Another media release from the new Regional Community Survival Group in western New South Wales (Australia):
“Aboriginal Elder, Mr Keith (Tommy) Ryan, is demanding that the NSW Government change native vegetation laws so that Aboriginals in the Bogan Shire of western NSW can locate and access ancestral sites that have become overrun with infestations of scrub.
“Infestations of invasive scrub are so thick in places on the Western Plains that Aboriginals are finding it impossible to locate and access traditional sites,” said Mr Ryan.
Invasive scrub is the term used to describe native shrubs and woody weeds that have infested formerly open woodlands and grasslands of western NSW.
“It saddens me to see the landscape of my forefathers being destroyed by the unnatural growth of these weeds.
“I remember as a boy walking on the plains and seeing a mixture of open woodlands and grasslands not a landscape dominated by woody weeds. In those days, you could see kangaroos moving across the open country and you could easily find your way to rivers and creeks.
“The city-based green groups are wrong when they say that dense stands of woody weeds are a natural feature of the Western Plains, Mr Ryan said.
Mr Ryan said that woody weeds grow so thick and fast that they smother-out native grasslands making the country prone to erosion. They also rob the soil of limited nutrients and moisture.
“The old tribal elders used to control woody weed infestations by regularly putting a fire stick to the country.
“Today, the woody weeds have become so thick in places that native grasslands have been completely eradicated and there is not enough grass cover to carry a fire hot enough to suppress the weeds,” said Mr Ryan.
It has been estimated that up to 20 million hectares (an area the size of Nebraska) of western NSW is either already infested or highly susceptible to invasive scrub.
“Now that burning is ineffective in large areas of the Western Plains, the NSW Government needs to allow farmers to clear these woody weeds by a process clearing, cropping and finally rejuvenation of native grasses.
“Clearing and cropping removes and suppresses scrub regrowth and allows native grasses to take hold,” Mr Ryan said.
“If the NSW Government acts quickly to change the existing regulations, local communities in western NSW can start the long process of rehabilitating the landscape.
“Local communities of western NSW are committed to restoring the environment and it’s about time that the Government started to heed our advice,” concluded Mr Ryan.”
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I am afraid that the open forest is not well liked in Glebe and Balmain, they want wilderness and they want it now.
Isn’t this the peak of hypocrisy?
How did the land get into this un-natural state? Overgrazing and no fire. And whose fault is that. The grazing industry?
Are any green groups really trying to own the Cobar-Byrock woody weeds patch? I doubt it. Now having created the problem it’s not economic to fix it.
If the grazing industry want to pay for the rehabilitation let them bulldoze the whole lot. But bet they don’t/won’t.
This is a smoke screen for taking attention away from threatened last vestiges of native plant communities in the cropping zone by blurring the issue into the Western Division degraded landscapes.
What a con job by agriculture.
TO Tommy Ryan,
the problem is that farmers, if they are given a chance to crop they may well KEEP on cropping, using residual herbicides and isecticides .Native grasses AN The poisoned runoff will go into your sacred waterholes and make them undrinkable [according to the water authorities] for everyone. It has happened here in northern vic.You could never get environmental protection guarantees from them that would stick with the present mind set of most farmers.
You should consider buying the property you want-you will then have some control over it’s future .
Sound the alarm!
The native vegetation in downtown Melbourne has been utterly destroyed. I have personally seen this descration. Try planting a seed on the sidewalk and see what happens. You’ll be trampled in an instant. And your seed, too.
Must we burn Melbourne?
Or, should we say, the aboriginals have desecrated the ecosystem with burning, and therefore must have their access to matches, cigarette lighters, etc. restricted?
It’s interesting how many peoples lay prior claim to real estate when they are only immigrants. Or maybe there were about eighteen dozen Gardens of Eden.
I personally doubt it.
This recommendation is harsh, but just.
If you don’t like human impacts on the environment, leave. If you refuse to leave and just want to complain, you’re wasting our air. We’re busy trying to get along.
