Sustainability of Bison Production in North America: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Conner Chen and Version 3 by Conner Chen.

Due to demanding animal husbandry practices and the conversion of forest areas and pastureland into arable land for the production of livestock feed, consumers worldwide, but especially in the West, are increasingly demanding animal-friendly as well as sustainably produced food. In this regard, sustainably produced alternative sources of red meat, such as bison meat, could therefore become increasingly important in the future. The American bison (Bison bison) evokes a long and tangled history of Indigenous Peoples and settlers, standing as a symbol of hope for the future, a future in which bison, as the largest land mammal native to North America, could meet human needs for sustainably produced food. The principle of sustainability is based on the responsible use of the Earth’s resources, a sentiment well-aligned with the American bison’s iconic history.

  • American buffalo
  • biodiversity
  • production performance
  • greenhouse gas emissions

1. Biodiversity through Grazing

Biodiversity across pastureland (also known as rangeland) can be divided into two categories: plant and animal biodiversity. Although the living organisms in these two categories are clearly distinguishable, the plants and animals of an ecosystem are interconnected and interdependent. It is generally assumed that the act of grazing increases the plant diversity of pastureland by consuming competing dominant plant species, resulting in indirect effects on plant composition [1]. In particular, grazing by large herbivores, such as bison and cattle, increases and promotes the biodiversity of an ecosystem to a large extent [2], as long as it is managed at a moderate level [3]. Bison husbandry is particularly able to offer a variety of habitat types for other species [4].

1.1. Bison as a Keystone Species

Its grazing and wallowing behaviour, as well as its size, are what make bison a keystone species of the Great Plains. Paine [5] was the first to define keystone species as those that have an extremely high impact on a given ecosystem relative to their small population. Numerous studies conclude that bison, both historically and presently, play a crucial role in the conservation of biodiversity in the Great Plains and can therefore be considered as a keystone species [6][2][7]. From this, it can be deduced that the bison can promote the biodiversity of both plants and the animals on the Great Plains to a greater extent than modern-day cattle farming [8].

