Grazing on Animal Productivity and the Environment: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Barbara Wróbel
,
Waldemar Zielewicz
,
Mariola Staniak

Grazing lands provide ecosystem services including regulation and storage of water flows, nutrient cycling, and C sequestration. Livestock grazing is the most important factor shaping and stabilizing pasture biodiversity. Some opportunities for pasture feeding are the health-promoting and nutritional qualities of milk and milk products, especially milk from pasture-fed cows. The beneficial effects of pasture feeding on animal health and welfare are not insignificant. Available organizational innovations can help better manage livestock grazing and, above all, better understand the impact of the grazing process on the environment and climate change.

  • biodiversity
  • carbon sequestration
  • grazing systems

1. Introduction

Grazing has existed since the beginning of agriculture. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, about 60% of the world’s grasslands (slightly less than half of the world’s land area) are covered by grazing systems. Grazing systems provide about 9% of the world’s beef production and about 30% of the world’s sheep and goat meat production. For about 100 million people in arid areas and probably a similar number elsewhere, grazing livestock is the only possible source of livelihood [1]. Pasture-based dairy production systems are mainly found in temperate regions, where grass is the cheapest feed used in milk production [2]. Pasture grazing can be used in feeding systems for dairy cows in other parts of Europe as well, but its importance is lower [3]. It is estimated that 98% of Irish and 92% of British dairy farms operate pasture-based systems, compared to only 20% in the Czech Republic, less than 10% in Greece, and virtually none in Bulgaria [4]. Even herds with access to pasture are typically kept indoors during the winter and around calving [5].
In general, for milk production, pasture grass is a higher quality forage than grass silage [6]. In temperate regions of Europe, grass growth is highly variable [7], varying among years [8], seasons, as well as regions [9]. It depends on many factors: pasture management, the sward renewal practices used, the level of fertilization, the course of weather conditions (e.g., precipitation, temperature, solar radiation) and soil type. The nutritional value of pasture sward varies depending on the season, growth stage, and age of regrowth.
The quality of pasture grass can be optimized through rational grazing and pasture management. For example, rotation length, biomass weight before grazing [10], and sward height pre- and pos- grazing [11] can affect grass quality, as well as grass supply. A leafy sward in spring has a high nutritive value, while a sward at the reproductive stage in summer has a higher fiber content and lower digestibility [12]. The nutritional value of pasture sward also depends on their botanical composition. Swards with a significant proportion of legumes often have a higher feed value than grass-only swards [13][14].
Rationally used pasture provides grazing animals with high-quality roughage, containing mainly energy, protein, macro- and microelements, and vitamins [15][16]. In addition to valuable species of grasses and legumes, the composition of pasture sward includes dicotyledonous plants called herbs. They contain many valuable biologically active substances such as tannins, flavonoids, saponins, pectins, terpenes, alkaloids, phenols, as well as essential oils [17][18]. These compounds have positive effects on cattle gastrointestinal function and health (antioxidant and antiparasitic effects, enhancement of the immune system) [19][20], and the quality of beef and dairy products [21].
Livestock grazing influences pasture biodiversity, particularly the botanical composition of plant communities [22][23][24], as well as the quantity and quality of forage produced [25], the dynamics of sward regrowth [26], the variability of species occurrence and contribution, and the landscape that pastures create [27][28]. Pasture use contributes to a rich diversity and variability in the vegetation cover maintaining the maintenance of all forms of biodiversity [29][30][31]. However, the diversity of plant communities created by grazing by animals can change depending on environmental conditions, including regional climate variability [32], grazing intensity [33], and soil nutrient availability [34]. Grazing lands also provide ecosystem services including regulation and storage of water flows [35], nutrient cycling, and C sequestration [36][37].

2. Impact of Grazing on Animal Productivity and the Environment

The production results of grazing animals depend on the stocking method and management of grazing. In general, there are two stocking methods, i.e., rotational and continuous stocking, among which different modifications are used depending on the various factors. Farmers have different considerations when choosing a stocking methods. In their choice, they may take into account the impact of grazing on yield and forage utilization, but also many other factors such as environmental impact, animal welfare, and other aspects. In some countries, legislation is a decisive factor. Grazing methods and pasture organization should be optimally adapted to the possibilities and specific characteristics of the farm.

