Abstract—Grazing lands provide
forage for a significant share of the U.S. animal sector, as well
as other economic and ecological services. The preservation and
stewardship of private grazing lands has emerged as an important
conservation priority, with expanded policy emphasis and funding
under USDA farm programs.
Introduction
USDA has provided technical assistance for grazing systems
since the 1930s. An expanded focus on preservation and stewardship
of private grazing lands in recent years reflects a growing awareness
of their importance to the Nation's environmental health and
economic well-being. Achieving USDA conservation objectives for
grassland and rangeland resources will involve public/private partnerships
in support of sustainable grazing systems.
Private Grazing Lands
Grazing lands are vegetative land area that can be used for the
feeding of domestic animals on growing grass, legumes, and other
herbaceous plants. Grazing lands encompass a broad range of land
types defined by climatic zone, terrain, vegetative cover, and
primary land use. Lands used for grazing may include rangelands,
grazed forest lands, native grasslands, naturalized and cultivated
pasture, and crop and hay lands.
Private grazing land defies easy definition, due to the diversity
and multi-use nature of lands used for grazing, distinctions in
private ownership and lease arrangements, and land-capability and
land-use distinctions across primary sources of grazing land data.
Private grazing lands generally include all privately owned, fee-title
land used for grazing purposes. Grazed acreage on tribal lands and
public lands under State and local jurisdiction, which may be eligible
for USDA program assistance, are often subsumed under working definitions
of private grazing lands.
Extent and Location of U.S. Grazing Lands
Nearly 35 percent of the total U.S. land area, or 783 million acres
of combined Federal and non-Federal lands, was potentially usable
for livestock grazing in 2002 (Lubowski et al., 2006). This includes
587 million acres of permanent grassland pasture and rangeland,
62 million acres of cropland pasture, and 134 million acres of forested
rangeland (see AREI Chapter 1.1).
Non-Federal grazing lands—including privately owned land,
State and local publicly owned lands, and tribal lands—totaled
for 577 million acres in 2002 (fig. 5.5.1) (USDA, 2005c). Over 488
million acres of private and tribal land were used for grazing purposes in
2002 (table 5.5.1), including pastureland and rangeland (395.3 million
acres), forested land used for pasture (31.1 million acres), and
cropland (61.8 million). Private grazing lands are located in all
States, with heavy concentrations in the Mountain and Plains regions.
In the more humid Eastern States, cropland pasture represents a
significant share of acreage grazed.
Figure 5.5.1—Non-Federal grazing land in the United
States, 1997
Table
5.5.1—Private grazing lands used by livestock producers,
by region, 20021
Region2
Pasture,
cropland3
Pasture,
woodland
Other
pasture
and rangeland
Pasture,
all types
Million
acres
Percent4
Million
acres
Percent4
Million
acres
Percent4
Million
acres
Northeast
1.5
41
0.7
19
1.5
40
3.6
Appalachian
7.2
42
3.4
20
6.3
38
16.8
Southeast
3.6
26
3.6
26
6.5
47
13.8
Lake
States
1.9
34
1.5
26
2.2
39
5.6
Corn
Belt
7.3
37
3.8
19
8.6
44
19.6
Delta
States
3.6
35
2.0
20
4.6
45
10.2
Northern
Plains
8.2
10
0.9
1
70.5
89
79.5
Southern
Plains
18.5
15
5.8
5
99.1
80
123.5
Mountain
7.2
4
5.7
3
166.7
93
179.6
Pacific
2.8
8
3.7
11
27.7
81
34.3
Alaska/Hawaii
0.0
3
0.0
3
1.6
94
1.7
All
U.S.
61.8
13
31.1
6
395.3
81
488.2
1
Includes farm and ranch operations with $1,000 in annual sales. Values include grazing on American Indian lands.
