New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research

ISSN: 0028-8233 (Print) 1175-8775 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnza20

Grazing interval, stocking rate, and pasture

production

A. G. Campbell

To cite this article: A. G. Campbell (1969) Grazing interval, stocking rate, and
pasture production, New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 12:1, 67-74, DOI:
10.1080/00288233.1969.10427078

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1969.10427078

Published online: 19 Jan 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 341

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tnza20
 67

GRAZING INTERVAL, STOCKING RATE,

AND PASTURE PRODUCTION

By A. G. CAMPBELL *

(Received 4 September 1968)

ABSTRACf
Data are presented to show that, under the same grazing manage-
ment (a 7-day rotation), increasing stocking rate from 10 ewes/ac. to
15 ewes/ac. reduced pasture dry matter production. At the same high
stocking rate (15 ewes/ac.), however, almost 50% more pasture D.M.
was produced when a slow grazing rotation (28 days) was employed
compared with a fast (7 days) rotation, and the stocking rate depression
in pasture production was more than regained.

INTRODUCTION
Many experiments have confirmed the findings of Woodman and
Norman (1932) that pastures mown infrequently yield more dry matter
(D.M.) than those mown more frequently, when both are harvested to
the same height. Brougham (1956) and others have shown that, over
short periods, pastures mown to leave a long stubble regrow more
rapidly than those mown to leave a short stubble, and hence yield
more D.M. at the same time interval after mowing. This latter work,
showing as it did a curvilinear rate of regrowth with time, probably
provides the explanation of the findings of Woodman.
None of this work, however, taken in isolation, clearly shows how
best to manage pastures to give the highest yield, because a farmer who
has a fixed farm area and relatively fixed stock numbers cannot
readily vary the interval between grazings without at the same time
varying the height to which the pasture is grazed, thus altering the rate
of regrowth. This is in contradistinction to the experimental situation
where cutting height and cutting interval may be varied independently.
MacLusky and Morris (1964) have reviewed pasture mowing
experiments and concluded from this evidence that "low-level defoliation
between long periods of uninterrupted regrowth may be expected to
give increased output per acre". Agronomists, however. are increasingly
aware that extrapolation from mown plot experiments to grazing
management practice is difficult, because the dynamics of the two
situations are different.
... Ruakura Agricultural 'Research Centre, Depar-tment of 'Agriculture, P.B:,
Hamilton.
N.Z. Jl agric. Res. (1969), 12: 67-74
68 Grazing and pasture production

The effect of increasing stocking rate on pasture production per se

is not clear, although it might be expected to depress it, the increased
animal production per acre arising from better utilisation of the
smaller amount of pasture grown.
In the course of an experiment to study the effect of grazing
management and stocking rate on the accumulation of dead herbage
litteT and the effect of this on the disease facial eczema in sheep
(Brook 1963), the opportunity arose to obtain data on some of
the effects of grazing interval and stocking rate on pasture production.

EXPERIMENTAL
In Year 1 (1964--65), 3.92 acres on a Te Kowhai soil (N.Z.
Soil Bureau 1954) was subdivided into 14 paddocks of 0.28 ac. Seven
of these paddocks were each further subdivided into 4 equal areas of
0.07 ac. The paddocks were grouped so that one of 0.28 ac. and
four of 0.07 ac. formed a block. The two sets of paddocks (7 at
0.28 ac. and 28 at 0.07 ac.) were each regarded as a separate farmlet
designated 7L and 28L respectively. Each farmlet was stocked with
20 cast-far-age Romney breeding ewes, the stocking rate being lO.2
ewes/ac. Both flocks were moved on a daily shift basis to the
next paddock in numbered sequence on their respective farms. One
flock rotated round its farm in 7 days and then began a new rotation;
on the other farm the flock took 28 days to complete a rotation.
Thus the speed of rotation was four times as fast on one farm as on
the other. This experiment ran from 19/9/64 to 26/4/65.
Because dead litter was not adequately controlled by either
speed of rotation at the stocking rate employed, it was decided to
expand the trial to include a stocking rate variable. In Years 2 and 3
(1965-66 and 1966-67) the trial was moved to a new site nearby,
still on Te Kowhai soil, and three farmlets each of 1.96 ac. laid
out. Two farmlets consisted of seven 0.28 ac. paddocks each, and
one consisted of twenty-eight 0.07 ac. paddocks. Again paddocks of
the three types were grouped to form blocks, but randomised within
blocks. The three farrnlets were stocked and managed from lO /5/65
to 2/5/67 as follows:
(a) 7-day rotation; 20 ewes lO.2 ewes/ac. (7L)
(b) 7-day rotation; 30 ewes 15.3 ewes/ac. (7H)
(c) 28-day rotation; 30 ewes 15.3 ewes/ac. (28H)
The only exception to this was in the winter of Year 3, when for
one period of 56 days the ewes were left for 2 days in each paddock.
The length of the rotations was thus doubled and became 14 and 56
days respectively.

