Prescribed burning is a tool used by ranchers for brush management, improving forage quality and manipulating wildlife habitat. Although prescribed burning is a very effective tool for accomplishing these tasks, it can be incorrectly applied. Burning, just like any management tool, should only be applied once the need for the burn has been properly evaluated.

Once a rancher has determined that a prescribed burn can be effective, a burn plan should be developed. This plan is critical to the success of a prescribed burn for two reasons: First, a properly planned burn is not as likely to get out of control as a burn implemented without forethought, therefore reducing liability. And second, prescribed burns, like all other management tools, cost money to apply.

The Noble Foundation, as well as several Noble Foundation Cooperators, use prescribed burning as a management tool on their properties. This report will describe the costs associated with prescribed burning on one of the Noble Foundation properties and on that of Terry Stuart Forst, a Noble Foundation cooperator, who has graciously provided an overview of prescribed burning costs on her properties.

There have been several prescribed burns conducted on the Noble Foundation D. Joyce Coffey Resource and Demonstration Ranch. The Coffey ranch is located west of Marietta, Oklahoma, and has a variety of topographical features and plant communities from which to evaluate the effects of prescribed burning. It has also provided the opportunity to develop approximate costs involved with conducting prescribed burns.

Materials
If prescribed burning is to become an integral part of the management of any given ranch, specialized equipment will be needed. Some of this equipment can be purchased or made from existing equipment on the ranch. Other equipment such as tractors, 4-wheelers, sprayers and bush hogs are probably already being used in the day to day operation of the ranch.

It is important to keep in mind that the burn plan will largely determine the equipment and tools to be used. Variables such as the size of the area to be burned, types and widths of fire guards, fuel type and load, etc., should be known in order to properly select the correct equipment. Don't get caught with a sprayer that is too small!

Equipment used to conduct burns on the Coffey Ranch included: a 4-wheeler, a 50 gallon sprayer designed to be pulled by a 4-wheeler, a cattle sprayer, a bush hog, a tractor and a fire truck (brush unit). As previously mentioned, much of this equipment is already on the ranch. Granted, the fire truck is not a everyday item but, there are many different types of spray rigs out there that will serve as an adequate substitute.

The tools used to conduct burns on the Coffey Ranch included: two drip torches, four fire rakes and three back pack sprayers. With a little ingenuity, a person can make a drip torch; otherwise, they can be ordered from a forestry supply catalog for approximately $145.00. A piece of old sickle bar 1.5 feet long can be converted into a fire rake or one can be purchased for approximately $21.00. A reliable back pack sprayer would be a little more difficult to make. In the end, it would be money well spent to go ahead and purchase a back pack sprayer for approximately $135.00. The cost associated with tool and equipment use on the Coffey Ranch burns are listed in Figure 1.

The following are two good sources for burning supplies:

Forestry Suppliers, Inc.
P.O. Box 8397
Jackson, MS 39284-8397
Sales Dept. 1-800-647-5368

Ben Meadows Company
3589 Broad Street
Atlanta, GA 30341
Sales Dept. 1-800-241-6401

Labor
Labor is the most costly and variable item associated with prescribed burning. Topography and type of fire guard probably influence labor costs more than any other factor. Areas surrounded by rivers, crop fields or roads are usually less expensive to burn. On the other hand, areas containing rolling hills or steep slopes with timber usually require the mechanical or physical establishment of fire guards, thereby increasing the amount of labor and cost of the burn.

The Coffey Ranch burns required a fairly substantial labor force to prepare fire guards. Topography in the burned areas consisted of steep slopes with fairly dense stands of timber. Some of the fire guards in the timber (0.63 miles) were dozed and others, where erosion was of concern (mainly on the steep slopes), were raked (0.56 miles). One and a half miles of open native grass areas were mowed. Dozed and mowed fire guards were about twelve feet wide and fire guards established by raking were about four feet wide.

Because of the topography and odd shape of the burns, the time required to set the appropriate back fires and flank fires was increased. This slowed the progress of setting the fire; therefore, increasing labor costs. The burn crew consisted of six men. Obviously, excess labor should be avoided, but labor should not be short at the time of setting the fire. This is not the time to cut corners. If something goes wrong, you will want the extra men available. Labor costs associated with preparing the fire guards and burn day on the Coffey Ranch are listed in Figure 1.

Grazing Costs
There can be some costs incurred due to the loss of grazing a pasture. Production may be lost due to deferment during the latter part of the growing season (or a full growing season) to allow for adequate fine fuel accumulation. It is generally not recommended to turn cattle in immediately after the grass greens up. Depending on prescribed burning frequency this production is not lost, but is shifted to a different season of grazing.

