Oklahoma Market Gardening School Course

This is an 8-week course in Chickasha, OK.
Instructors from OSU, Noble Foundation,
OSU Lane Ag. Center and Okla. Dept. of
Ag, Food & Forestry will be teaching the
classes.

For more information visit: http://www.hortla.okstate.edu/events/pdf/2012OKMarket.pdf

Where:
Wilson Livestock Training – Wilson Community (map)

Description:
Dr. Ann Wells
Wilson Livestock Training – Wilson Community

Dr. Ann Wells, DVM will teach a 10-week course on Sustainable Livestock Production from 9 a.m. – 3 p.m, Sat.. Lunch is pot luck. Cost- is $20.00 for non members, free to members

For More Info:
Robyn Withrow at (918) 650-9221 or Rita Williams at (918) 759-1891.

Dr. Ann Wells and Dr. Ron Morrow will be the speakers.
Wilson Livestock Training – Wilson Community
Dr. Ann Wells, DVM will teach a 10-week course on Sustainable Livestock Production from 9 a.m. – 3 p.m, Sat.. Lunch is pot luck. Cost- is $20.00 for non members, free to members

Wilson Community- John Holman – (Electric Fencing Workshop)

For More Info:
Robyn Withrow at (918) 650-9221 or
Rita Williams at (918) 759-1891.

Applications for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher program are due October 21. Space is limited, and early application is strongly encouraged.

The program’s purpose is to assist “beginning” farmers and ranchers with training, resources, and mentoring. It provides an in-depth, year-long training course at the Kerr Center near Poteau.

Participants choose either a livestock or horticulture track.

Eligible “beginning” farmers and ranchers are those have been operating a farm or ranch enterprise for ten years or less, and have gross annual farm income of less than $150,000.

Men and women completely new to agriculture can also participate, along with those who already have a farm or ranch, but want further training.

The program is open to all age groups, including retirees from other professions.

Preference will be given to applicants from Oklahoma, but those in nearby states are eligible.

The course consists of six all-day Saturday training sessions at the Kerr Center’s Farm and Ranch. Mornings will be focused on classroom instruction, while afternoons will be outside with a focus on hands-on skills.

Participants will also learn about business planning and natural resource management.

The program begins with a meeting on November 12. After a break for the holidays, it will resume in February, with one session every other month until the final session in October 2012.

At the end of the course, participants will have a plan to establish or improve existing farm enterprises, and have the resources to move forward and be successful.

Those who want more information or to apply should visit
http://www.kerrcenter.com/beginning-farmer/index.html or call the center at 918.647.9123.

Successful applicants will be notified by October 28.

The Kerr Center’s partners in the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Program include the Oklahoma Farmers and Ranchers Association (OFRA), the Mvskoke Food Sovereignty Initiative (MFSI), the Rural Smallholders Association (RSA), and the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. The program is supported by a grant from USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).

The majority of organisms receive their energy from the sun, whether directly as do plants and algae, or by consuming plants, or by consuming other animals or their remains.  Energy flow is a one-way avenue, from the Sun to the earth.  Therefore, the management of any ecosystem must take into account the amount of energy captured by plants and the affect this has on all the other ecosystem processes.

Every civilization depends on the capture of solar energy by plants through photosynthesis.  That’s because only plants can convert that energy into edible forms.  While there are other energy producers, photovoltaic, hydroelectric, geothermal, fossil fuels, etc., none of them can produce an edible form.  Most of humanity has forgotten this prime connection between plants and their way of life.  Without plants to convert the energy of the Sun into something we can eat, our societies, cultures, and ourselves crumble and fade away.

The Energy Pyramid

The simplest representation of how energy flows from the sun through any ecosystem is the energy pyramid (Figure 15-1, Savory & Butterfield, pg 150).  From the total amount of solar energy striking the earth, part is immediately reflected back to space, a portion is absorbed by the soil or water as heat, which radiates back to space later.  A very tiny portion is captured by green plants and converted into food for themselves and other organisms in the food chain. In the pyramid, plants are shown as level 1.

On the land, plants and algae at or above the soil surface capture and convert the solar energy into food.  On the water, plants in the shallows that are above the water surface and those plants in open water but shallow enough to receive sunlight provide the same service.  Otherwise the concept of the energy pyramid covers all environments.

Level 2 symbolizes the energy captured and stored by animals that feed directly on plants.  Although it is represented as small steps from one level to the next, in actuality, the amount of energy lost to heat when moving from one level to the next is approximately 90 per cent.

Level 3 represents the predators that consume those animals at Level 2, while Level 4 is predators that consume some of the predators at Level 3.

It should be noted that humans are found in Levels 2, 3, and 4.  Again at each of these Levels, 90% of the energy in the previous Level is lost to the living processes of the animals.

Humans drop out at Level 5, where the scavengers and decay organisms further reduce the energy until at Layer 6 the final decay organisms use and convert the last remaining energy to heat.  It should be remembered as well that at each stage some energy moves directly to the decay levels in the forms of urine and feces and through microorganisms that feed on the plants themselves.  Therefore, in real life, the levels represented here are not as clear-cut and exact.  And while none of the energy is actually destroyed or used up but merely converted to heat that cannot be used as food.

An example of humans’ place in the pyramid is a fish chowder with potatoes from Level 1, salt pork from Level 2, and cod from Level 3.  In less developed countries, humans may generally feed off Level 1 organisms with only occasional Level 2 or 3 consumption.  In higher developed countries, the pyramid can get confusing as animals at Level 2 may be fed offal from that or higher levels to increase the protein portion of their rations.

The energy pyramid also extends below the surface so that energy flow has direct bearing on the functioning of the other 3 ecosystem processes, water cycle, mineral cycle, and community dynamics.  All three need a biologically active soil to function properly and that of course requires solar energy, which is conveyed underground by plant roots or surface-feeding organisms such as worms, termites, ants, and dung beetles. (Figure 15-2, ibid., pg 152)

The Energy Tetrahedron

The two dimensional energy pyramid serves to easily inform people about how energy flows but does not provide sufficient information for management methods, especially in regard to the four key insights we’ve learned about earlier.  We do know that the wider the base of the triangle, the larger the whole and a greater amount of energy is available at every level.  We have used irrigation, more acreage, higher yielding crops, double cropping, etc. on cropland to widen the base.  We have cleared brush, reseeded, and other methods to do the same on rangeland.  In forests, we have used fire and machinery in the attempt to increase the amount of energy available. In the water we have basically ignored the energy base by constructing fish hatcheries and farms.  In many cases the results have been a marked increase, but at a heavy cost in non-renewable resources and chemicals and fertilizers that destroy life and pollute the air and water.

