Get reliable rangeland science

Conflict Resolution & Rangeland Policy

Conflict Resolution & Rangeland Policy

Over the past several decades the public has become increasingly concerned about the uses and management of rangelands. People value rangelands as open space, a source of clean water and wildlife habitat, as well as for the forage, timber, and mining resources extracted from them. They frequent rangelands to camp, hike, hunt, and drive off-road vehicles. They may also wish to view rangeland plant communities and rare wildlife species in an environment that remains undisturbed by these other uses. Unfortunately, the amount of rangelands is decreasing as they are converted to residential, commercial, and industrial use.

This increasing demand for finite rangeland resources has led to conflict over the appropriate uses and management strategies for these lands. The complex policy issues surrounding rangelands are further complicated by personal emotions tied to the differing belief systems of the various stakeholders involved. In many instances citizens have disagreed bitterly over the perceived condition of these lands, the impacts of various uses on them, and the ways they should be managed.

The purpose of this section of the rangelands site is to provide a constructive and non-threatening venue for the public to explore the key controversial issues surrounding the use and management of rangelands. By aiding citizens to clarify issues, to analyze management alternatives and their consequences, to stay abreast of legislation and legal decisions regarding the issues, and to discover new techniques of conflict resolution, we hope to encourage an informed public that may more effectively engage in policy debate and work toward resolving conflicts over rangeland resources.

Conflict Resolution

In response to conflict, organizations, initiatives, and others have pursued alternative methods besides litigation for resolving natural resource-based conflicts, and conflicts over rangelands in particular. The Udall Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution uses Environmental Conflict Resolution (ERC), described as “problem-solving discussions among diverse parties, facilitated or aided by a neutral third party and aimed at finding workable solutions to environmental problems or issues.” ERC uses a “problem-solving” approach that seeks to “expand the pie” by searching for mutually beneficial solutions among stakeholders, rather than an all-or-nothing approach for one side. ERC can involve more than two parties – for example, ERC processes can involve, ranchers, homeowners, the Bureau of Land Management, and recreationalists. A neutral third party can help design processes that allow for more productive discussions among stakeholders and allow for the exploration of mutually beneficial solutions. Other organizations, such as the Malpai Borderlands Group, and the Quivira Coalition engage diverse partners to work collaboratively to protect habitat for wildlife species, landscape health, and sustainable ranching and farming. While there is much potential for conflict on rangelands, there are groups that are working towards viable and productive conflict resolution alternatives to litigation.

Conservation Easements

Conservation easements are legal agreements between a landowner and a qualified entity, such a land trust, government, or municipality. A conservation easement is a tool used to conserve private land for agricultural purposes or open space in perpetuity. The need for conservation easements arose out of desire to retain agricultural lands and open space, despite the fact that land sold for development can have a much higher value. The basic model is that a farm or ranch retains ownership of the land, but gives up development rights. When/if the property is sold or changes ownership, the conservation easement stays with the property. In return for putting lands under conservation easement, a property owner receives grant funding, tax deductions and/or tax credits. Given that around 50% of rangelands are privately owned, and increasing development pressure, conservation easements are one tool that ranchers and farmers can use to receive an economic benefit for conserving open space and agricultural lands in perpetuity.

Species of Concern by State

Amber Dalke

Generational Succession of America's Rancher

Generational Succession of America's Rancher

Succession and transfer planning for ranchers: importance and options

Written by Kristie Maczko, Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable

Survey results show that the majority of ranchers are over 60 years of age.  Not surprisingly, experts estimate that approximately 40 percent of the nation’s agricultural land is likely to change ownership (American Farmland Trust 2017) and primary operator in the next 20 years. Effective succession and transfer planning necessitates significant time and effort to avoid unintended outcomes and consequences.  Planning ensures that transition of asset ownership and control of a ranching operation occurs on schedule and as intended, with minimal surprises.  It should meet personal objectives of the current operator, while protecting assets and aligning with goals and expectations for the future operator of the agricultural operation.

Although retirement plans and estate planning to create detailed wills are both components of an effective transition strategy, there are other critical aspects, too.  Transfer planning encompasses legal and economic decisions and transactions involved in conveying ownership of the business, ranchland and associated property and assets to the next generation. Succession planning integrates family social decisions involved in managing goals, objectives, values, and potential role and responsibility conflicts that may arise as families discuss transfer of a farm/ ranch business, land and other property (Goetting et al. 2016).

