Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C') <br />00 <br />l'- <br /> <br />- 13 - <br /> <br />In considering the effects of the project, in the first situation with only <br /> <br />supplemental I~ater being used, levels of productivity and efficiency were taken as <br /> <br />indicated by the ranch operator, and other evidence accumulated. It was assumed that <br /> <br />in the second situation the additional cultivated land in the project area would have <br /> <br />moderate levels of productivity and could be operated with the labor and machine re- <br /> <br />quirements as indicated by moderate levels of efficiency. <br /> <br />Case-Study Ranch 1.-- Ranch I had a capacity for about 125 cows and heifers coming <br /> <br />two years old, together with necessary heifer calves for replacement, bulls, and <br /> <br />horses to operate the ranch. This ranch marketed mostly calves, with a few light <br /> <br />calves held back for sale as yearlings. The ranch had a relatively small amount of <br /> <br />deeded land, but made extensive use of leased land, especially dry rangeland. Some <br /> <br />cropland and hay land were also leased. This ranch did not have permits to !7,raze on <br /> <br />public rangelands. Because of the relatively heavy use of leased rangeland, arid <br /> <br />the proportionately small amount of deeded land, the investment per breeding cow or <br /> <br />per animal unit was relatively low. The investment in land and buildings was $381 <br /> <br />per breeding cow and the total investment was $670. <br /> <br />Ranch I had a net ranch income in 1962 of $4,362 (Table 3). Return to operator's <br /> <br />labor was $176. This level of returns was obtained as a result of an unusually high <br /> <br />price received for calves sold in 1962. Expenses in 1962 were also somewhat higher <br /> <br />than usual, because of the necessity of purchasin~ feed. In the normalized situation <br /> <br />of Ranch I, the value of cattle sales are reduced substantially. Expenses of oper- <br /> <br />ation are also reduced somewhat, although not to the extent that sales and total <br /> <br />returns are reduced. Net ranch income would be $2,742 with return to operator's <br /> <br />labor of a -$1,444. <br /> <br />m th supplemental water, Ranch I 110uld be able to increase production of crops <br /> <br />and also increase the production of irrigated pasture on some present bottomland <br />