Hostname: page-component-797576ffbb-lm8cj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-12-09T05:26:45.294Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

The Use of Biophysical and Expected Payoff Probability Simulation Modeling in The Economic Assessment of Brush Management Alternatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Keith D. Schumann
Department of Agriculture Economics atTexas A&M University
J. Richard Conner
Department of Agriculture Economics, and Department of Rangeland Ecology and Management at Texas A&M University
James W. Richardson
Department of Agricultural Economics at Texas A&M University
Jerry W. Stuth
Department of Rangeland Ecology and Management at Texas A&M University
Wayne T. Hamilton
Center for Grazinglands and Ranch Management, and Department of Rangeland Ecology and Management at Texas A&M University
D. Lynn Drawe
Rob and Bessie Welder Wildlife Foundation
Get access


Woody plant encroachment restricts forage production and capacity to produce grazing livestock. Biophysical plant growth simulation and economic simulation were used to evaluate a prescribed burning range management technique. Modeling systems incorporated management practices and costs, historical climate data, vegetation and soil inventories, livestock production data, and historical regional livestock prices. The process compared baseline non-treatment return estimates to expected change in livestock returns resulting from prescribed burning. Stochastic analyses of production and price variability produced estimates of greater net returns resulting from use of prescribed burning relative to the baseline.

Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Archer, Steve. “Have South Texas Savannas Been Converted to Woodlands in Recent History?The American Naturalist 134, No. 4 (October 1989):545561.Google Scholar
Box, Thadis W.Changes in Wildlife Habitat Composition Following Brush Control Practices in South Texas.” Reprinted from Transactions of the 29th North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, March 9-11, 1964. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington D.C, 1964.Google Scholar
Box, Thadis W. Plant Communities of the Welder Wildlife Refuge. Contribution No. 5, Series B, Revised. Welder Wildlife Foundation, Sinton, TX, 1978.Google Scholar
Box, Thadis W. Relationships Between Soils and Vegetation on Four Range Plant Communities on the Welder Wildlife Refuge in South Texas. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, 1959.Google Scholar
Box, Thadis W. Vegetational Analysis and the Determination of Range Condition Classes on Selected Areas of the Welder Wildlife Refuge. Thesis, M.S., Texas A&M University, 1957.Google Scholar
Box, Thadis W., Lynn Drawe, D., and Mann, David K.Vegetation Change in South Texas-The Welder Wildlife Refuge Case.” Proceedings of the First Welder Wildlife Foundation Symposium. Welder Wildlife Foundation Contribution B-7, 1979:514.Google Scholar
Neto, Jose, De Souza. Integrating ecological and economic models for assessing institutional, environmental and technological change on rangeland. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, 1996.Google Scholar
Drawe, D. Lynn. Effects of Three Grazing Treatments on Vegetation, Cattle Production, and Wildlife on the Welder Wildlife Foundation Refuge, 1974-1982. Welder Wildlife Foundation Contribution B-8, 1988.Google Scholar
Lynn, Drawe, D. Influence of Grazing on Vegetation and Cattle on the Welder Wildlife Foundation Refuge, 1983-1987. Welder Wildlife Foundation Contribution B-11, 1991.Google Scholar
Garoian, L., Conner, J.R., and Scifres, C.J.A Discrete Stochastic Programming Model to Estimate Optimal Burning Schedules on Range-land.” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 19(2) (December 1987):5360.Google Scholar
Hansmire, Julie A. Effects of Fire on Forbs and Grasses in the Texas Coastal Prairies. Thesis, M.S., Texas Technical University, 1983.Google Scholar
Hardaker, J. Huirne, R.B.M. and Anderson, J.R. Coping with Risk in Agriculture. CAB International, New York, 1997.Google Scholar
Ranching Systems Group. Grazing Land Applications Information Technology for Improved Resource Management User's Guide. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, 1994.Google Scholar
Richardson, James W. and Nixon, C.J. The Farm Level Income and Policy Simulation Model: FLIPSIM. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agricultural Economics Technical Report No. 81-2, 1981.Google Scholar
Scifres, C.J. and Hamilton, W.T. Prescribed Burning for Brushland Management-The South Texas Example. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX, 1993.Google Scholar
Scifres, C.J., Hamilton, W.T., Conner, J.R., Inglis, J.M., Rasmussen, G.A., Smith, R.P., Stuth, J.W., and Welch, T.G. Integrated Brush Management Systems for South Texas: Development and Implementation. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station B-1493, 1985.Google Scholar
Stuth, Jerry W., Hamilton, Wayne, and Richard, J. Conner. PHYGROW (Phytomas Growth Simulator) Version 2.0 Model Documentation. Ranching Systems Group, Department of Rangeland Ecology & Management, Texas A&M University, 1995.Google Scholar
USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service. USDA Agricultural Prices, 1997 Summary. USDA NASS ERS Pr 1-3 (98), Washington D.C, July 1998.Google Scholar
Van Tassell, L.W and Conner, J.R. An Economic Analysis of Brush Control Practices and Grazing Systems in the Rolling Plains of Texas. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station MP-1619, 1986.Google Scholar
Van Tassell, L.W., Conner, J. Richard, and Richardson, James W. The Impacts of Range Improvement on the Economic Success and Survivability of Ranches in the Eastern Rolling Plains of Texas. Texas Agricultural Exp. Sta. B-1618, 1989.Google Scholar