SARE FNE22-013 Final Report Draft Summary
Check out Ethan Andrews' really great article: FREE PRESS, July 11, 2023, p.3
See our 2023 summer harvest activities: SARE FNE22-013 Harvest Photos
See our 2023-'24 winter animal trials of leaf-silage: SARE FNE22-013 Animal Trials
%20Photos%20of%2022%20species%20of%20separated%20leaves.png)
SARE FNE22-013 Jan 15th, 2024 Annual Report Summary:
Efficient Leaf-dense Tree/Shrub Silage Production from Field Edges: Climate-resilient Winter Forage Supplement for Cattle, Sheep and Goats
We will: Produce leaf-silage from field-edge trees/shrubs using power-tools & new chain-flail leaf-separator; Trial how much ruminants will eat as winter supplement, plus measure milk yields & hay saved; & Assess feasibility of nutrition/labor & costs, to reduce climate risk on Northeastern farms.
Irregular precipitation is decreasing availability of grass-based forage. European traditions and recent studies ( Gabriel 2019; Hanson 2020a&b) indicate that climate-resilient Northeastern trees and shrubs have potential to bridge critical storage shortfalls, while contributing ecological/climate services.
Karl Hallen, SUNY Willow Biomass Project, fabricated a prototype chain-flail leaf-separator for this project, which works well, and which we successfully used to produce low-wood-content leaf-silages during the last week of green leaves in 2022, and then late June into October, 2023. Due to serious injuries sustained in a fall from a fork lift, Karl’s completion of the machine had been delayed by 3½ months. This delay effectively left us only the 2023 rotation of summer harvest for winter livestock trials, versus having a second year to fall back on, if animal intake rate proved high (and it has! - a very positive result). Instead of re-filling barrels and moving any insufficiently supplied trials to a second year, we must prioritize, to finish by our project end-date.
We harvested woody broadleaf growth with ground-based power tools along 900 lineal ft of MOFGA’s and Y Knot Farm’s field edges, plus harvested taller trees with a hand-saw at Faithful Venture Farm (MOFGA Certification Services refused us organic certification of the MOFGA grounds). We filled all of our 74 barrels. Harvest labor-time was 1 to 2 person-hrs/30 gallon barrel (ave. 52 lbs. leaf-silage each) excluding time spent managing brush and firewood (we lacked a large chipper which could receive brush upon exit). Set-up and break-down, spent brush and firewood management, research measurement and sampling tasks, on-site machine improvements, and wait-outs for rain showers (no harvests were at our home farm) used twice as much time as leaf-silage production. Travel time and mileage were also much higher than anticipated, due to frequent rains increasing threat of meningeal worm (carried from deer to snails, both especially prevalent at MOFGA, and deadly to goats), which caused Shana to choose to commute the 46 mi. RT to MOFGA for short daily work-periods, rather than camp there with the herd.
Livestock trials to determine how much leaf-silage animals will eat, how much hay is saved, and milk amount differences with and without leaf-silage, are currently underway. Due to enthusiastic animal responses overall, with Holstein heifer acceptance especially higher than expected (we knew that goats and sheep love leaf-silage), and also because 3 Streams, Y Knot and Faithful Venture Farms’ herd head-counts all rose by 30% in the extra-year wait (and as discussed above we no longer have a 2nd year to fall back upon), we chose to shorten numbers of days in measurement periods, to have enough leaf-silage for the planned numbers of rotations in those 3 livestock trials (see details under “Materials and Methods” section below). We may or may not have a few barrels of gray birch silage left for a shortened version of the Meadowsweet Farm Angus beef cattle trial, necessarily happening in March when they come in for mud season (they are most likely to accept the MOFGA gray birch silage, from over-mature trees with unpaltable seed catkins).
In one long meal/day during 1st of 3 leaf-silage periods, ten 3 Streams Farm goats ate on ave. 4lbs.=1.8 lbs. DM/head, and steer 14 lbs.=6 lbs. DM of leaf-silage, in addition to 24 hr. unlimited August 1st-cut hay averaging just under 1 bale/day. In 1st of 3 hay-only periods, in similar long meal/day, same animals are consuming same DM proportion of high-quality August 2nd-cut hay in place of leaf-silage, or about one 2nd-cut bale plus usual 1st-cut almost-bale. Goat milk yield rose during the leaf-silage period, and rose further then dropped back partially (with seasonally cold weather) during 2nd-cut hay period, varying by about 25%. After 3 rotations are complete, we will graph with weather data to tease apart dietary and weather effects on milk yields. (See spreadsheets to date in “Results” section, near end of this document, FMI.)
At Tilden Pond Farm, the Morses’ cow Betsy gave an average of 1.625 lbs. (about 3 ½ cups) more milk/day (21.775 lbs/day total) while eating 7 lbs. average of tree/shrub silage/day, versus not, in her short trial of 10 days with, 5-day transition, then 10 days without leaf-silage. She ate 8 lbs/day of grain, throughout. (See spreadsheet in “Results” section, near end of this document, FMI.)
The start of a photo-diagram of our prototype chain-flail leaf-separator is included herein (see ”Results” section below), as invitation to those who want to replicate and use, improve, or manufacture. Also please call to visit and examine it in person; (207) 338-3301.
3 pairs of fresh-frozen and ensiled leaf samples, plus 1st and 2nd-cut hay samples have been sent to DairyOne for analysis; 19 additional species of leaf-sample pairs, and additional samples for gallotannin and cyanide testing are frozen, awaiting word on our SARE proposal for additional funding. Cyanide in the one fresh-frozen/ensiled fall 2022 harvested black cherry leaf sample-pair that we sent per plan was 123.8 fresh and 22.3 ppm ensiled, annecdotally confirming reduction through ensiling.
