goats brush 110611 - kerr...

Brush Control with GoatsElise R. Mitchell

Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture2011

Brush Control with Goats

Elise R. Mitchell

Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture

2011

Copyright 2011Kerr Center for Sustainable AgricultureFirst published December 1996

Editing: Wylie Harris

For more information, contact:Kerr Center for Sustainable AgricultureP. O. Box 588Poteau, OK 74953918.647.9123; 918.647.8712 [email protected]

An HTML version of this publication is available athttp://www.kerrcenter.com/publications/brushcontrol_goats.html

Brush Control with Goats 1

Introduction

The Kerr Center seeks to findalternatives to conventional methods ofpasture maintenance and reclamation.The grazing of goats for brushmanagement has been used extensivelyin Texas and other areas of thesouthwestern United States. Goatsconsume large amounts of browse fromshrubby plants and graze a widervariety of plants than other livestockspecies (Scifres, 1980). Only a fewstudies address the plant preferencesand management needs of goats usedfor brush control in regions with morehumid, botanically diverse conditions.

We initiated an investigation of goats asreplacements for chemical andmechanical control of brush. The projectbegan in spring 1988 and continuedthrough fall 1993. Our goals were to: (1)determine the brush species goats eat,(2) monitor plant species that increase asbrush cover is removed, (3) assess theinitial stocking rate, (4) evaluatedifferent types of fencing, (5) determineanimal management requirements, and(6) initiate multispecies grazing withgoats, cattle, and sheep.

During and after the course of ourproject, we received numerous requestsfrom ranchers and farmers who weretrying to obtain written informationabout the use of goats for brush control.After talking with several of theseindividuals, we felt there was a need fora nontechnical publication thataddressed low-input management andcare of goats used for brush control. Inthe following pages, you will findinformation we gleaned fromobservations and day-to-day trial anderror.

Fencing

Fencing is the key component of asystem using goats for brush control.Goats must be contained before theywill control brush. We experimentedwith barbed, woven, and electric wireand combinations of the three.

Electric fencing is effective at voltagesgreater than 4000 volts. At lowervoltages, goats can crawl through afence. Electric fencing provides predatorprotection if the lowest wire is no higherthan 6 inches from the ground and ahigh voltage is maintained. Depressionsunder fences are filled to keep predatorsout and goats in.

Our initial perimeter fence consisted ofsix high-tensile wires: four hot and twoground. We learned that this was morefence than was necessary. This fencecontrolled the goats, but was difficult tomaintain in rough, brushy areas. We didnot want to spray the fencerow withchemicals regularly, and cutting weedsalong several miles of fencerow two tothree times a year was not practical. Alarge energizer was used to overcomethe drain of voltage from heavyvegetation. This was effective butincreased the fencing cost.

Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture 2

As we added and fenced new pastures,the number of wires was decreased, andthe spacing was varied to find theminimum requirements for containinggoats. A four-wire fence consisting ofthree hot wires and one barbed wirestretched tightly 4 to 6 inches from theground was effective. The highest hotwire was set 33 to 36 inches from theground. It discouraged goats fromjumping over the fence. If the goats hadbeen serious jumpers, another high-tensile wire would have been necessary.The remaining hot wires were spacedevenly between the top wire and thebarbed wire. All three high-tensile wireswere hot. The barbed wire kept goatsfrom crawling under the fence andforced them on a hot wire if they tried togo through it. Using barbed wire insteadof electric hot wire near the groundhelped reduce the drain from heavyvegetation on the fence. Three hot wireswithout the barbed wire were noteffective; we were unable to space threewires so the goats could not passthrough, under, or over.

An electric fence is a mental barrier, nota physical one. To be effective, goatsmust be familiar with it. The fence needsto be at a peak output when goats areintroduced. Some animals may runthrough the fence a few times beforethey learn to respect it. Even newlypurchased goats accustomed to electricfence require an adjustment period.