2.1. Stocking Methods

The cheapest stocking method for cattle, mainly used on extensive pastures, involving continuous stocking of the sward, from spring to autumn, over the entire pasture area, is free grazing. The supply of forage depends on the season, with an over-supply of forage in spring, while there can be a periodic shortage of forage in summer when rainfall is scarce. Carrying out maintenance and rational fertilization in this stocking method is very difficult. Pastures under this stocking method are prone to a more rapid degradation process, involving the disappearance of valuable grass and legumes and the development of weeds [38].
All modern intensive stocking methods use the principles of rotational stocking [39]. Rotational stocking involves the frequent movement of livestock through a series of pasture subdivisions called paddocks [40]. Rotational stocking has many potential economic and environmental advantages [41][42] such as increases herbage production for livestock [43][44] and improves animal production [45], prevents overgrazing, and reduces soil erosion [46]. Rotational stocking has been found to improve soil microbial activity [47], which may promote greater stabilization of organic matter [48]. Moreover, rotational stocking results in fewer herd health problems and many others. Jordon et al. [49] provided empirical confirmation of the mechanisms by which rotational stocking and increasing sward biodiversity through the inclusion of perennial herbaceous plants (herbaceous strips) can increase forage production and animal growth rates. However, some studies have shown that rotational stocking does not provide any unique ecological or agricultural benefits compared to continuous stocking [42]. But, more important than the stocking method is the grazing intensity which is thought to have a major impact on soil organic carbon storage and soil quality indicators in grassland agroecosystems. Moreover, soil improvement resulting from intensive rotational stocking does not occur rapidly [44][50]. It takes three to five years to start seeing beneficial changes in vegetation cover and soil microbial activity [51]. In general, intensive rotational stocking is more likely to be successful in areas with higher rainfall [52]. In northern Spain, where the average annual rainfall is 1000 mm, intensive rotational stocking by sheep resulted in higher forage production and increased carbon sequestration [53]. In more arid areas, intensive rotational stocking with frequent movement of animals can result in reduced weight gain [54]. Rotational stocking also has some disadvantages. It requires more fencing and labor (an effective alternative to traditional fencing is virtual fencing). It may result in soil compaction and degraded water quality if livestock is not moved regularly, as well as may increase internal parasites in irrigated rotational pastures.
To some extent similar to rotational stocking is guarded grazing, where the herd is supervised by a shepherd. This involves the animals returning after a certain period to areas previously grazed. This stocking method is practiced mainly in the mountains when grazing sheep and can be of great importance in naturally valuable areas as a factor stimulating the increase of their biodiversity and the preservation of naturally valuable areas [55].
A very efficient method of rotational stocking is tethered grazing (staking the animals). The great advantage of this method is the possibility of feeding each animal individually, easily regulating the amount of forage available to it. This stocking method is mainly used on farms with few cattle or horses. Staking causes some inconvenience due to the need to move the stakes and water the animals (bringing them to the watering hole or bringing water to the pasture). When grazing in this method, the animals have limited movement and, if left in the same place for a long time, they may eat the sward too intensively, which can cause damage by too much trampling or low biting.
Continuous stocking is the least controlled of the stocking methods. It consists of grazing the sward, over the whole or partially regulated area of the pasture, from spring to autumn in a slow method. The basis of this method is the control of the height of the grazed sward. As the sward is grazed and the rate of increase decreases, additional spare areas are incorporated into the grazing area to provide a reserve of feed for the whole herd. This method is often used by farmers with relatively large pasture areas and low numbers of livestock. Continuous stocking usually results in lower productivity per animal and lower output per unit of land. This stocking method is applied for animals that do not require high maintenance, such as sheep, dry cows, growing heifers, and low-milking cows. It requires lower amounts of labor, fencing, and water sources. The animals selectively graze the most palatable forage, which generally increases gains per animal. Selective grazing reduces total pasture productivity and leads to overgrazing in some parts of the pasture. Forage use can be improved by varying the stocking rate or temporarily fencing off part of the pasture for herbage harvest (“buffer” system).
Ultra-high Stock Density (UHSD) or commonly known as “Mob Grazing” or “Flash Grazing” is a short-duration, high-density grazing with a longer than usual grass recovery period. It has been proposed as a way to increase soil carbon storage and range quality. This system has been adopted in the USA, Canada, and the UK [56] for intensive grazing of cattle, sheep, and goats. High stocking densities result in a high fertilizing effect of the manure left on the small pasture area. The high stocking rate of the pasture means that much of the plant biomass is trampled by the hooves of the animals into the ground to form mulch that protects the soil from erosion. Plant residues and animal excreta contribute to an increase in organic matter content and improve soil nutrient abundance, which positively influences soil microorganisms and stimulates plant production [57]. However, some studies show a negative effect of mob-grazing on soil organic matter and other desirable properties of pastures [58]. According to [59], high densities of livestock increase soil C in warm-season grasses and decrease soil C in cool-season grasses. Moreover, mob-grazing can cause soil erosion by enhancing soil compaction, which has a negative impact on soil water infiltration and plant growth [60][61]. There is a need for a better understanding of the mechanisms by which mob-grazing may positively or negatively influence soil C storage and vegetation [42].
Adaptive Multi-Paddock (AMP) grazing has been developed as a conservation-oriented grazing management approach for improving the ecological function of grazed ecosystems by continuously adjusting the number of grazing animals and the duration of herbivory in response to changes in forage availability [62][63]. Multi-paddock grazing management has been recommended since the mid-20th century as an important tool to adaptively manage rangeland ecosystems to sustain productivity and improve animal management. AMP grazing employs multiple paddocks per herd to enable short grazing periods leaving sufficient post-herbivory plant residue for regrowth, and long recovery periods to accommodate seasonal variation in plant regrowth [64]. It was found that, based on restored soil health, water conservation, and improved ecosystem services, AMP grazing was superior to heavy continuous grazing [43]. Similarly, it was found by Hillenbrand et al. [65] that AMP grazing improves the forage biomass, water infiltration, and total soil carbon concerning heavy continuous grazing [66]. It was confirmed that long-term AMP grazing improves streamflow, water balances, and water quality at the ranch and watershed scales [67][68][69]. AMP grazing also increases net primary productivity, soil C and N, and reduced C losses in runoff and sediment [70].
Alternative pasture management which can be used to increase ruminant performance and reduce gastro-intestinal nematodes is mixed grazing. In Germany, sheep and goat grazing is used to rehabilitate areas over-exploited by intensive cattle grazing [71]. This is due to the different dietary preferences of the different animal species. Sheep and goats eat woody and low-value plants that are avoided by cattle. In addition, sheep are less picky about the plants growing next to the dung left by cattle, which contributes to the increased forage used. Mixed grazing, compared to grazing only one animal species, not only allows better utilization of the sward [72] but increases the biodiversity of the sward and soil bacterial flora [73][74], arthropods, and birds [75]. Research in Ireland on cattle and sheep herds showed that sheep follow grazing after cattle promoted a higher proportion of clover in the sward and a greater number of clover volunteers from seed not digested by cattle and sheep [72]. An additional benefit of such grazing is less sward damage, reduced invasion by animal parasites and the emergence of more beneficial plant-pollinating insects [76].
The silvopastoral grazing system (SPS) involves grazing animals in wooded areas, traditional orchards, and groves (Figure 1). It is a system of short rotation of animals staying in tree-lined pastures. This system is commonly found throughout the world. Trees and bushy vegetation provide shelter for the animals, but can also provide food [77]. Husak and Grado [78] found that this grazing system contributes to sustainable livestock production and increases the productivity, profitability, and viability of area use. There is considerable evidence that SPS can increase production efficiency, increase carbon sequestration, and improve N cycling on land used for livestock production [79]. Other advantages of this system are the restoration of uncultivated land to agricultural production, low labor inputs compared to intensive production, improved welfare of beef cattle (minimal stress on the animals), and high-quality beef sold as an organic product. This is supported by a study by Skonieski et al. [80], according to which the SPS improved the welfare of grazing Jersey cows, as evidenced by an improved physiological response to heat stress, increased grazing time, and reduced standing time (resting + ruminating) compared to cows grazing on conventional pasture.
/media/item_content/202305/6464395d7038aagriculture-13-00974-g001.png
Figure 1. Feeding systems (a) continuous grazing; (b) Silvopastoral grazing system in wooded areas (Fot. M. Staniak).
Sometimes, innovative producers are grazing sheep in the areas occupied by farms with solar PV panels. These surfaces also need tending, mowing, and biomass removal, so sheep and goats are increasingly being used for this purpose. Grazing sheep under such panels is possible without special modifications to the photovoltaic installations. Grazing cattle under solar panels requires stronger support poles and panels installed higher off the ground [81][82].