Wayne Zeller, US Dairy Research Center (Madison, WI) has received our 23 tiny fresh-frozen samples from which to assess tannin content – an unexpected collaborative addition! Studies of ruminant digestive (plus ecological) benefits of tannins have supported genetic modification of leguminous forages, while barely exploring wild traditional/historic tree/shrub sources.
Yulica Santos Ortega, Maine Health Institute for Research (Scarborough, ME) plans to visit 3 Streams Farm on January 18th, to take milk samples for preliminary mass-spectrometry identification of differences of lipids, fatty acids and proteins in our goats’ milk with and without leaf-silage. Yulica and her family were on our blueberry crew this past summer. We hope to glimpse possible health benefits for milk-drinking humans. Shana is also freezing milk samples in order to pursue more conventional comparative testing.
This farmer-project precedes collaborative UVM/UNH ideas for trials of broadleaf silage in TNF (feed-mixing system used by large cattle producers), SUNY idea of leaf-silage as byproduct of willow biomass trials, and Lucas Tree interest in roadside leaf-silage production for broader community feed security.
.png)
2023
SARE FNE22-013 Annual Report
%20Flail%20rotor%20with%20half-baarrel%20housing.jpeg)
%20Flail%20rotors%20in%20front%20of%20exit%20tire%20rollers,%20wavy%20gathering%20belt%20above.jpeg)
%20Wavy%20gathering%20belts%20over%20tire%20rollers,%20two%20feed%20systems.jpeg)
Much-awaited arrival of the Leaf-Separator Machine: The Leaf-separator arrived in Maine on September 29th, 2022, just in time to fill 4 barrels with green tree leaves at Susan Littlefield’s Y Knot Farm (Belmont, ME) before hard frost, and learn what quirks of the machine we can address over the winter. We originally planned to have the machine in May, for extensive harvesting this past summer and livestock trials this winter, but machine creator Karl Hallen (SUNY EFS Tully Research Station, and Hallen Farm, DeRuyter, NY) broke two ribs in a mishap on a different machine in late winter, which postponed the heavy work of machine fabrication, and complicated his workload as a whole (note: Karl tack-welded, tried, then changed 3 major redesigns of our machine; also, multiple engines, pumps and motors were installed then changed out, before arriving at the current configuration). Our grant period accommodates the necessary shift of our harvests and trials to 2023-’24.
..JPG)
With brush cut, limbed and piled first, we can pack a 30 gallon barrel (about 100 lbs.) of quite intact leaves (also some small twigs, depending upon species) in less than an hour. One multi-trunked black cherry tree on the Y Knot Farm stone wall, coppiced by Susan 10 to 15 years ago and then all 3 trunks pollarded in a 25 ft. high branchy form (too high for Susan) by me Shana 4 to 5 years ago, I now lopped much lower with 9 foot pole chainsaw after climbing to de-limb. This one tree provided about 115 lbs. of leaves – 35 gallons when tightly packed.
We’ve identified many improvements (mostly for the next prototype and beyond our current Farmer Grant budget) to speed up machine leaf separation in future (see “Labor efficiency” below). For this time around, we are excited that IT WORKS!
Machine details: The 18 flails (9 attached in spiral pattern to each of two vertical rotating square axles) are each 5 or 6 links (5 on lowest ones so they don’t hit the frame) of 3/8” high-tensile steel chain, large, heavy and durable, such as used to tie a bulldozer to a trailer. Karl Hallen wanted the chains one to two links longer, to get 95 to 100% of the leaves without speeding up the flails nor slowing the feed speed down. A wavy interlocking gathering belt assembly for a corn head on a John Deer forage harvester drags short or floppy branches through the chains from above. The wavy belts came in a set length; Karl regrets that he sized the frame to match that length, thereby limiting room for chain flails to spin, and limiting our flail chains to their current length.
The main feed system consists of ingoing and outgoing pairs of rollers made by stacking small tires vertically onto four rods per roller, leaving the unmounted tires very squishy to grab diversely shaped and sized branch butts. It works great on long, stiff stems and branches; “User-friendly!” I exclaimed in relief after a summer of suspense. But we appreciate the additional wavy gathering belts. We especially use them when de-leafing gray birch, as those branches are too flexible to get past chain flails to exit rollers without the extra guidance from above. The chain flails tend to send very flexible branch butts to the left (when facing to feed), probably due to spring-loaded floating action of the right half of the machine, which helps the machine as a whole adjust to varying sizes and shapes of branches, but slightly misaligns the two flail rotors. When branches veer off from center, they tangle around the flail rotors, adding labor time to unwind or clip them out. The gathering belts guide branch butts straight through flails, avoiding tangles.
We also used the gathering belt feed for oak from some large Montville, ME pollards; oak branches are very stiff but quite angular, and pieces from pollards tend to be shorter and leafier.
The front and rear tire rollers control stiff long branches or stems well; the gathering belts on top loosely hold and move branches but are situated too far apart to grab branches of small diameter. The gathering belts currently turn on the same axles as the tire rollers, so cannot be moved closer together short of re-design (see below, under “Labor efficiency: Points for improvement”).
We had to slow the gathering belt feed speed (with flow control valve) for the well-attached leaves on oak, since we were already running current flail motors at their top speed (maximum flow valve setting). Though this adjustment increased labor time, slowing the feed speed did provide an excellent (near-100%) oak leaf removal result.