Woven wire topped by two barbedwires contains goats and provides betterpredator protection than other types offencing. Woven-wire fence, however hasseveral disadvantages. When you addthe cost of materials and labor, itbecomes one of the most expensivechoices. If the main goal is brush control

and production is secondary or if theterrain is rough, this may not be the bestfencing choice.

Horned goats can get trapped instandard woven wire. A goat with itshead stuck in a fence becomes a loudcoyote call if it is not discovered andreleased promptly. Woven wirespecifically designed for sheep andgoats prevents entrapment. If your goalis to raise goats, woven-wire fence maybe a good investment for the perimeter.If woven wire is already present, theaddition of an offset hot wire willdiscourage goats from sticking theirheads through the fence. Goats willcrawl through holes beneath the fence.Fill in holes, even if an offset hot wire isadded. If goats can use them to escape,predators can gain entry through them.

Barbed wire was beneficial to us inseveral ways. The cross fence in theinitial study area was eight-strandbarbed wire strung tightly. Posts wereeight to ten feet apart with two staysbetween. Goats did not go through thefence, but found several depressionsthat allowed them to crawl under thefence. Once we blocked the gaps, goatsstayed put. The goats did notacknowledge standard five- or six-strand barbed wire fences until twooffset hot wires were placed 6-8” and12-18” inches from the ground. Thesespacing intervals prevented goats fromgoing under or through the fencewithout being forced on a hot wire. Ifyou have an existing five- or six-wirefence, goats can be added with slightfencing modifications.


Facilities

Goats do not like to be wet. Generally, itwill not harm them, unless they also getcold. Wet and cold is often used todescribe winter in southeasternOklahoma. To provide shelter for thegoats, we constructed a three-sided shedbetween two of the pastures and placedthree small portable sheds, originallybuilt for sheep, in another pasture.Goats used the shed when it was cool.During the summer months, they tookshelter under trees when it rainedunless it rained for an extended period.One of our pastures only contained treesfor shelter. During winter, the goatsused this pasture in conjunction withone that had shelter.

We built a lot using stock panels and 3-inch treated wood posts around thethree-sided shed. This served as a place

to corral goats. The holes in the stockpanels could trap a goat with horns;therefore, goats were seldom left in thelot for extended periods. The woodposts were expensive. Steel T-postswould have been sufficient. If weneeded to catch the goats while theywere in the pastures furthest from theshed, we used an old set of cattle corralsas a lot. We modified the corrals withwoven wire and stock panels.

We set up working pens in part of theshed. Working pens should be stout.Goats are rough on facilities andequipment. We began with stock panelstied to T-posts. This did not work well.Goats push and shove when crowded.They bent the panels and knocked themloose. Most stock panels have sharpedges that can injure goats. Weeventually built pens from stock panelswelded to a one-inch tubing. The tubingprovided a framework the goats couldnot bend. Sharp edges were rounded toprevent cuts.

Type of Goat

What kind of goat makes the best brushgoat? Meat, dairy, Angora, orcrossbreeds; young or old; male orfemales; all goats eat brush. If this isyour only requirement, any goat withteeth and good health is adequate. Ifyou have additional goals, it pays to bemore selective.

Dairy goats are a source of milk. Theyrequire more attention than other typesof goats, but this is not necessarily adrawback. Keep dairy goats away fromareas with heavy brush when they arelactating to avoid udder damage.


Mohair from Angora goats provides asource of additional income. Vegetablematter reduces the value of the clip. Thismay be a problem if brush is heavy withbriars and burrs. The additional incomefrom the mohair may not be enough tocompensate for the extra managementneeds. The availability of a shearer isanother consideration.

A meat goat refers to an animal whosemain purpose is meat production, ratherthan milk or hair. Spanish and Boergoats and some Nubian crosses fit thisdescription. Dairy goat wethers are alsobutchered for meat, but depending onthe breed, the carcass may not have asmuch meat on it as a Spanish or Boergoat.

