Allan Savory Myth and Reality

Allan Savory: Myth And Reality
By George Wuerthner

Allan Savory is an advocate for the livestock management system known as, Holistic Management (HM). He is a former member of the Rhodesian Parliament (now Zimbabwe) and has made his living as a consultant with the Savory Institute. He is best known for his recent appearance as a TED speaker where he made a number of controversial statements that he has been advocating for decades, as well as some new claims. His most recent assertion is the idea that more livestock grazing may be the solution to global warming.

In short, Savory’s basic theme is a variation on what has been called “short duration grazing” or “mob grazing”. Under such scenarios livestock, typically cattle are tightly herded through a confined pasture (small pastures) or rangeland so that the animals cannot be selective in their choice of food. Then the livestock are moved rapidly on to the next grazing area, and the previously grazed area is rested from livestock for an extended period of time, so the plants can recover and regrow. Savory’s advocacy for monitoring and careful attention to livestock plant utilization is consistent with well-established range management principles.

However, many of his observations about animal behavior, plant ecology, evolutionary history and carbon storage are well outside the accepted scientific consensus. And these ideas can lead to damaged ecosystems and in the case of his ideas about livestock and global warming may actually be counterproductive—leading to greater GHG emissions if implemented according to his ideas.

As with everything in science, there are few absolutes. There is great variation in land productivity, climate, and the experience of ranchers and farmers who are managing livestock that can affect outcomes. One may experience or hear about examples where Savory’s prescriptions appear to be valid, but as stated below they are usually isolated exceptions. Exceptions do not invalidate the rule.

The few scientific experiments that Savory supporters cite as vindication of his methods (out of hundreds that refute his assertions), often fail to actually test his theories. Several of the studies cited on HM web site had utilization levels (degree of vegetation removed) well below the level that Savory actually recommends.

The following are among Savory’s most debatable ideas that a majority of scientists and observers believe are contrary to standard rational understanding and observation.

MYTH: Livestock grazing can reduce Green House Gases and reduce global warming.

REALITY: One of Savory most recent claims is that grazing will stimulate the translocation of carbon from the atmosphere to the roots of plants, thus increasing domestic livestock numbers and grazing, Savory asserts, will significantly reduce global GHGs. While it is true that significant amounts of carbon are stored in the soils of rangelands, the ability to capture and transfer additional atmospheric carbon to grassland soils is very limited. Most arid grasslands have low productivity, thus low ability to store new sources of carbon.

Furthermore, a full GHG accounting would demonstrate that domestic livestock are among the largest source of global GHG. Methane emissions from domestic livestock, particularly cattle, are considered one of the largest sources of global GHG. Livestock also emit nitrous oxide that is even more potent as a greenhouse gas. Together these emissions are considered by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization to be responsible for up to 18% of global GHG.

Even worse much of the livestock pasture around the world has been created and continues to be created by the destruction of forests which results in the release of even more carbon into the atmosphere. The replacement of forests with grass pasture thus increases overall carbon emissions. According to a recent review by World Watch Institute utilizing this full accounting system livestock production may be responsible for as much as 50% of all global GHG. Thus a reduction of domestic livestock numbers would go much further towards reduction of global atmospheric carbon than any small amount of carbon which might be sequestrated as a result of growth from grasses related to livestock grazing.

MYTH: Holistic Management is superior to other grazing management strategies.

Reality: Due to particular unique aspects of a livestock operation, HM methods may produce better results than other livestock management methods for that specific operation. However, in side by side comparisons with other grazing methods, if EQUAL attention to forage utilization and timing is followed HM methods have not been shown to be superior. And in many other situations HM has resulted in poorer condition livestock and damage to the land resources.

The qualifier is that equal attention to forage utilization and timing is important because much of the success reported for HM has to do with a significant change in livestock producer effort as well as capital investment in more range developments like watering troughs and fencing that, along with intensive monitoring, resulted in better animal distribution. These results are often compared to past lack luster management whereby livestock were left to forage with little supervision. This frequently resulted in overgrazing in some areas, while other parts of the pasture, ranch or farm were barely utilized.

However, it is important to note, efficient cropping of forage by HM methods is not necessarily an improvement for wildlife and plants, soils, water quality, and other values since intensive grazing has many negative effects on these ecosystem values. For many species the lightly grazed areas on the ranch or farm were/are places where wildlife find/found refugia and suitable habitat. Many beneficial insects, pollinators, and larger wildlife such as reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals benefit from the lightly grazed areas and can be critical for ecosystem functioning.

MYTH: Savory’s intensive grazing management strategies have led to greater livestock production and economic gains for ranchers and are a panacea for declining ranch/farm bottom line.

REALITY: Many ranchers cannot or are not able to adopt Savory’s intensive grazing management. First, the intensive management required by HM methods to be successful often requires significant investment in fencing, water development and other infrastructure. It also requires diligent attention to livestock grazing effects and movement. This kind of diligence and attention is often difficult for ranchers and farmers to implement due to economic and/or human constraints. Other limitations to the success of HM techniques are climate and terrain. HM works best in flat terrain where livestock impacts can more equally be distributed and where adequate moisture exists for plant regrowth.

MYTH: Most rangelands suffer from “overrest” not overgrazing.

REALTY: Overgrazing is the cumulative effect of multiple cropping of plants that leads to a decline in plant energy reserves, reduction in root mass, seed production/reproductive effort, and is often accompanied by soil erosion and overall changes in plant composition on a site. In the absence of livestock grazing, plants recover energy reserves, seed and reproductive effort typically improves and soil erosion is reduced. There are no documented examples of “overrest”.

MYTH: In the absence of livestock grazing, plants become moribund and die.

REALITY: There is ample evidence that plants do not require livestock grazing to remain viable. First, there are few places on Earth where plants are not “grazed” or “browsed” by natural herbivores including larger native mammals like bison, wildebeest or guanaco to small animals like ground squirrels and grass hoppers. So plants do not “need” livestock to thrive and on public lands at least we can and should promote native herbivores over exotic domestic livestock.

Secondly, one can easily refuse this statement by visiting any number of natural areas that lack livestock and nevertheless have thriving grassland/rangeland ecosystems. Most National Parks do not permit livestock grazing. And there are literally tens of thousands of small and large grass covered landscapes that for one reason or another naturally exclude livestock like isolated buttes, cliffs, gorges, mesa, plateaus, and even rail and highway right of ways.

MYTH: Hoof action increases water infiltration and helps to plant seeds.

REALITY: Nearly all studies (dozens or hundreds) that have reviewed the effect of hooves on soil infiltration have shown that a thousand pound cow compacts soil, reducing the space between soil particles and thus reducing water penetration and increasing water runoff.

Seeds do not require hoof action to germinate. The plants in rangelands have many different adaptations to ensure adequate recruitment without “hoof action.” Some seeds are attractive to seed eating species like some birds, voles, even ants that carry seeds to their burrows or new locations and help distribute and plant the seeds. Other plants have special adaptations like needle grass which “drills” itself into the ground to ensure successful germination.

MYTH: Biocrusts capping soil surface inhibits plant growth, preventing seeds from penetrating the soil and water from soaking into the ground. Biocrusts need to be broken up by hoof action.

REALITY: Biocrusts are common throughout grassland ecosystems around the world. They are particularly common in arid landscapes where they play a critical role in ecosystem health and function. Biocrusts cover the soil between the spaces in bunchgrass communities (bunchgrasses are common in arid landscapes) keep other plants from germinating and competing for nutrients and water. Biocrusts can decrease the germination of large seeded annual grasses that are degrading grasslands and increasing fire frequency in grasslands and steppe habitats. While inhibiting annual grasses the biocrusts help the perennial grass species thrive.

