[Tim Harrigan]

Anthony: Good comments. My understanding is the choice of extractants is mostly regional. In Michigan they use the Bray P-1, out in MN they prefer the Mehlich test because the soils tend to be more alkaline, I think the Olson test is fairly common in OH and the Morgan (weak acid) tests are more common in the NE states and is commonly used at Cornell. Recommendations are calibrated to the test method. My comment had to do with a lack of agreement regarding what are the desireable levels to maintain. For instance, if MSU recommends a soil test level of 30 lb/ac Bray P-1 it is not uncommon to see soil tests of 60 or 80 lb/ac come back with a recommended P application that will continue to build the soil test P. It seems like more than soil chemistry is involved there.

[Tim Harrigan]

John, probably the biggest challenge will be getting rid of quack grass if you have it. You probably do because it was introduced to the US from Europe hundreds of years ago. You might call it couch grass or something different but it is very aggressive and spreads by underground rhizomes so mechanical control means plowing then tillage probably weekly to exhaust the new growth. If you come back with a small grain later in the fall or early next spring consider a high seeding rate to shade it and compete hard. Your neighbors may have some insight but their answer will probably be -roundup-.

Erika, I do not sense the same issues you mentioned from our university soil lab. Actually, their recommendations are modest compared to some I have seen from other places. The assessment should not change much from lab to lab, soil testing methods are pretty well standardized. Where folks part ways is on the recommendations based on the soil tests. So you need to be a little careful when someone is both testing your soil and selling you something (fertilizer, amendments, management, etc.) based on the soil tests.

[Tim Harrigan]

Rick: Even though the broader interest now is in woody biomass any work that I would envision would include a much broader evaluation of sustainability and impact. It would be more along the lines of matching the methods with the sensitivities of the site. So it would include more than economic considerations.

[Tim Harrigan]

Will you be using chemical weed control on the sod?

[Tim Harrigan]

Carl Russell;16446 wrote:

We remarked when the job was done, how if it had been done with a skidder they would have quit, or banged up a lot good timber. The proficiency of the skidder operation would have required that they pull several full trees at once, versus twitching one log at a time. Ben actually used his team on his log cart instead of ground skidding.

We were discussing how good it would be if someone would actually do a comparitive study, not only of production, but residual damage, as well as some evaluation of silviculture that is either facilitated one way, or compromised the other.

Carl

Carl, Jason, Scott, others:
Can you elaborate on what you would see as the specifics of such a study? There is considerable interest now in woody biomass for energy use and sustainability is a concern and in the discussion. Some of my colleagues are working in these areas and opportunities may arise but I would need to present a clear set of objectives and methods. Also, if you have woodlots that have been under your long-term management and might be available for evaluation that would probably be helpful and useful information.

[Tim Harrigan]

Yes, they have a way of humbling you just when you think you are getting pretty good.

[Tim Harrigan]

In general I think my approach is similar to Carl’s. I do not have a great variety of commands for the type of maneuvering you are describing. I use back-haw to bring them around tight and to tighten it up I step further back and touch the nigh ox on the knee to back him up a little more and the off ox on the outside shoulder to bring him in a little sharper and/or his hip to bring him around a little quicker. I have sort of abandoned back-gee because in actual work I always ask for them to gee-off which means hold the load but swing to the right and for the off ox to put out as he comes around to keep the chain off his leg when we start the load. I almost never ask for back-gee, doesn’t seem to have much practical use for me and it confuses Abe when he is so reflexive to gee-off, so I ditched back-gee as an unnecessary show team manuever. If I need a back-gee some day we will get it worked out. Most variations of this involve body position and touching with the whip. These are both much easier for the team to interpret than voice, exactly how Carl described.

