Can we have an argument.....??

Doyle,

We all know that what you call a cold burn is very rare and maybe never done. Most burns are done when birds still have their nests, and the young are not able to yet fly or have not yet hatched. There are several species of birds that nest on the ground, and they need their nests for protection from the weather. Then you have the rabbits and other animals which can quickly spread a fire to where it gets out of control. Land that is burned repeatedly has a tendency to get hard because the organic mater above and below the ground is burned. Hard ground does not absorb water as well. The result can be more runoff and less water in the soil for the vegetation.

OFF-Vet is correct on having a good balance with other animals in addition to deer, but I would do what I could to discourage it being good habitat for coyotes and wolves. Cattle and sheep will eat weeds and plants that deer choose not to eat. Goats can do a very good job of eating down even large weeds.
 
What is often described as a "precribed burn" is in actuality a controlled burn. In order to be a Prescribed burn, there must be a burn plan (technically a burn prescription) that lists the area to be burned, the conditions acceptable (upper and lower humidity limits, wind speed and direction etc.) and the intended result. We have to fill them out for EVERY burn. Just burning does not provide the best result, nor does burning every year. If burning to establish and promote Native Warm Season Grasses its every 2-3 years after establishment depending upon conditions. We have intentionally burned when the humidity was high to create a mosaic burn, meaning not all of the area actually burned. Also small simple firelines can be made to prevent burning of non prescribed areas. You must always be prepared for the unexpected, when a sudden gust of wind sends some embers into an adjacent field you bette be ready to respond and know where and what you are doing. To burn properly takes some planning, if the timing and conditions are not within parameters you simply postpone it. Also if you have several areas close together don't burn them all the same year, you take away that escape cover from the wildlife. If burning an area with nearby homes or highways you better consider smoke management too, a poor ventilation that sends a heavy smoke cover over a major highway will usually earn you a visit from the county sheriff or highway patrol around here.
 
Much controlled burning in southern Georgia. But since folks down here are rabid about their quail, rest assured that they know when and when not to burn. Plus, it's generally smallish tracts at any one time and on calm-wind days, so wildlife has plenty of time to move.
 
John McPhee's book "The Control of Nature" is based on sound science. One situation that he investigates is southern California's policy on allowing residential development in areas where natural fires are quickly extinguished and terrain is geologically unstable. The result is chaparral build up. Chaparral is like tinder during dry summer months and when fires flare up the roots binding unstable soil are destroyed. Winter rains wash away the unstable material resuling in mass wastage and damage to man-made structures.

Fires do not "harden" soil except possibly in places where caliche or other cementing agents are naturally present. In most fired areas soil is nourished by organic material whose breakdown is accelerated by fire. This results in more permeable and fertile soils.
 
Fire does have the potential to harden the ground. If you take crop land that continually has the stubble or stalks burned, this ground is very likely to be harder than crop land where burning is never or rarely done. When you burn the organic matter in the soil, you are burning up material that helps to provide aeration in the soil. Reducing the aeration can also reduce how quickly soil can absorb moisture. More runoff means more potential for runoff and erosion. Burning can also have a negative affect on earthworms which are vital to a healthy soil. You would think that no-till farming would have ground that is harder than farming where the ground is tilled, but just the opposite is true. Overtime, no-till farming will have soil that is softer.
 
Hi Discern

As a geologist I view soil hardening differently. Agree with your assessment about the link between loss of organic material and aeration. As I cited earlier, loss of organic binding material results in unstable soil conditions in certain areas.

In SE Louisiana marshes are burned annually to provide for better growth and habitat potential. Great duck hunting here.
 
A different kind of hunting

A little tip for 'mushroom' hunters.

Some of the most prosperous mushroom finds are in some areas the year or two after a burn.

Bout eight years ago, I decided I was going to make some kind of use of a 5acre field up on a ridge-top in the middle of the woods. Field was full of nothing but Sumac and poverty grass. Needless to say, extremely poor soil content with an acidic level that was incredibly high.

My intention were two-fold. I wanted to plant forage for wildlife while building the soil. I wanted to do this naturally without the use of sprays/weedkillers. That left burning.

Called our local Agricultural Extension officer. He came out and advised me that due to the makeup of the soil and where land was located(on an unprotected ridgetop), I should not burn. His concern were:

1. there just wasn't enough depth of decent topsoil

2. so much sand in what topsoil that was there

3. the already high acidic ph would only raise after burning due to the ash.

He told me I'd surely have trouble with erosion and said to do a chemical kill.

Wanting to do things my way and not wanting to believe him :o, I then called Ohio State University's extension officer. He came out and said the same thing.

I started questioning him about why some areas were better to burn and some not. In short, if there's a deep layer of rich topsoil located on fairly level ground. Burn. The deep,rich topsoil will support new,rapid plant growth.
On the other-hand, if the topsoil is shallow , not of decent makeup and on un-level ground, do not burn. With the ash and erosion, your already bad soil will only become worse.

I ended up spraying, plowing the field, raking sumac in piles and burning.
Fertilized field, planted Ladino clover to help build ph and to date have spread about 17tons of lime.

FWIW, for those of you that have never plowed out any sumac, when I got done with this 5 acre field, I thought I had plowed 100 acres.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
the already high acidic ph would only raise after burning due to the ash
Click to expand...

This makes no sense? Acidic soils have a pH BELOW 7.0, Basic soils have a ph HIGHER than 7.0.

http://www.grinnell.edu/files/downloads/Mitros_etal.pdf

Here is a study done by CHRIS MITROS, SIOBHAN MCINTYRE, BETH MOSCATO-GOODPASTER, Biology department, Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa 50112, USA.

It has some very interesting results as to the effects of fire on soil pH.
 
Last edited:
shortwave posted:
the already high acidic ph would only raise after burning due to the ash
Click to expand...

Wyoredman posted:
This makes no sense? Acidic soils have a pH BELOW 7.0, Basic soils have a ph HIGHER than 7.0.
Click to expand...

:o You are correct Wyoredman

My statement should have read:
the already high acidic level would only raise after burning due to the ash.

The study you posted is very good information but as I understand the concept of burning land, the posted study is not the same across the board for all land. As the Ag. Extension officer showed me a different parcel of woods on my property that would benefit from burning if I would ever choose to select/clear cut. The layer of topsoil was deep, rich and of much better quality from the years of rotted organic matter.
The study you posted if I read correctly was based on burning in Oak woodlands and would mirror that of what the Extension off. said of the above property

Whereas the field he suggested I not burn, was apparently farmed to death at one time. Soil not taken care of and had very little, poor quality topsoil. Also, the ash from the poverty grass and sumac I would be burning would create more acid.
 
Last edited:
Kansas is burning their prairies as we speak, and the places that were burnt two weeks ago are lush, with two and three inch tubors coming up. The whole landscape will look immaculate, in about two more weeks, and the game is already chilling in those freshly burnt areas...:)
 
My Mother was from an old farm family that went way back. Where I grew up, spring burning of the fields was the norm. Her father told her that an added benefit was the burning took care of a lot of insect eggs before they hatched.
 
Lotsa burning in south Georgia, right now. But, not a lot of understory causing the temperatures to be high. Some native seeds won't germinate without the heat from such "sorta natural" fires. It's the buildup of understory from the Smokey The Bear mismanagement which causes devastation such as the Yellowstone and Montana fires of some years back.

The regrowth of native vegetation benefits all wildlife...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top