Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-rbv74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-23T15:35:35.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modelling the effect of grazing management of tannin-containing legume feeding sites on environmental impact by cows grazing grass-dominated rangelands swards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2025

Pablo Gregorini Open the ORCID record for Pablo Gregorini [Opens in a new window]  and
Juan Villalba
Pablo Gregorini*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Science, Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand
Juan Villalba
Affiliation:
Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA
*
Corresponding author: Pablo Gregorini; Email: pablo.gregorini@lincoln.ac.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A ruminant model, MINDY, was used to explore the impact of grazing patches of tannin-containing legumes on environmental impact of cows grazing on grass-dominated rangelands swards. MINDY was initialised as a pregnant beef cow grazing on a grass (Bromus biebersteinii; meadow brome-Control), with the addition of a patch with tannin-containing legumes (Lotus corniculatus-birdsfoot trefoil-Tre, or Onobrychis viciifolia-sainfoin-Sain). Twenty-five scenarios (treatments) were established as a product of frequency (weekly, fortnightly and monthly) and dietary proportions (0.05, 0.10, 0.15 and 0.20 of total forage allocation) of either Sain or Tre. Methane (CH4) production and nitrogen (N) excretion increased with legume availability. As legume proportion increased, dry matter intake (DMI), animal performance, CH4 production and urinary nitrogen (UN) excretion increased with a greater magnitude for Sain. Methane yield was lower than the Control at weekly allocation of legumes. Environmental costs in terms of CH4 emission increments per unit of production relative to Control were greater at monthly allocations when the levels of legumes in the diet were low (0.5–0.10). Legumes in the diet at 0.15–0.20 yielded the lowest costs regardless of frequency of allocation. Environmental costs in terms of UN increments per unit of production relative to Control were lowest at 0.15–0.20 of legumes in the diet regardless of frequency of allocation. This study suggests that strategic allocation of either sainfoin or birdsfoot trefoil when beef cattle graze grass-dominated rangelands swards can reduce environmental impact while increasing secondary production of the system at the same levels of resource allocation.

Keywords

cattlegrazingmethanerangelandurinary N
Type
Modelling Animal Systems Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 163 , Issue 2 , April 2025 , pp. 202 - 211
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adesogan, AT, Havelaar, AH, Mckune, SL, Eilittä, M and Dahl, GE (2020) Perspective matters. Global Food Security 25, 100325.Google Scholar
Al-Marashdeh, O, Edwards, GR and Gregorini, P (2020) Infrequent dietary supplementation feeding in beef cattle: animal responses and factors affecting its success. CAB Reviews 15(034).Google Scholar
Anthony, WB and Harris, RR (1976) Effects of legumes on performance of grazing animals. Biological N Fixation in Forage-Livestock Systems 28, 73–84.Google Scholar
Baker, SK and Dynes, RA (1999) Evaluation of the feeding value of pasture legumes. Chapter 11. In Current Plant Science and Biotechnology in Agriculture book series (PSBA, volume 33).Google Scholar
Baldwin, RL (1995) Modeling Ruminant Digestion and Metabolism. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Bargo, F, Muller, LD, Kolver, ES and Delahoy, JE (2003) Invited review: production and digestion of supplemented dairy cows on pasture. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 1–42.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA, Janzen, HH, Little, SM, Mcallister, TA and Mcginn, SM (2010) Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada: a case study. Agricultural Systems 103, 371–379.Google Scholar
