in the batches we used, we found them to be about 20 to 23 percent digested. When we ground up the whole tree juniper tree and found that it’s more digestible than cot- tonseed hulls, this is incredible,” he says. “The crude protein in those ma-
ture trees was similar at 3.5 to 3.6 percent.” In smaller trees, less than 6 feet tall, feed quality increased to almost 4.7 percent crude protein. Fiber went down signifi cantly and digestibility jumped up. “Imma- ture redberry trees were 50 per- cent digestible, blueberry about 44 percent.”
Off the land, into the feedbunk “On the range side, I work with
Jim Ansley, a range specialist for AgriLife in Vernon. We also work with water specialists, looking at infi ltration rates, water quality and water availability for forage produc- tion,” says Whitney. This is part of the picture when removing juniper species from range and pastures to improve the forage. “We are also working with Cedar
Beetle at Concan, a company that has been commercially removing brush from properties for 40 to 50 years. This company and several other commercial outfi ts that grind brush and make mulch and chips have shown interest in our Wood to Feed Program. We plan to do an economic analysis. Preliminary estimates show that trees can be harvested, chipped, hammermilled and sold profi tably at $130 per dry ton. This would be comparable to cottonseed hulls and much cheaper than hay,” says Whitney. To assess market potential,
Whitney looked at the number of cattle, sheep and goats on feed in Texas and estimated the amount of
tscra.org
roughage they would con- sume, days on feed, etc. “If even just 25 percent
of the traditional roughage sources currently fed was replaced with ground ju- niper, more than 433,000 tons of ground juniper or mesquite would be needed each year, as a rough esti- mate,” says Whitney. This is a huge poten-
tial, he adds. With value in the product, commer- cial tree harvesters could remove about 4.2 million trees per year. The positive effects on natu- ral resources, improving range and pastures, water tables, etc., would be signifi cant. “If a rancher had 50 trees per
Dr. Travis Whitney, San Angelo, hopes to help landowners discover value in juniper trees. In his Wood to Feed Program, Whitney is studying the benefi cial effects of whole ground cedar trees in livestock feed.
acre (and some areas have more than that), it would take about 84,000 acres to supply those trees. Brush control costs and/or efforts by ranchers could be signifi cantly reduced,” he says.
Looking for approval The next step is to get juniper
approved as a feed ingredient in an approval process through AAFCO (Association of American Feed Con- trol Offi cials). All feed ingredients have to be approved through FDA or listed in the AAFCO book to be sold commercially. “Once we get it approved as a
feed source — and I think we can, because ground aspen trees have been approved — I’m hoping that with the research we have done and continue to do, this will become a commercial feed source. “We will do more beef cattle tri-
als because the big markets are in the Panhandle with cattle. There are only so many sheep and goats we can feed,” he says. “We must be able to show that
this product is safe, does not nega- tively affect carcass characteristics, and try to increase its use. Once it becomes a traditional feed ingredi- ent, it can be shipped in bulk in rail cars and sold to local feed mills, just like cottonseed hulls or ground hay. “When this product is hammer-
milled it actually fl ows much bet- ter than ground hay or cottonseed hulls and will be easier to handle. One drawback is that it’s a dusty process to chip and hammermill it,” Whitney says. Landowners may be able to look
at their juniper trees as profi t rather than a negative. Whitney hopes to have a Wood to Feed website up and running soon. “Producers can discuss ways they are doing it on their own property and we can update them on what we are doing. “Our team consists of range spe-
cialists, water specialists, econo- mists, meat and fi ber specialists, parasitologists, rumen physiologists and bacteriologists, and I am an ap- plied nutritionist,” he says. Together they may eventually
change the landscape by helping rid range and pastures of invading juniper species — improving en- vironmental quality and sustain- ability — and reducing livestock production costs.
March 2013 The Cattleman 97
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126