190 likes | 296 Views
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
E N D
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 • 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
Cost Saving Technology • Solar powered, satellite radio stock water monitor (SWM) Pressure Transducer Antenna Battery Solar Panel Computer Board Satellite Radio
SWM Cost • Monitor $1,800 • Installation $100 • Website Service Fee $3-10/month
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
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
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
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
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
Problem SWM – Low Battery Week cloudy weather Changed battery
Problem SWM – Data Spikes Mounted antenna to top of tank
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