Report for 2002

SARE Professional Development Program Annual Report for Montana

Project Contact (State Extension Leader for SARE):

Name: Dr. Sue Blodgett

Address: Department of Entomology

Montana State University

Bozeman, MT 59717

Phone: (406) 994-2402

Fax: (406) 994-6029

E-mail: blodgett@montana.edu

Introduction

Agriculture is Montana's largest industry, generating more than $2 billion annually for the last five years and is uniquely situated with similarities in agricultural production to both the Pacific Northwest and the High Plains region. Montana's 59.7 million acres of farmland ranks second in the nation. The average size of Montana's 22,000 farms is 2,714 acres. These farms make up 62 percent of the state's total land. Of this, 66 percent of this land is rangeland and pasture, 29.3 percent is cropland, and 3.3 percent is woodland. Crops accounted for 52.2% of the value of Montana's agriculture products. Livestock production utilizes pasture and range, land not suitable for cropping, converting plant material into high quality protein for human consumption. Pasture and range management include conserving native and beneficial plant species, managing invasive weeds, preventing soil and water erosion. The MSU-ES-WRSARE Professional Development program provides training and exposure to expertise not available within the state. This information through distribution of the annual report and web site disseminate this information to clientele. During FY02 an extensive tour of forage research and demonstration was conducted in the state including visits to the MSU Post Farm, plots located near Three Forks, MT, and a tour to Utah that included visits to USDA,ARS facilities, Caine Diary, Deseret Land Livestock, Sustainable Beef Ranches, Poisonous Plant Lab and other sites in which irrigated pasture management and composting dead livestock were discussed.

Objectives

1. Provide opportunity for County Extension Agents and Specialist to receive in-depth training on annual cereal and legume forages productivity, legume and grass variety and type trials, cereal and legume fertilizer responses, grazing trials, forage kochia, forage grasses for various moisture regimes, long term irrigated pasture management, ranch management, revegetation work, wildlife enterprise development, sustainable beef production, poisonous and noxious plants, managing irrigated pasture for dairy production and composting dead livestock.

2. Training and information about introduced grass fertilizer trial under dryland/rainfed conditions.

3. Agriculture enterprise diversification through Western Rural Landscape Training Workshop.

4. Sustainable Range Management Program planned for May 2003.

Current WSARE-funded PDP State Activities:

In general, Montana SARE-PDP program centers on multidisciplinary issues that bridge agriculture and livestock production. Rangeland conditions and management and forage production issues are key to agricultural sustainability and productivity in Montana. The 2002 program emphasized these issues and provided in-depth, advanced training for 5 NRCS, 2 Extension 22 ag professionals and 5 producers. The 5 NRCS participants were funded by the MT-SARE program.

Each year the MSU-IPM Crop Pest Management School addresses current issues and provides hands on experiences for participants from NRCS, Extension Service and the private sector. An organic Montana wheat producer was the keynote speaker during the 2003 school. Plans are being made to address sustainable agricultural issues in the 2004 school.

The Professional Development Program continues to emphasize training and development for agricultural production that balances food and fiber production, economic viability and environmental and natural resource quality.

Sustainable Range Management Program (planned for May 2003) will include IPM for Rangeland Insect and weed pests, Assessing feeding areas for AFO/CAFO issues and Assessing Water Quality in Eastern Montana Streams, Discussion of Wildfire recovery, and assessing rangeland condition, and ranch tours. The scope of this program is large in that 40 participants are planned for.

2003 Crop and Pest Management School (link to site)

An intensive on-campus school is conducted each year that exposes participants to new technologies (internet, GPS, etc.) and research updates on agricultural topics.  In-depth treatment of all aspects of crop pest management, hands-on laboratory experience and problem-solving is focused on management issues.  The school emphasized laboratory hands-on problem solving and makes use of the greenhouse and laboratory facilities of the Plant Growth Center.

Participants can obtain training in the use of computer software programs including the Stored Grain Advisor, WWW, and other electronic resources.  Facilities have included the Burns Telecommunication Center on the MSU campus.

Four-day workshops are designed for specialized clientele including crop insurance adjusters, Soil Conservation Service personnel, private consultants, Certified Crop Advisors (CCA) and producers.  New County Extension faculty are trained through this program.

Available: http://scarab.msu.montana.edu/cpms/index.htm

General Comments:

- Great school.

- Maybe a session with a panel discussion between notill and organic farming.

