U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE

A Technical Document Supporting the

2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment

A Technical Document Supporting the

2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United

States:

2000 to 2050

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United

States:

2000 to 2050

LARRY W. VAN TASSELL, E. TOM BARTLETT, JOHN E. MITCHELL
Abstract

Authors

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your

mailing information in label form through one of the following media.

Please specify the publication title and number.

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1396

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Van Tassell, Larry W.; Bartlett, E. Tom; Mitchell, John E. 2001. Projected use of grazed forages in the

United States: 2000 to 2050: A technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA

Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 73 p.

Scenario analysis techniques were used to combine projections from 35 grazed forage experts to estimate

future forage demand scenarios and examine factors that are anticipated to impact the use of grazed forages in

the South, North, and West Regions of the United States. The amount of land available for forage production is

projected to decrease in all regions while local impacts from environmental concerns and government policies will

be significant in areas where resource concerns have already emerged. Urban sprawl, suburbanization, and

increased demands for recreation were projected to be the major factors decreasing grazing lands. A decline in

the utilization of grazing lands by livestock is anticipated in the West and North Regions but should not change

significantly in the South Region. Conversely, wildlife utilization of grazing lands is anticipated to increase in all

regions, with nonconsumptive utilization of wildlife being a significant contributor to this trend. Technology

development in forage production is projected to play a role in the utilization of grazed forages in the West and

South Regions but not as much in the North Region. Grazing system technology and biological control of weeds

are the two most anticipated developments.

Keywords: rangeland, Resources Planning Act, scenario analysis, livestock grazing, wildlife, environmental

issues, grazing technology

Larry W. Van Tassell is Head, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Idaho,

Moscow. At the time of the research leading to this publication, Dr. Van Tassell was Professor of agricultural

economics at the University of Wyoming, Laramie.

E. Tom Bartlett is Professor, Department of Rangeland Ecosystem Science, Colorado State University, Fort

Collins. His research, teaching, and extension work are in rangeland economics and planning.

John E. Mitchell is a Rangeland Scientist at the Rocky Mountain Research Station in Fort Collins, CO.
Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 1

Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2

Procedures ................................................................................................................ 2

Determining Scenarios ................................................................................. 2

Expert panel .................................................................................... 2

Description of future states ............................................................. 2

Synthesis stage ............................................................................... 3

Generation of scenarios .................................................................. 5

Determining scenario probabilities .................................................. 6

Projection of Grazed Forage Use................................................................. 7

Results ..................................................................................................................... 7

Marginal Probabilities ................................................................................... 7

Compatibility Ratings ................................................................................... 7

South Region, Assessment of Issues ........................................................ 10

Land available for forage production ............................................. 10

Environmental concerns and government policies........................ 10

Livestock utilization of grazed lands.............................................. 11

Wildlife utilization of grazing lands ................................................ 11

Technology changes in forage production .................................... 11

North Region, Assessment of Issues ......................................................... 13

Land available for forage production ............................................. 13

Environmental concerns and government policies........................ 13

Livestock utilization of grazed lands.............................................. 15

Wildlife utilization of grazing lands ................................................ 15

Technology changes in forage production .................................... 16

West Region, Assessment of Issues.......................................................... 16

Land available for forage production ............................................. 16

Environmental concerns and government policies........................ 18

Livestock utilization of grazed lands.............................................. 18

Wildlife utilization of grazing lands ................................................ 19

Technology changes in forage production .................................... 19

Scenarios ................................................................................................... 20

South Region ................................................................................ 21

North Region ................................................................................. 22

West Region .................................................................................. 23

Grazed Forage Use Projections ................................................................. 25

Conclusions............................................................................................................. 26

References .............................................................................................................. 27

Appendices ............................................................................................................. 28

Contents

Projected use of grazed forages in the United

States: 2000 to 2050: A technical document

supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA

Assessment

Larry W. Van Tassell, E. Tom Bartlett, and John E. Mitchell
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 1

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended, (RPA) requires an analysis of present and anticipated uses, demand for, and

supply of U.S. renewable resources. Forage supplies

constitute a predominant renewable commodity resource on rangeland, although other resources such as

wildlife habitat, water, timber, energy and minerals,

and recreational opportunities are also jointly provided.

Numerous factors are correlated with and affect the

supply and value of grazed forages. Quantifying either of these factors is not an easy task, however. In the

1989 Assessment, future demand for forage was derived from model projections of beef and lamb production under the assumption that demand for forage is a

function of the demand for beef cattle and sheep. The

USDA Economic Research Service agricultural projection modeling system used in 1989, or a suitable replacement, was not available for the 2000 RPA Assessment, so we utilized an alternative approach—scenario

analysis.

A scenario is a description of a likely future state of

a system considering possible developments of relevant interdependent factors affecting the system. Scenario analysis allows the reduction of uncertainties

associated with these factors, thus providing decision

makers with information that accounts for change and

unknowns.

Scenario analysis requires a set of experts to help

carry out the steps in scenario development. The steps

in scenario analysis are:

1. Determine factors affecting the use of grazed forage.

2. Determine two or three possible outcomes for each

factor through historical trends, current conditions, and

expert opinion. Factor outcomes should be collectively

exhaustive and mutually exclusive.

3. Determine probabilities of occurrence for each

factor outcome. This was done by three assessment

regions—West, South, and North.

4. Consider interdependencies between all factor

outcomes to ensure that generated scenarios are internally consistent. We used a compatibility rating scale

of –2 to +2.

5. Generate scenarios. The objective of scenario

analysis is to develop a small number of representative scenarios that can be used in strategic planning.

In our study, representative scenarios were obtained

using cluster analysis to group scenarios based upon

their compatibility.

6. Calculate scenario probabilities. To do this,

compatibility estimates were transformed into joint

probabilities. The calculated probabilities were preliminary in that the probability of each outcome most

likely did not equal the sum of the joint probabilities of

that outcome and every outcome occurring and not

occurring. To determine scenario probabilities, we

used goal programming to minimize the differences

between the initial and corrected joint probabilities.

7. Project future grazed forage use. This step was

not a part of the scenario analysis, but was used to

help the experts assess how grazed forage use might

change under each scenario.

Five factors were seen as important in determining

future use of grazed forages: 1) land available for forage

production, 2) environmental concerns and government policies, 3) livestock utilization of grazing lands,

4) wildlife utilization of grazing lands, and 5) technology changes related to forage production. Factor outcomes with the highest marginal probabilities were

fairly consistent across Assessment Regions. The probability that land available for forage production will

decrease was twice the other possible outcomes. Probabilities for increasing wildlife utilization of grazing

lands were greater than 50 percent for each Assessment

Region. The largest difference between Assessment

Regions was with projections concerning livestock

utilization of grazing lands: in the South, it is expected

to slightly increase; in the West, it will likely decrease.

The most likely scenarios had a probability of 64 percent in the South, 54 percent in the North, and 72

percent in the West. Under these scenarios, the use of

grazed forages is expected to decrease 8 percent between 1998 and 2050 in the South. In the North, the

decrease is projected to be 32 percent, although a much

smaller change is also likely. The west assessment

region is expected to see a 22 percent reduction in

grazed forages, from 153 million AUM’s in 1998 to 119

million AUM’s in 2050.

Acknowledgments

This study could not have been completed without

the volunteered dedication of our panel of experts

(appendix tables A1–A3). We also wish to recognize

Dr. Neil Rimbey, Professor and Range Economist at

the University of Idaho, Caldwell Research and Extension Center, and Dr. L. Allen Torrell, Professor of

Agricultural Economics at New Mexico State University. These two scientists provided valuable advice at

the start of our research that facilitated an effective

approach to studying the problem.
2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

Introduction

Grazed forages are the basis for much of the livestock production in the United States. The Renewable

Resources Planning Act of 1974 requires the USDA

Forest Service to analyze the present and anticipated

uses of grazed forages in the United States every 10

years. Historically, the anticipated use of grazed forages has been estimated by using econometric models

to project consumer demand for beef and determine

the grazed forages required to meet that demand (Gee

and others 1990). This methodology depends on the

accuracy of the econometric model and makes the

assumption that the future will be a continuation of the

past. Risk and uncertainty are often overlooked.

Risk and uncertainty are naturally inherent in agricultural production. To enable producers and government agencies to plan strategically, an accounting and

understanding of the uncertainties confronting them

is important (Porter 1985). Huss (1988) stated that for

long-range forecasts to gain support, forecasters must

broaden their perspective from one that simply predicts the future to one that assists in understanding

and planning for the future. The Delphi technique may

be used to increase this understanding, but it has the

limitation that each event or factor being contemplated

is considered in isolation; in other words, the occurrence of any one event is assumed not to affect the

probability of occurrence of any other (Mitchell and

others 1979). Scenario analysis is an alternative to

econometric and Delphi forecasting that develops an

understanding of the causal relationships and factors

that contribute to change and instability (Wack 1985b;

Huss 1988).

Brauers and Weber (1988) defined a scenario as “a

description of a possible future state of an organization’s

environment considering possible developments of

relevant interdependent factors in this environment.”

According to Huss (1988), scenarios are best suited for

long-term, macroeconomic, uncertain environments

that are typified by a scarcity of data and a large

number of nonquantifiable factors. By reducing uncertainties into a set of scenarios, decisionmakers are

provided with information that accounts for change

and unknowns. Wack (1985a) stated that scenarios can

effectively organize a variety of seemingly unrelated

economic, technological, political, and societal information and translate it into a framework for judgment

in a way that no econometric model can.

The objectives of this study were to develop alternative scenarios concerning the future use of grazed

forages and to identify the likely demand for grazed

forages in the United States. Grazed forages include

native pasture and range, annual pasture, seeded perennial pasture, small grain pasture, hay aftermath,

and crop residue.

Procedures

Determining Scenarios

Several methodologies exist for developing futuristic views known as scenarios (Godet 1987; Ringland

1998; van der Heijden 1996). The methodology used in

this study was an extension of techniques developed

by Brauers and Weber (1988) for combining the opinions of experts. Interest was directed toward factors

that could influence the future use of grazed forages in

the United States. We employed a 50-year planning

horizon in the analysis to make it consistent with other

technical documents supporting the 2000 Assessment

required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. The act specifies a Renewable Resources Program that covers at least four

fiscal decades beyond the period of each update.

Expert panel

The country was divided into three regions—South,

North, and West—based upon the Assessment Regions used by the USDA Forest Service (1989) (fig. 1).

Our study objective was not to determine public opinion concerning the use of grazed forages, but to use the

expertise of qualified individuals to determine scenarios relating to grazed forage use in each region.

Twelve individuals in each region were contacted to

form the expert panel (appendix A, tables A1–A3).

Sample size was based upon Delphi studies where

research showed the error rate was small when eight or

more qualified participants were used (Hodgetts 1979).

It was hoped that at least 8 out of the 12 participants in

each region would provide useable input. Names of

participants were obtained through peer recommendations on the basis of their knowledge concerning the

grazed forage industry.

Description of future states

The first step in developing the regional scenarios

was to identify factors hypothesized to influence the

future use of grazed forages. Because of the complexity

of the survey and synthesis process, the number of
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 3

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

factors was kept to a minimum. The selected factors,

though, needed to be comprehensive enough to reflect

all relevant concerns about the future and be thoroughly defined so that all experts were dealing with

the same assumptions.

We hypothesized that five major factors will influence the use of grazed forages to the year 2050: (1) use

by livestock, (2) use by wildlife, (3) land available for

grazing, (4) environmental concerns and government

policies affecting grazed forage use, and (5) technological advancements influencing the production and

use of grazed forages. These factors were reviewed by

the panel of experts, who assented to them with few

changes. The final factors and rationalization for including them are presented in table 1.

We designated two or three possible future outcomes for each factor by evaluating historical trends,

current conditions, and expert opinion (table 1). These

factor outcomes were mutually exclusive and technically exhaustive; in other words, other outcomes were

thought to have a probability of occurrence so low as

to justify their exclusion. Assignment of possible future outcomes for each factor has been handled in a

variety of ways in past scenario generations. Palmer

and Schmid (1976), in forecasting the banking world of

1985, developed factor outcomes based upon specific

alternate future states that could occur, such as

“antitrust actions are taken against large banks.” They

also used increase or decrease measures. Goldfarb and

Huss (1988) established an outcome for each factor that

corresponded to the particular scenario they wished to

generate: high, moderate, and low economic growth.

These outcomes were either very specific, such as

indicating certain percentages of returns on equity in

certain timeframes, or were very general indicating an

increase or decrease in the current level of the factor.

We used a combination of these methods to specify

factor outcomes in this analysis.

Synthesis stage

The interdependencies between factor outcomes

were considered in this stage, and alternative scenarios were generated through synthesis of the future

outcomes. Cross-impact analysis (Sarin 1979) and the

Battelle method (Brauers and Weber 1988) are the two

basic methodologies typically used to implement the

synthesis phase. Cross-impact analysis requires participants to provide both marginal and conditional or

joint probability responses for the pairs of events. The

output is a ranking of scenarios in order of their likelihoods. The Battelle method explicitly does not use

probabilities; instead, it requires compatibility

estimates for every possible pair of factor outcomes.

Figure 1. Regions of interest for development of grazed forages

scenarios. The regions are identical to the regions used in the Forest

Service’s assessment of the U.S. forest and rangeland situation, as

required by the Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (USDA Forest Service

1989).
4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

Table 1. Factors hypothesized to influence the use of grazed forages over the next 50 years and their associated mutually

exclusive outcomes.

A. Land Available for Forage Production.

Rationale: To take into account the impact changing land use may have upon the availability of lands for forage

production.

Outcomes: 1. Changes in land use will increase the amount of land available for grazing.

2. Changes in land use will have little impact on the amount of land available for grazing.

3. Changes in land use will decrease the amount of land available for grazing.

B. Environmental Concerns and Government Policies.

Rationale: To consider the effect environmental regulations and government policies will have upon the availability

of grazing lands and the opportunity of stocking them to their economic or biological capacity.

Outcomes: 1. Regulations will increase on a national level, with lands on the margin being taken out of grazing

use.

2. Nationally, a significant effect will not be seen, but local effects will be significant where resource

concerns have already emerged.

3. After initial minor changes, the impacts of regulation will subside.

C. Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands.

Rationale: To evaluate the trends in livestock numbers and their utilization of, and demand for, grazing lands.

Utilization includes the amount of forage consumed and habitat used.

Outcomes: 1. Livestock utilization of grazing lands will increase.

2. Livestock utilization of grazing lands will not change significantly.

3. Livestock utilization of grazing lands will decrease.

D. Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands.

Rationale: To evaluate the trends in wildlife numbers and their utilization of, and demand for, grazing lands.

Utilization includes the amount of forage consumed and habitat used. Consumptive and 

non-consumptive demands on wildlife are both considered.

Outcomes: 1. Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will increase.

2. Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will not change significantly.

3. Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will decrease.

E. Technology Changes in Forage Production.

Rationale: To determine impacts on grazing resources from development or use of technology that would enhance

the use of grazed forages.

Outcomes: 1. There will not be significant changes in the development or use of forage production technology.

2. There will be significant changes in the development or use of forage production technology.

The output is a range of compatible scenarios and their

average compatibility values.

Brauers and Weber (1988) suggested an alternative

method that combines cross-impact analysis and the

Battelle method. This method incorporates both marginal and joint probabilities, with the joint probabilities being estimated using marginal probabilities and

compatibility ratings obtained by panel members. This

methodology serves as the basis to obtain cross-impact

probabilities and conduct the generation of scenarios.

The majority of work done with scenario analysis

has been within individual corporations where a panel

can be assembled to work closely as a group until the

project is completed. When the experts do not live in

proximity, work for different organizations, and have

little incentive to spend their time with such a planning

process other that for personal interest, then continual

and close contact is not possible. To resolve this situation, surveys were developed (appendix B) to elicit

from panel members information essential for developing scenarios.

With assistance from panel members, lists of issues

expected to influence each factor were identified in

order to better interpret their evaluation of the factor/

outcome predictions (appendix B, form A). Respondents were asked to indicate the direction of change

they believed each issue would take and also rate the

influence each issue was expected to have on the use of

grazed forages via the factor with which the issue was

associated. The direction each issue was expected to

take was rated as significant decrease, decrease, no

change, increase, or significant increase. The influence

each issue was expected to exhibit on the use of grazed

forages via the factor being considered was rated as

very negative, negative, neutral, positive, or very

positive.

A probability of occurrence for each factor outcome

was obtained from panel members. These probabilities
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 5

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

can be referred to as marginal probabilities and expressed as p(i), p(j), and so forth, where p(i) is the

probability that outcome i will occur and p(j) is the

probability that outcome j will occur. Because possible

future states of each factor were considered to be exhaustive and mutually exclusive, the assigned marginal

probabilities of each factor’s outcomes summed to 1.

Factor outcomes not examined in this study were hypothesized to have a zero or low likelihood of occurrence and were deleted from consideration to simplify

the study.

Interdependencies between all factor outcomes were

considered to ensure that the generated scenarios were

internally consistent; in other words, scenarios were

not composed of factor outcomes that had low likelihoods of occurring together. Interdependencies between factor outcomes can be expressed as either

conditional or joint probabilities. Conditional probabilities reflect the probability of i given j, or p(i /j). Joint

probabilities reflect the probability of i and j occurring

simultaneously, or p(i *j). Joint probabilities assume

symmetry, in other words, p(i *j) = p(j *i); however,

with conditional probabilities, p(i /j) does not necessarily equal p(j/i).

To determine compatible scenarios, simultaneous

occurrence was assumed rather than a conditional

relationship. Some settings may require a conditional

inquiry, such as a link between oil supply and war.

War may create a higher likelihood of a shortage in oil

supply, but a shortage in oil supply may not necessarily create a higher likelihood of war. In forecasting the

future state of grazed forages, rather than considering

conditional relationships, events were evaluated as

either being or not being compatible with one another.

Joint probabilities reflect this condition of symmetry,

allowing consideration of concurrent occurrence rather

than conditional relationships.

To keep the information demanded from respondents as simple as possible, we asked participants to

evaluate how compatible two factor outcomes were

(for example, factor A, outcome 1, and factor B, outcome 3), rather than directly estimating their joint

probability. Compatibility ratings were expressed on a

scale of 1 to 5. A compatibility rating of 5 indicated

two possible occurrences were very compatible, and

a rating of 1 indicated they were not likely to occur

together. Values of 2, 3, and 4 represented increasing

compatibility. At the suggestion of reviewers,

compatibility ratings in the panel survey were expressed as –2, –1, 0, +1, and +2 instead of 1 through 5,

respectively. However, they were converted back to 1

through 5 for analysis.

Panel data from forms B and C (appendix B) were

consolidated by region to obtain the data needed for

the synthesis stage. Regional marginal probability estimates for each factor outcome were obtained by

averaging individual responses. Factor outcome compatibility estimates were converted to the 1 to 5 scale

used by Brauers and Weber (1988). The median response was used for the aggregated regional compatibility (appendix A, tables A4–A6). When the number

of responses was an even number and the median fell

between two different values, the mean was used as a

pointer to select the compatibility rating between the

two median values.

Generation of scenarios

A total of 162 scenarios (appendix A, tables A7–A9)

were possible given that four factors had three possible outcomes and one factor had two possible outcomes (34

 x 21). Scenarios deemed to have a low possibility of occurring were eliminated under two

conditions: First, if a compatibility rating of 1 (not

likely to occur together) existed between any two

factor outcomes in a scenario, the scenario was eliminated. Second, intrascenario compatibility ratings were

developed by averaging the individual compatibilities

between the factor outcomes in each scenario. If the

intrascenario compatibility of the scenario was less

than 3.1, the scenario was eliminated. A lower limit of

3.1 was chosen to assure the remaining scenarios had

an intrascenario compatibility above 3 (in other words,

above a neutral compatibility).

The objective of scenario analysis was to develop a

small number (two or three) of representative scenarios that can be used in strategic planning. Brauers

and Weber (1988) recommended cluster analysis

(Martino and Chen 1978) be used to organize scenarios

into homogeneous groupings that are as heterogeneous between themselves as possible. The optimal

number of scenario groupings to consider often is

controlled by the ability of the end user to conceptualize the alternatives and use them in planning. Two to

four scenarios are usually recommended.

