Pastures for Animal Production

8/12/2019 Pastures for Animal Production

1/7

Proceedings o the 23rd Annual Conerence o the Grassland Society o NSW 43

Introduction

Te use o grazing sheep and cattle to harvest pasturein situ remains the cornerstone o the simple, low-costanimal production systems o New South Wales (NSW).Tese systems are characterised by a diversity o grass/clover and herb blends, ranging rom native pasturesto tall escue, phalaris and annual and perennialryegrass pastures, with pastoral systems dictated byenvironmental and climatic constraints, stock types and

management techniques.

Most traditional pasture-based systems are characterisedby the synchrony o peak demand by stock with the peakperiods o pasture growth. Te simplicity and efficiencieso a supply-demand driven pastoral system aretempered by the challenges o matching pasture supplywith animal demand. Inconsistent pasture productionas a result o drought, hot or cold climatic conditions,and limitations o soils, drainage and pasture speciesreduces the effectiveness with which animals may bereliably sustained by pasture. Nutritional imbalancesassociated with pasture, including high or low levels

o structural and non-structural carbohydrates, crudeprotein, trace elements and minerals and the presence oanti-nutritional compounds can limit the perormanceo grazing sheep or cattle.

A growing number o traditionally lower input NSWbee systems are now strategically incorporatingsupplementary eeds into pasture-based systems,recognising the potential vulnerabilities andinefficiencies o pastures as an ideal eed or cattle.

Tis paper will identiy practical opportunities tooptimise the productivity o cattle and sheep within

pastoral based systems.

Pastures or animal production: Understanding the challenges

C.. Westwood

Strategic Bovine Services, 9 Victoria Avenue, Barooga NSW 3644

Abstract.ropical and temperate pastures provide a low-cost and effective eed-base or almost all New South Waleslivestock enterprises, yet significant constraints limit the potential perormance and profitability o such systems.otal dry matter yield and the proportion o dry matter yield utilised remain the most common actors that constrainproductivity. Management strategies that address these challenges remain the most appropriate and rewarding waysto lif profitability or most livestock producers. Where a system is already being managed or optimal harvest o drymatter yield, opportunities exist to manipulate ways to improve eed conversion efficiency. Tis paper explores potentialnutritional constraints or pasture-ed sheep and cattle and highlights opportunities to improve eed conversion efficiency

through pasture management and the use o complementary supplements.

1. Quantitative aspects o eeding sheep andcattle on pasture

Within temperate regions o NSW, the generallyavourable climate promotes the growth o highlydigestible, high crude protein (CP) pastures or thecooler months o the year, particularly between themonths o April and October. ropical species opasture offer greater challenges, being characterised bya lower CP, less digestible sward that is less avourable

or efficient animal production.

While extremely cost competitive, the potentialdisadvantages o pasture-based systems are numerous.Inadequacies and potential constraints o grazing vs.more intensive management systems, including eed-lotting, are summarised in able 1.

2. Productivity by NSW pasture-ed sheep andcattle: potential inefficiencies

Potential live-weight gain and reproductive perormanceo pasture-ed sheep and cattle are ofen below genetic

potential, and are lower than those reported or animalsoffered high quality supplements and/or ull total mixedrations (MR).

Bee cattle that grow more quickly are more efficientthan those growing more slowly because aster growthrates dilute the fixed costs o maintenance over aproportionately greater weight gain. For example, a 200kg live-weight bee heier has a daily energy demandor 33.7 mega joules o metabolisable energy just ormaintenance requirements that is, this energy intakewill just cover her daily requirements to survive withno weight-gain (able 2). I the 200 kg heier is offered

poor quality pasture and grows at 350 g/day live-weight,her fixed maintenance costs are being diluted down


2/7

44 Proceedings o the 23rd Annual Conerence o the Grassland Society o NSW

over 350 g o live-weight. Tat is, 78.7 per cent o herdaily energy needs are being used simply to survive.Conversely, i the same heier is being ed a better quality

pasture, is being offered more kg dry matter (DM) andgrows at 950 g/day, her fixed costs o maintenance arediluted down over more live-weight gain.

