Progress report for FNC25-1457
Project Information
Bob Johnson is co-owner of Hillbilly Hippie Farm LLC with his wife Tiffany Miller. Bob, the project coordinator is an Assistant Professor of Agriculture at Truman State University and Tiffany holds a B.S. in Sustainable Agriculture and teaches gardening classes at the local elementary school. They have been running their 65 acre farm since 2021 and raise and direct market grass finished beef and rabbits among other products. Bob and Tiffany will be responsible for collecting plant material for nutrient analysis as well as conducting palatability studies in their beeves and rabbits. Bob will also be in charge of outreach activities including presentation of results at the 2025 and 2026 Missouri Livestock Symposium.
Chad and Amanda Montgomery are the husband/wife co-owners of Cedar Meadows Farm LLC. They raise pastured chicken and turkey and have been finishing dairy goat males on their 40 acre farm for 2 years for direct market to consumers. In 2025 they will begin finishing Boer goats instead of dairy goats. They will be responsible for collecting plant material for nutrient analysis as well as conducting palatability studies in their goats and assisting in outreach activities.
Aries Williams is the manager of the 18 acre multi-generational William's family farm, they have been raising meat sheep and goats for close to 30 years. Aries will be responsible for collecting plant material for nutrient analysis as well as conducting palatability studies in their sheep and goats and assisting with outreach activities.
Dr. Ali Hussein is an Assistant Professor of Agricultural Science at Truman State University with an emphasis in animal nutrition. Dr. Hussein will be assisting in interpretation of forage quality data following laboratory analysis.
The problem that we hope to solve is lack of quality or affordable fodder for small producers in the case of drought. In the Spring/Summer of 2023 all three farms participating in this project experienced poor regrowth of forage which necessitated feeding of summer hay, which was also expensive and in short supply due to the drought. Hillbilly Hippie farm resorted to dropping several trees small cottonwood trees for the cattle and collecting mullberry branches for the rabbits. Climate change and unpredictable weather patterns neccesitate identification of potential alternative forages. Tree fodder has a long history of use worldwide, however it is necessary for us to identify locally available tree species and assess thier nutrirional value and palatability at different time points in year.
For this project we seek to identify the most nutritious and palatable tree species for different grazing animals. There are two main parameters we will assess, forage quality and palatability. We have identified 8 trees that we will be analyzing, mulberry (Morus spp.), willow (Salix spp.), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia ), autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), oak (Quercus spp.), honey locust (Gleditsia tricanthos), and ash (Fraxinus spp.). A sample of purchased hay will also be submitted at each time point for comparison. Forage quality analysis of the leaves of these tree species will take place at 4 time points over the course of the year, spring after full leaf out, summer, fall, and winter. Spring, summer, and fall samples will be sent for analysis immediately after collection, while winter sample will be collected in the fall and dried as tree hay then analyzed in late winter. Forage quality analysis will include, dry matter, crude protein, fat content, major minerals (Calcium, Phosphorous, Magnesium, Potassium, Sodium, Sulfur, Iron, Copper, Manganese, Zinc), and total fiber. We will work Dr. Ali Hussein from Truman State University to interpret the results.
The palatability studies will take place on the same time frame as the forage quality analysis. Palatability studies will be conducted by presenting the animals with a pre-determined amount leaf material and weighing any rejected material after a 24 hour period. Animals will only be presented with tree leaves as an option and will have access to their regular forage during the 24 hours. Trials of each tree species will take place on different days. We will assume that more consumption indicates a preference and thus palatability for that animal species.
Objective: The objective of this study is to identify the best tree fodder for each grazing species in terms of both palatability and nutrient content.
Cooperators
- - Producer
- - Producer
Research
This project has 2 components involving tree leaves with the goal of identifying the most nutritious and most palatable species for alternative forage for cattle, rabbits, sheep, and goats. The procedures are straightforward and have been done in two parts, leaf forage quality analysis and palatability trials.
