WHAT DETERMINES THE PROPER STOCKING RATE

Jerry W. Stuth
Department of Range Science
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas

Societal values and individual environment interacting with the

limits which nature imposes, help shape "proper" stocking rates for a
given ranching enterprise. Human kind continually seeks out the
bounds of nature and society and establishes princi ples by which to
conduct itself. Within these bounds, individual expression of ideas and
actions varies depending on the psychology of the individual,
conditions or environment in which he or she operates, and current
social values. The word "proper" implies that something is specially
adapted or suitable to a specific purpose or specific conditions.

Management Goals.

Since stocking rate refers only to the number of animals (livestock

and/or wildlife) per unit land area for a specified grazing time period,
management must have a goal or purpose for selecting a stocking rate
for a given set of forage resources. These goals are not necessarily
written down but are a part of the shared value system of the enterprise.

Ranches are organized around different value systems and are shaped by
the attitude of ownership, management organization and motivation
of support staff. Attitudes toward proper stocking rate will be
different where the management's goals of owning a ranch with cattle are not
dependent on an annual profit verses those situations where profit
from the ranch business is essential to the survival of the enterprise. Low
prioritization on profit is characteristic of enterprises that
serve as tax management vehicles or se rve as a satisfier of psychological
needs for land ownership and the ranching lifestyle.

Small acreage owners typically focus on numbers of animals as being

important to meeting management goals. Attitudes toward profitability
are tempered by the degree of outside income. Self-esteem and self-
worth are often shaped by numbers and kind of livestock owned by an
individual. Therefore, there is a general trend for small acreage owners to
stock at heavier than normal rates and utilize outside incom e to
supplement short falls in forage supply. The impacts, both economic and
ecological, of this societal value system are different worldwide, but
they have a similar basis in self -satisfaction.

Attitudes toward selection of proper stocking rates are also modified by

the degree of diversification of the ranch and the nature of profit
centers within the ranch structure. For instance, well developed wild-
life hunting programs (deer and quail, primarily) may cause management
to be more conservative in selecting stocking rates if there is a

197
perception that too many head of livestock would be detrimental to hunting
revenues. Seasonal stocker programs generally do a better job of
matching animal numbers with forage production periods resulting in
higher seasonal stocking rates.

Conservation Ethics

Conservation ethics play a major role in shaping decisions on

stocking rate. Individuals develop a feel for the land, based on their
personal experiences and level of understanding of how mother nature
works. It is obvious to many in the ranching industry that overall
numbers of animals carried on ranches with good historical records have
steadily declined since the 1800's when major settlement and land
division for ranching took place in the U.S. Many records indicate that
the major drops in carrying capacity occurred after devastating droughts. The
time period between droughts resulted in subtle declines in stocking rates. If
this is true, why have ranch managers continued to cling to
stocking rates which produce this decline? The answer is primarily
related to discontinuity of ownership, lack of historical perspective
of management, central focus of management over a relatively short time
frame (15-20 years or less) and poor understanding of short -term ecological
impacts during drought and their long-term consequences.

Many ranches have been in families for generations and attitudes

toward stocking rate is shaped by heritage. There may be a strong
feeling of land ownership with or without a strong conservation ethic.
Most multi-generation land ownership situations result in good
conservation ethics because the historical perspective has been maintained.
Ranches which were formed with "recent" money many times do not have the ethics
guidance from new ownership. Thus, they tend to select stocking
rates based on education and "educating ability" of the management staff,
particularly if ownership has no formal training or experience in resource
management and/or is not residing on the ranch. Some owners of ranches
may have short-term management goals from a tax standpoint, therefore,
attitudes toward stocking rate may lack a long-term perspective.

Conservation ethics or standards of conduct for natural resource

conservation have no "magna carta." However, a pervasive attitude can be
found among family ranches where there is a desire to leave the land in
"better shape" for the next generation. "Better shape" meaning
higher ecological condition from a vegetative and hydrologic standpoint.
Proper stocking rates in the mind of an individual with a futuristic
view of the land may be more conservative on the average. However,
there will be years where short -term abuse of the vegetation is dictat ed for
economic survival of the ranch enterprise. Even though this abuse occurs,
there is an ethic which allows that individual to compensate for abusive years
during better economic times.

Ranchers that do not care, or are ignorant of the fact that a

resource is eroding and losing long -term production potential, generally set
stocking at much higher rates which in their frame of mind is proper.

198
The long-term result is resource degradation, essentially mining a
finite resource rather than conserving a renewable resource.

We hear challenges being made of individuals and organizations to

be proactive rather than reactive. People who have a strong conservation
ethic must be proactive to survive in the ranching industry. They must
cause change or anticipate change rather than react to it. Ranchers
who consistently overstock, generally oper ate with a reactive management
style. There are instances, however, where a ranch is organized to
respond in a timely manner through flexible stocking and feeding
strategies and good marketing techniques. Such an individual can then run
higher "proper" stocking rates than an individual who does not have the
management structure or skills to avoid years of critical forage
supply.