3. Animal production rom pasture: key actorsinvolved

Several aspects o the nutritional profile o pasture maylimit the productivity and perormance o pasture-edstock. Te more important limiting aspect o pasture asa complete eed or cattle and sheep is the inconsistencybetween pasture DM supply versus DM demand.

(a) Control o eed demandTe annual eed demand or a pasture-based system isdefined by the ollowing:

(i) Stocking rate Animals per hectare (expressedas DSE/ha) is a key determinant o DM demand.Inappropriately low stocking rates can equate with low

DM demand, and the potential or pasture wastage,unless surplus grass is conserved. High stocking ratescan be extremely efficient, provided individual animalproductivity (weight-gain, wool production and/orreproductive perormance) is not compromised.

(ii) Calving or lambing date Different propertiesare characterised by a range o calving or lambingpatterns, which makes any general comparisons orrecommendations difficult. Generally, the peak demandor a property is matched with the peak supply o eed.A later than planned start to calving or lambing and aninappropriate calving/lambing spread will mean greater

difficulty with matching eed supply with demand,particularly or properties with short growing seasons.Strategic use o supplements may allow earlier calving

able 1. Advantages and disadvantages o grazed pasture systems, NSW style versus otal Mixed Ration (MR) systemsor eed-lotting

Factors NSW pastoral systems Feed-lotting

Manure disposal and spreading None Extensive disposal acilities requiredCapital investment Can be minimised Can be significant

Working expenses Can be minimised Can be significant

Metabolic cost o walking and grazing Can be an important cost or lowerstocked properties with expectations orhigh per head productivity

Lesser or eedlot situations

Vulnerability to external market orces Less directly affected by prices o orages,grains but vulnerable to ertiliser,herbicide etc costs.

Vulnerable to market volatility(orage, grain and protein mealprices)

Per head perormance (weight gainetc)

Will be limited by nutritional and intakevariation

Can be increased to approach limitso genetic capacity

Protection rom adverse conditions Limited unless irrigated Better (in most cases) but still

vulnerable to drought affectingsupply and price o purchased eedsand stock

Harvest and storage o orages Minimal required, in situgrazingefficient, however wide range o pastureutilisation between systems

All orages stored

Vulnerability to effects o climate onorage growth

Vulnerable i supplementary eeds not insystem

Less vulnerable on short term basisbut vulnerable to orage and grainprices influenced by drought

Losses associated with orage storage Can be significant (shrinkage lossesor silage and at eed out) but lesserproportion o total diet consumed

Can be significant (shrinkage lossesor silage and at eed out). Losseshigh relative to total diet consumed

Control o nutrient profile o daily diet Large variation in nutrient profile opasture, day to day/season to season

Less variation in silages/concentratesas eed base

Dry matter intake Can be unpredictable; ofen restricted bysupply, not need

Known and consistent within smalllimits

Dietary palatability Inconsistent, uncontrolled Can be controlled

Anti-nutritional actors associatedwith each system

Phalaris staggers, endophyte (perennialryegrass); Fusarium; nitrates

Silage/grain associatedmycotoxicoses; nitrates in storedeeds


3/7


or lambing, to take advantage o a better matchingbetween peak supply o pasture and peak demand bystock.

(iii) Per head eed demand Te daily nutrient demandby individual animals is a key determinant o the totaldemand or DM. In turn, the daily nutrient demandis set by your ambitions or per head perormanceand productivity or finishing lambs or young cattle,and the physiological state o animals (eg. pregnant orlactating).

(b) Pasture production and harvest

Te basic requirements or pasture growth include thecorrect balance o soil nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorusand potassium), soil pH, temperature, moisture and

soil drainage and solar radiation. Not all pasture that isgrown is harvested by animals or conserved; the balanceis lost rom the system by death and decay. Best-practicepastoral arming should aim to optimise:

Pasture grown through top-shel agronomicpractices (including appropriate plant nutrition) andby controlling variables such as moisture throughirrigation where possible, and the selection o theappropriate pasture species and cultivars or thatsystem.

Pasture harvested influenced largely throughgrazing management and by stocking rate, utilisingstock and areas out or cropping, re-grassing ororage conservation. Poor pasture utilisation remainsone o the key constraints that limits the effectiveconversion o pasture DM to live-weight gain.