Even if we ignore the damage these technologies do to the natural water cycle, mineral cycle, and community dynamics, so that only increasing amounts of outside energy, i.e. fossil fueled, can compensate, the technologies quickly reach the point of creating an energy debt, that is the energy inputted is greater than the energy returned.  Until fossil fuels become scarce and more expensive, the industrialized countries paid little attention to the problem.  Poor countries, however, have been dealing with a life and death situation for a long time.  Now that fossil fuel prices are increasing, the industrialized countries are frantically searching for alternative energy sources.  But until humanity realizes that energy that we can use as food can only come from plants and that managing that in relation to the water cycle, mineral cycle, and biological communities will the problem be put in the proper perspective.

With knowledge gained from the four key insights, we now see the energy pyramid as multidimensional, above and below the surface as two tetrahedrons joined at their bases. (Figure 15-3)  Using this concept allows us the opportunity to increase energy flow at the soil surface, that is Level 1.  The three sides of this pyramid can be named  Time, Density, and Area.  We can use this viewpoint to better manage, that is increase energy flow at all levels.  That is, on land, the correct management can increase energy volume at Level 1, not only by increasing the density of standing vegetation on an acre, but also the time which that vegetation is growing and the rate at which it grows, and by increasing the leaf area of each plant to capture more energy.

By extending any of the three sides of the base, the volume of energy humans can harvest and use from Levels 2, 3, and 4 is larger.  On the other hand, shortening any of them, decreases the available energy in those levels and all others.

Mr. Savory uses the example of a client who was experiencing a severe drought, much like the one Texas and Oklahoma experienced in 2010-11.  As he tried to explain to the rancher that his problem was the energy flow, he noticed that the rancher was distracted and was looking for a quick fix.  They decided to go look around the ranch.  Mr. Savory broke the capped surface with his boot and pushed some of the dead, oxidizing grass into the opening.  He asked the rancher if he thought that an extra ounce of grass would be produced there if it received an inch of rain, and he thought it would.  They then calculated how much additional grass would be produced if he used his livestock to prepare the ground for him: 1 ounce x 1 square yard.  Below are the results of those figures for typical sized properties:

640 acres 193,600 pounds 96.8 tons

320 acres   96,800 48.4

160 acres   48,400 24.2

80 acres   24,200 12.1

40 acres   12,100   6.05

10 acres     3,025   1.5

And that is figuring only one grass seed-head per square yard.  It is probable that in most pastures, many more than one seed-head will be “planted” by grouping the animals into one herd so that the concentration effectively breaks the soils capping and tramples the old grass down.  This also reduces the amount of time the animals stay in any one area, giving the plants there more time to grow.  The greater knowledge that the land manager has about the results of increased energy flow, the more management tools are at his/her disposal.

Time (Duration and Rate of Growth)

While plants are green and growing, they convert energy that supports all life, above and below ground, all year.  Therefore the longer plants are growing, the more energy is converted.  This can be done either by extending the growing season or increasing the growth rate of plants in a given time.

By producing a better mineral cycle, water cycle, and greater biological complexity, one can accomplish both goals.  Additionally, by not taking the plants too far down, the growing time is more efficient, as the plants grow back faster due to more leaf area.

An effective water cycle is especially important for growing season extension in drought-prone regions as the soil moisture remains available after fewer hours of sunlight and falling temperatures end the growing season.  As we learned in the section on the water cycle, the availability of moisture allows the plants to begin growing immediately when temperatures rise and days begin lengthening.  It also allows plants to grow much longer during any dry spell that may occur during the growing season.

The opposite problem ,too much water, due to over irrigation or poor drainage and aeration, also occurs, which cuts time off the growing season as well. Every hour lost when the temperature is adequate, but plants can’t grow to their potential due to poor aeration is that much energy lost.

Species complexity within the community also affects growing time as well.  The best example is pasture that contains both cool season and warm season grasses. A healthy pasture will have enough of both to ensure that there is some part of the community is growing for as long as any growth is possible.  The over-reliance on any one season of growth reduces overall energy flow.  A good selection of heat- and cold-tolerant forages or crops and planting dates can also extend the growing seasons.

Density (of Plants)

Density denotes the number of plants growing on each square yard of land.  Three plants convert more energy than 1, 10 more than three, 20 more than 10 and so on.  Farmers, recognizing this increase in production, have long strove to plant at the density that produces the highest yields.

In environments that tend toward the nonbrittle, plant density is naturally high and there   is only so much management can do to improve production.  In more brittle environments, the more the disturbance, or lack thereof, by large animals affects plant density.  Correctly applied, over time the use of fire, animals, or machines that mimic animal disturbance can indeed increase plant density.  Incorrectly applied, any of them, but especially fire used alone, can actually decrease density and increase bare spaces.  Planned disturbances by animals has a positive correlation with increasing plant densities, especially where animal impact is the highest.

While people have traditionally equated varying plant density to soil and climatic differences, in the more brittle tending environments, the management of animal impact can make a significant difference in plant density that is affordable and sustainable.

In aquatic environments, too high a density of plants resulting from the additional nutrients of detergents and other chemicals, including fertilizer run-off from cropland, can actually deplete the amount of oxygen in the water to the point that other life forms can suffocate.

Area (of Leaf)

Think of the leaf of a plant as a solar panel.  The more area this panel has, the more energy it can collect from the sun.  Therefore, even if you have a very dense stand of Bermuda grass, it probably won’t capture the same amount of energy as a moderate stand of Eastern Gama grass because of the difference in leaf area.  So in order to capture more energy, you need to increase the number of broad leaf plants in your pastures or fields.

