Herding A Bovine Potpourri

Some people have asked how herding cattle in this way is more efficient than controlling them with fences. For starters, you don't have to buy, build and maintain (or continually move) extra fencing,and you need fewer water points. Using this method on yearlings or dry cows (and receiving them all at once) is much, much, easier than receiving a Bovine Potpourri a little at a time. Despite the challenges, and necessary adjustments the program is still working, and improving.

One adjustment I've had to make is using more than one water point. It seems that these cattle have a tendency to jump in the five foot drinkers and stand there, then break the float on their way out. Once, I saw  a cow standing in a drinker with her calf next to her, nursing (something I have never seen before.) This forced us to designed and install a modification to the existing float guards which will hopefully take care of this problem. While having to work off of more than one water point makes it take longer to place cattle, it has been a learning experience. 

The second pasture in the rotation I  had five water points to work off of. The interesting thing was that, even though the cattle were mixed where they were grazing, they would return to the water point they came from. In the case of grazing associations, this could have some benefits if the herd instinct was instilled in each herd before going to summer pasture. The association rider could place the cattle on different water points, and keep the cattle separate within the same allotment. At the end of the grazing season it would be simple to gather each owner's cattle separately, and decrease the shrink involved with sorting several herds simultaneously (which would in return, increase profits a minimum of 3 to 5% ).

Despite the difficulties this particular project has, it is still working. Rather than spending money on labor building and maintaining (or moving) fences several times a week (or daily), one person spends three days placing cattle where they need in the pastures. Because of the social and physiological differences within this herd, and using multiple water points, placing within the pasture does take all day. If the water system was simplified to a single water point, and the cattle were all the same class, placement within the pasture would take four hours or less (for a total of 12 hours of labor per week.) 

Despite  the diversity of this group of cattle and using multiple water points, we are still getting the desired results of taking roughly a third of the forage and also getting animal impact distributed across the pasture, as shown in the following photograph.                           

 While they are spread out to fit feed density, the following picture shows roughly 100 head working as a herd. Notice how they are all grazing in the same direction. Once we make the next pasture move at the end of next week, we will be able to wean the bigger calves at a set of pens next to a water point. Once the cows have bawled off, I will start all of the cattle up a canyon in the direction of the next pasture in the grazing plan  and allow the cattle to sort themselves into two groups.

Open cattle, older calves, bulls and those in the first and second trimester of pregnancy will pick up and move out easily, while those cattle in their third trimester, calves under a month old and older thin cows with calves on them will take their time getting started. This will make it easier to instill the herd instinct into the cattle and (hopefully) keep the bulls away from the cows which are calving. (One problem with running bulls year round is that 12 to 24 hours before calving, cows change from producing progesterone to estrogen. This change in hormones causes cycling cows and bulls to seek out and ride cows beginning to calve, causing dystocia.)

Grass fed vs Grain Fed

There is a lot of debate on grass fed vs grain fed beef. It has dawned on me, that while everyone is posting their "facts" on the issue, that some very important information is being ignored. That information happens to be the yield grades being compared and the genetics which results in them.


When comparing the health differences, are researchers are comparing A yield grade 1 or yield grade 4 against the grass fed beef? In comparing the time to finish, are they comparing a grass fed steer which would finish on grain at a grade 4 against a grain fed steer which is finishing at a grade 1? 

A yield grade 1will have marbling, but much less extra fat than a yield grade 4 making the yield grade 1 a healthier product. Cattle finishing at a yield grade 4 generally have genetics which take longer to get marbling. This means that the "facts" in the debate can be misconstrued by researchers stacking the data by comparing against  different genetic types.

You want to stack the data to show how much healthier grass fed beef is over grain fed? Compare and Angus grass finished carcass against a large , fatty, yield grade 4 carcass. Want to stack the data showing how more efficient feeding grain is? Compare times to finish that animal producing the yield grade 4 carcass against the Angus steer finished on grain.

When gaining information between feeding methods, unless the genetics are taken into consideration, the results will not be accurate. Either side of the grass fed vs grain fed debate can use genetic differences in stacking the data in their favor. Until such time as there is a study comparing cattle with the same genetic tendencies towards marbling and body fat, neither side of the debate can give an accurate report to the consumer about efficiency or health.

US Forest Service to Sell off 193 Million Acres

The National Forest Service has announced plans to sell off its 193,000,000 acres of federally owned land. Government attorneys have argued that precedence for federal ownership of land has been set, showing the federal government has the authority over these lands. We can show that the precedence used to prove the legality of federally owned lands was flawed by asking one simple question:

Why did the federal government adhere to the stipulations of Article 17 under the Powers of Congress in all statehood expansion east of the Mississippi River?

For those of you not familiar with this section of the Constitution, it says:

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, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

The precedence set of allowing territories to become states and NOT withholding large tracts of land east of the Mississippi River would indicate that the federal government is NOT allowed to hold interest of large tracts of land within a state.

The fight needs to be taken to the federal government on a three pronged attack. First disprove that the precedences used to support the government's claims that federally owned lands are legal. Secondly it needs to be pointed out to the Supreme Court in (historical terms, not legal) that the founders of our country, and the drafters of the Constitution were trying to create a government which would not own large portions of the country. The third prong of attack is using someone who is versed in the English language at the time the Constitution was written to describe what the article means in today's language.

By approaching the matter in this way we can prove that the government was acting beyond its authority when it withheld lands from the territories when granting statehood. That precedence used showing the federal government has the authority to control multi-use or recreational lands was false. It will also show that the intent of Article 17 in the Powers of Congress section was purposely written to prevent federal ownership of land.

In actuality, this proposed sale could prove to be an opportunity. The attorney generals of every state having USFS or BLM controlled land should be banding together on this fight. These states should be suing to have all land held by the federal government, falling outside of Article 17, returned to possession of the states. This would allow states to receive the income now going to the federal government for grazing, mining,logging and National Parks.

If you would like to read exactly what the powers of Congress are, click here!