Occupational ranchers in Texas and other range states presently face their most trying circumstances since the U.S. range cattle industry began in the 1860s. Their complex predicament defies simple explanation, yet it stems from identifiable root causes. These include:

• Widespread use of high-input, high-risk methods incompatible with natural ecological processes
• More years of low livestock prices than high prices
• Expensive and uncertain grazing privileges on public and private rangeland
• Unfair competition from hobby ranchers, speculative real-estate investors, and foreign suppliers
• Small ranches on increasingly fragmented rangeland
• Too many cattle relative to the amount of grass
• Ranchers substituting harvested feed and intensively managed tame pasture for native range
• Lack of cooperation among local and regional producers
• Emphasis on producing grainfed rather than grassfed beef
• Cattle that lack efficient functionality and are not adapted to their environment
• Operations lacking vertical integration and diversification
• Ranchers who command neither marketing nor procurement power
• Overspending on fences, equipment, and other infrastructure
• Excessive debt
• Degraded grazing land
• Unsound government policies and programs
• High property and inheritance taxes
• Rangeland goods and services are not valued by society

Yet as formidable as these problems are, I believe that they can be overcome, provided that the rancher is willing to adopt a ranching method that:

• Is economically viable, ecologically sound, and socially acceptable
• Has a harmonious effect on native grassland ecosystems and the environment
• Emphasizes risk management over maximizing production
• Promotes multiple use of rangeland with emphasis on conservation
• Advocates organizing the range cattle business for the benefit of ranchers and health conscious consumers rather than for the benefit of big-business input suppliers and multi-national grain marketing corporations
• Involves breeding cattle within closed populations rather than open populations
• In time, becomes largely self-supporting on a one-large-operation (independent) or many-small-operations (cooperative) basis
• Promotes the use of solar and wind energy
• Strives to minimize and whenever possible eliminate the use of nonrenewable, environmentally destructive resources such as fossil energy and fossil fuel based fertilizers and pesticides
• Can be easily adapted to rangeland conditions in any part of the world
• Enhances the quality of life for grazing communities and cultures
• Can be sustained over an endless period of time

This will require the rancher to abandon much of what is commonly and unthinkingly accepted as good or recommended practice in favor of better use of scientific information and new approaches to business and natural resource management. Most importantly, if the rancher is to survive, he must focus his efforts on reducing risk -- financial, biological, climatic, political, social, ecological, and environmental -- rather than on maximizing production.

In more than thirty-five years working in the beef cattle business, I have observed in detail practices that conserve natural resources and make economic sense, and thus contribute to the longevity of a ranching operation. I have also seen practices that degrade natural resources and make little economic sense; they lead inevitably to a ranching operation's demise.

In my experience, there are ten components that are absolutely necessary in making a modern-day (21st century) range cattle operation sustainable:

1. Economy of scale
2. Sound range management
3. Sound beef herd management
4. Diversification of operations
5. Sound financial management
6. Dislike for unsound government policies and programs
7. Avoidance of infrastructure overspending and debt
8. Avoidance of biological degradation, habitat fragmentation, and future changes in land use
9. Pursuit of useful knowledge
10. Pursuit of social acceptance

I'm of the opinion that unless the rancher adopts all of the foregoing components, his ranching operation will never be sustainable. I cannot emphasize this point enough. These aspects of sustainable range cattle ranching are so interrelated that they are inseparable. Implementing a few while ignoring others will ensure eventual failure. Moreover, the rancher must never forget that sustainability is, by definition, not a five- or ten-year project, but an endeavor that will extend beyond his lifetime. How he manages his ranching operation (his land and cattle) today will largely determine what and how much will be left for the next generation. It is my belief, too, that the rancher must look largely (though not exclusively) to himself and other producers for his salvation, not to government, universities, or 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 ranchers and anyone else interested in the future of ranching and rangelands can find additional and more detailed information.

In the marketplace, the independent rancher stands at a disadvantage in relation to large input suppliers, commercial feedyards, meat packers, and supermarkets. These businesses are organized and concentrated; furthermore, their interests seldom coincide with the rancher's.

Small- and medium-size ranching operations have little or no marketing power (McGrann 1997). Small, independent ranchers have limited numbers of livestock, and their cattle tend to vary widely in weight, grade, and other factors that determine quality. Limited numbers and lack of uniformity restrict the small-scale cowman's marketing possibilities to local auction or direct sales. Only a few ranchers have the opportunity to increase their net income by keeping their calves through the growing (stocker) and finishing (feeder) phases. Even fewer have the chance to increase their net income by retaining ownership of cull bulls, cows, and heifers through the meat packing (slaughtering and processing) phase. When a rancher cannot retain ownership all the way to the consumer, market oversupply, already an unfortunate fact of the rancher's life, hurts his already disadvantageous position.