2.2. Organisational Innovations in Grazing

In addition to the advantages of pasture feeding, related to the possibility for cattle to consume good quality roughage, the positive impact on animal welfare, and the higher quality of animal products, there are unfortunately also some disadvantages. Pasture feeding is undoubtedly more time-consuming and labor-intensive in some respects (animal monitoring and grazing management) compared to keeping cattle in alcove systems. Grazing animals on pastures also entails costs related to the purchase and installation of structural elements for pasture fencing [83]. But undoubtedly grazing is the cheaper way to feed domestic herbivores, and structures to maintain animals indoors have a higher cost than to maintain in pastures even with different paddocks.

2.2.1. Virtual Fencing

In countries where the pasture feeding system is well developed, virtual pasture fences are used, delimiting the area to be grazed. When the animal approaches the virtual zone, it is given an audible signal, which tells it to stop. The farmer remotely—in the office, at the computer—determines the area to be grazed, over which the cows move independently [84]. Virtual fencing devices use an algorithm that combines GPS animal positioning with animal behavior to implement the virtual fence [85][86]. Like conventional fencing, virtual fencing is used to provide a boundary to the grazing area to deter animals from moving further, but unlike conventional fencing, it does not create a physical barrier [87]. With a virtual fence system, animals learn a virtual barrier not to cross by associating a sound stimulus with an electrical stimulus. When approaching the fence boundary, a warning acoustic signal is triggered and the electrical impulse stimulus from the collar is only produced as a punishment if the animal continues to move forward. If the animal turns away or stops at the audible signal, the electrical impulse stimulus is not initiated by the collar. Cattle have been shown to learn this association easily in several trials; however, there is a high variability in learning and behavioral responses between individuals [88][89][90]. Virtual fencing is highly useful and has great potential for controlling sheep distribution during grazing, but the development of virtual fencing technology for sheep grazing is still less advanced than for cattle [91][92][93][94].

2.2.2. Automation of Fences in Pastures

Automatic gates on individual plots can be used to control individual groups of cows divided by yield to grant them access to different areas of pasture with different yields. Control can be implemented by programming the time the animals are in the quarters or by individual remote control by the farmer. The gate system can be combined with an AMS automatic milking system [95][96]. GPS-guided mobile fences are also used, which make a new area of pasture with fresh feed available every pre-programmed time for the grazing cattle herd [97]. Currently, for the most part, the organization of grazing and control of the allocation of plots is limited to the labor-intensive and less efficient conventional fencing system [98].

2.2.3. State-of-the-Art Applications and Programmes to Predict Pasture Yields

A new feature is the automatic mowing of the pasture underplanting immediately after the cows have grazed on the plot. There are also more and more computer programmes available to assist the farmer in grazing management, making it possible to predict the start of grazing a month in advance based on the current and predicted weather situation. This allows planning when and for how long the animals will be grazed [97].

2.2.4. Automatic Milking System (AMS) at Pasture

On farms where a pasture-based feeding system is used, automatic milking machines are often used for milking. The integration of automatic milking systems (AMS) into pasture-based cattle farming poses new challenges that are very different from those already known in systems where cows are grown in cowsheds. A particular challenge is the grazing of large cattle herds, where more than 50% of the total diet is pasture forage. When an automatic milking system (AMS) is used, animals have to travel considerable distances from the pasture to the milking point [99]. Information reported by Islam et al. [100] shows that cows milked by automatic milking machines had to travel distances exceeding 1.0 km on average, in cases where the farm size was more than 80 ha. Significant distances between the grazing area and the location of the automatic milking machine result in longer intervals between milkings and are associated with increased energy loss by the animals spent on constant movement [101][102]. In addition to the positive sides, frequent movement can also have negative effects on animal welfare. Travelling long distances increases cortisol levels (an indicator of stress) and can cause gait disturbances or lameness or cause mechanical injuries to the hoof [103].

2.3. Innovations to Improve Feed Quality

2.3.1. Temporary Pastures

The grazing of animals can be carried out not only on permanent grassland but also on temporary pastures. They occupy the soil for one to five years and are made up of graminaceous plants or grasses mixed with legumes and other species. The most common species in this type of pasture include grasses: Agrostis spp., Festuca pratensis, Lolium perenne, and Dactylis glomerata. Recently, ryegrass varieties with high growth vigor and high sugar content have been used in temporary grassland swards. The legumes (Trifolium repens, Lotus spp., and Medicago sativa) are rich in protein and can help fix atmospheric nitrogen in soils [104][105].
Green fodder from such pastures, due to the high proportion of valuable grasses and legume species, has a higher protein and sugar content and better digestibility [106]. Temporary pastures are usually used for intensive grazing or grazing with a ration of supplementary roughage. Incorporating temporary pastures into the crop rotation cycle can help increase yields in the short term. It can also change the level and/or quality of soil organic matter and, in the medium term, affect the biological properties of the soil [107].

