DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessing Changes in the Agricultural Productivity of Upland Systems in the Light of Peatland Restoration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessing Changes in the Agricultural Productivity of Upland Systems in the Light of Peatland Restoration Assessing changes in the agricultural productivity of upland systems in the light of peatland restoration Volume 1 of 1 Submitted by Guy William Freeman, to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Biological Sciences, June 2017. This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. (Signature) ……………………………………………………………………………… 1 Thesis abstract Human activity has had a profound negative impact on the structure and function of the earth’s ecosystems. However, with a growing awareness of the value of the services provided by intact ecosystems, restoration of degraded land is increasingly used as a means of reviving ecosystem function. Upland landscapes offer an excellent example of an environment heavily modified by human land use. Agriculture has been the key driver of ecosystem change, but as upland habitats such as peatlands can provide a number of highly valuable services, future change may focus on restoration in order to regain key ecosystem processes. However, as pastoral farming continues to dominate upland areas, ecosystem restoration has the potential to conflict with existing land use. This thesis attempts to assess differences in the agricultural productivity of the different habitat types present in upland pastures. Past and present land use have shaped the distribution of different upland habitat types, and future changes associated with ecosystem restoration are likely to lead to further change in vegetation communities. Three key contributors to agricultural productivity are examined. Firstly, variation in the nutritional quality of different upland habitats is assessed, in order to understand their value for grazing animals. Secondly, levels of livestock use in different habitats are compared in order to identify areas of particular importance for grazing. Finally, parasite populations are measured in different habitats in order provide an indication of which habitats pose the greatest potential risk of infection.It is shown that these factors appear to differ between habitats, meaning that agricultural productivity may show spatial variation in upland pastures. However, it appears that peatland restoration might have a negligible impact on farming in upland pastures due to apparent minor differences in the agricultural productivity of the habitats most likely to be affected. 2 Table of contents Thesis abstract ......................................................................................................... 2 List of tables and figures ......................................................................................... 6 Author’s declaration .............................................................................................. 15 Definitions ............................................................................................................... 16 Chapter 1: Thesis introduction ............................................................................. 19 1.1 Drivers of and response to ecosystem change ........................................................................... 19 1.1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 19 1.1.2 Natural drivers of ecosystem change................................................................................... 20 1.1.3 Human drivers of ecosystem change: global biogeochemical cycles .................................. 21 1.1.4 Human drivers of ecosystem change: land modification..................................................... 23 1.1.5 Agriculture as a driver of ecosystem change ....................................................................... 25 1.2 Ecosystem services ...................................................................................................................... 28 1.2.1 The value of ecosystem services .......................................................................................... 28 1.2.2 Restoration ecology ............................................................................................................. 31 1.3 Ecosystem change in uplands ..................................................................................................... 33 1.3.1 Landscape change in UK uplands ......................................................................................... 33 1.3.2 Peatlands .............................................................................................................................. 37 1.4 Thesis outline .............................................................................................................................. 40 Chapter 2: Site descriptions and habitat mapping .............................................. 43 2.1 Exmoor ........................................................................................................................................ 43 2.1.1 Exmoor National Park .......................................................................................................... 43 2.1.2 Landscape change on Exmoor.............................................................................................. 44 2.1.3 Agriculture on Exmoor ......................................................................................................... 46 2.1.4 Exmoor peatlands ................................................................................................................ 46 2.2 Study sites ................................................................................................................................... 48 2.2.2 Habitat mapping .................................................................................................................. 54 2.