In this study, we developed representative scenarios

using cluster analysis to group scenarios on the basis of

their compatibility. To accomplish this, interscenario

compatibility ratings were determined by comparing

the compatibility ratings between the factor outcomes

in one scenario with each factor outcome in another

scenario, summing all of these compatibility levels,

and dividing by the number of factors levels compared. The resulting scenario compatibilities ranged

from 1 to 5. Finalized input for the cluster analysis was

a q*q diagonal matrix (q = number of acceptable scenarios) composed of compatibility ratings between all

scenarios. Diagonal values were assigned a rating of 5.
6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

All scenarios were clustered into two or three groups

so as to maximize the interscenario compatibility within

a group and minimize the interscenario compatibility

between groups. To determine whether two or three

clusters were optimal, we developed an average

intercompatibility rating for all scenarios within each

cluster, and subsequently compared them to determine which number obtained a maximum average

compatibility rating.

To determine a representative scenario for each cluster, the mean, mode, and median of each factor outcome within a cluster were examined (appendix A,

tables A10–A15). Three representative scenarios were

determined for each cluster based upon each statistic

(mean, mode, and median). If the statistics disagreed

on the representative scenario, scenario intracompatibility ratings were used to decide between the

three alternatives.

Determining scenario probabilities

To calculate scenario likelihoods or probabilities of

occurrence, the compatibility estimates, kij, of values 1

through 5 were transformed into probabilities. Marginal probabilities of the two events, i and j, were used

to determine the upper and lower bounds of the joint

probability p(i *j) according to probability theory axioms, as:

lij = max{0, p(i) + p(j) – 1} ≤ p(i *j) ≤ min{p(i),p(j)} = uij, (1)

where, lij = joint probability lower limit and uij = joint

probability upper limit.

Compatibility values were then transformed into

joint probabilities p(i *j) using the equations:

p(i *j) = p(i) *p(j) – {(lij – p(i) *p(j)) *(kij – 3)/2}, and (2)

p(i *j) = p(i) *p(j) + {(uij – p(i) *p(j)) *(kij – 3)/2}. (3)

This gave two linear interpolations, one for 1 ≤ k ≤ 3

and one for 3 ≤ k ≤ 5. The calculated joint probabilities

p(i *j) were preliminary in that the probability of each

outcome would probably not be equal to the sum of the

joint probabilities for this outcome and every other

outcome both occurring and not occurring, or

p(i) = p(i *j) + p(i * ~j), (4)

where p(i *~j) is the joint probability that event i will

occur and event j will not.

To adjust joint probabilities and determine scenario

probabilities, a goal programming model (GP) with

the objective of minimizing the differences of the initial or preliminary (p) and corrected or final (p’) joint

probabilities was developed (Brauers and Weber 1988).

Once the corrected joint probabilities p’(i *j) that satisfied the condition p(i) = p’(i *j) + p’(i *~j) were obtained,

the difference between the initially calculated joint

probabilities p(i *j), and the corrected probabilities

p’(i *j) was measured as d–

 and d+. When p’(i *j) < p(i *j),

the difference was d–, and when p’(i *j) > p(i *j), the

difference was d+. If the two joint probabilities were

equal, the difference was zero. Following Brauers and

Weber (1988), the GP was of the form:

min ∑ij(dij

–

 + dij

+) + M*D (5)

subject to

yt*ai = p(i) (6)

yt

*(ai *aj) – p’(i *j) = 0 (7)

∑ ys = 1, s = 1 to N (8)

p’(i *j) + (dij

–

) – (dij

+) = p(i *j) (9)

p’(i *j) + p’(i *~j) = p(i) (10)

D – dij

+ ≥ 0 (11)

D – dij

– ≥ 0

ys, dij

–

, dij

+, D ≥ 0 i, j = 1,...,N. (12)

where,

M = a large value, for example, 10,000

D = the maximum of all individual difference

variables

ai

 = 0 if outcome A was not in the scenario and 1 if

outcome A was in the scenario

yt = probability of outcome.

The objective function (equation 5) minimized both

the maximum difference between the initial and final

joint probabilities and the sum of the individual

deviations. Equation 6 constrained the sum of the

probabilities for the scenarios that comprised factor

level ai to be equal to the marginal probability of

factor level ai. Similarly, equation 7 constrained the

joint probability of i and j to equal the sum of the

probabilities of scenarios including both i and j.

Equation 8 constrained the sum of individual scenario probabilities to be equal to 1. Equation 9 determined the difference between the preliminary and

final joint probabilities. In equation 10, the probability of outcome i was constrained to be equal to the

sum of the joint probabilities for outcome i and every

other outcome both occurring and nonoccurring. Equation 11 defined the generalized difference variable as

an upper limit and equation 12 ensured that all variables were nonnegative. Because only a subset of all

possible scenarios was examined, the equality constraints on equations 6, 7, and 8 were replaced with

less-than-or-equal-to constraints.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 7

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

The GP model provided individual scenario probabilities, but because of the degenerate solution problem in linear programming, alternative probabilities

existed. Brauers and Weber (1988) suggest solving the

GP to obtain the minimum possible deviation (MINdev)

and then creating a new objective function and one

additional constraint for use in a postoptimality analysis. Using this suggestion, the new objective function

was

Min ys or Max ys, (13)

and the additional constraint was

min ∑ij(dij

–

 + dij

+) + M *D = MINdev, s = 1, ..., K. (14)

This model was solved for each of the K scenarios to

obtain their minimum and maximum probability of

occurrence. The arithmetic mean of the upper and

lower bound, after being adjusted by the summation of

all scenarios so the probabilities summed to 1, defined

the probability of each scenario.

Projection of Grazed Forage Use

After the major scenarios were developed for each

region, panel members were shown historical grazed

forage use from 1968 through 1998 for their region and

were asked to project grazed forage use under each

scenario. The historical trend in grazed forages was

estimated using January 1 cattle and sheep inventory

numbers along with estimates of grazed forage consumption from enterprise budgets developed by USDA

Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management

(BLM), and USDA Economic Research Service (Gee

and others 1990). The unit of measurement was animal

unit months (AUM), which is the amount of forage

required to feed 1 animal unit—a 1,000-lb cow with

nursing calf or equivalent—for 1 month (Glossary

Update Task Group 1998). Panel members estimated

regional grazed forage use by providing a distribution

(10 estimates) of expected forage use in the years 2010

and 2050 for each scenario.

Results

Twelve useable responses from panel members were

obtained for the West and South Region and 11 in the

North Region, where one individual failed to respond.

Grazed forage projections were received from 9, 10,

and 11 panel members in the South, North, and West

Regions, respectively.

Marginal Probabilities

Factor outcomes with the highest marginal probabilities were fairly consistent among regions (table 2).

The probability that land available for forage production will decrease was almost double other land availability outcomes. Wildlife utilization of grazing lands

was expected to increase in each region with a marginal probability of 54 to 60 percent. Conversely, small

probabilities were attached to decreases in wildlife use

of rangelands. Technology change outcomes in forage

production also was consistent between regions with

significant changes having the highest probability of

occurrence.

A slight difference existed between regions on environmental concerns and government policies. For the

South and West Regions, respondents attached the

highest probability of occurrence to the outcome that

regulations will increase on a national level, with lands

on the margin being taken out of grazing use. North

Region respondents narrowly felt that a significant

national effect will not be seen; however, local effects

will be significant in areas where resource concerns

have already emerged. Both of these outcomes were

ranked either 1 or 2 in all regions. The lowest probability in each region for an environmental/government

outcome was attached to outcome 3, where, after initial minor changes, the impacts of regulation will

subside.

The largest difference between regional assessments

was with projections concerning livestock utilization

of grazing lands. An increase in livestock utilization

had a probability of occurrence of 56 percent in the

North Region while a decrease in livestock utilization

of grazing lands in the West Region had a marginal

probability of 50 percent. The marginal probabilities

for livestock utilization in the South Region were more

uniform, with a 35, 38, and 27 percent probability of an

increase, no change, and decrease, respectively.

Higher probabilities were attached to land being

removed from grazing use because of regulations and

changes in land use in the West Region than in the

other two regions. A lower probability was also attached to the ability of forage production technologies

to improve the use of forage in the West.

Compatibility Ratings

As a general rule, outcomes that had a high marginal

probability of occurrence had high compatibility ratings with other outcomes (tables 3–5). Outcomes with

a low marginal probability typically had lower compatibility ratings. For example, for the South Region
8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

Table 2. Marginal probabilities of outcomes for each factor influencing the use of grazed forages, all regions.

Marginal Probability by Region

Factor/Alternative South North West

A. Land Available for Forage Production

1. Changes in land use will increase the amount of land .25 .27 .12

available for forage production.

2. Changes in land use will have little impact on the .26 .23 .24

amount of land available for grazing.

3. Changes in land use will decrease the amount of land .49 .50 .64

available for grazing.

B. Environmental Concerns and Government Policies

1. Regulations will increase on a national level, with .42 .35 .56

lands on the margin being taken out of grazing use.

2. Nationally, a significant effect will not be seen, but .38 .41 .35

local effects will be significant in areas where

resource concerns have already emerged.

3. After initial minor changes, the impacts of .20 .24 .09

regulation will subside.

C. Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands

1. Livestock utilization of grazing lands will increase. .35 .56 .13

2. Livestock utilization of grazing lands will not .38 .19 .37

change significantly.

3. Livestock utilization of grazing lands will decrease. .27 .25 .50

D. Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands

1. Wildlife utilization of grazing land will increase. .60 .54 .59

2. Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will not. .28 .37 .31

change significantly

3. Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will decrease. .12 .09 .10

E. Technology Changes in Forage Production

1. There will not be significant changes in the development .30 .25 .41

or use of forage production technologies.

2. There will be significant changes in the development .70 .75 .59

or use of forage production technologies.

Table 3. Compatibility ratings of mutually exclusive outcomes for each factora, South Region.

Factor

Outcomes Factor Outcomes

A1 na

A2 na na

A3 na na na

B1 1 2 4 na

B2 2 3 4 na na

B3 3 4 4 na na na

C1 4 3 4 2 3 4 na

C2 2 3 3 2 3 4 na na

C3 2 2 5 4 3 3 na na na

D1 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 5 na

D2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 na na

D3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 1 na na na

E1 2 4 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 2 na

E2 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 2 4 4 2 na 0na

A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 E1 E2

aA, B, C, D, and E represent the five factors. 1, 2, and 3 are the factor outcomes. Refer to table 1 for definitions.

bna = not applicable.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 9

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

(table 3), significant changes in the development or use

of forage production technologies had the highest

marginal probability (70 percent), and the decrease in

wildlife utilization of grazing lands had the lowest

marginal probability (12 percent). The majority of

compatibility ratings associated with increased forage

technologies were level 4 (likely to occur together). The

majority of compatibility ratings for a decrease in

wildlife utilization of grazed forages were level 2 (low

likelihood of occurring together).

Table 4. Compatibility ratings of mutually exclusive outcomes for each factora, North Region.

Factor

Outcomes Factor Outcomes

A1 na

A2 na na

A3 na na na

B1 1 2 5 na

B2 4 3 4 na na

B3 4 3 3 na na na

C1 5 3 1 2 3 4 na

C2 3 4 2 3 4 3 na na

C3 1 2 5 4 4 3 na na na

D1 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 na

D2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 na na

D3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 1 na na na

E1 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 4 4 3 3 na

E2 4 3 2 4 4 4 5 3 2 4 3 2 na 0na

A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 E1 E2

aA, B, C, D, and E represent the five factors. 1, 2, and 3 are the factor outcomes. Refer to table 1 for definitions.

bna = not applicable.

Table 5. Compatibility ratings of mutually exclusive outcomes for each factora, West Region.

Factor

Outcomes Factor Outcomes

A1 na

A2 na 0na

A3 na na na

B1 1 2 5 na

B2 2 3 5 na na

B3 3 4 3 na na na

C1 4 3 1 2 2 2 na

C2 2 4 2 2 3 4 na na

C3 2 3 5 5 4 3 na na na

D1 2 4 5 4 4 4 2 4 5 na

D2 2 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 4 na na

D3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 na na na

E1 2 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 2 na

E2 2 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 2 na na

A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 E1 E2

aA, B, C, D, and E represent the five factors. 1, 2, and 3 are the factor outcomes. Refer to table 1 for definitions.

bna = not applicable.

Compatibility ratings were fairly equally divided

between compatibility levels 2, 3, and 4. Unless a near

consensus occurred between regional panel members,

extreme compatibility ratings (1 and 5) were eliminated by the central tendency method (using the median, mode, or average) used to develop each regional

compatibility matrix. Level 1 compatibility ratings

(will not occur together) occurred twice in the South

and West Regions and four times in the North Region. Compatibility ratings of 5 (very likely to occur
10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

South Region, with 80 percent of these being authorized or paid permits (USDA Forest Service 1998).

About 9,000 head of livestock, mostly cattle, were

grazed sometime during the year. Continued use of

these lands for livestock grazing was expected to decrease slightly and exhibit a slightly negative influence

on the use of grazed forages in the South Region.

Environmental concerns and government

policies

Environmental regulations were expected to negatively impact the use of grazed forages in the South

Region (table 7). Regulations regarding wetland and

riparian management were foreseen to have the

greatest negative influence, followed by preservation

programs and regulations anticipated from the Endangered Species Act. The greatest increase in environmental regulations were anticipated from the Clean

Water Act, but respondents were divided on the impact of these regulation on the use of grazed forages.

Government commodity programs impacting crops

grown in the South Region were expected to decrease

slightly. This in turn should have a slightly positive

impact on the use of grazed forages. Federal conservation programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), initiated in Title XII of the Food Security

Act of 1985, should change little in the future. The CRP

was anticipated to exert a slightly positive influence on

the use of grazed forages as some of these lands convert to grazing use in future years. Conversely, wilderness and other preservation programs should increase

and exhibit a neutral to very negative influence on the

use of grazed forages.

Respondents did not anticipate much future

assistance to the grazed forage industry via range

together) resulted three, six, and five times in the

South, North, and West Regions, respectively. Most of

the level 1 and 5 compatibility ratings involved the

relationships between available land, government regulations, and numbers of livestock and wildlife. In

general, increased regulations implied decreased land

available for grazing, which in turn implied less livestock grazing activity. An inverse relationship between the utilization of grazing lands by livestock and

wildlife was expressed. Panel members in the South

and North Regions indicated that an increase in the

utilization of grazing lands by livestock would be

attached to significant changes in the development or

use of forage production technologies.

South Region, Assessment of Issues

Land available for forage production

Few issues were projected to have major impacts on

the amount of land available for forage production

over the next several decades in the South Region

(table 6). The major influence was an expansion in

urbanization and suburban development. Urban

sprawl is expected to have the most negative impact on

the amount of land available for forage production.

Recreational demand, reforestation projects and allocation of lands for parks and watershed districts should

increase slightly but have negligible impacts on forage

production. An increase in the use of conservation

easements and “green space” promotion was expected,

but should have a modest influence on the land available for forage production.

In 1997, slightly less than 80,000 AUMs were permitted for grazing on National Forest System lands in the

Table 6. Issues influencing Factor 1: land available for forage production, South Region.

Directiona Influence

Issue –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Suburbanization (ranchettes, etc.) 8 17 0 58 17 0.58 17 42 17 25 0 –0.50

Expansion of population centers (urban sprawl) 0 25 0 50 25 0.75 25 58 16 0 0 –1.08

Building “second” homes in rural settings 8 25 17 42 8 0.17 8 50 25 17 0 –0.50

Use of conservation easements and similar programs 8 0 17 67 8 0.67 0 50 25 17 8 –0.17

“Open space” or “green space” promotion 0 8 50 33 8 0.42 0 17 75 8 0 –0.08

Recreational demands on grazing lands 9 9 18 54 9 0.45 0 46 36 18 0 –0.27

Land in crop production vs. grazed forages 8 33 25 33 0 –0.17 0 25 42 25 8 0.17

Use of U.S. Forest Service lands for livestock grazing 10 50 30 10 0 –0.60 0 60 40 0 0 –0.60

Natural and planned reforestation 0 36 9 55 0 0.18 0 64 18 18 0 –0.45

Allocation of lands for other uses like local parks and watershed districts 0 8 58 25 8 0.33 0 33 67 0 0 –0.33

aDirection of change each issue will take: –2 = significant decrease; –1 = decrease; 0 = no change; 1 = increase; 2 = significant increase.

bInfluence each issue will have on the use of grazed forages via the factor: –2 = very negative; –1 = negative; 0 = neutral; 1 = positive; 2 = very positive.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 11

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

improvement cost share programs. Pesticide and animal health product restrictions should increase but

exhibit a neutral influence on the use of grazed forages.

Livestock utilization of grazed lands

Beef cattle, goat, and horse numbers were projected

to increase in the South Region, while the number of

dairy cattle and sheep were seen to decline (table 8).

Concomitant with changes in livestock numbers, goat

and beef cattle producer profit margins were anticipated to increase. Profit margins of dairy cattle producers and sheep producers, conversely, were expected to decline.

The use of grazed forages in the diets of beef and

dairy cattle was projected to rise. The increased use of

grazed forages in dairy cattle diets should somewhat

offset the negative impact from decreased dairy numbers. The time goats and horses spend on grazed

forages also should increase slightly. The use of livestock (most expectedly goats) to combat weed infestations was projected to increase and have a positive

influence on use of grazed forages. Alternative livestock such as bison, elk, and deer were expected to

increase slightly but have little influence on the overall

use of grazed forages in the region. An increase in fee

and nonfee costs of operating on both private and

Federal lands and an increase in public concern for

animal rights should somewhat temper the projected

increase in the demand for grazed forages in the South

Region. Advances in livestock production technologies also were projected to slightly decrease the number of livestock required to meet consumer demand.

Wildlife utilization of grazing lands

Demand for wildlife resources in the South Region

were expected to increase over the next several decades (table 9). The most significant increase in demand should extend from hunting, followed closely

by nonconsumptive demand for wildlife and demand

for existence, option, or bequest values.

Nonmarket uses of wildlife were not projected to be

as complementary with livestock grazing as hunting

and nonconsumptive activities. Hunting and

nonconsumptive demands were expected to have a

neutral influence on the use of grazed forages in the

South Region. A slightly negative impact was anticipated from an increased demand for wildlife from

existence, option, or bequest values. The influence of

wildlife nonmarket demands on the use of grazed

forages may be related to the anticipated increase in

the area of grazing lands projected to be purchased or

set aside for wildlife habitat. Also, while the utilization

of both private and public lands for wildlife purposes

was expected to increase, only the increased utilization

on public lands was projected to hinder the use of

grazed forages.

Technology changes in forage production

Development and application of new technologies

were expected to play a role in the increased use of

grazed forages over the next several decades (table 10).

Foremost is the use of biological control methods for

weed and brush management. Development of new

forage species and varieties, development of grazing

Table 7. Issues influencing Factor 2: environmental concerns and government policies, South Region.

Directiona Influenceb

Issue –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Regulations regarding wetland and riparian area conservation 17 8 0 50 25 0.58 25 42 17 0 17 –0.58

Regulations due to the Endangered Species Act 8 0 17 58 17 0.75 8 50 25 17 0 –0.50

Regulations due to the Clean Water Act 8 0 8 58 25 0.92 8 25 34 25 8 0.00

Conservation programs (for example CRP) 0 46 18 36 0 –0.09 0 18 36 36 9 0.36

Quantity of water available for agriculture (vs. residential) use 0 33 42 8 17 0.08 8 17 58 17 0 –0.17

Wilderness area and other preservation programs 0 18 36 46 0 0.27 9 36 55 0 0 –0.55

Predator control laws and regulations 0 9 55 36 0 0.27 0 27 64 9 0 –0.18

BLM and USFS grazing regulations (standards and guidelines,

 rangeland monitoring, etc.) 17 0 33 50 0 0.17 0 33 50 0 17 0.00

Range improvement cost share programs 0 33 34 33 0 0.00 0 33 34 22 11 0.11

Government commodity programs 10 50 20 20 0 –0.50 0 10 40 50 0 0.40

Pesticide and animal health product restrictions 0 8 17 67 8 0.75 0 33 50 8 8 –0.08

aDirection of change each issue will take: –2 = significant decrease; –1 = decrease; 0 = no change; 1 = increase; 2 = significant increase. bInfluence each issue will have on the use of grazed forages via the factor: –2 = very negative; –1 = negative; 0 = neutral; 1 = positive; 2 = very positive.
12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

Table 8. Issues influencing Factor 3: livestock utilization of grazing lands, South Region.

