RANGE AND CATTLE MANAGEMENT DUEING DROUGHT. 



43 



BREEDING HERD SHOULD BE LIMITED TO GRAZING CAPACITY OF THE RANGE 



DURING DROUGHT. 



The tendency has been to increase the breeding herd during good 

 years to the limit of range capacity and in many instances beyond 

 this limit. When drought came on, anything for which there was a 

 market was sold, and thus years of effort in improving the herd were 

 lost, at least in part, while losses from starvation were excessive. 

 The increasing cost of producing the individual animal and the 

 growing importance of improving the average grade of stock, to 

 meet the demand from the feed lots, both argue against continuation 

 of this old practice. The alternative is to limit the breeding stock to 

 the number that can be taken care of during periods of drought. 



BREEDING HERD ON THE JORNADA RANGE RESERVE. 



In attacking this problem on the Jornada Range Reserve the 

 original plan was to keep two-thirds of the normal grazing capacity 

 of the entire range for breeding cows, young heifers to replace culls 

 from the breeding herd, bulls, saddle horses, and a few brood mares. 

 Table 17 shows the number of these classes of stock carried each 

 3'ear through the period 1915 to 1919 including a drought, the per- 

 centage of the range used for each class of stock, and the amount 

 of forage crop produced each year in percentage of the 1915-16 crop, 

 which is considered about maximum for the reserve. 



Table 17. — Numher hy classes of stock making up permanent herd on Jornada 

 Range Reserve, each class in percentage of total grazing capacity of the 

 reserve in 1915-16, and estimated forage production in terms of 1915-16 

 crop. 





Cows of calving 

 age. 



Bulls. 



Heifers 1 year 

 old and up not 



yet placed in 

 breeding herd. 



Horses. 



Total 

 in per- 

 cent- 

 age of 

 total 

 graz- 

 ing ca- 

 pacity, 

 1915-16. 



Esti- 

 mated 

 forage 



crop 



Year. 



Num- 

 ber. 



Per- 

 cent- 

 age of 

 total 

 carry- 

 ing ca- 

 pacity, 

 1915-16. 



Num- 

 ber. 



Per- 

 cent- 

 age of 

 total 

 carry- 

 ing ca- 

 pacity, 

 1915-16. 



Num- 

 ber. 



Per- 

 cent- 

 age of 

 total 

 carry- 

 ing ca- 

 pacity, 

 1915-16. 



Num- 

 ber. 



Per- 

 cent- 

 age of 

 total 

 carry- 

 ing ca- 

 pacity, 

 1915-16. 



produc- 

 tion, 

 per- 

 cent- 

 age of 

 1915-16, 

 produc- 

 tion.! 



1915-16 



1,950 

 2,022 

 1,986 



41. 75 

 43. 2i' 

 42. 49 



80 

 80 

 80 



1.71 

 1.71 

 1.71 



695 

 751 

 892 



14.87 

 16.07 

 19.08 



120 

 140 

 180 



2.56 

 3.00 

 3.85 



60.89 

 64.05 

 67.13 

 49.42 



100 



1916-17 



81 



1917-18 



54 



1918-192 



64 























! The 1915-16rangeisconsidered near maximum condition and thereforeisused as thebasisof comparison. 

 The amount of forage produced in other years was arrived at by careful estimates of the amount produced 

 on the reserve as a whole checked by quadrat measurements and number ofstock the range was actually 

 able to support. 



^During the grazing year ending June 30, 1919, the various herds were disorganized by removal to other 

 range forpart of the year. However, an average of 2,310 head ofstock were grazed duringthe year. 



The last two columns of Table 17 show, first, that only in 1917-18 

 did the breeding herd, including other permanent stock, exceed two- 



