Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCoppock, D. L.
dc.contributor.authorBirkenfeld, A. H.
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-23T05:43:09Z
dc.date.available2020-09-23T05:43:09Z
dc.date.issued1999-01-01
dc.identifier.citationCoppock, D. L., & Birkenfeld, A. H. (1999). Use of livestock and range management practice in Utah. Journal of Range Management, 52(1), 7-18.
dc.identifier.issn0022-409X
dc.identifier.doi10.2307/4003486
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/644036
dc.description.abstractDespite large efforts to generate and extend management innovations for rangeland operators, little is known about the degree to which practices are used. We determined what influenced use of 26 management practices among 340 permittees using data from a mailed survey. Five, co-dominant socioeconomic groups of permittees were identified by cluster analysis: "Large-Scale Operators," 2 types of traditional "Ranchers," and 2 types of "Hobbyists." The main concern across groups was losing access to public land, and coping strategies overall included passivity (64%), intensification of private-land use (27%), and enterprise diversification (5%). Across all groups the 4 highest use rates uniformly occurred for livestock cross-breeding (92%), livestock supplementation (80%), planting improved forages on private land (76%), and interaction with extension personnel (73%). The 4 lowest rates (3 to 12%) occurred for use of futures markets, range-trend monitoring on private land, estrus synchronization, and short-duration grazing (SDG). Groups varied in use of feed and financial consultants, prescribed fire on private land, forward contracting, and controlled grazing systems other than SDG, with Large-Scale Operators tending to use these the most. Larger operation size and higher level of formal education and income for managers were positively associated with using more practices. Hobbyists tended to use practices the least. Practices which were less complex, clearly linked to animal production, potentially more cost-effective, and had greater compatibility with operational goals were favored. Socioeconomic groups and coping strategies have utility for better targeting research and extension. Understanding why some seemingly beneficial practices are rarely used requires improved communication with rangeland operators.
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSociety for Range Management
dc.relation.urlhttps://rangelands.org/
dc.rightsCopyright © Society for Range Management.
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
dc.subjectsocioeconomic status
dc.subjectinnovation adoption
dc.subjectfarm surveys
dc.subjectfarmers' income
dc.subjectlivestock numbers
dc.subjectpublic domain
dc.subjectranching
dc.subjectrange management
dc.subjectUtah
dc.titleUse of livestock and range management practice in Utah
dc.typetext
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Range Management
dc.description.collectioninformationThe Journal of Range Management archives are made available by the Society for Range Management and the University of Arizona Libraries. Contact lbry-journals@email.arizona.edu for further information.
dc.eprint.versionFinal published version
dc.description.admin-noteMigrated from OJS platform August 2020
dc.source.volume52
dc.source.issue1
dc.source.beginpage7-18
refterms.dateFOA2020-09-23T05:43:09Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
9382-9263-1-PB.pdf
Size:
66.56Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record