Many of us have different types of growing conditions in our properties, and plants adapt to those conditions.  Wet-environment, or Hydrophytic, plants grow best in soggy, poorly aerated soils.  Mesophytic plants grow best in soils with a balanced proportion of air and water.  Xerophytic plants are adapted to dry environments, where the soil may be well aerated, but there is a lack of water.

Wet- and dry-type plants tend to resemble each other more than they do the middle-type plants.  Both have fairly impervious skins covering their leaves, and various adaptations that function to prevent them from taking in or transpiring much water through their breathing pores.  Many of both have narrow leafs or leaf stems, that can convert energy, which limits the amount of sunlight and transpiration.  Some dry-type plants have broad leaves but they are likely rolled to limit transpiration as well.

Wet-type plants such as cattails and sedges usually grow in sites with either high rainfall or poor aeration.  However they can also be found in sites that are severely capped, causing poor aeration.  Dry-type plants, such as cactus and some grasses, are usually found where moisture is scant.  Occasionally they are found in high rainfall but with capped soil leading to quick run-off or evaporation.  Some of the dry-type perennial grasses are very noticeable during the dormant season as they turn white or very pale.  Both types tend to grow slowly and so store only a limited amount of solar energy.

Middle-type plants are very different in that they generally have open, flat, broad leaves which curl only when stressed by lack of moisture.  They lack the thick protective skins and limiting breathing pore adaptations of the other two types.  They grow rapidly when moisture and temperature are balanced.  Rather than drying to a pale color during the dormant season, they generally dry to a red or gold color, which indicates that they have stored more nutrition than the dry-type grasses.  The difference can often be seen in arid parts of the US where grasses along the roadside, due to periodic mowing and protection from overgrazing, dry off to a reddish or golden color in the dormant season, while across the fence, overgrazed and soil that has had little disturbance, the grasses are a ghostly white.  The fence-line comparison is striking and can be seen for miles.

It should be clear that in order to increase the area side of the energy triangle, more broad-leaved middle-type plants are needed.  While occasionally a layer of clay or rock below the surface may prevent middle-type plant establishment, but generally severely sealed or capped soil land poorly functioning water cycle, leading to a poor water-to-air ratio, is to blame for the difficulty in establishing middle-type plants.  That situation can be addressed by management.  In the less brittle environments, the problem is not soil capping but poor drainage, which can also be addressed by managed animal impact and grazing.  It should be noted that in both environments, that animal impact and severe grazing, but not overgrazing, produces denser stands but also prods many species into producing more leaf and less fiber.  This increases the amount of energy that can be used by animals and humans.

Using Technology to Increase Energy Flow

While it is true that we can increase energy flow by using technologies, such as machinery, irrigation, fertilizers, field tiling, among others, we must be extremely careful when we do so.  As we know by now, we can make changes to one ecosystem process without affecting the other three.  If and when we do use technology, we must do so in ways that simultaneously improve the water cycle, mineral cycle, and biological communities.  American agriculture with its dependence on fossil fuels to increase energy flow has damaged the other three ecosystem processes to the tune of millions of dollars per year.  Increasing numbers of severe floods, soil, water, and food pollution, increasing numbers of birth disorders, tons of soil washed or blown away into the rivers, lakes, and oceans creating dead zones, funds for flood control, insect control, and the abandonment of thousands of farms and ranches leading to the demise of many rural businesses and towns.

Conclusion

Whether writing a holisticgoal about your community or as a land manager, describe it how it would look if energy flow was high – vegetation covered soil, plants grow fast and longer, and there would be a large variety of them.  Wildlife would be abundant because of the increased plant life.  Water cycles, mineral cycles, and biological communities are all effective as well.

Land managers should be somewhat more detailed in their descriptions – of course, they would still have effective water and mineral cycles, large and diverse biological communities, all of which increase energy flow.  But they would also need to describe how they would attain them.  Management would include increasing the time plants are growing by having good daily growth rates and extending the growing season by using polycultures or at least having two crops per year.  Any planting we do will be closely spaced to ensure a high density, and we will make sure to have more leaf area by a good mixture of broad-leaved plants, good drainage, crumb structure, and plentiful organic matter in the soil, which has a good soil cover year-round.  In the more brittle environments we will incorporate the use of animals into any cropland we may have.

On pastures and rangelands we will increase energy flow by using the tools of grazing and animal impact, with both livestock and wildlife, to create and keep a long and productive growing period with increased plant density and leaf area.  The amount of purchased energy, not provided by our own land, would be a measurement of our success or failure.

Community dynamics describes the changes in the collection of living organisms in any given locality.  Even when a community appears stable as a grassland, forest, coral reef, or lake, it is in fact constantly changing in species composition, numbers, age structure, and other characteristics.  Individual plants and animals are constantly dying and being replaced, varying weather conditions favor the well-being of some species and diminish others. 

Humans will most likely never understand completely what is occurring in any community, especially now that we know that there are millions, perhaps billions of microorganisms in every community that are not even named or described yet. The relationships between and among this multitude of organisms, large and small, is little understood and almost unimaginable in its complexity.

Community dynamics is the most vital of all the ecosystem processes, as without plants to transform solar energy into useable energy – life – neither the water or mineral cycle, nor energy flow can function effectively.  Because of this fact it is important for us to maintain healthy biological communities no matter where they are.  We still have much to learn about the dynamics of organisms, but there are some general principles that can be learned and used for this purpose.  They are based on the research of many ecologists and the four key insights.

There Are No Hardy Species

Hardy is a relative term, all organisms are adapted to specific environments where they establish and flourish.  When they are removed or try to establish in an environment that does not suit their parameters, they either do not establish or remain weak and fragile or perish.  For instance, a Sequoyah would have great difficulty becoming established in the Sonoran Desert.

As organisms arrive and set up in a community, it alters the microenvironment nearby, for instance by providing shade and holding a dew a little longer, making it easier for the organism to survive and flourish.  It may also be more inviting for insects or other small organisms which in turn further alter the microenvironment.  It may be that the changes over time make this microenvironment less conducive for the survival of the original organism, but allows another organism to establish itself.  With each subtle or dramatic change brought about in the microenvironment, other plants, insects, birds, and other animals find either a worsening or improving place for their growth.  The community changes constantly, even if humans don’t notice them that often.

