Soe BULLETIN 367, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. jf? 3 
There can be no question that the productivity of the areas whic!z 
have been pastured is normally greater than the average for the 
whole inclosed area, because these pastures he in that part of the 
grassed land which gets the most water. (See p. 8.) 
The forage-distribution map (fig. 3) shows a small patch of six- 
weeks grass in each of the pastures, a condition which would seem 
to indicate that these pastures may be somewhat overstocked. The 
general opinion of the various men is that their pastures have im- 
proved under protection, and these poorly grassed areas may be the 
remnants of larger areas that are being gradually replaced, though 
more slowly than on the completely protected area. 
In the opinion of the writer, the pastured areas have not deterio- 
rated noticeably since July, 1911, nor have they materially improved. 
He believes that during that time they have been kept at about 
uniform productivity, but shghtly below their maxima. The result 
of this is to make the carrying capacity appear a very little larger 
in figure 5 and in Table VII than it actually is. 
The above remarks apply with most force to the MacBeath pasture, 
less so to the Proctor pasture, and hardly at all to the Ruelas pasture. 
It should be understood that McCleary has not been running cattle 
upon his pasture. He has had it lightly and about uniformly 
stocked with horses and burros. These animals have been on the 
land continuously with little or no shifting, and the range which 
was unable to carry stock at the rate of 29 acres per head in the 
earlier days of the experiments? is now not noticeably different 
from the completely protected area lying immediately north of it. 
It is hardly possible to tell by the condition of the grass that there 
is any stock on this area. From such data it 1s perfectly certain 
that 50 acres per head per year is considerably under the carrying 
capacity of such range pasture.’ 
It is almost certain that stocking heavier than 53 animals per sec- 
tion (12 acres per head per year) on the MacBeath place and between 
45 and 50 animals per section (13 or 14 acres per head per year) on 
the Proctor place is not warranted by the present condition of these 
pastures, under their present form of management. It is more 
difficult to get an estimate for the Ruelas place, because other im- 
portant but as yet unmeasured factors enter the problem. From 
the standpoint of feed alone, the Ruelas pasture will doubtless carry 
as much per section as the MacBeath place, but for some time past 
the supply of stock water has been insufficient for all the stock which 
the pasture would carry. 
1See Bureau of Plant Industry Bulletin 177, p. 21. 
2 The horses on this area have very light work and little of it. They are always fed a 
small amount of grain whenever they are worked; at other times all their feed is the 
native grass grown on the area. 
