Yesterday I was spending some time watching some of my favorite shows on the Outdoor Channel including The Management Advantage and Get in the Game. In case you didn't already know, both are how-to shows that talk about land management and conservation issues a lot of the time.
Coincidentally, yesterday they both were talking about strip discing, a method of generating wildlife habitat that is relatively easy to do and much less expensive than extensive clearing of land, amending the soil, and planting expensive seeds. You might recall I mentioned something similar in my post entitled, "Properly amending the soil first...".
One landowner was discing strips throughout his property wherever he had natural openings or trails. The other was alternately discing and burning areas in an old over-grown pasture. But both were utilizing the existing seed bank and generating early successional growth without the expenses involved with clearing and planting large food plots.
There is still labor and equipment involved, but the cost and effort is considerably less when using this approach. There may be some manipulation necessary by daylighting or edge feathering with a chainsaw and piling the brush with a tractor; but if you can find a way to scarify the soil and get sunlight and moisture to the ground, something will sprout and grow. It may not be anything but weeds (sometimes called forbs by the biologist), but that could be a salad bar to wildlife.
So don't let hard times and high prices on seeds and fertilizer deter you from improving your property's habitat when there are alternative methods to get things done. And yes, Edge Habitat can help with this type of approach as well. In fact, it might be our preferred method because it is so close to the natural way.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Is the Greenway the best way?
Last week I attended an orientation meeting for the local chapter of the Master Naturalist program administered by the Texas Parks and Wildlife. This is a statewide program whereby members can complete a training program to become a Master Naturalist complete with all the advantages thereof.
There was a sense at this meeting that the Greenway was the best way to manage the land and improve the habitat. But is the natural way the best way? Or can a collaboration of naturalist methods and agricultural methods be a better way?
There is no doubt that the natural way to improve habitat is an effective way. God has been managing the habitat quite well with fire, floods, wind, ice... just to name a few of his tools. Of these, fire can be one of the most effective ways of improving habitat, especially a controlled fire that doesn't destroy everything in its path. Fire not only removes the fallen leaves that acidify the soil, but their ash becomes a fertilizer to accelerate early successional growth. The same goes for many other things that are transformed in the process. Some seeds rely on fire to break down their husk so that the dormant seed can germinate. The benefits of prescribed fire are too many to mention them all here.
However, due to the USFS terrific job of selling the public on Smokey the Bear's opinions, the vast majority of the American people look at any kind of fire as destructive and dangerous. Consequently, controlled burns are far too difficult, politically and financially, to conduct. There are substantial conditions that must be met and even more substantial insurance to be paid, especially for a private contractor, before a controlled burn can be undertaken.
We know that agricultural methods, when used properly and with the intent of helping wildlife habitat flourish, can be very effective at accomplishing similar goals. We also know that agricultural methods can destroy the habitat when they are not managed for the benefit of wildlife.
My contention is that mankind is smart enough to figure a way to improve the habitat for all living things... But will stubbornness and greed continue to keep us from it? Or can we combine science with common sense and make things better? Please weigh in and express your opinions...
There was a sense at this meeting that the Greenway was the best way to manage the land and improve the habitat. But is the natural way the best way? Or can a collaboration of naturalist methods and agricultural methods be a better way?
There is no doubt that the natural way to improve habitat is an effective way. God has been managing the habitat quite well with fire, floods, wind, ice... just to name a few of his tools. Of these, fire can be one of the most effective ways of improving habitat, especially a controlled fire that doesn't destroy everything in its path. Fire not only removes the fallen leaves that acidify the soil, but their ash becomes a fertilizer to accelerate early successional growth. The same goes for many other things that are transformed in the process. Some seeds rely on fire to break down their husk so that the dormant seed can germinate. The benefits of prescribed fire are too many to mention them all here.
However, due to the USFS terrific job of selling the public on Smokey the Bear's opinions, the vast majority of the American people look at any kind of fire as destructive and dangerous. Consequently, controlled burns are far too difficult, politically and financially, to conduct. There are substantial conditions that must be met and even more substantial insurance to be paid, especially for a private contractor, before a controlled burn can be undertaken.
We know that agricultural methods, when used properly and with the intent of helping wildlife habitat flourish, can be very effective at accomplishing similar goals. We also know that agricultural methods can destroy the habitat when they are not managed for the benefit of wildlife.
