Grazing Methods: A Viewpoint

Grazing management has long been a central focus of rangeland management and research. However, a communication gap exists between some managers and researchers. Voisin1 stated that the art of applied grazing management exceeded the current level of science. Some managers continue to hold this opinion. Scientists base their conclusions on replicated research of fi xed treatments, while managers develop their practices through much trial and error (e.g., adaptive management) without controls or replication. This difference, in source and perspective of “facts,” produces a communication gap between researchers and practitioners. While scientists may see themselves as the fi nal fi lter through which defi ned practices might become acceptable and sustainable, managers commit to developing a program that “works” on their property. Recent publications highlight this communication gap. Briske et al. concluded, “Continued advocacy for rotational grazing as a superior strategy of grazing on rangelands is founded on perception and anecdotal interpretations, rather than an objective assessment of the vast experimental evidence.”2 Pat Pfi el stated, “I’ve applied rotational-grazing principles to the properties we’ve managed and shown it works well.”3 Frank Price, describing the development of his grazing management over the past 30 years, stated, “The biggest problem for me is that I can never come up with a grazing plan that I can stay with—I am continually changing grazing rotations, time, and stock numbers. . . But that is one of the reasons that this program works. It is not a system. It is a continually changing program that moves with the weather, livestock and markets.”4 Scientists and ranchers need to improve their communications. Briske et al. state, “. . . management commitment and ability are the most pivotal components of grazing system effectiveness and . . . grazing systems do not possess unique properties that enable them to compensate for ineffective management. . .”2 In my opinion, ranchers using various rotational grazing methods agree with that statement. The key ingredient to success is “management” that applies principles adaptively, rather than a fi xed “system.” Research applies grazing as “treatments” (e.g., fi xed grazing schedules, stocking rates, and management) to avoid confounding “grazing management” with other variables. On the other hand, ranchers view grazing schedules and stocking rates as variables to be integrated adaptively with other management practices to meet a variety of objectives. Ranchers evaluate the success of grazing management within the context of total system performance and goals, not just plant and animal production in response to fi xed grazing treatments. This paper focuses on two primary grazing management objectives for rangelands: 1) restoring and maintaining healthy rangelands, and 2) animal production. Three general grazing methods, continuous stocking, deferred stocking, and rotational stocking, are described and discussed with respect to vegetation responses and animal production. I do not believe that there is a “best” grazing method. My objective is to frame the discussion of grazing methods in a broad context and to provide some key concepts that managers can selectively utilize as they develop their grazing program. I invite scientists to view these concepts and principles as hypotheses and to design research to test them in adaptive models.