Food From Rangeland 



Harold F. Heady 



Director of Wildland Resources Center 



University of California, Berkeley 



Oubtitle M of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 

 intends to promote tfie general welfare of ttiose 

 dependent on thie nation's rangelands thirough 

 improved productivity Ttiose lands, wtiere the natural 

 vegetation is grassland, open forest, woodlands, or 

 shrublands, comprise more than 60 percent of the 50 

 states Nearly two-thirds of these rangelands are pri- 

 vately owned and all are grazed by domestic and/or 

 wild animals. Rangelands are unsuited for cultivation 

 but produce a great volume of forage that ruminant 

 animals convert into high quality food protein While 

 this paper is directed toward domestic livestock and 

 food production, let it be abundantly emphasized that 

 rangeland management simultaneously aims for 

 enhanced wildlife populations, covered watersheds, 

 recreational opportunities, aesthetic values, protection 

 of threatened and endangered species and reduced 

 hazards from erosion and flooding 



Rangelands contribute to the food producing sys- 

 tem in intimate association with other agriculture. 

 Livestock harvest some 100 million animal-unit-months 

 (AUM) of rangeland forage each year An AUM is the 

 amount of forage needed by a mature cow for one 

 month or an equivalent amount for other animals. 

 Western-wide statistics are unavailable but the Califor- 

 nia example typifies the importance of rangeland graz- 

 ing. It is estimated that 69 percent of the state's 

 stocker cattle, 61 percent of its breeding beef cattle 

 and 51 percent of its sheep are produced on range- 

 lands Most beef cattle production in the West sea- 

 sonally uses rangelands combined with periods on 

 planted forages, crop aftermath, harvested feeds, and 

 agricultural by-products l\/lany animals are fattened 

 on feed grams before slaughter. Thus, range animal 



production is closely linked to cropland agriculture. 



One frequently hears about the deteriorated condi- 

 tion and low productivity of both public and private 

 rangelands Private groups and even the land man- 

 agement agencies sometimes state that western 

 rangelands are in poor condition and getting worse. 

 Data from recent studies indicate otherwise. Between 

 1935 and 1976 the percentage of excellent and good 

 condition ranges increased from 16 to 31 percent 

 while fair and poor condition ranges made a corre- 

 sponding decrease Condition ratings evaluate the 

 current status of the resource in relation to its produc- 

 tive potential Much less range is in poor condition 

 now than in 1935. A 1980 inventory found that about 

 7 percent of the western rangelands had critical and 

 severe erosion while three-fifths were stable or with 

 slight erosion. Clearly, more, much more, range con- 

 servation needs to be accomplished, but just as 

 clearly, improvement is more prevalent than deteriora- 

 tion. Many in the range profession believe that live- 

 stock carrying capacity can be doubled from what it is 

 today when the ranges reach full productivity under 

 intensive management. They also believe that range 

 sites and habitats can be improved for all the multiple 

 uses at the same time Large scale examples of suc- 

 cessful range improvement programs exist in the west- 

 ern states. They have taken time, financial support, 

 application of considerable scientific knowledge, and 

 common sense. However, constraints of considerable 

 magnitude continually increase the time and costs for 

 range improvement. Some of these constraints, which 

 limit even more progress and that need examination in 

 the governmervtal arena, are as follows: 



57 



