Published October 12, 2015
Global effects of changing
land-use on animal agriculture
D. Tolleson* and P. Meiman†
*University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources and the Environment
†Colorado State University, Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship
Public Focus on Negative
Impacts of Animal Production
Implications
• Proper science-based land and livestock management will continue to mitigate negative environmental effects of livestock production, and provide positive effects, while producing needed goods
and services.
“Income is projected to continue to rise in all three North American countries. The faster growth of income in developing
countries worldwide will lead to continued growth in demand
for animal source foods…”
• Global effects of changing land use on animal agriculture are diverse and vary regionally.
“Despite improvements in technologies, manure management
and new regulations, by-products from animal agriculture
production and processing can still result in negative impacts on the environment…”
• Decreased productivity of animal agriculture results from:
• Direct and indirect loss of productive land to support animal
agriculture.
• Shifts in societal emphasis away from production.
Both of the above quotes are from a 2004 publication by the Farm
Foundation: The Future of Animal Agriculture in North America. Additionally, Abdalla and Lawton (2006) in their discussion of environmental
issues in animal agriculture, state that:
• Socio-political disruptions, especially armed conflict.
• Increased productivity of animal agriculture may result from:
• Innovative ways to increase land area available for animal
production.
“Farmers are traditionally viewed as good stewards of the land
and the environment, and enjoy a large amount of good will
among the public. The public may be less tolerant of environmental and nuisance impacts of animal agriculture, especially
larger units. Improved scientific understanding of the impacts
certain management practices have on the environment and
human health may change public perceptions.”
• Enhancing productivity of land currently used for animal
production.
• Targeted or prescription grazing (e.g. at the wildland-urban
interface).
• Development of small holder operations in urban areas.
• Global changes in land use present multiple challenges to animal
and rangeland scientists. The need to mitigate negative impacts,
enhance positive impacts, and discover new innovative contributions to society from animals is at a critical juncture.
Key words: animal agriculture, environmental litigation, land-use change,
socio-political conflict, targeted grazing, urbanization
© Tolleson and Meiman
doi:10.2527/af.2015-0042
14 The excerpts above indicate that animal agriculture is at an interesting
juncture in our modern world. Animal products are needed and desired
but are obtained at economic and environmental costs. Domestic animals
have cultural and religious importance to some while others are apathetic
or antagonistic toward them. The Food and Agriculture Organization of
Cattle “grazing” on a city dump in Bamako, Mali, June 2009 (source: Doug Tolleson).
Animal Frontiers
the United Nations (FAO)-published document, Livestock’s Long Shadow
(Steinfeld et al., 2006), is an example of the dichotomy that exists in the
world with respect to livestock production. Hailed by some as the final word
on livestock production being the greatest environmental threat wrought by
humans; it is also decried by others as environmentalist propaganda. The
authors take a critical look at the impact of livestock production on the environment and present opportunities to mitigate those effects through sound
management. It does not in our opinion, however, balance the negative aspects of animal agriculture with the positive aspects. Nor does it discuss the
negative impacts that changing land use and other parameters have on animal agriculture and thus, society’s ability to efficiently and sustainably produce livestock products. The purpose of this article is not to confirm or refute
statements in Livestock’s Long Shadow [Pitesky et al. (2009) is a suggested
source for such information]; it is simply used here as an illustration of the
topic at hand. We would like to emphasize that the non-agricultural public is
typically not provided with information about the positive effects of animal
agriculture. Unfortunately, those who have negative views of animal agriculture are well funded and media savvy. Therefore, we have provided below a
brief commentary on the positive contributions to global society by animal
agriculture and animal source foods or by-products. For those who wish to
dig deeper, we suggest Bradford (1999), who wrote an excellent review on
how animal agriculture will contribute to human food needs in the future.
Societal Benefits of Animal Agriculture
The role of animal source foods
in human health and nutrition
Many human nutritionists suggest that one should eat a balanced diet
that includes a variety of meats and dairy, vegetables, grains, fruit, and
nuts. The human body is 20% protein by mass. Amino acids are the molecules from which proteins are constructed. Some of these are classified as
essential; i.e., we must obtain them from our diet. Animal proteins supply
a complete source of amino acids (including the essential ones) and are
more easily digestible than plant proteins. This does not mean that one
cannot obtain a balanced amino acid diet from plants; it just requires a
more conscious effort to do so. Such a task is easy to accomplish in developed nations for middle class and wealthy families or individuals. It is
more difficult for those in challenging economic circumstances.
Meat, fish, and other animal source foods such as milk are the only natural sources of vitamin B12. In fact, red meat contains several B vitamins.
Meat is also a good source of iron and zinc. Additionally, meat and milk
contain fat. Although there seems to be an entire industry devoted to combating fat, fat in proper amounts and composition is an essential part of a
healthy diet. Fat is a concentrated source of energy, facilitates maintenance
of core body temperature, and provides for absorption of fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, and K). Fat tissue in the body also plays an important role
in healthy endocrine and immune function. Although we normally think of
foods when we think of animal products, benefits to humans from livestock
are not restricted to foods. Many indigenous peoples had a use for every part
of the animals they consumed. Such is also the case today. For instance, replacement heart valves for humans may come from pigs. Heparin to prevent
blood clots is derived from domestic animals. Gelatin is also an animal byproduct. Animal fiber such as wool, mohair, or cashmere come from sheep
and goats and sometimes other species such as camels, llamas, and yaks.
These products are important economically. The United Kingdom in 2014
sold over £21 million of beef offal to non-European Union markets alone,
a 35% increase over 2013 (AgriLand 2015). Cashmere products are Mongolia’s sixth largest export behind coal, copper, iron, petroleum, and gold.
Most of us know that livestock manure is useful as a fertilizer. There are
probably fewer, however, who know that this material is used as a household fuel in Mongolia and a building material in many parts of Africa.
Interrelationships with wildlife
ecology and management
Aldo Leopold, the father of wildlife conservation in the United States
(US), said that the same tools used to destroy wildlife habitat (e.g., the
cow, plow, ax, match, and gun) can also be used to preserve it. For instance, the Edwards Plateau of central Texas (US) was heavily grazed
around the turn of the previous century (Franklin and Brand, 1991). Livestock numbers were reported as high as 80 to 150 animal units per 640 ac
(260 ha) compared with current estimates of 25 to 40. As was common
during the early 1900s, fires were typically suppressed. This combination
of heavy grazing and absence of fire shifted the predominant vegetation
type from tallgrass prairie with scattered mottes of oak and juniper to a
landscape dominated by dense stands of juniper with a shortgrass understory. This was not a land-use change as we are applying the term here, but
it was certainly a change in how these rangelands were managed. Carrying
capacity for livestock and wildlife decreased as did biodiversity. In the
1950s, the Texas Game and Fish Commission (now Texas Parks and Wildlife Department) obtained the Kerr Wildlife Management Area southwest
of Mountain Home, TX, and since that time have implemented brush
control, prescribed fire, and rotational grazing. These practices have benefited game species such as white-tailed deer and turkey and endangered
non-game species such as the black-capped vireo. Additionally, Krausman
et al. (2009) provide three case studies of how well-managed livestock
grazing can be used to benefit habitat for grassland birds in South Dakota,
elk in Montana, and small mammals in Pennsylvania riparian habitats.
