114 Evaluation of Assertions from Educational, Outreach and Engagement Programs in Pasture-Based Livestock Systems

Abstract

Abstract Assertions about grazing management and grazing systems should be evaluated based on the scientific literature. Prior assumptions can limit our ability to achieve constructive dialogue regarding the merits of various stocking methods. These include the assumption that rotational stocking is inherently superior to continuous stocking, regardless of the nature of the overall grazing system, and the presumption that continuous stocking implies overgrazing. We revisited assertions about grazing management in general, but more specifically the choice of the stocking method, and considered their merit in the context of evidence from the literature, including a chapter titled Prescribed Grazing on Pasturelands from a National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) literature synthesis published in 2012. We framed those assertions in the form of questions. The questions were: a) Does choice of rotational stocking ensure well-managed pastures?, b) Does rotational stocking result in greater accumulation of soil carbon than continuous stocking?, c) Does rotational stocking increase pasture productivity and optimal stocking rate compared with continuous stocking?, d) Does forage nutritive value and individual animal performance increase in rotational versus continuous stocking?, and e) Do pastures “look better” in rotational versus continuous stocking?. The objectives were to consider whether these often-stated assertions about grazing management were supported, refuted, or simply not adequately assessed by the body of scientific evidence. It is important to recognize that choice of stocking method is only one element of grazing management and grazing management is only one element of a grazing system. Thus, stocking method is “one piece of a very large pie”. Additionally, stocking rate (grazing intensity) is a separate and independent grazing management choice from stocking method, such that both rotationally and continuously stocked pastures can be understocked, overstocked, or optimally stocked. It is unfortunate that choice of stocking method dominates discussions of improving grazing management to the expense of other issues, when in fact intensity of grazing has been shown conclusively to be the most important determinant of a wide array of soil, plant, animal, and ecosystem responses. We have observed that terminology such us regenerative grazing, holistic planned grazing, adaptative multipaddock grazing, management intensive grazing, high intensity low frequency grazing, and others, arise frequently and can dominate discussions in the realm of education, outreach and engagement programs in pasture-based livestock systems. These words/themes lack clear definition, and this lack of specificity may promote misconceptions, thus hindering the opportunity for critical thinking and ultimately the advancement and improvement of grazing systems. Educational efforts in pasture management should strive to remain relevant by focusing on experimental evidence. Local (i.e., state or county level) outreach and engagement programs are challenged with providing timely and specific information with implementable guidelines based on frequent observations at the landscape and farm levels.