How Important is "Non-selective Grazing?"

Many of the grazing gurus of the planned grazing methods make a big issue over needing cattle to graze in a non-selective manner. I have to admit, I've done my share to add to the confusion, so now it is time to (try) and clear up the muddy waters.

Much of our feeling that selective grazing is bad is due to the ultra-selectivity used by cattle in a set stock situation. They get so selective that they go back and re-graze individual plants they grazed a couple of weeks earlier, so that those plants never get a chance to fully recover, while they completely ignore plants of the same variety only inches away. As a result, fewer plants are able to reach some semblance of a full recovery.

The cycle starts again the following growing season with those plants which "fully recovered" greening up first, followed by the surviving overgrazed plants, with those which were not grazed greening up last.  These  plants which were not grazed the previous year will very likely go un-grazed again and begin to oxidize and slowly die, a blade or two at a time.  The cycle repeats with plants being either over grazed or under grazed until weeds start appearing as the grass dies off.

While this overly selective grazing is a bad thing, a certain amount of selective grazing is actually necessary. Different grasses and browse plants mature and are ready to be grazed at different times. In our efforts to mimic the wild herds we have forgotten this aspect, as well as the fact that the large wild herds have always come together and fallen apart depending on the time of year, and abundance of feed and water. While high animal density and non-selective grazing is beneficial while grazing irrigated pasture, under range conditions we need to know when to use it, and have the flexibility to to adjust for those times when, nutritionally, the cattle to be highly concentrated or slightly spread out to take advantage of the higher quality forage which may not be highly concentrated, especially on desertified, degenerated rangeland.

A good example would be a pasture which has a large stand of tabosa or alkali sacaton in part of it while other parts of the pasture is made up of a variety of sparse grasses and browse. I order to get optimal nutritional benefit of the tabosa and alkali sacaton, the cattle will need to be highly concentrated. In conditions where there is a large mono culture (or a wide diversity of plants ready to be grazed) we are looking for, and need them to practice non-selective grazing.

In these conditions, if their herd instinct has been rebooted, they will close together in strips. Unlike when they are being forced into non-selective grazing with fences, the cattle will not graze to the ground, but leave half to two thirds of the plant. Leaving half to two thirds of the plants allows for faster recovery of the plants, and overall, more animal grazing days per acre, and a higher average daily gain on cattle.

Conversely,  when the cattle are grazing a minimal pasture it is highly unlikely that one will be able to accurately judge the amount of feed the cattle will receive.  There is a 90%+ probability that cattle being forced into non-selective grazing under these conditions will lose weight instead of gain, even if protein supplements are added.  Rebooting herd instinct and placing cattle to migrate these marginal areas will allow them to select enough of the plants they need to maintain condition while making enough impact to begin regenerating the soil and grass. Even if feed density requires that the cattle migrate through fifty or even a hundred feet apart, it is still more than enough impact to stimulate the microorganisms in the soil and new forage growth.

In nature, the "large herds of herbivores" we are trying to mimic only occur for a short amount of time each year; when there is enough grass and water for the herds to habitat in an ultra high density. The rest of they year they are scattered to fit feed and water availability, while selectively grazing plants with the highest nutritional value. In nature, availability of water will play at least a big of factor in herd size as feed. By providing an adequate water supply year round, we are allowing them to stay closer together, actually creating more positive animal impact to the soil biology than in nature.

By allowing cattle to graze selectively while migrating through pastures during the dormant season, we are actually creating the conditions to regenerate cool season browse and grasses. At the same time, rather than forcing them to graze non-selectively, your cattle come closer to meeting their nutritional requirements, lowering, or even eliminating the need for supplemental feeding.


Determining when you need the cattle to practice non-selective grazing, or spread out and graze selectively is simple once their instinct to act as a herd is rebooted. They will tell you what is needed as they are grazing. All you have to do is place them on their grazing path and they will instinctively do the rest on their own as you migrate them through your grazing plan.

