• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Summary and recommendations
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Effects of stocking rates...
 Effects of grazing on future...
 Value of the range resource
 Value of future production
 Acknowledgement






Title: Economic analysis of year-long grazing rate studies on Substation No. 14, near Sonora
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054836/00001
 Material Information
Title: Economic analysis of year-long grazing rate studies on Substation No. 14, near Sonora
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Merrill, Leo B.
Publisher: Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College
Publication Date: 1961
 Subjects
Subject: Farming   ( lcsh )
Agriculture   ( lcsh )
Farm life   ( lcsh )
 Notes
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00054836
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 10973808

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Summary and recommendations
        Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Page 3
    Introduction
        Page 3
        Alternative management decisions facing ranchmen
            Page 3
        Pasture productivity using different types of livestock
            Page 3
            Page 4
    Effects of stocking rates of productivity
        Page 5
        Pastures stocked with cattle alone, sheep Alone, and cattle and goats
            Page 6
    Effects of grazing on future production
        Page 7
    Value of the range resource
        Page 7
    Value of future production
        Page 8
    Acknowledgement
        Page 8
Full Text
MP-484 FEBRUARY 1961


Economic


Analysis


Year-long


Grazing


Rate


Studies


On Substation


Near


No. 14,


Sonora


THE AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS
TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
R. D. LEWIS, DIRECTOR. COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS


of












Summary and Recommendations


A study is being conducted on Substation No.
14, near Sonora, Texas, to determine the effects of
combination grazing as contrasted to grazing of
single classes of livestock at different rates of stock-
ing. This report covers the results of research for
the first 7 years, 1949-50 through 1955-56.

This study reveals that pastures were more pro-
ductive when stocked with a combination than when
stocked with only one kind of livestock. Different
stocking rates showed significant differences in their
effects on range condition. Relating these items,
an adjusted gross return per acre, taking into con-
sideration changes in range condition, for each pas-
ture was computed. After this adjustment, signifi-
cant differences remained between kinds and com-
binations of livestock grazed, Table 10. Pastures
stocked with cattle, sheep and goats remained the
most productive, followed by cattle and goats,
sheep, and cattle, respectively.

There was little difference in production of ani-
mal products between pastures stocked at the heavy
and moderate rates, with the exception of the pas-
tures stocked with cattle alone. Pastures stocked
with cattle alone had higher adjusted gross returns
under moderate than under heavy stocking. All of
the pastures stocked at the lightest rate yielded ad-
justed gross returns per acre significantly lower than
the moderate or heaviest rates.
Costs such as labor, interest on investment and
veterinary costs influence management decisions.
Under the price relationships prevailing at the time
of this study, the investment per animal unit of cattle
was considerably greater than the investment per
animal unit of goats. Consideration of these factors
would have made the moderately stocked pastures
appear even more favorable in this comparison.
In order to maximize production per acre on
rangelands, ranchmen should consider stocking the


types of livestock which are best adapted to the
type of vegetation present. For example, pure
grasslands are best adapted to cattle production:
cattle and sheep do well where weeds are present;
and cattle, sheep and goats are adapted where
grass, weeds and palatable browse are present.
On rangelands similar to those on the Sonora
station, ranchmen should consider stocking a com-
bination of cattle, sheep and goats, rather than
cattle or sheep alone. In particular years, due to
changes in price relationships or other factors, stock-
ing with individual species might yield higher re-
turns. However, for proper range use and maxi-
mum production over many years, a combination of
livestock should be grazed.
There was little difference in production value
per acre under moderate and heavy stocking dur-
ing the period covered by this study. Ranchmen
would be wiser to stock moderately during periods
of similar climatic conditions, however, since range
condition improved under moderate stocking and
deteriorated under heaviest stocking.
Probably it would be possible to stock at a
heavier rate and thus increase production without
lowering range condition in years when moisture
conditions are more favorable. Flexibility in stock-
ing to meet changing rainfall and vegetative condi-
tions is necessary. This may be achieved by care-
ful culling and early sale of culled breeding ani-
mals, holding over calves, lambs, or kids in the fall
or by purchasing other dry stock for sale after quick
gains, or when grazing conditions begin to deterio-
rate. A safe method of achieving this flexibility
would be to utilize 70 percent of the animal units
for the base herd and 30 percent for dry stock. For
example, if a ranch unit were estimated to be capa-
ble of carrying 100 animal units safely, under this
plan 70 animal units would be obtained from the
base herd and 30 animal units from dry stock.











Economic Analysis of Year-Long Grazing Rate Studies

on Substation No. 14, Near Sonora

Leo B. Merrill and Jarvis E. Miller*


IN THE EARLY 1900'S, ranchmen on the Edwards
Plateau recognized the possible value of
grazing cattle, sheep and goats in combination
on a given range, and began bringing in sheep
and goats to graze with their cattle. Since that
time, most of the ranches on the Edwards
Plateau have been grazed with the three types
of livestock.
In order to determine the advantages as well
as the disadvantages of combination grazing,
an experiment was set up on Substation 14,
located between Rock-prings and Sonora, in 1949.
The objectives of this experiment were to de-
termine the effects of combination grazing as
contrasted to grazing of single classes of live-
stock at different rates of stocking. Twelve
80-acre pastures were stocked with cattle, sheep
and goats; cattle and goats; cattle alone and
sheep alone. Each type or combination of live-
stock was stocked at three rates-48, 32 or 16
animal units per section.
The cattle, sheep and goats were castrated
males from yearlings past to twos past. For the
purposes of this study 6 sheep, 6 goats, or 1 steer
were considered to be 1 animal unit.
This report covers the results of the first 7
years of this research. During much of this
period, the area was affected by drouth. The
extent to which these results are applicable to
present and future situations will depend upon
the recurrence of similar conditions. This re-
search is continuing and later results will be
released periodically.

ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS
FACING RANCHMEN
Ranchmen, depending on their goals, values,
circumstances and similar factors make different
decisions concerning stocking rates and livestock
management. One basic problem involves the
decision concerning the intensity of grazing. By
intense grazing, it may be possible to maximize
cash returns over a short time. However, in-
tense grazing will result in damage to the range
resource in terms of a lower carrying capacity,
with the results being felt at a later time. There-
fore, in this area, a ranchman must make a basic
choice between a higher cash return in the short
*Respectively, associate in range management, Substation
14, Sonora, Texas, and associate professor, Department
of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, College Sta-
tion, Texas.


run versus a higher cash return in the longer run.
This analysis was made to assist in making de-
cisions of this type.

