Arizona - Utah

St. George - April 5th Kanab - April 6th

Tour, Kanab - April 7th

2

2005 AZ/UT RANGE LIVESTOCK SPONSORS Program Sponsors $150.00 BOEHRINGER INGEHEIM - ANN HENDERSON ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH - BEN HARDCASTLE FREDONIA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION DISTRICT INTERMOUNTAIN FARMERS ASSOCIATION - BOB YOUNG KANE COUNTY SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT MERIAL - CHRIS HACKMAN SCHOLZEN PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC STEVE REGAN CO. - KIP HANSEN TARTER GATE CO. UAP TIMBERLAND LLC - BARRY WALLACE UTAH BEEF COUNCIL UTAH BEEF IMPROVEMENT ASSOC WHEAT LAND WEST SEED LLC. - MARK BJARNSON WINN INC. LIVESTOCK SUPPLEMENTS Y-TEX - TOM FEENEY LUNCH SPONSORS $500.00 FORT DODGE ANIMAL HEALTH VITALIX, INC. We would like to express our sincere appreciation to those who have helped make this program possible.

Proceedings edited by Dr. Dale ZoBell, USU Animal Scientist Manuscript preparation by Karma K. Wood, USU Staff Assistant

3

ARIZONA/UTAH RANGE LIVESTOCK WORKSHOP

Program: St. George, Fairgrounds, April 5, 2005 Kanab, Red Hills Hotel, April 6, 2005 Demonstration Day: Kanab, In the field, April 7, 2005 7:45 Registration (no fee) 8:15 Welcome and Introduction 8:30 Public Land Management Since Lewis and Clark – Dr. Bruce Godfrey, Utah State

University Extension, Farm Management Specialist 9:15 Forage Kochia – Dr. Dale ZoBell, Utah State University, Beef Cattle Specialist 10:30 Break

Sponsored, by listed sponsors 11:00 ALIRT (Arizona Livestock Incident Response Team) – Dr. Peder Cuneo, DVM,

Extension Veterinarian University of Arizona 11:30 Lunch Sponsor – Vitalix 12:00 Lunch 1:00 Equine Health Update – Dr. Dave Ellefson, DVM, Fort Dodge Animal Health 1:30 Supplemental Feeds (Molasses block/salt mix) – Dr. Ken Olson, Utah State University,

Animal, Dairy, and Veterinary Sciences 2:00 Elk Herd Dynamics – Dr. Bruce Godfrey, Utah State University, Farm Management

Specialist 2:30 Break

Sponsored, by listed sponsors 3:00 Grazing Management Systems – Bob Sandberg, Bureau of Land Management 3:30 Range Improvement/Environmental Stewardship – Darrell Johnson, Private Operator,

Past President of the Utah Cattlemen’s 4:30 Adjourn Demonstration/Tour Day Program:

Kanab – In the field Invasive Woody Species Rabbit Brush Control Trials, Pinion/Juniper and Sagebrush Ecology and Rangeland Restoration

Program Hosted by: • Arizona and Utah Livestock Producers • Fredonia Natural Resources Conservation District • Arizona Strip Grazing Board • USDA Natural Resources Conservation District • Littlefield-Hurricane Valley & Dixie • USDI Bureau of Land Management Conservation District • U.S. Forest Service – USDA

Utah State University And The University of Arizona

Cooperative Extensions

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TOPIC PAGE #

Public Land Management and Use: What have we learned in the 200 years since Lewis and Clark? (E. Bruce Godfrey) …………………………………………………………5-12 Forage Kochia For Fall/Winter Grazing (Dale R. ZoBell, Blair L. Waldron) ……………….13-14 The Use of Forage Kochia by Beef Cows For Fall/Winter Grazing (Dale R. ZoBell) ………15-19 Establishing Forage Kochia (Dale R. ZoBell, W. Howard Horton) …………………………20-21 ALIRT (Arizona Livestock Incident Response Team) (Peder Cuneo) ………………………22-27 Strategic Supplementation of Beef Cattle Grazing Winter Range (Ken C. Olson) ………….28-39 Raising a Trophy Bull Elk: Economics and Other Issues (E. Bruce Godfrey) ……………....40-42 A Look Around Johnson Ranch (Darrell Johnson) …………………………………………..43-50

5

PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT AND USE: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED IN THE 200 YEARS SINCE LEWIS AND CLARK?

E. Bruce Godfrey

Public Land Management and Use:

What have we learned in the 200

years since Lewis and Clark?

By:

E. Bruce GodfreyUtah State University

Major sections • Brief review public land management

policy and history. • Outline the current status and trends

associated with the use of public lands.• Outline what differences and similarities

exist in the allocation problems faced by public land managers in two general periods

a) the first 100 years (1800’s)b) the last 100 years (1900’s)

• Compare and contrast land management decisions near the turn of each century.

July 4, 1803• Meriweather Lewis

left Washington DC on the Journey of Discovery

• Word was received that the Louisiana Purchase had been approved by France

General land office was formed in 1812 to

• Reduce “squatters” on public lands

• Manage lands until disposal.

• Retention was not considered in the early 1800’s. The question was how to dispose.

Jefferson Hamilton

Disposal of federal lands

Veterans6% Railroad

10%

Alaska14%

Homestead30%Sales

32%

Land Claims4%

Desert Land1%

Timber and Stone3%

Why are the public lands primarily in the

inter-mountain west?

6

Primary land reservations---not subject to homestead laws

• Parks (and areas managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service)

• Forest Service

Reasons for Parks

• Non rival in consumption

• Exclusion for some sites Someone would “plant himself right across the only path that leads to these wonders, and charge every man that passes…a fee of a dollar or five dollars.” (1872)

• Common access to most Vandalism, Poaching,etc

Reasons for retaining forest reserves (Forest Service)

• Eliminate problems of overgrazing, particularly by sheep

• Change in philosophy

Impact of sheep

• “…Next to fires sheep were responsible for the greatest damage to new growth” of forests

• “The only way to prevent another outfit from obtaining a given range was to strip it utterly naked.”

Comparative advantages of sheep in the early west

• Wool had relatively high value

• Lower labor costs than cattle

• Many flocks not tied to a “home base”

• Could use lands not useable by cattle

Deserts in winter instead of hayHigh mountain in summer

• Were mobile and “moved with the grass”

Growth in livestock in west

• Cattle numbers in west grew from 9% of US in 1870 to 18% in 1920

• Sheep numbers in west grew from 20% of US in 1870 to 60% in 1920

Number of cattle, sheep and horses in US, 1870-1930

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

1870 1875 1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930

Th

ou

san

ds

Cattle Sheep Horses & mules

7

Change in Philosophy (Pinchot/Roosevelt vs. Jefferson)

• Jefferson (1803 until near turn of the century)“Jefferson was convinced that the only society that

could be truly democratic—truly self governing---was one which small farms and independent farmers dominated.”

• Roosevelt and Pinchot (generally early 1900’s)“The old practice of disposing of nonagricultural lands to private

owners, Pinchot and others argued, must give way to public ownership and management”

The “only way to achieve rational, comprehensive decision making was on government owned land.”

“…public ownership and management was superior to private ownership and no management.”

General provisions of land disposal laws

• Almost all disposal laws were designed to promote farming but much of the west could not be farmed (economically)

• Most limited acreage to 160 or fewer acres

• Disposal for just grazing by livestock was discouraged—except for the Stock Raising Homestead act

Failure of the homestead acts• Acreage limitation and farming

(Timber and Stone, Desert land, General Homestead)

“The idea of the farm small in acres within the semi-arid regions was tenacious but untenable.”“East of the hundredth meridian the Homestead was a success”

• Stock raising homestead act

Stock Raising Homestead Act, 1916

• Last of the homestead acts• Provisions

1. “Chiefly valuable of grazing and raising forage crops”

2. No timber and not susceptible to irrigation3. 640 acres “are reasonably required to support a

family”• Failure

1. Productivity of the land not sufficient to sustain a family---too few acres. 2. Impact of sheep

Why lands transferred in cattle country but failed with sheep

• Successful in east (cattle country)1. Branding2. Community roundups3. Introduction of barbed wire

• Sheep1. Branding not feasible/possible2. Many independent herders3. Net wire required (fence in versus fence out)

Why are most of the public lands in the west?

• Some set aside and not subject to disposition as a result of perceived market failures

ParksForest Service

• Remaining land (managed by BLM) not transferable to private ownership

a. Legal restrictions and formation of economic units

b. High enforcement costs

8

Status and trends of public lands and use in last 30+ years

• Acres

• Administration by agency

• Uses (timber, grazing, minerals, recreation)

• Financial status

Primary land management agencies

Percentage of federal land managed by agency, 1993

FWS14%

Reclamation1%

Forest Service29%

Park Service11%

Defense3%

BLM42%

Acres of public land in US, 1961-1994.

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

900.0

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

Source: GSA

Mill

ion

s o

f a

cre

s

Defense

Forest Service

Reclamation

Park Service

FWS

BLM

Percentage of Public land managed by agency, 1961-1994

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

Defense

Forest Service

Reclamation

Park Service

FWS

BLM

AUMs of grazing on BLM &FS lands,1966-1999

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98

FS BLM

MBF of timber cut from FS and BLM lands, 1959-2002

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1959 62 65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98

2001

Th

ou

san

ds

BLM FS

9

RVDs of recreation on BLM and FS lands, 1967-2000

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

Mill

ion

s

FS BLM

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Mil

lio

n $

FS

BLM

Revenues from grazing on BLM & FS lands, 1966-2002

Timber receipts from BLM & FS lands, 1965-2002

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1985

1987

198919

9119

9319

9519

971999

2001

Mil

lio

n $

FS

BLM

Mineral revenues from BLM & FS lands, 1965-2002

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Mil

lio

n $

FS

BLM

Recreation revenues from BLM & FS lands, 1965-2002

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Mil

lio

n $

FS

BLM

Percentage of revenue from BLM and FS lands by source, 1985-1999

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Mil

lio

n $

Recreation

Mineral

Timber

Grazing

10

Mineral revenues from on-shore lands, 1982-1999

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Mil

lio

n $

Revenues collected, expenditures and estimated yearly deficit by agency,

1997 or 1998

Half Billion

$ 587,000No reportFY 97FWS

Billion$ 1,156,000No report1997Park

Billion$1,307,000$ 368,7891997Forest

Half billion

$ 582,080$ 146,938FY 98BLM

Estimated deficit $

Expenditures x $ 1000

Revenues x $1000

YearAgency

Modern day land management issues

• Deficits are large and apparently increasing1. Shift from paying to non paying users2. Increasing expenditures

(e.g, analysis paralysis)3. Law suits

• User group dissatisfaction• Individuals calling for abolishment or

reform

Current opinions concerning agencies

• “No body is happy with the Forest Service” (Sedjo)

• “Saving our Parks requires rescuing the Park Service first”(Chase)

• “The present system is untenable” (Gardner)

We will now compare and contrast some public land decisions made

during two periods of time

• Those made near the turn of last century

• Those made in the late 1990’s

Parks and Wilderness

• Similar purpose (preservation)1. “In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify, ...leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection...”2. Wilderness and its community of life is left “untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor and does not remain...” (Wilderness Act)

• Strong support in states not affected, with support in state affected limited by acres involved

• Controversies likely to be similarPreservation (Muir) versus use (Pinchot)

11

Forest reserves and national monuments

• Strongly protested in the westDesignation of the national forests by Cleveland resulted in “A storm of protest in the west,.... that has rarely been equaled [because the recommendations were based on the opinions of] “theorists...who knew nothing of the west.”“The interest in the conservation, which dominated the movement between 1908 and 1910 (late 1900's) , came primarily from middle-and upper- income urban dwellers.”