Obtaining specific desired machine parts has been a challenge throughout; Karl Hallen composed each current hydraulic flail motor from two motors, as the correct shank size was available only on even slower motors. The fastest motors of the same product line had been “out of stock;” Karl discovered on 12/7/22 that they had become available, so (after budget consultation) bought and sent them (from DeRuyter, NY) with fittings for Pat Scribner at Doak’s Machine (Belfast, ME) to install (also adding case drains, for increased pressure of faster speed).
These new flail motors offer an rpm gain of 25 to 30% (1,500 rpms continuous, at 14.5 gal./min., versus previous 1,140 rpms continuous at 15.5 gal./min.). This change may or may not achieve desired ranges for both feed and flail speed, as every change affects the hydraulic system as a whole.
This winter Pat will also change out the many imported hydraulic hose elbows - which have faulty threads and were the source of messy hydraulic leaks upon the machine’s arrival - to fittings made to higher specs in USA (and sent by Karl this fall).
Labor efficiency – Points for improvement: Our labor time is doubled by the need to have a second person maneuver outgoing stripped branches. As mentioned above, the wavy gathering belts are too short and/or too far from each other; they barely grip, then drop branches too soon, causing branches to tangle with flails. They thus almost-but-not-quite deliver branch butts to the outgoing pair of tire rollers, which can take branches fully away. The most doable re-design might be to fabricate new larger gears on free-wheeling bearings just on the non-driving (right hand) side, to close the gap, IF gears with a tooth or two more will have a diameter that closes the branch-holding gap just right. Karl thinks that if the belt’s grip on branches is tighter, we may not need more belt length except that required to reach around the enlarged gears. I will explore gear measurements when the heavy tarp comes off for Pat’s work switching fittings and motors, described above.
If the gear math for that simpler fix doesn’t work, an improved machine model would have to have the wavy gathering belt assembly mounted and driven independently of the tire rollers, with tighter spring-tensioned gap between the belts, and/or larger machine frame to support a longer gathering belt assembly, to carry branches successfully to the tire rollers and/or out of the machine completely. Such changes may require an engine (and possibly pump) upgrade to drive the increased number of motors (all not happening on this first prototype).
If gear math for the simpler fix does work, cost of gear fabrication and extra wavy belt links may still be prohibitive for this first Farmer Grant model. If we continue to get branch butts from end of wavy belts to tire roller-grab with a second person’s helping hands, we will discuss potential as well as actual labor-time in our Final Report.
The second human also catches and stacks long outgoing stripped branches, which otherwise hit the ground and bounce back in to tangle. A large reliable chipper-shredder properly positioned to receive would solve this issue, but unless we find additional funds or loan of equipment, we are limited to using our neighbor Jim Rhodes’ small free-standing chipper-shredder as a separate operation.
As mentioned above, the faster hydraulic motors which Karl wanted to drive the flail rotors just became available and are now in Pat’s hands; we were maxed out at top speed on the flow control valve for the flails with current motors. With new motors, we hope* to be able to adjust speed ideally for each leafy feedstock and feed branches through more quickly. (*note: as mentioned above, the motor change may or may not achieve desired ranges for both feed and flail speed, and comes with risk of needing to reinstall the current motors. In June we will find out, using newly mature spring leaves.)
Leaf % of brush, and leaf/woodchip proportion: We just this week measured leaf percentages of red maple, black cherry, gray birch, and red oak brush (4 of the 17 species we have committed to measure); we’d saved bare branches this fall when we packed 5 gallons of leaves of each species. Late arrival of the leaf separator machine, chipper/shredder water in gas and failure to start, and the intensity of fall leaf spreading on our blueberry field, all contributed to our late follow-through. We hope that branch moisture and weight lost by the delay is roughly equivalent to precipitation saturation added by recent storms.
After harvesting from live trunks, the branches were limbed and/or sorted on the ground with criteria of “pieces bearing leaves; long, stiff and straight is good.” Butts varied from about ½” to 2 ½” diameter, and lengths varied from about 2 ½’ to 8’. Upon consideration of the brush itself and our results so far, it seems that percentages of leaves in leafy brush are going to vary by growth history and traits of individual trees, as much or more than by species.
The separator can handle butts up to 4” or more, so long as side branches can gather together at intake; our butt diameters were less as these first loads were side branches and top growth from tall trees of 5 1/2 to 16” dbh, all previously coppiced and/or pollarded (but bringing down shorter this time; some firewood was produced). Next summer we will feed some stems of larger diameter, as there are younger coppiced saplings that we will cut at ground level in other parts of the Y Knot field edges and at MOFGA.
Despite such variability of tree/shrub traits, our data set once complete will give farmers a practical sense of leaf yield per weight of brush, and per volume of woodchip production.
We pointed the small free-standing chipper into a calf hutch on a tarp, then collected chips. We measured weight with a 70 lb. platform scale with round dial, and volume with gallon lines on a 5 gallon bucket. *I regretably neglected to review “Methods” in time; mean branch butt diameters and lengths are eyeball estimates.
Below are figures to date:
.png){kind=small}
Maple had the lightest wood, and leaf percentages by weight and volume were similar (chips blew notably farther). This particular maple had large young upright growth with leaves almost directly attached – hardly any leafy twigs, so lots of wood per leaves (it took a large armload of branches to produce 5 gallons of leaves). Oak had the heaviest wood, and leaf percentage by volume was much greater than by weight – a 5x8’ trailer load yielded almost two 30 gallon barrels of leaves in 1 ½ hrs., (more leaves per branch made up in time for the slowed feed speed to remove these tightly attached leaves). Just 8 small oak branches produced our targeted 5 gallons of leaves. This oak is a large and vibrantly leafy pollard, and oaks have high carbohydrate storage ability for re-sprouting (Furze et al/. 2019). The gray birch was our least attractive tree with limited new growth, and yet branches yielded higher leaf percentages than one would expect, probably due to having small short branches containing less wood.