Cattle herding practices in Kenya, i.e., bringing livestock into enclosures
(bomas) at night, caused nutrient enriched grassland patches that were
beneficial to livestock and wildlife, particularly impala, for many years
(Augustine, 2004). These are but a few examples of synergistic management for domestic and wild animals in grazinglands around the world.
Range cattle grazing in pasture during a “wildland fire use” fire on University of
Arizona’s V Bar V Ranch, September 2009 (source: Dave Schafer).
October 2015, Vol. 5, No. 4
15
complementary foods in preschool and school-aged children for
supporting optimal growth and development, physical activity
and behaviors conducive to learning (Grantham-McGregor and
Ani, 1999; Neumann et al., 2002; Black 2003).”
Impact of animal source foods
for disadvantaged women and children
Livestock play critical roles in general nutritional health, immunity,
and economic standing for women and children in developing nations. For
instance, Oluwatayo and Oluwatayo (2012) write:
“Because of the high poverty level… Rearing of small ruminants
plays a very important role in the lives of households in developing countries. This is because small ruminants provide the
easiest and most readily accessible source of credit available to
meet immediate social and financial obligations. In southwest
Nigeria, for instance, rural women are involved in the raising or
rearing of small ruminants—sheep and goats especially around
homes by feeding them kitchen wastes or at most times leaving
them to graze on surrounding herbs and shrubs.”
Similarly, a research group led by the UCLA School of Medicine
(Neumann et al., 2003) report that:
“The inclusion of ASF’s (animal source foods) in the diet has been
shown to promote growth, cognitive function, physical activity
and health. The relatively high fat content of ASF’s increases
energy density, which is particularly useful in young children,
given their relatively small gastric volume. Milk and other dairy
products and meat provide high-quality, readily digestible and
complete protein containing all the essential amino acids (Williamson et al., 2005). The need for ASF’s is particularly important during pregnancy when iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin B12,
folic acid and high quality protein are necessary to support
maternal nutritional needs, fetal growth and development, and
preparation for lactation (Allen, 2005). ASF’s are important
Figure 1. The historical reconstruction maps of the central Arizona region. The
distribution of urban (black), agriculture (dark gray), and desert land (light gray)
cover types are shown for five years: 1912, 1934, 1955, 1975, and 1995 (Jenerette and Wu, 2001).
16 So yes, improperly managed livestock production has and will continue to result in negative environmental impacts. Properly managed, science-based livestock management (and inherent to this, land management
practices), however, can and will continue to mitigate negative effects,
and/or provide positive effects—all while producing the important agricultural and ecosystem goods and services described above.
Effects of Global
Land-use Changes on Animal Agriculture
Now that we have set the stage for our discussion, we will start with more
obvious effects of changing land-use and then proceed to those perhaps less
well known in the US but equally impactful. First is the direct loss of productive land once used for animals or used to provide feed for animals. Spanish
scientists (Benayas et al., 2007) examined occurrences of agricultural land
abandonment worldwide. Among the major effects they report are: loss of
biodiversity, increasing intensity or frequency of wildfire, and decreases in
cultural and/or aesthetic values. These impacts were not equally relevant in
all regions. Consistent with our leading discussion, the authors state that the
abandonment of agricultural land may also be beneficial in some cases. Included among the benefits they report are: passive revegetation and active
reforestation, soil recovery, and improved nutrient cycling.
Effects of an increasing global population—
'we need more room'
The most intuitive form of direct land loss affecting animal agriculture
and or management of natural resources comes as the result of residential development or urban sprawl. This effect is often closely linked to
changes in population. In the US, development (urban and other forms) is
expected to increase by 41 to 77% between 2010 and 2060 (USDA Forest Service, 2012) and would likely have significant impacts on the land
area available for animal agriculture. Land-use changes in the recent past
provide some indication of potential impacts. For example, between 1982
and 2007 on private or state land in the US, the total area of cropland,
pastureland, and rangeland declined by 63 (25.5), 12 (5), and 9 (3.6) million ac (hectares), respectively (USDA Forest Service, 2012). Specifically,
the Phoenix, AZ metropolitan area (largely agricultural for centuries) has
experienced exponential growth in urban cover with an accompanying
decrease in agricultural lands (Jenerette and Wu, 2001; Fig. 1). These
agricultural acres were not only devoted to cotton and citrus crops, but
included alfalfa and grain fields as well, thus affecting sources of feed for
primarily beef and dairy cattle. These trends are not limited to the US and
are actually expected to be more pronounced in developing than developed countries. Worldwide from 1980 to 2003, annual urban population
growth was 3%, with the majority of that occurring in developing countries (FAO, 2009). The same source reported that meat production worldwide has more than doubled over that same time period, with the vast majority of the increased production occurring in developing countries and in
the form of poultry and swine, while there have been negligible increases
in the production of cattle, sheep, and goats worldwide and, interestingly,
no increase in developed countries (FAO, 2009).
Animal Frontiers
One interpretation of these trends is increased efficiency (i.e., more
meat produced from presumably less land area worldwide). Such interpretations are hard to deny although increased efficiency may not necessarily
be optimal. It is probably quite safe to say that most swine and poultry
production is intensive while ruminant (cattle, sheep, and goat) production
systems can be, and often are, more extensive. Societies should carefully
consider both intensive and extensive meat production options to arrive at
the mix that is most appropriate. Given the fact that domestic ruminant production can be managed in ways that maintain or improve the ecological
condition of grazinglands (both pastureland and native rangeland), some
degree of efficiency should probably be forgone in exchange for a sustainable land use that can support livelihoods, communities, and ecosystems.
This idea has recently been developed to the point that Knight (2007) proposed, and effectively described, ranchers as a keystone species in a West
that works. So with regard to changing land use, it would seem that the
challenge for the animal agriculture industry and for scientists in particular
is a paradoxical one; how do we mitigate the effects of an increasing urban
population that just so happens to be the consumers of our product?
