The Shortgrass Prairie

Plants of the Shortgrass Prairie

1. Bouteloua gracilis- Blue grama

2. Buchloe dactyloides- Buffalograss

3. Agropyron smithii- Western wheatgrass

4. Stipa comata- Needle-and-thread

5. Koeleria cristata- Prairie junegrass

6. Hilaria jamesii- Galleta grass

7. Muhlenbergia torreyi- Ring muhly

Plants of the Shortgrass Prairie cont.

8. Aristida longiseta- Red threeawn

9. Sphaeralcea coccinea- Scarlet globemalllow

10. Helianthus annuus- Annual sunflower

11. Artemisia frigida- Fringed sagewort

Heavy Moderate Light

Average duration of study (years) 11.4 11.4 11.4Average annual precipitation (inches) 20.7 20.7 20.7Average use of forage (%) 57 43 32Average forage production (lbs/acre) 1,1751(1,065)2 1,4731(1308)2

1.5971

Range trend down (23/25) up(13/25) up(14/18)Average calf crop (%) 80 84 85

Average lamp crop (%) 78 82 87Calf weaning wt (lbs) 429.7 457.3 ---Lamb weaning wt (lbs) 56.8 63.1 ---Gain per steer (lbs) 157.6 202.6 226.6Steer/calf gain per day (lbs) 1.83 2.15 2.30Net returns per animal ($) 38.061(29.00)2 51.571(39.71)2

58.891

Net returns per acre ($) 1.351(2.07)2 2.931(2.72)2

2.641

Table 3. Summary of 25 studies on Table 3. Summary of 25 studies on effects of grazing intensity on native effects of grazing intensity on native vegetation and livestock production in vegetation and livestock production in North America.North America.

1 1 Average for those studies comparing heavy, moderate and light grazing (studies Average for those studies comparing heavy, moderate and light grazing (studies comparing only heavy and moderate grazing excluded).comparing only heavy and moderate grazing excluded).

22 Average for all studies Average for all studies

Table 5. Summary of 15 studies on effects of rotation grazing systems on native rangeland vegetation and livestock production in North America. ___________________________________

Season longCharacteristic or continuous Rotation

grazing grazing ________________________________________________Average use of 41.8 42.4Forage (%)

Average forageProduction (lb/ac) +7%

Table 5a. Summary of 15 studies on effects of rotation grazing systems on native rangeland vegetation and livestock production in North America. _________________________________

Season long

Characteristic or continuous Rotation grazing grazing

_________________________________________Range trend (%) up= 61 up= 69

stable= 31 stable= 8

down= 8 down= 23

Average calf crop (%) 89.4 85.9

Table 5b. Summary of 15 studies on effects of rotation grazing systems on native rangeland vegetation and livestock production in North America. ______________________________

Season long

Characteristic or continuous Rotation grazing grazing

__________________________________________Calf weaning weight 504.6

494.1(lb)

Net returns ($/ acre) 6.60 6.37

Table 8. Yearling cattle production and financial return characteristics at the Central Great Plains Experimental Range, Colorado

Grazing Intensity Excessive Moderate

Forage production (lbs/acre) 536 689Forage utilization (%) 54 37Weight again per animal (lbs) 218 268Weight again per unit area (lbs/acre) 22 34Death loss (%) 1.43 0.33Gross income/acre ($) 1.54 1.93Gross income/yearling ($) 81.22 96.02

Source; Kipple, G.E., and D.F. Costello. (1960). Vegetation and cattle to different intensities of grazing on shortgrass range of the central Great Plains. U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1216.

Continuous Grazing

1. Works well in flat desert areas

2. Works well in flat shortgrass prairie areas

3. Works well in California annual grassland

4. Require the least fence of all the systems

5. Has given better livestock performance than rotation systems

Characteristic Season-long Deferred Time

rotation controlled

Duration of study (years) 13 13 13 Annual precipitation (inches) 15.1 15.1 15.1Use of forage (%) 40 40 40

Acres/steer 5 5 5Forage production (lbs./acre) No differenceRange trend No difference Steer gains (lbs./acre) No differenceFinancial returns ($/acre) 15.20 13.72 12.07

Sources: Hart, R.H., M.J. Samuel, P.S. Test and M.A. Smith. 1988. Cattle, vegetation and economic responses to grazing systems and grazing pressure. J. Range Manage. 41:282-286, Manley, W.A., R.H. Hart, J.W. Waggoner Jr., and J.T. Manley.1997. Vegetation, cattle and economic responses to grazing strategies and pressure. J. Range Manage.50:638-646.

Table 17. Effects of season-long, deferred rotation Table 17. Effects of season-long, deferred rotation and time controlled on vegetation and cattle on and time controlled on vegetation and cattle on vegetation and cattle on short grass range in vegetation and cattle on short grass range in Wyoming.Wyoming.

Table 12. Forage Production (lbs/acre) on Heavily and Moderately Stocked Pastures in Drought Compared to 10-years Average on the Fort Stanton Experimental Range in New Mexico.

Drought 10 years Drought year Years Average as percentGrazing intensity 1974 (1970-1979) of average

Heavy(50-55% use) 103 607 17%Moderate(40-45% use) 235 740 32%

Source: Pieper et al. 1991, Holechek, 1994.

Wildlife of the Shortgrass Prairie

Management of the Shortgrass Prairie

Management of the Shortgrass Prairie

1. Graze either conservatively or moderately2. Continuous grazing has worked best3. Pronghorn should be considered in fence construction4. Both cattle and sheep well suited for this type, cattle are

more compatible with wildlife5. Pronghorn complement cattle in food habits and can be

important source of income6. Conservation Reserve lands provide income

diversification, erosion control and valuable wildlife habitat

7. Wheatgrasses and blue grama have been effective in seeding former farmland and returning it to rangeland and CRP land, legumes greatly enhance wildlife value