Comparison of Biological Solution, Sea Minerals, or Combination of Both on Pasture Production

Impacts

Project Results and Lessons Learned

Year 1:  We learned there is a difference in the ease of obtaining and putting on the applications. The Gro-Pal Balance was easy to order, have shipped and arrived in a 5 gallon bucket which was enough for 2 years. It was easy to mix in water and spray on with liquid sprayer. The Sea-90 came in 50 lb. sacks, of which we bought 40. We were able to pick these up at a location 140 miles from home. It did not mix easily in water so we put it on with a dry fertilizer applicator. The rains which followed allowed it to dissolve into the soil. The biological solution involved making several trips to a couple of dairies to collect enough raw milk which was destined for dumping. Since not all the milk could be obtained at one time, the milk was kept frozen until ready to use to prevent it from clabbering. This was then added to liquid fish emulsion which we obtained in a 55 gallon barrel, picked up at the same time we picked up the Sea-90. These were mixed and put on with a liquid sprayer with occasional plugging of the nozzles.

It was difficult to say at the end of year 1 what effect each of the treatments had on biological activity of the soil, grass production, the health of the animals and economic benefit to the producer. There were good rains throughout the summer which resulted in more grass growing in all areas of the pasture.  We did not see a visual difference in the grass between the areas of treatment .There was definitely more grass left at the end of the grazing season in all areas but how much of this was due to applications of soil amendments and how much was from increased rainfall was unknown.

The Solvita test conducted in July showed the following results:  Control area:  4.5, Biological solution:  5.0  Sea minerals and GroPal Balance:  4.9.  It would appear from these readings that the biological solution (fish emulsion & milk) had the greatest benefit.

Economic Impact:  The bison had sufficient grass to continue grazing without any supplemental hay up to January 2017 at which time we began feeding at an average rate of 8-9 lb. /head/day. 

In 2016, 21 calves were born from 26 cows; 4 died (1 had been born blind) and 17 were raised.  This is an 81% live calf rate and 65% weaned rate.  This mostly reflects the health of the animals prior to treatment of the pasture since the treatments were not started until after most of the calves had been born.  Twenty-four animals were harvested with a total weight of 10,430 lb. hanging weight, average 434.5 lb./ animal.

Work plan

Plan at the end of year 1:  Soil tests will be repeated in the spring and summer. Each of the treatments will be repeated in 2017 in the same areas as in 2016. We will try again to get Brix readings on the grasses.

Another plan to see a comparison in treatments was to do a side-by-side comparison of applications in an area that is fenced off from grazing. This is an area where about 300 shrubs were planted 10 feet apart in 2 rows, with about 15 feet between the rows. Since the soil and grass is fairly uniform in this area and no grazing is occurring, it should have been fairly easy to see any differences in treatment areas. 

Outreach

We did not have any field days or demonstrations in year 1. 

Research results year 2: 

By October 2017 the pastures looked very bleak.  There had been almost no regrowth of the grass after the initial grazing.  This is not what we had hoped to see for the conclusion of this study.  However, when we looked beneath the surface at the numbers, it was not as bad as it seemed.

The pastures looked good beginning in April.   Then 10 inches of snow May 1, another 6 inches May 20 looked like a good store of moisture.  However, it may have cooled the soil enough that it slowed grass growth instead of helping it.  No rain in June, then a hailstorm with baseball-sized hail on July 3 may have further contributed to slowed growth.  With no further rains in July, and heavy grasshopper infestation, by August 1 the pastures were eaten down and beginning to look brown.  During the first 2 weeks of August a couple rains totaling about 4 inches brought the green color back but there was not significant growth.  By August we began feeding hay to the bison to take pressure off the pastures.  The annual harvest of meat animals was also moved from October to September to limit the amount of hay that needed to be purchased.  Even the test strip that had been mowed in early June showed almost no regrowth of grass even into late fall.

Solvita test Aug. 1, 2017, (hot, dry soil), using a meter to read results:  Control:  12.42; biological solution: 27.2; sea minerals:  18.9, GroPal Balance:  18.5.  Again, the biological solution shows the best biological activity in the soil.  However, there was no visual difference between the areas.

Solvita test Oct. 29, 2017, (cool, damp soil) using a meter to read results:  Control:  4.94; biological solutions:  5.20; sea minerals:  4.17; and combination product:  4.84.  The biological solution once again shows the best results, with the control being higher than the other 2 treated areas.

Accomplishments

Activities:

Year 2:

Pastures looked good in April and May 2017

.

Late snowstorms probably cooled the ground and slowed growth.

July 3 hailstorm also set the pastures back

.

This test plot was mowed in June and treated with each of the soil amendments, leaving 1 area for control.

Aug. 1 there was no regrowth in any of the areas

.

After August rains there was some greening but little regrowth by October.

So what did we learn from this experiment?

The following is a chart of the significant information obtained from soil tests done in April 2016 (before the application of any soil amendments), May 2017 (after the first year’s applications), and Dec. 2017 (after the second year’s applications).

As can be seen, the soil improved in all these areas.  The apparent advantage of the biological solution seen in the field Solvita tests is not as clearly seen in these results.  The control areas also improved making one wonder if the treatments were of any value.  The improvement in the control areas is probably due to the pasture rotational grazing.  We have been practicing rotational grazing for about 4-5 years.  The soil amendments appear to have speeded up the soil improvement by showing a larger increase in the treated areas after the first year of treatment.

Another indication of improved soil health was in the tilth of the soil.  This could be seen in the root structure of plants dug and the ease with which a trowel could be inserted into the soil.  Overturned manure piles probably indicated increase beetle activity in the soil.

Thistles were easy to dig in the second year as the roots easily popped out of the soil in treated areas.

Root samples from the test strip; the control area is pictured on the right.

Overturned manure piles were noted in several of the treated areas.

Another assessment of the effect of the treatments may be in the production and health of the buffalo.  In 2016 the weaned calf crop was 65% of the number of cows (17 out of 26 cows).  In 2017 the weaned calf crop was 82% (23 calves from 28 cows).  The number of live births in 2017 was 27 calves from 28 cows for a 96% calving rate, compared to 81% in 2016. The pounds of meat harvested in 2016 averaged 434.5 lb. / animal; in 2017 it averaged 457 lb. / animal.  This was especially significant considering the harvest was a month earlier than usual.  These increases may be attributable to more nutrient-dense forage contributing to better health of the animals.  In 2016, twenty-four animals were harvested for a total hanging weight of 10,430 lb; in 2017 twenty-five animals were harvested for a total hanging weight of 11,425 lb. or 995 lb. more.  At $4/lb. hanging weight, that is $3980 more meat harvested.  With a retail value of about $12/lb. the increase in meat harvested is $11,940. The increased calf crop will mean more meat harvested in future years.