(c) Net herbage production

Net herbage production is the balance between newgrowth and senescence o older tissues (Figure 1).

For cattle grazing ryegrass, pasture mass must bemaintained between 1,4002,800 kg DM/ha, andpreerably between 1,5002,500 kg DM/ha (Holmeset al.2002) to optimise net pasture production. argetpasture heights are lower or tall escue cattle pastures

and are dependent on the time o the year because lowerresiduals are required to ensure removal o seed headsand to optimise pasture quality.

(i) Allowing pastures to go rank Grazing any grasswhen the lower leaves are being lost through deathand decay is one o the key reasons contributing tothe sub-optimal profitability o pastoral arming. Losso green material in the base o the sward equates tonet loss o DM; a deterioration o pasture quality andpoor conversion o DM to live-weight gain. In most

cases, developing strategies to improve the utilisation opasture by grazing animals is the most immediate andlikely to improve profitability or any pastoral system.Other unwanted outcomes rom allowing pasture tobecome tall and rank include:

Higher pasture mass causes a lower density of tillers,with the average size o tiller larger than or moreintensively grazed swards. Clover populations maybe reduced at a higher pasture mass due to shading

Poor harvesting eciency tall rank pasturesbecome clumpy and sheep particularly will notutilise these well. Even or cattle, tall pastures areharvested inefficiently because the pasture is not

Figure 1. Net pasture production rom a cattle-grazedperennial ryegrass pasture, as influenced by pasture death

and decay (Adapted rom Langer, 1990).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Pasture mass (kg DM/ha)

Pasturegrowth(kgDM/ha/day).

1200-1400 2800-3000

Pasture Death

and Decay

Net Pasture

Production

Pasture Growth

able 2. Daily mega joules o metabolisable energy (MJME) requirements or a 200 kg live-weight heier gaining weightat a range o different daily live-weight gains (between 350950 g/head/day), and the percentage o energy needed orlive-weight gain (expressed as a total o daily energy intake)

Predicted live-weight gain (g/head/day)350 500 650 800 950

MJME or maintenance 33.68 33.68 33.68 33.68 33.68

MJME or live-weight gain 9.10 13.31 17.73 22.37 27.25

otal daily MJME intake 42.78 46.99 51.41 56.05 60.93

MJME or weight gain (as % o total MJME) 21.3 28.3 34.5 39.9 44.7


4/7


easily removed during grazing equates to moreresidual grass remaining

Poor palatability palatability of the grass component

o tall swards is poorer than short better qualitypasture.

Accumulation o seed heads may increase problems o:

Poor pasture quality

Ergot infection of grass seed heads and associatedrisks o ergot toxicity

Greater risk of endophyte toxicity for older cultivarso perennial ryegrasses

Seed drop by potentially unwanted grass species.

(ii) Low pasture mass

Tiller density is increased by grazing pastures to lowpost-grazing residuals provided the sward is notovergrazed

Grazing of grasses to inappropriately low residualswill reduce plant reserves o water-solublecarbohydrates, reduce root development and theproduction o new shoots, and potentially decreasenet DM production

Overgrazing opens up a sward, increasing challengeso broad-lea weeds and unwanted grass species

Grazing to low post-grazing residuals may increaseintake o some anti-nutritional actors. Ingestion othe perennial ryegrass endophyte toxins ergovaline,lolitrem B and other endophyte alkaloids are greatestin the base o the sward (Fletcher 1998).

(d) Helping animals to manage grass quality withinthe optimum grazing horizon

Higher stocking rates, either by running more DSE/ha,or by cropping more areas or taking surplus pasture outor silage or hay, avour improved grass quality throughimproved utilisation o the sward. In some situations,it will be necessary to control surplus pasture, even

or higher stocked properties by buying in additionalstock or conserving some surplus as hay or silage wheretopography permits.

Care is needed when using valuable stock classes toclean up stemmy very poor quality pastures duringspring months when grasses are heading. For example,i spring-joined bee cows are used to clean up rankstemmy tall escue pastures, in-cal rates are likelyto end up below target. In many cases, it is better toconserve a surplus o poor quality pasture as silage orhay (and accept that the quality will not be much good)rather than orcing high value or vulnerable stock to

clean paddocks out.