Bohnert, DW, Schauer, CS, Falck, SJ and Delcurto, T (2002) Influence of rumen protein degradability and supplementation frequency on steers consuming low-quality forage: II. Ruminal fermentation characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2978–2988.Google Scholar
Canesin, RC, Berchielli, TT, Messana, JD, Baldi, F, Pires, AV, Frighetto, RT, Fiorentini, G and Reis, RA (2014) Effects of supplementation frequency on the ruminal fermentation and enteric methane production of beef cattle grazing in tropical pastures. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 43, 590–600.Google Scholar
Cappellozza, BI, Bohnert, DW, Reis, MM, Swanson, KC, Falck, SJ and Cooke, RF (2021) Influence of amount and frequency of protein supplementation to steers consuming low-quality, cool-season forage: intake, nutrient digestibility, and ruminal fermentation. Journal of Animal Science 99, 1–10.Google Scholar
Castillo, AR, Kebreab, E, Beever, DE and France, J (2000) A review of efficiency of nitrogen utilisation in lactating dairy cows and its relationship with environmental pollution. Journal of Animal Feed Science and Technology 9, 1–32. Google Scholar
Dumont, B, Andueza, D, Niderkorn, V, Lüscher, A, Porqueddu, C and Picon-Cochard, C (2015) A meta-analysis of climate change effects on forage quality in grasslands: specificities of mountain and Mediterranean areas. Grass and Forage Science 70, 239–254. Google Scholar
Fisher, MW (2020) Pastoral farming ethics and economics–aligning grazing practices and expectations. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 7, 209.Google Scholar
Fulkerson, WJ, Neal, JS, Clark, CF, Horadagoda, A, Nandra, KS and Barchia, I (2007) Nutritive value of forage species grown in the warm temperate climate of Australia for dairy cows: Grasses and legumes. Livestock Science 107, 253–264. Google Scholar
Ganskopp, D and Bohnert, D (2001) Nutritional dynamics of 7 northern Great Basin grasses. Journal of Range Management 54, 640–647.Google Scholar
Grabber, JH, Coblentz, WK, Riday, H, Griggs, T.C, Min, D.H, Macadam, J.W and Cassida, Ka (2015). Protein and dry-matter degradability of european-and mediterranean-derived birdsfoot trefoil cultivars grown in the colder continental USA. Crop Science 55, 1356–1364.Google Scholar
Gregorini, P, Beukes, P.C, Romera, A.J, Levy, G and Hanigan, MD (2013) A model of diurnal grazing patterns and herbage intake of a dairy cow, MINDY: model description. Ecological Modelling 270, 11–29. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.09.001.Google Scholar
Gregorini, P, Provenza, FD, Villalba, JJ, Beukes, PC and Forbes, MJ (2017b) Diurnal patterns of urination and drinking by grazing ruminants: a development in a mechanistic model of a grazing ruminant, MINDY. The Journal of Agricultural Science 156, 71–81.Google Scholar
Gregorini, P, Provenza, FD, Villalba, JJ, Beukes, PC and Forbes, MJ (2018) Dynamics of forage ingestion, oral processing and digesta outflow from the rumen: a development in a mechanistic model of a grazing ruminant, MINDY. The Journal of Agricultural Science 156, 980–995.Google Scholar
Gregorini, P, Villalba, JJ, Provenza, FD, Beukes, P and Forbes, J (2015) Modelling preference and diet selection patterns by grazing ruminants: a development in a mechanistic model of a grazing dairy cow, MINDY. Animal Production Science 55, 360–375.Google Scholar
Gregorini, P, Villalba, JJ, Chilibroste, P and Provenza, FD (2017a) Grazing management: setting the table, designing the menu and influencing the diner. Animal Production Science 57, 1248–1268.Google Scholar
Grove, AT and Rackham, O (2001) The Nature of Mediterranean Europe. An Ecological History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gulwa, U, Mgujulwa, N and Beyene, ST (2018) Benefits of grass-legume inter-cropping in livestock systems. African Journal of Agricultural Research 13, 1311–1319.Google Scholar
Herrero, M, Havlik, P, Valin, H, Notenbaert, A, Rufino, MC, Thornton, PK, Blummel, M, Weiss, F, Grace, D and Obersteiner, M (2013) Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences US 110, 20888–20893.Google Scholar
