Adaptive, multi-paddock, rotational grazing management alters foraging behavior and spatial grazing distribution of free-ranging cattle

Augustine, David J.; Kearney, Sean P.; Raynor, Edward J.; Porensky, Lauren M.; Derner, Justin D.

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2023.108521

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the contribution of different plant functional groups to cattle diets varied widely both within and across years, we did not detect any clear differences in functional group composition between the two grazing treatments that could explain the difference in dietary CP during the first half of the grazing season each year. Rather, cattle foraging-behaviour data indicated that the reduction in diet quality was associated with CARM steers foraging in more linear pathways and moving across shorter distances in each foraging bout, than did TRM steers (Augustine et al 2023), because the 10-fold higher stock density increased inter-animal competition (Popp et al 1997;Rind and Phillips 1999;Gusha et al 2017). In contrast, TRM cattle foraged in pathways with greater tortuosity and moved over a longer distance during each foraging bout (Augustine et al 2023), which suggests that they more selectively consume bites with less standing dead vegetation and more green leaves.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Owing to limitations of spatial scale and lack of land manager or rancher involvement, prior experimental studies of AMP grazing effects on diet quality have not accounted for adaptive decisions regarding movement of livestock among paddocks that vary in soils, plant communities, and forage phenology. Landscape features such as topography, distance to water, and forage quantity/quality influence grazing behaviour, diet selection, and grazing activity of livestock (Bailey et al 1996;Bailey and Brown 2011;Gersie et al 2019;Raynor et al 2021a;Augustine et al 2023). Thus, adaptive decision-making within the grazing season concerning the timing and sequence of livestock rotations among paddocks depends on ranchers matching animal nutritional demands with a myriad of factors, including forage phenology, composition, quantity, and quality in near-real time (Brunson and Burritt 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adaptive multi-paddock grazing management reduces diet quality of yearling cattle in shortgrass steppe

Jorns,

Derek Scasta,

Derner

et al. 2024

Rangeland J.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing is hypothesised to improve livestock diet quality by allowing managers to move livestock among paddocks in a manner that tracks phenological variation in forage growth related to variation in plant community composition. We compared yearling steer (Bos taurus) dietary crude protein (CP), digestible organic matter (DOM), and diet composition on a ranch-scale (2600 ha, 10 pairs of 130 ha paddocks) experiment in shortgrass steppe for 6 years (2014–2019) in contrasting grazing treatments: Collaborative Adaptive Rangeland Management (CARM, a type of AMP with a stakeholder group making science-informed management decisions within the grazing season) and season-long, continuous grazing (TRM, traditional rangeland management). These grazing treatments had the same system-level stocking rate annually but differed in stocking density, with CARM being 10-fold higher than TRM because of all steers in the CARM treatment being in a single herd. Mean grazing-season dietary CP was consistently 13–28% higher in TRM than CARM; in contrast, DOM in TRM was similar to CARM or only slightly higher (2.5%). Differences in diet quality between CARM and TRM grazing strategies were largest early in the grazing season, with CP being 14–36% higher for TRM compared to CARM steers during the first 4 weeks; these diet-quality differences between treatments disappeared towards the end of the grazing season. Implementing AMP on the basis of a diverse stakeholder group’s experiential knowledge about plant communities, soils, and ecological sites did alter within-grazing season plant functional group contributions to steer diets. Although we implemented adaptive decision-making within the grazing season, which allowed CARM steers to track the seasonal phenology of C3 versus C4 grasses as steers rotated among paddocks varying in plant community composition, these adaptive movements did not offset the detrimental effects on diet quality associated with grazing in a herd with 10-fold higher stocking density. Managers applying AMP in semiarid rangelands should be cognisant that high stocking density can be associated with lower diet quality early in the growing season, which can compromise livestock gain responses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive multi-paddock grazing management reduces diet quality of yearling cattle in shortgrass steppe

Jorns,

Derek Scasta,

Derner

et al. 2024

Rangeland J.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Again, grazing intensity as defined by stocking rate is still "low," though the pattern of grazing and downstream ecophysiological and SOC implications are different. While grazers can still exhibit patchy and selective defoliation in extensive rotational systems, the degree of patchy overgrazing is often diminished, but ultimately depends on timing, frequency, and duration of grazing in each pasture (Augustine et al, 2023;Barnes et al, 2008;Teague & Dowhower, 2003).…”

