Grazing management of

ruminant animals in
sustainable agriculture
H. Alan DeRamus

Abstract: Ruminant grazing, properly managed, can provide an extremely

resource-efficient and sustainable supply of protein to the global economy.
Ruminants are unique in agro-ecosystems because of their ability to digest and use
cellulose. As much as 90% of their diet is composed of roughage that cannot be
digested by humans and most other non-ruminants. Ruminant grazing (1) enhances
efficient use of solar energy, (2) improves soil nutrient cycling, (3) uses non-
competitive renewable resources, (4) conserves soil and water, and (5) adds
flexibility to most farming enterprises. Ruminants are an integral part of
sustainable agriculture, providing high-quality, economical products with less
environmental impact than non-ruminant alternatives. The economic and ecological
efficiency of food production using ruminant species can be optimized by intensively
managing the relationship between the grazer and the landscape.

Keywords: digestibility; forage; forage quality; grazing; management-intensive

grazing; sustainable agriculture; ruminants

The author is an Associate Professor of Agronomy with the Renewable Resources Department,
University of Louisiana-Lafayette, PO Box 44650, Lafayette LA 70504, USA. E-mail:
had2299@louisiana.edu.

The term ‘sustainable agriculture’ is highly variable in its
use and meaning, often tailored to the type of agriculture
being practised. According to the United States Agency
for International Development (USAID, 1988), sustainable
agriculture is simply a collection of agricultural
production practices that can be continued over a
relatively long period, meeting the evolving human needs
without destroyin g and, if possible, improving the natural
resource base on which it depends. Mankind throughout
civilization has depende d on the soil and plants for his
daily bread, and on animals for food, clothing and trans-
portation.
Research by Hauptli et al (1990) shows that in
sustainable agriculture, soil is the focal point and is
deemed a living system, managed for the diversit y and
the well-being of the organisms living within the soil
ecosystem. Organic matter supplies nutrients in a stable,
slow-release form. When additional nutrients are
required, soluble fertilizers are strategically applied.
Careful attention to the timing and the amount of
fertilizer avoids the release of potentially damaging
nutrients into water bodies through the ecosystem. The
use of tillage systems that reduce erosion, compaction and
oxidation of the soil helps to control its physical
deterioration and sustain soil quality. Continuous forage
cover throughout the year protects the soil while
maintaining its organic state.
A sustainable system must provide long-range
profitability, long-range maintenance and improvement of
soil, while reducing the undesirable effects of erosion on
water and air quality. Sustainable agriculture addresse s a
concern for the environment while meeting the
requirem ents for sufficient food to accommodate an
increasing world population. Food is produced within an
environm ent that will always be altered, whether it comes
from agricultural lands or the ocean (Debertin, 1992).
Ruminants provide over half of the daily protein intake
of humans, and this protein resulting from ruminant
livestock production is of higher quality, with a higher
biological value than protein from plants and substrate
feeds (Oltjen and Beckett, 1996). Red meat also provides
25% of the energy, 80% of the calcium and 67% of the
phosphorus consumed daily by humans (Van Soest, 1977).
While important changes in the management of cropping
systems have increased plant productivity, what has
happened to animal production in the transition to

Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 33, No 2, 2004, pp 93–100 93

Grazing management of ruminants
sustainable agricultural practices? Does the ruminant
animal fit into the natural cycle of sustainable food
production?
Nature has endowed ruminant animals with a
fermentation vat (rumen), containing billions of micro-
organisms that secrete the enzyme cellulase (Van Soest,
1977). This is the only enzyme that can degrade cellulose,
the most abundant chemical component of plants and the
most abundant organic chemical material on earth
(Council on Agricultural Science and Technology – CAST,
1975). Since ruminants use cellulose for energy to make
food and fibre, they occupy a strategic position compared
with humans and other non-ruminants, because they do
not compete with them for their food (Van Soest, 1982).
The symbiotic relationship between ruminants and their
anaerobic microbes is an important example of mutualistic
symbiosis and is used by resource managers to optimize
food production relative to resource demand. Ruminants’
efficiency of conversion of cellulose into meat or milk for
edible energy and protein in human diets depends on the
ruminant animal’s diet, and hence, on regional
production practices. The ultimate goal for sustainable
farming systems integrates plant and animal resources to
achieve optimal biomass output within a given ecological
and socioeconomic setting.
Grazing-animal agriculture increases the efficiency of
plant agriculture by using lignin and cellulose that is
unusable by other species. More than 80% of the annual
diet of ruminants is composed of roughage (Hodgson,
1974).
Grassland accounts for more than 30% of the global
land surface. Much of this land, particularly in semi-arid
and upland areas, is incapable of supporting crop
production. Thus, livestock may provide the only source
of local food production in regions where people have
limited income for purchase of food, even for subsistence
(CAST, 1999).
Most roughage is produced on land that is not suitable
for cultivation and production of high-value crops for
humans and other monogastric animals. The management
strategy of maintaining ruminants to utilize these inedible
(for humans) foodstuffs and converting them into high-
quality foods for human consumption has been a
characteristic of advanced societies for several thousand
years (Oltjen and Beckett, 1996). Ruminant animals can
harvest the forage produced on the untillable land area
while protecting the soil from erosion. The manure from
these grazing animals provides soil nutrients and
enhances organic content and tilth.
