P R O O F 4. Results 370 4.1. Land uses 370 4.2. Size of farm-holding, land prices, and grazing fees 372 4.3. Institutional economics 375 4.4. Institutional and legal frameworks 379 4.5. Forage deficit 381 4.6. Grazing infrastructure 385 4.7. Labor 388 4.8. Productivity estimates 390 4.9. Economic performance 395 4.10. Grazing management and trends 401 4.11. Main limiting factors 404 4.12. Interface to biodiversity 406 5. Discussion 408 References 414 European biodiversity significantly depends on large-scale livestock systems with low input levels. In most countries forms of grazing are organized in permanent or seasonal cooperations (land-owner/land-user agents) and covers different landscape such as alpine areas, forest, grasslands, mires, and even arable land. Today, the existence of these structures is threatened due to changes in agricultural land use practices and erratic governmental policies. The present chapter investigates six low-input livestock systems of grassland management with varying degrees of arrangements in different European countries and landscapes. These large-scale grazing systems (LSGS) are reindeer husbandry in Northern Sapmi (Fennoscandia), sheep grazing in the Polish Tatra mountains, cattle grazing in the Swiss and German Alps, cattle, sheep, and pig grazing in Baixo Alentejo, Southern Portugal, and sedentary sheep grazing in Central Spain. These systems showed very heterogeneous organizational patterns in their way of exploiting the pastoral resources. At the same time, these LSGS showed at least some of the following weaknesses such as poor economic performance, social fragility, and structural shortcomings for proper grazing management. Lack of proper mobility of herds/flocks or accession to specific grazing grounds can be a cause of environmental hazards. The surveyed LSGS are mostly dependent on public handouts for survival, but successive policy schemes have only showed mixed effects and, in particular study areas, clear inconsistencies in their aim to stop the general declining trend of LSGS. This research assumed that detailed system research may open the way for better-focused policy intervention, but policymakers need to take advantage of this period of support to push ahead for reforms. Recent European Union (EU) guidelines (2007-2013) on Rural Development Policy (RDP) and its operative scale of high nature value (HNV) farmland can easily fit the structure and functions of low-input grazing systems and LSGS. 352 Rafael Caballero et al.

The current situation of volatile milk prices and rising costs of, e.g. grain and labour, suggests that it is worth studying productivity and efficiency in dairy farming. The objective of the current whole-system study, carried out in lowland Central Switzerland from 2007 to 2010, was to compare the performance, efficiency, land productivity and profitability of indoor-feeding (IF) dairy production with that of pasture-based feeding (PF) dairy production. An IF herd consisting of 11 Holstein-Friesian (HF) and 13 Brown Swiss (BS) cows was kept in a free-stall barn and fed a part-mixed ration (PMR) of maize silage, grass silage and protein concentrate. The cows were allocated 15·8 ha of agricultural land (AL). In the PMR, an average per lactation of 443 kg protein concentrate and 651 kg compound feed was fed by a concentrate dispenser according to the requirements of each cow. The PF herd comprised 14 Swiss Fleckvieh (SF) and 14 BS cows, which were kept in a free-stall barn throughout the winter; barn-ventilated hay was offered ad libitum during the lactation period. This herd was allocated 15·7 ha of AL. After calving in spring, the PF cows grazed on semi-continuous pastures; they consumed an average of 285 kg of concentrate per lactation. The IF cows of the BS breed produced significantly more energy-corrected milk (ECM) per standard lactation compared with PF cows (8750 v. 5610 kg), more milk fat (350 v. 213 kg) and more milk protein (306 v. 203 kg). However, the milk of PF cows had higher levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) (1·9 v. 0·6 g/100 g fat) and ω − 3 fatty acids (1·7 v. 0·9 g/100 g fat) than the milk of the IF cows. The calving interval (378 v. 405 days) and the empty time (87 v. 118 days) of the BS breed were significantly shorter in the PF in comparison with that of the IF production system. The IF herd yielded significantly higher ECM/ha AL and year (12 716 v. 10 307 kg), and showed a higher feed efficiency (1·3 v. 1·1 kg ECM/kg of total dry matter intake (DMI)). The productivity per hour was roughly similar in the two systems (IF: 76 v. PF: 73 kg milk/h). The PF system resulted in higher labour income compared with the IF system (20·7 v. 13·4 E/h), but the difference was not significant. In conclusion, land productivity and efficiency were higher with the IF herd than the PF herd due to the higher energy intake per kg feed. However, within the given conditions, the more interesting case, economically, might be the reduced costs and improved milk quality of the PF system rather than the increased milk yield of the IF cows.

