#138, In Practice, Jul/Aug 2011

healthy land. sustainable future.

JULY / AUGUST 2011

NUMBER 138

Changes at HMI!

by Sandy Langelier

WWW.HOLISTICMANAGEMENT.ORG

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

CARBON RANCHING

W

hile focus and expansion may seem like contradictory terms, they are actually quite compatible and descriptive of some exciting changes here at HMI. We have focused our mission, refreshed our brand identity, and are moving to larger offices.

As some of you may have noticed, HMI's new mission is now on our masthead on page 2.

It reads: HMI exists to educate people to manage land for a sustainable future.

Our new mission statement is a key filter, along with our holistic goal to ensure all our activities and programs are always focused on building a sustainable future through educating people to manage the land sustainably with the tool of Holistic Management. The staff is excited about this articulated focus that was developed with the Board of Directors at our March team meeting, and we hope our community will be as well.

HMI also has a new logo! The overall look, feel and emotional content of the new logo conveys the energy and direction of HMI. It respects the past while looking towards the future. The color palette is contemporary and inspired by nature and was designed to be memorable, unique and highly functional.

While it’s meant to connect with the existing HMI community, we hope this logo will resonate with a new generation of people interested in Holistic Management and excite them about building a sustainable future. We’ll be gradually rolling out the new logo and brand identity throughout the year.

As our organization has grown, we've outgrown our offices and we are moving to a larger building here in Albuquerque. We expect the move to be completed by the end of June. If you’re in town, be sure to drop by and say hello. Our new address is: Holistic Management International, 5941 Jefferson St. NE, Suite B, Albuquerque, NM 87109. Our phone and fax numbers are staying the same. Thanks to all those who continue to support our work and share your knowledge and information with others. Your efforts inspire our staff and motivate us to work ever harder to spread the word about the results people can achieve with Holistic Management.

The Ranney Ranch in Corona, New Mexico is taking an integrated approach to ranching by looking at a diverse source of income including cattle sales, wind power, carbon, and biomass.

To learn more about their ranch, turn to page 6.

FEATURE STORIES On-Farm Research on the Benefits of Applying Raw Milk on Pastures— The Wayne-Egenolf Farm JOSH EGENOLF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

Testing Questions—Just Like Riding a Bike PEGGY SECHRIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

Working with Carbon on the Ranney Ranch— The Interplay of Range Management, Grassfed Beef, Wind, and Biomass NANCY RANNEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

LAND and LIVESTOCK Multiple Species Management— Ecological and Economic Benefits BOB STEGER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

From the Beginning— Bob Steger ANN ADAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12

Building Soil Productivity NEAL KINSEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

Managing for Biodiversity— The J Bar L Ranch ANN ADAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14

NEWS and NETWORK The Ian Tour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Grapevine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Development Corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Certified Educators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Marketplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

healthy land. sustainable future.

On-Farm Research on the Benefits of Applying Raw Milk on Pastures— The Wayne-Egenolf Farm

by Josh Egenolf

Holistic Management International exists to educate people to manage land for a sustainable future.

STAFF Peter Holter . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chief Executive Officer Tracy Favre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chief Operating Officer Kelly King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chief Financial Officer Ann Adams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Managing Editor, IN PRACTICE and

Director of Education Sandy Langelier . . . . . . . . Director, Communications

and Outreach Frank Aragona . . . . . . . . . . Director, Research and

Development Amy Normand . . . . . . . . . . . Development Advisor Tom Levine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Senior Development Advisor Donna Torrez . . . . . . . . . . . Manager: Administration

& Executive Support Peggy Cole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Manager, Texas Brady Gibbons . . . . . . . . . . Field Advisor Mary Girsch-Bock . . . . . Grants Manager Valerie Grubbs . . . . . . . . . Controller Carrie Nelson . . . . . . . . . . . Education Associate

BOARD OF DIRECTORS Sallie Calhoun, Chair Ben Bartlett, Past Chair Gail Hammack, Vice-Chair John Hackley, Secretary Christopher Peck, Treasurer Ron Chapman Judi Earl Jim McMullan Jim Shelton

Lee Dueringer Clint Josey Jim Parker Kelly Sidoryk

T

here is quite a buzz about town about the possibilities of increasing the quality and quantity of pasture/range production, increasing soil quality, and realizing less weed pressure using a simply beautiful tool, raw milk. There is nearly 10 years’ worth of anecdotes and preliminary study results from across the country that perhaps has left more questions than answers. Not to worry, that’s a natural result of a healthy human curiosity.

What is clear is that applying raw milk to pasture and rangeland can: • increase the tonnage of forage produced (1200 lb/acre gains in 45 days) • increase the energy, or brix, levels of forage grown (positive, but varies by species) • increase the physical quality of the soil by increasing porosity, infiltration, and decreasing compaction (200% increase in porosity, 300% decrease in compaction) Tales from the tailgate also report decreases in pressure by grazing insects, decreases in weed pressure, and increases in average daily gains of livestock. This knowledge comes to us through the creativity and hard work of a number of ranchers, scientific specialists, and Extension cooperators; however, they all are calling for more extensive and focused study of the mechanics driving these astounding responses and broader on-farm testing with greater scientific control.

Why Does It Work?

The David West Station for Holistic Management Tel: 325/392-2292 • Cel: 325/226-3042 westgift@hughes.net Joe & Peggy Maddox, Ranch Managers

HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICE (ISSN: 1098-8157) is published six times a year by: Holistic Management International 5941 Jefferson St. NE, Suite B Albuquerque, NM 87109 505/842-5252, fax: 505/843-7900; email: hmi@holisticmanagement.org.; website: www.holisticmanagement.org COPYRIGHT © 2011

HMI was originally founded in 1984

by Allan Savory and Jody Butterfield.

They have since left to pursue other ventures.

2

IN PRACTICE

What is clear is that raw milk is not a plant fertilizer, at least not in the direct way as plantavailable N, P, K fertilizer. Previous studies have shown as little as 3 gallons of milk per acre produced 1,200 pounds of forage per acre in 45 days! Sure, the milk does contain some nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and a suite of other trace minerals, but certainly not in concentrations needed to boost plant productivity by this degree.

Some other subtle works, likely subterranean, is responsible.

There are several suggested theories for why raw milk delivers results. The late Terry Gompert, a progressive Extension Educator and HMI Certified Educator, had a strong hunch raw milk was a microbial stimulant. The milk’s complete nutritional profile of amino acid, sugar, and enzymatic structures, paired with a complete vitamin B complex, fed existing microbes and the

July / August 2011

unpasteurized milk introduced new ones.

Microbes make up the bulk of the workforce which mineralize organic forms of fertility and make them plant available. It follows the reasoning “you must feed the soil to feed your grass,” and raw milk as soil food seems reasonable.

I’ve been talking with some academic researchers, too. I’m working on wrapping up a Ph.D. in Ecology – Sustainable Agriculture at the Odum School at the University of Georgia. I’m planning to use this raw milk study as the centerpiece in my dissertation. Some of the soil scientists and forage specialists explain raw milk may alter the chemical composition or ratio of micronutrients affecting the base saturation of the soil. Some nutrients such as calcium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, sulfur, iron, copper, boron, manganese, and zinc have concentrations in the parts per million scale. As such, even minor changes in their availability and presence can affect the availability and effectiveness of those nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium we identify as the primary drivers of productivity. Remember, there is always only one limiting nutrient at a time. If it is one of these micronutrients, then phosphorus that may be present may be unavailable. It is the balance of elements in the soil that is important. Milk may just provide that equalizer needed to bring the soil system into harmony.

Laura Beth Wayne and Josh Egenolf (WE Farm).

We by no means want to take credit for original ideas or basic scientific knowledge. We feel there is enough of that in the world and that it is time to synthesize and bring some practical importance and understanding to it. WayneEgenolf Farm (WE Farm, www.wefarmlocal.com) is dedicated to producing healthy food from a healthy landscape, pursuing practical on-farm research to test sustainable grass-farming and silvopastoral practices, and is enthusiastic about sharing our experiences and learning from those of others. We are in our 3rd year of practicing Holistic Management. We value Holistic Management as a practical tool for helping us wrangle the complexity of our lives and WE Farm endeavors. We also see the Holistic Management model as providing a medium for marrying hard line, reductionistic scientific exploration with pragmatic, applied on-farm study.

In 2011 and 2012 we plan to answer the call to arms and conduct a study. Our aims are: 1. Understand the dose-response dynamic between the timing and level of raw milk application and its effect on forage quality and quantity and soil quality. Answer the question, “What happens when I apply X units, at Y time of the year, with Z days in between?”

2. Understand the biological and soil fertility mechanics of why there is a response. Answer the question, “What makes raw milk work?”

3. Be able to share with other grass-farmers some guidelines for applying raw milk on their farms and what the cost-benefits might look like.

The Balancing Act The requirements of basic scientific inquiry and the realities of managing a working farm make their union on-farm a difficult one.

However, we believe we can balance these two needs. Here are some of our considerations.

Scientific investigation mandates control. For instance, we need to apply no raw milk to one pasture acre, two gallons to one pasture acre, and five gallons to another pasture acre, hold all else equal, and measure the response between each treated pasture. This is a typical dose-response scenario and the zero raw milk treatment is critical, as it is the baseline. We need to plan and design ahead to provide that control on-farm.

Science mandates replication, or redundancy, in several ways. First, at least three replications of each treatment are critical, five is better. For example, multiple replications help us determine what our average and range in forage production responses might be. This is a bit more difficult on farm as it requires more land than a single replication and the ability to keep track of boundaries between treated pastures. Second, the methods and equipment for applying treatments

Experimental Paddock Design at WE Farm. and measuring their responses must be exactly the same.

Suppose we apply raw milk in mid-March and again in mid-September. The same equipment must be used when applying zero, two, and five gallons per acre, it should be applied at roughly the same half of the day, and the March/September measure of responses should be taken in the same manner. The point here is to be consistent. If we use a wheatgrass juicer and a refractometer to measure sugar, or brix, levels in our forage in the spring, we need to make sure we use it in the September as well.

A final point with replication; it is important to test more than one point within each pasture being treated. For instance, we need to test soil compaction in at least five places in each treated pasture to make sure we get a representative picture of the entire site. A single sample taken where the tractor drove last year or where there is a gopher hole will skew results. This starts to seem difficult on-farm because all this redundancy in effort can eat up time we need to spend walking fence lines, checking our herds, or spending time with our family. However, the knowledge gained from a well designed and performed study may double or triple the effect of our efforts and help use our precious time better. For that reason I would encourage you to think about what onfarm research you would benefit from and begin collaborating and designing that research.

The most difficult scientific requirement to meet on-farm is limiting confounding factors. For instance, to measure the effect of zero versus two gallons of milk per acre on forage production, all other factors that may affect the tons produced should at least be held constant. If the pasture receiving no milk is being irrigated and the pasture receiving two gallons of milk is not, then

who is to say the irrigation isn’t skewing the tonnage measured. In this instance, the irrigation on the one pasture is a confounding factor.

Confounding factors can also be topographical; one pasture is on the ridge while the other is in the valley. They can be biological; one pasture is dominated by a warm season grass while the other a cool season; one is grazed and one is not.

The idea is to make everything as comparable as possible with the exception of the treatment being applied. On-farm this is difficult.

Management derived factors such as irrigation, stocking rates, and mowing timing are easier to keep uniform. Natural variability like topography, soil drainage, vegetative cover, and the like are more difficult. For on-farm research the key is to keep constant that which is in our control, select study pastures that are as uniform naturally as possible, and replicate so we have some idea of how our responses perform statistically.

Our On-Farm Study This is important research to us as we feel the potential of raw milk as a cost-effective and ecologically functional soil and sward stimulant could be a boon. We are in our first year of a fiveyear lease on a piece of ground that has had no management other than haying and bush hogging for the past eight years—no grazing, no amendments, no chemicals, just clipping.

A few things others have learned about raw milk application which makes our leased 150 acres of pasture a good candidate research site include: 1. Response to raw milk is greatest on marginal land. Eight years of haying without manure, fertilizer, or lime has stressed our soil’s fertility.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 4

Number 138

IN PRACTICE

3

ground. We expect to see an increase in the

Data Mine

continued from page three quantity and quality of forage produced,

2. Our soils are heavily compacted.

Continuous haying and last year’s haying during extremely wet conditions have reduced soil porosity, decreased infiltration, and damaged soil aggregates negatively affecting organic matter.

3. Replication is possible. We have established 18 individual treatment paddocks within our 35acre central pasture allowing for six individual treatments if we replicate each three times (i.e. three controls paddocks and five sets of three raw milk treatment paddocks).

4. Control of confounding factors is reasonable. On-farm research makes it impossible to both control for all confounding factors and ground the study in reality. We have conducted baseline soil sampling, Holistic Management biological monitoring, and forage quantity and quality sampling to get a pre-management and application snapshot. Management treatment across the entire study pasture is even currently.

