Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T13:03:52.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of continuous or rotational stocking on the intake and live-weight gain of cattle co-grazing with sheep on temperate pastures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

S. M. Kitessa  and
A. M. Nicol
Get access

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to determine if type of stocking system influenced the intake and live-weight gain (LWG) of cattle co-grazed with sheep on sown ryegrass/white clover pasture.

In experiment 1 (134 days), yearling heifers (no. = 9) plus ewe hoggets (no. = 27) were co-grazed (1: 1 M0·75) using continuous (C-CS) or rotational (R-CS) stocking. In experiment 2 (126 days), a cattle alone (no. = 9) treatment was included under each stocking system (C-C and R-C). Initial live weight of heifers was 266 (s.e. 4·5) and 232 (s.e. 4·4) kg and that of hoggets was 54 (s.e. 0·9) and 47 (s.e. 0·7) kg in experiments 1 and 2, respectively. In both experiments, the area offered daily to R-CS group was manipulated to promote a weekly live-weight change in sheep similar to that on the C-CS treatment. C-C cattle in experiment 2 were grazed at similar sward surface height (SSH) to C-CS, and R-C cattle at similar pre- and post-grazing SSH to R-CS. SSH was measured daily on all treatments and regulated on the continuously stocked treatments by addition and removal of non-experimental animals. Organic matter intake (OMI) was determined from the ratio of n-alkanes in faeces and herbage. Animals were weighed weekly.

Mean SSH on continuously stocked pastures was 5·10 (s.e. 0·03) and 4·26 (s.e. 0·02) cm for C-CS in experiments 1 and 2, respectively, and 4·27 (s.e. 0·02) cm for C-C in experiment 2. The mean pre- and post-grazing SSH for R-CS was 15·9 (s.e. 0·12) and 5·60 (s.e. 0·07) cm, respectively in experiment 1, and 15·2 (s.e. 0·08) and 4·82 (s.e. 0·03) cm, respectively in experiment 2. On R-C swards pre- and post-grazing SSH was 14·9 (s.e. 0·08) and 4·87 (s.e. 0·03) cm, respectively.

In experiment 1, cattle continuously co-grazed with sheep grew significantly more slowly than those rotationally co-grazed with sheep (804 (s.e. 41·6) v. 1039 (s.e. 47·7) g/day, P < 0·01). Sheep LWG did not differ between stocking treatments (150 v. 138 g, P > 0·05 for C-CS and R-CS respectively). These findings were confirmed in the second experiment in which C-CS cattle only grew at 0·69 of the daily LWG achieved by R-CS cattle (706 v. 1028, (s.e. 72) g/day; P < 0·05) at similar sheep LWG (155 v. 147, (s.e. 6·5) g/day respectively). LWG of C-C and R-C cattle was similar (916 v. 1022, (s.e. 72) g/day; P > 0·05). LWG per ha in both experiments was higher on R-CS than on C-CS treatments, and on cattle alone than on CS treatments. Treatment effects on OMI and final fasted live weight were similar in pattern to LWG.

It is suggested that the observed disadvantage to cattle when co-grazed with sheep under continuous stocking and the lack of effect when rotationally co-grazed reflected a difference in the two stocking systems in providing opportunities for complementary/competitive use of pasture resources.

Keywords

cattlegrazing systemsmixed grazingsheep
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , February 2001 , pp. 199 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barthram, G. T. 1986. Experimental techniques: the “HFRO” sward stick. Hill Farming Research Organisation, bulletin report, 1984-85, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar
Boswell, C. C. and Cranshaw, L. J. 1978. Mixed grazing of cattle and sheep. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 28: 116–120.Google Scholar
Clark, D. A. 1992. The effect of stocking rate on bull beef production. Massey Dairyfarming Annual 1992, pp. 15–20.Google Scholar
Clarke, T., Flinn, P. C. and McGowan, A. A. 1982. Low-cost pepsin-cellulase assays for prediction of digestibility of herbage. Grass and Forage Science 37: 147–150.Google Scholar
Collins, H. A. and Nicol, A. M. 1987. The consequence on feed dry matter intake of grazing sheep, cattle and goats to the same residual herbage mass. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 46: 125–28.Google Scholar
Connolly, J. 1987. On the use of response models in mixture experiments. Oecologia 72: 95–103.Google Scholar
Connolly, J. and Nolan, T. 1976. Design and analysis of mixed grazing experiments. Animal Production 23: 63–71.Google Scholar
Conway, A. 1968. Effect of grazing management on beef production. II. Comparison of three stocking rates and two systems of grazing. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 2: 242–250.Google Scholar
Dickson, I. A., Frame, J. and Arnot, D. P. 1981. Mixed grazing of cattle and sheep versus cattle only in an intensive grassland system. Animal Production 33: 265–272.Google Scholar
Forbes, T. D. A. and Hodgson, J. 1985. The reaction of grazing sheep and cattle to the presence of dung from the same or the other species. Grass and Forage Science 40: 177–182.Google Scholar
Frame, J. and Newbould, P. 1984. Herbage production from grass/white clover swards. In Forage legumes (ed. Thompson, J. D.), Proceedings of the British Grassland Society, occasional symposium, no. 16, pp. 78–92.Google Scholar
Gordon, I. J. 1989. Vegetation community selection by ungulates on the Isle of Rhum. 2. Vegetation community selection. Journal of Applied Ecology 26: 53–64.Google Scholar
Gordon, I. J. and Illius, A. W. 1988. Incisor arcade structure and diet selection in ruminants. Functional Ecology 26: 53–64.Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, J. F. D. and Reid, G. W. 1969. The effect of grazing intensities on clean consumption and animal production. 3. Dairy cows grazed at two intensities on clean or contaminated pasture. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 72: 223–228.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. 1990. Sward condition, herbage intake and animal performance. In Grazing management: science into practice (ed. Whittemore, C. T. and Simpson, K. T.), pp. 81–87. Longman Scientific and Technical; Wiley and Son Inc., New York.Google Scholar
Illius, A. W. and Gordon, I. J. 1987. The allometry of food intake in grazing ruminants. Journal of Ecology 56: 989–999.Google Scholar
Jones, D. I. H. and Hayward, M. V. 1975. The effect of pepsin treatment of herbage on the prediction of dry matter digestibility from solubility in fungal cellulase solutions. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 26: 711–718.Google Scholar
Kitessa, S. M. 1997. Mixed grazing of sheep and cattle using continuous or rotational stocking. Ph.D. thesis, Lincoln Univeristy, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Kitessa, S. M. and Nicol, A. M. 1996. Frequency distribution of sward height on pastures grazed by cattle alone or co-grazed with sheep. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 56: 125–129.Google Scholar
Kleiber, M. 1965. Metabolic body size. In Energy metabolism. (ed. Blaxter, K. L.), pp. 427–435. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
McCall, D. G., Smeaton, D. C., Gibbison, M. L., McKay, F. J. and Hockey, H.-U. P. 1986. The influence of sheep to cattle ratios on liveweight gain on pastures grazed to different levels in spring-summer. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 46: 121–124.Google Scholar
McLeod, M. N. and Minson, D. J. 1978. The accuracy of the pepsin-cellulase technique for estimating the dry matter digestibility of grasses and legumes. Animal Feed Science and Technology 3: 277–287.Google Scholar
McLeod, M. N. and Minson, D. J. 1980. A note on Onozuka 3S cellulase as a replacement for Onozuka SS (P1500) cellulase when estimating forage digestibility in vitro . Animal Feed Science and Technology 5: 347–350.Google Scholar
Mayes, R. W., Lamb, C. S. and Cosgrove, P. M. 1986. The use of dosed herbage n-alkanes as markers for the determination of herbage intake. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 107: 161–170.Google Scholar
Nolan, T. 1986. Mixed grazing under Nordic conditions. In Grazing research at northern latitudes (ed. Gudmundsson, O.), pp. 141–149. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Nolan, T. and Connolly, J. 1976. Comparison of five ratios of cattle and sheep. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 15: 137–140.Google Scholar
Nolan, T. and Connolly, J. 1977. Mixed grazing by sheep and steers — a review. Herbage Abstracts 47: 367–374.Google Scholar
Nolan, T. and Connolly, J. 1989. Mixed v. mono-grazing by steers and sheep. Animal Production 48: 519–533.Google Scholar
Penning, P. D., Parsons, A. J., Orr, R. J. and Hooper, G. E. 1994. Intake and behaviour responses by sheep to changes in sward characteristics under rotational grazing. Grass and Forage Science 49: 476–486.Google Scholar
Reynolds, P. J., Bond, J., Carlson, G. E., Jackson Jr, C., Hart, R. H. and Lindahl, I. L. 1971. Co-grazing of sheep and cattle on an orchardgrass sward. Agronomy Journal 63: 533–536.Google Scholar
Snedcor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1980. Statistical methods, seventh edition. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1985. SAS user’s guide: basics, version 5. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Wright, I. A. and Connolly, J. 1995. Improved utilisation of heterogenous pastures by mixed species. In Recent developments in the nutrition of herbivores (ed. Journet, M., Grenet, E., Farce, M.-H., Theriez, M., and Demarquilly, C.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference on herbivore nutrition, pp. 425–436. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Clemont-Ferrand, France.Google Scholar