- Author: Dan Macon
Like many of you, I expect, I've recently debated whether to keep my social media accounts - Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram sometimes seem like a bottomless pit of advertising and argument. But then something like this happens....
Last week, I wrote about the idea of an "ecological calendar" - a way to think about our production calendars from an ecological perspective (read the post here). I included my first rather awkward attempt at graphically displaying my own sheep production calendar - and shared the graphic on Instagram.
Within several hours, I had the most wonderful response from someone who listens to our Sheep Stuff Ewe Should Know podcast - complete with an actual, real-world ecological calendar from a famous sheep-producing region in France! Yeva (@why_suarez on Instagram) shared this:
"The inner orange circle says “troupeau en montage” (herd in the mountains) and troupeau en crau (the Crau is a geographical area). Most sheep farmers in the south of France move their sheep to the mountain areas (like Haute Savoie, the mountains between Italy and France. Pyrenees is another system yet again) as there's not enough green pastures available, because of the high temperatures that dry out the land and/or because the irrigated areas are used to produce hay (there are more reasons, but that's the short version!). Wolves are a big issue, they will be guarded by a shepherd throughout the summer. But back to the calendar.
"You see two blue lines pass through all the circles, one: mid-June; one: beginning of October. That's when the sheep are away, which matches with the outer circle that says “estives dans les alpages.” Estives means summer pasture. Most of the sheep will be taken there, represented in the tiny sheep symbols. Outside that period is says in the circle “enneigement en montagne,” which is basically snow in the mountains!
"The arrows show the movement of the sheep to the different kind of pastures. In the Crau, you basically have two kinds, the green one that is irrigated and produces the hay and the dry one or the “Coussouls” that have a very specific kind of biodiversity and is known for its many rocks.
"It's a bit complicated to explain because it's a circular system, so it's all linked – which also makes it very cool, because the entire calendar is pasture and hay based, including lambing dates, etc. But basically, Foins de Crau is a very famous hay that's produced with a complicated irrigation system and is subject to many rules if it wants to qualify as “foins de crau,” as it's known for its very high quality. They cut it three times a year (in the calendar it says “1ere coupe = first cut, etc.). Each “cut” has a different nutritional component and is marketed differently. The fourth cut is not actually cut; it is eaten by the sheep when they return from the mountains. That's why you see the sheep symbols between October and February in the same circle as the “cuts” – we call those kinds of pastures the “prairies.”
"Half February (the blue line only overlaps the prairies and coussouls) they are then moved to the coussouls. The prairies will start growing again for the first foins de crau cut and the cassouls offer enough food. Some other shepherds bring sheep to hill areas nearby instead of the coussouls – it tends to depend on the particularities of that farm. The amount of sheep symbols has grown in the cassouls circle, because the herds tend to be much bigger as this calendar reflects an autumn lambing period, which is the overall tendency here.
"Outside the inner circle is a smaller blue one that shows when the prairies are irrigated with water and when not (“arrossage de pres”). The specific timing of the movement of the herds would be a much longer story! But I hope the different layers of the calendar are clearer now and why they are linked."
I shared this calendar explanation with my friend Dr. Hailey Wilmer, who is the Research Rangeland Management Specialist at the U.S. Range Sheep Production Efficiency Research Unit, in Dubois, Idaho. Her observation was that "calendars can help tell stories across landscapes." I agree - looking at the calendar Yeva shared, and the explanation she provided, helped me look again at my own calendar. I asked myself these questions:
- What is the heart of our sheep operation in terms of nutrition and forage? For us, I think, it's the annual rangeland we use in the winter and again in summer.
- What is the second most important forage resource? In our case, it's our irrigated pasture. Pasture is more productive - and also more costly. With sheep, we could probably figure out how to get along without it.
- Finally, how do our production needs (vaccinations, shearing, lambing, etc.) fit within these underlying forage cycles?
All of this brings me to a question for you! How does your production system fit the ecological cycles in your region? I hope you'll share! And I guess I'll keep my social media accounts for now....