Increasing herd size and fragmented or non-uniform land challenge pasture-based milk production systems. Therefore, part-time grazing combined with indoor feeding of fresh herbage (‘cut-and-carry’) allows to maintain the advantages of fresh-herbage-based diets. However, consequences for environmental nitrogen losses, animal behaviour and ruminal metabolism are decisive for its implementation. Animal performance, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), reticulo-ruminal pH and feeding/locomotive behaviour were compared in six cows subjected either to full-time grazing (system F) or to part-time grazing system with indoor feeding of fresh herbage and concentrate (system P). Biweekly samplings were performed on six lactating cows per treatment in spring, summer and autumn. Nitrogen (N) balance was calculated from estimated N intake and N output via faeces, urine and milk. Reticulo-ruminal pH was recorded using a wireless data recorder. Eating and locomotive behaviour were measured with noseband sensors and pedometers. In spring, but not later, herbage intake per unit of body weight was higher for system F compared to system P cows. Eating time was shorter by 15% in P compared to F cows. Across systems, NUE declined from spring to summer/autumn from about 300 to 200 g milk protein N/kg N intake. Reticulo-ruminal pH was more variable under part-time grazing conditions, with a pronounced decrease subsequent to offering the herbage indoors. The part-time grazing system resulted in similar or higher NUE than full-time grazing. Additional studies with larger numbers of experimental units are required to be able to develop comprehensive recommendations for the improvement of the two grazing systems.

This study compared productivity of dairy cows with different body weight (BW), but a constant ratio of maintenance to production requirements in their first lactation, in a pasture-based production system with spring calving. Two herds, Herd L (13 and 14 large cows in 2003 and 2004 respectively; average BW after calving, 721 kg) and Herd S (16 small cows in both years; 606 kg) [Correction added after online publication 14 January 2011: 16 small cows in both years; 621 kg was changed to 16 small cows in both years; 606 kg], all in their second or following lactations, were each allocated 6 ha of pasture and rotationally grazed on 10 parallel paddocks with equal herbage offer and nutritional values. Winter hay, harvested from the same pastures, was offered ad libitum in the indoor periods in a tied stall barn. Each herd received, per lactation and year, approximately 2000 kg dry matter (DM) of concentrates and of fodder beets, equally distributed to every individual. Indoors, the L-cows ingested more DM than the S-cows (18.7 vs. 16.3 kg DM/cow per day; p < 0.01), but DM intake per 100 kg of metabolic BW was similar (13.0 vs. 13.1 kg DM/cow per day). Estimates based on the n-alkane technique gave similar results on pasture (17.9 vs. 15.5 kg DM/cow per day; p < 0.001). Roughage intakes per 100 kg of metabolic BW, at 13.5 kg DM/cow per day, were similar. Mean annual yield of energy-corrected milk (ECM)/ha was slightly higher for the S-herd than the L-herd (13,026 vs. 12,284 kg) but was associated with a higher stocking rate (on average +20%) for the S-herd. Feed conversion efficiency (1.2 vs. 1.3 kg ECM/kg DM intake) and overall milk production efficiency (45.3 vs. 47.3 kg ECM/kg metabolic BW) were similar in L- and S-cows. Thus, both dairy cow types were equally efficient in utilising pasture-based forage.

No abstract