Pastures for Profit: a Guide to Rotational Grazing (A3529) R-10-02-5.5M-500

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Pastures for Profit: a Guide to Rotational Grazing (A3529) R-10-02-5.5M-500 A3529 Pastures for profit: A guide to rotational grazing Dan Undersander Beth Albert Dennis Cosgrove Dennis Johnson Paul Peterson Introduction 1 Setting up a rotational Contents Why rotational grazing? 1 grazing system 26 Setting goals and What is rotational grazing? 1 assessing resources 26 Who is using rotational grazing? 2 Length of rest periods 26 Why use rotational grazing? 2 Length of grazing periods 27 Understanding plant growth 5 Grazing groups 28 Plant response to grazing 5 Spring start-up 28 Seasonal pasture growth patterns 8 Seasonal fluctuations Weed control 8 in pasture growth rate 28 Soil fertility 10 Determining stocking rate and acreage needed 29 Pasture establishment/ renovation 10 Drought 30 Stockpiling forage 16 Moving livestock 30 Estimating forage yield 16 Paddocks: How many and how big? 30 Animal needs 20 Paddock layout 31 Animal digestion and nutrient Fencing 33 requirements 20 Lanes and laneways 33 Animal water needs 21 Designing a pasture system 34 Animal grazing 23 Deciding when to move Grazing patterns 23 livestock 35 Selective grazing 23 Evaluating and improving your grazing system 36 Amount of available forage 24 Grazing habits of different animals 24 Animal health on pasture 37 Animal impact on pasture 25 Parasites 37 Bloat 37 Nitrate poisoning and poisonous plants 38 Additional reading back cover Introduction Why rotational What is rotational grazing? grazing? astures represent a largely Under rotational grazing, only one untapped resource for farmers. portion of pasture is grazed at a time P More than one quarter of the while the remainder of the pasture Midwest’s agricultural land is in “rests.” To accomplish this, pastures some form of pasture. Yet, 80% of are subdivided into smaller areas these pastures suffer from poor, (referred to as paddocks) and live- uneven fertility coupled with serious stock are moved from one paddock to weed and erosion problems. Most another. Resting grazed paddocks pastures are continuously grazed allows forage plants to renew energy throughout the season. However, con- reserves, rebuild vigor, deepen their tinuous grazing results in the lowest root system, and give long-term possible pasture yields since the maximum production. forage is not allowed to recuperate For rotational grazing to be success- between grazing. The lack of manage- ful, the timing of rotations must be ment makes these pastures a poor adjusted to the growth stage of the forage source and most farmers are forage. Unfortunately, rotational reluctant to rely too heavily on grazing is often reduced to regular pastures to feed their high-producing animal shifts from paddock to livestock. paddock based on rigid time sched- To produce good livestock feed from ules rather than in response to forage pasture, we must manage our growth rate. Rigid schedules reduce pastures differently. This bulletin the benefit of rotational grazing. outlines an alternative: rotational Rotational grazing can be practiced in grazing. By using rotational grazing, a variety of intensities. Systems can you can make a profit from pastures. range from 2 to 30 or more paddocks. This bulletin covers the basics of Management intensive rotational setting up rotational grazing on your grazing involves a higher level of farm. management with greater paddock numbers, shorter grazing periods, and longer rest periods. Generally, more intense management results in greater livestock production per acre. 1 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ P ASTURES FOR PROFIT This bulletin covers the basic princi- term implies slight differences in man- Why use rotational ples underlying all types of rotational agement, they all refer to some sort of grazing? grazing. Management intensive rota- intensive rotational grazing system. Everyone with livestock and grazing tional grazing will be emphasized land can benefit from rotational because it offers a number of advan- Who is using grazing. tages over both continuous grazing rotational grazing? and less intensive rotational systems. Economic benefits Many farmers throughout the These include Midwest practice rotational grazing. Most farmers try rotational grazing ■ more stable production during Wisconsin surveys indicate that in the because of the economic savings. In poor growing conditions (espe- 1990s, the number of rotational Wisconsin, graziers averaged about cially drought), graziers among dairy farmers has $200 more per cow net farm income than confinement dairy farms accord- ■ greater yield potential, increased from essentially 0 to over 21% (figure 1). These range from a ing to farm financial data collected ■ higher quality forage available, large dairy farmer who rotationally from 1995 to 1999 according to ■ decreased weed and erosion grazes 1,600 head on his 2,100 acre University of Wisconsin Center for problems, and all-grass farm to much smaller dairy, Dairy Profitability. During the same ■ more uniform soil fertility