Rangelands 10(1), February1988
10
An Approach for Setting the Stocking Rate
Jerry L. Holechek
One of the most basic problems confrontingthe range maintain the soil, forage plantvigor, livestock diet quality,
managerconcerns determination ofthe correct stocking on and wildlifehabitat.
differentranges.Although thisproblem hasreceivedconsidCritical dry matter residue levels have been derived for
erable attention since thebeginning of scientific range man- some range types in the United States. Enough information
agementin theearly 1900's,specIficproceduresorapproach- isavailablethattheycanbededuced forothers. Intheshortes to solve this problem beyond trial and adjustment are grass prairiecountry of eastern Colorado, 300 lb will give
maximum economic returns and maintain forage produc-
generally unavailable.
Onyearlong ranges,mostdecisionsregarding adjustment
in stocking rates are madeatthe end ofthe growing season
in the fall. The standing crop is estimated and animal
numbers are adjusted so a minimum residue of dry matter
remains priortothetimethat growth is initiated thefollowing
year. Thepremise here isthatacertain minimum level ofdry
matter should always be present on a particular range to
tion. OnsoutheasternOregon bigsagebrushranges, grass
residues of 160 lb/acre should maintain or improve range
conditionon mostsites. In the Californiaannual grassland
type, from250-1,100lb/acre ofminimum residueare needed,
dependingon the site.
Considerableinformation is availableon the percent utilization various ranges In the United States can withstand
is professor of range science. Departmentof Animal and Range
under continuous orseason-long grazing. Thesestudies are
summarizedin Table 1.Shown are the averagedegreeofuse
Author
Sciences,
NewMexico State University,LasCruces88003.
TabI. 1. UtIlization guld.lln.s fordlff.rnt rang.typ.. In theUSA.
Average annual
precipitation
CM
In
% Use of Key Species'
for ModerateGrazing
Range Types
10-13
4-8
25-35
13-30
8-12
30-40
Salt DesertShrubland
True Desert (Mojave)
SemidesertGrassand Shrubland
13-30
8-12
30-40
SagebrushGrassland
30-50
12-20
30-40
PaiousePrairie (Bunchgrass)
25-100
10-16
40-50
Shortgrass Prairie
25-100
10-40
50-60
California Annual Grassland
40-65
16-25
40-50
Northern Mixed Prairie
40-65
15-25
40-50
Southern Mixed Prairie
40-1 30
16-50
30-40
Coniferous Forest
40-1 30
16-50
30-40
MountainShrubiand
40-130
40-1 30
65-100
100-175
100-175
16-50
16-50
25-40
40-70
30-40
20-30
40-70
50-60
Oak Woodland
Alpine Tundra
Tall Grass Prairie
Southern PineForest
EasternDeciduous Forest
45-55
50-60
References
Hutchingsand Stewart 1953
Hughes1982
PaulsenandAres 1961
Vaientine 1970
Martin and Cable 1974
Pechanecand Stewart 1949
Laycock and Conrad 1981
Pickford and Reid 1948
Skovlin et al. 1978
Kllpple and Costello 1960
Burzlaff and HarrIs 1969
Hooper and Heady1970
Bartolomeet al. 1980
Rosiere1987
Sarvis 1941
Lewisetal. 1956
Houston and Woodward1966
Smoliak 1974
McIIvainand Shoop 1965
KothmanetaI. 1975
Heltschmidtetal. 1987
Pickford and Reid 1948
Johnson 1953
Skovlinet al. 1976
Pickford and Reid 1948
Skovlin et al. 1976
Merrill and Miller 1961
Thilenius 1979
Herbei andAnderson 1959
Pearsonand Whitaker 1974
'Rangesingood condition and/or grazedduring thedormant season canwithstandthehigher utilization level, while those inpoorcondition orgrazedduring
active growth should receive thelower utilization level.
Rangelands10(1), February1988
11
the primary forage species can sustain without loss of
productivity.
Some conclusions can be drawn fromthese studies dealingwith intensity. Desertshrubland characterizedby ranges
such as the sagebrush grassland,Chihuahuan desert, and
the Mojave Desert with under 12 inches of average annual
precipitation canwithstand between25 and 35% use of the
primary forage species, depending on the condition of the
range, typeofgrazing system, seasonof use, and degreeof
aridity.Thegrassland ranges that receive12-25 inchessuch
as the shortgrass prairie can sustain 35-45% use. Humid
ranges receivingover25inchesaverageannual precipitation
such as the tallgrass prairie and southern pine forest can
withstand 45-60% use. Studies from California and Africa
show that annual grasslandscangenerally withstand higher
grazing intensities (50-60%)than perennial grasslands.The
general guideline of take half and leave half of the current
season's growth recommended by early range managers
appears applicable only to humid and annual grassland
Knowledgeofaverageforage production on a rangeover a
series of years is considered necessary for anyestimate of
long-term grazing capacity. Forage fluctuates considerably
betweenyears in responseto changing climaticconditions.
Onrangesdominatedby perennialforages,a30%downward
adjustmentofstandingcropattheend ofthegrowing season
shouldgive a reasonableestimateof averagelong-term forage production if growing conditions are considered good
(more than 125% of annual averageprecipitation), whereas
an upward adjustmentof 30%shouldwork wellwhen growing conditions are poor (less than 70% of average annual
precipitation). In years when precipitation deviates by 50%
or more from the average, reliable estimates of grazing
capacity In most cases will not be possible. These adjustments are suggested after reviewing several studies that
show forage fluctuations of about 30% from the mean In
good and pooryears (Hutchings and Stewart 1953, Klipple
and Costello 1960, Pearson and Witaker 1974, Smoliak
1971).
In rough, rugged terrain, cattle congregate on the more
The other question regarding what grazing intensity to convenient,flatareassuch asvalley bottoms, riparian zones,
selectconcerns livestock production.Severalstudiesreviewed and ridgetops. Forage on the steeper slopes (over 60%)
by Holechek et al. (1988) show heavy grazing invariably receive little or no use by cattle and these areas must be
leads to a gradual loss in forage productivity, high death deleted from thegrazable landarea.Table 3gives guidelines
losses and higher costs for supplemental feed In drought on grazing capacity adjustmentsfor slope.
years. Table 2 shows two examplesof stocking rate influences on livestock production and economic returns.Basedon Table 3. Sugg.sted reductions In cattl.grazing capacIty for differentpercentagesofslope.
TabI. 2. influence of grazing intensIty on winter sheepproduction
ranges.
at the Desert ExperimentalRang.inUtahandcattleproductionat
the Central Great Plains ExperimentalRang. In Colorado.
% Slope
0-10
Utilization, %
Ewe weight change (fall
tosprIng), lbs
Averagefleece weIght, lbs
Lamb,crop,%
Death loss, %
Net income, (3,000 head flock), $
Net Income per ewe, $
+1.1
9.68
79
8.1
5,072
1.69
+9.3
10.63
88
3.1
10,390
3.45
Range, Colorado2
Gross income (acre), $
Gross income (heifer), $
60
40
1.43
1.54
81.22
.33
1.93
96.02
'Date from Hutchings and Stewart (1953).
2Data from XlippIe and Costello(1960).
asurvey ofavailable literature consideringforage productivity, livestock productivity, and net economic returns, it is
suggestedthat desert shrubland ranges be assigneda 30%
level of use, arid grasslandsa 40%level of use, humid grasslands a50%levelof use,and annualgrasslandsa55%level of
use when Initial stocking rates are being established and
grazing intensity information is unavailable for the ranges
involved.
No Reduction
30
Moderate 11-30
Heavy
31-60
60
Grazing
Grazing
Over6O
100
Sheep-DesertExperimental
(ConsiderTheseSlopes Ungrazable)
Range, Utah'
'Supporting literatureIncludesMueggler(1965),Cook (1966),andGillen et al.
68
35
Yearling Heifers - Central
Great Plains Experimental
Utilization, %
Death loss, %
% Reduction In Grazing Capacity'
Becauseof the smaller size, greater agility,and stronger
climbing instinct, sheep and goats make much better use of
rugged terrain than cattle. In most cases, sheep are under
control of a herder and can be readily forced to use the
steeperhillsides, minimizing overuseofthevalley bottoms. A
New Mexico studyfound sheep on winterrange uniformly
used slopes of less than 45%. However, utilization was
sharply reduced when slopes exceeded45%(McDaniel and
Tiedeman 1981). Based on their study, slopes greater than
45%should beconsidered unusableby sheep,but littleor no
adjustmentappearsnecessaryfor slopes under 45%.
Failure toadjuststocking ratesfortravel distance towater
has resulted in considerable range degradation, particularly
in the hot, arid rangeiands of the southwestern United
States, parts of Australia, and in theSahel region of Africa.
On the cold desert ranges of the lntermountaln United
States, snow reduces water availability problems in winter.
Severalstudies show cattlemake little use of areasfarther
than two miles from water. Table 4 provides guidelines on
adjustments in cattlestocking rates as distance from water
increases. Unlike cattle, sheep and goats do not require
water every day. They will readily use areasthat are two or
more miles from water, based on a New Mexico study
12
Rangelands 10(1), February 1988
Table 4. Suggested reductions in grazing capacity with distance
fromwater.
DistancefromWater, Miles
0-1
1-2
2
% Reduction In Grazing Capacity'
None
50
100
(ConsiderThisArea Ungrazabie)
'Supporting literature includes Valentine (1947), Martin and Ward (1973),
Squires(1973)and Beck (1978).
(McDaniel and Tiedeman 1981).
The key-plant and key-areaconcepts have proven highly
useful to managers in evaluating grazing effects on range
vegetation. A key species Is one whose use indicates the
degree of use of the associated speciesand is important in
the management program. Key management species are
those on whichthegrazing managementof aspecificrange
Is based. Thekey speciesand key area serveasindicators of
managementeffectiveness.Generally,when the key species
and key area are considered properly used, the entire pastureis considered correctly used.
In most cases,one to three plantspeciesare usedas key
species. These plants should be abundant, productive, and
palatable.They should provide the bulkof theforage forthe
grazing animalswithinthepasture.Theice-creamplants are
not used because of their scarcity and low resistance to
grazing. Conditions doexistwhere theclimax plants are not
the most desirable or In whicha reduction in stocking rate
will not restore the climax plants within a reasonabletime
frame (5-15years). In thesecases, a palatableincreaserplant
may be selectedasa key species. It Is important to recognize
thatkeyspeciesforone typeofanimal maybedifferentthan
those for another typedue to differences in food habits. As
an example, bitterbrush is the key speciesfor mule deer on
many eastern Oregon ranges, but the key speciesfor cattle
on these ranges is bluebunch wheatgrass.Thekey species
for elk would be Idaho fescue. Under the key species
approach, secondary forage species, i.e., sandberg bluegrass in easternOregon, will receivethe light use (10-25%);
key species (bluebunch wheatgrass) will receive moderate
use (30-40%); whereas, the ice cream plants (arrowleaf
balsamroot) may be used excessively(over 40%).
The key area is a portion of range which, becauseof Its
location, grazing or browsingvalue, and/oruse,servesasan
indicative sample of range conditions, trend or degree of
seasonaluse.Thekey areaguides thegeneral management
of the entire area of which it is part.
The key area concept is based on the premise that no
range of appreciable size will be uniformly utilized. Even
underlightgrazing intensities,areasaround wateringpoints,
salt grounds, valley bottoms, and driveways will often be
heavily used.These preferred areasare referredto assacrifice areas becausesetting stocking rates for proper use of
these areaswill result In underuse ofthe bulk ofthe pasture.
A majorobjective ofspecializedgrazing systemsisto minimizethe sizeof sacrifice areasand provide them with periodic
opportunity for recovery (Holechek 1983).
When selecting the key area, parts of the pasture remote
fromwater, onsteep slopes,orwith pooraccessibilitydueto
physical barriersshould be disregarded.Proper useofthese
areas will generally result in destructive grazing of most of
the pasture. These areas should be omitted when carrying
capacity is estimated. The success of range management
practiceswithin a pasture is usually judged by theresponse
of the key plant specieson the key area.
in recent years, considerable information has become
availableon daily forage intake by ruminant animals (Table
5). Ruminantsconsume about 2% of their body weight per
day In dry matter when data are averaged across periods
when forage Isdormant and actively growing. Ifarange is to
Table 5. DaIly dry matter consumption by various range animals
based on their body weight.
Animal
Weight
lb'
DailyDry
Animal Unit
Matter
Equivalents
Intake,lb
(A Ui)
20.0
15.0
Donkey
1,000
750
150
100
1,200
700
Bison
1800
Elk
700
1,200
180
150
100
120
400
1.00
.75
.15
.10
1.80
1.05
1.80
.70
1.20
.18
.15
.10
.12
.40
Animal
Cattle (Mature)
Cattle (Yearling)
Sheep
Goat
Horse
Moose
Bighorn Sheep
Muie Deer
White-tailedDeer
PronghornAntelope
Caribou
3.0
2.0
36.0
21.0
36.0
14.0
24.0
3.6
3.0
2.0
2.4
8.0
'Averageweight of maturemale and femaleanimal.
begrazed only during the dormantperiod whenforage is low
in quality, it is suggestedthat daily forage demand is 1.5%
bodyweight, whileduringactive growth when forage is high
in quality, 2.5% is suggested.
Becausehorsesand donkeys have monogastric digestive
systemswith enlargedcecums,theycanconsume moreforage per unit body weight than ruminants. Daily intake by
horses and donkeys is about 3% body weight for most
forages.
Once information Is obtained on averagestanding crop of
grazableforage,totalamountofgrazablearea inthe pasture,
level of grazing intensity the pasture can sustain, and average weight oftheanimalstobegrazed,astocking ratecanbe
calculated. Hypothetical situations will be used to demonstrate use ofthe above information.
Situation I
Our first situation will involve a shortgrass prairie (blue
grama) range innortheasternNewMexico with thefollowing
characteristics:
1. Range condition good
2. Annual averageprecipitation 14 inches
3. Total precipitation during previous 12 months = 10.5
inches
4. Total area in pasture = 1,000 acres
5. Physical characteristics:
a) Flat terrain
Rangelands 10(1), February1988
13
Calculation ofStocking Rate
No partof pasture is over two miles from water
6. Time of year = end of growing season (October 1)
7. Average forage standing crop 800 lb/acre (assume
ungrazed)
8. Period of use yearlong
9. Type of livestock operation cow/calf
10. Size of cows = 900 lb
Question: How many cows should you have in your base
herd:
Calculation of Total Usable Forage
Forage production (lb/acre) X percent allowable use
X area (acre) Total forage (Ib) availablefor grazing
800 X .45 X 1,000= 360,000 lb
Calculation of Forage Demand
Weight of cows (lb) X daily dry matter intake
(% body weight) X number of days pasture will be grazed
Foragedemand (Ib) per cow per year
900 X .02 X 365 6,570lb
Calculation ofStocking Rate
Total usable forage (lb) ± 6,570 55 cows
Since one bull is recommended per 20 cows, this range
would support a base herd of 52 cows and 3 bulls. No
adjustments are needed for slope, distance from water or
drought.
Situation 2
Thissituationwill involve a summer range in the mountainsor northeastern Oregon grazed by cattlewith the following characteristics:
1. Rangecondition fair
2. Annual averageprecipitation = 18 inches
3. Total precipitation during previous 12 months 24
inches (133% of annual average)
4. Key forage Idaho fescue
5. Total area in pasture 3,000acres
6. Physical characteristics:
a) Ruggedterrain: 40% of area 0—10% slope
20% of area= 11—30%slope
30% of area= 31—60% slope
10% of area= over 60%slope
b) No partof pasture more than two miles from water
7. Time of year = end of growing season (September15)
8. Average forage standing crop 600 lb/acre (assume
ungrazed)
9. Period of use = 120 days 1 Juneto 30 September)
10. Type of livestock yearling steers
11. Weight of yearlings 650 lb
Questions:Howmany yearling steers will this range carry?
Calculation of Total UsableForage
Forageproduction (lb/acre) X percent allowable use
X area (acre) = total forage (Ib) available for grazing
600 X .30 X 3,000 540,000 lb
Calculation ofForage Demand
Weight of steers (Ib) X daily dry matter intake
(%) body weight X number of days pasturewill begrazed
Foragedemand (Ib) per steer for the grazing season
650 X .02 X 120= 1,560 lb
Total usableforage (Ib) ÷ 1,560 = 346 steers
Adjustment for Above-averagePrecipitation
346 steers
(30% reduction due to precipitation 133% of annual
average during previous 12 months)
steers (grazing capacity adjusted for previous year's
.7o
growing conditions)
Adjustment forSlope
[Amount of area with 0-10% slope (40%) X adjustment for slope
(100—0] +
[Amount of area with 11-30%slope (20%) X adjustmentfor slope
(100-301+
[Amount of area with 31-60%slope (30%) X adjustment for slope
(100—70]+
[Amount of area with 60-10%slope (10%) X adjustment for slope
(100-100]
X[242 steers] adjustedgrazing capacity of pasture.
[.40 Xl] +[.2 X .7][.3 X .3] + [.1 X 0] X242 = 152 steers
It is recognizedon this range that forage productivity will
vary betweenthe different types of terrain. Further, forage
lossesto rabbits,game animals,rodents, insectsand trampling by livestock can be substantial on some ranges. The
stocking rate we have calculated will probably have to be
furtheradjusted as experience is gained with actual animal
use of the pasture.
The procedurespreviouslydiscussed providesomeguidelines for establishing an initial stocking rate for a particular
range that can be adjusted as experience is gained. It is
important to recognizethereis no substituteforexperience.
Local ranchers,state extension personnel,and Soil Conservation Service personnelcan provide useful advice on setting initial stocking rates to new ranch owners.
Downwardtrendsin range conditionare notalways due to
overgrazing.A few small exclosures (2-6 acre) on key grazingareason a ranchcanbeuseful in separatingclimaticfrom
grazing influences.The utilization guidelines devloped are
based on long-term studies involving five or more years.
Data from severalstudiesshow that underuse in wet years
will compensate for some overuse in dry years, even on
desert ranges.
Supporting Literature
Bartolome, J.W., MC. Stroud, and H.F. Heady. 1980. Influence of
natural mulch and forage production on differing California
annual rangesites. J. Range Manage. 33:4-8.
Burzlaff, D.E.,and L. HarrIs. 1969. Yearling steer gains andvegetationchangesofwestern Nebraskarangelandsunderthree ratesof
stocking. NebraskaAgr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 505.
Beck, R.F. 1978. A grazing system for semiarid lands. Proc. Int.
RangelandCongr. 1:569-572.
Bement,R.E.1969. Astocking rate guidefor beef productionon blue
grama range. J. Range Manage. 22:83-86.
Cook, C.W.1966.Factorsaffecting utilization of mountainslopes by
cattle. J. Range Manage. 19:200-204.
Cook, C.W., andJ. Stubbendleck (EdItors).1986. Range Research:
BasicProblemsandTechniques.Society for RangeManagement,
Denver,Cob.
Cook, C.W., and J. Stubbendleck(EdItors). 1986. Range Research:
Basic ProblemsandTechniques.Society for RangeManagement,
Denver,Cob.
Gillen, R.F., W.C. Krueger,and R.R. Miller. 1984. Cattle distribution
onmountainrangelandin northeasternOregon. J. Range Manage.
37:549-553.
Rangelands 10(1), February1988
14
H.ltschmldt, R.K., S.L. Dowhsr, and J.W. Walker. 1987. 14-vs. 42paddock rotational grazing: Aboveground blomass dynamics,
forage production and harvest efficiency. J. Range Manage.
40:216-223.
Herbal, C.H., and K.L Andrson. 1959. Response of true prairie
utilization on majorFlint Hillsrange sites to grazing treatq5ent.
Ecol. Monogr. 29:171-198.
Hol.chsk,J.L.,R.D.Pl.p.r,and C.H.Herbal. 1988. RangeManagement Principles and Practices. Prentice-Hall Book, Co.. Englewood Cliffs, NJ (In press).
Holschsk, J.L. andM.Vavra.1982. Forageintakeby cattleonforest
and grasslandranges.J. RangeManage. 35:737-741.
Hol.cti.k,J.L. 1983. Considerationsconcerning grazing systems.
Rangelands5:208-211.
Hoopsr, J.F., and H.F. H.ady. 1920. An economic analysis of optimum rates of grazing In the California annual type ranges. J.
Range Manage. 23:307-311.
Houston,W.R.,and R.R.Woodward. 1966. Effects of stocking rates
on range vegetation and beef cattleproduction in the Northern
Great Plains.USDA Tech. Bull. 1357.
Hutchlngs, 5.5., and 0. Stewart.1953. Increasing forage yields and
sheep production on intermountain winter ranges. USDA Circ.
925.
Hyd.r, D.N.1953. Grazing capacityas related torangecondition. J.
M.rrlII, L.B., and J.E. MIller. 1961. Economic analysis ofyear-long
grazing rate studies on substation 14, near Sonora. Texas Agr.
Exp. Sta. Misc. Pub. 484.
Mueggler,W.F. 1965. Cattle distribution on steep slopes. J. Range
Manage. 18:255-257.
Paulsen, HA., Jr., andF.N. Ar.s. 1961. Trends In carrying capacity
and vegetationon an aridsouthwesternrange.J. Range Manage.
14:78-83.
Pearson,H.A.,andL.B.Whltaksr. 1974. Forageandcattle responses
to different grazing intensities on southern pinerange. J. Range
Manage. 27:444-446.
Pechanee, J.F., and 0. Stewart.1949. Grazing spring-fall ranges In
southern Idaho. USDAClrc. 808.
Pickford, G.D., and E.H. R.ld. 194 Forage utilization on summer
cattle rangesin easternOregon. USDA Circ. 796.
RosIer., R. 1987. An evaluation of grazing intensity influences on
California annual range. J. Range Manage. 40:160-165.
Sarvls, J.T. 1941. Grazing investigations on the Northern Great
Plains.NorthDakota Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 308.
Skovlln, J.M., R.W. Harris, 0.8. Strlckl.r,and GA.Garrison. 1976.
.
Effectsofcattlegrazing methodson ponderosaplne-bunchgrass
rangein the Pacific Northwest.USDATech. Bull. 1531.
SmolIak,S. 1974. Range vegetation and sheep production at three
stocking rates on Stipa-Bouteloua prairie. J. Range Manage.
For. 51:206.
27:23-26.
Johnson, W.M. 1953. Effect of grazing intensity upon revegetation
yR. 1973. Distanceto water as a factorin performanceof
and cattle gains on ponderosa pine-bunchgrass ranges of the Squires,
livestock on arid and semiarid rangelands.Water-Animal Relafront rangeof Colorado. USDAClrc. 929.
tionsSymp. Proc. pp. 28-33.
KIIppl., G.E., andD.F. CoetsIlo.1960.Vegetationandcattle responses Thii.nlus, J.F. 1979. Range managementIn the Alpine zone, pp.
to different Intensities of grazing on shortgrass ranges of the
43-65. In: D.A. Johnson (Ed.). Special ManagementNeeds of
Central Great Plains. USDATech. Bull. 1216.
Alpine Ecosystems.RangeSd.SeriesNo.5. Soc. Range Manage.,
Kothman, M.M., 0.W. Mathis, and W.J. Waldrip. 1971. Cow-calf
Denver, CO.
responsetostocking ratesandgrazing systemson nativerange. J. Valentine,K.A. 1947. Distancetowater as afactor ingrazing capacRangeManage. 24:100-105.
ity of rangeland.J. For. 45:749-754.
L.wls, J.K.,G.M. Van Dyn., L.R. AIls.., and R.W.Whstzal. 1956. ValentIne,K.A. 1970. Influence of grazing intensityon improvement
and
Intensity ofgrazing: Its effect on livestock
forage production.
of deteriorated black grama range. New Mexico Agr. Exp. Sta.
South Dakota Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 459.
Bull. 553.
MartIn, S.c. 1975. Stocking strategies and net cattle sales on Vavra,M., R.W. RIcs,andRE. Bsmsnt. 1973. Chemicalcomposition
semidesertrange. USDA For. Serv. Res. PaperAM-i46.
ofthediet,intakeandgain ofyearling cattle underdifferent grazMartIn, S.C., and D.R. CabI.. 1974. Managing semidesertgrassing intensities. J. Anim. Sd. 36:411-414.
shrub ranges: Vegetation responses to precipitation grazing,soil Van Dyne,G.M.,N.R.Brocklngton,Z.Szocs,J.Dusk,and C.A.RIbIc.
texture and mesquite control. USDATech. Bull. 1480.
1980. Large herbivore subsystem.:In: Breymeyer,A.I. and G.M.
MartIn, S.C.,and D.E. Wart. 1973. Salt and meal-salthelp distribute
Van Dyne (Eds.). Grasslands, SystemsAnalysis and Man. Camcattle use on semidesertrange. J. Range Manage. 26:94-97.
bridge University Press, UK.
McDanisl, K.C., and J. Ti.d.man. 1981. Sheep use on mountain Whltson,RE., R.K. H.ltschmldt, MM.Kothman,andO.K.Lundgr.n.
winter range In New Mexico.J. Range Manage. 34:102-105.
1982. The impact ofgrazing systems on the magnitudeandstabilMcIIvaIn, E.H., and MC. Shoop. 1965. Forage, cattle and soil
ity of ranch income in the rolling plains of Texas.J. Range Manresponses tostocking ratesand grazing systemson sandyrangeage. 35:526-533.
in
land the SouthernPlains.Abstr.Annu.Meet.Soc. Range Manage.
18:31-34.
SRM Trivia
Question: Which SRM members are several months behind on
up-to-date techniqueswhichcan befound in JRMorRangelands?
Answer: Those whodidn't send in a a four week notice of their
change ofaddress to SRM, 1839 York Street, Denver,CO 80206.