- Author: Stephanie Larson
- Author: Michelle Nozzari
- Editor: J. M.
Updated Sept 17, 2020 to add link. Visit: MatchGraze.com
As previously mentioned in the September 2018 issue of the Farm Bureau newsletter, the frequency, intensity, and size of wildfires in northern California have increased. This trend is alarming given that California's fire season is expected to become longer and start earlier. The fire season started in early June this year as Sonoma County experienced smoke from Sand Fire in Yolo County. To mitigate future fire, the County of Sonoma has adopted a new hazardous vegetation abatement ordinance which mandates that parcels of 5 acres or less must maintain defensible space around all buildings/structures and remove all vegetation that poses a fire risk. As policymakers in our communities and across the state continue to explore initiatives to prevent wildfire, the agricultural community can demonstrate real impacts in reducing fire fuel through managing existing vegetation on our working landscapes - forest and rangelands. We need to educate the public on the importance of managing these valuable landscapes using a multitude of tools, especially grazing. The extent to which the public understands fire risks and accepts the adoption of all potential tools for forest and rangeland health will increase the likelihood of potential collaborative management strategies imperative to community resiliency.
Grazing is a cost-effective vegetation management alternative that works best in cases where other options are impractical and financially ineffective. Specifically, targeted grazing can be more cost-effective on landscapes that are too steep, rocky, or remote for conventional vegetation management (like mowing or chemical treatment), or in the urban-wildland interface where burning is not an option. Targeted grazing is the application of a specific kind of livestock at a determined season, duration, and intensity to accomplish defined vegetation or landscape goals. This concept has been around for decades and has taken many names, including prescribed grazing and managed herbivory. The major difference between good grazing management and targeted grazing is that targeted grazing refocuses outputs of grazing from livestock production to vegetation and landscape enhancement. The concept of a target requires that one has a clear image on which to focus and then aims something (i.e., an arrow) at the target to accomplish the desired outcome. In the case of targeted grazing, the land manager must have a clear vision of the desired plant community and landscape, and the livestock manager must have the skill to aim livestock at the target to accomplish land management goals.
As mentioned in the June 2019 Farm Bureau newsletter (Quackenbush), sheep grazing is being applied on lands throughout the county to help reduce fire danger. Targeted grazing is a very different business model than simply grazing for livestock production. Effective targeted grazing focuses on impacting target vegetation at exactly the right time for specific landscape or vegetation goals. Traditional livestock production, on the other hand, focuses on putting weight on animals or increasing reproductive success. Traditional livestock operations generate income from the sale of animals and animal products; these operations focus on body condition and the nutritional status of the animals at specific production stages. Targeted grazers generate income from vegetation management services; these operations may accept a drop in body condition or reproductive success to achieve desired impacts to low-quality forage as long as this service is paid for. Both models can reduce fire fuels; no one model is better than the other.
Last month, UC Cooperative Extension and SRJC Agriculture and Natural Resources Department offered a grazing school at Shone Farm. Landowners and targeted grazers learned how to implement targeted grazing on local working landscapes. Participants gained knowledge on how to design a grazing program on their own managed lands or if they decided not to own animals, how to use this knowledge when hiring a targeted grazer. A neighborhood grazing partnership was created at the school along with new opportunities for targeted grazers.
Additionally, UC Cooperative Extension (UCCE) Sonoma/Marin, is creating a “Match.Graze” system which connects landowners, who have no animals, to targeted grazers, those that can bring their animals on property to perform vegetation management service. If your parcel (s) is/are greater than 50 acres, this system will be a great resource. While it is more cost-effective for target grazers to grazer larger parcels, those with smaller parcels in neighborhoods or communities can join together to have multiple parcels of varying sizes in the same geographic area receive vegetation management by the same grazer. If you want more information about the use of grazing, how to set resource goals for your rangelands, or help to find a grazer for your parcel, call the UCCE office at 707-565-2621 or complete this survey to help UCCE better meet your desire to manage vegetation to prevent future fires in Sonoma and Marin Counties. The survey can be found at www.ucanr.edu/rangeland.