Likewise, the rancher lacks procurement power, that is, the ability to influence the prices that he pays for supplies, such as fencing materials, supplementary feeds, fertilizer, fuel, and farm machinery. Because today's supply firms are highly concentrated and accountable only to their major stockholders, even the largest ranching operations exercise little procurement power, while small and medium size operations possess none at all (McGrann 1997).

The rancher can begin to overcome these handicaps through economy of scale, which will reduce his unit costs and strengthen his profit margins. Scale can be achieved in three ways: by increasing the size of his present operation through leverage or debt; by becoming a shareholder in a large-scale, corporate ranching enterprise; or by organizing a local or regional livestock production and marketing cooperative.

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 the rancher with sophisticated financial skills and access to enough capital to absorb losses during the formative stages of an operation and during times of depressed economic conditions and unfavorable weather. The rancher must be able to cover all of his operating costs, both fixed and variable, and he must be able to do so without mortgaging the ranch.

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

The third method, increasing efficiency by organizing a livestock production and marketing cooperative, requires the rancher to form alliances with nearby ranchers with common goals. They will be, in effect, combining their grazing lands and herds in a single unit. For this to work, the allied ranchers must be willing to opt for a common plan of livestock production and marketing, follow standardized management practices, and employ experienced people to help organize and coordinate the management of their cooperative. Each member of the cooperative must be given an equal opportunity to succeed. No one member should be given an undue advantage over any other member.

True, the latter method requires the small, independent operator to sacrifice a part of his independence. But the cooperative arrangement yields economic as well as biological advantages that can enable him to overcome the ill effects of rangeland degradation and fragmentation, evils which have left most desert and prairie ranches in Texas, New Mexico, and other range states too small and too unproductive to be sustainable on a one-operation, independent basis. Whether he is willing to form cooperative arrangements 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 -- or be forced out of ranching altogether.

Considering the oceans of money that federal and state governments have poured into range research and management programs, it is indeed remarkable that most ranchers have so little knowledge of the subject. This is highly regrettable, for sound range management is the cornerstone of sustainable range cattle 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 overloading his pastures with livestock or wildlife. The use of high-cost inputs such as tame pasture, irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides, and machinery, is 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 long-term 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, and savanna rangeland:

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

Light stocking

Over time, a program of lightly stocked pastures, combined with tactical rotational grazing, will improve a range'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 economic role by controlling the supply of meat going to the marketplace. The rancher must understand that attempts to raise income by overstocking his pastures with livestock 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 to manage the biological and economic risks posed by climate. Droughts and floods are inevitable and unpredictable. Because they cannot be anticipated, ranchers have no choice but to prepare for them in advance. If a range is not lightly stocked when an extended dry spell or a devastating rainstorm strikes, its soil and vegetation will suffer permanent damage before de-stocking can be carried out (Thurow and Taylor 1999). Moreover, at the same time that the rancher is forced to sell animals, others, suffering the same conditions, are also forced to sell theirs. A glut in market animals and consequent 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 and floods. Hanselka, Lyons, & Holechek (2002) provide good information on managing climatic and financial risks through sound grazing management.

In my experience, a range should be stocked at 60 to 70% of its projected 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 [cattle, goats, sheep, horses, deer, elk, bison, llamas, etc.] that a particular range or pasture can sustain over time without degrading its soil, water, and vegetation.) When figuring carrying capacity, the rancher must allow for loss of forage due to grazing, browsing, trampling, rodent and insect damage, prescribed burns, wildfires, and 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% usage of the annual production of key forage species, short-grass rangelands for 20 to 25%, mid-grass rangelands for 30 to 35%, and tall-grass rangelands at 35 to 45%. Consult Hanselka, White, & Holechek (2002) to determine optimum cattle use of key forage species for different types of rangelands.

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

Tactical rotational grazing: viable plans

Ranching operations that utilize large tracks of private or public rangeland can gain success with a simple, low-cost rotational grazing plan centered around controlling the day-to-day grazing of cattle by using trained herders on horseback. This tactical approach to rotational grazing is very sound from an ecological viewpoint and it 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, ranchers 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 several years. Under this plan, approximately one-third of the total range is burned annually (half of the third in late winter or early spring and the other half in the summer.) This allows a three-year interval between burns. Fuhlendorf and Engle (2001) provide good information on controlling the grazing of livestock by randomly burning patches of rangeland.

