| A unit of Lasting Forests
evolving since March 30, 1999 |
|
A Total Forest Management Plan
|
|
|
The Range and Pasture Group of Rural System exists to assist landowners in meeting a variety of forest-related and other rural land objectives of people. It provides plans, material, and equipment and supervision to produce superior pastures and rangelends that meet the needs of grazing animals, erosion control, and superior recreational opportunities related to wildlife using these lands.
The Trevey seeks to support that effort and to provide a planning element so that forests and pastures (as well as other resources of the land) are analyzed and managed as a total system.
Government resources are abundant at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/ With a fact sheet at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/news/factsheets/overview.html
The staff of this unit of the Rural System (now being designed and developed) recognizes that all land is not best-suited for growing trees. Unfortunately, in the past, lands too steep for cattle were assigned to be "forest lands" and almost any steep land was assumed to be sufficient for grazing. There are vast areas of pasture lands as well as small openings within forests that can produce substantial income, replenish groundwaters, provide recreation, and help maintain the scenic beauty and rural nature of the region. In some areas grazing can be used to reduce fire hazards and competition of young trees for sunlight. Of course, many of these acreages can assist in producing abundant wildlife of many species. There are many areas where grassland can better achieve soil and water objectives than can tree plantations. There are many areas too steep for pastures to become (or stay) profitable over the longrun.
This unit of The Trevey is evidence of an attempt to maintain a system that produces a written report (suitable for electronic transmission) for a landowner providing an analysis and description of a grassland and a user-readable, expert system report that prescribes how to manage grassland and early-succession ecosystems in the mid-Atlantic states to achieve owner's objectives.
It continues to examine whether feeding livestock is a value-added to grasses and forage. Is profit from fed animals or profit from potentially-sold grass the measure of system performance?
Production is expressed in on site and harvested pounds per acre and per hectare and tons per acre and per hectare.
Overview:
Widespread needs exist for managing pasture, prairie, rangeland, and wild grasslands or early succession plant communities (hereinafter "grasslands or range" are used synonymously). Grasslands offer a livelihood for the commercial rancher, a change of scene for the urbanite, hunting opportunities for the sportsman, special stream fishing for the angler, trails for the hiker and biker, new species for the naturalist, and solitude for the harried. The key physical products of the grasslands are the grasses, forbs, and palatable shrubs that may feed livestock or game. The shrubs and trees offer shade during the summer, shelter from the rain and winds, and animal escape cover. Rough shrubs provide nesting sites and special faunal spaces. The vegetation of all types resists wind and water erosion. Variety of plant types and seasonal appearance is one dimensison of the grassland landscape. The natural beauty of the grassland is fragile. Air quality is generally good, and vistas are expansive. Largescale conversion of shrubland to grassland increases livestock production and reduces soil erosion, but it is often done at the expense of scenic beauty and ranging.
Most rangelands produce less forage than their potential because of improper grazing management in the past. Natural vegetation has been replaced to the extent that sample plots needed to describe it have become difficult to find. Changes in plants have resulted in reduced rainfall effectiveness, increased erosion, declining perennial grass production, and reduced livestock and big game carrying capacity. Continuous grazing tends to supress perennial grasses and favors shrubs. There are some beneficial effects of grazing and these need to be included within management planning. Resting areas from grazing can become one tactic in a plan but suitable intervals of rest can be used to improve rundown ranges. (For example, moderately grazed black gramma stands tend to recover from drought more rapidly than stands not grazed.)
Federal lands provide about 7 percent of the beef cattle forage and about 2 percent of the total feed consumed by beef cattle in the 48 contiguous states. (U.S. Department of Interior. Bureau of Land Management "Rangeland Reform '94: Final Environmental Impact Statement")
As with other lands, deciding on their uses and the objectives for them is essential. Perennial grasses may be an objective but The Trevey encourages considering longterm profitability from a grassland system including all profitable uses ... within the context of profits from the total ranch or land ownership. Reducing soil nutrient losses (thus net gains) may be as important in the farm, ranch, or overall property ownership budget as gaining fees from hunters.
