ing forages (i.e., hay production). In
addition, the manager sees his
livestock and pasture more often and
can manage both more effectively.
 Continuous stocking may be
preferred over rotational because it
requires less initial expense in terms
of fencing and water lines and there
are fewer decisions to be made.
Also, there is less variation in the
nutritional value of the animal's diet
from day to day than under a
rotational system, because animals
are more selective when continu-
ously stocked.
 There is, however, a give and
take between how often and how
close to graze forages. If a forage is
grazed very closely, then it will
generally require a longer rest period
than if a taller stubble was left.
Likewise, leaving a taller stubble
may allow more frequent grazing
than if plants were grazed closely. It
is critical that we can predict how a
plant will respond to the manage-
ment imposed, so that we do not
destroy pasture stands.

ECONOMICS OF
GRAZING METHODS
 Additional costs for rotational
stocking include fencing (usually
movable electric fencing) and a
battery (usually a solar panel). These
costs amount to around $750 for one
acre, assuming the pasture is divided
into three paddocks. Since equip-
ment lasts for several years, these
costs should be "annualized" (a


simple way to annualize costs is to
divide the equipment cost by the
number of years of useful life).
Assuming a 10-year equipment
life, the annualized equipment
costs amount to $75. Another cost
associated with rotational grazing
is labor for moving fences. This
could amount to $150 (4 hrs./acre/
month) for a 6-month production
season, resulting in total additional
costs of $225 for the rotational
system. However, rotational graz-
ing can preclude the need for
supplemental forage which is
generally needed in a continuous
grazing system. If rotational graz-
ing is used, this could result in cost
savings of $275 per acre (mostly in
the form of additional labor to
harvest forage). Since the cost
savings are greater than the
additional costs, rotational grazing
can result in additional income of
$50 per acre per year. If additional
animal weight gains result from
the rotational grazing system, as is
likely, then the monetary gains
could be even greater.

CONCLUSIONS
 Taking care of your pastures
makes economic and environmental
sense. Good pasture management is
key to higher profits and healthier
natural resources. It is a powerful
tool to influence plant and animal
performance in forage-based live-
stock systems. For this tool to be
used effectively, however, the graz-


ing manager must understand what
the plant provides nutritionally and
what the animal needs nutritionally,
and then choose a management that
balances the two. The most impor-
tant choices to be made in any
pasture management system are how
close and how often the pastures are
going to be grazed. These choices
affect pasture performance, which,
subsequently determines how well
the animals will perform. The key to
maintaining productive pastures and
minimizing animal impacts is recog-
nizing that forage plants have
specific requirements for persis-
tence, and then prescribing a level of
grazing management that best ad-
dresses those needs.
 Choice of pasture management
will affect pasture productivity,
forage nutritive value, and longev-
ity. Profitability of enterprises that
are based on grazed pastures will be
greatly influenced by the way in
which pastures are managed, t keeps
the seed moving.

REFERENCES
 SoUlenberger, LE., and C.G.
Chmbliss. 1989. Grazing management
of improved pastures. p. 42-44. In Beef
Cattle Short Course Proc., Gainesvlle,
FI, 3-5May1989. Inst FoodAgric. ScL,
Univ. of Fla., Gainesville, FL

 The Forage and Grazing Terminol-
ogy Committee. 1992. Terminology for
grazing lands and grazing animals. J.
Prod Agric. 5:191-20.


Prepared by E. Valencia, Assistant Professor, University of the Virgin Islands; L.E. Sollenberger,
Professor, University of Florida; and Gerasd4.,E pfessor, West Virginia University.
 Issued by the University of the Vir j _ndTlic I al Experiment Station, James Rakocy,
Director. a


 Funding for this Factsheet was
and Education (SARE) LS 99-107.


the Sustainable Agriculture Research