Volume 11, Number 6 (November 1958)

(1)

(2)

American

Society of Range Management

The American Society of Range Management was created allied technologists, and to encourage professional improvement in 1947 to foster advancement in the science and art of grazing of its members.

land management, to promote progress in the conservation and Persons shall be eligible for membership w’ho are interested greatest sustained use of forage and soil resources, to stimu- in or engaged in practicing range or pasture management or late discussion and understanding of scientific and practical animal husbandry ; administering grazing lands; or teaching, range and pasture problems, to provide a medium for the or conducting research, or engaged in extension activities in exchange of ideas and facts among society members and with range or pasture management or related subjects.

T

he JOURNAL OF RANGE MAN- AGEMENT , published bi-monthly, is the official organ of the American Society of Range Management. The Society, however, assumes no responsibility for the statements and opinions expressed by authors and contributors.

Off ice, Executive Secretary. Address all inquiries and correspondence including memberships, renewals, replacements of JOURNALS, etc., to Executive Secretary, American Society of Range Management,

P.O. Box 5041, Portland 13, Oregon. Change of Address. Notices of change of address should be received by the Execu- tive Secretary one month before the date of issue on which the change is to take effect. Both the new and old addresses should be sent to the Executive Secretary, American Society of Range Management, P.O. Box 5041, Portland 13, Oregon.

Dues. Membership dues should be sent to the Executive Secretary. The dues are $8.00 per year of which $5.00 is a subscrip- tion to the JOURNAL OF RANGE MAN- AGEMENT. Dues for student members are $4.00 per year, including the JOURNAL. All subscriptions mailed outside the North American continent and insular possessions of the U. S. are $8.50 per year. Subscrip- tions must be paid in advance. Remit by draft or check on U. S. banks in U. S. funds. Reprinting. The reprinting of articles or parts of articles published in the JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT is author- ized on the express condition that full credit be given the JOURNAL and the author. The date of original publication must be shown with the credit line.

Post Office Enfry. Second-class post- age paid at Portland, Oregon, and at additional offices.

Printers. The Nebraska Farmer Company,

1420 P Street, Lincoln, Nebraska.

OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY President:

ROBERT S. CAMPBELL U. S. Forest Service

704 Lowich Bldg., 2026 St. Charles Ave. New Orleans 13, La.

Vice President: Executive Secretary;

DONALD F. HERVEY JOHN G. CLOUSTON

Colorado State University P. 0. Box 5041

Fort Collins, Colorado Portland 13, Oregon

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1956-58

JOHN M. CROSS JOE A. WAGNER

A-7 Ranch Bureau of Indian Affairs

Nanton, Alberta Washington 25, D. C.

1957-59

KENNETH CONRAD E. WM. ANDERSON

Wray, Colorado Soil Conservation Service Pendleton, Oregon 1958-60

JAMES L. FINLEY MELVIN S. MORRIS

Holbrook, Arizona University of Montana Missoula, Montana Past President:

E. W. TISDALE School of Forestry

University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho

HISTORIAN: A. A. BEETLE, Dept. of Agronomy, University of Wyoming,

Laramie, Wyoming

JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT

EDITOR

WARREN C. WHITMAN

Department of Botany, North Dakota Agricultural College Fargo, North Dakota

EDITORIAL BOARD 1956-58

BEN 0. OSBORN CLINTON H. WASSER

Soil Conservation Service School of Forestry & Range Mangt. U. S. Department of Agriculture Colorado State Universitv

Washington 25, D. C.

FRANK GYBERG Cornville, Arizona

ARNOLD HEERWAGEN Soil Conservation Service 321 New Customs Building

Denver 2, Colorado

1957-59

1958-60

Fort Collins, Colorado - E. J. WOOLFOLK California Forest & Range

Experiment Station Berkeley 1, California

W. R. HANSON Eastern Rockies Forest

(3)

JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Volume 11,1958

NUMBER 1, JANUARY

Reclaiming Texas Brushland Range ____________________________ ______.____________________________________-__---.-- Meril G. Carter

Management as Related to Range Site in the Cen-

tral Plains of Eastern Colorado _____________________________ ___.____.__.___._____.__________._____________ _______ Arnold Heerwagen

Criteria and Conditions for Public and Private

Ownership of Range Resources ____________________________ ______________________________________ . . . ..S. V. Ciriacy-Wantrup

The Control of Digger Pine with Herbicides Placed

in Basal Cuts ____________________________________________~__________._______

J. L. Launchbaugh, H. H. Biswell, A. M. Schultz

1

5

10

14

Techniques in Studying Competition Between Big Game and Livestock . . . . .._..._...OdeZZ Julander

Effects of Certain Fungicides on Seed Germination and Seedling Establishment of Range Forage Plants . . . .._.._...John H. Ehrenreich

Seeding Pelleted and Unpelleted Seed on Four

Range Types ______A. T. Bleak and A. C. Hull, Jr.

Proper Utilization-A Problem in Evaluating the

Physiological Response of Plants to Grazing

Use: A Review . . . ..__..DonaZd W. Hedrick

NUMBER 2, MARCH

Report of the President, 1957 . . . ..__...E. W. T&dale 57 Profitable Use of Fertilizer on Native Meadows

. . . ..Michael Nelson and

A Message from the New President ____________________________ _{Blue Grama Types from West Texas and Eastern}Emery N. Castle

________________________._______________.__.___~___. Robert S. Campbell 60 _{New Mexico} _{. . . ..__...Jack R. Harlan}

Effects on Associated Species of Burning, Roto- Some Slope-Plant Relationships in the Grasslands

beating, Spraying, and Railing Sagebrush ________ of the Little Missouri Badlands of North Da-

_...Walter F. Mueggler and James P. Blaisdell _-- 61 kota . . . .._._...__._.____________________________.Ralph L. Dix

Quantitative Effects of Twenty-three Years of Con- Technical Notes:

trolled Use on Mountain Range ____________________________ Bunchgrass Form Classes for Trend Studies

. . . ..__.._...F. A. Branson and Thomas Lommasson 67 . . . .._..._..Glen F. Cole and Bruce T. Wilkins

Testing New Range Forage Plants _______________________________ A Loop Method for Measuring Ground-Cover _{Characteristics on Permanent Plots __}_{__________}_{_.} ___________-____________________________~--- John L. Schwendiman 71 _._______________.______________________---~~--- Richard S. Driscoll

Economics of Ranch Appraisal __________________________________ Modifications of the Point Frame ________________________

Arden B. Gundersen 77 . . . .._.HaroZd F.

