Project Update:

Controlled Grazing on Foothill Rangelands

by Lyra Halprin and David Chaney, SAREP

UC livestock advisor Roger Ingram (Placer/Nevada counties) and David Pratt (formerly UC livestock advisor in Napa/Solano counties) have devoted their careers to helping livestock ranchers increase their economic returns and manage rangeland resources in more sustainable ways. As part of a larger research and education effort undertaken by this team, SAREP funded a three-year project (1995-98) investigating management-intensive grazing and spring calving in cow/calf operations on California’s annual rangeland. This could potentially allow ranchers to increase the number of animals per acre, reduce production costs by eliminating the need for feeding hay, increase forage cover, reduce herbicide use, and improve water quality without expensive capital improvements or destocking the range.

The project, Controlled Grazing on Foothill Rangelands, addressed the expressed needs of northern California livestock producers for research-based information on controlled grazing and sustainable livestock production practices. Through the development of a 250-acre watershed site at the Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center, the project demonstrated and documented the effects of the application of controlled grazing principles on the foothill rangeland/annual grassland and hillside irrigated pastures of the project area. It also demonstrated how land owners and ranchers can monitor the effects of these practices so they can decide for themselves whether controlled grazing is appropriate for their businesses. The project also addressed public concerns about the environmental impact of grazing.

Project Design

The site was subdivided into 22 rangeland and two irrigated pasture paddocks. They were fenced, supplied with water, and stocked with 20 cows and heifers during the two years of the project spring calving occurred. Research projects at the site examined the effects of controlled grazing on the environment, livestock performance and profitability, and analyzed the potential of spring calving on annual rangeland. The same site was used for a demonstration project on low-stress livestock handling, and for a project to demonstrate appropriate tools and equipment for pasture management and livestock control. Educational projects included the Grazing Academy, which emphasized the practical application of controlled grazing principles and demonstrated fencing and water innovations.

Ingram and Pratt’s research data show that it is possible, and may be more profitable, to eliminate hay feeding from a year ‘round cow/calf operation on California’s annual rangeland. To eliminate hay feeding, however, ranches must be restructured so the cow’s production cycle matches the forage cycle. The researchers note that more information is needed before they can actually recommend the management methods used in their study.

“North American livestock producers are the most productive in the world,” said Pratt. “Unfortunately, we are also the least profitable.” He noted that profits are a consequence of production and costs.

“Nutrition has the biggest impact on production. What we’re suggesting is a new way to supplement livestock, which has implications beyond feeding. They are concepts that may be breakthroughs to improved profits for many livestock producers,” he said.

Pratt and Ingram incorporated the research of ranching consultant Stan Parsons and ruminant nutritionist Dick Diven in their work. The farm advisors learned how to evaluate the amount of fat on the animals they grazed (Body Condition Score, or BCS) and how to adjust the stocking rate (the amount of forage required by their herd) to match the carrying capacity (the grass available). BCS scores range from 1 (emaciated) to 9 (obese).

One of the ways identified to help producers get their livestock in synch with available resources is to help cows move from fall to spring calving, so that the animals can take advantage of the richest natural forage.

Findings

The following were the major findings during the three-year life of the project:

1) Cows can be bred during the heat of the summer. The project had 100 percent conception rates on cows during the two years they calved in the spring (1998 and 1999, breeding in July).

2) The calving interval between spring calving cows of 1998 and 1999 was 357 days. (The usual average is more than one year.) Calving season (when calves are born) lasted 42 days in 1998 and 19 days in 1999. The shorter the calving season, the more uniform the calves and the easier the management. Calving seasons were short because cows were in adequate body condition with BCS at 7.9 in 1998 and 6.6 in 1999. The single most important indicator for a cow is adequate body condition at calving which shortens the postpartum period and increases the potential success of getting cows re-bred quickly.

3) Heifers (young breeding female under age three) had an 80 percent conception rate and calved at BCS 4.7. The combined demands of growth, gestation, and lactation typically make it challenging to get heifers in adequate body condition.

4) Fall calving cows were used in the project’s first year; the transition was then made to spring calvers. Comparing the calf weights of fall- and spring-born calves at similar ages revealed a 53-pound advantage for six- month-old fall calves. By 11 months of age, there was no difference. This suggests the need for a stocker phase (an intermediary stage after weaning and before entering the feedlot) for spring-born calves.

5) Keeping cows and calves together for as long as possible improved weight gain on the calves. Calves weaned at six months of age were 30 pounds lighter at selling than calves weaned at nine months of age. Body condition was the indicator for weaning. Cows with calves were weaned when cows reached a BCS 5; they must be weaned one to two months before they calve again, even if their body condition is adequate.

6) Cows were weighed and body condition scored on a monthly basis. It is possible for cows to use their body condition (stored fat) as an energy source during times when feed quantity is low, as long as an adequate feed period occurs prior to calving to allow them to gain back the condition they lost.

7) Forage samples were taken on a monthly basis for 36 months. Two mineral supplements were formulated based on the results: one for the green season and one for the dry season. The dry season supplement contained urea to make up for forage protein deficiencies in late summer and fall. The mix was primarily salt with trace minerals and urea, and was fed in a loose form.

8) Crude protein reached a peak of over 20 percent in late winter and declined to less than six percent by August. This continued to decline to less than four percent in October.

9) Forage energy (mega-calories) levels peaked in February/March and declined 40 percent by mid-summer.

10) The projected gross margin per cow for calves born in 1999 was $214 or $18.82 per acre.

11) No mastitis or other udder problems were encountered. Calves did not have pneumonia. Eye problems were typical for the area; most were caused by seedheads penetrating the eye.

“It is important to point out that project data is based on two years of spring calving,” Ingram said. “We have shown it is possible to spring calve. Several of the findings suggest some definite positive trends, however, they are nothing more than trends. More results are needed over more years. We don’t want to suggest everyone will be able to get a 100 percent conception rate or a 19-day calving season if they make the transition to spring calving.”

According to Ingram and Pratt, other questions that could be answered with more research include:

• What is a better definition of “spring”? This project started calving April 1. Is it possible to calve earlier or should it be later?

• What should the body condition be at calving? Is it a 6 or 7 BCS or some other condition score?

• How far can producers let a cow’s body condition drop and still be in adequate condition at calving? Is it possible to go down two BCS scores, one and half scores or some other figure?

• What needs to be done to heifers to improve conception rates? In the project, they were bred at BCS 6 and still only generated an 80 percent conception rate.

• What happens if producers spring calve and do not use management-intensive grazing principles to ration dry feed until forage growth starts again? Would similar results be achieved or would hay or some other energy source be required? No hay was fed during this project.

“It would be helpful to do this work on a larger scale over more years,” Ingram said. “I’d like to see a minimum of 100 cows on 1,000 acres over five years.”

Ingram and Pratt coordinated active educational programs for producers at the site. The annual Grazing Academy, presented over the last eight years (supported by SAREP for seven years), attracted more than 350 ranchers and livestock professionals who own, manage, or consult on almost one million acres in the western United States. Five project field days also received support. The project also received partial funding from USDA’s Western Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program.

Products

Pratt is now chief operating officer for Ranching for Profit Schools, based in Fairfield, Calif. Ingram continues in his role as farm advisor for Placer/Nevada counties. They have produced free project information including an overview and booklets on animals, fencing and water, and land. Also available is the California Grazing Academy Audio Tape Series, which is intended to provide follow-up support to Grazing Academy alumni and to introduce all ranchers to the principles and practices of controlled grazing. The tapes were developed by Ingram and Pratt and UC Farm Advisor (Glenn County) Barbara Reed. Technical assistance and narration was provided by Robert Singleton, UC DANR Communication Services broadcast information representative. Cost for the tape series is $25 (includes shipping and tax). The tape series is supported by a grant from the Renewable Resources Extension Act. For tapes or booklets contact Ingram at UCCE, 11477 E Avenue, Bldg. 306, DeWitt Center, Auburn, CA 95603; (530) 889-7385; Fax: (530) 889-7397; Email: rsingram@ucdavis.edu. Contact Pratt at (707) 429-2292; Email: pratt@ranchmanagement.com. A project Web site (http://www.foothill.net/~ringram) includes almost 50 articles on grazing, ecology, nutrition, fencing and low-stress livestock handling and links to related Web sites.