Progress report for FNC24-1423
Project Information
Elise and Jeff Koning are the owners and proprietors of Sylvanmore, a sheep and Christmas tree farm in west central Indiana. The Konings have more than 45 combined years of experience in farming and tourism. In the future, the Konings will develop Sylvanmore into an agritourism venue, providing rural, regenerative experiences and marketing quality agricultural products.
Elise is a farmer, writer, and project director with a B.S. in agricultural communication from Purdue University and an M.S. in agricultural and Extension education from Penn State University. She is the seventh generation to work on her family’s sheep, beef cattle, and Clydesdale horse farm. Elise managed her own flock of ewes while in high school. She also worked in the sheep industry in New Zealand and Australia. Currently, she writes for a conservation agriculture nonprofit.
Jeff is a farmer and machinist with an A.A.S. in machine tool technology. He also has a forestry background, including developing a choose-and cut Christmas tree venue. He grew up in his family’s tour operator business and has experience in festival and event planning, sales, and customer service. Currently, he works as a tool-and-die maker in a machine shop.
Sylvanmore is based on Elise's family farm and currently consists of one acre of planted Christmas trees. We also raise sheep, goats, and llamas. We sell fiber products through our Etsy shop. Rotational grazing is our main sustainable practice, in which 2025 will be our fourth season.
We focus on the production of sheep and Christmas trees. We can produce quality products, but our resources also can be limited in achieving these goals.
One restraint is labor. Both Elise and Jeff are employed off-farm, and employment activities can often conflict with farm needs. We are located in a rural area with a limited labor pool, and we are not yet profitable enough to hire staff.
Land also is limited. Our 12 acres are landlocked. While we may obtain space to expand in the future, we currently must use all resources in the most efficient way possible. Because of these restraints of time, labor, and space, we are looking to combine the processes of raising sheep and trees as much as possible to the benefit of both commodities.
Solution:
As a solution to our limited time, labor, and land, we combine elements of our sheep and Christmas tree operations and examine how they can each benefit each other. We graze sheep into a section of our Christmas tree stand to eat weeds.
Within Christmas tree plantations, weed control is an ongoing challenge throughout the growing season. Dense, tall vegetation can stunt, if not kill, the trees by robbing nutrients and moisture that the trees need. However, this vegetation is an unused resource that could be used to feed our sheep. Grazing the sheep within the trees will potentially reduce time and labor for controlling weeds and feeding sheep. Our research trial will examine the labor and material costs of sheep grazing versus the labor and material costs of mechanical and chemical weed control in a Christmas tree plantation.
Sheep can provide fertilizer, as well, and potentially reduce the labor and costs of mechanically and chemically controlling weeds. The symbiotic relationship saves on sourcing other forage and minimizes, if not eliminates, chemical and mechanical weed removal.
For our trial, we designated two areas in our acre of 800 second-year trees. In our control area, we manage weeds conventionally by mechanically mowing, spraying herbicide, and spreading mulch or compost around the base of the trees. In our experimental area, Shropshire sheep graze amongst the trees in a rotational grazing system.
Our methods will measure the amount of time that we spend with each weed control method. For conventional weed control, we will measure the amount of time used to mow, apply chemicals, and mulch the trees. We will also analyze the cost of materials for mechanical and chemical methods.
For sheep grazing, we analyze the cost of materials and measure how much time is used to set up paddocks with solar-powered temporary netting, move the sheep, and provide daily care and feeding. While we are using Shropshire sheep, which have a good reputation for working among tree plantations, the sheep will need to be moved as soon as they have exhausted their forage to eliminate the possibility of damage to the trees. To do this, we will need to monitor the sheep through webcams.
The following materials are needed:
For the sheep grazing area:
- Shropshire sheep
- Netting
- Solar charger
- Trail cam
- Water wagon and tanks
- Supplemental feed
- Feed/mineral feeders
- Shade
- Fly control
For the chemical and mechanical control:
- Herbicide
- Chemical sprayer
- Mulch or compost
- Mower
The sustainable agriculture practices we will be using include rotational grazing and intercropping.
