English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

During 1980,101 ranchers in 3 counties (Bosque, Hamilton, and Coryell) in Texas, were interviewed regarding livestock losses and expenses resulting from methods used to reduce predation. Using data from the survey and other primary and secondary sources, 2 cost/return budgets were developed for nanny (female), wether (castrated males), and nanny/wether goat operations typical to the study area. First, budgets representing the 3 types of operations in the absence of predation were developed. Then, using an average of the predation rates and levels of prevention practices revealed by the survey, budgets were developed to represent the 3 types of operations with predation. Predation reduced gross revenues for nanny, nanny/wether, and wether goat operations by 22.2%, 14.3%, and 13.5%, respectively, when predation was a problem. Fewer saleable goats and pounds of mohair were the major reasons for this decrease in revenues. Also, when predation was a problem, operational costs were increased by 32.8%, 17.7%, and 16.4% for nanny, nanny/wether, and wether goat operations, respectively. Factors which accounted for the majority of this increase included extra feed, travel expenses, and labor primarily associated with predator control efforts and penning, kidding, and extra surveillance of goats because of the presence of predators. The results illustrate the importance of costs due to attempts to reduce predation. These costs may equal or exceed the value of animals killed by predators; however, without these added costs predation losses likely would be greater. Predation, primarily by coyotes (Canis latrans), has long been a problem to the livestock industry (Delorenzo and Howard 1976, Klebenow and McAdoo 1976, Nesse et al. 1976, Nass 1977). Such losses often result in a substantial reduction in cash returns to ranchers (Nesse et al. 1976, Taylor et al. 1978, Texas Crop and Livestock Reporting Service 1979, Wade and Connolly 1980). For the sheep industry, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1978) estimated predation losses at $ 19-38 million in 1977 for U.S. sheep producers in the 17 western states. Meanwhile, consumers lost $4 million in benefits because of reduced quantities and higher prices for lambs available. In Texas, the number of sheep has declined from 10.8 million in 1943 to 2.4 million in 1980. The number of goats has declined from 4.1 million in 1965 to 1.4 million in 1980. A significant factor contributing to the decline of the Texas sheep and goat industry is predation (Kensing 1978, 1980). The Texas Crop and Livestock Reporting Service (1979) estimated that in 1978 predators accounted for 58% of all sheep and lamb losses and 72% of all goat and kid losses in Texas. About $13 million or 62% of the total market value of sheep, lamb, goat, and kid losses was due to predators. Most researchers determine the cost of predation to ranchers by calculating 1 or 2 cost factors, such as the value of livestock killed by predators and/or direct costs associated with predator control such as traps or fees paid professional trappers (Nesse et al. 1976, Authors are graduate research assistant, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences and professor, Departments of Agricultural Economics and Range Science, Texas A&M University, College Station 77843. Approved bv the Director, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station as TA-18221. Authors appreciate Drs. Samuel L. Beasom, Milo J. Shult, and Dale A. Wade for their review of an earlier draft of this manuscript, and also acknowledge the helpful comments of Dr. J. Juan Spillett and Mr. Guy E. Connolly and L. Charles Howard, Jr., during the course of this research. Received for publication November 29, 1982. Texas Crop and Livestock Reporting Service 1979). Other costs, however, should be considered. These include expenses associated with management to protect livestock from predators such as night-time penning of livestock, shed-lambing or kidding', and the use of guard dogs and scare devices (such as propane and acetylene exploders). Costs associated with one or more of these techniques include additional transportation, feed, labor, and equipment over the amount which would be used in the absence of predation. The financial impact of depredation on the typical production firm can be examined with enterprise budgets (Gee 1978). By evaluating livestock costs and returns for operations with and without predation, the effect of specific levels of predation on representative livestock operations easily can be seen. Furthermore, enterprise budgets can be used to illustrate the financial effects of changes in loss rates and/or control methods on the economic viability of a livestock operation. Studies which use enterprise budgets to evaluate the cost of predation to Angora goat ranchers are lacking, although Wade and Connolly (1980) have addressed some of the economics involved. The objective of this study was to develop enterprise budgets of typical Angora goat operations with current levels of predation and control methods. These budgets then are compared to budgets for the same operations with no predation and predator control and budgets which reflect current control levels but reduced levels of predation.

Costs and Returns of Angora Goat Enterprises with and without Coyote Predation