We will strive to keep all other management even across paddocks and we have chosen each paddock boundary to limit variability in soil slope, drainage, and vegetative differences.

Experimental Design: At WE Farm we are designing an experiment that will allow us to test the questions of “why does raw milk work?” and “what happens under various application scenarios?” All paddocks will be grazed, but will include small grazing exclusions. Here’s the nuts and bolts of our design: Paddock Treatments: 4 treatments, 1 control – replicated 3 times • No Milk Treatment or Control (3 paddocks) • Raw Milk Treatment 1: 2 gallons/acre – 1 time Spring application (3 paddocks) • Raw Milk Treatment 2: 2 gallons/acre – 1 Spring and 1 Fall application (3 paddocks) • Raw Milk Treatment 3: 2 gallons/acre – 1 Spring, 1 Summer, and 1 Fall application (3 paddocks)

• Pasturized Milk Treatment 1: 2 gallons/acre – 1 time Spring application (3 paddocks) • Pastureized Milk Treatment 2: 2 gallons/acre – 1 time Spring and 1 time Fall application (3 paddocks) Measurements • Soil – complete mineral, pH, cation exchange capacity, base saturation, and organic matter, bulk density, aggregate stability, microbial biomass (5 points per paddock: pre- and post-treatment) • Milk – complete chemical and nutritional analyses • Pasture – soil respiration, soil compaction, water infiltration, forage brix, forage dry matter production, HM biological monitoring, forage nutritional quality analyses, forage community composition, livestock stocking rates and density, grazing periods and rest periods Expected Results: By testing grazed and ungrazed portions of each paddock we will be able to determine the contribution of livestock grazing to any soil, forage, or pasture responses. Measuring the chemical and nutritional composition of the milk will help us determine the contribution of the milk to any chemical nutrient changes in the soil. Pasturizing milk destroys the enzyme and vitamin B systems of the milk, thus we can test the contribution of these parts to any responses. Here we hope to understand better understand “why does it work?” If theories about raw milk’s nutritional and microbial profile hold true then we expect to see a larger positive response from it versus the pasteurized milk.

Additionally, by analyzing the chemical composition of the milk we expect to understand how milk may positively affect the mineral balance of the soil, thus allowing for greater net primary productivity above ground as mediated by the microbial community below-

decreased soil compaction, increased soil respiration, and perhaps more vigorous pastures generally.

It has already been seen that the 2 gallon/ acre treatment level is just as effective as a 20 gallon/acre treatment, so we are testing different foliar application timings to see if it produces a sizable response with each application scenario. Here we hope to produce some recommendations on what to do on-farm that can be shared with others.

Timeline We will spend the bulk of 2011 gathering the baseline data and seeking funding and inkind support for this on-farm research project.

In 2012 we plan to apply treatments and continue measuring soil, forage, and pasture responses.

All the while we’ll be working on improving our farm, grazing our grass-fed calves, pastured hogs, and pastured poultry and doing our best to earn a living and have fun while doing it.

If you have tried applying raw milk to your pastures and you have some sage advice and insight to share please contact us. We want to make this on-farm project a success and something that can be carried out alongside the operation of our farm.

Josh Egenolf can be reached at: josh.egenolf@gmail.com.

References Used Stockman Grass Farmer articles 1. “Raw Milk Fertilization Appears To Reduce Soil Compaction And Weeds” by Ralph Voss – September 2010 Issue 2. “Raw Milk Could Be Worth Two To Three Times More Money As Fertilizer” by Ralph Voss – May 2010 Issue 3. “Does Raw Milk Fertilization Really Affect Brix Levels?” by Ralph Voss – October 2010 Issue “Something New! Spraying Raw Milk on Pastures.” Holiday Ranch; website www.holidayranch.wordpress.com – February 23rd, 2011 blogpost

Do you have an idea for on-farm research?

Send us your ideas to hmi@holisticmanagement.org.

SUBJECT HEADING: ON-FARM RESEARCH WE Farm Pasture and Grass-Fed Calves – May 2011 4

IN PRACTICE

July / August 2011

Testing Questions—Just Like Riding a Bike

by Peggy Sechrist

O

n April 15 I participated in my first webinar for HMI Certified Educators. This is a great forum for sharing ideas and discoveries about training techniques and, more importantly, deepening our own understanding of Holistic Management.

This webinar focused on the Holistic Management testing questions and was facilitated

by Certified Educator Roland Kroos. I am fortunate to have known Roland for a long time and although I keep my schedule tightly packed like most of you and wondered how I would add one more thing; I knew I would learn something valuable.

Breaking the Change Barrier Roland shared a set of Powerpoint slides he uses for teaching and started right off with a great metaphor and question: Were you born knowing how to ride a horse and rope a calf? Not without practice. You can fill in any skill you want for this metaphor—riding a bike, a skateboard, or snow skis. Only through practice do any of us develop proficiency in a skill— including the use of the testing questions. The metaphor makes perfect sense; however, when faced with what feels like a crisis, I have not met many folks who feel they have time to practice. Getting some facilitation help from a fellow practitioner, a Certified Educator, or by contacting HMI can make a difference. The key point is to practice before a crisis occurs. And in many cases – maybe most – resistance to change becomes a barrier.

These barriers cause many to turn away, and rationalize in their mind why the testing questions are not so important. Roland has found some ways to deal with barriers and blocks. To begin with, list them on a flip chart and just work through practical ways to deal with each one. Key points to remember are: (1) you don’t need to use every testing question with every decision; (2) if you get stuck, move on to the next question; (3) go through them in any order that feels right to you; and (4) use them with as many decisions as possible.

A technique I’ve developed from my own experience is to go through the questions quickly skipping one if needed. At the end, I find something will be revealed to you. It may be an awareness of some kind of information you need, or you may discover a potential consequence you couldn’t see before. Whatever it is you find, it will enhance your decision-making even if it doesn’t give you a clear pass or fail evaluation. Then just as Roland promises, with practice it will become easier and automatic. Your decision to practice or

not practice is itself a critical decision. Which choice leads you towards your quality of life? You already know where not practicing leads you.

Testing Tips Using the testing questions sort of presumes in my mind that you are testing an action because you have already determined that it could lead toward your holistic goal and you want to make a more comprehensive evaluation for your triple bottom line. No need to go through the seven testing questions if the action under consideration doesn’t appear to move you in your desired direction.

In this article I will not examine each question, but rather share some teaching points gleaned from the webinar with some thrown in from my personal experience. For example, it sometimes seems that the question of the cause and effect test is the easiest one to apply. And maybe not. The challenge is to find the true root cause of a perceived problem. In Roland’s experience it can be five or six levels deep. Once you think you know the cause, then double check by asking, “What is the cause of that?” again— and again—until you believe you are at a level where an action will create a long-term resolution if not a permanent one. You’ll know soon enough if the same or similar problem presents itself again.

In the social weak link test, the biggest challenge is understanding the human dimension (a.k.a. human behavior). Roland’s observation is that human issues are at the core of most resource management problems—and I agree. As humans we tend to look outside of us for the cause of a problem when most likely the root is inside, especially if you are dealing with a recurring problem over a long period of time. A helpful tip is to evaluate the relationships of your management team— that might also be your family. Roland suggests assessing the level of trust and the quality of communication, assessing joint ownership of the holistic

goal, whether or not the knowledge base is adequate for making sound decisions, checking to see if individual responsibility is clearly defined, and assessing whether or not mistakes are accepted as learning opportunities.

These are important and fairly complex relationship issues. Any one of these points could cause blockage to moving toward the holistic goal—and sometimes there is more than one present. If you find this to be true in your team, your next set of decisions will either lead your team toward resolution or away from it. This is a tricky area because the average rancher/farmer has so little training. Therefore, ask for help. Test the action of asking for help through the questions and make your own determination. In my experience, it generates a big return—such as keeping the operation going.

As a Certified Educator, I have observed that broken relationships are frequently the cause of a broken business. In some cases, everything on the land seems to be working great. But that doesn’t matter when the relationships break down. I find that the greatest asset to mending relationships is the shared commitment to the quality of life values. If that part of the holistic goal is genuine and represents all that is highest priority to individual team members, then the individuals will more likely work through the steps to mend what’s broken.

When we reviewed the financial weak link test, Roland used a diagram new to me and I really liked it. It illustrates how a bottleneck in the solar energy chain from sun to solar dollar can impede your ability to achieve your projected profit. It is a good visual that helps explain the concept. This Weak Link has also been a tricky one for beginners to integrate and yet critical to long-term profitability. This solar energy chain is your business if you are an agricultural producer. It might be worth studying until it is clear and well understood. Keep in mind some learning tools such as forming a study group. This is where you CONTINUED ON PAGE 6

Number 138

IN PRACTICE

5

Testing Questions

continued from page five

might test the action of study and training to see if it moves you toward your holistic goal.

I run into all kinds of folks these days who talk about sustainability. If I ask, I find all different kinds of definitions too.

Therefore, I really like how Holistic Management uses the ecosystem processes to help define part of the sustainability test. This question brings us back to basic ecological health as a foundation for sustainability. It seems important in light of our linear minds to look at the ecosystem as these four processes in order to keep in mind just how complex and interrelated the ecosystem really is. It seems that when we lose sight of the magnitude of the interrelationships and their patterns, we tend to move away from true sustainability.

The remaining testing questions of energy/wealth source and use, marginal reaction, gross profit analysis are all equally important as the ones already mentioned. Without the structure that these testing questions offer, you are likely to purchase more off-farm inputs than needed, overlook the time aspect of marginal reaction, and choose your enterprises based more on preferences than on gross profit, just to name a few of these testing questions’ benefits.

The real crux of the whole topic of testing questions is whether or not you use them! How we would love to have a magic formula that would make everyone automatically begin thinking holistically. As a Certified Educator, I’ve spent years looking for the motivating method that gets folks using the testing questions. And I have often wondered why some folks can come to an introductory class and take off like a wildfire developing their holistic goal and moving forward rapidly, and others who clearly are searching for a way forward cannot take the steps necessary to make the changes.

What I have learned is that I cannot change how a person determines personal responsibility. Based upon underlying, deep beliefs we have developed from childhood, our perspective about our own ability to change and chart a different course for ourselves can sit anywhere along a broad spectrum. The strongest motivation I have found for folks is embedded within the holistic goal. That is where I suggest they begin testing— everything against their holistic goal. It seems that when one can begin to see improvements, however small, confidence grows stronger and bigger steps can be taken. In the meantime, going through all seven testing questions is easier when done in pairs or a team. It can even be done quickly with a partner over the phone.

Proficiency comes from practice. Begin with little decisions to build trust in the process and confidence in yourself. Make it a game.

Become curious about what might be revealed. You learned to ride a bike didn’t you, or ride a horse, or drive a car? You can learn this too—with practice.

Working with Carbon on the Ranney Ranch— The Interplay of Range Management, Grassfed Beef, Wind, and Biomass

by Nancy Ranney In writing about the Carbon Ranch, I hope you will take away three points: • Raising grassfed beef has great potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions • Alternative energy production can make a contribution to our nation’s needs and be consistent with a ranching enterprise, and • Using livestock as a tool, good grazing and water management practices have the amazing potential to pull carbon out of the atmosphere where we don’t want it and into the soil where we do, where it replenishes the soil matrix and restores our rangelands. Our Western grassland soils, if properly managed, have the potential to capture significant levels of carbon.

This is our ranch story, our carbon ranch story, and as with all stories it evolved over time. We did not set out to create a “carbon” ranch with all the inter-related parts that I am going to discuss today but one thing led to another over time, in fact quite a short period of time, over just the past eight years.

The Evolution of a Ranch Of course, this land is not “ours.” It has been here for millennia, part of an island of rocky mesa country set right at the heart of New Mexico, sandstone mesas capped with limestone and threaded by beautiful valleys, harboring over the centuries and through the seasons a startling array of flora, of fauna, and still the hints of early human settlement on the land.

Now we ride past the ruins of late nineteenth century homesteads, a chimney standing, all that’s left of the home my neighbor’s grandmother was born in, cisterns and camps and water retention structures from the 1930’s, a heritage that still spoke to our family when our parents bought two adjoining ranches near Corona in 1968.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 7

Peggy Sechrist is a Certified Educator and rancher near Fredricksburg, Texas. She can be reached at: 830/456-5587 or peggysechrist@gmail.com.

Interested in a webinar? Contact HMI at hmi@holisticmanagement.org and let us know of what webinar topics you’d be interested in.

Put “webinar suggestions” in the subject line.

6

IN PRACTICE

July / August 2011

The old and the new technology of wind power is being explored on the Ranney Ranch as diverse income streams are a necessity for a profitable ranch.

