- Author: Daniel K Macon
As of this writing, we're on track for a "normal" rainfall year here in Auburn. Even if the rainy season ended with last week's storm, we'll finish the year at 90 percent of our long term annual average. In the high country to our east, the story is even better - the snow-water equivalent is sitting at 110% of the April 1 average. For the Nevada Irrigation District (NID), which serves western Nevada County and northwestern Placer County, low elevation rain and high elevation snowpack are a great combination - their reservoirs are full!
But despite all of this positive weather and water supply news, those of us who rely on NID water to irrigate pasture and other crops are facing the prospect of drought through the late spring and early summer (and possibly beyond). Earlier this year, a massive landslide damaged a portion of PG&E's South Yuba Canal below Spaulding Reservoir. In addition to moving water out of the high country for power generation, the canal allows NID to bring water from its upper watersheds down to Scotts Flat Reservoir east of Nevada City. From Scotts Flat, NID supplies farmers and ranchers throughout western Nevada County.
At the same time, PG&E's Spaulding 1 Power House also suffered significant damage, putting it offline. All of the water that NID moves down to Rollins Reservoir near Colfax comes through Spaulding 1 - and Rollins serves farmers and ranchers in North Auburn, Lincoln, and Sheridan.
At the moment, PG&E hopes to have a partial repair in place by early June, but NID will need to rely on it's low-elevation storage in Scotts Flat and Rollins to serve its irrigation customers. Without the ability to move water below Spaulding, NID projects that both Scotts Flat and Rollins will be significantly drawn down by mid-June. This week, PG&E indicated that some repairs might take much longer (stretching into August or September - more information here). Consequently, they are asking for voluntary conservation measures from both irrigation customers and treated water customers. As more information becomes available, I suspect that mandatory cutbacks may be on the table. The NID Board of Director will meet tomorrow to discuss the situation.
All of this brings ranchers to the unique position of managing for drought during an otherwise "normal" water year. Most of the recent droughts we've experienced in the foothills have been the result of a lack of precipitation and/or warm temperatures during the fall, winter, or spring months (see my post "A Taxonomy of Rangeland Drought" from February 2022). This year's "accidental" summer drought poses a different set of challenges. Many of us want to do our part to help NID conserve water during this emergency, but what are the options that best keep our pastures alive and our our livestock fed?
Traditionally, NID has conserved water during drought by asking customers to reduce the miner's inches they purchase - easy to accomplish simply by changing out the boards in our boxes. In thinking about my own sheep operation, reducing our 8 miner's inches to 6 would mean one of two options: first, I could simply try to put 66 gallons per minute out through a sprinkler system designed to deliver 88 gallons per minute, or second, I could leave one zone of the pasture unirrigated all season. At this point, option 2 makes more sense - I would optimize irrigation on the most productive portions of my pasture and let the least productive section go dry. In the long run, this means replanting that portion of the pasture (or permanently turning it back into less productive dryland forage).
An alternative that NID may not be equipped to accommodate would be to end my irrigation season earlier than normal - that is, to shut off the water to my pasture around September 1. The bulk of my pasture growth comes in the first 8 weeks of the irrigation season. When we hit the high temperatures and long days of July, forage growth goes into a "summer slump" and productivity declines. As the days grow shorter and the temperatures moderate (usually!) in September, our water demand falls and our pasture forages begin preparing for dormancy. With full water deliveries through the end of August, my pastures would likely survive if we didn't irrigate for the last 7 weeks of the season.
In either case, we'll need to think about balancing livestock demand with a diminished supply of summer forage. We can either reduce the number of mouths on the pasture, or purchase more feed (either hay or rented pasture) - or some combination of the two. One of our strategies has always been to match our production cycle with the forage cycle - we typically wean and sell our lambs as the spring flush of forage is ending (in essence, reducing our stocking rate to match a lower carrying capacity in the midst of the summer). Since we also rely on NID for our stock water, I'll need to think about strategies to ensure we're able to get water to the sheep through the summer, as well. NID will credit our accounts for this voluntary reduction in water, which could offset the cost of buying feed. In addition, a voluntary reduction this year will not impact our water deliveries in future years.
We've created a Drought Decision Support Tool to help you consider YOUR options. The first step is to inventory your forage resources for the coming summer and fall. Are you locked in, or do you have some flexibility in accessing additional leased pasture? Alternatively, are there some steps you can take to reduce your stocking rate this summer (like weaning your calves early or keeping fewer replacement heifers)? We've also developed a series of Excel spreadsheets to help you compare the financial impacts of culling females versus weaning early versus buying feed.
During the 2012-2016 drought, my mantra was "hope for the best, but prepare for the worst." While I certainly hope that PG&E is able to complete the repairs at Spaulding more quickly than they are currently projecting, I think it's time to prepare for the worst.
- Author: Dan Macon
Like many people in the rural areas of the Sierra foothills, my family raises chickens. Our dozen or so laying hens keep us supplied with eggs year-round. And each year, we raise 20-30 Cornish-cross meat chickens, which we butcher ourselves - roast chicken and barbecued chicken are two of our favorite meals!
About 10 days ago, we picked up our first 15 meat birds of the year from a feed store here in Auburn. While we typically expect to lose one or two chicks at this stage, this morning we lost the 13th chick out of the 15 we started with - so we decided to try to learn what's going on. I'd recently read about an avian influenza outbreak in the Midwest and felt that we needed to be responsible chicken owners!
I first called the Sick Bird Hotline at the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) (866/922-2473) and left a message (they called back within an hour). Then I contacted the California Animal Health and Food Safety (CAHFS) Lab at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. From there, I was referred to CDFA's Animal Health Branch Redding District office, where I talked to Dr. Michael Poulos. He told me that backyard chicken producers could get up to two birds examined at the CAHFS lab for just $25 - and that we could overnight the specimen to the lab (as a sheep producer, I have driven animals to the lab in Davis for necropsy - it was nice to know I could put the dead chick on ice and overnight it to Davis - especially with gasoline at over $5 per gallon!)
The lab should have my sample by tomorrow morning. Overnight shipping was around $47 - less than the gas I would have burned driving to Davis and back. And I hope to have some answers by the end of the week. I don't suspect avian influenza, but I do hope to learn what's going on! Stay tuned!
In the meantime, here are some great resources for backyard poultry producers:
UCD Veterinary Medicine Backyard Poultry Website
California Animal Heath & Food Safety Lab System
A final note on the CAHFS lab - we send sheep to the lab whenever we experience an unusual death (for example, if more than two sheep die, or if we experience an unusual level of abortion or newborn lamb losses). We don't always get definitive answers, but we do get useful information. Thanks to information we've received from the lab, we've adjusted our mineral supplementation program to be sure that we are providing adequate selenium - and we always have injectible selenium on hand at lambing. We've also started paying more attention to sources of copper (including irrigation and drinking water in our environment). Having a necropsy performed is an investment in improving our management!
- Author: Dan Macon
Like everything and everyone else in 2020, our local fairs are adapting to the changes necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. As I write this, the Nevada County Fair Junior Livestock Auction is underway – virtually! Youth exhibitors who've spent months (and in some cases, a full year) raising their livestock projects are excitedly anticipating the rewards for their hard work.
Livestock are judged during the fair on a variety of attributes – their structural correctness, the amount and shape of muscling, the degree of finish (or fat) they possess. This evaluation is designed to predict the quality of the end product – the meat that our junior livestock auction buyers will put in their freezers, and ultimately on their tables. But just as we know we can't judge a book (entirely) by its cover, there's more to predicting meat quality than a judge's subjective opinion. And that's why our local fairs and livestock associations (including the Tahoe Cattlemen's Association) also sponsor contests to evaluate meat quality after the fair.
Meat quality is a combination of the amount of meat an animal produces and the appropriate amount of fat (which we refer to as marbling). This marbling makes for an enjoyable eating experience - a juicy, tender steak! Choice or prime grades in lamb or beef are the target!
So how do our Nevada County youth beef exhibitors measure up against these industry standards? Last year, 91% of the beef from the fair graded USDA Choice or better! Twelve exhibitors received a Carcass of Merit award from the Tahoe Cattlemen's Association; another two received the Gold Seal Award. This doesn't happen on its own! The quality of the product these exhibitors produce is a testament to their hard work, the quality of their care, and the support provided by 4-H leaders, Future Farmers of America advisors, families and friends.
The bottom line: when you're supporting the Junior Livestock Auction, you're supporting a great kid – and you're putting a great steak (or lamb chop, or pork chop, or goat chop) on your plate!
To participate in the Nevada County Fair Junior Livestock Auction, go to https://auction.showorks.cloud/fair/ncfair.
/span>- Author: Dan Macon
Can any of us remember a summer like this?! The work of ranching continues - irrigating pasture, checking livestock, preparing for calving or breeding season. And yet the COVID-19 pandemic casts a pall over everything we're doing. Market disruptions - including increasing demand for direct-to-consumer meat products - add to the uncertainty we're all grappling with. I'm wearing a mask when I go to the feed store and limiting my trips to town. And, as I write, this, my youngest daughter is starting her last year of high school - from home.
Given the continued rise in COVID cases here in Placer County, our UC Cooperative Extension staff continues to work from home. But while we're not in the office, we are still out and about serving our communities. Our 4-H staff is working with our volunteer leaders and 4-H members to start the new 4-H year. Our nutrition staff continues to work with schools throughout the community to provide school gardens and nutrition/healthy lifestyles information for kids and adults. Our Master Gardeners have developed some incredibly innovative online educational opportunities. Check out our website at http://ceplacer.ucanr.edu/ for more details!
Our agricultural programs are also ongoing! I am working with colleagues at Davis and elsewhere to put on a bi-weekly webinar on a variety of grazing and livestock production topics. Our Working Rangelands Wednesdays series has covered topics like drought, targeted grazing, water quality, and fuel load reduction. You can register to participate in these webinars here.
I've also been collaborating with Ryan Mahoney of Emigh Livestock on a weekly podcast called Sheep Stuff Ewe Should Know (available on Spotify and Apple Podcasts). While our focus has largely been on sheep industry topics, I think you'll find that many of our episodes are broadly applicable to all livestock production. If there's a topic you'd like us to take on, please send me an email at dmacon@ucanr.edu.
Research projects aren't standing still, either - we are wrapping up our early weaning project at the Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center this fall. I'm continuing to collect data on predators and livestock guardian dog behavior on the Tahoe National Forest this summer. Our northern California irrigated pasture research continues, and we're about to start a collaborative forage variety trial with specialists from UC Davis and farm advisors from throughout the state. I find that I especially enjoy the days I get to spend in the field!
We are planning a number of virtual workshops this fall, including our "So You Want to Start a Farm or Ranch" workshop and our Beginning Farming Academy - stay tuned for details. And I'm working with the Tahoe Cattlemen's Association to organize a beef production workshop or webinar in late September. Watch my website for more information!
If you're on Instagram, you might check out my IGTV channels - covering a variety of topics from forage production and management to livestock guardian dogs. You can follow me on Instagram at @flyingmule.
Finally, I am available by phone, email, and in person! If you have a pasture, livestock, or range management question, call me at (530) 889-7385 or email me at dmacon@ucanr.edu. I'm always glad to get out in the field, so don't hesitate to contact me!
These are strange times, to say the least. Stay safe, and stay positive. I hope to hear from you!
- Author: Dan Macon
Note: A version of this article originally appeared in the July 2020 edition of my New Foothill Rancher newsletter.
When my family started raising sheep commercially, we assumed that selling meat directly to consumers would be more profitable (especially at our small scale) than selling live animals. As we went through the logistics of getting animals to our processor, deciding what cuts we thought we could sell, determining our product pricing structure, picking up meat, getting it stored, and then getting it sold, we realized that meat marketing was far more complicated that hauling a load of lambs to the auction. We also got a crash course in the difference between gross profit and net profit.
Value-added marketing is a buzzword in local food system conversations – after all, who wouldn't want to add value to the crops or livestock they produce. Since the disruptions to our food system from COVID-19 have become obvious, producers and consumers alike have a renewed interest in selling (and buying) locally-produced meat. But as a producer, how do we know if we're actually adding value if we're selling meat rather than live animals? From an economic analysis perspective, we have to look at the meat business separately from the livestock production business. In other words, the meat business has to “buy” the live animal from the livestock business. How do we go about this kind of analysis?
In our own business, I started by using the market price for finished lambs (as published in weekly market reports from the closest livestock auctions) as the “purchase” price of lambs for the meat business. If a 100-pound lamb was worth $1.80 per pound at Escalon, my meat business would need to pay my livestock business $180 to buy that lamb, less what I would have paid in commission, yardage, and transportation. Let's value that 100-pound lamb at $160.
In economic analysis terms, the purchase of the lamb was a variable (or direct) expense for the meat business. Other direct expenses included harvest and cut-and-wrap fees (which are typically charged by the head or by the pound). Overhead costs – those expenses that are incurred regardless of the number of animals being processed, included transportation to and from the processor, storage, marketing expenses, and labor.
On the revenue side, I needed to know how much retail product I'd get from that 100-pound lamb. This is different than hot carcass (or hanging) weight – this is how much product actually goes into a package. We found that we typically got a 30-33 percent retail yield – in other words, the 100-pound lamb gave us 30-33 pounds of meat we could sell to our customers. We also needed to know the relative yield by cut – after all, folks will pay more for a rack of lamb than they will for stew meat. From this, we could calculate an average retail price per pound – for us, this came out to about $11 per pound of retail product. At 33 pounds of salable product, that lamb was now worth $363.
Let's look a bit closer at that $160 lamb:
Gross Revenue |
Amount |
Meat Sales (33 lbs at $12/lb) |
$363 |
Total Gross Revenue |
$363 |
|
|
Direct Expenses |
|
Lamb purchase |
$160 |
Slaughter/Cut-and-Wrap (per head) |
$145 |
Total Direct Expenses |
$305 |
Gross Margin |
$58 |
|
|
Overhead Expenses |
|
Transportation (live animal – 130 miles @ $0.57/mile) |
$74 |
Transportation (product – 130 miles @ $0.57/mile) |
$74 |
Storage (monthly locker fee) |
$125 |
Marketing (farmers market fee) |
$50 |
Labor (10 hours @ $15/hour) |
$150 |
Total Overhead Expenses |
$473 |
Net Profit (Loss) |
($415) |
Yikes – “adding” value to a single lamb would create a loss of $415! Maybe we should look at scaling up (so we can spread our overhead expenses over more units). I can take 20 finished lambs in my trailer – let's look at the numbers for 20!
Gross Revenue |
Amount |
Meat Sales (33 lbs at $12/lb) – 20 lambs |
$7,260 |
Total Gross Revenue |
$7,260 |
|
|
Direct Expenses |
|
Lamb purchase |
$3,200 |
Slaughter/Cut-and-Wrap (per head) |
$2,900 |
Total Direct Expenses |
$6,100 |
Gross Margin |
$1,160 |
|
|
Overhead Expenses |
|
Transportation (live animal – 130 miles @ $0.57/mile) |
$74 |
Transportation (product – 130 miles @ $0.57/mile) |
$74 |
Storage (monthly locker fee) |
$125 |
Marketing (farmers market fee – 5 weeks to sell 20 head) |
$200 |
Labor (10 hours @ $15/hour) |
$150 |
Total Overhead |
$623 |
|
|
Net Profit (Loss) |
$537 ($26.85/head) |
This time, we made a profit! All of that extra work added a whopping $26.85 per head to the value of our lambs! And this doesn't account for the time value of money – when I sell at the auction, I have a check within a week. When I sell meat, the cash flows in as I'm able to sell product – it may take a month or more.
Obviously, these numbers are sensitive to the current market price, the distance to your processor, and processing fees. In a depressed live market (like we're currently facing), marketing meat may add more value. And it's a complicated question - I found selling meat to my community to be rewarding in non-monetary ways. But non-monetary income didn't pay the bills, unfortunately. The key takeaway here is that it's important to do the analysis.
If you'd like to walk through a more thorough analysis of your own business, contact me at (530) 889-7385 or dmacon@ucanr.edu.