RANGE AND CATTLE MANAGEMENT DURING DROUGHT. 45 
TABLE 19.—Records of supplemental feeding to cows and heifers in breeding herd. 
Per cent Total Cost per 
| Number : 
Year. Stock {| peeain g| Character and amount of feed. apes pe peas 
fed. cows. feeding. herd. 
MIO 1Gss ee 445 2.3 | 32,600 pounds cottonseed cake..| $652. 00 $1. 47 $0. 33 
THONG =f BA Bom pen cad 420 2.0 | 39,470 pounds cottonseed cake-.} 1, 051, 69 2. 50 “52 
a 171,016 pounds cottonseed cake-}) x : 
=a ae oie CP Eas mt, 169 8970 Pasturage, 353 tons soapweed 2. |f 8, 747. 36 =e teal 
1 Includes only cows and heifersin breeding herd; bulls, calves, and young heifers not included. 
ene for 215 cows and young calves for about three months, November, December, and January, 
3 No feeding. 
Even in good years the feeding of cottonseed cake or other con- 
centrated feeds in small amount to the breeding stock to keep losses 
at a minimum and the stock in condition to produce a good calf 
crop is considered good business. The feeding in 1915-16 and in 
1916-17 was for this purpose rather than because of lack of range 
forage. Feeding in 1917-18, however, was largely a necessity to 
get the stock through in any condition. Much heavier feeding would 
have been necessary to have maintained calf crop and losses at 
approximately what they were in other years. The losses were 
extremely low compared with either the average for this section 
over a period of years or the average for the drought, but were 3.5 
per cent as compared with 1.7 per cent average for 1915-16-17 on 
the reserve. The calf crop in 1919 was 43 per cent as compared with 
64.7 per cent average for 1915 to 1917 on the reserve. Further, the 
overstocked condition resulted in marked injury to pasture 2, the 
main grama-grass pasture of the reserve, and the possibility of 
heavier loss was too great. Had the drought continued another year 
with both stock and range in poor condition and surplus forage all 
used the situation would have been serious. 
The $4.40 per head cost of supplemental feeding in 1917-18 for 
breeding stock is not considered a serious matter, provided losses are 
kept down to about what they were for the reserve in 1915 to 1917 
and the calf crop up to about what it was for that period. To have 
accomplished this in 1917-18, however, a material reduction in stock 
would have been necessary after the critical period arrived. The 
difficulty of selling surplus stock in poor condition at that time with- 
out a heavy sacrifice emphasizes the necessity for reducing the herd 
in advance. 
The fact that forage production at the worst of the drought was 
estimated at only 54 per cent of what it was in 1915-16 over the 
whole reserve and only 60 per cent on the areas protected from 
grazing, and the probable difficulty of getting rid of all but breeding 
stock at the right time, lead to the conclusion that instead of using 