More room to play and/or pursue a chosen lifestyle
The next effect to consider is that of increased recreation occurring on
pasture and rangeland. The demand for ranchland by individuals who are
not primarily interested in animal agriculture as a business and who are
willing to pay higher prices for that land as opposed to prices paid based
on livestock productive capacity is another direct loss of land for animal
production. Much of this type of development is more dispersed and farther from urban areas and often referred to as exurban growth. Commonly,
recreational opportunities are closely linked to demand for such land, especially in areas that are considered high amenity (e.g., close to public land
with recreational opportunities). A recent study of three state counties in the
US (one each in Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana) reported that more than
half of the ranchland that changed hands in those counties between 1990
and 2001 was purchased by “amenity buyers,” while only around 13% was
purchased by traditional ranchers (Gosnell and Travis, 2005).
As urban and exurban (i.e., outside a city) development increases,
social and political dynamics of formerly rural and agricultural-focused
communities can be expected to change, which may result in significant
implications for animal agriculture. Indications of these differences were
reported by Mealor et al. (2011), who surveyed exurban landowners from
six Wyoming counties to represent exurban landowners in that state. Sixty
percent of Wyoming exurban landowners in that study reported that they
had no prior experience managing land, and 96% reported that less than
10% of their annual household income was derived from activities on
their land (Mealor et al., 2011). Only 1% of respondents reported that
their annual income was from agriculture (Mealor et al., 2011). Rather
than earning a living from their land, the exurban landowners in that study
identified enjoyment of the rural lifestyle, aesthetic values, and open space
as their main reasons for buying their land (Mealor et al., 2011). Across
the West, it appears that a vast majority of exurban landowners are much
more focused on land amenities than on agricultural production (Mealor
et al., 2011; Gosnell and Travis, 2005; Lage, 2005). It should be noted that
some of these new “ranchers” may continue to produce livestock on their
lands, but others will not. The effect that the proportion of new landowners that do or do not produce livestock, as well as the pace at which these
novice producers acquire and apply knowledge in their livestock production activities, is yet to be determined.
Outdoor recreation is one of the multiple uses for federally owned public lands in the US. Continued increases in recreation pressure on public
lands is expected, especially adjacent to large urban centers (USDA Forest
Service, 2012). In addition, these are the areas most likely to experience
urbanization and exurban development, which can change attitudes toward
land management. Much animal agriculture in the western US is dependent on public land grazing allotments. One potential outcome, and one
observed by both authors, is the change in focus of public land management
to include increased emphasis on recreation. This is not unexpected. There
are certainly more outdoor recreationists than farmers or ranchers and more
urban dwellers than rural ones. This fact is surely not lost on agency personnel or elected officials. And as described above, even the rural population
is becoming more recreation or lifestyle oriented than production oriented.
Depending on one’s perspective, this occurrence might be viewed as either
a necessary change toward a better balance of multiple land uses or a movement that does not bode well for the future of animal agriculture. One thing
is certain: livestock producers in parts of the western US are finding that
this described change in demographics and perspective have made it a much
more difficult environment in which to operate. Livestock grazing permits
on public lands have declined in recent years. Ironically, outdoor recreation
was identified as one of the leading threats to endangered plants (Rankin
et al., 2015), while well-managed livestock grazing maintains or improves
ecological function, and ranching was identified as the most ecologically
sustainable segment of the US meat industry (Sayre et al., 2012).
It is important to recognize that outdoor recreation and animal agriculture do not necessarily conflict and in fact are often very complimentary or
even synergistic. Many ranches and ranchers operate sizeable hunting or
other recreational enterprises as part of their operation (see discussion by
Sayre et al., 2012). Further, a survey by Utah State University found that
more than 50% of hunters and about 33% of hikers felt that seeing cattle
in a US national monument was either neutral or added to their experience
(Brunson and Gilbert, 2003). So while hikers were less amenable to cattle
than hunters, only about 33% of hikers also said that multiple use (which
includes grazing) detracted from their outdoor experience. Visitors to US
national monuments may be less accepting of livestock than those who recreate on other federal public lands. Mitchell et al. (1996) surveyed nearly
1,000 visitors to a national forest in western Colorado over a 2-yr period and
Elk and cattle present at a water source on University of Arizona’s V Bar V Ranch
(source: Dave Schafer).
October 2015, Vol. 5, No. 4
17
found that 67% of visitors felt that seeing cattle either did not affect (33%)
or added to their experience (34%). An intriguing side note to this discussion is that viewpoints of the public are similarly mixed over seeing wild
animals wearing ear tags or radio collars in national parks. Our assessment
of chat rooms on the subject seem to be fairly equally split between those
for and those against. Even where recreational users are not opposed to livestock grazing on public lands, there may be conflicts and costs incurred by
the livestock producer. Damage to fences or gates left open by recreational
users result in direct losses or costs to livestock producers. Livestock may
also be harmed or harassed (intentionally or unintentionally). Off-road enthusiasts may damage soil, range plants, and cultural resources by traveling
across country, especially during rainy periods. These are examples of costs
that are not always considered (see Van Tassell et al., 1997). Recreation and
livestock production can coexist on public lands but doing so will require
cooperation and cooperative planning from each entity and specifically
where threatened or endangered species are involved.
Threatened and endangered species—should the
goal be protection or stewardship?
According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN), there are 22,784 threatened species worldwide (IUCN, 2015),
which is a staggering number. Impacts of efforts to conserve special status
species have already been quite significant for animal agriculture. For example, one single organization in the United States known as the Center
for Biological Diversity (2015) provides information on its website about
impacts to animal agriculture.
“Our work protecting endangered species has removed cattle
from hundreds of vulnerable riparian areas in national forests in Arizona, New Mexico, and California over the years;
in 1999 and 2000 alone, we brought pressure and lawsuits
resulting in cows and sheep being removed or restricted on
more than 2.5 million acres of habitat for the desert tortoise,
southwestern willow flycatcher, and least Bell’s vireo in the
vast California Desert Conservation Area.”
“In 2010, Center work helped stop domestic sheep grazing on
7,500 acres in and around the greater Yellowstone ecosystem to
protect grizzly bears, lynx, wolves, and bighorn; we also halted
grazing on a quarter-million acres of Oregon’s Malheur National
Forest to protect steelhead trout. In 2011, Center appeals stopped
grazing on 33,000 acres of national forest land in Arizona.”
Again, the quotes above reflect the work of only one organization in
one country and over a very short period of time. We did not attempt to
find or estimate the total land area removed from animal agriculture to
protect endangered species, but we assure you that it is significant and
expect it to increase in the future. It is unclear and often debated if removing livestock actually benefits a given threatened or endangered species.