Instinctive Migratory Grazing (IMG) on the Chihuahua Desert

     Last week I had the privilege to be part of a group visiting the Santa Maria Cattle Company in Chihuahua, Mexico. Owner Fernando Falomir was a student at my first low stress stockmanship school in Mexico, and has been practicing the methods for several years. His description of how they were practicing regenerative ranching on 10,000 acres with only 17 pastures was that the cattle "instinctively migrate around the pasture." His description finally gave me the name for what we accomplish when we reboot herd instinct in cattle. "Instinctive Migratory Grazing," or "IMG" for short. The training video to teach you the basics in achieving this kind of grazing results is available on Amazon.

The following video will show you just how amazing their results are.

Cowboys Are "Unskilled Labor?" Think Again!

A lot of people don't think that being a cowboy is a skilled job. Think again...It isn't simply riding around on a horse (in nice weather) playing your guitar and singing cowboy songs. In reality, to be a really good cowboy you have to be at least semi proficient in several areas at once, including (but not limited to)   the following areas:

1) Veterinarian ($60k per year)
2) Horse trainer ($ 700 per month per horse)
3) Farrier ($70 to over $200 per horse shod)
4) Ecologist/range manager (50K and up)
5) Being able to move several hundred cows with no help (when the average person can't handle their 5 year old kid at WalMart)
6) Plumber ($40 an hour)
7) Electrician ($40 an hour)

For books to convince your kid why they shouldn't be a cowboy (or date one) or video on how to be a better cowboy vist the 2lazy4U Livestock & Literary Company!

Climate Change; Man Made or Assisted by Man?

Most of the debate around manmade climate change revolves around whether or not the activities of man are responsible for climate change. It would seem the whole discussion needs to be reframed to look at man assisted climate change. We also need to re-examine the presumed man assisted causes, as well as differentiate, symptoms, causes and ways to minimize, and in some cases reverse the symptoms.

For some reason most of those researching climate change (in any form) are concentrating on greenhouse gasses and carbon dioxide levels. The "solutions" rest on things like regulating emissions by prohibition, trading "carbon credits" or taxation. Even causes stemming from land use seemingly concentrate on more gasses, with no thought to the condition of the land contributing to either rising oceans. It seems as if little or no thought is given to the conditions of the earth's surface in contributing to warming, changing weather patterns, contributing to flooding,  nor to rising ocean levels.

The possibility of regenerating grasslands has been largely ignored,  even though it reduces heat reflected into the atmosphere, captures carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, returns rainfall to aquifers, while increasing wildlife habitat and providing animal protein for human consumption.

Desertification of land is looked at as a symptom of warming, when it is actually a symptom of misuse, while at the same time, a cause of both atmospheric warming, and rising oceans. Completely ignored is just how fast desertification has happened in some places.

 To keep historical perspective, lets look at history in the terms of lifetimes. There has always been a few people living over 100 years. This would mean that, by cherry picking the right people, it has only been 20 lifetimes since Jesus Christ walked the earth. On a more personal level, my Great Great Grandmother was alive at the time of the Civil War and died in 1963 when I was 9 years old. Between the beginning of her life, and my life of 60+ years, we have seen the vast grasslands of the southwest United States and northern Mexico become barren deserts.  There are actually ranchers alive today who remember harvesting native grass hay in areas which are now mainly brushy and bare ground. Just how much of a difference can this make in changing our climate?

To demonstrate just how much the lack of grass cover reflects heat back into the atmosphere, I checked the air temperature, then checked the temperature on a patch of grass, and also a path of bare ground.

  Notice that the grass covered area is approximately eleven degrees warmer than the air while the bare ground is twenty five degrees warmer than air temperature.

A couple of hours later, the air temperature was 95 degrees. Rather than checking the temperature of the grassy spot first, we checked that same spot of bare ground, which was hot enough that it broke the thermometer. That would mean that the ground temperature was actually a minimum of 25 degrees warmer than the air temperature.