We started here, in an old log cabin where an eighty-year old neighbor courted his wife in the fifties, while our parents, George and Nancy Ranney, planned and built a headquarters and a ranch home for a manager and finally a home for themselves. It was a fine place to bring their grandchildren and teach them important life skills, and we made the most of it. My father’s first manager, Bill Brown, introduced us to the cowcalf operation. We tried out a number of different breeds and even tinkered with AI, and by the mid 1980’s when our current manager, Melvin Johnson came aboard, we were pretty much Angus/black baldy cow-calf, graciously allowing the animals to inseminate themselves, concentrating on production weights and pushing high stocking rates with traditional conservation practices on the land.

Our father had heard of the “Savory system,” had even traveled to Australia and Africa to visit ranches practicing it, and greatly admired our neighbor to the south, Sid Goodloe, who was showing improvement on his place with grazing and fire regimens, but in the ‘70s and ‘80s, my father just couldn’t see his way to imposing those pie-shaped cells onto his rugged range pastures.

By the time my dad passed on in 2002 and my three brothers and I, our spouses and ten children inherited the ranch as a family partnership, much had changed, I had already snuck in to a couple of Quivira meetings and was anxious to try some of the new approaches.

New Management Practices Our first step into the Carbon Management of the ranch was to implement a planned grazing program where pastures are grazed at most twice a year. Our first good fortune was to have an experienced manager in Melvin Johnson who had already spent 16 years here with his wife Esther, and who was open-minded enough to try out most of these crazy new ideas. The second was to be introduced to an array of expert consultants

by Quivira.

In 2003 we started working with Kirk Gadzia, developing growing and dormant season grazing plans, bringing 21 herds of cattle first into two herds and then into one. This is working for us.

Fuel costs of checking on one herd are lower.

Mostly, we need only open gates to move the herd and in the fall at gathering time, there they are near the pens, where in years past my parents had spent three or four weeks gathering.

With a later breeding cycle, feed costs are down, down by a solid 60%. There are increased costs to be sure, additional fencing for new pastures and water facilities, but we have taken advantage of NRCS programs and are planning for improvements over time.

The most astounding improvement is in the

health of our rangeland. Where we had once been proud of a blue grama monoculture, now we see the benefits of a biologically diverse plant community, with cool and warm season grasses, even legumes springing out of the soil. Within three years, we saw an increase in organic matter in our soils and over thirty species of native perennial grasses. We knew that was good, both for cows and wildlife and for retention of water on the range, but what we have learned only in the last couple of years is how good that is for the potential capture of carbon in the soil.

Recent studies show that grassland soils have an astounding potential for carbon capture. On the ground, experience is showing that planned grazing, including management of pastures with short duration/high-density grazing, is improving rangeland quality. Intensively managed grasslands may be the most effective carbon sinks on our continent. At our ranch, analyses in the last three years show that soils from pastures under planned grazing exhibit significantly higher levels of soil carbon than from pastures with traditional set stocking practices.

At the same time that we implemented planned grazing, we increased our efforts at the management of rainfall on the land. We worked with Craig Sponholtz, Steve Carson and Bill Zeedyk, identified problem areas and learned the importance of runoff management, road construction, and how the rolling dip spread water back onto the landscape. We engaged Wetherbee Dorshow to generate a map of the ranch from air photos and painstakingly gathered GPS points that would replace my father’s hand-drawn maps and accurately show topography, fences, wells, tanks, pastures and their acreages and allow us to make wiser planning decisions.

Grassfed Opportunities & Challenges We sold our first grassfed animals in the fall of 2004 to a few happy customers. The word was out about the potential health and environmental benefits. I was entranced by the idea of growing a healthy product and marketing directly to consumers, but it was Melvin’s idea to market our calves right off their mothers at weaning and sidestep the obstacle of having no irrigated pasture for finishing. Why not? This is the beef that generations of farmers and ranchers have eaten themselves, and if somewhat smaller, well perhaps it is ok to eat smaller portions.

Whatever the reason, the native grasses they grow on until moments before they head to Fort Sumner Processing, a hundred miles distant, or the occasional suckling of mother’s milk in their last weeks, our customers have loved our beef.

Initially we sold to family and friends; now most customers find us via the web or by word of

Holistic Management Certified Educator, Kirk Gadzia (middle), has been helping the Ranney Ranch with their grazing planning since 2003. mouth. Over 70% are local to New Mexico and adjacent areas of Arizona and Texas. This is a local product.

The picture was starting to come together. The reduced feed, fuel and labor costs of the new grazing program were working together with the premium from direct-marketing our grassfed calves on the hoof. We were starting to reduce our external inputs, become part of a local economy and rely on the resources of the ranch itself, soil, sun, rain when it obliged, grasses and animals.

The connection to the consumer, even via email, is a joy; customers are thrilled to receive their beef direct from the ranch. The monetary gain over the sale barn or buyer is not insignificant, although our beef is still quite a bit less than at the health food store.

Of course, all was not rosy. A continuing drought forced us to keep our herd numbers down; the threat of losing our USDA certified processor was always with us; the continuing difficulty of marketing large numbers at a time, and the time and energy required of a direct marketing program still challenge the sustainability of such an operation.

In 2004, Melvin and I became members of SWGLA (the Southwest Grassfed Livestock Alliance), a non-profit funded largely by grants, and were able to share experience and challenges with other grassfed producers. I now serve as President, but our fine Director Laurie Bower does most of the work. We represent over 1,200 small family farms and ranches throughout the Southwest, publish a newsletter and have served over 300 producers in the past two years in workshops and seminars. We help them develop their programs, apply for American Grassfed or Animal Welfare Approved certification, and find markets for their beef.

We also promote consumer awareness of the benefits of grassfed beef at tastings and local fairs.

We are working on two big challenges: the insufficient number of local USDA processing CONTINUED ON PAGE 8

Number 138

IN PRACTICE

7

Working with Carbon on the Ranney Ranch facilities and the difficulty in connecting to the growing market demand. Most of our producers use planned rotational grazing or Holistic Management, and many see grassfed beef as a way to reduce the carbon footprint of their operation.

What the Research Says Just what is the carbon footprint of grassfed beef and how does it compare to that of industrial feedlot beef? A 2006 U.N. Report “Livestock’s Long Shadow” singled out livestock as a major destructive player in climate change, accounting for 18% of all Greenhouse Gas emissions. The Pew Commission Study concurred. There followed a spate of press urging reduced consumption of meat as a protein source.

Buried in these reports was a nod to pasturebased methods as generating fewer emissions, but it was lost to the press. However, that picture is changing. (Many of the earlier statistics were skewed by the inefficiencies of production in developing countries.) Just this past summer, U.C. Davis scientist, Frank Mitloehner, showed that if one looks at the U.S. alone, only 3-4 % of ghg emissions are associated with livestock, and the benefits of grassfeds are starting to be publicized.

A clearer picture of the comparison between grassfed and grainfed animals emerges if we look at the greenhouse gases one by one. The majority of agriculture-related carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) in the U.S. comes from fuel combustion related to grain production, the transport of animals and the importation of soy from Brazil as a feed. Scientist David Tisch, (at Cobleskill SUNY) calculated the emissions of a grain-fed vs. a grassfed burger: grainfed emissions were over five times as high, even when the grassfed burger was shipped from Colorado to Boston. An early SWGLA graphic tracked the 3,112 mile journey of a

continued from page seven struggling ranch families to stay on the land. In

typical New Mexican steer from ranch to feedlot to distribution centers. The 100-500 miles traveled by a grassfed animal from ranch to customer pales in comparison, and no fuel is burned for grain production.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a considerably more potent and damaging greenhouse gas. The majority of nitrous oxides generated in the US are emitted by commercial fertilizers used in grain production; the remainder comes from concentrated manure in feedlots and lagoons of liquefied manure at factory farms. Interestingly, a 2010 study shows that vast acreages of grasslands, once thought to be another source of nitrous oxide emissions, have significantly reduced “offgassing” if they are grazed.

In summary, the emissions of a grassfed operation are significantly lower than those of the comparable number of cattle in an industrial operation. Grassfed producers can be confident that even factoring in the methane produced by fermenting rumens, their carbon footprint is on the way to becoming carbon-neutral or even carbon-negative.

Alternative Energy Collaborations Enter alternative energy as part of the Carbon Ranch picture. In the last couple of years, we have installed several solar-powered pumps to replace old windmills, and found them to be efficient and problem-free. To accommodate our moving herd, we have one panel mounted on a retired truck bed so that it can be hauled from pasture to pasture; the panels have freed us from constant checking of mills and reduced repair costs.

At the larger scale, alternative energy came to us. Wind energy projects had started to pop up around the West and it was clear that in addition to producing clean energy, the income from these projects might boost the local economy and allow

With planned grazing, the Ranney Ranch has moved from a monoculture of grama grass to a diversity of cool and warm season grasses as well as legumes with a total of 30 native species.

8

IN PRACTICE

July / August 2011

2007, AWS TrueWind published the first highresolution wind map for the US; much of eastern and central New Mexico rated high for Wind Power Density and the Corona area showed optimum conditions. Within months, wind power companies were all over us.

That fall, thirty-five ranchers and property owners in the Corona area (with a total of approximately 160,000 acres) came together to form the Corona Landowners’ Association, heeding advice to “go slow” and to gain leverage by working together. We did considerable research, met with prospective developers, visited operational wind farms, and then mailed RFP’s to 14 developers. Our entire group then reviewed the 6 serious proposals submitted on the following criteria: the potential revenue stream to the landowner, the financial benefits to the community, the stability of the company, our impression of their personnel and their ability to develop transmission, and finally their commitment to land stewardship. Then we rated the companies on a scale of 1-10.

In the spring of 2008, we voted to divide into two land-based groups, the North area to negotiate further with Shell Wind and the South with FirstWind out of Boston. Each group went back into a research phase; for eighteen more months we engaged in discussions with lawyers and negotiated with company representatives, leading to landowner approval of a common lease agreement which could be modified at will by individual landowner signatories. By spring 2009, all of us had signed leases and now several meteorological towers are in place on our ranches.

It has become clear that the decision to form a landowners’ group was wise: not only did we have the considerable acreage requisite for an economically viable wind facility, but the size and breadth of the group brought us expertise in many areas. We had rancher-lawyers, rancher-contractors and engineers, and, of course, bred in the bone ranchers, who knew exactly what questions to ask about potential impacts to their land.

Of particular concern were constructionrelated issues--the size of roads, turbine pads, collector lines, transmission stations, concrete batching plants, also potential damage to existing wells and structures, the introduction of invasive plants, herbicides, impacts on cattle, wildlife, hunting, quality of life and finally the need for a reclamation plan.

With respect to our own ranch, the mapping and our understanding of good soil and water practices, was vital to our family’s comfort in moving ahead with a contract. We used our ranch base map to produce a site analysis useful to a consideration of development; we generated a set

of guidelines for development, then came up with development zones and proposed road access points. We also used some sound and visual studies to determine development zones. We spent time with company engineers, their construction foremen and environmental people, understanding the mechanics of wind generation, including operations and layout. Ultimately, FirstWind was impressively open to our concerns; we were able to discuss and agree upon important construction standards and environmental guidelines and plan together for success as a ranch for cattle and for wind.

To be sure, a wind project of this size does not come without costs. There will be lights at night; there will be noise from the turbines; there will be trucks and men on our remote ranches now every day of the year. And no matter how well designed the roads and turbine pads, there will be inevitable impacts upon the land. A project of this scale is an industrial development.

Biomass Exploration In late 2007, long before the wind contracts were finalized and signed, Steve Apfelbaum of Applied Ecological Services, Inc. (AES) and The Earth Partners, an ecologist looking for Western ranches to test soil carbon quantification methods, learned from members of our family whom he had worked with before, of our cooperative venture in Corona and noticed that our high elevation rangelands showed up as “moderate-high” on the New Mexico map for existing carbon levels. He realized immediately that the large acreage brought together here offered an unusual opportunity of scale to monitor, manage and then sell carbon credit offsets, if and when these became part of the marketplace. He also thought that the six years of planned grazing on our ranch might offer an idea of how management practices contribute to enhanced levels of soil carbon in rangeland soils.

In the summer of 2008, and again in 2009 and 2010, he came out to Corona to do sampling of soil carbon levels on our ranch and on several neighboring ranches.

The samples tested demonstrated several things: • Sandy soils, soils over shallow bedrock, areas where topsoil had eroded, evidenced very low levels of soil organic matter and organic accrued carbon; • Remote pasture corners that had not been grazed for many years, even decades, showed higher carbon levels; • Soil types that had been grazed under our planned program had ecosystems that were starting to differentiate, growing more species of grasses and more rare plants, including legumes, and these soils tested for both more organic

matter and for 20-30% more soil carbon than the same soil type right over the fence line; and • A primary obstacle to range improvement and increased carbon accrual was the presence of the invasive one-seeded juniper (Juniperus monosperma). Historically, older growth juniper, like this one, occupied steep rocky slopes, but now they have invaded the lowlands (this was a lovely open meadow in the early ‘70s). And with the native grasses displaced, soil carbon levels have declined.