Briske et al. (2011) assert that:
changing the way domestic livestock grazing is managed can probably address most endangered species conservation needs. However, this approach
also assumes that the individuals and groups advocating for endangered species recovery are at least open to the idea that livestock grazing could be
compatible with endangered species recovery. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and too often, endangered species concerns are used opportunistically to forward anti-livestock agendas. Further discussion on this issue
is presented by Hendrickson (2015) in this issue of Animal Frontiers. Still,
there is hope for collaborative efforts to manage for livestock and endangered species simultaneously as evidenced by projects such as the Ranching
and Sonoran Desert Tortoise Working Group, which produced a document
entitled “Best Management Practices for Ranching in Sonoran Desert Tortoise Habitat in Arizona” after 35 yr of self-funded and collaborative efforts.
Environmental litigation is another example of an effect on animal agriculture that is not a land use per se but is a collateral effect of changing
land use (from a production-oriented to a protection-oriented paradigm).
Environmental litigation is a big business. According to a US Government
Accountability Office report (2012) to congress, the number of lawsuits
brought under the Endangered Species Act (1973) and the amount paid by
the US Treasury Department on behalf of the Department of Interior between March 2001 and September 2010 were 238 and $21,298,971, respectively. Platt (2013) reported that in the US, federal and state governments
spent approximately $1.7 billion on conservation of endangered species in
fiscal year 2012. A third party evaluation (Holub, 2011) of one Arizonabased environmental groups’ tax reports indicates that:
“Looking at the 2009 IRS Form 990 report it clearly shows on
page 9 ‘legal settlement’ income of $1,173,517. The 2008 form
990 shows $1,398,161 in ‘cost recovery for environmental litigation’ at page 9 of that filing. On their 2007 Form 990 at page 8
they list an income source called ‘cost recovery’ of $486,032.”
The livestock industry must continue to work toward good stewardship of natural resources, including threatened or endangered species. As
scientists, we suggest that this goal will be better accomplished with science than with litigation.
Effects of energy and or mining on animal production
Recently, Allred et al. (2015) estimated the impacts of oil and gas development in North America. Those authors estimate that well pads, roads,
and storage facilities built in North America from 2000 to 2012 occupy approximately 7.5 (3) million ac (ha) and that the vegetation damaged or lost
would be sufficient to feed 5 million mature domestic cattle for 1 mo. Dr.
Jay Angerer of Texas A&M [personal communication, and drawing information from Chen et al. (2015) and Fernandez-Gimenez et al. (2015)], who has
worked on agriculture and natural resource development projects in Mongolia
since 2004, recently indicated that energy/mining is one of the factors having
an impact on livestock production in Mongolia. Specifically he stated that:
“A fundamental premise of effective grazing management is
that it supports ecosystem sustainability and restoration of degraded ecosystems.”
Assuming livestock managers are willing to change the way they manage
livestock, we predict that the vast majority of conservation efforts for endangered species would not require the removal of domestic livestock. Rather,
18 Animal Frontiers
“
I think mining/oil/gas exploration and implementation are
causing the biggest land use changes in the central and southern parts of Mongolia. Not only are livestock being displaced
by the infrastructure of mining/oil/gas, but the increase in
people around these areas looking to work at these facilities
decreases the grazeable area, and in turn also increases the
need for more livestock products. So, this adds to the degradation of the landscape. In the more mesic areas in the north and
central parts of Mongolia, crop production is increasing (especially wheat). The increasing crop production was initiated,
in part, because of the higher prices brought on by biofuels.
Since 2007 wheat production has increased quite a bit, but still
not to levels that existed before end of Soviet influence. However, in our interviews with herders in Tuv Aimag in 2013, they
listed crop production as one of the threats to livestock grazing
along with mining/oil/gas.”
Elsewhere and on smaller spatial scales, impacts seem less daunting.
Long-term displacement of livestock from areas where energy infrastructure is constructed is common, and for individual landowners, these areas
tend to seem relatively small. Displacement from more extensive areas is
often more temporary, and livestock can often return after surface disturbances are re-vegetated or restored. This does bring up another potential
impact on animal agriculture, however. Areas disturbed by energy development activities can pave the way for increases in unwanted and invasive plant species. If energy companies are sloppy and careless, there can
be significant negative impacts on animal agriculture. On the other hand,
when energy companies are knowledgeable and conscientious, animal
agriculture will often benefit in the end. Collectively, impacts of energy
development are substantial and warrant serious consideration. That being
said, there are opportunities for energy development and animal agriculture to be quite compatible (Brunell, 2013; Dote, 2015).
Effects of armed conflict on
agriculture and natural resources
Conflict, be it cultural, economic, or military, can have profound effects
on land-use and thus, animal agriculture. For instance, armed conflict,
poverty, or natural disasters in one country often result in refugees fleeing
to surrounding countries. In such cases, pressure on natural resources can
be concentrated around international borders and refugee camps. This displacement of humans, and sometimes livestock, often causes depletion of
water, forage, fuelwood, and game animals. If the displacement is lengthy,
a shift in livelihoods may result for both the land occupied and that left
behind. For instance, Harwell (2010) states that:
“Under pressure from frequent looting and displacement, civilian
livelihoods shift from agriculture and pastoralism to hunting,
gathering and commercial extraction of the most accessible and
easily extracted commodities near at hand—often forest products. If animals and seeds are available and not eaten as food,
the displaced population may (re)engage in agriculture and
livestock husbandry in and around their temporary home…”
Livestock killed or eaten during conflicts will reduce the number of
animals with which to re-engage in animal production for a period of time.
Lands once used for livestock production in areas of conflict, deserted by
pastoralists, may not return to grazing once the conflict is over and refugees
return. There may be such hazards as unexploded ordinance or land mines
in place. Water or soil may remain polluted or otherwise physically disturbed by conflict-related activities for long periods of time. Other people
may have moved in and occupied lands or water sources and converted
these to other agricultural uses. Shifts in traditional gender roles for animalrelated occupations may occur if casualties disproportionately affect one
gender over another. As alluded to above, animal agriculture may become
predominately small ruminant based for widowed heads of households.
Herding sheep horseback in Colorado (source: Paul Meiman).
Other impacts, positive or negative, may also accrue. In a background note
for The World Development Report, Gomez et al. (2010) state:
“The impact of the Daadab camps (in Kenya) on the local host
community are widely felt through trading opportunities and
reduced food and commodity prices. Furthermore, refugee
camps have developed major local markets with considerable
purchasing power in relation to pastoral products such as milk
and livestock. However, despite these positive indicators, the
presence of refugees is also associated with the depletion of
firewood and building materials as well as competition for
grazing land in the immediate vicinity of the camps. The assessment concludes that impacts on the host community are
complex and have both negative and positive aspects.”