The fibrous cellulose material from plants has been an
important agricultural product since it was first
consumed by animals and assimilated into food and fibre
products for human use. By increasing the role of
ruminant animals in human nutrition, sustainability may
be advanced (Figure 1). Grazing animals can produce
highly nutritious and palatable food, recycle nutrients,
and enhance the environm ent for improved forage
production (Parker, 1990).
Grazing livestock are an essential component to
promote sustainability. Production schemes that are
economically profitable and environm entally benign
simultaneously are required to meet the definition of
sustainable agriculture. Grazing on a farm achieves both
94
Figure 1. Role of ruminants in human nutrition.
because it permits optimal use of resources. From an
environm ental standpoint, production can be maintained
on marginal lands unsuited for crops or forests because of
shallow rock, steep slopes, inaccessibility, environm ental
regulations, etc. Furtherm ore, when livestock are properly
managed, there are no deleterious off-farm impacts (ie no
damage to other resources such as water quality, air
quality, etc) and many off-farm benefits (ie food
production, farm purchases, rural aesthetics, etc). The
complementarities between crops and livestock are
critical to the ecological and economic stability of farming
systems in many regions where the human population
and demand for food are increasing, but where
technology and resources are not readily available. Until
recently most research has focused on monocrop and
monospecies systems in which crop and livestock
activities are increasingly separated. Managed grazing of
ruminant animals is a way to reap production and,
subsequently, to profit from farmland that would other-
wise be redundant or subject to environmental criticism.
Pasture is a tremendo us forage resource, capable of
intercepting and storing large amounts of solar energy
and supporting high levels of livestock production.
Pasture requires management to produce high-quality,
dependable forage at as low a cost as possible (Murphy,
1990). One critical decision facing livestock producers is
how best to use the forage resources (Gerrish, 1994). The
profitability of livestock operations is controlled by the
extent to which the forages are used. In recent years
producer awareness of pasture management has been
increasing. However, the application of these
management techniques has not been incorporated on
many farms where pasture and haylands have received
the least amount of management attention. Some factors
that have brought attention to forage management
include pervasive increases in grain pricing, a new
emphasis on soil erosion and water quality, and
advancements in the technology of pasture management.
All of these factors have made the intensive use of the
forage resource more economically viable. It is generally
accepted that on significant portions of the world’s
grazing lands, improved management practices need to
be implemen ted to ensu re the long-term sustainability of
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 33, No 2

this feed resource and to preserve other environmental
services provided by these lands (CAST, 1999).
Native grasses, including warm-season and cool-
season and many introduced species, thrive and produce
well. Perennial forages are uniquely suited to contribute
to sustainable agriculture. The positive attributes of
perennial forages, coupled with the absence of harmful
effects on human, livestock and environm ental health,
suggest that perennial forages will play an increasingly
prominen t role in more sustainably managed agricultural
systems (Clark and Weise, 1993). One of the central
benefits associated with perennial forages is simply
withholding the land from cultivation – and thereb y
reducing aerobic decomposition of existing soil organic
matter – for the duration of the stand (Clark and
Poincelot, 1996). Perennial forages add organic matter to
the soil with concomitant effects on structure, water-
holding capacity and biological activity. Also, perennia l
forages can play an integral role in sustaining grain
production on arable land, as well as providing the high-
fibre nutrition to which ruminants are uniquely adapted.
The inefficient use of forage diets has often been used
as an excuse for feeding more concentrates to ruminants,
but one of the most important biological relationships in
the world is between herbivores and forages (Byington
and Hart, 1984). Forage resources in the USA have been
misma naged, wasted and ignored (Murphy, 1990) because
the nation had too much land available, too few animals
to graze it adequately, and no pressing economic need to
use the land more efficiently. The shrinking agricultural
land base and farm financial problems have depended on
high-value agronomic crops. However, with the pressure
from those wishing to use the land for recreational
activities and from environmentalists, agriculturalists
are being forced to take a closer look at all aspects of
land management, including forage use by food-produc-
ing animals. Forages are currently produced on more
than half the land area of the USA. The value-added
animal impact on forages genera tes approximately
30% of the total economic value created by US agriculture
(CAST, 1984). The increased emphasis on forage also
mandates an increased emphasis on the important role of
cattle and other ruminants in maintaining an economic-
ally and environm entally sound agricultural production
system.
Sustainable agriculture promotes the profitable
production of a high quality and quantity of food with
minimu m environm ental impact. Achieving this goal
requires an emphasis on the intensive management of
pasturelands and grazing ruminant animals.
Woodmansee (1984) documented features that enable
natural ecosystems to capture and retain nutrients, and
thus, to persist. Because they tend to mimic natural
ecosystems, managed grasslands appear to be relatively
well suited to cycle both nutrients and water efficiently
(Clark and Poincelot, 1996). The development of
sustainable grazing systems usually begins with a change
from continuous, season-long use to a system in which
livestock are moved through a given number of pastures,
creating recurring periods of grazing and deferment. Most
systems are designed to provide rest or deferment
through the grow ing season in an effort to sustain plant
vigour.