2.3.2. Multi-Species Pastures MSP

The improvement of degraded pastures is important for increasing pasture herbage yield and animal production. For pasture establishment and renovation, seed mixtures composed of different grass species or grasses with legumes are almost exclusively used, which guarantees the production of large quantities of good quality animal feed [108]. A new aspect in grassland forage production is the addition of herbaceous species naturally occurring in grassland communities to seed mixtures, to obtain multi-species pastures MSP or mixed-herb leys [109][110]. The addition of herbs improves the nutritional value of the pasture sward while maintaining a high and stable yield. Cichorium intybus (L.), Plantago lanceolata (L.) and Achillea millefolium (L.) increase the mineral content, resulting in a better-balanced ratio, improving the animal condition and growth. A well-balanced diet containing herbs in its composition, when used in calves, can influence the subsequent production performance of adult animals [111][112]. Herbs improve the palatability of feed, stimulate digestive processes, and increase the feed intake of animals. Palatability-enhancing species include Carum carvi (L.), Sanguisorba officinalis (L.), Daucus carota (L.), Pastinaca sativa (L.), Rumex acetosa (L.), and Salvia officinalis (L.). The herbs contain specific biologically active substances of tannins, saponins, terpenes, flavonoids, and alkaloids, which can have a positive impact on animal health prevention [113]. Essential oils found in herbs increase palatability and influence the feed intake of animals [18]. Terpenes, flavonoids, and alkaloids have positive effects on cattle gastrointestinal function and health by enhancing the immune system, and antioxidant and antiparasitic effects in the gut [49].
Lambs grazed on pastures containing C. intybus showed less infestation with internal parasites and the animals had higher growth rates than animals grazed on pastures without herbs [114]. Carum carvi (L.), Anethum graveolens (L.), and Artemisia vulgaris (L.) have similar effects. These herbs contain tannin compounds and bitters that reduce the incidence of gastrointestinal parasites and also have antidiarrheal effects [115]. A diarrheic effect has been observed when plants such as Pimpinella anisum (L.), Lotus uliginosus (Schkuhr), and Anthriscus cerefolium (L. Hoffm.) are ingested.
The correct percentage of herbs in the feed is important. Through a meta-regression, McCarthy et al. [116] investigated whether there is an optimum inclusion percentage of herb species in a grazing sward to increase milk yield. However, despite a positive relationship between herb percentage in the sward and milk yield, the association between herb percentage and milk yield was non-significant. The authors concluded that continued research investigating management strategies for multispecies swards is needed to determine optimum grazing strategies for multispecies swards in modern pasture-based dairy systems.
An optimally composed multispecies mixture containing herbs in its composition under stress conditions, e.g., drought, can provide a sward yield comparable to a mixture containing only grasses and legumes [117]. Increasing pasture biodiversity through the use of multi-species seed mixtures also has a positive impact on environmental aspects. The deep root system of Cichorium intybus (L.) contributes to the utilization of mineral nitrogen from deeper subsoil layers, which is not available in the root system of grasses [118].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/agriculture13050974