Conflict and/or competition for natural resources can be manifest in a
variety of shifting land-use patterns and effects. In the Nuba Mountains
of Sudan, there has been a long-term interaction between nomadic Arab
herders and more sedentary farmers. This relationship has been marked
by both cooperation and confrontation, however, in a larger context farming and pastoralism complemented each other. FAO research (Pantuliano,
2005) indicates that during times of cooperation, pastoralists brought their
animals from the mountains to graze villagers’ crop stubble after harvest;
the fields were fertilized in this manner, and crops were transported to
market via the herders’ camels. More recent political conditions have
disrupted this arrangement. Resultant changes to land use in this region
may be subtle; pastoralists may still reside in the more remote areas and
farmers still farm. But the lost connection between these groups and their
agro-pastoral coexistence could certainly have long-term effects on both
animal and crop production in the region.
Competition for sources of grain
and fiber for biofuel production
Ethanol is another example of “good versus evil” depending on one’s perspective and likely, how ethanol effects your paycheck. For instance, a Princeton University-led group (Searchinger et al., 2008) conducted a life-cycle
analysis of global biofuel production (primarily ethanol) and concluded that:
October 2015, Vol. 5, No. 4
19
established in 1882 but grew slowly until Regina was incorporated as the provincial capital in 1905. The population of
Regina increased substantially after 1945, while that of Moose
Jaw has remained relatively constant since 1950.”
“…corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings,
nearly doubles greenhouse gas emissions over 30 yr and increases greenhouse gases for 167 yr. Biofuels from switchgrass,
if grown on US corn lands, increase emissions by 50%…”
In stark contrast are the words from a recent press release by the South
Dakota Farmers Union (Sombke, 2015) in response to The Renewable
Fuels Standard Reform Act:
“…Our South Dakota farmers and rural communities have benefited greatly from what has been a thriving ethanol industry
in our state… Ethanol has become a part of the fabric of many
rural communities; if they take ethanol subsidies away, it will
hurt schools, jobs, and not to mention the price of corn… The
elimination of the corn-based ethanol mandate and blend cap
will gut the nation’s biofuel production, strand existing investment in second generation biofuel production, and hurt family
farmers, ranchers, and rural communities that have experienced much-needed reinvestment from this policy.”
The effects that changing land use from grazing to corn, soybeans, or
other ethanol feedstock have on livestock production are mixed. A direct
competitive effect is realized when the acreage available for livestock production is decreased by ethanol production. Although increased biofuel
production has led to increased corn costs for livestock, producers of ruminant animals may choose to feed by-products from the ethanol distilling
process as a mitigation strategy.
Other feedstocks for biofuel production come from native grasses such
as switchgrass, which can produce relatively large amounts of biomass but
may not be as productive for ethanol as starchy grains. Sorghum is a crop
that could play a significant role in the interaction of biofuel with livestock production. Sorghum is a warm-season grass that can be highly productive and drought tolerant and requires less fertilizer; traits that should
be considered attractive for those in either camp of the ethanol debate.
Shoemaker and Bransby (2010) have outlined the contribution that various cultivars of sorghum and sorghum hybrids can have in the production
of fuel, forage, and grain. The relative contribution of each of these could
have profound effects on livestock production in terms of grazeable acres
as well as price and availability of feed. Perhaps integrated livestock/grazing/fuel production operations will be a future result?
Pollution of or competition
for water used for livestock
Urbanization, in addition to occupying land once used for agriculture,
can also have other effects on livestock production. It makes sense that more
organisms (human and livestock) consuming a set amount of water will result in competition. Less obvious is that water quality for livestock can also
be impacted. Canadian researchers (Hall et al., 1999) who examined fossil
records and more recent environmental data on the Qu’Appelle River and
Pasqua Lake near Regina, Saskatchewan found that during the late 1900s,
70% of N and P originated from municipal wastes, that taste and odor problems were commonly reported, and that the water quality was insufficient
for consumption by humans or livestock. According to Hall et al. (1999):
It should be noted that agriculture was also implicated in this study as
a contributor to nutrients in water supplies.
A century of wildfire suppression is one factor contributing to increased fuel loads on public lands in the western US and other countries.
During a wildfire, especially along the wildland–urban interface, public
attention is deservedly focused on controlling or managing the fire while it
is burning. Once the fire is out and the media has gone on to cover another
story, those who live and work in the area remain to deal with the consequences. Fire managers have several methods available to them for suppression, depending on such factors as fuel, topography, or weather. Air
drops of water and flame retardant are among these. Sometimes the source
of water for fire suppression efforts comes from reservoirs intended for
livestock. Another consequence, as discussed in the previous paragraph,
is that of water quality post-fire. A Colorado State Extension publication
informs landowners and managers that:
“Surface water bodies such as ponds and streams are vulnerable to an influx of sediment, ash, fire retardant, nutrients,
and other potential contaminants following wildfire. Property owners in burned areas need to protect their ponds and
streams from further degradation and evaluate the suitability
of these water sources for pets and livestock.”
Livestock operations are often thought of as contributing to nutrient
runoff and water contamination, but as described above, they may also be
subject to the effects of such events.
Effects of changing land-use or land management
that lead to increases in animal agriculture
Slash and burn. If we are going to start an argument with this article,
this is probably where it will occur. Slash and burn is a technique as old as
agriculture itself. Land is cleared of forest or other vegetation by cutting
and burning to make way for cultivation and planting of crops or pasture
and to fertilize the soil with ash. Historically, this method was likely sustainable for relatively small and transient human populations, and there
would have been a shifting mosaic of patches across the landscape in various stages of use, abandonment, and succession at any given time. In modern times, however, the phrase “slash and burn” is largely identified with
deforestation of rain forests in tropical regions such as the Amazon and so
understandably carries a negative connotation. We include it here under additive effects to animal agriculture simply in a mathematical sense. Viega
et al. (2003) in their report to the World Forestry Congress write:
“Rural population expanded from 1900 to 1930 as Europeans
settled available farmland but declined thereafter as a result
of drought, war, changing agricultural practices, and increasing urbanization. The cities of Regina and Moose Jaw were
20 Animal Frontiers
“Since the 1960s, the cattle herd of the Amazon Basin has increased from 5 million to more than 70–80 million heads.
Around 15% of the Amazon forest has been replaced and
around 80% of the deforested areas have been covered by pastures (approximately 900,000 km2)… Cattle ranching in the
Amazon is often criticized in the scientific literature because
of its numerous harmful consequences on economic, social,
and ecological grounds (deforestation, land concentration,
biodiversity loss, land tenure concentration, and small contribution to regional development). Opposing these viewpoints,
some authors have argued that cattle ranching is a suitable
agricultural activity for the Amazon, is a good alternative for
smallholders and allows safe returns on investment. It is clear
that most of these opposing arguments are valid under specific
conditions and generalizations cannot be easily made.”
Clearing land that is not currently used for animal or feed crop production will provide for an increase (for some period of time) in these activities. The cost/benefit of these activities will have to be determined by the
countries involved and on a case-by-case basis.
Somewhat less controversial would be the release of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands in the US for haying or grazing. The CRP is a
30-yr-old USDA-Farm Service Agency administered program originally
designed to reduce erosion on vulnerable lands. In this progeny of the
1950s Soil Bank Program, approximately 25 million ac were enrolled in
CRP as of 2014. The maximum acres of CRP were reached in 2007 at
approximately 37 million (Widmar, 2014). Program landowners are paid
to plant erodible acres to cover crops, typically native grasses. Length
of contracts may be 10 to 15 yr, and CRP lands are usually not grazed
or hayed, but there are emergency exceptions such as drought. Ethanol
is also part of the CRP discussion. Coincident to expiration of the early
CRP contracts, high prices resulted in CRP acres removed from the program, grasses plowed under, and fields brought back into corn production. Similar events occurred on switchgrass-occupied acres in the CRP
as these fields were converted to harvest for cellulosic ethanol feedstocks.
Other more sustainable uses for former CRP lands could be in permanent
grazing or haying, perhaps as part of a rotation with long periods of rest.
Grassland restoration on current or future CRP lands, managed by fire and
grazing, could increase acres available for livestock production.
Similarly, clearing expanding shrub or tree species such as juniper, mesquite, and sagebrush (even though they are native species) is not necessarily
a land-use change but is a land-use practice that affects carrying capacity
and thus grazing animal production on thousands of acres in the western
US. A 1995 review of changes in the distribution of redberry juniper in
northwest Texas by Ansley et al. (1995) contains the following:
“Redberry juniper reduces grass productivity, especially on shallow soils, by altering the light environment, soil moisture content, soil nutrient availability, and soil temperature (McPherson
and Wright 1990b, Ueckert et al., 1994a). It can increase to the
exclusion of nearly all other woody and herbaceous species,
thereby reducing biodiversity. Excessive woody cover interferes
with movement and handling of livestock, results in inefficient
on-site use of precipitation, and diminishes watershed and wildlife habitat values of rangelands (Thurow and Carlson 1994).”
Archer et al. (2011) provide a critical assessment of woody plant
management in rangeland conservation efforts. As is often the case in
extensive rangeland environments, among these authors’ conclusions is
that effective woody plant management depends on a variety of factors
including landscape vegetation type, geology and soils, precipitation patterns, and the management goals and objectives. Shrub removal practices
are common on grazinglands, but they are not without controversy. Some
have argued that efforts to control woody species have been costly and
had little overall long-term effect. Past confrontations over juniper treatment erupted between environmental groups who wanted re-growth juniper or other small shrubs to accommodate nesting preferences for black
Goats grazing yellow starthistle, a non-native invasive plant species, in Idaho (source:
Karen Launchbaugh).
capped vireos and those who wanted old growth mature juniper and other
trees species that were more suitable for golden cheeked warblers. Current
debate rages over treatment and restoration methods for sagebrush to benefit the sage grouse. As illustrated in the example from southwest Texas,
shrub management and grazing practices can be developed to not only
benefit domestic livestock but improve wildlife habitat as well.
Far less controversial is the practice of targeted grazing, specifically
when applied for fire fuel reduction. Italian authors Lovreglio et al. (2014)
refer to grazing (or browsing) specifically by goats, as one of several techniques employed in “preventative silviculture.” They go on to say that
although goats were once considered the “razor of the forest,” and overgrazing has been a major environmental problem in the Mediterranean
region, properly applied grazing is now considered the most ecologically
sound practice for creating fuel discontinuity in that part of the world. The
practice of targeted or prescription grazing can fall under the category of
land-use change if one considers that it often occurs on the wildland–urban interface (i.e., in areas where housing or business developments are
found immediately adjacent to forest or rangelands). These are lands that
were probably previously grazed by wild or domestic animals and are
also lands that tend to burn. Small ruminants, fairly tractable and typically
less scary or obtrusive to urban dwellers than cattle, can be herded in a
prescriptive manner to accomplish plant removal objectives in these areas.
Other applications of targeted grazing include reduction of invasive species such as leafy spurge, spotted knapweed, or cheatgrass. This practice
has even occurred in places as unlikely as Chicago’s O’Hare International
Airport on slopes too steep for the safe operation of machinery. While
targeted grazing may only provide temporary and transient increases in
land area for animal agriculture, it is a niche small business opportunity,
especially for beginning livestock entrepreneurs.
Lastly, and related to targeted grazing, smallholder operations in urban
areas inspired by the growing popularity of local food movements and
the demand for specialty food items such as artisan cheeses may create
additional opportunities for animal agriculture. Granted, the total acres
October 2015, Vol. 5, No. 4
21
and carrying capacity may be minimal, but the impact for livestock production could be significant in terms of providing entry opportunities for
new, non-traditional operators. Imagine the possibilities awaiting agriculture if a generation of young urban professionals and potential entrepreneurs are intimately aware of where their food comes from. Similar opportunities for livestock production on “re-claimed” vacant lots or other
unused land could arise from growing and diverse populations in large
metro areas, i.e., cultures with a demand for meat and dairy products from
small ruminants. Other possibilities for expanding animal production exist as scientists discover ways to exploit the ability of ruminants to use
cellulose from a variety of sources such as food or municipal waste.
Final Words
One more excerpt in closing:
“Commercial ranchers find it increasingly difficult to maintain
production in the western and central regions, which receive
low and uncertain rainfall and where there are increases in
undesirable woody species. Low profit margins and higher
production costs discourage many landowners from maintaining commercial herds.”
Although it may sound that way, the above statement is not about the
US. The authors continue by writing that:
“There has been a decline in sheep and wool production from
the Nama-karoo region (Dean and MacDonald, 1994), which
has been attributed to a decline in resource condition. There
appears to be an increase in the number of uninhabited freehold farms in the arid and semiarid regions, suggesting that
farms are being abandoned or managed as larger units. Reflecting de-agrarianization trends throughout the developed
world, South African rangelands under freehold tenure are
becoming depopulated. The children of freehold farmers do
not regard farming as an exciting career option, and leave the
farm for training in more lucrative career paths.”
We include these statements from Palmer and Ainslie (2005) from
their chapter on “Grasslands of South Africa” not to cast a final negative light on our subject but rather to point out that livestock producers
worldwide face similar issues. Some issues we in animal agriculture have
collectively brought on ourselves and must own up to. Other issues are
simply the result of a fast-changing world with a variety of perspectives
and views about who we are, what we do, and how we do it. Despite all
of the change in the world, the fact remains that those who live here require food, fiber, and a great many by-products from animal agriculture
and ecosystem services from the lands that support it. Our hope is that
this article has stimulated thought, highlighted possibilities to bring good
science to bear on important and challenging problems, and encouraged
collaboration by diverse stakeholders to do so.
Literature Cited
Abdalla, C. W. and J. L. Lawton. 2006. Environmental issues in animal agriculture.
Choices: The magazine of food, farm, and resource issues. 21 (3):177–181.
AgriLand. 2015. Boiling point on beef 5th quarter may see value of deadweight cattle
reassessed. http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/boiling-point-on-beef-5th-quarter-may-see-value-of-deadweight-cattle-reassessed/. (Accessed 3 Sept. 2015.)
Allred, B.W., W.K. Smith, D. Twidell, J.H. Haggerty, S.W. Running, D.E. Naugle, and
S.D. Fuhlendorf. 2015. Ecosystem services lost to oil and gas in North America:
Net primary production reduced in crop and rangelands. Science 348:401–402.
Ansley, R.J., W.E. Pinchak, and D.N. Ueckert. 1995. Changes in redberry juniper
distribution in northwest Texas (1948 to 1982). Rangelands 17:49–53.
Archer, S.R., K.W. Davies, T.E. Fulbright, K.C. McDaniel, B.P. Wilcox, and K.I.
Predick. 2011. Chapter 3. Brush management as a rangeland conservation strategy: A critical evaluation. In: D.D. Briske, editor. Conservation benefits of rangeland practices: Assessment, recommendations, and knowledge gaps.USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. p. 105–170.
Augustine, D.J. 2004. Influence of cattle management on habitat selection by Impla
on central Kenyan rangeland. J. Wildl. Manage. 68(4):916–923.
Benayas, J. M. R, A. Martins, J. M. Nicolau, and J. J. Schulz. 2007. Abandonment
of agricultural land: An overview of drivers and consequences. CAB Reviews:
Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources.
2007-2. No. 057.
Bradford, G.E. 1999. Contributions of animal agriculture to meeting global human
food demand. Livest. Prod. Sci. 59:95–112.
Briske, D.D., J.D. Derner, D.G. Michunas, and K.W. Tate. 2011. Chapter 1. An evidence-based assessment of prescribed grazing practices. In: D.D. Briske, editor.
Conservation benefits of rangeland practices: Assessment, recommendations, and
knowledge gaps. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. p. 21–74.
Brunell, D.C. 2013. Oil, wind, cattle, and farming coexist in Sweetwater, Texas. https://
www.awb.org/olympia-business-watch/?bid=18723. (Accessed 31 Aug. 2015.)
Brunson, M.W., and L. Gilbert. 2003. Recreationist responses to livestock grazing in
a new national monument. J. Range Manage. 56:570–576.
Center for Biological Diversity. 2015. Grazing. www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/grazing/. (Accessed 31 Aug. 2015.)
Chen, J., R. John, Y. Zhang, C. Shao, D.G. Brown, O. Batkhishig, A. Amarjagal, Z.
Ouyang, G. Dong, D. Wang, and J. Qi. 2015. Divergences of two coupled human
and natural systems on the Mongolian Plateau. Bioscience 65:559–570.
Dote, A. 2015. Energy and agriculture to coexist in Kawailoa. http://www.ksbe.edu/imua/
article/energy-and-agriculture-to-coexist-in-kawailoa/. (Accessed 31 Aug. 2015.)
FAO. 2009. The state of food and agriculture: Livestock in the balance. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/
i0680e/i0680e00.htm. (Accessed 24 May 2015.)
Farm Foundation. 2004. The future of animal agriculture in North America. Farm
Foundation, Oak Brook, IL.
Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., J.P. Angerer, A. Allegretti, S. Fassnacht, A. Byamba,
J. Chantsallkham, R. Reid, and N. Venable. 2015. Integrating herder observations, meteorological data and remote sensing to understand climate change patterns and impacts across an eco-climatic gradient in Mongolia. Proceedings of
the Trans-disciplinary Research Conference: Building Resilience of Mongolian
Rangelands, Ulaanbaatar Mongolia.
Franklin, J., and R. Brand. 1991. Cattle and fire–important tools benefiting wildlife.
Rangelands 13:177–180.
Gosnell, H., and W.R. Travis. 2005. Ranchland ownership dynamics in the Rocky
Mountain West. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 58:191–198.
Hall, R.I., P.R. Leavitt, R. Quinlan, A.S. Dixit, and J.P. Smol. 1999. Effects of agriculture, urbanization, and climate on water quality in the northern Great Plains.
Limnol. Oceanogr. 44:739–756.
Mongolian woman milking goats (source: Jay Angerer).
22 Animal Frontiers
Harwell, E. 2010. Forests in fragile and conflict-affected states, Program on Forests
(PROFOR), Washington, DC.
Hendrickson, A. 2015. A paradigm shift in use and management of United States
public lands for livestock grazing. Anim. Front. 5(4):36–42.
Holub, H. 2011. How much does Center for Biological Diversity receive from taxpayers for litigation? Inside Tucson Business. http://www.insidetucsonbusiness.
com/media_technology/how-much-does-center-for-biological-diversity-receivefrom-taxpayers/article_d4005ed4-c9d3-11e0-b6bc-001cc4c002e0.html.
(Accessed 31 Aug. 2015.)
IUCN. 2015. International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species 2015. www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed 31 Aug. 2015.)
Jenerette, G.D., and J. Wu. 2001. Analysis and simulation of land-use change in the
central Arizona– Phoenix region, USA. Landscape Ecol. 16:611–626.
Knight, R.L. 2007. Ranchers as a keystone species in a west that works. Rangelands
29:4–9.
Krausman, P.R., D.E. Naugle, M.R. Frisina, R. Northrup, V.C. Bleich, W.M. Block,
M.C. Wallace, and J.D. Wright. 2009. Livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and
rangeland values. Rangelands 31:15–19.
