A38-530-lOM-L180 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR Coilege Station, Brazos County, Texas BULLETIN NO. 413 JULY, 1930 DIVISION OF FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS IN COOPERATION WITH BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PLANNING THE RANCH FOR GREATER PROFIT A STUDY OF PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS AFFECTING ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF RANCHES IN THE EDWARDS PLATBAI‘ Agricultural & Mechanical College of Taxi! I .- a Station, Ioxas. AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President STATION STAFF’; ADMINISTRATION: A. B. CONNER, M. S., Director R. E. KARPER, M. S., Vice-Director CLARIcE MixsoN, B. A., Secretary M P. I-IOLLEMAN, JR. Chief Clerk J. K. FRANcKLow, Assistant Chief Clerk CHESTER Ilmcs, Executive Assistant C. B. NEBLETTE, Technical Assistant CHEMISTRY: G. S. FRAPs, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist J. F. FUDGE, Ph. D., Chemist . Chemist S. E. AsBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist E. C. CARLYLE, B. S.. Assistant Chemist WALDO II. \VALI 2/ \L am 6, \,< O / \ So / I Z Z 50o 5h , 3.5 ' IQPL §\ l/ / <\__ ____-- 400 a / 1.0 / /‘ 30° // Goctsz -—-— ’/ I 5 __.. / T’ ‘TE \ / / m. _;< E Z §_|f i / x 4 i 20o _’r--——-' -*' ——~ -~— 1.0 ? ' .5 '°° y; "/4 u v6 11 '18 ‘l9 '20 u: '2: 1a '24 "as '26 '11 '25 Figure 7.—Trend in production of cattle, sheep, and goats in the area as indicated by numbers assessed—1913 to 1928. (Comptroller's Reports, Texas.) eastern part of the area the situation is reversed and sheep and goats are of secondary importance t0 cattle. There is only a moderate amount of browse in these counties. TRENDS IN NUMBERS OF LIVESTOCK Since the 1925 Census was taken, however, there has been considerable change in the numbers of cattle, sheep, and goats in the area. The numbers of cattle-have been reduced while the numbers of sheep and goats have been increased. The change has been rather general through- out the area, although it, has been much more marked in the north- eastern part. In Figure 7 the trend in the numbers of cattle, sheep, and goats from 1913 to 1928 is indicated. 1t will be noted that sheep and goats have increased almost continuously since 1913, while the numbers of cattle have been decreasing since 1923. The decline in numbers" of all kinds of livestock in the area from 1917-1919 was apparently due to drought conditions during 1917 and 1918. This de- cline was only temporary—the trend continuing upward as the range PLANNING THE RANCH FOR GREATER PROFIT 15 returned to normal. The big change in the proportions of cattle, sheep, and goats in the area has occurred since 1923. The decrease in the numbers of cattle and the continued increase of sheep and goats have been largely due to a lower purchasing power of cattle relative to ‘PUFCBCSI Power I 70 I60 I50 I40 I30 IIO I00 80 70 60 4O 3O 2O IO '13 '14 '15 ‘is '17 ‘la ‘l9 ‘zo ‘z: ‘zz '23 '24 '25 '26 '21 '26 Figure 8.—Showing purchasing power of cattle and sheep, 1913 to 1928, and mohair, 1915 to 1928. Base used—average price, cattle and sheep, 1910-1914, mohair, 1915; index, all commodities, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1910-1914 base. (For details, see Table 20 in the Appendix.) sheep, wool, and mohair. The relative purchasing power of cattle,‘ sheep, and mohair is shown in Figure 8. The purchasing power of woo] has followed the p-urchasing power of sheep very closely. SIZE AND ORGANIZATION OF RANCHES The distribution of ranches by size groups and the proportion of the ranch area represented by each size group in Edwards and Sutton Counties are shown in Table 1. These data were secured by special tabulations from the 1925 Agricultural Census and include allranches enumerated in these two counties. In Edwards County '74 per cent and in Sutton County 54 per cent, or'an average of 68 per cent of .all ranches so called, were less than eight sections in size. These figures seem to indicate a predominance of small ranches in the area. However, when the proportion of the total area represented by the groups of difierent sizes is considered, a different 16 BULLETIN NO. 413, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION picture is obtained. Sixty-three per cent of the land in ranches in Edwards County and 86 per cent in Sutton County was operated in units of eight sections or more in size. It will be noted that there were many more small ranches in Edwards County than in Sutton County. This is at least partly due to the fact that the southern half of Edwards County is more rough and broken and has less good grassland than Sutton County. The resulting lower land values have made it easier for the man with limited capital to acquire ownership. Another explanation is that this type of land is best adapted to goat production and since goats require close supervision they are not as well adapted to large-scale production; hence the tendency toward smaller ranches. The numbers of cattle, sheep, and goats per section ’in Edwards and Sutton Counties are given for groups of each size in Table 2. Al- though they lie side by side, the proportions of cattle, sheep, and goats were widely different in the two counties. On the average, the ranches in Edwards County were more lightly stocked with cattle and sheep and more heavily stocked with goats than were the ranches in Sutton County. These differences were undoubtedly due to differences in the relative amount of good grassland and browse in the two counties and are further evidence of the close correlation between the vegetation and the distribu- . tion of the three types of livestock throughout the area. Table 1—Distribution of ranches and ranch area by size groups* i Edwards County Sutton County Average of two counties Number Per cent Per cent Number Per cent Per cent Number Per cent Per cent Size Groups of of all of ranch of all of ranch of of all of ranch ranches ranches area ranches ranches area ranches ranches area Less than 1section............. 35 11.3 .6 16 12.3 .3 51 11.6 .5 1— 3.9 sections . . . . . . . . . .. 120 38.6 14.6 27 20.8 3.8 147 33.4 9.8 4— 7.9 rectiors . . . . . . . . .. 75 24.2 21.8 27 20.8 9.1 102 23.2 16.2 8-11 .9 secfions . . . . . . . . .. 47 15.2 24.2 21 16.1 13.6 6S 15.5 19.5 12—19.9 sections . . . . . . . . . .. 17 5.5 13.1 20 15.4 19.0 37 8.4 15.7 20-319 sections . . . . . . . . . .. 12 3.9 16.0 9 6.9 15.6 21 4 7 15.8 32 and oversections......... 4 1.3 9.7 10 7.7 38.6 14 3.2 22.5 Total......... . . . . . . . . .. 310 100.0 100.0 130 100.0 100.0 440 100.0 100.0 ‘Special tabulations from U. S. Census of 1925. Table 2—Average numter of cattle, sheep, and goats per section on ranches of difierent sizes"‘ Edwards County SuttomCounty Average of two counties Av. No. per section ' Av. No. per section Av. N0. per section Size Groups Cattle Sheep Goats Cattle Sheep Goats Cattle Sheep Goats 1-— 3.9 sections . . . . . . . . .. 12.1 100 292 19.2 178 156 13.3 113 269 4— 7.9 sections 10.8 130 176 16.4 198 104 12.2 146 156 8—ll.9 sections 12.8 120 174 29.8 190 80 18.0 141 145 12~19.9 sections 13.7 123 168 28.2 212 61 21.5 171 110 20—31.9 sections... 18.2 117 125 33.3 181 64 24.8 145 98 32 and over sections... 4.5 121 135 28.9 190 44 23.0 174 66 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4 119 178 28.1 194 65 19.4 152 128 ‘Special tabulations from U. S. Census, 1925. PLANNING THE RANCH FOR GREATER PROFIT 17 These data also suggest the variations in the proportions of cattle, sheep, and goats on ranches of different sizes. In both counties the larger ranches carried more cattle and sheep and fewer goats than did the smaller ranches. The tendency was for slightly more sheep, many more cattle, and decidely fewer goats on the large ranches as compared to the small ones. It has previously been pointed out that ranches tend i to be smaller in the more rough, broken, and brush-covered areas; also, that it is this type of land which is best utilized by goats. These points at least partly explain the different proportions of cattle, sheep, and goats 0n large and small ranches. The large ranches tend to go with the more smooth land, which in turn has more grass as compared to browse than the rough land and consequently is better adapted to cattle and sheep. When individual ranches are compared, rather extreme variations in the proportions of cattle, sheep, and goats are observed, even within rather narrow limits of size. This is illustrated in Figure 9, in which the livestock organization of individual ranches ranging from 8 to 12 sections in size is given. It will be noted that some ranches have large numbers of goats per section, no sheep, and very few cattle, while others representing the other extreme have relatively large numbers of sheep and cattle and very few, if any, goats. However, most of the ranches included at least two of the three types of livestock common to the area in their ranch organization. Variations similar to the above were found within groups of other sizes, the only difference being that more of the smaller ranches had large numbers of goats per section and very few, if any, sheep and cattle; Whereas more of the larger ranches were heavily stocked with sheep and cattle and had fewer goats per section. Here again the variations in the combinations of cattle, sheep, and goats may be explained, in part at least, by differences in topography and vegetation. However, another factor of perhaps equal importance is the way individual ranchmen respond to changing economic condi- tions. Some ranchmen are more alert to their opportunities than others. They respond readily to changing economic conditions and seek to take advantage of every new situation. Other ranchmen are less price- sensitive. They are influenced more by their likes and dislikes or by custom and established ways of doing things, and make changes in their organization very slowly. ‘ORGANIZATION OF RANCHES STUDIED, AND CHARACTER OF CHANGES TAKING PLACE DURING THE PERIOD It will be observed from Table 3 that with but few exceptions cattle, sheep, and goats were included in the organization of each ranch. The yearly averages of the rate of stocking for the group show a decrease in cattle from 25 to 18 units per section, While sheep and goats remained practically constant, averaging slightly above 28 and '7 units, re- spectively. This differs from the recent trends in numbers of livestock 1R BULLETIN NO. 413, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CATTLE PER szcnou sump m2 szcnom GOATS PER szcnow Figure 9.-——Showing the variation in livestock organization of individual ranches rang- ing from 8 to 12 sections in size. (Special tabulations, U. S. Census, 1925.) PLANNING THE RANCH FOR GREATER PROFIT 19 for the entire area, particularly in the case of sheep and goats. A plausible explanation of this diiference is that the section of the area represented by these ranches had reached a maximum stocking at or previous t0 the beginning of these records, while the border counties Were not stocked to capacity with sheep and goats. Table 3—Yearly rate of stocking with cattle, sheep, and goats per section on 21 ranches for a period of four yearst Cattle units per section* Sheep units per section Goat units per section Ranch No. 1925 1926 1927 1928 1925 1926 1927 1928 1925 1926 1927 1928 10.... 36.42 27.60 25.23 31.83 12.02 8.12 . . . . . .. 1.22 12.94 10.41 14.28 17 79 52.51 56.11 57.90 53.09 10.18 18.38 22.62 26.22 16.82 18.28 2.75 . . . . . . . 23..... 41.61 34.80 37.45 29.91 24.27 17.83 18.59 21.05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.77 22.26 30.28 25.59 18.63 25.37 20.50 22.81 23.58 13.09 14.09 ~19.55 24“... 27.87 22.96 34.57 31.52 18.24 24.50 25.28 24.00 11.79 12 61 14.92 10.77 29.31 29.90 20.78 27.05 18.99 20.56 23.32 32.90 13.30 16.89 12.40 12.37 28.20 27.88 26.69 19.51 25.28 28.64 23.25 26.82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17..... 27.46 24.90 6.28 10.58 30.20 29.26 30.91 34.45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.... 32.60 27.22 19.77 16.79 27.80 32.79 33.24 31.33 11.53 12.65 14.25 12.26 14.... 23.70 26.99 16.25 25.81 32.04 28.43 35.19 32.66 .33 3.24 6.44 2.95 15.... 16.90 8.97 2.93 2.21 31.86 32.85 28.15 35.64 7.91 9.31 10.08 8.55 12.... 16.86 18.92 13.16 3.73 31.84 37.98 30.93 32.20 4.33 4.62 5.48 6.02 9.... 15.45 15.28 19.38 22.83 29.18 32.50 36.86 35.38 8.49 9.26 9.99 10.49 21.... 10.58 16.47 18.25 16.00 33.56 34 52 .88 28.48 16.56 19.41 17.74 16.29 19.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.51 33.10 .98 30.46 11.69 13.56 3.39 4.27 16.... 26.60 19.56 3.16 3.13 38.04 45.20 32.35 28.17 11.22 12.79 11.29 14.93 22.... 43.59 22.78 17.41 18.24 29.27 37.48 42.28 36.45 10.38 10.92 13.31 22.87 5 . . . . . . . . . .. 32.95 17.90 17.43 21.51 41.85 34.79 36.68 36.49 1.96 7.07 9.25 6.84 13.... 29.54 22.14 18.45 15.75 38.28 40.36 34.30 40.60 . . . . . .. 2.66 3.63 6.16 11..... 36.27 22.27 15.37 17.90 34.69 45.62 41.90 42.97 . . . . . .. 1.91 10.50 7.01 12.65 12.41 6.80 6.00 37.76 40.67 45.20 43.77 7 01 6.24 4.58 5.19 Average. 25 63 22 98 18.27 18 14 28 57 28.56 27.72 28.66 6 79 7.31 7.25 7.01 *The terms “cattle units,” “sheep units," and “goat units" as used in the table above and throughout this Bulletin refer to carrying capacity units which are based on the nutrition requirements of the different types and classes of livestock. A carrying capacity unit is the amount of forage or dry matter required to maintain a range mother cow with average weights and gains for a period of one year. The following ratios have been used in converting the difierent types and classes of livestock to the unit basis: cows 1.00 unit; bulls 1.25; calves .58; yearling heifers .87; two-year heifers 1.04; yearling steers .96; two-year steer 1.06; three-year steer 1.14; ewes .15; rams .17; lambs .08; yearling ewes .11; yearling wethers .11; wethers .16; does .13; bucks .15; kids .05; yearling does .10; chevons .12. The methods used in deriving these units is explained in Texas Station Bulletin No. 297. TFour-year average rate of stocking on 31 ranches studied is given in Table 13 in the Appendix. In sharp contrast with the high degree oi’ uniformity in the combina- tion of livestock is the extreme variation in their proportions from ranch to ranch and from year to year. Although all three types of livestock are found on the majority o1 ranches, extreme variations in their propor- tions exist from ranch to ranch. Furthermore, changes in the propor- tions of livestock are made on individual ranches from year to year. The nature and extent of these yearly changes in individual ranches are well illustrated by’ Ranches Nos. 3, 15, 22, and 11 in Table 3. These changes, although quite varied in character, represent for the most part, attempts on the part oi’ ranchmen. to adjust their production to price changes and changes in price relationships between the different types of livestock. llnoloubtedly’ the degree of success attained by ranchmen in keeping the (irganization of their ranches adjusted to changes in price relationships explains much of the variation noted in ranch in- comes. 20 BULLETIN NO. 413, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION RETURNS OBTAINED FROM RANCHES STUDIED The period 1925 to 1928, covered in this report, was favorable to g incomes somewhat above the average. Range conditions, with the excep- tion of the spring of 1925, were for the most part good. Cattle, goats, and sheep contributed to the income roughly in the proportions of 1, 2, and 5, respectively. The principal products sold were calves, lambs, goats, wool, and mohair. Cattle prices turned up sharply in 1925 to» reach a peak in 1928. The prices for both sheep and goats remained relatively high throughout the period. Wool prices were highest for the period in 1925 and gradually declined to lower levels. The average price received for all Wool during the period was 343, cents per pound. Mohair sold for a satisfactory price, averaging about\6_2 cents per pound. The size of ranch, gross receipts, expenses, and net income per ranch and per section are shown for 31 ranches in Table 4. These ranches ranged in size from one- to 46 sections. They are arrayed on the basis of net returns per ranch, beginning with the highest. As might be Table 4—-Yearly average net income per ranch and per section, 31 ranches, 1925-19281 Average Average Average Average Average Average Number _ yearly yearly yearly yearly yearly yearly Ranch No. years Size 1n gross total total net gross expenses net records sections income expenses income income per income per ranch per ranch per ranch‘ per section section per section 4 46.79 S 83,473 3 26,863 8 56,611 S 1,784 S 574 8 1,210 2 45.26 51,421 27,549 23,872 1,136 609 4 14.79 31,553 10,261 21,292 2,133 694 1,440 2 20.70 31,301 10,774 20,527 1,512 520 2 4 32.50 36,209 16,513 19,696 1,114 508 606 4 10.50 27,938 8,509 19,429 2,661 810 1,850 4 14.24 39,720 21,333 18,387 2,789 1,498 1,291 4 10.59 23,614 7,029 16,586 2,230 664 1,566 4 16.50 24,795 8,419 16,376 1,503 510 992’ 4 13.00 27,067 10,727 16,339 2,068 820 1,248 4 12.00 21, 325 7,130 14,196 1,788 598 1,190 4 11.00 19,963 7,077 12,886 1,815 643 1,171 4 9.60 17,315 5,316 11,998 1,804 554 1,250 4 12.00 20,127 8,580 11,547 1, 677 715 2 4 15.75 24, 939 13 , 800 11,139 1.583 876 707 2 7.55 15,376 4,357 11,019 2, 7 577 1,459 4 9.00 15,698 4,901 10,798 1,738 543 1,196 3 9.49 16,884 6,150 10.734 1,779 648 1,131 1 6.00 12 934 3,461 9,473 2,156 577 1,579 1 9.00 15,540 6,794 8,745 1,727 755 4 7.00 12 506 4,586 7,919 1,794 658 1,136 4 6.00 12,106 4, 559 7,547 2,018 760 1,258 3 6.00 12,029 4,832 7,197 2,005 805 1,199 2 4.00 11,330 4,400 6,930 2,833 1,100 3 4.00 8,469 3,431 5,038 2,128 2 1,266 4 5.00 8,348 3,773 4,574 1,670 755 5 4 3.00 5,965 2,233 3,733 1,988 744 1,244 3 3.00 6,528 3,416 3,111 2,183 1,142 1,041 4 2.00 7,002 4,013 2,990 3,501 2,006 1,495 4 4.00 6,421 4,044 2,378 1,605 1,011 4 4 1 25 3,254 2,236 1,019 2,603 1,788 815 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.00 $ 21,000 S 8,292 S 12,712 8 1,786 3 701 3 1.085 *Amount remaining after current expenses, depreciation, and estimated value of the labor performed by the operator and members of his family have been deducted. All ranches have been figured on an ownership basis. Taxes on rea estate, and depreciation on permanent improvements have been charged instead of lease charges. In order to place ranches on a more comparable basis, interest paid has not been deducted. TFor detailed statement of expenses, receipts, and investments per ranch see Tables 11 and 12 in the Appendix. PLANNING THE RANCH FOR GREATER PROFIT 21 expected, there is a wide variation in this figure ranging from $56,000 to $1,000. The average income of individual ranches from 1 to 3.9 sections, inclusive, ranged from $1,000 to $4,000; from 4 to 7.9 sec- tions, $2,500 to $11,000; 8 to 11.9 sections, $9,000 to $19,000; 12 to 19.9 sections, $11,500 to $21,000; and 20 to 46 sections, $20,000 t0 $56,000. While the return per ranch has a strong tendency to follow size of ranch, an examination of Table 4 reveals outstanding exceptions. For example, the yearly average income of a 2-section ranch amounted to f$2,990, while that of a 4-section ranch amounted to only $2,378. An- other exception of similar proportions is shown in the case of a 14%- section ranch with a yearly average income of $21,292 and a 321_1§-S€CtlOIl ranch with a yearly average income of $19,696. It is quite evident that factors other than size of ranch influence the size of income. The more significant variation in ranch income is that of net income per section. It is at least the more useful figure in comparing the relative efficiency of various ranch organizations since it eliminates to a large extent the variable of size and places all ranches on a fairly com- parable basis. The net income per section ranged from $1,850 to $527, with an average of $1,085. The existence of such wide differences calls for explanation. The inquiry is reduced to one of finding the significant factors WlllCll cause ranch incomes per section to vary and a considera- tion of what practical use can be made of such information in planning and operating ranches for greater profits. From the records secured an attempt was made to roughly determine the relative influence on ranch income per section of such factors as prices received, per cent of young, death, losses, wool and mohair clip, and the rate of stoelwlng with cattle, sheep, and goats. A sample of 61 individual operations (complete business transactions of a ranch for one yiear) were selected from more than 100 with the view of making them as comparable as possible, particularly in organization. The in- come per section for these 61 operations ranged from $2,000 to $44. The multiple correlation method was used to show the relation of these factors to the variation in income per section. To stat-e it briefly, this analysis indicated that these factors accounted for 73 per cent of the variation in incomes per section. The percentage determination of each was as follows: Per cent a 1. Wool and mohair clip (pounds per head) . . . . . . . . . 26 2. Prices received............................... 16 3. Per cent young (calf, lamb, and kid crop) . . . . . . . 13 4. Death losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 .5. Rate of stocking with cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 6. Rateol’ stockingwith sheepwww.............. 7 ' 7. Rate of stocking with goats . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 3 22 BULLETIN NO. 413, TEXAS AGRICULTURAI, EXPERIMENT STATION N0 attempt was made t0 determine tl1e influence of such factors as the individual differences in managerial ability of ranchmen, the variation in quality and condition of the range from ranch t0 ranch, and differences in prices paid for feed, supplies, and breeding stock. The data available are inadequate to a complete and comprehensive discussion of the relation. of these factors to ranch income, and especially so in regard to the relation of ranch methods and practices to these factors. It is quite apparent, however, that the group oft’ ranches having relatively high incomes per section are characterized by a fairly well balanced proportion of cattle, sheep, and goats. Their rate of stocking is above the average, death losses are low, shearing Weights are high,. and the per cent of young relatively high. A further study of ranch methods and practices is necessary to more accurately measure their relation to the principal factors affecting ranch incomes. The major emphasis of the detailed study was that of ranch organiza- tion. For this reason this Bulletin will discuss more particularly the possibilities of increasing the ranch income by improving the organization of the ranch and present a method of measuring the probable effect of - contemplated changes. INFORMATION NEEDED IN RANCH PLANNING The existence of extreme variations in the combination and propor- tions of livestock and income per section from ranch to ranch has been noted. Attention has also been called to the relatively large number of rarrchmen who make changes in the proportions of livestock grazed prac- tically every year. In view of the dynamic nature of prices, it is fairly safe to assume that ranchmen will continue to modify their basic plans from year to year. Furthermore, the effectiveness of these changes will depend upon the adequacy and soundness of the information upon which they are based. This naturally leads to the need of a brief statement as to what such information should include. To begin with, it is necessary for the ranchman to know about what can be expected in the production of live-- stock and livestock products. For example, in a cattle, sheep, and goat combination what percentage of young raised and what weights of fleece can reasonably be expected? Following this is the need for information relative to production requirements. Specifically this refers to such requirements aslabor, feed, replacements, death losses, etc. Finally, in order to evaluate the probable effect of a given change, prices for items bought and products sold are needed. Standard figures for these items are presented in Tables 5, (i, and 7. These data are based largely upon records secured from cooperating ranchmen during the four-year period 1925-1928. In arriving at prices for products sold consideration has been given to available information on production and price trends of the various products included. PLANNING THE RANCH FOR GREATER PROFIT 23 Livestock Production and Production Requirements The production and production requirements of livestock shown in Table 5 are not averages for the entire number of ranches included in the study, but represent rounded averages for a comparable group selected from them. Ranches which did not include all three types of range livestock in their organization or Were unusual in other respects were eliminated. Table 5—-Livestock production and production requirementsl‘ Cattle Sheep Goats Per mother cow Per mother ewe Wethers per head Per mother doe Production: Calves raised . . . . . . .70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lambs raised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kids raised....... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .65 Wool (12 mo. Ave.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 lbs. per fleece . . . . . . Mixed ages (mostly 2's and 3’s) 9.5 lbs. yearlings 8.0 lbs. Mohair (12 mo. Ave.)..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. grown goats 6.0 lbs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. yearlings 2.3lbs. Fall clip... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. kids 1.3 lbs. Production Require- ments: Labor....... . . . . . .. 1.8 days . . . . . . . . .. 45 days . . . . . . . . .. 2 days . . . . . . . . . .. .45 days—add .25 days where kidding by hand Feed: 1. Cake . . . . . . . . ..90.01bs 8.0lbs............. 5lbs............... .5lbs. Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60.0 lbs . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.0 lbs . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 6.0 lbs. TFor complete statement by ranches see Tables 14, l5, and 16 in the Appendix. The number of young raised, the labor required, the cake and salt fed have been figured on a mother animal basis. In other Words, the figures given in Table 5 Were derived by dividing the total number of calves, lambs, and kids raised; the total amounts of labor required; and the total amounts of cake and salt fed to each type of livestock by the number of mother animals of each type. In the case of Wethers produc- tion and requirement data Were figured on a per head basis. The figures on feed requirements are averages for a period of years. The amount of feed fed will vary Widely from year to year, depending on the condition of the range. Some years very little if any feeding is done, While in other years large amounts of feed are fed. Herd Requirements, Replacements, Death Losses, and Culls In making budgets or projecting ranch plans into the future it is quite necessary to be able to approximate closely the herd requirements in bulls, rams, and bucks. Likewise it is necessary to know about What replacements will be needed, death losses expected, and culls to be sold. Information of this kind is provided in Table 6. i 24 BULLETIN NO. 413, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table fi-Requirements, replacements, death losses, and sales for breeding herd and miscellaneous costs and requirements Cattle Sheep Goats Requirements: Bulls, rams, and bucks.... Replacements: Cows, ewes, and 4 bulls per 100 cows....... . .. 24 2-yr. heifs. per 100 cows 25 1-yr. heifs. per 100 cows 3 rams per 100 ewes....... .- .. 30 l-yr. ewes per 100 ewes 3 bucks per 100 does 23 1-yr. does per 100 does Bulls, rams, and bucks. . 25 per 100 bulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 per 100 rams . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 per 100 bucks Death Losses?’ i‘ Cows, ewesand does... 4per100cows . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7per100ewes..............10per100does Heifers, l-yr. ewes, 1 per 100 2-yr. heifers . . . . . . 2 per 100 l-yr. ewes......... . . 3 per 100 1-yr. does and 1-yr. does . . . . . . . . 1 per 100 1-yr. heifers Bulls, rams, and bucks... 5 per 100 bulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 per 100 rams . . . . . . . . . . . 13 per 100 bucks Culls Sold: Cows, ewes, and 19 per 100 cows . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 per 100 ewes..... . . . . . . . .. 10 per 100 does Bulls, rams, and bucks..- 20 per 100 bulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 per 100 rams . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 per 100 bucks Miscellaneous expenses per section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 115.00 Saddle horses per section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 head Expense per horse . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 30.00 ‘Death losses of wethers, 3 .5 per cent. Prices for Items Bought and Products Sold The basic prices used are stated in Table 7. These prices are based upon the prices which have prevailed in the area during the past few years, price trends, and a study of conditions likely to influence prices during the years just ahead. These prices are not to be taken as predicted prices for any particular year or group of years, but rather as average prices and price relationships which seem most likely to pre- vail in the area over the next 4-6 years. In planning a long-time ranching system the ranchman is more interested in the price relation- ships and price trends that are likely to prevail for the period than for any given year. ‘ Table 7~—Prices for items bought and products soldt Items bought Products sold Cake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..$ 40.00 per ton Calves..... . . . . . $35.00 per head Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 18.00 per ton Cull cows . . . . . . 330.00 per head Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 per cwt. Cull bulls . . . . . . 370.00 per head Freight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 .50 per cwt. Wool bags and twine... . . .8 .70 each (25 fleeces of 12 mo. wool to bag) Lambs . . . . . . . . . .5 5.50 per head _ (100 fleeces of mohair to bag) (mixed) Shearing: ‘ Cull ewes . . . . . . .3 6.00 per head ep......... . . . . . . . . .$ .10 per head—-20c for rams (5's past) G0ats......... . . . . . . . . .5 .07 per head——-14cl'or bucks Cull rams......... 315.00 per head Labor: Wool......... . . . . .$ .33 per pound Regular . . . . . . . . . . . . 340.00 per mo. and $15.00 per mo. board Extra day labor.. .$ 2 50 per day and $0.50 per day board Kids (shorn). . . .8 3.00 (mixed) Bulls for replacement. 3150.00 l-yr. chevons......$ 3.00 Rams for replacement“... .3 35.00 Cull does . . . . . ..$ 3.00 (5’s past) Bucks for replacement... .3 40.00 Cull bucks . 315.00 per head Mohair grown 50c per lb. yearling and kid 60c per lb. TFor average prices receiyed by cooperating ranchmen see Tables 17 and 18 in the Appendix. For prices of wool and mohair at a representative warehouse over a period of years see Table 19. PLANNING THE RANCH FOR GREATER PROFIT 25 An examination of the trend of cattle prices* in the United States shows a rather definite cyclical movement. The peaks and depressions of these cycles have followed each other with a rather high degree of regularity. They are characterized by sharp peaks and relatively wide depressions indicating a short period of high values and a longer period of low values. In the United States high points in the purchasing power of cattle were reached in 1885, 1899, 1915, and low in 1894, 1905, and 1925. Interpreting the future by the past, we should expect cattle prices to reach another high in 1930 or 1931 and then decline for a period of 6 to 8 years. The cyclical movement of sheep pricest is not as definite as that of cattle. However, peaks and depressions have occurred with sufficient regularity to warrant serious consideration by ranchmen in planning changes. In the past, high points in the purchasing power of sheep have been reached in the United States in 1892, 1899, 1908, 1911, 1918, and 1929 and low points in 1895, 1903, 1909, 1912, and 1922. If no important changes are made in the tariff on wool, indications are that sheep may be expected to decline for the next two or three years. In the past wool and sheep prices have tended to move together. Wool prices apparently reached a low point during 1930 and may be expected to improve during the next three to five years. During the past fifteen years the trend of mohair pricesI has closely paralleled that of wool. The production of mohair in the United States - has increased from a pre-war average of approximately 4,000,000 pounds to slightly above 16,000,000 pounds in 1929. The production for 1929 is about equal to the average consumption of this country for the past six years. If production continues to increase to a point in excess of domestic consumption the tariff will no longer be effective and world prices will prevail. It is thought well to make clear at this point that the data presented do not apply generally, but must be modified to fit the situation of individual- ranchmen for a given time. In other words, the figures given should be considered as a kind of standard-an average with the extremes eliminated. This furnishes the ranchman not only with a basis of comparison, but suggests the items which should be included in planning changes. For example, it is necessary for the ranchman who wishes to use this method of measuring the probable effect of a pro- posed change to check each item in the standard figures a11d substitute, where necessary, figures based on his individual experience. It is recog- nized that wide variations exist in production, and production require- ments between individual ranches. The thing of greatest importance *California. Experiment Station Bulletin No. 461, “Economic Aspects of the Beef Cattle Industry.” TCalifornia Experiment Station Bulletin No. 473, “Economic Aspects of the Sheep Industry.” IZUnpublished data, Bureau of Agricultural Iflconomics, U. S. Department of Agriculture. " A 26 BULLETIN NO. 41.3, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Figure 10.—Cattle, sheep, and goats are grazed in combinations for the best utilization of the range. Cattle predominate on the smooth, open grasslands; sheep are more numer- ous on the moderately rough, rolling lands; while goats are found in greatest numbers on the rough, broken, and brushy lands. PLANNING THE RANCH FOR GREATER PROFIT 27 is that the ranchman, in planning changes, use production, production requirements, and prices approximating as closely as possible those of his ranch. g BUDGETING TO DETERMINE THE MOST PROFITABLE COMBINA- TION OF LIVESTOCK s The importance of ranch planning has already been stressed. The kind of information needed in making changes in ranch plans has been presented and explained. The next step is to illustrate the use of such information by relating it to organization problems of actual ranches. Before the details of this illustration are presented, attention should again be called to the fact that certain physical factors such as soils, surface, climate, and vegetation set fairly definite limits on the kinds and numbers of livestock which can be grazed. According to a study made by V. L. Cory on the Ranch Experiment Station in Sutton and Edwards Counties,* grazing formed more than §~ of the feeding time of cattle, about g of that of sheep, and less than % of that of goats. Browsing formed about 1/12 of the feeding time of cattle, 1/10 of that of sheep, and over ~§~ of that of goats. This indicates that cattle and sheep are keen competitors in grazing, while goats compete to a much less extent. While cattle and sheep are keen competitors on the range, they are to some extent complementary. For example, sheep utilize a great many weeds that cattle leave untouched. They also better utilize short grasses. On the other hand, cattle better utilize taller and more mature growths, especially needle grass, which would not be utilized by sheep and otherwise tend to become a pest in the pastures. Goats, how- ever, utilize the browse of the range with relatively little competition from either cattle or sheep. Any one of the three types of livestock may be substituted for either of the others to the extent that they compete for the same vegetation. Thus, at any particular time sheep may be substituted for a large portion of the cattle and vice versa, while goats can be substituted to a much more limited extent for either. In this way physical limits are set, within which price relationships operate to determne the Ihost profitable combinationsof the three types of livestock. The results from a given combination of livestock or the effect of a change in such a combination may be closely approximated by budgeting. The ranch budget_may roughly be defined as a systematic method of estimating how well a given combination of livestock will pay. It is calculated on the basis of the production, production requirements, and prices expected for the years just ahead. 'The ranch budget should state as concisely as possible the livestock organization, the production, the expenses, and the receipts of the particular ranch budgeted. The steps to be taken are given in detail as follows: “Activities of Livestock on the Range,” Texas Station Bulletin N0. 367. 28 BULLETIN NO. 413. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 1. Record the livestock combination planned. ' 2. Estimate the production of the dilferent types of livestock, the number needed for replacement, and the number to be sold. 3. State the feed requirements and other expenses of livestock mak- ing a distinction between home-grown and purchased feeds. 4. Indicate the expected value of livestock and livestock products to be sold, and the expected cost of feeds, and other materials purchased. Allocate labor costs if possible. 5. In addition to direct costs for livestock, include estimates on the expense side for all repairs, taxes, ranch insurance, and other overhead items. - 6. Summarize the expected expenses and receipts and indicate the net returns. ~ A ranch has been chosen from the group studied in detail to which the budgeting method will be applied in order to more clearly illustrate its use in ranch planning. The ranch used in the illustration contains 16.5 sections of land. The vegetation consists mainly of a mixture of curly mesquite and buffalo grass, and live oak, shin oak, and other brush, and is fairly typical of the range in this arca on which cattle, sheep, and goats are grazed together. It is stocked at the rate of approximately 33 units of cattle, and 1'7 units of goats per section. The breeding herds consisted of 15 cows, 6 two-year heifers, 6 yearling heifers, and .6 bulls; and 73 does, 30 yearling does, and 2 bucks per section. In addition to the breeding herds and the annual increase, $0 chevons per section were carried. Table 8~—Detailed budget, actual organization 16.5--section ranch 50 animal units per section (33 cattle and 17 goats) Section A: Organization, Production, and Sales Replace- Replace- Sales _ Livestock and Number Production Death ments ments livestock products oss raised purchased _ Amount Sales Cattle. Cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 250 75 (culls) . . . . . . .. 10.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 (culls) S 2;250.00 Replacements: - 2-yr. heifers . . . . _ . . . . . 86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-yr. heifers . . . . . . . . . . 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 (culls) Calves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Goats: Does . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1200 258 (culls) . . . . . . . . Replacements: Yearling does . . . . . . . . 390 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4 (culls) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 780 Yearling chevons . . . . . . ,. . . . 390 378 r Mohair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8586 lbs. grown hair 1794 lbs. yrl. hair. . 1014 lbs. kid hair... Total goats........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Grand total........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $13,415.80 PLANNING THE RANCH FOR GREATER PROFIT 29 Table 8 (Continued)——Detailed budget, actual organization 16.5—section ranch Section B: Expenses‘ Cattle Goats Total Item Amount Cost Amount Cost Amount Cost 450 days 8 823.50 540 days reg. S 1,537.20 1,290 days 3 2,360.70 300 days kid- ding 22,500 pounds 450.00 600 pounds 12.00 23,100 pounds 462.00 S t 15,000 pounds 135.00 7,200 pounds 64.80 22,200 pounds 199.80 Freight on feed and salt . . . . . . . 37,500 pounds 187.50 7,800 pounds 39.00 45,300 pounds 226.50 Freight on wool and mohair... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11,394 pounds 56.97 11,394 pounds 56.97 Shearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72 buc 4,350 other 314.85 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 314.85 Wool bags and rwine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 bags 31.50 45 bags 31.50 Replacements: Bulls and bucks“... . . . . . . . .. 2.5 bulls 375.00 9 bucks 360.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 735.00 Miscellaneous expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,897.50 Horse expense................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 480.00 Total..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $1,971.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 2,416.32 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S 6,764.82 ‘Depreciation, taxes, and interest not included. Section C: Summary of Receipts and Expenses. Receipts Total Expenses Total Cattle(Section S 5,470.00 Cattle (Section B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S 1,971.00 Goats (Section A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 7,945.80 Goats (Section B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,416.32 Other Expenses: Miscellaneous (Section B)..... . . . . . . . . . 1,897.50 Horse Expense (Section B) . . . . . . . . . . . 480.00 Total S 13,415.80 Total expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S 6,764.82 Total net returns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6, 650.98 Net returns per section..... . . . . . . . . .. S 403.62 30 BULLETIN NO. 413, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 9—Detailed budget, revised organization, 16.5—section ranch 50 animal units per section (15 cattle, 27 sheep, and 8 goats) Section A: Organization, Production, and Sales _ Replace- Replace- Sales Livestock and Death ments ments i- Flivestock products Number Production loss raised purchased Amount Value Cattle: Cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 26 (culls) . . . . . . . . . 5.0 ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 26 (culls) 5 780.00 Replacements: 2-yr. heifers . . . . . . . . . . . 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-yr. heifers . . . . . . . . . . . 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 (cull) . . . . . . . . . . .25 . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.25 1 (cull) 70.00 Calves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 . . . . . . . . . . 58 2,030.00 Total cattle......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 2,880.00 Sheep: Ewes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1800 403 (culls) . . . . . . . . 126.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 (culls) $5 2,418.00 Replacements: Yearling ewes . . . . . . . . . 540 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0 529 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 7(culls\ . . . . . . .. 7.0 . . . . . . . . .. 14.00 7(culls) 105.00 . . . . . . .. 13 . . . . . . .. 540 . . . . . . . . .. 810 4.45500 Wool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19152 pounds... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.152 lbs 6,320.16 wool Totalsheep.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $13,298.16 Goats: Docs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700 86 (culls) . . . . . . . . . 70.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 (culls) 5 258 00 Replacements: Yearling does......... . . .. 161 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.0 156 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Bucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3 (culls) . . . . . . . . . 3 .0 . . . . . . . . . . 6.00 3 (culls) 45.00 Kids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . 161 . . . . . . . . . . 294 882.00 Mohair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4809 lbs. grown hair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . 4809 lbs 370 lbs. yrl. hair.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 lbs 592 lbs. kid hair... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 592 lbs 2,981 .70- Totalgoats........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 4,166.70 Grand total of sales (Cattle, sheep and goats)" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20.344.86 Section B: Expenses* Cattle Sheep Goats Total ltem I Amount Cost Amount Cost Amount Cost Amount Cost Labor. 234 days 3 428.22 810 days $1482.30 315 da. reg. 8 896.70 1534 days $2807.22 _ 17s da.kid. Feed: Cake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11700 lbs 234.00 14400 lbs. 288.00 350 lbs 7.00 26450 lbs. 529.00 Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7800 lbs 70.20 14400 lbs. 129.60 4200 lbs 37.80 26400 lbs. 237.60 Freight on feed and salt. . . . 19500 lbs 97 .50 28800 lbs. 144.00 4550 lbs 22 .75 52850 lbs. 264 .25 Freight on wool and mohair . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19152 lbs. 95.76 5771 lbs 28.85 24923 lbs. 124.61 Shearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F4 rams 42 butks 2340 other 244.80 2177 other 158.27 . . . . . . . . . 403 .07 Wool bags and twine..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96 bags 67.20 23 bags 16.10 119 bags 83.30 Replacement to B. Herd: Bulls, rams and lucks... . . 1.25 bull 187.50 14 rams 490.00 6 bucks 240.00 . . . . . . . . . . 917.50 Miscellaneous expense... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1897.50 Horseexpense................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 hd. 480.00 Total expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1017.42 . . . . . . . . .. $2941.66 . . . . . . . . . . $1407.47 . . . . . . . . . . $7744.05 ‘Depreciation, taxes, and interest not included. PLANNING THE RANCH FOR GREATER PROFIYI‘ Table 9 (Continued)—~Detailed budget, revised organization, 16.5——secti0n ranch Section C: Summary of Receipts and Expenses 31 Receipts Total Expenses Total \ Cattle (Section A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,880.00 Cattle (Section B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,017.42 Sheep (Section A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 298. l6 Sheep (Section B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,941.66 Goats (Section A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4,166.70 Goats(Section 1,407.47 Other expenses: Miscellaneous (Section B)..... . . . . . . . . . 1,897.50 Horse expense (Section B) . . . . . . . . . . . . 480.00 Total receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 20,344.86 Total expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 7.744 .05 Total net returns..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 12,600.81 Net returns per section . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 763.69 _ Table 10——Detailed budget, revised organization, 16.5—Section ranch (58 animal units per section, 15 cattle, 35 sheep, and 8 goats) Section A: Organization, Production, and Sales Replace- Replace- Sales Livestock and Number Death ments ments '— livestock products Jan. 1 Production loss raised purchased Amount Value Cattle: Cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 2b (culls) . . . . . . . . . 5.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 (culls) 8 780.00 Replacements: 2-yr. heifers . . . . . . . . . . . 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-yr. heifers . . . . . . . . . . . 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 1 (cull) . . . . . . . . . . .25 . . . . . . . . . . 1.25 1 (cull) 70.00 Calves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 . . . . . . . . . . 58 2,030.00 Total cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 2,880.00 Sheep: Ewes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2330 523 (culls). . . . . . . . 163.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523 (culls) 5 3,138.00 Replacements: l-yr. ewes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.00 686 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 9(culls) . . . . . . .. 9.00 . . . . . . . . _. 18.00 9 (culls) 135.00 . . . . . . .. 175 . . . . . . .. 700 . . . . . . . . .. 1050 5,775.00 . . . . . . ..24,800lbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..24,800lbs 8,184.00 Total sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $17,232.00 Goats Does . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700 86 (culls) . . . . . . . . . 70.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 (culls) 3 258.00 Replacements: l-yr. does . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.00 156 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3 (culls) . . . . . . . . . 3 .00 . . . . . . . . . . 6.00 3 (culls) 45.00 . . . . . . .. 455 . . . . . . .. 161 . . . . . . . . .. 294 882.00 Mohair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4809 lbs. grown hair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4809 lbs 370 lbs. yrl. hair.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 lbs 592 lbs. kid hair. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592 lbs 2.98110 Total goats............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 4,166.70 Grand total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324278.70 32 BULLETIN NO. 413, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 10 (Continued)——Detailed budget, revised organization, l6.5—~section ranch Section B: Expenses‘ Cattle Sheep Goats Total Item Amount Cost Amount Cost Amount Cost Amount Cost Labor 234 days S 428.22 1048 days $1917.84 315 da. reg. $ 896.70 1772 days $3242.76 175 da. kid. Feed: Cake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11700 lbs. 234.00 18640 lbs.‘ 732.80 350 lbs 7.00 30650 llLs. 613.80 Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7800 lbs. 70.20 18640 lbs. 167.76 4200 lbs. 37.80 30640 lbs. 275.76 Freight on feed and salt . . . . .. 19500 lbs. 97.50 37280 lbs 186.40 4550 lbs. 22.75 61330 lbs. 306.65 Freight on wool and mohair... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24800 lbs 124.00 5771 lbs 28.85 30571 lbs. 152.85 Shearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 rams 42 bucks 3030 other 317.00 2177 other 158 27 . . . . . . . . . 475.27 Wool bags and twine..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 bags 86.80 23 bags 16 10 . . . . . . . . . 102.90 Replacement to B. Herd: Bulls, rams and bucks"... . . 1.25 bull 187.50 18 rams 630.00 6 bucks 240.00 . . . . . . . . . . 1057.50 Miscellaneous expense... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1897.50 Horseexpense................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 480.00 Total expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $1017.42 . . . . . . . . .. $3802.60 . . . . . . . . .. $1407.47 . . . . . . . . .. $8604.99 ‘Depreciation, taxes, and interest not included. Section C: Summary of Receipts and Expenses Receipts Total Expenses Total ‘Cattle (Section A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 2,880.00 Cattle (Section B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 1,017.42 Sheep (Section A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,232.00 Sheep (Section B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,802.60 Goats (Section A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 166.70 Goats (Section B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . 1,407.47 Other Expenses: Miscellaneous (Section B)..... . . . . . . . . . 1,897.50 Horse expense (Section B) . . . . . . . . . . . . 480.00 Total receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . .. S 24,278.70 Total expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S 8.604 99 Total net returns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 15,673.71 Net returns per section . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 949 .92 A complete budget for this organization, using the standard figures given in Tables 5, 6, and 7 as a basis, is shown in Table 8. The net returns of approximately $400 per‘ section is indicated. 'l.‘his is far below the return which may reasonably be expected from a ranch of this type when the production, production requirements, and prices used prevail. The question is raised as to What are some of the fundamental Weaknesses of this organization. Two are at once apparent. No sheep are included in the livestock combination and the rate of stocking, or the number of animal units carried, is low compared with the normal carry- ing capacity of the ranch. For the most part, ranches xirhich have realized average incomes or above during the past few years have had a well balanced combination of cattle, sheep, and goats. This suggests the possibility of increasing the income from this ranch by changing the livestock combination. The rate of stocking will be held constant (50 units), but the combination changed to 15 units of cattle, 27 units of sheep, and 8 units of goats. per section. The calculated results of this a '__. fig‘$“,(-‘ i‘ LFBRAWY. 59x1», Aariculiuaqx a iViliCname-al college of PLANNING THE RANUH 3flilflfifi~%l=iflihirrlexast change are shown in Table 9. This shows a net return per section of $765.00 or an increase of $360.00 per section over the actual organiza- tion. It is not claimed that the revised combination is the best possible to be derived, but it is apparent that it will give decidedly better returns than the actual organzation being followed. The low number of animal units grazed on this ranch suggests the possibility of increasing the income by increasing the rate of stocking. With this in mind let us see what would be the probable effect of in- creasing the number of animal units grazed by 8. In this case a com- bination of 15 units of cattle, 35 units of sheep, and 8 units of goats will be budgeted. The results are shown in Table 10. The net returns per section from this combination amount to $950.00, an increase of $185.00 per section over a combination of ~15 units of cattle, 2'7 units of sheep, and 8 units of goats. It is not to be inferred from this illustration that 58 animal units is the best possible rate of stocking for ranches generally. This should be determined by such factors as the composi- tion of the range, its condition, the topography of the land, the size of the pastures, water facilities, experience of the ranchman, etc. It is significant in this connection, however, that the ranches on which all three types of livestock were grazed were stocked at an average rate of 61 units per section. The ranch used in the above illustration is judged to be at least equal in carrying capacity to the average of the ranches studied. In planning adjustments, each ranchman should use, in so far as it is possible, production and production requirement data for his own ranch. The data used as a basis for the above illustration represent average accomplishments, whereas the results secured on individual ranches vary widely. For example, the actual production of the ranch used in this illustration is materially above the standard but at the same time the production requirements are considerably higher than the requirements shown in the standard. If actual production and labor requirements were used in Tables 8 and 9, the returns per section would be $560 as compared with $405 when standard figures were used. This represents a difference of $155 per section due to a difference in production and production requirements. However, when actual production and re- quirements are applied to the revised organization as given in Table 9, the returns per section are $830 or $270 per section in favor of the revised organization. Up to this point the chief emphasis has been on the possibilities of increasing ranch income by improvements in organization. Before clos- ing, we should like to call attention again to additional opportunities of increasing the ranch income through improved methods and practices in handling livestock. The possibilities in this connectlon are indicated by the wide variations in such factors as per cent of young, death losses, and shearing weights. For example, on the 21 ranches from which records were secured for a period of four years the average number of calves raised per 1.00 cows varied from <16 to 89, the number of lambs 33 34 BULLETIN NO. 413, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION per 100 ewes from 53 to 82, and the number of kids per 100 does from 52 to 80. On the same group of ranches death losses in the breeding herds varied from 0 to 8 per cent for cattle, from 1 to 20 per cent for sheep, and from 4 t0 15 per cent for goats, while the wool clip for mature animals ranged from 7 to 10 pounds per head, and mohair from 4% to 7% pounds per head. It has been previously pointed out in a discussion of ranch income that these three factors accounted for approxi- mately 50 per cent of the variation in income per section on the ranches studied. 1t is evident from these figures that much can be done to increase ranch income by improvements in the methods and practices of handling livestock. However, when practices are equally good, re- turns are greater on well organized ranches. Maximum returns depend upon the maintenance of the best possible combination of livestock with respect to range utilization and price relationships, and the efiectiveness of the methods and practices followed. SUMMARY The extent of the Edwards Plateau grazing area is approximately 25,000,000 acres. Physical factors such as soils, climate, topography, and vegetation are such that most of the area is devoted to grazing. Cattle, sheep, and goats are the principal types of livestock produced and are generally grazed together on the same ranch. A rather close relationship was found to exist between the distribution of livestock in the area and the vegetation and topography. In those counties lying north and west of Sutton County, where there is very little live oak and shin oak or good browse of any kind, goats are of minor importance compared with either cattle or sheep, while cattle are somewhat more important than sheep. In the central and southern parts of the area, where brush, and especially live oak and shin oak, makes up a large proportion of the vegetation, sheep and goats far exceed cattle in importance. Much of the range in thii portion of the area is also less accessible to cattle than to sheep and goats because of its rough, broken character. The situation is reversed in those counties lying north and east of Gillespie County. Here cattle are much more important than either sheep or goats. Browse makes up a small pro- portion of the vegetation in these counties. A high degree of uniformity in the practice of grazing cattle, sheep, and goats together on the same ranch was revealed, both by a special tabulation from the Census of 1925 and by data from the 31 ranches studied in detail during the period 1925-1928. In sharp contrast to this uniformity of livestock combination was the wide variation found in the proportions of each type from ranch to ranch, and in the case of the ranches studied in detail, the obvious and almost universal ten- dency of this proportion to change on each ranch from year to year. The net income per section of the ranches studied showed a wide variation, ranging from $1,850 to $527 and even more extreme variations PLANNING THE RANCH FOR GREATER PROFIT 35 when individual operations were considered instead of an average of the period studied. Such wide differences not only challenge one for a satisfactory explanation, but suggest the possibility of materially increas- ing ranch incomes. Such factors as per cent of young raised, wool and mohair clip, death- losses, prices received, and the rate of stocking of cattle, sheep, and’ goats accounted for approximately 73 per cent of the variation in net income per section. The first three of these factors accounted for almost 50 per cent of the variation in income. The number of calves per 100 cows varied from 46 to 89, lambs per 100 ewes 53 to 82, and kids per 100 does 52 to 80. Death losses in the breeding herds varied _ from 0 to 8 per cent for cattle, from 1 to 20 per cent for sheep, and from 4 to 15 per cent for goats. Wool clips ranged from '7 to 10 pounds per head and mohair from 4.5 to 7.5 pounds per head. It is evident from these figures that much can be done to increase ranch incomes by improvements in those methods and practices of handling livestock which are responsible for the variation in these factors. The primary objective of this Bulletin is the presentation of a satis- factory method of planning and testing the effect of contemplated changes in the livestock organization of ranches. The method used and the results which may be expected from certain changes are illustrated in the case of one of the actual ranch organizations studied in detail. This organization consisted of 33 units of cattle, no sheep, and 17 units of goats per section. Two major weaknesses were apparent. First, the livestock combination was poor in that sheep were left out, and second, the rate of stocking was considerably below the normal carrying capacity of the ranch. Two changes have been planned in an effort to improve the organization of this ranch. The first change was to reduce cattle to 15 units, goats to 8 units, and substitute 2’? units of sheep, retaining the total number of units (50). The next change was to increase the total units from 5O to 58 by increasing sheep by 8 units; thus resulting in the following three organizations: 1. 33 units of cattle, no sheep, and 1'7 units of goats (actual). 2. 15 units of cattle, 2'7 units of sheep, and 8 units of goats (revised) . 3. 15 units of cattle, 35 units of sheep, and 8 units of goats (revised). These were budgeted, showing a net income per section of $405, $765, and $950, respectively. '36 BULLETIN NO. 413, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION APPENDIX The following tables include the basic data from which the standard figures given in Tables 5, 6 and 7 were largely derived. Tables 11 and 12 relate to the financial phases of the business. Tables 13 t0 16 show the average rate of stocking and the physical requirements of production -on each of the co-operating ranches. Tables 17 to 20 have to do with price factors. Table 11—Average expense and net income per section for cattleésheep, and goats, and average net income for each 2 ranch, 1925-19 Cattle Sheep Goats Total per section Number Net Ranch years Expense Net Expense Net Expense Net Expense Net income No. records per income per income per income pe_r income per section per sec. section per :80. section per sec. section per sec. ranch 1 .... . . 4 8 626 8 ~64 8 385 8 659 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1011 8 595 8 2378 2 . . . . . . 4 185 225 340 917 8 139 8 424 664 1566 16586 3 . . . . . . 4 173 271 252 477 219 423 644 1171 12886 4.. . 4 1096 000 469 638 297 236° 1788 815 1019 5 . . . . . . 4 165 3 487 562 103 170 755 915 4574 6. . . 4 203 230 512 763 104 255 819 1248 16339 7 . . . . . . 4 464 -—92 1330 1527 212 60 2006 1495 2990 8 . . . . .. 3 297 —14 835 1050 32 131 1142 1041 3111 9 . . . . . . 4 172 127 414 969 225 754 811 1850 19429 10 . . . . . . 4 263 391 101 1551 197 524 510 992 16376 11 . . . . . . 4 225 189 471 964 85 140° 760 1258 7547 12 . . . . . . 4 181 85 453 1181 60 173 694 1439 21292 13 . . . . . . 4 174 129 353 1054 37 94° 554 1250 11098 14 . . . . . . 4 220 119 335 961 56 146° 598 1190 14196 '15. . . 4 79 2 354 884 109 309 542 1195 10798 16 . . . . . . 4 124 2 402 710 132 424 658 1136 7919 17 . . . . . . 4 221 152 353 1058 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574 1210 56611 18 . . . . . . 2 168 209 349 227 91 91 608 527 23872 19 . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1328 1028 170 263 1498 1291 18387 20 . . . . . . 3 114 461 522 655 264 581 862 1266 21 . . . . . . 4 180 466 286 231 330 877 707 11139 22 . . . . . . 4 198 353 391 437 155 455 744 1245 3733 23 . . . . . . 4 305 163 203 443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508 606 19696 24 . . . . . . 4 304 153 271 474 141 336 716 963 11547 25 . . . . . . 2 160 184 262 815 155 460 577 1459 11019 26 . . . . . . 3 69 10 632 1024 104 166 805 1200 7197 27 . . . . . . 3 113 26 490 975 46 130 649 1131 10734 28 . . . . . . 2 238 79 662 1327 200 326 1100 1732 6930 r29 . . . . . . 2 158 6 324 878 38 107 520 991 20527 30 . . . . . . 1 157 99 336 1232 83 247 576 1578 9473 31 . . . . . . 1 208 193 340 412 207 367 755 972 8745 Av, for period.... 8 215 8 150 8 412 8 ' 754 8 134 8 294 8 701 8 1085 . . . . . . . . . Av. for 1925.. . . 223 142 424 632 138 173 723 876 . . . . . . . . . Av. for 1926. . . . 189 _ 147 356 497 116 313 623 871 . . . . . . . . . Av. for 1927. . . . 241 138 429 884 128 260 728 1159 . . . . . . . . . Av. for 1928. . . . 211 173 448 1057 156 416 737 1463 . . . . . . . . . “‘Expenses" include current expenses, depreciation, and a labor allowance of 860 per month for unpaid labor. In- order to make the ranches comparable all have been placed on an ownership basis. Taxes on real estate and deprecia- tion on permanent improvements have been charged instead of lease charges. ‘(One-year average. ITwo-year average. ‘Three-year average. PLANNING THE RANCH FOR GREATER PROFIT 37 Table 12——Distribution of investments of 31 ranches studied, average 1925-1928 Average investment in: Average Average Ranch size in Horses total No. sections Land Improve- Equip- and horse Cattle Sheep Goats invest- ments* ment equipment ment 1 . . . . .. 4.00 S 32656 S 4596 S 958 S 472 S 4371 S 5995 . . . . . . . . .. S 49048 2 . . . . . . 10.59 86878 12164 3370 744 6762 22147 4460 136525 3 . . . . . . 11.00 75312 10263 1596 810 7898 13792 7979 117650 4 . . . . . . 1.25 9262 4786 1975 236 1634 1377 492 19762 5 . . . . . . 5.00 39384 4105 2001 244 2736 11042 1667 61179 6 . . . . . . 13.09 84828 11617 3534 1185 10806 35394 4708 152072 7. . . 2.00 16038 5280 2731 212 503 8080 273 33117 8... 2.99 29424 3131 2703 415 1330 10308 157 47468 9. . . 10.50 69650 12055 2864 808 6088 28030 13829 133324 10. . . 16.50 120079 10557 2848 1226 16960 3761 9962 165393 11. . . 6.00 46448 6251 1192 371 3880 15418 1532 75092 12 . . . . . . 14.79 96671 23815 3529 1087 10680 44935 2560 183277 13 . . . . . . 9.60 80282 8772 2136 564 6267 21276 853 120150 14 . . . . . . 11.93 104494 15470 1709 1088 8088 26356 1387 158592 15 . . . . . . 9.03 72219 11600 1232 794 2154 19699 2863 110561 16.. 6.98 63412 11878 2498 549 1810 14934 3736 98817 17 . . . . . . 46.79 299430 17868 . . . . . . . . . . 419 31831 70051 . . . . . . . . . . 419599 18 . . . . . . 45.26 292670 55564 4399 2900 28340 56154 6702 446729 19 . . . . . . 14 .24 91150 22850 9971 246 . . . . . . . . . . 56979 ' 4380 185576 20. . 3 . 98 31122 5642 2052 287 2536 8487 3400 53526 21 . . . . . . 15.75 124500 19382 4242 1927 7881 34612 8033 200577 22 . . 3.00 23981 5096 1103 442 3445 8350 1598 44015 23 . . . . . . 32 .50 226000 26974 2568 854 51493 27976 . . . . . . . . . . 335865 24 . . . . . . 12.00 81389 12460 3131 821 19661 16960 6534 140956 .25 7.55 48330 7561 1225 572 4605 18130 3472 83895 26 6.00 52882 11320 2114 623 1128 14671 893 83631 27 . . . . . . 9.49 60740 7732 1525 583 2195 18806 1361 92942 28 . . . . . . 4 .00 31915 2628 1338 155 2408 10692 1692 50828 ~29 . . . . . . 20.70 146042 15893 278 1050 15110 34210 2265 214848 30 . . . . . . 6.00 49992 608 940 460 3810 11685 918 73891 31. . 9.00 76925 7580 3414 565 4640 13940 4505 111569 Av. per section... S 7171 S 1025 S 202 S 61 S 730 S 1842 S 275 S 11306 ‘Dwellings not included. .3895 3m3-momma dwEPS EQmIu=O+ $38335 3033033 .30 .3235: 3332x2553- 88 BULLETIN NO. 413, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION mm h mm cm cm m3 3.33 m3 m3 m .. ...mm3 .38 389i mm h mm cm mm cm3 3 m3 m3 c . .. ...hm3 5.3 ~Etv>< hm h 3m mm mm hm3 mm mm mm 33 . . . . . .. . ...mm3 .2 ~wEo>< mm m cm mm mm mm3 mm 3m 3m 3.3 . . . . . . . .. . .:mm3 .63 wmaxzé. mm h 3m mm mm c3 cm 3m 3m c3 .. .. . . . 33.633 S3 ~m¢$>< hm 3.3 m33 mc hm ch3 m3.3 m3 m3 c ccm ._ . . . . . . . . . . mm m mm hm hm 3m 3m3 3 3 cc.m .. . mm 3. hm 3m hm cm3 mm 3m 3m c3 chcm 3h m 2 mm S. ccm 3mm cm cm m 2: h3. 3. cm 3 mm mmm 2: m m m 3m mm m s. 3m m3. 3mm 3m3 3m 3m m3 ccm mm 3.3 3.3 mm hm 3m3 3. 3m 3m m mmh 3 m3 mc mm mm mm3 3c3 cm mm m3 cc m3 mm cm mm3 mm mm 3 cmmm .. mh 3.3 c33 mh mm 3m cm3 mm mm 33 cc m .. . mm m3 mm3 hc mm mmm mm3 m3 m3 h mh m3 .. mm m3 mm3 c hm 3m mm3 c3 c3 m mm m .. m3. m mm mm mm mmm mc3 . 3m 3.3 .. .. 33. m mm m3 cm mm3 mm m3 m3 m mm m3. .. .. m3. 3m . mcm hm3 h3 h3 c chmv .. 3m m3 hc hm mm 3m 33 m3 m3 c3 mcm c3. c mm mm mm 3.3m m33 m m 3. mcc mm m mm m mm 3.3m mm.3 mm mm 33 mc 33 mm 3. mm 3m3 mm Sm 3h3 mm mm c3 cm m .. 3m m mm mm mm mmm m33 m3 m3 m ch 33 .. cm m cm 33m 33. mhm cm3 mm mm m3 ccm 3. 3.3 hc3 hm h h3. 3m cm cm 3.3 cm m3 . 3m c3 3.h 33. mm mmm 3.3 m3 m3 c cm c3 . 3m 3 33 h m3. mcm mc3 3m 3m mm mmm hm m 3.3‘ mm mv chm 3m3 c c 3. ccm . .. . 3 3.3 hc3 cm mm $3 mm hm hm m3 8 m3 .. . mm m m3. m3 hm cmm 3m3 mm mm 33 ccm aw m3 hm Hch m3 mm3 hm mm mm 3m mm3 mm m3 mm3 mm mm $3 mm m mm c3 cc.33 mm m3 mc mm 3m mcm c33 3m 3m m3 cm c3 mm mm mh3 mm mm m3 ccm 353.5 3V8; dz n33 E335 3.3m dz 88m BED 3.8m dz EEO mimfiwm E593 E03... 3893.... imam.» E. 3i uwmflcz 332383 .323 Si: 033.63» 3.593. 3303326 .323 5.80 commuwm .633 323m c0332 .633 @3835 mmm3.mmm3 .583 3:5 58.3w .2338 53B #13833 3o v32 wma3v>¢|m3 v3.3. PLANNING THE RANCH FOR GREATER PROFIT 89 wowwfl ma? ccc.w; Ho...“ $23 a2» wi 322$ .855 =n S @5225 v5 E vwoa: E: o . .3225 Gvfionow .38 .3 ww .223 .3 wwwwfi 80w ccc.ww Sod wwmiw no.5 v3 ~wa$>< .38 .3 ww 68.: a wvBo=a we: 3a wwE v6.1» mwoswwfi =w mvwiufi v.6; v05; ma L $5.2. 2.5 B w==.2w... w S w.w w; w; w.w w.w ».w . . »w w» w» ww w» w» . . .. .....www; .2 vwflv>< w.w w w ;.w w; ;.w c.w w.» . . w» w» w» w» w» w» .. . .. .22 .2 vufio>< ...~......>..-...-...¢...........-.-.... .... . . w.w; w.w w.w ww ww »w w» ww ww . ..www;._owwwahw>< w.w c.» w.w w; w.w w.w w.w ww w» w» w» ;» w» .. ..._.........Ie vwaho>< w;w c.w. . . w.w w.w w.w 2am ww s. ww ww w» w» ; w.w cc; w. w.w w.w » w w.w 22S c» w» ww S . . . .. ; w.w ;.w c.w w; w.w w.w "moi ww ww S 2 »» w» w c.» w.w w.w w; w.w w.w w.w 08c; w» »» ww ww cw cw w w.w w.w c.w w; w.w c.w w.» 283 ww ww ww ww cw ww w w;; w.w w.w .w; w.w w.w w » v96; ;w w» ww ww w» w» w »; w.w .. . . . . .. w.w c.w.» 5cm w» ww . w» w» w ;.» w.» w.w w. w.w w.w ;.w 2am ww w» ww w» ww ww w .. . . . . .. w.w w.w . . . . .. wwc; . . ww ww w c.w w.w w w w; w.w w.w w.w .360; ww ww ww ww ww ww w @.: w.w; w.» . w; w.w 3.2 2am ww »w ww ww ..w» w» w w.w w.» . w; c.w ».w c.» . .. . . . . . .. ww ww . . . . . . .. w c.ww w.w; . . 9.80.; ;w . .. ww . . w w.» ;.w w. .. .. . . . . .. . .. fiom c» w» w» ;w ww ww w w.w ;; . . . . . . .. . .. c.w . . . . . . . . . . ww ww c» ;» w w.» ;.w; w.w c.w ;.w c.w c.» 22m c» w» w» ww ww 5 w ;.w; w.w ;.w ;; ;.w w.» w.w 18m »w w» w» cw ww ww w w.w w.w w; w; w; w.w w.w wwoc; ww ww w» ww ww cw w w.» w.» w. w; w.w w.w w.» vmeo; w» »» w» cw ww ww w w.w; w.w c.w c.w w; w.» w.w wmoo; ww c» cw ww »w 2. w c.w; w.w w; w; c.w w.w w.» 2am w» ww w» ;w ww ww w w w w.» c.w w; ;.w w.» . . . . . .. 2am cw »w . . ;w ww w w.w w.w w; w.w w.w c.» w.w 2am »w c» w» »» c» ;» w w.w ». . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w.» . . . . . . .. . .. cw ww ww ww w w.w w.w . w.w w.w w.w cc; 95m »w »w w» »» ww ww w w.w w.w ;.w w ; ;.w w.w w.» vmoo; 2. w» ww ww w» w» w wcw w; w.w w.w w » vmoo; cw ww ww s ww ww w c.w w; »; . . . . . .. c.w vim ww ww »» w» ww cw w wc; w.w; ;; w.w w.w w.» ESE ww »w 1.. ww »w »w w w.w w.w c.w c; w.w ».w w.» omco; ww 2 ;w ww ww ww w 3w ».w .. 3w c» ;» w mwacv .625 e230 - E5 25 cow’; wC ~62 wC vwmim 3x532 wvmfim woviwww wumwfi; wwviaww in 2E5 $5.6 awwww QwEw Enoufl QEM Buowé; c520 wwifia |EM .85 EM a2» nix; as...» wEO m2?» “M552 nonmm v.6: miwomin E ._o 528:2 $2 nwuww use“. 5m wwc;.»ww; 5am?» “.55.... owfigw. wofiwww Q96 Em was .282 S3 wcov hum . wwZ-www; .§_.ae a in»: 3&8»... E BB2 $5.. 2a 5A2?» waflavfi 596 2.. a... £82 .28 vfiail; sea. 40 BULLETIN NO. 413, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION JQS» En? .QQ%..~ Q28 $0 mfiamc.» Q3305 m0 2238:: xuoumg: $0 3T3 no? 0a 3.63.9? .822 93w 1305a ma. on. . . . . . . . . .. 3.. ... . . . . .. S; .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..u¢m._@n.=¢ww§_@>< 3. 33 ma.“ w» 3.3 $3 2; S. m2 2.. E3 m. 2m 2; 3.. 33 Ea Nam 8 $3 2. . 3 S. m8 S.“ 2 3 3... 8.3. K 8S | S.” w. 2 E. $5 E. 33 g. E. “.2 Ea. 2E S. 5&3 S. $3 2: g 2.» w... Z3 24 m3 w» $5 8.3 3. .53“. $4 m8 3. $3 3.2 S. o3. m»... mm Ma mm 8 . m 3.. $3 S.“ 33 $2 $3 3.3 2.. m3 3.3 N“ m3 ma» ma.” 21 .33 . . . . . m3 5a v33 3. 2% Nfim Em 3. 38 3.3. 3. 3% S; w: m.» Emu 3.3. 3. 3a 2. m. a. ma. 22. fi. 2.3 3.3 S. R. 26 g5 “...”. $2 E .3 m3 a. ma” S. S 3m. 3.3 31m m: xw 2w 3d mm. 3S 3.5 E 8 S3 3.3 3.. 53 S.“ 3. 3H 2% 2E 3. 5N3 3N $1. m3 2.3 3.3 E. 33 g. mm m» o3. 3.3 N? 3% m: 3 m3 ma. 2.“ . 5w $4 N3 3.93 w w...” NC. 3N s 8. $3 $3 m3 3 33 3.3 .. 6 3.. w? S. m“ m2 3% 2;. . . a $3 C. $6 3 8N 3m £4 .... m? ma 3M 2w n2 2.3 3.3 m B. 33H $3 5 m3 33 3.3 .... .. ©#- . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....2..% comauow 8&2 ......6w .3 .89» $5 .3 H8» 1E6 .3 .59» .3 $9» .3 Eosuvw mmmvwfi Lonaimaw Sn mwow ~onwiw3w :5 make Lonfimzfi. .3 mkoo S?» .3 Lonaiamw E Si Lvmfisz nunwm aha»... 93w dz .>< d2 .>< d2 .>< dZ .>< .02 $4 dz .5. SE: 53w 123.3. wwfitv>< dz .>< E3 .>< $3-33 éoufiuit .3 @3518 3 38w E5 .523» .238 we Bnwiwxnvoh ~32 vmakv>< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Z3 .82 ww¢~5>< 33 8a 55853.. . . . 6mg .82 wmubvi... .8228 .8.“ .2292 . ...w.w_....3.S m2: 3&3 mmmm. . . . . 13$ 3 .5” an: 2Z2 3.2m .238 2.2:: 3 vow vow 3w vow $3. 25 25 525 25 85 B3 2.55 B00 B3 25¢ 5a i5 83 6AA .3 .23 .3 .23 528:8 .8 .85 $8 dQQ =5 inn .88 .83 803585 5Q Q5 5a .25 .3 .95 5a .25 .5888 $8852 nuawm 5am .8820 5am 6x50 55582:» Jim .5580 5am 68x0 592858 Jim .880 Sam 6x50 53.825. $2453 £83 181E 5£o8 o5 .5 @3582» £8253: 8 v8 :2 ES @180 we 8888a 5w§5><|3 53am. 42 31$ w flwmufi... gwfiz». 32mm 8.3 a éwoa .3. Rim» . . . . Q8» .8“ umw$>< Aoicvivfidwr-odo: BULLETIN NO. 413, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION £3 £2 $3 £3 R3 $3 mp8s n?» EU hvnufiz fiaam ‘mmfi-nwfi 5.3 ES .353 69:8 .8“ avuigfi 3 @0382 ~25 u»: wuflo>< has 2m EB a“: 2x EB EB v3 has Bin Em 2.5 16B 60B 39B BoB 15B 3B B0B 16B 2a .1» so 2a E» 2o 25.1» so 2a .5 2o 22m 25 22m 2S tam =5 22a was Hwnfisz noaam £2 R3 33 £3 . w? S3 £3 _ $3 hafis EB mmaTmmg £238 E2 _ooB .8“ aoflaoafi .5 322x... E52“ .3 v3.5 “on vu§=~>¢|wH 2%? 44 BULLETIN NO. 413, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 19—-Average price per pound received for wool and mohair by a leading warehouse within the area, 1917- 1929 Wool Mohair Spring Fall Year 12 8 4-Mo. month month (Fall) Grown Yearling Grown wool wool wool hair hair hair Kid hair I ' I 1917 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ .500 S .4850 S .4400 5 45‘ 8 .48‘ .460 .5430 .4300 .68 .65 1919 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .515 .5050 .4800 .53 .55 1920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 180 .2200 .2000 .44 . 46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 .1800 2200 .45 I922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470 .4100 3300 44 .47 I923 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380 .4000 3200 .54 64 42 .85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 .4400 5200 .60 85 64 .76 1925 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 .4400 4000 .50 60 59 .70 1926 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 .3100 2625 .59 76 59 .76 1927 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390 .3275 3350 .52 62 53 .63 1928 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 .4200 3475 .66 77 64 .76 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 .3250 1893 .51 61 46 .56 ‘Grown hair and yearling hair and grown hair and kid hair were sold together until 1923. 45 PLANNING THE RANCH FOR GREATER PROFIT Amnfiufiosv 0300B $3800 0$00Eow 00.5 0wE0>0 .035 000m. 2H 8N S. =2 m: 3H 2H m? 32 oHH m3 8.3 3H 8H HwH 3 NmH m: 0: 3H o...“ C. Q :0 3H 53 3H N2 .23 a. HNH a: nHH 3H E.» 3.2 m» w: a. E 3H 2H m; E. m3 9N 3H Q H 2.0 E. . a m0 z: HAW . mm m: 3H 0a E. 02 $0 a3 3H 8N 3 h $ m2 $1.0 EH 3H 08 NH. w: £0 3H NNH EH S H. 00 2: 00.2 HEH 3 3H fi. 3H 03 3H ma 3H 23. H... HoH 8 m0 HHH m. E. 0w 3 m3 3 8 m: ma... R 2H 00.; MKH E 3H 2. NHH $0 a: n: $0 3&2 _ R m: 8 Q. $0 3 $H 3 SH Sm HKH w: 0% ma: g QH NNHH. N8 H5 8H 3 a: $0 3H m3 $0 N0 HH 8 HKH 00.2. 00H NHH 3H S SH 3m 5H m: m: m: S mmH 00.3 0S 3H NNH mH. HéH 3H 0w 0: m2 E6 m2 m3 m... mm 0: 8H 8H 2 w: w: H» 3H 0: S... HvH HHH 0M2 8H . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. 8 8 S 8H 8H a: 3H N2 2.; 8H .. . a a HE H5 HoH $5 NHH HHH 2.3 2H 0050a AHA 03 5B3 AHA 00m 0080a H .53 0080a H 50H. mflnwflouflfl 00.5 3:00 0=H§H2=q 025 3000 MHHHEQJPHHHQ 02$» H000: .00 050E800 03.? 000a .3 0>H§0HH $320M 001m 0333M 0>HH0H0~H 001m 9520M 020.03% 000:2. 3320M 030.00% 20:3. 000m H000 0=H0> 0sH0> 53-505 000% 3:008 H0H§H0$H .200? 000%. 03000 .800 =< 538m ufl 0130B UHHG 30B Uflfi .0035 H0315 0H3 Gm @005 UHHQ 0E5 uO HwBOQ wfimanfisa flHHd 624E» 03020.. wazhmiom 235E