Means from this small preliminary data set indicate a yield of 810 lbs. Leaves per ton of leafy branches, and about 8 yards of leaves for every 9 yards of bedding chips produced.
Eating: Susan Littlefield's sheep at her Y Knot Farm (Belmont, ME) enjoyed the 5 -15% of missed leaves remaining on brush from our first speed-adjusting trials of black cherry, red maple and gray birch, all from the first short stretch of Y Knot Farm’s west-side field edge. The sheep also enjoyed a treat of the branches that were too small in diameter or too short for our machine to effectively process (5 to 8% of each brush pile was thus set aside for them). We look forward to feeding them the first few barrels of machine separated leaves once we have more from our harvest this coming summer (see below).
Livestock trial changes: As machine arrival was too late to harvest enough for livestock trials this winter, we are saving the initial 4 barrels (of black cherry, gray birch and red oak) to feed in the long trial with Susan’s sheep, along with next spring and summer’s harvest of the majority of field edges at Y Knot Farm.
Our planned trials aim to measure how much the animals freely choose to eat of our leaf-separated silages, and additionally measure effect on milk yields and on hay consumption. We are considering a shift of plan to replace cancellation of winter cow milking trial with summer 2023 sheep milking trial, due to death of the 3 Streams Farm cow Tulip on 7/21/22, and Y Knot Farm acquisition of 10 additional milking sheep. This trial shift would be contingent upon prompt early summer harvest of the Y knot field edges (possibly reducing desired sprouting and regrowth), and short silage storage period before feeding, as sheep provide milk seasonally and dry up in early fall. Alternatively we will stick with the initial plan of shifting Y Knot Farm’s sheep trial to winter 2023-’24, and see how much hay is saved.
By time of livestock trials next winter, we expect 3 Streams Farm goat group to also be larger, with 8 milking does versus the group of 6 originally proposed. So both long trials may become somewhat shorter depending upon quantity of leaf silage we are able to harvest and pack for these more-numerous-than-planned animal groups, and their appetite for the same. Skyrocketing price of plastic barrels limited us to 64 of them. We will complete trials consecutively versus simultaneously; if not enough silage for all, we will shift our end date from November 30, 2024 to February 30, 2025, re-fill the barrels in summer 2024, and bump some trials to that next and last winter of 2024 -’25 (then update our Final Report really fast at the end!)
Our leaf silage changes with time, becoming more acidic, yet doesn’t spoil if sealed tightly. In past, our animals have eagerly eaten various samples of leaf silages kept over into a second winter. We will already be adding report of sheep intake of older versus fresher silages, due to packing the first few barrels this October. We will report similarly if it becomes necessary to carry over some barrels then harvest additional barrels freshly in summer 2024, for trials in that last winter.
We continue to talk to other farmers who milk a cow, to locate someone who is willing to help fulfill our original commitment to a cow milking trial, despite our worries about producing enough leaf silage for multiple trials. Information about effect on cow milk yield is requisite for farmers to consider any dietary change for their cattle in milk; a one-cow trial falls short of rigorous research, yet at least will give some guidance and hopefully encourage more study.
Harvest area changes: MOFGA Certification Services (MCS) decided in spring 2023 that they will not certify the MOFGA field edges which we will be harvesting. Soon after, they revoked certification of all my livestock, to remove inspector and MCS mistakes documented in the livestock file (the National Organic Program is putting increased pressure on certifiers regarding new and existing livestock rules). So my livestock can use the MOFGA edges, but Glendon Mehuren’s cattle at Faithful Venture Farm (Searsmont, ME) cannot. Initially we thought to solve this by certifying the Y Knot farm field edges for Glendon, then feed non-certified Y Knot sheep from the MOFGA edges. But to avoid insurmountable complexity of certification of such transfer of goods, Glendon decided he and I will choose new field edges to use on-site at Faithful Venture Farm.
New Beat Farm’s (Knox, ME) field next to our planned harvest edge full of green ash has been found to be PFAS contaminated. Since my 3 Streams Farm milk is now clearing from PFAS contamination of unknown source (and unknown level – the tests are of unknown accuracy on goats’ milk), and the State of Maine is enforcing (mostly against those who voluntarily test) a PFAS threshold for sale of milk, none of our farms are likely to use leaf silage from New Beat (despite that New Beat’s field remains certified organic), unless a $400 test finds the tree leaves okay in a logistically doable time-frame (fodder test results last spring took 8 weeks to arrive, and now the lab is even busier).
I put out calls to MOFGA grounds personnel asking for info on the PFAS testing there; it seems the fields by our harvest edges were not tested. PFAS testing at my 3 Streams Farm included 2021 willow silage from MOFGA grounds, which had a different PFAS (PFPEA) that that in my milk (PFOS). This could be from the excess fair newspapers baled and stacked on the roots of the willows (which can be removed), or from my used barrel’s previous contents, or from the soil. The willows there are highly productive, aromatic, and numerous; it is a hard call to remove them from our harvest list.
Samples &Testing: We froze 3 fresh samples each of Y Knot Farm black cherry, red maple and gray birch in 1 quart bags, plus ensiled one 5 gallon bucket of each from which to draw matching silage samples. We plan to send fresh-frozen and ensiled samples for nutritional testing 10 days before starting each livestock trial. We will send maple for gallic aid testing sooner (sending farther - to California Animal Health & Food Safety (CAHFS) Laboratory).