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 57 Chapter 3: Sward quality in upland pastures ...................................................... 73 3.1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 73 3.1.1 The effects of ecosystem change on vegetation ................................................................. 73 3.1.2 Vegetation change in upland environments ........................................................................ 76 3 3.1.3 Peatland restoration and vegetation change ...................................................................... 78 3.1.4 Nutritional quality of plants ................................................................................................. 80 3.1.5 Nutritional quality of upland pastures ................................................................................. 83 3.1.6 Hypotheses........................................................................................................................... 85 3.2 Materials and methods ............................................................................................................... 85 3.2.1 Vegetation surveys ............................................................................................................... 86 3.2.2 Nutritional analysis .............................................................................................................. 89 3.2.3 Statistical analysis ................................................................................................................ 92 3.2.4 Mapping sward quality ........................................................................................................ 93 3.3 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 103 3.3.1 Nutritional quality of upland plants ................................................................................... 103 3.3.2 Nutritional quality of upland habitats ................................................................................ 104 3.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 104 Chapter 4: Cattle grazing behaviour in upland pastures .................................. 112 4.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 112 4.1.1 Ecosystem change and grazing .......................................................................................... 112 4.1.2 Habitat selection by large herbivores ................................................................................ 114 4.1.3 Grazing behaviour of cattle ................................................................................................ 117 4.1.4 Grazing in upland pastures ................................................................................................ 120 4.1.5 Hypotheses......................................................................................................................... 122 4.2 Materials and methods ............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CATAIR Appendix
    CBP and Trade Automated Interface Requirements Appendix: PGA April 24, 2020 Pub # 0875-0419 Contents Table of Changes ............................................................................................................................................4 PG01 – Agency Program Codes .................................................................................................................... 18 PG01 – Government Agency Processing Codes ............................................................................................. 22 PG01 – Electronic Image Submitted Codes.................................................................................................... 26 PG01 – Globally Unique Product Identification Code Qualifiers .................................................................... 26 PG01 – Correction Indicators* ...................................................................................................................... 26 PG02 – Product Code Qualifiers.................................................................................................................... 28 PG04 – Units of Measure .............................................................................................................................. 30 PG05 – Scie nt if ic Spec ies Code .................................................................................................................... 31 PG05 – FWS Wildlife Description Codes .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sheep Section Results - 2018
    Sheep Section Results - 2018 SECTION: BELTEX SHEEP CLASS: S0001/0312 AGED RAM Placing Exhibitor Catalogue No. Livestock Name 1 Mrs C L Elworthy, Exeter, Devon (3) 2 Mrs C L Elworthy, Exeter, Devon (4) 3 Miss T Cobbledick, Bude, Cornwall (2) 7 L & V Gregory, Launceston, Cornwall (5) SECTION: BELTEX SHEEP CLASS: S0001/0313 SHEARLING RAM Placing Exhibitor Catalogue No. Livestock Name 1 Mrs C L Elworthy, Exeter, Devon (10) 2 L & V Gregory, Launceston, Cornwall (12) 3 Mrs C L Elworthy, Exeter, Devon (11) 4 Mr S & Mrs G Renfree, Liskeard, Cornwall (20) 7 Mrs M A Heard & Mr G J Garland, Wiveliscombe, Somerset (15) SECTION: BELTEX SHEEP CLASS: S0001/0314 AGED EWE TO HAVE REARED A LAMB IN 2018 Placing Exhibitor Catalogue No. Livestock Name 1 Miss A H & Mrs S Payne, Newquay, Cornwall (27) 2 Miss A H & Mrs S Payne, Newquay, Cornwall (28) 3 Miss J M Lapthorne, Plymouth, Devon (26) 4 L & V Gregory, Launceston, Cornwall (23) 7 Mrs M A Heard & Mr G J Garland, Wiveliscombe, Somerset (24) ROYAL CORNWALL SHOW 2018 - SHEEP SECTION RESULTS 13 June 2018 Page 1 of 64 SECTION: BELTEX SHEEP CLASS: S0001/0315 SHEARLING EWE Placing Exhibitor Catalogue No. Livestock Name 1 Mr H Williams, Llangadog, Carmarthenshire (49) 2 Mrs M A Heard & Mr G J Garland, Wiveliscombe, Somerset (38) 3 Mr S & Mrs G Renfree, Liskeard, Cornwall (47) 4 Mrs C L Elworthy, Exeter, Devon (34) 5 L & V Gregory, Launceston, Cornwall (36) 6 Mr S & Mrs G Renfree, Liskeard, Cornwall (48) 7 Mr H Williams, Llangadog, Carmarthenshire (50) SECTION: BELTEX SHEEP CLASS: S0001/0316 RAM LAMB Placing Exhibitor Catalogue No.
