Factors important for bull purchasing decisions and management in extensive rangeland production systems of New Mexico: a producer survey.

There were 463,000 head of beef cows in New Mexico as of January 1, 2021 (NASS, 2020), down roughly 4% from 2020 (NASS, 2019). Frequent drought often results in herd reduction and loss of valuable genetic progress. Bull selection is critical due to their influence on herd development. A survey was conducted to identify traits important to bull selection in New Mexico. Surveys were collected digitally (n = 83) and via the mail (n = 74). Responses were largely by cow/calf producers averaging 57 ± 1 years old with 24 ± 1 years' experience. Survey respondents represented 4,384,296 acres of private owned, private leased, and leased public rangeland and irrigated pasture meadow in New Mexico and surrounding states. Average cow/calf operation size was 294 ± 39 head and average bull herd size was 21 ± 3 head. Average price paid for a bull in the past 2 years was $3,981 ± 213. Physical characteristics, individual bull performance information, and genetic information are all important traits to New Mexico bull buyers; however, most producers (56%) indicated that structural soundness was the most important factor influencing their selection decisions. Amongst expected progeny differences (EPDs), New Mexico producers consider the calving ease direct (CED) and birth weight (BW) EPDS to be most important (40% and 35%, respectively). Producers also indicated that multitrait selection indexes used by the American Angus Association were important to their selection decisions, with the beef value ($B) and weaned calf value ($W) indexes being cited most often (35% and 31%, respectively). Elements important to bull purchase include the bull's sale preview (87%), body condition score (86%), feed efficiency/average daily gain information (85%), and actual scrotal circumference (82%). Following purchase of a new bull, most (60%) keep the bull separate from the cow herd until the following breeding season, while the remaining 40% of producers turn newly purchased bulls out within 30 days of purchase. Sixty eight percent of producers evaluate semen quality annually or prior to the start of the breeding season. Interestingly, 39% of producers indicated they used reproductive technologies like artificial insemination and synchronization of estrus while most (80%) test for trichomoniasis. The primary factor influencing culling decisions is age, followed by soundness and fertility.

Bull selection and management in extensive rangeland production systems of California: a producer survey.

California's approximately 660,000 head of beef cattle are highly dependent on range bulls used to produce offspring that can perform across the state's diverse ecological regions. Bulls need to be functional on rugged coastal landscapes, rolling foothills, deserts, and in high-elevation terrain. Few data exist that indicate factors related to selection, maintenance, and longevity of bulls used in rangeland landscapes. Objectives herein, were to assess factors influencing bull purchasing, management, and culling decisions of California beef producers. Surveys were mailed to the California Cattlemen's Association membership (N = 1,410) with ~ 16% response rate (N = 227). Mean age and years of bull selection experience of respondents was 61 ± 1 yr and 27 ± 1 yr, respectively. Respondents managed cattle on a total of 694,949 hectare of owned, private leased, and leased public rangelands in California and surrounding states. Cow-calf herd size was 333 ± 92 head and bull battery averaged 18 ± 2 head with average bull longevity of 5 ± 1.3 yr. The average price paid for bulls in the last 2 yr was $5007 ± 163.33, while the highest price paid in the last 5 yr was $7291 ± 335.40. Survey responses were used to define current factors driving management after purchase and for subsequent breeding seasons. After bull purchase, 48% of producers turned bulls out directly with females, while 52% held bulls until the following breeding season. Additionally, most producers (70%) did not manage bulls to reduce condition after purchase. Semen quality analysis, a major component of a breeding soundness exam, was evaluated annually by 45% of respondents, while 20% of respondents never evaluated semen quality. Respondents indicated bull age (35%) and structural soundness (29%) as the most common factors for culling bulls. This research shows that despite the variability in operation demographics, there were similarities in beef bull selection and management across the state. Additionally, these data suggest the need for additional research focused on bull selection and management to maximize producer investment in reproduction.

Practitioner Insights into Weed Management on California's Rangelands and Natural Areas.

Working rangelands and natural areas span diverse ecosystems and face both ecological and economic threats from weed invasion. Restoration practitioners and land managers hold a voluminous cache of place-based weed management experience and knowledge that has largely been untapped by the research community. We surveyed 260 California rangeland managers and restoration practitioners to investigate invasive and weedy species of concern, land management goals, perceived effectiveness of existing practices (i.e., prescribed fire, grazing, herbicide use, and seeding), and barriers to practice implementation. Respondents identified 196 problematic plants, with yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis L.) and medusahead (Elymus caput-medusae L.) most commonly listed. Reported adoption and effectiveness of weed management practices varied regionally, but the most highly rated practice in general was herbicide use; however, respondents identified considerable challenges including nontarget effects, cost, and public perception. Livestock forage production was the most commonly reported management goals (64% of respondents), and 25% of respondents were interested in additional information on using grazing to manage invasive and weedy species; however, 19% of respondents who had used grazing for weed management did not perceive it to be an effective tool. Across management practices, we also found common barriers to implementation, including operational barriers (e.g., permitting, water availability), potential adverse impacts, actual effectiveness, and public perception. Land manager and practitioner identified commonalities of primary weeds, management goals, perceived practice effectiveness, and implementation barriers across diverse bioregions highlight major needs that could be immediately addressed through management-science partnerships across the state's expansive rangelands and natural areas.