RANGE AND CATTLE MANAGEMENT DUEING DROUGHT. 45 



Table 19. — Records of supplemental feeding to coius and heifers in breeding herd. 



Year. 



Number 

 stocls; 

 fed. 



Per cent 



of 



breeding 



cows. 



Character and amount of feed. 



Total 



cost of 



feed and 



feeding. 



Cost per 

 head. 



Cost per 



head for 



entire 



herd. 



191.5-16 



1916-17 



1917-18 



191S-19 3 



445 

 420 



1 1, 769 



2.3 

 2.0 



89.0 



32,600 pounds cottonseed cake. . 



39,470 pounds cottonseed cake. . 

 /171,016 pounds cottonseed cake. 

 \Pasturage, 353 tons soap weed 2. 



$652. 00 

 1,051,69 



Is, 747. 36 



SI. 47 

 2.60 



4.95 



$0.33 

 .52 



4.40 

















1 Includes only cows and heifers in breeding herd; buUs, calves, and young heifers not included. 



2 Pasturage for 215 cows and young calves for about three months, November, December, and January, 

 $2,30-1.72. 



'No feeding. 



Even in good years the feeding of cottonseed cake or other con- 

 centrated feeds in small amount to the breeding stock to keep losses 

 at a minimum and the stock in condition to produce a good calf 

 crop is considered good business. The feeding in 1915-16 and in 

 1916-17 was for this purpose rather than because of lack of range 

 forage. Feeding in 1917-18, however, was largely a necessity to 

 get the stock through in any condition. Much heavier feeding would 

 have been necessary to have maintained calf crop and losses at 

 approximately what they were in other years. The losses were 

 extremely low compared with either the average for this section 

 over a period of years or the average for the drought, but were 3.5 

 per cent as compared with 1.7 per cent average for 1915-16-17 on 

 the reserve. The calf crop in 1919 was 43 per cent as compared with 

 64.7 per cent average for 1915 to 1917 on the reserve. Further, the 

 overstocked condition resulted in marked injury to pasture 2, the 

 main grama-grass pasture of the reserve, and the possibility of 

 heavier loss was too great. Had the drought continued another year 

 with both stock and range in poor condition and surplus forage all 

 used the situation would have been serious. 



The $4.40 per head cost of supplemental feeding in 1917-18 for 

 breeding stock is not considered a serious matter, provided losses are 

 kept down to about what they were for the reserve in 1915 to 1917 

 and the calf crop up to about what it was for that period. To have 

 accomplished this in 1917-18, however, a material reduction in stock 

 would have been necessary after the critical period arrived. The 

 difficulty of selling surplus stock in poor condition at that time with- 

 out a heavy sacrifice emphasizes the necessity for reducing the herd 

 in advance. 



The fact that forage production at the worst of the drought was 

 estimated at only 54 per cent of what it was in 1915-16 over the 

 whole reserve and only 60 per cent on the areas protected from 

 grazing, and the probable difficulty of getting rid of all but breeding 

 stock at the right time, lead to the conclusion that instead of using 



