Final report for FNC23-1367
Project Information
Cannon Valley Graziers is a diversified livestock operation that uses sheep and goats to manage vegetation throughout southern Minnesota. In 2024, CVG grazed 2200 head of livestock. Arlo Hark is a co-owner of Cannon valley Graziers, and manages all operations for the farm. For this project, Arlo will oversee the on-the-ground operations of livestock, assist with gathering soil samples, and with gathering data and reporting on the efficacy of virtual fencing technology.
Spring Wind Farm just completed their 13th year of growing produce for the Northfield community. They provide food for 400 households from June-December through their CSA program. Spring Wind Farm is not certified organic, but follows the guidelines. All of their customers come out to the farm each week and have a strong relationship with the land, food and farmers. Produce is grown intensively on 10 acres with the help of seasonal employees, working share volunteers, and tractors.
Andrew Ehrmann is co- owner of the farm, and manages field production. For the past 10 years the farm has purchased composted poultry manure as its primary source of fertility. 1-2 semi truck loads are spread each spring to provide the necessary nutrients for mixed vegetables. Even with aggressive cover cropping, Betsy and Andrew have noticed their soil organic matter plateau at around 3%. They wonder if introducing bale grazing during the winter will help improve this percentage and overall soil health.
The benefits of rotational grazing and bale grazing are well documented in the world of soil health. However, one of the main barriers to implementing rotational grazing systems directly on land that is used for vegetable production, is that much of the infrastructure required for rotational grazing practices is incompatible with vegetable production. Permanent fences are expensive, and difficult to maneuver tractors and other vegetable production equipment around, while temporary, “electro-net” fences are time consuming to set up and take down, and are not a good option for bale grazing during the winter months, as the ground is frozen and snow reduces the electrical charge.
As a result, instead of stacking the benefits of livestock production directly on the land, vegetable farmers often pay to ‘import’ nutrients to their farm in the form of compost and other additives. Soil remediation can be an annual expense, and can reduce the profitability of small-scale vegetable productions.
Solution
With the recent emergence of virtual fencing technology (a containment system in which each animal wears a collar connected to a satellite, and paddocks are drawn virtually on a computer or smartphone), there is a significant opportunity to re-imagine the logistics of stacking the benefits rotational grazing on land that is used for vegetable production. For our project, we will study a) the soil-health benefits of, and b) the financial impact of, co-locating small ruminants on vegetable farms using these new virtual fencing systems.
Our study will take place at Spring Wind Farm, a vegetable CSA near Northfield, Minnesota, with about 10 acres of land in production. We will begin by gathering baseline data from past years, including soil fertility data, crop yield data, and the annual cost of soil remediation. This data from past years will be used as a control in our study, so we are able to accurately measure the results as compared to standard practices from years past.
We will then work with Spring Wind Farm to develop a grazing plan for the site, which will take into consideration crop rotation, planting and harvesting schedules, water access, and availability of forage. Our grazing plan will include the deployment of livestock during both the growing season and non-growing season; during the warmer months sheep will graze planted cover crops, taking care to observe food safety standards and raw manure application guidelines (90-120 days). In the winter months, the sheep will be provided round bales of wrapped haylage, staggered and preplaced in targeted areas.
For the duration of the study, approximately 50 ewes will be brought to the site to graze, and will be contained using virtual fencing technology. Forage grazing will begin in fall of 2023, after the harvest of early-season annuals, and will be followed by bale feeding. In order to ensure that manure and organic matter is spread evenly throughout the tillable acreage (or avoids areas such as field roads and irrigation heads) we will create small paddocks using the virtual fencing technology, and frequently rotate the flock throughout the space. The specific paddock locations and sizes will be determined in the grazing plan, and will be based on the aforementioned considerations.
To study the impact on soil fertility, soil samples will be collected twice annually throughout the duration of the study, beginning in the fall, prior to sheep arriving on site. This data will be compiled in a soil health report at the conclusion of the study. In addition to soil test results, the report will also include photos and other on-the-ground observations taken throughout the growing season.
To determine the financial impact of our study, we will use our soil health report to determine if remediation will be required on the same schedule as years past, or if that cost can be saved through the integration of livestock. We will also compare crop data to determine the impact of livestock integration on crop yields.
Objectives
- Integrate livestock into vegetable cropping systems and evaluate the impact on soil fertility.