Directiona Influenceb

Issue –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Number of beef cattle in your region 0 8 25 67 0 0.58 0 8 25 67 0 0.58

Number of dairy cattle in your region 17 50 17 17 0 -0.67 8 17 42 25 8 0.08

Number of sheep in your region 10 30 60 0 0 -0.50 0 30 70 0 0 –0.30

Number of goats in your region 0 9 18 73 0 0.64 0 0 36 64 0 0.64

Number of horses in your region 0 0 33 50 17 0.83 0 0 42 58 0 0.58

Time beef cattle spend on grazed forages 0 0 25 67 8 0.83 0 0 33 58 8 0.75

Time dairy cattle spend on grazed forages 8 25 8 50 8 0.25 0 25 25 33 17 0.42

Time sheep spend on grazed forages 0 0 100 0 0 0.00 0 0 90 10 0 0.10

Time goats spend on grazed forages 0 0 73 27 0 0.27 0 0 64 36 0 0.36

Time horses spend on grazed forages 0 0 75 25 0 0.25 0 0 75 8 17 0.42

Alternative feed sources for livestock in lieu of grazed forages 0 33 34 33 0 0.00 0 17 67 17 0 0.00

Use of grazing livestock to combat weed infestations 0 0 45 46 9 0.64 0 0 55 36 9 0.55

Advances in livestock production technology so as to decrease the

 number of livestock required for food 0 0 40 60 0 0.60 0 30 70 0 0 –0.30

Fee and non-fee costs of operating on public lands 0 0 14 72 14 1.00 0 29 57 14 0 –0.14

Fee and non-fee costs of operating on private lands 0 0 11 89 0 0.89 0 45 33 22 0 –0.22

Profit margins of beef cattle producers 0 17 50 25 8 0.25 0 8 50 42 0 0.33

Profit margins of dairy cattle producers 8 42 42 8 0 –0.50 0 33 42 17 8 0.00

Profit margins of sheep producers 0 20 70 10 0 –0.10 0 20 80 0 0 –0.20

Profit margins of goat producers 0 0 36 64 0 0.64 0 0 45 55 0 0.55

Profit margins of horse producers 0 9 73 18 0 0.09 0 0 91 9 0 0.09

Use by alternative livestock (bison, elk, deer) 0 0 54 36 9 0.55 0 18 64 18 0 0.00

Public concern for animal health/rights 0 0 8 75 17 1.08 0 58 17 17 8 –0.25

aDirection of change each issue will take: –2 = significant decrease; –1 = decrease; 0 = no change; 1 = increase; 2 = significant increase. bInfluence each issue will have on the use of grazed forages via the factor: –2 = very negative; –1 = negative; 0 = neutral; 1 = positive; 2 = very positive.

Table 9. Issues influencing Factor 4: wildlife utilization of grazing lands, South Region.

Directiona Influenceb

Issue –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Demand for wildlife for hunting purposes 0 0 17 50 33 1.17 0 42 33 17 8 –0.08

Nonconsumptivec demand for wildlife 0 0 8 75 17 1.08 0 33 42 17 8 0.00

Demand for wildlife occurring from existence, option

 or bequest valuesd 0 0 27 55 18 0.91 9 37 36 9 9 –0.27

Number of grazing lands purchased or set-aside for wildlife

 use/habitat 0 0 25 58 17 0.92 8 50 25 8 8 –0.42

Wildlife utilization of private lands 0 0 25 42 33 1.08 0 33 42 17 8 0.00

Wildlife utilization of public lands 0 0 10 70 20 1.10 10 30 40 20 0 –0.30

aDirection of change each issue will take: –2 = significant decrease; –1 = decrease; 0 = no change; 1 = increase; 2 = significant increase. bInfluence each issue will have on the use of grazed forages via the factor: –2 = very negative; –1 = negative; 0 = neutral; 1 = positive; 2 = very positive. cNonconsumptive use is use of a resource in a manner that does not diminish the available total stock (for example, bird-watching or photography). dExistence value is the external benefit that accrues to individuals having no intention of ever visiting or using the site or environment in question. These individuals

are willing to give up resources simply to know that the good exists in a particular condition.

Option value is the amount an individual would be willing to pay to preserve the option to participate in some activity or use some resource at some future time,

whether or not that individual ever actually participates or uses the resource.

Bequest value is the amount an individual would be willing to pay to preserve a resource so it will be available for future generations.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 13

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

management methods, and advances in technology

for livestock distribution, monitoring, and handling

may also positively influence the use grazed forages.

An increase in educational programming was anticipated to assist producers in the adoption of these

advances.

While biological control methods were expected to

have the greatest influence on weed and brush management, development of new chemicals for these

purposes was also expected. Conversely, a substantial

increase in the use of existing chemicals for brush and

weed control was not anticipated.

The use of fertilizer on grazing lands and the development of water for animal use were projected to

increase slightly. Both of these advancements should

have a small positive influence on forage production.

Irrigation for forage production purposes, though,

was expected to decline in the South Region but have

a neutral influence on the use of grazed forages.

North Region, Assessment of Issues

Land available for forage production

Land available for forage production was expected

to be negatively impacted over the next several decades in the North Region (table 11). All respondents

felt urban sprawl should increase or significantly increase, along with suburbanization. The building of

second homes in rural settings also was projected to

increase. Expected, but less significant, increases in

reforestation projects and allocation of lands for uses

such as parks and watershed districts were seen to

negatively impact the grazed forage industry. Increased

recreational activities on grazing lands should not

have much effect on the use of grazed forages.

Only a small amount of land was expected to change

from grazing to crop production in the North Region.

Grazed forages should also be slightly negatively impacted by a modest decrease in the use of National

Forest System lands for livestock grazing. Approximately 57,000 permitted AUMs, representing 7,300

cattle and only a few sheep, were authorized in the

North Region in 1997 (USDA Forest Service 1998).

Somewhat countering these negative influences on

the use of grazed forages was an expected increase in

the promotion of “open” or “green spaces.” The use of

conservation easements and similar programs should

increase in the North Region, serving to maintain the

use of grazed forages.

Environmental concerns and government

policies

Issues concerning water should be relevant to grazed

forage supplies in the North Region over the projected

planning horizon (table 12). An increase in regulations

protecting wetlands and riparian areas, along with

regulations imposed by the Clean Water Act, were

anticipated. These issues were projected to have the

most significant negative impact on the use of grazed

Table 10. Issues influencing Factor 5: technology changes in forage production, South Region.

Directiona Influenceb

Issue –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Use of brush control on grazing lands 0 8 33 59 0 0.50 0 17 42 33 8 0.33

Use of weed control on grazing lands 0 0 17 75 8 0.92 0 8 33 50 8 0.58

Development of new chemicals for brush and weed control

 on grazing lands 0 17 8 67 8 0.67 0 8 33 58 0 0.50

Use of existing chemicals for brush and weed control 0 17 42 42 0 0.25 0 17 50 25 8 0.25

Use of biological control methods for brush and weed control 0 0 8 58 33 1.25 0 0 17 67 17 1.00

Development of new forage species and varieties 0 0 8 75 17 1.08 0 8 25 50 17 0.75

Use of fertilizer on grazing lands 0 8 50 42 0 0.33 0 17 50 33 0 0.17

Use of irrigation on grazing lands 17 25 58 0 0 –0.58 0 17 75 8 0 –0.08

Development of grazing management methods (for example,

 grazing systems) 0 8 17 42 33 1.00 0 17 25 33 25 0.67

Advances in technology for livestock distribution, monitoring and

 handling 0 0 17 75 8 0.92 0 8 33 50 8 0.58

Water development for animal use 0 8 50 33 8 0.42 0 8 58 33 0 0.25

Technology transfer and education programs 0 8 8 58 25 1.00 0 25 8 42 25 0.67

aDirection of change each issue will take: –2 = significant decrease; –1 = decrease; 0 = no change; 1 = increase; 2 = significant increase. bInfluence each issue will have on the use of grazed forages via the factor: –2 = very negative; –1 = negative; 0 = neutral; 1 = positive; 2 = very positive.
14 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

forages. Conflicts between urban and agriculture water uses also were expected to negatively influence the

use of grazed forages.

Regulations due to the Endangered Species Act

should have similar but less notable impacts than

those associated with water issues. Wilderness area

and other preservation programs were expected to

increase but should only have a slight detrimental

influence on the use of grazed forages in the region.

Federal agricultural programs should manifest a

positive influence on the grazed forage industry and

somewhat abate the issues previously discussed. Commodity programs were expected to decrease moderately and result in a fairly positive outcome on grazed

forages, whereas respondents were divided concerning the impacts of the Conservation Reserve Program

on the grazed forage industry. An anticipated increase

in the use of range improvement cost share programs

also should increase the use of grazed forages in the

region. Conversely, projected grazing regulations on

Federally owned lands should negatively impact the

use of the forage grazed in the North Region.

Table 11. Issues influencing Factor 1: land available for forage production, North Region.

Directiona Influenceb

Issue –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Suburbanization (ranchettes, etc.) 0 0 0 40 60 1.60 10 90 0 0 0 –1.10

Expansion of population centers (urban sprawl) 0 0 0 60 40 1.40 30 60 10 0 0 –1.20

Building “second” homes in rural settings 0 0 20 70 10 0.90 0 50 50 0 0 –0.50

Use of conservation easements and similar programs 0 0 0 90 10 1.10 0 40 20 40 0 0.00

“Open space” or “green space” promotion 0 0 30 60 10 0.80 0 10 60 30 0 0.20

Recreational demands on grazing lands 0 0 20 60 20 1.00 0 40 40 20 0 –0.20

Land in crop production vs. grazed forages 0 40 10 40 10 0.20 10 40 10 40 0 –0.20

Use of U.S. Forest Service lands for livestock grazing 11 33 56 0 0 –0.56 11 33 56 0 0 –0.56

Natural and planned reforestation 0 10 30 50 10 0.60 0 60 40 0 0 –0.60

Allocation of lands for other uses like local parks and

 watershed districts 0 10 0 80 10 0.90 0 80 20 0 0 –0.80

aDirection of change each issue will take: –2 = significant decrease; –1 = decrease; 0 = no change; 1 = increase; 2 = significant increase. bInfluence each issue will have on the use of grazed forages via the factor: –2 = very negative; –1 = negative; 0 = neutral; 1 = positive; 2 = very positive.

Table 12. Issues influencing Factor 2: environmental concerns and government policies, North Region.

Directiona Influenceb

Issue –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Regulations regarding wetland and

riparian area conservation 0 10 0 70 20 1.00 30 60 10 0 0 –1.20

Regulations due to the Endangered Species Act 0 10 40 40 10 0.50 10 30 60 0 0 –0.50

Regulations due to the Clean Water Act 0 10 0 60 30 1.10 30 30 20 20 0 –0.70

Conservation programs (for example CRP) 10 30 10 50 0 0.00 0 40 20 40 0 0.00

Quantity of water available for agriculture (vs. residential) use 0 30 60 0 10 –0.10 0 40 60 0 0 –0.40

Wilderness area and other preservation programs 0 0 33 56 11 0.78 0 44 56 0 0 –0.44

Predator control laws and regulations 0 20 70 0 10 0.00 0 10 90 0 0 –0.10

BLM and USFS grazing regulations (standards and guidelines,

 rangeland monitoring, etc.) 0 17 50 17 17 0.33 17 33 50 0 0 –0.67

Range improvement cost share programs 0 17 17 50 17 0.67 0 0 33 67 0 0.67

Government commodity programs 33 67 0 0 0 –1.33 0 0 44 45 11 0.67

Pesticide and animal health product restrictions 0 0 20 60 20 1.00 0 10 70 20 0 0.10

aDirection of change each issue will take: –2 = significant decrease; –1 = decrease; 0 = no change; 1 = increase; 2 = significant increase. bInfluence each issue will have on the use of grazed forages via the factor: –2 = very negative; –1 = negative; 0 = neutral; 1 = positive; 2 = very positive.\
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 15

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

Livestock utilization of grazed lands

Profit margins for beef and dairy cattle producers

were expected to decrease over the next several decades, but profits for sheep, goat, and horse producers

were projected to remain constant or slightly increase

(table 13). During this same period, panel members

expected beef cattle numbers to increase slightly, horse

numbers to increase moderately, goat numbers to

remain constant, and dairy cattle and sheep numbers

to slightly decrease. The strongest change in the use of

grazed forages was expected from increased horse

numbers followed by the increase in beef cattle and

goats.

The amount of time livestock, especially beef and

dairy cattle, spend on grazed forages was anticipated

to increase somewhat. The effect of this extended use

on grazed forages varied by species. The largest impact was anticipated from beef and dairy cattle, while

increased grazing duration by sheep and goats should

cause minimal, if any, changes. Use of grazed forages

by alternative ungulates managed for their meat,

such as bison, also was expected to increase, with an

anticipated positive influence on the use of grazed

forages.

Several other issues were projected to influence the

utilization of grazing lands by livestock in the North

Region. Fee and nonfee costs were expected to increase

on both private and public lands. While a higher

increase was anticipated for private lands, the increase

on public leases was expected to have a greater impact

on the use of grazed forages. Alternative feed sources

for livestock and advances in livestock production

technology should also negatively impact the use of

grazed forages in the region. Countering these influences was an anticipated increased public concern for

animal health and animal rights. This concern should

make it more politically correct, and perhaps more

profitable, to produce animals such as dairy cattle using

grazed forages rather than a confinement system.

Wildlife utilization of grazing lands

Although an increase in the use of grazing lands by

wildlife was anticipated, the increase was projected to

have only a tempered impact on the use of grazed

forages (table 14). The expanded presence of wildlife

should be derived more from a demand in nonconsumptive uses and existence, option, or bequest

values than from an increase in hunting demand. The

Table 13. Issues influencing Factor 3: livestock utilization of grazing lands, North Region.

Directiona Influenceb

Issue –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Number of beef cattle in your region 0 27 27 37 9 0.27 0 27 27 37 9 0.27

Number of dairy cattle in your region 0 60 10 30 0 –0.30 0 40 30 30 0 –0.10

Number of sheep in your region 0 55 36 9 0 –0.45 0 46 46 9 0 –0.36

Number of goats in your region 0 20 60 20 0 0.00 0 0 70 30 0 0.30

Number of horses in your region 0 0 9 91 0 0.91 0 0 27 73 0 0.73

Time beef cattle spend on grazed forages 0 0 36 55 9 0.73 0 0 36 46 18 0.82

Time dairy cattle spend on grazed forages 0 18 0 82 0 0.64 0 18 0 73 9 0.73

Time sheep spend on grazed forages 0 0 82 18 0 0.18 0 0 91 9 0 0.09

Time goats spend on grazed forages 0 0 80 20 0 0.20 0 0 90 10 0 0.10

Time horses spend on grazed forages 0 9 55 36 0 0.27 0 0 64 36 0 0.36

Alternative feed sources for livestock in lieu of grazed forages 0 9 46 46 0 0.36 0 27 73 0 0 –0.27

Use of grazing livestock to combat weed infestations 0 0 82 18 0 0.18 0 0 91 9 0 0.09

Advances in livestock production technology so as to

 decrease the number of livestock required for food 0 0 27 55 18 0.91 0 36 46 18 0 –0.18

Fee and nonfee costs of operating on public lands 0 14 43 43 0 0.29 14 43 43 0 0 –0.71

Fee and nonfee costs of operating on private lands 0 0 46 46 9 0.64 0 46 54 0 0 –0.45

Profit margins of beef cattle producers 0 55 27 18 0 –0.36 9 18 27 46 0 0.09

Profit margins of dairy cattle producers 0 46 36 18 0 –0.27 9 37 18 36 0 –0.18

Profit margins of sheep producers 0 27 37 36 0 0.09 0 27 37 36 0 0.09

Profit margins of goat producers 0 30 30 40 0 0.10 0 20 50 30 0 0.10

Profit margins of horse producers 0 0 100 0 0 0.00 0 0 91 9 0 0.09

Use by alternative livestock (bison, elk, deer) 0 0 9 82 9 1.00 0 0 18 82 0 0.82

Public concern for animal health/rights 0 0 36 46 18 0.82 0 9 46 46 0 0.36

aDirection of change each issue will take: –2 = significant decrease; –1 = decrease; 0 = no change; 1 = increase; 2 = significant increase. bInfluence each issue will have on the use of grazed forages via the factor: –2 = very negative; –1 = negative; 0 = neutral; 1 = positive; 2 = very positive.
16 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

mitigated impact on the use of grazed forages was a

result of a divergence of opinion among the panel

members concerning the influence increased wildlife

should have on the use of grazed forages. While larger

wildlife herd sizes may shift grazed forages and habitat toward wildlife enterprises, the displacement of

livestock by wildlife could decrease the overall use of

grazed forages.

The change in wildlife utilization was expected to

occur on private lands more than on pubic lands. The

largest impact on the use of grazed forages was anticipated from the purchase and set-aside of lands for

wildlife habitat. A close relationship between lands set

aside for wildlife use and nonmarket uses of wildlife

was seen to exist.

Technology changes in forage production

An emphasis on the development of technologies

applicable to forage production in the North Region

was anticipated (table 15). A significant increase in the

improvement of grazing management methods should

be accompanied by advances in technology for livestock distribution, monitoring and handling as well as

the development of new forage species and varieties.

These advancements were projected to have a positive

to very positive impact on the use of grazed forages in

the region. As with the anticipation of increased technology changes, an ensuing increase in technology

transfer and education programs was expected.

A moderate increase in brush and weed control on

grazing lands was expected to have a positive influence on the use of grazed forages. This increase should

be more associated with the use of biological control

methods and less associated with the development of

new or the use of existing chemicals.

Traditional fertilization practices were projected to

increase somewhat on grazing lands, with a resultant

positive influence on the use of grazed forages. And

while the use of irrigation on grazed forages was not

expected to change, additional water development for

animal use should be experienced.

West Region, Assessment of Issues

Land available for forage production

With a large portion of the West Region comprised of

Federally owned land, the Forest Service and BLM are

important elements when assessing the availability of

land for forage production (table 16). Use of lands

administered by both agencies for livestock grazing

was expected to decrease in the future, with the Forest

Service losing the most AUMs. Consequently, a negative influence on the use of grazed forages in the West

was anticipated. The influence of this expected reduction in Federal AUMs on the grazed forage industry

was projected to be stronger than any other issue

influencing land available for forage production.

Table 14. Issues influencing Factor 4: wildlife utilization of grazing lands, North Region.

Directiona Influenceb

Issue –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Demand for wildlife for hunting purposes 0 9 18 55 18 0.82 0 36 27 36 0 0.00

Nonconsumptivec

 demand for wildlife 0 0 27 36 36 1.09 0 27 46 27 0 0.00

Demand for wildlife occurring from existence, option or

 bequest valuesd 0 0 18 64 18 1.00 0 55 36 9 0 –0.45

Number of grazing lands purchased or set-aside for wildlife

 use/habitat 0 0 36 46 18 0.82 9 46 46 0 0 –0.64

Wildlife utilization of private lands 0 0 27 64 9 0.82 9 18 46 27 0 –0.09

Wildlife utilization of public lands 0 0 46 46 9 0.64 0 27 55 18 0 –0.09

aDirection of change each issue will take: –2 = significant decrease; –1 = decrease; 0 = no change; 1 = increase; 2 = significant increase. bInfluence each issue will have on the use of grazed forages via the factor: –2 = very negative; –1 = negative; 0 = neutral; 1 = positive; 2 = very positive. cNonconsumptive use is use of a resource in a manner that does not diminish the available total stock (for example, bird-watching or photography) dExistence value is the external benefit that accrues to individuals having no intention of ever visiting or using the site or environment in question. These individuals

are willing to give up resources simply to know that the good exists in a particular condition.

Option value is the amount an individual would be willing to pay to preserve the option to participate in some activity or use some resource at some future time,

whether or not that individual ever actually participates or uses the resource.

Bequest value is the amount an individual would be willing to pay to preserve a resource so it will be available for future generations to use.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 17

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

After the influence of Federal lands, an anticipated

increase to significant increase in suburbanization,

including the development of ranchettes, was expected

to have the next most negative influence on the use of

grazed forages. A slight expansion in urban sprawl

and the building of “second homes” in rural settings

should further diminish land available for forage production, but their influences will likely be secondary to

suburbanization.

A continued increase in recreational demands on

grazing lands was anticipated by all respondents. This

movement was not expected to have as strong of an

influence on the use of grazed forages as an increase in

the allocation of lands for uses such as parks and

watershed districts. Small increases in natural and

planned reforestation projects should additionally displace some grazing lands.

The only two issues expected to exhibit a neutral to

positive influence on the use of grazed forages were a

persistent increase in the use of conservation easements and a promotion of “open” or “green space.”

The projected influence of these preservation practices

Table 15. Issues influencing Factor 5: technology changes in forage production, North Region.