Adding to the heat absorption/reflection difference between bare ground and grass covered ground is the difference in water absorption. Rather than rain water absorbing into the ground (as it does when grasslands are intact,) precipitation actually starts running off with as little as 0.2 inches of rain. This means that a thunderstorm dropping an inch of water, loses half of aquifer recharge to run off. This run off goes into gullies, into small streams, river and lost into the ocean. This amounts to  13,577 gallons per acre run into the ocean from a one inch rain. In a drought like our most recent, where some areas only received 4 inches of precipitation, they lost 54,308 gallons of water per acre. There is roughly 293,000,000 acres of desertified ground between the southwestern United States and northern Mexico which have been degraded to this point. This results in 15,912,244,000,000 gallons of water returning to the oceans rather than recharging aquifers, in a year of severe drought. In a year of 10 inches (still just below normal of 11 to 12 inches of precipitation) we are looking at 135771.4 per acre (or 39,781,020,200,000 gallons for the region) flowing into the ocean rather than recharging aquifers. Take into consideration, this 39,781,020,200,000 gallons is only part of the water flowing back into the ocean rather than the ground on part of ONE continent. This isn't even taking into consideration of the addition of paved ground. 
 The first mile of asphalt paving was laid out in 1920 on Woodward Avenue, in Detroit Michigan.  Since then, asphalt and concrete paving has covered an estimated 29,000 square miles, or 18,560,000 acres. Taking into consideration that there are some roads in the country which the water ists in the bar ditch without emptying into a creek or river which eventually ends in the world's oceans, lets (for the sake of a conservative estimate) assume that only a third of our paved areas are draining directly into the ocean. That still leaves us with 6,186,666 acres of paved ground sending water into the oceans at a rate of 27154 gallons per inch of rain. This amounts to 16,7992,728,564 gallons running straight into the oceans per each inch of rain falling on our paved areas. In a drought year of only 6 inches of rain average across the country that comes up to an astounding 1,007,956,371,384 from our country alone from the addition of paved surfaces.

The combination of these two sources of water returning to the oceans rather than into the soil and replenishing aquifers comes to  a "mere" 5,658,029,305,640 gallons of water returning to the oceans from the United States and Mexico alone. Some will be quick to point out that a more accurate figure would be achieved by subtracting the acres of paved acres from the total of desertified areas, but this total would still be low when one figures out what has been left out of these figures.
The grasslands in the rest of the western half of the United States, while not considered to be desertified, have less than half their grass cover compared to the late 1800's, which is adding an a untold amount of water to the oceans. This is still not taking into account flood control systems, like the levee system on the Mississippi River which are adding more water rather than allowing it to spread out and fertilize the delta lands.  The total would certainly be result in an increase to  the 5,658,029,305,640 gallons in these figures. The worldwide total of water running back into the oceans rather than aquifers would dwarf what runs off from North America... Yet this is seemingly not taken into consideration by scientists studying climate change and rising oceans. A very few scientists are actually looking at the either the warming affects of these two things, nor the ramifications of reversing desertification through regenerative grazing.

In order for science to really get a grip on solving the problems of climate change, they need to ask a few more questions.

1. How much are precipitation flows being affected by the millions of acres of desertified land and the heat rising from them? 
2. How would the precipitation patterns change if grasslands were regenerated worldwide?
3. How much is atmospheric temperature being affected by the combination of paved surfaces and desertified land?
4. How much atmospheric carbon in the atmosphere would be sequestered by regenerating grasslands worldwide? 
5. How much water would flow into aquifers rather than the oceans if grasslands were to be restored?
6.  How much more animal protein could be added to the food supply by the increase in animals needed to restore and maintain grasslands through the proper grazing methods needed to restore them?

Until the scientific community starts acknowledging these things, and using them in computer models, how accurate can they really be? How can these scientists convince climate change deniers unless they acknowledge and differentiate between those events occurring naturally which change change climate, and the manmade things which assist the acceleration of changing climate? Until such time as these questions are addressed, and so long as the majority of the "solutions" are based on taxation, fines, and other financially inert things such as  trading carbon credits, a true solution will not be found.

