Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] Prairies and Forests

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mark <mpludwig@facstaff.wisc.edu>
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] Prairies and Forests
  • Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 10:37:14 -0500

I'll try to wrap up here, I think we may have hit the sensible middle...

>> Compared to the amount of CO2 from fossil fuels the controlled burns we
do these days are insignificant. <<

Compared to CO2 emissions from fossil fuels around the world, yes controlled
burns performed for prairie restoration in the U.S.A. would be miniscule.
Burning as an age old tool of humanity, however, has contributed
significantly to CO2 in the air, as well as to the degradation of the flora
which keep the earth's atmosphere stable. Just look at Australia, which has
been burned by humans for around 100,000 years. It's mostly desert now.

Bit of a stretch to blame decertification on burning IMO. Granted vegetation will have an impact on climate, but the macro cycles of global climate seem much more influential.

When we started building dams and irrigating our crops, we had a hard time
foreseeing any problems with that until the lands started salting up.

Anyone who studied history was not surprised by this. It's been going on since the dawn of recorded history. Denial or desperation are more likely what trumped for site.

I would even venture to say that fire has historically been our primary tool
for clearing and degrading the land. So please excuse me if I'm leery of
this "new and improved" method of torching the earth. People will continue
to burn, I have no doubt, but I'm speaking out to let them know that there
is opposition to prescribed burning and that there are alternatives for
ecosystem restoration and maintenance.

Burning is a powerful tool, often misused. However, those without access to cattle or bull dosers may have little choice than to use it, possibly over use it. Like so many of the issues we nibble at, without a decent system of economic development to provide better alternatives the tools at hand will be used and overused to provide for the days needs. Hunger and poverty do not lead one to good choices. As to our situations nearer to home, I still see burning as a viable and valuable tool when used in the proper context. Blanket condemnation of this method is just as absurd as the blanket condemnation of cattle I hear far too often by folks who look only at feed lots. Abuse of a tool is not a reason to give it up entirely, it is a reason to consider carefully its place.

>> Plenty of trees being planted in the Midwest, more than we have going
into prairie. <<

Glad to hear it. My friend did mention that in northern WI, there is ample
woodland restoration.

Its all over the place. The tree fetish is alive and well and often used inappropriately.

In Texas, my hope is that we can agree that a prairie
is an infusion of grasslands and woodlands, and that when we're talking
prairie restoration we're talking trees as well as grasses and forbes. I
believe that the trees are what make prairies different from grasslands
otherwise they would be the same word. The French coined both the words
prairie and motte when they came to Texas to describe the emotional edge
between the Eastern Forest and the Central Grasslands.

This is where we part company fairly decisively. Prairie is open grassland. Savannah is mixed prairie and trees at low density. Woods are primarily tree dominated. these are distinct plant community and the need for all three is apparent when one looks at the fauna each supports. We are in serious danger of loosing our grassland bird species in the upper midwest, many of these animals simply do not tolerate trees, and furthermore those that do tolerate a few trees are imperiled by raccoons and other edge walking predators. All of these ecosystems are worthy of preservation for their own merits, bending definitions and management simply does not make a lot sense to me.

>> Cattle are much easier to manage and have a nearly identical function if
they are managed properly. Bison are far more likely to get you killed or
injured than a grass fire will.

I agree, and would like to find out more about the intensive cell grazing of
cattle and its effects on prairie disturbance. I've studied with Alan
Savory and heard a lot about Holistic Management and would like to see it in
use in lou of fire. I've also heard of bison tamed enough to be moved
around in portable electric fencing.

Usually referred to at rotational grazing or management intensive grazing. A fine system indeed, one I promote constantly and believe may be the key to a midwest permaculture that can be widely practiced on a profitable basis. It is not however all that easy to do in prairie systems, much simpler to use C3 grasses and annual C4's. Some regions like the Flint hills are making a go with native grass grazing, but it is tricky. They also do a little burning in their management. You should look for Hi Stanton's book, "Grasses and Grassland farming" He agrees with you on burning big time.


>> Prairie is much more stable in a drought than forests are. Trees can't
shed above ground bio-mass and go dormant nearly as effectively as
grasslands. This is why forest peters out as the landscape gets more
droughty. <<

Yes, as the coastal forest belts move further inland they naturally give way
to grasslands and savannas, and as we clear the forests and begin to
dessicate the interior of the continent those droughty conditions are
pushing ever outwards. As a matter of fact the whole of North America is
dryer, more brittle (less biological decay) and more tender, therefor more
susceptable to drought and wild fire.

I believe the Rocky Mountain rain shadow has an awful lot of influence here. Your conclusions are based on faulty premises.

This is not an argument for introducing more drought tollerant ecosystems,
however, rather it is an alarm signalling that we need to reforest the
coastal belts and rehumidify the interior of the continent.

And turn the prevailing continental wind direction. Good luck. You guys have a point that there is a need to reforest some of our damaged ecosystems, but that only gets you so far. Re grassing the central plains before the ogalala aquifer is blown might be a bit more pragmatic and much more stable than trying to grow trees in a desert.

>> Our biggest problem is getting them to limit the size of burns to
provide insect refuges. <<

I've been following this topic on the prairie mailing list. It seems to be
a double edged sword.

huh?

>> Want to stop global warming? Promote good grass land development with
large grazers <<

I'm still looking for credible studies on carbon sequestering and O2
production. Prairie enthusiasts, when arguing their case often make it soud
like we'd be better of with nothing but grasslands - i.e. prairies have more
diversity, more bio-mass, sequester more carbon, etc., etc. How could
forests need protecting when woody brush invasion is such a problem?

I would put myself down as more of a grazing enthusiast. Most farmers see significant rises in organic matter after grazing is implemented and tillage largely halted. That's a far faster method of carbon sequestering than foresting and provides faster economic returns.

As I've mentioned, I'm all for grassland development as long as it's done
without fire and without systematically removing trees. Aren't there enough
degraded ag and pasture lands to work with?

I think your point is well taken, but given the nature of land ownership in the USA we don't always get a choice of where we get to do our work. I would love to see more ag land in grass based farming. I promote it constantly. But if some trash tree is in my way, i will whack it. That for better or worse is the way of farming; we pick what live and dies.

North America has been stripped
of its bio-mass and wildlife. I feel we've done enough burning and clearing
for a milinium or so. It's time to see what we can do for the earth without
promoting destructive management regimes. Using the ends to justify the
means isn't a sell for me.

I would say foresting the whole thing is just as absurd as plowing it all up was. Balance in all things, diversity of landscapes and management regimes and a healthy skepticism of all approaches is warranted.

>> I do not speak for this tree hating community you imagine. I don't think
it really exists as some great and influential mass. <<

Come to Texas and attend some of the brush management seminars that are
being put on by the fed and state agencies and you will experience the
community I'm talking about. The historical evidence, at least in Texas,
strongly indicates that cedar and mesquite were quite prominant in the
landscap and that it was people, not lightning, that started burning Texas.
So the aggies and restoration and native plant societies have managed to
implement a management doctrine that is counter to historical records.
That's influential enough to cause alarm for me.

Yeah, we have plenty of nucklehaeds here too, telling folks to build 1000 cow dairys and feed corn silage based rations and other insane plans. Fortunately they don't get to dictate to everyone how to run the world here and I doubt the get to do it there either. And equally important, most efforts to wipe out anything as tough at trees, brush and coyotes tend to fail.

An interesting thread. Thanks.


Thanks for all of your in put, Mark.


Kirby Fry

For the real scoop on environmental and social justice issues check out the
archives of Democracy Now!
http://www.webactive.com/webactive/pacifica/demnow/archive.html

_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture

Mark P. Ludwig
Poultry Research Lab
University of Wisconsin -Madison
608-262-1730 WK
608-846-7125 HM





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page