Full-time working ranchers in Texas and other range states and regions have been facing the most unfavorable circumstances since the U.S. range cattle industry began in the 1860s. Their complex difficulties defy simple explanation, yet they stem from identifiable causes. These include

• Widespread use of high-input, high-risk practices incompatible with natural ecological processes
• More years of low livestock prices than high prices
• Increases in the cost of production outpaces increases in income
• Unfair competition from hobby ranchers and speculative investors
• Herds that are too small to be financially and genetically viable
• Use of cattle that are not adapted to range environments
• Emphasize on producing grain-fed rather than range-fed beef
• Too many cattle relative to the amount of grass
• Substituting high-cost tame pastures, purchased feed, and baled hay for native range forage
• Smaller and smaller ranches on increasingly degraded and fragmented rangeland
• Over investment in fencing, water points, tame pastures, mechanized equipment, and other types of ranch operation infrastructure
• Overloaded with debt
• Lack of cooperation among local and regional ranchers
• Lack of vertical integration and diversification in ranching operations
• Unsound government policies and programs
• Ecosystem goods and services provided by rangelands are not valued by society.
  
  

Yet as formidable as these problems are, I believe that they can be overcomed, provided that today's working ranchers are willing to adopt a method of ranching that

• is financially viable, ecological responsible, and socially acceptable, and can be sustained over an indefinite period of time
• emphasizes risk management over maximizing production
• involves breeding cattle within closed populations rather than open populations
• in time becomes largely self-supporting either on an one large ranching operation (totally independent) or many small-size ranching operations (associated group) basis
• promotes extensive rather than intensive use of rangeland
• gives special attention to conservation of the range's soil, water, vegetation, and wildlife resources
• enhances the quality of life for large independent ranchers, associated ranching groups, and native grazing cultures
• can be easily adapted to different rangeland conditions in the U.S. and around the world.
  
  

Adopting the method of ranching that I'm recommending will require today's working ranchers to abandon much of what is commonly and unthinkingly accepted as good or recommended practices in favor of better use of scientific information and new approaches to business and natural resource management. Most importantly, if full-time working ranchers are to survive, they must focus their efforts on reducing risk -- financial, biological, climatic, political, social, ecological, and environmental -- rather than on maximizing production.

During my years of working and consulting on working ranches, I have observed operations that conserve natural resources and make financial sense, and thus contribute to the longevity of a ranching operation. I have also observed operations that degrade natural resources and make little financial sense, and they inevitably lead to their demise.

My years of experience have taught me that in order to achieve long-term prosperity in the range cattle business, and therefore be recognized as sustainable operations, working ranchers must incorporate the use of four primary plus six supporting components in their respective method of ranching. These components are:

Primary components

1. Economy of scale
2. Sound range management
3. Sound beef herd management
4. Diversification of operations

Supporting components

1. Sound financial management
2. Dislike for unsound government policies and programs
3. Avoidance of infrastructure overspending and debt
4. Avoidance of further rangeland degradation and fragmentation
5. Pursuit of useful information
6. Pursuit of society acceptance

I'm of the opinion that unless today's working ranchers adopt all of the foregoing components, their ranching operations will never be sustainable. I cannot emphasize this point enough. These aspects of sustainable ranching are so interrelated they are inseparable. Implementing a few while ignoring others will ensure eventual failure. Moreover, working ranchers must never forget that sustainability is, by definition, not a five- or ten-year project, but an endeavor that will extend beyond their lifetime. How they manage their ranching operations, their land and cattle during their lifetime will largely determine how much will be left for the next generation. It is my belief too, that working ranchers must look largely (though not exclusively) to themselves for their salvation, not to government, universities, or big business.

This paper sets forth my perspective on these topics and suggests methods of implementation that are adaptable to different range conditions. It also recommends publications where people interested in rangeland ranching can find additional and more detailed information.

At the marketplace, the independent rancher stands at a competitive disadvantage with large input suppliers, commercial feed-yards, meat packers, and supermarkets. These businesses are highly organized and concentrated; furthermore, their business interests seldom coincide with the rancher's.

Small- and medium-size ranching operations have little or no marketing power (McGrann 1997). Facts are that most operations have small numbers of cattle in their herds, and their cattle tend to vary widely in weight, grade, and other factors that determine quality and value. Small cattle numbers and a lack of uniformity restrict the small independent rancher's marketing possibilities to local auction or direct sales. Only a few ranchers have the opportunity to improve ranch income by retaining their calf crop through the growing (stocker) and fattening (finishing) phases of operations. Even fewer have the chance to improve ranch income by retaining ownership through the meat packing (slaughtering and processing) and retail (meat marketing) phases. When the rancher cannot retain ownership of his market animals all the way to the consumer, market oversupply and low cattle prices, already an unfortunate fact of the rancher's life, hurts his already disadvantageous position.

In addition, the independent rancher lacks procurement power, that is, the ability to influence the prices that he pays for operational inputs, such as fencing materials, supplementary feeds, fertilizer, fuel, and farm machinery. Today's supply firms are highly concentrated and accountable only to their major stockholders. Their business interests seldom coincide with the rancher's. As a result, today's large-size ranching operations have very little procurement power, while small- and mid-size operations have none at all (McGrann 1997).

Today's working ranchers can begin to overcome these handicaps through economy of scale, which will reduce their unit costs and strengthen their profit margins. Scale can be achieved in three ways: (1) by increasing the size of their operations through leverage or debt; (2) by becoming a shareholder in a large-scale corporate operation; or (3) by organizing and becoming a member of a local or regional ranching association.

The success of the first, improving efficiency through leverage or debt, depends heavily on timing the cattle and business cycle. Generally, it is suitable only for ranchers with sophisticated financial skills and access to enough capital to absorb losses that occur during the formative stages of an operation and during times of depressed financial conditions and unfavorable weather. Ranchers must be able to cover all of their operating costs, both fixed and variable, and they must be able to do so without mortgaging the ranch.

The second, increasing efficiency through stock ownership, requires small-scale ranchers to abandon their traditional independent ranching approach altogether and choose instead to become active shareholders in a large-scale, professionally managed enterprise. If the rancher is serious about optimizing his financial position with a minimum amount of financial outlay and risk, then this method is advisable.

The third method, increasing efficiency by organizing and becoming a member of a local or regional ranching association, requires the independent rancher to form alliances with nearby ranchers with common goals. They will be, in effect, combining their grazing lands and cattle as a single unit. For this to work, the allied ranchers must be willing to adopt a common ranching philosophy. They must follow a common set of production and marketing practices, and they must employ experienced professionals to help them organize and operate their association. Each member of the association must be given an opportunity to succeed. No one member should be given an undue advantage over any other member.

True, the latter method requires the small independent rancher to sacrifice a part of his independence. But the associated arrangement yields financial as well as biological, ecological, and social advantages that can enable him to overcome the ill effects of many years of rangeland degradation and fragmentation, evils which have left many working ranches in Texas and other range states too small and or degraded to be sustainable on a one-operation independent basis. Whether independent ranchers are willing to organize and work in accordance to an unified arrangement is not yet certain. It is my opinion that if the small independent rancher does not cede a small measure of his independence, he will eventually lose all of it and forced out of the ranching business altogether.

Considering the massive amount of money that federal and state governments have poured into range research and management programs, it is indeed remarkable that so many ranchers know so little about this subject. This is highly regrettable, because sound range management is the cornerstone of sustainable rangeland ranching.

In my opinion, the best explanation of what constitutes a sound range management program is provided by Holechek (1996a). Under his approach, the rancher stocks at light rates and never attempts to increase his income by overstocking his pastures with grazing animals (livestock or wildlife). The use of high-cost inputs such as tame pasture, fertilizer, pesticides, and farm machinery are minimized, or better, eliminated altogether. Likewise, money is not wasted on practices and improvements that will not pay for themselves without significant risk. His goal is to conserve and improve the agricultural and ecological health of his grazing land.

Holechek's range management approach rests on the following four practices, all of which are crucial to the future of ranching on desert, prairie, savanna, and forest rangelands:

1. Light stocking
2. Tactical rotational grazing
3. Natural weed and brush control
4. Minimal investment in infrastructure (This aspect will be discussed later, in a separate section.)
   
   

1. Light stocking

Over time, a program of lightly stocked pastures, combined with tactical rotational grazing, will improve the rangeland's soil, water, vegetation, and wildlife (Merrill and Young 1952). It will reduce parasitic and disease problems in cattle and help prevent losses from the intake of poisonous plants. Moreover, light stocking plays a vital financial role by controlling the supply of breeding stock and meat going to the marketplace. The rancher must understand that attempts to raise income by overstocking his pastures with livestock and or wildlife will likely fail in the short-term, and will certainly ensure the demise of his operation in the long-term.

In addition to its role in promoting healthy rangelands, light stocking is the only way the rancher can manage the biological and financial risks posed by climate. Droughts are inevitable and unpredictable. Because they cannot be anticipated, the rancher has no choice but to prepare for them in advance. If a range is not lightly stocked when an extended drought strikes, its soil and vegetation will suffer permanent damage before reduced-stocking can be carried out (Thurow and Taylor 1999). Moreover, at the same time that the rancher is forced to sell animals, other ranchers, suffering the same conditions, are also forced to sell theirs. A glut in market animals and resulting low cattle prices result. With a healthy range and with market oversupply checked as a result of lightly stocked pastures, the rancher stands a better chance of surviving the biological and financial challenges of droughts. Hanselka, Lyons, & Holechek (2002) provide good information on managing climatic and financial risks through sound grazing management.

In my experience, a native range should be stocked at 60 to 70% of its estimated long-term carrying capacity. The Society of Range Management (1989) defines carrying capacity as the maximum combined number of animal units of grazing and browsing animals that a particular range can sustain over time without degrading its soil, water, vegetation, and wildlife. When figuring carrying capacity, the rancher must allow for loss of range forage due to

• grazing
• browsing
• trampling
• rodent damage
• insect damage
• prescribed burns
• wildfires
• drought.

Stocking rates can also be determined by a range's annual forage production. Calculations vary according to climate, type of vegetation, and range condition. Desert rangelands should be stocked for 10 to 15% use of the annual yield of key forage species; short-grass rangelands for 20 to 25%; mid-grass rangelands for 30 to 35%; and tall-grass and under-story rangelands at 40 to 50%. Consult Hanselka, White, & Holechek (2002) to determine optimum cattle use of key forage species for different types of rangelands.

During times of favorable growing conditions, maintaining the stocking rate at 30 to 40% below projected long-term carrying capacity is a wise practice. During times of unfavorable growing conditions, livestock numbers must be reduced to no more than the currently existing forage resources can support. The rancher should never forget that if a drought lasts long enough, a light stocking rate can become a very heavy stocking rate. He should also keep in mind that "when stocking rate reductions are started early enough, fewer animals will have to be sold during a long extended drought." (Gill 1998) The stocking rate should be increased only when a surplus amount of range forage is present after a long extended drought.

2. Tactical rotational grazing: viable plans

Large ranches that utilize large areas of wide-open rangeland, either private or public, can gain success with a simple, low-cost rotational grazing plan centered around controlling the day-to-day grazing of cattle by using trained cowboys on horseback. This tactical approach to rotational grazing is very sound from an ecological viewpoint and requires a minimum investment in fencing.

For small- and medium-size ranching operations, the Merrill system is a good choice. This plan allows preferred plants and preferred grazing areas to recover. It can be easily modified for any part of the world by providing each pasture one full growing season of rest every four years, or four months of rest every twelve months (Keng and Merrill 1952).

On mid- and tall-grass ranges, the rancher should consider a rotational grazing plan designed around the random use of prescribed burns. The objective is to create areas of intense grazing that can be rotated across an unfenced range over a 3 to 5 year period. Under this plan, approximately one-third to one-fifth of the rancher's total range is burned annually (half of the range during late winter or early spring and the other half during the summer.) This schedule allows a three to five year interval between burns. On short-grass and desert ranges, ranchers can take full advantage of this rotational grazing plan by burning of each area of their range over a ten or more year period. Fuhlendorf and Engle (2001) provide good information on controlling the grazing of livestock by randomly burning rangeland.

Under desert and short-grass range conditions, regulating a herd's assess to water is an effective method of controlling where cattle graze (Holechek 1992). When using this plan, the rancher must show cattle where to drink each time they are moved to a fresh grazing area. The practice of showing cattle where to drink every time they are moved is necessary if you expect them to stay where they are moved.

If any of these plans is to yield good results, the rancher must incorporate five practices in their rotational grazing plan. He must

1. Keep stocking rates 30 to 40% below projected long-term carrying capacity;
   
   
2. Keep cattle bunched together while they are grazing (rather than spread out all over the range), and never allow cattle to linger around their preferred grazing areas (Be sure to keep cattle moving so they can't spot-overgraze the ranch's grazing land);
   
   

   Comment - Hanselka, Lyons & Teague (2002) provide good information on preferred grazing areas of cattle. Again, consult Hanselka, White, & Holechek (2002) for information on how much residue (leaf and stem) can be grazed without causing permanent damage to range plants.

3. Don't allow cattle to linger around watering points and riparian areas.
   
   
4. Never allow cattle to re-graze a particular range area until it has fully recovered from the previous grazing period;
   
   
5. Give key forage species a chance to product a seed crop, especially on years following a long extended drought.

For any rotational grazing plan to work well, both cattle and management must undergo a training period. Furthermore, the cattle must have manageable temperaments, bunching instinct, and herding ability. Cattle that don't characterize these traits should, over time, be culled from the herd.

Tactical rotational grazing, when combined with a program of light stocking, transforms the cow into a powerful tool for improving rangeland health. The range cattle industry and our country's public and private rangelands would benefit if ranchers incorporated a viable, low-cost, rotational grazing plan in their operations. I also believe that these plans would, with adequate explanation and demonstration, win the approval of rangeland conservation, environmental, and wildlife groups.

3. Natural weed and brush control

Weed and brush control is a necessary part of sound range management. The method I recommend consists of combining prescribed burns and limited use of herbicides with a program of light stocking and tactical rotational grazing. (While I am not a proponent of herbicide use, it is often the only way, except for hand clearing, to keep brush out of fence-lines, where prescribed burning cannot be applied.) Effective and inexpensive, this method not only controls invasive vegetation, but it also improves forage quality, thus reducing supplementary feed costs. The improvements in forage quality resulting from effective weed and brush control increases annual calf crops and promotes weight gain in calves and yearlings. Effective weed and brush control also enhances habitat for native wildlife species such as pronghorn antelope, mule deer, red-tailed hawks and other raptors, and numerous game- and songbirds. Vallentine (1989) provides good information on weed and brush control on rangelands. For information on how rangelands respond to burning, see Engle & Bidwell (2001) and White & Hanselka (2000). For information on planning a prescribed burn, see Lander (1994).

From the standpoint of sustainability, most beef herd management efforts are misdirected. Instead of raising cattle that suit the needs of rangeland agriculture, most ranchers produce animals that suit the needs of industrial agriculture. For the rancher, this is a losing proposition, and as long as he accepts it, his operation will never be sustainable. He may fancy himself independent, but in reality, his highly prized independence is illusory. He is, after all, working largely for the benefit of agribusiness, not his own or the consumer's.

Examples of how the rancher is the captive of industrial agriculture abound. For instance, efforts to develop cattle with higher feedlot performance have raised nutrient requirements to the point where most cattle cannot sustain themselves on range forage alone (Banister 1996). As a result, most of today's cattle have become nothing more than fossil fuel powered machines, as opposed to solar powered ruminants, that require large amounts of supplementary feed and pampering to be productive (Pollen 2001). Profits, consequently, accrue to feed and other input suppliers, not to the rancher. He is forced to deal with the costs of the inputs and the labor of applying them.

Artificial insemination (AI) and embryo-transfer are further examples of high-cost, risky technologies that offer the rancher little chance of sustainability. They increase the rancher's unit cost so much that he seldom makes a profit from an animal produced by them. Input suppliers, such as AI technicians, semen collectors, embryo transfer labs and recipient cow traders, profit from use of these techniques, not the rancher. And when they fail, the loss falls on the rancher's balance sheet, not theirs. Moreover, these methods increase biological risk by perpetuating the genetic influence of cattle that are, without foundation, deemed superior largely on the basis of information provided by the self-interested input supplier. Yet in spite of the undeniable financial and biological disadvantages of AI and embryo-transfer, their use remains widespread.

A full treatment of the problems of and mistakes in managing beef herds under native range conditions would require a book. Here is a brief description of some of them, followed by an outline of what my observing and working experience has shown me to be basic of sound beef herd management.

Some problems and mistakes in beef herd management

• Breeding and selecting cattle that suit the needs of industrial agriculture rather than rangeland ranchers
  
  
• Selecting cattle on the basis of breed, color, show-ring performance, pedigree, whether they are horned or polled, or because they are registered in a particular breed association
  
  
• Single-trait selection, for example, selecting cattle primarily on the basis of body size, growth, visual appearance, carcass merit, milk, or mothering ability
  
  
• Culling to eliminate low fertility, calving problems, pinkeye, cancer eye, foot problems, unacceptable udders, etc. and then retaining or purchasing sire replacements that reintroduce the same inferior traits in a herd of cattle
  
  
• Using poor quality sires that create problems such as low fertility, poor mothering ability, slow growth, and inefficient use of range forage
  
  
• Ranchers making it their goal to breed terminal-cross and composite cattle, rather than breeding general-purpose and synthetic cattle
  
  
• Purchasing herd replacements that are raised under a different management plan and in a different ranching environment
  
  
• Trying to make a profit by neglecting herd health care and nutrition requirements
  
  
• Using herds that are too small to be financially and genetically viable on an one herd independent basis
  
  
• Focusing beef marketing efforts on the sale of meat from animals that have not reached maturity and are still growing additional carcass
  
  
• Wasting valuable time, money and energy playing the registered bovine game
  
  
• Specializing in the cow-calf, growing, or finishing phase of the beef cattle business or specializing in raising purebred, composite, or F-1 breeding stock
  
  
• Inability of ranchers to work together as a ranching cooperative to improve the sustainability of their operations.
  
  

Basis for sound beef herd management

There are no shortcuts, technological or otherwise, to obtaining the type of cattle that best suits the needs of rangeland agriculture. They are the result of strict discipline, knowledge, and commitment to practicing sound beef herd management on a year-in, year-out, long-term basis. Deviation will not produce the desired result.

To practice sound (long-term) beef herd management, the rancher must incorporate the following protocol into his beef herd management program:

General protocol

1. Breed for function and let performance (not subjective selection) determine form. Avoid breeding cattle primarily on the basis of how they look or on the basis of breed, pedigree, or special breed percentage.
   
   
2. Breed within a closed population rather than an open population. This practice plays a key role in developing bulls that are better than their sires and cows that are better than their dams. It also plays a key role in preventing inferior traits and devastating diseases from being introduced or reintroduced in a herd of cattle.
   
   Comment - Improvement brought about by breeding cattle within a closed population is measurable, cumulative, and permanent, and can be sustained over an indefinite period of time (Adams 1975).
   
   
3. Establish a foundation herd or population consisting of no less that 500 head of mature range cows. This practice is important because it provides a basis for deciding on a minimum number of mature cows required to operate a closed breeding system.
   
   Comments:
   
   
   • Establishing a foundation herd or population as large as possible is important because it maintains genetic diversity in a herd of cattle. Moreover the practice minimizes close inbreeding, and offers greater selection opportunities.
     
     
   • Operating a closed breeding system can be accomplished either on a one large operation (totally independent) or many small operations (associated) basis.
     
     
   • It should be noted that most present-day ranches, in Texas and other range states, do not have enough livestock carrying capacity to operate a close breeding system on an one large operation, totally independent basis.
     
     
4. As a breeding goal, work towards developing a distinct synthetic strain of optimally adapted cattle for rangeland environments and for the production of rangefed beef. The cattle must be made general-purpose, not terminal-cross. To meet this objective, cattle must have the genetic ability to produce highly acceptable slaughter animals and functionally superior herd replacements, and do so while pasturing lightly stocked range in a cost-efficient manner. It should be noted that due to a history of ranchers lacking the discipline, knowledge, and commitment to practicing sound beef herd management, very few cattle in the world have this ability.
   
   
5. Strive to develop and maintain an optimum balance of the fifteen traits in cattle that are most important to a vertically integrated operation that breeds general-purpose range cattle and incorporates the use of a continuous breeding program. These traits are
   
   
   • temperament
   • bunching instinct
   • herding ability
   • active libido in bulls
   • early sexual maturity
   • fertility
   • calving ease
   • predator protection
   • mothering ability
   • acceptable growth
   • easy fleshing ability
   • hardiness
   • production longevity
   • visual appearance (conformation)
   • carcass merit
     
     
6. Selection for traits that relate to temperament, reproduction, predator protection, and mothering ability must always come before selection for traits that relate to body size, growth, visual appearance, and carcass merit. Temperament, fertility, early sexual maturity, fertility, calving ease, predator protection, and mothering ability are the most important financial traits in a herd of generial-purpose cattle. This requirement is important because it helps the breeder develop cattle most suited to a continuous breeding program.
   
   
7. When selecting foundation cattle for a closed breeding system, include as many animals predicted to be best suited to a low-input range operation as possible. Stocking the foundation herd with low-input cattle is important because it reduces the amount of time required to develop a superior herd of range-adapted cattle. This practice is important in two ways. First, it promotes foundation cattle improvement and the development of optimally adapted cattle for rugged range conditions. Second, it helps maintain genetic diversity in a closed herd, or closed population of cattle.
   
   

   Comments:
   
   

   • Best suited cattle for a low-input range operation are moderate growth cattle that have heavy muscling, low birth weights, small body size, low to moderate milk, and dark pigmentation, and and do not require large amounts of farm grown and commercially processed feed to be productive.
     
     
   • Best breed types for a low-input range operation include but are not limited to purebred or crossbred Angus, Cracker, Yak, Dexter, Gyr, Hereford, Jersey, Kerry, Lowline, Muscles, Red Poll, and Shorthorn.
     
     
8. Vary the breed composition of foundation cattle as necessary for greater adaptability and therefore for greater productivity in the producer's particular ranching environment.
   
   
9. Do not mix the influence of different breeds together according to a predetermined breed percentage. Allow what works best to determine the breed mix.
   
   
10. Keep all animals in the herd separated by contemporary group. This practice facilitates the efficient management of beef herd breeding, nutrition, and performance evaluation.
    
    
11. Treat every animal in contemporary groups alike. Make sure that no animal is given an unfair competitive advantage. This practice is important because it provides every animal in the herd an equal opportunity to express his or her true genetic ability.
    
    
12. Keep accurate and detailed herd records. This entails permanently identifying every animal in the herd and recording information on its breeding background and performance. Keeping a good set of herd records is important because in time it will strengthened the financial and biological value in a herd of cattle.
    
    
13. Improve the beef herd strictly on the basis of breeding best to best. Let temperament, reproduction, survival, and yearling weight largely determine which animals are best.
    
    
14. Cull and carry forward to be slaughtered all cattle that do not meet minimum standards for animals in their contemporary group. Do this no matter how good they look, and in the case they are purchased, do this no matter how much they cost.
    
    
15. Discard as quickly as possible every animal that demonstrates inferior traits. This helps ensure that inferior animals will not adversely affect phenotypic herd performance. It also helps minimize the risk of over-populating the range with cattle.
    
    
16. Require animals in the herd to have two or more generations of uninterrupted closed-system breeding and selection behind them before recognizing them as superior range-adapted cattle. The two or more generations of uninterrupted breeding and selection must be done in accordance with sound beef herd management protocol from both the sire and dam side of their pedigree. This practice is important because it helps ensure that any animal acclaimed as being functionally superior and optimally adapted for a particular rangeland environment will be highly prepotent and have the ability to transmit their traits to their offspring. It also helps assure that any animals acclaimed as being superior will be predictable breeders.

    Comment - How long it takes to develop a herd that will meet the above-mentioned protocol will depend on the following factors:
    
    

    • level of genetic merit of cattle used as a genetic base
      
      
    • the producer's level of selection intensity
      
      
    • how well the producer adheres to the principles and practices of sound beef herd management.
      
      

    For some managers this practice would be easy. For others it will be difficult, or maybe impossible. The manager's educational background and ranching experience can play an important role in determining whether this practice is easy or difficult.

    
    

Breeding protocol

1. Mate best sons to best daughters within the same population. This practice minimizes the disadvantages and optimizes the advantages of a closed breeding system.
   
   

   Comment - It should be noted that a closed breeding system can be effectively operated on an independent or associated basis, with each rancher having one or more breeding groups.
   
   

2. Breed cattle naturally, not artificially. This ensures that all offspring will be out of cattle that are capable of breeding and have the desire to breed.
   
   
3. Expose mature cows and breeding-age heifers to bulls during a restricted 30- to 120-day breeding period each year. This allows the rancher to identify animals that are genetically superior on the basis of fertility.
   
   
4. Schedule each year's breeding season to coincide with times of peak forage growth and quality. This is important because it offers the rancher an opportunity to maximize calf-crop numbers in a herd of cattle at the lowest feasible cost.
   
   
5. Expose first-calf heifers and older cows to bulls that meet the following sire standards:
   
   
   1. Born naturally, without any help
   2. Out of a cow that has been a regular breeder beginning around her first birthday
   3. Out of a cow with a good to excellent udder
   4. Highly acceptable on the basis of weight and visual appearance when evaluated as a yearling bull
   5. Optimum frame score, reflective of a bull that can sire herd replacements best adapted to the rancher's particular ranching environment

   This practice is another safeguard that prevents introducing or reintroducing inferior traits in a herd of cattle.

   Comment - As a general rule, ranchers who operate desert and short-grass prairie ranches need range bulls that sire smaller-size herd replacements. This is because larger-size herd replacements can't find enough range forage each day to maintain themselves in moderate to good body condition without a heavy investment in supplementary feed.

6. Expose virgin heifers to lightweight bulls that sire calves with low birth weights. This lessens the chance of permanently injuring yearling heifers at mating time and minimizes calving problems with first-calf heifers.
   
   
7. Change sires before they have a chance to mate with their offspring and avoid mating sires to their dams and sisters. The practice of avoiding mating brothers with sisters and their parents is necessary to prevent close inbreeding.
   
   

Nutrition and herd-health protocol

1. Provide each animal in the herd with an adequate amount of native range.

   Comments:

   • When rainfall conditions are fair to good, the EQUIVALENT of approximately 10 to 15 acres of mid-grass rangeland maintained in good to excellent ecological condition will be required to produce enough forage to support the equivalence of one animal unit for a period of 12 months. This practice requires employing a range professional to survey the grazing capacity of the rancher's native range.
     
     
   • The number of acres of range that will be required for each animal unit in the rancher's herd will depend on range's average rainfall, soil type, and forage type. During periods of low rainfall and poor growing conditions, and when range conditions are fair to poor, more acres will be required. During periods of high rainfall, native range must be allowed to recover from periods of drought. Droughts (as mentioned in the range management section of this paper) are inevitable and unpredictable, and native range, especially in Texas, is rarely in good to excellent ecological condition.
     
     
   • It should be noted that operating a closed breeding system requires providing ample pasture with enough carrying capacity to support no less than the following number and classes of cattle:
     
     
     • Mature cows: 500 or more head
       
       
     • Yearling heifers being grown-out and tested for replacement stock: plus or minus 225 head
       
       
     • Yearling bulls being grown-out and tested for replacement stock and steers being grown-out and fattened for rangefed beef: plus or minus 225 head
       
       
     • Herd bulls for breeding mature cows: plus or minus 20 head
       
       
     • Herd bulls for breeding yearling heifers: plus or minus 16 head
       
       

     It's also important to note that providing ample pasture for the above number and class of cattle can be accomplished either on an one large-size operation (independent) basis, or on a many small-size operations (cooperative) basis.

2. Supplement the herd with additional protein and energy when the forage in their diet does not meet minimum nutritive requirements. To be sustainable, the rancher must maintain his herd in highly acceptable body condition, especially during the last 1-2 months of gestation and during the first 3-4 months postpartum. NRC 1996 is a good source for information on the nutrient requirements of beef cattle.
   
   
3. Provide water and the right mineral-mix free choice. Consult with Herd 1997 on mineral supplementation of beef cattle in Texas.
   
   
4. Manage disease and parasites according to a veterinary endorsed, up to date herd health plan.

The four above mentioned practices are necessary to prevent disease and parasites and deficiencies in nutrition, water, and minerals from adversely affecting the productivity and profit-potential of a herd of cattle.

Culling protocol

1. Cull all cows and heifers that fail to breed on schedule (fail to breed during a 30 to 90-day restricted breeding season) each year.
   
   
2. Culling emphasis must also be directed towards unmanageable temperaments, slow breeders, problem calvers, poor quality calvers, unacceptable udders, broken or badly worn teeth, poor fleshing ability, post-legs, bad eyes, and other physical problems.

Comment - These two practices are important because they play a key role in removing inferior traits in a herd of cattle.

Selection protocol

1. At weaning time, grade and separate annual calf crop into one of the following contemporary (peer) groups:
   
   
   1. Calves to be carried forward as potential sire replacements
   2. Calves to be carried forward as range-finished slaughter animals
   3. Calves to be carried forward as potential cow replacements
   4. Calves (male and female) to be sold as stockers
      
      
2. When evaluating the performance of yearling bulls, pay close attention to bulls that have heavy yearling weights. Yearling weight is the most important weight used in bull selection. It indicates the mothering ability of a bull's dam and how well a bull can convert range forage into meat. (www.lasaterranch.com) Lasater (1972) provides information about Tom Lasater's ideas on cattle raising.
   
   
3. For sire replacements, select best bulls out of dams with the best udders and most proven track records. This will extend the influence of superior dams, and it helps improve production longevity in a herd of cattle.
   
   
4. When selecting cow replacements, keep females that breed first, as yearlings. This is necessary to develop and maintain early sexual maturity and high fertility in a herd of cattle
   
   

   Comment: Heifers that fail to breed as yearlings should be selected for marketing as range-finished beef, not as breeding stock.

   
   

Marketing protocol

The rancher must have a sound marketing plan. To be sound, the marketing plan must be based on a livestock production and marketing strategy that is vertically integrated all the way to the consumer. And, it must include standardized operating procedures at each phase of the production and marketing process. Strength in numbers, quality, and uniformity at the marketplace should be among its goals.

The owner and manager of a sustainable ranch must actively work toward optimizing his financial position through the direct sale of functionally superior, range-adapted breeding stock and superior quality, range-aged grassfed beef. Animals marketed as breeding stock must be bulls or cows that meet or exceed certain specified performance standards. Beef marketed as rangefed beef must be produced out of cattle that are no longer growing additional carcass, and out of cattle that were born, grown-out, and fattened on lightly stocked range.

Since the sustainable rancher's competition (industrial cattle and grainfed meat) are mass-produced commodities, he must market his sale animals and meat as specialty "trade-name" products. In order to achieve marketing success, he must advertise the quality and uniqueness of his products. He must also advertise that his sale animals and meat are rangefed and produced under native range conditions, following range management practices that conserve the land's soil, water, vegetation, and wildlife resources.

Diversification provides the rancher with a tremendous opportunity to improve the sustainability of his operation, especially during times of market oversupply and low livestock prices. As long as maximum production remains the focus of U.S. agriculture, there will be many more years of high market supply and low livestock prices than years of low market supply and high prices. When this situation is combined with today's high operating cost and loss of productive grazing land, plus the amount of time required to develop a top-quality herd of cattle, diversification plays an even greater role in making the ranching business sustainable. However, to take full advantage of diversification, most ranchers will need to improve their marketing, financial, political, and social skills.

The method of diversification that improves the sustainability of rangeland ranching with the least amount of capital outlay and financial risk is for the rancher to contract with a private or public organization -- national or international -- to manage his native grazing land for both agricultural and ecological purposes. Under the terms of an agreement, the rancher is compensated for his willingness to

1. lightly stock and in some cases (when the rancher's grazing land is extremely degraded) totally destock his grazing land, and
   
   
2. include a tactical rotational grazing plan and other sound range management practices in his ranching approach.

With some of the financial load taken off his shoulders, he can concentrate on managing his land in ways that benefit rangelands, wildlife, and the environment, as well as for the benefit of ranchers. This arrangement can be promoted by simply demonstrating that a well-managed ranching operation is able to

• reduce soil erosion and improve soil quality
• reduce the amount of methane gas released by ruminant animals
• reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere
• improve water, oxygen, and energy yield from rangelands
• enhance wildlife and fish habitat.

High-tech meat processing is another way to diversify. Here, the objective is to process and market rangefed beef in ways that build its reputation as a wholesome product. This means that the rangefed meat sold to the consumer must be tasty, tender, uniform in quality, and free of additives proven or perceived by consumers as being unhealthy.

It's important to note that high-tech meat processing offers three important advantages to the rancher: First, it increases the market value of the meat from mature cattle slaughtered straight off the range. Second, it produces all-natural meat products that appeal to health-conscious consumers. Third, by eliminating middlemen, high-tech meat processing allows ranchers to claim their full share of the profits made between the cow/calf phase and the direct sale of meat to the consumer.

Breakthroughs such as precision flake cutting show particular promise. This technology converts meat produced out of mature cattle fattened on the range into tender, tasty items with solid muscle texture. The variety of products that can be produced by this technology seems limited only by the availability of raw material and the imagination of the processor (Urschel Laboratories 1980). (Urschel Laboratories 1980).

Other methods of diversification that can be considered include

• training and marketing horses for recreational riding and ranch work
  
  
• raising and marketing sheep and or goats as breeding stock, meat, wool, mohair, and other valuable products
  
  
• providing suitable land sites for the generation of wind and solar energy
  
  
• offering the public an opportunity to enjoy ranch-style dining items such as BBQ beef, cowboy beans, ranch potatoes, sourdough bread, sourdough biscuits, range-aged steaks, chili, and fruit cobbler
  
  
• processing and marketing specialty food products such as ranch-style chili, chili sauce, and barbecue sauce
  
  
• providing the public a source for ranch supplies, such as saddles and tack
  
  
• providing recreational opportunities such as:
  
  
  • get-away lodging
  • chuck-wagon cookouts
  • wildlife viewing
  • educational field trips
  • managed hunting and fishing
  • working cowboy vacations
  • trail drives
  • cowboy poetry and song.

Large corporations have long recognized the importance of incorporating the use of business cycles in their decision making. Yet this aspect of the ranching business has been poorly understood by ranch owners and ranch managers. Encouraged by an upswing in the cattle business -- green grass and high livestock prices -- the rancher buys more stock for his ranch and then is forced to decrease the size of his herd during the next downswing in moisture conditions and livestock prices. Instead of intensifying the grazing part of his ranching business, which is very risky and depends on climatic and macroeconomic conditions that are largely beyond his control, he should diversify.

One of the few discussions of business cycles and macroeconomics relative to ranching that I have encountered is that of Holechek (1994). His approach identifies different management methods and then projects different outcomes based on available research and practical experience. Best case scenarios for different alternatives are developed, and those that do not yield higher returns than money-market interest rates, or interest rates on federal government bonds, during the life of the investment are thrown out. A good example of this technique, including a demonstration, can be found in Holechek (1992). Holechek et al. (1997) provides good information on how strategic use of stock and bond markets can be used in asset allocation. Other management possibilities can be further evaluated under most probable and worst-case scenarios. The rancher should always strive to balance ranching goals with probabilities for success, and he should never forget that the most profitable option might conflict with the ecological responsibility and social acceptability of his operation.

Small operations could benefit from software programs that allow the rancher to project possible outcomes of different investment and management decisions. For the projections to be viable, the software must take into account the human, biological, physical, and financial aspects of each management decision. If reliable software for determining best case financial decisions becomes available, it could help the rancher avoid mistakes that increase financial risk and debt, degrade resources, and adversely effect his ability to ensure a sustainable future for his ranching business.

Unsound government cost share subsides, such as the now discontinued USDA-Emergency Feed Program, have done much more harm to the ranching business than they have helped. By encouraging ranchers to use high-cost, high-risk ranching practices, which are highly intensive in application, the government has contributed to oversupplying the marketplace with cattle, and forcing ranchers to sell market animals at give-away prices. Unsound government programs also contribute to increasing the purchase price of harvested feed and hay during periods of drought, and to lowering the rancher's financial returns from his ranching investments. In addition, they contribute to furthering the degradation and fragmentation of our country's rangelands. Even with the support of USDA cost-share payments on emergency hay and feed, neither ranchers or rangelands have benefited from past government cost-share programs (Holechek 1996b). In most cases, ranchers who substitute purchased feed and hay for range forage are headed for the poor house (Holechek 1996b). When drought strikes, ranchers are forced to reduce their livestock numbers to what existing range forage resources will support.

It's important to note that since selling irreplaceable breeding stock during times of extended drought and market oversupply, and since substituting range forage with purchased feed and hay are both counterproductive to the financial health of rangeland ranching, I firmly believe that preparing to survive periods of low rainfall should be a top priority for any rancher planning on being long-term, generation to generation survivor in the ranching business.

It has been my experience that ranchers who are truly serious about the sustainability of their operations avoid use and dependency on government programs that reward high-cost, high-risk ranching practices. Because of the negative consequences of past subsidy programs, the most successful ranchers that I've encountered use government only in two ways: first, as a source of information and education, and second, as a source of income for improving rangeland conditions (such as soil stability and watershed health), as well as improving range forage yields.

Over the years the federal government has spent huge amounts of money on USDA programs that attempt to reduce the negative effects of overstocking and overgrazing on rangelands. Few, if any, of the programs have been successful. Rather than continuing to waste money on programs that don't work, our representatives in government should consider financially supporting a USDA subsidy program centered around offering working ranchers a real FINANCIAL INCENTIVE to include light stocking and other sound range management practices in their respective ranching approach (Ward 1999). This would be an excellent step toward improving the long-term financial health of ranchers and the long-term ecological health of rangelands in Texas and other range states and regions. I'm hopeful that government unwillingness to financially reward responsible rangeland stewardship doesn't become a major factor for the eventual demise of our country's range cattle industry, as well as the eventual destruction of our country' rangelands.

Recent cuts in capital gains and inheritance taxes are most encouraging and should help many ranch families. Another positive step would be legislation that would extend the tax-free period on livestock liquidated due to drought from one year to at least six years. Legislators should keep in mind that the droughts of the 1930s and 1950s on the Great Plains lasted six long years.

Income tax benefits, property tax exemptions, and agricultural subsidies to hobby ranchers and speculative investors must end. In the short-run, income and property tax breaks and agricultural subsidies help oversupply livestock markets with cattle, help keep financial returns from ranching very low, plus they encourage further degradation of our country's rangelands. In the long-run, they are responsible for converting large tracks of agriculturally and ecologically important rangeland into smaller, less profitable size operating units. They also encourage converting mid- and large-size working ranches into hobby ranches, ranchettes, country home sites, hill-top mansions, rural sub-divisions, and other types of human development, thereby permanently reducing the amount of life-supporting goods and services that rangelands provide for the benefit of society. I'm of the opinion that government subsidies that financially reward hobby ranchers and speculative land investors are counterproductive to the long-term survival of our country's range cattle industry, and they are harmful to rangeland health.

As a substitute for tax-breaks and cost subsidies to hobby ranchers and speculative investors, I would like to see our leaders in government support legislation and implementation of programs that would keep full-time working ranchers and cowboys on working ranches, where with proper incentives and education, they can preserve, and when necessary, restore the agricultural and ecological integrity of our country's range cattle industry, as well as our country's native rangelands.

Government also needs to discontinue subsidizing our country's dairy industry. Years of government price support subsidies to dairies have contributed to oversupplying the market with milk and packer cows, as well as overspending on dairy infrastructure. They have saddled dairymen with mountains of debt and encouraged agricultural practices that have resulted in depletion of important rangeland resources, such as fertile soil, fresh water, native vegetation, and native wildlife. They have also caused large amounts of environmental pollution. In my opinion, our government's long-time policy of keeping milk cheap through subsidies and buyout programs has done irreparable harm to dairymen, ranchers, rangelands, wildlife, and the environment, and has adversely affected the long-term welfare of our nation.

Few things worry ranchers more than threatened and endangered species. Under present policy, having endangered species on a ranch is more a liability than an asset. Federal and state laws must be modified so that ranchers are rewarded rather than punished for providing and improving habitat for endangered species. Conservation and environmental groups could help protect threatened and endangered species simply by supporting efforts to give working ranchers a financial incentive to improve the agricultural and ecological condition of their grazing land. Again, consult Ward 1998 for information on how ranchers could be rewarded for providing and improving habitat for endangered native species.

Overspending on infrastructure such as machinery, fences, and watering points results in over-burdening the rancher with debt, and will lead to causing extensive rangeland degradation. I believe that ranchers overloading themselves with debt is a root cause for instability and low profitability in ranching and must be avoided. In my experience, ranching programs that include lots of high-cost fencing, watering points, and lots of heavy brush control and seeding are doomed to become losing propositions for ranchers, rangelands, and the environment. Sorry to say, most ranchers put too much money -- which is often borrowed -- into ranch improvements that, when considering the animal unit carrying capacity of their grazing land and the projected value of their market animals, will never pay for themselves. Similarly, would-be ranchers make a costly mistake when they buy rangeland with too much invested in infrastructure relative to the amount of grass. Fences and watering points are not only costly to build and maintain (especially as supply and labor costs continue to rise), but they are also depreciating assets.

How much infrastructure is too much? Naturally, the answer will vary, depending on rangeland type, ranch size, topographical nature of the land, and range conditions. On most desert ranches, infrastructure becomes financially unjustifiable when permanent watering points exceed one per 4,000 acres (2.5-mile spacing) and the average pasture size is less than 2,000 acres. In more productive areas of the plains, fewer than 2,600 acres per watering point (2-mile spacing) and pasture size of less than a section (640 acres) would usually represent excessive spending on infrastructure. However, it is important to point out that greater investment in infrastructure can be justified when a ranch has a comparatively high animal unit carrying capacity. For useful guidelines on determining the amount of infrastructure required to operate a desert or prairie ranch, see Holechek (1995).

Overstocking, overgrazing, and high-risk speculation have kept financial returns from range cattle ranching very low and have caused extensive degradation and fragmentation of our country's agriculturally and ecologically important rangelands (Vallentine 1990; Heady & Child 1994; Holechek et al. 1998). This has been an ongoing problem since the origins of the U.S. range cattle industry in the 1860s (Bentley 1898 and Stoddart & Smith 1943).

Instability and low profitability in range cattle ranching has forced ranchers to sell parts of their grazing land in an attempt to recoup losses, pay off debt, or just to have enough income to live on after retirement. This problem has existed ever since our country's public rangelands on the Great Plains were converted to private ownership in the 1880s (Skaggs 1986).

Over the years, I've come to the conclusion that the first step toward making the ranching business sustainable is taken when the rancher begins to manage his operation according to a strict code of land ethics. Indeed, his goal must be to permanently protect his agriculturally and ecologically important grazing lands from further degradation and fragmentation.

Safeguarding our country's highest productive rangelands from further degradation and fragmentation is important because it prevents further destabilization and loss of our country's range cattle industry. It also prevents further loss of mule deer, bob-white quail, red-tailed hawks and other wildlife species that need large expanses of undivided rangeland to sustain their existence. In addition, degradation and fragmentation of our country's most important rangelands leads to loss of ecosystem services that are needed to medicate man-made climate change and global warming, and therefore, are needed to safeguard the well-being of present and future generations.

Ranchers can employ three estate-planning strategies to permanently protect our country's agriculturally and ecologically important grazing lands from further degradation and fragmentation. First, they can convert their ranches into a type of permanent trust that includes certain land-use requirements and restrictions for owners and managers. Second, they can attach a conservation easement to the title of their ranches. Third, they can sell the development rights of their ranches to a public or private conservancy group. (It should be noted that the proceeds from sale of development rights can be used to form a trust fund for education or retirement, cover operating costs, and or retiring debt.)

The conservation objective of all three strategies is to protect the rancher's native grazing land from agriculturally and ecologically destructive practices such as overstocking and overgrazing, fire suppression, habitat fragmentation, real-estate development, and other types of rangeland degrading and fragmenting projects. Other objectives include preserving the rancher's grazing land for ecological purposes such as:

• producing healthy food, natural fiber, and valuable by-products for human consumption
• providing habitat for grazing cultures, livestock, wildlife, and fish
• recharging below- and above-ground aquifers
• purifying water going into aquifers, streams, and rivers
• providing watershed protection and natural flood control
• creating and maintaining soil and ecological buffering capacity
• regenerating soil and water fertility
• creating new soil and increased carbon storing capacity
• providing vascular structure for delivering soil and water nutrients to plants
• removing carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" emissions out of the air
• transmitting life-supporting oxygen in the air
• sequestering carbon in below and above-ground biomass
• detoxifying and degrading waste materials and pollution
• supporting bio-diversity in native flora and fauna
• providing habitat for pollinators of cultivated and wild plants
• providing natural control of pathogenic and parasitic organisms (natural pest control)
• providing opportunities for hunting, fishing, and other types of public recreation
• providing a natural setting for cultural, social, and spiritual enrichment.
  
  

A conservation easement, which is a legal document, is a set of restrictions a ranch owner voluntarily places on his or her ranch in order to preserve its conservation values. The restrictions and conservation values, along with rights reserved by the ranch owner(s), are detailed in the document. A conservation easement becomes a binding part of the ranch owner's deed, and is conveyed to a private or public organization qualified to hold and enforce easements. Most easements are perpetual documents. They apply to the current ranch owner and all future owners. They permanently protect the agriculturally and ecologically attributes of a ranch for the benefit of both present and future generations. Diehl & Barrett (1988) and Barrett & Nagel (1996) provide good information on conservation easements.

Pursuing useful information, and consequently broadening the rancher's intellectual horizons plays a key role in making rangeland ranching sustainable. The long-term survival of the rancher's ranching business depends on his ability and willingness to search for, find, and use sound information, rather than unthinkingly continuing "past traditions" or using highly intensive practices recommended by agricultural universities, research and demonstration centers, commercial feedlots, or big-business supply firms. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that the rancher has not been encouraged to do so by government extension programs. Rather than pointing out how to find and use valid information, most agricultural extension programs have been designed to promote high-input, high-risk, maximum production practices that benefit the industrial agriculture producer, rather than benefiting the low-input, low-risk rangeland agriculture producer. I've yet to encounter a government extension agent who recommended useful textbooks on range management such as Vallentine (1989) and Holechek (1995).

College beef cattle and range management programs can do a better job, too. They have a role to play in eliminating narrow thinking, but they must adjust their curricula. At present, they produce college graduates whose biggest weakness is, in my opinion, a tendency to focus on only a few aspects of the ranching business. To remedy this, beef cattle and range science programs should include courses such as rangeland agriculture: principle and practices, U.S. ranching history, rangeland ecology, government polices and programs, national resource conservation, estate planning, financial management, ecological economics, business management, computer science, and society's value system as it regards to ranchers, ranching, and rangelands. Broader training would benefit students, government legislators and employees, the U.S. range cattle industry, and society as a whole.

The last but not least important component of sustainable ranching is the pursuit of society acceptance. Unlike biology and ecology (the sciences that drive range and beef herd management), this aspect of the ranching business is like the field of economics: it is driven by human values rather than by natural laws.

Human values are reflections of society's perceptions and beliefs, and are not necessarily based on sound knowledge or absolute truth. They can be emotionally, financially, and or politically manipulated. (Heitschmidt et al., 2004).

Right or wrong, based on sound knowledge or not, society acceptance is often the underlying variable that either hinder or enhance efforts to make rangeland ranching sustainable. (Heitschmidt et al., 2004).

Here are some trends and concepts that reflect the societal view:

• Livestock grazing on public rangelands is being closely scrutinized with strong advocacy for its removal (Wuerthner and Matteson, 2000).
  
  
• Even though raising and grazing domestic livestock on rangeland is the oldest and most sustainable form of agriculture known, there are many people who believe that grazing livestock on native rangeland is environmentally inappropriate (Heitschmidet et al., 2004).
  
  
• Since the middle part of the 20th century, there has been a tremendous change in how society views cattle raising on public and private rangelands (Frasier, 1998). Prior to the 1950s, livestock grazing on public and private rangeland was a widely approved method of providing necessary food and fiber for human consumption. Now, sixty plus years later, livestock grazing on rangelands is viewed as the primary cause for loss of wildlife habitat and environmental pollution.
  
  
• Scientific research indicates that improper grazing on rangeland results in accelerated soil erosion, increased numbers and distribution of invasive plant species, reduced water quality, and losses in biodiversity (Frasier, 1998).
  
  
• Calls for action to remove livestock grazing on public rangelands seems to disregard any and all reports that responsible livestock grazing has a far less harmful effect on the interactions of natural rangeland ecosystems than high-intensive agricultural practices, exotic wildlife preserves, single-use recreation, get-away housing, and other forms of human activity and development. (Maestas et al., 2002).
  
  
• Instead of supporting policies that promote responsible grazing practices, there are many individuals and groups in our country that advocate punishing ranchers for role ranching has played in degrading rangeland conditions since the formation of the U.S. range cattle industry in the 1860s. Donahue (1999) presents a well documented argument for the removal of livestock from public rangeland.
  
  
• In countries that have adequate financial resources to purchase large amounts of foreign oil, natural gas, and irrigation water to support high-cost, high-risk, intensive agricultural practices -- in countries like the United States and in Europe -- present day industrial agriculture is perceived as being fully sustainable and there is no longer a societal need for supporting the existence of rangeland agriculture (Heitschmidt et. Al, 1996). This concept does not take into consideration that the survival of industrial agriculture in the U.S. and other industrial countries is totally dependent on the continued availability of low-cost, environmentally polluting carbon energy (oil, coal, natural gas, etc.) and plenty of low-cost, aquifer depleting irrigation water. As of date, industrial societies like the U.S. have been unable to recognize the extent of their dependency on an unsustainable agricultural system for producing and distributing their food supply (Pimentel, 1984).
  
  
• A recent survey by Shields et al.(2000) shows that there is wide support for adopting management practices (tactics and strategies) for public rangelands that
  
  
  1. enhance ecological health
  2. preserve opportunity for wilderness experiences
  3. are supported by sound science research
  4. favor less commercial use of public rangelands.

  The survey also shows only limited support for increasing motorized recreational opportunities on public rangelands; continuing traditional public range-use privileges to nearby communities; and continuing subsidizing agricultural and commercial development practices on public rangelands.

After close study of the above mentioned society trends and perceptions, it should be easy to see why responding to society concerns in a timely, friendly, and informative manner must be part of the rancher's survival package. Failing to link the importance of pursuing society acceptance with ensuring a sustainable future for rangeland ranching would be a major mistake.

One of the best ways ranchers can pursue society acceptance for rangeland ranching on public and private rangelands is by supporting efforts to inform individuals and groups in our country and around the world about the role properly managed rangeland ranching can play in providing life-supporting goods and services for the benefit of societies around the world.

The most unique characteristic of the sustainable ranching approach that I've presented is the way the rancher must go about solving problems and maintaining an acceptable balance between the financial, ecological, and social aspects of his or her business.

Financially, the rancher opts for a low-input, low-risk, extensive method of ranching rather than a high-input, high-risk, intensive method. He incorporates the use of four primary components and six supporting components in his ranching arrangement. When managing rangeland, he lightly stocks his range with livestock and closely manages their everyday grazing. He uses prescribed burns to manage invading weeds and brush, and improve the quality of his range. Principle income from cattle is derived from marketing functionally superior, range-adapted breeding stock and superior quality, range-aged grassfed meat. Rather than intensifying the cattle raising aspects of his enterprise, he uses diversification to improve ranch income and profitability. He is always seeking to find alternative sources of income that are compatible with current ranching ventures. In time, his operation becomes largely self-supporting on an independent or associated basis. He views his operation as a long-term, generation to generation commitment, not as a short-term speculative investment. His method of ranching can be easily adapted to rangeland conditions in any part of the world.