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 33, No 2
Grazing management of ruminants
Management-intensive grazing (MIG)
Intensive management practices require the producer to
control what, where, when and how much the livestock
are consuming. The fundamentals of sound grazing
management are based on four key factors:
(1) meeting the nutrient needs of the class of livestock
involved;
(2) optimizing forage yield, quality and persistence;
(3) protecting and enhancing the natural resource base;
and
(4) utilizing appropriate knowledg e and technology to
develop a practical and economically viable manage-
ment system (Gerrish, 1994).
The primary environm ental benefit of planned, rotational
(short-duration, intensiv e) grazing is the opportunity for
rest and recovery afforded to pasture plants when the
grazing animals are removed from the pasture. Biological
responses associated with intensiv e grazing include:
(1) rest for the landscape;
(2) recovery period for the grazed plants;
(3) nutrient cycling;
(4) feed budgeting; and
(5) animal response.
The primary economic benefit is a greater profit for the
producer.
Plant species persistence is an important factor of the
planned rest periods for the carbohydrate balance of
pasture plants. The persistence of many species is limited
under continuous grazing due to frequent defoliation and
the subsequent effect on plant vigour (Voisin, 1959; 1960).
Murphy (1990) concluded that optimum rest periods
between grazing periods should be short in the spring
during rapid growth and much longer in the summer and
autumn when the growth rate declines. If the rest periods
are longer than optimum, forage biomass accumulates
and the fibre content increases, rendering the forage less
digestib le and lowering its nutritive value (Van Soest,
1982). Forage digestibility decreases with advancing
maturity as cell wall content increases.
Greater vegetative cover resulting from planned
rotational grazing redu ces soil erosion and loss of organic
matter, emulating natural systems (biomimicry). Before
the widesprea d use of fencing on the American plains,
large herds of American bison (Bison bison L.) followed a
migration pattern, grazing areas where forage was
abundant. They later returned to regraze only when the
forage was again plentiful. Bell (1971) described the
grazing patterns among different African herbivore
species of the wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus LR), zebra
(Equus burchelli), and Thomson’s gazelle (Gazella
thomsonii) on the savannas of the Serengeti. The seasonal
migration pattern reduces the competition and enha nces
the foraging environm ent and nutrient composition for
each subsequent species. The zebra (a hind gut fermentor)
consumes the stemmy, mature low-quality plant material
opening the canopy, while the wildebeest consumes the
mid-level plant foliage of moderate quality with more
leaves, and the small ruminant gazelle consumes the
denser, highest- quality plant material of high-p rotein fruit
and regrowth forage.
95
Grazing management of ruminants
Figure 2. Effect of forage biomass on the relative intake of
grazing livestock.
Regulating livestock use through rotational grazing
can best protect fragile ecosystems subjected to grazing.
Pasture rotation regu lates forage availability, which
allows livestock to be fed more according to their needs.
Ruminants optimize forage consumption to meet their
nutrient requireme nts if no physical or metabolic
restrictions are imposed (Weston and Poppi, 1987). The
relationship between forage intake and forage allowance
is generally curvilinea r (Minson, 1990). Figure 2 shows
that where the yield of young, desired forage exceeds
about 2,000 kg DM ha –1 and grazing is unrestricted,
ruminants have no difficulty satisfying their appetite,
taking in large quantities than forage with each bite
(Allden and Whittaker, 1970). Gerrish (2000) reported that
forage availability was more likely to limit steers’ average
daily gain (ADG) on pasture of forage quality. Once the
allowance of desired forage is less than twice the
maximum intake, there is a progressive fall in the
quantity of forage eaten.
Individual animal performance and carrying capacity
can be improved through rotational grazing programmes
(Gerrish, 1991). Thus, more animal products per unit of
land can be produced with a good grazing management
system. The best management plan (BMP) of MIG offers
the potential for more efficient utilization of grazed forage
crops via controlled rotational grazing and more efficient
conversion of forage into meat and milk. Implementing
proper grazing management practices for improvement of
forage quality increases total animal productivity.
Enhancing the level of productivity decreases the animal
maintenance subsidy and decreases the obligatory
methane losses from rumen fermentation of digestion
associated with animal maintenance.
Environmental benefits
DeRamus et al (2003) calculated the projected methane
annual emissions in cows to measure the efficiency of beef
production on forage, and determined that a 22%
reduction in methane emission s would result from MIG
when compared with continuous grazing. With MIG, less
methane was produced per kilogra m of beef gain.
Grazing management can also influence sediment and
water runoff. Gard et al (1934) as well as Alderfer and
Robinson (1947) documented a reduction from 17.3% to
3.4% in total runoff and a tenfold reduction in soil losses
96
with proper grazing management. However, severe
overgrazing that leaves an incomplete soil cover promotes
soil compaction, redu ces the soil macropore space, and
lowers the infiltration rate.
Nutrient management
Livestock excrement represents a valuable, recyclable
source of soil nutrients on pasture because 60–95% of the
nutrients consumed by grazing livestock pass through the
digestiv e tract (Wilkinson and Lowrey, 1973). Grazing
increases nutrient minera lization by reducing the particle
size of plant material and providing a favourable environ-
ment for microbial activity in the soil. King (1990)
concluded that the direct return of nutrients through the
faeces of grazing ruminants was an inefficient method of
pasture fertilization under continuous stocking.