PASTURE PRODUCTIVITY USING DIFFERENT
TYPES OF LIVESTOCK
The comparisons of physical production from
similar pastures stocked with different combina-
tions and types of livestock are difficult because
several different products are obtained and it
is difficult to assign values to changes in vegeta-
tive conditions of the range. For example, aver-
age animal production of the three stocking rates
per acre from cattle grazed alone was 9.0 pounds
of beef; from sheep grazed alone, 4.9 pounds of
mutton and 2.7 pounds of wool; from cattle
and goats, 5.0 pounds of beef, 2.1 pounds of
goat and 1.4 pounds of mohair; for cattle, sheep
and goats, 5.6 pounds of beef, 2.0 pounds of mut-
ton, 0.7 pound of wool, 1.1 pounds of goat and
0.7 pound of mohair, Table 1. Different vege-
tative responses have been obtained under these
grazing treatments.
The manager of a ranch must have some
idea of the relative production of livestock prod-
ucts under different systems of stocking, if he
is to make decisions which maximize economic
returns. In order to obtain output information
which would be meaningful and comparable un-
der such conditions, a gross value of production
per acre was computed for each pasture. Prices
m


contents
Summary ................. ........ .. 2
Introduction ................... ......... 3
SAlternative Management Decisions
Facing Ranchmen. .................... 3
Pasture Productivity Using Different
Types of Livestock .................. 3
SEffects of Stocking Rates on Productivity. .5
Pastures Stocked with Cattle Alone ....6
Pastures Stocked with Sheep Alone.... 6
Pastures Stocked with Cattle
and Goats .......................... 6
Effects of Grazing on Future Production... 7
Value of the Range Resource.......... 7
SValue of Future Production............ 8
Acknowledgments ....................... 8











Economic Analysis of Year-Long Grazing Rate Studies

on Substation No. 14, Near Sonora

Leo B. Merrill and Jarvis E. Miller*


IN THE EARLY 1900'S, ranchmen on the Edwards
Plateau recognized the possible value of
grazing cattle, sheep and goats in combination
on a given range, and began bringing in sheep
and goats to graze with their cattle. Since that
time, most of the ranches on the Edwards
Plateau have been grazed with the three types
of livestock.
In order to determine the advantages as well
as the disadvantages of combination grazing,
an experiment was set up on Substation 14,
located between Rock-prings and Sonora, in 1949.
The objectives of this experiment were to de-
termine the effects of combination grazing as
contrasted to grazing of single classes of live-
stock at different rates of stocking. Twelve
80-acre pastures were stocked with cattle, sheep
and goats; cattle and goats; cattle alone and
sheep alone. Each type or combination of live-
stock was stocked at three rates-48, 32 or 16
animal units per section.
The cattle, sheep and goats were castrated
males from yearlings past to twos past. For the
purposes of this study 6 sheep, 6 goats, or 1 steer
were considered to be 1 animal unit.
This report covers the results of the first 7
years of this research. During much of this
period, the area was affected by drouth. The
extent to which these results are applicable to
present and future situations will depend upon
the recurrence of similar conditions. This re-
search is continuing and later results will be
released periodically.

ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS
FACING RANCHMEN
Ranchmen, depending on their goals, values,
circumstances and similar factors make different
decisions concerning stocking rates and livestock
management. One basic problem involves the
decision concerning the intensity of grazing. By
intense grazing, it may be possible to maximize
cash returns over a short time. However, in-
tense grazing will result in damage to the range
resource in terms of a lower carrying capacity,
with the results being felt at a later time. There-
fore, in this area, a ranchman must make a basic
choice between a higher cash return in the short
*Respectively, associate in range management, Substation
14, Sonora, Texas, and associate professor, Department
of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, College Sta-
tion, Texas.


run versus a higher cash return in the longer run.
This analysis was made to assist in making de-
cisions of this type.

PASTURE PRODUCTIVITY USING DIFFERENT
TYPES OF LIVESTOCK
The comparisons of physical production from
similar pastures stocked with different combina-
tions and types of livestock are difficult because
several different products are obtained and it
is difficult to assign values to changes in vegeta-
tive conditions of the range. For example, aver-
age animal production of the three stocking rates
per acre from cattle grazed alone was 9.0 pounds
of beef; from sheep grazed alone, 4.9 pounds of
mutton and 2.7 pounds of wool; from cattle
and goats, 5.0 pounds of beef, 2.1 pounds of
goat and 1.4 pounds of mohair; for cattle, sheep
and goats, 5.6 pounds of beef, 2.0 pounds of mut-
ton, 0.7 pound of wool, 1.1 pounds of goat and
0.7 pound of mohair, Table 1. Different vege-
tative responses have been obtained under these
grazing treatments.
The manager of a ranch must have some
idea of the relative production of livestock prod-
ucts under different systems of stocking, if he
is to make decisions which maximize economic
returns. In order to obtain output information
which would be meaningful and comparable un-
der such conditions, a gross value of production
per acre was computed for each pasture. Prices
m


contents
Summary ................. ........ .. 2
Introduction ................... ......... 3
SAlternative Management Decisions
Facing Ranchmen. .................... 3
Pasture Productivity Using Different
Types of Livestock .................. 3
SEffects of Stocking Rates on Productivity. .5
Pastures Stocked with Cattle Alone ....6
Pastures Stocked with Sheep Alone.... 6
Pastures Stocked with Cattle
and Goats .......................... 6
Effects of Grazing on Future Production... 7
Value of the Range Resource.......... 7
SValue of Future Production............ 8
Acknowledgments ....................... 8











Economic Analysis of Year-Long Grazing Rate Studies

on Substation No. 14, Near Sonora

Leo B. Merrill and Jarvis E. Miller*


IN THE EARLY 1900'S, ranchmen on the Edwards
Plateau recognized the possible value of
grazing cattle, sheep and goats in combination
on a given range, and began bringing in sheep
and goats to graze with their cattle. Since that
time, most of the ranches on the Edwards
Plateau have been grazed with the three types
of livestock.
In order to determine the advantages as well
as the disadvantages of combination grazing,
an experiment was set up on Substation 14,
located between Rock-prings and Sonora, in 1949.
The objectives of this experiment were to de-
termine the effects of combination grazing as
contrasted to grazing of single classes of live-
stock at different rates of stocking. Twelve
80-acre pastures were stocked with cattle, sheep
and goats; cattle and goats; cattle alone and
sheep alone. Each type or combination of live-
stock was stocked at three rates-48, 32 or 16
animal units per section.
The cattle, sheep and goats were castrated
males from yearlings past to twos past. For the
purposes of this study 6 sheep, 6 goats, or 1 steer
were considered to be 1 animal unit.
This report covers the results of the first 7
years of this research. During much of this
period, the area was affected by drouth. The
extent to which these results are applicable to
present and future situations will depend upon
the recurrence of similar conditions. This re-
search is continuing and later results will be
released periodically.

ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS
FACING RANCHMEN
Ranchmen, depending on their goals, values,
circumstances and similar factors make different
decisions concerning stocking rates and livestock
management. One basic problem involves the
decision concerning the intensity of grazing. By
intense grazing, it may be possible to maximize
cash returns over a short time. However, in-
tense grazing will result in damage to the range
resource in terms of a lower carrying capacity,
with the results being felt at a later time. There-
fore, in this area, a ranchman must make a basic
choice between a higher cash return in the short
*Respectively, associate in range management, Substation
14, Sonora, Texas, and associate professor, Department
of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, College Sta-
tion, Texas.


run versus a higher cash return in the longer run.
This analysis was made to assist in making de-
cisions of this type.

PASTURE PRODUCTIVITY USING DIFFERENT
TYPES OF LIVESTOCK
The comparisons of physical production from
similar pastures stocked with different combina-
tions and types of livestock are difficult because
several different products are obtained and it
is difficult to assign values to changes in vegeta-
tive conditions of the range. For example, aver-
age animal production of the three stocking rates
per acre from cattle grazed alone was 9.0 pounds
of beef; from sheep grazed alone, 4.9 pounds of
mutton and 2.7 pounds of wool; from cattle
and goats, 5.0 pounds of beef, 2.1 pounds of
goat and 1.4 pounds of mohair; for cattle, sheep
and goats, 5.6 pounds of beef, 2.0 pounds of mut-
ton, 0.7 pound of wool, 1.1 pounds of goat and
0.7 pound of mohair, Table 1. Different vege-
tative responses have been obtained under these
grazing treatments.
The manager of a ranch must have some
idea of the relative production of livestock prod-
ucts under different systems of stocking, if he
is to make decisions which maximize economic
returns. In order to obtain output information
which would be meaningful and comparable un-
der such conditions, a gross value of production
per acre was computed for each pasture. Prices
m


contents
Summary ................. ........ .. 2
Introduction ................... ......... 3
SAlternative Management Decisions
Facing Ranchmen. .................... 3
Pasture Productivity Using Different
Types of Livestock .................. 3
SEffects of Stocking Rates on Productivity. .5
Pastures Stocked with Cattle Alone ....6
Pastures Stocked with Sheep Alone.... 6
Pastures Stocked with Cattle
and Goats .......................... 6
Effects of Grazing on Future Production... 7
Value of the Range Resource.......... 7
SValue of Future Production............ 8
Acknowledgments ....................... 8











Economic Analysis of Year-Long Grazing Rate Studies

on Substation No. 14, Near Sonora

Leo B. Merrill and Jarvis E. Miller*


IN THE EARLY 1900'S, ranchmen on the Edwards
Plateau recognized the possible value of
grazing cattle, sheep and goats in combination
on a given range, and began bringing in sheep
and goats to graze with their cattle. Since that
time, most of the ranches on the Edwards
Plateau have been grazed with the three types
of livestock.
In order to determine the advantages as well
as the disadvantages of combination grazing,
an experiment was set up on Substation 14,
located between Rock-prings and Sonora, in 1949.
The objectives of this experiment were to de-
termine the effects of combination grazing as
contrasted to grazing of single classes of live-
stock at different rates of stocking. Twelve
80-acre pastures were stocked with cattle, sheep
and goats; cattle and goats; cattle alone and
sheep alone. Each type or combination of live-
stock was stocked at three rates-48, 32 or 16
animal units per section.
The cattle, sheep and goats were castrated
males from yearlings past to twos past. For the
purposes of this study 6 sheep, 6 goats, or 1 steer
were considered to be 1 animal unit.
This report covers the results of the first 7
years of this research. During much of this
period, the area was affected by drouth. The
extent to which these results are applicable to
present and future situations will depend upon
the recurrence of similar conditions. This re-
search is continuing and later results will be
released periodically.

ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS
FACING RANCHMEN
Ranchmen, depending on their goals, values,
circumstances and similar factors make different
decisions concerning stocking rates and livestock
management. One basic problem involves the
decision concerning the intensity of grazing. By
intense grazing, it may be possible to maximize
cash returns over a short time. However, in-
tense grazing will result in damage to the range
resource in terms of a lower carrying capacity,
with the results being felt at a later time. There-
fore, in this area, a ranchman must make a basic
choice between a higher cash return in the short
*Respectively, associate in range management, Substation
14, Sonora, Texas, and associate professor, Department
of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, College Sta-
tion, Texas.


run versus a higher cash return in the longer run.
This analysis was made to assist in making de-
cisions of this type.

PASTURE PRODUCTIVITY USING DIFFERENT
TYPES OF LIVESTOCK
The comparisons of physical production from
similar pastures stocked with different combina-
tions and types of livestock are difficult because
several different products are obtained and it
is difficult to assign values to changes in vegeta-
tive conditions of the range. For example, aver-
age animal production of the three stocking rates
per acre from cattle grazed alone was 9.0 pounds
of beef; from sheep grazed alone, 4.9 pounds of
mutton and 2.7 pounds of wool; from cattle
and goats, 5.0 pounds of beef, 2.1 pounds of
goat and 1.4 pounds of mohair; for cattle, sheep
and goats, 5.6 pounds of beef, 2.0 pounds of mut-
ton, 0.7 pound of wool, 1.1 pounds of goat and
0.7 pound of mohair, Table 1. Different vege-
tative responses have been obtained under these
grazing treatments.
The manager of a ranch must have some
idea of the relative production of livestock prod-
ucts under different systems of stocking, if he
is to make decisions which maximize economic
returns. In order to obtain output information
which would be meaningful and comparable un-
der such conditions, a gross value of production
per acre was computed for each pasture. Prices
m


contents
Summary ................. ........ .. 2
Introduction ................... ......... 3
SAlternative Management Decisions
Facing Ranchmen. .................... 3
Pasture Productivity Using Different
Types of Livestock .................. 3
SEffects of Stocking Rates on Productivity. .5
Pastures Stocked with Cattle Alone ....6
Pastures Stocked with Sheep Alone.... 6
Pastures Stocked with Cattle
and Goats .......................... 6
Effects of Grazing on Future Production... 7
Value of the Range Resource.......... 7
SValue of Future Production............ 8
Acknowledgments ....................... 8









