costs. The camera sprayer is a long-term investment, providing an estimated return on investment in the equipment of 8% per year. The benefits of reducing herbicides overall make this investment worthwhile in Russell’s farming system, where his priority of 100% weed-free seed needs to align with his values around soil, ecosystem and human health.

Maintaining business performance

Steven and Kelly Ford’s business performance (operating profit/ha/mm of rainfall) consistently ranks in the top 50% of farmers in their Planfarm benchmarking group, even though yields are not as high. Compared to the group average, their benchmarking figures indicate that their overall costs are $100/ha lower, with machinery costs much lower (depreciation is $22/ha lower than the group average). They are also outperforming the average in terms of operating profit ($26/ha higher) and EBIT77EBIT is farm earnings before interest and tax are taken into account and can be used to compare to other businesses. See, GRDC, Key financial ratios fact Sheet, GRDC, 2013, accessed 5 June 2025. ($50/ha higher). Steven also observes that their business performance is consistent year to year and does not fluctuate like some of the other businesses, ensuring them with added stability. ‘Benchmarking has become more important as we have changed practices, the yield differences can make it easy to get yourself worried and go back the other way,’ says Steven. These financial indicators reassure them that their business is financially healthy despite changes in yield.

Accessing markets

Neil and Kym Sullivan have prioritised investing in a seed grading and packaging facility to take advantage of the growing market demand for organically certified, gluten-free grains. Eliminating herbicides will ensure ongoing access to a market that is growing due to increasing consumer demand. Growing locally sourced multispecies seed has also provided an additional income stream. 

Scott Reid feels that the practices he is using to reduce herbicides are helping him to be more prepared for the risk faced by Australian grain export markets that may ban particular herbicides in the future due to health concerns.

Improving business resilience

Reducing herbicides is a key part of an overall strategy that Scott Reid uses to ensure his business is resilient against climate variability and market requirements. Lower input costs limit financial losses due to extreme weather events such as frost, while the reduction in herbicide use helps prepare Scott’s cropping operation to adapt should export markets be impacted by herbicide bans in the future. 

Diversified income streams from grazing sheep also adds to farm business resilience for both Scott Reid and Steven Ford.

Indicators of success

When you’re adopting a new practice, it’s important to monitor for signs that the practices are worth the time, energy and expense, and to reduce adverse impacts. In order to assess the impacts of reducing herbicides in a cropping system, farmers often monitor soil health, weed dynamics and plant health.

Soil and plant health

A regular soil physical health monitoring practice is valuable to incorporate as part of a transition to reducing herbicides in cropping systems. Reducing herbicides can lead to improvements in soil structure and soil biological function. Earthworm populations can be a useful indicator of improvements to soil health. Crop health is also a useful indication of how a weed management program is progressing.

Scott Reid always has a shovel in the ute to dig a hole and observe what is happening beneath the soil surface. 

Neil Sullivan uses soil tests to understand his soil and inform where he needs to go. Neil believes calcium and aeration are the keys to weed management. He also monitors plant health using a refractometer to measure brix and Horiba plant sap meters to measure sap pH, electrical conductivity, potassium and nitrate. Focusing on plant health rather than weeds is his priority, and these measurements are used to inform nutritional programs.  

Steven Ford participated in a natural capital assessment with Perth NRM that revealed good soil structure, which was not common across other locations assessed. These measurements give Steven some confidence that they are making a difference to soil health. 

Removing summer fallow herbicides has provided Steven the opportunity to see how weeds can improve soil health when moisture is not limiting. In a good season Steven has seen some of the best crop yield in areas where melons have not been sprayed out in summer.

Image 18. Steven Ford inspecting soil health in a grazing paddock and appreciating the outstanding root depth on winter canola and the benefits this will provide to soil health and crops going forwards. Source: Steven Ford.

Tips and tricks: Nicole Masters suggests testing the brix level of your weeds with a refractometer and comparing these results with your crops. You want to see higher brix levels in your crops than your weeds. If this is not the case, it may indicate that current soil conditions favour weeds better than the crop you are growing.78Masters, For the love of soil.

Find out more: See other Soils for Life resources for soil and plant monitoring, including Soil and Plant Monitoring Guide and webinars on soil tests and soil health.

Changes in weed dynamics

Adopting a different approach to weed management sends different germination signals to weeds. Farmers reducing herbicides often notice that some weeds that were once a problem are no longer an issue. Identifying, monitoring and recording weeds in specific paddocks as part of general soil and plant health monitoring practices can help show your progress over time and whether your weed management strategies are working. Taking photographs and using mapping technology can assist.

Neil Sullivan emphasises that observation is the key to weed management. Neil uses observation to build his understanding of what is happening with weeds and inform his decisions. Neil advises, ‘Observation is the most powerful thing. Be patient. Try not to stress out too much.’

Russell Young has noticed sow thistle disappearing from paddocks after multispecies cover crops. 

Scott Reid no longer sees broadleaf weeds as a problem in his winter crops, which he believes is due to sheep grazing the crops early in their growing season. He is noticing capeweed only appears every now and then and not every year, which he suspects is partly due to the reduction in urea fertilisers.

Steven Ford is noticing that clovers are growing much better and capeweed is decreasing since he began avoiding SU herbicides and using calcium-based fertilisers. Once the crop is established, he does not aim for 100% weed control, but instead tolerates some weeds and uses the livestock as the biggest weed control tool after the pre-emergent herbicides.

Measuring returns on investment in weed control

It can be difficult to measure the returns on investment in weed control management to compare the efficiency of various options. Some methods that farmers are using that are making it easier include:

  • Using yield maps and on-farm trials for different practices to measure the costs and benefits of weed management decisions. 
  • Considering the number and size of weeds present, the cost of chemicals, application method, resistance concerns, and crop rotations to account for the costs and the benefits of weed control measures.

Find out more: Measuring the value of weed control expenses: Information on using yield maps and on-farm trials to see if weed control is effective.

Further learning

Explore our series of practice guides

Resources and tips recommended by the farmers in this guide

References used in this guide

Other resources from Soils for Life

Join a discussion group
Learn from other like minded farmers in one of our Cropping Discussion groups or follow our guide to start your own.

Soils for Life Podcast
Check out our podcast interview with Joel Williams on small steps for big change in cropping.

This practice guide was written by Kim Deans (Reinventing Agriculture) and Soils for Life.

What did you think of this guide?

Thank you for reading the practice guide! We would love to know whether you found the guide useful. Please take a minute tell us more.

How useful did you find this guide?
How likely are you now to experiment with this practice?
This project is jointly funded through the Australian Government’s Future Drought Fund and Soils for Life.