MYTH: Livestock, particularly cattle, can be managed so as to emulate native species that may no longer graze grasslands.

REALITY: The notion that livestock can replace or emulate the native grazers that may have inhabited a region prior to conversion to domestication. Nearly all plant communities have multiple herbivores that chomp, chew, and graze upon their leaves, stems and even roots. This includes everything from nematodes in the soil that “graze” on roots to grasshoppers, ground squirrels, birds like geese to larger mammals like deer, elk and bison. However, funneling above ground biomass (leaves, stems, etc.) into a single animal like a cow simplifies energy flow in the ecosystem. It can also result in uneven herbivory on plants since the natural collection of animals all graze different plants, different parts of plants at different times and seasons than the single herbivore effects of one or two kinds of domestic animals.

MYTH: Domestic animals like cattle are merely replacing herds of native species like bison that once roamed grasslands.

REALITY: There are substantial evolutionary differences between domestic animals like cattle and native species like bison. Bison naturally move more frequently than cattle. They are better at defending themselves against native predators. They can exist on lower quality forage than cattle.

Furthermore, most of the American West did not have large grazing herds of bison and/or other large mammals. For instance, bison were largely absent or found in very small numbers west of the Continental Divide. Most of the Great Basin of what is now Nevada, western Utah, southern Idaho, southeast Oregon historically did not have large herds of grazing animals, nor did Arizona, much of California, Oregon and Washington.

MYTH: Domestic animals like cattle merely replaced extinct native herbivores that once roamed the western United States.

REALITY: Sometimes Savory advocates will admit that historically large herds of bison, elk and other grazing mammals were absent from much of the West. But they argue that cattle are merely replacing Ice Age herbivores like giant sloth and ancient bison that are now extinct.This ignores the fact that grasslands have not remained static since the last Ice Age. Indeed, in the absence of large herbivores, western grasslands have evolved in response to climate variation, and changing evolutionary pressures. The absence of large grazing mammals permitted plants with a low tolerance for grazing pressure to occupy much of the arid West. These plants invested energy in developing extensive root systems and other mechanisms to survive in arid environments but have few adaptations that permit them to survive grazing by large mammals.

MYTH: Plants need to be grazed and benefit from livestock grazing.

REALITY: Savory mixed up compensation with need and an economic value with a biological one. The grazing of a plant harms the plant, especially if the cropping occurs during the growing season. Plants can compensate for this loss but often do so at a cost to their overall fitness. Grazing the top of a grass means that the bottom or root of the plant will compensate for it but only with a loss of capital and root mass, weakening the plant that now needs rest from grazing.

The loss of photosynthetic material (leaves) by grazing causes a plant to respond by translocation of energy from roots or other parts of the plant to build new leaf material—assuming there is sufficient moisture, nutrients and other critical elements available to recover from the grazing event.

Thus cropping may result in greater overall biomass production as plants seek to compensate for their loss of leaf material. However, the production of more above-ground biomass is often done at the expense of other important plant material including a reduction in root growth, loss of reproductive effort (the plants expends energy on leaf production instead of seed production), and so forth. It is hardly a “benefit.”

To characterize compensation from a harmful event as a need is analogous to suggesting that shooting and poisoning of coyotes is a “benefit” to coyotes because they compensate for these losses by producing additional pups.

Sage grouse listing denied

Today the US FWS announced today that the sage grouse, a once wide-spread bird of the West’s sagebrush steppe, warranted listing under the Endangered Species Act, but would be “precluded”. A disjunct isolated sage grouse population along the California-Nevada border formerly known as the Mono Basin sage grouse was also determined to warrant listing but was precluded as well. Such a designation offers no protection to the bird.
The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is a large, ground-dwelling, chicken-like bird, measuring up to 30 inches in length, is two feet tall and weighs between two to seven pounds. The sage grouse is an iconic bird of the wide-open sagebrush steppe of the western United States.
Sage grouse are found in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, western Colorado, Wyoming, eastern California and several Canadian provinces. They currently occupy 56 percent of their former range—but at nothing close to their original densities and many isolated populations are likely to become extinct in the next 30-50 years.
The once abundant bird has been in a long-term decline and was petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The Bush administration is alleged to have interfered with previous attempts to list the bird and the FWS was ordered by a court to review the bird’s status.
Today the US FWS announced today that the bird warranted listing under the Endangered Species Act, but would be “precluded”. A disjunct isolated sage grouse population along the California-Nevada border formerly known as the Mono Basin sage grouse was also determined to warrant listing but was precluded as well. Such a designation offers no protection to the bird.
Controversial
The sage grouse may be one of the most controversial species petitioned for ESA protection in recent history. Listing would no doubt restrict oil and gas exploration, livestock grazing, and ORV travel on public lands. Warranted but precluded are how administrations avoid the political fall out from listing controversial species, so the decision by the Obama administration to dodge listing while disappointing, is not surprising.
While I have no particular knowledge of political backroom dealings, it’s not difficult to imagine that powerful western Democrats like Senator Harry Reid of Nevada and Senator Max Baucus of Montana were likely campaigning to keep the bird off the ESA list.
Bird Once Abundant
At one time the bird was very abundant. I have read historical accounts of settlers knocking birds out of the air with sticks while riding home from school and hunters in Nevada filling wagons with the birds.
I remember talking with a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks biologist about his childhood when they hunted sage grouse near Dillon, Montana and always killed their limit. Today you would court yourself lucky to see a sage grouse in many places where they were formally abundant.
While indiscriminate and unrestricted hunting no doubt had a local effect on some sage grouse, regulated hunting per say is not likely a major factor in sage grouse decline over most of the West.
Livestock Major Factor in Decline
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to listing was from ranchers and for good reason. Sage grouse are negatively affected in a number of ways by livestock production. First, despite their name, sage grouse chicks forage on insects in riparian zones during the first few weeks of their lives. Riparian zones have been severely degraded by livestock, and indeed, some estimates suggest that 90% of most riparian areas are in poor condition.
Livestock grazing also removes grass cover for the birds. Even in “good” condition rangeland, grasses may be cropped so short that grouse may be vulnerable to predators. Many rangelands have plenty of sagebrush, but little grass to provide effective hiding cover for grouse.
Fences are another problem for sage grouse. Predators like hawks use fence posts to scan the surrounding landscape for prey like grouse. Grouse are also poor fliers and too frequently wind up flying into barbwire.
Another problem is the loss of sagebrush habitat due to herbicide treatments. In many parts of the West, sagebrush is treated as a “weed” to be eradicated to promote the growth of more grass for livestock.
Oil and Gas, Farming, all have effect.
Other factors that have compounded the negatives impacts of livestock production upon sage grouse are the additional loss of sagebrush habitat to farming. In many parts of the West, sagebrush has been converted into wheat fields, and alfalfa fields.
Other development, in particular, oil and gas exploration and drilling impacts the grouse as well. The activity associated with major development can disturb grouse which are forced to abandon good habitat to oil rigs. Plus telephone poles and power lines, wind farms, strung across open sage creates perches for hawks and other aerial predators.
Next Steps
Senator Reid recently requested more funds for sage grouse protection and advocates “voluntary” efforts to save the grouse. Such “solutions” is typical of politicians who don’t want to do anything. Throw more money at the situation to buy time and make it appear that you’re doing something good for the species. Some changes might actually benefit the bird, but such changes, and funding could be done even if the species were listed. The goal of such diversionary tactics is to delay listing as long as possible.
Will any good come from a warranted but precluded decision? Perhaps. The threat of listing can sometimes motive people to change some of their practices to benefit a threatened species. Intransitive ranchers might be motivated to change grazing practices and oil and gas companies might accept some restrictions on when and where they can drill for energy if they believe cooperation may preclude listing under the ESA.
It is unlikely that environmental groups will accept the warranted but precluded decision, and will seek to force listing through the courts. But as far as the administration is concerned, this is fine. Winding one’s way through the courts takes time, and even if ultimately successful, the Obama administration and/or any future administration can always blame environmentalists for any restrictions placed upon resource exploitation activities. It’s how the political game is played. One can only hope that time does not run out for the sage grouse while games are played.