Nonnative Species Have Their Place

As with all of nature, biological communities develop as wholes over time as species join, interact, change, and depart them.  Yet, we all know cases of communities being destroyed by the introduction of a new species – rabbits in Australia, goats and cats on various islands, zebra mussels in the Great Lakes.  Species with no defenses against the new species quickly die off and other species, dependent on the first, soon follow.

But not all introductions have been calamitous, the European honey bee into the Americas, corn and potatoes from Central and South America into the rest of the world, coffee from Ethiopia around the world.  There are many examples and it is also clear that animals, insects, and plants have been traveling the world for millennia. Once any species becomes established in a community, it becomes part of that community and changes occur both to the community and to the species.

The importance of this idea is that many in the US are obsessed with “nonnative” species and are doing doing all they can to destroy them all at every turn. It appears to be a functionary term as who decides at what date a species is native or nonnative?  The elk and humans are classified as native, having arrived in North America at roughly the same time, yet the horse which developed in North America, moved to Asia and Europe to be returned by the Spanish is nonnative.

And as with any illegal immigrant that arrives, these species fill a vacuum nature or mismanagement provides in a given community just as easily as legal immigrants.  Snakeweed, mesquite, cedar, rodents and grasshoppers (all legal species) fill the vacuum in the same manner as knapweeds, leafy spurge, or fireants (illegals).  Billions of dollars have been expended to annihilate each of these “noxious” weeds or animals, yet they are just as prevalent today, if not more so, than ever. Laws abound across the US about killing various plants, insects, and animals as nonnative species, even if those species fit into a local community, providing forage, ground cover, nutrient cycling, or prey for native predators.  Since the mass spraying of herbicides has done nothing but make matters worse in many cases, perhaps it is time that we begin managing for the whole community instead of focusing on one or two newly established members.  In many cases these “invaders” are filling the vacuum created by monoculture plantings.

Collaboration Is More Apparent Than Competition

The collaboration, or symbiosis, of and between species, is much more prevalent than most people have been led to believe.  Symbiosis, that is mutually beneficial relationships that occur among species in a community, are much more important and easily found than the competition so often cited by those who exaggerate Darwin’s theories.  Studies on island communities show that species evolve to avoid competition with others within the same niche. One only has to think about the cattle egrets following cattle and eating the biting flies to see symbiosis in practice.  There are many more examples, endophytes that help fescue, etc.

A great deal of the competition seen in natural settings, invasive plants crowding out local beneficial plants, for instance, are typically the result of human mismanagement or natural calamity – fire, storms, etc. – that either produces bare soil or diminishes the microclimate favored by the preferred plants.  That allows plants that are favored by the current microclimate to establish and flourish.  If your paradigm is competition, you tend to view everything as competition, if it is functioning wholes, collaboration, and synergy you are more apt to see those.

Stability Tends to Increase with Increasing Complexity

The early stages of development or the loss of biodiversity in biological communities display major fluctuations in species composition and numbers. Disease outbreaks, insects, weeds, rodent, and bird infestations are more likely as well.  The instability correlates with weather patterns. High rainfall years brings masses of annual plants, while in low rainfall years few if any plants may germinate.  Depending on amount and timing of precipitation, one plant or another may dominate. Insect or small animal infestations may be absent for years then one year there is a plethora of them. Above-average rainfall years can bring destructive floods while below average years bring drought. Humans tend to blame the weather instead of the mismanagement that has led to the loss of biodiversity and bare ground.

As communities become more complex and diverse, fluctuations in numbers within species decreases and community-wide stability increases. The web of interdependence increases as well as the number of species increases. Weather related pest outbreaks decrease and the amount of community biomass fluctuates less. An exception is in true deserts where communities maybe simple, but the constant dryness keeps them stable.  Still, after a rain, flowering annuals are common or a plague of locusts may develop.  When grasslands in more brittle environments begin to decrease and die out, usually from over rest, many claim that the increasing complexity does not lead to stability, but they are ignoring the loss of grazing animals and their predators, and their associated species.

While scientists have long believed that complex biological communities have greater stability it was not until 1996, when researchers in the American Midwest provided definitive evidence through a field experiment involving 147 grassland plots.

Most of Nature’s Wholes Function at the Community Level

Nature consists of and functions as wholes within wholes.  Each individual plant or animal consists of billions of cells, each a whole within itself. The individual plant or animal does not belong to a whole population but to a community consisting of many species.  This distinction is important because a population of any one species does not make a community, even if we attempt to manage some populations as if they were.  Members of any one species cannot exist without relationships with millions of other organisms of other species.  When we concentrate on rare, endangered, or preferred species, we lose the fundamental importance of the whole community and the 4 ecosystem processes within and surrounding it. While many rangelands are classified as being in good condition, it is usually because preferred species are present.  But the community may be stunted and bare ground abounds.  The perennial grasses may only be able to reproduce asexually, i.e. clones of the mother plant.

In many ways we can hardly be blamed, given the teaching we have received.  Communities and their importance are ignored in favor of specialized disciplines: zoology, botany, etc.  By concentrating on communities within those disciplines, we ignored the interdependence and interaction of them with the soil and humans as well. Communities include all of these, plus organisms below ground and in the atmosphere.  Some even suggest that the whole planet is a living organism that adjusts the atmosphere through the activity of living organisms.  This helps explain the transition of the original atmosphere to the one that exists today that nurtures the lifeforms now found.

The use of fire, the destruction of many species of all sizes and locations over the last 50,000 years has changed the atmosphere and the environment in may ways. Since it took millions of years to reach the stage was before the widespread use of human induced fire, we can not expect it to adjust to the increased presence of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in as short period as 50 thousand years.

Most Biological Activity Occurs Underground

While we concentrate on the surface of the ground, any changes brought about above ground by our management, or lack thereof, are multiplied exponentially below ground.  The reason?  On average, the upper soil layers contain 7.75 tons of microorganisms per acre.  This total includes bacteria, fungi, earthworms, mites, nematodes, protozoa, and many others.  The richest soils can contain up to 15 tons of microorganisms per acre.  European pastures in excellent shape carrying large numbers of cattle are calculated to contain earthworm populations, alone, double the weight of the cattle.  If one adds the plant roots into the equation, the tonnage of living organisms underground is astonishing. Scientists estimate that between 75 and 85 percent of an American prairie’s biomass is underground.  Knowing this, it becomes apparent the importance of avoiding excessive soil compaction, soil exposure and capping, inadequate drainage, fertilization, pesticide poisoning, or any other action that will affect the organisms beneath the soil surface will directly and negatively affect the soil surface and the organisms above ground.