2
Regions are: Northeast (ME, NH ,VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA,
DE, MD), Appalachian (VA, WV, NC, KY, TN), Southeast (SC, GA,
FL, AL), Lake States ( MI, WI, MN), Corn Belt (OH, IN, IL, IA,
MO), Delta States (MS, AR, LA), Northern Plains (ND, SD, NE,
KS), Southern Plains (OK, TX), Mountain (MT, ID, WY, CO, UT,
NV, AZ, NM), Pacific ( WA, OR, CA), and Alaska/Hawaii (AK, HI).
3
Reported Census acres of cropland used for pasture were adjusted
to reflect the share of animals not raised on farms, as defined
by the Census (personal correspondence, Marlow Vesterby, ERS).
4
Percent
indicates the share of each region's grazing land by pasture
type.
Source:
2002 Census of Agriculture, NASS, USDA.
In the West, public lands are used for livestock grazing in designated
areas. Federal grazing leases administered by the Bureau of Land
Management (U.S. Department of the Interior) and USDA's Forest
Service covered 160 million and 95 million acres in 2002 (USDI,
2002; USDA, 2003).
Significance of Grazing Lands for the U.S. Animal Sector
Grazing lands provide essential forage for the U.S animal sector.
In 1997, roughly 60 million animal-units (AUs)1
were raised, in part, on forage from grazing lands, accounting for
more than 57 percent of AU production on U.S. farms (table 5.5.2).
Cow-calf/feeding operations are the dominant grazers, with lesser
acreages used for sheep, goats, horses, ponies, mules, burros, donkeys,
bison, and llamas.
Table
5.5.2—Number of animal units1, total and unconfined,
by operation size, 1982 and 1997
Farms
by number of AUs
1982
All animals
(mil. AUs)
Unconfined
animals (mil. AUs)
Percent
share unconfined
1997
All animals
(mil. AUs)
Unconfined
animals (mil. AUs)
Percent
share unconfined
< 25
7.3
6.7
92
5.4
5.2
96
25
-< 50
9.5
7.5
79
7.3
6.4
87
50
-< 150
29.0
17.5
60
21.5
14.9
69
150
-< 300
17.1
10.3
60
16.0
9.9
62
300
-< 1,000
16.9
10.9
65
20.3
12.1
60
1,000
+
15.8
7.2
46
24.9
8.8
35
Total
95.6
60.1
63
95.3
57.3
60
1Animal-unit
numbers by farm size were calculated based on beef and dairy
cattle, swine, and poultry. Other animal types that are typically
pastured—including sheep, goats, horses, ponies, mules,
burros, and donkeys—represent an additional 3.5 million
AUs.
Source: Adapted from Kellogg et al., 2000, and Kellogg, 2002,
based on Agricultural Census data for 1982 and 1997.
An estimated 707,365 animal farms had mostly pastured livestock
in 1997, representing 54 percent of all farms with animals (Kellogg,
2002).2 These farms accounted for
$17.2 billion in livestock sales, or 17 percent of U.S. livestock
sales in 1997. Most are small operations (less than $10,000 in annual
sales) that raise primarily livestock. However, a significant minority
raise large numbers of animals; 10 percent of these farms had livestock
sales of more than $40,000 (Kellogg, 2002).
Other farms may also use grazing lands. Farms with few animals—raised
primarily for home consumption or local markets—are likely
to depend on pasturing for feed needs. Pastured livestock are more
common on operations of fewer than 50 AUs (table 5.5.2). Some confined
livestock farms (predominantly cattle feedlot and dairy operations)
may depend on forage grazing for some animals over part of the year,
and may have large numbers of pastured livestock.3
An increasing concentration of unconfined animals on larger operations
(greater than 300 AUs) over 1982-97 (table 5.5.2) mirrors a similar
trend in confined animal production (Kellogg, 2002).
Additional Benefits of Grazing Lands
Grazing lands support other activities in addition to livestock
production that contribute to rural economies, such as hunting and
fishing, wildlife viewing, and other ranch-based recreation. Fees
generated from these uses supplement income for some animal producers
and may help sustain operations. Grazing lands are also regarded
as an integral part of the cultural heritage and identity of many
rural communities.
Grazing lands, where properly managed, provide important ecological
functions. Grazing lands help to maintain habitat and migration
corridors for wildlife, supporting a rich biodiversity of plant
and animal species. As grazing lands account for large acreages
in many U.S. river basins, they are important in hydrologic processes
involving streamflow, aquifer recharge, and water filtration. In
addition, grazing lands sequester substantial amounts of atmospheric
carbon. Potential gains from cropland conversion to grassland have
been considered in the context of U.S. policy on climate change
mitigation (Follett et al., 2001).
Conservation Policy Concerns
Two broad areas of policy concern involve the loss of private grazing
land area and resource degradation on grazing lands.
Area loss
Conversion of grassland for crop production and developed uses has
reduced the extent of native grasslands in the U.S. by roughly 50
percent, with significant fragmentation of remaining grassland resources
(Conner et al., 2001). Losses have been greatest in the historic
savanna and tall-grass prairies of the Midwest and Central Plains,
and relatively less in the arid West where nonirrigated cropping
potential is limited and much of the land is publicly owned. While
the rate of loss has slowed in recent decades, area in grasslands
and other grazing land resources continues to decline. From 1982
to 2002, acreage in non-Federal grazing lands fell by 5 percent
according to USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service—from
611.0 to 577.7 million acres—including reductions in pastureland
(13.7 million acres), rangeland (10.2 million acres), and grazed
forestland (9.5 million acres) (fig. 5.5.2).
Cropland expansion has fueled much of the grassland conversion,
particularly in years of strong crop demand. More recently, increases
in population and income have driven substantial exurban development
in grasslands (Conner et al., 2001). Reductions in grazing land
resources nationwide, however, may mask variability in land-use
coverage over time. In marginal cropping areas, cropland conversions
(and reconversion to grassland) may be influenced by relative returns
to crop and livestock production and changes in agricultural policies
(see AREI Chapter 5.2). In some locations,
Federal cropland retirement initiatives have resulted in increased
grassland area, which may be grazed under specified conditions.
Resource degradation
Of the remaining grassland resources in private ownership, much
of this acreage has been degraded due to overgrazing, fire suppression,
invasive species, and other factors (Conner et al., 2001). Degradation
of the land resource is reflected in reduced forage productivity
for livestock and environmental damages, both on and off the site.
Environmental effects of livestock grazing may include excessive
foraging and trampling of vegetative cover, streambank erosion,
and sediment/nutrient loadings to water bodies that may harm riparian
and upland habitat. Livestock grazing has been cited as a factor
in the decline of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered
Species Act. Of 663 species identified as affected by agricultural
activity (as of September 1995), livestock grazing was a factor
in 171 listings (26 percent) (Lewandrowski and Ingram, 2002).
Considerable policy attention has focused on animal waste management
in recent years, with new Federal regulations enacted in 2003 for
the largest confined animal operations (see AREI
Chapters 2.2 and 4.5). Waste
from unconfined (pasture-based) operations remains largely unregulated,
although it may impair local water quality. Roughly half of the
manure nutrients produced on U.S. animal farms was generated by
unconfined livestock in 1997 (fig. 5.5.3), including 3.3 million
tons of manure nitrogen (51 percent) and 1.0 million tons of manure
phosphorus (54 percent).4
Pathogen contamination from animal waste is an important public
health issue. A recent USGS study examined water quality effects
of fecal coliform bacteria from confined and unconfined animal operations.
While loadings are largest in drainages downstream of confined operations
(reflecting the volume of concentrated waste), manure from pastured
animals contributes much more fecal coliform bacteria to streams
per AU nationwide (Smith et al., 2004).
Improved Grazing Systems
Increased policy attention has focused on livestock grazing systems
that are environmentally and economically sustainable. Field studies
suggest that grazing lands can be managed to enhance forage productivity
while preserving environmental quality (USDA, 2005a; AFGC, 2001).
Practices undertaken as part of an improved grazing system include
rotational grazing to allow grass rejuvenation; fencing to restrict
livestock access in sensitive areas; watering facilities to remove
livestock from riparian areas; windbreaks and shelterbelts to disperse
herds; manure storage facilities for temporary confinement areas;
filter strips to intercept runoff from heavy-use areas; improved
grass and legume cultivars; improved nutrient management practices;
and integrated pest management strategies.
Producer returns may also increase from improved grazing practices.
Benefits may include additional quantity and quality of forage;
healthier livestock and lower veterinary costs; better monitoring
of livestock, resulting in earlier problem detection; higher weaning
weights; and reduced problems with noxious weeds and other undesirable
plant species. In many cases, however, public incentives will be
required to encourage adoption of recommended grazing practices,
particularly where benefits primarily occur offsite.
Federal Support for Conservation on Private Grazing Lands
The Federal Government provides conservation information and technical
assistance for private grazing lands, primarily through USDA's
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Non-Federal grazing
lands constitute about half of the total land on which NRCS provides
technical assistance (USDA, 1997). According to NRCS, roughly 355
million acres of private grazing lands are in need of some form
of conservation treatment (USDA, 2001). NRCS technical assistance
is funded primarily through the Conservation Technical Assistance
program, which allocated roughly $100 million toward grazing-related
initiatives in FY2004 (USDA, 2005f). Development of soil surveys
and ecological site descriptions for grazing lands, and approved
conservation plans for grazing systems, will likely be emphasized
in the coming years (USDA, 2005f).
Comprehensive nutrient management plans (CNMPs), designed to minimize
water quality impairment from manure nutrients, are an important
element of an overall conservation plan for many animal operations.
Of an estimated 257,201 farms with confined animals that are likely
to need CNMPs, roughly one-fourth had pastured animals as the dominant
type (USDA, 2003).5 Average annual
CNMP costs per farm with pastured livestock were estimated at $1,450
(USDA, 2003).
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), introduced
in 1996 and extended under the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill), provides technical and financial assistance
to address natural resource concerns on working farms and ranches
(see AREI Chapter 5.4). Cost-share
and incentive payments under 5- to 10-year contracts are available
for eligible practices in an approved conservation plan. Sixty percent
of EQIP funding under the 2002 Farm Bill is targeted to livestock
production, with improved grazing systems as an important element.
In 2004, more than $95 million in EQIP cost-sharing was approved
for practices involving unconfined livestock (USDA, 2005d) (table
5.5.3).
Table
5.5.3—EQIP contracts, total expenditures, and cost-share
payments for selected practices associated with livestock grazing,
1997-20031
Conservation
practice
Number
of contracts
Total
expenditures for practice ($million)
EQIP
cost-share payments ($million)
Fencing
48,330
156.5
103.9
Prescribed
grazing
38,721
56.9
44.9
Trough
or tank
35,646
57.3
38.0
Pasture
and hay planting
35,119
88.7
58.0
Brush
management
18,849
85.5
51.7
Range
planting
5,683
17.0
10.8
Spring
development
4,908
9.5
6.5
Windbreak/shelterbelt
establishment
3,627
6.0
4.1
Upland
wildlife habitat management
1,989
1.7
1.3
Prescribed
burning
1,733
2.3
1.7
Animal
traits and walkways
1,616
5.7
4.1
Stream
crossing
926
2.6
1.7
Riparian
forest buffer
769
.9
.7
Animal
use area protection
754
3.7
2.2
Grazing
land mechanical treatment
443
1.1
.7
Windbreak/shelterbelt
renovation
433
.9
.6
Planned
grazing system
387
1.0
.7
Pasture
and hayland management
330
.5
.3
Stream
channel stabilization
164
.9
.6
1Based
on NRCS conservation practices identified in EQIP contracts
for producers reporting animals, 1997-2003.
