et al. 1968). California range interseeded with 
subterranean clover produced forage with pro- 
tein content equal to that of resident grasses 
fertilized with 80 pounds of nitrogen per acre; 
also, protein content remained high longer on 
the interseeded areas (Jones and Winans 
1967). 
Control of Overstory 
Livestock on forest range usually graze 
openings and sparsely wooded areas much 
more intensely than well-stocked timber stands. 
For example, McEwen and Dietz (1965) found 
that only 8 percent of the herbage on forested 
sites was utilized, compared to 42 percent on 
nearby meadows. 
Grazing may be intensified on underutilized, 
heavily wooded sites by sharply decreasing the 
overstory density. Such treatment may influ- 
ence palatability and nutrient content of for- 
age. Several investigators have shown that 
herbage in the open contained less protein and 
phosphorus than that under canopies (Cook 
and Harris 1950; McEwen and Dietz 1965; 
Vallentine and Young 1959), but the effects 
of overstory on other nutrients have been in- 
consistent. McEwen and Dietz reported that on 
Black Hills range in South Dakota, calcium 
and crude fiber contents were greatest for can- 
opied sites, while the level of nitrogen-free ex- 
tract was highest for open sites. In the Ed- 
wards Plateau of Texas, Vallentine and Young 
found that crude fiber content was greatest on 
open sites, whereas calcium and nitrogen-free 
extract values were similar for canopied and 
open sites. Differences in overstory composition 
—i.e., ponderosa pine in the Black Hills and 
oak-juniper in the Edwards Plateau—may have 
accounted for these apparent discrepancies. 
Removal of overstory may increase digest- 
ibility of forage. In a Georgia experiment, on 
pasture with low-level nitrogen fertilization 
(Burton et al. 1959), lignin content of grass 
increased as intensity of light was reduced. 
Curing of Forage 
To avert the reduction in quality that accom- 
panies maturation, forage may be harvested at 
the optimal stage of growth and stored for 
subsequent use. However, physical features 
that impair harvesting and low yields often 
make this procedure impractical. 
Recently, interest has developed in chemical 
curing of range herbage. Bipyridylium herbi- 
cides have reportedly arrested maturation and 
thereby improved quality of the standing crop 
for use after the growing season. In Oregon 
trials (Sneva 1967), protein in range grass 
treated with 0.2 pound per acre of paraquat ca- 
tion declined only 10 percent from June to Oc- 
tober, whereas grass curing naturally during 
this period lost about half of its protein. 
Application of Attractants and Repellents 
Attractants have stimulated consumption 
of unpalatable forage. Spraying either molas- 
ses or a molasses-urea mixture on mature an- 
nual grasses resulted in complete utilization, 
while unsprayed foliage was grazed little 
(Wagnon and Goss 1961). Similar results have 
been reported for tobosagrass treated with mo- 
lasses (Reynolds 1955). 
Certain chemical coatings applied to foliage 
may inhibit utilization and thereby protect sen- 
sitive vegetation from grazing. In the South, 
several formulations containing chemicals nor- 
mally used as fungicides reduced browsing of 
pine seedlings by cattle (Duncan and Whitaker 
1959). Similar treatments could presumably 
reduce palatability of herbaceous vegetation. 
Altering Species Composition of 
Native Vegetation 
Reduced stocking, redistributed grazing, 
brush control, and specialized grazing systems 
have, according to various investigators, mate- 
rially improved botanical composition. How- 
ever, such practices usually have also increased 
yield, and this confounding has largely pre- 
cluded evaluation of gains in quality. 
COST-RETURN RELATIONSHIPS 
With a few notable exceptions, e.g., chemical 
curing and application of repellents and at- 
tractants—treatments to improve quality also 
increase yield. Therefore, financial benefits, 
like biological responses, are difficult to deter- 
mine. Even so, reasonably firm conclusions are 
possible regarding economic feasibility of cer- 
tain practices. 
Evidence favoring fertilization of native 
range has been far from overwhelming (Ro- 
gler and Lorenz 1957). Even with substantial 
improvement in both production and nutritive 
value, several investigators have either re- 
ported financial deficits or conceded that econ- 
omic advisability was doubtful (Burzlaff et al. 
1968; Duvall and Grelen 1967; Freeman and 
Humphrey 1956; Herbel 1963; Rogler and Lor- 
enz 1957). 
Most researchers who reported costs and re- 
turns of nitrogen fertilization found that gains 
in animal production were not sufficient to jus- 
tify treatment. For northern Great Plains 
range, Rogler and Lorenz (1966) reported that 
the amount of protein differed most between 
fertilized and unfertilized forage early in the 
21 