Carrying Capacity/Stocking Rate Relationships

Annual fluctuations in total precipitation and its distribution

throughout the year cause carrying capacity to vary annually and
seasonally. Ranchers have long recognized annual fluctuations in
carrying capacity but generally seek to set stocking at a given "base" level
which allows more flexibility in marketing and purchasing
strategies. Figure 1 shows a hypothetical number of potential stocking rate
decisions that would be made over a 15 year period if different
base stocking rates were selected for a ranching enterprise. As you
increase your base stocking rate, you increase the frequency of major
stocking decision. Experience has shown that generally it is harder
for ranchers to stockup in good precipitation years than to destock in very
dry years.

Timely stocking rate decisions are very difficult to make because

of our in ability to predict rainfall p atterns prior to th e initiation of a new
growing season. However, individuals have generated decision
rules or "rules of thumb" to assist them in making more timely decisions.
Essential ingredients of the "ru les" are an understanding of typical
rainfall patterns and probabilities associated with rainfall amounts
during specific time periods and growth rate cycles of the vegetation.
Such things as dates where 60-80% of the annual vegetation has been
produced and periods of known low and high probability of rainfall
are used as milestones for stocking decisions. Once a decision point
or milestone is encountered, an evaluation is made of current forage
conditions, and projections are made on probable weather conditions.
Generally, most individuals determine the next high probability
rainfall period to see if current forage sup ply can carry their
livestock beyond that point. This is considered a low risk decision.
However, economic environment at the time of the decision can
influence risk taking by the individual. A high risk situation would
involve low forage conditions, no destocking and hope for rain.
Selection of a base stocking rate affects the amount of buffer that
can be built into the decision process.

199
40 - base stocking rate

carrying capacity

10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

YEARS IN PLANNING HORIZON

Stocking No. No. No. Years
Rate Potential Potential Must
(ac/au) Destocking Yrs. Stockup Yrs. Destock

24 3 11 3

22 4 8 3

20 7 7 5

18 8 2 7

Figure 1. Hypothetical fluctuation in carrying capacity over a 15 year

period and project stocking rate decisions at various base
stocking rates.

200
 Figure 2 illustrates a hypothetical stocking strategy that seeks to
optimize the carrying capacity/stocking rate relationship. The lag in actual
stocking rates is due to the time delay in decision making
which is reacting to constant changes in carrying capacity. Organizing a
ranch firm to follow carrying capacity changes on a frequent basis
is very difficult, if not impossible. Frequent buying and selling of
livestock would be required introducin g potential health and handling
problems into the firm. Many ranches have attempted to overcome this
problem by using brood animals, particularly cows, to comprise a
conservative base stocking rate. Stocking fluctuations would then be
accomplished with growing stock (steers or heifers). Here again, there
are economic constraints that can affect the marketing decision on
these kinds of stock. The tighter the margin, the fewer stocking adjust -
ments that can be made, thereby, increasing risk.

carrying capacity
stocking rate

/
1
1

/
1
/
I I
/
/
/

YEAR

Figure 2. Hypothetical optimum stocking strategy where a time lagged

stocking rate decision is matched to carrying capacity on
a current conditions basis. Maximum flexibility in livestock
control is required. Ability to successfully practice this
strategy under normal rangeland conditions is extremely
difficult.

201
 Combination grazing with different kinds of livestock (catt l e,
sheep and goats), increases enterprise diversity and allows more marketing
and stocking flexibility. Carrying capacity is increased because a
greater variety of vegetation becomes "forage" e.g. browse. Since
grass comprises most of the carrying cap acity, cattle are used to set
base stocking rates. Depending on market conditions, any kind or class of
livestock can be used to adjust to changes in carrying capacity.

When range inventories and analyses are performed by range

professionals, recommended stocking rates are provided based upon the
natural potential of the site/s and the current ecological condition of
the vegetation. Also, distributional problems are assessed and
stocking rate recommendations are adjusted to insure that utilization
does not exceed "available" forage. Topographic restrictions such as
steep slopes, gullies and heavy brush are considered. Distances from
established water sources are evaluated. If cattle are forced to graze
over one mile from water, then projected stocking rates would need to be
adjusted downward.

