Transcript REMOTE STOCK WATER MONITORING – ADAPTING …

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
Solar
Panel
Battery
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
SWM Data Example Graph
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 – Unreliable Reporting
Problem SWM – Low Battery
Week cloudy weather
Changed battery
Problem SWM – Data Spikes
Mounted
antenna to top of
tank
Pressure Sensor Going Bad
Rancher Undoing Everything to See
Why It Works
Vandalism -- Every Rancher’s Concern
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