Important rangeland characteristics are the balance between grassland and forest range, plant composition, range condition, and cattle distribution. On timbered rangeland where most forage comes from intermingled grassland openings, management should be keyed to the response to grazing of bunchgrass species in the openings. Where rangelands are predominantly forested, maintenance of understory forage species should have first consideration.

Species composition is important in selecting a proper grazing system. For example, ranges capable of supplying 25 pounds per acre or more of usable elk sedge are best suited for deferred-rotation grazing at a conservative stocking level. Where pinegrass predominates, light season-long grazing with occasional rest periods might be more practical. In any case, periods of rest or deferment should be keyed to providing maximum protection for the most valuable species, based on particular growth requirements.

Range condition has a good deal to do with anticipated response to methods of grazing. Rangeland in good condition may not improve under light stocking, so the objective must be maintenance with optimum animal production. On ranges in poor condition, light stocking under deferred rotation would restore range and watershed values and maintain good animal production; heavy stocking would be uneconomical. Closure of these mountain ranges to cattle is unnecessary as a restorative measure, if proper distribution is achieved.

Normal distribution problems were minimized in this experiment. For example, cattle seldom trailed more than one-half mile to water. To reduce the effect of poor distribution on extensive timbered range, practices to obtain more uniform forage use should be improved or the rate of stocking reduced to match the degree of development.

The overall objectives of the range operation also influence the method of grazing selected. Assuming long-term heavy stocking to be uneconomical, season-long moderate stocking may provide the best short-term return from cattle, forage, and capital investment; but it contributes no long-term advantage in forage improvement in the forest type. If intensive timber culture, such as thinning, is an option on forested summer range, valuable species like elk sedge would be encouraged. This in turn could enable greater use of the grassland forage without injury, and the total available forage resource would be balanced for increased production.

As an economic reality, the rancher's primary concern in range resource management is to maintain the forage supply and to convert it to profit, as cheaply as possible, through cattle sales. Associated range resources may be of no direct benefit to the rancher; therefore, he must charge all costs against beef production.

On multiple use public lands, however, other benefits are derived from stocking the range below the level for maximum cattle production. These assets can absorb land costs and offset small losses in beef production per acre. Conservative stocking is accompanied by better

individual animal performance, so that total gain is not lost in direct proportion to loss in stocking.

In this study, for example, light stocking reduced calf gain per acre by 18 percent over moderate, but this was partly offset by an 8-percent greater gain per head. Although light stocking provided for 25-percent fewer cattle than did moderate stocking, it furnished about 15-percent more days use by big game. In this study, light stocking provided much better forage conditions in the forest than did moderate stocking.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A study of forage production and cattle gains on ponderosa pine range in the Blue Mountains of the Pacific Northwest produced valuable information on the effects of grazing. In the course of the study, rates of stocking were 40, 30, and 20 usable acres per cow-calf unit, over a 4-month, summer grazing season. Systems of management were a two-unit, deferred rotation method, and the traditional seasonlong grazing.

The acreage of intermingled grassland openings was half that of the usable forest range, but it supplied nearly an equal amount of forage. About 10 percent of the total herbage was used as forage. Grasses and grasslike plants made up nearly half of the total production of either type, but they constituted about 90 percent of the cattle diet.

Over the the decade of study, weather, grazing patterns, and forest canopy closure caused a general decrease in forest understory herbage and an increase in that of the grasslands.

Rates of stocking produced different degrees of utilization for most of the principal species, but grazing systems did not. However, late-season deferred-rotation grazing consistently produced higher use than did early-season grazing.

In the grasslands, light stocking usually accounted for the greatest forage improvement and heavy stocking the poorest. Changes in grasses were varied and depended on species. Unpalatable forbs decreased under light grazing and increased under heavy grazing, while palatable secondary forbs did the opposite. Protection from cattle grazing barely maintained grasses, palatable forbs increased more, and unpalatable ones decreased more than under any methods of cattle use.

Systems of grazing caused no major changes in grassland herbage production; but deferred rotation grazing was superior to seasonlong grazing for most aspects of watershed cover improvement.

In the forest, response to grazing treatment was more pronounced than in the grassland, particularly in the case of important forage groups and certain species. Grasses and grasslike plants were directly related to stocking; differences among levels of stocking were highly significant. Also, deferredrotation ranges lost significantly less. of this herbage than season-long ranges.

Elk sedge, the single most important forage, lost considerably less herbage under light than under moderate or heavy stocking, and production was significantly better under deferred rotation than under season-long grazing. Forbs as a group were not affected by levels or systems of grazing, but different species, according to degree of palatability, showed different responses. Shrub production changes were not pronounced except in game-only areas where losses were incurred.

Methods of cattle grazing caused no differences in soil compaction or erosion siltation under the study conditions.

Cattle gains diminished over the term of the study, largely because high quality forage was lost in the forest. Light stocking produced the largest gains per head and heavy stocking invariably produced the poorest. Real differences in gain. were caused by levels of stocking for both cows and calves. During the final years of the study, rate of gain for both cows and calves declined rapidly under heavy stocking. This was largely due to rapid depletion of nutritious grasses and grasslike plants in the forest.

Cattle gains per acre varied by grazing method and by class of animal. Gain per acre for suckling calves was greatest under heavy stocking and least under light stocking. Cow gain per acre diminished sharply between moderate and heavy stocking. Although gains averaged slightly more under season-long grazing than under deferred-rotation grazing, the difference was not significant. Differences in gain per acre between

systems were smallest at moderate stocking levels for both cows and calves.

Deer and elk accounted for about one-fourth of the forage consumed but did not use much forage important to important to cattle. Conversely, cattle used large amounts of forage important to deer and elk. As the rate of cattle stocking increased, total use by deer and elk decreased. Increased cattle grazing also caused big game to spend more time in the grassland openings and less time in their preferred forest habitat.

Cattle stocking had no influence on tree reproduction or growth over the course of the study. However, growth and canopy closure in the pole- and mature-size classes of all tree species depressed understory production, magnifying the effects of grazing on forage in the forest. To conclude:

(1) Heavy stocking lowered grazing capacity, depleted ground cover, reduced cattle gains, and limited game use.

(2) Moderate stocking maintained grazing capacity, provided acceptable cattle gains, and slightly lowered the amount of high quality forage.

(3) Light stocking provided a substantial increase in capacity and the best cattle gains per head but not per acre; it permitted the highest game density under dual

use.

(4) Protection from cattle use slightly improved the composition of high quality forage species, produced little change in potential grazing capacity, grazing capacity, furnished no marketable product, but provided the greatest game use.

It is not recommended that deferred rotation invariably replace properly stocked season-long grazing on mountain summer range if good livestock distribution can be accomplished. However, deferred rotation is superior for improving forage on forested range and for restoring mountain watersheds while maintaining cattle production.

As a long-term management practice, deferred rotation grazing at a conservative rate of about 9.0 usable acres per AUM should provide optimum returns from multiple use rangeland with conditions similar to those of the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range.

LITERATURE CITED

Aldous, A. E.

1935. Management of Kansas permanent pastures. Kan. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 272, 44 p., illus.

Bentley, J. R., and M. W. Talbot.

1951. Efficient use of annual plants on cattle ranges in the California foothills. U.S. Dep. Agric. Circ. 870, 52 p., illus. Clark, S. E., E. W. Tisdale, and N. A. Skoglund.

1943. The effects of climate and grazing practices on short-grass prairie vegetation. Can. Dep. Agric. Publ. 747, Tech. Bull. 46, 53 p., illus.

Daubenmire, R. F., and W. E. Colwell. 1942. Sorne edaphic changes due to overgrazing in the Agropyron-Poa prairie of southeastern Washington. Ecology 23:32-40.

Driscoll, Richard S.

1955. A guide to the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Pac. Northwest For. & Range Exp. Stn., 21 p., illus. Portland, Oreg. Driscoll, Richard S.

1958. A loop method for measuring groundcover characteristics on permanent plots. J. Range Manage. 11:94, illus.

1965. Changing conditions in Northwest forests and their relation to range use. Soc. Am. For. Proc. 1964:67-68.

Garrison, George A. 1966. A preliminary study of response of plant reserves to systems and intensities of grazing on mountain rangeland in northwest U.S.A. 10th Int. Grassl. Congr. Proc. Helsinki, Finland 10:937940.

Hanson, Herbert C., L. Dudley Love, and M. S. Morris.

1931. Effects of different systems of grazing by cattle upon a western wheat grass type of range near Fort Collins, Colorado. Colo. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 377, 82 p., illus.

Harris, Robert W.

1951. Use of aerial photographs and sub-sampling in range inventories. J. Range Manage. 4:270-278, illus. Harris, Robert W.

1954. Fluctuations in forage utilization on ponderosa pine ranges in eastern Oregon. J. Range Manage. 7:250-255, illus.

Harris, Robert W., and Richard S. Driscoll. 1954. Gains made by cattle on summer range. Oreg. Cattleman 3:5, 24. Hedrick, D. W., J. A. Young, J. A. B.

McArthur, and R. F. Keniston. 1968. Effects of forest and grazing practices on mixed coniferous forests of northeastern Oregon. Oreg. Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 103, 24 p., illus. Hitchcock, C. Leo, Arthur Cronquist, Marion Ownbey, and J. W. Thompson.

1955-69. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. 5 vols. Univ. Wash. Press, Seattle.

Meyer, Walter H. 1934. Growth in selectively cut ponderosa pine forests of the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 407, 64 p., illus.

Neff, D. J., O. C. Wallmo, and D. C. Morri

son.

1965. A determination of defecation rate for elk. J. Wildl. Manage. 29:406-407. Pace, Charles P.

1958. Herbage production and composition under immature ponderosa pine stands in the Black Hills. J. Range Manage. 11:238–243.

Parker, Kenneth W.

1951. A method for measuring trend in range condition on national forest ranges. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., 26 p. Washington, D.C. [Unpublished report, Range Management Staff, Administrative Studies (Conditions and Trends).]

Pearson, Henry A., and Donald A. Jameson. 1967. Relationship between timber and cattle production on ponderosa pine range: the Wild Bill range. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., Rocky Mt. For. & Range Exp. Stn., 10 p. Fort Collins, Colo.

Pechanec, Joseph F., and G. D. Pickford. 1937a. A comparison of some methods used in determining percentage utilization of range grasses. J. Agric. Res. 54:753-765.

Pechanec, Joseph F., and G. D. Pickford. 1937b. A weight estimate method for the determination of range or pasture production. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 29:894904.

Pickford, G. D., and Elbert H. Reid. 1948. Forage utilization on summer cattle ranges in eastern Oregon. U.S. Dep. Agric. Circ. 796, 27 p., illus.

Reed, Merton J., and Ronald A. Peterson. 1961. Vegetation, soil, and cattle re

sponses to grazing on northern Great Plains range. U.S. Dep. Agric., Tech. Bull. 1252, 79 p., illus.

Reid, Elbert H.

1965. Forage production in ponderosa pine forests. Soc. Am. For. Proc. 1964: 61-64, illus.