Under desert and short-grass range conditions, regulating a herd's assess to water is a very 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. This practice is necessary if cattle are expected to stay where they are moved.

If any of these plans is to yield good results, the rancher must follow four procedures. He must

1. Keep stocking rates 30 to 40% below projected long-term carrying capacity.
2. Never allow cattle to linger excessively on their preferred grazing areas. Move them before they graze their preferred forage to the ground. Hanselka, Lyons & Teague (2002) provide good information on preferred grazing areas of livestock. 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. Never allow cattle to re-graze a pasture until it has fully recovered.
4. Key forage species must be given a chance to product a seed crop.

For any rotational grazing plan to work well, both cattle and management must undergo a training period. Furthermore, the cattle must have manageable temperaments.

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 natural resource conservation and environmental groups.

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 herbicide 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 fencelines, where prescribed burning cannot be applied.) Effective and inexpensive, this method not only controls weeds and brush, but it also improves forage quality, thus reducing supplementary feed costs. It increases annual calf crops and promotes weight gain in calves. The method 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, ranchers mostly 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 his 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 economic and biological disadvantages of AI and embryo-transfer, their use remains widespread.

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

Problems and mistakes

• Using cattle that are not adapted to their environment
  
  
• 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 and/or cow 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
  
  
• Widespread use of complicated, high-cost breeding schemes
  
  
• Ranchers making it their goal to develop composite rather than synthetic cattle
  
  
• Purchasing herd replacements that are raised under a different management plan
  
  
• Trying to make a profit by neglecting herd health care and nutrition requirements
  
  
• High use of grain in maintaining, growing, and finishing beef cattle
  
  
• Herds that are too small to be economically and biologically viable
  
  
• Focusing primary 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 breeding stock
  
  
• Inability of producers to follow standardized management practices on a year-in, year-out basis
  
  
• Lack of cooperative breeding and marketing groups to improve the sustainability of range cattle ranching
  
  

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.

For a range cattle operation to be sustainable, the rancher must incorporate the following protocol into his beef herd management program:

General protocol

• 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.
  
  
• Breed within a closed population rather than an open population. The improvement brought about by breeding cattle within a closed population is measurable, cumulative, and permanent, and it can be sustained indefinitely (Adams 1975). 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.
  
  
• Establish a PERMANENT gene pool (population or herd of cattle) consisting of no fewer than 500 adult breeders plus their weanling and yearling offspring. This is the MINIMUM number of cattle required to operate a closed breeding system. This practice can be accomplished either on a one-large-operation (independent) or many-small-operations (cooperative) basis. It is important to note that, in the case of a closed breeding system, the larger the gene pool the better. Large numbers minimize close inbreeding in a closed population. Large numbers also offer greater selection opportunities. It is also important to note that most beef cattle ranches in Texas and other range states are not large enough (do not have enough carrying capacity) to operate a closed breeding system on a one-operation, independent basis.
  
  
• As a breeding goal, work towards developing a distinct SYNTHETIC strain of optimally adapted cattle for rangeland environments and the production of grassfed 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 while pasturing lightly stocked range in a cost-efficient manner. (Due to a history of ranchers lacking the discipline, knowledge and commitment to practicing sound beef herd management on a year-in and year-out basis, very few cattle in the world have this ability.)
  
  
• Strive to develop and maintain an OPTIMUM BALANCE of the thirteen cattle traits that are economically important to a sustainable range cattle operation. These traits are temperament, early sexual maturity, fertility, calving ease, mothering ability, rapid growth, easy fleshing ability, active libido in bulls, herding instinct, hardiness, production longevity, visual appearance (conformation), and carcass merit.
  
  
• Selection for traits that relate to temperament, reproduction, 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, calving ease, and mothering ability are the most important economic traits in a commercial herd of range cattle.
  
  
• When establishing a foundation herd for a closed breeding system, include as many animals predicted to be best suited to a low-input range operation as possible. In other words, the rancher should include as many small frame, low milk, heavy muscled cattle in his foundation herd as he can find and afford. This practice is important because it reduces the amount of time required to develop the type of cattle that best suits the needs of a sustainable range cattle operation.
  
  
• Vary the breed composition of foundation cattle as necessary for greater adaptability and therefore for greater productivity in the producer's particular ranching environment. This practice is important in two ways. First, it promotes foundation herd improvement and the development of optimally adapted range cattle. Second, it helps improve genetic diversity in a herd of cattle.
  
  
• Do not mix the influence of different breeds together according to a predetermined breed percentage. Allow what works best to determine the breed mix.
  