levels. beef, sheep, hog, and even chicken period, graziers averaged more than operations. Most livestock have the $1.50 higher net farm income per There are many names for intensive hundredweight equivalent of milk rotational grazing: Voisin grazing, potential to receive a substantial amount of their feed from pasture. sold than achieved by confinement Hohenheim grazing, intensive grazing dairies. Beef, sheep, and dairy heifer management, management intensive growing operations have also seen grazing, short duration grazing, reduced costs and increased profit Savory systems, strip grazing, con- from rotational grazing systems. trolled grazing, and high-intensity, low-frequency grazing. Although each Both start-up and maintenance costs are less for grazing compared to con- finement systems. The only capital cost specific to rotational grazing is fencing. Costs for new fencing range Figure 1. Estimated percent and number of Wisconsin dairy farms using from $1.18 per acre for mobile electric management intensive rotational grazing (MIRG), 1993–1999 fencing with fiberglass posts to $18.37 per acre for high-tensile electric 25% 5,000 fencing. Setting up the whole system percent using MIRG 4708 (using new fencing, fencers, and estimated number of MIRG farms 21.8% water systems) costs from $30 to $70 20% 4,000 per acre. The higher price range 3818 includes the cost of constructing some 3601 livestock lanes. 15% 3,000 14.6% 13.9% 2191 10% 2,000 7.3% 5% 1,000 percent of all dairy 1999 operations, Estimated number of MIRG farms, 1999 of MIRG farms, Estimated number 0% 0 1993 1995 1997 1999 Source: Program on Agricultural Technology Studies (www.wisc.edu/pats/dmirgperc.htm) 2 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ If you haven’t already invested in Data from the USDA Natural Wildlife advantages confinement feeding systems, this Resources Conservation Service Populations of native grassland birds, represents a tremendous savings; if (NRCS) shows that in 1997, an such as upland sandpipers, you have, maintenance costs are average of 3.3 tons of soil per acre bobolinks, and meadowlarks, have reduced since your confinement were lost each year due to sheet and declined significantly within the past system needs to be operated only rill erosion on Wisconsin cropland. In 50 years. These birds once thrived in during the cold months. Once in Minnesota an average of 2.1 tons of the extensive native prairies that operation, grazing will reduce equip- soil per acre were lost each year on covered the state. As the land was ment, fertilizer, pesticide, and labor cropland due to sheet and rill erosion converted to row crops and fre- costs. and 5.8 tons of soil per acre per year quently mowed hay fields, the birds’ Because grazing operations can be from wind erosion. habitat has dwindled and their popu- less capital intensive they can also be Converting erosion-prone land to lations are now at risk. Many aspects more financially flexible. pasture is a good way to minimize of rotational grazing systems can help this loss since Wisconsin and reverse this decline: the rested Time savings Minnesota’s perennial pastures have paddocks provide undisturbed Many farmers are reluctant to try an average soil loss of only 0.5 tons nesting habitat; leaving at least 4 rotational grazing because of the time per acre per year from water erosion inches of growth in cool-season grass they assume it will take to move live- and less than 0.1 tons per acre pastures during the spring provides stock. However, the time to move annually from wind erosion. needed cover for the nests; and cattle is minimal if paddock and Reducing erosion rates will preserve creating large blocks (50 or more fencing design is efficient and cattle the most fertile soil with higher water acres) that are not grazed or har- are moved after a milking, often aver- holding capacity for future crop pro- vested between mid-May and early aging only 15 minutes per day. In duction. July give many young birds time to contrast, feeding hay and silage in a mature. Also, warm-season grass Pasturing helps water quality in confinement system may take 20 paddocks, which aren’t grazed until several ways. High levels of nitrates minutes to 1 hour. Grazing may also late June, provide especially good and pesticides in our ground and decrease your need to make hay nesting habitat. Game birds, such as surface waters can cause human, live- which takes an average of 7 hours per pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also stock, and wildlife health problems. acre each season. It also reduces the benefit from pastures, as do bluebirds Pasturing reduces the amount of need to haul manure because most whose favorite nesting sites are fence nitrates and pesticides leaching into manure is dropped by the cattle on posts. For more details about setting our groundwater in two ways: less is the pasture. up a bird-friendly grazing system, see applied and the deeper forage root What if you have to move a huge Wisconsin Extension publication systems take up nutrients from herd? A large-scale stocker farmer Grassland Birds: Fostering Habitats greater depths.