• Actions occurred at the end of the term of a President with support of key member of cabinet

• Little or no input from Congress• Actions of next president did not overturn action

but thrust of land management changed

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

Similarities between grazing by itinerant bands of sheep in 1800’s and dispersed

(itinerant) recreation today

• Increased utilization occurred after improved transportation and equipment

• Mobility of user• Use of land that has limited

use by most other uses• Not tied to a “home base”

Impacts of “itinerant recreationist”• Over use of resource

(open access)• Externalities

(erosion, impacts on other uses, etc)• Conflicts with other users, especially

existing or historic• Reduce non-fee costs by

being close to resource• Agency resources strained in effort to

manage use

Impacts of increased recreation• Part-time and

seasonal minimum wage jobs

• Affluent flaunt wealth big homes& expensive vehicles

• Low or no fees encourages use

• Demand for private lands near public lands

Source of market failure associated with “itinerant recreationist” is related to problems of enforcement of property rights---similar to sheep a century ago

• Identification of user expensive or impossible

• Easy access to resource and resultant difficulty of exclusion

• Resistance to organization, definition and reallocation of property rights

12

Property rights• Property rights “consist of the rights, or powers, to

consume, obtain income from, and alienate these assets.... Legal rights, as a rule of law enhance economic rights, but the former are neither necessary nor sufficient for the existence of the latter. The rights people have over assets (including themselves and other people) are not constant; they are a function of their own direct efforts at protection, of other people’s capture attempts, and of government protection.” (Barzel, page 2)

• Will be acquired when the benefits > cost of acquisition

Uses of public lands and economic property rights

Limited

Limited

Generally

Yes

Yes

Yes

Alienate

Prior appropriationAcre feetWater

None or permitRVD’sRecreation

License NumberWildlife

Claims & Bids Tons, etcMinerals

Bid on ContractBoard feetTimber

Restricted PermitsAUM’sLivestock

Acquired Units Use

Ways to limit undesirable use by “itinerant recreationist” and some of the

problems of control

• Sell the land (access)Best sell (high productivity and where exclusion enforcement is possible), but others will remain in federal ownership

• Permits 1. Who is given permit (first, deserving,?)2. Permits may be capitalized3. What fees to charge

a. FLPMA and “fair market value”b. Resistance to fees

Conclusions• Most of the issues associated with the disposition

(land or property rights) of public land resources are long standing because we have never stopped allocating economic property rights to the use of federal lands.

• The basic issues have not changed in the 200 years since Lewis and Clark but the major “players” are different.

• The basic issue of how to redistribute use will likely become more intense in the future.

• Rent seeking (trying to influence public decision makers for “your benefit”) is likely to become more prevalent. The result is likely to be a smaller “economic pie” because these efforts are generally a negative sum game.

13

FORAGE KOCHIA FOR FALL/WINTER GRAZING

Blair L. Waldron, USDA-ARS Forage and Range Research Lab, Logan, UT 84322-6300 Phone: 435-797-3073 Email: blair.waldron@usu.edu.

What is Forage Kochia?

Winter feeding costs have often been cited as one of the most limiting aspects to cattle

ranching in the Intermountain west. Research and rancher experience suggests that using forage kochia for fall/winter grazing may help reduce winter feeding costs. Forage or prostrate kochia (Kochia prostrata) is native to the heavily grazed rangeland regions of Central Eurasia. It is a long-lived, semi-evergreen half-shrub that averages 1 to 3 feet high. It is drought, saline, and alkaline tolerant, and grows on a wide range of soils in areas receiving 5 to 20 inches of yearly precipitation. It is well adapted to marginal rangelands outcompeting cheatgrass and halogeton and stabilizing disturbed soils. It is different than the weed annual kochia (Kochia scoparia), in that forage kochia is a perennial semi-shrub, does not readily spread into perennial plant stands, and is not known to have the same nitrate or oxalate toxicity problems.

Uses. Forage kochia can be used for (1) forage for livestock and wildlife; (2) food and

cover for upland game birds, small mammals, reptiles, insects, etc; (3) prevent erosion and stabilize disturbed soils; (4) competition against cheatgrass, Russian thistle, medusahead, and halogeton; and (5) greenstrips to reduce the spread of wildfires. Why Are We Excited About Forage Kochia as a Winter Forage?

Forage Use. Ranchers in northern Utah and western Wyoming have successfully used

forage kochia for cattle and sheep grazing from July through March with no or little supplementation. In a two year study at Bob and Ben Adams ranch, forage kochia-wheatgrass pastures yielded 1300 lbs/acre forage in November as compared to 250 lbs/acre in an adjacent grass pasture. Cows grazing the kochia pastures gained in body condition score without any supplementation (Nov. - Jan.) at a cost of only $15/ AUM as compared to $45/AUM for animals fed harvested alfalfa hay.

Dr. David Koch (Univ. of Wyoming) and rancher Joe Broadbent have evaluated forage kochia utilization by late-gestation cows, stocker cattle, and sheep on the Broadbent Ranch in Uinta County, WY. In one instance forage kochia yielded 830 lbs per acre of grazeable dry matter as compared to 33 lbs per acre in an adjacent sagebrush range. They report excellent utilization by their livestock with improved condition scores and weight gains.

Forage Quality. Forage kochia is an excellent fall/winter forage because it maintains a critical level of crude protein and acceptable digestibility throughout this season. Crude protein has been reported to range from 14 to 7 % during the period of August to March, respectively, with higher protein levels than perennial grasses and legumes during the winter months.

Because of its high nutritional value, wildlife resource managers are also interested in its potential to alleviate diminishing winter ranges for deer and elk, and provide habitat for sage grouse. In addition, our research has shown that forage kochia can test over 20% crude protein in

14

July, suggesting that it may be used to alleviate protein deficiencies faced by non-migratory wildlife.

USDA-ARS RESEARCH

Immigrant is the only current cultivar in the U.S. Its short stature limits its use in areas where snow is more abundant. The USDA-ARS Forage and Range Research Lab in Logan, UT has a project to better understand its management and to develop forage kochia with larger stature, and improved forage quality characteristics. As part of our research we have obtained forage kochia from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and learned more about its use as a forage in these countries. Our genetic and management research has shown: 1. forage kochia has low potential to become “weedy”, 2. forage kochia is not closely related to, and will not cross with green molly or annual kochia, 3. in cooperative studies with USU, we are documenting the winter forage potential of forage

kochia and how to manage it as a forage source, 4. forage kochia lines from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are larger statured and more salt

tolerant, 5. there is a range of preference for forage kochia lines, but unlike some reports, livestock will

readily graze on forage kochia during the fall and winter, and 6. has resulted in testing of new experimental lines with the plan that new, improved, larger-

statured forage kochia cultivars should be available soon.

Dr. Blair Waldron is a research geneticist with the USDA Agricultural Research Service, Forage and Range Research Lab in Logan, UT. He received his Ph.D. in Plant Breeding from University of Minnesota and M.S. and B.S. in Plant Science from Utah State University. In addition to other responsibilities, he is the team leader at the ARS lab for forage kochia research and has traveled to central Asia twice to obtain new germplasm and learn about its use as a forage.

15

THE USE OF FORAGE KOCHIA BY BEEF COWS FOR FALL/WINTER GRAZING

D.R. ZoBell¹*, B.L. Waldron², K.C. Olson¹, R.D. Harrison², K. Jensen2 and H. Jensen¹ ¹Utah State University and ²USDA-ARS, Logan, UT

Abstract

The objective of these studies were to evaluate forage kochia as a resource for fall/winter grazing beef cows compared to a traditional stock-piled roughage feeding program. Two studies were conducted each started in early to mid-November where 42 beef cattle were randomly assigned to one of two treatments: Control - received stock-piled alfalfa hay free-choice, or Treated - placed on pastures containing a mix of forage kochia and crested wheatgrass. All groups were replicated three times. Initial and final data were obtained for body condition score and backfat. Pastures and alfalfa were analyzed for nutritive properties throughout the trial. Pasture results from year one (84 d study) showed that clipped forage samples of forage kochia had higher crude protein than crested wheatgrass and lower NDF but higher ADF than the grass samples. Forage quality of both forage kochia and crested wheatgrass decreased as the winter progressed. Crude protein for the forage kochia was 10.7% in November and gradually decreased to 5.3% by the end of January. Crude protein for crested wheatgrass was 6.7% in November and dropped to 5.1% by late January. Forage yield for all three pastures for years one and two were 867.1 lbs/acre and 930 lbs/acre (DM basis) respectively. The average yield for forage kochia was estimated to be 589.5 lbs/acre and crested wheatgrass was 277.7 lbs/acre in year one and 708.7 lbs/acre and 221.7 lbs/acre in year two. Pasture yield decreased from 1162.9 lbs/acre in November to 413.0 lbs/acre by the end of January in year one and from 1438 lbs/acre to 364 lbs/acre in year two. In year one, cow performance data indicated that BCS improved greater over time for the alfalfa versus the kochia fed cows (P<0.05) but not in year two. Change in backfat measurements were different for the alfalfa versus kochia cows in years one (P<0.05) and two (P<0.001). Cows in the drylot pens averaged 29.9 lb/day of alfalfa hay in year one and 35.0 lb/day in year two which were more than adequate to meet requirements. A preference study in year one indicated that the quality of cow diets was always higher than the quality of the forage available to them. From an economic point the grazing system would have been more profitable due to lower costs. It was concluded that forage kochia has tremendous potential advantages for beef producers using it as a roughage source for grazing beef cows during late fall and early winter as an alternative to feeding harvested forage. Key words: Beef Cows, Forage Kochia, Feed Costs Introduction Winter feeding costs in the Intermountain West can represent 50 to 70 percent of the input costs per cow per year (Hathaway, 2003). Research and rancher experience suggests that using forage kochia for fall/winter grazing may help reduce these costs (Koch, 2002; ZoBell et al, 2003). Forage or prostrate kochia (Kochia prostrata) is native to the heavily grazed rangeland regions of Central Eurasia and is an important fall and winter forage for various domestic and wildlife species (Waldron, 2001). It is a long lived, semi-evergreen half-shrub that averages 12 to 36 inches high. It is drought, saline, and alkaline tolerant, and grows on a wide range of soils in areas receiving 5 to 20 inches of yearly precipitation (McArthur and Sanderson. 1996). It is well

16

adapted to marginal rangelands, out-competing cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus) and stabilizing disturbed soils. Forage kochia is different than the weed annual kochia (Kochia scoparia), in that forage kochia is a perennial semi-shrub, will not spread into perennial plant stands, and does not have nitrate or oxalate toxicity (Harrison, 2000). Forage kochia can also be used as greenstrips to reduce the spread of wildfires (Harrison et al., 2002). The objective of this study was to evaluate forage kochia as a resource for fall/winter grazing beef cows compared to a traditional stock-piled roughage feeding program. Materials and Methods Two studies (year one = 84d; year two = 70d) were conducted over two successive years in Box Elder County in cooperation with the USDA Farm Service Agency and the Salt Wells Cattle Company. In both studies 42 late-gestation Black Angus beef cattle (average age 7 years) were divided into six groups to provide three replicate groups of each feed treatment. From approximately early November and into late January, control cows were fed alfalfa hay in drylot pens and treated cows grazed pastures planted to a mixture of kochia and crested wheatgrass. The treatment pastures were 40 acres in size. Pastured cows received no supplement for the duration of the experiment but had free access to salt and water.

Cow body condition score (BCS - scoring system from 1-9 wherein 1 was emaciated and 9 was obese) and ultrasound backfat (BF) thickness were collected initially and at termination on each cow. Forage clip samples were taken every 28 days on all three pastures to estimate forage yield and quality. Clipped forage samples were taken in representative areas of the pastures using a 1 m2 plot and clipped to stubble that assumed 70% utilization. Grass and kochia were clipped separately and forage and alfalfa quality were analyzed by determining crude protein, acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF). In vitro true digestibility (IVTD) was also determined on forage samples from the pastures. In year one samples of the diet selected by cows on pasture were collected in November and January using ruminally cannulated cows which measured CP, ADF and NDF. Quality of the diet selected by cows was compared to the forage quality of the available grass and forage kochia from the clip plots, as well as the alfalfa hay. Cow BCS and backfat responses and diet CP and NDF were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) in a completely randomized design. Body condition scores and backfat thickness were evaluated in a model that included treatment, period (i.e. initial and final) and their interaction. Period was designated a repeated measure. When interactions occurred, means were separated within each level of each main effect using LSD. Diet variables were evaluated in a model that included month, pasture, and cow within pasture. The test of interest was the month effect. Pasture and cow were designated as random effects.

