Predators can benefit pasture

13 Dec, 2014 01:00 AM
A dynamic balance between biomass, cattle, kangaroos and wild dogs

MOST pastoralists consider wild dogs a threat to their profitability, but a group of ecologists is arguing for a different view.

Wild dogs eat kangaroos, and kangaroos eat grass. When researchers led by Thomas Prowse at the University of Adelaide sat down to assess how wild dog predation of kangaroos affected pasture growth, they found the sums often came out in pastoralists’ favour.

With wild dogs suppressing kangaroo numbers, the study authors argue, cattle graziers have more pasture generally, and less likelihood of a kangaroo explosion in flush times.

And at moderate stocking densities, sustaining populations of wild dogs to suppress kangaroo numbers has a clear economic benefit in cattle grazing operations, according to the researchers’ modelling.

It’s a view shared by Longreach grazier Angus Emmott.

“Assuming a typical stocking density for semi-arid rangelands, we estimated that kangaroo control by an unbaited dingo population would increase pasture biomass by 53 kg ha-1, improve gross margins by $0.83 ha-1, and reduce inter-annual variability in profits,” the researchers concluded.

If there are no wild dogs, lightening off on stock numbers often has little effect on total grazing pressure because kangaroo numbers expand to take advantage of the extra biomass.

In 2000, a south-western Queensland study found that kangaroos could eat up to 30–40 per cent of pasture growth.

The researchers found that the most viable scenario, an intermediate stocking rate with healthy populations of wild dogs to suppress kangaroo numbers, proposes a dynamic balance between biomass, cattle, kangaroos and wild dogs.

Calf losses were factored into the modelling. Losses are greatest when dingoes don’t have access to other forms of prey, the researchers observed, such as during drought.

At high cattle stocking densities, little feed remains for kangaroo populations to expand. If wild dogs are overabundant in this situation, the researchers acknowledge that tactical baiting might produce a small economic gain.

However, the paper says that there is seldom economic justification for dog baiting in cattle rangelands. It points to a 2002 report by Eldridge, Shakeshaft and Nano, which argued that baiting can actually increase stock losses because it disrupts the structure of dog packs and encourages more breeding among non-dominant pairs.

“On balance, therefore, we consider that even under the aforementioned conditions, our models provide little evidence to support dingo control in cattle rangelands,” the authors concluded.

The study only looked at cattle production, the authors acknowledging that “dingoes can kill sheep more easily than calves”.

However, their solution for sheep operations - protect sheep flocks with guardian animals - is a notion likely to be disputed by most sheep graziers.

The study adds to a global discussion about restoring “apex predators” to ecosystems.

Where predators have been removed from landscapes because of conflicts with livestock production, ecologists argue, population explosions of animals that the predators once suppressed tend to occur.

That’s led to experiments in “re-wilding”, where apex predators like wolves have been returned to parts of Europe and the Americas where they had once been driven extinct.

Re-wilding is unnecessary in Australia, where wild dogs show no sign of going extinct - often, the reverse.

But managing wild dogs to maximise their impact as an apex predator, while minimising their impact on livestock production, has proven a perennial challenge.

Humans tend to drive towards a binary solution - no dogs/no stock - but as with this paper, ecologists are increasingly saying that what might work best is the uncertain business of managing for a constantly shifting point of balance.

“Ecological and economic benefits to cattle rangelands of restoring an apex predator” will appear in the Journal of Applied Ecology. It can also be read online.

Matthew Cawood

Matthew Cawood

is the national science and environment writer for Fairfax Agricultural Media
Date: Newest first | Oldest first


13/12/2014 4:45:16 AM

Or ... you could look and kangaroos as a resource other than dingo food and harvest their numbers back to a point where their numbers are not impacting on pasture growth. Of cause that is just plain WRONG because that's means someone might be making profit from kangaroos. And something everyone who has ever been any were near our universities knows with absolute certainty, is that - to profit from nature is evil.
Just another farmer
13/12/2014 6:49:54 AM

This theory is flawed. The roos have just been chased away by the dogs from the study area to a different district to flog out somebody else's country. There is limited suppression of the overall kangaroo numbers Australia wide. Dogs don't kill a lot of roos - they are too hard to catch. Flock animals like sheep and cattle are much easier prey as well as providing greater sport.
Will from Bordertown
13/12/2014 4:41:08 PM

this of course all hinges on the notion that dingoes will bypass easy to kill calves and run down fleet footed kangaroos. Aaaaaahhhh look, theres a flock of Landrace pigs passing overhead, maybe the dingoes could catch some of them.
15/12/2014 12:38:47 PM

You do have to wonder what the world's coming to! I'll start working on my wild dog recipe book...should be a big hit in years to come!
15/12/2014 3:31:58 PM

I wonder who Dr. Prowse is actually working for....and whose interests are promoted - certainly not those of us trying to operate businesses that are impacted by wild dog predation. Put your money up Dr. Prowse, lease a property, use your "modelling" here on planet earth and take your paycheck from the profits. Bet you don't.
15/12/2014 6:24:42 PM

The pasture always grows real good under any predator i shoot .
17/12/2014 6:12:11 AM

Perhaps a few commenting could spend a few moments researching and amazingly discover there are cattle farms in Australia already working 'with' Dingoes instead of against them. I don't get the comments about sheep either, the article covered Cattle properties, Sheep require a different approach, of which some farmers in Australia have also undertaking again with positive results (ie not involving just killing native species)
17/12/2014 6:51:58 AM

(ie not involving just killing native species) yep because to profit from that is evil.


Screen name *
Email address *
Remember me?
Comment *


light grey arrow
I'm one of the people who want marijuana to be legalized, some city have been approved it but
light grey arrow
#blueysmegacarshowandcruise2019 10 years on Daniels Ute will be apart of another massive cause.
light grey arrow
Australia's live animal trade is nothing but a blood stained industry that suits those who