References

  1. De Haan, C.; Steinfeld, H.; Blackburn, H. Livestock and the Environment: Finding a Balance; European Commission Directorate-General for Development, Development Policy Sustainable Development and Natural Resources: Rome, Italy, 1997; p. 115.
  2. Finneran, E.; Crosson, P.; O’Kiely, P.; Shalloo, L.; Forristal, D.; Wallace, M. Stochastic simulation of the cost of home-produced feeds for ruminant livestock systems. J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 150, 123–139.
  3. Wilkinson, J.M.; Lee, M.R.F.; Rivero, M.J.; Chamberlain, A.T. Some challenges and opportunities for grazing dairy cows on temperate pastures. Grass Forage Sci. 2020, 75, 1–17.
  4. Van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A.; Hennessy, D.; Isselstein, J. Grazing of dairy cows in Europe—An in-depth analysis based on the perception of grassland experts. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1098.
  5. Crump, A.; Jenkins, K.; Bethell, E.J.; Ferris, C.P.; Arnott, G. Pasture Access Affects Behavioral Indicators of Wellbeing in Dairy Cows. Animals 2019, 9, 902.
  6. Kennedy, E.; O’Donovan, M.; Murphy, J.-P.; Delaby, L.; O’Mara, F. Effects of grass pasture and concentrate-based feeding systems for spring-calving dairy cows in early spring on performance during lactation. Grass Forage Sci. 2005, 60, 310–318.
  7. Huyghe, C.; De Vliegher, A.; van Gils, B.; Peeters, A. Grasslands and Herbivore Production in Europe and Effects of Common Policies; Éditions Quae: Versailles, France, 2014.
  8. Hurtado-Uria, C.; Hennessy, D.; Shalloo, L.; O’Connor, D.; Delaby, L. Relationships between meteorological data and grass growth over time in the south of Ireland. Ir. Geogr. 2013, 46, 175–201.
  9. Ruelle, E.; Delaby, L.; Hennessy, D. Development of the Moorepark St Gilles grass growth model (MoSt GG model): A predictive model for grass growth for pasture based systems. Eur. J. Agron. 2018, 99, 81–90.
  10. Wims, C.M.; Deighton, M.H.; Lewis, E.; O’Loughlin, B.; Delaby, L.; Boland, T.M.; O’Donovan, M. Effect of pregrazing herbage mass on methane production, dry matter intake, and milk production of grazing dairy cows during the mid-season period. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 4976–4985.
  11. Ganche, E.; Delaby, L.; O’Donovan, M.; Boland, T.M.; Galvin, N.; Kennedy, E. Post-grazing sward height imposed during the first 10 weeks of lactation: Influence on early and total lactation dairy cow production, and spring and annual sward characteristics. Livest. Sci. 2013, 157, 299–311.
  12. McDonald, P.; Edwards, R.A.; Greenhalgh, J.F.D.; Morgan, C.A. Grass and Forage Crops. In Animal Nutrition, 5th ed.; Longman Group Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 1998; Chapter 18.
  13. Egan, M.; Galvin, N.; Hennessy, D. Incorporating white clover (Trifolium repens L.) into perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) swards receiving varying levels of nitrogen fertiliser: Effects on milk and herbage production. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 3412–3427.
  14. Riberio Filho, H.M.N.; Delagarde, R.; Peyraud, J.L. Inclusion of white clover in strip-grazed perennial ryegrass swards: Herbage intake and milk yield of dairy cows at different ages of sward regrowth. Anim. Sci. 2003, 77, 499–510.
  15. Peyraud, J.L.; Delagarde, R. Managing variations in dairy cow nutrient supply under grazing. Animal 2013, 7, 57–67.
  16. Dias, K.; Garcia, S.; Islam, M.R.; Clark, C. Milk yield, milk composition, and the nutritive value of feed accessed varies with the milking order for pasture-based dairy cattle. Animals 2019, 9, 60.
  17. MacAdam, J.W.; Villalba, J.J. Beneficial effects of temperate forage legumes that contain condensed tannins. Agriculture 2015, 5, 475–491.
  18. Distel, R.A.; Arroquy, J.I.; Lagrange, S.; Villalba, J.J. Designing diverse agricultural pastures for improving ruminant production systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 596869.
  19. Niderkorn, V.; Jayanegara, A. Opportunities offered by plant bioactive compounds to improve silage quality, animal health and product quality for sustainable ruminant production: A review. Agronomy 2021, 11, 86.
  20. Kaur, A.P.; Bhardwaj, S.; Dhanjal, D.S.; Nepovimova, E.; Cruz-Martins, N.; Kuca, K.; Chopra, C.; Singh, R.; Kumar, H.; Sen, F.; et al. Plant prebiotics and their role in the amelioration of diseases. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 440.
  21. Joubran, A.M.; Pierce, K.M.; Garvey, N.; Shalloo, L.; O’Callaghan, T.F. Invited review: A 2020 perspective on pasture-based dairy systems and products. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 7364–7382.
  22. Herrero-Jáuregui, C.; Oesterheld, M. Effects of grazing intensity on plant richness and diversity: A meta-analysis. Oikos 2018, 127, 757–766.
  23. Tälle, M.; Deák, B.; Poschlod, P.; Valkó, O.; Westerberg, L.; Milberg, P. Grazing vs. mowing: A meta-analysis of biodiversity benefits for grassland management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 222, 200–212.
  24. Perotti, E.; Probo, M.; Pittarello, M.; Lonati, M.; Lombardi, G. A 5-year rotational grazing changes the botanical composition of sub-alpine and alpine grasslands. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2018, 21, 647–657.
  25. Bailey, D.W.; Dumont, B.; Wallisdevries, M.F. Utilization of heterogeneous grasslands by domestic herbivores: Theory to management. Ann. Zootech. 1998, 47, 321–333.
  26. Kramer, K.; Groen, T.A.; van Wieren, S.E. The interacting effects of ungulates and fire on forest dynamics: An analysis using the model FORSPACE. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 181, 205–222.
  27. Sternberg, M.; Gutman, M.; Perevolotsky, A.; Ungar, E.D.; Kigel, J. Vegetation response to grazing management in a Mediterranean herbaceous community: A functional group approach. J. Appl. Ecol. 2000, 37, 224–237.
  28. Adler, P.; Raff, D.; Lauenroth, W. The effect of grazing on the spatial heterogeneity of vegetation. Oecologia 2001, 128, 465–479.
  29. Perevolotsky, V.I. Integrating landscape ecology in the conservation of Mediterranean ecosystems: The Israeli experience. Isr. J. Plant Sci. 2005, 53, 203–213.
  30. Rook, J.; Tallowin, J.R.B. Grazing and pasture management for biodiversity benefit. Anim. Res. 2003, 52, 181–189.
  31. Clergue, B.; Amiaud, B.; Pervanchon, F.; Lasserre-Joulin, F.; Plantureux, S. Biodiversity: Function and assessment in agricultural areas. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 25, 1–15.
