RANGELANDS13(1), February1991 35

Multispecies by and Sheep S.H.M. Esmall

In multispecies grazing, cattle and sheep may graze if the diets of particular species do not overlap together In a or graze at alternatetimes. These completely.Generally, competition between of systems have long been utilized in North America, Europe, the same species is less when different species graze ,and morerecently in Africa.The primary objec- together. tive of multispeciesgrazing is to better utilize Animal productioncan alsobe affected by multispecies and improveanimal production. grazing.Owensby (1988) reported that on native ranges Animalsof different grazing habits and biologicalstruc- in Texas sheep gained 10.2 kg/ha whengrazed with cat- turesoften complementeach otherwhen joined ina graz- tle, compared to 6.9 kg/ha when grazed alone. pro- ing system. in a combined mode they are better able to duction per head was 3.1 kg/ha whensheep were grazed exploit nutrients and to resist adverse conditions than with cattle and 2.9 kg/ha when grazed alone. Percent when grazing separately. Following are some general lamb crop was also higher when sheep were grazed with aspects of multispecies grazing by cattle and sheep, with cattle than when grazed alone (Taylor 1985). In other special emphasis on ecological andeconomical benefits, studies (Boswell and Cranshaw1978), the rate of gain of mechanisms utilized in various systems, and factors sheep grazingwith cattle was doublethat of sheep graz- determining maximum potential under various farming ing alone. Berlin (1979) reportedthat lambsgrazing with- conditions.Combinations other than cattleand sheep are cattle had a dressing-outpercentage 2.2 units betterthan also briefly discussed. lambs grazing alone. of lambs with cattle had higher average scores and received higher than Multlspecles Grazing Effects on Pasture Growth and those grazed alone. AnImal Production In comparing multi- and single-speciesgrazing, it is important to considerthe relativeeffects on pasturepro- ductivity, feed intake, and nutritive value, which affect both individual animal performanceand output per unit area. Studiesin NewZealand comparingchemical character- istics of cattle and sheep urine voided on ryegrass pas- tures showeda 50% loss of nitrogen in cattle urine, com- paredto a 12-26% loss in sheep urine, as measured by the increased level of ammoniain the soil surface and the higher soil pH under cattle grazing (Doak 1952). It was suggested that the overall losses of nitrogen would be less under multispecies grazing than under grazing of cattle alone. Pasture growth could possibly be improved by multispecies grazing through improved nutrientcycling. Monteathet al. (1977) in New Zealandfound that pas- tures containingmixtures of ryegrass, clover, and cocks- foot produced 9,728kg/ha/yr for cattle and 12,447 kg/ha/yr for sheep. The decreased production of cattle pasture to relative sheep pasture was attributed in part to the Cattle andsheep grazing together. heavier cattle. In addition, there was a trampling by Cattle, on the other hand, to benefit less from greater loss of tiller populationwith cattle grazingwhich appear multispecies grazing than sheep. Cattle performance in was reflected in adecreased rate of herbage growth and net on swards than on multispeciesherds was in some cases similar or better production cattle-grazed sheep- thanwith but in otherstudies it wasworse. grazedswards et al. 1985). single grazing, (Hodgson Where cattle performance was improved multispecies Increased herbage growth and production through by is oftenassociated with an increased grazing, the improvement was greater for sheep. Mat- multispecies grazing thews and Foote found an 18% for intake animal. If is not mul- (1987) improvement per herbage growth affected, cattle and 55% for Where cattle tispeciesgrazing may result in an increase in intake per sheep. poorer growth resultedfrom multispecies grazing,the increased sheep 36 RANGELANDS13(1), February1991 liveweightgain has compensated forthe decreased cattle problems for both cattleand sheep, providedthe stocking performance. rate is correct. The increased production of sheep over cattle from Economically, multispecies grazing improves income multispecies has been attributed to a variety of stability by allowing the marketing of several products. mechanisms. First, sheep compete less with cattle for Timing of sales to improve cash flow is important and resources than they do with other sheep. The ability of moreeasily accomplished with multiple products. sheep to graze forage closer to the ground would cer- tainly leadto betterutilization of pasture by sheep than by Factors Affecting Muitispecles Grazing by Cattie and cattle. This is particularly true when a higher ratio of Sheep sheep-to-cattleon pasture is used. Such a competition 1. Typeof pasture. As