growing season, when content was adequate 
without treatment. Later, when protein levels 
were lower, the increase attributable to fertil- 
ization was inadequate to appreciably affect 
gains by cattle. Undoubtedly, this problem is 
widespread. 
Addition of phosphate, like that of nitrogen- 
ous fertilizer, seldom increases nutrient con- 
tent enough to increase profits from livestock. 
In a study in southern Texas (Black et al. 
1949), remedying the deficiency of phosphorus 
by fertilization gave greater returns per acre 
than feeding supplemental phosphorus to cat- 
tle. Whether this difference was attributable to 
increases in the phosphorus content of forage 
remains doubtful. However, a later study (Rey- 
nolds et al. 1953) revealed that the fertilized 
range yielded much more herbage than the un- 
fertilized range. 
In the South and Southeast where burning is 
common, Biswell (1958) reported that costs av- 
erage $0.22 per acre. The expense of burning 
pine-bluestem range in Louisiana was about 
$0.15 per acre, with half chargeable to timber 
production (Halls and Duvall 1961). Since 
these costs are much less than for most treat- 
ments for improving forage, prospects for 
profit appear good. However, an increase in 
quality alone may prove insufficient to justify 
treatment. Steers grazing range in Mississippi 
that was burned annually averaged 46 percent 
greater gains than those grazing unburned 
areas. Yield of the principal grasses more than 
doubled with burning, and this increase un- 
doubtedly accounted for much of the return 
(Wahlenberg et al. 1939). 
Even the cost of prescribed fire may exceed 
the value of benefits accrued. A high propor- 
tion of burns on foothill range in California 
proved uneconomical. Costs averaged $3.65 per 
acre for 40-acre tracts (Sampson and Burcham 
1954). 
The cost of controlling nutritive value by 
manipulating grazing pressure varies greatly. 
On ranges where existing facilities suffice with 
little or no modification, returns from _ in- 
creased grazing values may exceed costs. 
Where extensive cross-fencing and water de- 
velopment are required, costs often are pro- 
hibitive. 
Where grazing can be redistributed so 
that substantial quantities of forage that 
would otherwise remain ungrazed are used, 
prospects for economic gain are usually good. 
Whether manipulation of palatability is the 
best choice of methods depends largely on cost 
and effectiveness of alternatives—e.g., cross- 
fencing, herding, water development, reloca- 
tion of salting and feeding stations, and devel- 
opment of trails. 
BO 
i) 
Seeding grass to extend the green-feed pe- 
riod on Colorado range cost $8.50 per acre and 
increased returns by $7.70 per calf; with 90- 
percent calf crops and 6-percent interest, prof- 
its would repay the initial investment in 11 to 
12 years (Currie 1966). 
Returns from improvements in nutrient con- 
tent through seeding have rarely been deter- 
mined. Forage on sites selected for seeding 
trials has usually been seriously depleted. 
Therefore, an increase in forage production 
has been the main objective, and the combined 
effects of increased quantity and improved qual- 
ity have been assessed. 
Little is known about costs and returns for 
chemical curing of range forage. Moreover, 
herbicides of the type used for experimental 
treatments have not yet been cleared for con- 
sumption by livestock (Sneva 1967). 
CONCLUSIONS 
Although forage quality can be improved by 
various methods, the gains from the improve- 
ments have seldom exceeded the costs of treat- 
ments. Therefore, for the present, range man- 
agers should probably choose measures that 
will increase grazing capacity, and should rele- 
gate increased quality to a secondary objec- 
tive. Much is already being done to raise the 
carrying capacity of ranges. When the possibil- 
ities for profitably increasing forage yields are 
exhausted, quality will assume added impor- 
tance. Because research must be ahead of prac- 
tice, techniques for improving quality should 
be developed now. 
Technological advances are providing new 
opportunities for experimentation. For exam- 
ple, controlled-release fertilizers and chemicals 
that have potential for curing forage are being 
developed. Even-aged forest management that 
permits intensive control over forage variables 
on forest ranges has been widely adopted. Sur- 
face fungicides have protected plants from 
livestock for short periods, and new systemic 
fungicides may give enduring protection on 
sensitive sites. 
Several old lines of research need expansion. 
Economic study has lagged far behind biologi- 
cal investigation. Relatively few techniques for 
controlling characteristics of fire have been ap- 
plied to ranges. Too often, conclusions regard- 
ing response of vegetation and animals to 
burning have been based either on a wildfire or 
on a single prescribed fire. Only a few of the 
theoretically sound combinations of grazing in- 
tensities and seasons for their use have been 
investigated. 
