Research Archives - Page 3 of 12 - Greenacres Foundation

10 Jun 2020

Research Peter Wheeler 0 comment

Bobwhite Mornings

Bobwhite Mornings

I began working as an intern for the research team here at Greenacres a few weeks ago and one of the first projects that the team introduced me to was the Bobwhite Quail project. This project is unique and important because Bobwhite quail populations have been in decline across Ohio and in their other native locations over the last several decades due to habitat loss and degradation. Bobwhites are a significant species for several reasons, serving as prey for terrestrial predators as well as birds of prey. Bobwhites also influence the plant communities in which they live due to their diet which consists heavily of seeds and foliage. They are an edge species which means that they seek brushy habitats where woodlands connect with pastures, row crops, and fields. Both the Lewis Township and Northern Kentucky properties are potential habitats for Bobwhites. In particular, the NKY property contains native warm season grasses (NWSG) which can provide the Bobwhites with both tall and short grasses and corridors to move throughout and nest within.

These are early mornings! When we monitor for Bobwhites, we meet at around 6:00 am and listen for their calls until around 7:30 am. It is special to spend the first hour and a half of your day sitting in nature and listening to the many birds, insects, and even deer that populate Lewis Township and Northern Kentucky while simultaneously taking part in the meaningful Bobwhite Quail project. As of this past week we have reached the end of the season where we can listen for Bobwhite calls and unfortunately we do not have any success to report, but we are certainly hopeful for the future. Below is a link to a YouTube video where you can listen to a Bobwhite Quail call as well as a picture of a male Bobwhite Quail for reference.

Hear one for yourself! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEKIAteCDYU)

–Rob

30 May 2020

Research Jennifer Mansfield 0 comment

Soil Results “Leyed” Out

Soil Results “Leyed” Out

In our pursuit of being a truly generative farm, we’ve been practicing and studying a pre-industrialized farming method called Ley farming. This is a rotational technique in which crops, forage, and animals are all used in various stages in a field’s life cycle to increase the fertility and the health of the soil. Our research team recently collected soil samples as part of our ongoing Ley Field Research Project in which we are studying the benefits of integrating crop and livestock systems. Samples were taken from two fields, both in different stages of the Ley rotation system. Field one (GALR1) had been recently grazed by cattle, while the second field (GALR2) had just finished two years of crop production. The samples were sent in for analyses on soil health and nutrients. The table below displays the results of select soil measurement.

The results from fields that had been recently grazed (GALR1) compared to fields coming off two years of crop production (GALR2) showed some interesting trends. GALR2 had the lowest levels of organic matter (providing nutrients and habitat to soil organisms) and trace minerals (key elements in plant growth), which is to be expected after two years of plant production. Conversely, GALR1 had much higher levels of organic matter and trace minerals. Results indicate cattle can increase organic matter by manure and plant incorporation into the soil. Cattle may also be cycling the trace minerals by consuming and then returning them to the soil. The soil health score ranges from 0-30 and the higher the number the better the soil is, but anything above a 7 is considered to be healthy. Although both fields have healthy soil, GALR2 did have a lower score, consistent with other measurements.

–Chad G.

Select soil results are presented from Ley Field soil samples.

Ley Field Soil	Organic Matter %	Soil Health Calculation	Cobalt ppm	Molybdenum ppm
GALR1	4.1	22.99	0.63	0.71
GALR2	3.8	16.99	0.49	0.02

17 May 2020

Research Peter Wheeler 0 comment

NATIVE WARM SEASON GRASSES – YEAR 2

The first year of our research collaboration with University of Tennessee (UT) brought about a series of learning opportunities in regards to large scale field-research (as mentioned here). Those lessons learned will be carried over to year two (2020) as we repeat the study, hopefully providing better outcomes than we had in 2019.