4. Grazing systems and sheep and cattlenutrition: a practical boots on approach

For most pastoral producers, the principles o advanced

ruminant nutrition have been, and or many will remain,irrelevant. Animal live-weight gains are typically low,well below the genetic capability o the animal. Animalproduction ofen has a greater relationship to soil type,environment, pasture species, pasture cultivars and tothe vagaries o climate than to the application o anadvanced knowledge o animal nutrition. In many caseso sub-optimal pasture nutrition and poor live-weightgain per hectare, basic undamentals including simplygrowing and harvesting (utilising) more DM should beaddressed well beore seeking resolution o the specificnutritional constraints o pasture. A small but growingnumber o producers are applying more advanced eedand animal management techniques to pasture-basedsystems in order to significantly improve productivity.

(a) Te challenges o meeting the nutritionaldemands o pasture-ed stock

As discussed previously, grazed pasture in mostlocalities is rarely available in consistent quantitiesthroughout the season. Deficits in supply o DM mustbe met by appropriate supplementation, in combinationwith appropriate pasture management, agronomy andertiliser to maximise net herbage production. Individualarmer choice and circumstance will determine stocking

rate and hence availability (or not) o surplus pasture tobe carried over as hay or silage to supplement periods oinadequate growth. Where annual eed demand exceedsthe ability o the arm to grow the total required DM, off-arm eed must be sought, giving opportunity to chooseeeds most appropriate to complement pasture or stockmust be removed. Purchased and/or stored eeds canbe readily tested or nutrient composition, eed valueand relevant physical and chemical characteristics.Provided harvesting, manuacturing, storage, handling,transporting and mixing management are appropriateor relevant, composition or most eeds will remain

stable as tested.Grazed pasture can change in composition throughoutthe day. Such changes are insignificant to the averageruminant total DM intake is most ofen the firstlimiting actor on animal perormance, not minorchanges in nutritional composition. Pasture compositionthroughout the area available to graze will also change.Legume-to-grass ratios vary, as do grass species.Any eed testing samples o pasture will be specificto that sample only, and are ofen not representativeo the pasture intake by all animals. Te practicalityand economics o testing numerous pasture samples

throughout the day, everyday, is unrealistic. o a limitedextent, pasture management (especially manipulation


5/7


o rotation length, strategic use o N ertiliser, varyingpre- and post-grazing levels when rotationally grazing)can be used to optimise consistency o pasture, but adegree o variability remains.

(b) Maximising dry matter intake

For eed lots, MR are ormulated to optimise DMintake. For pasture systems, the management o bothpasture and animals must be fine-tuned to maximiseintake or pasture-ed animals. Pasture is not a nutrient-dense eed, and as grazed is sometimes o very low DMper cent, particularly over the winter and spring. ooptimise nutrient intake rom pasture, animals mustconsume huge volumes o wet eeds. During periods orapid growth, especially in spring and autumn, pastureDM per cent may be as low as 1015% wet weight or

high quality, well managed temperate pastures. otalmixed rations can be ormulated at 4060% DM,necessitating a much lower dietary wet weight intake.For wet pasture, stock must take more mouthuls, ofenin more energy demanding circumstances, to obtainequivalent DM intakes.

Optimising DM intake in grazing animals requiresexcellent animal management to ensure that motivatedstock want to, are able to, and can process high volumeso wet pasture. Pasture must be presented to the animalsin such a manner as to enable maximum swallowablebite sizes, collected in minimum time, or maximum

hours per day. Deficiencies in animal management canrequently be hidden by excellent ration ormulationin a MR eedlot situation. Deficiencies in animalmanagement in a grazed situation result in significantlylower nutrient intake and/or excessively high rates ocondition loss.

(c) Dry matter intake challenges or pasture-eddairy stock

Dry matter intake is calculated as:

Dry matter intake = x R x S

Where = time available or grazing; R = bites per unittime; S = average bite size

(i) or time available or grazing Adverse weatherconditions can limit the time spent grazing. Sheepand cattle huddling or shelter in driving rain, orexample, may spend less total time grazing but needto meet higher maintenance requirements. Conversely,stock that seek shade under hot conditions or spendconsiderable time walking to sources o stock waterhave a reduced grazing time.

