Cattle as Part of the Australian Landscape
Posted by Ian Mott, June 25th, 2009 - under Opinion, Uncategorized.
Tags: Food & Farming
WHY do so many environmentalists consider cattle something to be excluded from the Australian landscape?
According to Ian Mott, a third generation landholder, they modify parts of the landscape but they do not destroy it. In the following note, Mr Mott suggests modifications to government advice on the management of livestock in riparian zones.
”PICTURES at a Catchment Management Authority website have been provided as “evidence” of the degraded condition of “our” environment due to grazing of stock in riparian zones. But in reality, the site provides a very good example of how a few pictures and sloppy captioning can tell a thousand lies.
The introductory text claims: “Inappropriate livestock grazing is one of the most significant causes of degradation to the land-water interface in Australia. Livestock have long been part of the Australian landscape. Cattle, sheep, horses, goats and pigs arrived with the first settlers in the 1780s and moved with them across NSW into the Central West. Settlements sprang up along river systems supported by clean water and fertile floodplain soils. Since that time, livestock have caused damage to the most sensitive part of the landscape – our riparian lands.”
We see cattle by a creek and some exposed soil, in the above photograph from the website, which would lead most urban punters to conclude that this picture is representative of the entire length of the creek on that farm and representative of the situation on all grazed creek banks on all farms.
But we can be quite certain, given the proven MO of CMA’s and their staff, that the picture shows worse than average impacts?
A random inspection of the first, second and third order farm streams that account for most of the riparian interface in the landscape is unlikely to provide a single example of conditions like those shown. It is also highly improbable that anything like those conditions would be replicated over the entire length of that particular stream. Indeed, there may be only one or two such examples on the entire property.
It is also quite certain that the conditions produced in the photo represent the sum of all cattle damage over a period of more than 100 years. Once the landform modification has been made by the stock to match their normal level of traffic, the rate of change (called degradation) will reduce to a minimum. Most of the modification shown in the photo would have been done in the first decade after settlement.
Stock can produce physical modifications to a small portion of a riparian zone when they are first introduced to a landscape or when a major increase in animal traffic at a particular point takes place. If the stocking rate has essentially remained the same and the number of access points is not reduced in a way that increases traffic on the remaining access points then there is minimal on-going impact. But the CMA text merely indicates that this “significant” damage has taken place “since that time” (ie on a continuous basis, in the past and in future). It converts an historical event as evidence of a future threat.
And it begs the question, do we regard a road culvert as evidence of land degradation? Or do we regard it as a piece of infrastructure that is a normal and necessary part of the prevailing use of the land as a road?
Clearly, we view it as the latter.
So why do we regard customary tracks (roads) made by cattle for their own continuing use as anything different to our own road culverts?
Both involve an initial excavation that exposes soil and both then involve only minimal soil disturbance for many decades after. And just like our road system, the more traffic cattle tracks have, the greater the visual impact. Do we begrudge Elephants or Caribou their right to shape creek crossings? No, only domestic stock.
To its credit, the site does include some helpful tools for minimising on-going soil movement. And just as for our own road culverts, this involves paving the most prone parts of the road with rock and concrete. The irony is that this simple, logical solution can only be carried out with the approval of DPI and the additional cost and effort that involves. And it is also fairly obvious that any approval for such works would only come with very significant and expensive conditions like fencing off the entire riparian zone and installing unnecessary watering points and piping.
Don’t get me wrong, additional watering points away from streams and dams make very good sense as they spread the grazing intensity more evenly over the entire area. But when faced with baseless, ideologically driven demands to render existing in-stream watering points redundant as a condition of approval for your voluntary good works, most farmers, justifiably, opt to let the authorities continue abusing themselves.
The second photo shows a fairly normal steep bank of a deep riverine cross section. Yes, there are sheep in the picture but one is left to wonder what, exactly, is the impact of those, or the past century of previous sheep, on the steepness of the river bank?