In 2020 one of the primary objectives based on our 2019 results is to get an earlier start. In 2019, planting was delayed 2 months (July 2^nd vs May 2^nd) due to the wetter than “normal” spring. This meant that the native grass seedlings had to compete with not only the nurse crop treatments but also the vigorous summer annuals that were present in the seedbank (e.g. Panic grass, Ragweed and Marestail). Getting the grasses planted earlier means getting the nurse crop treatments planted earlier – giving them both a slight jumpstart, and thus a competitive advantage, on the inevitable weed pressure that warmer weather brings with it.

The second objective – which we learned the hard way in 2019 – is to increase the amount of cattle impact necessary to manage the nurse crop canopy. We learned once the canopy gets ahead of us we can forget about any attempt at a successful native warm season grass stand. In 2020 we are doubling the herd size that we will be using to manage the study. This will allow for greater impact and more frequent moves, theoretically leading to a more open canopy. Effectively we are walking a tight line between a nurse crop that limits weed germination and still allows for native grass seedlings to thrive.

This will be the final year for the field portion of the UT collaboration. The final results from the 2019 and 2020 study will be used for publication in scientific journals that focus on prairie ecology and/or agricultural production systems.

–Chad B.

01 Apr 2020

Research Jennifer Mansfield 0 comment

Grass Fed Beef Production Methods – Consumer Implications

Grass Fed Beef Production Methods – Consumer Implications

In 2016 Greenacres partnered with Dr. Jason Rowntree and Michigan State University (MSU) to gain a better understanding of the nutritional quality associated with grass-fed beef. The results of that partnership was a 3 year study culminating in Greenacres’ first two peer-reviewed manuscripts. The MSU partnership also led to some interesting and unique findings compared to the existing literature. Not all beef labeled as “grass-fed” comes with the nutritional halo that one might expect from a grass-fed product. Grass-fed beef is advertised as a good source of vitamins A and E as well as having a more favorable omega-6 to omega-3 ratio (most often reported as 2:1), compared to grain-fed beef. However, the data we collected from over 750 grass-fed beef samples sourced from across the U.S. suggest that nutritionally speaking, not all grass-fed products are created equal. Our findings showed that some grass-fed beef contained untraceable amounts of vitamin A and omega-3 fatty acids and had omega-6 to omega-3 ratios in excess of 28:1, almost 3 times the amount one would expect from grain-fed beef.

What was the driver behind these variations? The answer is not so easy. The data we collected on production methods were based on an online survey, filled out by producers who submitted samples. However, not all participants agreed to fill out the survey. In addition, surveys can be unreliable sources of information. After analyzing the survey data there were some potential culprits, namely harvested forages (haylage and/or bailage) as well as grain by-products, such as soy hulls. During the “finishing phase” (the period in the last 60-90 days when the cattle convert energy into intramuscular fat) not all grass-fed animals eat grass on pasture. Some grass-fed protocols allow for producers to use feeds other than fresh grass. This could include harvested forages that are dried (hay) or fermented (haylage) or other types of roughage. As long as the cattle do not receive the grain of a plant (e.g. soybean hulls, which are ground up soybean plants but do not include the soybean itself) they can still be marketed as “grass-fed”. Even when these products were indicated in the surveys, they did not always correlate to nutritional variations. This left us scratching our heads.

Discovering the drivers of the nutritional quality of grass-fed beef has important implications for both producers and consumers alike. Producers want to produce a premium product that is desired by consumers and grass-fed beef consumers might count nutritional density as a factor in their purchasing decisions. Identifying what factors impact the nutritional quality of the product could lead to recommendations for producers to improve their product as well as an increase in consumer acceptance.

To gain a better understanding of the root of the nutritional anomalies, Greenacres is partnering with Dr. Rowntree and MSU for a second time. This study will be conducted at MSU’s Kellogg Biological Station over the 2020 and 2021 production seasons. During this study we will be providing different types of “grass-fed” feeding regimens to groups of cattle. These treatments will include: 100% fresh forages on pasture; fresh forages + hay supplementation; fresh forages + soy hull supplementation; and harvested forages fed in confinement to represent the “feedlot grass-fed” model. Each treatment will be randomized and replicated to ensure scientific rigor. The findings will be peer-reviewed and published at the conclusion of the study.

–Chad B.

← Previous 1 234…12 Next →