Leaving Commodity Markets Behind

 A few weeks ago I wrote about the hypocrisy of current cattle markets and world hunger. Actually it is the hypocrisy of the commodities market and world hunger. Governments and organizations dealing with poverty, along with the media,  are constantly spreading the fear of not being able to produce enough food to feed the world. If all of these governments and organizations (which collectively collect and disperse hundreds of billions of dollars annually to fight the problem) are so dedicated then why were American dairy producers forced to dump forty three millions gallons of milk in the fist ten months of 2016 from "over production?"  Why is it that American produce farmers are forced to take "excess" produce to landfills while supermarkets have the identical produce on their shelves, from other countries? Last (but not least) why are American ranchers receiving less money for their calf crop than they did in 1979 (reportedly from "over production") while we are importing beef from other countries?

These are all fallacies caused by prices being set at the CME without any basis given to the cost of production, and the myth "we'" are in a global economy. If commodity prices would have kept track with inflation, $1.25 calves in 1979 should be $4.16 according to the CPI inflation calculator.  So is there a way to get out from under the CME so ranchers can start receiving a price which reflects the inflation over the last thirty seven years? Yes, in fact some ranchers already are.

Some use organizations like the Grass Fed Network or Homegrown Cow, while others do their own marketing locally, selling directly to the consumer. Others manage to sell their cattle locally at above market prices, with delivery to a local slaughterhouse. Some, such as White Oak Pastures, have gone the extra mile and actually built their own processing plant. However many cattle producers are too far removed from from dense enough populations to market directly to the consumer.

In order to enable all producers to circumvent the CME price fix, the NCBA needs to be abolished, or at the very least, restructured. For those thinking the NCBA is helping cattle producers, and that the beef checkoff program really adds $11 a head to the value of your cattle, why are you receiving less money now than in 1979? In fact, when you allow for inflation, the prices of two weeks ago producers were paid $2.95 a pound less than pre-checkoff prices.

The new organization would require both cattle and feed producers to file their cost of production. Farmers providing feed would be paid on the average cost of production plus a percentage of profits. The formula for cattle producers would need to be a bit more complex. There would be a base price of the average price of production, plus percentage for profit, with the option to retain part, or all of their calves all the way to wholesale, if not retail, and be paid on hide and offal as well.

The new association would need to lobby congress to assure that the packers cannot import beef unless there is an actual shortage of US produced beef.  Furthermore,  the tariff on imported beef would put the packers price on imported beef at a level to be even with beef produced in the USA.

This is just a bare bones proposal which beef producers need to discuss before we go the way of sheep producers...just think of when the last time you saw lamb in a store which wasn't a product of New Zealand.

Video Teaser For Stockmanship 101...From Wild To Mild!

We just finished filming for my DV "Stockmanship 101 (rebooting herd instinct in cattle) yesterday. A last minute change in location meant starting out with cattle which were nearly feral. As promised, there was a major change in the behavior of the cattle. This teaser will give you an idea of just how much, as well as possibly give you a chuckle! Enjoy!

Holistic/Regenerative Grazing to Become a Requirement on Federal Grazing Leases?

A bill introduced into Congress last spring.   shows  that holistic or other regenerative grazing methods may be required before long as a condition to graze federal permits. As everyone "knows" this is going to mean a lot of what I call "recreational fencing." The reason I call it that is because the fencing isn't really necessary to control where and when cattle graze. Actually leaving  one or more herders in the cattle isn't necessary either. 

While call cattle herd animals we also think it is natural cattle instinct for them to graze apart. One of the unorthodox beliefs of those who claim the vast herd of bison, as well as the vast herds of grazing wildlife in Africa, is that these herds are controlled by predators.  There are the same amount of predators at anytime of the year, so if predators were actually the control mechanism for herds to come together into the mega herds, they would be together year round. Instead they come together in times of plentiful feed and water ("mysteriously" coinciding with breeding season) and break apart in times of less feed and water.  Basically these animals come together in times when competitive stress for feed and water is nonexistent, and break into smaller groups when they are forced to competing for feed and water.