Change Generally Occurs in Successional Stages

The process of change of biological communities from bare rock to mature grasslands, forests, lake, etc. is called succession.  There is a gradual, often uneven, increase in species diversity and biomass, together with changes in the microenvironment, which stimulates further diversification.   Mr. Savory compares this movement from simplicity to complexity as “…a coiled spring, , which, whenever pressed down by human intervention or natural catastrophe, will, by its nature, rebound as soon as the pressure is taken away.” (Savory, 139)

This can be seen after a wildfire has raced through the prairie, burning the grass, forbs, brush, and trees, leaving the soil bare and black.  As time goes by, given moisture, species begin to return, or new species arrive. Over time, more and more species come back, plants, insects, animals return as the previous species change the microenvironment to one that better suits them, which may cause the previous species to decline.  Eventually, the grasslands, brush, and trees return, though possibly with a number of different species than before.

It should be noted that some species attempt to block succession after a certain point that favors them, such as plants that have a bitter taste or produce chemicals that retard the growth of other plants.  The algal and lichen crust communities in several western US national parks are protected, even though they are not early successional, but evidence of a deteriorated community.  The crust prevents grasses and other plants from establishing.

The successional process on bare soils in very brittle environments with their daily and seasonal extremes is a very slow one indeed.  And they emphasize the necessity of a holistic approach.  Plants have great difficulty establishing due to the temperature, moisture, and the physical actions from precipitation, freeze-thaw cycles, wind, and animal life, especially on smooth, steep or vertical slopes.  The process can be accelerated to some degree by old material covering an/or the mechanical opening of animal hooves or machinery.  In such environments the presence of large grazing animals is the only cost-effective way to break up the soil and provide sites that seeds can germinate and grow.

In nonbrittle environments, succession is almost impossible to stop.  Even after fires, destructive weather events, or human activity, species rush headlong to fill in the bare soil, often within days or weeks at most plants begin colonizing bare soil or any surface. Picture the plant covered ruins in nonbrittle areas of the world compared to the bare ruins in arid regions; i.e. Cambodia vs. Egypt.

Community Dynamics and Management

Understanding community dynamics presents numerous avenues for improvement in management of land, water, and all life.  Realizing that the ecosystem process Community Dynamics and the tool Living Organisms are describing the same thing from different perspectives allows the manager to optimize his/her actions for greater production in any situation.  Since all life is successional and dynamic, the future resource base is based on community dynamics.  We can no longer afford to manage living organisms in isolation as we have for millennia, but must recognize that only by managing for the community do we have the opportunity to create a sustainable system.

Seeking a profit from livestock or game, a productive grassland will be part of one’s future resource base.  In one case that means inducing succession from desert shrubs and bare soil to perennial grasslands, in another if means preventing the succession from grasslands to forests.  In any case, certain plants, insects, predators, and other life forms can be either foes or friends, depending on the understanding their place in succession.

In order to favor a species, whether animal, plant, insect, or bird, the successional movement of the community must be directed toward the optimum environment for that species to thrive by using whatever tools produce that environment over time, not by intervening through using some technological tool.  Protecting that one species will not save it, though that may be a short-term step.  It must be seen as part of the community and the environment in which it thrives has to be created for its survival.

If the landscape contains too many of an undesirable species, the future landscape in one’s holisticgoal will describe a community that is less than ideal for that species and more for species that are desirable.  That means that the basic biology of those species must be understood: What life stage is it most vulnerable, what conditions are required to survive that stage?  Providing the appropriate conditions at that point will greatly influence whether either species will increase or decrease in numbers.

Grasshoppers need bare, dry, warm soil to lay their eggs and survive.  Therefore a damaged water cycle creates those conditions, but few if any entomologists consider that fact when thinking about reducing hopper numbers.  The incredible amount of pesticides used since the end of World War II in the US has actually doubled the amount of damage from insects due to simplifying the community, i.e., reduced predation by other species and pesticide-resistance allows the grasshoppers to more frequently reach dangerous numbers.  By improving the water cycle, that is reducing bare soil and runoff, grasshoppers will find fewer breeding areas and thus lower numbers.

By nature, succession moves upward.  Any successful approach to management will keep this, and the image of the coiled spring, in mind.  The intentional or accidental application of one or more of the Tools of Holistic Management by humans has resulted in downward shifts, or compressing the spring.  Once the pressure is reduced or ceases, the upward momentum returns and communities become more diversified.  Since we seem to steadily increase the downward pressure by using pesticides, traps, or guns of all types, we miss the opportunity to allow successional changes to make the difference we want.

In any community, fluctuations of species is natural, especially among short-lived organisms with high reproductive rates. A prolonged downward movement to lower successional communities is entirely unnatural, and in most case betrays human intervention, with occasional natural disasters a distant second.

The current monoculture agriculture, hyped as more efficient and economical, trades the farmer’s labor and time for increased use of fossil fuels for not only fuel, but all types of pesticides and fertilizer.  The increased difficulties in managing these monocultures have led to the reduction of the farmer’s labor and his ability to retain ownership of his property.  The survival of humans may hinge on the development of an agriculture that mimics nature through the use of perennial, deep-rooted crops and more complex, not simpler, communities.  And in the more brittle environments, the use of grazing animals as part of that complexity.

Leaving It to Nature

Many people believe that the management of living organisms should be left to nature, assuming that nature knows best.  It is likely that given enough time, most communities would regenerate, in less brittle environments this would occur fairly rapidly.  In more brittle environments, it is more likely that the time would be in geologic, not human, terms.  As we look at the land surrounding abandoned cities in brittle environments throughout the world, it is still deteriorating in most cases.  The chance that they will recover on a human time line is negligible unless herding animals are used to reproduce the effects of the ancient herds and associated predators.  Otherwise it could take millions of years for new species to develop, which is not practical or desirable.  Humans must take up this responsibility seriously.