vegetationof pastures becomes may be reduced on pastures containing a variety of for- more diverse, multispecies grazing tends to improve age species, such as trees which could be reached by utilization. cattle and not by sheep. Second, cattle grazing may help 2. Stocking rate and cattle-to-sheep ratio. Dickson to maintainthe nutritive valueof sheep diets moreeffec- and Frame (1980) compared performanceof cattle and tively than grazing by sheep alone, since cattle graze at sheep grazing a mixture of ryegrass and white clover the sward surface and thereby improve the sheep's togetherin different ratiosand at different stockingrates. access to the lower surfaces. Sheep were less sensitive to the stocking rate and exhi- biteda growth rateadvantage atany stockingratio. Cattle Multispecies Grazing and the Control of Gastrointes- performanceand totaloutput per hectarewere notmarkedly tinal Parasites affected when lower numbers of cattle were involved at One motivationfor considering multispecies grazing is any stocking rate. thecontrol of internal parasites. in multispecies herds the 3. Economicfactors. The ratio between sheep stocking rate foreach species is lower,thus reducingthe and cattle productsis important in assessing a multispe- overall degree of contamination. cies grazing system. if the ratio is low, an all-cattle system The cross-immunitybetween cattleand sheep is also a is preferred; if high, an all-sheep system is better. In mechanism by which multispecies grazing helps control instances of equal marketvalue of sheep and cattle pro- gastrointestinalparasites (Morleyand Donald 1980).The ducts, multispecies grazingwould creategreater income intakeby sheep of larvae from bovineorigin is normallyof stability. little consequence because of host specificity.Also there is a beneficial aspect in that larvae consumptionstimu- Other Animal Combinations in Muitispecies Grazing lates the immune response in sheep to challengetheir in some areas, combination of sheep and can own parasitespecies. Resistance wasalso found in cattle, make good use of mixed grasses because of the low though to a lesser extent, as a result of intake of larvae degree of dietary overlap (Squires 1981). Sucha combi- from ovineorigin (Barger1978). In either case, complete nation would spread grazing pressure more equitably recovery from gastrointestinal parasites may not be between plant species than a mono-specific . No expected through the grazing system alone. The use of advantage of cross-immunityor parasitecontrol has been anthelmintic drugs must also be considered for better observed in sheep/ multispecies grazing, nor are control of the parasiteproblem, keepingin mind that the predator losses alleviated with sheep/goat herds. Also, drugs may be moreeconomical and effectivewhen used sheep and goats react similarly to toxic plants. in conjunction with multispecies grazing. Summary and Conclusion Other Advantagesof Muitispecies Grazing Cattle and sheep appear to bethe most suitablespecies It is possiblethatmuitispecies grazing may helpcontrol for muitispecies grazing systems. The complementary association between the two leads livestocklosses which occur in nature and are unlikelyto species to better utili- be prevented by other means. Natural , for zation of pastures, and higher resistance to adverse con- ditions such as example, could be alleviated by muitispecies grazing predator loss, gastrointestinalparasites, because cattle may fight offcoyotes and other predators. and toxic plants.The extent of increase in animalperfor- Toxic plantsare anothercause ofloss. Improved forage mance depends largelyon type of pastureand cattle-to- ratio. production resulting from multispecies grazing would sheep discourageingestion of toxic plants; animalswould tend Literature Cited to eat the forages and ignore the less palatable toxic Barger, l.A. 1978. Grazing managementand control of parasitesin plants (Owensby1988). in cases where palatable toxic In: suchas immature are sheep.p. 53-63. The epidemiologyand control ofgastrointesti- plants larkspuror lupines present, nal parasitesof sheep in Australia (Eds. A.D. Donald,W.H. Scott animals may eat as much of these plants as they do for- and J.K. Dineen). Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Re- ages. Under multispeciesgrazing, the two animal species search Organization,Australia. B. Mixed with and may react to toxic plants Larkspur is BerlIn, 1979. grazing sheep cattle comparedwith differently. highly single grazing. Swedish J. Agr. Res. 9:113-1 20. toxic to cattle but not to sheep. By contrast, lupines are Beswell, C.C.,and L.J. Cranshaw.1978. Mixed grazing ofcattle and toxic to sheep but do very little or no damage to cattle. sheep. Proc.NZ. Soc. Anim. Prod. NZ Soc.Anim. Prod. 28:116-120. Such reactions would obviously tend to reduce toxicity RANGELANDS13(1), February1991 37