    [Show full text]
  • Gwartheg Prydeinig Prin (Ba R) Cattle - Gwartheg
    GWARTHEG PRYDEINIG PRIN (BA R) CATTLE - GWARTHEG Aberdeen Angus (Original Population) – Aberdeen Angus (Poblogaeth Wreiddiol) Belted Galloway – Belted Galloway British White – Gwyn Prydeinig Chillingham – Chillingham Dairy Shorthorn (Original Population) – Byrgorn Godro (Poblogaeth Wreiddiol). Galloway (including Black, Red and Dun) – Galloway (gan gynnwys Du, Coch a Llwyd) Gloucester – Gloucester Guernsey - Guernsey Hereford Traditional (Original Population) – Henffordd Traddodiadol (Poblogaeth Wreiddiol) Highland - Yr Ucheldir Irish Moiled – Moel Iwerddon Lincoln Red – Lincoln Red Lincoln Red (Original Population) – Lincoln Red (Poblogaeth Wreiddiol) Northern Dairy Shorthorn – Byrgorn Godro Gogledd Lloegr Red Poll – Red Poll Shetland - Shetland Vaynol –Vaynol White Galloway – Galloway Gwyn White Park – Gwartheg Parc Gwyn Whitebred Shorthorn – Byrgorn Gwyn Version 2, February 2020 SHEEP - DEFAID Balwen - Balwen Border Leicester – Border Leicester Boreray - Boreray Cambridge - Cambridge Castlemilk Moorit – Castlemilk Moorit Clun Forest - Fforest Clun Cotswold - Cotswold Derbyshire Gritstone – Derbyshire Gritstone Devon & Cornwall Longwool – Devon & Cornwall Longwool Devon Closewool - Devon Closewool Dorset Down - Dorset Down Dorset Horn - Dorset Horn Greyface Dartmoor - Greyface Dartmoor Hill Radnor – Bryniau Maesyfed Leicester Longwool - Leicester Longwool Lincoln Longwool - Lincoln Longwool Llanwenog - Llanwenog Lonk - Lonk Manx Loaghtan – Loaghtan Ynys Manaw Norfolk Horn - Norfolk Horn North Ronaldsay / Orkney - North Ronaldsay / Orkney Oxford Down - Oxford Down Portland - Portland Shropshire - Shropshire Soay - Soay Version 2, February 2020 Teeswater - Teeswater Wensleydale – Wensleydale White Face Dartmoor – White Face Dartmoor Whitefaced Woodland - Whitefaced Woodland Yn ogystal, mae’r bridiau defaid canlynol yn cael eu hystyried fel rhai wedi’u hynysu’n ddaearyddol. Nid ydynt wedi’u cynnwys yn y rhestr o fridiau prin ond byddwn yn eu hychwanegu os bydd nifer y mamogiaid magu’n cwympo o dan y trothwy.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Guide to the Very Best Food and Drink in the Local Area Find Out
    Your Guide to the very best food and drink in the local area Find out where it comes from and how, where and when to enjoy it. The Taste of Exmoor Bountiful Our Exmoor landscape is bothExmoor breath-taking and bountiful. From top ‘A’ classification oysters straight from the sea at Porlock to Red Ruby Devon cows and Exmoor lambs that graze our nutritious farmland. Deer roam freely across Full Page Advert the high moors and the bees gather pollen from our heather-clad hills. We’ve noticed a growing number of talented Chefs being drawn to the area recently, enticed by the delicious local produce available. We hope you’ll be tempted too. We’ve included some of our favourite places to visit and enjoy good food here. Keep up to date with foodie events and more at www.Visit-Exmoor.co.uk/eatexmoor NORTHMOOR GIN JenVisitnette Exmoor EXMOOR’S PREMIUM QUALITY LOCALLY PRODUCED GIN. FOR A LIST OF LOCAL OUTLETS OR TO ORDER ONLINE VISIT: www.exmoordistillery.co.uk UNIT 5, BARLE ENTERPRISE CENTRE, DULVERTON, EXMOOR, SOMERSET, TA22 9BF PHONE: 01398 323 488 Eat Exmoor Guide Eat Exmoor Guide Copywriting: Jennette Baxter (www.Visit-Exmoor.co.uk) Selected Food Photography: Julia Amies-Green (www.Flymonkeys.co.uk) Design & Production: Tim Baigent (www.glyder.org) With Support from Exmoor National Park Authority. Exmoor’s Landscape –A Farmer’s Perspective Exmoor’s unspoilt landscape is of livestock, hence the characteristic a major reason why it became a patchworks of grassy fields bounded national park, but even its ancient by high hedges.
