44 



BULLETIN 1031, U. S. DEPARTMEI^T OF AGRICULTUEE. 



thirds of the grazing capacity in 1915-16, which was near maximum ; 

 ^nd second, that only in the same year, 1917-18, did the estimated 

 range forage production fall materially below approximatelj^ two- 

 thirds of production in 1915-16, and even then the excess was less 

 than 1 per cent. The original plan, however, was to reduce other 

 stock so as to keep total grazing well within forage production. 

 Table 18 shows what was actually done. 



Table IS. — Permanent stock, steers, and total, compared icith forage production 



by years. 





Perma- 

 nent 



stoeljin 



percent- 

 age of 

 total 



grazing 

 capacity, 



1915-16. 



Steers. 



Total in 

 percent- 

 age of 

 grazing 

 capacity, 

 1915-16. 



Forage 

 produc- 

 tionin 

 percent- 

 age of 

 1915-16. 



Year. 



Number. 



Percent- 

 age of 

 grazing 

 capacity, 

 1915-16. 



1915-16.. . 



60.89 

 64.05 

 67.13 

 49.42 



1,542 

 831 



477 

 Mone. 



32.99 



17. 78 

 10.20 



93.88 

 81.83 

 77.33 

 49.42 



100 



1916-17 



81 



1917-18 



54 



1918-19 .. 



64 









The last two colmnns of Table 18 show that the total number of 

 stock was slightly in excess of the forage production in 1916-17, 

 the first dr^^ year, and 43.2 per cent in excess of estimated forage 

 production in 1917-18. 



In disposing of steers the original plan was followed, but not 

 soon enough. In the fall of 1915 it was evident that there would 

 be considerable forage not needed by the permanent herd. Addi- 

 tional yearling steers were purchased and held over and sold in the 

 spring of 1916 at a fair profit. Although in 1916 the prospect for 

 surplus forage was not so good, it still appeared that there would 

 be hiore range than needed for the permanent herd. The natural 

 increase of steers under 2 years old, about 750 head, was held over, 

 but only a few additional steers were purchased. Most of these 

 steers were sold in the spring of 1917. After the growing season of 

 1917 it w'as evident that there would be a shortage of range forage 

 for the permanent herd, and consequently all steers down to calves 

 4 months old were sold. Removing the steers late in the fall, how- 

 ever, and holding over a few surplus cows amounted to an average 

 of 477 head of this surplus stock during the grazing year, July 1, 

 1917, to June 30, 1918. 



Had the steers been sold in the spring of 1917 or earlier instead 

 of holding them over until fall, mucli worry would have been 

 avoided and the cost of supplemental feeding and losses would 

 probably have been reduced. As it was. supplemental feeding, as 

 given in Table 19, was considered advisable. 



