The additional animal investment was not considered since it is needed in both the MIG and the additional land rental options. The positive side includes such components as the added animal gains per acre. The negative side includes such components as the cost of investing in additional cross fencing, water development and animals. An example of this approach is given in Table 1. Many research studies failed to show significant benefits from employing MIG over the traditional season-long grazing.
Producers appear to achieve greater benefits than is usually reported in the scientific literature.
The reason for this discrepancy may be attributed, at least partly, to differences in experimental design and system implementation as well as experimental limitations. Benefits from MIG appear to vary with climatic conditions and site quality with greater responses expected in the more favorable climates and soils.