- Student Author: Liane Ware
- Livestock & Range Management Advisor and SRJC Adjunct Faculty: Stephanie Larson
- Editor: Karen Giovannini
This spring, I am teaching the Santa Rosa Junior College Rangeland Management class. This is my opportunity to educate aspiring students on the importance of rangelands and how to manage them. Their educational experiences include classroom lectures and field trips, learning about rangeland principles and then practice application.
Students are also required to give their impressions of what they are learning in the form of a blog. This blog was written by student Liane Ware. Stephanie Larson
On rangelands, common objectives and goals for the application of prescribed fires include removing invasive plant species (both native and exotics), controlling the amount and size of woody species to allow more open grasslands / savannas, making plants more palatable for livestock, increasing forage by removing lignified cover, and increasing crude protein in the vegetation. Burning can clear out unwanted vegetation including dense shrubs. It also removes overgrowth and layers of dead fuels. Plus, a forb flush typically follows fire depending on the season.
Rx Burns Benefit Ecosystem
Prescribed burning of rangelands can attain goals beyond cattle weight gain and improved forage quality and quantity. Fire can improve plant diversity and maintain native species. Perennials that were present historically but are now less abundant can start to regenerate with less pressure from competing annuals. Nutrients can be made more available to plants as well. With the improved rangeland vegetation and soil comes better wildlife habitat and nesting. The increase in crude protein for is a benefit for both livestock and wildlife grazers. Fire can also serve to manage heavy fuel loading on areas where grazing is not desired or feasible such as steep hillsides and/or locations where compaction should be avoided. Furthermore, prescribed burns on rangelands can help to mitigate uncontrolled wildfire by keeping woody plants in check (especially volatile fuels such as juniper).
Cool and Warm Season Burns
Prescribed fire planning must take into account the goals and the season.
- Cold season burns are intended to be cool on the surface to regenerate growth of herbaceous and grass species. These burns leave shrubs on the landscape.
- Warm season burns are better for the control of woody plants and generally do not have a different effect of the other species as that of cold season burning. It is important to plan the burn for the objective and to time conditions appropriately.
Matching the frequency, intensity, and duration of the prescribed burning as closely as possible to the historical fire regime of rangelands is critical for the goals of restoration, grazing, regeneration, and resiliency. Low-severity fires can restore the ecological characteristics of the rangeland. Roots stay intact, some vegetative cover remains, and the organic matter is not lost. The soil benefits from the short-term boost in nutrients. New growth is invigorated. Also, serotinous species can germinate, which provides additional beneficial plant-soil interactions such as stability, aeration, filtration, infiltration, bulk soil density improvements, and increases in soil organic matter.
Alternatively
However, if the fire intensity and duration on the rangelands are excessive, the severity increases. Too severe of fire can penetrate through organic matter layers of litter and humus and cause damage to the soil below because of higher temperatures reaching deeper below the surface for longer periods of time. When that happens, the soil is degraded, thereby impeding its necessary properties, functions, and relationships to varying extents. Additionally, soil may be exposed and eroded, nutrients can be volatized, water repellency can increase, and soil biota may be destroyed. Effects such as these are more common with wildfires in areas where fire has been stifled.
Therefore
That is why maintaining regime frequency is so important, and why prescribed burning should be used more. Improving the soil and vegetation of rangelands keeps them healthy. In fire-evolved landscapes, rangeland management should include prescribed burning to enhance and maintain biodiversity and ecosystem functions.
Careful planning with prescribed fire can benefit the land and those who use it.
Works Cited (Informal)
“Assessment of Prescribed Fire as a Conservation Practice,” Samuel D. Fuhlendorf et al.
“Fire as a Tool in Land Management,” Global Rangelands
“Planned Burns in the Great Plains,” Cindy Salo, Great Plains Fire Science Exchange
“Texas Rangelands,” North Carolina State University
“Using Prescribed Fire for Range Management,” Forest Encyclopedia Network
/h3>/h2>/h2>/h2>/h2>- Student Author: Dani Danielsson Bidia
- Livestock & Range Management Advisor and SRJC Adjunct Faculty: Stephanie Larson
- Editor: Karen Giovannini
This spring, I am teaching the Santa Rosa Junior College Rangeland Management class. This is my opportunity to educate aspiring students on the importance of rangelands and how to manage them. Their educational experiences include classroom lectures and field trips, learning about rangeland principles and then practice application.
