Search

Single bayonet gates are effective in trapping range cattle inside a corral in which water is located. These gates require less time to construct than similar-size double bayonet gates and contain about half as much material. Labor costs are second only to land charges in the high cost of today’s livestock production (Maddox 1970). When labor-saving equipment is added to a livestock enterprise, personnel are released to concentrate efforts on other areas of the ranching operation. The efficiency of labor use is increased if animal behavior is considered in livestock management decisions. By capitalizing on an animal’s need for water, one can trap cattle with a single bayonet gate, thus reducing the stress, time, and effort involved in conventional roundups. The technique involves setting up a one-way maze in a corral at which the animals will water. If all other gates into the corral are closed and a single bayonet gate is located at the entrance, cattle can be trapped as they enter to drink water. Double bayonet gates (Low and Hodder 1976), triggers (Ward 1958; Freeman [No date]; Welchart and Gray [No date]; Hughes 1978), or crushes (Ernst 1977) as they have been called are not new to the livestock industry. The single-bayonet gate described in this paper requires less material for construction than double bayonet gates, yet does not reduce the gate’s ability to trap and hold animals in a corral. The Location Several items should be incorporated when constructing a corral (Fig. 1) in which bayonet gates will be used: Physically separate the entrance and exit locations in the one-way maze to prevent congestion during periods of heavy use. Provide an alternative gate for use in the event a need arises to haul livestock from the corral or to service the water source. Locate the single bayonet gates on pre-established trails that will radiate from the water source. Provide a corral of adequate size for the number of cattle that would normally water and be gathered at the particular location.

172 doing so, he raises several interesting and thought-provoking points concerning two subjects those of us in range management hold with no little respect; i.e., improving rangelands and increasing range livestock production. In brief summary, the USDA report projects an estimated demand for range livestock from approximately 215 million AUM’s in 1970 to between 250 and 300 million AUM’s by the end of this century. It concludes that the range is fully capable of meeting the highest projected demand by the year 2000, and, moreover, even has a reasonable potential to produce up to 566 million AUM’s by that time-a 265% increase! The report at least implies that the principal source of this increase in beef production (the document assumes that little, if any, of the increased production will be provided by the sheep industry under all possible circumstances-a conclusion which I believe to be shortsighted) is expected to be derived from increased stocking rates. Finally, the report states that the expected gain will be achieved, “by applying intensive environmental and livestock management to each acre of the total available range area.” In other words, range improvements. French responds that it seems reasonable, however, to expect range improvements to come at the expense of increased stocking rates for the next quarter century, rather than as a means of increasing it. Consequently, he comes to a basic disagreement with

Research has shown that dogs can protect livestock from coyotes (Canis latrans), but information is lacking on comparative effectiveness of dog breeds and on how successfully dogs are being used by livestock producers. We mailed questionnaires to 948 livestock producers in the U.S. and Canada who were likely to be users of livestock guarding dogs. Three hundred ninety-nine written responses were received reporting data on 763 dogs, almost all recognized guarding breeds. Respondents were livestock producers from 47 states and 7 provinces. Producers rated their dogs as very effective (71%), somewhat effective (21%), or not effective (8%) in deterring predation; the majority (82%) said dogs were an economic asset. No particular breed was rated more highly, and the rate of success between males and females was not different. Fifty nonrespondents were telephoned, and although fewer of them had dogs than respondents, their rating of the dogs they used was not significantly different from that of respondents. The data indicate that, when used by producers, livestock guarding dogs are an effective method to manage predation.

Optimum range livestock marketing schemes were developed for two typical Utah ranch sizes (150 and 300 head of brood cows) using linear programming analysis. based on average Utah cattle prices for 1970-75, the range livestock management alternative which maximized net ranch income for both ranch sizes was to reduce the cow herd 25% and use the released feed to retain all steer calves for sale as yearlings. optimum disposition of heifer calves was sale at weaning time. the reduction in breeding herd to accommodate retained yearlings would decrease the number of feeder livestock marketed. potential decreases in U.S. beef production from 1 to 4% were estimated if 25 to 100% of the ranches in the 11 western states adopted the optimum management alternative. these reductions would result in an increase in United States wholesale beef prices of 1 to 6%.

How much forage can be removed from ranges by grazing without reducing later yields? This is the crucial question of proper range use. Various standards have been devised, each based on some important consideration in range welfare or livestock management. Common criteria are the physiological responses of certain key plants, observed "improvement" of the range, or condition of the animals. These guides have been useful in improving range management. But many ranges managed by them have continued to waste away, or have met disaster from drought. A reexamination of utilization standards seems in order. This paper proposes to consider range utilization from the viewpoint of bioecology, and to examine available information on the requirements of site protection as an essential of safe range use.