- Quantify the financial impact, if any, for both vegetable farmers and livestock producers.
- Determine the efficacy of implementing virtual fencing technology in a late-season and winter grazing environment.
- Perform a basic evaluation the scalability of integrating livestock rotations into specialty crop environments.
Cooperators
- - Producer
Research
Our process included several pre-trial tests of the No Fence virtual fencing technology prior to making the decision to not conduct the full project scope. Because of significant challenges and issues with the early phase technology we were not confident enough in the product to deploy livestock onto vegetable production fields in the off-season because there wasn't a way to ensure stopgap fencing for containing animals in the case the technology failed. The risks of animal escape due to failed technology were (1) damage to sensitive established perennial crops nearby, (2) livestock food safety contamination, (3) damage to neighbors' annual crops (4) risk to humans and animals due to proximity to busy roadways and active train tracks.
We could not adequately reach our project objectives because of issues with the technology being studied.
Educational & Outreach Activities
Participation Summary:
- On farm demonstration and direct consultation with farmers and farmworkers at public facing farms with agritourism.
- Word of mouth, community networks.
Learning Outcomes
There were many learnings about the applications of No Fence technology as a result of this project. We approached this project from the lenses of a targeted grazing operation that grazed 2200 head of sheep and goats and a vegetable CSA that served over 400 households in 2024. Because of the potential for significant risks (i.e. food safety, livestock safety, proximity to roadways, etc) we decided to do several pre trial tests using this technology in lower risk environments including native prairie, riparian settings, and within an established fruit orchard before applying the technology in a diversified vegetable cropping system. In all pre trial scenarios we used secondary fencing, either temporary or permanent, as a stopgap for livestock containment as we learned about how the technology might affect our operations.
As a result of our pre trial testing of the No Fence technology we ran into several challenges: (1) short battery life, (2) amount of required cell service, (3) increased amount of livestock handling necessary, and (4) inconsistencies in the technology. These challenges resulted in a number of issues that made it impossible to fully test the technology for the goal of soil improvement in vegetable production fields. The issues we ran into were:
- Battery life became low in each collar at different times creating an issue of having to change batteries multiple times instead of switching batteries at one time for an entire lot of livestock at once. We ran into this issue even while fully charging each battery at a single time. This creates an increase in labor for using this technology as well as an increased demand for livestock processing equipment and livestock handling skill by handler and/or working dogs.
- Connection problems for No Fence app and collar receivers. We experienced collars shocking livestock after the virtual fence had been "turned off". This creates a safety issue for the livestock and their handlers who intend to create a low stress environment.
- The fit of the collars presented issues for both sheep and goats. In goats, significant scarring and callousing from the collar rubbing creates an environment for pests and parasites to thrive. In sheep, there is little length for the collars to rest comfortably against an animals neck in adult sheep, and especially wool sheep including lambs. The solution to these issues is to add additional lengths of chain in the collar, however, this presents an increased risk of the collar falling off with additional connection points or getting caught on various objects or woody vegetation. In our experience No Fence does not provide adequate chain length in their basic product packages.
- Collars falling off led to individual animals learning how to exit the virtual fence and as a result lead the other livestock out of the virtual fence. In scenarios where an animal learns how to exit the fence and lead others, it drains the entire herds batteries. In scenarios where batteries are in need of charge, the virtual fence system is unusable, creating the need to have a double inventory of batteries or switch to electronet in order to have a backup source of fencing at times of charging.
- The virtual fencing system is too expensive, without grant funding it is economically unfeasible for a targeting grazing operation of our scale to justify the expense without improvements to the technology.
Because of these issues we have determined that the current technology is not suitable for this study, limiting our ability to meet the project objectives. The technology has not significantly affected our day to day operations or our current operational challenges. This technology may be suitable for smaller scale operations who have similar goals.
Project Outcomes
We set out to learn if we could use a new technology to bridge operational challenges in order to solve a problem in vegetable production. Overall we determined we didn't have the ability to positively impact soil health using this technology in this particular scale and context because of numerous issues. If there are improvements to this early phase technology, there could be new ways to study this problem. A feasibility study that focuses on a smaller scale and/or vegetable producers who hope to do a similar study in-house could be possible. This technology may be suitable for farming operations that require a lot of direct animal handling such as dairy. For our operations this technology did not make sense.