Grass-Fed Beef Won’t Save the Planet

Another livestock industry propaganda piece recently appeared in Time Magazine by Lisa Abend titled “How Grass fed Beef Can Save The Planet.” The basic premise of the article is that factory farming is bad, so grass-fed or free-range beef is good for the planet and even human health. Grass-fed beef is the latest fad with people who have little scientific training, and thus are easily duped by pseudo-scientific sounding pronouncements.

While there are some livestock operators who are promoting grass-fed beef, many of the advocates are well meaning people who are vulnerable to anything that have the word “natural” in it. Just because raising cows in factory farms on grains is bad for the Earth, does not mean that cows grazing on pasture or hay are better for the Earth.

The assumption of many people is that less industrialized makes it better to consume. Some of the “natural” folks eschew city water treated with chemicals, for instance, and prefer “natural” water sources. Yet many natural water sources have many unhealthy things in them. Arsenic, for instance, is often found at naturally high levels in water at levels that are a health risk to drink. One needs to be careful about assuming that anything more “natural” is automatically safer, healthier, and better for humans and the planet.

I do not want to contend that industrialized livestock production is good. There are huge problems with factory-raised meat. Cattle raised on grain tend to be given more hormones, and grain production generally requires heavy pesticide and fertilizer use, as well as fossil fuels to operate machinery. But just because a cow grazes in a pasture, does not mean it is “green” or that eating grass-fed beef is environmentally beneficial.

Indeed, as a generalization, almost all the negatives associated with Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) exist with grass-fed beef. And grass-fed livestock has many unique impacts not shared by their factory-raised counterparts that may be more environmentally destructive. The assumption that grass-fed beef is “healthier” is based more upon wishful thinking than reality.

One of the presumed benefits of grass-fed meat is the idea that somehow livestock fed grass reduces global warming gases. Research suggests that livestock, particularly cows, are a major source of greenhouse gases (GHG) that are warming the planet. One recent UN report finds that as much as 18% of the GHG are from livestock—more than all transportation and/or industry sources of GHG. Others put the figure even higher. No matter which studies are used, there is little dispute that cattle are a major contributor to global warming.

Fermentation in the animal’s rumen generates huge quantities of gas—between 30-50 liters per hour in adult cattle. So those proponents of grass-fed beef start with the simplistic assumption that since cattle evolved to eat grass, such a diet must be superior to grain-fed factory raised animals. Yet grass is a poor substitute for grains in terms of caloric energy per pound of feed. As a consequence, a grass-fed cow’s rumen bacteria must work longer breaking down and digesting grass in order to extract the same energy content found in grain—all the while the bacteria in its rumen are emitting great quantities of methane.

Researcher, Nathan Pelletier of Nova Scotia has found that GHG are 50 percent higher in grass-fed beef. If somehow magically we could convert all factory grown cattle to free range grass-fed animals, our global warming situation would be greatly accelerated.

Beyond the GHG issue, free ranging cattle present other problems that CAFO raised animals do not. For instance, one of the major consequences of having cattle roaming the range is soil compaction. There’s not a single study that demonstrates that having a thousand pound cow trample soil is good for the land.

Soil compaction reduces water penetration, creating more run-off and erosion. Because water cannot percolate into the soil easily, soil compaction from cattle creates more arid conditions—a significant problem in the already arid West, but also an issue in the East since the soils are often moister for a longer period of time. Moist soils are more easily compacted.

Sometimes the influence of pasture grazing is long lasting. One study in North Carolina found that stream insect biota were still significantly different in streams heavily impacted by agriculture 50 years after agricultural use had ceased compared to control streams. Soil compaction also reduces the space in the top active layer of soil where most soil microbes live, reducing soil fertility.

Free ranging cattle trample riparian areas, the thin green lines where 70-80% of all western wildlife utilize for homes and food. According to the EPA livestock is the major source of pollution and riparian damage in the West. But that doesn’t let eastern cows off the hook since trampling of riparian areas also occurs in the East, though with less biological impact since fewer species are solely dependent on this habitat.

Cattle, of course, release a lot of manure on the soil. A typical 1,100 pound cow releases 92 pounds of manure a day as compared to a typical person a pound of feces Most of that excrement is left on the land where it washes into streams and adds to nutrient loading as well as the spread of disease like E coli bacteria. In fact, livestock manure is a major source of water-borne disease and pollution throughout the country.

To put this into perspective, consider that state of Vermont has approximately 150,000 cows, most of whom excrete their waste either directly on pastures or if collected from barns it is later spread on fields. In either case, most of this waste winds up on the land without further treatment. This is the same as permitting a city of nearly 14 million people to spread their human waste on the land!

It has been asserted without good evidence that grass-fed beef cattle produce less E-coli, Campylobacter, Salmonella, and other dangerous pathogens. Yet all of these diseases have been repeatedly isolated from both grass and grain-fed livestock.

Outbreaks of diseases like E coli have been traced back to pastured animals. Notably, the E. coli spinach outbreak in California in 2006 was isolated from pastured cattle. And there are other examples.

By contrast CAFO operations, because of their scale and ability to collect and process manure in a treatment plant, can potentially be less polluting overall compared to grass-fed beef—though admittedly this is not common practice as yet.

There are disease issues for wildlife as well. For example, grass-fed animals carry disease that can harm native species. Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) or Mad Cow disease is thought to have originated with domestic livestock and later transferred to elk and deer. And foot and mouth disease transmitted from cattle has been shown to infect bison. Brucellosis, another disease originating with domestic cattle, has created a huge controversy in Montana, where bison infected with the disease are killed when they wander from Yellowstone National Park.

Free range cattle are also problematic for other reasons as well. Take predators. Most grass-fed cattle are vulnerable to predators, and it is the presence of “free range livestock” that leads to conflicts and the eventual slaughter of everything from wolves to coyotes both as preventative or in retaliation for predation.
On western rangelands where livestock are often let loose on public lands, even the mere presence of cows socially displaces native herbivores like elk that simply won’t graze in the same place as cows. Since there are no empty niches, these native herbivores are displaced into lower quality habitat. Thus even “predator friendly” beef is more hype than reality.

One of the big problems with grain-fed livestock operations is the huge amount of land that is used to produce grain. Approximately 80-90 million acres of land in the US are used to grow corn alone. That is 80-90 million acres of once native prairie that is now growing a mono crop at a tremendous loss of biodiversity.

