Contributors: Alister Lawson, Anthea Lisle, Basil Doonan, Cameron Allan, Cameron
Whitson, Danny Donaghy, Dario Nandapi, Dave Chapman, Dave Henry, Mark Callow, Martin
Staines, Neil Lane, Phil Shannon, Richard Morris, Richard Rawnsley, Rick Jordan and Yani
Garcia







The priority of this meeting was to outline the key concepts and strategies applied in each region as surmised by their industry representative. Each participant also filled in a questionnaire, entitled
‘Chewing the Cud’, composed of different areas relating to pasture management. From this and the discussion generated by it, regional commonalities and differences in knowledge and application of grazing management principles were ascertained and knowledge gaps were identified which could form the basis of future collaborative research projects between States and/or regions. Following the meeting, identification and development of material and tools to assist in the extension of grazing management best practice and an action plan to implement these would be formed.
Key considerations of the following discussion included:
 pasture increasingly only a part of the forage base, with many farms growing species other than pasture and some feeding mixed rations
 whilst pasture is the dominant portion of the feedbase currently, alternatives shouldn’t be ignored



 project 3030 showed better integration of RD&E is the key to achieving success key focus needs to be on risk, position and world view of farmers research needs to be proactive and take a ‘what’s next?’ approach key purpose of pasture management is: pasture growth → pasture and supplements intake
→ milk production
 the aim of pasture management is to optimise the conversion of grazed forages into milk

Grazing Management Guidelines
There was generally a high level of agreement amongst all participants as to the basic guidelines for managing pastures. A grazing interval between 2-3 leaf stage was the consensus with all highlighting grazing at <2 leaves causing issues with persistence and quantity (also mineral deficiency) whilst grazing past 3 leaves or canopy closer caused a reduction in persistence and quality. Recommended grazing residuals were either 4-5cm or 4-6cm with reduced quantity and persistence with residuals
<3cm and reduced quality and persistence with residuals >6cm identified by all. It was suggested that farmers willing to push their cows harder could graze closer to the third leaf and still maintain an adequate residual, allowing them to grow and consume more grass with topping being suggested if residuals did get to high.
There was some conjecture surrounding topping and back grazing. Most respondents identified topping as a useful tool for managing pastures, with post grazing topping recommended to remove stem and improve quality whilst pre-grazing topping could be employed to bring pastures under control during the spring flush. One respondent agreed with post-grazing topping in principle but recommended that it should be avoided if possible, as does the guidelines from the 3030 project. All agreed that topping shouldn’t be relied upon and if topping was necessary more than 2-3 times per season then an underlying pasture management issue was likely present. There was some disparity between acceptable lengths of time to allow back grazing which ranged from 2-3 days ‘maximum’ to
4-5 days being ‘acceptable’. The logistical issues around water troughs and back fencing were highlighted along with possible relaxing of the rule during slow growth periods.
Regional Pasture Sward Characteristics
Pasture composition varied greatly across the different regions. Tasmania was seen to be highly dominated by ryegrass species with contribution of legumes thought to be negligible, whilst in
Victoria the pastures were similarly dominated by ryegrass with paspalum also present. In contrast however, clover was thought to make a contribution of up to 100-300kg N/ha/yr in Victorian pastures. In NSW the pastures tended towards annual ryegrass / kikuyu mixes with perennials grown in some regions and legumes important in the feed base, especially where grown in complementary forage paddocks. Annual ryegrass with no clover present made up the entire pasture base in Qld whilst in WA the majority of pasture was annual ryegrass with a small proportion of clover present. All respondents reported that weeds make up around 10% of their regions pasture.
Tiller density was not strongly emphasised by any of the respondents. For Tasmanian pastures a density of 5000 tillers/m 2 was suggested whilst in WA it was thought that 2000-3000 tillers/m 2 on irrigated perennial pastures would be standard. In Victoria 10x10cm grid counts were used to determine percentage of target species present with over sowing recommended when lower than
80-90%. In other regions the measure was simply not used or measurements ‘by eye’ or sowing rate were used.
Similar responses for rooting depth occurred, with the distribution of roots vague or unknown with great accuracy. Suggested distribution of ryegrass roots varied from 80% in the top 10cm to 50% in the top 15cm, little was known about other species. There was general agreement amongst the

responses regarding the practices affecting rooting depth, with over irrigation, short rotation and over fertilising all highlighted as having a detrimental impact on root depth. It was widely agreed upon that competition with perennial grasses, grazing management, nitrogen fertiliser application and irrigation management were all factors influencing the proportion of legumes in pastures.
Pasture Renovation
There is a high level of regional variation in the approach taken towards renovating pastures. There was a general consensus regarding the benefits of using forage crops in a pasture renovation program with them regarded as being more water efficient, filling feed gaps and provide opportunities for herbicide applications. Summer crops are used in WA to allow application of herbicide to kill kikuyu grass, whilst Qld and NSW used forage crops due to their lower water requirements and poor performance of grasses over summer; lucerne was commonly used in rotation with annual ryegrass in Qld. Forage crops are sometimes used by Tasmanian farmers before resowing with a perennial ryegrass, whilst Victorian farmers usually only use forage crops to provide opportunities to spray when weed pressure is high; but generally neither region relies heavily on their use.
Choosing paddocks for renovation usually comes down to performance, either due to high weed content or low productivity. Most farmers tend to use direct drilling as the method of sowing, with the benefits of water retention highlighted in Qld. However, it has been observed that successful establishment can be lower and as such conventional tillage is still recommended in Tasmania. The degree to which cultivation is required depends on the level of compaction, or ‘hard panning’, that has occurred in the soil. Tasmanian farmers usually only renovate their paddocks every 10 years as opposed to most other regions which renovate their pastures every 2-6 years, with northern NSW and Qld resowing annually through the necessity of growing annual pastures.
Herbage Quality, and Nitrogen and Water Usage
A good quality pasture was thought to be around ME=11-12MJ/kg/DM, CP=20-25% and NDF=40-45%.
These values then fluctuate depending on the season with ME and CP decreasing in summer and increasing in winter/spring and NDF increasing in summer and decreasing in winter/spring. The reasons for these fluctuations were widely agreed upon as being caused by grazing interval, nitrogen use, hot summers and seeding in spring. Commonly in Qld, NSW, WA and to an extent in Victoria, the species composition was highlighted as a major limiting factor of pasture quality; with invasion of subtropical grass species causing high pasture NDF levels and reducing ME and CP levels.
The maximum nitrogen fertiliser application rate is around 50-60kg N/ha with 35kg N/ha accepted as the typical application rate. A strong emphasis was placed on only using nitrogen where there was a genuine shortage of feed and the extra feed grown could be utilised. Further recommendations included applying nitrogen before irrigation or expected rain, as soon after grazing as practical, only applying during periods of active growth and waiting 14 days after application before grazing.
Annual application rates vary from 0-700kg N/ha each year with a typical annual response of 15-20:1.
Key issues for the use of nitrogen in all regions were farmers not knowing the response, denitrification, replacement of legumes and fertiliser cost; with heavy use also highlighted as causing grazing management issues due to canopy closer and subsequent grazing before the second leaf emerged.

Irrigation scheduling is largely recommended through a combination of evaporation rates and soil moisture monitoring, though it is widely recognised that farmers are more likely to use their intuition and past experiences with some reference to evaporation rates to make on farm decisions.
Furthermore, many irrigation systems cannot match the capacity required due to the restriction of multiple runs, inadequate application rates and scheduling of flood irrigation. Farmers’ knowledge of their own system in terms of application rate and uniformity of distribution also limit the potential of the system.
Consumption and Utilisation Efficiency
Pasture production varies greatly with climate, with Tasmania, Victoria and NSW achieving around
20t DM/ha/yr under irrigation and 10-15t DM/ha/yr under dry land conditions; whilst Qld and WA are slightly lower with up to 16t DM/ha/yr under irrigation and 7-9t DM/ha/yr under dry land conditions. These values are typically measured using biophysical modelling which is checked against measured data from research farms, benchmarking and historical data.
Pasture utilisation followed a similar trend with generally 12t DM/ha/yr and 9t DM/ha/yr achieved for irrigated and dry land production respectively in the South-Eastern states, whilst in Qld and WA utilisation was around 6t DM/ha/yr and 5t DM/ha/yr for irrigated and dry land pastures. Limitations due to both production and utilisation were identified as issues. Utilisation issues related more to periods of high growth where lax grazing management would result in wastage, where as production issues were more commonly seen as the main limitation under dry land production.
Two good points were raised regarding both production and utilisation which came down to grazing management. The first being that if the underpinning principles of grazing management are followed, then in any season on any property there can be a high level of confidence that each farm will achieve its maximum production potential. The second point is that if correct residuals of 4-5cm are maintained then high utilisation should be maintained.
Management within the Farm System
In most areas evaluation of pasture cover is usually carried out by farmers using visual estimation, with some farmers using rising plate meters and many more increasingly interest in automated measuring devices such as bike-drawn meters. Pasture coverage, as determined through this assessment, can then be used to make decision about pasture management issues such as which paddock to allocate to the cows, when to lock up paddocks for conservation and what rotation speed is optimal for any given time.
There were a number of methods used to calculate rotation and area allocated to stock. Generally these fell into the categories of leaf emergence rate, pasture growth rate or pasture available in paddock. The leaf emergence and pasture growth rate methods relied on calculating a rotation length based on how long it would take to get to a chosen leaf stage or pasture coverage, for example if the time to reach this predetermined point (i.e. 3 leaves or 2500kg DM/ha) was 30 days then 1/30 th of the total grazing area would be allocated to the cows. For the pasture availability method, as outlined by the 3030 project, the total pasture available in a given paddock is calculated and then divided by the nutritional needs of the heard (i.e. if 2000kg DM is available in a 2ha paddock and 1000kg DM is required for the day, then the paddock is split in half to give two 1ha allocations). All of these methods achieve the same outcome in different ways but the underlying principle is to feed in the 2-3 leaf stage and supplement when needed to reach the required rotation

length. When making decision about rotation length useful methods for determining this include, measuring leaf emergence rate, using historical data and calculating a feed budget. Tools such as
‘Rotation Right’ have been developed to assist farmers in getting this right.
As a general rule allocating paddocks for conservation is determined when pasture coverage exceeds the feed requirements of the herd. Feed wedges are a useful tool for working out when a surplus is occurring with residuals also an indication that excess feed is present. Only ‘true surpluses’ should be conserved and there should be some flexibility to bring conserved paddocks back in or drop paddocks out of rotation as needed. Harvesting should be done around 3-4 leaf stage while the plants are still mainly vegetative or within 6 weeks of last grazing, however all highlighted that this rarely occurs due to constraints around organising contractors and paddocks being at different stages of development.
Stocking rate is usually only used by farmers when calculating the level of bought in feed they require. This ultimately depends on the individual farming system and how much feed they are prepared to buy and also how much they are prepared to expose themselves to price variations of purchased feed. During wetter periods, highly stocked farms are likely to experience reduced production when larger areas are allocated to prevent pugging. To avoid overgrazing and speeding up the rotation it was recommended that short feedings be used followed by placing the cows in a standoff area such as a feed pad, laneway or sacrificial paddock.