Each tree easily consumes over 40 gallons of water/day year round; 50-90% of precipitation falling on a tree is lost to “interception” and evaporation and never reaches the soil; and the roots reach out to 40 feet and more, impoverishing and de-watering the “interspaces” and drastically limiting the potential for carbon accrual. Somewhere around 40% of our ranch is still covered by these dense cedar stands. We needed to get rid of more of these trees than currently possible by government cost share programs. With carbon as incentive, we turned to the potential for biomass harvesting.

Opportunities have been explored for harvesting, chipping the wood at a proposed plant near the railroad spur in Corona, and shipping via railroad. Earlier this year, a proposal for biomass harvesting and carbon development was presented to the Corona Landowner’s Association.

We are currently considering it and a prototype ranch management plan that would harvest cedar to achieve healthier range.

There are downsides to this picture.

Equipment to harvest the cedar and to transport it will need to be brought in. We know that if we remove cedar on 160,000 acres, it will take six years to overcome the carbon lost by removal of the trees themselves, their trunks, leaves and roots; with every pluck, carbon is released into the atmosphere. But after year six, we regain the balance. The improved grass and organic matter will create a break even level in the soil; and over

the next 25 years, we can expect increased levels of soil carbon. Thinner, drier soils over bedrock will take longer to accrue carbon, probably 25-50 years. Precipitation levels will also be a factor in how long this takes. In the long term, we believe that biomass harvesting will be less costly than relying on government programs and has greater potential for range restoration.

There is a lot of possibility here. Our first two programs, planned grazing and the marketing of grassfed beef, were taken up with a notable lack of fanfare and capital outlay. It has been a joy to see the improvement in our grasslands and our stock over the past eight years. Everyday costs are still with us, and the hard work of ranching, especially maintaining roads and fences, keeping up water supply and distribution.

I certainly do not mean to give the impression that all is well with the economics of family ranching, that would be inaccurate. A grassfed program is labor intensive and until a rancher is able to sell all her animals as grassfed, it would be hard to say it is sustainable. But who knows? In the event that all the cattle in the West, in New Mexico or even in our own Corona region, were harvested as we do ours, at six-nine months, we could bypass all the problems and costs of the industrial finishing model, provide healthy beef and still have animals on the land to keep it productive.

I take hope in the fact that we are working with our native resources and that the lowest technological fixes are the ones that are giving us the fastest and best return. For now, we love this part of the world, a new generation is starting to enjoy it, reveling in its wildness and beauty, and we will continue looking for ways to live in partnership with the land.

This article is an excerpt of a presentation Nancy gave at the Quivira Coalition Conference in November 2010. Nancy can be reached at: ranneyranch@gmail.com.

Alternative energy use also includes solar power that can be portable when mounted on an old truck to accommodate a moving herd. With a more reliable source of power than wind running their pumps, there is less time spent on checking water for the stock.

Number 138

IN PRACTICE

9

& Multiple Species Management— Ecological and Economic Benefits

by Bob Steger

M

y thirty plus years of practicing time controlled planned grazing on native ranges has led me to the conclusion that multiple species management is critical to the success of most grazing programs.

Moreover, due to the economic and ecological considerations and benefits from multiple species management, it should be considered early in the development stages of any grazing operation.

Likewise, the planned grazing concept contains more variables that can be used to obtain good management results. There is still the area of land and number of animals, but in addition there are the “time” and animal behavior considerations. Proper planning with so many considerations of interactions requires one to use an organized grazing planning procedure on paper (i.e.

Holistic Management). While the time-animal interaction is then addressed in that grazing planning, monitoring the implementation of the plan is critical because you are unlikely to include all animal behavioral considerations.

Often references are made regarding the use of several kinds of animals for utilization of forages with no indication for plant-animal interactions on the planned area. For successful multiple species management there are a number of specific issues to consider and make decisions about.

Increased Stocking Rate Potential

Planning & Management is Key One principle of planned grazing is to select the proper animal (or animals—both domestic and wildlife) for the climate (getting the right animals to the right place for the right reason). A more recent concept of “targeted species” management applied in a broad form may assist in selecting the kinds of animals that will consume the available vegetation.

Greater biological diversity allows you to include more kinds of animals, but having the right ones there will help you make the most of what you have.

Certainly the transition from traditional grazing management to planned grazing management is often confusing to beginners. Traditional grazing often involves only having two variables to consider—the amount of land and a specific number of animals that are considered “safe” for that climate.

However, if climate should change, especially with decreased rainfall, the decisions to be made include adding additional land area and/or reduce animal numbers.

Multiple species management can result in an increase in stocking rate, especially when applied on areas of diverse plants and species. Specific animal-plant interactions have been studied for sixty plus years on the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station at Sonora, Texas, and other locations to provide insights into the symbiotic relationships (beneficial to plants and animals) and how to best manage the resources. Few ranch managers know how much and when each kinds of vegetation are consumed by different kinds of animals as actual amounts consumed vary with the kinds of plants available as well as the species mix of plants and animal interacting. But, in general, the relative amounts of forage consumed by kinds of animals in Texas studies provide an interesting picture as seen in the table below.

Animals

White-tailed Deer Spanish Goats Rambouillet Sheep Cattle

Grass

Forbs

Browse (Wood)

10% 20-45% 50-65% 85-90%

30% 5-15% 20-30% 5-10%

60% 40-75% 15-30% 5%

Note: Boer goats are similar to Spanish goats, but may not be as efficient for brush control. Hair sheep diets are similar to Rambouillet, but may consume more browse.

In early spring near Mertzon, Texas cattle, sheep, and goats graze on mixed bush—mesquite, juniper, agarito, and lotebush. Grasses include tobosa, curly mesquite, buffalograss, and sideoats grama. Forbs are huisache daisy, verbena, and filaree.

10

Land & Livestock

July / August 2011

In application, one finds that a combination of different animals can have a complimentary grazing relationship. Research at the Sonora Station indicated that 25% more animal units could be grazed on areas of diverse vegetation without adverse effects when multiple animals diets are closely matched to available forage as they were in that study. Not all range areas have published animal diet data available, but general grazing responses can be made when close observation to plant-animal responses are applied.

Manipulating Succession Animal-plant succession can be moved forward (or backward) as animals

graze a complex of vegetation. Ecologically speaking, the plains areas evolved with a diversity of animals. Bison or buffalo were the best recognized animals, and they grazed similar to cattle. However, there were also elk, deer, antelope, rabbits and rodents with diverse grazing preferences that grazed these same areas. Deer have similar grazing preferences to goats, and antelope preferences are similar to sheep. These latter animals are more selective grazers or browsers than are cattle. Better grazing planning may be accomplished by a better understanding of plant-animal relationships when one considers the ecological aspect of succession, animals’ effects, and the tool of grazing is implemented in the overall program with those concepts in mind.

For native rangelands, the ecological successional aspect is very important.

For example, lower successional plants respond to the grazing by animals that prefer them. With proper time of grazing and recovery from grazing, ecological plant succession can occur. Forage production may increase as species emerge in upward seral stages. Without multiple species of animals being present, plant succession may not occur as only certain plants are grazed or browsed.

For example, if only cattle are grazed on the plains, their diet is made up principally of grass. Continual use or heavy grazing can eventually deplete the nutrient reserves of those grazed plants. Forbs that may not be palatable to the cattle tend to increase in number and their nutrient reserves are not depleted by grazing so competition with grass occurs and woody plants may also take advantage of this situation. Animals that will graze those invading plants could help equalize the competitive nature of the affected plants when properly grazed. Controlled production is often better than grazing attempts to remove the plants.

While sheep and goats are known to consume forbs, each kind of animal may prefer different kinds of forbs. Both kinds of animals may be needed to accomplish overall forb maintenance. Maintenance level of grazing may be preferred over attempted removal of forbs as forbs provide a relatively high level of phosphorus. Grasses provide mainly energy and browse has an advantage in protein content. Utilizing a large percentage of available plants can provide a higher level of naturally available nutrients for the animals.

Forbs and browse in general may be more adversely affected by grazing and require a longer recovery period than do grasses.

Regrowth of grazed plants is the preferred plant part consumed by animals. Grazing by one kind of animal can stimulate the production of regrowth and improve palatability of plants for other kinds of animals. For example, leaves on perennial woody plants may have a low palatability, whereas regrown leaves are more palatable.

Animal preference for a kind of plant does not appear to be totally innate (inherited), but is often a learned or taught characteristic. For example, sheep that originate from an area without palatable forbs often need to be mixed with sheep that consume certain forbs to learn what plant species to consume.

Juniper consumption by goats may be a learned experience but is encouraged by high animal density.

balance the species mix is possible. This may be a better option than disposing of animals that are currently in a development stage or improved selection program. Maintaining a balance between kinds of animals and forage species available is quite difficult and droughts provide an opportunity to correct the animal mix.

Labor Concerns A concern is often heard in regards to increased labor when working livestock or paddock shifts for multiple species of animals. From our experience on multiple ranches we have found that movement from paddock to paddock has posed little concern as one kind of animal that responds easily to a move stimulates other kinds of animals to arrive at the fresh forage first.

For example, cattle may be first, which stimulates the sheep to be second, with goats third in line for the gate.

Separating individual kinds of animals for working is usually not a problem. The same kinds of animals bed and go to water as a group so that early morning separation by kinds is possible in the paddock.

Fencing & Other Considerations Drawbacks to multiple animal species management can include fencing to contain them, corrals and working facilities, as well as supplemental feeding.

Fencing is often a major financial concern. Early planning for structural expenses will most likely result in lower development costs than the expense for modifying fencing designs at a later date. Electric fencing can be an effective tool when properly installed. One wire can control cattle alone; two wires can contain cattle and sheep, while goats may require three wires. A training facility using the kind of fence to be used in the pasture will greatly aid in getting animals to conform to the fence in a safe environment.

Providing management with adequate nutrition will also assist in animals conforming to the fences. Non-conformists may need to be sold.

Livestock working facilities may need to be modified to contain multiple species. This is usually not a major effort. Smaller areas can be equipped to work the smaller animals, and portable equipment is available that can be utilized.

Supplemental feeding of specific kinds of animals can be a problem and require the separation of the kinds of animals seasonally to assure that animals get the appropriate amount of feed at an economic level. Grazing planning can be used to avoid rapid plant growth periods by multiple herds that require prescribed feeds and when plants need adequate recovery for regrowth.

There are traits for some animals that should be considered in multiple species management. For example, goats do not lend themselves to frequent CONTINUED ON PAGE 12

Stock Density Multiple species of animals can help attain a positive level of stock density.

Combining all kinds of animals into one herd offers several advantages in planned grazing. Principally, stock density is increased which tends to stimulate consumption of plants with low palatability, which improves uniformity of use without loss of gain by the animals.

Risk management and economic stability is also encouraged. Especially in drought prone areas (drought partially defines rangelands), the ability to determine what animals to cull is a major benefit. One can use the current market value advantage of the types of animals that will help the economic stability of the operation. Reducing the numbers of those animals with the least relative advantage during a drought may be a wise choice. Most often an opportunity in future months or years to buy back those kinds of animals to

This multi-species grazing system in Mexico includes pigs, cattle, sheep, and goats with use of a two-hotwire fence.

Number 138

Land & Livestock

11

Multi-Species Management

continued from page eleven favorable results on rangeland as well.

paddock shifts when kidding. They have very poor mothering traits and will leave their kids and make little or no attempt to return for them. They need to be “parked” during kidding.

On the other hand, hair sheep, especially Blackbellied Barbado, St. Croix, and Dorp-Croix are the natural animals for planned grazing. They have excellent mothering traits of keeping their lambs close by, multiple births, strong herding trait (helps in predator control), stomach worm resistance, a gentle nature when handled to promote gentleness, do not need to be sheared, perform very well on native forages, and conform to electric fences when trained. These sheep offer a unique ethnic market that currently has high demand and good prices. Other breeds of shedding (wool) sheep often give

From the Beginning—Bob Steger

W

hen I was working with Bob Steger on the accompanying article “Multi-Species Management,” I visited with him about his experience with Holistic Management over the years. Bob is what we fondly call, “a Holistic Management old-timer.” While there are a number of folks who claim to have been at some of the first lectures on Holistic Management in the U.S., Bob certainly is one of those “innovators,” and he has been experimenting and learning about Holistic Management ever since he first heard Allan Savory speak at a grazing tour in Mexico and Texas in 1978.

When I was co-teaching policy analysis for the Certified Educator Training Program with Allan in 2000, I was asking him questions to develop educational materials for the trainees. He noted then that Bob Steger had questioned him in a similar fashion long ago. From Bob’s questions came the beginning of the Holistic Management framework.