Conclusion

Having an idea of how biological communities function allows one to better write a holisticgoal that adequately describes the future resource base required, that is one rich in biodiversity.  While the description for only one’s surrounding community does not need to be too detailed, one describing the future resource base of land actually managed must be more so, especially if one is attempting to maintain a particular species or landscape.

Because water is rapidly becoming a major limiting factor in agriculture, industry, and cities, it is important that one understands the cycle and how it becomes available for use. The basic cycle can be seen in Figure 1. It describes the various paths water follows upon falling on the land as fog, rain, snow, hail, etc. Some evaporates directly, some runs off into streams, rivers, lakes, and on into the sea before evaporating again. Some penetrates the soil where some attaches to soil particles and becomes available for plant use. Another portion penetrates deeper into underground supplies where it remains until it is pumped, flows into a river, seeps, springs, or bogs, or is tapped by deep-rooted plants.

The time water spends in the soil is of critical importance in the growth and reproduction of plants and therefore animals, including humans. It is extremely important that we understand this stage of the water cycle.

All water that penetrates the soil will be strongly attracted to drier soil particles, which is why there is, after a short time, no sharp division between wet and dry only a gradient of wetter to drier. It keeps moving until all has adhered to soil particles or it reaches an underground reservoir. To remove the final film of water from a soil particle it usually takes drying in the sun or in an oven. That is because as water is removed the soil particle’s attachment to the remaining water becomes stronger. On the other hand, the hold a particle has becomes weaker the more water it holds.

Plants take in water and nutrients dissolved in by their root hairs. As long as their ability to draw the water is stronger than the hold the soil particles have, they can keep drawing. As less and less water is held by the soil particles the less the plant is able to absorb and it slows its growth rate. It this continues long enough the leaves wilt or curl to conserve the moisture it does have left. However, there are many things one can do to conserve more moisture in the soil and extend the time plants can grow strongly before wilting.

To sustain the maximum amount of life, except in wetlands and deserts, an effective water cycle must be created. Plants make maximum use of precipitation, little evaporates from the soil, any water that does run off does so slowly and carries little organic matter away. There is a good air-to-water balance allowing plants to absorb water easily, since most plants need roots surrounded by oxygen as well as water to grow.

A non-effective water cycle is the opposite of this. A great deal of water is lost through direct evaporation, and that which does soak in is difficult for plants to absorb due to lack of a good air-to-water balance. Soils become waterlogged when too much moisture is received due to an impervious layer of subsoil preventing downward movement. Water displaces the air and then only plants adapted to this lack of oxygen can grow. The same effect can take place when the soil becomes capped, that is sealed with a crusty layer which eventually lets some water penetrate but not air.

When forming your holisticgoal, it is critical that you describe how the water cycle must function on your property in the future in order to sustain your production on the land. If you do not directly manage land, it is still important that you understand the difference between and effective and non-effective water cycle as it pertains to your community and to assist in deciding policies that lead to effective water cycling.

Effective Water Cycles
While knowing the normal average rainfall for an area gives one an idea of what types of plants and animals might be found there, the average is usually not this year’s precipitation, especially in more brittle environments. One year is wetter, the next drier, and even if the average does fall it may be distributed very differently that the last year of average rainfall. Creating an effective water cycle tends to make what rain does fall more effective.

Effective rainfall is that which soaks in and becomes available to plant roots, insects, and microorganisms or that replenishes underground supplies with very little subsequently evaporating from the soil surface. This means that the cycle must direct most water either out to the atmosphere through plants or down to underground supplies. It is very difficult to create an effective water cycle in the more brittle environments, usually less than half of the rain received is used effectively. Since it takes approximately 600 tons of water to produce one ton of vegetation, it follows that one must not waste what does fall.

In less brittle environments, effective water cycles tend to be more common due to the difficulty in creating and maintaining vast areas of bare soil. However, where large quantities of organic matter has been removed and especially in croplands that are often left bare, absorption rates are low and there can be a great deal of runoff and, possibly, surface evaporation rates.

Capping
The characteristics of the soil surface are extremely important in determining whether a water cycle is effective or not. Rain drops falling on bare and exposed soil tends to destroy the soil crumb structure ( Crumb structure refers to the presence of aggregated soil particles held together by “glue” provided by decomposing organic matter). The amount of damage is determined by the size and velocity of the drops. As raindrops impact bare ground, they force organic and lightweight material to wash away, while the heavier fine particles settle and seal, referred to as a cap, the soil.

This cap reduces water penetration, oxygen penetration, and carbon dioxide leaving the soil. The air imbalance can lead to plants not being able to absorb nutrients, even when abundant in the soil because the microorganisms are negatively affected by the imbalance. After the initial cap is formed a number of microorganisms and fungi increase its strength. This in turn leads to less water and air penetration and carbon dioxide exiting.

Soil cover, in the form of low-growing plants and dead, prone plant material (litter), protects the soil surface making it more difficult for raindrops to cap the soil or wash away. In less brittle environments, soil cover maintenance is rarely a problem, except in cropped land, while in more brittle environments maintaining soil cover is difficult to maintain due to the wide spacing of plants.

Creating an Effective Water Cycle
The most important factor in an effective water cycle is management that maintains soil cover, followed by organic matter, aeration, and drainage. What are the management tools available to either advance or destroy an effective water cycle? In less brittle environments, only technology – herbicides, machinery – repeated used can destroy soil cover, whereas as little as one application can destroy it in more brittle environments. Three tools – rest (partial or total), fire (periodically), and overgrazing (the tool of grazing misapplied) have exposed millions of acres of forests, rangelands, and national parks soils in the more brittle environments. Since these three are used extensively in almost all more brittle environments, there is little wonder the incredible amount of bare soil exists.

In less brittle environments, rest can restore soil cover and therefore increase the effectiveness of the water cycle. In more brittle environments, the tool of animal impact can provide the amount of soil cover needed. Animals can be used to trample down old standing vegetation or crop residues creating littler, while the trampling also breaks the soil capping, preparing a seedbed for new plants to germinate.