Recommended publications
  • Basics of Management - Intensive Grazing Stephen K
    Proceedings of the Integrated Crop Management Proceedings of the 10th Annual Integrated Crop Conference Management Conference Nov 18th, 12:00 AM Basics of Management - Intensive Grazing Stephen K. Barnhart Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/icm Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Agronomy and Crop Sciences Commons Barnhart, Stephen K., "Basics of Management - Intensive Grazing" (1998). Proceedings of the Integrated Crop Management Conference. 28. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/icm/1998/proceedings/28 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Symposia at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Proceedings of the Integrated Crop Management Conference by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BASICS OF MANAGEMENT -INTENSIVE GRAZING Stephen K. Barnhart Agronomist-Extension Forage Programs Department of Agronomy Iowa State University. What Is Management-Intensive Grazing ? Management-intensive grazing is a method for regulating how often and how much to graze in order to control the quality, yield, consumption, and persistence of forage from pasture. Managed grazing attempts to optimize animal performance or limit intake to a desired level and reduce wasted forage. Depending on the grazing methods used, the amount of fresh pasture provided, the amount of forage eaten, and its quality is regulated by the size of pasture area being grazed, the duration of that grazing, and the amount of the available forage allowed for grazing. Also critical is the period that each pasture is rested between grazings.
    [Show full text]
  • Costs to Implement Rotational Grazing
    Do You Have Problems With: • Low pasture yields • Low quality pasture • Weeds in the pasture • Poor livestock condition • Supplementing hay in summer pastures • Large bare spots in the pasture • Numerous livestock paths across the pasture Rotational grazing provides higher quality and better Rotational Grazing Can Help yielding forage. Benefits of Rotational Grazing: • Increased pasture yields • Better quality pastures • Carry more animals on the same acreage • Feed less hay • Better distribution of manure nutrients throughout the pasture • Healthier livestock • Improved income ($$) Healthy pastures = Healthy and productive livestock Costs to Implement Rotational Grazing • Example: A 40 acre pasture divided into 4 pastures can cost as little as $200 for single strand fencing. • To distribute water will be about $.50/foot of water line. • A portable watering trough costs about $100 to $160. Portable watering tank connected to a hose Rotational Grazing Components needed: • Light-weight fencing to subdivide large pasture areas – poly-wire, poly-tape, high tensile wire, electric netting, reels, rods for stringing fence on, fence charger, ground rods, lightning arrestors • Portable water troughs with pipeline if stationary trough is over 800 feet away from some of the pasture area • Handling area for livestock used to load and unload animals or work on them Planning a rotational grazing system A low cost single strand fence works well for dividing pastures. A rotational grazing system works best when the num- ber of livestock equals the carrying capacity of the pas- ture system. If livestock are overstocked then addi- tional hay will need to be provided. Generally 20-30 days are needed to rest pastures dur- ing rapid growth periods and 40 or more days during slow growth periods.
    [Show full text]
  • A Biodiversity-Friendly Rotational Grazing System Enhancing Flower
    A biodiversity-friendly rotational grazing system enhancing flower-visiting insect assemblages while maintaining animal and grassland productivity Simone Ravetto Enri, Massimiliano Probo, Anne Farruggia, Laurent Lanore, Andre Blanchetete, Bertrand Dumont To cite this version: Simone Ravetto Enri, Massimiliano Probo, Anne Farruggia, Laurent Lanore, Andre Blanchetete, et al.. A biodiversity-friendly rotational grazing system enhancing flower-visiting insect assemblages while maintaining animal and grassland productivity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, Elsevier Masson, 2017, 241, pp.1-10. 10.1016/j.agee.2017.02.030. hal-01607171 HAL Id: hal-01607171 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01607171 Submitted on 26 May 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike| 4.0 International License Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 241 (2017) 1–10 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agee A biodiversity-friendly
    [Show full text]
  • Livestock and Landscapes
    SUSTAINABILITY PATHWAYS LIVESTOCK AND LANDSCAPES SHARE OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION IN GLOBAL LAND SURFACE DID YOU KNOW? Agricultural land used for ENVIRONMENT Twenty-six percent of the Planet’s ice-free land is used for livestock grazing LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION and 33 percent of croplands are used for livestock feed production. Livestock contribute to seven percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions through enteric fermentation and manure. In developed countries, 90 percent of cattle Agricutural land used for belong to six breed and 20 percent of livestock breeds are at risk of extinction. OTHER AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SOCIAL One billion poor people, mostly pastoralists in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, depend on livestock for food and livelihoods. Globally, livestock provides 25 percent of protein intake and 15 percent of dietary energy. ECONOMY Livestock contributes up to 40 percent of agricultural gross domestic product across a significant portion of South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa but receives just three percent of global agricultural development funding. GOVERNANCE With rising incomes in the developing world, demand for animal products will continue to surge; 74 percent for meat, 58 percent for dairy products and 500 percent for eggs. Meeting increasing demand is a major sustainability challenge. LIVESTOCK AND LANDSCAPES SUSTAINABILITY PATHWAYS WHY DOES LIVESTOCK MATTER FOR SUSTAINABILITY? £ The livestock sector is one of the key drivers of land-use change. Each year, 13 £ As livestock density increases and is in closer confines with wildlife and humans, billion hectares of forest area are lost due to land conversion for agricultural uses there is a growing risk of disease that threatens every single one of us: 66 percent of as pastures or cropland, for both food and livestock feed crop production.