Producing livestock on many ranges cannot be judged to be profitable. Yet it will continue to be done for many reasons. For example, they may be needed as setting for recreationists who visit areas to see ranch operations. Producing feeder calves from cows in lots seems better (more profitable as an activity) (not as part of a larger system)) in most areas than range cow-calf operations. Cows will continue to be grazed; profits from grasses in the past have been possible only via the cow. Now there are recreational and related avenues of profit such as presented within Lasting Forests. Many current ranch buyers are interested in ranching more as a way of life than as an investment. Some ranch buyers replace a ranch that they have sold. Some produce livestock, not for profit but "because they want to."
As human populations and land use policy has changed, so has the number, variety, and intensity of interests that use the grasslands. Once the view of grasslands can be lifted from grass to profits, than creative work can begin in building diverse profitable businesses that just happen to be related to lands that tend to be covered with grasses, forbs, and shrubs (and not trees, except in the valleys).
The Trevey lists and describes grassland and pasture needs but moves to describe how they can be analyzed, then develop a prescriptive system -- one that writes out a readable set of practical methods -- amounts, and sequences -- that, if implemented along with other system components, will achieve landowner objectives.
The Trevey report is created from two files, one a text file, the other a data file. The words and numbers from the site information file are merged into the text file. The site information file (1) may cause select parts of the report to be suppressed, or (2) words to be inserted (e.g., county name, date, "high"-"low" etc.); graphs to be drawn; or numbers to be inserted. The graphs are drawn, for example, based on summary data from a GIS window from a database that includes the property. Models in ancillary programs (e.g., regressions) compute their dependent variable values based on field site inputs, then load them into the site information file.
The major optimization programs are linear programming, probably COPLAN with which we have worked, or LINDO. An alternative described in Giles' 1978 Wildlife Management will be studied for an alternative. EXSYS, an expert system shell will be studied for potential uses.
The new power that The Trevey brings, well developed in separate applications, are GPS-specific location and mapping of grassland units; and 20 GIS factors (for example, elevation, slope, aspect, slope position, distance from roads, distance from water, geology, temperature, precipitation, evapotranspiration, etc.) all of which are used to develop grassland maps and descriptions and then select optimum grazing densities in each season, those that benefit the overall budget of the area and also support the other growing resource dimensions of the property. Correct grazing practices can produce an interim financial return between tree harvest cycles. Incorrect practices, however, can create major problems.
We propose to provide the landowner with options for objectives but past experience in the TVA suggests this is difficult, so we shall present three likely objective formulations so that differences in prescriptions can be observed and evaluated.The models and work of I. Noy-Meir (J. Applied Ecology 1978 15:809-835), Alan Savory, and a range economist (Bonham) have been influential as well as much local work of staff of the Virginia Agricultural Extension Service.
Generally, people do not plant range forage and forage cannot be harvested economically with machines. The cow (or other livestock) is the only way to harvest the forage produced. The output gains per person-hour in range livestock production are low. Diversifying is essential.
Fuel energy to produce food is now and will become more limiting. Range beef production is very efficient. Feedlot beef production is 10 times less effective per pound of meat than rangeland beef production. Fossil energy invested in range cattle operations is in supplies, equipment, and moving animals to market.
Insights into grassland performance and objectives have been provided by Noy-Meir and others:
Specific Leaf Weight = 3.44 + 13.3T - 1.85T2 +0.0619 T3 + 11.19 loge R
where T is temperature and R = insolation
Herbage yields are sensitive to altitude differences (temperature differences in winter and early spring). Cold winters can reduce growth during the following summer. (The Trevey uses a sliding-forward 3-year record for analyses.)
r = (loge n1 - loge n2) / (t2 -t 1)
but the influence of radiation on grasses is usually expressed primarily through tiller production.
Relative price of grasses (1997)
|
Cattle establish daily travel patterns among grazing areas. The routes often include salt, forage, and water locations. Natural movements usually avert heavy grazing. Fencing can be very effective in changing patterns. The need is to create patterns that prevent over use of key areas.
Jim McIver and others (USFS, LaGrande, Oregon)in an August 1999 Science Findings studied cattle effects on streams. Grazing produced increased sedimentation, reduced vegetation, altered plant communities, widened streams, and made more shallow streams. A few studies suggested little effect on the stream organisms but others suggest this may occur. (A Lasting Forest premise is that every stream reach is unique. Proving "no change" is highly unlikely.) Typically these listed changes are viewed as undesirable, so efforts can be made to reduce the effects. The first efferts need to be made to separate seasosnal effects on animal distribution (and thus range and forage use). Such effects may over-shadow any from techniques to change distribution. Costs of changing distributions are always in question. Water developments can attract cattle away from streams and riparian areas. Key stream spots can be fenced. Equitable distribution of cattle can result in weight gains in young cattle, thus a means to quantify the financial gains from the investments. Market value of the weight gain is rarely a function of the land but of national and international meat markets and may overshadow conclusions about any desireable cost/benefit ratio. The essence of pasture and rangeland management is the longterm view, avoiding attention to more than the annual bottom line. Careful regulations of animal distribution, resting riparian areas from grazing, altering the grazing frequency and season can have profound effects son stream quality and fish production...and on the financial gains from healthy, well-fed and watered livestock. Because each area, each herd, (even learned behavior of herd units) and each owner's objectives are different, it seems unlikely that conventional research can solve the problems of cattle grazing and riparian/stream use. Generalizations will seen common knowledge or suspect. Expert systems work is needed with iterative improvements.
These are concepts for which rapid assesments are being developed, models revised for local conditions, and reporting systems being developed aiding in both animal management and rangeland and pasture decisions.
There is high interest in centralized dairy goat units that may affiliate with The Products Group and expressions of interest are welcomed.
The project develops a demonstration of a prescriptive system (an element of Leopold's concept of land health). It opens the door to a county-or region-specific service unit, one that will produce such reports, or a larger stable service center that may provide (electronically) these reports to many areas (and continual improvements).
The above is only possible or feasible due to our previous work. After the prescriptions are produced, much in the pattern developed for The Trevey, then assistance will be provided for obtaining fencing, structures, lime, fertilizer, and labor to carry out the work, then protection and enforcement. Contract work will be arranged with superior groups of workers or new services developed.
The needs are great; the potential are equally great for a major synthetic breakthrough from publications and discoveries that were reported 20 years ago.
Wolfe et al. (1996)described wildlie management work on the 775 km2 Deseret Land and Livestock property of NE Utah. They listed other private ranches using some of the same profit-oriented techniques. The large ranch is only marginally suited for production of many cattle due to limited availability of low-cost winter forage and difficulty of effectively grazing the high elevation summer range without damaging riparian areas. Their objective became one of producing year-around forage resources for wild and domestic ungulates. This included careful management of the age structure of the male segment of deer and elk populations by removals of antlerless animals. Cattle management mimiced the timing of parturition of the wild animals. These acts included shifting cattle breeding and calving cycle so the demands of lactation and breeding coincided with the peak of forage nutritional quality. They used smaller-bodied cattle which produced faster-growing calves as replacement heifers. (Larger calves prevented cows from recovering sufficiently from lactation demands to breed each year in the low precip. environment of the ranch. Cattle were grazed in 1 or 2 large herds so that 90% of the cattle are grazing on less than 10% of of the land at any given time during the growing season. Cattle remain a green pasture where there is rapid herbaceous growth for less than a week. These actions reduced operating costs and increased profits, partially due to decreased reliance on hay to bring cattle through the winters. The objective shifted from maximizing forage or animals (tranditional for western rangelands)to maximizing profits.
Monitoring was primarily percent cover and plant richness, riparian condition and year-around clean stream flows. Wildlife weight, production ratios, recruitment and antler characteristics were related to production goals. Revenues have been from sale of hunting permits (30-40% of ranch income and are about $100,000 annually). Fees are charged for hunting as well as bird watching and photography. Breeding bird routes are run.
A letter from Champe Green
Concepts to be integrated with the conditions of the eastern US.
Subject: Re: The Ongoing Thread of Livestock Grazing in the West My small change contribution.....
I am curious as to whether Mr. Moore has read Allan Savory's book Holistic Resource Management (Island Press 1988) or attended one of his classes (reference the email below). Mr. Savory's concepts are far greater in substance/context than simply "livestockgrazing," and to be labeled as a snake oil salesman (Mr. Moore'sassessment)implies a poor understanding of Savory's thesis, in my view. Savory advocatesa holistic thought model and readily admits that livestock grazing is notappropriate in all locations or for all objectives. Unfortunately, he islargely stereotyped for his early work in the 70's in southern Africa on whatwas then called the Savory Grazing Method (SGM), which he admits had flaws. Those who do not or have not understood his work are usually stuck in theanti-grazing bent or in the short duration grazing knowledge level of the70's, generated mostly from those who know that livestock grazing is "bad" (I appreciate Dr. Larry Nielsen's [Penn State U.] quote at the recent TWS annual meeting that "those who know they are right make me nervou""). Similary, there are those in the academic community who are convinced they had tested and rejected Savory's concepts, but in my view, had questionable experimental designs and/or ambiguous or spurious results in evaluating Savory's empirical ideas. Savory's thinking has vastly matured since his early work in Zimbabwe and Southern Africa, and the concepts of biological and land planning he promoted to accomodate various species of wildlife, land health, and livestock production are unsurpassed in soundness, in my view.
There are those who read Savory's book and/or went to his classes but unfortunately, poorly applied the HRM model and created a train wreck. Others, for whatever reason, time, ethics, motivation, better listening or interpretive skills, money, past management history, inate capabilities, fared far better. Some of the most well managed desert grasslands/shrublands in the arid west that I have seen have been under a HRM management regime. The Deseret Ranch owned by the Mormon Church in Utah was a prime example. I don't believe Savory can be held accountable for the failures of those who misapplied his ideas.
Incidentally, the HRM planning model goes far beyond just livestock and wildlife. It can be a great tool for decision making in farming, forestry, even business applications.
A further point: Mr. Moore in a recent post, acclaimed Dr. Bob Omart for his exceptional research and advocacy work. I agree. Dr. Omart has done some insightful research on range and riparian ecosystems in the southwest. Mr. Moore might note, however, that Dr. Omart, as I recollect, was either a member of the board of directors in the late '80s of the Center for Holistic Resource Management, which Savory founded, or a supporter, as were some distinguished faculty of the the Univ. of Arizona at Tucson. Dr. Omart et al. apparently recognized and appreciated the context and substance of Savory's ideas.
I have found this recent thread on grazing in the west to belargely superficial with regard to current knowledge of herbivory and plantcommunities. Cattle can have tremendous impact, no doubt. But little or nodiscussion has addressed the many other species of herbivorous or browsinganimals of the west and their impacts, i.e., sheep, horses (feral and domestic),goats,elk, mule deer, pronghorn, or the many small mammals whosurvive on herbaceous or woody fiber or leaves, and their cumulative effects. Does a plant care what kind of animal is properly grazing/browsing or overgrazing/overbrowsing it? Are some animals more priveleged to abuse a plant than others? I doubt both. To focus upon denigrating or penalizing only ranchers who run cattle on public lands is simplistic in my view. A productive discussion on livestock grazing in the west should,in my opinion, address grazing regimes in terms of the phenology of differentplant species and communities and their response to herbivory or browsing. And what about fire, or lack thereof, as a tangential factor? Or what about independentvariables such as the effects of continuous grazing versus planned grazing,stocking rates, stock density in individual areas, appropriate grazing periodsand rest periods relative to plant growth rates, herding effects, life stageand nutritional/structural needs of the livestock and resident and migratingwildlife, or the multiple variations of all of these. To discuss livestock grazing in the west without defining the above, is in my view, simplisticand largely meaningless.
