Abstract
Abstract Mob grazing, which uses very high stocking densities for short durations followed by a relatively long rest period, was designed to mimic bison ( Bison bison ) grazing in western U.S. grassland. This project assessed the suitability of mob grazing for livestock production in the Northeast. Objectives were to compare the effects of mob and rotational grazing on dry matter (DM) mass, nutritive value, and botanical composition across four grazing seasons. Eight, 0.10‐ha paddocks were established in 2014 as a randomized complete block with four replications, and seeded with alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.), white clover ( Trifolium repens L.), orchardgrass ( Dactylis glomerata L.), narrowleaf plantain ( Plantago lanceolata L.), and tall fescue [ Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort]. Mob‐grazed (MOB) paddocks were grazed by yearling beef cattle twice each year, (70–90–day interval), and rotationally grazed (ROT) paddocks were grazed four to six times each year (when sward height reached 25 cm). Cumulative pre‐grazing forage biomass (PGFM) of ROT was greater than MOB in three of four years. At the final grazing, the PGFM of ROT exceeded MOB by 2,500 kg ha −1 . Within year, PGFM of ROT was more consistent, varying by only 1,000–1,400 kg DM ha −1 compared with 1,800–2,800 kg DM ha −1 for MOB. Grazing strategy altered botanical composition; ROT favored grasses while MOB favored alfalfa. Forage fiber content was consistently lower in ROT than MOB paddocks, indicating superior nutritive value. Results suggest rotational grazing is likely suitable for more consistent forage production of greater nutritive value in temperate, cool‐season grass‐legume pastures of the northeastern United States.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
Rotational grazing had greater cumulative pre-grazing biomass in three of four years.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago sativae1 - Treatment
- ROTe0
- Outcome
- Cumulative pre‐grazing forage biomass (PGFM)e0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- three of four yearse0
- Comparator
- MOBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cumulative pre‐grazing forage biomass (PGFM) of ROT was greater than MOB in three of four years”
e1“seeded with alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.), white clover ( Trifolium repens L.), orchardgrass ( Dactylis glomerata L.), narrowleaf plantain ( Plantago lanceolata L.), and tall fescue [ Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort]”
Claim · model-written summary
At final grazing, ROT exceeded MOB biomass by 2,500 kg ha −1.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- ROTe0
- Outcome
- PGFMe0
- Direction
- exceedede0
- Value
- 2,500 kg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- MOBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At the final grazing, the PGFM of ROT exceeded MOB by 2,500 kg ha −1”
e1“seeded with alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
ROT pre-grazing biomass varied less within years than MOB.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- ROTe0
- Outcome
- PGFMe0
- Direction
- more consistente0
- Value
- 1,000–1,400 kg DM ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- 1,800–2,800 kg DM ha −1e0
- Comparator
- MOBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Within year, PGFM of ROT was more consistent, varying by only 1,000–1,400 kg DM ha −1 compared with 1,800–2,800 kg DM ha −1 for MOB”
e1“seeded with alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Rotational grazing favored grasses.
- Taxon
- orchardgrass
.jpg?width=60)
Dactylis glomeratae1 - Treatment
- ROTe0
- Outcome
- grassese0
- Direction
- favorede0
- Comparator
- MOBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“ROT favored grasses while MOB favored alfalfa”
e1“orchardgrass ( Dactylis glomerata L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Mob grazing favored alfalfa.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ROT favored grasses while MOB favored alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
ROT forage fiber content was consistently lower than MOB.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- ROTe0
- Outcome
- Forage fiber contente0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- MOBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Forage fiber content was consistently lower in ROT than MOB paddocks, indicating superior nutritive value”
e1“seeded with alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest rotational grazing for more consistent, higher quality forage in northeastern US pastures.
Verbatim
e0“rotational grazing is likely suitable for more consistent forage production of greater nutritive value in temperate, cool‐season grass‐legume pastures of the northeastern United States”
The same questions in other papers
grazing · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →rotation · quality: grain · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
rotation · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →grazing · quality: grain · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.