Cattle, Water, and Environmental wackos and sheeples

[Sir Loin]

Keywords:
Cattle, Water, and Environmental wackos and sheeples

This topic is a spin off from:
Your perfect farm would be?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=75938

Douglas

Re:

Most people these days are keeping cattle out of streams and ponds. Plan on a well system to provide clean water to your animals. Ponds are for fishing, crop irrigation, wildlife and swimming.

By SL,

IMO:
That is not only a perfect example of letting your personal interest interfere with you business decision, it is pure propaganda to serve that personal interest and will cause you to spend thousands of $$$$$$$$$$$$$ if you buy into it.

But, the government does have a program where the government will pay half the cost if you are inclined to want the government as a business partner. I personally refuse to suck any government teat.
SL.

By dun,

Seems like that would depend on if you want to be a good steward of the land!

Douglas and dan,

Explain to me how "a well system " would make me a "good steward of the land ".
What is the goal you are attempting to accomplish by installing a well vs. using an already available water source?

SL

 

[dun]

Has noting to do with a well. Water sources are great to use but keeping cattle out of ponds and creeks/rivers is just common sense. Partly because of the view of the public towards polluting rivers/creeks but also to keep the ponds from getting so polluted and muddy that they become health hazards for cattle. Creeks/rivers having cattle in them creates siltation issues which in turn lowers the watre quality for the fish/water living critters. I guess I'm just one of those weirdos that believes we should leave the land better then we found it or at least no worse.

 

[kenny thomas]

Has noting to do with a well. Water sources are great to use but keeping cattle out of ponds and creeks/rivers is just common sense. Partly because of the view of the public towards polluting rivers/creeks but also to keep the ponds from getting so polluted and muddy that they become health hazards for cattle. Creeks/rivers having cattle in them creates siltation issues which in turn lowers the watre quality for the fish/water living critters. I guess I'm just one of those weirdos that believes we should leave the land better then we found it or at least no worse.

Dun, you arent the only weirdo if that is what it takes. All mine is not done but I have removed the cattle from the streams and most of the ponds. Having an alternative water system allows me to rotational graze in a way that I could not if I still had only a stream to water the cattle. The enviromental impact to the streams is now much less than it was when I was a kid and everyones cattle had access.
I really like it and there are programs to help. And all the government ask is that you maintain it, not to be on their teat. I would rather see a good cattle person get the money than a deadbeat living off a check.

 

[Sir Loin]

Dun,

Has noting to do with a well. Water sources are great to use but keeping cattle out of ponds and creeks/rivers is just common sense. Partly because of the view of the public towards polluting rivers/creeks but also to keep the ponds from getting so polluted and muddy that they become health hazards for cattle. Creeks/rivers having cattle in them creates siltation issues which in turn lowers the watre quality for the fish/water living critters. I guess I'm just one of those weirdos that believes we should leave the land better then we found it or at least no worse.

The reason for asking my previous question was to establish the/your goal, so if and when one take this plan of action they will be able to tell when they have reached their goal and be able to measure it's success.

So lets see if we can agree upon a clearly defined goal, based on what you have just stated.

As I read your statement, your goal is:
keeping cattle out of ponds and creeks/rivers is just common sense. ( Here in after know as " keeping cattle out " watersheds". Reason: Those who do not lack "common sense ".

Re:

rivers/creeks but also to keep the ponds from getting so polluted and muddy that they become health hazards for cattle

Here in after known as: protecting and or improving the environment.

Re: "view of the public "
And to accomplish this goal, if you have common sense, you should yield to public opinion/demand regardless of the lack of any facts, scientific or other wise, to cause you to want to reach this goal.

Re:
Re: " health hazards for cattle "
" health hazards for cattle" is a reason to use common sense.

Those are my views, now lets see if we can agree on a clearly defines goal.
Or as it is called in the business world, a " Mission Statement" which must be in every article of incorporation along with the stated goal to make a profit.

Mission statement:
To maintain at it's present condition and/or improve the water shed on my property, while at the same time improving the health hazards for my cattle.

Do you agree with my mission statement as your goal?
If not, what is wrong with it and what would you like to add and/or change?
SL

 

[Scroote]

Sir Loin

Still trying to figure out your "sucking gov't teat" comment and your statement as a true conservative I am voting for Obummer.

As Doc Harris's sitting chief resident on the beginners board, I prescribe to you 3 hours a day of Rush everyday for a month. Please check back in a month to evaluate progress. IF further action is needed we may have to force you to read his lame posts for 24 hours straight. If you have forgotten how tortuous his posts are there is a dandy on the breed board right now! Please do not read while driving or operating heavy machinery, you could fall asleep or be tempted swallow a lot of pills to escape the misery. It is worse than water boarding! I like you and do not want that to happen so please take my first prescription seriously. Our country's life and yours depends on it!

BTW, keeping cattle out of water sources that they drink from may stop some cowboy SHEEPLES from routinely de-worming and sucking the ivermectin teat! Just don't tell the Texas guy that, he does not like folks straying too far from the flock. Remember safety is in numb-minded numbers.

 

[IluvABbeef]

You should add, SL, to your Mission Statement to increase wildlife habitat that would otherwise be lost with row-cropping, conventional grazing and ignorance about such sensitive areas. It could also be to eliminate cattle from damaging these watersheds or riparian areas to the point of *almost* no return.

There are also studies done that show that cattle are much more productive with access to clean water than if they had access to water that was muddied up by their feces and urine. Higher productivity + limited to no access to natural water reserviours (including ponds, streams, creeks and rivers, among other water bodies) = healthier, more productive cattle.

Now if that's not a good business decision as a part of running a farm, I don't know what is.

 

[I luv herfrds]

I know guys that have land along the Missouri River. So far the "public" aka river guides are complaining about cattle along the river and the cows drinking out of it and crapping in it. Well so are the deer and beaver and other wildlife plus the towns and cities up river are using it for their sewer treatment and dumping some waste into it.

If a person owns that property and water rights it is noboy else's business what they do with it.
We have areas with reserviors BUT we also have run a water line out in this pasture because the one reservior gets pretty rank in late summer and the cattle won't drink from it. Also in a drought year there is sparse water around.

 

[CottageFarm]

Just to change the paradigm a bit.
It is feasable to utilize stream/pond/lake water for watering livestock without allowing livestock direct access to the body of water. It's fairly common practice around here for ranchers who have water rights to the streams to pump the water to tanks, while fencing off the stream, preventing the direct access of livestock.
As an avid flyfisher I certainly appreciate the land stewardship they are undertaking. It keeps the water cleaner, prevents streamside erosion and stream siltation, and it's really unpleasant to walk upstream looking for fish only to find a dead calf.

 

[L Weir]

Whether we like it or not, in Pa we have to keep them out of the streams. We also are now required to have a manure management plan. Right now the cows get their water out of the stream. So we will have to install water sources for them some time soon.

 

[Dave]

Like it or not the Clean Water Act was passed into law years ago. In this act the tolerance to pollution of waters of the USA by agriculture is 0. A big fat zero. Now that is an impossible goal but it is the law of the nation. As a result, any animal access to suface water (certainly any flowing stream) will result in a violation of the Clean Water Act. Will they enforce it and to what degree there is enforcement is still up in the air. But the level of enforcement has been increasing over the years.

 

[Sir Loin]

IluvABbeef

Re:

You should add, SL, to your Mission Statement to increase wildlife habitat

Your request is denied as we are not in the "wildlife" business.
We are in the cattle business, although your issue can certainly be discussed when we move this matter over to our R & D ( research and development ) people.
Plus, it is already covered under: " To maintain at it's present condition and/or improve the water shed on my property ".
Please remember we are a business entity for profit and that profit is to come from the cattle industry.
But thanks for your input.
Mission statement stands as written.

Mission Statement:
"To maintain at it's present condition and/or improve the water shed on my property, while at the same time improving the health hazards for my cattle."
As defined by dan.

Do you agree with my mission statement as his goal?
If not, what is wrong with it and what would you like to add and/or change?

If you'll have no further changes, I have one.

Re: Dan defined it:

Water sources are great to use but keeping cattle out of ponds and creeks/rivers is just common sense

I will incorporate by "keeping cattle out " of the watershed".

The mission Statement now reads:

Mission Statement:
"To maintain at it's present condition and/or improve the water shed on my property, while at the same time improving the health hazards for my cattle, by keeping the cattle out of the watershed.

Dan et al,
Have I now clearly defined your goal with my Mission Statement?
SL

 

[Anonymous]

SL.... Did you go off your meds again?
I sure like it better when you were on them

 

[Goodlife]

Just to change the paradigm a bit.
It is feasable to utilize stream/pond/lake water for watering livestock without allowing livestock direct access to the body of water. It's fairly common practice around here for ranchers who have water rights to the streams to pump the water to tanks, while fencing off the stream, preventing the direct access of livestock.
As an avid flyfisher I certainly appreciate the land stewardship they are undertaking. It keeps the water cleaner, prevents streamside erosion and stream siltation, and it's really unpleasant to walk upstream looking for fish only to find a dead calf.

Same here in S. Illinois. Most people (at least locally) have a pond but do not allow direct access by the cattle. They run water lines to water tanks. Prevents the mud tromping and pooping in the pond problems.

 

[Douglas]

Here is my situation and it may be unique to me, I don't know. Our farm was in row crops for several generations. We have three ponds built for irrigation purposes. As we evolved into cattle production as my dad retired. the paddocks were laid out to have a pond drinking sources for each area. Initially we grazed close to the ponds and used temporary fencing for cover crop areas in the winter. During that time my fishing holes became muddy, nasty, and declined in fish production. We have lost several calves over the years to drowning after breaking through the ice. Our dams we nearing collapse from hoof damage around the edges. While we were still crop farming the areas around the ponds became basically sacrifice areas. This was a disaster in many ways. When my ponds run over, the water ends up in the Cape Fear River where much of southeastern NC gets its drinking water. This is particularly a problem here during an active hurricane season. Whether we like it or not, regulations to protect the drinking water are coming and I plan to be ready for them. If one is starting out in cattle farming, you are making a mistake by not planning for what is likely coming down the pike.
Back to my farm. The water quality was terrible for the cows and the potential repair cost was growing, so I decided I needed to make a change. The first idea I had was to pipe water out of the pond at the top of the hill to the rest of the farm as that one had the most reliable water supply. The problem was very high bacteria levels. They were really through the roof. The area draining into our property is an aging subdivision with failing septic fields. I had no real choice about the matter. I dug a well and piped the water around, and fenced off the ponds. If you have a reliable source of clean water without a well great, use it. Here are the advantages I see in my operation: I never have to break ice in the winter, cattle have clean water and are likely more productive though I have no hard evidence to prove that. Water is cooler in the summer. I can enjoy catching some nice largemouth bass again. I enjoy seeing the geese and ducks enjoying the water.
I don't give a crap about left wing environmentalist or their agenda but I care a heck of a lot about my daddy's farm. I plan to pass it on to my kids at least as good I found it, and make a little money along the way. As far as conservation programs. I participate. I would love to see government out of agriculture as much as possible, but I play the cards I am dealt. If I have to pay 40% in taxes to support other people subsidies, farm and otherwise, I plan to get as much of my money back as I can. If I don't like their rules I don't take the money, and most of my system I paid for.

 

[TexasBred]

You lucky devil....bass fishing in the back 40 makes it worth your time and money. I envy you. ;-)

 

[IluvABbeef]

There seems to be too many loop holes in the statement, SL, Mission Statement as I see it should be read as:

"To maintain and/or improve riparian areas on my property for the purpose of increasing animal performance with clean water, water conservation, increased forage production, maintain or restore animal shelter, reduce bank erosion, better forage and grazing distribution and utilization, better nutrient management of plants and soil, reduce maintenance costs due to development of off-site and, or off-stream water supply, and reduce disease and death in the herd. To accomplish such purposes is to limit or prohibit animals from accessing such riparian areas."

If you want more info, check here: http://www.cowsandfish.org/pdfs/greenzone3rd.pdf The info I took the above from can be found on pg. 43.

 

[IluvABbeef]

And for those of you who would like some "hard evidence" on cattle being more productive from clean water than water from dirtied water via ponds or streams that they have unlimited access to:

http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livest ... 27s03.html

 

[Sir Loin]

IluvABbeef

IMO, All you and many other sheeple are doing is regurgitating what you have been spoon fed by the environmental wakos and the government to justify the program.
I have heard or read all the BS about a thousand time. What I want to know from the mission statement is:
What are you trying to accomplish in simple plan English?
Is it not:
1. to maintain and/or improve the environment specifically a watershed.
2. To improve the health of cattle

Is that not what you (dan et al ) are saying?
The issues we are about to discuss are: 1,the environment and 2. cattle health, are we not?
Yes or no.
Choose only one answer and please use a number 2 pencil to circle only one answer.
When, and only then will I move on and offer my rebuttal.




FYI:
RIPARIAN
: relating to or living or located on the bank of a natural watercourse (as a river) or sometimes of a lake or a tidewater

Watershed:
b: a region or area bounded peripherally by a divide and draining ultimately to a particular watercourse or body of water

Please, lets not play word games as I find them very childish.
So lets use "watershed, as it best describes what we are talking about.
Or does "watershed" throw to much of a roadblock in the way of your propaganda.
Live with it!

SL

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

What in hell are we doing discussing good conservation practices with a person who runs a few calves on less than a acre of land. If he had a 2000 yard pond on his land he would not have a quarter acre of land left to have calves on.

 

[1wlimo]

SL and any other dinosaurs out there, agriculture is not like a factory making widgets. It is a highly complex system, so complex that we can not even model it using computers properly. There are simply too many variables.

Every thing is inter connected. This is why looking after the environment, leads onto better animal production and then we end up with a rather woolly but correct statement from IluvABbeef.

By going for simple single objectives, and sort term profits we have problems. Examples, banks lending to high risk people, the dust bowls of the 1930's, BSE,

Yield growth in crops is slowing all over the world, the reason being that the soil we use, and the water that we use is being degraded.

We all have to look at the environmental effect we have, there is no point making a big profit today if tomorrow we go bust. Much better to make long term sustainable profit.