Coordination of forage utilization with forage growth through

control of animal numbers usually determines the success or failure of
other range practices and the economic stability of the operation
(Heady 1975). This is a result of the impact on animal performance
which translates into revenue. Figure 3 illustrates the generalized
relationship between stocking rate and individual animal performance
and saleable product per acre. As stocking rate increases from a very
conservative level to one considered moderate, animal performance in
terms of weaning weights and conception rates is not adversely affected.
However, a steady decline in animal performance occurs as moderate
stocking rates are exceeded. Production of animal products on a per
acre basis increases as stocking rate increases to a point beyond
where individual animal performance declines. Increases in animal
numbers offset losses in individual animal production. Significant
declines in animal production on an area basis are noted when numbers
begin to exceed forage supply during periods of the year where forage
quality and quantity are suboptimal for critical periods in the
animal's production cycle. These periods are just prior to and during
breeding season and during the period when the young are entering their last
half of the suckling phase. Stocking rates that cause animal
body condition to be low going into and through the breeding season
increase postpartum breeding interval and reduce conception rates.
Stocking rates which reduce forage quality during the last half of the
preweaning production period of the nursing young, reduce weaning
weights, as this is the period when young ruminants receive more energy
from available forage than from milk. In fact, energy supplied via
forage nine weeks after birth has a greater impact on weaning weights of
calves than milk production (Bartle et al. 1984).

Manipulation of Livestock

Managerial inputs that combine personal ability and available

technology alter production strategies and change the "effective"
carrying capacity of the ranch. As discussed earlier, combination
grazing with multiple kinds and classes of animals including economically

202
 output/individual animal
output/unit land area

Increasing Risk

Unstable

ANIMAL Uneconomical
OUTPUT
Optimal
Zone

STOCKING RATE

l production or output
Figure 3. Relationship of stocking rate and anima
sis.
on an individual basis and land area ba

important wildlife species can increase the effective carrying capacity of

the range resource. Another management tool is the use of grazing systems,
planned strategic movements of livestock to meet the goals
of management. Original grazing systems were designed to improve the
ecological condition of the range. Since most rangeland is stocked to
a point where higher producing and more ecologically stable species of
success of
plants are not abundant, destocking becomes essential to the
e
most systemized grazing systems where ecological improvement in th
range vegetation is a management objective.

Historically, heavily stocked, continuously grazed ranges have

proved to be profitable in more years than moderate continuous
grazing or conservative grazing systems. However, Whitson et al. 1982
found that income from heavily stocked ranges in t he Rolling Plpins of
North Texas was more variable from year to year and was more severely
impacted by drought, creating greater instability in annual cash flow. This
translates into greater risk incurred by the enterprise. Manage-
ment can minimize drought impacts by stocking at levels which allows

203
the greatest marketing flexibility and by developing a drought policy.
Predetermined courses of action to be taken when drought conditions
develop, should be thought out by management to minimize crisis decision
making. Number of profitable feeding days along with culling priorities
should be worked out in advance. Early marketing decisions prior to
adverse pricing effects of drought, can allow livestock producers to
destock at higher prices and buy in with a more favorable cash situation
when forage conditions improve.

Some rotational grazing systems involving multiple pastures and a

single herd have been successful in improving the range vegetation while not
causing destocking of the ranch enterprise. Concensus indicates
that stocking rates 30% above those considered necessary to induce
range improvement under continuous grazing,may be possible where pasture
number and configuration allows adequate control over the frequency and
intensity of grazing on key forage species. Optimum stocking strategies involve
setting a range of operational stocking rates that maximize
net profit while being continually modified by risk and management's
ability to cope with changing markets and weather conditions (Mott
1960). Forage supply impact on changes in animal numbers increases as
stocking rate increases. When forage demand exceeds forage supply,
carrying capacity becomes more of an important factor in determining
"proper" stocking rate than management structure ar capability.

Conclusion

What determines the proper stocking rate? As illustrated by this

discussion, the answer would be..."it depends." We know that there is a
biological limit to the number of animals that we can carry on the land
for a specified time period. Managerial ability as expressed
in marketing skills, grazing savvy and general animal husbandry,
modify potential stocking rates. Conservation ethic also influences
the choice of what is proper. Individual values in relation to societal
lso
values as they relate to the ecological stability of the land, a
modify perspectives as to what is proper stocking. Firm structure and
c
degree of flexibility in livestock control, along with the economi
of
environment and current weather conditions, influence selection
stocking rate. Finally, the degree of risk associated with the
ing
management environment of the ranch, rests as an umbrella influenc all of
the above considerations.

Literature Cited

Bartle, S. J., J. R. Males and R. L. Preston. 1984. Effect of energy

intake on the postpartum interval in beef cows and the adequacy
of the cow's milk production for calf growth. J. Animal Sci.
58:1068-1074.

Heady, H. F. 1975. Rangeland Management. McGraw-Hill Book Co.

New York. 435 p.

204
Mott, G. 0. 1960. Grazing pressure and measurement of pasture
production. Proc. 8th Intern. Grassi. Congress, pp. 606-611.

Whitson, R. E., R. K. Heitschmidt, M. M. Kothmann and G. K. Lundgren.

1982. The impact of grazing systems on the magnitude and stability of
ranch income in the Rolling Plains of Texas. J. Range Manage.
35:526-532.

she • —

Well, it's startin to green up --better buy some more cows.

205