The paper discuss the evolving change of the stocking density in different areas in Texas. Causes
such as grazing, fire, brush control, and business perspective have all had an impact on the
stocking density. But before emoving forward, we have to define stocking difference. According
to the research paper, stocking density “is the number of grazing animals per unit of land”. In
grounded words, if an acre on average can uphold up to 1,000 animals, and in reality that acre
indeed has 1,000 animals, then the stocking density is at 100%. Moving forward, the research
paper focused on the change of stocking density from 1960 to 2005 on various Texas regions.
The data came “from three main sources: Census of Agriculture data from the Great Plains
Project of the Universit of Michigan, the U.S. Census of Agriculture hard-copy publications, and
the U.S. Census of Agriculture Website”. On the same note, the different Texan areas were:
Edwards Plateau, Trans Pecos, the Lampasas Cut Plain, the South Texas Plains, the Rolling
Plains, and the High Plains. Now, more technicalities need to be explain. They got the data from
different time periods: 1880-1887, 1890-1997, and 2002-2007. It also got established the term of
unit to determine the stocking difference. The unit is AU, which stand for Animal Unit. One AU
“comprises one cow, five sheep, five goats, and one horse”. All these animals are considered
grazing animals. The final process is to basically compare and contrasts the data ranges from the
various regions to see the high peak and the low peak. In other words, to see during which time
frame the stocking density was at its highest and when was at its lowest.
Compacting information, the results where similar in most of the regions. Edwards Plateau had
its peak during the 1930s and in 1945, but since then has declined 70% - mainly for reduction of
sheep and gots. Trans Pecos have similar numbers as Edwards – its peak was in 1945 but since
then as come to a 75% reduction in stocking density. Lampassas Cut Plain has the same peak
year as the two prior, and had a 45% reduction. South Texas Plains had its peak on 1974, and
declined 50%. IN this region the AU is mainly composed of everything but sheep and goats.
Rolling Plains had its peak way before, during the early 1900s, lowered by 50% during the
19030s but got stabilized. Lastly, the High Plains had its peak in 1935 and in 1940s, a reduction
og 60% but from there has been stable to this day.
Focusing on this numbers, the results obviously have various implications in different lenses,
such as potential drives and potential implications for ecosystem services.
Focusing on the potential drivers for why the stokcing density had a step decline, they vary. One
main factor that the stocking density got reduced because of the clear reduction of sheep and
goats – two of the main grazing animals that composed the AU in the studies. Another factor is
the “increasing importance that landowners ascribe to wildlife, both as a source of income and
for their inherent and intrinsic value”. Other factor is the fact that land ownership as naturally
evolved and changed. Landowners were more engaged and committed to their grazing animals
and land during previous eras. This because it was their primary income source. However,
nowadays, landowners have more incomes and different business angles that they remain some
of their grazing but not with the same goal and persistent than before. On the same path, as the
ages passed, less juvenile landowners are interested in the business, leading to a stocking density
reduction.
Surprisingly, one would argue the reduction of stocking density is bad on an environmental
lense, but on the contrary. The reduction of grazing animals on the lands have created an inverse
correlation between the grazing animals and the abundance of vegetation cover. Nowadayds the
different lands have more vegetation, more biomass, and more animal diversity than during the
peak eras of each of the regions. Not only that, but this effect brings even more impactful
outcomes, such as enhaced ecosystem servives, better groundwater recharge, reduction in
flooding, and improvements in ecological services. The research paper does claim that these
outcomes are a basic glimpe of it, and should be studied in detail, but the preliminary data
obtained is very promising.