Aeration, organic matter, and drainage all depend on soil cover, but only if there is sufficient soil cover. They are also affected by root structure, if roots are healthy, they help aerate the soil, provide organic matter, and pump more water upward into the plant. Roots are damaged by overgrazing in any environment, or overgrazed and over-rested in more brittle environments. They are also affected by soil organisms, including earthworms, bacteria, fungi, and millions of other microorganisms.

The advantage of having an effective water cycle is that floods and droughts are fewer and less severe, even in areas of erratic rainfall. Floods that do occur tend to rise and subside slower, with clear floodwater, as there is less soil and debris in them. Droughts are far less severe because moisture from the year before will have been stored in the soil and what does fall will penetrate more easily. With an effective water cycle far more water is available over a longer time period so that plants begin growing earlier, more profusely, and longer into the growing season, even in moderately long dry spells. In addition far more water is available for springs and streams. While we may not be able to double the amount of rain we receive, we can double the effectiveness of what we do receive.

Noneffective Water Cycles
In areas of noneffective water cycles, droughts are more frequent and severe due to higher surface evaporation and runoff, plants begin growing later and then in spurts leading to lower production; i.e. in rangelands or croplands lower forage or crop yields. Floods are also more likely and more severe, the greater amount of bare ground the higher the rate of runoff – possibly more than half the water received. And the amount of evaporation lost from bare ground is equally astonishing. And in the more brittle environments of the world it is the soil evaporation rates that lead to the majority of water shortages. A number of large cities located in more brittle environments around the world are nearing the point where their and their surrounding countryside’s lack of effective water cycles may doom them as cities.

The outcomes of noneffective water cycles can be summarized so: Increased runoff leading to more frequent and severe flooding; decreased water penetration and increased evaporation losses with more frequent and severe droughts; less forage and/or crop production; slower plant growth; falling underground supplies; unstable rivers; silted dams and eroding catchments; detrimental effects on other ecosystem processes.

The signs of a noneffective water cycle do not require special equipment to recognize: bare soil; litter banks caught against vegetation; signs of water flow, exposed grass roots, silt deposits, coarse pebble layers on the bare surface; formerly year-round streams/rivers now only periodic, perhaps not at all during dormant or dry seasons; lowering water levels in wells and springs.

Water Cycles in Cities
Urban dwellers rarely think about the water cycle except in times of flooding or water rationing and/or rising water bills. By increasing the effectiveness of the water cycle in urban areas, we can decrease the amount that needs to be pumped, transported, or wasted.

Most cities give little chance for raindrops to penetrate the soil, they are covered with impermeable materials, metal, concrete, asphalt, etc. This leads to incredible amounts of runoff, which is most likely contaminated by chemicals and/or heavy metals from lawns, roads, and factories. This water is then channeled to storm sewers dumped into streams, rivers, or seas, thereby contaminating them and destabilizing river banks, adding silt to the flow to farms and towns downriver.

If instead of city planners tapping underground reservoirs, lakes, rivers, etc., what if they enacted building codes that more closely mimicked the natural water cycle how much closely? Roofs that capture rainwater and store it in cisterns; paving and road materials that allow immediate penetration and absorption of water; roads and parking lots treated with oil-eating bacteria; and other current or developing technologies that would enable water to be used where it falls. Sooner or later we will be forced to mimic nature’s water cycle in cities, why not start now when the price will not be exorbitant as in the future when more will have to be done to correct the problem.

The importance of the water cycle in the proper functioning of landscapes and, as we have learned, cityscapes, can not be understated. Floods, droughts, pollution, silting of dams, and many other consequences occur when the water cycle is ineffective. As landowners or managers, or even as community members with no direct control of land other than perhaps your yard, it is imperative on all of us to make sure that we do everything we can to create effective water cycles in our own environments. The dividends we collect in the future will be enormous.

Savory, Allan and Jody Butterfield. 1999. Holistic Management, A New Framework for Decision Making (Washington, D.C: Island Press), 104-119.

By: Mike Everett
Consultant and Instructor

Actually, very rarely is fire the useful tool for landscape restoration it has been made out to be. Natural fires are few and far between and burned much less acreage in the past than man-made fires do now given the widespread use and frequency of it. Mr. Savory believes that this frequency of use plus the loss of herding animals and their predators to disturb the soil and vegetation is a major factor in the growing desertification in brittle environments world-wide.

The lush grasslands of Africa, Australia, and North America were all created by a combination of fire, grazing, and predator-induced animal impact, not by fire alone. Much of the burning done now is either through habit or because government or private agents suggest it. Fire, like any other tool, must be evaluated in the terms of a clearly stated holisticgoal and the current state of the four ecosystem processes in relation to that holisticgoal.

Fire and its effects on Biological Communities

What does fire do to the various biological communities? Only after understanding the effects resulting from fire should the decision whether to burn or not be made. These effects will be varied depending on the brittleness scale and amount of annual precipitation.

Soil Surface

The removal of liter and vegetation by fire bares the soil surface and due to the importance of soil surface management on all four ecosystem processes, it must always be considered first. The ground is noticeably bare right after a fire, but the recovering depends on where on the brittleness scale the land lies, amount and pattern of precipitation, amount of grazing or overgrazing by livestock or wildlife gathering on the burned area, the amount of rest, or the degree and amount of animal impact.

In low rainfall, very brittle environments, fire has the greatest impact on time of soil cover return, due to the lower precipitation leading to less vegetation, which produces less litter. Compounded with the bare soil making the water cycle less effective by allowing what rain does fall to run off, burned areas in these environments can last for years or even decades. Should total or partial rest follow a fire, it takes even longer for soil cover to return.

Plants

Plants respond to fire in various ways, some perennial grass species disappear after a fire, some have adapted so they only establish after a fire. The majority of mature plants respond well when burned as the old oxidizing material is removed. Woody plants mirror these responses, some disappear, some thrive. Many of the less than desired species seem to respond best to a fire, multiplying the number of shoots that return compared to those killed in the fire. Trees, especially mature specimens, usually survive most fires. Some species may survive in shrub form in areas of frequent fires.

