Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T21:05:35.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of the spatial scale of grass–legume mixtures on sheep grazing behaviour, preference and intake, and subsequent effects on pasture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2012

J. M. Sharp ,
G. R. Edwards  and
M. J. Jeger
J. M. Sharp
Affiliation:
Division of Biology, Imperial College London, Wye Campus, Wye, Ashford, Kent TN25 5AH, UK
G. R. Edwards
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Sciences, Lincoln University, PO Box 84, Lincoln 7647, Canterbury, New Zealand
M. J. Jeger
Affiliation:
Division of Biology, Imperial College London, Wye Campus, Wye, Ashford, Kent TN25 5AH, UK
Get access

Abstract

The benefits of using white clover in pastures have been widely recognised for many years. However, clover is perceived as being unreliable because of its typically low content, which is spatially and temporally variable, in mixed pastures. One proposed solution to increase the proportion of clover in the diet of grazing animals and composition in the pasture is to spatially separate clover from grass within the same field. In a field experiment ryegrass and white clover were grown in fine mixtures, and in pure alternating strips of ryegrass and clover of 1.5 m, 3 m or 18 m width within a field. Pastures were grazed for two grazing periods of 9 and 12 weeks, and measurements of sward surface height (SSH), herbage mass and composition and clover morphology were taken. Grazing behaviour was also observed. Results showed that spatial separation in the long term, when compared with a fine mixture, increased clover availability (18% to 30% v. 9%, based on standing dry matter) and was not grazed to extinction. Ewes maintained their preference for clover throughout the experiment (selection coefficient 2 to 5), which resulted in a reduction in the SSH of clover in monocultures to <3 cm and significant changes to the morphology of clover (smaller leaves, shorter petioles and thicker stolon), at the expense of maximising their intake. Spatial separation in the short term may therefore allow grazing animals to select their preferred diet; however, in the long term in continuously grazed pasture, their preference for clover depletes its availability.