________________________________________-__--_--- Heady and Lynn Ruder

NUMBER 3, MAY

Relative Preference and Productivity of Species on Summer Cattle Ranges, Big Horn Mountains,

Wyoming _________________.__________.____._______________________.____________

. . . .._....Richard M. Hurd and Floyd W. Pond

Competition Between Forbs and Grasses __________________ ________________________________________---~ Don D. Dwyer

Measurement of Time and Rate of Growth of Range

Plants with Applications in Range Manage-

ment . . . .._...________~~______Lorenz F. Bredemeier

Sagebrush Control with 2,4-D ___________.___‘____~__.~__~_____~._~__

Donald R. Cornelius and Charles A. Graham

Natural Sources of Nitrogen and Phosphorus for Grass Growth . . . .._...Arthur D. Miles

Shrub Invasion of a Southern New Mexico Desert

109 _{Grassland Range} _{.._..._...Bruce L. Branscomb}

115 Herbage Production and Grazing Capacity on An- _nual-Plant _{Range Pastures Fertilized} _with

Sulfur __________________________________________.___________._________________~___

J. R. Bentley, L. R. Green, and K. A. Wagnon

119 Generalized Curves for Gain per Head and Gain

per Acre in Rates of Grazing Studies ______________ 122 . .._...__________._______________________._____Jack R. Harlan

NUMBER 4, JULY

Some Factors Affecting Establishment of Desirable Steer Gains on Annual-Plant Range Pastures Fer-

Forage Plants in Weedy Bluegrass Pastures of tilized with Sulfur _.______________________________________.____~~.~.__

Eastern Nebraska ______.______._____________________________.__________ K. A. Wagnon, J. R. Bentley, and L. R. Green

Milo L. Cox and M. K. McCarty 159

____________________________ Grass Seedings on Lodgepole Pine Burns in the Northwest . . . .._...._...Norman R. McClure

Effects of Sheep and Gophers on Meadows of the

Bridger Mountains of Montana ______ ____ ______ _________.__ Exclosures in Big Game Management in Utah ______

F. A. Branson and G. F. Payne 165 _________________________________.______~___~___~~________ Stanford Young ______________________________ _{Grazing Preference} _Comparisons _{of Six Native}

Reinvasion of Big Sagebrush Following Chemical Grasses in the Mixed Prairie . . . ..G. W. Toma-

Control __.__..._..._.___~________~______~_~W. M. Johnson 169 nek, Edwin P. Martin, and F. W. Albertson

Technical Notes:

Management Aspects of Range Management _______--- Balancing Livestock Numbers, Feed and For-

. . . .._.Calvin C. Boykin, Jr. and R. J. Hildreth 173 age on Ranching Units._..Leroy H. Rasmussen

18

22

28

34

80

84

88

92

94

95

125

129

133

140

177

183

186

191

(4)

6,

NOVEMBER

Hand-Grubbing Mesquite in the Semidesert Grass-

land ____________________________________________________________________________.___ . . . ..CarZton Herbel, Fred Ares, and Joe Bridges

Practical Range Management in the South _______ _ ________

__-._-_..____-.---.---_---_--- Robert E. Williams

A Flexible Conservation ,Lease for Rangeland... ___...____.__._________________---~~~~~~~~ Rudy J. Pedmson

Benefits of Rotation-Deferred Grazing on North-

west Ranges ____ ____________________ . . . ..CZaude C. Dillon

How Much Feed Can This Range Produce... ___.____._____._----____________ R. E. Bement and D. W. Davis

Observations of a Rancher on Range Reseeding in Oregon _________ _____ ________. _ ____ . . . ..R. A. Long

Aerial Chemical Reduction of Hardwood Brush as a Range Improvement Practice in Arkansas________ 287 ________ ___________.__________ ____ ._____._________ . . . ..HurZon C. Ray

A Method of Managing Sportsmen on Rangeland....

270 G. W. Philpott, W. E. Howard, and C. A. Graham

Prescribed Burning in Georgia and California ________ _______.______________ __ ____ . . . . ..H.

275 _{Technical Notes:}Compared H. BisweZZ

Characteristics Related to Summer Growth of

278 Prairie Three-Awn Grass _______.________.____ ____.____.____._.__

. . . .._Horton M. Laude and John C. Meldeen

281 The Effects of Aqueous Extracts of Halogeton

Tissue on Germination of Seeds and Growth

of Seedlings _ ---.---.---__~~~---~_~.__._____..__

283 ______ __________________ Dixie Smith and Frank Rauchfuss

238

244

247

248

284

290

293

298

300

One of the re- wards of being President of the

’ American Socie-

ty of Range Man-

agement is the

opportunity ’ to

follow the ac-

complishments of

our 18 active

Sections as re-

ported periodically in their News-

letters. One can keep up “With the

Sections” generally in the Journal of Range Management, but not all of the details get into the Journal. One must follow the individual Section

Newsletters to appreciate the full

scope of work carried on by these

field units of the Society. Section

meetings vary from indoor sessions

with formal technical papers to

ranch tours and range management

Message from the President

demonstrations. Section projects in-

clude such divergent items as range and plant judging contests, exhibits, sponsorship of college student chap- ters, youth camps, and various technical and popular publications deal- ing with range plants, resources, and management.

