RANGE AND CATTLE MANAGEMENT DURING DROUGHT. 37 
Table 11 shows that, although pasture 5 was grazed more heavily 
on an average each year than pasture 2, the range improved in pro- 
duction of the main forage grasses and increased slightly in carrying 
capacity each year after 1916-17. The pasture was considered over- 
stocked only in 1915-16 and 1918-19, and stocked about right the 
other years. Although heavily stocked the pasture held up well, 
probably as a result of reduction in grazing during the main grow- 
ing season. Comparison of pastures 2 and 5 indicates that it was 
not overgrazing but heavy grazing during the growing season that 
was responsible for deterioration of pasture 2, and that the pasture 
would have sustained as an average for each year the number of 
stock actually grazed if grazing during the growing season had been 
more judicious. 
Pasture 10 (Table 12) agrees rather closely with pasture 5 in esti- 
mated grazing: capacity for the period. The actual difference was 
perhaps a little greater than shown in the tables in favor of pasture 5, 
as the drought was more severe in pasture 10 and in 1918 mainly 
short-age yearlings were grazed in the pasture, this class of animals 
requiring less range per head than cows. As in pasture 5, the prime 
factor in keeping this pasture up in carrying capacity was reduction 
in grazing during the main growing season. 
Table 13 shows that the average grazing on the outside range ex- 
ceeded the estimated grazing capacity each year with the exception 
of 1918-19, and that, except in 1918-19, the grazing capacity as well 
as the condition of the outside range in comparison with the pro- 
tected areas continued to decline up to 1919-20. The overgrazing 
during the whole year no doubt contributed a great deal to the de- 
cline in productivity of the range, but the overgrazing during the 
growing season, aS brought out in the last chapter, was mainly 
responsible for the heavy reduction in the condition of the forage 
and grazing capacity. The slight increase in the grazing capacity 
in 1918-19 and the improvement in condition of the range in 1919-20 
is largely due to the reduction in number of stock to more nearly 
what it should be, and light grazing during the main growing sea- 
sons of 1918 and 1919. 
The information obtained on yearlong winter range to date 
indicates that, while decreased grazing capacity will result during 
drought, the reduction may not be greater than the amount due to 
drought alone if the range is correctly managed. The main con- 
sideration is to handle the range so that grazing will be hght over 
as much of this class of range as possible during the main growing 
season—July to October. Without this provision the range will 
deteriorate faster during time of drought, varying with the time 
and intensity of grazing. 