(ii) R or bites per unit time Tis is influenced by eedor pasture characteristics and by animal actors. Leay,

high digestibility dense pasture is quickly collected bite numbers per minute can be equal to that or

MR ed stock on a eedlot, provided bite size does notlimit speed and ease o swallowing. Most cattle MRsconsist o ood particles o less than 25 mm in length pasture as grazed can be o significantly longer length,

impeding the ability o some cattle to quickly propeleach bite down the oesophagus.

It is unlikely that low DM% pasture per se limitsperormance, but to collect 10 kg DM o wet grassmay necessitate a wet volume intake o 100 kg o10% DM pasture. Cattle do adapt to high wet volumediets by better and bigger rumen capacity.

As pasture ages or enters the reproductive stages,shear time may increase, slowing the rate ocollection, and decreasing the number o bites perunit time, compromising perormance. Shortening

rotation length, strategic N use or removal osome eed to be conserved may aid intake. Suracemoisture on external lea suraces can change thecoefficient o riction, and hence slow down bite ratevia slower swallowing times. Tis has implicationsor ruminants grazing in wet weather, when energyrequirements are likely to be increased, or ollowingheavy dew.

Animals must also be managed to want to eat thatextra mouthul. Clinically or sub-clinically ketoticanimals (ewes pre-lambing, bee cows afer calving)and/or rumen acidotic animals have depressed

appetites they take less bites per unit time, and eator less total time.

(iii) Average bite size (S) Average bite size willprimarily be influenced by pasture length. Long pasturedoes not, however, guarantee maximum bite size,especially where the proportion o stalky material ishigh. Collecting handuls o grass is a practical methodo determining the average sheer height and ease ocollection by cattle. ry wrapping pasture around yourfingers and tearing off the pasture this is exactly howcattle need to graze, by tearing pasture off with theirtongues (compared with sheep that graze by biting off

pasture). Cattle grazing tougher pasture requently needto tug slowing rate o bites, and the bite size collectedmay be less than optimum.

Short pasture (less than 1520 cm or cattle) may restrictbite size, there being physically less material availableto collect this can be o consequence when having tocompromise between short pasture to maintain quality(eg. tall escue that is heading) and optimal per headanimal productivity.

Pasture plant and lea density will influence final bitesize as well as bite rate. In some poor quality, low-densitypastures, animals have to take more steps betweenbites and each bite collected may contain less material,limiting total DM intake.


6/7


(d) Balancing some specific nutritional challengeso pastures

While there is much debate on the potential perormance

limitations placed on grazed sheep or cattle by changesand deficiencies in the nutritional composition opasture diets, the opportunity to fine-tune or torebalance dietary intake is limited or most producers.

In a high perorming MR ed eed-lot animal, rumenunction and live-weight gain potential are optimisedby ensuring a constant supply o eed to the animal witha consistent known nutritional composition, chosento stimulate maximum potential production. Evenwhen the nutritional deficiencies o pasture are known,and can be supplemented by offering other eeds (eg.silage or grain), what is actually in the rumen at any

given time may have little resemblance to the ration asormulated. rue MR diets are impossible to mimici grazed pasture is a significant proportion o the totaldiet. Complementary eeding by offering supplementsto pasture-ed sheep or cattle is targeted at improvingtotal DM and nutrient intake, encouraging betterrumen unction, enhancing animal health and grosslybalancing nutrients at a rumen level.

(i) Crude protein (CP) and amino acids

oo much CP Sheep and cattle reared on high qualitygrazing systems develop a tolerance or high intakeso highly degradable dietary CP. Rather than limitthe CP intakes, it is more economical and practicalor producers to enhance capture o CP by providingmore dietary starch and sugars, thus producing moremicrobial protein, less ammonia or to dilute totaldietary CP intake by using low CP eeds as part o thediet. Tis is o particular relevance when transitioningsheep or cattle off poor quality, low protein summerpastures onto post-autumn break flush eed. Teamino acid profile o pasture might not be consideredoptimal or maximum live-weight gain but realistically,amino acid nutrition is o limited relevance or pasture-ed cattle and sheep. otal CP intake over the summer

when pasture quality is poor is more likely to constrainanimal productivity than deficiencies o specific aminoacids. Exceptions may include intake o sulphur- (S)containing amino acids or wool production, due to therequirement or S-containing amino acids during woolgrowth.