Dalrymple et al (1994) attributed 1,096 kg ha –1 of added
pasture growth and 106 kg ha –1 of added beef production
to cattle excrement deposited on pasture when properly
managed. It is clear that integration of animals into lower-
input systems can improve long-term soil fertility (Stinner
and Blair, 1990). Based on the estimate of Peterson et al
(1956), 10 years would be required before 95% of a
continuously stocked pasture would be covered by at
least one excretion. But with an MIG system, complete
coverage with animal excreta could be achieved in only
three years.
Soil fertility can be affected by pasture utilization and
the manure distribution patterns of grazing cattle.
Managemen t to keep manure evenly distrib uted in a
pasture so as to maintain soil fertility should be a
producer goal. Distribution of soil nutrients in a pasture
varies across the landscape and is affected by many
factors. Differences in grazing distrib ution patterns,
preferred loafing sites and watering sites can all create
nutrient gradients in pasture (Borrow, 1967; West et al,
1989). Peterson and Gerrish (1995) noted that those
grazing cells with frequent rotations and minimal land-
scape variation within individu al paddocks resulted in
the most uniform manure distribution over the entire
pasture. The manure distrib ution measurements indicated
that significantly less dung was deposited in the lane with
a 24-paddock system than with a three-paddock system or
continuous grazing. A significant loss of manure from the
pasture occurred when cattle were forced to travel along a
lane to access water. In addition, as rotation frequency
increased and landscape variation within a paddock
decreased, the uniformity of manure distrib ution on
individu al paddocks and entire grazing cells was
improved.
Forage nutritive value
‘Nutritive value’ is an inclusive expression used to
encompass all nutritional attributes of a forage in relation
to its overall value to the consuming animal. However,
the term is often used in the more restrictive sense of
forage quality, including protein content, digestib ility or
palatability (Huston and Pinchak, 1991).
Nutrient intake and utilization
Anima ls use forages primarily as a source of energy.
Blaser et al (1986) suggested that energy intake would
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 33, No 2

Figure 3. Relationship of forage dry matter intake and digestibil-
ity to the stage of growth in grasses and legumes. Forage
consumption and digestibility decline rapidly as canopies
develop with stemmy plants of advanced growth stages.
Source: Blaser et al, 1986.
limit the performance of ruminants on forages before
protein or other nutrients. Daily forage intake increases as
digestibility (a measure of forage quality) increases. The
energy value of forages is related to the maturity of the
plant and changes throughout the grow th period (Figure
3, from Blaser et al, 1986). Managemen t of pastures with
high-ene rgy potential must focus on maintaining plants in
a high quality, vegetative state. Of the total energy
consumed, only the digestib le energy (DE) portion is
usable by the animal. Still, some DE is lost as methane gas
from the rumen, urine and the heat of digestion. The
energy remaining is net energy (NE) and is used to meet
the animal’s maintenance and production needs. The
efficiency of NE use depends on whether it is channelled
into maintena nce, milk production, fibre production or
weight gain. The performance of a ruminant animal is
associated with its total energy intake. From one-half to
all of the animal’s energy consumption may be needed for
maintenance; the amount required for a specific stage of
animal production is dependen t on forage quality (Ely,
1994).
The level of production achieved by ruminants
depends not only on the total amount of energy and
protein reaching the tissues, but also on the efficiency
with which these nutrients are used for maintenance,
growth and milk production. Bula et al (1981) pointed out
that ruminants used energy more efficiently for
maintenance or milk production than for weight gain. The
efficiency of utilization for grow th and fattening is more
sensitiv e to diet. The effect of forage DE on efficiency of
use for maintena nce, milk and weight gain is shown in
Figure 4. At 70% DE, forages are 65 to 70% as efficient as
corn grain for meeting maintenance and production
needs. With an MIG system, the forage can be kept at a
higher quality stage (60–80%) to increase animal weight
gain or milk production. In Figure 4 it can be seen that at
50% DE, forages are less than 20% as efficient as grain for
the production of weight gain, but nearly 50% as effective
as grain in providing energy for maintenance or milk
production. So when forage is near maturity and the
quality is low (< 60%), it is more useful for a class of
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 33, No 2
Grazing management of ruminants
Figure 4. Relationship of forage digestibility to the efficiency of
energy utilization (compared with corn grain).
animals that has a lower nutrient requirement such as dry
cows or ewes.
Forage quality and nutrient intake
Level of forage intake and associated forage quality
interactions are complex functions that vary through time
and across animal and forage types. Forage quality is best
defined in terms of animal performance. Factors affecting
forage quality include plant species, climate and stage of
maturity. Forage quality declines with plant maturity.
Changes in maturity are accompanied by increases in
yield and proportion of the fibrous stem and a decrease in
the proportion of leaf tissue. The sigmoid biological
growth curve of forages can be divided into three distinct
phases of growth after grazing (Figure 5). High quality
and low quantity characterize grow th phase I. Both high
quality and high quantity characterize growth phase II.
Low quality and high quantity characterize growth phase
III. The goal of MIG is to manage forage plants properly
so that animals always graze plants in growth phase II.
The higher fibre content and associated cell wall
material of mature forage slows the digestion process,
especially the rate at which digesta particles can leave the
rumen. Long-term, voluntary intake patterns are
determin ed by the amount of food needed to meet the
physiological requirements, but modified by the amount
that can be consumed before physical constraints are
encountered. Therefore, less food is needed if the food has
higher concentrations of available nutrients, and more
food can be physically consumed if the bulky, indigest ible
fraction is lower. Figure 6 from Huston and Pinchak
(1991) illustrates the relationship between forage
digestib ility and intake, assuming no other restrictions.
The descending curve represents the forage intake needed
for the digestible dry matter (DDM) maintenance
requirem ents for a 500-kg beef cow (NRC, 1984). At 20%
digestib ility, 21.5 kg DDM day –1 of forage must be
consumed to permit the cow to extract the required 4.3 kg
of DDM . However, only 5.4 kg day –1 of an 80% digestible
forage must be consumed to supply the same 4.3 kg DDM
when the quality is higher. The ascending curve depicts
97
Grazing management of ruminants
Figure 5. The sigmoid plant growth curve and three phases of
pasture growth showing the relationship of length of recovery
period to plant growth after grazing and accumulation of
pasture mass.
the theoretical maximum consumption of forages within
the range of 20–80% digestibility, assuming a constant 1%
body weight of faeces (Conrad et al, 1964). As forage
quality increases, nutrient intake (Ventura et al, 1975) and
productivity increase.
Overall forage quality tends to be higher under a
controlled grazing system when compared with
continuous grazing, as more of the available forage
throughout the season is vegetative growth (Gerrish,
1994). Quality is more uniform season-long, whereas,
with a continuous grazing system, quality is lowest when
grasses become mature because of proportionately more
reproductive plant parts (seed heads) with a greater stem
to leaf ratio. Based on daily measurements of sward
parameters, Morrow et al (1991) found the decline in
forage quantity and quality to be near linear when the
grazing period did not exceed three days. In a continuous
grazing system, animals frequently return to heavily
grazed areas to select the newest vegetative regrowth
(spot grazing) and bypass over-mature forage. This
results in the occurrence of overgrazing and undergrazing
in the same pasture. Under the controlled grazing of MIG,
the sward is grazed much more evenly and the
subsequent regrowth is more uniform.
CAST (1975) recommended that livestock grazing
should be a component of a crop-rotation system, because
it disperses pasture forage production among intensive
plant production operations and contributes to erosion
control, soil fertility and the return of nutrients to the soil
through manure and plants. Mixed crop–livestock
systems encompass approximately 2.5 billion ha of land,
of which 1.1 billion ha is arable rain-fed, 0.2 billion ha is
irrigated land, and 1.2 billion ha is grassland (CAST,
1999). Mixed systems have the capacity to change rapidly
as markets, infrastructure and income grow. In many
instances, mixed systems serve as a bridge between
grazing and industrial systems. Furthermore , they can
also serve as an element of the stratified system.
98
Figure 6. Relationship between forage digestibility and long-
term forage intake patterns. The descending curve shows the
required intake to yield 5 kg of digestible dry matter as forage
digestibility increased from 20% to 80%. The ascending curve
depicts the maximum possible (approximate) forage intake by an
adult cow as forage digestibility increases.
Source: Huston and Pinchak, 1991.
Soil erosion is virtually eliminated when pastures are
maintained in a healthy, vigorous condition. The rotation
of crops and animals aids in the control of soil-borne
diseases of both crops and livestock, and can markedly
increase total forage production. Vegetative cover breaks
the impact of rainfall and allows rapid water infiltration
to reduce the runoff potential. When the soil organic
matter is developed, nutrient recycling becomes very
efficient, and the need for nitrogen fertilization is reduced
with the use of legumes as a primary pasture component.
The use of pesticides is diminish ed in intensive grazing,
because weed control is generally achieved through
timely grazing and appropriate rest/recovery periods.
Most perennial grasses form dense root systems, which
effectively serve as filters to remove contaminants before
they can seep into the groundwater (Ball et al, 1996).
Dairy and livestock producers using managed grazing
in Minnesota found that they could greatly improve the
management and production of pastures (Hanks and
Martinek, 2002). By using an MIG system they could
make a profit from pastures without continual renovation,
while improving the health of the animals, the quality of
the grass and reducing the potential for manure runoff.
Human health benefits from grazing
ruminants
Conjugated dienoic derivatives of linoleic acid are a series
of positional and geometric isomers of linoleic acid (cis-9,
cis-12 octadecadienoic acid). Conjugated linoleic acid
(CLA) occurs naturally in foods. However, the principal
dietary sources are dairy products and other foods
derived from ruminant animals. The isomers of CLA
occur naturally in food products derived from ruminant
sources because of the process of bacterial
biohydrogenation of linoleic acid, which is present in the
feedstuffs of these animals, in the rumen (Bartlet and
Chapman, 1961, and Chin et al, 1992). Milk fat is the
richest natural dietary source of CLA, which is almost
entirely composed of the cis-9, trans-11 isomer (Parodi,
1997).
The growing body of literature on CLA suggests that
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 33, No 2

the isomeric conjugated fatty acids possess potent bio-
chemical and physiological activities that could benefit
human health and protect against chronic disease such as
cancer and atherosclerosis (Kelly, 2001). CLA is the only
known antioxidant and anticarcinogen primarily
associated with foods originating from animal sources.
Extensive resea rch work has revealed the potential
anticarcinogeni c properties of CLA. Chemically indu ced
tumorigenesis in rat mammary gland and colon tissue
were significantly redu ced when various isomers of CLA
were fed to the rats (Ip et al, 1991; 1994; 1996; 1997; 1999;
and Thompson, 1997).
A study by Dhiman et al (1999) in Wisconsin show ed
that the CLA content in bovine milk increased linearly as
the amount of pasture was increased in the ration. Cows
grazing pasture alone had 150% and 53% more CLA in
milk fat than cows grazing pasture that consisted of one-
third and two-thirds of the ration respectively. Cows in
the one-third and two-thirds pasture treatment groups
received a supplement to balance their nutritional needs.
Increasing the proportion of grazed grass from pasture in
the diet of dairy cows had a positive effect on increasing
the CLA content of milk.
Recently, French resea rchers compared CLA levels in
the breast tissues of 360 women. The women with the
most CLA in their tissues (and thus the most CLA in their
diets) had a 74% lower risk of breast cancer than the
women with the least CLA. If an American woman were
to switch from grainfed to grassfed dairy products, she
would have levels of CLA similar to this lowest-risk
group. Unlike other cancer prevention strategies, switch-
ing to grassfed dairy products requires no self-denial and
no change in eating or cooking habits (Robinson, 2002).
Regular bovine milk contains an average of 5.5 mg
CLA g –1 fat, while Dhiman et al (1999) found a five-fold
increase of CLA with grazing cows. This increase of the
CLA content of milk in grazing ruminants has the
potential of increasing the nutritional and therapeutic
value of milk, and could favourably influence the
marketing of this milk as a designed, value-added,
natural food.
Implications
Understanding and managing the intera ction of the
natural plant and animal cycles provide challenges and
opportunities to enhance output for integra ted production
systems. The biological relationship of ruminant animals
and forages is most important in obtaining the overall
benefits of sustainable agriculture. Implementation of
grazing management and animal-production practices
that contribute to maintaining or enha ncing agricultural
productivity and environm ental quality, including
protection of biodiversity, continues to be a focal point of
this relationship.
The benefits of ruminant animals in a sustainable
agriculture system include profitable production of high
quality and quantity of food while maintaining or
improving the surrounding environment. Increased
depende nce on ruminant animals requires animal
production systems that are profitable, time- and labour-
saving, and an agricultural policy that encourages the
adoption of these system concepts.
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 33, No 2
Grazing management of ruminants
References
Alderfer, R. B., and Robinson, R. R. (1947), ‘Runoff from pastures
in relation to grazing intensity and soil compaction’, Agronomy
Journal, Vol 29, pp 948–958.
Allden, W. G., and Whittaker, I. A. M. (1970), ‘The determinants
of herbage intake by grazing sheep: the interrelationship of
factors influencin g herbage intake and availability’, Australian
Journal of Agriculture Research, Vol 21, pp 755–766.
Ball, D. M., Hoveland, C. S., and Lacefield, G. D. (1996), ‘Forages
and the environment’, in Southern Forages, 2 ed, Potash and
Phosphate Institute, Norcross, GA, pp 229–234.
Bartlet, J. C., and Chapman, D. G. (1961), ‘Detection of hydro-
genated fats in butter fat by measurement of cis-trans
conjugated unsaturation’, Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, Vol 9, pp 50–53.
Bell, R. H. V. (1971), ‘A grazing ecosystem in the Serengeti’,
Scientific American, Vol 225, pp 86–93.
Blaser, R. E., Hammes, R. C., Fontenot, J. P., Bryant, H. T., Polan,
C. E., Wolf, D. D., McClaugherty, F. S., Kline, R. G., and Moore,
J. S. (1986), ‘Evaluating forages for animal production’, in
Holliman, M. C., ed, Forage–Animal Management Systems,
Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, Vol 86–7,
VPI and SU, Blacksburg, pp 8–14.
Borrow, N. J. (1967), ‘Some aspects on the effects of grazing on
the nutrition of pastures’, Journal of the Australian Institute of
Agricultural Science, Vol 33, pp 254–262.
Bula, R. J., Lechtenberg, V. L., and Holt, D. A. (1981), ‘Potential
of temperate zone cultivated forages’, in Child, R. D., and
Byington, E. K., eds, Potential of the World’s Forages for Ruminant
Animal Production, 2 ed, Winrock Rpt, Morrillton, AR, pp 7–28.
Byington, E. K., and Hart, R. H. (1984), ‘The nature and extent of
grazing lands in the United States’, in Baker, F. H., and Miller,
M. E., eds, Sheep and Goat Handbook, Vol 4, Westview Press,
Boulder, CO, pp 187–203.
Chin, S. F., Liu, W., Storkson, J. M., Ha, Y. L., and Pariza, M. W.
(1992), ‘Dietary sources of conjugated dienoic isomers of
linoleic acid, a newly recognized class of anticarcinogens’,
Journal of Food Composition Analysis, Vol 5, pp 185–197.
Clark, E. A., and Poincelot, R. P. (1996), ‘Soil, nutrient, and water
conservation with managed grasslands’, Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture, Vol 8, No 2/3, pp 19–42.
Clark, E. A., and Weise, S. F. (1993), ‘A forage-based vision of
sustainable agriculture’, in Agricultural Research in the North-
eastern United States: Critical Review and Future Perspectives,
ASA, Madison, WI, pp 95–110.
Conrad, H. R., Pratt, A. D., and Hibbs, J. W. (1964), ‘Regulation
of feed intake in dairy cows. I. Change in importance of
physical and physiological factors with increasing digestibil-
ity’, Journal of Dairy Science, Vol 47, pp 54–62.
Council on Agricultur al Science and Technology (1975), ‘Rumi-
nants as food producers: now and for the future’, Special
Publication No 4.
Council on Agricultur al Science and Technology (1984), ‘Forages:
resources for the future’, Report No 108.
Council on Agricultural Science and Technology (1999), ‘Animal
agriculture and global food supply’, Task Force Report No 135.
Dalrymple, R. L., Stevens, R., Carroll, T., and Flatt, B. (1994),
‘Forage production benefits from nutrient recycling via beef
cattle and how to manage for nutrient recycling in a grazing
cell’, in American Forage and Grassland Council Proceedings,
Lancaster, PA, pp 269–273.
Debertin, D. L. (1992), ‘Sustainable agriculture: concepts,
definitions, and myths’, Agribusiness News for Kentucky Coopera-
tive Extension Service, Vol 81, ISSN 0899–1294, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, KY, pp 1–3.
DeRamus, H. A., Clement, T. C., Giampola, D. D., and Dickison,
P. C. (2003), ‘Methane emissions of beef cattle on forages:
efficiency of grazing management systems’, Journal of Environ-
mental Quality, Vol 32 January–February, pp 269–277.
Dhiman, T. R., Anand, G. R., Satter, L. D., and Pariza, M. W.
(1999), ‘Conjugated linoleic acid content of milk from cows fed
different diets’, Journal of Dairy Science, Vol 82, pp 2146–2156.
99
Grazing management of ruminants
Ely, D. G. (1994), ‘The role of grazing sheep in sustainable
agriculture’, Sheep Research Journal, Vol 10, No 1, pp 37–51.
Gard, L. E., Fuelleman, R. F., Van Doren, C. A., and Kammlade,
W. G. (1934), ‘Runoff from pasture land as affected by soil
treatment and grazing management’, Agronomy Journal, Vol 35,
pp 332–347.
Gerrish, J. R. (1991), ‘Biological implications of rotational
grazing’, in American Forage and Grassland Council Proceedings,
Columbia, MO, pp 145–149.
Gerrish, J. R. (1994), ‘Management intensive grazing: principles
and techniques’, in Missouri Management Intensive Grazing
Handbook, University of Missouri, Forage Systems Research
Center, Linneus, MO, pp 43–62.
Gerrish, J. R. (2000), ‘Seasonal net energy availability in
rotationally stocked pastures at four stocking rates’, in
American Forage and Grassland Council Proceedings, Madison,
WI, pp 186–190.
Hanks, M., and Martinek, R. (2002), ‘Sustainable alternatives for
livestock production’, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol
57, No 5, p 309 (abs).
Hauptli, H., Katz, D., Thomas, B. R., and Goodman, R. M. (1990),
‘Biotechnology and crop breeding for sustainable agriculture’,
in Edwards, C. A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R. H., and
House, G., eds, Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Soil and Water
Conservation Society, Ankeney, IA, pp 141–156.
Hodgson, H. J. (1974), ‘Importance of forage to livestock produc-
tion’, in Sprague, H. B., ed, Grasslands of the United States, Iowa
State University Press, Ames, IA, pp 43–56.
Huston, J. E., and Pinchak, W. E. (1991), ‘Range animal nutri-
tion’, in Heitschmidt, R. K., and Stuth, J. W., eds, Grazing
Management: An Ecological Perspective, Timber Press, Portland,
OR, pp 27–63.
Ip, C., Briggs, S. P., Haegele, A. D., Thompson, J., Storkson, J.,
and Scimeca, J. A. (1996), ‘The efficacy of conjugated linoleic
acid in mammary cancer prevention is independent of the
level or type of fat in the diet’, Carcinogenesis, Vol 17, pp 1045–
1050.
Ip, C., Chin, S. F., Scimeca, J. A., and Pariza, M. W. (1991),
‘Mammary cancer prevention by conjugated dienoic derivative
of linoleic acid’, Cancer Research, Vol 51, pp 6118–6124.
Ip, C., Jiang, C., Thompson, H. J., and Scimeca, J. A. (1997),
‘Retention of conjugated linoleic acid in the mammary gland
is associated with tumor inhibition during the post-
initiation phase of carcinogenesis’, Carcinogenesis, Vol 18,
pp 755–759.
Ip, C., Singh, M., Thompson, H. J., and Scimeca, J. A. (1994),
‘Conjugated linoleic acid suppressed mammary carcinogenesis
and proliferative activity of the mammary gland in the rat’,
Cancer Research, Vol 54, pp 1212–1215.
