Integrated overview of results from a farmlet experiment which compared the effects of pasture inputs and grazing management on profitability and sustainability

James M. Scott, Karl Behrendt, A. Colvin, F Scott, LM Shakhane, C Guppy, J Hoad, C.A. Gaden, C Edwards, G.N. Hinch, O.J. Cacho, G.E. Donald, D. Cottle, T. Coventry, G. Williams, D.F. Mackay

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)
13 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Although farmlet B had the highest cash position at the end of the trial, this came at a cost of the declining quality of its pastures. Modelling of the farmlet systems allowed the results of this drier-than-average experimental period to be seen in the context of long-term climatic expectations. The main factors responsible for lifting the productivity of farmlet A were the sowing of temperate species and increased soil fertility which enhanced the amount of legume and increased pasture quality and potential pasture growth. The factor which affected farmlet C most was the low proportion of the farmlet grazed at any one time, with high stock density imposed during grazing, which decreased feed intake quality. The paper concludes that more profitable and sustainable outcomes are most likely to arise from grazing enterprises which are proactively managed towards optimal outcomes by maintaining sufficient desirable perennial grasses with adequate legume content, enhancing soil fertility and employing flexible rotational grazing.This paper provides an integrated overview of the results collated from component papers and discusses the inferences which can be drawn from whatwas a complex, agroecosystem trial. The measurements recorded both early and late in the trial were tabulated for each of the farmlets and compared to each other as relative proportions, allowing visual presentation on a common, indexed scale. Because of equivalent starting conditions, there was little difference between farmlets early in the trial period (2000-2001) across a wide array of measured parameters including herbage mass, potential pasture growth rate, liveweight, wool production per head, stocking rate, gross margin and equity. Although the trial experienced drier-than-average conditions, marked differences emerged between farmlets over time, due to the effects of treatments. During the latter half of the trial period (2003-2006), farmlet A showed numerous positive and a few negative consequences of the higher rate of pasture renovation and increased soil fertility compared to the other two farmlets. Whilst intensive rotational grazing resulted in superior control of gastrointestinal nematodes and slightly finer wool, this system had few effects on pastures and no positive effects on sheep liveweights, wool production or stocking rate. Whereas farmlet A showed higher gross margins,it had a negative and much lower short-term cash position compared to farmlets B and C, due largely to the artificially high rate of pasture renovation undertaken on this farmlet during the trial.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)841-855
Number of pages15
JournalAnimal Production Science
Volume53
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2013

Fingerprint

grazing management
Wool
profitability
Fertility
Soil
pastures
Fabaceae
soil fertility
wool production
rotational grazing
Growth
Poaceae
Sheep
stocking rate
legumes
Costs and Cost Analysis
grazing
body weight
gastrointestinal nematodes
agroecosystems