Leaf Forage Quality Analysis. Leaf samples were collected in the Spring, Summer, and Fall. With a portion of the fall collection earmarked for winter analysis. Three farms participated in this project, so tree species vary slightly between farms based on what tree species are available. A sample of leaves from each tree species was collected from multiple branches on multiple trees as a composite sample and placed in a small paper sack and then dried at 40℃ for 48 hours prior to shipping. The winter samples were collected in the fall and air dried and stored until winter feeding at which point they were oven dried as described above. Spring and Summer samples were shipped together and Fall and Winter samples were shipped together. Samples were shipped to Custom Labs in Monett, Missouri for forage quality analysis. Analysis included determination of Crude Protein, ADF, NDF, Ca, Mg, K, Na, P, S, Fe, Cu, Mn, and Zn. The tree species analyzed so far include; Autumn Olive, Black Locust, Cottonwood, Elm, Hackberry, Honey Locust, Mulberry, Post Oak, Red Bud, Red Maple, Shingle Oak, Silver Maple, Sycamore, White Oak, Willow.
Palitability Trials. These trials were conducted on each of the three farms. Williams family farm has a mixed flock of 25 sheep and goats kept primarily in a degraded woodland/silvopasture. Montgomery farm had 20 goats kept primarily in high quality woodland/silvopasture. Johnson had 15 cattle kept in fair to good quality pasture and 10 rabbit grow outs kept in good to excellent pasture with both being moved to fresh forage daily. While we had intended to strip the leaves into feed bunks, two farms, Montgomery and Johnson abandoned this method after the first couple of feedings due to the high amount of wastage through trampling and tipping of feed bunks. Instead they fed whole branches in the field. Williams farm continued feeding just leaves in a feed bunk throughout this first year. Only the stockpiled leaves for winter feeding were stripped from the branches. A visual estimate of percent consumption was made after 24 hours. The tree species varied slightly between farms and season based on availability.
The results so far are promising in terms of nutrient content (Table 1) and palatability (Figures 1 -4) of different tree species. Of note were the high protein contents of several tree species (Autumn Olive, Black Locust, Hackberry and Mulberry) which are comparable to alfalfa. Also of note was the typically high consumption of a majority of leaf types across all livestock species. With the exception of the cattle in the spring, when forage quality in the pasture was at its peak, consumption was 80% or higher.
|
Table 1. Averages of Spring and Summer Forage Quality Analysis |
|||||||||||||
|
Protein |
ADF |
NDF |
Ca |
Mg |
K |
Na |
P |
S |
Fe |
Cu |
Mn |
Zn |
|
|
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
mg/L |
mg/L |
mg/L |
mg/L |
|
|
Autumn Olive |
22.30 |
24.47 |
38.11 |
1.07 |
0.25 |
1.31 |
0.02 |
0.19 |
0.24 |
124.68 |
8.78 |
201.15 |
28.80 |
|
Black Locust |
19.46 |
31.61 |
40.36 |
1.35 |
0.17 |
1.53 |
0.02 |
0.25 |
0.25 |
165.90 |
7.50 |
74.30 |
43.50 |
|
Cottonwood |
9.21 |
18.68 |
28.13 |
2.55 |
0.39 |
1.26 |
0.03 |
0.14 |
0.59 |
72.60 |
6.33 |
58.67 |
204.50 |
|
Elm |
14.52 |
16.36 |
33.18 |
2.35 |
0.41 |
1.17 |
0.02 |
0.23 |
0.12 |
167.47 |
5.37 |
151.17 |
27.17 |
|
Hackberry |
18.62 |
13.53 |
20.24 |
4.66 |
0.30 |
1.42 |
0.03 |
0.27 |
0.15 |
133.85 |
7.05 |
54.45 |
33.35 |
|
Honey Locust |
11.98 |
27.61 |
35.37 |
1.88 |
0.16 |
1.16 |
0.02 |
0.40 |
0.13 |
88.67 |
6.63 |
44.43 |
23.83 |
|
Mulberry |
17.35 |
13.48 |
19.75 |
2.71 |
0.35 |
1.69 |
0.02 |
0.65 |
0.22 |
161.93 |
6.30 |
76.30 |
44.37 |
|
Post Oak |
11.59 |
26.00 |
39.92 |
0.92 |
0.23 |
0.97 |
0.02 |
0.13 |
0.09 |
104.37 |
4.67 |
467.17 |
40.20 |
|
Red Bud |
13.42 |
16.37 |
23.73 |
2.27 |
0.27 |
1.19 |
0.02 |
0.36 |
0.15 |
137.77 |
4.07 |
19.53 |
34.13 |
|
Red Maple |
12.47 |
19.19 |
26.52 |
1.14 |
0.24 |
1.08 |
0.02 |
0.22 |
0.14 |
136.23 |
5.95 |
120.93 |
51.75 |
|
Shingle Oak |
12.83 |
24.13 |
36.70 |
1.00 |
0.29 |
0.77 |
0.02 |
0.16 |
0.12 |
87.65 |
5.70 |
460.00 |
52.15 |
|
Silver Maple |
10.12 |
14.12 |
19.28 |
0.72 |
0.20 |
1.00 |
0.02 |
0.15 |
0.11 |
65.50 |
8.00 |
228.30 |
40.60 |
|
Sycamore |
6.97 |
24.15 |
33.13 |
1.42 |
0.27 |
1.17 |
0.03 |
0.15 |
0.23 |
47.80 |
4.20 |
30.10 |
21.00 |
|
White Oak |
13.33 |
24.91 |
37.21 |
1.03 |
0.21 |
1.02 |
0.02 |
0.19 |
0.13 |
130.77 |
5.70 |
491.27 |
32.57 |
|
Willow |
11.86 |
21.73 |
30.25 |
1.35 |
0.28 |
1.37 |
0.02 |
0.17 |
0.54 |
88.93 |
6.90 |
826.43 |
217.13 |
| Table 2. Williams Farm Sheep and Goat Consumption | |||
| Spring | Fall | Winter | |
| Black Locust | 85 | 75 | |
| Sycamore | 90 | 85 | |
| Cottonwood | 85 | 95 | 90 |
| Elm | 100 | 80 | 95 |
| Autumn Olive | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Mulberry | 100 | 90 | 100 |
| PinOak | 95 | 90 | 100 |
| Honey Locust | 85 | 85 | |
| White Oak | 100 | ||
| Mix dry leaves | 80 | ||
| Table 3. Montgomery Farm Goat Consumption | ||||
| Spring | Summer | Fall | Winter | |
| Mulberry | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Autumn Olive | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| Willow | 100 | 100 | ||
| Whiteoak | 98 | 98 | 98 | |
| PinOak | 98 | 98 | 100 | |
| Redbud | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Elm | 95 | 95 | 95 | 70 |
| RedMaple | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
|
Swamp White Oak
|
98 | |||
| Shingle Oak | 98 | 100 | ||
| Hickory | 98 | |||
| Red Bud Pods | 92 | 92 | ||
| Table 4. Johnson Farm Rabbit Consumption | ||||
| Spring | Summer | Fall | Winter | |
| Silver Maple | 80 | 90 | 85 | 80 |
| Hackberry | 85 | 95 | 95 | 95 |
| Autumn Olive | 85 | 85 | 90 | 85 |
| Black Willow | 95 | 95 | 95 | 95 |
| Honey Locust | 80 | 95 | ||
| Red Maple | 75 | 80 | 85 | |
| Mulberry | 95 | 95 | 95 | 95 |
| Redbud | 95 | 80 | ||
| Cottonwood | 90 | 90 | 90 | |
| Shingle Oak | 90 | 80 | ||
| Table 5. Johnson Farm Cattle Consumption | ||||
| Spring | Summer | Fall | Winter | |
| Shingle Oak | 0 | 90 | 90 | 99 |
| CottonWood | 5 | 80 | 90 | 99 |
| Silver Maple | 5 | 65 | 80 | 99 |
| Hackberry | 5 | 99 | 99 | 99 |
| Mulberry | 50 | 99 | 99 | 99 |
| Autumn Olive | 15 | 15 | 95 | 99 |
| Willow | 5 | 90 | 90 | 99 |
| Honey Locust | 5 | 40 | 80 | 99 |
Educational & Outreach Activities
Participation summary:
To date we have not done much outreach and education. Now that we have the initial data, we will be working towards our proposed outreach activities. Johnson and Montgomery joined a regional grazing group and intend to share results at pasture walks later this summer. Social Media posts will begin with the spring sampling.
Learning Outcomes
While the project is still on going, at least one thing is apparent. Stripping leaves to stockpile for winter feed is not tenable due to inability to store and substantial amount of forage. Without some sort of specialized equipment the labor requirement make it impractical.
Project Outcomes
None at this time
None at this time