17

Results and Discussion Forage Quality (year one – year two not available) Clipped forage samples of forage kochia had higher crude protein than crested wheatgrass (Table 1). This was expected because shrubs retain higher levels of crude protein than grasses during the winter. The kochia had lower NDF but higher ADF than the grass samples. The reason that ADF was higher in kochia than grass is because shrubs have higher lignin levels than grasses, and lignin is a component of ADF. Higher NDF in grasses is reflective of higher levels of fiber in the cell wall of grasses. The grass samples had higher digestibility because fiber is potentially digestible while lignin is totally indigestible. This relationship of higher crude protein from shrubs and higher digestibility from grass is typical. Thus, allowing ruminants to consume a combination of kochia and dormant grass is most desirable for obtaining a balance of nutrients and energy in the diet. Forage quality based on the clipped samples of both forage kochia and crested wheatgrass decreased as the winter progressed (data not shown). Crude protein for the forage kochia was 10.7% in November and gradually decreased to 5.3% by the end of January (study termination). Additionally, crude protein for crested wheatgrass was 6.7% in November and dropped to 5.1% by late January. Reduction of forage quality as the grazing season progresses is to be expected for two reasons. First, cattle graze selectively and remove the best material first, leaving poorer quality material. Second, the forage weathers throughout the winter, losing nutritional value in the process. The quality of cow diets based on the preference study was always higher than quality of the forage available to them (Table 2). As stated previously, this is to be expected because grazing livestock always select a diet that is higher in nutritional value than the average of all the forage available. Diet quality declined from November to January. This is also to be expected because the value of the forage that remains late in the grazing season is less than what was available in November. Despite the rather dramatic decline from November to January, January diets still had adequate crude protein to support ruminal digestion of forage (7% is considered the minimum crude protein that will support rumen fermentation). Additionally, diets that are 60% digestible should be adequate to meet requirements of nonlactating cows in mid-to-late gestation. This is supported by their ability to maintain body condition, even in January when diet quality was lowest. Forage Yield (year one and two) In year one, mean forage yield for the pastures throughout the grazing period was 867.1 lb/acre (DMB). The average yield for forage kochia and crested wheatgrass was 589.5 lb/acre and 277.7 lb/acre, respectively. Pasture yield decreased substantially throughout the duration of the study. Total yield decreased from 1162.9 lb/acre in November to 413.0 lb/acre by the end of January. Over time there was an estimated 185.9 lb decrease in forage kochia and a 117.7 lb decrease in crested wheatgrass/acre. The forage kochia yielded significantly more than did the crested wheatgrass on average (310.7 lb/acre more) (P<0.05). Despite the drop in forage availability, the cattle had access to adequate forage to select a diet that met or exceeded their nutrient requirements. However, it appears that cows should be removed from pastures at about

18

the level of residual forage that we observed so that diet quality does not fall below maintenance requirements. Year two total pasture forage yield for November, December and January were 1438, 988 and 364 lbs/acre respectively. Of these amounts, kochia yield was 1103, 709 and 314 lbs/acre for these same months respectively, with grass yield showing a similar declining pattern. Animal Performance (year one and two) In year one, treatment and period interacted (P = 0.04) for BCS and tended to interact (P = 0.08) for backfat (Table 3). Both BCS and backfat increased for cows in both treatments, but the interactions occurred because cows receiving alfalfa hay had a statistically greater increase in BCS and backfat than cows grazing kochia. Cows in drylot were offered 30 lbs/d of alfalfa hay, with very little being wasted. This exceeded nutrient requirements for cows in late gestation based on NRC (1996). The experiment ended within days of the onset of parturition. The final BCS of 6 observed with alfalfa feeding was greater than necessary for cows to quickly return to estrus and be fertile by initiation of breeding (Perry et al., 1991). The final BCS of 5.3 observed with kochia grazing would optimize reproductive performance and winter feed costs. In year two, the change in BCS from initial to final measurements for cows grazing kochia and those in drylot were .19 and .71 (P=0.09), respectively. Change in BF from initial to final were -.26 inches and -.10 inches for kochia and drylot cows (P=0.001), respectively. Cows in drylot received 35 lbs of alfalfa hay per day, which again exceeded requirements resulting in pen-fed cows holding their condition longer and at a higher level than those on the kochia pasture. Nutritive value of the alfalfa hay (DMB) for each year was approximately 18.0 % Crude Protein (year one), 21.0 % Crude Protein (year two) and 62.0 % Total Digestible Nutrients (both years). From an economic sense, the grazing system would have been more profitable due to lower costs. This is based on approximately $45-$60 / AUM to feed stored feeds and approximately $16-$20 / AUM to pay for pasture rent and fees. Grazing systems are also much less labor intensive. This study also demonstrated, when feeding stock-piled forages, it is advisable to determine cow requirements and feed nutritive values and match these as closely as possible to decrease excess feed costs. Conclusions Forage kochia is a nutritious perennial that is well adapted to the Intermountain West region of the U.S. There are tremendous potential advantages for beef producers using it as a roughage source for grazing beef cows during late fall and early winter as an alternative to feeding harvested forage. Viability and sustainability of beef production in the western U.S. can be increased if feed costs are decreased. Forage kochia could be an important management option to reduce winter feed costs and improve livestock ranching profitability.

19

Literature Cited Harrison, R.D., N.J. Chatterton, B.L. Waldron, B.W. Davenport, A.J. Palazzo, W.H. Horton, and

K.H. Asay. 2000. Forage Kochia – Its Compatibility and potential aggressiveness on Intermountain rangelands. Utah Ag. Exp. Sta. Res. Rpt. 162. (Available on-line at http://www.agx.usu.edu/agx/ResearchReports/KOCHIA/kochia.html).

Harrison, R.D., B.L. Waldron, K.B. Jensen, R. Page, T.A. Monaco, W.H. Horton, and A.J. Palazzo. 2002. Forage kochia helps fight range fires. Rangelands. 24(5):3-7.

Hathaway, Ronald. 2003. Alternative winter nutritional management strategies. Western Beef Resource Committee, Cow-Calf Management Guide CL314.

Koch, D. 2002. Kochia – a forage with winter grazing potential. University of Wyoming Extension (Available on-line at http://wwwuwyo.edu/ces/psas/SMRR/kochia.html).

McArthur, E.D., and S.C. Sanderson. 1996. Adaptation of forage kochia accessions across an environmental gradient in Rush Valley, Utah. Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation 10:125-138.

NRC. 1996. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Perry, R. C., L. R. Corah, R. C. Cochran, W. E. Beal, J. S. Stevenson, J. E. Minton, D. D. Simms, and J. R. Brethour. 1991. Influence of dietary energy on follicular development, serum gonadotropins, and first postpartum ovulation in suckled beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 69: 3762-3773.

Waldron, B.L., R.D. Harrison, N.I. Dzyubenko, A. Khusainov, S. Shuvalov, and S. Alexanian. 2001. Kochia prostrate germplasm collection expedition to Kazakhstan. P. 113-117. In D.E. McArthur and D.J. Fairbanks (comps) Shrubland Ecosystem Genetics and Biodiversity Symp., Provo, UT. June 13-15, 2000. Proceedings RMRS-P-21. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Res. Station. Ogden, UT.

ZoBell, D.R., B.L. Waldron, K.C. Olson, R.D. Harrison, and H. Jensen. 2003. Forage Kochia for Fall/winter Grazing. Utah State University Extension Publ. AG-2003-07. (Available on-line at http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/zobell7.pdf).

Table 1. Nutritional quality of forage samples clipped from

the pastures (year one - % of DM) Item forage kochia crested wheatgrass Crude protein 7.2 5.9 NDF 59.5 63.6 ADF 47.3 42.5 IVTD 52.1 55.8

Table 2. Backfat and Body Condition Score for Alfalfa and Kochia Treatments (year one)

Backfat, inches BCS Item Initial Final Initial Final Alfalfa 0.16a,x .49b,y 4.95a,x 6.02b,y Kochia 0.15a,x 0.26a,z 4.86a,x 5.31b,z a,b Numbers with different superscripts differ (P<0.05)

across rows for BF and BCS. x,y,z Numbers with different superscripts differ (P<0.05)

down columns for BF and BCS.

Table 3. Nutritional quality of diets selected by cows from the pastures (year one - % of DM)

Item November January P Crude protein 12.6 7.3 0.02 NDF 53.8 64.6 0.01 IVTD 62.2 60.1 0.60

20

ESTABLISHING FORAGE KOCHIA

W. Howard Horton, USDA - ARS Forage and Range Research Lab, Logan, UT 84322-6300 Phone: 435-797-3079 Email: hhorton@cc.usu.edu

The Problem

For many decades there has been continuing destruction of native shrub lands in the salt

desert ecosystems of the Western Great Basin. Poor grazing practices early in pioneer history left many cool desert areas susceptible to invasion by weedy annuals such as cheatgrass and medusahead rye. By mid-summer these invaders often express themselves as monocultures of flammable material sparking extreme wildfires that race across basin landscapes destroying vast complexes of native shrubs, most of which are not capable of re-sprouting following a burn. After fire, the surviving shrub seeds often germinate and begin the lengthy process of re-establishment only to fall in defeat as the next burn consumes the area. With continuous cycles of wildfire even the slightest opportunity for recruitment and establishment of a natural plant community is virtually impossible. Many range scientists believe that such abused ecosystems reach a threshold level so void of perennial seed sources and extreme annual weed invasion that without human intervention they may remain indefinitely in a condition where soil, plant, and water resources are in a continual cycle of degeneration. Establishing Forage Kochia on Severely Disturbed Sites (Newhall et al.,2004. Rehabilitating Salt-Desert Ecosystems Following Wildfire and Wind Erosion. Rangelands 26(1):3-7)

Forage kochia has been successfully used to stabilize severely disturbed areas. In 1986, a wildfire occurred in West Central Utah burning several thousand acres of salt desert shrub lands composed primarily of shadscale and fourwing saltbush. Intermixed cheatgrass allowed the fire to move across the area and completely destroy the shrub complex. For several years following the burn, severe drought restricted any plant recruitment, including cheatgrass and halogeton Without plant cover, the ancient silty clay lake bed soils began to move. Enormous amounts of soil blew from the area creating major dust clouds that settled over metropolitan areas a hundred miles away. Due to extreme wind erosion no plant species were able to naturally recruit to provide site stabilization. Forage kochia was broadcast on the blowout epicenter in late fall of 1989. After struggling for several years as small seedlings, it established as a mature plant community and completely stabilized the areas of application. The low cost of broadcasting forage kochia on the surface, combined with its ability to establish against drought, blowing soils, and its re-sprouting characteristic following burns, proved it to be a unique plant for stabilizing severely disturbed sites. Establishing Forage Kochia as a Forage Species

Forage kochia, for use by livestock and wildlife, should generally be established as part of a mix with other perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs. When seeded in mixtures kochia is interspersed throughout the seeding and the isolated plants grow larger and more productive, compared to kochia monocultures where it competes against itself producing little forage and

21

reduced seed yields. Animals usually respond better when grazing a combination of plant materials. Health risks are intensified when grazing only one species due to the changing value of plants at different seasons and maturity levels. The risk is usually reduced if an animal has a diverse diet at their disposal. It is not usually feasible to establish kochia on areas that have existing stands of mature perennial plants such as crested wheatgrass or sagebrush etc. without radical cultivation followed by compaction prior to planting. It is important to note that forage kochia cannot be successfully drill seeded with small seeded legumes, grasses, and forbs. Kochia is extremely sensitive to planting depth and usually requires a separate planting process where it is surface broadcast after other species have been drilled. Total failure is not unusual if kochia seed is covered with more than a skiff to 1/8 inch of soil. Lessons Learned in Seeding and Establishing Forage Kochia as a Green Strip (Monaco et al., 2003. Re-establishing Perennial Vegetation in Cheatgrass Monocultures. Rangelands 25(2):26-29.)

Forage kochia is a semi-evergreen half shrub that remains moderately succulent even in the summer months when wildfires become a routine problem across many rangeland areas. Planted as a firebreak, kochia is a plant capable of controlling, and at times completely stopping fire. It will burn if surrounded by flammable material such as dry cheatgrass, but fire will usually penetrate only a short distance into a pure stand . The following are a few observations and lessons learned in seeding and establishing kochia as a green strip: 1. Fall and winter seedings are more successful than spring seedings. Seeds require a cold treatment, which is naturally provided by laying on the soil during fall and winter to break seed dormancy. Spring seedings often do not provide a sufficient chilling period for the seed to break dormancy. Seed can be successfully broadcast over snow and on frosty soils. 2. Best establishment results are achieved when sites are burned and lightly disturbed by harrowing, prior to broadcast seeding. 3. High seeding rates of 6 pounds per acre of kochia result in a more rapid elimination of annual weedy grasses and a faster development of kochia stands capable of stopping wildfires. Lower seeding rates of 3 pound per acre accomplish the same result but require several additional years to create a firebreak sufficient to stop a range fire. 4. Germinating seedlings have the capacity to persist in a very small rosette stage (no larger than the head of a thumb tack) for 2 years during drought periods without dying. A very close evaluation needs to be assessed before declaring a forage kochia seeding a failure. 5. Most effective green strips are heavily seeded kochia monocultures, where thick stands compete against themselves and create low, short plant canopies incapable of sustaining a moving fire. How to Prevent a Failed Forage Kochia Seeding 1. Use current years seed that has been properly stored 2. Always require a current germ test from an authorized seed testing laboratory and purchase on a pure live seed basis. 3. Require seed to have 90% to 100% purity so it can easily be broadcast seeded. Clean seed allows accurate machine calibration and dissemination through standard broadcasters with minimal agitation. Impure kochia seed causes a multiplicity of seeding problems. 4. Always broadcast kochia seed on a disturbed seedbed. Never allow seed to be buried.