Sure, they graze on the grass and may also graze on any tree seedlings that might germinate there. But the chances of such stems surviving the first flood event are quite low as they are more rigid than grass and much more likely to get tangled with passing debris.
Are we to seriously believe that without the sheep this river bank would be steeper?
No.
Is there any evidence that the bank is not maintaining its form?
No.
Would the bank structure be any different if there were trees atop the bank?
No
In fact, if trees were present we would probably observe exposed roots as evidence that additional erosion had taken place. The area of exposed soil would be greater because the grasses would be competing for moisture with the trees and this would present a more erodible face to flood waters with greater potential for snags.
The third photo is just as misleading.
We are told that: “This creek was severely polluted with sediment and animal waste laden run-off.
The rapid increase in nutrient levels caused a massive toxic blue-green algae bloom, rendering the creek water unusable for stock or domestic consumption.”
But what they do not tell us is that this is a temporary condition that starts at the beginning of a dry season and will only last until the pool dries up later in the season. More importantly, they do not mention that most high faecal E. coli counts and algal blooms are the result of self reproduction in the warm stagnant water. As was found to be the case with Canberra’s Lake Burley Griffin, most algae in a bloom is of a secondary or “regrowth” nature.
The severity of an algal bloom or the ultimate concentration of faecal E . coli, is not a function of the initial volume of coli being supplied to the pools in runoff. Rather, the longer the dry season, the warmer the temperature, the shallower the pools and the less frequent the intermittent runoff events take place, the greater the exponential rate of bacterial and algal growth becomes.
Algae reproduce faster and more often in favourable conditions, get used to it, folks.
So we need to add a few comments in italics to the official CMA summary in black, below, to give a true and fair view of the impacts of grazing on riparian zones:
Impacts of riparian grazing (Modified version)
On-site:
• isolated, once-off loss of vegetation cover in the first few years of exposure to grazing
• once-off soil compaction at a few specific points and initial erosion
• once-off bank instability followed by long term stability of the modified landforms
• isolated instances of reduced water quality
• no evidence of reduced property values from the presence of stock modifications
• enhanced germination of native tree species in hoof depressions etc
Off-site:
• localised instances of poor water quality (increased turbidity, nutrients and salinity)
• very localised loss of in-stream habitat
• isolated, once-off changes to river channel shape of minor consequence
• minor silting of rivers and creeks compared to that produced by unsealed roads
• enhanced natural regeneration of native trees along previously cleared creek banks
Clearly, a picture can, indeed, tell a thousand lies. And government and green pictures seem to tell the most lies of all.
Ian Mott
Byron Hinterland, NSW, Australia
***********************
Notes and Links
Ian Mott is a third generation native forest owner, miller and regenerator from the Byron hinterland. A former Sydney and Brisbane Executive Recruiter with his own agency, his interest in the family property has seen him evolve, over the past decade, into a property rights activist and consultant. He is secretary of the Landholders Institute Inc and has held a number of positions on national, state and regional level policy and planning bodies.
Mr Mott has a blog at http://ianmott.blogspot.com/
The offending website can be found at: http://www.cw.cma.nsw.gov.au/pdf/Information/BMPs/CWCMA_Information_BMP_0288_ripariansheet_livestockmanagement.pdf
and by the way – how come an ex dairy farmer from Main Arm who became an accountant thinks he knows more about cattle and rivers than anyone else?
http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/publist/500series/590300-14.pdf
http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=7201
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/manure/cattle/developosws.pdf
and they are just the first results from a Google search for “cattle access to creeks and streams”
no aussie greenies to have a go at there.
So where did I say I knew more about cattle than anyone else, Janama?
Surely you wouldn’t be trying to weasel out of a tight spot of your own making?
And your two pickies are, once again, pure anecdotal stuff.
What you were asked to do was advise us;
1 how big is the property?
2 how long is the creek bank?
3 how many access points are there? and
4 how many cattle are on the property.
