Matt Barnes, Shining Horizons Land Management. Jim Howell, Del Cerro LLC. The Howell Ranch .... Beaver South. 440 ac. Lower Little Blue. 320 ac. Fence line ...
Matt Barnes, Shining Horizons Land Management Jim Howell, Del Cerro LLC The Howell Ranch
Targeted grazing at pasture & ranch scale Not a grazing “system” in the rigid sense
Develop Goal
Learn & adapt
Plan
Apply practices
Monitor
“Plan-monitor-control-replan” in HM
Smaller paddocks
Higher stocking density Shorter grazing periods Longer recovery periods
More even grazing pressure across the landscape
Rotational grazing with elements of rotational rest
Multiple paddocks per herd – 3 “cells”:
Cerro Middle Blue Little Blue
Montane, ~7400– 8400 ft (2250 – 2560 m) Steep Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii)
Mountain big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata vaseyana) Wheatgrasses (Pascopyrum, Elymus spp.) Needlegrasses (Achnatherum spp.)
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis)
1200 ac (490 ha) 10 + 6 very small paddocks 5 - 210 ac (2 – 85 ha) Grazing periods 1 - 22 days
70 - 90 AU for ~4 months cow-calf pairs
Subalpine, mostly steep Engelmann Spruce (Picea engelmannii) Subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides)
Silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana) Thurber fescue (Festuca thurberi) Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis)
Subapline, 8300 – 9676 ft (2530 – 2950 m)
Range: ~7000 ac (~2800 ha) 18+ paddocks, 7 - 11 / year 50 - 700 ac (20 – 280 ha) Grazing periods 2 – 27 days
Irrigated pasture: 450 ac (180 ha) 5 permanent paddocks 25 to 130 ac (10 -53 ha) Grazing periods 1 – 22 days Recovery ~ 3 months
312 AU cattle in 2010-11
Cattle
One of 5 permanent pastures on the irrigated bottomland, which I subdivide to make up to 11 temporary pastures, Grazed in late spring and again in late summer.
Flood irrigation with tarp and shovel
Subalpine, 9020 – 9660 ft (2750 – 2945 m)
nearly level to steep 670 ac (270 ha) 8 paddocks (6 used in 2010) 40 – 200 ac (16 – 80 ha) Grazing periods 6 – 20 days
2012 – exceptional drought Combined with Middle Blue Grazed 2 paddocks, 3-4 days
Rested 6 paddocks
2012 – exceptional drought One grazing management unit One herd Irrigated range irrigated 28 grazing periods Average ~4 days/pasture
Traditional management: a relatively large band of sheep is herded through, using a park like this one for less than a week.
When this side of the fence became cattle country, the owners did not practice the kind of herding that was customary with sheep, and they did not replace that herding with any cross-fencing. Under season-long grazing, the park degraded from Thurber fescue to silver sagebrush dominance.
These cattle don’t know what happened or why, but apparently they know they want to get in with that band of sheep!
Primary distribution tool: cross-fencing • Old barbed wire fences used where existing. • Subdivided with a lot of both “permanent” and temporary electric fence. • Where snowdrifts and elk destroy fences, polywire can be put up and taken down in less time than permanent barbed or high tensile wire fence can be fixed. • “Permanent” is a relative term. • No fence is 100% effective.
The animals have to be trained to electric fence, which is what’s happening in this photo, but once they are, a single strand of polywire is enough of a psychological barrier that most of the cattle will respect it most of the time. These are part of a herd in its first few hours on the ranch. When they get under the wire they get shocked, and then we gently push them back and they get shocked again.
Low-stress livestock handling Occasional herding in largest paddocks Low-stress livestock handling – at least to the best of our ability, and until we get frustrated!
Previous management: Season-long grazing at relatively low SR •Riparian areas high de facto SR •Uplands very low de facto SR
Previous management: Season-long grazing at relatively low SR •Riparian areas degraded •Uplands covered in old senescent grass
•Fenced across canyon •Paddocks grazed sequentially •For a few days to a few weeks each •Utilization distributed across entire paddock
•Most paddocks grazed once / 2 years •Recovery peeriods from most of a growing season to most of 2 growing seasons •Riparian and uplands improved
Cattle graze from
creek to ridge Without fencing riparian areas separately Pasture has most of season to recover and rest every other year
Fence line
Beaver South 440 ac
Lower Little Blue 320 ac
Beaver South 312 AU / 440 ac 6 days
Beaver South 312 AU / 440 ac 6 days
Lower Little Blue 312 AU / 320 ac 8 days
Thurber fescue ~40% Kentucky bluegrass ~60% I know those photos made it look like that hillside was heavily grazed. But zooming in on that hillside, we find that overall utilization was moderate, including utilization of the dominant and usually unpalatable bunchgrass Thurber fescue. In fact almost every bunch had at least a bite taken out of it.
The elk were back on that hillside pretty soon, enjoying the re-growth. They seem to use that pasture preferentially the year after it is grazed by cattle, and sometimes later the same year if the grazing period is early enough for substantial regrowth.
