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

2023

Preliminary Findings Summary

These findings are based upon quantitative and qualitative data collection and represent culturally situated understandings of rangeland conditions and impacts on livestock operations.

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. However, based on the physical constraint of intake model, cattle consumed a small proportion of forage in the 2023 and 2024 grazing season, while other factors account for excess use beyond the allocated 40 percent use guideline.
3. Based on 2023 and 2024 annual forage production and a 40 percent utilization allocation, authorized livestock numbers were well below rangeland carrying capacity.
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.

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

Representative site selection was based on producer knowledge of key grazing areas and key area guidelines (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 one 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.

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.

2024

Preliminary Findings Summary

These findings are based upon quantitative and qualitative data collection and represent culturally situated understandings of rangeland conditions and impacts on livestock operations.

1. Utilization for the 2024 grazing season exceeded the allocated 40 percent use guideline on all allotments required to sustain or improve rangeland conditions and optimize livestock productivity.
2. However, based on the physical constraint of intake model, cattle consumed a small proportion of forage in the 2024 grazing season, while other factors account for excess use beyond the allocated 40 percent use guideline.
3. Based on 2024 annual forage production and a 40 percent utilization allocation, authorized livestock numbers were well below rangeland carrying capacity.
4. Cold start to the season limited forage growth early in the season.
5. Infrequent and isolated rain did not correlate to more forage.
6. Late rain supported grass regrowth and allowed for second grazing.
7. Livestock grazing keeps forage new and builds up root systems, quality, and quantity of grass.
8. Improvements benefit elk first rather than livestock.
9. Regrowth offered better grasses for livestock than the beginning of the season.
10. Tree encroachment is depleting natural water sources sooner in the season.
11. Wildlife continues to beat livestock to grass and water across all allotments at all times of the season.
12. Elk are not migrating but becoming resident herds.
13. Heavy elk use following rotation of livestock to other areas of allotment.
14. High numbers of elk cause livestock to move into unauthorized areas more frequently placing a burden on producer.
15. Dry conditions required more frequent rotation of livestock.
16. Cows moved less frequently in warmer weather and grazed in the forest canopy more often resulting in less presence/impact in riparian areas and more efficient use of forage resources in all parts of the allotment. Additional impacts include higher weaning weights.
17. Willingness of land management agencies, tribal and pueblo governments to address boundary issues is a major factor in stocking and management decisions.
18. Sustainability is related to doing maintenance and making improvements that benefit livestock producers, forest, and wildlife.
19. Climate change is observable in the duration of certain conditions not the intensity and has no impact on livestock operations so far.

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

Representative site selection was based on producer knowledge of key grazing areas and key area guidelines from Allison et al. (2007). Monitoring sites and their associated soil types can be found in Table 1. A summary for each allotment and operational conditions can be found in Table 2 and are based on Environmental Assessments (EA) conducted by US Forest Service. In response to 2023 monitoring data and EA being greater than 15 years old, the Forest Service conducted a 2024 GIS assessment to update and adjust grazable acres, but is used in the report for comparison purposes only. This is the second year of data and multiple years of monitoring is required (minimum of 3-5 years) to inform management changes of existing guidelines, stocking rates, or the development of new management directives.

A monitoring assessment summary for the 2024 grazing season of each allotment can be found in Table 3 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 3.16 to 4.83 inches during the mid-season assessment and decreased for the end-of season assessment (1.73 to 4.53 inches). Average mid-season vegetation cover ranged from 54.7 to 11.8 percent with litter from 46.0 to 23.1 percent. End-of-season vegetation cover decreased for Youngsville from 54.7 to 30.5 percent, while all other allotments increased or remained similar. Litter cover for end-of-season was inversely proportional to increases and decreases in vegetation cover ranging from 58.1 to 34.0 percent. For species specific stubble heights and all cover estimates, refer to individual allotment reports. Residual forage production decreased significantly between measurement times across all allotments, with abnormally hot and dry conditions as likely contributors. End-of-season caged production ranged between 1293.2 and 686.7 pounds per acre, respectively.

Utilization is a 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 4). 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 and environmental factors (NASEM 2016). The equation can be found in the Table 4 footnotes.

Discrepancies on all allotments were found when correlating end-of-season forage production quantities (Table 3), stocking rates at currently permitted numbers (Table 2), and observed verses allocated utilization levels required to sustain or improve rangeland conditions (Table 4). Livestock were found to consume a small proportion of the overall forage production, while other factors account for the majority, such as wild ungulates and small mammals. Assessments found that livestock consumed 5.2 to 27.1 percent, or 6.5 to 15.2 percent when 2024 GIS grazable acre adjustments were made, of the available forage across the four allotments, when considering the physical constraint of intake model (Table 4). Further, based on end-of-season forage production estimates to calculate stocking rates, allotments were stocked at 13.1 to 67.6 percent of maximum stocking rate or 16.3 to 38.1 percent when 2024 GIS grazable acre adjustments were made, yet a 40 percent utilization guideline was still exceeded (Table 5).