Insufficient CP More commonly or young sheepor cattle on poorer quality summer grass-dominantpasture, CP deficiency may constrain potentiallive-weight gain. Older sheep and cattle have lesserrequirements or CP and better tolerate pastures thatcontain low levels o CP. For young sheep and cattle,

the financial benefits o supplementing a poor qualitypasture with a high CP supplement (eg. concentratethat contains canola or soybean meal), or summer crops

where climate is avourable must be evaluated on a cost-benefit basis. Under some circumstances, urea can beed to sheep and cattle, however, care is needed withthe delivery o urea (ideally urea needs to be blended

with a carbohydrate source such as grain or molassesto improve the utilisation o urea and to reduce risko urea toxicity). Expectations o animal productivityrom urea-supplementation should be considerablylower than or animals supplemented with sources otrue proteins.

(ii) Non-structural carbohydrates Non-structuralcarbohydrate (NSC) is ofen the second most significantlimiting nutritional actor in pasture-ed, highperormance sheep or cattle, afer total DM intake. Onhigh quality, N boosted/high CP pasture, a significantamount o dietary N is lost via degradation to ammonia

because o a lack o complementary intake o NSC.Consequent conversion to urea is energy-demanding,urther exacerbating loss o live-weight gain potential.Rapidly ermentable sources o NSC such as cerealgrains or molasses may contribute to lowered rumenpH, particularly i the supplement is ed out only two tothree times per week. Sub-clinical acidosis can depresstotal DM intake, impair rumen unction (particularlycellulose and hemicellulose digestion), and reduceeed conversion efficiency. Pasture intake alls, andsubstitution can occur (substitution means wastage opasture when supplements are ed). O concern is the

possibility that rumen acidosis may also contribute to agreater incidence o lameness in cattle (Westwood et al.2003). Depression o rumen pH is most commonlyattributed to high concentrate and poorly designed MRdiets, but the potential or pasture-only diets to causesub-acute acidosis should not be ignored. As previouslymentioned, anything that depresses the appetite insheep or cattle operating on a less than perect diet willhave significant effects on perormance.

(iii) Fibre Neutral detergent fibre (NDF) levels inpasture vary with climate, season, species and cultivarcomposition, grazing management and ertiliser

regime. For maximum live-weight gain and productionpotential and high DM intake, pasture managementaims to provide highly digestible, leay, easy-to-collect eed. By its very nature, such pasture may haveinadequate physically effective NDF (peNDF) or cattle(and occasionally sheep), characterised by less cud-chewing (ewer than 45 chews per cud or cattle), lowerrumen scores and loose aeces. Where CP levels are alsohigh, dung may be extremely fluid, dark and bubbly.Excessively loose aeces are unacceptable in cattle orwhich there is a high live-weight gain expectation.Lengthening the rotation length or supplementation

with long stem fibre (eg. hay, cereal straw) may benecessary to improve rumen pH and unction. Use o


7/7


buffers and rumen modifiers with supplementary eedmay help.

(iv) Macro and trace minerals and vitamins As well as

variability o macro-nutrients, the mineral and vitamincontent o pasture is inconsistent. Concentrationso minerals and the presence o other antagonisticactors that impede uptake and the absolute DM intakecombine to determine actual mineral availability. Formost sheep and cattle ed sufficient quantities o leaypasture, macro, trace mineral and vitamin deficienciesare rarely directly limiting on live-weight gain or milkproduction. Limitations can occur on very poor qualitygrass dominant summer pasture and are influencedby soil type and previous ertiliser history. Te lowphosphorus concentration o tropical grasses andlegumes are well known, particularly or mature and