1.2. Plant Biodiversity and Bison Grazing

Bison (and cattle) are considered generalist foragers and feed predominantly on roughage [9][10]. Bison feed almost exclusively on graminoids, i.e., grass-like plants [11], and generally avoid forbs and woody species [12], which make up less than 10% of their food spectrum [2]. Cattle also feed on graminoids [9], but forbs and woody vegetation often account for more than 15% of their food spectrum [13]. Based on these differences in eating habits, it can be concluded that cattle graze and browse a wider selection of plants than bison [14]. The more preferential grazing by bison of the prairie-dominant grass creates a significant change in the plant composition of a pasture [2] and promotes an increased occurrence of forbs [15]. Although bison grazing reduces the biomass of grass-like plants [16], the increased availability of water and nutrients as well as increased availability of light leads to an increase in recessive species [15]. Specifically, the increased grazing of the dominant matrix grasses of the prairie landscape, such as big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans), and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), thus leads to an increase in subordinate species with less competitive power, such as leadplant (Amorpha canescens), white aster (Symphyotrichum ericoides), and western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) [11]. In particular, these herbs are vital for maintaining biodiversity on the prairie [2], as these plants stimulate pollinators and generally influence the micro-environment to a greater extent than grasses [17].
Bison behaviour, such as roaming, also enhances plant biodiversity. Cattle prefer to graze close to water bodies, while bison prefer areas further away [18]. Historical reports state bison can graze for several days over distances of up to a hundred kilometers between watering places [19]. The intensity of cattle grazing near water bodies can lead to poorer water quality through increased fecal concentration, as well as decreased plant growth, both of which subsequently reduce floristic diversity [20].
Through activities such as horning and rubbing against small bushes and trees such as cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) and aspen (Populus tremuloides), bison limit the occurrence of woody vegetation on the prairie [21]. In the vicinity of watercourses, this slows or prevents colonization by beavers and other species, which in turn has cascading effects on plant communities, river morphology, and biodiversity [22]. On the other hand, by rubbing against woody vegetation, bison prevent forest succession [7]. By reducing forest expansion and regeneration, bison have an advantageous effect on the development of herbaceous and grass-like plants, which serve as their and other livestock’s fodder [23].
The fur of bison has more primary hairs than that of any other member of the Bovidae family—10 times more than that of cattle [10]. Plant seeds are more easily caught in the thick and fine fur on a bison head [24]. Plants such as cockle burs (Xanthium italicum) and buffalo grass (Bouteloua dactyloides) benefit particularly from bison grazing because their seeds have barbs that easily catch in the fur of the animals during grazing [25]. Since bison migrate long distances, when able [26], and move about 50 to 90% more than cattle [18], plant seeds can spread over greater distances in bison grazing systems than with cattle [27].
An abundance of seeds is also spread through the feces of bison [24]. In addition, grazing ungulates, such as bison, consume relatively high lignin-containing plant biomass and return unstable forms of nitrogen (i.e., urine) to the soil, thus avoiding the otherwise slow mineralization of nitrogen in plant litter [2]. This highlights another advantage derived from bison grazing further from water bodies [14][17].
Through the disturbance to the landscape caused by their grazing, bison also affect the primary production, reproductive performance, and species structure of plants, as well as the humus content of the soil and soil quality [23]. As herds graze, they trample and wallow the landscape in varying degrees of strength and intensity, creating strong mosaic effects, which increase spatial and temporal heterogeneity [11]. Thus, the diversity of microhabitats increases compared to ungrazed areas and ultimately enhances the diversity of plant species [28]. Increased floristic diversity, derived from bison grazing, generally leads to greater ecological resiliency towards environmental extremes, such as droughts [11].
Multiple studies have come to the conclusion that plant biodiversity is higher in bison grazing than cattle grazing systems [29][15]. Thus, Freese et al. (p. 4, [8]) state that “Restoring the ecological role of bison is a prerequisite to large-scale and comprehensive restoration of biodiversity in the Great Plains and other grassland regions of North America that bison once inhabited.” However, studies often fail to address critical factors such as stocking density, grazing intensity, and herd structure, which also influence rates of biodiversity. Little literature is available on the comparison of bison and cattle grazing for similar animal and environmental factors [9][30], and multiple studies describe the difference in biodiversity from bison or cattle grazing as marginal [20][30]. Steuter & Hidinger [13] state that biodiversity and the biological resources of pastureland are not only determined by the single choice between allowing bison or cattle to graze but also by the overall stocking rate and aligning intensive grazers, i.e., cattle, with intensive agricultural systems and extensive grazers, i.e., bison, with vast rangelands. Light to moderate grazing is found to be preferable to intensive grazing in the context of biodiversity considerations, regardless of whether it is combined with bison or cattle [3].