One project each Section should seriously consider is an organized

effort to interest intelligent high

school seniors in taking range management in college. Nationwide, un- dergraduate enrollment in agriculture as a whole has been declining for some years. We have a selling job to do on the opportunities for the

range management graduate. Our

range resource needs a steady flow

of well-trained men to carry on the

work of management, administra-

tion, education, and research. The

Society can help get capable young men interested in this work. As an aid in this effort, the Society’s bro-

chure on Careers in Range Manage-

ment should be available early next year. In addition, the Sections should make full use of the material in the range resource manual prepared by the Committee on Cooperation with Youth Organizations, also the Range Management Education Reprint Se- ries available from several sources

(see JRM 11:214, 1958).

Section project planning commit- tees will want to consider these and other ideas, fitted to the needs of the territories they serve. Active work on one or more timely projects is one way in which each Section can help

carry out the objectives of the

Society.

(5)

6,

NOVEMBER

Hand-Grubbing Mesquite in the Semidesert Grass-

land ____________________________________________________________________________.___ . . . ..CarZton Herbel, Fred Ares, and Joe Bridges

Practical Range Management in the South _______ _ ________

__-._-_..____-.---.---_---_--- Robert E. Williams

A Flexible Conservation ,Lease for Rangeland... ___...____.__._________________---~~~~~~~~ Rudy J. Pedmson

Benefits of Rotation-Deferred Grazing on North-

west Ranges ____ ____________________ . . . ..CZaude C. Dillon

How Much Feed Can This Range Produce... ___.____._____._----____________ R. E. Bement and D. W. Davis

Observations of a Rancher on Range Reseeding in Oregon _________ _____ ________. _ ____ . . . ..R. A. Long

Aerial Chemical Reduction of Hardwood Brush as a Range Improvement Practice in Arkansas________ 287 ________ ___________.__________ ____ ._____._________ . . . ..HurZon C. Ray

A Method of Managing Sportsmen on Rangeland....

270 G. W. Philpott, W. E. Howard, and C. A. Graham

Prescribed Burning in Georgia and California ________ _______.______________ __ ____ . . . . ..H.

275 _{Technical Notes:}Compared H. BisweZZ

Characteristics Related to Summer Growth of

278 Prairie Three-Awn Grass _______.________.____ ____.____.____._.__

. . . .._Horton M. Laude and John C. Meldeen

281 The Effects of Aqueous Extracts of Halogeton

Tissue on Germination of Seeds and Growth

of Seedlings _ ---.---.---__~~~---~_~.__._____..__

283 ______ __________________ Dixie Smith and Frank Rauchfuss

238

244

247

248

284

290

293

298

300

One of the re- wards of being President of the

’ American Socie-

ty of Range Man-

agement is the

opportunity ’ to

follow the ac-

complishments of

our 18 active

Sections as re-

ported periodically in their News-

letters. One can keep up “With the

Sections” generally in the Journal of Range Management, but not all of the details get into the Journal. One must follow the individual Section

Newsletters to appreciate the full

scope of work carried on by these

field units of the Society. Section

meetings vary from indoor sessions

with formal technical papers to

ranch tours and range management

Message from the President

demonstrations. Section projects in-

clude such divergent items as range and plant judging contests, exhibits, sponsorship of college student chap- ters, youth camps, and various technical and popular publications deal- ing with range plants, resources, and management.

One project each Section should seriously consider is an organized

effort to interest intelligent high

school seniors in taking range management in college. Nationwide, un- dergraduate enrollment in agriculture as a whole has been declining for some years. We have a selling job to do on the opportunities for the

range management graduate. Our

range resource needs a steady flow

of well-trained men to carry on the

work of management, administra-

tion, education, and research. The

Society can help get capable young men interested in this work. As an aid in this effort, the Society’s bro-

chure on Careers in Range Manage-

ment should be available early next year. In addition, the Sections should make full use of the material in the range resource manual prepared by the Committee on Cooperation with Youth Organizations, also the Range Management Education Reprint Se- ries available from several sources

(see JRM 11:214, 1958).

Section project planning commit- tees will want to consider these and other ideas, fitted to the needs of the territories they serve. Active work on one or more timely projects is one way in which each Section can help

carry out the objectives of the

Society.

(6)

Journal of

Volume 11, No. 6 November, 1958

RANGE

MANAGEMENT

Hand-Grubbing

Mesquite

in the

Semidesert

Grassland

CARLTON HERBEL, FRED ARES, and JOE BRIDGES,

Research A g r o n o m is t and Range Conservationist, Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Serv- ice, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Jornada Experi- mental Range, Las Cruces, New Mexico; and Rancher, Las Cruces, New Mexico

Honey mesquite (Prosopis juli- flora var. glandulosa Torr.) has become an ever-increasing problem on the semidesert grassland. The semidesert grassland occu- pies an extensive area in south- eastern Arizona, southern New Mexico, western Texas, and northern Mexico. On the Jor- nada Experimental Range in southern New Mexico, mesquite domipated land has increased from 13 percent of the total in 1915 to 36 percent of the total in 1946 and 49 percent in 1957. This has occurred on land that has a history of conservative grazing use and even on some large areas under complete protection. While heavy grazing use will ac- celerate the spread of mesquite,

the complete absence of grazing use will not prevent that spread.

Mesquite invasion on the sandy soils of the area is characterized by: (1) young plants that are hidden among the grasses, (2) older mesquite plants with sand blow-outs around them, and (3) the disastrous mesquite sand dunes. Once mesquite invasion has reached the third stage, it is uneconomical by present stand- ards to reclaim that land. The average carrying capacity of the range during normal years is re- duced from 18 animal-unit-years of grazing per section in the first stage to 3 animal-unit-years or less of grazing per section in the third stage.

Grubbing light stands of young

mesquite plants is the most economical means of controlling mesquite. When plants become too large to grub, more expen- sive chemical control measures must be employed. In hand- grubbing care must be exercised to completely sever the plant below the budding area of the root. In plants not having sand piled around the base, the budding area is found about four inches below the surface of the ground. A large scale mesquite control program was initiated on the Jornada Experimental Ran g e early in 1958 to make information available to ranchers in the area on the costs and techniques of control measures. The area hand-grubbed was 4,265 acres lo- cated in three different pastures.