Key considerations involved in transfer and succession planning may include:

  • Inventory of operation and family financials, including assets and debts, and future needs.
  • Discussion of values, goals, objectives, roles and responsibilities with family and advisors to identify expectations and define business, personal, and financial plans. This includes daily operation, marketing, and production concerns.
  • Identification of issues and creation of an advisory team --  possible participants in addition to family members include an agricultural business consultant, lender, accountant, financial adviser, land-use planner, or conservation planner/land trust representative, lawyer, tax consultant, insurance agent, financial adviser, and a retirement planner or estate planner to help with legal, financial or asset management questions.
  • Evaluation of the most effective business structure for your ranching operation – basic types of business organization include sole proprietorships, partnerships, corporations and limited liability companies, with varying degrees of organizational complexity and transfer perspective. A sole proprietorship is fairly simple. A corporation requires more time and attention to develop and maintain. Partnerships and limited liability companies combine attributes of individual and corporate ownership. Each option offers advantages, depending on family and business needs, tax implications, legal ramifications, financial soundness etc.
  • Consideration of a conservation easement to obtain funds to buy out business partners or family members, make improvements to the operation, help support retirement resource needs, reduce tax burden, or create equity for heirs. Easements help provide protection for agricultural land to keep it in production, as well as addressing wetlands, water resources, and/or wildlife habitat, depending on the specific program.  Donation or sale of an easement can lower estate values to make land more affordable during the transfer process.
  • Consideration of a trust -- Assets may be placed in trusts to ensure professional management of financial resources. The trust offers financial security for beneficiaries, such as spouses, children and grandchildren, and also designates who will receive the assets once the trust terminates.

 

Succession and transfer plans guide transition of a ranching operation’s ownership, management and labor to the next generation, while preserving family harmony and business success.  Effectively and successfully transferring a complete business, not just assets such as land or equipment, to future generations requires significant time and effort. However, with more than a third of agricultural operations expected to transition in the next two decades, the importance of planning for these transitions cannot be overstated.

Mark Thorne

Basic Economic Analysis of Projects

Basic Economic Analysis of Projects

Written by John Tanaka, University of Wyoming

Grazing by domestic livestock -- that is, cattle, sheep, and goats -- is one of the most widespread uses of rangelands. Deciding what species to graze, how to graze them, how many to graze, and where and when to graze has been the subject of much rangeland research and management. Economic analysis can help the decision-maker determine answers to those questions when he or she wants to know the profit maximizing levels.

The basic economic principle being applied is to equate the value of the marginal product to the marginal factor costs. In essence, this says that the last animal added to the herd should produce just enough income to cover the cost of producing it. With the law of diminishing returns, each animal added contributes less to profit than did the previous one and at the economically optimal stocking rate, the last animal adds nothing to profit. Stocking rate and varying stocking rate to match forage conditions have emerged as the most important factors influencing ranch profitability and the economic responses to grazing.

Grazing systems have been developed through the years to assist in the management of livestock and to improve the health of the land. If the system is going to be economically beneficial, either animal performance or forage production must improve over time. In addition, a grazing system could result in lower operating costs, may reduce fire danger due to removal of vegetation, or provide other habitat improvements that society values.

Economic Feasibility of Range Improvement Practices - Rangeland improvement practices are implemented for a variety of reasons. Historically, they were done primarily for managing livestock like cattle and sheep. As other uses of the rangelands became more important, managers began designing them for use by wildlife, to avoid impacts on wildlife and recreationists, to reduce soil erosion, to improve riparian areas, and many other reasons. Each of these uses causes different benefits and incurs different costs. The economic analysis of any such project is the same.

The economic analysis of any project requires that one estimate both the costs and the benefits from the project through time. Costs include both the initial investment and the annual maintenance and repairs. Benefits include all of the annual returns upon which society places value. The life of the project will also be an important consideration. A problem arises when not all of the costs or benefits can be quantified or valued.

Estimating Costs - Costs include the initial investment and annual maintenance and repairs. Projects can be designed in a variety of ways, each affecting both types of costs and the project life. A reasonable variety of project designs can be developed to achieve the management goals. Each design can have its costs estimated.

For example, if the manager decides to remove a woody plant species to increase the amount of forage available for cattle, there are many ways to achieve that goal, including using herbicides, prescribed fire, mechanical removal, and biological control. Each of these methods can be applied at different intensities with different success rates and risks. Different herbicides can be applied using ground or aerial application methods, at different rates, and in different patterns with different levels of brush kill and different levels of plant responses.

The manager must weigh all of these factors in deciding on the methods to use for a particular project. In many areas, there will be a desired method to implement based on experience. That should not preclude the evaluation of alternatives based on changing sets of goals to be achieved.

Estimating Benefits - Benefits from rangeland improvement practices can be more difficult to estimate. Benefits from livestock forage produced are relatively straightforward, while those related to scenic views and wildlife may be harder.

If the benefit is from livestock forage, it can be valued by either considering the cost of alternative feeds such as hay or leased pastures. The process is to estimate how much additional forage will be produced by the practice and apply one of those values to it to come up with a total value.

If the project is expected to result in nonmarket benefits such as reduced soil erosion, increased streamflow, wildlife habitat, scenic views, or recreational opportunities, the benefit estimation is much more difficult. Basically three methods can be used in these cases: travel cost method, contingent valuation method, and avoided costs.

The travel cost method (TCM) can be used if there is a specific location people travel to do something. It is primarily used for recreation sites where people go to an area to hunt, fish, swim, boat, view scenery, or enjoy other such activities.

The contingent valuation method (CVM) is used when the item or use being valued is not necessarily based on a location. In essence, the method seeks to ask a cross section of people what they would be willing to pay for some changed condition or situation. The responses are then used to come up with an estimate of value.

