1 / 30

The Shortgrass Prairie

The Shortgrass Prairie. Plants of the Shortgrass Prairie. Bouteloua gracilis- Blue grama Buchloe dactyloides- Buffalograss Agropyron smithii- Western wheatgrass Stipa comata- Needle-and-thread Koeleria cristata- Prairie junegrass Hilaria jamesii- Galleta grass

major
Download Presentation

The Shortgrass Prairie

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Shortgrass Prairie

  2. Plants of the Shortgrass Prairie • Bouteloua gracilis- Blue grama • Buchloe dactyloides- Buffalograss • Agropyron smithii- Western wheatgrass • Stipa comata- Needle-and-thread • Koeleria cristata- Prairie junegrass • Hilaria jamesii- Galleta grass • Muhlenbergia torreyi- Ring muhly

  3. Plants of the Shortgrass Prairie cont. 8. Aristida longiseta- Red threeawn 9. Sphaeralcea coccinea- Scarlet globemalllow 10. Helianthus annuus- Annual sunflower 11. Artemisia frigida- Fringed sagewort

  4. Table 3. Summary of 25 studies on effects of grazing intensity on native vegetation and livestock production in North America. Heavy Moderate Light Average duration of study (years) 11.4 11.4 11.4 Average annual precipitation (inches) 20.7 20.7 20.7 Average use of forage (%) 57 43 32 Average forage production (lbs/acre) 1,1751(1,065)2 1,4731(1308)2 1.5971 Range trend down (23/25) up(13/25) up(14/18) Average calf crop (%) 80 84 85 Average lamp crop (%) 78 82 87 Calf weaning wt (lbs) 429.7 457.3 --- Lamb weaning wt (lbs) 56.8 63.1 --- Gain per steer (lbs) 157.6 202.6 226.6 Steer/calf gain per day (lbs) 1.83 2.15 2.30 Net returns per animal ($) 38.061(29.00)2 51.571(39.71)2 58.891 Net returns per acre ($) 1.351(2.07)2 2.931(2.72)2 2.641 1 Average for those studies comparing heavy, moderate and light grazing (studies comparing only heavy and moderate grazing excluded). 2 Average for all studies

  5. Table 5. Summary of 15 studies on effects of rotation grazing systems on native rangeland vegetation and livestock production in North America. ___________________________________ Season long Characteristic or continuous Rotation grazing grazing ________________________________________________ Average use of 41.8 42.4 Forage (%) Average forage Production (lb/ac) +7%

  6. Table 5a. Summary of 15 studies on effects of rotation grazing systems on native rangeland vegetation and livestock production in North America. _________________________________ Season long Characteristic or continuous Rotation grazing grazing _________________________________________ Range trend (%) up= 61 up= 69 stable= 31 stable= 8 down= 8 down= 23 Average calf crop (%) 89.4 85.9

  7. Table 5b. Summary of 15 studies on effects of rotation grazing systems on native rangeland vegetation and livestock production in North America. ______________________________ Season long Characteristic or continuous Rotation grazing grazing __________________________________________ Calf weaning weight 504.6 494.1 (lb) Net returns ($/ acre) 6.60 6.37

  8. Table 8. Yearling cattle production and financial return characteristics at the Central Great Plains Experimental Range, Colorado Grazing Intensity Excessive Moderate Forage production (lbs/acre) 536 689 Forage utilization (%) 54 37 Weight again per animal (lbs) 218 268 Weight again per unit area (lbs/acre) 22 34 Death loss (%) 1.43 0.33 Gross income/acre ($) 1.54 1.93 Gross income/yearling ($) 81.22 96.02 Source; Kipple, G.E., and D.F. Costello. (1960). Vegetation and cattle to different intensities of grazing on shortgrass range of the central Great Plains. U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1216.

  9. Continuous Grazing 1. Works well in flat desert areas 2. Works well in flat shortgrass prairie areas 3. Works well in California annual grassland 4. Require the least fence of all the systems 5. Has given better livestock performance than rotation systems

  10. Table 17. Effects of season-long, deferred rotation and time controlled on vegetation and cattle on vegetation and cattle on short grass range in Wyoming. Characteristic Season-long Deferred Time rotation controlled Duration of study (years) 13 13 13 Annual precipitation (inches) 15.1 15.1 15.1 Use of forage (%) 40 40 40 Acres/steer 5 5 5 Forage production (lbs./acre) No difference Range trend No difference Steer gains (lbs./acre) No difference Financial returns ($/acre) 15.20 13.72 12.07 Sources: Hart, R.H., M.J. Samuel, P.S. Test and M.A. Smith. 1988. Cattle, vegetation and economic responses to grazing systems and grazing pressure. J. Range Manage. 41:282-286, Manley, W.A., R.H. Hart, J.W. Waggoner Jr., and J.T. Manley.1997. Vegetation, cattle and economic responses to grazing strategies and pressure. J. Range Manage.50:638-646.

  11. Table 12. Forage Production (lbs/acre) on Heavily and Moderately Stocked Pastures in Drought Compared to 10-years Average on the Fort Stanton Experimental Range in New Mexico. Drought 10 years Drought year Years Average as percent Grazing intensity 1974 (1970-1979) of average Heavy (50-55% use) 103 607 17% Moderate (40-45% use) 235 740 32% Source: Pieper et al. 1991, Holechek, 1994.

  12. Wildlife of the Shortgrass Prairie

  13. Management of the Shortgrass Prairie

  14. Management of the Shortgrass Prairie 1. Graze either conservatively or moderately 2. Continuous grazing has worked best 3. Pronghorn should be considered in fence construction 4. Both cattle and sheep well suited for this type, cattle are more compatible with wildlife 5. Pronghorn complement cattle in food habits and can be important source of income 6. Conservation Reserve lands provide income diversification, erosion control and valuable wildlife habitat 7. Wheatgrasses and blue grama have been effective in seeding former farmland and returning it to rangeland and CRP land, legumes greatly enhance wildlife value

More Related