1 / 19

RANCHERS EVALUATE REMOTE STOCK WATER MONITORS DURING FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION

RANCHERS EVALUATE REMOTE STOCK WATER MONITORS DURING FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. Kevin Heaton Utah State University Extension Kane, Garfield & Washington Counties. Introduction. Utah ranches spread across thousands of acres in remote areas Monitoring stock water is challenging and costly

chessa
Download Presentation

RANCHERS EVALUATE REMOTE STOCK WATER MONITORS DURING FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RANCHERS EVALUATE REMOTE STOCK WATER MONITORS DURING FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION Kevin Heaton Utah State University Extension Kane, Garfield & Washington Counties

  2. Introduction • Utah ranches spread across thousands of acres in remote areas • Monitoring stock water is challenging and costly • Winter 09-10 survey of participating ranchers indicated that on average ranchers: • spend 22.6 hours per month checking water • drive 375 miles per month checking water • spend $526.40 per month checking water

  3. Cost Saving Technology • Solar powered, satellite radio stock water monitor (SWM) Pressure Transducer Antenna Battery Solar Panel Computer Board Satellite Radio

  4. SWM Cost • Monitor $1,800 • Installation $100 • Website Service Fee $3-10/month

  5. Demonstration • Installed 15 monitors from November ‘09 to June ‘10 • Five ranchers from each of the following counties participated • Kane • Garfield • Washington • Seven full-time ranchers • Eight part-time ranchers

  6. Demo (cont) • Ranch size ranged from 80 to over 1,000 head • Seven ranchers own > 300 head • Eight ranchers own < 300 head • Installation locations ranged • 15-200 miles from the base operation • from 3,500 ft to 7,000 ft elevation • Ten ranchers monitor storage tank water levels which feed a trough(s), the other five ranchers monitor trough water levels • Most ranchers only use their stock water monitor on winter pastures

  7. SWM Data Example Graph

  8. Rancher Evaluations • Ranchers used the monitors an average of 7 months, ranged from 4-12 months • Cost savings of $165/month, ranged from $40-500/month • Time savings averaged 11 hours/month, ranged from 4-24 hours/month • 63% of ranchers checked the website daily

  9. Rancher Evaluations (cont) • SWM performed as programmed 88% of the time • 100% of ranchers indicated “the SWM were reliable enough to make management decisions” • 100% wanted to continue to use the SWM • 45% used the internet for the first time to collect and manage data on their operation

  10. Rancher Evaluations (cont) • When asked, “Based on your experience with the monitor and assuming you don’t have one, would you purchase a SWM?” • Only 63% said, “Yes” • The other 37% responded, “No” or “Maybe”, the reasons: • Upfront costs are high in comparison to the savings • Upfront costs are excessive for an unproven, experimental monitor • Too risky due to the possibility of vandalism

  11. Problem SWM – Unreliable Reporting

  12. Problem SWM – Low Battery Week cloudy weather Changed battery

  13. Problem SWM – Data Spikes Mounted antenna to top of tank

  14. Pressure Sensor Going Bad

  15. Rancher Undoing Everything to See Why It Works

  16. Vandalism -- Every Rancher’s Concern

  17. Summary • Overall, remote stock water monitors are feasible, reliable and cost effective for many ranchers • Adoption by ranchers who have • Unreliable or • Intensively managed systems • Approved in Arizona as an NRCS Conservation Practice, i.e. EQIP cost sharing

More Related