1.3. Animal Biodiversity and Bison Grazing

Bison, along with birds, small insects, arthropods, and various pollinators from these strains and classes, are all indispensable for the conservation of grassland biodiversity [16] and have a significant influence on the structure and stability of the ecosystem [31].
Bison grazing creates a landscape mosaic, which in turn provides more (micro)habitats for small mammals, birds, insects and other animal species, in contrast to a homogeneously managed landscape [32]. For example, an increase in flowering herbaceous plants, compared to grasses, promotes pollinators [17]. Landscape mosaics are essential for most of the native bird species on the Great Plains [33]. The transformation of landscape mosaics into large uninterrupted areas, be it farmland or intensively used pastureland, generally reduces the range of these native birds [28]. The occurrence of grassland birds on the Great Plains has declined sharply in recent decades, mainly due to the intensive grazing practices [34]. Some bird species, such as upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) [35], grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) [34], and bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) [28], benefit from the promotion and expansion of landscape mosaics through bison grazing. These species of birds reside, largely, on the ground and require a heterogenous landscape—large open spaces to find food in large quantities [34][36] as well as areas with high vegetation to shelter their breeding grounds [2]. However, not all bird species benefit from bison grazing and the resulting disturbance to the landscape. For instance, the henslow sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) is disturbed by large ungulates (including cattle) grazing, and the bird is rarely found in these areas [37].
Other larger herbivores also benefit from landscape mosaics created through bison grazing. Especially browser species, such as the pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) and the mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), benefit from the subsequent diversity of forbs and shrubs promoted by bison grazing; these plants are the main food source for both browser species [28]. In addition, studies have shown that bison grazing increases the number of prairie dog colonies [38][39], which serve as a food source for some bird species, such as burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) [40] and ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) [41]. Furthermore, prairie dog burrows provide shelter and protection for various small mammal species [28].
The significant decrease in grass-like plants and the increase in forbs with bison grazing results in sites with less biomass but increased nitrogen availability, which are generally preferred by herbivorous arthropods [42]. An increased amount of forbes also leads to a greater heterogeneity of habitats, in terms of plant productivity, species composition and structure, for insects [43].
The distinctive wallowing behaviour of bison [44][8] is important for coat and skin care, insect repellency, sun protection, and social interaction of bison [45]. Wallowing of the animals on the same areas leads to topsoil displacement and compaction, which results in micro-sites with high soil moisture and clay content [23]. The resulting bare areas often have a diameter of 3 to 5 m and a depth of 10 to 30 cm [2]. Eventually, the abandoned wallows lead to microhabitats with altered physical resources and a distinct biodiversity [29]. Due to the high soil compaction, rainwater accumulates in the left-over wallows in spring, which leads to habitat for wetland species [46]. The wallows are increasingly used as breeding grounds for amphibians [29]; for example, the Great Plains toad (Anaxyrus cognatus) and the Plains spadefoot toad (Spea bombifrons) often rely on these seasonal bodies of water for reproduction [47].
Although wallowing and other bison behaviours initially lead to reduced plant biomass and growth rate [28]. and bison grazing can negatively impact plant diversity and arthropod diversity in the short term; the long-term effects are more complex and lead to increased heterogeneity and species richness [48]. Therefore, bison grazing has a long-lasting effect on the environment with wide-ranging effects on spatial function and biodiversity of the ecosystem [49].

2. Bison Production Performance

The animal growth rate is of great importance in the production of meat, reflecting the (marketable) performance of the animals. Performance is also central to sustainability, since the efficiency of the animals’ energy and nutrient utilization and the consumption of feed has a decisive influence on the environmental footprint of animal products [50].
The feeding requirements of bison are generally similar to those of cattle with some distinct differences in feed quantity and feed management [51]. In terms of metabolic body mass, bison have a reduced feed intake compared to cattle, especially during cold winter months. Overall, bison have a lower growth rate and lower production efficiency [52][53]. A reduction in metabolic rate and growth are normal in wild ungulates during the winter months and is considered as an adaptive strategy in reaction to reduced food supply and poorer food quality [25][54]. In older bison, weight loss of up to 10–15% is common in the winter months [55]. Therefore, it is important that pasture fodder of good quality and quantity is available in spring to ensure rapid growth of animals [10].
Management strategies and philosophies vary widely in the bison industry [56]. Extensive grazing practices based on the year-round grazing of natural pasture with little or no inputs are widely accepted [57]. However, due to the increasing demand for bison meat in recent years, more and more cattle farming practices are being integrated into more intensive bison husbandry [16].