TABLE 1. AVERAGE PRODUCTION PER ACRE, PASTURES STOCKED WITH SELECTED LIVESTOCK BY STOCKING RATE,
1949-50 THROUGH 1955-56
Stocking Cattle Sheep Cattle Cattle, sheep
rate alone alone and goats and goats
Beef Mutton Wool Beef Goats Mohair Beef Mutton Wool Goats Mohair
- - - - Pounds - - - ---
48 animal units 11.3 6.3 4.0 6.3 3.1 2.1 6.7 2.8 1.1 1.7 1.0
32 animal units 9.6 5.3 2.7 6.2 2.4 1.5 6.2 2.2 .8 1.2 .8
16 animal units 6.1 3.1 1.5 2.6 .9 .7 4.0 1.0 .4 .4 .4
Average 9.0 4.9 2.7 5.0 2.1 1.4 5.6 2.0 .7 1.1 .7


used to compute the gross value of production
per acre were averages of the prices reported for
the 7-year yeriod. Specifically, they were:1
Cattle-Average July price of good and choice
500-800 pound feeder steers at Fort Worth
($23.85 per hundredweight).
Sheep-Average July price of good and choice
feeder lambs at Fort Worth ($17.00 per hundred-
weight).
Goats-Average July price of slaughter goats
at San Antonio ($7.50 per hundredweight).
Wool-Average July price received by Texas
ranchmen for grease wool ($ .60 per pound).
Mohair-Average July price received by Tex-
as ranchmen for mohair ($ .90 per pound).
Because of the severe drouth and the extremely
poor grazing conditions, supplementary feeding
was necessary during 3 years. In 1952, only
cattle were fed, and the feeding period lasted
from January 28 through June 8. The following
season (1952-53), all livestock were fed the same
amount per animal unit from December 1 until
April 15. During the 1953-54 season, all live-
stock were again fed from January 12 through
April 24. All feed costs were valued at the price
actually paid for the feed. Feed costs and
shearing charges were deducted from the gross
value of production per pasture to obtain gross
returns.
Estimating future production from grazing
is extremely difficult because of changes in
weather and management practices. However,
in an attempt to determine the future production
from pastures managed in different ways, esti-
mates of expected carrying capacity were made
by an inter-agency committee composed of per-
sonnel of the Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station, Texas Agricultural Extension Service,
Soil Conservation Service, Texas Game and Fish
Commission, Texas Section of the American So-
ciety of Range Management and Texas Education
'Sources of market prices
Cattle-Cattle and calves: Monthly average price per
100 pounds, Fort Worth, Agricultural Marketing
Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
Sheep-Sheep and lambs: Monthly average price per 100
pounds, Fort Worth, AMS, USDA.
Goats-Market News Branch, AMS, USDA.
Wool and Mohair-Mid-Month Local Price Reports (Tex-
as), Agricultural Estimates, AMS, USDA.


Agency. To make these determinations, the
committee surveyed all the pastures in the
grazing study to appraise the current condition
of the range and estimated carrying capacities.
In order to obtain comparable informatic i,
estimates were made of carrying capacities that
would maintain a constant range condition.
These estimates were used to measure the change
in carrying capacity resulting from different
grazing intensities. They are not to be inter-
preted as general recommendations.
The figures showing value of production pro-
vide a means of comparing the productivity of
similar pastures when stocked with different
types and combinations of livestock. During
1949-50 through 1955-56, for example, the aver-
age value of production from pastures stocked
with cattle, sheep and goats was the highest, at
$2.64 per acre, compared with $2.42 for cattle
and goats, $2.34 for sheep alone and $1.79 for
cattle alone, Table 2. Differences in average
value of production per acre were not statistically
significant for sheep alone, cattle and goats or
cattle, sheep and goats. The average value of
production per acre was significantly lower for
cattle alone than for the other livestock com-
binations.
Production of these pastures varied widely
from year-to-year. For example: the average
value of production (from all pastures) ranged
from a low of $1.30 per acre in 1952-53 to a
high of $3.43 per acre in 1955-56. The average
value of production per acre was highest for

TABLE 2. AVERAGE PRODUCTION VALUE PER ACRE OF
PASTURES STOCKED WITH SPECIFIED LIVESTOCK, 1949-50
THROUGH 1955-561

Cattle Cattle,
Years Cattle Sheep and sheep Average
alone alone and
goats goats

- Dollars - -
1949-50 2.97 3.01 3.13 3.43 3.13
1950-51 1.06 1.59 1.85 1.98 1.62
1951-52 .38 1.76 1.98 1.90 1.50
1952-53 .45 1.12 1.74 1.90 1.30
1953-54 2.75 3.17 2.89 3.17 3.00
1954-55 1.54 2.35 2.05 2.40 2.08
1955-56 3.35 3.36 3.32 3.69 3.43
Average 1.79 2.34 2.42 2.64 2.36
'Average of three stocking rates.









cattle, sheep and goats grazed in combination.
Production tended to be most variable in the
pastures where cattle alone were grazed. In
those pastures, the value of production ranged
between $3.35 and 38 cents per acre. Average
annual deviation from the average for the period
was $1.06 for cattle; 77 cents for cattle, sheep
and goats; 72 cents for sheep; and 59 cents for
cattle and goats.
The pastures in which cattle, sheep and goats
were grazed had the highest average value of
production per acre for the 7-year period, but
they did not have the highest value each year.
In 1951-52, pastures stocked with cattle and goats
had a slightly higher value and in 1953-54, pas-
tures stocked with sheep alone had the same
values of production per acre as those stocked
with cattle, sheep and goats.
There was no noticeable difference in trends
in livestock production from the pastures stocked
with different types and combinations of live-
stock, Figure 1. However, pastures stocked heavily
with cattle alone and sheep alone showed definite
decreases in productivity in 1951-53. There also
have been changes in the range conditions and
carrying capacities of the different pastures
which will be discussed later.

