This report by Rothamsted Research provides evidence on the impact of grazing management on a range of outcomes as well as on the importance of field scale, long-term research. It seeks to provide more rigorous assessment of livestock grazing practices which are usually reported as having positive economic and environmental outcomes but which often rely on anecdotal reports. It provides detailed data comparisons of the two systems related to system productivity, soil structure and health, environmental impacts, pasture growth and use and animal behaviour and performance, which may be valuable to growers and researchers exploring the impact of different livestock grazing management systems.
Summary
This report by Rothamsted Research provides evidence on the impact of grazing management on a range of outcomes as well as on the importance of field scale, long-term research. It seeks to provide more rigorous assessment of livestock grazing practices which are usually reported as having positive economic and environmental outcomes but which often rely on anecdotal reports. The authors point out that these can be unreliable due to seasonal variability and differences between farms.
The report compares Cell Grazing (CG) and Set Stocking (SS). It specifically looks at a type of CG, TechnoGrazingTM, which is a grazing infrastructure and pasture management method that uses a lane-based system based on GPS located posts to enable accurate pasture allocation and efficient livestock management. In SS systems, animals remain in the same area for the grazing season. The project took place over four years and involved six enclosures in the South West of the UK.
Generally, the report claims that Cell Grazing had positive effects on soil carbon sequestration, pasture growth, and live weight production per hectare. The authors also highlighted the influence of animal genetics and grazing methods on animal performance and carcass quality. More specifically, at the end of the four year study, carbon increased in the CG system whilst it decreased in the SS system. Soil compaction did not vary but the authors note the CG system could hold double the number of animals (Stocking rate) in each enclosure and up to 40 times higher density (stocking density) of animals.
An important note, the report relied on annual soil samples taken in April to a depth of 10cm to assess soil carbon sequestration. Generally, soil carbon sequestration best practice calls for sampling to a depth of at least 30 cm (IPCC) and often deeper measurements up to 50cm are recommended (Farm Carbon Toolkit). Shallow sampling can overestimate the carbon sequestration potential.
The report also compared environmental impacts and found similar leaching potential ( measured in kg per live weight) and methane emissions. There was, however, a larger number of animals in the CG system indicating lower leaching potential and methane emissions than SS. The authors suggest that how animals are managed has a greater influence on leaching than their number. The report found an increased abundance of weed grass species in the SS system
The report also compares animal behaviour and “performance” and found that livestock in the SS system generally gained more weight and were more active with more steps and fewer lying bouts. Both groups achieved acceptable fat class designation upon slaughter date but SS animals were graded fatter overall.
The report provides data comparisons of the two systems related to system productivity, soil structure and health, environmental impacts, pasture growth and use and animal behaviour and performance which may be valuable to growers and researchers exploring the impact of different livestock grazing management systems.
Reference
Rivero, J. et al. 2024. Cell grazing vs set stocking: interim technical report. Rothamsted Research.
Read more here. See also our TABLE report Grazed and Confused
Post a new comment »