Effects of Grazing Pressure on Efficiency of Grazing on North American Great Plains Rangelands

Abstract

Comparisons of stocking rates across sites can be facilitated by calculating grazing pressure. We used peak standing crop and stocking rates from six studies in the North American Great Plains

A Bioeconomic Model for Sustainable Grazing of Old World Bluestem under Uncertainty

“…Complicated models exist to predict ADG based on forage quality parameters (such as the one employed by [8]), but the model presented here takes a simplified approach, with forage quality represented by a single variable, FQ, which is the percentage of potential ADG achieved. Forage quality is a function of rainfall, grazing pressure and a stochastic element, β. Grazing pressure is a function of stocking rate and forage availability [16]. Due to the conservation constraint, grazing pressure is restricted to moderate levels, and is therefore assumed to exert little influence on quality and can be safely ignored.…”

“…where utilization is the targeted utilization of forage, set equal to 0.6, by the sustainability constraint; efficiency is grazing efficiency, or percentage of disappeared forage actually consumed by steers, set equal to 0.5 [16]; intake is daily forage consumption as a percentage of body weight (0.025); period, or grazing period, is determined primarily by stocking rate and forage, and is terminated when 40% of forage mass remains, 1000 kg/ha of forage remains or 170 days have passed, whichever comes first -we set expected period at 135 days; and weight is average weight of steers. Since total final weight gain is unknown at the beginning of the season, we use an expected average weight, based on the expected grazing period and ADG, of 282.35 kg.…”

A Rapid Method for Measuring Feces Ammonia‐Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide‐Carbon Emissions and Decomposition Rate Constants

“…In this approach, changes in SOC and net aboveground and belowground productivity are measured at the beginning and completion of an experiment (Schuman et al, 1999;Franzluebbers et al, 2000;Tate et al, 2003;Chang et al, 2004Chang et al, , 2016bClay et al, 2005Clay et al, , 2006Clay et al, , 2015Derner et al, 2006;Derner and Schuman, 2007;Smart et al, 2010aSmart et al, , 2010b …”

Cross-Fencing on Private US Rangelands: Financial Costs and Producer Risks

“…Although subdividing pastures does not increase forage production, 1 the benefi ts to producers include higher utilization of formerly underutilized forage at distances greater than one mile from water, as grazing intensity decreases with distance from water. 2,3 As a result of this greater availability of forage, many producers are able to increase livestock numbers and stocking rate and enhance grazing effi ciency 4 and profi tability. 5 Payments for cross-fencing can be provided to private landowners through the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS), the federal agency responsible for administering Farm Bill programs.…”