-Good school. However, I feel there may need to be two schools. School (#1) for people that are attending for the first year. School (#2) for those that have been here before. The reason is that I am not a farmer and feel too much is assumed! Also, you need to have juice and fruit, not just coffee and donuts. The later it gets, the harder it is to come back to class. Maybe break-out classes would be better. Longer classes in an area you want to know about. Don’t have this class during cabin fever!

- Skip the night programs. Start an hour or ½ hour earlier in the morning and go 1 hour to ½ hour later in the day. I will never understand how you could pick an organic producer as your model producer for an integrated Pest Management School, especially, when this cropping system represents less than 1% of production in Montana and is bias to one system.

- Suggest starting earlier and ending no later than 6:00 p.m. Night sessions, after a long day in class, are not productive! In the organic presentation, the producer did not provide objective science-based information. Too biased to be useful. Always hear claims as to how great and wonderful system is, but never see information on quality of products produced. Would benefit from an unbiased comparison of an alternative from all aspects of different systems. Problem with organic philosophy is that they believe that everything they do is natural and believe it is the best system. “If it’s natural, it’s good,” is the overriding theme you get from different people that participate in this system. Until someone takes the time to put some science behind their approach, it is merely impossible to draw any good conclusions one way or the other. This whole movement tends to make an assumption and point out problems without any sound scientific basis. Bring some good unbiased information and this type of information would then be a basis of discussion. Without it, I don’t believe it belongs in his type of program.

- Excellent seminar. Information and knowledge gained will be very useful.

- This school was very educational and has broadened my perception of crop rotation, disease, and pest management. The computer model education opportunities appear to be heading in the right direction for future use. These classes presented how to access these model programs. I found this school to be very educational and worthwhile.

- Excellent program. Thank you.

- Variation of topics was great. Try to move the screen up about one foot so that people in the back rows can see the bottom of the image projected. I would not be opposed to starting at 7:00 a.m. as long as we can make phone calls during the first break.

- CPMS should continue to provide the courses on the syllabus including classes for irrigated and row crops. Our growing area (Wyoming) is entirely irrigated land. Much of the small dryland grain topics

are relevant, yet they need to include irrigated/row crops exist also. Thank you for accommodating the providers/producers in this area.

- No evening sessions would be nice. Most of us are brain dead by 5:00 p.m.

- Good course. Could have had more time for weed ID. Powerpoint was hard to read when software was

demonstrated. Be sure handouts accompany all demonstrations or you’ll lose the audience. Great snacks. GPS has very little application in spraying animals.

- Good school.

- Very nice sessions, understandable and great information. However, some went a little too deep, but overall it was a learning experience.

Will, pizza was great!

- The limited enrollment in class lent itself to more “hand on” and personal interaction. I really enjoyed that and have retained a better understanding of the subjects covered. The breakout of row crops made the school more diverse. I know that four in a row crop session is hard to justify. The interaction was great and I will take home a better understanding of disease in sugar beets. Will, thank you for putting on this school.

-This was a good course and very well organized. The “hands on” portions were great. The DNA and biotech information was also good.

-Overall, a good set of presentations. Sessions provided good introduction to most of the topics that were covered. If the opportunity presents itself, I would attend again in the future.

Educational/Informational Materials Produced

Introduced Dryland Grass Fertilizer Study

Ron Carlstrom, Gallatin County Extension Agent

Dr. Dennis Cash, Extension Forage Agronomist

Dr. Ray Ditterline, MSU Forage Researcher/Instructor

Montana producers can increase forage production on their limited acres utilizing improved species/varieties and fertilizer programs or a combination of the two. Producers often plant improved species but fail to take the next management step and further increase production with fertilization. The application of fertilizer materials, particularly nitrogen (N), to introduced grasses offers a key management tool to increase production. If economics are favorable, introducing foreign nitrogen into the nitrogen cycle can increase production for several years, thus increasing net return to the producer. Increasing net return to producers will enable them to remain economically viable and sustainable. On smaller acreages, increasing management through grazing practices, fertilizer, and introduced species will lower the possibility of noxious weed invasion, thus decreasing the need for herbicide applications.

Studies in the Northern Great Plains indicate that producers can fertilize once and receive more than one years benefit by adding nitrogen to their introduced grass species. If this practice is feasible, producers could implement a fertilizer program into their management plan. Two types of fertility programs currently used by northern Great Plains producers are:

1. Application of fertilizer to 25% of introduced pastures each year.

2. Purchase and apply fertilizer when fertilizer prices are low and reap benefits for several

years.

This project looked at the agronomic and economic benefits of nitrogen fertilizer application on twelve grass species and three legume species. The project also incorporates the co-learner model where researchers, extension personnel and producers develop research based on the needs of the producers. The group then works together on the producer’s own ground to develop answers to their production questions.