stemmy tropical pastures. Other nutritional attributeso tropical pastures may limit productivity, or example,low concentrations o calcium in tropical pastures vs.temperate pastures, however, high perormance stockclasses with an above average demand or calcium (eg.lactating dairy cattle) are unlikely to be wholly relianton tropical pastures as a high substantial proportiono the diet. Conversely, magnesium concentrationsare lower in temperate than tropical pastures andsupplementation o pregnant or lactating bee cattlewith magnesium is ofen appropriate. As perormanceexpectations increase; especially or extremely rapid

live-weight gain, production requirements or mineralsdo become more significant. Feed and animal levels canbe tested, monitored and adjusted as per the NationalResearch Council (NRC) Nutrient Requirements oSheep or the NRC Nutrient Requirements o BeeCattle, with recommendations as appropriate.

(v) Anti-nutritional actors Anti-nutritional actorspresent in pasture do directly limit perormance. Teperennial ryegrass-associated ungal toxins (lolitremB, ergovaline, sporidesmin) have significant effects onproduction, animal health and profitability where oldercultivars o perennial ryegrass orm the eed-base or

pasture-ed sheep and cattle. Phalaris staggers remainsa risk actor or sheep grazing phalaris. Nitrate toxicityis a risk actor or cattle and sheep grazing annualpastures sown or winter eed production.

Conclusions: lifing per head productivity orpasture-ed sheep and cattle

Te significance o pasture quality as a potentiallimiter or animal productivity is largely influencedby a producers expectation o per head and per haproductivity. oo many NSW properties are growinginsufficient DM per ha and are under-utilising pastures

grown, and these two key actors dictate both per headand per ha live-weight gain. For many producers, it is

more important to consider ways to grow more orage(kg DM/ha) and to harvest/utilise more o the DMgrown. Better NSW producers achieve 70 per centutilisation or more o pasture grown, with benefits o

better live-weight gain per hectare and improved perhead perormance due to better pasture quality. Gainsoccur through improved pasture management, controlo stocking rate and optimum pasture mass (DM/ha).

Opportunities exist or producers who are alreadyachieving excellent pasture DM production andutilisation to improve per head productivity bycomplementary eeding that is, supplementing highperormance pastures with relatively small quantities osupplements, including extra starch to increase the dailyenergy intake, or fibre to improve rumen unction onhigh quality lush pasture. Understanding the nutritional

constraints o pastures throughout the year is the keyto the development o strategic use o complementarysupplementation. Te realisation o profit rom suchopportunities relies on a presumption that the DM yieldand utilisation (harvest) o pasture is already at optimallevels and profit is sensitive to both supplementary eedprices and cattle or sheep sale prices.

Conversely, changes to pasture management can ofenbe relatively simple and cost-effective to implement,such that pasture utilisation can be improved. Allproduction systems should critically evaluate DMgrown and harvested per ha and seek efficiencies inthis area. For specific stock classes at times o the yearwhen they are rewarded by sufficiently high premiums,additional benefits may be gained rom complementaryeeding.

Reerences

Fletcher LR (1998) Endophyte on the dairy arm, is it aproblem? In Proceedings o the 15th Annual Seminaro the Society o Dairy Cattle Veterinarians o the NZVeterinary Association. (Convenor W. Webber) pp. 119132. (Rotorua, New Zealand)

Holmes CW, Brookes IM, Garrick DJ, MacKenzie DDS,Parkinson J (2002) Milk production rom pasture:

Principles and practices. Massey University. PalmerstonNorth, New Zealand.

Langer RHM (Ed.) (1990) Pastures: their ecology andmanagement. (Oxord University Press: Auckland, NewZealand)

Nelson CJ, Moser LE (1994) Plant actors affecting oragequality. In National Conerence on Forage Quality,Evaluation and Utilisation. (Ed. GC Fahey) pp. 115154.(American Society o Agronomy, Inc.: Wisconsin)

Van Vuuren AM, amminga S, Ketelaar RS (1991) In saccodegradation o organic matter and crude protein o reshgrass (Lolium perenne) in the rumen o grazing dairy cows.

Journal o Agricultural Science116, 429436.Westwood C, Bramley E, Lean IJ (2003) Review o the

relationship between nutrition and lameness in pasture-ed dairy cattle. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 51,208218.

Documents

Pastures for Animal Production