Students are also required to give their impressions of what they are learning in the form of a blog. This blog was written by student Dani Danielsson Bidia. Stephanie Larson
The state of Texas has a long tradition of private property rights. Many privately owned ranches are home to Rio Grande River. These families have used their ranches for agriculture for centuries. Over the last decade and a half farmers, ranchers and property owners along the border have had threats looming of government officials constructing a stronger barrier through their ranches. Farmers and ranchers face concerns that building a stronger barrier will cut them off from acreage, water and disrupt movement of wildlife. Farmers and ranchers depend on water from the Rio Grande to irrigate crops and water livestock. Ranch owners also depend on water access for recreational use, such as fishing for Catfish and Alligator Gar; and rely on wildlife for fire risk reduction.
Studies conducted on areas where there is already a border wall in place, such as the analysis co-authored by Stanford biologists, Paul Ehrlich and Rodolfo Dirzo have shown negative effects on the environment and wildlife. The wall has prevented natural wildlife migration. Thus creating hardships for animals when in search of water, food and mates. Migration of wildlife is not only important to the existence of wildlife but to maintain a healthy ecosystem and is critical in reducing wild fire risk. Plant species such as the last surviving Sabal Palm Trees in Southern Texas are also at risk.
Sixty-two threatened, endangered and candidate animal species would be potentially threatened by the implementation of a stronger barrier. These species include Mexican Gray Wolves, Jaguars, Ocelots and Quino Checkerspot Butterflies. Of these sixty-two species, twenty-five of them will have their critical habitats degraded or destroyed. Among the species with potential for critically degraded and destroyed habitats would be Jaguars, Arroyo Toad and Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. Low flying birds, such as the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owl will also be isolated on one side of the border or the other.
As outlined here, there are far reaching consequences for the roughly 2,135,000 acres within 50 miles along our southern border that will affect rangelands, agriculture and ecosystems if a stronger barrier is built.
Citations
Website Title: National Geographic
Article Title: 6 ways the border wall could disrupt the environment
Date Published January 10, 2019
Date Accessed April 09, 2019
Website Title: UANews
Article Title: Border Fence Blocks Wildlife Movement, UA Study Finds
Date Published February 19, 2018
Date Accessed April 09, 2019
Website Title: Newsweek
Article Title: The environmental impact of the U.S.-Mexico border wall
Date Published May 22, 2016
Date Accessed April 09, 2019
Website Title: American Rivers
Article Title: Lower Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) [TX]
Date Accessed April 09, 2019
Website Title: OUP Academic
Article Title: Nature Divided, Scientists United: US–Mexico Border Wall Threatens Biodiversity and Binational Conservation
Date Published July 24, 2018
Date Accessed April 09, 2019
Website Title: Woods Institute for the Environment
Article Title: New study examines effects of border wall on wildlife
Date Published August 02, 2018
Date Accessed April 09, 2019
Website Title: The Washington Post
Article Title: Trump's border wall threatens to end Texas family's 250 years of ranching on Rio Grande
Date Published September 08, 2018
Date Accessed April 09, 2019
Website Title: Los Angeles Times
Article Title: Trump promised a border wall. Now these Texans worry the government will take their land
Date Published April 07, 2017
Date Accessed April 09, 2019
Website Title: The New York Times
Article Title: Why a Border Wall Could Mean Trouble for Wildlife
Date Published January 24, 2019
Date Accessed April 09, 2019
- Student Author: Michael O’Neil
- Livestock & Range Management Advisor and SRJC Adjunct Faculty: Stephanie Larson
- Editor: Karen Giovannini
They are also required to give their impressions of what they are learning in the form of a blog. This blog was written by student Michael O'Neil. Stephanie Larson
The Rancher: A Threatened Species
The rangelands of the United States evolved with ground disturbance since the emergence of grazing animals. With the arrival of the first Spanish settlers the rancher has played a role in this process too. American livestock grazing took off in the absence of the American Bison, which had been driven nearly to extinction by hunting, and the rancher's livestock began to fill their role in the Great Plains ecosystem. However, much like the Bison, ranchers grazing their livestock on public lands have not had an easy go of it.