Bob was teaching and doing research at San Angelo State University in San Angelo, Texas in the ‘70s, (which included starting a grazing cell with cattle, sheep, and goats) but he was also ranching. After taking a course with Allan and Stan Parsons, of Ranching for Profit fame, Bob decided to put these ideas to the test on his ranch in 1983. The weather had been rough that year with not only cold and drought, but a hailstorm had taken out most of his ranch. Bob was trying to figure out what to do with his animals. He couldn’t afford to feed or sell them. So he threw all the animals together—cattle, sheep, and goats. He had about 100 animal units on approximately 2,000 acres that were divided into 4 paddocks.

With one herd, he could begin to give the other paddocks longer recovery periods. He remembers that year because as he looked over the valley of his ranch, he could see the three neighbors’ lands on all sides of his ranch.

Despite the tough weather, he had green feed and his neighbors didn’t.

They ended up having to buy feed or destock, while Bob didn’t. That experience was what convinced Bob that he needed to continue to learn how to practice and teach Holistic Management.

With a B.S. and Masters from Texas A&M and a PhD in Range and Wildlife from the University of Wyoming, Bob is certainly well-schooled in range science. He also has an incredibly open-mind and a desire to learn so he can be a better rancher, educator, and consultant. He said when he went to college his goal was to learn how to manage and protect the land after experiencing the seven-year-long drought of the 1950s.

That has been a lifelong goal for him.

While Bob had a driving concern for protection of wildlife, he also

12

Land & Livestock

July / August 2011

Finally, it’s best to objectively evaluate the gross profit (sales less direct expenses) of the kinds of animals. Sheep and goats traditionally generate much higher gross profit than do cattle when balanced with their forage preferences. High birth rates, little or no depreciation, and ability to fatten on forages give cause to include them in the species mix.

Bob Steger has operated ranches with multi-species grazing and consulted for over 30 years. He and his son, Ken, currently manage a ranch of approximately 3,000 acres with planned grazing using cattle, sheep, goats, and white-tailed deer, as well as an 18-paddock grazing cell on their small home place. He can be reached at: bsteger@zipnet.us or 325/835-4583.

by Ann Adams Clint Josey (left) presents a recognition gift to Bob Steger for all his work for Holistic Management.

knew that there had to be solutions to improve wildlife habitat that were not only environmentally sound, but also economically sound, otherwise those solutions wouldn’t be sustainable. He says, “If you don’t have definite goals that people can work toward, then you can’t deal effectively with the conflict that arises between those that favor environmental outcomes versus those who are dealing with the economic realities of those environmental solutions. Having the Holistic Management testing questions to help work through those conflicts has really been helpful.”

Bob was also one of the organizers of HRM of Texas and served as President for about six years in the early 1980s. He’s seen the changes over the years within the range science community and feels the conversations have changed because of Holistic Management. “But we need to continue to get the word out there and offer support,” says Bob. “Hard times, like drought, create a deep peer pressure. People fear being different, so we need to help them see they aren’t different, they are a part of a larger community. We recently had HMI Certified Educator Kirk Gadzia talking to the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association about Holistic Management and I heard good response from people on that. That’s the kind of outreach and education we need to do, and the more field days and presentations we have the better.”

“Over the years, I’ve learned one thing. There are some folks who aren’t willing to make a mistake. They don’t want the responsibility.

We have to figure out how to bring those people along in their learning so they aren’t afraid of making mistakes. I’ve appreciated how Holistic CONTINUED ON PAGE 13

Building Soil Productivity

by Neal Kinsey

S

When a soil has too much of one element, it will not have enough of one or more of the others. Only an accurate soil analysis that correctly measures all the elements mentioned above as affecting pH, rather than simply measuring pH, will tell farmers and ranchers what is causing the pH to be where it is. Such tests should then enable them and their consultant or fertilizer dealer to identify and begin to correct any excesses and deficiencies in each pasture, hay meadow or silage field.

Supply any deficient nutrients to control any excessive nutrients. This is the beginning point for building nutrient rich soils. The soil is the plant’s stomach. This balancing is not just for supplying the needs of the cows, but the needs of all that serve to feed each cow. When a fertility program is employed that only considers the needs of the crop, and not the needs of the soil, the crop and the cows will all pay the price.

uccessful ranchers would never entertain the idea of starving their livestock to reduce the feed bill—at least not knowingly so. But, in too many cases ranchers actually do! By not feeding the soil.

Soil microbiologists tell us that the weight of all the life in an acre of soil is equivalent to the same weight as that of an average-sized cow. What’s more, this life in the soil always eats at “the first table” and the crops and stock to be grown there get what is left over. If there is not enough for the THE AVERAGE HUMUS CONTENT life within the soil and the cows grazing on top, Humus Increase OF THE SOIL WHEN THE PROGRAM guess who gets there first. How many ranchers I was just on a client's farm in Washington consider the need to feed an average-sized cow STARTED WAS 1.6% COMPARED TO THE State. They receive about 12-15 inches of rain a per acre even before the plants trying to grow SPRING 2011 AVERAGE OF 2.4%. year and grow hops, apples and cherries. Five there for feeding their animals are able to years ago they began using our program. acquire what is needed to grow and produce The initial expense for fertility management properly?

However, the soil does not just operate on these biological laws of science. that first year was higher than they had ever spent on hops production (they grow both organic and conventional hops). Some of the nutrient deficiencies It is also subject to the physical laws that determine the pore space for water had not previously been addressed and thus added up when taken out for and air in that soil which provides the proper environment for biological years and never put back. But the yields on every variety whether from new activity. The amount and type of each element affecting the pH of the soil plantings to the oldest were the highest in the area the second year on our actually determines this air and water relationship. program. Expenditures each year have been based on whatever needs the soil And just as important for the land is the soil’s chemistry that determines whether each element present will remain adequately available in the soil for testing shows as required for top quality and production. In five years they have extremely uniform growth in each hop field (750 acres) and have use by the plants that grow there. All of these laws are important and do not reduced their soil fertility expenditures by 60%. change in any part of the world where crops are to be grown. The combined The fertility levels as plotted per field, per farm and for the overall effects that each one will have on the others must be correctly considered in operation have shown great improvement, with excesses being reduced and order to have the most productive soil and grow the best feed and livestock.

One of the biggest mistakes on pastureland is the use of pH to tell whether deficiencies being eliminated, including primary, secondary and micronutrients. Perhaps one of the most surprising facts we were able to show was the soil is supplying a sufficient amount of nutrients for the life in the soil concerning the excellent compost they were making for themselves and using and the animals it must support. This is because the pH does not provide a on their own land. Due to overuse, it was causing an excess of P & K that complete picture of what type of fertility a soil actually contains. resulted in zinc, boron and manganese deficiencies in the crops.

When the soil pH is in the 5.5 to 8.0 range its principle make up is One of the most notable changes is in the soil. It has changed from hard determined by four elements—calcium, magnesium, potassium and and cloddy when worked to very easy-to-crumble soil. There are hop fields sodium. The problem is a combination of too much of one or more of these right next to theirs where both are using cover crops, but the hard soil is still elements and too little of one or more of the others can cause the pH to there where only the cover crops are being utilized. Moisture content is appear okay when in fact the soil is lacking what it needs to provide good greater as would be expected if the soil is more friable, but moisture nutrition for plant growth and the livestock grazing there. utilization is also greater because the zinc deficiencies have been eliminated from the soil rather than just trying to annually supply the needs by feeding the plant.

From the Beginning continued from page twelve Yet the most exciting change of all is the fact that humus content has consistently increased every year. The most progress has been in the last three Management has helped me look at situation over the years and years, with this past year making the largest contribution. The average understand the difference between learning something and making humus content of the soil when the program started was 1.6% compared to a mistake. A mistake is something that you know is wrong, but you the spring 2011 average of 2.4%. do it anyway.”

This is the most recent example of several on-site consultations that have Bob’s volunteer efforts for Holistic Management did not stop with already come about this year. I believe those who use Holistic Management his tenure as President for HRM of Texas. He participated in understand the value of soil health, but they need to understand the results numerous HMI Texas workshops and field days in recent years as that outside inputs can make. well, and has served on the West Ranch Advisory Team for HMI. The accompanying article “Multi-Species Management” is another For more information on soil analysis and other aspects of the soil example of his willingness to share his knowledge to help others. fertility program that can be utilized to accomplish this, contact Neal Thanks, Bob—for being there at the beginning and supporting the Kinsey at neal@kinseyag.com. See Neal’s ad on page 21. important work for the long haul!

Number 138

Land & Livestock

13

Managing for Biodiversity— The J Bar L Ranch

by Ann Adams

W

hen Peggy Dulany, the owner of the J Barl L Ranch, first saw the deeded land stretched out before her in the Centennial Valley in southwestern Montana, she had a vision for the ranch. Over the years, Bryan Ulring, the manager of the J Bar L, and the skilled employees of J-L have helped shape and create that vision. With consulting help from HMI Certified Educator Roland Kroos, the J Bar L is now growing 4-5 times more grass in places on the ranch than they did before—which is good for the wildlife as well as the cattle. Their journey has been how to manage for ever increasing biodiversity to serve the multiple land owners for the grazing lands they use.

A Holistic Approach The J Bar L’s holistic approach is evident in their management and it is also reflected on their website where they state: “Our holistic approach to raising sustainably produced natural beef takes into account the importance of: • Sustaining ranching as an industry and way of life • Sustaining local communities • Land management and land quality • Preserving the environment and corridors of wildlife • Connecting with our consumers • Connecting with the land • Humane treatment of ALL animals, livestock and wildlife • Nourishing the body, mind and soul • Preserving the best of many old-fashioned techniques to produce top quality and safe food How this vision translates in terms of products and services includes: utilization of a variety of private and public lands with innovative grazing management, improved forage from that grazing, increased wildlife populations to keep the land owners happy, income generation from a spectacular viewscape, and from the opportunity for guests to experience a working ranch that is “newby” friendly (i.e. low-stress livestock handling), low-cost production of cattle due to grazing management, and innovative niche marketing strategies to tap into consumers who identify with their grazing management strategies.

Using strip grazing on both pasture and rangeland, the J Bar L is able to get 100,000 lbs/acre stock density, leading to improved animal impact and incorporating organic matter.

14

Land & Livestock

July / August 2011

The J Bar L includes the 10,000-acre deeded land in the Centennial Valley and 10,000 – 15,000 acres of leased land including Bureau of Land Management (BLM), The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) and Red Rocks Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

Bryan Ulring began working for the ranch in 2007 and has helped, with the rest of the J Bar L team, to move the health and function of the land forward so that the cattle operation provides a strong source of income for the ranch as well as the guest program. As a working ranch they take guests for 8 weeks of the spring and summer to provide guests with the experience of what it’s like to work on an authentic cattle ranch.

Bryan grew up in South Dakota and got his business management degree from Montana State University. Keeping an open mind, he uses his background in business to develop successful ranching enterprises. HMI Certified Educator Roland Kroos has been a lot of help to the J-L team in teaching the the principles of Holistic Management and monitoring the results of grazing management..

Handling Complexity Because the J Bar L grazes different land areas with different owners and different rules, as well as dealing with a wide range in elevation, grazing planning is critical. For example, when they are grazing wildlife refuge areas they may only come in every 2-4 years, while on their deeded ground they come back every year. Having the grazing plan and clear grazing policies and practices, helps facilitate the conversation. Sharing that information and the monitoring data also helps, notes Bryan. “We have fantastic relationships with all the land managers we work with. They are very open-minded and want to help. We’ve had some range tours and invited folks from the BLM, Montana State, NRCS, DNRC, Montana Audubon, MT FWP, University of Montana, TNC, and local ranches. With Roland and the TNC doing monitoring for us and showing the results, it’s really opened up the gates for us. Of course, there are still some neighbors that think what we are doing is crazy.”

While the J Bar L is always experimenting on how to improve their grazing management, it has been journey according to Bryan: “We started with set stocking and have moved to 5-7 day graze periods. We now have a stock density of 100,000 #/acre on our irrigated pastures at Twin Bridges, but we are always balancing our animal performance to determine size of area and length of stay as we try for 2-2.5 lbs of gain/day. Even in our rangeland areas in Centennial, we are experimenting with 100,000 lbs/day stock density.

We have to move them every day as there isn’t as much forage, but we’re seeing some good regrowth with bunch grasses like Idaho fescue.

“But, we have to accommodate a lot of different interests because all the land owners have different directions and goals. We are trying to get everyone aligned and understanding what we are doing. The BLM, TNC and the Wildlife Refuge are focused on sage grouse habitat and are looking at curlew and sandhill cranes as indicator species. That’s important, but we have to put it in the overall land health context.”

The ranch staff at the J Bar L knows they need to manage not only for those birds but also wolves and trumpeter swans. While they have had dozens of wolves around the cattle, by keeping the herd tightly bunched and focusing on good mothering, they haven’t had much trouble. The only confirmed wolf/calve interaction is when the calf was already dead.

The cattle operation includes 800 pairs, 300 yearlings and they carry over 200-300 finished animals for the grassfed beef enterprise. In addition they

contract graze around 500 yearlings for their neighbor. There are three fulltime employees at the ranch besides Bryan for the cattle operation. One stays on the winter ground and finishes the fats, while two are in the summer area, the Centennial Valley—one managing the cow/calf operation and the other managing the yearling and custom grazing operation.

The cow/calf pairs are divided into 2 bunches and the yearling operation is a separate herd for a total of 3 herds. The ranch is in the process of extensive water project development so they can eventually carry 2,000 pairs as the land improves.

On their irrigated pastures they use a 45-60 day recovery. With the rangelands, they graze once a year with the season of use changing so it ends up being an 18-month recovery period. At any one time, 20% of the ranch is recovering and not being used.

They use different pastures for the different animal performance needs.

For example, Bryan notes that really steep paddocks work great for yearlings, so they are always looking at the paddocks and juggling animal performance needs, topography, season of use, recovery periods, and a host of other factors.

The focus on animal performance shows as they have an overall 3% death loss for calves and a combined 91% breedup.

learned it from some of the old-timers in the area. “To get better breeding, we run them a little tougher in the spring and summer. We put them on rougher, drier ground for calving where the forage isn’t so powerful. We then breed in September and put them on lush pastures when the bulls are out.

We’ve got it to the point where we have 90% of our calves dropping in one month.”

Beyond Rotational Grazing When I spoke with Bryan, he excitedly listed the results the J Bar L had achieved with Holistic Management: “We have a phenomenal team at the J Bar L. Having Roland come in and help us has helped bring the team together even more. We also have seen an increase in wildlife numbers so we are now allowed to graze in June on the Wildlife Refuge because they see the value in what we are doing. In some places, we have 4-5 times the amount of grass that we had before, and certainly better mineral cycling and utilization of forage. With rotational grazing we plateaued at 400 pairs. Then we had 600-acre pastures. With our planned grazing we now have some irrigated paddocks that are as small as 2 acres.

“We have a summer and winter area to help us with our finishing. We have 1,500 acres of irrigated pasture, and we finish on 300 acres of that. That land is at 4,500 feet elevation, and we do a little bit of haying from this land to help us through the winter (but very little).

“We don’t trail the animals from winter to summer pasture as the two pieces of the ranch are 90 miles from each other. But when we do move them, we use low-stress livestock handling to reduce weight loss.

The summer range is at 7,000 to 9,500 feet and the growing season goes from mid-May to the end of August. We average about 12-13 inches of rain, but when it gets cold we bring them down. This last year it hit -33 degrees the first part of November so they came down to the winter ground earlier than planned.” J-L’s management to stockpile forage meant that even with rough Montana winters they only have to feed hay for a couple of months.

They are planning to eliminate the need for hay completely in the next couple of years.

“We keep the calves on the cows through February, and we calve the first week in June, as nature intended with the elk in this part of the country.

Calving at that time puts the cow in a better position from an animal performance standpoint to nurse that calf when forage is at its peak. The calves do better when the cows are in better condition; and when they are on the cow for 8-10 months, we see the health and weight we want.

“Also, with this schedule, we sell our cattle at a different time of year which helps us increase our income, so it helps all the way around. This year we haven’t had to doctor a single weaned calf. I’d like to calve a little earlier, but it’s where we are right now.”

“I wouldn’t go back to any other way of ranching,” says Bryan. “We went from an 80% to a 91% breed up in a two-year period.” Bryan explains their strategy on how to improve conception—it’s really counter-intuitive, but he

Certified Educator Roland Kroos has been hired as a third-party monitor to monitor the on-the-ground results of improved grazing management.

In these transect photos taken in 2006 (on left) and 2008 (on right) increased plant vigor is evident.

Educating Consumers Like many ranches, it isn’t just the cattle that pay the bills. In the case of the J Bar L, income comes through a mix of guest services and a new marketing partnership for their grass-finished beef—Yellowstone Grassfed Beef.

When, Peggy Dulany, a New York philanthropist, bought the ranch in 2000, she began having the homestead cabins on the ranch renovated to accommodate up to 20 guests at a time and added the guest program to the ranch in 2004. These cabins offer the exterior authenticity of the old West with the interior comforts of the 21st century.

There’s a big focus on sustainability on the ranch with solar-powered guest houses and a greenhouse to grow their own produce in the works.

There are plans to pipe the nearby warm spring water into a greenhouse to naturally warm it. Whatever produce they can’t grow, they try to buy from the CONTINUED ON PAGE 16

Number 138

Land & Livestock

15

Managing for Biodiversity

better wildlife habitat which improves the possibilities of endangered wildlife

continued from page fifteen species to survive and thrive. That’s one of the reasons that the Audubon is

local farmer’s market to support other local producers.

The guest program has its own manager who does the scheduling and reservation and works to make the guests’ stay an exceptional experience.

The J Bar L has been featured in such publications as Conde Nast, The New York Times, and Forbes Magazine. Bryan explains how this guest program is critical not only to the economics on the ranch, but also as a formative experience for the guests. “They come from all walks of life and from around the globe. They are with us as we move animals every day. They ride on horseback and fix fences or feed minerals. The experience for them is amazing and the guests write us how this experience has changed their lives.

We want them to see and experience what we do to better understand sustainable ranching.”

Certainly Susan Hack, the author of the Conde Nast article, “True Grit,” made that connection for herself and her readers: “Ranchers and conservationists often regard one another with suspicion, with ranchers typecast as bad guys heedless of the natural ecology, and conservationists as softies who love wildlife more than people. Places like J Bar L, though, look beyond dude ranch clichés and the beef industry's obsession with weight, carcass yield, and USDA grades toward the big picture, the holistic state of the range; rather than excluding wildlife and degrading the land through overgrazing, or fattening cattle in corporate feedlots on corn, growth hormones, and antibiotics, they raise their stock in humane circumstances—both for profit and to sustain diverse species in a nearpristine natural environment.”

That kind of management doesn’t come without some effort, and Bryan and his team are always looking for ways to improve their cattle program, while managing for the critical indicator of increased biodiversity within the confines of the various land owners with whom they work.

The J Bar L is also a managing partner in Yellowstone Grassfed Beef. In conjunction with the Western Sustainability Exchange and the Audubon society they are marketing their “sustainable” grassfed beef to conservation customers. “Audubon has sent a direct mail campaign to their members helping us marketing our beef to consumers who want to see their conservation dollars doing real work on the ground AND receive the personal benefit of healthy beef in return for donated money.”

“Through this partnership we are trying to make the link for people between the product, how it is raised, and the effects of that management.

The funding for this pilot program came from a Western Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education grant and a $25,000 TogetherGreen grant from Toyota and the Audubon. We have 4 different meat packages we offer and it ends up costing about $6/lb for the consumer.

Steve Hoffman, The Executive Director of Montana Audubon, like other astute conservationists, understands that good ranching practices results in

helping support the work of the J Bar L and working to make that connection between consumer purchases and improved land health and management.

Certainly Bryan and the rest of the J Bar L team are a living example of how managing for increased biodiversity means focusing on the triple bottom of line of social, economic, and environmental sustainability. While it takes vision to start the journey, it takes good management and implementation to make that vision happen.

Bryan Ulring can be reached at 406/660-1232 or bryan@jbarl.com.

The improved range grasses, like this healthy Idaho fescue, has led to increased cattle numbers and better wildlife habitat.

The Angus and Angus-cross herd has thrived with the changed grazing management practices at the J Bar L. 16

Land & Livestock

July / August 2011

The Ian Mitchell-Innes Tour

H

MI sponsored an Ian Mitchell-Innes Tour across northern California, Texas, and Oklahoma through the spring of this year.

There was great interest in learning from Ian with a number of learnings that emerged at each session.

Paicines Ranch, California: While Holistic Management has had a long presence in California, with an active group of practitioners, it’s been a long time since HMI as an organization has hosted an event in the state. Rather, it’s fallen to a dedicated group of Holistic Management Certified Educators and practitioners to introduce the concepts. The recent HMI Grazing Planning workshop conducted by Ian Mitchell-Inness at Paicines Ranch, in central California, April 29-May 1, is the beginning of HMI’s commitment to expanding our outreach and training programs.

The workshop was full to capacity, with the attendees having a wide range of interests. There was a number of younger people in attendance, with the average age of the group around mid-30. Many of the younger folks came because of their interest in good food and understanding where that comes from, rather than from the traditional background of livestock ranching.

Ian Mitchell-Innes conducted the workshop with a combination of classroom and field tours on the land.

Ranch owner, Sallie Calhoun, and her ranch manager, Chris Ketchum, did an outstanding job explaining the work they’re doing on the ranch, their objectives and the challenges they’ve had. They’ve made impressive improvements in forage production through grazing management, and have managed to extend their grazing season by several weeks. As they were quick to say, there’s still a ways to go, but from the outside looking in, it’s pretty incredible what they’ve done.

Paicines Ranch in April.

Ford Ranch, Brady, Texas: Though May 2nd felt like a brisk mid-winter’s day, a great group of excited ranchers met at the Ford Ranch near Brady, Texas to hear Ian Mitchell-Innes consult on the land with long time manager Forrest Armke.

In spite of those challenges and the current dry times, Ian found the ranch rich in a carbon layer creating resilience in the soil. Ford Ranch is well known for its outstanding hunting program, so the thickets of brush scattered about the 32,000 acres are considered valuable habitat.

Forrest pointed out areas where chaining was done and where a herd of large goats was left for many years—all before his management. The chained area is now covered in mesquite and prickly pear while the goat area is still, 26 years later, showing a browse line and little brushy cover.

Over half of the field day group stayed on for the three-day class on the Economics of Planned Grazing. Partly in the classroom and partly in the field, this class got more and more enthused as the information began to sink in and as relationships began to form around geographic regions. Three groups distilled out with a desire to form a more formal network via management clubs. These study groups are a great way to keep each other motivated and support each other through the change in management.

Southwest Gathering, San Antonio, Texas: A small crowd enjoyed a delightful dinner and an entertaining talk by Dr. Will Winter, a holistic livestock veterinarian, at the opening evening of the Southwest Gathering May 6 in San Antonio. Ian Mitchell-Innes had the floor all day Saturday, giving an overview of Holistic Management and sharing some of the benefits from High Density Holistic Management Planned Grazing.

Dr. Will Winter discussing holistic livestock at the HMI Southwest Gathering.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 20

T he news from holistic management international

people, programs & projects

Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Convention

H

MI was well represented at the 2011 Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Convention in San Antonio, Texas on April 1st3rd. We sponsored a booth at the trade show and enjoyed a steady stream of interested folks, some of whom joined us in May for the Ian Intensives. Featuring the combined efforts of HMI Certified Educator Kirk Gadzia and Ranching for Profit's Dave Pratt, we enjoyed great turnouts for both the pre-conference Pfizer Animal Health Clinic, with 150 practitioners in attendance for the one-day workshop, and the School for Successful Ranching, with two sessions of approximately 50 participants each. These two veteran educators worked very well together, with Kirk covering the basic biological, ecological and grazing planning concepts of managing the whole, while Dave focused on the financial planning aspects. Many of the participants had heard of Holistic Management but had never been exposed to it first-hand.

HMI Tour for Mexican Students

S

tudents from the Animal Science Department and their professor Gerardo Bezanilla from the Universidad Autonoma de Chihuahua, Mexico, shared an afternoon with HMI Certified Educator Jeff Goebel at the Sevilleta Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Center in New Mexico in April. Dr. Jennifer

Number 138

Ivette Garcia and Dr. Bezanilla listening to Jeff Goebel discussing rangeland health at La Sevilleta Research Center.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 18

Land & Livestock

17

Development Corner Granger, Texas shared how difficult it was for women to get financing, respect, and help when they needed it most when she first started ranching. She encouraged everyone to support and embrace this new program designed for women in agriculture.

Thanks to all for their participation and support of this program!

Empowering Women in Agriculture Luncheon

A

beautiful spring day in Central Texas, a comfortable patio, and 36 women who all have a passion for agriculture: what could be more fun? Alice Ball-Strunk graciously opened her home in San Antonio, Texas on April 1st to a wide variety of influential women in agriculture, to raise awareness and support for our Beginning Farmers and Ranchers: Texas Women program. Presenters included Alice BallStrunk, HMI’s COO, Tracy Favre, Program Coordinator, Peggy Cole, and Program Instructor, Peggy Sechrist. Participants learned about the fall seminars planned for 2011 in four regions of Texas to share whole farm planning to beginning women farmers in Texas. From those programs, 25 women from each region will commit to additional training.

Following them, Susana Canseco of San Antonio, and Kaylee Cowan of Boerne spoke about the importance of this program for young ranchers. These young ranchers are determined to leave the land better than they find it, to make their mark in creating a sustainable future for their children and grandchildren to come. Highly educated and trained in other vocations, they find

Beginning Women Farmer Program Peggy Sechrist and Peggy Cole share information about the Beginning Farmer Program for Texas women. themselves with lots of energy and enthusiasm, yet lacking in many of the practical skills of ranching.

Tina Loeffler of Lampasas, past president of Texas Cattlewomen Association and 2010 Texas Cattlewoman of the Year, was the next speaker, emphasizing the need for women in agriculture to combine forces, support one another’s efforts, and celebrate our victories together.

To round out our program, Betsy Ross, well known and respected Holistic Management rancher, owner of Betsy Ross Grassfed Beef in

Grapevine

continued from page seventeen

Johnson, research scientist from Sevilleta-LTER, also joined these graduate and undergraduate students to learn more about Holistic Management and how ecosystems function in brittle environments. The group spent part of the afternoon out on the range observing symptoms and causes of soil erosion and learning how over-resting can also damage the health of a rangeland. The students expressed enthusiasm for what they learned and felt they had gained valuable tools that would help them in sustainable management of natural resources.

Colorado Conservationist Wins National Wetlands Award

T

he Environmental Law Institute announced today that Rio de la Vista, a Colorado land and water conservationist, received the 2011 National Wetlands Award for Conservation and Restoration. Rio de la Vista’s enthusiasm, creativity, and commitment to bringing together broad-based partnerships has helped conserve more than 27,000 acres of wetlands, many on private lands, across the San Luis Valley in Colorado. Rio served on HMI’s Board and was the Chair of the Board from 2002-2004. Congratulations, Rio!

18

IN PRACTICE

July / August 2011

Rio de la Vista

H

MI would like to acknowledge the generous donations received from the following individuals for Beginning Farmers & Ranchers: Texas Women. Your generosity is appreciated!

Ann Adams, Malcolm and Delphine Beck, Ron Chapman, Mary Cox, Lee Dueringer, Genevieve Duncan, Joseph and Blair Fitzsimons, J. D. Folbre, Elma Irene Garza, Gail Hammack, Joan Kelleher, Carrie Knox, Roberta Meader, Jim Parker, and Carolyn Vogel.

Terry Gompert Memorial Scholarship

A

s we reported in the last issue of IN PRACTICE, longtime Holistic Management practitioner and Certified Educator Terry Gompert passed away in March of this year.

In honor of Terry’s memory, and to ensure that his passion for teaching young people about the importance of sustainable agriculture will continue on, HMI is pleased to announce the creation of the Terry Gompert Memorial Scholarship.

Intended to target the next generation, the Terry Gompert Memorial Scholarship will offer those under 30 the opportunity to begin or continue their education in sustainable agriculture and Holistic Management. This scholarship fund will be both for practitioner and Certified Educator training. This is a need’s based program and we hope to have funds to release by the end of 2011. If you would like to learn more about applying for the scholarship, contact Ann Adams at anna@holisticmanagement.org or 505/842-5252.

We feel that it’s vital that Terry’s work continue. If you feel the same, please consider a donation in Terry’s honor. To make a donation to the Terry Gompert Memorial Scholarship, you can go to the “Donate Now” button on HMI’s website at: www.holisticmanagement.org and put Gompert Memorial Scholarship in the notes field.

You can also call HMI at 505/842-5252 to give your credit card donation over the phone.

UNITED STATES

Certified Educators

Jeff Goebel 5105 Guadalupe Trail NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 • 541/610-7084 goebel@aboutlistening.com

The following Certified Educators listed have been trained to teach and coach individuals in Holistic Management. On a yearly basis, Certified Educators renew their agreement to be affiliated with HMI. This agreement requires their commitment to practice Holistic Management in their own lives and to seek out opportunities for staying current with the latest developments in Holistic Management.

For more information about or application forms for the HMI’s Certified Educator Training Programs, contact Ann Adams or visit our website at: www.holisticmanagement.org.

*

These associate educators provide educational services to their communities and peer groups.

UNITED STATES ARIZONA

* Tim McGaffic P.O. Box 1903, Cave Creek, AZ 85331 808/936-5749 • tim@timmcgaffic.com CALIFORNIA Richard King 1675 Adobe Rd., Petaluma, CA 94954 707/769-1490 • 707/794-8692(w) richard.king@ca.usda.gov * Christopher Peck 1330 Gumview Road, Windsor, CA 95492 707/758-0171 Christopher@naturalinvesting.com ◆ Rob Rutherford CA Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 805/756-1475 • rrutherf@calpoly.edu COLORADO Cindy Dvergsten 17702 County Rd. 23, Dolores, CO 81323 970/882-4222 hminfo@wholenewconcepts.com * Katherine Belle Rosing 22755 E. Garrett, Calhan, CO 80808 970/310-0852 heritagebellefarms@gmail.com GEORGIA Constance Neely 1421 Rockinwood Dr., Athens, GA 30606 706/540-2878 • clneely@earthlink.net IOWA

* Mae Rose Petrehn P.O. Box 1802, Ames, IA 50010 913/707-7723 treadearthintometaphor@gmail.com MAINE Vivianne Holmes 239 E Buckfield Road Buckfield, ME 04220-4209 207/336-2484 vholmes@umext.maine.edu * Tobey Williamson 52 Center Street Portland, ME 04101 c: 207-332-9941 tobey@bartongingold.com

NEW YORK Erica Frenay 454 Old 76 Road, Brooktondale, NY 14817 607/539-3246 • efrenay22@gmail.com

WASHINGTON

Wayne Berry 1611 11th Ave. West, Williston, ND 58801 701/572-9183 • wberry@wil.midco.net Joshua Dukart 2539 Clover Place, Bismarck, ND 58503 701/870-1184 • Joshua_dukart@yahoo.com

Sandra Matheson 228 E. Smith Rd., Bellingham, WA 98226 360/398-7866 • mathesonsm@frontier.com ◆ Don Nelson Department of Animal Sciences 116 Clark Hall, Washington State University Pullman, WA 99164-6310 509/335-2922 • nelsond@wsu.edu Doug Warnock 1880 SE Larch Ave., College Place, WA 99324 509/540-5771 • 509/856-7101 (c) dwarnock@columbianet.com

PENNSYLVANIA

WISCONSIN

◆ These educators provide Holistic Management instruction on behalf of the institutions they represent.

Peggy Sechrist 106 Thunderbird Ranch Road, Fredericksburg, TX 78624 (C)830/456-5587 • peggysechrist@gmail.com

NORTH DAKOTA

MICHIGAN

* Ben Bartlett N4632 ET Road, Traunik, MI 49891 906/439-5210 (h) • 906/439-5880 (w) bartle18@msu.edu * Larry Dyer 1113 Klondike Ave, Petoskey, MI 49770-3233 231/439-8982 (w) • 231/347-7162 (h) dyerlawr@msu.edu MONTANA Roland Kroos 4926 Itana Circle, Bozeman, MT 59715 406/522-3862 kroosing@msn.com * Cliff Montagne P.O. Box 173120, Montana State University Department of Land Resources & Environmental Science, Bozeman, MT 59717 406/994-5079 • montagne@montana.edu NEBRASKA Paul Swanson 5155 West 12th St., Hastings, NE 68901 402/463-8507 swanson@inebraska.com Ralph Tate 1109 Timber Dr., Papillion, NE 68046 402/932-3405 Tater2d2@cox.net NEW HAMPSHIRE ◆ Seth Wilner

24 Main Street, Newport, NH 03773 603/863-4497 (h) • 603/863-9200 (w) seth.wilner@unh.edu NEW MEXICO ◆ Ann Adams

Holistic Management International 1010 Tijeras NW, Albuquerque, NM 87102 505/842-5252 anna@holisticmanagement.org Kelly Boney 4865 Quay Road L, San Jon, NM 88434 575/268-1162 kboney@plateautel.net Kirk Gadzia P.O. Box 1100, Bernalillo, NM 87004 505/867-4685, (f) 505/867-9952 kirk@rmsgadzia.com

Jim Weaver 428 Copp Hollow Road, Wellsboro, PA 16901 570/724-4955 • jaweaver@epix.net TEXAS Guy Glosson 6717 Hwy. 380, Snyder, TX 79549 806/237-2554 • glosson@caprock-spur.com Peggy Maddox P.O. Box 694, Ozona, TX 76943-0694 325/392-2292 • westgift@hughes.net

Larry Johnson, 608/455-1685 W886 State Rd. 92, Brooklyn, WI 53521 LarryStillPointFarm@gmail.com * Laura Paine Wisconsin DATCP N893 Kranz Rd., Columbus, WI 53925 608/224-5120 (w) • 920/623-4407 (h) laura.paine@datcp.state.wi.us

INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA Judi Earl “Glen Orton” 3843 Warialda Rd., Coolatai NSW 2402 judiearl@auzzie.net 61-2- 0409-151-969 George Gundry Willeroo, Tarago, NSW 2580 61-2-4844-6223 • g.gundry@bigpond.com Graeme Hand 150 Caroona Lane, Branxholme, VIC 3302 61-3-5578-6272 (h) 61-4-1853-2130 (c) graeme.hand@bigpond.com Dick Richardson Frogmore Boorowa NSW 2586 61-0-263853217 (w) 61-0-263856224 (h) 61-0-429069001 (c) dick@hanaminno.com.au Brian Wehlburg Pine Scrub Creek, Kindee, NSW, 2446 61-2-6587-4353 brian@insideoutsidemgt.com.au CANADA Don Campbell Box 817 Meadow Lake, SK S9X 1Y6 306/236-6088 doncampbell@sasktel.net

Linda & Ralph Corcoran Box 36, Langbank, SK S0G 2X0 306/532-4778 rlcorcoran@sasktel.net

* Allison Guichon

Box 10, Quilchena, BC V0E 2R0 250/378-4535 allison@guichonranch.ca Blain Hjertaas Box 760, Redvers, Saskatchewan SOC 2HO 306/452-3882 bhjer@sasktel.net Brian Luce RR #4, Ponoka, AB T4J 1R4 403/783-6518 lucends@cciwireless.ca Tony McQuail 86016 Creek Line, RR#1, Lucknow, ON N0G 2H0 519/528-2493 mcqufarm@hurontel.on.ca Len Pigott Box 222, Dysart, SK, SOH 1HO 306/432-4583 JLPigott@sasktel.net Kelly Sidoryk P.O. Box 374, Lloydminster, AB S9V 0Y4 780/875-9806 (h) 780/875-4418 (c) sidorykk@yahoo.ca

Number 138

IN PRACTICE

19

INTERNATIONAL KENYA

AFFILIATES NEW ZEALAND

Richard Hatfield P.O. Box 10091-00100, Nairobi 254-0723-506-331; rhatfield@obufield.com Christine C. Jost International Livestock Research Institute Box 30709, Nairobi 00100 254-20-422-3000; 254-736-715-417 (c) c.jost@cgiar.org * Belinda Low P.O. Box 15109, Langata, Nairobi 254-727-288-039; belinda@grevyszebratrust.org MEXICO Ivan A. Aguirre Ibarra P.O. Box 304, Hermosillo, Sonora 83000 52-1-662-281-0990 (from U.S.) 51-1-662-281-0901 Rancho_inmaculada@yahoo.com.mx NAMIBIA Usiel Kandjii P.O. Box 23319, Windhoek 264-61-205-2324 • kandjiiu@gmail.com Colin Nott P.O. Box 11977, Windhoek 264/61-225085 (h) 264/81-2418778 canott@iafrica.com.na Wiebke Volkmann P.O. Box 9285, Windhoek 264-61-225183 or 264-81-127-0081 wiebke@mweb.com.na

The Ian Mitchell Tour

* John King

P.O. Box 12011 Beckenham, Christchurch 8242 64-276-737-885 succession@clear.net.nz

UNITED KINGDOM

* Philip Bubb

32 Dart Close, St. Ives, Cambridge, PE27 3JB 44-1480-496-2925 (h) +44 7837 405483 (w) philipbubb@onetel.com

continued from page seventeen

Phelan Ranch, Mountain Park, Oklahoma: Another wonderfully cool and quite windy day saw another group of eager ranchers touring the beautiful Phelan Ranch on the edge of the Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Preserve. Wondering whether to destock more now or IN PRACTICE

HRM of Arizona Norm Lowe 2660 E. Hemberg Flagstaff, AZ 86004 928/214-0040 loweflag@aol.com

SOUTH AFRICA Jozua Lambrechts P.O. Box 5070 Helderberg, Somerset West Western Cape 7135 27-83-310-1940 • 27-21-851-2430 (w) jozua@websurf.co.za Wayne Knight Solar Addicts PO Box 537, Mokopane, 0600 South Africa 27-0-15-491-5286 theknights@mweb.com.za Ian Mitchell-Innes P.O. Box 52 Elandslaagte 2900 27-36-421-1747 blanerne@mweb.co.za

Bear Creek Ranch, Aledo, Texas: The Advanced Grazing Workshop and Field Day held at Bear Creek Ranch just outside of Aledo, Texas was yet another successful part of the 2011 Tour de Innes, with folks traveling from as far as Puerto Rico to take advantage of such an opportunity.