Basically cattle are no different. Once you remove handling stress, and they do not have to compete for water, they will come together just as the wild herds do.  By instilling this behavior in cattle it is possible to follow complex grazing plans in nearly any sort of terrain by simply taking them off of water each day (when they are ready to go back out to graze) and setting them on the path you wish them to follow. This not only eliminates the need for multiple small pastures, it also eliminates the one thing which causes poor animal performance in these systems, which is estimating the feed for a day, and using temporary fencing to hold them there.  There will be times when you may need to change their grazing paths daily, and other times you may be able to let them go for several days. In riparian areas, you need to pick them up as they come to water and change where they will water, then when they are ready to go graze, send them on a new grazing path. Their proximity to each other will be as close together, or as far apart as forage dictates. The better the forage, the closer together they will be.

 This short video will give you an idea of how much cattle behavior can change in as little as five days. While watching this, notice the mountains in the background. By using the effects of herd behavior, this rancher managed to graze these  mountains at a high density the following winter, which resulted in the regeneration of two cool season grasses which were thought to be extinct in the area. Over the past ten years he has also reduced his grazing requirements from 90 acres per cow (with supplemental feeding for 5 months and weaning calves at 4 months) to only 25 acres per cow, eliminating all supplement but sea salt, and keeping his calves until they are 10 months old.

 
 
Between now and the 10th of October I will be producing a professionally filmed and edited, drone based video to show how the process of rebooting herd instinct is accomplished. I will describe the various techniques to turn cattle with indirect pressure to reduce stress on the cattle,  then demonstrate each one several times, with the drone following at an angle where you may see the exact angles being used, as well as the animal's behavioral response. The drone will then follow me through the process of rebooting herd instinct into 300 head of yearlings so you can track the behavioral changes in the herd throughout the process.

In order to raise the funds for production, I have set up a gofund account to take pre release orders on this video. At the current time, all contributions to this fund of $30 and over will receive a copy of the dvd as soon as editing and captioning are finished. To get your copy now, follow the link below.
https://www.gofundme.com/2et8s5as?brandedshare=1&donorname=Jervoise+Station+Crew

Attorney's Opinion on Why Federal Lands in Individual States are Unconstitutional

Several years ago I wrote as to why federal lands within the individual states are illegal. Now an attorney has come out with a video explaining exactly what I wrote about several years ago. 

On Ranch Stockmanship Training

Tired of sending your employees to stockmanship schools where they only use videos to teach? Try having them learn at home, with your cattle, under the conditions and situations they will actually be working under.

Funding Donations Demonstrates That Sports Entertainment More Important Than Agriculture

There is no doubt that there is a world wide disconnect between people and where their food comes from. This disconnect is nothing new. A prime example is the Pilgrims off of the Mayflower. In spite of living next to an ocean full of fish (not to mention clams, mussels, crabs, and lobsters exposed at low tide) and on a land with abundant wild game, they nearly starved to death. The reason? Virtually none of them had ever had to grow their own food.

Fifty years ago, roughly half the people in the United States were involved in agriculture. Today that figure is less than two percent. From all of the news stories condemning factory farms, GMO food crops, pesticides and herbicides,one may assume that the public is concerned about their food supply. However two different funding campaigns tell a different story.

The first campaign is one started on November 28, 2015. Team roper Jake Barnes was practicing in his arena in preparation for the National Finals Rodeo when his horse fell. The horse stepped on his head and Jake was rushed to the hospital. Within twenty four hours a GoFundMe account was set up for Jake's family. In only eleven days, this campaign received $125,000 out of the $150,000 goal, from four hundred fifty one people. That is an average of $277 per donation.  By all accounts, Jake is one of the good guys, and the family probably needs some help at this time. However why is it that a sports figure like this receives more donations in less than two weeks than a family farm who has been put in dire straights by their own government and bank can raise in three weeks?

Jervoise Station, in Queensland, Australia is owned by  Greg and Kerry Jonsson. Ahead of the curve, they changed their cattle operation to organic in 1979. In 2005 they purchased their own abattoir so they could insure that people buying their beef would have a totally healthy, chemical free product. The business was successful and growing.

Then in 2014, the government owned power company decided they required the property where the abattoir was on. The family was forced to part with their processing plant for less than they owed on it. Although the business had been thriving and growing prior to the government take over of their abattoir, the bank refused to work with them and declared their station to be insolvent. The bank eventually agreed to work with them to build a new abattoir on the station, but only if they can raise $250,000. Without this money the family stands to lose their beloved Jervoise Station and the fifty years of blood, sweat, and tears they have poured into it.

