PLANNING FOR CHANGE AND PREPARING FOR A NEW BEGINNING Prepared by: Elaine Froese

Transcription

1 PLANNING FOR CHANGE AND PREPARING FOR A NEW BEGINNING Prepared by: Elaine Froese This session is sponsored by the Canadian Farm Business Management Council Expert Speakers Series. PLANNING FOR CHANGE Farmers and ranchers know all too well that hard work doesn t always guarantee success. Planning for change requires life skills that develop resilience, the ability to get unstuck when feeling squeezed, and ways to activate new dreams and new life chapters. Resistance to change comes when people just don t understand a complex process, feel emotionally threatened or don t trust the people trying to create changes. Rejuvenation and fun is an important part of communicating and connecting on the farm business team. Dr. Nikki Gerrard s research on farm stress found that communication, connection to others, and a strong sense of community help build resilience for bouncing back during tough times. The Manitoba Farm Stress line is There are 4 phases of Planning for Change based on the model developed by the Hudson Institute of Santa Barbara. This is the institute where Elaine achieved her coaching certificate in External changes and internal changes are part of the process and cycle that teams and individuals go through. The stages in the cycle of renewal are: 1. Go for it when all things are well-aligned and goals are being met. 2. The Doldrums where disenchantment sets in and new routes or an exit strategy needs to be implemented. Mini-transitions are part of getting out of this phase. 3. Cocooning where inner work and healing is necessary to transform the person to cope with changes to explore new purpose and plans for a new life chapter. 4. Getting Ready where there is time for experimenting, training and networking to discover a new way of working and being. Ranchers need to identify what to hold on to, what to wean themselves of or let go, what to take on in terms of new learning, training or projects, and what to move on. Communication styles of ideas, people, action or process will impact the ability to develop trust and decrease resistance to changes being planned. The neutral zone as defined by William Bridges is a place of high stress and anxiety, because an ending has happened (such as the border closing) and a new beginning has not yet happened. The BSE crisis was a 2 year long neutral zone.

2 Age needs and the emotional factors affecting planning need to be considered. Business founders need to know what a good day on the farm and ranch looks like. Spouses need to plan for new roles and goals. Adult children need to take charge in terms of ownership and management while trying out new enterprises. The family and business issues that are hard to discuss, the undiscussabulls need to be talked out and faced. How do you deal with muck? Do you avoid the conflict, confront it, manage it or ask for help? Conflict mechanisms or tools for talking about tough issues are tools that need to be in the rancher s box. Take charge, and know that conflict is normal, and can be dealt with in healthy ways. Come from curiosity and really listen to cultivate trust. Respect the boundaries of family members, and extend the olive branch, i.e. practice forgiveness. There are more than 10 kinds of plans according to Dr. John Fast that family businesses need to address, so it is no wonder that many families are feeling overwhelmed and under-relating! Family meeting plans Financial and estate plans Crisis plans for death and disability Business education for life long learning Management succession plans Strategic business plans Business systems improvement Ownership succession plans Shareholders plan Expectations of the board of directors. Ranchers reap what they sow when it comes to building relational capital. Times are tough and the cash flow may be crunched, but we can all afford to make deposits to our farm team s emotional bank account and plan for change. As one rancher says going for parts is how we take a holiday! The life skills that will help create a new beginning are: The ability to dream again, Plan, work pursue goals, achieve. Evaluate Manage the doldrums and disenchantment Sort things out and let go. Restructure the current life scenario chapter you are in. Invest in yourself and practice extreme self-care. Sustain resilience Experiment, explore, network, be creative, learn and train. Coming to Grazing School is a great place to start. READING LIST: Planting the Seed of Hope by Elaine Froese. Why don t you want what I want? By Rick Maurer

3 Fierce Conversations by Susan Scott. Managing Transitions by William Bridges. Leading High Impact Teams by Cynder Niemalal and Rachael Lewis. Managing the Multi-generational Farm. Canadian Farm Business Mgt. Council Ten Tools for Talking about Tough Issues.Elaine s webinar at Free downloadable goal planner at

