Monitoring herbage mass and pasture growth rate of large grazing areas: a comparison of the correspondence, cost and reliability of indirect methods

Abstract

AbstractTimely grazing decision-making requires routine information on the herbage mass (HM) and pasture growth rate (GR). The aim of this study was to compare the correspondence, cost and reliability of two indirect methods –the comparative yield method (COMPYLD) and the pasture-meter (CDAX)– to estimate HM and weekly GR of a 42 ha grazing area. Weekly assessments from April 2017 to October 2018 were made with both methods to estimate HM and GR of 13 individual paddocks. In addition, estimated GR were compared to aerial net primary productivity (ANPP) estimated using remote sensing (SAT). Estimated HM was 22% lower for COMPYLD than CDAX (HMCOMPYLD = 33 + 0.78*HMCDAX, R2 = 0.61, CV = 17%, RMSE = 291 kgDM/ha). The correspondence between methods of estimated weekly GR of individual paddocks was weak (GRCDAX = 0.18*GRCOMPYLD + 19.1, R2 = 0.05, CV = 73%, RMSE = 21.8 kgDM/ha/d). However, when integrated in three-week moving-averages, over the complete grazing area, COMPYLD and CDAX yielded similar GR up to 35 kg DM/ha/d. Accumulating GR of the grazing area over one year resulted similar to annual SAT-estimated ANPP. These results imply that, on one hand, decisions based on nominal HM, such as target HM and grazing strip size, would need to be adjusted depending on the method, but on the other hand, decisions based in temporal trends or GR, such as size and timing of set-aside areas for reserves, would be unaffected by method. Compared with COMPYLD, CDAX would be advantageous whenever high labour costs offset higher amortization, maintenance and fuel costs, provided there is an alternative in place to monitor during downtime periods.