RANGE AIsTD CATTLE MANAGEMENT DUEING DROUGHT, 37 



Table 11 shows that, although pasture 5 was grazed more heavily 

 on an average each year than pasture 2, the range improved in pro- 

 duction of the main forage grasses and increased slightly in carrying 

 capacity each year after 1916-17. The pasture was considered over- 

 stocked only in 1915-16 and 1918-19, and stocked about right the 

 other years. Although heavil}^ stocked the pasture held up well, 

 probably as a result of reduction in grazing during the main grow- 

 ing season. Comparison of pastures 2 and 5 indicates that it was 

 not overgrazing but heavy grazing during the growing season that 

 was responsible for deterioration of pasture 2, and that the pasture 

 would have sustained as an average for each year the number of 

 stock actually grazed if grazing during the growing season had been 

 more judicious. 



Pasture 10 (Table 12) agrees rather closely with pasture 5 in esti- 

 mated grazing capacity for the period. The actual difference was 

 perhaps a little greater than shown in the tables in favor of pasture 5, 

 as the drought was more severe in pasture 10 and in 1918 mainly 

 short-age yearlings were grazed in the pasture, this class of animals 

 requiring less range per head than cows. As in pasture 5, the prime 

 factor in keeping this pasture up in carrying capacity was reduction 

 in grazing during the main growing season. 



Table 13 shows that the average grazing on the outside range ex- 

 ceeded the estimated grazing capacity each year with the exception 

 of 1918-19, and that, except in 1918-19, the grazing capacity as well 

 as the condition of the outside range in comparison with the pro- 

 tected areas continued to decline up to 1919-20. The overgrazing 

 during the whole year no doubt contributed a great deal to the de- 

 cline in productivity of the range, but the overgrazing during the 

 growing season, as brought out in the last chapter, was mainly 

 responsible for the heavy reduction in the condition of the forage 

 and grazing capacity. The slight increase in the grazing capacity 

 in 1918-19 and the improvement in condition of the range in 1919-20 

 is largely due to the reduction in number of stock to more nearly 

 what it should be, and light grazing during the main growing sea- 

 sons of 1918 and 1919. 



The information obtained on yearlong winter range to date 

 indicates that, while decreased grazing capacity will result during 

 drought, the reduction may not be greater than the amount due to 

 drought alone if the range is correctly managed. The main con- 

 sideration is to handle the range so that grazing will be light over 

 as much of tliis class of range as possible during the main growing 

 season — July to October. Without this provision the range will 

 deteriorate faster during time of drought, varying with the time 

 and intensity of grazing. 