Objectives:
Our objectives center on discovering what symbiotic relationship can exist between sheep and Christmas trees and sharing the results of our research trials with other Christmas tree growers who will benefit.
- Determine how many days sheep can graze within a Christmas
tree plantation without disturbing the trees - Evaluate two systems of weed control in Christmas trees
- Share findings through conference presentations
Research
From April to September (six months of the grazing season), we recorded the following:
- The amount of time it took to conduct activities related to sheep grazing among Christmas trees
- The amount of time it took to conduct activities related to traditional weed control methods in Christmas trees
- Costs for materials needed to graze sheep among Christmas trees
- Costs for materials needed for traditional weed control methods in Christmas trees
Our acre of approximately 800 Christmas trees was divided into four equal section: Patches A, B, C, and D. Patches A and B consisted of trees in their third growing season, which were 18-24 inches tall; Patches C and D consisted of trees in their second growing season, which were 9-18 inches tall.
In Patches A and B, conventional weed control methods of mulching, herbicide, and mowing were used. Mulch was applied at the beginning of the grazing season, in early April. Glyphosate was applied around the base of the trees early, mid, and late season. Mowing occurred at least weekly.
In Patches C and D, five Shropshire ewes were grazed rotationally through the trees. Electric netting powered by a solar-powered charger divided the trees into rectangles containing 50 trees each. A hay wagon with a 300-gallon water tank was placed in the aisle between Patches C and D. No trees received mulch, and only thistles were controlled with herbicide applied with a hand sprayer.
The amount of time it took to complete tasks such as mowing, mulching, spraying, setting up netting, moving sheep, checking on sheep daily, and filling the water tank on the water wagon were recorded. The costs of each item related to grazing in the Christmas trees and to traditional methods of weed control in the Christmas trees were also recorded.
Because the summer of 2024 was our third summer working with conventional weed control in the Christmas trees, we had less of a learning curve for our controls, Patches A and B.
In Patches A and B, our procedures were generally as we had expected. Mulch was spread by hand around each tree very early in the spring. Herbicide application at the base of each tree occurred at three planned times: late spring, mid summer and early fall. Occasional spot treatments with a hand sprayer occurred throughout the patches as needed. Mowing occurred when vegetation height approached X inches, or about halfway to the base of the tree foliage.
However, early in the season, vigorous grass growth under cool, wet conditions required more mowing per week than anticipated. Growth predictably slowed later in the season as drought conditions developed, minimizing necessity of cutting.
For grazing sheep in Christmas trees, there were few parameters available. We needed to develop guidelines for stocking rate, length of grazing in each paddock, and work flow.
We based our stocking rate on the amount of grass we would have in the middle of the summer when grass growth slowed. The five ewes went in the first paddock in early April. However, because of an exceptionally rainy spring, the forage grew faster than the sheep could eat it. The forage overgrew the trees, requiring sporadic mowing.
Our labor rate in early season was high due to limited available fencing while we waited on our netting order to arrive. We would place the netting to enclose the sheep, then move the entire set-up to form a new paddock a couple of days later. This process took extensive time and choreography to prevent the sheep from becoming loose.
Once all of our netting arrived, our efforts decreased considerably. We set up rectangles so that the sheep could be more easily moved in a rotational grazing system. Labor hours with setting up netting decreased considerably.
Each week, the water wagon needed to be moved across the farm to be refilled from a hydrant. This was also a difficulty prior to receiving the additional fencing; later in the season the wagon could be more easily rolled into the aisle between the tree patches. However, we feel the entire watering process could still be improved and will experiment with other options going forward.
The majority of our labor costs were at the beginning of the season, and our costs went down as we streamlined our work flow.
Labor Hours and Costs (based on a $25/hour salary):
| Enterprise/Activity | Number of Hours | Labor Costs (based on $25/hour) |
| Sheep |
63.5 |
$1,587.50 |
| Water wagon set-up and refill |
17 |
|
| Set up Netting |
18.5 |
|
| Daily Sheep Checks |
11 |
|
| Move Sheep to Next Paddocks |
5.5 |
|
| Mow in Sheep Patch |
11 |
|
| Spray thistles |
.5 |
|
| Christmas Trees |
22.75 |
$568.75 |
| Mulch around base of trees |
7.25 |
|
| Mow |
11.75 |
|
| Spray weeds |
.75 |
|
| Take tree inventory at the end of the season |
3 |
|
For patches C and D, equipment costs should significantly decrease going forward, just as the labor costs will. The two major expenses this year were for fencing and components to provide water for the animals (wagon, tank, hoses, etc.). These are one-time purchases and should last indefinitely. The water wagon provides additional value as it also serves as a shade structure.
The Shropshire ewes that grazed in the Christmas trees were already on the farm, so the expense of acquiring sheep was not included in our calculations. Purchasing sheep would have required a line item of $3,000 added to the budget.
For patches A and B, costs are more fixed. Several seasons of experience have shown the time commitment and fuel consumption for each mowing session is predictable. Applying herbicide and laying mulch are also known quantities. All of these expenditures are recurring year after year.
A zero-turn mower was already being used from prior seasons. Like the sheep, this expense was not included in the budget. A mower purchase would have added a line item of approximately $7500 to the budget.
While the cost for grazing sheep in Christmas trees was higher than weed control methods of mowing, spraying, and mulching, we found that nearly all (97%) of sheep expenses were for items that can be reused. Only 66% of Christmas tree expenses could be used long-term.
| Enterprise | Cost |
| Sheep | $4,289 |
| Christmas Trees | $492 |
Educational & Outreach Activities
Participation Summary:
Several of our communications about this project were with other producers on Facebook. Two brothers who operate a Christmas tree farm in southwestern Indiana learned about our operation through the Shropshire Sheep Tree Club group on Facebook. They visited our farm in October 2024.
There also were several Christmas tree and sheep producers we talked with via comments on posts in Facebook groups. We also had messages through the Messenger app from farmers in Michigan, Indiana, and Virginia. These American farmers asked for insight from American Christmas tree producers on grazing Shropshires in trees, a common practice in Europe. We shared information on the methods we've applied on our own farm.
Learning Outcomes
This study's premise is that grazing sheep within Christmas trees can be a viable alternative to more conventional weed control methods. The most notable result thus far is confirmation that more than one season is needed to fully realize the benefits of this system.
Several issues developed during the season, some quite quickly. The forage growing season began before our grant funding arrived, limiting us to the use of our existing netting. The time and effort required to move sheep by constantly readjusting fencing to create new paddocks was considerable. With additional fencing, semi-permanent paddocks could then be created. Labor costs and efforts then decreased considerably. Any financial savings realized by not obtaining adequate fencing material is quickly and drastically overcome by increased labor costs.
Another finding is that establishing a more predictable sheep rotation schedule would decrease labor expenditures. For the control patches, regularly mowing at least once a week was a realistic assumption. However, sheep movements needed to be spontaneously determined. Balancing when to move sheep was a imprecise exercise. The sheep needed to remain long enough in a paddock to ensure grazing up to the base of the trees, but delaying movement into other paddocks could allow grass growth to overcome the trees. Mowing this overgrowth was a difficult and time consuming, unplanned task. With a fixed schedule, we would be able to efficiently plan when to move the animals and better manage the grass growth.
To attain a predictable schedule, more sheep available in reserve are needed. The stocking rate could then be adjusted to the forage biomass: i.e. more sheep added during vigorous growth periods. We were limited to only five Shropshire ewes, due to unexpected losses just prior to the study. Significant rains early in the season led to an uncharacteristically high amount of forage growth. Our animals were unable to consume at a corresponding rate. Difficulties in planning when to move the sheep, as mentioned previously, resulted.
To eliminate this risk of forage overtaking the small trees, sheep will now only be grazed within larger trees. Mowing and other traditional methods of weed control will need to continue around the very small trees for the foreseeable future.
Because this is only the first season, the viability of grazing Shropshire sheep within Christmas trees has not yet been realized. This study will continue for at least another season, during which the cost, efforts and time advantages should become even more evident.