The ability to use fewer water sources and fewer fences are benefits to both controlled and uncontrolled continuous grazing. Controlled and uncontrolled continuous grazing begins to diverge whenever adjusting stocking number or changing amount of acreage currently in pasture are discussed.
Stocking number (the number of animals allowed to graze a particular area) and the land area used for grazing in an uncontrolled continuous grazing program are both fixed. In a perfect situation grazing pressure in an area under uncontrolled continuous grazing will be optimal, unfortunately this is generally not the case. Uncontrolled continuous grazing usually leads to inefficient utilization of pastureland, whether it is due to over or even under grazing.
Controlled continuous grazing systems attempt to limit poor pasture utilization, by optimizing stocking number and land usage. Control implies that a producer carefully monitors the overall condition of the pasture, and based on that information decides to either adjust stocking number or the amount of land being grazed.
Adding animals, or fencing out portions of the pasture to be used for other purposes can increase grazing pressure. Decreasing the number of animals, feeding hay, or adding to the pasture area can help to alleviate already high grazing pressure.
Overgrazing is a big problem in both types of continued grazing, and needs to be avoided if at all possible. One way that a great deal of producers avoid this problem is by rotating animals from pasture to pasture depending on time of year, condition of fields, nutritional needs of livestock, etc. This concept of rotation doesn’t apply to continuous grazing systems, but does provide segue into rotational grazing systems.
Rotational grazing systems in contrast to the continuous grazing systems previously mentioned, divide pastures into units rather than maintaining one open pasture. These individual subunits are commonly referred to as paddocks by many producers, and can be of various sizes depending on the area of available land, forage species, animal species, location, weather, etc.
One thing holds true for all rotational grazing programs; each subunit is grazed and then allowed to regrow individually, in a sequence determined by the producer. The regrowth period is known as the rest period by most in the industry, and is absolutely crucial to the continued productivity of the land. The grazing period (the amount of time animals are allowed to graze a particular section) is obviously dependent on the forage species, stocking rate, livestock species, etc., but length of rest period is often overlooked as a contributing factor.
Several staple forage species in the U.S. are not tolerant of continuous overgrazing; a rest period is the best remedy to this problem and an integral part of a successful rotational grazing program.
When a skillful producer is at the helm of a rotational grazing program, deleterious consequences can be minimized and benefits such as: improved animal health and lower supplemental feed costs can be expected. It has been observed, in some cases, that rotational grazing systems lead to better-behaved livestock.
Animals become easier to handle whenever they realize that humans are in charge of providing green pasture. Helpful tools such as, mobile electric fencing and water delivery systems contribute to implementing an efficient rotational grazing program. Rotational grazing systems require more maintenance and inputs, both economic and physical, than their continuous grazing systems counterpart, but can provide better animal and forage quality when properly governed.
Both of the aforementioned grazing systems are widely used and acceptable agricultural practices. Although pros and cons are associated with both, the best choice is the choice that fulfills the producer’s own desires, requirements, and philosophy.
Whether a continuous or rotational grazing system is chosen makes no difference, the important thing is a grazing system is chosen and implemented. If more cowboys, producers, and Americans alike realize the importance of maintaining an effective grazing system, maybe the idealized fantasy from the introductory paragraph can remain somewhat a reality. FG
William J. (Jesse) Carmack was raised on a small farm in Hilham, Tennessee, where until recently his family produced beef cattle on a small scale. He is a student at University of Tennessee majoring in plant sciences and hopes to pursue a career as a plant breeder. Jesse won first place in the 2014 American Forage and Grassland Council essay contest (category 3) for his grazing essay.