The avoided cost method would be used if the project were to reduce costs incurred before the project was implemented. If reduced soil erosion resulted in less water treatment or reduced the need to dredge behind dams, those reduced costs can be considered a benefit of the project.

Each of these nonmarket valuation methods has been used for a variety of uses of rangelands. While there are concerns about their validity for use in planning and management, each method can provide relative values that could be used in project analysis. Care must be applied in both how the methods are applied and how the resulting estimates are used.

Feasibility Analysis - Once the costs and benefits are estimated, three basic methods are used to estimate economic feasibility:

With three methods available, which is the best to use? All three methods use the same information. In the case of PNW and B/C, the analyst needs to know what discount rate to use in the calculations, whereas with the IRR, the analyst needs to know what interest rate to compare with the IRR. PNW is likely the best method to use (Workman 1981), although the others provide useful information as well.

See also: Workman, J. P. 1981. Disagreement among investment criteria - A solution to the problem. Journal of Range Management 34:319-324.


Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

The internal rate of return (IRR) is one measure used by economists to evaluate investments. It is based on the principal of discounting which is where future values are brought to present values based on some discount rate. The IRR method seeks to find that discount rate whereby the present value of future returns just equals the initial investment cost.

In rangeland management, many projects will have an initial cost that will create changes in future costs and returns to whatever operation is being considered. For example, seeding desirable grass and shrub species is an activity to restore degraded rangelands or to change the desired mix of vegetation on a particular range site. The process of removing undesirable vegetation, preparing the seedbed, and seeding the desirable plants entails an initial cost. The initial investment is expected to change the future income stream to the ranch by increasing forage, changing the season of forage availability, and/or changing herd management. If values are placed on each of the costs and returns, and the timing of each of those, an IRR can be calculated.

The decision rule is that if the IRR is greater than the rate of return that the decision-maker could earn on the use of those funds, then the project is considered to be economically feasible. Another way of looking at it is if the IRR is greater than what the decision-maker would have to pay in interest to finance the project, then it is economically feasible.

The IRR is one economic measure to help evaluate an investment. It can help a rangeland manager decide if the project will return enough to justify making the investment based on the cost of borrowing funds or an alternative investment rate -- for example, what you could earn in an alternative such as the stock market.

If you assume that the net annual returns from the initial investment are equal, then you can apply the following formula and seek to find the discount rate, either through trial and error or using set tables as described in Nielson (1977).

I = Initial investment

R = Net additional annual return

r = Discount rate

i = Years of equal net annual returns.

If the net annual returns are not equal, you can use the formula for Present Net Worth and solve for Present Net Worth equal to zero.

For more information, see:

Nielsen, Darwin B. 1977. Economics of range improvements: a rancher's handbook to economic decision-making. Utah Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 466 (revised). Logan, Utah. 52 p.

Workman, John P. and John A. Tanaka. 1991. Economic feasibility and management considerations in range revegetation. Journal of Range Management 44(6):566-573.


Present Net Worth (PNW)

Present Net Worth (PNW) is used to determine if the benefits, or income, are greater than the costs when both are valued in current dollars. The method requires that future values are discounted to a present value and added together. The basic formula is:

PNW = Present Net Worth

i = year being considered, generally 0 to N, where N is the last year of the planning horizon

Benefitsi = Benefits from the projects obtained in year i

Costs(i) = Costs from the projects obtained in year i. The initial investment in the project is assumed to occur in year 0.

r = the discount rate.

For more information, see:

Nielsen, Darwin B. 1977. Economics of range improvements: a rancher's handbook to economic decision-making. Utah Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 466 (revised). Logan, Utah. 52 p.

Workman, John P. and John A. Tanaka. 1991. Economic feasibility and management considerations in range revegetation. Journal of Range Management 44(6):566-573. 


Benefit-Cost Ratio (B/C)

Written by John Tanaka, University of Wyoming

The benefit-cost ratio (B/C) is used to compare the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs. The ratio is merely used to see if a $1 of costs will return at least $1 in benefits.

B/C is used by many federal agencies in the economic justification of projects. The discount rate is set by policy and is generally used at 3, 7, and 10% (or some other range) to see how sensitive the results are to the discount rate. In addition, the agencies have attempted to include nonmarket benefits and costs (i.e., goods and services for which there is no market price) in its calculation.

The basic formula for the B/C ratio is:

B/C = Benefit-Cost Ratio

i = year being considered, generally 0 to N, where N is the last year of the planning horizon

Benefitsi = Benefits from the projects obtained in year i

Costsi = Costs from the projects obtained in year i. The initial investment in the project is assumed to occur in year 0.

r = the discount rate.

Mark Thorne

Public Rangeland Grazing Economics

Public Rangeland Grazing Economics

Written by John Tanaka, University of Wyoming

Public rangelands are primarily managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, although other federal agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Defense manage significant acreages. These lands are owned by the people of the United States and are managed for various purposes as outlined in public laws and regulations. In this section, we will examine the economic aspects of different uses and how those uses affect the national treasury in terms of receipts and how local governments may be affected.


