Archives for October 2016

Outside the Fire with Jeff Goodwin

October 25, 2016 by morgan.treadwell

This October we are featuring Mr. Jeff Goodwin, Range and Pasture Consultant Agricultural Division with the Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation in Ardmore, OK. Jeff is a Texas man, but more importantly he is a fire man who promotes the responsible and practical use of fire on rangelands.

How did you get introduced to fire? I got introduced to fire as an undergraduate at Tarleton State University’s Range and Ranch Management program. After graduate school, I had the opportunity to work with Dr. Bill Pinchak and Dr. Jim Ansley at the Texas A&M Research Center in Vernon, Texas conducting research projects utilizing fire to manage landscapes in the Rolling Plains of Texas. The majority of my experience with fire however, has come through the 15 years I spent as a rangeland management specialist with USDA-NRCS. They provided the training, experience, and opportunity to work with landowners to address rangeland resource concerns and meet their management objectives. Very often in a fire starved landscape, those rangeland management objectives were achieved and/or aided with the proper application of prescribed fire

Do you make special plans for fire in your management plans well in advance, or take advantage of good fuel and weather conditions as they come? I have been trained my entire career to be a planner, to think about how our management will meet a specific goal and how that action will affect other resources. However, to answer the question Yes I make plans well in advance, but I also take advantage of favorable conditions as they arise. To me that’s the beauty of a well written and designed prescribed fire plan. Many times we have a specific goal or objective we want to accomplish within a particular burn unit. The challenge and objective should be to write your burn plan specific enough to meet the objective yet the prescription parameters should be open enough so that you have the flexibility to take advantage of those favorable conditions as they arise. The worst thing you can do is to make the prescription parameters so tight that you that you 1) will never meet them and thus never get the burn implemented or 2) push yourself to the limits of your plan parameters and possibly open yourself to liability issues should trouble arise.

What’s the hook for you on fire? The hook for me with fire is that I am a student of Ecology. For too many years we have looked at fire as a “tool” to manage rangelands. Fire is not a tool, it is an ecological process. A “tool” can be put back in the toolbox and/or replaced. We are currently seeing across the region what happens when we try to replace or use fire sparingly as a tool. I currently live in the middle of the Southern Great Plains, an area encompassing the majority of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Every square inch of rangeland in this region evolved under a fire regime with a fire return frequency, it was part of the fire dependent ecology of this region. As “we” began to manage those rangelands, 150 years ago we suppressed that ecological process. Many of the battles that we fight today in the field of rangeland management are directly related to that suppression, (i.e. woody brush encroachment, reduced rangeland productivity, etc.). So my hook is returning the ecological functionality of our rangeland resources while meeting management objectives of the land stewards that care for them.

In your opinion, what makes a successful fire? A successful fire in my opinion is one that meets the goal and objective of the burn unit. I am not a fan of burning just to burn. Many times we miss opportunities or do not meet the specific objectives of a fire just because we want to get it “done”. For instance, if my goal is to control or suppress Prickly Pear cactus, I will need a couple of things to ensure that outcome. I will need to choose a year or time when we have grown enough fine fuel to carry the fire to adequately meet that objective. I should choose prescription parameters that will effectively allow for a fire hot enough to meet those objectives. If we burn on a day that does not meet those parameters then we will likely not meet the original objective and we will have utilized our fine fuel. Now, I agree there are multiple benefits to getting fire back on the landscape. However, I am in the business of meeting landowner objectives and managing rangeland, to do that we need to be successful with our management applications and fire is no exception. Earlier I stated that Fire was an ecological process that needed to return to Texas rangelands, that is true. With that said, we need to be the ones that decide, when, where, how much and how long. This is where we take the science of rangeland management and turn it into and art.

Who in your burn circle/crew would you never burn without? I do not have a specific person that I would not burn without, however I will not burn without speaking to my Lord and Savior. I pray before each burn that the lord provides his hand in safety over the crew, the clarity to make the right decision at the right time, and the gratitude for the responsibility to care for the rangeland resources he has provided us dominion over. Fire is a necessary process but can be very unforgiving if the proper amount of respect is not given. Safety is and will always be our number one priority on a burn.

