^^

t

M

o^5\T,3lT^\

Given By
n, S. STJPT, OF nOCTTMT'.KTS

3^

DEPOSITORY

ol. Ill - pt. 9 ch. VI

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
IN THE UNITED STATES

(A COOPERATIVE REPORT)

Western Stock Ranches and
Livestock Farms

SPECIAL REPORTS

1954

Census

of

Agriculture

'7

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

\^ASHIHG10H . 7956

uc

U. S. Department of Agriculture

Ezra Tah Benson, Secretary

Agricultural Research Service

Byron T. Show, Adminiitrator

U. S. Department of Commerce

Sincloir Weeks, Secrefary

Bureau of the Census

Robert W. Burgess, Director

United States

c

ensus

f

Aqriculture

TTK-" '1,1 jfu

TTfr" '1,1 jTU ii I rrn^i ,

1954

Volume III
SPECIAL REPORTS

Part 9

Farmers and Farm Production in the United States

(A Cooperative Report)

Chapter VI

Western Stock Ranches and
Livestock Farms

CHARACTERISTICS OF FARMERS and FARM PRODUCTION •
PRINCIPAL TYPES OF FARMS •

"N

-:..)

.-'>aA-^

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
Robert W. Burgess, Director

AGRICULTURE DIVISION
Ray Hurley. Chief
Warder B. Jenkins, Assistant Chief

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Byron T. Shaw, Administrator

FARM AND LAND MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Sherman E. Johnson, Director

PRODUCTION ECONOMICS RESEARCH BRANCH
Carl P. Heisig, Chief

Boston Public Library
Superintendent of Documents

JUL 1 7 1957

SUGGESTED IDENTIFICATION

U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Agriculture: 1954. Vol. Ill, Special Reports

Part 9, Farmers and Farm Production in the United States.

Chapter VI, Western Stock Ranches and Livestock Farms

U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C, 1956.

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C.
or any of the Field Offices of the Department of Commerce, Price 40 cents (paper cover)

PREFACE

The purpose of this report is to present an analysis of the characteristics of farmers and farm production
for the most important types of farms as shown by data for the 1954 Census of Agriculture. The analysis
deals with the relative importance, pattern of resource use, some measures of efficiency, and problems of
adjustment and change for the principal types of farms.

The data given in the various chapters of this report have been derived largely from the special tabula-
tion of data for each type of farm, by economic class, for the 1954 Census of Agriculture. The detailed
statistics for each type of farm for the United States and the principal subregions appear in Part 8 of Volume
III of the reports for the 1954 Census of Agriculture.

This cooperative report was prepared under the direction of Ray Hurley, Chief of the Agriculture Divi-
sion of the Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, and Kenneth L. Bachman, Head, Produc-
tion, Income, and Costs Section, Production Economics Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service of
the U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Jackson V. McElveen, Agricultural Economist, Production, Income, and Costs Section, Production
Economics Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, super-
vised a large part of the detailed planning and analysis for the various chapters.

The list of chapters and the persons preparing each chapter are as follows:

Chapter I Wheat Producers and Wheat

Production
A. W. Epp,
University of Nebraska.

Chapter II Cotton Producers and Cotton

Production
Robert B. Glasgow,
Production Economics Research

Branch,
Agricultural Research Service,
United States Department of

Agriculture.

Chapter III Tobacco and Peanut Producers

and Production
R. E. L. Greene,
University of Florida.

Chapter IV Poultry Producers and Poultry

Production
William P. Mortenson,
University of Wisconsin.

Dairy Producers and Dairy Pro-
duction
P. E. McNall,
University of Wisconsin.

Chapter VI .

Chapter VII-

Western Stock Ranches and Live-
stock Farms

Mont H. Saunderson,

Western Ranching and Lands
Consultant,

Bozeman, Mont.

Cash-grain and Livestock Pro-
ducers in the Com Belt

Edwin G. Strand,

Production Economics Research
Branch,

Agricultural Research Service,

United States Department of
Agriculture.

Chapter VIII- _ Part-time Farming
H. G. Halcrow,
University of Connecticut.

Chapter IX Agricultural Producers and Pro-
duction in the United States —
A General View
Jackson V. McElveen,
Production Economics Research

Branch,
Agricultural Research Service,
United States Department of
Agriculture.

The editorial work for this report was performed by Caroline B. Sherman, and the preparation of the
statistical tables was supervised by Margaret Wood.

Chapter V-

December 1956

UNITED STATES CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE: 1954

REPORTS

Volume I. — Counties and State Economic Areas. Statistics for counties include number of farms, acreage, value, and farm operators;
farms by color and tenure of operator; facilities and equipment; use of commercial fertilizer; farm labor; farm expenditures; livestock and
livestock products; specified crops harvested; farms classified by type of farm and by economic class; and value of products sold by source.

Data for State economic areas include farms and farm characteristics by tenure of operator, by type of farm, and by economic class.

Volume I is published in 3.3 parts.

Volume II. — General Report. Statistics by Subjects, United States Census of Agriculture, 1954. Summary data and analyses of
the data for States, for Geographic Divisions, and for the United States by subjects.

Volume III. — Special Eeports

Part 1. — Multiple-Unit Operations. This report wiU be similar to
Part 2 of Volume V of the reports for the 1950 Census of Agri-
culture. It vfill present statistics for approximately 900
counties and State economic areas in 12 Southern States and
Missouri for the number and characteristics of multiple-unit
operations and farms in multiple units.

Part 2. — Ranking Agricultural Counties. This special report will
present statistics for selected items of inventory and agricul-
tural production for the leading counties in the United States.

Part 3. — Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, and
U. S. Possessions. These areas were not included in the 1954
Census of Agriculture. The available current data from vari-
ous Government sources will be compiled and published in
this report.

Part 4. — Agriculture, 1954, a Graphic Summary. This report will
present graphically some of the significant facts regarding
agriculture and agricultural production as revealed by the 1954
Census of Agriculture.

Part 5. — Farm-Mortgage Debt. This wiU be a cooperative study
by the Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department
of Agriculture and the Bureau of the Census. It will present,
by States, data based on the 1954 Census of Agriculture and a
special mail survey conducted in January 1956, on the num-
ber of mortgaged farms, the amount of mortgage debt, and the
amount of debt held by principal lending agencies.

Part 6. — Irrigation in Humid Areas. This cooperative report by
the Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department of
Agriculture and the Bureau of the Census will present data ob-
tained by a mail survey of operators of irrigated farms in 28
States on the source of water, method of applying water, num-
ber of pumps used, acres of crops irrigated in 1954 and 1955,
the number of times each crop was irrigated, and the cost of
irrigation equipment and the irrigation system.

Part 7. — Popular Report of the 1954 Census of Agriculture. This
report is planned to be a general, easy-to-rcad publication for
the general public on the status and broad characteristics of
United States agriculture. It will seek to delineate such as-
pects of agriculture as the geographic distribution and dif-
ferences by size of farm for such items as farm acreage, princi-
pal crops, and important kinds of livestock, farm facilities,
farm equipment, use of fertilizer, soil conservation practices,
farm tenure, and farm income.

Part 8, — Size of Operation by Type of Farm. This will be a coop-
erative special report to be prepared in cooperation with the
Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agri-
culture. This report will contain data for 119 economic sub-

regions (essentially general type-of-farming areas) showing the
general characteristics for each type of farm by economic class.
It will provide data for a current analysis of the differences
that exist among groups of farms of the same type. It will
furnish statistical basis for a realistic examination of produc-
tion of such commodities as wheat, cotton, and dairy products
in connection with actual or proposed governmental policies
and programs.
Part 9. — Farmers and Farm Production in the United State's.
The purpose of this report is to present an analysis of the
characteristics of farmers and farm production for the most
important types of farms as shown by data for the 1954 Census
of Agriculture. The analysis deals with the relative importance,
pattern of resource use, some measures of efficiency, and prob-
lems of adjustment and change for the principal types of farms.
The report was prepared in cooperation with the Agricultural
Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture.

The list of chapters (published separately only) and title
for each chapter are as follows:

Chapter I — Wheat Producers and Wheat Production
II — Cotton Producers and Cotton Production
III — Tobacco and Peanut Producers and Production
IV — Poultry Producers and Poultry Production

V — Dairy Producers and Dairy Production
VI — Western Stock Ranches and Livestock Farms
VII — Cash-Grain and Ldvestock Producers in the Corn
Belt
VIII — Part-Tiine Farming i

IX — Agricultural Producers and Production in the
United States — A General View
Part 10. — Use of Fertilizer and lime. The purpose of this report
is to present in one publication most of the detailed data com-
piled for the 1954 Census of Agriculture regarding the use of
fertilizer and lime. The report presents data for counties,
State economic areas, and generalized type-of-farming areas
regarding the quantity used, acreage on which used, and
expenditures for fertilizer and lime. The Agricultural Research
Service cooperated with the Bureau of the Census in the prep-
aration of this report.
Part 11. — Farmers' Expenditures. This report presents detailed
data on expenditures for a large number of items used for farm
production in 1955, and on the living expenditures of farm
operators' families. The data were collected and compiled
cooperatively by the Agricultural Marketing Service of the
U. S. Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of the Census.
Part 12. — Methods and Procedures. This report contains an
outline and a description of the methods and procedures used
in taking and compiling the 1954 Census of Agriculture.

INTRODUCTION

CO

<

W

as
<

U
O

o

u
a

w

H

Q
<

CO

Z

o

o
w

oS
m
D

CO
U

o

8

INTRODUCTION

Purpose and scope. — American agriculture is exceedingly diverse
and is undergoing revolutionary changes. Farmers and their
families obtain their income by producing a large variety of
products under a large variety of conditions as well as from sources
other than farming. The organization of production, type of
farming, productivity, income, e.xpenditures, size, and character-
istics of operators of the 4.8 million farms in the United States
vary greatly. Agriculture has been a dynamic, moving, adjusting
part of our economy. Basic clianges in farming have been occurring
and will continue to be necessary. Adjustments brought by tech-
nological change, by changing consumer wants, by growth of
population, and by changes in the income of nonfarm people, have
been significant forces in changing agriculture since World War II.
The transition from war to an approximate peacetime situation
has also made it necessary to reduce the output of some farm
products. Some of the adjustments in agriculture have not pre-
sented relatively difficult problems as they could be made by the
transfer of resources from the production of one product to another.
Others require substantial shifts in resources and production.

Moreover, a considerable number of farm families, many of whom
are employed full time in agriculture, have relatively low incomes.
Most of these families operate farms that are small when compared
with farms that produce higher incomes. The acreage of land and
the amount of capital controlled by the operators of these small
farms are too small to provide a very high level of income. In
recent years, many farm families on these small farms have made
adjustments by leaving the farm to earn their incomes elsewhere,
by discontinuing their farm operations, and by earning more non-
farm income while remaining on the farm or on the place they
farmed formerly.

One objective of this report is to describe and analyze some of
the existing differences and recent adjustments in the major types
of farming and farm production. For important commodities and
groups of farms, the report aims to make available, largely from
the detailed data for the 1954 Census of Agriculture but in a more
concise form, facts regarding the size of farms, capital, labor, and
land resources on farms, amounts and sources of farm income and
expenditures, combinations of crop and livestock enterprises,
adjustment problems, operator characteristics, and variation in use
of resources and in size of farms by areas and for widely differing
production conditions. Those types of farms on which production
of surplus products is important have been emphasized. The
report will provide a factual basis for a better understanding of
the widespread differences among farms in regard to size, resources,
and income. It will also provide a basis for evaluating the effects
of existing and proposed farm programs on the production and
incomes of major types and classes of farms.

Income from nonfarm sources is important on a large number
of farms. About 1.4 million of the 4.8 million farm-operator
families, or about 3 in 10, obtain more income from off-farm sources
than from the sale of agricultural products. More than three-
fourths of a million farm operators live on small-scale part-time
farms and ordinarily are not dependent on farming as the main
source of family income. These part-time farmers have a quite
different relation to adjustments, changes, and farm problems
than do commercial farmers. A description of and facts regarding
these part-time farms and the importance of nonfarm income for
commercial farms are presented in Chapter 8.

Exce|)t for Chapter 8, this report deals with commercial farms
(see economic class of farm). The analysis is limited to the major
types of agricultural production and deals primarily with geo-
graphic areas in which each of the major types of agricultural
production has substantial significance.

Source of data. — Most of the data presented in this report are
from special compilations made for the 1954 Census of Agriculture,
although pertinent data from research findings and surveys of the
U. S. Department of Agriculture, State Agricultural Colleges, and
other agencies have been used to supplement Census data. The
detailed Census data used for this report are contained in Part 8 of
Volume III of the reports of the 1954 Census of Agriculture.
Reference should be made to that report for detailed explanations
and definitions and statements regarding the characteristics and
reliability of the data.

Areas for which data are presented. — Data are presented in
this report primarily for selected economic subregions and for the
United States. The boundaries of the 119 .subregions used for the
compilation of data on which this report is based are indicated by
the map on page vi. These subregions represent primarily general
type-of-farming areas. Many of them extend into two or more
States. (For a more detailed description of economic subregions,
see the publication "Economic Subregions of the United States,
Series Census BAE; No. 19, published cooperatively by the Bureau
of the Census, and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S.
Department of Agriculture, July 1953.)

DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATIONS

Definitions and explanations are given only for some of the more
important it«ms. For more detailed definitions and explanations,
reference can be made to Part 8 of Volume III and to Volume II of
the reports of the 1954 Census of Agriculture.

A farm. — For the 1954 Census of Agriculture, places of 3 or
more acres were counted as farms if the annual value of agricultural
products, exclusive of home-garden products, amounted to $150
or more. The agricultural products could have been either for
home use or for sale. Places of less than 3 acres were counted as
farms only if the annual value of sales of agricultural products
amounted to $150 or more. Places for which the value of agricul-
tural products for 1954 was less than these minima because of crop
failure or other imusual conditions, and places operated at the time
of the Censvis for the first time were counted as farms if normally
they could be expected to produce these minimum quantities of
agricultural products.

All the land under the control of one person or partnership was
included as one farm. Control may have been through ownership,
or through lease, rental, or cropping arrangement.

Farm operator. — A "farm operator" is a person who operates
a farm, either performing the labor himself or directly supervising
it. He may be an owner, a hired manager, or a tenant, renter, or
sharecropper. If he rents land to others or has land cropped for
him by others, he is fisted as the operator of only that land which
he retains. In the case of a partnership, only one partner was
included as the operator. The numlx>r of farm operators is con-
sidered the same as the number of farms.

vn

VIII

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Farms reporting or operators reporting. — Figures for farms
reporting or operators reporting, based on a tabulation of all farms,
represent the number of farms, or farm operators, for which the
specified item was reported. For example, if there were 11,922
farms in a subregion and only 11,465 had chickens over 4 months
old on hand, the number of farms reporting chickens would be
11, 465. The difference between the total number of farms and the
number of farms reporting an item represents the number of farms
not having that item, provided the inquiry was answered
completely for all farms.

Farms by type. — The classification of commercial farms by
type was made on the basis of the relationship of the value of
sales from a particular source, or sources, to the total value of all
farm products sold from the farm. In some cases, the type of
farm was determined on the basis of the sale of an individual farm
product, such as cotton, or on the basis of the sales of closely re-
lated products, such as dairy products. In other cases, the type
of farm was determined on the basis of sales of a broader group of
products, such as grain crops including corn, sorghums, all small
grains, field peas, field beans, cowpeas, and soybeans. In order to
be classified as a particular type, sales or anticipated sales of a
product or group of products had to represent 50 percent or more
of the total value of products sold.

The types of commercial farms for which data are shown, to-
gether with the product or group of products on wliich the classi-
fication is based are:

Product or group of products amount-
ing to 50 percent or more of the
Type of farm value of all farm products sold

Cash-grain Corn, sorghum, small grains, field

peas, field beans, cowpeas, and
soybeans.

Cotton Cotton (lint and seed).

Other field-crop Peanuts, Irish potatoes, sweet-
potatoes, tobacco, sugarcane, sug-
ar beets for sugar, and other
miscellaneous crops.

Vegetable Vegetables.

Fruit-and-nut Berries and other small fruits, and

tree fruits, nuts, and grapes.

Dairy Milk and other dairy products.

The criterion of 50 percent of the
total sales was modified in the
case of dairy farms. A farm for
which the value of sales of dairy
products represented less than 50
percent of the total value of farm
products sold was classified as a
dairy farm if —

(a) jMilk and other dairy prod-
ucts accounted for 30
percent or more of the
total value of products
sold, and
(6) Milk cows represented 50
percent or more of all
cows, and
(c) Sales of dairy products, to-
gether with the sales
of cattle and calves,
amounted to 50 percent
or more of the total
value of farm products
sold.
Chickens, eggs, turkeys, and other

poultr}' products.
Cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, goats,
wool, and mohair, provided the
farm did not qualify as a dairy
farm.

Poultry.

Livestock farms other than
dairy and poultry.

Product or group of products amount-
ing to SO percent or more of the
Type of farm value of all farm products sold

General Farms were classified as general

when the value of products from
one source or group of sources
did not represent as much as 50
percent of the total value of all
farm products sold. Separate
figures are given for three kinds
of general farms:

(a) Primarily crop.

(6) Primarily livestock.

(c) Crop and livestock.

Primarily crop farms are those for
which the sale of one of the
following crops or groups of
crops — vegetables, fruits and
nuts, cotton, cash grains, or other
field crops — did not amount to
50 percent or more of the value
of all farm products sold, but
for which the value of sales for
all these groups of crops repre-
sented 70 percent or more of the
value of all farm products sold.

Primarily livestock farms are those
which could not qualify as dairy
farms, poultry farms, or livestock
farms other than dairy and
poultry, but on which the sale
of livestock and poultry and
livestock and poultry products
amounted to 70 percent or more
of the value of all farm products
sold.

General crop and livestock farms are
those which could not be classi-
fied as either crop farms or live-
stock farms, but on which the
sale of all crops amounted to at
least 30 percent but less than 70
percent of the total value of all
farm products sold.

Miscellaneous This group of farms includes those

that had 50 percent or more of
the total value of products ac-
counted for by sale of horticul-
tural products, or sale of horses,
or sale of forest products.

Farms by economic class. — A classification of farms by eco-
nomic class was made for the purpose of segregating groups of
farms that are somewhat alike in their characteristics and size of
operation. This classification was made in order to present an
accurate description of the farms in each class and in order to
provide basic data for an analysis of the organization of agriculture.

The classification of farms by economic class was made on the
basis of three factors; namely, total value of all farm products
sold, number of days the farm operator worked off the farm, and
the relationship of the income received from nonfarm sources by
the operator and members of liis family to the value of all farm
products sold. Farms operated by institutions, experiment sta-
tions, grazing associations, and community projects were classified
as abnormal, regardless of any of the three factors.

For the purpose of determining the code for economic class and
t3'pe of farm, it was necessary to obtain the total value of farm
products sold as well as the value of some individual products
sold.

The total value of farm products sold was obtained by adding
the reported or estimated values for all products sold from the
farm. The value of livestock, livestock products except wool and
mohair, vegetables, nursery and greenhouse products, and forest

INTRODUCTION

IX

products was obtained by the enumerator from the farm operator
for each farm. The enumerator also obtained from the farm
operator the quantitj' sold for corn, sorghums, small grains, hays,
and small fruits. The value of sales for these crops was obtained
by multiplying the quantity sold by State average prices.

The quantity sold was estimated for all other farm products.
The entire quantity produced for wool, mohair, cotton, tobacco,
sugar beets for sugar, sugarcane for sugar, broomcorn, hops, and
mint for oil was estimated as sold. To obtain the value of each
product sold, the quantity sold was multiplied by State average
prices.

In making the classification of farms by economic class, farms
were grouped into two major groups, namely, commercial farms
and other farms. In general, all farms with a value of sales of
farm products amounting to $1,200 or more were classified as
commercial. Farms ■nith a value of sales of $250 to $1,199 were
classified as commercial only if the farm operator worked ofiF the
farm less than 100 days or if the income of the farm operator and
members of his family received from nonfarm sources was less than
the total value of all farm products sold.

land in farms according to use.- — Land in farms was classified
according to the use made of it in 1954. The classes of land
are mutually exclusive, i. e., each acre of land was included only
once even though it may have had more than one use during the
year.

The classes referred to in this report are as follows:

Cropland harvested. — This includes land from which crops
were harvested; land from which hay (including wild hay) was
cut; and land in small fruits, orchards, vineyards, nurseries, and
greenhouses. Land from which two or more crops were reported
as harvested was to be counted only once.

Cropland used only for pasture. — In the 1954 Census, the
enumerator's instructions stated that rotation pasture and all
other cropland that was used only for pasture were to be in-
cluded under this class. No further definition of cropland
pastured was given the farm operator or enumerator. Per-
manent open pasture may, therefore, have been included under
this item or under "other pasture," depending on whether the
enumerator or farm operator considered it as cropland.

Cropland not harvested and not pastured. — This item includes
idle cropland, land in soil-improvement crops only, land on
which all crops failed, land seeded to crops for harvest after
1954, and cultivated summer fallow.

In the Western States, this class was subdivided to show
separately the acres of cultivated summer fallow. In these
States, the acreage not in cultivated summer fallow represents
largely crop failure. There are very few comities in the West-
ern States in which there is a large acreage of idle cropland or
in which the growing of soil-improvement crops is an important
use of the land.

In the States other than the Western States, this general
class was subdivided to show separately the acres of idle crop-
land (not used for crops or for pasture in 1954). In these States,
the incidence of crop failure is usually low. It was expected
that the acreage figure that excluded idle land would reflect
the acreage in soil-improvement crops. However, the 1954
crop year was one of low rainfall in many Eastern and Southern
States and, therefore, in these areas the acreage of cropland not
harvested and not pastured includes more land on which all
crops failed than would usually be the case.

Cultivated summer fallow. — This item includes cropland
that was plowed and cultivated but left unseeded for several
months to control weeds and conserve moisture. No land
from which crops were harvested in 1954 was to be included
under this item.

Cropland, total. — This includes cropland harvested, cropland
used only for pasture, and cropland not harvested and not
pastured.

Land pastured, total. — This includes cropland used only for
pasture, woodland pastured, and other pasture (not cropland
and not woodland).

Woodland, total. — This includes woodland pastured and

woodland not pastured.

Value of land and buildings. — The value to be reported wa.s
the approximate amount for which the land and the buildings on
it would sell.

Off-farm work and other income. — Many farm operators receive
a part of their income from sources other than the sale of farm
products from their farms. The 1954 Agriculture Questionnaire
included saveral inquiries relating to work off the farm and non-
farm income. These inquiries called for the number of days
worked off the farm by the farm operator; whether other members
of the operator's family worked off the farm ; and whether the
farm operator received income from other sources, such as sale
of products from land rented out, cash rent, boarders, old age
assistance, pensions, veterans' allowances, unemployment com-
pensation, interest, dividends, profits from nonfarm business,
and help from other members of the operator's family. Another
inquiry asked whether the income of the operator and his family
from off-farm work and other sources was greater than the total
value of all agricultural products sold from the farm in 1954.
Off-farm work was to include work at nonfarm jobs, businesses,
or professions, whether performed on the farm premises or else-
where; also, work on someone else's farm for pay or wages. Ex-
change work was not to be included.

Specified facilities and equipment. — Inquiries were made in
1954 to determine the presence or absence of selected items on
each place such as (1) telephone, (2) piped running water, (3)
electricity, (4) television set, (5) home freezer, (6) electric pig
brooder, (7) milking machine, and (8) power feed grinder. Such
facilities or equipment were to be counted even though tem-
porarily out of order. Piped running water was defined as water
piped from a pressure system or by gravity flow from a natural
or artificial source. The enumerator's instructions stated that
pig brooders were to include those heated by an electric heating
element, by an infrared or heat bulb, or by ordinary electric bulbs.
They could be homemade.

The number of selected types of other farm equipment was also
obtained for a sample of farms. The selected kinds of farm
equipment to be reported were (1) grain combines (for harvesting
and threshing grains or seeds in one operation); (2) cornpickers;
(3) pickup balers (stationary ones not to be reported) ; (4) field
forage harvesters (for field chopping of silage and forage crops) ;
(5) motortrucks; (6) wheel tractors (other than garden); (7)
garden tractors; (8) crawler tractors (tracklaying, caterpillar);
(9) automobiles; and (10) artificial ponds, reservoirs, and earth
tanks.

Wheel tractors were to include homemade tractors but were not
to include implements havmg built-in power units such as self-
propelled combines, powered buck rakes, etc. Pickup and truck-
trailer combinations were to be reported as motortrucks. School
buses were not to be reported, and jeeps and station wagons were
to be included as motortrucks or automobiles, depending on
whether used for hauhng farm products or suppUes, or as passenger
vehicles.

Farm labor. — The farm-labor inquiries for 1954, called for the
number of persons doing farmwork or chores on the place during
a specified calendar week. Since starting dates of the 1954 enumer-
ation varied by areas or States, the calendar week to which the
farm-labor inquiries related varied also. The calendar week was
September 26-October 2 or October 24-30. States with the
September 26-October 2 calendar week were: Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,

423023—57-

X

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. States with the October
24-30 calendar week were : Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia,
IlUnois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North
Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Farmwork was to include any work, chores, or planning necessary
to the operation of the farm or ranch business. Housework,
contract construction work, and labor involved when equipment
was hired (custom work) were not to be included.

The farm-labor information was obtained in three parts:
(1) Operators working, (2) unpaid members of the operator's family
working, and (3) hired persons working. Operators were consid-
ered as working if they worked 1 or more hours; unpaid members
of the operator's family, if they worked 15 or more hours; and
hired persons, if they worked any time during the calendar week
specified. Instructions contained no specifications regarding age
of the persons working.

Regular and seasonal workers. — Hired persons working on
the farm during the specified week were classed as "regular"
workers if the period of actual or expected employment was 150
days or more during the year, and as "seasonal" workrrs if the
period of actual or expected employment was less than 150 days.
If the period of expected employment was not reported, the
period of employment was estimated for the individual farm
after taking into account such items as the basis of payment,
wage rate, expenditures for labor in 1954, and the type and
other characteristics of the farm.

Specified farm expenditures. — The 1954 Census obtained data
for selected farm expense items in addition to those for fertilizer
and lime. The expenditures were to include the total specified
expenditures for the place whether made by landlord, tenant, or
both.

Expenditures for machine hire were to include any labor in-
cluded in the cost of such machine hire. Machine hire refers to
custom machine work such as tractor hire, threshing, combining,
solo filling, baling, ginning, plowing, and spraying. If part of the
farm products was given as pay for machine hire, the value of the
products traded for this service was to be included in the amount
of expenditures reported. The cost of trucking, freight, and
express was not to be included.

Expenditures for hired labor were to include only cash pay-
ments. Expenditures for housework, custom work, and contract
construction work were not to be included.

Expenditures for feed were to include the expenditures for
pasture, salt, condiments, concentrates, and mineral supplements,
as well as those for grain, haj', and mill feeds. Expenditures for
grinding and mixing feeds were also to be included. Payments
made by a tenant to his landlord for feed grown on the land rented
by the tenant were not to be included.

Expenditures for gasoline and other petroleum fuel and oil were
to include only those used for the farm business. Petroleum
products used for the farmer's automobile for pleasure or used
exclusively in the farm home for heating, cooking, and lighting
were not to be included.

Crops harvested. — The information on crops harvested refers
to the acreage and quantity harvested for the 1954 crop year. An
exception was made for land in fruit orchards and planted nut
trees. In this case, the acreage represents that in both bearing
and nonbearing trees and vines as of October and November 1954.

Hay. — The data for hay includes all kinds of hay except soy-
bean, cowpea, sorghum, and peanut hay.

Livestock and poultry. — The data on the number of livestock
and poultry represent the number on hand on the day of enumera-

tion (October-November 1954). The data relating to livestock
products and the number of livestock sold relate to the sales made
during the calendar year 1954.

LABOR RESOURCES

The data for labor resources available represent estimates based
largely on Census data and developed for the purpose of making
comparisons among farms of various size of operations. The
labor resources available are stated in terms of man-equivalents.

To obtain the man-equivalents the total number of farm opera-
tors as reported by the 1954 Census were adjusted for estimated
man-years of work off the farm and for the number of farm opera-
tors 65 years old and over. The farm operator was taken to rep-
resent a full man-equivalent of labor unless he was 65 years or
older or unless he worked at an off-farm job in 1954.

The man-equivalent estimated for farm operators reporting spec-
ified amounts of off-farm work were as follows:

Estimated
Days worked off the farm in 1954 man-equivalent

1-99 davs 0. 85

100-199 days . 50

200 days and over . 15

The man-equivalent for farm operators 65 years of age and older
was estimated at 0.5.

Man-equivalents of members of the farm operator's family were
based upon Census data obtained in response to the question
"How many members of your family did 15 or more hours of farm
work on this place the week of September 26-October 2 (or, in
some areas, the week of October 24-30) without receiving cash
wages?" Each family worker was considered as 0.5 man-equiva-
lent. This estimate provides allowance for the somewhat higher
incidence of women, children, and elderly persons in the unpaid
family labor force.

In addition, the number of unpaid family workers who were
reported as working 15 or more hours in the week of September
26-October 2 was adjusted to take account of seasonal changes in
farm employment. Using published and unpublished findings of
the U. S. Department of Agriculture and State Agricultural Col-
leges, and depending largely upon knowledge and experience with
the geographic areas and type of farming, each author deter-
mined the adjustment factor needed to correct the number of
family workers reported for the week of September 26-October 2
to an annual average basis.

Man-equivalents of hired workers are based entirely upon the
expenditure for cash wages and the average wage of permanent
hired laborers as reported in the 1954 Census of Agriculture.

Value of or investment in livestock.- — Numbers of specified
livestock and poultry in each subregion were multiphed by a
weighted average value per head. The average values were com-
puted from data compiled for each kind of livestock for the 1954
Census of Agriculture. The total value does not include the value
of goats. (For a description of the method of obtaining the value
of livestock, see Chapter VI of Volume II of the reports for the
1954 Census of Agriculture.)

Value of investment in machinery and equipment. — The data
on value of investment in machinery and equipment were developed
for the purpose of making broad comparisons among types and
economic classes of farms and by subregions. Numbers of specified
machines on farms, as reported by the Census, were multiplied by
estimated average value per machine. Then the total values ob-
tained were adjusted upward to provide for the inclusion of items
of equipment not included in the Census inventory of farm
machinery.

INTRODUCTION

XI

The estimates for average vahie of specified machines and the
proportion of total vahie of all niacliinery represented by the
value of these machines were based largely on published and un-
published data from the "Farm Costs and Returns" surveys con-
ducted currently by the Agricultural Research Service, U. S.
Department of Agriculture.' Modifications were made as needed
in the individual chapters on the basis of State and local studies.
The total estimated value of all machinery for all types and
economic classes of farms is approximately equal to the value of
all machinery as estimated by the U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Value of farm products sold, or gross sales. — Data ou the
value of the various farm products sold were obtained for 1954 by
two methods. First, the values of livestock and livestock prod-
ucts sold, except wool and mohair; vegetables harvested for sale;
nursery and greenhouse products; and forest products were
obtained by asking each farm operator the value of sales. Second,
the values of all other farm products sold were computed. For the
most important crops, the quantity sold or to be sold was obtained
for each farm. The entire quantity harvested for cotton and
cottonseed, tobacco, sugar beets for sugar, hops, mint for oil, and
sugarcane for sugar was considered sold. The quantity of minor
crops sold was estimated. The value of sales for each crop was
computed by multiplying the quantity sold by State average
prices. In the case of wool and mohair, the value of sales was
computed by multiplying the quantity shorn or clipped by the
State average prices.

Gross sales include the value of all kinds of farm products sold.
The total does not include rental and benefit, soil conservation,
price adjustment. Sugar Act, and similar payments. The total

does include the value of the landlord's sliare of a crop removed
from a farm operated by a share tenant. In most of the tables,
detailed data are presented for only the more important sources
of gross sales and the total for the individual farm products
or sources will not efjual the total as the values for the less impor-
tant sources or farm products have been omitted. (For a detailed
statement regarding the reliability and method of obtaining the
value of farm products sold, reference should be made to Chapter
I X of Volume 11 of the reports for the 1954 Census of Agriculture.)

Livestock and livestock products sold. — The value of sales for
livestock and livestock products includes the value of live animals
sold, dairy products sold, poultry and poultry products sold, and
the calculated value of wool and mohair. The value of bees,
honey, fur animals, goats, and goat milk is not included.

The value of dairy products includes the value of whole milk and
cream sold, but does not include the value of butter and cheese,
made on the farm, and sold. The value of poultry and products
includes the value of chickens, broilers, chicken eggs, turkeys,
turkey eggs, ducks, geese, and other miscellaneous poultry and
poultry products sold. The value does not include the value
of baby chicks sold.

Crops sold. — Vegetables sold includes the value of all vegetables
harvested for sale, but does not include the value of Irish potatoes
and sweetpotatoes.

The value of all crops sold includes the value of all crops sold
except forest products. The value of field crops sold includes the
value of sales of all crops sold except vegetables, small fruits and
berries, fruits, and nuts.

1 Farm Costs and Returns, 1955 (with comparisons), Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 158, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agiicultuie, June 1956.

CHAPTER VI

WESTERN STOCK RANCHES AND LIVESTOCK FARMS

XIII

CONTENTS

Western regions 1

Natural regions 4

The Great Plains region 5

The Rocky Mountain region 5

The Intermountain Plateau region 6

The Pacific Coast region 6

Institutional and economic factors 6

Some differences by States 8

Some differences bv economic subregions 11

The Great Plains 11

Economic subregion 98 11

Economic subregion 100 11

Economic subregion 101 12

Economic subregion 103 12

Economic subregion 104 13

Economic subregion 105 13

Economic subregion 106 13

Economic subregion 107 14

Desert region 14

Economic subregion 108 14

Economic subregion 114 15

Economic subregion 115 15

Rocky Mountain region 15

Economic subregion 109 15

The Intermountain region 16

Economic subregion 110 16

Economic subregion 111 16

Economic subregion 112 16

Some differences by economic subregions — Continued

The Intermountain region — Continued Page

Economic subregion 113 17

Pacific Coast region 17

Economic subregion 116 17

Economic subregion 117 18

Economic subregion 118 18

Economic subregion 119 18

Summary and problems 19

Ranching in selected State economic areas in Western

States 19

North Dakota 19

South Dakota 19

Nebraska 19

Kansas 20

Oklahoma 20

Texas 20

New Mexico 20

Colorado 21

Wyoming 21

Montana 21

Idaho 22

Utah 23

Arizona 23

Nevada 23

California 23

Oregon 24

Washington 24

MAPS

Page

Number of farms, 1954 1

All land in farms, acreage, 1954 1

Percent of total land area in farms, 1954 2

Total pasture as a percent of all land in farms. Census of 1954 2

Type-of-farming areas, based on type accounting for 50 percent or more of commercial farms, 1954 3

Cattle, number, 1 954 3

Cows, including heifers that have calved, number, 1954 4

Sheep, number, 1 954 4

Total cropland, acreage, 1954 4

Economic subregions and State economic areas: 1950 10

TABLES

Pace
Table — 1. — Number and average size of farms for all farms and for livestock farms other than dairy and poultry, 17 Western States:

1954 8

2. — Land area, land in farms, and pastureland, for all farms and for livestock farms other than dairy and poultry, 17 West-
ern States: 1954 8

3. — Average value per farm of land and buildings, for all farms and for livestock farms other than dairy and poultry, 17

Western States : 1954 9

4.— All cattle, 17 Western States: 1920 to 1954 9

5.— Sheep and lambs, 17 Western States: 1920 to 1954 9

6. — Livestock farms in subregion 98, by economic class of farm: 1954 11

7. — Livestock farms in subregion 100, by economic class of farm: 1954 12

8. — Livestock farms in subregion 101, by economic class of farm: 1954 12

9. — Livestock farms in subregion 103, by economic class of farm: 1954 12

10. — Livestock farms in subregion 104, by economic class of farm: 1954 13

11. — Livestock farms in subregion 105, by economic class of farm: 1954 13

12. — Livestock farms in subregion 106, by economic class of farm: 1954 14

13. — Livestock farms in subregion 107, by economic class of farm: 1954 14

14. — Livestock farms in subregion 108, by economic class of farm: 1954 14

15. — Livestock farms in subregion 114, by economic class of farm: 1954 15

16. — Livestock farms in subregion 115, by economic class of farm: 1954 15

17. — Livestock farms in subregion 109, by economic class of farm: 1954 16

18. — Livestock farms in subregion 110, by economic class of farm: 1954 16

19. — Livestock farms in subregion 111, by economic class of farm: 1954 16

20. — Livestock farms in subregion 112, by economic class of farm: 1954 17

21. — Livestock farms in subregion 113, by economic class of farm: 1954 17

22. — Livestock farms in subregion 116, by economic class of farm: 1954 17

23. — Livestock farms in subregion 117, by economic class of farm: 1954 18

24. — Livestock farms in subregion 118, by economic class of farm: 1954 18

25. — Livestock farms in subregion 119, by economic class of farm: 1954 18

XV

WESTERN STOCK RANCHES AND LIVESTOCK FARMS

Mont H. Saunderson

WESTERN REGIONS

stock ranching, that phase of Amoricau agriculture which still
has its romantic connotations, is predominant in the land that lies
west of a transitional zone which marks the change from successful
farming that is not irrigated to the country where crops depend on
irrigation or on other special techniques. This transition zone
extends north and south through the central and western parts of
North Dakota and South Dakota and Nebraska, then through the
western part of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Within this zone there are localized areas of stock ranching but,
as a rule, most of the lands with suitable topography and soils
have been plowed and the native rangeland is gone. Characteris-
tically this zone has an average annual rainfall precipitation
around 20 inches in the northern plains and 25 inches in the south-
ern plains.

West of this zone are many livestock operations that should
be characterized as stock farms rather than stock ranches. These
stock farms may have considerable acreages of native grazing
lands, but they provide a limited part of the year-round livestock
maintenance for such farms. A considerable part of the Great
Plains is diversified with livestock and with dry-land agriculture,
and a combination of cash-grain production and the production of
cultivated livestock feed and forage crops. Then too, in many of
the irrigated valleys of the West, a type of operating unit has
developed that is characterized as a stock farm rather than as a
stock ranch.

Eastward of the transitional zone, which runs north and south
through the Plains States, there are many agricultural areas with
a predominance of farm tj'pes that would be classified as livestock
farms, according to Census definitions. These may be farms with
a sizable herd of beef cattle, a flock of sheep, a livestock feeding
and fattening enterprise, or a hog-production enterprise.

We see then that the livestock ranches differ from the livestock
farms in that the stock ranches use extensive acreages of native
grazing lands, whereas livestock farms have fewer stock and more
cropland. In the arid and semiarid parts of the 17 Western States
the stock ranch depends mainly on the forage production of
natural grazing lands. The acreage of native rangeland required
by a stock ranch usually varies between 12 and 100 acres of range-
land per animal unit, defining the animal unit as 1 head of mature
cattle or 5 ewes. It is not, as a rule, economic to use grazing
lands of any lower capacity than 100 acres per animal unit.

One may see this picture grapliically by referring to Figure 1,
which shows by a dot map the location of farms in the United
States. The number of farms becomes progressively fewer as
one goes westward through the Plains States. This is indicative
of the fact that the stock ranches operate very extensively over
large acreages. One sees how irrigation projects have influenced
the development of farming operations in the West. For example,
the irrigation farming development is clearly indicated in central
Utah, in the Central Valley of California, and in the Snake River
VaUey as it extends across southern Idaho.

NUMBER OF FARMS. 1954

Figure 1.

Extensive use of large acreages, both privately owned land
and public lands, is a common characteristic of stock ranches (see
Figure 2). In the Rocky Mountains and westward there are, in
addition to the privately owned lands, large acreages that are not
lield within the ranches and stock farms; this is especially true of
the 11 Western States. These lands that are not in farms are
principally in Federal public ownership. They are mainly lands
reserved for the national forests, lands of the public domain now
held chiefly in Federal grazing districts, lands held in wildlife
refuges, lands withdrawn for reclamation development, and the
other Federal public lands. In the 11 Western States some 155
million acre* of mountainous uplands are in the national forest,
and some 140 million acres of arid public domain lands are in the
Federal grazing districts.

ALL LAND IN FARMS

ACREAGE. 1954

Figure 2.

423023—57-

PERCENT OF TOTAL LAND AREA IN FARMS. 1954

(COUNTY UNIT BASIS)

*N0 FARMS

US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

MAP NO A54- 102

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

Figure 3.

TOTAL PASTURE* • AS A PERCENT OF ALL LAND IN FARMS
CENSUS OF 1954

(COUNTY UNIT BASIS)

* NO FARMS

US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

* * CROPLAND USED ONLY FOR PASTURE,

WOODLAND PASTURED AND OTHER PASTURE

MAP NO A54 ■ 117

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

Figure 4.

WESTERN STOCK RANCHES AND LIVESTOCK FARMS

TYPE-OF-FARMING AREAS.BASED ON TYPE ACCOUNTING FOR 50 PERCENT
OR MORE OF COMMERCIAL FARMS. 1954

LEGEND

TYPE-OF-FARMlNG AREA

EifjCASH-GRaiN

I I COTTON

^23 OTHER FIELO-CROP ^B LIVESTOCK (OTHER THAN

iH VEGETABLE ^_, '"'"^ "^ ''°^"''

!i 1 GENERAL (NO ONE TYPE
FRUIT-AND-NUT jg p^^^^^ p„ ^^^^

*N0 FARMS

U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Figure 5.

This picture of tlie importance of the public lands in the opera-
tion of the ranches in the 1 1 Western States is further illustrated
by Figure 3. There is a high proportion of land in farms in the
States of the upper Mississippi Valley, and the percentage of land
in farms becomes less to the west of the Plains States. The map
shows that, in most of the 17 Western States, pastureland in
farms dominates the land use picture. Most of this pastureland
in farms is rangeland used by stock ranches. Evidently, west of
what is described as the transition zone of the Plains States, the
use of rangeland by the stock ranches is a major feature of land
use throughout the stock-ranching areas.

A further illustration of the land use areal importance of the
stock ranch in the Western States is given in Figure 5. This
map is somewhat influenced in its areal pattern by the areas of
irrigation development in the Western States, but the stock
ranch is the dominant factor, so far as acreage of land use is con-
cerned, throughout all of the West from the transitional zone
westward. There are areas of the Plains States where the devel-
opment of nonirrigated cash-crop farming has been, and is, such
that the number of these farms overshadow the number of stock
ranches. This is especially true in northern Montana and western
North Dakota.

In its development over the last several decades, western stock
ranching has become not only an important factor in the agri-
culture of the West, but also in the agricultural economy of the
United States. Though the parts of the 17 Western States that
hold most of the stock ranches do not have a major part of the
cattle numbers of the United States, the western st^ck-ranching

Figure 6.

States do have a considerable share of the total beef cattle num-
bers. The density of cattle numbers shown in Figure 6 (for
southern Minnesota, for northern Illinois, and for Wisconsin) is
due mainly to the concentration of dairy cattle in these locations.
In the western locations a concentration of dairy cattle is due to
the development of irrigation. Examples are found in the Fort
Collins and Greeley areas of Colorado, in the Salt River Valley
of Arizona, in the Central Valley district of California, in the area
around Boise, Idaho, in the Snake River Valley, and a few other
places.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

COWS INCLUDING HEIFERS THAT HAVE CALVED

NUMBER 1954

<<--fT\

1^'

^J'

UN TED STATES TOTAL \^

45 209 377

Figure 7.

Most of the beef cattle in the Western States are beef cattle
on stock ranches and stock farms. In the beef-cattle population
of the Western States, there is a somewhat higher proportion of
beef breeding cows than is usual for the United States (compare
Figures 6 and 7). The western stock ranches are beef breeding
and raising operations which produce large numbers of 5'oung
feeder animals that are marketed to the farms of the upper Mis-
sissippi Valley for feed-lot fattening and finishing (see Figure 7).
Consequently, the concentration of total cattle numbers in the
upper Mississippi Valley States (see Figure 6) is partly due to
the export of the feeder animals from the breeding herds of west-
ern stock ranches. Thus, as a result of past economic develop-
ments, the stock ranches of the Western States have become
integrated with the economy of the stock farms in the upper
Mississippi Valley.

Figure 8.

The stock ranches of the West are the dominant factor in the
production of sheep in the United States (see Figure 8). The
major part of the sheep population of the Western States is on
stock ranches rather than on stock farms, although in recent
years farm flocks have increased. There is a rather striking
concentration of the number of range sheep in the Edwards Pla-
teau district of Texas (see Figure 8). Sheep are widely distrib-
uted among the ranches of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and
New Mexico, and others of the Western States.

The sheep ranches, like the cattle ranches, are considerably
integrated with the livestock and feeding and fattening farms of
the upper Mississippi Valley. Large numbers of feeder lambs
from the range bands of the western stock ranches move into the
farm feed lots of this part of the Mississippi Valley for fattening
and finishing. Many of the feeder lambs from the western sheep
ranches are fed for finishing in the irrigated districts of the West.
This accounts for the concentration of sheep numbers in the
California Central Valley district.

TOTAL CROPLAND-

ACREAGE 1954

UNITED STATES TOTAL
459.648.961

Figure 9.

To summarize this general characterization of the stock ranches
of the West, it may be said that their economy is that of harvest-
ing large acreages of native forage through the use of grazing
animals, with the production and use of a minimum quantity of
agricultural crop feeds. This fact is further illustrated by Figure
9. A comparatively limited acreage is devoted to cropland in
the 11 Western States. The stock ranches of the West use some
agricultural crop feeds and in certain areas may use a consider-
able quantity, but in the main they derive the major part of the
livestock feed from grazing lands. They produce livestock which,
generally, go to the farming areas that produce decidedly more crop
feeds where they are fed and fattened for market.

Natural Regions

Preliminary to an analysis and discussion of the differences in
stock ranching in the Western States, it is illuminating to describe
the natural characteristics of the larger natural land areas in the
AVest and their influence upon differences in the stock-ranching
operations. A brief discussion of the natural characteristics of
the principal physiographic regions of the West, and the influence
of the natural factors by regions upon the ranches is valuable as
background for understanding the differences in western stock
ranching, for the stock ranch must adapt itself to nature and
natural environment to a much greater extent than is true of crop
agricultiire.

There are four principal overall general regions of the West.
They are (1) the Great Plains, {2) the Rocky Mountains, (3) the
Intermountain Plateau region, and {i) the Pacific Coast region.
Within these large general regions there are definitely recognized
physiographic areas based upon such considerations as land forms,
geologic and soil factors, and climate.

WESTERN STOCK RANCHES AND LIVESTOCK FARMS

The Great Plains region is recognized as consisting of three
major physiographic areas: (/) The Northern Plains extend
approximately from the North Platte River northward into
Canada, and from the "Coteau du Missouri" escarjjnient, which
is east of the Missouri River, westward to the northern Rocky
Mountains. (2) The central or high plains extending southward
from the North Platte River to the southern escarpment of the
Ogallalla limestone cap rock, known as the "break of the plains"
which occurs in the Texas Panhandle and in western Oklahoma
and eastern New Mexico. The western limit of this area is the
southern Rocky Mountains of Colorado and New Mexico. The
eastern limit, though not too definite, is approximately the western
third of Nebraska and Kansas. (3) The Southern Plains, extending
southward from the break of the plains and including the "Staked
Plains" of Texas, the Edwards Plateau and the Rio Grande Plain
of Texas, and the trans-Pecos part of Texas, and southeastern
New Mexico west to the .southern Rocky Mountains.

The Rocky Mountain region also is made up of three main
]>hysiographic areas. These are (1) the northern Rocky Mountains
which include western Montana and northern Idaho; (2) the
middle Rocky Mountains which extend from the Madison Plateau
of the Yellowstone Park, southward to the approximate location
of Provo, Utah; and (S) the southern Rocky Mountains which
begin near Laramie, AVyc, and extend .southward through
Colorado and end at the approximate location of Santa Fe, N. Mex.

The Intermountain Plateau region is the large region com-
prising four ])hysiographic areas: (1) The Colorado Plateau area,
which includes the high plateaus of southern and eastern Utah,
western Colorado, northern Arizona, and northwestern New Mex-
ico; (2) the Great Basin area, which includes northern and western
Utah, most of Nevada, a large part of southeastern Oregon, and a
considerable part of northeastern California; (3) the Columbia
Plateaus of Oregon and Washington and including the Snake
River Plains of northern Idaho; (4) the southwestern desert, which
includes all of Arizona south of the Mogollon rim and including a
considerable part of southern and southeastern California. In
addition, there is a small physiographic area in southeastern Arizona
and southwestern New Mexico known as the Mexican Highlands.
It consists of rolling hills and mountain country lying at consider-
ably higher elevation than the desert lands of southern Arizona.

The Pacific Coast region, in general, has for its main physio-
graphic features the area west of the Cascade and Sierra Moun-
tains. West of these mountain ranges is the Willamette Valley,
the California Central Valley, and the coastal mountain ranges
and coast range intermountain valleys of Washington, Oregon,
and California.

The natural factors of climate, soils, topography, and native
forage types in these principal physiographic areas to a consider-
able extent predetermine the nature and differences in stock-ranch
operations. Because they use large acreages of native forage
lands, stock ranches, much more than the farming operations,
must adapt themselves to their natural environment. Within
each of these principal physiographic areas there is a large degree
of similarity in the organization and operating characteristics of
stock ranches.

The Great Plains region. — Stock ranches in the northern Great
Plains have relatively productive natural grasslands. Because
of the roughlands of much of the northern Great Plains, these
ranches have good natural shelter. They usually have adequate
surface supplies of stock water, except in the large Nebraska
sand-hills area where surface waters are often not available.
Livestock ranchers in the northern plains can "range" their
livestock most of the year, because of the roughlands terrain and

the snow-clearing action of the plains winds. As a rule, ranchers
in this region use their supplies of hay and other winter feed mostly
as reserves against winter storms. The rangeland is somewhat
better adapted to cattle than to sheep, but in most locations it
is and can be used for either cattle or sheep. That part of the
northern Great Plains that lies north of the Missouri River in
northern Montana and in northwestern North Dakota has a
glaciated terrain and is, consequently, somewhat lacking in natural
winter shelter. It also has been extensively developed for arable
agriculture, principally dry-land wheat farming. The stock ranch-
ing of the glaciated part of the northern Great Plains is limited
mainly to the local roughlands areas and to the breaks along the
principal streams.

The stock ranching of the central plains has been greatly changed
over the last several decades by the development of dry-land
agriculture. The central plains include southwestern Nebraska,
southeastern Wyoming, eastern Colorado, western Kansas,
northea,stern New Mexico, and the Texas and Oklahoma Pan-
handles. Here, too, the stock ranches are limited to those
areas where topography or soils and climate preclude crop farming.
Where there are areas of roughlands, of broken lands, of sandy
lands, and of lands inferior as to soils and moisture, stock ranching
is found. Lands that are regarded as inferior for agriculture
because of soil and moisture deficiencies are not necessarily poor
rangelands. In fact, there are some rather productive range-
lands where soils are deficient for crop farming.

In the central plains area, a major part of the beef cattle now
are on the livestock farms rather than on the stock ranches.
There are, for example, in the plains of eastern Colorado, areas
in which dry-land crop farms are highly diversified with livestock,
lirincipally beef cattle. These farms have some native pasture
but in addition they grow some cash-grain and feed crops, such
as grain sorghums, for maintenance of the farm herd and for the
finishing of young animals.

In the southern plains certain areas are now so much influenced
by crop farming that the stock ranches are rather limited and
localized. The Staked Plains area of Texas is an illustration.
But other considerable areas are predominantly devoted to ranch-
ing. The Edwards Plateau of Texas, the trans-Pecos country
of Texas, and the Rio Grande Plain remain predominantly stock-
ranching territory, so far as major land use is concerned. The
Edwards Plateau, owing to the importance of browse in the range
forage, is notable for its sheep ranching. Cattle ranching domi-
nates the trans-Pecos part of Texas and the Rio Grande Plain
part of Texas.

The Rocky Mountain region. — In the northern part of the Rocky
Mountain region both cattle ranching and sheep ranching are
very imjjortant. These ranches are principally in the mountain
valleys; most of their deeded land is irrigated cropland in the
valley and bunch-grass rangelands in the foothills. Because of
the usual winter snow covering, these ranches must provide
cropland feeds adequate to maintain the livestock for 3 to 5
months of the year. The ranches, generally, use several types
of native rangeland and crop-feed and forage land that are highly
seasonal in character. Such seasonal lands must be fitted to-
gether in as good a relationship as possible to attain a year-round
balanced ranching unit of spring range, summer range, fall range,
and wintering crop feeds and pastures. The foothill grasslands,
adjacent to the valleys, usually provide the spring and fall
range, and sometimes the summer range too, though the summer
grazing is often in the nearby national forests by permit. The
valley lands, some of which are irrigated, usually provide the
crop feeds and the pasturage for the winter months.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

For the middle part of the Rocky Mountain region the most
effective natural influence is the proximity of the mountain-
valley ranches to considerable stretches of desert and semidesert
ranch lands that can be reached by migration from the ranches.
This is true in Utah and in western Wyoming and southeastern
Idaho. This migration sometimes extends for moderately long
distances from the home ranch or base property lands. Since
migration over these distances is easier for sheep than for cattle,
sheep ranching is predominant over cattle ranching in this area.
Such migration to the winter ranges of the desert lands, public
domain lands in grazing districts, takes the place of the production
and use of crop feeds for wintering.

In the southern part of the Rocky Mountain region much
of the stock ranching is in the high mountain valleys. These
valleys, such as the North Park and South Park areas of Colorado,
are characterized by long winter-feeding periods, which require
considerable hay production and feeding. Offsetting this, the
ranchers have relatively high-producing mountain rangeland.
These high mountain valleys are usually better suited for cattle
ranching than for sheep.

The Intermountain Plateau region. — In the rather large Inter-
moiuitain Plateau region there is a type of sheep-ranching
operation that may be characterized as migratory. It is based
largely upon the use of seasonal rangelands. These operations,
in contrast to the sheep ranches of the central Rocky Mountain
areas, use very little crop feed. Sheep ranches of the central
Rocky Mountains migrate to seasonal rangelands from a ranching
property base, whereas the migratory sheep ranches of the inter-
mountain region have a cycle of migration between the low desert
lands for their winter range and the uplands and the national
forest for their summer range. Often they have very Uttle in
deeded or "base property" lands. Between the summer and
winter range the ranchers may own some of the better of the lands
of the intermediate elevations, the sagebrush zone, as their
ranching base properties. The cattle ranches of the Great Basin
usually are located around the mountain ranges; they are based
upon the ownership of footliill grasslands below the mountains,
and of the better of the sagebrush lands between the mountain
foothills and the arid desert lands.

The stock ranches of the Colorado Plateau part of the inter-
mountain plateau country are about equally divided between
cattle and sheep ranches. These ranches have the better grass-
lands of the plateau country for their deeded lands. The summer
grazing is both on the deeded lands and on the national forests.
The winter grazing is on the lower and dryer lands, considerable
extents of which are in Federal public-domain grazing districts.

In the Columbia Plateau of the intermountain country an
important natural influence is the fact that an exotic annual grass
known as cheat grass now dominates the lower and dryer range-
lands of the Columbia River drainage. This grass is highly seasonal
and is usable principally during its green period in early spring.
As a result, m\ich of the Columbia Plateau country can be used
best by sheep for spring and fall range. To fit in with this seasonal
use of the rangelands, many of the ranchers have developed a
crop-feed and pasture operating base on irrigated lands.

In the lower and more arid parts of the southwestern area,
the cattle ranches are organized principally on the basis of an
annual herd of the size which can be sustained on dependable
forage production of perennial plants. Then, in those years
when the winter and spring moisture is adequate to produce a
good volume of the desert winter annuals, additional cattle are

purchased and brought in for use of the nondependable desert
forage. However, in the higher parts in the southwestern desert,
there are locations of grassland hill country on which a good
and well-balanced year-round cattle-ranching operation can be
maintained on the perennial grasses and shrubs. In the country
around Nogales, Ariz., for example, the annual rainfall is about
16 inches and a rather good grassland resource supports pro-
ductive and well-balanced year-round ranching. In contrast,
the rangelands of the Salt River Valley, near Phoenix, have an
average annual precipitation of about 6 inches, which means
that the rangeland must be used mainly as seasonal range in those
years when the desert winter annuals are relativelv abundant.

The Pacific Coast region. — Cattle ranching in the Pacific North-
west part of the Pacific Coast region is limited to certain rather
minor areas where natural grasslands prevail and can be main-
tained in the competition with natural forest production.

Stock ranching in the California part of this region is found
mainly along the Sierra foothills, and in the coastal mountain
ranges. Because of intensive development of crop farming in the
Central Valley of California there are not many stock ranches in
the valley. But the stock ranches of the border lands make
extensive use of the crop feeds and pastures that are available
from the large irrigation developments of the valley.

There are many local areas of stock ranching in the coastal
ranges of California, but as winter rainfall type of climate prevails
here, the rangelands are highly seasonal. Most of the production
of forage on these lands is from the annual grasses which are green
in the winter and become very dry in late May. As the summer
is hot and almost rainless, it is necessary to supplement the herd
of year-round ranching operations with hay or concentrate sup-
plement during the summer, much as during the winter, in the
ranches of the northern climates.

The ranches bordering the southern part of the California
Central Valley, and those of the southern California coastal
ranges, are comparable with the ranches of the southwestern
desert in that many of them maintain a basic herd that can be
sustained through the summer on the limited feeds from the dry
annuals, and then buy additional stocker animals in the fall for
pasture on the green annuals during the winter and spring. In
fact, the import of cattle into California for use of the lush growth
of the annual grasses during these seasons dominates the California
ranching economy. These additional stocker animals are marketed
in the spring, principally as feeder livestock, to the farm and
feed-lot feeders of the Central Valley of California.

INSTITUTIONAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS

Besides these natural factors that bear upon the organization
and operational characteristics of stock ranches, certain legislative
and economic factors have had and do have decided influence
upon the characteristics of western stock ranches. Some of these
factors have more influence in some regions than others.

One of the most important of the legislative inSuences upon the
growth and present organization of stock ranches has been the
laws relating to the acquiring of land from the Federal Govern-
ment. The original Homestead Act limited the homestead acreage
to 160 acres of land, and, except for some of the large Spanish
land grants in the Southwest, the deeded lands had to go to private
ownership through the homesteading of acreages that are very
small in terms of the requirements of the ranch.

WESTERN STOCK RANCHES AND LIVESTOCK FARMS

This meant that the better and more productive lands could be,
and eventually would be, brought into private ownership through
homesteading; but it also meant that in the desert and semidesert
areas only the more productive of the rangelands, and the lands
with water, would come into private ownership. Practically all
of the lands in the Great Plains, nearly all of the foothill lands of
the Rocky Mountains, and all of the valley lands of the Rocky
Mountains were homesteaded. EventuaUy thej' were organized
into economic-sized ranching units. In the intermountain region
only the mountain foothill lands and the better of the sagebrush
lands were homesteaded for ranching ownership and use.

As a result, there are now appro.ximately 178 million acres of
remaining public domain land in the 1 1 Western States. The
major concentrations of this land are in western Wyoming, western
Colorado, southeastern Oregon, northeastern and southeastern
California, and in Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and New Me.xico.
Most of this public domain is now organized into Federal grazing
districts, as provided in the Taylor Act of 1934. This land is
used for grazing and at a rather low fee. The base property for
such use is the lands with water and the preferred rangelands.

Besides the desert lands, approximately 155 million acres of
mountain lands were withdrawn from the public domain and
national forest reserves in the late 1890's and early 1900's. Some
of tliis land eventually would have been brought into private
ownership through homesteading, but for several natural and
economic reasons most of it would have remained as public land.
The national forests are principally the higher mountain locations
throughout the 11 Western States. Approximately half of the
national forest area is used for the grazing of domestic livestock.
Primarily, this is highly seasonal grazing land usable principally
during the summer. The charge for grazing on it is generally
below the competitive rate for the leasing of comparable lands in
private ownership.

Therefore in the 11 Western States, particularly, there haS
evolved an interdependence in the economy and use of the privately
owned lands and of the public lands, so far as the ranches are
concerned. This does not apply to the ranches of the Great
Plains, for most of the land there is privately owned. But in the
Rocky Mountains and westward there is an economic dependence
of the lands owned by the stock ranchers on the various kinds of
Federal public lands and, to some extent, on the lands owned by
the States and that granted to the States by the Federal Govern-
ment.

In the general picture, the public lands are used at low cost by
the ranches and this fact is reflected in higher values for the
deeded lands of the ranches. This has resulted in higher tax rates
for the deeded lands. As a consequence, there now prevails a rather
definite economic impediment to the movement of the lower grade
lands into private ownersiiip. In the present tax structure, and
in the classification of lands for taxation purposes, the tendency
in land classification for taxation is to adhere to an average,
rather than to recognize extreme differences, as would be necessarj'
for the movement of low-grade grazing lands in private ownership.

Another legislative factor of influence in the economy of stock
ranches is the policy, in the administration of the Taylor Act, to
require a standard of ownership of land and/or water as an
operating basis for the use of the public domain. This has reduced
drastically the migratory sheep operations which once prevailed
extensively in the Great Basin and, to some extent, in the Colorado
Plateau region.

Tariff legislation on wool has been an important influence in the

economy of western sheep ranching. Until recently the sheep-
ranching operations in the West developed significantly under the
protection of wool tariffs. During recent years, however, there has
been a drastic decline in sheep numbers throughout the ranching
areas of the West. This has been brought about chiefly by certain
worldwide developments in'textiles, by labor problems of the sheep
ranchers, by the unsettled outlook concerning wool as a textile fiber,
and by the fact that there is relatively more profit from cattle
than from sheep. This is true despite the subsidization by the
Federal Government of wool prices.

Another recent economic trend in western stock ranching has
been the purchase of considerable land once leased by ranch owners.
Along with this there has been a rather sharp rise in ranehland
prices and values so that now the capital required in real estate
for ranching is approximately four times as much as it was in
1940. In 1940, the value of real estate per animal unit averaged
around $75 to $125. Data given later in this chapter show a
present general average for this of about $450.

In the overall picture the production costs or annual operating
costs of western stock ranches now stand at approximately three
times their prewar World War II level. Part of this is due to the
general rise in prices; and part of it, to such changes in the organ-
ization and operation of the ranches as the greater mechanization
of the haying operations, of the hay-feeding operations, of the
transportation, and of the fencing and maintenance of fences.
Another influential cause of this rise in production costs has been
the purchase of considerably larger quantities of protein concen-
trate feeds to be used as range supplements. This economic
development has brought a considerable rise in livestock output
by western stock ranches, generally.

In addition, stock ranchers have had a considerable part in the
improvement of rangeland. This applies especially to ranches of
a rangeland type, where there is competition between the brush
plants and the grasses. Use of mechanical and chemical means
of brush removal foUowed by rangeland reseeding is now in
progress. This is found especially in parts of the Texas Rio
Grande Plain and Gulf coast areas, in certain locations in the inter-
mountain plateau country, in the Southwest, and in the brush
zone of the foothills and coastal mountains around the California
Central Valley. This also has increased ranching costs. This
recent development has not as yet reached large proportions, in
terms of acreage covered.

Along with rising land values, taxes on land have approximately
doubled since 1940.

On western stock ranches certain noteworthy developments also
have occurred in livestock markets and marketing methods.
There has been a rather general shift in markets, especially for the
11 Western States, toward the West Coast consuming centers and
away from the livestock markets of the Missouri River and east-
ward. Moreover, the West Coast markets appear to be demanding
more of the better quality of meat. This in turn has stimulated
the feeding and fattening on the ranches and farms in the Western
States. One of the most significant changes in marketing methods
has been the rise of the local auction market to which local
producers bring their livestock, and to which buyers from con-
siderable distances often come. As a result, the country buyer
who buys on order or for his own speculative purposes has been
largely displaced. Also, fewer of the feeder livestock move into
central markets for purchase by feeders. The livestock feeders
are now more likely to come to the local auction market for their
purchases of feeder animals.

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

SOME DIFFERENCES BY STATES

A summary of stock farms by States gives some general insight
into the characteristics of western stock ranching, and reveals
more of the differences in this important feature of the western
rural economy. Certain of these data are given by States in
Tables 1 through 5 (pp. 8 and 9). It should be noted that these
data concern all of the farms that have the designation "stock
farms." Included in this designation of stock farms there are, as
has already been noted, not only the stock ranches of the Western
States, but also a considerable number of operations that should
be characterized as stock farms rather than as stock ranches.
However, for the 17 Western States, and particularly for the 11
Western States, these summary data by States are sufficiently
applicable to stock ranches that they may be studied, compared,
and analyzed with reference to cattle and sheep ranching.

The materials in Table 1 afford an index of the relative impor-
tance of stock ranching in the economy of these 17 Western
States. They also give an indication of the relative differences for
each State in the average size of ranches. A comparison between
States shows that both in terms of acres and in size of enterprise
the stock ranch is likely to be larger in the States that have the
more arid lands.

The comparisons in Table 2 show the relative importance, for
the 17 Western States, of the acreage devoted to livestock ranch-
ing. In the Plains States, which have a large acreage of dry-land
agriculture, the land in the livestock farms is not predominant in
the total land in farms. In certain of these States a considerable
part of the total acreage is in the form of public land. Nevada is
an outstanding e.xamplc, there the land in farms approximates
about 12 percent of the total land of the State.

In certain of the States, the land in Indian reservations has
considerable influence upon data concerning the acreage in farms.
That is, Indian reservation land, not being regarded as public

Table 1. — Number and Average Size of Farm for All
Farms and for Livestock Farms Other Than Dairy and
Poultry, 17 Western States: 1954

state

Total, IT Western States

.Arizona

California

Colorado

Idaho

Kansas

Montana.

Nebraska

Nevada

New Mexico

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon -,.

South Dakota

Texas

Utah..

Washington

Wyoming

Total
number
of farms

1,180,054

9,28.=i
123,002
40, 672
38, 810
120, 291

32, 956

100, 733

2,808

20,977

61,808
119, 270
54,442
62, 350

293, 152
23,008
65, 135
11, 355

Livestock farms

other than dairy

and poultry

Number

242, 018

1,866
10, 363
12, 806

4,883
25,410

10, 668

42, 127

1,212

5,666

7.740
22, 341

6,085
28,081

48, 048
4,544
4,289
5,890

Percent
of total

20.5

20.1
8.4
31.5
12.6
21.1

32.4
41.8
43.2
27.0

12.5
18.7
11.2
45.0

16.4
19.7
6.6
61.9

Average size of
farm (acres)

All
farms

20, 634

4,492
307
946

3m

417

1,865

472

2,929

2,358

681
299
387
721

637

271

3,086

Live-
stock
farms
other
than
dairy
and
poultry

46,800

9,706
2,010
2.061
1,254
618

3,551

708

6,729

6,677

1,075

636

1,943

1,022

1,944
1,824
1,019
6, 023

land, may be included in the figures of land in all farms and yet
not be included in the land acreage for the livestock farms in the
Census. Arizona is an example. Table 2, showing the land in all
farms and in the livestock farms, gives an indication as to the
relative importance in use of land acreage for livestock farms and
for the several other types of farms.

Table 2. — Land Area, Land in Farms, and Pastureland, for All Farms and for Livestock Farms Other Than Dairy and

Poultry, 17 Western States: 1954

Total, 17 Western States

Arizona

California

Colorado

Idaho

Kansas

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Mexico

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Washington

Wyoming

Land are^i

(thousand

aci'es)

1,161,537

72,688
100, 314
66, 510
52, 972
52, 469

93, 362
49,064
70,285

77, 767

44,836
44,180
61,642
48,983

168,648
62, 701
42, 743
62,403

Land in farms

Total, all turnis

Thousand Percent of
acres land area

704, 090

41.705
37, 784
38, 469
14, 276
,50, 210

61,463

47.656

8,226

49, 465

42,097
35, 678
21,066
44,979

146,083
12,354
17,648
35, 042

60.6

57.4
37.7
.57.8
27.0
95.7

05. 8
96.9
11.7
63.6

93.9

80. 8

:i4.2

91.8

86.6
23.4
41.3

56.2

Livestock farms other
than dairy and poultry

Thousand
acres

398, 321

18,112
20, 829
26, 387
6,125
16.697

37, 879
29.827
6,944
37, 825

8,319
14,216
11,820
28, 706

93, 393
8,289
4,369

29,584

Percent of
total

56.6

43.4
65.1
68.6
42.9
31.3

61.6
62.7
84.4
76.5

19.8
39.8
56.1
63.8

63.9
67.1
24.8
84.4

Pastureland

Total, all [arms

Thousand
acres

484, 283

39, 198
25, 027
27,202
8.375
19. 757

46, 675

24, 211

7,634

46,543

12, 520
22, 031
16, 209
24,677

113,606
10, 031
9,175
32, 512

Percent of
land area

41.7

,53.9
24.9
40.9
15.8
37.7

50. 0
49.3
10.9

59. 8

27.9
49.9
24.7
.50.2

67. 4
19.0
21.6
62.1

Livestock farms other
than dairy and poultry

Thousand
acres

344, 623

17,657
18,742
22, 231
5,301
9,765

34,633
19, 229
6,547
36, 660

4, 754
11,526
10, 614
19, 377

87, 940
7,699
3,816

28,062

Percent of
land in
farms

48.9

42.3
49.6
67.8
37.1
19.4

56.3
40.4
79.6
74.1

11.3
32.3
60.4
43.1

60.2
62.3
21.6
80.1

WESTERN STOCK RANCHES AND LIVESTOCK FARMS

The comparison given in Table 3 regarding the difference by
States in the average investment per farm for all farms and for
stock farms, shows rather clearly that stock ranching now has a
higher investment requirement than do most other types of
farming, in the Western States. These data also show that the
arid and semidesert areas have larger operating units in terms of
acres, and larger operating units in terms of scale of enterprise.
Arizona and Nevada are outstanding examples.

Table 3. — Average Value Per Farm of Land and Buildings,
FOR All Farms and for Livestock Farms Other Than
Dairy and Poultry, 17 Western States: 1954

Average value of land
and buildings per farm

State

Average value of land
and buildings per farm

state

All farms
(dollars)

Livestock

farms other

than dairy

and poultry!

(dollars)

All farms
(dollars)

Livestock
farms other

than dairy

andpoultryi

(dollars)

S3, 630
60,118
36, 3S9
31,662
34,711

43, 108
34, 395
61,066
38, 774

95, 766
S)9.384
64, 372
41,856
40, 473

63. 649
37,681
95, 838
76, 525

North Dakota....

Oklahoma..

Oregon

South Dakota.-..

Texas

24, 505
18, 913
27.803
28,683

29, 265
23,398
29, 116
45, 887

California

Colorado

Idaho

26, 665
49. 431
33 160

Kansas

66 666

Montana.

Utah

36 855

Nebraska

Nevada

Washington

Wyoming

35,885
67 152

New Mexico

■ The arithmetic mean is about .$66,000, for the 17 Western States.

In addition to its larger requirements for capital investment in
land and buildings, the stock ranch has the investment require-
ment for the li\estock. As a rule, this runs higher than the per-
sonal-property investment requirements for most of the types of
farms other than the stock ranch. That is to say, in terms of total
enterjjrise the stock ranch has one of the highest, if not the highest,
investment requirement for any type of agricultural enterprise.

In Tables 4 and 5, a comparison is given by States concerning
the trend of the last 35 years in the population of grazing animals
for the 17 Western States. The pattern of this trend is fairly
similar for all of the States, e.xcept for certain of the Plains States.
Certain of the Plains States have not followed the trend in the
reduction of sheep numbers from the 1930 peak to 1954. An
analysis of this information in somewhat more detail indicates
that this situation is due to an increase in farm-flock sheep opera-
tions in the eastern parts of the Plains States.

Sheep numbers in this area now stand near the very low point
reached in 1920. A peak in sheep numbers was reached in 1930.
There has been a considerable licjuidation in sheep numbers since
World War II and this was accentuated somewhat by the Korean
conflict of 1950. Something comparable to this took place in World
War I resulting in reduced numbers of sheep for the year 1920.
Over the last 50 years or more a rather definite interrelated cyclical
shift has taken place between cattle numbers and sheep numbers
on western stock ranches. Ranches tend to go out of sheep when
cattle become relatively more profitable and to go back to sheep
when the reverse situation develops. The trends of livestock
population shown in Tables 4 and 5 should be interpreted with
this Ln mind.

Table 4. — All Cattle, 17 Western States: 1920 to 1954

(Number in thousands]

State

Total, 17 Western
States

Arizona

California

Colorado

Idaho

Kansas

Montana.

Nebraska.

Nevada.

New Mexico

North Dakota...

Oklahoma

Oregon

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Washington

Wyoming

1920

29, 076

822
2,008
1,767

715
2,975

1,269

3,154

356

1,300

1, 335

2,074

861

2,348

6, 157
606
573
875

1925

27,907

1. 069
1,918
1,436
606
3,068

1,322

3,283

419

1,267

1,341

1, 667

784

2,022

5,846
504
582
783

28,726

695

2, 103

1, 454
622

3,224

1,2<)0

3, 1.50
308

1,056

1,454

2, 098
806

1, 974

6,603
442
626
824

30, 481

771
2,132
1,690

784
3,386

1,630

3,232

342

1,071

1,219

2,632

928

1,632

7,222
411
741

868

1940

25,652

638
2,056
1,144

663
2,508

1,040

2, 569

339

843

1,178

2. 195

799

1,496

6.282
374

1945

37, 682

750
2,831
1,781

949
4,062

1,817

3,979

479

1,091

1,878
3, 101
1, 101
2,644

8, 864
562
910
983

1950

34, 747

656
2,757
1,776

949
3,509

1,768

3,629

424

1,138

1,588
2,658
1,099
2,613

7,825
662
878

1,028

1954

43, 334

950
3,745
2,098
1, 357
4,305

2,600

4,899

665

1,160

2,104
3,302
1,490
3,440

8,240

728
1,126
1.235

Table 5. — Sheep and Lambs, 17 Western States: 1920 to 1954

[Number in thousands]

State

Total, 17 Western
States...

Arizona

California

Colorado

Idaho...

Kansas

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Mexico

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Washington

Wyoming

1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1960 1964

22,988

882
2,400
1,813
2,356

361

2,083
573
881

1,640

299

105

2,002

844

2,573

1,692

624

1,860

25,583

1,164
3.045
2,244
1,746
315

2,188

647

1,184

1,743

311

62

1,776

644

3,137

2, 355

616

2,507

39, 872

1,340
4,084
2,605
3,302
674

4,027

496

1,202

2,291

857

222

3,319

1,150

7,021
2,922
1,143
3,417

34,466

931
2,724
2,449
2,209

714

3,823
689
834

1,801

740

309

2,210

1,320

7,027

2,452

748

3,476

29, 059

624
1,707
1,681
1,372

547

3,010
510
614

1,654

823

313

1,423

1,370

8,448

1,597

487

3,079

30, 922

611
2,396
2,394
1,336

943

2,906
931
634

1,618

810

231

1,032

1,771

8, 5,56

1,672

447

2,804

22, 763

473
2,057
1,657
1, .609

611

1,337
314
321

1,197

38«
151
913

7.750

1.101

368

1,829

2,050

1,914

1,198

555

1,732
692
370

1,011

223

861

I 396

5,734

1,397

262

2,084

Cattle numbers in the Western States are now at an all-time
peak. It is much above anything previously shown by recorded
statistics. It seems probable that this is, in some degree, a trend
in itself, not too much associated with any economic interrelation-
ship with the trend in sheep numbers. This rise in cattle popula-
tion in the Western States was generated partly by the high prices
and profits prevailing during the years 1950, 1951, and 1952; but
it also is the result of the rising human population on the West
Coast and of the consequent enlarged market for livestock in the
West and in the United States as a whole.

For later comments on this subject of difi'erences in stock ranch-
ing by States for the Western States, reference is here made to the
concept of principal economic suhregions and of the State eco-
nomic areas as shown in Figure 10. A considerable summation of
Census data has been made for such subregions. These subregions
have been delineated on the basis of similarity in tlie characteristics
of the land resources of the economic factors and of the types of
farming.

10

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

o
in

to

<:

u
o

8

CO

§

s

n

D
to

I

WESTERN STOCK RANCHES AND LIVESTOCK FARMS

11

SOME DIFFERENCES BY ECONOMIC SUBREGIONS

The economic subregions are quite large in the Western States
(see Figure 10). This is necessarily so because of the extensive
nature of the ranching and farming there. As the ranching and
farming units are large and there are fewer farms in terms of area,
the statistical summaries must be on a basis of large subregions.
As a result there may be considerable dissimilarities within some
of the subregions. Where this situation prevails, an attempt will
he made to point out some explanation of major differences.

For each of the economic subregions, the Census materials have
been summarized for all farms to give a classification of major
farming types. In addition, within each of these types of farming
a summarization has been made by economic size classes for each
type. The concern here is with the summaries of the economic
size classes for the major farm types known as livestock farms,
which, in the Western States, contain most of the stock ranches.
The economic size classes into which each major farm type is
divided are (1) Class I farms, with an income from sales, in 19o-l,
in excess of $25,000; (2) Class II farms, with an income of $10,000
to $24,999; (3) Class III farms, with an income of $5,000 to $9,999;
U) Class IV farms, with an income of $2,500 to $-1,999; (5) Class
V farms, with an income of $1,200 to $2,490; (6) Class VI farms,
with an income of $250 to $1,199.

This part of the analysis of differences in western stock ranch-
in,:;, consequently, concerns the differences in certain of the eco-
nomic aspects of the several different economic size classes of stock
ranches in the Western States, and this analysis is made by eco-
nomic subregions. These data are analyzed in the following pages,
with a summarizing table for each of the western subregions where
livestock ranching is important. A. brief description is given con-
cerning the resources, the geography, and the natural and economic
factors for each subregion within the four general livestock regions
of the West.

The Great Plains

The Great Plains area is divided into several economic sub-
regions, each having within it physical and economic phenomena
common to the livestock ranches in the area but somewhat different
in combination or magnitude from those in other economic sub-
regions.

Economic subregion 98. — This subregion consists principally of
the Rio Grande Plain of Texas (see Figure 10). It is essentially
a livestock ranching subregion, but within it are local crop-spe-
cialty farming areas and other types of farming. The Rio Grande
Plain merges with the Gulf coastal prairies in this subregion, which
is natural grassland territory that has a problem of brush control
on rangeland.

This subregion has a few very large livestock ranches. Only
about one-eighth of the livestock farms were classified in Economic
Classes I and II (see Table 6). Tlie average number of animal
units per ranch for all ranches (an animal unit calculated as ' head
of stock cattle or 5 ewes) is not so large as for many of the other
western subregions, but the average size of the Class I ranches is
by far the largest of all of the western subregions. The largest
size class of the ranches accounts for approximately 5 percent of
the ranches and 44 percent of the animal units of livestock for the
subregion. The two smallest of the ranch size classes account
for approximately 51 percent of the ranches and 13)2 percent of
the animal units of livestock for the subregion.

This subregion then has the greatest extreme in the contrast
between large and small ranches. The small ranches, with less
than 100 animal units of livestock, do not afford a full-time job
for an operator; those with less than 60 animal units are definitely
subeconomic in size unless there is some complementary enterprise.

Table 6 shows that there is a great contrast between large and
small ranch units in the number of animal units of livestock
handled per worker (family and hired) and consequently in the
efficiency in the use of labor. A comparison of Table 6 with the
following tables reveals that a considerable proportion of subeco-
nomic ranching units prevails in nearly all of the western sub-
regions.

This picture of the few animal units of livestock per worker on
the small ranches is distorted somewhat by the fact that a con-
siderable number of these small units do have some other agri-
cultural enterprise. Essentially, however, most of these opera-
tions in the small size classes are subeconomic stock ranches.

Land values are high and there is a consequent high investment
in land and buildings per animal unit of livestock. This averages
approximately $497 per animal unit for all size classes, and only
the largest size class averages much below the general average.
Drought and the consequent decrease in livestock numbers prob-
ably has accentuated this extreme. The general average for all
western subregions of the investment per animal unit, in land and
buildings, is approximately $450.

Table 6. — Livestock Farms in Subregion 98, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954

Item

Number of farms

Percent distribution

Livestock, average number
per farm:

Cattle

Sheep

Animal units

Animal units, total

Percent distribution

Man-equivalent per farm

Animal uui^s per man-e<iuiv-
alent

Hired labor per farm

dollars - -
Hired labor per animal unit

doll.irs - -

Investment in land and

buildings per animal unit

dollars-.

Value of land and buildings,

per farm.. dollars-.

Value of livestock per farm
dollars..
Value of land and buildings
and livestock per farm

dollars..

Value of all farm products
sold per farm dollars. -

Livestock and livestick prod-
ucts sales as a percent of
value of all farm products
sold

4,364
100.0

177
12
180

783.;
100.0

1.8

99

1.294
7.20

497
89, 385
12, 255

101,640

8,345

93.7

Economic class of farm

215
4.9

1.588

114

1,611

346, 331
44.2

9.5

170

12, 878
7.99

385
620, 362
107, 903

728, 265

91, 799

95.4

II III IV

335
7.7

385

29

391

131, 108
16.7

2.S

141

2,875
7.35

519

203, 058

26, 76!

229, 819

15, S77

93.1

650
14.9

104

8

166

107,611
13.7

1.9

80

1,231
7.43

544
90,343
11, 476

101, 819

7, 300

935
21.4

97

8

99

92,364
11

1.4

73

585
5.9:

630
52, 463
6,900

69,423

3,6S;

91.0

1,284
29.4

75,388
9.6

1.1

54

357
6.07

639

37, 707

4,026

41,733

1,832

VI

945
21.7

33

1

33

31. 091
4.0

1.1

30

117
3.56

614
20,254
2,304

22,558

831

Economic subregion 100. — This southern plains subregion is the
Edwards Plateau district of west-central Texas (see Figure 10).
This is a subregion of combination cattle and sheep ranching. In
its high investment in land and buildings per animal unit of live-
stock, it exceeds that of subregion 98. Because of drought, a
considerable reduction in livestock has taken place in this sub-
region.

The livestock require only a small quantity of winter supple-
mental feedings, and ranching operations of adequate economic
size consist of 125 to 150 animal units per man-year of work.
Table 7 shows that only the Class I ranches meet this standard,
as in Rio Grande Plains district more than half of the livestock
farms are small units with gross income of under $5,000.

12

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Table 7- — Livestock Farms in Subregion 100, by Economic
Class of Farm : 1954

Item

Number of farms

Percent distribution

Livestock, average number
per farm:

Cattle

Sheep

Animal miits

Animal units, total

Percent distribution

Man-equivalent per farm

Animal units per man-equiv-
alent

Hired labor per farm

dollars..
Hired labor per animal unit

dollars..

Investment in land and

buildings per animal unit

dollars --

Value of land and buildings,

per farm dollars. .

Value of livestock per farm
dollars--
Value of land and buildmgs
and livestock per farm

dollars. -

Value of all farm products
sold per farm dollars - -

Livestock and livestock prod-
ucts sales as a percent of
value of all farm products
sold

Total

8.325
100.0

fiO
410
142

1, 183, 289
100.0

1.5

92

665

94, 496

8,409

102, 905

8,226

Economic class of farm

497
6.0

320

2,568

834

414, 342
35.0

4.9

172

5,768
6.92

540

450, 756

48, 044

498, 799

50,885

II III IV

1,272
15.3

97
870
271

344. 565
29.1

2.3

120

1,887
6.96

686
185, 909
15, 020

201, 529

15, 476

20.4

62
326
118

199, 407
16.9

1.4

83

634
5.39

703

82, 991

7,056

90, 047

6,996

2,031

24.4

34

155
65

132,812
11.2

1.2

64

336
5.13

784
SO, 985
4,087

55, 072

3.625

96.1

1,957
23.5

23
70

3;

71, 969
6.1

0.9

40

168
4. .57

776

28, 698

2,372

31,070

1,823

94.6

VI

872
10.5

17
30
23

20, 194
1.7

1.0

24

60
2.57

821
18, 881
1,546

20, 427

810

93.8

Economic subregion 101. — This subregion consists of tlie rolling
plains country of the southern plains, just south of the break of
the plains, in southwestern Oklahoma and north-central Texas
(see Figure 10). It consists mostly of a good bunch-grass range-
land which is more suited to cattle than to sheep. It is primarily
a stock-ranching country although considerable crop agriculture
is now in the region.

The first three of the economic classes of ranches of this sub-
region account for most of the units that are stock ranches (see
Table 8). But more than two-thirds of the livestock farms are
in Economic Classes IV through VI. The stock ranches do not
need supplemental feed in winter and this fact is reflected in the
large number of cattle handled per man for the ranches of Class I
size. Investment in land and buildings is high for the stock
ranches.

Economic subregion 103. — This large subregion constitutes the
eastern part of the central High Plains (see Figure 10). It extends
well into the crop farming areas of Kansas and Oklahoma, and
consequently includes the transition zone from crop farming to
stock ranching. It has only localized areas devoted primarily to
stock ranching. As a result, the figures given in Table 9 reflect
comparatively small average size stock farms and stock ranches.
Most of the stock-ranching operations are accounted for by the
Economic Classes I, II, and III (see Table 9). Slightly more than
half of the livestock farms fall in these classes.

The stock ranches have a high investment in land and buildings
per animal unit of livestock. These land value and investment
figures per animal unit are inflated somewhat by the inclusion of
relatively high value lands used for crop production.

Table 8. — Livestock Farms in Subregion 101, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954

Item

Number of farms

Percent distribution

Livestock, average number
per farm;

Cattle

Sheep

Animal units

Animal units, total

Percent distribution

Man-equivalent per farm ...
Animal units per man-equiv-
alent

Hired labor per farm

dollars --
Hired labor per animal unit

dollars..

Investment in land and

buildings per animal unit

dollars..

Value of land and buildings,

per farm dollars. .

Value of livestock per farm
doUars--
Value of land and buildings
and livestock per farm

dollars..

Value of all farm products
sold per farm dollars..

Livestock and livestock prod-
ucts sales as a percent of
value of all farm products
sold

Total

6.822
100.0

108
70
122

829. 073
100.0

1.3

93

813
6.69

651
67, 258
8.038

75, 296

7,874

86 4

Economic class of farm

336

4.

890
344

959

322. 249
38.9

6.2

186

7,654
7.98

552

529, 322

63,265

592, 587

70, 279

91.0

II m IV V

752
11.0

196
149
225

168, 967
20.4

2.0

115

1,788
7.96

662
126, 495

14, 774

141, 269

15, 731

82.2

1,151
16.9

95
109
117

134, 101
16.2

1.4

86

723
6.20

641

62, 799

7,666

70, 465

7,261

81.4

1,525
22.4

56
56
67

102. 267
12.3

1.0

65

306
4.56

553
37, 031
4,418

41,449

3,653

83.8

1,944
28.5

35
16
38

74, 799
9.0

0 8

50

109
2.82

525
19, 963
2,605

22,568

1,800

83.8

VI

1,114
16.3

23
6
24

26, 689
3.2

1.0

25

109
4.55

566
13, 586
1,654

15,240

758

92.2

Table 9. — Livestock Farms in Subregion 103, by Economic
Class OF Farm: 1954

Item

Number of farms

Percent distribution

Livestock, average number
per farm:

Cattle.-

Sheep

Animal units

Animal units, total

Percent distribution

Man-equivalent per farm

Animal units per man-
equivalent _ _.

Hired labor per farm

dollars..
Hired labor per animal imit

dollars..

Investment in land and

buildings per animal unit

dollars..

Value of land and buildings,

per farm dollars..

Value of livestock per farm

dollars. -
Value of land and buUdtngs
and livestock per farm

dollars, -

Value of all farm products
sold per farm dollars..

Livestock and livestock
products sales as a per-
cent of value of all farm
products sold

Total

13. 673

100.0

126
20
130

1, 776, 065
100.0

823
6.34

549
71,400
10, 781

82, 181

83.4

Economic class of farm

1,542
11.3

485
92
504

776. 468
43.7

3.1

162

4,181
8.30

472
237, 867
41. 532

279, 399

69, 577

86.3

II m IV V VI

2.626
19.2

161

22

166

434, 945
24.5

1,

100

1,024
6.18

683
96, 808
13. 706

110, 514

15, 836

77.

2,803
20.5

91
IS
94

264. 230
14.9

1.4

70

437
4.64

597
56, 119
7,814

63, 933

7,152

78.4

3,15:
23.1

57

4

58

182, 662
10.3

1.1

51

183
3.16

615

35,663

4,878

40,541

3,709

83.1

2,523
18.5

37

3

3'

94, 304
5.3

1.0

37

106
2.83

619
22, 898
3,190

26,088

1,939

i6.3

1,022
7.6

23

1

23

23,456
1.3

1.0

25

47
2.04

804
18,601
1,974

20,475

WESTERN STOCK RANCHES AND LIVESTOCK FARMS

13

Table 10. — Livestock Farms in Subregion 104, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954

Item

Total

Number of farms

Percent distribution

Livestock, average niunbcr
per farm:

Cattle

Slieep

Animal units __

Animal units, total _

Percent distribution. . . .

Man-equivalent per farm

Animal units per man-
equivalent

Hired labor per farm

dollars -
Hired labor per animal imit

dollars..

Investment in land and

buildings per animal unit

dollars .

Value of land and buildinEs,

per farm dollars

Value of livestock per farm

dollars..
Value of land and buildings
and livestock per farm

dollars .

Value of all farm products
sold per farm dollars .

Livestock and livestock
products sales as a per-
cent of value of all farm
products sold

14. 132
100.0

180
80
195

2, 761, 473
100.0

1.6

124

771
3.95

395
77, 040
18, 69:

95, 743

10.233

Economic class of farm

1.126
8,0

745
398
824

928. 133
33.0

3.C

220

4.735
5.74

264

217, 731

76,830

294. 561

50,091

96.5

II III IV

2,884
20.4

261
128
286

825. 063
29.9

1

150

1.178
4.12

370
105. 83S
27, 239

133,077

14,895

91.4

3.830
27.1

133

54
144

551. 906
20.0

1.6

100

440
63,426
14,064

77,490

7,163

90.1

3,41

24.2

85
23
90

307, 99;
11.2

1.2

75

573
61,542
8.914

60, 456

3. 852

90.5

2,086
14.8

56

8
57

119.641
4 3

1,1

55

82
1.43

423
24,11
5.743

29, 860

1.914

93.9

790
5.6

35

5

36

28,673
1.0

1.0

37

65
1.79

422
16. 199
3,612

18,811

846

95.2

Table 11. — Livestock Farms in Subregion 105, by Economic
Class OF Farm: 1954

Xumber of farms

Percent distribution

Livestock, average number
per farm:

Cattle

Sheep

Animal units

Animal imits, total

Percent distribution

Man-equivalent per farm

Animal units per man-
equivalent

Hiied labor per farm

dollars .
Hired labor per animal unit

dollars .

Investment in land and

buildings per animal unit

dollars .

Value of land and buildings,

per farm dollars..

Value of livestock per farm

dollars . .
Value of land and buildings
and livestock per farm

dollars..

Value of all farm products
soldperfarm doUars..

Livestock and livestock
products sales as a per-
cent of value of all farm
products sold

Total

6.336
100.0

143
105
164

1, 039. 72'
100.0

1.6
101

25'
42,116
16, 540

68,656

9,375

8L1

Economic class of farm

803
649

277, 304
26.7

4.3

15;

6,371
9.81

230
149, 668
62, 766

212, 324

47, 984

85.9

II III IV

1.176
18.6

228
180
264

309. 945
29.8

1,

138

1.414
5.37

247
66, 104
26, 238

91. 342

15, 143

79.7

1.7
27.9

132

44
141

249, 467
24.0

1.6

94

473
3,36

26'
36. 306
14. 560

50. 866

7.399

76.9

1.613
25.5

134. 584
12.9

1.3

63

187
2.24

290
24, 069
8,776

32, 845

3,850

80.

1.00
15.9

53
15
56

55, 985
5.4

1.1

52

97
1.75

328
18, 386
5,860

24. 246

1,'

VI

344
5.4

36

2

36

12,442
1.2

1.1

33

45
1.24

408
14. 706
3.852

18,558

920

8.0

Economic subregion 104. — This i.s a large subregion that includes
the middle and eastern parts of the northern Great Plains region.
It includes the Nebraska sand-hills country, that portion of western
South Dakota that is west of the Missouri River, and a consider-
able part of the Yellowstone Valley of Montana. Except for the
localities of irrigated farming, it is essentially a livestock-ranching
country. But there are significant differences in the character-
istics of the livestock ranching within the subregion as the western
part is mountain foothill ranching, and the eastern part is dis-
tinct!}' Great Plains ranching. The size classes are influenced
considerably by the very large ranching operations of the Nebraska
sandhills.

The ranching operations can be characterized as medium-to-
large. The lower economic classes account for a considerable
proportion of the operating units but most of the units of the first
four economic classes are large enough to be economic units from
the standpoint of operation. This is indicated by the rather high
labor efficiency for these operations (see Table 10), and by com-
parison with other data. The ranches in the top economic class
handle the largest number of animal units of livestock per worker
of any subregion in the West. This is due in part to the fact that
generally the ranching operations do not have to grow very much
hay and do very little winter feeding of the livestock.

Table 10 shows that the investments in land and buildings per
animal unit of livestock average much lower than for any of the
subregions iJreviously discussed. This is chiefly because most of
the stock ranches were fully stocked in 1954, in contrast to the
relatively small number of livestock in 1954 in the southern plains
because of drought.

Economic subregion 105. — This subregion comprises the north-
ern part of the northern Great Plains. It is important stock-
ranching territory and includes a considerable part of the dry-land
wheat farming of Montana. As a general rule, there is not much
economic association or interrelationship between the stock
ranches and the wheat farms. A limited number of combination
stock-ranch and wheat-farm operations are found in the Montana
portion but generally these are large operating units.

The higher labor requirement shown for the livestock operations
in this region, in comparison with subregion 104, is due primarily
to the higher winter-feeding requirements for the livestock (see
Tables 10 and 11). As a rule, the stock ranches must produce
enough hay and other feed crops for 2 to 3 months of winter feeding.

An analysis of land and buildings values for stock ranches
in this subregion shows that stock ranches have a compara-
tively low investment per animal unit. Though this is partly
due to the generally fully stocked condition of these stock ranches
in 1954, it also reflects the historically lower land and buildings
values in the "North Country."

Economic subregion 106. — Subregions 104, 105, and 106 con-
stitute the northern Great Plains. Subregion 106 is rather diverse.
It includes the Big Horn Basin in Wyoming and surrounding
mountains, the plains of eastern Wyoming, northeastern Colorado,
and southwestern Nebraska. Except for small localized irrigation
farming, this subregion is distinctly one of stock ranching. Nearly
60 percent of the livestock farms are in Economic Classes I through
III.

Labor requirements for the stock ranches are similar to those
in subregion 105 (see Tables 11 and 12). Winter-feeding require-
ments for livestock are similar and the size of the ranches is
comparable.

Land and buildings investment per anini.al unit averages
somewhat higher in subregion 106 than in subregions 104 and 105.

14

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Table 12. — Livestock Farms in Subregion 106, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954

Item

Number of farms-..

Percent distribution

Livestock, average number
per farm:

Cattle

Sheep

Animal units

Animal units, total

Percent distribution

Man-equivalent per farm

Animal units per man-equiv-
alent

Hired labor per farm

dollars. -
Hired labor per animal unit

dollars..

Investment in land and

buildings per animal unit

dollars..

Value of land and buildings,

per farm. dollars. .

Value of livestock per farm

dollars. .
Value of land and buildings
and livestock per farm

dollars. .

Value of all farm products
sold per farm dollars. .

Livestock and livestock
products sales as a percent
of value of all farm prod-
ucts sold...

10, 283
100.0

152
162
184

1. 897. 173
100.0

1

108

1.380

7.48

316
58, 237
1",

75, 323

Economic class of farm

11 III IV

1.794 2,120
17.4 20.6

416
603
536

961, 798
60.7

3.5

152

5,234
9.76

308
165, 602
48, 83'

214,439

80, 698

91.0

175
161
207

438. 735
23.1

2,178
21.2

111
65
124

270,811
14.3

1.8
113

1,379
6.66

326
67, 420
19, 201

86. 621

15, 777

84.3

537
4,32

348
43, 154
11,754

54,908

7,405

88.0

2,035
19

61
36
68

138, 769
7.3

1.1

60

238
3.48

403
27, 387
6,555

33, 942

3,744

89.0

43
16
46

68, 265
3.6

1.0

51

123
2.6:

478

21, 975

4,429

26, 404

1,929

VI

668
6.5

27
I'l

28

18, 805
1.0

1.0

29

62
2.19

579
16, 219
2,762

18, 981

93.4

Table 13. — Livestock Farms in Subregion 107, by Economic
Class of Farm : 1954

Item

Niunber of farms

Percent distribution

Livestock, average number
per farm:

Cattle...

Sheep

Animal units

Animal units, total

Percent distribution

Man-equivalent per farm —
Animal units per man-
equivalent

Hired labor per farm

dollars..
Hired labor per animal imit

dollars..

Investment in land and

buildings per animal imit

dollars. -

Value of land and buildings.

per farm dollars..

Value of livestock per farm

dollars..
Value of land and buildings
and livestock per f:irm

dollars.

Value of all farm products
sold per farm dollars .

Livestock and livestock
products sales as a percent
of value of all farm prod-
ucts sold

Total

5.024
100.0

165
73
169

850. 893
100.0

1.6

112

873
5.16

386
65, 288
13, 774

79, 062

512

95.0

Economic class of farm

420

8.4

700
449
795

334, 0511
39.3

4.0

198

5,702
7.1

350
278, 332
63,986

342, 317

2,863

95.9

II

710
14.1

259
133

286

203, 002
23.9

2.0

146

1,510
6.28

336
96, 202
23, 106

119,308

1,

92.9

",I

829
16.5

150
44
158

131, 287
16.4

1.5

107

586
' 3.69

391
61,764
12,915

74, 679

357

93.6

IV

1,117
22.2

94. 030
11.1

1.2

73

23:
2.82

486
40, S
6,970

47,819

188

94.5

1,161
23.1

52
16
55

64, 182

7.5

1.0

58

VI

787
1,5.7

30
6
31

24, 341
2.9

l.I

28

123 36

2.23 1.16

458
25, 172
4,620

29,792

71

95.

573
17, 749
2.624

20, 373

15

97.4

high number of animal units of livestock per man-year of work
for the ranches reflects the fact that stock ranches in this sub-
region have a low winter-feeding requirement. In most of the
years the cattle and sheep can be "ranged" through the winter.
InAestment in land and buildings per animal unit in the ranches
is moderate and more comparable to the ranches in the northern
plains than to those of the southern plains (see Table 1.3).

Desert Region

Economic subregion 108. — The western part of the southern
Great Plains lies in this subregion. The rangeland resources
are the southern plains semidesert grasslands. This definitely
is a livestock-ranching subregion, though as in most subregions
in the West it contains some other kinds of agriculture. In sub-
region 108 most of the farms other than stock ranches are located
in the irrigation districts along the Rio Grande. The livestock
ranches have a large average size (see Table 14). In fact, the
average size of the stock ranch is the largest among the western
subregions. Sixteen percent of the livestock farms in this area
were clas.sified as Class I farms. The values of land, buildings,
and livestock on these farms average over one-half million dollars.

The labor requirements on these livestock ranches are low
because of their favorable size and because very little winter
feeding is required. The general efficiency on the Class I ranches,
however, is not as high as might be expected. One possible
explanation is the general use of untrained workers.

The investment per animal unit in land and buildings is about
the same as in other subregions. Ranches in this subregion have
a lower land and buildings investment per animal unit than that
of most subregions in the southern plains. Probably this is due
to the use of considerable acreages of public land by the stock
ranches in the New Mexico part.

Table 14. — Livestock Farms in Subregion 108, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954

Economic subregion 107. — This subregion constitutes the west-
ern part of the central Great Plains (see Figure 10). The rather

Number of farms

Percent distribution

Livestock, average number
per farm :

Cattle

Sheep

Animal units

Animal units, total

Percent distribution

Man-equivalent per farm. . .
Animal units per man-
equivalent

Hired labor per farm

dollars -
Hired labor per animal unit
dollars-
Investment in land and
buildings per animal unit
dollars -
Value of land and buildings,

per farm dollars -

Value of livestock per farm
dollars -
Value of land and buildings
and livestock per farm

dollars

Value of all farm products
sold per farm dollars -

Livestock and livestock
products sales as a percent
of value of all farm prod-
ucts sold

Total

2.003
100.0

244
464
33.1

670, 962
100.0

2.2

152

2,429
7.25

46:
156, 504
23,374

179. 878

17, 5.88

94,3

E Economic class nf farm

322
16.1

702
1,691
1,041

336. 046
49.9

6.6

186

9,203
8.84

487

507, 418

71,280

578, 698

69. 340

92.1

II HI IV

448
22.4

281
686
398

178, 486
26.6

2.1

186

2,198
5.52

452
179, 786
27, 613

207, 399

17, 895

383
19.1

176
193
215

82, 298
12.3

1.6

138

1,080
5.03

489
105, 142
15, 444

120, 586

7,417

337
16.8

115
42
123

41,510
0.2

1.4

87

902
7.32

506

62, 106

9,120

71, 225

3,830

96.

356
17.8

69
34
76

27, 048
4.0

1.1

70

410
5.40

644
41,322
5,636

46, 958

1,819

VI

167
7.8

40
9
42

6.576
1.0

1.3

32

341

8.15

623
26, 185
3,183

29,368

674

99.7

WESTERN STOCK RANCHES AND LIVESTOCK FARMS

15

Economic subregion 114. — The southern third of Arizona makes
up this subregion. It is desert land with the exception of the high
rolhng hill country of southeastern Arizona. It has a high propor-
tion of public lands, and large livestock ranching operations. For
this reason it is comparable with economic subregion 113 in the
size and characteristics of the ranches.

The labor efficiency for the ranches is not as high as may be
expected for desert ranching where comparatively little winter
feeding of the livestock is required. This is especially true with
respect to Class I ranches (see Table 15). There is considerable
use of untrained employees on the ranches and this may explain
part of the low labor efficiency.

The investment in land and buildings per animal unit is below
the average of western subregions but it is rather high considering
the extent of public land use and desert ranching here. The ex-
tensive buying of ranches for winter recreation and for "dude"
ranching probably explains in part the high value of land and
buildings per animal unit.

The subregion has a relatively higher percent of very large
ranches. Nearly a fifth of the livestock farms had sales of over
$25,000 in 1954.

Table 15. — Livestock Farms in Subregion 114, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954

Item

Number of farms...

Percent distribution

Livestock, average number
per farm;

Cattle

Sheep

Animal units

Animal units, total..

Percent distribution

Man-equivalent per farm

Animal units per man-
equivalent

H ired labor per farm . dollars . .

Hired labor per animal unit

dollars..

Investment in land and

buildings per animal unit

dollars..

Value of land and buildings,

per farm dollars..

Value of livestock per farm

dollars..

Value of land and buildings

and livestock per farm

dollars.

Value of all farm products
sold per farm dollars..

Livestock and livestock
products sales as a percent
of value of all farm prod-
ucts sold

Total

1,111
100.0

311

79
326

362, 658
100.0

2.4

137

4,172

12 78

326
100, 143
30, 186

136, 329

41,693

87.7

Economic class of farm

209
18.8

1,010

380

1,086

226, 989
62.6

7.1

152

17,609

16.12

285

309. 382

98, 984

408, 366

193, 613

86.6

II III IV

191
17.2

362

27

367

70,150
19.3

2.0

187
2,797
7.62

284
104. 300
34, 617

138, 817

16, 346

93,6

209
18.8

167
3

167

34,998
9.7

1.3

127
1,111
6.64

477
79, 671
16,816

95, 487

7,425

195
17.6

17, 076
4.7

1.1

83
690

7,88

456
40,145
8.426

48, 570

3,773

98 0

200
18.0

48
10
50

10,067
2.8

1.0

63

306

6,08

628
31,390

4.848

36,238
1,891

98.1

VI

107
9.6

31

1

32

3,379
0.9

1.0

33

128

4.06

690
22, 095
3,161

25, 266

635

Economic subregion 115. — The southern part of California
makes up this subregion. Most of the stock ranching here is on
the desert lands east of the coastal mountain ranges of southern
California (see Figure 10).

Large stock ranches predominate. About 23 percent of the
operators have 83.9 percent of the animal units (see Table 16).

Considering the fact that only limited supplemental feeding is
necessary here the labor efficiency in the handling of livestock is
low. On the ranches with low gross income this is due to the
small size of the ranches. The large amount of hired labor on the
small ranches suggests that many are part-time operations probably
owned by people with other income who have what they call a
stock ranch as an avocation. This characteristic is indicated also
by the very high land and building investment per animal unit for
all except the Class I ranches.

Table 16. — Livestock Farms in Subregion 115, by Economic
Class of Farm : 1954

Item

Number of farms

Percent distribution

Livestock, average number
per farm:

Cattle

Sheep .-

Animal units

Animal units, total-..

Percent distribution

Man-equivalent per farm

Animal units per man-
equivalent

Hired labor per farm, dollars..

Hired labor per animal unit

dollars..

Investment in land and

buildings per animal unit

dollars..

Value of land and buildings,

per farm ..dollars..

Value of livestock per farm

dollars..

Value of land and buildings

and livestock per farm

dollars..

Value of all farm products
sold per farm dollars..

Livestock and livestock
products sales as a percent
of value of all farm prod-
ucts sold

Total

1.715
100.0

242
149
271

465. 522
100.0

2.2

122

4,720

17.39

493
133, 666
33, 638

167, 203

53,651

91.2

Economic class of farm

396
23.0

876

565

390, 378
83.9

5.9

168

16, 732

16.93

256
262, 478
122, 297

374, 775

214, 540

9L2

251
14.6

109
117
132

33, 169
7.1

1.7

77

2,1

21.83

1,450
191, 430
15, 051

207. 381

14, 482

89.0

III IV

266
14.9

60
2

6;

17,044
3.7

1.3

61
1.381
20,74

1, 629

109, 166

8,777

117,932

7,459

92.7

252
14.7

40

5

41

10, 429
2.2

1.0

41

800

19.33

1.449
59, 397
5,116

64,612

3,495

93.1

428
25.0

27

28

11, 809
2.5

0.7

38

396

14.32

2,488
69, 656
3.526

73, 181

1,750

93.3

133

7.8

19

7
20

2,703
0.6

1.1

19

283

13.93

1,902

38, 031

2,604

40,636

712

Rocky Mountain Region

Economic subregion 109. — This is one of the largest subregions.
It includes most of the Rocky Mountains, from the Canadian
border to the southern end of the Rocky Mountain system. It is
essentially a country of livestock ranching, though it contains
important irrigated areas in the mountain valleys. For the most
part, the stock ranches are of an economically sized operating unit.
Though there are many large ranching operations, an appreciable
proportion of the stock ranches fall in Economic Classes II to IV.

Labor requirements average rather high (see Table 17) not-
withstanding favorable size of units. This results from the ranch-
ing operations having rather high winter-feeding requirements.
As a rule, hay and other feed crops sufficient for 3 to 5 months of
winter maintenance must be grown.

The investment in land and buildings per animal unit is
moderate in subregion 109 and considerably below the average for
western subregions. Use of considerable acreages of public land,
e.specially by the larger ranches, probably accounts for this low
investment.

16

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Table 17. — Livestock Farms in Subregion 109, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954

Item

Number of farms

Percent distribution

Livestock, average number
per farm;

Cattle

Sheep

Animal units

Animal units, total

Percent distribution

Man-equivalent per farm....
Animal units per man-
equivalent

Hired labor per farm. dollars-
Hired labor per animal unit
dollars..

Investment in land and

buildings per animal unit

dollars..

Value of land and buildings,

per farm.- .dollars.

Value of livestoclc per farm

dollars..

Value of land and buildings

and livestoclv per farm

dollars..

Value of all farm products
sold per farm dollars.

Livestock and livestock
products sales as a percent
of value of all farm prod-
ucts sold

Total

12,549
100.0

145
221

189

2, 373. 904
100.0

2.0

95

1, 087

8.92

279
52, 704
17. 571

70,275

10, 967

93.7

Economic class of farm

1,171
9.3

632

1,666

866

1, 013, 675
42.7

6.9

125

11,139

12.87

232
201, 273
77, 850

279,123

61, 201

95.7

2,003
16.0

256
198
296

592, 197
24.9

2.4

124

2,213

7.48

2;

82.516
27, 073

110, 189

15,321

92.4

III IV

2,741
21.8

127
74
142

389, 8.30
16.4

762
5.36

305
43, 347
13, 541

56, 888

7,133

2,754
21.9

73
47
83

227, 849

1.
65
345
4.17

336

27,909

7,994

35,903

3,718

91.7

2,400
19.1

41
26
46

110, 666
4.7

LO

45

193

4.22

433
19,924
4,511

24,435

1,818

92.'

1,480
11.8

23

18
27

39, 686
1.7

1.2

23

123

4.58

461
12, 460
2,673

15, 133

758

90.7

The Intermountain Region

Economic subregion 110. — This economic subregion consists of
the plateaus of the Columbia River in Washington and Oregon,
the Palouse Hills of eastern Washington, and the Panhandle of
Idaho. Within this subregion are important wheat-farming area
and irrigation developments. Livestock ranching is relatively
less important here than in most subregions in the West.

Table 18.— Livestock Farms in Subregion 110, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954

Item

Total

Number of farms

Percent distribution

Livestock, average number
per farm:

Cattle

Sheep,-

Animal units

Animal units, total

Percent distribution

Man-equivalent per farm

Animal units per man-
equivalent

Hired labor per farm

dollars..
Hired labor per animal
unit dollars..

Investment in land and
buildtQgs per animal
unit- dollars. -

Value nf land and buildings,
per farm dollars .

Value of livestock per
farm dollars..

Value of land and buildmgs
and livestock per farm

dollars..

Value of all farm products
sold per farm dollars.

Livestock and livestock
products sales as a percent
of value of all farm prod-
ucts sold

1.489
100.0

107
109
129

192, 361
100.0

1.431
11.07

360
46, 395
12, 654

59, 049

11,273

86.0

Economic class of farm

128
8.6

1.141
714

91, 440
47.5

5.0

143

10,525
14.73

342

244, 508
66, 101

310, 609

78, 365

86.0

III IV

174
11.7

191
17
194

33, 812
17.6

1.9

102

1,97
10.18

329
63, 783
19, 639

83, 422

16, 249

83.4

231
1.5.5

124
15
127

29, 303
15.2

1.5

87

1. 166
9.19

303
46, 143
13, 244

59, 387

7, 634

86.6

347
23.3

55
21
59

20, 632
10.7

1.0

57

266
4.47

487

28, 759

6,126

34, 885

3,763

340
22.8

11, 202
6.8

171
5.19

427
14, 098
3,363

17, 461

1,903

87.6

VI

269
18.1

22

1

22

5,973
3.1

1.0

23

71
3,19

741
16,310
2,364

18, 674

783

The average size stock ranch here is rather small and there is a
high concentration of livestock numbers on Classes I and II ranches
(see Table 18). This probably is due to the fact that there is a
considerable number of large sheep-ranching operations. These
large ranches have a relatively high labor efficiency, and the
amount of labor used on the smaller units is unusually high.

The investment in land and buildings per animal unit is below
the average of western subregions and is generally comparable
with that in the northern plains subregions and in the Rocky
Mountain subregions.

Economic subregion 111, — This subregion consists of the central
part of the State of Washington (see Figure 10). It is, principally,
the di-ainage areas of the Okanogan and Yakima Rivers. Though
this is not primarily a stook-rancliing territory, the Okanogan
Country does have a considerable number of stock ranches.

This subregion has essentially the same characteristics as the
stock ranches in other subregions, Man-labor per unit of live-
stock averages relatively high for the stock ranches. Land and
buildings investment per animal unit averages somewhat below
the general average for the West (see Table 19).

Table 19. — Livestock Farms in Subregion 111, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954

Item

Number of farms

Percent distribution

Livestock, average number
per farm:

Cattle. -

Sheep.-

Animal units

Animal units, total..

Percent distribution

Man-equivalent per farm —
.Animal units per man-
equivalent —

Hired labor per farm

dollars..
Hired labor per animal unit

dollars..

Investment in land and

buildings per animal unit

dollars.

Value of land and buildings,

per farm dollars..

Value of livestock per farm

dollars..

Value of land and buddings

and livestock per farm

dollars..

Value of all farm products
sold per farm dollars . .

Livestock and livestock
products sales as a percent
of value of all farm prod-
ucts sold

Total

1,401
100.0

118
65
131

191, 722
100.0

1.5

89

1,377
10. .50

327
42,777
13, 067

65, 844

13, 390

90.3

Economic class of farm

168
11.5

389
400
469

78, 857
41.1

3.5

133

6,685
14.24

279
130, 666
45, 666

176, 331

74,502

91,9

II III IV

197
13.6

216

51

226

44, 577
23.2

1.8

124

1,912
8.45

268
58, 344
22, 394

80, 738

14, 716

87.9

291
19.9

99
33

105

30, 662
16.0

1.3

79

900
8.54

321
33,685
10, 822

44,507

7,061

84.3

345
23.6

51
17
54

18, 647
9.7

1.1

50

312

5.77

442

23, 892

5,532

29, 424

3,924

87.0

393
26.9

0.9
46

349
8.06

489
21, 040
4,423

25, 463

1,742

96.3

VI

67
4.6

29

4

29

1,973
1.0

1.0

29

92
3.12

746
21,611
3,152

24, 763

814

74.8

Economic subregion 112. — This includes the Snake River Valley
and the Snake River plains of Idaho, and northern and central
Utah. Some very important irrigation developments occur within
it but except for these, the main type of agriculture is stock
ranching. In the upper parts of the Snake River Valley stock
ranching is associated closely with irrigated farming. In the
other parts there is not much association between stock ranching
and irrigated farming.

The number of animal units of livestock handled per man-year
averages rather low even on Classes I and II stock ranches. This
situation probably is explained by (1) the larger number of family
workers per ranch, (;J) winter feeding, and (S) the movement of
livestock in many instances from the farm to the feeding area or
from feeding area to feeding area. Investment in land and
buildings is below the average for the stock ranches in the West
(see Table 20).

WESTERN STOCK RANCHES AND LIVESTOCK FARMS

17

Table 20. — Livestock Farms in Subregion 112, by Economic
Class OF Farm: 1954

Item

Number of farms — ,

Percent distribution

Livestock, average number
per farm:

Cattle

Sheep

Animal units

Animal units, total

Percent distribution

Man-equivalent per farm —
Animal units per man-
equivalent —

niied labor per farm

dollars.
Hired labor per animal unit

dollars.

Investment in land and

buildings per animal unit

dollars.

Value of land and buildings,

per farm dollars.

Value of livestock per farm

dollars -

Value of land and buildings

and livestock per farm

dollars-

Value of all farm products
sold per farm dollars .

Livestock and livestock
products sales as a percent
of value of all farm prod-
ucts sold

Total

5,485
100.0

100
282
156

855, 401
100.0

1,774
11.37

289
45, 117
14, 842

59, 959

15, 310

86.9

Economic class of farm

S02
14.0

258

1,407

539

432. 284
50.5

4.5

120

8,208
15. 23

319
171,919
49, 617

221, 536

64,613

87.8

1,136
20.7

130
236
177

201,394
23.5

1,9

90

1,730
9.76

285
50,460
17, 095

67, 555

15, 751

III IV

1.163
21.2

81
81
97

112.860
13.2

1.3

74

630
6.49

356

34,514

9,652

44, 166

7,091

86.1

1, 136

20.7

50
34
56

64,029
7,5

1.0

59

261
4.63

376

21, 050

5,088

26. 738

3,659

87.2

954
17.4

34
16
37

35, 326
4.1

1.0

49

128
3. 4e

521
19, 293
3,726

23,019

1,837

92,0

VI

294
5,4

31

6

32

9,609
1,1

1,0

36

3,02

568
IS, 187
3,248

21, 435

741

93,0

Table 21. — Livestock Farms in Subregion 113, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954

Economic class of farm

Item

Total

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

8.902

1,067

1,622

1.839

1.973

1,759

642

Percent distribution

100.0

12 0

18.2

20.7

22 2

19.8

7,2

Livestock, average number

per farm:

Cattle -- --

231
149
261

2 324 983

930

891

1,109

1, 182. 817

307
138
334

542. 040

157
39
165

303, 670

88
23
93

182, 661

47
18
60

88, 342

38

Sheep

/

40

25,464

Percent distribution

100.0

50.9

23.3

13.1

7.9

3.8

1.1

Man-equivalent per farm

1.8

5.4

2.1

1.5

1.2

0.9

1.0

Animal units per man-equiv-

142

204

162

112

78

57

42

Hired labor per farm

dollars. .

1,849

9.947

2,057

788

364

169

103

Hired labor per animal

unit --- dollars. -

7.08

8.97

6.16

4.77

3.94

3.17

2 69

Investment in land and

buildings per animal unit

dollars. -

251

210

246

286

370

468

505

Value of land and buildings.

per farm dollars. .

65, 474

232. 612

82, 016

47, 130

34, 442

23. 409

20, 184

Value of livestock per farm

dollars..

25. 121

105, 225

32, 267

16. 093

9,113

6.058

3,964

Value of land and buildings

and livestock per farm

dollars. .

90, 596

337, 837

114, 283

63,223

43, 655

28,467

24, 148

Value of all farm products

sold per farm dollars. .

13, 027

61.326

16. 046

7,282

3.720

1,853

796

Livestock and livestock

products sales as a percent

of value of all farm prod-

93.9

96.4

92.2

90.9

91.7

94.3

96.9

Economic subregion 113. — This is the largest subregion in the
country and it contains most of what has been characterized as
the intennountain region. It has a high proportion of public land.

and except for local irrigation developments, is devoted almost
entirely to stock ranching that may be characterized as desert
and .semidesert ranching.

Livestock ranching operations have a relatively high average
size but have considerable range in size. They are generally ade-
quate for reasonably high efficiency of operation. The average
size for the Class I ranches is extremely large; 12 percent of the
ranching units have approxunately .51 percent of the livestock
(see Table 21). The earliest of the ranchers here were able to
obtain control and use of large acreages of public lands through
selection of land located near water supplies — a very important
factor in ranch operations and particularly in this subregion.

Because year-long grazing is possible in most of this subregion,
labor requirements are low. The number of animal units per
man-year is high, especially for the Class I ranches.

Because the ranchers use much public land, their investment in
land and buildings per animal unit is low. Also contributing to
this is the low feed crop requirement.

Pacific Coast Region

Economic subregion 116. — The Central Valley of California
makes up this economic subregion. It includes the lower foothills
of the Sierras and some of the coastal mountain ranges. Stock
ranches comprise a minor part of the agriculture here.

Class I stock ranches have a large average size and a very high
efficiency in the use of labor (see Table 22). Probably operations
of many of the small livestock units are affected by outside work
by the operators. This probably explains the employment of
considerably more hired labor on the smaller ranches than on the
small ranches in most of the other subregions.

For all except Class I ranches the investment in land and build-
ings per animal unit of livestock is much above the average of
that of the western subregion.

Table 22. — Livestock Farms in Subregion 116, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954

Item

Number of farms

Percent distribution

Livestock, average number
per farm:

Cattle

Sheep

Animal units

Animal units, total

Percent distribution

Man-equivalent per farm —
Animal units per man-equiv-
alent

Hired labor per farm

dollars..
Hired labor per animal unit

dollars- .

Investment in land and

buildings per animal unit

dollars. .

Value of land and buildings

per farm .dollars..

Value of livestock per farm
dollars-
Value of land and buildings
and livestock per farm

dollars..

Value of all farm products
sold per farm dollars.

Livestock and livestock
products sales as a percent
of value of all farm prod-
ucts sold -- —

Total

3,612
100.0

192
184
229

827. 281
100.0

1.7

133

2.723
11.89

40:
93. 296
26,722

119,018

33,638

92.1

Economic class of farm

590
16 3

818

916

1,001

690, 328

71.4

5.2
192

13, 472
13.46

333
333, 209
110,374

443,583

174, 966

92.6

II III IV V

589
16.3

168
127
194

114, 063
13.8

1.6

125

1,850
9.65

607
117,801
22,069

139, 870

16.112

86.6

600
16,6

81
45
90

64. 171
6,5

1,1

79

665

7.25

623
56, 112
10, 769

66, 871

6,864

90.6

61
13
63

35, 530
4.3

400
7.53

73:

39, 073
6,486

45,658

3,674

92,

913

25, 3

14
31

28.448
3,4

0,8

40

128
4,10

737
22,854
3,776

26,629

i,8o:

92,6

VI

252
7,0

18
4
19

4,741
0,6

84
4,48

661
12,555
2,203

14,758

79,6

18

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Economic subregion 117. — This subregion covers tlie middle
coastal parts of California. There are many other kinds of farm-
ing other than stock ranching here but there is a sizable number
of livestock ranches in this subregion (see Table 23). These
ranches are principally cattle ranches in the hill country of the
coastal mountain ranges.

Glass I and II ranches comprise most of the stock ranches of
this subregion and have about average labor efficiency. All except
Class I units have a high investment per animal unit in the land
and buildings. Many of the smaller units have cash-crop enter-
prises in addition to the livestock enterprise. The value of the
croplands is included in the average value of land and buildings.

Table 23. — Livestock Farms in Subregion 117, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954

Item

Number of farms

Percent distribution

Livestock, average number
per farm:

Cattle

Sheep

Auimal units

Animal units, total

Percent distribution

Man-equivalent per farm._-
Animal units per man equiv-
alent

Hired labor per farm

dollars

Hired labor per animal unit
dollars..

Investment in land and

buildings per animal unit

dollars..

Value of land and buildings,

per farm.. dollars..

Value of livestock per farm
dollars
Value of land and buildings
and livestock per farm

dollars-
Value of :il! farm products
sold per farm .... dollars.
Livestock and livestock
products sales as a percent
of value of all farm prod-
ucts sold

Total

2,201
101). 0

147
132
174

381. 99'
100.0

15

11.';

I,:
10.79

056
114, 196
20, 066

134, 262

18, 896

91.6

Economic class of farm

312
14.2

595
454

214,081
66.0

3.8

179

8.311
12. 11

652

378, 671

79. 463

458, 034

97, 261

92.3

II III IV

344

16.6

176
201
216

74, 064
19.4

1.6

131

1.842
8.56

69'
149,81'
24, 392

174, 209

16,812

439
19 9

94
98
114

50, 036
13.1

1.3

87

1,244
10.91

83'
96, 362
13. 103

108, 466

7.174

80.2

426
19,4

47
55
68

24, 573
0.4

1.0

60

379
6. ,66

933

54,127
6,853

60, 980

3,662

91.7

602
22.8

27
20
31

15, 391
4.0

OS

39

VI

178

8. I

19
12
22

3, 862
1.0

1.0

22

288 234
9. 38 10. 80

1,476

45, 739

3,687

49, 426

1,934

87.2

I, 615
33, 320

2,576

35, S96
740

96.9

Economic subregion 118. — This subregion consists of the north-
ern parts of the Pacific coast coastal ranges, from northern Cali-
fornia to the Washington-Canadian line. The average size of
livestock-ranch operations here is small, and the distribution of
livestock ranches among the economic classes does not follow the
pattern in other subregions. Most of the ranching units and
numbers of livestock are ranches in Classes III and IV. Only 12
percent of the ranches are in Economic Classes I and II (see
Table 24).

Except for the Class I ranches, the number of animal units of
livestock handled per man-year is rather lo'w. The investment
in land and buildings per animal unit for Class I ranches is near
the average, but for other classes is considerably higher than
the average for corresponding classes in -n-estern subregions.

Economic subregion 119. — This subregion consists of the Willam-
ette Valley in Oregon and the Puget Sound drainage in Wash-
ington, with a considerable part of the adjacent mountain country
included. The average size of stock ranches is small and the size
characteristics of the ranches is about the same as in subregion 118
(see Tables 24 and 25). Extremes of size are not found and do
not have the same pattern of the stock-ranch size characteristics
as the other subregions in the west. Most of the stock ranches
in this subregion are located within the smaller vallevs of the

Cascades and have decidedly limited opportunities for combina-
tion with other enterprises or for other means of expansion. It
also appears probable that the stock ranchers of both subregions
118 and 119 may have considerable opportunity for outside work
in forestry work, in recreational developments in adjacent areas,
and in nearby towns.

T.'^BLE 24. — Livestock Farms in Subregion 118, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954

Economic cla

ss of farm

Item

Total

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

Number of farms

2,778

82

261

402

640

945

448

Percent distribution

100.0

3.0

9.4

14,5

23.0

34.0

16.1

Livestock, average number

per farm:

Cattle

52

294

113

76

43

26

18

Sheep

109

746

334

137

86

44

12

74

443

180

102

59

35

20

Animal units, total

204,911

36, 361

46, 976

41, 193

38. 071

33, .309

9,002

Peri'ent distribution

100.0

17.7

22.9

20.1

18 6

16.3

4.4

Man-equivalent per farm

1.2

3.6

2.1

1.4

1.0

0.8

0.9

Animal units per man-equiv-

64

122

87

76

69

42

22

Hired labor per f.irm

dollars..

709

6. 226

2,346

927

412

186

76

Hired labor per animal unit

dollars. .

9.61

14.04

13.04

9.04

6.92

6.29

3.79

Investment in land and

buildings per animal imit

dollars..

580

441

481

6611

610

840

953

Value of land and buildings,

per farm dollars..

42, 893

195, 453

86, 509

57, 101

35, 985

29, 404

19, 065

Value of livestock per farm

dollars..

7,452

43, 391

18, 168

10, 365

5.964

3,698

2,074

Value of land and buildings

and livestock per farm

dollars.

50, 345

238,844

104, 667

67, 450

41. 949

33, 102

21, 139

Value of all farm products

sold per farm dollars. .

5,290

46, 149

14,011

7.332

3,817

1,653

674

Livestock and livestock

products sales as a percent

of value of all farm prod-

86.4

85.8

86.0

91.8

81.2

89.6

90 0

Table 25. — Livestock Farms in Subregion 119, by Economic
Class of Farm : 1954

Number of farms

Percent distribution

Livestock, average number
per farm:

Cattle

Sheep

Animal units

Animal units, total..

Percent distribution

Man-equivalent per farm. .
Animal units per man-equiv-
alent

Hired labor per farm

dollars..
Hired labor per animal unit

dollars. .

Investment in land and
buildings per animal unit
dollars..
Value of land and buildings,

per farm dollars..

Value of livestock per farm

diUarS-.
Value of land and buildings
and livestock per farm

dollars.

Value of all farm products
sold per farm dollars

Livestock and livestock
products sales as a percent
of value of all farm prod-
ucts sold

Total

2.401
100.0

33
32
39

94.688

loao

1.0
38

533
13.61

784

30, 573

4,439

35, 012

4,542

89 2

Economic class of farm

63
2.6

176
34
182

11.448
12.1

4.3

42

7,776
42.79

802
145, 883
31,712

177, 695

56, 0.35

94.2

II III IV

122
6.1

102
131
128

15,651
16.6

1.9

66

1,857
14.48

653
70, 802
13, 029

83, 831

14, 789

87.6

243
10.1

53

68
6'

16, 176
17. 1

13

60

6'
10 17

641
42, 937

6,988

49, 925
7,271

84.7

529
22.0

32
35
39

20,561
21.7

1.0

40

363
9.35

766
29,873
4. 045

33.918

3, 600

86.7

906
37. S

20
19
24

21, 496
22.7

32

192
8.07

981

23,544

2,609

26, 053

1,74

84.6

VI

638
22.4

15
11
17

9,367

0.8
19

60
3.43

16,653
1,781

18, 434

90.4

WESTERN STOCK RANCHES AND LIVESTOCK FARMS

19

SUMMARY AND PROBLEMS

Throughout most of the major stock-ranching regions of the
West, livestoclc operations are in the process of economic tran-
sition. The transition is continuing largely because the control
and private ownership of nearly all of the deeded land now in
ranches was secured through homestead settlement. Except in
the desert and semidesert subregions there remain many small
units that are trying to make the transition from cash-grain or
other dry-land farming over to stock farming or stock ranching.
This change is in process especially in those parts of the Great
Plains where the nonirrigated farming has not been successful.
In time, many of these small livestock operations may be acquired
by the adjacent larger-sized operations or may be gradually con-
solidated into efficiently-sized units comprising several small and
subeconomic units.

In the desert and semidesert country, development toward more
efficient economic units and fewer subeconomic units will appar-
ently have to take a somewhat different course. There it appears
probable that in time more of the smaller units may attain eco-
nomic status through governmental and administrative policies
designed to effect a wider distribution among the stock ranches
and stock farms of public-land grazing privileges.

Because of certain inherent characteristics, western stock
ranches have not changed as much in recent years as have farms
in most parts of the United States. Successful stock ranching
requires good biological adaptation to the local natural environ-
ment. Owing to the genetic and biological character of stock
ranching the operating program must be a long-range program.

Many of the national [programs for the benefit of American
agriculture have had little direct or indirect effect on stock-ranch
operations. Programs designed to assist crop farmers, dairy
farmers, or livestock feeders have not influenced greatly the
physical or economic operations of livestock ranchers. Tn fact,
the trend has been to higher wage rates and higher prices of
roughages and feed grains. Prices of livestock also have been
higher but droughts in recent years have forced early Uquidation
of sheep and cattle numbers and have forced ranchers to buy feed
to maintain their livestock operations.

Probably the greatest possibilities in an agricultural program for
livestock ranches lie in the realm of land-re.souree conservation.
Over great areas of the West there has been a shift from the soil-
conserving perennial grasses to the annuals and to the brush
plants with adverse effects both upon animal production and
upon soil conservation. Much better understanding and remedies,
both educational and in administrative programs, are essential for
continued growth and improved economic welfare of the ranching
industry.

RANCHING IN SELECTED STATE ECONOMIC AREAS
IN WESTERN STATES

In this section a somewhat more detailed analysis of livestock
ranching by States and by State economic areas is presented. It
should be emphasized that a fairly definite transition zone extends
from north to south through the Plains States and that only limited
areas of the kind of stock farming described as stock ranching may
be found to the east of this transition zone.

North Dakota. — From an analysis of the data given in Tables 1
through 5, one must conclude that North Dakota is primarily a
farming State. Stock ranching is secondary and less important

than stock farming. Most of the stock ranching of North Dakota
is now found in what is designated as State economic area 1 (see
Figure 10).

This is the stock ranching part of the State. It is the part of
North Dakota that lies west of the Missouri River and is known
locally as the "West River Country." It was not influenced by
the last Pleistocene glaciation. Consequently, it has considerable
roughlands country, and is not topographically as well suited to
crop agriculture as are the northern and eastern parts of the
State. There are some localized stock-ranching lands along the
"stream breaks" in northern and central North Dakota, but most
of that country in North Dakota is now devoted to crop agriculture
rather than to stock ranching.

Stock ranching in economic area 1 of North Dakota is based
almost entirely upon native rangeland use. This is especially
true for the Badlands country along the Little Missouri River.
Eastward of tlie.se rough and broken Badlands there is a gradual
change from stock ranching toward stock farming with a consider-
able combination of dry-land crop jiroduction and farm beef cattle
and farm flocks of sheep.

South Dakota. — South Dakota stock ranching, like that of North
Dakota, lies mostly west of the Missouri River, which flows from
north to south through the central part of the State. This part
of South Dakota is shown as area 1 on Figure 10. A notable fea-
ture is its stock ranching in the Black Hills country and in the
surrounding roughlands country. Stock ranching in and around
the Black Hills is a rather unique combination of the Great Plains
type of ranching and the mountain-valley and foothill type of
ranching in the intermouutain region. In general, around the
Black Hills area is very good ranch land.

Eastward from the Black Hills toward the Missouri River there
occurs a gradual change from stock ranching to a combination of
ranching and stock farming. In this transition the operating units
are smaller and produce more in cultivated crop feeds. Dry-land
corn is important in the crojj-feed production of these stock farms.
They also combine a considerable amount of dry-land cash-grain
grain production, especially wheat, with farm herds of beef cattle
and farm flocks of sheep.

Nebraska. — Nebraska reaches well into the Corn Belt and is not
generally thought of as a ranching State. It has, however, a very
large and important stock-ranching area. It is known as the
Nebraska sand-hills country and is approximately outlined by
State economic area 1 (Figure 10). It includes somewhat more
than the sandhills, but roughly defines them. The general area
of the sandhills proper lies between the Niobrara and Platte
Rivers, and westward almost to the town of Alliance, Nebr.

This large and very productive ranching area consisting of some
18 million acres has not and cannot be used for farming because of
the characteristics of the soil. INIost of the soil consists of wind-
formed sandy soils with a topograiihic as])ect similar to that of
sand dunes. When plowed or otherwise exposed to the wind it is
readily subjected to wind erosion. Stock ranching here is limited
almost entirely to cattle mainly because the type of native grasses
produced by the sand-dune soils are too coarse for sheep and are
otherwise not well suited for sheep grazing. The ranches tend to
be rather large and are operated on a year-round grazing basis, or
nearly so. Some of the ranches produce considerable native hay
from the natural meadows in the lower and more level lands along
the streams. Where the sand-hills country fringes out into the
"hard" lands there is found a rather quick transition to stock
farming, with much smaller operating units.

20

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Kansas. — With the exception of the Flint Hills of Kansas little
remains in the way of native land resources in that State. Most
of the State is now devoted to general farming with a predominance
of crop farming. The Flint Hills area (Figure 10, area 5) has wide
native bluestem pastures which are used largely for a rather
specialized type of livestock grazing. The stocl^ farms as a rule
have rather limited numbers of breeding livestock and use pastures
principally for the grazing of stocker animals, either on a lease
basis or through purchase by the operators of farms and ranches.
Many cattle come from the western ranches for summer and fall
pasturage and for later shipment to markets for slaughter or to
feedlots for further feeding and finishing. The ranching in this
economic area thus functions mainly as an intermediary between
the economy of the western stock ranches and the Corn Belt live-
stock fattening operations.

Oklahoma. — Oklahoma has two State economic areas in which
stock ranching is economically important. These are areas 1 and
3 (see Figure 10). Area 1 consists of the Oklahoma "Panhandle"
and area 3 consists of what is known as the Osage Hills district.
The stock ranching in area 1 is principally found along the breaks
of the North Canadian River. These ranches tend to be medium
to-small cattle-ranch units with some diversified crop farming.
The stock ranching in the Osage Hills country bears considerable
similarity to that in the Kansas Flint Hills country, except that
breeding-herd ranching operations are more numerous in the
Oisage Hills. In both the Osage Hills and the Flint Hill country
the ranching resources consist of highly productive native bluestem
pastures.

Texas. — Texas stock ranching occurs mainly in the southern
plains. This is southward of the "Break of the plains" which
marks the southern limit of the Ogalalla limestone caprock of the
central high plains. This transition is marked roughly by the
line between economic area 4 and areas 5 and 6 to the south. For
the southern plains ranching in Texas the east- west transition
zone from farming to stock ranching is indicated by subregion 96
which is the subregion consisting of the "Cross Timbers" and the
Grand Prairie districts of central Texas.

In the southern plains ranching of Texas the area designated 6a
is known as the Rolling Plains section of Texas. Although there is
a considerable mixture of crop farming in some places here it con-
sists mainly of rather good grassland and rangeland resource,
with cattle predominating over sheep ranching. The ranches are
likely to be of medium size. West of area 6a lies area 5 which
consists principally of the Staked Plains district of Texas. Area 5
is now devoted principally to crop farming; only a small amount of
stock ranching remains.

Southward lies the Edwards Plateau district of Texas, desig-
nated as State economic areas lb and 2 (see Figure 10). This
large and important ranching area is devoted mainly to sheep,
but there is a considerable combination of sheep and cattle enter-
prises and sometimes mohair goat enterprises on the same ranch.
Rangeland resources consist of a mixture of brush, grass, and
weeds. This characteristic of grazing lands favors a ranch com-
bination of cattle and sheep. The ranches in these areas tend to
be medium to small and, though livestock is ranged the year
round, ranchers grow a considerable quantity of feed crops, such as
grain sorghums, for use as a supplement to the range forage in
the winter.

Southward from the Edwards Plateau country of Texas lies a
wide and important ranching area known as the Rio Grande
Plain, economic areas 3 and 11 (see Figure 10). These two State

economic areas coincide approximately with economic subregion
98. In it are some very large ranches such as the King Ranch.
The grassland is relatively productive but there the control of the
brush growth presents a problem especially the mesquite brush
which reproduces and grows vigorously in this part of Texas.
Where it is possible to control the mesquite adequately and
economically the grazing capacity of the rangelands is relatively
high as tlie rainfall here is around 25 inches annuallj*.

West of the Edwards Plateau of Texas lies area la. This is the
part of Texas west of the Pecos River known as the trans-Pecos
country. This area is part of the southern plains desert grass-
lands which extend also across a considerable part of southern
New Mexico. The rangeland in area la is better suited to cattle
than to sheep. The rangeland resource varies from some ex-
tremely arid and low-capacity lands, as in the southern or Big
Bend part, to some very good grasslands as in the Davis Mountain
section of the western part of the area. The ranches tend to be
medium to large in size. Ranch operators graze the livestock
year round, with only a minimum quantity of supplemental
feeding.

New Mexico. — The influence of the Spanish-American settlers
is readily noted in the ranching operations in most of New Mexico.
The rather small average acreage per farm, for all farms, reflects
the large number of small farms on the irrigation developments
along the Rio Grande River. However, the average size of stock
ranch in New Mexico is rather large, and considerably above the
average for the Western States (see Table 1). Stock rancliing is
predominant in the State as indicated by data in Tables 1 and 2.

Mucli of the difference between the average acreage of livestock
farms and that for all farms is accounted for by the dry-land farm-
ing development in the high plains of eastern and northeastern
New Mexico. Table 3 shows that the average size of stock-
ranching enterprise in New Mexico is rather large and considerably
above the average for the Western States.

There are four State economic areas in New Mexico. Area la
coincides approximately with the Colorado Plateau country of the
northwestern part of the State. Much of this is in the Navajo
Indian Reservation, but to the east of the reservation and within
area la there is a type of stock ranching that is characteristic of
ranching in the Colorado Plateau. Most of these ranch opera-
tions are large with year-round grazing on rangelands that are
typically fenced into large range pastures. Area lb of New
^Mexico comprises the upper Rio Grande Valley and includes the
southern parts of the southern Rocky Mountain region. The
ranches are typically mountain-valley operating units with a com-
bination of valley land and foothill and mountainous upland
grazing lands. With the prevalence of the Spanish-American
settlements here the average size of the stock ranch is rather small.

State economic area 2 coincides roughly with the high central
plains part of northeastern New Mexico. It has been locally
developed into dry-land farms but in it are several localities that
have always remained in stock -ranch units. Most of these ranches
are medium-to-large size. Economic area 3 comprises the desert
grassland plains of New Mexico and the rangeland and ranching
operations are substantially the same as those in the trans-Pecos
part of western Texas. The ranches in area 3 are medium to
large, and as they are subject to considerable climatic risk from
drought, they have to operate on a rather speculative basis of
buying and selling considerable numbers of cattle, as dictated
bv the trends of climate and weather.

WESTERN STOCK RANCHES AND LIVESTOCK FARMS

21

Colorado. — Tables 1 and 2 indicate tliat stock ranching is
rclativel}' important in the agricultural economy and land use of
Colorado. In terms of acreage per ranch, stock ranches in Colo-
rado compare favorably with the average for the West.

Economic area 1 of Colorado includes the mountain valley
country of northwestern Colorado and some of the ])lateaii
country of southwestern Colorado. It also includes the stock
ranching in the high country along the Yampa River drainage
in northwestern Colorado. This is principally an area of high-
mountain-valley stock ranching as typified by that of the North
Park, Middle Park, and South Park ranching country along the
eastern part of this area. Operators in these high mountain
valleys have long winter-feeding periods and high operating costs
which they must offset by high production from their usually good
and productive foothill and upland summer rangelands. Both
cattle and sheep ranches prevail but cattle ranches predominate
in the high mountain valleys.

Area 2a in southwestern Colorado is a part of the Colorado
Plateau natural region. In it is a combination of high plateaus
and lower semidesert lands interspersed along the plateaus.
The stock ranching combines the use of the lower semidesert
country for winter grazing and the plateaus for summer grazing.

Economic area 2b comprises the upper Rio Grande drainage
including what is locally known as the San Louis Valley district
of Colorado. This is mountain-valley ranching but has valley
lands at somewhat lower elevations than those of area 1 and with
somewhat less requirements in winter feeding for most of the
ranches. There is considerable development of irrigated farming
in some parts of this valley. The stock ranches tend to be rather
large.

Economic area 3 in Colorado is a part of the central plains
natural region. Some acreage is devoted to dry-land crop farming.
The livestock enterprises here are likely to be stock farms rather
than stock ranches. They are rather small and raise considerable
amounts of cultivated feed crops such as grain sorghums. They
sometimes combine some cash-crop production, especially dry-
land wheat with the livestock operations. They have only a
limited extent of native grassland pastures.

Economic area 4 extends eastward from the Rocky Mountain
front to the Colorado-Kansas State line. Livestock ranching
operations are limited and are confined mainly to the locality
of the sand hills and to the rough and broken lands along the
stream drainages. The livestock enterprises are generally small
and are stock farms rather than stock ranches.

Economic area 5 coincides a])i>roximatel_v with the part of
southeastern Colorado that lies within the high plains part of
the central plains region. This is approximately the drainage
area of the Arkansas River extending eastward across south-
eastern Colorado from the Rocky Mountain front range. Here
again stock ranching is confined principally to those localities
where the land is not arable because of the characteristics of
the topographv, soils, and climate. An example is found in the
stock-ranching locations along the Purgatoire River of south-
eastern Colorado.

Wyoming. — Wyoming has predominantly a ranching economy
(see Tables 1 and 2). Wyoming has a large number of stock
ranches and they average rather large, both as to acreage and
size of enterprise. Data in Table 2 show that stock ranches pre-
dominate in the State's total farming acreage.

The part of Wyoming designated as State economic area 1 is
relatively large; in it there are noteworthy natural and economic
differences. The .stock ranching can best be described with
reference to operators in certain parts and localities of the area.

The eastern third of this area is in the drainage of the North
Platte River which flows northward out of Colorado and turns
eastward approximately at the location of Casper. This is pro-
ductive stock-ranching country in which the livestock ranches
are likely to be a combination of Great Plains and of mountain-
valley ranching. This is because the northern parts of the southern
Rocky Mountains and the western parts of the northern Great
Plains merge in this area. 'Westward from the Platte River
drainage area is the relatively arid "Red Desert" part of Wyoming.
The "Red Desert" includes several million acres in southwestern
Wyoming. The lands in this area are used primarily for winter
grazing of sheep. Range bands of sheep are trailed into the area
from ranching locations around the margin of the "Red Desert."
The part of area 1 extending northward toward Yellowstone Park
includes much of the middle Rocky Mountains physiographic
province. Stock ranching here is quite typical of the mountain-
valley ranching in the northern Rocky Mountains. The stock-
ranching operations are usually rather large.

Area 2a includes the intermountain basin lying between the
Big Horn Mountain Range on the east and the Shoshone Mo\mtain
Range on the west. It includes these mountain ranges, the Big
Horn Basin lands, the lands of the Shoshone Indian Reservation,
and certain semidesert lands extending southward from the Sho-
shone Reservation. There is within the Big Horn Basin a large
acreage of extremely arid land which is almost entirely public
domain. This vast public domain and the national forest border-
ing the Big Horn Basin cause the use of public lands to be extremely
important and almost dominant in the make-up and organization
of the stock ranching for the entire area. Typically, the stock
rancher owns some irrigated meadowland along the stream bot-
toms and may also ow-n some adjacent foothill grassland. The
combination of owned land and pubhc grazing land provides
winter grazing on the low and arid country of the pubhc domain
lands and summer grazing permits on the rangeland parts of the
national forest. Ranching in this area is about equally divided
between cattle and sheep. The ranches are medium to large in
size.

Area 2b in Wyoming constitutes tne northern plains country of
eastern Wyoming. It consists primarily of rolling roughlands,
plains, and grasslands with relatively high-producing rangeland and
has a topography that gives natural shelter to livestock. It has
a favorable combination of productive land resources and low-
cost ranching operations. Cattle ranching is dominant and only
a limited quantity of winter feed is required.

Montana. — Approximately one-third of aU Montana farms are
classed as stock farms (see Table 1). The majority of these oper-
ations are really stock ranches. The average size of all Montana
farms in terms of acreage is large relative to most of the Western
States. This is because stock ranches and wheat farms which are
of some importance in Montana both average large. The impor-
tance of stock farms in the total agricultural land use of the State
is reflected in Table 2. Approximately 24 mUUon acres or nearly
two-fifths of all land in farms in Montana are used for types of
farms other than the livestock farms.

22

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

Land in Montana designated as area la is part of the northern
Rocky Mountain region. The ranching here is definitely of the
mountain-valley type of stock ranching. The mountain \iplands
are heavily forested v.hich limits the use of the uplands for live-
stock grazing. Typically, the stock ranchers operate largely
upon their own deeded lands consisting of lands in the valley and
on adjacent foothills.

Area lb, which includes all of southwestern Montana from the
Rocky Mountain front range westward to the Continental Divide,
is an area of mountain-valley ranching, with some rather extensive
areas of foothill grasslands suitable for livestock ranching. Thus,
this area has some localities of the mountain-valley ranching
typical of the northern Rocky Mountains, and some localities of
what may be termed lower-mountain and foothill ranching.
Ranches in this area differ from the mountain-valley ranches in
that they are in lower elevations and have a shorter period of
winter snow covering. These ranchers have to raise considerable
hay for winter feeding and therefore have rather high-cost opera-
tions. As a rule the ranches are productive with a high stability
of range production and of the crop-feed production. The
ranchers tend to operate with straight breeding herds and to sell
young livestock as feeder animals.

Montana area 2a may be described as consisting of low-
mountain and foothill ranching. It extends from the Rocky
Mountain front eastward toward the northern plains — -the eastern
border of this area. It has a considerable develoDment of both
dry-land and irrigation farming. The stock ranchmg is fo\ind
principally along the streams that run eastward toward the
Missouri River and around the lesser mountain ranges at some
distance eastward and detached from the Rocky Mountain
system. More specifically the ranches are located along the Marias
and Teton Rivers and along the Sun River west of Great Falls,
Mont. They also are located around the local mountainous
roughlands as the Judith Mountains, the Little Belt Mountains,
and the Highwood Mountains. This is an area of very pro-
ductive stock ranching, with the ranches fairly well balanced in
their seasonal capacities. The ranches are generally medium to
large in size.

Area 2b includes the northern Great Plains parts of northern
and eastern Montana. It has been extensively developed for
dry-land agriculture. The stock ranches are confined mail ly to
the roughlands and to the lands of inferior soils and broken
topography along the streams. The characteristics and size of
ranching operations vary considerably between locahties. Some
localities of low mountainous lands such as the Bear Paw Moun-
tains are entirely in fairly large stock-ranching operations. There
also are roughlands along the break of the Missouri River with
rather large acreages of public domain. The stock-ranching
operations along the break of the Missouri River generally average
medium to large in size. The wheat-farming parts of area 2b
are interspersed with many rather small stock-ranchmg and
stock-farming operations.

Area 3a is a northward extension into Montana of the Big
Horn Basin country of Wyoming. It has, like the Wyoming Big
Horn Basin, a combination of arid and semidesert valley lands
and high and rugged mountainous lands. In between the higher
uplands and the low and arid valley lands there are locally some
very productive foothill lands. This area contains the rather
large Crow Indian Reservation which has large acreages of
excellent grazing lands used for the grazing of the livestock of both
Indians and others. The latter are permitted to graze their
herds under lease. Tj'pically the livestock ranches are medium
to large in size.

Area 3b in Montana coincides approximately with the middle
and lower valley of the Yellowstone River. It has dissimilarities
in ranching resources and type-of-ranching operations. The
western part consists mainlj' of foothill rancliing with very stable
and productive ranching. The central part consists of some quite
arid and very broken rangelands that are relativelj' low in pro-
ductivity. The ranching in this part of the area tends to be specu-
lative in character and the rancliing units usually are rather
large. The eastern part, which includes the drainages of the
Powder River, the Tongue River, and the Little Missouri River,
has ranching that is typical of the northern Great Plains. Medium-
to-large ranches that operate year-round on large fenced pastures
of plains grasslands are common. Crop agriculture has not been
developed because of the generally rough topography. However,
there are numbers of rather small livestock farms and ranches in
this part of the area, located along the bottomlands of the Yellow-
stone River and the Powder River.

Idaho. — Stock ranch numbers are relatively few in Idaho's total
number of farms (Table 1) . Because of the predominance of irri-
gated farms in Idaho, the average size of all farms is small. These
irrigated farms are in the extensive irrigated districts of the Snake
River Plains of eastern Idaho, and extending across southern
Idaho.

The average size of livestock farms (see Table 1) indicates that
stock farms in Idaho are rather small in terms of acreage.
This figure, however, is rather misleading because a comparatively
small part of the total land acreage in Idaho is in farms. Large
acreages are in national forest and public domain lands in Idaho.
Probably a majority of the stock ranches in this State have grazing
permits and leases on some one of the several kinds of public lands.
These public lands used by the stock farms are not counted as land
in farms. Table 3 shows that the average size of stock-ranching
enterprise in Idaho is somewhat below average for the Western
States as a group.

Economic area 1 in Idaho covers nearly all of the northern
Rocky Mountains part of the State. Within it the stock ranches
are of the mountain-valley type and have for their land resources
the valley bottomlands, the foothill grasslands, and grazing per-
mits on the national forests for the summer. The cattle ranches
tend to be medium to small. However, there are a considerable
number of rather large sheep-ranching operations. The sheep
ranchers graze their sheep on the public domain lands of the
Snake River Plains during the spring and fall months and as a
rule buy hay from the irrigated farms for wintering their range
sheep.

Economic area 2 in Idaho is rather small and lies along the
western side of the Panhandle of the State. It is an eastward
extension into Idaho of the Palouse prairies of southeastern Wash-
ington. It is a high producing wheat and wheat-pea farming area.

Area 3a comprises the southwestern part of the Snake River
Valley and it includes the Owyhee hills district and the lower parts
of the Snake River Plains. The stock ranchers here use a large
acreage of public lands, most of which is public domain. The
ranches are mostly medium to small in size.

The area designated as 3b consists of the middle plains of the
Snake River. Irrigation developments are very important. The
livestock enterprises may be characterized as stock farms rather
than stock ranches. This is chiefly because farmers on the irri-
gated land make extensive use of adjacent grazing lands for their
beef cattle and farm flocks of sheep.

Area 4, covering southeastern and eastern Idaho consists of the
upper Snake River Plains and of its mountainous and foothill

WESTERN STOCK RANCHES AND LIVESTOCK FARMS

23

lands along the eastern border of the State. These mountainous
lands are part of the middle Rocky Mountain system. Except
for the extensive irrigated farms along the Snake River and the
adjacent "bench" and foothill wheat farms this is essentially a
stock-ranching area. The stock ranching is characteristically
mountain-valley ranching, as the upper Snake River Valley is at a
rather high elevation, and a good dealof winter feeding of livestock is
required. The lower Snake River Plains, are principally range-
lands because they are too arid for nonirrigated agriculture. Much
of the Snake River Plains country of southern Idaho lies within
the 8- to 10-inch isohyetal of average annual precipitation.

Utah. — Although stock farms are important in Utah's total
agriculture, they form a rather small percentage of the total num-
ber of farms. Stock farms account for approximately two-thirds
of all of the land in farms (see Table 2). In addition, the stock
ranches in the State use large acreages of public land for grazing.
This public land is not counted in the Census as land in farms.
In terms of size of enterprise Utah stock farms are considerably
below the average of the Western States (see Table 3).

Area I in Utah consists of the northern, northeastern, and
central parts of the State. This area is generally mountainous.
The northern part contains the Wasatch Mountain Range and
other associated mountain ranges that form the southern part of
the middle Rocky Mountains. Most of the mountain-valley
stock ranging in Utah is found in this area. The stock ranches in
the southern part make good use of the adjacent desert land, mostly
public-domain grazing lands, that lie both to the west and to the
east of the principal mountain ranges that extend north and south
through central Utah. The stock ranches in the northern part of
this area are typical of the mountain-valley ranching in that they
make rather extensive use of irrigated hay meadows for the produc-
tion of winter feed.

Economic area 2 is principally the intensively developed irri-
gated farming country which lies just west of the Wasatch Moun-
tain Range. There is comparatively little stock ranching here.

The large area designated as economic area 3 consists mainly
of the desert lands lying to the east and to the west of the moun-
tainous "spine" that runs from north to south through central
Utah. Within this area there is a considerable amount of the
desert and semidesert tj'pe of sheep and cattle ranching. Locally
this area is known to the ranch people as consisting of the "west
desert" and the "east desert." This differentiation is rather signifi-
cant as the lands in the west desert country have very little in
ranch settlement and are used largely as sheep winter ranges
through migration of range bands of sheeji from area 1. These
west desert lands are principally public domain. The Utah lands
known as the east desert have within them many small settlements
along the valleys. The livestock from these valleys are ranged on
the public domain lands of the east desert country.

Arizona. — Arizona has a limited number of stock farms with a
rather large average size (see Table 1). Next to the States of
California and Nevada, the stock ranches in this State have the
largest size of enterprise of any of the Western States (see Table
3). Arizona has comparatively little dry-land agriculture and
Census data indicate that less than half of the total land in all
farms is in livestock farms. This apparent discrepancy probably is
accounted for by the fact that part or all of the extensive acreage
of lands in the Indian reservations of Arizona have been included
in the Census count for land in farms.

Approximately the northern half of Arizona has been designated
as State economic area 1. It approximates the part of the State

that lies above the Mogollon Rim, the escarpment of the Colorado
plateau province, whicli runs from east to west across Arizona
through the central liart of the State. Above this rim to the north
the lands of the Colorado Plateaus have a type of ranching that is
comparable with that of area la in northwestern New Mexico.
This plateau country is fairly high in elevation, with ranches
mainly at an elevation of 5,500 to 7,000 feet. At this elevation the
precipitation averages about 12 to 14 inches annually and supports
a fairly good range forage-plant cover. The ranching operations
in this area average rather large in size and in addition in some
places the ranches use considerable public land for grazing either
on the national forests for summer range or on the public domain
of the lower country for winter grazing. The northeastern part
of this area includes the rather large Navajo Indian Reservation
which also extends into northwestern New Mexico.

Economic area 2a and the intermediate area designated with
the large letter A (see Figure 10) consists principally of low desert
country most of which is very arid. Stock ranchers have made a
careful selection of the better ranch lands and there operate their
year-round herds. From these more favorable locations they make
use of the desert lands seasonally, as growth of the winter annuals
permit. Economic area 2b consists of the high rolling hill country
of southern and southeastern Arizona and eastward into south-
western New Mexico. In this area of good semidesert grassland
is some of the most stable and most productive of the Arizona
ranching. Most of the operations are medium-to-large cattle
ranches operating principally on the basis of a breeding herd, and
selling feeder calves in the fall of the year.

Nevada. — Nevada has relatively few farms and, consequently,
comprises only 1 economic area (see Figure 10). Stock ranches,
however, are very important in the State's economy (see Tables 1
and 2). Land in livestock farms constitutes the preponderance
of all land in farms. The stock ranches tend to be large (see
Table 3) and almost without exception their operators make
extensive use of large acreages of the public lands, both in the
national forests and on the public domain. Next to California,
this State has the second largest average size of stock-ranching
enterprises of all of the 17 W'estern States.

Stock ranches in the Humboldt River Valley of northern Nevada
are essentially mountain-valley operations and are comparable
with those in western Utah. Both have access to large acreages
of adjacent public domain and of the national forests. The
ranches in the Humboldt River Valley are rather stable and pro-
ductive and are rather large on the average. The lands south-
ward from the Humboldt River Valley into central and southern
parts of Nevada become more and more arid; ranching becomes
marginal and encounters high risks from fluctuations in climate.
In central Nevada, however, there are certain semidesert mountain
locations that have fairly stable and fairly productive ranches.
There are local areas along the western border of the State that
adequately support livestock ranching. The ranches are chiefly
in the river valley trending eastward from the Sierra Mountain
Range of California into Nevada. The valleys of the Truckee
River, the Walker River, and the Carson River are some of the
more important localities. The rivers flow eastward into the
desert sinks and the interior lakes of the Great Basin.

California. — Stock ranching in California is overshadowed by
the immense farming developments in the irrigated sections of
Central Valley (see Table 1). Stock farms, however, are decidedly
important in terms of the proportion of total land in farms, and

24

FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION

the stock farms in California are among the largest in the West
(see Tables 2 and 3).

Economic areas 1, 2, and 3 of California consist essentially of
the coastal mountain ranges of the western side of that State (see
Figure 10). Within these mountain ranges are numerous small
valleys, some of which support many stock farms and ranches.
The land consists of low mountain and foothill grasslands and the
ranches in these local areas as a rule average medium to small.
As this part of the State has a winter-rainfall type of climate with
warm and almost rainless summers the green-feed season for these
ranches is through the winter months, November to June.
Ranchers in these localities consequently buy considerable num-
bers of stocker animals to use the lush growth of the grasses through
the winter. They then sell all livestock except the breeding herd
which is maintained on the dry-range feed through the summer
with supplemental feeding.

Economic areas 4, 5, and 6 are in the large Central Valley of
California. Central Valley is very extensive, running nearly 400
miles from north to south. It is bounded on the east by the
Sierra Mountains and on the west by the coastal mountain ranges.
Livestock ranching is limited in Central Valley but around the
fringes there is a type of stock ranching that is comparable with
that found on the coastal mountain ranges.

Economic areas 7 and 8 have only limited stock ranching and
are not discussed in detail here. The area designated "H" and
consisting of San Bernardino County, has considerable stock
ranching, mostly of the desert type and comprising mainly a few
rather large ranching operations.

Economic area 9 is comprised of a large and noteworthy stock-
ranching area east of the Sierra Mountains in northern California.
The ranching in this area is fairly comparable with that m the
northern part of Nevada. The bases of the operations are on
deeded lands along the valley streams from which extensive
acreages of public lands are grazed. Stock ranches in area 9, like
those in northern Nevada, are relatively large.

Oregon. — In the Willamette Valley along the coastal reaches of
Oregon there are intensive developments of small farms. As a
result, stock ranching in Oregon assumes a secondary role. But
there are important ranching areas in the State (Table 2). Live-
stock farms account for slightly more than half of the total acres
in all farms. The average size of the stock farms in the State is
somewhat below that for the Western States as a group (see
Table 3).

Most of the stock ranches in Oregon are in area 4 (see Figure 10) .
The northeastern part of this area is comprised of the Blue

Mountain section in Oregon and is an important and productive
livestock ranching area. Stock ranching is comparable in many
respects to the type and organization of that in the northern
Rocky Mountain region. The major part of economic area 4
includes central and southeastern Oregon, an area of semidesert
ranching. This is not low and extremely arid desert country,
but is comprised of high desert lands. Within this area are
several sizable mountain ranges. Cattle ranches predominate
here located along the streams and on the foothills around the
mountains. Between the mountains are plateaus of sagebrush
grasslands mostly in public domain.

State economic area 3 lies in the drainages of the Deschutes,
John Day, and Umadlla Rivers. It has a combination of moun-
tain-valley ranching with adjacent locaUties of desert and semi-
desert sagebrush lands. It is essentially a stock-ranching area and
contains some very good ranching resources. The ranching is
comparable with that of the northern Rocky Mountains.

Washington. — Washington does not have very many livestock
farms, and their average size of ranch is relatively small (see
Table 1). The livestock farms are not as important in total land
use as is generally the case with the others of the Western States
(see Table 2). Livestock enterprises in Washington generally
average considerably smaller than is typical of those in the other
Western States (see Table 3).

Most of the stock ranches in Washington are in areas 5a, 5b,
and 7a. Area 5a is known as the Okanogan Highlands area;
area 6 is the Yakima River drainage area; and area 7a is known as
the Big Bend area. Except for these three areas, most of the State
is in either forest land or valley land where crop farming has been
developed. Area 5a and area 6 have a type of stock ranching
rather similar to that in the mountain-valley areas in the northern
Rocky Mountain region.

The stock ranching in area 7a has been developed mostly on
the sagebrush grasslands of the Columbia Plateau, and is com-
parable in type with that in southeastern Oregon and northern
Nevada. There are some sheep ranching operations in this area
that, because of the lack of mountain summer rangelands, ship
their range bands by rail as far as northwestern Montana for
summer grazing, and then in the fall market the lambs and ship
the breeding stock back to the base lands in area 7a.

Area 5a in Washington consists largely of forest land and,
therefore, has a limited amount of stock ranching. Area 7b is
comprised principally of the Palouse Prairie. This is productive
wheat and wheat-pea farming country, but it once had many
relatively profitable ranches.

U. S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1957