The contractor was a nearby farmer-rancher anxious to use his labor supply during an off- season. Thus if a rancher him- self does not have a source of cheap labor for this purpose, it may be possible for him to make an arrangement with a neighbor to their mutual advantage.

Two views taken at the same location in 1933 (left) and in 1957 (right). Note the absence of mesquite in the aspect in 1933, whereas in 1957 the area is practically dominated by mesquite.

(7)

268 CARLTON HERBEL, FRED ARES, AND JOE BRIDGES

Area Grubbed

The area grubbed on the Jor- nada Range was parts of three pastures. Pasture 8 has a total area of 5,512 acres. The northern part of that pasture is covered with mesquite dunes. South of the dunes is an area with a dense stand of mesquite. The southern part of the pasture, 1,951 acres altogether, had a thinner stand of mesquite, mixed younger and older plants. The younger plants, those with a crown diameter of 30 inches or less, were grubbed in this latter area. If those younger plants were allowed to remain, in a few years that grassland area would have been dominated by mesquite.

Pasture 13 has a total area of 942 acres, a small part of which is in sand dunes. A total of 813 acres was grubbed. None of pasture 11, with 3,610 acres, is sand dunes, but only 1,501 acres were grubbed this year.. Thus, a total of 4,265 acres was grubbed.

Methods Grubbing

In the grubbing program it was decided to grub plants of a 30- inch crown diameter or less.

Table 1. Mesquite plants grubbed, plants missed, and plants ungrubbable per acre on fhe dxperimental pasfures as determined from belt-transect data (transects 104x208 feet).

-____ --- ___~ ~_~

Pasture

No.

Av. No. 0.95 Av. No. 0.95 No. of 0.93

No.

of plants Fiducial plants Fiducial plants Fiducial

transects grubbed _ interval missed interval ungrubbable interval

-__ ___

per acre per acre per acre

8 141 61.66 16.70 4.70 1.70 33.26 10.60

11 95 41.88 17.46 2.73 1.28 25.20 3.93

13 52 40.46 22.00 2.34 1.84 17.38 8.58

Weighted average 51.30 5.46* 3.64 0.50* 27.74 3.13*

*Calculated on the totd.

Plants that are much larger require too much time to grub. However, if the mesquite stand is such that there are only occa- sional larger plants, they should also be grubbed. The maximum concentration of plants, on sites to be grubbed, was set at 150 plants per acre. Here again if a localized area has a denser stand, it should be grubbed. In the grubbing program this year, 11 men were used most of the time.

The grubbers were spaced at 30-foot intervals. They were kept in line and spaced by a system of flagging. The flags were spaced 30 feet apart. Several different colors of flagging material were fastened to lath stakes so that each individual was not con-

Lath stakes placed near inconspicuous mesquite plants that are grubbable within a distance of 75 feet from the camera. The large mesquite plant in the foreground is too large to hand-grub. Note the relatively bare soil around the large mesquite plant. Forage plants cannot successfully compete with mesquite for soil moisture. The bushy plants in the foreground are broom snakeweed.

fused as to which flag was to be his guide. The rows of flags were placed about % mile apart. The distance will vary somewhat according to topography. As the grubbers passed a row of these flags they were moved over so that they would be in place for the return swath. Changing the flags proved to be a full-time job for one man with a pick-up truck.

A supervisor followed closely behind the grubbers to check on their work and to grub occa- sional plants they had missed. Accurate records of time were kept.

Checking

(8)

HAND-GRUBBING MESQUITE

lowing plant data: (1) mesquite plants grubbed, (2) plants missed that should have been grubbed, and (3) those too large for grubbing. As they moved along, each man noted the plants along the string up to the rag marker in the center. Thus, each man observed 26 feet. When the stake was reached, the men changed to the other side and moving back toward the vehicle repeated the process. Since Ih: acre was the sampling unit, the results are doubled to give a per acre value. Approximately 40 observations were taken per section.

Resolfs and Conclusions Belt-transect data in pasture 8 showed an average of 99.62 mesquite plants per acre on the 1,951 acres that were grubbed. Of the 99.62 plants, an average of 66.36 plants had a crown diameter of 30 inches or less. These were the grubbable plants. An average of 4.70 plants, or 7.08 percent, were missed per acre; that is, they had a crown diameter of less than 30 inches and should have been grubbed. The number of plants too large to grub averaged 33.26 per acre. To grub the mesquite

on the 1,951 acres required 1,360

man-hours for the grubbers and 96 man-hours for supervision. In- cluded with the time for the grubbers is the time of one man whose job was to change the flags as the grubbers passed. The average time for the grubbers was 0.697 man-hours per acre and for the supervisor 0.049 man- hours per acre. As an example, if labor were $0.65 per hour and supervisory labor $1.25 per hour, the average cost of clearing would have been $0.45 per acre for the labor and $0.06 for the supervision or a total of $0.51 per acre.

In pasture 13, belt-transect data gave an average of 60.18 mesquite plants per acre on the

269

813 acres that were grubbed: Of the 60.18 plants, an average of 42.80 had a crown diameter of 30 inches or less and were deemed grubbable. An average of 2.34 plants per acre, or 5.47 percent, were missed. The number of plants too large to grub averaged 17.38 plants per acre. To grub the mesquite on the 813 acres required 504 man-hours for the grubbers and flagger, and 41 man-hours of supervision. The average time for the grubbers

(and flagger) was 0.62 man- hours per acre and for the supervisor 0.05 man-hours per acre. Again using $0.65 an hour for labor and $1.25 per hour for supervision as an example, the average cost of clearing would have been $0.40 per acre for the labor and $0.06 for the supervisor or a total of $0.46 per acre.

In pasture 11, belt-transect data gave an average of 69.86 mesquite plants on the 1,501 acres that were grubbed. Of the 69.86 plants, an average of 44.66 were grubbable. An average of 2.78 plants or 6.22 percent were missed. The number of plants too large to grub averaged 25.20 plants per acre. To grub the mesquite on the 1,501 acres required 667 man-hours for the grubbers and flagger, and 47 man-hours of supervision. The average time for the grubbers (and flagger) was 0.444 man-hours per acre and for the supervisor 0.031 man- hours per acre. At $0.65 an hour for labor and $1.25 per hour for supervision, the average cost of

Table 2. Summary of man-hour requirements and costs for grubbing honey mesquite on the experimental pastures.