- Author: Dan Macon
Over the last ten years or so, I've had the opportunity to help teach farm and ranch business planning courses (first, as a collaborating producer; more recently, as an extension advisor). One of the exercises we've used to help producers relate their cash flow budgets to their production calendars is to create an operational timeline that includes key management activities - as well as the associated inflows and outflows of cash. While this timeline has been a useful teaching tool - it always seemed a bit flawed to me. The work of ranching, after all, is cyclical rather than linear. During our most recent Beginning Farming Academy, I tried a new approach - a circular calendar rather than a timeline. And it so happens that a recent article in Rangelands (the non-technical journal published by the Society for Range Management) puts a name to this approach. Karim-Aly Kassam, of the Department of Natural Resources and the Environment and the American Indian and Indigenous Studies Program at Cornell University, calls these "ecological calendars" - calendars that provide a systematic way to measure and give meaning to time based on our observations of the habitats in which we live.
As I read this paper, I realized that my approach to raising sheep largely revolves around this idea of an ecological calendar. Our sheep year starts and ends with the forage cycle here in the Sierra foothills. My starting point is to match our period of greatest nutritional demand (late gestation and early lactation - lambing season, in other words) with the time period when Mother Nature provides the greatest quantity of highly nutritious forage (the "spring flush"). This decision point gives us the ability to adjust our stocking rate to seasonal changes in the carrying capacity of our rangeland and irrigated pastures. We wean the lambs as the annual rangeland forages dry out. We manage our irrigated pasture to be sure we have quality forage prior to and during breeding season. Our ewes have their lowest nutritional demand during the late fall months. In many ways, our approach reflects an emphasis on the productivity of the ewes rather than the weaning weights of individual lambs - we're optimizing our ewes' ability to turn forage into fiber and lambs.
Our decision about when to lamb sets up other key dates in our production system, as well. We shear the ewes when the youngest lambs are 4-6 weeks old - in early May. The ewes shear better then, and we avoid some of the stickers that can contaminate our wool. We dry the ewes off (wean the lambs and end the ewes' lactation) on dry forage in mid-Summer - which allows us to rent the ewes out for fuel-load reduction on unirrigated rangeland. We flush the ewes (prepare them for breeding) in September, when our irrigated pasture begins to recover from the heat-induced summer slump in productivity. We turn the rams in with the ewes in late September, and the entire cycle starts again!
But as I've thought about our approach through the lens of an ecological calendar, I've realized that the key dates in our system have nothing to do with the chronological date - and everything to do with the annual cycles of weather and forage production. Rather than the names of the months, the headers on my ecological calendar are events - Germination Day, the Onset of Rapid Growth, the Summer Slump, the Autumn Rebound. Unlike the rigidity of the Gregorian calendar that most of us use, this ecological approach to our production schedule is incredibly flexible! Weaning day happens when the grass dries out, for example - which could be late May or late June, depending on the year. Longer-term flexibility is also possible - if we begin to see that our moisture and temperature regimes in the late winter and early spring change the timing of the spring flush, we can adjust our lambing date (by adjusting the date on which we turn the rams in with the ewes).
I suppose some will say that we're simply ranching with nature - that we're just adjusting our production to the cycles around us. But giving meaning to time based on my own observations of the world around me seems deeper than simply picking a lambing date to coincide with spring growth. Keeping track of how the world around me changes in response to things like the timing and amount of rainfall, the temperature of the air and the soil, the humidity and wind here in the foothills - all of this helps me adjust my interactions with the natural world. All of this helps make adapting our sheep enterprise to ever-changing conditions easier!
- Author: Dan Macon
Working in partnership with CALFIRE Nevada-Yuba-Placer, sheriff's offices, and offices of emergency services in Placer, Nevada, and Yuba Counties, the livestock community established a 3-county Livestock Access Pass program for commercial livestock producers. While the system was not formally tested in 2021, we have established a systematic approach to helping livestock producers gain safe access to their operations during an emergency. This post summarizes the 2021 efforts and identifies needs and opportunities moving forward.