Cite this

Scott, James M. ; Behrendt, Karl ; Colvin, A. ; Scott, F ; Shakhane, LM ; Guppy, C ; Hoad, J ; Gaden, C.A. ; Edwards, C ; Hinch, G.N. ; Cacho, O.J. ; Donald, G.E. ; Cottle, D. ; Coventry, T. ; Williams, G. ; Mackay, D.F. / Integrated overview of results from a farmlet experiment which compared the effects of pasture inputs and grazing management on profitability and sustainability. In: Animal Production Science. 2013 ; Vol. 53. pp. 841-855.
@article{fbffae652fd84326bba9e7edd8e4d283,
title = "Integrated overview of results from a farmlet experiment which compared the effects of pasture inputs and grazing management on profitability and sustainability",
abstract = "Although farmlet B had the highest cash position at the end of the trial, this came at a cost of the declining quality of its pastures. Modelling of the farmlet systems allowed the results of this drier-than-average experimental period to be seen in the context of long-term climatic expectations. The main factors responsible for lifting the productivity of farmlet A were the sowing of temperate species and increased soil fertility which enhanced the amount of legume and increased pasture quality and potential pasture growth. The factor which affected farmlet C most was the low proportion of the farmlet grazed at any one time, with high stock density imposed during grazing, which decreased feed intake quality. The paper concludes that more profitable and sustainable outcomes are most likely to arise from grazing enterprises which are proactively managed towards optimal outcomes by maintaining sufficient desirable perennial grasses with adequate legume content, enhancing soil fertility and employing flexible rotational grazing.This paper provides an integrated overview of the results collated from component papers and discusses the inferences which can be drawn from whatwas a complex, agroecosystem trial. The measurements recorded both early and late in the trial were tabulated for each of the farmlets and compared to each other as relative proportions, allowing visual presentation on a common, indexed scale. Because of equivalent starting conditions, there was little difference between farmlets early in the trial period (2000-2001) across a wide array of measured parameters including herbage mass, potential pasture growth rate, liveweight, wool production per head, stocking rate, gross margin and equity. Although the trial experienced drier-than-average conditions, marked differences emerged between farmlets over time, due to the effects of treatments. During the latter half of the trial period (2003-2006), farmlet A showed numerous positive and a few negative consequences of the higher rate of pasture renovation and increased soil fertility compared to the other two farmlets. Whilst intensive rotational grazing resulted in superior control of gastrointestinal nematodes and slightly finer wool, this system had few effects on pastures and no positive effects on sheep liveweights, wool production or stocking rate. Whereas farmlet A showed higher gross margins,it had a negative and much lower short-term cash position compared to farmlets B and C, due largely to the artificially high rate of pasture renovation undertaken on this farmlet during the trial.",
keywords = "Open access version available, Farming systems, Modelling, Multi-disciplinary, Optimisation, Parasitology, Pasture legumes, Pasture quality, Risk",
author = "Scott, {James M.} and Karl Behrendt and A. Colvin and F Scott and LM Shakhane and C Guppy and J Hoad and C.A. Gaden and C Edwards and G.N. Hinch and O.J. Cacho and G.E. Donald and D. Cottle and T. Coventry and G. Williams and D.F. Mackay",
note = "Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: month (773h) = July, 2013; Journal title (773t) = Animal Production Science. ISSNs: 1836-0939;",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1071/AN12284",
language = "English",
volume = "53",
pages = "841--855",
journal = "Animal Production Science",
issn = "1836-0939",
publisher = "CSIRO Publishing",

}

Scott, JM, Behrendt, K, Colvin, A, Scott, F, Shakhane, LM, Guppy, C, Hoad, J, Gaden, CA, Edwards, C, Hinch, GN, Cacho, OJ, Donald, GE, Cottle, D, Coventry, T, Williams, G & Mackay, DF 2013, 'Integrated overview of results from a farmlet experiment which compared the effects of pasture inputs and grazing management on profitability and sustainability', Animal Production Science, vol. 53, pp. 841-855. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN12284

Integrated overview of results from a farmlet experiment which compared the effects of pasture inputs and grazing management on profitability and sustainability. / Scott, James M.; Behrendt, Karl; Colvin, A.; Scott, F; Shakhane, LM; Guppy, C; Hoad, J; Gaden, C.A.; Edwards, C; Hinch, G.N.; Cacho, O.J.; Donald, G.E.; Cottle, D.; Coventry, T.; Williams, G.; Mackay, D.F.

In: Animal Production Science, Vol. 53, 07.2013, p. 841-855.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Integrated overview of results from a farmlet experiment which compared the effects of pasture inputs and grazing management on profitability and sustainability

AU - Scott, James M.

AU - Behrendt, Karl

AU - Colvin, A.

AU - Scott, F

AU - Shakhane, LM

AU - Guppy, C

AU - Hoad, J

AU - Gaden, C.A.

AU - Edwards, C

AU - Hinch, G.N.

AU - Cacho, O.J.

AU - Donald, G.E.

AU - Cottle, D.

AU - Coventry, T.

AU - Williams, G.

AU - Mackay, D.F.

N1 - Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: month (773h) = July, 2013; Journal title (773t) = Animal Production Science. ISSNs: 1836-0939;

PY - 2013/7

Y1 - 2013/7

N2 - Although farmlet B had the highest cash position at the end of the trial, this came at a cost of the declining quality of its pastures. Modelling of the farmlet systems allowed the results of this drier-than-average experimental period to be seen in the context of long-term climatic expectations. The main factors responsible for lifting the productivity of farmlet A were the sowing of temperate species and increased soil fertility which enhanced the amount of legume and increased pasture quality and potential pasture growth. The factor which affected farmlet C most was the low proportion of the farmlet grazed at any one time, with high stock density imposed during grazing, which decreased feed intake quality. The paper concludes that more profitable and sustainable outcomes are most likely to arise from grazing enterprises which are proactively managed towards optimal outcomes by maintaining sufficient desirable perennial grasses with adequate legume content, enhancing soil fertility and employing flexible rotational grazing.This paper provides an integrated overview of the results collated from component papers and discusses the inferences which can be drawn from whatwas a complex, agroecosystem trial. The measurements recorded both early and late in the trial were tabulated for each of the farmlets and compared to each other as relative proportions, allowing visual presentation on a common, indexed scale. Because of equivalent starting conditions, there was little difference between farmlets early in the trial period (2000-2001) across a wide array of measured parameters including herbage mass, potential pasture growth rate, liveweight, wool production per head, stocking rate, gross margin and equity. Although the trial experienced drier-than-average conditions, marked differences emerged between farmlets over time, due to the effects of treatments. During the latter half of the trial period (2003-2006), farmlet A showed numerous positive and a few negative consequences of the higher rate of pasture renovation and increased soil fertility compared to the other two farmlets. Whilst intensive rotational grazing resulted in superior control of gastrointestinal nematodes and slightly finer wool, this system had few effects on pastures and no positive effects on sheep liveweights, wool production or stocking rate. Whereas farmlet A showed higher gross margins,it had a negative and much lower short-term cash position compared to farmlets B and C, due largely to the artificially high rate of pasture renovation undertaken on this farmlet during the trial.

AB - Although farmlet B had the highest cash position at the end of the trial, this came at a cost of the declining quality of its pastures. Modelling of the farmlet systems allowed the results of this drier-than-average experimental period to be seen in the context of long-term climatic expectations. The main factors responsible for lifting the productivity of farmlet A were the sowing of temperate species and increased soil fertility which enhanced the amount of legume and increased pasture quality and potential pasture growth. The factor which affected farmlet C most was the low proportion of the farmlet grazed at any one time, with high stock density imposed during grazing, which decreased feed intake quality. The paper concludes that more profitable and sustainable outcomes are most likely to arise from grazing enterprises which are proactively managed towards optimal outcomes by maintaining sufficient desirable perennial grasses with adequate legume content, enhancing soil fertility and employing flexible rotational grazing.This paper provides an integrated overview of the results collated from component papers and discusses the inferences which can be drawn from whatwas a complex, agroecosystem trial. The measurements recorded both early and late in the trial were tabulated for each of the farmlets and compared to each other as relative proportions, allowing visual presentation on a common, indexed scale. Because of equivalent starting conditions, there was little difference between farmlets early in the trial period (2000-2001) across a wide array of measured parameters including herbage mass, potential pasture growth rate, liveweight, wool production per head, stocking rate, gross margin and equity. Although the trial experienced drier-than-average conditions, marked differences emerged between farmlets over time, due to the effects of treatments. During the latter half of the trial period (2003-2006), farmlet A showed numerous positive and a few negative consequences of the higher rate of pasture renovation and increased soil fertility compared to the other two farmlets. Whilst intensive rotational grazing resulted in superior control of gastrointestinal nematodes and slightly finer wool, this system had few effects on pastures and no positive effects on sheep liveweights, wool production or stocking rate. Whereas farmlet A showed higher gross margins,it had a negative and much lower short-term cash position compared to farmlets B and C, due largely to the artificially high rate of pasture renovation undertaken on this farmlet during the trial.

KW - Open access version available

KW - Farming systems

KW - Modelling

KW - Multi-disciplinary

KW - Optimisation

KW - Parasitology

KW - Pasture legumes

KW - Pasture quality

KW - Risk

U2 - 10.1071/AN12284

DO - 10.1071/AN12284

M3 - Article

VL - 53

SP - 841

EP - 855

JO - Animal Production Science

JF - Animal Production Science

SN - 1836-0939

ER -