In contrast to the donation campaign for Jake Barnes, their campaign has only raised $19,020 over the last month. The donations averaged $98 from only one hundred ninety four people. Not to take away from Mr. Barnes's situation, but why is it that a person whose main contribution to society is in a relatively minor sport raises more money faster than a family raising food in both a health and ecologically responsible manner? To find out more about the Jonsson family situation and help them not only keep their station, but to also keep the station and cattle from reverting back to a less environmentally, health conscious operation, visit their #SaveJervoise fund raising website.

Jervoise Station Introduction

I recently spent three months on Jervoise Station in Queensland, Australia. This integrated organic cattle/beef operation is an example of government and banking gone terribly wrong. The government owned power company decided it "needed" the land their abattoir (packing plant) was on and forced them off the property for pennies on the dollar. If this wasn't bad enough, their bank decided that their growing meat business was not worth reinvesting in, applied what little money they received against their loan and began a campaign to force them off the cattle station.

Last summer they acquired Rodger Savory as station manager, who has bought them some time, but they are still needing to build a new abattoir on the station to save their place.
Save Jervoise Organic Station from insight creative on Vimeo.


 

Herd Instinct and Predator/Prey Relationships

The main theory of why grazing animals form large herds is because of pressure from predators. In fact I believe the opposite may be true, that predator behavior is ruled by the behavior of prey animals.

I arrived at this decision through decades of observing the behavior of both wild grazers and cattle.  In learning what it takes for cattle to exhibit herd instinct as the vast herds of the African Savannah, a few glaring facts have emerged.

1. The ONLY time cattle will graze as a herd is when they have no stress.
2. The density of a grazing herd is determined by the density of available feed.  When feed is sparse, they may spread out 100 yards between animals. When feed is dense, these same animals will graze within inches of each other.
3.  Apply enough stress on cattle which are acting as a herd and it will take less than a day for them to scatter far and wide.
4. When cattle are acting as a herd, they tend to follow the fresh feed in front of them rather than continually grazing in the same small area.
5. Younger, weaker, and those closest to giving birth are at the back of the herd.

 With these facts in mind, let us look at when the vast herds of the African Savannah form. During the rainy season, when there is abundant feed and water. They move as they graze not from predator pressure, but to keep moving to fresh feed just as domesticated cattle do when they are acting as a herd, grazing or trampling all vegetation in their path.

Once the rainy season has passed, these herds are stressed from less abundant green feed and fresh water, they behave the same domesticated cattle which are acting as a herd do to stress. They scatter out in small groups and go back to selective grazing.

In making these observations it would seem that the herd behavior of grazing animals is dictated not by predators, but the availability of feed and water. This would also mean that, rather than herd behavior being dictated by predator pressure, that predator behavior is dictated by the behavior of grazing animals. Just the opposite of what conventional wisdom has been claiming.

For information on changing cattle behavior to enable following holistic grazing plans without cutting your pastures into small paddocks, visit http://naturalcattlehandlingcom

Month Long Holistic "Herd Building" Stockmanship Schools

The recently formed partnership between Rodger Savory of Savory Grasslands Management and Jervoise Station, is not only changing the grazing management from conventional to holistic, but also transforming the station into a holistic grazing learning center.

The 70,000 acre Jervoise Station is the first Savory Institute satellite Hub in Australia. For their first educational opportunity, they have invited Bob Kinford to put on three, one month  "Herd Building" stockmanship schools. These schools will be similar to the one sponsored last fall by Queensland Dry Tropics. However the length of these schools will give students a better understanding of not only building herd instinct, but in actually taking the  cattle through a grazing plan without the use of cross fencing.

 In the past, schools were only a week long. While that is long enough to bring herds of 1,000 cows into "herd mode" it was hard for students to break their old habits of conventional stockmanship. These longer schools will give students a chance to break their old habits and establish themselves in a group of elite cattlemen, with a unique set of skills. This will qualify them for employment not only on stations practicing Holistic management in North Queensland, but anywhere in the world this style of grazing is practiced.