Animal Unit days / acre Acres grazed varied between years Relative use varied between paddocks, years Estimated grazing capacity from stocking rate Adjustments for relative use: H 0.8 M+ 0.9 M 1.0 M- 1.1 L 1.2
Relative to baseline Howell Ranch deeded (Cerro & Little Blue) - range Prior to 1997 30 pairs / 640-acre section for 120 days
Middle Blue lease – range Prior to 2004 - Actual SR history unknown NASS data for Gunnison Co. private leases Middle Blue lease – irrigated pasture 150 pairs / 450-ac pasture for 75 days
Baseline SR
Current mgt. avg. adj. SR
Relative change
(Animal Unit days / acre)
Cerro & Little Blue range
9.6
15
+ 160%
Middle Blue range
7.4
18
+ 250%
Middle Blue irrigated
43
77
+ 180%
Stocking rate history Initially overstocked when switched to RG 200%
150% 100% 50%
1996 = prior mgt. Seasonlong overgrazed
Howell Ranch (adjusted)
Gunnison County
Immediate increase (1997) and later flat trend = more efficient use of existing forage
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
0% 1996
Percentage of Historical Average
250%
SR through drought Percentage of pre-drought (2001) SR
120%
100%
2001 – drought began 2002 – driest year 2003 – resilience at Howell Ranch, continued decline in rest of county
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Howell Ranch (adjusted)
Gunnison County
In 2012, which was even drier than 2002, we did have a significant decrease. But we de-stocked early and made it to within a week of the usual end of the season, while many people on the western slope were coming off their summer range a month or two early.
Line-point transect with 100 points Cover, distance to nearest perennial, life-form
Dart (within permanent plot)
Little Blue (subalpine)
Tape
Cerro (montane)
70% 60% 50% 40%
Bare ground
Litter
30%
Plant base
20% 10% 0% 1997
1998
1999
2004
2008
2011
On the highest elevation unit, our transect on a shallow subalpine loam site shows a clear decrease in bare ground and increase in live plant basal cover. Most change pre-drought.
100% 90% 80% 70% 60%
Bare ground
50%
Litter
40%
Plant base
30% 20% 10% 0% 2001
2003
2008
2011
Lower country: slight shift from bare ground and litter to live plant cover. This site is drier, and has had shorter recovery periods (average one growing season). Transect established in 2001: when the drought began, and 4 years after the Little Blue where, most of the change had already happened, so possible similar change occurred here but we just never captured it.
Distance (inch) 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1997
1998
1999
2004
2008
2011
Distance (inch) 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 2001
2003
2008
2011
100%
90% 80% 70% 60% 50%
40%
Grass
Forb Shrub
30% 20% 10% 0% 1997 1998 1999 2004 2011 Overall plant cover is increasing. The trend of the lines towards each other suggests increasing diversity, primarily due to forbs (mostly palatable forbs like aspen peavine).
100%
90% 80% 70% 60%
Grass
50%
Forb
40%
Shrub
30% 20% 10% 0% 2001
2003
2011
Shift from bare ground to basal plant cover Increasing plant diversity (forbs) Greater change on mesic site and/or with
longer recovery periods Happened under stocking rates 1.5-1.6x the previous stocking rate About 4x adjacent public land permits Happened mostly during drought
Well-planned, adaptive multi-paddock
grazing management can be used to improve distribution across landscapes and plant species This spatial aspect of grazing management may have been lost in many small-plot studies Resolves the grazing management debate
Mean absolute deviation of utilization (%)
Unevenness of utilization 30
25
20
15
10
5
0
64
32
16
2
Paddocks
1 ha
2 ha
4 ha
70 ha
Size (ha)
Intensive rotational grazing
Cycle 1
Deferred Grazing rotation system
Cycle 2
Barnes et al. 2008. Rangeland Ecology & Management 61: 380-388.
Rocky Mountains, grazing in growing season Irrigated cool-season mountain pasture: Graze 2 (±1) x /year, depending on growth (How many cuttings of hay would you get?) Recovery periods 30 – 60 growing days Grazing periods < 2 weeks, ideally few days
Seasonal mountain rangelands: Graze no more than once/year Recovery periods > 1 growing season Grazing periods < 1 month, ideally < 1 week Herding & strategic supplementation
Often, temporary electric > permanent fence Warmer, wetter areas will be different
Small paddocks promote more even
utilization Small-plot grazing studies
Full scale ranches subdividing pastures
Increasing stocking density probably
increases effect Usually confounded with paddock size
Ranches usually have overgrazed areas and
under- or un-grazed areas Not using whole ranch Heavily used areas degrading
Grazing management that relieves excess pressure on preferred areas and plants
by providing growing season recovery time, and spreads utilization across the landscape, increasing use of previously under- or un-used areas
Will allow for improved rangeland health and species composition While increasing effective grazing capacity Thus maximizing capacity to adapt
Complex adaptive systems (“wholes”) Driven by relationships >> parts Self-organizing (history, necessity, chance) sensitive to initial conditions
Interconnected
Variables normally confounded Not possible to change only one thing Sensitive to “external” conditions Results of one interaction are the initial conditions of the next
Adapting, evolving (but can seem temporarily “stable”) Inherently unpredictable No two ranches / paddocks / individuals alike No replication in the real world Or in field experiments, strictly speaking
Scale-dependent