Thank you Jeff!

Why I Ranch.

October 25, 2016 by morgan.treadwell

This October we are featuring Mr. James K. Rooter Brite, Jr. from Bowie, Texas. Rooter is a father, rancher, conservationist, and my friend. The Brite Ranch has been a member of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA) for Rooter’s entire life. He has been a director of the TSCRA since 1999, and has served on their Agriculture and Research and Natural Resources and Environmental committees since 1994. He has served as a director of the Upper-Elm Red Soil and Water Conservation District since 1979. He has served on the Association of Texas Soil and Water Conservation Districts board and on the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board. He represents the National Association of Conservation Districts on the National Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative steering committee. Additionally, he serves on the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Natural Resource and Environment Committee.

How did you get your start in ranching? I am a third
generation on this ranch. I was born and raised on the ranch where my grandfather J.A. Brite purchased in 1929. I took over my dad’s cow herd in the mid-1960s and purchased the ranch from dad in 1974, when I began full-time management of the ranch with my wife, Lynda, and eventually my son, J.K.

How important is agriculture to your family? Agriculture is about one third of my income. You have to look at the cumulative value of everything you do on the land. Management decisions you make now will make a difference 30 years from now. It all adds up, whichever direction you go. At an early age I learned the cause and effect of different land management practices. These first-hand lessons I learned from the land stimulated my desire to learn more and be diversified in my management. I apply land management practices that are practical, using common sense. I don’t do things because they are what somebody else thinks might be good. I do things because they work on this land, and that’s what makes the difference.

What makes ranching in West Texas so unique? The only constant is inconsistency with the weather and markets.

Do you feel like there is enough emphasis on agriculture in K-12 education? There needs to be a much greater attention on ag, but it must be taught by qualified and experienced teachers.

Who did you learn the most from along the way? By college age, I was intrigued by the land so I enrolled in Texas Christian University’s two-year Ranch Management program. TCU Professor Chip Merrill inspired me to try new things and not be afraid to try something different. I approached the resource management of the ranch using a short-term reactionary response to changing forage, production, and anticipated market condition. My long-term management is of a continuing upward trend in success of native forage. I feel like we can utilize our current management methods and maintain, or in areas of need, improve the productivity of this ranch in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner.

Thank you Rooter!

Are Cows Athletes? -Dr. Travis Mulliniks University of Tennessee

October 14, 2016 by morgan.treadwell

Dr. Travis Mulliniks, Assistant Professor in beef cattle nutrition and energy nutrition University of Tennessee, poses a very interesting question.

Read below for his incredible insight!!!! Excellent work by Dr. Mulliniks!

Beef cattle in the United States graze a variety of unique environments, which differ in climate, topography, and forage quality and quantity. These differences are accentuated by dynamic and unpredictable weather patterns and thus impact forage production and subsequently increase variability in cow performance. Animals commonly react to these variable conditions by initiating adaptive responses to cope with extreme conditions such as stress (Stott, 1981). To date, a tremendous amount of research has shown the benefit of adapted breeds of animals to certain environmental stressors. However, production practices that modify the production environment with purchased or harvested feedstuffs can buffer the coping mechanisms that livestock express. Furthermore, these production practices may start leading to less desirable and stagnant responses to environmental and physiological stresses.