Another move I ask for a every time we are out is haw-to where the team holds the load and swings to the left and the nigh ox puts out to keep his hind leg off the chain when we start the load. It seems like you are asking how to teach it and it is actually easier to show than explain, and it is probably easier to teach calves than older steers. I use a short goad with no lash that I can move quickly and accurately. In quick succession, tap the nigh steer and off steer on the nose to stand them, then without hesitating tap the nigh steer on the inside shoulder and the off steer on the outside shoulder and ask them to haw-to. That will stick them and swing their fronts a step to the left. It actually seems to surprise them a little and make them jump to the left the first time but they catch on quick. Build on that.

There are other ways, I think Vicki once said she walked hers up to the side of the barn where they could not go forward and then tapped their shoulders, actually the side of their necks, with the haw-to request. That might even be easier than how I do it, if their noses are against the side of the barn they do not have many choices. Maybe others will have other suggestions. I have thought that if you could tie them to a post with a choker chain where they could not move forward but could pivot around it that might work, but I have never tried it.

[Tim Harrigan]

Geoff: Good question. In the measurement of pulling forces I would say the changes we measured were due to differences in surface and tools used. We measured tension in the chain between the team and the tool so the tractive effort was not a factor, only the pulling force needed to move the load. From a practical point the tractive surface can have a big effect on the tractive efficiency and the energy expended to move the load.

In some ways it is like the mechanical efficiency of a tractor that we mentioned some time ago in a different discussion. Because of the challenge of converting engine power to useful work at the drawbar, with a two-wheel drive tractor only about 46% of the engine flywheel power is available for work at the drawbar in soft, sandy soil; 56% on tilled soil; 60% on firm soil and 72% on concrete. The challenge is in developing traction and overcoming motion resistance. I do not know exactly how those numbers compare with draft animals but the surface clearly has a big impact.

We measured the pull, not the tractive efficiency and variable effort of the animals. That would more difficult and would probably involve comparing physiological responses such as heart and respiration rate, deep body temperature and probably other things like foot slippage and efficiency of movement with video, etc. So it is difficult to measure but not so hard to demonstrate by simply walking on plowed ground, loose sand or deep snow. Load up a wheel barrow and roll it down the drive over the grass and through the tilled garden ground and it becomes real. Your team senses the same changes related to motion resistance and footing. The perceptive and observant teamster will adjust expectations accordingly.

Last weekend I had my team out in the woods skidding out some dead ash for firewood. The snow was about 12 inches deep in most places but knee deep to the team near the edge of the woods from drifting and lack of thawing. The logs floated OK, maybe sinking in 4 to 6 inches, but the team really changed their focus in those conditions. They stepped high and were deliberate in placing their hind feet in the holes made by their front feet. That kept them upright, not leaning into the load, and the snow was pulling at their legs. I know because it did the same to me and it was exhausting. They were winded way out of proportion to the load and hauling distance. So was I.

So our measured pull is a guideline. A point of departure for discussion and consideration for experienced teamsters and most helpful as a teaching and training guide. The skill and experience of the teamster has to provide guidance and refine the process. I like the way Carl framed it:

“This way he will not only become strong enough to move the weight, but he will learn that he has the permission to apply as much power as he needs. In fact, that is what she wants, and that she will be there with him to continue to direct him , and help him to manage that exertion so that he won’t wear himself out.”

[Tim Harrigan]

Have you taught him to pull against loads of varying resistance? Many folks pull wheeled vehicles but unless the load is really large most wheeled vehicles do not offer nearly the resistance of a good size log. One of the reasons I like a sled or stoneboat for training and conditioning is that the pulling force that the animal or team must apply to move the load is fairly predictable and is usually about 40% of the total weight of the load on firm, level pasture ground. So if you load a stoneboat to a total weight of 1000 lbs the average pulling force needed to move it will be about 400 lbs. Wagons and wheeled vehicles move with much less resistance, often only 5 to 10% of the vehicle weight. So the team can move a hay wagon weighing 4000 to 8000 lbs with the same effort they need to move the 1000 lb stoneboat.