Grazing Fees on State Rangelands

Written by John Tanaka, University of Wyoming

States were generally allocated two sections of land out of each 36 sections (a township) for the purpose of generating income to support schools. These school sections have been treated differently by each state but are generally set aside to maximize income to the school trust. In states that have retained ownership of school sections suitable for grazing, each state has developed a somewhat different method of setting the grazing fee. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a study in 2005 that reported the different grazing fees in the western states.

Source: Government Accountability Office. 2005. Livestock Grazing - Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary, Depending on the Agency and the Purpose of the Fee Charged. GAO-05-869. 110 p.


Grazing Fees on Other Federal Rangelands

Written by John Tanaka, University of Wyoming

The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service (USFS) manage most of the public land grazing in the nation. In addition, several other federal agencies manage land and allow grazing for a fee. The agencies and fees they charge are shown below for 2004, the most recent year of this study. Specific grazing fees for current years may be found. These are presented to show relative fees charged by different agencies within the federal government.

Source: Government Accountability Office. 2005. Livestock Grazing - Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary, Depending on the Agency and the Purpose of the Fee Charged. GAO-05-869. 110 p.


Recreation Fees on Public Rangelands

Written by John Tanaka, University of Wyoming

There are very few places where fees are charged for recreating on public rangelands. You may find fees for staying in specific campgrounds. There may also be fees to enter certain facilities such as interpretive centers. Permit fees may be charged in some instances, such as rafting certain rivers or parking in designated areas like snow parks.

Commercial outfitters and guides may also have to pay a permit fee to the land management agency to operate their business on public land. These guides and outfitters will likely charge for their services.

In general, most public lands are open to the public at any time. The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service have the authority to charge different fees, and these are set mostly on a local or regional basis. The National Park Service does charge an entry fee for many of the national parks. Some of these fees are returned to the treasury, while others may be retained by the agencies to improve the areas for which fees were charged.

For more information:

U.S. Forest Service passes and permits

National Park Service fees and permits


Revenues to Government from Public Rangelands

The U.S. Department of the Interior has the administrative responsibility to calculate and distribute payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILT). The department publishes the Public Land Statistics online. Information on the amount each federal program raises in revenue and its distribution to the agency, state and local governments, and the Federal Treasury are reported.


Payment in Lieu of Taxes from Public Rangelands

Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) are amounts that the federal government pays local governments that have certain federal lands within their jurisdictions. PILT payments are made because the federal government does not pay state or county property taxes. The Bureau of Land Management administers these payments within the laws developed by Congress and the regulations therefrom. Payment amounts can be adjusted based on additional payments received from the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act as well as changes in the amount of money Congress appropriates for payment.

Learn more about PILT payments.

For the most part, the website shows calculations for PILT as defined below. There are some additional smaller payments that can affect the total amount actually paid explained at the website. County acres of qualifying public land can be found here. While they do not break down the actual payment by rangelands, acres by county in rangelands can be estimated using different criteria.

"DOI computes payments authorized under section 6902 of the Act using the greater of the following two alternatives:"


"(A) $2.37 (in fiscal year 2009) times the number of acres of qualified federal land in the county, as defined above, reduced by the amount of funds received by the county in the prior fiscal year under certain other federal land receipt sharing programs, such as the 25-percent timber program or the mineral leasing program -or- (B) Thirty-three cents, in fiscal year 2009, times the number of acres of qualified federal land in the county, with no deduction for prior-year payments."


"Both alternatives explained above are subject to a population ceiling limitation computed by multiplying the county population times a corresponding dollar value (adjusted annually for inflation) contained in the act."

Mark Thorne

Cattle Enterprise Budget Examples

Cattle Enterprise Budget Examples

Enterprise budgets developed for rangeland-based ranching operations may include production activities for both crops (for example, hay and grain) and livestock (cattle, sheep, and goats). In each type of budget, there should be a description of the physical resources used in the production process as well as estimates of the typical returns and costs incurred.

Most budgets are presented in different sections for income, variable costs, and fixed costs. Income comes from the sale of the product being produced. If it is hay or grain produced on the ranch for use by the livestock enterprise, it is still evaluated as if it were sold in a market. Essentially, the livestock enterprise has to buy it from the hay or grain enterprise. Variable costs are those costs that change with the level of production. If you raise one more cow, what do you have to spend to raise it? Fixed costs are those things that you have to pay regardless of whether you produce any product at all.

Both variable and fixed costs can be cash or noncash costs. Cash costs are those that you are going to buy. Noncash costs are those things that are not paid for directly but include items such as operator labor, interest and depreciation on machinery, and interest on capital items such as land, machinery, breeding livestock, and buildings. Noncash costs are also referred to as opportunity costs since you could be using the funds or time tied up in the current enterprise in another investment.

Every ranch will have a different combination of variable and fixed items of production. Because of this, their variable and fixed costs will vary. Items and values shown in the sample enterprise budgets below should only be taken as guides. An individual rancher will need to find the enterprise budget closest to his operation and make the necessary adjustments.

Below are links to a few sample cattle enterprise budgets. Your local Cooperative Extension Service may have additional enterprise budgets for crops and livestock in your area.

