Long-Term Production and Profitability From Grazing Cattle in the Northern Mixed Grass Prairie

Abstract

daily gain, total gain, net profit, gross revenue, and annual costs per acre varied among range condition classes. Net income for low-fair range condition ($11.18 per acre) and good range condition ($11.86 per acre) were not different, but both were greater (P < 0.01) than excellent range condition ($ 9.31 per acre). Over the life of the study, real profit (adjusted for inflation) steadily increased (P < 0.01) for the low-fair and good treatments while it remained level for the excellent treatment. Neither drought nor wet springs impacted profit differently for the three treatments. These results support generally observed rancher behavior regarding range condition: to maintain their rangeland in a lower range condition than would be normally recommend by rangeland professionals. Ecosystem goods and services of increasing interest to society and associated with high range condition, such as floristic diversity, hydrologic function, and wildlife cover, come at an opportunity cost to the rancher.

Long-term exposure to elevated CO 2 enhances plant community stability by suppressing dominant plant species in a mixed-grass prairie

“…In addition to land use, climate impacts most aspects of grassland function (51,58). In rangelands, the economic value of livestock operations relies on stable production of key forage grass species (45,59). Others have noted that the dominant species in our plots, P. smithii and B. gracilis, as well as the subdominants H. comata, C. eleocharis, A. frigida, S. coccinea, and K. macrantha, are relatively drought-and disturbance-tolerant (60)(61)(62)(63), and our findings generally agree.…”

Temperature and Precipitation Affect Steer Weight Gains Differentially by Stocking Rate in Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie

“…Because many ranchers decide to maximize stocking rate in an effort to maximize profits (Dunn et al 2010), ranchers using this strategy can be cautioned, based on our results that heavy stocking rates are most sensitive to climatic variability, to incorporate seasonal weather variables in their stocking rate decisions. Beyond annual expectations of beef production based on weather forecasts, long-term projections of beef production based on relevant climate change scenarios can also be produced by including our model averaged relationships in decision support tools such as GPFARM.…”

Cross-Fencing on Private US Rangelands: Financial Costs and Producer Risks

“…5 Here, we estimate increases of 9-16% in stocking rate for the next 20 years to maintain break-even conditions for the ranch associated with the increased costs attributed to installation and maintenance of the cross-fencing. Although increasing stocking rates above the recommended levels might have short-term economic advantages, 17 long-term sustainability of the rangeland resource can be compromised in some rangeland systems 5 (but see Hart and Ashby's work on grazing intensities, vegetation, and heifer gains 18 ). Availability of EQIP payments might facilitate intensification of grazing management by encouraging the installation of cross-fencing that otherwise might not be economically feasible for producers.…”

“…We calculated baseline beef production at 39.2 pounds/acre using the NRCS recommended stocking rate (0.45 AUM/acre) and the relationship between stocking rate and beef production for northern mixed grass prairie. 16 Assuming grazing is by yearling steers, the selling price of these animals off the rangeland in the fall is $1/pound live weight, and total expense for grazing animals is 44% of gross income for rangeland in excellent condition, 5 we estimate that beef production would need to increase by 3.7 and 5.9 pounds/acre to accomplish the net increase in annual profi t to break even with and without EQIP, respectively. Using the beef production values needed (42.9 pounds/acre with EQIP, 45.1 pounds/acre without EQIP), and the relationship between beef production and stocking rates, 16 the stocking rates to accomplish this increased beef production would be 0.49 AUM/acre with EQIP, and 0.52 AUM/ acre without EQIP.…”

“…2,3 As a result of this greater availability of forage, many producers are able to increase livestock numbers and stocking rate and enhance grazing effi ciency 4 and profi tability. 5 Payments for cross-fencing can be provided to private landowners through the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS), the federal agency responsible for administering Farm Bill programs. For example, over 5,700 miles of cross-fencing was erected from 2004 to 2007 on private rangelands in the western United States with fi nancial assistance from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).…”