Dr. Mark Petersen with the USDA-ARS Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory in Miles City, MT has preached that cows are athletes and should be managed accordingly. For most people, that seems like a crazy concept, but when you think about the amount of environmental pressure a cow is expected to perform under coupled with nutrient demands of lactation and reproduction, this concept becomes clearer. If athletes train to have an increased adaptive capacity and tolerance to stress, why don’t we manage cows in a similar methodology to increase their adaptive resilience to environmental stresses? However, common livestock practices tend to manipulate livestock’s nutritional environment to a degree that may completely buffer their capacity to become more adaptive and ultimately less energy efficient. In human fitness, an interesting aspect of skeletal muscle is its adaptability. If a muscle is stressed (within tolerable limits), it adapts and improves function. Conversely, if a muscle receives less stress than it’s used to, it atrophies. Therefore, adaptation requires a systematic application of environmental stress that is sufficient enough to elicit an adaptation, but not so severe that a loss in production occurs. If the stress is insufficient to overload the body, then no adaptation occurs, which is where a lot of our cow-herd management practices leads us. So can we use a model for capacity adaptability and environmental stress to increase energy efficiency and longevity of the cow herd? Is the “feed them to breed them” mentality decreasing efficiency and/or the cow’s inherent capacity to cope with environmental stress?

Research

Adaptive capacity confers resilience to nutritional insults, given that livestock have the ability to modify their nutrient requirements with minimal losses of production. Petersen et al. (2014) illustrated that cows experiencing a dynamic environment are coping with the change by altering nutrient requirements compared with those that are in relatively static surroundings. Conversely, cows managed in the more controlled situations or static environment have a decreased aptitude for energy utilization efficiency. To illustrate this, Mulliniks et al. (2015) utilized datasets from research stations in New Mexico and Tennessee. Although, nutritional supply during the breeding season is much greater in TN, pregnancy rates were significantly less (88 vs 96% in TN and NM; respectively) in TN than in the nutrient restricted environment of NM. Input cost to achieve these production measures has to be taken into account in calculating efficiency differences. Current annual cost of production in Tennessee is $800/cow; whereas New Mexico is roughly half at $440/cow. In addition, Mayfield (2012) reports that longevity in the Tennessee herd was only 3.5 year, which is quite a bit lower than the 61% retention rate of the heifers remaining in the herd after 5 year of age (Mulliniks et al., 2013a). Thus, illustrating short- and long-term effects of adaptive capacity on cow-herd productivity.

So what happens if we take environmentally adapted heifers out of their dynamic environment and develop them in a static nutritional environment? In New Mexico, Mulliniks et al. (2013a) showed the impact of programing animals to fit their given production environment. These researchers developed yearling beef heifers on native range receiving one of two protein supplements (low-rumen undegradable protein vs high-rumen undegradable protein) or a control set of heifers developed in a feedlot. During the developmental treatment period, heifers developed in the feedlot had increased average daily gain (1.5 lb/d) from the initiation of treatments to the start of breeding compared with range-raised heifers consuming low-quality range with protein supplementation (0.58 lb/d). Even with the low average daily gain until breeding, retention rate through 5 years of age for range-developed heifers fed a high-RUP supplement was 68% compared with 41% heifers fed a lower-RUP supplement and 42% for heifers developed in a feedlot (see Figure 1 below). This study indicated the short- and long-term impact that developing heifers to fit their environment can have on biological and economic efficiency.

Figure 1. Retention rate of heifers grazing native dormant range with two types of protein supplementation (36RUP and 50RUP) or fed a growing diet in a drylot. Values shown in breeding yr 1 are heifer pregnancy rates. Breeding years 2 through 4 are proportion of the original heifers treated that were remaining at end of breeding in yr 2, 3, and 4. Retention tended (*P > 0.08) to differ among treatments in breeding yr 1 and 2, but was greater for 50RUP than 36RUP and DRYLOT cows in breeding yr 3 and 4 (**P < 0.01). 36RUP = 36% CP cottonseed meal base supplement fed 3 d/wk supplying 36% RUP; 50RUP = 36% CP supplement fed 3×/wk supplying 50% RUP; DRYLOT = corn silage diet fed in drylot to gain 0.68 kg/d. Adapted from Mulliniks et al. (2013).

