Livestock grazing

            The use of livestock to suppress hazardous fuels has a long history in the West, especially on the public lands. In the early 1900’s, Federal agencies began aggressively suppressing grass-based wildfires in the savanna-like western forests. Because cattle grazing on Federal lands was an established practice with important economic consequences for local communities, foresters decided to use increased cattle densities to suppress fine fuels like grasses with the incidental effect of cattle breaking up small slash via trampling (Zimmerman and Neuenschwander 1983). Although the practice was successful in the short-term, land managers did not fully appreciate that these forests were in a state of arrested succession, with low tree densities caused by regular fires. Once the pine seedlings were released from fire, the forests rapidly increased in density, with an accompanying increase in pine litter and mid-stories. Coupled with unusually heavy rainfall over several years, the western forests rapidly changed from savanna-like to dense stands susceptible to crown fires via mid-story fuel ladders.
            In contrast to the West, livestock grazing in southern forests was never a major factor in fuel management. While many farmers would allow their animals to roam the regularly burnt forests for food, the poor forage quality of native plants limited the practice. According to Campbell (1948), about 3/4 of the shortleaf-loblolly pine-hardwoods forest type in the mid central South was grazed at the time, with 15-35 acres needed per cow due to heavy tree stocking and limited herbaceous species. In addition, most native grasses are warm-season species that die or become dormant during the winter, which means that there is little forage for livestock during the winter months. For southern forests in general, Campbell (1948) estimated that native forage only provided sufficient food for half the year. Southern herbaceous species are dominant only under a regular fire regime and since most herbaceous species are palatable to livestock only for a few months after a spring fire, the forests had to be burned every few years to maintain forage. This is why livestock use in southern forests never became a major activity as well as why prescribed fire continued to be used by small farmers despite government attempts to end the practice during the fire-suppression era.
            For the modern South, livestock grazing in loblolly pine stands is limited to either the first few years of stand establishment or low-density forests that are regularly burned (Schultz 1997). While silvopastorial systems have been promoted by state agencies as a way for landowners to increase their revenues (e.g. Husak and Grado 2002), they are based on rows of trees separated by exotic pasture grasses that are regularly prescribed burned or mowed. For loblolly pine forests where hazardous fuels are characterized by woody species in thick conditions, the use of livestock for fuel reduction is not practical since livestock prefer grasses and forbs in open conditions. While the use of livestock in greenbelts (herbaceous dominated strips designed to slow a wildfire down) is a possibility, this would not solve the fuel problem in the adjacent forests.

Literature cited
Campbell, R.S. 1948. Forest grazing work in the Deep South. In: Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters. Boston, Mass., Dec. 16-18, 1948. 216-222.

Husak, A.L.; Grado, S.C. 2002. Monetary benefits in a Southern silvopastoral system. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 26(3): 159-164.

Schultz, R.P. 1997. Loblolly pine. The ecology and culture of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Agric. Handb. 713. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. [Number of pages unknown].

Zimmerman, G.T.; Neuenschwander, L.F. 1983. Fuel-load reductions resulting from prescribed burning in grazed and ungrazed Douglas-fir stands. Journal of Range Management. 36(3): 346-350.

This webpage was last updated on 22 Dec 2006 by D. Marshall, UGA

Important disclaimer: The content and opinions expressed on this web page do not necessarily reflect the views of nor are they endorsed by the University of Georgia or the University System of Georgia