4 SELECTING THE RIGHT GENETICS FOR GRASS FINISHING Prepared by: Gearld Fry

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIVE SPECIES IN WESTERN CANADA: SECRETS ON IMPROVING GRAZING EFFICIENCY WITH ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS Prepared by: Dr. Alan Iwaasa INTRODUCTION It is estimated that in western Canada (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba), between 7 to 11 million ha of land are annually cultivated but are economically unprofitable and environmentally unsustainable (AAFC-PFRA 2000). Thus, there is renewed and growing interest in the establishment of pastures (tame and native species) for cattle grazing and forage production on these lands (Jefferson et al. 2005). The beef industry is very dependent upon pasture production for the cow-calf and back grounding sectors since forages constitute about 83% of their diet. The current increases in western Canada s livestock numbers (>12%, Stats Canada 2005) will require the need to increase and improve production of our forage land base resources. Native rangelands in the Mixed and Tall Grassland ecoregions can support good summer weight gains in cattle and can compare quite favourably to some tame (i.e., species that are not naturally or originally occurring from North America) grasses. Although the nutritional contents and digestibility of native species can vary during the growing season, cattle producers have recognized that several native species common to the prairies of western Canada are able to retain a relatively high nutritive value during late summer, fall and early winter. In addition, these native species are able to preserve their physical form; their stems and particularly leaves do not decompose to any extent for some months after growth has ceased. Referred to by cattle producers as curing, this remarkable property is one reason native pastures can be grazed by cattle later in the grazing season or in moderate winter conditions with little supplemental feeding provided. Thus the excellent curing ability of many native species can reduce animal feeding costs by shortening the winter feeding period. Aside from the importance that native prairie grasslands play as a repository for biodiversity, wildlife habitat and providing a grazing resource, the restoration and maintenance of native prairie grasslands can provide an important opportunity to mitigate greenhouse gas concerns through carbon sequestration. Dormaar et al. (1995) found that the quality of soil organic carbon (SOC) in native grasslands were superior to that occurring in soils under cultivation and under certain tame grass species (e.g., crested wheatgrass). Soil organic carbon in rangeland soils may exceed all aboveground portions of a temperate forest and this amount can be increased by returning previously cultivated land back to grasslands. In addition, higher SOC has been observed for rangeland under good grazing management vs. under a non-grazing treatment, thus grazing management may offer a very practical option for increasing SOC (Janzen et al. 2000). Due to the limited research that exists in the area of re-establishing a mixed native grassland on previously annually cultivated agricultural land, a multi-facet research study was initiated at AAFC-SPARC in 2001 with the following objectives: 1. Evaluate animal performance and environmental benefit difference between two native seed mixtures (simple and diverse seed mixture);

13 2. Evaluate the impact cattle grazing (low and high stocking rates), non-grazing (enclosures) and seed mixtures have on native stand establishment and long term plant community stability, plants/species (biological) diversity, forage production and microbial and biochemical properties of the soil; 3. Evaluate the opportunities grazing management may provide to increase carbon sequestration potential of a perennial native pasture vs. annual/fallow crop rotation; 4. Develop a management plan that determines the cost/benefit of re-introducing a perennial native pasture back on land that has been annually cropped. RESEARCH SITE PREPARATION, SEEDING AND SAMPLING Thirty-four ha (85 ac) of land that was cultivated since the 1920's was utilized in this study. The 34 ha of land was divided into 16 pastures, each about 2.1 ha in size. Soil classification was mostly Swinton orthic brown chernozems with some Haverhill clay loam soils occurring on the knolls and convexities near runways. Prior to the start of the research study the land was seeded into barley and harvested as green feed and after harvest the land was sprayed with Roundup Renew in the fall (2.5 L ha -1 ) and in the spring (3.75 L ha -1 ) for perennial and annual weed control. Eight pastures were randomly seeded to either a simple or complex native seed mixture (Table 1) using a Bourgault air seeder. The simple seed mix consisted of six cool season grasses and one legume, while the complex seed mix contained 11 grass species (cool and warm season), one legume and two shrubs. The seeding rate for the simple mixture was 9.5 kg ha -1 (25 pure live seeds (PLS) per 0.30 m 2 ) using a 22.5 cm row spacing and seeding depth of about 6.2 mm. To facilitate the seeding, 18 kg ha -1 of fertilizer was used as a seed carrier to prevent seed bridging. The complex seeding mixture was 9 kg ha -1 (33 PLS 0.30 m 2 ) using the same row spacing and seeding depth and about 34 kg ha -1 of fertilizer was used. In November two shrubs, winterfat and saltbush, were seeded using a hand-held broadcaster at a rate of PLS per m 2 onto the complex seeded pastures. Pasture treatments consisted of a 2 x 2 factorial experimental design with four replications: two pasture mixes (simple and complex) and two grazing utilization levels [low (40-50%) and high (60-75%)]. Stocking rate for the low utilization was four steers per pasture (@ 1.4 AU ha -1 ) and the high was eight steers per pasture (@ 2.7AU ha -1 ). Estimations of available forage yields (end of June beginning of July) were determined using ¼ m 2 quadrat sampling technique and forage quality analyses were performed on all pasture samples. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The drought of 2001 and the very cool and dry spring of 2002 renewed concerns of another drought. However, by mid summer abundant moisture was received far above normal long term averages. Based on the results from the density or plant count measurements, a successful stand establishment (four to five plants per 0.3 m 2 ) (Wark et al. 1995) was achieved in 12 out of the 16 pastures. Results from this study showed that a Bourgault air seeder can be successfully used to seed a diverse mixture of native grass species into standing stubble; however, careful monitoring of the seeding is needed to ensure a uniform flow of seed and prevent seed bridging problems which can result in skips and seeding misses. Successful native stand establishment was also facilitated by good pre- and post- weed control. Of the fourteen grass, forb and shrub species seeded, only saltbush has not been observed in the pastures to date. In