References

  1. Olff, H.; Ritchie, M.E. Effects of herbivores on grassland plant diversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1998, 13, 261–265.
  2. Knapp, A.K.; Blair, J.M.; Briggs, J.M.; Collins, S.L.; Hartnett, D.C.; Johnson, L.C.; Towne, E.G. The keystone role of bison in North American tallgrass prairie. Bioscience 1999, 49, 39–50.
  3. Hart, R.H. Plant biodiversity on shortgrass steppe after 55 years of zero, light, moderate, or heavy cattle grazing. Plant Ecol. 2001, 155, 111–118.
  4. Lammers, D.; Ogorzalek, K.; Olson, T.; Flocchini, J.; Forrest, S.; Anderson, B.; Grajal, A.; Jorgensen, D.; Kremer, C.; LeFaive, T.; et al. Bison Conservation Management: Guidelines for Herd Managers; World Wildlife Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
  5. Paine, R.T. A Note on Trophic Complexity and Community Stability. Thge Am. Nat. 1969, 103, 91–93.
  6. Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Allred, B.W.; Hamilton, R.G. Bison as Keystone Herbivores on the Great Plains: Can Cattle Serve as Proxy for Evolutionary Grazing Patterns? American Bison Society Working Paper Series; Wildlife Conservation Society: New York, NY, USA, 2010; No. 4.
  7. McMillan, N.A.; Kunkel, K.E.; Hagan, D.L.; Jachowski, D.S. Plant community responses to bison reintroduction on the Northern Great Plains, United States: A test of the keystone species concept. Restor. Ecol. 2019, 27, 379–388.
  8. Freese, C.H.; Aune, K.E.; Boyd, D.P.; Derr, J.N.; Forrest, S.C.; Cormack Gates, C.; Gogan, P.J.P.; Grassel, S.M.; Halbert, N.D.; Kunkel, K.; et al. Second chance for the plains bison. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 136, 175–184.
  9. Plumb, G.E.; Dodd, J.L. Foraging Ecology of Bison and Cattle on a Mixed Prairie: Implications for Natural Area Management. Ecol. Appl. 1993, 3, 631–643.
  10. Rioja-Lang, F.C.; Galbraith, J.K.; McCorkell, R.B.; Spooner, J.M.; Church, J.S. Review of priority welfare issues of commercially raised bison in North America. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019, 210, 1–8.
  11. Hartnett, D.C.; Hickman, K.R.; Fischer Walter, L.E. Effects of bison grazing, fire, and topography on floristic diversity in tallgrass prairie. J. Range Manag. 1996, 49, 413–420.
  12. Steuter, A.A.; Steinauer, E.M.; Hill, G.L.; Bowers, P.A.; Tieszen, L.L. Distribution and Diet of Bison and Pocket Gophers in a Sandhills Prairie. Ecol. Appl. 1995, 5, 756–766.
  13. Steuter, A.A.; Hidinger, L. Comparative ecology of bison and cattle on mixed-grass prairie. Gt. Plains Res. 1999, 9, 329–342.
  14. Peden, D.G.; Van Dyne, G.M.; Rice, R.W.; Hansen, R.M. The Trophic Ecology of Bison bison L. on Shortgrass Plains. J. Appl. Ecol. 1974, 11, 489–497.
  15. Fahnestock, J.T.; Knapp, A.K. Plant responses to selective grazing by bison: Interactions between light, herbivory and water stress. Vegetatio 1994, 115, 123–131.
  16. Gates, C.; Freese, C.H.; Gogan, P.; Kotzman, M. American Bison—Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines 2010; International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources: Gland, Switzerland, 2011; ISBN 9782831711492.
  17. Nosowitz, D. Are Bison More Environmentally-Friendly than Cattle? Available online: https://modernfarmer.com/2016/09/bison-vs-cattle-environment/ (accessed on 18 August 2020).
  18. Kohl, M.T.; Krausman, P.R.; Kunkel, K.; Williams, D.M. Bison versus cattle: Are they ecologically synonymous. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 66, 721–731.