22

ALIRT (ARIZONA LIVESTOCK INCIDENT RESPONSE TEAM) Peder Cuneo

Partnerships for Agricultural Security

Arizona Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory

University of Arizona

Potential Impact of an Attack Against Food and Agriculture

• Loss of political support– Undermine overall confidence in government

– Loss of confidence in the safety of the food supply

– Increase concern for personal safety

– Public criticism to eradication efforts• Environmental

• Animal welfare issues – mass slaughter

Where We Were

• Foot and Mouth– United Kingdom

– Risk factor to United States

• Possible Ag-bioterriorsim– September 11 and beyond

FMD Learning from the U K

• Preparation

• Infected material, animal movement

• Speed of response and local control

FMD Learning from the U K

• Preparation:

“There can be little doubt that the present epidemic has taken us all by surprise and found us singularly unprepared to deal with it and its consequences”

23

FMD Learning from the U K

• Infected material, animal movement:

“We clearly need to be a lot more vigilant than we have been about importing infected material and closing off the possibility that such infected imports can get anywhere near our livestock. We can be a lot more careful about tracing animal movements.”

FMD Learning from the U K

Speed of response and local control:

“It is easy to suspect that rather cumbersome and bureaucratic procedure have resulted in considerable delays and logistical problems which can only have contributed to the spread of the disease……Preoccupation with forms, formal requisitions, formal documentation should take a long second place to effective and rapid actions.”

“SHOOT FIRST, ASK SHOOT FIRST, ASK QUESTIONS AND QUESTIONS AND

SETTLE BILLS SETTLE BILLS LATERLATER””

The U S and Trade

• U S top agriculture exporter– $53. 5 billion 2004

– Each ag export dollar stimulates $1.32 in US economy

– Each $1 billon in ag export represents 14,000 domestic jobs

– ERS/USDA

"Open trade is not just an economic opportunity, it is a moral imperative" - President George W.

Bush

On the Border

• US imports from Mexico 2000– Total ag $5.078 billion

– Vegetables $1.560 billion

– Grapes $142 million

– Cattle $405 million

• US exports to Mexico 2000– Total ag $6.545 billion

– Red meat $960 million

– Grains and feeds $ 1.709 billion

– Oilseeds $1.032 billion

24

Arizona and International Trade

• Arizona Agricultural Exports– Cotton $99.8 million

– Seeds $81.6 million

– Vegetables $76.3 million

– Live animals/meat $70.3 million

– Wheat $36.6 million

Net Effect of NAFTA on US, Mexico Agricultural Trade

• United States exports to Mexico– From 1993 to 1999 increased from $3.6 billion

to $5.6 billion– NAFTA increased total U S beef export to

Mexico by $400 million

• Mexican exports to United States– From 1993 to 1999 increased from $2.7 billion

to $4.9 billion

USDA Uncertainties

• Ability of surveillance, detection and emergency management systems to deal with emerging diseases

• Role of novel production systems• Role of changes in production, processing

and distribution systems and emerging diseases

• Effects of climate change

Trade, Mad Cows and Arizona

• World trade is here– Borders are barriers no longer

• WTO, GATT have become eco-political reality

– With the lesions learned from FMD in the UK we must rethink our approach to animal health issues

• Balance of politics and animal health

Response to FAD/Bioterror Threat

• Congressional Action funded to support development of expanded veterinary diagnostic capability

• AzVDL receive $700,000 through USDA

• AzVDL is the only fully accredited, full service veterinary diagnostic facility in Arizona

25

AzVDL and Arizona Security

• Enhanced Diagnostic Facilities– Large Animal Handling and Necropsy

• PCR– Use in diagnosis of FAD’s (FMD)

• Improved disease reporting and networking

• Animal Retrieval Trailer

Field Investigations AzVDL

• Provide on site diagnostic services for selected cases– Agency request

– Referring veterinarian

– Possible FAD, Zoonotic

– Large scale animal death/health event

Partnerships

• AzVDL and the University of Arizona are providing support to animal health agencies on local, state and federal level

• The risk presented by FAD, ag bioterror and ongoing animal health problems require a team approach to protect Arizona’s agriculture

S Peder Cuneo DVM:

S Peder Cuneo DVM:

HAPPY TRAILS !!

26

Training Program ALIRT Veterinarians

University of Arizona Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory DRAFT

15 minutes Arrival AzVDL Introductions Az DOA and AzVDL Faculty 1 hour Orientation to ALIRT team process Incident response (introduction to FEMA ICS system)

Communication systems (use of extension data ports, communication with ALIRT Committee)

Diagnostic testing and reporting results Payment for services Dr Willer and Dr Cuneo 30 min Sample processing at AzVDL and development of case files Dr Dial 45 min Handling Possible FAD’s Az DOA and USDA APHIS On site evaluation FAD yes or no? What to do if confronted with probable FAD On site biosecurity, C and D What State and Federal agencies will do if incident is FAD Dr Willer and APHIS VS Dr’s Glock and Cuneo 30 min Sample handling as evidence University of Az Police and/or Regional FBI Special Agent 90 min Review of common causes of extensive livestock death (cattle, ranch horses, and

swine) Dr.s Bradley and Glock High Risk FAD’s and Possible WMD’s Dr. Cuneo 30 min Sample collection/ Processing/ Shipment

How to handle samples collected in the field, further processing and shipment to AzVLD

Dr Glock 45 min Review of handout materials and field kits and shipping kits Using GPS’s etc.

27

Flow Chart Livestock Sampling Discovery of Possible Livestock Toxicity Problem CONTACT NUMBERS: Treat/evaluate livestock alive Arizona State Veterinarian Dr Rick Willer 602-542-4293 Start sample collection USDA/APHIS Dr. Hortentia Harris 480-491-1002 Arizona Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory 520-621-2356 Live animal Dead animal Serum (remove blood clot within 1-2 hrs) minimum 5 ml Serum 10 ml refrigerate do not freeze Whole blood (if possible) Whole blood minimum 10 ml Urine Do not freeze Liver 1/4 pound fresh 1/4 pound formalin-fixed Urine 2 oz (50 ml) Kidney same Freeze Body fat 1/4 pound fresh Feces about ½ pound (more the better) Brain ½ frozen, ½ formalin-fixed (midline) refrigerate (can be frozen) Rumen 5 lbs (multiple sites) fresh (frozen)/feces Milk 4 oz (10 m) Eyeball (whole eye) refrigerate Bone whole long bone (leg) Water Hay/forage Let hydrant run before collection Bale hay use core sampler Rinse container with water to be tested Field samples 8-10 locations sample 4 foot area at Sample into glass jar with clean aluminum foil over mouth grazing height mix collected forage and take If looking for Blue-green algae split sample and formalin fix one sample sample Keep cool or freeze Keep samples in paper bags/not plastic Silage/green chop can be frozen Any unknown and/or known toxic plants individual Shipping packaged and identified Fresh samples must be kept cool until delivery if >72 hours freeze fresh samples All samples individual packaged and identified/follow shipping guidelines Completed submission form and inventory of samples attached to OUTSIDE of shipping container (except Fed Ex)

28

STRATEGIC SUPPLEMENTATION OF BEEF CATTLE GRAZING WINTER RANGE

The following is a portion of a booklet that was compiled in 2000 by Western Coordinating Committee 110, which is a group of range animal nutritionists from western universities and USDA-ARS research stations. The citation of the booklet is: Strategic Supplementation of Beef Cattle Consuming Low-Quality Roughages in the

Western United States. Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 683.

Supplemental Feeding of Range Livestock: An Introduction

Mark K. Peterson Department of Range & Animal Sciences

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003

Pat G. Hatfield Department of Animal & Range Sciences

Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717

Sustainable livestock production utilizing rangelands requires knowledge of the nutritional value of available forage and experience with the probable responses by livestock to the quality and availability of that forage. These predicted responses are compared to the desired productivity of the grazing animal. If the predicted animal response is less than the desired productivity, then supplementation is considered. Supplementation research that started over 50 years ago has attempted to develop a predictive tool that could be used by ranchers. However, industry and nutritionists are still unclear on what type, amount, and duration of supplement is needed for optimum profitability of grazing animals. Under extensive livestock management, systems comprised of management expertise, fences, water, and white salt, livestock give birth and reproduce during the periods of available green vegetation. These animals go through cycles, within a year, of using stored body nutrients and then replacing those nutrients. Not every animal is reproductively successful each year. Those that do reproduce every year are suited to their nutritional environment because they can synchronize their high nutritional demands and replenishment of body energy reserves to occur when abundant, high quality forage is available. This particular scenario, although low cost may not optimize profitability. Therefore, to enhance profitability, our nutritional management is planned around an optimal marketing scheme, and the nutritional environment is altered (by supplementation) to best fit the marketing decisions. In range operations, the ranch is the energy or nutrient supply for the livestock. Energy is the constituent of the diet that is needed in the largest quantity. When range and grazing management are planned simultaneously with animal energy needs, dietary energy rarely should be supplemented. As long as livestock can consume herbage to their appetite every day, the livestock manager has made the greatest and usually lowest cost impact on nutrient intake. At times when energy demand by the animal exceeds energy intake (snow cover or other environmental effects that reduce forage availability, cold stress, lactation, and late pregnancy), deposited body energy reserves can be used to meet the animal’s needs. Protein is the nutrient needed in the second greatest amount. To utilize forage energy efficiently, there must be a balance with protein. In most situations when livestock are grazing

29

or browsing dormant, non-green herbage, the balance of protein to energy is insufficient. Under these conditions, a protein supplement can improve forage digestibility and intake. By meeting the nutrient needs of the microorganisms that degrade fiber in the rumen, the net effect is more protein and energy available to the animal. Sometimes microbial protein is not sufficient to meet the animal’s needs. Then, a protein can be fed to complement the protein derived by the microbes. In this situation, bypass protein may be used effectively to meet requirements during lactation, weight loss, antibody production, or wool growth. The challenge at this point is the delivery of protein supplement. The following questions may need to be resolved: how much protein? What sources will be used economically? Should it be fed as a 20, 32, or 40 percent crude protein (CP) supplement? Fed for what period of time? Should it be fed every day, every other day, or once a week? Can it be fed as a liquid, cubes, cake, or in blocks? Should younger or thinner animals receive more per day or for a longer period? We need to know what is the least amount of supplement, fed in the simplest method, which will allow for accomplishment of production goals. Minerals and vitamins are required in the third and fourth largest quantity. They are important for animal structure, enhancing metabolism and immune function, and maintaining electrolyte balance, and are found in all parts of the body. Some can be stored and used over long periods, while others are needed on a daily basis. The most common method to supplement minerals and vitamins is through salt mineral mixes, using livestock’s attraction to salt as a mechanism to entice mineral consumption. Because of yearly variation and normal production fluctuation, it is difficult for most ranchers to assess the effectiveness of any supplementation program, especially with minerals, in any one year. Any nutrient not consumed in the necessary amount or balance to other nutrients compromises animal metabolism and production. It is important to establish which nutrient is most limiting or out of balance and supply that nutrient first. Observation of cattle and forage conditions, along with experience, can be used to assess the first limiting nutrient. Other methods that have been used with little or limited success are: clipped forage samples along with a forage analysis, analysis of blood urea nitrogen concentration or collecting fecal samples, and using prediction equations to determine limiting nutrients. Especially with sheep, clipped forage samples are not indicative of the quality of the diet that animals are capable of consuming. In fact, the limitation in the diet may change between years, so that in some years an energy supplement is most effective, some years a protein, and in other years no supplement is the best choice for the lowest unit cost of production. Even within a range livestock operation that has not changed genetic potential of the grazing animal, supplement needs, if any (type, quantity, time, duration, etc.), can change from year to year because of changes such as environmental conditions that impact forage availability and quality, and factors that affect body condition of animals as they enter traditional supplementation periods. Additional burdens to livestock producers and range animal nutritionists are the seasonal changes in forage quality and availability. With good moisture and moderate temperatures, forages are succulent and contain high nutrient density. As the season progresses, forages become coarser, drier, and lower in nutrient density. By mid-winter, these dormant forages contain 30 percent of their original proteins, are 50 percent lower in digestibility, and almost all high quality soluble nutrients have been leached away. As forage quality changes during the year, livestock protein requirements double, and energy requirements increase 50 percent. This creates a situation in which important criteria for supplementation decisions are constantly changing.