Directiona Influenceb

Issue –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Use of brush control on grazing lands 0 10 40 50 0 0.40 0 0 50 50 0 0.50

Use of weed control on grazing lands 0 10 30 60 0 0.50 0 0 50 50 0 0.50

Development of new chemicals for brush and weed control

 on grazing lands 0 20 40 40 0 0.20 0 10 60 30 0 0.20

Use of existing chemicals for brush and weed control 0 30 30 40 0 0.10 0 10 60 30 0 0.20

Use of biological control methods for brush and

 weed control on grazing lands 0 0 20 70 10 0.90 0 0 50 50 0 0.50

Development of new forage species and varieties 0 0 18 64 18 1.00 0 0 36 55 9 0.73

Use of fertilizer on grazing lands 0 9 27 37 27 0.82 0 10 10 70 10 0.80

Use of irrigation on grazing lands 0 9 82 9 0 0.00 0 0 91 9 0 0.09

Development of grazing management methods (for example,

 grazing systems) 0 0 0 27 73 1.73 0 0 0 36 64 1.64

Advances in technology for livestock distribution, monitoring

 and handling 0 0 18 55 27 1.09 0 0 18 46 36 1.18

Water development for animal use 0 9 18 73 0 0.64 0 9 18 64 9 0.73

Technology transfer and education programs 0 18 9 55 18 0.73 0 0 18 46 36 1.18

aDirection of change each issue will take: –2 = significant decrease; –1 = decrease; 0 = no change; 1 = increase; 2 = significant increase. bInfluence each issue will have on the use of grazed forages via the factor: –2 = very negative; –1 = negative; 0 = neutral; 1 = positive; 2 = very positive.

Table 16. Issues influencing Factor 1: land available for forage production, West Region.

Directiona Influenceb

Issue –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Suburbanization (ranchettes, etc.) 0 0 0 58 42 1.42 17 58 8 0 17 –0.58

Expansion of population centers (urban sprawl) 0 8 8 58 25 1.00 0 58 25 8 8 –0.33

Building “second” homes in rural settings 0 0 33 50 17 0.83 8 25 58 0 8 –0.25

Use of conservation easements and similar programs 0 0 17 83 0 0.83 0 8 58 25 8 0.33

“Open space” or “green space” promotion 0 0 27 64 9 0.82 0 27 46 18 9 0.09

Recreational demands on grazing lands 0 0 0 75 25 1.25 8 50 17 8 17 –0.25

Land in crop production vs. grazed forages 0 33 42 25 0 –0.08 17 8 50 17 8 –0.08

Use of U.S. Forest Service lands for livestock grazing 33 67 0 0 0 –1.33 42 42 8 0 8 –1.08

Use of Bureau of Land Management lands for livestock grazing 17 67 16 0 0 –1.00 17 50 25 0 8 –0.67

Natural and planned reforestation 0 8 33 58 0 0.50 0 17 83 0 0 –0.17

Allocation of lands for other uses such as local parks and

 watershed districts 0 8 25 42 25 0.83 8 33 50 0 8 –0.33

aDirection of change each issue will take: –2 = significant decrease; –1 = decrease; 0 = no change; 1 = increase; 2 = significant increase. bInfluence each issue will have on the use of grazed forages via the factor: –2 = very negative; –1 = negative; 0 = neutral; 1 = positive; 2 = very positive.
18 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

on the use of grazed forages in the West Region does

not appear to be of sufficient strength to reverse the

trend associated with the land utilization issues previously discussed.

Environmental concerns and government

policies

Federal regulations and environmental concerns

were projected to be important factors influencing

the use of grazed forages (table 17). The strongest

negative impacts should result from expanded regulations attending the Clean Water Act followed closely

by those associated with a close to significant increase

in wetland and riparian area conservation regulations. Standards and guidelines, rangeland monitoring, and other regulations ensuing from the Forest

Service and BLM also were anticipated to have a

negative influence on the use of grazed forages. Other

regulations that were predicted to be strengthened,

but should have a minor influence on the use of

grazed forages, were those due to the Endangered

Species Act, wilderness and preservation programs,

predator control regulations, and pesticide and animal health product regulations.

While government commodity programs were expected to be reduced, they should have little influence

upon the grazed forage industry in the West. Conservation programs such as the Conservation Reserve

Program will tend to subside with conservation lands

being returned to grazing.

In the past, range improvement cost-share programs

have had a positive influence on the use of grazed

forages in the West Region. A further reduction in

these programs was anticipated but was expected to be

associated with a relatively minor negative influence

on the future use of grazed forages.

Competition for water between agriculture and urban uses was anticipated to decrease slightly from

what has been seen in the past, but should continue to

exhibit negative pressure on grazed forages.

Livestock utilization of grazed lands

The number of beef cattle and sheep in the West

Region was expected to decline over the next few

decades (table 18). Conversely, the number of dairy

cattle, goats, and horses should be on the rise, but this

trend was not anticipated to be as prominent as the

trend associated with beef cattle and sheep. The practice of using sheep and goats to control weed infestations should expand and be somewhat of a positive

influence on grazed forage use. Likewise, the decrease

in beef cattle numbers should be partially offset by the

increased amount of time they will spend on grazed

forages. Profit margins of beef and dairy cattle were

projected to decrease slightly, but were not expected to

have repercussions on grazed forage use. Alternative

classes of domesticated or managed grazing animals

were projected to increase in the West Region; they

were not expected to be as demanding on grazed

forages as the livestock they replace.

Fee and nonfee costs of grazing public and private

lands were expected to increase. The increase should

be more pronounced on public lands and should negatively impact the grazing on those areas.

Table 17. Issues influencing Factor 2: environmental concerns and government policies, West Region.

Directiona Influenceb

Issue –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Regulations regarding wetland and riparian area conservation 0 0 0 58 42 1.42 33 42 0 17 8 –0.75

Regulations due to the Endangered Species Act 0 8 17 50 25 0.92 17 42 25 8 8 –0.50

Regulations due to the Clean Water Act 0 8 0 58 33 1.17 25 58 8 0 8 –0.92

Conservation programs (for example CRP) 0 46 27 27 0 –0.18 0 9 55 36 0 0.27

Quantity of water available for agriculture (vs. residential) use 0 58 8 25 8 –0.17 8 50 25 8 8 –0.42

Wilderness area and other preservation programs 0 0 33 58 8 0.75 8 33 50 0 8 –0.33

Predator control laws and regulations 0 17 33 50 0 0.33 0 50 50 0 0 –0.50

BLM and USFS grazing regulations (standards and guidelines,

 rangeland monitoring, etc.) 8 8 0 59 25 0.83 17 58 17 0 8 –0.75

Range improvement cost share programs 17 33 33 17 0 –0.50 0 25 67 8 0 –0.17

Government commodity programs 27 64 9 0 0 –1.18 0 36 46 18 0 –0.18

Pesticide and animal health product restrictions 0 8 25 67 0 0.58 0 42 50 8 0 –0.33

aDirection of change each issue will take: –2 = significant decrease; –1 = decrease; 0 = no change; 1 = increase; 2 = significant increase. bInfluence each issue will have on the use of grazed forages via the factor: –2 = very negative; –1 = negative; 0 = neutral; 1 = positive; 2 = very positive.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 19

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

Public concern for animal rights was projected to be

on the rise with an ensuing negative impact to the use

of grazed forages. Advances in livestock production

technology that have the potential to decrease the

number of livestock required to meet consumer demand were likewise expected to reduce the use of

grazed forages slightly.

Wildlife utilization of grazing lands

A decrease in the demand for wildlife associated

with hunting was anticipated in the future, while

the consumptive and nonmarket demands for wildlife were projected to increase (table 19). Associated

with the increase in consumptive and nonmarket

demands for wildlife was an expected expansion in

the amount of grazing land set aside for wildlife

habitat. Wildlife utilization on both private and

public lands should equally increase. The influence

on the use of grazed forages in the West Region from

an increase in wildlife utilization was expected to be

slightly negative.

Technology changes in forage production

Future technological developments were not projected to have a consequential influence on the grazed

forage industry in the West Region (table 20). The

major increase in technology was anticipated in the

areas of biological methods for brush and weed control, development of grazing management methods,

and advances in technology for livestock distribution,

monitoring, and handling. These innovations were

predicted to have a moderately positive influence on

the use of grazed forages. Development of new forage

cultivars were expected to exhibit a slight positive

impact on the use of grazed forages. A modest increase

in technology transfer and education programs also

should accompany these projected developments.

Chemical use for control of weeds and brush, fertilization of grazing lands, and irrigation were expected

to decline; however, a negative impact on grazed

forage use was not anticipated from these reductions.

The development of new water sources for livestock

use should also be negligible in the future.

Table 18. Issues influencing Factor 3: livestock utilization of grazing lands, West Region.

Directiona Influenceb

Issue –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Number of beef cattle in your region 9 83 8 0 0 –1.00 0 67 17 8 8 –0.42

Number of dairy cattle in your region 17 8 8 59 8 0.33 0 17 66 17 0 0.00

Number of sheep in your region 8 50 42 0 0 –0.67 0 34 58 8 0 –0.25

Number of goats in your region 0 9 55 36 0 0.27 0 0 100 0 0 0.00

Number of horses in your region 0 8 33 50 9 0.58 0 42 50 8 0 –0.33

Time beef cattle spend on grazed forages 0 8 33 50 9 0.58 0 0 50 50 0 0.50

Time dairy cattle spend on grazed forages 8 17 42 33 0 0.00 0 17 66 17 0 0.00

Time sheep spend on grazed forages 0 17 66 17 0 0.00 0 0 83 17 0 0.17

Time goats spend on grazed forages 0 9 82 9 0 0.00 0 0 82 18 0 0.18

Time horses spend on grazed forages 0 0 75 25 0 0.25 0 17 75 8 0 –0.08

Alternative feed sources for livestock in lieu of grazed forages 0 27 27 36 10 0.27 0 9 73 18 0 0.09

Use of grazing livestock to combat weed infestations 0 0 18 73 9 0.91 0 0 64 36 0 0.36

Advances in livestock production technology so as to

 decrease the number of livestock required for food 0 0 25 67 8 0.83 8 25 42 25 0 –0.17

Fee and nonfee costs of operating on public lands 0 0 0 67 33 1.33 9 50 25 8 8 –0.42

Fee and nonfee costs of operating on private lands 0 0 17 66 17 1.00 0 34 50 8 8 –0.08

Profit margins of beef cattle producers 8 25 42 25 0 –0.17 0 33 42 17 8 0.00

Profit margins of dairy cattle producers 8 34 50 8 0 –0.42 0 25 67 0 8 –0.08

Profit margins of sheep producers 0 17 58 25 0 0.08 0 25 50 25 0 0.00

Profit margins of goat producers 0 9 73 18 0 0.09 0 0 91 9 0 0.09

Profit margins of horse producers 0 8 75 17 0 0.08 0 8 92 0 0 –0.08

Use by alternative livestock (bison, elk, deer) 0 0 0 83 17 1.17 8 42 33 9 8 –0.33

Public concern for animal health/rights 0 0 33 34 33 1.00 8 42 42 0 8 –0.42

aDirection of change each issue will take: –2 = significant decrease; –1 = decrease; 0 = no change; 1 = increase; 2 = significant increase. bInfluence each issue will have on the use of grazed forages via the factor: –2 = very negative; –1 = negative; 0 = neutral; 1 = positive; 2 = very positive.
20 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

Scenarios

A possible 162 scenarios were developed from the

five factors and associated outcomes. The intracompatibility of each scenario was examined and individual scenarios were discarded if the compatibility

criteria between outcomes were not met.

For the South Region, 83 qualifying scenarios were

obtained (appendix A, table A7). Thirty-four scenarios

were eliminated because at least one compatibility

1 level (the two outcomes will not occur together)

Table 20. Issues influencing Factor 5: technology changes in forage production, West Region.

Directiona Influenceb

Issue –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Use of brush control on grazing lands 0 33 34 33 0 0.00 0 33 34 33 0 0.00

Use of weed control on grazing lands 0 9 27 64 0 0.55 0 9 36 55 0 0.45

Development of new chemicals for brush and weed control on

 grazing lands 9 37 27 27 0 –0.27 0 18 64 18 0 0.00

Use of existing chemicals for brush and weed control 0 64 27 9 0 –0.55 0 46 36 18 0 –0.27

Use of biological control methods for brush and weed control 0 0 8 84 8 1.00 0 8 42 42 8 0.50

Development of new forage species and varieties 0 33 17 33 17 0.33 0 8 58 34 0 0.25

Use of fertilizer on grazing lands 8 17 50 25 0 –0.08 0 8 67 25 0 0.17

Use of irrigation on grazing lands 8 59 25 8 0 –0.67 0 42 50 8 0 –0.33

Development of grazing management methods (for example,

 grazing systems) 0 0 8 67 25 1.17 0 8 8 59 25 1.00

Advances in technology for livestock distribution, monitoring

 and handling 0 0 17 66 17 1.00 0 8 33 42 17 0.67

Water development for animal use 0 25 42 33 0 0.08 0 33 26 33 8 0.17

Technology transfer and education programs 0 8 17 75 0 0.67 0 8 34 58 0 0.50

a Direction of change each issue will take: –2 = significant decrease; –1 = decrease; 0 = no change; 1 = increase; 2 = significant increase. bInfluence each issue will have on the use of grazed forages via the factor: –2 = very negative; –1 = negative; 0 = neutral; 1 = positive; 2 = very positive.

Table 19. Issues influencing Factor 4: wildlife utilization of grazing lands, West Region.

Directiona Influenceb

Issue –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean –2 –1 0 1 2 Mean

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Demand for wildlife for hunting purposes 0 58 9 33 0 –0.25 8 34 58 0 0 –0.50

Nonconsumptivec

 demand for wildlife 0 0 0 58 42 1.42 8 50 34 0 8 –0.50

Demand for wildlife occurring from existence, option or

 bequest valuesd 0 0 17 58 25 1.08 8 42 33 9 8 –0.33

Number of grazing lands purchased or set-aside for wildlife

 use/habitat 0 0 8 58 34 1.25 17 50 25 0 8 –0.67

Wildlife utilization of private lands 0 0 33 50 17 0.83 0 42 42 8 8 –0.17

Wildlife utilization of public lands 0 8 17 58 17 0.83 8 67 17 0 8 –0.67

aDirection of change each issue will take: –2 = significant decrease; –1 = decrease; 0 = no change; 1 = increase; 2 = significant increase. bInfluence each issue will have on the use of grazed forages via the factor: –2 = very negative; –1 = negative; 0 = neutral; 1 = positive; 2 = very positive. cNonconsumptive use is use of a resource in a manner that does not diminish the available total stock (for example, bird-watching or photography) dExistence value is the external benefit that accrues to individuals having no intention of ever visiting or using the site or environment in question. These

individuals are willing to give up resources simply to know that the good exists in a particular condition.

Option value is the amount an individual would be willing to pay to preserve the option to participate in some activity or use some resource at some future time,

whether or not that individual ever actually participates or uses the resource.

Bequest value is the amount an individual would be willing to pay to preserve a resource so it will be available for future generations to use.

existed between factor outcomes. Another 45 scenarios

were discarded because their average compatibility

level was less than the 3.1 standard established. Of the

162 possible scenarios for the North Region, 59 were

rejected because they failed to meet the 3.1 average

compatibility standard, and 36 were dismissed because they contained at least one compatibility 1 rating

(appendix A, table A8). This left a total of 67 qualifying

scenarios. For the West Region, 76 qualifying scenarios

were obtained, while 50 were discarded because of

their low average compatibility rating, and 36 were
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 21

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

disposed of because an individual compatibility level

of 1 was observed (appendix A, table A9).

To combine the qualifying scenarios into two to

three representative scenarios, the qualifying scenarios

were first clustered based upon their interscenario

compatibilities (compatibilities between each scenario).

The outcome level to represent factors in each cluster

was determined by examining the mean, median, and

mode of each outcome in the cluster (appendix A,

tables A10–A15).

The qualifying scenarios were grouped into two and

three clusters for each region. Two clusters were

deemed optimal for each region based upon the average interscenario rating obtained for the clusters (appendix A, tables A10–A12). The probability of occurrence for each cluster was obtained by summing the

probabilities of the individual scenarios contained in

the cluster. Although not discussed further, the results

of the three-cluster, most likely scenarios are presented in appendix A, tables A13–A15, for the South,

North, and West Regions, respectively.

South Region

The two most likely scenarios for the South Region

are found in table 21. The major difference between

the two scenarios was the grazed forage utilization by

livestock and wildlife. Scenario 1, the most likely to

occur (64 percent probability), consisted of an increase in wildlife utilization of grazing lands while

livestock utilization was not expected to change significantly. Conversely, scenario 2 (27 percent probability) anticipated an increase in livestock utilization

and a relative continuance of wildlife utilization of

grazing lands.

Increased use of grazing lands by either livestock or

wildlife was projected to be associated with significant

changes in the development or use of forage production technology in the South Region. Environmental

concerns and government policies should continue

under both scenarios in areas where resource concerns

have already emerged, but further repercussions on

the grazed forage industry were not anticipated. Livestock utilization of grazing lands and land available

for forage production were tied rather closely in both

scenarios. Increases in livestock utilization of grazed

forages appeared to be dependent upon the maintenance of land available for forage production. In scenario 2, the amount of land available for forage production was expected to have little impact on grazing

resources, while in scenario 1 changes in land use

should decrease the amount of land available for

grazing.

The maintenance or increase in the utilization of

grazed forages by livestock was expected to be motivated by two major factors: First, the number of beef

cattle, goats, and horses was expected to increase in

the region. This increase should be ushered by a rise

in the profit margins of these producers. The increase

in goats and maintenance of sheep numbers should,

in part, be precipitated by an increased demand for

livestock to combat weed infestations. Second, the

amount of time beef cattle, dairy cattle, goats, and

horses spend on grazed forages was expected to

increase. These influences should be moderated by

an increase in the fee and nonfee costs of operating on

Table 21. Most likely scenarios (two clusters) for the grazed forage industry considering a 50-year planning horizon, South Region.

Factor Scenario 1 Scenario 2

A. Land Available for Changes in land use will decrease the Changes in land use will have little impact

Forage Production amount of land available for grazing. on the amount of land available for grazing.

B. Environmental Concerns and Nationally, a significant effect will not be Nationally, a significant effect will not be seen,

Government Policies seen, but local effects will be significant but local effects will be significant in areas

in areas where resource concerns have where resource concerns have already

already emerged. emerged.

C. Livestock Utilization of Livestock utilization of grazing lands will Livestock utilization of grazing land will

Grazing Lands not change significantly. increase.

D. Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will not

increase. change significantly.

E. Technology Changes in Forage There will be significant changes in the There will be significant changes in the

Production development or use of forage production development or use of forage production

technology. technology.

Probability of Occurrencea 64 percent 27 percent

aScenario probabilities may not add to 1 because of the probability of other scenarios occurring.
22 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

private lands and by advances in livestock production technologies that were projected to increase production per animal.

A slight to significant increase in the wildlife numbers in the South Region should be driven by an

increase in the demand for hunting, nonconsumptive

uses, and from existence, option, or bequest values.

Panel members were divided as to the impact an

increase in wildlife numbers would have upon the use

of grazed forages. Most respondents anticipated an

increase in the amount of grazing lands purchased or

set aside for wildlife habitat. The general consensus

was that these lands would negatively impact livestock use of grazed forages by displacing this land. The

demand for wildlife occurring from existence, option,

or bequest values was particularly expected to negatively influence livestock use of grazed forages. This

use of wildlife would be conducive to the establishment of game reserves and other set-aside programs.

Panel members generally made a distinction between increases in livestock and wildlife and their

influence on grazed forages. Increases in livestock

implied an increase in the use of grazed forages, while

an increase in wildlife generally was associated with a

continuity or decrease in the use of grazed forages. The

displacement of livestock forage for wildlife was not a

one-to-one conversion because of the habitat requirements of wildlife. Panel members anticipated an increase in wildlife utilization of grazing lands occurring

on both private and pubic lands, with the use of public

lands (for example, increase in game preserves) exhibiting a more negative influence on grazed forages

because of livestock displacement.

Regardless of the anticipated scenario, significant

changes in the development or use of forage production technologies were seen as important to the use of

grazed forages. Biological weed and brush control

methods, development of grazing management methods, and development of new forage cultivars were

seen by the majority of respondents as having a positive to very positive influence on the supply of grazed

forages. A strong technology transfer and education

programming component was anticipated in the

South Region.