Background:

In the spring of 1997, Dr. Ray Ditterline, MSU Plant Scientist and his research team established dryland grass plots on the Willow Creek Bench approximately 5 miles south of Three Forks, Montana. Species were established in a randomized complete block design with four replications.

The site is semi-arid in a 10 to 12 inch average rainfall. Soil type is Headwaters loam with a profile of 0-7 inches loam, 7-29 inches clay-loam and 29 to 60 inches fractured bedrock.

View of Plot Sites Looking West - July 2002

Approximately fifty percent of average precipitation falls during the months of April, May and June at this site. January, February, and March are normally the driest three months of the year (note table 1).

Average dryland grain production is 30 to 35 bushels on the site utilizing a fifty-fifty cropping sequence of crop/summer fallow. With adequate precipitation and fertility the site has produced crops in excess of fifty bushels per acre.

YEAR / QUARTERLY Precipitation Average

1997 – January, February, March	1.49 inches
1997 – April, May, June	11.51 inches
1997 – July, August, September	6.60 inches
1997 – October, November, December	2.63 inches
	TOTAL = 22.23
1998 – January, February, March	1.99 inches
1998 – April, May, June	7.72 inches
1998 – July, August, September	3.18 inches
1998 – October, November, December	3.07 inches
	TOTAL = 15.96
1999 – January, February, March	.97 inches
1999 – April, May, June	5.95 inches
1999 – July, August, September	2.35 inches
1999 – October, November, December	.51 inches
	TOTAL = 9.78
2000 – January, February, March	1.55 inches
2000 – April, May, June	7.79 inches
2000 – July, August, September	2.07 inches
2000 – October, November, December	4.03 inches
	TOTAL = 15.44
2001 – January, February, March	.61 inches
2001 – April, May, June	4.95 inches
2001 – July, August, September	3.44 inches
2001 – October, November, December	1.26 inches
	TOTAL = 10.26
2002 – January, February, March	1.45 inches
2002 – April, May, June	(0 inches in April) 7.25 inches
2002 – July, August, September	4.95 inches
2002 – October, November, December (not reported)
	TOTAL = 13.65

After establishment in 1997, plots were used in a winter nutrition study completed by Dr. Ray Ditterline and others at Montana State University cooperating with USDA-ARS researchers at Logan, Utah. The Willow Creek Growers group followed Dr. Ditterline’s project and had forage winter wheat plots adjacent to these plots.

Growers Group Tour

From 1997 to 2001 plots were mowed to a four-inch stubble height in the spring prior to spring green up. No fertilizer applications were made during this period.

In the spring of 2001 members of the Willow Creek Growers, MSU researchers and extension personnel met to discuss further use of the plots. It was decided a fertilizer study looking at fertilizer rates, treatment length and increased production would be valuable for producers in the area.

Study:

During the 1997 to 2001 period plots had not been fertilized. In the spring of 2002 initial plots were divided into three sub-plots.. Plots were mowed to a 4-inch stubble height prior to green up. During early spring fertilizer was applied at three rates 0, 50, and 100 pounds actual nitrogen in the form of ammonia nitrate.

After fertilization plots were monitored for visual response to fertilization. The spring of 2002 began very dry, timely June rains helped stimulate grass growth. By the end of June grasshoppers were a problem. Plots were sprayed for grasshoppers when the adjoining fields and roadsides were sprayed.

Plots were monitored through June and July, producers and investigators could see a marked difference between grass growth on fertilized plots and non-fertilized plots. Extreme temperatures in July effectively shut down all grass growth. To minimize the impact of grasshoppers plots were harvested on July 24^th, 2002.

View of Hand-clipping Plots

Plots were hand-clipped individually, dried and weighed on a dry matter basis.

Results were tabulated. Table 2 indicates the yield response to nitrogen for the listed grasses. (Legumes: Remont sainfoin and Windsor Cicer milkvetch were not sampled.)