Spanish goats are a type, not a breed.They have been used for brush controlfor many years. Several breeders haveselected them for size and meatproduction.

The Boer goat has a meaty carcass incomparison with most other types ofgoats. At this time, purebred animalsare very expensive, and availability islimited. It is economically unfeasible torelease them in heavy brush knowingthat a coyote may make them his nextmeal. Cost will decrease as the numberof Boer goats in the United Statesincreases. Depending on productiongoals, they will work well incrossbreeding and upgrading programs.

In addition to the type or breed of thegoats, age, sex, and length of ownershiprequire consideration. Does can be runyear-round and provide a kid crop thatwill help to offset herd maintenancecosts. If the level of managementrequired for a breeding herd is

unwanted, wethers are an option.Wethers kept year-round act asbrushhogs, and like a piece ofequipment, they have a maintenancecost. Producers can compare thewethers’ costs to the amount of laborthey eliminate when they no longerneed to drive a tractor.

Keeping a permanent group of goats hasseveral advantages. Training is onlyrequired once. The risk of importingdisease with new arrivals is eliminated.The presence of goats in early springensures that vegetation does not have achance to get ahead of them. Goats killor retard the growth of trees and shrubsduring winter by damaging the bark.Overwintering goats has somedisadvantages, though. They are morelikely to try to break out of a fencedarea, because forage is limited. Shelterthat would not be required for summergrazing may be needed during thewinter.

Young wethers can be purchased,pastured for a time, and sold when theyreach butcher weight. It is usually agood idea to retain a few wethers totrain the next group. Young kids boughtin the spring and sold at heavierweights before winter can also provide areturn and control brush. Variations inmarket prices at the time of purchaseand sale and weight gain during thegrazing season affect profits. The youngage of the goats is also a drawback. Kidshave a lower forage intake and a lowerbrowse line, and are more susceptible topredation, than large mature animals.

We purchased approximately 25 dairy-cross goats and about 60 Spanish goatsat the beginning of our project. We useddoes, because we felt they would hold


their value and the production of kidswould help to offset variable expenses.Some of the goats we bought werewethers. We sold them at a local salebarn before the first winter.

Choosing the right type of goat isimportant, but buying a healthy goat iseven more important. A healthy goathas bright and clear eyes, not glassy orglazed. A shiny coat and an interest inits surroundings are also goodcharacteristics. Teeth should meet thedental pad properly without any loose,broken, or short ones. Flaws in themouth can lead to trouble eating brushand to maintaining body condition. Alimp may indicate a chronic footproblem or an injury that would makethe goat susceptible to predators.

Goat managementinfluences stocking rate.Rotating goats frompasture to pasture is moreeffective than set stockingan area. Concentratinggoats in one pastureincreases their impact.When brush is reduced,goats can be moved to anew pasture.

Stocking Rates

You need to consider the type andamount of existing brush and theamount of time for brush reduction todetermine stocking rates. Establishedguidelines are unavailable.

At the beginning of our project, westocked the pastures with 1.5 goats peracre. We were ready to adjust thestocking rate if necessary. Before the endof the second growing season, the goatsin one of the pastures were out ofbrowse. This pasture was 32 acres andinitially had brush cover of 43%. Theother pasture had 24 acres with 62%brush cover. The percentage of brushcover and the number of acres need to


be considered when determiningstocking rate. One goat per acre perpercent brush cover is a good minimumbeginning rate.