Land available for forage production had a positive

relationship with increased livestock utilization of

grazed forages. Urban sprawl was seen as the main

contributor to a decrease in land available for grazing,

while suburbanization and the transfer of lands to

nonagricultural conservation uses were also instrumental factors. Although a small component of the

amount of grazed forages in the South Region, a reduction in AUMs grazed on National Forest System lands

was anticipated.

A consensus between scenarios as to the direction of

environmental concerns and government policies also

was obtained. Because of anticipated strengthening in

regulations associated with wetland and riparian conservation, the Endangered Species Act and preservation programs, local effects in areas where resource

concerns have already emerged were expected to be

significant. Respondents, though, did not foresee these

impacts extending much beyond these areas. Projected reductions in Federal commodity programs

and additional government-sponsored conservation

programs should exhibit a buffering influence on the

declining use of grazed forages from government

involvement.

North Region

The scenarios developed for the North Region outline two fairly distinct directions for the use of grazed

forages (table 22). The event held in common is that

wildlife utilization of grazing lands was expected to

increase. Scenario 1 (54 percent probability) projected

a decrease in livestock utilization, while scenario 2 (29

percent probability of occurrence) anticipated an increase in livestock utilization of grazing lands. A decrease in livestock utilization of grazing lands (scenario 1) was compatible with decreases in land available

for grazing, notable impacts from localized environmental concerns, and minor changes in the development or use of forage production technologies. Conversely, an increase in livestock utilization of grazing

lands (scenario 2) was associated with significant

changes in technology, the subsiding of environmental and government interference, and a modest impact

on land available for forage production from envisioned changes in land use.

Increased wildlife utilization of grazing lands should

be driven by nonconsumptive uses, existence, option,

or bequest values, and by an expanded demand for

hunting. The influence of hunting demand was not

projected to be as strong as the other influences. The

conversion of grazing lands for wildlife habitat (for

example, set-aside) should have the most negative

influence on livestock use of grazed forages, although

wildlife utilization was anticipated to occur on private

more than public lands.

Several issues were projected to have strong impacts

on the use of grazed forages in the North Region. The

diversity of these issues and their anticipated impact

on grazed forage use are the basis for the contrast in

scenarios. All panel members agreed that urban sprawl

and suburbanization will rise and have a negative to

very negative influence on the use of grazed forages.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 23

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

Recreational demands and nonagricultural conservation uses also should increase and negatively influence

the use of grazed forages. Concurrently, environmental issues surrounding water resources and endangered species were projected to negatively impact the

use of grazed forages. Nonagricultural land preservation programs should continue to be important. An

anticipated reduction in government commodity programs should mitigate these impacts by shifting some

land resources into grazed forages.

A slight increase in cattle numbers and a large increase in horse numbers was expected, along with an

expansion of wildlife enterprises (for example, elk,

deer, buffalo). The amount of time livestock spend on

grazed forages was projected to increase for all livestock and should have a positive influence on the use

of grazed forages in the region. These forces should be

moderated by an increase in the use of alternative feed

sources, by an increase in fee and nonfee grazing costs,

and by advances in livestock production technologies

that should increase production per animal. Panel

members also anticipated a decline in dairy cattle

numbers along with the profitability of those remaining in business.

Closely associated with changes in the utilization of

grazed forages by livestock is the development and

use of forage production technology. The estimated

marginal probability of significant changes occurring

for this factor was 75 percent. Yet, significant changes

in technology were not thought to be compatible with

decreases in the utilization of grazed forages by livestock nor strong enough to overcome the land availability and environmental concerns anticipated in this

region as outlined in scenario 1. In the event that

livestock and wildlife utilization of grazed forages

increase (scenario 2), the development or use of forage

production technologies should play a major role.

Those technologies projected to be at the forefront are

development of grazing management methods, technology for livestock distribution, monitoring, and handling, fertilization of grazing lands, and development

of new forage cultivars. Technology transfer and education programs are projected to be a strong component of these advancements.

West Region

The two scenarios for the West Region can be interpreted in terms of the utilization of grazed forages by

livestock and wildlife (table 23). Scenario 1 (72 percent

probability of occurrence) specified a decrease in the

utilization of grazed forages by livestock and an increase by wildlife. Conversely, the utilization of grazed

forages by livestock and wildlife was not expected to

change significantly under scenario 2 (21 percent probability of occurrence). Independent of the scenario,

significant changes in the development or use of

forage production technologies were consistent with

the utilization of grazed forage projected. Land availability and environmental concerns were closely associated to the degree of grazed forage utilization

anticipated.

For scenario 1, changes in land use were expected to

decrease the amount of land available for grazing. The

marginal probability of this event occurring was 64

percent. Urban sprawl and suburbanization were

Table 22. Most likely scenarios (two clusters) for the grazed forage industry considering a 50-year planning horizon, North Region.

Factor Scenario 1 Scenario 2

A. Land Available for Forage Changes in land use will decrease the Changes in land use will have little impact

Production amount of land available for grazing. on the amount of land available for grazing.

B. Environmental Concerns and Nationally, a significant effect will not After initial minor changes, the impacts of

Government Policies be seen, but local effects will be regulation will subside.

significant in areas where resource

concerns have already emerged.

C. Livestock Utilization of Livestock utilization of grazing lands Livestock utilization of grazing land will

Grazing Lands will decrease. increase.

D. Wildlife Utilization of Wildlife utilization of grazing lands Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will

Grazing Lands will increase. increase.

E. Technology Changes in There will not be significant changes There will be significant changes in the

Development of in the development or use of forage development or use of forage production

Forage Production production technology. technology.

Probability of Occurrencea 54 percent 29 percent

aScenario probabilities may not add to 1 because of the probability of other scenarios occurring.
24 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

anticipated to increase or significantly increase. Additional recreational demands on grazing lands were

forecast, as were reforestation projects and allocation

of lands for nonagricultural conservation use. These

events should limit the utilization of grazed forages

under this scenario. Nearly all panel members expected the use of Federal lands for livestock grazing to

decrease or significantly decrease and to negatively

impact the utilization of grazed forages in the West

Region. The major impact should occur on National

Forest System lands, although over half of the respondents expect grazing on BLM allotments to also

decrease.

The only two issues expected to exhibit a neutral to

positive influence on the use of grazed forages were a

persistent increase in the use of conservation easements and a promotion of “open” or “green” space.

The impact of both issues on the use of grazed forages

was not expected to be prominent. For the events in

scenario 2 to be realized, then, the impact of those

issues projected to negatively influence the amount of

land available for grazing will need to be modest.

For the factor, Environmental Concerns and Government Policies, respondents assigned the largest

marginal probability of occurrence to the event that

regulations will increase on a national level, with lands

on the margin being taken out of grazing use. But

because this factor outcome had a low degree of compatibility with other factor outcomes in scenario 1 and

scenario 2, less critical environmental circumstances

entered these scenarios. The maintenance of current

grazing utilization levels by both wildlife and livestock (scenario 2) necessitates that after initial minor

changes, the impacts of regulation will subside. For

scenario 1, where a decline in utilization of grazing

lands by livestock but an increase by wildlife were

anticipated, environmental impacts should be significant in localized areas where resource concerns have

already emerged

Regulations associated with water issues appeared

to be the major concern identified by panel members.

Wetland and riparian area conservation, Clean Water

Act regulations, and the competition for water resources between agriculture and residential users

should provide the major impacts. Regulations emanating from the Endangered Species Act and wilderness/preservation programs were also expected to

negatively influence the use of grazed forages. Grazing on BLM and Forest Service allotments should be

further impacted by new regulations and monitoring

practices.

The anticipated decline in livestock numbers in scenario 1 was projected to occur in beef cattle and sheep.

Dairy cattle, goat, and horse numbers were expected to

increase slightly. A modest decline in profit margins of

beef producers, increases in fee and nonfee costs of

operating on public and private lands, along with

increased public concerns for animal health rights

should provide added pressure on diminishing livestock numbers. For livestock utilization of grazing

lands to maintain current levels as depicted in scenario 2, the time livestock spend on grazed forages

should increase to compensate for the reduction in

livestock numbers. While this was envisioned for

beef cattle, most respondents did not feel increases in

the time spent on grazed forages was in order for

Table 23. Most likely scenarios (two clusters) for the grazed forage industry considering a 50-year planning horizon, West Region.

Factor Scenario 1 Scenario 2

A. Land Available for Forage Changes in land use will decrease the Changes in land use will have little impact

Production amount of land available for grazing. on the amount of land available for grazing.

B. Environmental Concerns and Nationally, a significant effect will not be After initial minor changes, the impacts

Government Policies seen, but local effects will be significant of regulation will subside.

in areas where resource concerns have

already emerged.

C. Livestock Utilization of Livestock utilization of grazing lands Livestock utilization of grazing land will not

Grazing Lands will decrease. change significantly.

D. Wildlife Utilization of Wildlife utilization of grazing lands Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will not

Grazing Lands will increase. change significantly.

E. Technology Changes in There will be significant changes in the There will be significant changes in the

development of development or use of forage production development or use of forage production

Forage Production technology. technology.

Probability of Occurrencea 72 percent 21 percent

aScenario probabilities may not add to 1 because of the probability of other scenarios occurring.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 25

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

other livestock species. Another area of anticipated

promise was the use of grazing livestock to manage

weed infestations.

While panel members were not overly optimistic

that significant changes in the development or use of

forage production technologies would occur (59 percent marginal probability), the fact that both scenarios

contained this event emphasizes the importance of

technological advancements and educational programs

in preserving the use of grazed forages in the West

Region. Most benefits were anticipated in the development of grazing management methods and in advances in technology for livestock distribution, monitoring, and handling. Somewhat less influential should

be the use of biological methods for brush and weed

management. Use of chemical methods, both existing

and prospective, were expected to decline, as were

fertilization and irrigation of grazing lands.

The future demand for wildlife resources was expected to come more from nonconsumptive use and

existence value than from hunting, which was projected to decrease slightly. Wildlife should utilize public and private resources equally, while an increase in

grazing lands purchased or set-aside for wildlife habitat was anticipated. The expected displacement of

livestock by wildlife should exhibit a negative influence on the overall use of grazed.

Grazed Forage Use Projections

The graphs in figures 2 through 4 contain the historical use of grazed forage (AUMs) for each region along

with the projections provided by panel members. The

panel members’ projections are for 2010 and 2050.

Each panel member provided a distribution of 10

estimates for each year under each scenario. Every

estimate had an equal probability of occurring (10

percent). The extent to which a panel member spread

out his 10 estimates reflected the degree of uncertainty

of the estimate for that year (appendix B, Projection

Survey). All estimates for each year and scenario are

plotted and the trend line from the historical data is

extended through the mean point for each year and

scenario. The maximum, median, and minimum values for each year/scenario projection also are plotted,

along with the second and third quartile values.

Scenario 1 for each region (tables 21 through 23)

tended to be the least optimistic of the two scenarios

concerning the level of future grazed forage use

(table 24). Historical forage use in the South Region

(fig. 2), although cyclical, has somewhat stabilized

over the past decade. Relatively small changes in forage use were projected to occur in the South Region,

with a –4 percent change anticipated by 2010 under

scenario 1 and a 6 percent change expected by 2010

given scenario 2. The declines that have occurred

historically in the North (fig. 3) and West (fig. 4)

Regions were expected to continue under Scenario 1,

but should be slowed somewhat under Scenario 2. The

largest decline in forage use was expected in the North

Region, with a –17 percent change in forage use by 2010

and a –32 percent change by 2050 under scenario 1.

Given scenario 2, forage use was expected to increase

slightly by 2010 before again declining slightly by

2050. A decline in forage use was envisioned for the

West Region regardless of the scenario assumption.

When all regions were combined, a reduction in

grazed forage use of 35 million AUMs by 2010 and 69

million AUMs by 2050 was projected under scenario 1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

AUMs (millions)

Historical

Scenario #1

Scenario #2

Maximum

Quartile 3

Mean

Median

Quartile 2

Minimum

#1

#2

#1

#2

Figure 2. South Region historical use and projections for scenario 1 and scenario 2, 2010 and 2050.
26 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

Figure 4. West Region historical use and projections for scenario 1 and scenario 2,

2010 and 2050.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

AUMs (millions)

Historical

Scenario #1

Scenario #2

Maximum

Quartile 3

Mean

Median

Quartile 2

Minimum

#1

#2

#1

#2

0

50

100

150

200

250

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

AUMs (millions)

Historical

Scenario #1

Scenario #2

Maximum

Quartile 3

Mean

Median

Quartile 2

Minimum

#1

#2

#1

#2

Figure 3. North Region historical use and projections for scenario 1 and scenario 2, 2010

and 2050.

(table 24). Under the more optimistic scenario 2, increased AUM use in the South Region more than

compensated for losses in the North and West Regions.

Grazed forage use in the United States was projected to

increase by 9.5 million AUMs in 2010 and by 7.3

million AUMs in 2050 under scenario 2.

Conclusions

The scenarios describing the anticipated conditions

facing the use of grazed forages in the United States

0sight and understanding to possible futures that may

emerge. They were not intended to be single point

indicators that are absolute. When viewed as a whole,

the scenarios can allow exploration as to what might

happen, providing a guideline to aid understanding

and planning insight by policy analysts, educators,

those involved in assessing U.S. rangeland sustainability at a national scale (Mitchell and Joyce 2000),

and interested publics.

In general, the use of grazed forages for beef cattle

was anticipated to decline over the next several decades. The exception to this was in the South Region,

where an anticipated increase, or at least a maintenance of livestock numbers, was expected. An increase

in livestock numbers was anticipated in the North

Region under the more optimistic conditions, but was

expected to decrease otherwise. A similar decline in

livestock numbers was anticipated in the West Region.

These outlooks should further strengthen the trend of

cattle feeding becoming more concentrated in the South
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 27

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

Region (Texas and Oklahoma) while filtering into

Kansas (Ward and Schroeder 1998).

The sheep and goat industries should be strengthened by an expected increase in livestock for purposes

of controlling weed infestations. This demand should

assist an anticipated stabling in the profit margins of

these industries.

Most scenarios hinged on an anticipated increase

in the development of technologies that were expected to improve the productivity and utilization

of grazed forages. Developments in the areas of

grazing system technology and biological control of

weeds were anticipated. A strong educational component to assist the adaptation process also was

expected.

The projections for grazed forge use in the United

States appear to be region specific. Declines in future

AUM use under the most pessimistic scenario was

expected to be less for the South than the West and

North Region. Declines were anticipated in the West

Region regardless of the scenario examined. Increases

in the South Region should compensate for declines in

other regions under scenario 2.

References

Brauers, J.; Weber, M. 1988. A new method of scenario analysis for

strategic planning. Journal of Forecasting. 7: 31–47.

Gee, C. K.; Joyce, L. A.; Madsen, A. G. 1990. Factors affecting the demand

for grazed forages in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-210. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 20 p.

Glossary Update Task Group. 1998. Glossary of terms used in range

management. 4th edition. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 32 p.

Godet, M. 1987. Scenarios and strategic management. Boston, MA:

Butterworth Scientific Ltd.

Goldfarb, D. L.; Huss, W. R. 1988. Building scenarios for an electric

utility. Long Range Planning. 21: 91–96.

Hodgetts, R. M. 1979. Applying the Delphi technique to management gaming. Simulation Today. 53: 209–212.

Huss, W. R. 1988. A move toward scenario analysis. International

Journal of Forecasting. 4: 377–388.

Martino, J. P.; Chen, K. 1978. Cluster analysis of cross impact model

scenarios. Technology Forecasting and Social Change. 12: 61–71.

Mitchell, J. E.; Joyce, L. A. 2000. Applicability of Montreal Process

biological and abiotic indicators to rangeland sustainability: introduction. International Journal of Sustainable Development

and World Ecology. 7: 77–80.

Mitchell, R. B.; Tydeman, J.; Geogiades, J. 1979. Structuring the

future—application of a scenario-generation procedure. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 14: 409–428.

Palmer, M.; Schmid, G. 1976. Planning with scenarios: the banking

world of 1985. Futures. 8: 472–484.

Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining

superior performance. New York: Free Press.

Ringland, G. 1998. Scenario planning. West Sussex, England: John

Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Sarin, R. K. 1979. An approach for long-term forecasting with an application to solar electric energy. Management Science. 25: 543–554.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1989. RPA assessment of the forest and rangeland situation in the United States,

1989. Resour. Rep. 26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 72 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998. Grazing statistical summary—FY 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 97 p.

van der Heijden, K. 1996. Scenarios: the art of strategic conversion.

New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Wack, P. 1985a. Scenarios: shooting the rapids. Harvard Business

Review. Nov–Dec: 139–150.

Wack, P. 1985b. Scenarios: uncharted waters ahead. Harvard Business Review. Sept–Oct: 73–87.

Ward, C. E.; Schroeder, T. C. 1998. Structural changes in cattle

feeding and meat packing. In: Bastian, C.; Bailey, D., ed. Managing for today’s cattle market and beyond. Laramie: University of

Wyoming Cooperative Extension Service: 1–4.

Table 24. Animal unit months (AUM) of historical use (1998) and projected use

under scenario 1 and scenario 2 for all regions and the United States.

Projections (AUM x 106)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

1998 2010 2050 2010 2050

South Region AUMs 177.43 170.11 163.61 187.39 193.33

Change from 1998 –7.32 –13.82 9.96 15.90

Percent change from 1998 –4.13 –7.79 5.61 8.96

North Region AUMs 64.47 53.50 43.55 65.35 61.35

Change from 1998 –10.97 –20.92 0.88 –3.12

Percent change from 1998 –17.01 –32.45 1.36 –4.84

West Region AUMs 153.41 137.09 119.01 152.00 147.95

Change from 1998 –16.32 –34.40 –1.41 –5.46

Percent change from 1998 –10.64 –22.42 –0.92 –3.56

United States AUMs 395.31 360.70 326.17 404.74 402.63

Change from 1998 –34.61 –69.14 9.43 7.32

Percent change from 1998 –8.76 –17.49 2.39 1.85
28 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

Dr. C. Pat Bagley

Extension Professor - Livestock Marketing

Department of Agricultural Economics

University of Kentucky

Lexington, Kentucky

Dr. J. Richard Conner

Professor of Agricultural Economics and

T.M. O’Connor Professor of Rangeland

Ecology and Management

Department of Agricultural Economics

Texas A&M University

College Station, Texas

Jack Cutshall

Rangeland Consultant

Glenmora, Louisiana

Dr. Troy Johnson

Extension Forage Agronomist

University of Georgia

Tifton, Georgia

Dr. David J. Lang

Associate Professor of Agronomy

Department of Plant and Soil Science

Mississippi State University

Mississippi State, Mississippi

Dr. John C. McKissick

Professor & Extension Economist

Department of Agricultural and

Applied Economics

University of Georgia

Athens, Georgia

APPENDIX A

Table A1. Panel of experts, South Region

Dr. Lee Meyer

Extension Specialist and Head

North Mississippi Research and

Extension Center

Verona, Mississippi

Dr. Jeff Mullahey

Associate Professor, Range Science

Southwest Florida Research and

Education Center

Immokalee, Florida

Dr. Derrell Peel

Associate Professor & Extension Livestock

Marketing Specialist

Department of Agricultural Economics

Oklahoma State University

Stillwater, Oklahoma

Dr. Paul Peterson

Extension Agronomist, Forages

Dept. Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University

Blacksburg, Virginia

Dr. Emmit Rawls

Professor - Agricultural Extension Service

University of Tennessee

Knoxville, Tennessee

Dr. Bill Stringer

Professor

Agronomy Department

Clemson University

Clemson, South Carolina
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 29

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

Dr. Ben Bartlett

Dairy and Livestock Extension Agent

Michigan State University

Chatham, Michigan

Dr. Larry Chase

Associate Professor

Dairy Cattle Nutrition

Cornell University

Ithaca, New York

Jim Cropper

Forage Management Specialist

USDA, NRCS

Pasture Systems and Watershed

Management Research Lab

University Park, Pennsylvania

Mr. Jim Gerrish

Research Assistant Professor

Forage Systems Research Center

Linneus, Missouri

Dr. Stuart Gibson

Animal and Food Science Department

University of Vermont

Burrlington, Vermont

Dr. Keith Johnson

Professor of Agronomy

Department of Agronomy

Purdue University

W. Lafayette, Indiana

David Miller

Director, Commodity Services

Farm Bureau Federation

West Des Moines, Iowa

Dr. Kevin C. Moore

Associate Professor

Department of Agricultural Economics

University of Missouri

Columbia, Missouri

Dr. Edward B. Rayburn

Extension Forage Agronomist

West Virginia University

Morgantown, West Virginia

Dr. James Russell

Professor

Department of Animal Science

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa

Dr. Daniel J. Undersander

Professor

Department of Agronomy

University of Wisconsin

Madison, Wisconsin

Table A2. Panel of experts, North Region
30 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

Dr. R. Dennis Child

Department Head

Rangeland Ecosystem Science

Colorado State University

Fort Collins, Colorado

Dr. W. James Clawson

Extension Range Specialist Emeritus

University of California

Davis, California

Dr. C. Wilson Gray

Extension Economist

University of Idaho

Twin Falls R&E Center

Twin Falls, Idaho

Dr. Paul Gutierrez

Ag. & Business Economist (ABM)

Department of Agricultural & Resource

Economics

Colorado State University

Fort Collins, Colorado

Dr. Jack Hanson

Owner/Manager

Willow Creek Ranch

Susanville, California

Dr. Harlan Hughes

Professor

Department of Agricultural Economics

North Dakota State University

Fargo, North Dakota

Table A3. Panel of experts, West Region

Dr. Chuck Lambert

National Beef Cattlemen’s Association

Washington, DC

Jack Maddux

Rancher

Wauneta, Nebraska

Dr. Fred Obermiller

Professor

Department of Agricultural Economics

Oregon State University

Corvallis, Oregon

Dr. Neil Rimbey

Professor

Univ. of Idaho Coop. Extension

Caldwell R&E Center

Caldwell, Idaho

James Robb

Director

Livestock Marketing Information Center

Lakewood, Colorado

Dr. L. Allen Torrell

Professor

Department of Agricultural Economics

New Mexico State University

Las Cruces, New Mexico
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 31

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

Table A4. Factor/outcome compatibility ratings and statistics, South Region.