Hersom, MJ (2008) Opportunities to enhance performance and efficiency through nutrient synchrony in forage-fed ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 86, E306–E317.Google Scholar
Izaurralde, RC, Thomson, AM, Morgan, JA, Fay, PA, Polley, HW and Hatfield, JL (2011) Climate impacts on agriculture: implications for forage and rangeland production. Agronomy Journal 103, 371–381.Google Scholar
Janssen, PH (2010) Influence of hydrogen on rumen methane formation and fermentation balances through microbial growth kinetics and fermentation thermodynamics. Animal Feed Science and Technology 160, 1–22.Google Scholar
Khalilvandi-Behroozyar, H, Dehghan-Banadaky, M and Rezayazdi, K (2010) Palatability, in situ and in vitro nutritive value of dried sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia). Journal of Agricultural Science 148, 723–733.Google Scholar
Kunkle, WE, Johns, JT, Poore, MH and Herd, DB (2000) Designing supplementation programs for beef cattle fed forage-based diets. Journal of Animal Science 77, 1–11. Google Scholar
Lagrange, S, Beauchemin, KA, Macadam, J and Villalba, JJ (2020) Grazing diverse combinations of tanniferous and non-tanniferous legumes: implications for beef cattle performance and environmental impact. Science for the Total Environment 746, 140788.Google Scholar
Lagrange, SP, Macadam, JW and Villalba, JJ (2021) The use of temperate tannin containing forage legumes to improve sustainability in forage–livestock production. Agronomy 11, 2264.Google Scholar
Lee, MA, Davis, AP, Chagunda, MG and Manning, P (2017) Forage quality declines with rising temperatures, with implications for livestock production and methane emissions. Biogeosciences 14, 1403–1417.Google Scholar
Leroy, F, Hite, AH and Gregorini, P (2020) Livestock in evolving foodscapes and thoughtscapes. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4, 105.Google Scholar
Loregian, KE, Pereira, DAB, Rigon, F, Magnani, E, Marcondes, MI, Baumel, EA, Branco, RH, Del Bianco Benedeti, P and Paula, EM (2023) Effect of tannin inclusion on the enhancement of rumen undegradable protein of different protein sources. Ruminants 3, 413–424. Google Scholar
Lüscher, A, Mueller-Harvey, I, Soussana, JF, Rees, RM and Peyraud, JL (2014) Potential of legume-based grassland–livestock systems in Europe: a review. Grass and Forage Science 69, 206–228.Google Scholar
Marshall, CJ and Gregorini, P (2021) Animal as the solution: searching for environmentally friendly dairy cows. Sustainability 13, 10451.Google Scholar
Mayberry, D, Hau, DK, Dida, PR, Bria, D, Praing, J, Mata, AD and Nulik, J (2021) Herbaceous legumes provide several options for increasing beef cattle productivity in eastern Indonesia. Animal Production Science 61, 698–707.Google Scholar
Meuret, M and Dumont, B (2000) Advances in modelling animal-vegetation interactions and their use in guiding grazing management. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Livestock Farming Systems. Integrating Animal Science Advances into the Search for Sustainability, pp. 57–72.Google Scholar
Meuret, M and Provenza, FD (2015) How French shepherds create meal sequences to stimulate intake and optimise use of forage diversity on rangeland. Animal Production Science 55 (3), 309–318.Google Scholar
Min, BR, Solaiman, S, Waldrip, HM, Parker, D, Todd, RW and Brauer, D (2020) Dietary mitigation of enteric methane emissions from ruminants: a review of plant tannins mitigation options. Animal Nutrition 6, 231–246.Google Scholar
Moate, PJ, Deighton, MH, Williams, SRO, Pryce, JE, Hayes, BJ, Jacobs, JL, Eckard, RJ, Hannah, MC and Wales, W (2016) Reducing the carbon footprint of Australian milk production by mitigation of enteric methane emissions. Animal Production Science 56, 1017–1034.Google Scholar
Nicol, AM and Edwards, GR (2011) Why is clover better than ryegrass? Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 71, 71–78.Google Scholar
Paterson, J, Funston, R and Cash, D (2001) Forage quality influences beef cow performance and reproduction. In Intermountain Nutrition Conference Proceedings. Logan: Utah State University, vol. 169, pp 101–111.Google Scholar
Phelan, P, Moloney, AP, Mcgeough, EJ, Humphreys, J, Bertilsson, J, O’riordan, EG and O’kiely, P (2015) Forage legumes for grazing and conserving in ruminant production systems. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 34, 281–326. Google Scholar
Pitcher, LR, Macadam, JW, Ward, RE, Han, KJ, Griggs, TC and Dai, X (2022) Beef steer performance on irrigated monoculture legume pastures compared with grass-and concentrate-fed steers. Animals 12, 1017 Google Scholar
Poppi, DP and Mclennan, SR (1995) Protein and energy utilisation by ruminants at pasture. Journal of Animal Science 73, 278–290. Google Scholar
Provenza, FD, Meuret, M and Gregorini, P (2015) Our landscapes, our livestock, ourselves: Restoring broken linkages among plants, herbivores, and humans with diets that nourish and satiate. Appetite 95, 500–519.Google Scholar
Putnam, DH and Delcurto, T (2020) Forage systems for arid areas. In Collins, M, Nelson, CJ,Moore, KJ and Redfearn, D (ed.), Forages, Vol. 1I: The Science of Grassland Agriculture, 7th Edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 433–451.Google Scholar
Robins, JG, Waldron, BL and Jensen, KB (2020) Productivity, stability, and resilience of cool-season perennial grasses used for rangeland revegetation. Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment 3, 1–7. Google Scholar
Rochon, JJ, Doyle, CJ, Greef, JM, Hopkins, A, Molle, G, Sitzia, M, Scholefield, D and Smith, CJ (2004) Grazing legumes in Europe: a review of their status, management, benefits, research needs and future prospects. Grass and Forage Science 59, 197–214. Google Scholar
Rotz, Ca, Asem-Hiablie, S, Place, S and Thomas, G (2019) Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States. Agricultural Systems 169, 1–13. Google Scholar
Savian, JV, Schons, RM, De Souza Filho, W, Zubieta, AS, Kindlein, L, Bindelle, J, Bayer, C, Bremm, C and De Faccio Carvalho, PC (2012) ‘Rotatinuous’ stocking as a climate-smart grazing management strategy for sheep production. Science of the Total Environment. 753, 141790. Google Scholar
Selbie, DR, Buckthought, LE and Shepherd, MA (2015) The challenge of the urine patch for managing nitrogen in grazed pasture systems. In Advances in Agronomy, vol. 129. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd. Google Scholar
Senft, RL, Coughenour, MB, Bailey, DW, Rittenhouse, LR, Sala, OE and Swift, DM (1987) Large herbivore foraging and ecological hierarchies. BioScience 37, 789–799.Google Scholar
Sotola, J (1941) The chemical composition and apparent digestibility of nutrients in smooth brome grass harvested at 3 stages of maturity. Journal of Agricultural Research 63, 427.Google Scholar
Starfield, AM and Bleloch, AL (1986) Building Models for Conservation and Wild- life Management. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stewart, EK, Beauchemin, KA, Dai, X, Macadam, JW, Christensen, RG and Villalba, JJ (2019) Effect of tannin-containing hays on enteric methane emissions and nitrogen partitioning in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 97, 3286–3299.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, MJ, Lancashire, JA and Jones, WT (1976) The nutritive value of forages. Proceedings of the New Zealand Grasslands Association 38, 107–118. Google Scholar
Villalba, JJ, Beauchemin, KA, Gregorini, P and Macadam, JW (2019) Pasture chemoscapes and their ecological services. Translational Animal Science 3, 829–841.Google Scholar
Waghorn, GC and Clark, Da (2004) Feeding value of pastures for ruminants. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 52, 320–331.Google Scholar
Waghorn, GC (2008) Beneficial and detrimental effects of dietary condensed tannins for sustainable sheep and goat production—progress and challenges. Animal Feed Science and Technology 147, 116–139. Google Scholar
Westoby, M (1978) What are the biological bases of varied diets? The American Naturalist 112, 627–631. Google Scholar
Wilson, JR (1993) Organization of p lant tissues. In Jung, HG, Buxton, DR, Hatfield, RD and Ralph, J (ed.), Forage Cell Wall Structure and Digestibility. Madison, WI: ASA/CSSA/SSSA, p. 1.Google Scholar