    [Show full text]
  • Delivering on Net Zero: Scottish Agriculture
    i Delivering on Net Zero: Scottish Agriculture A report for WWF Scotland from the Organic Policy, Business and Research Consultancy Authors: Nic Lampkin, Laurence Smith, Katrin Padel NOVEMBER 2019 ii Contents Executive summary............................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Portfolio of mitigation measures ............................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Measuring greenhouse gas emissions and global warming potential .............................................. 3 2.3 Emission reduction measures to be analysed ................................................................................... 5 A. Improved nitrogen fertiliser use ............................................................................................................... 5 2.3.1 M1 (E1, FBC): Improving synthetic N utilisation ........................................................................ 5 2.3.2 M2 (E6): Controlled release fertilisers (CRF) ............................................................................. 6 2.3.3 M3 (E10): Precision applications to crops ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hog Pastures and Conservation Compliance
    Illinois Grazing Manual Fact Sheet GRAZING MANAGEMENT Hog Pastures and Conservation Compliance General Information Significant problems exist in meeting conservation compliance requirements for livestock producers. These include high intensity grazing of hogs on forages in rotation with row crops, grazing crop residues, and manure injection of HEL fields. Swine pasture trials have been conducted to learn more about the interrelationships of pasture species selection, seeding rate, stocking density, grass stand (plants per sq. ft.), and per cent ground cover. These trials have networked the experience, knowledge, and skills of pro-active swine producers, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and University of Illinois Extension. Initial trials were seeded in the spring of 1992 utilizing alfalfa and grass mixtures. The grass species included were: 1) Tetraploid perennial ryegrass, 2) Matua Rescuegrass, 3) low endophyte Tall Fescue, and 4) Orchardgrass. These trial plots were intensively grazed and evaluated during 1993 with a mean stocking rate of 11.6 sows and litter per acre. Grass stands and % cover was evaluated throughout the year. Results indicated that tetraploid perennial ryegrass exhibited a very vigorous growth habit and was able to withstand high levels of grazing and trampling. It maintained higher levels of ground cover throughout the season. Tall Fescue established well, exhibited high stand counts, and even with very high grazing intensity was able to maintain over until late in the season. Tall Fescue also reduced the seed cost per acre. The use of alfalfa-orchardgrass under high intensity use, held up through mid-season but declined rapidly to only 20% cover in the fall.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Schedule DI
    Schedule Wisconsin Dairy and Livestock Farm Investment Credit DI File with Wisconsin Form 1, 1NPR, 2, 3, 4, 4T, 5, or 5S Name Identifying Number 2010 Wisconsin Department of Revenue 1 Fill in the amount paid in 2010 for the following items if used exclusively for dairy or livestock farm modernization or expansion: a Freestall barns . 1a b Fences . 1b c Watering facilities . 1c d Feed storage and handling equipment . 1d e Milking parlors . 1e f Robotic equipment . 1f g Scales . 1g h Milk storage and cooling facilities . 1h i Bulk tanks . 1i j Manure pumping and storage facilities . 1j k Digesters . 1k l Equipment used to produce energy . 1l m Birthing and rearing structures . 1m n Feedlot structures . 1n o Fish hatchery buildings, fish processing buildings, and fish rearing ponds . 1o p Other (list) 1p 2 Add lines 1a through 1p . 2 3 Multiply line 2 by 10% (0.10) . 3 4 Fill in 2010 dairy and livestock farm investment credit passed through from other entities . 4 5 Add lines 3 and 4 . 5 6 a Maximum credit . 6a $75,000 b Enter credit computed for 2004 to 2009 (from 2009 Schedule DI, line 6b plus line 7) . 6b c Subtract line 6b from line 6a . 6c 7 Fill in the smaller of line 5 or line 6c. See instructions . 7 7a Fiduciaries - Enter amount of credit from line 7 allocated to beneficiaries . 7a 7b Fiduciaries - Subtract line 7a from line 7 . 7b 8 Carryover of unused 2004 to 2009 dairy and livestock farm investment credit . 8 9 Add lines 7 and 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Livestock Performance for Sheep and Cattle Grazing Lowland Permanent Pasture: Benchmarking Potential of Forage-Based Systems
