The site, designated as the Langford Escarpment, is 15 kilometres southeast of the town in northwestern Manitoba and is now protected to preserve its endangered ecosystem, the NCC has said.

Why it matters: Grasslands have been noted for their role in preserving biodiversity on the Prairies.

The 178-hectare parcel has been a cornerstone of the Harper family’s history since the early 1900s.

“That the property is donated and conserved for the benefit of nature seems the most fitting way to honour my family and the land,” said family member Judith Harper, in a Nov. 19 press release.

The Harper family donated 25 per cent of the property’s value to the NCC. Additional funding for the purchase came from the Canadian government through the Natural Heritage Conservation Program, part of Canada’s Nature Fund.

Steven Guilbeault, federal minister for environment and climate change, lauded the Neepawa-area family for the deal. Their values reflect Manitoban appreciation for the beauty and value of the Prairies, he said, adding that the province’s grasslands “play a critical role in the recovery of species at risk.”

“These investments are part of our national conservation campaign to protect 30 per cent of land and water in Canada by 2030. Protecting the natural environment in Manitoba reflects our whole-of-society approach to meet our conservation goals.”

The Langford Escarpment conservation project is part of the NCC’s Prairie Grasslands Action Plan. The national strategy seeks to conserve more than 500,000 hectares of grasslands by 2030. That plan was launched in June 2023.

“Grasslands are the most endangered ecosystem in Canada,” Jeremy Hogan, NCC director of prairie grassland conservation, said at the time. “There’s only 18 per cent left across the three Prairie provinces so it’s a very important campaign that we’re embarking on to make sure that what is left is protected.”

The program initially highlighted projects in all three Prairie provinces. In Manitoba, they included a 455-hectare conservation easement deal near Wawanesa, which represented the largest such easement deal in the province.

“We at the NCC are very lucky that there are numerous families that enjoy and want to preserve the legacy of grazing … (by) financially donating a portion of that property to help us,” Josh Dillabough, natural area manager with the NCC, recently told the Co-operator.

While the grasslands are protected, the land base of the newest deal will still contribute to agriculture.

The Langford Escarpment project will maintain ties to the Langford Community Pasture, and the NCC plans to collaborate with local livestock producers to continue grazing practices that mimic natural disturbances. The environmental group says that will ensure the grasslands thrive and the species that depend on them continue to find habitat.

Saving grasslands requires collaboration with producers for the betterment of nature, culture and the economy, Dillabough said.

“Families like the Harpers, and partners like the Association of Manitoba Community Pastures, are just a few of the people responsible for the existence of grasslands in Manitoba today. We are honoured to be a part of this story and look forward to continuing to move forward for a better tomorrow.

“We understand it’s a working landscape, and people have to be able to make a living on it.”

Barry Ross, general manager of the pastures association, agreed that land conservation is an important goal for the Langford Community Pasture.

“We’d like to thank the Harper family and the NCC for their foresight in conserving this important working landscape and look forward to continuing to work together.”

While primarily grassland, the property also spans ecosystems from oak savannas, aspen and oak forests, creeks and basin wetlands. Those habitats support wildlife ranging from moose, elk and black bears to ruffed and sharp-tailed grouse, wood ducks, blue-winged teals and red-tailed hawks. The site also provides refuge for at-risk species, including the golden-winged warbler, red-headed woodpecker, common nighthawk and eastern wood-pewee.

The post Neepawa family guards endangered grasslands appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The Department of Interior, which oversees BLM, announced the move in letters to key congressional committees. The decision will save taxpayers US$50 million on costs like real estate, salaries and travel expenses and will locate BLM officials closer to the areas they serve, officials said.

BLM is charged with overseeing programs on vast swathes of public lands including grazing, oil and gas drilling and recreation.

Most BLM land is in the western U.S. and includes about 155 million acres of grazing land and rangeland in 14 states, among them Montana, North Dakota, Idaho, Washington and Alaska. U.S. cattle and sheep producers hold almost 18,000 grazing permits and leases on BLM-managed public lands.

