The Future of Livestock Grazing on New Mexico's National Forests

Findings Summary

1. Utilization for the 2023 grazing season exceeded the allocated 40 percent use guideline on all allotments required to sustain or improve rangeland conditions and optimize livestock productivity.
2. Based on the physical constraint of intake model, cattle consume a small proportion of grazing season forage, while other unknown factors account for excess use beyond the allocated 40 percent use guideline.
3. Based on end-of-grazing season forage production and a 40 percent utilization allocation, authorized livestock numbers were well below calculated 2023 stocking rates.
4. Rangeland conditions reflect the natural relationship between forage, water, and wildlife rather than any one measurement in isolation.
5. Changing climate and rangeland conditions are both expected and manageable.
6. Forage conditions are not in a direct relationship with precipitation. Rather, forage conditions are a relationship between stock water availability and other grazing pressures.
7. Deteriorating water infrastructure has more of an impact on livestock operations than water quality and quantity.
8. Conditions are heavily influenced by deteriorating infrastructure, management decisions and decision-making processes, boundary conflicts, and unequal relationships of power; or the relationship of humans to nature.

These findings are based upon quantitative and qualitative data collection and represent culturally situated understandings of rangeland conditions and impacts on livestock operations. Representative site selection was based on producer knowledge of key grazing areas and key area guidelines from Allison et al. (2007). A summary for each allotment and operational constraints can be found in Table 1, while assessment sites and their associated soil types can be found in Table 2. This is the first year of data and multiple years of monitoring is required (minimum of 3-5 years) to inform management changes of existing guidelines or stocking rates, or the development of new management directives.

Objective 1.  Collect quantitative data regarding forage, water, and wildlife conditions on four grazing allotments.

Data was collected using the Rapid Assessment Methodology (Allison et al. 2007, Spackman et al., 2022). Summaries were produced using the Rangeland Data Analysis and Record program (RaDAR; rangelandradar.app). A monitoring assessment summary for the 2023 grazing season of each allotment can be found in Table 4 with average stubble heights, vegetation and litter cover, and observed forage production within (caged) and outside exclusion cages (residual). Average stubble heights across allotments ranged from 2.70 to 5.56 inches during the mid-season assessment and decreased slightly or remained similar for the end-of season assessment (1.96 to 5.73 inches). Average mid-season vegetation cover ranged from 26.4 to 51.8 percent with litter from 18.2 to 61.3 percent. End-of-season vegetation cover increased to 43 and 56.5 percent, respectively, except for the Canjilon allotment which decreased to 21 percent. Litter cover for end-of-season was inversely proportional to vegetation cover ranging from 22.5 to 41.3 percent. For species specific stubble heights and all cover estimates, refer to full allotment reports. Residual forage production between measurement times remained similar for Youngsville and El Rito Labato West and decreased slightly for Chicoma (1368.5 to 902.2 lbs/ac) and Canjilon (797.2 to 408.5 lbs/ac) allotments. End-of-season caged production ranged between 1756.7 and 899.7 lbs/ac, respectively.

Utilization is a very useful guide when all grazing species are accounted for. When multiple grazing species or uncontrolled grazers such as wildlife are present, it becomes difficult if not impossible to determine how much each species has consumed in relation to utilization. This concept, known as resource partitioning, is an ongoing issue for rangeland managers. Currently there is no direct measurement to partition use on rangelands. However, forage intake of range cattle has been extensively researched (Vallentine 1990, McKown et al., 1991, and Holechek et al 2011) and a 1,000-pound mature cow consumes approximately 26 pounds of dry forage per day (SRM 1998). Thus, a physical constraint of intake model can be used to calculate approximate cattle use on rangelands through known variables (Table 5). It is worth noting that this is a calculation, not a direct measurement of utilization, and should be used as an approximate use level by cattle as intake can vary with animal physiological factors (NASEM 2016). ). The equation used to calculate Cattle Utilization as a Percent was:

Discrepancies on all allotments were found when correlating end-of-season forage production quantities (Table 4), stocking rates at currently permitted numbers (Table 1), and observed verses allocated utilization levels required to sustain or improve rangeland conditions (Table 5). Livestock were found to consume a small proportion of the overall forage production, while other factors account for the vast majority, such as wild ungulates and small mammals. Assessments found that livestock consumed between 4.0 to 27.5 percent of available forage between the four allotments when a physical constraint of intake model was used (Table 5). Further, based on end-of-season forage production estimates and using stocking rate calculations of 40 percent use allocation, allotments were understocked, ranging between 10.0 and 68.7 percent of capacity, but still exceed the allocated utilization guideline (Table 6). Two factors must be considered: 1) there are areas throughout the allotments that are not in use but still counted in grazable acres and thus factored into annual forage production, and 2) forty-percent forage use allocation does not take into consideration other abiotic and biotic factors besides livestock.

Water qualities on all sampled allotments were normal except for high Iron and Manganese concentrations (Table 8). Pavo Spring on the Youngsville allotment was the only site without these abnormal mineral concentrations likely due to water coming from an underground source rather than surface accumulation, as with other sites (ponds or dirt tanks). Some sites had a basic pH and hard water levels of concern. Complete results can be found in allotment reports. These results indicate a need for management directives to address water infrastructure and quality concerns.

Objective 2. Collect qualitative data regarding producers’ observations of rangeland conditions and impacts on livestock operations.

Producers explained rangeland conditions as the relationship between forage, water, and wildlife. For example, the abundance and size of chamisa in certain areas indicated that brush consumed water and made it unavailable for native grasses. In the EL RITO LOBATO WEST allotment a small amount of precipitation at the end of the grazing season can produce abundant forage in the QUEMAZON burn scar and extend livestock grazing for up to four weeks in an area dominated by brush at other times. Producers also pointed out shrinking pastures due to forest encroachment. Likewise, they described a dense forest canopy. Producers were quick to point out the relationship of these conditions to forage production. More trees decreased the water available for grasses. Dead and down trees also had an impact on livestock access to forage and water. Dead and down trees obstructed livestock movement and prohibited the use of the entire allotment and its resources such as grasses in the canopy and water sources such as springs, creeks, ponds, and earthen dams. Producers were careful to explain that these conditions were different than simply drought. Producers remarked that permanent elk herds attest to abundant water and forage production. They explained how when water became limited, elk moved on, and forage conditions improved. Thus, producers did not understand forage conditions as a direct result of precipitation. Rather, producers were more likely to explain forage conditions as the relationship between forage, water, and wildlife. Producers concluded that these are the natural conditions of the allotment.

Table 9. Describe, interpret, and explain the conditions at your allotment.

We asked producers how the numbers represent or not what they observe in terms of rangeland conditions. What part of the picture is missing? Producers first stressed that quantitative measurements are not useful in isolation. Rather, it is important to observe the relationship between forage, water, and wildlife. Second, producers stressed the relationship of humans to nature or that management decision-making processes between land management agencies and producers also heavily influenced rangeland conditions. For producers, rangeland conditions are not simply the machine-like natural order of things. Rather, decision-making processes are also part of the natural conditions of the rangeland and often overlooked or missing from rangeland assessments.

Table 10. What are the impacts of these conditions on your operation?

Deteriorating infrastructure including roads, fences, cattle guards, and water infrastructure prohibited producers’ access to and use of key pastures on all four allotments. These factors negatively impact livestock operations by decreasing production and profitability. In the late summer, a water tank in the EL RITO LOBATO WEST LOBATO WEST allotment that fills from an artificial catchment rotted through and producers lost the entire 30,000 gallons of stored water. The loss restricted producers’ use of the lower part of the allotment on which they rely for the final four weeks of the season. The tank was 70+ years old and producers did not recall any repairs in their lifetimes. The practice of subdividing allotments for seasonal deferment and impractical fencing placed an extra burden on producers. All producers remarked that seasonal deferment only benefited elk allowing them to stay one step ahead of livestock and consume the best forage under the best water conditions. Producers reported that such conditions discouraged livestock grazing. One producer asked, “for whom is the forest being managed?” Producers also highlighted the negative impacts on rangeland conditions and livestock operations due to conflicts over boundaries. The Chicoma and Youngsville allotments are adjacent to Santa Clara Pueblo and the Valles Caldera National Preserve. Santa Clara Pueblo is a federally recognized tribe and territory. The Pueblo has recently restricted producers from using trails within the Pueblo to move cattle to market. Without the use of these trails, it is more difficult for producers to fully utilize their allotment due to having to move cattle longer distances over the mountain without adequate forage and water. Producers observed that there seems to be little interest among the current Pueblo leadership in cooperating with livestock producers. The Valles Caldera is a National Preserve managed by the National Park Service, which has fence responsibilities. However, fencing and fence maintenance along the boundary of the Caldera is non-existent in most areas. Large herds of elk reside protected in the Caldera. These elk pass freely on to the allotments, decreasing forage and water for livestock. Producers pointed out that Pueblo and federal government agencies function as co-sovereigns rarely challenging each other and leave Hispano producers at a disadvantage and subject to the power of both. As one producer explained it, dos agujas no se pican (two needles don’t poke each other). Hispano producers described feeling trapped between governments or as second-class stakeholders.

Producers discussed several practices they use to mitigate conditions. The most common response was that producers adjust throughout the year and from year to year in terms of stocking rates, location, and duration of grazing. The second most common response was that producers self-design and employ a rotation system within the allotment. For example, if snow and ice melt quick enough and a good fence is in place producers will graze the highest pastures in the allotment first or at the same time as other pastures to try and mitigate forage loss due to elk utilization. Another example is leaving livestock in the high country longer to take advantage of water availability.

Table 11. How do you manage these conditions and impacts?

Making decisions regarding management practices involves knowledge of the relationship between forage, water, and wildlife and the signs to look for or physical manifestations. For example, the abundance and size of chamisa in certain areas indicated to producers that brush is consuming water and decreasing forage production. Producers concluded the limited utility of these pastures and parts of the allotment for the season and the near future. Knowledge of climate and rangeland conditions is based on observations of other native trees and plants including piñones, piñabetes, jaros, chamisa, and escoba de vibora. For example, a lack of jaros in JAROSITO led to conclusions that the monsoon was not good and thus limited forage production. Likewise, piñones that were vano (produced empty shells) denoted hot temperatures and tierra quemada (burnt earth) or poor soil conditions for forage growth once again limiting the utility of some pastures. Monitoring stock water availability and its relationship to other conditions is another example of what is involved in making management decisions. Forage conditions shared a relationship to the abundance or absence of water in stock ponds and earthen dams. Producers attributed abundant grass in areas with little precipitation to limited elk use because of limited stock water. Producers used this information to contemplate how to rotate livestock back into these areas later in the season using water infrastructure. Producers observations of elk presence and size of elk herds as well as frequency of elk utilization of key pastures were factors in making decisions about where to graze and for how long. Boundary issues such as fences and trail access were also considerations when making decisions on where to graze and for how long. Producers tried to optimize areas that allowed cattle to be moved with sufficient forage and water. Producers responded that there were no areas that elk did not utilize. Producers also discussed that the availability of water and forage on their own base property, the cost of hay, and the overall capacity to winter livestock on base properties were factors in making decisions regarding stocking rates and duration. Finally, the risk of losing one’s grazing permit for non-use was also a factor considered by producers.

Table 12. What is involved when making decisions on management practices?

Understandings of conditions and impacts as natural emerges from producers’ holistic views of the relationships between forage, water, and wildlife. Quantitative measurements in isolation, such as stubble height, were deceptive rather than useful. For example, producers did not attribute a lack of forage to drought. Drought was not a response among any of the producers. Rather, they understood forage conditions in relationship to other factors such as brush, forest encroachment, and elk utilization. For producers natural means the relationships between forage, water, and wildlife that give rise to material conditions. Another meaning is the (bio)logical result of relationships between forage, water, and wildlife. Natural is the state of the range given the material factors and their relationships to each other. Producers expected changing climate and rangeland conditions and believed changes manageable. Seeing climate and rangeland conditions as natural lends a degree of normalcy to change.

Producers also responded that over time they have come to think of Forest rangeland conditions as national infrastructure. Producers discussed how rangelands contribute to national economic growth and wellbeing. One producer asked, “What would rangelands look like if they were considered like roads and bridges or the highway?” Another producer observed that there is less political support than in previous years for rural issues such as livestock grazing.

Table 13. How have understandings of conditions and impacts emerged and changed over time?

How do producers grapple with sustaining livestock production? Understanding change as natural and by extension expecting climate and rangeland conditions to reflect each other in a natural way lends a degree of normalcy to change and underlies how producers grapple with sustaining livestock production. Producers are constantly adjusting to conditions and anticipating changes. Likewise, they are constantly devising practices such as those in Table 11 to manage them proactively. Understanding that Forest management and management decision-making are  human processes with real effects on conditions is another way producers grapple with sustainability. Producers pay expenses for infrastructure maintenance and repair out of their own pocket without reimbursement or wait months for reimbursement. Producers actively seek permits to conduct thinning in their allotments. Paying the cost of grant writing to apply for public funding from sources such as National Resource Conservation Services for water infrastructure is another way producers address sustainability. One producer described this type of payment as each producer “contributing a calf or two” each year to the allotment. Seeking equal-footing or decision-making power with land management agencies, tribal, and Pueblos governments, initiating meetings with the Forest Service and National Park Service to discuss concerns, conducting legal and policy research, and organizing with other producers across the state and the southwestern states were also ways that producers spoke about grappling with sustainability.

Objective 3. Produce rancher assessments of rangeland conditions and impacts on livestock operations.

Please see individual allotment assessments in the products section.