EFFECTS OF STOCKING RATES ON
PRODUCTIVITY
In an economic comparison of stocking rates,
it must be remembered that carrying capacity
will vary from one ranch to another, therefore,
the figures used here for moderate or heavy
grazing rates might not apply elsewhere. It is
also difficult to take into consideration the
possible deterioration or improvement of the
forage resource during a short period. For this
reason, the use of animal production data alone
may lead to erroneous conclusions.
Vegetation surveys have revealed that there
has been a marked change in range condition
and estimated carrying capacity on the experi-
mental pastures stocked at the three rates. The
average estimated carrying capacity of the
heavily stocked pastures was 20 percent lower
in 1956 than in 1949. The carrying capacity
of the moderately stocked pastures did not change
and that of the lightly stocked pastures had
increased slightly during that period.
It is significant that during the severe drouth
years of 1951-54, it was necessary to provide
supplemental feed in the heavily grazed pastures
to prevent severe death losses. Feeding was not
necessary in the moderately and lightly grazed
pastures, but the animals were fed the same
amount per head as on heavily grazed pastures
in an attempt to keep influences comparable.
It appears that castrated males of the age limit
used, reacted more slowly to deteriorating range
conditions than breeding animals would have.


4.00


0


1949-50 1950-51


1951-52 1952-53 1953-54 1954-55 1955-56


Figure 1. Average value of production per acre of pas-
tures stocked with specified livestock, averages of stocking
rates.

It is also significant that the moderately and
lightly grazed pastures carried an estimated 5
and 11 animal units, respectively, of deer during
the period; while deer would not remain on the
heavily grazed pastures. Thus, the moderately
grazed pastures actually carried 37 animal units
and lightly grazed pastures carried 26 animal
units per section during the period.2 No attempt
has been made to assign an economic value to
deer units, or to give credit to the lightly and
moderately grazed pastures as a result of car-
rying these units of deer.
During the period of study, animal production
per acre tended to be greater when pastures
were stocked at 48 compared with 32 and 16
animal units per section, Table 3. It is difficult
to make direct comparisons of production from
the pastures stocked with different kinds and
combinations of livestock. Expressing produc-
tion in terms of average values shows that the
pastures stocked at 48 units per section produced
an average annual value of $3.03 as compared
to $2.49 for pasture stocked at 32 units. How-
'Merrill, L. B. and Young, V. A., Range Management
Studies on the Ranch Experiment Station, Texas Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas,
Progress Report 1449, 1952. Merrill, L. B. and Young,
V. A., Results of Grazing Single Classes of Livestock in
Combination with Several Classes When Stocking Rates
Are Constant, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station,
College Station, Texas, Progress Report, 1726, 1954.
Merrill, L. B., et al., Livestock and Deer Ratios for Texas
Range Lands, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station,
College Station, Texas, MP-221, 1957.

TABLE 3. AVERAGE GROSS PRODUCTION VALUE PER
ACRE BY STOCKING RATE, 1949-50 THROUGH 1955-561

Stocking rate
Years 48 32 16
- Dollars - -
1949-50 4.51 3.24 1.66
1950-51 2.14 1.70 1.02
1951-52 1.95 1.58 .99
1952-53 1.20 1.65 1.05
1953-54 3.77 3.41 1.81
1954-55 2.63 2.40 1.23
1955-56 4.98 3.45 1.86
Average 3.03 2.49 1.37

'Averages of grazing treatments.


CATTLE
SHEEP a
\ GOATS
NX CATTLE *
AND
GOATS /'i' \ .
\..
---

SHEEP ',
ALONE
CATTLE
ALONE















S3.00
o \ o ,,, \ '
W MODERATE
2.00 -
1.O0 --------- LT
1.00
.00 LIGHT.


1949-50 1950-51 1951-52 1952-53 1953-54 1954-55 1955-56
Figure 2. Average value of production per acre at
heavy, moderate and light rates of stocking.

ever, this difference was not statistically sig-
nificant. These stocking rates, however, yielded
results which were significantly greater than the
$1.37 for pastures stocked at 16 units. Pastures
stocked at the heaviest rate had the highest
average production except in 1952-53, when pas-
tures stocked at 32 animal units were higher,
Figure 2.
Production from the pastures stocked at 48
animal units per section was more variable from
year-to-year than that from the other rates.
Annual deviation from the average was $1.20
per acre for the heavy rate, 75 cents for the
moderate rate and 34 cents for the light rate.
These data indicated little difference between
trends in the average production of pastures
stocked at the heavy and moderate rates. There
is some indication of a slight upward trend in
the average animal production from the lightly
stocked pastures, but it has not been great.

Pastures Stocked with Cattle Alone
When pastures were stocked with cattle alone,
about the same average production value per
acre was obtained from both the 32 and 48
animal units per section rates, $2.23 from the
heaviest stocked and $2 from the moderately
stocked pastures, Table 4. This difference was
not statistically significant. Light stocking rates

TABLE 4. AVERAGE GROSS PRODUCTION VALUE PER
ACRE, PASTURES STOCKED WITH CATTLE AT THREE
STOCKING RATES, 1949-50 THROUGH 1955-56

Stocking rate
Years 48 32 16
- Dollars - -
1949-50 4.62 2.71 1.60
1950-51 1.36 1.12 .71
1951-52 .05 .59 .52
1952-53 .37 .84 .88
1953-54 3.54 3.76 1.94
1954-55 1.31 1.80 1.50
1955-56 5.08 3.10 1.86
Average 2.23 2.00 1.29


exceeded the production from the heavy or mod-
erate rates in the 1952-53 season. The heavy
rate yielded the highest average gross value the
first 2 years and in 1955-56, but the moderate
rate was higher between 1951-52 and 1954-55.
This emphasizes the fact that cattle must have
good range conditions in order to obtain maxi-
mum productivity.
While there is little indication of separate
trends in the average gross value from the three
pastures, there have been significant changes in
their range conditions. Carrying capacity of
the pasture grazed at the heaviest rate is esti-
mated to have declined about 20 percent after
7 years of stocking at the heavy rate. The
carrying capacity of the pasture stocked at the
moderate rate has remained about the same as
it was at the start of the experiment, while the
carrying capacity of the lightly stocked pasture
has increased about 7 percent.
Pastures Stocked with Sheep Alone
When sheep were grazed alone, the highest
average gross value per acre was obtained from
the pastures stocked at 48 animal units per
section, Table 5. This rate yielded an average
of $3.28 per acre, compared with $2.37 for the
32 animal units and $1.35 for the 16 animal units.
The heaviest rate of stocking yielded the highest
gross value each year except during 1952-53,
when the moderate rate was higher. However,
differences between the heaviest and the mod-
erate rates were not statistically significant.
Gross returns varied greatly from year-to-
year for all three rates of stocking. However,
there was less variation at the light rate. While
there appeared to be no definite trends in gross
returns of the pastures stocked at the three
rates, the estimated carrying capacity in the
pasture stocked at the heavy rate had declined
about 26 percent during the 7 years, that of the
moderately stocked pasture declined about 7 per-
cent, while that of the lightly stocked pasture
increased about 7 percent.
Pastures Stocked with Cattle and Goats
When cattle and goats were grazed together,
the highest average gross return per acre was
obtained from the pastures stocked at 48 animal