As bad as that plant community conversion may be for natural process, and native species, grass-fed beef generally dine on either pasture or hay—both of which consist of exotic grasses that are planted at the expense of native plants. In most states, the biggest single factor in the destruction of native plant communities has been their conversion to hay or pasture. Indeed, across the country more than 130 million acres have been converted to hay and pasture. To put this into perspective, the entire footprint of all urbanization and developed land in the entire US is about 60 million acres. In a sense one could argue that grass-fed cows have destroyed far more of the native plant cover than all the cities, highways, factories, Wal-Mart parking lots, etc. combined. No small impact. Whatever the exact figure may be, there is no denying that a lot of native plant communities have been converted to hay or pasture.

Keep in mind also that in the West, much of the pasture and hay is created by irrigation thus water withdrawals from streams and rivers. In most of the western United States, the majority of water consumed is not for domestic or industrial uses, but for agriculture, and the prime agricultural product produced is hay and/or irrigated pasture. As a consequence, aquatic ecosystems are fragmented, destroying fisheries, degrading riparian areas (water withdrawals affects water available for streamside vegetation), and increasing the effects of pollution (because toxins become more concentrated).

Even cattle grazing on native grasslands are not immune from judgment. One can’t be putting the majority of native grasses into the belly of exotic animals like cattle which are then exported from the system without impacting the ecosystem. Every blade of grass going into a cow’s belly is that much less forage for native animals, from grasshoppers to elk.

There are far more ecological problems I could list for grass-fed beef, but suffice to say cattle production of any kind is not environmentally friendly.
The further irony of grass-fed beef is that consumption of beef products is not healthy despite claims to the contrary. There may be less fat in grass-fed beef, but the differences are not significant enough to warrant the claim that beef consumption is “healthy.” There is a huge body of literature about the contribution of red meat to major health problems including breast, colon, stomach, bladder, and prostate cancer. The other dietary related malady is the strong link between red meat consumption and heart disease.

Another health claim is that grass-fed beef has more omega-3 fats which are considered important for lowering health attack risks. However, the different between grain-fed and grass-fed is so small as to be insignificant, not to mention there are many other non-beef sources for this. Fish, walnuts, beans, flaxseeds, winter squash and olive oil are only some of the foods that l provide concentrated sources of omega-3 fats. Arguing that eating grass-fed beef is necessary or healthier grain-fed beef is like claiming it is better to smoke a filtered cigarette instead of a non-filtered one. The health benefits are minor if they make a difference at all.

There may be ethical reasons to prefer grass-fed animals over the often inhumane treatment given to factory-farmed animals. But even that rationale seems hollow to me. If one is that concerned with ethical issues, one should consider whether keeping any animals captive for slaughter is really ethical.

Beef consumption, whether grass-fed or grain-fed animals is neither healthy for the planet nor for humans. Reducing or eliminating red meat—whether grass or grain fed—from one’s diet is one of the easiest way to “save” the planet.

George Wuerthner is the editor of Welfare Ranching—The Subsidized Destruction of the American West as well as a contributor to Fatal Harvest about Industrialized Agriculture, and a soon to be published book on Factory Farming.

Grass Fed Beef Won't Save the Planet

Another livestock industry propaganda piece recently appeared in Time Magazine by Lisa Abend titled “How Grass fed Beef Can Save The Planet.” The basic premise of the article is that factory farming is bad, so grass-fed or free-range beef is good for the planet and even human health. Grass-fed beef is the latest fad with people who have little scientific training, and thus are easily duped by pseudo-scientific sounding pronouncements.

While there are some livestock operators who are promoting grass-fed beef, many of the advocates are well meaning people who are vulnerable to anything that have the word “natural” in it. Just because raising cows in factory farms on grains is bad for the Earth, does not mean that cows grazing on pasture or hay are better for the Earth.

The assumption of many people is that less industrialized makes it better to consume. Some of the “natural” folks eschew city water treated with chemicals, for instance, and prefer “natural” water sources. Yet many natural water sources have many unhealthy things in them. Arsenic, for instance, is often found at naturally high levels in water at levels that are a health risk to drink. One needs to be careful about assuming that anything more “natural” is automatically safer, healthier, and better for humans and the planet.

I do not want to contend that industrialized livestock production is good. There are huge problems with factory-raised meat. Cattle raised on grain tend to be given more hormones, and grain production generally requires heavy pesticide and fertilizer use, as well as fossil fuels to operate machinery. But just because a cow grazes in a pasture, does not mean it is “green” or that eating grass-fed beef is environmentally beneficial.

Indeed, as a generalization, almost all the negatives associated with Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) exist with grass-fed beef. And grass-fed livestock has many unique impacts not shared by their factory-raised counterparts that may be more environmentally destructive. The assumption that grass-fed beef is “healthier” is based more upon wishful thinking than reality.

One of the presumed benefits of grass-fed meat is the idea that somehow livestock fed grass reduces global warming gases. Research suggests that livestock, particularly cows, are a major source of greenhouse gases (GHG) that are warming the planet.

One recent UN report finds that as much as 18% of the GHG are from livestock—more than all transportation and/or industry sources of GHG. Others put the figure even higher. No matter which studies are used, there is little dispute that cattle are a major contributor to global warming.

Fermentation in the animal’s rumen generates huge quantities of gas—between 30-50 liters per hour in adult cattle. So those proponents of grass-fed beef start with the simplistic assumption that since cattle evolved to eat grass, such a diet must be superior to grain-fed factory raised animals.

Yet grass is a poor substitute for grains in terms of caloric energy per pound of feed. As a consequence, a grass-fed cow’s rumen bacteria must work longer breaking down and digesting grass in order to extract the same energy content found in grain—all the while the bacteria in its rumen are emitting great quantities of methane.

Researcher, Nathan Pelletier of Nova Scotia has found that GHG are 50 percent higher in grass-fed beef. If somehow magically we could convert all factory grown cattle to free range grass-fed animals, our global warming situation would be greatly accelerated.

Beyond the GHG issue, free ranging cattle present other problems that CAFO raised animals do not. For instance, one of the major consequences of having cattle roaming the range is soil compaction. There’s not a single study that demonstrates that having a thousand pound cow trample soil is good for the land.

Soil compaction reduces water penetration, creating more run-off and erosion. Because water cannot percolate into the soil easily, soil compaction from cattle creates more arid conditions—a significant problem in the already arid West, but also an issue in the East since the soils are often moister for a longer period of time. Moist soils are more easily compacted.

Sometimes the influence of pasture grazing is long lasting. One study in North Carolina found that stream insect biota were still significantly different in streams heavily impacted by agriculture 50 years after agricultural use had ceased compared to control streams. Soil compaction also reduces the space in the top active layer of soil where most soil microbes live, reducing soil fertility.

Free ranging cattle trample riparian areas, the thin green lines where 70-80% of all western wildlife utilize for homes and food. According to the EPA livestock is the major source of pollution and riparian damage in the West. But that doesn’t let eastern cows off the hook since trampling of riparian areas also occurs in the East, though with less biological impact since fewer species are solely dependent on this habitat.

Cattle, of course, release a lot of manure on the soil. A typical 1,100 pound cow releases 92 pounds of manure a day as compared to a typical person a pound of feces Most of that excrement is left on the land where it washes into streams and adds to nutrient loading as well as the spread of disease like E coli bacteria. In fact, livestock manure is a major source of water-borne disease and pollution throughout the country.

To put this into perspective, consider that state of Vermont has approximately 150,000 cows, most of whom excrete their waste either directly on pastures or if collected from barns it is later spread on fields. In either case, most of this waste winds up on the land without further treatment. This is the same as permitting a city of nearly 14 million people to spread their human waste on the land!

It has been asserted without good evidence that grass-fed beef cattle produce less E-coli, Campylobacter, Salmonella, and other dangerous pathogens. Yet all of these diseases have been repeatedly isolated from both grass and grain-fed livestock.

Outbreaks of diseases like E coli have been traced back to pastured animals. Notably, the E. coli spinach outbreak in California in 2006 was isolated from pastured cattle. And there are other examples.

By contrast CAFO operations, because of their scale and ability to collect and process manure in a treatment plant, can potentially be less polluting overall compared to grass-fed beef—though admittedly this is not common practice as yet.

There are disease issues for wildlife as well. For example, grass-fed animals carry disease that can harm native species. Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) or Mad Cow disease is thought to have originated with domestic livestock and later transferred to elk and deer. And foot and mouth disease transmitted from cattle has been shown to infect bison. Brucellosis, another disease originating with domestic cattle, has created a huge controversy in Montana, where bison infected with the disease are killed when they wander from Yellowstone National Park.

Free range cattle are also problematic for other reasons as well. Take predators. Most grass-fed cattle are vulnerable to predators, and it is the presence of “free range livestock” that leads to conflicts and the eventual slaughter of everything from wolves to coyotes both as preventative or in retaliation for predation.

On western rangelands where livestock are often let loose on public lands, even the mere presence of cows socially displaces native herbivores like elk that simply won’t graze in the same place as cows. Since there are no empty niches, these native herbivores are displaced into lower quality habitat. Thus even “predator friendly” beef is more hype than reality.

One of the big problems with grain-fed livestock operations is the huge amount of land that is used to produce grain. Approximately 80-90 million acres of land in the US are used to grow corn alone. That is 80-90 million acres of once native prairie that is now growing a mono crop at a tremendous loss of biodiversity.

As bad as that plant community conversion may be for natural process, and native species, grass-fed beef generally dine on either pasture or hay—both of which consist of exotic grasses that are planted at the expense of native plants. In most states, the biggest single factor in the destruction of native plant communities has been their conversion to hay or pasture. Indeed, across the country more than 130 million acres have been converted to hay and pasture.

By contrast he entire footprint of all urbanization and developed land in the entire US is about 60 million acres. In a sense one could argue that grass-fed cows have destroyed far more of the native plant cover than all the cities, highways, factories, Wal-Mart parking lots, etc. combined. No small impact. Whatever the exact figure may be, there is no denying that a lot of native plant communities have been converted to hay or pasture.

In the West, much of the pasture and hay is created by irrigation thus water withdrawals from streams and rivers. In most of the western United States, the majority of water consumed is not for domestic or industrial uses, but for agriculture, and the prime agricultural product produced is hay and/or irrigated pasture. As a consequence, aquatic ecosystems are fragmented, destroying fisheries, degrading riparian areas (water withdrawals affects water available for streamside vegetation), and increasing the effects of pollution (because toxins become more concentrated).

Even cattle grazing on native grasslands are not immune from judgment. One can’t be putting the majority of native grasses into the belly of exotic animals like cattle which are then exported from the system without impacting the ecosystem. Every blade of grass going into a cow’s belly is that much less forage for native animals, from grasshoppers to elk.

There are far more ecological problems I could list for grass-fed beef, but suffice to say cattle production of any kind is not environmentally friendly.

The further irony of grass-fed beef is that consumption of beef products is not healthy despite claims to the contrary. There may be less fat in grass-fed beef, but the differences are not significant enough to warrant the claim that beef consumption is “healthy.” There is a huge body of literature about the contribution of red meat to major health problems including breast, colon, stomach, bladder, and prostate cancer. The other dietary related malady is the strong link between red meat consumption and heart disease.

Another health claim is that grass-fed beef has more omega-3 fats which are considered important for lowering health attack risks. However, the different between grain-fed and grass-fed is so small as to be insignificant, not to mention there are many other non-beef sources for this. Fish, walnuts, beans, flaxseeds, winter squash and olive oil are only some of the foods that l provide concentrated sources of omega-3 fats.

Arguing that eating grass-fed beef is necessary or healthier grain-fed beef is like claiming it is better to smoke a filtered cigarette instead of a non-filtered one. The health benefits are minor if they make a difference at all.

There may be ethical reasons to prefer grass-fed animals over the often inhumane treatment given to factory-farmed animals. But even that rationale seems hollow to me. If one is that concerned with ethical issues, one should consider whether keeping any animals captive for slaughter is really ethical.

Beef consumption, whether grass-fed or grain-fed animals is neither healthy for the planet nor for humans. Reducing or eliminating red meat—whether grass or grain fed—from one’s diet is one of the easiest way to “save” the planet.

DOES GRAZING BENEFIT GRASSES?

GEORGE WUERTHNER

INTRODUCTION

One of the most persistent myths perpetuated by the livestock industry and its proponents is the assertion that grasslands benefit from herb ivory. Actually this is not a new issue since it has been contested for decades in the ecological literature and largely resolved with most botanists and other ecologists concluding that the purported “benefits” from herb ivory—must be placed within a contextual framework that sees cropping of plants by animals and plant adaptations as largely an antagonistic response. Nevertheless, this has not stopped livestock proponent (Knight et al 2001) from repeating the same argument that livestock grazing benefits grasslands. Some (Savory 1999) even go further suggesting that if ungrazed, grasslands may deteriorate or become “degraded.” Over-rest, not overgrazing, they warn, is the problem (Savory 1999, Knight et al. 2001) in much of the West. Such assertions, of course, conveniently legitimize the exploitation of rangelands by the livestock industry and deserve careful scrutiny from conservationists.

CONFUSING TOLERANCE AND NEED

Grasses and large herbivores have co-existed for millions of year. In many ecosystems large mammal herbivores consume between 20-50% of the annual net primary productivity (Detling 1988). Over that time plants evolved mechanisms that allow them to survive, and even flourish with grazing animals. Grazed plants tend to have higher nitrogen levels (because they have a larger percentage of rapidly growing tissue), that are more palatable and often more nutritious to herbivores. Nevertheless, claims that grass require, rather than merely tolerate herb ivory demonstrate confusion between “tolerance” and “need.” Many grassland plants have developed mechanisms that permit them to persevere in spite of harm from herbivory. The ability to tolerate adverse impacts, however, should not be interpreted as evidence of “need.”

The blanket application of assertions that grasslands need large mammal herbivory pressure can easily be refuted by a quick tour of the West. Even in the Great Plains where the alleged benefits of large mammal herbivory are said to be greatest, there are numerous sites that remained ungrazed by large herbivores of any kind—whether livestock or bison, yet do not “suffer” from ecosystem degradation or decline. That is not to say there are no differences between grazed and ungrazed sites. There are sometimes differences between ungrazed sties and grazed sites in plant species, shifts between plant groups favored by C3 to C4 pathways and genetic responses (Detling 1988). And studies have demonstrated that even grazing by small herbivores such as prairie dogs can causes striking changes in plant species composition. One study in South Dakota found that 25 years of prairie dog grazing had caused the replacement of grasses by forbs (Coppock et al. 1983)

MOST WESTERN PUBLIC LANDS WERE NEVER GRAZED BY LARGE HERVIVORES

Over most of the West, arguments about the potential benefits of large mammal herbivory are a moot point. The vast bulk of public lands that are grazed by domestic animals including the Great Basin, Southwest, California grasslands, Palouse Prairie of eastern Washington, Oregon and adjacent parts of Montana and Idaho, and alpine and subalpine basins throughout the Rockies, had few , if any large herds of grazing mammals like bison (Baker 1978, Mack and Thompson 1982). Plants in these regions poorly tolerate any but the lightest amounts of grazing pressure.