Homestead laws written by lawmakers in the East favored the farmer over the rancher, making it impossible to obtain a plot of land large enough to sustain a grazing operation. With no one having rights to any certain pasture, overgrazing became common as well as conflict with incoming homesteaders. These early range managers recognized the ecological problems that overstocking was creating and pleaded with congress to write legislation to organize the range to no avail. Without adequate plots of land and control on the numbers of cattle grazing in areas the failure rate was high, nearly 100% in some areas.
As the homestead era came to an end in the late 1800's new challenges were presented to the ranchers of the American west. Around this time the government began making withdrawals of public land to create timberland reserves, parks, wildlife reserves, Indian and military reservations. In 1934 the Taylor Act was passed to create a system for leasing rangelands to ranchers, however it left ranchers completely dependent on the federal government for the use of rangelands.
Recently there has been some hope for changing the minds of grazing opposed conservationists. This comes in the form of the Allan Savory Holistic Management method of grazing which has gained a lot of attention in the last 6 years. Savory's method claims that using intense rotation and high-density livestock grazing it is possible to green deserts and reverse climate change. Although the claims made by Savory are not backed by science, his methods have shown positive results. Most importantly, his claims are sure to catch the interest of anyone concerned about environmental conservation. This could lead to an increased awareness of the benefits that gazing can provide to an ecosystem. Although Savory may not be able to accomplish all that he claims with his system, his popularity may help to open people's minds to grazing as a tool for ecosystem management and hopefully foster a better relationship with environmentalists and ranchers.
Learn more about Allan Savory's Holistic Management grazing system.
/h2>- Author: Stephanie Larson
UCCE Sonoma County along with other UC colleagues, recently received a grant to identify the impact of grazing on the frequency and severity of wildfire in California. The project will ask three specific questions:
- Does grazing reduce the likelihood of fires at the landscape scale?
- Does fire severity differ between grazed and ungrazed lands?
- What are the synergies and tradeoffs of grazing management as a tool to directly reduce wildfire risk?
Our results will be used to:
- Suggest to individual land owners the potential for grazing to reduce their risk of wildfire
- Influence policy makers to reduce barriers to grazing in California.
With the reduced frequency of wildfires, woody plant cover increased and shrublands and woodlands expanded (Miller et al., 1994). Burning was reintroduced around 1945, with the primary purpose to convert bushlands to grassland and to maintain the rangelands brush-free. An average of 67,000 acres of brush was burned annually under State permit from 1945 to 1951; and from 1951 through 1952, 133,000 acres burn annually (Biswell, 1954). With environmental conservation movement in the 1960s and 70s, controlled burning again was not favored and fire suppression was the referred management tool. This allowed ecosystems to accumulate more fuels that are prone to burning on a regular interval. Management practices can greatly affect a landscape's fuel amount and distribution. Fuel load, or biomass, is one of the most influential and easily manipulated fuel variation affective fire intensity (Strand et al., 2014). Livestock grazing is one management technique that has been shown to decrease fine fuel loading and subsequent wildfire severity (Davies et al., 2010).
Fire fuel treatments are designed to alter fuel conditions so that wildfire is easier to control and less destructive (Reinhardt et al., 2008). Cattle grazing primarily alters fuel conditions by reducing the amount of herbaceous fine fuels, whereas goat and sheep grazing can potentially also reduce the shrub component. Other fuel treatments that can be used to accomplish these same objectives include herbicides, mechanical treatments such as mowing, prescribed/controlled fires, or a combination of these treatments (Nader et al., 2007). Many studies have reviewed and describe factors affecting fuel treatment costs but studies specifically on rangelands are limited. Least cost fuel treatments will vary with conditions and objectives, but grazing alternatives appear to be cost-competitive especially if the objective is reduce fire fuel loads where mowing or a prescribed burn are potential alternatives (Strand et al., 2014).
