| Abstract: | A study was conducted to gather quantitative and qualitative data about Texas rangeland livestock producers to better understand cause/effect relationships among personal rancher attributes, ranch characteristics, rainfall effects, percent of total income from various sources, and decision variables on livestock stocking rate change over time. One thousand rangeland decision-makers in each of seven vegetation/management regions received a 10 page mail questionnaire. Fifty percent of the questionnaires were returned of which 1862 usable questionnaires were analyzed, giving a usable response rate of 35%. Ranchers in close proximity to metropolitan areas (Edwards Plateau, Blacklands/Cross Timbers and Rio Grande Plains) derived a greater portion of their total income from off-ranch employment and investments. West Texas ranchers, constrained by climate (aridity), with fewer opportunities to diversify off-ranch income sources, tended to diversify ranch enterprises. Cause/effect relationships were analyzed through path coefficient regression analysis utilizing traditional diffusion variables (age, education, years ranching, etc.), economic constraint variables (percent of total income from on-ranch or off-ranch sources) and decision variables in three areas: stocking rate, grazing program and weed/brush management. Age, grazing rights (owned vs. leased), rainfall effects (drought vs. rainfall), traditional stocking rate factors, traditional grazing program factors, and weed/brush information factors explained 64% of the variability in stocking rates during the previous 10 year period. The variable explaining most of this variability was the rainfall effects variable. As the perceived effects of rainfall increased, so did stocking rate levels, and vice versa. Examination of principal components of the three decision variables raises questions about ranchers proactive/reactive focus in decision-making. Ranchers recognized traditional stocking rate and grazing program factors, but perceptions of relative importance of the factors may be a function of their values and beliefs rather than reliance on grazing management principles. The greatest benefit expected from grazing programs was increased animal performance, while economics of weed/brush decisions was ineffective in explaining stocking rate change. Although weed/brush information sources did explain a portion of stocking rate variability, the effect was small and negative. Consequently, the origin of the information (neighbor's advice) may increase the risk of receiving outdated technology. |
|---|