Source:
USDA EQIP database.
The 2002 Farm Bill includes several other programs that support
conservation on grazing lands:
The Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) targets grazing operations
on private grasslands. The GRP, administered jointly by NRCS and
the Farm Service Agency (FSA), was authorized by the 2002 Farm
Bill. The program is designed to preserve grasslands for livestock
grazing and other uses. Enrollment options include permanent and
long-term (30-year) easements with a single upfront payment and
long-term rental agreements (10, 15, and 30 years) with annual
payments. An approved grassland resource management plan is required
for all enrolled lands, with compensation for the use of approved
practices. Program funding of $254 million is authorized over
FY 2002-07, with a total enrollment cap of 2 million acres nationwide.
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), administered by FSA
and NRCS since 1985, targets removal of environmentally sensitive
lands from agricultural production under 10- to 15-year lease
agreements (see AREI Chapter 5.2). Much
of the CRP enrollment involves marginal croplands in grassland
areas of the Plains. Enrolled lands are planted to native grasses
and other vegetative cover, and pasturing is permitted (subject
to reduced CRP payments) as part of an approved conservation plan.
The Conservation Security Program (CSP), administered by NRCS
since 2002, provides financial and technical assistance to farmers
and ranchers recognized as exemplary land stewards (see AREI
Chapter 5.4). Pasture and rangeland accounted for more than
30 percent of total acres approved for contracts in FY 2004 (USDA,
2005e).
The Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP), administered
by NRCS since 1996 (Farmland Protection Program prior to 2002),
helps maintain working cropland and grazing lands by providing
matching funds to State, tribal, and local governments, as well
as nongovernmental organizations, for conservation easement acquisition
(see AREI Chapter 5.6).
The Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI) is a nationwide
collaboration of stakeholders—farm and ranch organizations,
State and Federal entities, Tribes, and environmental interests—working
to complement conservation programs through research, education,
and technical assistance. Program funding is supported by congressional
appropriations, with $23.5 million in FY 2004 (USDA, 2005f).
USDA's Agricultural Research Service directs research on
sustainable grazing systems through the Rangeland, Pasture, and
Forages (RPF) National Program (USDA, 2005a). The RPF program encompasses
a broad range of interdisciplinary research projects involving collaboration
across Federal and State agencies and land-grant universities.
Factors Affecting Conservation Adoption on Private Grazing
Lands
Returns to ranching in some areas may limit investment in conservation
practices, particularly for smaller operations with limited capital.6
Adoption incentives may be inadequate without increased livestock
returns, as when measures are designed to protect habitat. Incentives
may also be limited for lands grazed under a lease agreement or
informal arrangement, where the operator does not capture long-term
benefits (Lewandrowski and Ingram, 1999).
USDA farm programs have historically supported returns to crop
producers through price supports and mitigation of crop risk. Farm
support payments have largely been decoupled from production since
1996, but certain payments (such as loan deficiency payments) continue
to be linked to crop production. Where USDA programs enhance crop
returns relative to livestock grazing in marginal cropland areas,
program incentives may have the unintended consequence of encouraging
grassland conversion to crop production and discouraging reversal
to grasslands (Conner et al., 2001). ERS analysis suggests that
Federal crop insurance has contributed to cropland development in
marginal cropping areas, although acreage effects have been small
(Claassen et al., 2005).
Policy mechanisms for conservation on private grazing lands are
largely nonregulatory. While large confined animal operations are
regulated as a point-source for waste discharge, onsite environmental
effects of grazing are more diffuse and consequently less subject
to mandatory controls. Adoption of conservation measures on grazing
lands has relied largely on technical assistance and voluntary incentives,
without regulatory or compliance mechanisms to ensure environmental
standards.
The proliferation of ranchettes (subdivisions of large rural tracts)
in many areas represents a further challenge for conservation policy.
