Review of \u3ci\u3e An Atlas of the Sand Hills\u3c/i\u3e

The Sand Hills region, the largest stabilized sand dune formation in the western hemisphere, presents a varied landscape from lush, productive wetlands to wind-swept dune tops with frequent blowouts. Covering about twelve million acres in central and north central Nebraska, it represents about 25% of the state\u27s surface area. The region\u27s extreme importance to Nebraska-residing in its vast supply of forage for beef cattle production, its critical role in recharging the High Plains Aquifer, and its aesthetic and recreational values-has long made it a major topic of study for students in agricultural and natural resource sciences. Moreover, coursework related to such topics as rangeland conservation and management, livestock production, animal-plant-soil relations, and the hydrologic cycle commonly focuses on the Sand Hills for examples of concepts and practices. Students and teachers did not have a standard and complete reference on the natural history of the Sand Hills, however, until 1989 when An Atlas of the Sand Hills was first published. In addition to providing reference material to college and university students, the editors state the atlas\u27s purpose is to help natural-resource managers and others making decisions about the Sand Hills and to stimulate not only a general interest in the area but also continued research in the unique region

Examining the Capacity of Nebraska Rangelands for Cattle

According to the 2017 United States Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Statistics Service report (USDA-NASS 2017), Nebraska is the number one ranked state in the United States for both cattle on feed and for beef slaughtering capacity. It ranks number two in all cattle and calves while ranking number four in the number of beef cows. Beef production has a $12.1 billion impact annually to the Nebraska economy including$6.5 billion in direct sales (Nebraska Beef Cattle Facts 2016). Given the above information, a research question was motivated to evaluate the forage production of Nebraska’s perennial grazing land systems and its potential to increase cow/calf production in Nebraska. Until now, this type of research to perform a gap analysis of the forage supply and demand from perennial grazing lands on a statewide basis had not been conducted. The 2012 Census of Agriculture (USDA-NASS 2014) provided the cattle numbers on a county-by-county basis for this study. An assumption was made that only beef cattle were grazing the perennial grasslands in each county. Replacement heifers were assumed equal to 20% of the beef cow numbers with 80% expected to get bred as yearlings representing a 16% replacement rate. The number of bulls were assumed equal to 4% of the beef cow numbers representing a 1 to 25 bull to cow ratio. The number of backgrounding calves (stockers) utilizing grazing resources can then be calculated with the following formula

Evaluating Methods of Estimating Forage Intake by Grazing Cattle

Two methods of estimating forage intake of grazing cattle were compared to clipped estimates in 4-pasture rotational grazing systems on Sandhills subirrigated meadow from mid-May through early August over a 4-year period. Clipping standing vegetation samples within a pasture before and after cattle grazing provides for an accurate estimate of forage removal during a grazing period. A less laborious method of intake estimation commonly used is based on a percentage of an animal’s liveweight. University Extension and some federal agencies use a 2.3% factor and others such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service use a 2.7% factor. In this study on a Sandhills subirrigated meadow, the 2.3% of body weight intake factor appropriately matched the clipping estimates in 63% of the evaluations. In contrast, the 2.7% of body weight factor provided similar estimates to the clipping estimate in only 38% of the evaluations. This implies that the 2.3% estimate more accurately represents forage intake of beef cattle and has less chance of overestimating cattle intake. Allocation of surplus forage to grazing cattle reduces harvest efficiency, reduces beef production per acre, and negatively effects profitability of beef operations

G97-1319 Management of Smooth Sumac on Grasslands

The herbicide 2,4-D LV4 ester provides excellent low-cost smooth sumac control. Prescribed burning before herbicide application does not substantially improve sumac control, but may ease herbicide application and provide other benefits. Smooth sumac (Rhus glabra L.) is a native deciduous shrub that forms dense thickets from widely spreading roots. It is found in the Sandhills, mixed-grass, and tallgrass areas throughout Nebraska. Introduced cool-season grasses, such as Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.), invade the thickets, and production of desirable forage species is reduced below the dense canopies. Trees and other shrubs readily establish in aging sumac thickets, accelerating the conversion of grassland to woodland. Small amounts of smooth sumac may be desirable because it provides wildlife habitat and food and has attractive fall foliage

Designing and Conducting Experiments for Range Beef Cows

Designing and conducting effective research for range beef systems involves analysis of intended application of the results, identification of factors affecting variation, and selection of appropriate research methods so that precise inferences can be made. Variances associated with time, location, animal, and error in grazing research can be high. Variation due to treatment × location and treatment × time interactions is reduced by increasing the number of locations and periods tested. Random error is reduced by increasing the total number of observations. Animals, pastures, and weather are significant sources of variation in grazing studies. Factors that influence nutrient requirements or nutrient intake of cows are potential sources of variation. Amount and quality of herbage produced are highly variable within and among years and are closely related to the amount and pattern of precipitation. Vegetative measurements (e.g., cover or standing biomass) should be planned as a step in developing experimental designs and to aid in experimental layout and interpretation of the data. Vegetation sampling should be less intensive and largely descriptive in large study areas when the objectives are to measure a livestock production response and vegetation responses are considered incidental. As the priority of the objectives moves toward emphasizing plant response and the size of the study area declines, the intensity of sampling on a land unit basis increases and the need for precision increases. Generally, multiple years of study are required to address between-year variances. Experimental units and replication are key to effective experimentation. Without replication in space and(or) time, there would be no estimate of experimental error. In supplementation studies on range, experimental units are generally animals, pastures, or ranches. Animal, pasture, and ranch have advantages and disadvantages as experimental units. The advantages and disadvantages are related to hypothesis, objectives, inference, resources, number of animals, and number of treatments. When economic evaluations are part of systems research, economists should be involved in planning the experiment and formulating hypotheses. Hypotheses and interpretation of biological data may be different than for economic data. Costs need to be estimated for correct unit of output, and cost alone may be insufficient to properly rank the economic outcomes of the research