Factor/ Compatibility Levelsb

Outcomea 12345 Median Mode Mean Std Dev

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Frequency - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A1 - B1 7 3 1 1 0 1 1 1.67 0.98

A1 - B2 4 4 2 2 0 2 1,2 2.17 1.11

A1 - B3 1 1 5 5 0 3 3,4 3.17 0.94

A2 - B1 1 5 1 5 0 2,3 2,4 2.83 1.11

A2 - B2 0 2 5 4 1 3 3 3.33 0.89

A2 - B3 0 1 4 6 1 4 4 3.58 0.79

A3 - B1 0 2 3 2 5 4 5 3.83 1.19

A3 - B2 0 0 3 6 3 4 4 4.00 0.74

A3 - B3 1 0 5 6 0 3,4 4 3.33 0.89

A1 - C1 2 2 1 2 5 4 5 3.50 1.62

A1 - C2 2 7 1 2 0 2 2 2.25 0.97

A1 - C3 5 5 0 2 0 2 1,2 1.92 1.08

A2 - C1 1 4 3 4 0 3 2,4 2.83 1.03

A2 - C2 0 2 6 1 3 3 3 3.42 1.08

A2 - C3 2 4 2 4 0 2,3 2,4 2.67 1.15

A3 - C1 3 3 0 5 1 2,4 4 2.83 1.47

A3 - C2 0 4 3 5 0 3 4 3.08 0.90

A3 - C3 1 2 1 2 6 4,5 5 3.83 1.47

A1 - D1 1 5 0 2 4 2,4 2 3.25 1.54

A1 - D2 1 5 3 3 0 2,3 2 2.67 0.98

A1 - D3 5 4 1 2 0 2 1 2.00 1.13

A2 - D1 0 2 3 7 0 4 4 3.42 0.79

A2 - D2 0 3 4 3 2 3 3 3.33 1.07

A2 - D3 2 7 2 1 0 2 2 2.17 0.83

A3 - D1 0 4 0 4 4 4 2,4,5 3.67 1.30

A3 - D2 0 4 4 4 0 3 2,3,4 3.00 0.85

A3 - D3 1 6 1 3 1 2 2 2.75 1.22

A1 - E1 2 5 3 2 0 2 2 2.42 1.00

A1 - E2 1 2 2 4 3 4 4 3.50 1.31

A2 - E1 1 2 3 6 0 3,4 4 3.17 1.03

A2 - E2 0 3 3 5 1 3,4 4 3.33 0.98

A3 - E1 3 3 1 5 0 2,3 4 2.67 1.30

A3 - E2 2 1 2 2 5 4 5 3.58 1.56

B1 - C1 5 2 0 3 2 2 1 2.58 1.68

B1 - C2 0 7 1 4 0 2 2 2.75 0.97

B1 - C3 1 4 0 3 4 4 2,5 3.42 1.51

B2 - C1 0 5 2 4 1 3 2 3.08 1.08

B2 - C2 0 4 3 4 1 3 2,4 3.17 1.03

B2 - C3 1 1 4 4 2 3,4 3,4 3.42 1.16

B3 - C1 0 3 3 3 3 3,4 2,3,4,5 3.50 1.17

B3 - C2 0 2 3 7 0 4 4 3.42 0.79

B3 - C3 1 4 4 3 0 3 2,3 2.75 0.97

B1 - D1 0 1 1 5 5 4 4,5 4.17 0.94

B1 - D2 0 6 4 2 0 2,3 2 2.67 0.78

B1 - D3 5 5 0 2 0 2 1,2 1.92 1.08

B2 – D1 0 0 2 7 3 4 4 4.08 0.67

B2 - D2 0 3 6 3 0 3 3 3.00 0.74

B2 - D3 2 8 0 2 0 2 2 2.17 0.94

B3 - D1 0 1 3 7 1 4 4 3.67 0.78

B3 - D2 0 2 5 5 0 3 3,4 3.25 0.75

(cont’d.)
32 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

B3 - D3 1 6 2 3 0 2 2 2.58 1.00

B1 - E1 2 6 1 3 0 2 2 2.42 1.08

B1 - E2 1 1 0 5 5 4 4,5 4.00 1.28

B2 - E1 0 5 5 2 0 3 2,3 2.75 0.75

B2 - E2 0 0 5 4 3 4 3 3.83 0.83

B3 - E1 0 4 6 2 0 3 3 2.83 0.72

B3 - E2 0 0 3 9 0 4 4 3.75 0.45

C1 - D1 2 7 0 2 1 2 2 2.42 1.24

C1 - D2 0 5 2 4 1 3 2 3.08 1.08

C1 - D3 1 1 2 8 0 4 4 3.42 1.00

C2 - D1 0 2 1 8 1 4 4 3.67 0.89

C2 - D2 0 1 3 6 2 4 4 3.75 0.87

C2 - D3 1 4 4 3 0 3 2,3 2.75 0.97

C3 - D1 0 2 0 4 6 4,5 5 4.17 1.11

C3 - D2 0 6 4 2 0 2,3 2 2.67 0.78

C3 - D3 7 3 0 2 0 1 1 1.75 1.14

C1 - E1 2 6 2 2 0 2 2 2.33 0.98

C1 - E2 2 0 1 3 6 4,5 5 3.92 1.51

C2 - E1 0 5 3 4 0 3 2 2.92 0.90

C2 - E2 0 4 2 5 1 3,4 4 3.25 1.06

C3 - E1 1 3 3 5 0 3 4 3.00 1.04

C3 - E2 4 4 2 0 2 2 1,2 2.33 1.44

D1 - E1 0 3 2 7 0 4 4 3.33 0.89

D1 - E2 1 1 1 5 4 4 4 3.83 1.27

D2 - E1 1 2 4 5 0 3 4 3.08 1.00

D2 - E2 0 3 3 6 0 3,4 4 3.25 0.87

D3 - E1 2 5 2 3 0 2 2 2.50 1.09

D3 - E2 1 5 3 3 0 2,3 2 2.67 0.98

aFactor A: Land Available for Forage Production.

Option A1: Changes in land use will increase the amount of land available for forage production.

Option A2: Changes in land use will have little impact on the amount of land available.

Option A3: Changes in land use will decrease the amount of land available for grazing.

Factor B: Environmental Concerns and Government Policies.

Option B1: Regulations will increase on a national level, with lands on the margin being taken out of grazing use.

Option B2: Nationally, a significant effect will not be seen, but local effects will be significant in areas where resource concerns

have already emerged.

Option B3: After initial minor changes, the impacts of regulation will subside.

Factor C: Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands.

Option C1: Livestock utilization of grazing lands will increase.

Option C2: Livestock utilization of grazing lands will not change significantly.

Option C3: Livestock utilization of grazing lands will decrease.

Factor D: Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands.

Option D1: Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will increase.

Option D2: Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will not change significantly.

Option D3: Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will decrease.

Factor E: Technology Changes in Forage Production.

Option E1: There will not be significant changes in the development or use of forage production technologies.

Option E2: There will be significant changes in the development or use of forage production technologies.

b1 = Will not occur together.

2 = Low likelihood of occurring together.

3 = Neutral.

4 = Likely to occur together.

5 = Very likely to occur together.

Table A4. (Cont’d.)

Factor/ Compatibility Levelsb

Outcomea 12345 Median Mode Mean Std Dev

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Frequency - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 33

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

Table A5. Factor/outcome compatibility ratings and statistics, North Region.

Factor/ Compatibility Levelsb

Outcomea 12345 Median Mode Mean Std Dev

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Frequency - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A1 - B1 9 1 0 1 0 1 1 1.36 0.92

A1 - B2 3 1 1 6 0 4 4 2.91 1.38

A1 - B3 0 1 4 5 1 4 4 3.55 0.82

A2 - B1 1 6 2 2 0 2 2 2.45 0.93

A2 - B2 0 2 5 4 0 3 3 3.18 0.75

A2 - B3 0 1 5 2 3 3 3 3.64 1.03

A3 - B1 0 1 1 2 7 5 5 4.36 1.03

A3 - B2 0 3 0 3 5 4 5 3.91 1.30

A3 - B3 1 3 3 2 2 3 2,3 3.09 1.30

A1 - C1 0 0 0 1 10 5 5 4.91 0.30

A1 - C2 1 2 5 2 1 3 3 3.00 1.10

A1 - C3 7 3 0 0 1 1 1 1.64 1.21

A2 - C1 3 1 2 5 0 3 4 2.82 1.33

A2 - C2 0 1 3 2 5 4 5 4.00 1.10

A2 - C3 1 5 3 2 0 2 2 2.55 0.93

A3 - C1 9 1 0 1 0 1 1 1.36 0.92

A3 - C2 3 5 2 1 0 2 2 2.09 0.94

A3 - C3 0 0 0 3 8 5 5 4.73 0.47

A1 - D1 0 1 1 3 6 5 5 4.27 1.01

A1 - D2 0 7 3 1 0 2 2 2.45 0.69

A1 - D3 4 5 2 0 0 2 2 1.82 0.75

A2 - D1 0 3 1 6 1 4 4 3.45 1.04

A2 - D2 0 1 5 4 1 3 3 3.45 0.82

A2 - D3 2 5 2 2 0 2 2 2.36 1.03

A3 - D1 1 4 1 3 2 3 2 3.09 1.38

A3 - D2 1 4 3 3 0 3 2 2.73 1.01

A3 - D3 2 3 1 3 2 3 2,4 3.00 1.48

A1 - E1 2 5 2 1 1 2 2 2.45 1.21

A1 - E2 1 1 1 5 3 4 4 3.73 1.27

A2 - E1 1 5 4 1 0 2 2 2.45 0.82

A2 - E2 1 2 4 4 0 3 3,4 3.00 1.00

A3 - E1 2 2 2 5 0 3 4 2.91 1.22

A3 - E2 2 5 0 2 2 2 2 2.73 1.49

B1 - C1 4 5 0 2 0 2 2 2.00 1.10

B1 - C2 1 3 2 4 1 3 4 3.09 1.22

B1 - C3 0 1 0 5 5 4 4,5 4.27 0.90

B2 - C1 1 4 1 5 0 3 4 2.91 1.14

B2 - C2 0 2 3 5 1 4 4 3.45 0.93

B2 - C3 0 4 1 4 2 4 2,4 3.36 1.21

B3 - C1 0 1 2 7 1 4 4 3.73 0.79

B3 - C2 0 1 5 3 2 3 3 3.55 0.93

B3 - C3 1 2 5 2 1 3 3 3.00 1.10

B1 - D1 1 1 2 5 2 4 4 3.55 1.21

B1 - D2 0 0 6 5 0 3 3 3.45 0.52

B1 - D3 1 5 2 0 3 2 2 2.91 1.45

B2 - D1 0 2 2 6 1 4 4 3.55 0.93

B2 - D2 0 1 6 4 0 3 3 3.27 0.65

B2 - D3 0 7 2 1 1 2 2 2.64 1.03

B3 - D1 0 1 4 5 1 4 4 3.55 0.82

B3 - D2 0 1 6 3 1 3 3 3.36 0.81

B3 - D3 1 3 6 1 0 3 3 2.64 0.81

(cont’d.)
34 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

B1 - E1 1 4 1 5 0 3 4 2.91 1.14

B1 - E2 0 1 2 4 4 4 4,5 4.00 1.00

B2 - E1 1 4 4 2 0 3 2,3 2.64 0.92

B2 - E2 0 1 3 6 1 4 4 3.64 0.81

B3 - E1 0 5 4 2 0 3 2 2.73 0.79

B3 - E2 0 0 4 7 0 4 4 3.64 0.50

C1 - D1 0 1 1 6 3 4 4 4.00 0.89

C1 - D2 1 1 6 3 0 3 3 3.00 0.89

C1 - D3 2 3 2 3 1 3 2,4 2.82 1.33

C2 - D1 0 1 1 7 2 4 4 3.91 0.83

C2 - D2 0 1 4 4 2 4 3,4 3.64 0.92

C2 - D3 2 6 1 1 1 2 2 2.36 1.21

C3 - D1 1 3 1 3 3 4 2,4,5 3.36 1.43

C3 - D2 1 2 4 4 0 3 3,4 3.00 1.00

C3 - D3 6 2 0 0 3 1 1 2.27 1.79

C1 - E1 1 7 0 3 0 2 2 2.45 1.04

C1 - E2 0 0 0 3 8 5 5 4.73 0.47

C2 - E1 0 3 2 4 2 4 4 3.45 1.13

C2 - E2 0 5 2 4 0 3 2 2.91 0.94

C3 - E2 5 3 0 2 1 2 1 2.18 1.47

C3 - E1 0 3 1 4 3 4 4 3.64 1.21

D1 - E1 0 2 3 5 1 4 4 3.45 0.93

D1 - E2 0 0 1 5 5 4 4,5 4.36 0.67

D2 - E1 0 2 6 3 0 3 3 3.09 0.70

D2 - E2 0 1 7 2 1 3 3 3.27 0.79

D3 - E1 2 3 4 2 0 3 3 2.55 1.04

D3 - E2 4 3 2 0 2 2 2.45 1.04

aFactor A: Land Available for Forage Production.

Option A1: Changes in land use will increase the amount of land available for forage production.

Option A2: Changes in land use will have little impact on the amount of land available.

Option A3: Changes in land use will decrease the amount of land available for grazing.

Factor B: Environmental Concerns and Government Policies.

Option B1: Regulations will increase on a national level, with lands on the margin being taken out of grazing use.

Option B2: Nationally, a significant effect will not be seen, but local effects will be significant in areas where resource concerns

have already emerged.

Option B3: After initial minor changes, the impacts of regulation will subside.

Factor C: Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands.

Option C1: Livestock utilization of grazing lands will increase.

Option C2: Livestock utilization of grazing lands will not change significantly.

Option C3: Livestock utilization of grazing lands will decrease.

Factor D: Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands.

Option D1: Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will increase.

Option D2: Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will not change significantly.

Option D3: Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will decrease.

Factor E: Technology Changes in Forage Production.

Option E1: There will not be significant changes in the development or use of forage production technologies.

Option E2: There will be significant changes in the development or use of forage production technologies.

b1 = Will not occur together.

2 = Low likelihood of occurring together.

3 = Neutral.

4 = Likely to occur together.

5 = Very likely to occur together.

Table A5. (Cont’d.)

Factor/ Compatibility Levelsb

Outcomea 12345 Median Mode Mean Std Dev

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Frequency - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 35

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

Table A6. Factor/outcome compatibility ratings and statistics, West Region.

Factor/ Compatibility Levelsb

Outcomea 12345 Median Mode Mean Std Dev

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Frequency - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A1 - B1 9 3 0 0 0 1 1 1.25 0.45

A1 - B2 4 7 1 0 0 2 2 1.75 0.62

A1 - B3 3 3 3 3 0 2,3 1,2,3,4 2.50 1.17

A2 - B1 3 5 1 3 0 2 2 2.33 1.15

A2 - B2 2 4 4 1 1 2,3 2,3 2.58 1.16

A2 - B3 2 1 3 5 1 3,4 4 3.17 1.27

A3 - B1 0 0 0 4 8 5 5 4.67 0.49

A3 - B2 0 0 0 5 7 5 5 4.58 0.51

A3 - B3 1 1 5 3 2 3 3 3.33 1.15

A1 - C1 3 3 0 2 4 2,4 5 3.08 1.73

A1 - C2 3 4 3 2 0 2 2 2.33 1.07

A1 - C3 5 3 1 2 1 2 1 2.25 1.42

A2 - C1 1 4 6 1 0 3 3 2.58 0.79

A2 - C2 1 0 3 4 4 4 4,5 3.83 1.19

A2 - C3 2 3 3 4 0 3 4 2.75 1.14

A3 - C1 6 4 0 1 1 1,2 1 1.92 1.31

A3 - C2 1 6 3 1 1 2 2 2.58 1.08

A3 - C3 0 1 0 4 7 5 5 4.42 0.90

A1 - D1 5 3 0 4 0 2 1 2.25 1.36

A1 - D2 2 6 2 2 0 2 2 2.33 0.98

A1 - D3 5 2 1 4 0 2 1 2.33 1.37

A2 - D1 2 0 2 8 0 4 4 3.33 1.15

A2 - D2 1 1 2 6 2 4 4 3.58 1.16

A2 - D3 3 2 4 3 0 3 3 2.58 1.16

A3 - D1 0 0 2 3 7 5 5 4.42 0.79

A3 - D2 0 2 1 7 2 4 4 3.75 0.97

A3 - D3 3 3 1 3 2 2,3 1,2,4 2.83 1.53

A1 - E1 3 5 3 1 0 2 2 2.17 0.94

A1 - E2 1 5 2 3 1 2,3 2 2.83 1.19

A2 - E1 2 2 5 3 0 3 3 2.75 1.06

A2 - E2 1 2 2 5 2 4 4 3.42 1.24

A3 - E1 1 4 3 1 3 3 2 3.08 1.38

A3 - E2 1 1 1 7 2 4 4 3.67 1.15

B1 - C1 6 6 0 0 0 1,2 1,2 1.50 0.52

B1 - C2 4 4 2 2 0 2 1,2 2.17 1.11

B1 - C3 1 0 0 5 6 4,5 5 4.25 1.14

B2 - C1 4 5 3 0 0 2 2 1.92 0.79

B2 - C2 0 4 3 4 1 3 2,4 3.17 1.03

B2 - C3 1 0 0 7 4 4 4 4.08 1.08

B3 - C1 4 4 1 2 1 2 1,2 2.33 1.37

B3 - C2 3 0 3 5 1 3,4 4 3.08 1.38

B3 - C3 3 1 5 3 0 3 3 2.67 1.15

B1 - D1 0 1 0 6 5 4 4 4.25 0.87

B1 - D2 0 2 4 6 0 3,4 4 3.33 0.78

B1 - D3 5 6 0 1 0 2 2 1.75 0.87

B2 - D1 1 1 1 5 4 4 4 3.83 1.27

B2 - D2 0 3 4 5 0 3 4 3.17 0.83

B2 - D3 5 4 2 1 0 2 1 1.92 1.00

B3 - D1 1 1 2 7 1 4 4 3.50 1.09

B3 - D2 1 4 5 2 0 3 3 2.67 0.89

B3 - D3 4 4 2 2 0 2 1,2 2.17 1.11

(cont’d.)
36 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

Table A6. (Cont’d.)

