Progress report for FNC25-1467
Project Information
I have been an organic farmer/operator for about 7 years. Prior to that I grew up helping my parents on their organic farm. I currently farm with my brothers, and together we manage about 1400ac of certified organic or transitioning land in addition to a 60 cow organic dairy. We have experience growing corn, soybeans (food and feed), wheat, oats, yellow field peas, sunflowers, hybrid rye, cereal rye, alfalfa and other forage crops in northern Illinois.
I have previously completed a SARE research grant (FRG045.21 - Double Crop Organic Sunflowers in Northern Illinois), and routinely conduct other small scale on-farm trials to discover what systems and practices work best in my context. Trials may be as simple as testing different hybrids of seed or seeding populations, to more complex trials such as different cover crop and tillage practices, or different sources of plant fertility.
Related to this research proposal, I have several years of experience working with sap tests and foliar fertilizers to address some in-season fertility concerns on a few of our fields, but I have never taken the time or resources to do a systematic research trial like the one I am proposing.
Research
With the uncertainty of government funding we waited until we had the funds in hand before buying the supplies to begin the research. This ultimately led to a delay in getting the very first soil and sap samples taken and the overall structure of the research trial shifting slightly.
The original research proposal outlined 5 locations within a field where testing would take place, replicated over 3 fields. Sap samples were to be collected from: Weeds with treatment, weeds without treatment. Cash crop among weeds with treatment, and without, and a cash crop sample from a clean area of the field.

The theory was that strategic foliar applications might slow down the weeds ands stunt their growth. However, because the start of the research was delayed, the weeds were well established by the time the sample results were back and an application could be made.


Within a few weeks the weeds quickly shaded out the cash crop affecting the results of future leaf samples. By the end of the growing season the giant rag weed was +10ft tall and in some places the cash crop beneath had long died out from lack of sunshine.

However, we were still able to collect valuable data!
By the middle of year 1 we pivoted to focus primarily on gathering data on what nutrients the giant ragweed was concentrating compared to the cash crop and forego doing different treatments until year 2. This allowed us to increase the number of fields that were sampled and increase the variety and robustness of the data.
From the 6 field systems that were sampled we compared the ragweed nutrient concentrations with those of the cash crops (organic corn, organic soybeans, and organic cover crop sunflowers). Across all of the fields a handful of nutritional differences between the cash crop and the ragweed became apparent.
In year 2 we will focus on collecting a few more sap samples as well as soil samples at the time of weed germination to compare soil fertility levels with sap samples. First, we will again test giant ragweed leaves for nutrient uptake with a goal of focusing on younger growth stages. These leaf results will be compared with soil tests taken in the spring to evaluate if the weeds are accumulating nutrients that show up low on soil tests from the same location. (This relates to an original hypothesis of this study.) Next, taking the information gathered from year 1, we will see if "overloading" the newly emerged weeds with certain nutrients through foliar sprays can slow or stop giant ragweed growth. We will target the nutrients noted in our samples over the growing season of year 1, and may adjust later foliar applications based on any additional findings in the early soil and leaf testing done in year 2.
Overall, the results show that giant ragweed does seem to be accumulating certain nutrients more efficiently than corn and soybeans.
Averaged across all locations, Magnesium1, Chlorine, Sulfur, and Boron showed the greatest and most consistent difference between cash crop and ragweed. Silicon and Copper also had greater than 40% average difference. Potassium, Calcium, Zinc, NH4, Aluminum, and Iron also show up when the differences are averaged, however the results are inconsistent across locations.
Giant ragweed is a known nutrient accumulator so variations across locations may be due to site specific nutrient availability. Further testing is required.
While there were 2 fields that showed higher levels of ragweed calcium compared to the cash crop, the majority of fields showed higher calcium levels in the cash crop compared to the ragweed. This suggests that the "folklore" about giant ragweed growing in soils low on calcium availability is possibly false.
2025 Ragweed Cleaned Results - Jacob Landis
1. There was one field that showed the average of the cash crop magnesium being higher than the ragweed. However, the cash crop average is an average of the "clean" field location and the "weedy" field location. Comparing just the weedy cash crop sample shows the ragweed testing higher than the cash crop. This will be taken into effect as the data is organized and evaluated more fully.
Educational & Outreach Activities
Participation summary:
More to come in year 2.
Learning Outcomes
More information will be collected in year 2. Initial data indicated that giant ragweed does interact with soil nutrients differently than cash crops or corn and soybeans. Pending a 2nd year of testing and data collection, we will possibly use this information to guide fertility decisions in the future.
Project Outcomes
Will be completed in year 2
Will consider more after year 2