  19. Hornaday, W.T. The extermination of the American bison, with a sketch of its discovery and life history. In Report of the United States National Museum for the Year Ending June 30, 1887 (Pt. 2 of the Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution for the Year Ending June 30, 1887); Report of the U.S. National Museum: Washington, DC, USA, 1887; pp. 367–548.
  20. Allred, B.W.; Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Hamilton, R.G. The role of herbivores in Great Plains conservation: Comparative ecology of bison and cattle. Ecosphere 2011, 2, 1–17.
  21. Painter, L.E.; Ripple, W.J. Effects of bison on willow and cottonwood in northern Yellowstone National Park. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 264, 150–158.
  22. Baril, L. Change in Deciduous Woody Vegetation, Implications of Increased Willow (Salix spp.) Growth for Bird Species Diversity, and Willow Species Composition in and around Yellowstone National Park’s Northern Range. Montana State University. 2009. Available online: https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/handle/1/870 (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  23. Fox, T.A.; Hugenholtz, C.H.; Bender, D.; Gates, C.C. Can bison play a role in conserving habitat for endangered sandhills species in Canada? Biodivers. Conserv. 2012, 21, 1441–1455.
  24. Rosas, C.A.; Engle, D.M.; Shaw, J.H.; Palmer, M.W. Seed dispersal by Bison bison in a tallgrass prairie. J. Veg. Sci. 2008, 19, 769–778.
  25. Reynolds, H.W.; Gates, C.C.; Glaholt, R.D. Bison. In Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management and Conservation; Chapman, J.A., Feldhamer, G.A., Eds.; Johns Hopkins University Press: London, UK, 2003; pp. 1009–1060.
  26. Barsh, R.L. The substitution of cattle for bison on the Great Plains. In The Struggle for the Land; Olson, P.A., Ed.; University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, NE, USA, 1990; pp. 103–126.
  27. Constible, J.M.; Sweitzer, R.A.; Van Vuren, D.H.; Schuyler, P.T.; Knapp, D.A. Dispersal of non-native plants by introduced bison in an island ecosystem. Biol. Invasions 2005, 7, 699–709.
  28. Truett, J.C.; Philips, M.; Kunkel, K.; Miller, R. Managing bison to restore biodiversity. Gt. Plains Res. 2001, 11, 123–144.
  29. Nickell, Z.; Varriano, S.; Plemmons, E.; Moran, M.D. Ecosystem engineering by bison (Bison bison) wallowing increases arthropod community heterogeneity in space and time. Ecosphere 2018, 9, e02436.
  30. Towne, E.G.; Hartnett, D.C.; Cochran, R.C. Vegetation Trends in Tallgrass Prairie from Bison and Cattle Grazing. Ecol. Appl. 2005, 15, 1550–1559.
  31. Winter, S.L.; Allred, B.W.; Hickman, K.R.; Fuhlendorf, S.D. Tallgrass prairie vegetation response to spring fires and bison grazing. Southwest. Nat. 2015, 60, 30–35.
  32. Patterson, M.P.; Best, L.B. Bird Abundance and Nesting Success in Iowa CRP Fields: The Importance of Vegetation Structure and Composition. Am. Midl. Nat. 1996, 135, 153–167.
  33. Londe, D.W.; Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Elmore, R.D.; Davis, C.A. Landscape heterogeneity influences the response of grassland birds to energy development. Wildl. Biol. 2019, 2019, 1–11.
  34. Powell, A.F.L.A. Effects of prescribed burns and bison (Bos bison) grazing on breeding bird abundances in tallgrass prairie. Auk 2006, 123, 183–197.
  35. Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Engle, D.M.; Kerby, J.; Hamilton, R. Pyric herbivory: Rewilding landscapes through the recoupling of fire and grazing. Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23, 588–598.
  36. Walk, J.W.; Warner, R.E. Grassland management for the conservation of songbirds in the Midwestern USA. Biol. Conserv. 2000, 94, 165–172.
  37. Reinking, D.L.; Wiedenfeld, D.A.; Wolfe, D.H.; Rohrbaugh, R.W.; George Sutton, J.M. Distribution, Habitat Use, and Nesting Success of Henslow’s Sparrow in Oklahoma. Prairie Nat. 2000, 32, 219–232.
  38. Fahnestock, J.T.; Detling, J.K. Bison-prairie dog-plant interactions in a North American mixed-grass prairie. Oecologia 2002, 132, 86–95.
  39. Chipault, J.G.; Detling, J.K. Bison Selection of Prairie Dog Colonies on Shortgrass Steppe. West. N. Am. Nat. 2013, 73, 168–176.
  40. Truett, J.C.; Savage, T. Reintroducing Prairie Dogs into Desert Grasslands. Restor. Manag. Notes 1998, 16, 189–195.
  41. Roth, S.; Marzluff, J.M. Nest Placement and Productivity of Ferruginous Hawks in Western Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci. 1989, 92, 132–148.
  42. Moran, M.D. Bison grazing increases arthropod abundance and diversity in a tallgrass prairie. Environ. Entomol. 2014, 43, 1174–1184.
  43. Fay, P.A. Insect Diversity in Two Burned and Grazed Grasslands. Environ. Entomol. 2003, 32, 1099–1104.
  44. McMillan, B.R.; Cottam, M.R.; Kaufman, D.W. Wallowing Behavior of American Bison (Bos Bison) in Tallgrass Prairie: An Examination of Alternate Explanations. Am. Midl. Nat. 2000, 144, 159–167.
  45. McHugh, T. The Time of the Buffalo; University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, NE, USA, 1972.
  46. Gerlanc, N.M.; Kaufman, G.A. Use of Bison Wallows by Anurans on Konza Prairie. Am. Midl. Nat. 2003, 150, 158–168.
  47. Bragg, A.N.; Smith, C.C. Observations on the ecology and natural history of Anura. IX. Notes on breeding behavior in Oklahoma. Gt. Basin Nat. 1942, 3, 2.
  48. Gibson, D.J. Effects of Animal Disturbance on Tallgrass Prairie Vegetation. Am. Midl. Nat. 1989, 121, 144–154.
  49. Hartnett, D.C.; Steuter, A.A.; Hickman, K.R. Comparative Ecology of Native and Introduced Ungulates. In Ecology and Conservation of Great Plains Vertebrates; Knopf, F.L., Samson, F.B., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 72–101.
  50. Asem-Hiablie, S.; Battagliese, T.; Stackhouse-Lawson, K.R.; Alan Rotz, C. A life cycle assessment of the environmental impacts of a beef system in the USA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 441–455.
  51. Hawley, A.W.L. Bison farming in North America. In Wildlife Production Systems: Economic Utilization of Wild Ungulates; Hudson, R., Drew, K.R., Baskin, L.M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989; pp. 346–361.
  52. Koch, R.M.; Jung, H.G.; Crouse, J.D.; Varel, V.H.; Cundiff, L.V. Growth, digestive capability, carcass and meat characteristics of Bison bison, Bos taurus, and Bos × Bison. J. Anim. Sci. 1995, 73, 1271–1281.
  53. Towne, E.G. Bison performance and productivity on tallgrass prairie. Southwest. Nat. 1999, 44, 361–366.
  54. Christopherson, R.J.; Hudson, R.J.; Richmond, R.J. Comparative winter bioenergetics of American bison, yak, Scottish highland and Hereford calves. Acta Theriol. 1978, 23, 49–54.
  55. Christopherson, R.J.; Hudson, R.J.; Christophersen, M.K. Seasonal Energy Expenditures and Thermoregulatory Responses of Bison and Cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1979, 59, 611–617.
  56. Gegner, L.E. Bison Production; Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas: Butte, MT, USA, 2001.
  57. Sambraus, H.H.; Spannl-Flor, M. Artgemäße Bisonhaltung; Tierärztliche Vereinigung für Tierschutz e.V., Merkblatt Nr. 97: 2004. Available online: https://www.tierschutz-tvt.de/alle-merkblaetter-und-stellungnahmen/?no_cache=1&download=TVT-MB_97_Nutztiere_Bisons__Mai_2004_.pdf&did=128 (accessed on 13 November 2021).
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback