A Survey of Pasture Management Practices on the Canadian Prairies With Emphasis on Rotational Grazing and Managed Riparian Areas

by B. Chorney and R. Josephson Department of Agricultural Economics and Farm Management Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences University of Manitoba

This Study was completed for the Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation (MHHC), with financial and/or technical support from Ducks Unlimited (DU), The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA), The Canadian Cattlemen's Association (CCA), Manitoba Cattle Producer's Association (MCPA), the Saskatchewan Wetlands Conservation Corporation (SWCC), Manitoba Agriculture and Food and Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development.

Executive Summary

A survey was conducted, over the three prairie provinces, of producers known to be using pasture and riparian management. Survey results were used to develop a descriptive profile of respondents' current operating and management practices, based on 1999. Respondents were also asked to report on observed changes to a number of factors after adoption of their current practices, including changes to income, livestock and pasture productivity, and habitat. The response rate for the mailout survey was 41%.

Characterization of respondents and their grazing system:

• Respondents represented experienced livestock producers who depend heavily on livestock for their farm income.
• Respondents were primarily in the 30 to 45 years of age group, followed by the 46 to 60 years of age group
• Respondents represented all sizes of operations, with 47% having pasture resources of less than 500 acres, 25% between 500 and 1,000 acres, and 28% operating over 1,000 acres.
• Pasture improvement practices were important to respondents; 54% reseeded and 50% fertilized their pastures.
• Most respondents were making use of rotational grazing systems on their pastures
• Close to two thirds of respondents are relatively new to rotational grazing, with 10 years of experience or less.
• There was considerable variability to rotational grazing systems. Most producers grazed each paddock two or three times, and almost 20% of respondents grazed some pastures or paddocks four times or more per year. Seeded pastures were grazed over more than native pastures. A small number of producers only grazed paddocks or pastures once and then rested them for the rest of the year.
• Respondents determined the time spent in each paddock or pasture mainly by forage height (66% of respondents) and percent of pasture utilized (41% of respondents).

The main trends for livestock production on respondents' rotation systems:

• Respondents were primarily cow/calf operators.
• Just over half of respondents kept livestock on their rotation system for 4 to 6 months.
• Two thirds of respondents grazed less than 0.26 animals per acre (beef animals only).
• Forty percent of respondents had stocking rates of less than one AUM/acre and 39% had 1.0 to 1.9 AUM/acre.
• Forty-seven percent of respondents had total calf gains of 31 to 75 pounds per acre, and 23% had gains of 76 to 150 pounds per acre.
• When comparing more intensively managed pastures to less intensively managed pastures, stocking rates were higher in the more intensive pastures. The majority of respondents in the intensive group (53%) had stocking rates of 1.0 to 1.9 AUM/acre, whereas the majority of respondents in the less intensive group (52%) had stocking rates less than 1 AUM/acre.
• For total calf gains per acre, while both groups had the majority of their respondents in the 31 to 75 pound per acre range (51% for the intensively managed group and 46% for the less intensively managed group), the more intensively managed pastures had more respondents gaining over 75 pounds per acre (40%) compared to the less intensive group (31%).
• Producers who changed to rotational grazing from some previous management system (primarily continuous grazing) have observed numerous improvements for both livestock and forage productivity:
• When comparing their current system to their previous system, 80% of respondents reported livestock average weight gain was greater, 91% reported pasture forage production quantity was greater, 88% reported pasture forage production quality was greater, and 53% of respondents reported overwintering costs were lower for 1999 compared to the last year of their previous system.
• This increased livestock and forage productivity has enabled producers to observe positive economic changes under their current pasture management system, with 88% reporting that net farm income for the livestock enterprise was greater than it had been under the last year of their previous management system; 10% reported no difference.
• To achieve added returns and improved forage productivity, 83% of respondents had greater labor requirements and 86% had greater planning time requirements. For the majority of respondents, the increase for both of these factors was from 1 to 25% over their previous system. Many producers, however, made comments in their returned surveys that the benefits of rotational grazing made the extra labor and planning requirements worthwhile. Many also made comments that the more intensive management kept them more aware of their herd and of the individual livestock requirements.
• In comparing producers' current system to the last year of their previous system, separating out the impacts of inflation, and changes in price and management practices on livestock productivity and profitability would require a more detailed, indepth level of study, particularly since the last year of their previous system will vary by producer.
• The greater proportion of respondents reported no change between their current and previous systems for herd health costs, pasture re-seeding, fertilizer use on pasture, weed/brush control, supplemental feeding, and hayland and stubble grazing. However, those that did observe changes in these areas showed a pattern of lower herd health costs, more fertilizing, weed control, and hayland grazing, and less supplemental feeding and stubble grazing.
• Producers attributed improvements to livestock productivity primarily from improved forage quantity, quality and utilization, with close to 85% of respondents rating each of these factors as important to very important factors in productivity gains. Cleaner drinking water was also recognized as an important factor toward better animal productivity by 64% of respondents.
• Fifty-seven percent of respondents attributed livestock production gains to improvements made to their breeding stock.
• Another 43% indicated improvements to their herd health program has also made important contributions to livestock production gains (although 61% of respondents indicated that herd health costs were no different under their current system and 30% indicated they were lower.)
• Producers attributed forage improvements to the rest and grazing patterns of rotational grazing, with 97% of respondents rating this factor as important to very important.
• Comparing stocking rates and calf weight gains for respondents with a previous system to that of the aggregate whole of the current system, shows a similar distribution of respondents in the various categories, with the previous system showing only a slightly larger proportion of respondents in the lower stocking rate and weight gain categories. For the previous system, 88% of respondents had stocking rates under 2.0 AUM/acre compared to 80% of respondents for the current system. Regarding total calf gain per acre, 75% of respondents had gains of 75 pounds per acre or less for their previous system, compared to 67% of respondents for the current system.
• For water resources on pasture, use of surface water bodies and the land surrounding these water bodies (riparian areas):
• Fifty percent of respondents indicated they fenced off some of their surface water bodies, and of those that indicated the amount of land fenced off, 72% had 20 acres or less of adjacent land fenced off.
• Of the respondents that indicated the type of access livestock are given to this fenced off area, 53% gave livestock no access, 40% gave restricted access, and 13% gave free access. Livestock have had restricted or no access to the fenced off area for less than five years for 46% of respondents.
• Respondents that indicated their change in net income between their current rotation system and their previous grazing management system were separated into two groups; those that control access to riparian areas and those that do not. Both groups had a high percentage of respondents that indicated net income was greater under their current system; riparian management did not reduce the proportion of respondents that experienced an increase in net returns from the livestock operation under their current rotation system. Reasons for adopting changes to pasture management, observations respondents have made since adopting changes, and new capital costs incurred for making changes:
• Producers stated the main reasons for adopting their current pasture management system were to improve their pasture condition and the long-term sustainability of their land resources (rated as important by 96% and 92% of respondents, respectively). Increasing stocking rate and improving income were also rated as important by 82% and 80% of respondents; improving wildlife habitat was recognized but given less importance (43% rated as important). However improved wildlife habitat and cleaner water were high on their list of observed changes.
• The highest proportion of respondents who rated reasons for giving livestock restricted or no access to water bodies cited long-term sustainability of surface water bodies and improvement of water quality for livestock as important to very important reasons (87% and 86% of respondents, respectively).
• Since they made changes to their pasture management system, the majority of respondents have observed improved cover for nesting waterfowl (71% of respondents), improved livestock health and condition (72%), improved cover for upland game (60%), and improved water quality of surface water bodies (68%). Of respondents that control access to riparian areas, 78% of respondents noticed an improvement in water, compared to 51% of respondents that do not riparian manage.
• New capital costs for establishing rotational systems and/or fencing off surface water bodies were less than $7 per acre for 38% of respondents, between $7 and $14 per acre for 18% of respondents, and between $15 and $29 per acre for 23% of respondents. Regarding constraints to adopting new grazing management techniques, 73% of respondents rated financial requirements as an important to very important constraint. Labor and management requirements and a lack of sufficient water supply were also considered important to very important by 63%, 59%, and 59% of respondents, respectively.

Respondent's future plans and their information needs:

• Future plans and changes for the respondents featured expansion of their livestock herd (66% of respondents), water development (49% of respondents) and riparian management (37% of respondents), improving their seeding and fertilization strategies (38% and 33% of respondents, respectively), and changing their rotation strategies (30% of respondents).
• Primary information needs were about pasture establishment, managing forage production, and learning about alternative grazing systems.

The respondents to this survey were very enthusiastic about their pasture management systems. This was shown by their willingness to complete a questionnaire containing over fifty questions. Many of them enclosed long descriptions of their experiences and diagrams of their systems. Seventy-three percent of respondents indicated they would either be willing or may be willing to participate in a long-term, more detailed economic study of this topic. Most of these said they would require financial or technical assistance in the areas of record-keeping and weighing livestock on or off pasture. The study has succeeded in identifying a source of farm data for further research into the economics of pasture management systems with emphasis on rotational grazing and riparian management.

Two recommendations were given to build upon the present study.

1. It is recommended that interested agencies seize the opportunity provided by the high number of respondents who indicated a definite or possible interest in co-operating in a more detailed, long-term economic study. The design of such a study would be based on precise records and accounts and could examine the impact of a number of conditions on livestock and forage productivity, and producer costs and benefits.
2. It is further recommended that the detailed descriptions of respondents' systems and experiences given in the final open-ended question, be compiled, edited and produced as a non-technical extension bulletin. Such a bulletin would be of interest to producers currently practicing, and those interested in adopting, such strategies, as well as government agencies, conservation groups, and cattle associations with interests in such areas.