30

Finally, evaluation of the success of a nutritional management plan is difficult. On the ranch, it is important to have good records and then to make comparisons over years to determine the optimal nutritional management plan for improved productivity and profitability. Even better, but more difficult, is to use ranch-based experiments and assess different nutritional programs. The complexity of supplementation decisions (i.e., forage conditions, forage availability, animal condition, that which might be the lowest cost management plan in one year may negatively impact replacement rates long term) can be beyond the typical ranch manager’s experience. Decision aids are what is needed, to take into account all the factors simultaneously, to produce choices with the highest probability of long-term success. As production costs rise and societal views of food safety and confinement meat production become more critical, meat production from extensive grazing operations may be positioned well to increase market share of meat consumption in the 21st century. However, meat and protein production rapidly is becoming a world market. U.S. producers, even for domestic consumption, must be competitive with other meat producing countries. Nutritional costs represent both the highest variable cost in the form of feeds and the highest fixed cost in the form of land purchases. The key to the lowest unit cost of production is grazing the reproductive female as long as possible. Strategic supplementation of the grazing female needs to balance low unit cost of production with long term reproductive performance to yield a sustainable production system. The goal of this publication is to expand on a scheme called Strategic Supplementation. By using this process, livestock are supplemented only during the most effective period, with the minimum potent amount, and in a practical delivery system. Hopefully, this publication will assist range livestock managers and nutritionists in making these supplement decisions.

Physical Form of Crude Protein for Supplementation of Low-Quality Roughages

Tim DelCurto Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Union Station

Oregon State University, Union, OR 97883

Ken Olson Department of Animal, Dairy, and Veterinary Sciences

Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-4815

Introduction What Supplement is Best? To this juncture, this publication has addressed the concept of supplementation, protein and (or) energy considerations, and mineral and vitamin supplementation of low-quality roughages. This chapter will focus on protein supplementation and will begin to address the simple question of “what supplement is best?” Unfortunately, like most simple questions, the answers are not straightforward. In fact, evaluating various supplements is an ongoing process for ranchers and university faculty who focus on supplementation strategies. There are numerous types or “physical forms’ of supplemental protein available. What fits a given production scenario will depend on a number of factors, including cost of the protein, ease and

31

practicality of feeding the supplement, as well as productive state and nutritional status of the animal. Physical Form of Supplemental Protein There is limited information available concerning the efficacy of various types of feeds that might be used as sources of supplemental protein. The most common supplemental protein feed sources are derived from oilseed byproducts such as soybean meal and cottonseed meal. These sources of supplemental protein offer several advantages, including high concentrations of crude protein (i.e. soybean and cottonseed meal consistently have at least 50 and 45 percent CP, respectively) and energy densities similar to cereal grains. Thus, we usually consider these supplements as protein sources, they also provide significant energy contributions. However, these feed sources are sometimes expensive. As a result, identifying less expensive alternative feed sources that provide supplemental protein would be beneficial to ruminant livestock producers. Other potential oilseed supplements include canola meal, sunflower meal, rapeseed meal, and crambe meal. However, little research has been conducted to evaluate their value as supplements to low quality forages for beef cattle. Seone et al. (1992) supplemented steers receiving a medium-quality grass hay (15.8 percent CP) with canola meal and found that ADG was improved by 60 percent and hay intake was improved by 8 percent. Total diet dry matter digestibility was unaffected, but fiber digestion was decreased by canola meal. Coombe et al. (1987) evaluated rapeseed or sunflower meals as supplements for growing sheep grazing low-quality grass pastures. Sheep receiving no supplement or a urea supplement lost weight. Intake of rapeseed meal was low and variable, and resultant sheep performance was also variable and intermediate to performance of control and sunflower-meal supplemented sheep. Crambe seed is another oilseed that provides a high-protein meal after oil extraction. Caton et al. (1994) compared crambe meal to soybean meal, and found that OM and fiber digestion were similar, but N digestion was greater for crambe meal indicating that it may be higher DIP than soybean meal. Other potential supplements include whole soybeans (Albro et al., 1993), and wheat middlings (Ovenell et al., 1991; Sunvold et al., 1991). In a study evaluating whole soybeans, extruded soybeans and soybean meal supplements with low-quality meadow hay (6.5 percent CP), feed efficiency and gain of growing steers were similar (Albro et al., 1993). Likewise, wheat middlings have been shown to improve low-quality-forage utilization but not to the same extent as isonitrogenous mixtures of soybean meal and sorghum grain (Sunvold et al., 1991), or soybean meal and corn grain (Ovenell et a., 1991). In the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain West, alfalfa hay or cubes are often the supplement of choice because of competitive pricing and easy accessibility to the supplements. Studies comparing alfalfa and alfalfa products to oilseed-based supplements have yielded variable results. Work from eastern Montana (Cochran et al., 1986) and New Mexico (Judkins et al., 1987) have indicated that alfalfa pellets or cubes are as effective as cottonseed cake when fed on the equal protein basis. DelCurto and coworkers (1990c) found that sun-cured alfalfa pellets promoted higher forage intake and better maintenance of mature cow weight and body condition compared to long-stem alfalfa hay or soybean meal/sorghum grain supplements. Increasing levels of supplemental alfalfa often causes a quadratic effect on intake of low-quality forages (DelCurto et al., 1991; Vanzant and Cochran, 1994). Thus, total rations should be balanced, but exceeding the CP requirements with increased supplemental alfalfa will result in substitution for potential intake of low-quality forage. In general, these results suggest that alfalfa provides the

32

same benefits as other protein supplements when fed on an equal crude protein basis. Alfalfa hay may have an added advantage because it is easily transported and handled by ranchers, whereas oilseed supplements may require additional equipment such as feed bunks and storage bins. Furthermore, alfalfa hay has been shown to be comparable to alfalfa pellets whether fed daily or on an alternate day basis (Brandyberry et al., 1994). While alfalfa is a very versatile protein supplement with easy application to many beef production scenarios, producers should be careful to make sure the energy requirements are met and body condition reserves are adequate during winter feeding periods. Alfalfa can effectively meet CP requirements in rations with low-quality roughages; however, alfalfa does not have the caloric density of the oilseed meals or other byproduct feeds. In fact, alfalfa is similar to moderate to high quality grass hay in terms of energy density. Thus, if cows are energy deficient and marginal in body condition (fat reserves), supplements with higher energy density may be more appropriate. Another potential supplement for low-quality forages is high-quality grass hay. Horney et al (1996) suggested that high-quality fescue hay (11.9 percent CP) supplementation of grass straw (4.1 percent CP) yielded beef cattle performance that was similar to or better than that of cows receiving alfalfa hay supplements (19 percent CP). Likewise, Villalobos et al. (1997) evaluated cow performance and steer digestion responses to supplementation with a 15 percent CP grass compared to a soybean meal and wheat grain mixture while consuming dormant Nebraska Sandhills range forage. Both supplements improved cow performance by a similar amount over control cattle not receiving supplements. Forage intake was unaffected, but both supplements slightly depressed forage digestibility. These studies suggest that higher quality grass hays are adequate supplements for low-quality roughages. Use of feeds with high UIP or “bypass” protein is generally not a preferred strategy to supplement low-quality roughages. The optimal time to use low-quality roughages is during the last half of pregnancy. During this time (after weaning), cows are most suited to utilize cheap, low-quality roughage resources because they are not lactating and thus, are at the lowest nutrient requirements of their annual production cycle. Also during this time, amino acid requirements of the cow are adequately met by microbial cell protein reaching the lower gut. Thus, feeds with high levels of UIP such as feather meal, corn gluten meal, and other “bypass” supplements can be used (Alawa et al., 1986; Fleck et al., 1988), but they do not offer an advantage over less expensive feeds with high levels of DIP. In fact, the Beef NRC (1996) equations generally underscore that DIP is the critical protein fraction to supplement with low-quality roughages. The relative success of the numerous supplements described above illustrate the need to provide supplemental protein to beef cattle consuming low-quality, nitrogen-deficient diets. However, the general success of all supplements suggests that site of protein degradation (ruminal versus intestinal) is not a major consideration with the mature, non-lactating beef cow. Optimal Protein Concentration Numerous researchers have evaluated differing protein concentrations as well as protein to energy ratios with variable results in terms of providing consistent recommendations. DelCurto et al. (1990a,b) suggested that a 26 percent CP soybean meal-sorghum grain supplement was an optimal concentration for low-quality tallgrass prairie forage when compared with 13 and 39 percent CP supplements. In these studies, all supplements provided the same amount of energy, but were somewhat confounded by source of energy with high starch content in the low protein supplements. Likewise, in a study evaluating wheat middlings in 15, 20, and

33

25 percent CP supplements, Sunvold et al. (1991) suggested that 20 percent was best for enhancement of forage intake whereas reduced benefits were reported at the 25 percent CP level. Both researchers indicated negative effects of low protein concentrations, including reduced intake and digestibility, which was presumably due to the high starch content of the low protein supplements. Optimal protein concentration of forage supplements is less easily defined. Horney et al. (1996) found that high-quality meadow hay (11.9 percent CP) was comparable to alfalfa hay (19.0 percent CP) when used as a supplement to tall fescue straw (4.1 percent CP). In fact, cows supplemented with meadow hay gained more weight and tended to lose less body condition than alfalfa hay-supplemented cows; presumably due to the greater quantity of meadow hay fed to provide similar protein levels. Likewise, Weder et al, (1998) conducted a series of experiments evaluating the influence of alfalfa hay quality on intake, forage use, and subsequent performance by beef cattle consuming low-quality roughages. Alfalfa hays ranging in quality from 15 to 21 percent CP did not influence intake and digestibility of the low-quality basal diets nor dramatically alter beef cattle weight or body condition status when fed to provide equal amounts of protein. Therefore, in an alfalfa hay market that places a premium on CP concentration, beef cattle producers should look at feeder quality alfalfa as a viable supplement to low-quality forages. Use of NPN Supplements Nonprotein nitrogen (NPN) supplements are commonly used in both hand-fed and self-fed supplements. Compared to natural protein supplements, NPN sources are usually substantially cheaper. Therefore, the use of NPN ingredients yields a substantial economic advantage. However, NPN has not been as effective as natural protein sources when supplemented to cattle consuming low-quality forages. Summarizing six experiments evaluating the efficacy of urea and feed-grade biuret in supplements fed to cattle on winter range, Clanton (1978) reported decreased performance with supplements containing greater than 3 percent urea or 6 percent biuret as compared to cattle receiving all natural protein supplements. Likewise, Rush and Totusek (1976) found that cows maintained on winter range forage lost less weight when a natural protein supplement was fed compared to isonitrogenous supplements containing urea and biuret. Numerous other researchers have also observed depressions in expected beef cow performance when NPN is substituted for a portion of a natural protein in a supplement (Raleigh and Turner, 1968; Williams et al., 1969; Oltjen et al., 1974). Köster et al. (1997) substituted graded levels of urea for sodium caseinate so all supplement treatments were based entirely on DIP and were isonitrogenous, but different in ratio of NPN to true protein. Intake of dormant tallgrass prairie forage (2.4 percent CP) was unaffected by treatment, but ruminal and total tract digestibility of OM and NDF, as well as digestible OM intake, all declined quadratically, with the rate of decline increasing as urea content increased. It should be noted that in all the above performance studies, special attention was devoted to assuring proper sulfur to nitrogen ratios in the NPN supplements. Likewise, while the NPN supplements did not yield equal responses to natural protein supplements, positive responses to the improved N status was observed. Many potential explanations exist regarding why NPN is limited in potential as a source of N for ruminants consuming low-quality roughages. One of the major problems associated with efficient utilization of urea, the most common NPN source, is the rapid release of ammonia. Bloomfield et al. (1960) indicated that urea hydrolysis occurred four times faster than uptake of

34

the liberated ammonia, which in turn, increases the passive transport gradient and pH, thus making conditions optimal for absorption of ammonia into the blood (Bloomfield, et al., 1963). As a result, much of the ammonia released from urea is absorbed before the ruminal bacteria can efficiently utilize it. Additionally, Chalupa (1968) suggested that assimilation of ammonia by ruminal bacteria might also be limited by availability of carbon skeletons, such as branch-chain VFA, and other nutrients. Sulfur is a common nutrient suggested to impact the utilization of ruminal nitrogen due to their interrelated role in microbial cell protein synthesis. The advantage of natural protein sources, in this scenario, is that degradable proteins that are broken down and deaminated provide carbon skeletons and other essential nutrients for microbial cell protein assimilation. These results indicate that NPN might be a more viable supplement if the availability of ammonia was more closely synchronized with fermentative processes and essential nutrients for bacterial growth. Summary and Implications Numerous supplements are available that will provide protein to beef cattle consuming low-quality roughages. The “ideal supplement” is one that best fits the target animals nutritional needs, is easiest to handle and present to the target animals, and is most economical to purchase and feed. Obviously, many supplements may be appropriate in specific situations. While oilseed supplements are the most common supplements utilized with low-quality forages, numerous other supplements such as alfalfa, wheat middlings and high-quality meadow hays can be used effectively. Protein supplementation is critical to the optimal use of low-quality roughages, yet energy content or density may be important depending on body condition status and subsequent reproductive success of the cow herd. In general, natural protein appears to be the most beneficial supplement for high-fiber, low-quality roughages in ruminant diets. Nonprotein nitrogen does not appear to be as beneficial as natural protein supplementation. However, the differences in response can be minimized and NPN can offer economic advantages over natural protein. Furthermore, feeding of slowly degraded or bypass protein, as well as potentially “rate limiting” amino acids appear to show inconsistent responses and do not appear to show substantial improvements over traditional supplemental protein sources used with mature, nonlactating beef cows consuming low-quality roughages.