For more information on enrolling in these schools, email Jervoise Station. 
 Bob Kinford's website.

Multi-paddock VS Herd Instinct Effeciency/Cost Comparison

This weeks post ties in with my last post of How do you know you are doing a good job? Make no doubt about it, multi-paddock grazing greatly improves the soil while increasing your carrying capacity and your bottom line. Just how does multi-paddock stack up to building  and using herd instinct in your cattle?

The claim is that moving fences is easy, and in many cases, only takes a few minutes. At roughly 3:58 in this video, the man explains that it takes him 18 minutes to run the wire for his electric fence, then he has to move the cows. Later he says he is doing this up to five times a day. That may not sound like much until you start adding up the time.

That is an hour and a half a day or 45 hours a month during the growing season. Where he is, that is roughly 5 months,or 225 hours. Of course this does not take into account drive time, or fixing fence, or the cost involved in posts wire, chargers and moving portable water points etc.

Using herd instinct to his advantage, and increasing his pastures to 100 acres would give him roughly 20 days feed. Time spent to have cattle graze in exactly the same manner would amount to going out once a day to check on the cattle by simply going to the front and having the cattle walk past him would be roughly 20 minutes a day.or the equivalent of 5 work weeks in other professions... Or one and a quarter month's vacation. Even figuring his time at only $10 an hour using herd instinct would save him $2,000 over the course of the growing season in time alone.

So the first question on everyone's mind is "What about herd density?" Not to worry, cattle behaving as a herd will graze at least as tight as when forced into it by fencing, if not tighter as in the following picture.

The above picture is a herd of 528 cows (many with calves) in a 200 acre pasture. They were this tight because they wanted to be this tight, not because they were forced into it. In the long run, the stress reduction of them wanting to be in a tight area vs being forced into one will result in heavier calves adding even more to your bottom line. 

The second question is always "What about back grazing?" Why would there be? Cattle prefer fresh feed. In small pastures they will start on the perimeter and graze around. When they go to water, they will go back to where they left off to resume grazing. Once the have grazed around the pasture, they move in to the next strip on their own, continuing to follow the fresh feed, until there is no more fresh feed. At that time, simply move them into the next field. 

For more information and videos, my website.

How Do You Know You Do A Good Job?

If Bud Williams was even half right with his opinion that "95% of the people who work cattle for a living, have no idea how cattle really work" would mean that roughly half of the ranchers and hired hands have never seen cattle worked right. With that in mind, how sure are you that you are really doing a good job handling cattle? If you haven't seen cattle worked in the right way, then how can you get a clue you aren't doing it as well as you could?

The following is a short list of common problems. If you don't have any of these problems, congratulations, you are doing an excellent job. If you have fewer than four of these problems on a regular basis, you are doing a fairly good job. If you have more than half of these problems, you may be getting the job done, but thinking you are doing a good job is only your ego talking.

1) If you blame the cattle for how they react to you 
2) Your cattle won't stay where you put them
3) You have a lot of herd quitters
4) Cattle won't stay paired when you are driving them
5) Cattle are wild in the pens
6) Cattle won't go by you when sorting
7) You need rattle paddles or flags to sort cattle
8) Cattle can't find the gate
9) Cattle want to run off instead of going into the pens
10) You have areas where it is a foregone conclusion the cattle are going to give you a problem

The first step in getting better at the job is realizing that nearly everything they do is a direct response to how we are handling them in that situation. The second step is realizing that it is often possible to get the reaction you want out of a cow without putting pressure directly on the cow, and learn how to get the desired response without applying more pressure. There are plenty of websites and videos on the internet to help you get started on the right path.

Another difficult area for ranchers to really know how good a job they are doing is in grass management. Once again, if you are only comparing your pastures to your neighbors, chances are you have no idea of how much grass you could really have. NRCS has  drastically changing their grazing recommendations in the last few years as demonstrated in this video.  

The point to all of this is we are all biased to think we are doing a good job on the ranch. But how much room do we have to drastically improve the quality of our work?

It is possible for most ranches to increase the pounds of beef they produce per animal by simply changing the way they handle their cattle. This actually requires less labor than what they are doing now to increase their profits.

