Noble News And Views

NOBLE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Article by DR. MYRIAH D. JOHNSON, Senior Director, Sustainability Research, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association / mdjohnson@beef.org WILL MOSELEY, Noble Research Institute wildlife and fisheries consultant / wamoseley@noble.org

Figure 1 - carrying capacity declined due to increasing mesquite cover. (*from Teague et al. 2001)

Noble Research Institute’s focus is achieving regenerative land stewardship in grazing animal production with producer profitability. Regenerative ranching is the process of restoring degraded or maintaining healthy grazing lands using practices based on ecological principles.

As land managers, we should strive to manage rangelands with natural processes such as grazing, fire and rest from disturbances to ensure we have healthy and functional ecosystems. Using regenerative land practices frequently to manage brush is more economical compared to doing nothing and eventually needing to use highdisturbance and high-cost inputs such as dozing or herbicides.

For this article, we will focus on the idea of what would happen to rangeland if mesquite was not managed during a 30-year period, based on an article written by Richard Teague, Ph.D., Texas A&M University and colleagues. Figure 1, which is from their article, graphically depicts the tradeoff between both carrying capacity and hectares per animal unit (AU) with percent mesquite coverage. This example assumes the area is completely clear of mesquite at the starting point and will support slightly less than 0.12 animal unit year (AUY) per hectare (or slightly more than 21 acres per AUY).

For the first 15 years, mesquite coverage slowly increased to approximately 15 percent and only a minimal decrease in AUY per hectare occurred. However, in years 15 to 30, there is a steady decline in carrying capacity to less than 0.04 AUY per hectare (or more than 62 acres per AUY). Over the course of these 30 years, fewer head of livestock could be supported and fewer pounds of livestock production per acre could be sold, creating a loss in revenue.

We will assume there are 1,000 acres in the operation and 500-pound calves are weaned and sold each October. If the cows weigh 1,100 pounds on average, we can support roughly 41 cows (24 acres per cow). With an 85 percent weaning rate,

To learn more about how Noble Research Institute supports agricultural producers through research, education and direct consultation, visit www.noble.org.

there would be 35 calves to market each fall. This herd size could be supported for the first 15 years.

We assume the operation can support 33 cows with 28 calves to market at Year 18, then 22 cows and 18 calves at Year 23, 16 cows and 13 calves at Year 28, and finally 14 cows and 11 calves by the time we reach Year 30.

To calculate the loss in revenue, we compare the pounds that would have been marketed if the land was clear to the pounds marketed when the carrying capacity had declined. For example, marketing 11 calves at year 30 instead of 30 calves at Year 1. Using Oklahoma City prices from 2003 to 2019 for 500- to 600-pound steers and heifers, it is estimated that approximately $171,000 in revenue would be lost.

To confound this even more, most producers do not recognize the increase in brush and never reduce their stocking rate, resulting in overgrazing and a largely nonfunctional ecosystem. The resulting common practices are to increase feeding and rely on annual herbicide use.

We estimated the costs of several management methods, including prescribed fire, aerial treatment and individual plant treatment (IPT). These practices can be combined to try to reduce overall costs. For example, aerial spraying can be followed up with prescribed fire to maintain open grazing lands. It was also assumed that these management practices were started in Year 13, just before destocking would have to start taking place, except for prescribed fire, which starts in Year 1 to maintain open grasslands.

As you can see in Table 1, prescribed fire is the cheapest of all options to manage mesquite. Grubbing is the most expensive.

An easy way to reduce costs further is to join a local prescribed burn association so equipment costs are reduced. Also, if a land manager owns a disk and/or mower, costs can be reduced by maintaining fireguards themselves. They can also use existing features, such as roads, for fireguards. IPT costs can be reduced as well if a land manager is willing to do the work themselves.

Two of these options, burning and aerial spraying, cost less than losing $171,000 in revenue; however, you must have the cash on hand to implement these practices. Also, just because the practice is economical does not necessarily mean it is regenerative.

Prescribed fire, in addition to being the cheapest option, is the only practice that is considered regenerative, a practice based on ecological principles. We want to get away from relying on herbicides and mechanical control techniques. These practices are reactive and do not use ecological processes to maintain healthy grasslands.

The goal is to work with nature to maintain and promote ecological functioning. The reliance on herbicides and mechanical control techniques is usually a product of poorly functioning ecological systems. These high-input practices can have potential negative consequences by disturbing the soil, which can allow invasive plants to establish and release stored carbon into the atmosphere.

If land managers do not use prescribed fire, then the only three options are to lose significant revenue, incur significant costs to recover grazing lands, or harm the ecosystem with overgrazing. As shown here, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” is still very relevant.

For more information about typical prices charged for custom agricultural services, view the Texas Agricultural Extension Service custom rate sheet at https://agecoext.tamu. edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ TXCustomRatesSurvey2020.pdf.