WILL MORE FORAGE PAY? 75 



$219. Deferments during the second and third years are substantially 

 lower and are largely represented by rent of private range. 



Under natural revegetation it is assumed that the 400 acres of range 

 would be deferred for 3 years, the length of deferment required 

 depending upon plant cover, quality of soil, and precipitation. Ex- 

 tended waiting periods would affect the economic feasibility of this 

 method. During the fourth and subsequent years, it was assumed 

 that 3.12 acres of natural revegetated range will be required to furnish 

 one animal unit per month of grazing. During the 3 years of total 

 deferment additional private range is leased to offset the range de- 

 ferred. If additional range cannot be leased it may be necessary to 

 begin winter feeding earlier. However, this probably would be more 

 costly than leasing range, particularly if the feed must be purchased. 



With natural revegetation. income increased from $4,878 to $5,018 

 in the fourth and sub>equent years under the high price level and 

 from s2.7< »1 to $2,777 under medium prices, an increase of approxi- 

 mately 3 percent for each price level (table 17). Breeding cows were 

 increased from 78 to 80 head. Two more 2-year-old steers would be 

 sold at the same weight as under the former plan. 



Deferments of $860 in income under the medium price level and 

 $l. n 63 with high prices are indicated during the transitional period 

 (table IS). The greater share of the loss would be incurred during 

 the first year when, under high prices, the income from livestock 

 sales would be decreased $219 because of the necessity of holding 

 back two 2-year-old heifers: cash rent would be increased 882 to 

 provide additional range to replace forage from the deferred range: 

 and building a fence around two sides of the deferred range would 

 require $436 for material. But. when increases in livestock inven- 

 tories are considered these temporary losses would be reduced to $584 

 under the medium and $69o under the high price level (table 18). 



As previously indicated, economic as well as physical research on 

 the effects of natural revegetation and artificial reseeding is relatively 

 new and inadequate. Although decisions regarding whether to reseed 

 and the method to be used must be determined individually for each 

 site, both natural revegetation and artificial reseeding have their 

 places as ways of improving range. Lands heavily infested with sage 

 brush often make ideal sites for artificial reseeding because they are 

 generally located on good soils with adequate moisture conditions to 

 grow adapted grasses. Natural revegetation of such sagebrush areas 

 is frequently not practicable because of the sparseness of perennial 

 grasses. Areas which have some perennial growth, although located 

 on poorer soils, may be improved through natural revegetation. Nat- 

 ural revegetation generally involves larger acreages and hence larger 

 expenditures for fencing than artificial reseeding but this is partially 

 offset by the expenditures for seed and seedbed preparation required 

 in artificial reseeding. 



In the preceding sections preliminary economic analyses of reseed- 

 ing cropland and ranges have been presented. The sections that 

 follow discuss a few of the other important practices that need eco- 

 nomic appraisal in different parts of the West. To date it has been 



tssible only to discuss these problems with State and Federal agricul- 

 tural workers and to review the results of research in these fields. 