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

The results below reflect new observations made by producers in the 2024 grazing season as well as some recurring concerns and should be considered alongside the 2023 grazing season observations.

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

Producers across all allotments reported a colder start to the season which slowed spring forage growth. Summer monsoons kept earthen ponds and tanques on higher pastures about half full or less, allowing for longer use of some high pastures.  Infrequent and isolated rain came “all at once” and did not correlate to more grass.  However, late rains supported grass regrowth in areas already grazed allowing for a second grazing.  Water infrastructure and maintenance on all allotments is a main concern for producers.  In some cases producers explain that encroachment is the major contributor. In other cases producers explain that maintenance to diversion points and earthen dams or tanques is the problem. One producer remarked while observing heavy stream flow in the spring bypassing the diversion point to livestock tanks because of no maintenance and litter from tree poaching: This water belongs to us. We just see it going away every year. Just going down to where they already have a bunch. Producers explained that wildlife continues to beat livestock to grass and water across the allotment at all times of the year. Many producers noted increases in forest visitors from outside the community. Many of these producers set up camps for longer periods of time, corralled pack animals, or held large UTV gatherings and organized races destroying forage in key pastures.

Water qualities on all sampled allotments were normal except for high Iron and Manganese concentrations. 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.

What are the impacts of these conditions on your operation?

Producers explained how tree encroachment around natural springs was drying up livestock water sources sooner.  Producers recall continuous, joined, and open pastures dominated the allotment. These same pastures are now segmented or cut-off from each other entirely due to 20- and 30-year-old spruce tree growth.  Producers observed that during hotter days cows tended to move less frequently and graze more in the forest canopy rather than the pastures. They also observed that warmer temperatures reduced livestock presence in riparian areas near pastures. Producers explained that hotter temperatures resulted in less observable impact from livestock in riparian areas and better use of forage resources across the allotment.  Several producers explained that this led to higher weaning weights. Calves entered allotment at 150lbs at the beginning of the grazing season and were weaned at 600lbs at the end of the grazing season. This amounted to 3lbs weight gain per day on the allotment which several producers qualified as “good” or “better than previous years.”

Producers noted an increase in unauthorized livestock from neighboring allotments that may be contributing to overall utilization, however, not in a significant way.

Competition with elk are a major consideration for producer families. How many elk are already in the pastures where producers have yet to graze livestock determines when, where, and what number of livestock producers decide to turn out on the range.  Producers observed that elk are on the allotment full-time and not migrating. Rather they are becoming resident herds. At all times during monitoring there was a heavy elk presence across all allotments. Problematically areas where livestock graze offer more palatable and higher nutritional value forage for wildlife as well. Forage conditions at the end of season showed heavy wildlife presence and utilization  following removal of livestock from key pastures. Producers noted that pastures with clover were utilized the hardest by elk. One producer explained that high numbers of elk caused his cattle to move a lot and pass into unauthorized areas placing a burden on his operation.

Several producers remarked that dry conditions forced producers to rotate livestock more frequently or overgraze pastures in close proximity to water. He also described that some areas were seldom grazed due to lack of water. He also explained how some ranchers pay to have water hauled to allotment pastures resulting in a costly practice that forces some producers to reduce their herds.

What is involved when making decisions on management practices? What data is most useful for making decisions?

One producer remarked that the pasture determines whether we begin on time and that starting on time is important because producers run out of hay at their base properties. Purchasing hay to feed livestock on base properties is an economic burden.  Producers explained how observations and information from horseback monitoring in hard-to-reach areas is most useful. Producers also explained how the willingness of land management agencies and tribal governments to work with producers to address boundary issues was a major factor in their decisions to stock and at what rate and for how long. One producer described sustainability as related to the carrying capacity of the allotment. He explained what he considers: Is there water? I look at how fast it is running. How fast is it slowing down? Is there water and fence infrastructure? Is there water for other animals? Is there water for fire suppression? Is there enough pasture to sustain the number of cows we are putting out? He described doing maintenance and making improvements as ways of sustaining grazing and production. He explained that climate change is only observable in the duration of certain conditions, such as a longer snow period until May, or a longer wind period from March to May. He finished explaining that changing conditions have had no impact on livestock production so far.

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

Please see individual allotment assessments for 2023 and 2024 grazing seasons in the products section.