    agronomy Article Livestock Performance for Sheep and Cattle Grazing Lowland Permanent Pasture: Benchmarking Potential of Forage-Based Systems Robert J. Orr 1, Bruce A. Griffith 1, M. Jordana Rivero 1,* and Michael R. F. Lee 1,2 1 Rothamsted Research, Sustainable Agriculture Sciences, North Wyke, Okehampton, Devon EX20 2SB, UK; [email protected] (R.J.O.); bruce.griffi[email protected] (B.A.G.); [email protected] (M.R.F.L.) 2 University of Bristol, Bristol Veterinary School, Langford, Somerset BS40 5DU, UK * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +44-1837-512302 Received: 29 January 2019; Accepted: 18 February 2019; Published: 21 February 2019 Abstract: Here we describe the livestock performance and baseline productivity over a two-year period, following the establishment of the infrastructure on the North Wyke Farm Platform across its three farmlets (small farms). Lowland permanent pastures were continuously stocked with yearling beef cattle and ewes and their twin lambs for two years in three farmlets. The cattle came into the farmlets as suckler-reared weaned calves at 195 32.6 days old weighing 309 45.0 kg, were ± ± housed indoors for 170 days then turned out to graze weighing 391 54.2 kg for 177 days. Therefore, ± it is suggested for predominantly grass-based systems with minimal supplementary feeding that target live weight gains should be 0.5 kg/day in the first winter, 0.9 kg/day for summer grazing and 0.8 kg/day for cattle housed and finished on silage in a second winter. The sheep performance suggested that lambs weaned at 100 days and weighing 35 kg should finish at 200 days weighing 44 to 45 kg live weight with a killing out percentage of 44%.
    [Show full text]
  • Calculation and Use of Selectivity Coefficients of Feeding: Zooplankton Grazing *
    Ecological Modelling, 7 (1979) 135--149 135 © Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam -- Printed in The Netherlands CALCULATION AND USE OF SELECTIVITY COEFFICIENTS OF FEEDING: ZOOPLANKTON GRAZING * HENRY A. VANDERPLOEG and DONALD SCAVIA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Research Laboratories, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Mich. 48104 (U.S.A.) (Received 8 June 1978; revised 27 September 1978) ABSTRACT Vanderploeg, H.A. and Scavia, D., 1979. Calculation and use of selectivity coefficients of feeding: zooplankton grazing. Ecol. Modelling, 7: 135--149. A straightforward method of calculating selectivity coefficients (Wii) of predation from raw data, mortality rates of prey, filtering rates, feeding rates and electivity indices is derived. Results from a comparison of selectivity coefficients for the copepod Diaptomus oregonensis grazing under a number of experimental conditions suggest that Wij's for size- selective feeding are invariant, a conclusion also supported by the leaky-sieve model. Recommendations are made on how to use Wij's in linear and nonlinear feeding constructs for zooplankton and other animals. INTRODUCTION Many recent aquatic ecosystem models have been designed to simulate seasonal succession of phytoplankton and zooplankton. In order to accom- plish this, the models have included several phytoplankton and zooplankton groups (Bloomfield et al., 1973; Park et al., 1974; Canale et al., 1976; Scavia et al., 1976a and b; Bierman, 1976). A main factor controlling successional change in both phytoplankton and zooplankton is zooplankton selective feeding (cf. Porter, 1977). Many field and laboratory studies have been carried out to quantify the selection process; however, the forms in which the data are reported are not immediately applicable to models.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Friendly Farming: Seven Agricultural Practices to Sustain People and the Environment Executive Summary
    Future Friendly Farming Seven Agricultural Practices to Sustain People and the Environment Ryan Stockwell and Eliav Bitan August 2011 Future Friendly Farming Seven Agricultural Practices to Sustain People and the Environment Ryan Stockwell and Eliav Bitan August 2011 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank the contributions of many people in the development of this report. Julie Sibbing and Aviva Glaser provided guidance and editing. Bill McGuire provided content and consulted on the development of the report. Mekell Mikell provided insightful edits. A number of reviewers provided helpful feedback on various drafts of this report. We appreciate the time everyone took to talk with us about their practices or projects. Finally we would like to thank the Packard Foundation for their support of this project. Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................1 Introduction ................................................................................................3 CHART: Multiple benefits of agriculture and land management practices ......................................................................4 1. Cover Crops ...........................................................................................5 CASE STUDY: Minnesota Corn and Soybean Farmer Grows Profits, as well as Water Quality and Climate Benefits .........................................................................6 CASE STUDY: Cover Cropping North Dakota Grain and Cattle Farmers Grow Profits, as
