Evaluating the efficacy of multiple foliar sprays for soil health, pasture quality, and cow productivity

2014 Annual Report for FNE14-805

Project Type: Farmer
Funds awarded in 2014: $14,913.00
Projected End Date: 12/31/2016
Region: Northeast
State: Massachusetts
Project Leader:
Suzanna Konecky
Cricket Creek Farm

Evaluating the efficacy of multiple foliar sprays for soil health, pasture quality, and cow productivity

Summary

Project Goals

Our research seeks to build on the important research that has already been done on the use and efficacy of the various common foliar sprays for soil improvement.  There has been some reputable research already done, however, this research is limited and suggests that further studies be performed.  With our research we are trying to determine what the most effective foliar feeds are for improving farm nutrient cycling as indicated by soil health, forage quality & quantity, and cow health.  Our technical advisor Bruce Howlett from NRCS visited the farm once to discuss the project with us.  We have also discussed the project with other area farmers, but we have not formally presented to any other audiences thus far.  

Objectives/Performance Targets

Year 1 of foliar spraying and sampling

This year we trialed 5 different foliar sprays (whole milk, skim milk, whey, fish emulsion, and a blend of two commercial sprays called photomag and micropak) on both our pasture and hay land.  We then measured 6 different variables that we have identified to be indicators of nutrient cycling – forage growth, forage consumption, forage mineral analysis, brix readings, soil porosity, and milk components.  In the second year of the study we will collect more data for each of our indicators.  We also plan to spray more contiguous paddocks with photomag and micropak in order to collect more meaningful information about whether the milk components change after the cows are on pasture sprayed with that amendment mixture for multiple days in a row.  In our second year of the study we will also share our results with the wider community through various outreach but are waiting until we are more confident with our results before sharing them.  

Accomplishments/Milestones

Data collected by variable

Below are our observations for each indicator variable, separated by variable.  

Forage Analysis
As planned we sampled stored forage (baleage and dry hay) harvested from the test fields. During harvest we baled a minimum of three bales exclusively from the discrete test plots. These bales were then sampled using a bale corer and sent for analysis.

Initial data do not show any significant difference between treatments and controls. Plots sprayed with Fish Emulsion showed lower sugar content than the control. There was no significant difference in mineral content of forage between Fish sprayed plots and the control.

The whey treatment plot yielded higher sugar content forage by .7% over the PhotoMag and MicroPak. Mineral content showed no significant difference.  We are still waiting to sample several test plots as stored forage was inaccessible at the time of the first sampling.

Daily Brix
We collected 32 data points of daily brix readings between May 31st and July 9th.  There were 4-6 data points for each of the 7 treatments (6 sprays and a “no spray”).  The average brix readings per treatment are as follows, in order from lowest to highest: Skim Milk (7.50), Fish Emulsion (7.88), No Spray (7.9), Whole Milk (8.50), Whey (9.75), Photomag & Micropak (10.81).  With so few data points, we could not conclude that these differences were statistically significant.  We plan to change our data collection method and collect more data in 2015.

Monthly Brix
As planned in our project methodology, we took Brix samples from each paddock on the same day four times over the course of the grazing season.

We averaged the brix from all samples over all paddocks and then calculated the deviation of each treatment from this average. The deviations were: Skim Milk .62, Whole Milk .96, Whey .29, Fish -2.38, PhotoMag & MicroPak 1.12, Control .08. Each spray treatment had one paddock with a positive deviation and one paddock with a negative deviation.

The initial data does not indicate a correlation between spray treatment and brix. However, since different spray treatments were not applied on the same day, the amount of time passed since spraying varies significantly for different treatments.

Soil Porosity
We measured soil porosity of each paddock and hay field on 4 dates throughout the season – June 8, June 22, July 9, and July 25.  On each of these days we took 3 data points for how deep (in inches) we needed to insert the penetrometer in order reach the benchmarks of 200 PSI and 300 PSI.  We then averaged the 3 data points for each paddock for both 200 & 300 PSI.  We looked at the changes in average porosity between each data collection date in order to see whether the porosity changed based on the treatments.  We used a ½ inch increase in depth to either PSI benchmark as an indicator of porosity.  While there were a few paddocks that increased in porosity by ½ inch or more, there were also other paddocks that decreased in porosity.  This indicated to us that 3 data points per paddock was not enough of  representative sample to actually gauge the overall porosity of that paddock.  

Milk Components
We determined the average components for fat and protein based on the monthly DHIA readings for June through September.  The average fat was 4.3 and average protein was 3.4 percent.

We only measured milk components when the cows were coming off of the paddocks that were sprayed with photomag and micropak for multiple consecutive days.  There are 4 data points for milk components.  We then looked at the deviation from the average components for fat and protein.  We only had one sample that showed anything significant deviation from the average, that that was a fat percentage of 5.35 taken on August 18th.  We felt that deviation was so significant that we took another reading a couple days later only to find that the fat was back down to 4.1 – which is actually below our average.  These initial results show indicate that we have not seen a difference in milk components when the cows are grazing on a paddock sprayed with photomag and micropak.  

Forage Growth
We measured the forage volume of every dairy paddock pre and post grazing to determine the the relative growth of each paddock. The data show no consistent pattern, and due to the challenges of the sample methodology, should not be considered in the final report.

Forage Consumption
We measured the forage volume of every dairy paddock pre and post grazing to determine the volume of forage consumed by the cows. The data show no consistent pattern, and due to the challenges of the sample methodology, should not be considered in the final report. Some paddocks showed an increase in forage volume after the cows grazed, clearly demonstrating the limitations of the data collection.

Measuring forage volume over a large area is difficult to do accurately. We thought our method would work, but ultimately did not yield useful data, and will need to be re-worked for the next season.

Impacts and Contributions/Outcomes

N/A

Collaborators:

Bruce Howlett

bruce.howlett@ma.usda.gov
Conservation Planner
195 Russell Street
Hadley, MA 01035
Office Phone: 4135851000
Topher Sabot

info@cricketcreekfarm.com
1255 Oblong Rd
Williamstown, MA 01267
Office Phone: 4134585888