Streamside Grazing in Indiana. Indiana Streams: Are a precious natural resource Provide clean water for a variety of human uses as well as habitat for.

Streamside Grazing in Indiana

Indiana Streams:

•Are a precious natural resource

•Provide clean water for a variety of human uses as well as habitat for wildlife and aquatics

•Deserve to be protected from degradation

Streams can be damaged by:• Gray water and sewer discharges

• Agricultural & Yard / Garden chemical

runoff

• Industrial discharges

• Recreational overuse and abuse

• Livestock overuse and abuse

• Surface applied manure (overland & through tile)

The blame often goes to livestock and often rightfully so.

The first and easy answer?

Fence them all out!

But there are alternatives.

What’s really the “problem” with livestock? Overgrazing Continuous grazing Poor water access Poor crossings Overstocking of

pastures Stream-side feedlots

These problems can be solved through proper planning and management.

Research that has been done:• Time in Water and Voiding• Preferred Crossing Points• Alternative Water Supplies• Bacteria in Streamflow• Grazing Cattle and Riparian Ecosystems

Time in the water

Cattle accessed watercourses for drinking or for crossing, but seldom lounged in the water as they did in ponds and dugouts.

A total of 52 site days

were recorded.

For each site day, number of animals “in” the water or “near” the water was counted every 15 minutes.

Drinking time, crossing time, and

animals defecating or urinating in or near the water was also recorded.

Time in water ranged from 0-1400 minutes with only 2 days having any > 600 minutes.

Herd size ranged from 10-85 cows plus calves.

(Dawn to dusk observations done on 8 farms for up to three years)

Interesting results on voiding: Probability of cow defecation or urination

was 0% on 77% of the measured days.

The calf numbers were: 0% on 87% of the measured days.

Cattle commonly accessed, drank, Cattle commonly accessed, drank, or crossed watercourses without or crossed watercourses without voiding.voiding.(Dr. E. Ann Clark et al, Grazing Cattle and Riparian Ecosystems)

Preferred crossing points

Cattle don’t like soft creek bottoms. They

prefer solid footing.

When good rock

bottom crossings

are constructed

then…..

(Dr. E. Ann Clark et al, Grazing Cattle and Riparian Ecosystems & Dick Ryan- photos)

Cattle not only used the constructed rock bottom crossings but rarely strayed

off of them.

Crossings & Access areas

Crossings/access design needs to allow for ease of crossing and occasionally provide limited access for drinking water.

When #2 stone is used on these areas, it is large enough to be uncomfortable underfoot and the livestock are not tempted to stand around in the water but they will use the crossing or access site.

Solid bottom access areas should ideally be used only for limited time periods such as 4-7 days every 30-45 days.

Alternative Water Sources

When livestock are provided alternative sources of good quality water, visits to streams were greatly reduced. Distance traveled to water also made a difference. When travel distance was under 800 ft and alternative water was supplied the streams were rarely used.

Clean water also important to cattle growthA five year study in Alberta found that cattle tend to perform up to 20 percent better when they drink clean water.

Studies like these help producers recognize the importance of quality water.

Bacteria in stream studyHigh concentrations were found at cattle

access points where actual disturbance of streambed material had occurred.

Concentrations decreased rapidly with time after disturbance stopped. Sites with solid or constructed rock bottoms were significantly lower in bacteria concentrations.

Coliforms………?

The original source of coliforms found in the stream-bed sediments needs to be correctly identified.

Livestock may stir it up but may not be the source.

Citizen Stream Coalition, MN Coalition monitored: ecosystem health as

well as birds, aquatics, macro-invertabrates, livestock and soil health.

Rotational grazed areas supported more diverse bird communities including species that have been declining.

Amphibians also were found in larger numbers in the grazed areas

(Can cows and trout coexist?; Laura Paine, John Lyons, Un. Of Wisconsin)

sloughing off with larger trees less plant diversity lower plant density

And also had: wider and shallower water less wildlife use

Total Exclusion tended to have more bank erosion because of:

Prescribed GrazingPrescribed GrazingProper grazing is a good solution

• Flash grazing of stream-side sites (1/2 to 2 days maximum)

• Based partially on forage availability and demand

• Proper stocking rate of livestock

• Proper rest periods between grazing

• Proper time period when grazed

• Water available close to grazing livestock

What are the benefits? Improved water quality Reduced loss of valuable grazing land Possible increase in wildlife value Possible reduced fencing costs Stream bank damage reduced Increased cooperation with livestock

producers

Benefits continued:

Rotationally grazed pastures and stream-sides had increased wildlife benefits as compared to non-grazed because of increased plant diversity and sward height. Grassland birds can especially benefit.

(Managed Grazing and Stream Ecosystems; Laura K. Paine, University of Wisconsin)

Can be a win win situation

What’s better? No plan and same old system with livestock in stream… OR Planned system with limited access…

The planned system with limited access canbe marketed.

For more assistance contact your local Soil and Water Conservation & NRCS office or

Presentation developed by Victor R. Shelton, Conservation Agronomist/Grazing Conservationist, NRCS, Washington, IN