PLANT ADAPTATIONS TO HERBIVORY PRESSURE

East of the Rockies on the Great Plains, bison, antelope, elk, and other herbivores were locally abundant, and this has led some to speculate that such grasslands are dependent upon herbivory pressure for their ecological health. Some of the evidence used to support this contention are the presence of high concentrations of silicates (Brizuela et al 1986), ground-level meristems, vegetative reproduction (as opposed to seed), increased tillering and the ability to translocate resources from roots to leaf production referred to as “compensatory growth” (McNaughton 1986, McNaughton et al. 1988). These and other adaptations of Great Plains grasses are often cited as an indication that the Great Plains grasses evolved with large grazing mammals. While there is no doubt that many of these adaptations help plains grasses to cope with herbivory, it’s a stretch to then argue that they “need” to be grazed by livestock or even native herbivores like bison.

Some livestock advocates while unwilling to suggest that grasslands benefit from livestock may nevertheless argue that livestock herbivory under proper management does little harm (Laurenroth et al. 1994), thus should not preclude livestock grazing on public or private lands.

While most evolutionary ecologists would have no problem with the statement that adaptations to herbivory may help a plant to cope with herbivory pressure, they do not necessarily agree that grasslands “need” to be grazed or they will somehow become degraded in the absence of grazing influences. Indeed, the overwhelming evidence is to the contrary.

For instance, Belsky (1986) finds that while herbivory may benefit certain plants by reducing competition or removing senescent tissue, no convincing evidence supports the theory that herbivory benefits grazed plants. Belsky and Painter (1993) warn that uncritical acceptance of research purporting to demonstrate benefits from grazing may result from misinterpretation of evolutionary ecology.

Other authors warn that the differences in height, leaf length, and other morphological characterizations of grazed vs. ungrazed plants often used to indicate greater “vigor” may be misleading because of “possible grazing-related genetic differences between plants in sites with different grazing histories” (Painter et al 1989).

Finally, lack of overwhelming evidence of harm as reported by Lauenroth et al. (1994) from livestock herbivory under certain conditions does not necessarily mean no harm is occurring. This is an especially convenient position for livestock proponents to take since range professionals who are usually livestock proponents conduct most research. Such researchers can not be perceived to be unbiased observers. The kinds of questions and research one conducts often determine the kinds of answers one finds. Range professionals are not necessarily going out of their way to find examples of harmful impacts from livestock. Their findings are countered to some degree by others such as Licht (1997) that focuses on ecosystem harm resulting from livestock production.

PLANT ADAPTATIONS ARE ANTAGONISTIC RESPONSE TO HERBIVORY

Indeed, the presence of high levels of silicates, sharp awns, low nutritional quality, and vegetative modes of reproduction may be a consequence of a long association with herbivores, but these adaptations suggest an antagonistic relationship not a beneficial one. Much as alarms, multiple locks and bars over windows in a high crime neighborhood may suggest a long association with thieves, one would never claim that the presence of these devices indicates a “beneficial” relationship between criminals and victims of criminal activity. The fact that some businesses may persist in the presence of high crime does not necessarily mean they need it. Indeed, all these “compensatory” factors “cost” the business more energy and resources. That some businesses may be successful in spite of these costs should not be taken as evidence that they “need” or “thrive” in the presence of thieves.

Similarly the production of sharp awns, vegetative reproduction (which is inferior to sexual reproduction with seeds), and the ability to replace lost photosynthetic material are adaptations to herbivory that have a real cost to plants (Holland and Detling 1990). These authors state “the decrease in root biomass along the grazing chronosequence is probably caused by repeated grazing and reduced allocation of carbon belowground.” Even grazing by bison has a similar effect. Johnson and Matchett (2001) found that bison “grazing decreased root growth, especially in heavily grazed patches.” Even grazing by smaller mammals like prairie dogs can substantially reduce root biomass (Whicker and Detling. 1988) In other words, plants respond to grazing pressure by reduction in the amount of roots produced. This has real consequences to the plants living in arid and semi arid climates including the Great Plains since over all root biomass determines the ability of plants to capture soil moisture and thus survive periodic drought common in these environments.

Even when such negative overall effects on plant biomass is not found, does not mean that grazing enhances grasslands. Evidence such as increased growth rates, higher total biomass, increased seed production occasionally (very rarely) found in clipped or grazed plants used by livestock proponents (Savory 1999, Knight et al. 2001) to argue that herbivory “benefits” plants can be more properly termed responses to injury (Belsky et al. 1993).

NEW LEAVES COME AT THE EXPENSE OF ROOTS

Plants respond to clipping by herbivores in the same way that your body responds to hypothermia. It shuts down blood flow to less “vital” parts of the body and tries to maintain a core temperature. After losing its leaves to a herbivore, the plant says “May Day” May Day”-- I need to grow some new leaves because I’ll “stave” if I can’t photosynthesize. I have to maintain my “core” food production abilities. A grass plant responds by translocating energy from roots to leaf production much as the body shuts down blood flow to extremities when core temperatures are declining due to hypothermia. But just as it comes at a cost to other bodily functions, the translocation of energy from roots (where extra carbohydrates are usually stored) to the production of new leaves comes at a cost in root growth. Less root mass, for instance, can cause such plants to die during drought periods. In making the “decision” about responses and resource allocation, a plant places leaf replacement first since it needs to “eat” over the reduction in root mass “gambling” that it can grow enough new roots in time to compensate for these changes before the next drought.

Indeed, all studies that demonstrate a “benefit” from herbivory are done in laboratory conditions where water and nutrition are unlimited and competition does not exist. Or as Jaramillo and Detling (1988) have pointed out findings of reduced production of individual plants in field exclosures may be as much the result of greater competition among plants than due to any positive direct effects on plants as a consequence of herbivory.

Furthermore, many of these plant adaptations such as the ability to replace lost photosynthetic material by translocating resources from roots to leaves or ground level meristems may also be adaptations to other influences like fire that may have some positive benefits for grazed plants as well. Such adaptations do not always demonstrate a long continuous association with herbivory pressures.

ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS ONLY PART OF THE PICTURE

The usual evidence cited by most livestock proponents to demonstrate that herb ivory “benefits” grasslands involve the measurements of overall ABOVE GROUND biomass production. This is partially due to the fact that measuring roots and other below ground parts is difficult to do without killing the plant. Furthermore, most range researchers are primarily interested in the growth of leaves and stems since these are the parts of the plant that are forage for livestock.

Above ground biomass (which excludes roots, which is the largest part of the grass plant biomass) can increase under herbivory pressure. If you crop a grass during the growing season, it will respond by growing more leafy material. If you measure the leafy material prior to cropping and measure the new material produced in respond to cropping as well, the overall biomass of this leafy material we be greater than what you had if you had not cropped the plant at all. In addition, the remaining unclipped leaves on a plant will sometimes increase their photosynthetic output by up to 35% in response to the loss of other leafy material.

ECONOMIC VS BIOLOGICAL VALUES

If your concern is production of above ground biomass to feed livestock, than one might be willing to call these responses a “benefit”. However, we must be clear to note that this is an economic value, not a biological or evolutionary value. The young trees that are planted after clearcutting also produce more biomass per acre annually than old growth forests, but few would argue that clearcutting old growth forests is entirely a biological benefit. All of these “compensatory” factors can be thought of as “coping” mechanisms to injury or disturbance.