    [Show full text]
  • SOME ECONOMIC ASPECTS of the SHEEP INDUSTRY in the WEST of ENGLAND Report No
    LNjNI FOUNpATION OF ACZ1ICULTURAL E66PO.L1103 LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL DEPARTMENT of ECONOMICS (Agricultural Economics). SOME ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE SHEEP INDUSTRY IN THE WEST OF ENGLAND Report No. 1 Store Lamb Production in the Upland Areas of S.W. Somerset by R. R. JEFFERY Price 5s. .. i . SOME ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE SHEEP INDUSTRY IN THE WEST OF ENGLAND Report No. 1 Store Lamb Production in the Upland Areas of S.W. Somerset General THE changes brought about in the structure of British agri- culture, and especially in the relative importance of the various agricultural products by the exigencies of wartime and post- war conditions have been very great indeed. Nowhere has the change been more striking than in the case of mutton and lamb production which fell from a pre-war (1937-39) average of 214,000 tons to 117,000 tons in 1947, and has since recovered to approximately 149,000 tons in 1950. TABLE I Annual Production of Mutton and Lanb and of Beef in the United Kingdom Average 1937-8-9 to 1949 Mutton and Lamb Beef Tons Tons (000) % (000) % 1937-39 Average 214 100-0 591 100-0 1940 . 227 106-1 557 94-2 1941 . 176 82-2 523 88-5 1942 . 171 79-9 453 76-6 1943 . 159 74-3 445 75-3 1944 . 442 66-4 487 824 1945 . 134 62-6 517 87-5 1946 . 152 71-0 538 91-0 1947 . 117 54-7 479 81-0 1948 . 123 57-5 470 79-5 1949 . 140 654 502 84-9 1950* 149 69-6 605 1024 * Approximate figures.
    [Show full text]
  • Creators and Guardians of Breeds
    15 Creators and guardians of breeds Social and cultural factors, together with deliberate breeding decisions and management by livestock keeping communities, have been crucial in the creation of breeds. Many breeds are associated with a particular ethnic group or community and this is often reflected in their names (Köhler-Rollefson, 1997). Breeds named after ethnic groups are a vivid testi- mony of the human factor in the creation of these gene pools and the cultural link between individual ethnic or social groups and specific breeds (Köhler-Rollefson, 1993a, 1997, 2003; Rege, 2001). See Box 1 for examples. By contrast, in Europe, traditional breeds tend to be named after the geographic loca- tions in which they were developed. Examples from the United Kingdom include Lincoln Red, North Devon, Sussex and Hereford cattle; Cheviot, Exmoor Horn and Hampshire Down sheep; Berkshire and Tamworth pigs; and Clydesdale and Suffolk horses. SOCIAL BREEDING MECHANISMS Social breeding mechanisms ensure that livestock is distributed within the community and remains a long-term asset over generations; such mechanisms also allow limits to be placed on genetic exchange with the livestock kept by other social groups. For example, some livestock keeping communities prevent the sale of female stock to anyone outside BOX 1 Livestock breeds named after ethnic groups • Different groups of West African Fulani developed the White Fulani and Red Bororo cattle, and Peulh sheep and goats; Touareg developed Touareg sheep and goats. • East African pastoralists created Somali and Red Maasai sheep. • Borana pastoralists of East Africa bred Boran cattle, adapted to their three-day wate- ring interval.
    [Show full text]
  • Complaint Report
    EXHIBIT A ARKANSAS LIVESTOCK & POULTRY COMMISSION #1 NATURAL RESOURCES DR. LITTLE ROCK, AR 72205 501-907-2400 Complaint Report Type of Complaint Received By Date Assigned To COMPLAINANT PREMISES VISITED/SUSPECTED VIOLATOR Name Name Address Address City City Phone Phone Inspector/Investigator's Findings: Signed Date Return to Heath Harris, Field Supervisor DP-7/DP-46 SPECIAL MATERIALS & MARKETPLACE SAMPLE REPORT ARKANSAS STATE PLANT BOARD Pesticide Division #1 Natural Resources Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Insp. # Case # Lab # DATE: Sampled: Received: Reported: Sampled At Address GPS Coordinates: N W This block to be used for Marketplace Samples only Manufacturer Address City/State/Zip Brand Name: EPA Reg. #: EPA Est. #: Lot #: Container Type: # on Hand Wt./Size #Sampled Circle appropriate description: [Non-Slurry Liquid] [Slurry Liquid] [Dust] [Granular] [Other] Other Sample Soil Vegetation (describe) Description: (Place check in Water Clothing (describe) appropriate square) Use Dilution Other (describe) Formulation Dilution Rate as mixed Analysis Requested: (Use common pesticide name) Guarantee in Tank (if use dilution) Chain of Custody Date Received by (Received for Lab) Inspector Name Inspector (Print) Signature Check box if Dealer desires copy of completed analysis 9 ARKANSAS LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY COMMISSION #1 Natural Resources Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 (501) 225-1598 REPORT ON FLEA MARKETS OR SALES CHECKED Poultry to be tested for pullorum typhoid are: exotic chickens, upland birds (chickens, pheasants, pea fowl, and backyard chickens). Must be identified with a leg band, wing band, or tattoo. Exemptions are those from a certified free NPIP flock or 90-day certificate test for pullorum typhoid. Water fowl need not test for pullorum typhoid unless they originate from out of state.