Sheesh.
Schiller.
Gee Schiller, sounds like once again YOU are the one doing the complaining.
Broadscale cultivation is the ultimate form of perennial grass and herb destruction and simplification of the vegetation. The damage caused by cultivation is long lasting and will make woody weed problems worse by creating ideal soil and vegetation structure for woody weed germination.
In the short term broadscale clearing and cultivation will result in prolific growth of short lived cool season grasses and annual plants, such as Spear Grasses and Crowfoot and exotic annual weeds (if it rains). These short lived plants will die and millions of germinants of native scrub, thicker than to before, will follow. This is very commonly seen in almost all attempts at broadscale clearing of native scrub in the rangelands.
Throughout the damaged landscapes there are still pockets of open country with old growth woodland trees and strong perennial grasses and other herbaceous vegetation.
The best option for restoring these scrub infested landscapes would be locate and map these pockets of remnant open woodland and then gradually thin scrub from the perimeter of these isolated pockets. We should be working on protecting and enhancing the pockets of good country, rather than starting that the opposite end of the spectrum.
This combined with strict management of total grazing pressure at such sites would enable gradual restoration of strong perennial grasses and herbs. Such efforts would then “self feed” as droughts, wet years and increased seed resources will increase the size and stability of the pocket of remnant woodland.
There is so much that is not known about restoring scrub invaded landscapes, like what is the best method of removing the scrub, what season or soil/vegetatioin conditions will give the best result.
The Greenies are well aware these landscapes are damaged and the reason for the vegetation controls is to ensure that “quick-fixes”, won’t degrade them further.
Of course there is much more work to be done:
Further policing of stocking rates in the rangelands will help a lot. Listing of endangered ecological communities under the EPBC act and similar legislation will increase the amount of government funding available for research into methods of restoring the natural grasslands and open woodlands on both public and privately managed land.
It’s about time we heard from a few of the good land managers out there that actually have a clue about rangeland ecology, instead of the loud-mouths looking to plant more acreage of wheat, because they have destroyed their perennial native pastures.
regards,
Michael
good post michael-although i suggest it will not please the nsw farmers federation .
Michael you appear to have a vast knowledge of these problems, but your solutions are a very long way from the truth on how to restore these landscapes.
At a recent forum at Broken Hill good land holder after good landholder reiterated the need for cultivation to take place to rehabilitate these degraded landscapes.
Cultivation acts to break the hardpans and scalded soil that the over story woody vegetation creates, crops function to quickly replace the missing soil carbon that effectively buffers the soil from heavy rain fall and holds together the soil and soil nutrients that the proliferation of trees and woody scrub have previously locked up. Locking up these areas and excluding stock including native animals will do nothing to reverse this problem.
In fact roadsides, town commons and other ungrazed areas often display the most significant cases of degradation. It is impossible for grasses to recolonise or out compete these perennial woody “Weeds”.
Landholders have been managing these problems using the most up to date technology available for forty thousand years. Once upon a time the best available technology was a fire stick, then an axe. Luckily for land mangers the best available technology currently is large horsepower machines, which more efficiently use the time and resources available to these land mangers.
Luckily there is plenty known about restoring scrub invaded landscapes, including what is the best method of removing the scrub, but some people refuse to acknowledge that these farmers are currently the best placed, best informed, most experienced and most caring persons available to solve these environmental problems.
The bonus is that they are also able to provide us with food and clothing as well.
Micheal wants to hear from a good land manager out here who has a clue about rangeland ecology so I hope I can help him and some of the other misguided souls venting their outrage on this blog.
I live just east of the western division boundary and have currently about 65% of my property area rehabilitated from woody weeds dense enough to outcompete the grass cover to good stands of native grasses. This grass cover does include Spear grass and Crows Foot(grass is uncommon, Herbage-Erodium- much more widespread) but is predominately Curly Windmill grass, Windmill grass, Box grass, Cotton panic, Kangaroo grass and in winter is dominated Medicago speices.