As with soil surface, plants need some type of soil disturbance after a fire in order to recover fully. The creation of a large area micro-environment favors the establishment of only a few species of plants, insects and other organisms adapted to that micro-environment. If only mature specimens remain after a fire, the new organisms do create a more diverse micro-environment, yet repetitive fires quickly diminish that complexity. Eventually only fire-tolerant species remain. In some cases, a near monoculture is created.

A corollary to this is that boundary areas between burned and unburned areas are incredibly complex. Therefore fires that produce a mosaic of patches and tongues differ greatly from uniform burns.

Areas of high amounts of dry material tend toward “hot burns”, in which large flames and intense heat are produced. Areas with limited materials are more prone to “cool burns”, in which the fire moves slowly with small flames. While the immediate effects are different, the long-term effects are very similar.

Animals

Animals, as well, have varied responses to fire. Some can not move fast enough to get out of the way, others can and do, while others place themselves to capture fleeing small animals or insects. Large animals do not necessarily panic and flee helter-skelter. While that behavior has been observed when humans use fire and noise to drive them, in natural situations they very often walk calmly out of the way and stop outside the burn line. Many seek out burned areas when the first regrowth returns.

Humans have made the mistake throughout history on noticing the initial response of animals and plants, basing their evaluation on adult/mature members of the population, not the long-term changes that may have occurred. Did the population drop, maintain, grow in the short-term? Long-term responses are rarely if ever noticed, much less studied, so that what may appear to increase populations of various species may in fact veil a long-term decline as fire is used more frequently.

Fire and Atmospheric Pollution

Annual deliberately set fires on one-half the world’s grasslands and savannahs (1.85 billion acres) releases approximately 3.7 million metric tons (metric ton = 2,200 pounds) of carbon into the atmosphere, or three times the amount released by burning forests. The majority of this burning takes place in Africa, but is common wherever range-lands and grasslands occur. Ozone, carbon monoxide, and methane from fires in southern Africa have been traced to Australia and Antarctica within weeks of the occurrence. In addition, methyl bromide released by fires in Siberia, California, and Africa, is 50 times more effective than CFCs (banned chloroflurocarbons) in destroying upper-level ozone.

While some scientists argue that the carbon dioxide released by burning is recaptured when the plants begin growing again, they do not consider the negative effects of fire on the soil cover, plant spacing and composition, water and mineral cycles, energy flow and community dynamics. These frequent burns generally lead to reduced biomass production and therefore reduced carbon dioxide capture.

Few people have worried about this aspect of using fire as a tool, and it is generally the first choice of range managers and government agencies. In fact, in many government acreages, only fire can be used to clear off old growth; animal impact at the density necessary is generally not allowed.

Fire and Extreme Environments

There will be times when fire is the best tool for the job. It depends on the holisticgoal and what one is trying to achieve. If other tools that do not expose the soil or create atmospheric pollution can be used, it is generally better to use them instead of fire. It is important to consider the entire communities’ population, not just the adults.

Depending on the brittleness scale fire manifests different effects. The following examples are at the scale’s extremes so environments with a brittleness of 7 or 8 will be closer to the very brittle ones and the 2-3′s would be closer to the non-brittle examples.

Very Brittle Environments

Community Dynamics – exposed soil in wide spaced plant populations; new cover develops slowly. While fire in the short-term increases species diversity, repeated fires reduces it. Fire stimulates adult woody plants, generally. Fire created mosaic patterns producing edge effects increases species diversity. Too frequent burning reduces grasslands’ ability to store carbon.

Water Cycle – Reduced effectiveness as soil is exposed and litter removed. The lower the rainfall the greater the tendency.

Mineral Cycle – Short-term increase through conversion of dead matter to ash. Carbon and other pollutants released into atmosphere. Exposed soil and changed micro-environment reduce support of organisms of decay leads to long-term slowing of mineral cycle. Tendency is inversely proportional to amount of rainfall, especially in frequent fire regimens.

Energy Flow – Fire may produce immediate increase in energy flow by removing old material allowing plants to grow easier. Energy flow could be reduced over long-term by soil exposure leading to decreased water and mineral cycling and plant community changes. As with the Water and Mineral cycles, the lower the precipitation the higher the potential damage.

Non-brittle Environments

Community Dynamics – Short-term effects with little long-term except atmospheric. Higher humidity inhibits fires, return to complexity following fire is rapid on undisturbed land. Close plant spacing in these environments minimizes soil exposure.

Water Cycle – Short-term damage due to soil exposure but effect temporary due to better annual distribution of precipitation and humidity and rapid succession of plants on bare surfaces.

Mineral Cycle – Appears to speed up nutrient cycling, but hides adverse effects by delaying biological decay necessary to maintaining carbon levels in soil. Cycle appears to recover rapidly, but slash and burn agriculture, mainstay for thousands of years, quickly falls apart due to inadequate mineral cycling if burns more frequent than 20 years before re-burning.

Energy Flow – Fire disrupts energy flow temporarily but recovers quickly with the return of the plant communities. Frequent fires in all environments damages all ecosystem processes. Forests converted to savannas through frequent fires take on the characteristics of brittle environments, unless rested for several years.

Savory, Allan and Jody Butterfield. 1999. Holistic Management, A New Framework for Decision Making (Washington, D.C: Island Press), 182-194.

Saturday June 11th at 10:00
Wilson Indian Community Center
Wilson, OK (Okmulgee County)

Ralph Harris, grazing specialist with NRCS in Arkansas, will share his practical experience and expertise about electric fencing. Ralph will demonstrate the use of hi-tensile and polywire fencing. Learn how to tie knots in hi-tensile wire, how to construct an electric fence and how the electric fencing equipment is used. Discussion will include how to determine what size and kind of electric fence energizer to use, how to install it and how to install a grounding system.

Cost comparisons for electric fencing and barbed wire fencing will be presented.

Ralph has years of experience on his own farm and working with many farmers. Don’t miss this opportunity to learn how to manage your pastures and livestock using electric fence technology.

Cost is $20.00. Or join OFRA for $25.00 and then all additional training’s will be free.

For more information contact John Holman 652-8636 or Dawn Stacy rainydawn218@yahoo.com

KATHIE O’NEILLS PLACE- MULHALL, Oklahoma

Marion Caldwell : 405.368.3218
Mike Stinson: 405.476.3665
Email: stinsonfreerange@aol.com