44 MISC. PUBLICATION 9 0, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 



The cost of eradicating larkspur varies from $3.65 to $10 per acre, 

 depending upon the number of plants and the nature and cover of 

 the ground. As to practicability, the bulletin mentioned above 

 states : 



In the Stanislaus Forest, for example, the eradication of approximately 68 

 acres of larkspur at a total cost for the first and second grubbings of $844.31 

 saved an annual loss in cattle of 34 head, valued at from $1,200 to $2,000. 



On the Sevier National Forest the grubbing of 5 acres of larkspur at a cost 

 of $21.50 cleared an area upon which 15 head of cattle died of larkspur 

 poisoning in 1915, and 9 head prior to the work of grubbing in July, 1916. 

 There was no loss after the grubbing was done. 



Very often larkspur grows in such abundance and over such a 

 large area that the cost of grubbing would be prohibitive. In those 

 instances it is often better business to graze the range with sheep, 

 as it is good forage for them and does them no harm. 



Although experimental work has also been done upon the eradi- 

 cation of loco by grubbing, so far it has not proven practical. 



Much can be accomplished in the eradication of water hemlock by 

 grubbing it out, and this should be done wherever possible. Death 

 camas may also be grubbed out effectively where it occurs in small 

 isolated patches. 



REDUCING LOSSES BY RANGE MANAGEMENT 



The most practical and effective means for reducing the losses from 

 poisonous plants is intelligent range management. Contrary to the 

 popular idea that range animals will voluntarily seek out poisonous 

 plants and eat them by preference, animals seldom eat poisonous 

 23lants except when other forage has been killed out by premature 

 grazing or overgrazing. The only exception to this, perhaps, is the 

 group of loco plants. Many animals, forced to eat loco by a scarcity 

 of other feed, acquire a liking for it and under some circumstances 

 will eat nothing else, even in the presence of good forage. It should 

 be kept in mind, however, that the initial feeding on loco is caused 

 by a scarcity of other feed. This intimate relation of scarcity of feed 

 to stock poisoning can not be too strongly impressed upon the people 

 who handle range animals in the West. 



Since animals do not voluntarily eat poisonous plants, the first 

 step in proper range management to^ prevent losses is to see that no 

 range is stocked to such an extent that the good forage will not 

 supply the needs of the stock. It may take some experimenting to 

 determine just how many animals can be placed on a range so that 

 no considerable amount of forage will be unused and at the same time 

 the stock will not be driven to eat poisonous plants. With careful 

 watching, however, this can be determined. A good practice is to 

 stock the range so that a small percentage of good forage is left at 

 the end of the grazing season. In addition to being a safeguard 

 against poisoning, the forage which is not used will usually produce 

 seed. 



Much that has been said of overgrazing also applies to premature 

 or too early grazing in the spring. In fact, most of the heavy losses 

 from poisoning are caused by turning stock on the range before the 

 nonpoisonous forage plants have begun growth. Some of the poison 

 plants — larkspur, death camas, and locos — are the first plants to begin 

 growth in the spring and are too often the only forage available 



