Western Kansas and much of the High Plains have been locked in drought conditions for months, and the forecast offers little relief. With an El Niño pattern predicted to settle in later this summer, the rainfall deficit that plagued winter pastures is likely to carry forward - putting cattle producers under real pressure to reassess how many animals their land can actually support this grazing season.
Why the First Half of the Season Determines the Whole Year
The relationship between spring precipitation and end-of-season forage yield is more direct than many producers account for until they're already short on grass. Keith Harmoney, range scientist at Kansas State University's Agricultural Research Center in Hays, made that connection explicit during a recent webinar on grazing strategy. The April-through-June window is not just early season - it is the period that largely sets the ceiling on what pastures can produce by fall.
Harmoney's central argument is straightforward: producers typically lock in stocking rate decisions before a single blade of grass has emerged, relying on long-term averages or historical forage data. That works in average years. It breaks down fast when conditions don't cooperate. And here's the catch - stocking to average production in a below-average year doesn't just stress cattle. It stresses the root system of the grass itself, sometimes for more than one season.
The target most producers work toward is a 50/50 split: roughly half of available forage consumed, half left standing. That residual isn't just a buffer. Leaving leaf material above ground sustains photosynthesis, which drives carbohydrate production, which feeds the root system. Harmoney noted that between one-half and two-thirds of a grass plant's dry matter exists below ground. Roots need a continuous energy supply - not only to maintain themselves, but to replace the portions that naturally decay. Overgrazing doesn't just reduce next week's feed supply; it can compromise root mass and soil moisture capture going into the following season.
The Infiltration Problem That Compounds a Dry Year
In drought years, rain tends to arrive in short, intense bursts rather than slow, sustained events. How much of that rain actually enters the soil - rather than running off - depends significantly on ground cover. Research cited by Harmoney found that heavily stocked, close-grazed pastures allowed only about three-quarters of an inch of water to infiltrate the soil. That's a meaningful number in a year when every rainfall event counts and evaporation claims whatever doesn't soak in quickly.
Maintaining adequate residual cover keeps soil surface conditions favorable for infiltration, which directly translates into soil moisture, which directly translates into plant growth. In a dry year, the pastures that were managed conservatively going into the season are the ones most capable of converting a scattered rainfall event into actual forage. The ones that were pushed hard have less leaf cover, compacted surface conditions, and weaker root systems - a compounding disadvantage at exactly the wrong time.
Harmoney's Decision Tree: Making Tough Calls More Objective
Harmoney uses what he calls a decision tree to help producers move stocking decisions from gut feel toward something more systematic. It starts not with current conditions, but with how pastures ended the prior season. Did they carry adequate leaf material through dormancy? Were they stressed by drought, grasshopper pressure, or extended grazing pressure from delayed crop residue access? Pastures that entered winter with depleted carbohydrate reserves are working from a deficit before the new season begins.
Fifty years of research data from the Hays station supports the principle that soil moisture stored during the dormant season correlates with early spring growth and, by extension, overall seasonal production. When that stored moisture is missing - as it is across much of western Kansas this year - Harmoney recommends two responses: delay turnout to give grass more time to establish early growth, or reduce stocking rates by a modest percentage from the outset. Neither is dramatic in isolation. Together, they can prevent a manageable early-season deficit from becoming a full pasture recovery problem that carries into the following year.
Practical Adjustments When Destocking Is the Answer
Producers who determine that their stocking rate needs to come down have several options, and some carry secondary business benefits worth considering separately from the drought response itself.
- Early weaning: Harmoney estimates early weaning can reduce forage demand by 25% to 35%. The pressure relief comes primarily from the cow side - lactating cows carry significantly higher nutritional demands than dry ones. Calves can be moved to a feedlot or to an area outside the drought zone. Early weaning also opens the door to early pregnancy testing and more deliberate culling decisions.
- Strategic culling: A destocking event is a reasonable occasion to remove poor performers - animals with low weaned-calf-to-cow-weight ratios, structural problems, or poor udder condition. Culling those animals first preserves genetics and herd quality while reducing forage demand.
- Incorporating stockers or replacement heifers: Harmoney pointed out that maintaining a class of young animals in the broader production system provides flexibility that cow-calf pairs alone don't offer. In drought years, those stocker groups can be destocked or relocated, and the recovered acres reallocated to the core cow-calf herd without sacrificing retained genetics.
- Dry-lotting or relocating cows: Rotating entire herds out of stressed pastures and allowing those acres to rest can give grass a chance to recover during the season rather than waiting for the following year.
The underlying logic Harmoney returns to is sustainability over time. A moderate stocking rate, consistently applied and adjusted against actual conditions, produces better long-run outcomes than pushing capacity in favorable years and scrambling to recover in lean ones. Weather will not cooperate on a reliable schedule. The grazing plan has to account for that before conditions force the issue.