Brush cover is accessible goat food.Depending on the size of the goat,"accessible" refers to the area from theground up to seven feet. Treetops out ofa goat’s reach are inaccessible, andplants they dislike are ruled out. Goatshave a reputation for eating everything,including tin cans. Contrary to popularbelief, they are picky eaters. Time ofyear, stage of plant maturity, and regionaffects their diet. Our goats consumedwinged elm, hickory, buckbrush,greenbriar, blackberry, different kindsof locust, yucca, sumac, and a variety ofother things. They ate oak early in thegrowing season, but stopped after itreached a certain stage of maturity. Thegoats killed all but the largest cedars.They did the most damage to cedars infall and winter. Branches were strippedto head height, and all of the bark wasremoved from the trunks. Cedar may beaffected by region. Further west, goatsapparently find it less appetizing. Thegoats ate persimmon, but it was anunfavored food.

Goat management influences stockingrate. Rotating goats from pasture topasture is more effective than setstocking an area. Concentrating goats inone pasture increases their impact.When brush is reduced, goats can bemoved to a new pasture. Brush in thefirst pasture can recover. Rotation alsokeeps goats happy and healthy byconstantly supplying favored forage.Goats are returned to the first pasturewhen the browse is sufficient to supportthem.

In our study, the goats stayed in thepastures for shorter periods as theproject progressed. The percentage ofbrush that recovered was reduced withevery rotation. If we had started withonly one 32-acre pasture, we wouldhave been forced to sell our goats andrestock when the brush recovered. Thegoats lost condition at a time of the yearwhen they should have gained. Werealized that brush would be a recurringproblem in these pastures. Eliminatingmost of the brush and selling the goatsonly to restock when brush returnedwas an undesirable option for ourpurposes. It could create a cycle inwhich the cattle carrying capacity of thepasture would go up and downdepending on brush cover. Amanagement strategy that reducedbrush to an acceptable level but stillprovides enough browse to supportfewer goats was more appropriate forour needs.

As the project continued, we addedmore acreage and reduced the numberof goats. Stocking rate dropped to 0.5goats per acre. Stock density rangedfrom a high of 3 to a low of 1.5 goats peracre. This stocking rate was near whatwas needed for maintenance.


Animal Management

The management system used dependson the type of goats and the goals ofyour operation. Since our main goal wasbrush control, we designed our systemto meet this requirement and maintainherd health with as few inputs aspossible.

When we purchased our goats, wedewormed, eartagged, and weighedthem and gave them a series of eight-way clostridial vaccinations. We alsotrimmed their feet. Age was determinedby teeth. A record listing age, weight,identification number, and observationswas started for each animal.

Not long after buying the dairy-crossgoats, one developed pinkeye. She wasseparated from the herd until wethought she was healed. None of thegoats purchased at the same timebecame ill. Shortly after that, wepurchased the Spanish goats andimmediately put the two groupstogether. During the next month, nearlyhalf of the Spanish goats developedpinkeye. Many were temporarily blindin both eyes and needed help findingfood and water. If the animals had beenseparated for a short time, the problemmight have been avoided. A better

option would have been to sell theinfected animal after she healed, neverreturning her to the herd.

Our goats foraged through all seasons,including winter. Pasture can besupplemented with hay, whennecessary. Heavy supplementation wasunnecessary in our project. The mosthay our goats ever consumed duringwinter was four round bales. Theypreferred hay with briars and weeds tobermudagrass hay. A loose salt andmineral mix was offered free-choiceyear-round. Grain supplements werenot needed. Goats that did not maintaingood body condition were culled into aseparate group, supplemented withgrain until they regained weight, andsold.

Exercise caution when feeding roundbales. Goats eat around the base of thebales, making them resemble largemushrooms. Then they jump on top ofunstable bales, sometimes causing themto fall over, and any animal standing inthe way is crushed. We learned this thehard way. Round bale feeders preventthe bales from toppling, but goats canget pinned between the bale and feeder.The best solution is to push bales overbefore they become too unstable.