I condition and train my ox team with varying loads over varying distances. I think of us as a farm team so in training I ramp up to a load that will likely be larger than just about anything I will ask of them in a working situation. Usually, that will be plowing and I know the plow draft will usually be less than 1000 lbs force, so if I work with a 2500 lb stoneboat (1000/0.40) the resistance offered by a plow will not surprise or discourage them. Farm teams need steady endurance so rather than piling on a bigger load, I will increase the working distance.

Logging teams, I think, need to bring a little different mentality. Certainly work all day, but perhaps with more explosive capability with shorter duration and more rest between loads. Carl has said more than once that he expects his teams to approach every pull as if it will be the largest pull they have ever made. That is interesting to me because it is quite different from my approach. My approach is more along the lines of ‘OK boys, you have moved bigger loads than this so let’s go’. Perhaps he and others will comment on how they instill that approach in their logging teams. I am sure some of it has to do with the animals they select, but training has to be a part of it. I think a good logging team is going to be an elite team of animals.

At any rate, if you expect your animals to pull, you need to prepare them to pull. I have seen great looking show teams (working steers) that perform nicely in a show environment but will not pull the hat off your head when it comes to real work. So you have to decide what you want from your team in the limited hours you probably have to work with them.

My approach is systematic and measured, pretty consistent with my background in agricultural research. I know that you are a physician so I bet we share some tendencies in that regard. You can train yourself to assess a load in a couple of ways. One is to just hook on loads of varying size and give it a go and observe. I like that approach but with loads I understand. A few years ago I, along with a few others at Tillers International, measured logging loads over varying surfaces. We wrote up the results in a bulletin that I will attach here. Logging draft is not as predictable as sled or stoneboat draft because you often have the log, or one end of it, dragging on the ground and tilling the soil rather than skidding over the surface. But, you can still learn to assess a load, and together with your observation of how your single or team reacts, do a good job of preparing the team to move any load you choose to hitch them to.

Here is a pdf version of the logging draft measurements.

[Tim Harrigan]

You are doing a great job with your steers, Anne. It is nice to see how versatile cattle can be when they are challenged in different ways.

[Tim Harrigan]

http://www.maes.msu.edu/news.htm#swinton

Here is a link to a little more information on the Detroit urban farming movement.

[Tim Harrigan]

I agree Donn, not rocket science but it is like most projects where you have goals and objectives and a timeline in mind. While Carl is a master of natural techniques and practices my sense is his approach is not random but deliberate and purposeful. I have not had an opportunity to convert forest land to pasture so I appreciate insight to the thought process.

[Tim Harrigan]

I think if you will be working up the ground in various ways a soil test for pH in particular is a good investment. Our soils tend to be low pH and it limits nutrient uptake even when the nutrient is abundant in the soil. It also limits the forage choices that will thrive. Just seems like a good time to check it out, it could influence your decision on what crops to pursue.

We have some long-term pasture down to 5.2 now, I think I will set up some strip comparisons this spring with a few different rates of lime to start bringing it up and then frost seed red clover across the strips in the opposite direction so I have several different treatments to observe over the next couple of years. Pasture restoration is a really interesting process.

[Tim Harrigan]

Yes, great N source and green manure but there is a bloat potential for grazing cattle and some other issues if sweet clover hay gets moldy.

[Tim Harrigan]

Carl, that will be an interesting transition. It does not sound like much tillage is in your plans. Can you elaborate on what types of vegetation you expect to be there when you turn your animals in, when you expect to turn them in, if you plan to interseed any grasses or legumes, etc. Have you taken an soil test? How much chipped biomass do you expect to be on the surface or worked in? I agree N could be an issue that would affect both woody degradation and forage yield, but because this is long-time forest ground the soil may have a high level of organic matter and considerable N mineralization so I am not sure how significant that issue might be. From a soil perspective this in not a typical pasture restoration project.

[Author]

Posts