Ecologically, the rancher promotes the preservation of rangeland ranching by making the conservation of rangeland resources -- soil, water, vegetation, and wildlife -- an integral part of his business. He fully understands the agricultural and ecological importance of maintaining his grazing land in good to excellent range condition. Emphasis in ranching is directed towards raising more range forage, not raising more cattle. Being a responsible steward of the rangeland under his care plays an important role in his ranching approach. He believes that ranchers, livestock, rangelands, and wildlife must coexist in harmony for the long term.

Socially, the rancher views natural resource and environmental groups as consumers and concerned citizens rather than adversaries. He believes that, whenever possible, these groups as well as the general public need to be informed about the vital role that his sustainable method of ranching can play in providing a variety of life-supporting goods and services needed for human survival. He also believes in informing these same people about the role his method of ranching can play in conserving natural resources such as fertile soil, clean water, native plants and wildlife for the benefit of society.

The historical financial returns from rangeland ranching in Texas and other range states and regions has been quite low -- 2% to 5% return on invested capital. I'm confident that much higher returns can be attained when operations are managed according to the ranching approach that I've discussed. I feel certain that further discussion as well as demonstration of this method of ranching would help secure a future for rangeland ranching on the rangelands of North America.

Adams, A., Jr. 1975. "Breeding and Selection of Braford Cattle." Adams Ranch, Inc.

Barrett, Thomas S., and Stefan Nagel. 1996. "Model Conservation Easement and Historic Preservation Easement." Land Trust Alliance and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Banister, R. 1996. "Keeping the Range in Range Cattle Production." Rangelands 18:21.

Bentley, H. L. 1898. "Cattle Ranges of the Southwest: A History of Exhaustion of Pasturage and Suggestions for Its Restoration." Farmers Bulletin No. 72. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture.

Diehl, Janet and Thomas S. Barrett, 1988. "Conservation Easement Handbook." Land Trust Alliance and the Trust for Public Land.

Donahue, D.L. 1999. The Western Range Revisted: Removing Livestock from Public Lands to Conserve Native Biodiversity. Univ. Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Engle, David M., and Terrence G. Bidwell. 2001. "Viewpoint: The response of central North American prairies to seasonal fire." Journal of Range Management 54:2-10.

Frasier, David. 1998. Animal ethics and the "New Perception" of animal agriculture. Pages 140-247 in New Directions in Animal Production Systems. Canadian Society of Animal Science, Vancouver.

Fuhlendorf, Samuel D., and David M. Engle. 2001. "Restoring Heterogeneity on Rangelands: Ecosystem Management Based on Evolutionary Grazing Patterns." BioScience 51, no. 8:625-632.

Gill, Ron. 1998. Fall 1998. "Maintaining Herd Performance During Drought." News Letter Vol. 3, No. 3. Texas A&M University Extension Service.

Hanselka, C. Wayne, Robert E. Lyons, and Jerry L. Holechek. 2002. "Managing Climatic and Financial Risk with Grazing." Publication E-140. Texas A&M University Extension Service.

Hanselka, C. Wayne, Robert E. Lyons, and Richard Teague. 2002. "Patch Grazing and Sustainable Rangeland Production." Publication E-172. Texas A&M University Extension Service.

Hanselka, C. Wayne, Larry D. White and Jerry L. Holechek. 2002. "Managing Residual Forage for Rangeland Health." Publication E-127. Texas A&M University Extension Service.

Heady, H., and D. Child. 1994. "Rangeland Ecology and Management." San Francisco: West View Press.

Heitschmidt, R.K., L.T. Vermeire, and E.E. Grings. 2004. Is rangeland agriculture sustainable?. Journal of Animal Science. 82(E. Suppl.):E138-E146.

Herd, Dennis B. 1997. "Mineral Supplementation of Beef Cattle in Texas." Publication B-6056. Texas A&M University Extension Service.

Holechek, J. L. 1992. "Financial Benefits of Range Management Practices in the Chihuahuan Desert." Rangelands 14:280-282.

____________. 1996a. "Drought and Low Cattle Prices: Hardship for New Mexico Ranchers." Rangelands 18:11-14.

____________. 1996b. "Drought in New Mexico: Prospects and Management." Rangelands 18:225-227.

____________. 1997. "The Stock Market: What Ranchers Should Know." Rangelands 19:14-17.

____________. 2001. "A Growing Population, Rangelands & The Future." Rangelands 23(6):39-43.

Holechek, J. L., J. Hawkes, and T. D. Darden. 1994. "Macro economics and cattle ranching. Rangelands 16:118-123.

Holechek, J. L., R. D. Pieper, and C. H. Herbel. 1995. "Range Management Principles and Practices." 2nd edition. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

____________. 1998. "Range Management: Principles and Practices." 3rd Edition. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Keng, Edward B., and Leo B. Merrill. 1952. "Deferred Rotation Grazing Does Pay Dividends." Sonora, Texas: Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.

Lander, Roger. 1994. "Planning a Prescribed Burn." Publication L-2461. Texas A&M University Extension Service.

Lasater, L. M. 1972. "The Lasater Philosophy of Cattle Raising." El Paso: Texas Western Press.

Maestas, J.D., R. L. Knight, and W.C.Gilgert. 2002. Cows, condos, or neither: What's best for rangeland ecosystems? Rangelands 24:36-42.

McGrann, J. J. 1997. "The Texas Cow-calf Sector - Economic Reality." College Station: Texas A&M University.

Merrill, Leo B. and Vernon A. Young. 1952. "Range Management Studies on the Ranch Experiment Station." Sonora, Texas: Agricultural Experiment Station. Sonora.

NRC. 1996. "Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle." 7th Ed. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.

Pimentel, D. 1984. Energy flow in agroecosystems. Pages 121-132 in Agricultural Ecosystems. Wiley & Sons, New York.

Pollan, Michael. "Power Steer." New York Times: Sunday March 31, 2001.

Shields, D.J., L.M. Martin, W.E. Martin, and M.A. Haefele. 2002. Survey results of the American public's values, objectives, beliefs, and attitudes regarding forest and grasslands: A technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-95, USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO.

Skaggs, Jimmy M. 1986. "Prime Cut: Livestock Raising and Meatpacking in the United States." College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Society for Management. 1989. "A Glossary of Terms Used in Range Management." 3rd Ed. Society for Range Management. Denver, Colo.

Stoddart, L.A., and A.D. Smith. 1943. "Range Management." New York: McGraw-Hill.

Thurow, Thomas L., and Charles A. Taylor, Jr. (1999). "Viewpoint: The role of drought in range management." Journal of Range Management 52:413-419.

Urschel Laboratories Inc. 1980. "Facts, Flakes and Fabricated Meats." Corporate Brochure.

Vallentine, J. F. 1989. "Range Development and Improvements." 3rd Edition. Provo: Brigham Young University Press.

Vallentine, J. F. 1990. "Grazing Management." New York: Academic Press, Inc.

Ward, Nol. 1999. "Ranchers Need an Economic Incentive To Practice Sound Range Management: What Government Can Do." Rangelands 21 (3):13-17.

White, Larry D., and C. Wayne Hanselka. 2000. "Prescribed Range Burning in Texas." Publication B-37. Texas A&M Extension Service.

Wuerthner, G., and M. Matteson. 2002. The Subsidized Destruction of the American West. Island/Palace Press, San Rafael, CA.

___________________________________

The original (short-length) version of this article was published in Rangelands, June 1998. The date for this revised (long-length) unpublished version was March, 2015.

The author, Nol Ward, is a retired small independent rancher, professional ranch manager, and beef cattle consultant. His e-mail address is: nol@consolidated.net

Back to TRC's recommended reading