Factor/ Compatibility Levelsb

Outcomea 12345 Median Mode Mean Std Dev

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Frequency - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B1 - E1 2 2 1 7 0 4 4 3.08 1.24

B1 - E2 0 1 4 3 4 4 3,5 3.83 1.03

B2 - E1 2 3 2 5 0 3 4 2.83 1.19

B2 - E2 1 0 2 8 1 4 4 3.67 0.98

B3 - E1 2 1 5 4 0 3 3 2.92 1.08

B3 - E2 2 1 5 4 0 3 3 2.92 1.08

C1 - D1 5 3 1 3 0 2 1 2.17 1.27

C1 - D2 2 6 2 2 0 2 2 2.33 0.98

C1 - D3 5 2 1 4 0 2 1 2.33 1.37

C2 - D1 0 3 1 8 0 4 4 3.42 0.90

C2 - D2 1 2 4 5 0 3 4 3.08 1.00

C2 - D3 1 7 1 3 0 2 2 2.50 1.00

C3 - D1 0 1 0 4 7 5 5 4.42 0.90

C3 - D2 0 3 2 6 1 4 4 3.42 1.00

C3 - D3 1 8 1 2 0 2 2 2.33 0.89

C1 - E1 2 7 1 2 0 2 2 2.25 0.97

C1 - E2 0 3 0 4 5 4 5 3.92 1.24

C2 - E1 0 5 3 4 0 3 2 2.92 0.90

C2 - E2 1 1 4 6 0 3,4 4 3.25 0.97

C3 - E1 2 1 1 7 1 4 4 3.33 1.30

C3 - E2 1 4 3 2 2 3 2 3.00 1.28

D1 - E1 2 2 5 3 0 3 3 2.75 1.06

D1 - E2 0 1 1 6 4 4 4 4.08 0.90

D2 - E1 2 2 5 3 0 3 3 2.75 1.06

D2 - E2 0 2 7 2 1 3 3 3.17 0.83

D3 - E1 1 5 2 4 0 2,3 2 2.75 1.06

D3 - E2 2 7 3 0 0 2 2 2.08 0.67

a Factor A: Land Available for Forage Production.

Option A1: Changes in land use will increase the amount of land available for forage production.

Option A2: Changes in land use will have little impact on the amount of land available.

Option A3: Changes in land use will decrease the amount of land available for grazing.

Factor B: Environmental Concerns and Government Policies.

Option B1: Regulations will increase on a national level, with lands on the margin being taken out of grazing use.

Option B2: Nationally, a significant effect will not be seen, but local effects will be significant in areas where resource concerns

have already emerged.

Option B3: After initial minor changes, the impacts of regulation will subside.

Factor C: Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands.

Option C1: Livestock utilization of grazing lands will increase.

Option C2: Livestock utilization of grazing lands will not change significantly.

Option C3: Livestock utilization of grazing lands will decrease.

Factor D: Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands.

Option D1: Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will increase.

Option D2: Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will not change significantly.

Option D3: Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will decrease.

Factor E: Technology Changes in Forage Production.

Option E1: There will not be significant changes in the development or use of forage production technologies.

Option E2: There will be significant changes in the development or use of forage production technologies.

b1 = Will not occur together.

2 = Low likelihood of occurring together.

3 = Neutral.

4 = Likely to occur together.

5 = Very likely to occur together.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 37

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

Table A7. Compatibility levels and selected compatible scenarios, South Region.

No. of No. of Average

Outcomesa Compatibility Compatibility Compatibility Comparable

A B C D E Level 1 Level 2 Level Scenario

3 1 3 1 2 0 1 4.0 YES

3 3 3 1 2 0 1 3.9 YES

3 3 2 1 2 0 0 3.9 YES

3 3 1 1 2 0 1 3.9 YES

3 2 3 1 2 0 1 3.9 YES

2 3 2 1 2 0 0 3.9 YES

3 3 3 1 1 0 0 3.8 YES

3 3 1 2 2 0 0 3.8 YES

3 2 3 1 1 0 0 3.8 YES

3 2 2 1 2 0 0 3.8 YES

3 2 1 1 2 0 1 3.8 YES

3 1 3 1 1 0 1 3.8 YES

2 3 1 1 2 0 1 3.8 YES

3 3 2 2 2 0 0 3.7 YES

3 2 1 2 2 0 0 3.7 YES

3 1 2 1 2 0 1 3.7 YES

3 1 1 1 2 0 2 3.7 YES

2 3 2 2 2 0 0 3.7 YES

2 3 2 1 1 0 0 3.7 YES

2 3 1 2 2 0 0 3.7 YES

2 2 2 1 2 0 0 3.7 YES

3 3 2 1 1 0 0 3.6 YES

3 2 2 2 2 0 0 3.6 YES

2 3 3 1 2 0 2 3.6 YES

2 3 3 1 1 0 1 3.6 YES

2 2 1 1 2 0 1 3.6 YES

1 3 1 2 2 0 1 3.6 YES

1 3 1 1 2 0 2 3.6 YES

3 3 1 3 2 0 3 3.5 YES

3 2 2 1 1 0 0 3.5 YES

3 1 1 2 2 0 2 3.5 YES

2 2 3 1 2 0 2 3.5 YES

2 2 3 1 1 0 1 3.5 YES

2 2 2 2 2 0 0 3.5 YES

2 2 2 1 1 0 0 3.5 YES

2 2 1 2 2 0 0 3.5 YES

2 1 3 1 2 0 3 3.5 YES

2 1 2 1 2 0 2 3.5 YES

1 3 2 1 2 0 2 3.5 YES

3 3 3 2 2 0 2 3.4 YES

3 3 1 1 1 0 2 3.4 YES

3 2 3 2 2 0 2 3.4 YES

3 2 1 3 2 0 3 3.4 YES

3 1 3 2 2 0 3 3.4 YES

3 1 2 2 2 0 2 3.4 YES

2 3 2 2 1 0 0 3.4 YES

2 3 1 3 2 0 3 3.4 YES

2 3 1 1 1 0 2 3.4 YES

2 1 3 1 1 0 3 3.4 YES

2 1 1 1 2 0 3 3.4 YES

1 3 2 2 2 0 2 3.4 YES

1 3 1 3 2 0 3 3.4 YES

1 2 1 2 2 0 2 3.4 YES

1 2 1 1 2 0 3 3.4 YES

3 3 2 2 1 0 0 3.3 YES

3 2 1 1 1 0 2 3.3 YES

3 1 2 1 1 0 2 3.3 YES

3 1 1 3 2 0 4 3.3 YES

1 3 3 1 2 0 3 3.3 YES

1 2 2 1 2 0 3 3.3 YES

3 3 3 2 1 0 1 3.2 YES

(cont’d.)
38 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

3 3 2 3 2 0 3 3.2 YES

3 3 1 2 1 0 1 3.2 YES

3 2 3 2 1 0 1 3.2 YES

3 2 2 2 1 0 0 3.2 YES

2 3 2 3 2 0 3 3.2 YES

2 3 1 2 1 0 1 3.2 YES

2 2 2 2 1 0 0 3.2 YES

2 2 1 3 2 0 3 3.2 YES

2 2 1 1 1 0 2 3.2 YES

2 1 2 2 2 0 3 3.2 YES

2 1 2 1 1 0 3 3.2 YES

2 1 1 2 2 0 3 3.2 YES

1 2 3 1 2 0 4 3.2 YES

1 2 2 2 2 0 3 3.2 YES

1 2 1 3 2 0 4 3.2 YES

3 2 2 3 2 0 3 3.1 YES

3 2 1 2 1 0 1 3.1 YES

3 1 3 2 1 0 3 3.1 YES

3 1 1 1 1 0 4 3.1 YES

2 3 3 2 2 0 3 3.1 YES

1 3 3 1 1 0 3 3.1 YES

1 3 2 1 1 0 3 3.1 YES

1 1 3 1 2 1 3 3.2 NO

1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3.2 NO

1 1 2 1 2 1 3 3.1 NO

1 1 1 2 2 1 3 3.1 NO

3 3 1 3 1 0 4 3.0 NO

3 1 3 3 2 1 4 3.0 NO

3 1 2 3 2 0 4 3.0 NO

2 3 3 2 1 0 2 3.0 NO

2 3 2 3 1 0 3 3.0 NO

2 3 1 3 1 0 4 3.0 NO

2 2 3 2 2 0 3 3.0 NO

2 2 2 3 2 0 3 3.0 NO

2 2 1 2 1 0 1 3.0 NO

2 1 1 3 2 0 5 3.0 NO

1 3 2 3 2 0 4 3.0 NO

1 3 1 1 1 0 4 3.0 NO

1 2 3 1 1 0 4 3.0 NO

1 1 1 3 2 1 4 3.0 NO

3 3 3 3 2 1 4 2.9 NO

3 3 2 3 1 0 3 2.9 NO

3 2 3 3 2 1 4 2.9 NO

3 2 1 3 1 0 4 2.9 NO

3 1 2 2 1 0 3 2.9 NO

2 2 3 2 1 0 2 2.9 NO

2 1 3 2 2 0 5 2.9 NO

2 1 1 1 1 0 5 2.9 NO

1 3 3 2 2 0 4 2.9 NO

1 3 2 2 1 0 3 2.9 NO

1 3 1 2 1 0 3 2.9 NO

1 2 2 1 1 0 4 2.9 NO

1 1 3 1 1 1 4 2.9 NO

1 1 2 2 2 1 4 2.9 NO

3 3 3 3 1 1 3 2.8 NO

3 2 3 3 1 1 3 2.8 NO

3 2 2 3 1 0 3 2.8 NO

3 1 3 3 1 1 4 2.8 NO

3 1 1 2 1 0 4 2.8 NO

2 2 2 3 1 0 3 2.8 NO

2 2 1 3 1 0 4 2.8 NO

Table A7. (Cont’d.)

No. of No. of Average

Outcomesa Compatibility Compatibility Compatibility Comparable

A B C D E Level 1 Level 2 Level Scenario

(cont’d.)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 39

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

2 1 2 3 2 0 5 2.8 NO

2 1 2 2 1 0 4 2.8 NO

1 3 1 3 1 0 5 2.8 NO

1 2 3 2 2 0 5 2.8 NO

1 2 2 3 2 0 5 2.8 NO

1 2 1 1 1 0 5 2.8 NO

3 1 1 3 1 0 6 2.7 NO

2 1 3 2 1 0 5 2.7 NO

1 2 2 2 1 0 4 2.7 NO

1 2 1 2 1 0 4 2.7 NO

1 1 3 2 2 1 5 2.7 NO

3 1 2 3 1 0 5 2.6 NO

2 3 3 3 2 1 5 2.6 NO

2 3 3 3 1 1 4 2.6 NO

2 1 1 2 1 0 5 2.6 NO

1 3 3 2 1 0 4 2.6 NO

1 3 2 3 1 0 5 2.6 NO

1 2 1 3 1 0 6 2.6 NO

1 1 2 3 2 1 5 2.6 NO

1 1 2 1 1 1 5 2.6 NO

2 2 3 3 2 1 5 2.5 NO

2 2 3 3 1 1 4 2.5 NO

2 1 3 3 2 1 6 2.5 NO

2 1 2 3 1 0 6 2.5 NO

2 1 1 3 1 0 7 2.5 NO

1 3 3 3 2 1 5 2.5 NO

1 2 3 2 1 0 5 2.5 NO

1 1 1 1 1 1 6 2.5 NO

2 1 3 3 1 1 6 2.4 NO

1 2 3 3 2 1 6 2.4 NO

1 2 2 3 1 0 6 2.4 NO

1 1 3 3 2 2 5 2.4 NO

1 3 3 3 1 1 5 2.3 NO

1 1 3 2 1 1 6 2.3 NO

1 1 2 2 1 1 6 2.3 NO

1 1 1 3 1 1 7 2.3 NO

1 1 1 2 1 1 6 2.3 NO

1 2 3 3 1 1 6 2.2 NO

1 1 3 3 1 2 6 2.1 NO

1 1 2 3 1 1 7 2.1 NO

aFactor A: Land Available for Forage Production.

Option A1: Changes in land use will increase the amount of land available for forage production.

Option A2: Changes in land use will have little impact on the amount of land available.

Option A3: Changes in land use will decrease the amount of land available for grazing.

Factor B: Environmental Concerns and Government Policies.

Option B1: Regulations will increase on a national level, with lands on the margin being taken out of grazing use.

Option B2: Nationally, a significant effect will not be seen, but local effects will be significant in areas where resource concerns

have already emerged.

Option B3: After initial minor changes, the impacts of regulation will subside.

Factor C: Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands.

Option C1: Livestock utilization of grazing lands will increase.

Option C2: Livestock utilization of grazing lands will not change significantly.

Option C3: Livestock utilization of grazing lands will decrease.

Factor D: Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands.

Option D1: Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will increase.

Option D2: Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will not change significantly.

Option D3: Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will decrease.

Factor E: Technology Changes in Forage Production.

Option E1: There will not be significant changes in the development or use of forage production technologies.

Option E2: There will be significant changes in the development or use of forage production technologies.

Table A7. (Cont’d.)

No. of No. of Average

Outcomesa Compatibility Compatibility Compatibility Comparable

A B C D E Level 1 Level 2 Level Scenario
40 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

(cont’d.)

Table A8. Compatibility levels and selected compatible scenarios, North Region.

No. of No. of Average

Outcomesa Compatibility Compatibility Compatibility Comparable

A B C D E Level 1 Level 2 Level Scenario

1 3 1 1 2 00 0 4.3 YES

1 2 1 1 2 00 00 4.2 YES

3 1 3 1 1 00 00 3.9 YES

1 2 2 1 2 00 00 3.9 YES

3 2 3 1 1 00 00 3.8 YES

2 3 1 1 2 00 00 3.8 YES

1 3 2 1 2 00 00 3.8 YES

3 1 3 1 2 00 2 3.7 YES

2 2 2 1 2 00 00 3.7 YES

2 2 1 1 2 00 00 3.7 YES

1 3 1 2 2 00 1 3.7 YES

1 3 1 1 1 00 2 3.7 YES

1 2 2 1 1 00 1 3.7 YES

3 3 3 1 1 00 0 3.6 YES

3 2 3 1 2 00 2 3.6 YES

3 1 3 2 1 00 00 3.6 YES

2 3 2 1 2 00 00 3.6 YES

2 2 2 1 1 00 1 3.6 YES

1 3 2 1 1 00 1 3.6 YES

1 3 1 3 2 00 2 3.6 YES

1 2 1 2 2 00 1 3.6 YES

1 2 1 1 1 00 2 3.6 YES

3 2 3 2 1 0 00 3.5 YES

3 2 2 1 1 00 1 3.5 YES

3 1 2 1 1 00 1 3.5 YES

2 3 2 1 1 00 1 3.5 YES

2 1 2 1 2 00 1 3.5 YES

2 1 1 1 2 00 2 3.5 YES

3 3 3 1 2 00 2 3.4 YES

3 2 2 1 2 00 2 3.4 YES

3 1 3 2 2 00 2 3.4 YES

3 1 2 1 2 0 2 3.4 YES

2 3 1 2 2 00 00 3.4 YES

2 2 3 1 2 00 2 3.4 YES

2 2 3 1 1 00 2 3.4 YES

2 2 2 2 2 00 00 3.4 YES

2 1 2 1 1 00 2 3.4 YES

1 2 2 2 2 00 1 3.4 YES

1 2 1 3 2 00 3 3.4 YES

3 3 3 2 1 00 00 3.3 YES

3 3 2 1 1 00 1 3.3 YES

3 2 3 2 2 00 2 3.3 YES

3 2 2 2 1 00 1 3.3 YES

3 1 2 2 1 00 1 3.3 YES

2 3 3 1 2 00 2 3.3 YES

2 3 3 1 1 00 2 3.3 YES

2 3 2 2 2 00 00 3.3 YES

2 3 1 1 1 0 2 3.3 YES

2 2 2 2 1 00 1 3.3 YES

2 2 1 2 2 00 00 3.3 YES

2 1 3 1 2 00 3 3.3 YES

2 1 3 1 1 00 3 3.3 YES

1 3 2 2 2 00 1 3.3 YES

3 3 2 1 2 00 2 3.2 YES

3 2 2 2 2 00 2 3.2 YES

3 1 2 2 2 00 2 3.2 YES

2 3 2 2 1 00 1 3.2 YES

2 3 1 3 2 00 2 3.2 YES

2 2 1 1 1 00 2 3.2 YES

2 1 2 2 2 00 1 3.2 YES

1 2 2 2 1 00 2 3.2 YES
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 41

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

Table A8. (Cont’d.)

No. of No. of Average

Outcomesa Compatibility Compatibility Compatibility Comparable

A B C D E Level 1 Level 2 Level Scenario

3 3 3 2 2 00 2 3.1 YES

3 3 2 2 1 00 1 3.1 YES

2 1 2 2 1 00 2 3.1 YES

2 1 1 2 2 00 2 3.1 YES

1 3 2 2 1 0 2 3.1 YES

1 3 1 3 1 00 3 3.1 YES

1 3 1 2 1 00 3 3.1 YES

1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3.8 NO

1 2 3 1 2 1 1 3.6 NO

1 3 3 1 2 1 1 3.5 NO

1 2 3 1 1 1 1 3.5 NO

1 1 2 1 2 1 00 3.5 NO

3 3 1 1 2 1 1 3.4 NO

3 2 1 1 2 1 1 3.4 NO

3 1 1 1 2 1 2 3.4 NO

1 3 3 1 1 1 1 3.4 NO

3 1 3 3 1 1 1 3.3 NO

1 1 3 1 2 2 1 3.3 NO

1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3.3 NO

3 2 3 3 1 1 1 3.2 NO

1 1 3 1 1 2 1 3.2 NO

1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3.2 NO

1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3.2 NO

3 3 3 3 1 1 00 3.1 NO

3 3 1 2 2 1 1 3.1 NO

3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3.1 NO

3 2 1 2 2 1 1 3.1 NO

3 2 1 1 1 1 1 3.1 NO

3 1 1 2 2 1 2 3.1 NO

3 1 1 1 1 1 2 3.1 NO

3 3 2 2 2 00 2 3.0 NO

3 3 1 3 2 1 2 3.0 NO

3 2 2 3 1 00 3 3.0 NO

3 1 3 3 2 1 4 3.0 NO

3 1 2 3 1 00 3 3.0 NO

2 2 3 2 2 00 2 3.0 NO

2 2 3 2 1 00 2 3.0 NO

2 2 1 3 2 0 3 3.0 NO

2 1 1 1 1 00 4 3.0 NO

1 3 2 3 2 00 3 3.0 NO

1 2 3 2 2 1 2 3.0 NO

1 2 2 3 2 00 4 3.0 NO

1 2 1 2 1 00 3 3.0 NO

1 1 2 2 2 1 1 3.0 NO

1 1 1 3 2 1 4 3.0 NO

3 3 2 3 1 00 2 2.9 NO

3 2 3 3 2 1 4 2.9 NO

3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2.9 NO

3 1 1 3 2 1 4 2.9 NO

2 3 3 2 2 00 2 2.9 NO

2 3 3 2 1 00 2 2.9 NO

2 3 2 3 2 00 3 2.9 NO

2 3 2 3 1 00 3 2.9 NO

2 3 1 2 1 00 2 2.9 NO

2 2 2 3 2 00 4 2.9 NO

2 2 2 3 1 00 4 2.9 NO

2 1 3 2 2 0 3 2.9 NO

2 1 3 2 1 00 3 2.9 NO

1 3 3 2 2 1 2 2.9 NO

1 3 2 3 1 00 3 2.9 NO

1 2 3 2 1 1 2 2.9 NO

(cont”d.)
42 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

Table A8. (Cont’d.)

No. of No. of Average

Outcomesa Compatibility Compatibility Compatibility Comparable

A B C D E Level 1 Level 2 Level Scenario

1 2 2 3 1 00 4 2.9 NO

1 2 1 3 1 00 4 2.9 NO

3 3 3 3 2 1 3 2.8 NO

3 3 1 3 1 1 1 2.8 NO

3 2 2 3 2 00 5 2.8 NO

3 2 1 2 1 1 1 2.8 NO

3 1 2 3 2 00 5 2.8 NO

3 1 1 2 1 1 2 2.8 NO

2 3 1 3 1 0 3 2.8 NO

2 2 1 2 1 00 2 2.8 NO

2 1 1 3 2 00 5 2.8 NO

1 3 3 2 1 1 2 2.8 NO

1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2.8 NO

3 3 2 3 2 00 4 2.7 NO

3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2.7 NO

3 1 1 3 1 1 3 2.7 NO

2 1 2 3 2 00 5 2.7 NO

2 1 2 3 1 00 5 2.7 NO

1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2.7 NO

2 3 3 3 1 1 3 2.6 NO

2 2 3 3 1 1 4 2.6 NO

2 2 1 3 1 0 4 2.6 NO

2 1 1 2 1 00 4 2.6 NO

1 3 3 3 2 2 3 2.6 NO

1 3 3 3 1 2 2 2.6 NO

1 2 3 3 2 2 4 2.6 NO

1 2 3 3 1 2 3 2.6 NO

1 1 3 2 1 2 2 2.6 NO

1 1 2 3 2 1 4 2.6 NO

1 1 1 2 1 1 4 2.6 NO

2 3 3 3 2 1 4 2.5 NO

2 2 3 3 2 1 5 2.5 NO

2 1 3 3 1 1 5 2.5 NO

1 1 2 3 1 1 4 2.5 NO

1 1 1 3 1 1 5 2.5 NO

2 1 3 3 2 1 6 2.4 NO

2 1 1 3 1 00 6 2.4 NO

2 1 3 3 2 3 4 2.3 NO

1 1 3 3 1 3 3 2.3 NO

aFactor A: Land Available for Forage Production.

Option A1: Changes in land use will increase the amount of land available for forage production.

Option A2: Changes in land use will have little impact on the amount of land available.

Option A3: Changes in land use will decrease the amount of land available for grazing.

Factor B: Environmental Concerns and Government Policies.

Option B1: Regulations will increase on a national level, with lands on the margin being taken out of grazing use.

Option B2: Nationally, a significant effect will not be seen, but local effects will be significant in areas where resource concerns

have already emerged.

Option B3: After initial minor changes, the impacts of regulation will subside.

Factor C: Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands.

Option C1: Livestock utilization of grazing lands will increase.

Option C2: Livestock utilization of grazing lands will not change significantly.

Option C3: Livestock utilization of grazing lands will decrease.

Factor D: Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands.

Option D1: Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will increase.

Option D2: Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will not change significantly.

Option D3: Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will decrease.

Factor E: Technology Changes in Forage Production.

Option E1: There will not be significant changes in the development or use of forage production technologies.

Option E2: There will be significant changes in the development or use of forage production technologies.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 43

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

Table A9. Compatibility levels and selected compatible scenarios, West Region.

No. of No. of Average

Outcomesa Compatibility Compatibility Compatibility Comparable

A B C D E Level 1 Level 2 Level Scenario

(cont’d.)

3 1 3 1 2 00 00 4.4 YES

3 2 3 1 2 00 00 4.3 YES

3 1 3 1 1 00 00 4.3 YES

3 2 3 1 1 00 00 4.1 YES

3 1 3 2 2 00 00 4.1 YES

3 1 3 2 1 00 00 4.1 YES

3 3 3 1 2 00 00 3.9 YES

3 2 3 2 2 00 0 3.9 YES

3 2 2 1 2 00 1 3.9 YES

2 3 2 1 2 00 00 3.9 YES

3 3 3 1 1 00 00 3.8 YES

3 2 3 2 1 00 00 3.8 YES

3 1 2 1 2 00 2 3.8 YES

2 2 3 1 2 00 00 3.8 YES

2 2 2 1 2 00 00 3.8 YES

2 1 3 1 2 00 1 3.8 YES

3 3 2 1 2 0 1 3.7 YES

2 3 3 1 2 00 00 3.7 YES

2 1 3 1 1 00 1 3.7 YES

2 3 3 1 1 00 00 3.6 YES

2 3 2 2 2 00 00 3.6 YES

2 3 2 1 1 00 00 3.6 YES

2 2 3 1 1 00 00 3.6 YES

2 1 3 2 2 0 1 3.6 YES

2 1 3 2 1 00 1 3.6 YES

2 1 2 1 2 00 2 3.6 YES

3 3 3 2 2 00 00 3.5 YES

3 3 3 2 1 00 00 3.5 YES

3 2 2 2 2 00 1 3.5 YES

3 2 2 1 1 00 1 3.5 YES

3 1 3 3 2 00 3 3.5 YES

3 1 3 3 1 00 3 3.5 YES

3 1 2 2 2 00 2 3.5 YES

3 1 2 1 1 00 2 3.5 YES

2 2 3 2 2 00 00 3.5 YES

2 2 2 2 2 00 00 3.5 YES

3 3 2 1 1 00 1 3.4 YES

3 2 3 3 2 00 3 3.4 YES

2 3 3 2 2 00 00 3.4 YES

2 3 3 2 1 0 00 3.4 YES

2 3 2 2 1 00 00 3.4 YES

2 3 1 1 2 00 2 3.4 YES

2 2 3 2 1 00 00 3.4 YES

2 2 2 1 1 00 00 3.4 YES

2 2 1 1 2 00 2 3.4 YES

2 1 2 2 2 00 2 3.4 YES

3 3 2 2 2 00 1 3.3 YES

3 2 3 3 1 00 3 3.3 YES

3 1 2 2 1 00 2 3.3 YES

2 1 2 1 1 00 2 3.3 YES

2 1 1 1 2 00 3 3.3 YES

3 2 2 2 1 00 1 3.2 YES

2 3 2 3 2 00 3 3.2 YES

2 3 1 2 2 00 2 3.2 YES

2 2 2 2 1 00 00 3.2 YES

2 2 1 2 2 0 2 3.2 YES

2 1 2 2 1 00 2 3.2 YES

2 1 1 2 2 00 3 3.2 YES

1 3 2 1 2 00 3 3.2 YES

1 2 3 1 2 00 4 3.2 YES

3 3 2 2 1 00 1 3.1 YES
44 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

Table A9. (Cont’d.)

No. of No. of Average

Outcomesa Compatibility Compatibility Compatibility Comparable

A B C D E Level 1 Level 2 Level Scenario

(cont’d.)

3 2 2 3 2 00 4 3.1 YES

2 2 2 3 2 00 3 3.1 YES

1 3 3 1 2 00 3 3.1 YES

1 3 3 1 1 0 3 3.1 YES

1 2 3 1 1 00 4 3.1 YES

1 2 2 1 2 00 4 3.1 YES

3 2 1 1 2 1 2 3.5 NO

3 1 1 1 2 1 2 3.5 NO

3 1 1 2 2 1 2 3.3 NO

3 3 1 1 2 1 2 3.2 NO

3 2 1 2 2 1 2 3.2 NO

1 1 3 1 2 1 3 3.2 NO

1 1 3 1 1 1 3 3.2 NO

3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3.1 NO

1 1 3 2 1 1 3 3.1 NO

3 3 3 3 2 00 3 3.0 NO

3 3 3 3 1 00 3 3.0 NO

3 2 1 1 1 1 3 3.0 NO

3 1 2 3 2 00 5 3.0 NO

3 1 1 2 1 1 3 3.0 NO

2 3 2 3 1 00 3 3.0 NO

2 3 1 1 1 00 3 3.0 NO

2 2 3 3 2 00 3 3.0 NO

2 1 3 3 2 00 4 3.0 NO

2 1 3 3 1 00 4 3.0 NO

1 3 2 1 1 00 3 3.0 NO

1 3 1 1 2 00 4 3.0 NO

1 2 1 1 2 00 5 3.0 NO

1 1 3 2 2 1 3 3.0 NO

3 3 2 3 2 00 4 2.9 NO

3 3 1 2 2 1 2 2.9 NO

3 2 1 3 2 1 4 2.9 NO

3 1 1 3 2 1 4 2.9 NO

2 3 3 3 2 00 3 2.9 NO

2 3 3 3 1 00 3 2.9 NO

2 3 1 3 2 00 4 2.9 NO

2 3 1 2 1 00 3 2.9 NO

2 2 3 3 1 00 3 2.9 NO

2 2 1 3 2 00 4 2.9 NO

2 2 1 1 1 00 3 2.9 NO

2 1 2 3 2 00 5 2.9 NO

2 1 1 2 1 00 4 2.9 NO

2 1 1 1 1 00 4 2.9 NO

1 3 3 2 1 00 3 2.9 NO

1 3 2 2 2 00 3 2.9 NO

1 2 3 2 2 00 4 2.9 NO

1 2 3 2 1 00 4 2.9 NO

1 1 2 1 2 1 4 2.9 NO

1 1 1 1 2 1 4 2.9 NO

3 3 1 1 1 1 3 2.8 NO

3 2 2 3 1 00 4 2.8 NO

3 2 1 2 1 1 3 2.8 NO

3 1 2 3 1 00 5 2.8 NO

2 2 2 3 1 00 3 2.8 NO

2 2 1 2 1 00 3 2.8 NO

2 1 1 3 2 00 5 2.8 NO

1 3 3 2 2 00 3 2.8 NO

1 3 2 2 1 00 3 2.8 NO

1 3 1 2 2 00 4 2.8 NO

1 2 2 2 2 00 4 2.8 NO

1 2 2 1 1 00 4 2.8 NO
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 45

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

Table A9. (Cont’d.)

No. of No. of Average

Outcomesa Compatibility Compatibility Compatibility Comparable

A B C D E Level 1 Level 2 Level Scenario

1 2 1 2 2 00 5 2.8 NO

1 1 1 2 2 1 4 2.8 NO

3 3 2 3 1 00 4 2.7 NO

2 1 2 3 1 00 5 2.7 NO

1 3 1 1 1 00 5 2.7 NO

1 1 2 2 2 1 4 2.7 NO

1 1 2 1 1 1 4 2.7 NO

3 3 1 3 2 1 4 2.6 NO

3 3 1 2 1 1 3 2.6 NO

3 1 1 3 1 1 5 2.6 NO

2 3 1 3 1 00 5 2.6 NO

1 3 2 3 2 00 6 2.6 NO

1 3 1 3 2 00 6 2.6 NO

1 3 1 2 1 00 5 2.6 NO

1 2 2 2 1 00 4 2.6 NO

1 2 1 3 2 00 7 2.6 NO

1 2 1 1 1 00 6 2.6 NO

1 1 3 3 1 1 6 2.6 NO

1 1 2 2 1 1 4 2.6 NO

1 1 1 2 1 1 5 2.6 NO

1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2.6 NO

3 2 1 3 1 1 5 2.5 NO

2 2 1 3 1 00 5 2.5 NO

2 1 1 3 1 00 6 2.5 NO

1 3 3 3 1 00 6 2.5 NO

1 3 2 3 1 0 6 2.5 NO

1 2 3 3 2 00 7 2.5 NO

1 2 3 3 1 00 7 2.5 NO

1 2 2 3 2 00 7 2.5 NO

1 2 1 2 1 00 6 2.5 NO

1 1 3 3 2 1 6 2.5 NO

1 1 1 3 2 1 6 2.5 NO

1 3 3 3 2 00 6 2.4 NO

1 3 1 3 1 00 7 2.4 NO

3 3 1 3 1 1 5 2.3 NO

1 2 2 3 1 00 7 2.3 NO

1 2 1 3 1 00 8 2.3 NO

1 1 2 3 2 1 7 2.3 NO

1 1 1 3 1 1 7 2.3 NO

1 1 2 3 1 1 7 2.2 NO

aFactor A: Land Available for Forage Production.

Option A1: Changes in land use will increase the amount of land available for forage production.

Option A2: Changes in land use will have little impact on the amount of land available.

Option A3: Changes in land use will decrease the amount of land available for grazing.

Factor B: Environmental Concerns and Government Policies.

Option B1: Regulations will increase on a national level, with lands on the margin being taken out of grazing use.

Option B2: Nationally, a significant effect will not be seen, but local effects will be significant in areas where resource concerns

have already emerged.

Option B3: After initial minor changes, the impacts of regulation will subside.

Factor C: Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands.

Option C1: Livestock utilization of grazing lands will increase.

Option C2: Livestock utilization of grazing lands will not change significantly.

Option C3: Livestock utilization of grazing lands will decrease.

Factor D: Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands.

Option D1: Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will increase.

Option D2: Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will not change significantly.

Option D3: Wildlife utilization of grazing lands will decrease.

Factor E: Technology Changes in Forage Production.

Option E1: There will not be significant changes in the development or use of forage production technologies.

Option E2: There will be significant changes in the development or use of forage production technologies.
46 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

Table A10. Factor statistics and representative scenario as selected from cluster analysis with two clusters,

South Region.

Factor Outcomesa

Representative

Factor Mean Mode Median Scenario

 - - - - - - - Cluster 1b

 - - - - - -

A. Land Available for Forage Production 2.52 3 3 3

B. Environmental Concerns and Government Policies 2.10 3 2 2

C. Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands 2.22 3 2 2

D. Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.24 1 1 1

E. Technology Changes in Forage Production 1.54 2 2 2

 - - - - - - - Cluster 2c

- - - - - - -

A. Land Available for Forage Production 1.97 2 2 2

B. Environmental Concerns and Government Policies 2.36 3 2 2

C. Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.39 1 1 1

D. Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands 2.15 2 2 2

E. Technology Changes in Forage Production 1.82 2 2 2

aFactor outcome definitions can be found in Table 1.

b50 scenarios with an average scenario compatibility rating of 3.53 were in Cluster 1. The representative scenario had a

compatibility rating of 3.80. c33 scenarios with an average scenario compatibility rating of 3.37 were in Cluster 2. The representative scenario had a

compatibility rating of 3.50.

Table A11. Factor statistics and representative scenario as selected from cluster analysis with two clusters,

North Region.

Factor Outcomesa

Representative

Factor Mean Mode Median Scenario

 - - - - - - - Cluster 1b

 - - - - - - -

A. Land Available for Forage Production 1.58 1,2 2 2

B. Environmental Concerns and Government Policies 2.42 3 2,3 3

C. Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.55 1 1,2 1

D. Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.53 1 1 1

E. Technology Changes in Forage Production 1.68 2 2 2

 - - - - - - - Cluster 2c - - - - - - -

A. Land Available for Forage Production 2.70 3 3 3

B. Environmental Concerns and Government Policies 1.83 1 2 2

C. Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands 2.53 3 3 3

D. Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.50 1,2 1,2 1

E. Technology Changes in Forage Production 1.37 1 1 1

aFactor outcome definitions can be found in Table 1.

b38 scenarios with an average scenario compatibility rating of 3.49 were in Cluster 1. The representative scenario had a

compatibility rating of 3.80. c30 scenarios with an average scenario compatibility rating of 3.39 were in Cluster 2. The representative scenario had a

compatibility rating of 3.80.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 47

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

Table A13. Factor statistics and representative scenarios as selected from cluster analysis with three clusters,

South Region.

Factor Outcomesa

Representative

Factor Mean Mode Median Scenario

- - - - - - - Cluster 1b - - - - - - -

A. Land Available for Forage Production 2.48 3 3 3

B. Environmental Concerns and Government Policies 2.32 3 2 2

C. Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.84 2 2 2

D. Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.29 1 1 1

E. Technology Changes in Forage Production 1.87 2 2 2

- - - - - - - Cluster 2c

 - - - - - - -

A. Land Available for Forage Production 2.37 3 3 3

B. Environmental Concerns and Government Policies 1.96 2 2 2

C. Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands 2.52 3 3 3

D. Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.29 1 1 1

E. Technology Changes in Forage Production 1.22 1 1 1

- - - - - - - Cluster 3d - - - - - - -

A. Land Available for Forage Production 2.00 2 2 2

B. Environmental Concerns and Government Policies 2.32 3 2 3

C. Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.28 1 1 1

D. Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands 2.32 2 2 2

E. Technology Changes in Forage Production 1.84 2 2 2

aFactor outcome definitions are found in Table 1.

b31 scenarios with an average scenario compatibility rating of 3.64 were in Cluster 1. The representative scenario had a

compatibility rating of 3.80. c27 scenarios with an average scenario compatibility rating of 3.39 were in Cluster 2. The representative scenario had a

compatibility rating of 3.80. d25 scenarios with an average scenario compatibility rating of 3.35 were in Cluster 3. The representative scenario had a

compatibility rating of 3.70.

Table A12. Factor statistics and representative scenario as selected from cluster analysis with two clusters,

West Region.

Factor Outcomesa

Representative

Factor Mean Mode Median Scenario

 - - - - - - - Cluster 1b

 - - - - - - -

A. Land Available for Forage Production 2.61 3 3 3

B. Environmental Concerns and Government Policies 1.83 1,2 2 2

C. Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands 2.68 3 3 3

D. Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.56 1 1 1

E. Technology Changes in Forage Production 1.54 2 2 2

 - - - - - - - Cluster 2c

 - - - - - - -

A. Land Available for Forage Production 1.92 2 2 2

B. Environmental Concerns and Government Policies 2.35 3 2,3 3

C. Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.92 2 2 2

D. Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.69 2 2 2

E. Technology Changes in Forage Production 1.65 2 2 2

aFactor outcome definitions can be found in Table 1.

b41 scenarios with an average scenario compatibility rating of 3.70 were in Cluster 1. The representative scenario had a

compatibility rating of 4.30. c26 scenarios with an average scenario compatibility rating of 3.30 were in Cluster 2. The representative scenario had a

compatibility rating of 3.60.
48 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

Table A14. Factor statistics and representative scenarios as selected from cluster analysis with three clusters,

North Region.

Factor Outcomesa

Representative

Factor Mean Mode Median Scenario

- - - - - - - Cluster 1b

 - - - - - - -

A. Land Available for Forage Production 1.36 1 1 1

B. Environmental Concerns and Government Policies 2.55 3 3 3

C. Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.23 1 1 1

D. Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.68 1 1,2 1

E. Technology Changes in Forage Production 1.77 2 2 2

- - - - - - - Cluster 2c

 - - - - - - -

A. Land Available for Forage Production 2.88 3 3 3

B. Environmental Concerns and Government Policies 1.71 1 1 1

C. Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands 2.65 3 3 3

D. Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.65 2 2 2

E. Technology Changes in Forage Production 1.29 1 1 1

- - - - - - - Cluster 3d

 - - - - - - -

A. Land Available for Forage Production 2.14 2 2 2

B. Environmental Concerns and Government Policies 2.14 2 2 2

C. Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands 2.17 2 2 2

D. Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.31 1 1 1

E. Technology Changes in Forage Production 1.52 2 2 2

aFactor outcome definitions are found in Table 1.

b22 scenarios with an average scenario compatibility rating of 3.60 were in Cluster 1. The representative scenario had a

compatibility rating of 4.30. c17 scenarios with an average scenario compatibility rating of 3.43 were in Cluster 2. The representative scenario had a

compatibility rating of 3.60. d29 scenarios with an average scenario compatibility rating of 3.41 were in Cluster 3. The representative scenario had a

compatibility rating of 3.70.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 49

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell

Table A15. Factor statistics and representative scenarios as selected from cluster analysis with three clusters,

West Region.

Factor Outcomesa

Representative

Factor Mean Mode Median Scenario

- - - - - - - Cluster 1b

 - - - - - - -

A. Land Available for Forage Production 1.94 2 2 2

B. Environmental Concerns and Government Policies 2.44 3 2,3 3

C. Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.69 2 2 2

D. Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.81 2 2 2

E. Technology Changes in Forage Production 1.81 2 2 2

- - - - - - - Cluster 2c

 - - - - - - -

A. Land Available for Forage Production 2.26 3 2 3

B. Environmental Concerns and Government Policies 2.00 1,3 2 2

C. Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands 2.52 3 3 3

D. Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.83 2 2 2

E. Technology Changes in Forage Production 1.35 1 1 1

- - - - - - - Cluster 3d

 - - - - - - -

A. Land Available for Forage Production 2.64 3 3 3

B. Environmental Concerns and Government Policies 1.82 1,2 2 2

C. Livestock Utilization of Grazing Lands 2.68 3 3 3

D. Wildlife Utilization of Grazing Lands 1.32 1 1 1

E. Technology Changes in Forage Production 1.64 2 2 2

aFactor outcome definitions are found in Table 1.

b16 scenarios with an average scenario compatibility rating of 3.33 were in Cluster 1. The representative scenario had a

compatibility rating of 3.60. c23 scenarios with an average scenario compatibility rating of 3.38 were in Cluster 2. The representative scenario had a

compatibility rating of 3.80. d28 scenarios with an average scenario compatibility rating of 3.83 were in Cluster 3. The representative scenario had a

compatibility rating of 4.30
50 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050

APPENDIX B
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 51

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell
52 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 53

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell
54 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 55

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell
56 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 57

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell
58 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 59

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell
60 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 61

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell
62 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 63

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell
64 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 65

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell
66 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 67

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell
68 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 69

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell
70 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 71

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell
72 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001

Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-82. 2001 73

Projected Use of Grazed Forages in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Van Tassell, Bartlett, and Mitchell
Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not

all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice

and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,

DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal

opportunity provider and employer.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

RMRS

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information and technology to improve management, protection, and use of

the forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs

of National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and

private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems,

range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, forest engineering technology,

multiple use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects

and diseases. Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications

may be found worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

Lincoln, Nebraska Laramie, Wyoming

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center,

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOREST SERVICE

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT RMRS-GTR-82

OCTOBER 2001