So we can estimate how many cattle are likely to actually spend any time in this location on any given day. You first claimed that the condition on the left bank of the photo was due to grazing pressure but when it was pointed out that cattle can obviously graze on both sides you tried to claim that it was all just trampling from frequent visits by stock for drinking.
So we need the four items above to test the veracity of your latest claim.
So forget the wide shot that you claim is ungrazed and the close up shot that you claim is grazed. We want the full picture with supporting information.
And gee wiz, you googled up a whole lot more partial and fragmentary crap like the CMA web site. British Columbia riparian prescriptions, indeed. They know the entire provincial cattle herd by name. And have you ever seen what a f@#$%&g moose will do to a wetland or riparian zone?
Just give us the numbers that you were asked for above so we can work out exactly how many (few) animals actually walk over the site you claim has been trampled to death.
Ian – your straw man about numbers doesn’t cut it – I’ve shown you the pics, you’ve seen the damage, I’ve linked to the various organisations that agree with me regarding cattle access to rivers and creeks.
Now can you direct me to the organisations and research that agrees with you please?
No Janama. You made a claim about damage from cattle hooves as part of your interpretation of a photo supplied by yourself. It is no straw man. You are obviously unwilling to supply the information that will clearly demonstrate that you have been talking through your ass.
Busted, matey. You picked out a photo that you thought was the “killer app” but all you did was prove to us all how little you understand about basic geography and how rudimentary your landscape interpretation skills are.
So you try to divert attention as far away as possible from your local river, hence the links to British Columbia. Pathetic.
You ponce about the country side blaming livestock for every observed piece of naturally exposed river gravel. Its actually worse than pathetic, it is sicko stuff.
Yes – and I showed the damge that they do, I didn’t divert away from the local river – I showed you more of it demonstrating the difference between the river with cattle access and without. Chalk and Cheese.
If you put up your example of how cattle DON’T effect the river banks and I might listen but it appears that people the world over agree that cattle should NOT be allowed to access rivers and streams because they damage the banks, they increase e-coli, they silt up the water and generally make it uninhabitable for the various species that depend on it.
No. You showed a photo of naturally caused exposed river aggregate. You first claimed it was caused by livestock grazing and ignored the detailed information that myself and others provided to you on the action of meandering stream flows. You then tried to claim that it was caused by stock trampling as they went for water, a much bigger ask for an area of that size, but then failed to substantiate your case.
And you now maintain your reluctance to substantiate your case with a blatant “leaving of the field” and an appeal to conformity. It is no surprise to anyone that the same sort of people with the same sort of agenda are promoting the same sort of farmer/livestock demonisation all over the world.
Readers will note how you have completely failed to rebut any of the points I made in the article. Even your anecdotal examples didn’t hold up under close scrutiny.
So for the record;
Actual livestock damage to river banks are usually historical modifications that, once in place, will actually reduce on-going modification unless other actions on farm increase the volume, pace or frequency of stock traffic.
Excluding stock from riparian zones in fire prone areas is a proven recipe for far greater degradation and poses a serious risk to wildlife, livestock, humans and infrastructure.
Off-stream watering points are justified on both economic and ecological grounds but they are best used as part of a properly distributed system of in-stream and off-stream sources. They reduce both the volume of traffic in riparian zones and the duration of time spent in those zones.
Excluding stock from riparian zones reduces the total area of contributive land in a way that increases the cost burden on remaining land and spreads overheads over a smaller land base in a way that directly impairs farm viability.
The resulting dense regeneration of trees in stock exclusion zones will substantially reduce stream flows between flood events. Research from South Africa indicates up to 40% loss of volume which has far greater implications for dependent aquatic species and other wildlife.
Reduced stream flows play a far greater role in extreme algal blooms than stock wastes in grazed landscapes.
Ironically, the cleared and semi-cleared landscapes that have been modified for livestock farming have actually produced increased run-off into riparian zones and this increased run-off plays an important part in reducing the impact of the small proportion of their wastes that find their way into the creeks.
But I must thank you, Janama, for so aptly demonstrating the full extent of public ignorance and misperception on this issue.
I leave it for the readers to judge. Take the pictures I posted where they adequately demonstrate the damage cattle inflict on river banks and the accompaning articles from aussie research and from around the world that highlight the problems associated with cattle interaction with river systems
or
take the word of Ian Mott, ex dairy farmer/accountant/employment agent from Main Arm/Brisbane, who runs a prickle farm on the weekends.
Gosh, Janama, when all else fails, try an appeal to credentialism, eh?
The problem for you is that a good many readers do actually have a reasonable grasp of riverine geography. Perhaps your lack of it is a failing of the NZ education system, or maybe it is just your own failing. Readers can certainly contrast the simplistic interpretation you put on your own photo with the detailed, specific and verifiable interpretation provided by myself.
They can also observe the way you changed your position when you were shown to be wrong. First it was grazing pressure but then you retreated to a claim of direct hoof damage on a scale that would require regular traffic by a few hundred cattle at this single point along more than a kilometre of easily accessible river bank.
But you never substantiated your claim because even you could figure out that such an easily accessed river bank was no cause for cattle to concentrate on only one access point, as your theory demanded. You and your so-called experts forget that cattle will only be at a density of 1 animal/hectare. And that means that a square kilometre of land will only have 100 head. And if those 100 head have access to one kilometre of creek bank then, on the balance of probability only 5 animals will front up to each 50 metres of creek bank for a drink.
You showed us a photo of more than 100 metres of creek bank and expect us to believe that the hooves of 10 calm, unhurried animals made that much difference.
It was Aldous Huxley who said,
“to believe some things one must be an intellectual, ordinary men would never be so silly”.
Ordinary men and women have no trouble seeing right through your specious arguments, Janama. They don’t need google to find them a download of common sense.
Ian – it is clear that the left hand side of the river in the first photo is covered with cattle hoof imprints. That is because the associated paddock had around 50 head of cattle in it. I went to photograph them but the farmer had moved them on to another paddock, regardless the damage done to the river bank was clearly due to cattle.
I also went 1km further upstream to show you a section of the same river where cattle didn’t access the creek, on either side of the bank.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/river4.jpg
yet this section of river was impacted by the same flood. Note how the banks are still holding together and there is NO indication of erosion. Even the trees have remained rooted in the ground.
whereas where cattle did have access to the river
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/river5.jpg
the bank was badly damaged and eroded and the trees had been either washed away or had been removed.
I also pointed out that, on a grander scale, all rivers benefit by having NO cattle access
http://tinyurl.com/ksrbmq
you have replied to none of the latter points and just reverted to your typical abuse.
Now – I admit that I am not a farmer but then again neither are you. The difference is I live near to the river I photographed and reside in the country where on a daily basis I observe the actions of cattle on the environment. You on the other hand live in the the city and only spend the occasional weekend in an area overgrown with weeds that doesn’t run cattle any more.
So why have you not given us the google earth co-ords for the farm in the first photo, Janama? Why are you reluctant to show us the whole story? You finally tell us that you thought the herd was 50 head and you want us to believe that they were all down at the creek at the same time. Funny, I went back to the picture and couldn’t find any hoof prints.
Lets face it, Janama, you are doing a standard shonk job. You take photos in the immediate aftermath of a one in twenty year flood. That flood has washed away a lot of the sediment that has built up over many years of smaller floods. As such larger events have done for millions of years.
So how about some google co-ords?
You’re on a looser here Ian. Please provide the scienitifc evidence that cattle do not damage riparian zones, pollute rivers and impact upon water qulity. I am am a farmer and have a large riparian frontage. It hasn’t been grazed for nearly a decade and is one of the best riparian zones in the distict. The fishing has improved, so has the birdlife.
Perhaps you should start a thread about something a little more credible, such as the existence or otherwise of fairies at the bottom of the garden
Another 24 hours and no sign of google coordinates for Janama’s site. Can’t be too hard.
Gee wiz, Paul, part of my riparian zone hasn’t been grazed since 1942 but when the pools in that part turn bright yellow/brown after rain it has nothing to do with what the stock have been doing elsewhere. It has everything to do with the run off of poor quality road base from the unpaved council road which now discharges directly into the creek.
I did not claim that cattle did zero harm to riparian zones. What I clearly said was that most modification by livestock is in the first decade of them being introduced. So when people like Janama go around playing “spot the cattle damage” they are usually looking at an historical modification which has been maintained by subsequent generations.
And as for your fenced riparian zones, perhaps you could tell us what area of land is involved and what area your farm is. And then you could also tell us how much native forest you have so we can work out the total ecological contribution you actually make.
What I usually find is that the folks who big note their riparian contributions are the ones with riparian zones comprising less than 5% of their property and hardly a stick anywhere else on the place. They then have the gall to suggest that folks with 30% to 70% forest cover should also be fencing off riparian zones that account for another 25% of their farm.
So how about some hard numbers, Paul?
Still no word from Janama on the google earth coords. So why not just tell us which golf course is adjacent to the photo so we can look it up for ourselves? Oh Jannaaaammmaaa?
[...] Ian Mott takes Jennifer Marohasy to task regarding her sweeping claims of cattle damaging the environment on her blog. [...]
Ian, You are a pratt. I own 500 acres with one of the most beautiful creek lines in the country. Some dickhead has just put his cattle on it and we are at a point where the rains are over and the creeks lowering and algaeing up. I followed the creek for ks before discovering this and the whole way up stream and on there was the presence of Algae and silt but when I came upon where the cattle were drinking, the ground was trampled, smelled like shit and contaminated the water with an un-godly stentch that prevented me from continuing my journey. I couldn’t use that water. I wouldn’t get into that water. The native animals wouldn’t appreciate that business. You’d have to see this. I’m in an area where there hasn’t been alot of human settlement and is compared with other areas very little damage done by humans…and therefore the little impact we do out there stands out like dogs balls. If your creeks already so so you wont see much impact but if you are fortunate enough to be exposed to a creek in pristine condition like myself, the defilement is repugnant.
In conclusion, you are a douche
Lets forget for one moments what we think & take a look at what Thomas Mitchell impartially OBSERVED and reported on his last expedition. Enjoy!
Journal of an Expedition into the Interior of Tropical Australia In Search of a Route from Sydney to the Gulf of Carpentaria (1848) by Lt. Col. Sir Thomas Livingstone Mitchell Kt. D.C.L. (1792-1855)
Surveyor-General of New South Wales
20th December, Goobang Creek Alectown NSW: ‘Reaching a hill laid down on my former survey, and from which I recognised Mount Laidley, I returned directly to the camp. We had encamped near those very springs mentioned as seen on my former journey, but instead of being limpid and surrounded by verdant grass, as they had been then, they were now trodden by cattle into muddy holes, where the poor natives had been endeavouring to protect a small portion from the cattle’s feet, and keep it pure, by laying over it trees they had cut down for the purpose. The change produced in the aspect of this formerly happy secluded valley, by the intrusion of cattle and the white man, was by no means favourable, and I could easily conceive how I, had I been an aboriginal native, should have felt and regretted that change.’
Mitchell proceeds down the river & finds to hard to find sufficent, unfouled, water holes.
4th January, Lower Bogan River: ‘We had crossed the neutral ground between the savage and the squatter. The advanced posts of an army are not better kept, and humiliating proofs that the white man had given way, were visible in the remains of dairies burnt down, stockyards in ruins, untrodden roads. We hoped to find within the territory of the native, ponds of clear water, unsoiled by cattle, and a surface on which we might track our own stray animals, without their being confused by the traces of others.’