  32. Hodapp, D.; Borer, E.T.; Harpole, W.S.; Lind, E.M.; Seabloom, E.W.; Adler, P.B.; Alberti, J.; Arnillas, C.A.; Bakker, J.D.; Biederman, L.; et al. Spatial heterogeneity in species composition constrains plant community responses to herbivory and fertilisation. Ecol. Lett. 2018, 21, 1364–1371.
  33. Milchunas, G.; Lauenroth, W.K. Quantitative Effects of Grazing on Vegetation and Soils Over a Global Range of Environments. Ecol. Monogr. 1993, 63, 327–366.
  34. Borer, T.; Seabloom, E.W.; Gruner, D.S.; Harpole, W.S.; Hillebrand, H.; Lind, E.M.; Adler, P.B.; Alberti, J.; Anderson, T.M.; Bakker, J.D.; et al. Herbivores and nutrients control grassland plant diversity via light limitation. Nature 2014, 508, 517–520.
  35. Havstad, K.M.; Peters, D.P.C.; Skaggs, R.; Brown, J.; Bestelmeyer, B.; Fredrickson, E.; Herrick, J.; Wright, J. Ecological services to and from rangelands of the United States. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 261–268.
  36. Conant, R.T.; Paustian, K. Potential soil carbon sequestration in overgrazed grassland ecosystems. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 2002, 16, 90-1–90-9.
  37. Morgan, J.A.; Parton, W.; Derner, J.D.; Gilmanov, T.G.; Smith, D.P. Importance of early season conditions and grazing on carbon dioxide fluxes in Colorado shortgrass steppe. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 69, 342–350.
  38. Leavier, J.D. Milk production from grazed temperate grassland. J. Dairy Res. 1985, 52, 313–344.
  39. Roche, J.R.; Berry, D.P.; Bryant, A.M.; Burke, C.R.; Butler, S.T.; Dillon, P.G.; Donaghy, D.J.; Horan, B.; Macdonald, K.A.; Macmillan, K.L. A 100-year review: A century of change in temperate grazing dairy systems. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 10189–10233.
  40. Allen, V.G.; Batello, C.; Berretta, E.J.; Hodgson, J.; Kothmann, M.; Li, X.; McIvor, J.; Milne, J.; Morris, C.; Peeters, A.; et al. An international terminology for grazing lands and grazing animals. Grass Forage Sci. 2011, 66, 2.
  41. Dorrough, J.; Yen, A.; Turner, V.; Clark, S.G.; Crosthwaite, J.; Hirth, J.R. Livestock grazing management and biodiversity conservation in Australian temperate grassy landscapes. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2004, 55, 279–295.
  42. Briske, D.D.; Sayre, N.F.; Huntsinger, L.; Fernández-Giménez, M.; Budd, B.; Derner, J.D. Origin, persistence, and resolution of the rotational grazing debate: Integrating human dimensions into rangeland research. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 64, 325–334.
  43. Teague, W.R.; Dowhower, S.L.; Baker, S.A.; Haile, N.; DeLaune, P.B.; Conover, D.M. Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 141, 310–322.
  44. Sanderman, J.; Reseigh, J.; Wurst, M.; Young, M.A.; Austin, J. Impacts of rotational grazing on soil carbon in native grass-based pastures in Southern Australia. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0136157.
  45. Kahn, L.P.; Earl, J.M.; Nicholls, M. Herbage mass thresholds rather than plant phenology are a more useful cue for grazing management decisions in the mid-north region of South Australia. Rangel. J. 2010, 32, 379–388.
  46. Sanjari, G.; Yu, B.; Ghadiri, H.; Ciesiolka, C.A.; Rose, C.W. Effects of time-controlled grazing on runoff and sediment loss. Soil Res. 2009, 47, 796–808.
  47. Bai, G.; Bao, Y.; Du, G.; Qi, Y. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi associated with vegetation and soil parameters under rest grazing management in a desert steppe ecosystem. Mycorrhiza 2013, 23, 289–301.
  48. Cotrufo, M.F.; Wallenstein, M.D.; Boot, C.M.; Denef, K.; Paul, E. The Microbial Efficiency-Matrix Stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: Do labile plant inputs form stable soil organic matter? Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 988–995.
  49. Jordon, M.W.; Willis, K.J.; Bürkner, P.-C.; Petrokofsky, G. Rotational grazing and multispecies herbal leys increase productivity in temperate pastoral systems—A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 337, 108075.
  50. Rui, Y.; Jackson, R.D.; Cotrufo, M.F.; Ruak, M.D. Persistent soil carbon enhanced in mollisols by well-managed grassland but not annual grain or dairy forage cropping systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022, 119, e2118931119.
  51. Mosier, S.; Apfelbaum, S.; Byck, P.; Cotrufo, F.M.F. Adaptive multi paddock grazing enhances nitrogen stock and stabilization throughout southeastern grazing lands. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 288, 112409.
  52. McDonald, S.E.; Reid, N.; Smith, R.; Waters, C.M.; Hunter, J.; Rader, R. Rotational grazing management achieves similar plant diversity outcome in areas managed for conservation in a semi-arid rangeland. Rangel. J. 2019, 41, 135–143.
  53. deOtalora, X.; Epelde, L.; Arranz, J.; Garbisu, C.; Ruiz, R.; Mandaluniz, N. Regenerative rotational grazing management of dairy sheep increases springtime grass production and topsoil carbon storage. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 125, 107484.
  54. Schatz, T.; Ffloukes, D.; Shotton, P.; Hearnden, M. Effect of high intensity rotational grazing on the growth of cattle grazing buffalo pasture in the northern territory and on carbon sequestration. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2020, 60, 1814–1821.
  55. Rogalski, M.; Kardyńska, S.; Wieczorek, A.; Kryszak, J.; Biniaś, J. Przestrzenne zróżnicowanie składu botanicznego i wysokości spasanej runi a strategia spożywania zielonki pastwiskowej przez bydło. Zesz. Nauk. AR Krakowie 2000, 73, 263–268.
  56. Wagner, M.; Waterton, C.; Norton, L.R. Mob grazing: A Nature-based solution for British farms producing pasture-fed livestock. Nat.-Based Solut. 2023, 3, 100054.
  57. Chen, W.; Huang, D.; Liu, N.; Zhang, Y.; Badgery, W.B.; Wang, X.; Shen, Y. Improved grazing management may increase soil carbon sequestration in temperate steppe. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 10892.
  58. Pei, S.; Fu, H.; Wan, C. Changes in soil properties and vegetation following exclosure and grazing in degraded Alxa desert steppe of Inner Mongolia, China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 124, 33–39.
  59. McSherry, M.E.; Ritchie, M.E. Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: A global review. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 1347–1357.
  60. Reeder, J.D.; Schuman, G.E. Influence of livestock grazing on C sequestration in semi-arid mixed-grass and short-grass rangelands. Environ. Pollut. 2002, 116, 457–463.
  61. Carter, J.; Jones, A.; O’Brien, M.; Ratner, J.; Wuerthner, G. Holistic management: Misinformation on the science of grazed ecosystems. Intern. J. Biodiver. 2014, 2014, 163431.
