35th Annual

Arizona / Utah

April 9, 2013 KCNEC/Carroll Arena, Orderville, UT

April 10, 2013 Washington County

Fairgrounds, Hurricane, UT

April 11, 2013 West Desert Tour

7:30 AM Registration Utah Time (6:30 AM AZ time)

2

AZ/UT RANGE LIVESTOCK SPONSORS SPONSORS Arizona Cattle Grower’s Association Beck Enterprises Boehring-Ingelheim Crop Protection Services AGU Diamond Mowers Dow Agro Sciences Dupont Granite Seed Company Intermountain Farmers Association Manna Pro Products LLC Powder River Ridley Block Operations Scholzens Products Co Inc. Utah Beef Council

Utah Farm Bureau Federation Western AG Credit Wheatland Seed Zoetis Animal Health HOSTED BY The University of Arizona Utah State University Bureau of Land Management USDA Forest Service USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service

3

PROGRAM FUNDING ASSISTANCE BY Arizona Strip Grazing Board Dixie Conservation District Fredonia NRCD Kane County Conservation District Littlefield-Hurricane Valley NRCD Western Region Sustainable Agriculture- Research and Education Program (SARE) PROGRAM PROMOTIONAL ITEMS DONATED BY Sponsors and Cal Ranch Crop Protection Services AGU Dixie Gun & Fish Intermountain Farmers Association Rudger C. Atkin Ranches

BE Beck Enterprises

“You must be 18 years or older to be eligible to win the rifle”

AZ/UT RANGE LIVESTOCK PLANNING COMMITTEE

PLANNING COMMITTEE Brandon Atkin Chad Horman John Ball Carolyn Iverson Roger Banner Larry Iverson Brandon Boshell Brian Monroe Jim Bowns Jeremy Peterson Raymond Brinkerhoff Clare Poulsen Barry Bundy John Reese Ed Bundy Justin Reeve Whit Bunting Rokelle Reeve Carl (Kim) Chapman Jacki Roaque Chad Reid Bob Sandberg Raymon Christensen Kyle Spencer Vicki Coombs Doug Tolleson Del Despain Rowdy Walch Carson Gubler LD Walker Rob Grumbles Dale ZoBell Doug Hansen Kip Hansen Matt Hargreaves Kevin Heaton Paul Hill

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to those who have helped make this program possible.

Proceedings by Karma Wood, Staff Assistant III, USU Proceedings edited by Dale ZoBell, USU Beef Extension Specialist

Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension, College of Agriculture & Live Sciences, University of Arizona, Utah State University. The University of Arizona, Utah State University are equal opportunity, affirmative action institutions. They do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, or sexual orientation in its programs and activities.

5

35th ANNUAL AZ/UT RANGE LIVESTOCK WORKSHOP

7:30 AM Registration 8:15 AM Welcome and Introductions 8:30 AM Endangered Plant Update, Lee Hughes, Retired BLM Ecologist 8:50 AM Remote Rangeland Monitoring, Greg Simonds, Open Range Consulting, President 9:10 AM Getting Every Dollar Out of Your Cull Cows and Bulls, Scott Jensen, University of Idaho

Extension Faculty 9:30 AM Are You Throwing Away Your Vaccine Dollars?, Scott Jensen, University of Idaho

Extension Faculty 9:50 AM Sponsor Introductions 10:00 AM Visit With Sponsors/Refreshment Break 10:15 AM History and Livestock Management of the Iverson Ranch, Brandon Iverson, Rancher 10:45 AM Legacy of 1862: Homestead Act and Land Grant College Act, Dr. Ross Peterson, Utah State

University Professor Emeritus 11:30 AM Rabbit Bush Management: New Chemical Offers Hope For Control, Chad Reid, Utah State

University Extension Faculty 12:00 PM Public Land Issues and Policies Facing Utah’s Farmers and Ranchers, Sterling Brown, Utah

Farm Bureau Federation 12:30 PM Lunch 1:00 PM Musical Tribute, Doug Toleson 1:15 PM Why Bad Things Can Happen to Good Cattle, Dr. Richard Linhart, Pfizer Veterinarian 1:45 PM Proactive Permittee Range Monitoring, Lamar Smith, Retired University of Arizona Range

Professor and Extension Specialist, Rancher and Consultant 2:30 PM Visit With Sponsors/Refreshment Break 2:50 PM Reduce Livestock Losses From Poisonous Plants, Zane Davis, USDA Poisonous Plant Lab

Scientist 3:20 PM Panel Discussion: Environmental and Personal Hazards of Illegal Drugs Grown on

Rangelands, John Ball, US Forest Service Special Agent, Panel with representation from Washington and Kane County Sheriff Departments, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Forest Service and BLM Districts

4:15 PM Evaluations and Wrap Up

6

35th ANNUAL AZ/UT RANGE LIVESTOCK WORKSHOP April 11, FIELD TOUR

Mohave Desert Plant Materials, Burn Rehab and Historic Iverson Ranch

9:00 AM Leave St. George BLM Office 9:20 AM Red Cliffs Preserve Turkey Farm Research Plots 11:00 AM Piute Tribe Fire Rehab near Gold Spike 12:30 PM Lunch – Iverson Ranch Headquarters 1:30 PM Tour Iverson Ranch 3:00 PM Head back to St. George 4:00 PM Return to BLM Office

7

A Special Tribute to Joy V. Atkin

November 3, 1929 – January 22, 2013

Joy was born November 3, 1929, in Spokane, Washington, to Theodore VanderWeyst and Cuba Rae Berneck. Joy lived in the Spokane and North Idaho area through age 9, during which time her

parents divorced and Cuba married Bert Hall from Washington, Utah. At that time Bert was working on road construction in the Spokane and North Idaho area. Joy became a sister to Bert’s 5 daughters and 1 son. The family lived in North Idaho for three years and then moved to Washington, Utah. Joy attended and graduated from Dixie High School where she was Valedictorian of her high school class. Following high school Joy attended Dixie College where she met and married Rudger Clayton Atkin on March 10, 1948, in Washington, Utah. Their marriage was later solemnized in the St. George LDS Temple. Joy became Clayton’s partner in raising their four sons (Jerry, Brent, Doyle, and Troy) as she supported him in being a cattle rancher and in other business ventures. She kept the books, paid the bills, and helped Clayton in all he did. Joy served tirelessly in many church and public service assignments throughout her life. Joy quickly grew to love the ranching life; which was a good thing because she didn’t have another option. She and Clayton spent the first few years of their married lives living on the Strip on the old Childer’s homestead. She cooked and cared for the hired men, Clayton, and their young sons until Jerry was old enough to go to school, at which time they moved to town. Clayton continued to live at the ranch a week at a time, returning to town long enough for Joy to feed him a good meal, do the laundry and send him off the next morning. When she did get a chance to go to the ranch she loved to see full ponds and green grass. She often made time in her busy schedule to go to the strip during the monsoons so she could have the opportunity to watch ponds fill up. Clayton had a sharp eye for good cattle and taught Joy well. At the time she married Clayton the ranch was running Hereford cattle and she came to love that breed. When the market shifted towards other breeds, Joy was always quick to point out that Herefords were some of the best Strip cattle there ever were. Joy was always there when the calves were shipped in the fall and was often found leaning on the fence eyeing up the calves. She would later comment on the condition of the calves and what could be improved upon in the future. Joy was always an advocate for education. Not only did she love to learn new things herself, but she also enjoyed helping others to learn and grow in new ways. She was a strong supporter of the Arizona Strip Workshop and other groups such as D/ASIA where she was able to combine her love of the strip with the opportunity to help others learn. Rarely was there a workshop held that Joy was not in attendance. Above all, Joy cared for everyone she knew. She was quick to make new relationships and to be aware of any needs that she could fill. Her thoughts were always spent on how she could help someone improve. When she figured out what she could do, it was most often done quietly and in a way that others would not recognize the good she had done. She never needed praise or support in the good that she did. She loved and cared for others because it was who she was. She will be greatly missed by all who have known her.

8

Robin L. (Rob) Grumbles University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Faculty

1974-2013

Between the Grand Canyon and the Utah border lie

five million acres of public land where, in the 1970s,

ranchers and government agents clashed head-on

over grazing rights and environmental impact

statements. "There was a lot of angst on both sides, especially the ranchers," recalls Bob

Sandberg, who was with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) at the time. He contacted

University of Arizona Cooperative Extension and asked for help. He sat down with Robin

Grumbles, Mohave County Cooperative Extension Director and several others. They came up

with a novel idea: What if we brought everyone to the table for a science-based workshop on the

issues of grazing livestock on public land to improve knowledge, promote understanding and

start developing productive relationships?

