RANCHERS EVALUATE REMOTE STOCK WATER MONITORS DURING

FIRST YEAR OF OPERATIONKevin Heaton

Utah State University ExtensionKane, 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)

Antenna

Solar Panel

Battery

Satellite Radio

Computer Board

Pressure Transducer

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

• 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)

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

Changed battery

Week cloudy weather

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