Name change
05-11-2004, 02:24 PM
#21
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bonnots Mill Missouri USA
Posts: 237
RE: Name change
We can really tell the difference in the woods where our cattle are allowed to graize and the woods where they are excluded. The graized woods are almost cleared of the underbrush layer where as the non-graized forest have an underlayer thich enough to make walking difficult. Baised upon this, I have a hard time in believing that routine graizing in the forest is healthy. (It may be good to graize the forest once every few years or so to create a new growth of the understory plants.) I do think that rotational graizing of non-monoculture pastures increases and regenerate desirable browse species that deer prefer. So what am I missing?
05-11-2004, 03:33 PM
#22
Typical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: NC
Posts: 845
RE: Name change
ORIGINAL: Russ otten
The only tree that is a pain is the Sweet Gum, nobody has found a use for them that I know of.
Russ
The only tree that is a pain is the Sweet Gum, nobody has found a use for them that I know of.
Russ
The last time I saw them was about 25 years ago, so they maybe be cut and under your railroad tracks. [:-]
05-11-2004, 04:50 PM
#23
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Walnut MS USA
Posts: 871
RE: Name change
I was aware that they were used for that purpose, but loggers in our area don't want to fool with them, no buyer locally. They primarily log Oaks and Pines, and some cedar. Also, I'm sure they have to be 10-12" DBH. I'm mostly covered up with lots of saplings and they sprout like crabgrass; everywhere.
Russ
Russ
05-11-2004, 05:21 PM
#24
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: Name change
ORIGINAL: greg-dude
We can really tell the difference in the woods where our cattle are allowed to graize and the woods where they are excluded. The graized woods are almost cleared of the underbrush layer where as the non-graized forest have an underlayer thich enough to make walking difficult. Baised upon this, I have a hard time in believing that routine graizing in the forest is healthy. (It may be good to graize the forest once every few years or so to create a new growth of the understory plants.) I do think that rotational graizing of non-monoculture pastures increases and regenerate desirable browse species that deer prefer. So what am I missing?
We can really tell the difference in the woods where our cattle are allowed to graize and the woods where they are excluded. The graized woods are almost cleared of the underbrush layer where as the non-graized forest have an underlayer thich enough to make walking difficult. Baised upon this, I have a hard time in believing that routine graizing in the forest is healthy. (It may be good to graize the forest once every few years or so to create a new growth of the understory plants.) I do think that rotational graizing of non-monoculture pastures increases and regenerate desirable browse species that deer prefer. So what am I missing?
