Paradigms, Peregrine Falcons, and The Politics of Scientific Evidence

I've always loved acquiring knowledge, but learned at an early age that "facts" spread by research scientists and schools are not always true. Unfortunately, in order to succeed in school, and later in life, you aren't allowed to question the facts. You are indoctrinated to believe that any peer reviewed research is correct...but

You may have read the reading right, but are you sure the one who wrote the reading, wrote the reading right?

When I was in 8th grade there was a picture of a Peregrine falcon on the front page of the paper with a headline declaring that there were only four such birds left in the state of California. This surprised me as we had four of them flying around our house, and I was unaware that anyone had been in the neighborhood to count them. Curious, I called an uncle (who was a federal game warden) who informed me that I was mistaken, and the only such birds in the state were nearly 200 miles away, on the coast. A few weeks later he was visiting and admitted that the birds we had been watching were indeed Peregrine Falcons. The population of this bird had just increased by 100%, yet no public mention was made. Odds are, there were even more of them.

You may have read the reading right, but are you sure the one who wrote the reading, wrote the reading right?

The next year, the first chapter of my biology book stated that browsing animals preferred brush and twigs while cattle preferred grasses and legumes. Naturally (for me) I questioned the teacher about it the next day, because if this were true, deer wouldn't some out at night to graze on lawns and alfalfa fields while cows wouldn't be browsing on acorns, pine-nuts and brush. Of course the teacher corrected me and I received a "D" on my first test because my answers (based on personal observation) didn't agree with what was in the textbook.

You may have read the reading right, but are you sure the one who wrote the reading, wrote the reading right?

The conundrum of scientific "fact" not matching up to observations didn't stop there. A biologist who allegedly conducted a count of deer and elk on a ranch where I worked, concluded that there were no deer or elk on the ranch. I offered to show him two herds of does totaling over 70 head (not including fawns,)  at least a dozen mature bucks, not to mention a couple of small elk herds. Once again, he filed his report and the lie became truth. This was a smaller scale than the "endangered" desert tortoise which removed cattle from grazing permits (although, 70 miles away, in Las Vegas, construction companies had crews following earth moving equipment rescuing said "endangered species" by the tens of thousands...

You may have read the reading right, but are you sure the one who wrote the reading, wrote the reading right?

Now we come to holistic/regenerative grazing. As soon as Alan Savory claimed cattle could be used to regenerate grasslands, academia rushed to disprove it. Although he and others reclaimed millions of acres using his, or similar methods, academia continued to "disprove" his methods, often publishing new "peer reviewed" studies which were basically compiling "evidence" from other studies. For at least the last 80 years, the science behind range management has been peer reviewed opinion that degrading range conditions were the result of over grazing, with no thought given to plants dying from being under grazed, or consideration to the biology of the soils supporting the flora of the range.

Finally in the last few years some scientists are breaking out of the mold and discovering that holistic/regenerative grazing not only works, but that the science behind it is directly tied to the symbiotic relationship plants have with the biology in the soil in which they grow. The science which, so many have base their grazing paradigms on was wrong... Science is dead....Long live science.

You may have read the reading right, but are you sure the one who wrote the reading, wrote the reading right?

Now we come to the current feedlot system of producing beef. Science claims that it is the most efficient model of beef production. These claims are based upon the fact we are producing more pounds of beef with fewer resources. Once again, science has the peer reviewed studies, complete with tons of data to "prove" they are right. On a limited basis, without consideration to lands reverting to desert and bare ground, they may be right. However to reverse desertification (which is happening from Mexico, through the United States and into Canada) we need more cattle on the land. By staying with the present model, we are only accelerating the problem, which in a larger sense, isn't efficient at all. Ranchers who have successfully implemented regenerative grazing by any of it's names have often quadrupled their stocking rates while nearly eliminating runoff from precipitation (not to mention recovering dry springs, creeks and seasonal rivers.)

     You may have read the reading right, but are you sure the one who wrote the reading, wrote the reading right?

Who knows, perhaps I haven't written the reading right. Perhaps the range management science of the last 80 or so years, prescribing burning, herbicides and destocking have nothing to do with the spread of invasive plants, lowering ground water tables, and degradation of grass. But then again, someone once said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

For more information visit my website.

Controlling Weeds Through Instinctive Migratory Grazing

Weed control. Radio advertisements in farm and ranch country are full of ones pushing weed control through chemical herbicides. Social media boards are full of discussions on how to control weeds by non-chemical methods including burning, grubbing and ripping. Often, at the same time ranchers are trying to figure out how to control the weeds, they are spending money on supplemental protein.  What if these weeds that "cattle won't eat" are the solution to reducing supplemental feed outputs?

As it turns out, the same stresses we have placed on our cattle that prevent them from acting as a herd, has also narrowed their natural dietary intake. As we change our stockmanship methods to allow the rebooting of herd instinct, cattle widen their diet, often before herd instinct is completely rebooted. A partial list of plants they begin to eat is common ragweed, ironweed, sumac, locust, thistles, blackberry bushes, chicory, and wild roses. The cattle don't just nibble on a few plants, but actually graze them hard.

The following picture is from a herd in Kansas which recently had it's herd instinct rebooted. The rancher call these "peppermint weeds." Prior to having their herd instinct rebooted, cattle wouldn't walk through these weeds, let alone graze them. Rather than grazing through spread out as we are used to, they migrated through as a herd, roughly consuming the top half of the plants on the right side of the picture.

Another weed this rancher has a problem with is hemp.  It was at a coarse stage and the cattle were not interested in grazing it. However, when the cattle were beginning to lie down for their morning rumination,  we spent a short time (perhaps 30 minutes) and drew them into a stand of hemp. After that one time, their preferred spot for their morning rumination is in the hemp. Even though they may not be eating it, they are trampling it down so that the grasses are able to start competing, as in the picture below (the hemp in this spot was head high to a man horseback.)

Other than one short session to entice the cattle to ruminate in the hemp, nothing was done to encourage the cattle to trample it, or browse the "peppermint" weeds. The cattle just started doing it on their own as soon as their stress levels were reduced enough for herd instinct to begin rebooting. The only thing that changed was the stockmanship methods of the man handling the cattle. The rest of it was simply the changes it allowed in the attitude of his cattle. They are working, doing weed control for the rancher, without spending a dime on chemicals, fencing or fire. As an added bonus, he is reducing his outputs on supplemental feed and was able to discard part of his water infrastructure.

For more information, visit http://migratorygrazing.com/

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!

Contacts For Fire Relief In Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas

Spring and fire season is getting off to a horrendous start. Lives, livestock and houses have been lost. Fire season hasn't really started yet and it has been reported that over 300,000 acres have gone up smoke between the Texas Panhandle, Western Oklahoma and Kansas. These communities are really needing help, so here is a list of places to drop off supplies, hay, food and to make donations.

Texas

Livestock Supply Points

The following livestock supply points are currently receiving and distributing donated feed resources to producers impacted by wildfires. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is not involved in the donation or distribution process. FSA is, however, raising awareness of the supply point locations where resources are available to producers located in counties affected by wildfires.

301 Bull Barn Dr
Pampa, TX 
806-669-8033

202 West Main St
Lipscomb, TX
806-862-4601

 

Texas Department of Agriculture Hay Hotline

TDA's hay hotline helps agricultural producers locate forage and hay supplies for sale. If you need hay or would like to donate hay, visit www.gotexan.org/hayhotlinehome.aspx or call 877-429-1998.

Carcass Disposal

For questions about carcass disposal call the Texas Commission on Environment Quality (TCEQ) at 800-832-8224 or visit their website at www.tceq.texas.gov.

Oklahoma

If you would like to donate to this relief effort, you can do so by mail or online. Make checks payable to Oklahoma Cattlemen's Foundation and put "Fire Relief" in the memo line and send to P.O. Box 82395, Oklahoma City, OK 73148. To donate online, visit www.okcattlemen.org.

If you would like to donate hay or trucking services for hay, you can do so by contacting either the Harper County Extension Office at 580-735-2252 or Buffalo Feeders at 580-727-5530 to make arrangements or provide trucking services.

Kansas

The command center for coordination of people to receive or give help is Ashland Veterinary Center. Dr. Randall Spare is heading this up. The number for people to call is 620-635-2641. Anybody in the Ashland area that needs help should please call the veterinary clinic. Also, anybody heading to Ashland to help, please call the clinic so we get people to the places of need.

The second center is coordinating hay delivery for cattle. The Neal and Jeff Kay at Ashland Feed and Seed is coordinating this effort and all hay deliveries should go to them at 1975 County Road U, Ashland, Kansas (on the south end of Main Street on the south end of town). The number to call before heading out is 785-273-5115.

Colorado

Donations should be taken to CHS Grainland in Haxtun. A loader and scale are both available, if needed. Contact Rick Unrein 970-520-3565 for more information about dropping off donations. Donations can also be dropped off at Justin Price's farm (11222 CR 7 Sedgwick, CO). For more information, please contact: Kent Kokes 970-580-8108, John Michal 970-522-2330, or Justin Price 970-580-6315.

For more information on how to donate and aid these producers please visit http://coloradofarmbureau.com/disasterfund/

Checks payable to Colorado Farm Bureau Foundation, cash and credit card payments are being accepted at this time. Please note Disaster Fund-CO Wildfire in the memo line on the check. Cash and checks can be sent to:

Colorado Farm Bureau Foundation
Attn: Disaster Fund
9177 E. Mineral Circle
Centennial, CO 80112

Booking Dates for 2017 Low Stress Stockmanship Schools

     Unlike most other low stress stockmanship schools, these are designed to let the students see, and take part in changing cattle behavior from grazing in small groups, to grazing together as a herd. This means the schools are five days long, At the end of the school, everyone has enough of a grasp on the different ways to start, turn and stop cattle with the least amount of stress possible.  

     

The days begin by saddling up and being in the cattle shortly after sunup and not leaving them until after they have been placed on their afternoon grazing placement. Between discussion, demonstration, doing, observing the attitude, behavioral changes and discussing that, students generally achieve enough understanding to actually start applying it when they go home.

  Because of the intensity of the classes, and the fact we are holding them in the pasture, rather than a smaller more controlled area, class size is limited to ten riders. Experience (in both attending and holding schools) has taught me it isn't a good idea for managers and owners to send employees without attending themselves. Too often cowboys feel they are being forced to learn something which they feel they already know. By management also attending, they are leading by example, which helps their crew want to learn, and allows management to know if the crew is correctly performing the stockmanship changes. 

If you are interested in hosting a school in Mexico, contact Pedro Dominguez on Facebook. For schools in the USA and other countries email me. By inviting other ranches to attend, the overall cost will often be lower than attending a two day school with no hands on experience. For more information on what the methods are, visit my website or order my stockmanship video on Amazon. In the meantime, enjoy the teaser and trailer to the video below to get an idea of what you will learn in the school.

 

                                       

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.

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!

Hypocrisy Of The Current Cattle Markets And World Hunger

With the latest trend in cattle prices, there is little doubt that our government is in collusion with the mega corporations controlling “world trade.” NCBA, led by packers, convinced our government of the “need” to import fresh beef from Brazil. At the same time the record high prices of the last couple of years have seen an astronomical free fall, to the point many producers are wondering how to survive.

The irony is a mere 21 years ago the NCBA was actually the NCA wasn't inclusive of the packers which make up the “beef” end of the industry. Adding to irony is that JBS, the largest cattle feeding and beef packing company was at the forefront of the drive to allow fresh beef imports from Brazil...Where coincidentally, JBS is also the biggest exporter of beef in the country. Yet another amazingly ironic coincidence, is the Brazilian Real is worth just over $0.31. With Brazilian prices at 1.61 Real, US prices would need to drop to roughly $0.70 to “compete.”

Yet the problem with the cattle and beef industry is not isolated. Governments and the media tell us we are need to increase production of food for a growing population. Government programs and nonprofit organizations spend untold billions of dollars supposedly addressing the problem of malnutrition around the world. The problem is not production, but distribution. American dairy producers have been forced to dump over 43,000,000 gallons of milk this year because of “over production.” Produce farmers in California are forced to dump millions of tons of “excess” produce every year, while Mexico exports millions of tons of the same produce to supermarkets here in the USA (while there population is forced to illegally cross the border into our country in order to survive.)

Part of the problem is that food is considered a “commodity” rather than a necessity. As such, production as well as price depends on arbitrary prices and orders determined by a “market” which in reality has become increasingly irrelevant. It is physically impossible for hunger and excess food to simultaneous exist on a planet where food may be distributed to any part of the world within two days. Yet somehow both are existing side by side as corporations dealing in food commodities profit in the billions while conducting business practices which force the destruction of food, and a reduction in people growing food.

The hypocrisy of economists, governments and organizations around the world,claiming to be fighting hunger in the world, is that their market systems and agriculture policies result in the destruction of food rather than the distribution to those in need. Their policies cater to a few mega corporations rather than the survival of the individual farmers growing the food. In my next post I will address how the cattle industry (at least in the USA) we may be able to at least partially circumvent the markets.

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.