Galt, Dee, Francisco Molinar, Joe Navarro, Jamus Joseph, and Jerry Holecheck, Grazing capacity and stocking rate. Rangelands, Dec. 2000, 7-11.
RELEVANT TO |
LIVESTOCK GRAZING |
SPECIES |
|
CLIMATE CHANGE |
DESCRIPTION
This 2000 article from Rangelands is a summary of recommendations by five rangeland experts regarding the ecological and economic benefits of grazing capacity surveys and stocking rate.
MAJOR FINDINGS
The authors offer three major recommendations:
- Update grazing capacity surveys every ten years
A grazing capacity survey provides information on:
- Infrastructure
- Ecological condition of various pastures'
- Land unsuited for grazing due to terrain, distance from water, and other constraints
- Past range use
- Range trend
- Noxious plant problems
- Wildlife grazing use
"Ideally, at least 3 years of forage production data should be collected to establish grazing capacity."
"The average number of livestock a ranch has carried over the previous 5, 10, or 20 years may have little relevance to what it will support in any given year or group of years."
"The most basic decision on the new permit is the number of animal units that will be assigned to the allotment."
- Assign 25% forage use to livestock; 25% to wildlife and natural disappearance, and 50% for site protection.
Actual measured forage use on several New Mexico rangelands has been 10-15% higher than the intended use.
"We increasingly hold the opinion that a 25% harvest coefficient is a sound idea for most western rangelands. After careful analysis of their own and existing research, Johnston et al [citation in article] recommended a 25% harvest coefficient for Australian rangelands. It allows both forage species and livestock to maximize their productivity, allows for error in forage production estimates, greatly reduces problems from buying and selling livestock, reduces the risk of financial ruin during drought years, and promotes multiple use values."
"The authors' research and experience across a variety of landscapes, ranches, and countries shows a 25% harvest coefficient is the surest way to avoid chronic forage deficits and land degradation."
"Unused forage in wet years provides a reserve e of forage for drought and increases plant vigor and soil water infiltration. Rather than a waste, we see it as an investment in the future."
- On 0-10% slopes, no stocking rate reduction; 30% reduction for 11-30% slopes; 60% reduction for 31-60% slopes.
Politically, large public land ranchers in particular resist stocking reduction because their net worth and security of grazing privileges are closely associated with livestock numbers specified on their grazing permit.
QUESTIONS RAISED FOR THE THREE FORESTS
- Have any of the three Forests ever analyzed average forage utilization use compared to assigned utilization? If not, is there any reason to believe that the finding by Galt et al. of 10-15% higher use is unreasonable?
- Do any of the three Forests gather or use actual forage production data?
- Do any of the three Forests implement stocking rate reductions for slopes, e.g. 11-30% slopes or 31-60% slopes?
- Has any of the Forests analyzed the economics of 25% utilization rather than the common 40% to 60% currently allowed?
RELEVANCE TO FOREST MANAGEMENT
- This document reinforces the reasonableness of the Sustainable Multiple Use Alternative with respect to livestock grazing. This alternative has been ignored in the current DEIS for cattle grazing permit reissuance on eight cattle allotments.
- At least the Fishlake NF is proposing to reissue 10 year permits for cattle grazing on eight allotments without addressing within the NEPA document a number of elements that would seem to be required for scientific conclusions re: the sustainability of the proposed grazing:
- the "most basic decision:" animal unit months
- forage production data
- wildlife forage use
- invasive exotic species presence or trends
- precipitation records
- range trend analyses for all allotments
- ecological condition of various pastures