A non-profit that I believe is on the right track of working constructively with ranchers for better management of public and private rangelands in the SW is the Quivira Coalition of Santa Fe. This non profit is an organization founded by critical thinking members of the Sierra Club and ranchers, scientists, public land managers, et al. Their website can be accessed at http://www.quiviracoalition.org/
Finally, a recent post by Mr. Gallizioli of Arizona that "How people calling themselves wildlife biologists can argue that livestock grazing is not necessarily bad, that livestock grazing has no impact on "diversity", or that livestock grazing can actually benefit wildlife populations", is baffling to this aging member of the wildlife managementprofession" is understandable. I have worked professionally in Arizona and appreciate and lament the degredation he comments upon. However, I can never expel from my thinking and observations Aldo Leopold's comment (I paraphrase) that the cow, plow, fire and axe, the forces that have caused so much degredation of our western lands, are the very tools that can reverse that degredation, properly applied. If not properly applied to the highest degree thatscience validates, I agree with Mr. Moore that those public land graziers demonstratingpoor management skills should be evicted. I am not keen on compensating them from the federal trough, but if the judicial system demands that, so be it. However, let us keep the well managedranching enterprises and learn from them. I am doubtful that we as managersand scientists will learn much from the entire federal western rangelandresource being under a homogeneous treatment of total livestock exclusion and non-disturbance.
Champe Green See work on creating pastures on abandoned mined lands in Appalachia, and the Big-R index.
Consider correspondence with Mr. Michael A. Gutierrez, President, Chaparral Wildlife Resource Management
References
Fraps, G. S., and V. L. Cory. 1940. Composition and utilization or range vegetation or Sutton and Edwards Counties.Texas Agr. and Mech. ColI.Expt. Sta. Bull. 586.39 p.
Fraps, G. S., and J. F. Fudge. 1940.The chemical composition or forage grasses of the east Texas timber country.Agr.and Mech. Coll. Texas, Coll. Sta. Bull.No. 582. 35 p.
Greer, J.K. 1965. A cage for small intractable animals. Journal of Wildl. Mgmt. 29 (4): 895-896).
Short, H. L. 1962. The use of rumen fistula in a white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 26: 341-342.
Golley, F.B. 1960. Energy dynamics of a food chain of an old-field community. Ecol. Monogr. 30:187-206.
Albritton,E.C. 1954. Standard values in nutrition and metabolism. W. B. Saunders Co., Phi1ade1phia, PA 380 pp.
Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and growth. Corp., New York. Reinhold Publ. Corp, New York, 1023 p.
Jaramillo, V. J. and J.K. Detling. 1992. Small-scale heterogeneity in a semi-arid North American grassland. I. Tillering, N uptake and retranslocation in simulated urine patches. J. Appl. Ecol. 29:1-8.
Jaramillo, V. J. and J.K. Detling. 1992. Small-scale heterogeneity in a semi-arid North American grassland. II Cattle grazing of simulated urine patches. J. Appl. Ecol 29:9-13.
Pearson, C.C. and R.L. Ison 1987. Agronomy of grassland systems, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 169p.
Snaydon, R.W. 1987. Managed grasslands: Analytical studies 285p, Elsevier, Ansterdam (see comments on snails; includes modeling)
Thomas, H. and I.B. Norris. 1977. The growth responses of Lolium perenne to the weather during winter and spring at various altitudes in Mid-Wales. J. Appl Ecol. 14: 949-964
Wolfe, M. L., G.E. Simonds, R Danvir, and W.j. Hopkins. 1996. Integrating livestock production and wildlife in a sagebrush-grass ecosystem, p.73-77 in D.M. Finch (ed)Ecosystem disturbance and wildlife conservation in western grasslands. USFS Gen Tech Rpt RM-GTR-285, Rocky Mt Forest and Range Exp. Sta, Ft. Collins, Co.82 pp.
Putman, R.J. 1986. Grazing in temperate ecosystems: large herbivores and the ecology of the New Forest, Croom Helm, London 210pp.
Chapman, D.F. 1987. Natural re-seeding and Trifolium repen demography in garzed hill pastures. II. Seedling appearance and survival. J. Appl. Ecol 24:1037-1043.
See Fire and Grazing
This Web site is maintained by R. H.
Giles, Jr.
Sender: TWS-L Discussion List
CWB,
Albuquerque, NM
Other Resources:
[ HOME | Lasting Forests (Introductions) | Units of Lasting Forests | Ranging | Guidance | Forests | Gamma Theory | Wildlife Law Enforcement Systems | Antler Points | Species-Specific Management (SSM) | Wilderness and Ancient Forests | Appendices | Ideas for Development | Disclaimer]
Quick Access to the Contents of LastingForests.com
Last revision July 12, 2000.