14 contrast to previous research conducted at AAFC-SPARC, successful establishment of warm season grasses was not a problem. FORAGE AND GRAZING PERFORMANCE The mean available pasture production results (kg ha -1 ) for the simple and complex seed mixes for the three production seasons (2002 to 2004) are listed in Fig. 1. Higher (P<0.05) forage biomass production for the simple vs. complex seed mixture was observed. This was expected due to the highly productive wheatgrasses which made up a greater proportion of the simple vs. the complex seed mixes. However, forage production differences between the simple and complex seed mixes after several years have decreased and this may be a result of certain wheatgrasses possibly declining (i.e., slender and awned wheatgrasses) or greater production from slower to establish species. The quantity and quality of forage produced on native rangelands can be highly cyclical within and between years. Research by Abouguendia (1998) reported wide variations in nutrient contents and digestibility both among growth forms and among species. Thus, it is important to identify the dominant species and their proportions in each field in order to make efficient use of the available nutrient supply over the entire grazing season and across the landscape. In southern Saskatchewan, the native Mixed Grass prairie is dominated by C3 species but there are some C4 grasses as well. Since C3 and C4 grasses grow at different rates and in different patterns throughout the growing season, grazing management could alter their growth response and overall productivity in the field. Given that C4 grasses grow well in mid-summer, they should be able to support increased grazing livestock production as C3 forage declines in yield and quality. Study results from harvests in August and September indicated that the complex mixture was 20% to 26% greater than the simple mixture in forage protein concentrations and 3% to 8% greater in digestibility concentrations (Iwaasa and Schellenberg 2003). In support, other researchers (Hall et al. 1982; Jackson 1999) have reported that the incorporation of C4 grasses into a pasture system can improve cattle performance during the summer months compared with grazing only C3 grass pastures. Also, complex native mixtures can provide forage with higher nutritional value that is better able to meet the nutritional needs of ruminants later in the growing season (Cook 1972). Selective foraging by cattle (preferring some plants and avoiding others) affects the character and composition of rangelands and nutritional quality of the diet which also has been observed in our study (Iwaasa and Schellenberg 2005). Steer average daily gains (ADGs) (kg d -1 ) for the three grazing seasons (2002 to 2004) are listed in Fig. 2. The ADGs between the simple and complex seed mix did not differ (P=0.15). However, the ADGs for grazing animals on the complex pastures were always numerically higher. The overall ADG mean values over years for yearling steers grazing on simple vs. complex native pastures were 0.60 to 0.76 kg d -1, respectively. Therefore, on average, steers grazing the complex native pasture gained 26% more each day than those steers grazing the simple native pasture. From Fig. 2, the animal performance in 2003 was considerably less than in other years and this can be attributed to the hot and dry environmental conditions observed during July and August. The environmental conditions definitely influenced forage growth and quality and, as expected, animal gains. If similar animal performances were observed in 2003 as in other years then the overall ADG values for steers grazing native pastures would be quite similar to those achieved on dryland tame pastures that range from 0.7 to 1.14 kg d -1 (Hand 1996). CARBON SEQUESTRATION OF NEW ESTABLISHED NATIVE MIX GRASSLAND

15 The amount of carbon (C) being sequestered on the different native seed mixtures (i.e., simple and complex) after only three production years was quite surprising (native seeding occurred in 2001). Annual SOC values sequestered on native pastures ranged from 234 to 899 kg ha -1 yr -1 and were similar to other research studies (Bruce et al. 1999; Mensah et al. 2003). Soil organic carbon levels did not differ (P>0.05) between grazed and non-grazed pasture treatments but the duration of this studies may have been too short for SOC accumulations differences to be detected. Annual SOC values for the different seeded native pastures were lower (P<0.05) for the complex vs. simple pastures and the values were 371 kg ha -1 yr -1 vs. 634 kg ha -1 yr -1, respectively. The higher SOC levels observed in the simple native pastures may be due to the higher biomass production observed from those pastures. However in time the more diverse or complex pastures may develop more extensive root systems (Coupland 1992) which would influence SOC levels. The re-establishment of native perennial pastures on annually cropped land that is marginal (CLI 4, 5 & 6) could make a great contribution to greenhouse gas reduction by sequestering more C into the soil sink. CONCLUSION The literature is filled with numerous reports showing the ability of native species to withstand extreme environmental conditions that would kill non-native plants. In addition, native forage species are generally long-lived and contribute to a sustainable agricultural system. For these reasons, there is increasingly more interest being expressed in wanting to utilize native species. However, planting some native species can be more complex than tame forage species and there have been problems in obtaining good, adapted and affordable native seeds. One of the most critical steps in the establishment of native species are proper pre- and post-seeding weed control, especially where precipitation is limited and any excessive weed competition for moisture and nutrients will result in a substandard native establishment. The simple seed mixture consistently had the highest biomass production compared to the complex mix. However, forage quality was either similar or better for the complex mixture compared to the simple mix. Average daily gains observed in this study were comparable to those achieved on dryland tame pastures. Preliminary results from this study also showed the benefit that a diverse pasture mix has over a simpler seed mix. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The collaborators in this research project would like to acknowledge the contributions of the following organizations: Canadian Heritage Parks Canada; Saskatchewan Environment; Ducks Unlimited Canada (Regina); Native Plant Solutions - Ducks Unlimited; Monsanto Canada Inc.; SaskPower; Nexen Canada Ltd.; Saskatchewan Agriculture Development Fund; AAFC Federal Matching Investment Initiative Fund LITERATURE CITED Abouguendia, Z Nutrient content and digestibility of Saskatchewan range plants. GAPT July, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration

16 2000. Prairie Agricultural Landscapes: A Land Resource Review. Regina, SK. Bremer, E., Janzen, H.H., and A. M. Johnston Sensitivity of total, light fraction and mineralizable organic-matter to management-practices in a Lethbridge soil. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 74: Bruce, J.P., M., Frome, E., Haites, H., Janzen, R., Lai, R. and P., Paustian Carbon sequestration in soils. J. Soil Water Cons. 54: Cook, C.W Comparative nutritive values of forbs, grasses and shrubs. Pages in C.M. McKell, J.P. Blaisdell and J.R. Goodin eds. Wildland Shrubs Their Biology and Utilization. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-1. Coupland, R.T Mixed Prairie. in R.T. Coupland ed. Ecosystems of the World 8A. Natural Grasslands Introduction and Western Hemisphere. Pub. Elsevier. Dormaar, J.R., M.A. Naeth, W.D., Willms and D.S. Chanasyk Effect of native prairie,crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn.) and Russian wildrye (Elymus junceus Fisch.) on soil chemical properties. J. Range Mange. 48: Hall, K.E., J.R. George and R.R. Riedl Herbage dry matter yields of switch grass, big bluestem, and indiangrass with N fertilization. Agronomy J. 74: Hand, R Managing yearlings on pasture. in D.F. Engstrom ed. Alberta Feedlot Management Guide. Section 1, Fact Sheet 18. Iwaasa, A.D. and M. Schellenberg Progress report on reestablishment of a mixed native grassland in southwest Saskatchewan (year 3 or a 4 year study). Saskatchewan ADF Project # Iwaasa, A.D. and M. Schellenberg Improved grazing production between two seeded native pastures in Saskatchewan due to species richness differences. Proc SRM, Fort Worth, TX. Jackson, L.L Establishing tallgrass prairie on grazed permanent pasture in the upper midwest. Restoration Ecology 7: Janzen, H.H., B.H. Ellert and J.F. Dormaar Rangelands and the global carbon cycle. Proc.The Range: Progress and Potential. Jan , Lethbridge, AB. Jefferson, P.G., A.D. Iwaasa, M.P. Schellenberg, and J.G. McLeod Reevaluation of native plant species for seeding and grazing by livestock on the semiarid prairie of western Canada. Prairie Form 30: Mensah, F.., J.J., Schoenau, and S.S., Malhi Soil carbon changes in cultivated and excavated land converted to grasses in east-central Saskatchewan. biogeochemistry 63: Wark, D.B., W.R. Poole, R.G. Arnott, L.R. Moats and L. Wetter Revegetating with native grasses. Ducks Unlimited Canada.

17 Table 1. Simple and complex native seed mixtures 1. Mixture Common name Scientific name Simple Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii Northern wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus Green needlegrass Stipa viridula Awned wheatgrass Elymus subsecundum June grass Koeleria gracilis Slender wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulum Purple prairie clover Petalostemum purpureum Complex Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii Northern wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus Green needlegrass Stipa viridula Canada wildrye Elymus canadensis Little bluestem Andropogon scoparius Needle and thread Stipa comata June grass Koeleria gracilis Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis Prairie sandreed Calamovilfa longifolia Purple prairie clover Petalostemum purpureum Slender wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulum Nuttallii saltbush Atriplex nuttalii Winterfat Eurotia lanata 1 scientific name as per Budd s Flora of the Canadian Prairie Provinces by J. Looman and K.F. Best.

18 Kg per ha Fig. 1. Pasture DM production in kg per ha (late June harvest) Avg Simple Complex Fig. 2. ADG in kg per day of yearling grazing cattle Kg per day Avg Simple Complex