Supplementation Strategies

James Ed Huston Texas Agricultural Experiment Station

Texas A&M University, San Angelo, TX 76901

Introduction Livestock production systems are dynamic but must reach a long-term equilibrium in order to be biologically and economically sustainable. The system is biologically sustainable if the number of grazing animals is in a long-term balance with the amount of forage produced. The balanced system may be highly productive if the grazing animals have high genetic potential and if their requirements are met to a high degree. Alternatively, the system may be balanced yet much less productive if the requirements (and potential) of the animals are lower and (or)

35

nutrients are available from the vegetation at a lower level or in a less favorable pattern. In the latter case, the production system may be biologically but not economically sustainable. Grazing animals develop a behavioral pattern in seeking and consuming forages that satisfy some proportion of their physiological needs for nutrients (Stuth, 1991). Some of these activities are instinctive and some may be learned, but a settled-on pattern of behavior becomes characteristic of the animals within the bounds set by the local circumstances. Depending on the size and topography of the area, grazing animals may graze the entire area if small, may graze a small portion (e.g., valley site) of a large but totally accessible area, or may travel the entire area with intermittent stops to graze small preferred patches. Supplementation can be enhancement to behavioral strategies by increasing the efficiency with which the grazing animals harvest forage and extract nutrients from it. Conversely, supplementation can be intrusive if a sustainable strategy is disrupted by a negatively impacting behavioral change. The productivity of the unsupplemented grazing animal is determined, therefore, by its potential to produce and how well its nutrient requirements are satisfied by quantity, quality, and consistency of the grazed forage. Supplementing nutrients to grazing cattle is an adjustment for increasing the efficiency of transfer of forage nutrients to consumable products (meat, milk, and fiber). Once the proper species, classes, and numbers of animals are selected, practical questions of methods and timing are appropriate. Adopting supplementation does not diminish the need to maintain balance between the supply of and demand for forage; but, supplementing can increase harvest efficiency (i.e., forage intake; Huston et al., 1993) and the nutritional value of the forage (i.e., digestibility; DelCurto et al., 1990a,b), and release the production system to capitalize from more efficient animals having higher requirements (Holloway et al., 1975). Often, the final answers to a supplementation strategy may be weighed more by economic than by biological constraints, and it is common that the optimal management practice supports less than maximal productivity. The most frequently asked questions regarding supplemental feeding are what and how much should be fed. Also important is what method should be used in feeding. In this discussion on supplementation strategies, feeding frequency and hand- vs. self-feeding are considered. Both have biological and economic impact on the success of the practice. Frequency of Feeding Physiological activities of the ruminant, including those within its gastrointestinal system, do not proceed at a constant rate (Swain et al., 1996). Rather, almost all processes are cyclical and vary in activity within the 24-hour day (Beever and Siddons, 1984). For example, cattle generally graze until the reticulorumen is full of freshly grazed, poorly chewed forage, then lie down and ruminate. A mouthful of forage and liquid are regurgitated, chewed, and then swallowed. This process reoccurs many times until most of the material that was originally swallowed, but not chewed, has been further processed and made more accessible for attack by rumen microorganisms and their digestive enzymes. Fermentation rises along with the release of ammonia and the production of end products of fermentation (short-chain fatty acids), thereby increasing the absorption of these metabolites through the rumen wall and into the bloodstream. The ruminal contents decrease in mass as fermentation occurs. Undigested particles are carried along with the liquid phase that contains ruminally synthesized products and both exit the rumen to the lower tract where they are further processed. At some point, the animal rises to defecate, drink water, and (or) resume grazing to begin the cycle again. The number of times that these activities occur within the day depends on many factors that include forage availability (that influences harvest rate), forage quality (that influences total

36

intake, ruminating duration, and passage rate) and environmental factors (such as daylength, temperature, wind speed, precipitation, etc.). Some cycles occur many times within a 24-hour period (eating cycles with rises and falls in rumen ammonia and blood urea levels), some approximately at 24-hour intervals (common watering interval), and some less frequently (hormonal cycles, including those associated with the estrus cycle). Supplemental feeding affects the normal cycles, and depending on the composition of the supplemental feed, different changes occur (Doyle, 1987). High grain (starchy) feeds contain a relatively small amount of protein (less than 15 percent) but are highly and rapidly fermented by the rumen microorganisms. Rumen microorganisms in grazing animals, especially when forage quality is low, are adapted to fermentation of fiber (cellulose), a rather slow process. If grain is introduced into the rumen, fermentation increases and short-chained fatty acids are produced at an accelerated rate, thereby increasing the acidity of the rumen environment (drop in pH level). If this dietary change is abrupt and a substantial amount of grain is fed, the animal is in danger of acute lactic acidosis, which puts the animal in physiological crisis and may cause death. If the grain is introduced gradually and fed frequently, the rumen microbial population will adapt and capitalize on the more accessible nutrients (high energy and adequate protein). Although the fiber may be less well digested (Russell and Wilson, 1996), the increased value of the grain can more than offset a small decrease in fiber digestion and possibly in forage consumption. In some instances, low-level grain feeding stimulates fiber digestion by creating more microbial activity and either does not affect or slightly increase forage consumption (Doyle, 1987; Obara et a., 1991). This usually occurs when the rumen environment is maintained at a somewhat steady state (daily dietary ingredients are proportionally similar). Feeding of a high protein supplement does not result in an abrupt increase in volatile fatty acid production but increases ruminal ammonia and stimulates the microbial population to ferment fiber. If the forage in the diet is low quality (low in digestibility and protein), then the animal will benefit from protein feeding in four important ways. The protein in the supplement is broken down partially in the rumen. The products that include peptides, amino acids, ammonia, and various carbon fragments become part of the ruminal metabolic pool, yield some energy, and stimulate fermentation of dietary fiber. Benefits include: (1) a contribution to the digestible energy (fermented fragments), 92) increased fiber digestion and energy yield from fiber, 93) increased flow of protein (from diet and from rumen synthesis) to the lower tract for digestion, and (4) increased forage consumption because of decreased ruminal fill. Intermittent feeding of starch (high grain supplements) results in constant adjustments in the rumen population. Intermittent feeding of a protein concentrate, which is usually lower in starch and higher in fiber, is relatively non-intrusive to the dynamic equilibrium of the rumen population. The dynamics of the relationship between the ruminal microbial population and the host animal suggest that steady state nutrition is not essential for normal metabolic processes to continue. Hunt et al. (1989) showed that feeding of cottonseed meal at 12-, 24-, and 48-hour intervals to steers equally increased the particulate passage rate and intake of low-quality grass hay. An earlier study by McIlvain and Shoop (1962) showed that weaned steers grew approximately as well grazing on rangeland during a winter feeding period and subsequent summer period whether they were fed daily equivalents of 1 to 1.5 lb. of cottonseed cake daily, every third day, or weekly. Similar results have been reported at other locations with other classes of cattle either grazed of fed low-quality forages (Collins and Pritchard, 1992; Huston et al., 1986, 1996, 1997; Melton and Riggs, 1964; Wettemann and Lusby, 1994).

37

However, conflicting results have occurred when high-grain supplements were fed at different intervals. Chase and Hibberd (1985a) found that alternate-day feeding of high-grain supplements reduced intake of native grass hay (crude protein (CP) = 5 percent) compared to daily feeding of the same supplements. Moreover, a separate study by these same researchers (Chase and Hibberd, 1985b) showed that feeding corn at levels above 2 lb./day to adult cows decreased both intake and digestibility of native grass hay (CP = 4.2 percent). Similar results were reported by Adams (1986). Presumably, these reductions were the result of lowered pH in the rumen, thereby decreasing the activity of fiber-digesting microorganisms. On the other hand, Beaty, et al. (1994) fed cows supplements of increasing protein (decreasing grain) content and found daily feeding only slightly more effective than less frequent feeding (three times per week) with no interaction for frequency X composition. Huston et al. (1996) found that feeding a cottonseed meal:sorghum grain mixture (30:70) was of no value for cows grazing dormant Texas rangeland when fed at a low level either three times per week or weekly. However, when the mixture was fed at a high level (to provide equal protein with 2.1 lb/head/day cottonseed meal alone), it was as effective as the cottonseed meal even when fed in a once/week feeding of up to 30 lb/cow. This was a surprising result and requires additional study. Perhaps at the low feeding level, the expected decline in forage intake and fiber digestion occurred, thereby negating any benefit. At the higher feeding level (approximately 4.25 lb/day), the amount of energy and protein supplied may have offset any disadvantages due to substitution. The question of why those cattle fed a very high level of grain once per week were not adversely affected with grain overload (lactic acidosis) is open to question. It is likely that the effectiveness of infrequent feeding of protein supplements is dependent on the demonstrated capacity of the ruminant for nitrogen recycling (Houpt and Houpt, 1968; Hume et al., 1970). A high protein supplement fed every 3 to 7 days results in a large increase in rumen ammonia within a few hours after feeding (Beaty et al., 1994) followed by a rise in blood urea concentrations. In cows fed supplements once per week, at least one subsequent peak in blood urea occurs on about day 4 (Huston, unpublished data). This presumably is associated with recycling of absorbed nitrogen back to the rumen, where it again stimulates fiber digestion, protein synthesis, and forage intake before being reabsorbed in various forms and converted partially to urea once again. It seems clear that infrequent feeding, although not always biologically optimal, is an acceptable and safe practice; but, at the present, it should not extend to high-grain supplements or those containing readily hydrolysable nonprotein nitrogen. Timing of Supplementation Supplemental feeding should be planned to maximize the value of the nutrients supplied and minimize the negative effects on animal behavior. Robinson (1996) suggested that feeding cows a protein supplement 1 hour before feeding a mixed ration provided rumen-soluble nitrogen at a low point of rumen ammonia and stimulated microbial growth prior to the ingestion of the mixed ration. The result was a rise in milk production. Night feeding of dairy cows increased fermentation rate without changing animal performance (Nia et al., 1995) and increased digestibility of the rest of the diet while concurrently decreasing the ruminal escape of dietary protein (Robinson, 1997). Clearly, these findings are interesting but not applicable to most range livestock settings. Adams (1986) showed that steers fed a corn supplement in the early afternoon (during resting time) gained more weight than those fed during the morning grazing period. Additional