Grubbers j Supervisor

Pasture Area Total Time per Cost per Total Time per Cost perTotal cost

No. grubbed time acre acre time acre acre2 per acre

man- man- man- man-

Acres hours hours hours hours

8 1951 1360 0.697 $0.45 96 0.049 $0.06 $0.51

11 1501 661 0.444 0.29 47 0.031 0.04 0.33

13 813 504 0.620 0.40 41 0.050 0.06 0.46

Total 4265 2531 184 . ._._ ____

Average .._ 0.593 0.385 __ 0.043 0.054 0.439

(9)

clearing would have been $0.29 per acre for the labor and $0.04 for the supervisor or a total of $0.33 per acre.

On the total 4,265 acres grubbed there was an average of 82.68 mesquite plants per acre. Of these, 54.94 plants were grubbable. Of the 54.94 grubbable plants an average of 51.30 were grubbed. An average of 3.64 plants or 6.63 percent were missed. The number of plants too large to grub averaged 27.74 plants per acre. To grub the mesquite on the 4,265 acres required 2,531 man-hours for the grubbers and flagger, and 184 man-hours of supervision. The average time for the grubbers (and flagger) was 0.593 man-hours per acre and for the supervisor 0.043 man- hours per acre. At $0.65 per hour for labor and $1.25 per hour for

_~

Pracfical

supervision, the average cost would have been $0.385 per acre for the labor and $0.054 for the supervision or a total of about $0.44 per acre. The total cost for grubbing the 4,265 acres at the rates used above would be $1,872.34. See Tables 1 and 2 for the belt-transect and mesquite grubbing summations.

It was noted that after the grubbers had been working for a week, they became accustomed to their spacing of 30 feet. After the first week, it is believed that it would be unnecessary to have a flag for each individual grub- ber. Having a flag for each fourth or fifth man would be sufficient to keep them in line. The grubbers themselves, accustomed to working on a cotton farm felt that the work was com- paratively easy. Grubbing in the

Range Managemenf

in fhe Soufhl

ROBERT E. WILLIAMS, Range Conservationist, South- east, Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Athens, Georgia

The Southern Range is scattered from the Atlantic seaboard to eastern Texas and Oklahoma, and from Virginia to south Flori- da. Some portions of this broad area are predominantly range, but generally timber growing is the major land use. Native range forage is a secondary crop on many woodland sites; on others, little if any forage is produced once the land is stocked with timber. Range forage is an important resource in parts of the Arkansas highlands, throughout the longleaf, slash pine, pondpine areas and marshes of the Coastal Plain, and in the flatwoods and prairies of Peninsula Florida. Natural forage is an important

‘Paper pres ented at the 1 lth Annual Meeting, American Society of Range Management, Phoenix, Arizona, Jan- uary 28-February 1, 1958.

part of some individual cattle operations in the loblolly-shortleaf belt, the delta country, and in the mountains, but these operations are somewhat scattered.

Cattle is the main class of stock. As fence laws and better management in general increased, and the open range de- creased, sheep and hogs have de- clined in numbers. Fencing is the first requirement for parctic- ing practical range management. Without fences cattle cannot be controlled, and without control of the livestock, the range cannot be managed.

1 Historical Background Many of these natural grazing areas in the South are older in history of use than the Western Range. Some writers claim that the first cattle to enter what is now the United States were

-

winter months, as in this case, has the advantage of being an off-season for farm laborers and also of being cooler than other times during the year.

Summary

Hand-grubbing mesquite on 4,265 acres of typical semidesert grassland is reported. A method of laying out the grubbing area and a method of checking are explained in detail. An average of 0.593 man-hours per acre was required for grubbing and flagging; an average of 0.043 man- hours per acre for the combination supervisor and clean-up man. It is proposed that more attention be given to this economical method of controlling light stands of small mesquite plants to avoid further loss of valuable grassland.

brought by Coronado in 1540 to supply food for his great expedi- tion in search of the Seven Cities of Cibolo. Other reports on the first importation of cattle show that Ponce de Leon brought cattle and other livestock when he landed in the vicinity of Char- lotte Harbor, Florida, on his second voyage in 1521. This would be nineteen years before Core; nado’s entrance.

According to some writers, De- Soto also scattered hogs and some cattle during his march through the South in the early 1540’s. Travelers who visited the Southeast before 1700 wrote of great numbers of cattle and of Indians on horseback.

Due to the mild climate, long growing seasons, and the great reservoir of natural forage, cattle and hogs were able to increase.

(10)

clearing would have been $0.29 per acre for the labor and $0.04 for the supervisor or a total of $0.33 per acre.

On the total 4,265 acres grubbed there was an average of 82.68 mesquite plants per acre. Of these, 54.94 plants were grubbable. Of the 54.94 grubbable plants an average of 51.30 were grubbed. An average of 3.64 plants or 6.63 percent were missed. The number of plants too large to grub averaged 27.74 plants per acre. To grub the mesquite on the 4,265 acres required 2,531 man-hours for the grubbers and flagger, and 184 man-hours of supervision. The average time for the grubbers (and flagger) was 0.593 man-hours per acre and for the supervisor 0.043 man- hours per acre. At $0.65 per hour for labor and $1.25 per hour for

_~

Pracfical

supervision, the average cost would have been $0.385 per acre for the labor and $0.054 for the supervision or a total of about $0.44 per acre. The total cost for grubbing the 4,265 acres at the rates used above would be $1,872.34. See Tables 1 and 2 for the belt-transect and mesquite grubbing summations.

