Cattle, Water, and Environmental wackos and sheeples

[IluvABbeef]

Re-read the post I had above about what I mentioned the mission statement should be. If you know enough to read between the lines, SL, you well get your "Yes or No" answer there. yes it is a bit wooly, but it's right there, you just have to look harder.

Trying not to let this get personal, but being told that I've been "spoon-fed" by "environmental wackos" et. al. doesn't sit well with me. I've had some real interesting and albeit nasty discussions with such wackos before, and none of them were ever in support of practices such as what we've been discussing above. They believe that all cattle should go extinct and we should all go vegan. I've heard it all too, so don't think I'm as dumb as I seem.

And I like to use the terms "riparian" and "watershed" quite loosely too. A pond to you may be a slough to me, so enough with the nit-picking. :roll:

 

[IluvABbeef]

I mentioned to you before in the other thread that started all this: it's not BS if it's something that can be made to work and you (or rather I) believe that can be made to work in an operation. The government may not sit well with you, but with me it's a bit different since, from where I come from, they have a lot of good programs and information that encourage producers to do better in their operation and try to achieve more sustainability. To you it seems as if all this is from environmental wackos, but really, SL, what's wrong with improving farming practices because of concerns voiced by these "environmental wackos?" We don't have to completely listen to their wishes about what they think agriculture should be because, as we all know, 99% of the time they don't know how to run a farm and 99% of the time will fail in trying to do so. It's up to us producers to choose a happy medium that works both for the business and for these so-called "environmental wackos."

I don't understand how or why you are trying to argue my and everyone else's points about water and watershed/riparian conservation as being mere propaganda and not actual fact and merit to something that is truly great and good for the land, animals, soil, plants, etc. I am not being spoon-fed anything Sir Loin, I've done a lot of reading and research on this and had personal experiences with such things as this and I agree with working towards having healthier and actual wetland habitat (also another term for watershed) instead of having a low spot that adds nothing to the farm other than being a muddy, boggy water-filled shyt-hole to get the tractor stuck in and to pull animals out of if they get stuck up to their necks in it. FYI the area in the corrals at the farm here is just that, and quite a lot of the land that these corrals cover is 70 to 80% slough, or ancient wetland that should've been left as a wetland instead of being turned into a really ugly and highly unproductive mud-hole.

There's no need to go on like that and say that I've been spoon-fed bullcrap about this from "environmental wackos" and the government. From where I'm from, the government from the country I live in (Canada) is a bit different from yours (USA), and consequently a bit more informative and supportive of agriculture than what you've had experience with (or lack there of...).

To answer your question, it's obvious from what I wrote above about what your mission statement should read that indeed, we are talking about the same thing, just in a different way and with a little more emphasis on my part.

Alrighty, I think I've wrote enough of an essay for tonight. Hopefully I don't get any dislike-mail from you tomorrow.

 

[Douglas]

I thought soil and water conservation is something we all pretty much agreed on in the 1930's

 

[Sir Loin]

Douglas

Re:

I thought soil and water conservation is something we all pretty much agreed on in the 1930's

True, very true!
My grandfather, my father and me all were/are " good stewards of the land" by using good common sense, that is until the whacko's redefined " good stewards of the land" to meet their personal and/or political goals, with no scientific evidence to support their claims through nothing more then regurgitated propaganda.
.
That is why they will not define their goal by playing silly word games and all kinds of other dances.
If they don't define their goal, then you can't prove them wrong because their goal can keep changing and you can't pin them down.
If they define their goal I can beat them in a debate, hands down.
Fact is : What has been proposed here will do more damage to the environment and place the cattle's health in more jeopardy then if nothing was done at all.
While at the same time not costing individuals and taxpayers millions of $$$$$$$$$$..

And that's a fact Jack!!
SL

 

[Sir Loin]

IluvABbeef

Reprint:
SL

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.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem or would you like a little music with that dance.
This is not my first rodeo kid!! So if you can't take the heat, stay out of my kitchen.
SL

 

[ALACOWMAN]

Alrighty, I think I've wrote enough of an essay for tonight. Hopefully I don't get any dislike-mail from you tomorrow. [/quote] that would bother you huh... :cowboy:

 

[1wlimo]

I thought soil and water conservation is something we all pretty much agreed on in the 1930's

Yes there may have been a lot of farmers who followed good practice, how ever if you good read about the state of soils in the US, or Europe, etc you will find out about the high level of soil degradation.

The dust bowls that have occurred in the US, and the smaller ones in the UK were largely due to inappropriate cultivation ie moldboard plowing, and lack for fertilizer. Then it gets a little dry and the wheels fall off.

Now vast areas of land is zero tilled, to leave the soil protected from the wind, and degradation. The standing stubble, also collects snow, and rain increasing water. But may be these ideas are not good practice as followed by good farmers but wacko propaganda.

 

[IluvABbeef]

IluvABbeef

Reprint:
SL

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.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem or would you like a little music with that dance.
This is not my first rodeo kid!! So if you can't take the heat, stay out of my kitchen.
SL

I can take the heat just fine, thanks. I think it's you who has the "reading comprehension problem" not me because I believe you just up and skipped over the part where I said to re-read what I wrote above and to read between the lines.

You and your "BS propaganda" bullcrap is getting old. :deadhorse: Been trying to get my point across here but apparently this is all a nice little trap you've set for me to fall into to make me look like a complete fool of myself and a few others that've posted here all because of your idiocy and refusal to believe that this is the 21st century and not the 19th.

Guess the good friend that pm'd me last night was right: keep feeding a stray cat and they will never leave you alone. Guess that means I'll have to stop feeding the stray cat...or lion in this case right here and now.

Good day sir! :tiphat: :rtarrow:

 

[IluvABbeef]

Alrighty, I think I've wrote enough of an essay for tonight. Hopefully I don't get any dislike-mail from you tomorrow.

that would bother you huh... :cowboy:[/quote]

You kidding? I get a real hoot out of the crap messages I get sent! And I've been sent some pretty nasty ones, ranging from "I hate you!" to messages that cannot be posted on here. I think my avatar can say a lot about what I have to and can go through... :cowboy:

 

[Sir Loin]

IluvABbeef et al

Repeat of a repeat:

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.

Those who walk away from a good debate, walk away admitting defeat.
Check mate!!
Have a nice night and I'll catcha on the flip side good buddy.
SL

 

[grubbie]

A lot depends on where you are living, I guess. I certainly wouldnt consider everyone who waters from a river a "bad steward". In this part of the country watering from a stream, river, or whatever is the norm. We don't try to keep out the cows, or worry about cow crap in the water. Ever wonder how those buffalo ever survived for thousands of years without a greenpeace committee to make sure a turd didn't land in the water? Nor do we worry about beaver crap, duck crap, goose crap, coyote crap, bear crap, deer crap, elk crap,.......you get the picture. AND, we have great trout fishing. But then again, we are not over crowded with people either, maybe that makes a difference. Not a lot of liberals here, I KNOW that makes a difference. But more to the point, you don't see overcrowding of animals. You don't have people raising 300 head of cows on 40 acres with a public waterway running through it. We don't worm our animals either, and they are fat and happy. Maybe Wyoming is just a little tougher than the rest of the country......(disclaimer: that last line was a joke, everyone is getting too sensitive. What the devil has happened to this board??)

 

[I luv herfrds]

CF I guess you never read that story about the old cowboy and the young hand out riding the range. It was a really hot day and they ran out of water. Old cowhand told the young guy where there was a reservior with a free flowing stream flowing into it. well they came upon the reservior and both them and their horses drank their fill. After they remounted and rode around this hill they found a dead cow laying in the middle of the stream that fed the reservior. Old cowboy looked at the young guy and said he was glad they had not seen that before they drank or they would still be thirsty.
Can't remember where I read that story.

1wlimo maybe you need to talk to my neighbors who do this no til. Guess who got their crop in the ground before they did? We did. we still do the tilling and the summer fallow. While they were snapping drill shanks so fast that the implement stores could not keep them in stock we were burning shovels.
Have you ever looked out and seen nothing to stop a fast moving fire?
I have. I have watched a fire come off our neighbors large block hit our strips and be able to be put out quickly.
Everytime they are out spraying their wed chemicals I end up with severe migraines.

 

[Isomade]

A lot depends on where you are living, I guess. I certainly wouldnt consider everyone who waters from a river a "bad steward". In this part of the country watering from a stream, river, or whatever is the norm. We don't try to keep out the cows, or worry about cow crap in the water. Ever wonder how those buffalo ever survived for thousands of years without a greenpeace committee to make sure a turd didn't land in the water? Nor do we worry about beaver crap, duck crap, goose crap, coyote crap, bear crap, deer crap, elk crap,.......you get the picture. AND, we have great trout fishing. But then again, we are not over crowded with people either, maybe that makes a difference. Not a lot of liberals here, I KNOW that makes a difference. But more to the point, you don't see overcrowding of animals. You don't have people raising 300 head of cows on 40 acres with a public waterway running through it. We don't worm our animals either, and they are fat and happy. Maybe Wyoming is just a little tougher than the rest of the country......(disclaimer: that last line was a joke, everyone is getting too sensitive. What the devil has happened to this board??)

I don't have any streams, creeks, or rivers running thru my place, but my cows all drink from ponds. I'm pretty sure I ain't going to heII for not having water tanks. Sometimes if I'm thirsty I'll even get a drink from the pond myself. The cow crap just adds a pleasant twang to the taste and it boosts the immune system.

 

[1wlimo]

CF I guess you never read that story about the old cowboy and the young hand out riding the range. It was a really hot day and they ran out of water. Old cowhand told the young guy where there was a reservior with a free flowing stream flowing into it. well they came upon the reservior and both them and their horses drank their fill. After they remounted and rode around this hill they found a dead cow laying in the middle of the stream that fed the reservior. Old cowboy looked at the young guy and said he was glad they had not seen that before they drank or they would still be thirsty.
Can't remember where I read that story.

1wlimo maybe you need to talk to my neighbors who do this no til. Guess who got their crop in the ground before they did? We did. we still do the tilling and the summer fallow. While they were snapping drill shanks so fast that the implement stores could not keep them in stock we were burning shovels.
Have you ever looked out and seen nothing to stop a fast moving fire?
I have. I have watched a fire come off our neighbors large block hit our strips and be able to be put out quickly.
Everytime they are out spraying their wed chemicals I end up with severe migraines.

I take your point, but any system of cultivation should be use in appropriate conditions. If the ground is too hard in the spring ie compacted then this is just wrong and this should have been addressed in the fall. For several reasons, the first to allow water infiltration, air mixing etc. A sub-soiler sounds like it was needed. But hard to say from here.

However the soil is what we all live from, and the best management of it is essential to ensure the best profit over the medium and longer term. Your system may work for you, but what is happening to your soil? the organic matter content etc. If you summer fallow for weed control there are crops that you can grow as a green manure that will serve you better than cultivation.

Lots of the facts of soil science have been known and written about for well over a 100 years, however huge numbers of farmers head of on fad, or forget the lessons learnt in the past.

 

[Douglas]

The initial post that started this discussion was a hypothetical cattle farm 2 hrs. from Atlanta. Georgia is a pretty red state and i although i am a couple states away, you can be assured protecting water quality is a big big deal even here in the southeast. These are not wide open spaces. Cattle farming here is a more intensive and requires more management on a per acre basis. We can have severe drought one year and hurricanes the next. If the question, is as it was stated, to define the perfect farm - having reliable clean water is a must.

 

[CottageFarm]

CF I guess you never read that story about the old cowboy and the young hand out riding the range. It was a really hot day and they ran out of water. Old cowhand told the young guy where there was a reservior with a free flowing stream flowing into it. well they came upon the reservior and both them and their horses drank their fill. After they remounted and rode around this hill they found a dead cow laying in the middle of the stream that fed the reservior. Old cowboy looked at the young guy and said he was glad they had not seen that before they drank or they would still be thirsty.
Can't remember where I read that story.

ILH, yeah, I remember reading that somewhere, It was long after I'd run across my first dead calf however. :lol:

Iso, I don't take issue with anyone using their water rights however they want, especially in a closed system like ponds or tanks. Although, :yuck: that you drink from them, too.... :lol2:
I was only noting that I have seen 1st hand the difference in stream bank/bed health when livestock are restricted from active/open systems. Grubbie, is also right that just because you don't restrict access doesn't necessarily make you a "bad" land steward. It really does come down to stocking density. If a the only water available to 1000 hd is a 1/2 mile stretch of small stream, that's going to have a huge, negative impact on stream health. On the other hand, if those 1000 hd have access to a 5 mile stretch of stream, and numerous tanks/ponds across their range, that will have little, if any, impact on stream health. However, that doesn't win the PR battle.
SL's original premise that anyone who considers restricting livestock from direct access to a stream is an "environmentalist wacko/sheeple" is another of the stupidest comments I've read. It's his kneejerk, and somewhat irrational, reaction to anything negative directed at the ag industry.
Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that the environmentalists have waged a successful campaign to demonize ranchers and farmers for poisoning the world. It doesn't mean they're right, just that they've been successfull by preying on the fears of a public far removed from the source of their food. If we're to avoid even more ridiculous regulations from gov't we have to start battling the negative image we've been given. Simple measures, like pumping water to ponds/tanks from open water systems seems like a good step to take.
It makes it a whole lot easier to paint the environmentalists with the extremist brush. Conversely, SL's attitude, makes their job easier. :2cents:

 

[sim.-ang.king]

I'm with Isomade, my cows drink from ponds...they aren't being used for anything else so might as well save the well and let them drink from the pond.

 

[1wlimo]

I'm with Isomade, my cows drink from ponds...they aren't being used for anything else so might as well save the well and let them drink from the pond.

Even if you ignore the other benefits, how many animals do you lose or have to pull out of the mud?

 

[dun]

With the cows having direct access, i.e wading in the pond it will really shoten the life of the pond. When we bought this farm there were 3 ponds that when we cleaned them out were arund 15 feet deep. Before we cleaned them they were about a foot deep in water and 14 foot of mud

 

[sim.-ang.king]

I'm with Isomade, my cows drink from ponds...they aren't being used for anything else so might as well save the well and let them drink from the pond.

Even if you ignore the other benefits, how many animals do you lose or have to pull out of the mud?

Well some are half fenced in and the rest are very shallow and the bottoms are all a thing that we have around here called clay that keeps it from getting very deep with mud.