Keywords

grazing behaviourpasture legumesplant morphologyselective grazingspatial distribution
Type
Farming systems and environment
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 11 , November 2012 , pp. 1848 - 1856
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brock, JL, Hay, MJM 2001. White clover performance in sown pastures: a biological/ecological perspective. Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 63, 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, JL, Hay, MJM, Thomas, VJ, Sedcole, JR 1988. Morphology of white clover (Trifolium Repens L) plants in pastures under intensive sheep grazing. Journal of Agricultural Science 111, 273–283.Google Scholar
Carrère, P, Louault, F, Carvalho, PCD, Lafarge, M, Soussana, JF 2001. How does the vertical and horizontal structure of a perennial ryegrass and white clover sward influence grazing? Grass and Forage Science 56, 118–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champion, RA, Orr, RJ, Penning, PD, Rutter, SM 2004. The effect of the spatial scale of heterogeneity of two herbage species on the grazing behaviour of lactating sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 88, 61–76.Google Scholar
Chapman, DF, Parsons, AJ, Schwinning, S 1996. Management of clover in grazed pastures: expectations, limitations and opportunities. Agronomy Society of New Zealand Special Publication 11/Grassland Research and Practice Series 6, 55–64.Google Scholar
Clark, DA, Harris, SL 1996. White clover or nitrogen fertiliser for dairying? Agronomy Society of New Zealand Special Publication 11/Grassland Research and Practice Series 6, 107–114.Google Scholar
Cosgrove, GP, Parsons, AJ, Marotti, DM, Rutter, SM, Chapman, DF 2001. Opportunities for enhancing the delivery of novel forage attributes. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society for Animal Production 61, 16–19.Google Scholar
Edwards, GR, Parsons, AJ, Bryant, RH 2008. Manipulating dietary preference to improve animal performance. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 773–779.Google Scholar
Frame, J 1993. Herbage mass. In Sward measurement handbook, 2nd edition (ed. A Davies, RD Baker, SA Grant and AS Laidlaw), pp. 39–68. The British Grassland Society, Reading.Google Scholar
Harvey, A, Parsons, AJ, Rook, AJ, Penning, PD, Orr, RJ 2000. Dietary preference of sheep for perennial ryegrass and white clover at contrasting sward surface heights. Grass and Forage Science 55, 242–252.Google Scholar
MAFF 1986. The analysis of agricultural materials: a manual of the analytical methods used by the agricultural development and advisory service. HMSO, London.Google Scholar
MAFF 2000. Fertiliser recommendations for agricultural and horticultural crops (RB209), 7th edition. MAFF Publications, London.Google Scholar
Magic 2006. Interactive Map. Retrieved February 13, 2012, from http://www.magic.gov.uk/website/magic/Google Scholar
Marotti, DM, Cosgrove, GP, Chapman, DF, Parsons, AJ, Egan, AR, Anderson, CB 2001. Novel methods of forage presentation to boost nutrition and performance of grazing dairy cows. Australian Journal of Dairy Technology 56, 159.Google Scholar
Parkinson, RJ 2003. Soil management and crop nutrition. In Primrose McConnell's the Agricultural Notebook (ed. RJ Soffe), pp. 3–62. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.Google Scholar
Parsons, AJ, Harvey, A, Johnson, IR 1991. Plant animal interactions in a continuously grazed mixture. 2. The role of differences in the physiology of plant-growth and of selective grazing on the performance and stability of species in a mixture. Journal of Applied Ecology 28, 635–658.Google Scholar
Parsons, AJ, Thornley, JHM, Newman, J, Penning, PD 1994. A mechanistic model of some physical determinants of intake rate and diet selection in a 2-species temperate grassland sward. Functional Ecology 8, 187–204.Google Scholar
Penning, PD, Rook, AJ, Orr, RJ 1991. Patterns of ingestive behavior of sheep continuously stocked on monocultures of ryegrass or white clover. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31, 237–250.Google Scholar
Penning, PD, Parsons, AJ, Orr, RJ, Harvey, A, Champion, RA 1995. Intake and behaviour responses by sheep, in different physiological states, when grazing monocultures of grass or white clover. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45, 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridout, MS, Robson, MJ 1991. Diet composition of sheep grazing grass white clover swards – a reevaluation. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 34, 89–93.Google Scholar
Rook, AJ, Harvey, A, Parsons, AJ, Penning, PD, Orr, RJ 2002. Effect of long-term changes in relative resource availability on dietary preference of grazing sheep for perennial ryegrass and white clover. Grass and Forage Science 57, 54–60.Google Scholar
Rutter, SM 2006. Diet preference for grass and legumes in free-ranging domestic sheep and cattle: current theory and future application. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 97, 17–35.Google Scholar
Rutter, SM, Young, KL, Cook, JE, Champion, RA 2003. Strip grazing separate white clover and ryegrass monocultures increases daily intake and milk yield in dairy cows. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 3, 461–465.Google Scholar
Rutter, SM, Cook, JE, Young, KL, Champion, RA 2005. Spatial scale of heterogeneity affects diet choice but not intake in beef cattle. In Pastoral systems in marginal environments: Proceedings of a Satellite Workshop of the 20th International Grassland Congress (ed. JA Milne), p. 127. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Rutter, SM, Orr, RJ, Yarrow, NH, Champion, RA, Atkinson, LD, Cook, JE 1999. Long-term dietary preference for grass and clover in dairy cows. In Nutritional ecology of herbivores. posters and plenary discussions and papers presented at satellite symposia and seminar held in conjunction with the 5th International Symposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores, 10–16 April 1999, San Antonio, Texas, USA.Google Scholar
Schmidt, AR, Marten, GC, Goodrich, RD 1970. Influence of drying methods and temperatures on in vitro determination of digestibility of corn and sorghum fodder and silage. Agronomy Journal 62, 543–546.Google Scholar
Solomon, JKQ, Macoon, B, Lang, DJ, Parish, JA, Vann, RC 2011. A novel approach to grass–legume management. Crop Science 51, 1865–1876.Google Scholar