38

work is needed in this area to clarify the interrelationships between time of supplementation, ingestion of forage, and grazing behavior. Hand-Feeding vs. Self-Feeding Critical to the success of supplemental feeding is selecting a method that will deliver the desired amount of feed to the herd with minimal variability among the individual cows. Bowman and Sowell (1997) examined available information and concluded that optimal trough space and supplement allowances were important for hand-feeding. Inadequate space excluded some individuals from consuming supplement, and excess space increased the impact of dominant cows. Approximately 1 yard per cow is adequate trough space for hand-feeding. Better distribution among the individuals in the herd accompanied higher feed allocations. Although self-feeding tended to reduce the percentage of cows that did not consume supplement, the disparity (coefficient of variation) in amount consumed among individuals could be just as large or larger as when cows were hand-fed. Other factors that affected average consumption and within herd variability included supplement form (liquid, block, tub, etc.), formulation (block hardness, urea vs. preformed protein content, nutrient levels, etc.), and animal factors (e.g., social interactions). In studies with ewes (Weir and Torell, 1953) and cows (Riggs et al., 1953), self-feeding of a cottonseed meal and salt mixture was shown to have similar effects on animal performance with hand-feeding cottonseed meal at the recommended level. Salt levels of 25 to 35 percent of the mixture were considered necessary to limit intake to desired levels. In a study in Venezuela with crossbred steers grazing Pangola pastures, Chicco et al. (1971) found a mixed ingredient supplement (57 percent polished rice, 40 percent sesame meal, and 2.8 percent bone meal; CP = about 23 percent) increased gains similarly whether self-limited by an addition of 30 percent salt or hand-fed without salt (46 percent and 57 percent, respectively). Brandyberry et al. (1991) found that approximately 20 and 30 percent salt in mixtures would limit intake of a supplement by steers to about 2 lb. per head per day during summer and winter, respectively. They found very similar grazing behavior in steers that were either self-fed or hand-fed daily in very small (10 acre) pastures. Whether these similar behavior patterns would be displayed in extensive pastures was not tested. Clearly, the question of feeding method (hand-feeding vs. self-feeding) involves both feeding frequency and timing and their effects on grazing behavior. In small pastures or paddocks, feeding method would not be as important as in extensive situations. In small enclosures, time and distance do not restrict animal grazing opportunity. Whether cows visit a feeding location once a day, several times per day, or once every few days will not have a major influence on their opportunity to graze the entire area. On the other hand, cows on an extensive area may shorten their grazing time if they visit a feeding location frequently. In a study with sheep (Hatfield et al., 1990), supplemented ewes fed daily loafed more than those that were unsupplemented, and as a result, grazed less and tended to weigh less after the winter feeding period. This illustrates the possibility that feeding a small amount to animals that are marginally undernourished because of extensive, low availability of forage may be detrimental rather than beneficial if grazing behavior is disrupted. Self-feeding would reduce the “anticipation factor” and encourage the animal to continue grazing longer. Self-fed animals have continuous access to the supplement (less “bully” effect), except occasionally when the dominant individual “stands guard” at the trough. Hand-feeding daily allows aggressive individuals to consume disproportionately greater amounts compared with those that are more submissive. The

39

alternative of hand-feeding greater amounts of less frequent intervals is less disruptive and reduces the variation in consumption, presumably because dominant cows are less aggressive during the feeding event (Huston et al., 1997). Conclusion It is suggested that the most appropriate feeding method may be different for various production systems. If practical, frequent feeding to attain steady state conditions is most desirable. (Beaty et al. 1994). If all else is equal, hand-feeding and self-feeding in small pastures give similar results. Therefore, the method of choice should be determined by economics and value of convenience. In extensive pastures, the additional considerations of animal behavior and grazing distribution are important. It is suggested that daily hand-feeding is the least desirable method for extensive systems. Some feed types (e.g., liquid feeds containing NPN as a major crude protein source) that should be continuously accessible must be self-fed. Other feeds, such as high-protein meals and cubes, can be fed infrequently for immediate consumption by the herd. Some feeds, such as self-limiting meals, blocks, and tubs, can be self-fed or fed infrequently for consumption during a portion of the feeding interval. Major consideration should be given to the effects of the supplement on the animals, grazing behavior and on the value of the consumable forage. The most palatable supplement may be the least valuable choice.

40

RAISING A TROPHY BULL ELK: ECONOMICS AND OTHER ISSUES E. Bruce Godfrey

Raising a trophy bull elk:Economics and other issues

By:

E. Bruce Godfrey

Economics Department

and

Extension specialist

Utah State University

March 2005

Two ways to produce trophy elk

• Wild• Benefits gained by

hunting and viewing• Costs and returns not

shared equally• Most desired animals

are mature males (big horns)

• Game farms• Run similar to other

types of ranches • Costs and returns

structure like a cattle ranch

• Most revenue from sale of females, meat and horns

Minimum number of animals needed to produce a wild trophy bull that

can be harvested each year

• Trophy bulls are usually about seven years old

• Requires at least one bull ages: 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and one.

• 2 cows needed because 50% of calves are female

• Total herd = 9 head

Factors that affect the minimal number needed

• Some younger bulls will be lost (harvested or leave)

• All cows are not productive

• Not all mature bulls are “trophy” bulls (score 350 or more)

How will the numbers change if some of the younger bulls leave?

• Trophy bulls are usually about seven years old

• Requires at least one bull ages: 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and one.

• About two-thirds of the bull calves born leave as yearlings

• A minimum of 6 cows are now required

• Total herd = 13 head

How will the preceding be affected if all the cows are not

productive

• Trophy bulls are usually about seven years old

• Requires at least one bull ages: 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and one.

• About one half of the cows do not produce a calf

• 12 cows needed

• Total herd = 19 head

41

How will the preceding be affected if all the 7 year old bulls are not able

to score 350 or more?

• Trophy bulls are usually about seven years old

• About one-fourth of the mature bulls will score more 350 or more

• Requires at least four bulls ages: 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and one.

• 48 cows are needed

• Total herd = 76 head

What now happens if one-half of the bulls in each age class are taken each year

• Trophy bulls are usually about seven years old

• About one-fourth of the mature bulls will score more 350 or more

• Requires at least 8 bulls ages: 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and four age 7.

• 192 cows are needed

• Total herd = 244 head

How much forage would be consumed by the herd needed to

produce this trophy bull?What value?

• 244 head in the herd

• Assume that the average weight of all the animals is 600 pounds (.6 AU)

• This would represent 144 animal units

• 144 animal units times 12 equals 1756 AUMs

• If the AUMs were worth $10 each this would be $17,560

Remember that all of the calves born are not bulls

• 192 cows in this herd would result in

• 96 heifer calves each year

• If no females are harvested, die or leave the area and they live to be 10 years of age

• You would have about 700 excess females

• These would consume about 5000 AUMs of forage

Does this same relationship exist for deer?

• Yes but with some major differences

• It only takes about 4 years to produce a trophy buck

• Forage consumption is probably not as competitive with livestock as it is with elk

• Deer consume less AUMsper head than elk

Some issues related to or that affect the above

• How competitive are wildlife with domestic animals?

1. Season of use 2. Location (public versus private lands)3. Type of forage consumed (hay or ??)

42

Elk Management Strategies and profitability of beef cattle ranches

JRM, March 2002

• Five Montana ranches that were used by elk• Most competitive in use of ranch forage in fall

(Oct & Nov) and winter (Dec-May)—8 months• Average loss due to big game nearly $12 per

AUM• Elk use had the largest impact on ranches that

were more dependent on rangeland and the more efficient they produced cattle (cost per pound)

• There were some options that allowed ranches to offset some of these costs (like CWMU).

Some issues related to or that will affect the above

• How competitive are wildlife with domestic animals?

1. Season of use 2. Location (public versus private lands)3. Type of forage consumed (hay or ??)

• Productivity of the wildlife herd• Harvesting options and policies (cows, etc)• Who gains the benefits and who bears the costs• Large CWMU’s or ranches have the highest

potential to gain benefits, but they will also generally bear most of the costs

43

A LOOK AROUND JOHNSON RANCH

Darrell Johnson

Section 1: Description of the Business In 1856, when Luke S. Johnson first looked over the land that would become Johnson Ranch, he must have seen great potential. Photos taken of the area in 1885 show good rangeland and mountainside almost untroubled by juniper. Luke S., who came west with the earliest Mormon pioneers, was the first permanent settler in Rush Valley. He made his home in a dugout on 40 acres of land, which he irrigated with a stream of water flowing from a large spring at the base of the mountains. Five generations later, we run 250 cows year-round on nearly 7,000 acres of deeded and leased land. We use a gravity sprinkler system to irrigate about 100 acres of hay to feed our cows during calving and our heifers over the winter. We run our operation not only to make a living, but to increase productivity and properly manage our abundant natural resources to achieve long-term sustainability. We still see great potential in Johnson Ranch, and we are working every day to further realize that potential. Our ranch is a cow/calf operation in which the cow herd is maintained on the ranch. When calves are weaned in the fall, we send the steers to a custom feedlot at Aurora, Utah, where they are backgrounded to weights of about 850 pounds and then sold to a local feedlot. Depending on the feed available at the ranch, our heifer calves are fed at home to weights about 750 pounds, then sold after replacements have been selected. We synchronize our heifers, breeding them through artificial insemination to calving-ease bulls, selecting replacements and selling bred heifers in the early winter. Our cow herd is a Hereford-Angus base, with the most desirable cow a Black-Baldy. Johnson Ranch has been a part of my life for longer than I can remember. I grew up working on the ranch and, as I grew older, planning how I would run things when I got my chance. I began purchasing land in 1962 from my uncles, who have been in partnership with my grandfather, running sheep and cattle. My father, Orson Johnson, and I were partners until 1988, when I bought his interests to expand the ranch to the present 5,000 acres of deeded land. I lease 1,560 acres of state grazing land and have a Bureau of Land Management permit for 50 AUMs from May 15 to October 1. The ranch now supports 250 cows on a year-round basis, with my two sons each running 25 cows in exchange for their labor. We will expand our herd commensurate with the range improvements we make and the increased production that results from them. The ranch is in a high desert valley at an elevation of 5,600 feet, with summer range at elevations up to 7,000 feet. Rainfall varies from an average of 9 to 10 inches at the lower semi-desert area to an average of 16 to 18 inches at the upland summer area. Cover types are grass, sage, greasewood and Utah juniper, depending on elevation and rainfall. We developed springs for stock water, with a total of 49,200 feet of pipeline installed to provide water in our pastures. We built our own ripper, which we use on a four-wheel-drive tractor to install pipe. Our parcel of our land contains a large spring, which is used by the community to irrigate approximately 1,500 acres. The area along the stream has large cottonwood and box elder trees and has been used as a public campground for many years. The Bureau of Land Management several years ago wanted to buy the 400-acre parcel to build and maintain an improved

44

campground for the public. We did not want to sell the property and finally negotiated a lease on 25 acres, which they fenced and improved, resulting in 20 campsites and restrooms. Clover Springs Campground, as it is now called, is only 60 miles from Salt Lake City and therefore very popular with most campsites taken every weekend from early spring to late fall. BLM typically employs a campground host during the summer to provide information and curtail vandalism. The arrangement has worked well for us, the BLM, the Tooele county Recreation Committee and the public. That type of cooperation between agencies and organizations has typified our environmental efforts on the ranch. We have had a very close working relationship with the Utah State University Extension Service on providing technical information for our improvement projects. The Natural Resource Conservation Service and Farm Services Agency have been helpful in providing technical assistance and cost share on many of our projects. The Utah Department of Agriculture has rangeland development program that provides low-interest 10-year loans, which we have used to our great benefit. Because we have done some extensive burns on sage and juniper, we have appreciated cooperating with the Utah Department of Forestry in providing burn permits and assistance on prescribed burns. Tooele County has provided funding for a watershed project administered through a steering committee and the local soil conservation district. We have cooperated with our county and local volunteer fire departments, along with several interested neighbors. All of these agencies, and the people who work for them, have helped us meet our goals. My family, including my wife, sons, daughters, sons-in-law and my father, also has caught the vision of what Johnson Ranch could become, and committed themselves to realizing its potential. Sections II and III: Stewardship Goals/Practices We have two goals to help Johnson Ranch reach its potential: improve our land to increase productivity and properly manage the resource for long-term sustainability and profitability. Most of our deeded rangeland was originally part of an exchange-of-use agreement with the BLM, so it was managed in common with the surrounding public land on a community allotment. The land I began purchasing from my uncles in 1962 was in poor condition because of heavy use and the invasion of juniper. We were allowed 50 AUMs for the exchange of 2,500 acres. Because of overgrazing and fire suppression, the invasion of juniper had reduced the desirable forage production to the point that the land was becoming worthless. Today, the same acreage is carrying 220 cows, or providing 660 AUMs of forage, for the same three-month period. We decided in the early 1970s that we needed to do something about the condition of our range and began planning strategies to accomplish our goals. We first had to fence the land to control the animals and then we started talking to many folks on what could be done with juniper. Eventually, we bought an old D-8 Caterpiller, rented another and started cleaning. The results were wonderful. We did not re-seed at that time, since there was a fair stand of native grasses in most areas. By providing some rest and controlling the grazing, we saw range conditions improve almost at once. Importantly for our business, we were able to increase our cow herd as the range improved.