    [Show full text]
  • ACE Appendix
    CBP and Trade Automated Interface Requirements Appendix: PGA August 13, 2021 Pub # 0875-0419 Contents Table of Changes .................................................................................................................................................... 4 PG01 – Agency Program Codes ........................................................................................................................... 18 PG01 – Government Agency Processing Codes ................................................................................................... 22 PG01 – Electronic Image Submitted Codes .......................................................................................................... 26 PG01 – Globally Unique Product Identification Code Qualifiers ........................................................................ 26 PG01 – Correction Indicators* ............................................................................................................................. 26 PG02 – Product Code Qualifiers ........................................................................................................................... 28 PG04 – Units of Measure ...................................................................................................................................... 30 PG05 – Scientific Species Code ........................................................................................................................... 31 PG05 – FWS Wildlife Description Codes ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • B COMMISSION DECISION of 7 February 2006 Implementing Council Directive 94/28/EC As Regards a List of Authorities in Third Co
    2006D0139 — EN — 01.06.2008 — 001.001 — 1 This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents ►B COMMISSION DECISION of 7 February 2006 implementing Council Directive 94/28/EC as regards a list of authorities in third countries approved for the keeping of a herdbook or register of certain animals (notified under document number C(2006) 284) (Text with EEA relevance) (2006/139/EC) (OJ L 54, 24.2.2006, p. 34) Amended by: Official Journal No page date ►M1 Commission Decision 2008/453/EC of 10 June 2008 L 158 60 18.6.2008 2006D0139 — EN — 01.06.2008 — 001.001 — 2 ▼B COMMISSION DECISION of 7 February 2006 implementing Council Directive 94/28/EC as regards a list of authorities in third countries approved for the keeping of a herdbook or register of certain animals (notified under document number C(2006) 284) (Text with EEA relevance) (2006/139/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Directive 94/28/EC of 23 June 1994 laying down the principles relating to the zootechnical and genealogical conditions applicable to imports from third countries of animals, their semen, ova and embryos, and amending Directive 77/504/EEC on pure- bred breeding animals of the bovine species (1), and in particular Article 3(1) thereof, Whereas: (1) Directive 94/28/EC lays down the principles relating to the zootechnical and genealogical conditions that apply to imports from third countries of certain pure-bred animals and their semen, ova and embryos.