  62. Teague, R.; Provenza, F.; Kreuter, U.; Steffens, T.; Barnes, M. Multi-paddock grazing on rangelands: Why the perceptual dichotomy between research results and rancher experience? J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 128, 699–717.
  63. Wang, T.; Teague, W.R.; Park, S.C.; Bevers, S. Evaluation of long-term economic and ecological consequences of continuous and multi-paddock grazing. Agric. Sys. 2018, 165, 197–207.
  64. Teague, R.; Barnes, M. Grazing management that regenerates ecosystem function and grazingland livelihoods. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 2017, 34, 77–86.
  65. Hillenbrand, M.; Thompson, R.; Wang, F.; Apfelbaum, S.; Teague, R. Impacts of holistic planned grazing with bison compared to continuous grazing with cattle in South Dakota shortgrass prairie. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 279, 156–168.
  66. Apfelbum, S.L.; Thompson, R.; Wang, F.; Mosier, S.; Teague, R.; Byck, P. Vegetation, water infiltration, and soil carbon response to Adaptive Multi-Paddock and Conventional grazing and Southeastern USA ranches. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 308, 114576.
  67. Park, J.Y.; Ale, S.; Teague, W.R. Simulated water quality effects of alternate grazing management practices at the ranch and watershed scales. Ecol. Modell. 2017, 360, 1–13.
  68. Park, J.Y.; Ale, S.; Teague, W.R.; Dowhower, S.L. Simulating hydrologic responses to alternate grazing management practices at the ranch and watershed scales. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2017, 72, 102–121.
  69. Park, J.Y.; Ale, S.; Teague, W.R.; Jeong, J. Evaluating the ranch and watershed scale impacts of using traditional and adaptive multi-paddock grazing on runoff, sediment and nutrient losses in North Texas, USA. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 240, 32–44.
  70. Kim, J.; Ale, S.; Kreuter, U.P.; Teague, W.R.; DelGrosso, S.J.; Dowhower, S.L. Evaluating the impacts of alternative grazing management practices on soil carbon sequestration and soil health indicators. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 342, 108234.
  71. Benthien, O.; Braun, M.; Rieman, J.C.; Stolter, C. Long-term effect of sheep and goat grazing on plant diversity in a semi dry natural grassland habitat. Hellyon 2018, 4, e00556.
  72. Teague, R.; Kreuter, U. Managing grazing to restore soil health, ecosystem function, and ecosystem services. Front. Sustain. Food Sci. 2020, 157, 534187.
  73. Fraser, M.D.; Garcia, R.R. Mixed species grazing management to improve sustainability and biodiversity. OIE 2018, 37, 247–252.
  74. Barry, S.; Huntsinger, L. Rangeland sharing, livestock grazing’s role in conservation of imperiled species. Animals 2021, 13, 4466.
  75. Evans, D.M.; Redpath, S.M.; Evans, S.A.; Elston, D.A.; Gardner, C.J.; Dennis, P.; Pakeman, R.J. Low intensity mixed livestock grazing improves breeding abundance of common insectivorous passerine. Biol. Lett. 2016, 2, 636–638.
  76. Lee-Mader, E.; Stine, A.; Fowler, J.; Hopwood, J.; Vaughan, M. Cover Cropping for Pollinators and Beneficial Insects, SARE (Sustainable Agriculture Research Education USDA). 2014. Available online: Save.org/wp-contact/uploads/cover-cropping-forpollinators-and-beneficial-insects.pdf (accessed on 7 November 2022).
  77. Huertas, S.M.; Bobadilla, P.E.; Alcántara, I.; Akkermans, E.; van Eerdenburg, F.J.C.M. Benefits of Silvopastoral Systems for Keeping Beef Cattle. Animals 2021, 11, 992.
  78. Husak, A.L.; Grado, S.C. Monetary benefits in a southern silvopastoral system. South J. Appl. For. 2002, 26, 159–164.
  79. Sarabia, L.; Solorio, F.J.; Ramírez, L.; Ayala, A.; Aguilar, C.; Ku, J.; Almeida, C.; Cassador, R.; Alves, B.J.; Boddey, R.M. Improving the nitrogen cycling in livestock systems through silvopastoral systems. In Nutrient Dynamics for Sustainable Crop Production; Meena, R., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 189–213.
  80. Skonieski, F.R.; Souza, E.R.D.; Gregolin, L.C.B.; Fluck, A.C.; Costa, O.A.D.; Destri, J.; Neto, A.P. Physiological response to heat stress and ingestive behavior of lactating Jersey cows in silvopasture and conventional pasture grazing systems in a Brazilian subtropical climate zone. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2021, 53, 213.
  81. Alyssa, A.C. Lamb Growth and Pasture Production in Agrivoltaic Production System. Bachelor’s Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA, 2020. Available online: https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/honors_college_theses/v405sh87r (accessed on 3 November 2022).
  82. Kochencloerfer, N.; Thonney, M.L. Grazing Sheep on Solar Sites in New York, Opportunities and Challenges; Cornell College of Agriculture. Sustainability Cornell University: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2021; Available online: https://solargrazing.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Solar-Site-Sheep-Grazing-in-NY.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2023).
  83. Jerrentrup, J.S.; Wrage-Mönnig, N.; Röver, K.U.; Isselstein, J. Grazing intensity affects insect diversity via sward structure and heterogeneity in a long-term experiment. J. Appl. Ecol. 2014, 51, 968–977.
  84. Mancuso, D.; Castagnolo, G.; Porto, S.M.C. Cow Behavioural Activities in Extensive Farms: Challenges of Adopting Automatic Monitoring Systems. Sensors 2023, 23, 3828.
  85. Lee, C. An Apparatus and Method for the Virtual Fencing of an Animal. International Patent Application No. PCT/AUT2005/001056, 26 January 2006.
  86. Lee, C.; Reed, M.T.; Wark, T.; Crossman, C.; Valencia, P. Control Device, and Method, for Controlling the Location of an Animal. International Patent Application No. PCT/AU2009/000943, 28 January 2010.
  87. Umstatter, C. The evolution of virtual fences: A review. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2011, 75, 10–22.
  88. Lee, C.; Henshall, J.M.; Wark, T.J.; Crossman, C.C.; Reed, M.T.; Brewer, H.G.; O’Grady, J.; Fisher, A.D. Associative learning by cattle to enable effective and ethical virtual fences. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 119, 15–22.
  89. Campbell, D.L.M.; Lea, J.M.; Haynes, S.J.; Farrer, W.J.; Leigh-Lancaster, C.J.; Lee, C. Virtual fencing of cattle using an automated collar in a feed attractant trial. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018, 200, 71–77.
  90. Bishop-Hurley, G.J.; Swain, D.L.; Anderson, D.M.; Sikka, P.; Crossman, C.; Corke, P. Virtual fencing applications: Implementing and testing an automated cattle control system. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2007, 56, 14–22.
