Why not this for our habitat problems??

It has been discussed here. Part of the problem is that it requires a different process, with a lot of investment to make it work. If we would have sponsored this process originally probably been better. Not compatible with corn, therefore the current ethanol producers are less than enthusiastic. We also did research on wood cellulose fuel clear back in the 1980's. But again not efficient as compared to fossil fuels, Ditto coal gasification. It may come to this, in my opinion the sooner the better. :cheers:
 
Wouldn't the fact that it is less labor intensive, requires less H2O and is 20 times more efficient than corn and soybean production be incentive enough??? Not to mention the habitat that it would provide for all wildlife not just pheasants, seems to me like a win, win, win, situation. I'am sure the likes of Monsanto and Bayer probably would do all they could to dissuade farmers from going that route, but that's to be expected they are only out for the money anyway. Except for the actual process of turning the grass into ETCOH what negative could there possibly be??? Especially if the farmers used the one cut method after the first frost or just after Nov 1. There would still be that portion of ground that would produce grain for food and other uses.:10sign:
 
One of the significant problems with any type of agriculture is the fact that a large portion of the year the ground is barren. The same is true with this system. If you cut most or all of the switch after the first frost, where are the birds going to winter? The reason we had such good bird numbers from the early 1900's into the 60's is that there was a strong mix of crop varieties as well as "waste ground". This waste ground provided habitat of high quality when the crop ground was bare. Now, with modern machinery and ditch to ditch tillage, that "waste ground" is missing and a significant part of the year there is no habitat available. This is often the limiting factor in areas as there is NOWHERE for the birds to survive during that period so that area is no longer suitable for birds. The key is diversity. Something has to be available for habitat in every season of the year.
 
I think if you looked at the timing of the harvest in the Midwest you would find it would be of little use for hunting ground.
 
I was thinking that a mono culture of any kind, even switch, isn't going to help the wildlife.
 
In the article, or one of the articles I read they encourage not cutting the grass to the ground leaving 6 to 8 inches of residue, wouldn't that be like combining wheat leaving 6 to 8 inches for pheasants to roost in. I know they encourage this practice with the focus on pheasants program in SW Nebraska. About the only area of Nebraska that has Pheasants any longer. I'am thinking that it must work to a degree or the wildlife biologists wouldn't use it as an conservation tool. It may not be ideal but I bet that it would produce more birds than the corn and bean scenario. South Dakota has horrible diversity in habitat but they always seem to have birds. Many people think that is because of the wheat farming. I remember last year driving up to Minneconjou on the Cheyenne River north of Pierre S.D and marveling at the hundreds of pheasants in the cut wheat fields. Hardly any diversity what so ever. Where I come from in North East NE, even now there is a lot more diversity than that area in South Dakota, no birds because there is no nesting cover, weird!
 
COVER! The word indicates that the animal being protected is completely concealed. A mature pheasant stands at 11-15 inches tall. Do you really believe that 6-8 inches of stubble will conceal pheasants from avian and mamalian predators? Further, what protection from ice, snow, rain, and cold will that level of cover provide? That height of residue will function as a trap in far too many scenarios! Bad cover can be almost worse than none at all.
 
Even 6-8 in stubble is of no value to wintering Dakota pheasants. This stuff is filled in and over with the first significant snowfall, and remains covered until Spring thaws. Open Winters happen, but out of the normal.
The pheasants you see in wheat stubble are feeding, Waste wheat is an important part of the diet while it lasts. Where You see large numbers of pheasants feeding in wheat stubble You can be sure of significant heavy habitat nearby. Cattail, brush, farmsteads etc.
Switch grass for ethanol is not pheasant friendly. You see CRP cut and bailed? nothing much left for pheasants, the same exact process would be with harvesting Switch Grass.
Producers would be harvesting it by the ton, cut it at peak production right at the seed stage, cut it as short as possible, probably 2 inches.
 
mnmthunting said:
Even 6-8 in stubble is of no value to wintering Dakota pheasants. This stuff is filled in and over with the first significant snowfall, and remains covered until Spring thaws. Open Winters happen, but out of the normal.
The pheasants you see in wheat stubble are feeding, Waste wheat is an important part of the diet while it lasts. Where You see large numbers of pheasants feeding in wheat stubble You can be sure of significant heavy habitat nearby. Cattail, brush, farmsteads etc.
Switch grass for ethanol is not pheasant friendly. You see CRP cut and bailed? nothing much left for pheasants, the same exact process would be with harvesting Switch Grass.
Producers would be harvesting it by the ton, cut it at peak production right at the seed stage, cut it as short as possible, probably 2 inches.
Click to expand...

Where I seen the pheasants in South Dakota was In the middle of an ocean of wheat stubble actually short wheat stubble. I'am no expert on the subject just very inquisitive, was explained to me that one of the reasons we In Nebraska don't have the bird populations other states do is because we lack nesting cover wheat and crp provide that. Nebraska has pretty good winter cover but without places to nest the point is moot. In southwest Nebraska they pay farmers to cut the wheat so the stubble is high, not sure how high but high enough to benefit the birds. Why couldn't this switch grass be cut so the stubble is high as well??? Makes sense to me but again I'm no expert!
 
Good discussion. One of the key things driven into upon arriving in SD was that winter cover was the key missing habitat at the time. Switch makes excellent winter survival cover. Not when it is cut 8 inches to the group in the fall.

Cut half one year and half the next and rotate that way. Quite a bit better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top