Steering Committee
The Placer-Nevada-Yuba Livestock Access Pass Program was created by a steering committee comprised of ranchers from all three counties and the Agricultural Commissioners from all three counties, facilitated by UC Cooperative Extension.
Members
Joe Fischer (Placer County Rancher) Roger Ingram (Placer County Rancher)
Laura Barhydt (Nevada County Rancher) Kevin Pharis (Nevada County Rancher)
Carrie Richards (Yuba County Rancher) Justine Dutra (Yuba-Sutter Farm Bureau)
Josh Huntsinger (Placer County Ag Dept) Chris deNijs (Nevada County Ag Dept)
Steven Scheer (Yuba County Ag Dept) Dan Macon (UCCE)
Commercial Livestock Production
The steering committee established the following criteria for determining whether a livestock operation is commercial in nature (for the purposes of the program):
- Qualified Commercial Livestock Operator: For the purposes of this program, a commercial livestock operator is defined as an owner of livestock consisting of 50 head of livestock (including in utero, e.g., 25 bred cows), 100 poultry or rabbits, or 50 beehives or more that reside in Placer, Nevada, or Yuba County for at least a portion of the year, or a person who, through an agreement with that owner of livestock, has authority and is responsible to oversee the care and well-being of the owner's livestock.
- Livestock Species Covered by Program: This program applies to commercially raised species of livestock, including cattle, sheep, goats, hogs, poultry, rabbits, llamas, alpacas, and bees. “Commercially raised” means the livestock are raised as part of a business.
- Application for Registration: To become enrolled in the program, a Commercial Livestock Operator must provide contact information, APNs and/or physical addresses of grazing sites, general season of use, livestock description and count, and other information by completing an online form. Producers without internet access were able to enroll with assistance from UCCE.
Coordination with Other Agencies
The steering committee coordinated with CALFIRE, county sheriff's offices, and county offices of emergency services. Through this coordination, we identified communication needs, a system for integrating the program into the incident command system, and producer training needs.
Producer Training
UCCE and CALFIRE collaborated on organizing an initial four-hour training session in each county. Each session included an overview of the program (UCCE), a discussion about emergency management and the incident command system, a presentation on fire behavior and fire safety (CALFIRE), a presentation on disaster planning at the ranch level (UCCE), and a general discussion about rancher experiences with evacuations and other emergencies. At the conclusion of each training, each producer was photographed for inclusion in their Livestock Access Pass. The Placer County training was held in early August. Due to an increase in wildfires in August and September, the Nevada and Yuba County training sessions were not held until late October.
Producer Demographics
|
|
Placer County |
Nevada County |
Yuba County |
Total |
|
Producers registered |
21 |
41 |
24 |
86 |
|
Producers trained |
11 |
24 |
13 |
48 |
Operation Characteristics (registered producers)
|
Beef Cattle |
Sheep |
Goats |
Swine |
Dairy |
Poultry |
Rabbits |
Bees |
Other |
Average # of Species |
|
56 |
31 |
21 |
15 |
6 |
20 |
2 |
8 |
9 |
2.02 |
|
67% |
37% |
25% |
18% |
7% |
24% |
2% |
10% |
11% |
|
Pass Creation and Distribution
Following each workshop, UCCE staff created an individual, personalized pass for each participant. These were then mailed/delivered to the county agriculture department (in the producer's home county) for signature and sealing. Passes were returned to UCCE and mailed to participants.
Observations and Ideas for 2022
- Given the time it took to develop the program, we were fortunate to complete training sessions in all three counties. Ideally, the training should occur in the late winter or early spring in future years.
- Having Nevada County OES and Sheriff participate in the workshop in Nevada City was outstanding. We will make sure that OES and Sheriff representatives are available for future trainings.
- There are many more producers who we need to reach. We advertised via local cattlemen and farm bureaus, as well as through my newsletter list, but we still missed many producers.
- We'll be offering a 1-hour refresher training for current participants and a 4-hour training for new participants. While tempting to do both virtually, there is definitely value in an in-person interaction with CALFIRE and local agencies.
- Our programs are consistent with the provisions of the new state program created by Assembly Bill 1103 (Dahle). The state program does not necessarily require board of supervisors' endorsement, but we should think about formal presentations in each county.
