Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Forage Science The Journal of the British Grassland Society The Official Journal of the European Grassland Federation
2 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2494.2010.00780.x
Grazing lands and grazing animals 3
regarding grazing lands and grazing animals. Terms John Hodgson, New Zealand
included here have relevance to both domesticated and Mort Kothmann, United States
wild grazing animals. It is intended that these terms Xianglin Li, China
enhance communication in education, science, indus- John McIvor, Australia
try and production and that they become the standard John Milne, United Kingdom
for use in publications. It has been our goal to include Craig Morris, South Africa
terms that are relevant specifically to grazing lands and Alain Peeters, Belgium
grazing animals and to present these, where appropri- Matt Sanderson, United States
ate, in a hierarchy that shows the relationships among
such terms. For example, certain terms such as ‘grazing Supporting member
land’ are all-inclusive and are then followed by terms
relating to the various types of grazing lands. We have Garry Lacefield
attempted to agree on a single, concise definition for Extension Forage Specialist
each term and to avoid multiple definitions. Variations University of Kentucky, USA
among terms used in countries where English is one of Secretary, Forage and Grassland Foundation
the official languages were taken into account. Because
of international variations in a few terms, we have Representatives to the International
included a list of the various international interpreta- Congresses
tions in an Appendix but have recommended the use of
Jim O’Rourke
a specific term and definition. It is hoped that this will
Representative to the International Rangeland Con-
take us towards a more uniform international language.
gress
In the case of most terms and definitions, we have
Rancher, Chadron, Nebraska, USA
arrived at a consensus opinion. In a few cases, use will
Past president, International Rangeland Congress
be needed to see whether these will stand the test of
Continuing Committee
time. We hope that in such cases, we have taken the
Nan Zhibiao
steps to move the language forward towards more
Representative to the International Grassland Con-
precise and meaningful terms and definitions. Finally,
gress
as we reviewed terms and definitions, there were some
Dean, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and
that did not appear to contribute to clear commu-
Technology
nication. We have listed these in an Appendix and
Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
provided an explanation for our recommendation that
Member, International Grassland Congress Contin-
they are not used.
uing Committee
Ours is a living language that will continue to evolve
as new concepts emerge, techniques and methods
change, and our international language becomes more
International Congress
precise. Thus, the mechanism established by the IGC
Chairs ⁄ Presidents
and the IRC for periodic review and revision of Guy Allard
Terminology for Grazing Lands and Grazing Animals Associate Dean of Studies
must be continued but with sufficient time between Université Laval, Québec, Canada
revisions to allow for adequate testing to see where Chair, International Grassland Congress Continuing
terms are missing and revisions are required. Committee
Finally, on behalf of the International Forage and Iain Wright
Grazing Lands Terminology Committee, we are sub- Regional Representative for Asia
mitting this International Terminology for Grazing Lands International Livestock Research Institute, India
and Grazing Animals to the IGC and the IRC with our President, International Rangeland Congress Contin-
appreciation for the challenge and opportunity that you uing Committee
have entrusted to us. It has been a privilege and an
honour to serve. Acknowledgements
March, 2011
This publication was funded jointly by the Forage and
Grassland Foundation, Inc., Lexington, Kentucky, USA,
Members of the committee the International Grassland Congress, and the Interna-
Vivien Allen, Chair, United States tional Rangeland Congress. Appreciation is expressed to
Caterina Batello, Italy the Members of the Forage and Grazing Lands Task
Elbio J. Berretta, Uruguay Force and Working Group (Mort Kothmann, Chair) for
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
4 V. G. Allen et al.
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
Grazing lands and grazing animals 5
1.1.3.3 Permanent pastureland ⁄ grassland (n.). 1.1.4.1 Desertland (n.). Land on which vegetation is
Land on which vegetation is composed of perennial or sparse or absent and is characterized by an arid climate.
self-seeding annual forage species which may persist Deserts may be classified as hot or cold deserts depending
indefinitely. It may include either naturalized or culti- on latitude and elevation.
vated forages. 1.1.4.2 Native or natural grassland (n.). Natural
1.1.3.4 Temporary pastureland ⁄ grassland (n.). ecosystem dominated by indigenous or naturally occur-
Land on which vegetation is composed of annual, ring grasses and other herbaceous species used mainly
biennial, or perennial forage species kept for a short for grazing by livestock and wildlife (cf. Naturalized
period of time (usually only a few years). pastureland, 1.1.3.5; Rangeland, 1.1.4; Pastureland and
Grassland, 1.1.3).
Note No. 1.1.3.4.
Temporary pastureland ⁄ grassland can be regularly
resown or can be integrated in a crop rotation (ley). Note No. 1.1.4.2.
It is usually composed of simple mixtures of grasses, There are many types of natural grasslands, with
grass ⁄ legume or legume species. vegetation characteristics determined by climate
and soil conditions, by grazing animals and by fire.
Examples of local ⁄ regional variations follow. Geo-
1.1.3.4.1 Ley (n.). Temporary pastureland ⁄ grassland graphical regions where examples may be found are
that is integrated in a crop rotation. provided in parentheses following the definition.
1.1.3.5 Naturalized pastureland ⁄ grassland (n.). This is not an all-inclusive list of grassland types or
Forage species present are primarily introduced from of locations in which they are found but provides
other geographical regions that have become estab- some examples.
lished and have persisted under the existing conditions
of environment and management over a long time.
1.1.3.6 Semi-natural pastureland ⁄ grassland (n.).
Managed ecosystem dominated by indigenous or nat- 1.1.4.2.1 Campos (n.). Grassland consisting mainly of
urally occurring grasses and other herbaceous species grasses, along with herbs, small shrubs and occasional
(cf. Native grassland, 1.1.4.2). trees; on undulating and hilly landscape, with variable
1.1.3.6.1 Meadow (n.). A natural or semi-natural soil fertility. Differs from Cerrado in having a longer and
grassland often associated with the conservation of hay more severe winter and a relative abundance of native
or silage. legumes. The campos is the northern part of the Pampa.
The sub-tropical climate is humid, warm in summer
and mild in winter. (Examples: Uruguay, southern
Note No. 1.1.3.6.1. Brazil and north-eastern Argentina).
A meadow may exist as a result of discontinuous 1.1.4.2.2 Cerrado (n.). Savanna (1.1.4.2.7) with
features of hydrology, landscape position, or soil varying amounts of trees and shrubs along rivers and
characteristics that differ from the surrounding land- in valley bottoms. It is characterized by a tropical
scape and vegetation. Descriptive terms include climate with alternating wet and dry seasons. The
‘mountain meadow,’ ‘alpine meadow,’ ‘wet mea- wet season lasts usually 6 months. (Example: central
dow,’ and ‘hay meadow.’ ‘Flower meadows’ are kept Brazil).
for aesthetic interest and can also provide feeding or 1.1.4.2.3 Llanos (n.). Extensive system of grasslands,
bedding. seasonally flooded, with infertile and acidic soils. The
tropical climate is characterized by alternating wet and
1.1.4 Rangeland (n.). Land on which the indigenous dry seasons. (Examples: plains east of the Andes in
vegetation (climax or sub-climax) is predominantly Bolivia, Colombia and Venezuela).
grasses, grass-like plants, forbs or shrubs that are grazed 1.1.4.2.4 Pampa (n.). Treeless grasslands on flat and
or have the potential to be grazed, and which is used as fertile plains. The Pampa is a temperate grassland or a
a natural ecosystem for the production of grazing sub-tropical steppe. The climate is humid to arid;
livestock and wildlife. summers are warm and winters are mild. (Examples:
eastern and central Argentina).
Note No. 1.1.4. 1.1.4.2.5 Prairie (n.). Nearly level or rolling grassland,
Rangelands may include natural grasslands, savan- originally treeless or with a few scattered trees, and
nas, shrublands, many deserts, steppes, tundras, usually on fertile soils. It may be characterized as a
alpine communities and marshes. short-grass, intermediate-grass, or tall-grass prairie
depending on the influence of a continental climate
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
6 V. G. Allen et al.
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
Grazing lands and grazing animals 7
2.1.3.3.3 Seed (n.). Mature (ripened) ovules consisting ally greater than 5 m. Coppice growth on a tree may
of an embryonic plant and a store of food (stored in the have multiple basal stems.
endosperm, in some species), all surrounded by a
protective seed coat.
2.3 Forage canopy characteristics
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
8 V. G. Allen et al.
2.3.6 Forage mass (n.). The total dry weight of forage per
unit area of land above a defined reference level, usually Note No. 2.3.7.
ground level, at a specific time (cf. Biomass, 2.3.5; When appropriate, litter may be more narrowly
Applicable also to Herbage, 2.1.3.2 and Browse, 2.1.3.1). defined, for example as tree litter (large woody
material including branches and dead trees). Mulch
is frequently used as a term for herbaceous material.
Notes No. 2.3.5 and 2.3.6.
1. Dry weight is defined as dried at 105C to a
constant weight unless otherwise noted. 3. Forage growth and harvest
2. Biomass and forage mass are instantaneous
measures. To describe them over time, a series
Note No. 3.
of instantaneous measures of biomass ⁄ forage
In this section, terms are defined primarily in the
mass are averaged. Change over time or the
context of grazed forages but are equally relevant to
accumulated biomass ⁄ forage mass is determined
mechanically harvested forages. Measurements may
by the difference between an end point and an
be reported in terms of fresh weight or (preferably)
initial point.
dry matter or organic matter weight per unit area
3. Biomass can include both forage and non-forage
(g m)2; kg ha)1; t ha)1) and per unit time (day,
vegetation per unit area while forage mass is
year), but may also be expressed per plant or plant
specific to forage plants.
unit.
4. Depending on requirements, biomass and forage
mass should be specified as above-ground at a
specified cutting height, or below-ground as 3.1 Components of growth, senescence and decomposition
described by measurement method.
5. In practice, the soil surface can be difficult to Note No. 3.1.
define objectively, and subjective decisions about Terms in this section are presented in order of
the soil ⁄ litter interface and the distribution of logical progression and not in alphabetical order.
stems, roots, stolons and rhizomes may be
required but the methods used to define the soil 3.1.1 Growth (n.). The production of new plant tissue
surface should be clearly stated. by forage plants.
6. It should be specified whether the biomass or
forage mass is alive or dead, at the time of
harvesting, and the proportions of each if both Note No. 3.1.1.
are included. The term forage growth is used here specifically to
7. The term forage mass is preferred to alternatives define the rate of production of new plant tissue. It
like ‘standing crop,’ ‘forage yield’ and ‘available can also be used as a general descriptor of plant
forage,’ which involve assumptions (often development and structural change over time (see
unspecified) about canopy characteristics and Accumulation, 3.1.2).
harvesting procedures. The term ‘pasture cover’
is also widely used as a synonym for herbage mass, 3.1.2 Accumulation (n.). The increase in forage mass
but is best reserved for use as a measure of the unit area)1 over a specified time, representing the
proportion of ground covered by a crop canopy (cf. balance among growth, senescence, decomposition of
Canopy cover, 2.3.2.2). Use of indeterminate dead organs and consumption by animals.
terms like ‘available’ to describe an amount of 3.1.3 Senescence (n.). Applied to plants or organs, it is
forage is not recommended. the process of remobilization and transfer of soluble
constituents from mature to immature plant tissues that
occurs with advancing age of plant parts, or through
2.3.6.1 Aftermath (n.). Forage that grows following a drought stress or depredation by pests, and is usually
harvest. accompanied by chlorosis and subsequent death of
2.3.6.2 Residue (n.). Forage remaining on the land mature tissue. Senescence is accompanied by a loss of
after harvest (cf. Stubble, 2.3.6.3). dry matter as cell contents of the live tissue are
2.3.6.3 Stubble (n.). The basal portion of stems and metabolized and ⁄ or translocated.
leaves of herbaceous plants left standing after harvest 3.1.4 Decomposition (n.). The processes of bio-
(cf. Residue, 2.3.6.2). degradation of dead plant material, including detach-
2.3.7 Litter (n.). An accumulation of dead detached ment from the plant, movement to the litter layer and
plant material at the soil surface. incorporation into soil organic matter.
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
Grazing lands and grazing animals 9
3.2 Defoliation and harvest 3.3.1.2 Hay (n.). Harvested forage preserved by drying
generally to a moisture content of less than 200 g kg)1.
3.2.1 Defoliation (n.). Removal of plant tissue by
3.3.1.3 Haylage (n.). Harvested forage ensiled at a
grazing animals or machinery.
moisture content of less than 500 g kg)1.
3.3.1.4 Silage (n.). Forage harvested and preserved
Note No. 3.2.1. at high moisture contents (generally >500 g kg)1) by
While ‘defoliate’ is derived from ‘foliage’ which organic acids produced during partial anaerobic fermen-
means ‘leaves,’ defoliation under grazing or tation (Syn. Ensilage).
mechanical harvest removes leaves, stems and 3.3.1.4.1 Ensiling (v.). To produce silage by the process
inflorescences in varying proportions. of fermentation of forages.
3.3.1.4.2 Silo (n.). The container used in the preserva-
tion of forage as silage.
3.2.1.1 Browse (v.). To consume browse in situ by 3.3.1.5 Stockpiled forage (n.). Forage allowed to
animals [cf. Browse (n.), 2.1.3.1; Forage, 3.2.1.2; accumulate for grazing at a later time [Syn. Feed wedge
Graze, 3.2.1.3]. (New Zealand), Foggage (Europe, South Africa)].
3.2.1.2 Forage (v.). To search for or to consume forage
[cf. Forage (n.), 2.1.3; Browse, 3.2.1.1; Graze, 3.2.1.3].
3.2.1.3 Graze (v.). To consume predominantly herba- Note No. 3.3.1.5.
ceous forage in situ by animals [cf. Browse, 3.2.1.1; Forage is often stockpiled for later grazing in a period
Forage, 3.2.1.2]. when growth is reduced or nil (example autumn and
winter in temperate regions, summer in Mediterra-
nean regions, dry season in tropical regions) but
Note No. 3.2.1.3. stockpiling may occur at any time during the year as a
The verb, graze, should be used in the active form part of a management plan. Foggage usually refers to
with the animal as the subject. The verb should not be late growing-season accumulation for winter grazing.
used in the passive voice so as to imply that a person is Stockpiling can be described in terms of Deferment,
the subject or actor; i.e., cattle graze; people do not 5.6.1 and Accumulation, 3.1.2.
graze cattle.
3.2.3 Ungrazed (adj.). (i) describes the status of grazing Note No. 4.1.1.
land that is not grazed by animals and; (ii) the status of The residue remaining after complete combustion of
plants or plant parts that are not grazed by animals (cf. organic matter.
Rest, 5.6.5).
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
10 V. G. Allen et al.
4.1.3 Digestibility (n.). The proportion of the dry 4.1.5 Fibre (US: Fiber) (n.). A nutritional entity that
matter, organic matter or nutrients absorbed during is relatively resistant to digestion and is slowly and
passage though the digestive tract. only partially degraded by herbivores (Barnes et al.,
2007).
4.1.4.1 Gross energy (n.). The heat of combustion of 4.1.6.1 Anti-quality (adj.). A description of any
matter. chemical factor in forage (such as lignin, an alkaloid,
4.1.4.2 Digestible energy (DE) (n.). The energy a phytohormone or a toxin) that negatively affects the
apparently absorbed from the digestive tract (energy animal including their animal physiology, health and
in the food minus energy lost in the faeces). well-being, reproduction and intake, or the degree to
4.1.4.3 Metabolizable energy (ME) (n.). The energy which the forage meets nutritional requirements of a
available for metabolism by an animal (energy in the specific kind and class of animal (cf. Quality, 4.1.6).
food minus faecal energy, urinary energy and gaseous 4.1.6.2 Nutritive value (n.). The predicted animal
energy losses) (See Utilized Metabolizable Energy, response based on chemical composition, digestibility
Appendix I, 4.1.4.3). and nature of digested products, as estimated by in vitro
4.1.4.4 Net energy (NE) (n.). Metabolizable energy or in vivo chemical analyses.
minus energy lost as heat of fermentation and heat of 4.1.6.3 Relative feed value (RFV) (n.). An index for
nutrient metabolism. The net increase in useful animal ranking cool-season grass and legume forages based on
product expressed per unit increase in food intake. the intake of digestible energy calculated from acid-
4.1.4.4.1 Net energy for maintenance (n.). Change detergent fibre (ADF) and neutral-detergent fibre
in retained energy per unit of feed intake measured (NDF) concentrations in forage (See Appendix I,
between an intake of zero and intake when retained 4.1.6.3).
energy equals zero. 4.1.7 Total digestible nutrients (TDN) (n.). A general
4.1.4.4.2 Net energy for gain (product deposi- measure of the nutritive value of a feed calculated from
tion) (n.). Change in retained energy per unit of feed the intake of digestible nutrients, with adjustment for
intake measured in a growing animal consuming an the energy value of fat (See Appendix I, 4.1.7).
intake that results in a retained energy greater than 4.1.7.1 Relative forage quality (RFQ) (n.). An index
zero. for ranking all forages based on the intake of total
4.1.4.4.3 Net energy for lactation (n.). Change in digestible nutrients calculated by summative equations
lactation energy (i.e., energy in milk) per unit of feed after estimating digestible portions of protein, fatty
intake measured under conditions in which retained acids, fibre and non-fibrous carbohydrate (See Appen-
energy remains constant. dix I, 4.1.7.1).
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
Grazing lands and grazing animals 11
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
12 V. G. Allen et al.
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
Grazing lands and grazing animals 13
Note No. 5.3. the parts of the system. When a system compo-
A grazing management unit may be a single area or nent is managed in isolation away from the
it may have a number of subdivisions (cf. Paddock, influence of the rest of the system, it is no longer
5.3.3; Pasture, 5.3.4). It may also include periods of under the same influences and may behave
grazing and periods of rest depending on the differently. Thus, when managed within a system,
stocking method(s) used or migrations of wildlife responses and behaviour of plants and animals
and does not imply continuous occupation by may differ from those observed when managed
grazing animals during the defined time. alone or in another system.
2. Descriptive common names may be used; how-
ever, the first usage of a grazing system name in a
5.3.1 Camp (n.). An area where animals choose to rest publication should be followed by a description
or are confined by herders (cf. Paddock, 5.3.3). using a standard format. This format should
5.3.2 Field (n.). A defined area of land used for include at least the following information: num-
cultivating crops or growing forages. ber, size, kind, slope, erosion status and soil
5.3.3 Paddock (n.). A grazing area that is a sub-divi- classification of land units; number, kind, gender,
sion of a grazing management unit and is enclosed and size and age of livestock; duration of use and
separated from other areas by a fence or barrier (cf. non-use periods for each unit in the system;
Camp, 5.3.1; Grazing management unit, 5.3; Pasture, stocking method(s) (see 5.5 and 7.0); type(s) of
5.3.4). forage; and geographical location and elevation;
5.3.4 Pasture (n.). A type of grazing management unit type of climate, mean annual and seasonal
enclosed and separated from other areas by fencing or temperatures, and precipitation amounts and
other barriers and devoted to the production of forage distribution.
for harvest primarily by grazing (cf. Grazing manage- 3. Grazing systems generally can be grouped into
ment unit, 5.3; Paddock, 5.3.3; Pastureland, 1.1.3; categories (see Williams, 1981).
Forage, 2.1.3).
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
14 V. G. Allen et al.
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
Grazing lands and grazing animals 15
Note No. 5.6.10. The ‘average’ carrying capacity refers to the long-
The stocking season may be the whole year or a term carrying capacity averaged over years,
very short time span and is normally a function of whereas the ‘annual’ carrying capacity refers to a
forage mass and climate. In this context, the specific year. It may also be defined over parts of
vegetative growing season may be only a part of years.
the stocking season. Likewise, the stocking season While the definition above applies to the objective
may be only a part of the vegetative growing season. of animal production, there are increasing num-
bers of land uses that can be the primary objective
of carrying capacity. These include economic,
6. Land–forage–animal relationships environmental and ecological objectives and those
relating to biodiversity, ecotourism, global climate
change and recreation. Because of the multifunc-
Note No. 6.
tional uses of grazing lands, the carrying capacity
This section describes relationships among grazing
can differ from one objective to another.
animals, land and forage. Unless otherwise noted,
all animal and forage weights are expressed in kg
and land areas are expressed in ha.
6.2 Stocking density (n.). The relationship between
the number of animals and the specific unit of land
6.1 Stocking rate (n.). The relationship between the being grazed at any one time; an instantaneous mea-
number of animals and the total area of the land in one or surement of the animal-to-land area relationship (cf.
more units utilized over a specified time; an animal- Stocking rate, 6.1).
to-land relationship over time (cf. Stocking density, 6.2).
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
16 V. G. Allen et al.
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
Grazing lands and grazing animals 17
7.6 Forward creep stocking (n.). A method of creep Note No. 7.12.
stocking where dams and offspring rotate through a Non-selective stocking is generally attempted by
series of paddocks with offspring as first grazers and using mob stocking with a high animal-to-forage
dams as last grazers. A specific form of First-last stocking ratio during short time periods. In practice, stocking
(7.5). (Syn. Forward creep grazing). to overcome preference is achieved rarely.
7.7 Frontal stocking (n.). A method that allocates
forage within a land area by means of a sliding fence
that livestock can advance to gain access to ungrazed 7.13 Put-and-take stocking (n.). A method of using
forage (See Volesky, 1990; Syn. Frontal grazing). variable animal numbers during a stocking period or
7.8 Intensive early stocking (n.). A method of using stocking season, with a periodic adjustment in animal
high grazing pressure during an initial restricted period numbers in an attempt to maintain desired manage-
of the stocking season followed by total removal of ment criteria, e.g., a desired quantity of forage, degree
livestock for the remainder of the season to allow rest of defoliation, or grazing pressure.
and recovery by the forage (See Smith and Owensby, 7.14 Ration stocking (n.). A method of confining
1978; Grings et al., 2002). animals to an area of grazing land to provide the daily
allowance of forage animal)1 (cf. Strip stocking, 7.19;
Note No. 7.8. Syn. Ration grazing).
This method, designed for use with native range- 7.15 Rotational stocking (n.). A method that utilizes
lands dominated by warm-season species, provides a recurring periods of grazing and rest among three or
way to maximize use of forage during the early part more paddocks in a grazing management unit through-
of the stocking season when digestibility is generally out the time when grazing is allowed (cf. Continuous
highest and to overcome low forage digestibility stocking, 7.2).
during late summer.
Note No. 7.15.
The lengths of the grazing and rest periods should be
7.9 Intermittent stocking (n.). A method that defined.
imposes grazing on a particular management unit or Words such as ‘controlled’ or ‘intensive’ are some-
area of land for indefinite periods at irregular intervals. times used in an attempt to describe the degree of
7.10 Mixed stocking (n.). A method of stocking two grazing management applied to this stocking meth-
or more species of grazing or browsing animals on the od. These words are not synonyms for rotational
same land unit, not necessarily at the same time but stocking.
within the same stocking season.
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
18 V. G. Allen et al.
7.16 Seasonal stocking (n.). A method to restrict use Definitions of terms were referenced if they were
of a land unit(s) to one or more specific seasons of the used verbatim as they appeared in the original refer-
year. ence. All other definitions have been developed or
7.17 Sequence (sequential) stocking (n.). The graz- revised by the first and second Forage and Grazing
ing of two or more land units in succession that differ in Terminology Committees. In certain cases, a reference
forage species composition. was included to provide the reader with a source of
additional information.
AF R C (AG R I C U L T U R A L A N D FO O D RE S E A R C H CO U N C I L )
Note No. 7.17.
(1990) AFRC Technical Committee on responses to
Sequence stocking takes advantage of differences nutrients Report No 5. Nutrient requirements of
among forage species and species combinations, ruminant animals: energy. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews,
grown in separate areas for management purposes, 60, 729–804.
to extend stocking seasons to enhance forage quality AL L E N V.G. (1991) Terminology for grazing animals.
and ⁄ or quantity or to achieve some other manage- Proceedings of Grazing Livestock Nutrition Conference. In F.T.
ment objective. McCollum and M.B. Judkins (ed.) Proceedings of the 2nd
Grazing Livestock Nutrition Conference, 2–3 August,
1991, Steamboat Springs, Colorado, pp. 103–110.
Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Stillwater.
7.18 Set stocking (n.). A method that allows a specific, BA K E R R.D. (1982) Estimating herbage intake from animal
non-variable number of animals on a specific, non- performance. In: Leaver J. D. (ed.) Herbage intake handbook,
variable area of land during the time when grazing is pp. 77–93. Hurley, Berks, UK: The British Grassland
allowed (cf. Variable stocking, 7.20). Society.
7.19 Strip stocking (n.). A method that confines BA K E R R.D. (2004) Estimating herbage intake from animal
animals to an area of grazing land to be grazed in a performance. In: Penning P.D. (ed.) Herbage intake
relatively short time, where the paddock size is varied to handbook, 2nd edn, p. 2. Reading, UK: The British
Grassland Society.
allow access to a specific land area (cf. Ration stocking,
BA R N E S R.F. (1981) The role of forage in the United States.
7.14; Syn. Strip grazing).
In: Wheeler J.L. and Mochrie R.D. (eds) Forage evaluation:
concepts and techniques, Proceedings of a workshop Forage
evaluation and utilization – an appraisal of concepts and
Note No. 7.19. techniques, 27–31 October 1980, pp. 2–3. Armidale, New
Strip stocking and ration stocking may or may not South Wales, Australia. 27–31. Netley, Australia: Griffin
be a form of rotational stocking, depending on Press Limited for American Forage and Grassland Council
whether or not specific paddocks are utilized for and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
recurring periods of grazing and rest (cf. Rotational Organization (CSIRO).
stocking, 7.15). BA R N E S R.F., NE L S O N C.J., MO O R E K.J. and CO L L I N S M.
(eds) (2007) Forages: the science of grassland agriculture.
Glossary, 6th edn. Vol II. Ames, Iowa, USA: Blackwell
7.20 Variable stocking (n.). The practice of allowing a Publishing Professional.
variable number of animals on a fixed area of land BE R R E T T A E.J. and DO NASCIMENTO D. JR (1991) Glosario
during the time when grazing is allowed (cf. Set estructurado de términos sobre pasturas y producción animal.
stocking, 7.18). (Structured glossary of terms about grassland and animal
production). Montevideo, Uruguay: IICA-PROCISUR.
(Diálogo; 31).
References BL A S E R R.E., HA M M E S R.C. JR , FO N T E N O T J.P., BR Y A N T
H.T., PO L A N C.E., WO L F D.D., MC C L A U G H E R T Y F.S.,
During the development of the first edition of Termi- KL I N E R.G. and MO O R E J.S. (1986) Forage-animal man-
nology for Grazing Lands and Grazing Animals (FGTC, agement systems. Bulletin 86-7. Blacksburg, Virginia, USA:
1991), a search and review of the literature was Virginia Agricultural Experimental Station.
conducted by the National Agricultural Library (Wash- BO O Y S E N D.V. (1967) Grazing and grazing management
ington, D.C.) and by members of the committee in an terminology in Southern Africa. Proceedings of the
attempt to collect and evaluate previously published Grassland Society of Southern Africa, 2, 45–57.
terms and their various definitions. As the second BO X T.W. and HA R D E S T Y L.H. (1984) Coming of age in
range management. Rangelands, 6, 195–198.
edition was completed, additional references were
BR I N K V.C. (1982) What is grassland? In: Nicholson A.C.,
included. While by no means all-inclusive, this collec-
McLean A. and Baker T.E. (eds) Proceedings of Symposium
tion of references is perhaps one of the more exhaustive on Grassland ecology and classification, pp. 21–25. Victoria,
listings currently available and would be of use to British Columbia, Canada: British Columbia Ministry of
anyone wishing to review this subject. Forests.
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
Grazing lands and grazing animals 19
BR O D Y S. (1945) Bioenergetics and growth, Ch 13. New York, RA N G E RE S E A R C H ME T H O D S . (1962) Basic problems and
New York, USA: Reinhold Book Corporation. techniques in range research. Publ. No. 890. Washington,
CL E M E N T S R.J. (1989) Rates of destruction of growing D.C., USA: National Academy of Sciences - National
points of pasture legumes by grazing cattle. In: Proceedings Research Council.
of XVI International Grassland Congress, Nice, France 4–11 KE L L N E R O. (1912) Die Ernahrung der landwirtschaftlichen
Oct. 1989, p. 1027. Versailles, France: Association Nutztiere (The nutrition of livestock). Berlin: Paul Parey.
Française pour la Production Fourragère. KI L G O U R R. and DA L T O N C. (1984) Livestock behaviour. A
CS I R O (2007) Nutrient requirements of domesticated ruminants. practical guide. London, UK: Granada Publishing Ltd.
Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO Publishing. KO T H M A N N M.M. (1974) Grazing management
DA N C K W E R T Z J.E. (1981) A technique to assess the grazing terminology. Journal of Range Management, 27,
capacity of sweetveld with particular reference to the false 326–327.
thornveld areas of the Ciskei. M. Sc. (Agriculture) thesis, KO T H M A N N M.M. (2009) Grazing methods: a viewpoint.
University of Natal, South Africa. Rangelands, 31, 5–10.
DE BO N N E V A L L. (1993) Systèmes agraires, Systèmes de LA C E Y J.R. and VA N PO O L L E N H.W. (1979) Grazing
production. Vocabulaire français-anglais avec index system identification. Journal of Range Management, 32,
anglais (Agricultural systems. Production systems. 38–39.
French-English Dictionary with English index). Paris, LE W I S C.E. (1988) Multiple land use with grass and trees:
France: INRA. concept and practice. In: Proceedings of 1988 Forage and
ED I T O R I A L (AG R O F O R E S T R Y SY S T E M S ) (1982) What is Grassland Conference, 11–14 April, Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
agroforestry? Agroforestry Systems, 1, 7–12. pp. 282–293. Belleville, Pennsylvania, USA: American
ED W A R D S P.J. (1973) Definitions of some pasture terms. Forage and Grassland Council.
Proceedings of the Grassland Society of Southern Africa, 8, LE W I S C.E. and PE A R S O N H.A. (1987) Agroforestry using
133–135. tame pastures under planted pines in the Southeastern
FA O 2010 Tropical Livestock Units. (Date of access: 2 United States. In: Gholz H. L. (ed.) Agroforestry: realities,
December 2010).http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/ possibilities and potentials, pp. 195–212. Dordrecht, The
programmes/en/lead/toolbox/Mixed1/TLU.htm Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
FA O (1965) Glossary of pasture and fodder terms. Rome, Italy: MA F F (MI N I S T R Y O F AG R I C U L T U R E , FI S H E R I E S A N D
FAO. FO O D ) (1981) Definitions of terms used in agricultural
FG T C (TH E FO R A G E A N D GR A Z I N G TE R M I N O L O G Y business management. London, UK: HMSO.
CO M M I T T E E ) (1991) Terminology for Grazing Lands and MA R T E N G.C. (1988) Intensive grazing of cool season
Grazing Animals. Blacksburg, Virginia, USA: Pocahontas forages. In: Proceedings of 1988 Forage and Grassland
Press, Inc., or Journal of Production Agriculture 5, 191–201. Conference, 11–14 April, 1988, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, pp.
GR I N G S E.E., HE I T S C H M I D T R.K., SH O R T R.E. and 305–318. Belleville, Pennsylvania, USA: American
HA F E R K A M P M.R. (2002) Intensive-early stocking for Forage and Grassland Council.
yearling cattle in the northern Great Plains. Journal of MC C A R T O R M.M. and RO U Q U E T T E F.M. JR (1977) Grazing
Range Management, 55, 135–138. pressures and animal performance from pearl millet.
HE A D Y H.F. (1970) Grazing systems: terms and definitions. Agronomy Journal, 69, 983–987.
Journal of Range Management, 23, 59–61. ME I S S N E R H.H. (1982) Beef cattle C.3 – Classification of
HE A T H M.E., BA R N E S R.F. and ME T C A L F E D.S. (1985) farm and game animals to predict carrying capacity.
Forages, the science of grassland agriculture, 4th edn. Ames, Farming in South Africa 1–3.
Iowa, USA: Iowa State University Press. MI N S O N D.J. and WH I T E M A N P.C. (1989) A standard
HE L M S J.A. (1998) The dictionary of forestry. Bethesda, livestock unit (SLU) for defining stocking rate in grazing
Maryland, USA: Society of American Foresters. studies. In: Proceedings. XVI International Grassland
HI N N A N T R.T. (1994) What is an ‘Animal-Unit? A time to Congress, Nice, France, 4–11 Oct. 1989, p. 1117. Versailles,
conform. Rangelands, 16, 33–35. France: Association Française pour la Production
HO D G S O N J. (1979) Nomenclature and definitions in Fourragère.
grazing studies. Grass and Forage Science, 34, 11–18. MO L L E R I.D., AN D E R S E N P.E., HV E L S P L U N D T., MA D S E N J.
HO L E C H E K J.L., GO M E S H., MO L I N A R F., GA L T D. and and TH O M S E N K.V. (1983) En ny beregningsmetode for
VA L D E Z R. (2000) Short-duration grazing: the facts in fodermidlernes energiverde til kvaeg (FEk). [A new
1999. Rangelands, 21, 18–22. method of calculating the energy value of feedstuffs for
HU G H E S J.G. and O’ CO N N O R K. F. (1976) Objectives, ruminants]. Bereting fru Stakens Husdfyrbrugsforag No. 5.
concepts and principles in grazing management. Tussock Copenhagen, Denmark: Landhusholdningsselskaset.
Grasslands and Mountain Lands Institute Review, 32, 5–15. MO O R E R. M. (ed.) (1970) Australian grasslands. Canberra,
IB R A H A M K. (1975) Glossary of terms in pasture and range ACT, Australia: Australian National University Press.
survey research, ecology and management. Rome, Italy: FAO. MO O R E J.E. and UN D E R S A N D E R D.J. (2002) Relative forage
IN R A (1998) Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins (Feeding quality: an alternative to relative feed value and quality index.
of cattle, sheep and goats). Paris, France: INRA. Gainesville, Florida, USA: Florida Nutrition Conference.
JO I N T CO M M I T T E E O F T H E AM E R I C A N SO C I E T Y O F RA N G E MO T T G.O. (1960) Grazing pressure and the measurement
MA N A G E M E N T A N D T H E AG R I C U L T U R A L BO A R D O F T H E of pasture production. In: Skidmore C. L., Boyle P.J and
NA T I O N A L AC A D E M Y OF SC I E N C E S , SU B C O M M I T T E E O N Raymond L.W. (eds) Proceedings 8th International
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
20 V. G. Allen et al.
Grassland Congress, Reading, UK, pp. 606–611. Oxford, UK: SC A R N E C C H I A D.L. (2004) Viewpoint: Entropy, concept
Alden Press. design, and animal-unit equivalence in range
MO T T G.O. (1973) Evaluating forage production. In: Heath management science. Journal of Range Management, 57,
M.E., Metcalfe D. S. and Barnes R.F. (eds) Forages: the 113–116.
science of grassland agriculture, 3rd edn, pp. 126–135. SC A R N E C C H I A D.L. and KO T H M A N N M.M. (1982) A
Ames, Iowa, USA: Iowa State University Press. dynamic approach to grazing management terminology.
MO T T G.O. and LU C A S H.L. (1952) The design, conduct, and Journal of Range Management, 35, 262–264.
interpretation of grazing trials on cultivated and improved SC A R N E C C H I A D.L. and KO T H M A N N M.M. (1983) A
pastures. In: Wagner R.E., Myers W.M., Gaines S.H. and mathematically and conceptually united approach to
Lucas H.L. (eds) Proceedings 6th International Grassland grazing management terminology. In: Proceedings. XIV
Congress, Pennsylvania State College, Pa., 17–23 August 1952, International Grassland Congress, Lexington, Ky, 15–24 June,
pp. 1380–1385. Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA: 1981, pp. 522–525. Boulder, Colorado, USA: Westview
Pennsylvania State College. Press.
NI C O L A. M. (ed.) (1987) Feeding livestock on pasture. In: SM A R T A.J., DE R N E R J.D., HE N D R I C K S O N J.R., GI L L E N R.L.,
Occasional Publication No. 10, New Zealand Society of Animal DU N N B.H., MO U S E L E.M., JO H N S O N P.S., GA T E S R.N.,
Production, pp. 144–155. Christchurch, New Zealand: SE D I V E C K.K., HA R M O N E Y K.R., VO L E S K Y J.D. and
Bascands Commercial Print Ltd. OL S O N K.C. (2010) Effects of grazing pressure on
NR C (1981) Nutritional energetics of domestic animals and efficiency of grazing on North American Great Plains
glossary of energy terms, 2nd edn. Washington, D.C., rangelands. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 63, 397–
USA: National Academy Press. 406.
NR C (1984) Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 6th edn. SM I T H E.F. and OW E N S B Y C.E. (1978) Intensive-early
Washington, D.C., USA: National Academy Press. stocking and season-long stocking of Kansas Flint Hills
NR C (1985) Nutrient requirements of sheep, 6th edn. Wash- range. Journal of Range Management, 31, 14–17.
ington, D.C., USA: National Academy Press. SM I T H B., LE U N G P. and LO V E G. (1986) Intensive grazing
NR C (1996) Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 7th edn. management: forage, animals, men, profits. Kamuela,
Washington, D.C., USA: National Academy Press. Hawaii, USA: The Graziers Hui.
NR C (2000) Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 7th edn. Update SO C I E T Y F O R RA N G E MA N A G E M E N T (1989) A glossary of
2000. Washington, D.C., USA: National Academy Press. terms used in range management, 3rd edn. Glossary
NR C (2001) Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th edn. Revision Special Committee, Publications Committee.
Washington, D.C., USA: National Academy Press. Peter W. Jacoby, Chairman. Society for Range
NR C (2007) Nutrient requirements of small ruminants, sheep, Management. Denver, Colorado, USA: Edison Press.
goats, cervids, and new world camelids. Washington, D.C., SO L L E N B E R G E R L.E., MO O R E J.E., AL L E N V.G. and
USA: National Academy Press. PE D R E I R A C.G.S. (2005) Reporting forage allowance in
PR O V E N Z A F.D. (2003) Foraging behaviour: managing to grazing experiments: an alternative approach. Crop
survive in a world of change, pp. 15–19. Logan, Utah, USA: Science, 45, 896–900.
USDA-NRCS; Utah State University; Utah Agricultural SU T T I E J.M., , RE Y N O L D S S.G. and BA T E L L O C. (eds)
Experimental Station. (2005) Grasslands of the world. Rome, Italy: FAO.
RO H W E D E R D.A., BA R N E S R.F. and JO R G E N S E N N. (1978) TH O M A S H. (1980) Terminology and definitions in studies
Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory of grassland plants. Grass and Forage Science, 35, 13–23.
analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science, TI M B E R L A K E J. and VA N DE R PO E L P. (1979) Glossary of
47, 747–759. terms used in range ecology, soil conservation, soil science and
RO U Q U E T T E F.M. JR . (1988) Intensive grazing of warm- land use planning. Gaborone, Republic of Botswana:
season grasses in humid areas. In: Proceedings 1988 Forage Division of Land Utilization, Department of Agriculture
and Grassland Conference, 11–14 April, 1988, Baton Rouge, Field Services.
Louisiana, pp. 319–333. Belleville, Pennsylvania, USA: TR O L L O P E W.S.W., TR O L L O P E L.A. and BO S C H O.J.H.
American Forage and Grassland Council. (1990) Veld and pasture management terminology in
SA C (2001) The farm management handbook 2001 ⁄ 2, p. 142. southern Africa. Journal of the Grassland Society of Southern
Edinburgh, UK: SAC. Africa, 7, 52–61.
SA V O R Y A. (1988) Holistic resource management, pp. 509– UN D E R S A N D E R D. and MO O R E J.E. (2004) Relative forage
511. Covelo, California, USA: Island Press. quality (RFQ) Indexing legumes and grasses for forage quality.
SC A R N E C C H I A D.L. (1985a) The animal-unit and animal- http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/pubs/rfq.htm
unit-equivalent concepts in range science. Journal of (Accessed 2 December 2010).
Range Management, 38, 346–349. VA L L E N T I N E J.F. (1971) Planning range improvements, pp.
SC A R N E C C H I A D.L. (1985b) The relationship of stocking 1–20. Range development and improvements, pp. 1–20.
intensity and stocking pressure to other stocking Provo, Utah, USA: Brigham Young University Press.
variables. Journal of Range Management, 38, 558– VA L L E N T I N E J.F. (1990) Grazing management, pp. 456–473.
559. San Diego, California, USA: Academic Press.
SC A R N E C C H I A D.L. (1990) Concepts of carrying capacity VA N ES A.J.H. (1998) Feed evaluation for ruminants. The
and substitution rations: a systems viewpoint. Journal of system in use from May 1997 onwards in the
Range Management, 43, 553–555. Netherlands. Livestock Production Science, 5, 331–345.
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
Grazing lands and grazing animals 21
VA N SO E S T P.J. (1963) Use of detergents in the analysis of Georgetown, Texas, USA: American Forage and
fibrous feeds. II. A rapid method for the determination of Grassland Council.
fiber and lignin. Journal of the Association of Official WE B S T E R ’ S NE W WO R L D DI C T I O N A R Y O F AM E R I C A N
Agricultural Chemists, 46, 829–835. EN G L I S H (1988) Third college edition. Cleveland, Ohio,
VA N SO E S T P.J. (1982) Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. USA: New World Dictionaries.
Corvallis, Oregon, USA: O & B Books, Inc. WE D I N W.F. (1985) Advances in pasture management and
VA N SO E S T P.J. and WI N E R.H. (1967) Use of detergents in utilization. In: Proceedings of Forage and Grassland
the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant Conference, 3–6 March, 1985, Hershey, Pennsylvania, pp. 26–
cell wall constituents. Journal of the Association of Official 32. Belleville, Pennsylvania, USA: American Forage and
Analytical Chemists, 50, 50–55. Grassland Council.
VO L E S K Y J.D. (1990) Frontal grazing: forage harvesting of WE D I N W.F. (1986) Pasture. In: The Encyclopedia Americana,
the future? Rangelands, 12, 177–181. International edition. Vol. 21, p. 523. Danbury,
VO L E S K Y J.D., MO W R A Y D.P. and AC H A V A L F. (1990) Connecticut, USA: Grolier, Inc.
Frontal grazing: A new method of forage harvesting. WI L L I A M S O.B. (1981) Evolution of grazing systems. In:
In: Proceedings of Forage and Grassland Conference, 6–9 Morley F.H.W. (ed.) Grazing animals, World Animal Science
June, 1990, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA, pp. 142–146. B 1, pp. 1–12. New York, New York, USA: Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Company.
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
22 V. G. Allen et al.
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
Grazing lands and grazing animals 23
Forage
Appendix II. Terms not recommended
Daily Intake
for use
Live DM Unit In any profession, it is inevitable that terms and the
weight intake (DM interpretation of these terms evolve in an effort to
Animal (examples) (kg) (kg)* intake ⁄ 8.8) describe new techniques and management strategies.
Ewe, maintenance 70 1.2 0.14 Some of these terms contribute to our professional
Mature dairy goat 60 2.0 0.22 language but others do not. As we have examined the
doe, mid-lactation, terms and definitions that emerged during the work of
suckling single kid this committee, we have identified the following terms
Ewe, 1st 4–6 weeks 70 2.5 0.28 as among those that do not appear to contribute to clear
lactation, suckling communication in the international language of our
twins profession. We have listed these terms along with their
Two-year-old beef 300 6.9 0.78 definition. The rationale for recommending their non-
heifer nursing calf use follows in the box.
First 3–4 month
postpartum Terms not recommended for use
5 kg milk d)1
Dry pregnant 500 8.8 1.00 Available forage. ‘Available forage’ refers to that
mature beef cow portion of the forage, expressed as mass of forage per
Middle-third of unit land area, that is accessible for consumption by a
pregnancy specified kind, class, gender, size, age and physiological
Cow nursing calf, 500 9.9 1.13 status of grazing animal (cf. Forage allowance, 6.5;
average milking Forage mass, 2.3.6).
ability
First 3–4 month
Forage is a defined entity (2.1.3). Its quantity is
postpartum
measurable as Forage mass (2.3.6). That which
5 kg milk d)1
is ‘available’ for grazing has value as a concept but is
Bull, maintenance 1000 15.3 1.74
impossible to measure quantitatively with current
Regaining body
knowledge and techniques. What is ‘available’ to a
condition
grazing animal is influenced by many factors known
*Based on NRC (1984, 1985, 2007). Bold data indicates the and unknown. In attempts to measure ‘available
standard reference animal to which others are numerically forage,’ measures of forage mass are usually taken
related. and related to assumptions about what the animal
6.4 Grazing pressure index, revised (GPI). Mod- would consume. This leads to this term often being
ified by S. Cui (Texas Tech University, Lubbock) and M. used erroneously for Forage mass (2.3.6).
Kothmann (Texas A&M University, College Station). Measurements of forage mass and canopy charac-
For additional information and original rationale of teristics (Section 2.3), along with information on
calculation, see Scarnecchia and Kothmann (1982); the environment and the specific kind, class, age
Smart et al. (2010).
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
24 V. G. Allen et al.
and physiological status of the grazing animal, degree of selection) by manipulating the timing,
contribute to understanding grazing behaviour and rate, sequence of animal stocking and movement.
the availability of forage to the grazing animal. Grazing management (5.2.1 and 5.2.2) is best
described in terms of intensity that can range from
intensive to extensive. ‘Control’ per se does not
Available pasture. Forage available for grazing (See imply nor lend itself to a range of possibilities.
Available forage, above; cf. Pasture, 5.3.4). The ‘control’ imposed is a matter of level or degree
and is better described in terms of grazing manage-
Pasture refers to a specific type of grazing manage- ment and stocking methods.
ment unit, not to what animals consume (See Note
No. 5.3.4). Forage grows in the pasture. Animals
graze forage in the pasture. Animals do not graze Fixed stocking. The practice of allowing a fixed
the pasture. Pasture is the place. Thus, ‘available number of animals on a fixed area of land during the
pasture’ would refer to whether or not a particular time when grazing is allowed (cf. Set stocking, 7.18;
pasture was available for use. Variable stocking, 7.20).
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
Grazing lands and grazing animals 25
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
26 V. G. Allen et al.
Short duration grazing. A rotational grazing Appendix S2: Spanish-language translation of this
system employing high stocking density, one herd, article.
commonly 5–12 pasture units, grazing periods of 3–10 d Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for
(less commonly 1–15 d), and two to several grazing the content or functionality of any supporting materials
period cycles per year; also the common ‘rotation supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than
grazing’ of improved pasture. Syn. Rapid rotation missing material) should be directed to the corresponding
grazing or high-intensity, high-frequency grazing author for the article.
(HIHF) (Vallentine, 1990).
Index of terms
Rotational [grazing] stocking is not a Grazing system
(5.4); it is a Stocking method (5.5). Stocking density Term Reference number
(6.2) is an animal-to-land relationship at a specific Accumulation 3.1.2
time and provides no information about Forage Aftermath 2.3.6.1
mass (2.3.6), Canopy (2.3.2) characteristics or the Agroforestry 1.1.2.1
degree of forage use. This is a subjective term that Agro-silvo-pastoralism 1.1.2.1
can best be described in terms of Stocking method Alternate stocking 7.1
(5.5), Stocking period (5.6.9), Rest (5.6.5), Grazing Animal unit 4.5.1.1
pressure (6.3) and Forage mass (2.3.6). Animal unit day 4.5.2
Annual pastureland ⁄ grassland 1.1.3.1
Anti-herbivory 4.3.1
Standard Livestock Unit. The Standard Livestock Anti-quality 4.1.6.1
Unit (SLU) to measure stocking rate in grazing studies Ash 4.1.1
is a non-lactating bovine weighing 500 kg. Using the Biomass 2.3.5
0.75 power of live weight for conversion within animal Bite weight 4.4.1
species and the 0.90 power between sheep and cattle, Biting rate 4.4.2
the SLU can be derived for animals of different live Botanical composition 2.3.3
weights. The SLU for pastures grazed by goats can Browse (n.) 2.1.3.1
be calculated using the conversion factors for sheep Browse (v.) 3.2.1.1
(Minson and Whiteman, 1989). Bunchgrass ⁄ tussock grass 2.2.2.1
Camp 5.3.1
The procedure, suggested by Minson and Whiteman Campos 1.1.4.2.1
(1989), attempts to correct for the known differ- Canopy 2.3.2
ences in intake between cattle and sheep ⁄ goats. Canopy architecture 2.3.2.1
While a means of correcting for this is needed, the Canopy cover 2.3.2.2
SLU is not recommended. Mathematically, it is Canopy density 2.3.2.3
complex and susceptible to making errors in the Canopy height 2.3.2.4
calculations required. Furthermore, it fails to estab- Carrying capacity 6.1.1
lish logic to the pairing of sheep ⁄ goats with cattle Cerrado 1.1.4.2.2
based on their live weights. Without defining a Conservation 3.3.1
‘standard ewe size’ to make the first interspecies Continuous stocking 7.2
conversion, the results will differ from user to user. Creep stocking 7.3
The interspecies conversion recommended by Min- Creeping grass 2.2.2.2
son and Whiteman (1989) between a 500-kg cattle Crop 2.1.1
and a 50-kg sheep appears arbitrary. Cropland 1.1.1
Crude protein 4.1.2
Cultivated pastureland ⁄ grassland 1.1.3.2
Top and bottom grazing. See Leader-follower Decomposition 3.1.4
grazing above. Preferred term is First-last stocking (7.5). Deferment 5.6.1
Deferred stocking 7.4
Supporting Information Defoliation 3.2.1
Desertland 1.1.4.1
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the Digestibility 4.1.3
online version of this article: Digestible energy (DE) 4.1.4.2
Appendix S1: Chinese-language translation of this Dry-matter intake 4.2.1
article.
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
Grazing lands and grazing animals 27
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28
28 V. G. Allen et al.
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 66, 2–28