    [Show full text]
  • Sheep Classes & Entry Form 2019
    Devon and Somerset Staghounds and Exmoor Pony Society EXFORD SHOW – SHEEP CLASSES & ENTRY FORM 2019 SHOW DATE: 14th AUGUST 2019 A Show for the two local breeds – Devon Closewool and Exmoor Horn Please return all Cups and Trophies to your Breed Secretary at the Sheep Section by 10am latest on the day of the Show. The Presentation of prizes will take place at 1.00pm. Judging will commence at 10.00am prompt. Please have your sheep there one hour before if possible. PRIZE MONEY - FOR ALL SHEEP CLASSES 1st - £15.00; 2nd - £10.00; 3rd - £7.00; 4th - £5.00; 15 or more in class 5th - £3.00 Sheep Young Handler Competition JUDGES: Mr & Mrs John Tucker At 12 noon there will be an informal and welcoming competition for Young Handlers so that prospective young shepherds can show their sheep. There will be classes for: Under 6 years of age 6 – 10 years of age 10 – 13 years of age Champion Young Handler - A cup will be given to the overall winner of the first prize winners from each of the above classes. Prize money, rosettes and a medal will be given for each class. Exmoor Young Farmers will have their own Show of Ewes and Lambs. Everyone is very welcome to visit the Sheep Show, just inside the Main Entrance Gate, to see some of the finest sheep on Exmoor. EXFORD SHOW GROUND, COURT HILL, EXFORD, SOMERSET (nearest postcode TA24 7NC) HOLDING NO.: 36/092/8104 Devon and Somerset Staghounds and Exmoor Pony Society EXMOOR HORN JUDGE: Mr Edward Harding Breed Secretary: Mrs Jan Brown All classes confined to sheep registered in their respective Flock Book.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNUAL SHOW (Founded 1832)
    MULL & MORVERN AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY ANNUAL SHOW (Founded 1832) GLENAROS - MULL THURSDAY 12TH AUGUST 2021 Entry Classes Due to Covid regulations, ALL ENTRIES MUST BE SUBMITTED ONLINE IN ADVANCE Closing date 16th July 2021, by which time all entry fees must be paid. Flora - do you want anything else on this page for the online pdf?? SHEEP CLASSES Note: Due to health reasons, the Committee would appreciate that no ‘Moorit’ is applied within two weeks of the show date. Sheep Section Entry Fee - £1 per animal per class in advance COMPETITION FOR MEMBERS OF MULL YOUNG FARMERS UNDER 30 YEARS OF AGE Open to all breeds - Judging to take place in Blackface ring at 10am sharp 1. ONE TUP 2. ONE MILK EWE 3. ONE EWE LAMB 4 . ONE GIMMER BUNTY MACPHAIL MEMORIAL TROPHY (T019A) for Champion Sheep in Young Farmers Section - Presented by Norman MacPhail BLACKface SHEEP NOTE: CONFINED CLASSES are for Crofters, Smallholders & Teenagers under 16 years, none to own more than 100 breeding ewes. NB NO SAWDUST - ONLY STRAW TO BE USED IN SHEEP PENS (TO BE CLEARED AWAY AT END OF SHOW) CLASS 1 TUP: 3 shear and upwards CLASS 2 cONFINED: TUP; 3 shear and upwards CLASS 3 TUP: 2 shear CLASS 4 CONFINED: TUP; 2 shear CLASS 5 SHEARLING TUP CLASS 6 CONFINED: SHEARLING TUP CLASS 7 SHEARLING TUP: Bred in show district Cup Donated by the Society in memory of JOHNNIE MILLER of SALEN (T020) CLASS 8 TUP LAMB CLASS 9 CONFINED: TUP LAMB CLASS 10 MALE BLACK FACE SHEEP: Including lambs, bred by exhibitor DUART CUP (T021) CLASS 11 MALE BLACK FACE SHEEP: Not necessarily bred by exhibitor
    [Show full text]
  • Historic, Archived Document Do Not Assume Content Reflects Current
    Historic, archived document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. Rev •ed. follows CATTLE BREEDS ror BEEF and ror BEEFand MILK FARMERS' BULLETIN NO. 1779 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE A RATHER COMPLETE DESCRIPTION of the breeds of cattle kept primarily for beef or for both beef and milk on farms and on ranches in the United States is given in this bulletin. The farmer or rancher should study his condi- tions and requirements before selecting a breed. If a herd is to be maintained for the production of feeder calves or creep-fed calves, it would be desir- able to select a breed that has been developed pri- marily for beef purposes. On the other hand, if it is desired to market milk or other dairy products together with veal calves, feeders, or fat cattle, any one of those breeds or strains developed for both beef and milk will be a good choice. There are registry associations for most of the established breeds herein described. The names and addresses of the secretaries of these associations may be obtained upon request, from the Bureau of Animal Industry, United States Department of Agri- culture, Washington, D. C. This bulletin is a revision of and supersedes Farmers' Bulletin 612, Breeds of Beef Cattle. Washington, D. C. Issued October 1937 BEEF-CATTLE BREEDS FOR BEEF AND FOR BEEF AND MILK By W. H. BLACK, senior animal hiisbandnian. Animal liusbandry Division, Bureau of Animal Industry CONTENTS Page Development of beef-cattle breeds _ 1 Breed^ developed in the British Isles -Con.
    [Show full text]