Dickson, l.A., and J. Frame. 1980. Some aspectsof mixed grazing Monteath, M.A.,P.D. Johnstone,and C.C. Boswell. 1977. Effects of research in Scotland. P. 32-36. In: Proceedings workshop on animalson pastureproduction: 1- Pasture productivity from beef mixed grazing (Eds.T. Noland and J. Connoly). An ForasTalun- cattle and sheep farmlets. NZ. J. Agr. Res. 20:23-30. tais, Ireland. Morley, F.H.W, and A.D. Donald.1980. managementand sys- Doak, B.W. 1952. Some chemical changesin the nitrogenouscon- tems of helminth control. Vet. Parasitology6:105-1 34. stituents of urine when voided on pasture. J. Agr. Sci. (Camb.) Owenaby, C.E. 1988. Introduction to range management-revised 42:162-1 72. edition. AgronomyDepartment, Kansas StateUniversity, Manhat- Hodgson, J.,J.C. Arosteguy, and T. Forbes.1985. Mixed grazingby tan, Kansas. sheepand cattle: Effectson herbage production andutilization. P. Squires,V. 1981. managementin the arid zones. Inkata 1108-1110. In: Proceedings of the XV International Grassland Press, London, . Congress,Kyoto, Japan. Taylor, C.A. 1985. Multispecies grazing research. P. 65-83. In: Pro- Matthews,D.H., and W.C. Foote.1987. Multispeciesgrazing on pub- ceedings ofa conference on multispeciesgrazing (Eds. F. Baker lic lands: Impact onthe livestock.In: Proceedingsof the Western and R. Jones). Winrock International,Arkansas. SectionAmerican Society ofAnimal Science,38:87-88. UtahState University, Logan, .

Conservation Education on the Range Carol A. Slrko

The education of children about conservation of naturalresources has been an important goal of the Colo- rado Association of Soil Conserva- tion Districts (CASCO) since 1950. CASCD is anot-for-profit, scien- tific and education organization which represents Colorado's80 local soil conservationdistricts. A major policy goal of the group today is the promotionof conservation education. In the early '80s, the Association decided that, to have a lasting effect on conservationeducation, the edu- cators must be enlightened. Successfulclassroom activities arepresented byeducators for educators. Western State in Gunni- College the Conservation lands. Local rancher Ted Bemis dis- son was selectedto providea widely unique problems on grasslands. Gunnison,Colorado, cussed his system for planned graz- diverse setting for outdoor learning. and Graduate credit is offered for those with its surroundingforests, Bureau ing rotation of pastures. of Land Management holdings,and The workshopis all-inclusivein its who enroll in the workshop. The first three hear took in the summer privately owned ranches, provided days. Participants from workshop place the ideal to demon- various land- of 1981. surroundings specialists including stratetheseuniqueconditions. "Range- owners, consultantsand specialists Striving to focus on a new theme each the has fea- land . . . Its Many Uses" was a new from governmentagencies. Displays year, workshop of the 73 attendees in from various and handouts tured such as water topic to most agencies topics quality, 1989. Resource from the are available to the for soil conservation, and In personnel participants forestry. USDA Soil ConservationService, Bur- use as curriculum supplements or 1989, it focused on rangelands and eau of Land Management, Colorado catalysts in new areas of conserva- Author Is Executive Vice-President, CASCD, and U.S. Forest Services, and the tion. During the field trip on the Lakewood,Colorado. Colorado Division of made second day, the participants seecon- TheColorado Association ofSoil Conservation presentations on wildlife manage- servation practices, problems and Districts' conseationEducation Workshopfor teachers,at WesternState College inGunnison, is ment, recreation, ranching, and ripar- solutions and get hands-on exper- a cooperative effort among state, federal, local ian a ience. is In the morn- andnot-for-profit agencies. Ithas offeredthe chal- management topics, including Learning doing. lenge and thrill of hands-on learning and Gradu- tour of some well-managedrange- ing of the third day, it's peerto peer ate credit for9 years. Ofthe statewide attendees, about two-thirds have been elementary educa- tors.