    [Show full text]
  • Grazing and Browsing Behavior, Grazing Management, Forage Evaluation and Goat Performance: Strategies to Enhance Meat Goat Production in North Carolina
    1 Grazing and Browsing Behavior, Grazing Management, Forage Evaluation and Goat Performance: Strategies to Enhance Meat Goat Production in North Carolina Jean-Marie Luginbuhl, Professor, J. Paul Mueller, Professor and Interim Dean of International Programs, James. T. Green, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Douglas S. Chamblee, Professor Emeritus, and Heather M. Glennon, Meat Goat Program Research Technician and PhD candidate College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina State University Campus Box 7620, Raleigh NC 27695 ABSTRACT the use of high quality forage and browse and the Goats (Capra hircus hircus) offer an opportunity strategic use of expensive concentrate feeds. This can to more effectively convert pasture nutrients to be achieved by developing a year-round forage animal products as milk, meat and fiber which are program allowing for as much grazing as possible currently marketable and in demand by a growing throughout the year. segment of the US population. With the introduction of the Boer breed and the upgrading of meat-type Some people still believe that goats eat and do goats with Boer genetics, research focusing on well on low quality feed. Attempting to manage and forage evaluation, feeding strategies and the feed goats with such a belief will not lead to development of economical grazing systems was successful meat goat production. On pasture or urgently needed to meet the needs of this emerging rangeland, maximum goat gains or reproduction can industry. The first part of this paper focuses on the be attained by combining access to large quantities of quality forage that allow for selective feeding. description of grazing/browsing behavior of goats and grazing management, and grazing strategies such Goat Brazing/Browsing Behavior as control and strip grazing, differences between Goats are very active foragers, able to cover a control and continuous grazing, forward creep wide area in search of scarce plant materials.
    [Show full text]
  • 1933–1941, a New Deal for Forest Service Research in California
    The Search for Forest Facts: A History of the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1926–2000 Chapter 4: 1933–1941, A New Deal for Forest Service Research in California By the time President Franklin Delano Roosevelt won his landslide election in 1932, forest research in the United States had grown considerably from the early work of botanical explorers such as Andre Michaux and his classic Flora Boreali- Americana (Michaux 1803), which first revealed the Nation’s wealth and diversity of forest resources in 1803. Exploitation and rapid destruction of forest resources had led to the establishment of a federal Division of Forestry in 1876, and as the number of scientists professionally trained to manage and administer forest land grew in America, it became apparent that our knowledge of forestry was not entirely adequate. So, within 3 years after the reorganization of the Bureau of Forestry into the Forest Service in 1905, a series of experiment stations was estab- lished throughout the country. In 1915, a need for a continuing policy in forest research was recognized by the formation of the Branch of Research (BR) in the Forest Service—an action that paved the way for unified, nationwide attacks on the obvious and the obscure problems of American forestry. This idea developed into A National Program of Forest Research (Clapp 1926) that finally culminated in the McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act (McSweeney-McNary Act) of 1928, which authorized a series of regional forest experiment stations and the undertaking of research in each of the major fields of forestry. Then on March 4, 1933, President Roosevelt was inaugurated, and during the “first hundred days” of Roosevelt’s administration, Congress passed his New Deal plan, putting the country on a better economic footing during a desperate time in the Nation’s history.
    [Show full text]