.v:i . .
Pag Four
Economics of range improvement
, it
outlined by County Agent
.1
1
1
1
Si
ECONOMICS OF RANGE IMPROVEMENT
By John P. Nordheim, Morrow County
Extension Agent
Many acres or rangeland in Oregon are
not producing forage at levels even
approaching their economic or physical
potential. Two of the major problems which
confront ranchers who own or lease these
deteriorated rangelands are 1) Can I afford to
invest in range improvements?, and 2) Are
range improvements the best use I can make,
of my capital? Only you can decide whether
you need to make range improvements and
then which improvements would work best!
for you.
Economic efficiency in ranching is
concerned with the relationship between the
units of scarce resources which are put into
the process of producing the resulting output '
of livestock products. The rancher wants to
get as much output (livestock products and
crops) as possible from the limited amount of
imputs, (labor, land and capital), at his
disposal. Efficiency is used as a measuring
stick for deciding between various alterna-,
tives. Many ranches in Oregon can produce
livestock more efficiently if the size of the
ranch business can be increased.
If your rangeland is not producing at its
highest capacity, you may want to consider
range fertilization as a method to increase
your rangeland productivity. Interest in this
declined when the fertilizer prices went
"skyhigh" with the oil shortage. The recent
increase in cattle prices and the stabilization
of fertilizer prices has brought renewed
interest in range fertilization.
The primary objective of fertilization is
increased forage production at competitive
costs. Other benefits, however, are often
possible. Increased forage utilization might,
be achieved, and possibly an increase in plant,
vigor and a reduction in soil erosion might be'
achieved. In some cases fertilization in
creases total crude protein and digestible
nutrients of the forage. An indirect benefit of I.
fertilization is better animal distribution and,
thus, increased overall forage utilization..
This may also reduce grazing pressure on
non-fertilized range.
YOUR
HANDYMAN
CENTER
ntftf to
.. do th
feh ywrst fff
Powtr Tosb Pcht Lumbar
Gcrdsn Svfplss t Tods
' Eshlft & Cosipksg Gtcr
USED
llomelito
109w
Eiototilbrs
Fcr
Ront
676-9157
IllPPIIlil
A potentially negative effect of fertiliza
tion is an undesirable change in species
composition. For example, on sites contain
ing cheat grassTlertilization can promote
cheatgrass development at the expense of
perinnial species. This is especially true in
low rainfall areas. Several other factors are
the possible shortening of the growing season
due to an earlier maturity of fertilized
grasses, the possibility of decreasing plant,
vigor through fertilization in below average
rainfall years, and the possible increase in
grazing pressure created by certain wildlife.
The yield responses to fertilization of
native, foothill range may be highly variable.
Much of this variability was due to site
factors and precipitation levels. On sites
receiving about 12 inches or precipitation, 60
pounds of nitrogen increased air dry yield an
average of 300 pounds of forage per acre. On
many of the drier sites, cheatgrass made the
biggest yield increase to fertilization.
Fertilization of steeper slopes also induced
heavier grazing on these sites. Per unit costs
of obtaining additional forage from the
fertilization of native foot hill range were
lowest with an application of 60 pounds of
nitrogen. At this application rate, urea
costing $202 per ton, and application costing
$4.50 per acre, the cost of obtaining 300 pounds
additional forage from fertilization totals
$17.96 per acre for 60 pounds of nitrogen
application. This makes each AUM worth
$39.53, or the forage worth $263.51 per ton.
There will be some residual benefit in"
subsequent years which would help defray the
cost of the fertilizer. Range fertilization may
be economically feasible under certain
conditions like where there is additional
moisture.
A rancher has several alternative ways to
obtain the forage needed for additional cows.
Some of them are 1) to buy more rangeland
and hay land, 2) lease rangeland and-or buy
hay, 3) seed some of his present rangeland
and improve his meadows, and 4) spray some
of his rangeland and improve his meadows.
Land prices have increased substantially
over the past 10-15 years which has made land
purchase a less attractive alternative. Range
improvement by spraying for control of
sagebrush and meadow hay land improve
ment are viable alternatives which may be
used in your program. Range seeding may
increase the forage yield on your ranch.
Remember that all of these range improve
ments must pay for themselves! Productivity
of these acres before and after seeding should
be estimated in acres per Animal Unit Month
(AUM). (An AUM is the amount of dry forage
required to feed a mature cow and calf for one
month or about 660 pounds. Actual consump
tion varies from 540 to 890 pounds; some
agencies use No. 750 for their" work. Since the
pounds of feed required for each class of
livestock are different, changing to animal
units per month allows you to compute the
feed requirements by a standard measure.
Your calculations may show that the number
of acres required to produce 1 AUM may
decrease from 9.0 acres to 3.0 acres with
rangeland seeding. This is equivalent to
increasing production from 73 pounds per
acre to 220 pounds per acre. Costs associated
with rangeland seeding projects go beyond
those of seedbed preparation, seed costs and
drilling.
The risk and uncertainty of getting a good
producing seeding may also be at least
partially accounted for as a cost. Initial costs
include plowing, seed and drilling of about
$15.00 per acre, fencing of $1.50 per acre,
water development for $4.00 per acre and
nonuse cost of $1.25 per acre. These initial
costs total $21.75 per acre. Annual costs of
$.30-acre include fence maintenance and
water development maintenance. These
figures assume a 20 year useable life of the
seeding. Nonuse costs are the actual expenses
. involved in feeding the livestock until the
seeded area reaches a useable state. For
example, if it cost $7.50 per AUM to lease
forage, this figure times the number of
AUM's leased is the nonuse cost. If one
attempts to carry the livestock on the
remaining ranch rangeland and this leads to
overgrazing, nonuse costs could be very high.
In addition, the costs of transporting livestock
to and from the leased range should be
included in nonuse costs. An information
source from Utah suggests that you can
return $1.40 for each dollar spent on
rangeland seeding. It is obvious that only
ranges that need improvement should be
considered for some of these practices. In
fact, the most dilapidated range has the most
room for improvement and thus is the most
economically feasible for improvement.
r
Mm
m
fin
FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS
Tfe&ueOEL service
422-7574 "n
CHEMICAL
DIVISION