My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01593
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01593
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:31:47 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:32:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.127.J
Description
Savery-Pot Hook Project
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
1/1/1964
Author
Kearl W. G.
Title
The Savery-Pot Hook Reclamation Project: Analysis of Economic Effects on Existing Ranches & New Farm Units
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />C\1 <br />'" <br />l'- <br /> <br />- 16 - <br /> <br />It should be recognized that beef-cattle fattening requires some different <br /> <br />management skills and also a willingness to take greater risks than required for <br /> <br />operation of a ranch selling feeder cattle. The individual operators on the four <br /> <br />case-study ranches probably have, or could acquire, the necessary skills. This is <br /> <br />probably not true for all ranch operators in the area, however. Some ranches might <br /> <br />prefer to develop in the direction of selling for cash, surplus hay, and grain pro- <br /> <br />duction. Bud~eting for self-contained farm units, which will be explained later, <br /> <br />indicates that marketing of hay and grain as cash crops, or a combined range-cattle <br /> <br />operation and surplus crop disposal for cash, would also be feasible alternatives, <br /> <br />provided the markets could be found for surplus crops. <br /> <br />Case-Study Ranch II.--Ranch II was a ranch marketing yearlings exclusively and having <br /> <br />a carrying capacity for at least 150 breeding cows and heifers coming two years old <br /> <br />and for the calves and yearlings to be marketed at 18 months of age. This ranch also <br /> <br />made rather extensive use of leased rangeland and improved meadow. It did have a <br /> <br />relatively larger proportion of deeded land, however, than found on Ranch I. Ranch <br /> <br />II also had permits to graze on Bureau of Land Management lands. Investment require- <br /> <br />rnents per breeding c~~ were $595 for land and buildings only and $969 total. In- <br /> <br />vestments on a per-animal-unit basis were more nearly comparable to investments on <br /> <br />Ranch I and other ranches. <br /> <br />In the actual 1962 situation, net ranch income for Ranch II was $7,724 and <br /> <br />return to operator's labor was $455. There were few unusual circumstances connected <br /> <br />with the operation of Ranch II in 1962. In the normalized situation, total returns <br /> <br />are reduced, and cash expenses are also reduced slightly. Net ranch income is $4,887. <br /> <br />and return to operator's labor is -$2,373. Crop yields on this ranch could be ex- <br /> <br />pected to improve slightly with the use of supplemental water, and some land could be <br /> <br />converted from irrigated pastures to improved meadows. The beef cow herd can be in- <br /> <br />creased to 205 head of cows and heifers to calve. Cattle must still be sold as <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.