If you're interested in participating in the Livestock Access Pass program in 2022, contact me at dmacon@ucanr.edu or call (530) 889-7385.
- Author: Dan Macon
Which Dog? And How Many?
One of the hazards of referring to livestock guardian dogs (LGDs) as predator protection “tools” is that we seem to think of them like other tools. While one claw hammer might be reasonably interchangeable with any other claw hammer, I've found that every LGD I've worked with is an individual with his/her own personality, strengths, and weaknesses. Just as I wouldn't use a claw hammer to install a wood screw, I wouldn't use each of my dogs identically. That said, I certainly didn't realize this nuance when I started using LGDs!
Researchers (and I include myself in this) have a tendency to want neat models against which to test our hypotheses. This approach can lead to “hard-and-fast” rules that might work for experiments but that have little basis in real-world management. For example, there are several scientific papers that suggest that the proper ratio of LGDs to livestock is 1 to 100 – that is, for every 100 sheep in a flock (or cows in a herd), a rancher needs one dog to optimize predator protection. In reality, the ratio of dogs to livestock is much more fluid; it depends on the individual dog, the predator pressure and environment, the stage of production for the operation, and a host of other factors. The researcher part of me wants this definitive ratio; the rancher and extensionist in me knows the answer to question, "how many dogs," is always, “It depends.”
We currently havethreeLGDs in our small sheep operation, which is at least one too many for part of the year. During our 6-week breeding season, we have three groups of sheep (two breeding groups and our replacement ewe lambs, which are not big enough to breed). Typically, we keep one dog with each group. Following breeding, however, we combine all three groups into one larger mob and separate the rams. In our environment (and since we also use electric fence), one dog can usually protect the big mob until we start lambing in late February. Depending on where we put the rams post-breeding, we can sometimes get by without putting a dog with them. Once we start lambing, though, the dogs' work becomes more challenging. We lamb during a time of year when there is not much “natural” prey for the coyotes and mountain lions here in the foothills. We lamb on pasture, typically in paddocks that are 8-10 acres in size, with rolling terrain and substantial brush and/or tree cover. Consequently, we find that we're more comfortable with two dogs during lambing (as are the sheep). Once we wean the lambs in late June, we run the replacement ewe lambs and feeders separate from the main flock again – and keep a dog with each bunch.
Over the last four summers, I've been working with a large-scale sheep operation that grazes on the Tahoe National Forest north of Truckee. They typically turn out 3,000-plus ewes and rams in three bands of roughly 1,000 ewes each. These are dry ewes; that is, they don't have lambs at their sides. While there are many predators present on the landscape (our trail cameras have picked up coyotes and black bears, and gray wolves have occasionally traversed the region), there is also a plentiful supply of natural prey – fawns, in particular, but other smaller mammals, as well. As a result, the sheep operation has been able to get by with just 1 to 4 dogs per band – and has experienced fewer than 5 ewes lost to predators in the four years I've been researching their use of dogs.
Most cattle producers in California have little experience in working with LGDs, and their natural assumption is that the dogs need to protect all of the cattle, all of the time. In talking with ranchers in the Northern Rockies who are using LGDs to protect cattle, I suspect the reality of using dogs with cattle is based on the situation – just as it is with sheep. Dogs are placed with groups of cattle that are particularly vulnerable to predators – first calf heifers during calving season, for example, or stocker cattle that may be grazing in an area with greater predator pressure. Other classes of cattle may not be as susceptible to predators – because of the stage of production or the area in which they're grazing.
This situational approach suggests that some producers have specific times of year when they may not need ANY dogs. Again, unlike that claw hammer, a dog can't simply be put back in the tool box and stored until needed. We “store” our extra dogs with our sheep – at the moment, we have two dogs with one of our breeding groups, even though one would suffice. Other ranchers tell me that they sometimes kennel an extra dog for short periods, or they'll allow a well-bonded dog to decide which particular group of livestock it wants to “protect.”