Ip, M. M., Masso-Welch, P. A., Shoemaker, S. F., Shea-Eaton, W.
K., and Ip, C. (1999), ‘Conjugated linoleic acid inhibits prolif-
eration and induces apoptosis of normal rat mammary
epithelial cells in primary culture’, Experimental Cell Research,
Vol 250, pp 22–34.
Kelly, G. S. (2001), ‘Conjugated linoleic acid: a review’ , Alterna-
tive Medicine Review, Vol 6, pp 367–382.
King, L. D. (1990), ‘Soil nutrient management in the United
States’, in Edwards, C. A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R. H.,
and House, G., eds, Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Soil and
Water Conservation Society, Ankeney, IA, pp 89–106.
Oltjen, J. W., and Beckett, J. L. (1996), ‘Role of ruminant livestock
in sustainable agricultural systems’, Journal of Animal Science,
Vol 74, pp 1406–1409.
Minson, D. J. (1990), ‘Intake of grazed forage’, in Forage in
Ruminant Nutrition, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp 9–58.
Morrow, R. E., Schulz-Tate, V. G., Gerrish, J. R., and Roberts, C.
100
A. (1991), ‘Implications of daily quality changes in rotationally
grazed pastures for beef cattle’, in American Forage and Grass-
land Council Proceedings, Columbia, MO, pp 145–149.
Murphy, B. (1990), ‘Pasture management’, in Edwards, C. A., Lal,
R., Madden, P., Miller, R. H., and House, G., eds, Sustainable
Agricultural Systems, Soil and Water Conservation Society,
Ankeney, IA, pp 226–237.
National Research Council (1984), Nutrient Requirements of Beef
Cattle, 6 ed, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Parker, C. F. (1990), ‘Role of animals in sustainable agriculture’,
in Edwards, C. A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R. H., and
House, G., eds, Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Soil and Water
Conservation Society, Ankeney, IA, pp 238–245.
Parodi, P. W. (1997), ‘Cows’ milk fat components as potential
anticarcinogenic agents’, Journal of Nutrition, Vol 127, pp 1055–
1060.
Peterson, P. R., and Gerrish, J. R. (1995), ‘Grazing management
affects manure distribution by beef cattle’, in American Forage
and Grassland Council Proceedings, Lexington, KY, pp 170–174.
Peterson, R. G., Woodhouse, W. W. Jr, and Lucas, H. L. (1956),
‘The distribution of excreta by freely grazing cattle and its
effect on pasture fertility: I. Excreta distribution’, Agronomy
Journal, Vol 48, pp 440–444.
Robinson, J. (2002), ‘A super healthy milk’, available online at:
www.eatwild.com (verified 12 Nov 2002).
Stinner, B. R., and Blair, J. M. (1990), ‘Ecological and agronomic
characteristics of innovative cropping systems’, in Edwards, C.
A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R. H., and House, G., eds,
Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Soil and Water Conservation
Society, Ankeney, IA, pp 123–140.
Thompson, H., Zhu, Z., Bani, S., Darcy, K., Loftus, T., and Ip, C.
(1997), ‘Morphological and biochemical status of the mam-
mary gland as influenced by conjugated linoleic acid:
implication for a reduction in mammary cancer risk’, Cancer
Research, Vol 57, pp 5067–5072.
USAID (1988), ‘The transition to sustainable agriculture: an
agenda for A.I.D.’ (paper prepared for the Committee on
Agriculture Sustainability for Developin g Countries), Wash-
ington, DC.
Van Soest, P. J. (1977), ‘Plant fiber and its role in herbivore
nutrition’, Cornell Veterinarian, Vol 67, pp 307–326.
Van Soest, P. J. (1982), Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant, O&B
Books Inc, Corvallis, OR.
Ventura, M., Moore, J. E., Ruelke, O. C., and Franke, D. E. (1975),
‘Effect of maturity and protein supplementation on voluntary
intake and nutrient digestibility of pangola digitgrass hays’,
Journal of Animal Science, Vol 40, pp 769–774.
Voisin, A. (1959), Grass Productivity, Philosophical Library, New
York, NY.
Voisin, A. (1960), Better Grassland Sward, Crosby Lockwood and
Son, London.
West, C. P., Mallarino, A. P., Wedin, W. F., and Marx, D. B. (1989),
‘Spatial variability of soil chemical properties in grazed
pastures’, Journal of Soil Science, Vol 53, pp 784–789.
Weston, R. H., and Poppi, D. P. (1987), ‘Comparative aspects of
food intake’, in Hacker, J. B., and Ternouth, J. H., eds, The
Nutrition of Herbivores, Academic Press, New York, pp 133–162.
Wilkinson, S. R., and Lowrey, R. W. (1973), ‘Cycling of mineral
nutrients in pasture ecosystems’, in Butler, G. W., and Bailey,
R. W., eds, Chemistry and Biochemistry of Herbage, Vol 2, Aca-
demic Press, New York, pp 247–315.
Woodmansee, R. G. (1984), ‘Comparative nutrient cycles of
natural and agricultural ecosystems: a step toward principles’,
in Lowrance, R., Stinner, B. R., and House, G. J., eds, Agricul-
tural Ecosystems – Unifying Concepts, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, pp 145–146.
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 33, No 2