The majority of ranches could also increase forage production enough to increase stocking rates by changing how they graze. While the average ranch reduced stocking rates and fed more supplement, other  ranches managed to actually increase forage enough to increase stocking rates while feeding no supplemental feed.

While many ranches judge their overall performance on average weaning weights, the most successful ranches strive for the most pounds of beef marketed per acre. Do you still think you are doing a good job on your ranch? If you think you have room for improvement, visit Natural Cattle Handling for more information as well as other educational links.

Allowing 2,200 Head Of Cattle To Act As A Herd

A recent stockmanship school in Australia allowed me to get much of the footage in this video. The herd included 2,200 head of  branded Brahmas plus around 300 head of unbranded cattle. As participants in this school learned, instilling herd instinct is not a "recipe" you can describe. It is more a matter of changing how we handle cattle and allowing them to come together as a herd.

I need to give a special thanks to Rodger Savory and the folks at NQ Dry Tropics for making this video possible, as well as to my good friend Evelyn A Roper for the background music.

Using Cattle Instinct To Turn Them

One of the things we often forget when handling cattle is that we can use their instincts to our benefit. One of these instincts is for cattle to go around us. When sorting cattle out of a pen, or getting them to go to other cattle in the pasture most of us tend to go to the front of the cow to force them to turn. As this short video shows, this is not necessary.  Using their instinct to go around us lets them turn and go without the stress of us getting in their face.

Underestimation of lost rainwater

If you read my post on Why Climate Change scientists are clueless and were amazed at the amount of water which runs off after a rain, I underestimated it. Actually I grossly underestimated it as the following picture illustrates.

 How much more water would have gone into this ground if cattle were being run as a herd instead of being scattered out? The picture below would have had hundreds of tracks to fill with water instead of just two, which would have captured the water instead of letting it run away.

Desert Garden(s) of Eden

This video produced by the the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory in collaboration with several northern Mexico ranchers shows just how much grass and diversity can be created in a desert environment. All it takes is asking the simple question of "Why is grass disappearing?"

Why The Department Of The Interior Is Illegal

The recent standoff between Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM has stirred a lot of controversy over federal lands, but it is not the only case. BLM is planning on seizing 90,000 acres along the Red River between Texas and Oklahoma. Then we have environmental and animal welfare groups filing litigation to stop grazing on federal lands. Despite all of the talking heads on the radio, and numerous interviews with Senators, Congressmen, and attorneys, not one person has touched on the fact that the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government very limited reasons by which they may own land within the individual states.

Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 of the constitution describes reasons which the federal government may hold land within the individual states, as well as the conditions by which they may acquire the land. This is extremely simple and straight forward language, which I have broken down and explained below.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,

This portion of Section 8, clause 17 is describing the formation of Washington D.C. As a gift from the surrounding states to form a Capitol for the fledgling country.

and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be,

As this line states clearly, for the federal government to control lands for any reason in any state, the land must be purchased with the consent of the legislature of that state. Keep in mind that when any territory east of the Mississippi River became a state, the new state held title to ALL of the lands within the new state, other than existing military installations. For some reason, when the territories west of the Mississippi River became states, the federal government forced the territories to cede vast amounts of lands to the federal government as a condition of statehood.

for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

Here we come to the core of the issue. The ONLY uses for land within the individual states (as laid out in the Constitution) are for defense. Recreation, mining, petroleum, grazing, and timber uses are not among the uses described under Article I, Section 8, clause 17. As this is the only part of the Constitution describing the conditions and uses for which the federal government my control lands within the individual states, these uses are in violation of the Constitution. This would mean the Department of the Interior, as well as all of its various branches are in violation of the Constitution and have no jurisdiction within the individual states.

Taking this case to the Supreme Court and winning would be fairly simple. First there is the precedence that ceding land to the federal government was not a condition of acquiring statehood for territories east of the Mississippi River. Second, there is actually precedence to the federal government being challenged to their right to control land under this portion of the constitution, and the federal government lost in every incidence.

It is time for the states of the west to come together and take their land and resources back from the federal government!