The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service provides information on state enterprise budgets 

Idaho: Cow-Calf - 500 Head

Oregon: 500 Head (Mountain Region)


Idaho: Cow/Calf - 500 Head

Economic costs are used in the University of Idaho costs and returns estimates. All resources are valued based on market price or opportunity cost. This budget presents both the average costs and returns per cow for a 500-head cow-calf operation and the total costs and returns for the ranch. The forage source is federal, state and private range, and some feeding is necessary in the winter.

Livestock Investment - Livestock investment is 500 cows, 25 bulls, and 10 horses. Cows have a useful life of 5 years after they are placed in the breeding herd. The culling rate is 15 percent and the cow herd has a 2 percent death loss. The ranch buys two-year old bulls and replaces them every 4 years. The weaned calf crop is 88 percent of the number of cows wintered. Of the 95 weaned heifer calves selected from the calf crop for replacements, 10 are culled because of non-breeding or poor quality. This leaves a net replacement rate of 85 head each year.

Machinery and Equipment - The cow/calf enterprise uses two ¾-ton pickups (4x4), one 1-ton pickup (4x4), two 80 HP tractors (one with a loader), a feed wagon, a stock trailer, and a gooseneck trailer. This equipment complement is minimal, but considered adequate to make the ranch operation functional. Values on these investments are calculated at 50 percent of new replacement cost to reflect typically aged but functional ranch equipment. Haying equipment is not included in this budget as hay production is treated as a separate enterprise. Only equipment that is necessary for the cattle enterprise is included. Refer to EBB2-AH-03 for a summary of the costs and returns associated with hay production in southwestern Idaho. Hay and other feeds used as inputs in this cow/calf budget are valued at the market price received by growers (farmgate).

Buildings and Improvements - The ranch has 37 miles of 4-wire fence, one barn, a calving shed, one two acre corral with working alleys, a squeeze chute, a calf cradle and a normal complement of veterinary equipment. Water is supplied from natural sources. Buildings and improvements are valued at 80 percent of new replacement cost.


Oregon: 500 Head (Mountain Region)

This livestock enterprise budget estimates the typical costs and returns of producing calves in the mountain area of northeast Oregon (Wallowa, Union, and Baker counties, the eastern portion of Umatilla County, and the northern portion of Harney County). These areas are within the Blue Mountains Ecological Province and have a mixed conifer forest with many open meadows. It should be used as a guide to estimate actual costs and is not representative of any particular ranch.

The major assumptions used in developing this budget are discussed below describing the representative ranch. 

Oregon Mountain 500 Head Livestock – The enterprise consists of 500 cows, 25 bulls, and 10 horses. A 95% conception rate is used, and 98% of the pregnant cows give birth. Cow death loss is 1%, bull death loss is 1%, and calf death loss is 5%. Mature cows are culled by 15% annually, and all replacement heifers are raised.

Calves are worked in April, including branding, vaccinating, and implanting. Cows are vaccinated in April and treated for external parasites. Cows and replacement heifers are vaccinated and pregnancy tested in the fall as the cattle are gathered. Cull cows, cull replacement heifers, and calves are sold November 1.

Livestock selling prices are a three-year average (2005-2008) of farmgate prices for the northeast region, including Baker, Crook, Grant, Morrow, Umatilla, Union, and Wallowa counties. Livestock weights are assumed typical for the mountain area.

Table 1. Oregon Cow/Calf Costs and Returns, Mountain Region, 500-Cow Herd

Table 1

Table 2. Livestock Cost Assumptions

Table 2

Table 3. Livestock Opportunity Cost Calculations

Table 3

Oregon Mountain 500 Head Feed - Feed is supplied in the form of native and feeder-quality alfalfa hay, public range, and pasture. Cattle are fed hay for four and a half months, forest service range is used for three and a half months, privately owned spring range is grazed for one and a half months, and stringer meadows are utilized for the remaining two and a half months. A $2.50 per AUM charge covers fertilizer and irrigation expenses for the private pasture.

Salt and minerals are fed at the rate of 48 pounds per cow annually, and approximately one-third is assumed to be consumed by wildlife.

Oregon Mountain 500 Head Labor - Labor provided by two families is included as a variable cost of $27,000 per year, assuming eight months are dedicated to the cow/calf operation and four months to hay production.

Oregon Mountain 500 Head Labor Capital - Opportunity costs of operating capital are charged at a rate of 10 percent for the duration of the grazing season and 2.5 percent per year for the current market value of the ranch unit, including land and livestock.

Oregon Mountain 500 Head Equipment - A loader tractor and hay wagon are used to feed hay. A 3/4-ton pickup is used to pull a stock trailer, for general travel, and for general ranch work. Corrals are used in the spring and fall to work cattle. Two four-wheel ATVs are used for general ranch work.

Machinery and equipment values are based on spring 1996 replacement costs, assuming the assets are half depreciated. Table 4 summarizes the values assumed for machinery, equipment, and buildings as well the hours, miles, or years associated with their use. "Working Facilities" include a squeeze chute, corrals, and scales.

Machinery and equipment costs are shown in these tables for variable and fixed cost components. 

Table 4. Machinery Cost Assumptions

Table 4

Table 5. Machinery and Equipment Cost Calculations

Table 5

Oregon Mountain 500 Head Resources - The commercial value of land and improvements of a whole ranch unit ranges from $1,000 to $2,500 per cow unit (animal unit) depending upon productivities and extent of federal land dependency. This budget assumes that the ranch as a whole is valued at $1,750 per cow unit. The operator owns 4,100 acres of spring range and 1,480 acres of improved spring range, providing 410 and 1,150 AUMs, respectively, over one and a half months. In addition, 725 acres of stringer meadow is owned and supplies 1,425 AUMs over two and a half months. Property taxes total $2,643. Actual property taxes will vary with assessed value.

Oregon Mountain 500 Head Other Costs -  In the enterprise budget, implants, pour-on, vaccines, pregnancy testing, fly tags, and dewormer are included under the line item "Vet & Medicine." Brand inspection is $1.75 per animal sold, plus a $10 per trip charge with three trips assumed. Materials for fence repairs cost $1,350. "Supplies" include saddle, tack, and branding equipment. "Marketing Fees" are a flat 3% of the gross value of the livestock that are sold to cover marketing costs via satellite or through the auction yard, etc. "Utilities" include electricity, telephone, and others. "Legal and related expenses" cover costs associated with litigation regarding policy issues and other legal expenses. All items not included in the other budget line items, such as association dues, are accounted for under "Miscellaneous."

From: Turner, Brenda, Fred Obermiller, John Tanaka, Bart Eleveld, Bill Broderick, Gary Delaney, Randy Mills, and John Williams. 1998. Enterprise budget, 500 cow/calf, mountain region. Oregon State University Extension Service EM 8687

 

Sheila Merrigan

Ranch Management

Ranch Management

Written by John Tanaka, University of Wyoming

A ranch is a business and managing a ranching enterprise based on a resource as varied as rangelands poses unique challenges. The financial success of a ranching enterprise depends on many variables and is affected by many different factors and their interactions.

  • Ranch Planning - Planning is a critical activity for a ranch to be economically, socially, and ecologically successful. There are many resources available to ranchers to assist them in planning. Most are similar and the important thing is to select one and do it. Planning generally involves setting goals and objectives, inventorying all resources, developing resource use activity plans, implementing, and monitoring followed by adjustments.
  • Livestock Demographics in Rangeland States - Livestock numbers for beef cattle, sheep, and goats are available from the U.S. Census of Agriculture.
  • Ranch Budgets - Budgets for ranches are used as management tools to help ranchers make decisions on the business side of their operations. There are four basic types of budgets that can be used: whole ranch, partial, cash flow, and enterprise. Each of these budget types are developed to estimate how the operation will look in the future as opposed to records that describe what happened in the past.
  • Production Economics - Livestock production on rangelands is generally done for the operator to make some level of profit. While we know that profit maximization is not the reason most people choose to go into ranching, for most, they do need to at least break even to stay in business. This section will look at traditional methods to analyze the economics of livestock production.
  • Financial Record Keeping - Financial records for ranches are an important management tool. Book keepers will normally generate these sorts of reports for a ranch business. Our focus here is on how to interpret the different sorts of financial records for making management decisions. The basic financial records are the balance sheet, income statement (profit-and-loss), and cash flow. A brief description of each one is provided.
  • Drought and Economics - Drought on rangelands is a normal occurrence. Drought causes periods of reduced forage and water availability to grazing animals. This section will describe the economic impacts on ranching operations.
  • Agricultural Subsidies - Ranchers do not generally receive direct subsidies for their operations. The Natural Resources Conservation Service through their many conservation programs can provide direct assistance for specific practices. In addition, other U.S. Farm Bill programs can affect production and prices of inputs (e.g., grains) used by ranches.
  • Forage Lease Rates - Private, state, or federal forage may be leased by a ranch. Each source of forage may be priced differently based on the different levels of services provided and forage quantity and quality.
  • Alternative Enterprises - With the increasing recognition of ecosystem goods and services from rangelands, ranchers may consider their ability to increase their income through producing and marketing those goods and services. There are examples such as selling hunting leases or improving lands for water production that have led to increased income for ranchers. Ranchers need to carefully evaluate their options and determine how they fit into their goals, objectives, and management.
  • Grazing Management Economics - Defining the economics of grazing management is a difficult task. There is no one right answer. This section will look at how the economics could be evaluated from a management perspective. When grazing management changes are contemplated on a ranch, there are several factors that need to be examined that will each affect the economics of the practice. These factors include: changes in animal productivity, changes in how pastures are used, changes in feed sources, changes in animal husbandry, changes in infrastructure, and changes in management.
  • Economics of Predation on Rangeland Operations - Predation of livestock has both direct and indirect losses to the ranch. The direct losses are due to losing animals to predators (e.g., coyotes, bears, wolves, eagles). Indirect losses may include time spent determining the predator, predator control, and changing management to reduce predation.
  • Economics of Poisonous Plants - Poisonous plants on rangelands can be either native or introduced species. Different poisonous plants can affect different grazing animals differently. Depending on the severity of reaction (mild illness, abortion, reduced production, death) and potential treatments, the plant will have different levels of economic impact on the ranch. In addition, at times different management of the animals or plant control methods may be required that increases the cost of production.

Ranch Planning

Written by John Tanaka, University of Wyoming

Western ranches have been owned and operated for a variety of reasons. These include way of life, profit as a business, an investment, or an occupation. For most, these are not exclusive goals, but the relative importance dictates how decisions may be made. A ranch business plan provides a framework for setting goals, collecting information, analyzing that information, and serving as a guide for implementing what was decided upon.

As one example, the Wyoming Business Council has developed a workbook titled "Sustaining Western Rural Landscapes, Lifestyles, and Livelihoods" to guide the development of a ranch plan. The workbook is located on the Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable website for Ranch Sustainability Assessment.  The basic process is for the ranch family to identify personal values and goals; develop a needs assessment and resource inventory; conduct a strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat (SWOT) analysis; evaluate feasibility of options; determine if personal goals can be met; implement needed changes; and reevaluate.


Ranch Budget

Budgets for ranches are used as management tools to help ranchers make decisions on the business side of their operations. Four basic types of budgets can be used: whole ranch, partial, cash flow, and enterprise. Each of these budget types is developed to estimate how the operation will look in the future as opposed to records that describe what happened in the past.

Whole-Ranch Budgeting - Whole-ranch budgets are used primarily to compare alternative ranch organizations under different production patterns, to evaluate the whole-ranch profitability potential, and to provide projections to potential lenders, consultants, and others who need to understand the whole operation.

Partial Budgeting - Partial budgets are used primarily to examine minor changes in the whole-ranch plan. It only includes those items and values of things that are likely to change and are not expected to be so large as to impact the whole ranch operation. Partial budgets are appropriate to economically evaluate small management changes on the ranch. The process is to estimate the changes in both costs and benefits as shown in the table below and then to simply add the values. If the costs or benefits occur over a number of years, the future values should be discounted back to present value before summing. If costs increase, they are shown as being more negative, and if they decrease, they will be a more positive value.

Cash Flow Budgeting - Cash flow budgets help you plan the timing of income and expenses in a specific time period. They are typically set up on a monthly basis and are of interest to lenders to ensure you will have the cash to repay a loan.

Enterprise Budgeting - Enterprise budgets list all of the income and expenses associated with producing one enterprise in a particular manner. An enterprise is defined as any activity that results in a product that is either used on the farm in other enterprises or sold in the marketplace. Enterprise budgets are used to estimate income and expenses as well as listing physical resources needed for production. Enterprise budgets are detailed and time consuming to construct. Most Cooperative Extension offices have access to sample enterprise budgets for most livestock and crop activities. These examples use typical production practices and prices and do not necessarily represent averages. Ranchers can use these typical enterprise budgets as starting points and use their own estimated values.


Financial Records

Written by John Tanaka, University of Wyoming

Financial records for ranches are an important management tool. Bookkeepers will normally generate these sorts of reports for a ranch business. Our focus here is on how to interpret the different sorts of financial records for making management decisions. The basic financial records are the balance sheet, income statement (profit-and-loss), and cash flow. A brief description of each one is provided below.

Similar statements are shown in the budgeting section. The difference is that these records are an evaluation of the past, whereas the budgets are to help forecast the future.

Balance Sheet - A balance sheet shows a snapshot in time of the financial state of a business. It will normally list the short, medium, and long term assets compared to the short, medium, and long term liabilities of the company. Subtracting the total of liabilities from the total of assets provides the owner's equity or net worth.

Ranch Income Statement - The income statement shows the income and expenses incurred over a given time period, usually a year. There is a standard income statement and a modified income statement that may be useful in certain situations.

The standard income statement shows the annual returns from sales of ranch products and the cash and non-cash expenses used to produce it. The net ranch income is then allocated to "capital" or to "labor." Allocating it to capital allows the rancher to calculate a return on investment. Allocating it to labor allows the rancher to calculate what was earned for the year's work.

The modified income statement helps answer two questions that the standard one makes difficult to answer. Will the ranch produce enough income to live on after all operating expenses are paid? How much net income is made to compensate owned capital (owner's equity)? These two questions will provide insight into why someone would invest in a ranch and how a rancher can stay in business when receiving a relatively low rate of return on a large investment in land and improvements.

Example:

The standard income statement is shown in Table 1 for a hypothetical 300-cow ranch. The standard income statement seeks to allocate net income to either capital or labor.

Table 1. Standard income statement for a hypothetical 300-cow ranch, 2008.

table 1

To allocate net income to capital, a charge for operator and family labor must be deducted and the residual divided by the total investment in the ranch. Note that total investment is the value of land, buildings, improvements, machinery, and livestock without regard to who actually owns it, the operator or the lender.

To allocate net income to labor, a charge for the interest on capital must be made. That amount is subtracted from the net ranch income to show the operator what their time was worth on the ranch. The premise is that all capital should earn a fair return whether it is owned or not.

Both the interest on owned capital and operator and family labor are opportunity costs. They do not have to be paid as long as there is enough net income available on which the family can live.

Modified Income Statement - The modified income statement starts with the same basic information as the standard version in calculating net ranch income. It differs from that point on in trying to answer these questions:

●      "Will the ranch produce enough net income for the family to live on?"

●      "How much net ranch income is available to compensate investment of owned capital?"

The first question is addressed by subtracting the loan service cost payments that must be made. The amount available for family living expenses is an accurate amount of what the family has in the way of cash from this operation. It can be combined with the perquisites of ranch living that are often covered as business expenses such as utilities, automobiles, housing, and home-grown food.

Adding in a value for land appreciation and the amount of mortgage principal repaid during the year provides an estimate of the long-term ranch income. Of course, this amount is not realized as income unless the ranch is sold or loans taken out, but it is an indicator of the potential from the ranch.

By putting a charge for operator and family labor against the gross proceeds, we get an estimate of net proceeds that is attributable to the owned equity of the ranch. The result shows a much higher rate of return and helps explain why someone would invest in a ranch.

The modified ranch income statement has at least three benefits over the standard income statement:

1.    It is more realistic. Real estate appreciation is treated as a real source of income. Investors often buy real estate with the hope that it will appreciate faster than the rate of inflation and thus treat it as a real return when making their decisions.

2.    It is much simpler. It is not necessary to use hypothetical rates of return on capital to allocate net income to labor. Ranchers can look at the actual generated rates of return and evaluate whether that meets their goals.

3.    It is easier to interpret. The net return is actually what the ranch family has to live on, and the rate of return is what their investment is earning.

Table 2. Modified income statement for a hypothetical 300-cow ranch, 2008.

table 2

Cash Flow Statement - Cash flow statements are used to show how the income coming into the business is being spent in each time period. These can be set up for any length of time period and are used in a budgeting sense to ensure that there is always enough cash income available in that period to cover the cash expenses.

Workman, John P. 1981. Analyzing ranch income statements - a modified approach. Rangelands 3(4):146-148.


Forage Lease Rates

Written by John Tanaka, University of Wyoming

Forage for domestic livestock is leased on both public and private lands. Public land forage lease rates are administratively set using the formula defined in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act.

State-owned lands are leased with each state using its own methods for setting the lease rate. Some states follow the federal formula adjusted for their own conditions, some modify the formula, some base it on the private land lease rate in their state, and some use a cost-share formula.

States were generally allocated two sections of land out of each 36 sections (a township) for the purpose of generating income to support schools. These school sections have been treated differently by each state but are generally set aside to maximize income to the school trust. In states that have retained ownership of school sections suitable for grazing, each state has developed a somewhat different method of setting the grazing fee. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a study in 2005 that reported the different grazing fees in the western states. These fee ranges or average fees are shown below.

State Lands Grazing Fees (2004)

table 3

Private land lease rates are determined through private negotiations between the landowner and the lessee. The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service collects data for each of the 17 western states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming). This information is published in the January edition of the Agricultural Prices publication each year. 

Source: Government Accountability Office. 2005. Livestock Grazing - Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary, Depending on the Agency and the Purpose of the Fee Charged. GAO-05-869. 110 p.


Grazing Management Economics

Written by John Tanaka, University of Wyoming

Defining the economics of grazing management is a difficult task. There is no one right answer. This section will look at how the economics could be evaluated from a management perspective.

When grazing management changes are contemplated on a ranch, several factors need to be examined which will each affect the economics of the practice. These factors include changes in animal productivity, how pastures are used, feed sources, animal husbandry, infrastructure, and management.

Changes in Animal Productivity - As grazing management is changed, the livestock will be in different pastures and under different kinds of stress from their previous system. More frequent moves of livestock can have an adverse effect on their weight gains, their reproductive success, and the quality of the product that comes from them. Each of these can affect the total value of the product.

Pasture Management - As pastures are used at different times of the year and different intensities, there can be an effect on both productivity and quality. In addition, more frequent moves can increase labor costs. There may also be a need to change fertilization or irrigation on improved pastures, hay meadow use, and seeding on pastures or rangelands.

Changes in Feed Sources - As grazing management changes, there can be an impact on other feed sources. Because the livestock have to be fed every day, a change in one area requires a change in another. Potential economic impacts include different hay feeding seasons, different uses of leased or permitted lands, different uses of feed supplements, and concurrent changes in labor costs.

Changes in Animal Husbandry - This topic is related to animal productivity. Additional change in how livestock are raised can affect breeding and calving seasons, medical care, weaning dates, and general animal care that will affect both input and labor costs.

Changes in Infrastructure - As grazing management is changed, there may be a need to install, maintain, or remove different parts of the ranch infrastructure. Fences and water developments would be the most common infrastructure investments that would be considered. Improvements in seeded pastures or rangelands, irrigation systems, corrals, barns, and other such infrastructure should be considered.

Changes in Management Last, but probably most important, changes in management will be a critical consideration. As grazing management is changed on a ranch, the manager needs to ensure that all the pieces fit together and work as expected. The manager is likely to have to invest more time in implementing the changes, monitoring how things are working, and making adjustments.

Mark Thorne.