It was noted that after the grubbers had been working for a week, they became accustomed to their spacing of 30 feet. After the first week, it is believed that it would be unnecessary to have a flag for each individual grub- ber. Having a flag for each fourth or fifth man would be sufficient to keep them in line. The grubbers themselves, accustomed to working on a cotton farm felt that the work was com- paratively easy. Grubbing in the

Range Managemenf

in fhe Soufhl

ROBERT E. WILLIAMS, Range Conservationist, South- east, Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Athens, Georgia

The Southern Range is scattered from the Atlantic seaboard to eastern Texas and Oklahoma, and from Virginia to south Flori- da. Some portions of this broad area are predominantly range, but generally timber growing is the major land use. Native range forage is a secondary crop on many woodland sites; on others, little if any forage is produced once the land is stocked with timber. Range forage is an important resource in parts of the Arkansas highlands, throughout the longleaf, slash pine, pondpine areas and marshes of the Coastal Plain, and in the flatwoods and prairies of Peninsula Florida. Natural forage is an important

‘Paper pres ented at the 1 lth Annual Meeting, American Society of Range Management, Phoenix, Arizona, Jan- uary 28-February 1, 1958.

part of some individual cattle operations in the loblolly-shortleaf belt, the delta country, and in the mountains, but these operations are somewhat scattered.

Cattle is the main class of stock. As fence laws and better management in general increased, and the open range de- creased, sheep and hogs have de- clined in numbers. Fencing is the first requirement for parctic- ing practical range management. Without fences cattle cannot be controlled, and without control of the livestock, the range cannot be managed.

1 Historical Background Many of these natural grazing areas in the South are older in history of use than the Western Range. Some writers claim that the first cattle to enter what is now the United States were

-

winter months, as in this case, has the advantage of being an off-season for farm laborers and also of being cooler than other times during the year.

Summary

Hand-grubbing mesquite on 4,265 acres of typical semidesert grassland is reported. A method of laying out the grubbing area and a method of checking are explained in detail. An average of 0.593 man-hours per acre was required for grubbing and flagging; an average of 0.043 man- hours per acre for the combination supervisor and clean-up man. It is proposed that more attention be given to this economical method of controlling light stands of small mesquite plants to avoid further loss of valuable grassland.

brought by Coronado in 1540 to supply food for his great expedi- tion in search of the Seven Cities of Cibolo. Other reports on the first importation of cattle show that Ponce de Leon brought cattle and other livestock when he landed in the vicinity of Char- lotte Harbor, Florida, on his second voyage in 1521. This would be nineteen years before Core; nado’s entrance.

According to some writers, De- Soto also scattered hogs and some cattle during his march through the South in the early 1540’s. Travelers who visited the Southeast before 1700 wrote of great numbers of cattle and of Indians on horseback.

Due to the mild climate, long growing seasons, and the great reservoir of natural forage, cattle and hogs were able to increase.

(11)

RANGE MANAGEMENT IN THE SOUTH

271 keeper” and of their vast herds

of cattle and horses.

Livestock production on south-

ern ranges was relatively low,

however, due to deficiency in nu-

tritive value of range forage dur-

ing fall and winter months, in-

sects and diseases, and to poor

management. What increase was

realized cost little if anything

other than the effort to harvest

it. Except for recognition of own-

ership, livestock were treated

with little more attention than

wild animals.

By way of contrast, the west-

ern rancher was often faced with

short growing seasons, severe

winters or prolonged droughts.

Forage quality was higher, and

cattle also got more supplemen-

tal feeding and better care in

general. With higher quality for-

age and the better care required

due to climatic conditions, live-

stock generally fared somewhat

better on the western range.

Livestock

Production Potential Realized

In the last few years the live-

stock producing potential in the

South has gained wider recogni-

tion, and native range forage is

recognized as a valuable re-

source. Great progress has been

made in the last two decades in

controlling insects, better feed-

ing,

and improved breeding.

Range livestock are now recog-

nized as domestic animals by

many operators and cared for as

such. Improved pastures have

given rise to outstanding breed-

ing and commercial herds. On

native ranges progress has been

slower, but progressive cattle-

men and researchers are showing

what can be done toward pro-

ducing beef at a profit with

cheap natural forage.

Practical Range Management

Sound management of ranges

in the South as elsewhere must

be based on the following points:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Knowledge of the different

kinds of land or sites and

their potential for produc-

ing forage.

Setting of management

goals as to the kinds of for-

age plants to be encouraged

on each site through range

management practices.

Recognition of the seasonal

variation in forage value on

each site.

Provision for supplemental

feeds or tame pasture for

use when the range forage

is so deficient that it will

not adequately

support

livestock.

Application of the proper

combination of range man-

agement and development

practices which will move

range condition toward the

management goal and still

produce

livestock

at a

profit.

Management goals and prac-

tice selection must be compatible

with timber production on wood-

land ranges. A decrease in for-

age volume occurs as timber

stands develop. On well-man-

aged pine woodland areas control

of undesirable woody plants,

proper thinning, and harvest cut-

ting encourage the highest for-

age production consistent with

timber production.

Managed

grazing of some pine woodlands

in turn, reduces fire hazard, con-

tributes to hardwood control by

use of sprouts, and is sometimes

helpful in years of pine seed pro-

duction by keeping the rough

down and getting seed in contact

with the soil.

Examples of Practical Management

Now

let’s take a look at a few

of the many successful cattle op-

erations across the South and see

how range forage fits into vari-

ous livestock enterprises:

Swifchcane-Pond Pine Area

(12)

272 ROBERT E.

WILLIAMS

On woodland range, quality and quantity of forage are affected

by site, conditions due to past use, and the density of the timber

stand. As the canopy of trees develops, production of understory

forage plants declines.

fires which can seriously deplete

switchcane stands. There are

other operations in the switch-

cane area which are much larger

and on which switchcane is

grazed for a longer period. Fur-

ther south switchcane is used

mostly for winter range.

