[mstacy]

@ivy 3256 wrote:

Hi!

He will always stop (woah) and go (come on) if I stop and start, but only sometimes will he obey when I am also not preforming the command.
Thanks!
ivy

Hi Ivy,

I was tickled to read your post, as I am in just starting out as well. I have two pairs of devon calves, 3 and 4 months old respectively. I’m far too inexperienced to offer much in the way of advice but I can share what little I’ve experienced so far.

Like your calf, mine respond to “body english” more readily than voice or stick. I’ve been working hard to associate all three giving a verbal command “WALK”, a gentle touch on the rump with a stick, and stepping forward. After lots of repetition my calves and I are starting to agree that all three mean the same thing. Lately I’ve been making a concious effort to say “Walk” and give a tap with the stick, but keeping my feet planted until after they take a step. I find that if I stand back beside them, instead of out front, that helps too. I am encouraged by what I’ve seen so far.

I see it as “command substitution”. For instance with a dog you might start by physically guiding him into a sitting position while holding a hand in front and saying “SIT”. Later you can coax him to sit without actually touching. Some dog trainers later substitute a whistle tone for the voice command.

Halter, physical pressure, body english, voice commands, stick, … there’s a gazillion ways to express something to an animal.

I was inspired to by your comment about keeping the animal in place while you walk around. I’ve had a little bit of luck in the past day or two by making my calf “whoa” then dropping the halter and backing away. If he moves I step to him, give him a very light swat on the forehead with a stick (wispy thin) and reprimand him verbally with “whoa”. If he steps out of position I’ll physically push him back to where I placed him initially.

I’ve also spent alot of time going through doors and gates. I make him wait while I open the gate, have him follow me through, then wait while I close the gate.

I’m learning as I go and look forward to hearing the experiences of other teamsters just getting started. Good luck Ivy.

Regards,

-Matt

[mstacy]

Jason,

Restorative foresty is indeed one of the best things we can possibly do on the land. I agree with you.

And I do apologize for offending you. You inquired about my draft animal experience. Extremely limited. I raised a water buffalo for about a year during my stay in Thailand. The locals thought I was absolutely nuts for trying to teach him voice commands. They were probably right … but we did get him to plow a bit in the paddies.

I am getting a couple of young steers in January as soon as they are fully weened (milking devons). I am eager to learn whatever they can teach me. With a bit of perseverence I’m hopeful that we can drag a bit of firewood to the house.

Regards,

-Matt Stacy

[mstacy]

First and foremost I have to say that I am a huge fan of this forum. I strongly support the tremendous efforts of Carl, Jason, Simon, and many others. Promoting sustainable forestry and the use of animal power are pursuits that benefit society as a whole. I appreciate the thoughtful responses to my original post.

Jason, I looked up the article that you referenced (http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=1023), or at least a summary thereof. Unfortunately I haven’t located the study itself. My interpretation is that one of the primary conclusions was that it is a bit premature to include forestry in carbon trading systems because forest carbon models simply aren’t accurate enough … yet.

I fully agree that maintaining, and increasing where possible, the organic content of the soil is extremely beneficial. The fundamental tenet of organic farming, in my myopic view at least, is “feed the soil not the plants”. The healthy diverse food web that Carl eludes to is vitally important to the health of the forest.

That said, I see the forest as a tremendous reservoir of carbon. If we manage it poorly (land use conversion, soil disturbance, etc) we can drain that reservoir in a hurry. “Do no harm” is the highest management goal we can aspire to from a carbon sequestration perspective. Economic return is beyond the scope of my post.

There appears to be quite a bit of debate within the scientific community regarding net carbon sequestration by forest. Then again the link between lung cancer and tobacco was controversial throughout my entire childhood. Climate change is a more recent example. A round earth is a much older example. Many of these “controversies” stemmed from adamant denial on the parts of governments, industries, and religions with insanely scarey amounts of momentum behind them.

My world view is largely shaped by a handfull of simple engineering principles that my father taught me. Conservation of mass. Conservation of energy. And you can’t push with a rope. Those principles lead me to suspect that an old growth forest cannot sequester any net carbon. If vast quantities of carbon were somehow being pumped into the soil then old growth forest would be on some of the deepest and richest soils in the world. The reality is that these soils tend to be rather shallow. The rain forest is a great example. There’s a reason why swidden (slash and burn) agriculturists had to move so often. A few short years of cropping rapidly deplete the forest soils.

Nor do we permanently sequester carbon by crafting houses or fine furniture. That would may be preserved for a few generations (human generations that is). But ultimately the bulk of it will return to the atmosphere. Ashes to ashes as it were. Seen any thousand year old wooden houses lately?

Carl made an excellent point that animal power reduces the carbon footprint of harvesting operations. Amen to that. I concurr 100%. And Jason if I interpret “carbon positive” forestry as a huge improvement over the alternative we are in 100% agreement. However if “carbon positive” is strictly interpreted to mean sequestering more carbon than is released (year in and year out), then you’ll have to convince me over a few cold malt beverages (I forgot about the carbonation … rats).

Again, you all are doing great work here and I strongly support your efforts. I hope I haven’t ruffled anyones feathers too badly.

Kind Regards,

-Matt Stacy
W. Topsham, VT

[mstacy]

Jason,

There is an interesting letter to the editor in the autumn 2008 edition of Northern Woodlands magazine from a gentleman named Jim Birkemeier (http://www.TimberGrowers.com).

His business is based on capturing the full value of his wood. As the forest landowner he is marketing high value retail products (installed hardwood flooring from timber that he logs, saws, and dries). The figure that really caught my eye is the claim of resource efficiency (“one good job for every 40 acres of timber”). This is truly remarkable if it passes muster. Forty acres of forest surely can’t keep an individual gainfully employed in perpetuity if only a small portion of the ultimate value is captured locally (logging).

The concepts would seem like a perfect complement to logging with draft animals.

-Matt Stacy

[Author]

Posts