Is livestock grazing damaging our reserves ?

[DorsetDunk]

a number of reserves near my home in Dorset have had cattle introduced. some have had permanent fencing erected to create compartments for rotation with about twenty plus gates in a 16.43 hectares urban reserve
with all the clanging of gates it sure not so peaceful now.
But grazing is not organized to protect flowering plants the following have been grazed out golden rod, hawk-weed, heath speedwell flea bane and 7 species of vetch to name a few, although they may return eventually but the recorders have seen a drop in numbers of butterflies due to the lack of flowers over the past few years.
where there was thick carpets of flea-bane on one reserve there is now stubble grass tufts and the ground has dried out, it is doubtful the plant will return so the insect rich habitat is lost.
On the heathland cattle have broken down sandy banks which had been weathered by the elements and were ideal habitats for a variety of burrowing insect now just fine loose piles of sand remains.
Boggy areas have also been churned up and the fragile habitat damaged, with water directed away from the area by the constant passage of hoofs so that area is in danger of drying out too
We have had meetings with the different conservation groups involved but with little result

I wonder if others here had experienced this elsewhere in the country ?

[King Edward]

Appropriate use of grazing can be very useful on nature reserves, but I am also concerned about excessive levels in some cases. Partly I think some of it is to do with managing land in accordance with current or traditional farming practices, rather than in the best way for nature conservation.

For example, typical hay meadows management involves cutting about now followed by grazing, so that for most of the year the area is a pretty bleak short grass sward devoid of flowers (including the late summer / autumn, when many flower-visiting insects are still active). This might be great for maintaining a diverse range of flower species, well adapted to this annual regime, but I'm very concerned about the effect on invertebrate populations and diversity. In such cases, I think there is much greater scope for implementing more diverse cutting/grazing regimes, with substantial areas left rotationally uncut/ungrazed (or lightly grazed) each year.

[DorsetDunk]

I agree traditional farming practices are used in fact the ranger down here admitted he was hired due to his knowledge of livestock management after I mentioned building a scrape and other aspects of conservation he confessed he had just specialized in moths to gain the post and I had to explain what a scrape was which was rather worrying
I think the example you have given is exactly what is needed if this poor management continues they will end up destroying the very habitats they are trying to protect

[artdemole]

As that much damage is being done then some one ought to take it to councilors,Mp's ,local papers and other preservation groups to make a change.

[Johnny Redgate]

I think the problem might arise from a "one size fits all" approach to site management promoted by agri-environment schemes and possibly a lack of permananet site-based staff. But we don't need to abandon years of habitat management experience. Hay meadows where their special botanical interest has developed over long periods of hay meadow management need that management to continue, even if it compromises the invertebrate interest. Other grasslands need grazing to stop succession: a fact that was discovered very soon after grazing animals were removed from Lathkill Dale after its acquisition as an NNR.

However, small areas of lowland heath are a problem. They are vulnerable to invasion by birch, pine etc and the development of even-aged, over mature heather stands. Machinery access can be difficult. Even-aged heather disappearing into young woodland would not be particularly interesting. Trying to keep heathland free of encroaching trees by removal by hand can be hopeless. So I can see why grazing cattle would be tried. If vulnerable habitats are being damaged they must recognise the problem and change the regime and/or protect those habitats.

[DorsetDunk]

the years of habitat management experience seem to be lacking in my area ,if we continue to compromise the invertebrates we may well lose the sssi status in the future,as i said before some insects are host specific lose the food plant and you lose the insect for good
as heathland is here due to ancient grazing and is not a natural habitat reintroducing livestock can only be a good thing but not protecting fragile micro habitats from the constant passage of hoofs is not and the cattle tend to head for these richer prolific areas

[Johnny Redgate]

Originally Posted by DorsetDunk

the years of habitat management experience seem to be lacking in my area ,if we continue to compromise the invertebrates we may well lose the sssi status in the future,as i said before some insects are host specific lose the food plant and you lose the insect for good as heathland is here due to ancient grazing and is not a natural habitat reintroducing livestock can only be a good thing but not protecting fragile micro habitats from the constant passage of hoofs is not and the cattle tend to head for these richer prolific areas

I doubt habitat mangement experience is completely lacking but whatever, we're pretty much in agreement here. My point with hay meadows and invertebrates was only that long standing hay meadow management that has produced special botanical interest is already likely to have compromised the invertebrate interest to an extent, so altering the management to improve invertebrate interest may be the wrong thing to do.