Oh yeah, that'll work! The Arizona Strip was wild-west rangeland where cattle ranchers and

BLM agents shared only heated arguments and intense emotions. Yet work it did. And still does

35 years later. The Arizona /Utah Range Livestock Workshop and Tour, introduced in 1978,

was so successful it has continued every year since, reaching more than 7,000 participants. The

two-day event brings ranchers, researchers, BLM agents, forest rangers, Cooperative Extension

specialists, environmentalists and others together.

"The workshops really catapulted us into the new age," said Whit Bunting, BLM range

management director. "It's that new information we're always looking for. It's certainly helped

our range program. Sandberg still serves on the workshop's planning committee. He said, "Rob

Grumbles deserves the lion's share of the credit for getting this program started and keeping it

going. If it hadn't been for him, we would not have the quality workshops and the cooperation

we've enjoyed."

Rob will certainly be missed by the planning committee and the Range Livestock Workshop. He

has created a legacy that will continue despite the big hole that his absence creates. His

leadership has trained several committee members who will have to pick up the slack in order to

make the workshop happen. We wish him well in his retirement and hope he’s able to spend

some quality time with his wife, Theresa, his four children, his six grandchildren and his two

expectant grandchildren.

9

2013 AZ/UT RANGE LIVESTOCK WORKSHOP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TOPIC/SPEAKER PAGE # Endangered Plant Update, Lee Hughes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10-19 Remote Rangeland Monitoring, Greg Simonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-22 Getting Every Dollar Out of Your Cull Cows and Bulls, Scott Jensen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-25 Are You Throwing Away Your Vaccine Dollars?, Scott Jensen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26-27 History and Livestock Management of the Iverson Ranch, Brandon Iverson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Legacy of 1862: Homestead Act and Land Grant College Act, Dr. Ross Peterson . . . . . . . . . .29 Rabbit Brush Management: New Chemical Offers Hope For Control, Chad Reid . . . . . . . .30-33 Public Land Issues and Policies Facing Utah’s Farmers and Ranchers, Sterling Brown . . . 34-38 Proactive Permittee Range Monitoring, Lamar Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Reduce Livestock Losses From Poisonous Plants, Zane Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40-45 Environmental and Personal Hazards of Illegal Drugs Grown on Rangelands, John Ball . . 46-47

10

LISTED (ENDANGERED OR THREATENED OR CANDIDATE) PLANT UPDATE ON THE ARIZONA STRIP

LEE E HUGHES-RETIRED ECOLOGIST-ARIZONA STRIP BLM DISTRICT

The recent(Fall of 2012) announcement by the US Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS) that it was proposing to list and designate critical habitat for the Gierisch Mallow (Sphaeralcea gierischii)(hereafter referred to as the Mallow) and the Fick Cactus ( Pediocactus peeblesianus var Fickeiseniae), triggered concern on the Arizona Strip and southern Utah from land users. The reasons for the proposal to list are for the Gierisch Mallow-gypsum mining, off road vehicle activity, livestock grazing, non-native invasive plants, commercial development, drought and climate change. The reason- to- list the Fick Cactus are much the same, though mining is not considered as much a threat for the Fick. Livestock grazing and climate change are considered the major threats to the cactus on both the Arizona Strip and the Navajo Nation. The Mallow occurs in a narrow band of the Harrisburg geological member north and south of the Black Rock Junction on I-15, probably a mile or two wide and 9 miles long. It occurs on the gypsum hills in that area and the Western Minerals and Mining gypsum mine is in the habitat there also. The Fick Cactus is scattered across the Arizona Strip from Mainstreet Valley to Marble Canyon and then on the Navajo Nation down to Grays Mountain and south onto the Babbit Ranch and Cataract Canyon. The populations of the Fick are generally small but widely scattered. It has been inventoried at 33 different locations in the area discussed above. Our History with Listed Plants On the Arizona Strip, we have worked and managed five other listed plants. The other listed plants are Siler Pincushion Cactus (Pediocactus sileri), Brady Pincushion Cactus (Pediocactus bradyi), Jones Cyclad (Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii, Welsh’s Milkweed(Asclespias welshii) and the Holmgren Milkvetch (Astragalus homgreniorium). The latter has critical habitat with it. We have monitored the Fick and the Mallow for, in the case of the Fick, since 1986 and the Mallow since 2000. The Siler Pincushion and Brady Pincushion have been monitored since 1985. The Jones Cyclad has been monitored since 1993, Welsh’s Milkweed since 1989, and Holmgren Milkvetch since 1988. Welsh’s Milkweed and Jones Cyclad will not be further discussed as they occur where livestock are of no threat. The mallow discussion is deferred until more monitoring data has been collected and analyzed. As a result of this monitoring, we have learned what was going on with the plants and if the threats originally listed for each were the real thing or if they were not. To start with, the earliest plants listed -the Siler Pincushion and Brady Pincushion were listed in 1979 as endangered. The threats that were detailed - imminent threats from gypsum mining, uranium prospecting, livestock trampling, illegal collecting, habitat disturbance(OHVs) and in the case of the Siler Cactus fewer than 1000 remaining. The other plants were listed with same threats but at differing magnitudes.

11

WHAT MONITORING HAS SHOWN Monitoring was done large in plots whose size was set to existing conditions to get a good size population to monitor. The plots ranged roughly from one tenth of an acre to 3 acres in size. The cactus were all tagged and mapped and size was recorded. Mortality was noted and cause if it could be ascertained . Other herbaceous plants were mapped and counted in plots or polygons, but were not tagged and measured. SILER PINCUSHION CACTUS TABLE 1 The table below discusses the number of cactus in the plots at the below locations over a time period between 1985 to 2012. The Atkin No Graze is an grazing exclosure with Siler pincushion cactus growing in it and not affected by livestock trampling. The Atkin Graze is a plot outside the exclosure to measure the effect of livestock trampling on the cactus. The plot’s are 4 acres in size combined. The Yellowstone plot is is .34 acre in size. Johnson Springs two plots are are .15 acre in size. Warner Ridge plot is 3 acres in size. There is livestock influence in all of them TOTAL NUMBER OF CACTUS AT EACH PLOT IN SHOWN LOCATION

The data above shows the effect of the drought years in 2004 to 2012, except Warner Ridge. The number of cactus for both years in Atkin Well, Yellowstone and Johnson Spring are well below those for the 1985 and 1993 years. At Atkin Well there is a grazing exclosure with cactus and no grazing or trampling for all the years of monitoring. The Atkin No Graze and Atkin Graze show differences, but minor. 2012 No Graze does shows a twenty more cactus difference. But the same No Graze area showed less cactus than under cattle influence in 1993. Livestock present in or near the cactus habitat shows little influence. The difference in number is largely due to

12

weather( BLM,2006). Cattle can do damage around livestock waters, but once away from same their affect diminishes. Table 2 Summary of Mortality of Siler Pincushion Cactus from 1986-2005 in plots(BLM,2006). Trampling Off Road

Vehicle Eaten by Rodent/Rabbit

Natural-Drought

Collecting Mineral Activity

4 3 258 322 0 0 Table 3 Summary of Recruitment of New Cactus and Total Mortality Total Mortality Total Recruitment 587 518 In the case of this cactus, mortality is greater than observed recruitment. The long term drought does the greatest harm to the cactus. BRADY PINCUSHION CACTUS Table 4 The table below shows total cactus numbers at each location. One,Badger Creek has had no cattle in it since monitoring began. This has provided an opportunity to compare the effect of cattle compared to no cattle in the cactus’s environment. The plots are variable in size in accordance to cactus density. Badger Creek is 28x30 meters, Soap Creek’s Plot is 10x120meters a the two North Canyon Plots are 30x32 meters each(Hughes,2005). YELLOW-BADGER CREEK PLOT-NO GRAZING DURING MONITORING GOLD-SOAP CREEK PLOTS-GRAZING PRESENT GRAY-NORTH CANYON PLOTS- GRAZING PRESENT