Over the years, management has played a significant role in shaping California's rangelands. On a yearly basis, grazing can reduce the amount and alter the continuity of fine fuels, potentially changing wildfire fire spread and intensity (Stand et al., 2018). With changing climate conditions, it is now more critical than ever that grazing, as a fire fuel reduction tool, be scientifically quantified in order to demonstrate its use to landowners, managers and policy makers. California provides a unique opportunity to analyze how grazing effects wildfire trends due to the presences of long-term fire and climate datasets as well as diverse conditions under which grazing takes place. California is likely to see an increasing number of extreme fire danger days, almost doubling from current numbers over the next 50 years (Yoon et al, 2015).
The research project will use data from the past 30 years of wildfires across the whole state of California, along with data on climate, vegetation type, land ownership and biophysical variables to determine if grazed areas burned less frequently and/or with less severity than non-grazed areas. In addition, we will seek to identify trade-offs and synergies between grazing wildfire management. In areas where there is a high probability of ignition and the area is grazed, is there an optimum residual dry matter (RDM) to be managed for to reduce risk? Are there barriers to reaching the optimum RDM levels? Grazing by livestock is likely the most cost effective and practical treatment to apply across large landscapes scales to manage herbaceous fuels (Davies et al., 2015). Grazing can alter fuel characteristics of an ecosystem; however, little is known about the influence of grazing on fire, in particular ignition and initial spread and how it varies by grazing management differences (Davies, et al., 2017).
This project promotes the scientific significance andstrength of the UC network through collaboration of advisors and specialist to benefit California beef cattle producers and the rangelands they graze. It will address the priority of managing rangelands for multiple ecosystem services especially documenting the “why should we” and when to graze working landscapes to reduce fire severity in California. The research project will lead to more informed lands landowners, managers, policy makers and public on the importance of managing rangelands, through grazing. Research results will address the following issues:
Reducing Wildfire Risk. Increasingly severe wildfires are impacting an array of communities, including many lower income areas such as Lake and Mariposa Counties.
Wildfires increase air pollutants such as PM, CO and O3, amplifying problems that are already more severe in less affluent, inland areas. Wildfires put firefighter's lives at risk, reduce state funds available for other needs, jeopardize infrastructure, and increase insurance and utility costs. Improved wildland management for fire has already become a critical issue, with important implications for Low-Income Communities.
Sustaining Water Supply. Concerns were raised about the water supply that serves many counties during recent years up and down the state. East Bay Municipal Utility District rerouted staff from projects on district owned land in the Mokelumne watershed to burned areas above their reservoirs to help revegetate the watershed, and decrease erosion into Pardee Reservoir, drink water supply for the East Bay. Fires in Sonoma County about Lake Sonoma could have impacted the water source for both Sonoma and Marin County residence. In addition, the severity of wild fires in Santa Barbara and Ventura caused mud slides which lead to reductions in water quality and reservoir capacity. Improved wildland management will become increasingly important for maintaining California's water supply.
Maintaining Tourism Economy. Many of the state's rural areas, especially in the Sonoma, Santa Barbara, and Ventura depend heavily on tourism for local economies. The occurrence of fires impacted the number of tourist visiting, along with the commodities grown in those counties, i.e. grapes, vegetables, etc. The 2018 Ferguson Fire closed Yosemite National Park for an unprecedented two weeks, a large impact for a heavily touristy area around Yosemite and central California Foothill communities. Improved wildland management is becoming an important issue for maintaining tourism economies across rural California.
Increasing Grazing Lands. Many state lands are not currently managed to control fine fuels. Using livestock to manage them will open opportunities for more grazing lands, potentially allowing for greater flexibility of managing herds already in the state and providing opportunities for newer ranchers. In addition, controlling brush and reseeding an area has been documented to provide up to 2,000 lbs./acre in additional forage (Biswell, 1954), providing not only access to more forage for livestock, but also decreasing brush as a fuel. Both the coast range foothills and the Sierra Foothills can benefit from reduced brush encroachment.
Citations upon Request