Bear Creek Ranch management has been practicing Holistic Management on the ranch for years. Their impressive management can be witnessed both by their thriving biodiversity and by the charismatic character of their entire staff. Bear Creek Ranch is one of four Texas ranches owned by the Dixon Water Foundation, an organization focused on creating a sustainable future for numerous watersheds throughout Texas.

The first day of the workshop was an open field day that allowed attendees to talk with Ian about his experiences, explore potential improvements that they could make to their own operations, and see firsthand the results that planned grazing can have on forage quality and production. As the workshop part of the event got underway, it provided an arena for over 30 producers to explore Holistic Planned grazing at a more in depth level.

20

ARIZONA

July / August 2011

OKLAHOMA Oklahoma Land Stewardship Alliance Kim Barker, contact person 35878 Cimarron Road Waynoka, OK 73860 580/732-0244 580/732-0244 oklsa@pldi.net

COLORADO Colorado Branch For Holistic Management® P.O. Box 218, Lewis, CO 81327 www.coloradoholisticmanagement.org Cindy Dvergsten, webmaster 970/882-4222

PENNSYLVANIA Northern Penn Network Jim Weaver, contact person 428 Copp Hollow Road Wellsboro, PA 16901 570/724-4955 • jaweaver@epix.net

NEW YORK Central NY RC&D Phil Metzger 99 North Broad Street Norwich, NY 13815 607/334-3231 ext 4 phil.metzger@ny.usda.gov

TEXAS West Station for Holistic Management Peggy Maddox PO Box 694, Ozona, TX 76943 325/392-2292 westgift@hughes.net

NORTHWEST Managing Wholes Peter Donovan PO Box 393 Enterprise, OR 97828 541/426-5783 www.managingwholes.com

Jovial camaraderie is the norm in any Ian Mitchell-Innes class.

risk the worsening drought, John Phelan took Ian to recovered pasture for his opinion. The ground was covered, the plant spacing tight and the thick grass had a blend of last year’s standing grass and the new green from this year’s growth. “Perfect!” said Ian, “But you have too much grass, not too little. You need more cattle.”

After a hearty lunch, the group toured an area that had been burned and discussed the pros and cons of the tool of fire. Grady Phelan then spent some time telling of his stacking of enterprises, which he learned in his year-long internship with Joel Salatin at Polyface Farm, providing additional opportunities for learning.

T H E

M A R K E T P L A C E

HANDS-ON AGRONOMY BASIC SOIL FERTILITY GUIDELINES Now Available on DVD

BUY THE DVD TODAY! Runs 80 minutes and covers the following topics:

$30

• Feeding and Balancing the Soil • The Albrecht System • Soil Testing • Considering Soil Test Results • Sulfur • Calcium, pH, and Liming • Potassium and Sodium • Nitrogen • Manures, Green Manures

(postpaid to US addresses)

For consulting or educational services contact:

Kinsey Agricultural Services, Inc. $30

Holistic Management® Certified Educator Training Program

(plus shipping) (PAL orders add $5)

Want to make the world a better place?

Interested in teaching others about Holistic Management?

297 County Highway 357, Charleston, Missouri 63834 Phone: 573/683-3880; Fax: 573/683-6227, neal@kinseyag.com WE ACCEPT CREDIT CARD ORDERS (VISA, MC)

Holistic Goal Setting and Facilitation Services Are you ready to make the most out of your resources?

Do you need help dealing with critical human resource issues?

Has change taken you by surprise?

HMI provides skilled, objective facilitators to help you achieve your goals!

BENEFITS OF HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT FACILITATION INCLUDE:

HMI’s Certified Educator Training Program is an individualized two-year training program developed to produce excellent Holistic Management facilitators, coaches, and instructors. Tailored to meet your needs and interests.

TO LEARN MORE, CONTACT: Ann Adams • 505/842-5252 hmi@holisticmanagement.org • www.holisticmanagement.org

To learn more, call HMI at

• Elicits key motivators and values 505/842-5252 or from the group for more effective email Tracy at tfavre@ group decision making holisticmanagement.org.

• Improves communication • Improves conflict resolution • Creates a safe environment to have crucial conversations including generational transfer • Creates common ground from which to make management decisions and plans

Number 138

IN PRACTICE

21

T H E

M A R K E T P L A C E

4 2 1 1. WRAPPER WIRE with 6 stainless steel strands that deliver a high shock impact. White or orange.

3

2. BRAIDED MEGA WIRE with 9 stainless steel strands, this superior strength wire is an e ex xcellent conductor.

3. POWER TA TAPE High visibility tape with 6 stainless steel strands. White or orange.

4. MEGA TA TAPE with 10 stainless steel strands creating an excellent conductor. White or orange.

.!4)/.7)$% . !4)/.7)$% $)342)"54)/. $ ) 3 4 2 )"5 4 )/ .

s 3AN ! NGELO 4EXAS s TWINMOUNTAINFENCE COM En Mexico : Lada sin costo 01-800-640-3156

Resource Management Services, LLC

CORRAL DESIGNS

0310

JEFF GOEBEL

Kirk L. Gadzia, Certified Educator PO Box 1100 Bernalillo, NM 87004 Pasture Scene 505-263-8677 Investigation kirk@rmsgadzia.com www.rmsgadzia.com

How can RMS, LLC help you?

On-Site Consulting: All aspects of holistic management, including financial, ecological and human resources.

Training Events: Regularly scheduled and customized training sessions provided in a variety of locations.

Ongoing Support: Follow-up training sessions and access to continued learning opportunities and developments.

Land Health Monitoring: Biological monitoring of rangeland and riparian ecosystem health.

Property Assessment: Land health and productivity assessment with recommended solutions.

22

IN PRACTICE

July / August 2011

By World Famous Dr. Grandin Originator of Curved Ranch Corrals The wide curved Lane makes filling the crowding tub easy.

Includes detailed drawings for loading ramp, V chute, round crowd pen, dip vat, gates and hinges. Plus cell center layouts and layouts compatible with electronic sorting systems. Articles on cattle behavior.

27 corral layouts. $55.

Low Stress Cattle Handling Video $59.

Send checks/money order to:

GRANDIN LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS 2918 Silver Plume Dr., Unit C-3 Fort Collins, CO 80526

970/229-0703 www.grandin.com

Helping People Solve Complex Problems âœŚ Increase revenue âœŚ Address estate transfer issues âœŚ Make the impossible happen

through effective facilitation To learn more, contact: JEFF GOEBEL • 541/610-7084 goebel@aboutlistening.com www.aboutlistening.com

T H E

WORLD CLASS FENCING

M A R K E T P L A C E

Custom-made

&

SPURS Crosses

www.powerflexfence.com

PowerFlex G2 Post

To place your order, or learn more, contact: KELLY BONEY, Certified Educator

PowerFlex Geared Reel

4865 Quay Road L San Jon, NM 88434 575/760-7636 kboney@ plateautel.net

HMI Wear Unique gifts for everyone on your shopping list!

• HATS • JACKETS • VESTS • SHIRTS Visit our online store at www.holisticmanagement.org TODAY! Phone orders call 505/842-5252

HMI GRAZING PLANNING SOFTWARE UPGRADE The HMI Grazing Planning Software is an electronic version of the Holistic Management Grazing Plan and Control Chart. This software tool does all the grazing planning calculations for as many as 100 paddocks.

100

New features include: • Account for multiple herds • Added ability to identify exclusion periods and paddocks needing special attention dy “This tool has alrea • Compares estimated SAUs with d fol ny ma a us given planned peak SAUs initial return beyond our • Grazing Manual hyperlink have investment and we it.” references for each step for just begun to use ease of reference — Arnold Mattson, rvices nv • New Livestock and Land Agri-E ironment Se and ure ult ric Ag Branch, Performance worksheet ood Canada ri-F Ag • Easy calculations to determine SAUs • Auto-fill functions for closed plan

$

TO LEARN MORE OR TO ORDER CALL

HMI at 505/842-5252 or go to our online store at www.holisticmanagement.org/store/

See the Big Picture ~ Respond to Change ~ Be Sustainable

Get Started Today – Join Our

Holistic Management Distance Learning & Mentoring Program Realize Immediate Benefits Save money on education — and get more for your money with highly personalized training.

All you need is a telephone, a computer is NOT needed. Learn at your own pace; apply what you learn to your situation and get results now!

Don’t change your life to learn.

Let your education change your life!

Visit: www.wholenewconcepts.com Email: hminfo@wholenewconcepts.com Call Cindy at 970/882-4222 for a free consultation!

Cindy Dvergsten, is a Holistic Management® Certified Educator, offering you over 15 years experience in training, mentoring, and facilitation; 30 years in natural resource management; and a lifetime of experience in diversified farming.

Offered By Whole New Concepts, LLC P.O. Box 218 Lewis CO 81327 Number 138

IN PRACTICE

23

healthy land. sustainable future.

NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION U.S. POSTAGE PAID ALBUQUERQUE, NM PERMIT NO 880

a publication of Holistic Management International 5941 Jefferson St. NE, Suite B Albuquerque, NM 87109 USA return service requested

please send address corrections before moving so that we do not incur unnecessary postal fees

HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT MAIL ORDER EMPORIUM Subscribe to IN PRACTICE

Software

_ A bimonthly journal for Holistic Management practitioners

Grazing Planning software (single-user license). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100

Subscribe for 1 year for only $35/U.S. ($40/International) 2 years ($65/U.S.; $70/International) 3 years ($95/U.S.; $105/International)

Upgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . electronic $30 hardcopy $45

_ Gift Subscriptions (same prices as above). _ Special Edition: An Introduction to Holistic Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5 _ Compact Disk Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$14 _ Bulk subscriptions available.

Pocket Cards Holistic Management® Framework & testing questions, March 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$4

Planning and Monitoring Guides _ Policy/Project Analysis & Design

One year for $17 each/U.S., or $22 each/International ______ Please indicate number of one-year subscriptions

August 2008, 61 pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$17

_ Introduction to Holistic Management

_ Back Issues: $5 each; bulk orders (5 or more issues) $3 each. List

August 2007, 128 pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$25

_ Financial Planning

Please indicate issue numbers desired: ___,___,___,___,___,___,___,___,___,___

_ CD of Back Issues: #71 - 130 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$25

August 2007, 58 pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$17

_ Aide Memoire for Grazing Planning August 2007, 63 pages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$17

Books & Multimedia

_ Early Warning Biological Monitoring— Croplands

Holistic Management: A New Framework for Decision-Making,

April 2000, 26 pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$15

_ Second Edition, by Allan Savory with Jody Butterfield. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $50 _ Spanish Version (soft) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $40 _ Holistic Management Handbook, by Butterfield, Bingham, Savory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $30 _ At Home With Holistic Management, by Ann Adams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20 _ Holistic Management: A New Environmental Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10 _ Improving Whole Farm Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $13 _ Video: Creating a Sustainable Civilization—An Introduction to

_ Early Warning Biological Monitoring—Rangelands and Grasslands August 2007, 59 pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$17

_ Land Planning—For The Rancher or Farmer Running Livestock August 2007, 31 pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$15

Planning Forms (All forms are padded – 25 sheets per pad) _ Annual Income & Expense Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$17 _ Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 7 _ Livestock Production Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$17 _ Grazing Plan & Control Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$17

Holistic Decision-Making, based on a lecture given by Allan Savory. (DVD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $30

_ Stockmanship, by Steve Cote. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $35 _ The Grassfed Gourmet Cookbook, by Shannon Hayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25 _ The Oglin, by Dick Richardson & Rio de la Vista. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25 _ Gardeners of Eden, by Dan Dagget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25 _ Video: Healing the Land Through Multi-Species Grazing (DVD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $30 _ PBS Video—The First Millimeter: Healing the Earth (DVD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25 TO ORDER

MAKE A TAX DEDUCTIBLE DONATION Amount $_____________ Please designate program you would like us to apply contribution toward _________________________________________

Questions? 505/842-5252 or hmi@holisticmanagement.org

Indicate quantity on line next to item, make sure your shipping address is correct, mail this page (or a copy) and your check or money order payable in U.S. funds from a U.S. bank or your credit card number and expiration date to: Holistic Management International, 5941 Jefferson St. NE, Suite B, Albuquerque, NM 87109.

You can also call in or fax credit card orders. Phone calls to: 505/842-5252; Fax: 505/843-7900.

For online ordering, visit our secure website at: www.holisticmanagement.org.

Printed on recycled paper

Shipping & Handling Shipping and handling costs to the right are for U.S. media mail only.

Call 505/842-5252 for all other shipping rates.

up to $15: $16 to $35: $36 to $50: $51 to $70: $71 to $90: over $91:

add $ 5 add $ 6 add $ 8 add $ 9 add $10 add $12