We bred does in December. The buckwas taken to a veterinarian for abreeding soundness exam before beingplaced with the does. We limited thebreeding season to 30 days for severalreasons. Keeping labor requirementsand feed inputs to a minimum weremajor considerations. Nutritional needsof does peaked when high-quality newgrowth browse and forage wereavailable. It also took advantage ofweather conditions for kidding. In May


we receive rain, but the temperature isusually warm enough to prevent anyharm to kids. Since kids were close inage, we could work and wean all ofthem at the same time. We also weanedearly enough during the growing seasonto allow the does to gain weight inpreparation for winter.

In April before kidding, does weredewormed, deloused, and given aneight-way clostridial booster and hadtheir feet trimmed if necessary.Individuals with white feet neededtrimming on a yearly basis.

Kidding occurred in May. It was not"managed." Does were allowed to kidwhere they chose. The kids were nottagged, weighed, etc. Does that requiredassistance and had low motheringinstinct were noted for culling. Kidsfound abandoned or malnourished wereremoved from the pasture and fed on abottle or sold. Male kids not kept forbreeding were castrated in early June.All goats were dewormed through thesummer as needed.

During kidding in spring 1990, theweather was cool and more than 15inches of rain fell. Many does preferredto hide in brush for several days afterthey kidded. This behavior exposed kidsto the elements and many perished.Several kids were also lost due to theaccumulation of mud and water in ashed that we had provided for shelter.

We weaned kids in late July or earlyAugust. At weaning we lotted the doeswithout water for 12 to 24 hours to helpstop lactation and reduce the chance ofmastitis. We sold wethers and doe kidsnot kept as replacements. The majoritywere sold direct. The rest were

marketed through a local sale barn. Weseparated replacement doe kids fromtheir mothers for four to six weeks andthen returned them to the main herd.

In October we weighed and dewormedthe goats again. As the amount ofavailable browse was reduced in thepastures, goats began to consume moregrass. The number of internal parasitesgoats collected increased; consequently,the number of dewormings requiredeach year multiplied.

We also culled does at this time. Weexamined each doe individually. Theywere expected to meet stringent criteria.Does were evaluated on uddercondition, disposition, motheringinstinct, general body condition, andteeth. Does were required to give birthand raise their kids without assistance.We also evaluated their feet. Foot rotwas introduced to our goats by sheep.Animals with the worst cases had theirfeet trimmed and were given antibiotics.A footbath was impossible, becausethere was no water source. A negativein any area was a reason for culling. Byusing such stringent culling practices,we could create and maintain a herdthat would produce and survive under alow-input management system.

We separated replacement does fromthe breeding herd before a buck wasintroduced. Since they were notsupplemented for maximum growth,they were not bred to kid as yearlings.This reduced feeding because of poorcondition, kidding problems, and theneed to buy new bucks each year. Thereplacements were returned to the herdin January. Any replacements thatrequired more feed supplements than


the adults during winter were culleddue to lack of hardiness.

Our management system will not workin every situation. It was set up to allowdoes to do the most they could with theleast possible supplement. Our goal wasto reduce inputs, not maximizeproduction. The system hinges onhaving enough high-quality browse andforage at the right times. By having doeskid in May, they have approximately 30days of high-quality spring growth toeat while the fetus is making its heaviestdemands. After weaning they haveplenty of time to recover before wintersets in. Frequent observation ofcondition was necessary to ensure thesystem worked and to stop problemsbefore they got out-of-hand.

Predators

Predation can be a major problem.Predators can be anything from bearsand mountain lions to foxes and eagles.Coyotes and domestic dogs areprobably the most common predators;they were our major problem. Overtime, coyotes can make a large financialimpact by repeatedly dining on goatkids. In contrast to coyotes, dogs do a lotof damage in just one encounter. Theyseldom eat what they kill.

Many different methods can beemployed to control predators. Electricfencing and nightly lotting aredeterrents. Trapping, shooting, andpoisoning are lethal methods. Inaddition or as an alternative, manyproducers have used other species ofanimals to control predators. Severalindividuals use donkeys to protectstock. Donkeys seem to instinctivelyhate canines and will aggressivelyconfront them. The challenge is findinga donkey that bonds with your herd.Another animal that is gainingpopularity is the llama. We have used allama with sheep but not with goats.One of the biggest advantages todonkeys and llamas is that they do notrequire special food. They graze withthe livestock they protect and littletraining is required. Guardian dogs,however, are the most commonly usedanimals for livestock protection.

We have used Great Pyrenees dogs formany years. In spring 1987, wepurchased a four-month-old puppy andraised him with 12 goats. Manyguardian dog breeds do not reachphysical or behavioral maturity untilthey are two years old. We wanted ourdog to be well on his way to maturitywhen we began our project.

No goats were lost to predators duringthe first year, and we never lost anyanimals after weaning. Predation bycoyotes started with the onset ofkidding. The rough terrain covered withbrush combined with the goats’tendency to scatter and hide their kidswas lethal. The dog was effective atnight, but high temperatures during theday drove him to shade, and coyotestook advantage of the opportunity.Many does left their kids with the dog


while they foraged. These kids werewell protected. Does that chose to hidetheir kids were lost. Coyotes denning inthe area and teaching pups to hunt werethe biggest culprits. Predation usuallystopped by the time the kids wereseveral weeks old and traveling withtheir mothers.

At times we used more than one dog.An 18-month-old spayed GreatPyrenees female was added in 1990. Wefelt the goats could use additionalprotection and anticipated a greaterneed in the next year when sheep wouldbe added to the pastures. We wereforced to remove this dog when herhealth declined after 18 months. A five-year-old male used to guard sheep atanother Kerr project assisted the goats’guardian dog in summer 1992.Predation of lambs ceased when thisdog was introduced to the herds. Hewas attentive to sheep and any goatsthat were nearby, but he did not guardgoats unless they stayed near the sheep.

Predator protection is difficult in roughterrain. The scattering behavior of goatsincreases the problem. Guardian dogsare good tools, but not foolproof. Eachdog works differently. For example, thefirst dog in our project did not workduring the hottest parts of the day. Hewas effective at night and when theweather was cool. The third dog weused was always active, but workedbest when animals stayed close together.

Project Notes

Our project area consisted of fourbrushy ridge pastures totalingapproximately 120 acres. Pastures weredominated by blackberry, greenbriar,winged elm, hickory, buckbrush, andwestern red cedar. Bermudagrass,rescuegrass, broomsedge, and ragweedwere the most abundant grass and forbspecies on the slope. Tall fescuedominated the wetter base of the ridge.We discovered more than 50 otherspecies of grasses and forbs in thepastures. Most of the brush wasregrowth from earlier eradicationattempts with aerial spraying in the late1970s and early 1980s. Brushhoggingwas not a practical option for control inthis area due to rocks and a slopedterrain.

We started with two pastures (Pasture 1and Pasture 2) totaling 56 acres.Sampling to monitor existing plants andtheir condition was done in June 1988and 1989. In each pasture, four 100-meter transect lines were chosenrandomly. They extended from eitherthe top or the bottom of the slope. A0.50-meter frame was placed at eachmeter mark, and the percentage of thearea covered by trees, brush, forbs, andgrasses was estimated using a grid of100 squares within the frame. The


presence and condition (grazed orungrazed) of each plant species withinthe frame was also noted.

In winter 1990, Pasture 3 withapproximately 30 acres was added. Afinal, 40-acre pasture (Pasture 4) wasmade available in December 1992. Therewas no transect line monitoring inPasture 3 before goats were introduced.A visual estimate of the pastureindicated the initial brush coverage was15%. Pasture 4 was estimated to have21% brush cover. This figure wasdetermined by recording brush speciesat the meter marks along four 100-metertransect lines.

Predominant brush species variedbetween pastures. Brambles were densein Pasture 1. Many of the hickory, elm,and cedar were 5 feet. Pasture 2contained more short, shrubby hickoryand elm. The blackberry and greenbriarpatches were not as large. Many smallcedars were present in Pasture 3.Buckbrush, which had not been noted inany quantity in the initial area (Pasture1 and Pasture 2), existed in largepatches. Vegetation in Pasture 4 wasmainly winged elm and cedar withpatches of briars and buckbrush.Hickory was almost nonexistent.

Photographic reference points werechosen in all four pastures. These pointswere monitored at least once a year toprovide visual evidence of changes inbrush coverage and distribution.Pasture 1 and Pasture 2 contained six 16’x 16‘ exclosures. These areas allowedvisual comparison of brush reduction ongrazed verses ungrazed pasture. Theexclosures were removed in 1990. Asbrush around the exclosures wasreduced, the panels used to form them

became an entrapment problem forgoats as they attempted to reach thevegetation inside. Due to the potentialfor entrapment, the exclosures were notrepeated in the other two pastures.

In May 1988, Pasture 1 was stocked withgoats only. Brush cover was reducedfrom 62% to 38% by fall 1989. In Pasture2, 10 to 14 cows were stocked with goatsin the spring and summer. Brush coverwent from 43% to 16%. Because thepastures differed in initial brush cover,only descriptive comparisons betweenthem are possible. We were surprisedby the percentage of brush coverreduction achieved by the goats in justtwo growing seasons. In 1989 goats inPasture 2 were short on browse aswinter approached. They were allowedaccess to Pasture 1. Through visualobservations and vegetation sampling,we noticed that Pasture 2 showedtrampling by cattle of brush stemsstripped or browsed first by goats. Thiseffect may speed up the reduction ofbrush cover by goats and aid nutrientcycling.

In 1990 we placed less emphasis onintensive vegetation monitoring. Wedeveloped a rotational system toaddress the management of grasses andforbs, as well as brush. Cattle grazed allof the pastures during the growingseasons. We rotated them according tomanagement needs and forageavailability.

The goats and cattle were not usingmany forb species growing in thepastures. Since sheep like westernragweed, one of the most prolific speciesin the pastures, we moved 40 lambs and6 ewes from another project to the site inearly summer 1991. They grazed with


the goats for one month and then wereremoved. We returned a small flock ofewes to the project in the fall. They werebred to lamb in April 1992. In summer1992, 63 ewes and lambs grazed withthe goats. In the fall, we sold the lambsand returned the ewes to the otherproject.

The production and economic data fromour project are summarized in Table 1

and Table 2. We did not credit the goatseconomically for brush control. Costsand returns are not included for 1988 or1993, because the project was not inexistence for a full year at either time.Variable expenses from these years donot reflect true annual costs because ofthe reduced time period, and no incomewas produced because there was no kidcrop.

Variable expenses show a drasticincrease in feed costs in 1991. This

resulted from a bulk purchase ofmineral supplement. The cost per bag


was reduced by purchasing in bulk. Anincrease in consumption is alsoreflected. The new mineral was morepalatable; and as a result, animalsconsumed the recommended amount,which they had not done previously.The costs incurred for dogs varied,because at times there were two dogsinstead of one. The variation makesyearly comparisons difficult.

In fall 1993, we sold the goat herd withthe Great Pyrenees dog. They are stillbeing used for brush control.

At the end of the project, goats hadreduced the brush in Pasture 2 andPasture 3 to less than 10%. Weconsidered this an acceptable level. Thebrush cover in Pasture 1 and Pasture 4had been reduced by more than 50% ofthe original levels. Goats were aneffective way to biologically controlbrush. The biggest obstacle was fencing.If it is feasible to fence a site, goats makegreat low maintenance brushhogs.

References

Scifres, C.J. 1980. Brush managementprinciples and practices for Texas andthe Southwest. Texas A&M Univ. Press,College Station, TX.

goats brush 110611 - kerr...

Documents