Section: Unpack Ing S To Ck Ing R Ate a S An In Comple Te Me Tric For...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Again, grazing intensity as defined by stocking rate is still “low,” though the pattern of grazing and downstream ecophysiological and SOC implications are different. While grazers can still exhibit patchy and selective defoliation in extensive rotational systems, the degree of patchy overgrazing is often diminished, but ultimately depends on timing, frequency, and duration of grazing in each pasture (Augustine et al., 2023; Barnes et al., 2008; Teague & Dowhower, 2003). High intensity, short duration grazing : Finally, the ranch implements a highly intensive rotational grazing system, moving the same 100 AUs across the same 1000 acres which are now subdivided into 100 pastures of 10 acres each.…”

Section: Unpacking Stocking Rate As An Incomplete Metric For Studying...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite being defined by an equivalent stocking rate and “low” grazing intensity, the short‐term stocking density, duration, and frequency are vastly different in this grazing system compared to both others. In this case, the high stocking density will distribute grazing utilization more evenly (Augustine et al., 2023; Bailey et al., 1996; Barnes et al., 2008), which can more readily result in “optimal” grazing pattern for ecophysiological and SOC outcomes if managed adaptively.…”

Section: Unpacking Stocking Rate As An Incomplete Metric For Studying...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ruminating on soil carbon: Applying current understanding to inform grazing management

Stanley,

Wilson,

Patterson

et al. 2024

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among options for atmospheric CO2 removal, sequestering soil organic carbon (SOC) via improved grazing management is a rare opportunity because it is scalable across millions of globally grazed acres, low cost, and has high technical potential. Decades of scientific research on grazing and SOC has failed to form a cohesive understanding of how grazing management affects SOC stocks and their distribution between particulate (POM) and mineral‐associated organic matter (MAOM)—characterized by different formation and stabilization pathways—across different climatic contexts. As we increasingly look to grazing management for SOC sequestration on grazinglands to bolster our climate change mitigation efforts, we need a clear and collective understanding of grazing management's impact on pathways of SOC change to inform on‐the‐ground management decisions. We set out to review the effects of grazing management on SOC through a unified plant ecophysiology and soil biogeochemistry conceptual framework, where elements such as productivity, input quality, soil mineral capacity, and climate variables such as aridity co‐govern SOC accumulation and distribution into POM and MAOM. To maximize applicability to grazingland managers, we discuss how common management levers that drive overall grazing pattern, including timing, intensity, duration, and frequency can be used to optimize mechanistic pathways of SOC sequestration. We discuss important research needs and measurement challenges, and highlight how our conceptual framework can inform more robust research with greater applicability for maximizing the use of grazing management to sequester SOC.

show abstract

The LTAR Grazing Land Common Experiment at the Central Plains Experimental Range: Collaborative adaptive rangeland management

Augustine,

Derner,

Porensky

et al. 2024

J of Env Quality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Semiarid rangelands throughout the western Great Plains support livestock production and many other ecosystem services. The degree to which adaptive multi‐paddock (AMP) grazing management approaches can help achieve desired ecosystem services remains unclear. At the Central Plains Experimental Range in northeastern Colorado, a management‐science partnership with a diverse stakeholder group is comparing collaborative adaptive rangeland management (CARM), designed to incorporate AMP principles, to traditional rangeland management (TRM), consisting of season‐long grazing during the growing season. Each treatment was implemented on a set of 10, 130‐ha pastures paired by soils, topography, and plant communities to evaluate how CARM affects vegetation (composition and production), livestock production (steer weight gain), and wildlife habitat (vegetation structure for grassland birds). For the first 5 years of the experiment, CARM cattle were managed as a single herd using AMP grazing with planned year‐long rest in 20% of the pastures. Relative to TRM, CARM enhanced heterogeneity in vegetation structure across the landscape, benefiting two grassland bird species. However, this came at the cost of 12%–16% lower steer weight gains in CARM versus TRM and declining populations of a third bird species of conservation concern in both treatments. Here we discuss how increased understanding of ecological and social processes during the experiment's first 5 years led to changes in the CARM treatment and management objectives during the next 5 years. We also discuss how innovations in remote sensing, environmental sensors, ecosystem modeling, social learning, and economic analyses are being integrated into and supported by the CARM experiment.

show abstract

Adaptive, multi-paddock, rotational grazing management alters foraging behavior and spatial grazing distribution of free-ranging cattle

Cited by 11 publications

References 47 publications

Adaptive multi-paddock grazing management reduces diet quality of yearling cattle in shortgrass steppe

Adaptive multi-paddock grazing management reduces diet quality of yearling cattle in shortgrass steppe

Ruminating on soil carbon: Applying current understanding to inform grazing management

The LTAR Grazing Land Common Experiment at the Central Plains Experimental Range: Collaborative adaptive rangeland management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About