Table 5. — Employment and animal output value from livestock grazing 



by ownership and ecogroup, 1970 



(Totals may not add due to rounding) 



Ownership 



Western 

 Range 



Western 

 Forest 



Great 

 Plains 



Eastern 

 Forest 



Total 





Employment 



National Forest System 



Million 



man-hours 



per year 



8.3 

 19.5 

 40.7 



Million 



tnan-hours 



per year 



3.1 

 0.5 

 6.5 



Million 



man-hours 



per year 



1.0 



2.2 



80.8 



Million 



man-hours 



per year 



0.7 



0.1 



32.6 



Million 



man-hours 



per year 



13.0 



Other Federal 



22.3 



Non-Federal 



160.2 



All ownerships 



68.5 



10.1 



83.5 



33.4 



195.5 









Animal Output Value 



National Forest System 



Million 

 dollars 



45.0 

 126.1 

 288.9 



Million 

 dollars 



26.1 



4.7 



55.2 



Million 

 dollars 



8.4 



18.3 



747.8 



Million 

 dollars 



7.1 



1.0 



358.4 



Million 

 dollars 



86.5 



Other Federal 



150.1 



Non-Federal 



1,450.3 







All ownerships 



460.0 



86.0 



774.5 



366.5 



1,687.0 







AUM's from 68 percent of the land grazed (fig. 

 17). The National Forest System provided 5 

 percent of the animal unit months from 12 per- 

 cent of the land grazed, and other Federal 

 lands provided 9 percent from 20 percent of 

 the land. 



Of the 213 million animal unit months pro- 

 vided, 99 million or almost half were produced 

 under extensive management (Strategy C) ; 

 45 million under maximum management 

 (Strategy E) ; 26 million under intensive man- 

 agement (Strategy D); 25 million under some 

 livestock (Strategy B); and 18 million under 

 exploitative (Strategy X). 



Average production from all forest-range 

 lands grazed was approximately four acres per 

 AUM or 0.26 AUM per acre (fig. 18). Assum- 

 ing a five month grazing season, this was an 

 average of about 20 acres per animal unit per 

 grazing season. However, production averages 

 varied from 9 acres per AUM for both National 

 Forest System and other Federal lands to about 

 3 acres on non-Federal lands. These differences 

 in relative productivity can be explained large- 

 ly by the variation in management mixes and 

 ecosystem ownership patterns. To get one 

 animal unit month under the lowest level of 

 livestock management, Strategy B required 9.5 

 acres, while only 1.1 acres were needed under 

 Strategy E, maximized livestock production. 

 This had a major influence on the ownership 

 average since 16 percent of the grazed non- 

 Federal land was managed intensively, Strate- 

 gies D and E, compared to 8 percent for other 

 Federal and 3 percent for the National Forest 



System. In addition, 9.1 acres of Western For- 

 est land and 6.4 acres of Western Range were 

 required to produce one animal unit month com- 

 pared to 2.3 acres for the Great Plains and 3.0 

 acres for the Eastern Forest. This also in- 

 creased the Federal average because of the 

 large amount of land grazed in the western 

 ecogroups under Federal ownership. 



Forest-range lands were also highly produc- 

 tive for a wide variety of other products. In 

 terms of herbage and browse production, forest- 

 range lands nationwide provided 485 million 

 tons yearly. The Great Plains ecogroup was the 

 most productive, yielding 155 million tons or 

 0.7 ton per acre (fig. 19). The Western Range 

 produced 145 million tons ; Eastern Forest 133 

 million tons; and Western Forest 52 million 

 tons. All three of these ecogroups averaged 

 about 0.3 ton per acre. 



For individual ecosystems the Wet grass- 

 lands was the most productive, yielding more 

 than 2.5 tons of herbage per acre. Other lead- 

 ing ecosystems include Aspen-birch, Mountain 

 meadows, Annual grasslands, and Prairie, all 

 yielding more than 1 ton per acre annually. 

 The average for all ecosystems was 0.4 ton 

 per acre. 



It was also estimated that the annual net 

 wood growth for forest-range lands was 20.5 

 billion cubic feet (fig. 20). This figure differs 

 from volume normally reported for commercial 

 forest land because the study includes areas of 

 noncommercial forest which is primarily com- 

 posed of nonproductive and productive reserves. 

 The major contributor was non-Federal lands 



30 