East Coast Marshes

Due to daily tidal variation of

five to seven feet, much of the

East Coast Salt Marsh is too haz-

ardous for range use. On broad

areas where considerable acre-

age is subject to only one-half to

two feet of daily tidal overflow,

and on some fresh marsh areas,

range grazing is practiced. Frank

Williams of Meridian, Georgia, a

cooperator in the Coastal Soil

Conservation District, operates a

marsh range cattle outfit. This

unit consists of 2,000 acres of salt

marsh range covered mainly

with smooth cordgrass. Creigh-

ton Island, a 1,000 acre wooded

upland area lies in the center of

the marsh. The marsh is grazed

from October 1 until May 1,

varying a few weeks due to sea-

sonal conditions. About 9 ac-

cessible marsh acres per cow are

allowed, but more firm and uni-

form areas will require only half

this acreage. Cattle graze wooded

range from May until October on

the island including some im-

proved pastures of Pensacola

bahiagrass. Cattle receive no

other feed. Calf crops in this area

average 60 percent with a wean-

ing weight of 250-300 pounds at

six months. Problems include

inaccessibility of some range

areas, uneven use with easily ac-

cessible areas overused and bad-

ly trailed, and lack of reserve

feeds for period of storm or

drought.

Peninsula Florida

South-central Florida is the

location of many cattle ranches.

The land is mostly slash-pine

flatwoods, but prairies, ham-

mocks, sand scrub ridges, and

grassy pond sites are also com-

mon, A considerable acreage of

some ranches has been developed

into highly improved pastures of

pangolagrass, bahiagrass, white

clover and other improved spe-

cies. Operations

vary from

straight improved pasture set-

ups to almost straight native

range units. Some authorities

estimate that a majority of the

land in this area, or about lO,-

000,000 acres will remain in na-

tive range.

The Monreve Ranch near Stu-

art in the Martin Soil Conserva-

tion District, consists of 1,680

acres of irrigated, highly im-

proved pangolagrass

- white

clover pasture and 2,800 acres of

native range. The cattle have

trees.

been improved through breed-

ing, culling, sanitation and the

forage program. Here, cattle

graze improved pasture March

1

through October. Irrigation is

used during the first part of the

grazing period prior to the rainy

season. During November, De-

cember, January and February,

cattle are placed on unburned

wiregrass-palmetto

range and

fed a 2-1 meal-salt supplement

free choice. Cattle use native

forage well through this season,

even though it is mature and

tough, and Dick Kelley, man-

ager, states that they lose no

weight. Furthermore, he be-

lieves burning is unnecessary

when adequate supplement is

used. While cattle are on the

range, improved pastures are

rested and fertilized, and the

clover has a chance to start

growth. Although the bulk of

the forage comes from developed

pastures, the range forage is a

very important cog in the feed

and forage schedule of this op-

eration.

(13)

RANGE MANAGEMENT IN THE SOUTH 273

on improved pasture as soon as possible and remain there until the calf is weaned at about seven months of age. Cows then return to the range and the calves are grown out on the pangolagrass. Cattle are marketed as two-year olds after about 120 days in the feedlot. Cow-calf, stocker cattle, and the feedlot enterprises are well coordinated operations based on the improved pasture - native range forage base. Rough- ly, _ one acre of pasture and 10 acres of range are used per breeding animal. They are re- alizing a 400 pounds calf at 9-10 months of age and a 70 percent calf crop.

Conservative use of forage, mineral supplements and provision for adequate nutritional level 12 months out of the year keep range, pasture, and cattle in good productive condition.

Some types of operations are based on range use year-long with varying degrees of supplemental feeding, burning, and other practices. Control of saw- palmetto, proper use of fire, supplements for range use, and proper degree of use of range forage are some of the manage- nient problems in this area.

Longleaf Pine Belt

The area orignally covered in longleaf pine extends along the

Coastal Plain from the Carolinas around to East Texas. Growing conditions in this type of country favor considerable grass production, even when management is designed to favor production of pine timber.

C. C. Williams & Sons, Mobile, Alabama, are range operators who have a well-balanced range management program. One of <heir units is a 1,000 acre longleaf tract. Ten percent of this area is in’ natural longleaf re- production and the other 90 percent was planted to slash pine in 1953. It has been stocked at an average rate of one cow to ten acres year-long, although this has varied some years due to change in growing conditions. They feed the cattle oat hay and cottonseed meal during the fall and winter months. The hay is fed mostly during in- clement weather-the meal for about 120 days at a progressive rate as the season advances and grass value declines. Calves from this unit are dropped in January, February and March and marketed by September l-weighing 300 pounds. The soundness of the Williams’ management program can readily be seen by com- paring this area with numerous others where good management is not being followed. Range is

in excellent condition, and young pines are flourishing. Grass production will drop some as trees grow, but stocking is based on forage production. Some cattle will be moved to other areas when necessary.

Gulf Coast Marsh Range Firm areas of fresh and salt marshes along the Gulf from Texas to Florida are grazed by cattle and to some extent by hogs. Extensive areas of such range are found in Louisiana and Texas and lesser areas in the other states bordering the Gulf of Mexico.

Harris Pitre of Galliano, Lou- isiana, grazes 8,000 acres of fresh marsh range. Principal grasses are maidencane and giant-cut- grass. One thousand animal units graze this area year-long. About 800 acres of undeveloped hardwood ridges furnish some forage and shelter. No improved pasture or other feed of any kind is used except salt and minerals. The calf crop has averaged 70 percent. Calves dropped February- April are weaned in September and October-weighing 275 pounds. After calves are sepa- rated and weaned, they are carried over one full year and sold at about 600 pounds average weight. Calves dropped in the

Mountain grassland in western North Carolina serves as summer

range for both sheep and cattle operations. “Grassy balds” are

natural grassland, but the bulk of the summer grazing area was

once in forest.

Salt marsh ranges along the East and Gulf coasts are valuable

for winter grazing. Operators who use salt marsh range in the

winter and woodland range for spring-summer grazing have good

(14)

274 ROBERT E.

Control of low-grade hardwoods and good grazing management practices improve quality and quantity of forage in the Savannah range area of northwest Arkansas.

spring of 1956 brought 164 in September of 1957.

A considerable amount of this range is not accessible. Addi- tional walkways and water fa- cities planned but not yet com- pleted will double the production. During the past’ six years good management has been followed and range conditions have improved. The range is divided into several units to permit some flexibity in range and livestock management.

It is hoped these examples will give some indication of the different types of range in the South and the part range forage plays in livestock production. While these stockmen are using range forage in a practical man- ner for economical beef production, all have unsolved problems.

Research

Research information is aiding southern stockmen in solving their problems. It is making their operations more practical and profitable. Work is currently being done on range problems in North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and Arkan-

WILLIAMS

Saw-palmetto is one of the greatest problems ranges. Control is difficult and costly.

on South Florida

sas. Federal and state experiment stations, colleges, various agencies and local interests are carrying on this work. Studies on values of range plants, seasonal value and deficiencies of range forage, supplemental feeding, control of undesirable plants, prescribed burning, and various aspects of management have yielded much valuable information. Additional studies are needed on the ecology of range plants and plant communities on different range sites, trends in range condition as related to types of management, and de- termination of practical management goals based on the potential of each range site. More information is needed on prescribed burning as a tool of management on some range sites, and the control of undesirable vege- tation needs more attention. Finally, there is a need to deter- mine the best management for areas which will be used for both timber and livestock production.

Summary

A tremendous volume of natural forage is produced in the

South. The quantity and quality of this forage varies in accord- ance with range site differences and potentialities. In addition to site characteristics, production is affected on woodland areas by the species of trees being favored and by timber stand development. Judicious use of native forage can contribute greatly to economical beef production. By using native range forage as a source of cheap pasture and roughage in combination .with supplemental concentrates, or tame pastures, stockmen have developed successful operations throughout the South. Oppor- tunities for further improvement in management are tremendous. A greater awareness of these opportunities and problems in range management will result in better land use and treatment of the entire Southern Range. Stockmen, woodland owners, soil conservation districts, and state and federal agencies are working toward this goal. More effective soil, water, and plant conservation and greater returns to the owners and operators will be the result.

Plun Now to Attend the 12th Annuul Meeting!

(15)

A FLEXIBLE CONSERVATION

LEASE FOR RANGELAND

RUDY .I. PEDERSON, Range Conservationist, Soil Con- servation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. San Angelo, Texas

One of the common obstacles to the practice of conservation on leased rangeland is the lease it- self.

In some parts of the West, and notably in the Great Plains, as much as 50 percent of the land in ranches is leased and oper- ated by non-owners. In the public-land states, the percentage of leased range is smaller, but still siginificant. The common lease provides for a fixed rental per acre per year, usually for a short period.

Ranchers and conservationists agree that the economics in- volved in this type of lease lead operators to exploit the range resource in order to meet the fixed payments on a year-to-year basis. Many of them recognize that there is a need to put into common use a rangeland lease that would encourage range management and conservation by pro- viding variable but equitable returns to landowner and lessee alike-a lease that would vary rental payments with the value of livestock and would take into account the variations in the number of cattle and sheep that the land can safely support from year to year. This paper de- scribes such a lease.

Effects of Fixed-Rental Lease The reasons that a fixed-rental lease, such as in common use, makes conservation difficult are IIXXly.

The first is that forage production is variable from one season to another. For example, grass yields at San Angelo, Texas, were 1,361 pounds per acre in 1946,980 pounds per acre in 1947, and 327 pounds per acre in 1948.

Corresponding variations in stocking rates are needed to achieve proper degree of use for improvement or maintenance of range condition. This is not pro- vided for in per-acre-per-year lease, and stockmen often abuse the range in efforts to make the lease payments in dry years or as range condition declines.

Ranchmen lease range to make money, and they have found that for a few years, heavy stocking produces more pounds of beef per acre than does light stocking. With heavy use there is usually less gain per head, but the lessee paying rental by the acre is pri- marily interested in the produc-

tion per acre rather than per head. In years of good rainfall, heavy use may result in damage to the range, but until the range is badly deteriorated, it still makes more profit per acre than moderate use. In dought years, heavy use with a fixed per-acre rental and large feed bills results in a net loss to the lessee and damage to the land. In both cases, the landowner loses be- cause the productivity and value of his land are declining and eventually he is forced to reduce his rental per acre. If the lessee practices sound range management and a good grass cover is maintained, he runs the ri%k of having the rental increased or of being outbid at renewal time.

Volume 11, Number 6 (November 1958)

American

Society of Range Management

T

TABLEOFCONTENTS

6,

TABLEOFCONTENTS

6,

Journal of

RANGE

MANAGEMENT

Hand-Grubbing

Mesquite

in the

Semidesert

Grassland

No.

Pracfical

Range Managemenf

in fhe Soufhl

Pracfical

Range Managemenf

in fhe Soufhl

RANGE MANAGEMENT IN THE SOUTH

271

keeper” and of their vast herds

of cattle and horses.

Livestock production on south-

ern ranges was relatively low,

however, due to deficiency in nu-

tritive value of range forage dur-

ing fall and winter months, in-

sects and diseases, and to poor

management. What increase was

realized cost little if anything

other than the effort to harvest

it. Except for recognition of own-

ership, livestock were treated

with little more attention than

wild animals.

By way of contrast, the west-

ern rancher was often faced with

short growing seasons, severe

winters or prolonged droughts.

Forage quality was higher, and

cattle also got more supplemen-

tal feeding and better care in

general. With higher quality for-

age and the better care required

due to climatic conditions, live-

stock generally fared somewhat

better on the western range.

Livestock

In the last few years the live-

stock producing potential in the

South has gained wider recogni-

tion, and native range forage is

recognized as a valuable re-

source. Great progress has been

made in the last two decades in

controlling insects, better feed-

ing,

and improved breeding.

Range livestock are now recog-

nized as domestic animals by

many operators and cared for as

such. Improved pastures have

given rise to outstanding breed-

ing and commercial herds. On

native ranges progress has been

slower, but progressive cattle-

men and researchers are showing

what can be done toward pro-

ducing beef at a profit with

cheap natural forage.

Sound management of ranges

in the South as elsewhere must

be based on the following points:

Knowledge of the different

kinds of land or sites and