Remaining silage from the buckets will be fed just before livestock trials begin, to rate palatability and use ratings to decide the order in which barrels will be used in the trials.
Our sample of freshly separated cherry leaves packed on 9/29/22 tested at 123.8 ppm of hydrogen cyanide (HCN), well below the 500 ppm toxicity threshold. We will draw from the bucket and send a matching sample of ensiled cherry for same HCN testing, at time of sending other ensiled samples for nutritional testing. [Wilted cherry is known to be dangerous; our one hour-long feed periods will avoid this issue. An additional safety factor is that both Susan’s sheep and my own goats have history and experience of refusing cherry once wilted.]
This Farmer Grant covers nutritional testing of single samples versus three samples (as required for academically publishable replicability) of each type of feed; I have reached out to the UVM Mini-Grant program with as yet no response, and plan to also talk again to André Brito at the Fairchild Dairy Teaching and Research Center (New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, Thompson School of Applied Science) when I provide some promised 2021 leaf silage and seaweed silage samples to him, to explore funding of more stringent triple-testing, plus my wish for additional hydrogen cyanide tests on the cherry silage at different stages.
Funds: The US dollar is depreciating fast enough, or plastic sky-rocketing in value, such that the price of our sealable lever-top barrels doubled in the time between writing the proposal and receiving the grant award. We bought 64 of them - more of them than planned, as we were unable to locate similar used barrels, which became less available related to the COVID 19 pandemic. I (Shana Hanson, Project Leader) moved all except $300 of money allocated to pay myself, to cover this change of cost. Since that purchase, the price continues to rise. We are not sure if 64 barrels is enough; if we fill these and still have time and field edges to continue harvesting, we may use contractor bags tied tightly to seal, inside other less expensive used barrels – IF we decide that the non-food-grade black plastic of contractor bags is no worse in contaminants than the high-density polypropylene #2 food-grade barrels (see below).
Toxins in Packaging: PFAS contamination in our 3 Streams Farm milk became evident last spring, and led to misgivings about using the barrels at all. Our older barrels had been previously filled with a substance used in tanning leather; modern tanning sometimes uses PFAS, in addition to toxic chromium. Clam fluids we had in these older barrels (we use clam shells for soil amendment) tested PFAS-free. Then we found out that NEW food-grade plastic barrels can leach PFAS into foods, as some are fluorinated to decrease permeability. Thankfully, Eagle Manufacturing has told me (after no response for a month) that our new barrels had no fluorination process.
High-density polypropylene #2 plastic barrels can also leach toxic nonylphenol (NP) into water or milk, particularly if stored in sunlight (Loyo-Rosales et al., 2004). Before hearing back about fluorination, and upon reading about the additional concern of NP, I impulsively spent about $300 (possibly reimbursable in exchange for relinquishing last remains of my originally budgeted grant day-stipends) on organic cotton fabric, to sew liners for the barrels. Before sewing, I hope to find out whether nonylphenol becomes gaseous, or whether the cloth will effectively separate our leaf silages from contamination, to keep toxins away from our livestock, and thereby out of our milk (and meat). I await a call back from a person to whom I was referred by an author of the above-cited study.
I haven’t yet searched references about toxicity of contractor bags (which we may use, as mentioned above under “Funds”), but will do so this winter. It may be just as well that we are starting the major harvest a year later than planned.
In past, farmers used wooden silos, or pits in the ground, perhaps covered with an oil-cloth tarp. Modern plastic tarps shed microplastic and possibly PFAS. Dirt adds danger of listeria for sheep and goats, and modern cement has many additives. Bricks may have less additives than cement. Rolled rubber roofing material makes a long-lasting cover, but like contractor bags is not food-grade, and has yet to be reference-searched (by me) about leachates. We will stick with our convenient new barrels for this study (with or without cloth liners), despite misgivings about the plastic.
References:
Furze, Morgan E., Brett A. Huggett, Donald M. Aubrecht, Claire D. Stolz, Mariah S. Carbone, &
Andrew D. Richardson (2019). Whole-tree nonstructural carbohydrate storage and seasonal
dynamics in five temperate species. New Phytologist (2019) 221: 1466–1477. doi: 10.1111/nph.15462
Loyo-Rosales, Jorge E., Georgina C. Rosales-Rivera, Anika M Lynch, Clifford P Rice, & Alba Torrents (2004). Migration of nonylphenol from plastic containers to water and a milk surrogate.
J Agric Food Chem. 2004 Apr 7; 52(7): 2016-20. doi: 10.1021/jf0345696.
buckets before hard frost. Thank you all for encouraging this crazy
idea! See attached video and photo.
With brush cut, limbed and piled first, we packed 34 gallons tightly,
of quite intact black cherry leaves from one previously pollarded lush
tree in one hour. The sample for cyanide testing will go out today,
and another once ensiled, in winter (cherry is okay fresh, and
probably okay ensiled, but toxic when wilted).
Karl Hallen wanted the chains a bit longer, to get 100% instead of the
current 85-95% of the leaves, but the wavy interlocking belt unit on
top only came in one length, and on this first prototype, Karl sized
the frame initially to fit that belt unit. We use that belt on top
when doing gray birch, which is mostly too flexible to get across to
the exit rollers without the extra guidance from above. The chain
flails seem to send the branch butts toward the side of the flail
driven directly by the hydraulic motor. Perhaps that one is turning
more strongly than the other? Karl used as few motors as possible on
this lightweight barely funded farmer model : )
Also this winter we need to change the many hydraulic hose elbows to
Made in USA, as these ones from China have faulty threads and ooze
onto surfaces touching our food. And we need to check the new barrels
for PFAS, as I just read that some are impregnated with it. (We are
currently testing rainwater off a similar brown tarp, the current
suspect in my season-long milk contamination mystery.)
