Facebook
X (Twitter)
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
LinkedInPosts Tagged: cattle
Ask a rancher: Surveys draw on hard-won wisdom for surviving drought
Roche team lands $1 million to help ranchers stay strong
California ranchers benefit when they plan ahead for extreme weather variability, according to rancher surveys and interviews conducted by a team headed by Leslie Roche, a professor of Cooperative Extension in the UC Davis Department of Plant Sciences.
But while wise planning and climate-smart adaptations helped ranchers survive the state's record-breaking 2012-2016 drought, those strategies by themselves were not enough, ranchers reported. Nearly 50 ranchers shared their experiences, and their collective wisdom is summarized in a paper written by Grace Woodmansee. She completed her master's degree with Roche and is now a UC Cooperative Extension livestock and natural resources advisor for UC Agriculture and Natural Resources in Siskiyou County.
Building on that work, Roche and members of the statewide team have landed a $990,000 federal grant to help ranchers stay strong. The team includes colleagues from the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources and partner organizations. The project draws on members' diverse expertise and regional knowledge rooted in UC Cooperative Extension, while at the same time linking up with trusted networks at the local level.
Both Woodmansee's paper and the new grant are based on more than a decade of surveys and interviews with ranchers and other agriculturalists. That work all points to the economic and social barriers that hinder producers from adopting the climate-smart practices that could help them stay profitable amid the changes to come.
“It's really important to listen to agricultural producers – the people who live and work on the land – and draw on their experiences to develop practical solutions,” Roche said. “Extension can play a key role in sharing this valuable knowledge statewide, so others can learn from it and, hopefully, apply it to navigate their own challenges.”
Partners on the project include individual livestock producers, statewide livestock organizations, local conservation organizations and local agencies. Programs like this could become an example for ranch managers across the American West.
Cattle is California's No. 3 agricultural commodity, with cattle and other livestock worth about $3 billion in 2021, the state Department of Food and Agriculture reported. In addition to facing climate change, the sector is beset by rising costs, high interest rates, wildfire impacts and land use pressures. These additional challenges make it crucial for people managing the state's 14,000 livestock operations – counting beef, sheep and goats – to take steps now to survive future droughts.
Rangeland drought strategy: Mix up the livestock
In the past 12 years, ranchers have increasingly adopted sustainable agriculture practices to cope with drought and other threats, Woodmansee and colleagues found.
A key finding from the surveys is the enormous benefit amid drought of grazing more than one kind of animal on rangelands, Woodmansee wrote. Although most ranchers interviewed grazed only one species during the drought, typically cattle, the few who mixed up their livestock reported doing better economically. Because they have different grazing habits, stock such as sheep and goats can take advantage of different kinds of forage and broaden a rancher's economic base.
In addition, ranchers who used genetic information to think ahead about culling their herds, when that step became necessary, were left with a stronger remainder, Woodmansee wrote.
Ranchers also found it was important to have plans both for preventing problems and reacting to them, Woodmansee added. But surveys done ahead of the 2012-2016 drought, and interviews done four years in, also revealed that only a little more than half of ranchers had planned ahead.
“There is a substantial opportunity to increase preparedness by aiding ranchers in developing drought management plans,” Woodmansee wrote. But she advised, “drought plans are not ‘one size fits all,' and policy must be designed to support drought adaptation and mitigation strategies at the ranch level.”
Grant part of nationwide effort
Roche and team's $990,000 grant comes from the United States Department of Agriculture through the National Resources Conservation Service. It's part of a $22-million, nationwide effort to help American ranchers overcome these and other barriers they face to adapting. Based on all they've learned through the surveys and interviews, the team is now launching a comprehensive education, outreach and training program. Their own wide range of expertise and networks reach deep into ranching communities, and they'll leverage those, too. 
UC Cooperative Extension will have an important role in that work, as a trusted source of information. Training also will embrace conservation planners and technical service providers who work with ranchers.
“Activities will include workshops, field tours and demonstrations on conservation practices to address local natural resource concerns,” the team wrote in their proposal. Their work also “will target opportunities to support underserved communities, including new and beginning ranchers.”
They'll also add resources specifically about the state's grazing lands to the California Climate Hub, a website developed by USDA to provide the latest information to help producers statewide adapt to new climate realities.
People trained in all these areas must be brought up in the ranks: The project calls for networking, mentoring and hands-on learning to spark career choices among young people, and grow skills among beginning ranchers and early career natural resource professionals.
Scientists co-leading the project are Tracy Schohr and Dan Macon of UC Cooperative Extension; Roselle Bush and Gabriele Maier, both UC Davis assistant professors of Cooperative Extension; and Steven Ostoja, California Climate Hub director. The project will provide opportunities for a broad range of UC ANR colleagues as well, Roche said.
Partnering organizations include the Sierra Valley Resource Conservation District, the California Cattlemen's Association, the California Wool Growers Association, the California Rangeland Trust and the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine.
Read the science
Woodmansee's paper, "Building Ranch Resilience to Drought: Management Capacity, Planning, and Adaptive Learning During California's 2012–2016 Drought," is online now. It's set for print publication in the January edition of Rangeland Ecology & Management.
An earlier paper that laid the foundation for the subsequent research: "On-ranch adaptation to California's historic 2012-2016 drought, Woodmansee et al., 2021."
Feeding grazing cattle seaweed cuts methane emissions by almost 40%
Findings offer solution for more climate-friendly cattle farming
Seaweed is once again showing promise for making cattle farming more sustainable. A new study by researchers at the University of California, Davis, found that feeding grazing beef cattle a seaweed supplement in pellet form reduced their methane emissions by almost 40% without affecting their health or weight. The study was published Dec. 2 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
This is the first study to test seaweed on grazing beef cattle in the world. It follows previous studies that showed seaweed cut methane emissions 82% in feedlot cattle and over 50% in dairy cows.
How much methane do cattle produce?
“Beef cattle spend only about three months in feedlots and spend most of their lives grazing on pasture and producing methane,” said senior author Ermias Kebreab, professor in the Department of Animal Science. “We need to make this seaweed additive or any feed additive more accessible to grazing cattle to make cattle farming more sustainable while meeting the global demand for meat.”
Difficulty in reducing methane emissions from cattle
Kebreab said that daily feeding of pasture-based cattle is more difficult than feedlot or dairy cows because they often graze far from ranches for long periods. However, during the winter or when grass is scarce, ranchers often supplement their diet.
For this study, researchers divided 24 beef steers (a mix of Angus and Wagyu breeds) into two groups: one received the seaweed supplement, and the other did not. Researchers conducted the 10-week experiment at a ranch in Dillon, Montana. Since these were grazing cattle, they ate the supplement voluntarily, which still resulted in a nearly 40% cut in emissions.
Most research studies to reduce methane emissions using feed additives have taken place in controlled environments with daily supplements. But Kebreab noted in the study that fewer than half of those methods are effective for grazing cattle.
“This method paves the way to make a seaweed supplement easily available to grazing animals,” said Kebreab. “Ranchers could even introduce the seaweed through a lick block for their cattle.”
Kebreab said pastoral farming, which includes large grazing systems, supports millions of people around the world, often in areas vulnerable to climate change. This study suggests a way to make cattle grazing better for the environment, while playing a role in fighting climate change.
A related article in the same PNAS issue highlights the need to improve the efficiency of livestock production in low- and middle-income countries using better genetics, feeding and health practices. UC Davis Professor and Cooperative Extension Specialist Alison Van Eenennaam, the article's author, said it is the most promising approach to meet the global demand for meat while limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
Other authors of the seaweed study include UC Davis postdoctoral researchers Paulo de Méo Filho and John-Fredy Ramirez-Agudelo.
The research was supported by Matador Ranch in Dillon, Montana.
This article was first published on the UC Davis news site.
Virtual fencing ‘game-changer’ for ranchers grazing cattle
Tech can save ranchers time and benefit animals and land, becoming more viable
After the Caldor Fire destroyed seven miles of fencing on their cattle ranch in 2021, Leisel Finley and her family needed to replace the fence.
Finley, a sixth-generation rancher at Mount Echo Ranch in Amador County, said reconstruction costs were bid at $300,000 and would take at least a year to build, leaving the family without summer pasture and a herd of hungry cows to feed. Additionally, the U.S. Forest Service mandates that grazing be withheld for two years in postfire landscapes. This put the family in a difficult position.
While watching a recording of a California Cattlemen's Association meeting, Finley learned about a pilot program for virtual fencing. Desperate to find an alternative solution, she registered to try the livestock containment technology, which uses GPS enabled collars to monitor each animal's location in near real time.
Livestock producers can draw a perimeter on a map of their pasture using a laptop or smartphone application and send those instructions to the collar. The collar then uses audio and tactile cues to contain the animal in the area.
Eager to discover the short- and long-term benefits of virtual fencing, Finley turned to Scott Oneto, farm advisor, and Brian Allen, assistant specialist, from the University of California Cooperative Extension office in the Central Sierra. Since partnering with Oneto and Allen, Finley said she has come to understand and uncover more of the technology's potential.
The team has consistently observed the technology's value in integrating with and enhancing traditional livestock production systems across California. Though still in its early stages of development, the location tracking and containment system appears to provide time- and cost-savings that make it a game-changer for ranchers.
Ability to monitor location of animals in real time
Virtual fencing really stands out in its ability to monitor each animal's location in real time. During roundups, ranchers can use their smartphones to see their own location relative to their herd. The system can also send alerts if an animal crosses the virtual boundary or if a collar remains stationary for an extended period, potentially indicating that the animal is sick or that the collar has fallen off.
Rounding up cattle on large, forested grazing allotments can be challenging, as the process generally requires a group of people and many return trips to find every animal. Prior to virtual fencing, Finley and her father could gather about 85% to 90% of the herd in a week. Since using virtual fencing, Finley said one of their most recent roundups lasted three days, and they located every single cow.
Something that every livestock producer dreads is the notorious call from a neighbor or California Highway Patrol alerting them that one of their cows is out in the middle of the road. It always seems to happen at midnight or while they are out with friends or family. This scenario changes with virtual fencing.
Containment based on animal behavior
The containment system that virtual fencing is built on is based on animal behavior. When the animal crosses an invisible boundary, the collar emits an audio warning, prompting most animals to instinctively turn back into the desired area. If the animal doesn't respond, the collar delivers a mild electric pulse as a secondary deterrent.
Field trials by Oneto and Allen demonstrated the system's success. Recently, the team trained a herd of 37 cattle of mixed ages that had no previous exposure to virtual fencing. During the initial six-day training period, the cattle responded to the audio warning alone about 75% of the time when they approached a virtual fence boundary, with the remaining 25% of cases requiring an electric pulse.
After about three weeks, the herd was responding to audio cues alone about 95% of the time. The field trials also showed that the collars contain the livestock within the desired areas 90% to 99% of the time when the entire herd wears virtual fence collars and their basic needs for safety, connection to the rest of the herd, water, forage, shade, etc. are met.
Opportunities for improvement
While the technology is effective in its current capacity, there are notable areas where it can improve. One limitation to the system is the current reliance on cellular networks to operate. If an animal wanders into an area outside of coverage, the collar will continue to operate based on the last instructions but won't receive updates or report locations. This is especially a concern in many areas of California with poor cell reception, including the steep forested rangelands where many livestock producers have summer grazing allotments.
Another limitation is that some companies require a solar-powered base station with radio and cellular antennas to be placed on the pasture. These facilitate the transfer of animal locations and updates to the virtual fences. A base station going offline would create the same conditions as a drop in cell signal until the base station is repaired. Some companies are currently developing collars that bypass the need for these base stations.
The other major concern for ranchers is the cost for a virtual fencing system. The average rancher can expect to pay an estimated $20,000 to $30,000 in upfront costs. The cost to set up a base station alone is $5,000 to $10,000. However, this cost is highly dependent on several factors, including the manufacturer, the number of livestock to be collared, if the livestock are large or small ruminants, and the number of GPS base stations to cover the range.
According to Allen and Finley, the high cost of virtual fencing can be offset by the unique animal and land management benefits it can provide. “While physical perimeter fencing remains essential, VF is rapidly emerging as an innovative tool to control livestock with ease, precision, and flexibility in ways that were not previously feasible with traditional fencing,” Allen said.
Finley described the technology as a “game-changer” for her family.
Virtual fencing helps control invasive grasses, installing fuel breaks
While virtual fencing is designed to contain livestock without physical fencing, it is not intended to outright replace secure perimeter fencing. Instead, it operates best as a highly dynamic and adaptable cross-fence, allowing for more intentional grazing on the landscape to meet livestock production and natural resource conservation objectives within a secure physical perimeter.
With grant funding from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, the UCCE team continues to work with Finley and other livestock producers to test these applications on California's diverse rangelands.
Within the Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges foothills, these trials include using virtual fencing on cattle for targeted grazing of invasive grasses to support the recovery of native forage and installing fuel breaks within the wildland-urban interface to remove vegetation where the edge of a pasture meets urban housing.
Using virtual fencing, 25 cattle were successfully concentrated on a field of Medusahead (Elymus caput-medusae), an invasive annual grass. The herd respected the virtual fencing boundary 99% of the time despite nearby preferable forage. Grazing reduced medusahead seed heads from 2,072 per square meter in the ungrazed control area to just 68 per square meter in the grazed section.
In a different trial, 37 cattle with virtual fencing collars were contained within 120-feet-wide fuel breaks along the boundary of an annual rangeland and residential area. Cattle stayed within the boundaries 99% of the time, leading to an 81% reduction in fine fuel biomass and lowering wildfire risk in the wildland-urban interface.
Within rangelands on conifer forests, these UCCE trials concentrate cattle on brush to reduce the flammable plants and vegetation that competes with desirable timber species. It also can prevent livestock from entering sites that are sensitive to livestock presence.
Upcoming grazing trials will focus on how virtual fencing works with goats and sheep. In addition to Oneto and Allen, UCCE's contribution to virtual fencing research is in large part due to Leslie Roche, UCCE specialist and associate professor at UC Davis, Dan Macon and Jeff Stackhouse, UCCE livestock and natural resources advisors, Kristina Horback, associate professor at UC Davis and Lone Star Ranch in Humboldt County.
To learn more about the trials led by the UCCE team,visit https://cecentralsierra.ucanr.edu/Virtual_Fencing/
Understanding cattle grazing personalities may foster sustainable rangelands
Matching herds to landscape can support animal growth and ecological needs
Not all cattle are the same when it comes to grazing. Some like to wander while others prefer to stay close to water and rest areas.
Recognizing those personality differences could help ranchers select herds that best meet grazing needs on rangelands, leading to better animal health and environmental conditions, according to a new paper from the University of California, Davis, published in the journal Applied Animal Behaviour Science.
“Cattle can actually be beneficial for the rangelands,” said lead author Maggie Creamer, who recently earned her Ph.D. in animal behavior at UC Davis. “Vegetation in rangelands actually need these kinds of disturbances like grazing.”
Ranchers can add elements to the rangeland such as water, mineral supplements and fencing to influence where cattle graze, but little research has been done on how those efforts affect individual cows. Considering personalities could save money.
“If you're spending all this money to add a management tool in order to change the distribution of your animals, that's a huge cost to ranchers,” said Creamer. “Thinking about other tools, or selecting certain animals with these grazing traits, might be a better way to optimize the distribution on rangeland rather than spending a bunch of money for something that may ultimately not pan out for all your animals.”
Effects of grazing
Livestock graze on an estimated 56 million acres in California, and healthy rangelands host native vegetation and animals, foster nutrient cycling and support carbon sequestration.
Uneven grazing can degrade water quality, soil health and habitats. Optimizing grazing — including the even spread of cow pies — can improve the ecosystem while also reducing fuel loads for wildfires.
To better understand individual grazing patterns, researchers went to the UC Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center in Browns Valley and tracked 50 pregnant Angus and Hereford beef cows fitted with GPS collars.
The research
The cattle, which were tracked from June to August over two years, had access to 625 acres of grasslands and treed areas ranging in elevation from 600 to 2,028 feet. In the second year, a new watering site was added at a higher elevation.
Across the two years, the cows showed consistent and distinct grazing patterns even when water sources changed. Age and stage of pregnancy did not affect patterns, though cattle tended to clump near water and rest sites on hotter days.
The cows that ventured into higher elevations and farther from watering sites had more variability in their grazing patterns than those that stayed at lower elevations near water. That suggests it may be harder for non-wanderers to adjust to some landscapes.
“Thinking about the topography of your rangeland and your herd of cows can benefit both the animals and the sustainability of the land,” said Creamer, who next month begins work as a postdoctoral scholar in North Carolina.
Gauging personalities
Keying in on personality type may sound difficult, but the researchers also found some clues as to how to pinpoint the wanderers and homebodies. Unlike cattle at feedlots, the breeding cow population, especially on rangelands in California and other western states, live largely “wild” lives and are rarely handled, save for vaccinations and weaning.
Research due to be published later this year found that paying attention to individual cow reactions during those events can help determine personalities. The cows that appeared more passive during those handling interactions tended to be nomadic.
“We found that you can maybe predict those hill climbers if you kind of look at how they act when the veterinarian or rancher handle them,” said senior author Kristina Horback, an associate professor in the Department of Animal Science at UC Davis.
Informing practices
For ranchers, the findings could be invaluable, said Dan Macon, a livestock and natural resources Cooperative Extension advisor in Placer and Nevada counties for UC Agriculture and Natural Resources.
“Any time we can improve our understanding of cattle behavior, particularly at the individual level, it can improve how we handle livestock and manage the landscape,” he said.
Macon said that during the recent drought, it was hard to get cattle into higher country, but if ranchers could have selected the nomads, it may have saved money in terms of ranch labor and other efforts.
“If you ask a rancher who has been attentive to their cattle over many years, they know the personalities,” Macon said.
For Creamer and Horback, the research opens new doors into understanding herd behavior and dynamics, one that could be a cheaper alternative to high-tech solutions.
“Animal science tends to look overlook the mind of the animal when searching for solutions to challenges,” Horback said. “It's always been a direct line to genetics for immunity or nutrition, but nothing about the mind of the animal. And that's such a loss. There's so much we can learn from behavior in the end.”
The Russell L. Rustici Rangeland and Cattle Research Endowment supported the research.
This article was first published on the UC Davis News site.
Fighting fire with feeding
Are cattle a secret weapon for taking on California wildfires?
California's cattle ranchers contribute a significant amount to the region's culture, economy and food supply, but do they also inadvertently help to temper the wildfires that have been plaguing the state? And if so, is it a better alternative – environmentally speaking – to letting grasslands burn?
A new study published in the journal Sustainability delves into the topic, weighing the advantages – and disadvantages – grazing cattle bring to the table. Researchers, including scientists from University of California, Davis and UC Agriculture and Natural Resources, set out to calculate the greenhouse gas emissions of cows consuming vegetation that would otherwise burn in wildfires. Then they estimated the GHG emissions that would result should that forage be untouched and therefore, consumed by fire, eventually comparing the two.
Feeling the burn
Given the severity of California's recent wildfires and the belief they will continue and even escalate in the near future, it's a discussion worth having, said Frank Mitloehner, an expert in animal agriculture and air quality from UC Davis, director of the CLEAR Center and one of the researchers who contributed to the peer-reviewed article.
“Each year from 2010 to 2020, California lost on average 89,000 acres of grassland to wildfires,” said Mitloehner, who is also a Cooperative Extension specialist. “In addition to the obvious disruption and devastation they caused, the fires spewed greenhouse gases and harmful particulate matter such as black carbon into the air and into our atmosphere. Those alone threaten climate health and human well-being.”
A fast and furious gas
Cattle are adept at eliminating herbaceous fuel as they graze. However, at the same time, their specialized digestive system produces methane that is expelled most often in the form of enteric emissions … more commonly known as belches. By way of background, methane is a potent greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere at 25 times the rate of carbon dioxide over 100 years. But it's only in the atmosphere for 10 to 12 years after it's emitted. Following that, it's broken down into carbon dioxide and water vapor.
For that reason, Mitloehner refers to methane as a “fast and furious” gas. Furious because it warms with a vengeance and fast because it does so for only a short time, especially when compared to carbon dioxide. Furthermore, because of the biogenic carbon cycle, whereby plants extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for photosynthesis, the warming of methane and its byproducts can end entirely when it's hydrolyzed and used by plants.
How researchers calculated emissions
In order to determine if grazing, methane-emitting cattle are better for the atmosphere than burning grasslands, Mitloehner and the other researchers employed a method known as “Monte Carlo simulation,” a mathematical technique used by scientists to predict outcomes of an uncertain event.
Looking exclusively at methane emissions, they found it's better to have cows eat vegetation than to have wildfires burn it. Granted, it's only marginally better, but when one considers other advantages of animal agriculture and conversely, other disadvantages of widespread, uncontrolled fire, the conversation suddenly shifts.
“Even if cattle provided no other benefit to us, which certainly is not true, we can now make the case that they are helpful to us in yet another way,” Mitloehner said.
Friends or foes?
It goes without saying that one would be hard pressed to find much good to say about wildfires, but that doesn't hold true for animal agriculture. The industry provides jobs and supports the economy in other ways as well. Plus, it is a major source of protein-rich food that is in increasing demand as the world's population continues on a trajectory toward 10 billion people by the year 2050.
Where global warming is concerned, the industry is in the unique position of being able to reach net-zero warming, also known as climate neutrality, if it continues to aggressively chip away at its methane emissions, which Mitloehner asserts is of critical importance to the planet. “Few other sectors can reduce its warming to net zero and still be of service to society, but agriculture can because of the way methane behaves in the atmosphere,” he says.
To be clear, grazing cows are no match for wildfires. Yet, in addition to everything else the sector does for us, slowing the burn and keeping relatively more methane from entering the atmosphere are not nothing.
In addition to Mitloehner, authors of the study are Cooperative Extension advisors Sheila Barry, Devii Rao and Theresa Becchetti; Rowan Peterson, Ermias Kebreab and Minju Jung of UC Davis; and Felix Ratcliff and Kaveh Motamed of LD Ford.
This article was first published on the website of the CLEAR (Clarity and Leadership for Environmental Awareness and Research) Center at UC Davis.