Pasture measurement
The difference technique of net pasture yield estimation was
employed. In each 0.28 ac. paddock six samples were taken immediately
before each grazing and six samples immediately after each grazing.
In each 0.07 ac. paddock three pre- and three post-grazing samples were
taken at each grazing.
 A. G. CAMPBELL 69

Net pasture D.M. production between. for example, grazing i - I

and i was calculated as Pi = Bi - An-I) + Bi - A ri - ll
Ni
Where
Bi = D.M. yield/ac. before grazing i.
Ai = D.M. yield/ac. after grazing i (stubble yield).
Ni Number of days between the end of grazing i - I and
the start of grazing i.

The second term is a correction for growth during grazing. assumed

to be at the average daily growth rate during the previous inter-grazing
period.

These estimates were then summed over seasons and complete

years. Since all plots were not sampled at the end of each season.
the production estimated at the first sampling in a new season was
apportioned between that season and the previous one at the average
daily rate of growth over the whole period between samplings.

Sample cuts were made to soil level with a shearing handpiece

operated by portable petrol engine. Each sample area was nominally
461.3 sq in. to permit easy conversion of sample weight in grams
to per acre yield in pounds. All grass from each sampling site was
collected by hand. washed in a semi-automatic washing bath (Haltiner
1966) to remove soil contamination, dried for 24 hours at 98°c, and
weighed.

Botanical analysis
On 3 days each week a sample of the herbage was taken from
the paddocks into which the sheep were just about to move that day.
This sample of about 2 Ib wet weight was compo sited from 15 to 20
lots of herbage cut to ground level. From the bulk sample. after
thorough mixing. a subsample was drawn for dissection into grasses,
clovers (entirely Trifolium repens), and dead herbage. Each fraction
was subsequently dried to constant weight and expressed as a percentage
of the total.

RESULTS
Pasture production
Pasture production data are presented in Table 1. The seasons
span 3 months. winter being June, July, and August. Seasonal and
annual productions were calculated for each of the seven "blocks".
and the standard errors shown were derived from analysis of variance
of these data. This gives a measure of the consistency of results from
block to block.
70 Grazing and pasture production

Table l~Net Pasture n.M. Production (lb/ac.)

Treatment
Year Season
28L 7L 7H 28H
_ _ _~_ _ _ _-'-_ _ _----''-----____ S E of
Mean
(10 ewes!ac.) (15 ewes/ac.)

Spring 5,830
.-
5,340
----~----I---:-
i

Summer 2,910 2,520 200

-----

2 Winter 1,700 1,120 2,410 130

Spring 3,470 3,110 3,970 164
Summer 3,320 2,780 4,380 319
Autumn 1,510 1,550 2,130 184
-- - - - " - - - - - - - - -----

Total Year 2 10,000

-

3 I 1,140 1,010 1,580

'" inter : 131
!
I
SlJring 5,750 4,330 5,570 282
I

Summer !
4,800 3,000 4,850 607
Autumn 230 620 1,310 255
_------'-1_ _- _ _ _ _~__ _ _ __
[--Total Year 3 11,920 8,960 13,310! 664

Except in autumn there was a tendency, significant in some

seasons, and in Years 2 and 3 as a whole, for higher stocking to depress
pasture production under the same management system (7L v 7H).
Except for the autumn of Year 3 the slow rotation yielded more
than the fast at the high stocking rate (28H v 7H). In Year 1 at 10
ewes/ac. the differences were in the same direction, but lacked
significance. These differences were arithmetically greater in spring
and summer, but were proportionately larger in autumn and winter.

The slow rotation at the high stocking rate (28H) out yielded the
fast rotation at the low stocking rate (7L) in Years 2 and 3 as a
whole, and in the autumns and winters of these years. These two
treatments, however, gilVe' similar yields in' spring and summer, except
for the summer of Year 2.
 A. G. CAMPBELL 71

150
- - 7L
•••• 7H
- 28H

..0

90
.il'
.f YEAR 2
.it~
.f YEAR 3
8O-r---L-r-L---r-----r----_,----~~-L_,----_,----._--~

10/5 6/9 30/11 1512 10/5 18/10 10/1 414

Fig. 1-28-day-average ewe live weights (lb) in Years 2 and 3.

Botanical analysis
Grass species were not individually identified, so for the purpose
of this paper only the long·term changes in the proportion of Trifolium
repens are considered. Comparing Year 2 with Year 3 the percentage
of white clover in the pre·grazing D.M., weighted for the yields of the
individual plots, declined from 9.6 to 5.6 in the 7L treatment, from 9.0
to 5.4 in the 7H treatment, and increased from 7.4 to 9.5 in treatment
28H.
Clover percentages were not high in any treatment; those under both
fast rotations showed a decline, but the opposite trend was apparent
in the 28-day rotation at 15 ewes/ac.

Animal production
Too much weight should not be given to these data. The numbers
are small; the ewes were employed only as grazers; many would
normally have been culled. Apart from the slowing down of the
rotations in the winter of Year 3, no attempt was made to fit the feed
supply to animal requirements.
The ewes were weighed weekly and their 28-day·average live
weights are shown in Fig. 1. The ewes were heaviest under light
stocking, and under heavy stocking the 28-day rotation ewes maintained
a higher live weight than those on 7-day rotation.
Table 2 shows the ewe survival and lambing data for those ewes
which were placed on the experiment at the start- of each year (called
"original" ewes). Ewes and their lambs which replaced dead original
ewes are not included.
72 Grazing and pasture production

Table 2-Animal Survival and Production-"Original" Ewes and Lambs

I
Original ! Original Av.Lamb Av.Lamb
Treat- Original Ewes I Lambs Age at Weight
Year ment Ewes Surviving to Surviving to Weaning at Weaning
(No.) Weaning Weaning (Weeks) (lb)
(No.) I (No.)
I
I
2 I 7L 20 19 25 I 18 54.2
I I
7H 30 ,
18 17 19 46.1
!
I
28H 30 23 26 18 43.4
i

S.D.= 8.61
,
3 7L 20 17 22 19 53.5
7H 30 21 24 20 45.7
!

28H 30 28 27 19 44.4

I,
S.D.= 8.91

In the heavily stocked treatments in Year 2, ewe deaths at lambing

were particularly severe. In the 7H treatment most of these deaths
were diagnosed as being caused by pregnancy toxaemia, whereas in the
28H flock the majority of ewe deaths occurred post-partum and were
apparently due to hypomagnesaemia. The slower winter rotation in
Year 3 appeared to improve nutrition and hence reduce deaths at
lambing, particularly in the 28H treatment. Weaning was carried out
at a predetermined date in mid-December in both years to permit the
introduction of facial eczema-free test lambs as required by the main
purpose of the experiment. The 7L lambs had the highest weight
at weaning, and those in the 7H and 28H flocks were significantly
lighter.

DISCUSSION
Because 'Of the inherently high variability within normally grazed
pastures, it has always been difficult to obtain statistically acceptable
evidence of the effect on pasture production of increasing stocking
rate or of lengthening grazing rotation. The lower the stocking rate
the higher has been this pasture variability and the less convincing the
results.
Smith (1964), comparing pasture production under rotational
grazing with 1 and 1.5 dairy cows ~ acre, found a depression in
production at the higher stocking rate in some years. Campbell (1966),
working at 1 and 1.2 cows per acre dver 3 years, found a small but
variable depression of pasture production at the heavier stocking rate.
The depressions occurred in spring and summer, but not in autumn and
winter. Campbell found small benefits in pasture production arising
 A. G. CAMPBELL 73

from a IS-day rotational grazing system compared with a set-stocked

grazing system. This advantage was particularly evident in the autumn
and winter.
The present data confirm a depression in pasture production.
under constant grazing management. when stocking rate is increased.
The depression was again most marked in summer. The data also
make it clear that a slow rotation. involving infrequent but severe
grazings. permits higher pasture D.M. production than more frequent,
less severe grazings. at a high stocking rate. The productive advantage
of a slow rotation was proportionately greater in the seasons of slowest
growth. autumn and winter. In both complete Years (2 and 3)
this advantage amounted to about 50%.
The pastures grazed on the 28-day rotation underwent a manifest
structural change. Whereas under both 7-day rotations the pastures
remained dense and uniform. the 28H pastures opened up, became
clumpy. and many areas of bare soil were evident after grazing.
The proportion of T. repens was, however, not lowered by the slow
rotation, although it might have been had a lower stocking rate been
used which permitted greater and more sustained competition.
These changes. together with the evidence of stubble yield after
grazing (Fig. 2), which shows that the 28H pastures had the lowest
yield of stubble, suggest that the productive advantage of the 28H
treatment did not arise from this treatment having a higher leaf area
index (L.A.I.) at the end of grazing than the 7-day rotation treatments.
It seems more probable that, initially, the 28H pastures regrew more
slowly than the others, but that with time their leaf area and growth
rate surpassed the maximum attained by the 7-day rotation pastures.

2500 --7L
--··7H
- 28H

W
5 1500
~
..0

500

10/5 2/8 25/10 9/1 3/4 2417 16110 8/1 214

Fig.2-Post.grazing (stubble) yields of pasture dry matter (lb/ac.)

in Years 2 and 3.
74 Grazing and pasture production

If this is so, the results may partly be explained in terms of the Leaf
Area Duration of Watson (1956), which is the integral of LA.I. over
the period between grazings.
Whatever the explanation, the outcome suggests that it is possible to
reconcile, by the one grazing management system, both high pasture
productivity and high utilisation of that pasture. A system of slow
rotational grazing provides the benefits of both in this environment.
The limited animal data are disappointing in that the pasture
production advantage of the 28-day rotation was not expressed in the
final, salable product-the fat lamb. It was, however, evident in the
live weight of the 28H ewes compared with the 7H ewes. It may be
possible, by using a more flexible slow-rotation system than the one
employed here, to swing the balance more in favour of the lamb.
Wallace (1963) has already suggested, for example, that in New
Zealand it is at very high stocking rates that the advantages of Spedding
and Large's (1959) creep grazing systems may become apparent.

Acknowledgments
To members of the Agronomy Section staff, particularly C. Wesselink
and J. I. Hopper, for their field work and record keeping, and to K. E. Jury
for analysis of the data.

REFERENCES
BROOK, P. J. 1963: N.Z. JI agric. Res. 6: 147.
BROUGHAM, R. W. 1956: Aust. J. agric. Res. 7: 377.
CAMPBELL, A. G. 1966: 1. agric. Sci., Camb. 67: 199.
HALTINER, U. 1966: N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 9: 474.
MACLuSKY, D. S.; MORRIS, D. W. 1%4: Agric. Progr. 39: 97.
N.Z. SoiL BUREAU 1954: Soil Bur. Bull. N.Z. n.s. 5: 286 pp.
SMITH. B. A. J. 1964: Proc. RlIakura Fmrs' Can!. Week: 204.
SPEDDlNG, C. R. W.; LARGE, R. V. 1959: J. Br. Grassld Soc. 14: 17.
WALLACE, L. R. 19~3: Proc. RlIakura Fmrs' Cant. Week: 14.
WATSON, D. J. 1956: Proc. 3rd Easter School Agric. Sci. Nottingham
Univ.: 187.
WOODMAN, H. E.; NORMAN, D. B. 1932: J. agric. Sci., Camb. 22: 852.