The organization and structure of
by B Beattie
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE in Agricultural Economics
Montana State University
© Copyright by B Beattie (1964)
Abstract:
The purpose of this research study was to describe as completely as possible the organization and
structure of the beef cattle industry in 18 counties of southeastern Montana, The description was
accomplished by cross-classifying individual ranch data concerning nonbeef livestock enterprises, crop
enterprises, the hay base, the pasture base, ranch size, and land tenure. Data concerning each of these
items were stratified and then cross-classified with seven cow-herd-size-categories within each of four
study areas, The number of observations, the mean, and the percentage distribution for each
stratification were calculated and compared in order to identify unique populations of beef ranches
within each area, cow-herd-size-group, and the beef industry of the entire study area.
The results of the study revealed that several unique populations of beef ranches exist within each of
the study areas and that different output and input combination's are evident in different areas. THE ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE
OF THE BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY
IN SOUTHEASTERN MONTANA
by
Bruce R 0 Beattie
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Agricultural Economics
Approved;
nor Department
Committee
Dean 9 Graduate Division'
MONTANA STATE COLLEGE
Bozeman 9 Montana
August9 1964
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express special thanks and appreciation to D r 0
Lloyd C 0 Rixe, for his guidance and critical review of this thesis „
Thanks are extended to D r 0 Clarence W e Jensen and M r 0 William J 0 Ewasiuk
■of the Department of Agricultural Economics who served on the thesis
committee*
Appreciation is extended to W„ D 0 Goodsel of the Farm Economics
Research Division, Economic Research Service, and to Ray Hurley, Chief
of the Agriculture Division of the Bureau of the Qensus for their cooper­
ation in this study.
The author is indebted to John Miller and other members pf the
■ >.
Computing Center at Montana State College, who spent many hours proces­
sing the data for this thesis,
'
Appreciation is also extended to the fellow graduate students who
provided encouragement and helpful suggestions 0
- Any errors or ommissions in this study are the responsibility of
the author.
Iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
VITA . . . . . .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES .
LIST OF FIGURES
ABSTRACT . . . .
°
e
o,
»
•
°
6
•
O
^•
'O
O
O
°
•»
O
o
6
°
a
0
•
o
O
6
e
ii
ill
iv
vi
vii
xii
I
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Q
9
0
0
0
0
6*
10
PROCEDURE
11
15
The Study Area . . „
Beef Cow' Distribution
III.
»
INTRODUCTION
Problem Situation
Research Problem
Objectives
. . .
Limitations . . .
II.
*
* *
O
O O
O e
O o
VO MD -O H
I.
• °
•
• O
O O
o' O
» o
OTHER ENTERPRISES FOUND IN COMBINATION WITH BEEF CATTLE
RANCHES
. . . . . . .
Livestock Enterprises
Sheep
.0000000600
Swine
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Dairy
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Crop Enterprises
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
All crops harvested
All wheat . O O o o o o o o o
Winter wheat
o o o o o o o o
Spring wheat and durum
Feed grains— oats and barley
irley
Oats o o o o o o o o o o o o
Barley 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Corn o e o o o
o
o o o o o o
Other crops o o o o d o o o o
Sugar beets O O O O O O O *
Q O
iv
ZO
20
20
.24
O O '0 O O
O
O
O
O
O
25
27
28
31
35
38
41
43
46
48
50
51
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cant.)
LAND. RESOURCE USE AS AN INPUT OF BEEF CATTLE RANCHES
H
3
.y
o
a
o
.
o
o o
-e
o
o’ O
e
e
o
o
e
e
e,
0 0 , 0
.o
o
All hd,y o e o o e ' e o o e e e o o o o o o e o o
Alfalfa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
Clover, timothy and other grasses, small grains for
hay,, and other hay o o o o o o o o o . o o o
Wild hay o o o o o o o o o o o . o o o o o o o o
Pasture o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Acres pastured per animal unit , , « « . « . »
Cropland pastured . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Irrigated pasture
. . . . . » . 0 . . .
Pasture as percent of total land . . . . . . .
General Land Data . . . o o . . . 0 0 0 .
. 0 0 . 0
Ranch size 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0
Ownership pattern 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 0' . 0 0 0 0 . 0
Irrigated cropland . . . . . o . .
. . . . . .
.
53
53
56
58
61
62
62
66
67
69
72
72
75
79
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Area; I . o . . . . . . . . . . .
Area 2 . . . . . o . . . . . . .
Area 5 . . . . . c o . . . . . .
Area ^ . o o o o e o . o . o o o
Area Comparisons
. ....... .
Suggestions for Further Research
..
Oj
0
0
0.
0,
82
84
85
86
87
90
APPENDICES
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
A
B
C
D
E
LITERATURE CITED
92
95
105
109
113
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Io '
II.
III.
Page
CASH RECEIPTS FROM MARKETING LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK
PRODUCTS (MONTANA)
........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
MAJOR USES OF LAND IN MONTANA, 1950 . . . . . . . . . . .
5
BEEF COW NUMBER DISTRIBUTION BY STUDY AREA
vi
. . . . . . .
16
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Cattle (except milk cows) and sheep on f,arms, Montana,
1 9 2 5
- o
o
e
o
o
e
o
e
o
o
o
e
o
o
e
d
e
o
'
e
e
o
o
4
e
2.
Graphic distribution of study areas,......... .. ............
13
30
TypeS Of farming ,
14
4,
Percentage distribution of cow number strata by area
5«
Percentage distribution of ranches having no breeding A u 9S
of sheep per breeding AU of beef cow, by cow strata „ „ „ „
22
Percentage distribution of ranches havipg 0 to 0.5 breeding
A U 9S of sheep per breeding AU of beef cow, by cow strata. .
23
6,
o
e
e
e
e
o
e
o
o
*
o
o
e
e
o
o
o
o
o
e
o
. „ .
17'
Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 0.5
breeding A U 9S of sheep per breeding AU of beef cow, by
cow strata . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
8.
Percentage distribution of. ranches farrowing more than one
litter of hogs, by cow strata .
.
9.
Percentage distribution of ranches having more than five
dairy cows, by cow strata
10.
,V
Percentage distribution of ranches having zero acres in
all crops, by cow strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'* .
29
S
11.
12.
13.
Percentage distribution of ranches having more than z e r o but not more than 50 acres of all crops, by cow strata . .
30
Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 50 but
not more than 200 pores of all crops, by cow strata „ . „ „
30
Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 200
acres of all crops, by cow strata . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
14.
Percentage distribution of ranches having no wheat, by ,cow
strata
15.
Percentage distribution of ranches having more than zero but
not more than 50 acres of wheat, by cow strata . . . . . .
vii
33
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont0)
Fignre
16o
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 50
but not more than'200 acres of wheat, by cow strata . . . ,
>
Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 200
acres of wheat, by cow strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
Percentage distribution of ranches ,having no winter wheat,
b y cow strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
Percentage distribution of ranches having more than zero
but not more than 50 acres of winter wheat, b y cow strata .
36
Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 50 but
not more than 200 acres.of winter wheat, by cow strata .,.
37
Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 200
acres of winter wheat., by cow strata . . . . . . . . . . .
37
Percentage distribution of ranches having no spring wheat or
durum, by cow strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
Percentage distribution of ranches having more than zero but
not more than 50 acres of spring wheat or durum, by cow
strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 50 but
not more than 200 acres of spring wheat or durum, by.cow,
strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 200 acres
of spring wheat or durum, by cow strata . . . . . . . . . .
40
Percentage distribution of ranches having no oats or barley.
by cow strata
o
o
o
0
o
o
e
o
o
o
e
o
o
o
o
o
»
o
e
o
e
e
42
Percentage distribution of ranches having more than zero
but not more than 50 acres, of oats or barley, by c o w ,
strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
Percentage distribution of those ranches, having more ,than 50
acres of oats or barley, by cow strata . . . . . . . . . .
43
Percentage distribution of ranches having no oats, by cow ,
strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'44
viii
LIST OF FIGURES (Coat.)
Figure
30.
Percentage distribution of ranches having more than zero
but not more than 50 acres of oats, by cow strata . . . .
31.
Percentage distribution of ranches having more .than 50
acres of oats, by cow strata
^
32.
Percentage distribution of ranches having no barley, by
cow strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . .
33 0
Percentage distribution of ranches having more than zero
but not more than 50 acres of barley, by cow strata „ „ .
3^o
Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 50
acres of barley, by cow strata
Percentage distribution of ranches having c o m , by cow
strata . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36.
Percentage distribution of ranches having other crops, by
cow strata
Percentage distribution of ranches having sugar beets, by
cow strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . .
,38.
Perbentage distribution of those ranches having
or less of all hay, by cow strata
.
39.
Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than
50 but not more than 200 acres of all hay, by cow strata
40.
Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than
200 acres of all hay, b y cow strata . i *
.
41.
Percentage distribution of those ranches having less than
or equal to $0 acres of alfalfa, b y cow strata . . . . . .
42.
Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than
50 but not more than 200 acres of alfalfa, by cow strata
43.
Percentage distribution of those ranches paving more than
200 acres of-alfalfa, by cow strata . . . . . . . . . . .
ix
50 acres .
LIST QF FIGURES (Cent.)
44.
Percentage distribution of those ranches having less than
or equal to 59 acres of clover, timothy and other grasses,
small grains for hay, and other hay (excluding m i d hay),
b y cow strata . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . .
4-5.
Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than
50 but not more than 200 acres of clover, timothy and
other grasses, small grains for hay, and other hay (ex­
cluding wild hay), b y cow strata
^
.
4-6.
Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than
200 acres of clover, timothy, and other grasses, small
grains for hay, and other hay (excluding wild hay), by
cow strata . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
Percentage distribution of those ranches having more ,than
10 acres of wild hay, by cow strata . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
4-7.
48.
Percentage distribution of those ranches having not more
than 20 acres of land pastured per animal unit, by cow.
strata
Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than
20 but not more than 4-0 acres of land pastured per animal
unit, by cow strata o o o e o o e e o e o o o o e o ^ e e o
51 o"
52.
53«
54.
Percentage .distribution of those ranches having more than 40
but not more than 60 acres of land pastured per animal unit,
by cow strata
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
O O
O
O
0 . 0
O O
O O
O
O
O
65
Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than 60
acres of land pastured per animal unit, by cow strata
» .
65
Percentage distribution of those ranches having cropland for
pasture, by cow strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6?
Percentage distribution of those ranches having irrigated
pasture, by cow strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
68
Percentage distribution of those ranches having pasture com­
prising less than 40 percent of total land, by cow strata .
70
\
x
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont0)
Percentage distribution of those ranches having pasture
comprising more than UO percent but not more than 60 per­
cent of total land, by cow strata
„ 0 0 0 . 0 * . 0 0 „ „
Percentage distribution of those ranches having pasture
comprising more than 60 percent but not more than 80 per­
cent of total land, by cow strata „ „ »
o
„
Percentage distribution of those ranches having pasture
comprising more than 80 percent of total land, by cow
strata Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percentage distribution of those ranches having total land
of less than dr equal to 640 acres, by cow strata O 0 0 0 0
Percentage distribution of those ranches having total land
of more than 640 acres but not more than 2,560 acres, by
cow strata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percentage distribution of those ranches having more thap
2,560 acres"but not more than 6,400 acres of total land,
by cow strata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percentage distribution of those ranches having total land
of more than 6,400 acres, by cow strata . . . . . . . g .
Percentage distribution of ranches where zero percent of
the land is owned, by cow. strata o o o e o o o o o o o e e
Percentage distribution of ranches whe'fe greater than zero
but not more than 60 percent of the land is owned, by cow
strata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percentage distribution of ranches where more than 60 lout
not more than 99 percent of the land is owned, by cow.
strata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percentage distribution of ranches where all of the land is
owned, by cow strata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percentage distribution of those ranches having irrigated
cropland, by cow strata
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research study was to describe as completely
as possible the organization and structure of the beef cattle industry in
18 counties of southeastern Montana,
The description was accomplished by cross-classifying individual
ranch data concerning nonbeef livestock enterprises, crop enterprises,
the hay base, the pasture base, ranch size, and land tenure.
Data con­
cerning each of these items were stratified and then cross-classified
with seven cow-herd-size-categories within each of four study areas,
The number of observations, the mean, and the percentage distribution for
each stratification were calculated and compared in order to identify
ipiiqne populations of beef ranches within each area, cow-herd-size-group,
and the beef industry of the entire study area.
The results of the study revealed that several unique populations
of beef ranches exist within each of the study areas and that different
output and input combination's are evident in different areas.
xii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Problem Situation
■
The farming and ranching Industry in Montana plays an important role
in the income of the' state.
The beef industry as a particular segment of
agriculture has been a very important economic force in the Montana econ­
omy since its early beginning.
It was the first principle agricultural
industry in the state and still remains an important industry to the
Montana economy.
This is largely due to the fact that the range forage
resource, which is so abundant in Montana, is marketed principally through
the beef cattle industry.
Agriculture as an industry contributes a greater proportion to the
income of the state of Montana than does agriculture to the income of the
nation as a "whole.
Montana derives 17.1 percent of its personal income
directly from farming and' ranching.
Montana ranks fourth highest in the
nation as far as percent of personal income derived from farming is con­
cerned.
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa are the only states that
derive a greater portion of their personal income directly from farming.
Farming and ranching contributes only 4.3 percent to the personal income .
of the United States„^
In the state of Montana the livestock industry contributes just about
one half of the cash receipts of all farm products marketed. .The I 962
,Committee, for Economic Development, An Adaptive Program for
Agriculture. July, 1962, p. 66.
issue of
Basic Facts states:
The value of livestock and livestock products marketed rose above
the crop value in 1958 and 1959 but were below for the previous
six yearso Over the period from 1944 to 1959» livestock and
livestock products brought in 5 percent less cash receipts than
crops marketed,2
Table I shows the cash receipts from marketing livestock and livestock
products as it is related to total receipts.
TABLE I, CASH RECEIPTS FROM MARKETINGS9 LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS
. .(MONTANA),*
1955-1959 Averages•
All Cash
Sales
Average
Value
$
Livestock & products
Cattle & calves
Dairy products
Sheep & lambs
Wool
Hogs
Efegs.
Chickens
Other.
*Source I
49.1
36.4
3.8
3.3
1.6
1.6
1.4
0.9-
2009046
149,191
15,550
13,47?
6,357
6,390
5,786
1,235
.. 2.906,0
Livestock
and
Products
1951-1955
Average
Value
1955-59
as $ of
1951-55 ‘
■%
$
100.0
. 74 ,6
7.8
6.7
3.2
3.2
2;9
. 0.6
1.0 .
180,277
119,719
15,710
15,690
10,762
8,418
9,108
110.9
.124.6
99.0
85.9
59.1
75.9
77.1
86.9
23.7^0
'
Cooperative-Extension .Service ,and Ag, Experiment Station9
Montana Agriculture Basic Facts, #293s Jnne9 19629 p, 19.
^Cooperative.Extension.Service.and Ag. Experiment Station9
Montana. Agriculture' Basic Facts . #2939 Jnne9 19629 p. 19.
- 3 "
During the period from 1955 to 1959$ 49.1 percent or nearly one half
of all cash sales were attributable to livestock and livestock products in
Montana.
One would certainly not expect livestock to decline in importance re­
lative to crops in Montana.
demand for farm products.
Some important changes have taken place in the
As an economy experiences growth and becomes
more affluent,the demand for meat and livestock products increases rela­
tive to cereal grains.
If we assume that as an economy becomes more af­
fluent 9 it shifts its consumption in the direction of goods with a higher
income elasticity of demands then we could safely say that the demand for
meat and livestock products is going to increase relative to the demand
for crops (thinking in terms of crops used primarily for human consump­
tion).
Therefore, one would not expect resources devoted to livestock
production in Montana to be transferred to the production of food grain's.
If we focus our attention once again on the data shown in Table I,
we see that a significant portion of the cash receipts from MohtanaeS
livestock industry comes from cattle and calves.
There is reason to
believe that the percentage of all livestock receipts resulting from the
sale of cattle and calves (beef industry) is likely to increase.
In past
years cattle numbers and sheep numbers in Montana have tended to follow
different trends.
Sheep numbered over 5 million head in the first decade
of the 19009s 9 but there were only 1.75 million head on January I, 1961,3
This reduction of sheep numbers by
3Ibid., p,
190
65 percent was accompanied by approxi-
- 4 mately a 40 percent increase in cattle numbers over the same period.
In
the future, cattle numbers are likely to continue to increase and sheep
and lambs to decrease.
The relationship between beef cattle and sheep
numbers over the period from 1925 to I960 is shown in the following graph
(Figure I).
Sheep have decreased almost steadily since 1942.
Cattle
(Millions)
Sheep
(Millions)
2.5
_
5
SHEEP & LAMBS
ALL CATTLE
(except milk cows)
1925
1930
1935
19^0
19^5
1950
1955
I960
Figure I. Cattle (except milk cows) and sheep on farms, Montana, 1925-60.*
*
*Source: Cooperative Extension Service and Ag. Experiment Station,
Montana Agriculture Basic Facts. #293» June, 1962, p. 19.
Cattle and sheep ranching in Montana is still predominantly a range
operation.
Therefore, it is natural that as sheep numbers decrease,
cattle numbers will increase.
was in pasture and range, or
In 1950 two-thirds of Montana's land area
63 million acres out of the total of 93.6
5 “
million acres#^
Sheep production has also been shifting from range to
farm flocks and from the western states to the east#-5
Land use in
Montana is shown in Table II0
TABLE II#, MAJOR USES OF. UlND IN. MONTANA,. 1950.# *
Acres
(million)
Irrigated cropland
Nan-irrigated cropland
Non-forested pasture and range
Woodland and forest grazed
Woodland and forest not grazed
All other land
2#0
11.5
53.0
IO0O
IOcI
7.0
. Totals
93.6 .
Percent
2.1
12.3
56.7
10.7
IO0^
7.4
IOO0O
^Sources .Cooperative.Extension Service.and A g e Experiment Station,
Basic Facts# #293, Oct#, 1956, p# 3^°
Because the beef cattle industry plays an important role as an income
source in Montana, we find considerable research effort, concerning the
efficiency of resource combination, being directed toward the industry#
Economists are interested in a maximum social product#
It is recognized
that the allocation of scarce resources within and among industries is an
important factor in the maximizing process of firms, of industries, and of
a total economy#
By carefully analyzing the existing resource combination,
researchers' may discover that a reorganiza,tion of resources within' firms,
^
^Cooperative Extension.. Service and Ag# Experiment Station#■ Montana
Agriculture Basic Bacts0 #293$ O c t # 1956, p# 13°
■
5lbid# # p»
13#
I
- 6 _
industries, or between firms and industries could bring about greater ef­
ficiency and hence, greater social product*
Consequently, we find many
research projects devoted to examining existing resource combinations in
the beef cattle industry.
It is essential for us to understand and know as much as possible
about the structure of the beef industry and its component individual
ranch units before we can draw meaningful conclusions and inferences for
the industry.
There is a pressing need for us to know if, where, and how
many of a well defined homogeneous group of ranches exist if we want to
measure the impact of findings in this study and in others for the state
or the industry.
Most sources of data available to the researcher and policy-maker are
aggregated in such a manner that the identification of particular popula­
tions within the agricultural industry is next to impossible.
Many sources
of data provide statistics concerning the number of beef cows and the num­
ber of ranches involved, the number of acres of winter wheat and the num­
ber of farms involved, the average number of acres of pasture per ranch,
etc., for a particular area.
Such data may not be the type of information
that the researcher or policy^mhker needs.
- For instance, the researcher seeking to discover the economic importance of sheep enterprises in combination with beef ranches needs to know
not the average number of sheep in Gallatin County, but he needs to know
i f , and in what numbers, combination beef and sheep ranches exist and
where they exist, so that he might study them.
■
- 7 Suppose that a readjustment of the tax rates applied to various
qualities of rangeland is proposed.
The policymaker needs to know the
number of ranches that might have increased income due to that tax change.
In order for him to be correct in his judgment, he needs to know not the
average carrying capacity of Montana rangeland, but he needs to know the
number of ranches that have pasture of certain quality and capacity, and
the percentage of the total ranches this comprises in each particular part
of the state that might be affected.
It is important for.a researcher to have considerable homogeneity in
a group of firms studied if he expects his results or conclusions to be
sound.
The researcher must attempt to keep the variances of the statisti­
cal parameters small enough so that the parameters derived and the con­
clusions made are meaningful.
It, therefore, becomes essential that we
know how many firms of this homogeneous group exist and where they are
located^.
Research Problem
This research problem is concerned primarily with the structure and
organization of the beef cattle industry in the plains area of southeastern
Montana,
This study is to be the first phase of a study to collect infor­
mation and estimates relating differences or similarities in Montana range'
beef ranches regarding: (l) their organization and operation; (2) their
costs and returns, their rates of earnings on investment, labor, and
management; and (3) the value of the grazing resource of these firms.
- 8 In this study we are concerned with phase one, the organization and
operation of the ranching industry in southeastern Montana.
An attempt
will be made to obtain a clear and accurate description of what is in the
ranching industry in southeastern Montana and how and where the ranching
industry is distributed within the area.
There is a need to designate the ranch structure as it exists in the
state of Montana,
The ranching industry in Montana is very heterogenous.
In Montana we find a diverse combination of natural operating factors. ■
These factors— topography, elevation, soils, range plants, temperature,
moisture, winds, etc.— we find in endless combination and great variety.^
Montana’s ranching industry is spread over moist mountain valleys, rough
river break lands, dry plains, forest lands, and even fertile cropland
areas.
Due to Montana’s wide range of natural features, we would expect
that the size, organization, and output combinations of Montana’s ranches
would likewise be quite diverse.
Accordingly the problem of the researcher
in analyzing Montana’s beef industry is a complex one.
If, as in later phases of this study, a researcher is interested in
studying Montana’s beef industry for purposes of analyzing the efficiency
of resource allocation, he is confronted by a multitude of different sizes,
organizations, input combinations, and output combinations of farms and
ranches comprising the total beef industry in the state.
It is hoped that
this phase of the project will shed considerable light oh the What is
- 9 and the location of the beef cattle industry for use in later phases of
the study, and for use in other studies„
If suggestions and conclusions
for improving resource allocation within the industry are to be made, then
a complete understanding of the existing structure is necessary.
Objectives
There is one basic major objective of this study.
That is to des­
cribe the economic structure and composition of the beef ranching industry
in southeastern Montana.
Some secondary objectives that would be accomplished by such a des­
cription are I
1. To provide data in such a form that will benefit researchers in
setting up study areas and in sampling various populations.
2. To identify and describe some existing populations within the
beef industry in the study area.
1 3 o To provide data that will allow researchers to estimate accurately
the impact of conclusions drawn in this study and others oh the
beef industry and the state.
Limitations
It is necessary that the limitations to this study be pointed
out:
1. The ranches to be observed have been limited to those with at
least 20 and not more than 500 beef cows. Therefore, any
ranches having less than 20 or more than 500 beef cows will
not be included.
2. Because the initial sort is to be made on beef cows (including
heifers that have calved), any ranch whose entire operation
is one of purchasing feeder cattle and fattening them will
be excluded.
I
CHAPTER II
PROCEDURE
In any descriptive study of this nature one must choose an approach
and method of presentation that is as logical, straight forward, and con­
sistent as possible in order to accomplish the job and leave the reader
with a clear and uptangled notion about the nature and structure of the
subject being described.
In this case the decision was made to describe
on the basis of area and cow-herd-size.
It is hoped that this'will"re-
suit in a clear picture of where ranches with particular characteristics
are located, and how they are related to the size of the cow herd.•' The general procedure for this problem will be to describe by means
of'cross-classifying individual ranch data.
Data have been collected on
one-half of the ranches that have from 20 to 49 (inclusive) beef cows and
on all ranches that have from
50 to 500 (inclusive) beef cows in the.study
area i n 'southeastern Montana.
The data for this study, obtained through
the cooperation of the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of the
Census, were collected in 1959°
' The description is stratified according to geographic study area and
beef-eow-number-grouping.
fications,
There are four areas and seven-beef cow dlassi-.
Each individual rinch observation within each area was sorted
into a specific eou-number-categcry„
The description, therefore, entails
28 separate and distinct groups of ranches (7 cow number stratifications
and 4 geographic stratifications).
The analysis and stratification of
land use data and nonbeef livestock data is the same for each area andr
- 11 cow-number-group„
The same basic method of analysis and presentation was
used throughout,.the entire study.
Each chapter, which represents a specific phase of the description,
contains appendix tables showing the data distribution by study area and
graphs showing the percentage distribution of the various land use and
nonbeef livestock stratifications by study area and cow-number-group.
Each table contains information relative to the number of observations,
the mean, and the percent of total observations for the area.
All stratifications are on a purely physical basis, i.e,,.acres, cownumbers, animal units, etc.
Ho attempt has been, made to convert any data
to monetary terms.
The Study Area
Each ranch as mentioned earlier was segregated into one of four geo­
graphic subareas within the study area.
cording to two criteria.
These regions were selected ac­
The counties were grouped as much as possible by
(l) geographic, topographic, and climatic similarities; and (2) by type of
farming similarities.
are shown in Figure 2.
The total study area and component individual areas
Figure 3 shows the types of farming found through­
out the study area.
The total area, which includes 18 counties in southeastern Montana, is
bounded on the north by the Missouri River, on the west by mountains and
■foothills, on the south by Vfyoming, and on the east by Horth and South
Dakota.
This area, comprising a little less than l/3 of Montana9S land
- 12 surface, is characterized b y a semiarid climate which is typical of the
Great Plains„
Area I includes Wheatland, Golden Valley, and Musselshell counties„
This group of comities is bounded on the north b y the Big Snowy and the '
little Belt mountains „
Crazy mountains.
Along the western boundary are the Castle and the
The dominant type of farming found in this group is
livestock ranching.
A small amount of cash graiii farming can be found
i
along the southern edge of Golden Valley County, and some mixed livestock
ranching and cash grain farming is located along the northern edge of
Musselshell County.
Area 2, which includes the counties of Yellowstone, Treasure, and
Big Horn, is a very diversified area.
The two major influences in this
area are the irrigated Yellowstone Valley and the irrigated valleys- along
the Big Horn and Little Big Horn rivers „
However, most of- the agricultural
activity of this area outside of the irrigated valleys is classified as
livestock ranching.
Area 3 includes Petroleum, Garfield, Prairie, Rosebud, Custer, Powder
River, and Carter counties.
The dominant type of farming found in this
area is livestock ranching.
The only major discrepancies are found along
the Yellowstone River and in Petroleum and Prairie counties where some cash
grain and mixed cash grain and livestock ranching is found.
Area 3 re-
presents the semi-arid plains; the average annual rainfall for the seven
county area is
12.32 inches.^
7USDA Statistical Reporting Service, Montana Agriculture Statistics,
VIX, December, 1962, p. 16.
MONTANA
F igure 2.
Grap h i c d i s t r ibution of study a r e a s .
Cash crop f a r m i n g :
G rain
L i v e stock ranching
H"
J__
I
j
M i x e d livestock ranching
and cash crop farming
General farming and irrigation
F i gure 3.
*Source:
Nicholas H e lburn, M. J. Edie,
Types of farming.*
and G o rdon L i g h t f o o t , M o n t a n a in M a p s , p. 27.
- 15 Kie fourth area, "which includes McCone, Richland, Dawson, Wibaux,
and Fallon counties, is similar to Area 2 in that it is quite diversified0
However, in Area 4 there is less agriculture that is classified as the
livestock ranching type and as general and irrigated farming than in Area
2o
In Area 4 we find considerable cash grain farming and mixed cash
grain farming and livestock ranching 0
In the northern part of this area
we begin to get into that section of the state which is devoted largely
to the production of spring wheat.
As stated previously, the second major sort on the individual ranch
observations was by beef cow numbers,
The beef-cow-groupings
used are
as follows:
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Is
2s
3!
4s
5s
6:
7s
those
those
those
those
those
those
those
ranches with
ranches with
ranches with
ranches with
ranches with
ranches with
ranches with
20 to 49 beef cows;
50 to ?4 beef cows;
75 to 99 beef cows;
100 to 149 beef cows;
150 to 199 beef cows;
200 to 299 beef cows;
300 to 500 beef cows.
The observed-data is presented in Table III, which includes informa­
tion of 'the' number of observations found in each cow group, the mean for
each group, and the percentage that each group comprises of the total ob­
served' ranches of the particular areas,
Figure "4 is a pictorial presenta­
tion showing, by study area, the percentage of the ranches in each area
falling into'the various cow groups or stratifications,
TABLE III.
BEEF COW NUMBER DISTRIBUTION BY STUDY AKEA6 -
Cow
Strata
- Area I
Percent
-of
Qba-. 'Mean
Area
#
••#
20=49
50-74
' 75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
84
73
34
58
25
23
6
TOTALS
303-/
35.7
60.2
87.0
119:9
177.3
228.3
421.3
-Qbs.
%
#
27 „7
24.1
11.2
19.1
8.3
7.6T
2,0
190
92
72
61
32
38
23
100.0
‘
508-/
Area 2
Percent
Mean
of
Area
Obs.
Area 3
Percent
Mean
of
Area
Area 4
Obs.
%
#
#
%
#
35.9
37.4
60.4
18.1
14.2
12.0
6.3
7.5
4.5
308
248
199
191
121
87
47
35.0
61.7
87.1
122.0
171.3
236.1
366.0
25.6
20.7
16.6
15.9
10.1
7.2
3.9
304
198
108
110
29
30
10
#
86.8
124.1
170.7
233.8
365.4
100.0
100.0
1201-/
789-/
Mean
Percent
of
Area
7.
35.1
60.3
86,1
119.3
173.2
246.5
406.2
38.5
25.1
13.7
13.9
3.7
3.8
1.3
100.0
a/
The figure for number of observations in cow category 20=49 has been, doubled. Data were
collected from only 1/2 of the ranches in this cow category. Throughout the remainder of
the study the number of observations have not been adjusted for the first cow category.
b/
These are corrected totals. To get the number of ranches actually observed-subtract 1/2'
of the first entry from each total.
’
'
y-
■
Percent
40
■
S
□
B
35'
3CT
AR E A I
AREA 2
AREA 3
AREA 4
25T
20
X
15*
10
5
20-49
50-74
75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
COW STRATA
F igure 4.
Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of C ow N u mber Strata By Area.
As one would, expect, most of the observations fall into the smaller
cow categories.
In Areas I and 3 considerably fewer observations were
found in the 20 to 49 cow strata than in Areas 2 and 4.
Area 4 ranks
first among the four areas in the first two cow stratifications and last
,
in the last three cow stratifications.
In order for one to .evaluate and interpret the tables and graphs in
the remainder of this study, it is well to bear in mind the relative num­
ber of ranch observations in the various cow categories.
In the larger
cow categories only a few observations were found; therefore, some dis­
tortion in the means of other items stratified (cross-classified) within
each individual cow category may occur.
As stated previously, the description of the beef industry in south­
eastern Montana was accomplished by cross-classifying the individual ranch
data of 28 study groups with other livestock data, crop enterprise data,
hay data, pasture data, and some general data on land tenure and use.
The description is handled in two major but separate parts.
Chapter
III deals with the analysis of all the various output or product combina­
tions found on beef ranches in the study area.
Chapter III and its ast-
sociated appendices are further broken into two sections— the first sec­
tion is an analysis of other livestock enterprises in combination with
beef enterprises, namely sheep, swine, and dairy; the second section
contains information relative to crop enterprises found in combination
with beef enterprises, namely wheat, barley, oats, c o m , other crops,
and sugar beets.
19 The second major part of the description. Chapter XV, contains a
discussion and analysis of the hay, pasture, and general land inputs found
on beef ranches in the study area.
There are three appendices for Chapter
-IV— the first contains tables concerning hay acres, the second contains
tables concerning pasture analysis, and the third contains tables on
general land use and tenure.
Chapter V is a brief summary of the conclusions made and major trends
that were found by the analysis.
/
CHAPTER III
OTHER ENTERPRISES FOUND IN COMBINATION
WITH BEEF CATTLE RANCHES
The first phase of the description entails a cross-classification of
other ranch output data Hith the established beef-cow-stratifications„
Data ..concerning other livestock and crop enterprises were stratified with­
in each of the cow and study,area stratifications.
The stratifications on
all of the output data are the same for each beef-cow-herd-size-group or
stratification.
The data are presented in graphic form throughout the text, showing
the percentage distribution of ranch observations having a particular out­
put stratification in each cow-number-group and study area.
The data from
which the graphs were constructed are presented in tables in the appendix.
The tables contain information on the mean and the number of observations
found in each output strata in addition to the percentage distribution.
The reader should recognize that, in some areas, distortions or ex­
aggerations of the percentage distributions do occur because there are only
a few observations in some of the larger size categories.
Livestock Enterprises
Sheen.--In order to get some picture of the importance of sheep enter­
prises in conjunction with various sized cattle ranches, the comparison was
made on a breeding animal unit basis.
All ranches in each cow category
were stratified as to whether they had no ewes or between zero and one-half
as many animal units of ewes as beef cows, or more than one-half as many
animal units of ewes as beef cows.
Ranches were sorted into one of the
- 21 three categories by taking one-fifth of the ewes and dividing by the num­
ber of beef cows.
The percentage distributions shown in Figures 5s 6,
and 7 are, therefore, distributions -of animal unit equivalents of breeding
sheep by beef cow strata.
A comparison of beef cattle and sheep on an animal unit basis works
well, in that cattle and sheep ranching in southeastern MoUtana is pri­
marily a range proposition.
In many instances the cattle and sheep enter-
prises must compete for the same land resource.
In. such instances addi­
tional cattle or additional sheep can be added to a given ranch only at
the sacrifice of the other enterprise.
Of course, there are other ranches
where sheep complement cattle because much of the range may be unsuitable
for grazing by cattle.
As one would expect, more combination beef and sheep ranches were
found in Areas I and 3 than in Areas 2 and 4.
Also, with the exception
of Area I, as cow numbers increase the percentage of ranches incorporating
a sheep enterprise decrease. , The number of ranches with sheep in Areas
2 and 4 ranged from O to 15 percent with the lower percentages found in the
larger size categories (Figure 5)°
It is important here to note that in all categories in Area 3 the per­
centage of ranches incorporating a sheep enterprise ranged between 15 and
30 percent.
Area I.
Even more common is the combination beef and sheep ranch in
In all categories in Area I the percentage of combination beef
and sheep ranches exceeded
30 percent and ranged upward to 50 percent in
the 200 to 299 cow category.
It becomes apparent to one that these areas
have a large number of combination beef and sheep ranches and that this
- 22 population is indeed an important one in these areas.
The relative impor­
tance of the sheep and cattle enterprises can be seen in Figures 6 and 7.
Certainly any researcher or other individual sampling or studying some
aspect of agriculture in Areas I and 3 should be aware of this population.
One would expect that the combination beef and sheep ranches might be or­
ganized quite differently than the pure beef ranch.
An awareness of such
populations is particularly important in many instances because of the high
dependence of both enterprises on the range and hay resource.
Percent
I
Area 4
Area 3
Area I
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 5. Percentage distribution of ranches having no breeding AU's of
sheep per breeding AU of beef cow, by cow strata„
- 23 Percent
Area I
Area 3/^f
Area 4
Area
75-99
100-149
150-199 200-299
300^500
Figure 6. Percentage distribution of ranches having 0 to 0.5 breeding
AU's of sheep per breeding AU of beef cow, by cow strata.
Percent
Area I
Area 3
Area 4
Area 2
75-99
100-159
150-199
200-299
300-500
Figure 7. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 0.5 breed­
ing A U ’s of sheep per breeding AU of beef cow, by cow strata.
-
24
-
Swine.— Figure 8 shows the percentage distribution of beef ranches in­
corporating a hog enterprise.
Hogs were cross-classified with beef cattle
on the basis of litters farrowed.
Ranch observations were sorted into two
groups-— those farrowing one litter or less and those farrowing more than,
one litter per year.
Any hog enterprise involving the purchase and feed­
ing of weaners was eliminated in this analysis.
One would conclude from the analysis that as cow numbers increase the
percentage of ranches incorporating a hog enterprise tend to decrease.
However, there are two unique exceptions to this generalization $ namely
those ranches having 150 to 199 cows in JLreas I and 4.
In JLreas 2 and 4, where there are more diversified irrigated farms
than in Jlreas I.and 3, a hog enterprise in conjunction with the beef enter­
prise occurs more frequently.
In all cqw categories except one, JLrea 4
has more combination hog and beef enterprises than the other areas.
On
the smaller beef ranches of Jlreas 2 and 4, hogs seem to be of some impor­
tance.
The percentage of ranches incorporating a hog enterprise in con\
junction with beef in these instances runs from 15 to 20 percent.
How­
ever, on the whole, one must conclude that hogs do not play an important
role on most beef ranches in southeastern Montana.
Certainly in Areas I
and 3 the combining of swine and beef enterprises on the same ranch is not
a common practice.
In most instances the percentage of ranches in these
areas having hogs ranges downward from 10 percent.
- 25 Percent
Area 2
\
Area 4
Area L»
Area 3 '
75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
Figure 8. Percentage distribution of ranches farrowing more than one
litter of hogs, by cow strata.
Dairy.— The identification of dairy enterprises in combination with
beef ranches was accomplished by sorting the individual ranch observations
into two groups— those ranches having five or less dairy cows and those
ranches having more than five dairy cows.
It was felt that any ranch having no more than five dairy cows had
these cows for the primary purpose of providing dairy products for home
use.
On a ranch having more than five dairy cows, the dairy enterprise
would likely be a commercial operation supplementing other ranch income.
The results of this analysis revealed, as in the case of hogs, that
the percentage of ranches having a dairy enterprise in conjunction with a
beef enterprise declines as the size of the beef herd increases.
- 26 The reader should not be misled by the opposite trend that occurs in
the last two cow stratifications of Area I (Figure 9)°
As was stated pre­
viously, distortions in percentage distributions are likely to occur when
dealing with small numbers of observations„
One observes'when examining
Table VI of Appendix A that there are only 23 and 6 ranches in Area I that
have from 200 to
299 and from 300 to 500 beef cows, respectively,
Jh the
latter case, only one observation had more than five milk cows, (six to be
exact), but this was enough to distort the picture considerably,
As in the case of hogs one would conclude, as*a general rule, ranches
having a commercial d a % y enterprise in combination with a beef enterprise
are few in southeast Montana,
In the majority of cow categories the per­
centage of ranches having more than five milk cows is less than 10 percent
and in one-half of the categories the percentage is less than 5 percent,
Qn the smaller beef cow ranches of Areas 2 and 4, combination beef
and dairy enterprises are more common.
This is as expected, because many
diversified irrigated ranches are found in th,e Yellowstone Valley and most
of"'the larger towns' and cities of southeastern Montana are located in these
areas.
- 2? Percent
Area 4
Area I
A rea,2
-Area 3
75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
Figure 9. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than five dairy
cows, by cow strata.
Crop Enterprises
Major sections of the beef industry in Montana are built or organized
as combinations of cattle and cash crops.
This is of greater importance in
some areas than others, but one must examine and know how many such organi­
zations we have in various areas to draw inferences resulting from changes
in either the cattle or crop enterprises.
They are very closely inter­
related and the organization of these combination units is different from
the organization of either a straight cash crop or straight beef unit.
All crops harvested.— The description of crops and their influence
and importance on beef ranches is accomplished by looking at an aggregate
of all crops harvested, and by then breaking this aggregate down and ex­
amining separately each major crop grown in the study area.
The first observations one makes when examining Figure 10 is that
crop enterprises in combination with beef ranches are much more common
than other livestock enterprises in combination with beef ranches.
In
only 3 of the 28 individual groups of. ranches does the percentage of pure
livestock organization or those' having no cash crops harvested exceed 50
percent.
Those three categories are the largest category in Area 2 and
the two largest size categories in Area 3The first graph of each sequence on sheep, swine, and dairy tells the
rest of the story in that very few of the 28 individual groups had even
25 percent other livestock.
With the exception of Area I, those cow num­
ber categories having no sheep exceed 70 percent.
Those cow number cate­
gories having one or less litters farrowed all exceed 79 percent.
With the
exception of the two largest size categories of Areal those cow number
groups having five or less dairy cows exceeded 84 percent.
The area that stands out in the analysis of all crops harvested is
Area 4.
The percentage of ranches harvesting more than 200 acres of crops
(Figure 13) is the greatest for Area 4 in all cow categories, and in the
first five cow categories of Area 4 the percentage of ranches harvesting
more than 200 acres of crops is, in every instance, more than double that
of any other area.
- 29 Further analysis and conclusions about crop enterprises in conjunc­
tion with the beef enterprise will be pointed out in the sections dealing
with specific crops.
Percent
20-49
50-74
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 10. Percentage distribution of ranches having zero acres in all
crops, by cow strata. (Excludes sugar beet acres.)
- 30 Percent
Area I
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
Cow Strata
Figure 11. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than zero but
not more than 50 acres of all crops, by cow strata.
(Excludes
sugar beets.)
Perjcent
50
40
—Area 2
30
Area I
Area 3
20
Area 4^
10
0
75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
Cow Strata
Figure 12. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 50 but
not more than 200 acres of all crops, by cow strata.
(Excludes
sugar beet acres.)
- 31Percent
Area 4
Area 2
Area 3
Area I '
75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
Cow Strata
Figure 13. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 200 acres
of all crops, by cow strata.
(Excludes sugar beet acres.)
All wheat.—
The most common enterprise found in combination with
beef cattle ranches in southeastern Montana is wheat.
ranches not having a wheat enterprise exceeds
The percentage of
50 percent in only one-
fourth of the 28 individual groups.
It is also interesting to note that of those ranches in Area 4 having
75 to 99 cows, 100 to 149 cows, and 150 to 199 cows, better than
harvested more than 200 acres of wheat (Figure 17).
50 percent
In the last two cow
categories of Area 4 more than 30 percent of the ranches harvested in ex­
cess of 200 acres of wheat.
It is evident from an examination of Figure
17 and Table VIII of Appendix B that large wheat enterprises in conjunc­
tion with large beef enterprises are common in both Areas 2 and 4.
It
- 32 is indeed revealing to examine the mean acreage of wheat harvested for
.
■
all cow categories of Area 2 and 4- harvesting more than 200 acres of
■wheat.
The mean acres of wheat harvested for those ranches having over
200 acres of wheat for Area 2 in order of increasing cow herd size are
272,7 acres, 4-28,3, acres, 585-2 acres, 572,5 acres,
acres, and 729.3 acres.
552.1 acres, 364,4-
The means of acres of wheat harvested in excess
of 200 acres for Area 4 in order of increasing cow herd size are
acres, 411.0 acres,
361,8
456.8 acres, 484,4 acres, 302,6 acres, 839.0 acres,
and 294.3 acres.
Still another conclusion drawn from Figure 14 is that there is a
definite trend between the number of ranches incorporating a wheat enter
prise and the size of the beef cow herd.
In all study areas the percent
age of ranches not having wheat increased as the size of the beef cow
herd increased.
The percentage distribution of those ranches incorpora­
ting a wheat enterprise is shown in Figures 15» 16 and 17.
- 33 Percent
Area I
Area
Area 2 '
20-49
50-74
75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
Cow Strata
Figure 14. Percentage distribution of ranches having no wheat, by
cow strata.
Percent
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
Figure 15. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than zero but
not more than 50 acres of wheat, by cow strata.
- 34 Percent
Area I
-Area 2
Jlrea 3'
Area 4 - \ ^
75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
Figure 16. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 50 but
not more than 200 acres of wheat, by cow strata.
Percent
Area 4
Area 2
Area 3
Area I
75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
Figure 17. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 200 acres
of wheat, by cow strata.
- 35 —
Winter wheat.--All wheat acres have been broken into two groups—
winter wheat and spring wheat plus durum— for further analysis„
There
are two reasons for this further breakdowns (l) the production pattern of
winter and spring varieties is quite different when comparing study areas;
and (2) the labor requirements for the production of winter and spring
varieties although the same in quantity occur at different times during
the year.
These factors affect the relationship between the beef and
crop enterprise.
The general conclusion concerning this section and the section
following on spring wheat and durum is the same as that for all wheat,
namely, as eow-herd~size increases, the percentage of ranches with a
winter wheat or a spring wheat and durum enterprise decreases (Figures
18 and 22) ,.
The analysis points out quite convincingly that the production of
winter and spring varieties occurs in different areas.
Areas 2 and 4
which were dominant in the analysis of all wheat on beef ranches, are
also dominant in this analysis.
In Area 2 one finds the combination
cattle and winter wheat ranches, and in Area 4 one finds the combination
cattle and spring wheat ranches.
Figures 18 through 21 pertain to winter
wheat and Figures 22 through 25 to spring wheat and durum.
An interesting observation about the percentage distribution of
ranches having more than 200 acres of winter wheat is the relationship
t
between the cow-herd-size and winter wheat enterprise Occuring in Area 2
(Figure 21).
The relationship appears to be, to a degree, the reverse of
that for all other areas'.
In other areas the percentage of ranches
- 36 incorporating a winter wheat enterprise declines as cow numbers increase.
The trend shown by Area 2 in the cow categories starting at 100 head is
that as cow herd size increases the percentage of ranches having wheat
also increases.
Area 2, in Figure 18, also shows the same sort of trend
for winter wheat enterprises of all sizes.
Percent
Area 3
Area 4
Area
Area 2
20-49
50-74
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 18. Percentage distribution of ranches having no winter wheat,
by cow strata.
Percent
Area
Area
Area
Area
20-49
50-74
75-99
I
2
3
4
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 19. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than zero but
not more than 50 acres of winter wheat, by cow strata.
- J l Percent
Area I
Area
Area 4 A —
'
Area 3 7
74-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
Cow Strata
Figure 20. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 50 but not
more than 200 acres of winter wheat, by cow strata.
Percent
Area I
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
50-74
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 21. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 200 acres
of winter wheat, by cow strata.
- 38 —
Spring wheat and durumo— Most of the results of and reasons for this
analysis have been covered in the proceeding section.
Figures 22, 24, and
25 tell the story; combination beef and spring wheat ranches are located
in Area 4,
Of those beef ranches harvesting more than 200 acres of spring
wheat or durum (Figure 25), Area 4 leads its nearest competitor, Area 3
by as much as 14 fold (150 to 199 cow category),
One other observation about this analysis should be pointed out.
Area 3, which is the only area bordering Area 4» ranks second quite con­
sistently to Area 4 as far as percentage of beef ranches incorporating a
spring wheat enterprise is concerned.
If one turns to Figure 3, Types of
Farming, that part of Area 3 where the combination beef and spring wheat
ranches are found is evident.
Prairie County.
Most of these ranches lie within or near
- 39 Percent
20-4?
50-74
75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
Cow Strata
Figure 22. Percentage distribution of ranches having no spring wheat or
durum, by cow strata.
Percent
Area
Area
Area
Area
75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
Figure 23. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than zero but not
more than 50 acres of spring wheat or durum, by cow strata.
- 40 Percent
Area 4
Area 3
Area
Area 2
50-74
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 24. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 50 but not
more than 200 acres of spring wheat or durum, by cow strata.
Percent
50
40
X
Area 4
X
30
X
X
Area I
Area 2
Area 3
20
-
6—
6-
10
0
20-49
50-74
3 = =
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 25. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 200 acres of
spring wheat or durum, by cow strata.
Feed grains--oats and barley,,-- The analysis of the feed grains$ like
the analysis of -wheat, is handled in three parts I (l) oats and barley in
I
combination, (2) oats separately, and (3) barley separately.
Although oats
and barley are often analyzed as one group, it is the opinion of this
author that a separate analysis of each is justified for the following
reasons:
(l) barley produced on a Montana cattle ranch may very likely be
a cash crop; and (2) oats produced on a.Montana cattle ranch will most
likely be used for livestock feed.
If this opinion be so, then barley is
likely to be marketed directly as a cash crop much the same as wheat,
and oats will be marketed indirectly in the form.of livestock products
much the same as pasture or hay.
The results of the aggregate analysis of barley and oats in conjunc­
tion with beef ranches is presented in Figures 26, 2?, and 28,
general trends do exist they would be difficult to identify.
If any
Certain of
the areas follow some sort of a continual movement 1between cow stratifi­
cations, but movements of other areas are too erratic to attempt to identi­
fy or explain.
Area 3 has the least erratic fluctuations,
Area 3 follows the more
general pattern, in that the percentage of ranches having a feed grain
enterprise tends to decrease as cow numbers increase,
A feed grain enter­
prise on beef ranches is important as well over half of the ranches in­
cluded a feed grain enterprise,
A much more detailed explanation of these
two enterprises will be presented in the following sections on oats and
on barley.
- 42 Percent
Area I
Area
Area 2-
50-74
Figure
75-99
— Area 4
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
26. Percentage distribution of ranches having no oats or barley,
by cow strata.
Percent
Area I
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 27. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than zero but
not more than 50 acres of oats or barley, by cow strata.
- 43 Percent
Area 4
Area 2
Area 3
Area I
50-74
75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
Cow Strata
Figure 28. Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than 50
acres of oats or barley, by cow strata.
Oats.— Oats are important on beef ranches in Montana not so much as a
cash crop but as a livestock feed.
Some contend that oats are superior to
barley if one is interested mainly in growth rather than a fattened pro­
duct.
Livestock producers also view oats as being an excellent supple­
mental feed for female animals during and following the calving and lambing
periods.
It is a good milk producing feed which can be supplied on the
ranch from diverted acres not in wheat production.
Therefore, on many
ranches one will find a few acres of oats harvested in order to provide
feed for replacement heifers, bulls, and horses.
Another advantage is that
oat straw is of higher quality than the straw of other cereal grains.
- M- The results of this analysis indicate that no evident patterns exist
in the production of oats on beef cattle ranches.
One important observa­
tion is the difference in the relative percentage levels of Figures 30 and
31.
Of those ranches having zero to 50 acres of oats, most categories ex­
ceed 20 percent.
On the other hand, of those ranches having more than 50
acres of oats, few categories exceed 10 percent.
oat acreages on beef ranches are generally small.
One would conclude that
One would probably get
a much better or stronger connection between those ranches having sheep
and supplementary oats enterprises.
Many sheep producers feed oats at time
of lambing.
Percent
Area I
Area 2
Area 4
20-49
50-74
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 29. Percentage distribution of ranches having no oats, by cow
strata.
- 45 Percent
Area 2-
Area 4
Area
75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
Cow Strata
Figure 30. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than zero but
not more than 50 acres of oats, by cow strata.
Percent
/Area 4
Area
Are^ 3'
75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
Figure 31. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 50 acres
of oats, by cow strata.
...-
(— 46 «=*
Barley.--The production of barley on beef ranches is important for
two reasons; (l) on ranches marketing fed cattle in'Montana, one of the
more popular feeds for fattening is barley; and (2) on combination commer­
cial grain and cattle ranches in Montana, barley is one of the better al­
ternatives for diverted wheat acres.
\
Figures 32, 33$ and 34, which show the results of the analysis of
barley, .are somewhat more revealing than were the graphs on oats and
barley combined and on oats separately, in that much of the fluctuation
has been removed with the removal of oat acres.
These fluctuations are
probably caused by the sheep enterprise as pointed out earlier.
In gen­
eral one could conclude that as cow numbers increase, the number of
ranches including a barley enterprise decrease in much the same manner as
did wheat.
Also, as in the analysis of all wheat and of spring wheat and
durum, Area 4, with only one exception, has a greater percentage of ranches
incorporating a barley enterprise of more than 200 acres than any of the
other areas.
A comparison of Figure
36 (more than 200 acres of barley) and Figure
33 (more than 200 acres of oats) is appropriate.
In all categories, ex­
cluding parts of Area 3 and the last cow category of Area I, more than 10
percent of the ranch observations harvested barley in excess of 200 acres,
while in most cases fewer than 10 percent of the ranches harvested more
than 200 acres of oats.
- 4? Percent
Area
Area 3
Area 2
20-4950-7475-99100-149
150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 32. Percentage distribution of ranches having no barley, by cow
strata.
Percent
Area 2
Area I
Area 4
Area
20-4950-7475-99100-149
150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 33. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than zero but
not more than 50 acres of barley, by cow strata.
- 48 Percent
Area 4
Area 2
Area 3
Area I
7 5 - 9 9 1 0 0 - 1 4 9 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 34. Percentage distribution of ranches having more than 50 acres
of barley, by cow strata.
C o m .— Corn is not a major crop in most of the state.
However, in
Area 4 considerable amounts of c o m are produced for use as livestock feed.
Most c o m in southeastern Montana is harvested as silage or is grazed in
the field during the fall of the year.
Figure 35 shows the percentage distribution of ranches having a c o m
enterprise.
It is particularly interesting to note the high percentage of
ranches in Area 4 harvesting c o m at all cow-herd-sizes.
In only the last
cow category does the percentage of ranches harvesting c o m fall below 40
percent, and then only to 30 percent.
The percentages range upward to
over 50 percent in the 150 to 199 cow stratification.
Certainly if one
were interested in studying the economics of feeding c o m silage to beef
cattle, Area 4 would be the place where one would find ranches to sample.
It is also the area where a c o m base is available for supplementing barley
- 49 and other feed grains in a feeding enterprise.
This does not say that
other areas cannot grow corn but points up a definite difference in the
areas at this time.
It seems that no specific trends exist between percentage of ranches
harvesting corn and the cow herd size.
One would expect to find a distri­
bution of this nature because c o m and beef enterprises on Montana ranches
are not competitive but complementary.
Very likely most ranches having
a c o m enterprise do so not to supplement income but to produce livestock
feed.
It is also likely that many of the ranches including corn do so to
supplement a cattle feeding enterprise.
Percent
Area 4
Area 2
Area
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 35. Percentage distribution of ranches having c o m , by cow strata
- 50 Other crops.— (Excluding sugar beets)— Other crops that might be
found in the study area are flax, rye, safflower, and dry beans.
ranches in the study these crops were of little importance.
Figure
On most
A look at
36, which shows the percentage distribution of ranches having more
than zero acres of other crops, reveals that in all ranch groups the per­
centage of ranches having other crops was less than 10 percent, and in all
but five ranch groups the percentage having other crops was less than 5
percent.
The importance of other crops seems to be about the same for all
areas.
However, the percentage of beef ranches having other crops is
slightly higher for Area 4 than for the other areas throughout the smaller
cow stratifications.
These other crops are of little or no importance in
describing the structure of the beef cattle industry in the study area.
Percent
Area I
Area 4
Area 2
Area 3
20-4950-7475-99100-149150-199
Cow Strata
Figure
200:299300-500
36. Percentage distribution of ranches having other crops, by
cow strata.
- 51 Sugar beets.— Sugar beets is probably the best alternative crop for
irrigated ranches in the Yellowstone Valley.
A sugar beet enterprise in
combination with a beef enterprise exists probably as a supplement to or
as the main source of ranch income.
The analysis showed that Area 2, which includes most of the irrigated
areas of the Yellowstone, Big Horn, and Little Big Horn valleys, is by
a considerable margin the leading area in the production of sugar beets.
The trend shown (Figure 37) by Area 2 is very definite, i.e., as cow-herdsize increases the percentage of ranches incorporating a sugar beet enter­
prise decreases.
Areas 3 and 4 have some combination beef and sugar beet ranches, but
not many.
Those that do exist are found along the Yellowstone River.
Percent
Area
Area
Area
Area
I
2
3
4
Area 2
75-99100-149
150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 37. Percentage distribution of ranches having sugar beets, by
cow strata.
CHAPTER IV '
L M D RESOURCE USE AS M INPUT
OF BEEF CATTLE R M C H E S
The major input item associated with any beef cattle operation is
feed.
Southeastern Montana has vast acreages of range and pasture land
which are harvested by and marketed through beef cattle.
This semi-arid
range land provides a feed base in the form of range and hay for a substan­
tial part of Montana’s beef industry.
The vast range resource of the area
is utilized in the production of feeder calves which are shipped in large
numbers to the C o m Belt for finishing.
Although some feediot operations
are found in the study area, the majority of the area’s beef industry is
made up of cow-calf operations.
The range resource is supplemented during
the winter months with hay which is also usually produced on the. ranch.
It is, therefore, appropriate that a detailed analysis of the hay and
pasture base associated with beef cattle ranches be included in any des­
criptive study of the industry.
This chapter, and its accompanying appen­
dices, is divided into three major parts.
The first part includes that
portion of the analysis describing the hay base asssociated with various
sized cattle ranches within the four study areas.
The second part per­
tains to the pasture base found in conjunction with each study group.
The
third part, which contains information on general land data, emphasizes
irrigated land and ownership patterns.
The data from which the percentage
distributions in the text were calculated are,presented on tables in Appen­
dices C , D, and E which pertain to hay, pasture, and general land analysis
- 53 In addition the tables include information on the number of observations
found in, each grouping and the mean for that grouping.
As in the analysis presented in the preceding chapter, the reader
should be aware that distortions of percentage distributions and means may
occur in those ranch groupings that contain only a few observations.
Hay
All h a y .--In order that the hay base associated with beef ranches can
be identified and described in more detail9 the analysis has been broken
into four parts.
First an aggregation of all hay found on individual
ranch groups is analyzed and then an analysis based on a grouping of hay
into three major types is presented.
Ranches were sorted inter one of three groups— those having less than
or equal to '50 acres of hay, those having between 50 and 200 acres of hay,
and those having more than 200 acres of hay.
Figures 38, 39, and 40 show
the percentage distribution of observations resulting from the analysis.
As one would expect, the number of acres of hay is closely related to the
number of cows.
Those cow groups ranking highest, so far as percentage
of ranches having less than 50 acres of hay is concerned (Figure 38), are
the three groups having less than 100 cows.
In Figure 39 the highest con­
centration of ranches having between 50 and 200 acres of hay are found in
the middle three size categories.
Of the total ranches, those cutting more
than 200 acres of hay (Figure 40) range from approximately 35 to 70 per­
cent for the largest two size categories.
- 54 Area 2, which is the area with the most irrigation, has the highest
percentage of ranches falling into the 50 acres or less category (Figure
38) and the lowest percentage of ranches falling into the greater than 200
acre category (Figure 40).
This would indicate that where irrigation is
more predominant the number of acres that need be devoted to the production
of hay for livestock feed are few because of the high yields of hay found
on irrigated land.
Percent
60.
Area 2
Area 4
Area 3
Area I
100-149
Figure
150-199
200-299
300-500
38. Percentage distribution of those ranches having 50 acres or less
of all hay, by cow strata.
- 55 -
Percent
Area I
Area 4
Area 2
Area 3
75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
Figure 39. Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than 50
but not more than 200 acres of all hay, by cow strata.
Percent
Area I
Area 3
Area 4
Area 2
50-7475-99100-149
150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 40. Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than 200
acres of all hay, by cow strata.
- 56 Alfalfa.— Figure 41, 42, and 43 pertain to the analysis of alfalfa.
Ranches were studied on the same basis as all hay— -those with 50 acres or
less of alfalfa, those with between
50 and 200 acres of alfalfa, and
those with more than 200 acres of alfalfa.
Area 2 has the greatest per­
centage of ranches (in most size categories) cutting alfalfa hay as con­
trasted with its last place ranking in the analysis of all hay.
The
irrigated land base is the principal reason that alfalfa is the most pre­
dominant kind of hay.
Alfalfa is a high yielder under irrigation;" it is a
very high quality livestock feed, and it is commonly used in rotation
systems with sugar beets and other cash crops because of its nitrogen
firing properties.
Another fact that should be pointed out is the- last place position
that Area 4 consistently holds in the percent of ranches having acreages
of alfalfa.
Although Area 4 has the highest percentage of ranches having
50" acres or less of alfalfa (Figure 4l), the mean acreage in every c'dw
category is considerably lower than for all other areas (Table II, Appendix C)".
This would indicate that there was a higher percentage'of “the
ranches in Area 4 that had no alfalfa than in the other areas.
also is the lowest ranking area in the more than
Area 4
50 but 200 acres or,less
category (Figure 42), and of the more than 200 acres category (Figure 43).
- 57 Percent
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
20-4950-7475-99100-149
150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 41. Percentage distribution of those ranches having less than or
equal to 50 acres of alfalfa, by cow strata.
Percent
Area 2
Area I
Area 3
Area
20-49
50-74
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 42. Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than
50 but not more than 200 acfes of alfalfa, by cow strata.
- 58 -
Percent
Area
Area
Area
20-4950-7474-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
Figure 43. Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than 200
acres of alfalfa, by cow strata.
Clover, timothy and other grasses, small grains for hay, and other
hay (excluding wild hay).— This conglomerate, which makes up the second
subdivision of all hay, includes all kinds and types of legumes other than
alfalfa, crops, and grasses that were harvested for hay.
clude only those species that were at one time planted.
These types in­
Therefore, wild
hay, which follows as the third subdivision of all hay, is excluded.
Figures 44, 45, and 46 pertain to this analysis.
Figures 45 and 46 suggest that in Area 4 hay of these types are most
likely found, and that in Area 2 one is least
types.
likely to find hay of these
As in the analysis of all hay, the rather obvious general trend
shown by the series of graphs is that acreages of this type of hay are
closely related to the cow herd size.
Any further attempt to explain the
- 59 various relationships shown by the graphs for this particular analysis
would be futile because of the variety of kinds and species of hay
involved.
Percent
Area 2
Area I
Area 3
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 44. Percentage distribution of those ranches having less than or
equal to 50 acres of clover, timothy and other grasses, small
grains for hay, and other hay (excluding wild hay), by cow
strata.
- 6Q -
Percent
Area 4
•Area 3
Area I
Area 2
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 45. Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than 50
but not more than 200 acres of clover, timothy and other
grasses, small grains for hay, and other hay (excluding
wild hay), by cow strata.
Percent
Area
Area
Area
Area
I
2
3
4
100-149
Cow Strata
150-199
200-299
300-500
Figure 46. Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than
200 acres of clover, timothy, and other grasses, small
grains for hay, and other hay (excluding wild hay), by
cow strata.
-
6i -■
Wild hay,— -Unlike the previous analysis of hay, ranches were sorted
into only two groups— those cutting less than or equal to 10 acres of wild
hay and those cutting more than 10 acres of wild hay„
Although stratifica­
tions on similar subject matter are consistent throughout most of the
study, it was necessary to depart in this instance to avoid zero or small
numbers of observations in the majority of study groups „
From Figure 4? one sees that the harvesting of wild hay is not common
in Area 2„
In all cow categories the percentage of those ranches havipg
more than 10 acres of wild hay in Area 2 was less than 15 percent, and in
all but two size categories the percentage of ranches cutting wild hay was
less than 10 percent*
i
Another conclusion one might draw, although it is based on rather
less conclusive evidence, is that the percentage of ranches cutting wild
hay tends to increase as the cow herd size increases„
This conclusion
appears to have supporting evidence in Areas I, 2, and 3.
Area 4 one would be hard pressed to identify such a trend.
However, in
JVLso distur­
bing, or at least inconsistent, is the drop that occurs from the fifth
to the sixth size category (from 150 through 199 to 20t) through 299
cows) in Jlreas I and 3°
- 62 -
Percent
Area 4
Area I
Area 2
75-99
Figure 4?.
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than
10 acres of wild hay, by cow strata.
Pasture
Acres pastured per animal unit.— In order to gain some concept of the
amount of the land resource that is devoted to the production of grass for
livestock feed, an acres-per-animal-unit basis works well.
In this study,
breeding animal units rather than total animal units have been used when
appropriate.
The ranches were sorted into four groups— those pasturing no
more than 20 acres per breeding animal unit, those pasturing between 20 and
40 acres per breeding animal unit, those pasturing between 40 and 60 acres
per breeding animal unit, and those pasturing more than 60 acres per breed­
ing animal unit.
For purposes of this analysis the total breeding animal
units on a ranch is defined as the number of cows that have calved plus
one-fifth of the number of ewes.
63 T
It should be pointed out that any pas­
ture utilized under a government lease or contract is not included.
Figures 48, 49, 50, and 51 show the percentage distribution of
ranches according to the aforementioned strata.
Area 2 has a higher per­
centage of ranches having less than 20 acres of pasture per breeding
animal unit than any other area.
Of those ranches having between 20 and
40 acres of pasture per breeding animal unit, Area 4 is the leader.
In
the 40 to 60 acres per breeding animal unit category, Area 3 appears to
have the highest percentage of ranches, and of those ranches where more
than 60 acres per breeding animal unit is required, Area I is dominant.
Although one could not.rank the areas according to productiveness of
range solely on the basis of this analysis, the evidence indicates that
more of the highly productive pasture and range is to be found in Jireas 2
and 4 than in Areas I and 3«
Certainly one could not safely conclude any
more than this because government grazing permits, which are very important
in some of the study areas, are not included as part of the pasture base.
A conclusion about the general relationship between the size of the
beef cattle herd and the carrying capacity of the range or pasture can not
be made on the basis of the results of this analysis.
consistent relationships, were found by the analysis.
Few trends and no
With the exception of
Figure 49, which shows the percentage distribution of those ranches having
between 20 and 40 acres of land pastured per breeding animal unit, all
groupings within each of the pasture breakdowns tend to cluster'between 10.
and
30 percent.
- 64 Percent
Area 2
Area 4
75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
Figure 48. Percentage distribution of those ranches having not more than
20 acres of land pastured per animal unit, by cow strata.
Percent
Area 4
Area I
Area 3
Area 2
75-99
100-149.
Cow Strata
150-199 200-299
300-500
Figure 49. Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than 20
but not more than 40 acres of land pastured per animal unit,
by cow strata.
- 65 -
Percent
Area I
Area 3
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 50. Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than 40
but not more than 60 acres of land pastured per animal unit,
by cow strata.
Percent
Area I
CN
Area
Area 4
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 51. Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than 60
acres of land pastured per animal unit, by cow strata.
W
«■»
Cropland pastured,— Cropland for pasture includes only that cropland
for which no other use was ;made„
Fall grazing of stubble and fence lines
after the removal of crops is not considered „
Qn combination grain and
beef ranches grazing of stubble is not uncommon, for it enables a rancher
to ride out a dry year b y supplementing short range.
Also9 it is not un­
common for ranchers to utilize bunched straw and stubble to prolong the
grazing season or to supplement a hay ration.
Figure 52 shows the percentage distribution of those ranches having
cropland for pasture.
different areas.
Cropland for pasture is of differing importance in
Area 2 has a greater percentage of ranches pasturing
cropland than do the other areas„
Area 3 ranks second, Area 4 ranks third,
and Area I, which as was pointed out in the previous chapter has very
little crop farming, has the lowest percentage of ranches that have crop­
land for pasture.
One might conclude that cropland for pasture is quite
important, since in most of the size categories between 15 and
30 percent
of the ranches pastured cropland which was used only for that purpose.
As in the previous analysis, there seems to be no identifiable
relationship or trends between cow-herd-size and the percentage of
ranches pasturing cropland.
)
- 6? Percent
Area 3
Area 2
Area
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 52. Percentage distribution of those ranches having cropland
for pasture, by cow strata.
Irrigated pasture.— Figure 53 shows the percentage distribution of
those ranches having irrigated pasture.
The erratic movements of Areas I
and 2 and the more or less unchanging percentage levels of Areas 3 and 4
lead one to believe that there is no relationship between cow-herd-size
and irrigated pasture.
One rather obvious and expected observation is that Area 2, which in­
cludes the major irrigated areas of the Yellowstone Valley and the Big Horn
and the Little Big Horn valleys, has a greater percentage of ranches with
irrigated pasture than the other areas.
In all but the last size category
of Area 2 the percentage of ranches having irrigated pasture exceeded 11
percent and ranged upward to approximately 33 percent.
- 68 In Areas 3 and 4 irrigated pasture is of much less importance.
In
every instance the percentage of ranches having irrigated pasture was
less than 10 percent and in many categories the percentage was considerably
lower.
In Area I, erratic as the movement may be, the larger size groups
tend to have a greater percentage of ranches having irrigated pasture.
Certainly the major concentration of irrigated pasture in this area would
be found along the Musselshell River and along the eastern slopes of the
Crazy Mountains.
Percent
Area 2
Area I
Area 4
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 53« Percentage distribution of those ranches having irrigated
pasture, by cow strata.
- 69 -•
Pasture as percent of total land.— -For purposes of the analysis 9
pasture as a percent of total land was sorted into one of four categories
those ranches having 40 percent or less of the total land in pasture,
those ranches having between 40 and 60 percent pasture, those ranches
having between 60 and 80 percent pasture, and those ranches having more
than 80 percent pasture„
The percentage which was stratified according
to the above four categories was computed by dividing total pasture by
total land.
Total pasture includes cropland and woodland pasture but ex­
cludes government permit lands.
land rented less land rented out.
Total land is equal to land owned plus
Total land represents all of the land
used by the ranch with the exception of government lease lands.
Figures
55$ 56, and 57 pertain to this analysis.
There are not
many ranches in the total study area that have pasture comprising less
than 40 percent of the total land, and for that matter those ranches
having between 40 and 60 percent pasture are not plentiful.
With the
exception of Area 4, the majority of ranches observed had greater than
60 percent of the total land in pasture.
The analysis also reveals that as cow-herd-size increases, the
percentage of land that is in pasture also increases.
This point is
particularly exemplified by those ranches having over 80 percent pasture
(Figure 57)«
This category included over 40 percent of all observations
with the exception of the first two size groups of Area 4.
This analysis tends to substantiate many of the conclusions drawn in
Chapter III.
The evidence would indicate that, on the larger beef ranches
the dependence of the ranch family on enterprises that utilize the
- 70 grazing resource tends to be greater than for ranches with smaller cow
herds.
From Figure 57 we see that of those ranches having from 200 to
299 cows the percentage of the total acres in the ranch that is pasture
ranges from approximately 75 to over 95 percent.
ranches having
Likewise, of those
300 to 500 cows the percent pasture runs from over 87
percent to 100 percent.
Percent
Area
Area
Area
Area
75-99
I
2
3
4
100z5T^]30=]^9
200Y299
300^0
Figure 54. Percentage distribution of those ranches having pasture com­
prising less than 40 percent of total land, by cow strata.
Percent
Area
Area
Area
Area
I
2
3
4
Figure 55. Percentage distribution of those ranches having pasture com­
prising more than 40 percent but not more than 60 percent
of total land, by cow strata.
- 71 Percent
Area 4
Area 2
Area 3
Area I
50-7475-99100-149
150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-300
Figure 56. Percentage distribution of those ranches having pasture com­
prising more than 60 percent but not more than 80 percent
of total land, by cow strata.
Area I
Percent
Area 2
Area 4
5 0 - 7 4 7 5 - 9 9 100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299300-500
Figure 57. Percentage distribution of those ranches having pasture com­
prising more than 80 percent of total land, by cow strata.
-
72
-
General Land Data
Ranch size (acres)- -No farm or ranch description would be complete
without some analysis and discussion of the total acres of land involved„
As in the previous analysis, total acres of land operated, which includes
all owned land plus land rented minus land rented out and which excludes
all government permit or lease land, were cross-classified with ,beef-cownumber-groupings„
Ranches were sorted into four groups— those having less
than 640 acres of total land (I section), those having between 640 acres
and 2,560 acres of total land (2 to 4 sections), those having between
2,560 acres and 6,400 acres of total land (4 to 10 sections), and those
having more than 6,400 acres of total land.
Figures 58, 59, 60, and 61
refer to the above classifications, respectively.
In Figure 58 we see that there are very few beef ranches of any size
that have less than one section of land.
Only those ranches in Area 2
having between 20 and 49 beef cows exceed 10 percent.
In practically all
other instances the percentage of ranches having less than 640 acres was
less than ;5 percent.
As one'would expect the size of the c o w h e r d is closely related to
total acres.
On all of the graphs the percentages for each area are
close for each cow number grouping.
Figure 59 exhibits a definite trend
of decreasing percentages as cow herd size increases.
Figure 60 seenjs to
peak out at the third size category (75 to 99 cows)"and falls as you move
in either direction.
As indicated ip Figure 6l, those ranches with larger
cow herds definitely lead the greater than 10 sections category.
- 73Area 2 has the greatest percentage of ranches having less than I
section and between I and 4 sections in all cow categories with only one
exception (Figures 58 and 59).
Accordingly, Area 2 has fewer ranches in
the last two land categories than do the other areas.
Therefore, a defi­
nite population of beef ranches with smaller total acreages can be found
in Area 2.
A look at Table I of Appendix E reveals that the mean acreage
for most cow stratifications in the first two land groups is less for
Area 2 than for other areas.
Certainly the large irrigated areas found
in Area 2 account for this difference.
Also the difference shown by Area 4 in Figure 60 should be pointed
out.
In cow categories 50 to 74, 75 to 99» and 100 to 149, Area 4 has
more than a 10 percent lead on the other areas in terms of percentage of
ranches having between 4 and 10 sections.
Percent
Area
Area
Area
Area
I
2
3
4
6— &
75-99
Cow Strata
Figure 58. Percentage distribution of those ranches having total land of
less than or equal to 640 acres, by cow strata.
- 74 -
Percent
Area 2
Area 4
Area
50-7475-99100-149
Cow Strata
150-199
200-299
300-500
Figure 59. Percentage distribution of those ranches having total land of
more than 640 acres but not more than 2,560 acres, by cow
strata.
Percent
Area 4
Area 3
Area I
75-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300^500
Figure 60. Percentage distribution of those ranches having more than 2,560
acres but not more than 6,400 acres of total land, by cow
strata.
- 75 Percent
Area
Area
Area
Area
e-
I
2
3
4
—
75-99
Figure
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
6l. Percentage distribution of those ranches having total land of
more than 6,400 acres, by cow strata.
Ownership pattern—
Figures 62, 63, 64, and 65 show the percentage
distribution of those ranches where none of the land is owned, where
greater than zero but not more than 60 percent of the land is owned, where
more than 60 but less than 100 percent of the land is owned, and where all
of the land is owned.
In general it would be difficult to identify any trends or relation­
ship between the percentage of land owned and cow herd size.
Figure
However, in
65 it appears that as cow herd size increases the percentage of
- 76 ranches owning all of the land operated tends to decrease.
One might ex­
pect that if government lease land were added to the analysis that the
trend might be more precise.
Ranchers owning more than 60 percent of their
land exceed 60 percent for nearly all strata (Figures 64 and
65).
If one were interested in beef ranches where all of the land was
rented $ he would be at a loss to decide where to find this type.
None of
the areas seem to be predominant and in most cases those ranches made up
of all rented land comprise less than 15 percent of the total ranches.
In most economic analyses, farm and ranch ownership patterns are
taken into account.
Certainly a different organization of inputs and a
different structure of outputs (enterprise combinations) is likely to
occur on a rented ranch than on an owner-operated ranch.
In drawing ag­
gregate conclusions, the economist must know the relative numbers of such
populations if he expects to make accurate predictions and generalizations
concerning the economic phenomenon that he is studying.
— 77 Percent
Area 4
Area 2
Area 3
Area I
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 62. Percentage distribution of ranches where zero percent of the
land is owned, by cow strata.
Percent
Area 3
Area I
75-99
Figure
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
63. Percentage distribution of ranches where greater than zero but
not more than 60 percent of the land is owned, by cow strata.
- 78 Percent
Area 3
Area I
Area 4
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
Area 2
300-500
Figure 64. Percentage distribution of ranches where more than 60 but
not more than 99 percent of the land is owned, by cow
strata.
- 79 Percent
Area I
Area 2
Area 3
Area
75-99
Figure
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-500
65. Percentage distribution of ranches where all of the land is
owned, by cow strata.
Irrigated cropland— Irrigated cropland is important on beef ranches
in that a good portion of irrigated cropland found on livestock ranches in
Montana is devoted to the production of hay.
This is not to say that ir­
rigated cropland on ranches is used only in the production of hay.
Cer­
tainly the primary crop raised on irrigated lands in certain parts of
Area 2 is not hay.
Figure 66 is a percentage distribution of those ranches having
irrigated cropland.
With the exception of Area 4, all but one of the cow
categories had more than 20 percent of the observations with irrigated
cropland, and this percentage goes up to as high as ?0 percent in the
- 80 200 to 299 cow category of Area I.
Definitely one could conclude that ir­
rigated cropland in conjunction with beef ranches is commonplace.
Areas I and 2 are the leaders and Area 4 is the definite last rank­
ing area as far as percent of ranches having irrigated cropland is con­
cerned.
In Area I. only the first cow category has less than 30 percent of
its ranches having irrigated cropland.
The irrigated cropland found in
Area I is undoubtedly used mostly in the production of hay for livestock
feed.
In Area 2 much of the irrigated cropland is utilized in the pro­
duction of hay.
However, a good share of it is devoted to other crops,
namely, sugar beets, beans, corn, -wheat, barley, and other crops.
The
production of hay, particularly legumes, will always be found in rotations
where other crops are grown on irrigated land.
Percent
Area I
Area 2
Area 3
20-49
50-74
75-99
100-149 150-199
Cow Strata
200-299
300-500
Figure 66. Percentage distribution of those ranches having irrigated
cropland, by cow strata.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study had several objectives as was pointed out in Chapter I„
The first and major objective was to describe the economic structure and
composition of the beef industry in southeastern Montana„
The need or use­
fulness of such a description is partially pointed out by the secondary
objectives which were (l) to provide data in such a form that it would
benefit researchers in setting up study areas and in sampling various popu­
lations, (2) to identify and describe some existing populations within the
beef industry in the study area, and (3) to provide data that would allow
researchers to estimate more accurately the impact of conclusions drawn in
studies concerning beef ranches on the industry, the area, and the state.
Undoubtedly, the most important contribution that this study can make
is to point out and describe existing ranch populations.
If the study has
accomplished this objective, then it has necessarily accomplished the other
objectives mentioned.
When the researcher knows the whereabouts of, the
relative numbers of, the relative importance of, and the differences be­
tween unique populations in the beef industry^ then one also has the
necessary basis for drawing sound inferences from specific research efforts,
The researcher can predict with a much higher probability of accuracy the
impact that certain action might h ave•on the beef industry, the economy of
an area, or the economy of the state when he knows where certain types of
beef operations can be found.
It is indeed an understatement to say that
if we attempt to predict the impact that a certain action or policy might ,
-
82
-
have on an industry or the economy of a given area solely on the basis of
some aggregation of data concerning unique and dissimilar ranches, then
the probability of accuracy and correctness in our predictions, conclu­
sions or actions will not be as great as it should be.
Certainly one can
not predict accurately on the basis of aggregate ranch data if he knows
little or nothing about the individual ranch units and populations of
ranches from which that aggregation is compiled.
The identification of existing populations within the beef industry
of the study area was accomplished by separating beef ranches into 28
groups on the basis of geography and cow herd size.
Four geographic study
areas and seven cow-herd-size-categories were used.
Throughout the study
each of these 28 groups of ranchers was cross-classified with other data
concerning the structure of the individual ranches within each group.
The
data was presented throughout the study in sections treating each of the
items comprising or affecting that structure.
A brief summary of the unique populations found in each study area
will point out some of the important differenced that exist between ranch
populations in different areas.
Area I
Area I, which is made up of Wheatland, Golden Valley, and Musselshell
counties, is livestock ranching country.
A very important population ex­
isting in Area I is the combination beef and sheep ranch; 34 percent of
the beef ranches in this area had sheep.
Also, oh the larger beef ranches
in this area the liklihood of a sheep enterprise increases.
Of those
- 83 -
'
ranches having more than 100 cows, 38 percent also had sheep* and of those
ranches having more than 200 cowfe, 44 percent had sheep.
Certainly this
population is significant.
Another population existing in Area I, and one thAt is probably very
closely tied to the beef-sheep population, is the beef ranch that also
produces oats.
Forty-four percent of those beef ranches in Area I raised
oats.
It appears that in Area I the very extensive type of ranching is most
likely to be found.
In all but two of the seven cow-herd-size-groupings,
Area I had the highest percentage of ranches that had more than 60 acres
of pasture per breeding animal unit.
Also, a smaller percentage of the
beef ranches in this area had cropland that was pastured than in the other
three areas.
It was also found that a large percentage of the ranch land
was pasture.
Of those ranches having, more than ?4 beef cows, more than
85 percent had over 80 percent pasture and in two size categories 100
percent of the ranches had over 80 percent pasture.
If one were interested
in studying this large and extensive type of beef ranch which was at one
time so typical of the western frontier,- then Area I would be a good place
to begin a search for such operations.
Owner-operated beef ranches tend to be more predominant in Area I
than in other areas.
Although there is not as high a percentage of.ranches
owning all of the land operated as in other areas, there is a higher per­
centage of ranches that are between
60 and 99 percent owned and a lower
percentage owning less than 60 percent than in the other three areas.
Il
_ 84 Another important population that should be pointed out is the con­
centration of ranches in Area I having a high percentage of land that is
irrigated cropland.
In all cow categories starting at 75 to 99 cows a
higher percentage (50 to
70) of the ranches had irrigated cropland than
that found in other Areas,.
This irrigated cropland is devoted to the pro­
duction of hay to be used as winter feed.
Area 2
Area 2, which includes the counties of Yellowstone, Treasure, and Big Horn, has a variety of kinds, types, and combination beef ranches, with no
particular type or combination ranch being dominant.
Although they are relatively few, some combination beef-swine and
beef-dairy ranches are found in Area 2.
In Area 2 a higher concentration
of combination beef-winter wheat ranches are found than in other areas„
Over 50 percent of the beef ranches in Area 2 harvested winter wheat.
Of course sugar beets is a crop found in combination with beef ranches
in Area 2.
The percentage of ranches in Area 2 that also raise sugar beets
runs from approximately 22 percent of those ranches having between 20 and
49 cows to approximately 5 percent of those having between 300 and 500 cows.
In Area 2 a higher percentage of the beef ranches cut alfalfa hay than
do those of other areas.
One would surmise that this is attributable to
the large amount of irrigation found in Area 2.
Also, a higher percentage of the beef ranches that had 20 acres or
less of pasture per breeding unit was found in Area 2 than in other areas.
HI
V-£"
One might suggest that one of the Reasons for this is that in Area 2 a
highter percentage of the ranches pastured cropland and irrigated pasture,
A higher percentage of the beef ranches in this area had less than 4
sections of land than in other areas.
In the 4-to-10-section stratifica­
tion and the over-10^section stratification a lower percentage of the
ranches were found than in other areas.
Area 3
Area 3 includes Petroleum, Garfield, Prairie, Rosebud, Custer, Powder
River, and Carter counties.
In Area 3» as in Virea I, a combination beef-
sheep ranch population was found.
sheep enterprise was present,
On over 20 percent of the ranches a
VHthough this beef-sheep ranch population
does not appear to be as important as the one in Area I, it points out
some of the similarity of the two areas,
In Area 3 the percentage of ranches not harvesting crops (37 percent)
was the greatest of all areas.
This accompanied with the relative unimpor­
tance of other livestock enterprises (excluding sheep) would lead one to
believe that a good number of the ranches in this area are purely beef
operations.
This is further substantiated by a look at the iypes of farm­
ing map (Figure 3)«
Most of the grain farming in the area is located along
the northeastern border of the area.
If Prairie County were removed from
the area and hay land was subtracted from crop acres, one could'expect an
even lower percentage of ranches having commercial crop enterprises.
One-
half of the beef ranches did not have any wheat, which is the most impor­
tant cash crop in Montana.
In addition
62 percent did not harvest any
- 86 barley, which is Montana’s second leading cash crop.
Eighty percent of
the ranches in Area 3 had over 80 percent of theip total land in pasture.
If government lease lands were added, certainly one would conclude that
ranches in this area are largely dependent on income that can be produced
by those livestock enterprises that harvest range grasses.
Area 4
McCone, Richland, Dawson, Wibaux, and Fallon counties form Area 4.
The characteristic of this area that makes it unique is the combination
commercial beef and grain ranch.
There is no question that Area 4 was
the dominant area in the analyses of all crops and of zfiany individual crops
studied. Eighty^nitie percent of all beef ranches in Area 4 reported that
they also harvested cpops (includes hay).
What is even more significant,
84 percent of all beef ranches also harvested wheat.
wheat harvested was spring varieties.
more than 200 acres of wheat,
1
'
The majority of the
Of those beef ranches harvesting
50 percent were included.
•'
'•
,»
" ’
•• j-
In the production of barley, the beef ranches of Area 4 lead all other
areas.
Fifty-eight percent of the beef ranches indicated that barley was
harvested from the ranch.
Of those beef ranches in the area,
67 percent
reported, that they had harvested either barley or oats (feed grains)^
This
is a factor that would account, in part, for the interest shown by ranchers,
■
•'
"-Sn
researchers, and others in cattle feeding in that area.
Another small population that exists in Area 4 may albo be dependent
someth at on the abundance of feed grains in that area. ■Of those beef
ranches in the area, 17 percent reported that they farrowed more than one
- 8? litter of hogs per year.
Although the beef-swine population is not a large
one, it is more important to Area 4 than the other areas,
Area 4 leads all other areas by a considerable margin in the produc­
tion of corn on beef ranches'.
Forty-seven percent of the beef ranches in
Area 4 harvested corn either as grain or for silage.
Undoubtedly the ma­
jority of corn produced in this area is put up as silage for livestock
feed.
What might be harvested for grain is most likely also consumed on
the ranch as livestock feed.
x— >
In Area 4 beef ranches tend to rely more heavily on hay other than
alfalfa than do other areas.
The percentage of ranches cutting in excess
of 50 acres of alfalfa is lowest for Area 4,
Another interesting observation is that Area 4 has the lowest percent­
age of beef ranches that have irrigated pasture; even lower than Area 3=
Likewise, the percentage of ranches that have irrigated cropland is also
lowest for Area 4.
Area Comparisons
Let us now point out some of the similarities between areas or at
least those analyses where no recognizable differences were shown to exist,
In general we could conclude that Areas I and 3 are quite similar in that
each area the specialized pure beef or combination beef and sheep ranch
seems to be most prevalent.
This undoubtedly is due to the vast expanse
of range land that is either unsuitable for crops because of topography,
rainfall, or soil quality.
- 88 -
Areas 2 and 4, although not nearly as similar as Areas I and 3s are
somewhat comparable in that both are very diversified and in both one will
find practically every combination of enterprises associated with a beef
enterprise that exist anywhere in Montana,
Some of the analysis did not reveal any important differences be­
tween the study areas.
were predominant.
In the analysis of other crops none of the areas
In all cow categories of all areas the percentage of
ranches having other crops was less than 10 percent.
The distribution for all hay acres looks approximately the same for
all areas except that in Area 2 the distribution was slightly heavier in
the less-than- 50-acres category than were the other areas,
In general the distribution found on total size (acres) of ranch re­
vealed no major differences between areas.
Likewise, the analysis of
ownership patterns showed no identifiable differences even though the dis­
tributions found had erratic and widely fluctuating differences in some
instances,A discussion about a shortcoming or weakness of this description
should enable us to realize better the need for complete understanding
and knowledge about the organization and structure of the individual units
and populations comprising an aggregate.
After having studied patterns
demonstrated by Area 2 on graphs throughout this thesis, the middleness or
in-between position held should be disturbing to one familiar with the
area involved.
One would expect stomp very unique and distinct populations
to be exposed, but the data would indicate that no particularly different
populations exist in Area 2, until it is examined in detail.
- 89 Miat is similar or homogenous about a ranch laying two miles west of
Billings and one laying two miles north?
For instance the beef ranch two
miles west has 10 acres of pasture per animal unit9 the one two miles
north has 70 acres of pasture per animal unit (the two average 40 acres
per animal unit). ,Of what value is an aggregation of data on such ranches?
Let us assume a researcher would like to study ranches having about 40
acres of pasture per animal unit.
He goes to Billings.
How many such
ranches will he find by randomly sampling ranches' to the west or to the
north or in both directions?
It is also evident that a researcher must know the makeup of the
total population to draw meaningful inferences to an area.
One cannot
average two or five extreme or different unique ranch types into one aver­
age or typical and draw conclusions to all such ranches.
The researcher
must study the impact of a particular situation on each kind of ranch and
then aggregate weighting by the relative importance of the individual
types in drawing inferences as to importance to the areas.
It should be obvious to anyone familiar with the agriculture of Area
2 that extremes are not the exception but the rule.
Will not confused and
meaningless aggregations always result when aggregating data from complet­
ely nohhomogenous ranches ?
The shortcoming is therefore clear.
Any popu­
lations that might have otherwise been revealed were completely disguised
by aggregating over a large and nohhomogenous study area.
- 90 -
Suggestions for Further Research
It- is often beneficial at the conclusion of a study to point to
areas or problems where more research is needed in order to clarify or
add to the body of knowledge concerning the subject of that study.
Addi­
tional research is needed to describe and point out existing populations
in the beef cattle industry in the Remaining areas of the state.
Certainly
further study would reveal several other populations within the beef in­
dustry of Montana that need to be identified.
In terms of a descriptive analysis of the beef cattle industry, this
study is only a beginning.
The next step is to take data -concerning the
primary populations pointed out in this study and complete further crossclassifications,
For instance, further analysis of the same nature should
be completed on those ranches found in Areas I and 3 that had sheep and
beef in combination.
Do these ranches also tend to be the ones that had
over 60 acres of pasture per breeding animal unit?
Are the beef-sheep
ranches of Area I also those ranches harvesting oats?
Many other questions
of this nature should arise concerning the primary populations identified
in this study.
Once data have been collected and aggregated in such a manner that
more or less homogenous populations have been identified and the structure
of the individual units of the aggregation is clearly understood, then and
only then can sound conclusions be made, the economic impact on individuals,
populations, communities, and states be estimated, and proper actions be
taken.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
TABLE I,
DISTRIBUTION OF BREEDING ANIMAL UNITS OF SHEEP PER BREEDING ANIMAL
UNIT OF BEEF COW BY COW STRATA, a/
Area I
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
Cow
Nos.
and
AFs
Ewes/
% of
7. of
AUs
7. of
% of
Total # of
Total # of
Beef, , -# of
Total # of
Total
Obs. Mean
O b s . Obs. Mean
Cow
Obs. Ofes. Mean
Ofes.
Ofes. Ofes. Mean
20-49
R=O
0<R<»5
R>»5
50-74
R=O
0<Rs«5
R$-o5
75-99
R=O
0<Rs.5
R>«5
100-149
R= 0
0<R<»5
R>.5
150-199
R=O
0<R< .5
R>.5
200-299
R=O
0<R<.5
81
9
5
0
0.19
0
0.59
15.1
80
5
7
0
0.14
0.87
67.6
26.5
5.9
66
5
I
38
14
6
0
0.19
3.52
65.5
24.1
10.4
15
8
2
60.0
0.07
3.91
32.0
0
0.27
1.72
52.2
R >.5
12
6
5
300-500
R=O
0<Rs.5
R>,5
4
0
2
28
4
10
0
0.20
5.00
66.7
9.5
52
10
11
0
0.19
2.39
71.2
23
9
2
0
0
1.32
23.8
13.7
8.0
26.1
21.7
66.7
0
33.3
85.3 114
9.5 12
5,2 28
4.68
74.0 129
7.8 10
18.2 13
0.20
4.32
87.0 191 ■ 0
5.4 25
0.16
7.6 32
2.58
77.0 177
10.1 16
12.9
5
0.13
1.97
8.1
0
0.12
w,«.to= =,
91.7 154
6.9 23
1.4 22
0.14
77.4
11.6
11.0
0
0.17
0.88
88.0
8.3
3.7
56
2
3
0
0.19
1.08
91.8 155
3.3 17
4.9 19
0
0.15
3.92
81.1 105
0
0U7
95.5
3.6
= = = = =
0.9
30
2
0
0
0.06
== = = =
93.8
99
6.2
14
0
0.10
8
1.73
37
I
0
0
= = == =
= = == =
97.4
2.6
0
23
0
0
= = =
1.36
1.13
0
100.0
0
= = == =
0
0
= =
72
0
0.27
0
2.09
0
9
6
0.21
1.41
39
4'
4'
0
0.13
1.35
95
9
4
8.9
4
10.0
.1
81.8
11.6
6.6
25
82.8
10.3
26
2
2
6.9
83.0
8.5
8.5
2
2
9
I
0
0
0
0
0.13
0.64
84.9
6.6
8.5
89.4
2.5
86.2
6.9
6.9
o ; o2
86.7
6.7
1.07
6.6
0
= = ===
==== =
90.0
10.0
0
0
a/
5 ewes = I cow.
hj
R is that ratio computed by dividing the number of AUs of ewes by the
number of beef cows.
- 93 TABLE II.
DISTRIBUTION OF LITTERS FARROWED BY COW STRATA,
Area 2
Area I
Area 3
Area 4
Cow
Nos.
and
;i
Lit% of
fcers
% of
% of
% of
Total # of
Total # of
Far-. , #■ t>f
Total # of
Total
Obs. Obs. Mean
Obs. Obs. Mean
Obs. Obs. Mean
O b s » Mean
Obs.
-rowed—
20-49
L >2
36
6
0.06
7.17
85.7
14.3
81
14
0.04
6.50
85.3 135
19
14.7
0.05
7.53
87,7 123
12.3 29
0
5.28
80.9
19,1
50-74
L 51
L >2
66
7
0.06
17.29
90.4
9.6
75
17
0.05
26.65
81,5 227
18,5 21
0.04
8.24
91,5 158
8.5 40
0
4.47
79.8
20.2
75-99
L<1
L>2
31
3
0.03
4.33
91.2
8.8
58
14
0.05
6,50
80.6 184
19; 4 15
0.04
5.20
92.5
7,5
92
16
0
4,69
85.2
14.8
100-149
Lcl
L >2
55
3
0.04
4.00
94.8
5X2
55
6
0.04
7.17
90.2 183
8
9.8
0,04
7.37
95,8
4.2
96
14
0
4.29
87.3
12.7
150-199
L<1
L>2
21
4
0.05
10.75
84.0
16.0
30
2
0.03
22.00
93.8 118
6.2
3
0.04
5.33
97.5 24
2.5 . 5
0
6.00
82.8
17.2
200-299
L<1
L>2
21
2
0.05
4.00
91.3
8.7
35
3
0.06
2.67
92.1
7.9
83
4
0,01
13.50
95.4
4.6
26
4
0
8.00
86.7
13.3
300-500
LSl
L>2
6
0
0.17 100.0
w ™ ■ e,ei
0
21
'2
0.09
19.50
91.3
8.7
45
2
0.04
7.00
95.7
4.3
9
I
0
90.0
10.0
Ui
a/
L is the number of litters farrowed per year
- 94 -
TABLE III,
DISTRIBUTION OF DAIRY COWS BY GOW STRATA,
Area I
Area 2
Area 3 •
Area 4
Cow
Nos.
and
Dairya/
Cows —
% of
% of
Total # of
# of
Obs. Mean
Total # of
Obs. Obs. Mean
Obs. Obs. Mean
% of
% of
Total
Total # of
Obs, O b s . Mean Obs.
20-49
DS5
D>5
39
3
1.49
17.67
92.9
7.1
83
12
1.55
10.83
87.4 144
12.6 10
8.90
93.5 129
6.5 23
1,58 84.9
9,83 15.1
50-74
D<5
D>5
67
6
1.25
11,83
91.8
8.2
81
11
0.96
11.09
88.0 235
1.33
12.0 13 ' 7.69
94.8 170
5.2 28
1.61 85,9
8.04 14.1
75-99
D<5
D>5
33
I
1.21
-----
97.1
2.9
67
5
1.48
9.40
93.1 191
6.9
8
1.31
8.87
96.0
4.0
97
11
1.23 89.8
10.45 10.2
100-149
D<5
D>5
54
4
1.63
8.75
93.1
6.9
59
2
1.36
6.00
96.7 182
3.3
9
1.23
95.3
ioi
8.33
4,7
9
150-199
D<5
D>5
24
I
1.54
96.0
4.0
31
I
1.13
96,9 116
3.1
5
1.47
7.20
95.9
4.1
25
4
1.36 86.2
8.25 13.8
200-299
D<5
D>5
19
4
1.21
9.25
82.6
17.4
36
2
0.94
8.50
94.7
5.3
85
2
1.51
6.00
97.7
29
I
1.52 96.7
5
1.20
83.3
16.7
23
0
1,43 100.0
45
2
1.49
7.00
95.7
10
0
1.70 100.0
0
300-500
Di5
D>5
a/
I
—
err
«1 U
DO
O
D is the ttumbey of dairy cows.
o
..
1.26
2.3
4.3
1.38 91,8
7; 22
8.2
3.3
APPENDIX B
TABLE I.
DISTRIBUTION OF ALL CROP ACRES BY COW STRATA.
Cow Nos.
And All # of
Cropsk./ Ob s.
20-49
C=O
0< 0 5 0
50<C£200
0200
50-74
C=O
0<O50
50<C1200
0200
75-99
CsO
0<C-<50
50<Ci200
C >200
100-149
CsO
0<C-50
50< C ^200
0200
150-199
C=O
0<C-50
50<Ci200
0*200
200-299
G=O
0<GS50
50<0200
C >200
300-500
OO
0<CS50
50«fCS200
0200
Area I *
% of
Total # of
Mean Obs. Obs.
Area 2
% of
Total # of
Mean Obs. Obs.
a/
Area 3
% pf
Total # of
Mean Obs. Obs.
Area 4
% of
Total
Mean O b s .
13
4
13
12
0.0
40.7
117.3
353.0
31.0
9.5
30.9
28.6
15
22
33
25
0.0
28.5
117.5
356.3
15.8
23.2
34.7
26.3
48
20
42
44
0.0
23.7
113.7
405.0
31.2
13.0
27.3
28.5
8
6
40
98
0.0
26.5
121.7
446.8
64.5
13
15
32
13
0.0
32.9
112.5
378.7
17.8
20.6
43.8
17.8
16
15
33
28
0.0
25.5
107.3
522.9
17.4
16.3
35.9
30.4
77
43
63
65
0.0
27.9
109.6
354.1
31.1 19
17.3 13
25.4 42
26.2 124
0.0
31.4
126.3
499.4
9.6
6.6
21.2
62.6
6
13
8
7
0.0
37.2
131.6
407.6
17.7
38.2
23.5
20.6
17
12
29
14
0.0
29.9
111.9
486.3
23.6
16.7
40.3
19.4
72
34
56
37
0.0
25.7
113.1
405.5
36.2
17.1
28.1
18.6
8
5
27
68
0.0
29.6
120.0
560.4
7.4
4.6
25.0
63.0
16
18
13
11
0.0
25.1
131.6
429.7
27.6
31.0
22.4
19.0
21
14
13
13
0.0
31.4
119.6
751.2
34.4
23.0
21.3
21.3
75
32
50
34
0.0
27.8
115.7
425.9
39.3
16.7
26.2
17.8
12
5
20
73
0.0
24.8
132.1
609.1
10.9
4.5
18.2
66.4
9
4
9
3
0.0
27.0
142.3
389.7
36.0
16.0
36.0
12.Q
4
7
13
8
0.0
28.9
117.5
638.5
12.5
21.9
40.6
25.0
46
25
29
21
0.0
26.6
108.2
470.2
38.0
20.7
24.0
17.3
6
I
2
20
0.0
20.7
122.0
561.2
69.0
7
0.0
4
22.5
8. 113.9
4 1293.4
30.4
17.4
34.8
17.4
13
3
9
13
0.0
20.0
104.9
455.6
34.2
7.9
23.7
47
10
16
14
0.0
22.6
105.7
464.4
54.0
11.5
16.1
0.0
10
I
6 124.5
13 :
1055.2
33.3
3.3
20.0
43.4
3
2
50.0
33.3
16.7
0.0
21
I
0.0
91.3
4.3
24
0.0
40.8
128.9
467.1
51.1
8.5
21.3
19.1
.4
0
2
4
0.0
40.0
0,0
I
0
0.0
30.0
I
0
“ — —
—
34.2
4.4
0.0
4
10
9
a/
Excludes sugar beets.
b/
C is the number of acres of all crops harvested.
18.4
5.3
3 . 9f
26.3
3.4
158.5
523.5
6.9
20.0
40.0
- 96 TABLE II,
DISTRIBUTION OF WHEAT ACRES BY COW STRATA,
Area I
Cow Nos',
And All # of
Ob s,
Wheat—
20-49
W = O
OdwgSO
50£W^200
W >2.00
Area 2
% of
Total # of
Mean Obs. Obs,
Area 3
% of
% of
Total # of
Total # of
Mean Obs , O b s , ,Mean Obs. Obs.
13 1 0,0
7
29.9
15 107,6
7 327,9
30.9
16,7
35.7
16,7
25
23
30
17
0,0
19,3
115.2
272.7
308,6
28.8
19.2
42,4
9.6
24
26
22
20
25.2
96.1
428.3
28.3
.W>200
21
14
31
7
75-99
W = 0
OdWiSO
5CKwA00
W>200
10
9
12
3
0.0
23,9
29.4
26,5
105.2
35.3
508,0
8,8
23
17
26
6
100-149.
W = O 28
CKWibO 12
SOdWAOti 12
W>200
6
0,0 .48.3
17,2 20,7
138,2 20.7
407.0 10,3
28
12
10
11
0,0 : 45,9 102
27.7 19.7 27
108,9 16.4 38
18.0 24
572,5
150-199
W = O
OAJ^SO
5OdWdgOO
W>200
13
4
6
2
0,0
28.3
93.5
352.5
200-299
W = O
OdwiSO
5CKwi200
W>200
15
I
4
3
0,0 65.2 v'19
“«**■-***»
4.3 ■ 4
92,5 17.4
6
418.3 13.1
9
300-500
W = O
0dwi50
SOdWAOO
W>200
5
I
0
0
50-74
W = O
d^wiso
50dM&00
a/
0,0
31.9
106,6
0.0
52.0
16.0
24.0
8,0
83.3
16.7
OBCO«■«,«=,
0,0
*"—"«®— «*
0,0
0.0
26,3
24.2
31,6
17,9
60
23
43
0.0
29.5
115,3
28
382.4
26,1 101
44
23.9 60
21.7 43
0,0
26.2
108.5
290,5
% of
Mean
39.0
14
14,9
14
0.0
30.3
27.9
18,2
45
79
126.7
361.8
40,7
17.7
27
18
58
95
0.0
31.9
24.2
17.4
130.9
411.0
Total
Obs.
9^2
9.2
29.6
52.0
13.6
9.1 .
29.3
48,0
0.0 47.2
27.6 17.1
113,6 .22,6
388.1 13.1
18
0.0
5
30
55
28,2
4.6
103.2
456,8
27.8
0,0
21,9
113,2
411.7
53.4
16
6
30
58
0.0
28.7
116.4
412.7
59.5
11.6
16.5
25.0
72
14
20
15
0,0
34.3
128.3
364,4
50.0
10.5
15.8
23.7
60
6
15
6
0.0
20.8
127.9
398,3
69,0
0.0
27.0
168,3
43,5
13.0
17.4
26,1
0.0
35
25,0
3
4 105,7
5 . 338.2
74.5
6.4
5
0
8,5
iO .6
■2
0.0
32.0
26,3
23.6
94
34
99.6
36.1
45
585,2
8,3
26
0,0
14
7
29,7
95,7
3
8 ■552,1
10
3
4
6
Area 4
729.3
W is all wheat acres harvested.
43.7
21.9
9.4
14.1
19,9
12.6
12.4
6,9
17.2
6,9
0.0
28,7
16.7
50.9
14.6
5.4
27.3
129.4
484.4
52.7
0,0
24.1
133.8
17.2
302.6
55.2
0.0
14
0
5 126.6
11 . 839.0
46.7
0.0
50.0
7
I
5
16
3
3.5
0.0
6.7
36.6
: 0.0
150,5 20.0
294.3 30.0
- 97 TABLE III.
DISTRIBUTION OF WINTER WHEAT ACRES BY COW STRATA.
Area I
Cow
N o s . and
Winter
Wheat a/
20-49
W=O
0<W^50
50<w £200
W »200
50-74
30
W=O
0<W&50
13
50CW<200 25
5
. W>200
75-99
W=O
14
0<W&50
5
50<W$200 ■ 13
W>200
2
100-149
W=O
39
6
0<W£50
50<WS00
9
W>200
4
150-199
W=O
17
0<W<50
I
5
50<rw$200
W>200
2
200-299
w=o'' 16
0
0<W550
5
50<Wi200
2
W>200
300-500
5
W=O
I
0<Wi50
0
50-<Wi200
W>200 - 0
a/
Area 2
Area 3
7=:of
Tot;
Obs.
Area 4
% of
Tot, # oi
Obs. Ob s. Mean
7= of
Tot.
Obs.
# of
Ob s . Mean
45.2
9.5
31.0
14.3
37
16
25
17
0
25.8
112.3
267.6
26.3
17.9
37
19
18
18
0
30.4
100.1
429.4
40.2 158
20.6 26
19.6 ■ 42
19.6 22
0
25.8
115.4
308.8
63.7
309 / 6 .
41.1
17.8
34.3
6.8
0
27.2
98.3
659.5
41.2
14.7
38.2
5.9
29
15
40.3 132
22
0
24.9
103.6
6
585.2
16
36
■15
0
29.6
115.0
441.9
66.3
8.0
18.1
7.6
75
3
13
17
6
18.2
130.8
481.3
67.2
10.4
15.5
34
0
23.2
108.2
601.3
55.8 136
9.8 12
18.0 27
16.4 16
0
25.7
118.1
391.6
71.2
6.3
14.1
6.9
6
ii
10
76
4
17
13
0
19.0
118.1
519.5
0
17
4
3
8
0
,34.3
0
32.5
128.8
72.7
9.1
9.9
8.3
20
I
6
2
0
11
529.5
53.1
12.5
9.4
25.0
88
120.2
257.5
68.0
4.0
20.0
8.0
0
■atowjIK-w
94,. 0
364.0
69.6
0
21.7
8.7
20
3
6
9
0
52.6
30.0
109.2
364.4
7.9
15.8
23.7
77.0
67
0:
17.0
4.6
4
11 ‘ 105.9 , 12.6
5 335,8
5.8
23
■I
4
2
, 83.3
16.7
0"
0
10
3
4
6
0
23.7
165.3
729.3
43.5
13.0
17.4
26.1
39
3
3
2
0
.83.0
33.3 . 6.4
6.4
153.0
321.5
4.2
8
0
I
I
# of
O b s 1 Mean
19
4
13
6
.
0
36.0
98.2
321.0
0
32.7
105.9
■
'o
85.3
39.0
16.8
20.8
30.6
8.3
# of
Obs . Mean
93
22
25
14
12
10
0
60.4
38.4
14.3
124,6 • 16.2
382.6
9.1
413.0
W is the number of acres of winter wheat harvested.
10.5
16.9
8.9
8.4
106
11
% of
Tot.
Qbs.
0
33.0
132.6
335.1
69.8
0
133
10
32.2.
32:. 121.2
23 340.7
67.2
23
12
0
35,0
124.1
373.2
98.5
375,0
0
«iaa«ansGa
88.6
700.0
0
“ w™'w-
7.2
15.1
7.9
5.0
16.2
11.6
69.4
2.8
12.1
15.7
69.1
3.6
15.5
11.8
69.0
' 3.4
20.7
6.9
76.7
3.3
13.3
6.7
80.0
0
10.0
10.0
- 98 T A B L E IV:
D I S T R I B U T I O N O F S PRING W H E A T A N D D U R U M AC R E S B Y C O W STRATA.
Area I
C o w Nos.
& Spring
W h e a t & # of
D u r m a/
Obs.
.20-49
W=O
0<W<50
50<W<200
W>200
50-74.
W=O
0<W<50
50CW5200
W>200
75-99
W=O
0<W<50
50<W£200
W>200
100-149
W=O
0<W<50
50<W <200
W>200
150-199
W=O
04WS50
50<W$200
W >2 00
200-299
W=O
0<Wi50
50 <W <200
W>200
300-500
W=O
0<WS50
50twS200
W>200
a/
27
12
2
I
52
11
9
I
Mean
Area 2
7= of
Tot.
Obs,
0
64.3
24.9
28.6
65.0
0
25.1
87.7
Ar e a 3
% of
# of
Ohs.
Mean
4.7
2.4
64
29
2
0
0
19.1
108.5
71.2
15.1
12.3
1.4
68
19
4
I
0
18.1
80.5
— =>*»«-«»
Tot.
Obs.
# of
O b s . Mean
Area 4
% of
Tot.
0b s .
# of
Obs.
Mean
7o of
Tot.
Obs.
67.4
30.5
2.1
0
86
27
0
55.8
16
0
27.4
17.5-
16
30.3
10.5
10.5
34
■ 7
117.2
344.3
22.1
4.6
59
61
105.6
320.6
38,8
40.2
73.9
20.6
4.4
1.1
150
43
45
10
0
27.3
60.5
17.3
18.2
4.0
34
30
74
60
0
31.1
131.9
17.2
408.2
30.3
0
21.3
5.6
36.1
100.2
309.7
15.1
37.4
t
0
23.7
64.3
0
61
8
3
0
75.9
13.8
48
12
0
24.8
26
7
I
0
0
20.6
76.5
20.6
■ •.wra.
2.9
44
8
5
I
'0
18.4
134.8
19
3
3
0
0
32.7
83.3
19
I
3
0
0
33.0
142.3
6
0
0
0
0
=e =««, cw
8.6
I
1.7
0
76.0
25
5
2
0
12.0
12.0
0
4.4
13.0
0
34
3
I
. 0
100.0
0
0
0
21
2
0
0
82.6
* ■«3 CU Cd W
0
12.4
90.5
84.7
11.1
4.2
0
133
■37
24
5
78.7
133
25
27
6
19.7
1.6
0
78.1
15.6
6.3
0
0
33.7
89.5
7.9
2.6
0
0
16.0
91.3
8.7
0
0
92
14
11
4
70
8
' 8
I
40
3
I
3
0
24.8
105.8
66.8
289.6
2.5
40
30.2
120.3
402.4
69.6
13.1
14.1
3.2
20
7
36
47
0
31.3
120.1
399.4
42.7
0
25.6
91.0
373.5
76.0
11.6
9.1
8
I
7
13
0
27.6
0
80.5
9.2
15
21.6
I
B e d -a
91.9
9.2
6
8
115.3
917.5
20.0
0
60.0
10.0
10.0
20.0
0
22.2
93.9
321.2
18.6
12.1
3.3
1.1
0
24.7
c» «u Ca «a* «a
284.3
85.1
6.4
2.1
6.4
23
6
39
6
I
I
2
W is the n u m b e r of acres of spring w h e a t a n d d u r u m harvested.
37.0
18.2
6.4
3,2.7
3.5
24.1
88.8
367.2
44.8
0
50.0
CBMCB O H .
ca»
3.3
-
ca «u ---■
324.0
26.7
- 99 TABLE V,
DISTRIBUTION OF OATS AND BARLEY ACRES BY COW STRATA,. '
Area I
Area 2
Cow Nos.
And Oats
% of
. And
, # of
Total # of
Barleyr- O b g j -Mean Obs „ Obs. Mean
20-49
X = O
0ZX 650
X >50
50-74
X = O
0.0
33.2
115.7
40.5
33.3
26.2
30
37
28
0,0
31.6
23.8
38.9
29.5
106.8-
63
58
33
0.0
34.2
29.2
42.5
X>50
130.0
23.3
22 . 0.0 23.9 109
26.»6 42.4 95
39
31 162 . 5 . 33.7 44
75-99
X = O
04X650
X>50
13
13
8
0.0
32.5
100.1
38.3
38.2
23.5
24
31
17
0.0
28.1
43,1
66
142.9
23.6
28
19
21
18
0,0
21.6
112.3
32.8
31
15
15
0.0
24.9
185.6
50.8 103
0.0
12
6
31.2
7 '117.1
48.0
9
24.0
10
28.0
13
0.0
.26,5
108.3
31.3
40,6
0.0
23.7
30.4
30.5
382.8
39.1
0.0
16
10
28,9
12 .160,4
5
0.0
83.3
I
=> BHCS ea e.
16.7
0.0
100-149
X = O
04x650
X%0
150-199
X = O
04X650
X>50
200-299
X = O
04X 650
X>50
300-500
X = O
04X650
X>50
7
'7
9
0
36.2
31.0
9
4
9
0.0
46.2
137.7
Area 4
%_of
.% of
% of
Total # of
Total # of
Total
Obs. Obs . M e a n Obs ,■ Obs. ■ Mean Obs,
25
31
17
04X650
a/
17
14
11
Area 3
33.3 105
0.0
24.4
105.7
40.9
37.7
21.4
44
58
0,0
31.0
125.8
32.0
121.9
50
26,1
44.0
38.3
9 9.9
17.7
63
54
81
0.0
26,3
81.0
52.7
33.2
14,1
33
28
47
0.0
0.0
31.8
27.3
40.9
0,0
30.6
34.8
25.9
129.7 . 43.5
51
0.0
31.6
135,6
46.4
13
'5
0,0
44.8
39.0
108.0
56.2
25.6
18.2
Tl
185.1
17.3
37.9
0.0
63.2
43.3
17.3
19.5
13
7
10
0.0
25.5
38.1
23.4
33.3
57
31
29.0
53.9
29.9
37
24.6
24.6
114.5
16.2
28.1
68
31
0.0
32.3
22
42.1
26.3
31.6
55
15
17
128.9
40.9
18.2
29
5
13
0.0
32.6
116.8
40.9
0.0
28.9
32.9
38;2
61.7
10.6
27.7
X is the number of acres of oats plus barley harvested.
22
4
3
3
229.6
0.0
33.6
20.0
29.0
40.0
30.0
258.7
30.0
100 -
TABLE VI.
DISTRIBUTION OF OAT ACRES BY COW STRATA.
Area I
Area 3
Area 2
Area 4
Cow
Nos.
% of
% of
% of
% of
and
, # of
Total # of
Total # of
Total # of
T@tal
Gaits—
Q b s . Mean
Obs. Obs. Mean
Obs.
Obs. Obs. Mean
Obs. O b s . Mean
20-49
X-O
0<X<50
X>50
50-74
X=O
O<X<50
X>50
75-99
0<Xs5.O
X>50
100-149
X=O
0<Xs50
X>50
150-199
X=O
0<Xs50
X,50
200-299
X=O
0<Xs50
X>50
300-500
X=O
0<XS50
X>50
26
0
14 27.6
2 112.0
52
18
3
19
15
0
Q
24.6
83.33
0
28.5
CDOQOOCDO
O
61.9
33.3
4,8
67
28
0
0
17,9
0
70.5 102
29,5 48 20.9
0
4 108.2
66.2
31.2
2.6
69.0 116
71.2
24.7
4.1
0
59
30 20.5
3 390.3
64,1 171
32.6 70
55.9
0
49
21 19.2
2 283.0
68.0 140
29.2 54
2.8 • 5
77.0 138
23.0 42
11
0
44.1
0
2,8
60
31
0
22.2
92.4
72.2
22.0
70
23.5
73.0
48.3
41.4
10.3
47
14
0
0
14
11 24.7
0 -----
56.0
44.0
0
0
15
15 30.4
2 117.5
46.9
46.9
6.2
92
25
4
0
26.9
93.7
76.0
20.7
11
0
8 23.0
' 4 210.0
47.8
34.8
17.4
28
0
7 26.1
3 115.0
73.7
18.4
7.9
0
64
18 ■25.6
5 82.4
73.6
20.7
0
28.9
65.2
30.4
34
0
11 29:1
2 100.0
72.3
0
c a o c w ——
100.6
0
0
15
7
I
« = .< » « > •,
4.4
64
18
70.4
27.1
2.5
0
•
28.2
28
0
24 17.2
6 106.33
6
0
0
0
19.2
3:3
0
21.6
■ 7 118.6
96
46
10
5.8
3.3
5.7
0
24.0
97.1
63.2
30.2
0
25.2
58.6
92.1
9.1
0
32.1
55.6
6.6
32.3
17 101.7
28.7
15.7
0
28.2
92.9
63.6
21.8
14.6
0
19
6 27.7
4 108,8
65.5
0
6 30.7
2 194,0
73.3
20.0
6.7
24
16
22
6
0
23.4 • I
43
3 130.0
20.7
13.8
60.0
10.0
30.0
- 101 -
TABLE VII.
DISTRIBUTION OF BARLEY ACRES BY COW STRATA.
Area I
Cow
Nos,
and
20-49
X=O
0<X<50
X>50
50-74
X=O
0<Xs50
X >50
75-99
X=O
0<X<50
X>50
100-149
X=O
0<X<50
X>50
150-199
XsO
0<X<50
X >50
200-299
X=O
0<X<50
X>50
300-500
X=O
0<X<50
X>50
a/
Area 2
% of
Total # of
# of
O b s . Mean 1 Obs. Obs. Mean
Area 3
Area 4
% of
% of
Total # of
Total # of
O b s . Obs Mean ■ Obs'. Obs. Mean
% of
Total
Obs.'
23
13
6
0
54.8
31.7 30.9
120.2 14.3
37
32
26
0
38.9
22.2 33.7
102.4 27.4
80
52
22
25.6 33.8
97.0 14.3
33
28
12
0
45.2
30.0 38.4
131.8 16.4
29
38
25
0
31.5
25.6 41.3
132.6 27,2
138
89
21
0
55.6
26.8 35.9
102.4 8.5
17
12
5
0
50.0
23.0 35.3
102.4 14.7
27
31
14
0
37.5
25.5 43.1
110.2 19.4
130
57
46
28
12
0
65.3
26.0 28.7
74.0 6.0
33
15
10
0
56.9
24.9 25.9
105.2 17.2
36
10
15
0
59.0
22.2 16.4
178.5 24.6
127
45
19
0
66,5
29.5 23.6
101.5 9.9
43
29
14
6
5
56.0
0
28.5 24.0
112.8 20.0
16
11
5
0
50.0
32.5 34.4
124.8 15.6
82
24
15
67.8
0
30.5 19.8
106.5 12.4
13
8
8
0
44.8
39.7 27.6
150.3 27.6
11
8
4
o z 47.8
23.4 34.8
600.0 17.4
21
9
8
0
55.3
25.7 23.7
181.9 21.0
66
.12
9
0
75.9
27.7 13.8
152.2 10.3
16
7
7
53,4
0
44.0 23.3
240.4 23.3
11
• 3
9
0
47.8
37.7 13.1
226.4 39.1
31
66.0
5
.3
2
50.0
0
25.0 30,0
193.0 20.0
5
I
0
0
.....
83.3
16.7
0
7
9
0
0
51.9
26.7 14.9
108-3 19.1
X is the number of acres of barley harvested.
. 64
41
47
83
56
59
34
38
42.1
0
32.2 27.0
116.9 30.9
0
41.9
32.5 28.3
110.5 29.8
0
42.6
31.4 25.9
102.1 31.5
39.1
0
28.8 26.4
144.1 34.5
- 102 TABLE VIII.
DISTRIBUTION OF CORN ACRES BY COW STRATA.
Area 2
Area I
Area 3
■
Area 4
Cow
Nbs.'
and
, # of
Corn —
Obs'. Mean
20-49
C=O
OO
41
I
0
30-74
G=O
OO
73
0
0
75-99
G=O
OO
30
4
100-149
C=O
OO
54
4
150-199
C=O
OO
24
I
200-299
G=O
OO
20
0
3. 99.7
300-500
C=O
OO
5
% of
Tbtal # of
Obs. Obs . Mean
% of
Total # of
Obs. Obs. Mean
% of
Total # of
Ob's. Obs . Mean
97.6
2.4
76
19
0
48,3
80.0 123
20.0 31
0
47.5
100.0
0 '
71
21
0
51.6
77.2 193
22.8 55
53.3
22.2
0
36.0
88.2
11.8
60
12
0
45.7
83.3 165
16.7 34
0
56.5
0
26.5
93.1
6.9
52
9
0
64.9
85.2 170
14.8 21
96.0
4.0
29
3
0
74.3
90.6 102
9.4 19
87.0
13.0
30
8
0
65.8
83.3
16.7
20
3
0
88.3
0
0
% of
Total
Obs .
0
79.9
54.0
46.0
93
0
88.5
53.0
47'.0
82.9
17.1
58
50
0
97.0
53.7
46.3
0
38.7
89.0
11.0
57
0
53 115.3
48.2
0
65,8
84.3
15.7
13
0
16 124.4
44.8
55.2
79.0
.21.0
78
0
9 155.0
89.7
10.3
0
17
13 158.8
56.7
43.3
87.0
13.0
39
83.0
17.0
0
7
3 121.3
70.0
30.0
0
8 • Data
C is the-number o f 1acres.of corn harvested.
79.9
82
20.1
70
77.8 105
51.8
- 103
T A B L E IX.
D I S T R I B U T I O N OF O T H E R CROP A C R E S B Y COW STRATA,
Area 2
Area I
Cow
N o s . and
Other
# of
Crops b/ Obs .Mean
% of
Tot # .of
Obs. Obs. Mean
a/
Area 3
Area 4
% of
Tot.
Obs.
% of
Tot.
# of
O b s . Mean Ob s .
# of ,
Obs. Mean
% Of.
Tot
0b s .
20-49
142
3.9
10
26.0
6.6
96.8
3.2
187
11
0
56.1
94.4
28.5
0
97.5
2.5
0
103
. 5 108.8
95.4
27.6
2.6
102
8
61.6
92.7
7.3
98.4
1.6
27
2
0
93.1
82.5
16.0
0
97.7
30
0
0
2.3
100.0
0
97.9
2.1
10
0
0
100.0•
,0
91
4
0
22.0
95.8
4.2
148
6
59.2
100.0
0
91
I
0
98.9
1.1
240
8
97.1
2.9
70
2
0
7.5
97.2
194
5
100.0
0
58
3
0
96.7
95.1
186
1 5
0
97.4
71.4
96.0
31
I
0
96.9
3.1
119
2
0
- -4,0
7O
91.3
304.0 . 8.7
38
0
0
100.0
0
85
2
8.5
100.0
0
23
0
0
100 . 0,
46
,1
42
0
0
50-74
X=O
X?0
73
0
0
75-99
X=O
XfO
33
I
0
100-149
X=O
XfO
58
0
0
150-199 24
X=O
X>0
I
96.1
100.0
0
X=O
XfO
0
2.8
4.9
0
0
0
0
93.4
5.6
4.6
6.9
200-299
X=O
X >0
300-500
X=O
X>0
21
2
6
0
0
0
0
a/
Sugar beets excluded.
bj
X is the n umber of acres of o t h e r crops harvested.
- IO^ T A B L E X.
D I S T R I B U T I O N OF S U G A R
Area I
C ow
N o s „ and
S ugar
# of
Beets aj Obs „ M e a n
BEETS A C R E S B Y C O W STRATA.
Area 3
Area 2
% of
Tot.
Obs.
# of
Obs. Mean
% of
Tot.
Obs.
# of
O b s . Mean
Ar e a 4
% of
Tot.
Obs.
# of
Obs.
Mean
7= of
Tot.
Obs.
'0
98.0
20-49
S=O
S>0
41
I
97.6
2.4
74
21
0
66.0
77.9
22.1
149
5
98.0
149
28.8
2.0
3
17.7
2.0
50-74
S=O
S>0
73
0
100.0
0
75
17
0
81.5
18.5
246
2
0
51.0
. 99.2
41.4
194
4
0
18.5
98.0
2.0
75-99
S=O
S?0
34
0
100.0
0
62
10
0
86.1,
196
13.9
3
0
14.3
98.5
33.0
. 105
3
0
42.3
97.2
2.8
100-149
S=O
S>0
58
0
100.0
0
54
7
0
54.4
88.5
11.5
189
2
0
99.0
81.5
1.0
107
3
0
25.3
97.3
2.7
25
0
100.0
0
29
3
0
53.3
90.6
121
0
0
100.0
0
———— ,
29
0
0
SfO
100.0
0
200-299
S=O
S>0
23
0
100.0
0
0
33
5 143.6
86.8
13.2
86
98.8
1.2
30
0
0
100.0
0
300-500
S=O
S>0
6
0
'100.0
0
0
™— ™
95.6
4.4
46
I
97.9
10
0
0
100.0
0
150-199
S=O
a/
«a o to
22
I
9.4
0
0
I
0 — —— —
S is the n u mber of acres of sugar b e e t s h a r v e s t e d .
0.8
1.5
2.1
APPENDIX G
T ABLE I.
D I S T R I B U T I O N OF A L L H A Y A C R E S B Y C O W STRATA,
Area I
Cow N o s .
And
.# of
All Hay-' O b s . Mean
20-49
H-50
50CH6200
H>200
21
19
2
50-74
H&50
50CH«200
H>200
75-9.9
H$50
50<H-200
1-0200
Area 2
% of
Total # of
O b s , Obs . Mean
26.9
50.0
107.9
262.5
45.2
41
10
22.3
115.0
321.8
10
19
5
50<H^200
H>200
150-199
H<50
50CH-200
H>200
200-299
H^50
5O^H-200
H>200
H <50
—
% of
Total #: of
Obs, Obs,, Mean
54
37
4
20.1
102.4
325.0
56.8
39.0
4.2
30.1
56.2
13.7
43
47
46.7
2
23.1
104.7
286.5
23.6
112.7
266.0
29.4
55.9
22
41
9
23.1
109.8
284.2
30.6
7
41
10
19.8
128.1
342.6
12.1
18
70.7
32
13.8
118.9
17.2
11
381.4
2
16
7
24.0
156.1
402.6
8,0
64,0
16.9
147.0
28.0
9
14
9
275.8
0
11
12
132.4
449.8
0.0
47.8
52.2
14
11
13
136.0
276.9
40.0
33,3
6
8
9
97.5
360.1
22
300 - 5 0 0 =
2
H&50
50^H-200
H>200
Area 3
0
4
=3 W =>«3
481.5
4.8
14,7
0.0
66.7
13,3
14.7
H is the number of acres of all hay
% of
% of
Total # o f
Total
Obs. Obs . Mean O b s ,
16 284.4
10.4
76
7
24.2
91.3
393.4
45.4
50.0
4.6
81
140 113.5
27 331; 2
32,7 67
56.4 117
10.9 14
24.8
104.5
259.9
33.8
59.1
49 25.4
125 119.2
25 293.6
24.6
62.8
12.6
25
68
23.3
114.9
15
264.3
23.1
63.0
13.9
52.5
18.0
35 15.3
94 132.2
62 318.1
18.3
49.2
32.5
21
67
120.5
22
312.2
19.1
60.9
20.0
28.1
43.8
28.1
17 11.6
64 126.5
40 344.3
14.0
52.9
33.1
5
14
10
6.2
126.6
355.0
17.2
48.3
34.5
36.8
29.0
24.2
40.2
35,6
8
11
11
5.9
119.2
34.2
21 14.8
35 138,8
31 358.0
444.9
26.6
36.7
36.7
26,1
34.8
39.1
5 18,0
11 146.4
31 455 »6
10,6
23.4
66.0
2
4
4
0.0
127.5
517,5
40.0
40.0
51.1
2.2
56.9
12.5
29.5
68
Area 4
70 100.5
24.7
44.2
45.4
23.9
69
18.8
7.1
- 106 TABLE II,
D I S T R I B U T I O N OF A L F A L F A A C R E S BY C O W STRATA.
Area 2
Area I
Cow N o s .
# of
And a/
Alfalfa— O b s .
20-49
H-50
50<H^200
H>200
50-74
H^50
50<H^200
H>200
75-99
H^50
50«?H^200
H >200
36
6
0
49
24
0
% of
Total # of
Mean . Obs. Obs.
17.2
101.8
14.5
101.7
»6 — «9 OO 1»
17
15
2
275.0
50<B<200
27
30
13.2
111.2
H>200
I
13.9
99.7
85.7
14.3
0.0
Area 3
Area 4
% of
% of
Total # of
Mean Obs. Qbs .
Total # of
Mean Obs , Obs .
64
17;9
28 106.1
67.4 114
37
3
11.3
100.8
266.7
3 356.7
29.5
3.1
67.1 . 50 18.0
32.9
40 103.6
0.0
■ 2 262.5
43.5
2.2
11
106.1
369.8
50.0
44.1
5.9
30 15.6
35 110.7
7 283.1
41.7 111
48.6 81
7
9.7
17.0
107.-2
253.0
46.6
26
97
9.1
72
22
124.5
54.3 153
84
12.4
%of
74.0 138
24.0 14
0
2.0
61.7 174
33.9 23
Mean
7.3
86.3
= = = = =
9.0
99.5
4.4
I
SBOlGaOD CO
55,8
80
28
9.2
97.8
40.7
3.5
0
Total
Obs ,
90.8
9.2
0.0
87.9
11.6
0.5
74.1
25.9
0.0
100-149
■E <50
51.7
1.7
15.4
27 107.9
8 385.6
42.6
44.3
13.1
44.0
52.0
4.0
14 13.4
13 136.9
5 294.0
43.8
26.1
52.2
16
9.6
IJ 125.0
11 267.7
42.1
8 10.3
7 90.0
8 331,0
89
8.4
80.9
17
4
111.6
15.5
322.5
50.8
37.7
11.5
311.3
3.6
57
50
14
12.2
130.2
311.4
47,1
41.3
11.6
20
7.5
69.0
8
I
119.9
27.6
28.9
29.0
37
35
15
12.0
134.7
338.0
42.5
40.2
17,3
20
6
4
34.8
30.4
34.8
16
17
14
9.4
131.8
395.2
34.0
36.2
29.8
6
4
0
150-199
H &50
11
11,1
50<H^200
13
117.9
H>200
I
40.6
15.6
3.4
200-299
H <50
6
16.7
5C<H^200
12
H>200
5
139.7
378.0
300-500
H^50
5(XH^200
H>200
2
I
3
21.7
0,0
33.33
*• o»oae
o«b
16.67
50,00
401.3
a/
— E is the number of acres of alfalfa
13.3
66.7
90.0
20.0
243.8
13.3
0.0
110.0
60.0
40.0
0.0
- 107 TABLE III.
DISTRIBUTION OF CLOVER, TIMOTHY AND OTHER GRASSES, SMALL GRAINS
FOR HAY, AND OTHER HAY ACRES BY COW STRATA..,a/
Area I
Cow Nos.
And
Other. , # of
Hay — - Ob s.
20-59
H -50 31
50<H^200 10
H >200 I
50-74
H -50 50
50CH^200 18
H>200 5
75-99
H^SO 29
50CHf200 5
H>200 0
100-149
H-50 40
50<H^200 14
H>200 4
150-199
H^SO 20
5 0 m c200 4
H>200 I
200-299
H^SO 14
50fHfZOO 5
H>200 4
. 300-500
H“50
SOdH^ZOO
H>200
4
0
2
Area 2
Mean
Area 4
Area 3
% of
% of
% of
% of
Total # of
Total # of
Total
Total # of
O b s . Obs:, Mean O b s . Obs. Mean O b s . Obs. Mean Ohs.
10:7
89.9
73.8
23.8
2.4
89
6
0
3.2
107.5
-----
93.7
6.3
0.0
129 13.5
21 108.9
4 278.0
83.8 112
13.6 37
2.6
3
15.9
82.6
369.0
73.7
24.3
2.0
87.8
123.9
369.2
68.5
24.7
6.8
90
2
0
6.5
120.0
-----
97.8
2.2
0.0
9.8
189
55 103.1
4 266.5
76.2 131
17.3
22.2 65 ■ 91.9
1.6
2 251.5
66.2
32.8
1.0
9.8
100.0
85.3
14.7
0.0
64
7
I
5.2
83.3
88.9
9.7
1.4
8.8
138
58 56.1
3 413.3
69.3
29.2
1.5
62
43
3
14.8
99.0
275.0
57.4
39.8
2.8
14.2
110.5
403.8
69.0
24.1
6.9
52
8
I
5.3
79.9
85.2
13.1
1.7
128
8.4
56 1 1 1 . 0
7 327.3
67.0
29.3
3.7
51
52
7
13.7
99.1
293.4
46.4
47.3
6.3
13.7
118.0
80.0
16.0
4.0
26
4
2
5.9 -■81.2
121.3 12.5
6.3
252.5
8.2 69.4
84
29 97.1 '24.0
8 336.0 . 6.6
16
9
4
14.1
147.7
283.5
55.2
31.0
13.8
6.1 60.9
122.0 ■21.7
414.3 17.4
33
5
0
3.9
101.6
86.8
13.2
0.0
71
8.7
13 91.3
3 536.7
81.6
14.9
3.5
17
9
4
8.2
120.0
376.3
56.7
30.0
13.3
66.7
0.0
33.3
19
3
I
4.0
78.3
82.6
13.0
4,4
6.3
32
8 143.8
7 445.0
68,1
17.0
14.9
8
2
0.0
97.5
-----
80.0
20.0
0.0
5.0
282.5
I
- - - - -
a/
Excludes wild hay and alfalfa.
b/
H is the number of acres of hay of this type.
0
- 108 T A B L E IV.
D I S T R I B U T I O N O F W I L D H A Y B Y C O W STRATA.
Area 2
Area I
Cow Nos.
And Wild # of
Hay - Obs.
Area 3
0L of
% of
Area 4
% of
% of
Total # of
Mean Obs. Obs.
Total # of
Mean Obs. Obs.
Total # of
Mean Obs. Obs.
Mean
0.4 , 74.7
58.1 25.3
103
49
0.1
60.8
0.6
74.4
82.7
17.3
116
82
0.9 58.6
55.8 ’ 41.4
Total
Obs ,
20-49
h <2lo
H>10
34
8
0,0 81.0
47.3 . 19.0
93
2
0.2
16.0
97.9
2.1
50-74
H^lO
H>10
61
12
0.5
60.4
83.6
16.4
89
3
0.2
27.0
96.7 205
43
3.3-
29
5
0.2
127.6
85.3
14.7
70
2
0.2
46.0
97.2
2.8
134 : 0.4
65 57.4
67.3
32.7
67
41
0.6
68.9
62.0
38.0
100-149
H -10
B>10
48
10
0.3
101.0
82.8. 54
17.2
7
0.0
45.7
88.5
11.5
126
65
0.2
94.5
66.0
34.0
68
42
0.5
83.5
61.8
38.2
150-199
H “10
H >10
14
11
0.0
205.6
56.0
44.0
30
2
0.0
55.0
93.8
6.2
76
45
0.3
95.4
62.8
37.2
1.6
21
8 162.5
72.4
27.6
200-299
H=IO
H>10
16
7
0.0
119.3
69.6
30.4
35
3
0.0
53.3
92.1
7.9
61
26
0.4
99.5
70.1
29.9
0.2
20
10 174.2
66.7
33.3
3 . 0.0
3 360.0
5u.U
50.0
20
3
0.4
ii7 ,U
25
56 , 5 . 13.0
0.2
22 155.9
53.2
46.8
0.0
5
5 389.0
50.0
50.0
.75-99
H-IO
H>10
300-500
H^lO
H>10
2./
H is the number of acres of wild hay.
i}.
115
39
67.8
32.2
5
APPENDIX D
TABLE I.
DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL ACRES OF LAND PASTURED PER ANIMAL UNIT BY
COW STRATA, a/
Area 2
Area I
Cow
Nos.
and
Pas-b/
ture—
# of
Obs. Mean
20-49
P<20
8
20<P<40 19
8
40<P^60
7
P>60
50-74
P<20 11
20<P<40 >31
40<P<60 17
P t-60 14
75-99
4
Pi 20
20<P<40 13
40<P<60. 9
8
P>60
100-149
Pi 20
8
20<P£40 27
40<P<60 13
P>60 10
150-199
Pi 20
2
20<P<40 11
40<P<60
7
P>60
5
200-299
P<20
5
9
20<P<40
8
40<P<60
I
P>60
300-500
I
Pi 20
I
2O<P<40
40<P<60
0
P>60
4
a/
b/
% of
Total # of
Obs. Obs. Mean
19.0
45.2
19.1
16.7
28
38
16
13
14.1
29.8
48.7
77.8
15.1
42.4
23.3
19.2
28
39
16
9 ,
15.1
29.8
50.8
80.9
11.8
38.2
26.5
23.5
20
23
18
11
13.0
31.0
49.6
111.1
27.8
31.9
25.0
15.3
16.2
30.5
47.9
92.2
13.8
46.6
22.4
17.2
25
20
7
9
13.7
30.7
48.0
136.1
19.0
27.2
50.2
73.2
8.0
44.0
28.0
20.0
9
8
12
3
13.2
30.1
48.4
21.7
39.1
34.8
4.4
16.7
16,7
0
66.6
w w w
— —
— — cow —
92.0
8.6
29.7
50.1
145.1
7. of
Total # of
Gbs. Obs. Mean
13.4
32.9
49.4
100.6
Area 4
Area 3
7. of
Total # of
Obs. Obs. Mean
7. of
Total
Obs»
30
55
42
27
11.4
30.7
51.2
123.6
19.5
35.7
27.3
17.5
17
75
36
24
13.9
30.3
49.3
117.8
11.2
49.3
23.7
11.8
30.4 38
42.4 117
17.4 58
9.8 35
15.3
31.4
49.7
105.2
15.3
47.2
23.4
14.1
36
99
51
12
14.1
31.0
48.1
75.8
18.2
50.0
25.8
6.0
34
80
54
31
14.8
30.5
50.7
91.3
17.1
40.2
27,1
15.6
16
58
24
10
13.4
30.7
48.4
92.1
14.8
53.7
22.2
9.3
41.0
32.8
11.5
14.7
38
74
53
26
15.1
32.1
48.7
92.6
19.9
38.7
27.8
13.6
20
57
24
9
13.9
31.8
46.9
104,2
18.2
51.8
21.8
8.2
10.0
31.5
49.3
98.2
28.1
25.0
37.5
9.4
29
14.7
31.2
45
31 . 48.7
16
80.6
24.0
37.2
25.6
13.2
4
17
6
2
15.2
30.1
52’.5
77.7
13.8
58.6
20.7
6.9
11
16
7
4
7.0
33.8
49.3
80.0
29.0
42.1
18.4
10.5
14
33
20
20
15.3
30.8
49.9
82.6
16.1
37.9
23.0
23.0
2
14.2
17 > 32.1
6
53.0
5
79.7
6.7
56.7
20.0
16.6
2
10
4
7
2.6
34.9
51.4
91.5
8.7
43.5
17.4
30.4
6
19
10
12
12.6
30.2
50.3
81.7
12.8
40.4
21.3
25.5
13.1
31.4
47.6
80.0
29.5
40.0
16.8
13.7
0
6
3
I
0
30.6 60.0
49.7' 30.0
----- 10.0
AU = I (# of beef cows) + 1/5 (# of ewes). Excludes Govt. Contract Lands,
P is that number calculated by dividing total acres pastured by AUs.
- H O
TABLE II.
-
DISTRIBUTION OF ACRES OF CROPLAND PASTURED BY COW STRATA.
Area I
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
Got?
Nos.
and
CropLand
Pas~a/
ture-
# of
Ob s . Mean
% of
Total # of
Qbs. Obs. Mean
% of
Total .# of
Obs. O b s . Mean
% of
Total # of
Obs. -Obs. Mean
% of
Total
Obs.
20-49
P-O
P>Q
34
8
0
182.9
81.0
19.0
72
23
0
159.7
75.8 114
24.2 40
0
191.5
74.0 112
26.0 40
0
124.9
73.7
26.3
50-74
P=O
P>0
6 fit
0
11 643.0
84.7
15.3
67
25
0
205.4
72.8 192
27.2 56
0
258.6
0,
77.4 155c
22.6 43, 230.5
78.3
21.7
75-99
P=O
P>0
32
2
0
40.0
94.1
5.9
50
22
0
130.6
69.4 149
30.6 50
0
154.6
74.9
25.1
88
20
387.7
81.5
18.5
100-149
P=O
P>0
51
7
0
53.8
87.9
12.1
43
18
0
140.5
70.5 141
29.5 50
0
611.9
73.8
26.2
89
21
0
141.2
80.9
19.1
150-199
P=O
PX)
24
I
0
96,0
4.0
24
8
0
100.8
75.0
25.0
95
26
0
131.3
78.5
21.5
24.
5
0
192.0
82.8
17.2
200-299
P=O
P>0
IS
4
0
328.8
82.6
17.4
29
9
0
133.0
76.3
23.7
70
17
0
145.1
80.5
19.5
27
3
%
344.3
90.0
10.0
300-500
'P=O51'
P>0
6
0
0
100.0
0
19
4
0
343,8
82.6
17.4
33
14
0
334.2
70.2
29.8
9
I
0’
90.0
10.0
a/
— »—
P is the n u m b e r of acres o f cro p l a n d for pasture.
O
- Ill -
TABLE III.
DISTRIBUTION OF IRRIGATED PASTURE BY COW STRATA.
Area I
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
Coe
Nos.
: and
Irri­
gated
# of
Pas~a/.
fcure^ Obs. Mean
% of
% of
Total # of
Total # of
Obs. Obs. Mean . Obs. Obs. Mean
% of
% of
Total # of
Total
Obs. Obs. Mean 'Qbs,
20-49
P=O
P>0
3»
3
0
85.0
92.9
7.1
67
28
0
64.1
70.5 144
29,5 '10
0
28.3
93.5 146
6.5
6
50-74
P=O
P>0
63
10
0
54.3
86.3
13.7
70
22
0
80.-6
76:1 231
23.9 17
0
48.4
0
93.1 194,
98.0
2.0
6.9
4 "53,.1.8
75-99
P=O
P>0
32
2
0
150.0
94.1
5.9
59
13
0
31.8
81.9 191
18.1
8
0
53.9
96.0 106
4.0
2
0
38.0
98.1
1.9
100-149
P=O
P>0
50
S
0
85.9
86.2
13.8
41
20
0
77.4
67.2 182
32.8
9
181.9
95.3 107
4.7
3
0
16.7
97.3
2.7
150-199
P=O
P»0
22
3
0
64.7
88.0
12.0
28
4
0
42.5
87.5 111
12.5 10
0
79.8
91.7
8,3
290
0
100.0
0
200-299
P=O
P>0
17
6
0
87.5
73.9
26,1
31
7
0
165.6
81,6
18.4
80
7
0
53.6
92.0
8.0
29
I
0
96.7
3.3
300-500
P=O
P>0
5
I
0
83.3
16.7
22
I
0
95.7
4.3
43
4
0
144.0
91.5
8.5
10
0
0
100.0
0
a/
G
P is the nuisher of acres of irrigated pasture.
0
24.0
96.1
3,9
112 _
&/
DISTRIBUTION OF PASTURE AS PERCENT OF TOTAL LAND BT COW STRATA.-'
TABLE IV.
Area I
Cow
Nos.
and
■SSw
20-49
P<40
40<P<60
60<P£80
P>80
50-74
P<40
40<P<60
60<P<80
P?80.
75-99
PS40
40<Ps60
60<P<80
P >80
100-149
P<40
40cP<60
60<P^80
P>80
150-199
P&40
40<P<60
60<P<80
P>80
200-299
P <40
40<P£60
60<Pl80
P>80
300-300
P<40
40<P<60
60<P<80
P>80
# of
Qbis. Mean
Area. 2
% of
Total ,# of
Obs. Oba. Hdan
Area 3
% of
Total # of
Area 4
% of
Total # of
% of
Total
Obs ♦ -Obs. Mean
Obs» Obs»'Mean
Obs.
8
9
3
22
20.8
53.6
76.8
96.6
19.1
21.4
7.1
52.4
10
19
24
41
21.2
52.4
71.8
91.3
10.6
20.2
25.5
43.7
10
12
43
89
22.2
.50.0
71.9
92.1
6.5
7.8
27.9
57.8
16
40
62
33 '
34.1
51.3
71.4
"89.5
10.6
26.5
41.1
21.8
2
7
14
50
15.0
53.4
75.0
92.8
2.7
9.6
19.2
68.5
7
5
22
58
27.2
53.1
69.7
91.4
7.6
I
5.4 10
23.9 58
63.1 179
WWW* —
55.8
73.5
92.4
0.4
4.0
23.4
72.2
9
32
SI
76
22.4
53.1
70.8
89.3
4.5
16.2
40.9
38.4
I
3
15
53
*****
52.4
77.2
92.4
0
5.9
5.9
88.2
57.9
72.3
92.5
1.4
4
4.2
6
20.8 25
73.6 163
17.2
55.5
74.2
93.6
2.0
3.0
12.6
82.4
3
12
44
49
13.8
55.5
72.2
88.7
40.7
45.4
72.3
93.7
1.7
1.7
5.2
91.4
0
5
10
46
49.0
73.1
93.8
I
0
8.2
3 ' 54.5
16.4 17.
74.8
75.4 169
93.0
0.5
1.6
9.0
88.9
3
12
39
56
12.8
54.7
74.6
89.7
2.7
10.9
35.5
50.9
0
5 ' 55.7
4
74.3
23
94.2
0
0
15.6
0
12.5
8
71.9 113
0
0
6.6
93.4
0
0
8
21
*****
0
4.3
8.7
87.0
5
2
2
29
13.1
5.3
5.3
76.3
2
0
2
83
2.3
0
2.3
95.4
I
2
5
22
0
0
0
97.4 100.0
0
0
3
20
0
0
13.0
87.0
2
0
0
44
4.3
0
0
95.7
0
0
0
0 ----0
0
10 . 94.2 100.0
0
2
2
30
I
I
3
53
0
0
0
25
wee**—
0
0
0
^3.0 100.0
0
I
2
20
WW *w—
0
0
0
6
W*w——
W— WWW
WWWWW
78.3
93.6
** ——*
*****
WWW* —
22.4
54.2
79.7
94.7
*****
77.6
95.5
■
—*——*
W WW W—
75.5
93.7
20.1
*****
77.4
95.9
4.9
W— WWW
96.3
****—,
74.4
92.0
—*** —
52.4
71.2
94,1
2.8
ll.l
0
0
27.6
72.4
3.3
6.7
16.7
73.3
*****
a/
Pasture = Cropland for pasture + woodland for pasture + other pasture
(exclude GoTt. Lease).
b/
P is the percent of total land that is pasture (acres pastured/total
acres operated).
APPENDIX E
T ABLE
I;
D I S T R I B U T I O N OF T O T A L L A N D A C R E S B Y CO W STRATA,
Area I
Cow and
Total
Land b/
Area 2
% of
# of
1
Obs.
Mean
Tot. # of
Obs. Obs.
Mean
a/
Area 3
Area 4
I
% of
Tot. # of
Ob s . Obs. .Mean
% of
Tot,.. # of .
Obs. Obs. Mean
15.8
65.3
16.8
2.1
61.0
25.3
8.5
% of
Tot.
0b s .
20-49
161
Lf1^4
4<L<10
L>10
50-74
l£ l
k l £4
4<L<10 '
L>10
75-99
L£1
KLf-A
I 4<L£L0
L?10
100-149
L^l
KLlA
4<LilO
L>10
150-199
L— I
KL-4 ,
AcL^lO
L>10
I
26
13
2
0
33
35
5
0
7
18
9
4.8
15
62
16
2
275
1501
3571
15085
2
53
36
I
177
1808
10643
0
45.2
47.9
6.9
1919
4271
7866
0
20.6
52.9
26.5
2
25
35
10
1.7
5.2
55.2
37.9
I
15
30
15
1730
3967
9870
1683
4263
I
3
2043
32
22
4404
10066
—
■ 0 ■ W fl» M c
w
e
™
•
*
e*
0
10 ■ 4882
15 11594
ho
2.4
61.9
30.9
3779
= HOHO--
324
1810
4257
11146
1610
4349
13800
8
94
39
13
6
96
45
5
446
1760
3.9
63.2
3460
29.6
18234
3.3
OHUHHCdOH
■ 1911
3621
14109
0
42.3
2.8
34.7
520
1910
4198
11297
1.0
20.1
I
12
61.8
17.1
84
1964
4004
11
9053
0.9
11.1
77.8
10.2
0.5
2001
8.2
4682
65.5
26.3
2
40
48.6 123
13.9 34
1.6
I
24.6 19
49.2 ,104
67
1789
4927
10744
0
21.9
25.0
53.1
0
12
44
'69.6
0 HOOJ D BHO
6
1372
"6
3849
26 '11360
0
15.8
15.8
68.4
0
I
16
70
0
0
0
100.0
0
2
0
21
0 ■
8.7
0
91.3
I
0
2
44
HOH
OCDCDO-
5.2
0
2.2
57.6 105
39.1 116
1.1 27
24.6
0
0
7
0
40.0
8
60.0 .17
392
1588
3697
14992
65
2013
4531
11285
—OHCHOOO
H
2
77
46.8 117
10.9
2
9.9
0
9
54.5
35.1
72
29
0
0
I
12
16
1990
4590
11130
9.9
36.4
oobw —o x a
0
1.1
18.4
53.7
340 . 1.0
1896 38.9
3693 •59.1
9510
1.0
———
0
9125
0
4913
9432
3.4
41.4
55.2
200-299
I ■ * ea ■■
L^l
ULiA
0
6 ■ 5277
AlLilO
LFlO 16. .15032
300-500
0
Lil
KLiA
0
0 ■ooHeacs ca
4^L<10.
6 35288
L>10
4.3
0
26'. I
_____
990
—MHOS,=.
21918
5092
13843
U S , C=CSJ
4400
20661
80.5
2.1
0
4.3
93.6
0
0
I
29
0
0
0
10
=JC--IO
14088
-UCCtO
0
0
3.3
96.7
0
0
0
18286 100.0
a/
Total land equals owned land plus rented land less land rented out
(excludes government permit land).
b/
L refers to the stratifications on the n u m b e r of sections
A l l M e a n figures are in terms of a c r e s .
in the r a n c h .
T A B L E LI.
D I S T R I B U T I O N OF P E R C E N T OF T O T A L L A N D T H A T IS O W N E D B Y CO W
STRATA.
Area I
Cow N o s .
and %
Owned
# of
L a n d a/
O b s 1 Mean
20-49
L=O
CKL < .6
.6 < L < 1 .0
L = I .0
50-74
L=O
O^LSv 6
.6 < L < 1 .0
L=1.0
75-99
L=O
0 < L i .6
.6 < L < 1 .0
L = I .0
100-149
L=O
0 < L < .6
.6 < L < 1 .0
L = I .0
150-199
L=O
0 < L < .6
.60*1.0
L = I 1O
Area 2
% of
T o t , # of
Obs. Obs.
0:0
3
14
46.3
12
88:0
13 100.0
7.1
20
33.3
28.6
23
18
33
0.0
7
13
36.7
40 . 81.3
13 100.0
9 .6
17.8
54.8
17.8
I
0.0
7 31.5
21
84.9
5 100.0
20.6
61.8
14.7
5
9
34
10
31.0
2.9
0.0
8.6
41.4
83.5
15.5
ioo.o
17.3
58.6
16.0
8
34
31
19
11
16
36
9
4
18
27
12
4
0.0
30.6
3
18
80.0
m:
0 M «uCUoa<
12.0
72.0
0.0
2
15
11
4
m CMna*n
0 u<
3
15.3
13
82.9
7 100.0
0.0
13.1
56.5
30.4
3
14
17
4
0 _____
2
32.5
4
87.6
0 CUMl <uaCU
0.0
33.3
66.7
0.0
2
6
11
4
Mean
Area 3
7= of "
,
Tot. # ' o f
Obs. Obs.
0.0
35.7
76.4
100.0
21.3
24.5
19.1
35.1
0.0
13.1
80.9
8.7
37.0
33.7
100.0
20.6
0.0
37.0
81.1
15.3
22.2
50.C
12.5
100.0
0.0
0.0
38
43
37.1
78.1
100.0
57
26
58
99
65
% of
Tot.
Obs.
10.4
24.7
15
47
50
39
10.0
31.1
27.9
37.0
0.0
10.5
37.3
82.9
23.4
39.9
26.2
ioo.o
29
50
92
27
0.0
36.5
79.0
33.1
100.0
25,8
0.0
38.9
79.7
25.3
100.0
14.6
46.5
13.6
0.0
10.1
13
0.0
12.0
39.3
81.7
22.7
26
37.8
24.1
. 81.6
100.0
46.0
21.2
45
42
24
100.0
41.7
22.2
0.0
11.6
37.4
25.2
51.6
12
27
58
0.0
34.9
78.9
11.6
13
100.0
9.9
25.6
50.4
14.1
2
10
16
I
44.2
82.8
5.7
17.3
71.3
5.7
6
9
10
5
6.5
3
I
6
12
31
61
17
0.0
8.0
30.0
83.1
36.8
100.0
44.7
10.5
5
15
62
5
0.0
27.7
8.7
26.1
11
81.9
47.8
100.0
17.4
100.0
'
#. of
Obs . M e a n
20
6.2
4 6 .9
34.4
\L2„5
0.0
33.3
82.0
% of
Tot.
Obs.
45
91
44.3
19.6
82.3
100.0
6 .6
29.5
Mean
16
22
48
98
22
33.1
'
' Area 4
80.6
100:0
0.0
39.7
81.2
100.0
0.0
10.9
24.6
52.7
11.8
6.9
34.5
55.2
100.0
3.4
0.0
35.2
20.0
82.7
33,3
16.7
200-299
L=O
0 < L < .6
.6 K L C 1 .0
L = I .0
300-500
L=O
0 4 L < .6
. S C L C l 1O
L = I 1O
£/
3
27
5
0.0
37.4
81.0
100.0
0.0
35.5
53.0
100.0
23.9
58.7
10.9
100.0
30.0
0.0
25.5
30.0
84.9
60.0
0
L is a p e r c e n t a g e calculated b y div i d i n g ovmed land b y total land
(excludes government- p e r m i t l a n d ) .
10.0
0.0
t
X
- 115 -
T A B L E III;
D I S T R I B U T I O N OF IRRIGATED CRO P L A N D B Y C O W STRATA.
Area I
Cow N o s .
and I r r .
of
Crop-land a/
Obs.
Area 2
%
Mean
of
Tot.
Obs.
# of .
O b s . Mean
Area 3
%
of
Tot.
Obs.
.
# of
Obs.
Mean
Area 4
%
I
of ,
Tot. # of
Obs.. O b s .
Mean
of
Tot.
O b s.
76.6
23.4
134
18
0.0
88.2
68.0
11.8
180
18
0.0
97.4
90.9
9.1
20-49,
L=O
L>0
32
10
76.2
23.8
50
45
153.5
52.6
47.4
118
106.2
50-74
L=O
L?0
48
25
0.0
85.1
65.8
34.2
50
42
0.0
154.5
54.3
45.7
189
59
0.0
124.4
76.2
23.8
75-99
L=O
L>0
17
17
0.0
50.0
50.0
42
30
0.0
119.4
58.3
41.7
164
35
0.0
114.0
82.4
46.8
17.6
86
0.0
22 277.6
79.6
20.4
0.0
144.0
44.8
55.2
35
26
0.0
151.3
57.4 ■ 128
42.6
63
0.0
127.3
67.0
33.0
0.0
91
19 102.5
82.7
32
150-199
L=O
L7 0
10
15
0.0
222.2
40.0
60.0
22
10
0.0
204.4
68.8
84
37
0.0
157.5
69.4
30.6
24
31.2
82.8
17.2
200-299
L=O
L>0
7
0.0
193.6
30.4
69.6
22
0.0
16
233.9
57.9
42.1
58
29
0.0
108.7
66.7
33.3
22
16
33.3
66.7
14
9
234.3
60.9
39.1
31
16
0.0
199.2
66.0
34.0
. 8
2
100-149
L=O
. L>0
3 0 0-500
L=O
L>0
a/
26
0.0
0.0
0..0
36 - 69.3
0.0
5 109.0
0.0
8 102.6
17.3
73; 3
26.7
/
2
4
0.0
701.0
0.0
L represents the n u m b e r of acres of irrigated, cropland.
0.0
80.0
210.0
20.0
LITERATURE CITED
Agricultural ,Ebqperiment Station and Extension Service, Montsina Agriculture
Basic Facts, Bozeman, Montana: Montana State. College, Bulletin
293, October, 1956.
'•
V
,,
-
f \ ,* , . -
tv*' ' r■
.
•
4
-,Vv
Committee for Economic Development, An Adaptive Program for Agriculture.
New York: Committee for Economic Development, July, 1962.
Cooperative Extension Service and Agricultural Experiment Station,
Montana Agriculture Basic Facts. Bulletin 293, Bozeman, Montana,
Montana State College, June, 1962.
Helburn, Nicholas 5 Edie, M. J.; and Lightfoot, Gordon, Montana in Mans.
The Research and Endomment Foundation, Bozeman, Montana: Montana
State College, 1962.
Saunderson, Mont H . , Montana Stock Ranches and Ranching Opportunities.
Agricultural Eixperiment Station, Bozeman, Montana: Montana
State College, 1950.
United States-Department.of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service,
Montana Agriculture Statistics. Helena, Montana.: Montana Depart­
ment of Agriculture, Vol. IX, December, 1962.
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
1762 10012842 8
NS 78
B381
cop.2
Beattie, B. R.
The organization and structure
Iof the beef cattle industry...
N AMC ANP AODWKSa
A ^\
.c
t
15/
V J -yVr &
- Q L T . i l 3 ISI
JrH
iOa.a /
( '
v.k
i-
'~L-' fy-('