Lage, J. 2005. Coming into the country: New owners of ranches in the SierraValley, California. http://www.centerwest.org/ranchlands/lage_aag.pdf. (Accessed
31 Aug. 2015.)
Lovreglio, R., O. Meddour-Sahar, and V. Leone. 2014. Goat grazing as a wildfire
prevention tool: A basic review. iForest 7:260-268.
Mealor, R.D., P.J. Meiman, A.L. Hild, D.T. Taylor, and Jennifer S. Thompson. 2011.
New rangeland residents in Wyoming? A survey of exurban landowners. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 64:479–487.
Mitchell, J.E., G.N. Wallace, and M.D. Wells. 1996. Visitor perceptions about cattle
grazing on National Forest land. J. Range Manage. 49:81–86.
Neumann, C.G., N.O. Bwibo, S.P. Murphy, M. Sigman, S. Whaley, L.H. Allen, D.
Guthrie, R.E. Weisszz, and M.W. Demment. 2003. Animal source foods improve dietary quality, micronutrient status, growth and cognitive function in Kenyan school children: Background, study design and baseline findings. J. Nutr.
133:3941S–3949S.
Oluwatayo, I.B., and T.B. Oluwatayo. 2012. Small ruminants as a source of financial
security: a case study of women in rural Southwest Nigeria. Institute for Money,
Technology and Financial Inclusion. Working paper 2012-2.
Palmer, A.R., and A.M. Ainslie. 2005. Chapter 3. Grasslands of South Africa. In:
J.M. Suttie, S.G. Reynolds, and C. Batello, editors, Grasslands of the world. Plant
Production and Protection Series No. 34. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, Rome. p. 77– 120.
Pantuliano, S. 2005. Changes and potential resilience of food systems in the Nuba
Mountains conflict. Agricultural and Development Economics Division, Food
and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.
Pitesky, M.E., K.R. Stackhouse, and F.M. Mitloehner. 2009. Clearing the air: livestock’s contribution to climate change. In: D. Sparks, editor, Advances in Agronomy. Vol. 103. Academic Press, Burlington. p. 1–40.
Platt, J.R. 2013. How much did the U.S. spend on the Endangered Species Act in
2012? Scientific American Blogs, 1 Nov. 2013. http://blogs.scientificamerican.
com/extinction-countdown/how-much-did-the-us-spend-on-the-endangered-species-act-in-2012/. (Accessed 31 Aug. 2015.)
Rankin, B.L., M. Ballantyne, and C.M. Pickering. 2015. Tourism and recreation listed as a threat for a wide diversity of vascular plants: A continental scale review. J.
Environ. Manage. 154:293–298.
Sayre, N.F., L. Carlisle, L. Huntsinger, G. Fisher, and A. Shattuck. 2012. The role of
rangelands indiversified farming systems: Innovations, obstacles, and opportunities in the USA. Ecol. Soc. 17:43.
Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R. A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S.
Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and T.-H. Yu. 2008. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science. 29:
319 (5867), 1238-1240.
Shoemaker, C.E., and D.I. Bransby. 2010. Chapter 9. The role of sorghum as a bioenergy feedstock. In: Ross Braun, Doug Karlen, and Dewayne Johnson, editors,
Sustainable alternative fuel feedstock opportunities, challenges and roadmaps for
six U.S. regions. e Proceedings of the Sustainable Feedstocks for Advance Biofuels Workshop. Soil and Water Conservation Society. p. 149-159
Sombke, D. 2015. S.D. farmers union says Renewable Fuels Standard Reform Act
will negatively impact sd farmers, rural communities & ethanol industry. South
Dakota Farmers Union. http://www.sdfu.org/news/article/sd-farmers-union-saysrenewable-fuels-standard-reform-act-will-negatively-impact-sd-farmers-ruralcommunities-ethanol-industry. (Accessed 31 Oct. 2015.)
Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales, and C. de Haan. 2006.
Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
USDA Forest Service. 2012. Future of America’s forest and rangelands: Forest Service
2010 resources planning act assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-87. Washington, DC.
US Government Accountability Office. 2012. Limited data available on USDA and Interior attorney fee claims and payments. 12-417R USDA and Interior Attorney Fees.
Van Tassell, L.W., L.A. Torell, N.R. Rimbey, and E.T. Bartlett. 1997. Comparison of
forage value on private and public grazing leases. J. Range Manage. 50:300–306.
Viega, J.B., J.F. Tourrand, R. Poccard-Chapuis, and M.G. Piketty. 2003. Cattle ranching in the Amazon Rainforest. Xii World Forestry Congress. Quebec City, Canada.
Widmar, D. 2014. The 10 million acre land rush. Agricultural economic insights– Perspectives of two agricultural economists. http://ageconomists.com/2014/11/03/
the-10-million-acre-land-rush/. (Accessed 31 Aug. 2015.)
About the Authors
Doug Tolleson is an extension rangeland specialist and research scientist for the
University of Arizona. He has been located in Camp Verde at the V Bar V Ranch
Agriculture Experiment Station since January 2008. Previous experience includes 9
years as Director of the Grazingland Animal
Nutrition Lab at Texas A&M University,
10 years as a Research Associate for Texas
A&M in Vernon and Uvalde Texas, and
3 years in a similar position with the University of Arkansas at Booneville. He has
worked on cattle and horse ranches in Texas
and Arkansas. International experience includes projects to develop range, animal
nutrition, and near infrared spectroscopy
capacity in Mexico, Mongolia, Mali, India,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania. He
is a past President of the Arizona Section, Society for Range Management and
is currently the liaison to the Society for Range Management for the American
Society of Animal Science. He earned a BS in Animal Science, MS in Reproductive Physiology and a PhD in Rangeland Ecology and Management from Texas
A&M University. Correspondence: [email protected]
Paul Meiman, Associate Professor of
Range­land Ecology and Management has
been a member of the Forest and Rangeland
Stewardship faculty at Colorado State University since 2006. Prior to that, he worked
in a variety of positions in Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho and Oregon. His experience includes positions with the USDA Agricultural
Research Service in Idaho, Colorado State
University Cooperative Extension (Moffat
County Extension Agent) and the University of Wyoming Department of Renewable
Resources and Cooperative Extension Service (Statewide Extension Specialist for Rangeland Resources). He has worked
extensively with land, livestock and natural resource managers to develop and
implement cooperative rangeland monitoring programs and associated resource
management and conservation decisions. His interests are closely related to, and
have been influenced by on-the-ground interactions with ranchers, land and natural resource managers. Interests include invasive plants, plant/herbivore interactions, livestock grazing management, succession (including post-fire community
dynamics), and riparian area management. He earned B.S. and M.S. degrees
from the University of Wyoming and a Ph.D. from Colorado State University.
October 2015, Vol. 5, No. 4
23