Micheal says there is much more work to be done. Certainly there is in relation to grazing management for sustainable grasslands, however, this is the subject that follows the restoration of the grasslands.
People such as Dick Condon, Geoff Cunningham, Ian Packer and Peter Walker have spent many years researching in NSW rangelands and over time have gained the respect of both their peers and the people who live and work in this environment.If you care to look you will find that an enormous amount of work has been done not only by these men, but by many others since the Royal Commission held on the matter in 1901
On thursday 15th June 2006 at the Woody Weeds Summit in Broken Hill Peter Walker, as a long time researcher with Soil conservation service, gave the following insights –
Where species such as Eromophila’s and Eucalyptus were involved the most successfull method of grassland restoration was bulldozing followed by several cultivations to remove rootstock and such, then cover crops to provide soil improvements for the grasses to kick off in.
This is precisely the method that has allowed the rehabilitation of native grass cover on my country.
Environmentaly, I see no downsides to the mosaic of vegetation types I now have on my property, a balance of timbered areas and grasslands. I have one paddock left to restorate and at the completion of that job (legislation permitting) will have a property that is both environmentally sound as well as productive.
Peter also asked that before reinventing the wheel, we atleast take a good look over the work that has already been done.
For the many who obviously dont understand woody weeds in the rangeland country or on the inner fringes of it, cultivation is the tool required to get and keep woody weeds at bay. Primarily, it is used only when woody weeds again become a problem.
The process of cropping this type of country is the only economically viable option we have for its continuing maintenance.The alternative to this process is to leave it, and we can’t, as responsible landmanagers, walk away from bare soil showing sodic characteristics, erosion gullies you could park a roadtrain in and a sea of scrub thick enough to eliminate all groundcover beneath it. Dick Condon, scientist and former Western Lands Commissioner, recently described this woody weed infested country as a “dead landscape”.Living near a lot of it ,I can only agree with him.Very limited wildlife with very few birds.
At the Broken Hill Summit Peter Walker also said that the common thread with all the succesfully rehabilitated sites was the improvements with regard to soil erosion. All rehabilitated sites showed no soil erosion evident.
The aim of Tommy Ryan and the landowners is to return the thick scrub to grasslands. I am at a loss as to why people are getting so hungup on the process of getting there. The scientists and researchers have already told us the best way to achieve this and the land managers who acted prior to the regulations have proven it. Why do the current regulations prevent further rehabilitation of a degraded landscape. There will be enough of the rangeland country staying degraded because the initial financial outlay is out of reach of many landowners so we don’t need arse up regulations to make the problem worse.
Micheal, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, if you are destroying native grasses with cropping then you are doing something wrong. Pull your head in.
With the exception of Rog and Schiller, the rest of you should get your heads out of your backsides so you can open your eyes.
Scot
I have no problem with your restoring your property. But how did the woody weeds patch yet there in the first place? What would Dick Condon’s answer be?
Also it is not appropriate to somehow compare woody weeds in that part of NSW with native vegetation remnants in the main cropping zone. Trying to blur these issues so it’s the same trees everywhere is not fair or reasonable.
Anyway congratulations on your property restoration. Good work. Do you think it was economic in the long run or was it a labour of love?
Scot
I wonder, in the process of bulldozing did you dodge around the oldgrowth veteran trees? Or was everything within the rectangular confines of wide machinery fair game?
In the process of cultivation, did your plough jump over the native geophytes, dodge around ant nests, conserve the patches of healthy cryptogams and avoid killing in-ground fauna?
Have your natural grassy woodlands returned to a “grassland” with a diverse cover of 5 species of native grass? Old growth trees are a vital part of a healthy grassy woodland and herbaceous vegetation should include hundreds of different species.
Your attempts at “restoring” have been a dismal failure as you are admitting the need for ongoing cultivation to keep the shrubs at bay.
Congratulations, you have discovered the wonders of growth of grass in the abscense of trees and death through cultivation.
Strong growth of particularly long-lived C4 grasses will outcompete trees and shrubs if spelled from grazing at appropriate times. I’ve seen examples of where a stands of Themeda, that were spelled from grazing and aided by good summer rainfall subsequently caused the death of 2m tall White-Cypress Pine.
I realize that a lot of these damaged landscapes are so far damaged that the long lived perennial grasses are gone. I also know that your ideas that cultivation somehow aids establishment of long lived grasses is at best regionally biased. It takes ten years of the abscense of cultivation for Curly Windmill grass to re-establish in my area. I’m also on the edge of the rangelands.
I can only presume that the reason you would argue against the concept of gradual enhancement of pockets of true remnant open woodland and grassland is based on your desire to grow cereal crops on virgin land.
regards,
Michael
Michael, you asked if there was 5 types of native grass on Scot’s place. Which part of;
“This grass cover does include Spear grass and Crows Foot(grass is uncommon, Herbage-Erodium- much more widespread) but is predominately Curly Windmill grass, Windmill grass, Box grass, Cotton panic, Kangaroo grass and in winter is dominated Medicago speices”,
do you not understand?
That is EIGHT grasses. Is your head so stuffed that you are incapable of registering a positive message in relation to farming activity?
Is this a blatant anti-farmer bigotry?
Or a plain old retention deficit masked by an ideology?
Mr. Tommy Ryan’s woody-weed problem is not confined to NSW. Over the past few weeks I have been doing some exhausting walking through an area of jarrah forest, in south-western Australia, that was logged in the early 1900s, and several times since.
Fire marks on old balgas (grasstrees) show that the area was burnt every two to three years up to the time of first logging. Since then, fires have been less frequent, and therefore much fiercer. This ferocity was exacerbated by logging debris.
The area is now almost impossible to walk through, due to the debris, and dense woody scrub growth. This is caused by a combination of extra light due to tree removal, and less frequent, hence fiercer, fires.
She-oak groves are dying, and smothering everything else with a thick layer of needles. The only plant that thrives in this is bull banksia (B. grandis), which is forming exclusive thickets, and is a notorious host for the dieback fungus (P. cinnamomi). I am told that Nyoongars formerly burnt she-oak groves mildly, every few years, in autumn or winter. This got rid of ants, and promoted edible fungi.
With logging and fierce fires, no wonder the Nyoongars deserted what was, formerly, a very important area to them. I hope they, like Mr. Ryan, will find the confidence to speak up, and demand restoration of their traditional fire regime of frequent, mild fires, before the jarrah forest is destroyed by fierce fires resulting from long fire exclusion.
Such attempted long fire exclusion seems to be currently politically, and academically, correct. It is advocated by the non-government Conservation Council of WA, which seems to influence government policy. It is blatantly bad ecology.
“The area is now almost impossible to walk through, due to the debris, and dense woody scrub growth. This is caused by a combination of extra light due to tree removal, and less frequent, hence fiercer, fires.”
——————————————–
Just a question from someone that knows nothing about Jarrah forests.
Do you have any evidence to prove that the dense re-growth has anything to do with less frequent fires? (anecdotes are fine) Maybe the dense regrowth is caused by the intensive fires following logging, or maybe the logging is really the number one culprit.
Is there any way to have effective, frequent cool burning in dense shrub growth?……… I think you need grass and few shrubs for that.
Is it possible that the dense shrub growth is relatively short lived and may return to a more open woodland in a few decades once the shrubs die if you can keep the fire out of it?
What is your solution? I hope you don’t also advocate broadscale clearing, burning and cropping as the solution?
regards,
Michael.
I don’t class myself as a good land manager quite yet,as my place is currently de-stocked completely, and not in my view capable of sustaining livestock without further degradation.
So maybe I’m not in the same league as Scot.
However, to claim that cultivation is the only way to maintain control over “weeds” is to close your eyes to the many possibilities there are to use systems that are continually regenerative and truly sustainable. Cultivation does not meet the necessary criteria even in higher rainfall more arable country let alone in the brittle environment of the western division. There certainly are areas that may need the bulldozer approach to get a start, but unless the root cause of the problem is addressed then it will not only be un-economical but unstainable in the long term as well. I know plenty of smart operators on ‘inside country’ that have done their sums on cultivation/cropping and decided it was not the most efficient use of their capital, and changed enterprises.
I believe set-stocking of domestic animals has caused far more damage to our landscape than any other reason, and use of/lack of use of fire is only secondary. As a sheep/cattle grazier in the western division I will gladly accept that fact, as it is within my realm of influence and control to change.Therefore I can make decisions that will genuinely help without hinderance from bearocracies. In fact they like to help because we have a common goal.
I do agree that in some areas there has been too much focus by the powers that be on what tools we use, instead of the end result we can achieve by being allowed to get on with the job. We just need to remember that the end goal should and can be beneficial to all parties. Not just the need to be ‘sodbusters’ or ‘tree huggers’.
Most of the native vegetation debate has been driven, I believe, by croppers wanting to crop more….
Ian (hows your blood pressure),Scot,
How many of those native grasses are perennials?.
There is only one way of cropping that I know of that promotes the growth of essential native perennials, and that is “pasture cropping”, as promoted by Col Seis and very few others. An ecological community that is annuals based should not be your end goal. Although it is preferential to bare dirt and at least a step in the right direction.
With “Global Warming” a sure thing, I’d gladly welcome a few more trees on my place…..
Michael,
Good questions. In jarrah forest, dense scrub occurs, after fierce summer fires, due to the germination (from heat and smoke) of millions of hard, black, shiny acacia seeds. These bushes (up to 3 metres high) have a limited life span (8-12 years) then die, creating an aerial fuel layer, which burns very hot in summer. Deliberate patchy burning by humans, in milder weather, can reduce the dead matter, without germinating too many seeds. Leave it to summer lightning, or vandals, and you are stuck in a cycle of long fire intervals, with tall, dense, prickly wattle (and other) scrub. These big, fierce fires destroy landscape heterogeneity, simplifying the system. Milder, more frequent fire creates a richer mosaic. I could go on about native weeds. If you are interested in the difference between a fire in two-year-old jarrah, and fifteen-year-old, I can send you a couple of photos. Just email me.
Thanks Graham,
I think I’ve finally heard from a good farmer that has some understanding of rangeland ecology.
However I don’t believe that a bulldozer is the answer, as they are very heavy and cause significant soil disturbance, not only in the ripping out of the scrub roots, but also from the caterpillar tracks.
Next time there is significant rain at an appropriate shrub germination time, I encourage Scott, Tony and Mr Ryan to go and look at where the shrubs germinate. They don’t germinate in healthy native vegetation (including soil stablilizing cryptogamic crusts), they germinate where the last car drove, rabbit scratched or where the sheep/cattle/goat/roo made a camp or track.
Bulldozer tracks and associated disturbance will encourage germination of shrubs, which is why these people then resort to cultivation/chemical use to try to finish the job. Unfortunately this is completely innappropriate because the damage caused by the cultivation/chemicals far outweighs the benefits of temporary removal of shrubs.
If the shrubs are removed with no disturbance to the soil or existing grassy vegetation, with strategic use of a poison axe, or simply lopping at strategic times when the shrub is already under stress the results would be much more desirable. The lack of disturbance would limit germination of shrubs and the removal of woody competition would result in recovery of the perennial grassy vegetation (as long as the grazing is controlled and there is still existing seed reserves).
I agree with you Graham that the woody weed problem is due to continuous stocking, not only by domestic stock but also roos and goats. Continuous grazing weakens perennial grasses and the soil crust disturbance associated with set stocking increases germination of shrubs.
Burning is only of obvious benefit to grassy ecosystems where rainfall and nutrients are sufficient to cause excessive accumulation of dead material. In healthy rangelands in Western NSW, where rainfall is low, termites abundant and herbivoures (especially grasshoppers) are very active this would rarely have occurred. I doubt the use of fire was nearly as common as it is often suggested in these kind of environments (not to say it didn’t happen).
Is there anyone out there that has actually tried minimal impact shrub thinning on the perimeter of pockets of healthy open woodland, followed up with strategic grazing management?
regards,
Michael
Michael,
Don’t get too caught up in thinking that disturbance of the soil is such a bad thing, or the root cause of the problem.
A hard capped surface needs to be broken up to allow moisture penetration. This includes cryptogamic crusts which are in fact a sure sign of a soil which needs some positive animal impact.It is the bare ground and lack of competition that allows the trees/scrub to dominate.
The most important phase after animal impact has occurred is for there to be rest from grazing pressure, to allow the beneficial grasses to establish. This may be (most probably) early succession plants such as certain annuals grasses and deep rooted forbs etc.Some may call these weeds but they are a necessary and integral part of the regenerating process. The most common mistake people make is to focus on the “weed” as the problem, when it is just the symptom of deeper underlying issues of grazing management.
Another misconception is to blame the hard-hoofed domesticated animals for the desertifcation of our landscape, when in fact their hooves and the microbial activity in their stomachs are an important part of the cure.
Jennifer,
I have a good article about a family in Mexico’s semi-arid environment that have transformed their country and also turned their “woody weed problem” into an important part of their business.
If anyone is interested I could send it to you to post!!.
I find I get a lot more personal benefit and satisfaction out of working on things I can do, rather then fight against issues that I’m not ‘allowed’ to.
And there is plenty of positive stories about, you just have to fight your way through all of the crap to find them.
Hi Graham,
I recognise that certain amount of soil distubance is helpful to improve biodiversity and productivity.. but, the amount of disturbance, particularly when caused by hard hooved animals for extended periods of time in dry season grazing, or that which comes from the use of heavy machinery, far exceeds the desirable amount for Western NSW rangelands.
The fact is that kangaroos have less hoof impact than domestic stock. Australias native vegetation evolved with Kangaroos (etc), not with heavy hooved animals.
It seems that you are quoting from the cliche’ Alan Savory, holistic managment principles, which is fine if you are talking about Africa and Europe and America where the grassland vegetation naturally was frequented by large herds of hooved animals. Isn’t it logical to presume that Australia will work a little differently? Depending on what seasonal conditions follow, very intense grazing by domestic stock in the rangelands could result in excessive germination of shrubs or extensive erosion.
I’m not saying that animal impact, domestic or native is nescessarilly a bad thing, but where it causes extensive crumbling of the crytogamic crusts, especially on calcareous and sodic soils it will result in erosion. It is exactly this kind of crumbling in dry conditions that causes the extensive scalding of soil that is very prevalent in parts of the rangelands.
Cryptogamic crusts (especially when containing Foliose and Fruticose lichens) on many soils actually increased moisture penetration, reduces evaporation and increase roughening and cracking of the soil surface leading to improved germination the germination of native annuals and perennial grassy plants. At the same time low diversity cryptogamic crusts (and very little vegetation) can also be a sign that there is a problem.
If you would like I could show you some photos of productive grassland with diverse cryptogamic crusts and photos of scalded, low -productivity grassland in the same paddock. The only difference being the later suffered excessive crumbling of soil crusts by domestic stock in dry conditions.
Adoption of Alan Savory’s theories in Australia, without first modifying them to suit the Australian environment would be extremly risky and could cause serious degradation, possibly as bad or worse than the status quo.
regards,
Michael.
Michael,
At the core of the Alan Savory philosophy is the ability to adapt and monitor, and to assume the decision is wrong.
My place is heavily affected by scalding and is one of the reasons I’ve moved away from traditional grazing methods, in an attempt to look for answers.
You hit the nail on the head when you mention “extended periods of grazing’ are detrimental to the soil. It’s not the amount of hooves and mouths present, but the time they are there that counts. In this country I work on at least having 6 months rest and one weeks grazing twice a year….obviously that will vary due to the rainfall etc.(Currently no stock, for I don’t know how long!)
Even with the limited rainfall we have had over the last few years I can see claypans starting to be reclaimed. There is some risk I guess when the claypans are first broken up, but it needs to happen. As the ground cover improves (and is maintained) then the animal effect is also breaking down the standing dry matter,mixing with dung and building soil. I have tried to locate water troughs on claypans where possible to try to maximise that effect and I expect those areas to one day be the best part of the paddocks.
Alan Savory’s work is hardly “cliche’d” and is proven to work in all climates all over the world, including Australia.
His critics are many, and they often use the excuse “but it won’t work here”, in defence of their stubborn resistance to change. I’m not suggesting you are included!!
It has been used successfully for 30 years in places that have lower rainfall than here. The climate doesn’t matter as you adapt it to suit.
If it works, which it does, then it will do me. Remember that Australia did have plenty of large herbivores at one stage, and my thoughts are that the landscape and vegetation were much better than what we have at present.
And yes, I’d love to see some photo’s.
Also Michael,
The ability of a 1mm thick cryptogamic layer to absorb moisture is limited when you have temperatures into the mid 40’s. With an average of 400mm of rain and an evaporation rate of over 2,ooomm per year I want more protection then that. I’m excited by the potential this country has to utilise so much more of our rainfall then we currently do. Maintainting ground cover should be the number one goal of every landholder on the planet.And obligatory.
The best ground cover for many parts of Australia might be deep rooted native grasses, most of which thrive on frequent, relatively mild burning. Such a frequently burnt matrix would protect a metapopulation of fire refuges, where the more fire sensitive plants could thrive for several fire cycles of the matrix. Landscape ecology starts best with landscape history.
Graham,
Of course maintaining ground cover is important and promoting long lived perennials. But with low rainfall the density of perennial plants is natually limited. You might have perennial grass butts approx 1 metre apart, that leaves a gap in the middle that will in good winter rainfall years grow abundant annual herbage, but in dry years there will be bare ground, unless there is cryptogamic crusts in the intertussock spaces. I’m talking about calcareous and sodic soils here, sandy soils are of course different and crytogamic crusts play an insignificant role.
I apply a principle in my management of limiting the hoof impact of the animals, whilst maintaining the grazing and nutrient effects.
Through this method I have completely restored scalds to perennial cover and cryptogamic crust that are preventing any further erosion, increasing water penetration and promoting growth of good plants.
Even with strict management of livestock, where they are removed completely before grass cover is eliminated, by the end of the dry spell (which might last for years) any remaining cover of grass will have dissappeared. Soil crusts however will persist right through the dry spell and prevent any scald erosion from forming post drought.
Quite possibly as we are talking about rangeland here, intense brief grazing might not be nearly as intense as the levels that cause significant soil crust damage and you probably are seeing partial recovery under your system. However I get the impression you are not someone who is afraid of an alternative viewpoint and you might consider trying this alternative.
The key is grazing the vegetation when it is nurtitious (green),when there is moisture in the soil crust (makes them flexible to hooves) , during cool weather (so stock don’t hang around shade and water; This improves the distrubution of nutrients and ensures even grazing) and follow that with long rest periods (untill such time that the vegetation is once again green and the soil crusts are flexible to being trodden on).
Give it a go in one paddock.
If you send me an e-mail I can forward you the photographs.
regards,
Michael.
And the large herbivores that Australia had once were also soft-footed.
Unfortunately i can see much more native grasslands and country with “woody weeds” going under chemical and mechanical plows should bio diesel take off . The temptation to crop will be too great for many farmers .
Wide boomsprays and heavy equipment work best and “conscience free” in cleared flat vacant paddocks.
In our area [nth vic]the grasslands and woodlands are often only seen in the original horse paddock around the homestead when away from the creeks and rivers .