TABLE 5. AVERAGE GROSS PRODUCTION VALUE PER
ACRE, PASTURES STOCKED WITH SHEEP AT THREE
STOCKING RATES, 1949-50 THROUGH 1955-56

Stocking rate
Years 48 32 16
- Dollars - -
1949-50 4.53 3.11 1.38
1950-51 2.27 1.50 .99
1951-52 2.56 1.56 1.15
1952-53 1.05 1.27 1.03
1953-54 4.38 3.39 1.75
1954-55 3.20 2.54 1.32
1955-56 4.98 3.25 1.86
Average 3.28 2.37 1.35










TABLE 6. AVERAGE GROSS PRODUCTION VALUE PER
ACRE, PASTURES STOCKED WITH CATTLE AND GOATS
BY STOCKING RATE, 1949-50 THROUGH 1955-56

Stocking rate
Years 48 32 16

- Dollars - -
1949-50 4.36 3.62 1.41
1950-51 2.40 2.04 1.11
1951-52 2.60 2.27 1.08
1952-53 1.85 2.33 1.04
1953-54 4.00 3.17 1.50
1954-55 2.86 2.40 .89
1955-56 4.90 3.45 1.61
Average 3.28 2.76 1.23


units per section, $3.28 versus $2.76 for the 32
and $1.23 for the 16 animal units per section,
Table 6. The heaviest rate yielded the highest
gross return every year except 1952-53, when
the moderate rate was higher, Table 6. How-
ever, differences between the heaviest and mod-
erate rates were not statistically significant.
Carrying capacity of the pastures stocked at the
heaviest rate declined about 20 percent. The
moderately stocked pasture's carrying capacity
remained about the same, and that of the lightly
stocked pasture increased slightly.

EFFECTS OF GRAZING ON FUTURE PRODUCTION
While these data represent actual production
from these pastures, they do not reflect the
changes in range conditions which were observed.
In order to obtain a measure of the changes in
range conditions, estimates of future carrying
capacities were made for each pasture.
Pastures stocked at the heavy rate were esti-
mated to have declined approximately 21 percent
in carrying capacity, Table 8. The pasture
stocked only with sheep had declined approxi-
mately 26 percent, while those stocked with other
kinds and combinations had declined 19 percent.
Pastures stocked only with sheep at the mod-
erate rate had declined approximately 7 percent,
while the carrying capacities of the pastures
stocked with other kinds and combinations of
livestock showed no decline.

TABLE 7. AVERAGE GROSS PRODUCTION VALUE PER
ACRE, PASTURES STOCKED WITH CATTLE, SHEEP AND
GOATS BY STOCKING RATE, 1949-50 THROUGH 1955-56

Stocking rate
Years 48 32 16

- Dollars - -
1949-50 4.53 3.52 2.25
1950-51 2.53 2.15 1.26
1951-52 2.58 1.91 1.21
1952-53 2.27 2.18 1.24
1953-54 4.15 3.33 2.04
1954-55 3.16 2.84 1.19
1955-56 4.98 3.98 2.10
Average 3.46 2.84 1.61


TABLE 8. CHANGES IN CARRYING CAPACITIES (ANIMAL
UNITS PER SECTION) FROM DIFFERENT GRAZING TREAT-
MENTS, 1949-56
Estimated carrying capacity'
Treatment 1949 1956 Changes

Units - Percent
48 Animal units
per section
Sheep alone 42.0 31.0 -11.0 -26.2
Cattle alone 42.0 34.0 8.0 -19.0
Cattle and goats 42.0 34.0 8.0 -19.0
Cattle, sheep
and goats 42.0 34.0 8.0 -19.0
Average 42.0 33.3 8.7 -20.7
32 Animal units
per section
Sheep alone 42.0 39.0 3 7.1
Cattle alone 42.0 42.0 0 0
Cattle and goats 42.0 42.0 0 0
Cattle, sheep
and goats 42.0 42.0 0 0
Average 42.0 41.2 .8 1.8
16 Animal units
per section
Sheep alone 42.0 45.0 3 + 7.1
Cattle alone 42.0 45.0 + 3 + 7.1
Cattle and goats 42.0 45.0 + 3 + 7.1
Cattle, sheep
and goats 42.0 45.0 + 3 + 7.1
Average 42.0 45.0 + 3 + 7.1

'Estimated carrying capacity, animal units per section, that
would maintain a constant range condition.

All of the lightly stocked pastures were esti-
mated to have increased in carrying capacity
approximately 7 percent.

Value of the Range Resource
An attempt was made to evaluate the effects
of the different grazing treatments on the value
of the range resources. A rental value of $1
per acre was assumed for 1949. Since it was
estimated that the heaviest grazed pastures had
declined an average of 21 percent in carrying
capacity by 1956, the 1956 value was assumed
to be 79 cents per acre. In the same manner,
the 1956 value of the moderately stocked pastures
was assumed to be 98 cents per acre, and that of
the lightly stocked pastures was assumed to be
$1.07.

TABLE 9. CHANGES IN CAPITALIZED VALUE' OF PASTURE
PER ACRE RESULTING FROM DIFFERENCES IN STOCKING
RATES, 1949-56

Change
Stocking rate 1949' 19563
Total Per year

- Dollars - -
48 20.00 15.86 -4.14 -0.59
32 20.00 19.65 -0.35 -0.05
16 20.00 21.42 +1.42 +0.20

'Based on rental values.
'Based on a rental value of $1 per acre and capitalized at 5
percent.
'Based on changes in estimated carrying capacity between
1949-56.










TABLE 6. AVERAGE GROSS PRODUCTION VALUE PER
ACRE, PASTURES STOCKED WITH CATTLE AND GOATS
BY STOCKING RATE, 1949-50 THROUGH 1955-56

Stocking rate
Years 48 32 16

- Dollars - -
1949-50 4.36 3.62 1.41
1950-51 2.40 2.04 1.11
1951-52 2.60 2.27 1.08
1952-53 1.85 2.33 1.04
1953-54 4.00 3.17 1.50
1954-55 2.86 2.40 .89
1955-56 4.90 3.45 1.61
Average 3.28 2.76 1.23


units per section, $3.28 versus $2.76 for the 32
and $1.23 for the 16 animal units per section,
Table 6. The heaviest rate yielded the highest
gross return every year except 1952-53, when
the moderate rate was higher, Table 6. How-
ever, differences between the heaviest and mod-
erate rates were not statistically significant.
Carrying capacity of the pastures stocked at the
heaviest rate declined about 20 percent. The
moderately stocked pasture's carrying capacity
remained about the same, and that of the lightly
stocked pasture increased slightly.