The response of grasses to cropping is somewhat analogous to the respond of coyotes to control. There is much evidence in the scientific literature that coyotes can increase pup reproduction and survival in the face of persecution. If we humans shoot, trap and poison coyotes, they respond to this “pressure” in the same way that plants respond to grazing. They compensate to survive. Exploited coyotes reproduce at a younger age and produce more pups that survive into adulthood. So if you are using overall pup production as a measurement or “indicator” of benefit, than shooting, trapping and poisoning coyotes could be argued to “benefit” coyotes. Of course, most environmentalists would be loath to argue that we should shoot, trap and poison coyotes because we wind up getting “more” coyotes overall. Few would argue this is a “benefit” except for Wildlife Services, which gets paid to kill coyotes.

DEFINATION OF HEALTH NEEDS CLARIFICATION

As explained previously above ground biomass production or even a large number of species recorded for a site does not necessarily make the site “healthy.” Sites that are disturbed may actually record more species in total numbers but deviate greatly from expected natural conditions. Most grassland ecologists agree that a “healthy” landscape tends to low rates of soil erosion, low rates of exotic species invasion, dominance by natural ecological processes as periodic wildfire that are expected on that site, wildlife and plant species in some kind of natural range of abundance and distribution again expected on that particular site and other criteria that broadens the definition of what exactly is ecological health.

GREAT PLAINS ECOSYSTEMS DO NOT DEGRADE IN THE ABSENCE OF LARGE MAMMAL HERBIVORY

Even the presence of large migratory grazing herds of bison and other native ungulates as occurred on the Great Plains doesn’t mean that these plant communities “need” to be grazed or somehow will become degraded from herbivory pressure. To see the fallacy of argument, observe the right of ways along rural highways and railroads throughout the Great Plains. Many thousands of miles of these rights of ways are neither grazed by large ungulates nor cropped in any other way (i.e. mowing). The fact that these remain luxuriously clothed in grasses suggests that herbivory is not necessary for “ecosystem health.” Similar examination of the tops of isolated buttes (Square Butte in Montana), rugged side hills and slopes of badlands as along the Missouri River Breaks, Badlands National Park and other sites where no large herbivores regularly grazed demonstrates that even on the Great Plains herb ivory is not necessary to maintain ecologically stable plant communities.

EXAMPLES OF NON-GRAZED GREAT PLAINS SITES

The following natural areas have neither bison nor livestock yet some are used, as research natural areas because of they remain as ecological standards against which livestock grazed sites are measured. These non large herbivore grazed Great Plains sites include many isolated buttes, mesas, steep cliff faces along rivers such as the Yellowstone, and tops of badlands found throughout the plains that are inaccessible to large herbivores for a variety of reasons.

Among the sites that I personally know have no large herbivory pressure but exhibit intact and healthy grasslands are the top of Square Butte, Montana, Devil's Tower National Monument, Wyoming, Makoshika State Park, Montana, Terry Badlands WSA, Montana, Agate Fossil Beds NM, Nebraska, Cherry Creek State Park, Colorado, Seedkadee NWR, Wyoming (this is on the edge of the plains and may be considered part of the Great Basin by some), Fort Stevenson State Park, ND, Badlands NP. (Badlands has bison grazing about 65,000 acres of the park, but according to the resource person I interviewed there is no “major ungulate grazing on much of the park."), Medicine Lake NWR Montana (some is ungrazed mid-grass prairie), Niobrara NWR Nebraska (bison are found on a small part of this mostly grassland area, but the majority has no livestock or bison). Scotts Bluff NM, Nebraska, Chatsworth State Park, Colorado, Boyd Lake SP Colorado, Boulder City Open Spaces, Colorado, Greycliffe Prairie Dog Town State Park, Montana, Ulm Pishkun State Park, Montana, Guadalupe National Park, Texas, and Springer Wildlife Management Area, near Torrington, Wyoming.

CONCLUSIONS

The debate over whether grasslands require herb ivory by large animals like livestock is at the center of much debate over continued grazing of public lands. Those who argue that grasslands require grazing misinterpret or conveniently ignore a great deal of scientific research that suggests that moderate to heavy grazing pressure is detrimental to grazed plants—even though plants do have coping adaptations that enable them to survive herb ivory effects.

At the very least the abundance of these sites suggests that the absence of large herbivore grazing pressure is not necessary for ecosystem health and calls into question the assertions that Great Plains grasslands or other grassland ecosystems require or need large mammal herbivory to remain “healthy.”

REFENCES:

Baker, H.G. 1978. Invasion and replacement in Californian and neotropical grasslands. Ppg. 368-384. In Wilson eds. Plant Relations in Pastures.

Belsky AJ. 1986. Does herbivory benefit plants? A review of the evidence. American Naturalist 127:870-892.

Belsky, A.J. 1987. The effects of grazing: Confounding of ecosystem, community, and organism scales. American Naturalist 129 (5) 777-783.

Belsky, A.J. , W.P. Carson, C.L. Jensen, and G.A. Fox. 1993. Overcompensation by plants:herbivore optimization or red herring? Evolutionary Ecology 7:109-121.

Brizuela, M.A. J.K. Detling, and M. Silvia Cid. 1986. Silicon concentration of grasses growing in sites with different grazing histories. Ecology 67 (4): 1095-1101.

Coppock, D.L., J.K. Detling, J.E. Ellis, and M.L. Dyer. 1983. Plant-herbivore interactions in a North American mixed grass prairie. Effects of black-tailed prairie dogs on intraseasonal above ground plant biomass and nutrient dynamics and plant species diversity. Oeocogia 56:1-9.

Detling, J. 1988. Grasslands and savannas: regulation of energy flow and nutrient cycling by herbivores. In. Concepts of Ecosystem Ecology—A comparative view. Pps. 131-148. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Holland, E.A. and J.K. Detling. 1990. Plant response to herbivory and below ground nitrogen cycling. Ecology 7 (3) 1040-1049.

Jaramillo V.R. and J.K. Detling. 1988. Grazing History, defoliation, and competition: effects on shortgrass production and nitrogen accumulation. Ecology 69(5):1599-1607

Johnson, L.C. and J.R. Matchett. 2001. Fire and grazing regulate below ground processes in tallgrass prairie. Ecology 82(12) 3377-3389.

Knight, R.L., W.C. Gilgert, and E. Marston. 2001. Ranching west of the 100th Meridian. Culture, Ecology and Economics. Island Press. Covelo, CA.

Laurenroth, W.K., D.G. Milchunas, J.L. Dodd, R. H. Hart, R.K. Heitschmidt, and L.R. Rittenhouse. 1994. Effects of grazing on ecosystems of the Great Plains. In Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the West. ed. M. Vavra, W.A. Laycock and R.D. Pieper.

Licht, D. S. 1997. Ecology and Economics of the Great Plains. U of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Mack, R.N. and J. N. Thompson. 1982. Evolution in steppe with few large, hooved mammals. American Naturalist 119 (6) 757-773.

McNaughton, S.J. 1986. On plants and herbivores. American Naturalist. 113:691-703.

McNaughton, S.J. R.W. Ruess, and S.W. Seagle. 1988. Large mammals and processes dynamics in African ecosystems. Bioscience 38(11) 794-80.

Painter, E. L., J.K. Detling, and D.A. Steingraeber. 1989. Grazing history, defoliation, and frequency-dependent competition: effects on two North American grasses .American Journal of Botany. 76(9) 1368-1379.

Painter, E.L. and A. J. Belsky. 1993. Application of herbivore optimization theory to rangelands of western United States. Ecological Applications 3(1) :2-9.