  
• Keep all animals in the herd separated by contemporary group. This practice facilitates the efficient management of breeding and nutrition and the efficient evaluation of beef herd performance.
  
  
• 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.
  
  
• 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 build both economic and biological value in a herd of cattle.
  
  
• Improve the beef herd strictly on the basis of breeding best to best. Let temperament, reproduction, survival and calf gain largely determine what is best.
  
  
• 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 of animals purchased from an outside source, do this no matter how much you paid for them.
  
  
• Discard as quickly as possible every animal that demonstrates inferior traits. This helps ensure that inferior animals will not adversely affect average phenotypic herd performance. It also helps minimize the risk of overstocking and overgrazing.
  
  
• Require animals in the herd to have two or more generations of uninterrupted breeding behind them before recognizing them as the type of cattle that will meet the beef herd development objective. The two or more generations of uninterrupted breeding 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 the desired result will be highly prepotent and have the ability to transmit their genetic traits to their offspring (i.e., this requirement helps develop cattle that are predictable breeders).

  Note: How many generations of uninterrupted breeding it will take to develop cattle that will meet the beef herd development objective will depend on the following three factors:
  
  

  1. Level of genetic merit of cattle used as a genetic base
  2. The producer's level of selection intensity
  3. How well the producer adheres to the principles and practices of sound beef herd management

  For some managers this will be easy. For others it will be difficult, or maybe impossible. The manager's educational background and personal history in range cattle ranching will play an important role in determining whether it will be easy or difficult.

Breeding protocol

• Mate best sons from one breeding group (within a closed population) to best daughters from another. This practice minimizes the disadvantages and optimizes the advantages of a closed breeding system.
  
  
• 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.
  
  
• Expose mature cows and breeding-age heifers to bulls during a restricted 30 to 90-day breeding period each year. This allows the rancher to identify animals that are genetically superior on the basis of fertility. Ranchers should make it their goal to upgrade their cattle to the point where 80% or more have the ability to breed successfully during the first 30 days of each year's restricted breeding season.
  
  
• Schedule each year's calving and breeding season to coincide closely with the natural reproduction of bison, elk, and other wild grazing animals. This is important because it offers the rancher an opportunity to optimize reproductive numbers in a herd of cattle at the lowest feasible cost.
  
  
• Expose mature cows and breeding-age heifers to bulls in multi-sire herds (instead of single-sire herds). Aggressive bulls will thus have the opportunity to sire most of the calves. This practice is necessary to develop and maintain active libido in sires.
  
  
• 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. Good to excellent 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 producer's particular ranching environment.
     
     Comment: As a general rule, the lower the rainfall of a particular ranching environment the smaller cattle need to be frame score wise. For example, desert and short-grass rangelands cannot produce enough forage within walking distance to maintain medium to large frame cattle in good to excellent body condition without a tremendous amount of supplementary feed.

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

• 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.
  
  
• Change sires before they have a chance to mate with their offspring and avoid mating sires to their dams and sisters. This practice -- avoiding mating brothers with sisters and parents with offspring -- is necessary to prevent close inbreeding.

Nutrition and herd-health protocol

• Provide each animal in the herd with an adequate amount of native pasture. When rainfall is fair to good, the EQUIVALENCE of approximately 33 acres of mid-grass rangeland maintained in good to excellent condition is needed for each adult breeder in the herd plus its weanling and yearling offspring. During years of low rainfall and poor growing conditions, and when rangeland conditions are fair to poor, more acres will be needed. During years of high rainfall, native pasture must be allowed to recover from drought. Droughts (as mentioned in the range management section of this paper) are inevitable and unpredictable, and native pastures, especially in Texas, are rarely in good to excellent range condition.

  Comment: Too bad today's range cattle industry can't go back in time -- say 150 years or so -- and correct it's overstocking and overgrazing mistakes. It would definitely reduce the number of acres required, as well as the amount of operating capital required, to maintain a herd of cattle.
  
  

• 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 moderate to good 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.
  
  
• Provide water and the right mineral-mix free choice. Consult with Herd 1997 on mineral supplementation of beef cattle in Texas.
  
  
• Manage disease and parasites according to a proven, low-cost, herd health plan.

The above four 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

• 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.
  
  
• Give special culling emphasis to unmanageable temperaments, slow breeders, problem calvers, cows and heifers that fail to wean a live calf, cows and heifers with unacceptable udders, poor fleshing cattle, cattle with health and physical problems, and cattle with unacceptable pigmentation.