Table 2. Dry matter yields in 2002 after fertilization with 0, 50 or 100 lb/A N.
	Forage Yield (DM lbs/A)
	07/24/2002
	0		50		100
Luna Pubescent wheatgrass	1272.4		1918.8		2891.8
CD II crested wheatgrass	1032.3		1791.6		2606.1
Trailhead Basin wildrye	1502.3		1810.2		2547.8
Ladak 65 Alfalfa	1794.6		1665.0		2467.4
Alkar Tall wheatgrass	1280.8		1762.2		2376.2
Greenar Intermediate wheatgrass	1285.0		2373.2		2259.1
NewHy hybrid wheatgrass	1035.3		1831.8		2160.7
Volga Mammoth wildrye	1141.0		1565.3		1891.2
Angustus hybrid wildrye	1481.9		1501.7		1817.4
Prarieland Altai wildrye	960.9		1184.8		1632.5
RSH-RS hybrid wheatgrass	792.9		1370.3		1438.1
Bozoisky-Select Russian wildrye	800.7		1035.9		1399.7
Rosana Western wheatgrass	560.6		1103.8		1177.6
Remont sainfoin	NT		NT		NT
Windsor Cicer milkvetch	NT		NT		NT
Mean		996.0		1394.3		1777.7
lsd (P=0.05)		391.1		620.1		1032.4
CV%		27.5		31.1		40.7
Fc-F(0.05)		11.98		7.39		3.93
Fc-F(0.10)		12.24		7.65		4.19

In this initial year of fertilization, producers would have seen economic benefits if forages were hayed. This assumes a $70/Ton hay value, and costs of 24¢ per actual pound of nitrogen (note tables 3 and 4).

Table 3. Dry matter yields in 2002 after fertilization with 0, 50 or 100 lb/A N.
				Net Grass Value/A
	Forage Yield (DM lbs/A)			(Assuming hay value of $70/ton,
	07/24/2002			Actual N fertilizer = $0.24 per lb)
	0	50	100	0	50	100
Luna Pubescent wheatgrass	1272.4	1918.8	2891.8	$44.53	$55.16	$77.21
CD II crested wheatgrass	1032.3	1791.6	2606.1	$36.13	$50.71	$67.21
Trailhead Basin wildrye	1502.3	1810.2	2547.8	$52.58	$51.36	$65.17
Ladak 65 Alfalfa	1794.6	1665.0	2467.4	$62.81	$46.27	$62.36
Alkar Tall wheatgrass	1280.8	1762.2	2376.2	$44.83	$49.68	$59.17
Greenar Intermediate wheatgrass	1285.0	2373.2	2259.1	$44.98	$71.06	$55.07
NewHy hybrid wheatgrass	1035.3	1831.8	2160.7	$36.24	$52.11	$51.63
Volga Mammoth wildrye	1141.0	1565.3	1891.2	$39.93	$42.79	$42.19
Angustus hybrid wildrye	1481.9	1501.7	1817.4	$51.87	$40.56	$39.61
Prarieland Altai wildrye	960.9	1184.8	1632.5	$33.63	$29.47	$33.14
RSH-RS hybrid wheatgrass	792.9	1370.3	1438.1	$27.75	$35.96	$26.33
Bozoisky-Select Russian wildrye	800.7	1035.9	1399.7	$28.02	$24.26	$24.99
Rosana Western wheatgrass	560.6	1103.8	1177.6	$19.62	$26.63	$17.22
Mean	996.0	1394.3	1777.7	$40.23	$44.31	$47.79

	AUM's - Available assuming			Net Grass Value/Acre at $14.00 per AUM. Assuming 750 lbs dry matter
	utilization @ 50% of 0 lbs N/acre			per AUM and can utilize to the
	to 50% of 0 Nitrogen applied			50% of 0 Nitrogen applied
	0	50	100	0	50	100
Luna Pubescent wheatgrass	0.85	1.71	3.01	$ 12.30	$ 11.94	$ 18.10
CD II crested wheatgrass	0.69	1.70	2.79	$ 9.98	$ 11.81	$ 15.01
Trailhead Basin wildrye	1.00	1.41	2.40	$ 14.52	$ 7.77	$ 9.54
Ladak 65 Alfalfa	1.20	1.02	2.09	$ 17.35	$ 2.33	$ 5.31
Alkar Tall wheatgrass	0.85	1.50	2.31	$ 12.38	$ 8.94	$ 8.40
Greenar Intermediate wheatgrass	0.86	2.31	2.16	$ 12.42	$ 20.31	$ 6.18
NewHy hybrid wheatgrass	0.69	1.75	2.19	$ 10.01	$ 12.53	$ 6.67
Volga Mammoth wildrye	0.76	1.33	1.76	$ 11.03	$ 6.57	$ 0.65
Angustus hybrid wildrye	0.99	1.01	1.44	$ 14.32	$ 2.20	$ (3.91)
Prarieland Altai wildrye	0.64	0.94	1.54	$ 9.29	$ 1.15	$ (2.49)
RSH-RS hybrid wheatgrass	0.53	1.30	1.39	$ 7.66	$ 6.18	$ (4.56)
Bozoisky-Select Russian wildrye	0.53	0.85	1.33	$ 7.74	$ (0.14)	$ (5.35)
Rosana Western wheatgrass	0.37	1.10	1.20	$ 5.42	$ 3.37	$ (7.25)
Remont sainfoin
Windsor Cicer milkvetch

Table 4. Indicates the economic return for nitrogen fertilization at 0, 50, and 100# actual nitrogen. Returns are calculated and based on $14.00 per animal unit and (0.24) 24 cents per pound actual nitrogen.

Storing samples for transport

to MSU Bozeman

Hand clipping of plots

The project also looked at the impact of fertility on forage quality. Plots containing Luna Pubescent wheatgrass were tested for forage quality. Tests were run utilizing NIFRS. Results of those tests are shown below in table 5. It appears that forage quality is increased when nitrogen fertilizer is supplied to grass stands.

		DM lb/A	%CP	%ADF	%NDF	%IVDDM
0 lbs N/A		1152.4	10.39	34.46	60.09	55.40
50 lbs N/A		1855.2	11.81	33.59	59.09	56.81
100 lbs N/A		2748.9	12.01	33.72	59.04	59.26
	lsd(0.05)	409.0	0.71	NS	NS	2.83
	Var x N	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

A tour was held for Montana State County Extension agents during the fall of 2002. Agents were given the opportunity to view the grasses, voice their responses to nitrogen fertilization, and visit with principal investigators on the various grass species and the agronomic observations made by investigators over the past seven years.

Agents Observing Dryland

Grass Fertilizer Study Plots

Agents learned about the advantages of using nitrogen fertilizer to improve grass production. They observed first hand, in the field, the improvement to stands with fertilization. Agents commented on the palatability studies completed in previous years and discussed how they could use this information in their County programs.

Agents also gained knowledge on the SARE program and county agent mini-grants awarded by MSU Extension. Agents were also advised on how they could establish grass plots for producers in their respective counties.

Plots July 24, 2002

Plots April 4, 2002

Tour, Fall 2002

In October of 2002, the Willow Creek growers met again and reviewed the plots and the fertilizer study. Growers could see the actual growth difference from fertilized and non-fertilized plots. Growers and researchers discussed how the growers could incorporate the information into their operations. The growers group wanted to study the cumulative impact of one-time fertilization for the next 3-4 years.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, this study impacted both local growers and extension personnel as they make decisions on their operations and in their counties. Growers were able to actually see study results from research done in their climate and soil conditions. Growers, researchers and extension personnel were able to discuss results and work together to direct further research efforts. This co-learner approach may be the greatest benefit associated with this project.

Available: MT-SARE web site in June 2003 (no address available yet, but can be accessed through http://entomology.montana.edu/ipm/)

III. Slides and Photos

Figure 1. Dryland grass plots were established on the Willow Creek Bench. Members of the Willow Creek Growers, MSU researchers and extension personnel met to discuss further use of the plots. Grass response to fertilizer rates, treatment length and increased production would be valuable for producers in the area.

Figure 2. Summer tour of sustainable agriculture operations in Alaska.

EIRP Activities

1. Don Ady, Fort Belknap Agent
2. Verna Billedeaux, Blackfeet Agent

Programs on Crop Rotations – Harnessing the Power

During the MSU-ES 2002 Southeast Montana Winter Cropping Series, Dr. Roger Ashley, Area Extension Specialist, NDSU was invited to make a series of presentations entitled, ‘Crop “Rotations – Harnessing the Power’. This presentation was based on information developed through his extension program at the Dickinson Research Extension Center, Dickinson, ND.

Total attendance was 300 producers. Presentations were made at the following locations:

County	Town
Custer County	Miles City
Rosebud County	Forsyth
Powder River	Broadus
Carter	Belltower
Fallon	Baker
Wibaux	Wibaux
Dawson	Glendive
Prairie	Terry
McCone	Circle
Garfield	Jordan

SUSTAINABLE RANGE, PASTURE, WATER QUALITY AND RANCHES: A TOUR FOR MONTANA EXTENSION WORKERS

USDA-ARS Forage and Range Research Lab Tour. Logan UT.

Kevin Jensen, USDA-ARS 435-797-3099

Montana State University Extension Tour, September 2002

reported by: John Halpop, MSU Extension/Sanders County

A brief history from staff members described how the research facility first opened in 1925 was geared towards the improvement of dryland pasture grasses. Millions of acres of native perennials on Great Basin rangelands had been impacted by improper grazing practices during the early settlement period and improved plant materials were needed to restore range condition. This type of research was conducted for many years and continues today.

In addition recent research is looking at irrigated pasture cultivars. A number of factors contribute to the need for irrigated pasture research in the Western States, including 1) Provide a stable source of forage throughout the grazing season, 2) Make efficient use of limited irrigation water and 3) Respond to the increased demands placed upon privately deeded irrigated lands as livestock numbers on public lands decrease.

Characteristics monitored include seedling vigor, grazing tolerance and productivity. Clipping trials remove plant material six times during the growing season at the Cache Valley site. Plots receive five levels of irrigation water ranging from 16" - 36" per year. Plots also receive 50 pounds of N/acre at four times during the growing season.

A common theme pulled from the summary information for irrigated perennial grasses includes the statement "the choice of cultivars and species, along with an understanding of water requirements is critical to provide a stable source of forage throughout the grazing season". Meaning water availability especially during the critical mid to late season weighs heavily upon species chosen. That's an obvious enough statement to make.

In terms of dry matter, tall fescue outperformed meadow and smooth brome, orchardgrass, rs-hybrid (bluebunch X quackgrass) and perennial ryegrass. Where irrigation water is limited meadow brome outperforms orchardgrass, however the reverse is true when irrigation water is less limiting (approximately 25" water). Perennial ryegrass outperforms the other species quality-wise (crude protein, in-vitro digestibility and neutral detergent fiber), however it fails at compete well in regard to production at any irrigation level. Forage quality in terms of crude protein has a linear increase across all species, with decreasing levels of water.

Fact sheets include

Pasture Species Forage Production Under Five Irrigation Levels Orchardgrass Forage Production Under Five Irrigation Levels (9 cultivars) Perennial Ryegrass Forage Production Under Five Irrigation Levels Forage Quality of Orchardgrass and Perennial Ryegrass Under Five Water Levels

Deseret Ranch Wildlife Division

Report by: Darren Crawford

Wildlife and ranching have always seemed to be inseparable. On any given area of land, the rancher has to find ways to live with the local wild animals and still make a profit.  One ranch seems to have found a way to not only live with them, but thrive on keeping their populations healthy. 

The Deseret Ranch in northeast Utah has spent years studying the wildlife on their land and finding ways to help the wildlife habitat while not hurting, and often times helping their cattle operation. In order to do this, the ranch has come up with many ways of determining the profitability of wildlife on the ranch.  This requires extensive studies and record keeping to make sure their strategies are working and profitable.

The Deseret has struck a deal with the state of Utah to have its large block of land become it’s own hunting district. This was only possible through the support of sportsman’s groups and a mutual respect between the Utah wildlife officials and the ranch.  The ranch allows 60-90 bull tags and 250 cow tags to be given and only allows hunters to hunt with ranch provided guides.  This helps them achieve the harvests they want and gives a consistency among years’ harvests.  The ranch is home to over 2400 head of elk, and this number is closely monitored. Offering free guides is expensive so the ranch has a very agreeable solution.  They receive 80% of the bull tags to sell as guided hunts. This revenue allows them to offer free guides to all who received a tag in the public draw.

Managing for wildlife can be a complicated task with many options and areas for improvement.  In order to be successful, one must break it down into manageable tasks. The easiest way to think of it is that management is simply focusing on the weakest link and evaluating what returns will be achieved by making changes in those areas.

Environmental Management System Integration at the Hardware Ranch

Report by: Paul Dixon - Yellowstone County Extension Agent

EMS Background

An Environmental Management System or EMS is a business management system that helps producers develop their own strategy for integrating environmental consideration into production decisions. It is a voluntary, flexible process that starts from the producer’s own knowledge and sense of how to best manage their operation. The EMS management approach helps producers examine their own production system from start to finish. It provides a framework for making continual improvements, meeting regulatory requirements and demonstrating good environmental stewardship.

Hardware Ranch Situation

The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) purchased the Hardware Ranch in 1946 to feed elk and keep them from moving down into the Cache Valley. The ranch feeds a herd of approximately 800 elk and also supports cattle and sheep enterprises. During the winter months, the DWR operates horse drawn sleighs to take visitors within close viewing range of feeding elk.

The Blacksmith Fork River flows through the ranch and is adjacent to the elk feeding grounds. By congregating elk and housing horses, needed for the sleigh rides, near the river the perception of potential environmental impacts needed to be addressed. Prior to DWR ownership, a stretch of the river had been straightened in order to facilitate a fish hatchery.

EMS at Work at the Hardware Ranch

John Harrison, Utah State University Extension Waste Management Specialist, began working with the Hardware Ranch and other interested parties in addressing potential public relation issues. He used the EMS approach in this process.

The EMS project on the Hardware Ranch was not initiated because of quantified water quality issues, but instead of public relation issues.

In the beginning, the group discussed management practices instead of trying to figure out “what are we going to fix.” The EMS was used to address the needs of the ranch while allowing the ranch to emphasize the issues important to them. It was decided to address the issues of returning the river to its natural course and to revegetating the banks.

By using the EMS approach, the Hardware Ranch was able to clarify their environmental “policy.” They were able to identify and prioritize environmental risks, and develop an action plan to address them.

Management and Goal Setting on the Deseret Ranch

Report by: Dave Phillips, MSU Extension Agent, Fergus County

“We employ an ‘unusual management style’ on this ranch”, says Bill Hopkins, Manager of the Deseret Ranch located between Logan, Utah, and Evanston, Wyoming. In a conference room that is accented by pictures of ranch wildlife, ranch livestock, ranch people, and a large map that shows noxious weed infestation areas, Bill proceeds to give a very detailed overview of the Deseret Ranch and the things that happen on this large ranch that encompasses in excess of 215,000 acres in the high country of eastern Utah.

A native of the immediate area where the ranch is located, Bill grew up “across the valley”; part of a ranch family where family values became strongly ingrained. After obtaining a degree in biology education at Weber State College in Ogden, Utah, and spending some time as a high school science teacher, Bill made a decision to return to “the cows and the land”. He became the cattle manager for the Deseret Ranch in February, 1983.

The Deseret Ranch was originally put together by three pioneer Mormon families because of a pressing need for summer sheep range. In 1891, the Deseret Livestock Corporation was formed and bought out 3 large ranches, a number of old homesteads and railroad property (minus the mineral rights). By about 1948-1948, the ranch had grown to about 250,000 acres in a continuous block. In 1956, there was a major shift in ownership. A partnership corporation of Garr, Fried and Robinson purchased the ranch and instituted the practice of fee hunting at a rate of $10.00 per carload. Joseph Hotung purchased the ranch in about 1975 or 1976 and owned the ranch until 1983. At that time, the ranch was stocked with about 4,000 mother cows and 10,000 ewes. The operation “lost a ton of money” according to Hopkins; in the neighborhood of $500,000 per year on the average. The hunting practices were stopped and the ranch was advertised for sale at $20 million. The Church of Latter Day Saints formed their “Farm Management Company” with the stipulation that ranch/farm operations must make a 5% return on investment. There is, however, a “special purpose” clause within the framework of the Farm Management Company and the Church decided to buy the ranch from Hotung even though it would not initially meet the 5% hurdle. The Deseret Ranch, as it exists today under the ownership of the Farm Management Company is about 201,000 acres of deeded land and 14,000 acres of BLM lease. There are no U.S. Forest Service permits even though the ranch does border Forest Service administered lands. Annual precipitation ranges from 9" at the ranch headquarters (6200' in elevation) to 20" at the higher elevations on the ranch (8600'). The frost free season is about 50 days for most of the ranch.

Bill says, “ I came to the ranch at an optimum time; the cow herd was crummy and in spite of a great vegetative resource, the cow herd was sustaining huge economic losses”. By developing and adhering to a ranch mission statement, changes began to happen. The mission

statement says, “The mission of the Deseret Ranch is to maximize profit while enhancing the ranch resources, serving the community and serve as an ensign for the church”.

There are seven guiding principles that enhance the mission statement: Land based, Resource Right, Profit motivated, Customer centered, Empowered leadership, Preparedness aware, and Church ensign.

With regard to what happens at Deseret Ranch, Bill says, “I feel the very best about the planning that takes place on the ranch. It is participatory planning and management. We are now on our second five year plan; the first one was developed in 1996. When the plan is done, I want the cattle department to have 3-5 ‘bullet’ goals that can be understood - even memorized. The same is true for wildlife, for the forage base, etc.” The plan involves everybody that works on the ranch. The five year goals are broken incrementally as to how to achieve the final goal. An annual review is conducted each year in relation to the five year and incremental goals. “The guys who deal with the issues on a daily basis are the ones who do the plan”, says Bill.

In 1983, the four highest costs to the cow herd were hay costs, cow depreciation, labor and bull costs. What has happened as a result of careful management, planning and goal setting that involves all the people who work on the ranch on a daily basis. Hay costs are now about 20% of their former level (about 3 lbs. of alfalfa hay per cow per day - no other hay is fed); depreciation is down from about $60 per cow to $17 per cow; labor cost is about $27 per cow (labor for just the cows used to amount to 14 FTE’s; now 10 FTE’s for the entire ranch); and bull cost is now about $8 per cow, down from $32. Water quality is monitored 3 times per year on the ranch - spring, mid-summer, and fall. Livestock numbers have increased for about 2500 cows to 5500 cows, yearling numbers have grown from 2000 to 4000, the elk herd of 500 has grown to about 2400, and antelope numbers have increased from 0 to about 600. All that on top of a very steady mule deer population that adds a consistent source of revenue each year to the wildlife operations on the ranch.

Wildlife and livestock management are closely coordinated on the ranch. A “Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit” exists on the ranch. Such units have to be comprised of at least 10,000 contiguous acres. By 2005, some of the goals that are enumerated in the current five year plan are to increase AUM’s by 26,000; enhance water quality; and enhance the wildlife habitat and resource on the ranch. Wildlife is a vital resource to the economic success of the ranch. The elk herd provides 60-90 bulls that are harvested each year. The cost for a “trophy” bull on the Deseret Ranch is $11,500 per bull. The cow elk harvest each year is about 250 -260 cows.

Beef cows are “stockpiled” when heifer calf prices are low; cows are sold when the prices for bred cows are high. These selling periods give the ranch opportune times in which to improve the forage resource base while numbers are reduced. Land treatments have been developed and implemented which optimize the health of the forage resource base, sustain production, improve water quality and enhance wildlife value. Land treatments fall into five categories: disc/seed which utilizes an imprinter to pack new seed into the soil; spike; controlled burns in early spring; “brush crunch” which is aerating with seeding; and aerating/imprinting.

Poisonous Plan Lab

Report by: Dave Phillips, MSU Extension Agent, Fergus County

Dr. Lynn James provides an overview of the function of the Poisonous Plant Laboratory at Utah State University. The lab is an important source of research and information to the livestock industry because poisonous plants are responsible for an annual loss of about $340 million to the livestock industry.

Poison is in the dose; the amount and the timing. Dr. James reminded us that anything can most likely be poisonous if the timing is right and the dosage is excessive.

The staff at the poisonous plant lab is a very interdisciplinary group that includes chemists, range scientists, animal scientists and veterinarians.

Some of the weeds that are important to Montana that were highlighted by Dr. James included loco weed and Ponderosa pine. With regard to loco weed, we know a lot about the plant and the toxins but we don’t yet know what to do about it. It is one of the most serious and worst poisonous plants. The toxins found in loco weed are not the subject of mental retardation studies in humans. For those of us interested in Ponderosa pine, we learned that the toxic compound has been identified. The compound, when fed, causes cows to abort. The compound, in itself, is not the abortive agent but a metabolyte of the compound is the abortive agent. The next step is to identify the metabolyte.

Productivity of Irrigated Pastures -

Report by: Sharla Sackman, Prairie County Extension

The objective of the Caine Dairy Farm grazing study is to determine the yield, forage nutritive value, and botanical composition of long-term stands of grass-legume mixtures suitable for irrigated, grazed pastures.

The study compares four grasses (tall fescue, meadow brome, orchard grass, and perennial ryegrass) and two legumes (white clover and birdsfoot trefoil). Tall fescue, meadow brome, and orchard grass were chosen because they are high yielding species and perennial ryegrass was chosen because of its high quality. Legumes were chosen for compatibility and yield.

The study was planted in the fall of 2000 and has been harvested in 2001 and 2002. The study is proposed to continue through 2004. A mixture of one grass and one legume was planted in each 72' x 50' plot, representing each possible grass-legume mixture. Dairy cows graze a plot to a specified grass height, then are rotated to the next plot. The number of cows on each plot is varied according to need. Plots are harvested between 2 and 8 times. In addition to grazing, 2kg samples are taken at every harvest so forage quality and botanical composition can be measured. Grass yield is measured with a calibrated rising plate meter.

In 2001, tall fescue and meadow brome mixtures yielded more than orchard grass and perennial ryegrass mixtures. Legumes didn't differ. Drought caused by irrigation system breakdowns reduced white clover in 2001. Rodent damage reduced perennial ryegrass in the winter of 2001-2002.

The information that will be gleaned from this study is valuable because grass and legume species are being studied under conditions close to that of a farm that grazes cows on irrigated pasture. The length of the study is also important since the species can be evaluated in a long-term setting. For example, weed encroachment is just beginning in the study and inventories will be taken as the study continues. This study is on the edge of what is known about irrigated pasture management. It will provide baseline date that will set the stage for more research.