Susan's sheep have been enjoying the 5-15% of missed leaves on brush,
plus a treat of small leafy branches set aside (this first rough
machine can't keep ahold of those). They'll get the more satiating
mother-load from the barrels either this summer for milking trials, or
the next winter to see how much hay is saved.
I probably spelled Seamus's name wrong on the photo credit. He is a
young goat keeper from Virginia, who found me to consult about leaves
and browse, just in time to get put to work for day 3 of the machine!
Read 2018 Annual Report: https://projects.sare.org/project-reports/fne18-897/
Also see: Lab testing of Stored Winter Tree Leaf Fodders: UVM Final Report
Data: TREE INVENTORY; GOAT WEIGHTS;
ANIMAL RESPONSES; PHOTO FOLDERS
We completed initial pollarding (drastic pruning to be repeated cyclically) of about one half of trees in our 1 acre woodland ‘air meadow’ Demo Plot this growing season, with mostly red maples left (goats prefer these in winter). Interns Joshua Kauppila and Emily MacGibeny have both completed their seasons’ commitments and are far away. I have hired new intern Maddy Cain who will join me in April 2019.
I am now pruning red maples and softwoods (we retained firs and pines with live branches <10 ft. up plus hemlock and w. cedar) which goats prefer in winter, and just fed out the last dried leafy branches from 3 storage piles there (excepting samples saved for our next trip to other farms, and a pile of green but goat-rejected oak to chip, re-moisten and ensile). Entries on spread sheets for goat weights (from which to compute dry matter consumed) and tree measurements (to describe our plot) therefore continue.
Person-hours: We spent 454 person-hrs. felling tightly spaced softwoods and re-structuring the 5/8 acre’s worth of trees completed to 12/25/18 and dealing with brush /fodder. So we are taking about 726 person-hours/acre. Hiring an arborist would have been less expensive and much quicker, yet the goats could not have eaten as much fresh if pruning had happened all at once. Our time working in company of goats has been pleasant, often above the biting insect zone with partial shade for summer heat, and much stretching in varied use of our bodies. (Josh pictured below.)
DM edible portion: The goats ate about 500 lbs. of fresh tree leaves (about 200 lbs. DM) from the 1/2 of trees in our 1 acre Demo Plot which we struggled to prune fast enough for them during the growing season. Goats ate about 1/3 fresh lb. per hr. per adult doe. Nov. 1st to Dec. 25th they have eaten about 286 lbs. dried leaves and fresh bark combined (bark being from an additional 1/8 of Demo Plot trees), eating a bit more than 1/3 lb. dried leaves and fresh bark per adult goat per hr., (filling bellies much more thoroughly with these immediately abundant and drier feeds). This gives us a DM total of about 700 lbs. DM/acre being consumed by goats during initial restructuring of ‘air meadow’ trees. We are now out of dried leaves; yet I expect our DM consumed/acre figure to continue to rise as I prune the remaining 3/8 of Demo Plot trees, due to the higher rate of winter eating of choice red maple bark versus summer eating of sometimes non-choice fresh leaf species, the more easily climbable structures of maple trees, and slower perishability of prunings in winter.
Limiting factors during the growing season were: our ineptness at use of throw ball for getting ropes up into crowded trees with small high tops giving small returns per tree (particularly the aspens and white birches); same denseness making softwoods complicated to fell; a preponderance of red maple and softwoods which goats do not prefer in summer; and our research need to dry and to ensile portions of all species, some of which goats wanted fresh, like ensiled, but have refused dried (particularly quaking and big toothed aspens cut before frost, and red oak).
Storage: On-site feeding from the Demo Plot piles has been labor-saving and of significant feed value despite some insect damage, molds, and rejected tree species. One dried leaf storage pile’s center raised small green caterpillars making lace and excrement of aspen and oak leaves especially (ash seemed immune; r. maple and birches barely touched). Another pile molded on top in the center, helped by small gaps in tarping around the original pole (later cut short). About 2/3 leaves in the 3 storage piles retained green color and intact quality. Yet one doe one day was selecting molded aspen leaves over dried green aspen leaves (fresh aspen leaves from young root-sprouts and dried aspen leaves seem to have an anti-feedant issue for goats unless cut after frost). Barn dried leafy branches were insect free, but generally less colorful than those (shown below) from the densely packed tarped piles.
Livestock preferred courser shredding or chipping to fine, and picked through for largest leaf pieces, whether ensiled or dried (remaining woody chips contribute positively to bedding materials). I hope to perfect the speed of chipping or shredding in 2019 to produce the leafiest least ground-up texture.
Chipped fodders ensiled in buckets and barrels produced more consistent quality (less mold, more green, and very well-received by all livestock) than those spread in wooden boxes in an open barn to dry. Humans consistently enjoyed the aromas of our leaf silages. Animals generally preferred even the three molded silages over dried leaves. Regardless, some species of even dried chipped leafy branches were popular with all livestock.
Initial restructuring (pollarding); Broadleaf Tree descriptive data:
Mean measurements on newly pollarded broadleaf trees:
See www.3streamsfarmbelfastme.blogspot.com “Tree Inventory” spreadsheet with above stats per tree plus date cut, moon phase etc. Scroll to the bottom to see species separated and summarized, and then new winter data beginning.
Softwoods: We retained the few hemlocks and white cedars to prune, plus all firs and pines with live branches below 10 ft. were topped rather than felled. Two grand white pines are also remaining unaltered.
Tally of felled softwoods:
Tree sprouting responses: Red maples (below ctr.), some oaks (below R), and one white birch (below L) have responded to initial pollarding with significant sprouts. I expect most others to begin to sprout in spring, but am not counting upon the aspens, as their leaves we retained were drying toward the end of our summer drought.
See www.3streamsfarmbelfastme.blogspot.com for picture files of both newly pollarded trees in the Demo Plot and established pollards elsewhere on the farm that we are re-pruning and watching/photographing. I will take pictures of sprouting of tagged tree joints in September 2019 as written; there will be up to 2 seasons’ growth on some of the trees, as maples for instance were pruned last winter (original write-up said 1 yr’s. growth, which will be true for a few trees)
Photos of healing on previously established pollards are also there, and will be discussed in our 2020 Final Report “Pruning Guidelines” section.
Livestock responses: Livestock sampling of fresh intact and fresh chipped leafy branches was generally very positive, with almost 4/5 of offerings eaten immediately or eventually. Holstein cows at Faithful Venture Farm were least enthusiastic, with widely varying responses probably related to the timing of visits. Unfortunately they were the farthest away and my own time window tended to be evening when they were receiving other feed in the barn. Also a small wide free goat was confounding reliability of any “2 eventually ate” entries. I may make return visits to the Holsteins with fresh fodders in 2019, to correct these issues.
I am now taking data on livestock responses to ensiled chipped and ensiled hand-stripped leafy branches, plus to dried intact and dried chipped leafy branches. As Jackson Regenerational Farm no longer has cattle, Meadowsweet Farm sheep and cows are now on board, with extremely positive responses to 10 silages and 13 dried samples at first visit on 11/21/18 (photos below).
Ensiled leaves have been positively received by all our livestock samplers, and are generally preferred over dried leaves, with intact preferred over chipped, whether dry or ensiled. Ash and willow are devoured in any form by all livestock. Goats eagerly eat chipped ensiled aspen though they are refusing even intact aspen dried unless cut after frost and turning. Cattle and hogs (and occasionally sheep or goats though less traditional) have begun to sample traditionally cooked dried leaves of various species, with positive responses especially from the cattle – even Faithful Venture Holsteins! who so far rank cooked leaves even above ensiled leaves.
R.I.P Alchemy, the bull-calf raised primarily on tree leaves at Jackson Regenerational Farm, who was an especially sweet-tempered and appreciative contact. His hanging weight was 150 lbs. after one summer of life.
Animal Response Summary Chart: these response means do not reflect range of responses.
See “Animal Responses” spreadsheet at www.3streamsfarmbelfastme.blogspot.com for full range of responses.
Research conclusions:
We are succeeding in obtaining cattle, sheep, goat and hog responses to a broad range of tree leaf fodder products, with predominantly positive responses to fresh, dried, ensiled, and cooked leaves or leafy branches. We are especially excited about the logistically easier chipped or shredded silages.
We will be able to produce a ball-park Dry Matter figure for what our goats consume from initial establishment of the Demo Plot (see preliminary figures in previous section).
We have extensive photographic data on trees being pollarded, and next fall will add pictures of new growth, from which to draw species-specific conclusions about our pruning protocols. In addition to requirements of our grant, we added moon phase information to our tree inventory, and hope to learn more from both our tree sprouting responses and from European University contacts about timing cutting in relation to moon-weeks.
In April, we hope to seek funding to test nutrition of ensiled and dried fodder samples. We are also exploring larger scale ensiling of chipped tree matter.
We look forward to continuing to utilize and monitor the progress and fodder offerings of the “air meadow” Demo Plot along with our goats and hogs, to the end of this grant period, and in years to come.
Outreach:
I spoke for 10 minutes about tasty timing of leaf harvests, based upon literature resources and my observations of goats and hogs, and produced an article and PowerPoint on same, for Colloque Trognes in Sare, France March 2nd. I announced this SARE grant in my presentation, but the coinciding name of the town we were in may have confused listeners.
I helped children climb ladders to feed goats from a tall row of hybrid willows at MOFGA Farm and Homestead day in June, and conversed with all ages about our SARE project there.
MOFGA Tree Fodder Day July 9th was a resounding success; I verbally summarized our SARE project during the farm presentations, and passed around silage and chipped dried samples during our storage discussion circle. In the remaining days of the Tree Fodder Seminar, arborist climbing instruction and mushroom inoculation workshops occurred in our SARE Demo Plot, where initial pruning was well under way.
I spoke about “Tree Leaf Preferences of Cows, Sheep, Goats and Hogs” at Common Ground Fair; see the power-point presentation (that did not show in a sunny tent) posted at www.3streamsfarmbelfastme.blogspot.com.
I have been freezing small samples of each silage opened, and in my process of scrambling to explore grant funding the nutritional testing of these samples, my University contacts doubled and became newly aware of our SARE project. In visiting farms for livestock responses plus playing fiddle at Camden Farmers’ Market, I connected with two more arborists, one of whom is now on board to bring us large amounts of ensilable chipped leafy branches of various species, taking us perhaps toward an “Innovative Practices” exploration of using Faithful Venture Farm’s bail wrapper to ensile in one-ton tote bags.
I hope to line up venues this winter for sharing of our Final Report in 2019-20.
Smaller diameter maples, responses to basal firewood cuts of the previous landowner pre-2000, were/are often as tall as the larger maples, yet due to smooth young bark we can expect sprouting from a trunk cut in easy reach. These long young tops offer a lot of tasty bark for goats to strip, yet can be deceivingly dangerous to cut. The goats have learned well the command “Watch Out!”
Processing Fodders:
Drying Piles: We found that with a person atop a drying pile holding the leafy ends of a bundle together just past the center of the pile, the person handing up the bundle could spread the larger stick ends for an even horizontally packed tight stack. We found that the center poles were unnecessary, as pile height was limited by our ability to lift the brush, and to mount the pile to spread it. The density of the 5 ft. high piles increased as armloads were added. We worried that leaves would shatter, but air moisture kept them pliable. Mold and insect damage occurred where leaves were concentrated at the center, exacerbated by moisture entering at the pole opening.
Nick Jackson at Jackson Regenerational Farm (one of our sampling farms) misunderstood my verbal description, and did something possibly better: He stacked up to 8 ft. coppice cuttings vertically, stick ends down, wrapping a rope around the initial bundles with a rooted center pole for stability. This configuration may be better for on-site feeding, as animals can eat directly from each layer without temptation to climb and soil the pile.
Chipping: We chipped into a moveable calf hutch, with cardboard or plywood beneath. The silages packed with a complete inner plastic bag were mold-free; those relying upon just the bucket seal, or just topped with a shopping bag of same fodder, sometimes molded. The molded silages were generally still accepted by livestock. The dried chipped fodders were spread 2″ deep in wooden blueberry flats; aspens tended to mold, and generally the ensiled chips were better received than the dried.
Hand stripping: Ash, aspens and willow were quick to hand-strip, snapping short twigs with leaf bunches. Other species were impractical to hand-strip for silage, yet certainly ranked a notch higher than chipped silages by the animals.
Here are some before and after pictures of trees that we've done to get an idea of what our pruning looks like:
Jackson Regenerational FarmHere is Shana, way up a poplar....And here are some of the goaties sneaking under our tarps which is one of our main methods of storing and drying the pieced fodder. There must be something tasty under there!
6/4/18
A very dry entry, though freed by the blessed rain to work on this:
Today I ended up meeting Faithful Venture Farm's Holsteins in their pasture instead of at milking time. This was SO fun: they stampeded up to me in this very green sunny place, and politely checked out but refused the white birch both on the branch, and fresh chipped (that's expectable; it's a sheep species).
Since I was way down the hill already, I decided to be even later for my own animals, and took a walk to fetch basswood, ash, and oak from the trees there. The cows had gone back to stand close along the wood line in shade, and upon my return only #162 was facing me on my end. She hogged everything, before the others caught on! I suspect Basswood (linden, lime, Tilia) and White Ash (Fraxinus) to continue to be on their menu of choices; the oak may only be tasty to them at this young understory stage.
In any case, now I have a friend. #162 followed me to sniff and refuse the white birch again, and then I crawled under another fence line to offer some elm, which was surprisingly only nibbled - very fuzzy stage, not fully leafed - or is that different than the elm at my place? (my leaves are pretty smooth now). There is supposedly Slippery Elm around here.
Penny the Dexter cow at Jackson Regenerational Farm, and the sheep at Y Knot Farm all settled happily for white birch, both intact and chipped.
My goaties got some nicer white birch later, from a lush pollard next to their grassy paddock : ) Yet they limit consumption, eating eagerly until their tannin limit is reached? We shall see if the ensiled chips are more digestible for them, next winter.
Tomorrow I will bring some white birch to the hogs. They appreciated it dried last winter.
Today I conversed with a likely internship candidate, though she hopes to start in July. Perhaps Josh Kauppila and myself will be spelled a bit by Susie Dexter with some Per Diem days, in the interim. I am sleeping strange hours in order to pull of what we are managing to keep up with, as the original plan was to have three interns. Not that I have ever minded a challenge : )
5/22/18
Dear Witnesses to my Leafy Obsession, and also our Milk Drinkers who have broken fast this week,
The weighing of goats coming in and out of our Demo Plot has become almost a Goat Treat. Some were getting back up onto the scale to see if I would rub any more black flies out of their fur and off their bellies.
The goats gratified me by showing interest in the moist young white birch leaves today, just about flatly refused yesterday. I must bring a sample to my hogs.
I succeeded yesterday morning in finding my way to a digital scale at the CoOp downtown (despite store rearrangement), bagged goat poops in hand (in paper And plastic). 8 defecation events in 2 hrs. only added up to just over a half lb.. I meant to point out to a cashier that I was bringing something in to weigh, but no one was at the front right then, causing some concern that I might get caught shop-lifting the poops...or even worse, weighing them for a drug deal. Yet despite store cameras, no cops trailed me home (my car inspection is over-due, but maybe they would have been too gaga over the poops to notice?).
Josh and I were up in beech trees, as the black flies stay near the ground. The Goaties were intent to thieve our paper records, and at one point Zephyr did sleight-of-mouth with a roll of electrical tape for rope ends. This is unusual feistiness for my calm loving goats; they get bored with the small (1 acre) fenced-in plot.
4/28/18 Dear Josh, Any May, and those Curious about our Funded Farmer Research in the Woods,
At two urinations sighted in a 2 hr. period, and none collected (over too fast), I suspect we lost more liquid to the black flies, who came out in full force just today. They are way too small for the platform scale, plus hard to catch without losing all that liquid AGAIN. So Farmer Research it is – inexact science.
Poops, on (or should I say “in” more literally) the other hand (in an old plastic bag stolen from the flagging tape scraps, and slightly leaky) were worth some attention, weighing in at 1 or 2 lbs. total. We are still out on the reward goat walk (for good behavior – no ‘king of the hill’ at 2nd weighing, and they got that they must follow through and be weighed before release), so have not yet actually weighed the blob. And blob it is; new grass of the pasture is probably giving us a seasonally heavy Poop Weight figure! Maybe that error will balance a few excretive events surely missed.