EFFECTS OF GRAZING ON FUTURE PRODUCTION
While these data represent actual production
from these pastures, they do not reflect the
changes in range conditions which were observed.
In order to obtain a measure of the changes in
range conditions, estimates of future carrying
capacities were made for each pasture.
Pastures stocked at the heavy rate were esti-
mated to have declined approximately 21 percent
in carrying capacity, Table 8. The pasture
stocked only with sheep had declined approxi-
mately 26 percent, while those stocked with other
kinds and combinations had declined 19 percent.
Pastures stocked only with sheep at the mod-
erate rate had declined approximately 7 percent,
while the carrying capacities of the pastures
stocked with other kinds and combinations of
livestock showed no decline.

TABLE 7. AVERAGE GROSS PRODUCTION VALUE PER
ACRE, PASTURES STOCKED WITH CATTLE, SHEEP AND
GOATS BY STOCKING RATE, 1949-50 THROUGH 1955-56

Stocking rate
Years 48 32 16

- Dollars - -
1949-50 4.53 3.52 2.25
1950-51 2.53 2.15 1.26
1951-52 2.58 1.91 1.21
1952-53 2.27 2.18 1.24
1953-54 4.15 3.33 2.04
1954-55 3.16 2.84 1.19
1955-56 4.98 3.98 2.10
Average 3.46 2.84 1.61


TABLE 8. CHANGES IN CARRYING CAPACITIES (ANIMAL
UNITS PER SECTION) FROM DIFFERENT GRAZING TREAT-
MENTS, 1949-56
Estimated carrying capacity'
Treatment 1949 1956 Changes

Units - Percent
48 Animal units
per section
Sheep alone 42.0 31.0 -11.0 -26.2
Cattle alone 42.0 34.0 8.0 -19.0
Cattle and goats 42.0 34.0 8.0 -19.0
Cattle, sheep
and goats 42.0 34.0 8.0 -19.0
Average 42.0 33.3 8.7 -20.7
32 Animal units
per section
Sheep alone 42.0 39.0 3 7.1
Cattle alone 42.0 42.0 0 0
Cattle and goats 42.0 42.0 0 0
Cattle, sheep
and goats 42.0 42.0 0 0
Average 42.0 41.2 .8 1.8
16 Animal units
per section
Sheep alone 42.0 45.0 3 + 7.1
Cattle alone 42.0 45.0 + 3 + 7.1
Cattle and goats 42.0 45.0 + 3 + 7.1
Cattle, sheep
and goats 42.0 45.0 + 3 + 7.1
Average 42.0 45.0 + 3 + 7.1

'Estimated carrying capacity, animal units per section, that
would maintain a constant range condition.

All of the lightly stocked pastures were esti-
mated to have increased in carrying capacity
approximately 7 percent.

Value of the Range Resource
An attempt was made to evaluate the effects
of the different grazing treatments on the value
of the range resources. A rental value of $1
per acre was assumed for 1949. Since it was
estimated that the heaviest grazed pastures had
declined an average of 21 percent in carrying
capacity by 1956, the 1956 value was assumed
to be 79 cents per acre. In the same manner,
the 1956 value of the moderately stocked pastures
was assumed to be 98 cents per acre, and that of
the lightly stocked pastures was assumed to be
$1.07.

TABLE 9. CHANGES IN CAPITALIZED VALUE' OF PASTURE
PER ACRE RESULTING FROM DIFFERENCES IN STOCKING
RATES, 1949-56

Change
Stocking rate 1949' 19563
Total Per year

- Dollars - -
48 20.00 15.86 -4.14 -0.59
32 20.00 19.65 -0.35 -0.05
16 20.00 21.42 +1.42 +0.20

'Based on rental values.
'Based on a rental value of $1 per acre and capitalized at 5
percent.
'Based on changes in estimated carrying capacity between
1949-56.










TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF AVERAGE AND ADJUSTED1
GROSS RETURNS PER ACRE, BY TYPE OF LIVESTOCK, BY
STOCKING RATE, SONORA, 1949-50 THROUGH 1955-56

Cattle Cattle,
Stocking rate Cattle Sheep and sheep Average
and g
goats goats

- -Dollars - -
48 Animal units
per section
Gross return 2.23 3.28 3.28 3.46 3.06
Change in pasture
value -.54 -.75 -.54 -.54 -.59
Adjusted gross
return 1.69 2.53 2.74 2.92 2.47
32 Animal units
per section
Gross return 2.00 2.37 2.76 2.84 2.49
Change in
pasture value 0 -.20 0 0 -.05
Adjusted
gross return 2.00 2.17 2.76 2.84 2.44
16 Animal units
per section
Gross return 1.29 1.35 1.23 1.61 1.37
Change in
pasture value +.20 +.20 +.20 +.20 +.20
Adjusted
gross return 1.49 1.55 1.43 1.81 1.57
'Considering changes in pasture value.

Capitalizing these rental values at 5 percent
shows that the value of the range in the heaviest
stocked pastures declined $4.14 per acre or 59
cents per acre per year during the period of the
study, Table 9. The capitalized value of the
moderately stocked pastures declined only slightly
(35 cents or 5 cents per year), while the lightest
stocked pastures increased an average of 20 cents
per year.
When these changes in the value of the range
resource are related to the value of production,
any advantage of the heavy stocking rate is
overcome. The extra cash returns from heavier
stocking were obtained through consumption of
the basic range resource. When this value is
considered, the average value of production per
acre per year for the pastures stocked at the
heavy and moderate rates were approximately
the same, $2.47 versus $2.44. For the lightest
stocked pasture, the value remained low, $1.57
per acre, indicating that the slightly increased
carrying capacity achieved at that rate of
stocking was not enough to offset the reduction
in livestock production, Table 10.
Value of Future Production
Based on the future stocking rates which it
was estimated would maintain a constant range
condition, and the average value of production
per animal during the 1949-50 through 1955-56


