OBJECTIVE
To study the effects of a reduction of stocking rate of unfertilised mountain pastures on the growth of crossbred steers
RESULTS
Reduction of the stocking rate of unfertilised mountain pastures:
¾ growth rate of the animals maintained at a relatively high level
¾ length of summering period increased by 43% in 2001 and 68% in 2002 and 2003
Growth of steers on unfertilised mountain pastures
Experimental period:
3 stocking rates (SR):
- 1.8 600-kg animal unit (AU) ha
-1(control)
- 1.2 AU ha
-1- 0.6 AU ha
-1 Rotational grazing on 3 paddocks
Site (Les Verrières, Swiss Jura, 1126 m a.s.l.)
mean total precipitation May-Sept: 675 mm, mean temperature July: 14,6°C, dominant vegetation:Festuca rubra/Agrostis tenuis, no fertilisation since 1986
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Rearing Winter
0 5 10 15 20 Age (months)
Finishing Summering
Low quality hay + grass silage Full milk
HayConcentrate
3 series of crossbred steers (Limousine X Red Holstein)
1.8 AU ha-1 1.2 AU ha-1 0.6 AU ha-1
CONCLUSIONS
Maintenance of mountain pastures through extensification:
¾ beneficial effects on the individual performance of the crossbred steers
¾ loss of land productivity
Î can be an interesting alternative to giving up these areas A. Chassot 1 and J. Troxler 2
1Swiss federal research station for animal production and dairy products (ALP), 1725 Posieux, Switzerland
2Swiss federal research station for plant production (RAC), 1260 Nyon, Switzerland
Period of life Feeding LW (kg)
Pasture Unfertilzed
mountain pasture
Can we stop the
abandonment of mountain pastures by using them for beef production?
The problem:
Less animals on mountain pastures Îabandonment of marginal areas
Territory management Environment
A solution:
Extensive beef production with grazing period on unfertilised mountain
pastures at low stocking rate
Environmentally safe production Quality products Open landscapes
and high biodiversity
Consumers
Politics
Benefits:
70 - 200 200 - 300 300 - 400 400 - >500
Cumulative LWG during summering(kg animal-1)
805 b 805 b 1202 a
5.09 8.08 11.07 13.06
15.10
24.09
05.09
11.05 16.05 22.05 20 60 100 140 180
11.06 17.07 13.08 16.09
18.09 17.10
26.08
15.0508.05 21.0515.0508.05 21.05
1181 710 708
1101 593 587
1099 395 290
NS *** ***
5.09 8.08 11.07 13.06
15.10
24.09
05.09
11.05 16.05 22.05 20 60 100 140 180
17.07 13.08 16.09
18.09 17.10
26.08
2001 2002
ADG (g day-1)
1181 710 a 708 a
1101 593 b 587 a
1099 395 b 290 b
NS *** ***
1012 1356 7
1019 1132 45
808 737 -
** *** ***
1012 a 1356 a 711 a 1019 a 1132 a 45 b
808 b 737 b -
** *** ***
24.07 14.08
12.09
22.08 10.10
11.06
15.0508.05 21.05
2003
**
901 a 472
866 a 715 b
** **
Rotation no.
2 3 4
Whole summering
period 646 a 737 b 675 a
ADG (g day-1) Rotation no.
2 3 4
Whole summering
period ADG (g day-1) Rotation no.
2 3 4
Whole summering
period 978 a 948 a 636 b
ADG (g day-1) Rotation no.
2 3 4
Whole summering
period 829 a 744 b 737 b
0 50 100 150 200 250
LWG (kg ha-1)
2001 2002 2003
Î
90% higher cumulative LWG at the lowest compared to the highest SR.
But, LWG per ha:
¾ Decrease from 1.8 to 1.2 AU ha-1:fully compensated by higher LWG per animal
¾ Decrease from 1.2 to 0.6 AU ha-1:36% decrease of LWG per ha