Savory, A. 1999. Holistic Management. Island Press. Covelo, CA.

Whicker, A.D. and J.K. Detling. 1988. Modification of vegetation structure and ecosystem processes by North American Grassland Mammals. In Plant form and vegetation structure. Ed. J.J. Werger, P.M. Van der Aasrt. H.J. During and J.A. Verhoeven. Pp. 301-316.

Williamson, S.C. J.K. Detling, J.R. Dodd, and M.I. Dyer. 1989. Experimental evaluation of the grazing optimization hypothesis. J of Range Management 42 (2) 149-152,

Bighorn Sheep Threatened by Livestock

Wild Bighorns Threatened by Domestic Sheep

Should domestic sheep be permitted to graze on public lands when their presence threatens the survival of wild bighorn sheep? That's a question that is increasingly getting serious discussion around the West.

By George Wuerthner, 6-23-09

At one point in my life I was very interested in studying wild sheep. I almost accepted a graduate research project at the U of Alaska to look at winter diet and behavior of Dall sheep in the Brooks Range. I wimped out when I realized that I’d be alone months at a time in a tiny cabin on the North Slope peering through a night vision scope to watch the animals in the near 24 hours of darkness of mid-winter forage in 50 below zero weather. It just didn’t sound like that much fun—though definitely interesting. But for a number of years I read everything I could about wild sheep, and I continue to follow research and news about wild sheep to this date.

Wild bighorn sheep were once fairly common in the western United States and Canada. Some estimates suggest as many as 1-2 million wild sheep once roamed the West. By 1900, over-hunting, habitat degradation and perhaps most importantly disease transmission from domestic sheep to wild sheep had brought the bighorns down to an estimated 15,000. Today there are about 75,000 sheep in the western US and Canada.

While that is a significant growth from its low point, wild bighorn sheep populations are nowhere near their biological potential. There is no doubt in my mind that the West could easily support far more sheep were it not for one thing—domestic livestock.

One thing that was obvious from a study of the literature is that whenever domestic sheep grazing overlaps with wild bighorn sheep, disease frequently decimates the wild animals. So prevalent was this in the scientific literature, I did not think it was controversial—yet as recently as this year the state of Idaho was debating whether domestic sheep were really a threat to wild sheep populations.

The biggest problem for wild sheep is development of pneumonia after contracting Pasturella bacteria from their domestic cousins. Sometimes as many much as 75 percent of the herds may die. For instance, in one study of Hells Canyon, 43 percent of the mortality was due to pneumonia and the researchers believed it was the major limit on bighorn sheep population growth.

Francis Singer and his associates looked at 24 transplanted sheep populations and correlation between persistence and distance to domestic sheep. Not surprising to most wildlife biologists, Singer found that the closer domestic sheep were to wild sheep, the less likely for bighorns to persist. In another study Singer also looked at over 100 bighorn transplants in six western states. Again he found the closer domestic sheep came to wild bighorn, the more likely those sheep were to disappear.

Despite many examples of such die-offs from around the West, the livestock industry and its lackeys in government continue to deny there is any link or at least try to confuse the connection by suggesting there is uncertainty.

This kind of deliberate obfuscation occurred recently when Dr. Marie Bulgin, a University of Idaho professor, and former President of the Idaho Sheep Growers Association, testified before the Idaho Legislature and in federal court that there was no firm scientific link showing domestic sheep transmitted pneumonia to bighorn sheep in the wild. This despite the fact that research on exactly that issue was done in a laboratory she supervised, and indeed, her own daughter participated in the study. There is 1999 story in the Science Daily that discusses research at the U of Idaho that confirms that domestic sheep can be the source of disease transmission.

The fear of disease transmission and subsequent bighorn die-offs has deterred restoration of wild sheep to many areas of the West. For instance, I recall one time in the 1990s when the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department (MFWPD) proposed to introduce mountain goats to the Centennial Range on the Idaho-Montana border. Goats were never native to the range, but bighorn were. When I wrote the department suggesting that they reintroduce bighorn, they responded by saying that as long as domestic sheep grazed the range, there was little point in attempting any restoration, due to disease concerns. Similar concerns in many other parts of the West have precluded reestablishment of bighorns in native habitat.

There is good reason for this caution. As recently as January 2008, a number of bighorn sheep in Montana’s Elkhorn Mountains by Helena died from pneumonia thought to have been contracted from domestic animals. Other major die-offs in Montana have been reported for bighorn herds in the East Pioneers, Tendoy Mountains, Highland Mountains, Sleeping Giant Area, and Madison Range, as well as elsewhere. There have been several major die-offs of wild sheep in the Hells Canyon area of Idaho and Oregon and in the Sierra Nevada of California. Many other examples could be cited.

Rather than do the obvious, which is to eliminate public land use by domestic sheep, wildlife agencies have taken to killing wild bighorn sheep. Just this past month in Idaho the Idaho Fish and Game shot a ram that was known to mix with domestic sheep along the Salmon River near Riggins. As many as 11 other sheep had contact with that ram and may also be killed. This bighorn was killed in response to a new law passed by the Idaho Legislature that requires Idaho Fish and Game to kill or remove sheep that get near domestic sheep.

Without being forced by the legislature, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) has adopted a similar policy. For instance, prior to a reintroduction of bighorn sheep to the Gravelly Range on the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest near Dillon, MDFWP signed an agreement stipulating that if wild sheep had any interaction with domestic sheep, the wild sheep would be shot—and potentially even entire bighorn herds eliminated.

Disease transmission is only one of the threats posed to wild bighorn sheep by the presence of domestic sheep. Keep in mind there is no free lunch. Domestic animals consume forage that would otherwise support native species like wild bighorn sheep. This forage competition can stress wild sheep, making them more vulnerable to disease or starvation.

Also domestic livestock grazing (including cattle) have frequently altered plant communities to favor browse species desired by mule deer, whose populations sometimes increase and provide alternative prey to support higher populations of mountain lions, which can prey on bighorn sheep. Since many bighorn herds are small and isolated, even the loss of a few animals to predators can hurt wild herd survival. While predators get the blame, the ultimate source of the conflict lies with domestic livestock.

This naturally raises the question of why domestic animals grazed on public lands have preference over wild bighorn sheep. Why not just close the domestic sheep allotments so that wild animals are given priority?

Only a few environmental groups are willing to take on the Western myth. The Idaho-based group Western Watersheds is one of the most persistent critics of the livestock industry and has sued the Forest Service in Idaho and Wyoming over the management of wild bighorn and domestic livestock—arguing that the agency should keep domestic animals away from wild herds, and should even close allotments if necessary. (In the interest of disclosure, I am an advisor to WWP).

Recently in Montana, the Gallatin Wildlife Association (I am a member) is requesting that the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest close down sheep grazing allotments in the Gravelly Range and Snowcrest Ranges to safeguard wild sheep. The Center for Biodiversity (I am an ecological advisor) is also working to protect wild sheep from their domestic cousins in California.

I am convinced that as long as domestic sheep are roaming our public lands, wild bighorn sheep will never reach their biological potential. And that is a loss not only to hunters, but to the public at large who could be enjoying restoration of bighorn herds throughout the West.

The real issue is larger than wild bighorn sheep. Whether it is bighorn sheep, bison, grizzly bears, wolves, cutthroat trout, prairie dogs, or sage grouse, if private business (i.e. livestock production) threatens public wildlife on public lands, shouldn’t the private businesses be the ones that ought to go?