13

The data shows little difference in cactus numbers between Badger Creek, which had no livestock during the monitoring years from 1985 to present, and Soap Creek and North Canyon plots, which had cattle rotated through the pastures where the their plots occurred. Once again, livestock influence was not evident on the cactus numbers. All plot’s numbers of cactus have dropped due to drought in 2010. In other transect studies, agreed to be done in the Kane Ranch Allotment Management Plan Biological Opinion (2001) for the Brady Pincushion Cactus, as the FWS did not believe we were capturing the full effect of the cattle presence; the transects were run in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2008. The transects length’s ranged from 1 to 5 miles in length. The transects were taped and when cactus were found, they were recorded on a distance mark and condition noted. In those years, 18 cactus were found “stepped on but not injured”. Two Brady pincushion cactus were found trampled and killed. In the plots, over the 20 years of monitoring, 2 were found killed by trampling. The following table shows mortality and recruitment. TABLE 5 Mortality from 1986 to 2004. (Hughes,2005) Mortality Cause Badger Creek Soap Creek North Canyon (2) Off Road Vehicles 3 0 2 Trampling 0 0 2 Eaten-Rodents 11 0 162 Natural+ 93 68 24 +Generally desiccation by drought, old age, and unknowns. Total Mortality: 365 Total Recruitment: 561 TABLE 6 Recruitment 1988-2004 Recruitment Badger Creek Soap Creek North Canyon Plots Number of Recruits 239 106 216 The Brady Pincushion Cactus Recruitment was larger in number than mortalities in the years shown. The population seems healthy by that standard. Holmgren Milkvetch This plant grows on the Virgin Limestone member of the Moenkopi Formation along both sides of the Arizona/Utah state line in the St. George basin. On the Arizona side of the line it occurs mostly on Arizona State Land and on a half section of Federal Land in the Curly Hollow area. In Utah it occurs on more Federal and State land. This plant is listed endangered. Invasive non-native plants, climate change, livestock trampling and urban development (on private and state land in Utah) were the major threats to this plant. This plant is a biennial. It grows for two years and then dies and reproduces by seed. The first

14

plot on the Arizona side was set up on state land not far from the I-15 freeway and the Black Rock junction . From 1988 to 1998 there was a variable number of milk-vetch in the plot. Then the plant disappeared in the plot from 1999 to 2010. In 2010, 12 reappeared in the plot and have a presence again. But, the plot now is not the primary monitoring we do for this plant. Because of the disappearing habit we use transects, and when a population is located, a polygon is established with a “gps” and the plants are counted in the polygon. The map and number are entered in to the plant’s file. Below are the data: TABLE 7 TABLE 8 Year

# in Plot Year Section 31

# in Polygons

1988 117 2004 60 1989 145 2005 40 1990 0 2006 0 1991 74 2007 0 1992 283 2009 209 1993 229 2010 278 1994 81 2011 386 1995 62 2012 476 1996 0 1997 0 1998 52 1999 to 2009

0

In 2005, the blue mustard (Malcolmia africana), non-native invasive grew to great density. It was a wet year (200+%of average). The mustard appeared to reduce the production of the milkvetch significantly. Little milkvetch occurred for a wet year. Other years, have not had the evidence of the non-native plants affecting the production of the milk vetch in the above plots and transects, since or before 2005. This plant has been affected by long drought. The long disappearances between 2000 to 2010 are related to drought, in part, but not totally. Once again livestock are named as a threat, but in the Curly Hollow Allotment the plant continues to go up and down with the dry and wet weather. I have not been able to find any direct evidence of cows tramping areas of these plants to death. The milk vetch has been found growing in old hoof prints. The livestock in Curly Hollow graze in the habitat in the winter, and leave just as the plant starts growing. Fickeisen Plains Cactus. This cactus is proposed for listing. The threats to this plant are: livestock grazing or trampling, rodent depredation, small population size, invasive plants, climate change (long term drought). We have monitored this cactus since 1986. The Navajo Nation Botanist also monitored their populations, but not every year, only infrequently. The monitoring data:

15

TABLE 9 ARIZONA STRIP BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT FICK TREND PLOTS AND CLUSTERS Year Total Fick

1986 70 1987 165 1988 173 1989 261 1990 290 1991 323 1992 321 1993 261 1994 308 1995 254 1997 171 1998 97 1999 95 2000 79 2001 190 2002 126 2003 130 2004 151 2005 166 2006 142 2007 139 2008 119 2009 134 2011 127 2012 89 Source: Federal Register-Vol. 77, No. 192. October 3, 2012. Pages 60529-30. Drought and or rodent depredation are what has lowered numbers in the monitoring history. The very high numbers were caused by El Nino events such as in 1990-1995 period or other moderate moisture years.

16

Table 10 Navajo Nation and Private Fickeisen Plains Cactus Location First Count Year Last Count Year Shinumo Wash 9-1993 9-1993 Tiger Wash 2 11-1993 11-1993 Little Colorado Unknown-1956 15-1997 29 Mile Canyon 2-2000 2-2000 Big Canyon 15-2002 15-2002 West of Hellhole Rd 5-2002 5-2002 Small Ridge 1-2004 1-2004 Little Colorado Gravel Pit Unknown-1956 21-2005 Shimo Altar Unknown-1991 7-2005 Tiger Wash 1 30-1993 2-2005 Gray Mountain 4-1962 3-2009 Hellhole Bend 314-2009 314-2009 Salt Trail Canyon 119-2006 70-2011 Blue Spring 30-2005 30-2005 Private Land Gray Mountain (Pond) 0-1984 4-1984 Cataract Canyon 54-2007 146-2011 Cataract Canyon 98-2007 161-2011 Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service:-Federal Register Vol 77 No. 192 October 3 2012. Pages 60529-30. The above data from the Navajo Nation and the listed private land is mostly only one reading with only a few with two reading. The Cataract Canyon reading shows a good increases with the wetter year in 2011 compared to the dry year in 2007. Salt Trail Canyon showed a decrease in the same time period. WHAT THE MONITORING STUDIES TOLD US ABOUT THE REASONS FOR LISTING SILER PINCUSHION CACTUS Reasons for listing and what 27 years of monitoring revealed: See Tables-1-3 Fewer than 1000 cactus remaining- Searches of this plant’s habitats by Gierisch and Anderson - revealed, in 1979, that in 1 % of the habitat, 1153 cactus were counted. Total number of the Siler Pincushion Cactus remains unknown, but over 10,000 were counted in inventories in the 1980s and 1990s by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM, 2006). Another 900 cactus were counted on the Kaibab Indian Reservation by the inventory actions done for Lake Powell Pipeline proposed routes. (Lake Powell Pipeline,2010). Illegal Collection: Unable to locate any evidence of collection anywhere. It might happen, and what collecting happened was so small as to be undetectable.

17

Livestock trampling, disease, and predation- As shown in monitoring studies only 4 cactus have been found trampled, even near livestock waters. Rabbit depredation, drought, and rodents are the largest cause of mortality. 580 cactus were eaten and/or desiccated by drought.(BLM,2006) Habitat Disturbance-Off highway vehicles have killed and disturbed much habitat on the Warner Ridge, White Dome, and Coyote Spring areas south of St. George. Other areas across the Arizona Strip had only minor to no habitat disturbance. The above areas have been fenced as a part of the Washington County Habitat Conservation Plan and Siler Pincushion Cactus Habitat Management Plan (BLM,2006). Imminent threats from gypsum mining and uranium prospecting: Gypsum mining was never a threat due to the Schnabkaib member of the Moenkopi Formation being too shallow for economically feasible gypsum mining. Uranium prospecting was going forward, but feasible mining all occurred outside of the habitat and still does. (BLM,2006). In most cases, the breccia pipe mines, where they occur, have a small footprint. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanism: Mechanisms are available to protect this plant through regulations on BLM lands. Clearances for rare plant species are always done for all projects and modifications to the projects are made, if needed. The protective fencing projects south and southeast of St. George, Utah have reduced and eliminated off highway vehicle activity in the Siler Pincushion Cactus habitat. This allows the habitat to recover its potential in those pockets where off road vehicles had reduced habitat to packed earth. This plant was down-listed from endangered to threatened in 1993 because of what monitoring and inventories demonstrated. BRADY PINCUSHION CACTUS The reasons for listing and the findings: See Tables 4-6 Uranium prospecting and mining: Prospecting along the Marble Canyon and other Canyon rims was a problem in 1980 and years previous and some cactus were found driven on. But, an area of critical environmental concern was established. The mining companies agreed to pull their claims and it has not been a problem since. A Mining Plan of Operation and a Section 7 consultation with the FWS are required for any prospecting now. Illegal Collecting: Only a couple suspicious removals were found. Monitoring studies revealed no other collecting. Livestock trampling: As the monitoring studies and inventory have demonstrated, few cactus have been found injured by livestock trampling. Habitat disturbance by off road vehicles: This was a small problem at Badger Creek and Soap Creek overlooks. Closing areas to off road vehicles has allowed the Brady Pincushion to grow back on old roads now closed. Moving livestock water farther from the rims have helped reduce cattle use in cactus habitat and reduced the chance of livestock trampling becoming a problem. The fact that the small population of people of Marble Canyon area have cooperated with the signage for the cactus has been a big help. The help extends to where some of the citizens actively watch over areas of the cactus.

18

Disease, rodent depredation and drought: Rodent depredation and drought have been the biggest mortality cause of Brady Pincushion Cactus. What About the Proposed Listing of the Fickiesen Plains Cactus? The threats listed include non-native plants invading, climate change, small population size and livestock trampling. Mining, urban development , and off highway vehicles are treated as minor threats. The data shows, and the FWS rule for listing the plant, have a good discussion of climate change (long term drought part) as a real threat. Livestock trampling, along with illegal collecting, I think continues to be a straw-men that some in the FWS have not proved exists, at levels that are detrimental to the plant populations, but still claim it a major problem. We recorded 12 killed by livestock trampling, over the 1986-2011 year period as stated in the published rule. Compared to what is killed by the natural factors brought on by drought and rodent depredation, the amount found killed by livestock is essentially a non-factor. Why they continue to do their utmost to keep repeating livestock trampling as a problem, is maybe, if said enough, the BLM or whoever is listening, will buy it. Some, in the protective mode community would say that the species is endangered, and one killed by man’s activity is too much. But, the listing this plant as endangered, in looking at population numbers and how this plant operates , is fraught with the premise that it’s in imminent danger of extinction through- out its range. The data does not show this. It shows down trends at some plots and up trends at others and through the years all the plots have had up trends and down trends. Some Thoughts As shown with the other Pediocactus species, it is not the direct causes of man, such as off high way vehicles, mining, livestock, and illegal collecting that are population wide problems. I found drought has far more affect than any of these man caused threats, and we cannot do thing about it. Yes, the man caused problems have pockets of problems, such as the off road vehicles around St. George, but it’s not a population wide problem. The FWS climate change discussions (long term drought) are more germane, than their other discussions as to why of the plant population reductions are occurring or might occur. But, these cactus have all been through long term droughts before and recovered. The long term drought that drove the Anasazi from parts of the Southwest in the 1277-1300 AD (McGregor,1965) period surely affected these plants as did later droughts. Populations get severely reduced and may disappear, as the Holmgren milk vetch has done in long term droughts, but returns to higher numbers over time.

19

Literature Cited. Bureau of Land Management. 2006. SilerPincushionCactusStatusReport.ArizonaStripDistrictandCedarCityDistrict. 17 pages plus appendix. St. George, UT. Bureau of Land Management. 2012. Monitoring file for Holmgren Milkvetch. Draft Study Report 12, Special Status Plant species and Noious Weeds Assessment,2010. Hughes, Lee E.,2005. Brady Pincushion Cactus. Desert Plants Volume 21, Number 2, pg 13-17. McGregor, John C. 1965. Southwestern Archaeology. University of Illinois. Urbana. US Department of the Interior. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.2012. Endangered Status for the Acuna Cactus and the Fickeisen Plains Cactus and Designated Habitat: Proposed Rule. Federal Register Vol.77 No. 192, October 3, 2012. Pg 60510-60579.

20

Open Range Consulting

Greg Simonds

Open Range Consulting (ORC) has thirty-five years’ experience managing landscapes for broad biological values with sustainable profits. The last 12 years have been spent integrating this management experience with geospatial technology and developing many novel technologies that intergrade field samples to remote sensing platforms (e.g. aerial and satellite imagery). The result of this integration has created synergies between the assessment platforms and a suite of unique products and services which can:

1. Rapidly, accurately, and cost effectively assess the entire landscape. 2. Can assess conditions of the past 40 years. 3. Normalize for the tremendous spatial and climatic variation that is natural to a landscape. 4. Support management planning for landscape values.

In developing our products and services we have taken tens of thousands of ground samples and correlated them satellite imagery. We have assessed over 12 millions of rangeland acres in 9

21

states. The local public and private land managers that have the experience and knowledge have validated these assessments and used them to make land management plans. In recent years, we employed our technology to survey habitat conditions of 5 core sage grouse areas in Utah, 2 each in Nevada and Montana and 1 in Wyoming. The findings have shown dramatic differences in sage grouse population per acre of sagebrush based on habitat conditions and land management practices. Gregg Simonds, President MS, 35 years experience ranch management and rangeland monitoring Gregg has consulted and/or managed ranches in the Western United States since 1974. In 1978 he started working for Deseret Land and Livestock and was the manager until 1996. In 1997, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reported, “that Deseret Land and Livestock was a model for self-sufficiency that excels at protecting land and wildlife”. He is most proud of the fact that five of the seven ranch managers that have worked for him have won conservation awards for their ranch management and all have been profitable. He has consulted for some of the nation’s largest private landholders (i.e., the King Ranch, Padlock Ranch, Malapi Borderlands Group). His international experience includes developing conservation plans in Bolivia and identifying resource limitation for the government of Mongolia. Academically, Gregg has served as a faculty affiliate in the Animal Science Department at Colorado State University and an adjunct Professor in the Range Science Department at Utah State University. Received numerous awards for land and wildlife management including the national “Take Pride in America” award. Currently, Gregg leases a large ranch in Northeastern Nevada. Plus, he has been using his long management experience in conjunction with researchers, land management agencies and NGOs to develop cutting edge land monitoring using geospatial technologies to understand the effect of management on the water cycle and soil carbon sequestration. He has also used these technologies to document range and riparian condition and trend. These technologies have been integrated in developing land management though out the Western US on both public and private lands. One of these plans was the only one of over one hundred allotment management plans in Northern Utah not protested by Western Watershed Project. Eric Sant, Geospatial Specialist MS, 15 years experience in evaluating and monitoring landscapes Eric is a geospatial specialist that integrates management experience into geographic products. He is not simply a mapmaker or IT specialist but creates geospatial products that answer rangeland management needs. He has pioneered methods that assess rangelands and riparian areas rapidly at a landscape level. These methods include the ability to quickly and effectively collect and produce the information that answers the fundamental questions of rangeland health

22

and condition. He has also created procedures and software that can be used to combine geographic data in ways that visualize and facilitate rangeland planning. In 2011 Eric was responsible for the upland assessment of 2.5 million acres in four states and the riparian assessment of over 1,000 miles of streams in five states. These assessments were made, under contract, for the NRCS, Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Sage Grouse Initiative, and private landholders. Part of this effort was focused on the Grouse Creek Watershed in Western Box Elder County Utah. This constitutes an ongoing project that will have assessed uplands, 150 miles of streams, and juniper encroachment. Eric’s Master thesis used remote imagery to look at the long-term benefits of range treatments in Western Box Elder County. With the remote imagery it was possible to examine these range treatments for a much longer time period (30 years) versus the conventional studies associated with range treatments of three to four years. His results showed an initial increase in herbage after the treatment but a long-term denigration of the treatment along with greater variation compared to untreated sites when grazing practices were not changed. Since 2001 when Eric first joined ORC, his experiences have been rich and varied. The following list just a few.

Mapped cheatgrass and medusahead. Planned the development of stock water on many ranches Estimated stocking rate for cattle, sheep, and wild horses Evaluate irrigated lands for long term sustainability and profitability Mapped and evaluated the efficiency of irrigation systems Validated water rights with remote imagery Estimate the value of wildlife on School Trust Lands though out the State of Utah.

In 2000-2005, he worked for the Utah State University RSGIS Lab. Part of this time was spent in a contract position with the Dillon, MT BLM Field Office. Other projects he worked on during this time were the SW REGAP and Landfire projects. ORC has access to ESRI, ERDAS, and VLS Feature Analyst software. Eric has mastered application of using these software packages in assessing rangelands, making plans, and monitoring the results of these plans across the landscape.

23

PREMIUMS AND DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR MARKET BEEF COWS AND BULLS SOLD AT AUCTION

Scott Jensen, Owyhee County Extension Educator; Neil Rimbey, Extension Range Economist; Benton Glaze, Extension Beef Specialist; Scott Nash, Bingham County Extension Educator; Rikki Ruiz, Gem County Extension Educator; Wilson Gray, Extension Ag Economist; Jason Ahola, CSU Beef Faculty

Market beef cows represent an important part of the total beef supply. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), nearly 3.8 million beef cows and 578,000 bulls were slaughtered in the U.S. in 2011. This represents 13% of the beef produced in the U.S. annually. Results of the 2007 National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit indicate there is work that needs to be done to improve the quality and consistency of market beef cows and bulls. 31% of cattle evaluated in holding pens had at least 1 visible quality defect. Studies suggest that beef producers could capture more profit and add value to their cull cows and bulls by managing to minimize quality defects, monitor health and condition, and market in a timely manner. Methodology: Data were collected at 10 major livestock auction markets with regular weekly sales (four locations in California, five locations in Idaho, and one location in Utah). The researchers collected information during two distinct seasons (spring 2008 and fall 2008) on major characteristics including gender, breed, number of head in a lot, total lot weight and selling price. Subjective scores based on established evaluation scales were assigned for body condition score (BCS), muscle score and locomotion score. Other BQA related data were collected as well. RESULTS: Incidence rates of BQA traits in market cows and bulls were collected on 8,213 lots of beef cows and 1,036 lots of beef bulls. A total of 10,390 beef cattle (9,299 cows and 1,091 bulls) were evaluated at auction markets during the spring and fall of 2008. The mean sale price of market beef cows was $45.15/cwt. The majority (93.0 percent) of the market cows sold in the range of $30.00 to $60.00/cwt. The mean sale price of market beef bulls was $56.30/cwt. The majority (92 percent) of the market bulls sold for $40.00 to $70.00/cwt. Premiums and discounts for the various BQA traits were determined in comparison to a “par” or base animal. For the cow model, the par animal was a healthy, red-hided cow that was sold in a single lot during the fall sale season, weighed 1,200 to 1,400 pounds, had a 5.0 body condition score, 3.0 muscle score, 1.0 lameness score, and did not have horns, brands, knots, sores, cancer eye, or feet problems. For the bull model, the par bull was a single, healthy, red-hided animal that sold in the fall, weighed 1,500 to 1,800 pounds, and had no visible health issues.

24

Body Condition Score. Based on the information collected during this project, it is clear that cow buyers desire market beef cows that have moderate to heavy body condition. This is shown by the premiums of $0.00 to $4.04/cwt for cows with body condition scores (BCS) of 5.0 to 9.0 (on a 9-point scale). While cows with a less than desirable BCS of 3.0 to 4.0 are in much less demand, they still represented greater than a third (39.3 percent) of the market beef cows evaluated.

Body Weight. In this study of market beef cattle, the average body weight of cows was 1,208 pounds and the average body weight of bulls was 1,656 pounds. Premiums and discounts paid on the basis of body weight were similar to the premiums and discounts for the various body condition scores. When compared to the base cow (1,200 to 1,400 pounds), lighter cows received discounts and heavier cows received premiums.

25

Lameness. Locomotion scores (LS) were assigned to each animal in the study to gauge the level of severity of lameness in market beef cows and bulls. Locomotion scores range from 1.0 (normal) to 5.0 (severely lame). Most beef cows (84.9%) and beef bulls (85.0%) were free of lameness issues and were characterized by a locomotion score of 1.0. The average LS in market beef cows was 1.2 and the average LS in market beef bulls was 1.2. Discounts in selling price based on locomotion score were dependent on the severity of lameness exhibited by the market animals. Predominant hide color. The majority of the beef cows and bulls marketed were predominantly black-hided (60.9 and 71.3 percent, respectively). When compared to red-hided cattle (30.8 percent cows and 20.1 percent bulls), black-hided animals brought a premium of $1.69/cwt. Summary. The goal of this project was to provide beef cattle producer’s information that was not previously readily available about the potential value of market cows and bulls. It also underscores that the existing industry recommendation to cull animals in a timely manner is one of the greatest measures to maintain their value and enhance their carcass quality.

26

Vaccine Management and Beef Quality Assurance Practices among

Idaho Beef Producers and Retail Outlets. Stephanie Etter, Sarah Baker, Jim Church, Tianna Fife, Benton Glaze, Danielle Gunn, Scott Jensen, Stephanie Kane, Gordon Keetch, Scott Nash, Neil Rimbey, Shannon Williams and Rikki Wilson. University of Idaho Extension Educators and Specialists.

Vaccines play an important role in beef cattle production to aid in animal disease prevention. However, when handled and used improperly they can lose effectiveness resulting in carcass quality defects. In 2009 the Idaho Beef Council funded a grant in which the University of Idaho collected data on vaccine handling and beef quality assurance practices of Idaho beef producers and animal health product retail outlets. During the winter and spring of 2009-2010, University of Idaho extension faculty conducted on-site visits of beef cattle operations across the state to determine how animal vaccines were being stored and handled. Temperature data loggers were placed in refrigerators where the vaccines were stored which recorded temperatures every 10 minutes for a 48 hour period. A survey about Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) practices was also completed during the visit.

One hundred twenty nine beef operations participated in the study. A large percentage of producers categorized their operation as cow-calf (91%) followed by a combination of cow-calf and feedlot (5%) and feedlot (4%). All sizes of beef operations were included in the study, but the majority (77%) were operations with 200+ head of cows. According to the 2011 USDA, the average herd size in Idaho is 208, so these numbers accurately represent the Idaho Beef Industry. Forty-seven retail locations participated in the study.

The table below shows the percentage of time refrigerators were maintaining temperatures in the recommended range of 2-7oC (35-45oF). Only 33% of producers’ refrigerators maintained temperatures within the recommended range more than 95% of the time. An almost equal percent of refrigerators, 32% were within the recommended range less than 5% of the time. The size of the operation had no effect on the amount of time the producer refrigerators was in the recommended range. Retail results showed only 34% of refrigerators maintained the recommended temperature more than 95% of the time. For those refrigerators outside of the recommended range for the majority of the time, there is a chance that vaccines have been comprised. Freezing is more damaging to vaccines than is warmth, especially for killed products. Time within temperature range  Producer Refrigerator %  Retail Refrigerator% 

>95%  33  34 66‐95%  13  15 36‐65%  8  21 5‐35%  13  13 <5%  32  17 

Thirty-six percent of producers were BQA certified and an equal percent were not. The rest had attended trainings but were not certified. Regardless of BQA certification status, 95 % of producers were following the BQA recommendation or using the neck region only for injections. The areas of BQA recommendations that could use improvements were in syringe

27

cleaning and record keeping. Below is a list of recommendations for producers to follow when using vaccines and other animal health products. Vaccination Handling Procedures:

Read and follow all label directions when using and storing vaccines. Mix vaccine well prior to filling vaccine guns or syringes. Mix modified live vaccines one bottle at a time. Use within two hours after mixing. Keep vaccines cool, in a dark environment and out of sunlight when transporting, storing

and using. Do not combine different vaccine products in the bottle or animal. Dispose of all expired and unused animal health products according to the label. 

Injection Techniques:

Injections should be given in front of the shoulder in the middle neck region avoiding the nuchal ligament.

All injections should be given subcutaneously unless otherwise specified on the label. Use the right needle gauge and length for the job. 

Change needles regularly and anytime they become burred, bent, or broken. 

Do not inject more than 10 cc of product per injection site. 

If multiple injections are given, space injections 4 inches apart.  

All vaccines have 21 day withdrawal periods; those with oil based adjuvants have 60 day withdrawal periods. Always read the label to determine withdrawal times.

General Recommendations: Purchase and use a refrigerator thermometer. 

Clean syringes with hot water only.  Never use disinfectant to clean syringes and vaccine guns as residue left by disinfectant can affect future vaccine efficacy. 

Maintain vaccination records for a minimum of 3 years.  Record product lot numbers of animal health products, vaccination dates, and withdrawal times. 

Have all members of your operation complete BQA certification. 

The results of this study show that producers need to monitor and adjust the refrigerator

temperatures where animal health products are stored on a regular basis. Producers need to monitor the expiration dates of their animal health products and discard expired products. Producers have done a good job of adopting BQA recommended practices, but should still strive to improve recordkeeping skills.

Study funded by:

28

Iverson’s Ranch History Brandon Iverson

This property was homesteaded by Ed Terry. The Pine Valley Stock Grower’s Association wintered cattle on the BLM ground surrounding the private property. PVSGA purchased the ranch and surrounding private property from Ed Terry. Earl Snow son of Levi Snow, member of PVSGA bought out the other members of the PVSGA, except for Clawson Burgess. Dennis Iverson, son in law of Burgess bought out Burgess and Snow in the mid-1970s. Dennis Iverson’s son Denton operates the commercial hunting property now. The Iverson’s also utilize the private property in the spring for grazing of about 40 head of cattle.

29

ABSTRACT - Dr. F. Ross Peterson

“A Revolution Launched: The Morrill Act of 1862 and its impact on America” It is a distinct honor to discuss this topic with those who understand and know the impact of the decision to establish land-grant colleges throughout America. Ironically, the Morrill Act was passed during the civil war at the very time the Union was not doing well. This piece of legislation revolutionized higher education in the United States. This presentation discusses the origin of the concept, early failures, and the politics of passage. The recent movie, Lincoln, offers a glimpse of how politically astute Lincoln was and this act is no exception. The 1860 platform of the Republican party had to be implemented prior to the 1862 off-year elections, so the summer of 1862 becomes a crucial time for Lincoln. Bundled with the Morrill Act were the Homestead Act, legislation authorizing the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad, the Anti-Bigamy Act, and the Emancipation Proclamation, Simultaneously, he was seeking passage of the first federal income tax and instituting a military draft. These are very tense times. How Abraham Lincoln and Congress handled each of these is the core of the story. However, to think of legislation that provides higher education for the children of farmers, laborers, and manufacturers in the midst of a Civil War is amazing. The legacy of the Land-grant colleges and the Homestead Act are a focus of this presentation. In reality, federal-state cooperation in education and land distribution became a hallmark of the original legislation. The Carey Act, Desert Land-Act, the New Lands Act, and finally the Hatch Smith-Lever Acts are all examples of how the system helped develop the west in general and Utah particularly. When the Morrill Act is added to the second Morrill Act of 1980 and the G.I. Bill following World War II, the precedent of federal Commitment to higher education is dramatic. The conclusion focuses on the impact of the Morrill Act and its successors on Utah and the Nation. It is indeed, one of Lincoln’s most successful, but unheralded accomplishments.

30

RUBBER RABBITBRUSH CONTROL

Reid*, C.R.1, Winward, D.L.2

1 Extension Professor, Natural Resources/Agriculture , Utah State University Extension, P.O. Box 69, Cedar City, Utah, 84721, chadr@ext.usu.edu

2 Associate Professor, Southern Utah University, Agriculture and Nutrition Science Department, 351 University Blvd., Cedar City, Utah, 84720, winward@suu.edu

Rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.) is a genus of native shrubs that are common in many plant communities throughout the western United States. The genus Chrysothamnus contains 16 species and 41 subspecies, three of these species dominate in terms of distribution: Douglas rabbitbrush (C. viscidiflorus), Parry rabbitbrush (C. parryi); and Rubber rabbitbrush (C. nauseosus). All species of rabbitbrush are very prolific seed producers and can be extremely invasive, particularly in disturbed areas such as abandoned homesteads or rangeland seedings. Management of rabbitbrush is difficult because it is deep rooted and sprouts vigorously after disturbance such as fire or mechanical treatments. Many treatments and combinations of treatments have been tried with little success or with highly variable results. Effective practical treatments have so far eluded range managers or landowners. Multiple treatments combining fire, mechanical removal, or herbicides in various combinations have shown promise for control. Recently, the authors used a multiple treatment mower that after mowing windrows the woody debris then wipes herbicide on the cut stubble. Pilot treatments applied in the fall of 2005 showed promising results with Tordon (picloram) and Vanquish (dicamba) at rates as low as one quart per acre providing near 100% control, while Curtail (clopyralid), 2,4-D and mowing alone provided no control. In 2006 and 2007, replicated plots were established at the SUU Valley Farm in Cedar Valley. Milestone (aminopyralid), a new herbicide, was substituted for Curtail and 2,4-D was dropped from the treatments because of poor results in the pilot plots. The following table reports the study results:

31

Since 2007 hundreds of acres of Rubber Rabbitbrush have been mowed in the fall using this technique and the 1 quart per acre of Tordon 22K rate and to our knowledge all have been successful.

Control of Rubber Rabbitbrush by foliar application

Since 2010, we have been evaluating herbicides for control of Rubber Rabbitbrush by foliar application only (no Mmwing). Our data shows a new herbicide “Streamline” (MAT 28 + metsulfuron) applied in the fall appears to provide good control of Rubber Rabbitbrush. The chart below details our results. Currently Streamline does not have a range and pasture label, however we are told that it is currently being pursued. In addition, our research has indicated Tordan 1qt per acre + Brush Rhap 1 qt per acre applied in the late fall (middle of November) has

RABBITBRUSH TRIALS FALL 2006 Rep: 1 2 3 Average:

Treatment: % control % control % control % controlMilestone 7 oz/A 90 90 27.5 69.2Milestone 3 1/2 oz/A 27.5 20 0 15.8Milestone 1 3/4 oz/A 10 10 16.5 12.2Mow 0 5 0 1.7Tordon 1 pint/A 95 100 85 93.3Tordon 1 quart/A 100 100 95 98.3Tordon 2 quarts/A 100 100 100 100.0Vanquish 1 pint/A 95 42.5 20 52.5Vanquish 1 quart/A 100 96 68 88.0Vanquish 2 quarts/A 100 100 80 93.3Evaluated 7-5-2007 9 months after treatment

RABBITBRUSH TRIALS FALL 2007 Rep: 1 2 3 Average: 2006-2007 combined

Treatment: % control % control % control % control % controlMilestone 7 oz/A 68.2 63 25 52.1 60.6Milestone 3 1/2 oz/A 23.2 12.8 9.1 15.0 15.4Milestone 1 3/4 oz/A 20.4 16 7.1 14.5 13.4Mow 7.9 2 4.5 4.8 3.2Tordon 1 pint/A 100 87 83.9 90.3 91.8Tordon 1 quart/A 94.1 96 87.5 92.5 95.4Tordon 2 quarts/A 96.3 95 100 97.1 98.6Vanquish 1 pint/A 45 65.2 50 53.4 53.0Vanquish 1 quart/A 88.8 37.5 80 68.8 78.4Vanquish 2 quarts/A 96.8 82.6 96.8 92.1 92.7Evaluated 7-31-2008 9 months after treatment

32

provided over 90% control of Rubber Rabbitbrush, these two products currently have a range and pasture label and provide landowners another option for control.

Rubber Rabbitbrush Fall Applied Plots Treatments applied 11/17/11

Evaluated 6/22/12 Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Tordon 22k 1 qt/a M-70%

T-30%

M-10% L-45% T-45%

M-90% L-5% T-5%

M=56.6%L=16.6% T=26.6%

Tordon 22k 1qt/a Brush Rhap 1qt/a

M-85%

L-10%T-5%

M-95%

T- 5%

M-90% L-8% T-2%

M=90% L=6% T=4%

Streamline 9.5 oz wt/a

M-90% L-5% T-5%

M-95% L-5%

M-% 95 L-%5

M=93.3%L=5%

Streamline 11.5 oz wt/a

M-95% L-5%

M-95% L-5%

M-95% L-5%

M=95% T=5%

Brush Rhap 2qt/a M-5% L-20%T-75%

T-100%

M-30%

T-70%

M=11.6%L= 6.6% T=81.6%

Untreated N-95%M-5% T-0%

N-100% M- 0% T- 0%

N-100% M- 0% T - 0%

N = 98.3%

M =1.6% T = 0%

N-No Effect M- Completely dead, stems break L-Leaves knocked off T- Leaves green, but twisted

33

Current research involves using a new mower/applicator that uses Wet Blade Technology. This mower is manufactured by Diamond Mowers. It applies herbicide to the blade which is then directly applied to stems in the cutting process. Pilot plots using this mower were established in December of 2012 with more research taking place in 2013.

34

35

36

37

38

39

Abstract

Proactive Permittee Range Monitoring Lamar Smith

Most ranches in the Southwest are dependent on grazing permits or leases on federal or state lands to have a viable operation. Grazing use on these lands has always been subject to government policies, regulations, and politics. Increasing demand for other range uses, increasing environmental regulations, and increasing legal actions by activist environmental groups have made ranching on government land more complicated and tenuous. If they want to survive, grazing permittees must take the initiative to protect the viability of their ranches in the following ways. 1. Good management. Manage the land and livestock well, with due consideration for other uses and users and in strict compliance with terms of permits and management plans. 2. Management plans. Work with the land management agencies and other interested parties to develop a management plan that will meet your needs and theirs, preferably a Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP). Make sure the plan is based on adequate inventory data and site specific information. 3. Land use plans and EISs. Getting involved early in the development of agency land use plans and environmental analyses that affect your operation, either as an individual or in cooperation with other permittees, is more effective than waiting for the "public comment" period or appealing decisions after they are made. 4. Range monitoring. Make sure that monitoring is done to document trends in rangeland conditions, and reasons for trends, by working closely with the land management agency. If necessary, do it yourself. In either case, make sure it is done correctly. 5. Keep informed. Know what is in your allotment files - photos, data, reports, letters. This includes agency documents as well as those generated by other sources. Review the procedures, results and interpretations made, and document your concerns or agreement.

40

Reduce Livestock Losses by Understanding Poisonous Plants

By Zane Davis Poisonous plants are a major cause of economic loss to the livestock industry. Each year these plants adversely affect 3 to 5 percent of the cattle, sheep, goats, and horses that graze western ranges. All too often the losses to individual livestock operations are large enough to threaten the viability of that ranch.

Livestock losses can be high if animals–

graze ranges infested with poisonous plants when plants are most toxic. are hungry or stressed and less selective when grazing. are grazed on rangelands early in spring or late in summer when there is no other green

vegetation other than poisonous plants.

Management Recommendations

There are few known treatments for animals poisoned by most poisonous plants. Where a treatment is available, affected animals are usually in remote places and cannot be reached until it is too late to provide treatment. The stress of handling poisoned animals may increase the probability of death. If the animals recover enough to be handled, treatment should consist primarily of symptomatic and supportive treatment.

Prevention of loss from poisonous plants in general is a problem of range and livestock management. The surest way to avoid poisoning is to prevent access to poisonous plants. Under some conditions, livestock will graze some poisonous plants without negative effects. Poisoning occurs when the plant forms a larger proportion of the diet or is ingested for a longer period or when animals are enticed to eat too much too fast.

Hundreds of plants are poisonous to livestock. Many are toxic at all times, whereas others are toxic only under certain conditions. Livestock producers are urged to become familiar with the plants growing on their ranges and pastures, that are potentially dangerous to their livestock. Help in identifying these plants can usually be obtained from the local county agricultural agent or by mailing a sample to the PPRL for identification. Help with poisonous plant problems can also be obtained from local veterinarians.

To protect your animals from poisoning, do the following:

Identify the poisonous plants that grow on your range and learn the conditions under which they can be dangerous to livestock. Control poisonous plants where feasible.

Develop a range improvement plan. Animals will select better quality forage. These plans should take into account the poisonous plants on the range, allowing animals to graze them at the most appropriate time or to avoid them.

Do not allow animals that have been stressed, hauled, or that are overly hungry to graze in areas infested with poisonous plants. Newly acquired livestock unfamiliar with your range may be at higher risk.

Provide adequate water and minerals for your livestock. If your animals get sick, consult your local veterinarian to insure proper diagnosis and

treatment. If a poisonous plant is involved, identification of the plant by an extension agent, botanist, or poisonous plant expert is essential to any subsequent treatment.

41

Improve rangeland conditions to provide higher quality forages that will out-compete poisonous plants for growth and livestock preference. Restoring western ranges that have been invaded by poisonous or noxious plants will reduce livestock losses, enhance production, improve animal health, increase rangeland utilization, and protect plant biodiversity. Many poisonous plants have a beneficial nutritional value if managed correctly to prevent grazing at key high risk times.

Poisoning by plants results in over $500 million of direct losses annually to the livestock industry in the 17 western states. Direct losses include death and abortions. Economic losses are actually much larger when you factor in lost grazing opportunities, management adjustments, lost production, delayed or failed reproduction, culling costs, etc.

The mission of the USDA-ARS Poisonous Plant Research Laboratory (PPRL) is to identify conditions of poisoning, characterize the toxins in plants poisonous to livestock, define toxicoses and mechanisms of action, determine metabolism and toxin clearance from tissues, develop diagnostic and prognostic procedures, develop management strategies, and make recommendations to reduce losses.

The PPRL brings an interdisciplinary approach to investigate each poisonous plant. This interdisciplinary approach begins with plant identification (taxonomy) and proceeds through identification of the toxin (chemistry) to understanding how and why poisoning occurs (physiology, toxicology, molecular biology, animal science) to providing diagnostic tools (pathology) and treatments (veterinary medicine) or management recommendations (range science) to mitigate the losses. In Northern Arizona and Southern Utah there are many plants that cause large economic losses, some of the more common poisonous plants in this area are:

Locoweed which poisons horse, cattle, sheep, goats and wildlife. The locoweeds belong to certain species of the Astragalus and Oxytropis genera. Other species of Astragalus accumulate selenium or 3-nitro-propanol, which cause different types of intoxication. The plant gets its name from the Spanish word “loco” (crazy), which describes the abnormal behavior of poisoned animals. “Locoed” animals do not recover completely. Horses affected by locoweed have no value as saddle or draft animals. However, the females may be used as brood mares. Generally, beef cattle poisoned on locoweed do not make economic gains, although they may appear to recover. Calf, lamb, and foal losses from abortion may be high. Skeletal birth defects are common; many lambs are lightweight at birth. Signs of poisoning appear after 2 to 3 weeks of continuous grazing on the plant. Locoweed has four principal effects on livestock: neurological damage; emaciation; reproductive alterations, such as abortion and birth defects; and congestive right heart failure when grazed at high elevations. The toxin is excreted in the milk; calves nursed by cows poisoned on locoweed have become intoxicated. The neurological signs of poisoning will disappear in time but may recur when an animal poisoned on locoweed is moved and stressed.

Rayless goldenrod (Happlopappus heterophyllus or Isocoma wrightii) is a toxic range plant commonly growing in alkaline and gypsic soils in riparian zones along river valleys, drainage areas, or dry plains. The toxin in rayless goldenrod is believed to be tremetol. Toxicity occurs after consumption of 5 to 15% of the animal’s body weight over 1 to 3 weeks. Tremetol is excreted in the milk often poisoning the nursing young

42

before the dam. Initial signs are depression, reluctance to eat, and inactivity followed by fine muscle tremors of the nose and legs especially following exercise or activity. Most cases of poisoning occur in winter or early spring and are often a result of overgrazing pastures and thus forcing livestock to consume rayless goldenrod because higher quality forages are no longer available. Livestock are also commonly poisoned when snowstorms cause other forages to be covered and rayless goldenrod is the predominant forage showing above the snow. Supplementation of livestock with hay during winter or early spring storms may be necessary to prevent livestock from grazing the plant.

Death Camas (Zigadenus spp.) which grows on dry hillsides and plains to moist mountain valleys is toxic to livestock. Death camas toxicity varies significantly depending upon species and variety, season, climate, soils, and geographic location. The bulbs, leaves, and fruit are all toxic. The toxins in death camas are steroidal alkaloid type compounds. Poisoning by death camas usually occurs early in the spring especially in areas where grasses remain dormant and are unavailable. Death camas has a very bitter taste and is not very palatable. However death camas grows quickly in the spring, before other more palatable forbs and grasses appear, and is often consumed because of a lack of other forages. Other cases of poisoning have occurred when areas are overgrazed and the other more palatable plants are no longer available. In some of the more toxic species, doses of 0.2 - 0.5 % of body weight will cause serious illness or death. In lambs 0.22 to 0.88 pounds of plant material or 30 to 100 plants may be toxic. Sheep are most commonly poisoned by death camas because of their smaller size and grazing habits; however, cattle, horses have also been poisoned by death camas. Horses are typically only affected by death camas when it is fed in contaminated hay.

Halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus) is a noxious and poisonous plant that was introduced into the United States from Asia during the early 1900s. It quickly spread across 11.2 million acres of the western desert that was extremely well suited for its growth. Catastrophic losses occurred during the mid 1900s when entire bands of sheep were poisoned. Halogeton usually invades previously disturbed areas where there are no competing perennial shrubs or grasses. Halogeton invasion can be prevented by maintaining healthy range conditions. The toxins in halogeton are potassium and sodium oxalate, which are also sometimes referred to as soluble oxalates. Poisoning usually occurs during the fall and early winter when oxalate concentrations are 20 to 30% of the plant and other forages are scarce. By early spring soluble oxalate concentrations have decreased to approximately 5% of the plant and there is very little risk of poisoning. Rumen microflora in sheep and cattle can be preconditioned to detoxify oxalates through low level feeding or exposure. A lethal dose of halogeton in sheep can be as little as 12 ounces (340 g) and death associated with hypocalcemia and impaired energy metabolism usually occurs within 9 to 11 hours. Herbicidal control of halogeton is impractical, because native shrubs will be killed, thereby decreasing competitors of halogeton and increasing its spread to a larger area.

Water hemlock (Cicuta spp.) is one of the most toxic plants known. Ingestion of very small amounts can lead to violent seizures and death. Unlike poison hemlock it seldom grows in dense stands but grows along active streams and waterways. Water hemlock is usually considered a perennial herb; however, it is more correctly classified as a biennial

43

because it does not produce seeds until the second year. The tuber is the most poisonous part of the plant. The toxins in water hemlock are long chain alcohols, concentrated in the oily, yellowish liquid that oozes from the lower stem or tuber when cut. Cicutoxin and cicutol are the two main toxins that are concentrated in the tubers. Early spring is usually the time when ingestion most likely occurs. As the plant grows the toxins decrease per unit of volume. If tubers are consumed as little as 0.5% of body weight or a portion of a single tuber may be lethal. The toxic effects of water hemlock are rapid and severe following ingestion. Within 15-30 minutes of ingestion of water hemlock, clinical signs such as twitching of the lips, nose, ears, and face muscles are visible. Soon thereafter, convulsions and grand mal seizures begin. The seizures become prolonged and more violent with time ending in death within 4-12 hours depending on amount ingested.

Broom snakeweed (Guterrezia sarothrae) grows at elevations from 4,000 and 8,000 feet and commonly inhabits dry, well-drained, sandy, gravely, or clayey loam soils. Broom snakeweed is a sub-shrub, and although it is native, its growth increases with disturbances such as overgrazing, fire and drought, and can dominate plant communities. Snakeweed typically establishes in wet years that follow drought, wildfire, or intensive grazing. Once established, broom snakeweed is very competitive with other vegetation. Snakeweed root structure and depth provide a competitive advantage over associated grasses. Furthermore, stomates on snakeweed leaves do not close completely, resulting in heavy water consumption by stands of broom snakeweed and depletion of soil moisture which is detrimental to associated grasses. Although broom snakeweed is not very palatable, it can be toxic and possibly cause abortion if consumed by livestock. The toxic and potentially abortifacient compounds from snakeweeds have not been fully identified. Even if snakeweed is successfully controlled, a weed-resistant plant community must be established to prevent its reinvasion. Seeding native and introduced cool-season grasses can prevent reestablishment of snakeweed and prevent the growth of cheatgrass. Managing to maintain dominant bunchgrasses in the plant community can prevent snakeweed dominance and providing adequate alternative forage will prevent livestock consumption of snakeweed and subsequent poisoning.

Western whorled milkweed (A. subverticillata) is toxic to horses, cattle, sheep, and goats. Most livestock losses are a result of hungry animals being concentrated around heavily infested milkweed areas (such as corrals, roadways, and bedding grounds). However, poisoning often occur when animals are fed hay contaminated with milkweed. Milkweed may cause losses at any time, but it is most dangerous during the active growing season. Livestock may be more apt to graze these plants after a frost or when other available forage is limited. The whorled milkweeds generally contain very low cardenolide concentrations which are the principal toxin in other milkweeds. The whorled milkweed species are thought to contain as yet uncharacterized neurotoxin(s).

Larkspur (Delphinium spp.) causes heavy cattle losses in western range States. Larkspur is highly palatable to cattle especially after plants begin flowering and through the pod stage. Plants are most toxic during early growth, but toxicity gradually declines over the growing season. The toxic substances are alkaloids, and over 40 of these compounds have been evaluated. The most toxic of these are the MSAL (methyl succidimino acetyl

44

lycoctonine) types, which include methyllycaconitine. All parts of the plant are poison-ous, but new growth and the seed contain the highest concentrations of toxic substances. The relative toxicity and concentration of individual alkaloids varies among species. The toxic alkaloids cause death by muscular paralysis, leading to respiratory failure or bloat. Poisoned animals are nervous, weak with a staggering gait, salivation, muscle twitching, rapid irregular pulse and bloating may occur. Both tall (D. barbeyi, D. occidentale, and D. glaucum) and low (D. nelsonii, D. andersonii, and D. nutallianum) larkspur are toxic. Tall larkspurs tend to grow at higher elevations on deep soils where a plentiful supply of moisture is available. They grow in mountain meadows on sites where deep snowdrifts persist well into the growing season, under aspens on north-facing slopes, along streams, or around seeps and springs. Low larkspurs tend to grow at lower elevations where they mature and become dormant before the soil moisture is depleted. They begin growing in early spring, often before other forage begins growth. Low larkspurs grow best when springs are cold and wet. Cattle will graze low larkspur at all stages of growth, but most often graze it after flowering. Toxicity of tall larkspurs declines as it matures through the growing season. Research has identified a toxic window of high risk during the flower and early pod stages when it becomes palatable and toxin levels are moderate. Since cattle do not generally consume tall larkspurs before flowering, grazing early before plants flower may be an option. Cattle should be moved off of the larkspur areas during the flower stage but can graze larkspur in the late pod stage when toxicity declines. Using sheep to graze or trample tall larkspur patches ahead of cattle grazing may reduce cattle losses. Low larkspur losses may be prevented by deferring grazing until plants lose their flowers and pods, as they rapidly senesce after producing pods.

Lupines can cause cleft palate and skeletal defects in fetuses when they are grazed during 40th to the100th day of gestation. Sheep in the Western States are frequently poisoned by feeding on lupine. Poisoning usually occurs when hungry animals are allowed to graze lupine. Some lupine species are not poisonous to livestock, and not all species cause birth defects. Piperidine and quinolizidine alkaloids (ammodendrine and anagyrine) are the compounds causing toxicosis and cleft palate as well as skeletal defects. Poisonous species of lupine are toxic from the time they start growth in spring until they dry up in fall. Younger plants are more toxic than older plants; however, plants in the seed stage in late summer are especially toxic because of the high alkaloid content of the seeds. Under proper conditions, some lupines make good forage. Lupines grow on foothills and mountain ranges in sagebrush and aspen areas. The amount of lupine that will kill an animal varies with species and stage of plant growth. It is not safe to let sheep graze species such as L. argenteus under any condition. Cattle may be poisoned by eating 1 to 12 lb of lupine without other forage. Smaller amounts are poisonous if cattle eat lupine daily for 3 to 7 days. Poisoning can be reduced by keeping hungry animals away from lupines in the early growth stage, in late summer when the plant is in the highly toxic seed stage, and from dense plant stands at all times. If animals are poisoned on lupines, do not try to move them until they show signs of recovery. If cows in the susceptible gestational period (40th to 100th days of gestation) are kept from lupine when it is most teratogenic (very early growth or mature seed stage), most deformities can be prevented. The congenital deformity hazard is minimal during other gestation periods and after seed pods have shattered. The malformations can be avoided by adjusting the breeding season and the grazing of lupine-infested range to avoid the critical periods of gestation.

45

Copperweed (Oxytenia acerosa) can poison cattle and sheep when grazed. They usually graze this plant only when other feed is scarce. All above ground plant parts are equally toxic and toxicity reaches a peak when the plant matures. Copperweed starts growing early in spring and flowers appear during July and August. Cattle are more likely to eat the plant in the fall when they are being trailed from summer range. Sheep are occasionally poisoned in fall and winter by eating dry leaves that have fallen to the ground. Most losses occur in cattle. Poisoned cattle die approximately 24 to 28 hours post-exposure from doses of about 3 lb of copperweed or an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the animal’s weight. Poisoned sheep may linger 1 to 3 weeks before dying. Copperweed contains an unidentified toxin (likely a sesquiterpene lactone) that is dangerous at all times.

Additional Resources

Plants Poisonous to Livestock in the Western States is available from the Poisonous Plant Research Laboratory in Logan, Utah upon request. The bulletin describes more than 40 of the principal poisonous plants growing on western ranges and the signs of poisoning in livestock. Management recommendations are included to help mitigate livestock poisoning by plants.

The International Journal of Poisonous Plant Research is an online journal published semi-annually by USDA. The primary objective of IJPPR is to provide a focused forum dedicated to all aspects of plant-associated poisonings. www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/PoisonousPlants/index.htm

46

47

48

NO Filming or Recording of Program Proceedings without Prior Approval of Planning Committee

Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Jeff Silvertooth, Director, Cooperative Extension, College of

Agriculture & Life Sciences, The University of Arizona. The University of Arizona is an equal opportunity, affirmative action institution. The University does not

discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, veteran status or sexual orientation in its programs and activities.