  91. Jouven, M.; Leroy, H.; Ickowicz, A.; Lapeyronie, P. Can virtual fences be used to control grazing sheep? Rangel. J. 2012, 34, 111–123.
  92. Brunberg, E.I.; Bøe, K.E.; Sørheim, K.M. Testing a new virtual fencing system on sheep. Acta Agric. Scand. Anim. Sci. 2015, 65, 168–175.
  93. Brunberg, E.I.; Bergslid, I.K.; Bøe, K.E.; Sørheim, K.M. The ability of ewes with lambs to learn a virtual fencing system. Animal 2017, 11, 2045–2050.
  94. Marini, D.; Meuleman, D.M.; Belson, S.; Rodenburg, B.T.; Llewellyn, R.; Lee, C. Developing an ethically acceptable virtual fencing system for sheep. Animals 2018, 8, 33.
  95. Van Erp-van der Kooij, E.; Rutter, S.M. Using precision farming to improve animal welfare. CAB Rev. Perspect. Agric. Vet. Sci. Nutr. Nat. Resour. 2020, 15, 1–10. Available online: http://www.cabi.org/cabreviews (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  96. Caja, G.; Castro-Costa, A.; Salama, A.A.; Oliver, J.; Baratta, M.; Ferrer, C.; Knight, C.H. Sensing solutions for improving the performance, health and wellbeing of small ruminants. J. Dairy Res. 2020, 87, 34–46.
  97. Van den Pol, A.; de Vliegher, A.; Hennessy, D.; Isselstein, J.; Peyraud, J.L. The Future of Grazing. In Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the EGF Working Group “Grazing”; Livestock Research Report 906; Wageningen UR (University & Research Centre) Livestock Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2015; Available online: https://www.europeangrassland.org/fileadmin/documents/Working_Groups/Grazing/906_The_future_of_grazing_-_Van_den_Pol-van_Dasselaar_et_al.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2023).
  98. Klootwijk, C.W.; Holshof, G.; de Boer, I.J.M.; Van den Pol-Van Dasselaar, A.; Engel, B.; Van Middelaar, C.E. Correcting fresh grass allowance for rejected patches due to excreta in intensive grazing systems for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 10451–10459.
  99. Garcia, S.C.; Fulkerson, W.J. Opportunities for future Australian dairy systems—A review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2005, 45, 1041–1055.
  100. Islam, M.R.; Garcia, S.C.; Clark, C.E.F.; Kerrisk, K.L. System fitness of grazeable forages for large herds in automatic milking system. In Proceedings of the International Grassland Congress, Sydney, Australia, 15–19 September 2013; pp. 1717–1718. Available online: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/igc (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  101. Lyons, N.A.; Kerrisk, K.L.; Garcia, S.C. Comparison of 2 systems of pasture allocation on milking intervals and total daily milk yield of dairy cows in a pasture-based automatic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 4494–4504.
  102. Lyons, L.; Kerrisk, K.L.; Garcia, S.C. Milking frequency management in pasture-based automatic milking system: A review. Livest. Sci. 2014, 159, 102–116.
  103. Coulon, J.B.; Pradel, P.; Cochard, T.; Poutrel, B. Effect of extreme walking conditions for dairy cows on milk yield, chemical composition, and somatic cell count. J. Dairy Sci. 1998, 81, 994–1003.
  104. Hopkins, A.; Wilkins, R.J. Temperate grassland: Key developments in the last century and future perspectives. J. Agric. Sci. 2006, 144, 503–523.
  105. Capstaff, N.M.; Miller, A.J. Improving the yield and nutritional quality of forage crops. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 535.
  106. Toupet, R.; Gibbons, A.T.; Goodacre, S.L.; Bell, M.J. Effect of Herbage Density, Height and Age on Nutrient and Invertebrate Generalist Predator Abundance in Permanent and Temporary Pastures. Land 2020, 9, 164.
  107. Piutti, S.; Romillac, N.; Chanseaume, A.; Slezack-Deschaumes, S.; Manneville, V.; Amiaud, B. Using temporary pastures to enhance soil fertility. Fourrages 2015, 223, 179–187. Available online: http://www.afpf-asso.fr/index/action/ (accessed on 6 February 2023).
  108. Bailey, J.; Brandsma, J.; Busqué, J.; Elsaesser, M.; Goliński, P.; Crespo, D.G.; Hopkins, A.; Hulin-Bertaud, S.; Krause, A.; Lind, V.; et al. Profitability of permanent grassland. In EIP-AGRI Focus Group Permanent Grassland: Final Report; European Commission: Brussel, Belgium, 2016; pp. 1–44.
  109. Goliński, P.; Bailey, J.; Crespo, D.G.; van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A.; Lind, V.; Mosquera-Losada, M.R.; O’Donovan, M.; Peeters, A.; Porqueddu, C.; Reheul, D. Sustainable grassland production by increased functional group diversification. In EIP-AGRI Focus Group Permanent Grassland; European Commission: Brussel, Belgium, 2014; pp. 1–7.
  110. Lorenz, H.; Reinsch, T.; Kluß, C.; Taube, F.; Loges, R. Does the Admixture of Forage Herbs Affect the Yield Performance, Yield Stability and Forage Quality of a Grass Clover Ley? Sustainability 2020, 12, 5842.
  111. Van Eekeren, N.; Wagenaar, J.P.; Jansonius, P.J. Mineral content of chicory (Cichorium intybus) and narrow leaf plantain (Plantago lanceolata) in grass-white clover mixtures. In Proceedings of the Quality Legume-Based Forage Systems for Contrasting Environments, Final Meeting, Gumpemstein, Austria, 30 August–3 September 2006; pp. 121–123.
  112. Pirhofer-Walzl, K.; Søegaard, K.; Høgh-Jensen, H.; Eriksen, J.; Sanderson, M.A.; Rasmussen, J. Forage herbs improve mineral composition of grassland herbage. Grass Forage Sci. 2011, 66, 415–423.
  113. Fraser, T.J.; Rowarth, J.S. Legumes, Herbs or Grass for Lamb Performance? New Zealand Grassl. Assoc. 1996, 58, 49–52. Available online: https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/handle/10182/4557 (accessed on 1 March 2023).
  114. Scales, G.H.; Knight, T.L.; Saville, D.J. Effect of herbage species and feeding level on internal parasites and production performance of grazing lambs. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 1995, 38, 237–247.
  115. Budny, A.; Kupczyńki, R.; Sobolewska, S.; Korczyński, M.; Zawadzki, W. Samolecznictwo i ziołolecznictwo w profilaktyce i leczeniu zwierząt gospodarskich. Acta Sci. Pol. Med. Vet. 2012, 11, 5–24.
  116. McCarthy, K.M.; McAloon, C.G.; Lynch, M.B.; Pierce, K.M.; Mulligan, F.J. Herb species inclusion in grazing swards for dairy cows—A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 1416–1430.
  117. Dhamala, N.R.; Søegaard, K.; Eriksen, J. Competitive forbs in high-producing temporary grasslands with perennial ryegrass and red clover can increase plant diversity and herbage yield. Grassl. Sci. Eur. 2015, 20, 209–211.
  118. Høgh-Jensen, H.; Nielsen, B.; Thamsborg, S.M. Productivity and quality, competition and facilitation of chicory in ryegrass/legume-based pastures under various nitrogen supply levels. Eur. J. Agron. 2006, 24, 247–256.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback