TDOC April 1992 §J1’3245"’ i r v 5-1703 NO. 1 703 - j "I Q \\ ' ' V“ ngulate h . Q‘ i I O 1'0 IICCIOI!’ . Summary of WS urvey Res ults The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station J. Charles Lee, Interim Director The Texas AaM University System 3 ‘ t College Station, Texas A Contents Acknowledgments ................................................................... ..Inside front cover Executive Summary ........................................................................................ .v...ii’ Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 Survey and Methodology ................................................................................... .. 1 Results ................................................................................................................ ..2 Exotic Livestock Operations ............................................................. ......... ..2 Commercial Exotic Meat Production ........................................................... .. 5 Nonmeat Production Operations ................................................................. .. 7 Development of Exotic Meat Production Industry ..................................... .. 7 Veterinary Medicine Practices ..................................................................... ..9 Demographics ............................................................................................. .. 10 Respondents’ Comments ............................................................................ ..11 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... .. 12 References ........................................................................................................ .. 13 Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire .................... .......................................... .. 14 Appendix B: Summary Statistics Corresponding to Respondents from Texas ........................................................................................................ ..29 Appendix C: Summary Statistics Corresponding to Respondents from States Other than Texas ......................................................................... ..34 Appendix D: Selected Frequency Tables ........................................................ ..39 Acknowledgments The cooperation of the exotic livestock producers who participated in the survey is gratefully acknowledged. Their response and feedback were invaluable in developing this report. Comments by Carl Shafer, Charles Ramsey, and Ray Dietrich are gratefully acknowledged as is typing by Kristy McCollough. 1 Exotic Ungulate Production: Summary Of Survey Results James W. Mjelde J. Richard Conner Jerry W. Stuth James Jensen Chia-Cheun Chang James B. Jones The authors are associate professor and professor in the Department of Agricultural ’_‘Evconomics, professor in the Department of Rangeland Ecology and Management, clinical ‘sociate professor in Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, research assistant and former research assistant in the Department of Agricultural Economics and the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University System. Executive Summary Ninety-nine exotic ungulate producers responded to a survey in the fall of 1989 and spring of 1990. Responses concerning general aspects of their exotic operations, attitudes toward the development of the exotic meat industry, and veterinary practices were ascertained. Respondents reside in 27 states, along with one from Canada and another from Indonesia. A wide diversity of exotic operations was indi- cated by the respondents. Acreage devoted to exotics ranged from 6 to 45,000 acres. Exotics are raised on both native and improved pastures. Enterprises as- sociated with the exotic operations that provided the highest mean percentage of gross income were the sale of brood stock, trophy hunting, and commercial meat production. Other enterprises included sale of velvet and recreational viewing. Seventy-one per- cent of the respondents indicating their future plans, reported they plan to expand their operations, whereas, only 3 percent planned to decrease or dis- continue their exotic operations. Thirty-eight per- cent advertised their exotic operations, primarily in trade publications and brochures. Respondents owning exotic livestock were on average well educated and in high gross income brackets. Mean annual gross income reported was between $80,000 and $89,0000. The majority of the respondents’ mean gross income came from nonagricultural business sources (62 percent). Re- spondents indicated that exotic livestock is owned for a variety of reasons. Economic reasons such as profitability, diversity of operations (risk reduction), and agricultural exemption for ad valorem taxes, were listed by the majority of the respondents. Also listed were psychological reasons such as aesthetics, lifestyle, and the promotion of alternative farming methods. Approximately one-third of the respondents were currently involved in exotic meat production. Of those not producing meat, approximately one-half planned to start a commercial meat operation. The most common reasons nonmeat producers gave for not currently producing meat were the sale of brood stock and/or velvet was currently more profitable than meat production, trophy hunting was more profitable, lack of marketing and management knowl- edge, and currently building up the herd to start a commercial meat operation. Of the respondents planning to start a commercial meat operation, the majority had made decisions about who would pro- cess their venison. Attitudes concerning the development of an ex- otic meat industry were diverse, but in general, optimistic. Overall, the respondents felt exotic live- stock production would become a viable agricultural enterprise, but not a major industry. Further, they felt exotic meat should not be priced low to compete with beef. Respondents generally felt exotic meat should remain a specialty item marketed in gourme" " restaurants, specialty shops, health food stores, a1 mail order and not be priced at levels to compete with’ beef. The low mean score respondents gave to over- seas marketing as a potential outlet for exotic meat was surprising. Other venison producing countries have targeted Germany as a large potential market. The most important factors listed as contributing to the success of individual exotic producers were the development of a market, management ability, and the price of exotic meat. Concerning the current market for exotic meat, the respondents, on average, felt there were not enough outlets for exotic products. The majority of the respondents indicated ani- mal health problems were not a major issue in their operations. Preventive medical programs employed by the producers are seen as one reason health problems were not prevalent. The three most com-- mon preventive programs were parasite examina- tions/deworming, vaccination, and quarantine of in- coming animals. Parasitism followed by traumatic injuries were the two most prevalent health prob- lems. Because more than half of the respondents were from Texas, selected questions are divided into Texas and non-Texas respondents. Few differences were noted between the respondents. Apparent differ- ences such as size of the operation, appear to l V. caused by the type of operation, farming or ranchinlgg/ The majority of non-Texas respondents are farmers, whereas, the majority of Texas respondents are game ranchers. Overall, the responses could be characterized as coming from producers involved in an industry in the introductory stage. Although the industry is in its formative stage, several respondents have raised exotics for many years. One respondent has raised exotic livestock for more than 50 years. Commercial exotic meat production is not a new idea in the United States either, with one respondent producing exotic meats for more than 15 years. Further, there ap- pears to be limited information concerning the exotic industry. A wide diversity of prices was seen, even within a given species. Many respondents indicated the need for more information, especially on eco- nomic aspects of the industry. Such information is currently not available and can only be obtained through further research. Finally, the responses can be categorized as optimistic concerning the development of the indus- try. This is expected because the respondents are currently involved in the developing exotic livestock industry. Anyone contemplating entering this in- dustry must proceed with caution, because the re- sponses also indicated high risks are involved. 8| | n] EQ1| 6-» |'\05\\”\~ia\ Hp“ Introduction In recent years, evidence of a growing interest in the exotic livestock industry is apparent on both the " demand and supply sides. In the United States, the production of farm raised venison has increased from 5,000 to 30,000 lb/year between 1982 and 1989, while the number of New York restaurants offering exotic game has increased from 13 in 1985 to 133 in 1989 (Mehta). Further evidence of increasing inter- est is the media attention the industry has received (Fohn; Trejo; Cushman; Mehta; Machan), growth of newsletters devoted specifically to exotic game own- ers, and the increasing number of seminars concern- ing exotic livestock production. Development of a new enterprise or industry requires questions concerning production, market- ing, and supply and demand conditions be addressed. Much research concerning the production aspect of deer farming and ranching has been conducted (e. g. Larson; Demarias and Osborn; Baccus, Harmel, and Armstrong; Ables), but very little literature exists concerning the economics of this industry. Yerex (p. 46) states that as a result of the considerable produc- tion research in New Zealand, “... on the farm deer present no great problems we cannot cope with.” In a study by the Texas Department of Agriculture, marketing aspects are presented but with little de- tail. The study notes with proper management and ‘by implementing proper marketing strategies“... it is reasonable to suggest that there are profits to be " made from exotic game operations in Texas” (Texas Department of Agriculture, p. 2). The objective of this study is to examine the exotic ungulate industry, focusing on current exotic ungulate operations and owners’ attitudes concern- ing the development of the exotic meat industry. Factors addressed include the extent of and reasons for involvement in various enterprises associated with exotic ungulates and general characteristics of exotic operations and owners. To address this objec- tive, primary data were collected through a mail survey of exotic livestock owners in the fall of 1989 and winter of 1990. Admittedly, venison production is only one as- pect of the exotic livestock industry, but as with all studies, the scope must be limited. The scope is further limited by focusing on venison production. Such a limiting factor is not meant to mean that other aspects of the exotic livestock industry are unimpor- tant. This report summarizes the completed surveys received from exotic ungulate livestock (deer, ante- lope, and sheep) owners. The term exotic livestock was used to represent exotic ungulates on the ques- tionnaire and will be used in this report. The present study is an expansion of a study by Jones which examined only Texas exotic livestock owners. For overviews of the exotic livestock indus- flgy see Jones; Ramsey; Demarias and Osborn; J ooste; tway; Yerex and Spiers; Traweek; or Von Kerckerinck Zur Borg. Survey and Methodology To obtain the views of exotic livestock producers concerning the development of the exotic livestock industry, a mail survey was used to obtain primary data. A list of 195 exotic livestock ranchers and farmers from the United States and Canada was obtained from the Texas Department of Agriculture, the North American Deer Farmers Association, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Because of this small sample, the survey questionnaire was not pretested on a subset of producers. Instead, representatives from the Texas Department of Agri- culture, the Texas Agriculture Extension Service, and the Texas Agriculture Experiment Station were asked to comment on the questionnaire. Disciplines including agricultural economics, range science, and veterinary medicine were represented. Their com- ments were used in formulating the final question- naire. A modified form of Dillman’s total design survey method was used in completing the survey. Respon- dents were given two opportunities to complete the questionnaire. After the initial mailing, ranchers failing to return the questionnaire in 2 weeks were mailed another copy along with a letter detailing the importance of their responses to the success of the study. Of the 195 questionnaires initially mailed, seven were returned with no forwarding addresses and four were returned indicating they no longer had an exotic livestock operation. N inety-nine question- naires of the remaining 184 surveys were returned, giving a response rate of approximately 54 percent. Completed questionnaires were returned from re- spondents residing in 27 states representing all geo- graphical areas of the lower 48 states. Further, one respondent indicated his operation was in Canada, another’s operation was in Indonesia, and one re- spondent had operations in both the U.S. and New Zealand. All completed questionnaires are used in this report. The questionnaire was comprised of six sections. The first section consisted of general questions con- cerning the ranchers’ exotic livestock operations. Questions concerning commercial exotic meat pro- duction comprised the second section. Only ranchers currently participating in commercial exotic meat production were asked to complete section two. Pro- ducers not raising exotic livestock for venison pro- duction were asked to complete the third section pertaining to why they don’t currently produce exotic meat and if they plan to start a commercial venison operation. All respondents were asked to complete the fourth, fifth, and sixth sections dealing with factors that may be important in the development of the exotic meat industry, veterinary medicine prac- tices, and demographics. Appendix A contains a copy of the questionnaire. In the following sections, each question is ana- lyzed separately; that is, summary statistics (mean, minimum value, maximum value, and standard de- viation) for each question are based on the number of respondents answeringthat particular question. This from 6 to 45,000 acres with a standard deviation of procedure is used rather than using only those ques- 6,715. Average acreage may be misleading, because tionnaires for which all questions were completed for the majority of the Texas respondents reside in the two reasons. First, the nature of the survey was such Hill Country Region of Texas, an arid area with '- that respondents only completed certain sections. large ranches. If the sample is divided into Texas an Second, the sample size is relatively small, especially non-Texas respondents, average acreage devoted tee; for some of the questions. exotics is 4,836 and 134 acres, with standard devia- w Summary statistics for all respondents along tions of 8,884 and 295 acres. Forty-six percent of the with a division into Texas (Appendix B) and non- respondents indicated that their exotic livestock re- Texas (Appendix C) respondents are presented. This side on only native pasture, whereas, 26 percent division is used because approximately 50 percent of indicated exotic livestock were grazed only on im- the respondents (50 out of 99) are from Texas. Such proved pasture. The remaining 29 percent indicated a division may indicate if any biases caused by a large that exotic livestock were grazed on both native and number of respondents being from one state are improved pasture. In Tables D2 and D3, abreakdown, present in the overall analyses. For selected ques- of the various types of acreage is presented. tions, frequency tables are presented in Appendix D. Table 1 contains a summary of the responses As noted earlier, this study is an expansion of a concerning the number of head of the various species study undertaken by Jones. Jones received 30 usable owned by each respondent. Only a few respondents responses from Texas exotic livestock producers. had more than 500 head of any one species with only The current study incorporates his data with 20 three owning more than 1,000 head. Fallow deer was additional Texas producers and 49 producers resid- the most prevalent species owned with blackbuck ing outside of Texas. The updating occurred because following a distant second. Comparing Tables B1 and names of exotic producers outside of Texas became C1 indicates that differences between Texas and non- available. Originally, the questionnaire was de- Texas respondents exist concerning species owned. signed for Texas producers. When the questionnaire Texas respondents raise a wider variety of exotic was mailed to the non-Texas producers, unfortu- species. Other species mentioned as being owned by nately not all references to Texas were eliminated. respondents include (but not limited to) Rocky Moun- This caused some confusion in the responses, but tain elk, whitetail deer, eland, mouflon and corsican inspection of the completed questionnaires and the sheep,scimitar,blesbok, gemsbok,springbok,lechwe, respondents comments indicated that this oversight addax, markhor, bison, red deer, Iranian Res sheep, caused only minor problems. Dama Persian and Grants gazelle, ibex, waterbuck Finally, in the original mailing of the survey, a zebra, emu, ostriches, and bongos. V I reference was inadvertently made to a specific dealer Breeding stock was obtained from various sources. v instead of dealers in general. This oversight was The majority of respondents (63 percent) obtained mentioned by the respondents and corrected in latter breeding stock from other ranchers. Eighteen per- mailings. The results concerning sources of breeding cent of the respondents obtained breeding stock from stock must to be interpreted in light of this oversight. auctions. Dealers were used by 28 percent of the respondents to obtain breeding stock, whereas, 6 percent of the respondents obtained stock from zoos. RGSIILHSS Finally, 32 percent of the respondents used other sources. Unfortunately, many respondents included The fciicwihg Subsections ccrresPchd t0 the SiX other farmers in this category instead of in the other sections of the questionnaire. It is stressed that the rancher eategery_ The survey asked to consider Summary statistics Presented are based ch the hum‘ ranching and farming of livestock as the same opera- her cf respchdehts ccrhpietihg that Particuiar ques- tion, but not all respondents answered the question- tich, irrespective cf the ether questichs- naire in this manner. Other sources listed included livestock residing on the property when purchased Exotic Livestock Operations Table 1. Summary of exotic livestock owned by respondents.‘ The number of years a producer has owned exotic Less g0 101 251 501 Mere livestock ranged from 0.1 to 50 years, with the than to to to to than average number of years being 9.3 and a standard Species Zefe 2° 10° 25° 50° 100° 100° . . . . . . y, deviation of 9.1 years. Dividing the sample into Axis deer 65 a 2Q 4_ 1_ 3_ o_ Texas and non-Texas respondents indicates the ex- . . . . Fallowdeer 27. 14. 38. 10. 6. 3 2. otic livestock industry generally 1S a newer enter- . - - Sika deer 62. 12. 19. 4. 1. 1 0. prise outside of Texas (Table D1). The average A d number of years a Texas producer has owned exotic °u ad sheep 71' 5' l4" 8' o‘ 1 o‘ livestock is 14.5 (standard deviation of 9.9), whereas, Biackbuck antempe 59- 11' 19' 6- 3' o" l" for a non-Texas producer, the average number of N"Qa'a"ie'°Pe 94- 5- 0- l- 0- o- 9- YearS 1S 4-1 (Standard deviation of 4-_1)-_ ‘Figuresrepresentthe percentof98respondentswho ownthespecifi Average acreage deVOtBd t0 eX0t1c 11VeSt0Ck PTO- number of each species. Percentages may not sum to 100 percenic/ duction was 2,509 acres. Acreage, however, ranged because of rounding. and purchasing exotic livestock from individuals who were exiting production aspects of the industry. Few differences were seen between Texas and non- %. Texas respondents on where breeding stock was fi obtained. Sale of brood stock provided an average of 45 percent of gross revenue from the respondents’ exotic operations (Table 2). Trophy hunting provided an average of 28 percent of gross revenues and the production of exotic meat a distant third at 19 percent of gross revenues. Recreational viewing provided on average only 1 percent of gross revenues with other sources providing 7 percent. Other sources of rev- enue were the sale of velvet and cull hunting (nontrophy hunting). These percentages are based on 82 respondents who indicated the percentage of gross revenue received from each enterprise. Four- teen respondents indicated that no revenue had yet been obtained from their exotic operations. Three respondents did not answer this question. These percentages change considerably when the sample is divided into Texas (Table B2) and non-Texas (Table C2). Outside of Texas, exotics appear not to be used in trophy hunting operations. A breakdown of the pBPCQTY 1f gross revenue associated with the various enterprises is presented in Table D4. Table 2. Percentage of gross revenue earned from various exotic livestock enterprises.‘ Q Standard Enterprise Mean Minimum Maximum deviation Trophy hunting 28. O. 100. 37.2 Recreational viewing 1. 0. 25. 3.8 Sale of brood stock 45. O. 100. 37.3 Production of exotic meat 19. O. 100. 27.4 Other 7. O. 100. 22.6 ‘Percentages based on 82 respondents. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. The exotic species used in trophy hunting, recre- ational viewing, sale of brood stock, and exotic meat production are summarized in Table 3. Given the percentages of gross income, it was expected that the highest percentage of species would be involved in trophy hunting and the sale of brood stock. This expectation holds for all species except Fallow deer. For Fallow deer, a higher percentage was involved in exotic meat production than for trophy hunting. This occurs becausel of little trophy hunting and the pre- ponderance of Fallow deer outside of Texas (Tables B3 and C3). Per head prices received byvage and sex for the Qvarious species are summarized in Tables 4, B4, and V74. In general, for the species listed on the survey, ilvflfilgt‘. P‘alloW deer prices were higher than the Table 3. Exotic livestock species used for different enterprises.‘ Trophy Recreational Sale of Exotic Species hunting viewing brood stock meat Other Axis deer 27. 7. 21. 8. 1. Fallow deer 29. 11 . 53. 39. 3. Sika deer 22. 4. 25. 11. 2. Aoudad sheep 27. 5. 13. 1. 1. Blackbuck antelope 30. 8. 26. 1 1 . 1. Nilgai antelope 4. 1 . 2. 1 . O. Other 13. 6. 26. 8. 3. ‘Figures represent the percentage of 97 respondents that use each species for each enterprise. Percentages do not sum to 100 percent because a species can be used for more than one enterprise. other species. All prices exhibited a wide range. For instance, yearling male Sika deer had an average price of $330/head with a standard deviation of $440/ head. Yearling male Sika prices ranged from a low of $100 to a maximum of $1,800/head. This sort of price range was seen for all species. These wide price ranges may ind.icate a lack of market information in pricing exotics and/or quality differences in the ani- mals. i Eighty-six percent of the respondents indicated that they raise exotics because it is a profitable enterprise. Risk reduction was indicated by 19 per- cent of the respondents as a reason for raising exot- ics. Aesthetic value was reported by 28 percent of the respondents, whereas, preservation of the species was reported by 17 percent. Eighteen percent of the respondents indicated other reasons for raising exot- ics including low manpower necessary, enjoyment/ lifestyle/camaraderie offered by raising exotics, agri- cultural exemption, and to promote alternative farm- ing methods. The percentages do not sum to 100 percent because respondents were asked to indicate all reasons for raising exotics. Few differences are noted between Texas and non-Texas respondents’ reasons for raising exotics except for preservation of the species. No respondent outside of Texas listed preservation as a reason for raising exotics. Most of the respondents planned to expand their exotic livestock operations. Of the 95 respondents who completed this question, 31 indicated they planned to more than double their current opera- tions. One indicated plans to expand up to five times current. size. Thirty respondents indicated they plan to double their operations. Five were going to ex- pand, but to a size that was less than double current operations. Twenty-five plan to keep their opera- tions the same size. One planned to decrease by one- Table 4. Prices received (dollars/head) for various exotic livestock species by age and sex. Standard Number of Species Mean Minimum Maximum deviation respondents Yearling male Axis deer 265. 150. 500. 100.8 13 Fallow deer 390. 100. 1000. 241.0 . 25 Sika deer 330. 100. 1800. 440.1 14 Aoudad sheep 184. 75. 850. 224.8 11 Blackbuck antelope 175. a 75. 650. 156.7 17 Red deer 1377. 350. 2500. 761 .5 13 Other 1582. 50. 10000. 2310.4 18 Yearling female Axis deer 268. 150. 450. 76.5 15 Fallow deer 579. 1 50. 1000. 251 .6 30 Sika deer 389. 100. 1500. 349.2 16 Aoudad sheep 104. 50. 175. 41 .1 12 Blackbuck antelope 1 1 1 . 50. 200. 44.5 17 Red deer 1779. 350. 3000. 928.5 12 Other 2669. 50. 25000. 5776.3 1 8 Mature male Axis deer 583. 150. 1500. 356.5 18 Fallow deer 754. 15o. 1500. 378.2 3s Sika deer 509. 100. 1250. 277.0 16 Aoudad sheep 510. 100. 1250. 363.4 13 Blackbuck antelope 422. 99. 1200. 291 .2 19 Nilgai antelope 750. 500. 1000. 353.6 2 Red sheep 2585. 1000. 5000. 1261.4 10 \ Other 2029'. 1 50. 10000. 2375.1 17 Mature female Axis deer 307. 100. 550. 113.5 18 Fallow deer 674. 1 50. 1200. _ 298.4 37 Sika deer 349. 100. 700. 173.3 18 Aoudad sheep 148. 50. 250. 67.3 13 Blackbuck antelope 152. 50. 250. 53.2 16 Nilgai antelope 500. 500. 500. 0.0 1 Red deer 2800. 500. 7000. 1928.7 10 Other 31 82. 100. 35000. 8079.3 18 half his current operations, whereas, two planned to discontinue their exotic operations. Differences in plans to expand are seen between Texas and non- Texas respondents. Less than one-half of the Texas respondents plan to expand, whereas 89 percent of non-Texas respondents plan to expand. Thirty-seven of the 99 respondents indicated that they do some form of commercial advertising. Of the 37 that advertised, 73 percent used trade publi- cations, 70 percent had their own brochures, 51 percent used newspapers/magazines, 11 percent ad- vertise on radio or television, and 70 percent used some other form of advertising. Other forms of advertising included free trips, using promoters, videos, and participating in food and trade shows. The percentages do not sum to 100 percent because many producers use more than one form of advertis- ing. Thirty-six respondents indicated their annual expenditures for advertising. Ten (28 percent) spent less than $500, 13 (36 percent) spent between $500 and $1,000, 4 (11 percent) spent between $1,500 and $2,500, 5 (14 percent) spent between $2,500 and $5,000, and 4 (11 percent) spent more than $5,000 annually for advertising. The only major difference in advertising between Texas and non-Texas respon- dents was an increased use of trade publications by non-Texas respondents. This section summarized responses concerning general aspects of the respondents exotic livestock operations. As expected, a wide diversity of opera- tions exists. Further, the results indicate that th exotic livestock industry, in general, is still in its g introductory stage. Results supporting this conten- tion are the mean number of years exotics have been 1 Q produced, the majority of the respondents planning to expand, and the sale of brood stock accounting for 45 percent of gross revenues. As expected, some differences between Texas and non-Texas respon- Jlents were seen. As noted earlier, the majority of the differences are most likely because of the area of Texas in which exotics are raised. Commercial Exotic Meat Production Thirty-six percent of the respondents operated a commercial exotic meat operation. The number of years respondents have been producing exotic meat ranged from 1 to 15 years with a mean of 3.7 years and a standard deviation of 3.2 years. Twenty-two of the 35 respondents indicated that they have been producing meat 3 years or less. Texas respondents have been producing meat an average of 5.3 years, whereas non-Texas respondents have been produc- ing meat an average of 2.8 years. Of those respon- dents indicating both that they produce exotic meat and the type of exotic operation they run, 32 percent indicated they ranch and the remaining 68 percent indicated they farm exotic livestock. Sixteen respondents indicated their total annual operating costs were associated with exotic meat production. Many respondents indicated that they were in the start-up stage of the business and it was (‘lifficult to answer the questions concerning operat- .ng costs. Others indicated they do not separate the costs associated with raising brood stock from their meat production operation. Initial start-up costs were indicated as being high, but operating costs were reasonable. Average annual operating costs reported were $11,899 with a standard deviation of $15,189. Annual costs ranged from a low of$1,000 to a high of $58,745, reflecting the diversity and sizes of the various operations. The percentage of total annual costs associated with different budget items is summarized in Table 5 (based on 18 respondents indicating the percentages). Supplemental feed is by far the largest percentage of total annual costs, 54 percent. Maintenance, labor, and other are the next largest budget items, each representing on average between 12 and 14 percent of total annual costs. Budget items listed in the other category included i, offal disposal, breeding stock, miscellaneous equip- ' ment (bullets, knives, etc.), taxes, marketing, land rent, advertising, promotional fees, utilities, trans- portation of animals, repairs, supplies, travel, office costs, and depreciation. If the respondents are separated into ranchers, (all Texas respondents) and farmers (all non-Texas respondents), average annual operating costs are $5,062 and $18,736. Eight respondents fall into each category. The percentage of total cost associated figvith each budget item varied little between farmers _ d ranchers except for supplemental feed and the other cost category (Tables B5 and C5). Ranchers indicated supplemental feed was approximately 62 Table 5. Percent of total annual operating costs associated with different budget items.‘ Standard Budget Item Mean Minimum Maximum deviation Fence maintenance 12. O. 50. 13.0 Veterinary care 5. 0. 20. 6.2 Processing 3. O. 20. 5.6 Labor 14. O. 35. 11 .1 Supplemental feed 54. 5. 100. 27.7 Other 12. 0. 76. 26.0 ‘Based on 18 respondents. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. percent of their costs while farmers indicated it was only 46 percent of their costs. The other category was 6 percent of the average rancher’s budget, but was 18 percent of the average farmer’s budget. Average percentages for the remaining categories for ranch- ers and farmers are: 1) maintenance of fences, 15 percent and 10 percent, 2) veterinary care, 3 percent and 7 percent, 3) processing, 1 percent and 6 percent, and 4) labor, 14 percent and 13 percent. These percentages on based on nine farmers and nine ranchers completing this question. Care must be exercised in using and interpreting these cost figures because of the low number of respondents answering these questions. Fifty-three percent of the exotic meat producers used a local processing plant, 26 percent used a mobile processor, 15 percent processed their own meat, and 21 percent indicated some other form of processing. Other forms of processing commonly listed were other deer farmers, cooperatives, and department of agriculture slaughter houses. As before, the percentages do not sum to 100 percent because several respondents indicated their exotic meat was processed using more than one type of processor. Of those respondents indicating how they were paid for their exotic meat, 59 percent (20 respon- dents) indicated they were paid by hanging weight, 26 percent (9) were paid by liveweight, 21 percent (7) by processed weight, and 3 percent (1) on a per animal basis. Again the percentages do not sum to 100 percent, because several respondents indicated that they get paid using more than one payment scheme. A summary of prices received by species is presented in Tables 6, B6, and C6. Price received ranged considerably, even within a given species. As with the cost data, caution must be used in interpret- ing the price data because few respondents answered this question. One reason for the low response rate for this question is that many producers indicated they were new to the business and had not yet sold exotic meat. Twenty-four percent of the exotic meat produc- ers indicated they harvest less than 500 pounds of meat per year, 18 percent harvest between 500 and Table 6. Approximate price received per pound for various species.‘ Less $1 .01 $1 .51 $2.01 $2.51 More than to to to to than ‘ _‘ Species $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $5.00 $5.00 Liveweight ' / Axis deer 0 0 0 0 1 0 Fallow deer 0 0 2 3 2 0 Sika deer 0 0 1 0 0 0 Aoudad sheep 1 0 O 0 0 0 Blackbuck antelope 0 0 2 0 0 0 Nilgaiantelope 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hanging carcass weight Axis deer 0 0 1 2 2 0 Fallow deer 0 0 0 1 8 3 Sika deer 0 0 1 0 4 0 Aoudad sheep 2 0 0 0 0 0 Blackbuck antelope 0 0 1 3 1 0 Nilgai antelope 0 0 0 1 0 0 Less $2.01 $3.01 $5.01 $7.51 More than to to to to than $2.00 $3.00 $5.00 $7.50 $1 0.00 $1 0.00 Processed meat Axis deer 0 O 1 0 1 0 Fallow deer 0 0 3 2 5 2 Sika deer 0 0 2 0 0 1 Aoudad sheep 1 0 1 0 0 0 i 1 Blackbuck antelope 0 0 1 0 1 0 l Nilgai antelope 0 0 0 1 0 0 l" 5 ‘Figures represent the number of respondents indicating the price received for each species. 1,000 pounds, and 26 percent harvest between 1,000 and 2,500 pounds per year. Between 2,500 and 5,000 pounds of exotic meat are harvested annually by 29 percent of the producers. The remaining 3 percent harvest more than 5,000 pounds of meat per year. Most respondents indicated that they planned to increase the amount of meat produced. Respondents were asked to indicate where they sold their processed meat products if they processed their own venison. Of the respondents that pro- cessed their own meat, 30 percent sold to retail supermarkets, 70 percent to restaurants, 35 percent through mail order, and 50 percent used some other outlet. Other sales outlets mentioned were state fairs, wholesalers, and private individuals who visit their farms. The percentages do not sum to 100 percent because many respondents used more than one outlet. Exotic animals are harvested throughout the year, but 39 percent of the respondents indicated they harvested only once a year. Fifteen percent indicated they harvested twice a year, 12 percent three times a year, and 33 percent of the respondents harvested more than three times per year. Several respondents indicated they harvest as needed. The majority of respondents (7 1%) indicated that they harvest in the months of October through De- cember. The next largest percentage (35%) of respon- dents harvested in July through September. Twenty- four percent of the respondents harvested in January through March. The smallest percentage of respon- dents (2 1%) harvest in April through June. As before the percentages do not sum to 100 percent because several respondents harvest in more than one sea- son, although 53 percent of the respondents only harvested in one season. Thirty-six percent har- vested in two of the seasons, whereas, 6 percent harvested both in three seasons and year round. In Table D5, frequency of responses for selected questions concerning commercial meat operation are presented. These frequencies, along with Tables B5, B6, C5, and C6, suggest that few differences exist between Texas and non-Texas exotic meat producers with two notable exceptions. First, the type of com- mercial meat operations tend to be ranches in Texas and farms outside of Texas. Second, more producers appear to process their own venison outside of Texas. Responses to this section of the survey indicate a diversity of operations within the exotic meat indus- try. Overall, the responses reflect the newness of the exotic meat industry, but one should bear in min that exotic meat production has been in existence f0 some time. One respondent indicated he had beet? producing exotic meat for 15 years. Even from the limited responses on prices, it can be seen that a wide diversity of prices are received for exotic meat. Price uncertainty, therefore, appears to be an important consideration in exotic livestock enterprises. Nonmeat Production Operations Sixty-four of the respondents indicated that they do not currently raise exotics for venison production. Of these, 64 respondents, 44 percent indicated that they plan to adopt a commercial meat operation into their exotic livestock operations. Seventy-four per- cent of those planning to incorporate a commercial meat operation into their exotic operations were planning to farm exotic ungulates for meat. Of the remaining 26 percent, 4 percent were undecided what type of operation they would incorporate and 22 percent were going to operate a ranching operation. Thirty-two percent of those planning a meat opera- tion were going to start the operation within 1 year, 5O percent within 1 to 5 years, and the remaining 18 percent were not going to start for at least 5 years. Reasons given for not currently producing exotic meat included not having exotic deer (3 percent), currently selling brood stock (35 percent), exotic meat production not profitable (12 percent), trophy hunting more profitable (25 percent), lack of a mar- ket to sell exotic meat (10 percent), lack of marketing and management knowledge (22 percent), and other (38 percent). A majority of the “other” responses indicated that the respondents were just getting started and currently were building up their herds. One respondent indicated the distance to a market was prohibitive to make exotic meat production prof- itable to them. Other reasons mentioned include habitat poorly suited to support enough exotics for venison production, lack of facilities, and the hassles associated with meat inspections. Finally, one re- spondent indicated that his ostrich and emu opera- tions were more profitable than venison production; therefore, he is concentrating on these operations. Again the percentages do not sum to 100 percent because more than one reason was given by several producers as to why they do not currently produce exotic meat. It is interesting that the lack of a market and not profitable were reasons given by only a few of the producers. Lack of marketing and manage- ment knowledge was indicated by more producers. This may indicate a need for seminars directed more toward marketing than production aspects. Of those respondents planning to start a com- mercial venison operation, the majority, 51 percent, planned for a local processing plant to process their meat. Thirty-two percent of the respondents were undetermined as to who would process their animals, 7 percent planned to process their own animals, 11 percent planned to use a mobile processor, and 4 percent planned some other form of processing. Again . ‘these percentages do not sum to 100 percent because ‘several respondents indicated multiple planned sources of processing. Fewer Texas respondents plan to adopt a venison operation (Table D6) than non-Texas respondents. Most non-Texas respondents starting a commercial meat operation will farm, whereas, Texas respon- dents will ranch. Trophy hunting and venison pro- duction profitability are the major reasons why Texas respondents do not produce exotic meat. These two reasons were not mentioned by non-Texas respon- dents. Again, these differences can be attributed to the differences in the type of operation, farming (smaller acreages) versus ranching (larger acreages), between Texas and non-Texas respondents. Approximately one-half of the respondents that do not currently produce venison indicated that they had plans to start such an operation. The major reasons for not currently producing exotic meat were; 1) currently selling brood stock was more profitable, 2) lack the necessary facilities, 3) currently expand- ing their herd, or 4) trophy hunting was more profit- able. Lack of a market to_sell their products was mentioned by only a few of the respondents. More respondents indicated a lack of knowledge about the possible markets as a reason for not producing. The majority of respondents planning to start a meat operation had made decisions concerning who would process their animals. Development of Exotic Meat Production Industry Section IV of the questionnaire focused on fac- tors that may be important to the development of the commercial exotic meat industry. All respondents, whether they currently produce exotic meat or not, were asked to complete this section of the survey. Respondents were asked to circle a number between zero and 10 depending on their attitudes about state- ments associated with development of the industry. In general, a 1O indicated the respondents strongest agreement with the statement and a zero repre- sented the strongest disagreement. For all state- ments, a wide range of attitudes existed as evidence by the range of responses. Attitudes concerning the profitability of exotic meat operations and the marketing of exotic meats are summarized in Table 7. Respondents, in general, agreed with all statements except the statement that exotic meat prices should be low to compete with beef. The highest mean responses were for the two state- ments: “exotic meat will become a popular alterna- tive to other meats” and “commercial exotic meat production will increase in importance as a viable ranch enterprise”. Although the respondents felt strongly that exotic meat production will become a viable enterprise, they felt less strong about exotics becoming a major industry. Respondents indicated they felt that exotic meat could be most successfully marketed through gour- met restaurants, specialty shops, health food stores, and mail order catalogs (Table 8). This is not surpris- ing because officials in the industry are targeting Table 7. Attitudes concerning the profitability and marketing of exotic meats.‘ Stand. Number of Statement Mean Min. Max. dev. respond. Exotic livestock ranching y is a profitable enterprise 6.9a 2. 1o. 2.29 91 ‘Er w Exotic livestock farming is a profitable enterprise 7.32 0. 10. 2.52 , 87 Exotic meat will become l a popular alternative to othermeat 7.87 0. 10. 2.32 91 Exotic meat should be priced low to compete with beef 2.80 0. 10. 3.15 91 Commercial exotic meat production will become a major industry 6.20 0. 10. 2.41 82 Exotic meat should remain a specialty item 6.49 0. 10. 3.23 92 Commercial exotic meat production will increase in importance as a viable ranch enterprise 7.91 1. 10. 2.11 91 ‘Based on a scale of 0 to 10 with 0 being strong disagreement and 10 being strong agreement. Abbreviations are: min. - minimum, max. - maximum, stand. dev. - standard deviation, respond. - respondents. Table 8. Attitudes concerning marketing outlets tor exotic meats.‘ Stand. Number of Outlet M an M'n. M . d . r nd. l e I ax ev espo ‘J? Retail supermarkets 5.40 O. 10. 2.74 77 T Gourmet restaurants 9.28 4. 10. 1 .18 88 Specialty shop 8.48 0. 10. 2.09 85 Health food store 7.83 0. 10. 2.25 81 Mail order catalog 6.77 0. 10. 2.76 83 Overseas 5.61 0. 10. 3.68 77 Others 6.50 0. 10. 3.16 8 ‘Based on a scale ofOto 10 with 0 being strong disagreement and 10 being strong agreement. Abbreviations are: min. - minimum, max. - maximum, stand. dev. - standard deviation, respond. - respondents. these markets. The average score for overseas mar- ing costs, production costs, exotic species used, size of keting, however, is surprisingly low, because other herd, location of processor, and animal welfare all countries developing exotic meat industries (espe- had mean responses in the average range of impor- cially deer) have targeted Germany as their major tance, whereas veterinary costs and luck had mean market. Many industry officials feel that the Ger- responses in the least important range. Other impor- man market offers the most potential for growth tant factors listed by the respondents included avail- (Jones). This may indicate a lack of information in ability of competent labor and experienced exotic the industry or reflect the difficulties in exporting veterinarians, available grazing, housing and han- exotic meats that have been encountered by the dling facilities, location of the producer, and govern- w industry. Several respondents indicated that mar- keting exotic meat directly to individuals is a success- ful alternative outlet. Others felt the product needs to be sold as a processed specialty product to be profitable. Development of a market was rated as the most important factor to the success of an individual exotic meat producer (Table 9). Factors closely following market development were price of exotic meats, and management ability. Climate, fencing costs, process- ment regulations (lack of, existing, and potential). Finally, in this section of the questionnaire, respondents’ opinions concerning the current mar- keting conditions for exotic meat products were as- certained (Table 10). The respondents, in general, disagreed with the statement that enough marketing outlets exist for the sale of exotic meat. The attitudr receiving the highest agreement was that consumerm c are not aware of the nutritional attributes of exoti meats. Table 9. Attitudes concerning factors important to the success of individual exotic meat producers.‘ Stand. Number of Factor Mean Min. Max. dev. respond. Climate 6.30 0. 10. 2.56 89 Q Fencing cost 7.48 2. 10. 2.28 9O Processing cost 6.64 0. 10. 2.28 85 Production cost 7.25 0. 10. 2.18 87 Veterinary medicine cost 4.80 0. 10. 2.83 87 Exotic species used 7.66 2. 10. 2.18 88 Size of herd 7.42 0. 10. 2-41 85 Location of processor 6.65 0. 10. 2.81 89 Price of exotic meat 8.78 O. 10. 1.67 g 88 Development of a market 9.35 5. 10. 1.10 89 Managementability 8.35 0. 10. 2.04 88 Animal welfare activity 6.75 O. 10. 2.87 85 Luck 4.45 0. 10. 3.44 83 Others 7.30 0. 10. 4.00 10 ‘Based on a scale of 0 to 1 0 with O being strong disagreement and 1 0 being strong agreement. Abbreviations are: min. - minimum, max. - maximum, stand. dev. - standard deviation, respond. - respondents. Table 10. Attitudes concerning current marketing conditions for the exotic meat production industry.‘ Stand. Number of Statement Mean Min. Max. dev. respond. Prices received for harvested exotic meat are too low 5.78 0. 10. 3.07 91 AEnough marketing outlets exist for the sale of exotic meat 2.94 0. 10. 2.92 90 There are too few exotic meat processors 6.46 0. 10. 2.98 90 Consumers are not aware of nutritional attributes of exotic meats 7.82 _ 1 . 10. 2.47 90 Exotic meat production costs are too high 4.97 0. 10. 2.70 91 ‘Based on a scale ofOto 10 with 0 being strong disagreement and 1 O being strong agreement. Abbreviations are: min. - minimum, max. - maximum, stand. dev. - standard deviation, respond. - respondents. In Tables B7 through B10 and C7 through C10, attitudes for the two groups, non-Texas and Texas, are presented. The mean attitudes are generally more positive for the non-Texas respondents, but in most cases the means are not significantly different. Attitudes concerning the development of an ex- , otic meat industry varied considerably between re- spondents as indicated by the range of responses. Respondents felt that exotic meat production would \ become a viable alternative agricultural enterprise. The majority of respondents felt that exotic meat should not be priced to compete with beef, but rather kept as a specialty item. Development of a market, management ability, and price of exotic meat were indicated as the most important factors contributing to the success of an individual producer. The respon- flents, in general, felt not enough marketing outlets . isted for the sale of exotic meat. Veterinary Medicine Practices Thirty-seven of the 96 respondents (39 percent) who responded to the veterinary practices section indicated they had a contract or professional agree- ment for veterinary services. Eighty-four respon- dents indicated the percent of chemical immobiliza- tion performed by veterinarians. The mean percent of chemical immobilization performed by veterinar- ians is 25 percent with a standard deviation of 39 percent. Forty-nine percent of the 84 respondents indicated that a veterinarian was never present for chemical immobilization, 15 respondents indicated that a veterinarian was always present, whereas 17 indicated a veterinarian was present 5O percent of the time or less. In Texas a veterinarian tends to be present less often that outside of Texas (Table D7). A summary of the drugs used in chemical immo- bilization is presented in Table 11 (Table B11 and C1 1 present Texas and non-Texas respondents). The two most commonly used drugs are Succinylcholine and Xylazine, accounting for 81 percent of the immo- bilization. Some respondents indicated the use of drugs for chemical immobilization, but the choice of which drugs to use was left up to the veterinarian and they did not know which drugs were used. Several respondents indicated they use crush holding equip- ment instead of chemical immobilization. Table 11. Percent of immobilizations that utilize the following drugs.‘ Standard Drug Mean Minimum Maximum deviation Succinylcholine 40.3 0. 100. 44.8 Haloperidol 0.3 0. 10. 1 .4 Ketamine 7.3 0. 100. 17.8 Xylazine 41 .3 0. 100. 42.6 Acepromazine 1 .4 0. 40. 6.2 Etorphine 2.5 0. 75. 12.0 Carfentanyl 0.1 0. 5. 0.6 Other 7.0 0. 100. 24.9 ‘Based on 61 respondents. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. The most commonly used preventive medicine program is scheduled parasite examinations/deworm- ing, which was regularly used by 75 percent of the respondents. The next two most common programs are vaccination (48 percent of the respondents) and quar- antine of incoming animals (43 percent). Tuberculosis testing and serum evaluation for evidence of diseases were used by 33 percent and 32 percent of the respon- dents. Ten percent of the respondents reported using some other type of preventive medicine program in- cluding decox for coocidiosis, periodic addition of stom- ach bacteria, good range conservation practices, and feed additives. The percentages do not sum to 100 percent because more than one type of preventive medicine program was commonly used. Less Texas respondents employ preventive programs than non- Texas respondents (Table D7). Parasitism is by far the most common health problem with traumatic injury (lightening, fighting, breeding, etc.) the second most common problem (Tables 12, B12, and C12). Other health problems mentioned include plant and other poisonings, noninfectious diseases (bacterial, enteritis, skin, etc.), fusobacterium, vitamin D and E deficiency, selenium deficiency, loss of stomach bacteria, and predator problems. One respondent indicated cold tempera- tures were responsible to a small degree for some health problems. Most respondents indicated that health problems were not a major factor in their operations. Several respondents indicated health problems were few because they concentrated on prevention. Few differences in herd health problems are noted between Texas and non-Texas respondents (Table D8). 10 Table 12. Percentage of various health problems.‘ Standard Health Problem Mean Minimum Maximum deviation Parasitism 51. 0. 100. 41.8 Infectious diseases 6. 0. 100. 17.4 Traumatic injury 24. 0. 100. 31 .4 Reproductive _ problems 10. 0. 100. 21.2 Other 9. 0. 100. 25.5 ‘Based on 63 respondents. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. It appears that attention to the animals’ welfare r is an important component of the respondents’ exotic operations. The majority of respondents had some form of preventive health program. As with other aspects of the exotic industry, a wide range of preven- tive medicine programs was exhibited. Although health problems were indicated as being minor, re- spondents did indicate a wide range of problems associated with exotic animals. Demographics Age of the respondents ranged between 28 and 81 years with a mean of 51.3 years and a standard deviation of 13.6 years. Ninety-five percent of the respondents were male. Education of the respon- dents was measured using the last year of school completed, which averaged 15.6 years, or .4 of a year v short of a college degree. Last school year completed ranged from 7 to 21+ years and had a standard deviation of 3.1 years. In Table D1, frequencies for age and education categories are summarized. For the respondents’ spouses, average last school year completed was 14.4 years with a standard deviation of 2.5 years and a range of 8 to 21+. The majority of the respondents(55 percent) belonged to the North American Deer Farmers Association. Forty-two per- cent belonged to the Exotic Wildlife Association and 1 1 percent belonged to no associations. Twenty-four percent of the respondents belong to other associa- tions. The size of the respondents’ overall business operations varied considerably. The average number of acres owned was 4,314 acres with a standard deviation of 11,425 acres. Acres owned ranged from 0 to 70,000 acres as two respondents indicated they own no acreage. Twenty-four percent of the respon- dents indicated that they leased some acreage. The number of leased acres averaged 1,986 acres with a standard deviation of 7,501 acres and a range of 0 to 50,000 acres. If only those respondents that lease acreage are considered, the average number of leased acres is 8,123 acres, with a standard deviation of 13,646 acres and a range of 20 to 50,000 acres. As with acres associated with exotic livestock, differ- ences in total acreage owned and leased are seehy between Texas and non-Texas respondents (Table D2). Texas respondents tend to own more acreage. Q ‘D Other indicators of the diversity and size of operations are the types of operations that comprise the respondents’ business enterprise and household gross income. The majority of respondents (58 per- cent) were involved in off-farm nonagricultural busi- nesses. Forty-four percent of the respondents were involved in conventional livestock operations, whereas 22 percent were involved in crop production. Finally, 14 percent of the respondents were involved in some form of nonfarm agricultural related business. The percentages do not sum to 100 percent because the respondents were asked to circle all operations in which they were involved. Average reported gross income range was be- tween $80,000 and $89,0000. Incomes greater than $130,000, were listed by 34 of the 66 respondents (40 percent) completing this question. At the other extreme, 13 respondents indicated a gross income of $29,000 or less. The second most common income category was the $50,000 to $59,000 income range (1 1 respondents). In Table 13, the percentages of gross income associated with the various business opera- tions are presented. Finally, the number of respon- dents in which 50 percent or more of their income came from a specific operation was determined. Only two respondents indicated that 50 percent or more of their gross income was from agribusiness sources, while three respondents indicated that 50 percent or more of their income came from crop farming. Six respondents indicated that livestock operations pro- vided 50 percent or more of their gross income and 12 indicated their exotic operations provided the major- ity of their income. Fifty-five respondents indicated off-farm income provide the majority of their gross income. Few differences are seen between Texas and non-Texas respondents in terms of education (Table D1) and income (Tables D9 and D10). A breakdown of respondent’s gross income and size of operation by the number of years exotic livestock have been owned is presented in Table D11. Table 13. Percentage of gross income from various sources.‘ Standard Source Mean Minimum Maximum deviation Cropfarming 6. 0. 90. 17.4 Livestock 10. 0. 95. 20.1 Exotic livestock 19. 0. 100. 29.7 Agribusiness 3. O. 70. 10.9 Nonagribusiness 62. O. 100. 38.0 ‘Based on 78 respondents. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. Respondents owning exotic livestock are on av- erage well educated, with the mean education level being just short of a college degree. Exotic operations verall business operations, be it a consciences or fiilso appear to be a diversification of the respondents’ unconsciences decision. Further, many of the re- spondents are in a high gross income bracket. The 11 majority of gross income is from nonagricultural sources. Overall, business operations showed a di- versity of sizes and enterprises. Respondents’ Comments The last question in the demographics section was open ended asking the respondent to provide any additional information they felt was important to the development of the exotic meat industry. Responses to this open ended question are summarized here. Education about and information concerning the exotic livestock industry were concerns listed by many of the respondents. The lack of information was explicitly noted by one respondent who com- mented on his inability to obtain a loan, because the bank felt not enough information was available about the exotic industry. Lack of knowledge was not just about the industry, but also on management tech- niques available to producers. To overcome the lack of knowledge, one respondent indicated that univer- sity short courses (possibly extension outreach) on deer farming and ranching should be developed us- ing proven management schemes and not experi- mental ones. Respondents varied in their opinions concerning governments role in the exotic industry. Several respondents indicated that regulations concerning the exotic industry, licensing, processing, and rais- ing of exotic animals, were a problem area. One respondent felt states should get involved in regulat- ing facilities and auctions. Another felt the current agricultural land tax exemption was unfair, avail- able to meat producers, but not allowed if hunting was the exclusive use of the exotic livestock. One respondent went so far as to suggest the government should subsidize the industry to reduce the risk involved and help with the initial start-up expenses. The exotic industry has been neglected by traditional ranching and farming organizations was a sentiment expressed by another respondent. One respondent indicated the need for consistency between state and federal agencies concerning regulations affecting the exotic livestock industry. I Several respondents indicated why venison pro- duction is currently not a viable alternative in their exotic operations. One respondent indicated that meat production was only viable for surplus females, because of the price received for trophy hunting of male animals. Because of large overhead costs, this same respondent indicated that venison production favors the larger operators. Another respondent explicitly noted that the price of antler velvet is too high for venison production. For example, he noted he could sell elk for approximately $1,500 for meat or could sell the velvet for approximately $1,500 annu- ally. Several respondents indicated their exotics were free roaming and it was too expensive to erect fences or to catch them at current prices. Two respondents commented on the quality of the industry and of the venison produced. One indicated the importance of doing everything prop- erly (fencing, veterinarian care, feeding, etc.) be- cause anything less would undermine the whole industry to a certain extent. This comment may be particularly relevant when considering respondents’ comments concerning confrontations between ani- mal rights activists and the exotic industry. The second type of quality mentioned was the quality of venison produced. The respondent indicated that the species, age at slaughter, and feed used are impor- tant in determining this quality. Although not men- tioned by any respondent, the quality issue may indicate the need for standards concerning exotic meats. The importance of developing marketing av- enues for exotic meats and the need for additional processors were mentioned as problems in the exotic industry. One respondent had an insightful com- ment concerning the trend toward the direct market- ing of exotic meats from the farmer to the consumer. He indicated that this trend could not continue as the number of producers increases. Another respondent indicated that in addition to attention to market development, lack of stock to expand production was a problem in meeting demand. Several respondents commented on the importance of educating the pub- lic to exotic meats’ health benefits and that not all exotic meats have a gamey taste. One respondent indicated that an important group of customers would be the ones that have health problems but still want red meat in their diets. Educating the public is seen as an avenue to increase demand. Concerning the current market, one respondent felt the market needs to be stabilized at the current prices. Another indi- cated the industry needs to have an increased supply of the product before it increases the demand in order not to alienate consumers. Several respondents indicated concern over the current state of the industry. One felt too many people were raising exotics without a plan. Another felt “suitcase” exotic owners were driving up stocker prices which was both good and bad. Increased stocker prices were good for those producers selling breeding stock, but hurt those in commercial venison production. The final set of comments could not be easily classified into any of the above categories. Several respondents noted that different areas of the country may have advantages and disadvantages in raising exotic livestock. For example, they felt that diseases were less of a problem in the north than in the south, but feeding costs may be higher in the north. One envisioned an industry similar to the cattle industry in which animals were moved around; possibly bred in the north and fed in the south. Another respondent indicated that cattle and exotic deer are comparable in many ways except for the fencing costs and main- tenance (mainly predator control). A higher price was needed to offset the higher investment costs for exotics and because exotics had a smaller carcass weight. Another respondent indicated they were 12 trying to determine the maximum number of deer per irrigated acre. On the other extreme, several respon- dents indicated water was a limiting resource. Irriga- tion costs are too high to make irrigation a feasible alternative in producing exotic livestock. Finally, ag, respondent who raises deer in both the U. S. and New Zealand indicated that the U. S. needs to avoid the problems encountered in New Zealand over the con- trol of the product. Currently in New Zealand, control of the product is shared by both the producer and the processor. The respondent felt the result of shared control is inadequate and often adversarial. Conclusions A prevailing theme throughout the responses is that the exotic ungulate industry is in the introduc- tory stage. Results supporting this contention are: 1) the mean number of years exotic have been raised is low, 2) the majority of respondents plan to expand their operations, 3) the sale of brood stock accounts for 45 percent of gross revenues, 4) diversity of prices received for exotic meats, 5) approximately one-half of respondents who currently do not produce meat plan to start a commercial meat operation, and 6) respondents indicated a lack of management knowl- edge and marketing outlets. Overall, the respondents’ comments gave an optimistic impression of the exotic livestock indus- try. This is expected as the respondents are currently w)’ U involved in this developing industry. This repQrtEéF/ concentrated on exotic meat production and the re- sults need to be interpreted in this light. There are many aspects of the exotic livestock industry not covered in this report. Other areas, such as con- sumer acceptance, marketing channels, cost and return budgeting, nutrition aspects of venison, etc. must be studied to fully understand the economic potential of this developing industry. Anyone contemplating entering the exotic live- stock industry should do so with caution. The re- sponses summarized here are from individuals cur- rently in the industry; therefore, it should be ex- pected that the results paint an optimistic picture. In discussing fish farming and farm failures, Klinefelter cautions producers against”... looking for a pot of gold in alternative enterprises.” The assumption of an unlimited market at a profitable price is never true. Further, a caution for potential producers is the pyramid structure of new industries. As more and more producers enter the industry, the production of meat will replace the sale of breeding stock as the main income source. Meat production may not be as economically attractive as current breeding stock enterprises. Also, the price of exotic meats may decrease as more producers start to sell meat. Pro- ducers and potential producers must be aware of the risks involved in a new industry. As with any new enterprise, careful consideration and analysis is nec- essary before undertaking the enterprise. ¢. V4 t» References flAbles, E. D. ed. The Axis Deer in Texas. Kleburg Studies in Natural Resources. Texas Agricul- tural Experiment Station. 1977. Baccus, J. T., D. E. Hamel, and W. E. Armstrong. “Management of Exotic Deer in Conjunction with White-tailed Deer.” In S. L. Beasom and S. F. Roberson, eds. Game Harvest Management. Ceasar Kleburg Wildlife Res. Inst. Kingsville, Tx. pp. 231-226. 1985. Cushman, D. “Farm Deer, A New Darling in Restau- rants.” USA Today. September 18, 1989: Section D, p. 1. Demarias, S. and D. Osborn. “Exotic Big Game in Texas: Status of Our Knowledge.” Texas Tech University: College of Agricultural Sciences Publication NO. T-9-536. 1978. Dillman, O.E. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978. Fohn, J. “Group Bucks Tradition by Raising Exotic Deer on Farms for Venison.” San Antonio Ex- press News. April 29, 1989, Section G, p. 3. M Jones, J. B. “Analysis of the Exotic Livestock Indus- try.” Unpublished Master of Science paper. Dept. of Ag. Econ. Texas A & M University, College Station, TX July, 1990. Jooste, J.F. “Game Farming as a Supplementry Farming Activity in the Karoo.” Proceeding of the Grassland Society of South Africa. 18(1983):46-49. Klinefelter, D. “Causes of Farm and Ranch Fail- ures.” Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Research Report, No. B-1630. College Station, TX 1989. fi 13 Larson, J . A. “Deer Farming: July, 1979 - May, 1989.” Quick Bibliography Series. U.S.D.A., July, 1989. Machan, D. “Bambi and the Baron.” Forbes. Decem- ber 11, 1989. p. 298. Mehta, N. S. “The Game is up!” Time. November 6, 1989. Otway, W.T. “Deer Farming in New Zealand and China.” Epsom, Auckland, New Zealand: Cairnhill Health Center. 1985. Ramsey, C.W. “Exotic Game on Texas Rangelands.” Proceedings: Soil Conservation Society of America. Ankeny, Iowa. 1975 p. 123-127. Texas Department of Agriculture. “Exotic Game in Texas: An Overview of Commercial Potential.” Spring, 1989. Traweek, M.S. “Statewide Census of Exotic Big Game Animals.” Performance Report as Required by Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. Fed- eral Aid Project No. W-109-R-12. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Tx. March 1989. 'I‘rejo, F. “Wild Game is Target of Promotion.” The Dallas Morning News. August 25, 1989. Von Kerckerinck zur Borg, J . Deer Farming in North America: The Conquest on a New Frontier. Rhinebech, New York: Planter Press. 1987. Yerex, D. “Deer Still Inspire Confidence.” New Zealand Journal of Agriculture. 149(1981):22- 23. Yerex, D. and I. Spiers. Modern Deer Farm Manage- ment. Carterton, New Zealand: Ampersand Publishing Associates, LTD. 1987 . Appendix A Survey Questionnaire ~<.'. EXOTIC LIVESTOCK RANCHERS/FARMERS SURVEY A Marketing Analysis of the Exotic Livestock Industry If you have any questions about the survey, please call i e‘, Dr. Jim Mjelde at (409) 845-1492. 14 DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN THE EXOTIC GAME RANCHER'S SURVEY This survey is primarily concerned with marketing aspects of exotic deer, sheep, and antelope operations. In the survey, the word exotic livestock is used to represent different exotic species of antelope (nilgai and blackbuck), deer (axis, fallow, and sika), and sheep (auodad). The term exotic meat is used to represent the meat produced from these exotic deer, sheep, and antelope species. Two different management practices are possible for production of exotic livestock; deer ranching and deer farming. The main difference between the two is that ranching is relatively less management intensive than deer farming. In livestock ranching, after initial release onto the land, deer are not typically handled again until harvest. Deer farming however, is more like a cow-calf operaton. Deer are herded to different pastures for grazing and are handled for management practices such as antler removal and vaccinations. These terms are used throughout the survey. Please keep these definitions in mind as you fill out the survey. Thanks for your cooperation. 15 1. Do you own exotic livestock? 1 YES — GO TO SECTION I , l A 2 NO —— stop here and please return the survey in the enclosed envelope. i/i SECTION I: EXOTIC LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS The following questions pertain to general aspects about your exotic livestock operations. 2. How long have you had exotic livestock? YEARS 3. On how many acres do you have exotic livestock? ACRES 4. What kind of land is your exotic livestock on? (circle all that apply) 1 NATIVE PASTURE 2 IMPROVED PASTURES 5. How many of each exotic livestock species do you have? (Circle the letter under the category that best approximates the number of each species that you own.) LESS 20 101 251 501 MORE Jr!‘ THAN TO TO TO TO THAN t; SPECIES ZERO 20 100 250 500 1000 1000 AXIS A B C D E F G FALLOW A B C D E F G SIKA A B C D E F G AUODAD A B C D E F G BLACKBUCK A A B C D E F G NILGAI A B C D E F G OTHER (Specify) A B C D E F G A B C D E F G 6. How did you obtain your initial brood stock of exotic livestock? (Circle all that apply.) u 1 AUCTION 2 EXOTIC DEALER 3 OTHER RANCHER 4 OTHER (Please specify) 5 OTHER (Please specify) Vi" 16 7. From total gross revenue earned from your exotic livestock enterprise, what percentage of this revenue is obtained from each of the following operations? (Fill in the blank with the estimated percent value.) a Percent of revenue from: % TROPHY HUNTING % RECREATIONAL VIEWING % SELL OF BROOD STOCK % % PRODUCTION OF EXOTIC MEAT OTHER (Please specify) 100% TOTAL* ‘ *Total should equal 100% 8. Please identify the species involved with each ranching operation. For each species of exotic livestock that you have on your ranch, circle the letter under the activity(s) that it is used for. SALE TROPHY RECREATIONAL OF BROOD EXOTIC MEAT HUNTING VIEWING STOCK PRODUCTION OTHER AXIS A B C D E FALLOW A B C D E SIKA A B C D E AUODAD A B C D E BLACKBUCK A B C D E NILGAI A B C D E OTHER (Specify) A B C D E A B C D E 9. If you sell brood stock, at approximately what price is each species sold‘? (Fill in all blanks next to the exotic livestock that you sell and indicate N/A if you don't sell.) $ PER YEARLING $ PER MATURE ANIMAL MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE AXIS $ $ $ $ FALLOW $ $ $ $ j SIKA $ $ $ $ AUODAD $ $ $ $ BLACKBUCK $ $ $ $ NILGAI $ $ $ $ OTHER _ (Specify) _____ $ ______ $ ____ $ ____ _______ $ ____ $ ____ $ _____ $ 17 10. 11. 12. 13. Why are you producing exotic livestock? (Circle all that apply.) 1 PROFITABILITY a 2 PRESERVATION OF SPECIES '1 3 REDUCE RISK OF RANCHING OPERATION l‘ 4 AESTHETIC VALUE 5 OTHER (Please specify) Which of the following best describes the expectations you have for your exotic livestock operations over the next five years? 1 EXPANSION (11a.) 2 NO CHANGE _ so T0 QUESTION 12 3 CONTRACTION (11b.) 11a. By how much? 11b. By how much? 1 DOUBLE 1 DISCONTINUE 2 TRIPLE 2 ONE HALF CURRENT SIZE 3 OTHER (Please specify) 3 OTHER (Please specify) Do you use commercial advertising for any of your exotic livestock operations? 1 YES 2 NO — GO TO QUESTION 13 12.1 Where do you advertise your exotic livestock operations? (Circle all that apply) TRADE PUBLICATION NEWSPAPER / MAGAZINE RADIO / TV OWN BROCHURE OTHER (Please specify) enemies- 12.2 How much do you spend on advertising annually? LESS THAN $500 $500 - $1500 $1501 - $2500 $2501 - $5000 MORE THAN $5000 Ulr-PCiJNJb-l Do you currently produce exotic meat commercially? 1 YES — GO TO SECTION II, NEXT PAGE 2 N O - GO TO SECTION III ON PAGE 7 18 D SECTION II: COMMERCLAL EXOTIC MEAT PRODUCTION This section is for farmers and ranchers that currently participate in commercial exotic meat production. How long have you been producing exotic meat commercially? YEARS 15. What kind of production operation do you use? 1 DEER RANCHING 2 DEER FARMING 16. What is your approximate total annual cost associated with exotic meat production and the percentage of total annual cost that each activity includes? $ TOTAL ANNUAL COST Percent of total annual cost that are: % MAINTENANCE COSTS OF FENCING % VETERINARY CARE / DRUGS % PROCESSING % LABOR (HANDLING) % SUPPLEMENTAL FEED % OTHER (Please specify) 100% TOTAL* *Tota1 should equal 100%. 17. Who processes your exotic meat? (Circle all that apply.) LOCAL PROCESSING PLANT MOBILE PROCESSOR PROCESS MY OWN LIVESTOCK OTHER (Please specify) AwNr-l 18. Where are your animals killed? 1 ON PREMISES 2 AT MEAT PACKAGING PLANT 3 OTHER (Please specify) 19. How close to your ranch/farm is the nearest exotic meat processor? (Please answer even if you process your own exotic meat) MILES 19 20. 21. 22. 23. How are you paid for the harvested animals? PROCESSED PRODUCT —- GO TO QUESTION 22 LIVE WEIGHT — GO TO QUESTION 21 Q . HANGING CARCASS WEIGHT -— GO TO QUESTION 21 OTHER (Please specify) — GO TO QUESTION 21 nonwh- How much are you paid on average per pound for exotic meat? Circle the letter corresponding to the exotic species and price received for that species. (After you have answered this question, go to question 23.) LESS $1.00 $1.51 $2.01 $2.50 MORE THAN TO TO TO TO THAN A SPECIES $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $5.00 $5.00 AXIS A B C D E F FALLOW A B C D E F SIKA A B C D E F AOUDAD A B C D E F BLACKBUCK A B C D E F NILGAI A B C I D E F OTHER (Specify) A B C D E F A B C D F GO TO QUESTION 23 How much are you paid on average per pound for processed exotic meat? Circle the number corresponding to the exotic species and price of the processed product received for that species. LESS $2.01 $3.01 $5.01 $7.51 MORE THAN TO TO TO TO THAN SPECIES $2.00 $3.00 $5.00 $7.50 $10.00 $10.00 AXIS A B C D E F FALLOW A B C D E F SIKA A B C D E F AUODAD A B C D E F BLACKBUCK A B C D E F NILGAI A B C D E F OTHER (Specify) A B C D E F t A B D E F How many pounds (carcass weight) of exotic meat per year are processed from your herd? LESS THAN 500 LBS PER YEAR 500 - 1000 LBS PER YEAR 1001 - 2500 LBS PER YEAR 2501 - 5000 LBS PER YEAR MORE THAN 5000 LBS PER YEAR viva-cow»- 20 24. If you process your own exotic meat, where do you sell the processed product? (Circle all that apply.) I ‘U RETAIL SUPERMARKET RESTAURANT MAIL ORDER CATALOG OTHER (Please specify) $00M»- 25. How many times a year do you harvest your exotic livestock? ONCE PER YEAR TWICE PER YEAR THREE TIMES PER YEAR OTHER (Please specify) meow»- 26. In which quarter do you harvest your exotic livestock? (Circle all that apply.) 1 2 3 4 PLEASE GO TO SECTION IV ON PAGE 8. JANUARY, FEBRUARY, MARCH APRIL, MAY, JUNE JULY, AUGUST, SEPTEMBER OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, DECEMBER 21 SECTION III: NON-EXOTIC MEAT PRODUCTION OPERATIONS 27. 28. 29v. 30. 31. 32. This section is for ranchers that do not currently raise exotic livestock for meat production. ~- Do you plan on adopting commercial exotic meat production to your operations? 1 YES 2 NO — GO TO QUESTION 32 What kind of exotic meat producing operation are you planning to adopt? 1 DEER FARMING 2 DEER RANCHING 3 UN DETERMINED Who will process the exotic meat? (Circle all that apply.) 1 UNDETERMINED 2 PROCESS YOURSELF 3 MOBILE PROCESSOR 4 LOCAL PROCESSING PLANT 5 OTHER (Please specify) If you will process the exotic meat yourself, where will you sell the processed product? (Circle all that apply.) 1 WILL NOT PROCESS MY OWN EXOTIC MEAT é; 2 UNDETERMINED 3 RETAIL SUPERMARKET 4 RESTAURANT 5 MAIL ORDER CATALOG 6 OTHER (Please specify) When do you plan to start a commercial exotic meat production operation? 1 WITHIN 1 YEAR 2 BETWEEN 2 AND 5 YEARS 3 MORE THAN 5 YEARS FROM NOW Why don't you currently produce exotic meat? (Circle all that apply.) 1 DO NOT HAVE EXOTIC DEER, ANTELOPE OR SHEEP 2 SELL BROOD STOCK k 3 EXOTIC MEAT PRODUCTION IS NOT PROFITABLE 4 TROPHY HUNTING OPERATION IS MORE PROFITABLE 5 LACK OF A MARKET TO SELL EXOTIC MEAT 6 LACK OF MARKETING AND MANAGEMENT KNOWLEDGE 7 OTHER REASONS (Please specify) PLEASE GO TO SECTION IV ON PAGE 8. 22 SECTION IV: DEVELOPMENT OF EXOTIC MEAT PRODUCTION INDUSTRY ‘Q This section focuses on factors that respondents find important to the development of the commercial exotic meat industry and is to be answered by all respondents. I‘ 33. On a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 representing your strongest disagreement and 10 representing your strongest agreement, circle the number that best describes your attitude about the following statements. Strongly Not Strongly Disagree Sure Agree 33a. Exotic livestock ranching is a profitable enterprise O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 33b. Exotic livestock farming is a profitable enterprise 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 33c. Exotic meat will become a popular alternative to other meats O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 33d. Exotic meat should be priced low to compete with beef 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 33c. Commercial exotic meat production will become a major industry in Texas 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -"\ 33f. Exotic meat should remain a speciality item 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 33g. Commercial exotic meat production will increase in importance as a viable ranch enterprise 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 34. Where do you believe exotic meat products can be most successfully marketed‘? Least Most Successful Average Successful RETAIL SUPERMARKETS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 GOURMET RESTAURANTS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SPECIALTY SHOPS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 HEALTH FOOD STORES 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 \ MAIL-ORDER CATALOGS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 OVERSEAS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 OTHER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ."\ 23 35. 36. Identify factors that are important to the sucess of the individual exotic meat producer. Least Most Important Average Important CLIMATE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FENCING COSTS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PROCESSING COSTS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PRODUCTION COSTS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 VETERINARY MEDICAL COSTS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EXOTIC SPECIES USED 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SIZE OF HERD 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LOCATION OF PROCESSOR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PRICE OF EXOTIC MEAT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DEVELOPMENT OF A MARKET O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MANAGEMENT ABILITY 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ANIMAL WELFARE ACTIVITIES 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LUCK 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 OTHER (Please specify) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Indicate whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the current marketing conditions for exotic meat products. Strongly No Strongly Disagree Opinion Agree 36a. Prices received for harvested exotic meat are too low 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 36b. Enough marketing outlets exist for the sale of exotic meat 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 36c. There are too few exotic meat processors 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 36d. Consumers are not aware of nutritional attributes of exotic meat 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 36e. Exotic meat production costs are too high 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 24 Q3, -\ \ Section V: VETERINARY PRACTICES The following questions pertain to veterinary practices of your exotic livestock operation. This section t0 be completed by all respondents. Do you have a contract or professional agreement for veterinarian services? When chemical immobilizations are performed on your animals, what percentage of these are conducted PERCENT From the following list of drugs used for chemical immobiliztion of exotic animals, indicate in what percent of the immobilizations you use them. SUCCINYLCHOLINE (Sucostrin, Anectin, etc.) HALOPERIDOL (Haldol) KETAMINE (Ketaset, Ketaject, Vetalar) XYLAZINE (Rompun) ACEPROMAZINE ETORPHINE (M99) CARFENTANY L (Carfentanil) OTHER (Please specify) TOTAL* *Total should equal 100%. What preventive medicine programs do you employ for your animals? (Circle all which apply.) SCHEDULED PARASITE EXAMS/DEWORMING VACCINATION PROGRAM TUBERCULOSIS TESTING QUARANTINE OF INCOMING ANIMALS SERUM EVALUATION FOR EVIDENCE OF DISEASES (e.g. brucellosis, bluetongue, B V D) OTHER (Please specify) What percentage of your“ overall herd health problems does each of the following medical categories PARASITISM INFECTIOUS DISEASES (tuberculosis, brucellosis, bluetongue, etc.) TRAUMATIC INJURY REPRODUCTIVE PROBLEMS OTHER (Please specify) 37. 1 YES 2 NO 38. by a veterinarian‘? 39. % % % _i_% % % % % 100% 40. 1 2 3 4 5 6 41. represent‘? % % % % % ‘ 100% TOTAL* *Total should equal 100% 25 SECTION VI: DEMOGRAPHICS 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. This section contains general questions concerning your background and your overall business opera . tions including the exotic livestock operations. This section should be completed by all respondents. k/ U. What was the last year of school you completed? (Circle one number.) Grade School High School College/Technical Graduate School 12345678 9101112 13141516 17181920 21+ What is the highest level of formal education that your spouse has received (Circle one.) Grade School High School College/Technical Graduate School 12345678 1920 21+ 13 14 15 16 J1 18 When did you first begin living in Texas? (Circle one number.) I WAS BORN HERE BEFORE 1974 DURING 1974 - 1979 PERIOD DURING 1980 - 1986 PERIOD AOJNJH Q. In which county is the majority of your exotic species ranch or farm operation located? COUNTY 45.1 If you have more than one exotic species ranch or farm in Texas, list the location of others. COUNTY COUNTY What operations comprise your business enterprise? (Circle all that apply.) CROP FARMING LIVESTOCK ENTERPRISE EXOTIC LIVESTOCK AGRIBUSINESS OFF-FARM BUSINESS (NON-AGRIBUSINESS) UipkCfiNii-l Do you belong to any exotic livestock associations? (Circle all that apply.) N O NORTH AMERICAN DEER FARMERS ASSOCIATION PACIFIC NORTHWEST VENISON PRODUCERS EXOTIC WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION OTHER ASSOCIATIONS (Please specify) U1>I>00NJH 26 48. Please circle the one number below which best describes your total household income. Think of total income before taxes for you and for all members of your household during the pervious 12 months. Note: D If you are uncertain, what is your best guess? (Circle only one number.) k 1 LESS THAN $ 10,000 2 $ 10,001 - $ 19,999 3 $ 20,000 - $ 29,999 4 $ 30,000 - $ 39,999 5 $ 40,000 - $ 49,999 6 $ 50,000 - $ 59,999 7 $ 60,000 - $ 69,999 8 $ 70,000 - $ 79,999 9 $ 80,000 - $ 89,999 $ 90,000 - $ 99,999 $100,000 - $109,999 12 $110,000 - $119,999 13 $120,000 - $129,999 14 $130,000 OR MORE 49. What percentage of your gross income comes from each of the following business operations? (Fill in the blank with the correct percentage.) % CROP FARMING % LIVESTOCK ENTERPRISE % EXOTIC LIVESTOCK % AGRIBUSINESS % OFF-FARM BUSINESS (NON-AGRIBUSINESS) 100% TOTAL* *Total should add to 100%. 50. How many acres of rangeland (native and improved) do you currently own? ACRES 51. How many acres of rangeland (native and improved) do you rent? ACRES 5. 52. What is your present age‘? YEARS 53. I am? ,-\ 1 MALE i 2 FEMALE 27 54. Please use the space below to provide any additional information that you feel is important in relation to the development of the exotic meat production industry in Texas. Q» V. PLEASE RETURN THE SURVEY IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE. If you would like a summary of results, please print your name and address below. \, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND HELP. 28 Appendix B Summary Statistics Corresponding to Respondents from Texas Table B1. Summary of exotic livestock owned by respondents, based on respondents from Texas.‘ Less 2O 101 251 501 More than to to to to than Species Zero 20 100 250 500 1000 1000 Axis deer 31. 12. 41. 8. 2. 6 O. Fallow deer 29. 20. 45. 2. 0. 2 2. Sika deer 45. 16. 31. 4. 2. 2 0. Aoudad sheep 45. 8. 29. 16. 0. 2 O. Blackbuck antelope 20. 20. 39. 12. 6. 0 2 Nilgai antelope 88. 10. 0. 2. 0. 0 O. TFigures represent the percent of 49 respondents who own the specified number of each species. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. Table B2. Percent of gross revenue earned from various exotic livestock enterprises, based on respondents from Texas.‘ Standard Enterprise Mean Minimum Maximum deviation Trophy hunting 51. O. 100. 37.2 Recreational viewing 2. 0. 25. 4.9 Sale of brood stock 33. O. 100. 34.7 Production of exotic meat 8. 0. 75. 16.5 Other 7. O. 100. 22.0 ‘Percentages based on 45 respondents. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. Table B3. Exotic livestock species used for different enterprises, based on respondents from Texas.‘ Trophy Recreational Sale of Exotic Species hunting viewing brood stock meat Other D Axis deer 54. 14. 42. 17. 2. Fallow deer 54. 17. 40. 18. 2. Sika deer 42. 8. 33. 10. 2. Aoudad sheep 52. 10. 25. 2. 2. Blackbuck antelope 60. 17. 50. 23. 2. Nilgai antelope 8. 2. . 4. . 0. Other 25. 10. 35. 8. 2. Figures represent the percentage of 48 respondents that use each species for each enterprise. Percentages do not sum to 1 O0 percent because a species can be used for more than one enterprise. 29 Table B4. Prices received (dollars/head) for various exotic livestock species by age and sex, based on respondents from Texas. V; Standard Number of Species Mean Minimum Maximum deviation respondents t . Q1 Yearling male / Axis deer 265. 150. 500. 100.8 13 Fallow deer 318. 125. 800. 185.8 11 Sika deer 231. 125. 600. 143.5 9 Aoudad sheep 183. 75. 850. 236.9 10 Blackbuck antelope 175. 75. 650. 156.7 17 Red deer 1180. 350. 2500. 815.9 5 Other 923. 50. 2500. 850.0 12 Yearling female Axis deer 268. 150. 450. 76.5 15 Fallow deer 39o. 15o. 65o. 129.7 13 Sika deer 213. 100. 300. 73.8 10 Aoudad sheep 100. 50. 175. 40.3 11 Blackbuck antelope 111. 50. 200. 44.5 17 Red deer 1290. 350. 2800. 929.7 5 Other 1379. 50. 5000. 1712.8 12 Mature male Axis deer 583. 150. 1500. 356.5 18 Fallow deer 555. 150. 1200. 387.6 16 Sika deer 489. 100. 1250. 297.3 13 Aoudad sheep 519. 100. 1250. 378.0 12 Blackbuck antelope 439. 100. 1200. 288.6 18 Nilgai antelope 750. 500. 1000. 353.6 2 Red deer 1563. 1000. 2500. 627.5 4 Other 1446. 200. 4000. 1302.7 12 Mature female Axis deer 307. 100. 550. 113.5 18 Fallow deer 407. 150. 700. 157.1 17 Sika deer 256. 100. 350. 79.2 13 Aoudad sheep 140. 50. 250. 62.6 12 Blackbuck antelope 152. 50. 250. 53.2 16 Nilgai antelope 500. 500. 500. 0.0 1 Red deer 1375. 500. 2500. 853.9 4 Other 1350. 100. 4500. 1580.0 12 Table B5. Percent of total annual operating costs associated with different budget items, based on respondents from Texas.‘ Standard Budget item Minimum Maximum deviation Fence maintenance 0. 50. 16.7 Veterinary care 0. 10. 4.3 Processing 0. 10. 3.3 Labor 0. 35. 11.9 Supplemental feed 20. 100. 21.8 Other O. 50. 16.7 L 6.. ‘Based on 9 respondents. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. 3O Table B6. Approximate price received per pound for various species, based on respondents from Texas.‘ Less $1 .01 $1.51 $2.01 $2.51 More than to to to to than “Species $1.00 $1 .50 $2.00 $2.50 $5.00 A $5.00 b Liveweight Axis deer 0 0 0 0 1 0 Fallow deer 0 0 1 0 0 0 Sika deer 0 O 0 0 0 0 Aoudad sheep 1 0 0 0 0 0 Blackbuck antelope 0 0 2 0 0 0 Nilgai antelope 0 0 0 0 0 O Hanging carcass weight Axis deer 0 0 1 2 2 0 Fallow deer 0 0 0 1 3 0 Sika deer 0 0 1 0 2 0 Aoudad sheep 2 0 0 0 0 0 Blackbuck antelope 0 0 1 3 1 0 Nilgai antelope 0 0 0 1 O 0 Less $2.01 $3.01 $5.01 $7.51 More than to to to to than $2.00 $3.00 $5.00 $7.50 $10.00 $10.00 Processed meat Axis deer 0 0 1 0 1 0 Fallow deer 0 0 1 0 1 0 Sika deer 0 0 2 0 0 0 Aoudad sheep 1 0 1 0 0 0 Blackbuck antelope 0 O 1 0 1 0 Nilgai antelope 0 0 0 1 0 0 ‘Figures represent the number of respondents indicating the price received for each species. Table B7. Attitudes concerning the profitability and marketing of exotic meats, based on respondents from Texas.‘ Stand. Number of Statement Mean Min. Max. dev. respond. Exotic livestock ranching is a profitable enterprise 6.82 2. 10. 2.43 45 Exotic livestock farming is a profitable enterprise 6.00 O. 10. 2.65 41 Exotic meat will become a popular alternative to other meat 7.00 O. 10. 2.84 44 Exotic meat should be priced low . to compete with beef 3.84 0. 10. 3.29 44 Commercial exotic meat production will become a major industry 6.24 0. 10. 2.77 45 Exotic meat should remain a specialty item 5.87 O. 10. 3.21 45 Commercial exotic meat production will increase in importance as a viable ranch enterprise 7.47 1. 10. 2.48 45 Based on a scale of 0 to 10 with 0 being strong disagreement and 1O being strong agreement. Abbreviations are: min. - minimum, max. - maximum, stand. dev. - standard deviation, respond. - respondents. 31 Table B8. Attitudes concerning marketing outlets for exotic meats, based on respondents from Texas.‘ Stand. Number of Outlet Mean Min. Max. dev. respond. § . i. Retail supermarkets 6.29 2. 10. 2.49 35 A Gourmet restaurants 9.12 4. 10. 1.35 4s 1 Speciality shop 8.28 0. 10. 2.30 40 Health food store 1.64 o. 1o. 2.80 f as Mail order catalog 5.89 0. 10. 3.14 38 Overseas 6.26 0. 10. 3.70 35 Others 4.00 0. 8. 5.66 2 ‘Based on a scale of O to 10 with 0 being strong disagreement and 1O being strong agreement. Abbreviations are: min. - minimum, max. -‘ maximum, stand. dev. - standard deviation, respond. - respondents. Table B9. Attitudes concerning factors important to the success of individual exotic meat producers, based on respondents from Texas.‘ Stand. Number of Factor Mean Min. Max. dev. respond. Climate 7.48 0. 10. 2.30 42 Fencing cost 8.30 2. 10. 1.86 43 Processing cost 7.10 2. 10. 2.45 39 Production cost 7.75 3. 10. 1.96 40 Veterinary medicine cost 5.08 0. 10. 2.88 40 Exotic species used 8.49 2. 10. 1.78 41 \ Size of herd 7.85 0. 10. 2.46 39 Location of Processor 7.54 0. 10. 2.62 41 A Price of Exotic Meat 9.17 5. 10. 1.24 41 Development of a market 9.40 5. 10. 1.11 42 Management ability 8.27 0. 10. 1.99 41 Animal welfare activity 7.18 0. 10. 3.05 39 Luck 5.00 O. 10. 3.90 38 Others 5.60 0. 10. 5.18 5 ‘Based on a scale of 0 to 10 with 0 being strong disagreement and 10 being strong agreement. Abbreviations are: min. - minimum, max. - maximum, stand. dev. - standard deviation, respond. - respondents. Table B 10. Attitudes concerning current marketing conditions for the exotic meat production industry, based on respondents from Texas.‘ Stand. Number of Statement Mean Min. Max. dev. respond. Prices received for harvested exotic meat are too low 7.00 0. 10. 2.97 43 Enough marketing outlets exist ‘a for the sale of exotic meat 3.33 0. 10. 3.07 43 There are too few exotic meat processors 6.42 0. 10. 3.02 43 Consumers are not aware of nutritional attributes of exotic meats 7.53 1. 10. 2.53 43 Exotic meatproduction J i costs are too high 5.61 0. 10. 2.72 44 L ‘Based on a scale of 0 to 10 with 0 being strong disagreement and 10 being strong agreement. Abbreviations are: min. - minimum, max. - maximum, stand. dev. - standard deviation, respond. - respondents. 32 Table B11. Percent of immobilizations that utilize the following drugs, based on respondents from Texas.‘ Standard Drug Mean Minimum Maximum deviation Succinylcholine 70.4 0. 100. 39.5 Haloperidol 0.6 0. 10. 2.2 Ketamine 3.0 0. 50. 10.6 Xylazine 10.5 0. 75. 20.5 Acepromazine 3.4 0. 40. 9.4 Etorphine 3.2 0. 50. 11.4 Carfentanyl 0.2 0. 5. 1.0 Other 8.6 0. 100 27.6 ‘Based on 25 respondents. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. Table B12. Percent of various health problems, based on respondents from Texas.‘ Standard Health Problem Mean Minimum Maximum deviation Parasitism 58. 0. 100. 40.9 Infectious diseases 6. 0. 100. 21.4 Traumatic injury 23. 0. 100. 32.1 Reproductive problems 3. 0. 25. 6.0 Other 10. 0. 100. 28.2 ‘Based on 33 respondents. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. Table B13. Percent of gross income from various sources, based on respondents from Texas.‘ Standard Source Mean Minimum ~ Maximum deviation Crop farming 4. 0. 90. 16.0 Livestock 15. 0. 95. 23.7 Exotic livestock 25. 0. 100. 35.6 Agribusiness 5. 0. 70. 14.6 Nonagribusiness 52. 0. 100. 42.1 ‘Based on 37 respondents. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. 33 Appendix C Summary Statistics Corresponding to Respondents from States Other Than Texas v. Table C1. Summary of exotic livestock owned by respondents, based on respondents from states other than Texas.‘ Less 20 101 251 501 More‘ than to to to to than Species Zero 20 100 250 500 1000 1000 Axis deer 100. 0. O. 0. 0. O 0. Fallow deer 24. 8. 31. 18. 12. 4 2. Sika deer 80. 8. 8. 4. 0. 0 0. Aoudad sheep 98. 2. 0. 0. O. O 0. Blackbuck antelope 98. 2. O. 0. O. O 0. Nilgai antelope 100. 0. 0. O. 0. 0 0. ‘Figures represent the percent of 49 respondents who own the specified number of each species. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. Texas.‘ Table C2. Percent of gross revenue earned from various exotic livestock enterprises, based on respondents from states other tha \ E2 Standard Enterprise Mean Minimum Maximum deviation Trophy hunting 1. 0. 20. 3.6 Recreational viewing 0.2 0. 10. 1.7 Sale of brood stock 60. 0. 100. 35.3 Production of exotic meat 31 . 0. 100. 32.6 Other 8. 0. 100. 23.6 ‘Percentages based on 37 respondents. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. 2Three respondents indicated recreational viewing as an enterprise, but it comprosed only a minor portion of their overall operations. Table C3. Exotic livestock species used for different enterprises, based on respondents from states other than Texas.‘ Trophy Recreational Sale of Exotic Species hunting viewing brood stock meat Other Axis deer 0. 0 O. 0. 0. ‘a Fallow deer 4. 6 63. 61. 4. Sika deer 2. 0 16. 12. 2. Aoudad sheep 2. O 2. O. 0. Blackbuck antelope O. 0 2. O. 0. Nilgai antelope 0. O O. 0. 0. Other 2. 2 16. 8. 4. Si. ‘Figures represent the percentage of 32 respondents that use each species for each enterprise. Percentages do not sum to 100 percent becau a species can be used for more than one enterprise. 34 Table C4. Prices received (dollars/head) for various exotic livestock species by age and sex, based on respondents from states other than Texas. Standard Number of “Species Mean Minimum Maximum deviation respondents ’ Yearling male Axis deer 0. 0. 0. 0.0 0 Fallow deer 446. 100. 1000. 270.0 14 Sika deer 510. 100. 1800. 724.9 5 Aoudad sheep 200. 200. 200. 0.0 1 Blackbuck antelope 0. 0. 0. 0.0 0 Red deer 1500. 500. 2500. 754.0 8 Other 2900. 300. 10000. 3665.0 6 Yearling female Axis deer 0. 0. 0. 0.0 0 Fallow deer 724. 300. 1000. 225.8 17 Sika deer 683. 300. 1500. 435.5 6 Aoudad sheep 150. 150. 150. 0.0 1 Blackbuck antelope 0. 0. 0. 0.0 0 Red deer 2129. 1000. 3000. 813.9 7 Other 5250. 300. 25000. 9746.9 6 Mature male Axis deer 0. 0. 0. 0.0 0 Fallow deer 941. 400. 1500. 362.8 17 Sika deer 600. 500. 800. 173.2 3 Aoudad sheep 400. 400. 400. 0.0 1 Blackbuck antelope 99. 99. 99. 0.0 1 Nilgai antelope 0. 0. 0. 0.0 0 Red deer 3267. 1800. 5000. 1100.3 6 Other 3430. 150. 10000. 3798.0 5 Mature female Axis deer 0. . 0. 0. ' 0.0 0 Fallow deer 900. 550. 1200. 174.7 20 Sika deer 590. 450. 700. 89.4 5 Aoudad sheep 250. 250. 250. 0.0 1 Blackbuck antelope 0. 0. 0. 0.0 0 Nilgai antelope 0. 0. 0. 0.0 0 Fied deer 3750. 2000. 7000. 1884.4 6 Other 6842. 150. 35000. 13868.0 6 Table C5. Percent of total annual operating costs associated with different budget items, based on respondents from states other than Texas.‘ ' Standard Budget item Mean Minimum Maximum deviation Fence maintenance 10. 0. 20. 8.1 Veterinary care 7. 0. 20. 7.3 Processing 6. 0. 20. 6.7 Labor 13. O. 30. 10.9 Supplemental feed 46. 5. 99. 31.7 ther 18. 0. 76. 32.7 ‘Based on 9 respondents. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. 35 Table C6. Approximate price-received per pound for various species, based on respondents from states other than Texas.‘ Less $1.01 $1.51 $2.01 $2.51 More than to to to to than Species $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $5.00 $5.00 Liveweight Axis deer O 0 0 0 0 0 Fallow deer O O 1 3 2 0 Sika deer O O 1 0 O O Aoudad sheep O 0 0 0 0 0 Blackbuck antelope O 0 0 0 0 0 Nilgai antelope O O 0 0 0 0 Hanging carcass weight Axis deer O O O 0 0 O Fallow deer 0 0 0 O 5 3 Sika deer 0 0 0 0 2 O Aoudad sheep 0 0 0 0 O 0 Blackbuck antelope O 0 0 0 0 0 Nilgai antelope 0 0 O O 0 0 Less $2.01 $3.01 $5.01 $7.51 More than to to to to than $2.00 $3.00 $5.00 $7.50 $10.00 $10.00 Processed meat Axis deer O 0 0 0 O 0 Fallow deer 0 0 2 2 4 2 Sika deer O 0 0 O 0 1 Aoudad sheep 0 O 0 0 0 0 Blackbuck antelope O O 0 O O 0 Nilgai antelope 0 0 O O O O (‘a L ‘Figures represent the number of respondents indicating the price received for each species. Table C7. Attitudes concerning the profitability and marketin g of exotic meats, based on respondents from states other than Texas? Stand. Number of Statement Mean Min. Max. dev. respond. Exotic livestock ranching is a profitable enterprise 7.15 3. 10. 2.15 46 Exotic livestock farming is a profitable enterprise 8.50 5. 10. 1.70 46 Exotic meat will become a popular alternative to other meat 8.68 5. 10. 1.24 47 Exotic meat should be priced low to compete with beef 1.83 0. 10. 2.69 47 Commercial exotic meat production will become a major industry 6.14 4. 10. 1.92 37 Exotic meat should remain a specialty item 7.09 0. 10. 3.16 47 Commercial exotic meat production will increase in importance as a viable ranch enterprise 8.35 4. 10. 1.58 46 ‘Based on a scale of 0 to 1O with O being strong disagreement and 1O being strong agreement. Abbreviations are: min. - minimum, max. - u maximum, stand. dev. a standard deviation, respond. - respondents. 36 Table C8. Attitudes concerning marketing outlets for exotic meats, based on respondents from states other than Texas.‘ Stand. Number of utlet Mean Min. Max. dev. respond. ] Retail supermarkets 4.67 0. 10. 2.75 42 Gourmet restaurants 9.44 5. 10. 0.99 45 Speciality shop 8.67 O. 10. 1.90 45 Health food store 7.98 4. 10. 1.70 45 Mail order catalog 7.51 3. 10. 2.16 45 Overseas 5.07 0. 10. 3.62 42 Others 7.33 5. 10. 2.07 6 ‘Based on a scale of 0 to 10 with 0 being strong disagreement and 10 being strong agreement. Abbreviations are: min. - minimum, max. - maximum, stand. dev. - standard deviation, respond. - respondents. Table C9. Attitudes concerning factors important to the success of individual exotic meat producers, based on respondents from states other than Texas.‘ Stand. Number of Factor Mean Min. Max. dev. respond. Climate 5.25 0. 10. 2.34 47 Fencing cost 6.72 2. 10. 2.39 47 Processing cost 6.24 0. 10. 2.08 46 Production cost 6.83 0. 10. 2.30 47 Veterinary medicine cost 4.57 0. 10. 2.80 47 Exotic species used 6.94 2. 10. 2.26 47 ize of herd 7.07 0. 10. 2.34 47 Location of processor 5.90 0. 10. 2.78 46 Price of exotic meat 8.45 0. 10. 1.92 48 Development of a market 9.30 5. 10. 1.10 47 Management ability 8.43 3. 10. 2.10 47 Animal welfare activity 6.39 0. 10. 2.70 46 Luck 3.98 0. 10. 2.97 45 Others 9.00 7. 10. 1.41 5 ‘Based on a scale of 0 to 10 with 0 being strong disagreement and 10 being strong agreement. Abbreviations are: min. - minimum, max. - maximum, stand. dev. - standard deviation, respond. - respondents. Table C10. Attitudes concerning current marketing conditions for the exotic meat production industry, based on respondents from states other than Texas.‘ ‘ Stand. Number of Statement Mean Min. Max. dev. respond. ' Prices received for harvested exotic meat are too low 4.69 0. 10. 2.75 48 ’ Enough marketing outlets exist for the sale of exotic meat 2.60 0. 10. 2.76 47 There are too few exotic ‘ meat processors 6.49 0. 10. 2.98 47 Consumers are not aware of nutritional attributes of exotic meats 8.09 0. 10. 2.41 47 Exotic meat production costs are too high 4.36 0. 10. 2.56 47 ‘Based on a scale of 0 to 10 with 0 being strong disagreement and 10 being strong agreement. Abbreviations are: min. - minimum, max. - maximum, stand. dev. - standard deviation, respond. - respondents. 37 Table C11. Percent of immobilizations that utilize the following drugs, based on respondents from states other than Texas.‘ Standard Drug Mean Minimum Maximum deviation it Succinylcholine 19.4 o. 100. 35.7 I‘ Haloperidol 0.0 O. O. 0.0 t Ketamine 10.2 0. 100. g 21.1 Xylazine 62.7 0. 100. vi 40.9 Acepromazine 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 Etorphine 2.1 O. 75. 12.5 Carfentanyl 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 Other 5.6 O. 100 23.2 ‘Based on 36 respondents. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. Table C12. Percent of various health problems, based on respondents from states other than Texas.‘ Standard Health Problem Mean g Minimum Maximum deviation Parasitism 44. 0. 100. 42.4 Infectious diseases 5. O. 50. 11.9 Traumatic injury 25. O. 100. 31.2 Reproductive problems 18. 0. 100. 28.0 Other 7. 0. 100. 22.4 \ ‘Based on 3O respondents. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. e a , Table C13. Percent of gross income from various sources, based on respondents from states other than Texas.‘ Standard Source Mean Minimum Maximum deviation Croptarming 8. O. 85. 18.6 Livestock 5. 0. 80. 15.0 Exotic livestock 15. O. 100. 22.5 Agribusiness O. 30. 5.2 Nonagribusiness 71. O. 100. 31.6 ‘Based on 41 respondents. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. 38 Appendix D Selected Frequency Tables Table D1. Number of respondents associated with categories Teb|e D3_ Number of respondents reporting verieue renge|end for number of years exotics have been owned, education, and deeeifieetiene end acreage age of respondent. Category All Non-Texas Texas Category All Non-Texas Texas All acreage associated with exotics Number of years exotics have been owned Native pasture 45 9 36 0 ' 5 43 38 5 Improved pasture 24 21 3 6-10 25 6 19 Both 2s 1a 1o 11 - 15 11 3 8 _ 16 _ 20 12 2 1o Native rangeland only > 2O 7 0 7 Acres Last year of school completed 0 ' 100 7 6 1 101 - 500 9 3 6 Grade school 2 1 1 501 - 1,000 g 0 3 Attended high school 2 1 1 1,001 - 5,000 10 0 10 Graduated high school 15 11 4 5,001 - 10,000 7 0 7 Attended college 2O 5 15 >10,000 4 0 4 Siiifiiiiiéiiiiife i? l; 12 mvedpa=r~~orflv A f 0 - 100 18 17 1 ge o respondent 101 _ 500 5 3 2 < 30 5 1 4 501 -1,000 0 0 0 31 - 40 23 11 12 1,001 -5,000 1 1 0 41 _ 5Q 15 11 5 5,001 - 10,000 O O 0 51 -so 1s 11 7 >1°»°°° ° ° ° 51 ‘ 70 21 10 11 Both native and improved pasture > 7O 7 O 0 - 100 11 10 1 101 - 500 11 8 3 501 -1,000 1 0 1 1,001 - 5,000 2 0 2 Table D2. Number of respondents in various categories asso- 5,001 - 10,000 2 0 2 ciated with acres devoted to exotics and total land owned or >10,000 1 0 1 leased. Acres All Non-Texas Texas Acres with exotics present 0 -100 36 33 101 - 500 25 14 11 501 - 1,000 9 0 9 1,001 - 5,000 13 1 12 5,001 -10,000 9 0 9 >10,000 5 0 5 Total acres owned 0 - 100 19 16 3 101 - 500 28 19 9 501 -1,000 12 5 7 ’ 1,001 - 5,000 13 3 10 5,001 -10,000 9 0 9 >10,000 6 0 6 Total acres leased 0 - 100 73 42 31 101 - 500 2 1 1 501 -1,000 3 0 3 1,001 - 5,000 5 0 5 5,001 -10,000 3 1 2 >10,000 4 0 4 39 Table D4. Number of respondents reporting percent income from various exotic livestock enterprises. Table D5. Number of respondents indicating various compo- nents of their commercial exotic meat operations. Percent All Non-Texas Texas Category All Non-Texas Tex Trophy hunting Type of operation O 41 32 9 Farm 21 20 1 1 -2s 1o 2 s Ranch 10 1 9 26 - 5O 6 0 6 _ 51 _ 75 8 O 8 Where meat IS processed 75 - 100 14 0 14 Local plant 18 13 5 Recreational viewing Mobue processor 9 1 8 Process own 5 5 0 ° 2 74 3g 4° Other 7 s 2 1 - 5 5 5 25 _ 50 O 0 Q How paid for harvested animals :23 ' :30 g 8 g Hanging weight 2O 12 8 a ' Liveweight 9 5 4 Selling of broad stock Pfoilessed Pfoduci 7 7 0 O 17 6 11 Per animal 1 0 1 1 - 25 16 1 15 Pounds of meat produced if i 3g 1g 1g g < soo a s s 76_100 23 15 8 500-1,000 6 2 4 . 1,001 - 2,500 9 4 5 Production of meat 2,501 - 5_000 10 8 2 O 38 10 28 > 5,000 1 1 0 1 - 25 22 10 12 Where sell own processed meat 26 - 5O 14 10 4 _ 51 _ 75 1 0 1 Reta" 6 5 1 76 _ 100 5 5 0 RGSIEIUFGM 14 13 1 Mail order 7 7 O 01"" Other 1o 7 a 0 70 30 4O Number of harvests per year 1 - 25 1 0 1 25 - 50 4 2 2 One 13 7 6 s1 - 7s o 0 0 Two 5 2 3 76 - 100 4 2 2 Three 4 2 2 > Three 1 1 9 2 Seasons when harvested Jan. - March 8 4 4 April - June 7 2 5 July - Sept. 12 8 4 Oct. - Dec. 24 16 8 Number of seasons harvest occurs One 19 12 7 Two 13 7 6 Three 2 1 1 Year Around 2 1 1 4O N U. Table D6. Number of nonmeat production respondents indi- Table D8. Number of respondents indicating percentage of cating various components of their operations. various herd health problems. Category All Non-Texas Texas Percentage All Non-Texas Texas ‘ Number of producers 64 27 37 Parasitism . rzlantto geigtfiitan 28 22 6 o 20 12 8 ea °p 1 - 25 4 2 2 Type of operation for meat production 26 - 5O 6 3 3 51 - 75 7 2 5 gain 2g 1i l 7s - 100 26 11 15 Undecided 1 1 0 Infectious diseases When will meat production be adopted O 47 22 25 Within 1 year 9 s 1 1 ' 25 12 6 6 26 - 5O 2 2 O 1 - 5 years 14 12 2 , > 5 years 5 2 3 51 ' 75 ' 0 1 76 - 1 OO 1 0 1 Reasons for not producing meat Traumatic iniury Do not have exotics 2 2 O 23 9 13 Sell brood stock 21 10 11 Notprofitable 7 0 1 _ 25 21 10 11 . . 26 - 50 12 8 4 Trophy hunting IS . 51 - 75 0 O O more profitable 15 O 15 76 _ 100 8 3 5 l_ack of a market 6 4 2 Lack of knowledge 13 7 6 Reproductive problems Other 23 13 10 0 38 13 25 Who will process your exotics 1 - 25 18 10 8 Undetermined 9 7 2 26 _ 50 4 4 O . 51 - 75 1 1 O Own processing 2 1 1 76 _ 100 2 2 o Mobile processor 3 1 2 Local processor 14 13 1 Other Other 1 2 0 0 53 25 28 1 - 25 4 2 2 26 - 50 1 1 O Table D7. Number of respondents indicating type of veterinary 51 ' 75 1 1 o 76 - 100 4 1 3 care employed. Category All Non-Texas Texas Veterinary contract 37 23 14 Chemical immobilization performed by a vet (mean) 25.0% 32.5% 15.9% Presence of a veterinarian when immobilization occurs Never 49 22 27 Always 15 11 4 s 50% 17 11 6 Preventive medicine programs employed Parasite 69 43 20 Preventive vaccination 4O 34 1O Tuberculosis testing 3O 23 7 Quarantine 4O 29 1 1 Serum evaluation 37 29 8 Other 26 21 5 41 _ ___FL XAS AQiM UNIVERSITY mi‘ 1111111111111 A L H535 351L739 Table D9. Number of respondents indicating the percent ot gross income from various enterprises. Percent 26750 51 -75 76-100 1-25 26~50 51-75 76- 100 1~25 26-50 51-75 76-100 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 All Non-Texas Texas Crop farming 1 62 28 34 10 9 1 3 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 Livestock enterprises 51 32 19 16 6 10 7 2 5 2 0 2 2 1 1 Exotic livestock 27 18 9 34 1 5 19 7 5 2 3 2 1 7 1 6 Agribusiness 69 38 31 6 2 4 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Off-farm business 16 3 13 6 0 0 13 10 3 8 3 5 41 25 16 Table D10. Number of respondents reporting various gross income categories. Income All Non-Texas Texas < 20,000 6 2 4 2O - 40,000 12 4 8 40 - 60,000 17 11 6 60 - 80,000 3 2 1 80 - 100,000 8 6 2 100 - 120,000 6 2 4 > 120,000 34 16 18 42 D1 1. Number of respondents indicating the number of years the respondent has owned exotic livestock and total acreage and gross income.‘ Acres 0 - 5 0 - 100 29 101 ~ 500 1 501 - 1,000 1,001 ~ 5,000 5,001 - 10,000 >10,000 OOiON Gross income: < 20,000 20 - 40,000 40 - 60,000 60 - 80,000 80 - 100,000 100 - 120,000 > 120,000 1 fl-‘QNN-bw 6-10 N-‘JOOU-BO NUiN-bmfi? 11-15 0 °_)[\)..p_n_n_n_m _Lf\)(*)f\QCQ Number of years exotics owned 15-20 mrooow-wu --u1-m-¢ >20 0 bOOOONO —*—*NI'\J-* ‘Based on all respondents, Qlnthousands. - l [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] ' a ‘v.- v§o\- Mention of a trademark or a proprietary product does not constitute a guarantee or a warranty of the product by The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that also may be suitalqle. All programs and information of The Texas Agricultural ExperimentStation are available to everyone without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin. »_ \ Copies printed: 1,200 t‘ , ‘it