Both of the above practices play a key role in removing inferior traits in a herd of cattle.

Selection protocol

• At weaning time, grade and separate calves 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 potential cow replacements
  3. Calves to be carried forward as grassfed slaughter animals
  4. Calves to be marketed straight off their mother at weaning
  
  

  This practice entails identifying and grouping calves according to their projected production potential.
  
  

• When evaluating the performance of yearling bulls, pay close attention to bulls with above average yearling weights. Yearling weight is the most important weight used in bull selection because it indicates the mothering ability of a bull's dam and how efficient a bull can convert forage into meat. (www.lasaterranch.com) Lasater (1972) provides information about Tom Lasater's ideas on cattle raising.
  
  
• 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.
  
  
• When selecting cow replacements, keep yearling heifers that breed first. This is necessary to develop and maintain early sexual maturity and high fertility in a herd of cattle.

Marketing protocol

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

The owner and manager of a sustainable range cattle operation must actively work toward optimizing his financial position in the cattle business through the direct sale of reputation-building "registered trade name" breeding stock and reputation-building "registered trade name" meat. Since the sustainable rancher's competition (which is maximum production, industrial livestock and grain-fed meat) are mass-produced commodities, he must market his sale animals and meat as specialty products. He should emphasize the quality and uniqueness of his products, grassfed and produced under native rangeland conditions, compatible with natural ecological processes.

Diversification provides the rancher with a great 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 our nation's agriculture, there will be many more years of low livestock prices than years of high. When this situation is combined with today's high cost of grazing land and the amount of time required to develop the type of cattle that suits the needs of rangeland agriculture, diversification plays an even greater role in making a range cattle operation sustainable.) However, to take full advantage, most ranchers will need to improve their marketing, financial, and social skills.

The method of diversification that improves range cattle operation sustainability with the least amount of capital outlay and financial risk is contracting with a government agency or a private organization to manage rangeland for ecosystem protection purposes. Under the terms of a typical agreement, a rancher is compensated for his willingness to lightly stock his grazing land for a period of perhaps ten years or even longer. With some of the economic load taken off his shoulders, he can concentrate on managing his land in ways that benefit our country's rangelands and the environment. The rancher can promote the arrangement by demonstrating that a well-managed range cattle 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 grasslands
• enhance wildlife and fish habitat.

High-tech meat processing is another way to diversify. Here, the objective is to process and market range-raised, grassfed beef in ways that build its reputation as a wholesome product. This means that meat must be tasty, tender, uniform in quality, and free of additives perceived by consumers as being unhealthy. High-tech meat processing offers the rancher three important advantages. First, it increases the value of the meat from cull bulls, cows, and heifers slaughtered straight off grass. Second, it produces all-natural (organic) meat products that appeal to health-conscious consumers. This could be particularly effective if marketing efforts are coordinated with recent literature on the health benefits of grassfed beef provided by Robinson (2004). Third, by helping to eliminate middlemen, high-tech meat processing allows ranchers to claim their full share of the profits made between the cow/calf phase and 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 grass into tender, tasty items with solid muscle texture. The variety of products seems limited only by the availability of raw material and the imagination of the processor (Urschel Laboratories 1980).

Other methods of diversification that ranchers should consider include

• training and marketing horses for recreational riding and general ranch work
• raising and marketing sheep and goats as breeding stock, meat, and other valuable products
• providing suitable land sites for the generation of wind and solar energy
• harvesting and marketing seed for rangeland restoration and native landscaping
• processing and marketing specialty food products such as ranch-style chili, barbecue sauce, stew, preserves, etc.
• providing the public an opportunity to take advantage of recreational opportunities such as vacation lodging, ranch-style dining, chuckwagon cookouts, wildlife viewing, managed hunting and fishing, working cowboy vacations, and trail drives
• sponsoring cowboy poetry and song concerts.

Large corporations have long recognized the relevance of business cycles to their decision making. Yet this aspect of ranching has been poorly understood by small independent ranchers and by range managers. Encouraged by an upswing in the cattle business -- green grass and higher prices -- the rancher intensifies, buying stock only to have to de-stock during a downswing. Instead of intensifying the cattle production aspects of his operation, which is unacceptably risky and dependent 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 more than money market interest or 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. Always strive to balance ranching goals with probability for success, and never forget that the most profitable option might conflict with the sustainability of the rancher's range cattle 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 useful, the software must be able to account for the human, biological, physical, and financial aspects of each management decision. If such software ever became available, it could help the rancher avoid mistakes that increase risk and debt, degrade resources, and adversely effect the long-term sustainability of his operation.

Unsound government cost subsides, such as the now discontinued USDA-Emergency Feed Program, have harmed the range cattle industry more than they have helped it. By encouraging moderate to high stocking rates, the government has contributed to the overproduction of beef, low cattle prices, high feed costs, and degradation of rangeland. The rancher gains nothing from the subsidy. Holechek (1996b) demonstrates that even with the support of USDA-Emergency Feed Payments, a rancher who substitutes harvested feed for range forage is headed for the poor house. When drought strikes, livestock numbers must be reduced to what existing range forage resources will support. For the rancher whose range is overstocked, this often means removing all livestock and selling them at give-away prices. (A rancher having to choose between liquidating irreplaceable breeding stock or substituting harvested feed for range forage is a deathblow to the sustainability of a range cattle operation.)

The rancher must avoid dependency on government programs that reward irresponsible use of rangeland. It is impossible to be independently or cooperatively sustainable while using the government to subsidize high-cost, high-risk, maximum production practices. I'm of the opinion, ranchers who are serious about being sustainable in the range cattle business must use the government in two way: first, as a source of information and education, and second, as a source of income for applying range management practices that enhance environmental conditions (such as soil stability and watershed health) as well as improve forage production.

Over the years the federal government has spent huge amounts of money on USDA programs that attempt to reduce the negative effects of 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 should offer the rancher a real economic incentive to lightly stock his grazing land and implement other sound range management practices (Ward 1999). This would be an excellent step toward improving the long-term economic health of ranchers and the long-term ecological health of rangelands.

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

Agricultural tax exemptions and income tax benefits to hobby ranchers and speculative real-estate investors should end. In the short term, such tax breaks to non-vocational ranchers help oversupply cattle markets, thus keeping financial returns from ranching very low. In the long term, they promote fragmenting larger tracts of rangeland into smaller-size operating units, which are not as viable economically or biologically. They also promote the conversion of rangeland into factory farms, ranchettes, low intensive housing, and other types of real-estate development projects, permanently reducing the amount of goods and services that rangelands provide. These goods and services are essential to human survival (Holechek 2001). We need legislation that helps keep grazing agriculture on rangelands and vocational ranchers on working ranches where, with proper incentives and education, they can help enhance the agricultural and ecological integrity of our country's rangelands.

Congress needs to discontinue USDA milk commodity subsidies to the dairy industry. Years of government price support subsidies to the dairy industry have contributed to oversupplying the market with milk and packer cows and overspending on dairy infrastructure. They have saddled dairymen with debt and encouraged practices that have resulted in rangeland degradation and environmental pollution. In my opinion, our government's policy of keeping milk cheap through subsidies and buyout programs has done irreparable harm to dairymen, ranchers, rangelands 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 native species. Conservation and environmental groups could help protect threatened and endangered species simply by supporting efforts to give ranchers an economic incentive to manage their cattle and grazing land in ways that benefit the environment. 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 debt and, in the case of the latter two, in rangeland degradation. Debt and rangeland degradation are root causes of instability and low profitability in ranching and must be avoided. In my experience, range management plans based on heavy investments in fencing, watering points, brush control, and seeding are doomed to become losing propositions for ranchers, rangelands, and the environment. Most ranchers put too much money -- often borrowed, unfortunately -- into range improvements that, given the extent and carrying capacity of their grazing land and projected value of their sale cattle, will never be returned. Similarly, would-be ranchers make a costly mistake when they buy rangeland with too much 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 ranch size, topographical nature of the land, and carrying capacity. 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 rangeland areas of the Great 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 grazing capacity. For useful guidelines on determining the amount of infrastructure required to operate western ranches, see Holechek (1995).

Overgrazing and high-risk speculation have kept financial returns from range cattle ranching very low and have caused extensive degradation of soil, water, vegetation, and wildlife in Texas and other range states (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 ranching has forced ranchers to fragment their grazing land (sell off all or pieces of their ranchland) in an attempt to optimize returns from their ranching investments, 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 range cattle business sustainable is taken when the rancher begins to manage his operation according to a strict code of land ethics. Indeed, his initial goal must be to permanently protect his grazing land from biological degradation, habitat fragmentation, and future changes in land use. Loss of grazing land due to any of these reasons will, without exception, result in the eventual demise of the rancher's range cattle operation.

The rancher can employ two estate-planning strategies to permanently protect his grazing land for the benefit of present and future generations. First, he can attach a conservation easement to the title of his ranch property. Second, he can sell the development rights of his ranch property to a public or private conservation organization. (It should be noted that the proceeds from the 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 both strategies is to protect the rancher's grazing land from ecologically harmful practices such as overstocking and overgrazing, soil depletion, fire suppression, introduction of exotic plants and animals, ranchland subdividing, and countryside development, either residential or commercial. Other objectives include preserving wide open space for

• natural food and fiber production
• recharge of aquifers
• watershed protection
• natural flood control
• purification of air and water
• regeneration of soil and water fertility
• carbon sequestration
• wildlife and fish habitat
• enhancement of biodiversity
• public recreation
• cultural enrichment.
  
  

A conservation easement is a set of restrictions a landowner voluntarily places on his or her property in order to preserve its conservation values. The restriction and conservation values, along with the rights reserved by the landowner, are detailed in a legal document, the conservation easement. It becomes a binding part of a rancher's deed. A conservation easement is conveyed to a private or public organization qualified to hold and enforce easements. Most conservation easements are perpetual. They apply to the current owner and all future landowners, permanently protecting ecologically important land that supports rangeland agriculture, open space, and wildlife. Diehl & Barrett (1988) and Barrett & Nagel (1996) provide good information on conservation easements.

An operator of a sustainable range cattle operation must read prodigiously and aggressively pursue useful knowledge. Continuously broadening one's intellectual horizons plays a key role in making a range cattle operation sustainable. The long-term survival of an operation depends on the rancher's ability and willingness to find and use sound information rather than unthinkingly continuing "past traditions" or "recommended practices." Unfortunately, it has been my experience that ranchers have not been encouraged to do so by government extension programs. Rather than pointing out how to find and use valid information, most extension education has been directed toward the promotion of high-input, high-risk, maximum production practices. I've yet to encounter a government official 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 graduates whose biggest weakness is, in my experience, a tendency to focus on only a few aspects of the beef cattle business. To remedy this, beef cattle and range science programs should also include courses such as Texas and U.S. rangeland history, range ecology, multiple land use, agricultural polices and programs, wildlife management, estate planning, ecological economics, investing, business management, computer science, and society's value system as it regards to rangeland agriculture and rangelands. Broader training would benefit both the students and the range cattle industry as a whole.

The last but not least important component of sustainable range cattle ranching is the pursuit of social acceptance. Unlike biology and ecology (the sciences that drive range and beef herd management), this aspect of sustainable range cattle ranching is like 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 and politically manipulated (Heitschmidt et al., 2004).

Right or wrong, based on sound knowledge or not, social acceptance is often the underlying variable either hindering or helping efforts to make range cattle ranching sustainable (Heitschmidt et al., 2004).

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

• Livestock grazing on public rangelands is being closely scrutinized with strong advocacy for its removal (Wuerthner and Matteson, 2000).
  
  
• Even though grazing is the oldest and most sustainable form of agriculture known, there are many people who believe that grazing agriculture (no matter the management) is environmentally inappropriate (Heitschmidet et al., 2004).
  
  
• During the last 50 or so years, there has been a tremendous change in how the public views livestock grazing on public and private rangeland (Frasier, 1998). Prior to the 1950s, grazing livestock on rangeland was a widely approved method of providing necessary food and fiber for human consumption. Now, approximately fifty years later, grazing rangeland with livestock is viewed as a major cause for loss of wildlife habitat and environmental pollution.
  
  
• Improper grazing of livestock on rangeland results in (1) accelerated soil erosion, (2) an increase in the number and distribution of invasive plant species, (3) reduced water quality, and (4) decreased biodiversity (Frasier, 1998)
  
  
• Calls for action to remove livestock grazing on public rangeland seems to disregard any and all reports that proper livestock grazing may be a greater positive force in maintaining the ecological integrity of rangelands than high-intensive farming, no-use preserves, single-use recreation, ranchettes, and suburban expansion(Maestas et al., 2002).
  
  
• Instead of supporting policies that promote ecologically viable grazing practices, there are many members of society that advocate punishing ranchers for the role ranching has played in degrading rangeland conditions since the formation of the range cattle industry in the 1860s. Donahue (1999) presents a strong argument for the removal of livestock from public rangeland.
  
  
• In countries that have sufficient financial capital to purchase enough foreign oil and natural gas to support intensive crop and animal production (i.e., in countries like the United States) industrial agriculture is perceived as being fully sustainable and there is little need to preserve rangeland agriculture (Heitschmidt et. al, 1996). This concept does not take into consideration that the survival of industrial agriculture in the United States and other developed countries is dependent on the continued availability of AFFORDABLE oil and natural gas. As of date, the public has been unable to link the productivity of industrial agriculture with the amount of fossil energy used in the production and distribution of the food they buy at the grocery store (Pimentel, 1984).
  
  
• A recent survey by Shields et al.(2000) shows that there is wide support for adopting management tactics and strategies for U.S. rangelands that
  
  
  1. enhance ecological health
  2. preserve the opportunity for wilderness experiences
  3. incorporate sound science in development of management plans
  4. favor less consumptive uses over more consumptive uses.

  The survey also shows only limited support for increasing motorized recreational opportunities, providing resources to dependent communities and traditional cultural uses, and continuation of subsidies for development and leasing of public lands.
  
  

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

One of the best ways ranchers can pursue social acceptance for their range cattle operations is by supporting efforts to inform the public about the role proper management of livestock on private and public rangeland can play in providing healthy food for human nutrition and protecting the environment.

The most unique (distinctive) characteristic of sustainable range cattle ranching is the set of processes the rancher must use to solve problems and maintain an acceptable balance between the economic, ecological, and social aspects of his operation.

Economically, the rancher must use economy of scale to reduce unit costs, strengthen profit margins, and improve the biological viability of his operation. He must take a low-input, low-risk approach toward range management and ranching in general (as opposed to a high-input, high-risk approach). He must stock his grazing lands at a light rate and follow a proven, low-cost rotational grazing plan, and use prescribed burns to control weeds and brush. He must avoid over-investing in livestock, supplementary feed, fencing, watering points, brush control and seeding, and he must minimize, or even better, eliminate the use of tame pastures, irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides, and fossil fuel powered machinery. He must understand that harmful practices such as overstocking, constant no-rest grazing pressure, and fire suppression will convert productive grazing land into cactus, weeds, brush, and soil erosion. In beef herd management, he must focus his attention on developing a closed population of optimally adapted cattle for rangeland environments and the production of grassfed beef. His marketing efforts must be directed toward optimizing financial returns through the direct sale of reputation-building "registered trade name" breeding stock and reputation-building "registered trade name" meat. Because his competition (maximum production livestock and grainfed meat) are mass-produced commodities, he must market his sale animals and meat as specialty products. Rather than intensifying the cattle production aspects of his operation, he must use diversification as a tool to increase ranch income. He must view his ranching operation as a long-term generation-to-generation investment, not as short-term speculative investment. He must work in cooperation with other ranchers to improve the sustainability of his operation. His operation must be made largely self-supporting on a one-large-operation (independent) or many-small-operations (cooperative) basis. He must permanently protect his grazing land from biological degradation, habitat fragmentation, and future changes in land use.

Ecologically, the rancher must promote the preservation and improvement of the environment by making the conservation of soil, water, native plants, and wildlife an integral part of his operation. He must learn the benefits of improving his grazing land to achieve late seral ecological condition and of maintaining it in that state. He must think in terms of growing more range forage, not raising more cattle. He must do his utmost to be a responsible steward of rangeland resources. He must believe that it is essential for cattle, grasslands, and wildlife to coexist in harmony for the long term.

Socially, the rancher must view natural resource conservation and environmental groups as consumers and concerned citizens rather than adversaries. Whenever possible, he must support efforts to inform these groups and the general public about the vital role that sustainable range cattle ranching can play in

• enhancing wildlife and fish habitat
• improving the diversity of flora and fauna
• protecting endangered wildlife species
• enhancing soil stability and watershed health
• preserving open space for carbon sequestration, public recreation, and cultural enrichment
• buffering the spread of factory farms, ranchettes, low intensive housing, and other forms of rangeland fragmentation
• promoting multiple land use with emphasis on natural resource conservation
• reducing agricultural dependency on the use of fossil energy in the production and distribution of food
• ensuring healthy food, clean water, and clean air for present and future generations.

The historical rates of return from ranching in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and other range states have been quite low -- 2 to 5% on invested capital. I'm confident that returns of 10 to 20% or more can be attained when managed using the techniques that I have discussed. Further discussion and demonstration of sustainable range cattle ranching will move us forward in our efforts to preserve a future for grazing cattle on desert, prairie, and savanna rangelands.

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.

Robinson, Jo. 2004. "Pasture Perfect -- The Far-Reaching Benefits of Choosing Meat, Eggs, and Dairy Products from Grass-fed Animals." Vashon Island Press. Vashon, WA.

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.

___________________________________

This article, revised in May 2006, was first published in Rangelands, June 1998.

The author, Nol Ward, is a retired lifetime cattleman and rangeland conservationist. His e-mail address is: nol@consolidated.net.

Back to NHO's information page