Conservation concerns can be particularly significant, as smaller
land holdings may be overstocked with animals relative to carrying
capacity and manure-nutrient uptake. As owners do not generally
depend on livestock for income, financial incentives may be less
effective in encouraging improved grazing systems. Effective strategies
may require coordination of conservation activities across multiple
landowners.
Many Western ranches use a mix of Federal, State, and private lands
for livestock grazing over the course of a year. Access to public
lands is often critical to providing private parcels adequate time
to recover within a rotational grazing regime. For much of the West,
the success of conservation measures on private grazing lands may
be linked to grazing policies for public lands.
Endnotes
1An animal-unit, defined here
as 1,000 pounds of live animal weight,
serves as a common unit for aggregating over livestock types.
2Farms with mostly pastured livestock
were defined to include operations with: (1) fewer than 4 AUs of
any combination of animals typically maintained in confined conditions
(fattened cattle, milk cows, swine, chickens, and turkeys); (2)
8 or more AUs of cattle other than milk cows and fattened cattle;
(3) 10 or more horses, ponies, mules, burrows, or donkeys; or (4)
25 or more sheep, lambs, or goats.
3USDA estimates assume that confined
livestock may be pastured for up to 45 days a year (Kellogg et al.,
2000).
4These estimates likely understate
the potential impact of manure nutrients on grazing lands, as (1)
a share of animals on confined operations are pastured for a portion
of the year; (2) recoverable manure from confined operations may
be land-applied on pasture, either on or off the source farm; and
(3) values do not reflect manure production from all animal types
typically pastured.
5CNMPs are required for all concentrated
animal feeding operations under EPA regulations, estimated to apply
to 15,500 of the largest operations. However, USDA encourages all
animal operations to develop CNMPs.
6Over 1998-2003, average returns above
total costs for cow-calf operations in the U.S. were considerably
less than returns to wheat production (USDA, 2005b).
Claassen, R., R. Lubowski, and M. Roberts (2005). "Extent,
Location, and Characteristics of Land Cropped Due to Insurance Subsidies."
Economic Research Service, USDA. Selected paper for the annual meeting
of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Providence,
RI, July.
Kellogg, R.L., C.H. Lander, D.C. Moffitt, and N. Gollehon (2000).
Manure Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland
to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal Trends for the United
States. Natural Resources Conservation Service and U.S. Dept.
Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., Dec.
Kellogg, R.L. (2002). Profile of Farms with Livestock in the
United States: A Statistical Summary. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, USDA.
Follett, F.F., J.M. Kimble, and R. Lal (editors) (2001). The
Potential of Grazing Lands to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the
Greenhouse Effect, Lewis Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Lewandrowski, J., and K. Ingram (1999). "Policy Considerations
for Increasing Compatibilities between Agriculture and Wildlife,"
Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 229-267.
Lewandrowski, J., and K. Ingram (2002). "Restricting Grazing
on Federal Lands in the West To Protect Threatened and Endangered
Species: Ranch and Livestock Sector Impacts," Review of
Agricultural Economics, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 78-107.
Lubowski, R.N., M. Vesterby, S. Bucholtz, A. Baez, and M.J. Roberts (2006). Major Uses of Land in the
United States, 2002. EIB-14. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv.,
May.
Smith, R.A., R.B. Alexander, G.E. Schwarz, and M.C. Ierardi (2004).
"Effects of Structural Changes in U.S. Animal Agriculture
on Fecal Coliform Contamination of Streams." U.S. Geological
Survey. Presentation before the American Geophysical Union, San
Francisco, CA, Dec.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service (2005f). Personal correspondence with Mitch Flanagan–
National Program Manager, Grazing Land Conservation Initiative.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (2003). Grazing
Statistical Summary, FY-2002. Jan.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service (2003). Costs Associated With Development and Implementation
of Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans: Part I—Nutrient
Management, Land Treatment, Manure and Wastewater Handling and Storage,
and Recordkeeping. June.