Introducing grazing to small sites may often produce short periods of intensive grazing rather than long periods of extensive grazing leading to the damage you have noted. As we have said, vulnerable areas should be protected.

[King Edward]

Originally Posted by Johnny Redgate

My point with hay meadows and invertebrates was only that long standing hay meadow management that has produced special botanical interest is already likely to have compromised the invertebrate interest to an extent, so altering the management to improve invertebrate interest may be the wrong thing to do.

I do agree to some extent with this, obviously where a species-rich meadow has a long history of particular management then it's necessary to be very cautious before changing things so as not to cause damage. However, especially on larger sites there is considerable scope for cautious experimentation, with appropriate monitoring. I doubt, for instance, that the plant community in a meadow would change massively if, say, a different 1/3 was left uncut each year, but certain invertebrates could benefit substantially.

It's also worth considering that, whereas today many nature reserves such as hay meadows exist as quite small areas surrounded by intensive farmland, historically they would have been surrounded by more semi-natural areas capable of providing suitable alternative habitat for e.g. mobile invertebrates. So, whereas in the past many species could move to find e.g. alternative flowers open in the next field, that's not so easy if the surroundings consist of weed-free wheat fields and short grazed pasture.

Finally, it's important to bear in mind that 'traditional' farming practices such as hay making were done for the purpose of farming, and the flora/fauna resulting were just a side effect of such practices i.e. there is no a priori reason to believe that the best way to manage an area for nature conservation is going to be exactly the same as the best way to manage it for maximum hay/grass yield.

Finally again (really, this time), in cases where habitats haven't been under continuous 'traditional' management, but are being 'restored' / recreated, then the 'we must stick to traditional management' argument doesn't really apply.

[the naturelover]

I too am concerned with this practice. I understand the logic behind it. The farmer is happy as he gets free feeding for his cattle. the landowner ie a nature conservation charity is happy as they do not incur costs for keeping the areas under control. HOWEVER it appears in my area that this is done in an ad-hoc fashion and serious damage is caused by overgrazing and poor livestock management. I look out VERY carefully in advance to see where the three herd of cattle are in my local nature reserve and avoid them like the plague as I have in the past had some very bad encounters with cattle and horses. I have asked if the cattle could not be restricted to certain areas to avoid the wholesale trashing of the site but this has been ignored and this year the cattle have a complete run of the whole area. If only some areas were out of bounds then some wildlife could possibly re-locate. The other thing which really anoys me is the constant need to mow clear 2 meter paths through the area on a regular basis. Again I understand the need to keep pathways clear but, could they not mow one side one week and the other the following week? I have given up on trying to take sequence shots of fungi/flower developing over several weeks as when i return i often find them gone!!
Sorry to bang on but are nature conservation areas not there to CONSERVE NATURE.
regards tn.

[Johnny Redgate]

Originally Posted by King Edward

I do agree to some extent with this, obviously where a species-rich meadow has a long history of particular management then it's necessary to be very cautious before changing things so as not to cause damage. However, especially on larger sites there is considerable scope for cautious experimentation, with appropriate monitoring. I doubt, for instance, that the plant community in a meadow would change massively if, say, a different 1/3 was left uncut each year, but certain invertebrates could benefit substantially.

It's also worth considering that, whereas today many nature reserves such as hay meadows exist as quite small areas surrounded by intensive farmland, historically they would have been surrounded by more semi-natural areas capable of providing suitable alternative habitat for e.g. mobile invertebrates. So, whereas in the past many species could move to find e.g. alternative flowers open in the next field, that's not so easy if the surroundings consist of weed-free wheat fields and short grazed pasture.

At the risk of getting bogged down in hay meadows, remember, hay meadow sssi's were selected for designation as the best regional examples of hay meadow habitats and the flora and fauna they contain as such. The best policy in my view would be to try very hard to improve the habitat in fields around the designated site e.g. by species-rich grassland creation via strewing hay obtained from the designated site.

Originally Posted by King Edward

Finally, it's important to bear in mind that 'traditional' farming practices such as hay making were done for the purpose of farming, and the flora/fauna resulting were just a side effect of such practices i.e. there is no a priori reason to believe that the best way to manage an area for nature conservation is going to be exactly the same as the best way to manage it for maximum hay/grass yield.


Finally again (really, this time), in cases where habitats haven't been under continuous 'traditional' management, but are being 'restored' / recreated, then the 'we must stick to traditional management' argument doesn't really apply.

Absolutely. But we do know about the annual biomass production cycle of grass, ecological succession of grasslands, heaths etc so we know we must find some sort of practical management solution(s).