Understandably, fitting LGDs into a complex cattle operation might be difficult. Consider an operation that manages cattle with multiple irons and/or ownership arrangements, on a combination of owned and leased private land, as well as federal land. Add in stocker cattle (which may be owned or grazed for other producers), heifers that may need a little extra attention at calving, grazing permits that require cattle to be dispersed out of riparian areas, and other considerations – adding dogs quickly becomes extremely complicated. Other predator protection tools might be more viable. And each ranch will likely have some level of predator problems that are within acceptable limits.
- Author: Dan Macon
- Author: Laura Snell
Bonding works both ways...
Bonding a livestock guardian dog (LGD) to livestock is a critical first step in using dogs to protect livestock from predators. Practically, the bonding process helps ensure that the dog will stay with livestock; economically, successful bonding improves the cost effectiveness of this tool. But as I've learned in bonding my own LGDs with our sheep, the bonding process has to work in both directions. The dog must be bonded to the livestock, obviously; naïve livestock take some time to bond to the dog, as well. We're learning this lesson again as we're bonding Sam the LGD pup with cattle in Likely, CA.
Several weeks ago, our rancher-collaborator, Myles Flournoy, needed to work some calves – and decided to work the seven orphaned calves that had been bonding with Sam. Myles had some smaller orphaned calves that he intended to replace them with; figuring a new set of calves would be helpful in Sam's progress. I would have figured the same thing.
These new calves had been around herding dogs, but never a 50+ pound goofball of a puppy. Sam was excited to meet his new “friends.” The calves, unfortunately didn't share his enthusiasm. Myles reported that Sam clumsily bounded up to the calves – and proceeded to push them through the electric fence, leaving Sam sitting next to the now flattened electro-net! The new calves had not been exposed to electric fence, nor had they been fed grain (as the first calves had been) – these new experiences made the transition even more challenging. Myles sorted off two of the original calves and added them back to the pasture – they were happy to see Sam! Myles reported that it took more than two weeks of uncertainty, but by the time I visited the ranch on October 13, the new calves had settled down, as well. And the bonding process continues.
I've noticed a similar dynamic when I've purchased sheep that have not been with an LGD. The naïve sheep are typically afraid of the dogs – probably because all of their prior interactions with dogs have been with herding dogs or with dogs that are chasing them for sport. I've found if we combine the new sheep with our own ewes (who know and trust our LGDs), they settle down quickly.
Ranchers who use LGDs with cattle report comparable observations. Cat Urbigkit, a Wyoming sheep and cattle rancher who uses LGDs extensively, tells me that she will introduce dogs to uninitiated cattle along with two or three steers or heifers that are well-used to the LGDs. Having cattle that trust the dogs seems to calm the new cattle more quickly. Jill Hackett, who runs a cow-calf and sheep operation in Humboldt County, says it took about 6 months for her cattle to completely bond to the dogs. Anna Harvey, who ranches in Sierra Valley, says it took longer than that initially, but now that there are cows in her herd who are used to the dogs, it only takes two days for the new cattle to become comfortable with the LGDs.
In observing our sheep with our dogs – and in observing Sam with his calves yesterday – this reciprocal bonding becomes evident. Some of our sheep will actively seek the dogs when they bed down. Myles reported that when he returned the two original calves the pasture, they walked over and nuzzled Sam (a phenomenon I observed yesterday, as well). The benefit of this reciprocal bonding has practical implications beyond keeping livestock and dogs together. A research project at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, ID, found that ewes and lambs grazing in the company of an LGD traveled greater distances: “Our findings support the hypothesis that sheep with LGDs spend less time being vigilant for predators and more time moving,” the researchers reported, adding “As a result of traveling greater distances, ewes may also be exposed to more and varied foraging opportunities. The observed changes in movement behavior may result in more effective use of pasture resources” (Webber, B. et. al 2015 - read the abstract here).
Sam still has a long road ahead of him – he is still a puppy, after all! But I am impressed with the progress he's made – and with the progress the calves are making. And once again, we are incredibly thankful for the work that Myles and the entire Likely Land and Livestock crew are putting into this effort! Stay tuned!
