Fence-line contrast between treatment paddocks with different utilisation rates: medium utilisation on the left and high utilisation paddock on the right. (CSIRO)

Ecograze (Australia)

Description

An ecologically sound and practical grazing management system, based on rotation and wet season resting.

Open eucalypt woodlands cover approximately 15 million hectares in the semi-arid plains of north-east Australia, and support about a million head of cattle. Keeping these grazing lands productive and healthy demands good management, and getting the right balance between stock numbers and the forage resource is a considerable challenge.
Land in good condition has a healthy coverage of so-called ‘3P grasses’: native perennial, productive and palatable grasses, important to cattle and to the health of the landscape. Less palatable plants include annual grasses, native and exotic forbs and shrubs. The heterogeneity of the pasture resource results in uneven utilisation, and thus overgrazing in parts.
In order to prevent pastures in good condition from degrading, or to restore/improve deteriorated pastures, utilisation needs to be adjusted according to climate and the state of the ‘3P grasses’. In practice, the only means of manipulating pasture composition over large areas are grazing, resting from grazing, and burning.
The flexible Ecograze system includes wet season resting, and is based on the establishment of three paddocks with two herds within a rotational system. The key is that all paddocks get some wet season rest two years out of three. Wet season rests are divided into two phases: (1) The early wet season rest starts after the first rains in November/December and continues for 6-8 weeks, it is particularly good for perennial grass recovery; (2) the late wet season rest lasts until March/April and aids both seed set and vegetative recovery.
Average paddocks of around 3,000 ha in size are sub-divided into three relatively equal sizes, though some flexibility is required to balance variation in the productive capacity of different land types within the paddock. The paddocks are fenced and extra water points through polythene piping and additional water troughs, and where required, pumps are established. The return on investment can be realised within a few years.
The main management challenges are: (1) the timing and length of the early wet season rest, which depends on how effectively the early rains promote vegetative growth of perennial grasses, and (2) the movement of animals during the wet season. The number of stock movements are fixed - but the timing is flexible and should be responsive to the situation: the challenge is to learn to assess the pasture condition, read the situation, and schedule the timing and length of the rest period accordingly. The main criterion is the recovery state of perennial grasses.

Location

Location: North-eastern Queensland, Queensland, Australia

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 145.5797, -18.6855

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (10.0 km²)

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: less than 10 years ago (recently)

Type of introduction
The impact of poor grazing land management: degraded area with annual grasses, forbs and bare soil after heavy grazing (CSIRO)
The impact of poor grazing land management: woodlands with a dense cover of ‘3P grasses’ (CSIRO)

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact
Land use

  • Grazing land
    • Ranching

Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation

Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
  • soil erosion by water - Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion, Wg: gully erosion/ gullying, Wo: offsite degradation effects
  • physical soil deterioration - Pc: compaction, Pk: slaking and crusting
  • biological degradation - Bc: reduction of vegetation cover, Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
SLM group
  • rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)
  • pastoralism and grazing land management
SLM measures
  • management measures - M2: Change of management/ intensity level

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
The drawing refers to the ‘two herd/three paddock Ecograze system’. Paddock A is rested in the early wet season, while Paddocks B and C are grazed. Paddock B is then rested for the late wet season while Paddocks A and C are razed. Paddock C is then rested for the dry season and the next early wet season while Paddocks A and B are grazed. Paddock A is then rested for the late wet season and the rotational cycle continues in this fashion for the three years of the full rotation. Early wet season spelling should commence after the first significant rains in November/December and should continue for 6-8 weeks, depending on how effectively the early rains promote vegetative growth of perennial grasses. Late wet season rest typically last until March/April, depending on length of growing season.

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate; Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: improvement of ground cover, increase in organic matter, increase / maintain water stored in soil, improvement of soil structure

Secondary technical functions: control of concentrated runoff: retain / trap, increase in soil fertility

Scattered / dispersed
Vegetative material: G : grass

Grass species: 3P grasses (native perennial, productive and palatable grasses)

Change of land use practices / intensity level: rotational system, timing and length of resting period, timing of animal movement

Control / change of species composition: grazing, (wet season) resting from grazing and burning
Author: Mats Gurtner

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated: per Technology area (size and area unit: 1 ha)
  • Currency used for cost calculation: USD
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = n.a
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: n.a
Most important factors affecting the costs
n.a.
Establishment activities
  1. Paddocks first need to be surveyed to understand the various plant communities and soils (Timing/ frequency: None)
  2. Paddocks first need to be surveyed to understand the various plant communities and soils. (Timing/ frequency: None)
  3. Based on the survey and location of water points, and the most practical location for fences, a paddock design is developed: paddocks are subdivided into relatively equal sizes. (Timing/ frequency: None)
  4. Fencing the paddocks Material: metal barbed wire or plain wire for electric fences, steel fence posts, wooden or steel end assemblies (poles) to strain the fence, energisers (for electric fences). (Timing/ frequency: None)
  5. Provision of extra water points through polythene piping and additional water troughs - and where required, pumps. (Timing/ frequency: None)
Establishment inputs and costs (per 1 ha)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (USD) Total costs per input (USD) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour ha 1.0 4.0 4.0 100.0
Equipment
Tools ha 1.0
Construction material
others (specify): metal, wire, wood ha 1.0 6.0 6.0 80.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 10.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 10.0
Maintenance activities
  1. Monitoring pastures and soils (Timing/ frequency: None)
  2. Mustering (gathering) and shifting (moving) livestock (Timing/ frequency: None)
  3. Monitoring pastures and soils. (Timing/ frequency: None)
  4. Repair fences (wire, poles, etc) (Timing/ frequency: None)
Maintenance inputs and costs (per 1 ha)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (USD) Total costs per input (USD) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour ha 1.0 1.0 1.0 100.0
Equipment
Tools ha 1.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 1.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 1.0

Natural environment

Average annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Agro-climatic zone
  • humid
  • sub-humid
  • semi-arid
  • arid
Specifications on climate
n.a.
Slope
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitude
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Technology is applied in
  • convex situations
  • concave situations
  • not relevant
Soil depth
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter content
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
Groundwater table
  • on surface
  • < 5 m
  • 5-50 m
  • > 50 m
Availability of surface water
  • excess
  • good
  • medium
  • poor/ none
Water quality (untreated)
  • good drinking water
  • poor drinking water (treatment required)
  • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
  • unusable
Is salinity a problem?
  • Ja
  • Nee

Occurrence of flooding
  • Ja
  • Nee
Species diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low
Habitat diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low

Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income
  • less than 10% of all income
  • 10-50% of all income
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth
  • very poor
  • poor
  • average
  • rich
  • very rich
Level of mechanization
  • manual work
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Sedentary or nomadic
  • Sedentary
  • Semi-nomadic
  • Nomadic
Individuals or groups
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
  • cooperative
  • employee (company, government)
Gender
  • women
  • men
Age
  • children
  • youth
  • middle-aged
  • elderly
Area used per household
  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Scale
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale
  • large-scale
Land ownership
  • state
  • company
  • communal/ village
  • group
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
  • individual
Land use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Water use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Access to services and infrastructure

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
fodder production
decreased
increased

fodder quality
decreased
increased

farm income
decreased
increased

economic disparities
increased
decreased

workload
increased
decreased

Socio-cultural impacts
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
improved

Ecological impacts
soil moisture
decreased
increased

soil cover
reduced
improved

soil loss
increased
decreased

Off-site impacts
downstream flooding (undesired)
increased
reduced

downstream siltation
increased
decreased

wind transported sediments
increased
reduced

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Climate change

-

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 11-50%
  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 11-50%
  • 51-90%
  • 91-100%
Number of households and/ or area covered
15005
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Ja
  • Nee
To which changing conditions?
  • climatic change/ extremes
  • changing markets
  • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Increased perennial grass cover, improved pasture productivity, increased animal carrying capacity and associated increased profit

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Wide and long-term adoption of Ecograze system.
  • Improved soil cover reduces erosion and sediment flow into streams and dams

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Manage pasture condition through Ecograze to maintain ‘3P grasses’.
  • Greater stability of forage supply leading to less problems and less stress in farm management

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Wide and long-term adoption of Ecograze system.
  • Soil carbon reserves maintained/improved

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Wide and long-term adoption of Ecograze system.
  • Plant biodiversity protected

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Wide and long-term adoption of Ecograze system.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Adoption of technology needs long-term approach to accommodate for slow rate of change by ranchers Continue to demonstrate the advantages of the technology.
  • Implementing rotational grazing incurs (moderate) investment costs in the form of fencing and new water points Investigate government subsidies and educate about long-term economic benefits.

References

Compiler
  • Andrew Ash
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
  • Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: Sept. 27, 2010
Last update: Feb. 14, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Ash A, Corfield J and Taoufik T (undated) The ECOGRAZE Project: developing guidelines to better manage grazing country. CSIRO, Meat and Livestock Commission and Queensland Government:
  • Tothill JC and Gillies C (1992) The pasture lands of northern Australia: their condition, productivity and sustainability Occasional Publication No.5, Tropical Grassland Society of Australia, Brisbane:
  • Tothill J and Partridge I (1998) Monitoring grazing lands in northern Australia - edited by Occasional Publication No.9, Tropical Grassland Society of Australia, Brisbane:
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International