My contention is that mankind is smart enough to figure a way to improve the habitat for all living things... But will stubbornness and greed continue to keep us from it? Or can we combine science with common sense and make things better? Please weigh in and express your opinions...
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Now is the time...
A few days ago I was talking to a local wildlife biologist about habitat improvement, and she made the comment that now was the time to get started. She didn't elaborate as to what she was specifically referring, but she could've been talking about a lot of things.
Considering it usually takes 4-5 years to see an optimal effect from habitat management, the landowner/ lessor or lessee has a lot of planning to do before any ground can be broken. The first thing that is needed is an initial assessment of the lay of the land and the goals that might be accomplished. No matter what this assessment reveals for each individual property, there are certain things that have to be done at specific windows of opportunity during any given year. From the clearing of land to the harvesting of game, timing can be crucial to success.
Whether you manage the property as a naturalist or employ agricultural methods to improve the habitat, now is the time to begin. Prescribed fire has to be implemented when conditions are within specific parameters. Clearing land for firebreaks or food plots needs to be done before heavy spring rains begin... and so does seed bed preparation so that seeds can be planted at optimum times.
So if your considering any of these projects, that initial assessment is the first step and may take a few days depending on the size of the property. But in most cases that part is free... So why procrastinate? The first, and most important, step to solving a problem is to determine the problem. Then you can decide whether to throw money at it or not, and how much...
Considering it usually takes 4-5 years to see an optimal effect from habitat management, the landowner/ lessor or lessee has a lot of planning to do before any ground can be broken. The first thing that is needed is an initial assessment of the lay of the land and the goals that might be accomplished. No matter what this assessment reveals for each individual property, there are certain things that have to be done at specific windows of opportunity during any given year. From the clearing of land to the harvesting of game, timing can be crucial to success.
Whether you manage the property as a naturalist or employ agricultural methods to improve the habitat, now is the time to begin. Prescribed fire has to be implemented when conditions are within specific parameters. Clearing land for firebreaks or food plots needs to be done before heavy spring rains begin... and so does seed bed preparation so that seeds can be planted at optimum times.
So if your considering any of these projects, that initial assessment is the first step and may take a few days depending on the size of the property. But in most cases that part is free... So why procrastinate? The first, and most important, step to solving a problem is to determine the problem. Then you can decide whether to throw money at it or not, and how much...
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Why so much tall fescue?
Having to battle tall fescue in order to bring back native early successional grasses can be a tough fight. Glyphosate (Roundup) will kill it, but it has such deep roots that it may take two applications to get rid of it. The best time to spray is late fall when senescence will allow the plants to best carry the herbicide down into the roots. But you still may need to spray again in the spring. You certainly will need to spray in the fall, if you spray first in the spring.
This particular type of fescue is so hardy because it sometimes develops a symbiotic (mutually beneficial) relationship with a fungus which makes it a much more hardy grass. The fungus attaches itself intercellularly to the above ground portion of the grass which makes the grass less attractive as food to insects and mammals, more drought tolerant, and more disease resistant. Consequently, this non-native (originally European) species maintains some 35,000,000 acres in the U.S., mostly in the southeast.
Tall fescue also has a very high stem component full of lignin, which makes it hard to digest and not very high in nutrients. Cattle will eat it, but there can be problems... especially when the fungus is involved. Horses will eat the fresh tender leaves, but once it gets stemy... they leave it alone. Mares can have reproductive problems from eating infected tall fescue resulting in death of the foal, the mare, or both.
The grass is so thick near the ground that quail chick and turkey poult mobility is severly limited. There are fewer invertebrates inhabiting the grass so there is less for the young birds to eat. And when quail do eat the seeds, they lose weight and suffer cloacal swelling and increased mortality.
So why do we have so much of this non-native grass growing in our countryside? Who plants it and why?
It is hardy, especially when it is infected with the fungus. It does create a strong resistance to erosion. But what other good reasons do we have for its widespread growth? There are better choices that will accomplish the same goals without the problems.
We need to eradicate this grass and plant native grasses and forbs that will benefit our wildlife... and our livestock.
This particular type of fescue is so hardy because it sometimes develops a symbiotic (mutually beneficial) relationship with a fungus which makes it a much more hardy grass. The fungus attaches itself intercellularly to the above ground portion of the grass which makes the grass less attractive as food to insects and mammals, more drought tolerant, and more disease resistant. Consequently, this non-native (originally European) species maintains some 35,000,000 acres in the U.S., mostly in the southeast.
Tall fescue also has a very high stem component full of lignin, which makes it hard to digest and not very high in nutrients. Cattle will eat it, but there can be problems... especially when the fungus is involved. Horses will eat the fresh tender leaves, but once it gets stemy... they leave it alone. Mares can have reproductive problems from eating infected tall fescue resulting in death of the foal, the mare, or both.
The grass is so thick near the ground that quail chick and turkey poult mobility is severly limited. There are fewer invertebrates inhabiting the grass so there is less for the young birds to eat. And when quail do eat the seeds, they lose weight and suffer cloacal swelling and increased mortality.
So why do we have so much of this non-native grass growing in our countryside? Who plants it and why?
It is hardy, especially when it is infected with the fungus. It does create a strong resistance to erosion. But what other good reasons do we have for its widespread growth? There are better choices that will accomplish the same goals without the problems.
We need to eradicate this grass and plant native grasses and forbs that will benefit our wildlife... and our livestock.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Properly amending the soil first...
Recently I have talked with several people who have expressed their frustration with unsuccessful attempts at planting food plots for wildlife. Almost all have stated that the wildlife eats it as fast as it comes up.
Upon asking more questions: 1) these folks failed to test their soil, 2) if they added any lime or fertilizer before planting, it was pure guesswork, 3) they chose a place to plant that was marginal, at best, for sunlight, 4) they didn't plant enough area to prevent overgrazing, and 5) they didn't prepare the seedbed sufficiently before planting. I didn't ask them about the use of herbicides... there was no need. They never gave the effort a chance to succeed.
If the soil is not properly amended before the seeds are planted, you are wasting your time and money trying to plant anything at all. You would be better off just lightly discing the area a couple of times a year to regenerate the existing seed bank and forget about planting a bunch of high priced seeds.
Mama used to say, "Anything worth doing, is worth doing right." That old saying applies very aptly in this situation.
Upon asking more questions: 1) these folks failed to test their soil, 2) if they added any lime or fertilizer before planting, it was pure guesswork, 3) they chose a place to plant that was marginal, at best, for sunlight, 4) they didn't plant enough area to prevent overgrazing, and 5) they didn't prepare the seedbed sufficiently before planting. I didn't ask them about the use of herbicides... there was no need. They never gave the effort a chance to succeed.
If the soil is not properly amended before the seeds are planted, you are wasting your time and money trying to plant anything at all. You would be better off just lightly discing the area a couple of times a year to regenerate the existing seed bank and forget about planting a bunch of high priced seeds.
Mama used to say, "Anything worth doing, is worth doing right." That old saying applies very aptly in this situation.
Monday, February 2, 2009
WHIP funds from Farm Bill...
WHIP (Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program) funds may be available to landowners in a partnership arrangement with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a division of the USDA. The NRCS may partner with as much as 75% funding for wildlife habitat improvement on some private lands. They may fund as much as 90% for certain critical habitat preservation.
There are three types of private lands eligible since the Farm Bill '02 was reworked last December: agricultural lands, non-industrial private forest lands, and tribal lands. Previously, these funds were not so restricted in their application. To clarify the non-industrial private forest lands specification, it refers to private forest lands that are generating income for the landowner, as do the agricultural lands. They must be income producing properties not owned by corporations or by the government.
The NRCS is asking for feedback from landowners on the new regulations provided since last December. In talking with the administrators in the NRCS, they are very ambiguous about the parameters that these new regulations imply. If you are interested in such matters, you can read more about it on the NRCS website.
Providing the hoops that the NRCS will require to be negotiated are not too difficult, this might be a way to help pay for habitat improvement on private lands. But, to date, these hoops are relatively undefined.
There are three types of private lands eligible since the Farm Bill '02 was reworked last December: agricultural lands, non-industrial private forest lands, and tribal lands. Previously, these funds were not so restricted in their application. To clarify the non-industrial private forest lands specification, it refers to private forest lands that are generating income for the landowner, as do the agricultural lands. They must be income producing properties not owned by corporations or by the government.
The NRCS is asking for feedback from landowners on the new regulations provided since last December. In talking with the administrators in the NRCS, they are very ambiguous about the parameters that these new regulations imply. If you are interested in such matters, you can read more about it on the NRCS website.
Providing the hoops that the NRCS will require to be negotiated are not too difficult, this might be a way to help pay for habitat improvement on private lands. But, to date, these hoops are relatively undefined.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)