The role and contributions of animals in alternative agricultural systems
Livestock are important components of agricultural systems. In the U.S., one-half of total agricultural receipts come from the sale of livestock. They are the harvestors of range plants, forages, and crop residues; they level out the effects of the seasonally and variability of rainfall; they cushion disruptions in the trade and marketing of feed grains; they counteract declining soil fertility and soil erosion; and they contribute to the efficient year-round use of farm labor. Unfortunately, farmers are often not inclined to adopt alternative animal agriculture systems despite the advantages they may offer. Constraints that may be encountered include possibilities of reduced short-term profits, difficulties in adapting available technology to alternative farming systems, difficulties in shifting from specialized crop or livestock farms to crop/livestock farms, and the increased needs for labor and management. Some actions needed in the U.S. to improve livestock production in alternative farming systems are: the establishment of government policies to promote the shift of marginal lands to soil and water conserving crops and the incorporation of pastures and forages in crop rotations; research to improve the utilization by ruminants of ligno-cellulosic feeds (pastures, forages, crop residues); and programs to improve range and forest management and to lead to the development of systems that optimize the use of forages for the production of nutritionally desirable lean beef.
Benefits of Re-Integrating Livestock and Forages in Crop Production Systems
SUMMARY Specialization is the foundation of contemporary agriculture, yet until the early decades of the 20th century, enterprise diversity was the norm. As agriculture has become more specialized in the intervening years, yields have increased dramatically, but so too have a range of economic, environmental, and health problems. This contribution presents evidence that specialization is an ecologically dysfunctional design for food production, a thesis which is supported by the predominance of problem-solving research in the contemporary literature. As demonstrated by Louis Bromfield in the 1940s and by organic and sustainable farmers today, the strategic integration of crops and livestock/ forage enterprises avoids many of the problems of specialization, while also capturing economic and ecological synergies denied to specialist producers. In addition to providing human foodstuffs, forage-based livestock production also offers a range of novel opportunities to channel natural processes to the service of humanity, from carbon sequestration and site remediation to non-chemical vegetation management.
Comparison of rumen and fecal analysis to describe deer diets
Rumen and fecal samples were collected simultaneously from mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and white-tailed deer (0. virginianus) in southeastern Arizona. Rumen samples were analyzed volumetrically and fecal samples microscopically to compare results obtained by the two techniques. Comparisons of the data acquired by these techniques show that results from microscopic fecal analysis are quite similar to those from volumetric rumen analysis. Fecal analysis appears to be a useful technique for studying deer diets in the arid Southwest. The utility of this technique for other areas and species is discussed as are sampling rates and suggestions for successful use of fecal analysis. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 38(3):535-540 The most commonly used procedure for studying food preferences of ungulates has been rumen analysis by volumetric (Dirschl 1962, Martinka 1968) or point analysis (Chamrad and Box 1964) methods. These methods of rumen analysis have been compared and evaluated on the basis of accuracy and time requirements by Robel and Watt (1970). When rumen samples must be collected from secretive and/or endangered species of ungulates, rumen analysis is not always a feasible technique. Consequently, biologists have often analyzed fecal samples microscopically for the remains of identifiable plant cuticles. Since every plant species has unique cuticle characteristics, and most plant cuticles are not digested in ruminant digestive processes, forage plants can be identified microscopically in fecal samples of grazing or browsing herbivores (Stewart 1965, 1967; Stewart and Stewart 1970; Adams 1957; Hercus 1960; Martin 1955). This technique has been used to study food habits of cottontail rabbits (Dusi 1949), waterbuck in Africa (Kiley 1966), pocket gophers (Myers and Vaughn 1964), many African game species (Stewart 1967, Stewart and Stewart 1970), and deer (Zyznar and Urness 1969). While using fecal analysis one must assume that the epidermis of each plant species survives digestion sufficiently to be identifiable in the feces (Stewart 1970). The validity of this assumption is questionable, and results from fecal analysis have not been compared with those of other techniques. The purpose of this research was to compare the results from rumen and fecal analysis when these samples are secured from individual deer simultaneously. Our results provide information on the usefulness of fecal analysis for studying deer diets in the Southwest. METHODS AND MATERIALS Simultaneous collections of rumen and fecal samples were obtained from 13 mule deer killed by hunters in the Dos Cabezas Mountains and from 9 white-tailed deer by special collections in the Santa Rita Mountains, southeastern Arizona. Samples from male mule deer were acquired in November during the 1970 and 1971 regular hunting seasons, and samples from female whitetailed deer were taken during the summer of 1970. Rumen samples were washed and preserved in a 10 percent formalin solution, 1 Present address: School of Forest Resources, Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16802. J. Wildl. Manage. 38 (3):1974 535 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.92 on Tue, 21 Jun 2016 05:28:25 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 536 RUMEN AND FECAL ANALYSIS Anthony and Smith and fecal samples were preserved in formal acetic acid (85 parts-70 percent alcohol, 10 parts-40 percent formaldehyde, and 5 parts-glacial acetic acid) until they could be analyzed.