Flexible and opportunistic strategies are necessary for successful management in variable environments. Successful strategies have to be engrained in a clear understanding of the challenges facing the grazing animal and its natural abilities to meet and adapt to these challenges. For example, Mulliniks et al. (2012) illustrated over a 6 year period that not all animals need to be fed to achieve a target body condition score, which allows for utilizing body storage as a nutrient source during periods of energy deficiency to maintain reproductive competence. The cows from this study were offspring of cows that were managed in a low-input ($35 to 50 per cow per year in feed inputs) production system for multiple generations. Thus, pre-planned management strategies to allow for body weight loss during periods of moderate feed restriction followed by nutrient realimentation during period of increase nutrient supply can be used to improve efficiency of energy utilization (Freetly et al., 2008).

The capacity for animals to cope with environmental changes depends on the degree of their metabolic flexibility (i.e., the phenotypic response to an environmental change). Having a high metabolic flexibility may be significantly tied to the adaptability to dynamically changing nutrient supply levels. Mulliniks et al. (2013b) illustrated the ability of livestock to modify metabolically in response to changes in nutrient availability was correlated to their timing of conception. Cows with elevated blood ketone concentrations, manifested from metabolic imbalance, prior to breeding season had a prolonged interval from calving to conception. Therefore, ketone concentrations may be a useful indicator of adaptive capacity during metabolically challenging physiological periods.

Bottom Line

Livestock are expected to survive, grow, reproduce, and cope in dynamic and unpredictable weather patterns that create diverse environmental challenges or a combination of challenges. However, if adaptive, flexible management is not utilized, static management in the face of a dynamic problem will not yield the most favorable long-term results. With that being said, adaptive management is similar to the “bend but don’t break” philosophy. You allow a defined amount of stress to elicit an increased capacity to respond positively to the stress. With dynamic swings in environmental conditions, exploiting the natural ability of livestock to adapt in response to periods of nutrient imbalances may be an alternative strategy to manipulating the production environment. Implementing this approach may subsequently enhance adaptive capacity to environmental stresses, while increasing economic and biological efficiency.

References

Freetly, H. C., J. A. Nienaber, and T. Brown-Brandl. 2008. Partitioning of energy in pregnant beef cows during nutritionally induced body weight fluctuation. J. Anim. Sci. 86:3703-77.

Mayfield, W. M. 2012. Evaluating the relationship between ultrasound-derived carcass characteristics and the production traits in Angus cattle. MS thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Mulliniks. J. T., A. G. Rius, M. A. Edwards, S. R. Edwards, J. D. Hobbs, and R. L. G. Nave. 2015. Improving efficiency of production in pasture- and range-based beef and dairy systems. J. Anim. Sci. 93:2609-2615.

Mulliniks, J. T., D. E. Hawkins, K. K. Kane, S. H. Cox, L. A. Torell, E. J. Scholljegerdes, and M. K. Petersen. 2013a. Metabolizable protein supply while grazing dormant winter forage during heifer development alters pregnancy and subsequent in-herd retention rate. J. Anim. Sci. 91:1409-1416.

Mulliniks, J. T., M. E. Kemp, R. L. Endecott, S. H. Cox, A. J. Roberts, R. C. Waterman, T. W. Geary, E. J. Scholljegerdes, and M. K. Petersen. 2013b. Does β-hydroxybutyrate concentration influence conception date in young postpartum range beef cows? J. Anim. Sci. 91:2902-2909.

Mulliniks, J. T., S. H. Cox, M. E. Kemp, R. L. Endecott, R. C. Waterman, D. M. VanLeeuwen, and M. K. Petersen. 2012. Relationship between body condition score at calving and reproductive performance in young postpartum cows grazing native range. J. Anim. Sci. 90:2811–2817.

Petersen, M. K., C. J. Mueller, J. T. Mulliniks, A. J. Roberts, T. DelCurto, and R. C. Waterman. 2014. Potential limitations of NRC in predicting energetic requirements of beef females with western U. S. grazing systems. J. Anim. Sci. 92:2800-2808.

Stott, G. H. 1981. What is animal stress and how is it measured? J. Anim. Sci. 52:150-153.