Demand in Alaska and Hawaii. — In Alaska, 10 to 

 13 million acres of grassland have been estimated to 

 have range potential for cattle, sheep, and horses.''^ 

 However, the prospects for increasing Alaskan pro- 

 duction of red meat from cattle and sheep and, hence, 

 demand for range grazing are very low.'*^ The lack of 

 development of Alaska's latent agricultural regions 

 and the absence of any organized effort to promote 

 the required infrastructure preclude the development 

 of an expanding meat production industry. Devel- 

 opment of meat production for subsistence from wild 

 game is not expected to respond to changing 

 imported meat costs until there is a philosophical 

 change in wildlife management which accommodates 

 a staging of resources and harvest techniques to 

 inaugurate a maximum "sustained yield harvest" of 

 meat from "wild" animal species. Moreover, even if 

 commitment of the public and private sectors were 

 made at this time (1979), at least 10 years would be 

 needed to stage resources, institutional and agency 

 programs, philosophical and technical concepts, and 

 personnel and experience sufficient to initiate the 

 needed flow of knowledge, technology, and services. 

 A second decade would be needed to stage significant 

 production capability and infrastructures. 



The primary basis for the Hawaiian beef industry is 

 the utilization of some 1 .3 million acres of grasslands 

 (pasture and range)."'' Increases in the demand for 

 grazing will primarily be met through improved man- 

 agement. However, the higher demand for red meat 

 will be met primarily through increased shipment of 

 meat to Hawaii from other States. 



Potential Supplies of Grazing 



The quantity of grazed roughages needed to meet 

 the demands for livestock feed is a function of the 

 available feed sources. Grazed roughages can be pro- 

 duced from both nonrange and range sources. 



Nonrange Sources 



Data on nonrange sources of grazing in the United 

 States are limited and incomplete. The following 

 analysis is constructed from a variety of sources and 



■•^Toinlin, D. C. Grazing lands of Alaska. Alaska's agricultural 

 potential. Alaska Rural Dev. Counc. Publ. N.I. (as cited in USDA 

 appraisal 1980, Rev. draft. Part I). Soil and Water Resource Con- 

 servation Act. 1979, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conser- 

 vation Service. 1979. 



••3 Burton, Wayne E. Range grazing demands in Alaska. Unpub- 

 lished manuscript prepared under contract by the University of 

 Alaska for RPA, Forest Service. December 1977. 



'•'' Wilson, C. Peairs. Range grazing demand in Hawaii. Unpub- 

 lished manuscript prepared under contract by the University of 

 Hawaii for RPA, Forest Service. May 1978. 



reconciled with data on total grazing and range 

 grazing. 



Part of the increasing demands for livestock prod- 

 ucts and the subsequent increase in demand for 

 grazed roughages can be met by several nonrange 

 grazing alternatives including: (1) Use of more crop- 

 land for grazing, (2) grazing of crop aftermath, and 

 (3) increasing pasture and cropland pasture yields. 

 Each alternative offers opportunities to increase the 

 amount of grazed roughage from nonrange lands. 



Cropland used for grazing. — Shifts of land use 

 between crop production and cropland used for pas- 

 ture have historically occurred in response to chang- 

 ing markets and governmental policies and programs. 

 In 1910, cropland used for pasture amounted to 

 about 84 million acres and this dechned to a low of 66 

 million acres in 1959. By 1969, total cropland pasture 

 had increased to 88 million acres, and then declined 

 to 84 million acres in 1975.''5 



There is a potential to divert additional cropland 

 acreage from crop production to livestock grazing."^ 

 For example. Federal grain production control pro- 

 grams whereby farmers are paid to divert cropland 

 from grain production can encourage the use of crop- 

 land for grazing. The cost of such a change is the 

 difference between the net return of producing crops 

 and the net return for pasture. The amount of such 

 increased conversion is limited. Much of the diverted 

 acreage is controlled by farmers who either do not 

 own cattle or sheep or who may not wish to increase 

 the size of their livestock operation. And finally, the 

 land available for diversion is frequently unfenced, 

 and fencing represents a significant cost which could 

 not be recovered in the brief time the area was grazed. 



The amount of land under these programs varies 

 from year to year. In 1972, nearly 60 million acres 

 were withheld from grain production. In the 1973- 

 1977 period, the program was smaller or nonexistent. 

 In 1978 and 1979, the program again involved sub- 

 stantial acreages. Assuming about 40 percent of the 

 acreage diverted in 1972 to be representative, there 

 could be approximately 24 million acres of additional 

 land available for grazing."^ This land is estimated to 

 have a potential production of 4.6 to 9.3 AUM's per 

 acre or 1 10 to 220 million AUM's annually. However, 



"5 U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural statistics 1977. 

 Unnumbered publication, 614 p. Washington, D.C. 1977. 



"* Gilliam, Henry C, Jr. Beef cattle production potential of set- 

 aside land. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

 Service, Washington, D.C. ERS-530. November 1973. 



"'Johnson, James, and Milton H. Erickson. Commodity pro- 

 gram provisions under the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977. U.S. 

 Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (now 

 Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service), Agric. Econ. 

 Rep. 389, 31 p. 1977. 



182 