45

But as time passed the sagebrush and juniper whips (young trees) became a problem. Forage production was decreasing and it was obvious that, once again, something needed to be done. As before, we talked to a lot of people, who made a lot of different recommendations. My old sheepherder uncle kept talking about fire, but while the idea was intriguing, we did not have the ability to use it at that time. We tried a herbicide, Spike, on about 400 acres, with somewhat disappointing results. We decided after analyzing the problem that the clay in our soil tied up the herbicide, making it virtually ineffective. Chaining was not an option because the shrubs were too small for the chain to be effective. As we looked for more information, the idea of using fire kept coming up. At a summer Cattlemen’s convention in 1989, I met Allen Rasmussen, a rangeland Extension specialist with experience in conducting prescribed burns. Working with him, we refined and further developed our rangeland planning. We first had to decide whether burning would fit into the overall ranch plan – would the area burned provide the critical forage at the right time? With the high invasion of juniper and big sagebrush, we decided there was enough fine fuel to carry the fire. I worried about the forage base, so I decided to re-seed the area after we burned it. Working in cooperation with NRCS and the Extension service, we decided to deposit by plane a seed mix consisting of five pounds of intermediate wheatgrass, two pounds of pubescent wheatgrass, two pounds of Hycrest crested wheatgrass and one pound of yellow sweet clover. Although these are not native species, we hoped they would restore the land to a grassy condition much closer to what Luke S. Johnson saw when he stepped outside his door each day. The grasses also are much more welcoming to native species. We bought the seed with an Agriculture Rangeland Development Loan. We decided that, after “flying on” the seed, we would cover it by dragging our anchor chain over the burned, seeded area. As we planned the burn and re-seeding, wildlife became a significant part of our thinking. We had significant problems with deer depredation on our alfalfa fields, so we wanted to manage the mountain to provide a better environment for them as well as for our ranch operations. We decided not to have a clean burn, which would strip entire areas of vegetation, but to leave some of the ridges with browse for travel lanes in the area. We also seeded clover in part because we felt it would provide some forage base for the deer. We hoped our efforts would pull the deer back to the mountains. Finally, we had to find alternative pasture for our cattle for the summer, to allow a buildup of fine fuels before the burn and time afterward to allow re-growth of natural and seeded grasses. In August 1990, after we had secured the proper permits to burn 1,600 acres and about two weeks before we planned to begin, lightning started a wildfire on the ranch. The fire burned about 1,600 acres of our deeded land. Obviously, the wildfire altered our plans; we ended up doing our first prescribed burn on 150 acres. The hoped-for mosaic pattern of burned areas and ridges with remaining browse was not as developed as we wanted, except in the prescribed-burn acreage. We flew on the seed over the entire burned area during the first week in November and finished dragging the chain over it the day after Thanksgiving. We had a rather dry winter, but good rains in April brought a great stand of grass to the range land.

46

The fire increased our forage production to an amazing extent from 169 pounds per acre to 1,416 pounds per acre. We now know that our juniper sites are capable of producing significant forage for cattle when we reduce competition from the sagebrush and juniper. On the shallow ridge soils, our AUMs jumped from 145 acres/AUM to 10 acres/AUM after the initial chaining program. A second chaining treatment further increased the AUMs from 10 acres/AUM to 1.1 acres/AUM. The deeper soils showed even greater improvements, but accounted for less than 20 percent of the mountain pastures. The increased grass forage production we saw was the result of the synergistic interaction of the burning and re-seeding treatments. Without the re-seeding, the amount of grass was dramatically reduced. The large amount of forbs in the unburned area is beneficial to wildfire, but for several years the unseeded areas became dominated by cheatgrass. However, perennial vegetation is starting to come into those areas and is looking better all the time. The increase of perennial grass on these unseeded sites is the result of our grazing management over the past eight years; we have stocked the area lightly, averaging about 30- to 40-percent use of the current year’s standing crop. This year was the first year we have approached 50-percent use of the available forage. On a different grazing system, the results may have been different, but we lacked labor and money to intensify management on this ground to move into another grazing system. Our efforts have relieved the deer depredation problem on our fields; however, the mule deer population has not increased as much as we would like to help balance the browse in our grazing management plans. Utah’s deer population as a whole has been struggling for several years, but DWR has now limited deer hunting opportunities, which we hope will help restore those populations. The total cost of our first prescribed burn was approximately $22.50 per acre, including labor during the actual burns, consulting time with NRCS and Extension, grazing deferment, seed, a rented bulldozer and a donation to our local fire department, who used the prescribed burn for training. Chaining would have been at least $35 per acre and would not have been nearly as effective as the fire. Chemical control would cost at least $15 per acre for the herbicide and application, so we are convinced the prescribed burn was a very effective – and cost-effective – range management tool. We have continued to do burns on sagebrush and juniper, with very pleasing results. Through my urging, the local soil conservation district, which is overseeing a 95,000-acre watershed project, purchased a terra torch, which is mounted on the rear of an all-terrain vehicle and throws flames about 50 feet. It is a good alternative to drip torches. We are planning early spring or late fall burns to avoid the permits and backup crews, which will reduce the overall cost of burning. The success of our rehab program comes from several key factors:

We made plans. We identified our forage bottleneck and then started working on a plan to rectify the problem.

We kept the plan flexible. We started by managing the animals with fencing and controlling access. Then, we changed the vegetation from a juniper/sage community to a grassland community through our initial chaining efforts. But when the shrubs reinvaded, we used a different technique, fire-plus re-seeding, to keep the grasslands intact.

47

We continually sought new information and perspectives, from older ranchers to the young university guys. Each step we took, we started by talking everyone we could about different techniques and how they could apply to our area.

Most important, we actually used our plan. It is relatively easy to make plans; many people never seem to get around to implementing them. But for a plan to work, it must be put into practice and, often, adapted as you move through it. You must go out and do the work. We did most of the work on our plans ourselves so we could afford the projects, but we have learned a great deal in the doing.

We have been blessed with rain at the right time, greatly helping our plan’s success.

Our efforts have not been without failures. We were disappointed by the herbicide I

mentioned previously, whose results were not what we hoped for; several fires did not go as planned; seedings were not followed by rain. Each of these, however, has been a learning experience. For example, we are experimenting with another herbicide, Grazon, for juniper control. We treated 160 acres of three quarts per acre, and in May we will treated another 160 acres. That plan fits with a proven strategy for us; we never tried new methods on large areas; instead, we started small and worked up. This was important in reducing our risk. Converting our juniper/sage areas to a grassland community had some unexpected, but positive, results. One was a tremendous difference in the flow of water from the springs and seeps that provided stock water for our cattle. We started developing the springs, piping the water into troughs placed on ridges to avoid concentrating the cattle in the spring areas. The increased water flow has created small year-round streams that have, in turn, created riparian areas. We are now implementing a plan to deal with these areas more successfully. After seeing the increased water flow we experienced, Utah State University became very interested in the long-term effect of various land treatments on water flow and quality. USU researchers installed monitoring devices and data recorders on our land to collect climatic information and measure changes that take place over the next 15 to 20 years. This is one of three major research studies taking place on Johnson Ranch; the others involve soil fertility on rangeland and erosion control. We have extended our riparian efforts to a portion of our land that contains a sizeable stream, Clover Creek. We are in the process of fencing off livestock access along the 1 ½ mile stream corridor and improving the habitat for a fishery. We installed troughs and 4,000 feet of pipe to eliminate the need for cattle to water on the stream itself. A state highway runs parallel to the stream and the area is very visible to the public, so we feel we need to use the best possible riparian management. The Division of Wildlife Resources has planted rainbow trout on the creek for many years, and our land has long been open to the public for fishing. We have worked with DWR on a plan to plant willows and use juniper revetments to slow down the water, making the area more attractive to fish. We attended Tooele High School Future Farmers of America classes to explain our plan and enlist the students’ help. We made a cash contribution to the FFA, but we feel the most important aspect of this project for them is the excellent opportunity to provide hands-on experience for 25 to 30 students studying natural resources.

48

Over the years, we have purchased and planted permanent cover on approximately 1,300 acres of abandoned dry farms. Due to weed infestations of jointed goatgrass, morning glory and rabbit brush, these efforts have been among our biggest challenges. We have worked with the NRCS and county weed control personnel to learn how to deal more effectively with the persistent noxious weeds that provide so much competition when trying to establish grass stands. We are using tillage and herbicides to try and solve the problems on these lands, which are critical to our operation because they provide good late fall and spring grazing for our cow herd. We have some lower-elevation seedings to provide grazing during January and February. Due to a limited amount of cropland to produce hay, we are trying to manage our grass resources to provide as much grazing as possible before we do any supplemental feeding. This has greatly reduced our overall annual cow cost, providing more profitability to our overall operation. Despite the ongoing challenges we inevitably experience, we are proud of our efforts to effectively manage our land. We think they help make Johnson Ranch a place we will be proud to pass down to new generations of our family. Recently, in collaboration with the USDA-ARS and Utah State University, we have begun a project to incorporate perennial Forage Kochia into a few pastures. This forage shows tremendous potential for us. Section IV: Our Views Johnson Ranch and our resource management programs have been the catalyst for many changes and new ideas in our community and the state of Utah. Our major project arose after members of our community saw the excellent results of the improvements we made to our rangeland. The result is the Clover Creek Watershed Steering Committee, a diverse group with members representing private landowners; federal, state and local governments; and interested resource users. The committee presides over a coordinated research management project involving approximately 91,000 acres in our watershed. Most of our neighbors are now involved in land treatments and resource management plans that will restore a healthy, diverse plant cover – and, in turn, ensure higher-quality water supplies in the watershed. As I mentioned, we are involved in cooperative research with Utah State University on two different long-term projects. I have delivered lectures at Brigham Young University, the University of Utah and Utah State University to classes from environmental science to range management. We also have invited students from those universities to the ranch to see firsthand what we are doing to increase the productivity of the land and at the same time provide a tremendous environmental benefit to the watershed. As we further develop our restoration plans, preservation of wildlife habitat continues to play a major part in what we do. We provide drinking areas for sage grouse on our pipelines and grassy brooding areas on the overflow to help in raising chicks. We have a large bald eagle population during the winter, with several roosting areas in the large trees along Clover Creek. Attracted by the many species of birds using the habitat provided on our ranch, the Audobon Society chose to hold their annual spring outing at the Clover Creek campground. Another bird advocacy group, the Utah Turkey Federation, has during the past year used our

49

property to establish a flock of wild turkeys, which eventually will be large enough to provide hunting opportunities for sportsmen. We also have hosted two busloads of environmental reporters, members of various state and federal boards and many other interested people. All of these people haven seen firsthand demonstrations of our treatments and land management practices. One of the most unique projects to take place on Johnson Ranch recently involved a family of ferruginous hawks that nest in a tree at one of our dry farms. Two researchers moved in with a tent and equipment and intensively studied the hawks, spending many days and some nights taking pictures and recording data. Their interest has given us a deepened appreciation for these beautiful birds. I believe that the best way to educate everyone, from those unsympathetic to ranching operations to fellow producers, is to be willing to show them the rewards we have reaped by being good stewards of the resources we own and control. This type of open communication fosters good feelings, builds coalitions and further helps us meet the boundless potential of our land – and ourselves as its stewards. My professional leadership and interests From the time I was old enough to have a desire to ranch, I wanted to learn all I could about this profession, which has never stopped fascinating me with its traditions, the lifestyle it provides and its great potential. I have become involved with everyone I thought could provide input and be of help in improving our stewardship of the land. I have always believed that the best way to learn was to interact continually with people and groups whose interests dovetailed with my own. I have never been hesitant about asking a lot of questions, and I have consulted with everyone from educated university types to wise, practical ranchers with years of experience dealing with natural resources. You have just read about the outstanding results of those efforts, so it should not be a surprise that I plan to continue this level of involvement! Following are a few of the leadership activities in which I have taken part over the years.

Toole County Cattlemen’s President Shambip Soil Conservation Board member Rush Valley Town Board and Planning Committee Tooele County Wilderness Study Committee Toole County ASCS Board Member Utah Cattlemen’s Association President, Vice President Utah Beef Council Director National Cattlemen’s Association Mythbuster Toole County Wildlife Landowner Committee Division of Wildlife Resources Regional Advisory Council Utah Wildlife Board Nominating Committee Utah Landowner/Wildlife Alliance Governor’s Agriculture Advisory Council National Cattlemen’s Beef Association Region VI Vice President Utah Director, Cattlemen’s Beef Board Rancher of the year, Utah Section, Society for Range Management

50

Outstanding Conservationist for 1998, Utah Farm Bureau National Environmental Stewardship Award, Region 6 (Southwestern) Chair, Utah Grazing Network