The BLM will move 27 Washington-based staff to a new headquarters in Grand Junction, about 390 km west of Denver, and an additional 222 positions will be relocated to other agency offices in the U.S. west close to where their work is needed.

For instance, staff working on the agency’s timber program would move to Oregon, and those working on rangelands and grazing would move to Idaho.

Conservation groups were quick to say the move amounted to a dismantling of the agency by moving it away from the place where decisions are made. Such groups have been critical of the Trump administration’s efforts to open up more public lands to oil and gas drilling and to loosen environmental policies aimed at protecting federal lands.

In a statement, Center for Western Priorities executive director Jennifer Rokala called the move “another cynical attempt to drain the Interior Department of expertise and career leadership. Our public lands deserve an agency that is effectively co-ordinating with the Interior Department more broadly, and with Congress.”

On a conference call with reporters, BLM officials said such critics lacked an understanding of how the agency’s business is conducted.

“Most of the work of the bureau gets done at the state and local level,” said Joe Balash, Interior’s assistant secretary for land and minerals management.

Experienced BLM employees who choose to relocate will be able to mentor a new generation of BLM staff, he added.

— Reporting for Reuters by Nichola Groom. Includes files from Glacier FarmMedia Network staff.

The post U.S. to move BLM headquarters to Colorado appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“Pollinators are critical to rangelands themselves, and the plants that are there,” said Cameron Carlyle, an assistant professor at the University of Alberta, who is not only studying the benefits pollinators provide, but tracking how well they are doing.

The range of pollinator species is diverse but they roughly fall into two groups, he said.

“Bumblebees are the large fuzzy bees that we commonly think of when we think of bees. Solitary bees tend to be smaller and take many forms. Bees aren’t the only pollinators — moths, butterflies and flies are other insect pollinators — but generally most pollination done by insects in our grasslands is done by bees.”

Pollinators have ‘co-evolved’ with native plant species, said Cary Hamel, conservation science manager of the Nature Conservancy of Canada’s Mani­toba region.

“These ecosystems have been evolving for thousands of years,” he said.

Most ranchers think of rangelands in terms of their ability to produce grass for their cattle, but it goes beyond that. Healthy and productive rangelands have a diverse array of species, including native forbs (such as buffalo bean or pea vine) or introduced ones (such as clover or alfalfa).

“The productivity of that grass could be partially dependent upon forb (flowering plant) species that are present,” said Carlyle. “Anything that is flowering is going to be dependent upon pollination and a lot of that is dependent upon insect pollinators.”

So if pollinators disappear out of the rangeland ecosystem, then some plants, such as nitrogen-fixing legumes, will, too.

“If we start to lose (legumes) then we would see declines in productivity,” said Carlyle. “Not to mention the loss in diversity in forage types on the landscape.”

In much of Western Canada, we don’t know if native pollinators are on the decline. But Carlyle said other research indicates bumblebee numbers are falling. The exact cause isn’t known but there are indications that their ranges are shifting and that a changing climate is a factor.

“Climate change is likely going to impact these native bees,” said Carlyle. “They are getting ‘squished’ as the climate changes because southern areas will become too warm for them but their populations can’t move north fast enough.”

Helping them out

So what can grazers do to sustain a diverse and abundant pollinator community?

Keeping your range in good health tops the list.

“Our research has found a fairly strong positive relationship between range health and bee diversity and bee abundance,” Carlyle said. “In general, a lack of invasive species, a diversity of plants, and the maintenance of structure is more conducive to a healthy pollinator community,” added Hamel. “If you have land with flowers or flowering plants, that’s a great start. Continue to maintain those habitats.”

Diversity is also a good thing as shrubs and forest, grassland, and wetlands provide a variety of habitat for different pollinators. However, in the Aspen Parkland zone, keeping open meadows and prairie areas intact and free from shrub and tree encroachment benefits pollinators.

Having different types of grasses also helps.

“Bunchgrasses can be really important in terms of where they nest,” said Hamel, noting butterflies complete their lifecycle on the rangeland and the caterpillars will use grass as a source of food.

“Many native species are tied to native grasses.”

Having nearby tame pastures can also be a plus as they provide an additional food source for pollinators, which can travel several hundred metres or even, for some species, a few kilometres.

“Tame pastures usually have a significant floral component and they can play a role in conservation,” said Hamel, adding having different food sources at different times in the growing season “makes the landscape stronger.”

Both Hamel and Carlyle have seen different pollinator communities use different stages of rangelands at different times throughout the year.

“On recently grazed rangeland, the grazing resulted in a reduced litter layer, we suspect,” said Hamel. “It meant the site warmed up early in the spring and it had a greater abundance of pollinators in the springtime and a greater diversity.”

Large ranches, for example, that have a diversity of land uses and grazing approaches typically have a greater diversity of pollinators. And when rangeland borders cropland, particularly canola fields, both landscapes benefit.

“When we look at Alberta, or anywhere on the Prairies, there is this mosaic of different land uses — cropland and rangeland,” said Carlyle. “What we are also seeing is areas that have more rangeland, whether you’re in a canola field or in rangeland, if a piece of land is surrounded by more rangeland, you’re going to have more bees and a more diverse bee community.”

However, canola and other flowering crops only provide their abundance of pollen and nectar for a brief period, so rangelands are the key provider — and not only for food.

“Many bees nest in the ground or amongst dead plant material, so rangelands and other areas with undisturbed soils are important nesting grounds for bees,” said Carlyle. “Areas such as cropland where soils and the soil surface are regularly disturbed are less suitable nesting grounds.”

Both Hamel and Carlyle said there is little research on native pollinators — but both are working on changing that.

‘As we learn more, I suspect there are going to be some surprises,” Hamel said.

The post You want pollinators to make their home on your range appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“The project is born out of similar initiatives that started in the United States, Alberta and then Saskatchewan. They have developed these tools for assessing rangeland health, looking at various indicators like bare soil, litter cover, soil stability, presence and abundance of obnoxious weeds and the successional status of the plant community,” said Mae Elsinger, range management biologist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC).

Traditionally, rangelands have been assessed based on the successional status or the plant species composition of the community. But, Elsinger says that did not provide a clear enough picture.

“You might have a poor species composition, but you have an abundance of productivity, very good ground cover, you don’t have any weeds and the ecosystem is functioning. It is capturing water, producing forage for wildlife and livestock. It is intercepting nutrients, capturing sunlight, all of those ecological functions. So, just species composition was inadequate,” Elsinger said.

Assessment potential

The assessment will be a customized workbook that will allow users to compare the current plant community to the potential community that could exist on the site.

It will have the ability to provide users with an inkling as to what their land may be capable of in health and function, allowing them to make better management decisions or modifying management practices.

“What it can do is allow people to compare what they have now for a range or pasture to what the potential is and that gives them a sense of what adjustments they could make to achieve a higher productivity or deliver a better level of ecological goods and services,” Elsinger said.

Manitoba will be looking to Alberta and Saskatchewan’s current assessment methods as a reference in creating a version specific to Manitoba’s climate, geography and plant species.

“We are intending to make this specific for Manitoba, given that we have different environmental conditions than Saskatchewan and Alberta and we also have different plant species here too, as we have a different set of warm-season grasses that normally don’t show up in Alberta and Saskatchewan,” Elsinger said.

The initiative will see the development of a rangeland plant community guide, which will describe current and potential rangeland plant communities for Manitoba’s four key eco sites – sand, moist, dune and loam.

An eco site map and spatial dataset will be published, which will show where a user can expect to find the different eco sites that are defined by soil texture, geological origin, salinity, slope and drainage.

The tool will help land users and producers to determine potential plant community composition, forage production, stocking rates and the impacts of management practices on ecological functions.

The project has been funded through Growing Forward 2 and is operated by a well-rounded steering committee, which includes Jane Thornton and Bill Gardiner from Manitoba Agriculture, Chris Friesen with Manitoba Sustainable Development, Rebekah Neufeld with Nature Conservancy Canada, Terence McGonigle with Brandon University, Duncan Morrison and Chris Yuzdepski from Manitoba Forage and Grassland Association, Mae Elsinger, Bev Dunlop and Kerry LaForge from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and Jeff Thorpe with the Saskatchewan Research Council.

Stakeholder workshop

A number of individuals from a wide range of sectors was brought together in November for a one-day workshop to determine what this tool should look like and how stakeholders should move forward with the project.

“We discussed what these stakeholders think an assessment for rangeland and pastures should look like in Manitoba and what the indicators should be. We developed a very good list of indicators and took a look at the other variety of ways that health is being assessed on grasslands and pastures,” Elsinger said.

The workshop allowed stakeholders to learn about various ecosystem health assessments and allow them to provide input into what indicators could be used for assessment methods in Manitoba.

“What surprised me was that whether these stakeholders came from a conservation background or livestock productivity background, it seemed like we all agreed on what some of the most important indicators would be. That was very exciting for me to see,” Elsinger said

Elsinger says the timeline to complete the assessment depends heavily on funding, but once complete the tools will be made available to the public on the Manitoba Forage and Grassland Association website.

“The timeline is dependent of funding opportunities. We have been trying to do this since 2010 and it has gone very slowly. We could probably have this completed by 2020 but the two limiting factors are the funding, and the amount of time people have to work on it,” Elsinger said.

For more information visit the MFGA website.

The post Creating a better process for assessing pasture appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Government Relations Minister Donna Harpauer on Monday announced the POV on non-arable (range) land such as pastures will be set via regulatory amendment at 45 per cent, up from 40.

POVs, set by the province, are used to calculate taxable assessments from land’s assessed values, calculated by provincial assessment appraisers.

In Saskatchewan, revaluations on land for tax purposes are done every four years, at which time POVs are also reviewed and, if need be, adjusted.

Taxable assessments are then multiplied by the mill rate, which is set by municipalities and the province for local and education property taxes respectively.

The POV on rangeland was set at 40 per cent in 2005, the province said, as a support for ranchers in the wake of the 2003 BSE crisis.

The update on rangeland for 2017 is meant “to reflect current values and to mitigate some of the tax shift onto cultivated agricultural properties.”

The value of Saskatchewan’s total taxable assessment on farmland has risen by over 100 per cent since the last revaluation in 2013, the province said.

The POV on cultivated agricultural land remains at 55 per cent, while the POV on residential, multi-unit residential and cottage properties will rise to 80 per cent, from 70. The commercial/industrial POV remains at 100 per cent.

Across all land categories, the value of Saskatchewan taxable assessment has risen from to $146 billion in 2017, from $108 billion in 2013.

“The ministry carried out extensive consultations last summer on projected revaluation-driven tax shifts,” Harpauer said Monday. “Municipalities have the tools to provide additional tax relief if they wish to do so.”

Education property tax mill rates are decided in the provincial budget process and are to be announced on budget day in March, the province said. — AGCanada.com Network

The post Taxability to rise on Saskatchewan rangeland appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The occupation, which began on Saturday, followed a march in Burns, a small city about 80 km north of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, in support of Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son, Steven Hammond.

Hammond and his son, convicted in 2012 of setting fires that spread to public land, traveled to Los Angeles on Sunday evening to turn themselves in to federal authorities, according to their lawyer W. Alan Schroeder. They were to be sent to back to prison after federal prosecutors won an appeal that resulted in their resentencing to longer terms.

Their ranch borders on the southern edge of the refuge, a bird sanctuary in the arid high desert in the eastern part of the state, about 490 km southeast of Portland.

The protest was being led by Ammon Bundy, the son of Cliven Bundy, owner of a ranch in Nevada where his family staged an armed protest against the Bureau of Land Management in April 2014. The agency sought to seize Bundy’s cattle after he refused to pay grazing fees. Federal agents finally backed down, citing safety concerns, and returned hundreds of cattle to Bundy.

Federal and state authorities have not said how they planned to respond to the occupation of the refuge’s headquarters in Princeton, Oregon.

It involved an unknown number of people, Jason Holm, a spokesman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management, said in a statement. No employees were in the building.

Holm described the occupation as a break-in, although federal justice and Interior Department officials contacted later declined to say whether any crimes were committed in the occupation.

Wildlife refuge buildings were closed over the holiday weekend. As of Sunday night, the FWS website for Malheur said the refuge is closed until further notice, citing the occupation at the facility.

In an interview posted on Facebook, Bundy said the occupation was in reaction to the government intrusion into the rights of private-property owners.

“It is the people’s facility, owned by the people,” Bundy said. “It has been provided for us to be able to come together and unite and make a hard stand against this overreach — this taking of the people’s land and resources.”

Bundy told CNN some of the occupiers were armed.

The Hammonds distanced themselves last month from the Bundys, according to a letter Schroeder, wrote to the county sheriff on Dec. 11.

“I write to clarify that neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone with his group/organization speak for the Hammond family, Dwight Hammond or Steven Hammond,” Schroeder wrote in the letter, which was seen by Reuters.

The incident is part of a decades-old conflict between ranchers and the federal government over Washington’s management of hundreds of thousands of rangeland. Critics of the federal government say it often oversteps its authority and exercises arbitrary power over land use without sufficient accountability.

‘Alternative motives’

Bundy told a news conference on Sunday he had yet to communicate with any law enforcement officials. He said occupiers planned no violence unless that was justified by actions taken against the occupants. He would not say how many people were inside the headquarters.

He encouraged anyone opposed to overreach by the government in the management of federal lands to join the occupation at the refuge.

“For those that understand what is going on, and those who want to and feel a need to stand, we’re asking them to come,” he said. “We have a facility that we can house them in.”

“We will continue to monitor the situation for additional developments,” Holm said in the statement. He did not immediately return a phone call seeking further details. No one answered a call to the phone number of the refuge.

Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward was critical of the protesters and their motives, and advised local residents to stay away from the refuge.

“These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.”

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, encompassing 292 square miles, was established in 1908 by President Theodore Roosevelt as a breeding ground for greater sandhill cranes and other native birds. The headquarters compound includes a visitor centre, a museum and the refuge office.

— Jim Urquhart is a Reuters reporter and photographer. Reporting for Reuters by Kevin Murphy in Kansas City; additional reporting by Brendan O’Brien in Milwaukee and Mark Hosenball in Washington. Includes files from AGCanada.com Network staff.

The post Protesters occupy Oregon wildlife refuge as rangeland dispute flares appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The current issue of Rangelands, the journal for the Society for Range Management, reports on the demographic trends in the industry in Wyoming. Using statistics, maps, and graphs, the authors consider nearly 90 years of census and other data related to these trends. They examine how the agricultural community is aging and consider ways to inspire interest in farming and ranching.

The United States has a rich agricultural history. Family farms once employed nearly half of the country’s workforce. But that culture has changed; today most farms are corporate, mechanized, larger in size, and fewer in number. Only two per cent of today’s workers are employed at U.S. farms or ranches.

The authors of the Rangelands article focused on the High Plains, specifically Wyoming, which still holds large tracts of working land. They reviewed decades of United States Census data, sorting it into classes based on worker age. They then mapped the results to pinpoint both state- and county-level trends.

They found that more than half of today’s farm operators are older than 55. In all but two counties in Wyoming, farming has attracted even fewer people 34 years and younger. Most counties have also seen drops in the 35 to 54 age bracket. As a result, the average age of farmers and ranchers has increased in every county in Wyoming since 1920.

Based on their results, the authors forecast a bleak farming future: no operators younger than 35 by 2033 and an average age of 60 by 2050. Even if their children and grandchildren show interest in agriculture, farmers often cannot afford to keep their land and equipment. They “retire” and sell — often to residential or commercial developers. The authors state that the trends in Wyoming are occurring throughout the United States.

The authors conclude that the loss of farmers, ranchers, and their land is compounded by the loss of local wisdom.

They argue for a new approach that turns young heads away from the lucrative oil and coal industries. Teaching and internship programs, government incentives, and conservation easements that preserve farming and ranch estates are among the tools already in use.

They suggest that if young state residents learn more about their local environment and agricultural heritage, these programs could be even more successful in attracting the next generation of farmers and ranchers.

The full text of the article “Wyoming’s aging agricultural landscape: Demographic trends among farm and ranch operators, 1920–2007,” Rangelands, Vol. 36, No. 6, 2014, is available here.

Rangelands is a publication of the Society for Range Management published six times per year.

The post Study predicts no farmers and ranchers under 35 by 2033 appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Researchers with Arizona State University’s School of Life Sciences led an investigation that quantified this loss in both the United States and Argentina. The study’s results are published in the Aug. 19 online issue of the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

“While the phenomenon of woody plant invasion has been occurring for decades, for the first time, we have quantified the losses in ecosystem services,” said Osvaldo Sala, Julie A. Wrigley chair and foundation professor with ASU’s School of Life Sciences and School of Sustainability. “We found that an increase in tree and shrub cover of one per cent leads to a two per cent loss in livestock production.” And, woody plant cover in North America increases at a rate between 0.5 and two per cent per year.

In recent years, the U.S. government shelled out millions of dollars in an effort to stop the advance of trees and shrubs. The U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service spent $127 million from 2005-09 on herbicides and brush management, without a clear understanding of its economic benefit.

• From the Canadian Cattlemen: Measuring agriculture’s shadow

The research team used census data from the U.S. and Argentina to find out how much livestock exists within the majority of the countries’ rangelands. In both countries, the team studied swaths of rangeland roughly the size of Texas — approximately 160 million acres each. These lands support roughly 40 million head of cattle. Researchers also used remote sensors to calculate the production of grasses and shrubs. And, to account for the effects of different socio-economic factors, researchers quantified the impact of tree cover on livestock production in two areas of the world that have similar environments, but different level of economic development.

Surprisingly, the presence of trees explained a larger fraction of livestock production in Argentina than in the U.S.

“What’s happening in Argentina seems to be a much narrower utilization of rangelands,” added Sala. “The land there is mostly privately owned and people who have ranches are producing predominantly meat to make a profit. But in the U.S., many people who own ranches don’t actually raise cattle. They are using the land for many other different purposes.”

While ranchers clearly depend on grasslands to support healthy livestock, ecosystems also provide a range of other services to humans. Stakeholders such as conservationists, farmers, builders, government entities and private landowners, depend on the land for a variety of reasons and each has different values and land use needs.

• From the Canadian Cattlemen: Planned grazing makes for healthier pastures

Why are trees and shrubs taking over grasslands? There are several hypotheses as to why woody plant encroachment is happening. Fire reduction, grazing intensity, climate change, and increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are some widely held beliefs as to the cause. However, Sala’s study is focused not on the cause, but rather on the cost of this change to people.

“For each piece of land, there are different people who have an interest in that land and they all have different values. And, they are all OK,” said Sala. “However, in order to negotiate how to use the land and to meet the needs of these different stakeholders, we need concrete information. We now know how much increase in tree cover is affecting the cattle ranchers.”

Sala and his colleagues hope that the information found in their study will be used to inform discussions as policy-makers and other stakeholders negotiate changes in land use. Researchers who took part in the study include Sala and Billie Turner II with ASU, José Anadón with City University of New York, and Elena Bennett with McGill University. National Academies Keck Futures Initiative and the U.S. National Science Foundation funded the study.

The post Sometimes cattle don’t displace trees — the trees displace cattle appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Calculating the carrying capacity of the land will help you stock to a level that maintains the health and productivity of both the land and the animals that feed on it.

But how do you make that calculation?

The 13 participants in the recent 2011 Pasture Tour for Women, organized by South Parkland Beef Seminars, stopped by Charlotte Crawley’s farm near Clanwilliam where provincial forage and pasture specialist, Jane Thornton, demonstrated how.

It starts with going out into the fields and clipping samples of forage within an area 50 x 50 cm in size from parts of the pasture that have not been grazed. The samples are then dried down – using a microwave is fine as long as you are careful to put a cup of water in with the grass to prevent it from catching fire – and weighed once dry. Thornton then calculates the approximate forage yield based on those weights using the formula; grams x 35.6 = lbs./acre.

Thornton usually clips in mid- July and again in mid-September and recommends collecting data from a number of years to build up an average forage yield that is reasonably representative across various conditions.

The next step is to calculate the utilization rate, which determines how much forage is used or lost to grazing, trampling, insects and wildlife. This helps determine how much material needs to be left behind to maintain future production.

On Crawley’s farm, Thornton also clipped from grazed areas and showed a yield of around 2,500 lbs./acre in the non-grazed areas and 1,600 lbs./ acre in the grazed areas, which meant that about one-third was used during grazing. In other words, about two-thirds of the plant material was left behind after grazing, which, Thornton says, is pretty much ideal for the time of year to allow for rapid, good-quality regrowth and maintain the quality and volume necessary for the herd.

“On good pasture, cows can fill up in three to four hours,” says Thornton. “But on short pasture they are still only able to graze for a maximum of about 14 hours a day, allowing for time to chew and rest, so pasture that is grazed too low will limit their intake.”

Also, using pasture at a rate that exceeds the plant community’s ability to cope will promote weeds, lower forage production and encourage less palatable and productive species to invade the pasture.

Once the amount of forage yield and utilization rate have been determined, the carrying capacity can be calculated, which gives both the total forage available and the livestock forage requirements (see sidebar). There are two ways to use the information, either to determine the number of head a system can carry or to determine how many days a specific herd can graze in the system (see sidebar).

To determine litter yield, Thornton demonstrated how to hand rake all of the brown litter in an area 50 x 50 cm, making sure not to include any green material. There are then two ways to determine whether the amount of litter present is optimal, either by visually comparing the amount collected to the Rangeland Health Assessment Litter Threshold (see link below), or by calculating the weight of the litter using the same formula as used for the grass yield lbs./per acre.

The amount of litter that is left on the land can make a big difference in the performance of your pasture, says Thornton. Litter includes ungrazed residue from previous year’s growth, residue from bale grazing, fallen stems, leaf material and other partially decomposed material. Litter helps to conserve moisture by reducing evaporation, improving infiltration and cooling the soil surface.

NOT POSSIBLE

It’s simply not possible to have maximum lbs./day weight gain per cow and maximum lbs./acre gain for the pasture, says Thornton. Crawley, for example, is managing her pastures to obtain the maximum pounds of beef per acre. She moves the cattle every one to two days and tries to allow at least 30 days rest before regrazing.

Managing pasture resources for maximum benefit, as with many other areas of agricultural production, is often a balancing act that has many variables, like how much bush pasture is on the land, the type of operation and goals of the individual farmer. But depleting resources for some short-term gain usually catches up in the long run.

“It’s exceedingly hard to convince some people that they need to rest their pasture for 30 days,” says Thornton. “But a cow does not have an environmental conscience and it doesn’t care if it is degrading your resource. It’s important to balance the needs of the pasture with the needs of the cows.”

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/BiodiversityStewardship/Grazing RangeManagement/documents/ Range_Health_Grassland. pdf

The post Carrying Capacity Is Not Just About Numbers appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Canada’s forage resources, including both native rangelands and cultivated crops, exceed 700 million hectares, or 70 per cent of Canada’s land base. Canada is the third-largest exporter of forages, and accounts for approximately 10 per cent of the world market share of international forage shipments. In 2008, Canada’s forage exports were valued at $153 million.

Football And Farm Chemicals

Dow AgroSciences has kicked in for a multiyear sponsorship agreement with the Canadian Football League.

“We share many of the same customers, a passion for serving them well, and some great ideas for working together to bring them even closer to our league and our game,” CFL commissioner Mark Cohon said.

“We’re confident our partnership will be as fun for our fans as it will be productive for our businesses.

The post Forage As An Export Crop appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.