Vo


TABLE 11. ESTIMATED FUTURE, 20-YEAR VALUE OF PRO-
DUCTION PER ACRE' FROM PASTURES STOCKED WITH
SPECIFIED GRAZING TREATMENTS '
Stocking rate
48 32 16 Average
- Dollars -
Cattle alone 28.65 40.10 44.40 37.72
Sheep alone 30.01 42.92 52.60 41.84
Cattle and goats 41.65 56.15 61.59 53.13
Cattle, sheep and goats 46.94 62.70 68.60 59.44
Average 36.81 50.47 56.79 48.03
'Based on estimated carrying capacities which will maintain
constant range conditions and average production and
prices, 1949-56, and deducting rental value of pasture ($1
per acre).

grazing seasons, a future (20 year) value of
the production per acre for each grazing treat-
ment was computed. If these pastures are
stocked as recommended and if rainfall and price
conditions are comparable to the 1949-50 through
1955-56 period, the estimated average future
value of production from the lightest grazed
pasture is $56.79 per acre, compared with $50.47
for the moderately grazed pastures, and $36.81
for the heaviest grazed pastures, Table 11. The
difference between the lightest grazed pastures
and those moderately grazed was not statistically
significant. However, the difference between
the heavily grazed and the lightly and moderately
grazed pastures was statistically significant.
On the average, pastures grazed with three
types of livestock (cattle, sheep and goats) have
the highest expected future value of production
per acre, $59.44, compared with $53.13 for pas-
tures stocked with cattle and goats. Pastures
stocked with cattle alone and sheep alone have
considerably lower future values of production.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge gratefully the as-
sistance of R. J. Hildreth, assistant director,
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Gerald
W. Thomas, dean of agriculture, Texas Tech-
nological College and Calvin C. Boykin, Depart-
ment of Agricultural Economics and Sociology,
in the treatment of the material and compilation
of the manuscript; of Howard Boswell, editor,
Soil and Water Magazine, for helpful suggestions
toward clarification of the publication, and to
the following for their help in improving its
readability to the layman: E. B. Keng, Soil
Conservation Service, Sonora, Texas, and Frank
Bond, Fred T. Earwood, W. B. McMillan and
Edwin Sawyer, supervisors of the Edwards
Plateau Soil Conservation District and ranchmen
in Sutton and Edwards counties.










TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF AVERAGE AND ADJUSTED1
GROSS RETURNS PER ACRE, BY TYPE OF LIVESTOCK, BY
STOCKING RATE, SONORA, 1949-50 THROUGH 1955-56

Cattle Cattle,
Stocking rate Cattle Sheep and sheep Average
and g
goats goats

- -Dollars - -
48 Animal units
per section
Gross return 2.23 3.28 3.28 3.46 3.06
Change in pasture
value -.54 -.75 -.54 -.54 -.59
Adjusted gross
return 1.69 2.53 2.74 2.92 2.47
32 Animal units
per section
Gross return 2.00 2.37 2.76 2.84 2.49
Change in
pasture value 0 -.20 0 0 -.05
Adjusted
gross return 2.00 2.17 2.76 2.84 2.44
16 Animal units
per section
Gross return 1.29 1.35 1.23 1.61 1.37
Change in
pasture value +.20 +.20 +.20 +.20 +.20
Adjusted
gross return 1.49 1.55 1.43 1.81 1.57
'Considering changes in pasture value.

Capitalizing these rental values at 5 percent
shows that the value of the range in the heaviest
stocked pastures declined $4.14 per acre or 59
cents per acre per year during the period of the
study, Table 9. The capitalized value of the
moderately stocked pastures declined only slightly
(35 cents or 5 cents per year), while the lightest
stocked pastures increased an average of 20 cents
per year.
When these changes in the value of the range
resource are related to the value of production,
any advantage of the heavy stocking rate is
overcome. The extra cash returns from heavier
stocking were obtained through consumption of
the basic range resource. When this value is
considered, the average value of production per
acre per year for the pastures stocked at the
heavy and moderate rates were approximately
the same, $2.47 versus $2.44. For the lightest
stocked pasture, the value remained low, $1.57
per acre, indicating that the slightly increased
carrying capacity achieved at that rate of
stocking was not enough to offset the reduction
in livestock production, Table 10.
Value of Future Production
Based on the future stocking rates which it
was estimated would maintain a constant range
condition, and the average value of production
per animal during the 1949-50 through 1955-56


Vo


TABLE 11. ESTIMATED FUTURE, 20-YEAR VALUE OF PRO-
DUCTION PER ACRE' FROM PASTURES STOCKED WITH
SPECIFIED GRAZING TREATMENTS '
Stocking rate
48 32 16 Average
- Dollars -
Cattle alone 28.65 40.10 44.40 37.72
Sheep alone 30.01 42.92 52.60 41.84
Cattle and goats 41.65 56.15 61.59 53.13
Cattle, sheep and goats 46.94 62.70 68.60 59.44
Average 36.81 50.47 56.79 48.03
'Based on estimated carrying capacities which will maintain
constant range conditions and average production and
prices, 1949-56, and deducting rental value of pasture ($1
per acre).

grazing seasons, a future (20 year) value of
the production per acre for each grazing treat-
ment was computed. If these pastures are
stocked as recommended and if rainfall and price
conditions are comparable to the 1949-50 through
1955-56 period, the estimated average future
value of production from the lightest grazed
pasture is $56.79 per acre, compared with $50.47
for the moderately grazed pastures, and $36.81
for the heaviest grazed pastures, Table 11. The
difference between the lightest grazed pastures
and those moderately grazed was not statistically
significant. However, the difference between
the heavily grazed and the lightly and moderately
grazed pastures was statistically significant.
On the average, pastures grazed with three
types of livestock (cattle, sheep and goats) have
the highest expected future value of production
per acre, $59.44, compared with $53.13 for pas-
tures stocked with cattle and goats. Pastures
stocked with cattle alone and sheep alone have
considerably lower future values of production.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge gratefully the as-
sistance of R. J. Hildreth, assistant director,
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Gerald
W. Thomas, dean of agriculture, Texas Tech-
nological College and Calvin C. Boykin, Depart-
ment of Agricultural Economics and Sociology,
in the treatment of the material and compilation
of the manuscript; of Howard Boswell, editor,
Soil and Water Magazine, for helpful suggestions
toward clarification of the publication, and to
the following for their help in improving its
readability to the layman: E. B. Keng, Soil
Conservation Service, Sonora, Texas, and Frank
Bond, Fred T. Earwood, W. B. McMillan and
Edwin Sawyer, supervisors of the Edwards
Plateau Soil Conservation District and ranchmen
in Sutton and Edwards counties.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs