Abstract

Simple SummaryFinding smart management targets to improve livestock production and make it sustainable are very important for livestock in the tropics. We assessed the effects of high-intensity and low-frequency (HILF) vs. low-intensity and high-frequency (LIHF) grazing on herbage production and performance of beef cattle grazing sorghum pastures. The LIHF resulted in shorter rest periods when compared with the HILF. The greater leaf lamina mass in LIHF allowed greater sward light interception at post-grazing, resulting in greater total herbage production than HILF. The average daily gain (ADG) was greater for the LIHF than for the HILF treatment; however, even with a greater stocking rate in the HILF, there was no difference for LW gain per ha. Our findings demonstrated that the LIHF strategy that is based on offering to the animals an optimal sward structure to favor the herbage intake rate fosters greater herbage production, harvesting efficiency, and ADG without compromising LW gain per area, despite the lower herbage harvested per stocking cycle. Therefore, we conclude that the classic trade-off between animal performance and forage production could be offset on tropical grasses grazed by beef cattle only by adjusting grazing management according to a LIHF grazing management strategy.We assessed the effects of high-intensity and low-frequency (HILF) vs. low-intensity and high-frequency (LIHF) grazing on herbage production and performance of beef cattle grazing sorghum pastures. The experimental design was a complete randomized block with two treatments and four replicates (paddocks), carried out in 2014/15. The management target of 50 and 30 cm for pre- and post-grazing, respectively, a LIHF grazing management strategy oriented to maximize beef cattle herbage intake per unit time, was compared with a HILF grazing management strategy of 80 and 20 cm for pre- and post-grazing, respectively, aiming to maximize herbage accumulation and harvest efficiency. Sixteen Brangus steers of 15-month-old and 265 ± 21 kg of live weight (LW) were randomly distributed to paddocks (experimental units). The LIHF resulted in shorter rest periods when compared with the HILF. The greater leaf lamina mass in LIHF allowed greater sward light interception at post-grazing, resulting in greater total herbage production than HILF (7581 and 4154 kg DM/ha, respectively). The average daily gain (ADG) of steers was greater for the LIHF than for the HILF treatment (0.950 and 0.702 kg/animal, respectively); however, even with a greater stocking rate in the HILF, there was no difference for LW gain per ha, with an average of 4 kg LW/ha/day. Our findings demonstrated that the LIHF strategy that is based on offering to the animals an optimal sward structure to favor the maximum herbage intake rate fosters greater herbage production, harvesting efficiency, and ADG without compromising LW gain per area of beef steers, despite the lower herbage harvested per stocking cycle.

Highlights

  • Grazing management strategies [1,2] affect herbage growth [3], animal performance [4,5], and the functioning of the pastoral ecosystem [6]

  • The sward heights were close to the proposed targets, with pre-grazing average sward heights of 47.5 cm for low-intensity and high-frequency (LIHF) and 83.6 cm for HILF, and post-grazing average sward heights of 33.7 and 28.3 cm for LIHF and HILF, respectively (p < 0.001)

  • We found a difference of 5725 kg dry matter (DM)/ha for total herbage production to LIHF compared with HILF

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Grazing management strategies [1,2] affect herbage growth [3], animal performance [4,5], and the functioning of the pastoral ecosystem [6]. Maximum herbage accumulation is set as the optimal time to start grazing [4,9,10], while intense grazing (i.e., low residual sward height) is usually imposed as the limit of sward depletion [11,12,13]. These criteria of grazing management result in high-intensity, low-frequency (HILF) defoliation, and aim to increase the instantaneous herbage harvest efficiency, herd dry matter (DM) intake, and output per unit area [14,15]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call