The areas burned on the Coffey Ranch were mostly timber and of little value to the overall forage production on the ranch. However, our goal is to increase the production in these areas for both cattle and wildlife. From past records, we determined the grazing value of these areas to be the equivalent of nine Animal Unit Days (A.U.D.'s) per acre per year (A.U.D.= 26 lbs DM x 9 A.U.D/ac). The value of a grazing lease with this amount of production was set at $5.00 per acre. Our costs due to grazing loss, are shown in Figure 1.

The Stuart Ranches
Terry Stuart Forst manages two ranches in Oklahoma (located in Jefferson and Bryan counties) of which prescribed burning is an integral part of the management plan. Objectives for using prescribed burning on both ranches is to decrease brush and improve forage quality and wildlife habitat. Figure 2 shows the costs associated with burning grasslands on the Waurika division in Jefferson County while Figure 3 shows the costs associated with burning grassland/timber on the Headquarters ranch in Bryan County.

The fuel costs incurred on both ranches include fuel used in preparing fireguards and all fuel used in conducting the actual burn. Fireguards on the ranches were established by discing and dozing. Note the difference in costs with fireguard preparation between the two ranches (Fig.2 and 3). The increased cost in fireguard establishment associated with the Headquarters ranch is primarily due to the dozer needed in this type of topography and timber. Also note that tools are not included in Figures 2 and 3. The same tools listed in Figure 1 are used by the Stuart Ranches, but they have been fully depreciated through previous prescribed burns.

The grazing method employed at both burn sites of the Stuart Ranch is best described as intensive early growing-season grazing with complete late growing-season rest. Therefore, the Stuart Ranch cost figures do not include grazing loss costs.

Cost Comparisons
It is interesting to note the cost per acre on the two Stuart Ranches as compared to the Coffey Ranch (Fig. 1, 2 and 3). This clearly demonstrates that as the size (acres) increases, the cost per acre decreases. Therefore, the size (acres) of the burn should be a major consideration when determining costs. Topography and vegetation types are other factors that can influence the costs associated with prescribed burning. Still, the cost increase due to topography and vegetation can be diluted if the number of acres burned is large enough.

Liability of Prescribed Burning
One item of concern for many ranchers considering prescribed burning as a management tool is liability. Even with the best of burn plans, proper equipment and materials, and appropriate preparations and labor, there is always the possibility that a fire can escape. This possibility is unfortunate for all parties involved, but a rancher can protect his property and any potential 'claimants' with proper insurance. In fact, most basic Farm Owner's Policies cover the legal liability aspects of prescribed burning if negligence is involved. Policy limits may range from $25,000 for a basic farm owner's policy to $500,000 for a complete umbrella farm owner's policy. Since most ranchers already have in place this type of coverage, it is just a matter of checking with the issuing insurance company before planning the prescribed burn and determine the limits on liability coverage.

Ranchers utilizing prescribed burning are also encouraged to keep a detailed record of the preparations before and during the burn. This information should include fireguard preparation, the climatic conditions at the setting of the prescribed burn, and relevant events during the prescribed burn. A successful prescribed burning program history could prove valuable from a liability standpoint should the unfortunate occur.

Prescibed Burning: Other Useful Publications
Bidwell, T.G. and R.E. Masters. Using Prescribed Fire in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. Circular E-927. Stillwater.

Mitchell, R.L. Fire on Soil, Vegetation and Animals. The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation. Mimeo. Ardmore, Oklahoma.

Ohlenbusch, P., J.W. Kunkle and S.L. Watson. Prescribed Burning: Equipment. Kansas Cooperative Extension Service. Leaflet Number 876. Manhattan.

Ohlenbusch, P., J.W. Kunkle and S.L. Watson. Prescribed Burning: A Management Tool. Kansas Cooperative Extension Service. Leaflet Number 815. Manhattan.

Ohlenbusch, P., J.W. Kunkle and S.L. Watson. Prescribed Burning: Planning and Conducting. Kansas Cooperative Extension Service. Leaflet Number 664. Manhattan.

Ohlenbusch, P., J.W. Kunkle and S. L. Watson. Prescribed Burning: Safety. Kansas Cooperative Extension Service. Leaflet Number 565. Manhattan.

White, L.D. and C.W. Hanselka. Prescribed Range Burning in Texas. Texas Agriculture Extension Service. Bulletin Number 1310. College Station.

	Did you find this article helpful? We encourage you to provide feedback to other users and the author(s) by completing the information below.
	Rating:	Highly recommend Excellent Worth reading Nothing special Wouldn't recommend
	Feedback for the author(s):